This study went beyond making an indicator simply based on theoretical arguments, and explored a wide spectrum of different types of perceptions about energy safety to make a concept of energy safety for the Korean society. The energy safety schemata of people can be divided into three types. Type1 ...
This study went beyond making an indicator simply based on theoretical arguments, and explored a wide spectrum of different types of perceptions about energy safety to make a concept of energy safety for the Korean society. The energy safety schemata of people can be divided into three types. Type1 is concern about multi-level risks-responsibility-centric, type2 is concern about security and personal burden-expertise-centric, and type3 is concern about health and personal burden-responsibility-centric. Questions were designed on the basis of the characteristics, differences and commonalities of the three types of perceptions, explored through the Q methodology, and Koreans' perception of nuclear safety was examined. Based on the results of this research the following components of trust in nuclear safety were derived, risk perception, responsibility, honesty, expertise and procedural justification. The items for specifically evaluating them were developed, and factor analysis was conducted, and as a result, the validity of each item was proven. The components of the nuclear safety trust indicator do not exist independently, but influence each other continuously through interactions. For this reason, rather than focusing on any one of them, laws and systems must be improved first so that they can move together in one big frame.
This study went beyond making an indicator simply based on theoretical arguments, and explored a wide spectrum of different types of perceptions about energy safety to make a concept of energy safety for the Korean society. The energy safety schemata of people can be divided into three types. Type1 is concern about multi-level risks-responsibility-centric, type2 is concern about security and personal burden-expertise-centric, and type3 is concern about health and personal burden-responsibility-centric. Questions were designed on the basis of the characteristics, differences and commonalities of the three types of perceptions, explored through the Q methodology, and Koreans' perception of nuclear safety was examined. Based on the results of this research the following components of trust in nuclear safety were derived, risk perception, responsibility, honesty, expertise and procedural justification. The items for specifically evaluating them were developed, and factor analysis was conducted, and as a result, the validity of each item was proven. The components of the nuclear safety trust indicator do not exist independently, but influence each other continuously through interactions. For this reason, rather than focusing on any one of them, laws and systems must be improved first so that they can move together in one big frame.
* AI 자동 식별 결과로 적합하지 않은 문장이 있을 수 있으니, 이용에 유의하시기 바랍니다.
제안 방법
Accordingly, to measure the trust in nuclear safety, this study attempts to develop an indicator that can measure citizens'perception of the safety of nuclear power plants and their demand for it, and propose a method of contributing to the policy process based on the measurement and result analysis of the developed indicator.
1%p(95% confidence level). Also, factor analysis was conducted based on the survey result to develop the nuclear safety trust indicator.
risk perception, responsibility, honesty, expertise and procedural justification. And the items for specifically evaluating them were developed, and factor analysis was conducted, and as a result, the validity of each item was proven.
In particular, this study went beyond making an indicator simply based on theoretical arguments, and explored a wide spectrum of different types of perceptions about energy safety to make a concept of energy safety for the Korean society. Questions were designed on the basis of the characteristics, differences and commonalities of the three types of perceptions(concern about multi-level risks-responsibility-centric, (concern about security and personal burden-expertise centric, concern about health and personal burden-responsibility-centric energy safety schema) explored through the Q methodology, and Koreans' perception of nuclear safety was examined.
Meanwhile, to develop a nuclear safety trust indicator, a survey was conducted. The proportional allocation method by region, gender and age was used to receive responses to the survey from 1023 people.
Accordingly, it is necessary to specify the target as the main agent that judges nuclear safety with authority. This study attempts to conceptualize trust in nuclear safety as giving a positive value to nuclear safety in the relationship with the main agent that judge nuclear safety with authority although it cannot fully understand nuclear safety rationally.
Through theoretical discussions and exploration of energy safety schema types, this study attempts to recognize that risk perception, responsibility, honesty, expertise, and procedural justification of the policy decision making process are important factors of trust in nuclear safety, and verify if it has validity and trustworthiness as an indicator through factor analysis.
대상 데이터
To understand the concept of safety in people's perception on this basis, the Q methodology was used to explore different types of energy safety schemata. 57 citizens were selected as the through P sampling, and the answers to Q questions were collected online from November 14, 2017 to November 15, 2017. In the Q methodology, the P sample itself is a variable, and unlike the general statistical method, it is not intended to generalize the research results, but to understand the phenomenon, so the number of samples and the method of selecting the samples are not fixed.
Meanwhile, to develop a nuclear safety trust indicator, a survey was conducted. The proportional allocation method by region, gender and age was used to receive responses to the survey from 1023 people. The online survey through e-mail was conducted for 4 days from November 21, 2017 till November 24, 2017, and the sampling error is ±3.
이론/모형
Here, citizens are defined as subjects for research, and the panel of Korean research is used to extract proportional allocation based on gender, age, and educational background. To ensure the reality of the different type of energy safety schemata, unforced sorting was used to measure the degree of consent on an 11-point scale. And the result of Q sorting was analyzed using the CENSORT program.
성능/효과
Also, it is necessary to flexible respond to the issue of applying weights depending on social conditions and circumstances. The author concluded that evaluating each score independently rather than summing up the scores of risk perception, responsibility, honesty, expertise, and procedural justification as a single score is a concrete way to build and sustain nuclear safety trust. The components of the nuclear safety trust indicator, i.
The concern about security and personal burden-expertise-centric energy safety schema places more importance on security than environment, and pays more attention to expertise than responsibility. In particular, trust in experts was high with regard to risk assessment.
As shown in Table 2, there are five common factors. The first common factor includes six variables, i.e. the bad influence of nuclear power plants on health (0.854), the bad influence of nuclear power plants on the natural environment (0.910), the bad influence of nuclear power plants on future generations (0.865), the bad influence of nuclear power plants on the ecosystem (0.913), the bad influence of nuclear power plants on greenhouse gas emissions (0.832), and the inherent risks of nuclear power plants (0.766). The second common factor includes 5 variables, i.
참고문헌 (13)
J.R. Gibb, Climate for trust formation, in: L.P. Bradford, J.R. Gibb, K. Benne (Eds.), T-group Theory and Laboratory Method, Wiley, NY, 1964.
V. Braithwaite, M. Levi, Trust and Governance, Russel Sage Foundation, NY, 1998.
D.J. McAllister, Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations, Acad. Manag. J. 38 (1) (1995) 524-595.
A.K. Mishra, Organizational responses to crisis: the centrality of trust, in: R.M. Kramer, T.R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theories and Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1996.
B. Barber, The Logic & Limited of Trust, Rutgers Univ. Press, New Brunswick, NJ, 1983.
J.K. Butler, Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: evolution of condition of trust inventory, J. Manag. 17 (1991) 643-663.
D. Gambetta, Trust, Basil Blackwell, NY, 1998.
R.C. Mayer, J.H. Davis, F.D. Schoorman, An integrative model of organizational trust, Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (3) (1995) 709-734.
W. Mishler, R. Rose, Trust, distrust and skepticism: popular evaluations of civil and political institutions in post-communist societies, J. Polit. 59 (2) (1997) 418-451.
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.