Qiao Yu
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Qiao Yu has a total of 10 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
Kaiqi Liu
1 shared publication- Kaiqi Liu
Department of Transdisciplinary Science and Engineering, School Of, Environment and Society, Institute of Science Tokyo, G5-9 4259 Nagatsuta, Midori-ku, Yokohama City, Kanagawa, 226-8502, Japan
1 shared publication Ke Zeng
1 shared publicationKultip Suwanteep
1 shared publication- Kultip Suwanteep
Department of Transdisciplinary Science and Engineering, School Of, Environment and Society, Institute of Science Tokyo, G5-9 4259 Nagatsuta, Midori-ku, Yokohama City, Kanagawa, 226-8502, Japan
1 shared publication Shigeo Nishikizawa
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 6 October 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Cleaner and Responsible Consumption
- Vol. 23
Understanding diffusion barriers in rural clean heating: A resident perspective on centralized GSHP in two Chinese villages
- 6 October 2026
- Published by Elsevier in Cleaner and Responsible Consumption
- Vol. 23
Open AccessUnderstanding diffusion barriers in rural clean heating: A resident perspective on centralized GSHP in two Chinese villages
- Open Access
- 19 January 2026
- Published by Wiley in Sustainable Development
- Vol. 34 (5) , 6166-6192
Bridging the Gap Between Socio‐Political and Community Acceptance of Wind Energy: Policy Insights for Sustainable Energy Development
Wind energy plays an important role in achieving energy transition and sustainable development goals, yet disparities between socio‐political and community acceptance continue to hinder project implementation. Understanding this gap is essential for designing more socially responsive wind energy policies. This study conducted a questionnaire survey in Dalian, China, obtaining 342 responses from the general public and 362 from local residents living within 1 km of the wind farms. Using partial least squares structural equation modeling and multigroup analysis, we examined wind energy acceptance and its determinants, including perceived benefits, perceived risks, affective imagery, distance, environmental concern, experience, place attachment, knowledge, participation, subjective norms, and social trust. Results showed significantly higher acceptance among the general public than local residents, mainly due to a pronounced benefit–risk asymmetry and the general public's more abstract assessment of risks. For the general public, affective and social factors played a greater role through perceived benefits, whereas local residents were more strongly influenced by risk perceptions shaped by proximity and firsthand experience. These findings highlight the need to bridge the acceptance gap through more transparent communication, stronger trust‐building, clearer benefit‐sharing, and meaningful participation, thereby reinforcing sustainable development‐oriented energy governance.
- 19 January 2026
- Published by Wiley in Sustainable Development
- Vol. 34 (5) , 6166-6192
Open AccessBridging the Gap Between Socio‐Political and Community Acceptance of Wind Energy: Policy Insights for Sustainable Energy Development
Wind energy plays an important role in achieving energy transition and sustainable development goals, yet disparities between socio‐political and community acceptance continue to hinder project implementation. Understanding this gap is essential for designing more socially responsive wind energy policies. This study conducted a questionnaire survey in Dalian, China, obtaining 342 responses from the general public and 362 from local residents living within 1 km of the wind farms. Using partial least squares structural equation modeling and multigroup analysis, we examined wind energy acceptance and its determinants, including perceived benefits, perceived risks, affective imagery, distance, environmental concern, experience, place attachment, knowledge, participation, subjective norms, and social trust. Results showed significantly higher acceptance among the general public than local residents, mainly due to a pronounced benefit–risk asymmetry and the general public's more abstract assessment of risks. For the general public, affective and social factors played a greater role through perceived benefits, whereas local residents were more strongly influenced by risk perceptions shaped by proximity and firsthand experience. These findings highlight the need to bridge the acceptance gap through more transparent communication, stronger trust‐building, clearer benefit‐sharing, and meaningful participation, thereby reinforcing sustainable development‐oriented energy governance.