| Literature DB >> 35162103 |
Lianying Yao1,2, Xuewen Li3, Rongrong Zheng4, Yiye Zhang4.
Abstract
In recent years, with the public paying more and more attention to the problem of air pollution, the impact of air quality on migration has gradually become a growing concern. However, in the current context of cities' efforts to "attract talent" in China, research on the impact of air pollution on the flow or dwelling willingness of young talent is relatively limited. Based on the theory of planned behavior and from the perspective of subjective perception, this paper uses a regulated model to explore the impact mechanism of air pollution perception on young talent urban settlement intentions. Taking Hangzhou as a case, this study surveyed 987 individuals who were classified as young talent to explore the impact of air pollution perception on urban settlement intentions in China. The research shows that air pollution perception has a significant impact on young talent urban settlement intentions, and this impact is achieved through the intermediary effect of residential satisfaction. Place attachment of young talent to cities cannot significantly regulate the impact of air pollution perception on residential satisfaction, but it can significantly regulate the relationship between residential satisfaction and urban settlement intentions. That is to say, although place attachment cannot reduce the decline in residential satisfaction brought by air pollution perception, it can weaken the negative impact of air pollution perception on dwelling willingness through a decline in residential satisfaction. This paper contributes to a deeper understanding of the relationship between air quality and young talent settlement intentions.Entities:
Keywords: air pollution perception; place attachment; residential satisfaction; urban settlement intentions; young talent
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35162103 PMCID: PMC8834384 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19031080
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The conceptual model.
Sample of the respondents.
| Statistical Indicators | Ratio |
|---|---|
| Gender | |
| Male | 55.5% |
| Female | 44.5% |
| Age (years) | |
| Below 22 | 2.3% |
| Between 22 and 27 | 32.1% |
| Between 27 and 35 | 42.7% |
| Above 35 | 22.9% |
| Education | |
| Junior college | 18.2% |
| Bachelor | 59.0% |
| Master | 17.8% |
| Ph.D. | 5.0% |
| Hometown | |
| Hangzhou | 19.8% |
| Outside Hangzhou but within Zhejiang | 34.2% |
| Outside Zhejiang or China | 46.0% |
| City of final graduation | |
| Zhejiang | 48.6% |
| Outside Zhejiang | 51.4% |
| Annual income (CNY) | |
| Below 80,000 | 28.9% |
| Between 80,000 and 150,000 | 38.2% |
| Between 150,000 and 250,000 | 18.2% |
| Between 250,000 and 350,000 | 7.6% |
| Above 350,000 | 7.1% |
Reliability and validity tests.
| Variable | Mean | S.D. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Air pollution perception | 2.562 | 1.009 |
| |||
| Place attachment | 3.773 | 0.625 | 0.616 *** |
| ||
| Residential satisfaction | 3.821 | 0.759 | 0.218 *** | 0.284 *** |
| |
| Urban settlement intention | 3.800 | 0.721 | 0.451 *** | 0.437 *** | 0.511 *** |
|
Note: The numbers in bold form a diagonal, and the diagonal line demonstrates the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) value, and below the diagonal is the correlation coefficient of each variable. *** p < 0.01 with two-tailed test.
Testing main effect and mediating effects of residential satisfaction.
| Variable | Urban Settlement Intention | Residential Satisfaction | Urban Settlement Intention | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | |
| Key variable | ||||||
| Air pollution perception | −0.077 ** (0.031) | −0.167 *** (0.031) | −0.012 (0.027) | |||
| Mediating variable | ||||||
| Residential satisfaction | 0.530 *** (0.027) | 0.532 *** (0.027) | ||||
| Control variable | ||||||
| Gender | −0.137 ** (0.061) | −0.139 ** (0.061) | −0.166 (0.062) | −0.169 ** (0.061) | −0.049 (0.052) | −0.049 (0.052) |
| Age | 0.091 * (0.050) | 0.090 ** (0.050) | 0.084 * (0.050) | 0.082 * (0.050) | 0.046 (0.042) | 0.045 (0.038) |
| Edu1 | −0.137 * (0.179) | −0.143 * (0.079) | −0.001 (0.080) | −0.013 (0.079) | −0.137 ** (0.066) | −0.136 (0.067) |
| Edu2 | −0.112 (0.103) | −0.116 (0.103) | −0.021 (0.104) | −0.029 (0.103) | −0.101 (0.087) | 0.100 (0.087) |
| Edu3 | 0.047 (0.160) | 0.041 (0.160) | 0.090 (0.162) | 0.079 (0.060) | −0.001 (0.035) | 0.001 (0.135) |
| Time spent in Hangzhou | 0.033 (0.035) | 0.030 ** (0.035) | 0.006 (0.035) | 0.013 (0.035) | 0.037 ** (0.029) | 0.037 ** (0.029) |
| Annual income | 0.029 (0.031) | 0.032 (0.031) | 0.034 (0.032) | 0.041 (0.031) | 0.011 (0.026) | 0.010 (0.026) |
| Career development expectations | 0.465 *** (0.032) | 0.433 *** (0.034) | 0.432 *** (0.032) | 0.363 *** (0.034) | 0.236 *** (0.029) | 0.240 *** (0.031) |
| Family and friends | 0.433 ** (0.090) | 0.430 *** (0.085) | 0.136 ** (0.043) | 0.113 ** (0.087) | 0.237 ** (0.079) | 0.337 ** (0.093) |
| Constant | −1.808 *** (0.170) | −1.696 *** (0.175) | −1.875 *** (0.172) | −1.632 *** (0.176) | −0.815 ** (0.152) | −0.828 (0.155) |
|
| 0.188 | 0.193 | 0.166 | 0.190 | 0.421 | 0.422 |
| Adjusted | 0.181 | 0.185 | 0.159 | 0.183 | 0.416 | 0.414 |
| Δ | -- | 0.05 *** | -- | 0.024 *** | 0.233 *** | 0.001 *** |
|
| 28.274 *** | 25.948 *** | 24.387 *** | 25.485 *** | 359.169 *** | 10.200 * |
| VIF | 1.880 | 1.879 | 1.879 | 1.880 | 1.879 | 1.880 |
Note: Standard errors in parentheses; * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 with two-tailed test; all the regression coefficients were non-standardized. VIF, Variance Inflation Factor.
Testing the moderating effects of place attachment.
| Variable | Residential Satisfaction | Urban Settlement Intention | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 7 | Model 8 | Model 9 | Model 10 | |
| Key variable | −0.078 ** (0.033) | −0.077 ** (0.033) | ||
| Air pollution perception | −0.078 ** (0.033) | −0.077 ** (0.033) | ||
| Moderating variable | ||||
| Place attachment | 0.271 *** (0.040) | 0.273 *** (0.042) | 0.114 *** (0.023) | 0.123 *** (0.024) |
| Mediating variable | ||||
| Residential satisfaction | 0.357 *** (0.020) | 0.361 *** (0.020) | ||
| Interaction | 0.004 (0.025) | 0.024 ** (0.013) | ||
| Control variable | ||||
| Gender | −0.148 ** (0.059) | −0.113 ** (0.045) | −0.032 (0.037) | −0.033 (0.037) |
| Age | 0.050 (0.049) | 0.038 (0.037) | 0.021 (0.030) | 0.020 (0.033) |
| Edu1 | −0.048 (0.077) | 0.036 (0.059) | 0.116 ** (0.047) | 0.117 ** (0.047) |
| Edu2 | −0.062 (0.101) | 0.047 (0.076) | 0.041 (0.097) | 0.092 * (0.062) |
| Edu3 | 0.014 (0.040) | 0.013 (0.119) | 0.089 (0.062) | 0.045 (0.097) |
| Time spent in Hangzhou | 0.003 (0.034) | 0.002 (0.026) | 0.029 * (0.021) | 0.028 * (0.021) |
| Annual income | 0.051 * (0.031) | 0.039 * (0.023) | 0.014 (0.019) | 0.014 (0.019) |
| Career development expectations | 0.214 *** (0.040) | 0.213 *** (0.040) | 0.103 *** (0.025) | 0.100 *** (0.025) |
| Family and friends | 0.211 ** (0.097) | 0.330 ** (0.091) | 0.235 ** (0.089) | 0.326 ** (0.063) |
| Constant | 0.949 (0.198) | −0.950 *** (0.199) | 3.513 *** (0.124) | 3.516 *** (0.123) |
|
| 0.227 | 0.227 | 0.306 | 0.438 |
| Adjusted | 0.219 | 0.219 | 0.301 | 0.431 |
| Δ | 0.061 | 0.00 | 0.118 | 0.132 |
|
| 28.717 *** | 26.082 | 75.341 *** | 68.948 *** |
| VIF | 1.981 | 2.227 | 1.885 | 1.888 |
Note: Standard errors in parentheses; * p < 0.10, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 with two-tailed test; all the regression coefficients were non-standardized.
Figure 2The regulatory role of place attachment on the relationship between residential satisfaction and urban settlement intention.