IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i2p665-d1568296.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Advancing Cities’ Sustainability: Exploring the Effects of Interaction on the Public’s Perceived Efficacy of Emergency Infrastructure Projects—A Psychological Distance Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Caiyun Cui

    (Architectural Engineering College, North China Institute of Science and Technology, Langfang 065201, China)

  • Linzhi Xie

    (Architectural Engineering College, North China Institute of Science and Technology, Langfang 065201, China)

  • Yong Liu

    (School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou 310018, China)

  • Xiaowei Han

    (Jiangsu Subei Environmental Protection Group Co., Ltd., Suqian 223600, China)

  • Qing Chen

    (School of Architecture and Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia)

  • Bo Xia

    (School of Architecture and Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia)

  • Martin Skitmore

    (Faculty of Society and Design, Bond University, Robina, QLD 4226, Australia)

Abstract

Considering that emergency infrastructure projects (EIPs) play a significant role in the response to urgent events globally, the public’s perceived efficacy with respect to EIPs has become increasingly critical guidance for infrastructure systems and advancing cities’ sustainability. The interactions between the public and governments are deemed to be instrumental in enhancing the perceived efficacy. Concurrently, psychological distance, which can influence individuals’ thoughts and behaviors, is seen as a beneficial method of boosting the public’s perception of the effectiveness of EIPs. However, the underlying mechanism linking interaction, psychological distance, and perceived efficacy in relation to EIPs remains largely unexplored. In the current study, a theoretical framework was established through a literature review, leading to the formulation of four hypotheses. These hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling based on data collected from a questionnaire survey of 337 residents regarding Leishenshan Hospital. The findings indicate that, firstly, interaction directly affects the public’s psychological distance and perceived efficacy. Secondly, the public’s psychological distance from EIPs directly affects the public’s perceived efficacy. Thirdly, the public’s psychological distance from EIPs plays a mediating role between interaction and perceived efficacy. These findings enhance the theoretical understanding of Environmental Innovation Policy (EIP) governance, aiming to maximize public welfare by effectively addressing unexpected crisis events and promoting the sustainable development of cities and society.

Suggested Citation

  • Caiyun Cui & Linzhi Xie & Yong Liu & Xiaowei Han & Qing Chen & Bo Xia & Martin Skitmore, 2025. "Advancing Cities’ Sustainability: Exploring the Effects of Interaction on the Public’s Perceived Efficacy of Emergency Infrastructure Projects—A Psychological Distance Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-13, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:2:p:665-:d:1568296
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/2/665/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/2/665/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mohamed Didi Alaoui & Veronique Cova, 2021. "Psychological distance as a working tool for managers," Post-Print hal-03323690, HAL.
    2. Gisela Wachinger & Ortwin Renn & Chloe Begg & Christian Kuhlicke, 2013. "The Risk Perception Paradox—Implications for Governance and Communication of Natural Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1049-1065, June.
    3. Alexa Spence & Wouter Poortinga & Nick Pidgeon, 2012. "The Psychological Distance of Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(6), pages 957-972, June.
    4. Kassahun Gashu & Tegegne Gebre-Egziabher & Mulatu Wubneh, 2020. "Local communities’ perceptions and use of urban green infrastructure in two Ethiopian cities: Bahir Dar and Hawassa," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 63(2), pages 287-316, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    2. Michael Greenberg & Anthony Cox & Vicki Bier & Jim Lambert & Karen Lowrie & Warner North & Michael Siegrist & Felicia Wu, 2020. "Risk Analysis: Celebrating the Accomplishments and Embracing Ongoing Challenges," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2113-2127, November.
    3. Hayam Elshirbiny & Wokje Abrahamse, 2020. "Public risk perception of climate change in Egypt: a mixed methods study of predictors and implications," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(3), pages 242-254, September.
    4. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    5. Emma Weitkamp & Lindsey McEwen & Patty Ramirez, 2020. "Communicating the hidden: toward a framework for drought risk communication in maritime climates," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 163(2), pages 831-850, November.
    6. Molinaroli, Emanuela & Guerzoni, Stefano & Suman, Daniel, 2018. "Adaptations to Sea Level Rise: A Tale of Two Cities – Venice and Miami," MarXiv 73a25, Center for Open Science.
    7. Daran Gray‐Scholz & Timothy J. Haney & Pamela MacQuarrie, 2019. "Out of Sight, Out of Mind? Geographic and Social Predictors of Flood Risk Awareness," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(11), pages 2543-2558, November.
    8. Joseph P. Reser & Graham L. Bradley, 2020. "The nature, significance, and influence of perceived personal experience of climate change," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(5), September.
    9. Janel Jett & Leigh Raymond, 2021. "Issue Framing and U.S. State Energy and Climate Policy Choice," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(3), pages 278-299, May.
    10. Sisira S. Withanachchi & Ilia Kunchulia & Giorgi Ghambashidze & Rami Al Sidawi & Teo Urushadze & Angelika Ploeger, 2018. "Farmers’ Perception of Water Quality and Risks in the Mashavera River Basin, Georgia: Analyzing the Vulnerability of the Social-Ecological System through Community Perceptions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-26, August.
    11. Ling Jia & Queena K. Qian & Frits Meijer & Henk Visscher, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Risk Perception: A Perspective for Proactive Risk Management in Residential Building Energy Retrofits in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    12. Jones, Lindsey & d'Errico, Marco, 2019. "Whose resilience matters? Like-for-like comparison of objective and subjective evaluations of resilience," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-1.
    13. Huang, Yi, 2021. "Salience of hazard disclosure and house prices: Evidence from Christchurch, New Zealand," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    14. Felix J. Formanski & Marcel M. Pein & David D. Loschelder & John-Oliver Engler & Onno Husen & Johann M. Majer, 2022. "Tipping points ahead? How laypeople respond to linear versus nonlinear climate change predictions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 1-20, November.
    15. Florian Justwan & Bert Baumgaertner & Juliet E Carlisle & Emma Carson & Jordan Kizer, 2019. "The effect of trust and proximity on vaccine propensity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-16, August.
    16. Liang-Chu Ho & Yu-Hsien Sung & Chia-Chun Wu & Pei-Shan Lee & Wen-Bin Chiou, 2020. "Envisaging Mitigation Action Can Induce Lower Discounting toward Future Environmental Gains and Promote Pro-Environmental Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-12, November.
    17. Gisela Wachinger & Ortwin Renn & Sarah-Kristina Wist & Sinika-Marie Steinhilber & Ulrike Triemer, 2014. "Using participation to create resilience: how to involve citizens in designing a hospital system?," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 208-223, June.
    18. H.M. Tuihedur Rahman & Gordon M. Hickey, 2020. "An Analytical Framework for Assessing Context-Specific Rural Livelihood Vulnerability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-26, July.
    19. KASHIWAGI Yuzuka & TODO Yasuyuki, 2022. "Trade Disruption and Risk Perception," Discussion papers 22086, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    20. Tianlong Yu & Hao Yang & Xiaowei Luo & Yifeng Jiang & Xiang Wu & Jingqi Gao, 2021. "Scientometric Analysis of Disaster Risk Perception: 2000–2020," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-19, December.

    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:17:y:2025:i:2:p:665-:d:1568296. 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.