IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v16y2022i1p272-d1016082.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Deep Understanding of Romanian Attitude and Perception Regarding Nuclear Energy as Green Investment Promoted by the European Green Deal

Author

Listed:
  • Adrian Tantau

    (UNESCO Department of Business Administration, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 010371 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Greta Marilena Puscasu

    (Doctoral School Business Administration, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 010371 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Silvia Elena Cristache

    (Department of Statistics, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 010371 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Cristina Alpopi

    (Department of Public Administration, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 010371 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Laurentiu Fratila

    (Department of Informatics, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 010371 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Daniel Moise

    (Department of Marketing, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 010371 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Georgeta Narcisa Ciobotar

    (Department of Marketing, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 010371 Bucharest, Romania)

Abstract

The analysis of public attitudes towards nuclear energy represents an issue that is commonly investigated, especially considering the new context of classifying some nuclear power plants as green investments under the European Green Deal. The importance of this topic is critical to the future of nuclear power generation. The purpose of this study is to identify the relationships that exist between the different factors and the attitude of the public towards nuclear energy in the context of the European Green Deal. The article identifies and analyzes the main factors that influence this relationship. In this context, a questionnaire-based survey was conducted regarding the identification of the relationship between public knowledge, degree of cooperation, perceived risks, trust and attitude towards nuclear energy. The sample was chosen using the snowball method. The analysis was made up of 578 respondents from different segments of age, gender, place of residence, field of activity, work experience and income. Following the survey, the main conclusion was that over 30% of the respondents do not want nuclear energy and are adamantly opposed to it. At the same time, the results indicate that the respondents’ attitude is not directly influenced by the risks they perceive in relation to nuclear energy.

Suggested Citation

  • Adrian Tantau & Greta Marilena Puscasu & Silvia Elena Cristache & Cristina Alpopi & Laurentiu Fratila & Daniel Moise & Georgeta Narcisa Ciobotar, 2022. "A Deep Understanding of Romanian Attitude and Perception Regarding Nuclear Energy as Green Investment Promoted by the European Green Deal," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-14, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2022:i:1:p:272-:d:1016082
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/1/272/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/1/272/
    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. Ivar Krumpal, 2013. "Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 2025-2047, June.
    3. Hainsch, Karlo & Löffler, Konstantin & Burandt, Thorsten & Auer, Hans & Crespo del Granado, Pedro & Pisciella, Paolo & Zwickl-Bernhard, Sebastian, 2022. "Energy transition scenarios: What policies, societal attitudes, and technology developments will realize the EU Green Deal?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PC).
    4. Wustenhagen, Rolf & Wolsink, Maarten & Burer, Mary Jean, 2007. "Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2683-2691, May.
    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. 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.
    7. Kim, Younghwan & Kim, Wonjoon & Kim, Minki, 2014. "An international comparative analysis of public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 475-483.
    8. 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.
    9. Stoutenborough, James W. & Sturgess, Shelbi G. & Vedlitz, Arnold, 2013. "Knowledge, risk, and policy support: Public perceptions of nuclear power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 176-184.
    10. Adrian Hatos & Roxana Hatos & Alina Badulescu & Daniel Badulescu, 2015. "Are Risk Attitudes and Individualism Predictors of Entrepreneurship? A Multivariate Analysis of Romanian Data," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 17(38), pages 148-148, February.
    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. Nicolae Al. Pop & Steluta Todea & Cristina-Veronica Partenie & Cristina Ott, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Perception Regarding Sustainable Universities," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 22(54), pages 330-330, April.
    13. Mohammad Fazle Rabbi & József Popp & Domicián Máté & Sándor Kovács, 2022. "Energy Security and Energy Transition to Achieve Carbon Neutrality," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-18, October.
    14. Sylwia Mrozowska & Jan A. Wendt & Krzysztof Tomaszewski, 2021. "The Challenges of Poland’s Energy Transition," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-22, December.
    15. Pietzcker, Robert C. & Osorio, Sebastian & Rodrigues, Renato, 2021. "Tightening EU ETS targets in line with the European Green Deal: Impacts on the decarbonization of the EU power sector," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 293(C).
    16. Wang, Shanyong & Wang, Jing & Lin, Shoufu & Li, Jun, 2019. "Public perceptions and acceptance of nuclear energy in China: The role of public knowledge, perceived benefit, perceived risk and public engagement," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 352-360.
    17. Pietzcker, Robert & Osorio, Sebastian & Rodrigues, Renato, 2021. "Tightening EU ETS targets in line with the European Green Deal: Impacts on the decarbonization of the EU power sector," EconStor Preprints 222579, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, revised 2021.
    18. 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)

    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, 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).
    2. Wang, Shanyong & Wang, Jing & Lin, Shoufu & Li, Jun, 2020. "How and when does information publicity affect public acceptance of nuclear energy?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    3. 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).
    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. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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).
    8. Sung-Yoon Huh & JongRoul Woo & Chul-Yong Lee, 2019. "What Do Potential Residents Really Want When Hosting a Nuclear Power Plant? An Empirical Study of Economic Incentives in South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-17, March.
    9. Adrian Tantau & Simona Irina Goia (Agoston) & Violeta Mihaela Dincă & Carmen Păunescu & Stere Stamule & Tănase Stamule & Anca Bogdan, 2024. "Exploring the Generation Z Attitude towards Energy Efficiency Improvement and Decarbonization through Heat Pumps: An Empirical Study in Romania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-18, February.
    10. 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.
    11. 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).
    12. Motz, Alessandra, 2021. "Consumer acceptance of the energy transition in Switzerland: The role of attitudes explained through a hybrid discrete choice model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    13. 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).
    14. Ho, Shirley S. & Xiong, Rui & Chuah, Agnes S.F., 2021. "Heuristic cues as perceptual filters: Factors influencing public support for nuclear research reactor in Singapore," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    15. Wang, Shanyong & Wang, Jing & Lin, Shoufu & Li, Jun, 2019. "Public perceptions and acceptance of nuclear energy in China: The role of public knowledge, perceived benefit, perceived risk and public engagement," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 352-360.
    16. Nomsa Phindile Nkosi & Johane Dikgang, 2021. "South African Attitudes About Nuclear Power: The Case of the Nuclear Energy Expansion," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 11(5), pages 138-146.
    17. 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.
    18. 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).
    19. 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.
    20. Anshelm, Jonas & Simon, Haikola, 2016. "Power production and environmental opinions – Environmentally motivated resistance to wind power in Sweden," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 1545-1555.

    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:16:y:2022:i:1:p:272-:d:1016082. 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.