Social License to Operate for NIMBY Infrastructures: The Mechanism of the Four Components of Procedural Justice
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Research Hypotheses
2.1. Literature Review
2.1.1. NIMBY
2.1.2. Social License to Operate
2.1.3. Procedural Justice
2.2. Research Hypotheses
3. Research Design
3.1. Overall Research
3.2. Questionnaire Design
3.3. Sample and Data Collection
3.4. Data Analysis
4. Research Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
4.2. Structural Equation Modeling
4.3. Mediation Effect
5. Discussion
5.1. Research Findings
5.2. Policy Recommendations
- (1)
- Enhance Decision Transparency: Governments can ensure that every step of the decision-making process is understandable to the public by establishing and maintaining open and transparent communication channels. This transparency allows the public to access key information and participate in the decision cycle. As Bingham pointed out, high levels of transparency enhance public trust in policy formation and ensure fair public decision-making [74]. Ensuring that the motivations, evidence bases, expected impacts, and alternative options of policy proposals are easily accessible and understandable to the public is crucial for maintaining the government’s sense of responsibility and credibility. Transparency enables the government to consider and incorporate opinions from all societal segments, leading to broad consensus and improving the performance and efficacy of public policies. Furthermore, enhancing transparency helps to identify and resolve potential inequality, thereby advancing democratic governance.
- (2)
- Guarantee Public Participation: Public engagement must be part of decision-making to ensure that the interests of all parties are proportionately considered and democratic principles are used. Studies and practices have shown that public involvement is critical for increasing transparency, legitimacy, and public acceptance of policies. As Arnstein described in her seminal “Ladder of Citizen Participation” model, effective public participation involves multiple levels where the public has a substantial role in decision-making beyond being provided with information or consulted [75]. Fung emphasized the importance of collaborative participation in bringing diverse perspectives and innovative solutions to policy formulation [76]. An inclusive public participation mechanism allows stakeholders to evaluate and construct policy options, ensuring that the policies address universal issues and cater to the needs and challenges of specific social groups. Therefore, government agencies should prioritize strengthening and refining pathways and mechanisms for public involvement to achieve efficient and fair policymaking. This strategy involves ensuring easy access to government information, open and transparent communication, genuinely listening to citizen feedback, and accurately reflecting the feedback in policy decisions. Achieving these goals improves public satisfaction and endorsement of policies and creates a more representative and responsive political environment. As Mansbridge et al. stated, procedural justice in decision-making involves constructive debates among people with differing views to promote broader societal considerations [77].
- (3)
- Strengthen Dialogue and Feedback Mechanisms: The government can enhance dialogue and exchange with community members by increasing feedback channels, ensuring the public is educated on critical issues to implement effective policies. This approach ensures that different positions are earnestly considered, promoting more effective decision-making and policy implementation, which aligns with the perspective of Barry et al [78]. Fung also stressed the significant role of public participation and feedback in improving the quality of public decisions [76]. In summary, citizens’ acceptance of NIMBY projects is likely to increase significantly when they are part of decision-making, are properly informed, and can clearly see the environmental and economic benefits [79].
- (4)
- Increase the Fairness of Decision-Making: The government must apply justice and fairness in decision-making, including inclusiveness, ensuring equal participation opportunities for varied stakeholders, equality, and treating every individual and community fairly without bias. In this approach, policy decisions are based on empirical research and ethical principles. Increasing fairness in decisions is a continuous effort, requiring the government to maintain these principles throughout all stages of policy formulation. According to Fraser’s concept of “participatory justice”, transparent and accountable procedures must be the basis of decision-making [80]. Young stated that justice is not only related to resource distribution but also to the distribution of decision-making power, ensuring every voice has the opportunity to be heard [81]. Additionally, as Rawls tated in his “Theory of Justice”, fairness should be seen as the foundation of societal institutions, comprising a set of principles that ensure fairness in the basic structure of society [82]. Businesses should develop coherent and green growth strategies that improve long-term economic benefits and corporate social responsibility, leading to a SLO and contributing to the sustainable development of NIMBY facilities [83].
- (5)
- Construct a Multi-Stakeholder Participation Platform: Enterprises should develop and maintain a participatory platform that allows stakeholders, including local community members, government representatives, and non-governmental organizations, to partake in critical decision points throughout project planning and execution. This mechanism helps the enterprise to understand the various interest points and potential issues while establishing a sense of joint ownership and a collaborative atmosphere in project decisions [84].
- (6)
- Establish a Foundation for Legitimacy and Mutual Trust: Enterprises should establish public trust through integrity, effective communication, and feedback mechanisms. Building legitimacy is especially important—enterprises should demonstrate social responsibility and prove their honesty and willingness to listen to and address community needs and concerns [85].
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Appendix A.1. Survey on the Social License to Operate for NIMBY Infrastructure Projects Questionnaire
Appendix A.2. Background Information
- Your age group ( )☐18–34 ☐35–59 ☐60 and above
- Your gender ( )☐Male ☐Female
- Your level of education ( )☐High school or below ☐Associate/Bachelor's degree ☐Graduate degree or above
- Your monthly income ( )☐Below 5000 Yuan ☐5001–8000 Yuan ☐8001–10,000 Yuan ☐Above 10,001 Yuan
- Your occupation ( )☐Civil servant or public service employee ☐Company staff ☐Medical personnel☐Student ☐Service industry worker ☐Laborer ☐Farmer☐Freelancer ☐Other
Measurement | ||||||
NO. | Items | Level of Agreement | ||||
Regarding the construction or operation of NIMBY facilities in your region, do you think: | ||||||
Q1 | National laws and regulations ensure decisions are made fairly and justly | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q2 | National laws and regulations are consistently applied to different individuals and situations | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q3 | Adhering to national laws and regulations can ensure that decisions are based on facts, rather than personal biases and opinions. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q4 | National laws and regulations are fair to everyone. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Regarding the construction or operation of NIMBY facilities in your region, do you think: | ||||||
Q5 | The operator makes consistent decisions regardless of the different people or situations involved. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q6 | The operator’s decision-making is based on facts, not their personal biases and viewpoints. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q7 | The decisions made by the operator are fair to everyone. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Regarding the construction or operation of NIMBY facilities in your region, do you think: | ||||||
Q8 | National laws and regulations ensure that I am treated fairly in decision-making processes. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q9 | National laws and regulations ensure that I am treated fairly during the implementation of decisions. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q10 | National laws and regulations allow for a fair and transparent explanation of the decisions made. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q11 | When national laws and regulations are applied, my opinions are taken into consideration. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q12 | National laws and regulations ensure that my needs are considered. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q13 | I trust that government authorities will make the best decisions for me and the local residents. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q14 | National laws and regulations respect my rights as a stakeholder. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q15 | National laws and regulations respect my personal rights and those of the local residents. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q16 | I feel respected by government departments. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q17 | When making relevant decisions, government departments strictly adhere to laws and regulations and fulfill their commitments. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q18 | When making relevant decisions, government departments care about the well-being of me and the local residents. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q19 | When making relevant decisions, government departments are concerned with my satisfaction. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Regarding the construction or operation of NIMBY facilities in your region, do you think: | ||||||
Q20 | During the decision-making process, the operator treats me and the local residents fairly. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q21 | During the construction and implementation process, the operator treats me and the local residents fairly. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q22 | When I express my views, the operator considers and listens to my opinions. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q23 | The operator provides a fair and transparent explanation for the decisions made. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q24 | During the decision-making process, the operator takes my viewpoints into consideration. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q25 | During the decision-making process, the operator takes my needs into account. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q26 | I trust that the operator will make the best decisions on my behalf. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q27 | The operator respects my rights as an interested stakeholder. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q28 | The operator respects the personal rights of myself and the local residents. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q29 | The operator is committed to following through with the decisions and commitments made. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q30 | During the decision-making process, the operator cares about the well-being of myself and the local residents. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q31 | During the decision-making process, the operator is concerned with the satisfaction of myself and the local residents. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Regarding the construction or operation of NIMBY facilities in your region, do you think: | ||||||
Q32 | I believe that the government and relevant operators will act in the best interest of society. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q33 | I believe that the government and relevant operators will act responsibly. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q34 | I believe that the government and relevant operators will do the right thing. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Regarding the construction or operation of NIMBY facilities in your region, do you think: | ||||||
Q35 | I am tolerant of the construction or operation of NIMBY facilities in my area. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q36 | I accept the construction or operation of NIMBY facilities in my area. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q37 | I am in favor of the construction or operation of NIMBY facilities in my area | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Q38 | I support the construction or operation of NIMBY facilities in my area. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
References
- Estache, A. Current Debates on Infrastructure Policy; World Bank Publications: Chicago, IL, USA, 2007; Volume 4410. [Google Scholar]
- Wolsink, M. Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: Institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renew. Energy 2000, 21, 49–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, A.; Moffat, K.; Lacey, J.; Wang, J.; González, R.; Uribe, K.; Cui, L.; Dai, Y. Understanding the social licence to operate of mining at the national scale: A comparative study of Australia, China and Chile. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108, 1063–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, N.; Ashworth, P.; Devine-Wright, P. Societal acceptance of wind farms: Analysis of four common themes across Australian case studies. Energy Policy 2013, 58, 200–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiorino, D.J. Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 1990, 15, 226–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tyler, T.R. Social justice: Outcome and procedure. Int. J. Psychol. 2000, 35, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lind, E.A. Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. Adv. Organ. Justice 2001, 56, 56–88. [Google Scholar]
- Cotton, M.; Devine-Wright, P. Making electricity networks “visible”: Industry actor representations of “publics” and public engagement in infrastructure planning. Public Underst. Sci. 2012, 21, 17–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Devine-Wright, P.; Howes, Y. Disruption to place attachment and the protection of restorative environments: A wind energy case study. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 271–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frynas, J.G. The false developmental promise of corporate social responsibility: Evidence from multinational oil companies. Int. Aff. 2005, 81, 581–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowles, P.; MacPhail, F.; Tetreault, D. Social licence versus procedural justice: Competing narratives of (Il) legitimacy at the San Xavier mine, Mexico. Resour. Policy 2019, 61, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Liao, L.; Mei, C. Not-in-my-backyard but let’s talk: Explaining public opposition to facility siting in urban China. Land Use Policy 2018, 77, 471–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’hare, M. Not On My Block You Don’t-Facilities Siting and the Strategic Importance of Compensation; Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
- Kraft, M.E.; Clary, B.B. Citizen participation and the NIMBY syndrome: Public response to radioactive waste disposal. West. Polit. Q. 1991, 44, 299–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lake, R.W. Planners’ alchemy transforming NIMBY to YIMBY: Rethinking NIMBY. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1993, 59, 87–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rüdig, W. Phasing out nuclear energy in Germany. Ger. Politics 2000, 9, 43–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schively, C. Understanding the NIMBY and LULU phenomena: Reassessing our knowledge base and informing future research. J. Plan. Lit. 2007, 21, 255–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Devine-Wright, P. Beyond NIMBYism: Towards an integrated framework for understanding public perceptions of wind energy. Wind Energy 2005, 8, 125–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burningham, K. Using the language of NIMBY: A topic for research, not an activity for researchers. Local Environ. 2000, 5, 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kasperson, R.E.; Renn, O.; Slovic, P.; Brown, H.S.; Emel, J.; Goble, R.; Kasperson, J.X.; Ratick, S. The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Anal. 1988, 8, 177–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burningham, K.; O’Brien, M. Global environmental values and local contexts of action. Sociology 1994, 28, 913–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moffat, K.; Zhang, A. The paths to social licence to operate: An integrative model explaining community acceptance of mining. Resour. Policy 2014, 39, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, N.; Lacey, J.; Carr-Cornish, S.; Dowd, A.-M. Social licence to operate: Understanding how a concept has been translated into practice in energy industries. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 86, 301–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slotterback, C.S. Planners’ perspectives on using technology in participatory processes. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2011, 38, 468–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dear, M. Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1992, 58, 288–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prno, J.; Slocombe, D.S. Exploring the origins of ‘social license to operate’ in the mining sector: Perspectives from governance and sustainability theories. Resour. Policy 2012, 37, 346–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boutilier, R.G.; Thomson, I. Modelling and measuring the social license to operate: Fruits of a dialogue between theory and practice. Soc. Licence 2011, 1, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Mutti, D.; Yakovleva, N.; Vazquez-Brust, D.; Di Marco, M.H. Corporate social responsibility in the mining industry: Perspectives from stakeholder groups in Argentina. Resour. Policy 2012, 37, 212–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, M.; Liu, Y.; Cui, C.; Xia, B.; Ke, Y.; Skitmore, M. Social acceptance of NIMBY facilities: A comparative study between public acceptance and the social license to operate analytical frameworks. Land Use Policy 2023, 124, 106453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moffat, K.; Lacey, J.; Zhang, A.; Leipold, S. The social licence to operate: A critical review. For. Int. J. For. Res. 2016, 89, 477–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gunningham, N.; Kagan, R.A.; Thornton, D. Social license and environmental protection: Why businesses go beyond compliance. Law Soc. Inq. 2004, 29, 307–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, A.; Measham, T.G.; Moffat, K. Preconditions for social licence: The importance of information in initial engagement. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 1559–1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aitken, M. Why we still don’t understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 1834–1841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thibaut, J.W.; Walker, L. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Leventhal, G.S. What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1980; pp. 27–55. [Google Scholar]
- Cropanzano, R.; Byrne, Z.S.; Bobocel, D.R.; Rupp, D.E. Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. J. Vocat. Behav. 2001, 58, 164–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gross, C. Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: The application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 2727–2736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colquitt, J.A.; Conlon, D.E.; Wesson, M.J.; Porter, C.O.; Ng, K.Y. Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Blader, S.L.; Tyler, T.R. A four-component model of procedural justice: Defining the meaning of a “fair” process. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2003, 29, 747–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van den Bos, K.; Wilke, H.A.; Lind, E.A.; Vermunt, R. Evaluating outcomes by means of the fair process effect: Evidence for different processes in fairness and satisfaction judgments. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 74, 1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van den Bos, K.; Wilke, H.A.; Lind, E.A. When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 75, 1449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Cremer, D.; Tyler, T.R. Managing group behavior: The interplay between procedural justice, sense of self, and cooperation. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2005, 37, 151–218. [Google Scholar]
- Tyler, T.R.; Blader, S.L. The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2003, 7, 349–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Folger, R. Rethinking equity theory: A referent cognitions model. In Justice in Social Relations; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1986; pp. 145–162. [Google Scholar]
- Zoellner, J.; Schweizer-Ries, P.; Wemheuer, C. Public acceptance of renewable energies: Results from case studies in Germany. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 4136–4141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tyler, T.R.; Huo, Y.J. Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts; Russell Sage Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Fast, S.; Mabee, W. Place-making and trust-building: The influence of policy on host community responses to wind farms. Energy Policy 2015, 81, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siegrist, M.; Earle, T.C.; Gutscher, H. Trust in Risk Management: Uncertainty and Scepticism in the Public Mind; Earthscan: Oxford, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Siegrist, M.; Cousin, M.-E.; Kastenholz, H.; Wiek, A. Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust. Appetite 2007, 49, 459–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouckaert, G.; Van de Walle, S. Comparing measures of citizen trust and user satisfaction as indicators of ‘good governance’: Difficulties in linking trust and satisfaction indicators. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2003, 69, 329–343. [Google Scholar]
- Van de Walle, S.; Bouckaert, G. Public service performance and trust in government: The problem of causality. Int. J. Public Adm. 2003, 26, 891–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lind, E.A.; Kanfer, R.; Earley, P.C. Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1990, 59, 952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lind, E.A.; Tyler, T.R. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Tyler, T.R. What is procedural justice-criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law Soc. Rev. 1988, 22, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wüstenhagen, R.; Wolsink, M.; Bürer, M.J. Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: An introduction to the concept. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 2683–2691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jobert, A.; Laborgne, P.; Mimler, S. Local acceptance of wind energy: Factors of success identified in French and German case studies. Energy Policy 2007, 35, 2751–2760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Owen, J.R.; Kemp, D. Social licence and mining: A critical perspective. Resour. Policy 2013, 38, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, G.; Devine-Wright, P.; Hunter, S.; High, H.; Evans, B. Trust and community: Exploring the meanings, contexts and dynamics of community renewable energy. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 2655–2663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dillman, D.A.; Smyth, J.D.; Christian, L.M. Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Groves, R.M.; Fowler, F.J., Jr.; Couper, M.P.; Lepkowski, J.M.; Singer, E.; Tourangeau, R. Survey Methodology; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- De Leeuw, D. To mix or not to mix data collection modes in surveys. J. Off. Stat. 2005, 21, 233. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, M. Structural Equation Model-Amos Practice Advanced; Chongqing University Press: Chongqing, China, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Kline, R.B. Convergence of structural equation modeling and multilevel modeling. In The SAGE Handbook of Innovation in Social Research Methods; SAGE Publications Ltd.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2011; pp. 562–589. [Google Scholar]
- Xiong, B.; Skitmore, M.; Xia, B. A critical review of structural equation modeling applications in construction research. Autom. Constr. 2015, 49, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, K.; Fu, H.; Chen, H. Research on the influencing mechanism of traditional cultural values on citizens’ behavior regarding the reuse of recycled water. Sustainability 2018, 10, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shrout, P.E.; Bolger, N. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychol. Methods 2002, 7, 422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tyler, T.R. 10 Justice, Self-interest, and the Legitimacy of Legal and Political Authority. In Beyond Self-Interest; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1990; p. 171. [Google Scholar]
- Tyler, T.R.; Degoey, P. Trust in organizational authorities. In Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research; SAGE Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 1996; pp. 331–356. [Google Scholar]
- Manetti, G.; Bellucci, M.; Bagnoli, L. Stakeholder engagement and public information through social media: A study of Canadian and American public transportation agencies. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 2017, 47, 991–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huijts, N.M.; Molin, E.J.; Steg, L. Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: A review-based comprehensive framework. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 525–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parsons, R.; Lacey, J.; Moffat, K. Maintaining legitimacy of a contested practice: How the minerals industry understands its ‘social licence to operate’. Resour. Policy 2014, 41, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Folger, R.; Konovsky, M.A. Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Acad. Manag. J. 1989, 32, 115–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koehn, D. The nature of and conditions for online trust. J. Bus. Ethics 2003, 43, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bingham, L.B. Collaborative governance: Emerging practices and the incomplete legal framework for public and stakeholder voice. J. Disp. Resol. 2009, 2009, 269. [Google Scholar]
- Arnstein, S.R. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 1969, 35, 216–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fung, A. Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Adm. Rev. 2006, 66, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mansbridge, J.; Bohman, J.; Chambers, S.; Christiano, T.; Fung, A.; Parkinson, J.; Thompson, D.F.; Warren, M.E. A systemic approach to deliberative democracy. In Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012; pp. 1–26. [Google Scholar]
- Barry, J.; Ellis, G.; Robinson, C. Cool rationalities and hot air: A rhetorical approach to understanding debates on renewable energy. Glob. Environ. Politics 2008, 8, 67–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soland, M.; Steimer, N.; Walter, G. Local acceptance of existing biogas plants in Switzerland. Energy Policy 2013, 61, 802–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fraser, N. Rethinking recognition. New Left Rev. 2000, 3, 107. [Google Scholar]
- Young, I.M. Justice and the Politics of Difference. In The New Social Theory Reader; Routledge: Oxford, UK, 2020; pp. 261–269. [Google Scholar]
- Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1971. [Google Scholar]
- Qi, R.; Li, S.; Qu, L.; Sun, L.; Gong, C. Critical factors to green mining construction in China: A two-step fuzzy DEMATEL analysis of state-owned coal mining enterprises. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 273, 122852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, M.S. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 2417–2431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suchman, M.C. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 571–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Category | Number | Percentage (%) | |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 280 | 51.5 |
Female | 264 | 48.5 | |
Age | 18–34 | 111 | 20.4 |
35–59 | 329 | 60.5 | |
60+ | 104 | 19.1 | |
Education | High school and below | 332 | 61.0 |
Associate/Bachelor’s degree | 188 | 34.6 | |
Graduate degree or above | 24 | 4.4 | |
Monthly Income | Below 5000 Yuan | 231 | 42.5 |
5001–8000 Yuan | 177 | 32.5 | |
8001–10,000 Yuan | 95 | 17.5 | |
Above 10,001 Yuan | 41 | 7.5 |
Dimensions | Measure Item | Frequency | M | SD | Skewness | Kurtosis | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||
FOD | Q1 (Fair and Just Decisions) | 7 | 62 | 209 | 203 | 63 | 3.45 | 1.04 | −0.165 | −0.243 |
Q2 (Consistent Application of Laws) | 9 | 69 | 195 | 200 | 61 | 3.34 | 1.108 | −0.186 | −0.39 | |
Q3 (Fact-based Decision Making) | 6 | 60 | 203 | 224 | 51 | 3.4 | 1.052 | −0.25 | −0.139 | |
Q4 (Fairness to All) | 6 | 69 | 188 | 216 | 66 | 3.21 | 1.232 | −0.221 | −0.364 | |
IOD | Q5 (Consistent Decision-making) | 5 | 61 | 203 | 210 | 65 | 2.94 | 1.075 | −0.157 | −0.315 |
Q6 (Fact-based, Unbiased Decisions) | 5 | 64 | 204 | 207 | 64 | 2.84 | 1.062 | −0.142 | −0.345 | |
Q7 (Universal Fairness in Decisions) | 2 | 65 | 215 | 187 | 75 | 2.62 | 1.17 | 0.023 | −0.576 | |
FOT | Q8 (Fair Treatment in Decision-making) | 10 | 29 | 179 | 239 | 87 | 3.18 | 1.136 | −0.057 | −0.527 |
Q9 (Fairness in Decision Implementation) | 6 | 22 | 154 | 269 | 93 | 3.13 | 1.14 | −0.246 | −0.322 | |
Q10 (Transparent Explanation of Decisions) | 6 | 25 | 166 | 252 | 95 | 3.06 | 1.094 | −0.185 | −0.461 | |
Q11 (Inclusion of My Opinions) | 5 | 21 | 177 | 247 | 93 | 2.7 | 1.151 | −0.105 | −0.513 | |
Q12 (Consideration of My Needs) | 5 | 22 | 171 | 256 | 89 | 2.75 | 1.179 | −0.148 | −0.434 | |
Q13 (Trust in Authorities’ Decisions) | 4 | 24 | 178 | 235 | 103 | 3.08 | 1.133 | −0.102 | −0.607 | |
Q14 (Respect for Stakeholder Rights) | 8 | 23 | 177 | 240 | 95 | 3.11 | 1.109 | −0.122 | −0.547 | |
Q15 (Respect for Personal and Local Rights) | 14 | 30 | 185 | 223 | 92 | 3.08 | 1.178 | −0.077 | −0.555 | |
Q16 (Respect from Government Departments) | 10 | 32 | 172 | 229 | 101 | 3.13 | 1.112 | −0.149 | −0.563 | |
Q17 (Adherence to Laws and Commitments) | 7 | 23 | 184 | 232 | 98 | 3.37 | 1.031 | −0.078 | −0.604 | |
Q18 (Well-being Consideration by Departments) | 16 | 20 | 181 | 240 | 86 | 2.92 | 1.008 | 0.087 | −0.609 | |
Q19 (Concern for My Satisfaction) | 7 | 22 | 161 | 255 | 99 | 2.85 | 1.076 | −0.129 | −0.492 | |
IOT | Q20 (Fair Treatment in Decisions) | 1 | 50 | 200 | 237 | 55 | 2.9 | 0.971 | −0.141 | −0.34 |
Q21 (Fairness in Construction and Implementation) | 1 | 47 | 197 | 244 | 54 | 2.76 | 1 | −0.169 | −0.29 | |
Q22 (Consideration of Opinions) | 3 | 38 | 200 | 253 | 51 | 2.55 | 1.09 | −0.126 | −0.302 | |
Q23 (Transparent Decision Explanations) | 1 | 27 | 238 | 229 | 48 | 2.61 | 1.06 | 0.069 | −0.151 | |
Q24 (Inclusion of Viewpoints) | 1 | 41 | 220 | 222 | 60 | 2.49 | 1.052 | −0.01 | −0.328 | |
Q25 (Attention to Needs) | 2 | 44 | 211 | 228 | 59 | 2.47 | 1.096 | −0.028 | −0.444 | |
Q26 (Trust in Best Decisions) | 1 | 64 | 275 | 189 | 14 | 2.69 | 1.074 | −0.046 | −0.228 | |
Q27 (Respect for Stakeholder Rights) | 2 | 74 | 277 | 182 | 8 | 2.7 | 1.062 | −0.151 | −0.293 | |
Q28 (Respect for Personal and Local Rights) | 2 | 78 | 268 | 179 | 17 | 2.72 | 1.107 | −0.047 | −0.265 | |
Q29 (Commitment to Decisions and Promises) | 2 | 67 | 292 | 166 | 17 | 2.87 | 1.074 | 0.056 | 0.012 | |
Q30 (Care for Well-being in Decisions) | 1 | 71 | 271 | 189 | 12 | 2.56 | 1.078 | −0.098 | −0.344 | |
Q31 (Concern for Satisfaction in Decisions) | 1 | 68 | 276 | 188 | 10 | 2.56 | 1.148 | −0.102 | −0.313 | |
TR | Q32 (Belief in Society’s Best Interest) | 1 | 34 | 178 | 217 | 113 | 3.33 | 1.052 | −0.155 | −0.611 |
Q33 (Belief in Responsible Actions) | 3 | 31 | 178 | 248 | 84 | 3.19 | 1.111 | −0.14 | −0.458 | |
Q34 (Belief in Doing the Right Thing) | 3 | 28 | 171 | 247 | 96 | 3.15 | 1.095 | −0.279 | −0.118 | |
AC | Q35 (Tolerance of NIMBY Facilities) | 3 | 27 | 131 | 238 | 144 | 3.55 | 1.241 | −0.378 | −0.528 |
Q36 (Acceptance of NIMBY Facilities) | 8 | 108 | 251 | 126 | 50 | 3.06 | 1.367 | −0.34 | 0.164 | |
Q37 (Favorability towards NIMBY Facilities) | 17 | 70 | 180 | 192 | 85 | 2.45 | 1.348 | −0.851 | −0.321 | |
Q38 (Support for NIMBY Facilities) | 33 | 56 | 183 | 208 | 64 | 2.19 | 1.298 | 0.378 | 1.727 |
Fit Index | Recommended Value | Test Value |
---|---|---|
Chi-square | 1259.937 | |
d.f. | 656 | |
P | >0.05 | 0.000 a |
Chi-square/d.f. | <3.0 | 1.921 a |
RMR | <0.05 | 0.139 b |
RMSEA | <0.05 | 0.041 a |
GFI | >0.9 | 0.884 b |
AGFI | >0.8 | 0.869 a |
CFI | >0.9 | 0.948 a |
NFI | >0.8 | 0.897 a |
TLI | >0.9 | 0.944 a |
FOD | IOD | FOT | IOT | TR | AC | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FOD | 1 | |||||
IOD | 0.657 ** | 1 | ||||
FOT | 0.739 ** | 0.703 ** | 1 | |||
IOT | 0.592 ** | 0.770 ** | 0.789 ** | 1 | ||
TR | 0.577 ** | 0.689 ** | 0.777 ** | 0.762 ** | 1 | |
AC | 0.579 ** | 0.693 ** | 0.783 ** | 0.802 ** | 0.768 ** | 1 |
Mediation Path | Effect Value | SE | Bias-Corrected 95%CI | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower | Upper | p | |||
FOT→TR→AC | 0.062 | 0.023 | 0.026 | 0.118 | 0.001 |
FOD→TR→AC | 0.055 | 0.019 | 0.022 | 0.096 | 0.001 |
IOD→TR→AC | 0.038 | 0.017 | 0.012 | 0.080 | 0.002 |
IOT→TR→AC | 0.105 | 0.028 | 0.055 | 0.168 | 0.001 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Feng, D.; Liu, Y.; Ge, Y. Social License to Operate for NIMBY Infrastructures: The Mechanism of the Four Components of Procedural Justice. Buildings 2024, 14, 2465. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082465
Feng D, Liu Y, Ge Y. Social License to Operate for NIMBY Infrastructures: The Mechanism of the Four Components of Procedural Justice. Buildings. 2024; 14(8):2465. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082465
Chicago/Turabian StyleFeng, Diyang, Yong Liu, and Yujia Ge. 2024. "Social License to Operate for NIMBY Infrastructures: The Mechanism of the Four Components of Procedural Justice" Buildings 14, no. 8: 2465. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14082465