2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.soscij.2015.01.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Does proximity matter? Plant location, public awareness, and support for nuclear energy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In other words, public acceptance refers to individuals' admission or willingness to endure particular decisions without objection [41][42][43]. Gaining public acceptance is vital as public opposition may hinder the successful adoption and advancement of nuclear energy development [44,45].…”
Section: Public Perceptions Of Nuclear Energymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In other words, public acceptance refers to individuals' admission or willingness to endure particular decisions without objection [41][42][43]. Gaining public acceptance is vital as public opposition may hinder the successful adoption and advancement of nuclear energy development [44,45].…”
Section: Public Perceptions Of Nuclear Energymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies on proximity and perception are typically undertaken for single site types, and usually in limited geographic areas. For example, Cale and Kromer () found that proximity to nuclear sites in North Carolina increased awareness of their presence. Cuite et al.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our review shows, that the effects of proximity and other spatial variables are diverse and that they do not easily confirm the proximity-hypothesis. Rather, proximity implies different factors which form attitudes such as familiarity, local experience and discourse, social and economic benefits of the facility in the case of existing energy sites (Cale and Kromer, 2015; and higher levels of concern due to risk awareness, "feelings of uncertainty, distrust and perceived lack of control" (Venables et al, 2012, p. 372) in the case of proposed facilities (Cale and Kromer, 2015;compare Mueller et al, 2017). suggest "that the spatial distribution of support and opposition will vary according to the spatial distribution of risks and benefits for a particular project" (p. 106).…”
Section: Conclusion and Research Recommendationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most of the studies presented in our review use self-reported exposure as spatial information in their analysis. However, there are several studies from adjacent fields of research such as nuclear power (e.g., Cale and Kromer, 2015;, fracking (e.g., , oil pipeline route and stated preferences regarding REs that give an example for how to get and to use objective and individual measurements of exposure in the analysis. Most of the studies mentioned before use zip code areas' or counties' centroid as a proxy for respondents' place of residence.…”
Section: Conclusion and Research Recommendationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation