The Impact of Value on Japanese s Trust, Perceived Risk and Acceptance of Nuclear Power after Earthquake and Tsunami, 2011 Jaejin Jung Research Institute, Seoul South Korea Seoyong Kim Department of Public Administration, Ajou Univ., South Korea Hyeongjong Kim Department of Public Administration, Ajou Univ., South Korea
The Impact of Value on Japanese s Trust, Perceived Risk and Acceptance of Nuclear Power after Earthquake and Tsunami, 2011 1. Abstract The Earthquake and Tsunami, March 2011 brought out the tragic results in Japan society. After they had struck the nuclear power stations in Fukushima, following catastrophic accidents have been changing Japanese s attitude and public policies toward nuclear energy. Our study will analyze the impact of values on perceived risk, acceptance of nuclear power and recovery of Japan among Japanese. As a lot of researches in risk analysis have focused the trust, perceived risk or perceived benefit as determinants for acceptance of nuclear power, very few studies had paid the attention to more deep fundamental factors to influence those three factors. We assumed the different values Fatalism, Religiosity, Nationalism, Religiosity, Optimism have consistent and significant impact on them. Our analysis will test the role of value, based on survey data (N=700). First, we analyze the relationships between three variables i.e. perceived risk, acceptance of nuclear power and belief in recovery of Japan. Second, analyze the impact of value factors on those three predicted variables after controlling demographic variables. We found that the value have not strongly influence the perceived risk and acceptance of nuclear power. But it determines the belief in recovery of Japan from such catastrophic disaster. 2. Research Background & Research Framework The Earthquake and Tsunami, March 2011 brought out the tragic disasters in Japan society. catastrophic accidents may be strongly influence Japanese s attitude and public policies toward nuclear energy. After accidents, Governing Democratic Party announced the Zero of nuclear power which contains the future plan to reduce the dependence of electricity production on nuclear power generation. According to poll by The Yomiuri Shimbun and data published by the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum (JAIF), 20% of the 1500 Japanese residents voted for
nuclear power to be abolished, according to Just over half (53%) voted for Japan to decrease its share of nuclear power, with 18% calling for the status quo to be maintained and a mere 4% for the nuclear share to increase. Our study will analyze the impact of values on perceived risk, acceptance of nuclear power and recovery of Japan among Japanese. We assumed the different values Fatalism, Religiosity, Nationalism, Religiosity, Optimism have consistent and significant impact on them. 3. Theoretical Background As a lot of researches in risk analysis have focused the trust, perceived risk or perceived benefit as determinants for acceptance of nuclear power, few studies had paid the attention to more deep fundamental value factors to influence those perception factors as follows; 1) Fatalism Even though correlations between cultural biases and risk perceptions were low, there is meaningful association between them. Brenot et al. (1998) show that fatalism has positive relationships with perceived risk about alcoholism, terrorism, city crime, and natural catastrophes. 2) Nationalism Technological nationalism at the heart of Japan's conservative political culture has connected with strong belief in nuclear safety remained strong in Japan from the 1950s until the 2000s (Penney, 2012). 3) Religiosity Brossard et al.(2009) show that the strength of religious beliefs is negatively related to support for funding of the technology. 4) Optimism After evaluating how individuals living on the Gulf Coast perceived hurricane risk after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Trumbo et al. (2013) show that greater dispositional optimism predicted more optimistic outlook 4. Measure & Sample We use data collected by Pew Research Center s Global Attitudes Project 2011.
Sample design adopted random digit dial (RDD) probability sample representative of all landline telephone households stratified by region and population size (excluding 5.4% of the population living in areas most affected by the earthquake). Fieldwork dates are from April 8 to April 27, from May 13 to May 24, 2011. Sample size is 700. Margin of error is ±4.5 percentage points. Major measures for theoretical concept is below; <Table 1. Theoretical Concept and Measure> Concept Measure Scale (Recoded) 1. Not at all worried JAP12: How worried are you that you or someone in your 2. Not too worried Perceive family may have been exposed to radiation from the 3. Very worried d Risk Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant? 4. Some what worried Accepta 1. Reduced JAP10: In your opinion, should the use of nuclear power in nce of 2. Maintained at Japan be reduced, maintained at its current level, or nuclear current level increased? power 3. Increased JAP7: As a result of the March 11th earthquake and tsunami, Recover 1. Weaker do you believe Japan will become a stronger nation or a y 2. Stronger weaker nation? Disaster JAP4: Were you or members of your household directly Experie 1. No, 2. Yes affected by the March 11th earthquake and tsunami? nce JAP8: As I read a list of groups and organizations, please tell me how good a job each has done in responding to the 1.Very poor, impact of the March 11th earthquake and tsunami? (a. Our 2.Somewhat poor, Trust national government, b. Prime Minister Naoto Kan, c. Self 3.Somewhat good, Defense Force, d. News organizations such as television, 4. very good radio, newspapers and magazines, e. Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO)). Q15: Please tell me whether you completely agree, mostly 1. Completely agree, mostly disagree or completely disagree with the Fatalism disagree following statements.(success in life is pretty much determined 2. Mostly disagree by forces outside our control) 3. Mostly agree (Our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior to Nationalism 4. Completely agree others 1. Not at all Q118 How important is religion in your life very important Religiosit important, somewhat important, not too important, or not at 2. Not too important y all important? 3. Somewhat important 4. Very important JAP3: Just your best guess, on which step do you think you Optimi s will stand in the future, say five years from now? Zero is the Range 0-10 m worst possible life and 10 is the best possible life.
5. Analysis To see the response of Japanese after Fukushima accident, we provide the figures for frequency analysis as shown from <figure 1 to figure 3>. Figure 1 shows that 56% of respondents expressed the worry about nuclear accident. From figure 2, there are nearly half of all respondents, who support the maintenance or increase of nuclear power and other half of them, who support the reduction of it. It implies that there are, to the largest extent, conflicts between proponents and opponents. From figure 4, more than half of respondents (64%) believed that as a result of the March 11th earthquake and tsunami, Japan will become a stronger nation rather than a weaker nation. < Figure 1. Perceived Risk (n=697) > < Figure 2. Japanese Acceptance of Nuclear Power (n=688) > < Figure 3. Belief in Japan s Recovery (n=633) >
<Table 2> shows the correlation coefficients between main variables. First, among value variables, fatalism did not correlated with three outcome variables (perceived risk, acceptance and belief in recovery). Second, the nationalism and religiosity had the positive relations with perceived risk and recovery. Third, optimism reduced the perceived risk and increased the belief in recovery of japan. < Table 2. Correlation Analysis > Gender Age Educatio n Income DE Trust Fatalism nationalis m Religiosit y Optimis m Gender 1 Age 0.048 Education -.107** -.306** 1 Income 0.02 -.270**.312** 1 DE -0.008-0.053.087*.151** 1 Trust -0.041 0.055 0.022 0.019 0.019 1 Fatalism 0.021-0.006-0.003-0.016 0.037-0.03 1 nationalism.085*.212** -.121** -0.064-0.04-0.045 0.069 1 Religiosity.100**.376** -.113** -.142** -0.031-0.014 0.061.242** 1 Optimism.108** -.251**.179**.264** 0.023 0.074 -.134** -0.045-0.02 1 Perceived.109**.230** -.155** -.191** -0.041-0.073 0.017.084*.166** -.123** 1 Perceive d risk Acceptanc e risk Acceptance -.260** -0.027 -.078* 0.017 0.037.091* -0.021 0.013 0.013 0.01 -.133** 1 Recovery.104** -0.014-0.031-0.027-0.04.087* 0.004.131**.123**.225** 0.052 0.047 Note: DE; Disaster Experience *p <.1; ** p <.05; ***p <.01 <Table 3> shows the regression results; Gender and age have and positive impact on perceived risk whereas the income and trust have negative influence on it. However, the four value factors did not significant impact on the perceived risk. Among predictors, the age explained the largest variance in predictedvariables.
< Table 3. Regression Analysis of Perceived risk > Independent Variable B SE Beta Gender (1=female).216**.095.100 Age.010***.003.156 Sociodemographic Factor Education -.012.012 -.049 Income -.190**.088 -.103 Disaster Experience -.093.159 -.026 Perception Factor Trust -.226**.104 -.094 Fatalism.049.058.036 Value Factor Nationalism.037.070.024 Religiosity.060.058.049 Optimism -.016.022 -.033 F-value 5.384 R-square.081 *p <.1; ** p <.05; ***p <.01 To know the explanation power of predictors on the acceptance of nuclear power energy, we regressed it on 11 predictors by adopting the logistic regression. Trust reduces the possibility of increase of nuclear power, compared to referent, i.e., decrease and maintenance. Perceived risk enhance the possibility of increase in Model 1 but reduce the possibility of decrease in Model 3. It is unexpected findings because the perceived risk generally reduces the support for nuclear power. Nationalism reduces the possibility of decreasing the nuclear power stations. < Table 4. Logistic regression of acceptance toward nuclear power energy > dependent Variable Model 1 Increase (=1) vs. Decrease (=0) Model 2 Increase (=1) vs. maintain (=0) Model 3 Decrease (=1) vs. Maintain (=0) Independent Variable B SE Exp(B) B SE Exp(B) B SE Exp(B) Gender (1=female) -3.445**.769.032-2.556 ***.752.078.776***.201 2.173 Sociodemog raphic Factor Age -.010.015.990 -.007.015.993.005.007 1.005 Education -.050.049.951.013.049 1.013.087***.026 1.091 Income -.023.357.977 -.687*.384.503 -.311*.184.733 Disaster Experience.301.686 1.352.095.630 1.100 -.359.332.698 Perception Factor Trust -.487* *.197.614 -.394* *.193.674.088.096 1.092
Perceived risk.793*.459 2.210.281.415 1.325 -.367*.221.693 Fatalism -.219.253.803 -.003.264.997.166.122 1.181 Value Factor Nationalism.120.287 1.127 -.224.285.799 -.261*.147.771 Religiosity.364.249 1.439.344.243 1.411 -.077.122.926 Optimism.043.096 1.044.048.099 1.050 -.018.047.982-2 log likelihood 150.267 174.054 609.898 % of correctly predicted 89.4% 87.4% 60.3% Chi-Square(χ2) 56.599*** 33.936*** 33.308*** Cox and Snell s R2/ Nagelkerke's R2.192/.355.119/.220.069/.092 *p <.1; ** p <.05; ***p <.01 < Table 5. Logistic Regression of belief in recovery (1=stronger, 0=weaker) > Sociodemogra phic Factor Perception Factor Value Factor Independent Variable B SE Beta Gender (1=female).259.214 1.296 Age -.003.008.997 Education -.033.027.967 Income -.087.202.917 Disaster Experience -.143.339.867 Perceived Risk.101.104 1.106 Trust.672***.247 1.958 Fatalism.129.138 1.138 Nationalism.525***.161 1.690 Religiosity.283**.135 1.328 Optimism.263***.052 1.301-2 log likelihood 541.178 % of correctly predicted 67.7% Chi-Square(χ2) 63.582 Cox and Snell s R2/ Nagelkerke's R2.129/.176 *p <.1; ** p <.05; ***p <.01 To see the determinant power of predictors on belief in recovery of Japan, we executed the logistic regression shown in table 5. Table 5 demonstrated the
nationalism, religiosity and optimism contribute to increasing the belief in strong recovery of Japan. Among three value variables, nationalism explained the largest variance of recovery. However, trust is foremost variables having explanation power among all of independent variables. 6. Main findings We test the four value factors role in explaining the perceived risk, acceptance of nuclear power and belief in the recovery. Main findings include next ones; First, four values did not influence the perceived risk. Sociodemographic variables explained the perceived risk. Gender and age increased it but income decreased it. Trust influences the negative impact on perceived risk. Second, nationalism decreased the possibility of respondents support for decrement of nuclear power. Third, nationalism, religiosity and optimism have the positive impact on stronger recovery of Japan. Those findings imply that value factors influence selectively on the attitude toward judgment related with disaster of Fukushima accidents. Reference Brenot, J., Bonnefous, S. and Marris, C. 1998. Testing the Cultural Theory of Risk in France. Risk Analysis, 18(6): 729-739. Brossard, D., Scheufele, D.A., Kim, E. and Lewenstein, B. V. 2009. Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5): 546-558. Marris, C., Langford, I. H. and O Riordan, T. 1998. A Quantitative Test of the Cultural Theory of Risk Perceptions: Comparison with the Psychometric Paradigm. Risk Analysis, 18(5): 635-647. Penney, M. 2012. Nuclear Nationalism and Fukushima. Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, Issue 11. Trumbo, C. Lueck, M., Marlatt, H. and Peek, L. The Effect of Proximity to
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on Subsequent Hurricane Outlook and Optimistic Bias. Risk Analysis DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01633.x