IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v26y2024i11d10.1007_s10668-023-03870-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is social media more conducive to climate change communication behavior? The mediating role of risk perception and environmental values

Author

Listed:
  • Meifen Wu

    (China University of Mining and Technology)

  • Ruyin Long

    (Jiangnan University
    Jiangnan University)

  • Hong Chen

    (Jiangnan University
    Jiangnan University)

  • Jiaqi Wang

    (China University of Mining and Technology)

Abstract

Climate change communication is an important behavioral manifestation of the public’s understanding, expression, and participation in addressing climate change. Social media play an important role in the climate change knowledge communication. Does social media promote climate change communication behavior in the Chinese context? Is its effect stronger than other types of media? Combined with the research context, we divide media into central media, local media, and social media and construct the influence mechanism model of media use on climate change communication behavior. In this study, a questionnaire survey was conducted among the public in China, and 1062 valid questionnaires were empirically tested by methods of hierarchical regression and bootstrapping. According to the findings of the study, different media use has a positive effect on climate change communication behavior. While social media is more likely to be used by the public to obtain climate change-related information than central and local media (with a mean value of 3.84 for social media compared to 3.51 for central media and 3.19 for local media), it is actually the central media that have the greatest effect on climate change communication behavior. This is evident in the total effect value, where the central media have a value of 0.21, which is higher than social media’s value of 0.20 and local media’s value of 0.12. Risk perception and environmental values play an important mediating role in the influence of media use on climate change communication behavior, among which environmental values have the largest mediating effect. (Specifically, the mediating effects of environmental values were 26.83%, 31.28%, and 38.57% for central media, local media, and social media, respectively.) In addition, risk perception can also positively affect environmental values, thus forming a chain mediating effect between media use and climate change communication behavior (the confidence intervals for the chain mediating effect also exclude the numbers 0).

Suggested Citation

  • Meifen Wu & Ruyin Long & Hong Chen & Jiaqi Wang, 2024. "Is social media more conducive to climate change communication behavior? The mediating role of risk perception and environmental values," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(11), pages 29401-29427, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:26:y:2024:i:11:d:10.1007_s10668-023-03870-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-023-03870-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-023-03870-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-023-03870-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shay-Wei Choon & Hway-Boon Ong & Siow-Hooi Tan, 2019. "Does risk perception limit the climate change mitigation behaviors?," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1891-1917, August.
    2. Huang, Huiping, 2016. "Media use, environmental beliefs, self-efficacy, and pro-environmental behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 2206-2212.
    3. Zhengxia He & Yanqing Zhou & Jianming Wang & Cunfang Li & Meiling Wang & Wenbo Li, 2021. "The impact of motivation, intention, and contextual factors on green purchasing behavior: New energy vehicles as an example," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 1249-1269, February.
    4. Huifang Ma & Weidong Chen & Hailin Ma & Hude Yang, 2021. "Influence of Publicity and Education and Environmental Values on the Green Consumption Behavior of Urban Residents in Tibet," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-14, October.
    5. 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.
    6. Susanne C. Moser, 2010. "Communicating climate change: history, challenges, process and future directions," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 31-53, January.
    7. Pengya Ai & Wu Li & Wuyue Yang, 2021. "Adolescents’ Social Media Use and Their Voluntary Garbage Sorting Intention: A Sequential Mediation Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-12, July.
    8. Laura S. Loy & Karen R. S. Hamann & Gerhard Reese, 2020. "Navigating through the jungle of information. Informational self-efficacy predicts climate change-related media exposure, knowledge, and behaviour," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 163(4), pages 2097-2116, December.
    9. Hayam Elshirbiny & Wokje Abrahamse, 2020. "Public risk perception of climate change in Egypt: a mixed methods study of predictors and implications," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(3), pages 242-254, September.
    10. Zobeidi, Tahereh & Komendantova, Nadejda & Yazdanpanah, Masoud, 2022. "Social media as a driver of the use of renewable energy: The perceptions of instagram users in Iran," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    11. Matthew R. Auer & Yuman Zhang & Priscilla Lee, 2014. "The potential of microblogs for the study of public perceptions of climate change," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3), pages 291-296, May.
    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. Laura S. Loy & Karen R. S. Hamann & Gerhard Reese, 2020. "Navigating through the jungle of information. Informational self-efficacy predicts climate change-related media exposure, knowledge, and behaviour," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 163(4), pages 2097-2116, December.
    2. Wu, Donglong & Zhou, Dequn & Zhu, Qingyuan & Wu, Liangpeng, 2024. "An investigation into the role of Residents' cognitive preferences in distributed renewable energy development," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 372(C).
    3. Nur Sabrina Mohamed Ali Khan & Mageswary Karpudewan & Nagaletchimee Annamalai, 2020. "Moving Beyond the One-Size-Fits-All Model in Describing the Climate Conserving Behaviors of Malaysian Secondary Students," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-20, December.
    4. Janel Jett & Leigh Raymond, 2021. "Issue Framing and U.S. State Energy and Climate Policy Choice," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(3), pages 278-299, May.
    5. Gao, Zhiyuan & Zhao, Ying & Li, Lianqing & Hao, Yu, 2024. "Economic effects of sustainable energy technology progress under carbon reduction targets: An analysis based on a dynamic multi-regional CGE model," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 363(C).
    6. Felix J. Formanski & Marcel M. Pein & David D. Loschelder & John-Oliver Engler & Onno Husen & Johann M. Majer, 2022. "Tipping points ahead? How laypeople respond to linear versus nonlinear climate change predictions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 1-20, November.
    7. Shengxiang She & Shicheng Li & Jiaqi Xu & Bo Yang, 2022. "Exploring the Concept, Antecedents, and Consequences of Environmental Psychological Ownership," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-15, October.
    8. Shabana Khan & Jyoti Mishra, 2022. "Critical gaps and implications of risk communication in the global agreements—SFDRR, SDGs, and UNFCCC: 3 select case studies from urban areas of tropics in South Asia," 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. 111(3), pages 2559-2577, April.
    9. Wang, Fei & Yuan, Yu & Lu, Liangdong, 2021. "Dynamical prediction model of consumers’ purchase intentions regarding anti-smog products during smog risk: Taking the information flow perspective," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 563(C).
    10. Guosen Miao & Guoping Chen & Fan Wang & Anupam Kumar Das, 2023. "The Effect of Corporate Greenwashing on Employees’ Environmental Performance: Person–Organization Values Fit Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-19, February.
    11. Philippe Odou & Marie Schill, 2020. "How anticipated emotions shape behavioral intentions to fight climate change," Post-Print hal-02929920, HAL.
    12. Sharon T Steinemann & Benjamin J Geelan & Stephan Zaehringer & Kamalatharsi Mutuura & Ewgenij Wolkow & Lars Frasseck & Klaus Opwis, 2020. "Potentials and pitfalls of increasing prosocial behavior and self-efficacy over time using an online personalized platform," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-29, June.
    13. Mohd Yusoff Yusliza & Amirudin Amirudin & Raden Aswin Rahadi & Nik Afzan Nik Sarah Athirah & Thurasamy Ramayah & Zikri Muhammad & Francesca Dal Mas & Maurizio Massaro & Jumadil Saputra & Safiek Mokhli, 2020. "An Investigation of Pro-Environmental Behaviour and Sustainable Development in Malaysia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-21, August.
    14. Md. Mahiuddin Sabbir & Khan Md Raziuddin Taufique, 2022. "Sustainable employee green behavior in the workplace: Integrating cognitive and non‐cognitive factors in corporate environmental policy," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 110-128, January.
    15. Luis Pérez-González, 2020. "‘Is climate science taking over the science?’: A corpus-based study of competing stances on bias, dogma and expertise in the blogosphere," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-16, December.
    16. Lee, Chien-Chiang & Wang, Fuhao & Lou, Runchi & Wang, Keying, 2023. "How does green finance drive the decarbonization of the economy? Empirical evidence from China," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 671-684.
    17. Wang, Xueting & Qiu, Feng & Zhang, Junbiao & Tong, Qingmeng, 2020. "Does Internet use help increase residents’ participation in programs to improve the dwelling environment? Evidence from China," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304234, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Zhao, Haifeng & Khaliq, Nosherwan, 2024. "In quest of perceived risk determinants affecting intention to use fintech: Moderating effects of situational factors," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    19. Saddam A. Hazaea & Ebrahim Mohammed Al-Matari & Khaled Zedan & Saleh F. A. Khatib & Jinyu Zhu & Hamzeh Al Amosh, 2022. "Green Purchasing: Past, Present and Future," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-28, April.
    20. Hayam Elshirbiny & Wokje Abrahamse, 2020. "Public risk perception of climate change in Egypt: a mixed methods study of predictors and implications," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(3), pages 242-254, September.

    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:spr:endesu:v:26:y:2024:i:11:d:10.1007_s10668-023-03870-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.