Environmental beliefs and public acceptance of nuclear energy in China: A moderated mediation analysis

Energy Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Environmental beliefs and public acceptance of nuclear energy in China: A moderated mediation analysis Jing Wang a, Yazhou Li b, Jianlin Wu a, *, Jibao Gu a, Shuo Xu c a

School of Management, University of Science and Technology of China, 96 Jinzhai Road, Hefei, Anhui, PR China Key Laboratory of Neutronics and Radiation Safety, Institute of Nuclear Energy Safety Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hefei, Anhui, 230031, PR China c Changchun Institute of Applied Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changchun, Jilin, 130022, PR China b

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Environmental beliefs Place attachment Nuclear engagement Public acceptance

Nuclear energy facility development in China has become controversial amid widespread environmental con­ cerns. The present study examines how environmental beliefs influence public acceptance of nuclear energy in the context of China. In the current study, we test the mediation effect of nuclear engagement and test place attachment as a moderator based on cognitive-affective processing system theory. Our data have been obtained from an online survey, using a sample consisting of 516 individuals with experience in the public participation activities in Chinese nuclear power plant projects. The empirical results show that environmental beliefs are positively and significantly correlated to public acceptance of nuclear energy through the individuals’ nuclear engagement. Place attachment negatively and significantly moderates the direct impact of environmental beliefs on nuclear engagement. In the meantime, the mediating effect of nuclear engagement is weaker when place attachment is high. Significant practical implications are provided in our study for the Chinese governmental authorities.

1. Introduction

the following questions: Do environmental beliefs affect public accep­ tance of nuclear energy? If yes, how? Environmental beliefs are beliefs about humanity’s relationship with nature (Dunlap et al., 2000; Schultz and Zelezny, 1998). Previous research investigated the effect of environmental beliefs on nuclear at­ titudes, but the findings are inconsistent. Some studies argue that the link between environmental beliefs and public attitudes to support nu­ clear energy generation is positive (Corner et al., 2011), whereas other studies found that individual concerns about the environment are negatively associated with the nuclear acceptability (Keller et al., 2012). The inconsistent research findings suggest that the influence of envi­ ronmental beliefs on public acceptance of the nuclear energy plant projects may be indirect. Scholars have called for more empirical studies on the influential mechanisms by which underlying environmental be­ liefs affect public energy attitudes (Bidwell, 2013; Sovacool and Blyth, 2015). Moreover, the relationship between environmental beliefs and outcomes cannot be studied in a vacuum; some determinants may be the result of the simultaneous and interactive impact of individual differ­ ences (Devine-Wright, 2013; Devine-Wright et al., 2015). In-depth research, therefore, should take measures to identify potential

As pressure mounts from global climate change and environmental pollution problems, it is crucial for China to adjust its energy structure and switch from an economy based on fossil fuel to one based on lowcarbon energy sources (Jiang et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2018). Nuclear energy is a practical ‘zero-emission’ energy (Bird et al., 2014; van der Zwaan, 2013). On account of its notable environmental advantages, nuclear power has drawn the attention of the Chinese government. According to China’s Energy Development Strategy Action Plan for the years 2014–2020, the total installed and under construction capacity of nuclear power plants will reach 90 GW (Huang et al., 2018; Mu et al., 2015). However, in view of concern about the radioactive, environ­ mental pollution of nuclear energy, nuclear power plant projects � v� become controversial (Pra alie and Bandoc, 2018; Zeng et al., 2017). Environmentalists, such as Professor James Lovelock who was the first to introduce ‘environmental awareness’ in the 1960s, favour nuclear energy, whereas some environmental groups, such as the Green Con­ sumers’ Foundation, have raised opposition (Comby et al., 2001; Poor­ tinga et al., 2013). In this context of China, the current study addresses

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Wang), [email protected] (Y. Li), [email protected] (J. Wu), [email protected] (J. Gu), [email protected] (S. Xu). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111141 Received 16 November 2018; Received in revised form 19 November 2019; Accepted 21 November 2019 0301-4215/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Jing Wang, Energy Policy, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111141

J. Wang et al.

Energy Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

et al., 2016b; Wang et al., 2019). Meanwhile, the National Energy Administration of China (2019) has stated nuclear energy, as a clean energy source, is being advocated actively by the government and is being given accelerated development. Although nuclear energy does benefit in terms of climate change mitigation, nuclear power plants still bring potential environmental � v� threats from nuclear radiation and nuclear reactor accidents (Pra alie and Bandoc, 2018; Zeng et al., 2017). The underlying environmental harm of nuclear energy can cause public fears and anxieties (Guo and Ren, 2017; Huang et al., 2018). Some attitudes of nuclear opposition have occurred and even delayed the process of nuclear development. For instance, a nuclear energy plan was cancelled due to public resistance in Jiangmen, Guangdong Province in 2013 (Sun et al., 2016b; Xiao et al., 2017). Therefore, the Chinese government has provided a policy guar­ antee for safe nuclear production and radioactive waste management as well as strengthening the supervision of radioactive pollution and environmental assessment to ensure successful completion of the nu­ clear power plant development plan (Dai, 2017; Mu et al., 2015). Furthermore, China’s new nuclear technologies are moving towards to minimize radioactive waste generation and the risk of nuclear diffusion (Cao et al., 2016b; Zeng et al., 2016). The white paper entitled ‘Nuclear Safety in China’ stated that ‘China has always regarded nuclear safety as an important national responsibility, and integrated it into the entire process of nuclear energy development and utilization.’ (The State Council, 2019). At the same time, the Chinese government is attempting to popu­ larise science and hold public participation activities releasing positive information about nuclear power to promote the public understanding of nuclear energy (Guo and Wei, 2019). Yuan et al. (2017) suggested that, as the current level of Chinese citizens’ environmental beliefs is enhanced, their willingness to attend social participation activities about energy development is also increased gradually. From this point of view, the present study focuses on how environmental beliefs affect nuclear attitudes and explores the influence mechanism between envi­ ronmental beliefs and nuclear acceptability.

mediators and moderators and subsequently disclose the effect of environmental beliefs on public acceptance of nuclear energy. A potential mechanism may be explained in the light of cognitiveaffective processing system (CAPS) theory. According to CAPS theory, individual beliefs connected to situational cues activate behaviours, and these behaviours subsequently affect the psychological features (e.g. attitudes) of encountered situations (Mischel and Shoda, 1995). Envi­ ronmental beliefs drive individuals to learn about the environmental impacts by themselves, thereby leading to engagement (Corner et al., 2014). Therefore, since nuclear power plants impact the environment, the individuals who hold environmental beliefs are inclined to involve emotional, cognitive, and physical energy in nuclear issues (Lorenzoni et al., 2007). Moreover, nuclear engagement leads individuals to obtain the desired environmental information (Ansari and Talan, 2017) and is significantly related to nuclear attitudes (Barvosa, 2015; Li et al., 2015). Accordingly, the present study posits nuclear engagement as a mediating mechanism between environmental beliefs and the public’s acceptance of nuclear energy. According to CAPS theory, affects may influence the relationship between beliefs and behaviours (Shoda et al., 2002). Given that the construction sites of nuclear power plants are likely to be located in inhabited areas, the affection of individuals towards their living condi­ tions and natural settings can be regarded a salient consideration for nuclear-related activity implementation (McClymont and O’hare, 2008; Venables et al., 2012). Place attachment, which is a person’s positive emotional connection to a certain place (Devine-Wright, 2013), is likely connected with the process of environmental beliefs on nuclear engagement. Therefore, we examine the effect of place attachment as a boundary condition between environmental beliefs and public accep­ tance of nuclear energy. Drawing on CAPS theory, this study explores the mechanism of environmental beliefs affecting public acceptance of nuclear energy by testing nuclear engagement as a mediator and place attachment as a moderator. The rest of this paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, the study describes the background and hypotheses. The methodology, including sampling, data collection, and measures is described in Sec­ tion 3, and Section 4 presents the research findings. Further discussion is presented in Section 5, and Section 6 contains the conclusion, policy implications, and limitations.

2.2. Cognitive-affective processing system theory CAPS theory suggests that individual behaviours can be predicted on the basis of individual cognition, and these behaviours generate conse­ quences that, in turn, affect the psychological features of encountered situations (Huprich and Nelson, 2015). Mischel and Shoda (1995) argued that the complexity of human behaviour could be studied from the perspective of the interactive impact of various mental states of in­ dividuals in specific situations, termed cognitive-affective units, including affects and beliefs in CAPS theory (Mischel and Shoda, 2008). According to Lee and Pee (2015), cognition is the straightforward response in the psychological context, and it embraces the conscious process of becoming aware of such a situation. Cognition can help rationalise individual behaviours (Bandura, 1986) and vice versa; be­ haviours can affect individual mental states (Mischel and Shoda, 1995). Given that cognition suggests an understanding of and reasoning about concepts (Sebastian et al., 2011), as a manner of confirming the cogni­ tive process, engagement regarding the introjection of a specific issue may be considered a cognitive outcome (Stedman, 2002). When engagement increases, the attitudes change correspondingly (Mah et al., 2014). Cognitive-affective units, including affects and beliefs, are inter­ connected. Affect suggests a more stabilised state of mind compared with cognition, and it exerts a certain effect on individual reasoning (Yuksel et al., 2010). Budruk et al. (2008) found a moderating impact of place attachment on the linkage between the visitor’s perception of the experience and crowding evaluations.

2. Background and hypotheses 2.1. Study context：Nuclear energy development profile in China In recent decades, China has been recognised in the international debate regarding issue of global climate change issue as the world’s largest single national emitter of greenhouse gases because of its coaldominated energy structure (Lin and Sun, 2010; Sun and Zhu, 2014). In the meantime, Chinese domestic problems connected to air pollution are gradually becoming serious, as evidenced in recent years by a smog crisis, which has been a serious environmental problem that intensifies the urban heat islands in China (Cao et al., 2016a; Sun et al., 2016a). As a reaction to climate change threats and air pollution problems, the Chinese government has made a voluntary commitment to realising low greenhouse gases emission and an energy mix change by increasing the use of non-fossil energy (Dai, 2017; Wang et al., 2018). Nuclear energy is a clean energy source, which has a low level of carbon emissions (Wang and Li, 2016). On account of the remarkable advantages of nuclear energy in optimising energy structure, mitigating climate change, and relieving air pollution, it has been given priority development in comparison to wind energy, solar energy, and other renewable energy sources (Huang et al., 2018; Zeng et al., 2016). The nuclear power plant development plan contained in China’s Energy Development Strategy Action Plan (2014–2020) published by the State Council aims to increase the nuclear power installed capacity to at least 58 GW by 2020 and the capacity under construction to 30 GW (Sun 2

J. Wang et al.

Energy Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

2.3. Public acceptance of nuclear energy

with high environmental beliefs prioritise benefits and interests based on the ecosystem and the biosphere as a whole, rather than on self-interests (De Groot et al., 2013). Consequently, individuals with high environmental beliefs will form pro-environmental behavioural intentions and positive attitudes towards green products (Danish and Naved, 2016). Environmental beliefs, expressing the willingness to protect the environment, are likely drivers of public acceptance of nuclear energy. Environmental beliefs can activate behavioural patterns that benefit the environment rather than merely advocating an abstract concept of the environment (Tate et al., 2014). The individuals with environmental beliefs that express concern about the environmental vulnerability would like to assign importance to dangers of climate change and act in an environmentally friendly way (Hao et al., 2019; Hornsey et al., 2016). Thus, under worsening environmental pollution problems in China, environmental beliefs of individuals will likely generate perti­ nent actions, such as collecting nuclear-related information and devoting efforts to make an understanding of nuclear energy (Wang and Li, 2016). In the meantime, the Chinese government has vigorously highlighted environmental advantages of nuclear energy, such as the reduction of dust from burning coal and the alleviation of greenhouse gas emissions (Guo and Wei, 2019). Consequently, Chinese individuals with environmental beliefs would realise that nuclear energy, as an effective approach of climate change mitigation, is a viable global pathway for the major expansion of electricity sources with zero-carbon emission (Hong et al., 2015; Ye, 2016). Moreover, China’s nuclear technology is working towards the problems of nuclear fuel proliferation and radioactive waste generation in order to lessen the harm to the environment (The State Council, 2019; Zeng et al., 2016). Zhu et al. (2018) showed that the Chinese public’s perceived benefits of nuclear energy for the climate were conducive to enhancing nuclear accept­ ability. Xia et al. (2019) confirmed the same result that the Chinese public who consider that nuclear power plants can mitigate climate change were in favour of nuclear energy. Thus, the individuals with environmental beliefs, aiming to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and act for the benefit of the environment, will therefore likely show pref­ erences towards nuclear energy. Hence, we predict:

The definition of public acceptance of nuclear energy is the people’s general attitude towards nuclear energy, expressing the willingness or readiness to accept the implementation of nuclear power plants for electricity generation (Kim et al., 2013, 2014). Public acceptance of nuclear energy is one of the important factors for ensuring that the nuclear power plant projects in China can be completed stably and successfully (Guo and Guo, 2016; Yuan et al., 2017). Many research efforts have explored factors influencing public acceptance of nuclear energy, such as gender, age, education and po­ litical party preference. Men tended to favour nuclear energy more than women (Karlstrøm and Ryghaug, 2014). Younger generations of the population showed more acceptability than older generations, and ed­ ucation was found to play a role in increasing nuclear acceptability (Nguyen and Yim, 2018). Politically conservative people showed more preference for nuclear energy (Chung and Kim, 2018). Environmental beliefs also affect nuclear acceptance, but the results of research on this are inconclusive. Environmental beliefs were found to negatively influence public acceptance of nuclear energy in some pre­ vious studies. Bird et al. (2014) presented data showing that people in Australia who highly value the environment were sensitive to the po­ tential environmental pollution caused by nuclear power plants and were less likely to favour nuclear power. The study of Renn and Marshall (2016) indicated that nuclear environmental impacts of radioactive waste negatively affected support for nuclear energy in Germany. Similarly, Chung and Kim (2018) found that the Korean public with eco-friendly values did not recognise nuclear energy as an energy source to mitigate climate change and tended to be against nuclear energy. Meanwhile, environmental beliefs have also been found to be posi­ tively related to public acceptance of nuclear energy. In the worsening global warming context, switching from fossil fuels to nuclear power is a feasible solution (Pidgeon et al., 2008). The public attitude towards nuclear power becomes positive when they face climate change issues (Corner et al., 2011). Poortinga et al. (2013) found that British people would support nuclear power viewing nuclear energy as a contributor to the mitigation of climate change. Further, Hao et al. (2019) empirically found that environmental awareness positively affected Chinese college students’ acceptability of nuclear energy. Mediating mechanisms exist between environmental beliefs and public acceptance of nuclear energy. Nuclear trust was found to link the ecological beliefs to nuclear acceptability (Tsujikawa et al., 2016; Whitfield et al., 2009). Perceived risks and benefits also had mediating effects on the environmental beliefs-nuclear acceptance relationship (De Groot et al., 2013). Furthermore, Contu et al. (2016) showed that the individuals’ confidence in nuclear technology was a mediator influ­ encing the relationship between environmental awareness and nuclear attitudes. However, the relevant empirical examinations of the potential mechanism variables are limited to a focus on the cognitive factors (Bidwell, 2013; Whitfield et al., 2009), and the studies on the effect of environmental beliefs on nuclear attitudes remain underdeveloped (Tsujikawa et al., 2016). According to CAPS theory, the individual’s cognitive-affective system can be a predictor of a particular behaviour and, in turn, this behaviour influences the individual’s attitude (Huprich and Nelson, 2015). Hence, the present study explores how environ­ mental beliefs affect public acceptance of nuclear energy through the behavioural mediating mechanism of nuclear engagement.

H1. Environmental beliefs are positively related to public acceptance of nuclear energy. 2.5. Mediating role of nuclear engagement Nuclear engagement in the present study is regarded as the in­ dividuals’ involvement in nuclear energy issues during public partici­ pation activities relating to nuclear issues, suggesting the simultaneous introjection of emotional, cognitive, and physical energies of people (Lorenzoni et al., 2007; Rich et al., 2010). In particular, nuclear engagement is the practice of people integrating different values and knowledge into their self-appraisal systems and is thus conducive in enhancing trust towards nuclear power plant projects (Renn and Schweizer, 2009; Wynne, 2006). Nuclear engagement can be triggered by individual environmental beliefs. Individuals with environmental beliefs have a strong con­ sciousness of environmental conservation (Hansla et al., 2008; Kalk­ brenner and Roosen, 2016). Given the ecological impact of nuclear energy (Mathai, 2009), individuals aware of environmental conserva­ tion tend to focus on potential ecological threats or benefits, and they take appropriate actions (Reser and Swim, 2011). Accordingly, envi­ ronmental beliefs can drive people to exert efforts to understand nuclear energy when faced with nuclear power plant issues. The public partic­ ipation activities organised by the Chinese government provide oppor­ tunities to publicise nuclear policies and other nuclear-related information, including the operation, construction and safety of nuclear power plants (Guo and Wei, 2019). Meanwhile, the engagement helps

2.4. Environmental beliefs and public acceptance of nuclear energy Environmental beliefs are beliefs about the relationship of humans to their environment. Individuals with environmental beliefs see the world ecologically (Dunlap et al., 2000; Larson and Krannich, 2016). Envi­ ronmental beliefs involve a value orientation that can account for the variations in environmental attitudes (Stern et al., 1995). Individuals 3

J. Wang et al.

Energy Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

individuals to gain nuclear knowledge during the investment processes of individuals (Ansari and Talan, 2017; Tamta and Rao, 2017). Based on this logic, individuals with environmental beliefs are likely willing to engage themselves in nuclear issues, thereby enhancing their nuclear engagement. Nuclear engagement positively affects public support for nuclear energy. Nuclear engagement is essential in reshaping the attitude to­ wards nuclear energy and in increasing the support for nuclear policies (He et al., 2013). Because engaged individuals invest time and partici­ pate, such as by acquiring accurate information from various sources (Glucker et al., 2013). Passionate and deeply engaged individuals are willing to invest a great deal of their energy to seek information and technical knowledge about nuclear energy (Hamilton and Scowcroft, 2010). Furthermore, they are likely to share with others their opinions about nuclear power issues. Thus, accurate information about nuclear energy may be confirmed by these processes of personal investment including openness to different views, rational arguments, and acquisi­ tion of knowledge about nuclear energy (Wang et al., 2019). In this manner, engagement reduces the tendency to exaggerate the harm of nuclear energy, whilst it enhances the people’s cognition of environ­ mental benefits. Subsequently, engaged individuals can understand the nuclear power plant projects better and are more inclined to support nuclear energy. Overall, environmental beliefs promote the individuals’ nuclear engagement and ultimately improve the acceptance of nuclear energy. We, therefore, predict:

attachment. High levels of place attachment are likely to manifest negatively moderated environmental beliefs on nuclear engagement. Hence, environmental beliefs have stronger indirect influences on public acceptance of nuclear energy at low levels of place attachment. Accordingly, we propose: H4. Place attachment moderates the mediating effect of nuclear engagement, to be specific, when the level of place attachment is low rather than high, nuclear engagement exerts a stronger mediating effect. Fig. 1 shows the conceptual model. 3. Methodology 3.1. Sampling and data collection We cooperated with a research institute of nuclear energy safety in China to collect research data via the Internet. The Internet-based survey has evident advantages in timeliness, cost, and flexibility (Evans and Mathur, 2005). Besides, the individuals who are difficult to reach become available through online questionnaire survey (Wang et al., 2019). After reviewing the data collection method used in some empirical studies (Lin and Filieri, 2015; Wei et al., 2015), we chose a professional questionnaire survey platform in China called Diaochapai (www.diaochapai.com, an online questionnaire website like Survey­ Monkey) to support our online survey. As one of most widely used online survey platforms in China, Diaochapai has more than four million registered members (Xia et al., 2019). Our research partner, who is an authority on nuclear energy safety research in China and has experience in conducting nationwide surveys of nuclear energy issues, is qualified to upload the questionnaire to this online platform. With the help of Diaochapai’s online platform, our questionnaire was available and can be visited online. Moreover, this Web-based survey tool can ensure that each IP (Internet Protocol) address is restricted to submit in answering the questionnaire only once to prevent duplication. Our online questionnaire has three parts. The first part illustrates the purpose of the survey and promises anonymity of response to the par­ ticipants. The anonymity of response can help enhance the respondent’s feeling of privacy, and, in turn, increase voluntary participation and honest response (King et al., 2001; Roberts and Rajah-Kanagasabai, 2013). In other words, the anonymity is beneficial to encourage re­ spondents to provide their real feelings and expectations. The second part is used to collect demographic information. In addition to the measurement items of constructs, the questionnaire includes a question to select potential respondents in the third part: ‘Have the government informed you about nuclear energy issues by organising public partici­ pation activities?’. For our research purpose, only Chinese residents who answer ‘yes’ are valid survey respondents. That is to say, public partic­ ipation activities of nuclear energy issues have been conducted by the government, and our samples can choose to participate. The survey was conducted from August to October 2017. Finally, we obtained 516 valid questionnaires. The demographic data of these respondents, including the gender, age and education level attained as well as political party preference, are shown in Table 1. Regarding the samples’ regional distribution in this study, the re­ spondents lived in the north region (37.984%), northeast region (4.264%), east region (47.674%), central region (2.132%), southern region (6.202%), southwest region (1.550%), and northwest region (0.194%). Fig. 2 shows the distribution of nuclear power plants in China and the study sampling locations.

H2. Nuclear engagement mediates the positive relationship between environmental beliefs and public acceptance of nuclear energy. 2.6. Moderating role of place attachment Place attachment is ‘the emotional bond between people and their environments’ (Stedman, 2002), which relates to the affective aspects of environmental meaning (Low and Altman, 1992). Individuals with strong place attachment will likely be satisfied with the current social and environmental conditions in their living places (Ramkissoon et al., 2012), and their reaction towards uncertain changes will be evaluated as negative (Anton and Lawrence, 2014). Place attachment is likely to moderate the linkage between envi­ ronmental beliefs and nuclear engagement. Given that a project is planned that will change the community, individuals with a high emotional bond towards the living place will pay close attention to the consequences of the project for the community (Marques et al., 2015). Moreover, individuals with high levels of place attachment are likely to associate nuclear energy with threats (e.g., the risk of nuclear accidents) that can degrade the value of their communities (Danish and Naved, 2016). Thus, to avoid such uncertainties or changes, the linkage between environmental beliefs and individual engagement in nuclear issues is weakened. Overall, the positive effect of environmental beliefs on nu­ clear engagement will be buffered among individuals with high place attachment. Consequently, we posit: H3. Place attachment moderates the relationship between environ­ mental beliefs and nuclear engagement. To be specific, the relationship is stronger with low place attachment and weaker with high place attachment. As presented by the theoretical framework, nuclear engagement mediates the link of environmental beliefs to public acceptance of nu­ clear energy. Meanwhile, place attachment moderates the environ­ mental beliefs–nuclear engagement relationship. Considering (1) the influence of place attachment as a moderator on the environmental beliefs - nuclear engagement relationship, and (2) the positive effect of nuclear engagement on public acceptance, the logic behind the moder­ ated mediation model (Edwards and Lambert, 2007) suggests the mediating effect of nuclear engagement is also moderated by place

3.2. Measures The questionnaire the study constructed in the English language was translated into Chinese by a professional translator. Afterwards, the Chinese version was translated back into English by two professors with risk management research background. Comparing the back-translated 4

J. Wang et al.

Energy Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 1. The conceptual model.

Appendix A Table A.1). Public acceptance of nuclear energy. The measurement of the public’s general attitude towards nuclear power development was done with a 3-item scale from the study of Tsujikawa et al. (2016). A sample item is ‘I am in favour of nuclear power generation’. Environmental beliefs. We used the new ecological paradigm (NEP) scale, a widely adopted tool for environmental beliefs measure­ ment (Ziegler, 2017). In particular, we adopted the 10-item NEP scale modified by Clark et al. (2003), which reportedly has good discriminant validity and convergent validity. A sample item is ‘We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support’. Nuclear engagement. A 6-item scale of Chang and Chuang (2011) was adapted to measure nuclear engagement. A sample item is ‘I have spent a lot of time and effort participating in nuclear issues actively’. Place attachment. We used the 8-item scale of Kyle et al. (2004) to measure place attachment. A sample item is ‘I enjoy the life in my community more than any other places’. Control variables. In line with previous studies which argue that demographic factors affect public acceptance of nuclear energy (Karlstrøm and Ryghaug, 2014; Latr� e et al., 2017), we controlled for gender (1 ¼ Male, 0 ¼ Female), age (1 ¼ 20 years or less, 2 ¼ 21–30, 3 ¼

Table 1 Demographic profile of participants. Item

Category

Frequency

%

Gender

Male Female 20 years or less 21–30 31–40 41–50 51 years or more Junior high school or below Technical secondary school or high school diploma Bachelor’s degree Master degree or above Chinese Communist Party Others

337 179 17 234 196 53 16 51 136

65.310 34.690 3.295 45.349 37.984 10.271 3.101 9.884 26.357

289 40 205 311

56.008 7.752 39.729 60.271

Age

Education level

Political party preference

Chinese questionnaire with the original English version, no semantic discrepancies existed. A five-point Likert scale was used to measure all items ranging from ‘1 ¼ strongly disagree’ to ‘5 ¼ strongly agree’. We adapted all items in the present study from the existing literature (see

Fig. 2. Distribution of nuclear power plants and sampling locations. 5

J. Wang et al.

Energy Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

of the control variables we found the individuals’ age was positively correlated with public acceptance of nuclear energy (r ¼ 0.094, p < 0.05), but the other control variables (gender, education, and political party preference) were insignificantly correlated with public acceptance of nuclear energy. Environmental beliefs were significantly correlated both with nuclear engagement (r ¼ 0.530, p < 0.001) and with public acceptance of nuclear energy (r ¼ 0.346, p < 0.001), whilst the rela­ tionship between nuclear engagement and public acceptance was posi­ tive (r ¼ 0.534, p < 0.001). The findings above were in line with our initial hypotheses.

Table 2 Loadings, Cronbach’s alpha (α), composite reliability (CR), and AVE. Variables

Loading

Cronbach’s

CR

AVE

0.930 0.944 0.936 0.921

0.573 0.739 0.646 0.796

α Environmental beliefs Nuclear engagement Place attachment Public acceptance of nuclear energy

0.583–0.836 0.826–0.883 0.749–0.867 0.861–0.922

0.837 0.928 0.809 0.871

31–40, 4 ¼ 41–50, 5 ¼ 51 years or more), educational level (1 ¼ Junior high school or below, 2 ¼ Technical secondary school or high school diploma, 3 ¼ Bachelor’s degree, 4 ¼ Master’s degree or above), and political party preference (1 ¼ Chinese Communist Party, 0 ¼ Others) in this study.

4.3. Common method bias To test for possible common method variance, this study used two methods. Firstly, as proposed by Schmitt and Stults (1986), CFAs were applied to test for common method bias. In this approach, a multifac­ torial measurement model with a single-method factor was tested (Harvey et al., 1985). The analytical results indicated that the model fit was not improved significantly via the single-method factor (χ2/df ¼ 2.439, NFI ¼ 0.915, CFI ¼ 0.948, RMSEA ¼ 0.053), which showed that common method bias was not a detectable problem in the current study. To confirm these results, additional rigorous analyses were per­ formed. The hierarchically nested covariance structural model was used to estimate a set of parameters representing trait, method, and error variance along with correlations between trait factors (Williams et al., 1989). Four models were estimated: M1 is the null model, M2 is a trait-only model, M3 a method-only model, and M4 is a trait-and-method model. The results in Table 4 indicated that the fit of M4 was significantly better than that of M3. Moreover, M2 and M3 all had significantly better fits than M1. However, the fit of M4 was not significantly better than that of M2. The result of this approach also suggested that the common method variance was not a significant problem in our research.

4. Results 4.1. Validity and reliability The tests of convergent validity, discriminant validity, and reliability were processed using SPSS 19.0 and Amos 22.0. Firstly, reliability was assessed by testing composite reliability with Cronbach’s alpha (Raykov, 1998). All of the values of the composite reliability (Table 2) were above the benchmark of 0.70, ranging from 0.921 to 0.944, and the values of Cronbach’s alpha were all over the recommended 0.60, ranging from 0.809 to 0.928 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Secondly, for testing convergent validity, item loadings and average variance extracted (AVE) values were assessed. The item loadings varied from 0.583 to 0.922, were above the standard level of 0.50, and were significant at p < 0.001, as shown in Table 2. For the AVE scores, the range of values was from 0.573 to 0.796, meaning that all were greater than the threshold of 0.50 (Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer, 2001). Hence, these results indicated good convergent validity. Thirdly, we compared the relationship between the square root values of the average variance extracted scores and the correlations among variables to evaluate discriminant validity (Table 3). Each vari­ able’s square root values of the average variance extracted scores were greater than correlated values between variables. Hence, these results confirmed discriminant validity. In addition, we used AMOS 22.0 to perform confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) and constructed a measurement model to further analyse the validity and reliability of the variables. We ran the full CFA for all variables and estimated the following fit indices including the ratio of χ2 to the degrees of freedom, normed fit index (NFI), compar­ ative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) in the modelling. The results demonstrated a good model fit (χ2/df ¼ 2.438, NFI ¼ 0.915, CFI ¼ 0.947, RMSEA ¼ 0.053).

4.4. Hypothesis testing Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to test H1 and H2 in the current research (Baron and Kenny, 1986). In the first step, the relationship between the independent variable and the mediator was found to be significant. Next, we found that the independent variable was significantly correlated with the dependent variable. The third step revealed that the mediator was significantly correlated with the dependent variable, and when the regression equation incorporated the mediator, the independent variable’s coefficient became smaller. The variance inflation factors during hierarchical regression analyses were from 1.019 to 1.405, below the cut off of 10 (O’brien, 2007), indicating that multicollinearity issues were not a major problem. Table 5 showed the results. The Model 2 results showed that envi­ ronmental beliefs were positively correlated with nuclear engagement (β ¼ 0.520, p < 0.001) and Model 4 showed that environmental beliefs were positively correlated with public acceptance of nuclear energy (β ¼ 0.340, p < 0.001). The linkage between nuclear engagement and public acceptance of nuclear energy revealed by Model 5 was positive

4.2. Descriptive statistics and correlations The results presented in Table 3 included the means, standard de­ viations, and correlations for all variables. As shown in Table 3, in terms Table 3 Means, standard deviations (SD), and correlations. Variables

SD

Mean

1

1. Gender 2. Age 3. Education 4. Political party preference 5. Nuclear engagement 6. Environmental beliefs 7. Place attachment 8. Public acceptance

0.476 0.829 0.805 0.490 0.944 0.700 0.808 1.103

0.650 2.650 3.600 0.397 3.707 3.481 3.503 3.753

– 0.125** 0.061 0.101** 0.038 0.004 0.062 0.051

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

(0.860) 0.530*** 0.663*** 0.534***

(0.760) 0.656*** 0.346***

(0.804) 0.467***

(0.892)

–

0.092* 0.123*** 0.033 0.053 0.066 0.094*

– 0.160*** 0.127** 0.102* 0.088* 0.015

–

0.020 0.040 0.021 0.042

Note: N ¼ 516; *p＜0.05; **p＜0.01; ***p＜0.001; The diagonal elements in bold type are the square roots of AVEs. 6

J. Wang et al.

Energy Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 4 Assessment of common method variance.

Table 6 Indirect effects of environmental beliefs on public acceptance.

Model

χ2

df

p

CFI

NFI

RMSEA

Path Environmental beliefs →Nuclear engagement →Public acceptance

M1: null model M2: trait-only model M3: method-only model M4: trait and method model

8593.090 733.872 3147.474 644.450

351 301 323 282

0 0 0 0

0 0.947 0.657 0.956

0 0.915 0.634 0.925

0.214 0.053 0.130 0.050

Bootstrap—indirect effect Standard error Lower limit 95% CI Upper limit 95% CI

Model comparison

△χ2

△df

Testing for the presence of trait factors M1 vs. M2 7859.218 50 M3 vs. M4 2503.024 41 Testing for the presence of a method factor M1 vs. M3 5445.616 28 M2 vs. M4 89.422 19

p

Conclusion

<0.001 <0.025

M1 > M2 M3 > M4

<0.001 >0.95

M1 > M3 NA

0.402 0.049 0.314 0.511

Note: N ¼ 516. Adjusted R2 ¼ 0.292, F (509) ¼ 36.308, p < 0.001.

Table 7 Results of the moderating effects of place attachment. Nuclear engagement

Note: CFI ¼ comparative fit index; NFI ¼ normed fit index; RMSEA ¼ root mean square error of approximation; NA ¼ not applicable.

Gender Age Education Political party preference Environmental beliefs Place attachment （PLA） Environment beliefs*PLA R2 ΔR2 F ΔF

and significant (β ¼ 0.490, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the coefficient of the effect of environmental beliefs on public acceptance of nuclear en­ ergy in Model 5 (β ¼ 0.085, n.s.) was smaller than that in Model 4 (β ¼ 0.340, p < 0.001), which indicated that the relationship of environ­ mental beliefs to public acceptance of nuclear energy was mediated by nuclear engagement. This evidence supported H1 and H2. To further test H2, we adopted a bias-corrected bootstrapping pro­ cedure (Hayes, 2009). The results were shown in Table 6. The indirect effect of environmental beliefs on public acceptance of nuclear energy via nuclear engagement was significant and positive (95 per cent CI ¼ 0.314 to 0.511; excluding 0; indirect effect ¼ 0.402). Therefore, the results supported H2. Furthermore, the research model was also signif­ icant with adjusted R2 ¼ 0.292, F (509) ¼ 36.308, p < 0.001. To test H3, our study adopted hierarchical moderated regression analyses, in which the initial steps were to add the control variables to Model 1 and the independent variable to get Model 2. Then, the moderator was added to get Model 3. Eventually, we added the inter­ action term. The study integrated the independent variable (environ­ mental beliefs), and the moderator (place attachment) into the regression analyses to avoid multicollinearity, and the variance inflation factors were from 1.019 to 1.833 (Aiken et al., 1991). The results indicated that the influence of environmental beliefs on nuclear engagement was negatively moderated by place attachment, which was in line with H3. However, although place attachment was positively correlated with nuclear engagement in Model 3 (β ¼ 0.553, p < 0.001) (see Table 7), the interaction between environmental beliefs and place attachment was negatively correlated with nuclear engage­ ment in Model 4 (β ¼ 0.070, p < 0.05). To identify the nature of the moderating influence of place attach­ ment on the link between environmental beliefs and nuclear engage­ ment, we plotted the interaction by adopting the procedure of Aiken et al. (1991), in which slopes were computed by one standard deviation

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

0.046 0.047 0.143** 0.053

0.041 0.010 0.080* 0.017

0.011 0.003 0.069* 0.037

0.016 0.011 0.064 0.032

0.520***

0.159*** 0.553***

0.174*** 0.558*** 0.070*

0.022 0.022 2.940* 2.940*

0.288 0.266 41.277*** 190.270***

0.461 0.173 72.509*** 163.081***

0.465 0.004 63.138*** 4.188*

Note: N ¼ 516, *p＜0.05; **p＜0.01; ***p＜0.001.

below and above the mean of place attachment. As shown in Fig. 3, environmental beliefs were more positively related to nuclear engage­ ment at the low level of place attachment (β ¼ 0.218, p < 0.001) compared with the high level (β ¼ 0.146, p < 0.01). Thus, H3 was supported. H4 predicted that place attachment would moderate the mediating links between environmental beliefs, nuclear engagement, and public acceptance of nuclear energy. We used the bootstrapping test of Edwards and Lambert (2007) to test this hypothesis. Table 8 shows that environmental beliefs were positively correlated with nuclear engage­ ment (β ¼ 0.180, p < 0.001) for strong place attachment; also, the relationship was positively significant (β ¼ 0.300, p < 0.001) for low place attachment. These two coefficients were significantly different (Δβ ¼ 0.121, p < 0.05). Thus, this additional evidence supported H3. Furthermore, the indirect effect of environmental beliefs on public acceptance of nuclear energy through nuclear engagement was signifi­ cant at the low level (β ¼ 0.135, p < 0.001) and the high level (β ¼ 0.081, p < 0.001) of place attachment, respectively. There was a sig­ nificant difference between the above two coefficients (Δβ ¼ 0.054, p < 0.05). Thus, these results supported H4.

Table 5 Results of the mediating effects of nuclear engagement. Nuclear engagement Gender Age Education Political party preference Environmental beliefs Nuclear engagement R2 ΔR2 F ΔF

Public acceptance of nuclear energy

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Model 5

0.046 0.047 0.143** 0.053*

0.041 0.010 0.080* 0.017 0.520***

0.047 0.100* 0.038 0.065

0.044 0.076 0.003 0.042 0.340***

0.022 0.022 2.940* 2.940*

0.288 0.266 41.277*** 190.270***

0.015 0.015 1.975 1.975

0.129 0.113 15.066*** 66.419***

0.024 0.071 0.042 0.033 0.085 0.490*** 0.300 0.171 36.308*** 124.307***

Note: N ¼ 516；*p＜0.05; **p＜0.01; ***p＜0.001. 7

J. Wang et al.

Energy Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 3. Interaction between environmental beliefs and place attachment on nuclear engagement.

government currently supports developing nuclear energy and spares no effort to advocate clean nuclear energy (Guo and Wei, 2019). On the one hand, China’s nuclear energy development policy is forceful, as a top-down policy under the climate change regime, which can respond to severe environmental threats rapidly to a certain extent (Dai, 2017; Yang, 2011). On the other hand, the smog crisis has happened in recent years, which increase the Chinese public’s environmental awareness to tackle the serious environmental pollution (Wang et al., 2016). When the public connect nuclear development to mitigation of greenhouse gases and alleviation of environmental pollution, they would share willingness to support nuclear energy (Guo and Ren, 2017; Wang and Li, 2016). Accordingly, the Chinese public’s environmental beliefs posi­ tively affect nuclear attitudes. Our result also indicates that political party preference is insignifi­ cantly correlated with public acceptance of nuclear energy. This result is likely caused by the Chinese political and cultural contexts. The China’s political system is the multi-party cooperation and political consultation system under the leadership of the Communist Party of China (Leung, 2011; The State Council, 2014). Meanwhile, China is a collectivist country with a strong tendency towards collective-interest strategies (Geng et al., 2018; Xia et al., 2019). Clarke et al. (2015) suggested that the political ideology is unlikely to be the driver of energy attitudes without partisan differences of energy issue-related context. Thus, in terms of nuclear energy development of China, political party preference exerts no significant effect on nuclear attitudes. Moreover, the present study has two theoretical implications. First, the mediating effect of nuclear engagement augments the literature on the potential mechanisms of the environmental beliefs–nuclear attitudes relationship. In previous studies, the research on the above influencing mechanisms has been limited to investigations of psychological ele­ ments (e.g., trust in the government and management bodies) (Kuwa­ bara et al., 2018; Tsujikawa et al., 2016), whereas there are hardly any studies investigating the role of behavioural variables as mediators to link beliefs and attitudes (Kuwabara et al., 2018). On the basis of the CAPS theoretical framework, this study puts forward and examines nuclear engagement as a mediator. Hence, the results of the current study respond to the call for research on potential mechanisms centred on behavioural aspects. Second, by introducing place attachment as a moderator, this study assesses the influence of the affective factors on the environmental beliefs–nuclear engagement relationship. From the CAPS theory perspective, beliefs and affects both belong to the individuals’ mental states, which are interconnected (Mischel and Shoda, 1995). This

Table 8 Results of the moderated path analysis. Moderator variable

Simple paths for low PLA Simple paths for high PLA Differences

Environmental beliefs → Nuclear engagement → Public acceptance Stage

Effect

First

Second

Direct effects

Indirect Effects

Total effects

PMX

PYM

(PYX)

(PYM PMX)

(PYX þ PYMPMX)

0.300***

0.450***

0.139

0.135***

0.274**

0.180***

0.450***

0.079

0.081***

0.002

0.000

0.218**

0.121*

0.054*

0.272***

Note: N ¼ 516; *p＜0.05; **p＜0.01; ***p＜0.001; PMX, path from environ­ mental beliefs to nuclear engagement; PYM, path from nuclear engagement to public acceptance of nuclear energy; PYX, path from environmental beliefs to public acceptance of nuclear energy. Low place attachment refers to the mean of place attachment minus one standard deviation; high place attachment refers to the mean of place attachment plus one standard deviation. PLA, stands for place attachment.

5. Discussion Our findings are consistent with the proposed hypotheses and show that environmental beliefs are positively correlated with public accep­ tance of nuclear energy, and the relationship is mediated by nuclear engagement. Moreover, place attachment plays a negative moderating role in the relationship of environmental beliefs to nuclear engagement and also negatively affects the mediating effect of nuclear engagement. Our result of a positive environmental beliefs-nuclear acceptance relationship is in line with that in the study of Hao et al. (2019), also conducted in China. However, this result differs from the findings of other countries such as Australia (Bird et al., 2014) and Germany (Renn and Marshall, 2016). Such inconsistent results may be due to the discrepancy of energy policies under different national conditions. For example, the Australian government has less ambitious plans to develop nuclear energy and Germany has decided to close down nuclear power plants and turned to a new energy strategy after the Fukushima accident (Bird et al., 2014; Sun et al., 2016b). These measures to reduce nuclear power plants may lead to public doubt about the necessity of nuclear energy and foster the belief that other clean energy sources can replace nuclear energy (Siegrist et al., 2014). On the contrary, the Chinese 8

J. Wang et al.

Energy Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

nuclear power projects can also be solicited in the long term. Finally, considering the moderating effect of the affective bond of individuals towards specific places, the role of place attachment should be taken into consideration. Our findings demonstrate that the linkage between environmental beliefs and nuclear engagement is weaker at a high level of place attachment. Hence, the policy to encourage local migration is a good initiative. In these scenarios, compensation for in­ dividuals who opt for local migration should be incorporated into the policy essentially, and meanwhile, a series of policies should ensure benefits for floating population regarding housing, employment, edu­ cation, medical care, and similar aspects.

finding complements the existing research on the manifested interaction between beliefs and affects. Moreover, our analytical results provide additional empirical evidence related to the moderating effect of place attachment on a person’s cognition towards engagement in environ­ mental issues (Scannell and Gifford, 2013); the results enrich the liter­ ature about the boundary condition between environmental beliefs and nuclear attitudes. 6. Conclusion and policy implications The present study sheds light on the question of how environmental beliefs influence public acceptance of nuclear energy. From the CAPS theory perspective, environmental beliefs enhance individuals’ nuclear engagement, which subsequently leads to increased acceptance of nu­ clear energy. Moreover, place attachment negatively moderates the environmental beliefs–nuclear engagement relationship. Thus, this study extends the understanding of the mechanism by which environ­ mental beliefs influence nuclear attitudes and effectively responds to the question regarding the boundary of environmental beliefs by intro­ ducing place attachment under the framework of CAPS theory.

6.2. Limitations and future research directions Limitations of the current study are highlighted for future research. First, we measured all variables at the same time point instead of using longitudinal data. To a great extent, there are likely to be causal in­ ferences which cannot be adequately explained by cross-sectional data. Hence, the longitudinal data approach should be adopted further. Moreover, our data were obtained with the help of a nuclear energy safety research institute via the online survey, which may limit the generalizability of our findings because not all the people have searched on the Internet. The respondents of our research may tend to be con­ cerned about nuclear energy issues in China. Accordingly, the future study can collect large and diverse samples combined with face-to-face interviews. In addition, our research merely explored how the Chinese public’s environmental beliefs influence their nuclear attitudes, whereas other sociocultural characteristics of China were not considered. For instance, collectivism, which reflects a personal trait of Chinese culture (Huang and Lu, 2017), has been found to play an essential role in forming renewable energy acceptability (Higueras-Castillo et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019). Given that the Chinese government has a dominant role in determining nuclear energy development strategy and making nuclear energy policy, public nuclear attitudes probably be influenced by the credibility of the government (Dai, 2017; Wang and Li, 2016). The factors of credibility and trust in government were not taken into consideration in the current study. Thus, such sociocultural traits of Chinese people need to be explored in future studies.

6.1. Practical implications Firstly, environmental beliefs positively affect nuclear acceptance. As such, raising the public’s awareness of environmental conservation is imperative. The Chinese government should take measures to enrich the forms of publicity and education activities about environmental pro­ tection. For instance, public quiz shows for environmental protection knowledge may be conducted. Moreover, various kinds of rewards can be considered for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour. In this manner, people are motivated to raise their consciousness to protect the environment. Secondly, considering the mediating role of nuclear engagement linking environmental beliefs to public attitudes towards nuclear en­ ergy, nuclear engagement must be recognised and practised. Public participation activities organised by the government provide opportu­ nities for individuals to engage and share their reasonable arguments about nuclear issues (Wagner et al., 2016). Public participation activities can be regarded as an efficient governmental communication instrument to improve the individuals’ nuclear engagement, and then increase nu­ clear acceptability (Dai, 2017). The Chinese government has a strong top-down administration capacity to address the climate change prob­ lem. In terms of the China’s nuclear energy communication process, the central government and ministries formulate nationwide communica­ tion policy, and the local government carries out public participation activities, such as public hearings and symposia (Guo and Wei, 2019). Thus, the forms of public participation activities can be localised and diversified to facilitate personal nuclear engagement. For example public tours of nuclear facility and hotlines for answering questions are good for interactivity between the local government and the public. Moreover, nuclear-related information should be transparent to promote the individuals’ understanding of nuclear energy during public participation activities. Accordingly, the government should be responsible for routine publication of information regarding nuclear power development, open environmental quality monitoring data and risk assessments at every stage of nuclear power plant projects. At the same time, the governments should use their official websites or other communication platforms to provide the public with first-hand infor­ mation, such as microblogs and WeChat, which are important social media platforms for communication service in China (Gan and Wang, 2015). By this way, different viewpoints and comments of the public on

Author contribution statement Jing Wang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing-Original Draft, Writing-Review&Editing, Yazhou Li: Resources, Project administration, Funding acquisition, Jianlin Wu: Writing-Original Draft, Writing-Review&Editing, Funding acquisition, Jibao Gu: Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Project adminis­ tration, Funding acquisition, Shuo Xu: Data Curation. Funding This work was supported by Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Province (Grant Number 1708085MG174; 1808085MG223) and Na­ tional Magnetic Confinement Fusion Science Program of China (Grant Number 2015GB116000). Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

9

J. Wang et al.

Energy Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Appendix A Table A.1 Survey instrument Variables

Items

Public acceptance of nuclear energy Tsujikawa et al. (2016)

1. I am in favour of nuclear power generation. 2. Nuclear power generation is an excellent way to generate electricity. 3. The number of nuclear power generating plants should be increased. 1. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support. 2. Human ingenuity will insure that we do NOT make the earth unlivable. (Reversed) 3. Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist. 4. The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations. (Reversed) 5. The so-called ‘ecological crisis’ facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated. (Reversed) 6. The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources. 7. Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature. (Reversed) 8. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset. 9. Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it. (Reversed) 10. If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe. 1. I am interested in participating in the nuclear issues. 2. It is pleasurable and enjoyable for me to participate in nuclear issues. 3. Participating in nuclear issues can help me to express my thoughts of nuclear energy. 4. It is important for me to participate in nuclear issues. 5. I have spent a lot of time and effort participating in nuclear issues actively. 6. I have taken an active part in nuclear issues. 1. The settings and facilities provided by my community are the best. 2. I prefer settings/facilities in my community over other places. 3. For what I like to do, I could not imagine anything better than the settings and facilities provided by my community. 4. I enjoy the life in my community more than any other places. 5. My community means a lot to me. 6. I am very attached to my community. 7. I feel a strong sense of belonging to my community and its settings/facilities. 8. I have little emotional attachment to my community and its settings/facilities. (Reversed)

Environmental beliefs Clark et al. (2003)

Nuclear engagement Chang and Chuang (2011)

Place attachment Kyle et al. (2004)

Note: All items are measured using 5-point Likert-type scales with 1 ¼ strongly disagree and 5 ¼ strongly agree.

References

Corner, A., Markowitz, E., Pidgeon, N., 2014. Public engagement with climate change: the role of human values. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Clim. Change 5, 411–422. Corner, A., Venables, D., Spence, A., Poortinga, W., Demski, C., Pidgeon, N., 2011. Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: exploring British public attitudes. Energy Policy 39, 4823–4833. Dai, Y., 2017. Policy instrument designed to gain transition legitimacy: a case of Chinese nuclear development. Environ. Innovat. Soc. Transit. 30, 43–58. Danish, K.M., Naved, K.M., 2016. Environmental concern to attitude towards green products: evidences from India. Serbian J. Manag. 11, 159–179. De Groot, J.I., Steg, L., Poortinga, W., 2013. Values, perceived risks and benefits, and acceptability of nuclear energy. Risk Anal.: Int. J. 33, 307–317. Devine-Wright, P., 2013. Explaining “NIMBY” objections to a power line: the role of personal, place attachment and project-related factors. Environ. Behav. 45, 761–781. Devine-Wright, P., Price, J., Leviston, Z., 2015. My country or my planet? Exploring the influence of multiple place attachments and ideological beliefs upon climate change attitudes and opinions. Glob. Environ. Chang. 30, 68–79. Diamantopoulos, A., Winklhofer, H.M., 2001. Index construction with formative indicators: an alternative to scale development. J. Mark. Res. 38, 269–277. Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Mertig, A.G., Jones, R.E., 2000. New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP scale. J. Soc. Issues 56, 425–442. Edwards, J.R., Lambert, L.S., 2007. Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: a general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychol. Methods 12, 1. Evans, J.R., Mathur, A., 2005. The Value of Online Surveys. Internet Res. vol. 15, 195–219. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18, 39–50. Gan, C., Wang, W., 2015. Uses and gratifications of social media: a comparison of microblog and WeChat. J. Syst. Inf. Technol. 17, 351–363. Geng, L., Liu, T., Zhou, K., Yang, G., 2018. Can power affect environmental risk attitude toward nuclear energy? Energy Policy 113, 87–93. Glucker, A.N., Driessen, P.P., Kolhoff, A., Runhaar, H.A., 2013. Public participation in environmental impact assessment: why, who and how? Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 43, 104–111. Guo, X., Guo, X., 2016. Nuclear power development in China after the restart of new nuclear construction and approval: a system dynamics analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 57, 999–1007. Guo, Y., Ren, T., 2017. When it is unfamiliar to me: local acceptance of planned nuclear power plants in China in the post-fukushima era. Energy Policy 100, 113–125. Guo, Y., Wei, Y., 2019. Government communication effectiveness on local acceptance of nuclear power: evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 218, 38–50. Hamilton, L., Scowcroft, B., 2010. Nuclear waste: progress with public engagement. Science 330, 448-448.

Aiken, L.S., West, S.G., Reno, R.R., 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Sage. Ansari, A.H., Talan, A., 2017. Emotional intelligence and work engagement as mediators of big five personality and knowledge sharing. Glob. J. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 9, 3. Anton, C.E., Lawrence, C., 2014. Home is where the heart is: the effect of place of residence on place attachment and community participation. J. Environ. Psychol. 40, 451–461. Bandura, A., 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1986. Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 51, 1173. Barvosa, E., 2015. Mapping public ambivalence in public engagement with science: implications for democratizing the governance of fracking technologies in the USA. J. Environ. Soc. Sci. 5, 497–507. Bidwell, D., 2013. The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards commercial wind energy. Energy Policy 58, 189–199. Bird, D.K., Haynes, K., van den Honert, R., McAneney, J., Poortinga, W., 2014. Nuclear power in Australia: a comparative analysis of public opinion regarding climate change and the Fukushima disaster. Energy Policy 65, 644–653. Budruk, M., Stanis, S.A.W., Schneider, I.E., Heisey, J.J., 2008. Crowding and experienceuse history: a study of the moderating effect of place attachment among water-based recreationists. Environ. Manag. 41, 528–537. Cao, J., Cohen, A., Hansen, J., Lester, R., Peterson, P., Xu, H., 2016. China-US cooperation to advance nuclear power. Science 353, 547–548. Cao, C., Lee, X., Liu, S., Schultz, N., Xiao, W., Zhang, M., Zhao, L., 2016. Urban heat islands in China enhanced by haze pollution. Nat. Commun. 7, 12509. Chang, H.H., Chuang, S.-S., 2011. Social capital and individual motivations on knowledge sharing: participant involvement as a moderator. Inf. Manag. 48, 9–18. Chung, J.-B., Kim, E.-S., 2018. Public perception of energy transition in Korea: nuclear power, climate change, and party preference. Energy Policy 116, 137–144. Clark, C.F., Kotchen, M.J., Moore, M.R., 2003. Internal and external influences on proenvironmental behavior: participation in a green electricity program. J. Environ. Psychol. 23, 237–246. Clarke, C.E., Hart, P.S., Schuldt, J.P., Evensen, D.T., Boudet, H.S., Jacquet, J.B., Stedman, R.C., 2015. Public opinion on energy development: the interplay of issue framing, top-of-mind associations, and political ideology. Energy Policy 81, 131–140. Comby, B., Robinson, B., Robinson, S., 2001. Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy. TNR Editions Paris. Contu, D., Strazzera, E., Mourato, S., 2016. Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: the case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy. Ecol. Econ. 127, 37–58.

10

J. Wang et al.

Energy Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx

Hansla, A., Gamble, A., Juliusson, A., G€ arling, T., 2008. The relationships between awareness of consequences, environmental concern, and value orientations. J. Environ. Psychol. 28, 1–9. Hao, Y., Guo, Y., Tian, B., Shao, Y., 2019. What affects college students’ acceptance of nuclear energy? Evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 222, 746–759. Harvey, R.J., Billings, R.S., Nilan, K.J., 1985. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Job Diagnostic Survey: good news and bad news. J. Appl. Psychol. 70, 461. Hayes, A.F., 2009. Beyond Baron and Kenny: statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Commun. Monogr. 76, 408–420. He, G., Mol, A.P., Zhang, L., Lu, Y., 2013. Public participation and trust in nuclear power development in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 23, 1–11. Higueras-Castillo, E., Li�ebana-Cabanillas, F., Mu~ noz-Leiva, F., Molinillo, S., 2019. The role of collectivism in modeling the adoption of renewable energies: a cross-cultural approach. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 16, 2143–2160. Hong, S., Bradshaw, C.J., Brook, B.W., 2015. Global zero-carbon energy pathways using viable mixes of nuclear and renewables. Appl. Energy 143, 451–459. Hornsey, M.J., Harris, E.A., Bain, P.G., Fielding, K.S., 2016. Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6, 622. Huang, C.-C., Lu, L.-C., 2017. Examining the roles of collectivism, attitude toward business, and religious beliefs on consumer ethics in China. J. Bus. Ethics 146, 505–514. Huang, L., He, R., Yang, Q., Chen, J., Zhou, Y., Hammitt, J.K., Lu, X., Bi, J., Liu, Y., 2018. The changing risk perception towards nuclear power in China after the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan. Energy Policy 120, 294–301. Huprich, S.K., Nelson, S.M., 2015. Advancing the assessment of personality pathology with the cognitive-affective processing system. J. Personal. Assess. 97, 467–477. Jiang, B., Sun, Z., Liu, M., 2010. China’s energy development strategy under the lowcarbon economy. Energy 35, 4257–4264. Kalkbrenner, B.J., Roosen, J., 2016. Citizens’ willingness to participate in local renewable energy projects: the role of community and trust in Germany. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 13, 60–70. Karlstrøm, H., Ryghaug, M., 2014. Public attitudes towards renewable energy technologies in Norway. The role of party preferences. Energy Policy 67, 656–663. Keller, C., Visschers, V., Siegrist, M., 2012. Affective imagery and acceptance of replacing nuclear power plants. Risk Anal.: Int. J. 32, 464–477. Kim, Y., Kim, M., Kim, W., 2013. Effect of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on global public acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy Policy 61, 822–828. Kim, Y., Kim, W., Kim, M., 2014. An international comparative analysis of public acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy Policy 66, 475–483. King, K.A., Pealer, L.N., Bernard, A.L., 2001. Increasing response rates to mail questionnaires: a review of inducement strategies. J. Health Educ. 32, 4–15. Kuwabara, K., Hildebrand, C.A., Zou, X., 2018. Lay theories of networking: how laypeople’s beliefs about networks affect their attitudes toward and engagement in instrumental networking. Acad. Manag. Rev. 43, 50–64. Kyle, G.T., Mowen, A.J., Tarrant, M., 2004. Linking place preferences with place meaning: an examination of the relationship between place motivation and place attachment. J. Environ. Psychol. 24, 439–454. Larson, E.C., Krannich, R.S., 2016. “A great idea, just not near me!” understanding public attitudes about renewable energy facilities. Soc. Nat. Resour. 29, 1436–1451. Latr�e, E., Perko, T., Thijssen, P., 2017. Public opinion change after the Fukushima nuclear accident: the role of national context revisited. Energy Policy 104, 124–133. Lee, J., Pee, L., 2015. The relationship between online trust and distrust in business: testing mutual causality from a cognitive-affective personality system theory. Asia Pac. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 25, 500–518. Leung, G.C., 2011. China’s energy security: perception and reality. Energy Policy 39, 1330–1337. Li, N., Brossard, D., Su, L.Y.-F., Liang, X., Xenos, M., Scheufele, D.A., 2015. Policy decision-making, public involvement and nuclear energy: what do expert stakeholders think and why? J. Responsible Innovat. 2, 266–279. Lin, B., Sun, C., 2010. Evaluating carbon dioxide emissions in international trade of China. Energy Policy 38, 613–621. Lin, Z., Filieri, R., 2015. Airline passengers’ continuance intention towards online checkin services: the role of personal innovativeness and subjective knowledge. Transp. Res. E Logist. Transp. Rev. 81, 158–168. Liu, L., Bouman, T., Perlaviciute, G., Steg, L., 2019. Effects of trust and public participation on acceptability of renewable energy projects in The Netherlands and China. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 53, 137–144. Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., Whitmarsh, L., 2007. Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Glob. Environ. Chang. 17, 445–459. Low, S.M., Altman, I., 1992. Place Attachment, Place Attachment. Springer, pp. 1–12. Mah, D.N.-y., Hills, P., Tao, J., 2014. Risk perception, trust and public engagement in nuclear decision-making in Hong Kong. Energy Policy 73, 368–390. Marques, S., Lima, M.L., Moreira, S., Reis, J., 2015. Local identity as an amplifier: procedural justice, local identity and attitudes towards new dam projects. J. Environ. Psychol. 44, 63–73. Mathai, M.V., 2009. Elements of an alternative to nuclear power as a response to the energy-environment crisis in India: development as freedom and a sustainable energy utility. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 29, 139–150. McClymont, K., O’hare, P., 2008. “We’re not NIMBYs!” Contrasting local protest groups with idealised conceptions of sustainable communities. Local Environ. 13, 321–335. Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., 1995. A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychol. Rev. 102, 246. Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., 2008. Toward a unified theory of personality. Handb. Personal.: Theory Res. 3, 208–241.

Mu, R., Zuo, J., Yuan, X., 2015. China’s approach to nuclear safety—from the perspective of policy and institutional system. Energy Policy 76, 161–172. National Energy Administration of China, 2019. A new chapter in the energy revolution—the fifth anniversary of a new strategy for energy security. http://www. nea.gov.cn/2019-06/17/c_138149752.htm accessed 18 June 2019. Nguyen, V.P., Yim, M.-S., 2018. Examination of different socioeconomic factors that contribute to the public acceptance of nuclear energy. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 50, 767–772. O’brien, R.M., 2007. A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Qual. Quantity 41, 673–690. Pidgeon, N.F., Lorenzoni, I., Poortinga, W., 2008. Climate change or nuclear power—No thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Glob. Environ. Chang. 18, 69–85. Poortinga, W., Aoyagi, M., Pidgeon, N.F., 2013. Public perceptions of climate change and energy futures before and after the Fukushima accident: a comparison between Britain and Japan. Energy Policy 62, 1204–1211. Pr� av� alie, R., Bandoc, G., 2018. Nuclear energy: between global electricity demand, worldwide decarbonisation imperativeness, and planetary environmental implications. J. Environ. Manag. 209, 81–92. Ramkissoon, H., Weiler, B., Smith, L.D.G., 2012. Place attachment and proenvironmental behaviour in national parks: the development of a conceptual framework. J. Sustain. Tour. 20, 257–276. Raykov, T., 1998. Coefficient alpha and composite reliability with interrelated nonhomogeneous items. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 22, 375–385. Renn, O., Marshall, J.P., 2016. Coal, nuclear and renewable energy policies in Germany: from the 1950s to the “Energiewende”. Energy Policy 99, 224–232. Renn, O., Schweizer, P.J., 2009. Inclusive risk governance: concepts and application to environmental policy making. Environ. Policy Gov. 19, 174–185. Reser, J.P., Swim, J.K., 2011. Adapting to and coping with the threat and impacts of climate change. Am. Psychol. 66, 277. Rich, B.L., Lepine, J.A., Crawford, E.R., 2010. Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job performance. Acad. Manag. J. 53, 617–635. Roberts, L.D., Rajah-Kanagasabai, C.J., 2013. “I’d be so much more comfortable posting anonymously”: identified versus anonymous participation in student discussion boards. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 29, 612–625. Scannell, L., Gifford, R., 2013. Personally relevant climate change: the role of place attachment and local versus global message framing in engagement. Environ. Behav. 45, 60–85. Schmitt, N., Stults, D.M., 1986. Methodology review: analysis of multitrait-multimethod matrices. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 10, 1–22. Schultz, P.W., Zelezny, L.C., 1998. Values and proenvironmental behavior: a five-country survey. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 29, 540–558. Sebastian, C.L., Fontaine, N.M., Bird, G., Blakemore, S.-J., De Brito, S.A., McCrory, E.J., Viding, E., 2011. Neural processing associated with cognitive and affective Theory of Mind in adolescents and adults. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 7, 53–63. Shoda, Y., LeeTiernan, S., Mischel, W., 2002. Personality as a dynamical system: emergence of stability and distinctiveness from intra and interpersonal interactions. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 6, 316–325. Siegrist, M., Sütterlin, B., Keller, C., 2014. Why have some people changed their attitudes toward nuclear power after the accident in Fukushima? Energy Policy 69, 356–363. Sovacool, B.K., Blyth, P.L., 2015. Energy and environmental attitudes in the green state of Denmark: implications for energy democracy, low carbon transitions, and energy literacy. Environ. Sci. Policy 54, 304–315. Stedman, R.C., 2002. Toward a social psychology of place: predicting behavior from place-based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environ. Behav. 34, 561–581. Stern, P.C., Kalof, L., Dietz, T., Guagnano, G.A., 1995. Values, beliefs, and proenvironmental action: attitude formation toward emergent attitude objects 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 25, 1611–1636. Sun, C., Yuan, X., Xu, M., 2016. The public perceptions and willingness to pay: from the perspective of the smog crisis in China. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 1635–1644. Sun, C., Zhu, X., 2014. Evaluating the public perceptions of nuclear power in China: evidence from a contingent valuation survey. Energy Policy 69, 397–405. Sun, C., Zhu, X., Meng, X., 2016. Post-Fukushima public acceptance on resuming the nuclear power program in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 62, 685–694. Tamta, V., Rao, M., 2017. Linking emotional intelligence to knowledge sharing behaviour: organizational justice and work engagement as mediators. Glob. Bus. Rev. 18, 1580–1596. Tate, K., Stewart, A.J., Daly, M., 2014. Influencing green behaviour through environmental goal priming: the mediating role of automatic evaluation. J. Environ. Psychol. 38, 225–232. The State Council, 2019. China to develop nuclear energy with guaranteed safety. http:// english.www.gov.cn/statecouncil/ministries/201909/04/content_WS5d6fb9f4c6 d0c6695ff7fc90.html accessed 5 September 2019. The State Council, 2014. Constitution of the People’s Republic of China. http://english. www.gov.cn/archive/laws_regulations/2014/08/23/content_281474982987458. htm accessed 1 November 2019. Tsujikawa, N., Tsuchida, S., Shiotani, T., 2016. Changes in the factors influencing public acceptance of nuclear power generation in Japan since the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Risk Anal. 36, 98–113. van der Zwaan, B., 2013. The role of nuclear power in mitigating emissions from electricity generation. Energy Strateg. Rev. 1, 296–301. Venables, D., Pidgeon, N.F., Parkhill, K.A., Henwood, K.L., Simmons, P., 2012. Living with nuclear power: sense of place, proximity, and risk perceptions in local host communities. J. Environ. Psychol. 32, 371–383.

11

J. Wang et al.

Energy Policy xxx (xxxx) xxx Xiao, Q., Liu, H., Feldman, M.W., 2017. How does trust affect acceptance of a nuclear power plant (NPP): a survey among people living with Qinshan NPP in China. PLoS One 12, e0187941. Yang, C.J., 2011. A comparison of the nuclear options for greenhouse gas mitigation in China and in the United States. Energy Policy 39, 3025–3028. Ye, Q.-Z., 2016. Safety and effective developing nuclear power to realize green and lowcarbon development. Adv. Clim. Change Res. 7, 10–16. Yuan, X., Zuo, J., Ma, R., Wang, Y., 2017. How would social acceptance affect nuclear power development? A study from China. J. Clean. Prod. 163, 179–186. Yuksel, A., Yuksel, F., Bilim, Y., 2010. Destination attachment: effects on customer satisfaction and cognitive, affective and conative loyalty. Tour. Manag. 31, 274–284. Zeng, J., Wei, J., Zhao, D., Zhu, W., Gu, J., 2017. Information-seeking intentions of residents regarding the risks of nuclear power plant: an empirical study in China. Nat. Hazards 87, 739–755. Zeng, M., Wang, S., Duan, J., Sun, J., Zhong, P., Zhang, Y., 2016. Review of nuclear power development in China: environment analysis, historical stages, development status, problems and countermeasures. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 59, 1369–1383. Zhu, W., Lu, S., Huang, Z., Zeng, J., Wei, J., 2018. Study on public acceptance of nuclear power plants: evidence from China. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Int. J. 1–17. Ziegler, A., 2017. Political orientation, environmental values, and climate change beliefs and attitudes: an empirical cross country analysis. Energy Econ. 63, 144–153.

Wagner, A., Grobelski, T., Harembski, M., 2016. Is energy policy a public issue? Nuclear power in Poland and implications for energy transitions in Central and East Europe. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 13, 158–169. Wang, C., Engels, A., Wang, Z., 2018. Overview of research on China’s transition to lowcarbon development: the role of cities, technologies, industries and the energy system. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 81, 1350–1364. Wang, S., Wang, J., Lin, S., Li, J., 2019. Public perceptions and acceptance of nuclear energy in China: the role of public knowledge, perceived benefit, perceived risk and public engagement. Energy Policy 126, 352–360. Wang, Y., Li, J., 2016. A causal model explaining Chinese university students’ acceptance of nuclear power. Prog. Nucl. Energy 88, 165–174. Wang, Y., Sun, M., Yang, X., Yuan, X., 2016. Public awareness and willingness to pay for tackling smog pollution in China: a case study. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 1627–1634. Wei, S., Cheng, D., Sundin, E., Tang, O., 2015. Motives and barriers of the remanufacturing industry in China. J. Clean. Prod. 94, 340–351. Whitfield, S.C., Rosa, E.A., Dan, A., Dietz, T., 2009. The future of nuclear power: value orientations and risk perception. Risk Anal.: Int. J. 29, 425–437. Williams, L.J., Cote, J.A., Buckley, M.R., 1989. Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: reality or artifact? J. Appl. Psychol. 74, 462. Wynne, B., 2006. Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science–hitting the notes, but missing the music? Public Health Genom. 9, 211–220. Xia, D., Li, Y., He, Y., Zhang, T., Wang, Y., Gu, J., 2019. Exploring the role of cultural individualism and collectivism on public acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy Policy 132, 208–215.

12