IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i16p2856-d256473.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Empirical Study on the Influence Path of Environmental Risk Perception on Behavioral Responses In China

Author

Listed:
  • Shan Gao

    (School of Public Administration, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China)

  • Weimin Li

    (School of Public Administration, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China)

  • Shuang Ling

    (School of Public Administration, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China)

  • Xin Dou

    (School of Public Administration, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China)

  • Xiaozhou Liu

    (School of Public Administration, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China)

Abstract

In recent years, the outbreak of numerous environmental risk incidents aroused widespread public concern about the amplification mechanism of environmental risk in China. However, few studies have investigated the influence path of environmental risk perception on behavioral responses in Chinese context from a micro perspective. In this article, we develop a multidimensional path model from environmental risk perception to behavioral responses, which aims to investigate how the public’s environmental risk perception influence its different behavioral responses, including environmental radical behavior, environmental concern behavior and environmental protection behavior. A survey data from Chinese General Social Survey 2013 (CGSS2013), was used to test the model, including questions related to information channel (e.g., media use, interpersonal network), cognitive evaluation (e.g., environmental value, public’s evaluation of environmental governance) and environmental knowledge. The results indicate that both information channel factors and cognitive evaluation factors can significantly influence the progress that from environmental risk perception to behavioral responses, of which both media use and environmental value play the amplification role in the transform process, while interpersonal network and public’s evaluation of environmental governance would inhibit public’s risk perception transforming into environmental behavior. Besides, environmental knowledge displays a key bridge role between information channel factors and cognitive evaluation factors. This research findings also demonstrated the evolution paths of three environmental behaviors under the same level of risk perception, namely, risk transformation and diffusion, risk perception enhancement and risk attenuation respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Shan Gao & Weimin Li & Shuang Ling & Xin Dou & Xiaozhou Liu, 2019. "An Empirical Study on the Influence Path of Environmental Risk Perception on Behavioral Responses In China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-18, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:16:p:2856-:d:256473
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/16/2856/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/16/2856/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giulia Roder & Tjuku Ruljigaljig & Ching-Weei Lin & Paolo Tarolli, 2016. "Natural hazards knowledge and risk perception of Wujie indigenous community in Taiwan," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 641-662, March.
    2. Christopher D. Wirz & Michael A. Xenos & Dominique Brossard & Dietram Scheufele & Jennifer H. Chung & Luisa Massarani, 2018. "Rethinking Social Amplification of Risk: Social Media and Zika in Three Languages," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2599-2624, December.
    3. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay, 2007. "The Roles of Group Membership, Beliefs, and Norms in Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 1365-1380, October.
    4. Clifford W. Scherer & Hichang Cho, 2003. "A Social Network Contagion Theory of Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 261-267, April.
    5. Douglas Paton, 2008. "Risk communication and natural hazard mitigation: how trust influences its effectiveness," International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(1/2), pages 2-16.
    6. Mei‐Fang Chen, 2008. "Consumer Trust in Food Safety—A Multidisciplinary Approach and Empirical Evidence from Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1553-1569, December.
    7. Nick Allum, 2007. "An Empirical Test of Competing Theories of Hazard‐Related Trust: The Case of GM Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 935-946, August.
    8. Michael W. Slimak & Thomas Dietz, 2006. "Personal Values, Beliefs, and Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1689-1705, December.
    9. Jeffrey K. Lazo & Jason C. Kinnell & Ann Fisher, 2000. "Expert and Layperson Perceptions of Ecosystem Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), pages 179-194, April.
    10. Jerry Busby & Dominic Duckett, 2012. "Social risk amplification as an attribution: the case of zoonotic disease outbreaks," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(9), pages 1049-1074, October.
    11. Katherine A. McComas & Helen C. Lundell & Craig W. Trumbo & John C. Besley, 2010. "Public meetings about local cancer clusters: exploring the relative influence of official versus symbolic risk messages on attendees' post-meeting concern," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(6), pages 753-770, September.
    12. Stephen C. Whitfield & Eugene A. Rosa & Amy Dan & Thomas Dietz, 2009. "The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 425-437, March.
    13. Vilella-Vila, Marta & Costa-Font, Joan, 2008. "Press media reporting effects on risk perceptions and attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) food," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 2095-2106, October.
    14. Gabriele Prati & Luca Pietrantoni & Bruna Zani, 2011. "A Social‐Cognitive Model of Pandemic Influenza H1N1 Risk Perception and Recommended Behaviors in Italy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 645-656, April.
    15. Giulia Roder & Tjuku Ruljigaljig & Ching-Weei Lin & Paolo Tarolli, 2016. "Natural hazards knowledge and risk perception of Wujie indigenous community in Taiwan," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 641-662, March.
    16. Margôt Kuttschreuter, 2006. "Psychological Determinants of Reactions to Food Risk Messages," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 1045-1057, August.
    17. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Liangyan Wang & Yitong Wang, 2010. "Product Quality Risk Perceptions and Decisions: Contaminated Pet Food and Lead‐Painted Toys," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(10), pages 1572-1589, October.
    18. Roger E. Kasperson & Jeanne X. Kasperson, 1996. "The Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 545(1), pages 95-105, May.
    19. Sumeet R. Patil & H. Christopher Frey, 2004. "Comparison of Sensitivity Analysis Methods Based on Applications to a Food Safety Risk Assessment Model," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(3), pages 573-585, June.
    20. Timothy McDaniels & Lawrence J. Axelrod & Paul Slovic, 1995. "Characterizing Perception of Ecological Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 575-588, October.
    21. Michael K. Lindell & Seong Nam Hwang, 2008. "Households' Perceived Personal Risk and Responses in a Multihazard Environment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 539-556, April.
    22. Lennart Sjöberg & Britt‐Marie Drottz‐Sjöberg, 1991. "Knowledge and Risk Perception Among Nuclear Power Plant Employees," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 607-618, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Seol-A Kwon & Hyun-Jung Yoo & Eugene Song, 2020. "Korean Consumers’ Recognition of Risks Depending on the Provision of Safety Information for Chemical Products," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-12, February.
    2. Jing Shi & Chuntian Lu & Zihao Wei, 2022. "Effects of Social Capital on Pro-Environmental Behaviors in Chinese Residents," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-12, October.
    3. Wei Wang & Ziyuan Sun & Weixing Zhu & Lin Ma & Yuting Dong & Xiao Sun & Fengzhi Wu, 2023. "How does multi‐agent govern corporate greenwashing? A stakeholder engagement perspective from “common” to “collaborative” governance," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 291-307, January.
    4. Annalaura Carducci & Maria Fiore & Antonio Azara & Guglielmo Bonaccorsi & Martina Bortoletto & Giuseppina Caggiano & Andrea Calamusa & Antonella De Donno & Osvalda De Giglio & Marco Dettori & Pamela D, 2021. "Pro-Environmental Behaviors: Determinants and Obstacles among Italian University Students," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-15, March.
    5. Dingde Xu & Chen Qing & Xin Deng & Zhuolin Yong & Wenfeng Zhou & Zhixing Ma, 2020. "Disaster Risk Perception, Sense of Pace, Evacuation Willingness, and Relocation Willingness of Rural Households in Earthquake-Stricken Areas: Evidence from Sichuan Province, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-19, January.
    6. Qinyuan Wan & Wencui Du, 2022. "Social Capital, Environmental Knowledge, and Pro-Environmental Behavior," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-17, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Ping Wu & Yifan Xu, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Toxic Capsule Crisis in China: Risk Perceptions and Behavioral Responses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(4), pages 698-710, April.
    2. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    3. Jiuchang Wei & Ming Zhao & Fei Wang & Peng Cheng & Dingtao Zhao, 2016. "An Empirical Study of the Volkswagen Crisis in China: Customers’ Information Processing and Behavioral Intentions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 114-129, January.
    4. Christine Merk & Gert Pönitzsch, 2017. "The Role of Affect in Attitude Formation toward New Technologies: The Case of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2289-2304, December.
    5. Yanbo Zhang & Yibao Wang & Ahmad Bayiz Ahmad & Ashfaq Ahmad Shah & Wen Qing, 2021. "How Do Individual-Level Characteristics Influence Cross-Domain Risk Perceptions Among Chinese Urban Residents?," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, April.
    6. Bret A. Muter & Meredith L. Gore & Shawn J. Riley, 2013. "Social Contagion of Risk Perceptions in Environmental Management Networks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(8), pages 1489-1499, August.
    7. Sophie-Bo Heinkel & Benni Thiebes & Zin Mar Than & Toe Aung & Tin Tin Kyi & Win Lei Mar & Saw Sandar Oo & Christian Miller & Marlene Willkomm & Win Maung & Zin Nwe Myint & Khin Khin Soe & Regine Spohn, 2022. "Disaster preparedness and resilience at household level in Yangon, Myanmar," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 112(2), pages 1273-1294, June.
    8. Xuemei Fang & Liang Cao & Luyi Zhang & Binbin Peng, 2023. "Risk perception and resistance behavior intention of residents living near chemical industry parks: an empirical analysis in China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 115(2), pages 1655-1675, January.
    9. Judith I. M. de Groot & Elisa Schweiger & Iljana Schubert, 2020. "Social Influence, Risk and Benefit Perceptions, and the Acceptability of Risky Energy Technologies: An Explanatory Model of Nuclear Power Versus Shale Gas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(6), pages 1226-1243, June.
    10. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 2005. "Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 405-428, April.
    11. Christopher D. Wirz & Michael A. Xenos & Dominique Brossard & Dietram Scheufele & Jennifer H. Chung & Luisa Massarani, 2018. "Rethinking Social Amplification of Risk: Social Media and Zika in Three Languages," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2599-2624, December.
    12. Dilshani Sarathchandra & Aaron M. McCright, 2017. "The Effects of Media Coverage of Scientific Retractions on Risk Perceptions," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, May.
    13. Gupta, Kuhika & Ripberger, Joseph T. & Fox, Andrew S. & Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. & Silva, Carol L., 2021. "The future of nuclear energy in India: Evidence from a nationwide survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    14. Vladimir M. Cvetković & Giulia Roder & Adem Öcal & Paolo Tarolli & Slavoljub Dragićević, 2018. "The Role of Gender in Preparedness and Response Behaviors towards Flood Risk in Serbia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-21, December.
    15. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay, 2007. "The Roles of Group Membership, Beliefs, and Norms in Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 1365-1380, October.
    16. Serena L. Colombo & Salvatore G. Chiarella & Camille Lefrançois & Jacques Fradin & Antonino Raffone & Luca Simione, 2023. "Why Knowing about Climate Change Is Not Enough to Change: A Perspective Paper on the Factors Explaining the Environmental Knowledge-Action Gap," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-17, October.
    17. Zhengyan Li & David M. Konisky, 2023. "Personal attributes and (mis)perceptions of local environmental risk," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(1), pages 119-152, January.
    18. Peyman Arjomandi A. & Masoud Yazdanpanah & Akbar Shirzad & Nadejda Komendantova & Erfan Kameli & Mahdi Hosseinzadeh & Erfan Razavi, 2023. "Institutional Trust and Cognitive Motivation toward Water Conservation in the Face of an Environmental Disaster," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-21, January.
    19. Bonita L. McFarlane & David O. T. Witson, 2008. "Perceptions of Ecological Risk Associated with Mountain Pine Beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) Infestations in Banff and Kootenay National Parks of Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 203-212, February.
    20. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:16:p:2856-:d:256473. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.