IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i6p1978-d152160.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research on Factors Affecting Public Risk Perception of Thai High-Speed Railway Projects Based on “Belt and Road Initiative”

Author

Listed:
  • Sangsomboon Ploywarin

    (School of Economics and Management, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150001, China
    International Strategy Division, Rajamangala University of Technology, Thanyaburi 12110, Pathum Thani, Thailand)

  • Yan Song

    (School of Economics and Management, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150001, China)

  • Dian Sun

    (School of Economics and Management, Harbin Engineering University, Harbin 150001, China)

Abstract

Studies on the factors affecting public risk perception of high-speed railway projects in Thailand are very limited. The aim of this study was to assess the influencing factors of public railway project risk perception, which described the public trust degrees of government, enterprise, media and experts with a combination of variables. Therefore, the study used the widely accepted influential factors and proposed a comprehensive framework to clarify the mechanism among various factors in the public risk perception. Dataset of 675 samples was collected from Don Muang area Bangkok, Pak Thong Chai, Pak Chong, Kaengkhoi area, and Nakhon Ratchasima Province, Thailand through questionnaire. Rationality of the questionnaire was ensured through its high reliability and efficiency. The dimension hypothesis of the second-order factor was validated by confirmatory factor analysis, and the relationship among information acquisition, trust, emotion and risk perception was analyzed through the structural equation model. The results show that, within the factors that affect risk perception, the public has a more direct effect on the factors of social emotion of railway projects compared with information acquirement and the factors of trust level of each subject. This study exerts practical implications to reduce public risk perception of railway projects and promote the development of railway in Thailand.

Suggested Citation

  • Sangsomboon Ploywarin & Yan Song & Dian Sun, 2018. "Research on Factors Affecting Public Risk Perception of Thai High-Speed Railway Projects Based on “Belt and Road Initiative”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-13, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:6:p:1978-:d:152160
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/1978/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/1978/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Siegrist, 2000. "The Influence of Trust and Perceptions of Risks and Benefits on the Acceptance of Gene Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 195-204, April.
    2. Ulrich Lichtenthaler & Eckhard Lichtenthaler, 2009. "A Capability‐Based Framework for Open Innovation: Complementing Absorptive Capacity," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(8), pages 1315-1338, December.
    3. Groothuis, Peter A & Miller, Gail, 1997. "The Role of Social Distrust in Risk-Benefit Analysis: A Study of the Siting of a Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 241-257, December.
    4. Julian Chuk‐ling Lai & Julia Tao, 2003. "Perception of Environmental Hazards in Hong Kong Chinese," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 669-684, August.
    5. Helmut Jungermann & Hans‐Rüdiger Pfister & Katrin Fischer, 1996. "Credibility, Information Preferences, and Information Interests," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 251-261, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wang, Xueqin & Wong, Yiik Diew & Yuen, Kum Fai & Li, Kevin X., 2020. "Environmental governance of transportation infrastructure under Belt and Road Initiative: A unified framework," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 189-199.
    2. Qian Luo & Guohua Fang & Jian Ye & Min Yan & Chengxuan Lu, 2020. "Country Evaluation for China’s Hydropower Investment in the Belt and Road Initiative Nations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-19, October.
    3. Qianqian, Li & Yijun, Liu, 2020. "The China-Pakistan economic corridor: The Pakistani media attitudes perspective," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    4. Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Jonas Šaparauskas & Jurgita Antucheviciene, 2018. "Sustainability in Construction Engineering," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-7, June.
    5. Chuchu Zhang & Chaowei Xiao & Helin Liu, 2019. "Spatial Big Data Analysis of Political Risks along the Belt and Road," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-16, April.
    6. Tengyuan Chang & Xiaopeng Deng & Bon-Gang Hwang, 2019. "Investigating Political Risk Paths in International High-Speed Railway Projects: The Case of Chinese International Contractors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-15, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael Siegrist & Timothy C. Earle & Heinz Gutscher, 2003. "Test of a Trust and Confidence Model in the Applied Context of Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 705-716, August.
    2. Visschers, Vivianne H.M. & Keller, Carmen & Siegrist, Michael, 2011. "Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: Investigating an explanatory model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3621-3629, June.
    3. Kazuya Nakayachi & George Cvetkovich, 2010. "Public Trust in Government Concerning Tobacco Control in Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 143-152, January.
    4. Geunsik Kim & Seoyong Kim & Eunjung Hwang, 2021. "Searching for Evidence-Based Public Policy and Practice: Analysis of the Determinants of Personal/Public Adaptation and Mitigation Behavior against Particulate Matter by Focusing on the Roles of Risk ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-22, January.
    5. Michael Siegrist & Philipp Hübner & Christina Hartmann, 2018. "Risk Prioritization in the Food Domain Using Deliberative and Survey Methods: Differences between Experts and Laypeople," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 504-524, March.
    6. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Esperanza López Vázquez, 2011. "A Cross‐Cultural Study of Perceived Benefit Versus Risk as Mediators in the Trust‐Acceptance Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(12), pages 1919-1934, December.
    7. Xi Du & Zhijiao Zhang & Lei Dong & Jing Liu & Alistair G. L. Borthwick & Renzhi Liu, 2017. "Acceptable Risk Analysis for Abrupt Environmental Pollution Accidents in Zhangjiakou City, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-13, April.
    8. Miguel Ángel López-Navarro & Jaume Llorens-Monzonís & Vicente Tortosa-Edo, 2013. "The Effect of Social Trust on Citizens’ Health Risk Perception in the Context of a Petrochemical Industrial Complex," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-18, January.
    9. Michael R. Greenberg & Reya Sinha, 2006. "Government Risk Management Priorities: A Comparison of the Preferences of Asian Indian Americans and Other Americans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1275-1289, October.
    10. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    11. Timothy C. Earle, 2010. "Trust in Risk Management: A Model‐Based Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 541-574, April.
    12. Guo, Yue & Ren, Tao, 2017. "When it is unfamiliar to me: Local acceptance of planned nuclear power plants in China in the post-fukushima era," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 113-125.
    13. Lucia Savadori & Stefania Savio & Eraldo Nicotra & Rino Rumiati & Melissa Finucane & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1289-1299, October.
    14. Bart W. Terwel & Fieke Harinck & Naomi Ellemers & Dancker D. L. Daamen, 2009. "Competence‐Based and Integrity‐Based Trust as Predictors of Acceptance of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1129-1140, August.
    15. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Henk A. L. Kiers, 2005. "A New Look at the Psychometric Paradigm of Perception of Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 211-222, February.
    16. Mei‐Fang Chen, 2008. "Consumer Trust in Food Safety—A Multidisciplinary Approach and Empirical Evidence from Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1553-1569, December.
    17. Jochen Wulf, 2020. "Development of an AHP hierarchy for managing omnichannel capabilities: a design science research approach," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(1), pages 39-68, April.
    18. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    19. Nicolás Bronfman & Pamela Cisternas & Esperanza López-Vázquez & Luis Cifuentes, 2016. "Trust and risk perception of natural hazards: implications for risk preparedness in Chile," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 307-327, March.
    20. Vaidyanathan, Geeta & Sankaranarayanan, Ramani & Yap, Nonita T., 2019. "Bridging the chasm – Diffusion of energy innovations in poor infrastructure starved communities," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 243-255.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:6:p:1978-:d:152160. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.