Major Psychological Factors Determining Public Acceptance of the Siting of Nuclear Facilities

The purpose of this study was to examine the hypothesis that factors that determine public acceptance of nuclear facilities in a general situation are different from factors that determine public acceptance of nuclear facilities in a siting situation by using a causal model. A survey was conducted in Japan with 1,000 randomly selected adult participants. The results were that in a general situation, both perceived risk and perceived benefit are important for public acceptance of nuclear facilities. In addition, in a siting situation, perceived risk is very important for public acceptance of nuclear facilities, whereas perceived benefit has little importance for public acceptance. Thus, for discussions concerning public acceptance of a facility associated with risk, it is important to clarify whether the viewpoint of a general situation or the viewpoint of a siting situation should be adopted.

[1]  Yutaka Tanaka.  Perception of High-technology Benefit , 1997 .

[2]  Michael Siegrist,et al.  A Causal Model Explaining the Perception and Acceptance of Gene Technology1 , 1999 .

[3]  M. Siegrist.  The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[4]  D. Warner North,et al.  A Perspective on Nuclear Waste , 1999, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[5]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[6]  W. Klein,et al.  Exaggerated Self-Assessments and the Preference for Controllable Risks , 1994 .

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

[8]  The Difference of Risk Perception between Engineers of Nuclear Power and Ordinary People , 1995 .

[9]  Eugene A. Rosa,et al.  Cognitive Representation of Risk Perceptions , 1991 .

[10]  Steven W. Martsolf,et al.  Credibility, Public Trust, and the Transport of Radioactive Waste Through Local Communities , 1996 .

[11]  V T Covello,et al.  The Determinants of Trust and Credibility in Environmental Risk Communication: An Empirical Study , 1997, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[12]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Societal risks as seen by a Norwegian public , 1988 .

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

[14]  Tadeusz Tyszka,et al.  Risk perception in Poland: A comparison with three other countries , 1991 .

[15]  P Slovic,et al.  Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics of Nuclear Waste , 1991, Science.

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

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

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

[19]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Judged frequency of lethal events , 1978 .

[20]  Oene Wiegman,et al.  Risk Appraisal and Risk Communication: Some Empirical Data From The Netherlands Reviewed , 1995 .

[21]  Yutaka Tanaka.  Major factors of deciding public acceptance of a variety of technology , 1995 .