Effect of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on global public acceptance of nuclear energy

Energy Policy

Volumn 61, Issue , 2013, Pages 822-828

  Kim, Younghwan ^a   Kim, Minki ^a   Kim, Wonjoon ^a  

^a Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Fukushima; Nuclear energy; Public opinion

Indexed keywords

FUKUSHIMA; FUKUSHIMA ACCIDENTS; FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR DISASTERS; FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES; OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCE; PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE; PUBLIC ATTITUDES; PUBLIC OPINIONS;

DISASTERS; NUCLEAR REACTOR ACCIDENTS; SOCIAL ASPECTS;

NUCLEAR ENERGY;

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY; ENERGY PLANNING; ENERGY POLICY; ENERGY RESOURCE; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; NUCLEAR ACCIDENT; NUCLEAR POWER; POWER GENERATION;

EID: 84881663207     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.107     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Assefa G., Frostell B. Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology assessment: a case study of energy technologies. Technology in Society 2007, 29:63-78.
2. Choi Y.S., Kim J.S., Lee B.W. Public's perception and judgment on nuclear power. Annals of Nuclear Energy 2000, 27:295-309.
3. Corner A., Venables D., Spence A., Poortinga W., Demski C., Pidgeon N. Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: exploring British public attitudes. Energy Policy 2011, 39:4823-4833.
4. Coval J.D., Moskowitz T.J. Home bias at home: local equity preference in domestic portfolios. Journal of Finance 1999, 54:2045-2073.
5. Crick M., McKenna T., Buglova E., Winkler G., Martincic R. Emergency management in the early phase. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2004, 109:7-17.
6. Dadwal S.R. India's energy security: challenges and opportunities. Eurasian Geography and Economics 2009, 50:665-681.
7. Ehreiser S. Country perspective: United States. The End of Nuclear Energy? International Perspectives after Fukushima 2011, 75-78. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. N. Netzer, J. Steinhilber (Eds.).
8. El-Genk M.S. On the introduction of nuclear power in Middle East countries: promise, strategies, vision and challenges. Energy Conversion and Management 2008, 49:2618-2628.
9. Fang D., Sun C.Z., Yang L. Atmospheric dispersion and the radiological consequences of normal airborne effluents from a nuclear-power-plant. Nuclear Safety 1995, 36:135-142.
10. Flynn J., Burns W., Mertz C, Slovic P. Trust as a determinant of opposition to a high-level radioactive waste repository: analysis of a structural model. Risk Analysis 1992, 12:417-429.
11. Froggatt A., Schneider M. The global status of the nuclear industry and its opportunities for expansion. The International Spectator 2011, 46:41-59.
12. Gamson W.A., Modigliani A. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: a constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology 1989, 95:1-37.
13. Garmaise, M., Moskowitz, T., 1999. Confronting Information Asymmetries: Evidence from Real Estate Markets. Working Paper 507, University of Chicago.
14. Ginzburg H.M., Reis E. Consequences of the nuclear-power-plant accident at Chernobyl. Public Health Reports 1991, 106:32-40.
15. Goffman E. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity 1963, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
16. Gregory R., Flynn J., Slovic P. Technological stigma. American Scientist 1995, 83:220-223.
17. Grinblatt M., Keloharju M. Distance, language, and culture bias: the role of investor sophistication. Journal of Finance 2001, 56:1053-1073.
18. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 2011. Fukushima daiichi status report. http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/.
19. Jacobsson S., Bergek A., Finon D., Lauber V., Mitchell C., Toke D., Verbruggen A. EU renewable energy support policy: faith or facts?. Energy Policy 2009, 37:2143-2146.
20. Johnson C.A., Kitchen K.P., Nelson N. A study of the movement of radioactive material released during the Windscale fire in October 1957 using ERA40 data. Atmospheric Environment 2007, 41:3921-3937.
21. Jun E., Kim W.J., Jeong Y.H., Chang S.H. Measuring the social value of nuclear energy using contingent valuation methodology. Energy Policy 2010, 38:1470-1476.
22. Kahn M. The death toll from natural disasters: the role of income, geography and institutions. Review of Economics and Statistics 2005, 87:271-284.
23. Katsuya T. Public response to the Tokai nuclear accident. Risk Analysis 2001, 21:1039-1046.
24. Lalic D., Popovski K., Gecevska V., Vasilevska S.P., Tesic Z. Analysis of the opportunities and challenges for renewable energy market in the Western Balkan countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2011, 15:3187-3195.
25. Liu C., Zhang Z., Kidd S. Establishing an objective system for the assessment of public acceptance of nuclear power in China. Nuclear Engineering and Design 2008, 238:2834-2838.
26. McDonald A., Rogner H.H. Nuclear expansion: projections and obstacles in the Far East and South Asia. ATW-International Journal for Nuclear Power 2004, 49:694. +.
27. Melber B.D. The impact of TMI upon the public acceptance of nuclear power. Progress in Nuclear Energy 1982, 10:387-398.
28. Nealey S.M., Melber B.D., Rankin W.L. Public Opinion and Nuclear Energy 1983, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
29. Ohnishi T. A mathematical model of the activities for public acceptance and the resultant reaction of the public: an application to the nuclear problem. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 1995, 21:1-30.
30. Perko T. Importance of risk communication during and after a nuclear accident. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 2011, 7:388-392.
31. Ramana M.V. Nuclear power and the public. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 2011, 67:43-51.
32. Renn O. Public responses to the Chernobyl accident. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1990, 10:151-167.
33. Resch G., Held A., Faber T., Panzer C., Toro F., Haas R. Potentials and prospects for renewable energies at global scale. Energy Policy 2008, 36:4048-4056.
34. Rosa E.A. Public acceptance of nuclear power: Déjà vu all over again?. Physics and Society 2001, 30:1-5.
35. Rosa E.A., Dunlap R.E. Poll trends: nuclear power: three decades of public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly 1994, 58:295-324.
36. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science 1987, 236:280-285.
37. Slovic P., Flynn J., Layman M. Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science 1991, 254:1603-1607.
38. Smith V.K., Michaels R.G. How did households interpret Chernobyl? A Bayesian analysis of risk perceptions. Economics Letters 1987, 23:359-364.
39. Soentono S., Aziz F. Expected role of nuclear science and technology to support the sustainable supply of energy in Indonesia. Progress in Nuclear Energy 2008, 50:75-81.
40. Thomson E., Horii N. China's energy security: challenges and priorities. Eurasian Geography and Economics 2009, 50:643-664.
41. Williams B.L., Brown S., Greenberg M. Determinants of trust perceptions among residents surrounding the Savannah river nuclear weapons site. Environment and Behavior 1999, 31:354-371.