IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v148y2021ipas0301421520306558.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does the “NIMBY syndrome” undermine public support for nuclear power in Japan?

Author

Listed:
  • Uji, Azusa
  • Prakash, Aseem
  • Song, Jaehyun

Abstract

A key obstacle to nuclear energy as a decarbonization policy is the public perception of risks of radiation leaks from reactors. In particular, the “not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY)" syndrome suggests that individuals oppose nuclear reactors in their neighborhoods because they overestimate their risks. Arguably, such perceptions would be acute for those who have lived in the vicinity of a nuclear accident. We conducted a surveyembedded experiment in Japan (N = 2574) to assess how the NIMBY syndrome influences public support for restarting nuclear reactors when health, economic, and climate change benefits of nuclear energy are highlighted. We focus on Japan because the risks of nuclear energy became salient after the 2011 Fukushima accident. We test for two types of NIMBY effect, (1) respondents' proximity to any nuclear power plant and (2) respondents' place of residence in 2011 and its proximity to Fukushima. We do not find support for either the NIMBY syndrome or the Fukushima effect. On the contrary, we find support for a “reverse-NIMBY” among low-income residents, when they are treated with information on nuclear energy's low local air pollution (health). Our findings suggest that support for nuclear energy varies across population groups and depends on how its local benefits and costs are framed.

Suggested Citation

  • Uji, Azusa & Prakash, Aseem & Song, Jaehyun, 2021. "Does the “NIMBY syndrome” undermine public support for nuclear power in Japan?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 148(PA).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:148:y:2021:i:pa:s0301421520306558
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111944
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421520306558
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111944?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas Bernauer & Liam F. McGrath, 2016. "Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(7), pages 680-683, July.
    2. Clarke, Christopher E. & Bugden, Dylan & Hart, P. Sol & Stedman, Richard C. & Jacquet, Jeffrey B. & Evensen, Darrick T.N. & Boudet, Hilary S., 2016. "How geographic distance and political ideology interact to influence public perception of unconventional oil/natural gas development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 301-309.
    3. He, Guizhen & Mol, Arthur P.J. & Zhang, Lei & Lu, Yonglong, 2013. "Public participation and trust in nuclear power development in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 1-11.
    4. Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith & Carol L. Silva & Matthew C. Nowlin & Grant deLozier, 2011. "Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 629-644, April.
    5. Hankinson, Michael, 2018. "When Do Renters Behave Like Homeowners? High Rent, Price Anxiety, and NIMBYism," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 112(3), pages 473-493, August.
    6. Siegrist, Michael & Visschers, Vivianne H.M., 2013. "Acceptance of nuclear power: The Fukushima effect," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 112-119.
    7. Charles Warren & Carolyn Lumsden & Simone O'Dowd & Richard Birnie, 2005. "'Green On Green': Public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(6), pages 853-875.
    8. Hong, Sanghyun & Bradshaw, Corey J.A. & Brook, Barry W., 2013. "Evaluating options for the future energy mix of Japan after the Fukushima nuclear crisis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 418-424.
    9. Vujić, Jasmina & Antić, Dragoljub P. & Vukmirović, Zorka, 2012. "Environmental impact and cost analysis of coal versus nuclear power: The U.S. case," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 31-42.
    10. Wolsink, Maarten, 2000. "Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 49-64.
    11. Pinar Ertor Akyazi & Fikret Adaman & Begum Ozkaynak & Unal Zenginobuz, 2012. "Citizens’ Preferences over Nuclear and Renewable Energy Sources: Evidence from Turkey," Working Papers 2012/01, Bogazici University, Department of Economics.
    12. Poortinga, Wouter & Aoyagi, Midori & Pidgeon, Nick F., 2013. "Public perceptions of climate change and energy futures before and after the Fukushima accident: A comparison between Britain and Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1204-1211.
    13. Mitchell, Robert Cameron & Carson, Richard T, 1986. "Property Rights, Protest, and the Siting of Hazardous Waste Facilities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(2), pages 285-290, May.
    14. 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.
    15. Helm, Charles J. & Rothman, Stanley & Lichter, S. Robert, 1988. "Is Opposition to Nuclear Energy an Ideological Critique?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(3), pages 943-952, September.
    16. 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.
    17. Joshua D. Coval & Tobias J. Moskowitz, 1999. "Home Bias at Home: Local Equity Preference in Domestic Portfolios," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 54(6), pages 2045-2073, December.
    18. Kim, Younghwan & Kim, Minki & Kim, Wonjoon, 2013. "Effect of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on global public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 822-828.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    22. Bronfman, Nicolás C. & Jiménez, Raquel B. & Arévalo, Pilar C. & Cifuentes, Luis A., 2012. "Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 246-252.
    23. 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.
    24. Ahearne, John F., 2011. "Prospects for nuclear energy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 572-580, July.
    25. Judith I. M. de Groot & Linda Steg & Wouter Poortinga, 2013. "Values, Perceived Risks and Benefits, and Acceptability of Nuclear Energy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 307-317, February.
    26. Edson Severnini, 2017. "Impacts of nuclear plant shutdown on coal-fired power generation and infant health in the Tennessee Valley in the 1980s," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 2(4), pages 1-9, April.
    27. Ho, Daniel E. & Imai, Kosuke & King, Gary & Stuart, Elizabeth A., 2007. "Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 199-236, July.
    28. 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.
    29. Gravelle, Timothy B. & Lachapelle, Erick, 2015. "Politics, proximity and the pipeline: Mapping public attitudes toward Keystone XL," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 99-108.
    30. Mark J. Garmaise, 2004. "Confronting Information Asymmetries: Evidence from Real Estate Markets," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 17(2), pages 405-437.
    31. Michael R. Greenberg, 2009. "NIMBY, CLAMP, and the Location of New Nuclear‐Related Facilities: U.S. National and 11 Site‐Specific Surveys," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(9), pages 1242-1254, September.
    32. Wu, Yican, 2017. "Public acceptance of constructing coastal/inland nuclear power plants in post-Fukushima China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 484-491.
    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. Xiaojun Sun & Jing Tang & Shilong Li, 2022. "Promote Green Innovation in Manufacturing Enterprises in the Aspect of Government Subsidies in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-16, June.

    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. Vladimir M. Cvetković & Adem Öcal & Yuliya Lyamzina & Eric K. Noji & Neda Nikolić & Goran Milošević, 2021. "Nuclear Power Risk Perception in Serbia: Fear of Exposure to Radiation vs. Social Benefits," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, April.
    3. 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.
    4. Wang, Jing & Li, Yazhou & Wu, Jianlin & Gu, Jibao & Xu, Shuo, 2020. "Environmental beliefs and public acceptance of nuclear energy in China: A moderated mediation analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    5. Wang, Fan & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Perspective taking, energy policy involvement, and public acceptance of nuclear energy: Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    6. Xia, Dongqin & Li, Yazhou & He, Yanling & Zhang, Tingting & Wang, Yongliang & Gu, Jibao, 2019. "Exploring the role of cultural individualism and collectivism on public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 208-215.
    7. Soni, Anmol, 2018. "Out of sight, out of mind? Investigating the longitudinal impact of the Fukushima nuclear accident on public opinion in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 169-175.
    8. Lee, You-Kyung, 2020. "Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: From the users’ perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    9. Melikoglu, Mehmet, 2016. "The role of renewables and nuclear energy in Turkey׳s Vision 2023 energy targets: Economic and technical scrutiny," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1-12.
    10. Ediger, Volkan Ş. & Kirkil, Gokhan & Çelebi, Emre & Ucal, Meltem & Kentmen-Çin, Çiğdem, 2018. "Turkish public preferences for energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 492-502.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Seoyong Kim & Jae Eun Lee & Donggeun Kim, 2019. "Searching for the Next New Energy in Energy Transition: Comparing the Impacts of Economic Incentives on Local Acceptance of Fossil Fuels, Renewable, and Nuclear Energies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-32, April.
    14. Okubo, Toshihiro & Narita, Daiju & Rehdanz, Katrin & Schröder, Carsten, 2020. "Preferences for Nuclear Power in Post-Fukushima Japan: Evidence from a Large Nationwide Household Survey," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 13(11).
    15. 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.
    16. Chuanwang Sun & Nan Lyu & Xiaoling Ouyang, 2014. "Chinese Public Willingness to Pay to Avoid Having Nuclear Power Plants in the Neighborhood," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(10), pages 1-27, October.
    17. Sun, Chuanwang & Zhu, Xiting, 2014. "Evaluating the public perceptions of nuclear power in China: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 397-405.
    18. Zhou, Lingyi & Dai, Yixin, 2020. "Which is more effective in China? How communication tools influence public acceptance of nuclear power energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    19. 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.
    20. Ozcan, Mustafa, 2019. "Factors influencing the electricity generation preferences of Turkish citizens: Citizens' attitudes and policy recommendations in the context of climate change and environmental impact," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 381-393.

    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:eee:enepol:v:148:y:2021:i:pa:s0301421520306558. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    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.