Understanding Community Resilience through the Lens of Stakeholder Participation: Empirical Evidence from the Moat System Restoration Project
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Stakeholders and Theory of Planned Behavior
2.2. Research Hypotheses and Conceptual Framework
2.2.1. Stakeholder Attitudes and Priorities
2.2.2. Risk Perception and Trust in Government Decisions
2.2.3. Stakeholder Knowledge
2.2.4. Participation, Motivation, Intention, and Behavior
3. Methods
3.1. Study Area
3.2. Measures
3.3. Data Collection
3.4. Data Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Sample Description
4.2. Measurement Model and CFA
4.3. Structural Model and Hypothesis Testing
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Birkholz, S.; Muro, M.; Jeffrey, P.; Smith, H.M. Rethinking the Relationship between Flood Risk Perception and Flood Management. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 478, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- World Meteorological Organization. Social Aspects and Stakeholder Involvement in Integrated Flood Management; World Meteorological Organization (WMO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2006; ISBN 92-63-11008-5. [Google Scholar]
- Xie, Z.; Du, Y.; Zeng, Y.; Miao, Q. Classification of Yearly Extreme Precipitation Events and Associated Flood Risk in the Yangtze-Huaihe River Valley. Sci. China Earth Sci. 2018, 61, 1341–1356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burnside-Lawry, J.; Carvalho, L. A Stakeholder Approach to Building Community Resilience: Awareness to Implementation. Int. J. Disaster Resil. Built Environ. 2016, 7, 4–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashmawy, I.K.I.M. Stakeholder Involvement in Community Resilience: Evidence from Egypt. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 7996–8011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreno, J.; Lara, A.; Torres, M. Community Resilience in Response to the 2010 Tsunami in Chile: The Survival of a Small-Scale Fishing Community. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019, 33, 376–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blair, M.J.; Mabee, W.E. Evaluation of Technology, Economics and Emissions Impacts of Community-Scale Bioenergy Systems for a Forest-Based Community in Ontario. Renew. Energy 2020, 151, 715–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CCA. Building a Resilient Canada: The Expert Panel on Disaster Resilience in a Changing Climate; Council of Canadian Academies: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Junker, B.; Buchecker, M.; Müller-Böker, U. Objectives of Public Participation: Which Actors Should Be Involved in the Decision Making for River Restorations? Water Resour. Res. 2007, 43, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conniff, R. Rebuilding the Natural World: A Shift in Ecological Restoration. The Yale School of the Environment. 2014. Available online: https://e360.yale.edu/features/rebuilding_the_natural_world_a_shift_in_ecological_restoration#:~:text=From%20forests%20in%20Queens%20to,nature%20and%20what%20does%20not (accessed on 20 December 2015).
- SER. The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration. In Society for Ecological Restoration, Washington; Society for Ecological Restoration International: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Baker, S.; Eckerberg, K.; Zachrisson, A. Political Science and Ecological Restoration. Environ. Polit. 2014, 23, 509–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rey Benayas, J.M.; Newton, A.C.; Diaz, A.; Bullock, J.M. Enhancement of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services by Ecological Restoration: A Meta-Analysis. Science. 2009, 325, 1121–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buijs, A.E. Public Support for River Restoration. A Mixed-Method Study into Local Residents’ Support for and Framing of River Management and Ecological Restoration in the Dutch Floodplains. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 2680–2689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luyet, V.; Schlaepfer, R.; Parlange, M.B.; Buttler, A. A Framework to Implement Stakeholder Participation in Environmental Projects. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 111, 213–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Masterson, J.H.; Peacock, W.G.; Van Zandt, S.S.; Grover, H.; Schwarz, L.F.; Cooper, J.T. Planning for Community Resilience: A Handbook for Reducing Vulnerability to Disasters; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; ISBN 978-1610915854. [Google Scholar]
- Turcanu, C.; Perko, T.; Laes, E. Public Participation Processes Related to Nuclear Research Installations: What Are the Driving Factors behind Participation Intention? Public Underst. Sci. 2014, 23, 331–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alam, K. Public Attitudes toward Restoration of Impaired River Ecosystems: Does Residents’ Attachment to Place Matter? Urban Ecosyst. 2011, 14, 635–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaich, H. Local Residents’ Perceptions of Floodplain Restoration Measures in Luxembourg’s Syr Valley. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 93, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phalen, K.B. An Invitation for Public Participation in Ecological Restoration: The Reasonable Person Model. Ecol. Restor. 2009, 27, 178–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aggestam, F. Wetland Restoration and the Involvement of Stakeholders: An Analysis Based on Value-Perspectives. Landsc. Res. 2014, 39, 680–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, C.Y.; Chung, E.S.; Chang, H. The Right to Urban Streams: Quantitative Comparisons of Stakeholder Perceptions in Defining Adaptive Stream Restoration. Sustain. 2020, 12, 9500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Follett, R.; Strezov, V. An Analysis of Citizen Science Based Research: Usage and Publication Patterns. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0143687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Cascetta, E.; Cartenì, A.; Pagliara, F.; Montanino, M. A New Look at Planning and Designing Transportation Systems: A Decision-Making Model Based on Cognitive Rationality, Stakeholder Engagement and Quantitative Methods. Transp. Policy 2015, 38, 27–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yosie, T.F.; Herbst, T.D. Using Stakeholder Processes in Environmental Decisionmaking An Evaluation of Lessons Learned, Key Issues, and Future Challenges; The Global Development Research Center: Kobe, Japan, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Freeman, R.E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission Environment. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC); European Commission Environment: Luxembourg, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Mysiak, J.; Testella, F.; Bonaiuto, M.; Carrus, G.; De Dominicis, S.; Cancellieri, U.G.; Firus, K.; Grifoni, P. Flood Risk Management in Italy: Challenges and Opportunities for the Implementation of the EU Floods Directive (2007/60/EC). Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2013, 13, 2883–2890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ride, A.B.D. Community Resilience in Natural Disasters; Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2011; ISBN 978-1-349-29585-2. [Google Scholar]
- Scolobig, A.; Prior, T.; Schröter, D.; Jörin, J.; Patt, A. Towards People-Centred Approaches for Effective Disaster Risk Management: Balancing Rhetoric with Reality. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2015, 12, 202–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asian Development Bank. Strengthening Participation for Development Results: An Asian Development Bank Guide to Participation; Asian Development Bank: Mandaluyong, Philippines, 2012; ISBN 9789290925262. [Google Scholar]
- Duea, S.R.; Zimmerman, E.B.; Vaughn, L.M.; Dias, S.; Harris, J. A Guide to Selecting Participatory Research Methods Based on Project and Partnership Goals. J. Particip. Res. Methods 2022, 3, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blicharska, M.; Rönnbäck, P. What Factors Enable or Hinder Engagement of Civil Society in Ecosystem Management ? The Case of ‘ Pike Factories ’ and Wetland Restoration in Sweden. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2018, 61, 950–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Meteorological Organization. Community-Based Flood Management; World Meteorological Organization (WMO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Luo, Z.; Li, J.; Wu, Z.; Li, S.; Bi, G. Investigating the Driving Factors of Public Participation in Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Projects—A Case Study of China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santoro, S.; Pluchinotta, I.; Pagano, A.; Pengal, P.; Cokan, B.; Giordano, R. Assessing Stakeholders’ Risk Perception to Promote Nature Based Solutions as Flood Protection Strategies: The Case of the Glinščica River (Slovenia). Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 655, 188–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelly, C.; Breinlinger, S. Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior: A Study of Women’s Participation in Collective Action. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1995, 25, 1430–1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deffner, J.; Haase, P. The Societal Relevance of River Restoration. Ecol. Soc. 2018, 23, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tunstall, S.M.; Tapsell, S.M.; Eden, S. How Stable Are Public Responses to Changing Local Environments? A “before” and “after” Case Study of River Restoration. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 1999, 42, 527–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slovic, P.; Weber, E.U. Perception of Risk Posed by Extreme Events. In Regulation of Toxic Substances and Hazardous Waste, 2nd ed.; Foundation Press: Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Koehn, J.D.; Brierley, G.J.; Cant, B.L.; Lucas, A.M. River Restoration Framework; Land & Water Australia: Wayville, Australia, 2001; ISBN 0 642 76056 X. [Google Scholar]
- Maluka, S.O. Strengthening Fairness, Transparency and Accountability in Health Care Priority Setting at District Level in Tanzania. Glob. Health Action 2011, 4, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Weitzner, D.; Deutsch, Y. Understanding Motivation and Social Influence in Stakeholder Prioritization. Organ. Stud. 2015, 36, 1337–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jennings, T.E.; Jean-Philippe, S.R.; Willcox, A.; Zobel, J.M.; Poudyal, N.C.; Simpson, T. The Influence of Attitudes and Perception of Tree Benefits on Park Management Priorities. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 153, 122–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallego-Ayala, J.; Juízo, D. Integrating Stakeholders’ Preferences into Water Resources Management Planning in the Incomati River Basin. Water Resour. Manag. 2014, 28, 527–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, J.; Damine, J.M.N. How Does Our Perception of Risk Influence Decision-Making? Implications for the Design of Risk Information. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 2007, 8, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Savadori, L.; Savio, S.; Nicotra, E.; Rumiati, R.; Finucane, M.; Slovic, P. Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology. Risk Anal. 2004, 24, 1289–1299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Slovic, P. The Perception of Risk. In London and Sterling; Earthscan: Oxford, UK, 2000; ISBN 9781315661773. [Google Scholar]
- Lobb, A.E.; Mazzocchi, M.; Traill, W.B. Modelling Risk Perception and Trust in Food Safety Information within the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18, 384–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, J.; Wei, J.; Zhu, W.; Zhao, D.; Lin, X. Residents’ Behavioural Intentions to Resist the Nuclear Power Plants in the Vicinity: An Application of the Protective Action Decision Model. J. Risk Res. 2017, 22, 382–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yüksel, A.; Yüksel, F. Shopping Risk Perceptions: Effects on Tourists’ Emotions, Satisfaction and Expressed Loyalty Intentions. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 703–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, Y.; Sun, X.P.; Zhao, F. Trust and Its Effects on the Public’s Perception of Flood Risk: A Social Science Investigation of the Middle and Lower Reaches of the Yangtze River. J. Flood Risk Manag. 2017, 10, 487–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leiserowitz, A. Climate Change Risk Perception and Policy Preferences: The Role of Affect, Imagery, and Values. Clim. Chang. 2006, 77, 45–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moen, E. Risk Perception, Priority of Safety, and Demand for Risk Mitigation in Transport; Norwegian University of Science and Technology: Trondheim, Norway, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Swapan, M.S.H. Who Participates and Who Doesn’t? Adapting Community Participation Model for Developing Countries. Cities 2016, 53, 70–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, M. Understanding Public Engagement: Conceptualizing and Measuring Its Influence on Supportive Behavioral Intentions. J. Public Relat. Res. 2014, 26, 399–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Payton, M.A.; Fulton, D.C.; Anderson, D.H. Influence of Place Attachment and Trust on Civic Action: A Study at Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2005, 18, 511–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, M.J.; Coleman, K.J. The Multidimensionality of Trust: Applications in Collaborative Natural Resource Management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2015, 28, 117–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rousseau, D.M.; Sitkin, S.B.; Burt, R.S.; Camerer, C.; Rousseau, D.M.; Burt, R.S. Not so Different after All: A Cross-Discipline View of Trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 393–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boss, R.W. Trust and Managerial Problem Solving Revisited. Gr. Organ. Stud. 1978, 3, 331–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, H.; Zhu, G.; Li, Y. Research on the Impact of Environmental Risk Perception and Public Participation on Evaluation of Local Government Environmental Regulation Implementation Behavior. Environ. Chall. 2021, 5, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carnevale, D.G.; Wechsler, B. Trust in the Public Sector: Individual and Organizational Determinants. Adm. Soc. 1992, 23, 471–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antonini, M.; Barbieri, B.; Giacomantonio, M.; Mannetti, L. Trust and Expected Costs as Antecedents of Citizens’ Motivation to Participate in Public Policymaking. Cesk. Psychol. 2015, 59, 26–35. [Google Scholar]
- Siegrist, M.; Cvetkovich, G. Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge. Risk Anal. 2000, 20, 713–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frick, J.; Kaiser, F.G.; Wilson, M. Environmental Knowledge and Conservation Behavior: Exploring Prevalence and Structure in a Representative Sample. Pers. Individ. Dif. 2004, 37, 1597–1613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I.; Joyce, N.; Sheikh, S.; Cote, N.G. Knowledge and the Prediction of Behavior: The Role of Information Accuracy in the Theory of Planned Behavior. Basic Appl. Soc. Psych. 2011, 33, 101–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dreyer, M.; Kosow, H.; Bauer, A. Public Engagement with Research: Citizens’ Views on Motivations, Barriers and Support. Res. All 2021, 5, 302–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xing, H.G.; Que, T.; Wu, Y.X.; Hu, S.Y.; Li, H.B.; Li, H.; Skitmore, M.; Talebian, N. Public Intention to Participate in Sustainable Geohazard Mitigation: An Empirical Study Based on an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2023, 23, 1529–1547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sutton, S.G.; Tobin, R.C. Constraints on Community Engagement with Great Barrier Reef Climate Change Reduction and Mitigation. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2011, 21, 894–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkataramanan, V.; Lopez, D.; McCuskey, D.J.; Kiefus, D.; McDonald, R.I.; Miller, W.M.; Packman, A.I.; Young, S.L. Knowledge, Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior Related to Green Infrastructure for Flood Management: A Systematic Literature Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 720, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Garpenby, P. The Priority Setting Process: A Macro Perspective; National Centre for Priority Setting in Health Care: Linköping, Sweden, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Iwasaki, Y.; Havitz, M.E. Examining Relationships between Leisure Involvement, Psychological Commitment and Loyalty to a Recreation Agency. J. Leis. Res. 2004, 36, 45–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gul, F.; Sattar, S.; Kazmi, I.B.; Ayub, F.; Arshad, S. Analysis of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivational Factors Affecting Sports Participation of University Level Athletes. PalArch’s J. Archaeol. Egypt/Egyptol. 2021, 18, 1583–1592. [Google Scholar]
- Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. In Perspectives in Social Psychology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1985; ISBN 978-1-4899-2273-1. [Google Scholar]
- Deci, E.L. Effects of Externally Mediated Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1971, 18, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shirk, J.L.; Ballard, H.L.; Wilderman, C.C.; Phillips, T.; Wiggins, A.; Jordan, R.; McCallie, E.; Minarchek, M.; Lewenstein, B.V.; Krasny, M.E.; et al. Public Participation in Scientific Research: A Framework for Deliberate Design. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ryan, R.L.; Kaplan, R.; Grese, R.E. Predicting Volunteer Commitment in Environmental Stewardship Programmes. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2001, 44, 629–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gagné, M.; Deci, E.L. Self-Determination Theory and Work Motivation. J. Organ. Behav. 2005, 26, 331–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gollwitzer, P.M.; Delius, J.D.; Oettingen, G. Motivation. In The International Handbook of Psychology; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2000; pp. 191–206. [Google Scholar]
- Hankins, M.; French, D.; Horne, R. Statistical Guidelines for Studies of the Theory of Reasoned Action and the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Psychol. Heal. 2000, 15, 151–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gollwitzer, P.M.; Bargh, J.A. Planning and Coordinating Action. In The Psychology of Action: Linking Cognition and Motivation to Behaviour; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1996; pp. 283–312. [Google Scholar]
- Van Lange, P.A.M.; Kruglanski, A.W.; Higgins, E.T. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology: Volume 1; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2012; Volume 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kashima, Y.; McKintyre, A.; Clifford, P. The Category of the Mind: Folk Psychology of Belief, Desire, and Intention. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 1, 289–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, X.Y. The Ancient Urban Water System Construction of China: The Lessons from History for a Sustainable Future. Int. J. Glob. Environ. Issues 2015, 14, 187–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Che, Y.; Li, W.; Shang, Z.; Liu, C.; Yang, K. Residential Preferences for River Network Improvement: An Exploration of Choice Experiments in Zhujiajiao, Shanghai, China. Environ. Manag. 2014, 54, 517–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Buchecker, M.; Menzel, S.; Home, R. How Much Does Participatory Flood Management Contribute to Stakeholders’ Social Capacity Building? Empirical Findings Based on a Triangulation of Three Evaluation Approaches. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2013, 13, 1427–1444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buchecker, M.; Meier, C.; Hunziker, M. Measuring the Effects of Consensusbuilding Processes with Methods of Intervention Research. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2010, 18, 259–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mah, D.N.; Hills, P.; Tao, J. Risk Perception, Trust and Public Engagement in Nuclear Decision-Making in Hong Kong. Energy Policy 2014, 73, 368–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Whitmarsh, L. Are Flood Victims More Concerned about Climate Change than Other People? The Role of Direct Experience in Risk Perception and Behavioural Response. J. Risk Res. 2008, 11, 351–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beechie, T.; Pess, G.; Roni, P.; Giannico, G. Setting River Restoration Priorities: A Review of Approaches and a General Protocol for Identifying and Prioritizing Actions. North Am. J. Fish. Manag. 2008, 28, 891–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berander, P.; Andrews, A. Requirements Prioritization. In Engineering and Managing Software Requirements; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; pp. 69–94. [Google Scholar]
- van Riper, C.J.; Lum, C.; Kyle, G.T.; Wallen, K.E.; Absher, J.; Landon, A.C. Values, Motivations, and Intentions to Engage in Proenvironmental Behavior. Environ. Behav. 2018, 52, 437–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corbett, J.B. Motivations to Participate in Riparian Improvement Programs: Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior. Sci. Commun. 2002, 23, 243–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woosnam, K.M.; Strzelecka, M.; Nisbett, G.S.; Keith, S.J. Examining Millennials’ Global Citizenship Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions to Engage in Environmental Volunteering. Sustain. 2019, 11, 2324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tunstall, S.M.; Penning-Rowsell, E.C.; Tapsell, S.M.; Eden, S.E. River Restoration: Public Attitudes and Expectations. Water Environ. J. 2000, 14, 363–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Cai, J.; Zuo, J.; Bartsch, K.; Huang, M. Conflict or Consensus? Stakeholders’ Willingness to Participate in China’s Sponge City Program. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 769, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sarvilinna, A. Saving Our Streams: Public Willingness to Participate in Stream Restoration in Finland; JYU Dissertations: Jyväskylä, Finland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- MacCallum, R.C.; Austin, J.T. Applications of Structural Equation Modeling in Psychological Research. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2000, 51, 201–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lei, P.W.; Wu, Q. Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling: Issues and Practical Considerations. Educ. Meas. Issues Pract. 2007, 26, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, W.W. Commentary: Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling. MIS Q. 1998, 22, 7–16. [Google Scholar]
- Ajzen, I. From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. In Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1985; pp. 11–39. [Google Scholar]
- Dietz, T.; Stern, P.C.; Guagnano, G.A. Social Structural and Social Psychological Bases of Environmental Concern. Environ. Behav. 1998, 30, 450–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaiser, F.G.; Gutscher, H. The Proposition of a General Version of the Theory of Planned Behavior: Predicting Ecological Behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 33, 586–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slovic, P. Perception of Risk. Science 1987, 236, 280–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leppin, A.; Aro, A.R. Risk Perceptions Related to SARS and Avian Influenza: Theoretical Foundations of Current Empirical Research. Int. J. Behav. Med. 2009, 16, 7–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What Are the Barriers to pro-Environmental Behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- de Groot, J.I.M.; Steg, L. Value Orientations to Explain Beliefs Related to Environmental Significant Behavior: How to Measure Egoistic, Altruistic, and Biospheric Value Orientations. Environ. Behav. 2008, 40, 330–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P.C. New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lorenzoni, I.; Nicholson-Cole, S.; Whitmarsh, L. Barriers Perceived to Engaging with Climate Change among the UK Public and Their Policy Implications. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2007, 17, 445–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Attributes | Description | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male Female | 240 233 | 50.7 49.3 |
Age | 18–25 26–35 36–45 46–55 55+ | 105 173 81 86 28 | 22.2 36.6 17.1 18.2 5.9 |
Education Level | Primary School Secondary School Undergraduate Master’s degree PhD+ | 95 95 178 85 20 | 20.1 20.1 37.6 18.0 4.2 |
Employment Status | Civil servant Self-employed Retired Student Farmer or worker | 188 85 8 87 105 | 39.7 18.0 1.7 18.4 22.2 |
Years | Less than 1 year 2–7 years 8–13 years 14–19 years More than 20 years | 94 100 88 87 104 | 19.9 21.1 18.6 18.4 22.0 |
Familiarity with Participation in MSRP | Not at all familiar Slightly familiar Moderately familiar Very familiar Extremely familiar | 83 105 92 96 97 | 17.5 22.2 19.5 20.3 20.5 |
Flood Management as a Restoration Priority | Approve Strongly Approve Neutral Disapprove Strongly Disapprove | 86 113 78 91 105 | 18.2 23.9 16.5 19.2 22.2 |
Construct | Item | Loading | CR | AVE | Cronbach’s α |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
SA | SA1. I am interested in Moat System Restoration Projects. | 0.780 | 0.892 | 0.623 | 0.811 |
SA2. I am concerned with Moat System Restoration Projects. | 0.798 | ||||
SA3. I have only a little information on the Moat System Restoration Project. | 0.767 | ||||
SA4. I think the restoration project is necessary for the moat system. | 0.802 | ||||
SA5. I believe the Moat System Restoration Project can help solve real problems. | 0.797 | ||||
SB | SB1. I am willing to participate in decision-making. | 0.781 | 0.889 | 0.615 | 0.870 |
SB2. I am open to sharing knowledge. | 0.781 | ||||
SB3. I am willing to be trained to participate in decision-making. | 0.764 | ||||
SB4. I am glad to communicate with people in different roles. | 0.803 | ||||
SB5. I am able to encourage others to participate in decision-making. | 0.791 | ||||
STD6. I think local government decisions can address people’s concerns. | 0.759 | ||||
SP | SP1. Flooding Management. | 0.823 | 0.901 | 0.647 | 0.902 |
SP2. Social welfare | 0.819 | ||||
SP3. Strengthen legislation. | 0.803 | ||||
SP4. Ensure health and safety. | 0.777 | ||||
SP5. Economic development | 0.798 | ||||
SP3. Strengthen legislation. | 0.803 | ||||
SP4. Ensure health and safety. | 0.777 | ||||
SP5. Economic development | 0.798 | ||||
SRP | SRP1. I think solving the flooding problem of the moat system is very urgent. | 0.826 | 0.841 | 0.638 | 0.823 |
SRP2. I think the flooding issue of the moat system is threatening my life. | 0.816 | ||||
SRP3. I agree with flood management as a priority for Moat System Restoration Projects. | 0.753 | ||||
STD | STD1. I think the decision of the government is trustworthy. | 0.807 | 0.902 | 0.605 | 0.901 |
STD2. I have confidence in the competence of decision-makers. | 0.775 | ||||
STD3. I am satisfied with the current decision-making process. | 0.764 | ||||
STD4. I believe the decision-making process is fair in Tianchang City. | 0.801 | ||||
STD5. I think the local government’s decision is accepted. | 0.758 | ||||
STD6. I think local government decisions can address people’s concerns. | 0.759 | ||||
SK | SK1. I have received all the information necessary to participate in decision-making. | 0.787 | 0.901 | 0.647 | 0.905 |
SK2. I have the requisite knowledge to participate in decision-making. | 0.793 | ||||
SK3. I understand how to participate in decision-making. | 0.806 | ||||
SK4. I am aware of my role in the decision-making process. | 0.802 | ||||
SK5. I know the benefits of participating in decision-making. | 0.832 | ||||
SM | SM1. I have the right to participate in decision-making. | 0.812 | 0.898 | 0.637 | 0.884 |
SM2. I have the ability to participate in decision-making. | 0.802 | ||||
SM3. I feel confident when participating in decision-making. | 0.780 | ||||
SM4. I think my participation can influence decisions. | 0.801 | ||||
SM5. I have a sense of responsibility to participate in decision-making. | 0.797 | ||||
SI | SI1. Gives me the opportunity to learn new skills. | 0.768 | 0.888 | 0.612 | 0.883 |
SI2. Network with academics related to my major. | 0.792 | ||||
SI3. Let decision-makers know and consider my thoughts. | 0.777 | ||||
SI4. Make more like-minded friends. | 0.774 | ||||
SI5. To preserve the ecology of the place where I live. | 0.800 |
Construct | SK | STD | SRP | SP | SM | SI | SA | SB |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SK | 0.804 | |||||||
STD | 0.056 | 0.778 | ||||||
SRP | 0.340 | 0.059 | 0.799 | |||||
SP | 0.310 | 0.124 | 0.215 | 0.804 | ||||
SM | 0.107 | 0.119 | 0.123 | 0.047 | 0.798 | |||
SI | 0.128 | 0.120 | 0.080 | 0.064 | 0.402 | 0.782 | ||
SA | 0.278 | 0.414 | 0.254 | 0.263 | 0.140 | 0.362 | 0.789 | |
SB | 0.466 | 0.506 | 0.407 | 0.394 | 0.512 | 0.505 | 0.614 | 0.784 |
Chi-Square | df | Chi-Square/df | SRMR | RMSEA | TLI | CFI | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Recommended value | / | / | <3 | <0.10 | <0.05 | >0.9 | >0.9 |
Measurement model | 762.402 | 674 | 1.131 | 0.031 | 0.017 | 0.991 | 0.992 |
Structural model | 989.358 | 684 | 1.446 | 0.065 | 0.031 | 0.970 | 0.972 |
Path | Path Direction | Non-Standard Coefficient | SE | Z (CR Value) | p | Standardized Coefficient | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | SA→SB | 0.185 | 0.034 | 5.393 | 0.000 | 0.201 | Accepted |
H2 | SA→SP | 0.229 | 0.056 | 4.116 | 0.000 | 0.212 | Accepted |
H3 | SP→SB | 0.149 | 0.029 | 5.230 | 0.000 | 0.175 | Accepted |
H4 | SP→SRP | 0.239 | 0.051 | 4.654 | 0.000 | 0.244 | Accepted |
H5 | SRP→SB | 0.206 | 0.029 | 7.211 | 0.000 | 0.237 | Accepted |
H6 | STD→SB | 0.361 | 0.035 | 10.329 | 0.000 | 0.395 | Accepted |
H7 | STD→SRP | 0.014 | 0.055 | 0.255 | 0.799 | 0.013 | Rejected |
H8 | SK→SB | 0.239 | 0.031 | 7.716 | 0.000 | 0.266 | Accepted |
H9 | SK→SP | 0.299 | 0.055 | 5.443 | 0.000 | 0.284 | Accepted |
H10 | SM→SRP | 0.165 | 0.053 | 3.109 | 0.002 | 0.162 | Accepted |
H11 | SM→SI | 0.455 | 0.048 | 9.476 | 0.000 | 0.498 | Accepted |
H12 | SI→SB | 0.404 | 0.035 | 11.475 | 0.000 | 0.418 | Accepted |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yan, S.; Ibrahim, R.B. Understanding Community Resilience through the Lens of Stakeholder Participation: Empirical Evidence from the Moat System Restoration Project. Water 2023, 15, 2844. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15152844
Yan S, Ibrahim RB. Understanding Community Resilience through the Lens of Stakeholder Participation: Empirical Evidence from the Moat System Restoration Project. Water. 2023; 15(15):2844. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15152844
Chicago/Turabian StyleYan, Shihua, and Roziya Binti Ibrahim. 2023. "Understanding Community Resilience through the Lens of Stakeholder Participation: Empirical Evidence from the Moat System Restoration Project" Water 15, no. 15: 2844. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15152844