IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i22p12416-d676072.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Acceptance of Main Power Generation Sources among Japan’s Undergraduate Students: The Roles of Knowledge, Experience, Trust, and Perceived Risk and Benefit

Author

Listed:
  • Reeko Watanabe

    (Department of Civil Engineering, School of Regional Design, Utsunomiya University, Utsunomiya 321-8585, Japan)

  • Tsunemi Watanabe

    (School of Economics & Management, Kochi University of Technology, Kochi 780-8515, Japan)

  • Kyohei Wakui

    (Urban Infrastructure Development Department, Ota City Hall, Tokyo 144-8621, Japan)

Abstract

In Japan, graduates who become independent professionals in society have the right to choose energy providers given the liberalization of the electricity market in the country. This issue renders student perceptions regarding various types of energy generation a critical factor for decision making. Accordingly, we explored the risk and benefit perceptions of undergraduates regarding Japan’s main energy resources, namely, liquid natural gas (LNG), coal, hydropower, solar and nuclear resources, and petroleum. We also assessed energy acceptance among the target population and its influencing factors, such as student age and gender, school department, hometown, knowledge and experience of main power sources in Japan, and trust in government and power plant operation. These objectives were accomplished through field surveys and empirical characterizations of energy acceptance determinants. Compared with risk perception, benefit perception regarding all kinds of power generation was significantly predicted by knowledge. Experience explained only the perception of benefit from coal power generation, and benefit perception more strongly predicted energy acceptance than did risk perception. The findings suggested the necessity of university energy education programs for increased student knowledge of energy sources. Energy companies should increase energy benefits from economic, environmental, and energy security and safety perspectives to enhance energy acceptance among students. On the basis of the results, we classified energy sources in Japan into obscure (LNG and petroleum), well-known (coal and nuclear), and exploratory (hydropower and solar) resources—a first in the energy field and contributory to energy education design.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:22:p:12416-:d:676072
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/22/12416/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/22/12416/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Al-Ghandoor, A. & Al-Hinti, I. & Jaber, J.O. & Sawalha, S.A., 2008. "Electricity consumption and associated GHG emissions of the Jordanian industrial sector: Empirical analysis and future projection," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 258-267, January.
    2. Iyengar, Shanto, 1987. "Television News and Citizens' Explanations of National Affairs," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(3), pages 815-831, September.
    3. Whitehead, John C. & Cherry, Todd L., 2007. "Willingness to pay for a Green Energy program: A comparison of ex-ante and ex-post hypothetical bias mitigation approaches," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 247-261, November.
    4. Fiona N. H. Montijn-Dorgelo & Cees J. H. Midden, 2008. "The role of negative associations and trust in risk perception of new hydrogen systems," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(5), pages 659-671, July.
    5. Gao, Lu & Hiruta, Yuki & Ashina, Shuichi, 2020. "Promoting renewable energy through willingness to pay for transition to a low carbon society in Japan," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 818-830.
    6. Valentine, Scott Victor & Sovacool, Benjamin K., 2019. "Energy transitions and mass publics: Manipulating public perception and ideological entrenchment in Japanese nuclear power policy," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 295-304.
    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. Schmid, Friedrich & Schmidt, Rafael, 2007. "Multivariate extensions of Spearman's rho and related statistics," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 77(4), pages 407-416, February.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Ming‐Chou Ho & Daigee Shaw & Shuyeu Lin & Yao‐Chu Chiu, 2008. "How Do Disaster Characteristics Influence Risk Perception?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 635-643, June.
    12. Stoutenborough, James W. & Vedlitz, Arnold, 2016. "The role of scientific knowledge in the public's perceptions of energy technology risks," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 206-216.
    13. Yazdanpanah, Masoud & Komendantova, Nadejda & Ardestani, Roshanak Shafiei, 2015. "Governance of energy transition in Iran: Investigating public acceptance and willingness to use renewable energy sources through socio-psychological model," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 565-573.
    14. El-Sayed, Mohamed A.H. & Kreusel, J., 1995. "Substitution potential of solar thermal power stations in electrical energy systems," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 6(7), pages 849-854.
    15. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Keller, Carmen & Siegrist, Michael, 2011. "Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3621-3629, June.
    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. Jaber, Jamal O., 2002. "Future energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in Jordanian industries," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 15-30, January.
    18. Komarek, Timothy M. & Lupi, Frank & Kaplowitz, Michael D., 2011. "Valuing energy policy attributes for environmental management: Choice experiment evidence from a research institution," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 5105-5115, September.
    19. Rie Watanabe, 2016. "After the Fukushima Disaster: Japan's Nuclear Policy Change from 2011 to 2012," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 33(6), pages 623-645, November.
    20. Lesser, Jonathan A. & Su, Xuejuan, 2008. "Design of an economically efficient feed-in tariff structure for renewable energy development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 981-990, March.
    21. Anna Scolobig & B. Marchi & M. Borga, 2012. "The missing link between flood risk awareness and preparedness: findings from case studies in an Alpine Region," 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. 63(2), pages 499-520, September.
    22. Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher, 2006. "Flooding Risks: A Comparison of Lay People's Perceptions and Expert's Assessments in Switzerland," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 971-979, August.
    23. 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.
    24. Murakami, Kayo & Ida, Takanori & Tanaka, Makoto & Friedman, Lee, 2015. "Consumers' willingness to pay for renewable and nuclear energy: A comparative analysis between the US and Japan," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 178-189.
    25. Jeryl L. Mumpower & Liu Shi & James W. Stoutenborough & Arnold Vedlitz, 2013. "Psychometric and Demographic Predictors of the Perceived Risk of Terrorist Threats and the Willingness to Pay for Terrorism Risk Management Programs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1802-1811, October.
    26. 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.
    27. Kuramochi, Takeshi, 2015. "Review of energy and climate policy developments in Japan before and after Fukushima," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 1320-1332.
    28. 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.
    29. 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.
    30. Cicia, Gianni & Cembalo, Luigi & Del Giudice, Teresa & Palladino, Andrea, 2012. "Fossil energy versus nuclear, wind, solar and agricultural biomass: Insights from an Italian national survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 59-66.
    31. Zografakis, Nikolaos & Sifaki, Elli & Pagalou, Maria & Nikitaki, Georgia & Psarakis, Vasilios & Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P., 2010. "Assessment of public acceptance and willingness to pay for renewable energy sources in Crete," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 1088-1095, April.
    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. Jie Yang & Jie Wang & Xiaofeng Zhang & Chunqi Shen & Zhijuan Shao, 2022. "How Social Impressions Affect Public Acceptance of Nuclear Energy: A Case Study in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-23, September.

    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. Oerlemans, Leon A.G. & Chan, Kai-Ying & Volschenk, Jako, 2016. "Willingness to pay for green electricity: A review of the contingent valuation literature and its sources of error," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 875-885.
    2. 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).
    3. 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).
    4. 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).
    5. Soon, Jan-Jan & Ahmad, Siti-Aznor, 2015. "Willingly or grudgingly? A meta-analysis on the willingness-to-pay for renewable energy use," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 877-887.
    6. Alló, Maria & Loureiro, Maria L., 2014. "The role of social norms on preferences towards climate change policies: A meta-analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 563-574.
    7. 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.
    8. Balezentis, Tomas & Streimikiene, Dalia & Mikalauskas, Ignas & Shen, Zhiyang, 2021. "Towards carbon free economy and electricity: The puzzle of energy costs, sustainability and security based on willingness to pay," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Perlaviciute, Goda & Steg, Linda, 2014. "Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 361-381.
    11. 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.
    12. Yi Ge & Guangfei Yang & Xiaotao Wang & Wen Dou & Xueer Lu & Jie Mao, 2021. "Understanding risk perception from floods: a case study from China," 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. 105(3), pages 3119-3140, February.
    13. 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).
    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. Gisela Wachinger & Ortwin Renn & Chloe Begg & Christian Kuhlicke, 2013. "The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1049-1065, June.
    17. Murakami, Kayo & Ida, Takanori & Tanaka, Makoto & Friedman, Lee, 2015. "Consumers' willingness to pay for renewable and nuclear energy: A comparative analysis between the US and Japan," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 178-189.
    18. Kim, Heetae & Park, Eunil & Kwon, Sang Jib & Ohm, Jay Y. & Chang, Hyun Joon, 2014. "An integrated adoption model of solar energy technologies in South Korea," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 523-531.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:22:p:12416-:d:676072. 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.