IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v122y2018icp169-175.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Out of sight, out of mind? Investigating the longitudinal impact of the Fukushima nuclear accident on public opinion in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Soni, Anmol

Abstract

Public opinion on nuclear accidents has important implications regarding energy planning and policy making. However, the long-term impacts of these event on citizens’ opinions is unclear. This question assumes relevance especially in the context of rising citizen involvement in development and decision making. This study compiles and examines seven years of public opinion survey data to investigate whether there was a long-term change in support for nuclear energy in the US following the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan. The analysis uses a logistic regression model to estimate the long-term trends in opinion on nuclear power among the US public and its major drivers. Results show that public support for nuclear energy has not rebounded to its pre-accident levels. While it isn’t clear whether the accident in Fukushima was the only driving factor, there has been a gradual decline in support following the incident, suggesting that short-term negative changes in public support for nuclear power have long-term consequences for energy policy. These findings have implications for policymakers since short-term impacts can be mitigated but long-term opposition is more difficult to address, especially in the context of developing countries that are investing in nuclear energy to meet growing demand.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:122:y:2018:i:c:p:169-175
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.07.024
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518304713
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.07.024?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. Robert Brulle & Jason Carmichael & J. Jenkins, 2012. "Shifting public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002–2010," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(2), pages 169-188, September.
    2. 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.
    3. Latré, Edwin & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter, 2017. "Public opinion change after the Fukushima nuclear accident: The role of national context revisited," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 124-133.
    4. Frantál, Bohumil & Malý, Jiří, 2017. "Close or renew? Factors affecting local community support for rebuilding nuclear power plants in the Czech Republic," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 134-143.
    5. 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.
    6. John Durant, 1999. "Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(5), pages 313-319, October.
    7. Dimitropoulos, Alexandros & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2009. "Assessing the determinants of local acceptability of wind-farm investment: A choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1842-1854, May.
    8. Komiyama, Ryoichi & Fujii, Yasumasa, 2017. "Assessment of post-Fukushima renewable energy policy in Japan's nation-wide power grid," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 594-611.
    9. Boudet, Hilary & Clarke, Christopher & Bugden, Dylan & Maibach, Edward & Roser-Renouf, Connie & Leiserowitz, Anthony, 2014. "“Fracking” controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 57-67.
    10. 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.
    11. Greenberg, Michael, 2009. "Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: Analysis of US national and site-specific data," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 3242-3249, August.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Siegrist, Michael & Visschers, Vivianne H.M., 2013. "Acceptance of nuclear power: The Fukushima effect," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 112-119.
    15. 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.
    16. Vivoda, Vlado, 2012. "Japan’s energy security predicament post-Fukushima," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 135-143.
    17. Bird, Deanne K. & Haynes, Katharine & van den Honert, Rob & McAneney, John & Poortinga, Wouter, 2014. "Nuclear power in Australia: A comparative analysis of public opinion regarding climate change and the Fukushima disaster," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 644-653.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    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. Guo, Jian-Xin & Zhu, Kaiwei & Tan, Xianchun & Gu, Baihe, 2021. "Low-carbon technology development under multiple adoption risks," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    2. David Gattie & Michael Hewitt, 2023. "National Security as a Value-Added Proposition for Advanced Nuclear Reactors: A U.S. Focus," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-26, August.
    3. Behling, Noriko & Williams, Mark C. & Behling, Thomas G. & Managi, Shunsuke, 2019. "Aftermath of Fukushima: Avoiding another major nuclear disaster," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 411-420.
    4. Florentina Paraschiv & Dima Mohamad, 2020. "The Nuclear Power Dilemma—Between Perception and Reality," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-19, November.
    5. 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.

    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. 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).
    2. Gupta, Kuhika & Nowlin, Matthew C. & Ripberger, Joseph T. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L., 2019. "Tracking the nuclear ‘mood’ in the United States: Introducing a long term measure of public opinion about nuclear energy using aggregate survey data," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    3. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    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. 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).
    10. Lee, You-Kyung, 2020. "Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: From the users’ perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    11. Latré, Edwin & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter, 2017. "Public opinion change after the Fukushima nuclear accident: The role of national context revisited," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 124-133.
    12. 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).
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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).
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Lam, J. & Cheung, L. & Han, Y. & Wang, S., 2018. "China’s Response to Nuclear Safety Post-Fukushima: Genuine or Rhetoric?," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1866, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.

    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:122:y:2018:i:c:p:169-175. 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.