The Fukushima Accident and Public Perceptions About Nuclear Power Around the Globe – A Challenge & Response Model

Abstract

In this paper we examine the impact of the Fukushima accident (March 2011) on public perceptions of nuclear power on a global scale. It is widely recognized that any future of nuclear power critically depends on public acceptance to sustain massive public subsidies. We will contrast conceptually and empirically two models of the 'Fukushima effect', an event & effect (EE) model (Kim, Kim & Kim, 2013) and our own challenge & response (CR) model. Firstly, we replicate Kim et al. (2013) who modelled retrospective opinion changes after March 2011 across 42 countries on a set of 'objective' predictors including geographical distance from Fukushima. But, instead of survey data ex-post-facto, we use historical opinion data 1996-2016 for 23+ countries. On historical data, the EE model has little explanatory power for opinion shifts, beyond the dependency on nuclear power in the energy mix. Secondly, we introduce the alternative CR model. Our hypothesis is that individual and societal responses to nuclear accidents are constrained by cultural memories. Memory, both individual and collective, is primarily adaptive and makes available schematic information to deal with novel situations. Memory creates familiarity and facilitates coping with uncertainty. The CR model introduces symbolic factors such as 'Past Responses to Nuclear Incidents', 'Nuclear Renaissance', and 'Long-term Acceptance Level' to explain the Fukushima effect of 2011.

Nuclear Energy in the Context of Climate Change: A Frame Analysis of the Dutch Print Media

“…The current analysis reveals that journalists also use these frames in the absence of severe detriments or accidents. This is in line with earlier findings that the media have a strong focus on the disadvantages of nuclear energy, and that even incidents without safety risks can lead to high-intensity coverage (Bauer et al 2019;Kristiansen 2017aKristiansen , 2017bPerko, Turcanu, and Carlé 2012). The results further reinforce earlier findings that the media pay little attention to the benefits of nuclear energy, and that few articles on nuclear energy relate it to environmental and climate issues (Devitt et al 2019;Friedman 2011;Kristiansen 2017a;Mercado-Sáez, Marco-Crespo, and Álvarez-Villa 2019).…”

“…They are part of society and tap into the same collective historical memory when they report on the issue. Hence, some authors have concluded that the cultural memory of the Chernobyl accident still leaves a mark on the reporting of nuclear energy (Bauer et al 2019;Perko et al 2019). However, it is important to note that the news framing process is not purely the product of the individual choices of journalists.…”

Environmental Debates over Nuclear Energy: Media, Communication, and the Public

“…Since severe nuclear energy accidents have a very low probability of occurring, longitudinal studies are needed to able us to observe trends and changes over time. As Bauer et al (2018) were able to show, the memory of historical nuclear accidents carry a lot of explanatory power as to how different countries deal with current nuclear accidents.…”

Knowledge, belief, and attitude of Bangladeshi youth toward the development of nuclear power

“…When it comes to public opinion, a large number of the literature has analyzed a few latent variables such as knowledge, belief, and attitude of the public (Stoutenborough et al 2013, Wang et al 2013, He et al 2014, J. Wang and Kim 2018, Bauer et al 2019, Anbumozhi et al 2020, Murakami et al 2020. These latent variables have distinct characteristics and interrelationships (Joubert 2018).…”