|
|
|
Public perception of environmental issues across
socioeconomic characteristics: A survey study in Wujin, China |
| Jun BI,Yongliang ZHANG,Bing ZHANG, |
| State Key Laboratory
of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of Environment, Nanjing
University, Nanjing 210093, China；Center of Environmental
Management & Policy, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China; |
|
|
|
|
Abstract In developing countries, there is controversy over the correct perception regarding environmental and developmental issues. Few studies have examined the perception of low-income nationals in regards to social and environmental issues. This paper looks at the relationship between socio-demographic factors and the groups’ perceived priority regarding environmental and social issues in Wujin County. The results indicated that most residents, specifically the young, government employed and the urban community consider environmental issues to be serious, especially in relation to air pollution and water pollution. Furthermore, many residents feel it is important to rank environmental problems that are related to other social and economic issues, and that environmental protection must be set as a priority in Wujin County. Compared to social issues, environmental concern was greater among the young, government employed, and the urban community, because of their higher education and affluence. In addition, 66.2% of residents consider environmental protection to be more important than economic development. Thus, environmental protection must be set as a high priority in Wujin County, in order to face the many social and environmental challenges inherent in development.
|
| Keywords
socio-economic characteristics
environmental perception
sustainable development
policy making
|
|
Issue Date: 05 September 2010
|
|
|
White M J, Hunter L M. Public Perception of Environmental Issues in a Developing Setting. Institute of Behavioral Science, Working Paper(EB2005―0003). 2005
|
|
Mitchell J K. Hazard perception studies: Convergent concerns and divergentapproaches during the past decade. In: Saarinen T F, Seamom D, Sell J L, eds. Environmental Perception and Behavior: An Inventory and prospectDepartment of Geography. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1984, 38―39
|
|
Curran S, Kumar A, Lutz W, Williams M. Interactionsbetween coastal and marine ecosystems and human population systems:Perspectives on how consumption mediates this interaction. Ambio, 2002, 31: 264―268
|
|
National Research Council(NRC). Global Environmental Change: ResearchPathways for the Next Decade. WashingtonDC: National Academies Press, 1999
|
|
Dunlap R E. Trends in Public Opinion Toward Environmental Issues:1965―1990. Washington DC: Taylor and Francis, Inc., 1992
|
|
Mertig A G, Dunlap R E, Morrison D E. The environmental movementin the United States. In: Dunlap R E, Michelson W, eds. Handbook of EnvironmentalSociology. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002, 448―481
|
|
Jacob C T, Azariah J. Environmentalperception of textile industrial pollution in Tiruppur, India. Journal of Asian and International Bioethics, 1997, 7: 162―165
|
|
Hunter L M. Household Strategies in the Face of Resource Scarcity:Are They Associated with Development Priorities. Working paper of Institute of Behavioral Science, Research Programon Environment and Behavior, EB2004―0001. 2004
|
|
Kempton W M, Boster J S, Hartley J A. Environmental Values in AmericanCulture. Boston: MIT Press, 1995
|
|
Stern P C, Dietz T. The value basisof environmental concern. Journal of SocialIssues, 1994, 50: 65―84
|
|
Dunlap R E, Mertig A G. Global concern for the environment: Is affluence a prerequisite? Journal of Social Issues, 1995, 51: 121―137
|
|
Rinzin C, Vermeulen W J, Glasbergen P. Public perceptions of Bhutan’sapproach to sustainable development in practice. Sustainable Development, 2007, 15: 52―68
doi: 10.1002/sd.293
|
|
Inglehart R. Public support for environmental protection: Objectiveproblems and subjective values in 43 societies. Political Science & Politics, 1995, 28: 57―72
|
|
Dunlap R E, York R. The globalizationof environmental concern and the limits of the post-materialist valuesexplanation: Evidence from four multi-national surveys. Sociological Quarterly, 2008, 49 (3): 529―563
doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2008.00127.x
|
|
Brechin S R, Kempton W. Globalenvironmentalism: A challenge to the poastmaterialsm thesis? Social Science Quarterly, 1994, 75 (2): 245―269
|
|
Dunlap R E, Gallup G H, Gallup A. Of global concern: Resultsof the health of the planet survey. Environment, 1993, 35: 33―39
|
|
Brechin S. Objective problems, subjective values, and global environmentalism:Evaluating the post-materialist argument and challenging a new explanation. Social Science Quarterly, 1999, 80: 793―811
|
|
Jones R E, Dunlap R E. The social bases of environmental concern: Have they changed overtime? Rural Sociology, 1992, 57: 28―47
|
|
Klineberg S, McKeever L M, Rothenbach B. Demographic predictors ofenvironmental concern: It does make a difference how it's measured. Social Science Quarterly, 1998, 79 (4): 734―753
|
|
Dunlap R E, Xiao C, McCright A M. Measuring endorsement ofthe new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 2001, 56 (3): 425―442
doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00176
|
|
Hunter L M, Johnson A, Hatch A. Cross-national gender variationin environmental behaviors. Social ScienceQuarterly, 2004, 85: 677―694
doi: 10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.00239.x
|
|
Zelezny L C, Chua P, Aldrich C.Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 2000, 56: 443―457
doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00177
|
|
Fransson N, Garling T. Environmentalconcern: Conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and researchfindings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1999, 19: 369―382
doi: 10.1006/jevp.1999.0141
|
|
Biel A, Nilsson A. Religiousvalues and environmental concern: Harmony and detachment. Social Science Quarterly, 2005, 86: 178―191
doi: 10.1111/j.0038-4941.2005.00297.x
|
|
High C, Shackleton C M. The comparative value of wild and domestic plants in home gardensof a south african rural village. AgroforestrySystems, 2000, 48 (2): 141―156
doi: 10.1023/A:1006247614579
|
|
Twine W, Moshe D, Netshiluvhi T, Siphugu V. Consumption and direct-use values of savanna bio-resourcesused by rural households in Mametja, a semi-arid area of Limpopo Province,South Africa. South African Journal ofScience, 2003, 99 (9): 467―473
|
|
Wujin Statistic Bureau. Wujin Statistical Yearbook, 2005 (in Chinese)
|
|
Wujin Environmental ProtectionBureau (WEPB). Environmental Quality Reportof Wujin County, 2005 (in Chinese).
|
|
Franz X B, Michel W. Environmentalperception of rural and urban pupils. Journalof Environmental Psychology, 1997, 17: 111―122
doi: 10.1006/jevp.1997.0046
|
|
Eagly A H, Kulesa P. Attitudes,attitude structure, and resistance to change: Implications for persuasionon environmental issues. In: Bazerman M H, ed. Environment, EtIlice,and Behavior: The Psychology of Environmental Valuation and Degradation. San Francisco: New Lexington Press, 1997
|
|
McStay J R, Dunlap R E. Male-female differences in concern for environmental quality. International Journal of Women’s Studies, 1993, 6: 291―301
|
|
Momsen J H. Gender differences in environmental concern and perception. The Journal of Geography, 2000, 99: 47―56
doi: 10.1080/00221340008978956
|
|
Anderson B A, Romani J H, Phillips H, Wentzel M, Tlabela K. Exploringenvironmental perceptions, behaviors and awareness: Water and waterpollution in South Africa. Population &Environment, 2007, 3 (3): 133―161
doi: 10.1007/s11111-007-0038-5
|
|
Brody S D, Highfield W, Alston L. Dose location matter? Measuringenvironmental perceptions of creeks in two San Antonio watersheds. Environment and Behavior, 2004, 36: 229―250
doi: 10.1177/0013916503256900
|
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
| |
Shared |
|
|
|
|
| |
Discussed |
|
|
|
|
