Next Article in Journal
A New Hybrid Neural Network Method for State-of-Health Estimation of Lithium-Ion Battery
Previous Article in Journal
Use of Hydrothermal Carbonization and Cold Atmospheric Plasma for Surface Modification of Brewer’s Spent Grain and Activated Carbon
Previous Article in Special Issue
Drivers and Challenges of Peer-to-Peer Energy Trading Development in Thailand
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 15
Issue 12
10.3390/en15124397
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Peoples’ Perception towards Nuclear Energy

by
Meesha Iqbal
1,
Rae Moss
2 and
Irene van Woerden
1,*
1
Department of Community and Public Health, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID 83209, USA
2
Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID 83415, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2022, 15(12), 4397; https://doi.org/10.3390/en15124397
Submission received: 28 April 2022 / Revised: 11 June 2022 / Accepted: 14 June 2022 / Published: 16 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Energy & Society)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Perception towards nuclear energy is a vital factor determining the success or failure of nuclear projects. An online survey obtained attitudes toward nuclear energy, opinions on whether benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the risks, and views of using nuclear energy as an energy source. A total of 4318 participants from across the U.S. completed the survey. Logistic regression was used to predict perceptions of nuclear energy by participant demographics and geographical location. Participants living closest to Idaho National Laboratory (INL) were more likely to have positive attitudes towards nuclear energy (aOR: 7.18, p < 0.001), believe the benefits were greater than the risks (aOR: 4.90, p < 0.001), and have positive attitudes toward using nuclear energy as an electricity source (aOR: 5.70, p < 0.001), compared to people living farther from INL. Males and non-Hispanic white participants were more likely to have positive perceptions of nuclear energy. Developing and implementing awareness raising campaigns for people living further away from nuclear power plants, targeting females and Hispanic whites, may be key to improving the overall perceptions of nuclear energy.

1. Introduction

The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a universal call for action to ensure a sustainable future for all [1]. The aim of SDG 7 is to ensure that everyone has access to affordable, reliable, and modern energy resources by the end of 2030 [2]. The U.S. Office of Nuclear Energy states that nuclear energy is not only affordable and reliable, but also a clean and zero carbon energy source [3]. It is proposed that nuclear energy, along with other energy sources such as solar, wind and hydro power can provide the required energy to eventually meet SDG 7 [2]. The current global energy mix relies heavily on non-sustainable fossil fuels (~75% of electricity worldwide), with only a small proportion coming from nuclear energy [4]. One reason for the limited use of nuclear energy is the public’s negative perception of nuclear energy. In particular, concerns around safety and radioactive waste have impeded progress of the nuclear industry globally [5]. Negative public opinion of nuclear energy is a major barrier to the acceptance of nuclear energy technologies [4].
Globally, the United States (U.S.) is the largest producer of nuclear energy. The U.S. has 94 reactors in 28 states [6], which account for more than 30% of the global nuclear energy production, and 19% of the electricity output for the U.S. [7]. Nonetheless, the U.S. has faced considerable public opposition to the use of nuclear energy. A nuclear energy generating station 30 miles from Detroit faced strong opposition in 1957, and the project was ultimately abandoned in 1964 [8,9]. Anti-nuclear energy protests also preceded the shutdown of Shoreham, Yankee Rowe, Rancho Seco, Maine Yankee and about a dozen other nuclear power plants in the U.S. [10]. There were many anti-nuclear protests in the U.S. during the 1970s and 80s, including a large protest following the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 [11].
Demographics and geographical location have been shown to be associated with perceptions toward nuclear energy, however the direction of these associations has sometimes been inconsistent. Females have consistently been found to be more opposed to nuclear energy than males, at both the state and federal levels [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19]. While some studies have found that increasing age leads to positive perceptions about nuclear energy [14,16], other studies have found the opposite [20]. There are also inconsistent findings with education, with some studies showing educated groups being more likely to be pro-nuclear [20,21], while other studies report opposite findings [14]. Similarly, monthly income may positively correlate with nuclear perceptions, or the effect may be insignificant. [13,14]. Findings on proximity to a nuclear reactor and perceptions of nuclear energy are also inconsistent [21]. Some studies have found a higher level of negative perceptions and concerns of nuclear energy with closer proximity to nuclear reactors [22,23,24,25]. However, other studies have found a higher proportion of favorable perceptions to nuclear energy among those living in the vicinity of nuclear power stations [26].
Idaho National Laboratory (INL) is the leading U.S. national laboratory for nuclear energy research and development [27]. There is a dearth of information highlighting the association of geographical location and proximity to INL, and socio-demographic features with the perceptions towards nuclear energy. This study seeks to bridge this important gap in the literature with the specific objectives to explore the association of (a) proximity to INL, and (b) socio-demographic characteristics, with perceptions of nuclear energy.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This study is part of a larger project to assess the perceptions of the local community of Idaho to nuclear energy and determine their preparedness to potential disasters [28]. A structured online survey was distributed through two local news outlets (East Idaho News and Idaho State Journal) from 10 May to 25 June 2021. A monetary incentive to complete the survey was provided, with participants entered in a draw to win one of one hundred USD 20 Amazon gift cards upon completing the survey. The electronic survey took approximately 14 min to complete (IQR = 8 min to 26 min) and was self-administered. All participants older than 18 years of age who were willing to participate in the study were deemed eligible. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Idaho State University Institutional Review Board.
The response rate to the survey was much higher than expected. The survey was online, and became shared with a wide audience—a total of 6151 participants across the U.S. completed at least one question in the survey. A total of 496 participants with incomplete socio-demographic, state/ZIP code, and perceptions of nuclear energy responses were excluded from the study. To limit bias from other nuclear facilities in the US, an additional 732 participants living within a 50-mile radius of another nuclear facility were also excluded. Finally, 121 participants reporting a non-female or male gender, 95 participants who exited the survey before reporting their INL employment status, and 396 participants who stated they did not know if they had been employed by INL were also removed, reducing the final dataset to n = 4318 observations.

2.2. Measurements

2.2.1. Attitudes and Opinions toward the Use of Nuclear Energy

Attitudes and opinions toward the use of nuclear energy were measured by three items, which have been previously used and validated in a study conducted in the United Kingdom in 2011 [16]. To capture feelings toward nuclear energy, participants were asked “On a purely emotional level, how do you feel about nuclear energy?” with the response options on a five-point Likert scale of “very positive” to “very negative.” Responses were dichotomized to “positive” (positive or very positive) and “negative/neutral” (very negative, negative or neutral). To determine attitudes toward using nuclear energy as a source of electricity provision, participants were asked “Please select the option that best describes your position on the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States” with response options on a four-point Likert scale of “strongly oppose” to “strongly favor.” Responses were dichotomized to “oppose” (strongly oppose or oppose) and “favor” (strongly favor or favor). To determine the opinion of people regarding benefits and risks of nuclear power, participants were asked “From what you know or have heard about nuclear power and Idaho National Laboratory (INL), in general, which of these statements, if any, most closely reflects your own opinion?” with the response options on a five-point Likert scale of “benefits far outweigh risks” to “risks far outweigh benefits.” Responses were dichotomized to “benefits outweigh risks” (benefits far outweigh risks or benefits slightly outweigh risks) and “risks outweigh benefits’” (same, risks slightly outweigh benefits or risks far outweigh benefits).
Geographical location was obtained by ZIP code and state of participants. Idaho participants’ were categorized as “Idaho: living within 50-mile radius of INL” and “Idaho: Living outside 50-mile radius of INL” based on zip code. All non-Idaho participants were classified as “US: non-Idaho”.

2.2.2. Socio-Demographics

Participants reported their age, gender, race, ethnicity, educational status and income. Based on the distribution of responses, participant race/ethnicity was classified as “non-Hispanic white”, “Hispanic” and other. Participants were also asked, “Have you previously been employed in INL?” with response options of “Yes”, “No”, Don’t know” and “Not Applicable”. The “Don’t know” option was included as INL has numerous subcontractors who work closely with the laboratory, resulting in some participants being unclear if they had previously been employed at INL or not.
The face validity of the questions was established by pre-testing the questionnaire and administering it to 18 individuals, selected by the research team based on feasibility. The individuals provided constructive feedback which was incorporated to refine the questions. The detailed study questionnaire is provided in Supplementary Table S1.

2.3. Data Analysis

Pearson chi-square tests were run to examine the bivariate association between perceptions of nuclear energy and participant geographical location and socio-demographic features. Three multivariate binary logistic regression models predicting the three perceptions of nuclear energy by geographical location and sociodemographic characteristics. As those who work at INL were anticipated to have more positive attitudes and opinions about nuclear energy, all models were controlled for any prior or current INL employment. As INL workers living further than “driving distance” to INL (outside the 50-mile radius) may indicate the participant no longer works at INL, an interaction term for INL workers and geographical location was included in the model. Statistical significance was defined as a p < 0.01. All analyses were performed using R (version 4.1.1).

3. Results

The majority of participants in this study were less than 35 years of age (60%), with at least an undergraduate degree (60%), not working at INL (57%), and from outside of Idaho (57%) (Table 1). Notably, while 22% of participants stated they were previously or currently employed at INL, another 13% of participants chose not to answer this question. The majority of the study participants reported a positive emotional response toward nuclear energy (54%), considered the benefits of nuclear energy to outweigh the risks (58%), and favored the use of nuclear energy as a means of providing electricity in the U.S. (76%).
Significant differences by geographical location were found for all socio-demographic variables, as well as for all three measures of perceptions of nuclear energy (all p < 0.001). While 82% of participants within a 50-mile radius of INL felt positive about nuclear energy, only 59% of Idaho participants outside the 50-mile radius and 41% of non-Idaho U.S. participants reported positive attitudes. This decreasing positive trend of nuclear perceptions as the distance from INL increased was also observed for believing the benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the risks (84%, 63%, 46%), and favoring the use of nuclear energy as an electricity source (94%, 80% and 68%). For a summary of perceptions of nuclear energy by State, see Supplementary Table S1.
In the logistic regression, geographical location remained a significant predictor of attitudes and opinions towards the use of nuclear energy (Table 2). Participants who lived further away from INL had lower odds of positive perceptions of nuclear energy. Compared to participants within 50 miles of INL, participants within Idaho living further than 50 miles from INL had significantly lower odds of a positive emotional response toward nuclear energy (OR = 0.46, 99% CI = 0.33, 0.63), of considering that the benefits of nuclear energy outweighed the risks (OR = 0.37, 99% CI = 0.27, 0.52), and of favoring the use of nuclear energy as a way to provide electricity in the U.S. (OR = 0.24, 99% CI = 0.15, 0.38). For non-Idaho U.S. participants, the odds were even lower (0.16, 0.32, and 0.24, respectively).
Compared to participants less than 35 years of age, participants 35 years or older had lower odds of favoring the use of nuclear energy as a way to provide electricity in the U.S. As expected, compared to females, males had higher odds of positive perceptions of nuclear energy on all three measures (OR = 1.20, 1.64, 1.90). Compared to participants who were non-Hispanic white, participants who were Hispanic had lower odds of a positive emotional response to nuclear energy (OR = 0.59, 99% CI = 0.47, 0.74); no significant difference between Hispanic and non-Hispanic white participants was found for considering that the benefits of nuclear energy outweighed the risks (p = 0.140) or for favoring the use of nuclear energy in the United States (p = 0.905). Compared to participants with an education level less than high school or a GED, participants with at least a high school education had lower odds of a positive emotional response to nuclear energy (OR = 0.49, 0.68, 0.54; p < 0.001) and higher odds of favoring the use of nuclear energy in the U.S. (OR = 3.05, 3.03, 1.81; p < 0.001).
INL employment was associated with higher odds of a positive emotional response to nuclear energy (OR = 4.3, 99% CI = 2.06, 10.5), and higher odds of considering that the benefits of nuclear energy outweighed the risks (OR = 2.42, 99% CI = 1.22, 5.41; Table 2). However, the interaction term showed that INL employees outside of the 50-mile radius of INL had, in general, significantly lower odds of positive perceptions of nuclear energy.

4. Discussion

This study examined how geographical proximity to INL and socio-demographics were associated with perceptions of nuclear energy. Participants who lived within 50 miles of INL had more positive perceptions of nuclear energy than participants who lived further away. Males were more favorable towards nuclear energy than females, while the findings for education and income were mixed. Working at INL was associated with more positive perceptions of nuclear energy; however, INL workers who lived further than 50 miles from INL had significantly lower odds of positive perceptions of nuclear energy.
This study found positive perceptions of nuclear energy among participants living near INL. Potentially, participants living near INL had been exposed to more positive interactions with nuclear energy (e.g., school tours, scholarships, benefits to the economy and donations from INL), and thus had a more positive attitude. This finding of more positive perceptions to nuclear energy among participants living near INL are consistent with the “reverse NIMBY” concept. The term “NIMBY syndrome” (not-in-my-backyard syndrome) was coined in the 1980s by social scientists to describe the resistance of communities to the construction of controversial facilities in their vicinity [29]. However, substantial evidence currently exists showing the “reverse NIMBY” for nuclear energy, highlighting the positive perceptions of people living in close proximity to nuclear power plants [30,31,32,33]. For instance, a similar study carried out in the U.K. in 2011 (n = 1326) reported a decrease in perceived risk and a positive attitude of people in proximity to the nuclear power stations at Oldbury and Hinkley Point [34]. Similarly, other evidence from the U.S. suggests that people living in proximity to nuclear reactors are less likely to perceive greater risk [35]. However, researchers from Japan found that proximity to the Fukushima nuclear power plant had no impact on public support for nuclear energy after the 2011 tsunami and nuclear incident [30]. This study provides further evidence that decreased proximity to nuclear power plants is associated with improved perceptions of nuclear energy.
As anticipated, males were more favorable to nuclear energy than females. Similar findings, showing higher opposition to nuclear energy by females, have been found in other studies carried out in the U.S. and other parts of the world [36,37,38]. Participants with higher education were less positive to nuclear energy at the emotional level but had higher odds of favoring the use of nuclear energy in the U.S. Prior studies have shown that higher education leads to positive perceptions towards nuclear energy [20,21]. Other studies have shown that people who have greater knowledge of nuclear energy are more supportive of the use of nuclear energy [39].
Working at INL was associated with more positive perceptions of nuclear energy; however, INL workers who lived further than 50 miles from INL were significantly less favorable to nuclear energy than INL workers living near INL. While this study did not differentiate between current and prior INL work, this finding may indicate that prior INL workers (who likely live further from INL) are not as positive towards nuclear energy as those currently working there. INL workers are typically thought to be ambassadors for nuclear energy, and are potentially a trusted source of information for the general public. Understanding the underlying reasons for positive and negative perceptions of nuclear energy among employees of the nuclear industry may identify key areas that need to be addressed.
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the largest study to explore perceptions of nuclear energy, and the first study to examine those living in the vicinity of INL. Strengths of this study include the use of validated questions, the large sample size of the study, and the range of responses by geographical location. However, the study does not come without limitations. Participants were recruited online, were offered a monetary incentive to complete the study, and a purposive nonprobability sampling technique was applied, all of which may have resulted in a biased sample. While a large number of participants were included in the study, the number of responses is still low in comparison to the population of the U.S., and there are a limited number of responses from other states. The question regarding working at INL was not validated, and while we excluded participants near other nuclear facilities, we also did not control for employment by other nuclear-related organizations. Future studies should also examine the use of more advanced statistical analyses.

5. Conclusions and Implications

The findings from this study suggest the reverse NIMBY syndrome is occurring with INL. Participants living within the 50-mile radius of INL form a unique group of people, and they reported more positive perceptions toward nuclear energy than participants who lived further away. The study also indicated that prior INL workers held poorer perceptions of nuclear energy, and additional research should confirm this and then examine the underlying reasons for this. Determining why differences in favorability towards nuclear energy occur is the first step in increasing (or decreasing) the level of favorability towards nuclear energy. History shows that people’s perceptions of nuclear energy play an integral role in the success or failure of nuclear power plants. People living within the vicinity of nuclear facilities such as INL can serve as ambassadors of creating positive awareness about nuclear energy among the public. Door-to-door or other outreach campaigns specifically targeted towards the high-risk groups including but not limited to females and non-Hispanic whites living further away from nuclear facilities could be designed and implemented and result in increased favorability to nuclear energy. For nuclear energy to be included in a clean energy future, the current perceptions of nuclear energy will likely need to change.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/en15124397/s1, Table S1: Perceptions of nuclear energy by State.

Author Contributions

Supervision, I.v.W.; Writing—original draft, M.I.; Writing—review & editing, R.M. and I.v.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study was funded by the State of Idaho in support of the Center for Advanced Energy Studies (CAES).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Idaho State University Institutional Review Board (IRB-FY2021-172; April 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. United Nations. Sustainable Development: The 17 Goals. 2015. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 4 August 2021).
  2. United Nations. Nuclear Power for Sustainable Development. 2015. Available online: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/np-sustainable-development.pdf (accessed on 4 August 2021).
  3. U.S. Department of Energy. 3 Reasons Why Nuclear Is Clean and Sustainable. 2021. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-reasons-why-nuclear-clean-and-sustainable#:~:text=Nuclear%20is%20a%20zero%2Demission,byproducts%20emitted%20by%20fossil%20fuels (accessed on 9 April 2022).
  4. Qazi, A.; Hussain, F.; Rahim, N.A.; Hardaker, G.; Alghazzawi, D.; Shaban, K.; Haruna, K. Towards Sustainable Energy: A Systematic Review of Renewable Energy Sources, Technologies, and Public Opinions. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 63837–63851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. World Nuclear News. The Barrier to Nuclear Is Perception, Says Panel. 2020. Available online: https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/The-barrier-to-nuclear-is-perception,-says-panel (accessed on 4 August 2021).
  6. National Geographic. The Controversial Future of Nuclear Power in the U.S. 2021. Available online: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/nuclear-plants-are-closing-in-the-us-should-we-build-more (accessed on 4 August 2021).
  7. World Nuclear Association. Nuclear Power in the USA. 2021. Available online: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/usa-nuclear-power.aspx (accessed on 4 August 2021).
  8. Mehta, M.D. Risky Business: Nuclear Power and Public Protest in Canada; Lexington Books: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  9. Paula, G. Review of Critical Masses. J. Political Ecol. 1999, 6, 123–125. [Google Scholar]
  10. Williams, E. Nuke Fight Nears Decisive Moment. 2008. Available online: https://valleyadvocate.com/2008/09/04/nuke-fight-nears-decisive-moment/ (accessed on 4 August 2021).
  11. Giugni, M. Social Protest and Policy Change: Ecology, Antinuclear, and Peace Movements in Comparative Perspective; Rowman and Littlefield: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  12. Choi, Y.S.; Kim, J.S.; Lee, B.W. Public’s perception and judgment on nuclear power. Ann. Nucl. Energy 2000, 27, 295–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mah, D.N.; Hills, P.; Tao, J. Risk perception, trust and public engagement in nuclear decision-making in Hong Kong. Energy Policy 2014, 73, 368–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Roh, S.; Lee, J.W. Differentiated influences of risk perceptions on nuclear power acceptance according to acceptance targets: Evidence from Korea. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 2017, 49, 1090–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ramana, M.V. Nuclear power and the public. Bull. At. Sci. 2011, 67, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. 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]
  17. Kasperson, R.E.; Berk, G.; Pijawka, D.; Sharaf, A.B.; Wood, J. Public Opposition to Nuclear Energy: Retrospect and Prospect. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 1980, 5, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jang, Y.; Park, E. Social acceptance of nuclear power plants in Korea: The role of public perceptions following the Fukushima accident. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 128, 109894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Slovic, P.; Flynn, J.; Mertz, C.K.; Poumadère, M.; Mays, C. Nuclear power and the public. In Cross-Cultural Risk Perception; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2000; pp. 55–102. [Google Scholar]
  20. Webber, D.J. Is nuclear power just another environmental issue? An analysis of California voters. Environ. Behav. 1982, 14, 72–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ho, J.-C.; Lee, C.-T.P.; Kao, S.-F.; Chen, R.-Y.; Ieong, M.C.; Chang, H.-L.; Hsieh, W.H.; Tzeng, C.-C.; Lu, C.-F.; Lin, S.-L.; et al. Perceived environmental and health risks of nuclear energy in Taiwan after Fukushima nuclear disaster. Environ. Int. 2014, 73, 295–303. [Google Scholar]
  22. Boholm, A.; Lofstedt, R.E. Facility Siting: “Risk, Power and Identity in Land Use Planning”; Routledge: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lima, M.L. On the influence of risk perception on mental health: Living near an incinerator. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 71–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Vorkinn, M.; Riese, H. Environmental concern in a local context: The significance of place attachment. Environ. Behav. 2001, 33, 249–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Frantál, B.; Malý, J.; Ouředníček, M.; Nemeškal, J. Distance matters. Assessing socioeconomic impacts of the Dukovany nuclear power plant in the Czech Republic: Local perceptions and statistical evidence. Morav. Geogr. Rep. 2016, 24, 2–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. van der Pligt, J.; Eiser, J.R.; Spears, R. Attitudes toward Nuclear Energy: Familiarity and Salience. Environ. Behav. 1986, 18, 75–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wikipedia. Idaho National Laboratory. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_National_Laboratory (accessed on 4 August 2021).
  28. McBeth, M.K.; Wrobel, M.W.; van Woerde, I. Political ideology and nuclear energy: Perception, proximity, and trust. Rev. Policy Res. 2022. [CrossRef]
  29. Borell, K.; Westermark, A. Siting of human services facilities and the not in my back yard phenomenon: A critical research review. Community Dev. J. 2018, 53, 246–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Uji, A.; Prakash, A.; Song, J. Does the “NIMBY syndrome” undermine public support for nuclear power in Japan? Energy Policy 2021, 148, 111944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gravelle, T.B.; Lachapelle, E. Politics, proximity and the pipeline: Mapping public attitudes toward Keystone XL. Energy Policy 2015, 83, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Clarke, C.E.; Bugden, D.; Hart, P.S.; Stedman, R.C.; Jacquet, J.B.; Evensen, D.; Boudet, H.S. How geographic distance and political ideology interact to influence public perception of unconventional oil/natural gas development. Energy Policy 2016, 97, 301–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Jenkins-Smith, H.C.; Silva, C.L.; Nowlin, M.C.; DeLozier, G. Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility. Risk Anal. 2010, 31, 629–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. 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]
  35. Lyons, B.A.; Akin, H.; Stroud, N.J. Proximity (Mis) perception: Public Awareness of Nuclear, Refinery, and Fracking Sites. Risk Anal. 2020, 40, 385–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Sundström, A.; McCright, A.M. Women and nuclear energy: Examining the gender divide in opposition to nuclear power among Swedish citizens and politicians. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2016, 11, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Komiya, I.; Torii, H.; Fujii, Y.; Hayashizaki, N. Relationship between students’ interests in science and attitudes toward nuclear power generation. Prog. Nucl. Energy 2008, 50, 719–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Solomon, L.S.; Tomaskovic-Devey, D.; Risman, B.J. The gender gap and nuclear power: Attitudes in a politicized environment. Sex Roles 1989, 21, 401–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Stoutenborough, J.W.; Sturgess, S.G.; Vedlitz, A. Knowledge, risk, and policy support: Public perceptions of nuclear power. Energy Policy 2013, 62, 176–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics and perceptions towards nuclear energy of the study participants (N = 4318).
Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics and perceptions towards nuclear energy of the study participants (N = 4318).
TotalID in 50 MilesID out 50 MilesUS Non-ID
N = 4318N = 1158 (27%)N = 803 (19%)N = 2357 (55%)
Age n (%)
Less than 35 years2590 (60)466 (40)448 (56)1676 (71)
35 years or older1728 (40)692 (60)355 (44)681 (29)
Gender, n (%)
Female1881 (44)504 (44)294 (37)1083 (46)
Male2437 (56)654 (56)509 (63)1274 (54)
Race/ethnicity, n (%)
Non-Hispanic white1878 (43)959 (83)281 (35)638 (27)
Hispanic1640 (38)103 (9)355 (44)1182 (50)
Other/Unknown800 (19)96 (8)167 (21)537 (23)
Education, n (%)
Less than High school/GED593 (14)33 (3)73 (9)487 (21)
High school1155 (27)352 (30)229 (29)574 (24)
Undergraduate degree1673 (39)540 (47)384 (48)749 (32)
Graduate degree897 (21)233 (20)117 (15)547 (23)
Income, n (%)
USD 60,000 or less1437 (33)416 (36)250 (31)771 (33)
USD 60,001 to USD 80,0001077 (25)209 (18)158 (20)710 (30)
over USD 80,0001804 (42)533 (46)395 (49)876 (37)
Have you currently or previously been employed at INL? n (%)
No2696 (62)873 (75)613 (76)1210 (51)
Deliberate skip600 (14)81 (7)79 (10)440 (19)
Yes1022 (24)204 (18)111 (14)707 (30)
On a purely emotional level, how do we feel about nuclear energy? n (%)
Positive2383 (55)950 (82)472 (59)961 (41)
Neutral/Negative1935 (45)208 (18)331 (41)1396 (59)
From what you know or have heard about nuclear power and Idaho National Laboratory (INL), in general, which of these statements, if any, most closely reflects your own opinion? n (%)
Benefits outweigh risks2561 (59)968 (84)501 (62)1092 (46)
Same or Risks outweigh benefits1757 (41)190 (16)302 (38)1265 (54)
Please select the option that best describes your position on the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States. n (%)
Favor3327 (77)1088 (94)641 (80)1598 (68)
Oppose991 (23)70 (6)162 (20)759 (32)
Table
Table 2. Logistic regression results showing the association of geographical location and socio-demographics with nuclear energy perceptions (n = 4318).
Table 2. Logistic regression results showing the association of geographical location and socio-demographics with nuclear energy perceptions (n = 4318).
Positive Response to Nuclear Energy at the Emotional Level aConsiders That the Benefits of Nuclear Energy Outweigh the Risks bFavors the Use of
Nuclear Energy as One of the Ways to Provide Electricity in the United States c
EMOTIONOR99% CIp-ValueOR99% CIp-ValueOR99% CIp-Value
Location
ID in 50 miles(ref) (ref) (ref)
ID out 50 miles0.460.33, 0.63<0.0010.370.27, 0.52<0.0010.240.15, 0.38<0.001
US non-ID0.160.12, 0.22<0.0010.320.24, 0.43<0.0010.240.16, 0.36<0.001
Age
Less than 35 years(ref) (ref) (ref)
35 years or older0.990.81, 1.200.8780.870.72, 1.050.0610.780.62, 0.980.005
Gender
Female(ref) (ref) (ref)
Male1.201.00, 1.450.0111.641.37, 1.98<0.0011.901.52, 2.36<0.001
Race/ethnicity
non-Hispanic white(ref) (ref) (ref)
Hispanic0.590.47, 0.74<0.0010.880.70, 1.100.1400.990.74, 1.320.905
Other/Unknown0.470.36, 0.60<0.0010.770.60, 1.000.0090.510.38, 0.69<0.001
Education
Less than HS or GED(ref) (ref) (ref)
High School0.490.36, 0.67<0.0010.970.70, 1.330.7933.052.14, 4.35<0.001
Undergraduate degree0.680.50, 0.92<0.0011.130.83, 1.540.3003.032.17, 4.25<0.001
Graduate degree0.540.39, 0.77<0.0011.170.83, 1.660.2371.811.25, 2.63<0.001
Income
USD 60,000 or less(ref) (ref) (ref)
USD 60,001 to USD 80,0001.891.48, 2.40<0.0010.610.48, 0.77<0.0010.490.38, 0.64<0.001
over USD 80,0001.030.84, 1.270.7301.030.83, 1.260.7601.491.14, 1.94<0.001
INL employment
No(ref) (ref) (ref)
Deliberate skip1.300.61, 3.070.4030.830.40, 1.880.5360.670.25, 2.350.353
Yes4.302.06, 10.5<0.0012.421.22, 5.410.0022.780.87, 14.90.053
INL employment: Location
Deliberate skip: ID out 50 miles0.470.16, 1.270.0581.030.37, 2.740.9342.900.65, 11.60.052
Yes: ID out 50 miles0.330.12, 0.840.0030.390.15, 0.960.0090.580.09, 2.490.374
Deliberate skip: US non ID0.990.40, 2.240.9860.780.33, 1.710.4351.380.38, 4.000.467
Yes: US non ID0.400.16, 0.880.0050.110.05, 0.22<0.0010.210.04, 0.700.004
a Predicting a “positive” (vs. “negative + neutral”) response to the question “On a purely emotional level, how do we feel about nuclear energy? b Predicting a “Benefits outweigh risks (benefits far outweigh risks, benefits slightly outweigh risks)” vs. a “Same or Risks outweigh benefits (Same, risks slightly outweigh benefits, risks far outweigh benefits)” to the question “From what you know or have heard about nuclear power and Idaho National Laboratory (INL), in general, which of these statements, if any, most closely reflects your own opinion?” c Predicting a “favor” (vs. “oppose”) response to the question “Please select the option that best describes your position on the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States”.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Iqbal, M.; Moss, R.; van Woerden, I. Peoples’ Perception towards Nuclear Energy. Energies 2022, 15, 4397. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15124397

AMA Style

Iqbal M, Moss R, van Woerden I. Peoples’ Perception towards Nuclear Energy. Energies. 2022; 15(12):4397. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15124397

Chicago/Turabian Style

Iqbal, Meesha, Rae Moss, and Irene van Woerden. 2022. "Peoples’ Perception towards Nuclear Energy" Energies 15, no. 12: 4397. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15124397

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop