Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 587–604 | Cite as

Inequalities of Nuclear Risk Communication Within and Beyond the Evacuation Planning Zone

  • Xiang ChenEmail author
  • Clayton Frazier
  • Rejina Manandhar
  • Zhigang Han
  • Peng Jia


Nuclear power has become a common source of energy for communities around the world. Despite relatively few global incidents, the potential for nuclear disaster always exists. Effective risk communication plays a critical role in reducing the loss of life and property when a nuclear failure arises. An overlooked aspect of existing studies on nuclear risk communication is to evaluate the information sources within and beyond the emergency planning zone (EPZ). To this end, the study has evaluated the effectiveness of risk communication for Arkansas Nuclear One, the only nuclear power plant in Arkansas, US. A structured survey was distributed to 185 local residents, especially to those living within the 10-mile EPZ of the plant. The survey aimed to assess public risk perception, preparedness levels, and the channels through which the information was received. The de facto preparedness knowledge in terms of R-score was quantified, interpolated, and visualized. The results identify the inequalities of demographic, contextual, and spatial factors in dictating risk communication within and beyond the nuclear EPZ. They reveal that the spatial awareness of the EPZ may serve as a better indicator of residents' preparedness level than their residential proximity to the nuclear power plant. The study further suggests that the active acquisition and effective comprehension of locational knowledge in the at-risk communities have significantly improved the preparedness level. This finding sheds new lights on policy recommendations for emergency management departments to proactively distribute health information and alleviate public stresses about the nuclear industry.


Risk communication Nuclear power plant Emergency planning zone Socioeconomic inequalities Emergency preparedness 



The research was funded by the following grants: Student Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF) from Arkansas Department of Higher Education; Arkansas Tech University Professional Development Grant. We appreciate Samuel Canada and John Pryor for data collection in the implementation of the project. Peng Jia, Director of the International Initiative on Spatial Lifecourse Epidemiology (ISLE), thanks Lorentz Center, the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the West China School of Public Health in Sichuan University, the International Journal of Epidemiology, The Lancet Planetary Health, and Obesity Reviews, for funding the ISLE and supporting ISLE’s research activities.


  1. Ando, M. (2015). Dreams of urbanization: quantitative case studies on the local impacts of nuclear power facilities using the synthetic control method. Journal of Urban Economics, 85, 68–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arkansas Department of Health (ADH). (2016). Emergency instructions: Arkansas nuclear one. Retrieved from Accessed as of March 9 2018.
  3. Arlikatti, S., Lindell, M. K., Prater, C. S., & Zhang, Y. (2006). Risk area accuracy and hurricane evacuation expectations of coastal residents. Environment and Behavior, 38(2), 226–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arlikatti, S., Taibah, H. A., & Andrew, S. A. (2014). How do you warn them if they speak only Spanish? Challenges for organizations in communicating risk to Colonias residents in Texas, USA. Disaster Prevention and Management, 23(5), 533–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benavides, A. D. (2013). Four major disaster occurrences and the Spanish language media: a lack of risk communication. Disaster Prevention and Management, 22(1), 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen, X., & Clark, J. (2016). Measuring space–time access to food retailers: a case of temporal access disparity in Franklin County, Ohio. The Professional Geographer, 68(2), 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen, X., & Li, Q. (2017). Modeling road network vulnerability for evacuees and first responders during no-notice evacuation. Journal of Advanced Transportation, in press.Google Scholar
  8. Chen, X., & Yang, X. (2014). Does food environment influence food choices? A geographical analysis through “tweets”. Applied Geography, 51, 82–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen, Z., Chen, X., Li, Q., & Chen, J. (2013). The temporal hierarchy of shelters: a hierarchical location model for earthquake-shelter planning. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 27(8), 1612–1630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Covello, V. T. (1992). Risk communication: An emerging area of health communication research. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.), Communication yearbook 15 (pp. 359–373). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Dash, N., & Gladwin, H. (2007). Evacuation decision making and behavioral responses: individual and household. Natural Hazards Review, 8(3), 69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Donner, W., & Rodríguez, H. (2008). Population composition, migration and inequality: the influence of demographic changes on disaster risk and vulnerability. Social Forces, 87(2), 1089–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drottz-Sjöberg, B. M., & Sjoberg, L. (1990). Risk perception and worries after the Chernobyl accident. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 10(2), 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Figueroa, P. M. (2013). Risk communication surrounding the Fukushima nuclear disaster: an anthropological approach. Asia Europe Journal, 11(1), 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giordano, A., Anderson, S., & He, X. (2010). How near is near? The distance perceptions of residents of a nuclear emergency planning zone. Environmental Hazards, 9(2), 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gladwin, H., Lazo, J. K., Morrow, B. H., Peacock, W. G., & Willoughby, H. E. (2007). Social science research needs for the hurricane forecast and warning system. Natural Hazards Review, 8(3), 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goodchild, M. F., & Glennon, J. A. (2010). Crowdsourcing geographic information for disaster response: a research frontier. International Journal of Digital Earth, 3(3), 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ho, M. C., Shaw, D., Lin, S., & Chiu, Y. C. (2008). How do disaster characteristics influence risk perception? Risk Analysis, 28(3), 635–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huang, L., Zhou, Y., Han, Y., Hammitt, J. K., Bi, J., & Liu, Y. (2013). Effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on the risk perception of residents near a nuclear power plant in China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(49), 19742–19747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hüppe, M., & Weber, J. (1999). Effects of distance, age and sex upon attitudes toward nuclear power plants: an empirical study. Zentralblatt für Hygiene und Umweltmedizin, 202(2–4), 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. James, X., Hawkins, A., & Rowel, R. (2007). An assessment of the cultural appropriateness of emergency preparedness communication for low income minorities. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 4(3), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jia, P (2016). Developing an efficient flow-based algorithm to delineate hospital service areas, Applied Geography 75, 137–143.
  23. Jia, P, I., Xierali (2015). Disparities in healthcare travel patterns of the inpatients diagnosed with congestive heart failure in Florida, Preventing Chronic Disease 12: E150
  24. Li, Q., Chen, X., Chen, J., & Tang, Q. (2010). An evacuation risk assessment model for emergency traffic with consideration of urban hazard installations. Chinese Science Bulletin, 55(10), 1000–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. (1987). Warning mechanisms in emergency ‘response systems’. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 5(2), 137–153.Google Scholar
  26. Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (2004). Communicating environmental risk in multiethnic communities. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Maderthaner, R., Guttmann, G., Swaton, E., & Otway, H. J. (1978). Effect of distance upon risk perception. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(3), 380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McEntire, D. A., & Myers, A. (2004). Preparing communities for disasters: issues and processes for government readiness. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 13(2), 140–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ng, K. H., & Lean, M. L. (2012). The Fukushima nuclear crisis reemphasizes the need for improved risk communication and better use of social media. Health Physics, 103(3), 307–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Perry, R. W., & Lindell, M. K. (1991). The effects of ethnicity on evacuation decision-making. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 9(1), 47–68.Google Scholar
  31. Regan, Á., Raats, M., Shan, L. C., Wall, P. G., & McConnon, Á. (2016). Risk communication and social media during food safety crises: a study of stakeholders’ opinions in Ireland. Journal of Risk Research, 19(1), 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reynolds, B., & Seeger, M. W. (2005). Crisis and emergency risk communication as an integrative model. Journal of Health Communication, 10(1), 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Riad, J. K., Norris, F. H., & Ruback, R. B. (1999). Predicting evacuation in two major disasters: Risk perception, social influence, and access to resources. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 918–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sorensen, J. H., & Sorensen, B. V. (2007). Community processes: Warning and evacuation. In Handbook of disaster research (pp. 183–199). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Steinhauser, G., Brandl, A., & Johnson, T. E. (2014). Comparison of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents: a review of the environmental impacts. Science of the Total Environment, 470, 800–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tweedie, S. W., Rowland, J. R., Walsh, S. J., Rhoten, R. P., & Hagle, P. I. (1986). A methodology for estimating emergency evacuation times. The Social Science Journal, 23(2), 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). (2017). QuickFacts: Russellville City, Arkansas. Accessed as of March 9 2018.
  38. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). (2015). Retrieved from Accessed as of March 9 2018.
  39. Vyncke, B., Perko, T., & Gorp, B. (2016). Information sources as explanatory variables for the Belgian health-related risk perception of the Fukushima nuclear accident. Risk Analysis, online.Google Scholar
  40. Wang, Q., Jha, A. N., Chen, X., Dong, J. F., & Wang, X. M. (2015). The future of nuclear safety: vital role of geoscientists? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 43, 239–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Welsch, H., & Biermann, P. (2016). Measuring nuclear power plant externalities using life satisfaction data: a spatial analysis for Switzerland. Ecological Economics, 126, 98–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Whitfield, S. C., Rosa, E. A., Dan, A., & Dietz, T. (2009). The future of nuclear power: value orientations and risk perception. Risk Analysis, 29(3), 425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018
corrected publication June/2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Emergency ManagementArkansas Tech UniversityRussellvilleUSA
  2. 2.Teaching and Learning InnovationUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  3. 3.College of Environment and PlanningHenan UniversityKaifengChina
  4. 4.Institute of Urban Big DataHenan UniversityKaifengChina
  5. 5.Department of Earth Observation Science, Faculty of Geo-information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)University of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  6. 6.International Initiative on Spatial Lifecourse Epidemiology (ISLE)EnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations