Disparities in Environmental Behavior from Urban–Rural Perspectives: How Socioeconomic Status Structures Influence Residents’ Environmental Actions—Based on the 2021 China General Social Survey Data
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Socioeconomic Status
2.2. Residents’ Environmental Behaviors
2.3. The Influence of Socioeconomic Status on Environmental Behaviors of Urban and Rural Residents
2.4. Literature Review Comments
3. Research Hypotheses
3.1. The Impact of Educational Attainment on the Differences in Environmental Behavior between Urban and Rural Residents
3.2. The Impact of Income Levels on the Differences in Environmental Behavior between Urban and Rural Residents
4. Data and Measurement
4.1. Data Sources
4.2. Statistical Description
4.2.1. Dependent Variables and Their Measurement
4.2.2. Independent Variables and Their Measurement
4.2.3. Control Variables
5. Data Analysis Results
5.1. Interaction Analysis
5.2. Analysis of Variance
5.3. Multiple Regression Analysis
6. Empirical Analysis Results
6.1. Analysis Results of the Full Model
6.1.1. Impact of Education Level on Urban and Rural Residents’ Environmental Scores
6.1.2. Impact of Income on Environmental Scores of Urban and Rural Residents
6.2. Sub-Model Analysis Results
6.2.1. Education Level and Differences in Environmental Behavior between Urban and Rural Residents
6.2.2. Income Levels and Differences in Environmental Behavior between Urban and Rural Residents
6.3. T-Test: Analysis of Differences
7. Discussion and Recommendations
7.1. Discussion
7.2. Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Zhu, D.; Gong, S. Macroeconomic Supply, Socioeconomic Status, and Resident Consumption: An Empirical Analysis Based on National Survey Data. Sociol. Res. 2023, 38, 177–199+230. [Google Scholar]
- Kaaronen, R.O. Affording Sustainability: Adopting a Theory of Affordances as a Guiding Heuristic for Environmental Policy. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hong, D.Y. Environmental Awareness of Urban Residents in China. Jiangsu Soc. Sci. 2005, 1, 127–132. [Google Scholar]
- Bao, Z.M.; Chen, Z.J. Environmental Dimension of the Chinese Experience: Dimensions and Limits—A Review and Reflection on Chinese Environmental Sociology Research. Sociol. Res. 2011, 6, 196–210, 245. [Google Scholar]
- Sariipek, D.B.; Yenihan, B. Socioeconomic Status. In Encyclopedia of Gerontology and Population Aging; Gu, D., Dupre, M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Antonoplis, S. Studying Socioeconomic Status: Conceptual Problems and an Alternative Path Forward. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2023, 18, 275–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duncan, O.D. A socioeconomic index for all occupations. In Occupations and Social Status; Reiss, J., Jr., Ed.; Free Press: Glencoe, Scotland, 1961; pp. 109–138. [Google Scholar]
- Hollingshead, A.B. Two Factor Index of Social Position; Yale University: New Haven, CT, USA, 1957. [Google Scholar]
- Siegel, P.M. Prestige in the American Occupational Structure. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA, 1971. [Google Scholar]
- APA Task Force on Socioeconomic Status. Report of the APA Task Force on Socioeconomic Status; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Braveman, P.A.; Cubbin, C.; Egerter, S.; Chideya, S.; Marchi, K.S.; Metzler, M.; Posner, S. Socioeconomic status in health research: One size does not fit all. JAMA 2005, 294, 2879–2888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diemer, M.A.; Mistry, R.S.; Wadsworth, M.E.; López, I.; Reimers, F. Best practices in conceptualizing and measuring social class in psychological research: Social class measurement. Anal. Soc. Issues Public Policy 2013, 13, 77–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krieger, N.; Williams, D.R.; Moss, N.E. Measuring social class in US public health research: Concepts, methodologies, and guidelines. Annu. Rev. Public Health 1997, 18, 341–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shavers, V.L. Measurement of socioeconomic status in health disparities research. J. Natl. Med. Assoc. 2007, 99, 1013–1023. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Bollen, K.A.; Lennox, R. Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychol. Bull. 1991, 110, 305–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edwards, J.R.; Bagozzi, R.P. On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychol. Methods 2000, 5, 155–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rhemtulla, M.; van Bork, R.; Borsboom, D. Calling models with causal indicators “Measurement Models” implies more than they can deliver. Meas. Interdiscip. Res. Perspect. 2015, 13, 59–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraus, M.W.; Piff, P.K.; Mendoza-Denton, R.; Rheinschmidt, M.L.; Keltner, D. Social class, solipsism, and contextualism: How the rich are different from the poor. Psychol. Rev. 2012, 119, 546–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chan, T.W.; Goldthorpe, J.H. Class and status: The conceptual distinction and its empirical relevance. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2007, 72, 512–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duncan, O.D. What if? Contemp. Sociol. 1992, 21, 667–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weeden, K.A.; Grusky, D.B. The case for a new class map. Am. J. Sociol. 2005, 111, 141–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adler, N.E.; Stewart, J. Health disparities across the lifespan: Meaning, methods, and mechanisms: Health disparities across the lifespan. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2010, 1186, 5–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blau, P.M.; Otis, D.D. The American Occupational Structure; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
- Li, C.L. Prestige Stratification in Contemporary Chinese Society: Measurement of Occupational Prestige and Socioeconomic Status Index. J. Sociol. Res. 2005, 2, 74–102+244. [Google Scholar]
- Maslow, A. Motivation and Personality; Harper: New York, NY, USA, 1970. [Google Scholar]
- Baer, D.M. Environment And Behavior, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 1997; p. 15. [Google Scholar]
- Rogers, A. Human Behavior in the Social Environment: Perspectives on Development and the Life Course, 6th ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2022; p. 39. [Google Scholar]
- Tang, G.J.; Cui, F. On Human Environmental Behavior and Its Selectivity—Thoughts Based on the Disciplinary Positioning of Environmental Sociology. Learn. Explor. 2010, 6, 5. [Google Scholar]
- Tian, C.Q.; Zhao, Z.L.; Zhao, N.S. The Impact of Farmers’ Lifestyle Environmental Behavior on Rural Environment. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 2, 179–184. [Google Scholar]
- Sun, Y. Research on Residents’ Environmental Behavior and Its Influencing Factors. Dalian Dalian Univ. Technol. 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Z.J. Research on Environmental Awareness: Status, Dilemmas, and Solutions. Xiamen Univ. (Philos. Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2008, 4, 8. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Q.Y.; Hou, P. Research on Environmental Behavior Willingness of Urban Residents in Beijing. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2010, 20, 61–67. [Google Scholar]
- Gong, W.J. Gender Differences in Environmental-Friendly Behavior of Urban Residents in China. Women’s Studies Forum 2008, 6, 7. [Google Scholar]
- Gong, W.J.; Lei, J. Gender Differences in Environmental Concern and Environmental-Friendly Behavior of Urban Residents in China. J. Hainan Univ. (Humanit. Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2007, 3, 340–345. [Google Scholar]
- Tian, H.; Liu, X. Pro-Environmental Behavior Research: Theoretical Progress and Future Directions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, A. Is unemployment good for the environment? Resour. Energy Econ. 2016, 45, 18–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mesmer-Magnus, J.; Viswesvaran, C.; Wiernik, B.M. The Role of Commitment in Bridging the Gap between Organizational Sustainability and Environmental Sustainability. In Managing Human Resources for Environmental Sustainability; Jackson, S.E., Ones, D.S., Dilchert, S., Eds.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2012; pp. 245–283. [Google Scholar]
- Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Kalof, L. Values orientations, gender and environmental concern. Environ. Behav. 1993, 25, 332–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schultz, P.W.; Oskamp, S.; Mainieri, T. Who recycles and when? A review of personal and situational factors. Environ. Psychol. 1995, 15, 105–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diekmann, A.; Jann, B. Sind die empirischen Ergebnisse zum Umweltverhalten Artefakte? Ein Beitrag zum Problem der Messung von Umweltverhalten. Umweltpsychologie 2000, 4, 64–75. [Google Scholar]
- Dunlap, R.E.; Jones, R.E. Environmental concern: Conceptual and measurement issues. Handb. Environ. Sociol. 2002, 3, 482–524. [Google Scholar]
- Huddart Kennedy, E.; Krahn, H.; Krogman, N.T. Are we counting what counts? A closer look at environmental concern, pro-environmental behaviour, and carbon footprint. Local Environ. 2015, 20, 220–236. [Google Scholar]
- Gatersleben, B.; Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Measurement and determinants of environmentally significant consumer behavior. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34, 335–362. [Google Scholar]
- Lenzen, M.; Dey, C.; Foran, B. Energy requirements of Sydney households. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 49, 375–399. [Google Scholar]
- Pisano, I.; Lubell, M. Environmental behavior in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of 30 countries. Environ. Behav. 2017, 49, 31–58. [Google Scholar]
- Hadler, M.; Klösch, B.; Schwarzinger, S.; Schweighart, M.; Wardana, R.; Bird, D.N. Measuring Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors. In Surveying Climate-Relevant Behavior; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Hines, J.M.; Hungerford, H.R.; Tomera, A.N. Analysis and Synthesisof Researchon Responsible Environmental Behavior: A Meta-analysis. Environ. Educ. 1986, 18, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Dunlap, R.E. Environmental Sociology: A Personal Perspectiveon Its First Quarter Century. Organ-Organ. Environ. 2002, 15, 10–29. [Google Scholar]
- Qu, Y.; Zhu, Q.H. Research on Urban Residents’ Intentions for Source Classification of Household Waste. Manag. Rev. 2009, 21, 108–113. [Google Scholar]
- Tanner, C.; Wölfing Kast, S. Promoting Sustainable Consumption: Determinants of Green Purchases by Swiss Consumers. Psychol. Mark. 2003, 20, 883–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, Y.C. Review of Foreign Research on Influencing Factors of Environmental Behavior. China Population. Resour. Environ. 2013, 8. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, Z.J. Environmental Protection, Group Pressure, or Benefit Spillover: Analysis of the Motivations for Xiamen Residents’ Participation in the PX Environmental Movement. Society 2011, 31, 34. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, F.; Yin, D. Public Environmental Behavior Change and the Impact of Environmental Policies—An Empirical Study. Econ. Manag. 2010, 12. [Google Scholar]
- Lowe, G.D.; Pinhey, T.K. Rural-urban differences in support for environmental protection. Rural. Sociol. 1982, 47, 114. [Google Scholar]
- Fortmann, L.; Kusel, J. New voices, old beliefs: Forest environmentalism among new and long-standing rural residents. Rural Sociol. 1990, 55, 214–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, R.E.; Dunlap, R.E. The social bases of environmental concern: Have they changed over time? Rural Sociol. 1992, 57, 28–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- VanLiere, K.D.; Dunlap, R.E. The social bases of environmental concern: Are view of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. Public Opin. Q. 1980, 44, 181–197. [Google Scholar]
- Saphores, J.M.; Nixon, H.; Ogunseitan, O.; Shapiro, A. Household willingness to recycle electronic waste: An application to California. Environ. Behav. 2006, 38, 183–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Várkuti, A.; Kovács, K.; Stenger-Kovács, C.; Padisák, J. Environmental awareness of the permanent inhabitants of towns and villages on the shores of Lake Balaton with special reference to issues related to global climate change. Hydrobiologia 2008, 599, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunlap, R.E.; Jones, R.E. Environmental concern: Conceptual and measure men tissues. In Handbook of Environmental Sociology; Dunlap, R.E., Michels, W., Eds.; Greenwood Press: Westport, CT, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Kennedy, H.E.; Beckley, T.M.; McFarlane, B.L.; Nadeau, S. Rural-urban differences in environmental concern in Canada. Rural Sociol. 2009, 74, 309–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, R.; Guo, J.R. Urban-Rural Differences in Environmental Awareness and Environmental Attitudes of Chinese Residents. Soc. Sci. Front 2000, 1, 201–210. [Google Scholar]
- Li, G.Z.; Yuan, X.P. Urban-Rural Differences in Public Environmental Behavior and Their Influencing Factors—An Analysis Based on CGSS2013 Data. Environ. Prot. Sci. 2018, 44, 20–25. [Google Scholar]
- Reimers, S.; Maylor, E.A.; Stewart, N.; Chater, N. Associations between a one-shot delay discounting measure and age, income, education and real-world impulsive behavior. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2009, 47, 973–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Y.S.; Zhang, L.; Dong, Z.F. A Study on the Differences in the Impact of Environmental Risk Perception on Environmental Behavior between Urban and Rural Residents. Ecol. Econ. 2021, 37, 196–202. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, T.Y. An Analysis of the Factors Influencing Public Environmental Concern in China in the Context of Globalization—Based on China’s Data from the World Values Survey (WVS) 2007. Heilongjiang Soc. Sci. 2015, 4, 97–102. [Google Scholar]
- Portes, A. Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology. In Annual Review of Sociology; John, H., Karen, S.C., Eds.; Annual Review Inc.: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1998; p. 1. [Google Scholar]
- Bourdieu, P. The Logic of Practice; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK; Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.M.; Liu, Z.; Xu, J.Z. Who Cares More about the Environment?—An Empirical Test Based on CHIPS Data. Jianghuai Forum 2011, 4, 14–19. [Google Scholar]
- Guerin, D.; Crete, J.; Mercier, J. A multilevel analysis of the determinants of recycling behavior in the European countries. Soc. Sci. Res. 2001, 30, 195–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kennedy, E.H.; Baumann, S.; Johnston, J. Eating for taste and eating for change: Ethical consumption as a high-status practice. Social Forces 2018, 98, 381–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kennedy, E.H.; Givens, J.E. Ecohabit us or ecopowerlessness? Examining environmental concern across social class. Sociol. Perspect. 2019, 62, 646–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lo, A.Y. National income and environmental concern: Observations from 35 countries. Public Underst. Sci. 2016, 25, 873–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marquart-Pyatt, S.T. Are there similar sources of environmental concern? Comparing industrialized countries. Soc. Sci. Q. 2008, 89, 1312–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, D.Y.; Lu, T. Multilevel Analysis of Public Environmental Concern—Based on CGSS2003 Data. Sociol. Res. 2011, 6, 154–170, 244–245. [Google Scholar]
Variables | Definition | Mean | SD | Min | Max | Obs |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Environmental Behavior | e.g., Have you joined any organizations with the purpose of protecting the environment? | 34.22 | 3.99 | 20 | 49 | 1118 |
Income Level | Total annual income of an individual | 61,667.49 | 424,809.64 | 0 | 9,993,000 | 1118 |
Education Level, currently attained | The highest education level (1 = low income; 2 = lower-middle income; 3 = upper-middle income; 4 = high income) | 2.46 | 1.10 | 4 | 1 | 1118 |
Gender | (Female = 1; male = 2) | 1.54 | 0.50 | 1 | 2 | 1118 |
Household Registration | Current household registration status (1 = rural household; 2 = urban household) | 1.29 | 0.46 | 2 | 1 | 1118 |
Age | A measure of the time an individual has lived since birth | 47.26 | 13.07 | 69 | 22 | 1118 |
Continuous Variable | Rural Residents | Urban Residents | Total Sample |
---|---|---|---|
Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | |
Education Level | 1.97 (0.95) | 2.20 (0.95) | 2.46 (1.10) |
Income Level | 58,938.15 (502,294.68) | 1.56 (0.497) | 61,667.49 (424,809.64) |
Gender | 1.97 (0.95) | 1.56 (0.50) | 47.26 (13.07) |
Continuous Variable | Rural Residents | Urban Residents | Total Sample |
---|---|---|---|
Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | |
Age | 48.15 (12.89) | 45.13 (13.27) | 47.26 (13.07) |
Environmental Behavior | 34.03 (4.03) | 34.67 (3.86) | 34.22 (3.99) |
Variables | Rural Residents | Urban Residents | Total Sample |
---|---|---|---|
Categorical variables | Percentage (%) | Percentage (%) | Percentage (%) |
Gender | Male: 46.6 Female: 53.4 | Male: 44.0 Female: 56.0 | Male: 45.9 Female: 54.1 |
Educational level | —— | —— | —— |
Elementary school and below | 37.8 | 25.1 | 34.1 |
Junior high school | 35.8 | 41.3 | 37.4 |
High school or junior college | 18.0 | 21.7 | 19.1 |
College and above | 8.5 | 11.9 | 9.5 |
Income level | —— | —— | —— |
Low income | 4.9 | 3.1 | 4.4 |
Lower-middle income | 34.8 | 25.4 | 32.0 |
Upper-middle income | 45.6 | 52.6 | 47.7 |
High income | 14.7 | 19.0 | 15.9 |
Source of Difference | SS | DF | MS | F | p | η2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intercept | 279,411.007 | 1 | 279,411.007 | 17,720.802 | 0 | 0.952 |
Education Level | 0.655 | 3 | 0.218 | 0.014 | 0.998 | 0.00 |
Income Level | 1883.526 | 107 | 17.603 | 1.116 | 0.209 | 0.118 |
EDUCATION × INCOME | 53.969 | 112 | 13.701 | 0.869 | 0.825 | 0.098 |
R2 | 0.207 | |||||
Adjusted R2 | 0.010 |
Variables | Variable Measure | Full Model | Rural Residents | Urban Residents |
---|---|---|---|---|
Control Variables | Gender (with females as the reference) | −0.107 (0.093) | −0.138 (0.111) | −0.045 (0.175) |
Household Registration (with agricultural household as the reference) | −0.230 * (0.102) | —— | —— | |
Age | −0.001 (0.004) | 0.003 (0.004) | −0.008 (0.007) | |
Education Level | Junior High School | 1.862 ** (0.225) | 1.892 ** (0.273) | 1.884 ** (0.410) |
High School or Technical Secondary School | 1.529 ** (0.273) | 1.554 ** (0.329) | 1.583 ** (0.498) | |
College Degree and Above | 1.723 ** (0.288) | 1.878 ** (0.353) | 1.555 ** (0.512) | |
Income Level | Middle–Low Income | 5.251 ** (0.237) | 5.118 ** (0.266) | 5.781 ** (0.523) |
Middle–High Income | 8.186 ** (0.320) | 8.002 ** (0.373) | 8.717 ** (0.651) | |
High Income | 13.306 ** (0.362) | 13.179 ** (0.427) | 13.690 ** (0.716) | |
Constant | 25.511 ** (0.289) | 25.484 ** (0.334) | 25.110 ** (0.584) | |
R2 | 0.851 | 0.854 | 0.843 | |
Adjusted R2 | 0.850 | 0.853 | 0.839 |
Category | Variables | Mean | SD | t | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Household Registration | Rural Residents | 34.032 | 4.033 | −2.449 | 0.014 |
Urban Residents | 34.673 | 3.857 | |||
Gender | Male | 34.406 | 3.925 | 1.438 | 0.151 |
Female | 34.061 | 4.043 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 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
Cheng, H.; Mao, C. Disparities in Environmental Behavior from Urban–Rural Perspectives: How Socioeconomic Status Structures Influence Residents’ Environmental Actions—Based on the 2021 China General Social Survey Data. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7886. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187886
Cheng H, Mao C. Disparities in Environmental Behavior from Urban–Rural Perspectives: How Socioeconomic Status Structures Influence Residents’ Environmental Actions—Based on the 2021 China General Social Survey Data. Sustainability. 2024; 16(18):7886. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187886
Chicago/Turabian StyleCheng, Hui, and Chunmei Mao. 2024. "Disparities in Environmental Behavior from Urban–Rural Perspectives: How Socioeconomic Status Structures Influence Residents’ Environmental Actions—Based on the 2021 China General Social Survey Data" Sustainability 16, no. 18: 7886. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187886