IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v43y2016i1p115-127..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

High support for nanotechnology in China: A case study in Dalian

Author

Listed:
  • Jing Zhang
  • Guoyu Wang
  • Deming Lin

Abstract

Public perception of nanotechnology is important as it helps scientists and policy makers understand how the public decides whether or not to support the development of these technologies. To examine the public’s perception and attitude toward nanotechnology in China, we conducted a case study in Dalian through a survey in 2013 (N = 741). Support for the technology was indicated by 96.6% of the sample. This sample also had the highest self-reported awareness of nanotechnology worldwide, with 88.4% of the sample reporting having heard of nanotechnology, although they possessed little knowledge about the technology. Support was associated more with beliefs (e.g. expectations for nanotechnology, trust, benefit/risk ratio) than with knowledge. Mass media news reports and advertisements were the top means of communication about nanotechnology. It is very possible that the rate of support for nanotechnology may change in future, as with support for genetically modified food.

Suggested Citation

  • Jing Zhang & Guoyu Wang & Deming Lin, 2016. "High support for nanotechnology in China: A case study in Dalian," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(1), pages 115-127.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:43:y:2016:i:1:p:115-127.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scv020
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Nathalie Stampfli & Michael Siegrist & Hans Kastenholz, 2010. "Acceptance of nanotechnology in food and food packaging: a path model analysis," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 353-365, April.
    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. Kamarulzaman, Nur Aizat & Lee, Khai Ern & Siow, Kim Shyong & Mokhtar, Mazlin, 2020. "Public benefit and risk perceptions of nanotechnology development: Psychological and sociological aspects," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    2. Rathore, Ankita & Mahesh, G., 2021. "Public perception of nanotechnology: A contrast between developed and developing countries," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(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. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    2. Zingg, Alexandra & Siegrist, Michael, 2012. "People’s willingness to eat meat from animals vaccinated against epidemics," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 226-231.
    3. Eamonn M. McAlea & Martin Mullins & Finbarr Murphy & Syed A.M. Tofail & Anthony G. Carroll, 2016. "Engineered nanomaterials: risk perception, regulation and insurance," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 444-460, April.
    4. Greehy, Grainne & McCarthy, Mary & Henchion, Maeve M. & Dillon, Emma J. & McCarthy, Sinead, 2011. "An Exploration of Irish Consumer Acceptance of Nanotechnology Applications in Food," 2011 International European Forum, February 14-18, 2011, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 122006, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    5. Erdem, Seda & Rigby, Dan, 2011. "Using a Discrete Choice Experiment to Elicit Consumers’ WTP for Health Risk Reductions Achieved By Nanotechnology in the UK," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108950, Agricultural Economics Society.
    6. Casolani, Nicola & Chiodo, Emilio & Fantini, Andrea, 2012. "Consumers perception of nanotechnologies in the Italian wine sector," 2012 First Congress, June 4-5, 2012, Trento, Italy 124120, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    7. Erdem, Seda, 2018. "Who do UK consumers trust for information about nanotechnology?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 133-142.
    8. Anetta Barska & Julia Wojciechowska-Solis & Joanna Wyrwa & Janina Jędrzejczak-Gas, 2023. "Practical Implications of the Millennial Generation’s Consumer Behaviour in the Food Market," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-15, January.
    9. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "Food values and heterogeneous consumer responses to nanotechnology," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 289-313, September.
    10. Aisha Egolf & Christina Hartmann & Michael Siegrist, 2019. "When Evolution Works Against the Future: Disgust's Contributions to the Acceptance of New Food Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1546-1559, July.
    11. Viscecchia, Rosaria & De Devitiis, Biagia & Carlucci, Domenico & Nardone, Gianluca & Santeramo, Fabio, 2018. "On Consumers' Acceptance of Nanotechnologies: An Italian Case Study," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 9(4), August.
    12. Katherine A McComas & John C. Besley, 2011. "Fairness and Nanotechnology Concern," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1749-1761, November.
    13. Lelia Voinea & Dorin Vicentiu Popescu & Teodor Mihai Negrea & Razvan Dina, 2024. "Cultured Meat – From Scientific Challenge to Consumer Acceptance as Sustainable Food Source," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 26(65), pages 346-346, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:scippl:v:43:y:2016:i:1:p:115-127.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.