IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i6p1727-d216160.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving Social Acceptance of Waste-to-Energy Incinerators in China: Role of Place Attachment, Trust, and Fairness

Author

Listed:
  • Guanghui Hou

    (College of Management and Economics, Tianjin University, No. 92, Weijin Road, Nankai District, Tianjin 300072, China)

  • Tong Chen

    (College of Management and Economics, Tianjin University, No. 92, Weijin Road, Nankai District, Tianjin 300072, China)

  • Ke Ma

    (BNU Business school of Beijing Normal University, No. 19, XinJieKouWai St., HaiDian District, Beijing 100875, China)

  • Zhiming Liao

    (College of Management and Economics, Tianjin University, No. 92, Weijin Road, Nankai District, Tianjin 300072, China)

  • Hongmei Xia

    (College of Management and Economics, Tianjin University, No. 92, Weijin Road, Nankai District, Tianjin 300072, China)

  • Tianzeng Yao

    (College of Management and Economics, Tianjin University, No. 92, Weijin Road, Nankai District, Tianjin 300072, China)

Abstract

Globally, acceptance among the general public of waste-to-energy (WtE) incinerators is a crucial factor in implementing national waste-to-energy policies. This study aims to shed light on the acceptance of WtE incinerators, with a focus on anti-incinerator sentiment and the influence and interactions of place-, trust-, and fairness-based factors, with a case study in China. A total of 338 residents in the Asuwei area in North Beijing completed a survey on a proposed WtE incinerator in the vicinity. Hierarchical regression analyses indicate that place attachment positively enhances anti-incinerator sentiment through direct effects, as well as moderation and mediation effects between risk perception and opposing willingness. Furthermore, institutional trust negatively moderates the impact of perceived risk on anti-incinerator sentiment, in addition to directly reducing perceived risk. Trust also influences anti-incinerator sentiment via risk perception, attesting to the effectiveness of a casual model of trust. Likewise, fairness perception acts as another determinant of opposing sentiment, similarly to trust. These findings demonstrate the importance of using a range of instrumental and more effective strategies to promote the acceptance of renewable energy infrastructure.

Suggested Citation

  • Guanghui Hou & Tong Chen & Ke Ma & Zhiming Liao & Hongmei Xia & Tianzeng Yao, 2019. "Improving Social Acceptance of Waste-to-Energy Incinerators in China: Role of Place Attachment, Trust, and Fairness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-22, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:6:p:1727-:d:216160
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/6/1727/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/6/1727/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pellizzone, Anna & Allansdottir, Agnes & De Franco, Roberto & Muttoni, Giovanni & Manzella, Adele, 2015. "Exploring public engagement with geothermal energy in southern Italy: A case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 1-11.
    2. Lynne C. Manzo & Rachel G. Kleit & Dawn Couch, 2008. "“Moving Three Times Is Like Having Your House on Fire Once†: The Experience of Place and Impending Displacement among Public Housing Residents," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 45(9), pages 1855-1878, August.
    3. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Siegrist, Michael, 2012. "Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 292-300.
    4. Sonnberger, Marco & Ruddat, Michael, 2017. "Local and socio-political acceptance of wind farms in Germany," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 56-65.
    5. Wan, Zheng & Chen, Jihong & Craig, Brian, 2015. "Lessons learned from Huizhou, China's unsuccessful waste-to-energy incinerator project: Assessment and policy recommendations," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 63-68.
    6. Ottinger, Gwen & Hargrave, Timothy J. & Hopson, Eric, 2014. "Procedural justice in wind facility siting: Recommendations for state-led siting processes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 662-669.
    7. Kim, Younghwan & Kim, Wonjoon & Kim, Minki, 2014. "An international comparative analysis of public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 475-483.
    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. Walker, Gordon & Devine-Wright, Patrick, 2008. "Community renewable energy: What should it mean," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 497-500, February.
    10. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich & Claudia Roth, 2000. "Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 353-362, June.
    11. Hall, N. & Ashworth, P. & Devine-Wright, P., 2013. "Societal acceptance of wind farms: Analysis of four common themes across Australian case studies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 200-208.
    12. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2005. "Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 199-209, February.
    13. Lacey, Justine & Carr-Cornish, Simone & Zhang, Airong & Eglinton, Kelvyn & Moffat, Kieren, 2017. "The art and science of community relations: Procedural fairness at Newmont's Waihi Gold operations, New Zealand," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 245-254.
    14. Devine-Wright, Patrick, 2011. "Enhancing local distinctiveness fosters public acceptance of tidal energy: A UK case study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 83-93, January.
    15. Liebe, Ulf & Bartczak, Anna & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2017. "A turbine is not only a turbine: The role of social context and fairness characteristics for the local acceptance of wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 300-308.
    16. Gross, Catherine, 2007. "Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 2727-2736, May.
    17. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2003. "Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 961-972, October.
    18. Judith I. M. De Groot & Linda Steg, 2010. "Morality and Nuclear Energy: Perceptions of Risks and Benefits, Personal Norms, and Willingness to Take Action Related to Nuclear Energy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(9), pages 1363-1373, September.
    19. Ceglarz, Andrzej & Beneking, Andreas & Ellenbeck, Saskia & Battaglini, Antonella, 2017. "Understanding the role of trust in power line development projects: Evidence from two case studies in Norway," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 570-580.
    20. Axsen, Jonn, 2014. "Citizen acceptance of new fossil fuel infrastructure: Value theory and Canada׳s Northern Gateway Pipeline," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 255-265.
    21. Liu, Zhilin & Liao, Lu & Mei, Ciqi, 2018. "Not-in-my-backyard but let’s talk: Explaining public opposition to facility siting in urban China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 471-478.
    22. Lienhoop, Nele, 2018. "Acceptance of wind energy and the role of financial and procedural participation: An investigation with focus groups and choice experiments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 97-105.
    23. Fast, Stewart & Mabee, Warren, 2015. "Place-making and trust-building: The influence of policy on host community responses to wind farms," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 27-37.
    24. Lombard, Andrea & Ferreira, Sanette, 2014. "Residents' attitudes to proposed wind farms in the West Coast region of South Africa: A social perspective from the South," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 390-399.
    25. 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.
    26. Andy Stirling, 2014. "Transforming Power: social science and the politics of energy choices," SPRU Working Paper Series 2014-03, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    27. Petrova, Maria A., 2016. "From NIMBY to acceptance: Toward a novel framework — VESPA — For organizing and interpreting community concerns," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1280-1294.
    28. Boecker, Andreas & Nocella, Giuseppe, 2006. "A Critical Account of the Relationship between Institutional Trust, Risk Perception, and Technology Acceptance with an Application to Genetically Modified Foods," 99th Seminar, February 8-10, 2006, Bonn, Germany 7749, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    29. Goda Perlaviciute & Linda Steg & Nadja Contzen & Sabine Roeser & Nicole Huijts, 2018. "Emotional Responses to Energy Projects: Insights for Responsible Decision Making in a Sustainable Energy Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-12, July.
    30. Guo, Yue & Ren, Tao, 2017. "When it is unfamiliar to me: Local acceptance of planned nuclear power plants in China in the post-fukushima era," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 113-125.
    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. Xu, Min & Liu, Yong & Cui, Caiyun & Xia, Bo & Ke, Yongjian & Skitmore, Martin, 2023. "Social acceptance of NIMBY facilities: A comparative study between public acceptance and the social license to operate analytical frameworks," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    2. Strazzera, Elisabetta & Meleddu, Daniela & Atzori, Rossella, 2022. "A hybrid choice modelling approach to estimate the trade-off between perceived environmental risks and economic benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    3. Caferra, Rocco & D'Adamo, Idiano & Morone, Piergiuseppe, 2023. "Wasting energy or energizing waste? The public acceptance of waste-to-energy technology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(PE).
    4. Seungkook Roh & Hae-Gyung Geong, 2021. "Extending the Coverage of the Trust–Acceptability Model: The Negative Effect of Trust in Government on Nuclear Power Acceptance in South Korea under a Nuclear Phase-Out Policy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-19, June.
    5. Xiongwei Quan & Gaoshan Zuo & Helin Sun, 2022. "Risk Perception Thresholds and Their Impact on the Behavior of Nearby Residents in Waste to Energy Project Conflict: An Evolutionary Game Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-20, May.
    6. Samiha Mjahed Hammami & Heyam Abdulrahman Al Moosa, 2021. "Place Attachment in Land Use Changes: A Phenomenological Investigation in Residents’ Lived Experiences with a Renewable Energy Project Deployment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-16, August.
    7. Yanbo Zhang & Yong Liu & Keyu Zhai, 2021. "Identifying the Predictors of Community Acceptance of Waste Incineration Plants in Urban China: A Qualitative Analysis from a Public Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-16, September.

    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. Eva Eichenauer & Ludger Gailing, 2022. "What Triggers Protest?—Understanding Local Conflict Dynamics in Renewable Energy Development," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-25, September.
    2. Hübner, Gundula & Leschinger, Valentin & Müller, Florian J.Y. & Pohl, Johannes, 2023. "Broadening the social acceptance of wind energy – An Integrated Acceptance Model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    3. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    4. Brennan, Noreen & van Rensburg, Thomas M., 2020. "Public preferences for wind farms involving electricity trade and citizen engagement in Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    5. Ho, Shirley S. & Oshita, Tsuyoshi & Looi, Jiemin & Leong, Alisius D. & Chuah, Agnes S.F., 2019. "Exploring public perceptions of benefits and risks, trust, and acceptance of nuclear energy in Thailand and Vietnam: A qualitative approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 259-268.
    6. Maria De Salvo & Sandra Notaro & Giuseppe Cucuzza & Laura Giuffrida & Giovanni Signorello, 2021. "Protecting the Local Landscape or Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions? A Study on Social Acceptance and Preferences towards the Installation of a Wind Farm," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-19, November.
    7. Liu, Bingsheng & Xu, Yinghua & Yang, Yang & Lu, Shijian, 2021. "How public cognition influences public acceptance of CCUS in China: Based on the ABC (affect, behavior, and cognition) model of attitudes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    8. Frate, Cláudio Albuquerque & Brannstrom, Christian & de Morais, Marcus Vinícius Girão & Caldeira-Pires, Armando de Azevedo, 2019. "Procedural and distributive justice inform subjectivity regarding wind power: A case from Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 185-195.
    9. Sigurd Hilmo Lundheim & Giuseppe Pellegrini-Masini & Christian A. Klöckner & Stefan Geiss, 2022. "Developing a Theoretical Framework to Explain the Social Acceptability of Wind Energy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-24, July.
    10. Leer Jørgensen, Marie & Anker, Helle Tegner & Lassen, Jesper, 2020. "Distributive fairness and local acceptance of wind turbines: The role of compensation schemes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    11. Busse, Maria & Siebert, Rosemarie, 2018. "Acceptance studies in the field of land use—A critical and systematic review to advance the conceptualization of acceptance and acceptability," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 235-245.
    12. Sonnberger, Marco & Ruddat, Michael, 2017. "Local and socio-political acceptance of wind farms in Germany," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 56-65.
    13. Langer, Katharina & Decker, Thomas & Menrad, Klaus, 2017. "Public participation in wind energy projects located in Germany: Which form of participation is the key to acceptance?," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 63-73.
    14. Caporale, Diana & Sangiorgio, Valentino & Amodio, Alessandro & De Lucia, Caterina, 2020. "Multi-criteria and focus group analysis for social acceptance of wind energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    15. Wang, Jing & Li, Yazhou & Wu, Jianlin & Gu, Jibao & Xu, Shuo, 2020. "Environmental beliefs and public acceptance of nuclear energy in China: A moderated mediation analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    16. Hogan, Jessica L. & Warren, Charles R. & Simpson, Michael & McCauley, Darren, 2022. "What makes local energy projects acceptable? Probing the connection between ownership structures and community acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    17. Wang, Yu & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Explaining local residents’ acceptance of rebuilding nuclear power plants: The roles of perceived general benefit and perceived local benefit," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    18. Copena, Damián & Simón, Xavier, 2018. "Wind farms and payments to landowners: Opportunities for rural development for the case of Galicia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 38-47.
    19. Xia, Dongqin & Li, Yazhou & He, Yanling & Zhang, Tingting & Wang, Yongliang & Gu, Jibao, 2019. "Exploring the role of cultural individualism and collectivism on public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 208-215.
    20. Michael Siegrist, 2010. "Trust and Confidence: The Difficulties in Distinguishing the Two Concepts in Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1022-1024, July.

    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:11:y:2019:i:6:p:1727-:d:216160. 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.