NIMBY Risk Assessment for Overseas Investment Countries of China with Entropy Weighted and Fuzzy Integral

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jmsd.202512610

Author(s)

Jian Hu*, Dan Chen

Affiliation(s)

School of Management, Chongqing University of Technology, Chongqing, China *Corresponding Author

Abstract

Addressing the frequent occurrence of NIMBY incidents during Chinese enterprises' investment activities in overseas investment countries, this study examines 51 such nations. An assessment framework for NIMBY risks is constructed across six dimensions: national stability, balanced economic development, environmental vulnerability, cultural divergence, public sentiment, and governmental governance. Entropy weights and fuzzy integration methods are employed to evaluate NIMBY risks across these 51 countries. Findings reveal: Nigeria, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Egypt, Kenya, Bangladesh, Angola, Russia, and Ukraine are classified as high NIMBY risk nations. These high-risk countries predominantly cluster in Africa, South Asia, and conflict-affected regions of Europe. New Zealand, Qatar, Austria, Uruguay, the United Arab Emirates, the Czech Republic, Malta, Hungary, Cyprus, and Slovakia are classified as low NIMBY risk countries, distributed across Europe, the Middle East, South America, and Oceania.

Keywords

Overseas Investment; NIMBY Risk; Fuzzy Integral; Entropy Weighting

References

[1]O'Hare M. Not On My Block You Don't: Facility Siting and the Strategic Importance of Compensation. Public Policy, 1977, 25(4): 407-458. [2]Michael Dear. Understanding and Overcoming the NIMBY Syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association, 1992, 58(3): 288-302. [3]Min Xu, Yong Liu, Caiyun Cui, Bo Xia, Yongjian Ke, Martin Skitmore. Social acceptance of NIMBY facilities: A comparative study between public acceptance and the social license to operate analytical frameworks. Land Use Policy, 2023, 124, 106453. [4]Makridou A, Frangopoulos I, Kapitsinis N. Interpreting NIMBY as movements claiming participatory planning in the context of refugee camps’ siting: A comparative case study in two Greek regions. Political Geography, 2024,115, 103216. [5]He Yanling. "NIMBY conflicts and their resolution: An analysis based on an urban collective protest". Public Administration Research, 2006, 0(0): 93-103. [6]Wen Hong, Han Yunyun. "Not in My Jurisdiction": Bureaucratic Officials' NIMBY Conflicts – A Comparative Conceptual Analysis. Administrative Forum, 2021(1): 47-52. [7]Yang Xuefeng, Zhang Tiancheng. Environmental NIMBY Risks: Theoretical Implications, Driving Mechanisms and Governance Pathways. Foreign Theoretical Trends, 2016(08): 81-92. [8]Yang Zhijun. The NIMBY Effect and Research on Optimising Local Governance. People's Publishing House, 2022. [9]Zhang Yuan. The Views of Baloch Separatist Forces on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and Their Causes. South Asian Studies, 2016(02): 24-43. [10]Liu Chao, Tang Juan. Mechanisms and Prevention Strategies for NIMBY Conflicts in Overseas Belt and Road Construction Projects. Journal of Xiangtan University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2020, 44(02): 27-32. [11]Wang Lina. Multi-Stakeholder Dynamics, Power Politics and the Effectiveness of China-Southeast Asia Infrastructure Cooperation. Contemporary Asia-Pacific, 2023, (01):125-156. [12]Du Xiaojun, Tan Chenxi, Qi Qiao, Fen Fei. Geopolitical Risk and Investment Location Choice of Chinese Enterprises in the Belt and Road Countries: Based on the Dual Logic of“Economy-Politics”. South China Journal of Economics, 2024(08):90-114. [13]Sun Jinhua, Hu Jian, Liu Zhen. New determining principle for λ-fuzzy measure and its application. Computer Engineering and Applications, 2014, 50(19):249-255.