IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i22p15835-d1277905.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to Shape Local Public Acceptance of Not-in-My-Backyard Infrastructures? A Social Cognitive Theory Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Wenling Bao

    (School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou 310018, China)

  • Yu Chen

    (School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou 310018, China)

  • Caiyun Cui

    (School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, North China Institute of Science and Technology, Langfang 065201, China)

  • Bo Xia

    (School of Architecture and Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia)

  • Yongjian Ke

    (School of Built Environment, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia)

  • Martin Skitmore

    (Faculty of Society and Design, Bond University, Robina, QLD 4229, Australia)

  • Yong Liu

    (School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou 310018, China)

Abstract

Acceptance by the local public is the key determinant for the successful implementation of NIMBY (Not-In-My-Backyard) infrastructures and may be shaped in different ways among different infrastructure types. Based on social cognitive theory (SCT), this study clarifies the specific mechanism shaping local public acceptance of NIMBY facilities with two types of hazardous effects (i.e., pollution and psychological exclusion) using a large-scale questionnaire survey and structural equation model. The results reveal that, firstly, SCT provides a solid theoretical basis for exploring the mechanism under the joint action of environmental and personal factors. Secondly, it is verified that self-efficacy indirectly predicts local public acceptance by influencing perceived risk. The effect of the positive affect tag is mediated by perceived risk in shaping acceptance of polluting facilities but not of psychologically excluded facilities. In general, people tend to have a lower perceived risk, higher perceived benefit, stronger sense of self-efficacy, and more positive attitude when faced with the siting of psychologically excluded NIMBY facilities over polluting ones. These findings are helpful for planning and decision-making of NIMBY facilities with different types of hazardous impacts, reducing NIMBY conflicts and promoting the construction of NIMBY infrastructures. Furthermore, it contributes to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16 (promoting peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development) and (SDG) 11 (building inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable cities and human settlements).

Suggested Citation

  • Wenling Bao & Yu Chen & Caiyun Cui & Bo Xia & Yongjian Ke & Martin Skitmore & Yong Liu, 2023. "How to Shape Local Public Acceptance of Not-in-My-Backyard Infrastructures? A Social Cognitive Theory Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-18, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:22:p:15835-:d:1277905
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/22/15835/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/22/15835/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith & Carol L. Silva & Matthew C. Nowlin & Grant deLozier, 2011. "Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 629-644, April.
    2. Syed Mithun Ali & Andrea Appolloni & Fausto Cavallaro & Idiano D’Adamo & Assunta Di Vaio & Francesco Ferella & Massimo Gastaldi & Muhammad Ikram & Nallapaneni Manoj Kumar & Michael Alan Martin & Abdul, 2023. "Development Goals towards Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-11, June.
    3. Creed Tumlison & Geoboo Song, 2019. "Cultural Values, Trust, and Benefit‐Risk Perceptions of Hydraulic Fracturing: A Comparative Analysis of Policy Elites and the General Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(3), pages 511-534, March.
    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. Stephen C. Whitfield & Eugene A. Rosa & Amy Dan & Thomas Dietz, 2009. "The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 425-437, March.
    6. Bandura, Albert, 1991. "Social cognitive theory of self-regulation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 248-287, December.
    7. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    8. Ho, Shirley S. & Oshita, Tsuyoshi & Looi, Jiemin & Leong, Alisius D. & Chuah, Agnes S.F., 2019. "Exploring public perceptions of benefits and risks, trust, and acceptance of nuclear energy in Thailand and Vietnam: A qualitative approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 259-268.
    9. Rachael M. Moyer & Geoboo Song, 2019. "Cultural predispositions, specific affective feelings, and benefit–risk perceptions: explicating local policy elites’ perceived utility of high voltage power line installations," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(4), pages 416-431, April.
    10. Bidwell, David, 2013. "The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards commercial wind energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 189-199.
    11. Yufang Shi & Tianlun Zhang & Yufeng Jiang, 2023. "Digital Economy, Technological Innovation and Urban Resilience," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-19, June.
    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. 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).
    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. 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).
    4. 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).
    5. Scovell, Mitchell & McCrea, Rod & Walton, Andrea & Poruschi, Lavinia, 2024. "Local acceptance of solar farms: The impact of energy narratives," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 189(PB).
    6. 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).
    7. Lee, You-Kyung, 2020. "Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: From the users’ perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    8. Goda Perlaviciute & Linda Steg & Nadja Contzen & Sabine Roeser & Nicole Huijts, 2018. "Emotional Responses to Energy Projects: Insights for Responsible Decision Making in a Sustainable Energy Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-12, July.
    9. Gupta, Kuhika & Ripberger, Joseph T. & Fox, Andrew S. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L., 2021. "The future of nuclear energy in India: Evidence from a nationwide survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    10. Perlaviciute, Goda & Steg, Linda, 2014. "Contextual and psychological factors shaping evaluations and acceptability of energy alternatives: Integrated review and research agenda," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 361-381.
    11. Matthew C. Nowlin, 2022. "Who should “do more” about climate change? Cultural theory, polycentricity, and public support for climate change actions across actors and governments," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 468-485, July.
    12. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    13. Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch, 2017. "The Role of Affect in Attitude Formation toward New Technologies: The Case of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2289-2304, December.
    14. Seoyong Kim & Jae Eun Lee & Donggeun Kim, 2019. "Searching for the Next New Energy in Energy Transition: Comparing the Impacts of Economic Incentives on Local Acceptance of Fossil Fuels, Renewable, and Nuclear Energies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-32, April.
    15. Koecklin, Manuel Tong & Longoria, Genaro & Fitiwi, Desta Z. & DeCarolis, Joseph F. & Curtis, John, 2021. "Public acceptance of renewable electricity generation and transmission network developments: Insights from Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    16. Jaeyoung Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2021. "Can Political Trust Weaken the Relationship between Perceived Environmental Threats and Perceived Nuclear Threats? Evidence from South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-13, September.
    17. Carlos Bazan, 2022. "Effect of the University’s Environment and Support System on Subjective Social Norms as Precursor of the Entrepreneurial Intention of Students," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, October.
    18. Songsore, Emmanuel & Buzzelli, Michael, 2014. "Social responses to wind energy development in Ontario: The influence of health risk perceptions and associated concerns," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 285-296.
    19. Vicente Martínez-Tur & Vicente Peñarroja & Miguel A Serrano & Vanesa Hidalgo & Carolina Moliner & Alicia Salvador & Adrián Alacreu-Crespo & Esther Gracia & Agustín Molina, 2014. "Intergroup Conflict and Rational Decision Making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-17, December.
    20. Harrington, Jean & Morgan, Myfanwy, 2016. "Understanding kidney transplant patients' treatment choices: The interaction of emotion with medical and social influences on risk preferences," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 43-50.

    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:15:y:2023:i:22:p:15835-:d:1277905. 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.