Assessment of Environmental Deterioration in the Greater Thessaloniki Area Based on Public Perception
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Assessment of environmental deterioration in the Greater Thessaloniki Area based on public perception. Karkania Chrysanthi SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS, BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION & LEGAL STUDIES A thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Science (MSc) in Environmental Management and Sustainability February 2017 Thessaloniki – Greece Student Name: Chrysanthi Karkania SID: 1105150008 Supervisor: Dr Charisios Achillas, Dr Georgios Banias I hereby declare that the work submitted is mine and that where I have made use of another’s work, I have attributed the source(s) according to the Regulations set in the Student’s Handbook. February 2017 Thessaloniki - Greece Abstract This dissertation is written as part of the MSc in Environmental Management and Sus- tainability at the International Hellenic University. Environmental degradation has long been on the vanguard. Typical large city problems such as air quality, transportation systems, waste management, noise, and the ab- sence of green spaces influence social welfare. Environmental quality’s contribution to sustainability, public health, and social welfare is of great importance. To prevent fur- ther environmental degradation, the most urgent environmental pressure must be identified. The need of adopting measures to protect and restore the environment is essential. In the present dissertation thesis, the current environmental quality of the metropoli- tan area of Thessaloniki is evaluated. Each environmental pressure is examined and conclusions are drawn, concerning their current status. One of the main objectives is to estimate the most urgent environmental pressure of the GTA. A questionnaire based survey is conducted to properly record public’s opinion. A superficial attempt to record the supreme mitigation strategies to confront the most significant environmen- tal problem is performed. I would like to take a moment to express my sincere gratitude to my thesis supervisors Dr Georgios Banias and Dr Charisios Achillas, for the continuous support, motivation, and immense knowledge. They consistently allowed this paper to be my own work, but steered me in the right direction whenever they thought I needed it. Environmental significance, public opinion, environmental quality, air pollution Chrysanthi Karkania 14/02/2017 -i- Contents ABSTRACT ...............................................................................................................IV CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. III 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 1.1. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND...................................................................................... 1 1.2. SCOPE ................................................................................................................... 3 1.3. WORK STRUCTURE .................................................................................................. 3 2. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH .......................................................................... 7 2.1. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................ 7 2.2. QUESTIONNAIRE THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND DESIGN ........................................... 10 2.3. MULTICRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 16 3. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IN THE GREATER THESSALONIKI AREA .................... 21 3.1. THE DOMAIN ....................................................................................................... 21 3.2. STATUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ...................................................................... 22 3.2.1. Air quality ............................................................................................. 23 3.2.2. Waste ................................................................................................... 29 3.2.3. Noise Pollution ..................................................................................... 32 3.2.4. Urban Transportation .......................................................................... 34 3.2.5. Water Quality ....................................................................................... 37 3.2.6. Population Density ............................................................................... 40 3.2.7. Green Spaces ........................................................................................ 42 -iii- 4. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES IN THE GREATER THESSALONIKI AREA .............................................................................................. 45 4.1. BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................... 45 4.2. METHODOLOGY OF ASSESSMENT OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES IN THE GTA ...................................................................................................................... 45 4.3. DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ............................................................................................. 47 4.4. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES IN THE GTA ............................. 50 4.5. PUBLIC DISSATISFACTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES IN THE GTA ........................... 51 4.6. SIGNIFICANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES IN THE GTA .......................................... 53 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION................................................................................ 55 5.1. EVALUATION OF THE RESULTS ACCORDING TO THE RESPONDENTS’ STUDY AREA ................. 55 5.2. EVALUATION OF THE RESULTS ACCORDING TO THE RESPONDENTS’ AGE ............................ 60 5.3. EVALUATION OF THE RESULTS ACCORDING TO THE RESPONDENTS’ EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND 63 5.4. MITIGATION STRATEGIES ON THE MOST URGENT ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURE .................. 66 6. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................. 71 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................... 75 ANNEX I ................................................................................................................... 1 ANNEX II .................................................................................................................. 6 ANNEX III ............................................................................................................... 20 ANNEX IV ............................................................................................................... 29 -iv- -v- 1. Introduction 1.1. Theoretical Background The ideas of urban environmental quality and other related terms such as livability and sustainability have witnessed a steep rise and became focal points of interest in re- search programs, policy making as well as urban development. Yet the way these con- cepts are applied in research and policymaking is not always uniform (van Kamp et al., 2003). Urban sustainability is a multi-dimensional concept including environmental, econom- ic, social, and political aspects (Moussiopoulos et al., 2010; Huang et al., 2009; Ole- wiler, 2006). Assessing sustainability in urban areas is challenging for environmental managers and public authorities (Moussiopoulos et al., 2010; Holden, 2006; Luque- Martinez and Munoz-Leiva, 2005). One of the most significant questions in the choices of decision-makers is what is envi- ronmental quality. And perhaps more important: what is the effect of one’s designing interventions on the environmental quality and well-being? (van Kamp et al., 2003). In general, questions regarding environmental quality are partly academic; it derives its value from questions inside the community, targeting policymakers, architects, urban planners, environmental planners (van Kamp et al., 2003; Brown, 2000; Brown, this issue). Furthermore, the fact that several parameters affect environmental quality makes it difficult to erect a proper definition of environmental quality. Typical large city prob- lems such as air quality, transportation systems, waste management, noise and the absence of green spaces are interrelated parameters which influence social welfare (Achillas et al., 2011; Huang et al., 2009; Olewiler, 2006). Environmental quality’s con- tribution to sustainability, public health and social welfare is of great importance (Achillas et al., 2011; Mozer, 2009; Pugh, 1996). -1- Figure 1.1. A conceptual model of factors that contribute to community quality of life from a human ecological perspective (van Kamp et al., 2003; Shafer et al., 2000) Human pressure on the urban environment has led to continuous environmental deg- radation. It all boils down to the need for adopting measures to protect and restore the environment. All mitigation efforts should aim toward sustainability (Moussiopou- los et al., 2010; Van Dijk and Mingshum, 2005). At an international level this focus is apparent in numerous scientific publications, and other documents concerning livabil- ity and urban planning (van Kamp et al., 2003). To prevent further environmental degradation, the most urgent environmental pres- sure must be identified by taking into consideration the experts’ views and the public opinion at the same time, to produce effective mitigation approaches. In spite of the mitigation approaches needed in order to avoid or remedy adverse impacts, the priori- tization of these