基于天长市1 250份问卷数据，运用SPSS进行效度及因子分析，确立公众的“风险认知”、“政府信任”、“公众参与”及“补偿措施”作为公众对邻避设施风险认知可接受度的潜变量，通过文献整理，确定原假设。运用AMOS21.0软件建立结构方程模型，检验原假设是否成立；并分析潜变量与“接受度”之间的关系。研究结果显示，“风险感知”对“接受度”影响系数-0.262；其次是“公众参与”，影响系数-0.242。两者均为负向相关影响。“政府信任”及“补偿措施”对“接受度”正向影响。同时，四个潜变量之间存在一定的正向影响。人口学变量中的年龄与受教育水平在一定程度上对“接受度”有影响。通过对天长市调查研究，分析了公众的风险接受度的影响因素，对影响因子进行量化，能够客观的比较其重要性；同时对政府及相关工作者有一定的启示，根据影响因子与“接受度”之间的关系，因地制宜，制定相关的政策与措施，来降低或避免邻避冲突。
Based on the results of 1250 questionnaires in Tianchang City, Anhui Province, China, four variables including “risk cognition”, “government trust”, “public participation” and “compensation measures” were defined as latent variables to assess the risk acceptability of the public to the urban NIMBY (not in my back yard) facilities using SPSS for validity and factor analysis. The original hypothesis was determined through the literature review. The software AMOS 21.0 was used to establish a structural equation model to test whether the original hypothesis is true or not; and the relationship between each latent variable and “acceptability” was analyzed. The results showed that the "risk recognition" had an influence coefficient of -0.262 on the "acceptability"; and the variable "public participation" had the influence coefficient of -0.242. Both were negative correlation. The variables "Government trust" and "compensation measures" had a positive impact on "acceptability." Besides, there was a certain positive effect among the four latent variables. The age and level of education in the demographic variables had some influence on the "acceptability". Through this study, the influence factors were quantified and the importance of the factors can be compared objectively. The results had provided some information for the government and related workers when they formulate relevant policies and measures in setting up urban NIMBY facilities.
[1] 陈宝胜. 国外邻避冲突研究的历史、现状与启示[J]. 安徽师范大学学报•人文社会科学版，2013，41，（2）: 184-192 . [CHEN Baosheng. The history, current situation and enlightenment of the research on the foreign avoidance conflict abroad [J]. Journal of Anhui Normal University (Hum. & Soc. Sci.), 2003，41，(2): 184-192. ]<br />
[2] 赵小燕. 国外邻避冲突研究文献综述[J]. 湖北经济学院学报•人文社会科学版,2014,11，（2）：26-27. [ZHAO Xiaoyan. A literature review of foreign adverse conflict studies [J]. Journal of Hubei University of Economics (Humanities and Social Sciences), 2014,11，(2): 26-27. ]<br />
[3] 马奔，王昕程，卢慧梅. 当代中国邻避冲突治理的策略选择—基于几起典型邻避冲突案例的分析[J].山东大学学报•哲学社会科学版，2014，（3）：60-67. [MA Ben, Wang Xinchen, Lu Huimei. The strategic choice of NIMBY conflict governance in contemporary China based on several typical cases [J]. Journal of Shandong University(Philosophy and Social Sciences), 2014, (3)：60-67.]<br />
[4] 朱阳光，杨洁，邹丽萍. 等. 邻避效应研究评述与展望[J]. 现代城市研究, 2015,（10）：100-107. [ZHU Yanggunag, Yang Jie, Zou Liping. etal. Review and prospect of research on adjacent effect. [J]. Modern Urban Research, 2015, (10): 100-107.]<br />
[5] 陈佛保，郝前进. 环境市政设施的邻避效应研究—基于上海垃圾中转站的实证分析[J]. 城市规划，2013,37，（8）：72-77. [CHEN Fubao, Hao Qianjin. Research on the NIMBY effect of environmental municipal facilities based on the empirical analysis of Shanghai garbage transfer station. [J]. City Planning Review, 2013，37， (8): 72-77. ]<br />
[6] 李城璇. 基于垃圾场的城市邻避冲突治理分析[J]. 管理观察，2016,（5）：69-73. [LI Chengxuan. Analysis of urban NIMBY conflict management based on garbage dump. [J]. Management Observer, 2016, (5):69-73. ]<br />
[7] 张向和，彭绪亚，刘峰. 等. 重庆市垃圾处理场的邻避效应分析[J]. 环境工程学报，2011，5，（6）：1363-1369. [ZHANG Xianghe, Peng Xuya, Liu Feng. etal. Analysis of the adjacent effect of the waste disposal site in Chongqing. [J]. Chinese Journal of Environmental Engineering, 2011, 5，(6):1363-1369. ]<br />
[8] 陈涛，杨悦. 邻避效应的中国困局—以居民抗议垃圾焚烧发电项目为中心的考察[J]. 中国矿业大学学报•社会科学版，2015,（12）：62-69. [CHEN Tao, Yang Yue. The dilemma of China's NIMBY effect: a study centered on residents' protesting waste incineration power generation projects. [J]. Journal of China University of Mining & Technology (Social Sciences), 2015, (12):62-69. ]<br />
[9] 张毳. 以公众参与促 “邻避效应”的化解—以马鞍山市城市污水处理厂污泥堆肥处理工程选址为例[J]. 资源节约与环保,2015,（8）：117. [ZHANG Cui. Promoting public participation in the "NIMBY effect" solution -- taking the site selection of sludge composting project in MA ‘Anshan municipal wastewater treatment plant as an example. [J]. Resources Economization & Environmental Protection, 2015, (8): 117. ]<br />
[10] Linlin Sun, Dajian Zhu, Edwin H.W. Chan. Public participation impact on environment NIMBY conflict and environmental conflict management: Comparative analysis in Shanghai and Hong Kong[J]. Land Use Policy, 2016, 58.<br />
[11] 侯璐璐，刘云刚. 公共设施选址的邻避效应及其公众参与模式研究—以广州市番禺区垃焚烧厂选址事件为例[J].城市规划学刊，2014，5（8）：112-118. [HOU Lulu, Liu Yungang. Study on the NIMBY effects and public participation modes of public facility site selection: a case study of the site selection of waste incineration plant of Panyu District, Guangzhou City. [J]. Urban Planning Forum, 2014, 5 (8): 112-118. ] <br />
[12] 吴云清. 多维层面的城市邻避风险规避[J].城市，2017，(11):54-59.[WU Yunqing. Multi-dimensional urban NIMBY risk aversion.City, 2017(11):54-59.]
