Public Acceptance of Nuclear Energy Policies in South Korea

  • Juyong JungEmail author
  • Eunju Rho
Living reference work entry



Group theorists and pluralists view public policy as a product of group interaction or struggle (Dahl 1978; Truman 1971). A large number of groups that are more, or less, well organized according to social, economic, and demographic similarities or needs compete with each other in the political arena. These groups put pressures on the government to gain access to the key points at which policy decisions are made (Theodoulou 2013; Truman 1971). Considering that public policy is the result of a process of power struggles among competing individual and group claims, it is critical for policy-makers to first identify the relevant stakeholders who may be affected by or who may influence the policy process. Particularly, when facing complex combinations of interest groups, any conflict concerning stakeholders’ different needs is expected to be assessed and addressed. Moreover, in cases where a policy decision should be jointly made...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Ansolabehere S, Konisky DM (2009) Public attitudes toward construction of new power plants. Public Opin Quart 73(3):566–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beierle TC (1999) Using social goals to evaluate public participation in environmental decisions. Rev of Policy Res 16(3–4):75–103Google Scholar
  3. Bickerstaff K, Lorenzoni I, Pidgeon NF, Poortinga W, Simmons P (2008) Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: nuclear power, climate change mitigation, and radioactive waste. Public Underst Sci 17:145–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dahl R (1978) Pluralism revisited. Comp Polit 10(2):191–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eiser JR, Spears R, Webley P (1989) Nuclear attitudes before and after Chernobyl: change and judgment. J Appl Soc Psychol 19(8):689–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Flynn J (2003) Nuclear stigma. In: Pidgeon N, Kasperson RE, Slovic P (eds) The social amplification of risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Greenberg R (2009) NIMBY, CLAMP, and the location of new nuclear-related facilities: U.S. national and 11 site-specific survey. Risk Anal 29(9):1242–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jenkins-Smith HC, Silva CL, Nowlin MC, deLozier G (2011) Reversing nuclear opposition: evolving public acceptance of a permanent nuclear waste disposal facility. Risk Anal 31(4):629–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jung J (2008) Study on dynamics in public acceptance: evidence from the radioactive waste siting process in South Korea (doctoral dissertation). Korea University, SeoulGoogle Scholar
  10. Jung J (2018) Explanatory study on the possibility of transforming nuclear policies in South Korea. Korean Asso Policy Stud Conf P 27:223–249Google Scholar
  11. Kim HD (2018) Preliminary study on sustainable energy policy: forecasting the political, social and economic impacts of different energy sources. Korean Asso Policy Stud Conf P 27:195–222Google Scholar
  12. Kim Y, Kim W, Kim M (2014) An international comparative analysis of public acceptance of nuclear energy. Energ Policy 66:475–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lee TH (2012) Korean status and prospects of nuclear power. Orbis Sapientiae 12:104–120Google Scholar
  14. Liu C, Zhang Z, Kidd S (2008) Establishing an objective system for the assessment of public acceptance of nuclear power in China. Nucl Eng Des 238:2834–2838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McAvoy D (1998) Partisan probing and democratic decision-making rethinking the NIMBY syndrome. Policy Stud J 26(2):274–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Midden CJ, Verplanken B (1990) The stability of nuclear attitudes after Chernobyl. J Environ Psychol 10(2):111–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Peters E, Slovic P (1996) The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. J Appl Soc Psychol 26:1427–1453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pidgeon N, Kasperson RE, Slovic P (2003) The social amplification of risk. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rudolph TJ, Evans J (2005) Political trust, ideology, and public support for government spending. Am J Polit Sci 49(3):660–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schiverly C (2007) Understanding the NIMBY and LULU phenomena: reassessing our knowledge base and informing future research. J Plan Lit 21(3):255–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tanaka Y (2004) Major psychological factors determining public acceptance of the siting of nuclear facilities. J Appl Soc Psychol 34:1147–1165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Theodoulou SZ (2013) The contemporary language of public policy: starting to understand. In: Theodoulou SZ, Cahn MA (eds) Public policy: the essential reading. Pearson, Upper Saddle River, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  23. Truman DB (1971) The governmental process. Alfred A. Knopf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Verplanken B (1989) Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions toward nuclear energy before and after Chernobyl in a longitudinal within-subjects design. Environ Behav 21(4):371–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Visschers VHM, Siegrist M (2013) How a nuclear power plant accident influences acceptance of nuclear power: results of a longitudinal study before and after the Fukuyama disaster. Risk Anal 33(2):333–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Visschers VHM, Keller C, Siegrist M (2011) Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: investigating an explanatory model. Energ Policy 39:3621–3629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wang J, Kim S (2013) Analyzing the change of acceptance and its perception structure about nuclear power. Korea Public Adm Rev 47(2):395–424Google Scholar
  28. Whitfield SC, Roas EA, Dan A, Dietz R (2009) The future of nuclear power: value orientations and risk perception. Risk Anal 29(3):425–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yun ST (2008) Site selection for low and intermediate level radioactive waste disposal facility in Korea. Prog Nucl Energ 50:680–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public Management Information SystemKorea National University of TransportationChungjusiSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Public AdministrationNorthern Illinois UniversityDeKalbUSA