Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 8, pp 8007–8018 | Cite as

Relationship among pollution concerns, attitudes toward social problems, and environmental perceptions in abandoned sites using Bayesian inferential analysis

  • Eujin Julia Kim
  • Youngeun KangEmail author
Research Article


How do local community perceive pollution risk and social problems in abandoned areas? Which factors affect these risk perceptions? Among several factors affecting environmental perceptions, familiarity to places has long been known to positively affect landscape perception, but is this also true for abandoned area with scruffy vegetation and industrial remnants? Will long-term residents eventually adapt to and accept these neglected landscapes? In the past, efforts have largely been devoted to the cleanup of large, highly polluted areas. This left many smaller, less polluted sites, often in urban or suburban areas, relatively neglected. These areas, which typically consist of small abandoned industrial and commercial sites and vacant lots in neighborhoods, are problematic since people living nearby continue to suffer from urban blight. Recently, there has been a shift in the focus of brownfield programs from highly polluted post-industrial cleanup to local brownfield reuse. In this new environment, a participatory planning process that engages the community seems to have become more important. In order to better understand factors affecting community people’s risk perception and effectively engage community support for the better management of derelict sites, this study investigated the factors on local community perceptions of abandoned landscapes including the effect of familiarity (the length of residency) and other sociodemographic (gender and age). For the study, the 200 study participants in eight neighborhoods along the Rail Corridor Revitalization Project in the city of Roanoke, VA, were asked to participate in survey and evaluate scenes of three types of abandoned landscapes focusing on two aspects, preference and pollution concerns. The results of scene ratings showed that lower scene preferences were associated with scene concerns related to higher pollution. However, although age and gender were associated with participants’ preference ratings and attitudes toward social problems and pollution, there was no significant effect for the length of residency.


Disturbed environment Attitude toward social problems Pollution concern Bayesian inferential analysis Environmental perception Brownfield 



  1. Andrews M, Gatersleben B (2010) Variations in perceptions of danger, fear and preference in a simulated natural environment. J Environ Psychol 30(4):473–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appleton J (1975) The experience of landscape. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Daniel TC (2001) Whither scenic beauty? Visual landscape quality assessment in the 21st century. Landsc Urban Plan 54(1):267–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Daniel TC, Vining J (1983) Methodological issues in the assessment of landscape quality. In: Altman I, Wohlwill J (eds) Behavior and the natural environment. Plenum PressSpringer, US, New York, pp 39–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dearden P (1984) Factors influencing landscape preferences: an empirical investigation. Landsc P 11(4):293–306Google Scholar
  6. Erdem M, Nassauer JI (2013) Design of brownfield landscapes under different contaminant remediation policies in Europe and the United States. Landsc J 32(2):277–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frantz CM, Mayer FS (2014) The importance of connection to nature in assessing environmental education programs. Stud Educ Eval. 41:85–89Google Scholar
  8. Giovanis E, Ozdamar O (2018) Health status, mental health and air quality: evidence from pensioners in Europe. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(14):14206–14225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gliner JA, Leech NL, Morgan GA (2002) Problems with null hypothesis significance testing (NHST): what do the textbooks say? J Exp Educ 71(1):83–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gobster PH (1999) An ecological aesthetic for forest landscape management. Landsc J 18(1):54–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Herzog TR (1995) A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. In: Sinha A (ed) Landscape perception, 65_82. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Herzog TR, Herbert EJ, Kaplan R, Crooks CL (2000) Cultural and developmental comparisons of landscape perceptions and preferences. Environ Behav 32(3):323–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hofmann M, Westermann JR, Kowarik I, van der Meer E (2012) Perceptions of parks and urban derelict land by landscape planners and residents. Urban For Urban Green 11(3):303–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jakle JA, Wilson D (1992) Derelict landscape: the wasting of America’s built environment. Rowman & Littlefield, SavageGoogle Scholar
  15. Jarosz AF, Wiley J (2014) What Are the Odds? A Practical Guide to Computing and Reporting Bayes Factors. The Journal of Problem Solving 7 (1)Google Scholar
  16. Kaplan R (1990) The perception of landscape style: a cross-cultural comparison. Landsc Urban Plan 19(3):251_262Google Scholar
  17. Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989) The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Kim EJ, Miller P (2015) Periodic characteristics and implications of programs and policies for brownfield management in the U.S.A. Kor. Inst of Landsc A J 43(1):96–107Google Scholar
  19. Kim KH, Choi JW, Lee E, Cho YM, Ahn HR (2015) A study on the risk perception of light pollution and the process of social amplification of risk in Korea. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22(10):7612–7621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krinke R (2001) Overview: design practice and manufactured sites. In: Kirkwood N (ed) Manufactured sites: rethinking the post-industrial landscape. Spon Press, New York, pp 125–149Google Scholar
  21. Krlozu N (2016) Youths’ perception and knowledge towards environmental problems in a developing country: in the case of Ataturk University, Turkey. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(12):12482–12490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krypotos AM, Blanken TF, Arnaudova I, Matzke D, Beckers T (2017) A primer on Bayesian analysis for experimental psychopathologists. J Exp Psychopathol 8(2):140–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lafortezza R, Corry RC, Sanesi G, Brown RD (2008) Visual preference and ecological assessments for designed alternative brownfield rehabilitations. J Environ Manag 89(3):257–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lippard LR (1998) The lure of the local: sense of place in a multicentered society. New Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Lothian A (1999) Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landsc Urban Plan 44(4):177–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Matsunaga M (2010) How to factor-analyze your data right: do’s, don’ts, and how-to’s. International Journal of Psychological Research 3(1):97–110Google Scholar
  27. Maulan S (2006) A perceptual study of wetlands: implications for wetland restoration in the urban areas in Malaysia (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University)Google Scholar
  28. Mott JH, Bowen EE (2014) Teaching NHST vs Bayesian inference in postsecondary technology programs. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Teaching StatisticsGoogle Scholar
  29. Nassauer JI (1995) Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landsc J 14(2):161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Osborne JW (2015) What is rotating in exploratory factor analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval 20(2):1–7Google Scholar
  31. Ruelle C, Halleux JM, Teller J (2013) Landscape quality and brownfield regeneration: a community investigation approach inspired by landscape preference studies. Landsc Res 38(1):75–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ryan RL (1998) Local perceptions and values for a mid-western river corridor. Landsc Urban Plan 42(2):225–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sklenicka P, Molnarova K (2010) Visual perception of habitats adopted for post-mining landscape rehabilitation. Environ Manag 46(3):424–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Southworth M (2001) Wastelands in the evolving metropolis. Institute of Urban & Regional Development Working Paper Series. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  35. Tang IC, Sullivan WC, Chang CY (2015) Perceptual evaluation of natural landscapes the role of the individual connection to nature. Environ Behav 47(6):595–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van de Schoot R, Depaoli S (2014) Bayesian analyses: where to start and what to report. Eur. Health Psychol 16(2):75–84Google Scholar
  37. Woods J (1995) Environmental factors that influence preference and price perceptions of commercial landscapes and storefronts (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University)Google Scholar
  38. Zube EH, Sell JL, Taylor JG (1982) Landscape perception: research, application and theory. Landsc P 9(1):1–33Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Landscape ArchitectureGangneung-Wonju National UniversityGangneungSouth Korea
  2. 2.Research DepartmentSite Planning Co. LtdBusanSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations