| Literature DB >> 31752280 |
Yu Liu1, Rong-Lin Li1, Yang Song1, Zhi-Jiang Zhang2.
Abstract
Background: Environmental tax has been implemented by the government in response to the demands of the residents to control environmental pollution. However, a tax has a wide effect on many interacting aspects of the society. It remains unknown whether enacting an environmental tax for the government can improve the residents' happiness. This study aimed to examine the impact of air and water pollution on residents' happiness and evaluate whether an environmental tax can alleviate the impact of air and water pollution on residents' happiness.Entities:
Keywords: air pollution; environmental tax; happiness; moderating effect; water pollution
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31752280 PMCID: PMC6888151 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16224574
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
The sewage charge rates for SO2 and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) in 28 provinces in 2014 in China (yuan/per pollution equivalent).
| Province | SO2 | COD | Province | SO2 | COD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tianjin | 1.2 | 1.4 | Henan | 0.6 | 0.7 |
| Shanghai | 1.2 | 1.4 | Hubei | 0.6 | 0.7 |
| Beijing | 9.5 | 10 | Hunan | 0.6 | 0.7 |
| Chongqing | 0.6 | 0.7 | Guangdong | 1.2 | 1.4 |
| Hebei | 1.2 | 1.4 | Sichuan | 0.6 | 0.7 |
| Shanxi | 0.6 | 0.7 | Guizhou | 1.2 | 1.4 |
| Liaoning | 1.2 | 1.4 | Jiangxi | 0.6 | 0.7 |
| Jilin | 0.6 | 0.7 | Yunnan | 0.6 | 0.7 |
| Heilongjiang | 1.2 | 1.4 | Shaanxi | 0.6 | 0.7 |
| Jiangsu | 1.2 | 1.4 | Gansu | 0.6 | 0.7 |
| Zhejiang | 1.2 | 1.4 | Qinghai | 0.6 | 0.7 |
| Anhui | 1.2 | 1.4 | Inner Mongolia | 1.2 | 1.4 |
| Fujian | 0.6 | 0.7 | Guangxi | 1.2 | 1.4 |
| Shandong | 1.2 | 1.4 | Ningxia | 1.2 | 1.4 |
Note: data were obtained from the provinces’ environmental tax and sewage charge documents.
Descriptive statistics.
| Variables | Measures | Mean | Standard Deviation | Minimum | Maximum | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent variable | Happiness | The five levels of respondents’ self-reported happiness | 3.867 | 0.821 | 1 | 5 |
| Independent variable | Air Pollution (PollutionA) | Industrial SO2 emissions | 60.295 | 33.095 | 4.035 | 140 |
| Water Pollution (PollutionW) | Industrial COD emissions | 11.030 | 5.694 | 0.605 | 23.550 | |
| Control variable | Gender | Male = 1; Female = 0 | 0.468 | 0.499 | 0 | 1 |
| Age | The age of respondents | 49.402 | 16.895 | 17 | 93 | |
| Age2 | The square of age | 2725.960 | 1708.599 | 289 | 8649 | |
| Religion | Religion = 1; No religion = 0 | 0.109 | 0.312 | 0 | 1 | |
| Marriage | Married = 1; Others = 0 | 0.890 | 0.313 | 0 | 1 | |
| Health | The five levels of respondents’ health | 3.608 | 1.075 | 1 | 5 | |
| Income | The five levels of respondents’ family income status | 2.652 | 0.717 | 1 | 5 | |
| Moderator variable | Tax1 | Sewage charges (SO2) | 1.338 | 1.894 | 0.6 | 9.5 |
| Tax2 | Sewage charges (COD) | 1.507 | 1.977 | 0.7 | 10 |
Regression results of environmental pollution effect on residents’ happiness.
| Dependent Variable | Happiness | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Independent Variable | PollutionA | PollutionW | |||||
| Coefficient | 95% CI | Coefficient | 95% CI | ||||
| −0.059 | (−0.086, −0.031) | 0.000 | −0.089 | (−0.116, −0.063) | 0.000 | ||
| Control Variable | Gender | −0.077 | (−0.120, −0.034) | 0.000 | −0.075 | (−0.118, 0.032) | 0.001 |
| Age | −0.030 | (−0.038, −0.022) | 0.000 | −0.030 | (−0.038, −0.022) | 0.000 | |
| Age2 | 0.000 | (0.000, 0.001) | 0.000 | 0.000 | (0.000, 0.001) | 0.000 | |
| Religion | 0.139 | (0.071, 0.208) | 0.000 | 0.154 | (0.085, 0.223) | 0.000 | |
| Marriage | 0.239 | (0.152, 0.325) | 0.000 | 0.249 | (0.163, 0.336) | 0.000 | |
| Health | 0.237 | (0.215, 0.260) | 0.000 | 0.237 | (0.214, 0.259) | 0.000 | |
| Finance | 0.416 | (0.385, 0.447) | 0.000 | 0.416 | (0.384, 0.447) | 0.000 | |
| Number of Observation | 10752 | 10752 | |||||
| Pseudo R2 | 0.065 | 0.066 | |||||
| Log likelihood | −11,289.057 | −11,275.926 | |||||
| Prob > chi2 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |||||
Environmental tax moderator effect test results.
| Dependent Variable | Happiness | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Independent Variable/Group | PollutionA | PollutionW | |||||||||||
| Baseline-Tax Area | High-Tax Area | Baseline-Tax Area | High-Tax Area | ||||||||||
| Coefficient | 95% CI | Coefficient | 95% CI | Coefficient | 95% CI | Coefficient | 95% CI | ||||||
| −0.162 | (−0.239, −0.086) | 0.000 | −0.030 | (−0.060, 0.000) | 0.051 | −0.264 | (−0.353, −0.174) | 0.000 | −0.063 | (−0.091, −0.035) | 0.000 | ||
| Control Variable | Gender | −0.106 | (−0.169, −0.042) | 0.001 | −0.056 | (−0.115, 0.002) | 0.059 | −0.105 | (−0.169, 0.042) | 0.001 | −0.055 | (−0.113, 0.004) | 0.067 |
| Age | −0.030 | (−0.042, −0.017) | 0.000 | −0.029 | (−0.040, −0.018) | 0.000 | −0.029 | (−0.042, −0.017) | 0.000 | −0.030 | (−0.041, −0.019) | 0.000 | |
| Age2 | 0.000 | (0.000, 0.001) | 0.000 | 0.000 | (0.000, 0.001) | 0.000 | 0.000 | (0.000, 0.001) | 0.000 | 0.000 | (0.000, 0.001) | 0.000 | |
| Religion | 0.208 | (0.104, 0.312) | 0.000 | 0.069 | (−0.023, 0.161) | 0.140 | 0.229 | (0.126, 0.333) | 0.000 | 0.084 | (−0.008, 0.176) | 0.073 | |
| Marriage | 0.142 | (0.003, 0.280) | 0.046 | 0.295 | (0.185, 0.405) | 0.000 | 0.148 | (0.009, 0.287) | 0.037 | 0.311 | (0.200, 0.421) | 0.000 | |
| Health | 0.249 | (0.217, 0.282) | 0.000 | 0.225 | (0.195, 0.256) | 0.000 | 0.248 | (0.216, 0.281) | 0.000 | 0.225 | (0.195, 0.256) | 0.000 | |
| Finance | 0.461 | (0.414, 0.509) | 0.000 | 0.381 | (0.340, 0.422) | 0.000 | 0.463 | (0.415, 0.511) | 0.000 | 0.381 | (0.340, 0.422) | 0.000 | |
| Chow Test | F | 12.712 | 13.758 | ||||||||||
| 0.000 | 0.000 | ||||||||||||
| Obs | 4973 | 5779 | 4973 | 5779 | |||||||||
| Pseudo R2 | 0.0744 | 0.0579 | 0.0759 | 0.0592 | |||||||||
| Log likelihood | −5142.1443 | −6118.2294 | −5134.2228 | −6110.2975 | |||||||||
| Prob>chi2 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |||||||||