{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011980267794221282, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.96078431372549, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Phytoremediation for lightly toxic sites: Hazard perception and acceptance of remediation alternatives

ABSTRACT Individuals perceive environmental hazards based on their own knowledge and experience. While much research has been conducted to examine the factors affecting hazard perceptions, there is a lack of understanding about the particular contexts or factors that influence public acceptance of hazard mitigation alternatives. Without this knowledge, expert groups cannot effectively communicate with the public and help them consider the use of emerging technologies to alleviate hazardous conditions. This study investigates the influence of perceived pollution hazard levels in abandoned industrial sites as well as knowledge levels of stakeholder groups on the acceptance of different types of remediation strategies. I compare local residents' perceptions with those of graduate students majoring in landscape architecture. The study results found that lower hazard levels were associated with a higher acceptance of on-site natural attenuation, the so-called phytoremediation, with students being significantly more likely to favor this option than residents. These results imply that the social acceptability of remediation technologies, including phytotechnology, is context dependent and can vary significantly depending on the hazard status of the site and the knowledge base of the stakeholder group.