Public perception of environmental issues across socioeconomic characteristics: A survey study inWujin, China

Research Article

Abstract

In developing countries, there is controversy over the correct perception regarding environmental and developmental issues. Few studies have examined the perception of low-income nationals in regards to social and environmental issues. This paper looks at the relationship between socio-demographic factors and the groups’ perceived priority regarding environmental and social issues in Wujin County. The results indicated that most residents, specifically the young, government employed and the urban community consider environmental issues to be serious, especially in relation to air pollution and water pollution. Furthermore, many residents feel it is important to rank environmental problems that are related to other social and economic issues, and that environmental protection must be set as a priority in Wujin County. Compared to social issues, environmental concern was greater among the young, government employed, and the urban community, because of their higher education and affluence. In addition, 66.2% of residents consider environmental protection to be more important than economic development. Thus, environmental protection must be set as a high priority in Wujin County, in order to face the many social and environmental challenges inherent in development.

Keywords

socio-economic characteristics environmental perception sustainable development policy making 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    White M J, Hunter L M. Public Perception of Environmental Issues in a Developing Setting. Institute of Behavioral Science, Working Paper (EB2005-0003). 2005Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mitchell J K. Hazard perception studies: Convergent concerns and divergent approaches during the past decade. In: Saarinen T F, Seamom D, Sell J L, eds. Environmental Perception and Behavior: An Inventory and prospect Department of Geography. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1984, 38–39Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Curran S, Kumar A, Lutz W, Williams M. Interactions between coastal and marine ecosystems and human population systems: Perspectives on how consumption mediates this interaction. Ambio, 2002, 31: 264–268Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    National Research Council (NRC). Global Environmental Change: Research Pathways for the Next Decade. Washington DC: National Academies Press, 1999Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dunlap R E. Trends in Public Opinion Toward Environmental Issues: 1965–1990. Washington DC: Taylor and Francis, Inc., 1992Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mertig A G, Dunlap R E, Morrison D E. The environmental movement in the United States. In: Dunlap R E, Michelson W, eds. Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002, 448–481Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jacob C T, Azariah J. Environmental perception of textile industrial pollution in Tiruppur, India. Journal of Asian and International Bioethics, 1997, 7: 162–165Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hunter L M. Household Strategies in the Face of Resource Scarcity: Are They Associated with Development Priorities. Working paper of Institute of Behavioral Science, Research Program on Environment and Behavior, EB2004-0001. 2004Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kempton W M, Boster J S, Hartley J A. Environmental Values in American Culture. Boston: MIT Press, 1995Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stern P C, Dietz T. The value basis of environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues, 1994, 50: 65–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dunlap R E, Mertig A G. Global concern for the environment: Is affluence a prerequisite? Journal of Social Issues, 1995, 51: 121–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rinzin C, Vermeulen W J, Glasbergen P. Public perceptions of Bhutan’s approach to sustainable development in practice. Sustainable Development, 2007, 15: 52–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Inglehart R. Public support for environmental protection: Objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. Political Science & Politics, 1995, 28: 57–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dunlap R E, York R. The globalization of environmental concern and the limits of the post-materialist values explanation: Evidence from four multi-national surveys. Sociological Quarterly, 2008, 49(3): 529–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brechin S R, Kempton W. Global environmentalism: A challenge to the poastmaterialsm thesis? Social Science Quarterly, 1994, 75 (2): 245–269Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dunlap R E, Gallup G H, Gallup A. Of global concern: Results of the health of the planet survey. Environment, 1993, 35: 33–39Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brechin S. Objective problems, subjective values, and global environmentalism: Evaluating the post-materialist argument and challenging a new explanation. Social Science Quarterly, 1999, 80: 793–811Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jones R E, Dunlap R E. The social bases of environmental concern: Have they changed over time? Rural Sociology, 1992, 57: 28–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Klineberg S, McKeever L M, Rothenbach B. Demographic predictors of environmental concern: It does make a difference how it’s measured. Social Science Quarterly, 1998, 79 (4): 734–753Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dunlap R E, Xiao C, McCright A M. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 2001, 56 (3): 425–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hunter LM, Johnson A, Hatch A. Cross-national gender variation in environmental behaviors. Social Science Quarterly, 2004, 85: 677–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zelezny L C, Chua P, Aldrich C. Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 2000, 56: 443–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fransson N, Garling T. Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1999, 19: 369–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Biel A, Nilsson A. Religious values and environmental concern: Harmony and detachment. Social Science Quarterly, 2005, 86: 178–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    High C, Shackleton C M. The comparative value of wild and domestic plants in home gardens of a south african rural village. Agroforestry Systems, 2000, 48 (2): 141–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Twine W, Moshe D, Netshiluvhi T, Siphugu V. Consumption and direct-use values of savanna bio-resources used by rural households in Mametja, a semi-arid area of Limpopo Province, South Africa. South African Journal of Science, 2003, 99 (9): 467–473Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wujin Statistic Bureau. Wujin Statistical Yearbook, 2005 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wujin Environmental Protection Bureau (WEPB). Environmental Quality Report of Wujin County, 2005 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Franz X B, Michel W. Environmental perception of rural and urban pupils. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1997, 17: 111–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eagly A H, Kulesa P. Attitudes, attitude structure, and resistance to change: Implications for persuasion on environmental issues. In: Bazerman M H, ed. Environment, EtIlice, and Behavior: The Psychology of Environmental Valuation and Degradation. San Francisco: New Lexington Press, 1997Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    McStay J R, Dunlap R E. Male-female differences in concern for environmental quality. International Journal of Women’s Studies, 1993, 6: 291–301Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Momsen J H. Gender differences in environmental concern and perception. The Journal of Geography, 2000, 99: 47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Anderson B A, Romani J H, Phillips H, Wentzel M, Tlabela K. Exploring environmental perceptions, behaviors and awareness: Water and water pollution in South Africa. Population & Environment, 2007, 3 (3): 133–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Brody S D, Highfield W, Alston L. Dose location matter? Measuring environmental perceptions of creeks in two San Antonio watersheds. Environment and Behavior, 2004, 36: 229–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of EnvironmentNanjing UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.Center of Environmental Management & PolicyNanjing UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations