IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i9p2464-d543560.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nuclear Power Risk Perception in Serbia: Fear of Exposure to Radiation vs. Social Benefits

Author

Listed:
  • Vladimir M. Cvetković

    (Faculty of Security Studies, University of Belgrade, 11040 Belgrade, Serbia)

  • Adem Öcal

    (Independent Researcher, Ankara 06500, Turkey)

  • Yuliya Lyamzina

    (Louis Pasteur Center for Medical Research, Kyoto 606-8225, Japan)

  • Eric K. Noji

    (College of Medicine, King Saud University Hospitals, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia)

  • Neda Nikolić

    (Faculty of Tehnical Science in Čačak, University of Kragujevac, 32000 Čačak, Serbia)

  • Goran Milošević

    (Faculty of Law, University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovića 1, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia)

Abstract

Nuclear power remains one of the most accessible choices in addressing environmental and social concerns due to the continuously increasing energy needs around the world. While it remains an excellent source of energy due to its low price and low level of emissions, potential accidents remain a serious problem. An example of such is the most recent accident in the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (2011), which reminded the world of the potential risks of nuclear energy and the consequences of which continue to have a lasting effect. There is no nuclear power plant in Serbia, but there are about 15 nuclear power stations scattered within its neighboring countries. Therefore, the Serbian Government decided to study how the Serbian public perceives the risks related to the potential construction of nuclear power stations in the country, nuclear energy in general, and its possible benefits and risks. The objective of this paper is to present the results of this assessment along with a literature overview on the (environmental) risk of nuclear power. A pilot study consisted of a series of 270 randomized face-to-face interviews that took place in the public square of Belgrade in March 2019. Logistic regression was used to examine the cumulative effects of the different risk factors. The results showed that the majority of the respondents are skeptical and do not support the construction of nuclear power stations in Serbia. Furthermore, this research identified several additional important correlations that have a significant impact on the public perception of risk.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:9:p:2464-:d:543560
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/9/2464/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/9/2464/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Sun, Chuanwang & Zhu, Xiting & Meng, Xiaochun, 2016. "Post-Fukushima public acceptance on resuming the nuclear power program in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 685-694.
    3. Edwards, Joel & Othman, Maazuza & Burn, Stewart, 2015. "A review of policy drivers and barriers for the use of anaerobic digestion in Europe, the United States and Australia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 815-828.
    4. Sjã–Berg, Lennart, 2003. "Risk perception, emotion and policy: the case of nuclear technology," European Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 109-128, February.
    5. Kessides, Ioannis N., 2012. "The future of the nuclear industry reconsidered: Risks, uncertainties, and continued promise," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 185-208.
    6. Lynn J. Frewer & Joachim Scholderer & Lone Bredahl, 2003. "Communicating about the Risks and Benefits of Genetically Modified Foods: The Mediating Role of Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1117-1133, December.
    7. Stephen C. Whitfield & Eugene A. Rosa & Amy Dan & Thomas Dietz, 2009. "The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 425-437, March.
    8. Goodfellow, Martin J. & Williams, Hugo R. & Azapagic, Adisa, 2011. "Nuclear renaissance, public perception and design criteria: An exploratory review," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 6199-6210, October.
    9. Adamantiades, A. & Kessides, I., 2009. "Nuclear power for sustainable development: Current status and future prospects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5149-5166, December.
    10. Huang, Lei & He, Ruoying & Yang, Qianqi & Chen, Jin & Zhou, Ying & Hammitt, James K. & Lu, Xi & Bi, Jun & Liu, Yang, 2018. "The changing risk perception towards nuclear power in China after the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 294-301.
    11. Richards, Garrett & Noble, Bram & Belcher, Ken, 2012. "Barriers to renewable energy development: A case study of large-scale wind energy in Saskatchewan, Canada," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 691-698.
    12. Rothman, Stanley & Lichter, S. Robert, 1987. "Elite Ideology and Risk Perception in Nuclear Energy Policy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(2), pages 383-404, June.
    13. Mulder, Karel, 2012. "The dynamics of public opinion on nuclear power. Interpreting an experiment in the Netherlands," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(8), pages 1513-1524.
    14. Jun, Eunju & Joon Kim, Won & Hoon Jeong, Yong & Heung Chang, Soon, 2010. "Measuring the social value of nuclear energy using contingent valuation methodology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 1470-1476, March.
    15. Jewell, Jessica, 2011. "Ready for nuclear energy?: An assessment of capacities and motivations for launching new national nuclear power programs," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 1041-1055, March.
    16. Abolhosseini, Shahrouz & Heshmati, Almas, 2014. "The main support mechanisms to finance renewable energy development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 876-885.
    17. Joan Costa‐Font & Caroline Rudisill & Elias Mossialos, 2008. "Attitudes as an Expression of Knowledge and “Political Anchoring”: The Case of Nuclear Power in the United Kingdom," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1273-1288, October.
    18. 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.
    19. Mah, Daphne Ngar-yin & Hills, Peter & Tao, Julia, 2014. "Risk perception, trust and public engagement in nuclear decision-making in Hong Kong," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 368-390.
    20. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich, 2000. "Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 713-720, October.
    21. 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.
    22. Geoff Brumfiel, 2013. "Fukushima: Fallout of fear," Nature, Nature, vol. 493(7432), pages 290-293, January.
    23. 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.
    24. 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.
    25. Hayashi, Masatsugu & Hughes, Larry, 2013. "The Fukushima nuclear accident and its effect on global energy security," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 102-111.
    26. Michael Siegrist, 2000. "The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 195-204, April.
    27. Zhu, Weiwei & Wei, Jiuchang & Zhao, Dingtao, 2016. "Anti-nuclear behavioral intentions: The role of perceived knowledge, information processing, and risk perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 168-177.
    28. Hong, Sanghyun & Bradshaw, Corey J.A. & Brook, Barry W., 2014. "Nuclear power can reduce emissions and maintain a strong economy: Rating Australia’s optimal future electricity-generation mix by technologies and policies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 712-725.
    29. 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.
    30. Guizhen He & Arthur P.J. Mol & Lei Zhang & Yonglong Lu, 2014. "Nuclear power in China after Fukushima: understanding public knowledge, attitudes, and trust," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 435-451, April.
    31. 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.
    32. 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.
    33. 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.
    34. 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.
    35. Hanan Naser, 2014. "Oil Market, Nuclear Energy Consumption and Economic Growth: Evidence from Emerging Economies," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 4(2), pages 288-296.
    36. Mark Grinblatt & Matti Keloharju, 2001. "How Distance, Language, and Culture Influence Stockholdings and Trades," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(3), pages 1053-1073, June.
    37. James Flynn & Paul Slovic & C. K. Mertz, 1993. "The Nevada Initiative: A Risk Communication Fiasco," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(5), pages 497-502, October.
    38. Ahearne, John F., 2011. "Prospects for nuclear energy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 572-580, July.
    39. 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.
    40. Sainati, Tristano & Locatelli, Giorgio & Smith, Nigel, 2019. "Project financing in nuclear new build, why not? The legal and regulatory barriers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 111-119.
    41. Hayashi, Masatsugu & Hughes, Larry, 2013. "The policy responses to the Fukushima nuclear accident and their effect on Japanese energy security," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 86-101.
    42. Mattias J. Viklund, 2003. "Trust and Risk Perception in Western Europe: A Cross‐National Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 727-738, August.
    43. Kessides, Ioannis N., 2012. "The future of the Nuclear industry reconsidered : risks, uncertainties, and continued potential," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6112, The World Bank.
    44. Oene Wiegman & Jan M. Gutteling & Bernard Cadet, 1995. "Perception of Nuclear Energy and Coal in France and the Netherlands," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 513-521, August.
    45. Naser, Hanan, 2015. "Analysing the long-run relationship among oil market, nuclear energy consumption, and economic growth: An evidence from emerging economies," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 421-434.
    46. Lennart Sjöberg & Britt‐Marie Drottz‐Sjöberg, 1991. "Knowledge and Risk Perception Among Nuclear Power Plant Employees," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 607-618, December.
    47. Sharma, Atul & Srivastava, Jaya & Kar, Sanjay Kumar & Kumar, Anil, 2012. "Wind energy status in India: A short review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 1157-1164.
    48. Nishikawa, Masashi & Kato, Takaaki & Homma, Toshimitsu & Takahara, Shogo, 2016. "Changes in risk perceptions before and after nuclear accidents: Evidence from Japan," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(P1), pages 11-19.
    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. Aleksandra Badora & Krzysztof Kud & Marian Woźniak, 2021. "Nuclear Energy Perception and Ecological Attitudes," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-18, July.

    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, 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).
    2. 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).
    3. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.
    4. 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).
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Jaeyoung Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2021. "Can Political Trust Weaken the Relationship between Perceived Environmental Threats and Perceived Nuclear Threats? Evidence from South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-13, September.
    11. 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).
    12. Huang, Lei & He, Ruoying & Yang, Qianqi & Chen, Jin & Zhou, Ying & Hammitt, James K. & Lu, Xi & Bi, Jun & Liu, Yang, 2018. "The changing risk perception towards nuclear power in China after the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 294-301.
    13. 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.
    14. JongRoul Woo & Sesil Lim & Yong-Gil Lee & Sung-Yoon Huh, 2018. "Financial Feasibility and Social Acceptance for Reducing Nuclear Power Plants: A Contingent Valuation Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, October.
    15. Leurent, Martin & Jasserand, Frédéric & Locatelli, Giorgio & Palm, Jenny & Rämä, Miika & Trianni, Andrea, 2017. "Driving forces and obstacles to nuclear cogeneration in Europe: Lessons learnt from Finland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 138-150.
    16. Qi, Wen-Hui & Qi, Ming-Liang & Ji, Ya-Min, 2020. "The effect path of public communication on public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    17. Dainius Genys & Ričardas Krikštolaitis, 2020. "Clusterization of public perception of nuclear energy in relation to changing political priorities," Post-Print hal-03271859, HAL.
    18. Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim & Youngcheoul Kang & Sohee Kim, 2022. "Searching for the New Behavioral Model in Energy Transition Age: Analyzing the Forward and Reverse Causal Relationships between Belief, Attitude, and Behavior in Nuclear Policy across Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-24, June.
    19. 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).
    20. 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.

    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:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:9:p:2464-:d:543560. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.