[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v34y2014i5p949-964.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Accident Attention, Ideology, and Environmentalism on American Attitudes Toward Nuclear Energy

Author

Listed:
  • John C. Besley
  • Sang‐Hwa Oh
Abstract
This study involves the analysis of three waves of survey data about nuclear energy using a probability‐based online panel of respondents in the United States. Survey waves included an initial baseline survey conducted in early 2010, a follow‐up survey conducted in 2010 following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and an additional follow‐up conducted just after the 2011 Fukushima, Japan, nuclear accident. The central goal is to assess the degree to which changes in public views following an accident are contingent on individual attention and respondent predispositions. Such results would provide real‐world evidence of motivated reasoning. The primary analysis focuses on the impact of Fukushima and how the impact of individual attention to energy issues is moderated by both environmental views and political ideology over time. The analysis uses both mean comparisons and multivariate statistics to test key relationships. Additional variables common in the study of emerging technologies are included in the analysis, including demographics, risk and benefit perceptions, and views about the fairness of decisionmakers in both government and the private sector.

Suggested Citation

  • John C. Besley & Sang‐Hwa Oh, 2014. "The Impact of Accident Attention, Ideology, and Environmentalism on American Attitudes Toward Nuclear Energy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(5), pages 949-964, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:34:y:2014:i:5:p:949-964
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12151
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12151
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12151?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John C. Besley, 2012. "Does Fairness Matter in the Context of Anger About Nuclear Energy Decision Making?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 25-38, January.
    2. Michael Greenberg & Heather Barnes Truelove, 2011. "Energy Choices and Risk Beliefs: Is It Just Global Warming and Fear of a Nuclear Power Plant Accident?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 819-831, May.
    3. Anders A F Wahlberg & Lennart Sjoberg, 2000. "Risk perception and the media," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 31-50, January.
    4. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Siegrist, Michael, 2012. "Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 292-300.
    5. Dan M. Kahan & Hank Jenkins-Smith & Donald Braman, 2011. "Cultural cognition of scientific consensus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 147-174, February.
    6. Maija Setälä & Kimmo Grönlund & Kaisa Herne, 2010. "Citizen Deliberation on Nuclear Power: A Comparison of Two Decision-Making Methods," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58, pages 688-714, October.
    7. Dan Venables & Nick Pidgeon & Peter Simmons & Karen Henwood & Karen Parkhill, 2009. "Living with Nuclear Power: A Q‐Method Study of Local Community Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1089-1104, August.
    8. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2005. "Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 199-209, February.
    9. Greenberg, Michael, 2009. "Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: Analysis of US national and site-specific data," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 3242-3249, August.
    10. Corner, Adam & Venables, Dan & Spence, Alexa & Poortinga, Wouter & Demski, Christina & Pidgeon, Nick, 2011. "Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: Exploring British public attitudes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 4823-4833, September.
    11. Timothy C. Earle & Michael Siegrist, 2008. "On the Relation Between Trust and Fairness in Environmental Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1395-1414, October.
    12. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Keller, Carmen & Siegrist, Michael, 2011. "Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3621-3629, June.
    13. Maija Setälä & Kimmo Grönlund & Kaisa Herne, 2010. "Citizen Deliberation on Nuclear Power: A Comparison of Two Decision‐Making Methods," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(4), pages 688-714, October.
    14. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mark K. McBeth & Megan Warnement Wrobel & Irene van Woerden, 2023. "Political ideology and nuclear energy: Perception, proximity, and trust," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(1), pages 88-118, January.
    2. John C. Besley & Nagwan R. Zahry & Aaron McCright & Kevin C. Elliott & Norbert E. Kaminski & Joseph D. Martin, 2019. "Conflict of Interest Mitigation Procedures May Have Little Influence on the Perceived Procedural Fairness of Risk‐Related Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 571-585, March.
    3. Gea Hoogendoorn & Bernadette Sütterlin & Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Tampering with Nature: A Systematic Review," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 141-156, January.
    4. Kazuya Nakayachi, 2015. "Examining Public Trust in Risk‐Managing Organizations After a Major Disaster," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 57-67, January.
    5. Benjamin A. Lyons & Heather Akin & Natalie Jomini Stroud, 2020. "Proximity (Mis)perception: Public Awareness of Nuclear, Refinery, and Fracking Sites," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 385-398, February.
    6. John C Besley & Aaron M McCright & Nagwan R Zahry & Kevin C Elliott & Norbert E Kaminski & Joseph D Martin, 2017. "Perceived conflict of interest in health science partnerships," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-20, April.
    7. Yoonjung Oh & Seoyong Kim & Sohee Kim, 2022. "Searching for New Human Behavior Model in Explaining Energy Transition: Exploring the Impact of Value and Perception Factors on Inconsistency of Attitude toward Policy Support and Intention to Pay for," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-26, September.
    8. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    9. Clarke, Christopher E. & Evensen, Darrick T.N., 2023. "Attention to news media coverage of unconventional oil/gas development impacts: Exploring psychological antecedents and effects on issue support," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wang, Yu & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Explaining local residents’ acceptance of rebuilding nuclear power plants: The roles of perceived general benefit and perceived local benefit," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    2. Jobin, Marilou & Siegrist, Michael, 2018. "We choose what we like – Affect as a driver of electricity portfolio choice," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 736-747.
    3. Mueller, Christoph Emanuel, 2020. "Examining the inter-relationships between procedural fairness, trust in actors, risk expectations, perceived benefits, and attitudes towards power grid expansion projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    4. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    5. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Michael Siegrist, 2013. "How a Nuclear Power Plant Accident Influences Acceptance of Nuclear Power: Results of a Longitudinal Study Before and After the Fukushima Disaster," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 333-347, February.
    6. Ho, Shirley S. & Oshita, Tsuyoshi & Looi, Jiemin & Leong, Alisius D. & Chuah, Agnes S.F., 2019. "Exploring public perceptions of benefits and risks, trust, and acceptance of nuclear energy in Thailand and Vietnam: A qualitative approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 259-268.
    7. Annukka Vainio & Riikka Paloniemi & Vilja Varho, 2017. "Weighing the Risks of Nuclear Energy and Climate Change: Trust in Different Information Sources, Perceived Risks, and Willingness to Pay for Alternatives to Nuclear Power," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 557-569, March.
    8. Nicolas C. Bronfman & Raquel B. Jiménez & Pilar C. Arevalo & Luis A. Cifuentes, 2015. "Public Acceptance of Electricity Generation Sources: The Role of Trust in Regulatory Institutions," Energy & Environment, , vol. 26(3), pages 349-368, April.
    9. Judith I. M. de Groot & Elisa Schweiger & Iljana Schubert, 2020. "Social Influence, Risk and Benefit Perceptions, and the Acceptability of Risky Energy Technologies: An Explanatory Model of Nuclear Power Versus Shale Gas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(6), pages 1226-1243, June.
    10. Lee, You-Kyung, 2020. "Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: From the users’ perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    11. Yukiko Omata & Hajime Katayama & Toshi. H. Arimura, 2017. "Same concerns, same responses? A Bayesian quantile regression analysis of the determinants for supporting nuclear power generation in Japan," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 19(3), pages 581-608, July.
    12. Ertör-Akyazı, Pınar & Adaman, Fikret & Özkaynak, Begüm & Zenginobuz, Ünal, 2012. "Citizens’ preferences on nuclear and renewable energy sources: Evidence from Turkey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 309-320.
    13. Siegrist, Michael & Visschers, Vivianne H.M., 2013. "Acceptance of nuclear power: The Fukushima effect," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 112-119.
    14. Seungkook Roh & Jin Won Lee & Qingchang Li, 2019. "Effects of Rank-Ordered Feature Perceptions of Energy Sources on the Choice of the Most Acceptable Power Plant for a Neighborhood: An Investigation Using a South Korean Nationwide Sample," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-21, March.
    15. Anshelm, Jonas & Simon, Haikola, 2016. "Power production and environmental opinions – Environmentally motivated resistance to wind power in Sweden," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 1545-1555.
    16. Iosif Botetzagias & Chrisovaladis Malesios & Anthi Kolokotroni & Yiannis Moysiadis, 2015. "The role of NIMBY in opposing the siting of wind farms: evidence from Greece," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(2), pages 229-251, February.
    17. Guo, Yue & Ren, Tao, 2017. "When it is unfamiliar to me: Local acceptance of planned nuclear power plants in China in the post-fukushima era," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 113-125.
    18. Bjoern Hagen & Adenike Opejin & K. David Pijawka, 2022. "Risk Perceptions and Amplification Effects over Time: Evaluating Fukushima Longitudinal Surveys," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-18, June.
    19. Norifumi Tsujikawa & Shoji Tsuchida & Takamasa Shiotani, 2016. "Changes in the Factors Influencing Public Acceptance of Nuclear Power Generation in Japan Since the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 98-113, January.
    20. Siegrist, Michael & Sütterlin, Bernadette & Keller, Carmen, 2014. "Why have some people changed their attitudes toward nuclear power after the accident in Fukushima?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 356-363.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:34:y:2014:i:5:p:949-964. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.