An exploration of public risk perception and governmental engagement of nuclear energy in India

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2086
• Published date: 01 August 2020
• Date: 01 August 2020

ACADEMIC PAPER

An exploration of public risk perception and governmental

engagement of nuclear energy in India

M. P. Ram Mohan

1

| Sreenath K. Namboodhiry

2

1

Business Policy Area, Indian Institute of

Management Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad, India

2

Economics Area, Indian Institute of

Management Kozhikode, Kozhikode, India

Correspondence

M. P. Ram Mohan, Business Policy Area, Indian

Institute of Management Ahmedabad,

Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.

Email: mprmohan@iima.ac.in

Public acceptance constitutes an important factor in successfully establishing and

operating nuclear power plants. This paper explores public attitudes to the

Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project commissioned in 2013 and situated in Southern

India, through assessing the role of socio-demographic factors, externalities, and

social trust in determining the level of public acceptance. An exploratory survey

(n= 100) was carried out in two administrative units in the vicinity of the plant. The

study reveals that acceptance of the plant is positively correlated with positive exter-

nalities and trust in governmental entities, whereas negative externalities and trust in

antinuclear nongovernmental organizations and media are associated with negative

public perception. The results show that governmental policies on nuclear power

must support the effects of positive externalities and reduce the effects of negative

externalities.

1|INTRODUCTION

Electricity demand in developing countries will likely surpass that of

developed countries well before 2020 (International Atomic Energy

Agency, 2017). It is predicted that “by region, all of the growth in

energy demand comes from fast-growing developing economies, led

by India and China”(BP Energy Outlook, 2019). The same report fur-

ther suggests that “China's transition to a more sustainable pattern of

economic growth means that by the mid-2020s, India surpasses China

as the world's largest growth market, accounting for over a quarter of

the growth in global energy demand over the Outlook”(BP Energy

Outlook, 2019). The Government of India through Intended Nationally

Determined Contribution committed itself to address the increasing

demand for energy consumption by adopting all promising energy

resources into mainstream electricity production (UNFCCC, 2015). In

this scheme of things, nuclear energy remains an integral part while

meeting clean energy requirements (MoEFCCC, 2015). The govern-

ment has already taken measures to increase the nuclear energy

capacity in India by recently approving 10,000 MW of nuclear capac-

ity addition from indigenous technology (World Nuclear Association,

2019). This will be in addition to the planned expansion within the

existing nuclear project sites.

The implementation of these projects, however, is likely to meet

public opposition, as public consensus on nuclear projects remains

elusive in India. The antinuclear protests in Kudankulam, in Tamil

Nadu; MithiVirdi, in Gujarat; Haripur, in West Bengal; and Jaitapur, in

Maharashtra in recent years have exposed fault line in terms of stake-

holder engagement for a nuclear power project (NPP). Although a

favorable public opinion toward a nuclear project may continue to be

elusive, however, a thought-through process can help both operator

and communities in coming together for a workable engagement.

The Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KNPP), the subject of

this study, is situated in Kudankulam (referred locally as Koodankulam)

in the Tirunelveli district of the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu.

The protest against the KNPP started in a small way during the site

selection process, continued during the construction phase (Indian

Social Action Forum, n.d.), and became violent in the aftermath of the

Fukushima accident in 2011 (Chemmencheri, 2015; Deb, 2018).

KNPP Unit 1 was commissioned in 2013, and Unit 2 was commis-

sioned in 2016. Two more reactors at KNPP are currently under con-

struction, and small-scale protests still continue in and around the

KNPP. Kumar and Ambigai (2012) mapped opposing voices to the

KNPP and found that fishermen, farmers, and non-compensated locals

are the major opponents of the project. They observed that the fish-

ing community are concerned with fishing privileges in the project

area and fear that radiation from the KNPP will impact both fish

health and fishing in general. Similarly, farmers and local

population joined the protest because of their livelihood concerns

Received: 26 November 2019 Revised: 19 December 2019 Accepted: 21 January 2020

DOI: 10.1002/pa.2086

J Public Affairs. 2020;20:e2086. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 1of11

https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2086