Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Public Acceptance of Nuclear Energy Policies in South Korea

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance

  • 103 Accesses

Synonyms

Policy acceptance; Policy compliance

Introduction

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 via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ansolabehere S, Konisky DM (2009) Public attitudes toward construction of new power plants. Public Opin Quart 73(3):566–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beierle TC (1999) Using social goals to evaluate public participation in environmental decisions. Rev of Policy Res 16(3–4):75–103

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 17:145–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl R (1978) Pluralism revisited. Comp Polit 10(2):191–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eiser JR, Spears R, Webley P (1989) Nuclear attitudes before and after Chernobyl: change and judgment. J Appl Soc Psychol 19(8):689–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn J (2003) Nuclear stigma. In: Pidgeon N, Kasperson RE, Slovic P (eds) The social amplification of risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 326

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1242–1254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):629–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jung J (2008) Study on dynamics in public acceptance: evidence from the radioactive waste siting process in South Korea (doctoral dissertation). Korea University, Seoul

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung J (2018) Explanatory study on the possibility of transforming nuclear policies in South Korea. Korean Asso Policy Stud Conf P 27:223–249

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 27:195–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim Y, Kim W, Kim M (2014) An international comparative analysis of public acceptance of nuclear energy. Energ Policy 66:475–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee TH (2012) Korean status and prospects of nuclear power. Orbis Sapientiae 12:104–120

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 238:2834–2838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAvoy D (1998) Partisan probing and democratic decision-making rethinking the NIMBY syndrome. Policy Stud J 26(2):274–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Midden CJ, Verplanken B (1990) The stability of nuclear attitudes after Chernobyl. J Environ Psychol 10(2):111–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 26:1427–1453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon N, Kasperson RE, Slovic P (2003) The social amplification of risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph TJ, Evans J (2005) Political trust, ideology, and public support for government spending. Am J Polit Sci 49(3):660–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiverly C (2007) Understanding the NIMBY and LULU phenomena: reassessing our knowledge base and informing future research. J Plan Lit 21(3):255–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka Y (2004) Major psychological factors determining public acceptance of the siting of nuclear facilities. J Appl Soc Psychol 34:1147–1165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Truman DB (1971) The governmental process. Alfred A. Knopf, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Verplanken B (1989) Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions toward nuclear energy before and after Chernobyl in a longitudinal within-subjects design. Environ Behav 21(4):371–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):333–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 39:3621–3629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang J, Kim S (2013) Analyzing the change of acceptance and its perception structure about nuclear power. Korea Public Adm Rev 47(2):395–424

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitfield SC, Roas EA, Dan A, Dietz R (2009) The future of nuclear power: value orientations and risk perception. Risk Anal 29(3):425–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yun ST (2008) Site selection for low and intermediate level radioactive waste disposal facility in Korea. Prog Nucl Energ 50:680–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Management Information System, Korea National University of Transportation, Chungjusi, South Korea

    Juyong Jung

  2. Department of Public Administration, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA

    Eunju Rho

Authors
  1. Juyong Jung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eunju Rho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juyong Jung .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

    Ali Farazmand

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Jung, J., Rho, E. (2020). Public Acceptance of Nuclear Energy Policies in South Korea. In: Farazmand, A. (eds) Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3802-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3802-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-31816-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-31816-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Economics and FinanceReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation