天津市和石家庄市公众空气污染风险感知研究

杨文静; 樊琳; 李旭; 王姣; 叶丹; 韩旭; 王先良

doi:10.16462/j.cnki.zhjbkz.2021.10.007

天津市和石家庄市公众空气污染风险感知研究

doi: 10.16462/j.cnki.zhjbkz.2021.10.007

100021 北京，中国疾病预防控制中心环境与健康相关产品安全所环境健康防护室

基金项目:

北京市自然科学基金 8182055

详细信息

通讯作者:
王先良，E-mail: wangxianliang@nieh.chinacdc.cn

中图分类号: R181.2;R122.7
计量
- 文章访问数: 387
- HTML全文浏览量: 190
- PDF下载量: 41
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2021-06-09
- 修回日期: 2021-09-15
- 网络出版日期: 2021-11-17
- 刊出日期: 2021-10-10

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

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

摘要

摘要: 目的探究天津市、石家庄市两城市公众空气污染风险感知水平的影响因素，识别空气污染风险感知与细颗粒物(fine particulate matter, PM_2.5)日均暴露之间的关系。方法用整群抽样法对天津市、石家庄市两座城市的公众进行问卷调查。使用t检验比较不同城市的风险感知水平，使用线性回归模型和Logistic回归分析模型探索空气污染风险感知水平和应对空气污染所采取的防护措施的影响因素。结果本研究筛选出3 902份有效问卷。天津市公众受教育程度和家庭年收入水平越高的人群，对空气污染的熟悉度更高，而受教育程度高、家庭年收入水平高的年轻女性，对空气污染所导致的健康影响更加敏感。PM_2.5日均暴露量与公众风险感知之间的相关性存在地域差异。天津市的公众，对于政府越信任，对空气污染风险越熟悉，年龄越小的人群，他们面对空气污染愿意采取措施的可能性越高。石家庄市的公众，受教育程度越高，年龄越小的人群，采取应对措施的意愿越强烈。结论公众的空气污染风险感知水平在一定程度受到年龄、受教育程度、家庭年收入水平的影响，且与采取的空气污染应对措施存在一定的相关性。天津市公众的风险感知水平与PM_2.5的日均暴露量和浓度呈正相关关系。
- 空气污染 /
- 风险感知 /
- 细颗粒物
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

HTML全文

表 1 公众风险感知影响因素的回归分析

Table 1. Regression analysis on influencing factors of pubic risk perception

自变量	熟悉度		信念		生理影响
自变量	天津市	石家庄市	天津市	石家庄市	天津市	石家庄市
性别	0.030	0.016	0.055	-0.148	0.175 ^a	0.083
年龄	0.002	＜0.001	0.005	0.001	-0.017 ^b	＜0.001
吸烟情况	-0.080	-0.057	-0.085	-0.068	-0.087	0.004
受教育程度	0.319 ^b	0.009	0.039	0.026	0.256 ^b	-0.034
婚姻状况	0.007	0.085	0.043	0.168	-0.053	-0.035
家庭年收入水平	0.175 ^a	0.005	0.104	0.017	0.114 ^a	0.068
注：^a P＜0.05，^b P＜0.01。

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 ADD人口统计学的分层分析

Table 2. Demographic stratification analysis of ADD

分组变量	平均PM_2.5日均暴露量(μg·kg^-1·d^-1)		单因素方差分析F(P)
分组变量	天津市	石家庄市	天津市	石家庄市
性别
男	7.838	7.916	238.358(＜0.001)	236.079(＜0.001)
女	9.086	9.003
年龄(岁)
18~＜46	8.654	8.783	12.663(＜0.001)	26.858(＜0.001)
46~＜61	8.362	8.412
受教育程度
高中及以下	8.517	8.590	0.093(0.912)	9.642(＜0.001)
大学及专科	8.521	8.715
研究生及以上	8.645	8.067
家庭年收入水平(万元)
＜5	8.375	8.619	3.973(＜0.001)	6.819(＜0.001)
5~＜10	8.551	8.341
10~＜20	8.700	8.509
≥20	7.718	8.071
合计	8.521	8.613

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 PM_2.5浓度和ADD、风险感知水平的Spearman相关分析

Table 3. Spearman correlation analysis among PM_2.5 concentration, ADD and risk perception level

	ADD	PM_2.5浓度	生理影响	信念	熟悉度
天津市
ADD	1.000
PM_2.5浓度	0.467 ^a	1.000
生理影响	0.087 ^a	0.305 ^a	1.000
信念	0.126 ^a	0.310 ^a	0.228 ^a	1.000
熟悉度	0.450 ^a	0.327 ^a	0.382 ^a	0.436 ^a	1.000
石家庄市
ADD	1.000
PM_2.5浓度	0.629 ^a	1.000
生理影响	0.015	0.019	1.000
信念	-0.003	0.015	0.393 ^a	1.000
熟悉度	0.019	0.012	0.353 ^a	0.369 ^a	1.000
注：^a表示P＜0.01。

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 公众针对空气污染所采取防护措施的Logistic回归分析

Table 4. Logistic regression analysis of public's preventive actions towards air pollution

变量	愿意采取措施		戴口罩		减少户外活动		绿色出行
变量	天津市	石家庄市	天津市	石家庄市	天津市	石家庄市	天津市	石家庄市
生理影响	0.026	0.004	-0.031	-0.009	0.032 ^b	-0.001	0.096 ^b	-0.010
熟悉度	0.509 ^b	-0.094	0.310 ^b	-0.011	0.236 ^b	0.034	0.159 ^b	0.035
信念	0.162 ^b	0.009	0.113 ^b	0.013	0.077 ^b	-0.007	0.067 ^a	0.012
年龄	-0.027 ^a	-0.016 ^a	-0.011 ^a	-0.004	-0.011 ^a	0.007	-0.015 ^b	-0.007
吸烟情况	0.104	0.062	0.061	0.019	-0.132	0.075	-0.173	0.079
受教育程度	0.284	0.427 ^a	0.253 ^a	0.243 ^a	-0.010	0.273 ^a	0.183	0.010
家庭年收入水平	-0.072	-0.133	-0.238 ^b	-0.119	0.069	0.074	0.272 ^b	0.076
注：^a P＜0.05，^b P＜0.01。

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(21)

[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.