Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring Students’ Ideas About Risks and Benefits of Nuclear Power Using Risk Perception Theories

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Due to increased energy demand, Turkey is continuing to explore the possibilities of introducing nuclear power. Gaining acceptance from local populations, however, may be problematic because nuclear power has a negative image and risk perceptions are complicated by a range of psychological and cultural factors. In this study, we explore the views about nuclear power of school students from three locations in Turkey, two of which have been proposed as sites suitable for nuclear power plants. About half of the student cohort believed that nuclear power can supply continuous and sufficient electricity, but approximately three quarters thought that nuclear power stations could harm organisms, including humans, living nearby. Rather few students realized that adoption of nuclear power would help to reduce global warming and thereby limit climate change; indeed, three quarters thought that nuclear power would make global warming worse. There was a tendency for more students from the location most likely to have a nuclear power plant to believe negative characteristics of nuclear power, and for fewer students to believe positive characteristics. Exploration of the possible nuclear power programmes by Turkey offers an educational opportunity to understand the risk perceptions of students that affect their decision-making processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams J (1995) Risk. University College London Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Alhakami AS, Slovic P (1994) A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Anal 14(6):1085–1096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bang H-K, Ellinger A, Hadjimarcou J, Tracial PA (2000) Consumer concern, knowledge, belief, and attitude toward renewable energy: an application of the reasoned action theory. Psychol Mark 17(6):449–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BBC World Service/Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)/Globescan (2007) All countries need to take major steps on climate change: global poll. Retrieved 15 Sept 2007, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/25_09_07/climatepoll.pdf

  • Bouyer M, Bagdassarian S, Chaabanne S, Mullet E (2001) Personality correlates of risk perception. Risk Anal 21(3):457–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyes E, Stanisstreet M (1994) Children’s ideas about radioactivity and radiation: sources, made of travel, uses and dangers. Res Sci Technol Educ 12(2):145–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyes E, Stanisstreet M (1996) Threats to the global environment: the extent of pupil understanding. Int Res Geogr Environ Educ 5(3):186–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozkurt O, Cangusu O (2002) Ilkogretim ogrencilerinin cevre egitiminde sera etkisi ile ilgili kavram yanılgıları (Elementary school students’ misconceptions regarding green house effect in environmental education). Hacettepe Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi 23:67–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenot J, Bonefeus S, Mays C (1996) Cultural theory and risk perception: validity and utility explored in the French context. Radiat Prot Dosim 68(3/4):239–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger J, Rousk DE, Sanchez J, Ondrof J, Ramos R, McMahon MJ, Gochfold M (2000) Attitudes and perceptions about ecological resources, hazards, and future land use of people living near the Idaho national engineering and environmental laboratory. Environ Monit Assess 60:145–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2001) Third Assessment Report. Retrieved 15 Aug 2004, from http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar

  • IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2007) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Retrieved 25 Nov 2007, from http://www.ipc.ch

  • Christensen C (2009) Risk and school science education. Stud Sci Educ 45(2):205–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutter SL, Tiefenbacher J, Solecki WD (1992) En-gendered fears: feminists and technological risk perception. Ind Crisis Q 6(1):5–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson DJ, Freudenburg WR (1996) Gender and environmental risk concerns, a review and analysis of available research. Environ Behav 28:302–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dervisoglu S (2007) Learning pre-conditions for protecting the biodiversity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hacettepe University, Ankara

  • Driver L, Stanisstreet M, Boyes E (2010) Young people’s views about using nuclear power to reduce global warming. Int J Environ Stud 67(1):1–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drottz-Sjöberg BM, Sjöberg L (1991) Adolescents attitudes to nuclear power and radioactive wastes. J Appl Soc Psychol 21:2007–2036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eijkelhof HMC (1996) Radiation risk and science education. Radiat Prot Dosim 68(3/4):273–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM (2000) The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J Behav Decis Mak 13:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B (1995) Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Anal 15:137–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read SS, Combs B (1978) How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci 9:127–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B, Watson SR, Hope C (1984) Defining risk. Policy Sci 17:123–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn JH, Slovic P, Mertz CK, Toma J (1990) Evaluations of Yucca Mountain: survey findings about attitudes, opinions and evaluations of nuclear waste disposal at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office, Carson City

    Google Scholar 

  • Freudenburg WR, Davidson DJ (2007) Nuclear families and nuclear risks: the effects of gender, geography and progeny on attitudes toward a nuclear waste facility. Rural Sociol 72(2):215–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freudenburg WR, Coleman CL, Gonzales J, Helgeland C (1996) Media coverage of hazard events: analyzing the assumptions. Risk Anal 16(1):31–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer L, Lassen J, Kettlitz B, Scholderer J, Beekman V, Berdal KG (2004) Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food Chem Toxicol 42:1181–1193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner G, Jones G, Taylor A, Forrester J, Robertson L (2010) Students’ risk perceptions of nanotechnology applications: implications for science education. Int J Sci Educ 32(14):1951–1969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson PE (1998) Gender differences in risk perception: theoretical and methodological perspectives. Risk Anal 18(6):805–811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede G (1967–2009) Geert Hofstede™ cultural dimensions. Retrieved on 15 Mar 2011, from http://www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_dimensions.php

  • Hurriyet Daily News (2009) Health Ministry to provide no more new data on swine flu deaths. Retrieved 23 Dec 2011, from http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=no-new-data-for-swine-flu-deaths-2009-12-23

  • Hurriyet Daily News (2011) Staying single a bigger threat than nuclear power, Turkish minister says. Retrieved 5 Apr 2011, from http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=energy-minister-compares-nuclear-risk-to-marital-status-2011-04-05

  • IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (1997) Executive summary of the North American chapter on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson BB (1993) Advancing understanding of knowledge’s role in lay risk perception. Risk Issues Health Saf 4(3):189–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Kabasakal H, Bodur M (1998) Leadership, values and institutions: the case of Turkey. Istanbul: Bogazici University Research paper

  • Kılınç A, Stanisstreet M, Boyes E (2009) Incentives and disincentives for using renewable energy: Turkish students’ ideas. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 13:1089–1095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kılınç A, Eroğlu B, Boyes E, Stanisstreet M (2013) Could biological organisms be used as motivators for behaviour to reduce global warming? The views of school students. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education (In Press)

  • Kolsto SO (2006) Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. Int J Sci Educ 28(14):1689–1716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Komiya I, Torii H, Fujii Y, Hayashizaki N (2008) Relationship between students’ interests in science and attitudes toward nuclear power generation. Prog Nucl Energy 50:719–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozdemir N, Cobanoglu EO (2008) Prospective teachers’ attitudes towards the use of NE and the construction of NP in Turkey. Hacettepe Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 34:218–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagnamenta R (2009) Nuclear power needed to fill energy gap. Retrieved 15 Feb 2009, from http://business.timesonline.natural_resource.article6739416.ececo.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors

  • Pasa SF, Kabasakal H, Bodur M (2001) Society, organizations, and leadership in Turkey. Appl Psychol Int Rev 50(4):559–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe M, Grace M (2003) Science education for citizenship. Open University Press, Maidenhead

    Google Scholar 

  • Riechard DE, Mcgarrity J (1994) Early adolescents’ perceptions of relative risk from 10 societal and environmental hazards. J Environ Educ 26(1):16–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts DA (2007) Scientific literacy/science literacy. In: Abell SK, Lederman NG (eds) Handbook of research on science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, pp 729–780

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosa EA, Dunlap RE (1994) Poll trends: nuclear power, three decades of public opinion. Public Opin Q 58(2):295–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler T (2004) Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of research. J Res Sci Teach 41(5):513–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (1998) Risk perception: experts and the public. Eur Psychol 3(1):1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (1999) Risk perception by the public and by experts: a dilemma in risk management. Res Hum Ecol 6(2):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2000a) Specifying factors in radiation risk perception. Scand J Psychol 41:169–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2000b) The methodology of risk perception research. Qual Quant 34:407–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L, Torell G (1993) The development of risk acceptance and moral valuation. Scand J Psychol 34:223–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L, Moen BE, Rundma T (2004) Explaining risk perception: an evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research. Rotunde publikasjoner (Number 84, 2004) Retrieved 18 Sept 2007, from http://www.svt.ntnu.no/psy/Torbjorn.Rundmo/Psychometric_paradigm.pdf

  • Slee PT, Cross DG (1989) Living in the nuclear age: an Australian study of children’s and adolescent’s fears. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 19(4):270–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1996) Perception of risk from radiation. Radiat Prot Dosim 68(3/4):165–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Peters E (2006) Risk perception and affect. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 15(6):322–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Lichtenstein S (1979) Rating the risks. Environment 21(3):14–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk and rationality. Risk Anal 24(2):311–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sohn KY, Yong WJ, Kong CH (2001) Assimilation of public opinions in nuclear decision-making using risk perception. Ann Nucl Energy 28:553–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solana J (2008) Climate change and international security: Paper from the High Representative and the European Commission to the European Council. European Council, Brussels. Retrieved 25 Mar 2008, from http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/reports/99387.pdf

  • Solomon J (1989) Discussing nuclear power. Phys Educ 24:344–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern N (2006) What is the economics of climate change? Report to HM Government, Executive Summary. Retrieved 25 Sept 2009, from http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/4/3/Executive_Summary.pdf

  • Tekbiyik A, Ipek C (2008, June) Preservice primary teachers’ attitudes towards energy conservation. In: Paper presented at the 4th international conference on ecological protection of the planet earth: environment, maritime policies and energy issues in the Black Sea. Trabzon, Turkey

  • Turkish Atomic Energy Authority (2009) Ulusal Nükleer Teknoloji Politikası (The National Policy of nuclear technology). Retrieved 12 May 2011, from http://www.taek.gov.tr/belgeler-formlar/func-directinfo/10/

  • Turkish Statistics Institution (2009) Nüfus Kayıt Sistemi Sonuçları (The Results of Population Registration System). TUIK 2009

  • Ulutas BH (2005) Determination of the appropriate energy policy for Turkey. Energy 30:1146–1161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wahlberg AA, Sjöberg L (2000) Risk perception and the media. J Risk Res 3(1):31–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky A, Dake A (1990) Theories of risk perception: who fears what and why? J Am Acad Arts Sci 119(4):41–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Yim MS, Vagenov PA (2003) Effects of education on risk perception and attitude theory. Prog Nucl Energy 42(2):223–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler DL (2003) The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science education. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zint M (2001) Advancing environmental risk education. Risk Anal 21(3):417–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zint M, Peyton RB (2001) Improving risk education in grades 6–12: a needs assessment of Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin Science Teachers. J Environ Educ 32(2):46–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Elementary Science Education Department, Faculty of Education, Ahi Evran University, Terme cad, 40100, Kırşehir, Turkey

    Ahmet Kılınç

  2. Environmental Education Research Unit, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK

    Edward Boyes & Martin Stanisstreet

Authors
  1. Ahmet Kılınç
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edward Boyes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martin Stanisstreet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmet Kılınç.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kılınç, A., Boyes, E. & Stanisstreet, M. Exploring Students’ Ideas About Risks and Benefits of Nuclear Power Using Risk Perception Theories. J Sci Educ Technol 22, 252–266 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9390-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9390-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation