Next Article in Journal
IMERG in the Canadian Precipitation Analysis (CaPA) System for Winter Applications
Previous Article in Journal
Deep Learning for Flash Drought Detection: A Case Study in Northeastern Brazil
Previous Article in Special Issue
Endotoxins in Household Dust in Northern China: Associations with Home Environment Factors and Childhood Asthma and Allergies
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Atmosphere
Volume 15
Issue 7
10.3390/atmos15070762
atmosphere-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Do Chinese Residents’ Perceptions of Air Pollution Affect Their Evaluation of Central Government Performance? The Moderating Role of Environmental Knowledge

by
Yifei Shen
1,2,
Chuntian Lu
1 and
Meng Liu
3,4,*
1
Department of Sociology, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China
2
Department of Physical Education, Xidian University, Xi’an 710126, China
3
Department of Sociology, School of Public Administration, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China
4
Research Center for Environment and Society, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Atmosphere 2024, 15(7), 762; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15070762
Submission received: 29 April 2024 / Revised: 23 June 2024 / Accepted: 24 June 2024 / Published: 26 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Toxicology and Health Effects of Air Pollution)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In China, winning the battle for blue skies is a focal point of the central government’s environmental governance efforts. Public evaluations provide validity and legitimacy to the Chinese government’s top-level design for environmental governance. This study utilizes data from two waves of the Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) conducted in 2013 and 2021, paired with objective air quality data, to conduct a longitudinal analysis of public evaluation of central government environmental governance in China. Furthermore, it explores the relationships between perceived air pollution, objective air quality, environmental knowledge, and public assessment of central government environmental performance. The findings indicate the following: (1) Over the past decade, there has been a noticeable improvement in air quality in China, leading to a significant enhancement in public perception of the central government’s environmental performance. (2) Subjective perceptions of air pollution have a significant negative impact on evaluations of the central government, whereas objective environmental governance measures do not exhibit significant effects. (3) Environmental knowledge plays a negative moderating role in the relationship between perceived air pollution and public assessment of central government environmental performance; individuals with higher levels of environmental knowledge tend to express greater dissatisfaction with the central government’s environmental performance upon perceiving air pollution. These research findings offer valuable insights for informing the formulation of environmental governance policies by the central government of China and provide lessons for other developing and highly polluting countries.

1. Introduction

Government performance evaluation has remained a pivotal concern within the realm of governance. Since the emergence of the new public management (NPM) movement in the 1980s, large numbers of governance assessment metrics have been devised as means to enhance governmental efficiency. NPM emphasizes treating users of public services as customers and advocates for their evaluation of the governance of public sectors [1]. Consequently, the importance of public evaluation has escalated, leading to a proliferation of empirical studies on public assessments of governmental performance [2]. Such evaluations by the public can encompass both overarching assessments of the government as a whole and evaluations of its different functions. Presently, environmental issues have ascended to become among the most critical global challenges, significantly impacting economic sustainability and human health. In response to the stark reality of environmental pollution, the World Health Organization has called upon governments worldwide to collectively combat pollution and mitigate its threats to human survival conditions [3]. Consequently, within the spectrum of governmental functions, environmental governance emerges as a particularly vital domain. It is imperative to underscore the significance of public perceptions regarding national environmental governance.
Environmental governance has emerged as a crucial responsibility of governments, and analyzing public perceptions of central government environmental governance in China holds practical significance. Over the past few decades, The rapid growth of the Chinese economy has exacerbated energy consumption and emissions of air pollutants, leading to increasingly severe environmental issues in the country [4], especially air pollution [5,6]. In the 2022 Environmental Performance Index (EPI), jointly released by Yale University and Columbia University, China ranks 160th out of 180 countries. Numerous studies have shown that severe air pollution directly affects the physical and mental health of the public [7,8], and even threatens public lives [9]. Since 2013, widespread haze weather has been observed in many parts of China, arousing widespread public concern about air pollution and environmental governance [10,11]. In the face of serious air pollution woes, the Chinese government has also stepped up its efforts to protect and improve the environment [12,13]. Among these efforts, the central government has incorporated local environmental performance into the local government performance assessment system to better regulate the execution of local governments [14]. However, some studies have found that this top-down environmental improvement approach has not achieved the expected results [15]. This has raised public concerns about government environmental governance [16] and posed tests and challenges to the governance capacity and methods of China’s existing environmental issues [17]. Hao [18] provides evidence that public concern about environmental pollution will compel the government to take action. Wang et al. suggest that a new bottom-up force may influence environmental governance in China [19]. As direct perceivers of air quality, the public’s satisfaction with central government environmental governance represents the effectiveness of central government environmental governance policies. Therefore, analyzing the impact of Chinese public perception of air pollution on the evaluation of central government environmental governance holds significant practical importance.
As early as the 1960s, in the United States, scholars began to focus on air pollution from the perspective of the public [20,21]. It was not until the 1980s that some scholars pointed out that public perception of air pollution could improve air quality indices [22]. Today, despite extensive research on the factors influencing perceptions of air pollution, there remains ample room for further investigation. Firstly, it is worth noting that much of the empirical evidence in the existing literature originates from developed countries, the applicability of which may not necessarily extend to developing nations [23]. Secondly, existing studies on air pollution predominantly discuss the public evaluation of local government environmental performance, neglecting the role of the central government [24]. In China, there exist distinctions in the roles and responsibilities of the central and local governments in environmental protection. The central government primarily oversees comprehensive and macro-level coordination, including top-level design and planning for environmental governance [25]. In contrast, local governments are mainly responsible for implementing policies and tasks delegated by the central government [26]. Therefore, this paper aims to further track and analyze public evaluations of central government environmental performance, seeking effective avenues to enhance top-level design of central government environmental governance policies and offering insights for other developing and heavily polluted countries [27]. Thirdly, it has been recognized that environmental knowledge is often considered a significant influencing factor on public environmental awareness, a notion supported by international research [28]. Evidence from China also suggests that environmental knowledge influences public pro-environmental behavior [29,30]. Other scholars have found that people with more environmental knowledge are more aware of the hazards of environmental pollution, and so people with high environmental knowledge may demand less air pollution and pay more attention to the government’s environmental control efforts. However, few previous studies have explored whether environmental knowledge affects the public’s evaluation of the central government’s environmental performance. Therefore, there is a motivation to explore whether environmental knowledge moderates the relationship between perception of air pollution and public evaluation of central government environmental performance. In recent years, the Chinese central government has issued a series of environmental governance policies aimed at improving air quality. Zhang’s study [15] found that despite the improvements in air quality in China from 2013 to 2017 as a result of the “Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Air Pollution”, air pollution in China remains severe. It also noted that the Three-Year Action Plan for Winning the Battle for the Blue Sky, released in 2018, has increased efforts to combat air pollution, bringing hope for an improvement in China’s air quality in the coming years. Therefore, a historical analysis of public evaluation of central government environmental governance is warranted, alongside further analysis and discussion of its influencing factors.
This study makes three contributions: First, this study observes the relationship and current status of the relationship between objective air quality, public air pollution perceptions, and public evaluations of the central government’s environmental performance in China over the past decade through a comparative analysis. Secondly, through multiple linear regression analysis, this study determines that perceived air pollution directly influences public evaluation of central government environmental performance, independent of objective air quality. Thirdly, we find that environmental knowledge moderates the relationship between perception of air pollution and public evaluation of central government environmental performance, which represents a novel finding. The findings of this study enrich the existing research on the relationship between perception of air pollution and government environmental performance evaluation, providing valuable insights for the top-level design of government environmental governance.
The structure of this paper is as follows: Section 2 comprises a literature review and research hypotheses, which primarily review existing literature on air pollution perception, objective performance evaluation, and environmental knowledge, while proposing hypotheses for further examination. In the Section 3, we outline our data sources, establish regression models, and provide detailed descriptions of variables. Section 4 presents the results analysis, wherein empirical tests are conducted on the data, and the results are analyzed and interpreted. Finally, Section 5 and Section 6 encompass the discussion and conclusion of this study.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

2.1. Air Pollution Perception and Central Government Environmental Performance Evaluation

Public evaluation of government environmental governance is a key issue in environmental public governance. In China, environmental governance often follows a top-down administrative command system led by the central government, lacking public participation and mechanisms for public deliberation on environmental pollution control processes [31]. The fundamental objective of the Chinese central government in environmental pollution control is to meet the public’s demand for a healthy ecological environment, thereby ensuring sustained economic and social development. Consequently, public evaluation of the central government’s environmental governance efforts becomes crucial. In related areas of public government assessment, studies have indicated that the public typically judges government competence based on the quality of public services provided by the government [32]. In other words, public perception of government service quality influences public satisfaction with government services. If we extend research on public satisfaction with the government to public evaluation of government environmental governance, it becomes necessary to consider public perception of environmental pollution. Therefore, in studying public evaluation of central government environmental governance, it is essential to first consider the public’s perception of environmental pollution.
In the field of environmental pollution, air pollution stands out among issues such as water pollution and noise pollution due to its heightened visibility and the significant attention it garners from the public in their daily lives and workplaces. The study of air pollution perception originated in the United States in the 1950s and gradually evolved into three major research orientations: the “air pollution bias”, “information framing theory”, and “social construction theory”, drawing upon the experiences of developed countries. In recent years, particularly since the onset of widespread smog events in China from January 2013 onwards, there has been a large body of literature on China’s views on air pollution. This literature mainly focuses on the impact of air pollution perception on physical health, subjective well-being, and environmental behavior [33,34,35]. Furthermore, scholars have begun to explore the influence of social trust and environmental pollution perception on government satisfaction [3]. In a recent study, Zhu shed light on the evaluation of local government environmental performance in relation to air pollution perception [24]. However, there has been a lack of attention given to the public evaluation of central government environmental governance. Under China’s political system, the central government primarily oversees comprehensive, macro-level coordination work, including top-level design and work planning in environmental governance [25]. On the other hand, local governments are chiefly responsible for implementing central government policies, and the relationship between the two levels is hierarchical and marked by distinct differences [26]. Scholars have pointed out that China is currently facing regional air pollution caused by the transboundary diffusion of pollutants, underscoring the need to focus on public evaluation of national-level environmental governance [36]. Building upon this premise, we propose Hypothesis 1:
H1: 
There exists a significant correlation between public evaluations of central government environmental performance and public perceptions of air pollution.

2.2. Objective Performance Evaluation and Public Evaluation

The relationship between the objective performance of government governance and public evaluation constitutes a significant aspect of research into public perceptions of government. In other words, whether the public’s opinion of the government will be good if the government does a good job. Presently, two sharply contrasting viewpoints prevail on this topic. One perspective posits that the objective performance of government governance influences public evaluation. Specifically, the provision of high-quality public services by the government enhances public satisfaction [37]. For instance, a study conducted in Seoul, South Korea, revealed a positive correlation between the quality of public services and public satisfaction [38]. This assertion is further supported by research conducted by Andrews et al. [39]. However, another viewpoint suggests that the objective performance of government governance does not necessarily align with public evaluation. Stipak’s [40] pioneering research suggests that surveys on public satisfaction may not accurately reflect the actual situation and that the analysis of subjective attitudes is overly complex, thereby making it difficult to accurately depict reality. Furthermore, research by Walle and Bouckaert [41] found no causal relationship between government objective performance and public satisfaction with the government. Although existing studies present divergent viewpoints, Kelly and Swindell’s [42] research on local governments in the United States provides empirical evidence combining the two aforementioned perspectives. They suggest that, in certain domains, specific objective performance indicators are indeed associated with public evaluation.
In terms of environmental governance, it has been observed that the objective performance of government (actual pollution levels) does not always align with evaluations of government environmental efforts. This phenomenon is evident in studies focusing on air quality as well. A notable example is the United States, where significant environmental improvements have occurred since the 1960s, yet public concerns about environmental pollution have continued to escalate [43,44]. Graves’ [45] research corroborates this finding, noting that despite a reduction of 77 million tons of air pollutants annually in the United States from 1970 to 1997, meeting the Environmental Protection Agency’s standards for six key pollutants, public perception of air quality worsened. Another study, based on a survey of 200 respondents, indicated that regardless of whether respondents lived in urban or suburban areas, the actual air pollution levels in their respective areas were not reliable predictors of public perceptions of air pollution quality [46]. This suggests that the perceived extent of air pollution by the public may not necessarily align with actual air quality [47]. If public perception of air pollution is inaccurate, it could introduce bias into evaluations of the government by the public. Therefore, objective air quality serves as an important variable in public evaluations of the government. Previous relevant research findings have primarily originated from developed countries. As a developing country, China should also take heed of this situation and supplement it with empirical research specific to China. Thus, within the context of China, we aim to test the aforementioned two viewpoints and propose Hypothesis 2:
H2: 
There exists a significant correlation between public evaluations of central government environmental performance and the actual levels of air pollution.

2.3. Environmental Knowledge

Environmental knowledge is often considered a significant influencing factor on perceptions of environmental risk [48]. Environmental knowledge refers to the level of understanding and mastery of environmental issues among the public, including the causes of environmental problems, their impacts, environmental protection, and governance [29,49,50]. Psychological studies indicate that individual differences can lead to variations in the perceived extent of air pollution for the same type of environmental pollution [51]. In other words, differing levels of environmental knowledge among individuals may result in varying perceptions of air pollution. Additionally, Kaplan suggests that an individual’s knowledge state regarding a particular issue significantly influences their decision-making [52]. In addition, relevant research also suggests that if an individual’s environmental knowledge is inaccurate [53], it becomes challenging to make informed environmental choices [54,55], and the impact of environmental knowledge on pro-environmental behavior may be indirect [56]. Due to variations in the public’s mastery of environmental knowledge, individuals may have different understandings of factors such as the causes of environmental problems and the allocation of responsibility, leading to varying perceptions of adverse effects. Therefore, it is essential to consider the variable of environmental knowledge, as differences in individuals’ subjective perceptions of air pollution and their evaluations of central government environmental performance may vary depending on their level of environmental knowledge. Building upon this premise, we propose Hypothesis 3:
H3: 
Environmental knowledge moderates the relationship between public perception of air pollution and evaluations of central government performance.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Data

3.1.1. Individual-Level Data

The data utilized in this study were sourced from the environmental module of the 2013 and 2021 Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS). The CGSS represents China’s earliest nationwide, comprehensive, and continuous academic survey initiative, inaugurated in 2003 and executed by the China Survey and Data Center at Renmin University of China. It encompasses urban and rural residents aged 18 and above across the nation. The project employs a multi-stage and stratified sampling design, conducting household surveys on a national scale.
In the environmental module of CGSS 2013, the survey pertaining to provinces encompassed adults aged 18 and above from 28 provincial-level administrative regions, including Liaoning, Shaanxi, Jiangsu, and Fujian. However, in the CGSS 2021 environmental module survey regarding provinces, only adults aged 18 and above from 19 provincial-level administrative regions were included. While the 2021 data set covers only 19 provinces, these provinces are inclusive of those featured in the 2013 data set. Aligned with the objectives of this study, only the sample from the common 19 provincial-level administrative regions was retained. Following the treatment of missing values, the final sample size for 2013 was 6783 individuals, and for 2021, it was 2741 individuals. In certain samples, mean imputation was applied to address missing variable values.

3.1.2. Provincial Hierarchical Data

The study also matched objective environmental data indicators for 19 Chinese provinces in 2012 and 2020, which were taken from National Bulletin on Ecological Environment. The macro-level data utilized in this research exhibited certain limitations. This is due to restrictions in the public availability of CGSS data, which do not allow for the identification of respondents’ specific city or county locations. Consequently, macro-level data could only be collected at the provincial level.

3.2. Variables

3.2.1. The Dependent Variable

The dependent variable in this study is individuals’ evaluations of central government environmental performance. In the CGSS 2021 questionnaire, respondents were asked, “In addressing China’s domestic environment, how do you think the central government has performed in the past five years?” There were a total of six possible responses, ranked as follows: 1 = “Overemphasis on economic development, neglecting environmental protection work”, 2 = “Insufficient emphasis, inadequate environmental investment”, 3 = “Although efforts have been made, the results are not satisfactory”, 4 = “The government has made great efforts and achieved some results”, 5 = “The government has made great achievements”, 98 = “Unable to choose”. The CGSS 2013 survey also posed the same question. Finally, in the modeling process, we assumed that the attitude represented by 98 = “Unable to choose” was neutral, assigning it the median value of “3”.

3.2.2. Independent Variables

The independent variable selected for our analysis is the subjective perception of air pollution among the public. In the CGSS 2021 questionnaire, respondents were presented with seven options to gauge their perception of air pollution severity: “1 Very severe”, “2 Quite severe”, “3 Moderate”, “4 Not very severe”, “5 Not severe”, “7 Problem does not exist”, “8 Unable to choose”. A similar question was posed in the CGSS 2013 survey. For analytical convenience, we aggregated and reverse-coded the responses as follows: 0 = “Problem does not exist” and “Unable to choose”, 1 = “Not severe”, 2 = “Not very severe”, 3 = “Moderate”, 4 = “Quite severe”, and 5 = “Very severe”.
For the objective indicator of air pollution, we utilized the annual average concentration of PM10 in the respondents’ respective provinces of residence. The choice of PM10 concentration as an indicator stems from its significant health hazards to humans and its status as the primary pollutant affecting air quality in China. Previous research has also employed PM10 as a predictor variable for perceptions of air pollution [57] Furthermore, PM10 particles have a larger diameter compared to pollutants like SO2 and NO2, making them more perceptible and more likely to impact air visibility.
As an additional objective indicator of air pollution, we also collected the percentage of exceedance days in the respondents’ respective provinces of residence as the actual pollution days. According to China’s “ Ambient Air Quality Standards” (GB3095-2012) [58], the Air Quality Index (AQI) is a dimensionless index quantitatively describing the state of air quality. Based on the impact of pollutants such as PM10, PM2.5, CO, SO2, NO2, O3, on human health, ecology, and the environment, the AQI simplifies the concentration of routinely monitored air pollutants into a single conceptual index value to represent the degree of air pollution and the classification index of air quality conditions. A higher AQI value indicates more severe air pollution. The AQI index can assist the public in judging whether air quality meets standards. However, since the implementation of AQI occurred after 2012, it cannot be used for historical analysis. Therefore, we only collected the percentage of exceedance days in 2020 as an indicator for robustness testing.

3.2.3. Regulating Variable

Environmental knowledge (EK) serves as the moderating variable in our study. To measure the public’s environmental knowledge, we employed a 7-item scale related to environmental knowledge, drawn from “Environmental Module II”. The seven questions were as follows: (a) What is your perception of the environmental harm caused by vehicle exhaust emissions? (b) What is your perception of the environmental harm caused by industrial emissions? (c) What is your perception of the environmental harm caused by the use of pesticides and fertilizers in agricultural production? (d) What is your perception of the environmental harm caused by pollution in China’s rivers, lakes, and reservoirs? (e) What is your perception of the environmental harm caused by the global temperature rise due to climate change? (f) What is your perception of the environmental harm caused by genetically modified crops? (g) What is your perception of the environmental harm caused by nuclear power plants? The responses were as follows: “1 Harmful to the environment and harmful”, “2 Very harmful”, “3 Somewhat harmful”, “4 Not very harmful”, “5 Not harmful at all”, “98 Unable to choose”. In line with our study, we reverse-coded the responses and treated “98 Unable to choose” as missing values for mean substitution. Subsequently, the scores were summed, yielding the EK score. A higher score indicates greater environmental knowledge among the public. The Cronbach’s Alpha for EK is 0.781, indicating high reliability of the EK indicator we employed.

3.2.4. Control Variables

We measured social trust using the question from the CGSS questionnaire: “In general, do you think most people can be trusted?” There were four response options: 1 = “People can almost always be trusted”, 2 = “People can usually be trusted”, 3 = “You need to be very cautious when dealing with people”, 4 = “You need to be very cautious when dealing with people almost always”. We reverse-coded the responses and summed them to obtain the variable representing public social trust.
Additionally, we controlled for various socio-demographic variables of the respondents, including gender, education level, income, urban–rural status, and political status. Gender (1 = “Female”, 0 = “Male”), political status (1 = “Party member”, 0 = “Other”), and survey location (1 = “Urban”, 0 = “Rural”) were encoded as dummy variables. Education level was measured using the linear measurement method, representing the total years of education completed by the respondent. Income data were obtained from the 2020 Income Survey Questionnaire, and missing values for annual income were imputed using monthly income. Health status was assessed as an ordinal variable (1 = “Unhealthy”, 2 = “Fair”, 3 = “Healthy”).
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for the main variables used in the regression analysis of the CGSS 2021 survey, along with air pollution and economic indicators for the year 2020.

3.3. Methods

This study employed STATA 17.0 software (Stata Corp LLC, College Station, TX, USA) to conduct a longitudinal assessment of air pollution perception and central government environmental performance evaluation at the provincial level using data from CGSS 2013 and CGSS 2021. Subsequently, t-tests were employed to compare the differences in PM10 levels between 2012 and 2020 at different time points. Following this, ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis was conducted. Initially, an empty model was employed to calculate the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), which measures inter-group correlation. A higher ICC value signifies significant between-group variation, while a lower ICC value indicates that more total variance can be explained by within-group variance. In cases where there were significant differences in per capita evaluation scores among provinces, a linear hierarchical model was employed. Conversely, if no significant differences were observed, a multiple linear model was utilized. Furthermore, Robustness tests and moderation effect analyses were conducted in Model 4 and Model 5, respectively. Given potential disparities in measurement levels and variable magnitudes within the data, all variables were standardized for ease of comparison.

4. Results

4.1. The Diachronic Nature of Government’s Environmental Protection Work

Figure 1a,b show the change of provincial average of public evaluation of air pollution perception and public evaluation of central government environmental performance. We know that CGSS investigates each person’s evaluation of air pollution perception and the central government’s environmental performance, as well as the province in which each person is located, so we can calculate the average value of air pollution perception and the government’s environmental performance evaluation. As can be seen from Figure 1a, the score of public air pollution perception evaluation in 2013 is 2.661, and the score in 2021 is 2.148, both of which decreased significantly (p < 0.05). As can be seen in Figure 1b, the mean of the public’s evaluation of the central government’s environmental performance at the two time points is 3.251 and 3.995, respectively, which is a significant increase (p < 0.001). The results of the survey also provide evidence of the public’s evaluation of the central government’s environmental protection.
Figure 1c shows the provincial average annual concentration of PM10 from 2012 to 2020. In China, the current yearly mean level 2 standard is ≤70 µg/m3. In 2012, it was 89.120 µg/m3, obviously exceeding the standard, and in 2020, it was 60.708 µg/m3, showing a significant decline (p < 0.001). It indicates that the annual mean value of PM10 in China is shifting towards compliance. Studies by other scholars have also shown substantial improvements in air quality in China between 2013 and 2020 [59].
The results of the t-tests from Table 2 indicate significant differences between 2013 and 2021 at various time points in public evaluations of central government environmental performance, subjective perception of air pollution, and assessments of annual average PM10 concentrations. Specifically, among the two subjective evaluation metrics, there was a notable improvement in public assessment of central government environmental performance, while subjective perception of air pollution showed a marked decline. Additionally, the objective air pollution indicator, PM10, exhibited a significant downward trend. This outcome suggests tangible achievements in environmental governance by the central government. However, it remains uncertain whether the assessment of PM10 directly impacts evaluations of the central government’s environmental protection efforts.

4.2. Analysis of Air Pollution Perception, Objective Air Quality, and Central Government Environmental Performance Evaluation

To further analyze the influence of various variables on the 2021 central government environmental performance evaluation, this study establishes Models 1 to 5 using the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression method (see Table 3). Model 1, shown in Table 3, is the null model with an intra-class correlation (ICC) value of 0.021, indicating that the per capita variance of the central government environmental performance evaluation score is 2.1%, representing provincial-level differences. Following the empirical rule that determines whether a stratified model is worth using based on whether the ICC value is greater than 0.059 [60], this study opts for a multiple linear regression instead of a linear stratified model.
Model 2, which incorporates individual-level variables on top of Model 1, reveals that subjective perception of air pollution among the public (β = −0.123, p < 0.001), environmental knowledge (β = −0.017 ***, p < 0.001), gender (β = −0.082, p < 0.05), age (β = 0.006, p < 0.001), health status (β = 0.051, p < 0.05), and social trust level (β = 0.056, p < 0.01) are all significantly associated with evaluations of central government environmental performance. Specifically, the more severe the public perceives air pollution to be, the lower the evaluation of central government environmental governance effectiveness. Thus, Hypothesis 1 is validated. Furthermore, from Model 2, it is evident that the higher the environmental knowledge of the public, the more positively they evaluate central government environmental performance. This is understandable, as individuals with greater environmental knowledge are more likely to pay attention to the efforts made by the central government in environmental governance. Additionally, older males and individuals with better health conditions tend to have higher evaluations of central government environmental governance. Moreover, higher levels of social trust among the public are associated with more positive evaluations of government environmental protection efforts, consistent with the findings of Konisky [61].
Model 3 builds upon Model 2 by incorporating the objective air quality indicator PM10. From the data in Table 3, it is evident that PM10 does not have a significant direct impact on the public’s evaluation of central government environmental performance. Therefore, there are no data to support Hypothesis 2. Our research findings align with the results of Brody [44] and Wang [47].
To further validate the reliability of our empirical analysis, we conducted robustness checks on the research results. Considering that the air quality index (AQI) is derived from real-time monitoring of pollutant concentrations and is easily perceived by residents [62], we replaced the objective air pollution indicator PM10 with AQI pollution exceedance days in Model 4. The results remained consistent with Model 3, with no significant changes observed in other variables. Therefore, it can be inferred that our research findings are robust.
Model 5, building upon Model 4, introduces interaction terms to explore whether environmental knowledge moderates the relationship between public perception of air pollution and evaluation of central government environmental performance. Results from Model 5 indicate that environmental knowledge exhibits a negative moderating effect (β = −0.005, p < 0.05), suggesting that individuals with higher environmental knowledge tend to evaluate central government environmental performance more negatively when perceiving air pollution. This finding is understandable as individuals with greater environmental knowledge are more attentive to government environmental governance efforts. Therefore, when they perceive air pollution, their disappointment with government environmental governance intensifies, leading to more negative evaluations. Thus, Hypothesis 3 is validated, indicating that environmental knowledge moderates the relationship between public evaluation of central government environmental performance.
To visually illustrate the moderating effect of environmental knowledge, we created an effect analysis graph. As depicted in Figure 2, when individuals with high environmental knowledge do not perceive air pollution, their evaluation of central government environmental governance performance is higher. However, as the perception of air pollution increases, their evaluation of central government environmental performance worsens.

5. Discussion

Based on the above conclusions, this study combines data from the Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) and matched provincial-level objective air pollution data to conduct a cross-sectional investigation of public evaluation of central government environmental performance. The main analysis focuses on the relationship between public perception of air pollution, objective air quality, environmental knowledge, and the evaluation of central government environmental performance.
Firstly, the public perception of air pollution has a significant negative impact on the evaluation of central government environmental performance. Our study indicates that the more severe the public’s perception of air pollution, the more negative their evaluation of the central government’s environmental governance efforts. Scholars have pointed out that public evaluation of the government reflects a comprehensive judgment of the government’s work and its performance [63]. Therefore, the public, as direct perceivers and beneficiaries of government environmental governance performance, are also the most authoritative group to voice their opinions. Hence, in its efforts to improve air quality, the central government should not only focus on improving objective air quality but also consider public subjective perceptions. By conducting surveys actively and in good time, collecting data related to public subjective perceptions, adjusting and optimizing environmental governance strategies, the government can enhance public satisfaction with its environmental governance. Studies by Konisky [61] and Smiley [64] have also confirmed that considering public subjective perceptions and listening to public demands can make government policies more effective. This aligns with the findings of our study.
Secondly, effective environmental governance needs to be perceived by the public for their evaluation of central government environmental governance to be more objective. Our t-test results show that the annual average PM10 concentration in China improved from 2013 to 2021, the public perception of air pollution decreased, and the public became more satisfied with the central government’s environmental performance evaluation. This may be due to the fact that the Chinese government has continued to promote a number of environmental governance policies in recent years, such as the Air Pollution Prevention and Control Program and Winning the Battle for the Blue Sky, in order to improve the environmental quality of the public’s life [13,65]. This has led to an improved evaluation of the government. However, Hypothesis 2 was not validated in our study. This indicates that the central government’s environmental governance efforts must be recognized by the public to enhance their satisfaction with the government’s work. The same results were found in a study of Mexico [66]. So, how can public satisfaction with the central government be enhanced? On one hand, the government needs to continue strengthening efforts to control air pollution, so that the public can perceive objective governance effectiveness and reduce subjective perceptions of air pollution. On the other hand, relevant departments of the central and local governments should enhance the dissemination of environmental governance achievements [19], enabling the public to perceive improvements in objective air quality [67]. This is due to the fact that, in the process of transmitting performance information to the public, it can provide the public with a more comprehensive understanding of the overall situation of atmospheric governance in China, which helps to transform objective data into subjective feelings of the public [68,69]. Only when the public perceives the effectiveness of the central government’s environmental governance efforts will they acknowledge and give higher evaluations of the central government’s environmental governance work. Otherwise, government work arrangements that are disconnected from public sentiment are meaningless. Chiarini [70] also indicates that combining public subjective perceptions with objective indicators is essential for decision makers to fully understand the effectiveness of environmental governance.
Finally, environmental knowledge moderates the relationship between perceived air pollution and public evaluation of central government environmental performance. This suggests that environmental knowledge is an important factor influencing the public evaluation of central government environmental performance in the context of perceived air pollution. In other words, when the perceived severity of air pollution is higher, individuals with greater environmental knowledge tend to be less satisfied with the central government’s performance. This is because higher environmental knowledge leads to greater environmental awareness and higher expectations for government environmental governance [54]. The expectancy–disconfirmation model also indicates [71] that public satisfaction with government services depends not only on service quality but also on the comparison between service quality and expected outcomes. When there is a larger gap between the expected level of air quality and the actual quality, it is more likely to lead to perception biases. Therefore, individuals with more environmental knowledge tend to pay closer attention to the central government’s environmental governance efforts and have higher expectations for improvements in air quality resulting from government actions. However, if severe air pollution is still perceived after government intervention in environmental governance, indicating that the central government’s environmental governance has not met public expectations, individuals with environmental knowledge will be more disappointed with the central government’s performance and thus evaluate it lower. Conversely, if environmental governance meets public expectations, individuals with more environmental knowledge will also be more likely to recognize the effectiveness of the central government’s environmental governance efforts. Xie [49] suggests that the Chinese government needs to enhance public environmental knowledge through policy formulation and public education initiatives. When groups with higher environmental knowledge perceive the government’s objective performance, they are more likely to recognize the effectiveness of central government environmental governance efforts.

6. Conclusions

Based on survey data from CGSS 2013 and CGSS 2021, this study integrates air pollution perceptions, objective air quality, and environmental knowledge into a unified framework to make longitudinal comparisons and analyze the relationships among them in evaluating the environmental performance of China’s central government. The findings are as follows: Firstly, over the past decade from 2013 to 2021, there has been some effectiveness in central government environmental governance, with improvements observed in the PM10 index. Meanwhile, there has been a decrease in public perception of air pollution. Secondly, public evaluation of central government environmental performance is primarily based on subjective perception of air pollution. Specifically, the higher the public perception of air pollution, the poorer the evaluation of government environmental performance. Notably, no significant correlation was found with objective air quality, a finding of our study. Thirdly, environmental knowledge has a negative moderating effect on the relationship between public perception of air pollution and evaluation of central government environmental performance. Publics with higher environmental knowledge tend to have more negative evaluations of the government after perceiving air pollution. These conclusions are significant and have not been previously revealed in existing research.
Our study shows that the public will make more objective judgments about government work only when they perceive the central government’s objective environmental governance performance, and that environmental knowledge is an influential factor in the public’s evaluation of the central government’s environmental performance. Therefore, the central government not only needs to further strengthen air pollution control in the formulation of environmental governance policies, but also needs to take into account the public’s subjective perception of air pollution. Further, government departments can mobilize the public to participate in environmental governance through education, publicity, and mobilization [72], which can effectively improve the public’s environmental knowledge base, which is not only conducive to the public’s participation in environmental governance, but also conducive to the public’s supervision of the government’s environmental governance work, so as to make a fair evaluation of the central government’s environmental performance. Our findings provide insights into China’s environmental governance policy, suggesting that the central government can improve its “top-down” environmental governance policy based on the public’s demand feedback, thereby utilizing the internal synergies of the environmentally responsible entities and improving the efficiency of environmental governance. Therefore, the findings of this paper have empirical significance and are of some relevance to other countries.
This study has several limitations that could be addressed in future research. Firstly, the analysis is based on a nationwide sample, and although attempts were made to stratify by province, the data did not fully support this. Secondly, the moderating variable used in this study is environmental knowledge in the mechanism of public perception of air pollution on the evaluation of central government environmental performance. Therefore, future research is encouraged to conduct more detailed regional analyses by province. Additionally, it is recommended that future research incorporate more potential variables to enhance the explanatory power of the research model and explore the underlying mechanisms of public evaluation of central government environmental governance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.S. and C.L.; data curation, Y.S.; methodology, C.L.; writing—original draft, Y.S.; writing—review and editing, C.L. and M.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research is funded by Key Projects of the National Social Science Foundation (23ASH010).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all the subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Acknowledgments

Authors acknowledge the support given by partner institution that provided the Chinses General Social Survey data. The institution is Renmin University of China.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Barzelay, M. Breaking through Bureaucracy: A New Vision for Managing in Government; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  2. Hetherington, M.J. The political relevance of political trust. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 1998, 92, 791–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ruan, H.; Qiu, L.; Chen, J.; Liu, S.; Ma, Z. Government trust, environmental pollution perception, and environmental governance satisfaction. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Cheng, Z.; Luo, L.; Wang, S.; Wang, Y.; Sharma, S.; Shimadera, H.; Wang, X.; Bressi, M.; de Miranda, R.M.; Jiang, J. Status and characteristics of ambient PM2. 5 pollution in global megacities. Environ. Int. 2016, 89, 212–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Huang, L.; Rao, C.; van der Kuijp, T.J.; Bi, J.; Liu, Y. A comparison of individual exposure, perception, and acceptable levels of PM(2.5) with air pollution policy objectives in China. Environ. Res. 2017, 157, 78–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Zhao, S.; Yu, Y.; Yin, D.; He, J.; Liu, N.; Qu, J.; Xiao, J. Annual and diurnal variations of gaseous and particulate pollutants in 31 provincial capital cities based on in situ air quality monitoring data from China National Environmental Monitoring Center. Environ. Int. 2016, 86, 92–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Lai, C.Y.; Lai, C.H.; Chuang, H.C.; Pan, C.H.; Yen, C.C.; Lin, W.Y.; Chen, J.K.; Lin, L.Y.; Chuang, K.J. Physicochemistry and cardiovascular toxicity of metal fume PM2.5: A study of human coronary artery endothelial cells and welding workers. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 33515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. To, T.; Zhu, J.; Villeneuve, P.J.; Simatovic, J.; Feldman, L.; Gao, C.; Williams, D.; Chen, H.; Weichenthal, S.; Wall, C.; et al. Chronic disease prevalence in women and air pollution--A 30-year longitudinal cohort study. Environ. Int. 2015, 80, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Xu, M.; Sbihi, H.; Pan, X.; Brauer, M. Modifiers of the effect of short-term variation in PM(2.5) on mortality in Beijing, China. Environ. Res. 2020, 183, 109066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Lu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zuo, J.; Jiang, H.; Huang, D.; Rameezdeen, R. Characteristics of public concern on haze in China and its relationship with air quality in urban areas. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 637–638, 1597–1606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhu, W.; Yao, N.; Guo, Q.; Wang, F. Public risk perception and willingness to mitigate climate change: City smog as an example. Environ. Geochem. Health 2020, 42, 881–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Shi, X. Factors influencing the environmental satisfaction of local residents in the coal mining area, China. Soc. Indic. Res. 2015, 120, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Cai, S.; Wang, Y.; Zhao, B.; Wang, S.; Chang, X.; Hao, J. The impact of the “Air Pollution Prevention and Control Action Plan” on PM(2.5) concentrations in Jing-Jin-Ji region during 2012–2020. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 580, 197–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Shen, D.; Xia, M.; Zhang, Q.; Elahi, E.; Zhou, Y.; Zhang, H. The impact of public appeals on the performance of environmental governance in China: A perspective of provincial panel data. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 231, 290–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhang, Q.; Zheng, Y.; Tong, D.; Shao, M.; Wang, S.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, X.; Wang, J.; He, H.; Liu, W. Drivers of improved PM2.5 air quality in China from 2013 to 2017. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 24463–24469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Huang, Q. Public trust in local governments and environmental risks in China: The effects of media use, perceived dread, and perceived inequality. Chin. J. Commun. 2017, 11, 88–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Guttman, D.; Young, O.; Jing, Y.; Bramble, B.; Bu, M.; Chen, C.; Furst, K.; Hu, T.; Li, Y.; Logan, K. Environmental governance in China: Interactions between the state and “nonstate actors”. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 220, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hao, Y.; Liu, S.; Lu, Z.-N.; Huang, J.; Zhao, M. The impact of environmental pollution on public health expenditure: Dynamic panel analysis based on Chinese provincial data. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 18853–18865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wang, J.; Jia, Y. Social media’s influence on air quality improvement: Evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 298, 126769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Degroot, I.; Loring, W.; Rihm, A.; Samuels, S.W.; Winkelstein, W. People and Air Pollution: A Study of Attitudes in Buffalo, N.Y. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 1966, 16, 245–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Smith, W.S.; Schueneman, J.J.; Zeidberg, L.D. Public Reaction To Air Pollution in Nashville, Tennesse. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 1964, 14, 418–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Flachsbart, P.G.; Phillips, S. An index and model of human response to air quality. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 1980, 30, 759–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Galinato, G.I.; Chouinard, H.H. Strategic interaction and institutional quality determinants of environmental regulations. Resour. Energy Econ. 2018, 53, 114–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhu, J.; Lu, C.; Wei, Z. Perception of Air Pollution and the Evaluation of Local Governments’ Environmental Governance: An Empirical Study on China. Atmosphere 2023, 14, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bernstein, T.P.; Lü, X. Taxation without Representation: Peasants, the Central and the Local States in Reform China. China Q. 2009, 163, 742–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kostka, G.; Nahm, J. Central–Local Relations: Recentralization and Environmental Governance in China. China Q. 2017, 231, 567–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Koplitz, S.N.; Jacob, D.J.; Sulprizio, M.P.; Myllyvirta, L.; Reid, C. Burden of Disease from Rising Coal-Fired Power Plant Emissions in Southeast Asia. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 1467–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bala, R.; Singh, S.; Sharma, K.K. Relationship between environmental knowledge, environmental sensitivity, environmental attitude and environmental behavioural intention—A segmented mediation approach. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2022, 34, 119–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. He, Z.; Liu, Y.; Liu, X.; Wang, F.; Zhu, H. Influence of multi-dimensional environmental knowledge on residents’ waste sorting intention: Moderating effect of environmental concern. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 957683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wan, Q.; Du, W. Social Capital, Environmental Knowledge, and Pro-Environmental Behavior. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Leng, X.; Zhong, S.; Kang, Y. Citizen participation and urban air pollution abatement: Evidence from environmental whistle-blowing platform policy in Sichuan China. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 816, 151521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Lühiste, K. Explaining trust in political institutions: Some illustrations from the Baltic states. Communist Post-Communist Stud. 2006, 39, 475–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lu, F.; Xu, D.; Cheng, Y.; Dong, S.; Guo, C.; Jiang, X.; Zheng, X. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the adverse health effects of ambient PM2. 5 and PM10 pollution in the Chinese population. Environ. Res. 2015, 136, 196–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. MacKerron, G.; Mourato, S. Life satisfaction and air quality in London. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 1441–1453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Welsch, H. Environment and happiness: Valuation of air pollution using life satisfaction data. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 58, 801–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhang, G.; Zhang, P.; Zhang, Z.G.; Li, J. Impact of environmental regulations on industrial structure upgrading: An empirical study on Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 238, 117848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. James, O. Evaluating the expectations disconfirmation and expectations anchoring approaches to citizen satisfaction with local public services. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2009, 19, 107–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kim, M.; Yi, O.; Kim, H. The role of differences in individual and community attributes in perceived air quality. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 425, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Andrews, R.; Van de Walle, S. New public management and citizens’ perceptions of local service efficiency, responsiveness, equity and effectiveness. Public Manag. Rev. 2013, 15, 762–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Stipak, B. Citizen satisfaction with urban services: Potential misuse as a performance indicator. Public Adm. Rev. 1979, 39, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wallner, A.; Hunziker, M.; Kienast, F. Do natural science experiments influence public attitudes towards environmental problems? Glob. Environ. Chang. 2003, 13, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kelly, J.M.; Swindell, D. A multiple–indicator approach to municipal service evaluation: Correlating performance measurement and citizen satisfaction across jurisdictions. Public Adm. Rev. 2002, 62, 610–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bickerstaff, K.; Walker, G. Public understandings of air pollution: The ‘localisation’of environmental risk. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2001, 11, 133–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Brody, S.D.; Peck, B.M.; Highfield, W.E. Examining localized patterns of air quality perception in Texas: A spatial and statistical analysis. Risk Anal. Int. J. 2004, 24, 1561–1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Graves, P.E. Environmental perceptions and environmental reality: When more is less? Environ. Plan. A 2003, 35, 951–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Burnett, R.; Chen, H.; Szyszkowicz, M.; Fann, N.; Hubbell, B.; Pope III, C.A.; Apte, J.S.; Brauer, M.; Cohen, A.; Weichenthal, S. Global estimates of mortality associated with long-term exposure to outdoor fine particulate matter. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 9592–9597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wang, B.Z.; Cheng, Z. Environmental Perceptions, Happiness and Pro-environmental Actions in China. Soc. Indic. Res. 2015, 132, 357–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kellstedt, P.M.; Zahran, S.; Vedlitz, A. Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States. Risk Anal. 2008, 28, 113–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. 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]
  50. Zeng, Z.; Zhong, W.; Naz, S. Can Environmental Knowledge and Risk Perception Make a Difference? The Role of Environmental Concern and Pro-Environmental Behavior in Fostering Sustainable Consumption Behavior. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Power, M.C.; Kioumourtzoglou, M.A.; Hart, J.E.; Okereke, O.I.; Laden, F.; Weisskopf, M.G. The relation between past exposure to fine particulate air pollution and prevalent anxiety: Observational cohort study. BMJ 2015, 350, h1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kaplan, S. Beyond rationality: Clarity-based decision making. In Environment, Cognition, and Action: An Integrated Approach; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1991; pp. 171–190. [Google Scholar]
  53. Robelia, B.; Murphy, T. What do people know about key environmental issues? A review of environmental knowledge surveys. Environ. Educ. Res. 2012, 18, 299–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Fielding, K.S.; Head, B.W. Determinants of young Australians’ environmental actions: The role of responsibility attributions, locus of control, knowledge and attitudes. Environ. Educ. Res. 2012, 18, 171–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Liu, P.; Teng, M.; Han, C. How does environmental knowledge translate into pro-environmental behaviors?: The mediating role of environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 728, 138126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Varela-Candamio, L.; Novo-Corti, I.; García-Álvarez, M.T. The importance of environmental education in the determinants of green behavior: A meta-analysis approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 170, 1565–1578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Peng, M.; Zhang, H.; Evans, R.D.; Zhong, X.; Yang, K. Actual air pollution, environmental transparency, and the perception of air pollution in China. J. Environ. Dev. 2019, 28, 78–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ambient Air Quality Standards (GB3095-2012). Available online: https://www.mee.gov.cn/ywgz/fgbz/bz/bzwb/dqhjbh/dqhjzlbz/201203/t20120302_224165.htm (accessed on 23 June 2024).
  59. Guo, P.; Umarova, A.B.; Luan, Y. The spatiotemporal characteristics of the air pollutants in China from 2015 to 2019. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0227469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Revised Edition); Laurence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  61. Konisky, D.M.; Milyo, J.; Richardson, L.E. Environmental policy attitudes: Issues, geographical scale, and political trust. Soc. Sci. Q. 2008, 89, 1066–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zhang, J.; Mu, Q. Air pollution and defensive expenditures: Evidence from particulate-filtering facemasks. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2018, 92, 517–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Clarke, H.D.; Dutt, N.; Kornberg, A. The political economy of attitudes toward polity and society in Western European democracies. J. Politics 1993, 55, 998–1021. [Google Scholar]
  64. Smiley, S.; de Loë, R.; Kreutzwiser, R. Appropriate Public Involvement in Local Environmental Governance: A Framework and Case Study. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2010, 23, 1043–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Jiang, X.; Hong, C.; Zheng, Y.; Zheng, B.; Guan, D.; Gouldson, A.; Zhang, Q.; He, K. To what extent can China’s near-term air pollution control policy protect air quality and human health? A case study of the Pearl River Delta region. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 104006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Landeros-Mugica, K.; Urbina-Soria, J.; Angeles-Hernández, D.I.; Gutiérrez-Arzaluz, M.; Mugica-Álvarez, V. Air Pollution and Climate Change Risk Perception among Residents in Three Cities of the Mexico Megalopolis. Atmosphere 2023, 15, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Hong, W.; Wei, Y.; Wang, S. Left behind in perception of air pollution? A hidden form of spatial injustice in China. Environ. Plan. C Politics Space 2021, 40, 666–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. James, O.; John, P. Public Management at the Ballot Box: Performance Information and Electoral Support for Incumbent English Local Governments. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2006, 17, 567–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. James, O. Performance Measures and Democracy: Information Effects on Citizens in Field and Laboratory Experiments. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2010, 21, 399–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Chiarini, B.; D’Agostino, A.; Marzano, E.; Regoli, A. The perception of air pollution and noise in urban environments: A subjective indicator across European countries. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 263, 110272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Van Ryzin, G.G. An Experimental Test of the Expectancy-Disconfirmation Theory of Citizen Satisfaction. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 2013, 32, 597–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. 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]
Atmosphere 15 00762 g001
Figure 1. Provincial-level data at different timepoints. (a) Mean public perception of air pollution. (b) Mean public evaluation of central government environmental performance. (c) Mean value of change in target air quality PM10 (µg/m3).
Figure 1. Provincial-level data at different timepoints. (a) Mean public perception of air pollution. (b) Mean public evaluation of central government environmental performance. (c) Mean value of change in target air quality PM10 (µg/m3).
Atmosphere 15 00762 g001
Atmosphere 15 00762 g002
Figure 2. Moderating effect of environmental knowledge on residents’ evaluation of central government environmental performance.
Figure 2. Moderating effect of environmental knowledge on residents’ evaluation of central government environmental performance.
Atmosphere 15 00762 g002
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of variables included in the regression.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of variables included in the regression.
VariableObsMSDMinMax
Central government environmental performance27413.9960.89915
Perception of air pollution27412.1611.40905
Gender27410.540.49801
Age274151.59617.6181894
Educational level274113.4482.8361219
Income logarithm27418.3874.034013.82
Health27412.370.77313
Urban27410.5560.49701
Political status27410.1240.3301
Social trust27412.7310.78814
EK274124.7853.417835
PM10 (µg/m3)1959.63312.6763783
Pollution day (%)1915.618%9.786%1.2%33.1%
Table 2. The t-test results for temporal variations in provincial-level data.
Table 2. The t-test results for temporal variations in provincial-level data.
FactorTime QuantumFinite DifferenceVariance Test
Mean ValueStandard Deviationtp
Central government environmental performance evaluation (provincial mean value)2021–20130.744 ***0.04518.4850.0000
Perception of air pollution (provincial mean value)2021–2013−0.513 ***0.213−8.0000.0000
PM10 (µg/m3)2020–2012−28.412 ***0.324−33.060.0000
Note: The data of PM10 are the data of the previous year of the Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 3. Analysis of air pollution perception, air quality, and evaluation of central government environmental performance.
Table 3. Analysis of air pollution perception, air quality, and evaluation of central government environmental performance.
VariableResidents’ Evaluation of the Central Government’s Environmental Performance
M1M2M3M4M5
Perception of air −0.123 ***−0.124 ***−0.124 ***−0.126 ***
(0.012)(0.012)(0.012)(0.050)
EK 0.017 ***0.017 ***0.017 ***0.018 ***
(0.004)(0.004)(0.004)(0.004)
Gender −0.082 *−0.082 *−0.082 *−0.083 *
(0.034)(0.034)(0.034)(0.034)
Age 0.006 ***0.006 ***0.006 ***0.006 ***
(0.001)(0.001)(0.001)(0.001)
Educational level 0.0050.0050.0050.006
(0.007)(0.007)(0.007)(0.007)
Income logarithm 0.0010.0000.0000.000
(0.004)(0.004)(0.004)(0.004)
Health 0.051 *0.051 *0.051 *0.049 *
(0.024)(0.024)(0.024)(0.024)
Urban −0.055−0.054−0.055−0.056
(0.036)(0.037)(0.036)(0.036)
Political status 0.0450.0450.0450.041
(0.055)(0.055)(0.055)(0.055)
Social trust 0.056 **0.056 **0.056 **0.055 **
(0.021)(0.021)(0.021)(0.021)
PM10 (µg/m3) −0.000
(0.001)
Pollution day (%) 0.0210.033
(0.174)(0.174)
EK * Perception of air −0.005 *
(0.002)
Constant4.001 ***3.376 ***3.368 ***3.375 ***3.389 ***
(0.036)(0.168)(0.184)(0.169)(0.169)
Provincial level variance−2.019 ***
Individual level variance(0.236)
−0.116 ***
(0.014)
N27412741274127412741
R2 0.0700.0700.0700.072
Note: The data of PM10 are the data of the previous year of the Chinese General Social Survey. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shen, Y.; Lu, C.; Liu, M. Do Chinese Residents’ Perceptions of Air Pollution Affect Their Evaluation of Central Government Performance? The Moderating Role of Environmental Knowledge. Atmosphere 2024, 15, 762. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15070762

AMA Style

Shen Y, Lu C, Liu M. Do Chinese Residents’ Perceptions of Air Pollution Affect Their Evaluation of Central Government Performance? The Moderating Role of Environmental Knowledge. Atmosphere. 2024; 15(7):762. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15070762

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shen, Yifei, Chuntian Lu, and Meng Liu. 2024. "Do Chinese Residents’ Perceptions of Air Pollution Affect Their Evaluation of Central Government Performance? The Moderating Role of Environmental Knowledge" Atmosphere 15, no. 7: 762. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15070762

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop