| Literature DB >> 35409988 |
Xiu Cheng1, Ruyin Long2, Fan Wu1.
Abstract
As the key to mitigating climate change, a sustainable lifestyle has become a focus of environment policy. Past studies have largely neglected the symbols of sustainable lifestyle guiding policies and failed to capture its effect on the experienced utility of sustainable lifestyle guiding policies (EUSLGP). To address this drawback, symbolic value was incorporated into a model consisting of social interaction and the EUSLGP. With data collected from 3257 respondents in Eastern China, ordinary least squares were applied to examine hypotheses and two-stage least squares based on the instrumental variable to verify the results. Results show that symbolic value combines self-expression value, relationship consolidation value, group identification value, and status-showing value, and is positively associated with EUSLGP. Social interaction plays a moderating role in the association between symbolic value and EUSLGP. Moreover, significant regional differences are discovered in the identified relationships. Consequently, policy suggestions, covering symbolic value, social interaction, and regional conditions, are proposed to enhance the EUSLGP for other countries and regions.Entities:
Keywords: policy-experienced utility; regional differences; social interaction; sustainable lifestyle; symbolic value
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35409988 PMCID: PMC8998222 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19074305
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Demographic characteristics of the sample (N = 3257): (a) gender, (b) monthly income, (c) educational level, (d) family member, (e) age, and (f) province.
Correlations, discriminant validity, and statistical value of variables.
| SV 1 | SI 2 | EUSLGP 3 | DGFR 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SV 1 |
| |||
| SI 2 | 0.034 |
| ||
| EUSLGP 3 | 0.568 ** | 0.357 ** |
| |
| DGFR 4 | 0.368 | 0.663 ** | −0.197 |
|
| Mean | 3.621 | 3.531 | 3.263 | 3.540 |
| Minimum | 3.288 | 3.125 | 2.842 | 3.158 |
| Maximum | 4.018 | 3.822 | 3.760 | 3.822 |
| Standard deviation | 0.736 | 0.653 | 0.557 | 0.416 |
1 SV: symbolic value; 2 SI: social interaction; 3 EUSLGP: experienced utility of sustainable lifestyle guiding policies; 4 DGFR: density of gathering with relatives and friends; bold number is the square root of AVE (); ** represents the level of significance at 5%.
Figure 2Directed acyclic graphs showing the effects of (a) confounder and (b) instrumental variable.
Regression results of symbolic value and the EUSLGP.
| Variables | ALL | North | South |
|---|---|---|---|
| EUSLGP 7 | EUSLGP 7 | EUSLGP 7 | |
| SV 1 | 0.543 *** (37.330) | 0.495 *** (22.140) | 0.575 *** (30.090) |
| GE 2 | 0.072 *** (3.410) | 0.037 *** (2.960) | 0.066 *** (3.130) |
| AG 3 | 0.015 (0.462) | 0.023 (0.559) | 0.012 (0.420) |
| ED 4 | 0.047 *** (4.382) | 0.053 *** (4.576) | 0.044 *** (4.103) |
| IC 5 | −0.006 (−0.570) | −0.006 (−0.057) | −0.011 (−0.065) |
| FS 6 | −0.045 *** (−0.065) | −0.039 *** (−3.413) | −0.057 *** (−4.012) |
|
| 0.300 | 0.263 | 0.325 |
| Adj- | 0.300 | 0.263 | 0.325 |
| F | 1393.3 | 490.2 | 905.6 |
1 SV: symbolic value; 2 GE: gender; 3 AG: age; 4 ED: educational level; 5 IC: income; 6 FS: family size; 7 EUSLGP: experienced utility of sustainable lifestyle guiding policies; *** represents the level of significance at 1%; t-statistics in parentheses.
Moderating effect test of social interaction.
| Variables | ALL | North | South |
|---|---|---|---|
| EUSLGP 8 | EUSLGP 8 | EUSLGP 8 | |
| SV 1 | 0.246 *** (8.960) | 0.193 *** (4.460) | 0.278 *** (7.820) |
| SI 2 | 0.113 * (1.960) | 0.089 (0.990) | 0.118 (1.580) |
| SV 1 × SI 2 | 0.052 *** (12.650) | 0.051 *** (8.050) | 0.053 *** (9.860) |
| GE 3 | 0.014 *** (3.080) | 0.036 *** (3.870) | 0.017 *** (3.117) |
| AG 4 | 0.033 (1.240) | 0.024 (0.936) | 0.027 (1.032) |
| ED 5 | 0.058 *** (3.413) | 0.039 ** (2.062) | 0.048 *** (2.956) |
| IC 6 | −0.015 (−1.385) | −0.007 (−0.062) | −0.018 (−1.422) |
| FS 7 | −0.046 *** (−3.016) | −0.052 *** (−3.220) | −0.041 *** (−2.982) |
|
| 0.333 | 0.297 | 0.358 |
| Adj- | 0.332 | 0.296 | 0.357 |
| F | 810.8 | 288.9 | 524.6 |
1 SV: symbolic value; 2 SI: social interaction; 3 GE: gender; 4 AG: age; 5 ED: educational level; 6 IC: income; 7 FS: family size; 8 EUSLGP: experienced utility of sustainable lifestyle guiding policies; ***, **, and * note the level of significance at 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively; t-statistics in parentheses.
Endogenous test results.
| Variables | Frist | Second | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SV 1 × SI 8 | Variables | EUSLGP 9 | |
| SV 1 | 2.817 *** (29.780) | SV 1 × SI 8 | 0.087 *** (11.140) |
| DGRF 2 | 1.483 *** (7.840) | SI 8 | 0.335 ** (4.190) |
| SV 1 × DGRF 2 | 0.479 *** (35.870) | SV 1 | 0.046 (0.990) |
| GE 3 | 0.031 *** (2.580) | GE 3 | 0.421 *** (3.410) |
| AG 4 | −0.029 (−1.434) | AG 4 | −0.045 ** (−2.976) |
| ED 5 | 0.032 *** (3.072) | ED 5 | 0.042 *** (3.503) |
| IC 6 | −0.016 (−1.008) | IC 6 | −0.028 (−1.377) |
| FS 7 | −0.027 *** (−2.874) | FS 7 | −0.036 *** (−3.309) |
|
| 0.808 |
| 0.318 |
| Adj- | 0.807 | Adj- | 0.318 |
| F | 213.8 | F | 124.2 |
1 SV: symbolic value; 2 DGRF: density of gathering with relatives and friends; 3 GE: gender; 4 AG: age; 5 ED: educational level; 6 IC: income; 7 FS: family size; 8 SI: social interaction; 9 EUSLGP: experienced utility of sustainable lifestyle guiding policies; *** and ** represent the level of significance at 1% and 5%, respectively; t-statistics in parentheses.