IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v157y2021ics030142152100358x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who is willing to participate? Examining public participation intention concerning decommissioning of nuclear power plants in Belgium

Author

Listed:
  • Hoti, Ferdiana
  • Perko, Tanja
  • Thijssen, Peter
  • Renn, Ortwin

Abstract

Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) is now a pertinent energy-related matter since most of the nuclear reactors built during nuclear renaissance will soon reach the end of their operational life. Drawing on the theoretical framework based on elements of the Value-Belief-Norm theory, psychometric paradigm, deliberative theories of democracy and in the levels of participation as defined by Arnstein's ladder, this is the first large-scale study addressing the question of who is willing to participate in decommissioning-related decision-making procedures. Data for this study were collected via a large public opinion survey (N = 1028) in Belgium in 2015, and were analyzed using Structural Equations Modelling (SEM) as a method.

Suggested Citation

  • Hoti, Ferdiana & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter & Renn, Ortwin, 2021. "Who is willing to participate? Examining public participation intention concerning decommissioning of nuclear power plants in Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:157:y:2021:i:c:s030142152100358x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112488
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142152100358X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112488?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. Paul Slovic, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 675-682, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Richard Owen & Phil Macnaghten & Jack Stilgoe, 2012. "Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(6), pages 751-760, December.
    4. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    5. Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher & Timothy C. Earle, 2005. "Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 145-156, March.
    6. 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.
    7. Aurelio Tommasetti & Pierpaolo Singer & Orlando Troisi & Gennaro Maione, 2018. "Extended Theory of Planned Behavior (ETPB): Investigating Customers’ Perception of Restaurants’ Sustainability by Testing a Structural Equation Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-21, July.
    8. Sheppard, Blair H & Hartwick, Jon & Warshaw, Paul R, 1988. "The Theory of Reasoned Action: A Meta-analysis of Past Research with Recommendations for Modifications and Future Research," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(3), pages 325-343, December.
    9. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    10. Perlaviciute, G. & Steg, L., 2015. "The influence of values on evaluations of energy alternatives," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 259-267.
    11. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich & Claudia Roth, 2000. "Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 353-362, June.
    12. Yeonjae Ryu & Sunhee Kim & Seoyong Kim, 2018. "Does Trust Matter? Analyzing the Impact of Trust on the Perceived Risk and Acceptance of Nuclear Power Energy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-19, March.
    13. Benjamin A. Lyons & Heather Akin & Natalie Jomini Stroud, 2020. "Proximity (Mis)perception: Public Awareness of Nuclear, Refinery, and Fracking Sites," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 385-398, February.
    14. Tanja Perko & Baldwin van Gorp & Catrinel Turcanu & Peter Thijssen & Benny Carle, 2013. "Communication in Nuclear Emergency Preparedness: A Closer Look at Information Reception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 1987-2001, November.
    15. Neblo, Michael A. & Esterling, Kevin M. & Kennedy, Ryan P. & Lazer, David M.J. & Sokhey, Anand E., 2010. "Who Wants To Deliberate—And Why?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(3), pages 566-583, August.
    16. Richard Heinberg & Timothy Crownshaw, 2018. "Energy Decline and Authoritarianism," Biophysical Economics and Resource Quality, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 1-11, September.
    17. 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.
    18. Pius Krütli & Michael Stauffacher & Thomas Flüeler & Roland W. Scholz, 2010. "Functional-dynamic public participation in technological decision-making: site selection processes of nuclear waste repositories," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(7), pages 861-875, October.
    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. Kwangheon Park & Seunghyun Son & Jinhyuk Oh & Sunkuk Kim, 2022. "Sustainable Decommissioning Strategies for Nuclear Power Plants: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-21, May.
    2. Alex W. J. Cheng & Harry F. Lee, 2022. "Energy Transition towards Sustainable Development: Perspective of Individuals’ Engagement Amid Transition Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-16, August.
    3. Lee, Juyong & Cho, Youngsang, 2023. "Economic value of the development of nuclear power plant decommissioning technology in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).

    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. 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.
    2. Violet Muringai & Ellen Goddard, 2018. "Trust and consumer risk perceptions regarding BSE and chronic wasting disease," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 240-265, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2005. "Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 199-209, February.
    5. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2004. "Gene Technology in the eyes of the public and experts. Moral opinions, attitudes and risk perception," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2004:7, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 11 May 2005.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Rachael M. Moyer & Geoboo Song, 2016. "Understanding Local Policy Elites’ Perceptions on the Benefits and Risks Associated with High‐Voltage Power Line Installations in the State of Arkansas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(10), pages 1983-1999, October.
    9. Kyuhyeon Joo & Junghoon (Jay) Lee & Jinsoo Hwang, 2022. "NAM and TPB Approach to Consumers’ Decision-Making Framework in the Context of Indoor Smart Farm Restaurants," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-18, November.
    10. Han, Y. & Lam, J. & Guo, P. & Gou, Z., 2019. "What Predicts Government Trustworthiness in Cross-border HK-Guangdong Nuclear Safety Emergency Governance?," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1989, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    11. Janneke De Jonge & Hans Van Trijp & Reint Jan Renes & Lynn Frewer, 2007. "Understanding Consumer Confidence in the Safety of Food: Its Two‐Dimensional Structure and Determinants," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 729-740, June.
    12. Tianzhuo Liu & Huifang Jiao, 2018. "How does information affect fire risk reduction behaviors? Mediating effects of cognitive processes and subjective knowledge," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 90(3), pages 1461-1483, February.
    13. Shoshana Shiloh & Gülbanu Güvenç & Dilek Önkal, 2007. "Cognitive and Emotional Representations of Terror Attacks: A Cross‐Cultural Exploration," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 397-409, April.
    14. T. Terpstra & R. Zaalberg & J. de Boer & W. J. W. Botzen, 2014. "You Have Been Framed! How Antecedents of Information Need Mediate the Effects of Risk Communication Messages," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(8), pages 1506-1520, August.
    15. Yanbo Zhang & Yibao Wang & Ahmad Bayiz Ahmad & Ashfaq Ahmad Shah & Wen Qing, 2021. "How Do Individual-Level Characteristics Influence Cross-Domain Risk Perceptions Among Chinese Urban Residents?," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, April.
    16. Borhan, Muhamad Nazri & Ibrahim, Ahmad Nazrul Hakimi & Miskeen, Manssour A. Abdulasalm, 2019. "Extending the theory of planned behaviour to predict the intention to take the new high-speed rail for intercity travel in Libya: Assessment of the influence of novelty seeking, trust and external inf," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 373-384.
    17. Therese Kobbeltvedt & Katharina Wolff, 2009. "The Risk-as-feelings hypothesis in a Theory-of-planned-behaviour perspective," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 4(7), pages 567-586, December.
    18. Maria Rodrigues & João F. Proença & Rita Macedo, 2023. "Determinants of the Purchase of Secondhand Products: An Approach by the Theory of Planned Behaviour," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-18, July.
    19. Xingwei Li & Jiachi Dai & Xiaowen Zhu & Jingru Li & Jinrong He & Yicheng Huang & Xiang Liu & Qiong Shen, 2023. "Mechanism of attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control influence the green development behavior of construction enterprises," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    20. Robert Konopaske & Chet Robie & John M. Ivancevich, 2009. "Managerial Willingness to Assume Traveling, Short-term and Long-term Global Assignments," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 359-387, 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:eee:enepol:v:157:y:2021:i:c:s030142152100358x. 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.