IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i2p304-d196132.html

Key Factors Affecting Environmental Protection Values in China

Author

Listed:
  • Qiuhua Li

    (Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Earth System Modeling, Department of Earth System Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China)

  • Bin Wang

    (Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Earth System Modeling, Department of Earth System Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
    LASG, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China
    College of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Chaoqing Yu

    (Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Earth System Modeling, Department of Earth System Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China)

  • Haifeng Deng

    (School of Law, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China)

  • Li Liu

    (Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Earth System Modeling, Department of Earth System Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China)

  • Wenyu Huang

    (Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Earth System Modeling, Department of Earth System Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China)

Abstract

Utilizing a total of 31 non-numerical variables on environmental protection values from 1990–2014 in the World Values Survey (WVS) database (i.e., WVS2, WVS3, WVS4, WVS5 and WVS6), this study analyses the temporal changes of environment protection values in China and identifies the key factors related to these changes. We define indices for the standardized values of action and attitudes to environmental protection after clustering the 31 variables into two categories according to the meanings of their variable labels. Through statistical analysis on the possible impacting variables (e.g., GDP (gross domestic product) per capita, carbon emissions per capita, industrial wastes, and rural township enterprises), we find that the variable rural township enterprises is the main factor that causes obvious changes in action and attitude, coupled with other environmental impacts at home and abroad, such as economic globalization, the financial crisis, and frequent natural disasters. In particular, the significant improvement in action during the period from the late 2000s to early 2010s is mainly due to switching the emphasis from quantity to quality. The structural adjustment and industrial upgrade of township enterprises were promoted as important measures to improve environmental values according to Document No. 1 of the Central Committee of the People’s Republic of China in 2010.

Suggested Citation

  • Qiuhua Li & Bin Wang & Chaoqing Yu & Haifeng Deng & Li Liu & Wenyu Huang, 2019. "Key Factors Affecting Environmental Protection Values in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-14, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:2:p:304-:d:196132
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/2/304/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/2/304/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Lim, Kyoung-Min & Lim, Seul-Ye & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2014. "Estimating the economic value of residential electricity use in the Republic of Korea using contingent valuation," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 601-606.
    2. Shangrui Wang & Guohua Wang & Yiming Xiao, 2024. "How environmental policies affect personal willingness to pay for environmental protection: an investigation of interpretative and resource effects," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 1591-1613, January.
    3. Najam uz Zehra Gardezi & Brent S. Steel & Angela Lavado, 2020. "The Impact of Efficacy, Values, and Knowledge on Public Preferences Concerning Food–Water–Energy Policy Tradeoffs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-20, November.
    4. Balezentis, Tomas & Streimikiene, Dalia & Mikalauskas, Ignas & Shen, Zhiyang, 2021. "Towards carbon free economy and electricity: The puzzle of energy costs, sustainability and security based on willingness to pay," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    5. Chaikumbung, Mayula, 2025. "The influence of national cultures on preferences and willingness to pay for renewable energy in Developing countries: A meta-analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    6. Simona Bigerna & Carlo Andrea Bollino & Paolo Polinori, 2014. "The Question of Sustainability of Green Electricity Policy Intervention," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(8), pages 1-23, August.
    7. Sundt, Swantje & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "Consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity: A meta-analysis of the literature," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-8.
    8. Amoah, Anthony & Ferrini, Silvia & Schaafsma, Marije, 2019. "Electricity outages in Ghana: Are contingent valuation estimates valid?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    9. Anna Kowalska-Pyzalska, 2019. "Do Consumers Want to Pay for Green Electricity? A Case Study from Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-20, March.
    10. Anna Kowalska-Pyzalska, 2018. "An Empirical Analysis of Green Electricity Adoption Among Residential Consumers in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.
    11. Morita, Tamaki & Managi, Shunsuke, 2015. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for electricity after the Great East Japan Earthquake," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 82-105.
    12. Chankrajang, Thanyaporn & Muttarak, Raya, 2017. "Green Returns to Education: Does Schooling Contribute to Pro-Environmental Behaviours? Evidence from Thailand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 434-448.
    13. Anna Kowalska-Pyzalska, 2018. "An empirical analysis of green energy adoption among residential consumers in Poland," HSC Research Reports HSC/18/01, Hugo Steinhaus Center, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology.
    14. Byun, Hyunsuk & Lee, Chul-Yong, 2017. "Analyzing Korean consumers’ latent preferences for electricity generation sources with a hierarchical Bayesian logit model in a discrete choice experiment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 294-302.
    15. Yu, Ying & Yamaguchi, Kensuke & Thuy, Truong Dang & Kittner, Noah, 2022. "Will the public in emerging economies support renewable energy? Evidence from Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    16. Shahid Rasool & Roberto Cerchione & Piera Centobelli & Eugenio Oropallo, 2022. "Smoking kills you, littering butts damages others too: analysing sustainable consumer behaviour in the era of circular economy," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 7115-7137, May.
    17. Alló, Maria & Loureiro, Maria L., 2014. "The role of social norms on preferences towards climate change policies: A meta-analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 563-574.
    18. Lee, Chul-Yong & Lee, Min-Kyu & Yoo, Seung-Hoon, 2017. "Willingness to pay for replacing traditional energies with renewable energy in South Korea," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 284-290.
    19. Almulhim, Abdulaziz I., 2022. "Understanding public awareness and attitudes toward renewable energy resources in Saudi Arabia," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 572-582.
    20. Fu, Xin & Zeng, Xiao-Jun & Feng, Pengpeng & Cai, Xiuwen, 2018. "Clustering-based short-term load forecasting for residential electricity under the increasing-block pricing tariffs in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 165(PB), pages 76-89.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:11:y:2019:i:2:p:304-:d:196132. 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 The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (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.