The influence of civil society’s economic status on environmental protection behaviors from the perspective of environmental sociology

Abstract

The present study utilises 2,741 data points from the 2021 China General Social Survey (CGSS) to explore the intrinsic relationship between socioeconomic status (SES), environmental awareness (EA) and environmental protection behaviours (EPB), as well as their heterogeneous characteristics. The investigation employs linear regression and stepwise regression methods to analyse the data.The study’s findings are as follows. Firstly, the study found that SES has a significant positive effect on residents’ environmental protection behaviour, and high SES groups are more likely to implement environmental protection behaviours due to the advantages of resource access and environmental education.Secondly, environmental perceptions have been found to play a mediating role, thereby suggesting that economic status can indirectly drive behavioural change by enhancing environmental perceptions. The investigation also reveals significant generational and regional variations, with the environmental behaviour of the elderly being most influenced by SES due to abundant time resources and intergenerational transmission motives. The central region is identified as having the most prominent role of SES in promoting environmental behaviour, owing to the uneven coverage of policies during the transition period of environmental governance.This study aims to provide a reference for other developing countries as they formulate environmental policies, with a view to advancing global green and sustainable development.

Introduction

In recent years, the People’s Republic of China has confronted significant challenges, including environmental pollution in conjunction with rapid economic development.According to the China Environmental Analysis, the average annual health and economic losses caused by environmental pollution in China have reached 1.2% of GDP. In the context of the accelerated evolution of global environmental governance and the incorporation of the ‘dual-carbon’ goal into China’s top-level design, the policy of waste-free cities has become a new entry point for environmentally sustainable development (Zhou, 2024)^{1– 2}, and how to mobilise the whole population to participate in environmental protection behaviours (EPB) has become a core issue for China to achieve sustainable development. Environmental Protection Behaviour (EPB) is defined as the actions taken by individuals or groups in their daily life that are conducive to environmental protection, such as the conservation of resources, the reduction of pollution emissions, and the participation in environmental protection activities³.Socioeconomic status (SES) is defined as the position of an individual or family within the socioeconomic structure, which is determined by a combination of factors. Environmental perception is defined as an individual’s cognitive, evaluative, and emotional responses to environmental conditions⁴.Environmental apperception (EA) is defined as subjective feelings about environmental quality and environmental problems, as well as awareness of the impact of one’s behaviour on the environment⁵. As Bunting (1979) contended, interdisciplinary behavioural and perceptual studies demonstrate a strong quantitative and theoretical dimension in explaining real-world human activities⁶, thus laying the theoretical foundation for the present study.

The introduction of the ‘dual-carbon’ target by China signifies a paradigm shift in the realm of environmental governance, transitioning from a ‘end-of-pipe control’ model to a more comprehensive ‘governance for all’ approach.A dynamic interaction exists between this policy and socio-economic status (SES) and environmental behaviour (EPB). High SES groups are more likely to respond to policy calls for low-carbon behaviours due to stronger economic capacity, access to technology and environmental awareness. However, they may also have a larger carbon footprint due to higher consumption patterns. Conversely, low SES groups face a higher cost burden in the energy transition due to economic constraints and insufficient access to policy information. However, their daily behaviours may have implicit low-carbon potential.In particular, there are national policy drivers and structural contradictions between the two at the macro level.On the one hand, high socioeconomic status groups have become the main force of environmental protection practice by virtue of their resources and cognitive advantages (Wang Min and Wang Feng, 2023)⁷, while on the other hand, under the urban-rural dichotomy, the behavioural response of rural residents is contingent on the direct drive of health benefits, attributable to the attenuation of policy information transmission and the lagging of environmental risk perception (Hong Dayong, 2013)⁸. This finding gives rise to a fundamental question: when the national will penetrates from the top down through the ‘dual-carbon’ narrative, how do different classes, ages and geographic groups reconstruct environmental behaviours based on differentiated cognitive logics? At the meso level, there is spatial heterogeneity in institutional practices, and at the level of policy implementation, the effectiveness of environmental governance is severely challenged by ‘spatial justice’. In urban areas, the internalisation of environmental cognition is promoted through fine-grained institutions (e.g. carbon accounts, incentives and disincentives for waste classification), while rural areas still rely on ‘problematisation’ strategies, whereby residents respond passively to environmental risks only when they threaten their health or economic well-being (Qin, Shiyue et al. 2022)⁹.This discrepancy is further substantiated by the findings of Wang Bairong (2023), which indicate that urban residents’ engagement in high-cost environmental protection behaviours is considerably influenced by their awareness of the policy¹⁰.At the micro level, there is a paradox of behavioural transformation of individual perceptions, in which the decision-making logic of environmental protection behaviours shows the tension between ‘instrumental rationality’ and ‘value rationality’. Hong Dayong and Fan Yechao (2020) posit that the urban middle class will become the primary agent of pro-environmental behaviour through the regulation of environmental protection cognition¹¹.In contrast, the general public is constrained by the ‘cognitive bandwidth’, resulting in their ability to engage in low-cost ‘light green’ behaviours and vulnerability to immediate interests. This division reveals the limitations of current environmental sociology: while mainstream Western theories emphasise the internalisation of values (Steg L, Vlek C, 2009)¹², Chinese individuals’ environmental perceptions are highly dependent on exogenous shaping of policy contexts and risk narratives¹³.

Despite the considerable research that has been carried out in recent years by scholars both domestically and internationally on socio-economic status, environmental behaviour and associated domains, Hak (2016) conducted a study in the Mekong Delta region of Vietnam with the objective of investigating the impact of socio-demographic and economic status on environmental awareness, risk perception and management¹⁴.The results of the study demonstrated that public environmental awareness in the region remains limited. (Cheng, 2024) explored how socio-economic status structure affects environmental actions of residents from the perspective of urban-rural development¹⁵.However, as time has passed, the extant research perspectives have become inadequate in their capacity to interpret the contemporary social problems. It is evident that the majority of previous scholarly works were predicated on the individual disciplines of political science or economics. Consequently, there has been a paucity of exploration of the issue from the perspective of environmental sociology or multidisciplinary fusion. In addition, while certain Chinese scholars studied the environmental behaviour of citizens a decade ago, the results require validation in order to ascertain whether they have been influenced by the intervening decade of change. The present study proposes a reconstruction of the indicator framework of socio-economic place and environmental protection behaviour. This reconstruction is based on the questionnaire of CGSS2021, with environmental perception designated as the mediating variable. The purpose of this reconstruction is to explore the intrinsic relationship between socio-economic place, environmental perception and environmental protection behaviour. The following three sub-questions and contributions are to be focused on: (1) From the perspective of environmental sociology, to what extent is the environmental protection behaviour of Chinese residents still influenced by socio-economic place and environmental perception? (2) How does the socio-economic status of Chinese residents affect their environmental protection behaviour through the mediating role of environmental perception? (3) The present study seeks to identify and analyse the differences in environmental protection behaviours exhibited by Chinese residents in different regions and age groups.

Literature review and theoretical hypothesis

Theoretical basis

Contrary to the findings of earlier studies, the present paper explores the theory of environmental sociology. Allan Schnaiberg’s Treadmill of Production theory posits that the capitalist economic system exacerbates environmental exploitation through ever-expanding production and consumption. However, the socio-economic status of individuals determines their ability to engage with environmental issues and their resources to cope with them¹⁶. However, an individual’s socio-economic status is a determining factor in their exposure to environmental problems and the resources available to them to cope with them. In the environmental behaviour theory, an individual’s environmental behaviour is theorised to be the result of a combination of factors, including personal values, attitudes, social norms, and self-efficacy (Smith, 2019). When considering socioeconomic status, it has been demonstrated that this exerts an influence on the weight and expression of these factors¹⁷. Individuals with a high socioeconomic status are likely to have a stronger sense of self-efficacy because they have more economic and social resources with which to take environmental actions. The influence of socioeconomic status on environmental behaviour is a multifaceted phenomenon, operating through the mediating mechanism of environmental awareness. The hypothesis is that the resources and social environment that individuals with high socio-economic status have can promote the formation of positive environmental awareness, which then leads to more frequent and effective environmental behaviours through drivers such as positive environmental attitudes and self-efficacy. The theoretical framework proposed in this study is illustrated below(Figure 1).

[See PDF for image]

Fig. 1

Theoretical analysis framework.

Socioeconomic status, environmental behaviour and environmental perception

Socioeconomic status (SES) has been demonstrated to exert a significant influence on a wide range of health outcomes and social disparities. Indeed, research has identified a correlation between SES and education, health, and stress. Early research suggested that SES leads to the accumulation of depressive symptoms through chronic economic stress and psychological resource deprivation (Turner, 1999)¹⁸, and (Reiss F, 2013) argued that SES inequality significantly increases an individual’s risk of behavioural disorders¹⁹. Subsequent studies have identified a correlation between SES and individuals’ anti-epidemic behaviours, with high SES individuals in England exhibiting reduced mobility during epidemics (Do Lee W, 2021)²⁰. Moreover, high SES groups in large cities have been observed to mitigate their exposure to environmental risks through residential segregation, resulting in an ‘exposure differential’ (Nilforoshan H, 2023)²¹. Edgerton (2023) examined the perception of environmental education and found that students with low SES were more likely to perceive environmental stress and develop a cycle of ‘achievement motivation inhibition‘²².However, environmental education policies partially offset the SES background differences (Mónus, 2022)²³, which lays the theoretical foundation for the later exploration of the mediating role of environmental perceptions. Other scholars have demonstrated that high SES groups are more likely to adopt a sustainable consumption perspective, but are constrained by economic inequality.Participation in environmental action exhibits an ‘attitude-behavioural divide’ (Schutte, N. S., 2017)²⁴, and the combined influence of economic resources and cultural identities on environmental behavioural choices has been identified (Babashahi, M., 2021)²⁵.

Environmental protection behaviour (EPB) is defined as a wide range of actions undertaken by individuals, organisations and governments to mitigate the negative impacts of human activities on the environment. Research on this concept has mainly explored various factors affecting environmental protection behaviour, including public participation (Zhang, 2021)²⁶, individual attitudes and consumer behaviour (Walczak, 2021)²⁷, revealing the differences between pro-environmental attitudes and actual behaviours. In the Chinese academic milieu, the conceptualisation of ‘environmental protection behaviours’ is characterised by multi-dimensional expansion and refined classification, with the broadened understanding transcending the conventional single-category framework of traditional conservation behaviour, encompassing the dual dynamics of environmental protection and environmental degradation (Tang, G.J, 2010)²⁸. Furthermore, a three-tier classification system has been proposed, distinguishing between environmental impact behaviour, environmental degradation behaviour, and environmental protection behaviour²⁹ (Tian, C.Q, 2011).Notwithstanding the persistent debates over the conceptual boundaries in academia, a foundational consensus has been formed at the operational level. This consensus emphasises the actual participatory efficacy of individuals in environmental governance (Sun, Y., 2006)³⁰.Consequently, research has shifted from mere behavioural descriptions to analysing motivational mechanisms.

Environmental perception is defined as an individual’s cognitive, evaluative, and affective responses to the state of the environment, and it plays a crucial role in shaping the environmental behaviour of individuals and organisations³¹ (Saari et al., 2021). In a similar vein, Yoon (2021) examined the impact of marine environmental risk perception on tourists’ propensity to engage in pro-environmental behaviours, underscoring the pivotal role of perception in fostering environmentally sustainable actions³².

Impact of socio-economic status on environmental behaviour

The impact of socio-economic status on citizens’ environmental behaviour exhibits a multidimensional tension: government public expenditure on social protection and environmental protection is a significant factor in life expectancy in European countries (Martin Cervantes P A, 2020)³³. This suggests that a higher socio-economic status may be associated with more environmentally sustainable behaviours. In addition to Europe, scholars have also focused on South Africa, a country with a high degree of socio-economic inequality, and assessed the impact of socio-demographic factors on environmental perceptions and sustainable consumption behaviour. This has highlighted differences in environmental perceptions and sustainable consumption behaviour among South Africans, suggesting that socio-economic factors may influence environmental protection behaviour (Kirsten F, 2023)³⁴. The resource accessibility theory posits that high socioeconomic status groups possess significant advantages in pay-to-play or technology-dependent environmental practices due to their superior economic capital, cultural capital, and technology access (Van der Werff E, 2013)³⁵. However, environmental justice perspectives reveal that low-income groups, who are subjected to more direct exposure to environmental risks, may, through resistant environmental actions demonstrating higher intensity of participation (Mohai P, 2015)³⁶, present a paradox that is further complicated in the Chinese context.As posited by Bourdieu’s (1984) practice theory, environmental behaviour is fundamentally an articulation of class background. The middle class achieves symbolic differentiation through ‘green consumption’, a process that is more performative and identity-constructing in its environmental participation³⁷. Consequently, contemporary research must challenge the prevailing unidirectional explanatory framework of socioeconomic status on environmental behaviour.The following hypotheses are thus proposed:

H1: Citizens’ socioeconomic status has a positive effect on their environmental behaviour.

The mediating role of environmental awareness

The relationship between socioeconomic status, environmental perception and environmental protection behaviour has been a subject of considerable research interest in recent years.From the perspective of environmental activism, perception is considered to play a mediating role in behaviour and the decision-making process. This notion has been explored by scholars both domestically and internationally. For instance, Marchetti V (2023) examined the mediating role of the connection with nature in pro-environmental behaviour and climate change perception³⁸.Bento-Silva J S (2015) demonstrated the influence of socio-economic factors on the perception of the environment by examining the environmental perceptions of students in urban and rural communities around protected areas in Brazil³⁹. Jokar M (2020) examined air pollution control in Isfahan, identifying the role of awareness and perception in promoting pro-environmental behaviour⁴⁰.In a similar vein, Xu G (2017) identified the impact of perceived environmental risk on subjective well-being in China⁴¹. Additionally, Zhou (2020) examined the impact of soil pollution risk perception on farmers’ pro-environmental behaviours⁴², suggesting that socio-economic status can influence environmental behavioural studies through perception (Zhong B, 2024)⁴³. This emphasises the pivotal role of perception in shaping behaviour. The following hypotheses are thus proposed in this paper:

H2:The effect of citizens’ socioeconomic status on environmental behaviour is mediated by environmental perception.

The difference of residents’ environmental behavior

As the largest developing country in the world today, China’s economic and social development is geographically imbalanced and exhibits marked disparities. In accordance with the principles of environmental sociology, it is evident that the level of environmental concern and awareness among the populace is closely associated with the respective stage of economic and social development. Consequently, disparities in environmental concern are anticipated to result in corresponding shifts in environmental behaviour. As early as 1999, Cheng (1999) identified regional disparities in China’s sustainable development⁴⁴, with subsequent research focusing on healthcare disparities between eastern and central/western regions (Liu Y, 2015)⁴⁵.Zang B (2015) emphasised the role of regional differences in the decision-making of urban and rural migrant populations regarding settlement⁴⁶.Furthermore, environmental behaviour is considered to be a component of individual behaviour, which is in turn influenced by the heterogeneity of individual characteristics. In the preceding western empirical studies, age was regarded as the demographic variable that exerted the most significant influence on environmental perception. The present study proposes the following hypothesis:

H3: Heterogeneity exists in the influence of citizens’ socioeconomic status on environmental behaviour.

H3a: There is regional heterogeneity in residents’ environmental behaviour.

H3b: There is generational heterogeneity in residents’ environmental behaviour.

Research method

Data source and sample screening

The data employed in this study are drawn from the 2021 China General Social Survey (CGSS), which is henceforth referred to as ‘CGSS’. CGSS is China’s inaugural nationwide, comprehensive and continuous large-scale social survey project, which is implemented by the Joint Data Centre of Renmin University of China. CGSS data are considered more representative of the sample and are more frequently utilised in academic research due to their extensive coverage of the sample area, high randomness, and the variety of survey modules, which include data at multiple levels of society, community, family, and individual. The present study utilises the most recent data published by CGSS, with CGSS2021 comprising a total of 8,148 sample data. Following the exclusion of samples with missing values for independent, dependent, mediator and control variables, a total of 2,741 valid samples were obtained. The demographic composition of the sample was as follows: males accounted for 45.97% and females 54.03%; 67.09% were of agricultural and 32.91% were of urban; 38.83% were from eastern cities, 34.66% from central cities, and 26.52 per cent from western cities; and 33.34 per cent of the sample were educated to primary school and below, junior high school, senior high school and middle school, junior high school and bachelor’s degree and postgraduate or above, respectively, 27.86%, 18.06%, 19.93% and 1.32%, respectively.

Variable measurement and definition

Dependent variable

The dependent variable for this study was defined as environmental protection behaviour (EPB), which was measured using questions H5, H14 and P11a-d from the CGSS 2021.H5 investigated whether the individual had adopted environmental protection behaviours, with the options of ‘took action, didn’t take action, tried to take action but didn’t know what to do, didn’t have any environmental problems’ and assigned values from 1–4. The second item, H14, consists of a six-item Likert scale questionnaire that investigates the extent to which individuals are able to make an effort to solve the problem of waste disposal, ranging from ‘very reluctant to very willing’ on a scale of 1–5. Finally, P11a-P11d are consistent with H14.

Independent variable

Two principal approaches to the measurement of socioeconomic status (SES) indicators have been identified in both domestic and international contexts. Firstly, the use of a single SES index, such as the International Standard Occupational Socioeconomic Status Index (ISEI), has been proposed (Hodge R W, 1981)⁴⁷. Secondly, the synthesis of a novel SES indicator through the integration of multiple indicators has been suggested. Building on the studies of Wang Fuqin (2020)⁴⁸and Yan Qisong (2019)⁴⁹, this study proposes a socioeconomic status index comprising three dimensions: the economic dimension, the occupational status dimension, and the class identity dimension.

Intermediate variable

The mediating variable in this study is environmental awareness (EA), which reflects the level of concern about environmental issues and environmental information. In accordance with Lu Shao-Yun’s (2017) study⁵⁰, this study defined question H1 of the CGSS2021 questionnaire as environmental awareness, which investigated individuals’ perceptions of the current pollution situation in China, assigning a value from 1 to 5 from “very serious to not serious”.

Control variable

As demographic variables are fundamental to the execution of empirical studies, gender and household type are classical variables in empirical classical studies^51,52. In the absence of effective gender control, the relationship between socioeconomic status and environmental behaviour may become muddled. Similarly, if household type is not controlled for, the role of economic status may be exaggerated. It is crucial to recognise that the household type variable specifically holds significance within the unique national context of China.The control variables in this paper include two, the first is the gender of the respondents, with female assigned a value of 0 and male assigned a value of 1, with female as the reference group; the second is the urban/rural type of the respondents’ household, with urban assigned a value of 0 and rural assigned a value of 1, with urban as the reference group. The above variables were selected and explained as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Definition of variables and descriptive statistics.

Variable type	Variable name	Definition	Mean	SD	min	Max
Dependent variable	Environmental protection behavior	H5. Have you and your family taken any action to address the environmental problems you and your family have experienced?1 = took action, 2 = didn’t take action, 3 = attempted to take action but didn’t know what to do 4 = didn’t experience any environmental problems	2.363	0.942	1	4
		H14.1. often separate and put out the waste generated from household life 1 = very reluctant, 2 = not too reluctant, 3 = not necessarily, 4 = more reluctant, 5 = very willing 98 = unable to choose (same below)	6.7	15.45	1	98
		H14.2. Recycling and reuse of domestic household goods	6.42	14.64	1	98
		H14.3 Willingness to discuss the waste separation programme with other residents	9.025	21.66	1	98
		H14.4 Willingness to participate regularly as a volunteer in public labour to maintain environmental cleanliness and tidiness	7.889	19.4	1	98
		H14.5 I am willing to accept a reasonable tax increase if it can be used exclusively to improve the problem of municipal waste disposal	8.655	21.61	1	98
		P11a.To what extent are you willing to pay higher prices in order to protect the environment?	6.422	18.31	1	98
		P11.b To what extent are you willing to pay higher taxes in order to protect the environment?	7.098	19.4	1	98
		P11.c To what extent are you willing to lower your standard of living in order to protect the environment?	6.537	17.46	1	98
		P11.d To what extent would you be willing to accept a reduction in the size of the National Nature Reserve for the sake of economic development?	14.08	29.94	1	98
Independent variable	Economic dimension	A8a.What was your personal gross income for the whole of last year (2020)? Logarithmise your personal annual income	9.029	4.717	0	16.12
		A62 What was your household’s total annual household income in 2020? Logarithmising annual household income	11.68	3.203	0	16.12
		A64 Where does your household’s economic situation fall in your locality? 1 = well below average 2 = below average 3 = average 4 = above average 5 = well above average, 99 = refuse to answer	4.471	13.29	1	99
	Occupational status dimension	A57b What was your occupation at your first job in life? 1 = Agricultural, forestry, animal husbandry and fishery labourer2 = Unskilled worker (manual worker)3 = Skilled worker (manual worker)4 = Commercial, service worker 5 = General office worker.6 = Middle manager7 = Senior manager, head of unit9 = General professional and technical worker9 = Middle professional and technical worker10 = Senior professional and technical worker11 = Private entrepreneur12 = Self-employed13 = Military or police officer 14 = Student15 = Retired.16.Jobless/unemployed99 = = Refused to answer	5.91	9.178	1	99
	Class identity	A43a On balance, where do you personally stand in the current society? Scale of 1–10 from lowest to highest, 99 = unable to answer (same below)	7.324	16.72	1	99
		A43b What grade would you say you were in 10 years ago?	7.651	19.1	1	99
		A43c What grade do you think you will be in 10 years time	14.97	28.66	1	99
Intermediate variable	Environmental awareness	H1 According to your own judgement, on the whole, do you think the environmental problems that China is facing are serious? 1 = Not serious at all 2 = Not too serious 3 = Neither serious nor not serious 4 = Quite serious 5 = Very serious	7.359	19.85	1	98
Control variable	Gender	A2 is assigned a value of 0 for females and 1 for males.	1.54	0.498	1	2
	Domicile	A18 0 for urban, 1 for rural	1.779	1.172	1	7

Model design

The dependent variable environmental behaviour is constructed from the conduct of multiple environmental behaviour topics in the CGSS, which can be regarded as a continuous variable, therefore, the following regression model was constructed in this study, drawing on the way the model was set up by Shi Shengxu (2017)⁵³and others:

1

EPBi denotes the environmental behaviour of the ith resident, SESi denotes the socio-economic status of the ith resident, Xi denotes the set of control variables; ε denotes the residuals.

Mediated model. In this study, Tibshiranit’s model⁵⁴ is employed to construct a three-step regression model. Socioeconomic status is designated as the independent variable, environmental behaviour as the dependent variable, and environmental awareness as the mediating variable. The first step is to test the effect of SES on EPB, the model is as in (1); the second cloth is to test the effect of SES on EA, the model is as in (2); the third step is to regress EA and SES into the model at the same time, the model is as in (3).

2

3

Limitations

The present study is based exclusively on cross-sectional data from CGSS2021, thus failing to test the relationship between the variables over an extended period of time. Furthermore, the study primarily relied on quantitative indicators, neglecting to fully incorporate qualitative variables. It is imperative that future studies focus on the further optimisation of the construct of indicators and the conduction of panel data analysis. This will facilitate a more comprehensive assessment of the relationship between socioeconomic status, environmental behaviour and environmental awareness.

Empirical analysis

Correlation analysis

The findings of the correlation analysis presented in Table 2 indicate a significant positive relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and environmental awareness (EA) on the one hand, and environmental protection behaviours (EPB) on the other. This lends support to the explanatory frameworks of the ‘Resource Accessibility Theory’ and the ‘Values-Beliefs-Norms Theory’. In other words, high socio-economic status groups are more likely to engage in environmental behaviours due to their superior access to resources, while increased environmental awareness drives behavioural change through cognitive internalisation. The weak negative correlation between place of residence and environmental behaviour may reflect the heterogeneity of environmental practice patterns between urban and rural areas, such that rural residents are more likely to act spontaneously due to direct environmental exposure, while urban residents rely on institutionalised channels of participation. The positive effect of gender on environmental behaviour is significant but the effect size is very low, suggesting a marginal effect of gender roles on environmental participation.

Table 2. Correlation analysis result.

Variable	EPB	SES	EA	Gender	Domicile
EPB	1.000
SES	0.259***	1.000
EA	0.258***	0.112***	1.000
Gender	0.054***	0.014	0.030	1.000
Domicile	−0.043**	−0.048**	−0.056***	−0.019	1.000

Standard errors in parentheses * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

Regression analysis

As illustrated in Table 3, the results of the stepwise regression of SES on EPB demonstrate that, in the absence of additional control and mediating variables, SES exhibits a strong positive significance on EPB. Subsequent columns (2) and (3) present regressions with gender and household registration, respectively. These columns demonstrate a strong positive effect for both, though the value of the dual control variable with the addition of household registration is marginally smaller than the value of the single gender variable. This phenomenon may be attributed to the historical role of the household registration system in allocating public resources, including education, healthcare, and housing, in China. This system reflects the rigid constraints on the allocation of social resources in China, which in turn may absorb some of the intergenerational effects of SES. The fourth column demonstrates the relationship between EA and EPB, which also exhibits a strong positive effect between the two. The fifth column presents the regression result of SES on EPB after adding control and mediating variables, whose coefficients still exhibit a significant positive effect. The coefficients between the models show a slight change, indicating that the direct effect of SES on EPB is dominant, and that the mediating effect of EA is possible. Consequently, upon verifying H1, the basis for the mediating effect in the subsequent section is established.

Table 3. Stepwise regression result.

Variable	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
	EPB	EPB	EPB	EPB	EPB
SES	0.336***	0.335***	0.333***		0.301***
	(0.024)	(0.024)	(0.024)		(0.023)
Gender		0.195**	0.192**	0.177*	0.168*
		(0.072)	(0.072)	(0.072)	(0.070)
Domicile			-0.049	-0.046	-0.030
			(0.031)	(0.031)	(0.030)
EA				0.025***	0.022***
				(0.002)	(0.002)
_cons	0.000	-0.300**	-0.208	-0.374**	-0.370**
	(0.036)	(0.116)	(0.129)	(0.130)	(0.126)
N	2741	2741	2741	2741	2741.000
R2	0.067	0.070	0.070	0.070	0.122

Standard errors in parentheses * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

Collinearity test

Table 4 demonstrates the results of the covariance test and it can be seen that the VIF values of EA, SES, Domicile, Gender and Mean do not exceed 10, which indicates that there is no multiplicity problem in this study.

Table 4. Results of collinearity test.

Variable	VIF
EA	1.02
SES	1.01
Domicile	1.01
Gender	1.00
Mean	1.01

Endogeneity test

Given that the endogeneity problem is an unavoidable factor in social science research, this study employs the instrumental variable approach and utilises the IV-2SLS model for further regression estimation.The potential for reverse causality and omitted variables in the influence of residents’ socio-economic status on environmental protection behaviour is acknowledged, given that the selection of instrumental variables must satisfy the conditions of correlation with the explanatory variables and an externality that is not correlated with the error term of the model. In this study, ‘father’s education’ was selected as the instrumental variable to be tested, with the results presented in Table 5. Column (1) shows the results of the first stage of the regression, where the F-value is greater than 10, indicating that the instrumental variable is highly correlated, and the significance of the correlation is also positive. The second stage regression (column 2) indicates that SHDW exerts a significant positive effect on the dependent variable in the 2SLS model, and to a greater extent. This may be due to the fact that, in the 2SLS model, SHDW acts as an endogenous variable that is corrected by instrumental variables to reduce estimation bias.The above tests suggest that the instrumental variables chosen in this paper are appropriate.

Table 5. Endogeneity test results.

VARIABLES	(1)	(2)
	OLS	OLS
	2SLS	2SLS
SHDW	0.336***	1.844***
	(0.0488)	(0.564)
Constant	0	0
	(0.0357)	(0.0559)
Control variables	Yes	Yes
N	2,741	2,741
R2	0.067	-1.281
F	10.67	10.67

Standard errors in parentheses^*p < 0.1, ^**p < 0.05, ^***p < 0.01.

Robustness test

In order to further assess the robustness of the model, this paper has replaced the independent variables, dependent variables, and mediator variables in five separate ways (see Table 6). Model (1) presents the findings from substituting the independent variable with A43e of the questionnaire, serving as the class identity, in the regression against EPB. The outcomes of this substitution demonstrate a substantial positive effect. In Model (2), the dependent variable (EPB2) is replaced with the questionnaire H8, resulting in a positive correlation with both SES and EA. The third model replaces the mediating variable with the mediating influence of A29, and the results remain significantly positive. Models (4) and (5) were regressed on the original variables with 5,000 Boots tests and split-sample regressions, respectively, and the correlation results were all significantly positive.

Table 6. Robustness test results.

Variable	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
	EPB	EPB2	EPB	EPB	EPB
Class Identity	0.014***
	(0.002)
EA	0.024***	0.167***		0.022***	0.015***
	(0.002)	(0.024)		(0.004)	(0.004)
Gender	0.179**	2.614***	0.176**	0.168**	0.022
	(0.071)	(0.966)	(0.071)	(0.069)	(0.123)
Domicile	-0.049	-0.446	-0.048	-0.030
	(0.030)	(0.412)	(0.030)	(0.035)
SES		0.763**	0.325***	0.301***	0.316***
		(0.325)	(0.024)	(0.050)	(0.053)
Media influence			0.010***
			(0.003)
_cons	-0.449***	6.714***	-0.265**	-0.370***	-0.319
	(0.130)	(1.747)	(0.128)	(0.120)	(0.201)
N	2741	2741	2693	2741	550
R2	0.081	0.024	0.073	0.122	0.097

Standard errors in parentheses ^*p < 0.1, ^**p < 0.05, ^***p < 0.01.

Intermediate effect test

The results of the mediation effect test, as presented in Table 7, demonstrate a statistically significant positive total effect of socioeconomic status (SES) on environmental behaviour (EPB). This finding suggests that individuals from higher SES backgrounds are more likely to engage in environmentally beneficial behaviours. Further decomposition of the paths reveals that the indirect effect of SES through environmental awareness is significant: the coefficient of path a is 1.458, and the coefficient of path b is 0.301, which is in line with the transmission mechanism of ‘resource-cognition-behaviour’ and supports the hypothesis of a mediating effect of environmental perception. The total effect of gender is found to be significantly positive, yet its effect on the mediator variable is not significant, thereby suggesting that gender differences may drive environmental behaviour independently of the mediating path.The place of residence is found to have a significant negative effect on the mediating variable in path a, but the total effect and path b are not significant. This suggests that urban-rural differences may indirectly weaken environmental participation by inhibiting environmental perceptions, thereby verifying Hypothesis 2.

Table 7. Intermediate effect result.

Variable	(1)	(2)	(3)
	Total effect (X→Y)	Path a(X→M)	Path b(M→Y)
SES	0.333***	1.458***	0.301***
	(0.024)	(0.253)	(0.023)
Gender	0.192***	1.086	0.168**
	(0.072)	(0.755)	(0.070)
Domicile	-0.049	-0.849***	-0.030
	(0.031)	(0.322)	(0.030)
EA			0.022***
			(0.002)
_cons	-0.208	7.197***	-0.370***
	(0.129)	(1.359)	(0.126)
N	2741	2741	2741
R2	0.070	0.016	0.122

Standard errors in parentheses ^*p < 0.1, ^**p < 0.05, ^***p < 0.01.

Heterogeneity analysis

As demonstrated by the preceding empirical studies, there is a positive correlation between socioeconomic status and environmental behaviour, with environmental perceptions playing a mediating role. However, the extant literature has yet to demonstrate differences between age groups and population regions. Consequently, the present study has divided the sample into three age groups (young, middle-aged, and old) and two population regions (east and west, and central and west).

Intergenerational heterogeneity

Table 8 presents the findings of the study on generational heterogeneity, with the younger cohort representing individuals between the ages of 18 and 30, the middle-aged representing those between 31 and 65, and the elderly representing those aged 66 and above. The findings indicate that the influence of socioeconomic status on environmental behaviour is most pronounced among the elderly, followed by the young, and least significant among the middle-aged. The underlying reasons for this phenomenon may be multifaceted. Firstly, the greater time resources of the elderly following retirement, coupled with the reinforcement of intergenerational legacy motives, can more effectively translate economic and cultural capital into environmental participation behaviours. Secondly, the elderly with high incomes and high levels of education are more inclined to pass on social values through environmental protection practices.Thirdly, while young people encounter resource limitations during the period of economic accumulation, their environmental values are still being formed. The advantage of environmental education conferred by their higher socioeconomic status can significantly enhance their knowledge of environmental protection.However, their behavioural change efficiency is weaker than that of the elderly due to the pressure of career development.Thirdly, the middle-aged group, as the primary breadwinners of their families, encounter time constraints due to work-family conflicts and the dual responsibility of raising and supporting their children. Despite their elevated socioeconomic status, their resources are primarily allocated to meet their immediate needs for survival, resulting in a discrepancy between their ‘willingness to act’ and their actual environmental protection behaviours.The intergenerational differences essentially reflect the heterogeneity of the moderating effects of the structure of resources at the disposal of individuals and the role-responsibility tension on environmental behaviour in different life cycle stages. Therefore, hypothesis H3a of this study was verified.

Table 8. Results of intergenerational heterogeneity.

Variable	(1)	(2)	(3)
	Young	Middle-aged	Old
SES	0.148***	0.100***	0.320***
	(0.046)	(0.030)	(0.033)
EA	0.022***	0.014***	0.023***
	(0.003)	(0.002)	(0.003)
Gender	-0.008	0.082	0.296**
	(0.070)	(0.065)	(0.117)
Domicile	-0.024	-0.011	-0.041
	(0.031)	(0.031)	(0.047)
_cons	-0.522***	-0.593***	-0.269
	(0.125)	(0.122)	(0.208)
N	415	806	1520
R2	0.178	0.076	0.123

Standard errors in parentheses ^*p < 0.1, ^**p < 0.05, ^***p < 0.01.

Regional heterogeneity

As demonstrated in Table 9, a clear distinction emerges in the outcomes based on population region, with central cities emerging as the most significant, followed by western cities that surpass eastern cities in terms of environmental impact.The eastern cities have crossed the inflection point of the environmental Kuznets curve due to their leading industrialisation process, the fact that environmental infrastructure and policy regulations are highly institutionalised, and the homogenisation of public services has weakened the marginal influence of individual socioeconomic status on environmental behaviour. Consequently, the environmental practices of the high-income group are more influenced by social norms than by disparities in economic capacity.Central cities are currently experiencing a pivotal phase of industrial transformation, characterised by a transition from end-to-end control to source prevention in environmental governance. The public service provision has yet to fully address the needs of diverse stakeholders, and high socio-economic status groups are more likely to adopt environmental protection technologies (e.g. intelligent rubbish sorting equipment, new energy vehicles) due to their advantageous access to resources, creating a demonstration effect for their behaviours.In western cities, ecological compensation policies and transfer payments have led to a ‘government-led-community response’ in terms of environmental protection behaviours. The participation of individuals in environmental protection is regulated by external resource inputs, resulting in a weaker role for socioeconomic status than that for institutional interventions, but a stronger inhibitory effect than that for individual autonomy under the mature governance system of the eastern part of the country.Consequently, the H3b hypothesis of this study was verified.

Table 9. Regional heterogeneity result.

	(1)	(2)	(3)
	Eastern city	Central city	Western city
SES	0.182***	0.396***	0.231***
	(0.041)	(0.037)	(0.046)
EA	0.024***	0.025***	0.016***
	(0.003)	(0.003)	(0.003)
Gender	0.070	0.412***	0.015
	(0.103)	(0.129)	(0.131)
Domicile	-0.044	0.115*	-0.100*
	(0.039)	(0.068)	(0.060)
_cons	-0.292	-0.878***	-0.030
	(0.191)	(0.238)	(0.231)
N	1064	950	727
R2	0.098	0.184	0.077

Standard errors in parentheses ^*p < 0.1, ^**p < 0.05, ^***p < 0.01.

Discussion

In the contemporary era, characterised by the escalating prominence of environmental issues, the public’s environmental behaviour assumes a pivotal role in environmental governance and sustainable development.The present study examines this issue in depth and in detail from a number of perspectives, considering the important factors of citizens’ socioeconomic status and environmental perception, which influence their environmental behaviour.The findings of this study demonstrate that, in general, the socioeconomic status of citizens has a positive influence on their environmental behaviour. In other words, individuals with a higher socioeconomic status are more likely to engage in environmentally beneficial behaviours.This phenomenon may be attributed to the higher educational attainment and environmental knowledge of individuals with higher socioeconomic status, which leads to heightened awareness of environmental issues and a greater inclination to engage in environmentally-oriented behaviours (Jiao Kaisan, 2014)⁵⁵. However, Martin Cervantes P A (2020) also found that people with a higher socioeconomic status may be more inclined to attribute environmental responsibility to the government and have relatively low motivation to participate in environmental behaviour themselves³³. This phenomenon may be attributed to the perception that individuals from higher socioeconomic strata have already assumed a greater share of responsibility within society, or that the government should assume a leading role in environmental governance.Conversely, individuals with lower socio-economic status may prioritize meeting basic needs and allocate comparatively less attention to environmental protection behaviours due to the heightened pressures they face to survive. This finding aligns with the observations of numerous scholars (Moser S, 2018; Wang Shu, 2025)^56,57.The public’s perception of the environment exerts a considerable influence on their environmental behaviour. When individuals hold a stronger perception of environmental contamination, they are more inclined to adopt eco-friendly behaviours, thereby reducing the environmental harm they experience (Chen M F, 2015)⁵⁸. Conversely, positive perceptions of environmental enhancement have also been demonstrated to motivate individuals to engage in environmental activities, as they are inclined to believe that their actions can have a beneficial impact on the environment.In addition, research into heterogeneity demonstrates a significant negative correlation between age and environmental concern, as evidenced by Hong DY (2015) using data from CGSS2010 ten years ago.The argument was made that young people are more environmentally concerned than older people⁵⁹. The present study utilised the most recent data following a decade, thus arriving at a contradictory conclusion. This may be attributed to a number of factors, including the Chinese government’s enhanced governance and awareness of environmental issues, the stability of the economic base of the elderly during the global economic downturn, and the increase in the health awareness of the elderly.

The multidimensional association between socioeconomic status (SES) and environmental protection behaviour (EPB) has a mechanism of action that encompasses both the dynamic regulation of individual psychological cognition and is nested in the macro-framework of structural resource misallocation.Zhong et al. In 2024, the concept of subjective SES was introduced, thereby deepening the understanding of the relationship between SES and environmental behaviour. Groups with high subjective SES, due to a strengthened sense of control over their environments and futures, are more inclined to honour their environmental commitments through sustainable practices. This provides empirical support for the mediating role of psychological capital in environmental behaviour⁶⁰. However, the validity of this pathway may be limited by structural constraints. Khalsa et al. (2025) suggest that even when low SES groups are motivated to protect the environment, they may find it difficult to translate their intentions into actions due to a lack of resources, institutional exclusion, or community support. This suggests that research on environmental behaviours needs to focus on “motivational activation” as well. This finding indicates a necessity for research on environmental behaviour to concentrate on the dual-track mechanism of ‘motivational activation’ and ‘structural empowerment‘⁶¹. Furthermore, Carvajal-Trujillo et al.‘s (2024) bibliometric analysis of pro-environmental behaviours in the tourism industry suggests that the impact of SES is context-dependent. It is hypothesised that high-income tourists are likely to demonstrate their environmental identity through “ethical consumption”, while low-income groups are more concerned with immediate economic rationality due to budgetary constraints. Economic rationality, which requires environmental policies to be embedded in a stratified intervention logic when promoted across groups⁶², is therefore a key factor in this relationship.In addition, Kaddoura et al. (2025) focused on the moderating effect of risk perceptions and found that although individuals with low SES perceive climate change threats more directly due to livelihood pressures, their coping strategies are often limited by their lack of adaptive capacity, resulting in the paradox of ‘high sensitivity - low action’ in environmental behaviour⁶³.

Conclusion and suggestion

This study employs empirical analysis of survey data from CGSS2021 to elucidate the intricate relationship between socioeconomic status, environmental perception and environmental behaviour. The primary conclusions that can be drawn from this analysis are as follows: a) The findings demonstrate that residents’ socio-economic status exerts a significant positive influence on their environmental protection behaviour, thereby validating the applicability of environmental sociology theory.b) The analysis reveals that environmental perception functions as a mediating variable, elucidating the pathway through which economic status serves as a catalyst for behavioural transformation through cognitive internalisation. The analysis also reveals significant intergenerational and regional heterogeneity in environmental protection behaviour among residents.The study further underscores the importance of residents’ socio-economic status in environmental protection, highlighting its significant role in shaping residents’ attitudes and behaviours towards the environment. In terms of generational heterogeneity, the oldest group is found to be the most significant, followed by the youngest group, and the lowest middle-aged group. With regard to regional heterogeneity, a decreasing trend is observed from central, western, and eastern cities, which reflects differences in life-cycle role responsibilities and regional governance stages.The findings of this paper provide new perspectives for understanding the driving mechanisms of environmental protection behaviours in China.

It is recommended that the following measures be taken in order to enhance the design and optimisation of environmental governance policies in China, based on the findings of this study. Firstly, it is vital to acknowledge the considerable impact of socio-economic status on environmental behaviour. In order to tackle this issue, it is recommended that ‘precise incentives’ be strengthened in policy formulation. For low-income groups, the cost of environmental participation should be reduced through the universalisation of community environmental protection facilities (e.g., the installation of more rubbish sorting stations) and green subsidies (e.g., preferential treatment for the purchase of energy-saving home appliances). For higher-income groups, carbon credit systems and green consumption certification should be implemented to activate their sense of environmental responsibility and guide the demonstration effect. For high-income groups, the implementation of a carbon credit system and green consumption certification has the potential to activate their sense of environmental responsibility, thereby engendering a demonstration effect.Secondly, the mediating role of environmental perception suggests that policies must extend beyond the conventional ‘hard regulation’ paradigm and enhance the intergenerational and spatial adaptation of environmental education. Specifically, community cultural activities should be utilised to inculcate knowledge of low-carbon living among the elderly, while digital platforms (e.g., The utilisation of concise video recordings pertaining to environmental science and technology has been posited as a means of enhancing ecological consciousness. In regions characterised by a paucity of environmental protection infrastructure, particularly within the central and western territories, it is recommended that environmental education be incorporated into local cultural discourse. This integration can be achieved through initiatives such as guided eco-tourism excursions, which can be employed in conjunction with strategies aimed at the revitalisation of rural areas. In regions where environmental protection facilities are comparatively deficient, environmental education should be incorporated into local cultural communication (e.g., eco-tourism guides) in conjunction with the rural revitalisation strategy. In developed cities in the eastern part of the country, emphasis should be placed on strengthening the public participation narrative of the ‘dual-carbon’ goal, so as to break the governance paradox of ‘high economic level - low environmental protection behaviour’. The governance paradox of ‘high economic level - low environmental behaviour’ is a matter that requires resolution.Finally, the heterogeneity of generational and regional demographics indicates that China’s environmental governance must be integrated with life-cycle roles and regional development stages. In the context of an ageing population, it is recommended that older individuals be transformed into ‘community environmental monitors,’ leveraging their social capital to promote grassroots environmental protection mobilisation. Additionally, regional synergistic governance should be implemented to address the discrepancy between the ‘ecological rise’ of central cities and the ‘transformation bottlenecks’ experienced by eastern cities. In response to the observed divergence between the ‘ecological rise’ of central cities and the ‘transformation bottleneck’ of eastern cities, the implementation of regional synergistic governance is recommended. In central China, the strategy of greening and upgrading industries is employed to establish a positive feedback loop of environmental protection behaviours (e.g., citizens’ patrols in the “Yangtze River Protection” project in Hubei). In central China, positive feedback on environmental behaviour is being built through the greening of industries (e.g., the citizens’ river patrol system in the “Yangtze River Protection” project in Hubei), while in eastern China, the government-enterprise-society synergy mechanism needs to be rebuilt through pilot projects such as the “Carbon Neutral Park”, in order to solve the dilemmas of collective action in the context of high-density urbanisation. These pathways not only reflect the necessity for the integration of environmental justice and social equity within the framework of ‘common wealth’, but also present a Chinese programme of ‘institutional adaptation and social learning’ for nations in the global South to address the dichotomy of ‘economy-environment’. The Chinese programme is designed to address the economic and environmental challenges faced by the Global South.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the experts and scholars who remained anonymous during the writing of this article.

Author contributions

Z: Writing–original draft, Validation, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, supervise.X：Manuscript proofreading，Data curation.All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Data availability

The data used in this paper are publicly available data from the Chinese General Social Survey 2021. This survey is the earliest national, comprehensive, and continuous academic survey in China.CGSS systematically and comprehensively collects data at multiple levels of society, community, household, and individual, summarises trends in social change, explores topics of great scientific and practical significance, promotes the openness and sharing of scientific research in China, provides data for international comparative research, and serves as a multidisciplinary economic and social data collection Platform. At present, CGSS data has become the most important source of data for the study of Chinese society, and is widely used in scientific research, teaching, and government decision-making. The database has gone through a strict ethical review at the time of the survey, and this paper uses a public database without the need to apply for additional ethical approval.http://cgss.ruc.edu.cn.

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

1. Zhou, Y. Does the concept of green development promote High-Quality urban development?—An empirical analysis based on the pilot policy of the Zero-Waste City in China. Sustainability; 2024; 16, 18 8240. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su16188240]

2. Zhou, Y. Analysis of Zero-Waste City policy in china: based on Three-Dimensional framework. Sustainability; 2024; 16, 24 11027. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su162411027]

3. Stern, PC. New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues; 2000; 56, 3 pp. 407-424. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175]

4. Oakes, JM; Rossi, PH. The measurement of SES in health research: current practice and steps toward a new approach. Soc. Sci. Med.; 2003; 56, 4 pp. 769-784. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12560010][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00073-4]

5. Dunlap, RE; Van Liere, KD. The new environmental paradigm. J. Environ. Educ.; 1978; 9, 4 pp. 10-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1978.10801875]

6. Bunting, TE; Guelke, L. Behavioral and perception geography: a critical appraisal. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr.; 1979; 69, 3 pp. 448-462. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1979.tb01268.x]

7. Wang, M; Wang, F. Social class, environmental awareness and pro-environmental behavior: an empirical study from the perspective of environmental sociology. Fudan Public. Adm. Rev.; 2023; 02, pp. 252-276.

8. Hong, D. Y., Fan, Y. & Chao International comparison of public environmental risk perception and environmental protection tendency and its theoretical implications. Soc. Sci. Res., (06) 85–93. (2013).

9. Shile, Q; Honggen, Z. Spillover effect of garbage separation information intervention on rural residents’ environmental protection behavior: empirical evidence from Taihu lake basin. Resour. Sci.; 2022; 44, 11 pp. 2290-2302.

10. Wang, B. R., Li, Y. & Cui, M. F. Green consumption in the context of dual carbon: A study on the influence mechanism of residents’ plastic reduction behavior at different costs. Social Sci. Hubei (02) 59–68. (2023).

11. Hong, D. & Fan, Yechao Towards a Green Society202008475 (China Renmin University, 2020).

12. Steg, L; Vlek, C. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol.; 2029; 29, 3 pp. 309-317. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004]

13. Chen, A; Jiang,. The technological presentation, social construction and governance of environmental problems. Sociol. Rev.; 2016; 4, 03 pp. 53-60.

14. Hak, D; Nadaoka, K; Le Phu, V. Socioeconomic conditions and perceptions of environmental risks in the Mekong Delta. Vietnam Coastal. Manage.; 2016; 44, 6 pp. 585-605. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2016.1233796]

15. Cheng, H; Mao, C. Disparities in environmental behavior from Urban–Rural perspectives: how socioeconomic status structures influence residents’ environmental Actions—Based on the 2021 China general social survey data. Sustainability; 2024; 16, 18 7886. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su16187886]

16. Schnaiberg, A. The environment: From surplus to scarcity. (1980).

17. Stern, PC; Dietz, T; Kalof, L. Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environ. Behav.; 1993; 25, 5 pp. 322-348. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916593255002]

18. Turner, R. J. & Lloyd, D. A. The stress process and the social distribution of depression. J. Health Soc. Behav., 374–404. (1999).

19. Reiss, F. Socioeconomic inequalities and mental health problems in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Soc. Sci. Med.; 2013; 90, pp. 24-31. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23746605][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.04.026]

20. Do Lee, W; Qian, M; Schwanen, T. The association between socioeconomic status and mobility reductions in the early stage of england’s COVID-19 epidemic. Health Place; 2021; 69, 102563. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2021.102563]

21. Nilforoshan, H et al. Human mobility networks reveal increased segregation in large cities. Nature; 2023; 624, 7992 pp. 586-592.2023Natur.624.586N1:CAS:528:DC%2BB3sXisFSmtLzN [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38030732][PubMedCentral: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10733138][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06757-3]

22. Edgerton, E; McKechnie, J. The relationship between student’s perceptions of their school environment and academic achievement. Front. Psychol.; 2023; 13, 959259. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36817376][PubMedCentral: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9929545][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.959259]

23. Mónus, F. Environmental education policy of schools and socioeconomic background affect environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behavior of secondary school students. Environ. Educ. Res.; 2022; 28, 2 pp. 169-196. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2021.2023106]

24. Schutte, NS; Bhullar, N. Approaching environmental sustainability: perceptions of self-efficacy and changeability. J. Psychol.; 2017; 151, 3 pp. 321-333. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28339352][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2017.1289144]

25. Babashahi, M; Shokri, S. Social, cultural and economic factors affecting food behaviors in immigrants; a review study. J. Health; 2021; 12, 2 pp. 285-300. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.52547/j.health.12.2.285]

26. Zhang, M., Sun, R. & Wang, W. Study on the effect of public participation on air pollution control based on China’s Provincial level data1–14 (Environment, Development and Sustainability, 2021).

27. Walczak, D. et al. Attitudes and behaviors regarding environmental protection in the financial decisions of individual consumers.Energies14 (7) 1934. (2021).

28. Tang, GJ; Cui, F. On human environmental behavior and its Selectivity—Thoughts based on the disciplinary positioning of environmental sociology. Learn. Explor.; 2010; 6, 5.

29. Tian, CQ; Zhao, ZL; Zhao, NS. The impact of farmers’ lifestyle environmental behavior on rural environment. Ecol. Econ.; 2011; 2, pp. 179-184.

30. Sun, Y. Research on Residents’ Environmental Behavior and its Influencing Factors (Dalian Dalian Univ. Technol, 2006).

31. Saari, UA et al. Sustainable consumption behavior of europeans: the influence of environmental knowledge and risk perception on environmental concern and behavioral intention. Ecol. Econ.; 2021; 189, 107155. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107155]

32. Yoon, A; Jeong, D; Chon, J. The impact of the risk perception of ocean microplastics on tourists’ pro-environmental behavior intention. Sci. Total Environ.; 2021; 774, 144782.1:CAS:528:DC%2BB3MXltFaktb4%3D [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144782]

33. Martin Cervantes, PA; Rueda Lopez, N; Cruz Rambaud, S. The relative importance of globalization and public expenditure on life expectancy in europe: an approach based on MARS methodology. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2020; 17, 22 8614. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33228227][PubMedCentral: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7699569][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228614]

34. Kirsten, F; Eligius Biyase, M. Environmental perceptions and sustainable consumption behavior: the disparity among South Africans. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 6 4847. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15064847]

35. Van der Werff, E; Steg, L; Keizer, K. The value of environmental self-identity: the relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol.; 2013; 34, pp. 55-63. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.006]

36. Mohai, P; Saha, R. Which came first, people or pollution? A review of theory and evidence from longitudinal environmental justice studies. Environ. Res. Lett.; 2015; 10, 12 125011.2015ERL..10l5011M [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/125011]

37. Bourdieu, P. Distinction a Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (287–318) (Routledge, 2018).

38. Marchetti, V et al. Trait emotional intelligence and ecological outcomes: the role of connectedness to nature. BMC Psychol.; 2024; 12, 1 201. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38609991][PubMedCentral: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11010389][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01679-9]

39. Bento-Silva, JS et al. Students’ perception of urban and rural environmental protection areas in pernambuco, Brazil. Trop. Conserv. Sci.; 2015; 8, 3 pp. 813-827. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/194008291500800316]

40. Jokar, M; Razavi, Z; Moradi, H. From environmental knowledge to encouraging pro-environmental behavior for air pollution control in isfahan: a highly air-polluted City in central Iran. SN Appl. Sci.; 2020; 2, pp. 1-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-03777-w]

41. Xu, G et al. Environmental risk perception and its influence on well-being. Chin. Manage. Stud.; 2017; 11, 1 pp. 35-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CMS-12-2016-0261]

42. Zhou, Z et al. How does soil pollution risk perception affect farmers’ pro-environmental behavior? The role of income level. J. Environ. Manage.; 2020; 270, 110806. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32507737][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110806]

43. Zhong, B et al. How subjective socioeconomic status influences pro-environmental behavior: the mediating role of sense of control and life history strategy. Behav. Sci.; 2024; 14, 7 591. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39062414][PubMedCentral: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11273981][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/bs14070591]

44. Cheng, J. Y. & Zhang, M. (1999)Regional differences and sustainable development in China. J. Chin. Polit. Sci., 5(1): 1–50 .

45. Liu, Y. Regional differences in medical service quality: based on 2013 China consumer survey in 92 provinces.Proceedings of the 5th International Asia Conference on Industrial Engineering and Management Innovation (IEMI2014), (441–444) (Atlantis Press, 2015)

46. Zang, B; Lv, P; Warren, CMJ. Housing prices, rural–urban migrants’ settlement decisions and their regional differences in China. Habitat Int.; 2015; 50, pp. 149-159. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.08.003]

47. Hodge, RW. The measurement of occupational status. Soc. Sci. Res.; 1981; 10, 4 pp. 396-415.1981aag.book...H [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0049-089X(81)90012-0]

48. Wang, F. Q. & Ma, Y. Y. Socioeconomic status, social capital and health inequality. J. Huazhong Univ. Sci. Technol. (Social Sci. Edition) (6) 59–66. (2020).

49. Yan Qisong. The impact of socioeconomic status and subjective class on youth happiness. Contemp. Youth Res. (05) 55–61. (2019).

50. Lu Shaoyun. Citizen voluntarianism, mass media and public environmental behavior: an empirical analysis based on China CGSS2013 data. Rev. Public. Adm. (5) 69–85217. (2017).

51. Davidson, DJ; Freudenburg, WR. Gender and environmental risk concerns: A review and analysis of available research. Environ. Behav.; 1996; 28, 3 pp. 302-339. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916596283003]

52. Liere, KDV; Dunlap, RE. The social bases of environmental concern: A review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. Pub. Opin. Q.; 1980; 44, 2 pp. 181-197. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/268583]

53. Shi, S. X. & Gan, C. Y. Environmental job satisfaction, environmental knowledge and public environmental behavior: based on CGSS2013 data analysis. Soft Sci., (11) 88–92. (2017).

54. Tibshiranit, R. Regression shrinkage and selection via the Lasso. J. Royal Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodological); 1996; 58, 1 pp. 267-288.1379242 [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x]

55. Jiao Kaishan. Socioeconomic status, environmental awareness and environmental protection behavior: an analysis based on structural equation model. Inner Mongolia Social Sci. (Chinese Edition); 2014; 35, 06 pp. 138-144.

56. Moser, S; Kleinhückelkotten, S. Good intents, but low impacts: diverging importance of motivational and socioeconomic determinants explaining pro-environmental behavior, energy use, and carbon footprint. Environ. Behav.; 2018; 0, 6 pp. 626-656. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916517710685]

57. Wang, S. The impact of socioeconomic status on residents’ environmental behavior. Bus. Manage.; 2025; 01, pp. 200-207.

58. Chen, MF. Impact of fear appeals on pro-environmental behavior and crucial determinants. Int. J. Advertising; 2016; 35, 1 pp. 74-92. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2015.1101908]

59. Hong, D. Y. et al. Age differences in public environmental concern in China. Youth Res., (01):1–10. (2015).

60. Zhong, B; Niu, N; Li, J; Wu, Y; Fan, W. How subjective socioeconomic status influences pro-environmental behavior: the mediating role of sense of control and life history strategy. Behav. Sci.; 2024; 14, 7 591. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39062414][PubMedCentral: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11273981][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/bs14070591]

61. Khalsa, A. S., Miller, C. K., Rhee, K. E. & Cho, H. A proposed framework to aid primary care clinicians in promoting cardiovascular health. J. Gen. Intern. Med., 1–6. (2025).

62. Carvajal-Trujillo, E., Pérez-Gálvez, J. C. & Orts-Cardador, J. J. Exploring tourists’ pro-environmental behavior: a bibliometric analysis over two decades (1999–2023). J. Tourism Fut.. (2024).

63. Kaddoura, S; Hijazi, R; Dahmani, N; Nassar, R. Stimulating environmental and health protection through utilizing statistical methods for climate resilience and policy integration. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2025; 22, 3 331. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40238289][PubMedCentral: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11942617][DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22030331]