Divergent Paths: Image Crisis and Reinforcement in Civil Engineering on Social Media—A Comparative Case Study of Expressway Landslides
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62051/gtn2a352Keywords:
Social Media; Public Opinion; Civil Engineering.Abstract
With the popularity of social media, the public image of the civil engineering industry is facing serious stigmatization and a crisis of trust following accidents. This paper takes the online topic of landslide accidents as the entry point, and selects two typical accidents, the landslide of Meida Expressway in Guangdong and the collapse of Guangkun Expressway in Guangxi, to be compared and explore the differentiation mechanism and reconstruction of the image crisis of the civil engineering industry in the context of social media. The research shows significant differences in public opinion trends for the two accidents: due to casualties, information lag, and human-caused attribution, the accident in Guangdong became an image crisis for the industry, while the Guangxi accident was turned into an image bonus item by zero casualties, efficient emergency response, and timely information release. Based on the perspective of discourse institutionalism, this paper proposes an explanatory model comprising three elements and reveals the industry’s response process and the effect of image restoration. The findings highlight the critical role of proactive communication and legitimacy alignment in managing industry reputation during crises on social media.
Downloads
References
[1] J. You. Research on Emergency Management of Safety Incidents in Large-scale Civil Engineering Construction. Nanjing Forestry University, 2018.
[2] L. Zhou & Y. Lu. Online Public Opinion Response Strategies for Accident and Disaster Emergencies. News Outpost, 2024, (8): 38-40.
[3] Z. Liu. Risks, Challenges and Countermeasures of Online Public Opinion Governance in the Post-Information Age. Western journal, 2024, (22): 63-69.
[4] M. J. Zhou. Research on the Evolution Mechanism of Online Public Opinion in Accident and Disaster Emergencies. Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology, 2024.
[5] W. Huang, Y. L. Liu, & D. Y. Zhou. An empirical study on the Multi-platform Evolution path of Emergency Online public opinion based on information ecology theory. Journal of Intelligence, 2025, 44(9): 164-175.
[6] L. Sun & Y. N. Zhang. Research on the impact of information interaction between government and media on the dissemination of public opinion on the Internet. Heliyon, 2023, 9(6): 10-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17407
[7] W. Li, J. Wang, Y. Ren, D. Yin, & Y. Gu. Cross-spatial network analysis for public opinion risk identification in social media. The Electronic Library, 2024, 42(1): 1-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-09-2023-0208
[8] M. Karatas & M. Bek. The role of Twitter in crisis communication during the 2023 Turkey earthquake: A digital battleground for power and influence. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2024, 100: 104210.
[9] W. L. Benoit. Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 1997, 23(2): 177-186. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(97)90023-0
[10] W. T. Coombs. Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate reputation review, 2007, 10(3): 163-176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049
[11] K. L. Hinsberg & A. J. Lamanna. Crisis communication in construction: Organizational strategies for worksite fatalities. Journal of Safety Research, 2024, 88: 145-160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2023.11.002
[12] K. L. Hinsberg & A. J. Lamanna. Exploring the impact of safety failures on construction organizations: Perceptions of leaders. Journal of Safety Research, 2025, 92: 1-12.
[13] W. Jong. Beyond the snapshot: rethinking crisis communication theories in dynamic crisis situations. Public Relations Review, 2025, 51(3): 102586. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2025.102586
[14] T. G. Page & C. A. Lin. A goodwill shield for crisis communication: Exploring the ‘halo effect’of CSR activities. Public Relations Review, 2025, 51(4): 102602. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2025.102602
[15] K. B. Shingwekar & P. Maurya. Too late, too rigid, too cold: Crisis communication failures that undermined organizational resilience–and how the 3E model could help. Organizational Dynamics, 2025: 101176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5235095
[16] X. Yu. Discourse Institutionalism: A Theoretical Explanation of Local Government Responses to Public Opinions - A Multi-Case Comparative Analysis Based on the ‘Opinion-Policy’ Connection Theory. Journal of Journalism and Communication, 2019, 26(5): 21-40+126.
[17] P. Slovic. Perception of risk. In The perception of risk. Routledge, 2016: 220-231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315661773
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Transactions on Social Science, Education and Humanities Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
