Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations
Volume 2016 (2016), Article ID 6293758, 9 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/6293758
Research Article

Analysis of the Relationship between Risk Perception and Willingness to Pay for Nuclear Power Plant Risk Reduction

Department of Nuclear and Quantum Engineering, KAIST, 291 Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-701, Republic of Korea

Received 21 December 2015; Accepted 25 February 2016

Academic Editor: Eugenijus Ušpuras

Copyright © 2016 Mirae Yun et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. U. Beck, Risk Society—Towards a New Modernity, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif, USA, 1992.
  2. S. H. Jin, “An analysis of cognition gap between nuclear experts and general citizen,” Korea Association for Policy Sciences, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 149–173, 2014. View at Google Scholar
  3. K. S. Park, “Reexamination of nuclear safety legislation,” Administrative Law Journal, vol. 33, pp. 169–190, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  4. G. H. Heo, The Issue and Problem of Nuclear Power Plant's Cost, National Assembly Budget Office, 2014.
  5. H. O. Cho and B. H. Kim, “Investigating the relative persuasiveness of different types of obesity-prevention advertisement,” Korean Journal of Advertising, vol. 11, pp. 165–185, 2000. View at Google Scholar
  6. Y. J. Kang, “Comparison of risk governance between Korea and Germany,” ECO, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 45–75, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  7. P. Slovic, “Perception of risk,” Science, vol. 236, no. 4799, pp. 280–285, 1987. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. O. Renn, Risk Governance: Towards an Integrative Approach, International Risk Governance Council (IRGC), Geneva, Switzerland, 2005.
  9. Nuclear Safety and Security Commission. Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety, Korea Institute of Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Control, 2012 Nuclear Safety Yearbook, 2013.
  10. E. O. Han, J. R. Kim, and Y. S. Choi, “Educational effects of radiation work-study activities for elementary, middle, and high school students,” Nuclear Engineering and Technology, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 447–460, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. E. O. Han, J. R. Kim, and Y. S. Choi, “Korean students’ behavioral change toward nuclear power generation through education,” Nuclear Engineering and Technology, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 707–718, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  12. E. O. Han and B. S. Park, “Knowledges, consciousnesses, and attitudes of some university students on the use of radiations,” Journal of Radiological Protection, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 221–230, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  13. P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein, “Behavioral decision theory perspectives on risk and safety,” Acta Psychologica, vol. 56, no. 1–3, pp. 183–203, 1984. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. P. Slovic, The Perception of Risk, Taylor & Francis, 2000.
  15. A. Gafni, “Willingness to pay: what's in a name?” PharmacoEconomics, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 465–470, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. K. Itaoka, A. Saito, A. Krupnick, W. Adamowicz, and T. Taniguchi, “The effect of risk characteristics on the willingness to pay for mortality risk reductions from electric power generation,” Environmental & Resource Economics, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 371–398, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. L. Huang, Z. Shao, W. Bao, B. Duan, J. Bi, and Z. Yuan, “The influencing factors of the WTP for the risk reduction of chemical industry accidents in China,” Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 860–868, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. Y. J. Cha, “Model of risk perception and nuclear energy risk,” Korea Association for Policy Sciences, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 285–312, 2012. View at Google Scholar
  19. OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Nuclear Electricity Generation: What Are the External Costs?OECD/NEA, 2003.
  20. S. Jamieson, “Likert scales: how to (ab)use them,” Medical Education, vol. 38, no. 12, pp. 1217–1218, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. C. H. Lee, M. S. Lee, G. J. Cho et al., External Costs of Nuclear Energy in Korea, Korea Environment Institute, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2013.
  22. J. S. Park, S. C. Moon, and S. H. Yoo, Estimation of Social Value of Network of Post Office Using CVM, Korea Information Society Development Institute, 2011.
  23. M. J. Kealy and R. W. Turner, “A test of the equality of closed-ended and open-ended contingent valuations,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 75, no. 2, p. 321, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  24. W. M. Hanemann, “Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 332–341, 1984. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  25. M. C. Thorne, “Actions to protect the public in an emergency due to severe conditions at a light water reactor: emergency preparedness and response report,” Journal of Radiological Protection, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 709–710, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  26. J. M. Halstead, A. E. Luloff, and T. H. Stevens, “Protest bidders in contingent valuation,” Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 160–169, 1992. View at Google Scholar
  27. P. Zweifel, Y. Schneider, and C. Wyss, Spatial Effects in Willingness-to-Pay: The Case of Nuclear Risks, ASTIN, 2005.