4.2 Verification of the factors influencing the prediction effect
Table 4 indicates that at the 1% significance level, all variables related to types, issues, participants, and stakeholders are stationary and meet the conditions for modeling. Unconstrained VAR models were constructed for each variable and risk perception, and the AR root estimation method was employed to test the stationarity of the estimated results of the VAR model. After the test, no root was found outside the unit circle, confirming that the estimated VAR model satisfies the stability condition.
Table 4
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test of the factors
Factors | Variables | t-Statistic | Prob.* | Test critical values |
1% level | 5% level | 10% level |
Types | Negative comments | -17.24982 | 0.0000 | -3.434624 | -2.863315 | -2.567763 |
Negative feelings | -36.97040 | 0.0000 | -3.434618 | -2.863312 | -2.567762 |
Issues | policy formulation | -17.24982 | 0.0000 | -3.434624 | -2.863315 | -2.567763 |
policy implementation | -36.74461 | 0.0000 | -3.434618 | -2.863312 | -2.567762 |
policy effectiveness | -18.88733 | 0.0000 | -3.434624 | -2.863315 | -2.567763 |
Participants | Institution emotions | -17.61006 | 0.0000 | -3.434624 | -2.863315 | -2.567763 |
Individual emotions | -26.63745 | 0.0000 | -3.434618 | -2.863312 | -2.567762 |
Stakeholders | Key stakeholders | -25.65244 | 0.0000 | -3.434618 | -2.863312 | -2.567762 |
Non-key stakeholders | -6.016446 | 0.0000 | -3.434664 | -2.863333 | -2.567773 |
Marginal stakeholders | -18.71895 | 0.0000 | -3.434624 | -2.863315 | -2.567763 |
To assess Hypotheses 2 to 5, Granger causality analysis was conducted to evaluate the overall predictive impact of the variables representing ten influencing factors on public risk-coping behavior.
Table 5 presents the analysis results for public risk-coping behavior, as indicated by information search behavior. The findings revealed that among the two variables representing negative emotion types, negative comments (A1, 8.30***) and negative feelings (A2, 4.11**), the probability that negative comments were not the Granger cause of risk-coping behavior was less than 0.001. In contrast, the probability that negative feelings were not the Granger cause of risk-coping behavior was less than 0.01. Thus, negative comments can better predict public risk-coping behavior, confirming Hypothesis 2.
Regarding the analysis of issues, policy formulation (B1, 10.36***) was found to predict risk-coping behavior, while policy implementation and policy effectiveness were not identified as Granger causes of risk-coping behavior. The probabilities were 0.446 (B1) and 0.503 (B2). Therefore, public risk-coping behavior cannot be predicted by negative emotions related to these two issues, supporting Hypothesis 3.
Analysis of participants indicated that negative emotions from institutions (C1, 0.33) could not predict public risk-coping behavior, while negative emotions from individuals (C2, 16.38***) might be the cause of public risk-coping behavior. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was validated.
In the variables related to stakeholders, the probability that negative emotions from key stakeholders (D1, 14.01 ***) were not the Granger cause of public risk-coping behavior was less than 0.001. This suggests that negative emotions from key stakeholders can predict risk-coping behavior, while negative emotions from non-key stakeholders (D2, 0.048) and marginal stakeholders (D3, 0.17) cannot predict risk-coping behavior. Therefore, Hypothesis 5 was confirmed.
Table 5
Granger Causality Tests of different emotion variables and information search behaviors
| A1 | A2 | B1 | B2 | B3 | C1 | C2 | D1 | D2 | D3 |
Lag | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
SC | 17.19 | 13.64 | 16.61 | 14.03 | 15.38 | 16.02 | 16.41 | 16.63 | 13.80 | 15.75 |
F | 8.30*** | 4.11** | 10.36*** | 0.89 | 0.78 | 0.33 | 16.38*** | 14.01*** | 0.048 | 0.17 |
P | 0.000 | 0.007 | 0.000 | 0.446 | 0.503 | 0.803 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.986 | 0.914 |
Note. * significant at .05; **significant at .01; ***significant at .001. |
Table 6 presents the analysis results for public risk-coping behavior represented by violent crime behavior. The outcomes indicated that among the two variables representing negative emotion types, negative comments (A1, 9.09***) and negative feelings (A2, 1.90), the probability that negative comments were not the Granger cause of risk-coping behaviors was less than 0.001. In contrast, the probability that negative feelings were not the Granger cause of risk-coping behavior was greater than 0.05. Therefore, negative comments can better predict public risk perception, thus confirming Hypothesis 2.
Concerning the three variables related to relocation issues, the predictive effect of policy formulation (B1, 8.54***, p < 0.001) was superior to policy implementation (B2, 3.28**, p < 0.01) and policy effectiveness (B3, 2.85*, p < 0.05). The probability that negative emotions on the policy formulation issue were not the Granger cause of risk-coping behavior was lower, validating Hypothesis 3.
Among the two variables representing negative emotions from different participants, emotions from institutions (C1, 3.66**) and emotions from individuals (C2, 10.36***), the probability that negative emotions from individuals were not the Granger cause of risk-coping behavior was less than 0.001. In contrast, the probability that negative emotions from institutions were not the Granger cause of risk-coping behavior was less than 0.01. Thus, negative emotions from individuals can better predict public risk-coping behavior, confirming Hypothesis 4.
In the variables related to stakeholders, the probability that negative emotions from key stakeholders (D1, 7.54***, P = 6.E08) were not the Granger cause of public risk perception was the least. This suggests that negative emotions from key stakeholders can better predict risk-coping behavior than negative emotions from non-key stakeholders (D2, 1.92*, P < 0.05) and marginal stakeholders (D3, 5.33***, P = 7.E05). Therefore, Hypothesis 5 was verified.
Table 6
Granger Causality Tests of different emotion variables and violent crime behaviors
| A1 | A2 | B1 | B2 | B3 | C1 | C2 | D1 | D2 | D3 |
Lag | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 16 | 5 |
SC | 6.67 | 3.097 | 6.04 | 3.47 | 4.83 | 5.46 | 5.92 | 6.16 | 3.08 | 5.15 |
F | 9.09*** | 1.90 | 8.54*** | 3.28** | 2.85* | 3.66** | 10.36*** | 7.54*** | 1.92* | 5.33*** |
P | 2.E-08 | 0.0909 | 6.E-08 | 0.0060 | 0.0144 | 0.0027 | 9.E-10 | 6.E-08 | 0.0156 | 7.E-05 |
Note. * significant at .05; **significant at .01; ***significant at .001. |