Youth Awareness and Expectations about GMOs and Nuclear Power Technologies within the North American Free Trade Bloc: A Retrospective Cross-Country Comparative Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Background
2.1. The North American Free Trade Bloc
2.2. Nuclear Power Technology (NPT)
2.3. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)
2.4. Technological Controversies
3. Methods
3.1. Data Source and Description of the Variables
Description of the Dependent Variables
- TA: Self-reported Technological Awareness: ordinal variable assuming the values (1-Never heard, 2-Heard but cannot explain, 3-Know and can provide general explanation 4-Familiar and can provide detailed explanation) for each of the two technologies:
- GMOs: TAgmo (mean = 2.55, standard deviation = 0.95);
- NPT: TAnpt (mean = 2.61, standard deviation = 0.83);
- TE: Self-reported- Technological Expectation: also an ordinal variable taking the values (1-worse, 2-same, 3-Improve) for each of the two technologies:
- GMOs: TEgmo (mean = 2.28, standard deviation = 0.75);
- NPT: TEnpt (mean = 2.41, standard deviation = 0.71).
3.2. Specification of the Econometric Model
3.3. Test of Convergence in Youth Technological Awareness and Expectations within NAFTA
3.3.1. Test of Convergence in Youth Technological Awareness
- ,
- .
3.3.2. Test of Convergence in Youth Technological Expectations
- .
- ,
- .
3.4. Identification of Model Parameters
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Summary Statistics of the Explanatory Variables
4.2. Unconditional Frequency Distributions of Youth Technological Awareness and Expectations
4.3. Conditional Frequency Distributions of Youths’ Technological Awareness and Expectations
4.4. Econometric Results
4.4.1. Determinants of Youths’ GMO Awareness within NAFTA
4.4.2. Determinants of Youths’ GMO Expectations within NAFTA
4.4.3. Determinants of Youths’ NPT Awareness within NAFTA
4.4.4. Determinants of Youths’ NPT Expectations within NAFTA
4.5. Convergence Test Results
4.5.1. Convergence in Youth GMOs and NPT Awareness within NAFTA
4.5.2. Convergence in Youth GMO and NPT Expectations within NAFTA
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Quantitative Variables | (Means and Standard Deviations) | Mean | s.d. |
---|---|---|---|
IntBiosph | Level of interest in Ecosystem services and Sustainability | ||
1-Don’t know what it is, 2-not interested, 3-Hardly | 3.50 | 0.98 | |
interested, 4-Interested, 5-highly interested. | |||
IntScPrevDis | Level of Interest in how science can help prevent disease; | ||
1-Don’t know what it is, 2-not interested, 3-Hardly | 4.02 | 1.03 | |
interested, 4-Interested, 5-highly interested; | |||
JOYSCIE | PISA index of student’s Enjoyment of science | 0.44 | 1.07 |
How often student do the following: | |||
1-never or Hardly, 2-sometimes, 3-regularly, 4-very often. | |||
EcoWebVisit | ↪ Visit Ecological Websites: | 3.41 | 0.82 |
BlogsVisit | ↪ Follow news via blogs: | 3.27 | 0.91 |
BroadScTVprog | ↪ Watch TV programs on broad science: | 2.95 | 0.88 |
BroadScBooks | ↪ Read books on broad science: | 3.37 | 0.80 |
BroadScWeb | ↪ Visit websites on broad science: | 3.06 | 0.91 |
MagScArtNewsp | ↪ Read science article in magazine and newspaper: | 3.24 | 0.86 |
ScClubAttend | ↪ Attend science club: | 3.70 | 0.66 |
AGE | Student’s age | 15.84 | 0.29 |
WEALTH | Student’s family wealth index value | 0.14 | 1.34 |
ESCS | Standardized Index of economic, social and cultural status | 0.13 | 1.14 |
MISCED | Student’s Mother Education level | 4.50 | 1.66 |
FISCED | Student’s Father Education level | 4.38 | 1.65 |
WFSTUWT | Student final weight in the Data | 161.61 | 240.95 |
Qualitative Variables | (absolute and percent relative frequencies) | Abs. Freq. | Rel. Freq. |
Gender | Gender: | ||
1-Female | 9419 | 52.38 | |
2-Male | 8562 | 47.62 | |
IMMIG | Student Immigration status: | ||
1-Native | 14,973 | 83.27 | |
2-Second-generation | 1623 | 9.03 | |
3-First-generation | 1385 | 7.70 | |
GradeLev | Student grade level in school: | ||
7th grade | 49 | 0.27 | |
8th grade | 121 | 0.67 | |
9th grade | 2161 | 12.02 | |
10th grade | 14,979 | 83.30 | |
11th grade | 657 | 3.65 | |
12th grade | 14 | 0.08 | |
CNT | Unique Identifier for each NAFTA country member | ||
1-USA | 3197 | 17.78 | |
2-Canada | 10,476 | 58.26 | |
3-Mexico | 4308 | 23.96 |
CNT | Rel. Freq. | Chi Test | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
USA | CAN | MEX | (%) | |||
TAgmo | 1 | 19.28 | 46.64 | 34.07 | 14.25 | X-squared = 806.2 *** |
2 | 17.52 | 52.11 | 30.36 | 34.78 | df = 6, p-value < 2.2 × 10−16 | |
3 | 17.71 | 61.03 | 21.27 | 32.66 | ||
4 | 17.22 | 74.06 | 8.72 | 18.31 | ||
TEgmo | 1 | 23.89 | 51.94 | 24.17 | 18.02 | X-squared = 290.47 *** |
2 | 21.03 | 58.01 | 20.97 | 35.60 | df = 4, p-value < 2.2 × 10−16 | |
3 | 12.91 | 60.91 | 26.18 | 46.38 | ||
TAnpt | 1 | 16.48 | 51.60 | 31.92 | 7.49 | X-squared = 145.67 *** |
2 | 17.92 | 58.53 | 23.55 | 38.86 | df = 6, p-value < 2.2 × 10−16 | |
3 | 18.03 | 56.31 | 25.66 | 38.32 | ||
4 | 17.45 | 65.71 | 16.84 | 15.33 | ||
TEnpt | 1 | 22.73 | 58.13 | 19.14 | 13.48 | X-squared = 164.6 *** |
2 | 19.98 | 59.00 | 21.03 | 32.24 | df = 4, p-value < 2.2 × 10−16 | |
3 | 15.25 | 57.86 | 26.90 | 54.28 | ||
Rel. Freq. | (%) | 17.78 | 58.26 | 23.96 |
N | Awareness | Expectations | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
17,981 | Coef. | (s.e.) | Coef. | (s.e.) |
Cutoff 2 | = 1.157 *** | (0.001) | = 1.057 *** | (0.001) |
Cutoff 3 | = 2.227 *** | (0.001) | ||
(Intercept) | 0.145 *** | (0.042) | −0.075 | (0.044) |
Affective factors | ||||
IntBiosph | 0.166 *** | (0.001) | 0.022 *** | (0.001) |
IntScPrevDis | 0.039 *** | (0.001) | 0.019 *** | (0.001) |
JOYSCIE | 0.173 *** | (0.001) | 0.005 *** | (0.001) |
Information diet | ||||
EcoWebVisit | −0.005 *** | (0.001) | 0.037 *** | (0.001) |
BlogsVisit | −0.060 *** | ( 0.001) | 0.015 | (0.001) |
BroadScTVprog | −0.032 *** | (0.001) | −0.008 *** | (0.001) |
BroadScBooks | −0.024 *** | (0.001) | 0.004 ** | (0.001) |
BroadScWeb | −0.050 *** | (0.001) | 0.005 *** | (0.001) |
MagScArtNewsp | −0.025 *** | (0.001) | 0.017 *** | (0.001) |
ScClubAttend | −0.021 *** | (0.001) | 0.029 *** | (0.001) |
Demographic & economic factors | ||||
AGE | 0.067 *** | (0.003) | 0.007 ** | (0.003) |
WEALTH | 0.006 *** | (0.001) | −0.043 *** | (0.001) |
ESCS | 0.160 *** | (0.001) | 0.088 *** | (0.002) |
MISCED | −0.036 *** | (0.001) | −0.006 *** | (0.001) |
FISCED | 0.021 *** | (0.001) | −0.016 *** | (0.001) |
(Gender)M/F | 0.089 *** | (0.001) | −0.171 *** | (0.001) |
(IMMIG)2/1 | −0.067 *** | (0.002) | −0.120 *** | (0.002) |
(IMMIG)3/1 | −0.004 | (0.003) | −0.092 *** | (0.003) |
(GradeLev)8/7 | 0.046 *** | (0.012) | 0.109 *** | (0.013) |
(GradeLev)9/7 | −0.173 *** | (0.010) | 0.190 *** | (0.011) |
(GradeLev)10/7 | −0.088 *** | (0.010) | 0.274 *** | (0.011) |
(GradeLev)11/7 | 0.038 *** | (0.010) | 0.395 *** | (0.011) |
(GradeLev)12/7 | −0.648 *** | (0.022) | 0.700 *** | (0.023) |
country-specific Effects | ||||
(CNT)CAN/USA | 0.152 *** | (0.003) | 0.344 *** | (0.003) |
(CNT)MEX/USA | −0.344 *** | (0.002) | 0.399 *** | (0.002) |
Awareness (TAgmo) | = 0.025 *** | (0.001) | ||
Log-likelihood | −3,558,168.2 | −3,049,266.9 | ||
BIC | 7,116,610.6 | 6,098,808.1 | ||
AIC | 7,116,392.3 | 6,098,589.8 |
N | Awareness | Expectations | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
17,981 | Coef. | (s.e.) | Coef. | (s.e.) |
Cutoff 2 | = 1.428 *** | (0.001) | = 1.023 *** | (0.001) |
Cutoff 3 | = 2.693 *** | (0.001) | ||
(Intercept) | 0.945 *** | (0.042) | −1.220 *** | (0.045) |
Affective factors | ||||
IntBiosph | 0.146 *** | (0.001) | 0.010 *** | (0.001) |
IntScPrevDis | 0.048 *** | (0.001) | 0.028 *** | (0.001) |
JOYSCIE | 0.138 *** | (0.001) | −0.015 *** | (0.001) |
Information diet | ||||
EcoWebVisit | −0.042 *** | (0.001) | 0.064 *** | (0.001) |
BlogsVisit | −0.071 *** | ( 0.001) | −0.013 *** | (0.001) |
BroadScTVprog | −0.032 *** | (0.001) | 0.027 *** | (0.001) |
BroadScBooks | −0.033 *** | (0.001) | 0.045 *** | (0.001) |
BroadScWeb | −0.038 *** | (0.001) | −0.021 *** | (0.001) |
MagScArtNewsp | −0.039 *** | (0.001) | 0.010 *** | (0.001) |
ScClubAttend | 0.035 *** | (0.001) | 0.064 *** | (0.001) |
Demographic & economic factors | ||||
AGE | 0.032 *** | (0.003) | 0.045 *** | (0.003) |
WEALTH | 0.021 *** | (0.001) | −0.014 *** | (0.001) |
ESCS | 0.058 *** | (0.001) | 0.062 *** | (0.002) |
MISCED | −0.019 *** | (0.001) | −0.004 *** | (0.001) |
FISCED | 0.023 *** | (0.001) | −0.010 *** | (0.001) |
(Gender)M/F | 0.150 *** | (0.001) | −0.138 *** | (0.001) |
(IMMIG)2/1 | −0.129 *** | (0.002) | −0.027 *** | (0.002) |
(IMMIG)3/1 | 0.054 *** | (0.003) | 0.034 *** | (0.003) |
(GradeLev)8/7 | −0.084 *** | (0.012) | 0.238 *** | (0.013) |
(GradeLev)9/7 | 0.007 | (0.010) | 0.463 *** | (0.011) |
(GradeLev)10/7 | −0.010 | (0.010) | 0.631 *** | (0.011) |
(GradeLev)11/7 | 0.115 *** | (0.010) | 0.688 *** | (0.011) |
(GradeLev)12/7 | 0.615 *** | (0.022) | 0.007 | (0.022) |
country-specific Effects | ||||
(CNT)CAN/USA | 0.071 *** | (0.003) | 0.150 *** | (0.003) |
(CNT)MEX/USA | −0.195 *** | ( 0.002) | 0.497 *** | (0.002) |
Awareness (TAnpt) | = 0.067 *** | (0.001) | ||
Log-likelihood | −3,321,837.3 | −2,847,252.3 | ||
BIC | 6,643,948.8 | 5,694,779.0 | ||
AIC | 6,643,730.5 | 5,694,560.7 |
References
- Frankel, J.A.; Stein, E.; Wei, S.J. Regional Trading Blocs in the World Economic System; Peterson Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Clarysse, B.; Muldur, U. Regional cohesion in Europe? An analysis of how EU public RTD support influences the techno-economic regional landscape. Res. Policy 2001, 30, 275–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Obeng-Odoom, F. The African Continental Free Trade Area. Am. J. Econ. Sociol. 2020, 79, 167–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witkowska, J. Integration Processes in the Global Economy: Current State and Prospects. The Cases of the European Union, ASEAN Economic Community, and NAFTA. Comp. Econ. Res. 2016, 19, 47–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Galor, O. Convergence? Inferences from theoretical models. Econ. J. 1996, 106, 1056–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castellacci, F.; Archibugi, D. The technology clubs: The distribution of knowledge across nations. Res. Policy 2008, 37, 1659–1673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nelson, R.R.; Phelps, E.S. Investment in humans, technological diffusion, and economic growth. Am. Econ. Rev. 1966, 56, 69–75. [Google Scholar]
- Chatterjee, K.; Das, K. Bilateral trading with incomplete information and price convergence in a small market: The continuous support case. Econ. Lett. 2018, 163, 118–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kant, C. Income convergence and the catch-up index. North Am. J. Econ. Financ. 2019, 48, 613–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Engel, C. Real exchange rate convergence: The roles of price stickiness and monetary policy. J. Monet. Econ. 2019, 103, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naghshpour, S.; Nissan, E. State and regional convergence in economic freedom of North America. J. Reg. Anal. Policy 2018, 48, 3776. [Google Scholar]
- Bélanger, L.; Mace, G. Convergence or Divergence Effects? NAFTA and State Preferences Towards the FTAA. In Regionalism and the State; Routledge: Abingdon-om-Thames, UK, 2017; pp. 25–44. [Google Scholar]
- Park, W.G. Technology trade and NAFTA. Prog. Econ. Res. 2011, 25, 51–90. [Google Scholar]
- Kogan, L.; Papanikolaou, D.; Seru, A.; Stoffman, N. Technological innovation, resource allocation, and growth. Q. J. Econ. 2017, 132, 665–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Buera, F.J.; Oberfield, E. The global diffusion of ideas. Econometrica 2020, 88, 83–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van den Berg, H.; Lewer, J.J. International Trade and Economic Growth; Routledge: Abingdon-om-Thames, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Agarwal, R. Individual acceptance of information technologies. In Framing the Domains of IT Management: Projecting the Future through the Past; Pinnaflex Educational Resources inc: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2000; pp. 85–104. [Google Scholar]
- Sana’a, Y. A critical review of models and theories in field of individual acceptance of technology. Int. J. Hybrid Inf. Technol. 2016, 9, 143–158. [Google Scholar]
- Anderson, N.H. Integration theory and attitude change. Psychol. Rev. 1971, 78, 171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manca, F. Technology catch-up and the role of institutions. J. Macroecon. 2010, 32, 1041–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niankara, I. Cross-national Data Sample on the Environmental Affection and Cognition of Adolescent Students of Varying Interests in Ecosystem Services and Sustainability. Data Brief 2019, 22, 312–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fagerberg, J. Technology and international differences in growth rates. J. Econ. Lit. 1994, 32, 1147–1175. [Google Scholar]
- Liao, C.; Palvia, P.; Chen, J.L. Information technology adoption behavior life cycle: Toward a Technology Continuance Theory (TCT). Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2009, 29, 309–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacherjee, A.; Premkumar, G. Understanding changes in belief and attitude toward information technology usage: A theoretical model and longitudinal test. MIS Q. 2004, 28, 229–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Oliver, R.L.; Burke, R.R. Expectation processes in satisfaction formation: A field study. J. Serv. Res. 1999, 1, 196–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.H.; Hsieh, Y.C.; Hsu, C.N. Adding innovation diffusion theory to the technology acceptance model: Supporting employees’ intentions to use e-learning systems. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2011, 14, 124–137. [Google Scholar]
- Paci, R.; Pigliaru, F. Technological diffusion, spatial spillovers and regional convergence in Europe. In Regional Convergence in the European Union; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2002; pp. 273–292. [Google Scholar]
- Ferraro, F.; Pfeffer, J.; Sutton, R.I. Economics language and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2005, 30, 8–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Howitt, P. Endogenous growth and cross-country income differences. Am. Econ. Rev. 2000, 90, 829–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gandenberger, C.; Bodenheimer, M.; Schleich, J.; Orzanna, R.; Macht, L. Factors driving international technology transfer: Empirical insights from a CDM project survey. Clim. Policy 2016, 16, 1065–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Weitzel, M.; Liu, W.H.; Vaona, A. Determinants of technology transfer through the CDM: A within-country analysis for China. Clim. Policy 2015, 15, 626–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, Y. Foreign Assistance in Establishing and Operating Nuclear Power Plants: The South African Experience. In Nuclear Non-Proliferation in International Law—Volume V; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 191–208. [Google Scholar]
- Arkolakis, C.; Ramondo, N.; Rodríguez-Clare, A.; Yeaple, S. Innovation and production in the global economy. Am. Econ. Rev. 2018, 108, 2128–2173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fróna, D.; Szenderák, J.; Harangi-Rákos, M. The Challenge of Feeding the World. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gallagher, K.S.; Holdren, J.P.; Sagar, A.D. Energy-technology innovation. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2006, 31, 193–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Canadian Nuclear Association. The Canadian Nuclear Factbook-2017; Canadian Nuclear Association: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Ramírez Sánchez, J.C.; Massa Roldán, R. Mexico’s Energy Regulatory Reform in the Context of a New Trilateral Agreement (NAFTA-USMCA). Int. Trade J. 2020, 34, 55–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ansari, S.; Babu, R.R. 5. North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In Yearbook of International Environmental Law; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zlatev, V.; Rajagopal. Market Integration in NAFTA Region. In Business Dynamics in North America; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 55–82. [Google Scholar]
- Nti, F.K. Nafta at 21: Structural change in Mexican’s demand for US meat and meat products. Int. J. Food Agric. Econ. 2016, 4, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Villareal, M.; Fergusson, I.F. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); CRS Report R42965; Congressional Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
- Executive Office of the US President. United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA); Office of the United States Trade Representative: Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
- Blecker, R.A.; Moreno-Brid, J.C.; Salat, I. Trumping the NAFTA renegotiation: An alternative policy framework for Mexican-US cooperation and economic convergence. Real-World Econ. Rev. 2017, 82, 94–121. [Google Scholar]
- Pentreath, R. Nuclear Power, Man and the Environment; Routledge: Abingdon-om-Thames, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Ang, B.W.; Choong, W.L.; Ng, T.S. Energy security: Definitions, dimensions and indexes. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 42, 1077–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kruyt, B.; van Vuuren, D.P.; de Vries, H.J.; Groenenberg, H. Indicators for energy security. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 2166–2181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Augutis, J.; Krikštolaitis, R.; Martišauskas, L.; Pečiulytė, S.; Žutautaitė, I. Integrated energy security assessment. Energy 2017, 138, 890–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gattie, D.K. US energy, climate and nuclear power policy in the 21st century: The primacy of national security. Electr. J. 2020, 33, 106690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobson, M.Z.; Cameron, M.A.; Hennessy, E.M.; Petkov, I.; Meyer, C.B.; Gambhir, T.K.; Maki, A.T.; Pfleeger, K.; Clonts, H.; McEvoy, A.L.; et al. 100% clean and renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight (WWS) all-sector energy roadmaps for 53 towns and cities in North America. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 42, 22–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gattie, D.K.; Darnell, J.L.; Massey, J.N. The role of US nuclear power in the 21st century. Electr. J. 2018, 31, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Eisenhower, S. Atoms for peace plus fifty. IAEA Bull. 2003, 45, 5–6. [Google Scholar]
- Krige, J. Atoms for peace, scientific internationalism, and scientific intelligence. Osiris 2006, 21, 161–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Neumann, A.; Sorge, L.; von Hirschhausen, C.; Wealer, B. Democratic quality and nuclear power: Reviewing the global determinants for the introduction of nuclear energy in 166 countries. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 63, 101389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shannon, C.; Chan, P.; Bonin, H. Conceptual Design of an Organic-Cooled Small Nuclear Reactor to Support Energy Demands in Remote Locations in Northern Canada. CNL Nucl. Rev. 2020, 9, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greenwood, H.I.; Dodelzon, K.; Katzen, J.T. Impact of advancing technology on diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. Surg. Clin. North Am. 2018, 98, 703–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Goresline, H.E. Historical aspects of the radiation preservation of food. In Preservation of Food by Ionizing Radiation; CRC Press: Boca, Raton, FL, USA, 2018; pp. 1–46. [Google Scholar]
- Martin, T.G. Radiation Protection and Health Physics in Food Irradiation Facilities. In Preservation of Food By Ionizing Radiation; CRC Press: Boca, Raton, FL, USA, 2018; pp. 247–277. [Google Scholar]
- Pioro, I.; Duffey, R. Current status of electricity generation in the world and future of nuclear power industry. In Managing Global Warming; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 67–114. [Google Scholar]
- World Nuclear Association. Nuclear Power in the USA. Country Profiles. Available online: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/usa-nuclear-power.aspx (accessed on 7 January 2019).
- World Nuclear Association. Nuclear Power in Canada. Country Profiles. Available online: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/canada-nuclear-power.aspx (accessed on 7 January 2019).
- World Nuclear Association. Nuclear Power in Mexico. Country Profiles. Available online: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/mexico.aspx (accessed on 7 January 2019).
- Rao, N.C. Biotechnology for farmers welfare and poverty reduction: Technologies, impact and policy framework. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev. 2017, 30, 241–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nuthalapati, C.S.R. From Genetic Engineering to Gene Editing: Harnessing Advances in Biology for National Economic Development. In Bioeconomy for Sustainable Development; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 111–139. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. Rome Declaration on World Food Security; The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (UN): Rome, Italy, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Hagen, P.E.; Weiner, J.B. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety: New rules for international trade in living modified organisms. Georget. Int. Environ. Law Rev. 1999, 12, 697. [Google Scholar]
- Sprink, T.; Eriksson, D.; Schiemann, J.; Hartung, F. Regulatory hurdles for genome editing: Process-vs. product-based approaches in different regulatory contexts. Plant Cell Rep. 2016, 35, 1493–1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bleotu, C.; Matei, L.; Dragu, L.D.; Grigorescu, L.; Diaconu, C.C.; Anton, G. Methods for Plant Genetic Modification. In Genetically Engineered Foods; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 385–401. [Google Scholar]
- Brookes, G.; Barfoot, P. Global income and production impacts of using GM crop technology 1996–2014. GM Crops Food 2016, 7, 38–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Royzman, E.B.; Cusimano, C.; Metas, S.; Leeman, R.F. Is opposition to genetically modified food “morally absolutist”? A consequence-based perspective. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2020, 15, 250–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xanat, V.M.; Jiang, K.; Barnett, G.A.; Park, H.W. International trade of GMO-related agricultural products. Qual. Quant. 2018, 52, 565–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliveira, P.R.S.; Silveira, J.M.F.d.; Bullock, D.S. Innovation in GMOs, technological gap, demand lag, and trade. Agribusiness 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alotaibi, K.H. Globalization of Genetically Modified Foods and their Effect on Human Health. Int. J. Adv. Res. Biol. Sci. 2017, 4, 49–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ji, J.; Barnett, G.A.; Chu, J. Global networks of genetically modified crops technology: A patent citation network analysis. Scientometrics 2019, 118, 737–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aldemita, R.R.; Hautea, R.A. Biotech crop planting resumes high adoption in 2016. GM Crops Food 2018, 9, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Aldemita, R.R.; Reaño, I.M.E.; Solis, R.O.; Hautea, R.A. Trends in global approvals of biotech crops (1992–2014). GM Crops Food 2015, 6, 150–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- James, C.; Teng, P.; Arujanan, M.; Aldemita, R.R.; Flavell, R.B.; Brookes, G.; Qaim, M. Invitational essays to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the commercialization of biotech crops (1996 to 2015): Progress and premise. In ISAAA Brief; The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA): Ithaca, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Raman, R. The impact of Genetically Modified (GM) crops in modern agriculture: A review. GM Crops Food 2017, 8, 195–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, X.; Mau, M.; Sharbel, T.F. Genome Editing for Global Food Security. Trends Biotechnol. 2018, 36, 123–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ardebili, A.T.; Rickertsen, K. Personality traits, knowledge, and consumer acceptance of genetically modified plant and animal products. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 80, 103825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lang, J.T.; Hallman, W.K. Who does the public trust? The case of genetically modified food in the United States. Risk Anal. Int. J. 2005, 25, 1241–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rose, K.M.; Brossard, D.; Scheufele, D.A. Of Society, Nature, and Health: How Perceptions of Specific Risks and Benefits of Genetically Engineered Foods Shape Public Rejection. Environ. Commun. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srinivas, K.R. Regulating Genome Edited Crops and European Court of Justice Ruling. Asian Biotechnol. Dev. Rev. 2018, 20, 89–97. [Google Scholar]
- Pang, Z. How does information dependence affect public attitudes towards genetically modified technology in China? Sci. Public Policy 2020, 47, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diamond, E.; Bernauer, T.; Mayer, F. Does providing scientific information affect climate change and GMO policy preferences of the mass public? Insights from survey experiments in Germany and the United States. Environ. Politics 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasell, A.; Stroud, N.J. The Differential Effects of Knowledge on Perceptions of Genetically Modified Food Safety. Int. J. Public Opin. Res. 2020, 32, 111–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hunt, K.P.; Wald, D.M. The Role of Scientific Source Credibility and Goodwill in Public Skepticism Toward GM Foods. Environ. Commun. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Connor, M.; Siegrist, M. Factors influencing people’s acceptance of gene technology: The role of knowledge, health expectations, naturalness, and social trust. Sci. Commun. 2010, 32, 514–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauer, M. Resistance to New Technology: Nuclear Power, Information Technology and Biotechnology; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Thomas, H.; Becerra, L.; Garrido, S. Socio-technical dynamics of counter-hegemony and resistance. In Critical Studies of Innovation; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, A.; Fressoli, M.; Thomas, H. Grassroots innovation movements: Challenges and contributions. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 63, 114–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuenfschilling, L.; Truffer, B. The interplay of institutions, actors and technologies in socio-technical systems—An analysis of transformations in the Australian urban water sector. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2016, 103, 298–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, A.; Stirling, A. Innovation, sustainability and democracy: An analysis of grassroots contributions. J. Self-Gov. Manag. Econ. 2018, 6, 64–97. [Google Scholar]
- Ribeiro, T.G.; Barone, B.; Behrens, J.H. Genetically modified foods and their social representation. Food Res. Int. 2016, 84, 120–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonny, S. Corporate concentration and technological change in the global seed industry. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grumezescu, A.M.; Holban, A.M. Genetically Engineered Foods; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; Volume 6. [Google Scholar]
- Yoshida, A. Considering the Geological Disposal Program of High-Level Radioactive Waste Through Classroom Debate. In Nuclear Back-end and Transmutation Technology for Waste Disposal; Springer: Tokyo, Japan, 2015; pp. 289–299. [Google Scholar]
- NAYGN. NA-YGN Strategic Plan—Ongoing and Current Year; North American Young Generation in Nuclear (NA-YGN): Charlotte, NC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Peters, E.; Slovic, P. The Role of Affect and Worldviews as Orienting Dispositions in the Perception and Acceptance of Nuclear Power 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1996, 26, 1427–1453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Latour, B. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Rip, A. Constructive technology assessment. In Futures of Science and Technology in Society; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 97–114. [Google Scholar]
- Arranz, A.M. Lessons from the past for sustainability transitions? A meta-analysis of socio-technical studies. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 44, 125–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niankara, I. Scientific media dieting and youth awareness and expectations about the environmental issues of deforestation and species extinction in the Middle East and North America. World Rev. Sci. Technol. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 15, 252–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niankara, I.; Zoungrana, D.T. Interest in the biosphere and students environmental awareness and optimism: A global perspective. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2018, 16, e00489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD. PISA 2015 Technical Report: Chapter 04—Sample design; Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development: Paris, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Sajaia, Z. Maximum likelihood estimation of a bivariate ordered probit model: Implementation and Monte Carlo simulations. Stata J. 2008, 4, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Sarrias, M. Discrete Choice Models with Random Parameters in R: The Rchoice Package. J. Stat. Softw. 2016, 74, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jackman, S. Models for Ordered Outcomes. Available online: http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci203/ordered.pdf (accessed on 25 March 2018).
- McKelvey, R.D.; Zavoina, W. A statistical model for the analysis of ordinal level dependent variables. J. Math. Sociol. 1975, 4, 103–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- OECD. Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015 Database: Stduent Questionnaire Data File; Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development: Paris, France, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Islam, N. What have we learnt from the convergence debate? J. Econ. Surv. 2003, 17, 309–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nell, K.S. Evaluating the conditional convergence hypothesis in the post-1989 globalization period. Appl. Econ. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eccles, J. Female achievement patterns: Attributions, expectancies, values, and choice. J. Soc. Issues 1983, 1, 1–22. [Google Scholar]
- Wigfield, A.; Tonks, S.; Klauda, S.L. Expectancy-Value Theory. In Handbook of Motivation at School; Routledge: Abingdon-om-Thames, UK, 2009; pp. 69–90. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, M.T.; Degol, J. Motivational pathways to STEM career choices: Using expectancy-value perspective to understand individual and gender differences in STEM fields. Dev. Rev. 2013, 33, 304–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Miller, K.; McAdam, R.; McAdam, M. A systematic literature review of university technology transfer from a quadruple helix perspective: Toward a research agenda. R&D Manag. 2018, 48, 7–24. [Google Scholar]
- Yun, J.J.; Liu, Z. Micro-and macro-dynamics of open innovation with a quadruple-helix model. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Broring, S. Developing innovation strategies for convergence-Is’ open innovation’imperative? Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2010, 49, 272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yun, J.J.; Jeong, E.; Zhao, X.; Hahm, S.D.; Kim, K. Collective intelligence: An emerging world in open innovation. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mergel, I.; Desouza, K.C. Implementing open innovation in the public sector: The case of Challenge. gov. Public Adm. Rev. 2013, 73, 882–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Colucci-Gray, L.; Burnard, P.; Gray, D.; Cooke, C. A Critical Review of STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics). In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Cheryan, S.; Ziegler, S.A.; Montoya, A.K.; Jiang, L. Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psychol. Bull. 2017, 143, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, M.T.; Degol, J.L. Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2017, 29, 119–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Craig, C.A.; Sayers, E.L.P. Building clean energy support with young millennials in the United States. Electr. J. 2019, 32, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, H.S. Technology convergence, open innovation, and dynamic economy. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2017, 3, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Siedlok, F.; Smart, P.; Gupta, A. Convergence and reorientation via open innovation: The emergence of nutraceuticals. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2010, 22, 571–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bröring, S. The role of open innovation in the industry convergence between foods and pharmaceuticals. In Open Innovation in the Food and Beverage Industry; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 39–62. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, Y.G.; Lee, J.H.; Song, Y.I.; Kim, H.J. Technological convergence and open innovation in the mobile telecommunication industry. Asian J. Technol. Innov. 2008, 16, 45–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, K.R.; Yun, J.J.; Jeong, E.S. Convergence innovation of the textile machinery industry in Korea. Asian J. Technol. Innov. 2015, 23, 58–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yun, J.J.; Won, D.; Park, K. Entrepreneurial cyclical dynamics of open innovation. J. Evol. Econ. 2018, 28, 1151–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Niankara, I.; Adkins, L.C. Youth Awareness and Expectations about GMOs and Nuclear Power Technologies within the North American Free Trade Bloc: A Retrospective Cross-Country Comparative Analysis. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 34. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6020034
Niankara I, Adkins LC. Youth Awareness and Expectations about GMOs and Nuclear Power Technologies within the North American Free Trade Bloc: A Retrospective Cross-Country Comparative Analysis. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. 2020; 6(2):34. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6020034
Chicago/Turabian StyleNiankara, Ibrahim, and Lee C. Adkins. 2020. "Youth Awareness and Expectations about GMOs and Nuclear Power Technologies within the North American Free Trade Bloc: A Retrospective Cross-Country Comparative Analysis" Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 6, no. 2: 34. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6020034