IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i13p7896-d850846.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Perceptions and Amplification Effects over Time: Evaluating Fukushima Longitudinal Surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Bjoern Hagen

    (School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA)

  • Adenike Opejin

    (School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA)

  • K. David Pijawka

    (School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281, USA)

Abstract

Despite the vast body of literature addressing public risk perceptions of technological disasters such as nuclear accidents, longitudinal studies comparing pre- and post-disaster attitudes are scarce. This study examines (a) how perception factors such as concern, risk, political saliency, trust, and attitudes toward energy policies related to nuclear power changed over time and among different populations, and (b) if social amplification and ripple effects were present after the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster in Japan. The article compares 2010 survey data collected before the nuclear accident with data collected in 2013 and 2016. The analysis shows a clear trend regarding concern over nuclear power. Levels of concern and political saliency increased in the aftermath of the nuclear disaster but declined in 2016. These findings indicate amplification effects between the pre-disaster survey in 2010 and the first follow-up survey in 2013. However, the 2016 data indicate the Fukushima accident only had a significant short-term impact on public risk perceptions. The data also indicate high levels of uncertainty regarding trust and future energy policies. The high levels of uncertainty present an opportunity for nuclear power supporters and opponents alike to shape Japan’s future energy policy through well-crafted communication and outreach programs.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:13:p:7896-:d:850846
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/13/7896/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/13/7896/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kunsch, Pierre L. & Friesewinkel, Jean, 2014. "Nuclear energy policy in Belgium after Fukushima," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 462-474.
    2. Thomas, Steve, 2012. "What will the Fukushima disaster change?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 12-17.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Kessides, Ioannis N., 2012. "The future of the nuclear industry reconsidered: Risks, uncertainties, and continued promise," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 185-208.
    6. Bronfman, Nicolás C. & Jiménez, Raquel B. & Arévalo, Pilar C. & Cifuentes, Luis A., 2012. "Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 246-252.
    7. Michael Greenberg & Heather Barnes Truelove, 2011. "Energy Choices and Risk Beliefs: Is It Just Global Warming and Fear of a Nuclear Power Plant Accident?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 819-831, May.
    8. Pierre Louis Kunsch & Jean Friesewinkel, 2014. "Nuclear energy policy in Belgium after Fukushima," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/189447, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    9. Soni, Anmol, 2018. "Out of sight, out of mind? Investigating the longitudinal impact of the Fukushima nuclear accident on public opinion in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 169-175.
    10. Truelove, Heather Barnes, 2012. "Energy source perceptions and policy support: Image associations, emotional evaluations, and cognitive beliefs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 478-489.
    11. Hulme,Mike, 2009. "Why We Disagree about Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521727327, January.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Bird, Deanne K. & Haynes, Katharine & van den Honert, Rob & McAneney, John & Poortinga, Wouter, 2014. "Nuclear power in Australia: A comparative analysis of public opinion regarding climate change and the Fukushima disaster," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 644-653.
    15. Judith I. M. de Groot & Linda Steg & Wouter Poortinga, 2013. "Values, Perceived Risks and Benefits, and Acceptability of Nuclear Energy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 307-317, February.
    16. 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.
    17. Kessides, Ioannis N., 2012. "The future of the Nuclear industry reconsidered : risks, uncertainties, and continued potential," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6112, The World Bank.
    18. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    19. Hulme,Mike, 2009. "Why We Disagree about Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521898690, January.
    20. 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.
    21. Srinivasan, T.N. & Gopi Rethinaraj, T.S., 2013. "Fukushima and thereafter: Reassessment of risks of nuclear power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 726-736.
    22. 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.
    23. Welsch, Heinz & Biermann, Philipp, 2014. "Fukushima and the preference for nuclear power in Europe: Evidence from subjective well-being data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 171-179.
    24. Tsunoda Katsuya, 2001. "Public Response to the Tokai Nuclear Accident," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(6), pages 1039-1046, December.
    25. Muellner, Nikolaus & Arnold, Nikolaus & Gufler, Klaus & Kromp, Wolfgang & Renneberg, Wolfgang & Liebert, Wolfgang, 2021. "Nuclear energy - The solution to climate change?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    26. Poortinga, Wouter & Aoyagi, Midori & Pidgeon, Nick F., 2013. "Public perceptions of climate change and energy futures before and after the Fukushima accident: A comparison between Britain and Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1204-1211.
    27. Yeonjae Ryu & Sunhee Kim & Seoyong Kim, 2018. "Does Trust Matter? Analyzing the Impact of Trust on the Perceived Risk and Acceptance of Nuclear Power Energy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-19, March.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Chuanwang Sun & Nan Lyu & Xiaoling Ouyang, 2014. "Chinese Public Willingness to Pay to Avoid Having Nuclear Power Plants in the Neighborhood," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(10), pages 1-27, October.
    4. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.
    5. Uji, Azusa & Prakash, Aseem & Song, Jaehyun, 2021. "Does the “NIMBY syndrome” undermine public support for nuclear power in Japan?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 148(PA).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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).
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Wang, Jing & Li, Yazhou & Wu, Jianlin & Gu, Jibao & Xu, Shuo, 2020. "Environmental beliefs and public acceptance of nuclear energy in China: A moderated mediation analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    15. 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).
    16. Dainius Genys & Ričardas Krikštolaitis, 2020. "Clusterization of public perception of nuclear energy in relation to changing political priorities," Post-Print hal-03271859, HAL.
    17. Hong, Sanghyun & Bradshaw, Corey J.A. & Brook, Barry W., 2015. "Global zero-carbon energy pathways using viable mixes of nuclear and renewables," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 451-459.
    18. Spampatti, Tobia & Hahnel, Ulf J.J. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Brosch, Tobias, 2022. "Short and long-term dominance of negative information in shaping public energy perceptions: The case of shallow geothermal systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    19. Sun, Chuanwang & Zhu, Xiting & Meng, Xiaochun, 2016. "Post-Fukushima public acceptance on resuming the nuclear power program in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 685-694.
    20. Roh, Seungkook & Lee, Jin Won, 2018. "Differentiated effects of risk perception dimensions on nuclear power acceptance in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 727-735.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:13:p:7896-:d:850846. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.