Research Article

Acceptance of nuclear energy by pre-service teachers in Greece

Antonia Rafailia Vavoulioti 1 , Georgios Stylos 1 * , Konstantinos T. Kotsis 1
More Detail
1 University of Ioannina, Ioannina, GREECE* Corresponding Author
Aquademia, 7(1), 2023, ep23004, https://doi.org/10.30935/aquademia/13205
Published: 14 April 2023
OPEN ACCESS   196 Views   68 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Nuclear energy is required to provide a reliable, sustainable, and environmentally friendly energy source. Its use, however, receives limited public support, mainly because of the nuclear disasters that have occurred in the past. People perceive it as more dangerous than it really is and does not consider its multiple benefits. In addition to their concerns about the consequences of a nuclear explosion, there are many other factors that affect their acceptance or non-acceptance of nuclear energy. In this research, pre-service teachers’ perceptions of Department of Primary Education at University of Ioannina regarding factors such as the proximity of nuclear power plants, social trust, safety perception, perceived benefits, environmental awareness, and perceived nuclear knowledge are being examined. The sample consisted of 500 persons, and a questionnaire was distributed for data collection, which included demographic questions and 29 questions related to acceptance of nuclear energy. Understanding the public perceptions and identifying the determinants of their acceptance is vital to establishing nuclear energy.
Keywords: public acceptance, pre-service teachers, nuclear energy, Greece

CITATION (APA)

Vavoulioti, A. R., Stylos, G., & Kotsis, K. T. (2023). Acceptance of nuclear energy by pre-service teachers in Greece. Aquademia, 7(1), ep23004. https://doi.org/10.30935/aquademia/13205

REFERENCES

  1. Apergis, N., Payne, J. E., Menyah, K., & Wolde-Rufael, Y. (2010). On the causal dynamics between emissions, nuclear energy, renewable energy, and economic growth. Ecological Economics, 69(11), 2255-2260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06.014
  2. Baek, J. (2016). Do nuclear and renewable energy improve the environment? Empirical evidence from the United States. Ecological Indicators, 66, 352-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.01.059
  3. Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186-3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
  4. Bird, D., Haynes, K., 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
  5. Dittmar, M. (2012). Nuclear energy: Status and future limitations. Energy Policy, 37(1), 35-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.05.040
  6. Duffey, R. B. (2005). Sustainable futures using nuclear energy. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 47(1-4), 535-543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnueene.2005.05.054
  7. Findlay, T. (2011). Nuclear energy and global governance. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203834503
  8. Forsberg, C. W. (2008). Sustainability by combining nuclear, fossil, and renewable energy sources. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 51(1), 192-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2008.04.002
  9. Goh, T., & Ang, B. W. (2018). Quantifying CO2 emission reductions from renewables and nuclear energy–Some paradoxes. Energy Policy, 113, 651-662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.11.019
  10. Halkos, G., & Gkampoura, E. C. (2020). Reviewing usage, potentials, and limitations of renewable energy sources. Energies, 13(11), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13112906
  11. Hambleton, R. K. (2001). The next generation of the ITC test translation and adaptation guidelines. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17(3), 164-172. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.17.3.164
  12. Hao, Y., Guo, Y., Tian, B., & Shao, Y. (2019). What affects college students’ acceptance of nuclear energy? Evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 222, 746-759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.040
  13. Jennings, P. (2009). New directions in renewable energy education. Renewable Energy, 34(2), 435-439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2008.05.005
  14. Karakosta, C., Pappas, C., Marinakis, V., & Psarras, J. (2013). Renewable energy and nuclear power towards sustainable development: Characteristics and prospects. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 22, 187-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.01.035
  15. Kardooni, R., Yusoff, S. B., & Kari, F. B. (2016). Renewable energy technology acceptance in Peninsular Malaysia. Energy Policy, 88, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.10.005
  16. Kessler, G. (2002). Requirements for nuclear energy in the 21st century-nuclear energy as a sustainable energy source. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 40(3-4), 309-325. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-1970(02)00024-0
  17. Kim, Y., Kim, M., & Kim, W. (2013). Effect of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on global public acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy Policy, 61, 822-828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.107
  18. Kim, Y., Kim, W., & Kim, M. (2014). An international comparative analysis of public acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy Policy, 66, 475-483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.039
  19. Latré, E., Perko, T., & Thijssenb, P. (2017). Public opinion change after the Fukushima nuclear accident: The role of national context revisited. Energy Policy, 104, 124-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.01.027
  20. McComas, K. A., Lu, H., Keranen, K. M., Furtney, M. A., & Song, H. (2016). Public perceptions and acceptance of induced earthquakes related to energy development. Energy Policy, 99, 27-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.09.026
  21. Menyah, K., & Wolde-Rufael, Y. (2010). CO2 emissions, nuclear energy, renewable energy and economic growth in the US. Energy Policy, 38(6), 2911-2915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.01.024
  22. Park, E., & Ohm, J. Y. (2014). Factors influencing the public intention to use renewable energy technologies in South Korea: Effects of the Fukushima nuclear accident. Energy Policy, 65, 198-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.037
  23. Prati, G., & Zani, B. (2012). The effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on risk perception, antinuclear behavioral intentions, attitude, trust, environmental beliefs, and values. Environment and Behavior, 45, 782-798. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512444286
  24. Roh, S., & Kim, D. (2017). Effect of Fukushima accident on public acceptance of nuclear energy (Fukushima accident and nuclear public acceptance). Energy Sources, 12(6), 565-569. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2016.1230797
  25. Siegrist, M., Sutterlin, B., & Keller, C. (2014). Why have some people changed their attitudes toward nuclear power after the accident in Fukushima? Energy Policy, 69, 356-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.02.026
  26. Sims, R. E. H., Rogner, H., & Gregory, K. (2003). Carbon emission and mitigation cost comparisons between fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable energy resources for electricity generation. Energy Policy, 31(13), 1315-1326. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00192-1
  27. Vaillancourt, K., Labriet, M., Loulou, R., & Waaub, J. P. (2008). The role of nuclear energy in long-term climate scenarios: An analysis with the world-times model. Energy Policy, 36(7), 2296-2307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.01.015
  28. Verbruggen, A. (2008). Renewable and nuclear power: A common future? Energy Policy, 36(11), 4036-4047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.06.024
  29. Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2013). How a nuclear power plant accident influences acceptance of nuclear power: Results of a longitudinal study before and after the Fukushima disaster. Risk Analysis, 33(2), 333-347. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01861.x
  30. Wang, S., Wang, J., Lin, S., & Li, J. (2019). Public perceptions and acceptance of nuclear energy in China: The role of public knowledge, perceived benefit, perceived risk and public engagement. Energy Policy, 126, 352-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.11.040
  31. WNA. (2020). World nuclear performance report 2020. World Nuclear Association. www.world-nuclear.org/getmedia/3418bf4a-5891-4ba1-b6c2-d83d8907264d/performance-report-2020-v1.pdf.aspx
  32. Yeo, S., Cacciatore, M., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D., Runge, K., Su, L., Kim, J., Xenos, M., & Corley, E. (2014). Partisan amplification of risk: American perceptions of nuclear energy risk in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. Energy Policy, 67, 727-736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.061
  33. Yim, M., Vaganov, P. (2003). Effects of education on nuclear risk perception and attitude. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 42(2), 221-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-1970(03)80010-0