본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

An empirical study of the risk-benefit perceptions between the nuclear and non-nuclear groups towards the nuclear power plant in Bangladesh

Islam Md Shafiqul|Roy Swapnil|Alfee Sadia Lena|Pal Animesh
한국원자력학회 (Korean Nuclear Society)|2023.12|Nuclear Engineering and Technology|제55권 제12호|pp. 4617-4627|DOI 10.1016/j.net.2023.07.047

0

조회

0

다운로드

1

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

Public perceptionPublic awarenessRisk-benefitNuclear and non-nuclear groupGrowth of nuclear industry
주제분류원자력공학

초록

Public perception of benefit over risk is the de facto factor in planning, construction, operation, halting, or phaseout of a nuclear power plant in any country. Even if there are multiple pathways of perceiving risk/benefit among different stakeholders, the perception of nuclear and non-nuclear groups needs to be individually tracked to help understand sectoral influence. Related studies were basically performed between the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) and non-STEM groups. However, there are no such studies between the nuclear and non-nuclear groups. This study investigated the risk-benefit perceptions between the nuclear group (N = 102) and the non-nuclear group (N = 467) using survey data to measure their stake and identify the underlying factors by validating the hypotheses, through descriptive analysis, and structural equation modeling (SEM). Results showed that risk perception is significantly high in the non-nuclear group (as the P-value is > 0.001 to <0.01) while the benefit perception is slightly low in the nuclear group (as the P-value is > 0.01 to <0.05). The non-nuclear group was significantly influenced by risk perception due to a lack of involvement in nuclear activities. Notably, the nuclear group is less interactive in disseminating nuclear energy benefits to the non-nuclear group. Surprisingly, misperceptions and lack of confidence about the benefits of nuclear energy also exist in the nuclear group. The study emphasizes debunking nuclear myths in the nuclear and non-nuclear groups through meaningful interactions and demands effective public awareness-building programs by competent authorities for the growth of the nuclear industry.

Abstract

Public perception of benefit over risk is the de facto factor in planning, construction, operation, halting, or phaseout of a nuclear power plant in any country. Even if there are multiple pathways of perceiving risk/benefit among different stakeholders, the perception of nuclear and non-nuclear groups needs to be individually tracked to help understand sectoral influence. Related studies were basically performed between the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) and non-STEM groups. However, there are no such studies between the nuclear and non-nuclear groups. This study investigated the risk-benefit perceptions between the nuclear group (N = 102) and the non-nuclear group (N = 467) using survey data to measure their stake and identify the underlying factors by validating the hypotheses, through descriptive analysis, and structural equation modeling (SEM). Results showed that risk perception is significantly high in the non-nuclear group (as the P-value is > 0.001 to <0.01) while the benefit perception is slightly low in the nuclear group (as the P-value is > 0.01 to <0.05). The non-nuclear group was significantly influenced by risk perception due to a lack of involvement in nuclear activities. Notably, the nuclear group is less interactive in disseminating nuclear energy benefits to the non-nuclear group. Surprisingly, misperceptions and lack of confidence about the benefits of nuclear energy also exist in the nuclear group. The study emphasizes debunking nuclear myths in the nuclear and non-nuclear groups through meaningful interactions and demands effective public awareness-building programs by competent authorities for the growth of the nuclear industry.

참고문헌 (45)

  1. "Global Electricity Generation Mix, 2010-2020 –Charts – Data & Statistics" (2021)[URL]
  2. "Nuclear Power in Bangladesh - World Nuclear Association" (2023)[URL]
  3. "Construction of Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant Project" (2023)[URL]
  4. Sandra Perez, "Comparative analysis of the perception of nuclear risk in two populations (expert", non-expert) in France, 2020, pp.6, 2288~2298[DOI]
  5. Shirley S. Ho, "Science Literacy or Value Predisposition? A Meta-Analysis of Factors Predicting Public Perceptions of Benefits, Risks, and Acceptance of Nuclear Energy", Environmental Communication, 13(4), pp.457~471 (2018), Informa UK Limited[DOI]
  6. Gerald T. Gardner, "Risk and Benefit Perceptions, Acceptability Judgments, and Self-Reported Actions toward Nuclear Power", The Journal of Social Psychology, 116(2), pp.179~197 (1982), Informa UK Limited[DOI]
  7. Yutaka Tanaka, "Major Psychological Factors Determining Public Acceptance of the Siting of Nuclear Facilities", Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(6), pp.1147~1165 (2004), Wiley[DOI]
  8. Vivianne H.M. Visschers, "Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model", Energy Policy, 39(6), pp.3621~3629 (2011), Elsevier BV[DOI]
  9. Vivianne H. M. Visschers, "How a Nuclear Power Plant Accident Influences Acceptance of Nuclear Power: Results of a Longitudinal Study Before and After the Fukushima Disaster", Risk Analysis, 33(2), pp.333~347 (2012), Wiley[DOI]
  10. Stephen C. Whitfield, "The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception", Risk Analysis, 29(3), pp.425~437 (2009), Wiley[DOI]
  11. Yogi Sugiawan, "Public acceptance of nuclear power plants in Indonesia: Portraying the role of a multilevel governance system", Energy Strategy Reviews, 26, pp.100427~ (2019), Elsevier BV[DOI]
  12. R. BAGGOTT, "Nuclear Power at Druridge Bay", Parliamentary Affairs, 51(3), pp.384~396 (1998), Oxford University Press (OUP)[DOI]
  13. J. Juozaitis, "Energy Transformation towards Sustainability", pp.133~162 (2020), Elsevier
  14. Timothy O'Riordan, "How the sizewell B inquiry is grappling with the concept of acceptable risk", Journal of Environmental Psychology, 5(1), pp.69~85 (1985), Elsevier BV[DOI]
  15. Melissa L. Finucane, "The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits", Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), pp.1~17 (2000), Wiley[DOI]
  16. Salvatore Ruggiero, "Realizing the social acceptance of community renewable energy: A process-outcome analysis of stakeholder influence", Energy Research &amp; Social Science, 4, pp.53~63 (2014), Elsevier BV[DOI]
  17. "Stakeholder Involvement throughout the Life Cycle of Nuclear Facilities" (2011)[URL]
  18. Ye Yan, "A Survey and Analysis on the Sense of Nuclear Safety &amp; Security for the Public: A Chinese Perspective", Sustainability, 10(7), pp.2495~ (2018), MDPI AG[DOI]
  19. 노승국, "Big Data Analysis of Public Acceptance of Nuclear Power in Korea", Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 49(4), pp.850~854 (2017), 한국원자력학회
  20. Ji-Bum Chung, "Public perception of energy transition in Korea: Nuclear power, climate change, and party preference", Energy Policy, 116, pp.137~144 (2018), Elsevier BV[DOI]
  21. T. Perko, "The differences in perception of radiological risks: lay people versus new and experienced employees in the nuclear sector", Journal of Risk Research, 18(1), pp.40~54 (2014), Informa UK Limited[DOI]
  22. Jill Harris, "The demographics of nuclear power: Comparing nuclear experts’, scientists’ and non-science professionals’ views of risks, benefits and values", Energy Research &amp; Social Science, 46, pp.29~39 (2018), Elsevier BV[DOI]
  23. Paul Slovic, "Understanding Perceived Risk: 1978–2015", Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 58(1), pp.25~29 (2015), Informa UK Limited[DOI]
  24. Stanley Rothman, "Elite Ideology and Risk Perception in Nuclear Energy Policy", American Political Science Review, 81(2), pp.383~404 (1987), Cambridge University Press (CUP)[DOI]
  25. Judith I. M. De Groot, "Morality and Nuclear Energy: Perceptions of Risks and Benefits, Personal Norms, and Willingness to Take Action Related to Nuclear Energy", Risk Analysis, 30(9), pp.1363~1373 (2010), Wiley[DOI]
  26. Sadia Lena Alfee, "Assessment of public perception towards the radioactive waste management of Bangladesh", Progress in Nuclear Energy, 140, pp.103916~ (2021), Elsevier BV[DOI]
  27. A. S. Mollah, "Prospects of Nuclear Energy for Sustainable Energy Development in Bangladesh", International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Engineering, 5(0), pp.28~ (2015), Science and Engineering Publishing Company[DOI]
  28. S. N. Sadia, "Communal observation towards Rooppur nuclear power plant in Bangladesh", All Rights Reserved Journal of Electrical Energy Systems and Energy Conversion, 3, pp.1~13 (2018)
  29. Saikat Ahmed, "Public awareness and stakeholder involvement for Bangladesh's nuclear power plant", Energy Strategy Reviews, 32, pp.100564~ (2020), Elsevier BV[DOI]
  30. Britt-Marie Drottz-Sjöberg, "Risk perception and worries after the chernobyl accident", Journal of Environmental Psychology, 10(2), pp.135~149 (1990), Elsevier BV[DOI]
  31. Joseph B. Hughey, "Perceptions of Three Mile Island and Acceptance of a Nuclear Power Plant in a Distant Community", Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(10), pp.880~890 (1988), Wiley[DOI]
  32. Karen Bickerstaff, "Constructing Responsibilities for Risk: Negotiating Citizen — State Relationships", Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 40(6), pp.1312~1330 (2008), SAGE Publications[DOI]
  33. Nick F. Pidgeon, "Climate change or nuclear power—No thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain", Global Environmental Change, 18(1), pp.69~85 (2008), Elsevier BV[DOI]
  34. Shanyong Wang, "Public perceptions and acceptance of nuclear energy in China: The role of public knowledge, perceived benefit, perceived risk and public engagement", Energy Policy, 126, pp.352~360 (2019), Elsevier BV[DOI]
  35. Xuesong Guo, "Examining the influence of public participation on public acceptance of nuclear power plants: the case study of Qinshan NPP, China", Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 58(3), pp.322~332 (2020), Informa UK Limited[DOI]
  36. J. W. Kotrlik, "Organizational research: determining appropriate sample size in survey research appropriate sample size in survey research", Inf. Technol. Learn. Perform J, 19(1) (2001)
  37. Hosan Md Iqbal, "Assessment of public knowledge, perception, and acceptance of nuclear power in Bangladesh", Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 55(4), pp.1410~1419 (2023), 한국원자력학회[DOI]
  38. Md. Shafiqul Islam, "Knowledge, belief, and attitude of Bangladeshi youth toward the development of nuclear power", Nuclear Energy and Technology, 7(4), pp.271~283 (2021), Pensoft Publishers[DOI]
  39. E. Singer, "Reporting on Risk: How the Mass Media Portray Accidents, Diseases, Other Hazards" (1993), Russel Sage
  40. Jessica L. Durfee, "“Social Change” and “Status Quo” Framing Effects on Risk Perception", Science Communication, 27(4), pp.459~495 (2006), SAGE Publications[DOI]
  41. "Perceived Risk: Psychological Factors and Social Implications" (1981)[URL]
  42. Cham E. Dallas, "Medical Lessons Learned From Chernobyl Relative to Nuclear Detonations and Failed Nuclear Reactors", Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 6(4), pp.330~334 (2012), Cambridge University Press (CUP)[DOI]
  43. Dongyang Deng, "Radioactive waste: A review", Water Environment Research, 92(10), pp.1818~1825 (2020), Wiley[DOI]
  44. James N. Druckman, "The implications of framing effects for citizen competence", Political Behavior, 23(3), pp.225~256 (2001), Springer Science and Business Media LLC[DOI]
  45. Shahzad Alvi, "How does one motivate climate mitigation? Examining energy conservation, climate change, and personal perceptions in Bangladesh and Pakistan", Energy Research &amp; Social Science, 70, pp.101645~ (2020), Elsevier BV[DOI]

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (39건)

Definition and calculation method of modal effective mass of asymmetric fluid-structure interaction system for seismic analysis추연석, 김경호, 허용화, 선종오pp. 4307-4316Experimental verification and improvement of heat transfer tube local wall temperature measurement methodLiu Jiabao, Cao Xiaxin, Yang Peixunpp. 4317-4328Design, construction, and characterization of a Prompt Gamma Neutron Activation Analysis (PGNAA) system at Isfahan MNSRMokhtari J., Choopan Dastjerdi M.H., Toghyani M.pp. 4329-4334Design and transient analysis of a compact and long-term-operable passive residual heat removal system유용환, 강경준, 정용훈, 박우성pp. 4335-4349Non-iterative pulse tail extrapolation algorithms for correcting nuclear pulse pile-upMohammad-Reza Mohammadian-Behbahanipp. 4350-4356
원문 보기