Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Chinese Version)


nuclear energy; public acceptance; review of research method and theory; theoretical framework

Document Type



Public acceptance of nuclear energy is a rapidly developing cross-cutting research topic and one of the most representative research topics in the risk perception discipline. The domestic academia is still in its exploratory stage and relatively lags behind the international academic frontier in its theoretical level and research methods. This study takes the journal articles in the authoritative scientific indexes as the object, and employs the methods of theoretical review to conduct comprehensive research. Based on a review of the literature on public acceptance of nuclear energy in China and abroad, this article integrates the determinants of public acceptance of nuclear energy identified by the existing research into a unified analytical framework. The article further points out the gaps and weaknesses in existing research and discusses the directions for future research.

First page


Last Page





Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences


International Atomic Energy Agency. Energy, electricity and nuclear power estimates for the period up to 2050. Vienna:IAEA, 2017.

Starr C. Social benefit versus technological risk. Science, 1969, 165(3899):1232-1238.

时振刚, 张作义, 薛澜, 等.核电的公众接受性研究.中国软科学, 2000, (8):71-75.

韩自强, 顾林生.核能的公众接受性与影响因素分析.中国人口·资源与环境, 2015, 25(6):107-113.

陈润羊.核电公众接受性研究展望.华北电力大学学报(社会科学版), 2015, (3):27-32.

王刚, 张霞飞.风险的社会放大分析框架下沿海核电"去污名化"研究.中国行政管理, 2017, (3):119-125.

闫坤如.核电风险的社会可接受性及其决策伦理探析.伦理学研究, 2017, (2):74-78.

郭跃, 汝鹏, 苏竣.科学家与公众对核能技术接受度的比较分析——以日本福岛核泄露事故为例.科学学与科学技术管理, 2012, 33(2):153-158.

曾繁旭, 戴佳, 王宇琦.风险行业的公众沟通与信任建设:以中广核为例.中国地质大学学报(社会科学版), 2015, 15(1):68-77.

邓理峰, 郑馨怡, 周志成.客观知识与主观知识:青年学生的核电知识水平及对核电态度的影响.科学与社会, 2016, 6(2):85-109.

陈悦, 陈超美, 胡志刚.引文空间分析原理与应用.北京:科学出版社, 2014.

Ohnishi T. A mathematical model of the activities for public acceptance and the resultant reaction of the public:An application to the nuclear problem. Mathematical & Computer Modelling, 1995, 21(5):1-31.

Kim Y, Kim, M, Kim W. Effect of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on global public acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy Policy, 2013, 61:822-828.

He G, Mol A P, Zhang L, et al. Public participation and trust in nuclear power development in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2013, 23:1-11.

Kuo W. Critical Reflections on Nuclear and Renewable Energy:Environmental Protection and Safety in the Wake of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident. Hoboken:John Wiley & Sons, 2014.

Wang Q, Chen X. Regulatory transparency-How china can learn from Japan's nuclear regulatory failures?. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2012, 16(6):3574-3578.

Renn O, Schweizer P J. Inclusive risk governance:Concepts and application to environmental policy making. Environmental Policy and Governance, 2009, 19(3):174-185.

Wu Y. Public acceptance of constructing coastal/inland nuclear power plants in post-Fukushima China. Energy Policy, 2017, 101:484-491.

彭峰, 翟晨阳.核能复兴、风险控制与公众参与——彭泽核能项目争议之政策与法律思考.上海大学学报(社会科学版), 2014, 31(4):99-106.

郭跃, 汝鹏, 苏竣.科学家与公众对核能技术接受度的比较分析——以日本福岛核泄露事故为例.科学学与科学技术管理, 2012, 33(2):153-158.

Slovic P. The Psychology of Risk. Saude e Sociedade, 2010, 19(4):731-747.

蔡先凤.中国核损害责任制度的建构.中国软科学, 2006, (9):38-49.

Mercado-Sáez M T, Marco-Crespo E, Álvarez-Villa À. Exploring news frames, sources and editorial kines on newspaper coverage of nuclear energy in Spain. Environmental Communication. 2018, 28:1-4.

Imtihani N, Mariko Y. Media coverage of Fukushima nuclear power station accident 2011 (A case study of NHK and BBC World TV stations. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 2013, 17:938-946.

Wang Y, Li N, Li J. Media coverage and government policy of nuclear power in the People's Republic of China. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 2014, 77:214-223.

Greenberg, M. Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences:analysis of US national and site-specific data. Energy Policy, 2009, 37(8):3242-3249.

杨广泽, 余宁乐, 韩重森, 等.田湾核电站周围居民对核辐射危险认知调查分析.中国辐射卫生, 2006, (1):69-72.

Greenberg M R. NIMBY, CLAMP, and the location of new nuclear-related facilities:U.S. National and 11 Site-Specific Surveys. Risk Analysis, 2009, 29(9):1242-1254.

Guo Y, Ren T. When it is unfamiliar to me:Local acceptance of planned nuclear power plants in China in the post-Fukushima era. Energy Policy, 2017, 100:113-125.

Van der Horst D. NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy, 2007, 35(5):2705-2714.

Huang L, Zhou Y, Han Y, et al. Effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on the risk perception of residents near a nuclear power plant in China. PNAS, 2013, 110(49):19742-19747.

Greenberg M R. How much do people who Live near major nuclear facilities worry about those facilities? Analysis of national and site-specific data. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2009, 52(7):919-937.

Jenkins-Smith H C, Silva C L, Nowlin M C, et al. Reversing nuclear opposition:Evolving public acceptance of a permanent nuclear waste disposal facility. Risk Analysis, 2011, 31(4):629-644.

Warren C R, Lumsden C, O'Dowd S, et al. 'Green on green':public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2005, 48(6):853-875.

Venables D, Pidgeon N F, Parkhill K A, et al. Living with nuclear power:sense of place, proximity, and risk perceptions in local host communities. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2005, 32(4):371-383.

Silva C L, Jenkins-Smith H C, Barke R P. Reconciling scientists' beliefs about radiation risks and social norms:explaining preferred radiation protection standards. Risk Analysis, 2007, 27(3):755-773.

Roh S, Lee J W. Differentiated influences of risk perceptions on nuclear power acceptance according to acceptance targets:Evidence from Korea. Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 2017, 49(5):1090-1094.

Murakami M, Nakatani J, Oki T. Evaluation of risk perception and risk-comparison information regarding dietary radionuclides after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear power plant accident. PLoS ONE, 2016, 11(11):1-22.

Frantál B, Malý J, Ouředníček M, et al. Distance matters. assessing socioeconomic impacts of the Dukovany nuclear power plant in the Czech Republic:Local perceptions and statistical evidence. Moravian Geographical Reports, 2016, 24(1):2-13.

Corner A, Venables D, Spence A, et al. Nuclear power, climate change and energy security:exploring British public attitudes. Energy Policy, 2011, 39(9):4823-4833.

Parkhill K A, Henwood K L, Pidgeon N F, et al. Laughing it off? humour, affect and emotion work in communities living with nuclear risk. British Journal of Sociology, 2011, 62(2):324-346.

Katsuya T. Public response to the Tokai nuclear accident. Risk Analysis, 2001, 21(6):1039-1046.

Stoutenborough J W, Sturgess S G, Vedlitz A. Knowledge, risk, and policy support:public perceptions of nuclear power. Energy Policy, 2013, 62:176-184.

Sun C, Zhu X. Evaluating the public perceptions of nuclear power in China:evidence from a contingent valuation survey. Energy Policy, 2014, 69:397-405.

Irwin A. Citizen Science:A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. London & New York:Routledge, 1995.

Kuklinski J H, Metlay D S, Kay W D. Citizen knowledge and choices on the complex issue of nuclear energy. American Journal of Political Science, 1982, 26(4):615-642.

Sturgis P, Allum N. Science in society:Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 2004, 13(1):55-74.

Maharik M, Fischhoff B. Risk knowledge and risk attitudes regarding nuclear energy sources in space. Risk Analysis, 1993, 13(3):345-353.

Silva C L, Jenkins-Smith, H C, et al. Reconciling scientists' beliefs about radiation risks and social norms:Explaining preferred radiation protection standards. Risk Analysis, 2007, 27(3):755-773.

Kuklinski J H, Metlay D S, Kay W D. Citizen knowledge and choices on the complex issue of nuclear energy. American Journal of Political Science, 1982, 26(4):615-642.

Sjöberg L. Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Analysis, 2001, 21(1):189-198.

Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science, 1987, 236(4799):280-285.

Sjöberg L. Attitudes toward technology and risk:Going beyond what is immediately given. Policy Sciences, 2002, 35(4):379-400.

Visschers V H, Siegrist M. How a nuclear power plant accident influences acceptance of nuclear power:results of a longitudinal study before and after the Fukushima disaster. Risk Analysis, 2013, 33(2):333-347.

Visschers V H, Keller C, Siegrist M. Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations:Investigating an explanatory model. Energy Policy, 2011, 39(6):3621-3629.

Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G. Perception of hazards:the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis, 2000, 20(5):713-719.

He G, Mol A P, Zhang L, et al. Public participation and trust in nuclear power development in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2013, 23:1-11.

Siegrist M. A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1999, 29(10), 2093-2106.

Wang Y, Li J. A causal model explaining Chinese university students' acceptance of nuclear power. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 2016, 88:165-174.

Alhakami A S, Slovic P. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk analysis, 1994, 14(6):1085-1096.

Finucane M L, Alhakami A, Slovic P, et al. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2000, 13(1):1-17.

Slovic P, Finucane M L, Peters E, et al. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings:Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk analysis, 2004, 24(2):311-22.

Roser C, Thompson M. Fear appeals and the formation of active publics. Journal of Communication, 1995, 45(1):103-122.

Truelove H B. Energy source perceptions and policy support:image associations, emotional evaluations, and cognitive beliefs. Energy Policy, 2012, 45:478-489.

Visschers V H, Siegrist M. Fair play in energy policy decisions:procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants. Energy Policy, 2012, 46:292-300.

Mccomas, Katherine A, John C B, et al. Risky business:perceived behavior of local scientists and community support for their research. Risk Analysis, 2008, 28(6):1539-1552.

Besley J C. Public engagement and the impact of fairness perceptions on decision favorability and acceptance. Science Communication, 2010, 32(2):256-280.

Besley J C. Does fairness matter in the context of anger about nuclear energy decision making? Risk Analysis, 2012, 32(1):25-38.

Yim M S, Vaganov P A. Effects of education on nuclear risk perception and attitude:theory. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 2003, 42(2):221-235.

Whitfield S C, Rosa E A, Dan A, et al. The future of nuclear power:value orientations and risk perception. Risk Analysis, 2009, 29(3):425-437.

Tsujikawa N, Tsuchida S, Shiotani T. Changes in the factors influencing public acceptance of nuclear power generation in Japan since the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Risk Analysis, 2016, 36(1):98-113.

Kahan D M, Braman D, Gastil J, et al. Culture and identityprotective cognition:Explaining the white-male effect in risk perception. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2007, 4(3):465-505.

Mah D N, Hills P, Tao J. Risk perception, trust and public engagement in nuclear decision-making in Hong Kong. Energy Policy, 2014, (73):368-390.

Spence A, Pidgeon N. Framing and communicating climate change:the effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, 2010, 20(4):656-667.

Siegrist M, Visschers V H. Acceptance of nuclear power:the Fukushima effect. Energy Policy, 2013, (59):112-119.

Huang L, He R, Yang Q, et al. The changing risk perception towards nuclear power in China after the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan. Energy Policy, 2018, 120:294-301.

Wang J, Kim S. Comparative analysis of public attitudes toward nuclear power energy across 27 European countries by applying the multilevel Model. Sustainability, 2018, 10:1-21.

Xia D, Li Y, He Y, et al. Exploring the role of cultural individualism and collectivism on public Acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy Policy, 2019, 132:208-215.

Inglehart R. Post-materialism in an environment of insecurity. The American Political Science Review, 1981, 75(4):880-900.

Latré E, Thijssen P, Perko T. The party politics of nuclear energy:Party cues and public opinion regarding nuclear energy in Belgium. Energy Research & Social Science, 2019, 47:192-201.

Grimmelikhuijsen S, Jilke S, Olsen A L, et al. Behavioral public administration:Combining insights from public administration and psychology. Public Administration Review, 2017, 77(1):45-56.

Kim J, Park S Y, Lee J. Do people really want renewable energy? Who wants renewable energy?:Discrete choice model of reference-dependent preference in South Korea. Energy Policy, 2018, 120:1-10.

Favero N, Bullock J B. How (not) to solve the problem:an evaluation of scholarly responses to common source bias. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2015, 25(1):285-308.

Roh S. Big Data analysis of public acceptance of nuclear power in Korea. Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 2017, 49(4):850-854.