Differentiated influences of benefit and risk perceptions on nuclear power acceptance according to acceptance levels: evidence from Korea

Figures & data

Table 1. Sample profile (N = 952).

Variables	Description		Proportion
Gender	Respondent's gender	Male	52.10%
		Female	47.90%
Age	Respondent's age	19–29	16.81%
		30–39	18.48%
		40–49	21.64%
		50–59	19.96%
		60 and above	23.11%
Education level	Respondent's education level	Middle school diploma or lower	9.14%
		High school diploma	30.99%
		College student or higher	58.61%
		No response	1.26%
Income level	Respondent's monthly household income	Below 1.0 million Korean Won	7.35%
		1.00–1.99 million Korean Won	7.25%
		2.00–2.99 million Korean Won	11.34%
		3.00–3.99 million Korean Won	16.60%
		4.00–4.99 million Korean Won	12.18%
		5.00–5.99 million Korean Won	11.55%
		6.00–6.99 million Korean Won	3.78%
		7.00–7.99 million Korean Won	2.42%
		Over 8.00 million Korean Won	11.76%
		No response	15.76%

Figure 1. Goodness-of-fit according to number of classes. X-axes denote the number of pre-assumed latent classes.

Table 2. AIC and BIC analyses for the three- and four-class solutions.

No. Classes	No. Parametersj	AICj	∆j (AIC)	wj (AIC)	BIC	∆j (BIC)	wj (BIC)
3	23	67.90	5.62	0.06	0.00	0	1.00
4	31	62.28	0.00	0.94	33.25	33.25	6.02 × 10^−8

For solution j, ∆_j (AIC) = [AIC_j − min(AIC)]; w_j (AIC) = Akaike weights. ∆_j (BIC) = [BIC_j − min(BIC)]; w_j (BIC) = Schwarz weights. See [23] for the calculation details.

Table 3. Nuclear power acceptance according to latent classes.

	Class 1	Class 2	Class 3	Whole sample
Acceptance 1^a
Not necessary at all	82 (37.27%)	0 (0.00%)	0 (0.00%)	82 (8.61%)
Somewhat unnecessary	105 (47.73%)	41 (9.62%)	1 (0.33%)	147 (15.44%)
Somewhat necessary	28 (12.73%)	375 (88.04%)	5 (1.63%)	408 (42.86%)
Very necessary	5 (2.27%)	10 (2.35%)	300 (98.04%)	315 (33.09%)
Total	220 (100.00%)	426 (100.00%)	306 (100.00%)	952 (100.00%)
Acceptance 2^b
Decrease much further	159 (72.27%)	0 (0.00%)	0 (0.00%)	159 (16.70%)
Decrease a little bit	52 (23.64%)	78 (18.31%)	0 (0.00%)	130 (13.66%)
Keep the current level	9 (4.09%)	260 (61.03%)	107 (34.97%)	376 (39.50%)
Increase a little bit	0 (0.00%)	88 (20.66%)	119 (38.89%)	207 (21.74%)
Increase much further	0 (0.00%)	0 (0.00%)	80 (26.14%)	80 (8.40%)
Total	220 (100.00%)	426 (100.00%)	306 (100.00%)	952 (100.00%)

^aConsidering the situation of our country, do you think nuclear power generation is necessary or not?

^bWhat is your opinion on the number of nuclear power plants that should be operating in our country?

Table 4. Determinants of cluster membership: multinomial probit.

	Anti-nuclear power cluster		Pro-nuclear power cluster
	Coef.	(SE)	Coef.	(SE)
Constant	−1.584	(0.157)^*^*^*	−0.899	(0.108)^*^*^*
Control variables
Gender^a	−0.274	(0.096)^*^*^*	−0.142	(0.086)^*
Age^b	0.351	(0.110)^*^*^*	0.143	(0.090)
Education level^c	0.418	(0.107)^*^*^*	−0.062	(0.086)
Income level^b	−0.166	(0.099)^*	0.150	(0.085)^*
Residential area^d	−0.366	(0.121)^*^*^*	−0.061	(0.094)
Main independent variables
Perceived benefit^b	−0.695	(0.123)^*^*^*	0.948	(0.126)^*^*^*
Perceived risk^b	1.088	(0.137)^*^*^*	−0.428	(0.110)^*^*^*

Log likelihood = −500.88; Wald χ²(14) = 295.45; model p = 0.00.

The reference group is the Moderate cluster.

^*p < 0.10, ^***p < 0.01.

^aContrast-coded: −1 = male, 1 = female.

^bThe variable has been standardized.

^cContrast-coded: −1 = high school diploma or lower, 1 = college student or higher.

^dContrast-coded: −1 = the respondent's metropolitan city or province never experienced the construction of a nuclear power plant or radioactive waste facility or experienced it before the year 2000, 1 = it experienced such construction after the year 2000.

Figure 2. Relative coefficient sizes of perceived benefit and risk. ^***p < 0.01. (+) A positive effect on the membership to the cluster with the greater level of nuclear power acceptance; (−) a negative effect on such membership. The perceived benefit and the perceived risk variables have been standardized. ^aCoefficient sizes are different at the 0.10 level (p = 0.062); ^bdifferent at the 0.01 level (p = 0.006).

Wagenmakers E-J, Farrell S. AIC model selection using Akaike weights. Psychon Bull Rev. 2004;11:192–196.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar