IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i18p7886-d1474907.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Hui Cheng

    (College of Public Administration, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China)

  • Chunmei Mao

    (College of Public Administration, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China)

Abstract

This study explores the environmental behavior disparities between urban and rural residents in China due to socioeconomic status differences amidst social governance and institutional reform. Using OLS regression models on the 2021 China General Social Survey (CGSS) data, it analyzes the impact of socioeconomic status on environmental behaviors. This study reveals that urban residents generally exhibit better environmental behaviors than rural residents. Education and income are identified as critical drivers, with education raising environmental awareness and income driving participation in environmental activities. Urban residents benefit more from these factors. The policy recommendations are for the government to enhance rural education resources and improve education quality, ensuring that education poverty alleviation policies are effectively implemented to support rural development. Simultaneously, promoting rural economic growth and narrowing the urban–rural economic gap is crucial for improving rural environmental behavior and achieving urban–rural environmental harmony. Furthermore, the results call on the international community to focus on environmental governance systems, aiming to provide references for other developing countries in formulating environmental policies, thereby promoting the creation of a more just, eco-friendly, and sustainable global development framework.

Suggested Citation

  • Hui Cheng & 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, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-27, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:18:p:7886-:d:1474907
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/18/7886/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/18/7886/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sandra T. Marquart‐Pyatt, 2008. "Are There Similar Sources of Environmental Concern? Comparing Industrialized Countries," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1312-1335, December.
    2. Meyer, Andrew, 2016. "Is unemployment good for the environment?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 18-30.
    3. Hong Tian & Xinyu Liu, 2022. "Pro-Environmental Behavior Research: Theoretical Progress and Future Directions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-16, May.
    4. Lenzen, Manfred & Dey, Christopher & Foran, Barney, 2004. "Energy requirements of Sydney households," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 375-399, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Heinz Welsch & Jan Kühling, 2017. "Pan-European patterns of environmental concern: the role of proximity and international integration," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 7(4), pages 473-489, December.
    2. Pottier, Antonin, 2022. "Expenditure elasticity and income elasticity of GHG emissions: A survey of literature on household carbon footprint," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    3. Tiia-Lotta Pekkanen, 2021. "Institutions and Agency in the Sustainability of Day-to-Day Consumption Practices: An Institutional Ethnographic Study," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 168(2), pages 241-260, January.
    4. Lixiao Zhang & Qiuhong Hu & Fan Zhang, 2014. "Input-Output Modeling for Urban Energy Consumption in Beijing: Dynamics and Comparison," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-11, March.
    5. Vainio, Annukka & Paloniemi, Riikka, 2014. "The complex role of attitudes toward science in pro-environmental consumption in the Nordic countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 18-27.
    6. Jennie Moore, 2015. "Ecological Footprints and Lifestyle Archetypes: Exploring Dimensions of Consumption and the Transformation Needed to Achieve Urban Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-17, April.
    7. Chen, G.Q. & Chen, Z.M., 2011. "Greenhouse gas emissions and natural resources use by the world economy: Ecological input–output modeling," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(14), pages 2362-2376.
    8. Lena Kilian & Anne Owen & Andy Newing & Diana Ivanova, 2022. "Exploring Transport Consumption-Based Emissions: Spatial Patterns, Social Factors, Well-Being, and Policy Implications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-26, September.
    9. Mircea Cătălin Dîrțu & Oara Prundeanu, 2023. "Narcissism and Pro-Environmental Behaviors: The Mediating Role of Self-Monitoring, Environmental Control and Attitudes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-16, January.
    10. Jukka Heinonen & Antti-Juhani Säynäjoki & Matti Kuronen & Seppo Junnila, 2012. "Are the Greenhouse Gas Implications of New Residential Developments Understood Wrongly?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 5(8), pages 1-20, August.
    11. Qingsong Wang & Ping Liu & Xueliang Yuan & Xingxing Cheng & Rujian Ma & Ruimin Mu & Jian Zuo, 2015. "Structural Evolution of Household Energy Consumption: A China Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-14, April.
    12. Coisnon, Thomas & Rousselière, Damien & Rousselière, Samira, 2018. "Information on biodiversity and environmental behaviors: a European study of individual and institutional drivers to adopt sustainable gardening practices," Working Papers 272611, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).
    13. Liu, Zhu & Feng, Kuishuang & Hubacek, Klaus & Liang, Sai & Anadon, Laura Diaz & Zhang, Chao & Guan, Dabo, 2015. "Four system boundaries for carbon accounts," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 318(C), pages 118-125.
    14. Zhang, Bo & Chen, Z.M. & Xia, X.H. & Xu, X.Y. & Chen, Y.B., 2013. "The impact of domestic trade on China's regional energy uses: A multi-regional input–output modeling," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1169-1181.
    15. Mohammad Naim Azimi & Mohammad Mafizur Rahman, 2024. "Examining the environmental Phillips curve hypothesis in G7 nations: critical insights from wavelet coherence and wavelet causality analysis," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(6), pages 5683-5713, December.
    16. Wanyun Shao & Feng Hao, 2020. "Approval of political leaders can slant evaluation of political issues: evidence from public concern for climate change in the USA," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 158(2), pages 201-212, January.
    17. Zhang, Bo & Qu, Xue & Meng, Jing & Sun, Xudong, 2017. "Identifying primary energy requirements in structural path analysis: A case study of China 2012," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 425-435.
    18. Fred C. Pampel, 2014. "The Varied Influence of SES on Environmental Concern," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(1), pages 57-75, March.
    19. Yves Bettignies & Joao Meirelles & Gabriela Fernandez & Franziska Meinherz & Paul Hoekman & Philippe Bouillard & Aristide Athanassiadis, 2019. "The Scale-Dependent Behaviour of Cities: A Cross-Cities Multiscale Driver Analysis of Urban Energy Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-20, June.
    20. Riikka Kyrö & Jukka Heinonen & Antti Säynäjoki & Seppo Junnila, 2012. "Assessing the Potential of Climate Change Mitigation Actions in Three Different City Types in Finland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(7), pages 1-15, July.

    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:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:18:p:7886-:d:1474907. 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.