| Summary: | Public acceptance is crucial for any project carried out so that it would not be opposed by the people or creates public fear. This study introduces insight into the risk perception and technology acceptance. The objectives of this study are to determine the risk acceptance profile of residents, to analyze public perception on the risk of LAMP, and to develop risk perception model n LAMP. House-to-house interview, using a structured questionnaire, was c nduct d in 201 . Four different models on risk acceptance have been developed to capture community response to LAMP. The communities consist of local residents (host community, N=370), university students (also host community, N=358), the public (national sample, N=1648) and the pooled sample (N=2376). The principal component analy i followed by the muitiple regression analysis was used in the development of acceptance model. This study demonstrates that acceptance among communities differed. There were mixed responses among the host community. For the 1 al residence there was no clear evidence of both strong support and strong opposition (41. 6%' Accept' and 41.62% 'Do not accept'). In contrast, support from the university students was higher (51.96% university versus 41.36% local resident). For cornmunitie living far, the polarized group was not significant (40.96% 'Accept' and 29.43% 'Do not accept'). The same was observed when samples were p oled (42. 7% 'Ac ept' and 30.25% 'Do not a~" . This study revealed that the proposed models have diff rent strengths in explaining LAMP acceptance. In the local community model fear f adverse effect, trust in the operator, benefits, lack of confidence in government, gender and distance from the facility were significant. All have positive coefficients except for the factor di tance. In the Uni rsity community model, benefits, lack of confidence in government, not-in-m -backyard (NIMBY), knowledge on rare earths (RE), trust, fear, new risk and familiar were significant. All have positive coefficients except for the factor familiar. In the public model, benefits, trust, environmental protection, knowledge, fear, worry and new risk were significant factors. Benefits, trust, fear, and worry have positive coefficients but not environmental protection, knowledge, and new risk. In the pooled sample model, benefits, trust, lack of confidence in government, fear, worry, new risk, and gender Were significant factors. All have positive coefficients. Results highly suggest that th local residents' responses must be analysed separately. When samples were pooled, the peculiar characteristics of the local community no longer exist, indicating that the pooled sample do not give a true picture of the local response to the RE acceptance. In summary, the element of fear was strong among the local residents compared to the public. Lack of trust in the operator in terms openness and low confidence in the ability of government to protect the environment were common features observed in the studied communities. These two factors can lead to eroding support from the community and decreasing public acceptance of the RE industry. This study is pertinent as it can be used to formulate future policies and program for similar plant investment.
|
|---|