The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Public perceptions and acceptance of nuclear energy in China: The role of public knowledge, perceived benefit, perceived risk and public engagement
Abstract
Nuclear energy has been regarded as a controversial energy option to reduce carbon emissions, alleviate global warming and transition to a low-carbon society. Understanding public perceptions and acceptance of nuclear energy and identifying the determinants of acceptance are vital to make nuclear energy policy and establish nuclear energy program. Based on a questionnaire survey conducted in China (N = 719), this study aims to examine public perceptions and acceptance of nuclear energy, and explore the effects of public knowledge about nuclear energy, perceived benefit, perceived risk and public engagement on public acceptance. This study indicated that public knowledge is positively and significantly related to perceived benefit and public acceptance, but not significantly related to perceived risk. Perceived benefit and perceived risk are all positively and significantly associated with public acceptance. Meanwhile, this study also demonstrated the positive effect of public engagement on public acceptance. In addition, this study also revealed that public knowledge, perceived benefit and public engagement in China are at a lower level, and public acceptance of nuclear energy is at a moderate level. However, the level of perceived risk is higher. Based on the results, implications and suggestions are presented.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800104 · Cited by 109,190
Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 · Cited by 41,941
(1998) · Cited by 12,725
Climate Change Risk Perception and Policy Preferences: The Role of Affect, Imagery, and Values
Leiserowitz, A. (2006) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9059-9 · Cited by 2,197
Huijts, N. M. A., Molin, E. J. E., & Steg, L. (2012) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.08.018 · Cited by 1,143
Frederiks, E. R., Stenner, K., & Hobman, E. V. (2015) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.09.026 · Cited by 926
Latent Variable Models: An Introduction to Factor, Path, and Structural Equation Analysis
Loehlin, J. C. (2003) · Cited by 852
Gao, L., Wang, S., Li, J., & Li, H. (2017) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.030 · Cited by 583
Self-citationWhy people want to buy electric vehicle: An empirical study in first-tier cities of China
Lin, B., & Wu, W. (2018) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.026 · Cited by 374
Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2013) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01861.x · Cited by 322
Cited by
Wang, S., Yu, H., Hu, X., & Li, J. (2020) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.12998 · Cited by 71
Self-citationLimits to deployment of nuclear power for decarbonization: Insights from public opinion
Abdulla, A., Vaishnav, P., Sergi, B., & Victor, D. G. (2019) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2019.03.039 · Cited by 50
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, S., Wang, J., Lin, S., & Li, J.
- Venue
- Energy Policy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-03
- Volume
- 126
- Pages
- 352-360
- ISSN
- 0301-4215 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2903541925
- Cited by
- 253
- References
- 48
- FWCI
- 39.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Public perceptions and acceptance of nuclear energy in China: The role of public knowledge, perceived benefit, perceived risk and public engagement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.11.040
- The paper
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.11.040
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
