IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i9p5588-d809542.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Perception Thresholds and Their Impact on the Behavior of Nearby Residents in Waste to Energy Project Conflict: An Evolutionary Game Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Xiongwei Quan

    (School of Business, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China)

  • Gaoshan Zuo

    (School of International Business, Beijing Foreign Studies University, Beijing 100089, China)

  • Helin Sun

    (School of Business, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China)

Abstract

In China, waste to energy (WTE) projects are currently considered the best choice for dealing with municipal solid waste (MSW), but their siting often leads to conflicts. The perceptions of proximate residents to the changes and uncertainty induced by WTE projects are the main reasons for such conflicts. Determining the indicators used to measure these changes is crucial for an evaluation of surrounding residents’ risk perception. One indicator is residents’ risk perception thresholds. Our paper employs evolutionary game theory to deduce the risk perception threshold of surrounding residents related to a WTE project, which provides a novel contribution to the literature. The results of a case study and simulations show that the level of the risk perception threshold has a crucial effect on the behavior choices of surrounding residents. Two important parameters that affect the value of this risk perception threshold are possible economic compensation and possible resistance costs. A change to the values of these two parameters can change the value of the risk perception threshold of nearby residents. If the change in the risk perceived by surrounding residents is lower than the threshold they can tolerate, they will accept construction of the project. However, if surrounding residents are worried about this risk fluctuating as a result of construction of the plant, they will behave more cautiously and conservatively, and if the possible risk exceeds the threshold that they are willing to tolerate, then they will boycott the plan and protest against the construction of the project. In this case, the surrounding residents will still show restraint. This study tries to provide a theoretical and practical basis for effective resolution by government of the public’s risk concerns and existing or imminent conflicts.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:9:p:5588-:d:809542
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/5588/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/5588/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Friedman, 1998. "On economic applications of evolutionary game theory," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 15-43.
    2. Wolsink, Maarten, 2007. "Wind power implementation: The nature of public attitudes: Equity and fairness instead of 'backyard motives'," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 11(6), pages 1188-1207, August.
    3. Bednarek-Szczepańska Maria, 2019. "The Role of Local Communities in the Process of Siting of the Unwanted Facilities within the Rural Areas in Poland," Eastern European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 25(1), pages 63-94, December.
    4. Friedman, Daniel, 1991. "Evolutionary Games in Economics," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 637-666, May.
    5. 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.
    6. Judith Petts, 2004. "Barriers to participation and deliberation in risk decisions: evidence from waste management," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 115-133, March.
    7. Sen Eguchi, 2020. "NIMBY (not in my backyard) conflicts: a simple game-theoretic analysis," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 821-833, October.
    8. Jing Zeng & Jiuchang Wei & Weiwei Zhu & Dingtao Zhao & Xunguo Lin, 2019. "Residents’ behavioural intentions to resist the nuclear power plants in the vicinity: an application of the protective action decision model," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(3), pages 382-400, March.
    9. Howard Kunreuther & Doug Easterling, 1996. "The role of compensation in siting hazardous facilities," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 601-622.
    10. Leslie A. Nieves & Jeffery J. Himmelberger & Samuel J. Ratick & Allen L. White, 1992. "Negotiated Compensation for Solid‐Waste Disposal Facility Siting: An Analysis of the Wisconsin Experience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 505-511, December.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Timothy L. McDaniels & Lawrence J. Axelrod & Nigel S. Cavanagh & Paul Slovic, 1997. "Perception of Ecological Risk to Water Environments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 341-352, June.
    14. Cui Tian & Chuanfeng Han, 2022. "How Can China Resolve the NIMBY Dilemma in a Network Society? Government and Society-Negotiated Decisions Based on Evolutionary Game Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-21, January.
    15. Michael K. Lindell & Ronald W. Perry, 2012. "The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 616-632, April.
    16. Ali Siddiq Alhakami & Paul Slovic, 1994. "A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1085-1096, December.
    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. Guoxian Cao & Chaoyang Guo & Hezhong Li, 2022. "Risk Analysis of Public–Private Partnership Waste-to-Energy Incineration Projects from the Perspective of Rural Revitalization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-19, July.

    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. Perlaviciute, Goda & Steg, Linda, 2014. "Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 361-381.
    2. Christian Oltra & Paul Upham & Hauke Riesch & Àlex Boso & Suzanne Brunsting & Elisabeth Dütschke & Aleksandra Lis, 2012. "Public Responses to Co2 Storage Sites: Lessons from Five European Cases," Energy & Environment, , vol. 23(2-3), pages 227-248, May.
    3. 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.
    4. Perlaviciute, G. & Steg, L., 2015. "The influence of values on evaluations of energy alternatives," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 259-267.
    5. Naveed Paydara, Olga Schenk, Ashley Bowers, Sanya Carley, John Rupp and John D. Graham, 2016. "The Effect of Community Reinvestment Funds on Local Acceptance of Unconventional Gas Development," Economics of Energy & Environmental Policy, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1).
    6. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    7. Jin, Tao & Jiang, Yulian & Liu, Xingwen, 2023. "Evolutionary game analysis of the impact of dynamic dual credit policy on new energy vehicles after subsidy cancellation," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 440(C).
    8. Agustin Robles Morua & Kathleen E. Halvorsen & Alex S. Mayer, 2011. "Waterborne Disease‐Related Risk Perceptions in the Sonora River Basin, Mexico," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 866-878, May.
    9. Baxter, Jamie & Morzaria, Rakhee & Hirsch, Rachel, 2013. "A case-control study of support/opposition to wind turbines: Perceptions of health risk, economic benefits, and community conflict," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 931-943.
    10. Walker, Chad & Baxter, Jamie & Ouellette, Danielle, 2015. "Adding insult to injury: The development of psychosocial stress in Ontario wind turbine communities," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 358-365.
    11. Zhuozhuo Gou & Yansong Deng, 2021. "Dynamic Model of Collaboration in Multi-Agent System Based on Evolutionary Game Theory," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-19, October.
    12. Fisher, Eric ON. & Kakkar, Vikas, 2004. "On the evolution of comparative advantage in matching models," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 169-193, October.
    13. Faggini, Marisa & Parziale, Anna, 2011. "Fitness landscape and tax planning: NK model for fiscal federalism," MPRA Paper 33770, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. John D. Graham & John A. Rupp & Olga Schenk, 2015. "Unconventional Gas Development in the USA: Exploring the Risk Perception Issues," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(10), pages 1770-1788, October.
    15. John C. Pierce & Rachel M. Krause & Sarah L. Hofmeyer & Bonnie J. Johnson, 2021. "Explanations for Wind Turbine Installations: Local and Global Environmental Concerns in the Central Corridor of the United States?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-11, September.
    16. Cousse, Julia, 2021. "Still in love with solar energy? Installation size, affect, and the social acceptance of renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    17. Pepermans, Yves & Loots, Ilse, 2013. "Wind farm struggles in Flanders fields: A sociological perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 321-328.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Matthew McGinty, 2010. "International Environmental Agreements as Evolutionary Games," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 251-269, February.

    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:14:y:2022:i:9:p:5588-:d:809542. 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.