Citizen Perception of Risk Acceptability: Mediating and Moderating Effects in a Nuclear Facility ...

138 Pages·2015·2.13 MB·English

Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2015
Citizen Perception of Risk Acceptability:
Mediating and Moderating Effects in a
Nuclear Facility Siting Process
Jiwon Nam
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]
FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND PUBLIC POLICY

CITIZEN PERCEPTION OF RISK ACCEPTABILITY:
MEDIATING AND MODERATING EFFECTS IN A NUCLEAR FACILITY SITING
PROCESS

By

JIWON NAM

A Dissertation submitted to the
Reubin O'D. Askew School of Public Administration and Policy
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded:
Spring Semester, 2015
i
Jiwon Nam defended this dissertation on March 30, 2015.
The members of the supervisory committee were:

Frances S. Berry
Professor Co-Directing Dissertation

Ralph S. Brower
Professor Co-Directing Dissertation

Daekwan Kim
University Representative

Kaifeng Yang
Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and
certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements.

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, my sincere appreciation goes to my anonymous informants, who spared time from
their busy work and shared their precious experiences with me. I not only thank them for their
significant contribution to the study, but also thank them for their trust and genuineness. I
encountered huge difficulties in accessing interviewees at the beginning of my data collection. I
reserve special thanks to Ms. Younghee Kim, the leading jurist within the Korean Nonprofit
Organization (NPO), “Sunflower,” for helping me connect with Samchuk residents. The initial
impetus for this project came from my correspondence with Ms. Kim and for that I am truly
grateful.
Mr. Isaiah Kraus, an instructor of the Center for Intensive English Studies (CIES) at
Florida State University (FSU), proofread my writing. He was extremely astute, consistent and
warm. His support was invaluable and without his assistance I could never have completed this
endeavor.
The Askew School of Public Administration and Policy at FSU also extended their
generous support to me. Their excellent program and sincere faculty provided me all I needed
during the entire length of my doctoral study. Financially, the Askew School supported my
doctoral enrollment for the full three years. I am very grateful to Professor Earle Klay, the
Department Chair of the Askew School, and Professor Kaifeng Yang, the Ph.D. Director. I was
also fortunate to have financial support provided by the FSU through the Graduate School. Their
support helped me conduct my research and obtain the necessary survey data from Samchuk,
South Korea.
I have been most fortunate of all to have had Dr. Ralph S. Brower as my professor and
co-director of my dissertation. He has been not only my mentor but also my scholastic father. I
am truly indebted to him. He has been extremely supportive to me throughout my studies,
particularly in helping me to develop my research skills and to discover the hidden meanings
behind phenomena. He has transformed me from a doctoral student to a junior researcher and he
has inspired me to do the same for my students in the future. As well as being a friend and
mentor, he spent countless hours supervising and commenting on my research. I cannot fully
express in words my appreciation for his dedication and kindness.
iii
I also want to thank my dissertation-committee member, Dr. Kaifeng Yang for the
support and guidance throughout the process of dissertation defense. He encouraged me to
pursue my interests in the poorly researched field of culture and institutional perspectives despite
its potential to produce controversial results. He held me to high, exacting standards that
demanded a cleaner, stronger, more plausible interpretation of my data. Professor Yang’s
meticulous attention to detail kept me true to my data and helped me to tease out the nuances of
what I was discovering. I would like to thank him very much.
I would like to devote a special appreciation for Dr. Daekwan Kim, a professor at the
College of Business, for permitting me to have the opportunity to participate in his excellent
class. His hospitality has been amazing. I thank him so much for his letting me have him as an
outside committee member. I dared to ask him a lot of questions related to methodology and I
really appreciated his considerate and astute answers. I was truly impressed by his sincerity.
The prescient, sensible and warm person who has guided me through my studies has been
my directing professor, Dr. Frances S. Berry. While pursuing this degree, I have encountered
many challenges, including my pregnancy during the dissertation process. Without Dr. Berry’s
tremendous help and encouragement, I could have never finished this undertaking. Her influence
on me has ranged well beyond this dissertation. Under her guidance, I have repeatedly benefited
from her conscientiousness and perceptiveness. She is absolutely my role model.
Thanks to our competent administrators, Ms. Velda Williams, Ms. Marianne Hightman,
Ms. Katrina Holley, and Ms. Kathleen Woods. I was very happy to work with all of them. They
are precious assets for the Askew School. I have been impressed by their warm-heartedness and
especially thankful for their kindness during my pregnancy. I thank them for their hospitality.
My dearest husband, George Speers cheered with me when new findings were revealed
while I was writing my dissertation. I have appreciated his encouragement. My new born baby,
Aliyah Faith-Ina Speers, who was born in the middle of dissertation defense processes, also
made me stronger. Without my family’s help, I know I would not have completed the
dissertation manuscript clearance. God bless you all!

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................1
1.1 Background of the Study ..............................................................................................1
1.2 Problem Statement .........................................................................................................6
1.3 Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................9
1.4 Significance of the Dissertation ...................................................................................10
1.5 Organization of the Dissertation ..................................................................................14
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ...............................................................................16
2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................16
2.2 Theoretical Considerations of Economic Benefits ......................................................18
2.3 Beck’s Risk Society ......................................................................................................22
2.4 Early Observations in Risk Literature..........................................................................26
2.5 Research Trends in a Hazardous Facility Site Studies: The Importance of Trust .......31
2.6 Summary of Chapter 2 .................................................................................................37
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................40
3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................40
3.2 Procedure ...................................................................................................................42
3.3 Instrument Development ..............................................................................................44
3.4 Data Collection ...........................................................................................................46
3.5 Analytic Method: Why a Full Structural SEM Modeling? .........................................48
3.6 Theoretical Model of Nuclear Risk Acceptability ......................................................50
3.6.1 Acceptability of Nuclear Risk Policy ..............................................................54
3.6.2 Risk Perception ................................................................................................55
3.6.3 Benefit Perception ............................................................................................55
3.6.4 Regional Nuclear Stigma .................................................................................56
3.6.5 Perceived Local Government Capacity ...........................................................59
3.6.6 General Trust in National Government ............................................................60
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS .....................................................................................................63
4.1 Descriptive Statistics ....................................................................................................63
4.2 Tests of Reliability and Validity ..................................................................................69
4.3 Detecting Common Method Variance (CMV) ............................................................72
4.3.1 Harman’s Single-Factor Test ...........................................................................73
4.3.2 Marker-Variable Technique .............................................................................74
4.4 Preliminary Analysis for Demographic Information ...................................................76
4.5 Two-Step Approach: Measurement Model and Structural Model ...............................79
4.6 Analysis and Results ....................................................................................................84

v
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION ..........................................................88
5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................88
5.2 Summary of Major Findings ........................................................................................88
5.3 Theoretical Implications ..............................................................................................90
5.4 Methodological Implications .......................................................................................92
5.5 Policy Implications ......................................................................................................94
5.6 Limitations and Suggestions ........................................................................................96

APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................................99
A. DATA TABLE INCLUDING OPINION SURVEY ............................................................99
B. FACTOR LOADINGS AND RESIDUAL VARIANCES..................................................103
C. INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG VARIABLES ...........................................................104
D. CONSENT FORM FOR QUESTIONNAIRE ....................................................................106
E. IRB APPROVAL LETTERS ..............................................................................................107

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................112
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................127

vi
LIST OF TABLES
2.1 The Continuum of the Main Approaches to Risk in the Social Sciences ................................25

2.2 Definitions of Risk and Risk Perception ..................................................................................30

2.3 Summary of Hypothesis ...........................................................................................................39

3.1 Measures of Risk Acceptability ...............................................................................................55

3.2 Measures of Risk Perception ...................................................................................................55

3.3 Measures of the Benefit Perception of a Nuclear Facility .......................................................56

3.4 Measures of ‘Regional Nuclear Stigma’ ..................................................................................59

3.5 Measures of Perceived Local Government Capacity ...............................................................60

3.6 Measures of General Trust in National Government ...............................................................62

4.1 Descriptive Statistics of Composite Scores of Variables .........................................................63

4.2 Descriptive Statistics by Items .................................................................................................64

4.3 Descriptive Statistics: Control Variables .................................................................................65

4.4 Collinearity Detection ..............................................................................................................68

4.5 Reliability and Validity Assessment of Theoretical Construct Measures ...............................69

4.6 Factor Correlations and Shared Variances ...............................................................................71

4.7 Total Variance Explained ........................................................................................................73

4.8 Detection of CMB using a Marker-Variable ...........................................................................75

4.9 Logistic Regression Analysis ...................................................................................................77

4.10 Model Comparisons in the Measurement Models .................................................................80

4.11 Comparisons of the Measurement Model and Structural Model ...........................................81

4.12 Chi-Square Difference Tests to Detect Moderation Effects ..................................................86

4.13 Summary of Hypotheses Testing ...........................................................................................87

vii
LIST OF FIGURES
3.1 Acceptability of Nuclear Risk: Main Summated Models ........................................................52

3.2 Three Full Mediation and Two Moderation Models ................................................................53

4.1 Bar Chart of Age ......................................................................................................................66

4.2 Pie Charts of Occupation and Region/Proximity .....................................................................66

4.3 Distribution of Residuals of Acceptability and Normality Plot ...............................................67

4.4. Final Measurement Model ......................................................................................................80

4.5 Structural Model Estimation: Single Group Analysis .............................................................82

4.6 Results of Two-Group Analysis: Unconstrained Model (Standardized Solution)...................85

4.7 Results of the Whole Model ....................................................................................................87

viii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research was to identify factors related to citizens’ levels of risk
acceptability and examine how these factors influenced each other during the policy making
process for nuclear facility site selection in the city of Samchuk, South Korea. The factors used
in this study were citizens’ perceptions of risk, citizens’ perceptions of benefit, regional nuclear
stigma, and citizens’ attitudes towards government at the local and national level. Although each
variable has been studied separately in prior studies, few studies have brought these factors
together in one model. We addressed how risk theories developed in other fields of the social
sciences might be applied to Public Administration research and argued that objective-scientific
research in cognitive psychology has been mostly limited to the applications within Beck’s Risk
Society (1992).
As to the results of the study, first, perceived benefit was shown to significantly affect the
acceptability of the risk policy. Second, although local government capacity has no direct
influence on acceptability, it had an indirect effect on policy acceptability, as long as there was
perceived economic benefit. From these findings, perceived benefit was revealed to have the
only direct effect on the acceptability of the risk policy. Since perceived benefit was the essential
factor influencing the acceptability of policy, it was necessary then to explore the factors that
were affecting perceived benefit. Also, both perceived risk and local government capacity
directly influenced perceived benefit. However, regional nuclear stigma did not directly
influence perceived benefit. Instead, regional nuclear stigma indirectly influenced perceived
benefit through its relationships with two linking variables: local government capacity and
perceived risk.
We expected that the level of trust in national government (low vs. high) would affect the
relationship between regional nuclear stigma and perceived local government capacity. The
results of this study confirmed our expectations: the effect of regional nuclear stigma on
perceived local government capacity was different depending on the level of trust in national
government. In the past, the relationships between trust in national government and the perceived
local government capacity were unacknowledged within nuclear power policy research. In other
words, previous studies typically did not distinguish one level of government from another in
research on the acceptability of risk and these studies mostly neglected to examine how
ix