Youths Interests in the Biosphere and Sensitivity to Nuclear Power Technology in the UAE: With Discussions on Open Innovation and Technological Convergence in Energy and Water Sectors
Abstract
:1. Introduction
“How people imagine energy technologies and their futures is clearly important to understand how and why people invest in them financially, personally, professionally, and otherwise, and it is thus a critical social facet of energy transitions”.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Previous Studies of NPT Attitude and Acceptance
2.2. Historical Context of the UAE
2.3. The UAE Nuclear Electrical Power Program
2.4. Operation of the UAE “Barakah” Nuclear Power Plant
3. Methods
3.1. Description of the Data and Study Variables
- SENA: Self-Expressed-Awareness about NPT (mean = 2.62, standard deviation = 0.98); ordinal response with levels (1-Never heard, 2-Heard but cannot explain, 3-Know and can provide general explanation 4-Familiar and can provide detail explanation).
- SENE: Self-Expressed-Expectation about NPT (mean = 2.07, standard deviation = 0.82); also ordinal with levels (1-Worse, 2-Same, 3-Improve).
3.2. Bivariate Ordered Probit Model Specification
4. Findings
4.1. Descriptive Results
4.1.1. Descriptive Summary of the Data and Variables
4.1.2. NPT Awareness and Expectations across Levels of Interest in the Biosphere
4.1.3. NPT Awareness across the Seven Emirates
4.1.4. NPT Expectations across the Seven Emirates
4.2. Econometric Results
4.2.1. Youts’ Biospheric Interests and NPT Awareness and Expectations
4.2.2. Control Variables and UAE Youths’ NPT Awareness
4.2.3. Control Variables and UAE Youths’ NPT Expectations
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Quantitative Variables | (Means and Standard Deviations) | Mean | s.d. |
---|---|---|---|
IntBiosph | Level of interest in the biosphere | ||
1-Don’t know what it is, 2-not interested, 3-Hardly interested, | 3.36 | 1.07 | |
4-Interested, 5-highly interested. | |||
IntScPrevDis | Level of Interest in how science can help prevent disease; | ||
1-Don’t know what it is, 2-not interested, 3-Hardly interested, | 3.99 | 1.08 | |
4-Interested, 5-highly interested. | |||
JOYSCIE | PISA index of student’s Enjoyment of science | 0.59 | 1.06 |
How often student do the following: | |||
1-never or Hardly, 2-sometimes, 3-regularly, 4-very often. | |||
EcoWebVisit | ↪ Visit Ecological Websites: | 3.02 | 0.97 |
BlogsVisit | ↪ Follow news via blogs: | 2.83 | 1.00 |
BroadScBooks | ↪ Read books on broad science: | 2.93 | 0.95 |
BroadScWeb | ↪ Visit websites on broad science: | 2.65 | 0.96 |
AGE | The student’s age. | 15.80 | 0.29 |
ESCS | Standardized Index of economic, social and cultural status. | 0.63 | 0.66 |
WFSTUWT | Student final weight in the Data | 3.31 | 2.40 |
Qualitative Variables | (absolute and percent relative frequencies) | Abs. Freq. | Rel. Freq. |
Gender | Gender: | ||
1-Female | 3790 | 54.78 | |
2-Male | 3129 | 45.22 | |
IMMIG | Student Immigration status: | ||
1-Native | 2641 | 38.17 | |
2-Second-generation | 1596 | 23.07 | |
3-First-generation | 2682 | 38.76 | |
GradeLev | Student grade level in school; | ||
7th grade | 25 | 0.36 | |
8th grade | 89 | 1.29 | |
9th grade | 692 | 10.00 | |
10th grade | 3856 | 55.73 | |
11th grade | 2163 | 31.26 | |
12th grade | 94 | 1.36 | |
Regionc | Unique Identifiers for each of the 7 Emirates in the UAE: | ||
1-Abu Dhabi | 1636 | 23.65 | |
2-Dubai | 3320 | 47.98 | |
3-Sharjah | 505 | 7.30 | |
4-Ajman | 423 | 6.11 | |
5-Umm Al Quwain | 159 | 2.30 | |
6-Ras Al Kaimah | 460 | 6.65 | |
7-Fujairah | 416 | 6.01 |
N | Awareness | Expectations | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
6919 | Coef. | (s.e.) | Coef. | (s.e.) |
Cutoff 2 | = 1.032 *** | (0.011) | = 0.875 *** | (0.009) |
Cutoff 3 | = 2.042 *** | (0.014) | ||
(Intercept) | 0.584 *** | (0.456) | 1.194 * | (0.480) |
IntBiosph | 0.135 *** | (0.008) | −0.024 ** | (0.008) |
Affective controls | ||||
IntScPrevDis | 0.062 *** | (0.007) | −0.002 | (0.008) |
JOYSCIE | 0.159 *** | (0.008) | 0.023 ** | (0.008) |
Demographic & economic controls | ||||
AGE | 0.009 | (0.027) | −0.100 *** | (0.029) |
GenderM | 0.087 *** | (0.015) | −0.052 *** | (0.016) |
ESCS | 0.136 *** | (0.011) | 0.100 *** | (0.011) |
(IMMIG)2 | 0.216 *** | (0.019) | 0.261 *** | (0.020) |
(IMMIG)3 | 0.396 *** | (0.018) | 0.393 *** | (0.019) |
GradeLev8 | −0.186 | (0.150) | 0.347 * | (0.158) |
GradeLev9 | −0.195 | (0.138) | 0.277 | (0.146) |
GradeLev10 | −0.137 | (0.137) | 0.287 * | (0.144) |
GradeLev11 | 0.072 | (0.137) | 0.391** | (0.145) |
GradeLev12 | 0.155 | (0.149) | 0.331 * | (0.157) |
Knowledge controls | ||||
EcoWebVisit | 0.029 ** | (0.011) | 0.096 *** | (0.011) |
BlogsVisit | −0.049 *** | (0.010) | 0.016 | (0.011) |
BroadScBooks | −0.051 *** | (0.011) | 0.036 ** | (0.011) |
BroadScWeb | −0.046 *** | (0.011) | 0.024 * | (0.011) |
Regional control dummies | ||||
Dubai | 0.093 *** | (0.018) | 0.093 *** | (0.019) |
Sharjah | −0.100 *** | (0.021) | 0.052 * | (0.022) |
Ajman | −0.113 ** | (0.035) | 0.014 | (0.037) |
Umm Al Quwain | −0.379 *** | (0.084) | −0.075 | (0.087) |
Ras Al Khaimah | −0.220 *** | (0.032) | −0.227 *** | (0.034) |
Fujairah | −0.124 ** | (0.041) | −0.113 ** | (0.043) |
Awareness (SENA) | −0.005 | (0.008) | ||
Log-likelihood | −28,698.1 | −24,408.3 | ||
BIC | 57,626.1 | 49,046.4 | ||
AIC | 57,448.3 | 48,868.5 |
References
- Jasanoff, S.; Kim, S.H. Containing the atom: Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva 2009, 47, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sovacool, B.K.; Ramana, M. Back to the future: Small modular reactors, nuclear fantasies, and symbolic convergence. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2015, 40, 96–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tidwell, J.H.; Tidwell, A.S. Energy ideals, visions, narratives, and rhetoric: Examining sociotechnical imaginaries theory and methodology in energy research. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 39, 103–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sovacool, B.K. What are we doing here? Analyzing fifteen years of energy scholarship and proposing a social science research agenda. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2014, 1, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edwards, M.W.; Schweitzer, R.D.; Shakespeare-Finch, J.; Byrne, A.; Gordon-King, K. Living with nuclear energy: A systematic review of the psychological consequences of nuclear power. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019, 47, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woo, J.; Lim, S.; Lee, Y.G.; Huh, S.Y. Financial feasibility and social acceptance for reducing nuclear power plants: A contingent valuation study. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Portugal-Pereira, J.; Ferreira, P.; Cunha, J.; Szklo, A.; Schaeffer, R.; Araújo, M. Better late than never, but never late is better: Risk assessment of nuclear power construction projects. Energy Policy 2018, 120, 158–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilbert, A.; Sovacool, B.K.; Johnstone, P.; Stirling, A. Cost overruns and financial risk in the construction of nuclear power reactors: A critical appraisal. Energy Policy 2017, 102, 644–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yoshida, A. Considering the Geological Disposal Program of High-Level Radioactive Waste Through Classroom Debate. In Nuclear Back-End and Transmutation Technology for Waste Disposal; Springer: Tokyo, Japan, 2015; pp. 289–299. [Google Scholar]
- Wheatley, S.; Sovacool, B.K.; Sornette, D. Reassessing the safety of nuclear power. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 15, 96–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ho, S.S.; Leong, A.D.; Looi, J.; Chuah, A.S. Online, offline, or word-of-mouth? Complementary media usage patterns and credibility perceptions of nuclear energy information in Southeast Asia. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019, 48, 46–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Ness, P.; Gurtov, M. Learning from Fukushima: Nuclear Power in East Asia; ANU Press: Canberra, Australia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Fan, M.F. Risk discourses and governance of high-level radioactive waste storage in Taiwan. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2019, 62, 327–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siegrist, M.; Sütterlin, B.; Keller, C. Why have some people changed their attitudes toward nuclear power after the accident in Fukushima? Energy Policy 2014, 69, 356–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsujikawa, N.; Tsuchida, S.; Shiotani, T. Changes in the factors influencing public acceptance of nuclear power generation in Japan since the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Risk Anal. 2016, 36, 98–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Akyüz, E. Advantages and disadvantages of nuclear energy in Turkey: Public perception. Eurasian J. Environ. Res. 2017, 1, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, S.; Kim, S. Impact of the Fukushima nuclear accident on belief in rumors: The role of risk perception and communication. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ho, S.S.; Oshita, T.; Looi, J.; Leong, A.D.; Chuah, A.S. Exploring public perceptions of benefits and risks, trust, and acceptance of nuclear energy in Thailand and Vietnam: A qualitative approach. Energy Policy 2019, 127, 259–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perlaviciute, G.; Steg, L. Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 35, 361–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Li, J. A causal model explaining Chinese university students’ acceptance of nuclear power. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2016, 88, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.; Wang, J.; Lin, S.; Li, J. Public perceptions and acceptance of nuclear energy in China: The role of public knowledge, perceived benefit, perceived risk and public engagement. Energy Policy 2019, 126, 352–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Gu, J.; Wu, J. Explaining local residents’ acceptance of rebuilding nuclear power plants: The roles of perceived general benefit and perceived local benefit. Energy Policy 2020, 140, 111410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Li, Y.; Wu, J.; Gu, J.; Xu, S. Environmental beliefs and public acceptance of nuclear energy in China: A moderated mediation analysis. Energy Policy 2020, 137, 111141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hung, H.C.; Wang, T.W. Determinants and mapping of collective perceptions of technological risk: The case of the second nuclear power plant in Taiwan. Risk Anal. Int. J. 2011, 31, 668–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Siegrist, M.; Visschers, V.H. Acceptance of nuclear power: The Fukushima effect. Energy Policy 2013, 59, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Groot, J.I.; Schweiger, E.; Schubert, I. Social Influence, Risk and Benefit Perceptions, and the Acceptability of Risky Energy Technologies: An Explanatory Model of Nuclear Power Versus Shale Gas. Risk Anal. 2020, 40, 1226–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stefanelli, A.; Seidl, R.; Siegrist, M. The discursive politics of nuclear waste: Rethinking participatory approaches and public perceptions over nuclear waste storage repositories in Switzerland. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 34, 72–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ho, S.S.; Leong, A.D.; Looi, J.; Chen, L.; Pang, N.; Tandoc, E., Jr. Science literacy or value predisposition? A meta-analysis of factors predicting public perceptions of benefits, risks, and acceptance of nuclear energy. Environ. Commun. 2019, 13, 457–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sovacool, B.K.; Valentine, S.V. The National Politics of Nuclear Power: Economics, Security, and Governance; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Ho, S.S.; Looi, J.; Chuah, A.S.; Leong, A.D.; Pang, N. “I can live with nuclear energy if…”: Exploring public perceptions of nuclear energy in Singapore. Energy Policy 2018, 120, 436–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, Y.; Li, Y.; Xia, D.; Zhang, T.; Wang, Y.; Hu, L.; Gu, J.; Wu, Y. Moderating effect of regulatory focus on public acceptance of nuclear energy. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 2019, 51, 2034–2041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, G.; Mol, A.P.; Zhang, L.; Lu, Y. Public participation and trust in nuclear power development in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 23, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richter, J. Energopolitics and nuclear waste: Containing the threat of radioactivity. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2017, 30, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rinscheid, A.; Wüstenhagen, R. Divesting, fast and slow: Affective and cognitive drivers of fading voter support for a nuclear phase-out. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 152, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venables, D.; Pidgeon, N.F.; Parkhill, K.A.; Henwood, K.L.; Simmons, P. Living with nuclear power: Sense of place, proximity, and risk perceptions in local host communities. J. Environ. Psychol. 2012, 32, 371–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huh, S.Y.; Woo, J.; Lee, C.Y. What Do Potential Residents Really Want When Hosting a Nuclear Power Plant? An Empirical Study of Economic Incentives in South Korea. Energies 2019, 12, 1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tantitaechochart, S.; Paoprasert, N.; Silva, K. Analyzing local perceptions toward the new nuclear research reactor in Thailand. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 2020, 52, 2958–2968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harris, J.; Hassall, M.; Muriuki, G.; Warnaar-Notschaele, C.; McFarland, E.; Ashworth, P. The demographics of nuclear power: Comparing nuclear experts’, scientists’ and non-science professionals’ views of risks, benefits and values. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 46, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Visschers, V.H.; Siegrist, M. Find the differences and the similarities: Relating perceived benefits, perceived costs and protected values to acceptance of five energy technologies. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 40, 117–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitmee, S.; Haines, A.; Beyrer, C.; Boltz, F.; Capon, A.G.; de Souza Dias, B.F.; Ezeh, A.; Frumkin, H.; Gong, P.; Head, P.; et al. Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: Report of The Rockefeller Foundation—Lancet Commission on planetary health. Lancet 2015, 386, 1973–2028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siqueira, D.S.; de Almeida Meystre, J.; Hilário, M.Q.; Rocha, D.H.D.; Menon, G.J.; da Silva, R.J. Current perspectives on nuclear energy as a global climate change mitigation option. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2019, 24, 749–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kharecha, P.A.; Hansen, J.E. Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 4889–4895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.; Kim, M.; Lee, J. Analyzing the impact of nuclear power on CO2 emissions. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Prăvălie, R.; Bandoc, G. Nuclear energy: Between global electricity demand, worldwide decarbonisation imperativeness, and planetary environmental implications. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 209, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Suman, S. Hybrid nuclear-renewable energy systems: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 181, 166–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parkhill, K.A.; Pidgeon, N.F.; Henwood, K.L.; Simmons, P.; Venables, D. From the familiar to the extraordinary: Local residents’ perceptions of risk when living with nuclear power in the UK. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 2010, 35, 39–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sartori, E. Nuclear data for radioactive waste management. Ann. Nucl. Energy 2013, 62, 579–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ratner, B. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Global Assessment Report: Policy Responses; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Haines-Young, R.; Potschin, M. Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES, Version 4.1). Eur. Environ. Agency 2012, 33, 107. [Google Scholar]
- Haines-Young, R.; Potschin-Young, M. Revision of the common international classification for ecosystem services (CICES V5. 1): A policy brief. One Ecosyst. 2018, 3, e27108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, P.; Martinez-Alier, J. The economics of ecosystem services and biodiversity: An international assessment. Econ. Political Wkly. 2011, 46, 76–80. [Google Scholar]
- Farley, J. Ecosystem services: The economics debate. Ecosyst. Serv. 2012, 1, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- van Beukering, P.J.; Papyrakis, E.; Bouma, J.; Brouwer, R. Nature’s Wealth: The Economics of Ecosystem Services and Poverty; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Acharya, R.P.; Maraseni, T.; Cockfield, G. Global trend of forest ecosystem services valuation–An analysis of publications. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 39, 100979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niankara, I.; Zoungrana, D.T. Interest in the biosphere and students environmental awareness and optimism: A global perspective. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2018, 16, e00489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niankara, I. Cross-national Data Sample on the Environmental Affection and Cognition of Adolescent Students of Varying Interests in Ecosystem Services and Sustainability. Data Brief 2019, 22, 312–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yildiz, A.; Erkan, A. An Investigation on The Social Acceptance of Nuclear Energy: A Case Study on University Students. İzmir İktisat Derg. 2019, 34, 191–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Craig, C.A.; Sayers, E.L.P. Building clean energy support with young millennials in the United States. Electr. J. 2019, 32, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niankara, I.; Adkins, L.C. Youth Awareness and Expectations about GMOs and Nuclear Power Technologies within the North American Free Trade Bloc: A Retrospective Cross-Country Comparative Analysis. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Contu, D.; Mourato, S.; Kaya, O. Individual preferences towards nuclear energy: The transient residency effect. Appl. Econ. 2020, 52, 3219–3237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, B.; Yu, H.; Wei, Y.M. Impact factors of public attitudes towards nuclear power development: A questionnaire survey in China. Int. J. Glob. Energy Issues 2013, 36, 61–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, G.; Mol, A.P.; Zhang, L.; Lu, Y. Nuclear power in China after Fukushima: Understanding public knowledge, attitudes, and trust. J. Risk Res. 2014, 17, 435–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Visschers, V.H.; Keller, C.; Siegrist, M. Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 3621–3629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keller, C.; Visschers, V.; Siegrist, M. Affective imagery and acceptance of replacing nuclear power plants. Risk Anal. Int. J. 2012, 32, 464–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corner, A.; Venables, D.; Spence, A.; Poortinga, W.; Demski, C.; Pidgeon, N. Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: Exploring British public attitudes. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 4823–4833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murakami, K.; Ida, T.; Tanaka, M.; Friedman, L. Consumers’ willingness to pay for renewable and nuclear energy: A comparative analysis between the US and Japan. Energy Econ. 2015, 50, 178–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zahlan, R.S. The Origins of the United Arab Emirates: A Political and Social History of the Trucial States; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Saif, Y.; Almansoori, A. A capacity expansion planning model for integrated water desalination and power supply chain problem. Energy Convers. Manag. 2016, 122, 462–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahbaz, M.; Sbia, R.; Hamdi, H.; Ozturk, I. Economic growth, electricity consumption, urbanization and environmental degradation relationship in United Arab Emirates. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 45, 622–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pioro, I.; Duffey, R. Current status of electricity generation in the world and future of nuclear power industry. In Managing Global Warming; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 67–114. [Google Scholar]
- Juaidi, A.; Montoya, F.G.; Gázquez, J.A.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F. An overview of energy balance compared to sustainable energy in United Arab Emirates. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 55, 1195–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Nuclear Association. Nuclear Power in the United Arab Emirates. 2018. Available online: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/united-arab-emirates.aspx (accessed on 16 December 2018).
- Sim, L.C. Re-branding Abu Dhabi: From oil giant to energy titan. Place Brand. Public Dipl. 2012, 8, 83–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eveloy, V.; Gebreegziabher, T. Excess electricity and power-to-gas storage potential in the future renewable-based power generation sector in the United Arab Emirates. Energy 2019, 166, 426–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khondaker, A.; Hasan, M.A.; Rahman, S.M.; Malik, K.; Shafiullah, M.; Muhyedeen, M.A. Greenhouse gas emissions from energy sector in the United Arab Emirates—An overview. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 59, 1317–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AlFarra, H.J.; Abu-Hijleh, B. The potential role of nuclear energy in mitigating CO2 emissions in the United Arab Emirates. Energy Policy 2012, 42, 272–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Devanand, A.; Kraft, M.; Karimi, I.A. Optimal site selection for modular nuclear power plants. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2019, 125, 339–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Early, B.R. Acquiring Foreign Nuclear Assistance in the Middle East: Strategic Lessons from the United Arab Emirates. Nonprolif. Rev. 2010, 17, 259–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, K.C.; Chevalier, F. The winning strategy of the late-comer: How Korea was awarded the UAE nuclear power contract. Int. Rev. Bus. Res. Pap. 2010, 6, 221–238. [Google Scholar]
- Nagraj, A. UAE Nuclear Power Plant over 90% Complete. 2018. Available online: https://gulfbusiness.com/uae-nuclear-power-plant-90-complete/ (accessed on 16 December 2018).
- Schmidt, K.H.; Jurado, B. Review on the progress in nuclear fission—Experimental methods and theoretical descriptions. Rep. Prog. Phys. 2018, 81, 106301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Knapp, V.; Pevec, D. Promises and limitations of nuclear fission energy in combating climate change. Energy Policy 2018, 120, 94–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lenzen, M. Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy: A review. Energy Convers. Manag. 2008, 49, 2178–2199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hvidt, M. Nuclear power in the United Arab Emirates: A case for public debate? 2017. Available online: https://findresearcher.sdu.dk:8443/ws/files/140140963/Hvidt_Nuclear_power_July_2017_.pdf (accessed on 18 December 2018).
- Al Saadi, S.; Yi, Y. Dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in UAE–Economic aspect. Ann. Nucl. Energy 2015, 75, 527–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dirioz, A.O.; Reimold, B.A. The Strategic Context of the UAE’s Nuclear Project: A Model for the Region? Middle East Policy 2014, 21, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Treyer, K.; Bauer, C. The environmental footprint of UAE’s electricity sector: Combining life cycle assessment and scenario modeling. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 55, 1234–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD. PISA 2015 Technical Report: Chapter 04—Sample Design; Retrieved on 30 March 2018; Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development: Paris, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Niankara, I. Scientific media dieting and youth awareness and expectations about the environmental issues of deforestation and species extinction in the Middle East and North America. World Rev. Sci. Technol. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 15, 252–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sajaia, Z. Maximum likelihood estimation of a bivariate ordered probit model: Implementation and Monte Carlo simulations. Stata J. 2008, 4, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Sarrias, M. Discrete Choice Models with Random Parameters in R: The Rchoice Package. J. Stat. Softw. 2016, 74, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- OECD. Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015 Database: Stduent Questionnaire Data File; Retrieved on 30 March 2018; Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development: Paris, France, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Ramana, M.; Mian, Z. One size doesn’t fit all: Social priorities and technical conflicts for small modular reactors. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2014, 2, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Black, G.A.; Aydogan, F.; Koerner, C.L. Economic viability of light water small modular nuclear reactors: General methodology and vendor data. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 103, 248–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mignacca, B.; Locatelli, G. Economics and finance of Small Modular Reactors: A systematic review and research agenda. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 118, 109519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Falkenmark, M. Freshwater as shared between society and ecosystems: From divided approaches to integrated challenges. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. Biol. Sci. 2003, 358, 2037–2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yun, J.J.; Won, D.; Park, K. Entrepreneurial cyclical dynamics of open innovation. J. Evol. Econ. 2018, 28, 1151–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, H.S. Technology convergence, open innovation, and dynamic economy. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2017, 3, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hussey, K.; Pittock, J. The energy—Water nexus: Managing the links between energy and water for a sustainable future. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.G.; Lee, J.H.; Song, Y.I.; Kim, H.J. Technological convergence and open innovation in the mobile telecommunication industry. Asian J. Technol. Innov. 2008, 16, 45–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, K.r.; Yun, J.J.; Jeong, E.S. Convergence innovation of the textile machinery industry in Korea. Asian J. Technol. Innov. 2015, 23, 58–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siedlok, F.; Smart, P.; Gupta, A. Convergence and reorientation via open innovation: The emergence of nutraceuticals. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2010, 22, 571–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bröring, S. The role of open innovation in the industry convergence between foods and pharmaceuticals. In Open Innovation in the Food and Beverage Industry; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 39–62. [Google Scholar]
- Mansouri, N.Y.; Ghoniem, A.F. Does nuclear desalination make sense for Saudi Arabia? Desalination 2017, 406, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, S.U.D.; Khan, S.U.D.; Haider, S.; El-Leathy, A.; Rana, U.A.; Danish, S.N.; Ullah, R. Development and techno-economic analysis of small modular nuclear reactor and desalination system across Middle East and North Africa region. Desalination 2017, 406, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Locatelli, G.; Fiordaliso, A.; Boarin, S.; Ricotti, M.E. Cogeneration: An option to facilitate load following in Small Modular Reactors. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2017, 97, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Othman, A.; Darwish, N.N.; Qasim, M.; Tawalbeh, M.; Darwish, N.A.; Hilal, N. Nuclear desalination: A state-of-the-art review. Desalination 2019, 457, 39–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jung, Y.H.; Jeong, Y.H.; Choi, J.; Wibisono, A.F.; Lee, J.I.; No, H.C. Feasibility study of a small-sized nuclear heat-only plant dedicated to desalination in the UAE. Desalination 2014, 337, 83–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, W.W.; Bae, S.J.; Jung, Y.H.; Yoon, H.J.; Jeong, Y.H.; Lee, J.I. Improving power and desalination capabilities of a large nuclear power plant with supercritical CO2 power technology. Desalination 2017, 409, 136–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, K.; McAdam, R.; McAdam, M. A systematic literature review of university technology transfer from a quadruple helix perspective: Toward a research agenda. R&D Manag. 2018, 48, 7–24. [Google Scholar]
- Yun, J.J.; Liu, Z. Micro-and macro-dynamics of open innovation with a quadruple-helix model. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schütz, F.; Heidingsfelder, M.L.; Schraudner, M. Co-shaping the future in quadruple helix innovation systems: Uncovering public preferences toward participatory research and innovation. She Ji J. Des. Econ. Innov. 2019, 5, 128–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, Y.; Wei, Y. Government communication effectiveness on local acceptance of nuclear power: Evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 218, 38–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.; Wang, J.; Lin, S.; Li, J. How and when does information publicity affect public acceptance of nuclear energy? Energy 2020, 117290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
IntBiosph | Rel. Freq. | Chi Stat. | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (%) | |||
SENA | 1 | 6.76 | 35.78 | 23.53 | 26.37 | 7.55 | 14.74 | X-squared = 537.37 *** |
2 | 4.52 | 22.67 | 27.95 | 36.74 | 8.13 | 30.41 | df = 12, p-value < 2.2 × | |
3 | 4.16 | 14.44 | 24.63 | 44.15 | 12.62 | 33.33 | ||
4 | 3.29 | 12.02 | 19.01 | 41.44 | 24.24 | 21.52 | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | |
SENE | 1 | 4.52 | 17.84 | 23.36 | 40.06 | 14.22 | 30.38 | X-squared = 20.74 ** |
2 | 4.17 | 19.63 | 25.75 | 39.21 | 11.23 | 32.55 | df = 8, p-value = 0.00787 | |
3 | 4.68 | 20.94 | 23.70 | 37.12 | 13.57 | 37.07 | ||
Rel. Freq. | (%) | 4.47 | 19.57 | 24.27 | 38.69 | 13.01 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Niankara, I. Youths Interests in the Biosphere and Sensitivity to Nuclear Power Technology in the UAE: With Discussions on Open Innovation and Technological Convergence in Energy and Water Sectors. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 180. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040180
Niankara I. Youths Interests in the Biosphere and Sensitivity to Nuclear Power Technology in the UAE: With Discussions on Open Innovation and Technological Convergence in Energy and Water Sectors. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. 2020; 6(4):180. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040180
Chicago/Turabian StyleNiankara, Ibrahim. 2020. "Youths Interests in the Biosphere and Sensitivity to Nuclear Power Technology in the UAE: With Discussions on Open Innovation and Technological Convergence in Energy and Water Sectors" Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 6, no. 4: 180. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040180