IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i8p2364-d224566.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bayesian-Based NIMBY Crisis Transformation Path Discovery for Municipal Solid Waste Incineration in China

Author

Listed:
  • Qing Yang

    (School of Safety Science and Emergency Management, School of Management, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430070, China)

  • Yanxia Zhu

    (School of Safety Science and Emergency Management, School of Management, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430070, China)

  • Xingxing Liu

    (School of Safety Science and Emergency Management, School of Management, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430070, China)

  • Lingmei Fu

    (School of Safety Science and Emergency Management, School of Management, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430070, China)

  • Qianqian Guo

    (School of Safety Science and Emergency Management, School of Management, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430070, China)

Abstract

Environmental conflicts have been a top global focus and issue for human’s sustainable development. China is confronted with a serious situation with a rigid demand of ecological governance, in which the “Not In My Back Yard” (NIMBY) crisis outbreaks frequently. NIMBY has a great impact on government management and social stability. This study aims to analyze the NIMBY crisis transformation path for municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) in China. Considering environmental, social and economic influences, this study seeks to find methods of transforming dangers into opportunities. A conceptual framework for realizing the NIMBY crisis transformation in waste management decision-making was conducted with a hybrid approach. A fishbone diagram was applied to explain the key factors of NIMBY crisis transformation for MSWI. Integrating Bayesian network structure discovery and co-word analysis into a qualitative analysis, searched data and key factors from a literature search engine with specific themes were used for structure learning. The results showed that project location, benefit compensation, publicity and education, public decision, public participation, the rule of law and multiple governance have distinct influences on the NIMBY crisis transformation process in China. In summary, the conceptual framework describes the complex process of NIMBY crisis transformation and helps to deepen data mining for municipal solid waste management (MSWM).

Suggested Citation

  • Qing Yang & Yanxia Zhu & Xingxing Liu & Lingmei Fu & Qianqian Guo, 2019. "Bayesian-Based NIMBY Crisis Transformation Path Discovery for Municipal Solid Waste Incineration in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-21, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:8:p:2364-:d:224566
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/8/2364/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/8/2364/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Groothuis, Peter A. & Groothuis, Jana D. & Whitehead, John C., 2008. "Green vs. green: Measuring the compensation required to site electrical generation windmills in a viewshed," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 1545-1550, April.
    2. Yaqin Liao & Guanghui Yu & Yan Liao & Lei Jiang & Xianzhao Liu, 2018. "Environmental Conflict Risk Assessment Based on AHP-FCE: A Case of Jiuhua Waste Incineration Power Plant Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, November.
    3. Patrick Lagadec, 2009. "A New Cosmology of Risks and Crises: Time for a Radical Shift in Paradigm and Practice," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 26(4), pages 473-486, July.
    4. Park, Hyun Jung & Kim, Sang-Hoon, 2013. "A Bayesian network approach to examining key success factors of mobile games," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1353-1359.
    5. Olafsson, Sigurdur & Li, Xiaonan & Wu, Shuning, 2008. "Operations research and data mining," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(3), pages 1429-1448, June.
    6. Per Fredriksson, 2000. "The Siting of Hazardous Waste Facilities in Federal Systems: The Political Economy of NIMBY," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 15(1), pages 75-87, January.
    7. Swofford, Jeffrey & Slattery, Michael, 2010. "Public attitudes of wind energy in Texas: Local communities in close proximity to wind farms and their effect on decision-making," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2508-2519, May.
    8. Zhang, Xiang & Xu, Jian-gang & Ju, Yang, 2018. "Public participation in NIMBY risk mitigation: A discourse zoning approach in the Chinese context," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 559-575.
    9. Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Romualdas Baušys & Marius Lazauskas, 2015. "Sustainable Assessment of Alternative Sites for the Construction of a Waste Incineration Plant by Applying WASPAS Method with Single-Valued Neutrosophic Set," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(12), pages 1-14, December.
    10. Gravelle, Timothy B. & Lachapelle, Erick, 2015. "Politics, proximity and the pipeline: Mapping public attitudes toward Keystone XL," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 99-108.
    11. Cohen, Jed J. & Moeltner, Klaus & Reichl, Johannes & Schmidthaler, Michael, 2016. "Linking the value of energy reliability to the acceptance of energy infrastructure: Evidence from the EU," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 124-143.
    12. 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.
    13. Phattraporn Soytong & Ranjith Perera, 2014. "Use of GIS Tools for Environmental Conflict Resolution at Map Ta Phut Industrial Zone in Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(5), pages 1-24, April.
    14. Adam Thorn, 2018. "Issue definition and conflict expansion: the role of risk to human health as an issue definition strategy in an environmental conflict," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(1), pages 59-76, March.
    15. 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.
    16. Gu, Hongyan, 2016. "NIMBYism in China: Issues and prospects of public participation in facility siting," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 527-534.
    17. Maarten Wolsink & Jeroen Devilee, 2009. "The motives for accepting or rejecting waste infrastructure facilities. Shifting the focus from the planners' perspective to fairness and community commitment," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(2), pages 217-236.
    18. Bei-Ni Yan & Tian-Shyug Lee & Tsung-Pei Lee, 2015. "Mapping the intellectual structure of the Internet of Things (IoT) field (2000–2014): a co-word analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(2), pages 1285-1300, November.
    19. Matthew Cotton & Patrick Devine-Wright, 2013. "Putting pylons into place: a UK case study of public perspectives on the impacts of high voltage overhead transmission lines," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(8), pages 1225-1245, October.
    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. Ling He & Qing Yang & Xingxing Liu & Lingmei Fu & Jinmei Wang, 2021. "Exploring Factors Influencing Scenarios Evolution of Waste NIMBY Crisis: Analysis of Typical Cases in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-16, February.
    2. Casper Boongaling Agaton & Marween Joshua A. Santos, 2025. "Social Acceptability of Waste-to-Energy: Research Hotspots, Technologies, and Factors," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-28, July.
    3. Marcelo Alves de Souza & Juliana Teixeira Gonçalves & William Azalim do Valle, 2023. "In My Backyard? Discussing the NIMBY Effect, Social Acceptability, and Residents’ Involvement in Community-Based Solid Waste Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-24, April.
    4. Yanmin He & Hideki Kitagawa & YeeKeong Choy & Xin Kou & Peii Tsai, 2020. "What Affects Chinese Households’ Behavior in Sorting Solid Waste? A Case Study from Shanghai, Shenyang, and Chengdu," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-21, October.
    5. Jinxiang Pian & Xiaoyi Liu & Jian Tang, 2025. "An ISAO-DBCNN-BiLSTM Model for Sustainable Furnace Temperature Optimization in Municipal Solid Waste Incineration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-31, September.
    6. Qiwen Chen & Hui Liu & Peng Mao & Junjie Qian & Yongtao Tan & Xiaer Xiahou & Peng Cui, 2022. "How Does NIMBYism Influence Residents’ Behavioral Willingness to Dispose of Waste in Centralized Collection Points?—An Empirical Study of Nanjing, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-21, November.
    7. Jinbu Zhao & Yongyou Nie & Kui Liu & Jizhi Zhou, 2020. "Evolution of the Individual Attitude in the Risk Decision of Waste Incinerator Construction: Cellular Automaton Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, 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. Choi, Jihye & Kim, Justine Jihyun & Lee, Jongsu, 2024. "Public willingness to pay for mitigating local conflicts over the construction of renewable energy facilities: A contingent valuation study in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    2. Qi, Wen-Hui & Qi, Ming-Liang & Ji, Ya-Min, 2020. "The effect path of public communication on public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    3. Nelson, Hal T. & Wikstrom, Kris & Hass, Samantha & Sarle, Kirsten, 2021. "Half-length and the FACT framework: Distance-decay and citizen opposition to energy facilities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    4. Luigi Maffei & Massimiliano Masullo & Maria Di Gabriele & Nefta-Eleftheria P. Votsi & John D. Pantis & Vincenzo Paolo Senese, 2015. "Auditory Recognition of Familiar and Unfamiliar Subjects with Wind Turbine Noise," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-15, April.
    5. Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Wind Power and Externalities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 245-260.
    6. Kalkbrenner, Bernhard J. & Yonezawa, Koichi & Roosen, Jutta, 2017. "Consumer preferences for electricity tariffs: Does proximity matter?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 413-424.
    7. Garrone, Paola & Groppi, Angelamaria, 2012. "Siting locally-unwanted facilities: What can be learnt from the location of Italian power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 176-186.
    8. Dobers, Geesche M., 2019. "Acceptance of biogas plants taking into account space and place," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    9. Bonev, Petyo & Emmenegger, Rony & Forero, Laura & Ganev, Kaloyan & Simeonova-Ganeva, Ralitsa & Söderberg, Magnus, 2024. "Nuclear waste in my backyard: Social acceptance and economic incentives," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    10. Zaunbrecher, Barbara S. & Linzenich, Anika & Ziefle, Martina, 2017. "A mast is a mast is a mast…? Comparison of preferences for location-scenarios of electricity pylons and wind power plants using conjoint analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 429-439.
    11. Pérez Odeh, Rodrigo & Watts, David & Flores, Yarela, 2018. "Planning in a changing environment: Applications of portfolio optimisation to deal with risk in the electricity sector," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 3808-3823.
    12. Hilary S. Boudet & Chad M. Zanocco & Peter D. Howe & Christopher E. Clarke, 2018. "The Effect of Geographic Proximity to Unconventional Oil and Gas Development on Public Support for Hydraulic Fracturing," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1871-1890, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Clarke, Christopher E. & Bugden, Dylan & Hart, P. Sol & Stedman, Richard C. & Jacquet, Jeffrey B. & Evensen, Darrick T.N. & Boudet, Hilary S., 2016. "How geographic distance and political ideology interact to influence public perception of unconventional oil/natural gas development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 301-309.
    15. 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).
    16. 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).
    17. Meesha Iqbal & Rae Moss & Irene van Woerden, 2022. "Peoples’ Perception towards Nuclear Energy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-9, June.
    18. Simora, Michael, 2017. "The effect of financial compensation on the acceptance of power lines: Evidence from a randomized discrete choice experiment in Germany," Ruhr Economic Papers 729, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    19. Boyle, Kevin J. & Boatwright, Jessica & Brahma, Sreeya & Xu, Weibin, 2019. "NIMBY, not, in siting community wind farms," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 85-100.
    20. Polinori, Paolo, 2019. "Wind energy deployment in wind farm aging context. Appraising an onshore wind farm enlargement project: A contingent valuation study in the Center of Italy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 206-220.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:8:p:2364-:d:224566. 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.