IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i7p3229-d1628335.html

Risk Perception and Media Polarization in International Environmental Disputes: The Fukushima Wastewater Issue in South Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Kiyoung Chang

    (Department of Political Science and International Relations, Kyonggi University, Suwon 16227, Republic of Korea)

Abstract

This study examines how media outlets perceive and frame environmental issues, focusing specifically on South Korean news reporting on the Fukushima wastewater release. Using computational text analysis methods and formal statistical testing, this research investigates ideological polarization in media framing and its implications for risk perception. Statistical analyses provide significant evidence that progressive media emphasized environmental risks, public health concerns, and governmental accountability, whereas conservative media highlighted political actors, institutional governance, and diplomatic considerations. Media polarization peaked before policy implementation but moderated afterward. After implementation, moderate newspapers exhibited ideological convergence toward the center, accounting for a substantial portion of the observed positioning shifts, while strongly partisan outlets maintained or slightly intensified their prior positions. These results suggest that ideological polarization is most prominent in the early stages of contentious environmental policies but moderates as empirical scrutiny replaces speculation, with varying effects across ideological groups. This study provides insights into the temporal dynamics of media polarization and its role in shaping risk perception during policy implementation and regulatory oversight.

Suggested Citation

  • Kiyoung Chang, 2025. "Risk Perception and Media Polarization in International Environmental Disputes: The Fukushima Wastewater Issue in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-15, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:7:p:3229-:d:1628335
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/7/3229/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/7/3229/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sun-Jin Yun & Dowan Ku & Jin-Yi Han, 2014. "Climate policy networks in South Korea: alliances and conflicts," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 283-301, March.
    2. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    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. Loredana Antronico & Roberto Coscarelli & Francesco De Pascale & Giovanni Gull?, 2018. "La comunicazione del rischio e la percezione pubblica dei disastri: il caso studio della frana di Maierato (Calabria, Italia)," PRISMA Economia - Societ? - Lavoro, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(3), pages 9-29.
    2. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    3. Emmanuel Songsore & Michael Buzzelli, 2016. "Ontario’s Experience of Wind Energy Development as Seen through the Lens of Human Health and Environmental Justice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
    4. Sara E. Kuhar & Kate Nierenberg & Barbara Kirkpatrick & Graham A. Tobin, 2009. "Public Perceptions of Florida Red Tide Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(7), pages 963-969, July.
    5. Ruth E Alcock & Jerry Busby, 2006. "Risk Migration and Scientific Advance: The Case of Flame‐Retardant Compounds," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 369-381, April.
    6. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    7. Rob Goble, 2021. "Through a Glass Darkly: How Natural Science and Technical Communities Looked at Social Science Advances in Understanding Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 414-428, March.
    8. Evangelia Karasmanaki & Evangelos Grigoroudis & Spyridon Galatsidas & Georgios Tsantopoulos, 2023. "Satisfaction with Media Information about Renewable Energy Investments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-15, July.
    9. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    10. Paul Slovic & James Flynn & Robin Gregory, 1994. "Stigma Happens: Social Problems in the Siting of Nuclear Waste Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 773-777, October.
    11. Susan Mello & Robert C. Hornik, 2016. "Media Coverage of Pediatric Environmental Health Risks and its Effects on Mothers’ Protective Behaviors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 605-622, March.
    12. Yu‐Ru Lin & Drew Margolin & Xidao Wen, 2017. "Tracking and Analyzing Individual Distress Following Terrorist Attacks Using Social Media Streams," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(8), pages 1580-1605, August.
    13. Asim Zia & Katherine Lacasse & Nina H. Fefferman & Louis J. Gross & Brian Beckage, 2024. "Machine Learning a Probabilistic Structural Equation Model to Explain the Impact of Climate Risk Perceptions on Policy Support," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-25, November.
    14. Jinshu Cui & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2018. "Public Response to a Near‐Miss Nuclear Accident Scenario Varying in Causal Attributions and Outcome Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 947-961, May.
    15. Chang Liu & Lorraine Eden & Dan Li, 2024. "Violent conflict and multinational enterprises: identifying key frontiers in international business policy research," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(3), pages 260-275, September.
    16. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser & Peter R. Harris & Sabine Pahl, 2007. "Who Reaps the Benefits, Who Bears the Risks? Comparative Optimism, Comparative Utility, and Regulatory Preferences for Mobile Phone Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 741-753, June.
    17. Samuel A. Markolf & Kelly Klima & Terrence L. Wong, 2015. "Adaptation frameworks used by US decision-makers: a literature review," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 427-436, December.
    18. Willem Van Rensburg & Brian W. Head, 2017. "Climate Change Scepticism: Reconsidering How to Respond to Core Criticisms of Climate Science and Policy," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(4), pages 21582440177, December.
    19. Adam Rose & Tyler Kustra, 2013. "Economic Considerations in Designing Emergency Management Institutions and Policies for Transboundary Disasters," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 446-462, March.
    20. Brian Bantugan, PhD, 2025. "From Ridicule to Resistance: Online Public Discourses Surrounding Ivermectin on a Selected British Broadcasting Corporation News Video on Youtube," International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation, International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation (IJRSI), vol. 12(15), pages 1827-1841, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:17:y:2025:i:7:p:3229-:d:1628335. 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.