Factors influencing the public intention to use renewable energy technologies in South Korea: Effects of the fukushima nuclear accident

Energy Policy

Volumn 65, Issue , 2014, Pages 198-211

  Park, Eunil ^a   Ohm, Jay Y ^a  

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

Author keywords

Fukushima; Nuclear energy; Renewable energy

Indexed keywords

NUCLEAR ENERGY; PUBLIC RISKS; RISK PERCEPTION;

EMPIRICAL FINDINGS; FUKUSHIMA; FUKUSHIMA ACCIDENTS; FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS; MULTI-DIMENSIONAL MATRICES; PERCEIVED BENEFITS; RENEWABLE ENERGIES; RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES;

NUCLEAR REACTOR ACCIDENTS;

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; NUCLEAR ACCIDENT; NUCLEAR POWER; PERCEPTION; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; RENEWABLE RESOURCE;

SOUTH KOREA;

EID: 84890312875     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.037     Document Type: Article

References (95)

1. Aboelmaged M.G. Predicting e-procurement adoption in a developing country: an empirical integration of technology acceptance model and theory of planned behaviour. Ind. Manage. Data Syst. 2010, 110:392-414.
2. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. Process. 1991, 50:179-211.
3. Ajzen I., Gilbert Cote N. Attitudes and the prediction of behaviour. Attitudes and Attitude Change 2008, 289-311. Psychology Press, New York. W.D. Crano, R. Prislin (Eds.).
4. Anderson J.C., Gerbing D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103:411-423.
5. Ansolabehere S., Konisky D.M. Public attitudes toward construction of new power plants. Publ. Opin. Quart. 2009, 73:566-577.
6. Aoki M., Rothwell G. A comparative institutional analysis of the Fukushima nuclear disaster: lessons and policy implications. Energy Policy 2013, 53:240-247.
7. Apergis N., Payne J.E., Manyah K., Wolde-Rufael Y. On the causal dynamics between emissions, nuclear energy, renewable energy, and economic growth. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:2255-2260.
8. Arizona Solar Center, 2013. Renewable Energy: An Overview. Retrieved from (Accessed July 18, 2013). http://www.azsolarcenter.org/tech-science/renewable-energy-overview/introduction.html.
9. Bagozzi R.P., Yi Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 1988, 16:74-94.
10. Bang H., Ellinger A.E., Hadjimarcou J., Traichal P.A. Consumer concern, knowledge, belief, and attitude toward renewable energy: an application of the reasoned action theory. Psychol. Market. 2000, 17:449-468.
11. Barben D., Fisher E., Selin C., Guston D.H. Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: foresight, engagement and integration. The Hand book of Science and Technologies 2007, 979-1000. MIT Press, Boston, MA. Third Edition. E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lunch (Eds.).
12. Bentler P.M., Bonnet D.G. Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structure. Psychol. Bull. 1980, 88:588-606.
13. Bradford P. Energy policy: the nuclear landscape. Nature 2012, 483:151-152.
14. Brown M.W., Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Testing Structural Equation Models 1993, 136-162. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. K.A. Bollen, J.S. Long (Eds.).
15. Chen M., Lin Y., Cheng T. Public attitudes toward nanotechnology applications in Taiwan. Technovation 2013, 33:88-96.
16. Cobb M.D., Macoubrie J. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J. Nanoparticle Res. 2004, 6:395-405.
17. Cronbach L. Test validation. Educational Measurement 1971, 443-507. American Council on Education, Washington, DC. R.L. Thorndike (Ed.).
18. Davis F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart. 1989, 13:319-340.
19. Davis S.J., Caldeira K., Matthews H.D. Future CO2 emissions and climate change from existing energy infrastructure. Science 2010, 329:1330-1333.
20. Devine-Wright P. Beyond NIMBYism: towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 2005, 8:125-139.
21. Devine-Wright, P., 2007. Reconsidering Public Attitudes and Public Acceptance of Renewable Energy Technologies: A Critical Review. Retrieved from (Accessed October 9, 2013). http://geography.exeter.ac.uk/beyond_nimbyism/deliverables/bn_wp1_4.pdf.
22. Dresselhaus M.S., Thomas I.L. Alternative energy technologies. Nature 2001, 414:332-337.
23. Ellis G., Barry J., Robinson C. Many ways to say 'no', different ways to say 'yes': applying Q-methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 2007, 50:517-551.
24. Eiser J.R., Spears R., Webley P. Nuclear attitudes before and after Chernobyl: change and judgment. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1989, 19:689-700.
25. e-National Index, 2012. The Statistics of Renewable Energy in South Korea. Retrieved from (Accessed July 18, 2013). http://www.index.go.kr/egams/stts/jsp/potal/stts/PO_STTS_IdxMain.jsp?idx_cd=1171.
26. Fauzen, A. U., Schiller, J., 2011. After Fukushima: The Rise of Resistance to Nuclear Energy in Indonesia. Retrieved from (Accessed July 18, 2013). http://www.asienhaus.de/public/archiv/resistance-in-indonesia-after-fukushima.pdf.
27. Ferstl R., Utz S., Maximilian W. The effect of the Japan 2011 disaster on nuclear and alternative energy stocks worldwide: an event study. BuR Bus. Res. J. 2012, 5:25-41.
28. Fornell C., Larcker V.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Market. Res. 1981, 18:39-50.
29. Fox-Cardamone L., Hinkle S., Hogue M. The correlates of antinuclear activism: attitudes, subjective norms, and efficacy. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 30:484-498.
30. Gefen D. E-commerce: the role of familiarity and trust. Int. J. Manage. Sci. 2000, 28:725-737.
31. Gross R., Leach M., Bauen A. Progress in renewable energy. Environ. Int. 2003, 29:105-122.
32. Hair J.F., Black W.C., Babin B.J., Anderson R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis 2006, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
33. Handmer J., Dovers S. Handbook of Disaster Policies and Institutions: Improving Emergency Management and Climate Change Adaptation 2013, Routledge, London.
34. Hartmann P., Apaolaza Ibanez V. Managing customer loyalty in liberalized residential energy markets: the impact of energy branding. Energy Policy 2007, 35:2661-2672.
35. Hirose K. 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant accident: summary of regional radioactive deposition monitoring results. J. Environ. Radioact. 2012, 111:13-17.
36. Hoe S.L. Issues and procedure in adopting structural equation modeling technique. J. Appl. Quant. Method 2008, 3:76-83.
37. Holbert R.L., Stephenson M.T. Structural equation modeling in the communication sciences, 1995-2000. Hum. Commun. Res. 2002, 28:531-551.
38. Hung S.Y., Ku C.Y., Chang C.M. Critical factors of WAP services adoption: an empirical study. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2003, 2:46-60.
39. IEA, 2000. Energy Policies of IEA Countries. Paris, France: OECD/IEA.
40. International Atomic Energy Agency, 2011. Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log. Retrieved from (Accessed July 18, 2013). http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2011/fukushima120411.html.
41. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2011. IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Retrieved from (Accessed July 18, 2013). http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report.
42. Jarvenpaa S.L., Tractinsky N., Vitale M. Consumer trust in an Internet store. Inf. Technol. Manage. 2000, 1:45-71.
43. Joreskog, K. G., Sorbom, D., 1996. LISREL 8: Users Reference Guide. Scientific Software International, Chicago, IL.
44. Kasperson J.X., Kasperson R.E., Pidgeon N., Slovic P. The social amplification of risk: assessing fifteen years of research and theory. The Social Amplification of Risk 2003, 13-46. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. N. Pidgeon, R.E. Kasperson, P. Slovic (Eds.).
45. Kang Y. Nuclear accidents, risk communication, and politics of expertise: centered on Fukushima nuclear accident. J. Eng. Educ. Res. 2012, 15:35-44.
46. KDI, 2012. 2012 New Renewable Energy Plan in South Korea. Retrieved from (Accessed July 18, 2013). http://www.kdi.re.kr/infor/ep_view.jsp?num=121461.
47. Kim D.W., Chang H.J. Experience curve analysis on South Korean nuclear technology and comparative analysis with South Korean renewable technologies. Energy Policy 2012, 40:361-373.
48. KNREC, 2011. 2010 New Renewable Energy White Paper. Retrieved from (Accessed July 18, 2013). http://www.knrec.or.kr/knrec/13/KNREC130110.asp?idx=915.
49. KNREC, 2013. 2012 New Renewable Energy White Paper. Retrieved from (Accessed July 18, 2013). http://www.knrec.or.kr/knrec/13/KNREC130110.asp?idx=1516.
50. Korea Energy Management Corporation, 2002. New and Renewable Energy Technology & Dissemination Program in South Korea. Korea Energy Management Corporation (KEMCO), New & Renewable Energy Department, Seoul, South Korea.
51. Korea Energy Management Corporation, 2013. The Handbook of Total Energy Statistics. Retrieved from (Accessed July 18, 2013). http://www.kemco.or.kr/web/kem_home/info/statistics/data/kem_list.asp?c=305.
52. Koufaris M., Hampton-Sosa W. The development of initial trust in an online company by new customers. Inf. Manage. 2004, 41:377-397.
53. Krohn S., Damborg S. On public attitudes towards wind power. Renew. Energy 1999, 16:954-960.
54. Ku S., Yoo S. Willingness to pay for renewable energy investment in Korea: a choice experiment study. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2010, 14:2196-2201.
55. Lee S.K., Mogi G., Kim J.W. Energy technology roadmap for the next 10 years: the case of Korea. Energy Policy 2009, 38:588-596.
56. Luarn P., Lin H.H. Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use mobile banking. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2005, 21:873-891.
57. Lund H. Large-scale integration of wind power into different energy systems. Energy 2005, 30:2402-2412.
58. Mallett A. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovations: the role of technology cooperation in urban Mexico. Energy Policy 2007, 35:2790-2798.
59. Mathieson K. Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Inf. Syst. Res. 1991, 2:173-191.
60. McGowan, F., Sauter, R., 2005. Public Opinion on Energy Research: A Desk Study for the Research Councils, Sussex Energy Group, East Sussex.
61. Midden C.J.H., Huijts N.M.A. The role of trust in the affective evaluation of novel risks: the case of CO2 storage. Risk Anal. 2009, 29:743-751.
62. Ministry of Environment in South Korea, 2003. Alternative Energy Dissemination Plan. MOE, Seoul, South Korea.
63. Ministry of Knowledge Economy in South Korea, 2008. Fourth Electric Supply and Demand Program. MKE, Seoul, South Korea.
64. Molin E. A causal analysis of hydrogen acceptance. Transp. Res. Record: J. Transp. Res. Board 2005, 1941:115-121.
65. Montijn-Dorgelo F., Midden C.J.H. The role of negative associations and trust in risk perception of new hydrogen systems. J. Risk Res. 2008, 11:659-671.
66. Moon J., Lee J., Lee U. Economic analysis of biomass power generation schemes under renewable energy initiative with Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) in Korea. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102:9550-9557.
67. National Police Agency of Japan, 2011. Damage Situation and Police Countermeasures Associated with 2011Tohoku District-Off the Pacific Ocean Earthquake. Retrieved from (Accessed July 18, 2013). http://www.npa.go.jp/archive/keibi/biki/higaijokyo_e.pdf.
68. National Regulation Authority of Japan, 2013. NRA Annual Report. Retrieved from (Accessed July 18, 2013). http://www.nsr.go.jp/index.html.
69. OECD, 2011. Renewable Energy in OECD Factbook 2011-2012: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics, OECD Publishing. Retrieved from (Accessed October 5, 2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/factbook-2011-51-en.
70. Oxera, 2006. Policies for Energy Efficiency in the UK Household Sector. Retrieved from (Accessed July 18, 2013). http://www.oxera.com/Oxera/media/Oxera/Policies-for-energy-efficiency-in-the-UK-household.pdf?ext=pdf.
71. Panwar, N. L., Kaushik, S. C., Kothari, S., 2011. Role of Renewable Energy Resources in Environmental Protection: A Review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review, 15, 1513-1524.
72. Prati G., Zani B. The effect of the fukushima nuclear accident on risk perception, antinuclear behavioral intentions, attitude, trust, environmental beliefs, and values. Environ. Behav. 2013, 45:782-798.
73. Reddy S., Painuly J.P. Diffusion of renewable energy technologies-barriers and stakeholders' perspectives. Renew. Energy 2004, 29:1431-1447.
74. Rejeski, D., 2006. Why We Need a Corporation for Public Gaming. Woodrow Wilson Centre. Retrieved from (Accessed July 18, 2013). http://seriousgamessource.com/features/feature_041106_public_gaming.html.
75. Richman A. The polls: public attitudes toward the energy crisis. Publ. Opin. Quart. 1979, 43:576-585.
76. Rousseau D.M., Sitkin S.B., Burt R.S., Camerer C. Not so different after all: a cross discipline view of trust. Acad. Manage. Rev. 1998, 23:393-404.
77. Scheufele D.A., Lewenstein B.V. The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J. Nanoparticle Res. 2005, 7:659-667.
78. Siegrist M. A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. J Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 10:2093-2106.
79. Siegrist M. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal. 2000, 20:195-204.
80. Siegrist M. Trust and confidence: the difficulties in distinguishing the two concepts in research. Risk Anal. 2010, 30:1022-1024.
81. Siegrist M., Cousin M., Kastenholz H., Wiek A. Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: the influence of affect and trust. Appetite 2007, 49:459-466.
82. Siegrist M., Cvetkovich G. Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal. 2000, 20:713-720.
83. Sjoberg, L., Moen, B., Rundmo, T., 2004. Explaining Risk Perception: An Evaluation of the Psychometric Paradigm in Risk Perception Research, Rotunder, Trondheim, Norway.
84. Sparks P., Shepherd R., Frewer L.J. Gene technology, food production, and public opinion: a UK study. Agric. Hum. Values 1994, 11:19-28.
85. Starr C. Social benefits versus technological risks. Science 1969, 165:1232-1238.
86. Thomas S. What will the Fukushima disaster change?. Energy Policy 2012, 45:12-17.
87. Tokyo Electric Power Company, 2011. Roadmap Towards Restoration from the Accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant Station. Retrieved from (Accessed July 18, 2013). http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corpcom/release/11041707-e.html.
88. Trainer T. Can renewables etc. solve the greenhouse problem? The negative case. Energy Policy 2010, 38:4107-4114.
89. Venkatesh V., Davis F.D. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage. Sci. 2000, 46:186-204.
90. Verplanken B. Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions toward nuclear energy before and after Chernobyl in a longitudinal within-subjects design. Environ. Behav. 1989, 21:371-392.
91. Windschitl P.D., Wells G.L. Measuring psychological uncertainty: verbal versus numeric methods. J. Exp. Psychol.: Appl. 1996, 2:343-364.
92. Wittneben B.B.F. The impact of the Fukushima nuclear accident on European energy policy. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 15:1-3.
93. World Nuclear Association, 2013. The Economics of Nuclear Power. Retrieved from (Accessed July 18, 2013). http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Economics-of-Nuclear-Power/#.UejoK43JQb0.
94. Wu J.H., Wang S.C. What drives mobile commerce? An empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Inf. Manage. 2005, 42:719-729.
95. Wüstenhagena R., Wolsink M., Bürera M.J. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 2007, 35:2683-2691.