Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Local community acceptance of the rare earth industry: the case of the Lynas Advanced Materials Plant (LAMP) in Malaysia

  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper provides a detailed analysis of the local community response to a newly installed rare earth (RE) refinery facility and the factors underlying its acceptance. House-to-house interviews, using structured questionnaire, were conducted in 2013 (N = 370). Results show that the community was divided into deciding whether they agreed with the presence of the facility, 41.36 % (for) and 41.62 % (against). The remaining fraction of the community was undecided, which made up 17.03 % of the total respondents. This paper identifies six significant predictors of risk acceptance: gender, education status, place of residence, Factor 1 (variables—perception of safety, concern on effects, and trust in the operators), Factor 2 (variables—social and individual benefits), and Factor 3 (variables—no confidence in government). This study gives insights on how the public respond to potential hazardous facilities and highlights the need for policy makers to consider public sentiment which can interfere with further expansion of the RE industry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Academy of Sciences Malaysia. (2011). Rare earth industries: Moving Malaysia’s green economy forward. The Academy of Sciences Malaysia, 1–63.

  • Ali, S. H. (2014). Social and environmental impact of the rare earth industries. Resources, 3(1), 123–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axelsson, G., Stockfelt, L., & Andersson, E. (2013). Annoyance and worry in a petrochemical industrial area—Prevalence, time trends and risk factors. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10, 1418–1438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, J., Cooper, H., & Senior, V. (2007). Belief in public efficacy, trust, and attitudes toward modern genetic science. Risk Analysis, 27, 921–933.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bickerstaff, K. (2004). Risk perception research: Socio-cultural perspectives on the public experience of air pollution. Environment International, 30, 827–840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, J. T. (2012). Health risk perceptions across time in the USA. Journal of Risk Research, 15, 547–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronfman, N. C., Vázquez, E. L., & Dorantes, G. (2009). An empirical study for the direct and indirect links between trust in regulatory institutions and acceptability of hazards. Safety Science, 47, 686–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronfman, N. C. & Vazquez, E. L. (2011). A cross-cultural study of perceived benefit versus risk as mediators in the trust-acceptance relationship. Risk Analysis, 31(12), 1919–1934.

  • Carlton, S. J., & Jacobson, S. K. (2013). Climate change and coastal environmental risk perceptions in Florida. Journal of Environmental Management, 130, 32–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, J. B., Kim, H. K., & Rho, S. K. (2008). Analysis of local acceptance of a radioactive waste disposal facility. Risk Analysis, 28(4), 1021–1032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummmings, C. L., Berube, D., & Lavelle, M. E. (2013). Influences of individual-level characteristics on risk perceptions to various categories on environmental health and safety risk. Risk Research, 16, 1277–1295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahal, K. J., & Hagelman, R., I. I. I. (2011). People’s risk perception of glacial lake outburst flooding: A case of Tsho Rolpa Lake, Nepal. Environmental Hazards, 10, 154–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dake, K. (1991). Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: An analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22, 61–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2012). http://www.statistics.gov.my/. Accessed June 2014.

  • Douglas, M. (1978). Cultural bias. Occasional Paper No. 35. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland.

  • Downs, T. J., Ross, L., Goble, R., Subedi, R., Greenberg, S., & Taylor, O. (2010). Vulnerability, risk perception, and health profile of marginalized people exposed to multiple built-environment stressors in Worcester, Massachusetts: A pilot project. Risk Analysis, 31, 609–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duan, H., & Fortner, R. (2010). A cross-cultural study on environmental risk perception and educational strategies: Implications for environmental education in China. International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education, 1, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Firestone, J., Kempton, W., & Lilley, M. B. (2012). Public acceptance of offshore wind power across regions and through time. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 55(10), 1369–1386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallardo, A. H., & Aoki, H. (2012). Attitude toward the geological disposal of radioactive wastes in Japan: The opinion of the youth prior to the Tohoku Earthquake. International Journal of Environmental Research, 6(2), 399–408.

  • Gallardo, A. H., Matsuzaki, T., & Aoki, H. (2014). Geological storage of nuclear wastes: Insights following the Fukushima crisis. Energy Policy, 73, 391–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Government of Western Australia. (2009). Community survey of perceived environmental health risks in Western Australia. http://www.public.health.wa.gov.au/cproot/2112/2/11194%20SURVEY.pdf. Accessed June 2011.

  • Greenberg, M. R. (2005). Concern about environmental pollution: How much difference do race and ethnicity make? A New Jersey case study. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113, 369–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, M. R. (2009). NIMBY, CLAMP, and the location of new nuclear-related facilities: U.S. national and 11 site-specific surveys. Risk Analysis, 29(9), 1242–1254.

  • Greenberg, M. R., & Schneider D. F. (1995). Gender differences in risk perception: Effects differ in stressed vs. non-stressed environments. Risk Analysis, 15(4), 503–511.

  • Greenberg, M., Lowrie, K., & Burder, J. (2007). Nuclear waste and public worries: Public perceptions of the United States’ major nuclear weapons legacy sites. Human Ecology Review, 14(1), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, N., Fischer, A. R. H., & Frewer, L. J. (2011). Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: A review. Public Understanding of Science, 21(7), 782–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, C. R., Jenkins, M., & Glaser, D. (2006). Gender differences in risk assessment: Why do women take fewer risks than men? Judgment and Decision Making, 1, 48–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • He, G., Mol, A. P. J., & Zhang, L. (2012). Nuclear power in China after Fukushima: Understanding public knowledge, attitudes, and trust. Journal of Risk Research, 17(4), 435–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hidalgo, M. C., & Pisano, I. (2010). Determinants of risk perception and willingness to tackle climate change. Psyecology, 1, 105–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, M. C., Shaw, H., Lin, S., & Chiu, Y. C. (2008). How do disaster characteristics influence risk perception? Risk Analysis, 28, 635–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honda, A., Wiwattanapantuwong, J., & Abe, T. (2014). Japanese students’ attitude toward the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 147–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, L., Ban, J., & Sun, K. (2013). The influence of public perception on risk acceptance of the chemical industry and the assistance for risk communication. Safety Science, 51, 231–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, L., Duan, B., Bi, J., Yuan, Z., & Ban, J. (2010). Analysis of determining factors of the public’s risk acceptance level in China. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 16, 365–379.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Silva, C. L., & Nowlin, M. C. (2011). Reversing nuclear opposition: Evolving public acceptance of a permanent nuclear waste disposal facility. Risk Analysis, 31(4), 629–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, C., Bostrom, A., & Kuttschreuter, M. (2012). Bringing appraisal theory to environmental risk perception: A review of conceptual approaches of the past 40 years and suggestions for future research. Journal of Risk Research, 15(3), 237–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellstedt, P. M., Zahran, S., & Vedlitz, A. (2008). Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States. Risk Analysis, 28(1), 113–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., Kim, W., & Kim M. (2014). An international comparative analysis of public acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy Policy, 66, 475–483.

  • Kpanake, L., Chauvin, B., & Mullet, E. (2008). Societal risk perception among African villagers without access to the media. Risk Analysis, 28, 193–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krause, R. M., Carley, S. R., Warren, D. C., & Rupp, J. A. (2014). “Not in (or under) my backyard”: Geographic proximity and public acceptance of carbon capture and storage facilities. Risk Analysis, 34(3), 529–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krewski, D., Turner, M. C., Lemyre, L., & Lee, J. E. C. (2012). Expert vs. public perception of population health risks in Canada. Journal of Risk Research, 15, 601–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, J. C. L., Brennan, A., Chan, H. N., & Tao, J. (2003). Disposition toward environmental hazards in Hong Kong Chinese: Validation of a Chinese version of the environmental appraisal inventory (EAI-C). Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 369–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larock, S., & Baxter, J. (2013). Local facility hazard risks controversy and non-local hazard risk perception. Journal of Risk Research, 16, 703–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. E. C., Lemyre, L., Mercier, P., Bouchard, L., & Krewski, D. (2005). Beyond the hazard: The role of beliefs in health risk perception. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 11, 1111–1126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, C. C., Tengku Hanidza, T. I., & Azman, H. (2008). How do Malaysians perceive risks? International Undergrad Journal, 1, 77–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindel, M. K., & Hwang, S. N. (2008). Households’ perceived personal risk and responses in a multihazard environment. Risk Analysis, 28, 539–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez-Navarro, M., Llorens-Monzonis, J., & Tortosa-Edo, V. (2013). The effect of social trust on citizens’ health risk perception in the context of a petrochemical industrial complex. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10, 399–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mabon, L., Vercellib, S., Shackleya, S., Anderlucci, J., Battisti, N., Franzese, C., & Boot, K. (2013). “Tell me what you think about the geological storage of carbon dioxide”: Towards a fuller understanding of public perceptions of CCS. Energy Procedia, 37, 7444–7453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meor Yusoff, M. S., & Latifah, A. (2002). Rare earth processing in Malaysia: Case study of ARE and MAREC plants. Proceeding in regional symposium on environment and natural resources, 10–11 April, Kuala Lumpur, 1, 287–295

  • Moser, C., Stauffacher, M., & Krütli, P. (2012). The influence of linear and cyclical temporal representations on risk perception of nuclear waste: An experimental study. Journal of Risk Research, 15(5), 459–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Automotive Policy (NAP). (2014). Press statement release by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry Kuala Lumpur 20 January 2014. http://www.miti.gov.my/cms/storage/documents/a74/com.tms.cms.document.Document_ae93e7a5-c0a8156f-729746918acceeb8/1/Press%20Statement%20NAP%202014.pdf. Accessed July 2014.

  • Nordenstedt, H., & Ivanisevic, J. (2010). Values in risk perception—Studying the relationship between values and risk perception in three countries. Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 3(1), 335–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 673–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkhill, K. A., Pidgeon, N. F., Henwood, K. L., Simmons, P., & Venables, D. (2010). From the familiar to the extraordinary: local residents’ perceptions of risk when living with nuclear power in the UK. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 35, 39–58.

  • Perko, T., Adam, B., & Stassen, K. R. (2014). The differences in perception of radiological risks: Lay people versus new and experienced employees in the nuclear sector. Journal of Risk Research,. doi:10.1080/13669877.2013.879488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phua, K. L., & Velu, S. S. (2012). Lynas Corporation’s rate earth extraction plant in Gebeng, Malaysia. A case report. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Ecology Science, 1(2), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poortinga, W., Cox, P., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2008). The perceived health risks of indoor radon gas and overhead powerlines: A comparative multilevel approach. Risk Analysis, 28, 235–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PSC (Parliamentary Select Committee) Reports. (2012). Laporan jawatankuasa pilihan khas mengenai projek Lynas Advance Materials Plant (LAMP). http://www.aelb.gov.myaelb/malay/dokumen/lynas/LAMP/Laporan%20Jawatankuasa_red.pdf. Accessed April 2014.

  • Rasanen, P., Nas, M., & Sarpila, O. (2012). Old and new sources of risk: A study of societal risk perception in Finland. Journal of Risk Research, 15, 755–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., & Benighaus, C. (2013). Perception of technological risk: Insights from research and lessons for risk communication and management. Journal of Risk Research, 16(3–4), 293–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, T. W., Bostrom, A., Read, D., & Morgan, M. G. (2010). Now what do people know about global climate change? Survey studies of educated laypeople. Risk Analysis, 30, 1520–1538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodionova, N., Vinsonneau, G., Rivière, S., & Mullet, E. (2009). Societal risk perception in present day Russia. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 15, 388–400.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Safford, T. G., Ulrich, J. D., & Hamilton, L. C. (2012). Public perceptions of the response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill: Personal experiences, information sources, and social context. Journal of Environmental Management, 113, 31–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schütz, H., & Wiedemann, P. M. (2008). Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 369–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siedl, R., Moser, C., Stauffacher, M., & Krutli, P. (2013). Perceived risk and benefit of nuclear waste repositories: Four opinion clusters. Risk Analysis, 33(6), 1038–1048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., & Gutscher, H. A. (2006). Comparison of lay people’s perceptions and expert’s assessments in Switzerland. Risk Analysis, 26, 324–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S., & Wiek, A. (2007). Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Analysis, 27, 59–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist, M., & Visschers, V. H. (2013). Acceptance of nuclear power: The Fukushima effect. Energy Policy, 59, 112–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Signorino, G. (2012). Proximity and risk perception. Comparing risk perception ‘profiles’ in two petrochemical areas of Sicily (Augusta and Milazzo). Journal of Risk Research, 15(10), 1223–1243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singleton, G., Herzog, H., & Ansolabehere, S. (2008). Public risk perspectives on the geologic storage of carbon dioxide. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 3, 100–1007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjoberg, L. (2000). Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis, 20, 1–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sjoberg, L. (2004). Local acceptance of a high-level nuclear waste repository. Risk Analysis, 24(3), 737–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjoberg, L. (2007). Emotions and risk perception. Risk Management, 9, 223–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (2009). Precautionary attitudes and the acceptance of a local nuclear waste repository. Safety Science, 47, 542–546.

  • Sjoberg, L., Moen, B. E., & Rundmo, T. (2004). Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research. In T. Rundmo (Ed.), Rotunde publikasjoner. Trondheim: Rotunde.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, New Series, 236, 280–285.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stoutenborough, J. W., Sturgess, S. G., & Vedlitz, A. (2013). Knowledge, risk, and policy support: Public perceptions of nuclear power. Energy Policy, 62, 176–186.

  • Teka, O., & Vogt, J. (2010). Social perception of natural risks by local residents in developing countries—The example of the coastal area of Benin. Social Science Journal, 47, 215–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Star (Malaysia). (2014). February 3, 2014.

  • Tokushige, K., Akimoto, K., & Tomoda, T. (2007a). Public acceptance and risk–benefit perception of CO2 geological storage for global warming mitigation in Japan. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12, 127–1251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tokushige, K., Akimoto, K., & Tomoda, T. (2007b). Public perceptions on the acceptance of geological storage of carbon dioxide and information influencing the acceptance. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 1, 101–112.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • van Dongen, D., Claassen, L., Smid, T., & Timmermans, D. (2013). People’s responses to risks of electromagnetic fields and trust in government policy: The role of perceived risk, benefits and control. Journal of Risk Research, 16, 946–957.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venables, D., Pidgeon, N. F., & Parkhill, K. A. (2012). Living with nuclear power: Sense of place, proximity, and risk perceptions in local host communities. Journalof Environmental Psychology, 32, 371–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venables, D., Pidgeon, N., & Simmons, P. (2009). Living with nuclear power: A Q-method study of local community perceptions. Risk Analysis, 29(8), 1089–1104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viklund, M. J. (2003). Trust and risk perception in Western Europe: A cross-national study. Risk Analysis, 23(4), 727–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visschers, V. H. M., Keller, C., & Siegrist, M. (2011). Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model. Energy Policy, 39, 3621–3629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegriest, M. (2013). How a nuclear power plant accident influences acceptance of nuclear power: Results of a longitudinal study before and after the Fukushima disaster. Risk Analysis, 33(2), 333–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegriest, M. (2014). How a nuclear power plant accident influences acceptance of nuclear power: Results of a longitudinal study before and after the Fukushima disaster. Risk Analysis, 33(2), 333–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, M. C., MacKinnon, T. D., & Greenberg, M. R. (2013). Exploring the gender gap and the impact of residential location on environmental risk tolerance. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 190–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiedemann, P. M., & Schütz, H. (2005). The precautionary principle and risk perception: Experimental studies in the EMF area. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(4), 402–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, X., Wang, M., Zhang, R. G., Li, G., & Yu, Q. Y. (2011). The role of emotions in risk communication. Risk Analysis, 31, 450–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xuan, Y., & Wang, Z. (2012). Carbon capture and storage perceptions and acceptance: A survey of Chinese university students. International Proceedings of Computer Science Information Technology, 38, 100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhai, G., & Suzuki, T. (2009). Risk perception in Northeast Asia. Environmental Monitoring Assessment, 157, 151–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L., He, G. Z., Mol, A. P. J., & Lu, Y. L. (2012). Public perceptions of environmental risk in China. Journal of Risk Research, 16, 195–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Environmental Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

    T. H. Tengku Ismail

  2. East Coast Environmental Research Institute, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, 21300, Kuala Terengganu, Terengganu, Malaysia

    H. Juahir

  3. Environmental Forensics Research Center, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

    A. Z. Aris

  4. Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Sharifuddin M. Zain

  5. Kulliyyah of Science, International Islamic University Malaysia, 25200, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia

    Armi Abu Samah

Authors
  1. T. H. Tengku Ismail
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Juahir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Z. Aris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sharifuddin M. Zain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Armi Abu Samah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. H. Tengku Ismail.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tengku Ismail, T.H., Juahir, H., Aris, A.Z. et al. Local community acceptance of the rare earth industry: the case of the Lynas Advanced Materials Plant (LAMP) in Malaysia. Environ Dev Sustain 18, 739–762 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-015-9675-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-015-9675-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation