Changes in the Factors Influencing Public Acceptance of Nuclear Power Generation in Japan Since the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster

Public support for nuclear power generation has decreased in Japan since the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident in March 2011. This study examines how the factors influencing public acceptance of nuclear power changed after this event. The influence factors examined are perceived benefit, perceived risk, trust in the managing bodies, and pro‐environmental orientation (i.e., new ecological paradigm). This study is based on cross‐sectional data collected from two online nationwide surveys: one conducted in November 2009, before the nuclear accident, and the other in October 2011, after the accident. This study's target respondents were residents of Aomori, Miyagi, and Fukushima prefectures in the Tohoku region of Japan, as these areas were the epicenters of the Great East Japan Earthquake and the locations of nuclear power stations. After the accident, trust in the managing bodies was found to have a stronger influence on perceived risk, and pro‐environmental orientation was found to have a stronger influence on trust in the managing bodies; however, perceived benefit had a weaker positive influence on public acceptance. We also discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings.     

Risk Perception Among Nuclear Power Plant Personnel: A Survey

This study investigated risk perception, well-being, and organizational commitment among nuclear power plant personnel. The study group, 428 employees from a nuclear power plant, completed a questionnaire which included the same questions as those in previous surveys on risk perception of lay persons and industrial workers. Hazards at work were not seen as a sizable problem by nuclear power plant personnel. The study group estimated the safety of nuclear power plants better and the possibility of a serious nuclear accident as more unlikely than the general public. Compared to employees in other industrial companies, the overall perceived risks at work among plant personnel did not exceed the respective perceptions of the reference groups. Risk-related attitudes did not explain well-being among plant personnel, but the relationship between the perceived probability of a serious nuclear accident at work and organizational commitment yielded to a significant correlation: Those plant workers who estimated the likelihood of an accident higher were less committed to the organization.     

How a Nuclear Power Plant Accident Influences Acceptance of Nuclear Power: Results of a Longitudinal Study Before and After the Fukushima Disaster

Major nuclear accidents, such as the recent accident in Fukushima, Japan, have been shown to decrease the public's acceptance of nuclear power. However, little is known about how a serious accident affects people's acceptance of nuclear power and the determinants of acceptance. We conducted a longitudinal study (N= 790) in Switzerland: one survey was done five months before and one directly after the accident in Fukushima. We assessed acceptance, perceived risks, perceived benefits, and trust related to nuclear power stations. In our model, we assumed that both benefit and risk perceptions determine acceptance of nuclear power. We further hypothesized that trust influences benefit and risk perceptions and that trust before a disaster relates to trust after a disaster. Results showed that the acceptance and perceptions of nuclear power as well as its trust were more negative after the accident. In our model, perceived benefits and risks determined the acceptance of nuclear power stations both before and after Fukushima. Trust had strong effects on perceived benefits and risks, at both times. People's trust before Fukushima strongly influenced their trust after the accident. In addition, perceived benefits before Fukushima correlated with perceived benefits after the accident. Thus, the nuclear accident did not seem to have changed the relations between the determinants of acceptance. Even after a severe accident, the public may still consider the benefits as relevant, and trust remains important for determining their risk and benefit perceptions. A discussion of the benefits of nuclear power seems most likely to affect the public's acceptance of nuclear power, even after a nuclear accident.     

Perceptions of Nuclear and Other Risks in Japan and the United States

As part of a study of nuclear power development in Japan and the United States, surveys of perceptions of risk toward 30 activities, substances, and technologies have been carried out in the Pacific Northwest and Tokyo, Japan. The results show that people in both countries have the highest level of dread toward nuclear waste disposal, nuclear accidents, and nuclear war, greater even than their dread of crime and AIDS. In addition to comparisons of dread, the paper also discusses similarities and differences between Japanese and American responses for other dimensions of risk perception.     

Attitudes as an Expression of Knowledge and “Political Anchoring”: The Case of Nuclear Power in the United Kingdom

Attitudes toward the use of nuclear energy pose fundamental issues in the political debate about how to meet future energy needs. Development of new nuclear power facilities faces significant opposition both from knowledgeable individuals who display an understanding of the risks attached to various forms of power generation and those who follow strict politically based ideological dogmas. This article employs data from a 2005 Eurobarometer survey of UK citizens to examine the influence of both political preferences and knowledge in explaining support of nuclear power. Findings reveal that attitudes about nuclear power are highly politically motivated while the influence of knowledge about radioactive waste is dependent upon beliefs about the consequences of nuclear energy use. Perceptions of being informed about radioactive waste and trust in sources providing information about radioactive waste management also predict attitudes toward nuclear power generation.     

Who Would Be Willing to Accept Disaster Debris in Their Backyard? Investigating the Determinants of Public Attitudes in Post‐Fukushima Japan

In the wake of the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami, the Ministry of Environment in Japan asked municipalities nationwide to accept and treat disaster waste. This call for cross‐jurisdictional waste treatment provoked considerable public controversy. To explore how the national and municipal governments can seek more public acceptance in the wake of future disasters, this study implemented a nationwide survey and addressed the question of what factors influence the public's willingness to support their municipalities’ plans to host disaster waste. Three strands of the literature—on risk perception, public dissent, and prosocial behavior—offer valuable insights into hypothesis building, although none has addressed the above question. Estimates from an ordered logistic regression (N = 1,063) reveal that the conditions of a nuclear accident and living with a small child in the household would lower the level of support for accepting disaster waste, although this does not mean that people would give their support in the absence of a nuclear accident. The results also suggest that the national and municipal governments should communicate more with the public about the risks, benefits, and costs associated with hosting disaster debris, and make efforts to improve public trust in the national government.     

The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception

Since the turn of the 21st century, there has been a revival of interest in nuclear power. Two decades ago, the expansion of nuclear power in the United States was halted by widespread public opposition as well as rising costs and less than projected increases in demand for electricity. Can the renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power overcome its history of public resistance that has persisted for decades? We propose that attitudes toward nuclear power are a function of perceived risk, and that both attitudes and risk perceptions are a function of values, beliefs, and trust in the institutions that influence nuclear policy. Applying structural equation models to data from a U.S. national survey, we find that increased trust in the nuclear governance institutions reduces perceived risk of nuclear power and together higher trust and lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power. Trust in environmental institutions and perceived risks from global environmental problems do not predict attitudes toward nuclear power. Values do predict attitudes: individuals with traditional values have greater support for, while those with altruistic values have greater opposition to, nuclear power. Nuclear attitudes do not vary by gender, age, education, income, or political orientation, though nonwhites are more supportive than whites. These findings are consistent with, and provide an explanation for, a long series of public opinion polls showing public ambivalence toward nuclear power that persists even in the face of renewed interest for nuclear power in policy circles.     

Information Sources as Explanatory Variables for the Belgian Health‐Related Risk Perception of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident

The media play an important role in risk communication, providing information about accidents, both nearby and far away. Each media source has its own presentation style, which could influence how the audience perceives the presented risk. This study investigates the explanatory power of 12 information sources (traditional media, new media, social media, and interpersonal communication) for the perceived risk posed by radiation released from the damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant on respondents’ own health and that of the population in general. The analysis controlled for attitude toward nuclear energy, gender, education, satisfaction with the media coverage, and duration of attention paid to the coverage. The study uses a large empirical data set from a public opinion survey, which is representative for the Belgian population with respect to six sociodemographic variables. Results show that three information sources are significant regressors of perceived health‐related risk of the nuclear accident: television, interpersonal communication, and the category of miscellaneous online sources. More favorable attitudes toward nuclear power, longer attention to the coverage, and higher satisfaction with the provided information lead to lower risk perception. Taken together, the results suggest that the media can indeed have a modest influence on how the audience perceives a risk.     

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

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.     

What Risks Are Chinese People Concerned About?

The aim of this study is to investigate public perceived risk on various issues in present-day China. Two surveys were conducted in urban China in 1996 and 1998. In the first survey, risk perceptions of different occupational groups are compared. Gender differences within each occupational group are also analyzed. In the second survey, participants with diverse employment status were recruited. The overall risk rankings of both surveys indicate great concern with risks that threaten national stability and economic development, and less concern with high-technology risk such as threat from a nuclear power plant. It is also found that employees from high-profit firms are more concerned about macroscopic catastrophic risks, whereas laid-off workers and employees from money-losing enterprises are more concerned about daily life or self-concerned risks. The importance of actual exposure to risk, mass media coverage, culture, and psychometric dimensions are discussed.     

“What—Me Worry?”1“Why So Serious?”:2 A Personal View on the Fukushima Nuclear Reactor Accidents

Infrequently, it seems that a significant accident precursor or, worse, an actual accident, involving a commercial nuclear power reactor occurs to remind us of the need to reexamine the safety of this important electrical power technology from a risk perspective. Twenty‐five years since the major core damage accident at Chernobyl in the Ukraine, the Fukushima reactor complex in Japan experienced multiple core damages as a result of an earthquake‐induced tsunami beyond either the earthquake or tsunami design basis for the site. Although the tsunami itself killed tens of thousands of people and left the area devastated and virtually uninhabitable, much concern still arose from the potential radioactive releases from the damaged reactors, even though there was little population left in the area to be affected. As a lifelong probabilistic safety analyst in nuclear engineering, even I must admit to a recurrence of the doubt regarding nuclear power safety after Fukushima that I had experienced after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. This article is my attempt to “recover” my personal perspective on acceptable risk by examining both the domestic and worldwide history of commercial nuclear power plant accidents and attempting to quantify the risk in terms of the frequency of core damage that one might glean from a review of operational history.     

Perceived Risks of Radioactive Waste Transport Through Oregon: Results of a Statewide Survey

Transportation of hazardous materials, and particularly radioactive wastes, on public highways has become an important risk management issue. The unfavorability of public attitudes regarding hazardous and nuclear wastes signals the potential for strong public opposition to programs for transporting these materials. This paper presents the results of a survey conducted to assess public reactions to a long-term nuclear waste transport program planned to follow a route through a portion of rural Oregon. The survey assessed a number of key risk perception issues, including perceived health and safety risks of nuclear waste transport, relative risks of transport vs. storage at an existing site, trust in state officials, and satisfaction with life in communities along the transport route. The survey identified a number of attitudes and concerns that need to be understood and considered by those in charge of designing and implementing the waste-transportation program.     

Energy Choices and Risk Beliefs: Is It Just Global Warming and Fear of a Nuclear Power Plant Accident?

A survey of 3,200 U.S. residents focused on two issues associated with the use of nuclear and coal fuels to produce electrical energy. The first was the association between risk beliefs and preferences for coal and nuclear energy. As expected, concern about nuclear power plant accidents led to decreased support for nuclear power, and those who believed that coal causes global warming preferred less coal use. Yet other risk beliefs about the coal and nuclear energy fuel cycles were stronger or equal correlates of public preferences. The second issue is the existence of what we call acknowledged risk takers, respondents who favored increased reliance on nuclear energy, although also noting that there could be a serious nuclear plant accident, and those who favored greater coal use, despite acknowledging a link to global warming. The pro‐nuclear group disproportionately was affluent educated white males, and the pro‐coal group was relatively poor less educated African‐American and Latino females. Yet both shared four similarities: older age, trust in management, belief that the energy facilities help the local economy, and individualistic personal values. These findings show that there is no single public with regard to energy preferences and risk beliefs. Rather, there are multiple populations with different viewpoints that surely would benefit by hearing a clear and comprehensive national energy life cycle policy from the national government.     

Effects of the Chernobyl Accident on Public Perceptions of Nuclear Plant Accident Risks

Assessments of public perceptions of the characteristics of a nuclear power plant accident and affective responses to its likelihood were conducted 5 months before and 1 month after the Chernobyl accident. Analyses of data from 69 residents of southwestern Washington showed significant test-retest correlations for only 10 of 18 variables--accident likelihood, three measures of impact characteristics, three measures of affective reactions, and hazard knowledge by governmental sources. Of these variables, only two had significant changes in mean ratings; frequency of thought and frequency of discussion about a nearby nuclear power plant both increased. While there were significant changes only for two personal consequences (expectations of cancer and genetic effects), both of these decreased. The results of this study indicate that more attention should be given to assessing the stability of risk perceptions over time. Moreover, the data demonstrate that experience with a major accident can actually decrease rather than increase perceptions of threat.     

Intuitive Toxicology. II. Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks in Canada

This study is a replication and extension in Canada of a previous study in the United States in which toxicologists and members of the public were surveyed to determine their attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions regarding risks from chemicals. This study of "intuitive vs. scientific toxicology" was motivated by the premise that different assumptions, conceptions, and values underlie much of the discrepancy between expert and lay views of chemical risks. The results showed that Canadian toxicologists had far lower perceptions of risk and more favorable attitudes toward chemicals than did the Canadian public. The public's attitudes were quite negative and showed the same lack of dose-response sensitivity found in the earlier U.S. study. Both the public and the toxicologists lacked confidence in the value of animal studies for predicting human health risks. However, the public had great confidence in the validity of animal studies that found evidence of carcinogenicity, whereas such evidence was not considered highly predictive of human health risk by many toxicologists. Technical judgments of toxicologists were found to be associated with factors such as affiliation, gender, and worldviews. Implications of these data for risk communication are briefly discussed.     

Insights into the Societal Risk of Nuclear Power Plant Accidents

The elements of societal risk from a nuclear power plant accident are clearly illustrated by the Fukushima accident: land contamination, long‐term relocation of large numbers of people, loss of productive farm area, loss of industrial production, and significant loss of electric capacity. NUREG‐1150 and other studies have provided compelling evidence that the individual health risk of nuclear power plant accidents is effectively negligible relative to other comparable risks, even for people living in close proximity to a plant. The objective of this study is to compare the societal risk of nuclear power plant accidents to that of other events to which the public is exposed. We have characterized the monetized societal risk in the United States from major societally disruptive events, such as hurricanes, in the form of a complementary cumulative distribution function. These risks are compared with nuclear power plant risks, based on NUREG‐1150 analyses and new MACCS code calculations to account for differences in source terms determined in the more recent SOARCA study. A candidate quantitative societal objective is discussed for potential adoption by the NRC. The results are also interpreted with regard to the acceptability of nuclear power as a major source of future energy supply.     

Chernobyl's Effects on the Perceived Risks of Nuclear Power: A Small Sample Test

This paper presents the results of two risk perception surveys, one taken just before and one just after the accident at Chernobyl in May, 1985. The results show that Chernobyl affected short-term perceptions of nuclear power risks in ways that are predictable and measureable. In this sample, perceived levels of dread of nuclear power increased, perceived knowledge increased, and perceived severity decreased. Overall, the results are informative about how a single event could affect perceived risk characteristics.     

Perceived Risks from Radiation and Nuclear Testing Near Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: A Comparison Between Physicians, Scientists, and the Public

Determining the difference in perception of risk between experts, or more educated professionals, and laypeople is important so that a potential hazard can be effectively communicated to the public. Many surveys have been conducted to better understand the difference between expert and public opinions, and often laypeople exhibit higher perceptions of risk to hazards in comparison to experts. This is especially true when health risk is due to radiation, nuclear power, and nuclear waste. This article focuses on one section of a risk perception survey given to two groups of individuals with a more specialized education (scientists and physicians) and laypeople (villagers) in the Semipalatinsk region of Kazakhstan. All of these groups live near the former Soviet nuclear test site. Originally, it was expected that the scientists and physicians would have similar perceptions of radiation risk, while the public perceptions would be higher, but this was not always the case. For example, when perceptions of risk pertain to the health impacts of nuclear testing or the dose-response nature of radiation exposure, the physicians tend to agree with the laypeople, not the scientists. The villagers are always the most risk-averse group, followed by the physicians and then the scientists. These differences are likely due to different frames of reference for each of the populations.     

Judgments of Chemical Risks: Comparisons Among Senior Managers, Toxicologists, and the Public

Nineteen Senior Managers of a major chemical company in the United Kingdom participated in a survey to determine their attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions regarding risks from chemicals. Similar surveys had previously been conducted with toxicologists and members of the general public in the United States and Canada. In general, the Senior Managers tended to judge risks to be quite small for most chemicals. Moreover, they had lower risk perceptions than did members of the British Toxicological Society and even far lower perceptions of risk than a comparison group of members of the Canadian public. The managers held views that were similar to British toxicologists working in industry and government and dissimilar to the views of toxicologists working in academia. The observed differences between views of managers, toxicologists, and the public must be recognized and understood in order to facilitate communication and constructive efforts to manage chemical risks.     

On-Site Storage of High Level Nuclear Waste: Attitudes and Perceptions of Local Residents

No public policy issue has been as difficult as high-level nuclear waste. Debates continue regarding Yucca Mountain as a disposal site, and—more generally—the appropriateness of geologic disposal and the need to act quickly. Previous research has focused on possible social, political, and economic consequences of a facility in Nevada. Impacts have been predicted to be potentially large and to emanate mainly from stigmatization of the region due to increased perceptions of risk. Analogous impacts from leaving waste at power plants have been either ignored or assumed to be negligible. This paper presents survey results on attitudes of residents in three counties where nuclear waste is currently stored. Topics include perceived risk, knowledge of nuclear waste and radiation, and impacts on jobs, tourism, and housing values from leaving waste on site. Results are similar to what has been reported for Nevada; the public is concerned about possible adverse effects from on-site storage of waste.