IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i18p11190-d908869.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Social Impressions Affect Public Acceptance of Nuclear Energy: A Case Study in China

Author

Listed:
  • Jie Yang

    (School of Environment Science and Engineering, Suzhou University of Science and Technology, Suzhou 215009, China)

  • Jie Wang

    (School of Environment Science and Engineering, Suzhou University of Science and Technology, Suzhou 215009, China)

  • Xiaofeng Zhang

    (Suzhou Nuclear Power Research Institute Co., Ltd., Suzhou 215004, China)

  • Chunqi Shen

    (School of Environment Science and Engineering, Suzhou University of Science and Technology, Suzhou 215009, China)

  • Zhijuan Shao

    (School of Environment Science and Engineering, Suzhou University of Science and Technology, Suzhou 215009, China)

Abstract

Expanding the proportion of nuclear energy to shift the current energy structure and reduce carbon emission has been acknowledged by the China National Energy Administration. As a typical NIMBY facility, nuclear power plants are faced with a dilemma. Increasing the public acceptance of nuclear power is important for its development. Although multiple studies have shown the factors affecting the public acceptance, few of them focused on the effects of social impression brought about by nuclear power on public attitudes. In this study, a theoretical model was established to examine the impact of social impression (including impression management and stigmatization), knowledge, social trust, perceived risk, and perceived benefit on the public acceptance of nuclear energy. The data in this study were obtained through a questionnaire survey (N = 577) of residents near the Fangchenggang Nuclear Power Plant in China. The results showed that impression management did not directly affect the acceptance but had a positive effect on knowledge. Knowledge and perceived risk or perceived benefit play roles as chain intermediaries between impression management and public acceptance. Stigmatization negatively affects the social trust and public acceptance of nuclear energy. Social trust and perceived risk or perceived benefit act as chain intermediaries between stigmatization and public acceptance. The path “impression management affects knowledge, and knowledge affects perceived risk, then perceived risk finally affects public acceptance” is optimal among all the paths. Moreover, knowledge has no significant effect on public acceptance but negatively affects perceived risk. Social trust positively affects perceived benefit and public acceptance. It is also indicated that perceived benefit has a stronger effect on public acceptance than perceived risk. The findings in this study could inform the government regarding potential social management and recommendations on policy making.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:18:p:11190-:d:908869
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/18/11190/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/18/11190/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    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. Jessica H. Yang & Siwen Liu, 2017. "Accounting narratives and impression management on social media," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(6), pages 673-694, September.
    3. Reeko Watanabe & Tsunemi Watanabe & Kyohei Wakui, 2021. "Acceptance of Main Power Generation Sources among Japan’s Undergraduate Students: The Roles of Knowledge, Experience, Trust, and Perceived Risk and Benefit," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-22, November.
    4. 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.
    5. Alessandro Piazza & Fabrizio Perretti, 2015. "Categorical Stigma and Firm Disengagement: Nuclear Power Generation in the United States, 1970–2000," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(3), pages 724-742, June.
    6. 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).
    7. Chung, Ji-Bum & Kim, Eun-Sung, 2018. "Public perception of energy transition in Korea: Nuclear power, climate change, and party preference," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 137-144.
    8. Jang, Yeonju & Park, Eunil, 2020. "Social acceptance of nuclear power plants in Korea: The role of public perceptions following the Fukushima accident," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim, 2021. "The Impact of Psychological Distance on Judging Satisfaction with Nuclear Energy Policy via Knowledge Calibration and an Integrated Causal Path Model," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-11, September.
    13. Hu, Xiaoli & Zhu, Weiwei & Wei, Jiuchang, 2021. "Effects of information strategies on public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    14. Jiuchang Wei & Weiwei Zhu & Dora Marinova & Fei Wang, 2017. "Household adoption of smog protective behavior: a comparison between two Chinese cities," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 846-867, July.
    15. Heleen L. Soest & Michel G. J. Elzen & Detlef P. Vuuren, 2021. "Net-zero emission targets for major emitting countries consistent with the Paris Agreement," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-9, December.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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).
    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. Lu Liu & Sicheng Wang & Dawei Wang & Dajun Fan & Long Gu, 2023. "Large Eddy Simulation of the Inlet Cross-Flow in the CiADS Heat Exchanger Using the Lattice Boltzmann Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-14, October.
    2. Gan Huang & Chao Yang & Jichong Lei & Lingling Su & Zhenping Chen & Tao Yu, 2022. "Study on Fuel Selection for a Long-Life Small Lead-Based Reactor," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-21, December.
    3. Elisabeth A. Shrimpton & Nazmiye Balta-Ozkan, 2024. "A Systematic Review of Socio-Technical Systems in the Water–Energy–Food Nexus: Building a Framework for Infrastructure Justice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-20, July.
    4. Chen, Yan & Zhang, Ruiqian & Lyu, Jiayi & Hou, Yuqi, 2024. "AI and Nuclear: A perfect intersection of danger and potential?," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).

    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. 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. 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. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. Hu, Xiaoli & Zhu, Weiwei & Wei, Jiuchang, 2021. "Effects of information strategies on public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    6. Lee, Juyong & Cho, Youngsang, 2023. "Economic value of the development of nuclear power plant decommissioning technology in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    7. 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).
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. 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).
    11. Jang, Yeonju & Park, Eunil, 2020. "Social acceptance of nuclear power plants in Korea: The role of public perceptions following the Fukushima accident," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    12. Kim, Philseo & Kim, Jihee & Yim, Man-Sung, 2020. "How deliberation changes public opinions on nuclear energy: South Korea's deliberation on closing nuclear reactors," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 270(C).
    13. Ding, Song & Tao, Zui & Zhang, Huahan & Li, Yao, 2022. "Forecasting nuclear energy consumption in China and America: An optimized structure-adaptative grey model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PA).
    14. Bashir, Muhammad Farhan & Ma, Beiling & Sharif, Arshian & Ao, Tong & Koca, Kemal, 2023. "Nuclear energy consumption, energy access and energy poverty: Policy implications for the COP27 and environmental sustainability," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Abdulla, A. & Vaishnav, P. & Sergi, B. & Victor, D.G., 2019. "Limits to deployment of nuclear power for decarbonization: Insights from public opinion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1339-1346.
    18. Kim, Ju-Hee & Kim, Hee-Hoon & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2022. "Social acceptance toward constructing a combined heat and power plant near people's dwellings in South Korea," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 244(PB).
    19. 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).
    20. Ding, Song & Li, Ruojin & Wu, Shu & Zhou, Weijie, 2021. "Application of a novel structure-adaptative grey model with adjustable time power item for nuclear energy consumption forecasting," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 298(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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:18:p:11190-:d:908869. 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.