Public perception of blue-algae bloom risk in Hongze Lake of China

Environmental Management

Volumn 45, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 1065-1075

  Huang, Lei ^a   Sun, Kai ^a   Ban, Jie ^a   Bi, Jun ^a  

^a NANJING UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Blue algae bloom; Chinese public; Environment management; Psychometric paradigm; Risk perception; Willingness to accept

Indexed keywords

ALGAE BLOOMS; CHINESE GOVERNMENT; ECOLOGICAL CHANGES; ECOLOGICAL RISKS; ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT; INFLUENCING FACTOR; MITIGATION POLICIES; MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; NON-PARAMETRIC STATISTICAL TESTS; NUCLEAR POWER; PSYCHOMETRIC PARADIGM; PUBLIC ENVIRONMENT; PUBLIC PERCEPTION; RATIONAL RISKS; RESEARCH AREAS; SOCIAL EFFECTS;

ALGAE; BLOOMS (METAL); ECOSYSTEMS; LAKES; LINEAR REGRESSION; PUBLIC RISKS; RESEARCH; STATISTICAL TESTS; SURVEYS;

RISK PERCEPTION;

ALGAL BLOOM; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; LAKE ECOSYSTEM; MITIGATION; MULTIPLE REGRESSION; NUMERICAL MODEL; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY; RISK PERCEPTION;

ADULT; ALGA; ALGAL BLOOM; ARTICLE; BLUE ALGA; CHINA; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEMOGRAPHY; EARTHQUAKE; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH HAZARD; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MALE; NONHUMAN; NUCLEAR ENERGY; PERCEPTION; PREDICTION; PUBLIC HEALTH; QUESTIONNAIRE; RISK FACTOR; TRAFFIC;

CHINA; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; CYANOBACTERIA; EUTROPHICATION; FRESH WATER; POLICY MAKING; PSYCHOMETRICS; PUBLIC OPINION; QUESTIONNAIRES; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIAL PERCEPTION;

CHINA; HONGZE LAKE; JIANGSU; SIHONG;

ALGAE;

EID: 77952880716     PISSN: 0364152X     EISSN: 14321009     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00267-010-9480-8     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. LJ Axelrod T McDaniels P Slovic 1999 Perceptions of ecological risk from natural hazards Journal of Risk Research 2 1 31 53 10.1080/136698799376970
2. LM Bonita OT David 2008 Perceptions of ecological risk associated with mountain pine beetle (dendroctonus ponderosae) infestations in banff and kootenay national parks of Canada Risk Analysis 28 1 803 813
3. N Bronfman LA Cifutenes 2003 Risk perception in a developing country: the case of Chile Risk Analysis 23 6 1309 1323 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2003.00400.x (Pubitemid 38045105)
4. O Cervantes I Espeje E Arellano S Delhumeau 2008 Users' perception as a tool to improve urban beach planning and management Environmental Management 42 2 249 264 10.1007/s00267-008-9104-8
5. S Chaiken D Maheswaran 1994 Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66 460 473 10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.460 1:STN:280:DyaK2c3itlClsA%3D%3D
6. Chaiken S, Liberman A, Early AH (1989) Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In: Uleman JS, Bargh JA (eds) Unintended thought. Guilford Press, New York
7. A Elosegi SV Gregory V Joshi M Mutz M Rinaldi B Wyzga J Zawiejska 2005 Public perception as a barrier to introducing wood in Rivers for restoration purpose Environmental Management 36 5 665 674 10.1007/s00267-004-0092-z (Pubitemid 41586792)
8. A El-Zein R Nasrallah I Nuwayhid 2006 Determinants of the willingness-to-participate in an environmental intervention in a beirut neighborhood Environmental Management 37 2 200 208 10.1007/s00267-004-0375-4 (Pubitemid 43155436)
9. J Flynn P Slovic S Lichtenstein 1994 Gender, race and environmental health risks Risk Analysis 14 1101 1108 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00082.x 1:STN:280:DyaK2M7kvV2jtg%3D%3D
10. T Grothman F Reusswig 2006 People at risk of flooding: why some residents take precautionary action while others do not Natural Hazards 38 101 120 10.1007/s11069-005-8604-6
11. L Guo 2007 Doing battle with the green monster of Taihu Lake Science 317 1166 10.1126/science.317.5842.1166 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXhtVWks77O
12. JK Hammitt JT Liu 2004 Effects of disease type and latency on the value of mortality risk Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 28 1 73 95 10.1023/B:RISK.0000009437.24783.e1 (Pubitemid 39014992)
13. MC Ho D Shaw S Lin 2008 How do disaster characteristics influence risk perception? Risk Analysis 28 3 635 643 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01040.x (Pubitemid 351847226)
14. K Hohl G Gaskell 2008 European public perceptions of food risk: cross-national and methodological comparisons Risk Analysis 28 2 311 324 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01021.x (Pubitemid 351550591)
15. L Huang BL Duan J Bi ZW Yuan J Ban 2010 Analysis of determining factors of risk acceptable level in public: the case of China Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 16 2 95 110
16. BC Ji KK Hong KR Sam 2008 Analysis of local acceptance of a radioactive waste disposal facility Risk Analysis 28 4 1021 1032 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008. 01074.x
17. H Kunreuther D Eastering W Desvousges 1990 Public attitudes toward siting a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada Risk Analysis 10 4 469 484 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1990.tb00533.x
18. HF Lee DD Zhang 2005 Perceiving land-degrading activities from the lay perspective in Northern China Environmental Management 36 5 711 725 10.1007/s00267-004-0218-3 (Pubitemid 41594622)
19. N Lienhoop D MacMillan 2007 Valuing wilderness in Iceland: estimation of WTA and WTP using the market stall approach to contingent valuation Land Use Policy 24 289 295 10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.07.001 (Pubitemid 44405377)
20. MK Lindell 2000 Household adjustment to earthquake hazard: a review of research Environment and Behavior 32 461 501 10.1177/00139160021972621
21. F Marincioni F Appiotti 2009 The Lyon-Turin high-speed rail: the public debate and perception of environmental risk in Susa valley, Italy Environmental Management 43 5 863 875 10.1007/s00267-009-9271-2
22. T McDaniels LJ Axelrod P Slovic 1995 Characterizing perception of ecological risk Risk Analysis 15 5 575 588 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00754.x 1:STN:280:DyaK287gt1yqsQ%3D%3D
23. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1986) Valuing drinking water risk reductions using the contingent valuation method: a methodological study of risks from THM and Giardia. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC
24. JR Mrozek LO Taylor 2002 What determines the value of life? A meta analysis Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21 253 270 10.1002/pam.10026 (Pubitemid 37239545)
25. K Nakayachi 1998 How do people evaluate risk reduction when they are told zero risk is impossible? Risk Analysis 18 3 235 242 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998. tb01290.x (Pubitemid 28300030)
26. Nyland LG (1993) Risk perception in Brazil and Sweden. RHIZIKON: Risk Research Report No. 15. Center for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics
27. Poumadere M, Mays C, Slovic P (1995) What lies behind public acceptance? Comparison of US and French perceptions of the nuclear power option. In: Proceedings of an international conference on the nuclear power option, Vienna, Austria, pp 393-405
28. M Riddel KR Schwer 2006 Winners, losers, and the nuclear-waste dilemma Environmental & Resources Economics 34 317 338 10.1007/s10640-006-0007-y (Pubitemid 43854664)
29. Rogers GO (1985) On determining public acceptability of risk. In: Whipple C, Covello V (eds) Risk analysis in the private sector. Plenum Press, New York, pp 483-504
30. S Salihoglu F Karaer 2004 Ecological risk assessment and problem formulation for Lake Uluabat, a ramsar state in Turkey Environmental Management 33 6 899 910 10.1007/s00267-004-2864-x
31. M Siegrist 2000 The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology Risk Analysis 20 2 195 203 10.1111/0272-4332.202020 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3czhslelsw%3D%3D (Pubitemid 30354440)
32. M Siegrist C Keller HAL Kiers 2005 A new look at the psychometric paradigm of perception of hazards Risk Analysis 20 1 211 222 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2005.00580.x (Pubitemid 40471617)
33. L Sjöberg 2001 Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust Risk Analysis 21 1 189 198 10.1111/0272-4332.211101 (Pubitemid 32679247)
34. L Sjöberg 2004 Local acceptance of a high-level nuclear waste repository Risk Analysis 24 3 737 749 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00472.x (Pubitemid 38857637)
35. Sjöberg L (2006) Nuclear waste risk perceptions and attitudes in siting a final repository for spent nuclear fuel. In: Andersson K (ed) VALDOR proceedings, Stockholm, Sweden, pp 452-460
36. P Slovic 1987 Perception of risk Science 236 20 285 10.1126/science. 3563507
37. Slovic P (1997) Trust, emotion, sex, politics and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. In: Bazerman M, Messick D, Tenbrunsel A, Wade-Benzoni K (eds) Environment, ethics and behavior. The New Lexington Press, San Francisco, pp 277-313
38. Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. In: Risk, society and policy series. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London, Sterling
39. Slovic P, Feischhoff B, Lichtenstein S (1980) Facts and fears: understanding perceived risk. In: Schwing RC, Albers WA (eds) Societal risk assessment: how safe is safe enough? Springer Press, New York, pp 181-216
40. P Slovic ML Finucane E Peters 2004 Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality Risk Analysis 24 2 311 322 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x (Pubitemid 38620129)
41. VK Smith 2008 Risk perceptions, optimism, and natural hazards Risk Analysis 28 6 1763 1767 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.00880.x
42. K Tsunoda 2002 Difference in the formation of attitude toward nuclear power Political Psychology 23 1 191 201 10.1111/0162-895X.00277
43. L Venkatachalam 2006 The contingent valuation method: a review Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24 89 124 10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00138-0
44. WK Viscusi JE Aldy 2003 The value of a statistical life: a critical review of market estimates throughout the world Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 27 1 1573 1576 10.1023/A:1025598106257