| Literature DB >> 36231324 |
Jihong Zeng1, Yongliang Mao1, Minyue Xu1, Bei Jian1, Mei Qu1.
Abstract
Rural residents are the main agents of rural domestic waste-sorting; their level of sorting directly relates to the improvement of their rural living environment and the construction of "beautiful countryside". Considering the data of 943 rural residents in Shaanxi Province, China, this study incorporates the factors at the individual and group levels and explores how personal norms and mianzi, which is the individual's reputation and social status, at the individual level and social capital at the group level impact the level of rural residents' domestic waste-sorting through an Ordered Probit model. The results show that personal norms and mianzi at the individual level play an important role in improving the level of rural residents' domestic waste-sorting. Meanwhile, social capital (i.e., social networking, social trust, social participation, and social norms) at the group level has significant positive impacts on the level of rural residents' domestic waste-sorting. Furthermore, mianzi plays a moderating role between personal norms, social capital, and the level of rural residents' domestic waste-sorting, respectively. These findings are useful for the Chinese government to formulate a policy about enhancing the level of rural residents' domestic waste-sorting to ease the rural environmental problem.Entities:
Keywords: domestic waste-sorting; mianzi; personal norms; rural China; social capital
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36231324 PMCID: PMC9564579 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191912022
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Conceptual framework and research hypotheses in the study.
Variables selection and statistical description.
| Variables | Description | Mean | Standard Deviation | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| The level of rural residents’ domestic waste-sorting | The actual situation of your domestic waste-sorting: do not sort = 1, sort into two categories (recyclable, others) = 2, sort into three categories (recyclable, kitchen waste, and others) = 3, sort into four categories (recyclable, kitchen waste, harmful and others) = 4 | 2.392 | 0.812 | MOHURD (2019) [ |
|
| ||||
| Personal norms | I am obliged to participate in the sorting and disposal of domestic waste and clearing it at designated locations. | 3.975 | 0.993 | Guo et al. (2020a) [ |
| I should maintain the cleanliness of the village. | 4.098 | 0.815 | ||
| Every farmer is responsible for the environmental pollution of domestic waste. | 4.159 | 0.813 | ||
| Social network | Frequency of communication with your close friends. | 4.171 | 0.863 | Shi et al. (2018) [ |
| Frequency of communication with village cadres. | 2.660 | 0.923 | ||
| Frequency of communication with respected rural residents. | 2.863 | 1.010 | ||
| Social trust | Degree of trust in your neighbors. | 3.929 | 0.711 | He et al. (2015) [ |
| Degree of trust in rural residents with high morals. | 3.429 | 0.861 | ||
| Degree of trust in your close friends. | 4.119 | 0.690 | ||
| Social participation | Your participation in environmental protection affairs in the village. | 3.783 | 0.958 | Jia and Zhao (2020) [ |
| Your participation in waste collection activities. | 3.831 | 0.958 | ||
| Your participation in the election of village cadres. | 3.196 | 1.487 | ||
| Social norms | Village rules and regulations require me to actively participate in the domestic waste-sorting, and I will. | 4.094 | 0.930 | Jia and Zhao (2020) [ |
| Neighbors think that I should actively participate in the domestic waste-sorting, and I will. | 3.791 | 0.872 | ||
| The elites or capable people in the village think I should actively participate in the domestic waste-sorting, and I will. | 3.618 | 0.854 | ||
|
| Compared to other people, I pay more attention to my social appearance in daily life. | 3.323 | 1.091 | Tang et al. (2019) [ |
| I am very concerned about the opinions and evaluations of others. | 3.318 | 1.108 | ||
| If others sort the domestic waste, my failure to sort it will affect my image in the eyes of others. | 3.471 | 1.069 | ||
| Pollution of the environment will make me punished and lose face. | 3.118 | 1.275 | ||
| I attach importance to the honorary titles such as “clean rural residents” and “civilized and sanitary demonstration households.” | 2.952 | 1.218 | ||
Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents (n = 943).
| Item | Response | Frequency | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 608 | 64.48 |
| Female | 335 | 35.52 | |
| Age | Less than 20 | 0 | 0.00 |
| 21–40 | 63 | 6.68 | |
| 41–60 | 492 | 52.17 | |
| 60 above | 388 | 41.15 | |
| Political status | Party member | 62 | 6.57 |
| Non-party member | 881 | 93.43 | |
| Education | No educational experience | 96 | 10.18 |
| Primary school | 299 | 31.71 | |
| Junior high school | 336 | 35.63 | |
| Senior high school or secondary technical school | 205 | 21.74 | |
| Undergraduate and above | 7 | 0.74 | |
| Annual household income | Below 40,000 | 311 | 32.98 |
| 40,001–80,000 | 297 | 31.49 | |
| 80,001–120,000 | 215 | 22.80 | |
| 120,001–160,000 | 64 | 6.79 | |
| Above 160,000 | 56 | 5.94 |
Estimation results.
| Variables | Model (1) | Model (2) | Model (3) | Model (4) | Ordered Logit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personal norms | 0.073 * | 0.085 ** | 0.101 ** | 0.110 *** | 0.201 *** |
| (0.038) | (0.038) | (0.039) | (0.040) | (0.070) | |
| Social network | 0.069 ** | 0.053 | 0.109 *** | 0.099 ** | 0.200 *** |
| (0.035) | (0.036) | (0.038) | (0.039) | (0.069) | |
| Social trust | 0.067 * | 0.076 * | 0.082 ** | 0.092 ** | 0.203 *** |
| (0.040) | (0.041) | (0.041) | (0.042) | (0.075) | |
| Social participation | 0.218 *** | 0.159 *** | 0.188 *** | 0.157 *** | 0.303 *** |
| (0.033) | (0.034) | (0.037) | (0.038) | (0.067) | |
| Social norms | 0.189 *** | 0.188 *** | 0.153 *** | 0.154 *** | 0.298 *** |
| (0.033) | (0.033) | (0.034) | (0.035) | (0.065) | |
|
| 0.112 *** | 0.087 *** | 0.154 *** | ||
| (0.020) | (0.021) | (0.036) | |||
| Gender | −0.043 | −0.028 | −0.012 | ||
| (0.076) | (0.077) | (0.135) | |||
| Age | −0.007 ** | −0.007 ** | −0.011 * | ||
| (0.004) | (0.004) | (0.006) | |||
| Education | −0.071 | −0.066 | −0.121 | ||
| (0.045) | (0.045) | (0.083) | |||
| Political status | 0.171 | 0.178 | 0.292 | ||
| (0.152) | (0.152) | (0.282) | |||
| Annual household income | −0.016 | −0.018 | −0.051 | ||
| (0.035) | (0.036) | (0.063) | |||
| Total resident population | 0.042 * | 0.024 | 0.042 | ||
| (0.025) | (0.026) | (0.046) | |||
| Policy understanding | −0.045 | −0.053 | −0.105 * | ||
| (0.035) | (0.035) | (0.063) | |||
| Environmental awareness | 0.047 | 0.036 | 0.061 | ||
| (0.040) | (0.041) | (0.071) | |||
| Hazard perception | 0.017 | 0.005 | 0.019 | ||
| (0.035) | (0.035) | (0.063) | |||
| Waste-sorting facility | 0.547 *** | 0.481 *** | 0.991 *** | ||
| (0.092) | (0.094) | (0.166) | |||
| Log Likelihood | −1054.900 | −1033.393 | −1024.751 | −1010.739 | −995.253 |
| LR (P > chi2) | 135.080 *** | 169.040 *** | 195.380 *** | 214.350 *** | 245.320 *** |
| Pseudo R2 | 0.060 | 0.076 | 0.087 | 0.096 | 0.110 |
| Observations | 943 | ||||
Note: *, **, and *** donate a statistical significance at the 10%, 5%, 1%, respectively.
Marginal effect of Ordered Probit model.
| Variables | Sorting Level = 1 | Sorting Level = 2 | Sorting Level = 3 | Sorting Level = 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personal norms | −0.019 *** | −0.019 *** | 0.022 *** | 0.016 *** |
| (0.007) | (0.007) | (0.008) | (0.006) | |
| Social network | −0.017 ** | −0.017 ** | 0.019 ** | 0.014 ** |
| (0.007) | (0.007) | (0.008) | (0.006) | |
| Social trust | −0.016 ** | −0.016 ** | 0.018 ** | 0.013 ** |
| (0.007) | (0.007) | (0.008) | (0.006) | |
| Social participation | −0.027 *** | −0.026 *** | 0.031 *** | 0.022 *** |
| (0.007) | (0.006) | (0.007) | (0.006) | |
| Social norms | −0.026 *** | −0.026 *** | 0.030 *** | 0.022 *** |
| (0.006) | (0.006) | (0.007) | (0.005) | |
|
| −0.015 *** | −0.015 *** | 0.017 *** | 0.012 *** |
| (0.004) | (0.004) | (0.004) | (0.003) | |
| Gender | 0.005 | 0.005 | −0.006 | −0.004 |
| (0.013) | (0.013) | (0.015) | (0.011) | |
| Age | 0.001 * | 0.001 * | −0.001 ** | −0.001 * |
| (0.001) | (0.001) | (0.001) | (0.001) | |
| Education | 0.011 | 0.011 | −0.013 | −0.010 |
| (0.008) | (0.008) | (0.009) | (0.007) | |
| Political status | −0.030 | −0.030 | 0.035 | 0.026 |
| (0.026) | (0.026) | (0.030) | (0.022) | |
| Annual household income | 0.003 | 0.003 | −0.003 | −0.003 |
| (0.006) | (0.006) | (0.007) | (0.005) | |
| Total resident population | −0.004 | −0.004 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| (0.004) | (0.004) | (0.005) | (0.004) | |
| Policy understanding | 0.009 | 0.009 | −0.010 | −0.008 |
| (0.006) | (0.006) | (0.007) | (0.005) | |
| Environmental awareness | −0.006 | −0.006 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| (0.007) | (0.007) | (0.008) | (0.006) | |
| Hazard perception | −0.001 | −0.001 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| (0.006) | (0.006) | (0.007) | (0.005) | |
| Waste-sorting facility | −0.082 *** | −0.081 *** | 0.094 *** | 0.069 *** |
| (0.017) | (0.016) | (0.018) | (0.014) |
Note: *, **, and *** donate a statistical significance at the 10%, 5%, 1%, respectively.
Results of the moderating effect of mianzi.
| Variables | Model (5) (All the Samples) | Model (6) (Low | Model (7) (High |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal norms | 0.110 *** | 0.137 ** | 0.102 * |
| (0.040) | (0.062) | (0.054) | |
| Social network | 0.099 ** | 0.070 | 0.120 * |
| (0.039) | (0.051) | (0.061) | |
| Social trust | 0.092 ** | 0.081 | 0.123 ** |
| (0.042) | (0.067) | (0.055) | |
| Social participation | 0.157 *** | 0.137 ** | 0.138 ** |
| (0.038) | (0.056) | (0.058) | |
| Social norms | 0.154 *** | 0.143 *** | 0.144 *** |
| (0.035) | (0.049) | (0.053) | |
|
| 0.087 *** | — | — |
| (0.021) | |||
| Control variables | Controlled | ||
| Log Likelihood | −1010.739 | −444.596 | −540.071 |
| LR (P > chi2) | 214.350 *** | 49.220 *** | 118.010 *** |
| Pseudo R2 | 0.096 | 0.053 | 0.099 |
| Observations | 943 | 441 | 502 |
Note: *, **, and *** donate a statistical significance at the 10%, 5%, 1%, respectively.
Figure 2Effects diagram.