IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v66y2014icp475-483.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An international comparative analysis of public acceptance of nuclear energy

Author

Listed:
  • Kim, Younghwan
  • Kim, Wonjoon
  • Kim, Minki

Abstract

Across the globe, public acceptance of nuclear power is a crucial factor for governmental establishment of a nuclear energy program. Therefore, it is important to understand the determinants of public acceptance of nuclear power. This study examines the effects of knowledge, trust, risk, and benefit related factors on public acceptance of nuclear power across 19 countries. We consider three levels of public acceptance – strongly accept, reluctantly accept, and oppose – and classify countries into four groups according to the ratio of those three levels of public acceptance. Our results indicate that knowledge of nuclear inspection is more effective than trust in inspection authorities in creating stronger public acceptance among people in the countries with a high level of reluctant acceptance and a low level of strong acceptance, while trust in inspection authorities is more important than knowledge of nuclear inspection for the selection between opposition and reluctant acceptance in countries with a low level of reluctant acceptance and a high level of strong acceptance. Without grouping the countries, we found that trust in inspection authorities is crucial for the decision between opposition and reluctant acceptance. Additionally, the generation of electricity has the most positive effect on public acceptance of nuclear power.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim, Younghwan & Kim, Wonjoon & Kim, Minki, 2014. "An international comparative analysis of public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 475-483.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:66:y:2014:i:c:p:475-483
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.039
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513011464
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.039?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. Teräväinen, Tuula & Lehtonen, Markku & Martiskainen, Mari, 2011. "Climate change, energy security, and risk--debating nuclear new build in Finland, France and the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3434-3442, June.
    2. Corner, Adam & Venables, Dan & Spence, Alexa & Poortinga, Wouter & Demski, Christina & Pidgeon, Nick, 2011. "Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: Exploring British public attitudes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 4823-4833, September.
    3. Smith, V. Kerry & Michaels, R. Gregory, 1987. "How did households interpret chernobyl? : A bayesian analysis of risk perceptions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 359-364.
    4. Jun, Eunju & Kim, Wonjoon & Chang, Soon Heung, 2009. "The analysis of security cost for different energy sources," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(10), pages 1894-1901, October.
    5. Assefa, G. & Frostell, B., 2007. "Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology assessment: A case study of energy technologies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 63-78.
    6. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Keller, Carmen & Siegrist, Michael, 2011. "Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3621-3629, June.
    7. Yong-Jin Cha, 2000. "Risk perception in Korea: a comparison with Japan and the United States," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(4), pages 321-332, October.
    8. Vaillancourt, Kathleen & Labriet, Maryse & Loulou, Richard & Waaub, Jean-Philippe, 2008. "The role of nuclear energy in long-term climate scenarios: An analysis with the World-TIMES model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 2296-2307, July.
    9. Jun, Eunju & Joon Kim, Won & Hoon Jeong, Yong & Heung Chang, Soon, 2010. "Measuring the social value of nuclear energy using contingent valuation methodology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 1470-1476, March.
    10. 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.
    11. Blinc, Robert & Zidans˘ek, Aleksander & Šlaus, Ivo, 2007. "Sustainable development and global security," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 883-890.
    12. Resch, Gustav & Held, Anne & Faber, Thomas & Panzer, Christian & Toro, Felipe & Haas, Reinhard, 2008. "Potentials and prospects for renewable energies at global scale," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(11), pages 4048-4056, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kim, Younghwan & Kim, Minki & Kim, Wonjoon, 2013. "Effect of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on global public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 822-828.
    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. Seoyong Kim & Jae Eun Lee & Donggeun Kim, 2019. "Searching for the Next New Energy in Energy Transition: Comparing the Impacts of Economic Incentives on Local Acceptance of Fossil Fuels, Renewable, and Nuclear Energies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-32, April.
    4. 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).
    5. 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.
    6. Perlaviciute, Goda & Steg, Linda, 2014. "Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 361-381.
    7. Siegrist, Michael & Visschers, Vivianne H.M., 2013. "Acceptance of nuclear power: The Fukushima effect," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 112-119.
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. Korkmaz YILDIRIM & Musa GÜN, 2016. "Public Attitude to Nuclear Energy from Climate Change and Energy Security Perspectives in Turkey," Journal of Social and Administrative Sciences, KSP Journals, vol. 3(2), pages 141-160, June.
    11. Hartmann, Patrick & Apaolaza, Vanessa & D'Souza, Clare & Echebarria, Carmen & Barrutia, Jose M., 2013. "Nuclear power threats, public opposition and green electricity adoption: Effects of threat belief appraisal and fear arousal," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1366-1376.
    12. Guo, Yue & Ren, Tao, 2017. "When it is unfamiliar to me: Local acceptance of planned nuclear power plants in China in the post-fukushima era," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 113-125.
    13. 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.
    14. Siegrist, Michael & Sütterlin, Bernadette & Keller, Carmen, 2014. "Why have some people changed their attitudes toward nuclear power after the accident in Fukushima?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 356-363.
    15. Annukka Vainio & Riikka Paloniemi & Vilja Varho, 2017. "Weighing the Risks of Nuclear Energy and Climate Change: Trust in Different Information Sources, Perceived Risks, and Willingness to Pay for Alternatives to Nuclear Power," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 557-569, March.
    16. Judith I. M. de Groot & Elisa Schweiger & Iljana Schubert, 2020. "Social Influence, Risk and Benefit Perceptions, and the Acceptability of Risky Energy Technologies: An Explanatory Model of Nuclear Power Versus Shale Gas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(6), pages 1226-1243, June.
    17. 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.
    18. 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).
    19. Motz, Alessandra, 2021. "Consumer acceptance of the energy transition in Switzerland: The role of attitudes explained through a hybrid discrete choice model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    20. Lee, You-Kyung, 2020. "Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: From the users’ perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).

    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:66:y:2014:i:c:p:475-483. 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.