IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i18p11352-d910974.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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 Energy Transition

Author

Listed:
  • Yoonjung Oh

    (Research Center for Energy Transformation Policy, Social Science Research Institute, Ajou University, Suwon 16499, Korea)

  • Seoyong Kim

    (Department of Public Administration, Ajou University, Suwon 16499, Korea)

  • Sohee Kim

    (Research Center for Energy Transformation Policy, Social Science Research Institute, Ajou University, Suwon 16499, Korea)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to compare and analyze the factors influencing the public’s attitude toward policy support and intention to pay for energy transition from nuclear to renewable energy. We focus on inconsistency issues between attitude and intention. To this end, we set the attitude toward policy support and behavioral intention to pay as dependent variables, and value factors (i.e., ideology, political support for the current Moon Jae-in government, environmentalism, and science-technology optimism) and perception factors (i.e., perceived risk, benefit, knowledge, and trust) as the independent variables. Based on a survey, the analysis showed that at the variable level, the perceived benefits and trust in renewable energy and perceived risks and benefits in nuclear energy influenced the attitude toward policy support and the intention to pay for energy transition. Second, when evaluating the explanatory power of independent variables, the attitude toward the energy transition was affected in the following order: (1) perceived benefit in nuclear power (β = 0.259) > (2) perceived benefit in renewable energy (β = −0.219) > (3) perceived risk in nuclear energy (β = 0.202) > (4) Moon Jae-in government support (β = 0.146). On the other hand, behavioral intention to pay for energy transition was influenced in the following order: (1) trust in renewable energy (β = 0.252) > (2) Moon Jae-in government support (β = 0.154) > (3) perceived risk in nuclear energy (β = 0.139) > (4) perceived benefit in renewable energy (β = 0.099). Third, variables such as environmentalism, perceived benefit/risk/trust in renewable energy, and perceived benefit/risk in nuclear energy affected inconsistency between attitude toward policy support and intention to pay for energy transition.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:18:p:11352-:d:910974
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/18/11352/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/18/11352/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Li, Zhengtao & Hu, Bin, 2018. "Perceived health risk, environmental knowledge, and contingent valuation for improving air quality: New evidence from the Jinchuan mining area in China," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 54-68.
    2. Sunhee Kim & Seoyong Kim, 2018. "Exploring the Determinants of Perceived Risk of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, June.
    3. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    4. Sahu, Aditya Kumar & Padhy, R.K. & Dhir, Amandeep, 2020. "Envisioning the future of behavioral decision-making: A systematic literature review of behavioral reasoning theory," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 145-159.
    5. 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.
    6. László Berényi & Zoltán Birkner & Nikolett Deutsch, 2020. "A Multidimensional Evaluation of Renewable and Nuclear Energy among Higher Education Students," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-22, February.
    7. Jaesun Wang & Seoyong Kim, 2021. "The Paradox of Conspiracy Theory: The Positive Impact of Beliefs in Conspiracy Theories on Preventive Actions and Vaccination Intentions during the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-27, November.
    8. Park, Eunil & Ohm, Jay Y., 2014. "Factors influencing the public intention to use renewable energy technologies in South Korea: Effects of the Fukushima nuclear accident," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 198-211.
    9. Jaesun Wang & Seoyong Kim, 2019. "Searching for New Directions for Energy Policy: Testing the Cross-Effect of Risk Perception and Cyberspace Factors on Online/Offline Opposition to Nuclear Energy in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-26, March.
    10. Geunsik Kim & Seoyong Kim & Eunjung Hwang, 2021. "Searching for Evidence-Based Public Policy and Practice: Analysis of the Determinants of Personal/Public Adaptation and Mitigation Behavior against Particulate Matter by Focusing on the Roles of Risk ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-22, January.
    11. Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2020. "Searching for New Directions for Energy Policy: Testing Three Causal Models of Risk Perception, Attitude, and Behavior in Nuclear Energy Context," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-17, October.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Chung, Ji-Bum & Kim, Eun-Sung, 2018. "Public perception of energy transition in Korea: Nuclear power, climate change, and party preference," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 137-144.
    16. Sunhee Kim & Seoyong Kim, 2021. "Who Is Suffering from the “Corona Blues”? An Analysis of the Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Depression and Its Implications for Health Policy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-21, November.
    17. He, Ke & Ye, Lihong & Li, Fanlue & Chang, Huayi & Wang, Anbang & Luo, Sixuan & Zhang, Junbiao, 2022. "Using cognition and risk to explain the intention-behavior gap on bioenergy production: Based on machine learning logistic regression method," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    18. Jaesun Wang & Seoyong Kim, 2018. "Comparative Analysis of Public Attitudes toward Nuclear Power Energy across 27 European Countries by Applying the Multilevel Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.
    19. Sunhee Kim & Seoyong Kim, 2020. "Analysis of the Impact of Health Beliefs and Resource Factors on Preventive Behaviors against the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-21, November.
    20. Judith I. M. De Groot & Linda Steg, 2010. "Morality and Nuclear Energy: Perceptions of Risks and Benefits, Personal Norms, and Willingness to Take Action Related to Nuclear Energy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(9), pages 1363-1373, September.
    21. Pat Auger & Timothy Devinney, 2007. "Do What Consumers Say Matter? The Misalignment of Preferences with Unconstrained Ethical Intentions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 76(4), pages 361-383, December.
    22. Ming-Hsun Cheng & Minliang Yang & Yu Wang, 2016. "American’s Energy Future: An Analysis of the Proposed Energy Policy Plans in Presidential Election," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-17, November.
    23. 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.
    24. Mozumder, Pallab & Vásquez, William F. & Marathe, Achla, 2011. "Consumers' preference for renewable energy in the southwest USA," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1119-1126.
    25. Carlisle, Juliet E. & Kane, Stephanie L. & Solan, David & Bowman, Madelaine & Joe, Jeffrey C., 2015. "Public attitudes regarding large-scale solar energy development in the U.S," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 835-847.
    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. Ting Guan & Qian Zhang, 2023. "Value Orientations, Personal Norms, and Public Attitude toward SDGs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-19, February.

    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. Gupta, Kuhika & Ripberger, Joseph T. & Fox, Andrew S. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L., 2021. "The future of nuclear energy in India: Evidence from a nationwide survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    2. Lee, You-Kyung, 2020. "Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: From the users’ perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    3. Geunsik Kim & Seoyong Kim & Eunjung Hwang, 2021. "Searching for Evidence-Based Public Policy and Practice: Analysis of the Determinants of Personal/Public Adaptation and Mitigation Behavior against Particulate Matter by Focusing on the Roles of Risk ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-22, January.
    4. Sunhee Kim & Seoyong Kim, 2020. "Analysis of the Impact of Health Beliefs and Resource Factors on Preventive Behaviors against the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-21, November.
    5. 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.
    6. Seungkook Roh & Hae-Gyung Geong, 2021. "Extending the Coverage of the Trust–Acceptability Model: The Negative Effect of Trust in Government on Nuclear Power Acceptance in South Korea under a Nuclear Phase-Out Policy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-19, June.
    7. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2020. "Searching for General Model of Conspiracy Theories and Its Implication for Public Health Policy: Analysis of the Impacts of Political, Psychological, Structural Factors on Conspiracy Beliefs about the," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-28, December.
    8. Seoyong Kim & Seol A. Kwon & Jae Eun Lee & Byeong-Cheol Ahn & Ju Ho Lee & Chen An & Keiko Kitagawa & Dohyeong Kim & Jaesun Wang, 2020. "Analyzing the Role of Resource Factors in Citizens’ Intention to Pay for and Participate in Disaster Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-25, April.
    9. Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2020. "Searching for New Directions for Energy Policy: Testing Three Causal Models of Risk Perception, Attitude, and Behavior in Nuclear Energy Context," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-17, October.
    10. Agnieszka Janik & Adam Ryszko & Marek Szafraniec, 2021. "Determinants of the EU Citizens’ Attitudes towards the European Energy Union Priorities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-32, August.
    11. Qingchang Li & Seungkook Roh & Jin Won Lee, 2020. "Segmenting the South Korean Public According to Their Preferred Direction for Electricity Mix Reform," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-17, October.
    12. Pawel Robert Smolinski & Joseph Januszewicz & Barbara Pawlowska & Jacek Winiarski, 2023. "Nuclear Energy Acceptance in Poland: From Societal Attitudes to Effective Policy Strategies -- Network Modeling Approach," Papers 2309.14869, arXiv.org.
    13. Bohdanowicz, Zbigniew & Łopaciuk-Gonczaryk, Beata & Gajda, Paweł & Rajewski, Adam, 2023. "Support for nuclear power and proenvironmental attitudes: The cases of Germany and Poland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    14. Reeko Watanabe & Tsunemi Watanabe & Kyohei Wakui, 2021. "Acceptance of Main Power Generation Sources among Japan’s Undergraduate Students: The Roles of Knowledge, Experience, Trust, and Perceived Risk and Benefit," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1, November.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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).
    20. 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.

    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:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:18:p:11352-:d:910974. 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.