Research on public risk perception of air pollution in Tianjin and Shijiazhuang

YANG Wen-jing; FAN Lin; LI Xu; WANG Jiao; YE Dan; HAN Xu; WANG Xian-liang

doi:10.16462/j.cnki.zhjbkz.2021.10.007

Volume 25 Issue 10

Nov. 2021

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > CHINESE JOURNAL OF DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION > 2021 > 25(10): 1154-1158

YANG Wen-jing, FAN Lin, LI Xu, WANG Jiao, YE Dan, HAN Xu, WANG Xian-liang. Research on public risk perception of air pollution in Tianjin and Shijiazhuang[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION, 2021, 25(10): 1154-1158. doi: 10.16462/j.cnki.zhjbkz.2021.10.007

Citation:

YANG Wen-jing, FAN Lin, LI Xu, WANG Jiao, YE Dan, HAN Xu, WANG Xian-liang. Research on public risk perception of air pollution in Tianjin and Shijiazhuang[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION, 2021, 25(10): 1154-1158. doi: 10.16462/j.cnki.zhjbkz.2021.10.007

Citation:

PDF( 15295 KB)

Research on public risk perception of air pollution in Tianjin and Shijiazhuang

doi: 10.16462/j.cnki.zhjbkz.2021.10.007

Department of Environmental Health Protection, National Institute of Environmental Health, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing 100021, China

Funds:

Beijing Natural Science Foundation 8182055

More Information

Corresponding author: WANG Xian-liang, E-mail: wangxianliang@nieh.chinacdc.cn
Received Date: 2021-06-09
Rev Recd Date: 2021-09-15

Available Online: 2021-11-17

Publish Date: 2021-10-10

Abstract

Abstract

Objective To explore the determining factors influencing public risk perception of air pollution in Tianjin and Shijiazhuang, and to identify the relationship between risk perception and fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) daily average exposure. Methods A questionnaire survey was conducted in Tianjin and Shijiazhuang by cluster sampling method. T-test was conducted for comparison analysis of the risk perception in different cities. Linear regression model and Logistic regression model were employed to explore the determining factors of public perception and preventive actions of air pollution respectively. Results A total of 3 902 valid questionnaires were screened out. The public with higher education and income in Tianjin were more familiar with air pollution, while the young women with higher education and income were more sensitive to the health impact caused by air pollution. There were geographical differences in the correlation between PM_2.5 average daily doses and public risk perception. The more the public in Tianjin trust the government, the more familiar they are with the risk of air pollution, the younger the public, the more likely it is to take measures towards air pollution. For the public in Shijiazhuang, the higher the level of education and the younger the population, the higher the willingness to take countermeasures. Conclusions The risk perception of air pollution was influenced by age, education level, and income level to a certain extent, and is related to the pollution prevention and control measures taken. The Tianjin public's risk perception was positively correlated with the average daily doses and concentration of PM_2.5.
- Air pollution,
- Risk perception,
- Fine particulate matter

FullText(HTML)

References(21)

References

[1]	Cohen AJ, Brauer M, Burnett R, et al. Estimates and 25-year trends of the global burden of disease attributable to ambient air pollution: an analysis of data from the Global Burden of Diseases Study 2015[J]. Lancet, 2017, 389(10082): 1907-1918. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30505-6.
[2]	Pu S, Shao Z, Fang M, et al. Spatial distribution of the public's risk perception for air pollution: a nationwide study in China[J]. Sci Total Environ, 2019, 655: 454-462. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.232.
[3]	Bickerstaff K. Risk perception research: socio-cultural perspectives on the public experience of air pollution[J]. Environ Int, 2004, 30(6): 827-840. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2003.12.001.
[4]	Hillier D. Communicating health risks to the public: a global perspective[M]. London: Routledge, 2007.
[5]	Künzli N, Kaiser R, Medina S, et al. Public-health impact of outdoor and traffic-related air pollution: a European assessment[J]. Lancet, 2000, 356(9232): 795-801. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02653-2.
[6]	Eden S. Public participation in environmental policy: considering scientific, counter-scientific and non-scientific contributions[J]. Public Underst Sci, 1996, 5(3): 183-204. DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/5/3/001.
[7]	Muindi K, Egondi T, Kimani-Murage E, et al. "We are used to this": a qualitative assessment of the perceptions of and attitudes towards air pollution amongst slum residents in Nairobi[J]. BMC Public Health, 2014, 14(1): 226. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-226.
[8]	Huang L, Rao C, van der Kuijp TJ, et al. A comparison of individual exposure, perception, and acceptable levels of PM 2.5, with air pollution policy objectives in China[J]. Environ Res, 2017, 157: 78-86. DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2017.05.012.
[9]	段小丽. 暴露参数的研究方法及其在环境健康风险评价中的应用[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2012. Duan XL. Research methods of exposure factors and its application in environmental health risk assessment[M]. Beijing: Science Press, 2012.
[10]	程鸿, 胡敏, 张利文, 等. 北京秋季室内外PM_2.5污染水平及其相关性[J]. 环境与健康杂志, 2009, 26(9): 787-789. DOI: 10.16241/j.cnki.1001-5914.2009.09.005. Cheng H, Hu M, Zhang LW, et al. PM_2.5 concentrations in indoor and outdoor air and their relationship in the fall of Beijing[J]. J Environment Health, 2009, 26(9): 787-789. DOI: 10.16241/j.cnki.1001-5914.2009.09.005.
[11]	Jacquemin B, Sunyer J, Forsberg B, et al. Annoyance due to air pollution in Europe[J]. Int J Epidemiol, 2007, 36(4): 809-820. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dym042.
[12]	Oglesby L, Künzli N, Monn C, et al. Validity of annoyance scores for estimation of long term air pollution exposure in epidemiologic studies: the Swiss study on air pollution and lung diseases in adults (SAPALDIA)[J]. Am J Epidemiol, 2000, 152(1): 75-83. DOI: 10.1093/aje/152.1.75.
[13]	Brody SD, Peck BM, Highfield WE, et al. Examining localized patterns of air quality perception in Texas: a spatial and statistical analysis[J]. Risk Anal, 2004, 24(6): 1561-1574. DOI: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00550.x.
[14]	Howel D, Moffatt S, Bush J, et al. Public views on the links between air pollution and health in Northeast England[J]. Environ Res, 2003, 91(3): 163-171. DOI: 10.1016/s0013-9351(02)00037-3.
[15]	Kohlhuber M, Mielck A, Weiland SK, et al. Social inequality in perceived environmental exposures in relation to housing conditions in Germany[J]. Environ Res, 2006, 101(2): 246-255. DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2005.09.008.
[16]	曾贤刚, 许志华, 虞慧怡. 基于信息源信任度的PM_2.5健康风险认知研究[J]. 中国环境科学, 2015, 35(10): 3157-3165. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGHJ201510048.htm Zeng XG, Xu ZH, Yu HY. Health risk perception to PM_2.5 based on the credibility of information sources[J]. China Environ Sci, 2015, 35(10): 3157-3165. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGHJ201510048.htm
[17]	Forsberg B, Stjernberg N, Wall S. People can detect poor air quality well below guideline concentrations: a prevalence study of annoyance reactions and air pollution from traffic[J]. Occup Environ Med, 1997, 54(1): 44-48. DOI: 10.1136/oem.54.1.44.
[18]	Kim M, Yi O, Kim H. The role of differences in individual and community attributes in perceived air quality[J]. Sci Total Environ, 2012, 425(3): 20-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.03.016.
[19]	Semenza JC, Wilson DJ, Parra J, et al. Public perception and behavior change in relationship to hot weather and air pollution[J]. Environ Res, 2008, 107(3): 401-411. DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2008.03.005.
[20]	Dorizas PV, Assimakopoulos MN, Santamouris M. A holistic approach for the assessment of the indoor environmental quality, student productivity, and energy consumption in primary schools[J]. Environ Monit Assess, 2015, 187(5): 259. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-015-4503-9.
[21]	Kim B, Yoon EJ, Kim S, et al. The effects of risk perceptions related to particulate matter on outdoor activity satisfaction in South Korea[J]. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2020, 17(5): 1613. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17051613.