Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Public Perception of Blue-Algae Bloom Risk in Hongze Lake of China

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this work we characterize the public perception of one kind of ecological risk—blue-algae bloom in Hongze Lake, China, based on the psychometric paradigm method. In the first survey of May 2008, 300 respondents of Sihong County adjacent to Hongze Lake were investigated, with a total of 156 questionnaires returned. Then in a second survey of July 2008, 500 respondents from the same research area were investigated, with 318 questionnaires collected. This research firstly attempted to explore the local respondents’ degree of concern regarding ecological changes to Hongze Lake in the last ten years. Secondly, to explore the public perception of blue-algae bloom compared to three typical kinds of hazards including earthquake, nuclear power and public traffic. T-test was used to examine the difference of risk perception in these four hazards over time. The third part of this research, with demographic analysis and nonparametric statistical test, predicted the different groups of respondents’ willingness to accept (WTA) risk of blue-algae bloom in two surveys. Using multiple linear regression analysis, the risk perception model explained 28.3% of variance in the WTA blue-algae bloom risk. The variables of Knowledge, Social effect, Benefit, Controllability and Trust in government were significantly correlated with WTA, which implied that these variables were the main influencing factors explaining the respondents’ willingness to accept risk. The results would help the Chinese government to comprehend the public’s risk perception of the lake ecosystem, inducing well designed communication of risks with public and making effective mitigation policies to improve people’s rational risk judgment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Axelrod LJ, McDaniels T, Slovic P (1999) Perceptions of ecological risk from natural hazards. Journal of Risk Research 2(1):31–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonita LM, David OT (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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bronfman N, Cifutenes LA (2003) Risk perception in a developing country: the case of Chile. Risk Analysis 23(6):1309–1323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cervantes O, Espeje I, Arellano E, Delhumeau S (2008) Users’ perception as a tool to improve urban beach planning and management. Environmental Management 42(2):249–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken S, Maheswaran D (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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Elosegi A, Gregory SV, Joshi V, Mutz M, Rinaldi M, Wyzga B, Zawiejska J (2005) Public perception as a barrier to introducing wood in Rivers for restoration purpose. Environmental Management 36(5):665–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El-Zein A, Nasrallah R, Nuwayhid I (2006) Determinants of the willingness-to-participate in an environmental intervention in a beirut neighborhood. Environmental Management 37(2):200–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn J, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S (1994) Gender, race and environmental health risks. Risk Analysis 14:1101–1108

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grothman T, Reusswig F (2006) People at risk of flooding: why some residents take precautionary action while others do not. Natural Hazards 38:101–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo L (2007) Doing battle with the green monster of Taihu Lake. Science 317:1166

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hammitt JK, Liu JT (2004) Effects of disease type and latency on the value of mortality risk. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 28(1):73–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho MC, Shaw D, Lin S (2008) How do disaster characteristics influence risk perception? Risk Analysis 28(3):635–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hohl K, Gaskell G (2008) European public perceptions of food risk: cross-national and methodological comparisons. Risk Analysis 28(2):311–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang L, Duan BL, Bi J, Yuan ZW, Ban J (2010) Analysis of determining factors of risk acceptable level in public: the case of China. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 16(2):95–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Ji BC, Hong KK, Sam KR (2008) Analysis of local acceptance of a radioactive waste disposal facility. Risk Analysis 28(4):1021–1032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunreuther H, Eastering D, Desvousges W (1990) Public attitudes toward siting a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Analysis 10(4):469–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee HF, Zhang DD (2005) Perceiving land-degrading activities from the lay perspective in Northern China. Environmental Management 36(5):711–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lienhoop N, MacMillan D (2007) Valuing wilderness in Iceland: estimation of WTA and WTP using the market stall approach to contingent valuation. Land Use Policy 24:289–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindell MK (2000) Household adjustment to earthquake hazard: a review of research. Environment and Behavior 32:461–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marincioni F, Appiotti F (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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniels T, Axelrod LJ, Slovic P (1995) Characterizing perception of ecological risk. Risk Analysis 15(5):575–588

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Mrozek JR, Taylor LO (2002) What determines the value of life? A meta analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21:253–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakayachi K (1998) How do people evaluate risk reduction when they are told zero risk is impossible? Risk Analysis 18(3):235–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyland LG (1993) Risk perception in Brazil and Sweden. RHIZIKON: Risk Research Report No. 15. Center for Risk Research, Stockholm School of Economics

  • 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

  • Riddel M, Schwer KR (2006) Winners, losers, and the nuclear-waste dilemma. Environmental & Resources Economics 34:317–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Salihoglu S, Karaer F (2004) Ecological risk assessment and problem formulation for Lake Uluabat, a ramsar state in Turkey. Environmental Management 33(6):899–910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M (2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis 20(2):195–203

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Keller C, Kiers HAL (2005) A new look at the psychometric paradigm of perception of hazards. Risk Analysis 20(1):211–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2001) Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Analysis 21(1):189–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg L (2004) Local acceptance of a high-level nuclear waste repository. Risk Analysis 24(3):737–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:20–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. In: Risk, society and policy series. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London, Sterling

  • 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

  • Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis 24(2):311–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith VK (2008) Risk perceptions, optimism, and natural hazards. Risk Analysis 28(6):1763–1767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsunoda K (2002) Difference in the formation of attitude toward nuclear power. Political Psychology 23(1):191–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatachalam L (2006) The contingent valuation method: a review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 24:89–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viscusi WK, Aldy JE (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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research is supported by China’s Natural Sciences Foundation (40771080), China’s Natural Sciences Youth Foundation (40901266), and China 863 R&D Project (2007AA06A405).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control & Resource Reuse, School of Environment, Nanjing University, 210093, Nanjing, People’s Republic of China

    Lei Huang, Kai Sun, Jie Ban & Jun Bi

Authors
  1. Lei Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kai Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jie Ban
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jun Bi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jun Bi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Huang, L., Sun, K., Ban, J. et al. Public Perception of Blue-Algae Bloom Risk in Hongze Lake of China. Environmental Management 45, 1065–1075 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9480-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9480-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation