Chinese public willingness to pay to avoid having nuclear power plants in the neighborhood

Sustainability (Switzerland)

Volumn 6, Issue 10, 2014, Pages 7197-7223

  Sun, Chuanwang ^a   Lyu, Nan ^a   Ouyang, Xiaoling ^b  

^a XIAMEN UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b EAST CHINA NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Contingent valuation method (CVM); Not in my backyard (NIMBY); Nuclear power; Sustainability

Indexed keywords

CONTINGENT VALUATION; DATA SET; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; NEIGHBORHOOD; NUCLEAR POWER PLANT; PRICE DYNAMICS; RISK FACTOR; SUSTAINABILITY; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

CHINA;

EID: 84910068703     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20711050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/su6107197     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. Hartmann, P.; Apaolaza, V.; D'Souza, C.; Echebarria, C.; Barrutia, J.M. Nuclear power threats, public opposition and green electricity adoption: Effects of threat belief appraisal and fear arousal. Energy Policy 2013, 62, 1366-1376.
2. Laes, E.; Meskens, G.; van der Sluijs, J.P. On the contribution of external cost calculations to energy system governance: The case of a potential large-scale nuclear accident. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 5664-5673.
3. Ramana, M.V. Nuclear power and the public. Bull. At. Sci. 2011, 67, 43-51.
4. Visschers, V.H.M.; Wallquist, L. Nuclear power before and after Fukushima: The relations between acceptance, ambivalence and knowledge. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 36, 77-86.
5. Kim, Y.; Kim, M.; Kim, W. Effect of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on global public acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy Policy 2013, 61, 822-828.
6. Gamson, W.A.; Modigliani, A. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. Am. J. Sociol. 1989, 95, 1-37.
7. Kemp, R. Why not in my backyard? A radical interpretation of public opposition to the deep disposal of radioactive waste in the United Kingdom. Environ. Plan. A 1990, 22, 1239-1258.
8. Wolsink, M. Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: Institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renew. Energy 2000, 21, 49-64.
9. Devine-Wright, P. Public engagement with large-scale renewable energy technologies: Breaking the cycle of NIMBYism. Clim. Chang. 2011, 2, 19-26.
10. He, G.; Mol, A.P.J.; Zhang, L.; Lu, Y. Public participation and trust in nuclear power development in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 23, 1-11.
11. International Energy Statistics. Available online: http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm (accessed on 4 September 2014).
12. Kunsch, P.L.; Friesewinkel, J. Nuclear energy policy in Belgium after Fukushima. Energy Policy 2014, 66, 462-474.
13. Srinivasan, T.N.; Gopi Rethinaraj, T.S. Fukushima and thereafter: Reassessment of risks of nuclear power. Energy Policy 2013, 52, 726-736.
14. China's National Energy Administration (CNEA). Available online: http://zfxxgk.nea.gov.cn/auto82/201401/t20140124_1756.htm (accessed on 4 September 2014).
15. The State Council. Available online: http://www.gov.cn/ldhd/2012-10/24/content_2250357.htm (accessed on 4 September 2014).
16. World Nuclear Association. Nuclear Power in China, Updated March 2012. Available online: http://www.world-nuclear.org/(accessed on 4 September 2014).
17. Lu, D. The Current Status of Chinese Nuclear Power Industry and Its Future. Available online: http://www.jsm.or.jp/ejam/Vol.2.No.1/GA/12/article.html (accessed on 15 October 2014).
18. World Nuclear Association. Nuclear Power in China. Available online: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China--Nuclear-Power/(accessed on 16 August 2014).
19. CEIC China Database. Available online: http://www.ceicdata.com/countries/china (accessed on 16 August 2014).
20. World Nuclear Association. World Energy Needs and Nuclear Power. Available online: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/World-Energy-Needs-and-Nuclear-Power/(accessed on 16 August 2014).
21. Butler, D. Nuclear safety: Reactors, residents and risk. Nature 2011, 472, 400-401.
22. China's National Energy Administration. 2014 Guidance for Energy. Available online: http://zfxxgk.nea.gov.cn/auto82/201401/t20140124_1756.htm (accessed on 16 August 2014).
23. Quan, S.W.; Zeng, Y.C.; Huang, B. Public perception and acceptance of nuclear power in Beijing, China. Soc. Sci. Beijing 2012, 5, 55-60. (In Chinese)
24. Schively, C. Understanding the NIMBY and LULU Phenomena: Reassessing Our Knowledge Base and Informing Future Research. J. Plan. Lit. 2007, 21, 255-266.
25. Greenberg, M.R. NIMBY, CLAMP, and the Location of New Nuclear-Related Facilities: U.S. National and 11 Site-Specific Surveys. Risk Anal. 2009, 29, 1242-1254.
26. Refineries and petrochemicals plants. Available online: http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/company-information/group-organization/downstream/refineries-and-petrochemicalsplants. html (accessed on 16 August 2014).
27. Qu, G.H. PX Projects and Their Effect on Sustainability of Chinese Oil Refining Industry. Sino Glob. Energy 2013, 7, 1-7. (In Chinese).
28. Singapore integrated manufacturing site. Available online: http://www.exxonmobil.com/APEnglish/Files/Combined_Site_Brochure_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 16 August 2014).
29. Steenhof, P.A.; Fulton, W. Scenario development in China's electricity sector. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2007, 74, 779-797.
30. Romanello, V.; Salvatores, M.; Schwenk-Ferrero, A.; Gabrielli, F.; Vezzoni, B.; Rineiski, A.; Fazio, C. Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycles and World Regional Issues. Sustainability 2012, 4, 1214-1238.
31. Van der Zwaan, B.C.C. Nuclear energy: Tenfold expansion or phase-out? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2002, 69, 287-307.
32. Pearce, J.M. Limitations of Nuclear Power as a Sustainable Energy Source. Sustainability 2012, 4, 1173-1187.
33. Lozano, R.L.; Hernández-Ceballos, M.A.; Adame, J.A.; Casas-Ruíz, M.; Sorribas, M.; Miguel, E.G.S.; Bolívar, J.P. Radioactive impact of Fukushima accident on the Iberian Peninsula: Evolution and plume previous pathway. Environ. Int. 2011, 37, 1259-1264.
34. Wittneben, B.B.F. The impact of the Fukushima nuclear accident on European energy policy. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 15, 1-3.
35. Kim, Y.; Kim, W.; Kim, M. An international comparative analysis of public acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy Policy 2014, 66, 475-483.
36. Stoutenborough, J.W.; Sturgess, S.G.; Vedlitz, A. Knowledge, risk, and policy support: Public perceptions of nuclear power. Energy Policy 2013, 62, 176-184.
37. Dalla Valle, A.; Furlan, C. Diffusion of nuclear energy in some developing countries. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2014, 81, 143-153.
38. Guidolin, M.; Guseo, R. A nuclear power renaissance? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2012, 79, 1746-1760.
39. Aoki, M.; Rothwell, G. A comparative institutional analysis of the Fukushima nuclear disaster: Lessons and policy implications. Energy Policy 2013, 53, 240-247.
40. Homma, T.; Akimoto, K. Analysis of Japan's energy and environment strategy after the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident. Energy Policy 2013, 62, 1216-1225.
41. Heffron, R.J. Nuclear new build in the United States 1990-2010: A three state analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2013, 80, 876-892.
42. Heffron, R.J. Nuclear energy policy in the United States 1990-2010: A federal or state responsibility? Energy Policy 2013, 62, 254-266.
43. Roh, S.; Kim, W. How can Korea secure uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing rights? Energy Policy 2014, 68, 195-198.
44. Siegrist, M.; Visschers, V.H.M. Acceptance of nuclear power: The Fukushima effect. Energy Policy 2013, 59, 112-119.
45. Bird, D.K.; Haynes, K.; van den Honert, R.; McAneney, J.; Poortinga, W. Nuclear power in Australia: A comparative analysis of public opinion regarding climate change and the Fukushima disaster. Energy Policy 2014, 65, 644-653.
46. Park, E.; Ohm, J.Y. Factors influencing the public intention to use renewable energy technologies in South Korea: Effects of the Fukushima nuclear accident. Energy Policy 2014, 65, 198-211.
47. Rosa, E.A.; Dunlap, R.E. The Pools-Poll trends: Nuclear power: Three decades of public opinion. Public Opin. Q. 1994, 58, 295-324.
48. Van der Horst, D. NIMBY or not? Exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 2705-2714.
49. Zhang, L.; Tong, X. Analysis of public NIMBY attitude and its factors. Soc. Sci. Res. 2014, 1, 105-111. (In Chinese)
50. Pineda-Solano, A.L.; Carreto-Vazquez, V.H.; Mannan, M.S. The Fukushima Daiichi Accident and its Impact on Risk Perception and Risk Communication. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2013, 31, 517-522.
51. Ansolabehere, S.; Konisky, D.M. Public Attitudes toward Construction of New Power Plants. Public Opin. Q. 2009, 73, 566-577.
52. Hüppe, M.; Weber, J. Effects of Distance, Age and Sex upon Attitudes toward Nuclear Power Plants: An empirical study: Untersuchung zu Einstellungen gegenüber Atomkraftwerken in Abhängigkeit von Wohndistanz, Alter und Geschlecht. Zentralblatt für Hygiene und Umweltmedizin 1999, 202, 331-344.
53. Davidson, L.M.; Baum, A.; Collins, D.L. Stress and Control-Related Problems at Three Mile Island1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1982, 12, 349-359.
54. Baum, A.; Gatchel, R.J.; Schaeffer, M.A. Emotional, behavioral, and physiological effects of chronic stress at Three Mile Island. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 1983, 51, 565-572.
55. Balzekiene, A.; Rinkevicius, L. Global issues, local solutions: Sociological analysis of public risk perceptions and attitudes to nuclear waste disposal. Socialinial Mokslai 2002, 37, 42-47.
56. Wolsink, M. Entanglement of Interests and Motives: Assumptions behind the NIMBY-theory on Facility Siting. Urban Studies 1994, 31, 851-866.
57. Bell, D.; Gray, T.; Haggett, C. The 'Social Gap' in Wind Farm Siting Decisions: Explanations and Policy Responses. Environ. Polit. 2005, 14, 460-477.
58. Mitchell, R.C.; Carson, R.T. Property Rights, Protest, and the Siting of Hazardous Waste Facilities. Siting of Hazardous Facilities. Am. Econ. Rev. 1986, 76, 285-290.
59. Marsh, D.; Mkwara, L.; Scarpa, R. Do Respondents' Perceptions of the Status Quo Matter in Non-Market Valuation with Choice Experiments? An Application to New Zealand Freshwater Streams. Sustainability 2011, 3, 1593-1615.
60. Del Saz-Salazar, S.; Hernández-Sancho, F.; Sala-Garrido, R. The social benefits of restoring water quality in the context of the Water Framework Directive: A comparison of willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 407, 4574-4583.
61. Carson, R.T. Constructed Markets. In Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality; Braden, J.B., Kolstad, C.D., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1991; pp. 121-160.
62. Gawande, K.; Jenkins-Smith, H. Nuclear Waste Transport and Residential Property Values: Estimating the Effects of Perceived Risks. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2001, 42, 207-233.
63. Zweifel, P.; Schneider, Y.; Wyss, C. Spatial effects in willingness-to-pay: The case of nuclear risks. Available online: http://www.actuaries.org/ASTIN/Colloquia/Zurich/Zweifel_Schneider_Wyss.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2014).
64. Ferreira, S.; Gallagher, L. Protest responses and community attitudes toward accepting compensation to host waste disposal infrastructure. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 638-652.
65. Zhou, L.; Peng, X.; Guan, E.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, S. Public NIMBY attitude survey and WTA estimate of waste incineration facility. Ecol. Environ. 2012, 12, 174-177. (In Chinese)
66. Yamane, F.; Matsushita, K.; Ohgaki, H.; Asano, K. Study Plans Concerning Monetary Evaluation of Mitigation Measures for the Fukushima Daiichi Accident. Energy Procedia 2013, 34, 937-944.
67. Choi, K.S.; Lee, K.J.; Lee, B.W. Determining the value of reductions in radiation risk using the contingent valuation method. Ann. Nucl. Energy 2001, 28, 1431-1445.
68. Pelekasi, T.; Menegaki, M.; Damigos, D. Externalities, NIMBY syndrome and marble quarrying activity. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2012, 55, 1192-1205.
69. Ouyang, X.; Lin, B. Impacts of increasing renewable energy subsidies and phasing out fossil fuel subsidies in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 37, 933-942.
70. Dziegielewska, D.; Mendelsohn, R. Does "No" mean "No"? A protest methodology. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2007, 38, 71-87.
71. Haab, T. Nonparticipation or Misspecification? The Impacts of Nonparticipation on Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1999, 14, 443-461.
72. Ramajo-Hernández, J.; del Saz-Salazar, S. Estimating the non-market benefits of water quality improvement for a case study in Spain: A contingent valuation approach. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 22, 47-59.
73. Heckman, J.J. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 1979, 47, 153-161.
74. Calia, P.; Strazzera, E. A sample selection model for protest votes in contingent valuation analyses. Statistica 2001, 61, 473-485.
75. Liao, S.Y.; Tseng, W.C.; Chen, C.C. Eliciting public preference for nuclear energy against the backdrop of global warming. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 7054-7069.
76. Jun, E.; Joon Kim, W.; Hoon Jeong, Y.; Heung Chang, S. Measuring the social value of nuclear energy using contingent valuation methodology. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 1470-1476.
77. Petition for rulemaking to improve emergency planning regulation. Available online: http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/emergency/petitionforrulemaking22012.pdf (accessed on 12 September 2014).
78. IAEA Safety Standards for protecting people and the environment. Available online: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1534_web.pdf (accessed on 12 September 2014).
79. Zhao, B.; Qiu, L. Selection of Emergency Release Source Term and Partition of EPZ in the Chinese PWR NPP. Radiat. Prot. Bull. 2003, 2, 6-9. (In Chinese)
80. Hüppe, M.; Janke, W. The nuclear plant accident in chernobyl experienced by men and women of different ages: Empirical study in the years 1986-1991. Anxiety Stress Coping 1994, 7, 339-355.
81. China National Energy Administration. Available online: http://www.nea.gov.cn/2012-10/24/c_131927804.htm (accessed on 12 September 2014).
82. Ansolabehere, S. Public Attitudes toward America's Energy Options: Insights for Nuclear Energy; CANES Publications: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2007.
83. Sun, C.; Zhu, X. Evaluating the public perceptions of nuclear power in China: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey. Energy Policy 2014, 69, 397-405.
84. Arrow, K.; Solow, R.; Protney, P.R.; Leamer, E.E.; Radner, R.; Schuman, H. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. 9 May 1993, pp. 4601-4614. Available online: http://www.cbe.csueastbay.edu/~alima/courses/4306/articles/NOAA%20on%20contingent%20valuation %201993.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2014).
85. Carson, R.T. Contingent Valuation: A Practical Alternative when Prices Aren't Available. J. Econ. Perspect. 2012, 26, 27-42.
86. Poe, G.L.; Vossler, C.A. Consequentiality and Contingent Values: An Emerging Paradigm. In The International Handbook on Non-Market Environmental Valuation; Bennett, J. Ed.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2011; pp. 122-141.