Evaluation of Perceived Environmental Risks of Residents' Life under the Perspective of Environmental Public Opinion

• Autorzy: Ye Fengjiao , Wang Xueru , Lin Jun

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.35784/preko.5386

Warianty tytułu

PL

Ocena postrzeganych zagrożeń środowiskowych dla życia mieszkańców w perspektywie środowiskowej opinii publicznej w Chinach

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Population health, social development and the environment are important elements of sustainable development. This article uses the China People's Daily message board to collect environmental public opinion data, visualizes the public opinion hotspots of environmental based on word frequency statistics, and applies the Latent Dirichlet Allocations (LDA) topic model to analyze the spatial distribution of environmental risk perception dimensions. The conclusions are as follows: (1) in terms of the hotspots of environmental public opinion, the most frequent occurrences are the living environment, interest demands and noise pollution. (2) There is heterogeneity in the topic of environmental risk perception. The perception of pollution source types has the highest weight in environmental risk perception in the eastern, central, and western regions. Specifically, the types of pollution sources in the eastern that receive the most attention are garbage and noise pollution. In addition to paying attention to noise pollution, the central and western also have a higher perceived weight on the polluters. Residents in northeast are most concerned about changes in residents' health and living environment quality. (3) From the perspective of environmental risk perception, health perception has the highest proportion in northeast, followed by the eastern, and finally the central and western. Proportion of perception of interest demands is highest in the central region, perception of residential environment quality is highest in the northeast region, perception of pollution source types is highest in the eastern, central, and western regions, and lowest in the northeast region. Finally, some practical and feasible policy recommendations were proposed for different regions.

PL

Zdrowie ludności, rozwój społeczny i środowisko są ważnymi elementami zrównoważonego rozwoju. W tym artykule wykorzystano tablicę ogłoszeń China People's Daily do gromadzenia danych dotyczących opinii publicznej na temat środowiska, wizualizowano najważniejsze punkty opinii publicznej na temat środowiska w oparciu o statystyki częstotliwości słów i zastosowano model Latent Dirichlet Allocations (LDA) do analizy przestrzennego rozkładu wymiarów postrzegania ryzyka środowiskowego. Wnioski są następujące: (1) jeśli chodzi o najbardziej aktywne punkty opinii publicznej w zakresie ochrony środowiska, najczęstszymi zjawiskami są środowisko życia, wymagania dotyczące zainteresowań i zanieczyszczenie hałasem. (2) Istnieje różnorodność w temacie postrzegania ryzyka środowiskowego. Postrzeganie rodzajów źródeł zanieczyszczeń ma największe znaczenie w postrzeganiu ryzyka środowiskowego w regionach wschodnich, centralnych i zachodnich. W szczególności źródłami zanieczyszczeń we wschodniej części kraju, którym poświęca się najwięcej uwagi, są śmieci i hałas. Oprócz zwracania uwagi na zanieczyszczenie hałasem, regiony środkowe i zachodnie również przywiązują większą wagę do sprawców zanieczyszczeń. Mieszkańcy północno-wschodniej części kraju najbardziej niepokoją zmiany w ich zdrowiu i jakości środowiska życia. (3) Z punktu widzenia postrzegania ryzyka dla środowiska, postrzeganie zdrowia ma najwyższy odsetek na północnym wschodzie, następnie na wschodzie, a na końcu w środkowej i zachodniej części. Proporcja postrzegania potrzeb odsetkowych jest najwyższa w regionie centralnym, postrzeganie jakości środowiska mieszkalnego jest najwyższe w regionie północno-wschodnim, postrzeganie rodzajów źródeł zanieczyszczeń jest najwyższe w regionach wschodnich, centralnych i zachodnich, a najniższe w regionie północno-wschodnim. Na koniec zaproponowano kilka praktycznych i wykonalnych zaleceń politycznych dla różnych regionów.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

environmental risk perception; environmental public opinion; Latent Dirichlet Allocations; LDA topic model; natural language processing; text analysis; China

PL

percepcja ryzyka środowiskowego; ekologiczna opinia publiczna; model ukrytych alokacji Dirichleta; LDA; przetwarzanie języka naturalnego; analiza tekstu; Chiny

• Wydawca: Lublin University of Technology
• Czasopismo: Problemy Ekorozwoju
• Rocznik: 2024
• Tom: Vol. 19, no. 1
• Strony: 308--324
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 33 poz., fig., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Ye Fengjiao

• School of Information Engineering, Quanzhou Ocean Institute (China)

• https://orcid.org/0009-0000-1320-9450

autor

Wang Xueru

• School of Information Engineering, Quanzhou Ocean Institute (China)

autor

Lin Jun

• School of Information Engineering, Quanzhou Ocean Institute (China)

Bibliografia

• 1. AZADI H., PETRESCU D. C., PETRESCU-MAG R. M., OZUNU, A., 2020, Special issue: Environmental risk mitigation for sustainable land use development, Land Use Policy, 95, 104488.
• 2. BALŽEKIENĖ A., TELEŠIENĖ A., MORKEVIČIUS V., 2022, Spatial dependencies and the relationship between sub-jective perception and objective environmental risks in Lithuania, Sustainability, 14(7): 3716.
• 3. BERARDO R., HOLM F., HEIKKILA T., WEIBLE C. M., YI H., KAGAN J., CHEN C., YORDY J., 2020, Hydraulic fracturing and political conflict: News media coverage of topics and themes across nine states, Energy Research & Social Science, 70: 101660.
• 4. CHEN Y., LIU X., 2021, How do environmental news and the under the dome documentary influence air-pollution knowledge and risk perception among Beijing residents?, SAGE Open, 11(2): 215824402110157.
• 5. CHENG H., BIAN Q., MAO Q., 2022, How can internet use and environmental risk perception encourage pro-environmental behaviors? The mediating role of government performance perception, Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 31(6): 5621-5631.
• 6. CHOON S.-W., ONG H.-B., TAN S.-H., 2019, Does risk perception limit the climate change mitigation behaviors?, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 21(4): 1891-1917.
• 7. FERGUSON P., WOLLERSHEIM L., 2023, From sustainable development to resilience? (Dis) continuities in climate and development policy governance discourse, Sustainable Development, 31(1): 67-77.
• 8. GAO S., LI W., LING S., DOU X., LIU X., 2019, An empirical study on the influence path of environmental risk per-ception on behavioral responses in China, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(16): 2856.
• 9. GUNJYAL N., RANI S., ASGARI LAJAYER B., SENAPATHI V., ASTATKIE T., 2023, A review of the effects of environmental hazards on humans, their remediation for sustainable development, and risk assessment, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 195(6): 795.
• 10. HUANG H., LONG R., CHEN H., SUN K., LI Q., 2022, Exploring public attention about green consumption on Sina Weibo: using text mining and deep learning, Sustainable Production and Consumption, 30: 674-685.
• 11. HUANG J., YANG J. Z., 2020, Beyond under the dome: An environmental documentary amplified public risk perception about air pollution in China, Journal of Risk Research, 23(2): 227-241.
• 12. KANG H. J., KIM C., KIM S., KIM C., 2023, A study on environmental trends and sustainability in the ocean economy using topic modeling: south Korean news articles, Processes, 11(8): 2253.
• 13. KENNY J., 2020, Economic conditions and support for the prioritisation of environmental protection during the Great Recession, Environmental Politics, 29(6) 937-958.
• 14. MA Y., MA Y., CAO Z., LI S., LV B., RUAN Z., WANG L., YU H., LU Z., 2021, Residents’ cognition and behavior related to eco-environmental risks from the development of large coal power plants: a case study in Xilinhot, Inner Mon-golia, Sustainability, 13(14): 7813.
• 15. OLOWOPOROKU O., DARAMOLA O., ODUNSI O., 2021, Determinants of residents’ perceived environmental hazards and risks in coastal towns of Delta State, Nigeria, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 56: 102094.
• 16. QIN M., SUN M., LI J., 2021, Impact of environmental regulation policy on ecological efficiency in four major urban agglomerations in eastern China, Ecological Indicators, 130: 108002.
• 17. SIERRA-BARÓN W., NAVARRO O., AMÉZQUITA NARANJO D. K., TERES SIERRA E. D., NARVÁEZ GON-ZÁLEZ C. M., 2021, Beliefs about Climate Change and Their Relationship with Environmental Beliefs and Sustainable Behavior: A View from Rural Communities, Sustainability, 13(9): 5326.
• 18. SONI A., MISTUR E. M., 2022, Flirting with disaster: Impacts of natural disasters on public support for environmental spending, Global Environmental Change, 75: 102552.
• 19. SULDOVSKY B., B. FRANK L., 2022, Strengthening public engagement on environmental hazards: Insights from cross-disciplinary air pollution research, Environmental Hazards, 21(3): 218-234.
• 20. SUN Z., ZHU D., 2023, Surveillance of public risk perceptions on outdoor air pollution: Evidence from online search behaviours in China, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2023.2183822.
• 21. TEH P. L., PIAO S., ALMANSOUR M., ONG H. F., AHAD A., 2022, Analysis of popular social media topics regard-ing plastic pollution, Sustainability, 14(3): 1709.
• 22. VERNER M., 2023, Political trust and ecological crisis perceptions in developing economies: Evidence from Ecuador, Latin American Politics and Society, https://doi.org/10.1017/lap.2023.14.
• 23. WANG B., HAN S., AO Y., LIAO F., WANG T., CHEN Y., 2022, The impact of public opinion pressure on construc-tion company green innovations: The mediating effect of leaders’ environmental intention and the moderating effect of en-vironmental regulation, Frontiers in Psychology, 13: 936058.
• 24. WANG B., LIU B., LI Y., 2023, A dark side of trust: examining the influence of environmental risk perception on citi-zens’ plastic-avoiding behavior, IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSS.2023.3297747.
• 25. G N., GUO J., ZHANG J., FAN Y, 2022, Comparing eco-civilization theory and practice: Big-data evidence from China, Journal of Cleaner Production, 380: 134754.
• 26. ANG S., JIANG J., ZHOU, Y., LI J., ZHAO D., LIN S., 2020, Climate-change information, health-risk perception and residents’ environmental complaint behavior: An empirical study in China, Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 42(3): 719-732.
• 27. XIONG J., HSWEN Y., NASLUND J. A., 2020, Digital surveillance for monitoring environmental health threats: A case study capturing public opinion from twitter about the 2019 Chennai water crisis, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(14): 5077.
• 28. XU S., SUN K., YANG B., ZHAO L., WANG B., ZHAO W., WANG Z., SU M., 2021, Can public participation in haze governance be guided by government? – Evidence from large-scale social media content data mining, Journal of Cleaner Production, 318: 128401.
• 29. YANG X., 2023, The influence of trust on the public’s environmental risk perception: Evidence from China, Local Envi-ronment, 28(6): 728-738.
• 30. YAO L., SHEN J., ZHANG F., GU X., JIANG S., 2021, Influence of environmental values on the typhoon risk percep-tions of high school students: A case study in Ningbo, China. Sustainability, 13(8): 4145.
• 31. YOO E., BAEK K., 2019, Gender differences in environmental and health-related risk perception in Korea, Asian Wom-en, 35(4): 47-67.
• 32. ZENG J., JIANG M., YUAN M., 2020, Environmental risk perception, risk culture, and pro-environmental behavior, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(5): 1750.
• 33. ZHOU Z., LIU J., ZENG H., ZHANG T., CHEN X., 2020, How does soil pollution risk perception affect farmers’ pro-environmental behavior? The role of income level, Journal of Environmental Management, 270: 110806.