Received: 2020-05-18  |  Accepted: 2020-08-15  |  Published: 2020-12-30

Title

Clusterization of public perception of nuclear energy in relation to changing political priorities


Abstract

The paper is directed to an important yet controversial phenomena of public perception of nuclear energy in Lithuania. It discusses the conceptualization of nuclear energy public perception in relation to psychometric paradigm and its specified key elements of public security feelings. The empirical research is based on representative public poll carried out in 2017. Based on the discoveries of previous research when identifying the interdependence of public perception and support towards concrete political parties, four clusters were formed to test conceptual notions (importance of personal trust in energy industry and personal knowledge) and then relate it with the political preferences of each cluster. The results indicate the distribution of both nuclear energy as well as concrete energy projects public perception in relation to political preferences and peculiarities of security feeling among each cluster.


Keywords

nuclear energy, public perception, political priorities, change, cluster analysis, Lithuania


JEL classifications

Z18 , Z19 , C12 , C19


URI

http://jssidoi.org/ird/article/50


DOI


Pages

750-764


Funding


This is an open access issue and all published articles are licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Authors

Genys, Dainius
Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania https://www.vdu.lt
Articles by this author in: CrossRef |  Google Scholar

Krikštolaitis, Ričardas
Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania https://www.vdu.lt
Articles by this author in: CrossRef |  Google Scholar

Journal title

Insights into Regional Development

Volume

2


Number

4


Issue date

December 2020


Issue DOI


ISSN

ISSN 2345-0282 (online)


Publisher

VšĮ Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, Vilnius, Lithuania

Cited

Google Scholar

Article views & downloads

HTML views: 249  |  PDF downloads: 102

References


Abrhám, J., Britchenko, I., Jankovic, M., Garškaitė-Milvydienė, K. 2018. Energy security issues in contemporary Europe, Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues 7(3): 387–398. https://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2018.7.3(1)

Search via ReFindit


Adamantiades, A., Kessides, I. 2009. Nuclear power for sustainable development: current status and future prospects. Energy Policy 37: 5149-5166. . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.07.052

Search via ReFindit


Balitskiy, S., Bilan, Y., Strielkowski, W. 2014. Energy security and economic growth in the European Union. Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues 4(2): 125-132. https://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2014.4.2(2)

Search via ReFindit


Beck, U. 2005. Risk Society Revisited: Theory, Politics and Research Programmes, in Adam, B., Beck, U., van Loon, J., (Eds.), The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for Social Theory. Sage Publications, London, 211–229.

Search via ReFindit


Bird, D. K., Haynes, K., van den Honert, R., McAneney, J., Poortinga, W. 2014. Nuclear power in Australia: A comparative analysis of public opinion regarding climate change and the Fukushima disaster. Energy Policy 65: 644-653. . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.047

Search via ReFindit


Cottle, S. 1998. Ulrich Beck, ‘Risk Society’ and the Media. A Catastrophic View? European Journal of Communication 13(1): 5-32. . https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323198013001001

Search via ReFindit


Demski, C., Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N. 2014. Exploring public perceptions of energy security risks in the UK. Energy Policy 66: 369–378. . http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.079

Search via ReFindit


Dźwigoł, H., Dźwigoł–Barosz, M., Zhyvko, Z., Miśkiewicz, R., Pushak, H. 2019. Evaluation of the energy security as a component of national security of the country. Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues 8(3): 307-317. http://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2019.8.3(2)

Search via ReFindit


Engels, A., Hüther, O., Schäfer, M., Held, H. 2013. Public climate-change skepticism, energy preferences and political participation. Globas Environmental Change 23(5): 1018-1027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.008

Search via ReFindit


Goodfellow, J. M., Dewick, P., Wortley, J., Azapagic, A. 2014. Public perceptions of design options of new nuclear plants in the UK. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 94: 72-88. . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2014.12.008

Search via ReFindit


Gorman, S., 2013. How do we perceive risk?: Paul Slovic’s landmark analysis. Retrieved from . http://www.thepumphandle.org/2013/01/16/how-do-we-perceive-risk-paul-slovics-landmark-analysis-2/#.XXcvfyj7TIU

Search via ReFindit


Jewell, J., 2011. Ready for nuclear energy? An assessment of capacities and motivations for launching new national nuclear power programs. Energy Policy 39(3): 1041–1055. . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.10.041

Search via ReFindit


Juozaitis, J., 2016. Lithuanian foreign policy vis-à-vis Belarusian nuclear power plant in Ostrovets. Lithuanian Foreign Policy Review 35(1): 41-66. . https://doi.org/10.1515/lfpr-2016-0023

Search via ReFindit


Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson, J. X., Ratick, S. 1988. The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Analysis 8(2): 177–187. . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x

Search via ReFindit


Kessides, N. I. 2012. The future of the nuclear industry reconsidered: risks, uncertainties, and continued promise. Energy Policy 48: 185-208. . http://dx.doi.org/0.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.008

Search via ReFindit


Leonavičius, V., Genys, D. 2017. Energy Security Sociology. Kaunas, Lithuania: Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas. (in Lithuanian).

Search via ReFindit


Leonavičius, V., Genys, D., Krikštolaitis, R. 2018. Public Perception of Energy Security in Lithuania: Between Material Interest and Energy Independence. The Journal of Baltic Studies 49(1): 157-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/01629778.2018.1446033

Search via ReFindit


Marris, C., Langford, I., Saunderson, T., O’Riordan, T. 1997. Exploring the “psychometric paradigm”: comparisons between aggregate and individual analyses. Risk Analysis 17(3): 303-12. . https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00868.x

Search via ReFindit


Molis, A. 2011. Construction of Ostrovets Nuclear Power Plant: Whom to Trust and What to Expect? Energy Security Highlights. 74-76.

Search via ReFindit


NEA, OECD. 2010. Public Attitudes to Nuclear Power. Report (NEA No. 6859). Retrieved from https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2010/nea6859-public-attitudes.pdf

Search via ReFindit


Novikau, A. 2016. Nuclear power debate and public opinion in Belarus: From Chernobyl to Ostrovets. Public Understanding of Science 5: 1-14. . https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516647242

Search via ReFindit


Pidgeon, N. F., Kasperson, R., Slovic, P. 2003. The Social Amplification of Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Search via ReFindit


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://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.09.005

Search via ReFindit


Poortinga, W., Aoyagi, M., Pidgeon, F. N. 2013. Public perceptions of climate change and energy futures before and after the Fukushima accident: A comparison between Britain and Japan. Energy Policy 62: 1204–1211. . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.08.015

Search via ReFindit


Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N. F., Lorenzoni, I. 2006. Public perceptions of nuclear power, climate change and energy options in Britain: Summary findings of a survey conducted during October and November 2005. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. School of Environmental Sciences. University of East Anglia. Retrieved from https://sp.ukdataservice.ac.uk/doc/5357/mrdoc/pdf/5357userguide.pdf

Search via ReFindit


Scott, A., 2005. Risk Society or Angst Society? Two Views of Risk, Consciousness and Community, in Adam, B., Beck, U., van Loon, J., (Eds.), The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for Social Theory. London: Sage Publications, 33–46.

Search via ReFindit


Siegrist, M., Sütterlin, B., Keller, C. 2014. Why have some people changed their attitudes toward nuclear power after the accident in Fukushima? Energy Polic. 69: 356-363. . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.02.026

Search via ReFindit


Sjöberg, L., Moen, B.-E., Rundmo, T., 2004. Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research, Rotunde, Trondheim, Norway. Retrieved from http://www.svt.ntnu.no/psy/Torbjorn.Rundmo/Psychometric_paradigm.pdf

Search via ReFindit


Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of Risk. Science 236(4799): 280-285. . https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507

Search via ReFindit


Slovic, P. 1996. Perception of risk from radiation. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 68:(3-4), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a031860

Search via ReFindit


Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S. 1986. The Psychometric Study of Risk Perception, in Covello, V.T., Menkes, J., Mumpower, J., (Eds.). Risk Evaluation and Management. Contemporary Issues in Risk Analysis, vol 1. Springer, Boston, MA.3–24. . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2103-3_1

Search via ReFindit


Tvaronavičienė, M., Nesterova, K., Kováčik, V. 2017. Energy security and long-term energy efficiency: case of selected counties. Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues 7(2): 349-357. https://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2017.7.2(14)

Search via ReFindit


Wagner, A., Grobelski, T., Harembski, M. 2016. Is energy policy a public issue? Nuclear power in Poland and implications for energy transitions in Central and East Europe. Energy Research & Social Science 13: 158–169. . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.010

Search via ReFindit