Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 82, Issue 3, pp 1683–1702 | Cite as

The human dimension of visibility degradation in a compact city

  • Ricci P. H. Yue
  • Harry F. Lee
  • Melissa A. Hart
Original Paper

Abstract

Different parts of the world have undergone visibility degradation in recent decades. The degradation of visibility is a potential threat to human health because it is closely related to the level of air pollutants. However, the manner in which people perceive the ‘low visibility’ condition in an urban setting still remains unexplored. In this study, we sought to address the above issue by examining the standard and the threshold of vista and also their determinants in a compact city. Urban visibility public preference investigation was conducted at the Peak, Hong Kong, between June 2012 and January 2013, with 1203 valid responses collected. Our results show that the standard of vista was around 4.95 km, while the absolute threshold (the starting point of the threshold) and the major threshold (the part which most respondents changed from acceptance to unacceptance) of vista were 14–10 and 5–3.5 km, respectively. We also found that the environmental setting and the prescribed function of place, instead of the demographic attributes and the way people perceive visibility degradation, were more imperative in accounting for people’s standard of vista. Survey locations and the associated trip purposes of respondents do not affect the standard of vista. This finding may have implications regarding the incorporation of stakeholders’ views in environmental management.

Keywords

Visibility degradation Vista Perception Human dimension Urban 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Hui Oi-Chow Trust Fund (201302172003 and 201502172003) and the Research Grants Council of The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China (HKU758712H, HKU745113H, and HKU17610715). Last but not least, a special thanks to Prof. Thomas Glade and the two anonymous referees for their valuable comments on the manuscript.

References

  1. Abt Associates (2001) Assessing public opinions on visibility impairment due to air pollution: summary report. Prepared for EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; funded under EPA Contract No. 68-D-98-001. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/reports/vis_rpt_final.pdf. Accessed 21 Sept 2014
  2. Arcury TA (1990) Environmental attitude and environmental knowledge. Hum Organ 49(4):300–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Audit-Commission (2012) Monitoring and reporting of air quality. HKSAR, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  4. Bamberg S, Möser G (2007) Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: a new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J Environ Psychol 27(1):14–25. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baysan S (2001) Perceptions of the environmental impacts of tourism: a comparative study of the attitudes of German, Russian and Turkish tourists in Kemer, Antalya. Tour Geogr 3(2):218–235. doi: 10.1080/14616680010030284 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. BBC Research and Consulting (2002) Phoenix area visibility survey. Draft report. http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/download/vis_021903f.pdf. Accessed 21 Sept 2014
  7. Bird DK (2009) The use of questionnaires for acquiring information on public perception of natural hazards. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9:1307–1325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blaikie P, Cannon TD, Davis I, Wisner B (1994) At risk: natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Brady E (2008) Aesthetic character and aesthetic integrity in environmental conservation. Environ Ethics 24(1):75–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang WL, Koo EH (1986) A study of visibility trends in Hong Kong (1968–1982). Atmos Environ 20(10):1847–1858. doi: 10.1016/0004-6981(86)90325-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chestnut LG, Rowe RD (1990) Preservation values for visibility protection at the National Parks. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, USEPA, USGoogle Scholar
  12. Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, Shirley WL (2003) Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards. Social Sci Q 84(2):242–261. doi: 10.1111/1540-6237.8402002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daniel TC, Meitner MM (2001) Representational validity of landscape visualizations: the effects of graphical realism on perceived scenic beauty of forest vistas. J Environ Psychol 21(1):61–72. doi: 10.1006/jevp.2000.0182 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Day R (2007) Place and the experience of air quality. Health Place 13(1):249–260. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2006.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deng X, Tie X, Wu D, Zhou X, Bi X, Tan H et al (2008) Long-term trend of visibility and its characterizations in the Pearl River Delta (PRD) region, China. Atmos Environ 42(7):1424–1435. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.11.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diederen HSMA, Guicherit R, HolLonder JCT (1985) Visibility reduction by air pollution in The Netherlands. Atmos Environ 19(2):377–383. doi: 10.1016/0004-6981(85)90105-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Doyle M, Dorling S (2002) Visibility trends in the UK 1950–1997. Atmos Environ 36(19):3161–3172. doi: 10.1016/S1352-2310(02)00248-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ely DW, Leary JT, Stewart TR, Ross DM (1991) The establishment of the Denver visibility standard. In: Paper presented at the 84th Annual Meeting and Exhibition of the A&W, MA, Vancouver, BCGoogle Scholar
  19. EPA (1979) Protecting visibility: an EPA report to congress. NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air, Noise and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and StandardsGoogle Scholar
  20. Franzen A, Meyer R (2010) Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: a multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. Eur Sociol Rev 26(2):219–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Freitas CR (2003) Tourism climatology: evaluating environmental information for decision making and business planning in the recreation and tourism sector. Int J Biometeorol 48(1):45–54. doi: 10.1007/s00484-003-0177-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hammitt WE, Bixler RD, Noe FP (1996) Going beyond importance-performance analysis to analyze the observance-influence of park impacts. J Park Recreat Adm 14(1):45–62. doi: 10.1007/s00484-003-0177-z Google Scholar
  23. Hedley AJ, McGhee SM, Barron B, Chau P, Chau J, Thach TQ et al (2008) Air pollution: costs and paths to a solution in Hong Kong—understanding the connections among visibility, air pollution, and health costs in pursuit of accountability, environmental justice, and health protection. J Toxicol Environ Health A 71(9–10):544–554. doi: 10.1080/15287390801997476 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hillery M, Nancarrow B, Griffin G, Syme G (2001) Tourist perception of environmental impact. Annals Tour Res 28(4):853–867. doi: 10.1016/S0160-7383(01)00004-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hines JM, Hungerford HR, Tomera AN (1986–1987) Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible pro-environmental behavior: a meta-analysis. J Environ Educ 18(2):1–8Google Scholar
  26. HKTB (2013) A statistical review of Hong Kong tourism 2012. Hong Kong Tourism Board, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  27. HMSO (2000) Observer’s handbook (Dd716672 C22 4/82). Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Holland A, O’Neill J (1996) The integrity of nature over time. Department of Philosophy, University of Lancaster, LancasterGoogle Scholar
  29. Huang Y, Deng J, Li J, Zhong Y (2008) Visitors’ attitudes towards China’s National Forest Park policy, roles and functions, and appropriate use. J Sustain Tour 16(1):63–84. doi: 10.2167/jost720.0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hull RB, Stewart WP (1992) Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. J Environ Psychol 12(2):101–114. doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80063-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hungerford HR, Volk TL (1990) Changing learner behavior through environmental education. J Environ Educ 21(3):8–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hyslop NP (2009) Impaired visibility: the air pollution people see. Atmos Environ 43(1):182–195. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.09.067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaplan S (1972) The challenge of environmental psychology: a proposal for a new functionalism. Am Psychol 27(2):140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lang JT, Moleski W (2010) Functionalism revisited: architectural theory practice and the behavioural sciences. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  35. Latimer DA, Hogo H, Daniel TC (1981) The effects of atmospheric optical conditions on perceived scenic beauty. Atmos Environ (1967) 15(10):1865–1874Google Scholar
  36. Law R, Cheung C (2007) Air quality in Hong Kong: a study of the perception of international visitors. J Sustain Tour 15(4):390–401. doi: 10.2167/jost637.0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lee YL, Sequeira R (2002) Water-soluble aerosol and visibility degradation in Hong Kong during autumn and early winter, 1998. Environ Pollut 116(2):225–233. doi: 10.1016/S0269-7491(01)00135-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lee HF, Zhang DD (2004) Perceiving desertification from the lay perspective in northern China. Land Degrad Dev 15(6):529–542. doi: 10.1002/ldr.638 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lee HF, Zhang DD (2005) Perceiving land-degrading activities from the lay perspective in northern China. Environ Manage 36(5):711–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lee HF, Zhang DD (2008) Perceiving the environment from the lay perspective in desertified areas, Northern China. Environ Manage 41(2):168–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Leung YK, Lam CY (2008) Visibility impairment in Hong Kong—a wind attribution analysis. Bull Hong Kong Metrol Soc 18:33–48Google Scholar
  42. Lo AYH (2008) An exploratory study of the multiple values and roles of urban green spaces in Hong Kong (M.Phil.). The University of Hong Kong, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  43. Malm W, Kelley K, Molenar J, Daniel T (1981) Human perception of visual air quality (uniform haze). Atmos Environ 15(10–11):1875–1890. doi: 10.1016/0004-6981(81)90223-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Marlow C (2011) Research methods for generalist social work, 5th edn. Brooks/Cole, Pacific, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  45. McNeill R, Roberge AM, Georgia Basin Ecosystem Initiative (2000) The impact of visual air quality on tourism revenues in Greater Vancouver and the lower Fraser Valley. Georgia Basin Ecosystem Initiative, Environment CanadaGoogle Scholar
  46. Mobley C, Vagias WM, DeWard SL (2010) Exploring additional determinants of environmentally responsible behavior: the influence of environmental literature and environmental attitudes. Environ Behav 42(4):420–447. doi: 10.1177/0013916508325002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Molnár A, Mészáros E, Imre K, Rüll A (2008) Trends in visibility over Hungary between 1996 and 2002. Atmos Environ 42(11):2621–2629. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.05.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Parsons R (1991) The potential influences of environmental perception on human health. J Environ Psychol 11(1):1–23. doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80002-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pinkerton B (1994) Finding what people want: experiences with the WebCrawler. In: Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Second International World Wide Web ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  50. Pryor SC (1996) Assessing public perception of visibility for standard setting exercises. Atmos Environ 30(15):2705–2716. doi: 10.1016/1352-2310(95)00365-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Renn O, Burns WJ, Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE, Slovic P (1992) the social amplification of risk: theoretical foundations and empirical applications. J Soc Issues 48(4):137–160. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1992.tb01949.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Saxena VK, Weintraub DC (1990) Parameters involved in visibility perception during haze episodes. In: Visibility and fine particles. Transactions of an AWMA/US-EPA International Specialty Conference, Pittsburgh, PAGoogle Scholar
  53. Schichtel BA, Husar RB, Falke SR, Wilson WE (2001) Haze trends over the United States, 1980–1995. Atmos Environ 35(30):5205–5210. doi: 10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00317-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smith AE, Howell S (2009) An assessment of the robustness of visual air quality preference study results. CRA International, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  55. Stratus Consulting Inc. (2009) Review of urban visibility public preference studies. Final Report. U.S.: Stratus Consulting Inc.Google Scholar
  56. Sudarmadi S, Suzuki S, Kawada T, Netti H, Soemantri S, Tri Tugaswati A (2001) A survey of perception, knowledge, awareness, and attitude in regard to environmental problems in a sample of two different social groups in Jakarta, Indonesia. Environ Dev Sustain 3(2):169–183. doi: 10.1023/A:1011633729185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Watson JG (2002) Visibility: science and regulation. J Air Waste Manag As 52(6):628–713. doi: 10.1080/10473289.2002.10470813 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wong KK (2007) Park visiting habits of Hong Kong people: a preliminary analysis of the telephone survey data. Occasional Paper Series, No. 73. doi:  10.1080/13606710902752653
  59. Zube EH, Sell JL (1986) Human dimensions of environmental change. J Plan Lit 1:162–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ricci P. H. Yue
    • 1
  • Harry F. Lee
    • 1
    • 2
  • Melissa A. Hart
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of GeographyThe University of Hong KongPokfulamHong Kong
  2. 2.International Centre for China Development StudyThe University of Hong KongPokfulamHong Kong
  3. 3.Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science and Climate Change Research CentreThe University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations