Effect of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on global public acceptance of nuclear energy

The Fukushima nuclear disaster has significantly changed public attitudes toward nuclear energy. It is important to understand how this change has occurred in different countries before the global community revises existing nuclear policies. This study examines the effect of the Fukushima disaster on public acceptance of nuclear energy in 42 countries. We find that the operational experience of nuclear power generation which has significantly affected positive public opinion about nuclear energy became considerably negative after the disaster, suggesting fundamental changes in public acceptance regardless of the level of acceptance before the disaster. In addition, contrary to our expectation, the proportion of nuclear power generation is positively and significantly related to public acceptance of nuclear energy after the Fukushima accident and government pressure on media content led to a greater decrease in the level of public acceptance after the accident. Nuclear energy policymakers should consider the varied factors affecting public acceptance of nuclear energy in each country depending on its historical, environmental, and geographical circumstances before they revise nuclear policy in response to the Fukushima accident.

[1]  Michael Greenberg,et al.  Determinants of Trust Perceptions among Residents Surrounding the Savannah River Nuclear Weapons Site , 1999 .

[2]  Staffan Jacobsson,et al.  EU renewable energy support policy: Faith or facts? , 2009 .

[3]  T. Moskowitz,et al.  Confronting Information Asymmetries: Evidence from Real Estate Markets , 1999 .

[4]  C. A. Johnson,et al.  A study of the movement of radioactive material released during the Windscale fire in October 1957 using ERA40 data , 2007 .

[5]  Tanja Perko,et al.  Importance of risk communication during and after a nuclear accident , 2011, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[6]  Mark Grinblatt,et al.  Distance, Language, and Culture Bias: The Role of Investor Sophistication , 2000 .

[7]  H. Ginzburg,et al.  Consequences of the nuclear power plant accident at Chernobyl. , 1991, Public health reports.

[8]  Mohamed S. El-Genk.  On the introduction of nuclear power in Middle East countries: Promise, strategies, vision and challenges , 2008 .

[9]  A. Froggatt,et al.  The Global Status of the Nuclear Industry and its Opportunities for Expansion , 2011 .

[10]  Barbara D. Melber,et al.  The impact of TMI upon the public acceptance of nuclear power , 1982 .

[11]  Eugene A. Rosa,et al.  THE POLLS—POLL TRENDS: NUCLEAR POWER: THREE DECADES OF PUBLIC OPINION , 1994 .

[12]  Matthew E. Kahn.  The Death Toll from Natural Disasters: The Role of Income, Geography and Institutions , 2005 .

[13]  Elspeth Thomson,et al.  China's Energy Security: Challenges and Priorities , 2009 .

[14]  E. Goffman.  Stigma; Notes On The Management Of Spoiled Identity , 1964 .

[15]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  Public responses to the Chernobyl accident , 1990 .

[16]  Tsunoda Katsuya,et al.  Public Response to the Tokai Nuclear Accident , 2001, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[17]  T. Ohnishi.  A mathematical model of the activities for public acceptance and the resultant reaction of the public: An application to the nuclear problem , 1995 .

[18]  Wonjoon Kim,et al.  Measuring the Social Value of Nuclear Energy Using Contingent Valuation Methodology , 2010 .

[19]  Tobias J. Moskowitz,et al.  Home Bias at Home: Local Equity Preference in Domestic Portfolios , 1999 .

[20]  Ferhat Aziz,et al.  Expected role of nuclear science and technology to support the sustainable supply of energy in Indonesia , 2008 .

[21]  R. Haas,et al.  Potentials and prospects for renewable energies at global scale , 2008 .

[22]  G. Assefa,et al.  Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology assessment: A case study of energy technologies , 2007 .

[23]  W. Gamson,et al.  Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach , 1989, American Journal of Sociology.

[24]  Mark Grinblatt,et al.  How Distance, Language, and Culture Influence Stockholdings and Trades , 2001 .

[25]  Shebonti Ray Dadwal.  India's Energy Security: Challenges and Opportunities , 2009 .

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

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

[28]  Zuoyi Zhang,et al.  Establishing an objective system for the assessment of public acceptance of nuclear power in China , 2008 .

[29]  Young Sung Choi,et al.  Public's perception and judgment on nuclear power , 2000 .

[30]  G Winkler,et al.  Emergency management in the early phase. , 2004, Radiation protection dosimetry.

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

[32]  M. Ramana.  Nuclear power and the public , 2011 .

[33]  A. Corner,et al.  Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: Exploring British public attitudes , 2011 .

[34]  C. Z. Sun,et al.  Atmospheric dispersion and the radiological consequences of normal airborne effluents from a nuclear power plant , 1995 .

[35]  W. L. Rankin,et al.  Public opinion and nuclear energy , 1983 .

[36]  V. Kerry Smith,et al.  How did households interpret chernobyl?: A bayesian analysis of risk perceptions , 1987 .

[37]  Valentina Gecevska,et al.  Analysis of the opportunities and challenges for renewable energy market in the Western Balkan countries , 2011 .