IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i9p5219-d550031.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research into Individual Factors Affecting Safety within Airport Subsidiaries

Author

Listed:
  • Jin-Hwan Bae

    (School of Business, Korea Aerospace University, Goyang-si 10540, Korea)

  • Jin-Woo Park

    (School of Business, Korea Aerospace University, Goyang-si 10540, Korea)

Abstract

This study’s purpose is to demonstrate that, from the point of view of employees in subsidiary companies, individual factors, notably attitude towards risk, cognitive bias, knowledge and experience, and risk perception, have generated unsafe behavior and unsafe conditions and have undermined safety performance through risk tolerance. The data underpinning this research were derived from a survey of employees working in subsidiary companies within the vicinity of Incheon International Airport. In total, 409 questionnaires were analyzed using network structural equation modeling (SEM), a methodology representing, estimating, and testing relationships. This analysis has demonstrated within the bounds of statistical significance (a) that the attitudes towards risk, knowledge and experience, and cognitive bias affect risk tolerance and (b) that risk tolerance influences unsafe behavior, unsafe conditions, and safety performance. This research is the first to apply the accident causal model to the airport industry, and its conclusions can be used for accident prevention within Incheon International Airport’s subsidiaries.

Suggested Citation

  • Jin-Hwan Bae & Jin-Woo Park, 2021. "Research into Individual Factors Affecting Safety within Airport Subsidiaries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-13, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:9:p:5219-:d:550031
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/5219/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/5219/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Changsheng Xiong & Volker Beckmann & Rong Tan, 2018. "Effects of Infrastructure on Land Use and Land Cover Change (LUCC): The Case of Hangzhou International Airport, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    2. Paul Slovic & Baruch Fischhoff & Sarah Lichtenstein, 1982. "Why Study Risk Perception?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 83-93, June.
    3. Joost M.E. Pennings & Ale Smidts, 2000. "Assessing the Construct Validity of Risk Attitude," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(10), pages 1337-1348, October.
    4. Gilberto Montibeller & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2015. "Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1230-1251, July.
    5. Simon, Mark & Houghton, Susan M. & Aquino, Karl, 2000. "Cognitive biases, risk perception, and venture formation: How individuals decide to start companies," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 113-134, March.
    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. SangRyeong Lee & Jin-Woo Park & Sukhoon Chung, 2022. "The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Corporate Reputation: The Case of Incheon International Airport," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-19, September.

    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. Banus Kam Leung Low & Siu Shing Man & Alan Hoi Shou Chan & Saad Alabdulkarim, 2019. "Construction Worker Risk-Taking Behavior Model with Individual and Organizational Factors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-13, April.
    2. Cardak, Buly A. & Martin, Vance L., 2023. "Household willingness to take financial risk: Stockmarket movements and life‐cycle effects," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    3. Zellweger, Thomas & Sieger, Philipp & Halter, Frank, 2011. "Should I stay or should I go? Career choice intentions of students with family business background," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 521-536, September.
    4. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    5. Shuang Liu & Kirsten Maclean & Cathy Robinson, 2019. "A cost-effective framework to prioritise stakeholder participation options," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(3), pages 221-241, November.
    6. Lekfuangfu, Warn N., 2022. "Mortality risk, perception, and human capital investments: The legacy of landmines in Cambodia," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    7. Pennings, Joost M.E. & Garcia, Philip & Irwin, Scott H. & Good, Darrel L., 2003. "How To Group Market Participants? Heterogeneity In Hedging Behavior," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 21963, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    8. Yuqing An & Jin Yeu Tsou & Kapo Wong & Yuanzhi Zhang & Dawei Liu & Yu Li, 2018. "Detecting Land Use Changes in a Rapidly Developing City during 1990–2017 Using Satellite Imagery: A Case Study in Hangzhou Urban Area, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-14, September.
    9. Martijn Adriaan Boermans & Daan Willebrands, 2017. "Entrepreneurship, risk perception and firm performance," International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 31(4), pages 557-569.
    10. Parker, Simon C., 2013. "Do serial entrepreneurs run successively better-performing businesses?," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 652-666.
    11. Shepherd, Jonathan D. & Saghaian, Sayed H., 2015. "Risk Perception and Trust Interaction in Response to Food Safety Events across Products and the Implications for Agribusiness Firms," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 46(3), pages 1-21, November.
    12. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2012. "Systems‐Based Guiding Principles for Risk Modeling, Planning, Assessment, Management, and Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1451-1467, September.
    13. Joost M. E. Pennings & Ale Smidts, 2003. "The Shape of Utility Functions and Organizational Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(9), pages 1251-1263, September.
    14. Louis Eeckhoudt & Elisa Pagani & Eugenio Peluso, 2023. "Multidimensional risk aversion: the cardinal sin," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 320(1), pages 15-31, January.
    15. Jin Tian & Yundou Wang & Shutian Gao, 2022. "Analysis of Mining-Related Injuries in Chinese Coal Mines and Related Risk Factors: A Statistical Research Study Based on a Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-16, December.
    16. Laura K. Siebeneck & Thomas J. Cova, 2012. "Spatial and Temporal Variation in Evacuee Risk Perception Throughout the Evacuation and Return‐Entry Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1468-1480, September.
    17. Sabrina Artinger & Nir Vulkan & Yotam Shem-Tov, 2015. "Entrepreneurs’ negotiation behavior," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 737-757, April.
    18. Dimitrios Gouglas & Kendall Hoyt & Elizabeth Peacocke & Aristidis Kaloudis & Trygve Ottersen & John-Arne Røttingen, 2019. "Setting Strategic Objectives for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations: An Exploratory Decision Analysis Process," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 430-446, November.
    19. Coduras, Alicia & Saiz-Alvarez, José Manuel & Ruiz, Jesús, 2016. "Measuring Readiness for Entrepreneurship: An Information Tool Proposal," MPRA Paper 86603, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Christophe Labreuche & M. Grabisch, 2007. "The representation of conditional relative importance between criteria," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 93-122, October.

    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:13:y:2021:i:9:p:5219-:d:550031. 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.