Global electricity consumption is projected to increase faster than the estimated overall global energy demand [
1]. Therefore, countries have to diversify energy sources in line with their increasing energy needs; however, most energy sources generate pollution elements such as excessive carbon (C) gas. Considering the cyclical changes in geological times, it can be said that human factors as well as planetary mechanisms shape global warming. The global release of excessive carbon (C) gas is now one of the major causes of global warming [
2,
3,
4]. Owing to the rise in greenhouse gas emissions over the last century, the Earth’s surface temperature rose by 1.0–1.2 °C and the ocean level increased by 20–22 cm [
5]. The search for new/additional/alternative energy sources with low carbon emissions is continuing to reduce the environmental and social costs of electricity generation [
6]. Nuclear energy (nuclear power) remains one of the cheapest and potentially most appropriate ways to mitigate the harmful effects of climate change due to its relatively low carbon dioxide emissions.
1.1. Literature Review
This paper belongs to the literature on (environmental) risk and nuclear power. The definitions of environmental and human risk related to broader resource exploitations and renewables in Central and Eastern Europe are well known [
9]; see risks in nuclear power presented by Vlcek et al. [
10]. In our paper, we focus on the effects of different demographic, socio-economic, and psychological characteristics of the perception of risk posed by nuclear energy and compare previous findings with a pilot study conducted in Serbia.
Many previous studies [
11,
12,
13] have identified that individuals with traditional values have greater support for it, while those with altruistic values have greater opposition to nuclear power, showing that values predict attitudes [
13]. It has also been found that attitudes toward nuclear power do not vary by gender, age, education, income, or political orientation. In terms of ethnicity, some ethnicities are more supportive than others. Related to gender, there are no consistent results. Some studies found no significant differences for gender [
14,
15,
16], while others found significant differences [
14,
17]. Greenberg and Schneider [
17] also found that women are more concerned about environmental risks than men. Women in Sweden seem to have greater opposition to nuclear power than men do [
18]. There are also other research variables that may relate to the acceptance of risk, such as age [
19,
20] and marital status [
21,
22].
The relationship between public attitudes to nuclear power is diverse: some are positive [
23], while others are negative [
24]. One study conducted in the USA showed that people living around a power plant perceive nuclear energy more positively than people in general due to the benefits they receive, such as in workplaces, etc., [
25], while people in China are opposed to nuclear power plants in their area [
26]. When people believe that nuclear energy has more benefits for them than detriments, it is more likely to be deemed acceptable [
27]. This is reasonable in light of the benefits seen in workplaces and therefore financial security/dependency. The general level of concern has not been correlated with risk perception [
11]. On the other hand, it was found that trust in environmental protection institutions and the perceived risk of a global environmental problem do not presuppose principled views on nuclear energy [
28,
29,
30,
31]. At the same time, it was determined that values are predictors of attitudes; i.e., individuals with traditional values provide more support, while those with altruistic values tend to oppose nuclear energy. Huang et al. [
32] formed a structural equation model to describe the level of public acceptance when it comes to nuclear power plants, and identified four risk perception factors: knowledge, perceived risk, benefits, and trust. It was determined that women, persons who are not part of public services, persons with lower incomes, and those who live near a nuclear power plant accept nuclear energy to the least extent. On the other side, strong correlations between social trust and perceived risks and benefits have been observed for hazards of which people have little knowledge [
33]. Takebayashi et al. [
12] performed a systematic review of the literature and found that governing factors of radiation risk perception included demographics, disaster-related stressors, trusted information, and radiation-related variables and that the effects of radiation risk perception included severe distress, intentions to leave employment or to not return home, among others. Jun, Kim, Jeong, and Chang [
34] pointed out that public perception is often an obstacle to the development and implementation of nuclear policies, requiring substantial subsidies that are not based on the social evaluation of nuclear energy. These authors, in research assessing the social value of citizens’ readiness to pay for nuclear energy, found that the social evaluation of nuclear energy increases by an average of 68.5% if adequate information on nuclear energy is provided to the public. It was also proven that the public does not change their perception due to provided information or education efforts. Overall, there are 18 factors that influence the public’s perception of risk, which need to be taken into account. Knowledge is only one of them. Specific risk perceptions held by a given population and its various subgroups must be acknowledged and incorporated into successful risk communication and public engagement strategies [
35]. A significant body of research [
33,
36,
37,
38,
39] has highlighted the importance of institutional trust in influencing risk expectations, i.e., the level of trust in those agents responsible for risk management. In other research, it was found that social trust is a key factor in predicting the perceived risks and benefits of technology, and support was provided for the theory of social trust in the similarity of prominent values [
39]. A study conducted in four European countries (Sweden, Spain, the United Kingdom, and France) found that trust is a significant predictor of perceived risk [
40]. Moreover, the correlation between the confidence and perception of risks is also varied, e.g., trust generally gave a better explanation of the perceived risk.
In one of the studies, the respondents were asked to evaluate the likelihood of a nuclear disaster at the Krško nuclear power with serious consequences for the environment that would necessitate the evacuation of the nearby population. Most respondents expressed their belief that such a disaster is improbable [
41].
Related to preparedness for nuclear disaster, there are a number of papers examining the level of preparedness [
42,
43] and the factors that affect it [
41,
44,
45]. Despite potential shortcomings in nuclear and radiological event planning and preparedness, it is known that these incidents are increasingly likely to occur [
42,
43]. In practice, in spite of good planning, communication, and training, it was found [
40] that almost three-quarters of the population living within a three-kilometer radius remain unfamiliar with the locations of the reception centers, and two-thirds of them are unfamiliar with the evacuation routes. Hasegawa et al. stressed that, by promoting social capital (e.g., social networks, reciprocal ties, and social participation), people become more likely to engage in disaster-preparedness activities [
46].
Despite all the existing knowledge and IAEA Safety Standards that require the operators in Member States to maintain an adequate level of emergency preparedness, the current level of preparedness in Serbia remains low due to a fatalistic attitude, poor nuclear disaster planning, the low attendance of personnel at training sessions, poor coordination, and scarce attention and resources devoted to the management of a possible disaster. The Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011) nuclear power plants accidents had a substantial impact on nuclear emergency planning and response, as well as on the processes of implementing a modern nuclear emergency management system, which, for example, is currently under way in Germany [
45]. Razak, Hignett, and Barnes [
47] highlighted that response planning and preparation should be considered at three levels: organizational (policies and procedures), technological (decontamination, communication, security, clinical care, and treatment), and individual (willingness to respond, PPE, knowledge, and competence). Shah, Shahzad, and Afzal [
48] found that the medical responders were aware of the consequences of nuclear disaster and were found willing to respond to these kinds of disasters voluntarily, but they were not satisfied with their level of preparedness/awareness about nuclear/radiological disasters. Furthermore, Mortelmans et al. [
44] found that there are serious gaps in hospital preparedness for nuclear disasters in Belgium, and a lack of financial resources is a major obstacle in achieving sufficient preparedness. Malešič et al. [
41] stressed that respondents believe that their institutions and companies are generally well prepared and able to evacuate those to whom they have a duty of care.
There are many research papers related to the fear of nuclear disaster [
49,
50,
51]. Nishikawa, Kato, Homma, and Takahara [
52] found that residents living near nuclear facilities have shown greater concern about the health risks of nuclear disasters than about the likelihood that such accidents will be caused by human error. In other research, it has been found that public concern and fear increased with greater distance from the site, and this distance effect occurs because people farther away from the site of an accident have less information about it, and this may amplify their fears and reduce their acceptance of nuclear energy [
53,
54,
55].
Safety issues related to the use of nuclear power have been addressed, and how this has contributed to improvements, despite accidents and incidents that have compromised public confidence, has been demonstrated [
56]. After the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident in 2011, the Japanese government began debating its nuclear strategy [
57,
58]. Right after the Fukushima Daiichi accident, the percentage of those in favor of nuclear energy dropped from 57% before the accident to 49% after it [
59]. The survey from over 24 countries showed that the respondents were mostly against nuclear power; in addition, 26% of the respondents expressed that their attitudes were changed in favor of nuclear energy after the accident [
60].
1.2. Historical Issues of Nuclear Power Worldwide
Since the 1950s, the overall experience with nuclear energy has shown that, as anything else, it has both advantages and disadvantages. Disadvantages that should be considered include radioactive waste and its management as well as possible hazards and accidents, and these impact the environment and society, irrespective of the proximity of its site. The development of nuclear technology has exposed a difference between the excitement for a new, reliable, renewable, and secure energy source reported by scientific experts at the beginning of the early 1960s and the fear of potential nuclear accidents, but also related and still largely unknown long-term health and environmental impacts on the general public [
61]. From the very beginning, nuclear power was perceived to be one of the cheapest sources of electricity and was expected to replace coal and become a major source of electricity [
62]. Several developed and developing countries use primarily nuclear energy for power production; e.g., the United States, France, China, and the Russian Federation had the most active reactors in the world at the end of 2019 [
8]. France is the leading producer of nuclear energy, providing 70.6% of its total electricity production, followed by Ukraine (53.9%), Sweden (34.0%), and South Korea (26.2%) (
Table 1). Nuclear power generation in Eastern Europe is very high, approximately 21%. According to the estimates of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it is expected that the electricity generation capacity in Eastern Europe will increase by about 40% in 2030 [
62]. There are currently 443 civil nuclear power reactors in operation around the world, with another 54 under construction, according to the IAEA. At the end of 2019, total net power capacity was 392 GWe, accounting for about 10.5% of the total electricity demand [
63,
64].
Despite the growing importance of nuclear energy in view of the growing environmental and fossil fuel supply problems, Ahearne [
65] stresses that obstacles to the further development of nuclear energy include costs, concerns about its connection to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, poor public attitudes, inadequate ways of disposing nuclear waste, and a lack of skilled labor. The attitude that the spread of nuclear materials can lead to proliferation risks is a very important obstacle [
66]. Some of the most important factors for people’s opposition to the introduction of nuclear energy are the lack of knowledge about it and the processes characteristic of production and safety measures [
67,
68,
69], as well as concerns about climate change. For example, Ertör-Akyazı et al. [
70] found that fewer respondents embraced nuclear energy, while many more supported investment in renewable energy. In addition, the authors found that knowledge of the problem of climate change was a common factor that explained the acceptance of both nuclear and renewable energy sources. In China, most respondents are interested in the development of nuclear energy, although public opinion shows a certain level of doubt about the safety of nuclear energy, because they are afraid of nuclear disasters [
71]. As barriers to the introduction of nuclear energy, there are also legal barriers that may prohibit the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation, as in the case in Australia [
72,
73]. Some countries, such as the UK, Turkey, and those with emerging economies (e.g., Malaysia and Indonesia), are increasingly seeking to attract private investors for nuclear projects using project finance [
74]. Jewell [
75] found that indicators for the potential of nuclear power include the size of the national grid, the presence of international grid connections, and the security of fuel supply for electricity production.
Peters and Slovic [
76] found that worldviews and affect-driven imagery together provide an extremely predictable picture when it comes to nuclear energy risk perceptions and support for this type of technology. According to them, affects and worldviews make individual and independent contributions to the prediction regarding nuclear support.
It is relatively easy to raise nuclear opposition through unfavorable incidents, such as mass demonstrations or accidents such as the Three Mile Island, but it is very difficult to increase nuclear support even after long periods of safe activity [
13]. Moreover, it was found that the majority of public respondents were not ready to accept the construction of a high-level local nuclear waste storage facility in their region. The public treated the issue of nuclear waste as a very important topic [
77]. However, if people do not see a good substitute for technology from which they can enjoy significant benefits, they are willing to take private risks [
78]. The French have a higher level of risk perception and a more negative attitude towards nuclear energy than the Dutch. However, the results also show that the benefits of using nuclear energy are higher [
16].
According to previous studies, the public acceptance of nuclear power has been influenced by energy safety, risk perception, and profit perception. EU countries producing nuclear power, such as Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Czech Republic have more acceptance of nuclear energy than countries with no nuclear power plants, such as the Netherlands [
79].
However, potential nuclear accidents continue to have a profound impact on the environment and human health, affecting public views and perceptions of nuclear power. The Three Mile Island (1979) in the US, Chernobyl (1986) in Ukraine, and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power accidents in Japan (2011) remain the most significant radiological accidents and play an important role in how nuclear energy and government policy is perceived [
49].