IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/energy/v304y2024ics036054422401805x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding residents’ risk information seeking, processing and sharing regarding waste incineration power projects

Author

Listed:
  • Zeng, Jing
  • Duan, Hongyu
  • Zhu, Weiwei
  • Song, Jingyan

Abstract

Waste incineration power projects (WIPP) may face suspicion and resistance due to potential environmental and health risks. Information behavior has become a crucial way for residents to manage the risks. By integrating the risk information seeking and processing (RISP) model with the protective action decision model (PADM), the study develops a four-stage model that incorporates information acquisition and perceived benefits to understand the determinants of residents’ information behaviors regarding WIPP. A total of 1726 respondents were interviewed. The results indicate that 77.5 % respondents frequently use social media. Of the twenty-five hypothesized paths, twenty-one were found to be significant. Information acquisition from social media plays a larger predictive role than that from official media. Perceived risks, benefits, and knowledge positively predict information sharing, systematic processing, and information seeking, respectively. Perceived knowledge has the strongest direct influence on information insufficiency (β = 0.24, p < 0.001) with the explained variance of systematic processing being the highest (R2 = 0.51). Interesting, the relationship between information insufficiency and information sharing, as well as between relevant channel beliefs and information sharing, are negative. Theoretical insights into extending the PADM and the RISP model are provided, as well as managerial implications for risk communication about WIPP.

Suggested Citation

  • Zeng, Jing & Duan, Hongyu & Zhu, Weiwei & Song, Jingyan, 2024. "Understanding residents’ risk information seeking, processing and sharing regarding waste incineration power projects," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:energy:v:304:y:2024:i:c:s036054422401805x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2024.132031
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054422401805X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.energy.2024.132031?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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Menikpura, S.N.M. & Sang-Arun, Janya & Bengtsson, Magnus, 2016. "Assessment of environmental and economic performance of Waste-to-Energy facilities in Thai cities," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 576-584.
    4. Aliperti, Giuseppe & Cruz, Ana Maria, 2019. "Investigating tourists' risk information processing," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Michael Siegrist, 2000. "The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 195-204, April.
    7. 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.
    8. Lu, Hang & Song, Hwanseok & McComas, Katherine, 2021. "Seeking information about enhanced geothermal systems: The role of fairness, uncertainty, systematic processing, and information engagement intentions," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 855-864.
    9. Jennifer R. Allen Catellier & Z. Janet Yang, 2012. "Trust and affect: how do they impact risk information seeking in a health context?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(8), pages 897-911, September.
    10. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Michael Siegrist, 2013. "How a Nuclear Power Plant Accident Influences Acceptance of Nuclear Power: Results of a Longitudinal Study Before and After the Fukushima Disaster," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 333-347, February.
    11. Femke Hilverda & Margôt Kuttschreuter, 2018. "Online Information Sharing About Risks: The Case of Organic Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1904-1920, September.
    12. Janet Z. Yang, 2019. "Whose Risk? Why Did the U.S. Public Ignore Information About the Ebola Outbreak?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(8), pages 1708-1722, August.
    13. 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.
    14. Judith I. M. de Groot & Linda Steg & Wouter Poortinga, 2013. "Values, Perceived Risks and Benefits, and Acceptability of Nuclear Energy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 307-317, February.
    15. Sanghee Oh & Sue Yeon Syn, 2015. "Motivations for sharing information and social support in social media: A comparative analysis of Facebook, Twitter, Delicious, YouTube, and Flickr," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(10), pages 2045-2060, October.
    16. Howard Kunreuther, 2002. "Risk Analysis and Risk Management in an Uncertain World," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 655-664, August.
    17. Michael K. Lindell & Seong Nam Hwang, 2008. "Households' Perceived Personal Risk and Responses in a Multihazard Environment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 539-556, April.
    18. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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).
    2. 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).
    3. Hu, Xiaoli & Zhu, Weiwei & Wei, Jiuchang, 2021. "Effects of information strategies on public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. 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).
    7. Xuemei Fang & Liang Cao & Luyi Zhang & Binbin Peng, 2023. "Risk perception and resistance behavior intention of residents living near chemical industry parks: an empirical analysis 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. 115(2), pages 1655-1675, January.
    8. Wang, Shanyong & Wang, Jing & Lin, Shoufu & Li, Jun, 2020. "How and when does information publicity affect public acceptance of nuclear energy?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Liyue Gong & Hao Jiang & Xusheng Wu & Yi Kong & Yunyun Gao & Hao Liu & Yi Guo & Dehua Hu, 2022. "Exploring Users’ Health Behavior Changes in Online Health Communities: Heuristic-Systematic Perspective Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-14, September.
    11. 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.
    12. Uji, Azusa & Prakash, Aseem & Song, Jaehyun, 2021. "Does the “NIMBY syndrome” undermine public support for nuclear power in Japan?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 148(PA).
    13. 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.
    14. Manqing Wu & Guochun Wu, 2020. "An Analysis of Rural Households’ Earthquake-Resistant Construction Behavior: Evidence from Pingliang and Yuxi, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-14, December.
    15. Michael R. Greenberg & Marc D. Weiner & Robert Noland & Jeanne Herb & Marjorie Kaplan & Anthony J. Broccoli, 2014. "Public Support for Policies to Reduce Risk After Hurricane Sandy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 997-1012, June.
    16. Andrea Cerase & Lorenzo Cugliari, 2023. "Something Still Remains: Factors Affecting Tsunami Risk Perception on the Coasts Hit by the Reggio Calabria-Messina 1908 Event (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-26, February.
    17. Joop de Boer & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Teun Terpstra, 2014. "Improving Flood Risk Communication by Focusing on Prevention‐Focused Motivation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 309-322, February.
    18. Shah, Zakir & Chu, Jianxun & Feng, Bo & Qaisar, Sara & Ghani, Usman & Hassan, Zameer, 2019. "If you care, I care: Perceived social support and public engagement via SNSs during crises," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    19. Wei Qi & Xiumei Guo & Xia Wu & Dora Marinova & Jin Fan, 2018. "Do the sunk cost effect and cognitive dissonance increase risk perception? An empirical study in the context of city smog," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(5), pages 2269-2289, September.
    20. Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim & Youngcheoul Kang & Sohee Kim, 2022. "Searching for the New Behavioral Model in Energy Transition Age: Analyzing the Forward and Reverse Causal Relationships between Belief, Attitude, and Behavior in Nuclear Policy across Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-24, 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:eee:energy:v:304:y:2024:i:c:s036054422401805x. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/energy .

    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.