Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Perception of people for the risk of Tianwan nuclear power plant

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering in China Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A questionnaire survey of residents’ risk perceptions related to Taiwan nuclear power plant in China was carried out to explore the determining factors that affect individual risk perception. This study proposed to pursue a more comprehensive understanding of factors that affected individual risk perception to nuclear power plants. Covariance structure analysis was conducted using risk perceptions of nuclear power as dependent variable and including interest and knowledge levels of nuclear power, acceptability, benefit perception, trust in nuclear power operation, and trust in government as independent variables. The use of the hypothesis of Elaboration likelihood model (ELM) was also proposed. The results showed that persons with higher levels of interest and knowledge of nuclear power had their own perceptions of risk closely associated with acceptability and potential benefits of nuclear power. In contrast, persons with no interest in and knowledge of nuclear power would have risk perceptions related to their trust in nuclear operation and the government, which partially supported the ELM hypothesis. All these results indicated that the government in China plays an important role in rational risk perceptions, and well-designed communication of risks will help the public to be involved in risk management and improve people’s rational acceptance of risk.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Litenstein S, Read S, Combs B. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits. Policy Science, 1978, 9: 127–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sjoberg L. Local acceptance of a high-level nuclear waste repository. Risk Analysis, 2004, 24(3), 737–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Purvis-Roberts K L, Werner C A, Frank I. Perceived risks from radiation and nuclear testing near Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan: A comparison between physicians, scientists, and the public. Risk Analysis, 2007, 27(2): 291–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Slovic P, Finucane M, Peters E, MacGregor D G. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk and rationality. Risk Analysis, 2004, 24(2): 311–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Siegrist M, Keller C, Cousin M. Implicit attitudes toward nuclear power and mobile phone base stations: Support for the effect heuristic. Risk Analysis, 2006, 26(4): 1021–1029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gould L, Gardner G, DeLuca D, Sauther M L.Acceptions of Technological Risks and Benefits. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Litenstein S. Images of disaster: Perception and acceptance of risks from nuclear power. In: Goodman G, Rowe W D, eds. Energy Risk Management. New York: Academic Press, 1979

    Google Scholar 

  8. Sjoberg D B, Sjoberg L. Risk perception and worries after the Chernobyl accident. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1990, 10: 135–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Tsunoda K. Difference in the formation of attitude toward nuclear power. Political Psychology, 2002, 23(1): 191–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Shimooka H. Process of public attitudes toward nuclear power generation. Journal of the Atomic Energy Society of Japan, 1993, 35: 115–123

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bickerstaff K. Risk perception research: Socio-cultural perspectives on the public experience of air pollution. Environment International, 2004, 30: 827–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chaiken S, Liberman A, Early A H. Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In: Uleman J S, Bargh J A, eds. Unintended Thought. New York: Guiford, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  13. Petty R E, Cacioppo J T. Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Brown, 1981

    Google Scholar 

  14. Petty R E, Cacioppo J T. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1986, 19: 123–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chaiken S, Maheswaran D. Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1994, 66: 460–473

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Xie X F, Wang M, Xu L. What risks are Chinese people concerned about? Risk Analysis, 2003, 23(4): 685–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Flynn J, Kasperson R, Kunreuther H, Slovic P. Time to rethink nuclear waste storage. Science Technology, 1992, 7: 42–48

    Google Scholar 

  18. Tsunoda K. Public response to the Tokai nuclear accident. Risk Analysis, 2001, 21(6): 1039–1046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Flynn J, Burns W, Mertz C K, Slovic P. Trust as a determinant of opposition to a high-level radioactive waste repository: Analysis of a structural model. Risk Analysis, 1992, 12: 417–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nyland L G. Risk perception in Brazil and Sweden. Risk Research Report No. 15. Rhizion: Center for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics Press, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  21. Siegrist M. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 2000, 20(2): 195–203

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Chebat C, Filiatrault P, Perrien J. Limits of credibility: The case of political persuasion. Journal of Social Psychology, 1999, 130: 157–167

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lior N. Energy resources and use: The present situation and possible paths to the future. Energy, 2008, 33(6): 842–857

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Cha Y J. An analysis of nuclear risk perception: With focus on developing effective policy alternatives. International Review of Public Administration, 2004, 8(2): 33–47

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control & Resource Reuse, School of Environment, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210093, China

    Lei Huang, Jun Bi, Bing Zhang, Fengying Li & Changsheng Qu

Authors
  1. Lei Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jun Bi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bing Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fengying Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Changsheng Qu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jun Bi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Huang, L., Bi, J., Zhang, B. et al. Perception of people for the risk of Tianwan nuclear power plant. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. China 4, 73–81 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-009-0151-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-009-0151-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation