Science Literacy or Value Predispositions? An Overview of ... Ho.pdf · Shirley S. Ho Associate...

Preview:

Citation preview

Science Literacy or Value Predispositions? An Overview of Factors Shaping Public

Attitude Towards Nuclear Energy

Dr. Shirley S. HoAssociate Professor & Assistant Chair (Faculty)

Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and InformationNanyang Technological University, Singapore

February 15, 2017

2017 © Dr. Shirley S. Ho/ NTU/ WKWSCI

Going Nuclear: Risks, Odds, & PotentialUH Energy

1

2

Risks & Benefits

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA, 2014)

Proponents

Low carbon emission Secure energy supply

Opponents

Proliferation of nuclear weapons

High capital investment costs Nuclear waste contamination

Nuclear Energy Risks & Benefits

Recent Major Nuclear Accident

3

Accidents

Japan (2011): Fukushima Daiichi Accident

Scientific Knowledge vs. Value Predispositions

4

Factors

Publ

ic A

ccep

tanc

e of

N

ucle

ar E

nerg

y

Factors Shaping Public Opinion of Nuclear Energy

Public Opinion

Risk Perception

Benefit Perception

Political Ideology

Socio-Demographics

Knowledge

Others

Trust

Geographical Proximity

Media Messages

Study Aims

6

Meta-Analysis

Knowledge Trust

Gender Age Education Income Benefit Perception Knowledge Trust Public Engagement

Factors Gender Age Education Income Risk Perception Cost Perception Benefit Perception Knowledge Trust

Factors Factors

Benefit Perception

Risk Perception Acceptance

Description of the Studies

7

Results

Total selected studies 34 (North America and Europe: 10 studies; European countries, including the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, and Turkey: 14 studies; East Asia including Japan, South Korea, China, and Taiwan:10 studies)

Time period of data collection Before and after the Fukushima nuclear accident (1995-2016)

Geographical continents North America, Europe, and East AsiaStudies collected before the Fukushima nuclear accident in March 2011

17

Studies collected after the Fukushima nuclear accident

17

-0.01

0.52

-0.50

-0.30

-0.10

0.10

0.30

0.50

0.70

Knowledge Trust

8

Weighted Correlations

Effe

ct s

ize

(Pea

rson

’s

r)

Benefit Perception of Nuclear Energy

Results

0.26

0.01

-0.09

0.06

-0.52

-0.04

-0.25

0.23

-0.60

-0.50

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

Gender (male) Age EducationIncome Benefit Perception KnowledgeTrust Public Deliberation 9

Weighted Correlations

Effe

ct s

ize

(Pea

rson

’s r)

Risk Perception of Nuclear Energy

Results

0.23

-0.02 -0.04 -0.01

-0.16

-0.45

0.48

-0.16

0.13

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

Gender (male) Age EducationIncome Risk Perception Cost perceptionBenefit Perception Knowledge Trust 10

Weighted CorrelationsE

ffect

siz

e (P

ears

on’s

r)

Public Acceptance of Nuclear Energy

Results

11

Moderator Analysis: Country & TrustE

ffect

siz

e (P

ears

on’s

r)

Results

0.24

0.67

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.80

AsiaEurope

0.2

0.1 0.1

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

AsiaEuropeNorth America

-0.18

-0.47

-0.21

-0.50

-0.40

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

AsiaEuropeNorth America

Benefit Perception

Acceptance

Risk Perception

Effe

ct s

ize

(Pea

rson

’s

r)

Effe

ct s

ize

(Pea

rson

’s

r)

12

Moderator Analysis: TimeE

ffect

siz

e (P

ears

on’s

r)

Results

0.34

0.73

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

BeforeFukushima

AfterFukushima

0.09

0.18

0.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.160.180.20

BeforeFukushima

AfterFukushima

AcceptanceBenefit Perception

AcceptanceTrust

Note. k = number of studies; N = total sample size for all studies combined; effect size is Pearson’s r; 95% CI= Lower and upperlimits of 95% confidence interval for effect size; Q = Cochran’s (1954) measure of homogeneity. * p < .05, **p < .01, *** p < .001

Effe

ct s

ize

(Pea

rson

’s

r)

Implications

13

Implications

Communication strategies should include strategic mediaframing to convey messages about nuclear energy. Simply providing more information about energy policies to

raise public awareness of nuclear energy is insufficient.

Effective public deliberation initiatives should beimplemented to include the public in the decision-making ofnuclear energy. Open and transparent deliberation is key to enhance

social trust.

Dr. Shirley S. HoAssociate Professor & Assistant Chair (Faculty)

Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information Nanyang Technological University

31 Nanyang Link, #03-50, Singapore 637718 tsyho@ntu.edu.sg

www.shirleysho.com

Thank You

Acknowledgement: This material is based on research supported by the Singapore National ResearchFoundation under NPRP Award No. NRF2014NPR-NPRP001-004. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions orrecommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the viewsof the Singapore National Research Foundation.

Recommended