IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v120y2018icp436-447.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“I can live with nuclear energy if…”: Exploring public perceptions of nuclear energy in Singapore

Author

Listed:
  • Ho, Shirley S.
  • Looi, Jiemin
  • Chuah, Agnes S.F.
  • Leong, Alisius D.
  • Pang, Natalie

Abstract

Considering the growing salience of nuclear energy in Southeast Asia, this study examines public perceptions of nuclear energy in Singapore, a technologically-advanced and affluent nation well-equipped to develop nuclear energy capabilities. Drawing from the source credibility theory, this study examines the public's credibility perceptions of nuclear-related information sources, and their trust in potential stakeholders. Guided by the psychometric paradigm, this study also explores public perceptions of risks, benefits, and support. Four focus group discussions were conducted with Singaporeans aged 18–69. Participants across different age groups (e.g., Millennials, Generation X, Baby Boomers) concurred in their trust of potential stakeholders, risk perception, cost perception, and support. Intergenerational differences were observed for participants’ media use, credibility perceptions of nuclear-related information sources, and benefit perception. This study contributed theoretically by applying the source credibility theory and psychometric paradigm in an under-studied context. Practical implications were provided for policymakers and communication practitioners to effectively evaluate public awareness and acceptance for nuclear energy. Directions for future research were discussed. In conclusion, intergenerational similarities were observed for Singaporeans’ perceptions of risks, costs, and support. Meanwhile intergenerational differences were noted for their credibility perceptions of nuclear-related information sources, trust in potential stakeholders, and benefit perception.

Suggested Citation

  • Ho, Shirley S. & Looi, Jiemin & Chuah, Agnes S.F. & Leong, Alisius D. & Pang, Natalie, 2018. "“I can live with nuclear energy if…”: Exploring public perceptions of nuclear energy in Singapore," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 436-447.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:120:y:2018:i:c:p:436-447
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.060
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151830377X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.060?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Martin & Yao Ma, 2018. "Emerging Market Corporate Bonds as First-to-Default Baskets," Papers 1804.09056, arXiv.org.
    2. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Henk A. L. Kiers, 2005. "A New Look at the Psychometric Paradigm of Perception of Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 211-222, February.
    3. Elliott, Robert J.R. & Lindley, Joanne K., 2017. "Environmental Jobs and Growth in the United States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 232-244.
    4. ., 2017. "The OECD’s work on the environment," Chapters, in: Middle Powers and International Organisations, chapter 10, pages 241-270, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Desiree A. Desierto & John V. C. Nye, 2017. "Prohibition versus Taxation in Corrupt Environments," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 173(2), pages 239-252, June.
    6. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Siegrist, Michael, 2012. "Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 292-300.
    7. Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher & Timothy C. Earle, 2005. "Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 145-156, March.
    8. Ahado, F. & Ferrand-Tenot, E. & Slama, S. & Yang C., 2017. "Assurance vie en France et environnement de taux bas," Analyse et synthèse 78, Banque de France.
    9. ., 2017. "Economics and environmental change: an overview," Chapters, in: Economics and Environmental Change, chapter 1, pages 1-8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. Mah, Daphne Ngar-yin & Hills, Peter & Tao, Julia, 2014. "Risk perception, trust and public engagement in nuclear decision-making in Hong Kong," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 368-390.
    11. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich, 2000. "Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 713-720, October.
    12. Pfeffer, Naomi, 2008. "What British women say matters to them about donating an aborted fetus to stem cell research: A focus group study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(12), pages 2544-2554, June.
    13. Park, Eunil & Ohm, Jay Y., 2014. "Factors influencing the public intention to use renewable energy technologies in South Korea: Effects of the Fukushima nuclear accident," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 198-211.
    14. Pinar Ertor Akyazi & Fikret Adaman & Begum Ozkaynak & Unal Zenginobuz, 2012. "Citizens’ Preferences over Nuclear and Renewable Energy Sources: Evidence from Turkey," Working Papers 2012/01, Bogazici University, Department of Economics.
    15. Stoutenborough, James W. & Sturgess, Shelbi G. & Vedlitz, Arnold, 2013. "Knowledge, risk, and policy support: Public perceptions of nuclear power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 176-184.
    16. ., 2017. "What is an environment?," Chapters, in: An Autecological Theory of the Firm and its Environment, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Paul Goren & Christopher M. Federico & Miki Caul Kittilson, 2009. "Source Cues, Partisan Identities, and Political Value Expression," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 805-820, October.
    18. Ertör-Akyazı, Pınar & Adaman, Fikret & Özkaynak, Begüm & Zenginobuz, Ünal, 2012. "Citizens’ preferences on nuclear and renewable energy sources: Evidence from Turkey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 309-320.
    19. John C. Besley & Katherine A. McComas, 2015. "Something old and something new: comparing views about nanotechnology and nuclear energy," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 215-231, February.
    20. Claire Marris & Ian Langford & Thomas Saunderson & Timothy O'Riordan, 1997. "Exploring the “Psychometric Paradigm”: Comparisons Between Aggregate and Individual Analyses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 303-312, June.
    21. ., 2017. "Environmental crisis," Chapters, in: Morality and Power, chapter 15, pages 263-277, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    22. Eftychia Solea & Bing Li & Aleksandra Slavković, 2018. "Statistical learning on emerging economies," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(3), pages 487-507, February.
    23. Lock, Simon J. & Smallman, Melanie & Lee, Maria & Rydin, Yvonne, 2014. "“Nuclear energy sounded wonderful 40 years ago”: UK citizen views on CCS," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 428-435.
    24. Mattias J. Viklund, 2003. "Trust and Risk Perception in Western Europe: A Cross‐National Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 727-738, August.
    25. Carmen Keller & Vivianne Visschers & Michael Siegrist, 2012. "Affective Imagery and Acceptance of Replacing Nuclear Power Plants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(3), pages 464-477, March.
    26. Aysegul ERMEC SERTOGLU & Ozlem CATLI & Sezer KORKMAZ, 2014. "Examining the Effect of Endorser Credibility on the Consumers' Buying Intentions: An Empirical Study in Turkey," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 4(1), pages 66-77.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ho, Shirley S. & Xiong, Rui & Chuah, Agnes S.F., 2021. "Heuristic cues as perceptual filters: Factors influencing public support for nuclear research reactor in Singapore," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    2. Ho, Shirley S. & Oshita, Tsuyoshi & Looi, Jiemin & Leong, Alisius D. & Chuah, Agnes S.F., 2019. "Exploring public perceptions of benefits and risks, trust, and acceptance of nuclear energy in Thailand and Vietnam: A qualitative approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 259-268.
    3. Wang, Fan & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Perspective taking, energy policy involvement, and public acceptance of nuclear energy: Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Li, Yongjian & Feng, Lipan & Govindan, Kannan & Xu, Fangchao, 2019. "Effects of a secondary market on original equipment manufactures’ pricing, trade-in remanufacturing, and entry decisions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 279(3), pages 751-766.
    2. Vladimir M. Cvetković & Adem Öcal & Yuliya Lyamzina & Eric K. Noji & Neda Nikolić & Goran Milošević, 2021. "Nuclear Power Risk Perception in Serbia: Fear of Exposure to Radiation vs. Social Benefits," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, April.
    3. Han, Y. & Lam, J. & Guo, P. & Gou, Z., 2019. "What Predicts Government Trustworthiness in Cross-border HK-Guangdong Nuclear Safety Emergency Governance?," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1989, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    4. Wang, Yu & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Explaining local residents’ acceptance of rebuilding nuclear power plants: The roles of perceived general benefit and perceived local benefit," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    5. Strazzera, Elisabetta & Meleddu, Daniela & Atzori, Rossella, 2022. "A hybrid choice modelling approach to estimate the trade-off between perceived environmental risks and economic benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    6. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    7. Jobin, Marilou & Siegrist, Michael, 2018. "We choose what we like – Affect as a driver of electricity portfolio choice," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 736-747.
    8. Lam, J. & Li, V. & Reiner, D. & Han, Y., 2018. "Trust in Government and Effective Nuclear Safety Governance in Great Britain," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1827, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    9. Jaeyoung Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2021. "Can Political Trust Weaken the Relationship between Perceived Environmental Threats and Perceived Nuclear Threats? Evidence from South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-13, September.
    10. Nomsa Phindile Nkosi & Johane Dikgang, 2021. "South African Attitudes About Nuclear Power: The Case of the Nuclear Energy Expansion," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 11(5), pages 138-146.
    11. Adrian Tantau & Greta Marilena Puscasu & Silvia Elena Cristache & Cristina Alpopi & Laurentiu Fratila & Daniel Moise & Georgeta Narcisa Ciobotar, 2022. "A Deep Understanding of Romanian Attitude and Perception Regarding Nuclear Energy as Green Investment Promoted by the European Green Deal," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-14, December.
    12. Seungkook Roh & Jin Won Lee & Qingchang Li, 2019. "Effects of Rank-Ordered Feature Perceptions of Energy Sources on the Choice of the Most Acceptable Power Plant for a Neighborhood: An Investigation Using a South Korean Nationwide Sample," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-21, March.
    13. Anshelm, Jonas & Simon, Haikola, 2016. "Power production and environmental opinions – Environmentally motivated resistance to wind power in Sweden," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 1545-1555.
    14. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Michael Siegrist, 2013. "How a Nuclear Power Plant Accident Influences Acceptance of Nuclear Power: Results of a Longitudinal Study Before and After the Fukushima Disaster," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 333-347, February.
    15. Jaesun Wang & Seoyong Kim, 2019. "Searching for New Directions for Energy Policy: Testing the Cross-Effect of Risk Perception and Cyberspace Factors on Online/Offline Opposition to Nuclear Energy in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-26, March.
    16. Ozcan, Mustafa, 2019. "Factors influencing the electricity generation preferences of Turkish citizens: Citizens' attitudes and policy recommendations in the context of climate change and environmental impact," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 381-393.
    17. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher & Carmen Keller, 2005. "Perception of Mobile Phone and Base Station Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1253-1264, October.
    18. Bjoern Hagen & Adenike Opejin & K. David Pijawka, 2022. "Risk Perceptions and Amplification Effects over Time: Evaluating Fukushima Longitudinal Surveys," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-18, June.
    19. Norifumi Tsujikawa & Shoji Tsuchida & Takamasa Shiotani, 2016. "Changes in the Factors Influencing Public Acceptance of Nuclear Power Generation in Japan Since the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 98-113, January.
    20. Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2020. "Searching for New Directions for Energy Policy: Testing Three Causal Models of Risk Perception, Attitude, and Behavior in Nuclear Energy Context," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-17, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:120:y:2018:i:c:p:436-447. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.