Evaluation of Perceived Benefits and Risks of Nuclear Technology in Society
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37886/ruo.2021.049Keywords:
benefits, risks, trust, nuclear energy, nuclear technology, evaluation, environmentAbstract
Research Question (RQ): We would like to know what benefits and risks of the nuclear technology the society is capable of noticing. At the same time, we want to identify the key factors on the basis of which a person builds a perception and opinion about nuclear technology.
Purpose: The purpose of the research is evaluated known benefits and risks of nuclear technology society, based on the review of relevant professional and scientific literature.
Method: By means of interactive literature review, we wish to make a qualitative content analysis, collect data, study them, evaluate them and create a general trust model.
Results: We have found out a key factor for the perception of risks and benefits in nuclear technology. We roughly divided these factors into environmental and social. Environmental factors predominated in the perception of risks, while both were perceived in the benefits.
Organization: Understanding public perception is crucial for the development of nuclear energy in the future. The potential benefit of nuclear energy is in the way of clean electricity generation recognized as an approach towards a carbon-free society.
Society: The research highlights the link between nuclear technology, society and the environment. It is difficult for people today to live without electricity, so it is interesting to research the fact whether we are willing to live in an environment with a nuclear power plant and accept all its risks.
Originality: Based on a review of the literature, we will gain insight into the mindset of society about nuclear technology.
Limitations/Future Research: Further research could focus on measures to improve the public mindset for the benefit and support of nuclear development.
References
De Groot, J. I. M., & Steg, L. (2010). Morality and nuclear energy: Perceptions of risks and benefits, personal norms, and willingness to take action related to nuclear energy. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 30(9), 1363–1373.
Euratom. (2016). Evropska skupnost za jedrsko energijo. Euratom Supply Agency Annual Report 2015, Luxembourg. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/euratom/ar/ar2016.pdf
GEN energija. (2010). Prednosti jedrske energije za Slovenijo. Retrieved February 1, 2021, from https://www.gen-energija.si/files/materials/19/pdf/prihodnost_jedrske_energije_za_SLO.pdf
Genys, D., & Krikštolaitis, R. (2017). The public perception of nuclear energy in Lithuania. Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues. Vilnius : Generolo Jono Žemaičio Lietuvos Karo Akademija, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 1. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2017.7.1(2)
Grahek, S. (2014). Stališča slovenskih državljanov do varnostnih tveganj pri obratovanju Nuklearne elektrarne Krško: magistrsko delo. Univerza v Mariboru, Fakulteta za varnostne vede.
Harris, J., Hassall, M., Muriuki, G., Warnaar-Notschaele, C., McFarland, E., & Ashworth, P. (2018). The demographics of nuclear power: Comparing nuclear experts’, scientists’ and non-science professionals’ views of risks, benefits and values. Energy Research & Social Science, 46, 29–39. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.05.035
Ho, S. S., Leong, A. D., Looi, J., Chen, L., & Pang, N. (2018). Science Literacy or Value Predisposition ? A Meta- Analysis of Factors Predicting Public Perceptions of Benefits , Risks , and Acceptance of Nuclear Energy Factors Predicting Public Perceptions of Benefits , Risks , and. Environmental Communication, 0(0), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1394891
Ho, S. S., Looi, J., Chuah, A. S. F., Leong, A. D., & Pang, N. (2018). “I can live with nuclear energy if…”: Exploring public perceptions of nuclear energy in Singapore. Energy Policy, 120, 436–447. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.060
Ho, S. S., Oshita, T., Looi, J., Leong, A. D., & Chuah, A. 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, 127, 259–268. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.12.011
Koerner, C. L. (2014). Media, fear, and nuclear energy: A case study. The Social Science Journal, 51(2), 240–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2013.07.011
Nguyen, V. P., & Yim, M.-S. (2018). Examination of different socioeconomic factors that contribute to the public acceptance of nuclear energy. Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 50(5), 767–772. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2018.02.005
Pance, T. (2017). Prihodnost jedrske energije v Evropski uniji: magistrsko delo. Univerza v Ljubljani, Ekonomska fakulteta.
Portugal-pereira, J., Ferreira, P., Cunha, J., Szklo, A., Schae, R., & Araújo, M. (2018). Better late than never , but never late is better : Risk assessment of nuclear power construction projects, 120(February), 158–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.041
Ryu, Y., Kim, S., & Kim, S. (2018). Does Trust Matter? Analyzing the Impact of Trust on the Perceived Risk and Acceptance of Nuclear Power Energy. Sustainability . https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030758
Vainio, A., Paloniemi, R., & Varho, V. (2017). Weighing the Risks of Nuclear Energy and Climate Change: Trust in Different Information Sources, Perceived Risks, and Willingness to Pay for Alternatives to Nuclear Power. Risk Analysis, 37(3), 557–569. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12640
Valic, T. B., & Lamut, U. (2011). Percepcije javnosti do sprejemljivosti jedrskih objektov/Public perceptions of nuclear facilities aceptability. Raziskave in Razprave, 4(3), 59.
Wu, Y. (2017). Public acceptance of constructing coastal/inland nuclear power plants in post-Fukushima China. Energy Policy, 101, 484–491. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.11.008
Zeng, J., Wei, J., Zhao, D., Zhu, W., & Gu, J. (2017). Information-seeking intentions of residents regarding the risks of nuclear power plant: an empirical study in China. Natural Hazards, 87(2), 739–755. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-2790-x
