IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v87y2017i2d10.1007_s11069-017-2790-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Information-seeking intentions of residents regarding the risks of nuclear power plant: an empirical study in China

Author

Listed:
  • Jing Zeng

    (University of Science and Technology of China
    Southwest University of Science and Technology)

  • Jiuchang Wei

    (University of Science and Technology of China
    Tsinghua University)

  • Dingtao Zhao

    (University of Science and Technology of China)

  • Weiwei Zhu

    (Hefei University of Technology)

  • Jibao Gu

    (University of Science and Technology of China)

Abstract

Nuclear power development is a controversial issue in the post-Fukushima era. Outlining the effective risk communication strategies is very important. This study attempts to examine the determinants of information-seeking intentions in the context of nuclear power risks. Guided by risk information-seeking models, such as the risk information seeking and processing, this study developed a conceptual model to explore this issue. A survey of the residents (N = 487) near the Haiyang Nuclear Power Plant significantly validated the hypothesized causal relations. Perceived knowledge about nuclear power is important in predicting the perceived risk, information need, and information-seeking intentions. The information need and channel beliefs are significant predictors of information-seeking intentions. Moreover, results also suggest the mediating role of information need in the information-seeking process. However, information-seeking intentions are indirectly, rather than directly, stimulated by perceived risk. Implications and further research are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:87:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s11069-017-2790-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11069-017-2790-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11069-017-2790-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11069-017-2790-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sun, Chuanwang & Zhu, Xiting, 2014. "Evaluating the public perceptions of nuclear power in China: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 397-405.
    2. He, Guizhen & Mol, Arthur P.J. & Zhang, Lei & Lu, Yonglong, 2013. "Public participation and trust in nuclear power development in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 1-11.
    3. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    4. Chung, William & Yeung, Iris M.H., 2013. "Attitudes of Hong Kong residents toward the Daya Bay nuclear power plant," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1172-1186.
    5. Unknown, 2014. "Media Coverage 2014," 2014: Ethics, Efficiency and Food Security: Feeding the 9 Billion, Well, 26-28 August 2014 225573, Crawford Fund.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Siegrist, Michael & Sütterlin, Bernadette & Keller, Carmen, 2014. "Why have some people changed their attitudes toward nuclear power after the accident in Fukushima?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 356-363.
    9. Guizhen He & Arthur P.J. Mol & Lei Zhang & Yonglong Lu, 2014. "Nuclear power in China after Fukushima: understanding public knowledge, attitudes, and trust," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 435-451, April.
    10. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher, 2003. "Test of a Trust and Confidence Model in the Applied Context of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 705-716, August.
    11. Johnson, Eric J & Russo, J Edward, 1984. "Product Familiarity and Learning New Information," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 11(1), pages 542-550, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Lin, Boqiang & Liu, Xia, 2013. "Reform of refined oil product pricing mechanism and energy rebound effect for passenger transportation in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 329-337.
    14. Ellen Ter Huurne & Jan Gutteling, 2008. "Information needs and risk perception as predictors of risk information seeking," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(7), pages 847-862, October.
    15. Brucks, Merrie, 1985. "The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, June.
    16. 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.
    17. Howard Kunreuther, 2002. "Risk Analysis and Risk Management in an Uncertain World," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 655-664, August.
    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. 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).
    2. Pawel Robert Smolinski & Joseph Januszewicz & Barbara Pawlowska & Jacek Winiarski, 2023. "Nuclear Energy Acceptance in Poland: From Societal Attitudes to Effective Policy Strategies -- Network Modeling Approach," Papers 2309.14869, arXiv.org.
    3. Jie Yang & Jie Wang & Xiaofeng Zhang & Chunqi Shen & Zhijuan Shao, 2022. "How Social Impressions Affect Public Acceptance of Nuclear Energy: A Case Study in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-23, September.
    4. Wang, Shanyong & Wang, Jing & Lin, Shoufu & Li, Jun, 2019. "Public perceptions and acceptance of nuclear energy in China: The role of public knowledge, perceived benefit, perceived risk and public engagement," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 352-360.

    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. Zhu, Weiwei & Wei, Jiuchang & Zhao, Dingtao, 2016. "Anti-nuclear behavioral intentions: The role of perceived knowledge, information processing, and risk perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 168-177.
    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. Wang, Fan & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Perspective taking, energy policy involvement, and public acceptance of nuclear energy: Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    4. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    5. Sung-Yoon Huh & JongRoul Woo & Chul-Yong Lee, 2019. "What Do Potential Residents Really Want When Hosting a Nuclear Power Plant? An Empirical Study of Economic Incentives in South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-17, March.
    6. Vladimir M. Cvetković & Adem Öcal & Yuliya Lyamzina & Eric K. Noji & Neda Nikolić & Goran Milošević, 2021. "Nuclear Power Risk Perception in Serbia: Fear of Exposure to Radiation vs. Social Benefits," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, April.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. Motz, Alessandra, 2021. "Consumer acceptance of the energy transition in Switzerland: The role of attitudes explained through a hybrid discrete choice model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    10. Sun, Chuanwang & Zhu, Xiting & Meng, Xiaochun, 2016. "Post-Fukushima public acceptance on resuming the nuclear power program in China," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 685-694.
    11. Chuanhui Liao & Xiaomei Zhou & Dingtao Zhao, 2018. "An Augmented Risk Information Seeking Model: Perceived Food Safety Risk Related to Food Recalls," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-17, August.
    12. 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.
    13. Wu, Yican, 2017. "Public acceptance of constructing coastal/inland nuclear power plants in post-Fukushima China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 484-491.
    14. Sun, Chuanwang & Yuan, Xiang & Yao, Xin, 2016. "Social acceptance towards the air pollution in China: Evidence from public's willingness to pay for smog mitigation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 313-324.
    15. Jiuchang Wei & Ming Zhao & Fei Wang & Peng Cheng & Dingtao Zhao, 2016. "An Empirical Study of the Volkswagen Crisis in China: Customers’ Information Processing and Behavioral Intentions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 114-129, January.
    16. 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.
    17. Manika, Danae & Dickert, Stephan & Golden, Linda L., 2021. "Check (it) yourself before you wreck yourself: The benefits of online health information exposure on risk perception and intentions to protect oneself," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    18. JongRoul Woo & Sesil Lim & Yong-Gil Lee & Sung-Yoon Huh, 2018. "Financial Feasibility and Social Acceptance for Reducing Nuclear Power Plants: A Contingent Valuation Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, October.
    19. Han, Y. & Lam, J. & Guo, P. & Gou, Z., 2019. "What Predicts Government Trustworthiness in Cross-border HK-Guangdong Nuclear Safety Emergency Governance?," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1989, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    20. Ho, Shirley S. & Xiong, Rui & Chuah, Agnes S.F., 2021. "Heuristic cues as perceptual filters: Factors influencing public support for nuclear research reactor in Singapore," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).

    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:spr:nathaz:v:87:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s11069-017-2790-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.