IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i19p10189-d645038.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying the Predictors of Community Acceptance of Waste Incineration Plants in Urban China: A Qualitative Analysis from a Public Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Yanbo Zhang

    (School of Management Engineering & Business, Hebei University of Engineering, Handan 056038, China)

  • Yong Liu

    (Fine Arts College, Shanghai University, Shanghai 200444, China)

  • Keyu Zhai

    (School of Foreign Studies, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China)

Abstract

Due to concerns about consequences to public health, the ecosystem, the natural landscape etc., the planning and construction of waste incineration plants always gives rise to a reaction and even protests from local communities. This study aims to investigate the determinants affecting public acceptance of waste incinerators. We contribute to the existing knowledge in the following ways: (1) this study undertook a qualitative analysis on community acceptance of nimby facilities in the context of China for the first time; (2) through qualitative interview analysis, we emphasize the impact of interactions among multiple factors regarding the acceptance of waste incinerators; (3) we finally construct a framework to systematically explain the formation mechanism of community acceptance of waste incineration plants. Employing in-depth interviews with 22 representative residents, the results indicate that from the perspective of externality, risk perception has a significant negative impact, whereas the effects of benefit perception are positive. In terms of interaction between government and citizen, both justice perception and political efficacy are positive. Social situational factors positively promote community acceptance. Lastly, the impact of individual cognition is mixed. This study has the potential to make a significant difference in better community governance and environment-friendly cities.

Suggested Citation

  • Yanbo Zhang & Yong Liu & Keyu Zhai, 2021. "Identifying the Predictors of Community Acceptance of Waste Incineration Plants in Urban China: A Qualitative Analysis from a Public Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-16, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:19:p:10189-:d:645038
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/19/10189/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/19/10189/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Waldo, Åsa, 2012. "Offshore wind power in Sweden—A qualitative analysis of attitudes with particular focus on opponents," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 692-702.
    3. Wan, Zheng & Chen, Jihong & Craig, Brian, 2015. "Lessons learned from Huizhou, China's unsuccessful waste-to-energy incinerator project: Assessment and policy recommendations," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 63-68.
    4. Hall, N. & Ashworth, P. & Devine-Wright, P., 2013. "Societal acceptance of wind farms: Analysis of four common themes across Australian case studies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 200-208.
    5. John C. Besley, 2012. "Does Fairness Matter in the Context of Anger About Nuclear Energy Decision Making?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 25-38, January.
    6. Yenneti, Komali & Day, Rosie, 2015. "Procedural (in)justice in the implementation of solar energy: The case of Charanaka solar park, Gujarat, India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 664-673.
    7. Takashi Hayashi, 2021. "Microeconomic Theory for the Social Sciences," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-981-16-3541-0, March.
    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. Agnieszka Starzyk & Kinga Rybak-Niedziółka & Przemysław Łacek & Łukasz Mazur & Anna Stefańska & Małgorzata Kurcjusz & Aleksandra Nowysz, 2023. "Environmental and Architectural Solutions in the Problem of Waste Incineration Plants in Poland: A Comparative Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-20, February.
    2. Weerawat Ounsaneha & Orapin Laosee & Cheerawit Rattanapan, 2024. "Influence of Environmental Risk Exposure on the Determinants of COVID-19 Booster Vaccination in an Urban Thai Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 21(6), pages 1-13, June.
    3. Xiong, Yachao & Qi, Hui & Li, Zequan & Zhang, Qiuhan, 2023. "Where risk, where capability? Building the emergency management capability structure of coal mining enterprises based on risk matching perspective," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    4. Huijie Li & Deqing Tan, 2024. "How to Control Waste Incineration Pollution? Cost-Sharing or Penalty Mechanism—Based on Two Differential Game Models," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 21(2), pages 91-109, June.

    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. de Wildt, Tristan E. & Chappin, Emile J.L. & van de Kaa, Geerten & Herder, Paulien M., 2018. "A comprehensive approach to reviewing latent topics addressed by literature across multiple disciplines," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 2111-2128.
    2. Landeta-Manzano, Beñat & Arana-Landín, Germán & Calvo, Pilar M. & Heras-Saizarbitoria, Iñaki, 2018. "Wind energy and local communities: A manufacturer’s efforts to gain acceptance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 314-324.
    3. 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.
    4. Sonnberger, Marco & Ruddat, Michael, 2017. "Local and socio-political acceptance of wind farms in Germany," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 56-65.
    5. J. R. Lovering & S. H. Baker & T. R. Allen, 2021. "Social License in the Deployment of Advanced Nuclear Technology," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-13, July.
    6. Copena, Damián & Simón, Xavier, 2018. "Wind farms and payments to landowners: Opportunities for rural development for the case of Galicia," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 38-47.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Milchram, Christine & Hillerbrand, Rafaela & van de Kaa, Geerten & Doorn, Neelke & Künneke, Rolf, 2018. "Energy Justice and Smart Grid Systems: Evidence from the Netherlands and the United Kingdom," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 229(C), pages 1244-1259.
    10. Lo, Kevin, 2021. "Authoritarian environmentalism, just transition, and the tension between environmental protection and social justice in China's forestry reform," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    11. Hitzeroth, Marion & Megerle, Andreas, 2013. "Renewable Energy Projects: Acceptance Risks and Their Management," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 576-584.
    12. Francisco Haces-Fernandez, 2022. "Assessment of the Financial Benefits from Wind Farms in US Rural Locations," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-23, September.
    13. Ki, Jaehong & Yun, Sun-Jin & Kim, Woo-Chang & Oh, Subin & Ha, Jihun & Hwangbo, Eunyoung & Lee, Hyoeun & Shin, Sumin & Yoon, Seulki & Youn, Hyewon, 2022. "Local residents’ attitudes about wind farms and associated noise annoyance in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    14. Stock, Ryan, 2021. "Bright as night: Illuminating the antinomies of ‘gender positive’ solar development," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    15. Yenneti, Komali, 2016. "Industry perceptions on feed in tariff (FiT) based solar power policies – A case of Gujarat, India," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 988-998.
    16. Walsh, Bríd & van der Plank, Sien & Behrens, Paul, 2017. "The effect of community consultation on perceptions of a proposed mine: A case study from southeast Australia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 163-171.
    17. Hang Yin & Yixiong Huang & Kuiming Wang, 2021. "How Do Environmental Concerns and Governance Performance Affect Public Environmental Participation: A Case Study of Waste Sorting in Urban China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-16, September.
    18. Ferdoush, Md. Ruhul & Aziz, Ridwan Al & Karmaker, Chitra Lekha & Debnath, Binoy & Limon, Mohammad Hossain & Bari, A.B.M. Mainul, 2024. "Unraveling the challenges of waste-to-energy transition in emerging economies: Implications for sustainability," Innovation and Green Development, Elsevier, vol. 3(2).
    19. Strazzera, Elisabetta & Meleddu, Daniela & Atzori, Rossella, 2022. "A hybrid choice modelling approach to estimate the trade-off between perceived environmental risks and economic benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    20. Sigurd Hilmo Lundheim & Giuseppe Pellegrini-Masini & Christian A. Klöckner & Stefan Geiss, 2022. "Developing a Theoretical Framework to Explain the Social Acceptability of Wind Energy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-24, July.

    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:18:y:2021:i:19:p:10189-:d:645038. 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.