IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i4p1092-d139773.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Benefit and Risk Perceptions of Controversial Facilities: A Comparison between Local Officials and the Public in China

Author

Listed:
  • Qingduo Mao

    (Political Science and Public Administration School, Shandong University, Qingdao 266000, China)

  • Manli Zhang

    (Political Science and Public Administration School, Shandong University, Qingdao 266000, China)

  • Ben Ma

    (Political Science and Public Administration School, Shandong University, Qingdao 266000, China
    Center for Crisis Management Research (Sponsored by Beijing Planning Office of Philosophy & Social Science), School of Public Policy & Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China)

Abstract

This article investigates the perception biases of local government officials and the general public by comparing their benefit and risk perceptions towards controversial facilities. The analysis framework of Social Judgement Theory (SJT)—i.e., (a) economic benefits, (b) environmental health, and (c) social and political factors—was used to design the research. SJT is a widely recognized theoretical framework that includes experimental approaches to the study of cognitive conflicts. An experimental survey was conducted to collect data in order to make a comparison of the weight of different elements. Results demonstrate that there are perception differences between the general public and local officials on controversial facilities. Local officials responsible for endorsing and supervising plants attach more significance to environmental factors than the public, while the public focuses more on social and political factors than officials. There is no significant difference in the cognition of economic benefits. Factors such as demolition compensation and legitimacy may provoke these perception gaps. This paper enriches the current understanding of SJT and policy making for controversial facilities by investigating the perception gaps between officials and the general public.

Suggested Citation

  • Qingduo Mao & Manli Zhang & Ben Ma, 2018. "Benefit and Risk Perceptions of Controversial Facilities: A Comparison between Local Officials and the Public in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-16, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:4:p:1092-:d:139773
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/4/1092/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/4/1092/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Idiano D’Adamo & Paolo Rosa & Sergio Terzi, 2016. "Challenges in Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Management: A Profitability Assessment in Three European Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-19, July.
    2. Chen Huang & Tao Chen & Hongtao Yi & Xiaolin Xu & Shiying Chen & Wenna Chen, 2017. "Collaborative Environmental Governance, Inter-Agency Cooperation and Local Water Sustainability in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Charles Warren & Carolyn Lumsden & Simone O'Dowd & Richard Birnie, 2005. "'Green On Green': Public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(6), pages 853-875.
    4. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    5. Chuanwang Sun & Nan Lyu & Xiaoling Ouyang, 2014. "Chinese Public Willingness to Pay to Avoid Having Nuclear Power Plants in the Neighborhood," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(10), pages 1-27, October.
    6. R W Lake & L Disch, 1992. "Structural Constraints and Pluralist Contradictions in Hazardous Waste Regulation," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 24(5), pages 663-681, May.
    7. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Keller, Carmen & Siegrist, Michael, 2011. "Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3621-3629, June.
    8. Euston Quah & K.C. Tan, 2002. "Siting Environmentally Unwanted Facilities," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1389.
    9. Mah, Daphne Ngar-yin & Hills, Peter & Tao, Julia, 2014. "Risk perception, trust and public engagement in nuclear decision-making in Hong Kong," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 368-390.
    10. Chan Young Park & Seung Heon Han & Kang-Wook Lee & Yong Myoung Lee, 2017. "Analyzing Drivers of Conflict in Energy Infrastructure Projects: Empirical Case Study of Natural Gas Pipeline Sectors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-16, November.
    11. Wolsink, Maarten, 2000. "Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 49-64.
    12. Krohn, Søren & Damborg, Steffen, 1999. "On public attitudes towards wind power," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 954-960.
    13. Chuanwang Sun & Xiaochun Meng & Shuijun Peng, 2017. "Effects of Waste-to-Energy Plants on China’s Urbanization: Evidence from a Hedonic Price Analysis in Shenzhen," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-18, March.
    14. Tom Kuhlman & John Farrington, 2010. "What is Sustainability?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(11), pages 1-13, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. José F. Navarro-Picado & Eduardo Torres-Moraga & Manuel Alonso Dos Santos & Brandon Mastromartino & James J. Zhang, 2023. "Strategies of German Bundesliga and English Premier League clubs for the COVID-19 crisis: the case of international broadcasting fans," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 209-232, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jing Zeng & Jiuchang Wei & Dingtao Zhao & Weiwei Zhu & Jibao Gu, 2017. "Information-seeking intentions of residents regarding the risks of nuclear power plant: an empirical study in China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 87(2), pages 739-755, June.
    2. Molnarova, Kristina & Sklenicka, Petr & Stiborek, Jiri & Svobodova, Kamila & Salek, Miroslav & Brabec, Elizabeth, 2012. "Visual preferences for wind turbines: Location, numbers and respondent characteristics," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 269-278.
    3. Musall, Fabian David & Kuik, Onno, 2011. "Local acceptance of renewable energy--A case study from southeast Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3252-3260, June.
    4. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    5. Bonar, Paul A.J. & Bryden, Ian G. & Borthwick, Alistair G.L., 2015. "Social and ecological impacts of marine energy development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 486-495.
    6. Dalton, G.J. & Lockington, D.A. & Baldock, T.E., 2008. "A survey of tourist attitudes to renewable energy supply in Australian hotel accommodation," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 2174-2185.
    7. Soland, Martin & Steimer, Nora & Walter, Götz, 2013. "Local acceptance of existing biogas plants in Switzerland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 802-810.
    8. Bidwell, David, 2013. "The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards commercial wind energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 189-199.
    9. Feurtey, Évariste & Ilinca, Adrian & Sakout, Anas & Saucier, Carol, 2016. "Institutional factors influencing strategic decision-making in energy policy; a case study of wind energy in France and Quebec (Canada)," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 1455-1470.
    10. Mulvaney, Kate K. & Woodson, Patrick & Prokopy, Linda Stalker, 2013. "A tale of three counties: Understanding wind development in the rural Midwestern United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 322-330.
    11. Huang, Lei & He, Ruoying & Yang, Qianqi & Chen, Jin & Zhou, Ying & Hammitt, James K. & Lu, Xi & Bi, Jun & Liu, Yang, 2018. "The changing risk perception towards nuclear power in China after the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 294-301.
    12. Aitken, Mhairi, 2010. "Why we still don't understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 1834-1841, April.
    13. Graham, Jessica B. & Stephenson, Janet R. & Smith, Inga J., 2009. "Public perceptions of wind energy developments: Case studies from New Zealand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 3348-3357, September.
    14. Ladenburg, Jacob & Termansen, Mette & Hasler, Berit, 2013. "Assessing acceptability of two onshore wind power development schemes: A test of viewshed effects and the cumulative effects of wind turbines," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 45-54.
    15. Roddis, Philippa & Carver, Stephen & Dallimer, Martin & Norman, Paul & Ziv, Guy, 2018. "The role of community acceptance in planning outcomes for onshore wind and solar farms: An energy justice analysis," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 226(C), pages 353-364.
    16. Sebastian Schär & Jutta Geldermann, 2021. "Adopting Multiactor Multicriteria Analysis for the Evaluation of Energy Scenarios," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, March.
    17. Kontogianni, A. & Tourkolias, Ch. & Skourtos, M. & Damigos, D., 2014. "Planning globally, protesting locally: Patterns in community perceptions towards the installation of wind farms," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 170-177.
    18. Harper, Michael & Anderson, Ben & James, Patrick A.B. & Bahaj, AbuBakr S., 2019. "Onshore wind and the likelihood of planning acceptance: Learning from a Great Britain context," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 954-966.
    19. Dimitropoulos, Alexandros & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2009. "Assessing the determinants of local acceptability of wind-farm investment: A choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1842-1854, May.
    20. Jones, Christopher R. & Richard Eiser, J., 2010. "Understanding 'local' opposition to wind development in the UK: How big is a backyard?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 3106-3117, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:4:p:1092-:d:139773. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.