IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i2p287-d199475.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Influencing Factors of Haze Tolerance in China

Author

Listed:
  • Lingyi Zhou

    (School of Public Policy and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China)

  • Yixin Dai

    (School of Public Policy and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China)

Abstract

Haze pollution has become the most serious environmental risk in China and generated a large amount of public concerns. Influencing almost all the citizens in the polluted area, it is necessary and important to take public perception as an essential element in haze abatement. From the perspective of social psychology, this paper explores haze tolerance in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou, also the key influential factors on haze tolerance from four dimensions: political trust, perceived risk, cost perception, and haze knowledge. Based on the sample of 517 respondents, the results show that compared with Shanghai and Guangzhou, Beijing residents had the lowest tolerance level of haze pollution but have the highest levels of trust in the government’s capacity to control haze and self-evaluation of their own haze knowledge. People in Shanghai had the lowest cost perception and the strongest willingness to acquire haze knowledge. Meanwhile, the empirical analysis revealed that political trust and cost perception could enhance the public’s haze tolerance while perceived risk and haze knowledge had negative impacts on tolerance. Also, our research could provide some suggestions to government officials when making policies for abating haze pollution from the perspective of social risk control. Policy makers are supposed to launch various policy instruments to control haze effectively and engage the citizens in the decision-making process to improve their political trust, and publicize the knowledge of haze pollution to help the public to acquire objective and scientific knowledge and diminish unnecessary worries.

Suggested Citation

  • Lingyi Zhou & Yixin Dai, 2019. "The Influencing Factors of Haze Tolerance in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-23, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:2:p:287-:d:199475
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/2/287/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/2/287/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lingyi Zhou & Yixin Dai, 2017. "How Smog Awareness Influences Public Acceptance of Congestion Charge Policies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-15, September.
    2. Charles Warren & Carolyn Lumsden & Simone O'Dowd & Richard Birnie, 2005. "'Green On Green': Public perceptions of wind power in Scotland and Ireland," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(6), pages 853-875.
    3. Goodfellow, Martin J. & Williams, Hugo R. & Azapagic, Adisa, 2011. "Nuclear renaissance, public perception and design criteria: An exploratory review," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 6199-6210, October.
    4. 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.
    5. Ian H. Langford & Claire Marris & Annë‐Lise McDonald & Harvey Goldstein & Jon Rasbash & Tim O'Riordan, 1999. "Simultaneous Analysis of Individual and Aggregate Responses in Psychometric Data Using Multilevel Modeling," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 675-683, August.
    6. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Esperanza López Vázquez, 2011. "A Cross‐Cultural Study of Perceived Benefit Versus Risk as Mediators in the Trust‐Acceptance Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(12), pages 1919-1934, December.
    7. Tsunoda Katsuya, 2001. "Public Response to the Tokai Nuclear Accident," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(6), pages 1039-1046, December.
    8. Michael Maharik & Baruch Fischhoff, 1993. "Risk Knowledge and Risk Attitudes Regarding Nuclear Energy Sources in Space," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 345-353, June.
    9. Dan Venables & Nick Pidgeon & Peter Simmons & Karen Henwood & Karen Parkhill, 2009. "Living with Nuclear Power: A Q‐Method Study of Local Community Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1089-1104, August.
    10. Terje Aven & Ortwin Renn, 2010. "Risk Management and Governance," Risk, Governance and Society, Springer, number 978-3-642-13926-0, May.
    11. Zhang, Junjie & Mu, Quan, 2018. "Air pollution and defensive expenditures: Evidence from particulate-filtering facemasks," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 517-536.
    12. James Flynn & Paul Slovic & C. K. Mertz, 1993. "Decidedly Different: Expert and Public Views of Risks from a Radioactive Waste Repository," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 643-648, December.
    13. Lennart Sjöberg & Britt‐Marie Drottz‐Sjöberg, 1991. "Knowledge and Risk Perception Among Nuclear Power Plant Employees," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 607-618, 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. Yaling Lu & Yuan Wang & Yujie Liao & Jiantong Wang & Mei Shan & Hongqiang Jiang, 2023. "Public Concern about Haze and Ozone in the Era of Their Coordinated Control in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-13, January.
    2. Yongbao Zhang & Jianwu Chen & Xingfei Wei & Xiang Wu, 2022. "Development and Validation of the Haze Risk Perception Scale and Influencing Factor Scale—A Study Based on College Students in Beijing," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-21, April.

    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. Zhou, Lingyi & Dai, Yixin, 2020. "Which is more effective in China? How communication tools influence public acceptance of nuclear power energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Lingyi Zhou & Yixin Dai, 2017. "How Smog Awareness Influences Public Acceptance of Congestion Charge Policies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-15, September.
    4. Sisira S. Withanachchi & Ilia Kunchulia & Giorgi Ghambashidze & Rami Al Sidawi & Teo Urushadze & Angelika Ploeger, 2018. "Farmers’ Perception of Water Quality and Risks in the Mashavera River Basin, Georgia: Analyzing the Vulnerability of the Social-Ecological System through Community Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-26, August.
    5. Gardt Manuel & Broekel Tom & Gareis Philipp & Litmeyer Marie-Louise, 2018. "Einfluss von Windenergieanlagen auf die Entwicklung des Tourismus in Hessen," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 62(1), pages 46-64, March.
    6. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    7. Haggett, Claire, 2011. "Understanding public responses to offshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 503-510, February.
    8. Krekel, Christian & Zerrahn, Alexander, 2017. "Does the presence of wind turbines have negative externalities for people in their surroundings? Evidence from well-being data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 221-238.
    9. Zerrahn, Alexander & Krekel, Christian, 2015. "Sowing the Wind and Reaping the Whirlwind? The Effect of Wind Turbines on Residential Well-Being," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 112956, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    10. Pepermans, Yves & Loots, Ilse, 2013. "Wind farm struggles in Flanders fields: A sociological perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 321-328.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. van Rensburg, Thomas M. & Kelley, Hugh & Jeserich, Nadine, 2015. "What influences the probability of wind farm planning approval: Evidence from Ireland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 12-22.
    14. Dimitropoulos, Alexandros & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2009. "Assessing the determinants of local acceptability of wind-farm investment: A choice experiment in the Greek Aegean Islands," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1842-1854, May.
    15. Olivier JOALLAND & Tina RAMBONILAZA, 2017. "Assessing the impact of renewable energy infrastructure on the “tourist value” in rural landscapes: a spatial hedonic approach," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2017-10, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    16. Jones, Christopher R. & Richard Eiser, J., 2010. "Understanding 'local' opposition to wind development in the UK: How big is a backyard?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 3106-3117, June.
    17. Brannstrom, Christian & Gorayeb, Adryane & de Sousa Mendes, Jocicléa & Loureiro, Caroline & Meireles, Antonio Jeovah de Andrade & Silva, Edson Vicente da & Freitas, Ana Larissa Ribeiro de & Oliveira, , 2017. "Is Brazilian wind power development sustainable? Insights from a review of conflicts in Ceará state," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 62-71.
    18. Groth, Theresa M. & Vogt, Christine, 2014. "Residents' perceptions of wind turbines: An analysis of two townships in Michigan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 251-260.
    19. Bauwens, Thomas & Devine-Wright, Patrick, 2018. "Positive energies? An empirical study of community energy participation and attitudes to renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 612-625.
    20. Ladenburg, Jacob & Dahlgaard, Jens-Olav, 2012. "Attitudes, threshold levels and cumulative effects of the daily wind-turbine encounters," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 40-46.

    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:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:2:p:287-:d:199475. 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.