Local community acceptance of the rare earth industry: the case of the Lynas Advanced Materials Plant (LAMP) in Malaysia
- 407 Downloads
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.
KeywordsRare earth Local community Risk acceptance Multivariate analysis Malaysia
- Academy of Sciences Malaysia. (2011). Rare earth industries: Moving Malaysia’s green economy forward. The Academy of Sciences Malaysia, 1–63.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.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.Google Scholar
- 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.CrossRefGoogle 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
- 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.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. (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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Hidalgo, M. C., & Pisano, I. (2010). Determinants of risk perception and willingness to tackle climate change. Psyecology, 1, 105–112.Google Scholar
- Kim, Y., Kim, W., & Kim M. (2014). An international comparative analysis of public acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy Policy, 66, 475–483.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
- 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, 287–295Google 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
- 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.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
- 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.
- 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
- Sjöberg, L. (2009). Precautionary attitudes and the acceptance of a local nuclear waste repository. Safety Science, 47, 542–546.Google Scholar
- 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.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.Google Scholar
- The Star (Malaysia). (2014). February 3, 2014.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
- 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