Effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on the risk perception of residents near a nuclear power plant in China

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 110, Issue 49, 2013, Pages 19742-19747

  Lei, Huang ^a   Yuting, Han ^a   Jun, Bi ^a   Ying, Zhou ^b   Yang, Liu ^b   Hammitt, James K ^c,d  

^a NANJING UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^d TOULOUSE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS   (France)

Author keywords

Nuclear risk; Public perception; Spatial distribution

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CHINA; COGNITION; DEMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR ACCIDENT; GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; NUCLEAR ENERGY; NUCLEAR POWER PLANT; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RESIDENT; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; TRUST;

NUCLEAR RISK; PUBLIC PERCEPTION; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION;

ATTITUDE; CHINA; FEMALE; FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR ACCIDENT; GEOGRAPHY; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRES; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEX FACTORS; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84889656571     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1313825110     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. International Atomic Energy Agency (2009) The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale User's Manual, 2008 Edition (IAEA, Vienna, Austria)
2. Department of Nuclear Safety Management, Ministry of Environmental Protection (2011) Automatic Monitoring Stations Nationwide Radiation Absorbed Dose Rate in Air (Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People's Republic of China, Beijing)
3. Zhou LF (2011) Analysis of Chinese nuclear power development. Economic Res Guide 117(7):200-201
4. Wang QH, Gong T (2011) Analysis of Fukushima nuclear power accident and its revelation. Southern Power Syst Technol 5(3):17-22
5. Drottz-Sjöberg BM, Sjoberg L (1990) Risk perception and worries after the Chernobyl accident. J Environ Psychol 10(2):135-149
6. Hüppe M, Janke W (1994) The nuclear plant accident in Chernobyl experienced by men and women of different ages: Empirical study in the years 1986-1991. Anxiety Stress Coping 7(4):339-355
7. Mardberg B, Carlstedt L, Stalberg-Carlstedt B, Shalit B (1987) Sex differences in perception of threat from the Chernobyl accident. Percept Mot Skills 65(1):228
8. Bromet EJ, et al. (2011) Growing up in the shadow of Chornobyl: Adolescents' risk perceptions and mental health. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 46(5):393-402
9. Visschers VH, Siegrist M (2012) How a nuclear power plant accident influences acceptance of nuclear power: Results of a longitudinal study before and after the Fukushima Disaster. Risk Anal 33(2):333-347
10. Smith VK, Michaels RG (1987) How did households interpret Chernobyl?-A Bayesian analysis of risk perceptions. Econ Lett 23(4):359-364
11. Lindell MK, Perry RW (1990) Effects of the Chernobyl accident on public perceptions of nuclear plant accident risks. Risk Anal 10(3):393-399
12. Goldsteen R, Schorr JK (1982) The long-term impact of a man-made disaster: An examination of a small town in the aftermath of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Reactor Accident. Disasters 6(1):50-59
13. McDaniels TL (1988) Chernobyl's effects on the perceived risks of nuclear power: A small sample test. Risk Anal 8(3):457-461
14. Xie XF, Wang M, Xu LC (2003) What risks are Chinese people concerned about? Risk Anal 23(4):685-695
15. Sjöberg L (2004) Local acceptance of a high-level nuclear waste repository. Risk Anal 24(3):737-749
16. Bronfman NC, Cifuentes LA (2003) Risk perception in a developing country: The case of Chile. Risk Anal 23(6):1271-1285
17. Gould LGG, DeLuca D, Sauther ML (1988) Acceptions of Technological Risks and Benefits (Russell Sage Foundation, New York)
18. Lynd LD, O'brien BJ (2004) Advances in risk-benefit evaluation using probabilistic simulation methods: An application to the prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis. J Clin Epidemiol 57(8):795-803
19. Karpowicz-Lazreg C, Mullet E (1993) Societal risk as seen by the French public. Risk Anal 13(3):253-258
20. Viscusi WK, Zeckhauser RJ (1996) Hazard communication: Warnings and risk. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 545:106-115
21. Bisconti AS (2006) Clear majority of Americans agree nuclear energy will play important future role in electricity supply. Perspective on public opinion (May). Nuclear Energy Institute, US. Available at http://www.nei.org/ corporatesite/media/filefolder/publicopinion-06-05.pdf. Accessed October 31, 2013
22. Whitfield SC, Rosa EA, Dan A, Dietz T (2009) The future of nuclear power: Value orientations and risk perception. Risk Anal 29(3):425-437
23. Marshall E (2005) Nuclear power. Is the friendly atom poised for a comeback? Science 309(5738):1168-1169
24. Renn O (1990) Public response to the Chernobyl accident. J Environ Psychol 10:151-167
25. Katsuya T (2001) Public response to the Tokai nuclear accident. Risk Anal 21(6): 1039-1046
26. He G, Mol AP, Zhang L, Lu Y (2013) Public participation and trust in nuclear power development in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 23:1-11
27. Finucane ML, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Flynn J, Satterfield TA (2000) Gender, race, and perceived risk: The 'white male' effect. Health Risk Soc 2(2):159-172
28. Hüppe M, Weber J (1999) Effects of distance, age and sex upon attitudes toward nuclear power plants: An empirical study. Zentralbl Hyg Umweltmed 202(2-4):331-344
29. China National Nuclear Corporation (2011) Nuclear Power Popular Science Knowledge (Jiangsu Nuclear Power Corp, Lianyungang, China), pp 31-32
30. Venables D, Pidgeon N, Simmons P, Henwood K, Parkhill K (2009) Living with nuclear power: A Q-method study of local community perceptions. Risk Anal 29(8):1089-1104
31. Eiser JR, Van-Der-Pligt J, Spears R (1995) Nuclear Neighbourhoods: Community Responses to Reactor Siting (Univ Exeter Press, Devon, UK)
32. Costa-Font J, Rudisill C, Mossialos E (2008) Attitudes as an expression of knowledge and "political anchoring": The case of nuclear power in the United Kingdom. Risk Anal 28(5):1273-1288
33. Lee JEC, Lemyre L (2009) A social-cognitive perspective of terrorism risk perception and individual response in Canada. Risk Anal 29(9):1265-1280
34. Peters EM, Burraston B, Mertz CK (2004) An emotion-based model of risk perception and stigma susceptibility: Cognitive appraisals of emotion, affective reactivity, worldviews, and risk perceptions in the generation of technological stigma. Risk Anal 24(5):1349-1367
35. Greenberg M, Truelove HB (2011) Energy choices and risk beliefs: Is it just global warming and fear of a nuclear power plant accident? Risk Anal 31(5):819-831
36. De Groot JIM, Steg L (2010) Morality and nuclear energy: Perceptions of risks and benefits, personal norms, and willingness to take action related to nuclear energy. Risk Anal 30(9):1363-1373
37. Hung HC, Wang TW (2011) Determinants and mapping of collective perceptions of technological risk: The case of the second nuclear power plant in Taiwan. Risk Anal 31(4):668-683
38. Purvis-Roberts KL, Werner CA, Frank I (2007) Perceived risks from radiation and nuclear testing near Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: A comparison between physicians, scientists, and the public. Risk Anal 27(2):291-302
39. Dohle S, Keller C, Siegrist M (2010) Examining the relationship between affect and implicit associations: implications for risk perception. Risk Anal 30(7):1116-1128
40. Willis HH, Dekay ML (2007) The roles of group membership, beliefs, and norms in ecological risk perception. Risk Anal 27(5):1365-1380
41. Bickerstaff K (2004) Risk perception research: Socio-cultural perspectives on the public experience of air pollution. Environ Int 30(6):827-840
42. Cvetkovich G, Siegrist M, Murray R, Tragesser S (2002) New information and social trust: Asymmetry and perseverance of attributions about hazard managers. Risk Anal 22(2):359-367
43. Van Kleef E, et al. (2007) Consumer evaluations of food risk management quality in Europe. Risk Anal 27(6):1565-1580
44. Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D (1999) LISREL 8 User's Reference Guide (Scientific Software Int, Chicago)
45. Lindell MK, Hwang SN (2008) Households' perceived personal risk and responses in a multihazard environment. Risk Anal 28(2):539-556
46. Bickerstaff K, Walker G (2001) Public understanding of air pollution: The "localisation" of environmental risk. Glob Environ Change 11(2):133-145
47. Greenberg MR (2009) NIMBY, CLAMP, and the location of new nuclear-related facilities: U.S. national and 11 site-specific surveys. Risk Anal 29(9):1242-1254
48. Chung JB, Kim HK, Rho SK (2008) Analysis of local acceptance of a radioactive waste disposal facility. Risk Anal 28(4):1021-1032
49. Liang LY (2006) Truck Passing Through the Long Road Tunnel Risk Analysis - A Case Study of Hsuehshan Tunnel. Master (National Central Univ, Taiwan)
50. Jonkman SN, van Gelder PH, Vrijling JK (2003) An overview of quantitative risk measures for loss of life and economic damage. J Hazard Mater 99(1):1-30