energies Article Nuclear Power Risk Perception in Serbia: Fear of Exposure to Radiation vs. Social Benefits Vladimir M. Cvetkovi´c 1,* , Adem Öcal 2 , Yuliya Lyamzina 3 , Eric K. Noji 4, Neda Nikoli´c 5 and Goran Miloševi´c 6 1 Faculty of Security Studies, University of Belgrade, 11040 Belgrade, Serbia 2 Independent Researcher, Ankara 06500, Turkey; [email protected] 3 Louis Pasteur Center for Medical Research, Kyoto 606-8225, Japan; [email protected] 4 College of Medicine, King Saud University Hospitals, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia; [email protected] 5 Faculty of Tehnical Science in Caˇcak,Universityˇ of Kragujevac, 32000 Caˇcak,Serbia;ˇ [email protected] 6 Faculty of Law, University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovi´ca1, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Nuclear power remains one of the most accessible choices in addressing environmental and social concerns due to the continuously increasing energy needs around the world. While it remains an excellent source of energy due to its low price and low level of emissions, potential accidents remain a serious problem. An example of such is the most recent accident in the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (2011), which reminded the world of the potential risks of nuclear energy and the consequences of which continue to have a lasting effect. There is no nuclear power plant in Serbia, but there are about 15 nuclear power stations scattered within its neighboring countries. Therefore, the Serbian Government decided to study how the Serbian public perceives the risks related to the potential construction of nuclear power stations in the country, nuclear energy in general, and its Citation: Cvetkovi´c,V.M.; Öcal, A.; Lyamzina, Y.; Noji, E.K.; Nikoli´c,N.; possible benefits and risks. The objective of this paper is to present the results of this assessment Miloševi´c,G. Nuclear Power Risk along with a literature overview on the (environmental) risk of nuclear power. A pilot study consisted Perception in Serbia: Fear of of a series of 270 randomized face-to-face interviews that took place in the public square of Belgrade Exposure to Radiation vs. Social in March 2019. Logistic regression was used to examine the cumulative effects of the different risk Benefits. Energies 2021, 14, 2464. factors. The results showed that the majority of the respondents are skeptical and do not support https://doi.org/10.3390/en14092464 the construction of nuclear power stations in Serbia. Furthermore, this research identified several additional important correlations that have a significant impact on the public perception of risk. Academic Editor: Guglielmo Lomonaco Keywords: nuclear energy; nuclear power; risk perception; disaster; Serbia Received: 24 March 2021 Accepted: 21 April 2021 Published: 26 April 2021 1. Introduction Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral Global electricity consumption is projected to increase faster than the estimated overall with regard to jurisdictional claims in global energy demand [1]. Therefore, countries have to diversify energy sources in line published maps and institutional affil- with their increasing energy needs; however, most energy sources generate pollution iations. elements such as excessive carbon (C) gas. Considering the cyclical changes in geological times, it can be said that human factors as well as planetary mechanisms shape global warming. The global release of excessive carbon (C) gas is now one of the major causes of global warming [2–4]. Owing to the rise in greenhouse gas emissions over the last century, the Earth’s surface temperature rose by 1.0–1.2 ◦C and the ocean level increased Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. by 20–22 cm [5]. The search for new/additional/alternative energy sources with low This article is an open access article carbon emissions is continuing to reduce the environmental and social costs of electricity distributed under the terms and generation [6]. Nuclear energy (nuclear power) remains one of the cheapest and potentially conditions of the Creative Commons most appropriate ways to mitigate the harmful effects of climate change due to its relatively Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// low carbon dioxide emissions. creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Nuclear power stations do supply electricity power without damage and change to the 4.0/). environment, but have catastrophic effects when accidents happen, for example, during the Energies 2021, 14, 2464. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14092464 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies Energies 2021, 14, 2464 2 of 19 transportation and storage of radioactive materials [7]. Kristiansen [8] compared different potential technical, economic, social, and environmental advantages and risks of nuclear energy, some of which are serious health threats to humans and animals and damaging to the environment once nuclear fission becomes uncontrollable. 1.1. Literature Review This paper belongs to the literature on (environmental) risk and nuclear power. The definitions of environmental and human risk related to broader resource exploitations and renewables in Central and Eastern Europe are well known [9]; see risks in nuclear power presented by Vlcek et al. [10]. In our paper, we focus on the effects of different demographic, socio-economic, and psychological characteristics of the perception of risk posed by nuclear energy and compare previous findings with a pilot study conducted in Serbia. Many previous studies [11–13] have identified that individuals with traditional values have greater support for it, while those with altruistic values have greater opposition to nuclear power, showing that values predict attitudes [13]. It has also been found that attitudes toward nuclear power do not vary by gender, age, education, income, or political orientation. In terms of ethnicity, some ethnicities are more supportive than others. Related to gender, there are no consistent results. Some studies found no significant differences for gender [14–16], while others found significant differences [14,17]. Greenberg and Schneider [17] also found that women are more concerned about environmental risks than men. Women in Sweden seem to have greater opposition to nuclear power than men do [18]. There are also other research variables that may relate to the acceptance of risk, such as age [19,20] and marital status [21,22]. The relationship between public attitudes to nuclear power is diverse: some are positive [23], while others are negative [24]. One study conducted in the USA showed that people living around a power plant perceive nuclear energy more positively than people in general due to the benefits they receive, such as in workplaces, etc., [25], while people in China are opposed to nuclear power plants in their area [26]. When people believe that nuclear energy has more benefits for them than detriments, it is more likely to be deemed acceptable [27]. This is reasonable in light of the benefits seen in workplaces and therefore financial security/dependency. The general level of concern has not been correlated with risk perception [11]. On the other hand, it was found that trust in environmental protection institutions and the perceived risk of a global environmental problem do not presuppose principled views on nuclear energy [28–31]. At the same time, it was determined that values are predictors of attitudes; i.e., individuals with traditional values provide more support, while those with altruistic values tend to oppose nuclear energy. Huang et al. [32] formed a structural equation model to describe the level of public acceptance when it comes to nuclear power plants, and identified four risk perception factors: knowledge, perceived risk, benefits, and trust. It was determined that women, persons who are not part of public services, persons with lower incomes, and those who live near a nuclear power plant accept nuclear energy to the least extent. On the other side, strong correlations between social trust and perceived risks and benefits have been observed for hazards of which people have little knowledge [33]. Takebayashi et al. [12] performed a systematic review of the literature and found that governing factors of radiation risk perception included demographics, disaster-related stressors, trusted information, and radiation-related variables and that the effects of radiation risk perception included severe distress, intentions to leave employment or to not return home, among others. Jun, Kim, Jeong, and Chang [34] pointed out that public perception is often an obstacle to the development and implementation of nuclear policies, requiring substantial subsidies that are not based on the social evaluation of nuclear energy. These authors, in research assessing the social value of citizens’ readiness to pay for nuclear energy, found that the social evaluation of nuclear energy increases by an average of 68.5% if adequate information on nuclear energy is provided to the public. It was also proven that the public does not change their perception due to provided information Energies 2021, 14, 2464 3 of 19 or education efforts. Overall, there are 18 factors that influence the public’s perception of risk, which need to be taken into account. Knowledge is only one of them. Specific risk perceptions held by a given population and its various subgroups must be acknowledged and incorporated into successful risk communication and public engagement strategies [35]. A significant body of research [33,36–39] has highlighted the importance of institutional trust in influencing risk expectations, i.e., the level of trust in those agents responsible for risk management. In other research, it was found that social trust is a key factor in predicting the perceived risks and benefits of technology, and support was provided for the theory of social trust in the similarity of prominent values [39]. A study conducted in four European countries (Sweden, Spain, the United Kingdom, and France) found that trust is a significant predictor of perceived risk [40]. Moreover, the correlation between the confidence and perception of risks is also varied, e.g., trust generally gave a better explanation of the perceived risk.