| Literature DB >> 35857781 |
Shahid Mahmood1,2, Ghaffar Ali2, Rashid Menhas3, Muazzam Sabir4.
Abstract
The Chinese Government commenced the One Belt One Road (OBOR) project in 2013 for the multidimensional development to restore the historical Silk Road paradigms. The Economic Corridor provides networks and connections based on two geographical territories. The China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is one of them, a chunk of the Silk Road Economic Belt's economic corridors. CPEC would be an economic game-changer for Pakistan. It will generate businesses, minimize poverty, generate employment opportunities, and improve local communities' health and education. However, it is more lucrative for the Chinese economy because CPEC is a safe, cheapest, and shortest route for importing energy rather than other routes. The present study investigates the social, infrastructural, and tourism effects of CPEC through the mediation role of rural development and knowledge sharing, including income, employment, business, land-use change variables, and CPEC adoptability for a local community in Pakistan. This study is based on four different regions of Gilgit Baltistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab, and Sindh in Pakistan. The study incorporates the collected data from the respondents living on the CPEC routes via face-to-face interviews from citizens (cities, villages, and towns). Besides, the study applied univariate and Structural Equation Model techniques to draw the results. The study results reveal that CPEC plays a significant role in Pakistan's socio-economic and rural development. This mega project's expectations might bring positive changes in infrastructure development, energy sector, and social development projects in Pakistan. The Results also indicated that CPEC would link rural areas to urban areas, which would offer development opportunities for rural regions to achieve sustainable development.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35857781 PMCID: PMC9299335 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271243
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.752
Fig 1CPEC map silk road route in Pakistan from China.
source: [12].
Fig 2The proposed conceptual framework and hypothesis relationship of the study.
Demographic detail of the participants.
| Frequency | Percentage | |
|---|---|---|
| Female | 136 | 15.3 |
| Male | 755 | 84.7 |
| Urban Area | 218 | 24.4 |
| Rural Area | 673 | 75.6 |
| Married | 669 | 75.1 |
| Single | 622 | 24.9 |
| Under 30 years of education | 120 | 13.5 |
| 30–40 years of education | 216 | 24.2 |
| 41–50 years of education | 242 | 26.5 |
| 51–60 years of education | 163 | 27.2 |
| 61–70 years of education | 150 | 18.3 |
| Farmer | 201 | 22.6 |
| G. Employee | 173 | 19.4 |
| Labor | 145 | 16.3 |
| P. Employee | 78 | 8.8 |
| Businessman | 216 | 24.2 |
| Student | 69 | 7.7 |
| Housewife | 9 | 1.0 |
| Under 50,000 PKR | 148 | 16.6 |
| 50,001–100,000 PKR | 314 | 32.2 |
| 100,001–150,000 PKR | 185 | 20. |
| 150,001–200,0000 PKR | 88 | 9.9 |
| 200,001–250,0000 PKR | 57 | 6.4 |
| Above 250,001 PKR | 99 | 1.1 |
| Under 20 | 146 | 16.4 |
| 20–30 | 272 | 30.5 |
| 31–40 | 248 | 27.8 |
| 41–50 | 143 | 16.0 |
| Over 51 | 82 | 9.2 |
| Punjabi | 178 | 20.0 |
| Hinko | 102 | 11.4 |
| Shina | 94 | 10.5 |
| Pashto | 91 | 10.2 |
| Sindhi | 210 | 23.6 |
| Saraiki | 205 | 23.0 |
| Brushki | 11 | 1.2 |
Respondents’ knowledge about the CPEC project.
| Frequency | Percent | |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 891 | 100.0 |
| Electronic Media | 217 | 24.4 |
| Print Media | 148 | 16.6 |
| Both | 407 | 45.7 |
| Other | 119 | 13.4 |
| A road that links China and Pakistan | 159 | 17.8 |
| The most significant investment of China in Pakistan | 164 | 18.4 |
| Rural and urban development Plan | 158 | 17.7 |
| All of them | 410 | 46.0 |
| Economic Projects | 159 | 17.8 |
| Energy-related Projects | 91 | 10.2 |
| Infrastructure Development projects | 114 | 12.8 |
| Social Development Projects | 386 | 43.3 |
| All of them | 141 | 15.8 |
Construct reliability and validity.
| Cronbach’s Alpha | CR | AVE | CA | ID | KS | RD | SD | TD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.912 | 0.938 | 0.791 |
| |||||
|
| 0.879 | 0.903 | 0.538 | 0.187 |
| ||||
|
| 0.907 | 0.926 | 0.642 | 0.1 | 0.315 |
| |||
|
| 0.922 | 0.939 | 0.719 | 0.244 | 0.307 | 0.168 |
| ||
|
| 0.936 | 0.946 | 0.662 | 0.22 | 0.573 | 0.509 | 0.499 |
| |
|
| 0.925 | 0.939 | 0.658 | 0.308 | 0.528 | 0.351 | 0.678 | 0.659 |
|
Note: N = 891; Diagonal elements (in bold) are the square root of the AVE; CR = Composite reliability; AVE = Average variance extracted; CA = CPEC Adoptability; ID = Infrastructure Development; KS = Knowledge Sharing; RD = Rural Development; SD = Social Development; TD = Tourism Development.
Model fit.
| Estimated Model | |
|---|---|
| SRMR | 0.062 |
| d_ULS | 3.526 |
| d_G | 0.954 |
| Chi-Square | 5009.865 |
| NFI | 0.825 |
SRMR =; Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; d_ULS = Unweighted Least Squares Discrepancy; d_G = Discrepancy Geodesic; NFI = Normed Fit Index.
Measurement of research model with factor loading and VIF values.
| Constructs | Items | Factor Loadings | VIF |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| CA1 | 0.854 | 2.217 |
|
| ID1 | 0.708 | 2.124 |
|
| SD1 | 0.823 | 2.526 |
|
| TD1 | 0.765 | 2.088 |
|
| RD1 | 0.815 | 2.232 |
|
| KS1 | 0.807 | 2.155 |
Test of hypothesis (Direct effect).
| Hypothesis | Std.Beta (β) | T-Value | P-Value | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ID → RD | -0.113 | 3.553 | 0.000 | Accepted |
| ID → KS | 0.03 | 0.659 | 0.510 | Rejected |
| SD → RD | 0.138 | 3.424 | 0.001 | Accepted |
| SD → KS | 0.479 | 6.448 | 0.000 | Accepted |
| TD → RD | 0.646 | 13.386 | 0.000 | Accepted |
| TD → KS | 0.019 | 0.33 | 0.741 | Rejected |
| RD → CA | 0.233 | 6.642 | 0.000 | Accepted |
| KS → CA | 0.061 | 2.232 | 0.026 | Accepted |
Note: ***p < .001; ID = Infrastructure Development; SD = Social Development; TD = Tourism Development; RD = Rural Development; KS = Knowledge Sharing; CA = CPEC Adoptability.
Test of hypothesis (Indirect/Mediation effect).
| Hypothesis | Std. Beta (β) | T-Value | P-Value | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ID -> KS -> CA | 0.002 | 0.541 | 0.589 | Rejected |
| ID -> RD -> CA | -0.026 | 3.386 | 0.001 | Accepted |
| SD -> KS -> CA | 0.029 | 2.227 | 0.026 | Accepted |
| SD -> RD -> CA | 0.032 | 3.055 | 0.002 | Accepted |
| TD -> KS -> CA | 0.001 | 0.292 | 0.770 | Rejected |
| TD -> RD -> CA | 0.151 | 5.466 | 0.000 | Accepted |
Note: ***p < .001; Note: ***p < .001; ID = Infrastructure Development; SD = Social Development; TD = Tourism Development; RD = Rural Development; KS = Knowledge Sharing; CA = CPEC Adoptability.
Fig 3The SEM results with beta (β) values.
Fig 4The SEM results with t values.