IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i17p7617-d1731077.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Media and Environmental Water Pollution Affect Chinese Residents’ Willingness to Pay for Environmental Protection: Empirical Evidence from China

Author

Listed:
  • Fangyuan Sun

    (School of Journalism & Communication, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China)

  • Zeming Kong

    (School of International Communication and Arts, Hainan University, Haikou 570228, China)

Abstract

The field of communication studies shares significant connections with environmental science, where environmental monitoring constitutes one of the fundamental functions of communication. Based on data from the China General Social Survey (CGSS2021), this study establishes two research models and employs ordered logistic regression to examine the relationships between media usage, environmental water pollution, cognition of environmental policies, and willingness to pay (WTP) for environmental protection. The findings reveal that the perception of water pollution significantly enhances public cognition of environmental policies and WTP. However, the impact of water pollution itself is insignificant, indicating a weak public perception of long-term environmental risks. Both traditional media usage and new media usage significantly improve cognition of environmental policies, with traditional media playing a more pronounced role; yet, media trust does not significantly enhance cognition. Furthermore, new media usage and media trust exhibit a negative impact on WTP for environmental protection, revealing the effects of the “clicktivism” mechanism and the “trust-efficacy perception” negative feedback loop. The negative impact of cognition of environmental policies on WTP further uncovers a “cognition-behavior paradox,” where groups with higher cognition tend to attribute environmental responsibility to the government, thereby reducing their personal WTP. Based on these findings, this paper proposes recommendations including optimizing environmental communication strategies, strengthening public participation, and designing differentiated policies to enhance public environmental awareness and promote the effective implementation of water pollution governance.

Suggested Citation

  • Fangyuan Sun & Zeming Kong, 2025. "How Media and Environmental Water Pollution Affect Chinese Residents’ Willingness to Pay for Environmental Protection: Empirical Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-14, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:17:p:7617-:d:1731077
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/17/7617/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/17/7617/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lori M. Hunter & Alison Hatch & Aaron Johnson, 2004. "Cross‐National Gender Variation in Environmental Behaviors," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 85(3), pages 677-694, September.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Alexa Spence & Wouter Poortinga & Nick Pidgeon, 2012. "The Psychological Distance of Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(6), pages 957-972, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Torgler, Benno & Garcia-Valinas, Maria A., 2007. "The determinants of individuals' attitudes towards preventing environmental damage," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 536-552, August.
    6. Huan Wang, 2022. "Knowledge or Responsibility? The Role of Media Use on Citizens’ Willingness to Pay for Environment Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-15, November.
    7. Shujia Hu & Runxi Zeng & Chengzhi Yi, 2019. "Media Use and Environmental Public Service Satisfaction—An Empirical Analysis Based on China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-16, July.
    8. Zheng, Siqi & Kahn, Matthew E., 2008. "Land and residential property markets in a booming economy: New evidence from Beijing," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 743-757, March.
    9. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Boyle, Kevin J. & Leiserowitz, Anthony A., 2013. "Willingness-to-pay and policy-instrument choice for climate-change policy in the United States," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 617-625.
    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. Fangyuan Sun & Zeming Kong, 2025. "How Media and Climate Perception Affect Residents’ Willingness to Pay for Environmental Protection: Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-13, September.

    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. Falco, Chiara & Corbi, Raphael, 2023. "Natural disasters and preferences for the environment: Evidence from the impressionable years," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    2. Schleich, Joachim & Gassmann, Xavier & Faure, Corinne & Meissner, Thomas, 2016. "Making the implicit explicit: A look inside the implicit discount rate," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 321-331.
    3. Huan Wang, 2022. "Knowledge or Responsibility? The Role of Media Use on Citizens’ Willingness to Pay for Environment Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-15, November.
    4. Donatella Baiardi, 2021. "What do you think about climate change?," Working Papers 477, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2021.
    5. Schleich, Joachim & Faure, Corinne, 2017. "Explaining citizens’ perceptions of international climate-policy relevance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 62-71.
    6. Ana Carolina Clark & Natalia Melgar & María Fernanda Milans & Máximo Rossi, 2011. "Percepción medioambiental de los ciudadanos latinoamericanos," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 2511, Department of Economics - dECON.
    7. Benno Torgler & María A.García-Valiñas & Alison Macintyre, 2007. "Differences in Preferences Towards the Environment: The Impact of a Gender, Age and Parental Effect," CREMA Working Paper Series 2008-01, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    8. Robyn S. Wilson & Adam Zwickle & Hugh Walpole, 2019. "Developing a Broadly Applicable Measure of Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 777-791, April.
    9. Benno Torgler & María A.García-Valiñas & Alison Macintyre, 2008. "Justifiability of Littering: An Empirical Investigation," Working Papers 2008.59, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    10. Ling-Yun He & Hong-Zhen Zhang, 2021. "Spillover or crowding out? The effects of environmental regulation on residents’ willingness to pay for environmental protection," 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. 105(1), pages 611-630, January.
    11. Hoffmann, Roman & Kanitsar, Georg & Seifert, Marcel, 2024. "Behavioral barriers impede pro-environmental decision-making: Experimental evidence from incentivized laboratory and vignette studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 225(C).
    12. Hahnel, Ulf J.J. & Fell, Michael J., 2022. "Pricing decisions in peer-to-peer and prosumer-centred electricity markets: Experimental analysis in Germany and the United Kingdom," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    13. Blankenberg, Ann-Kathrin & Alhusen, Harm, 2019. "On the determinants of pro-environmental behavior: A literature review and guide for the empirical economist," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 350, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics, revised 2019.
    14. Meyer, Andrew, 2016. "Is unemployment good for the environment?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 18-30.
    15. Williams, Galina & Rolfe, John, 2017. "Willingness to pay for emissions reduction: Application of choice modeling under uncertainty and different management options," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 302-311.
    16. Benno Torgler & Maria A. Garcia-Valinas & Alison Macintyre, 2012. "Justifiability of Littering: An Empirical Investigation," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 21(2), pages 209-231, May.
    17. Shao, Shuai & Tian, Zhihua & Fan, Meiting, 2018. "Do the rich have stronger willingness to pay for environmental protection? New evidence from a survey in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 83-94.
    18. Achtnicht, Martin, 2009. "German car buyers' willingness to pay to reduce CO₂ emissions," ZEW Discussion Papers 09-058, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    19. Abayomi Samuel Oyekale, 2018. "Determinants of households’ involvement in waste separation and collection for recycling in South Africa," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(5), pages 2343-2371, October.
    20. De Graaff, Lars & Wens, Marthe L.K. & Hoogesteger, Jaime & Mazzoleni, Maurizio & Van Loon, Anne F., 2025. "Threat appraisal and individual adaptation as drivers for collaborative drought management in the Netherlands," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 309(C).

    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:17:y:2025:i:17:p:7617-:d:1731077. 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.