AN ANALYSIS OF NUCLEAR RISK PERCEPTION: WITH FOCUS ON DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE POLICY ALTERNATIVES

This study examines the nature of risk perceptions associated with nuclear power. The purpose is to explore the relative importance of variables in predicting individual differences in the risk perceptions of nuclear power, and to examine the potential implications for policy. This study proposes to develop a more comprehensive understanding of variables that predict the risk perceptions associated with nuclear power. In this study, multivariate analyses are conducted. Dependent variable is the risk perceptions of nuclear power. Independent variables include perceived risk characteristics, perceptions of need for nuclear power, knowledge levels of nuclear power, trust in information sources and management, experiences (familiarity) with nuclear power, participation, perceptions of costs (disadvantage) and benefits (advantages), and demographics. The method used for data collection is a survey (structured interview) with 500 randomly selected individuals from the Youngkwang (YK) nuclear power plant in Korea. The results indicate several variables are significant. The potential policy implications of the findings are discussed.

[1]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Perceived risk, trust, and democracy , 1993 .

[2]  Howard Kunreuther,et al.  Incentives Policies to Site Hazardous Waste Facilities , 1991 .

[3]  D. Choi.  Public Service Motivation and Ethical Conduct , 2004 .

[4]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[5]  C. H. Castore,et al.  Expectancy‐Value and Selective Exposure as Determinants of Attitudes Toward a Nuclear Power Plant1 , 1980 .

[6]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Handling hazards: can hazard management be improved. [Potential and strategies for improvement] , 1978 .

[7]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Trust as a Determinant of Opposition to a High‐Level Radioactive Waste Repository: Analysis of a Structural Model , 1992 .

[8]  H. J. Otway,et al.  Nuclear power: The question of public acceptance , 1978 .

[9]  M. Kraft,et al.  Citizen Participation and the Nimby Syndrome: Public Response to Radioactive Waste Disposal , 1991 .

[10]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits , 1978 .

[11]  Kent E. Portney.  Siting Hazardous Waste Treatment Facilities: The NIMBY Syndrome, Kent E. Portney. 1991. Auburn House, Westport, CT. 200 pages. ISBN: 0-86569-016-2. $37.95 , 1991 .

[12]  The Lancet Planetary Health.  Weighing the risks. , 2020, The Lancet. Planetary health.

[13]  Confidence in Science: The Gender Gap. , 1992 .

[14]  Charles A. Wentz,et al.  Public impact on technical research: the dissimilar fates of two waste gasification projects , 1989 .

[15]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior , 1980 .

[16]  L Sjöberg,et al.  Limits of Knowledge and the Limited Importance of Trust , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[17]  Howard Kunreuther,et al.  Public Attitudes Toward Siting a High‐Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada , 1990 .

[18]  R. Spears,et al.  Construction of a Nuclear Power Station in One's Locality: Attitudes and Salience , 1986 .

[19]  R. Kasperson.  Six propositions on public participation and their relevance for risk communication. , 1986, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[20]  H. J. Otway,et al.  Effect of distance upon risk perception. , 1978 .

[21]  J. M. Hines,et al.  Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. , 1987 .

[22]  Chris Zeiss,et al.  Waste Facility Impacts on Residential Property Values , 1989 .

[23]  Michael O'Hare,et al.  Facility siting and public opposition , 1983 .

[24]  Chris Zeiss,et al.  Community decision-making and impact management priorities for siting waste facilities , 1991 .

[25]  Yong-Jin Cha,et al.  Risk perception in Korea: a comparison with Japan and the United States , 2000 .

[26]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[27]  P Slovic,et al.  Informing and educating the public about risk. , 1986, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[28]  Richard N. L. Andrews,et al.  Facility Siting and Public Opposition, Michael O'Hare, Lawrence Bacow, Debra Sanderson. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, New York (1983) , 1983 .

[29]  R. Spears,et al.  Attitudes toward Nuclear Energy , 1986 .

[30]  L Sjöberg,et al.  Knowledge and risk perception among nuclear power plant employees. , 1991, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[31]  David A. Bella,et al.  Technocracy and trust: nuclear waste controversy , 1988 .

[32]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[33]  P. Slovic.  Perception of risk. , 1987, Science.

[34]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Images of disaster: Perception and acceptance of risks from nuclear power , 1979 .

[35]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Nuclear Power and the Public , 2000 .

[36]  Howard Kunreuther,et al.  Are Risk-Benefit Tradeoffs Possible in Siting Hazardous Facilities? , 1990 .