Structural Dependence and Attitudinal Divergence: A Comparative Analysis of Nuclear Power Acceptance between Highly- and Lowly-Nuclear-Power-Dependent Countries in Europe

Jangchul Song; Seoyong Kim; Bonjun Koo

doi:10.31637/epsir-2026-2972

Autores/as

Jangchul Song Ajou University
Seoyong Kim Ajou University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5536-4907
Bonjun Koo Yokohama National University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31637/epsir-2026-2972

Palabras clave:

nuclear power acceptance, HNPDCs, LNPDC Perceived risk, perceived benefit, trust, psychometric paradigm

Resumen

Introduction: Nuclear energy remains one of the most contested energy sources globally, and public acceptance is critical for energy policymakers. This study addresses a gap in the literature by comparing public acceptance between Highly-Nuclear-Power-Dependent Countries (HNPDCs) and Lowly-Nuclear-Power-Dependent Countries (LNPDCs) in Europe. Methodology: Using Eurobarometer 72.2 data (2009, N = 26,663; 27 EU member states), we conducted OLS regression analyses for each group, supplemented by country-level macro-indicator comparisons. HNPDCs are defined as countries where nuclear power exceeds 30% of total electricity production. Results: Perceived benefit and trust are the strongest positive predictors of nuclear acceptance; perceived risk exerts the strongest negative effect in both groups. In HNPDCs, proximity to a nuclear facility and self-assessed information level significantly predict acceptance; in LNPDCs, educational attainment plays a more prominent role. Discussion: Nuclear dependency shapes distinct cognitive pathways for attitude formation. HNPDCs exhibit higher acceptance, higher perceived risk and benefit, and stronger trust, yet also greater organized environmental opposition. Conclusions: Nuclear dependency shapes both the level and determinant structure of public attitudes, with important implications for context-sensitive energy communication strategies.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Biografía del autor/a

Jangchul Song, Ajou University

Is a researcher at the Research Institute of Future Safety Policy, Ajou University, Suwon, South Korea. His research interests center on environmental policy, energy policy, and public acceptance of energy technologies, with a particular focus on the cognitive and attitudinal factors that shape public responses to nuclear and renewable energy systems. He has been involved in comparative cross-national research on nuclear power acceptance in Europe, examining how structural energy dependency shapes risk perception, trust, and policy preferences among the public. His work integrates the psychometric paradigm with macro-level structural analysis to advance understanding of energy governance and policy communication in diverse national contexts.

Seoyong Kim, Ajou University

Is Professor of Public Administration at Ajou University, South Korea, where he has taught since 2004. He currently serves as Dean of the College of Social Sciences and Director of the Research Institute of Future Safety Policy. He received his B.A. (summa cum laude) from Ajou University (1997), and his M.A. (2000) and Ph.D. (2004) in Public Administration from Korea University, where he received the Best Paper Award from the Graduate School. His research focuses on risk perception, science and technology policy, energy policy, nuclear acceptance, environmental policy, and administrative behavior. He has published extensively in leading journals including Risk Analysis, Energy Policy, Policy Sciences, and Korean Public Administration Review, with over 1,500 citations on Google Scholar. He has led multiple government-funded research projects on nuclear waste management, greenhouse gas reduction, and energy policy communication.

Bonjun Koo, Yokohama National University

Is a Researcher at the Disaster Reduction and Human Renovation Institution (DRI) in Kobe, Japan, a public center established to preserve the lessons of the 1995 Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake and promote disaster risk reduction and community resilience. Previously, he was an Assistant Professor at the Center for the Creation of Symbiosis Society with Risk at Yokohama National University in Yokohama, where he conducted research on the social acceptance of energy systems and risk communication. Prior to that, he was a researcher at the Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (RIHN) in Kyoto, where he worked extensively on transdisciplinary approaches and stakeholder engagement methodologies. His specialization lies in disaster risk management and risk communication, which he approaches through community participatory methods. He earned both his MS and PhD in Urban Management from Kyoto University.

Citas

Alhakami, A. S., & Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1085-1096. https://acortar.link/v87uHL DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00080.x

Bickerstaff, K., Lorenzoni, I., Pidgeon, N. F., Poortinga, W., & Simmons, P. (2008). Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste. Public Understanding of Science, 17(2), 145-169. https://hal.science/hal-00571101v1/document DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506066719

Corner, A., Venables, D., Spence, A., Poortinga, W., Demski, C., & Pidgeon, N. (2011). Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: Exploring British public attitudes. Energy Policy, 39(9), 4823-4833. https://acortar.link/zkaYJ9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.037

Davidson, D. J., & Freudenburg, W. R. (1996). Gender and Environmental Risk Concerns: A Review and Analysis of Available Research. Environment and Behavior, 28(3), 302-339. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0013916596283003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916596283003

European Commission. (2007). Europeans and nuclear safety (Special Eurobarometer 271). European Commission.

European Commission. (2010). Europeans and nuclear safety (Special Eurobarometer 324). European Commission.

Franzen, A., & Vogl, D. (2013). Two decades of measuring environmental attitudes: A comparative analysis of 33 countries. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1001-1008. https://acortar.link/nawYFm DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.009

Gupta, K., Fischer, M., & Früwirth, R. (2019). Nuclear energy and public opinion: A cross-national analysis. Energy Policy, 127, 133-142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.110888

Hsu, A., Esty, D. C., Levy, M. A., & de Sherbinin, A. (2016). 2016 Environmental Performance Index (EPI). Yale University. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.stat03789.pub2

Inglehart, R. (1995). Public Support for Environmental Protection: Objective Problems and Subjective Values in 43 Societies. PS: Political Science and Politics, 28(1), 57-72. https://acortar.link/SjhF62 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/420583

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (2011). Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power Estimates for the Period up to 2050. IAEA.

Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400837311

Jeong, G., & Kim, S. (2018). Green parties and nuclear energy policy in the European Union. Energy Policy, 116, 349-356.

Joskow, P. L., & Parsons, J. E. (2012). The future of nuclear power after Fukushima. Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, 1(2), 99-113. https://acortar.link/jMK86T DOI: https://doi.org/10.5547/2160-5890.1.2.7

Kim, Y., Kim, W., & Kim, M. (2014). An international comparative analysis of public acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy Policy, 66, 475-483. https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v66y2014icp475-483.html DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.039

Kitschelt, H. P. (1986). Political Opportunity Structures and Political Protest: Anti-Nuclear Movements in Four Democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 16(1), 57-85. https://acortar.link/7Vfxxy DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712340000380X

Lehmann, P., Reuland, F., & Stronzik, M. (2015). The spatial effects of nuclear power plants on risk perception and acceptance: Evidence from Germany. Energy Policy, 85, 307-319.

Mishler, W., & Rose, R. (2001). What Are the Origins of Political Trust? Testing Institutional and Cultural Theories in Post-communist Societies. Comparative Political Studies, 34(1), 30-62. https://acortar.link/i9LneB DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414001034001002

Mol, A. P. J. (2001). Globalization and Environmental Reform: The Ecological Modernization of the Global Economy. MIT Press.

Nohrstedt, D. (2008). The Politics of Crisis Policymaking: Chernobyl and Swedish Nuclear Energy Policy. Policy Studies Journal, 36(2), 257-278. https://acortar.link/cOor1i DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00265.x

Papacostas, A. (2010). Eurobarometer 72.2 (September-October 2009) [Data set]. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA4976, Version 3.0.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.11137

Pidgeon, N. F., Lorenzoni, I., & Poortinga, W. (2008). Climate change or nuclear power-No thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 69-85. https://acortar.link/AupqZN DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.09.005

Pidgeon, N. F., Poortinga, W., Rowe, G., Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., & O'Riordan, T. (2005). Using Surveys in Public Participation Processes for Risk Decision Making. Risk Analysis, 25(2), 467-479. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00603.x

Poel, I. (2011). Nuclear energy as a fresh judgment: Evidence from Europe. Energy Policy, 39(11), 7068-7076. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.08.012

Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2005). Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food? Risk Analysis, 25(1), 199-209. https://acortar.link/9KqjbL DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2005.00579.x

Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N., Lorenzoni, I., & Emmerich, N. (2012). Public perceptions of nuclear power, climate change, and energy options in Britain. Understanding Risk Working Paper 06-02. Centre for Environmental Risk.

Prati, G., & Zani, B. (2013). The Effect of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident on Risk Perception, Antinuclear Behavioral Intentions, Attitude, Trust, Environmental Beliefs, and Values. Environment and Behavior, 45(6), 782-798. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512444286 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512444286

Renn, O., & Marshall, J. P. (2016). Coal, nuclear and renewable energy policies in Germany: From the 1950s to the “Energiewende”. Energy Policy, 99, 224-232. https://acortar.link/ROoyIo DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.05.004

Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., & Roth, C. (2000). Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 20(3), 353-362. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10949414/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.203034

Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285. https://acortar.link/ceTwZv DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507

Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy. Risk Analysis, 13(6), 675-682. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01329.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01329.x

Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1982). Why study risk perception? Risk Analysis, 2(2), 83-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1982.tb01369.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1982.tb01369.x

Sovacool, B. K., & Valentine, S. V. (2012). The National Politics of Nuclear Power: Economics, Security, and Governance. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203115268

Stoutenborough, J. W., Sturgess, S. G., & Vedlitz, A. (2013). Knowledge, risk, and policy support: Public perceptions of nuclear power. Energy Policy, 62, 176-184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.098

Tanaka, Y. (2004). Major Psychological Factors Determining Public Acceptance of the Siting of Nuclear Facilities. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(6), 1147-1165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02000.x

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124

Venables, D., Pidgeon, N. F., Parkhill, K. A., Henwood, K. L., & Simmons, P. (2012). Living with nuclear power: Sense of place, proximity, and risk perceptions in local host communities. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(4), 371-383. https://acortar.link/sTnmRV DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.06.003

Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2013). How a Nuclear Power Plant Accident Influences Acceptance of Nuclear Power. Risk Analysis, 33(2), 333-347. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01861.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01861.x

Whitfield, S. C., Rosa, E. A., Dan, A. and Dietz, T. (2009). The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception. Risk Analysis, 29(3), 425-437. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01155.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01155.x