Evaluation of Social Stability Risk of Adjusting Goods Vehicle Calculation...

[Full title: Evaluation of Social Stability Risk of Adjusting Goods Vehicle Calculation Method Based on Optimal Combination Weighting—Cloud Model]

Citation: Chong, P.; Yin, H.; Wang, C.; Wang, P.; Li, L.; Wu, D.; Li, J.; Ding, D Evaluation of Social Stability Risk of Adjusting Goods Vehicle Calculation Method Based on Optimal Combination Weighting—Cloud Model Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 17057 https://doi.org/10.3390/ su 142417057 Academic Editors: Wuhong Wang and Lisheng Jin Received: 24 October 2022 Accepted: 9 December 2022 Published: 19 December 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations Copyright: © 2022 by the authors Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/) sustainability Article Evaluation of Social Stability Risk of Adjusting Goods Vehicle Calculation Method Based on Optimal Combination Weighting—Cloud Model Pengyun Chong 1 , Hui Yin 2 , Chaofeng Wang 3 , Pengcheng Wang 3 , Linqing Li 4 , Di Wu 5 , Jingwei Li 1 and Dong Ding 6, * 1 Yunnan Science Research Institute of Communication & Transportation Co., Ltd., Kunming 650011, China 2 Power China Kunming Engineering Corporation Limited, Kunming 650051, China 3 Airport College, Civil Aviation Flight University of China, Guanghan 618307, China 4 School of Traffic and Transportation, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing 100044, China 5 Committee of Communist Youth League of China, Xi’an International Studies University, Xi’an 710128, China 6 School of Economics and Management, Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Chongqing 400065, China * Correspondence: dingdong@cqupt.edu.cn Abstract: In order to solve the social stability risk problem of the adjusting goods vehicle calculation method (AGVCM) in the cancellation of toll stations at expressway provincial boundaries, a social stability risk evaluation model was proposed. Firstly, based on the possible time stages of the AGVCM, we built the social stability risk evaluation index system of the AGVCM including 4 levels, 3 grades, and 60 indicators. Secondly, we used the semantic information of cloud model to transform qualitative description and quantitative evaluation, calculated the risk level for social stability risk evaluation of AGVCM according to an integrated cloud algorithm, and proposed an optimal combination weighting—cloud model for the social stability risk evaluation of AGVCM. Finally, the feasibility of the evaluation model is verified by a case study in Yunnan province in China. The results showed that the cloud model’s numerical characteristic of social stability risk evaluation of AGVCM in Yunnan based on the optimal combination weighting—cloud model is (0.28, 0.073, 0.0008), implying the risk level is “small” and the conclusion is basically consistent with current standards. The model contains rich process information, which is helpful to better effectively eliminate the subjectivity and arbitrariness in the evaluation process of identifying the key factors affecting the project risk level Keywords: highway transportation; evaluation of social stability risk; optimal combination weighting—cloud model; adjusting goods vehicle calculation method; cancellation toll stations at expressway provincial boundaries 1. Introduction On 16 May 2019, the General Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China issued an implementation plan for deepening reforms of the toll road system to cancel the provincial toll station of expressways in China. It puts forward the requirements for adjusting the charging mode of freight car tolls and revising the standards of the classification of vehicle types for toll roads and unified tolling in China according to vehicle (axle) types. On 31 May 2019, the Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China issued a classification of toll road vehicles standard. According to the document, the provinces have been carrying out the cancellation of adjusting goods vehicle calculation method (AGVCM) at toll stations on the interprovincial expressways among provinces [ 1 ]. According to the statistics of China Statistical Yearbook 2019 regarding expressway vehicle ownership, until the end of 2018, the number of China’s cargo vehicle ownership was 135.82 million, Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 17057. https://doi.org/10.3390/su 142417057 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 17057 2 of 14 tonnage was 128.7297 million tons, and employees exceeded 21 million people. Therefore, AGVCM involves a wide range of complex procedures and many uncertainties, which may easily affect the relevant interest groups and lead to social stability problems if not handled properly. Therefore, it is of great significance to scientifically analyze the risk factors that may be caused by AGVCM and evaluate the risk level of each relevant group in order to promote the implementation of AGVCM in an efficient, orderly and stable manner Since the adoption of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969 [ 2 ], many foreign scholars have conducted research on the definition of risk [ 3 – 5 ], research frameworks [ 6 ], and evaluation methods [ 7 – 9 ], and the issue of social stability risk in the transport sector has also gradually gained attention. Ghosh used principal component analysis to analyze the key risk factors for the Thailand Metro project [ 10 ]. Wei Chen studied the social stability risk assessment of rail transit construction projects from the subjective and objective perspectives [ 11 ]. Zou Yuhui and Liu Xiaohui studied the risk identification and risk estimation of social stability risk analysis, taking Taiyuan Rail Transit Line 2. and Zhengzhou Rail Transit Line 1 as examples, respectively [ 12 , 13 ]. Du Zhe studied the identification and evaluation methods of risk factors involved in the social stability risk assessment of rail transit [ 14 ]. Taking the characteristics of highway projects as a starting point, Hu Liang constructed a social stability risk evaluation index system and conducted a risk evaluation study using AHP [ 15 ]. Dong Zhi studied the social stability risk of highway projects based on the entropy weight extension matter–element model on the basis of constructing a social stability risk assessment index system combined with the characteristics of highway projects at various stages of construction [ 16 ]. Liu Shuai used the AHP method to evaluate the social stability risk of taxi reservation in the Wulingyuan district of Zhangjiajie [ 17 ]. Li Jun used the single-factor risk assessment method to study the impact of airport construction on social stability risk [ 18 ]. Li Fei studied the social stability risks of the project, taking into account the characteristics of an integrated passenger hub station [ 19 ]. Because the social stability risk assessment of major administrative decision-making has long been operated in a non-rule-of-law manner, Lin studied the social stability evaluation system for major administrative decisions [ 20 ]. Hong studied the social stability risk factors of large industrial construction projects under the concept of interactive fairness about land acquisition and demolition [ 21 ]. Wang, Jiang and Liu studied the problems and countermeasures of social stability risk assessment in China [ 22 – 24 ]. According to the characteristics of floods, Xu studied the topology map for the evolution of flood social stability risk based on the investigation conducted on the flood that occurred in Hunan Province in August 2013 [ 25 ]. In addition, some scholars had studied the social stability risk assessment of large industrial construction projects, housing demolition, river comprehensive improvement projects, rural land integrated consolidation, land-integrated renovation projects and so on [ 26 – 29 ]. In summary, social stability risk assessment in the field of transportation has achieved some results, but few studies focus on the social stability risk assessment of AGVCM. The social stability risk assessment of AGVCM involves a number of relevant groups, and the evaluation index systems of highway construction projects, rail transit and integrated hub stations have large differences. Most of the existing studies use qualitative or quantitative methods, such as the expert decision-making and hierarchical analysis methods, ignoring the fuzzy randomness of the human factor involved in the adjusting goods vehicle calculation method, which leads to a discrepancy between the assessment results and the objective results On the basis of analyzing the social stability risk factors of the adjusting goods vehicle calculation method, this study establishes an AGVCM social stability risk evaluation index system, proposing AGVCM social stability risk optimal combination weighting—cloud model evaluation modeling, and then regards the social stability risk evaluation project of adjusting goods vehicle in Yunnan Province as an example to carry out empirical analysis, in order to provide a theoretical basis for the social stability risk evaluation of adjusting goods vehicles.

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 17057 3 of 14 2. AGVCM Social Stability Risk Evaluation Index System 2.1. AGVCM Social Stability Risk Factor Identification The social stability risk factors of AGVCM refer to the collection of potential social instability factors caused by the correlation and coupling between interest-related groups and various uncertain factors in the process of project promotion. These risk factors are associated with a wide range of subjects, and most of them are related to the interests of the people. Incomplete identification, improper preventive measures or unscientific treatment can easily lead to social contradictions and social instability. AGVCM social stability risk factor identification is the basis for constructing a risk assessment index system and carrying out the assessment. According to the project stage (decision-making, preparation, implementation, operation), this study identifies the project from four aspects: legitimacy, rationality, feasibility and controllability (1) Project legitimacy: This refers to whether the implementation of the project meets the requirements of laws and regulations in the decision-making and preparation stage of the AGVCM project. It mainly includes four factors, namely whether the implementation of the adjusting goods vehicle calculation method is consistent with the relevant existing laws, regulations, norms and national policies, whether it is consistent with the national economic and social development plans and industrial policies of the national regions, whether the approval is carried out in accordance with the responsibilities and authority of the departments, and whether the decisionmaking process and procedures are in line with regulation (2) Project rationality: This refers to whether the implementation of the AGVCM project meets the requirements of scientific development law in the implementation and operation stage. It mainly includes four factors: the impact of project implementation on economic development, the impact on industry development, the impact on employment, and the impact on regional basic living prices (3) Project Feasibility: This refers to the implementation and operation stage of the AGVCM project, and whether the implementation of the project is supported by sound schemes and measures. It mainly includes five factors, namely, energy consumption, air pollutant emission, noise and vibration, regional traffic and mass travel (4) Project Controllability: This refers to the ability to control mass incidents and social negative public opinion after the implementation of the AGVCM project. It mainly includes four factors, namely the influence of the legitimate rights and interests of stakeholders, stakeholders’ attitudes, public opinion risk and risk prevention 2.2. AGVCM Social Stability Risk Evaluation Index System This study combines the entire process risk identification of an AGVCM project and develops the AGVCM social stability risk evaluation index system according to the interaction of risk factors. The indexing system is divided into four layers, and the goal layer is the social stability risk of AGVCM. The first grade indexes layer contains four indicators, namely, project legitimacy, project rationality, project feasibility and project controllability The second-grade index layer contains 17 indicators, including regulatory policy coherence, national economy and industrial policy coherence, and approval process. The third-grade index layer contains 39 indicators, which are the subdivided indicators of the second-grade index layer, as shown in Table 1 . Table 1. AGVCM social stability risk evaluation index system Goal Layer First Grade Indexes Second Grade Indexes Third Grade Indexes AGVCM Social Stability Risk A Project legitimacy B 1 Legislative and policy consistency C 1 Consistency with current laws, regulations and norms D 1 Consistency with national policies D 2

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 17057 4 of 14 Table 1. Cont Goal Layer First Grade Indexes Second Grade Indexes Third Grade Indexes National economic and industrial policy consistency C 2 Consistency with national and regional economic and social development planning D 3 Consistency with national and regional industrial policies D 4 Approval process C 3 The approval department has approval authority D 5 Examination and approval department within the scope of authority D 6 Decision-making process C 4 Decision-making process compliance D 7 Decision-making process compliance D 8 Project Rationality B 2 Economic development impact C 5 Promote regional economic development D 9 Social transport efficiency D 10 Industry development impact C 6 Industrial structure and layout D 11 Integrated transport system development D 12 Employment impact C 7 Toll collector employment D 13 Employment of others D 14 Regional basic living price impact C 8 Logistics freight D 15 Price impact D 16 Project Feasibility B 3 Energy consumption impact C 9 Sustainable development D 17 Energy consumption impact D 18 Emission effects of air pollutants C 10 Vehicle emissions D 19 Environmental pollution D 20 Noise and vibration impact C 11 Noise impact D 21 Vibration impact D 22 Regional traffic impact C 12 Road network access efficiency D 23 Traffic safety D 24 Traffic flow and regional road network matching degree D 25 Mass travel impact C 13 Travel mode D 26 Travel time D 27 Travel distance D 28 Service level D 29 Project Controllability B 4 Impact on the legal rights of stakeholders C 14 Impact on the legitimate rights and interests of toll road investors D 30 Impact on the legal rights and interests of toll road operators D 31 Impact on the legal rights of toll road users (goods vehicle companies and drivers) D 32 Stakeholder attitude C 15 Attitudes of toll road investors D 33 Attitudes of toll road operators D 34 Attitudes of toll road users (goods vehicle companies and drivers) D 35

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 17057 5 of 14 Table 1. Cont Goal Layer First Grade Indexes Second Grade Indexes Third Grade Indexes Public opinion risk C 16 Media opinion guide D 36 Publicity explained D 37 Risk prevention C 17 Preventive and defensive measures D 38 Effective measures D 39 3. AGVCM Social Stability Risk Optimal Combination Weighting—Cloud Model Evaluation Modeling The AGVCM social stability risk evaluation is mainly to quantify the impact or loss of project implementation on social stability before the occurrence of risk events. On the basis of risk investigation, this study intends to determine the weight of each index by using the combination weighting method combined with the opinions of planning, design, construction, environmental assessment, government and other participants (hereinafter referred to as “participants”) to reduce the randomness of evaluation. At the same time, in order to solve the uncertainty conversion between qualitative and quantitative indicators in the evaluation index system, the cloud model is used to judge the social stability risk level of AGVCM 3.1. AGVCM Social Stability Risk Evaluation Index Optimal Combination Weighting Calculation After the AGVCM social stability risk evaluation index system has been established, the indicators are assigned different weight values. When assigning weights to individual indicators, the participants combine the weight set level to divide each indicator for scoring As the results are subjective, this paper uses the combined weighting method to calculate the weights 3.1.1. Subjective Weight Set In this study, AHP [ 30 , 31 ] is used to calculate the subjective weight of the AGVCM social stability risk evaluation index. The calculation steps are as follows: 1 Index normalization processing Let A = ( a ij ) n × n be the pairwise judgment matrix of the lower index to the upper index, then we have a ij = a ij n ∑ i = 1 a ij (1) In the formula, a ij represents the comparison result of the importance of i index and j index, a ij is the normalized value of a ij 2 Subjective weight calculation Let W s be a subjective weight set, then: W s = { w s 1 , w s 2 , . . . , w sn } (2) In the formula w si = n ∑ j = 1 a ij n ∑ i = 1 n ∑ j = 1 a ij 3 Consistency test calculation Let CR be the consistency ratio, then CR = λ max − n ( n − 1 ) RI (3)

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 17057 6 of 14 In the formula, λ max is the maximum number of characteristic tests λ max = 1 n n ∑ i = 1 ( AW s ) i w si , RI is a random consistency index value. When CR < 0.1, the consistency of the judgment matrix is within an acceptable range, that is, the comparison results are correct, otherwise the judgment matrix needs to be corrected 3.1.2. Objective Weight Set This study uses the EWM to calculate the objective weight of the AGVCM social stability risk index, which is calculated as follows: 1 Index standardization Set x ik as the evaluation score of the k -participant for the i -level index, the standardized process of the index score is: a ik = x ik − x min x max − x min (4) In the formula, x ik as the evaluation score of the k -participant for the i -level index, i = 1, 2,..., P, P is the number of the third-level indicators of the evaluation index system k = 1, 2,..., K, K is the number of evaluators x max , x min are the maximum and minimum values of the importance evaluation of the same indicator by the participants 2 Index entropy calculation Combining Equation (4), the entropy value of the AGVCM social stability risk index is: G i = − 1 ln ( K ) K ∑ k = 1 1 + a ik K ∑ k = 1 ( 1 + a ik ) ln ( 1 + a ik K ∑ k = 1 ( 1 + a ik ) ) (5) 3 Index entropy weight calculation Let W 0 be the set of objective weights, then the AGVCM social stability risk index entropy weight W 0 is W 0 = { w 01 , w 02 , . . . , w 0 n } (6) In the formula w 0 i = 1 − G i P − P ∑ i = 1 G i , and P ∑ i = 1 w 0 i = 1 3.1.3. Optimal Combination Weighting Set In order to fully express the subjectivity and objectivity of the evaluators in the weight set, this paper uses the combination weighting method to calculate the index weight. Let w i be the value of the combined assignment weight for the i index, then w i = aw s i + bw 0 i (7) In the formula, a and b are the optimization factors for the subjective and objective weights, respectively Assuming that the minimum deviation between the combined weighting weight and each subjective weight and objective weight is set as the objective, the following planning model is established: Z = min ( P ∑ i = 1 [( w i − w si ) 2 + ( w i − w 0 i ) 2 ]) (8)

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 17057 7 of 14 s t    a + b = 1 a > 0 b > 0 (9) Combining Equation (8), the model can be deformed to: Z = min ( P ∑ i = 1 [( w si − w 0 i ) 2 + ( 2 a 2 − 2 a + 1 ) 2 ]) (10) s t . 0 < a < 1 (11) From Equations (10) and (11), it is easy to conclude that the optimal solution of the planning model is: a = 0.5 b = 0.5 (12) Based on the above analysis, W is set as the optimal combination weighting weight set, and then: W = 0.5 W s + 0.5 W 0 (13) 3.2. AGVCM Social Stability Risk Evaluation Index Cloud The numerical characteristics of the cloud are characterized by three values of expectation, entropy and super-entropy, reflecting the quantitative nature of the qualitative description. This study omits the computational rules of the cloud model and the cloud parameter calculation process and focuses on the associated evaluation cloud generation [ 32 ]. Combined with the actual situation of AGVCM project, this paper divides the evaluation results of social stability risk indicators into five language values [ 32 ], and sets the evaluation cloud as V, where V = {significant, large, general, small, tiny} The corresponding cloud parameters are calculated by the reverse cloud generator method and described by the normal cloud. The corresponding cloud number characteristics are significant (1, 0.061, 0.003), large (0.76, 0.061, 0.004), general (0.51, 0.061, 0.004), small (0.29, 0.061, 0.004) and tiny (0.001, 0.061, 0.002). AGVCM social stability risk evaluation index cloud is shown in Figure 1 : Sustainability 2022 , 14 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 14 1 . 0 0 a b s t a b + =   >   >  (9) Combining Equation (8), the model can be deformed to: 2 2 2 0 1 min( [( ) (2 2 1) ]) P si i i Z w w a a = = − + − +  (10) . . 0 1 s t a < < (11) From Equations (10) and (11), it is easy to conclude that the optimal solution of the planning model is: 0.5 0.5 a b =   =  (12) Based on the above analysis, W is set as the optimal combination weighting weight set, and then: W = 0.5 W s + 0.5 W 0 (13) 3.2. AGVCM Social Stability Risk Evaluation Index Cloud The numerical characteristics of the cloud are characterized by three values of expectation, entropy and super-entropy, reflecting the quantitative nature of the qualitative description. This study omits the computational rules of the cloud model and the cloud parameter calculation process and focuses on the associated evaluation cloud generation [32]. Combined with the actual situation of AGVCM project, this paper divides the evaluation results of social stability risk indicators into five language values [32], and sets the evaluation cloud as V, where V = {significant, large, general, small, tiny}. The corresponding cloud parameters are calculated by the reverse cloud generator method and described by the normal cloud. The corresponding cloud number characteristics are significant (1, 0.061, 0.003), large (0.76, 0.061, 0.004), general (0.51, 0.061, 0.004), small (0.29, 0.061, 0.004) and tiny (0.001, 0.061, 0.002). AGVCM social stability risk evaluation index cloud is shown in Figure 1: 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 significant large general small tiny indicator evaluation results de gr ee of m em be rs hi p Figure 1. AGVCM social stability risk evaluation index cloud.

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 17057 8 of 14 3.3. AGVCM Social Stability Risk Evaluation Comprehensive Cloud Combined with the 2.2 index cloud language value level, the participants are invited to grade the index system. On the basis of obtaining the evaluation results, the cloud digital characteristics of each index T = U ( E x , E n , H e ) are calculated by using the comprehensive cloud algorithm for the same type of cloud, and then        E xj = E xj 1 E nj 1 + E xj 2 E nj 2 + ··· + E xji E nji E nj 1 + E nj 2 + ··· + E nji E nj = E nj 1 + E nj 2 + · · · + E nji H ej = H ej 1 E nj 1 + H ej 2 E nj 2 + ··· + H eji E nji E nj 1 + E nj 2 + ··· + E nji (14) In the formula, i is the number of commentator, ( E xji , E nji , H eji ) is the cloud characteristic value of the j th indicator in a layer after qualitative judgment by the i th commentator, ( E xi , E ni , H ei ) is the cloud characteristic value of the j th indicator in a layer. Combined with Equation (13) and Equation (14), we can obtain the cloud digital characteristics of the upper layer index. The formula is as follows:          E x = E x 1 E n 1 + E x 2 E n 2 + ··· + E xj E nj E n 1 + E n 2 + ··· + E nj E n = q w 2 1 E 2 n 1 + w 2 2 E 2 n 2 + · · · + w 2 j E 2 nj H e = q w 2 1 H 2 e 1 + w 2 2 H 2 e 2 + · · · + w 2 j H 2 ej (15) In the formula, ( Ex , En , H e ) is the cloud characteristic value of the upper indicator in that layer. Thus, the digital features of AGVCM social stability risk evaluation comprehensive cloud modeling can be calculated 4. Example Application Analysis This study takes Yunnan’s AGVCM social stability risk evaluation project as an example, and invites commentators to evaluate the social stability risk of adjusting goods vehicle according to the evaluation index system and evaluation criteria established in this study 4.1. Determining the Assignment of Optimal Combination Weighting According to the 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 model, this paper uses the analytic hierarchy process and entropy weight method to calculate the subjective weight and objective weight, combined with Formula (13), using the optimal combination weighting method to calculate the combination weighting, as shown in Table 2 . Table 2. Social stability risk evaluation index weight of AGVCM Index Code AHP Weighting EWM Weighting Combination Weighting Index Code AHP Weighting EWM Weighting Combination Weighting B 1 0.4203 0.4603 0.4403 B 2 0.2685 0.2816 0.2751 B 3 0.1213 0.0716 0.0965 B 4 0.1899 0.1865 0.1882 C 1 0.4092 0.3934 0.4013 C 10 0.1377 0.1278 0.1327 C 2 0.2896 0.2428 0.2662 C 11 0.0692 0.0780 0.0736 C 3 0.0966 0.1365 0.1165 C 12 0.2514 0.2275 0.2395 C 4 0.2046 0.2272 0.2159 C 13 0.4328 0.4823 0.4576 C 5 0.4782 0.5053 0.4917 C 14 0.2470 0.2892 0.2681 C 6 0.1441 0.1423 0.1432 C 15 0.4276 0.3821 0.4048 C 7 0.1017 0.0940 0.0978 C 16 0.1627 0.1448 0.1538 C 8 0.2760 0.2584 0.2672 C 17 0.1627 0.1839 0.1733 C 9 0.1088 0.0844 0.0966 D 1 0.3331 0.3097 0.3214 D 2 0.6669 0.6903 0.6786 D 21 0.7976 0.9412 0.8694 D 3 0.6664 0.6268 0.6466 D 22 0.2024 0.0588 0.1306 D 4 0.3336 0.3732 0.3534 D 23 0.0623 0.0215 0.0419

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 17057 9 of 14 Table 2. Cont Index Code AHP Weighting EWM Weighting Combination Weighting Index Code AHP Weighting EWM Weighting Combination Weighting D 5 0.3333 0.2470 0.2902 D 24 0.7443 0.9068 0.8255 D 6 0.6667 0.7530 0.7098 D 25 0.1934 0.0717 0.1326 D 7 0.3337 0.4056 0.3697 D 26 0.5342 0.6502 0.5922 D 8 0.6663 0.5944 0.6303 D 27 0.2034 0.1608 0.1821 D 9 0.8333 0.8526 0.8430 D 28 0.1711 0.1572 0.1642 D 10 0.1667 0.1474 0.1570 D 29 0.0913 0.0318 0.0615 D 11 0.8005 0.8730 0.8368 D 30 0.0938 0.0168 0.0553 D 12 0.1995 0.1270 0.1632 D 31 0.2793 0.1791 0.2292 D 13 0.8321 0.9505 0.8913 D 32 0.6269 0.8041 0.7155 D 14 0.1679 0.0495 0.1087 D 33 0.1170 0.1158 0.1164 D 15 0.1997 0.1889 0.1943 D 34 0.2685 0.2909 0.2797 D 16 0.8003 0.8111 0.8057 D 35 0.6145 0.5933 0.6039 D 17 0.5000 0.4712 0.4856 D 36 0.7994 0.9006 0.8500 D 18 0.5000 0.5288 0.5144 D 37 0.2006 0.0994 0.1500 D 19 0.5000 0.4552 0.4776 D 38 0.1656 0.0633 0.1145 D 20 0.5000 0.5448 0.5224 D 39 0.8344 0.9367 0.8855 4.2. AGVCM Social Stability Risk Evaluation Comprehensive In this study, five experts were invited to score the indicators of the evaluation index system, and the evaluation results are shown in Table 3 . Table 3. Social stability risk evaluation index weight of AGVCM Index Code Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Expert 5 D 1 small small small tiny small D 2 tiny tiny small tiny small D 3 small tiny small small tiny D 4 small small small small tiny D 5 small tiny tiny tiny small D 6 small tiny small small small D 7 small small tiny tiny tiny D 8 tiny small small small tiny D 9 tiny tiny small small small D 10 small general general small small D 11 small small small tiny tiny D 12 small small tiny tiny small D 13 large general general large general D 14 tiny tiny small tiny small D 15 general small small small small D 16 general general general small general D 17 small tiny tiny tiny small D 18 small tiny small small tiny D 19 tiny tiny tiny tiny small D 20 small small tiny tiny small D 21 tiny tiny tiny tiny small D 22 small tiny small small tiny D 23 tiny small small small tiny D 24 small small small small small D 25 small small tiny tiny tiny D 26 tiny small tiny tiny small D 27 small small tiny small small D 28 small small small small small D 29 small small tiny small tiny D 30 general small small general small D 31 small small small general small

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 17057 10 of 14 Table 3. Cont Index Code Expert 1 Expert 2 Expert 3 Expert 4 Expert 5 D 32 general general general large large D 33 small small small small small D 34 general small general general general D 35 general large large large general D 36 large general large large large D 37 general large general general general D 38 large general general large large D 39 general general general large general According to the comprehensive cloud algorithm in Equation (14), the qualitative description of index in Table 3 is transformed into the quantitative evaluation of cloud of digital characteristics, and the cloud model’s digital characteristics corresponding to the three-level index are obtained. Therefore, according to the Equation (15), the cloud model’s digital characteristics corresponding to the secondary index can be obtained. In this way, the numerical characteristics of the cloud model for each level of indicators in the AGVCM social stability risk evaluation index system can be obtained, as shown in Table 4 , the evaluation cloud of first grade indexes as shown in Figure 2 . According to Table 4 and Equation (15), the numerical characteristics of the evaluation cloud model for the target layer of AGVCM social stability risk evaluation can be obtained as (0.28, 0.073, 0.0008), and the evaluation result cloud diagram is shown in Figure 3 . As can be seen from Figure 3 , the evaluation results are located between “tiny” and “small”, and tend to “small” cloud range, belonging to “small”. Therefore, this project’s risk level is “small” Table 4. Cloud model numerical characteristic of index system Index Code Evaluation Cloud (Ex,En,He) Grade Index Code Evaluation Cloud (Ex,En,He) Grade Index Code Evaluation Cloud (Ex,En,He) Grade B 1 (0.17, 0.123, 0.0012) small C 17 (0.57, 0.272, 0.0036) general D 20 (0.17, 0.305, 0.0032) small B 2 (0.30, 0.152, 0.0017) small D 1 (0.23, 0.305, 0.0036) small D 21 (0.06, 0.305, 0.0024) tiny B 3 (0.18, 0.116, 0.0012) small D 2 (0.12, 0.305, 0.0028) tiny D 22 (0.17, 0.305, 0.0032) small B 4 (0.58, 0.121, 0.0016) general D 3 (0.17, 0.305, 0.0032) small D 23 (0.17, 0.305, 0.0032) small C 1 (0.15, 0.229, 0.0022) small D 4 (0.23, 0.305, 0.0036) small D 24 (0.29, 0.305, 0.0040) small C 2 (0.19, 0.225, 0.0024) small D 5 (0.12, 0.305, 0.0028) tiny D 25 (0.12, 0.305, 0.0028) tiny C 3 (0.20, 0.234, 0.0027) small D 6 (0.23, 0.305, 0.0036) small D 26 (0.12, 0.305, 0.0028) tiny C 4 (0.15, 0.223, 0.0023) small D 7 (0.12, 0.305, 0.0028) tiny D 27 (0.23, 0.305, 0.0036) small C 5 (0.21, 0.262, 0.0028) small D 8 (0.17, 0.305, 0.0032) small D 28 (0.29, 0.305, 0.0040) small C 6 (0.17, 0.260, 0.0027) small D 9 (0.17, 0.305, 0.0032) small D 29 (0.17, 0.305, 0.0032) small C 7 (0.56, 0.274, 0.0036) general D 10 (0.38, 0.305, 0.0040) small D 30 (0.38, 0.305, 0.0040) small C 8 (0.44, 0.253, 0.0033) general D 11 (0.17, 0.305, 0.0032) small D 31 (0.33, 0.305, 0.0040) small C 9 (0.15, 0.216, 0.0021) small D 12 (0.17, 0.305, 0.0032) small D 32 (0.61, 0.305, 0.0040) general C 10 (0.12, 0.216, 0.0020) tiny D 13 (0.61, 0.305, 0.0040) general D 33 (0.29, 0.305, 0.0040) small C 11 (0.07, 0.268, 0.0021) tiny D 14 (0.12, 0.305, 0.0028) tiny D 34 (0.47, 0.305, 0.0040) general C 12 (0.26, 0.255, 0.0033) small D 15 (0.33, 0.305, 0.0040) small D 35 (0.66, 0.305, 0.0040) large C 13 (0.17, 0.196, 0.0019) small D 16 (0.47, 0.305, 0.0040) general D 36 (0.71, 0.305, 0.0040) large C 14 (0.53, 0.230, 0.0030) general D 17 (0.12, 0.305, 0.0028) tiny D 37 (0.56, 0.305, 0.0040) general C 15 (0.56, 0.206, 0.0027) general D 18 (0.17, 0.305, 0.0032) small D 38 (0.66, 0.305, 0.0040) large C 16 (0.69, 0.263, 0.0035) large D 19 (0.06, 0.305, 0.0024) tiny D 39 (0.56, 0.305, 0.0040) general

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 17057 11 of 14 Sustainability 2022 , 14 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 14 C 16 (0.69, 0.263, 0.0035) large D 19 (0.06, 0.305, 0.0024) tiny D 39 (0.56, 0.305, 0.0040) general Figure 2. Evaluation cloud of first grade indexes. B 1-B 4 in Table 1. According to Table 4 and Equation (15), the numerical characteristics of the evaluation cloud model for the target layer of AGVCM social stability risk evaluation can be obtained as (0.28, 0.073, 0.0008), and the evaluation result cloud diagram is shown in Figure 3. Figure 3. Evaluation cloud of first grade indexes. A in Table 1. As can be seen from Figure 3, the evaluation results are located between “tiny” and “small”, and tend to “small” cloud range, belonging to “small”. Therefore, this project’s risk level is “small”. 4.3. Comparison Results In order to verify the reliability of the evaluation of the AGVCM social stability risk optimal combination weighting–cloud model, this paper relies on the interim measures for social stability risk assessment of major fixed asset investment projects (hereinafter referred to as the Measures) of the National Development and Reform Commission to 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 significant large general small tiny indicator evaluation results de gr ee of memb er sh ip B 4 B 2 B 1 B 3 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 significant large general small tiny indicator evaluation results degr ee o f m em be rs hi p A Figure 2. Evaluation cloud of first grade indexes. B 1–B 4 in Table 1 . Sustainability 2022 , 14 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 14 C 16 (0.69, 0.263, 0.0035) large D 19 (0.06, 0.305, 0.0024) tiny D 39 (0.56, 0.305, 0.0040) general Figure 2. Evaluation cloud of first grade indexes. B 1-B 4 in Table 1. According to Table 4 and Equation (15), the numerical characteristics of the evaluation cloud model for the target layer of AGVCM social stability risk evaluation can be obtained as (0.28, 0.073, 0.0008), and the evaluation result cloud diagram is shown in Figure 3. Figure 3. Evaluation cloud of first grade indexes. A in Table 1. As can be seen from Figure 3, the evaluation results are located between “tiny” and “small”, and tend to “small” cloud range, belonging to “small”. Therefore, this project’s risk level is “small”. 4.3. Comparison Results In order to verify the reliability of the evaluation of the AGVCM social stability risk optimal combination weighting–cloud model, this paper relies on the interim measures for social stability risk assessment of major fixed asset investment projects (hereinafter referred to as the Measures) of the National Development and Reform Commission to 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 significant large general small tiny indicator evaluation results de gr ee of memb er sh ip B 4 B 2 B 1 B 3 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 significant large general small tiny indicator evaluation results degr ee o f m em be rs hi p A Figure 3. Evaluation cloud of first grade indexes. A in Table 1 . 4.3. Comparison Results In order to verify the reliability of the evaluation of the AGVCM social stability risk optimal combination weighting—cloud model, this paper relies on the interim measures for social stability risk assessment of major fixed asset investment projects (hereinafter referred to as the Measures) of the National Development and Reform Commission to evaluate the social stability risk evaluation index system and weights of the AGVCM, and the comparison results are shown in Table 5 .

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 17057 12 of 14 Table 5. Cloud model numerical characteristic of index system Index Code Optimal Combination Weighting—Cloud Model Measures Evaluation Cloud (Ex,En,He) Grade Risk Degree Weighting Risk Index Grade B 1 (0.17, 0.123, 0.0012) small 0.09 0.4236 0.04 tiny B 2 (0.30, 0.152, 0.0017) small 0.16 0.2683 0.04 small B 3 (0.18, 0.116, 0.0012) small 0.12 0.1238 0.01 tiny B 4 (0.58, 0.121, 0.0016) general 0.36 0.1843 0.07 small A (0.28, 0.073, 0.0008) small 0.16 small Table 5 shows: (1) The risk assessment results of the optimal combination Weighting— Cloud model are basically consistent with the evaluation results of t Measures, which proves the validity and reliability of the model. (2) The assessment risk level of some aspects is higher than the assessment in Measures, indicating that the model is helpful in better identifying the key factors affecting the project risk level, t, so as to formulate targeted prevention and mitigation of Measures 5. Conclusions (1) The AGVCM social stability risk evaluation index system, which consists of 4 levels, 3 grades and 60 indexes, was systematically constructed by identifying risks in 4 aspects: legality, reasonableness, feasibility and controllability, according to the time stage of risk occurrence (2) The proposed AGVCM social stability risk optimal combination weighting—cloud model establishes an optimal combination weighting model with the objective of minimizing the deviation of the combination weighting from the weighting of the hierarchical analysis method and the entropy weighting method, respectively, and uses the optimal combination weighting to comprehensively characteries the subjective and objective attitudes of the participants. The model also uses the semantic information of the cloud model to qualitatively describe and quantitatively evaluate the indexes, and accurately calculates the risk level of AGVCM evaluation based on the integrated cloud algorithm, effectively eliminating subjectivity and arbitrariness in the evaluation process (3) Taking the AGVCM project in Yunnan Province as an example, the AGVCM social stability risk evaluation was calculated to be “less” based on the combination weights of the indexes and the numerical characteristics of the cloud model. Comparing the evaluation results with those of Measures, the simulation results show that the findings of the optimal combination weighting—cloud model basically match those of Measures, verifying the validity and reliability of the model and algorithm. The evaluation results of the optimal combination weighting—cloud model contain rich process information, which is helpful for the evaluation results of the model and better identification of the key factors affecting the risk level of the project. It shows that the evaluation is more intuitive, scientific and effective than the evaluation results of Measures (4) The evaluation method proposed in this study has certain reference value for AGVCM social stability risk identification and evaluation, and can be applied to the social stability risk evaluation of similar major projects, but the evaluation index system will be different due to the influence of factors such as geography, policy and implementation conditions, etc. Later, we will focus on the classification and accuracy of the evaluation model based on the factors we have found Author Contributions: Conceptualization, P.C. and H.Y.; methodology, P.C.; validation, L.L., D.W and J.L.; writing—original draft preparation, P.C., C.W. and P.W.; writing—review and editing, P.C. and D.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 17057 13 of 14 Funding: This research was funded by Xingdian Talents Support Program, grant number YNWR- QNBJ-2020-035, and also funded by Special Postdoctoral Science Fund Project for basic research and frontier exploration of Chongqing Science and Technology Bureau, grant number cstc 2021 jcyj-bsh 0210 Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest References 1 Liu, Y. An analysis of the socio-economic impact brought by the abolition of provincial highway toll stations Transp. Inform. Indus 2020 , 6 , 32–33 2 Momtaz, S. Institutionalizing social impact assessment in Bangladesh resource management: Limitations and opportunities Environ. Impact. Assess 2005 , 25 , 33–45. [ CrossRef ] 3 Aven, T.; Renn, O. On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain J. Risk Res 2009 , 12 , 1–11. [ CrossRef ] 4 Faber, M.H.; Stewart, M.G. Risk assessment for civil engineering facilities: Critical overview and discussion Reliab. Eng. Sys. Safe 2003 , 80 , 173–184. [ CrossRef ] 5 Cao, F.; Shao, D.K.; Li, H.L.; Peng, Z.C.; Xue, L. The Evaluation Framework and Methodology of the Governance System of Social Stability of China: A Perspective from “Environment-Behavior” of the Social Ecological System Comp. Eco. Soci. Sys 2014 , 36 , 184–200 6 Holzmann, R.; Jørgensen, S. Social Risk Management: A New Conceptual Framework for Social Protection, and Beyond Int. Tax Pub. Fin 2001 , 8 , 529–556. [ CrossRef ] 7 Croson, R.; Donohue, K.; Katok, E.; Sterman, J. Order stability in supply chains: Coordination risk and the role of coordination stock Prod. Oper. Manag 2014 , 23 , 176–196. [ CrossRef ] 8 Acemoglu, D.; Ozdaglar, A.; Tahbaz-Salehi, A. Systemic risk and stability in financial networks Am. Econ. Rev 2015 , 105 , 564–608 [ CrossRef ] 9 Shan, W.; Liu, H.; Pan, Y.; Tong, H. Evaluation of Social Risk Using Structural Equation Model Ibusiness 2010 , 2 , 188–192 [ CrossRef ] 10 Ghosh, S.; Jintanapakanont, J. Identifying and assessing the critical risk factors in an underground rail project in Thailand: A factor analysis approach Int. J. Proj. Manag 2004 , 22 , 633–643. [ CrossRef ] 11 Wei, C.; Yu, S. Perspective on social stability risk assessment for major projects—The social stability risk assessment for rail transit projects J. SH. Ship & Shiping. Res. Instit 2013 , 36 , 8–11 12 Zou, Y.-H. Risk analysis of social stability of urban rail transit Rail. Stan. Des 2015 , 59 , 127–131 13 Liu, X.-H.; Wang, Z.-N. Urban rail transit stability risk assessment Constr. Technol 2017 , 46 , 1480–1482 14 Du, Z.; Guo, J.; Wu, S. Social stability risk assessment on urban rail transit project Urb. Rap. Ra. Trans 2015 , 28 , 136–139 15 Hong, L.; Hong, J.-Y. Discussion on the analysis methods of social stability risk for highway project Highway 2014 , 59 , 43–48 16 Dong, Z.; Wang, H.; Dong, X.-L.; Liu, S. Evaluation method for highway project social stability risk based on entropy weight extension matter-element model C. J. Hig. Transp 2018 , 31 , 191–198 17 Liu, S.; Wang, J.; Liu, Y.-D. Social stability risk assessment of online taxi reservation based on AHP—Taking taxi reservation in Wulingyuan district of Zhangjiajie as an example Hig. Auto. Appli 2019 , 2 , 15–19 18 Li, J. Research on Social Stability risk assessment method of airport construction project Tech. Outl 2014 , 13 , 154–156 19 Li, F.; Liu, L.-N. Analysis of social stability risk in a domestic comprehensive passenger hub station Constr. Des. Proj 2015 , 5 , 170–174 20 Lin, H.-C. Criticism and reconstruction of social stability evaluation system for major administrative decisions Adm. Law Review 2018 , 3 , 75–87 21 Hong, K.-R.; Huang, Q.-B. Analysis on social stability risk factors of large industrial construction projects under the concept of interactive fairnessabout land acquisition and demolition Syst. Eng 2018 , 35 , 154–158 22 Wang, X.-M.; Li, M.-R. Research on the problems and countermeasures of social stability risk assessment in China. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Science & Contemporary Humanity Development, Wuhan, China, 15–17 July 2016; pp. 7–11 23 Jiang, J.-J. The social stability risk assessment mechanism in China: The status quo, challenges and countermeasures J. Shanghai Adm. Inst 2014 , 15 , 90–96 24 Liu, Z.-T.; Li, W.-J. National risk management structural framework in perspective of China social stability risk assessment. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE International Conference on Grey Systems and Intelligent Services (GSIS), Macao, China, 15–17 November 2013; pp. 330–334 25 Xu, X.H.; Wang, C.H.; Cai, C.G.; Xue, M. Evolution and coping research for flood disaster social stability risk based on the complex network Nat. Hazards 2015 , 77 , 1491–1500. [ CrossRef ] 26 Yang, F.-Y. The study of social work in the social stability risk assessment mechanism—For example of housing demolition J. Soc. Work 2013 , 3 , 29–36.

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 17057 14 of 14 27 Zhou, H. Preliminary study on social stability risk assessment of Fuping Shichuan river comprehensive improvement project Urban. Land Use 2021 , 9 , 17–22. [ CrossRef ] 28 Wu, X.T.; Li, Y.; Zheng, H.W.; Wen, B.; Liu, Y.Z. Social risk assessment of rural land integrated consolidation—A case study at Jiangning district of Nanjiang City Bull. Soil Water Conserv 2015 , 35 , 245–250 29 Zhou, H.; Xu, Y. Preliminary study on social stability risk assessment of land integrated renovation project: A case study of shichuan river project in fuping IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci 2021 , 781 , 022058. [ CrossRef ] 30 Saaty, T.L. The modern science of multicriteria decision making and its practical applications: The AHP/ANP approach Oper. Res 2013 , 61 , 1101–1118. [ CrossRef ] 31 Saaty, T.; Kułakowski, K. Axioms of the analytic hierarchy process (ahp) and its generalization to dependence and feedback: The analytic network process (ANP) arXiv 2016 , arXiv:1605.05777 32 Chong, P.-Y.; Shuai, B. Evaluating of coming hazardous materials transportation network node risk under terrorist attack J. Safe Sci. J 2012 , 22 , 104–109.