Research On Mechanism And Relationship Of Risk Perception, Benefit Perception And Collective Action Between Mining And Non-mining Areas

In today’s world, it is a risk society, we live in potential risks everywhere, so the research about risk have gradually become the urgent research project. Due to the increasing of the risk and anxiety, we have to take action to defend a safe environment for their lives. Consequences of the exploration of the ore, oil and gas have the serious impact on the survival of human, such as air pollution, haze. While we enjoy the benefits of the development of economy and improved standards of living that mining brought, we suffer and struggle from the subsequent risk. Over the years, there are many new reports in our country about the protests for the mining projects. In the study we made the urban residents as the research objects, try to see the residents’ risk perception and benefit perception about the mining; with the contrast and analysis of the difference between urban residents in the mining area and in the non-mining area, discuss the possible inner mechanism how risk perception, benefit perception affect collective action, then to find some reason about the protests mentioned above, put forward some specific suggestion to local governments and mining enterprises, take effective measures in risk management, promote the healthy developent of a harmonious society.We adopted the questionnaire about social license to operate for mining company made by Australian commonwealth scientific and industrial research organization(CSIRO) to test the residents in big cities across the country on the network, 2286 effective questionnaires had been got, 1005 of which are from residents in the mining area, 1281 are from residents in the non-mining area. Through the contrast and analysis of residents in two areas, we found that:(1) More than 70% of the residents know less than 2 miners, and the overall level of the degree of mastering the mining knowledge is low, men know more than women. More than 80% of the residents chose "Internet" to be more often than others to get the mining information.(2)The risk perception is higher than the benefit perception in the mining and non-mining areas. And the risk perception of the residents in the mining areas is significantly higher than the residents in the non-mining areas. Men’ risk perception in mining areas is significantly higher than females, but it is no significant in the non-mining areas.(3) Residents in the mining areas and the non-mining areas all tend to choose the actions of discontent but acceptance and negotiations, but there are significant differences. To a upcoming mining project, the residents in the mining areas chose the actions of acceptance calmly significantly more than the residents in non-mining areas, while the residents in non-mining areas chose more actions of negotiations, administrative justice and protest march. In gender differences, women chose more negotiations than men in the mining areas, in the non-mining areas men chose more actions of administrative justice and protest march than women.(4) No matter the residents in the mining areas or in non-mining areas, the risk perception and its dimensions in addition to living cost are significantly negatively related to the action of acceptance calmly and trust, and the benefit perception and its dimensions are positively related to the action of acceptance calmly and trust, are negatively related to the actions of administrative justice and protest march. Trust is negatively related to risk perception, is positively related to benefit perception.And collective efficacy is positively related to benefit perception and living cost.(5)Risk perception, benefit perception have respectively apparent negative effect and positive effect on collective actions. Both of trust in local government and the trust in the mining company have the mediating effect on the relationship between risk perception and collective actions, the benefit perception and actions. Furthermore, both collective efficacy in people and collective efficacy in the communities of mining areas had the regulating effect on the relationship between the risk perception and the collective actions in non-mining areas, while in the mining areas the regulating effect was not significant.