An international comparative analysis of public acceptance of nuclear energy

Energy Policy

Volumn 66, Issue , 2014, Pages 475-483

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

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

Author keywords

Nuclear energy; Public acceptance; Reluctant acceptance

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS; FOUR-GROUP; NUCLEAR INSPECTIONS; PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE; RELATED FACTORS; RELUCTANT ACCEPTANCE;

INSPECTION;

NUCLEAR ENERGY;

COMPARATIVE STUDY; ELECTRICITY GENERATION; ENERGY PLANNING; GOVERNMENT; NUCLEAR POWER; PUBLIC ATTITUDE;

EID: 84892477540     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.039     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Anderson D.L., Cunningham W.C., Capar S.G., Baratta E.J., Mackill P. Nuclear methods for food analysis at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 2001, 249:29-32.
2. Assefa G., Frostell B. Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology assessment: a case study of energy technologies. Technol. Soc. 2007, 29:63-78.
3. Avram A.M. Radioiodine scintigraphy with SPECT/CT: an important diagnostic tool for thyroid cancer staging and risk stratification. J. Nucl. Med. 2012, 53:754-764.
4. Bickerstaff K., Lorenzoni I., Pidgeon N.F., Poortinga W., Simmons P. Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: nuclear power, climate change mitigation, and radioactive waste. Public Underst. Sci. 2008, 17:145-169.
5. Blinc R., Zidansek A., Slaus I. Sustainable development and global security. Energy 2007, 32:883-890.
6. Bronfman N.C., Vazquez E.L., Dorantes G. An empirical study for the direct and indirect links between trust in regulatory institutions and acceptability of hazards. Saf. Sci. 2009, 47:686-692.
7. Cha Y.J. Risk perception in Korea: a comparison with Japan and the United States. J. Risk Res. 2000, 3:321-332.
8. Choi Y.S., Kim J.S., Lee B.W. Public's perception and judgment on nuclear power. Ann. Nucl. Energy 2000, 27:295-309.
9. Choi Y.S., Lee S.H., Cho N.Z., Lee B.W. Development of the public attitude model toward nuclear power in Korea. Ann. Nucl. Energy 1998, 25:923-936.
10. 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.
11. Davidsson L., Tanumihardjo S. New frontiers in science and technology: nuclear techniques in nutrition. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2011, 94:691S-695S.
12. Gregory R., Flynn J., Slovic P. Technological stigma. Am. Sci. 1995, 83:220-223.
13. Ilic R., Skvarc J., Golovchenko A.N. Nuclear Tracks: Present and Future Perspectives. Radiation Measurements 2003, 36:83-88.
14. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Development of Knowledge Portals for Nuclear Power Plants 2009, IAEA, Vienna.
15. Jun E., Kim W.J., Chang S.H. The analysis of security cost for different energy sources. Appl. Energy 2009, 86:1894-1901.
16. 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.
17. Katsuya T. Public response to the Tokai nuclear accident. Risk Anal. 2001, 21:1039-1046.
18. 2 emission constraints. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 2007, 39:655-662.
19. Lee Y.E., Jung Y.B. Challenges of nuclear power for sustainable role in Korean energy policy. Energy Convers. Manage. 2008, 49:1951-1959.
20. Liu C., Zhang Z., Kidd S. Establishing an objective system for the assessment of public acceptance of nuclear power in China. Nucl. Eng. Des. 2008, 238:2834-2838.
21. Melber B.D. The impact of TMI upon the public acceptance of nuclear power. Prog. Nucl. Energy 1982, 10:387-398.
22. Moriarty P., Honnery D. What is the global potential for renewable energyα. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2012, 16:244-252.
23. Nealey S.M., Melber B.D., Rankin W.L. Public Opinion and Nuclear Energy 1983, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
24. Ohnishi T. A mathematical model of the activities for public acceptance and the resultant reaction of the public: an application to the nuclear problem. Math. Comput. Modell. 1995, 21:1-30.
25. Pidgeon N.F., Lorenzoni I., Poortinga W. Climate change or nuclear power-no thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Global Environ. Change 2008, 18:69-85.
26. Ramana M.V. Nuclear power and the public. Bull. At. Sci, 2011, 67:43-51.
27. Renn O. Public responses to the Chernobyl accident. J. Environ. Psychol. 1990, 10:151-167.
28. 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.
29. Rosa E.A. Public acceptance of nuclear power: Déjà vu all over againα. Phys. Soc. 2001, 30:1-5.
30. Rosa E.A., Dunlap R.E. Poll trends: nuclear power: three decades of public opinion. Public Opin. Q. 1994, 58:295-324.
31. Siegrist M., Cvetkovich G. Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal. 2000, 20:713-719.
32. Sjoberg L., Drottz-Sjoberg B.M. Public risk perception of nuclear waste. Int. J. Risk Assess. Manage. 2009, 11:248-280.
33. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science 1987, 236:280-285.
34. Slovic P., Fischoff B., Lichtenstein S. Rating the risks. Environment 1979, 21:14-20.
35. Slovic P., Flynn J., Layman M. Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science 1991, 254:1603-1607.
36. Smith V.K., Michaels R.G. How did households interpret Chernobylα A Bayesian analysis of risk perceptions. Econ. Lett. 1987, 23:359-364.
37. Spence A., Poortinga W., Pidgeon N., Lorenzoni I. Public perceptions of energy choices: the influence of beliefs about climate change and the environment. Environ. Energy 2010, 21:384-407.
38. Teravainen T., Lehtonen M., Martiskainen M. Climate change, energy security and risk-debating nuclear new build in Finland, France and the UK. Energy Policy 2011, 39:3434-3442.
39. Vaillancourt K., Labriet M., Loulou R., Waaub J.P. The role of nuclear in long-term climate scenarios: an analysis with the World-TIMES model. Energy Policy 2008, 36:2296-2307.
40. Visschers V.H.M., Keller C., Siegrist M. Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: investigating an explanatory model. Energy Policy 2011, 39:3621-3629.
41. Yang W.T. Emerging techniques and molecular imaging in breast cancer. Semin. Ultrasound CT MRI 2011, 32:288-299.
42. Zachmann K. Atoms for peace and radiation for safety-how to build trust in irradiated foods in Cold War Europe and beyond. Hist. Technol. 2011, 27:65-90.