IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v28y2008i4p1021-1032.html

Analysis of Local Acceptance of a Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility

Author

Listed:
  • Ji Bum Chung
  • Hong‐Kew Kim
  • Sam Kew Rho

Abstract

Like many other countries in the world, Korea has struggled to site a facility for radioactive waste for almost 30 years because of the strong opposition from local residents. Finally, in 2005, Gyeongju was established as the first Korean site for a radioactive waste facility. The objectives of this research are to verify Gyeongju citizens' average level of risk perception of a radioactive waste disposal facility as compared to other risks, and to explore the best model for predicting respondents' acceptance level using variables related to cost‐benefit, risk perception, and political process. For this purpose, a survey is conducted among Gyeongju residents, the results of which are as follows. First, the local residents' risk perception of an accident in a radioactive waste disposal facility is ranked seventh among a total of 13 risks, which implies that nuclear‐related risk is not perceived very highly by Gyeongju residents; however, its characteristics are still somewhat negative. Second, the comparative regression analyses show that the cost‐benefit and political process models are more suitable for explaining the respondents' level of acceptance than the risk perception model. This may be the result of the current economic depression in Gyeongju, residents' familiarity with the nuclear industry, or cultural characteristics of risk tolerance.

Suggested Citation

  • Ji Bum Chung & Hong‐Kew Kim & Sam Kew Rho, 2008. "Analysis of Local Acceptance of a Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 1021-1032, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:28:y:2008:i:4:p:1021-1032
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01074.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01074.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01074.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Howard Kunreuther & Douglas Easterling & William Desvousges & Paul Slovic, 1990. "Public Attitudes Toward Siting a High‐Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 469-484, December.
    2. Peter Taylor‐Gooby & Jens O. Zinn, 2006. "Current Directions in Risk Research: New Developments in Psychology and Sociology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 397-411, April.
    3. Rolf Lidskog & Göran Sundqvist, 2004. "On the right track? Technology, geology and society in Swedish nuclear waste management," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 251-268, March.
    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. Baek, Haein & Chung, Ji-Bum & Yun, Gi Woong, 2021. "Differences in public perceptions of geothermal energy based on EGS technology in Korea after the Pohang earthquake: National vs. local," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    2. Yuichiro Amekawa, 2023. "High-Level Radioactive Disposal Policy in Japan: A Sociological Appraisal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-26, May.
    3. Lee, You-Kyung, 2020. "Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: From the users’ perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    4. Nicole M. A. Huijts & Gerdien de Vries & Eric J. E. Molin, 2019. "A positive Shift in the Public Acceptability of a Low-Carbon Energy Project After Implementation: The Case of a Hydrogen Fuel Station," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-14, April.
    5. Roh, Seungkook & Lee, Jin Won, 2018. "Differentiated effects of risk perception dimensions on nuclear power acceptance in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 727-735.
    6. Timothy C. Earle, 2010. "Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 541-574, April.
    7. Lei Huang & Yuting Han & Ying Zhou & Heinz Gutscher & Jun Bi, 2013. "How Do the Chinese Perceive Ecological Risk in Freshwater Lakes?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-12, May.
    8. repec:plo:pone00:0102121 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Chung, Ji-Bum, 2020. "Public deliberation on the national nuclear energy policy in Korea – Small successes but bigger challenges," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(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. Hayashi, Reona & Kato, Ryutah & Watanabe, Rin & Kawaguchi, Hirofumi & Morikawa, So & Komatsuzaki, Shunsaku, 2026. "When economic incentives become repugnant: Moderating roles of construction probability and initial acceptance in high-level radioactive waste siting," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 209(PB).
    2. Tian Sang & Peng Liu & Liang Zhao, 2022. "Judicial Response to Ecological Environment Risk in China—From the Perspective of Social Systems Theory," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-13, November.
    3. Suh, Jung Woo & Sohn, So Young & Lee, Bo Kyeong, 2020. "Patent clustering and network analyses to explore nuclear waste management technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Philippe Sterkens & Stijn Baert & Eline Moens & Joey Wuyts & Eva Derous, 2024. "I won’t make the same mistake again: burnout history and job preferences," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 37(1), pages 1-21, March.
    6. Sébastien Chailleux, 2020. "Making the subsurface political: How enhanced oil recovery techniques reshaped the energy transition," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 38(4), pages 733-750, June.
    7. Jamie K. Wardman, 2008. "The Constitution of Risk Communication in Advanced Liberal Societies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1619-1637, December.
    8. Regina Schoell & Claudia R. Binder, 2009. "System Perspectives of Experts and Farmers Regarding the Role of Livelihood Assets in Risk Perception: Results from the Structured Mental Model Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 205-222, February.
    9. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher, 2003. "Test of a Trust and Confidence Model in the Applied Context of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 705-716, August.
    10. Hye‐Jin Paek & Thomas Hove, 2019. "Mediating and Moderating Roles of Trust in Government in Effective Risk Rumor Management: A Test Case of Radiation‐Contaminated Seafood in South Korea," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2653-2667, December.
    11. Margot Hurlbert & Joyeeta Gupta, 2016. "Adaptive Governance, Uncertainty, and Risk: Policy Framing and Responses to Climate Change, Drought, and Flood," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 339-356, February.
    12. Christian Oltra & Paul Upham & Hauke Riesch & Àlex Boso & Suzanne Brunsting & Elisabeth Dütschke & Aleksandra Lis, 2012. "Public Responses to Co2 Storage Sites: Lessons from Five European Cases," Energy & Environment, , vol. 23(2-3), pages 227-248, May.
    13. James Flynn & Paul Slovic & C. K. Mertz, 1993. "Decidedly Different: Expert and Public Views of Risks from a Radioactive Waste Repository," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 643-648, December.
    14. Philip Völlers & Thomas Neise & Philip Verfürth & Martin Franz & Felix Bücken & Kim Philip Schumacher, 2023. "Revisiting risk in the Global Production Network approach 2.0 - Towards a performative risk narrative perspective," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 55(8), pages 1838-1858, November.
    15. Maria Grazia Filomena & Bruno Pace & Massimo De Acetis & Antonio Aquino & Massimo Crescimbene & Marina Pace & Francesca Romana Alparone, 2023. "Play to Learn: A Game to Improve Seismic-Risk Perception," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-11, March.
    16. Kim, Byeong Je & Chung, Ji-Bum, 2021. "When beef consumption becomes politicized: Longitudinal change of US beef purchase intention and political values in Korea," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    17. Timothy C. Earle, 2010. "Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 541-574, April.
    18. Popovich, Deidre & Trussell, Mikaela & Frias, Kellilynn M., 2025. "Pain exchange consumption: An exploration of taking risks to avoid the pain of paying," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    19. Xiao Wang & Yi-Hui Christine Huang & Qiudi Wu & Ivy Wai-Yin Fong, 2021. "Exploring the Effects of Instructional Message Strategies on Risk Perceptions and Behavioral Intentions: The Case of a Substandard Vaccine Incident," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, November.
    20. Just, David R. & Messer, Kent D., 2025. "The Behavioral Revolution in Agricultural and Resource Economics: A Perspective on the Past and the Future," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 50(4), December.

    More about this item

    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:wly:riskan:v:28:y:2008:i:4:p:1021-1032. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.