• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of environmental psychology >Urban and rural perceptions of ecological risks to water environments in southern and eastern Nevada
【24h】

Urban and rural perceptions of ecological risks to water environments in southern and eastern Nevada

机译：内华达州南部和东部城市和农村对水环境生态风险的认识

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

In this multidisciplinary study, we used an Internet-based tool to investigate perception of ecological risks to water environments due to most relevant hazards (urban development, drought, urban water consumption, interbasin water transfer from rural to urban areas, and water-intensive landscaping) in urban and rural Nevada. Rural participants' perception of risk was higher than urban participants for only "interbasin water transfer from rural to urban areas" while for the other four hazards the effect of residence location was not significant. The principal component analysis on fourteen scales identified three factors that we named Ecological Impact, Benefits & Equity due to Hazards, and Controllability of Hazards. Urban people perceived Ecological Impact due to the five hazards to water environments higher than rural people while rural people perceived Benefits & Equity due to Hazards higher than urban people. Participants' ratings in the survey represent their judgments of benefits and equity due to the hazards to water environments in urban Nevada (not in rural Nevada). Therefore, rural people seem to perceive that urban people benefit from the risky human activities of urban development, urban water consumption, interbasin water transfer, and water-intensive landscaping, yet rural people incur the costs. The two groups' risk judgments did not differ significantly in Controllability of Hazards. Participants who perceived higher ecological impact due to risks to water environments had less water-intensive (more desert-friendly) landscape in their gardens. And finally we found that rural laypeople perceived greater need to regulate risks to water environments than urban laypeople, urban experts, and rural experts, and the latter three groups were not significantly different from each other.
机译：在这项多学科研究中，我们使用基于Internet的工具来调查由于最相关的危害（城市发展，干旱，城市用水，流域间水从农村到城市的转移以及水资源密集型景观设计）对水环境的生态风险感知。 ）在内华达州的城市和乡村地区。对于“流域间的从农村到城市的调水”，农村参与者的风险感知高于城市参与者，而对于其他四个危害，居住地的影响并不显着。在十四个量表上进行主成分分析，确定了三个因素，我们将其称为生态影响，危害带来的收益和公平以及危害的可控制性。由于对水环境的五种危害，城市居民认为生态影响高于农村人口，而农村居民因危害而带来的收益和公平高于城市居民。由于内华达州城市（而非内华达州农村地区）对水环境的危害，参与调查的参与者的评级代表他们对收益和公平的判断。因此，农村人民似乎认为城市人民从城市发展，城市用水，流域间调水和水力密集型美化的危险人类活动中受益，而农村人民却为此付出了代价。两组的风险判断在可控性方面无显着差异。受到水环境风险影响而感到较高生态影响的参与者的花园中水耗较少（对沙漠更友好）的景观。最后，我们发现，农村外行人比城市外行人，城市专家和农村专家对监管水环境风险的需求更大，而后三组之间的差异并不明显。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号