The Perception of Environmental Information Disclosure on Rural Residents’ Pro-Environmental Behavior
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Research Hypothesis
2.1. Influencing Factors of PEB at the Macro Level
2.2. Influencing Factors of PEB at the Micro Level
2.3. EID and PEB
2.4. PEC and PEB
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Questionnaire
3.1.1. Survey Design
3.1.2. Sampling Design
3.2. Variables and Data
3.3. Methodology
3.3.1. OLS Estimation
3.3.2. Ordered Logit Model
3.3.3. Mediation Effect Model
4. Results
4.1. Benchmark Regression
4.2. Robustness Check
4.3. Heterogeneity
4.4. Intermediary Effect
5. Conclusions and Implications
5.1. Conclusions
5.2. Implications
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Stage | Sampling Unit | Sampling Indicators | Sampling Method | Sampling Results | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
The first stage | Prefecture-level administrative region | Urban development | Stratified sampling | Hangzhou, Jiaxing, Shaoxing, Jinhua, Wenzhou | |
The second stage | County-level administrative region | Zoning code | Simple random sampling | Qiantang District, Tongxiang City, Keqiao District, Wucheng District, Lucheng District | |
The third stage | Township/town/street | Partition encoding | Simple random sampling | Xiasha Street, Hezhuang Street; Fengming Street, Heshan Town; Huashe Street, Lanting Town; Chengdong Street, Jiangnan Street, Bailongqiao Town; Wuma Street, Shuixin Street | |
The fourth stage | Respondents | Number of residents | Chance sampling | / |
Cities | GDP per Capita (Ten Thousand Yuan) |
---|---|
Lishui | 66,936 |
Quzhou | 71,087 |
Wenzhou | 71,225 |
Jinhua | 81,224 |
Taizhou | 83,555 |
Huzhou | 102,593 |
Jiaxing | 112,751 |
Shaoxing | 114,561 |
Zhoushan | 116,781 |
Ningbo | 143,157 |
Hangzhou | 152,465 |
Appendix B
Variable | Description of Variables | Frequency | Proportion | Mean Value | Standard Deviation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Behavior | Minimum: 0 | 1.41 | 2.35 | ||
Maximum: 26 | |||||
Rev | Minimum: 1 | 4.42 | 1.72 | ||
Maximum: 7 | |||||
Bea | Minimum: 1 | 4.35 | 1.77 | ||
Maximum: 7 | |||||
Poe | Minimum: 1 | 3.74 | 1.83 | ||
Maximum: 7 | |||||
Age | 16–20 years old | 230 | 29.4% | 2.54 | 1.40 |
21–30 years old | 228 | 29.1% | |||
31–40 years old | 94 | 12.0% | |||
41–50 years old | 156 | 19.9% | |||
51–60 years old | 56 | 7.2% | |||
Over 60 years old | 19 | 2.4% | |||
Sex | Female married | 186 | 24.1% | 2.38 | 1.07 |
Female unmarried | 266 | 29.2% | |||
Male married | 159 | 20.6% | |||
Male unmarried | 162 | 21.0% | |||
Occ | Farming | 91 | 11.7% | 4.60 | 2.18 |
Enterprises with pollution discharge | 12 | 1.5% | |||
Non polluting enterprises | 62 | 7.9% | |||
Student | 371 | 47.5% | |||
Social organization or group | 15 | 1.9% | |||
Party and government organs and institutions not engaged in environmental protection work | 50 | 6.4% | |||
Party and government organs and institutions working in environmental protection system | 6 | 0.8% | |||
Other | 174 | 22.3% | |||
Wp | Indoor | 669 | 86.4% | 1.14 | 0.34 |
Outdoor | 105 | 13.6% | |||
Edu | Primary school and below | 50 | 6.4% | 3.87 | 1.36 |
Junior high school | 119 | 15.2% | |||
High school/technical secondary school/Technical School | 107 | 13.7% | |||
Junior college | 130 | 16.6% | |||
Bachelor degree | 356 | 45.6% | |||
Master degree or above | 19 | 2.4% | |||
Income | Less than 50,000 | 80 | 10.2% | 3.20 | 1.47 |
50,000–100,000 | 180 | 23.0% | |||
100,000–200,000 | 244 | 28.7% | |||
200,000–300,000 | 161 | 20.6% | |||
300,000–400,000 | 50 | 6.4% | |||
400,000–500,000 | 28 | 3.6% | |||
More than 500,000 | 38 | 4.9% | |||
Rr | Local | 651 | 83.1% | 1.40 | 0.94 |
Foreign migration (within 3 years) | 21 | 2.7% | |||
Foreign migration (more than 3 years) | 41 | 5.2% | |||
Out of town | 70 | 9.0% | |||
Ls | Long term settlement | 555 | 71.0% | 1.56 | 0.95 |
Family visit or vacation | 57 | 7.3% | |||
Hope to settle down for a long time | 136 | 17.4% | |||
Move out | 29 | 3.7% | |||
Won’t come again | 5 | 0.6% |
Variables | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | (10) | (11) | (12) | (13) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(1) behavior | 1.000 | ||||||||||||
(2) rev | 0.210 | 1.000 | |||||||||||
(3) bea | 0.233 | 0.810 | 1.000 | ||||||||||
(4) poe | 0.220 | 0.637 | 0.716 | 1.000 | |||||||||
(5) concern | −0.043 | 0.187 | 0.139 | 0.091 | 1.000 | ||||||||
(6) age | 0.118 | 0.021 | 0.018 | 0.113 | −0.010 | 1.000 | |||||||
(7) sex | 0.007 | −0.018 | −0.012 | −0.040 | −0.069 | −0.290 | 1.000 | ||||||
(8) occ | −0.025 | 0.056 | 0.064 | 0.082 | 0.093 | 0.074 | −0.071 | 1.000 | |||||
(9) wp | 0.039 | −0.087 | −0.079 | 0.018 | −0.066 | 0.422 | 0.023 | −0.218 | 1.000 | ||||
(10) edu | −0.045 | 0.131 | 0.106 | 0.001 | 0.065 | −0.652 | 0.212 | −0.009 | −0.433 | 1.000 | |||
(11) income | 0.008 | 0.136 | 0.147 | 0.066 | 0.000 | −0.217 | 0.162 | 0.101 | −0.203 | 0.307 | 1.000 | ||
(12) rr | −0.044 | −0.053 | −0.052 | −0.077 | 0.014 | −0.158 | 0.108 | −0.027 | −0.069 | 0.151 | 0.058 | 1.000 | |
(13) ls | −0.005 | −0.018 | −0.017 | −0.052 | 0.000 | −0.268 | 0.117 | −0.116 | −0.145 | 0.293 | 0.121 | 0.316 | 1.000 |
References
- An, C.; Cai, M.; Guy, C. Rural Sustainable Environmental Management. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crowder, K.; Downey, L. Interneighborhood Migration, Race, and Environmental Hazards: Modeling Microlevel Processes of Environmental Inequality. Am. J. Sociol. 2010, 115, 1110–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Yang, T. Association between perceived environmental pollution and health among urban and rural residents-a Chinese national study. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 1589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Franzen, A.; Vogl, D. Two decades of measuring environmental attitudes: A comparative analysis of 33 countries. Global Environ. Change 2013, 23, 1001–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Begum, A.; Liu, J.; Haider, M.; Ajmal, M.M.; Khan, S.; Han, H. Impact of Environmental Moral Education on Pro-Environmental Behaviour: Do Psychological Empowerment and Islamic Religiosity Matter? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Geng, J.; Long, R.; Chen, H.; Li, W. Exploring the motivation-behavior gap in urban residents’ green travel behavior: A theoretical and empirical study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 125, 282–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Wang, S.; Wang, H.; Zhang, Z.; Ru, X. Examining when and how perceived sustainability-related climate influences pro-environmental behaviors of tourism destination residents in China. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 48, 357–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saari, U.A.; Damberg, S.; Froembling, L.; Ringle, C.M. Sustainable consumption behavior of Europeans: The influence of environmental knowledge and risk perception on environmental concern and behavioral intention. Ecol. Econ. 2021, 189, 107155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, J.; Lu, C. Relations among Pro-Environmental Behavior, Environmental Knowledge, Environmental Perception, and Post-Materialistic Values in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, Y.; Chen, H.; Chen, Z.; Wang, Y.; Wei, W. Has environmental information disclosure eased the economic inhibition of air pollution? J. Clean Prod. 2021, 284, 125412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, Z.; Jian, L.; Ruili, Z. Does environmental information disclosure promote sulfur dioxide (SO2) remove? New evidence from 113 cities in China. J. Clean Prod. 2021, 299, 126906. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, D.; Memon, H. Public Pressure, Environmental Policy Uncertainty, and Enterprises’ Environmental Information Disclosure. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohanty, P.K.; Patro, A.; Harindranatha, R.M.; Kumar, N.S.; Panda, D.K.; Dubey, R. Perceived government initiatives: Scale development, validation and impact on consumers’ pro-environmental behaviour. Energy Policy 2021, 158, 112534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quaglione, D.; Cassetta, E.; Crociata, A.; Sarra, A. Exploring additional determinants of energy-saving behaviour: The influence of individuals’ participation in cultural activities. Energy Policy 2017, 108, 503–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villanueva-Alvaro, J.-J.; Mondejar-Jimenez, J.; Saez-Martinez, F.-J. Rural Tourism: Development, Management and Sustainability in Rural Establishments. Sustainability 2017, 9, 818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Maria Campon-Cerro, A.; Manuel Hernandez-Mogollon, J.; Alves, H. Sustainable improvement of competitiveness in rural tourism destinations: The quest for tourist loyalty in Spain. J. Dest. Mark. Manag. 2017, 6, 252–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mi, L.; Sun, Y.; Gan, X.; Yang, Y.; Jia, T.; Wang, B.; Xu, T. Predicting environmental citizenship behavior in the workplace: A new perspective of environmental affective event. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 2037–2046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ming, Y.; Deng, H.; Wu, X. The negative effect of air pollution on people’s pro-environmental behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 142, 72–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jielin, C.; Junyue, H.; Xiaocheng, H.; Shiwei, S.; Yu, H.; Haitao, W. How does new environmental law affect public environmental protection activities in China? Evidence from structural equation model analysis on legal cognition. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 714, 136558. [Google Scholar]
- Darshana, R.; Robert, G.; Benno, T.; Marian, G.; Wasantha, A.; Shunsuke, M.; Clevo, W. Do monetary and non-monetary incentives influence environmental attitudes and behavior? Evidence from an experimental analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 149, 168–176. [Google Scholar]
- Farrow, K.; Grolleau, G.; Ibanez, L. Social Norms and Pro-environmental Behavior: A Review of the Evidence. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 140, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keren, K.M.; Laura, H.; Joonha, P.; Jenny, K. What predicts household waste management behaviors? Culture and type of behavior as moderators. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 145, 11–18. [Google Scholar]
- Filippini, M.; Wekhof, T. The effect of culture on energy efficient vehicle ownership. J Environ. Econ. Manag. 2021, 105, 102400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chwialkowska, A.; Bhatti, W.A.; Glowik, M. The influence of cultural values on pro-environmental behavior. J. Clean Prod. 2020, 268, 122305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Irawan; Elia, A.; Benius. Interactive effects of citizen trust and cultural values on pro-environmental behaviors: A time-lag study from Indonesia. Heliyon 2022, 8, e09139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, P.; Han, C.; Teng, M. The influence of Internet use on pro-environmental behaviors: An integrated theoretical framework. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 164, 105162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ho, S.S.; Liao, Y.; Rosenthal, S. Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior and Media Dependency Theory: Predictors of Public Pro-environmental Behavioral Intentions in Singapore. Environ. Commun. 2015, 9, 77–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, Q.; Du, W. Social Capital, Environmental Knowledge, and Pro-Environmental Behavior. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dean, A.J.; Kneebone, S.; Tull, F.; Lauren, N.; Smith, L.D.G. ‘Stickiness’ of water-saving behaviours: What factors influence whether behaviours are maintained or given up? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 169, 105531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong-Parodi, G.; Rubin, N.B. Exploring how climate change subjective attribution, personal experience with extremes, concern, and subjective knowledge relate to pro-environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions in the United States. J. Environ. Psychol. 2022, 79, 101728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, Q.; He, B.; Chen, X.; Han, J.; Han, F. The Mechanism and Mediating Effect of the “Perception-Emotion-Behaviour” Chain of Tourists at World Natural Heritage Sites-A Case Study from Bayanbulak, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 12531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lopez-Mosquera, N.; Lera-Lopez, F.; Sanchez, M. Key factors to explain recycling, car use and environmentally responsible purchase behaviors: A comparative perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 99, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ari, E.; Yilmaz, V. A proposed structural model for housewives’ recycling behavior: A case study from Turkey. Ecol. Econ. 2016, 129, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Annika, M.W.; Daria, K.; Sebastian, B. When and how pro-environmental attitudes turn into behavior: The role of costs, benefits, and self-control. J. Environ. Psychol. 2022, 79, 101748. [Google Scholar]
- Casaló, L.V.; Escario, J.-J.; Rodriguez-Sanchez, C. Analyzing differences between different types of pro-environmental behaviors: Do attitude intensity and type of knowledge matter? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 149, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yuriev, A.; Dahmen, M.; Paille, P.; Boiral, O.; Guillaumie, L. Pro-environmental behaviors through the lens of the theory of planned behavior: A scoping review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 155, 104660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Wang, Q.-C.; Jian, I.Y.; Chi, H.-L.; Yang, D.; Chan, E.H.-W. Are you an energy saver at home? The personality insights of household energy conservation behaviors based on theory of planned behavior. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 174, 105823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kautish, P.; Sharma, R.; Mangla, S.K.; Jabeen, F.; Awan, U. Understanding choice behavior towards plastic consumption: An emerging market investigation. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 174, 105828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Del Saz Salazar, S.; Perez y Perez, L. Exploring the Differential Effect of Life Satisfaction on Low and High-Cost Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salem, M.; Raab, K.; Wagner, R. Solid waste management: The disposal behavior of poor people living in Gaza Strip refugee camps. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 153, 104550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christin, H.; Julia, A.H.; Ziemann, N. Faster, harder, greener? Empirical evidence on the role of the individual Pace of Life for productivity and pro-environmental behavior. Ecol. Econ. 2022, 191, 107212. [Google Scholar]
- Hadler, M.; Haller, M. Global activism and nationally driven recycling: The influence of world society and national contexts on public and private environmental behavior. Int. Sociol. 2011, 26, 315–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Powdthavee, N. Education and pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours: A nonparametric regression discontinuity analysis of a major schooling reform in England and Wales. Ecol. Econ. 2021, 181, 106931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brückmann, G. The effects of policies providing information and trialling on the knowledge about and the intention to adopt new energy technologies. Energy Policy 2022, 167, 113047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraemer, M.; Kumar, S.; Vollmer, S. Anemia, diet, and cognitive development: Impact of health information on diet quality and child nutrition in rural India. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2021, 190, 495–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fitzpatrick, A.; Beg, S.; Derksen, L.; Karing, A.; Kerwin, J.; Lucas, A.M.; Reynoso, N.O.; Squires, M. Health knowledge and non-pharmaceutical interventions during the Covid-19 pandemic in Africa. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2021, 190, 33–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Ma, Y.; Yang, S.; Koondhar, M.A.; Kong, R. The Spillover Influence of Household Waste Sorting on Green Consumption Behavior by Mediation of Environmental Concern: Evidence from Rural China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.; Zhang, J.; Tadikamalla, P.R.; Gao, X. The Relationship among Government, Enterprise, and Public in Environmental Governance from the Perspective of Multi-Player Evolutionary Game. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Porumbescu, G.A.; Cucciniello, M.; Gil-Garcia, J.R. Accounting for citizens when explaining open government effectiveness. Gov. Inform. Q. 2020, 37, 101451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, W.Y.; Cho, F.H.T. Environmental information disclosure and societal preferences for urban river restoration: Latent class modelling of a discrete-choice experiment. J. Clean Prod. 2019, 231, 1294–1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.-S.; Huang, A.F.; Wang, T.-Y.; Chen, Y.-R. Greenwash and green purchase behaviour: The mediation of green brand image and green brand loyalty. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2020, 31, 194–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veziroglu, A.; Macario, R. Fuel cell vehicles: State of the art with economic and environmental concerns. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2011, 36, 25–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poortinga, W.; Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior: A study into household energy use. Environ. Behav. 2004, 36, 70–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, R.; Xu, J. A Comparative Study of the Role of Interpersonal Communication, Traditional Media and Social Media in Pro-Environmental Behavior: A China-Based Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rhead, R.; Elliot, M.; Upham, P. Assessing the structure of UK environmental concern and its association with pro-environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 43, 175–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magnier, L.; Schoormans, J. Consumer reactions to sustainable packaging: The interplay of visual appearance, verbal claim and environmental concern. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 44, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hidalgo-Crespo, J.; Coello-Pisco, S.; Reyes-Venegas, H.; Bermeo-Garay, M.; Amaya, J.L.; Soto, M.; Hidalgo-Crespo, A. Understanding citizens’ environmental concern and their pro-environmental behaviours and attitudes and their influence on energy use. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shulman, D.; Halperin, E.; Reifen-Tagar, M. Personal experience with Covid-19 is associated with increased environmental concern and pro-environmental behavioral intentions. Curr. Res. Ecol. Soc. Psychol. 2022, 3, 100031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, S.; Chunan, Z.; Ming, Z. Does haze pollution promote the consumption of energy-saving appliances in China? An empirical study based on norm activation model. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 145, 220–229. [Google Scholar]
- Yin, H.; Huang, Y.; Wang, K. How Do Environmental Concerns and Governance Performance Affect Public Environmental Participation: A Case Study of Waste Sorting in Urban China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Mangmeechai, A. Understanding the Gap between Environmental Intention and Pro-Environmental Behavior towards the Waste Sorting and Management Policy of China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Foroughi, B.; Arjuna, N.; Iranmanesh, M.; Kumar, K.M.; Tseng, M.-L.; Leung, N. Determinants of hotel guests’ pro-environmental behaviour: Past behaviour as moderator. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 102, 103167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.; Sun, M.; Xu, X.; Zhang, L.; Guo, J.; Ye, Y. Environmental village regulations matter: Mulch film recycling in rural China. J. Clean Prod. 2021, 299, 126796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ge, J.; Lin, B. Impact of public support and government’s policy on climate change in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 294, 112983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, B.; Ann, K.B.; Jorge, G. Does it have to be a sacrifice? Different notions of the good life, pro-environmental behavior and their heterogeneous impact on well-being. Ecol. Econ. 2020, 167, 106448. [Google Scholar]
- Ding, L.; Luman, Z.; Shuang, M.; Shuai, S.; Lixiao, Z. What influences an individual’s pro-environmental behavior? A literature review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 146, 28–34. [Google Scholar]
- Wei, J.; Zhao, X.; Liu, Y.; Yang, X. Measuring purchase intention towards green power certificate in a developing nation: Applying and extending the theory of planned behavior. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 168, 105363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, W.-T.; Ng, E.; Chang, M.-C. Physical Outdoor Activity versus Indoor Activity: Their Influence on Environmental Behaviors. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, Q.; Yamada, T.; Liu, H.; Lin, L.; Fang, Q. Healthy Behavior and Environmental Behavior Correlate with Bicycle Commuting. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Fang, J.; Wang, W.; Li, Y.; Li, Y. The Impact of Air Quality on Effective Labor Supply: Based on the Survey Data of Zhejiang Province in China. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puhani, P.A. The Heckman correction for sample selection and its critique. J. Econ. Surv. 2000, 14, 53–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crociata, A.; Agovino, M.; Sacco, P.L. Recycling waste: Does culture matter? J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 2015, 55, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suwa, T.; Usui, T. Estimation of garbage reduction and recycling promotion under the containers and packaging recycling law and garbage pricing. Environ. Econ. Pol. Stud. 2007, 8, 239–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable Name | Variable Definition | Variable Assignment |
---|---|---|
Behavior | Environmental protection behavior of rural residents | |
Disclosure | Government environmental information disclosure | |
Rev | Publicity of Rural Revitalization Strategy | 1 = Very little 7 = Very well |
Bea | Open strategy of beautiful China | 1 = Very little 7 = Very well |
Poe | Poetry and painting Zhejiang Grand Garden Construction open | 1 = Very little 7 = Very well |
Concern | Environmental concerns of rural residents | 1 = Very little 7 = Very well |
Age | Age | 1 = 16–20 years old 2 = 21–30 years old 3 = 31–40 years old 4 = 41–50 years old 5 = 51–60 years old 6 = Over 60 years old |
Sex | Gender and marital status | 1 = Female married 2 = Female unmarried 3 = Male married 4 = Male unmarried |
Occ | Occupation | 1 = Farming 2 = Enterprises with pollution discharge 3 = Non polluting enterprises 4 = Student 5 = Social organization or group 6 = Party and government organs and institutions not engaged in environmental protection work 7 = Party and government organs and institutions working in environmental protection system 8 = Other |
Wp | Workplace | 1 = Indoor 2 = Outdoor |
Edu | Education level | 1 = Primary school and below 2 = Junior high school 3 = High school/technical secondary school/Technical School 4 = Junior college 5 = Bachelor degree 6 = Master’s degree or above |
Income | Average annual household income | 1 = Less than 50,000 2 = 50,000–100,000 3 = 100,000–200,000 4 = 200,000–300,000 5 = 300,000–400,000 6 = 400,000–500,000 7 = More than 500,000 |
Rr | Registered residence | 1 = Local 2 = Foreign migration within 3 years 3 = Foreign migration more than 3 years 4 = Out of town |
Ls | Living style in the next three years | 1 = Long term settlement 2 = Family visit or vacation 3 = Hope to settle down for a long time 4 = Move out 5 = Will not come again |
OLS | Ordered Logit | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
Common Standard Error | Robust Standard Error | Common Standard Error | Robust Standard Error | |
Disclosure | 0.290 *** (0.0505) | 0.290 *** (0.0418) | 0.313 *** (0.0432) | 0.313 *** (0.0421) |
Age | 0.232 *** (0.0863) | 0.232 ** (0.100) | 0.0529 (0.0696) | 0.0529 (0.0701) |
Sex | 0.116 (0.0850) | 0.116 (0.0886) | 0.0560 (0.0694) | 0.0560 (0.0706) |
Occ | −0.0515 (0.0408) | −0.0515 (0.0515) | −0.00955 (0.0337) | −0.00955 (0.0353) |
Wp | 0.0137 (0.298) | 0.0137 (0.375) | 0.0569 (0.242) | 0.0569 (0.250) |
Edu | 0.00480 (0.0880) | 0.00480 (0.0716) | −0.0202 (0.0711) | −0.0202 (0.0709) |
Income | 0.0111 (0.0620) | 0.0111 (0.0666) | 0.0129 (0.0511) | 0.0129 (0.0532) |
Rr | −0.0783 (0.0958) | −0.0783 (0.0767) | −0.0718 (0.0785) | −0.0718 (0.0784) |
Ls | 0.0764 (0.0991) | 0.0764 (0.0764) | 0.109 (0.0794) | 0.109 (0.0781) |
Constant | −0.560 (0.709) | −0.560 (0.729) | ||
Observations | 752 | 752 | 752 | 752 |
R-squared | 0.064 | 0.064 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
OLS Behavior | OLS Behavior | OLS Behavior | OLS Behavior | |
Disclosure | 0.293 *** | 0.292 *** | 0.289 *** | 0.290 *** |
(0.0419) | (0.0420) | (0.0417) | (0.0418) | |
Age | 0.225 ** | 0.232 ** | 0.230 ** | 0.232 ** |
(0.100) | (0.101) | (0.100) | (0.100) | |
Sex | 0.112 | 0.114 | 0.117 | 0.116 |
(0.0858) | (0.0887) | (0.0885) | (0.0886) | |
Occ | −0.0495 | −0.0545 | −0.0550 | −0.0515 |
(0.0492) | (0.0503) | (0.0503) | (0.0515) | |
Wp | 0.0148 | 0.00540 | 0.00628 | 0.0137 |
(0.370) | (0.375) | (0.375) | (0.375) | |
Edu | 0.0136 | 0.00998 | 0.0145 | 0.00480 |
(0.0712) | (0.0712) | (0.0710) | (0.0716) | |
Income | 0.0117 | 0.0128 | 0.0111 | |
(0.0665) | (0.0666) | (0.0666) | ||
Rr | −0.0572 | −0.0783 | ||
(0.0749) | (0.0767) | |||
Ls | 0.0764 | |||
(0.0764) | ||||
Constant | −0.544 | −0.552 | −0.482 | −0.560 |
(0.707) | (0.727) | (0.723) | (0.729) | |
Observations | 754 | 753 | 753 | 752 |
R-squared | 0.062 | 0.063 | 0.064 | 0.064 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
OLS Behavior | OLS Behavior | OLS willingness | OLS Jiaxing’s | |
Disclosure | 0.226 *** | 0.152 ** | ||
(0.0372) | (0.0730) | |||
Bea | 0.314 *** | |||
(0.0452) | ||||
Poe | 0.270 *** | |||
(0.0443) | ||||
Age | 0.230 ** | 0.234 ** | 0.0891 | −0.0990 |
(0.0984) | (0.102) | (0.0601) | (0.231) | |
Sex | 0.111 | 0.114 | −0.157 *** | 0.0467 |
(0.0885) | (0.0889) | (0.0601) | (0.148) | |
Occ | −0.0560 | −0.0640 | 0.00774 | −0.0762 |
(0.0512) | (0.0521) | (0.0286) | (0.0563) | |
Wp | 0.0258 | −0.0636 | 0.253 | −0.635 |
(0.372) | (0.375) | (0.212) | (0.451) | |
Edu | 0.0151 | 0.0391 | 0.00104 | −0.0175 |
(0.0690) | (0.0699) | (0.0615) | (0.188) | |
Income | −0.0029 | 0.0200 | 0.0844 * | 0.0272 |
(0.0654) | (0.0662) | (0.0452) | (0.111) | |
Rr | −0.0743 | −0.0758 | 0.0157 | −0.239 ** |
(0.0776) | (0.0776) | (0.0678) | (0.1100) | |
Ls | 0.0769 | 0.0735 | −0.0166 | −0.182 |
(0.0758) | (0.0755) | (0.0734) | (0.1680) | |
Constant | −0.627 | −0.305 | 3.486 *** | 2.032 |
(0.721) | (0.721) | (0.500) | (1.287) | |
Observations | 752 | 752 | 751 | 159 |
R-squared | 0.074 | 0.064 | 0.083 | 0.065 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ordered Probit | Heckman Behavior | Heckman Behavior | Heckman Willingness | Heckman Behavior | |
Disclosure | 0.188 *** (0.0244) | 0.292 *** (0.0503) | 0.292 *** (0.0503) | 0.292 *** (0.0243) | 0.299 *** (0.0821) |
Age | 0.0503 (0.0410) | 0.233 *** (0.0858) | 0.233 *** (0.0858) | 0.233 * (0.140) | 0.234 *** (0.0862) |
Sex | 0.0361 (0.0413) | 0.119 (0.0846) | 0.119 (0.0846) | 0.119 * (0.0691) | 0.119 (0.0848) |
Occ | −0.00966 (0.0206) | −0.0495 (0.0406) | −0.0495 (0.0406) | −0.0495 (0.0380) | −0.0495 (0.0406) |
Wp | 0.0520 (0.148) | 0.0393 (0.297) | 0.0393 (0.297) | 0.0393 (0.406) | 0.0391 (0.297) |
Edu | −0.00919 (0.0402) | 0.00674 (0.0875) | 0.00674 (0.0875) | 0.00674 (0.0689) | 0.00668 (0.0875) |
Income | 0.00846 (0.0308) | 0.0105 (0.0617) | 0.0105 (0.0617) | 0.0105 (0.0613) | 0.0108 (0.0618) |
Rr | −0.0444 (0.0451) | −0.0784 (0.0952) | −0.0784 (0.0952) | −0.0784 (0.0759) | −0.0784 (0.0952) |
Ls | 0.0609 (0.0446) | 0.0771 (0.0985) | 0.0771 (0.0985) | 0.0771 ** (0.0346) | 0.0769 (0.0986) |
W × D | −0.0011 (0.0113) | ||||
Constant | −0.624 (0.708) | −0.624 (0.708) | −0.624 (0.819) | −0.629 (0.710) | |
Observations | 752 | 750 | 750 | 750 | 750 |
R-squared |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aged 16–20 | Aged 20–30 | Aged 30–40 | Aged 40–50 | Aged 50–60 | Over 60 | Indoors | Outdoors | |
Disclosure | 0.245 *** (0.0629) | 0.321 *** (0.0808) | 0.217 * (0.116) | 0.258 *** (0.0986) | 0.490 * (0.281) | 0.924 (1.211) | 0.260 *** (0.0458) | 0.440 *** (0.103) |
Age | 0.285 *** (0.109) | −0.156 (0.212) | ||||||
Sex | 0.162 (0.121) | 0.167 (0.147) | −0.136 (0.188) | −0.039 (0.189) | 0.803 (0.651) | −0.381 (1.592) | 0.129 (0.0994) | 0.0492 (0.228) |
Occ | −0.155 (0.115) | 0.300 ** (0.121) | −0.113 (0.102) | −0.038 (0.0580) | −0.522 (0.322) | 0.344 (0.407) | −0.055 (0.0561) | 0.053 (0.137) |
Wp | 1.664 (1.912) | −0.462 (0.560) | 1.686 * (1.005) | −0.514 (0.345) | −1.943 (1.274) | 4.160 (3.690) | −0.077 (0.406) | −0.394 (0.843) |
Edu | −0.096 (0.143) | −0.003 (0.152) | 0.148 (0.214) | 0.281 ** (0.133) | 0.733 (0.739) | −0.556 (2.106) | 0.014 (0.0794) | −0.092 (0.149) |
Income | 0.123 (0.0755) | 0.062 (0.111) | −0.384 (0.255) | −0.515 *** (0.127) | 0.568 (1.045) | 0.285 (1.325) | −0.019 (0.0733) | 0.171 (0.162) |
Hrl | −0.113 (0.107) | −0.049 (0.193) | −0.001 (0.230) | −0.164 (0.152) | 0.641 * (0.362) | −0.434 (1.846) | −0.087 (0.0805) | −0.030 (0.250) |
Fr | 0.114 (0.116) | 0.188 (0.136) | 0.271 (0.304) | −0.315 (0.231) | −0.132 (1.306) | −0.303 (1.501) | 0.062 (0.0857) | 0.230 (0.193) |
Constant | −1.302 (2.296) | −1.988 (1.653) | −0.423 (1.249) | 2.673 *** (0.928) | −0.283 (3.221) | −6.192 (5.407) | −0.386 (0.802) | −0.623 (1.862) |
Observations | 217 | 218 | 91 | 151 | 56 | 19 | 642 | 110 |
R-squared | 0.110 | 0.137 | 0.155 | 0.143 | 0.161 | 0.280 | 0.062 | 0.169 |
(1) | (2) | |
---|---|---|
Concern | Behavior | |
Disclosure | 5.375 *** | 0.010 *** |
(0.4958) | (0.0038) | |
Concern | 0.243 *** | |
(0.0547) | ||
Age | 4.409 *** | 0.191 ** |
(0.8461) | (0.0882) | |
Sex | 1.391 * | 0.111 |
(0.8366) | (0.0858) | |
Occ | 0.017 | −0.061 |
(0.4003) | (0.0410) | |
Wp | −3.528 | 0.104 |
(2.9446) | (0.302) | |
Edu | 0.479 | 0.003 |
(0.8611) | (0.0882) | |
Income | 0.383 | 0.010 |
(0.6112) | (0.0626) | |
Hrl | −1.815 * | −0.044 |
(0.9435) | (0.0968) | |
Fr | −1.897* | 0.074 |
(0.9740) | (0.0999) | |
Constant | 66.723 *** | −1.294 * |
6.9951 | (0.759) | |
Observations | 742 | 742 |
R-squared | 0.2117 | 0.0750 |
Coefficient | Std. Err. | Z | p > |Z| | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Sobel | 0.0529 | 0.0209 | 2.5300 | 0.0114 |
Goodman-1 | 0.0529 | 0.0209 | 2.5200 | 0.0117 |
Goodman-2 | 0.0529 | 0.0208 | 2.5410 | 0.0111 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yang, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Wang, X.; Li, Y. The Perception of Environmental Information Disclosure on Rural Residents’ Pro-Environmental Behavior. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7851. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19137851
Yang Y, Zhu Y, Wang X, Li Y. The Perception of Environmental Information Disclosure on Rural Residents’ Pro-Environmental Behavior. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(13):7851. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19137851
Chicago/Turabian StyleYang, Yongliang, Yuting Zhu, Xiaopeng Wang, and Yi Li. 2022. "The Perception of Environmental Information Disclosure on Rural Residents’ Pro-Environmental Behavior" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 13: 7851. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19137851