The Impact of Environmental Information Disclosure on Environmental Governance Satisfaction
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review and Hypotheses
2.1. Environmental Information Disclosure
2.2. Environmental Governance Satisfaction
2.3. Environmental Information Disclosure and Environmental Governance Satisfaction
3. Data, Variables, and Models
3.1. Questionnaire Design and Data Sources
3.2. Variable Design and Analysis
3.2.1. Explained Variable
3.2.2. Explanatory Variable
3.2.3. Moderating Variable
3.2.4. Mediating Variable
3.2.5. Control Variable
3.3. Model Settings
- Basic Model Settings
- Ordered Logit Model Settings
- Mediating Effect Model
- Moderating Effect Model
4. Empirical Results Analysis
4.1. Basic Empirical Results
4.2. Marginal Effects of Explanatory Variables
4.3. Robustness Check
4.3.1. Step-by-Step Addition of Control Variables
4.3.2. Explanatory Variable Substitution
4.4. Heterogeneity Analysis
4.4.1. Educational Heterogeneity Test
4.4.2. Heterogeneity Test of Average Annual Household Income
4.5. Mediation Effect
4.6. Moderating Effect
5. Conclusions, Implications and Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kosajan, V.; Chang, M.; Xiong, X.Y.; Feng, Y.; Wang, S.W. The design and application of a government environmental information disclosure index in China. J. Clean Prod. 2018, 202, 1192–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- An, X. A New Perspective to Solve the Issues Concerning “Agriculture, Rural Areas, and Farmers”—Economics Analyses and Policy Proposals. Seoul J. Econ. 2006, 19, 313–328. [Google Scholar]
- Wan, J.J.; Su, Y.; Zan, H.L.; Zhao, Y.T.; Zhang, L.Q.; Zhang, S.Y.; Dong, X.Y.; Deng, W. Land Functions, Rural Space Governance, and Farmers’ Environmental Perceptions: A Case Study from the Huanjiang Karst Mountain Area, China. Land 2020, 9, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oates, G.; Moradi-Motlagh, A. Is voluntary disclosure of environmental performance associated with actual environmental performance? Evidence from Victorian local governments, Australia. Australas. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 23, 194–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, S.J.; Wang, L. The influence of government transparency on governance efficiency in information age: The environmental governance behavior of Guangdong, China. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2021, 34, 446–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Liu, P. Study on Environmental Pollution and Governance in Rural Development. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2019, 28, 9218–9222. [Google Scholar]
- Fugui, L.; Bing, X.; Bing, X. Improving public access to environmental information in China. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 88, 1649–1656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Labaria, E.C.; Gotangco, C.K.; Caleda, M.J. Framing the Role of and Defining Criteria for Usefulness of Citizen Satisfaction Surveys in Local Urban Environmental Management: The Case of the Local Government Unit of Quezon City, Philippines. Environ. Urban. ASIA 2017, 8, 214–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhong, Y.; Chen, Y.G.; Feng, F.; Wang, K.M. Urban Government Performance in the Eyes of Chinese Urban Residents. Asian J. Soc. Sci. 2015, 43, 299–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, D.; Fan, F.; Park, S.D. Network Analysis of Actors and Policy Keywords for Sustainable Environmental Governance: Focusing on Chinese Environmental Policy. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, L.; Mol, A.P.J.; Yang, S. Environmental Information Disclosure in China: In the Era of Informatization and Big Data. Front. Law China 2017, 12, 57–75. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, L.; Chen, L.Y. Research on the Impact of Government Environmental Information Disclosure on Green Total Factor Productivity: Empirical Experience from Chinese Province. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, H.; Xu, T.T.; Feng, C. Does public participation promote environmental efficiency? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment of environmental information disclosure in China. Energy Econ. 2022, 108, 105871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, D.X.; Zeng, S.X.; Chen, H.Q.; Meng, X.H.; Jin, Z.Z. Monitoring effect of transparency: How does government environmental disclosure facilitate corporate environmentalism? Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2019, 28, 1594–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, X.Y.; Zhu, Y.L.; Meng, X.H. Government Environmental Information Disclosure and Environmental Performance: Evidence from China. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, L.J.; Zhang, J.L.; You, Y. Air pollution, environmental perceptions, and citizen satisfaction: A mediation analysis. Environ. Res. 2020, 184, 109287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, Y.; Chen, H.; Chen, Z.J.; Wang, Y.; Wei, W.D. Has environmental information disclosure eased the economic inhibition of air pollution? J. Clean Prod. 2021, 284, 125412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diamastuti, E.; Muafi, M.; Fitri, A.; Faizaty, N.E. The Role of Corporate Governance in the Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility Disclosure. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2021, 8, 187–198. [Google Scholar]
- Yin, H.; Huang, Y.X.; Wang, K.M. How Do Environmental Concerns and Governance Performance Affect Public Environmental Participation: A Case Study of Waste Sorting in Urban China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eaton, S.; Kostka, G. Central Protectionism in China: The “Central SOE Problem” in Environmental Governance. China Q. 2017, 231, 685–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ge, T.; Hao, X.L.; Li, J.Y. Effects of public participation on environmental governance in China: A spatial Durbin econometric analysis. J. Clean Prod. 2021, 321, 129042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, T. Public participation in China’s EIA process and the regulation of environmental disputes. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2020, 81, 106359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, R.B.; Chen, D.P. Does Environmental Information Disclosure Benefit Waste Discharge Reduction? Evidence from China. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 129, 535–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabiri, N. Public participation, land use and climate change governance in Thailand. Land Use Pol. 2016, 52, 511–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, L.H.; Ma, T.S.; Bian, Y.C.; Li, S.J.; Yi, Z.Q. Improvement of regional environmental quality: Government environmental governance and public participation. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 717, 137265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chen, Y.X.; Zhang, J.; Tadikamalla, P.R.; Gao, X.T. The Relationship among Government, Enterprise, and Public in Environmental Governance from the Perspective of Multi-Player Evolutionary Game. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Prado, C. Just community participation and Border environmental governance: A view from the Border 2020 program. J. Environ. Pol. Plan. 2019, 21, 662–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greenspan, I.; Cohen-Blankshtain, G.; Geva, Y. NGO Roles and Anticipated Outcomes in Environmental Participatory Processes: A Typology. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2022, 51, 633–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, L. Environmental governance and public participation in rural China. China Inf. 2016, 30, 188–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ortega-Gil, M.; Cortes-Sierra, G.; ElHichou-Ahmed, C. The Effect of Environmental Degradation, Climate Change, and the European Green Deal Tools on Life Satisfaction. Energies 2021, 14, 5839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.X.; Wang, Y.J.; Sun, C.C.; Chen, X.H. Does mandatory air quality information disclosure raise happiness? Evidence from China. Energy Econ. 2021, 94, 105094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.Z.; Xu, Z.Y. Massive-scale visual information retrieval towards city residential environment surveillance. J. Vis. Commun. Image Represent. 2020, 70, 102739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.M.; Yu, S.F.; Xu, Z.H. Does environmental pollution weaken the positive effect of government public expenditure on residents’ subjective well-being? A case study in China. Energy Environ. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Zhu, Y.M.; Yu, M.J. Evaluation and determinants of satisfaction with rural livability in China’s less-developed eastern areas: A case study of Xianju County in Zhejiang Province. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 104, 711–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greenstone, M.; Hanna, R. Environmental Regulations, Air and Water Pollution, and Infant Mortality in India. Am. Econ. Rev. 2014, 104, 3038–3072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Guo, J.; Bai, J.H. The Role of Public Participation in Environmental Governance: Empirical Evidence from China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jae-hyuck, L.; Kyung-hee, S.; Jong-mun, P.; Choong-gon, K.; Kongjang, C. Communication problems and alternatives in the process of collecting resident opinions for environmental impact assessment through text mining: A case study of the Dangjin landfill in Korea. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2022, 95, 106781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, D.M. Effects and Drawbacks of Environmental Impact Assessment in Avoiding NIMBY. Ekoloji 2018, 27, 149–154. [Google Scholar]
- Li, D.X.; Kim, S.; Lee, Y.K.; Griffin, M. Sustainable Environmental Development: The Moderating Role of Environmental Identity. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 2016, 19, 298–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geng, M.M.; He, L.Y. Environmental Regulation, Environmental Awareness and Environmental Governance Satisfaction. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.S.; Wang, S.Y.; Wan, L. Does government environmental governance information disclosure improve residents’ subjective well-being? Evidence from China. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2022, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, Y.; Yang, R.Y. Environmental Regulation, Public Participation and Happiness: Empirical Research Based on Chinese General Social Survey of 2015. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2019, 17, 9317–9332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, D.S.; Miao, J.; Lu, Y.; Song, Y.M.; Chen, L.; Liu, Y. Urban greenery mitigates the negative effect of urban density on older adults’ life satisfaction: Evidence from Shanghai, China. Cities 2022, 124, 103607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pollnac, R.B.; Carothers, C.; Seara, T.; Poggie, J.J. Evaluating impacts of marine governance on human communities: Testing aspects of a human impact assessment model. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2019, 77, 174–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.M.; Liu, H. The Influence of Subjective and Objective Characteristics of Urban Human Settlements on Residents’ Life Satisfaction in China. Land 2021, 10, 1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. S. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frondel, M.; Vance, C.J. Interpreting the outcomes of two-part models. Appl. Econ. Lett. 2012, 19, 987–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Norton, E.C.; Dowd, B.E. Log Odds and the Interpretation of Logit Models. Health Serv. Res. 2018, 53, 859–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Solomon, B.C.; Nikolaev, B.N.; Shepherd, D.A. Does Educational Attainment Promote Job Satisfaction? The Bittersweet Trade-offs Between Job Resources, Demands, and Stress. J. Appl. Psychol. 2022, 107, 1227–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cerci, P.A.; Dumludag, D. Life Satisfaction and Job Satisfaction among University Faculty: The Impact of Working Conditions, Academic Performance and Relative Income. Soc. Indic. Res. 2019, 144, 785–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, D.; Zhu, S.Z.; Memon, A.A.; Memon, H. Financial Attributes, Environmental Performance, and Environmental Disclosure in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wu, D.; Memon, H. Public Pressure, Environmental Policy Uncertainty, and Enterprises’ Environmental Information Disclosure. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable Name | Variable Symbol | Obs | Mean | Std. Dev. | Min | Max |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Residents’ Satisfaction with Environmental Governance | satisfaction | 703 | 5.239 | 1.193 | 1 | 7 |
The degree of understanding of the National Rural Revitalization Strategy | disclosure1 | 703 | 4.435 | 1.718 | 1 | 7 |
The degree of understanding of the construction of the “Poetry and Painting Zhejiang” large garden in Zhejiang Province | disclosure2 | 703 | 3.737 | 1.834 | 1 | 7 |
Residents’ knowledge of environmental protection | awareness | 703 | 6.518 | 0.911 | 1 | 7 |
Residents’ evaluation of surrounding ecological and environmental problems | evaluate | 703 | 5.381 | 1.013 | 1 | 7 |
Age | age | 703 | 2.555 | 1.408 | 1 | 6 |
Gender and marital status | sex | 703 | 2.383 | 1.074 | 1 | 4 |
Profession | occ | 703 | 4.607 | 2.182 | 1 | 8 |
Workplace | wp | 703 | 1.131 | 0.337 | 1 | 2 |
Education Level | edu | 703 | 3.849 | 1.382 | 1 | 6 |
Average annual household income | income | 703 | 3.191 | 1.441 | 1 | 7 |
Average annual household consumption | cons | 703 | 2.383 | 1.197 | 1 | 7 |
Variables | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | (10) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
satisfaction | 1.000 | |||||||||
disclosure1 | 0.384 | 1.000 | ||||||||
disclosure2 | 0.453 | 0.638 | 1.000 | |||||||
age | 0.123 | 0.027 | 0.115 | 1.000 | ||||||
sex | −0.008 | −0.032 | −0.051 | −0.303 | 1.000 | |||||
occ | 0.022 | 0.071 | 0.090 | 0.066 | −0.068 | 1.000 | ||||
wp | 0.004 | −0.089 | 0.017 | 0.432 | −0.001 | −0.203 | 1.000 | |||
edu | −0.075 | 0.130 | −0.011 | −0.648 | 0.211 | −0.007 | −0.434 | 1.000 | ||
income | 0.005 | 0.140 | 0.061 | −0.211 | 0.163 | 0.096 | −0.207 | 0.286 | 1.000 | |
cons | −0.068 | 0.064 | 0.065 | −0.239 | 0.140 | 0.047 | −0.191 | 0.270 | 0.749 | 1.000 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
VARIABLES | Satisfaction | Satisfaction | Satisfaction | Satisfaction |
disclosure1 | 0.113 *** | 0.113 *** | 0.220 *** | 0.220 *** |
(0.0308) | (0.0337) | (0.0548) | (0.0583) | |
disclosure2 | 0.230 *** | 0.230 *** | 0.401 *** | 0.401 *** |
(0.0284) | (0.0305) | (0.0521) | (0.0545) | |
age | 0.0461 | 0.0461 | 0.116 * | 0.116 |
(0.0398) | (0.0414) | (0.0703) | (0.0715) | |
sex | 0.0583 | 0.0583 | 0.0942 | 0.0942 |
(0.0393) | (0.0401) | (0.0694) | (0.0716) | |
occ | −0.0197 | −0.0197 | −0.0367 | −0.0367 |
(0.0189) | (0.0203) | (0.0341) | (0.0381) | |
wp | −0.226 | −0.226 | −0.402 | −0.402 |
(0.140) | (0.157) | (0.256) | (0.300) | |
edu | −0.0698 * | −0.0698 * | −0.110 | −0.110 |
(0.0396) | (0.0392) | (0.0694) | (0.0703) | |
income | 0.0760 * | 0.0760 * | 0.130 * | 0.130 |
(0.0425) | (0.0437) | (0.0764) | (0.0837) | |
cons | −0.153 *** | −0.153 *** | −0.246 *** | −0.246 ** |
(0.0505) | (0.0523) | (0.0911) | (0.100) | |
Constant | 4.358 *** | 4.358 *** | ||
(0.324) | (0.343) | |||
Observations | 703 | 703 | 703 | 703 |
(1) | (2) | |
---|---|---|
VARIABLES | disclosure1 | disclosure2 |
1._predict | −0.001 * | −0.001 * |
(0.000) | (0.001) | |
2._predict | −0.002 *** | −0.004 *** |
(0.001) | (0.001) | |
3._predict | −0.007 *** | −0.013 *** |
(0.002) | (0.003) | |
4._predict | −0.026 *** | −0.047 *** |
(0.007) | (0.007) | |
5._predict | −0.018 *** | −0.033 *** |
(0.005) | (0.006) | |
6._predict | 0.032 *** | 0.058 *** |
(0.009) | (0.009) | |
7._predict | 0.022 *** | 0.039 *** |
(0.006) | (0.006) | |
Observations | 703 | 703 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
VARIABLES | Satisfaction | Satisfaction | Satisfaction | Satisfaction |
disclosure1 | 0.113 *** | 0.123 *** | 0.124 *** | 0.113 *** |
(0.0332) | (0.0333) | (0.0335) | (0.0337) | |
disclosure2 | 0.223 *** | 0.220 *** | 0.220 *** | 0.230 *** |
(0.0302) | (0.0300) | (0.0301) | (0.0305) | |
age | 0.0971 *** | 0.0555 | 0.0553 | 0.0461 |
(0.0353) | (0.0417) | (0.0418) | (0.0414) | |
sex | 0.0521 | 0.0565 | 0.0594 | 0.0583 |
(0.0395) | (0.0395) | (0.0405) | (0.0401) | |
occ | −0.0181 | −0.0187 | −0.0177 | −0.0197 |
(0.0200) | (0.0201) | (0.0202) | (0.0203) | |
wp | −0.155 | −0.212 | −0.219 | −0.226 |
(0.152) | (0.153) | (0.154) | (0.157) | |
edu | −0.0765 ** | −0.0729 * | −0.0698 * | |
(0.0387) | (0.0390) | (0.0392) | ||
income | −0.0174 | 0.0760 * | ||
(0.0305) | (0.0437) | |||
cons | −0.153 *** | |||
(0.0523) | ||||
Constant | 3.793 *** | 4.217 *** | 4.248 *** | 4.358 *** |
(0.248) | (0.336) | (0.340) | (0.343) | |
Observations | 703 | 703 | 703 | 703 |
R-squared | 0.230 | 0.234 | 0.234 | 0.244 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
VARIABLES | Satisfaction | Satisfaction | Satisfaction | Satisfaction |
disclosure1 | 0.123 *** | 0.123 *** | 0.237 *** | 0.237 *** |
(0.0410) | (0.0464) | (0.0714) | (0.0791) | |
disclosure | 0.180 *** | 0.180 *** | 0.288 *** | 0.288 *** |
(0.0396) | (0.0436) | (0.0683) | (0.0728) | |
age | 0.0640 | 0.0640 | 0.155 ** | 0.155 ** |
(0.0410) | (0.0426) | (0.0697) | (0.0708) | |
sex | 0.0574 | 0.0574 | 0.0813 | 0.0813 |
(0.0405) | (0.0413) | (0.0690) | (0.0709) | |
occ | −0.0119 | −0.0119 | −0.0230 | −0.0230 |
(0.0194) | (0.0204) | (0.0336) | (0.0364) | |
wp | −0.159 | −0.159 | −0.300 | −0.300 |
(0.144) | (0.154) | (0.250) | (0.275) | |
edu | −0.0762 * | −0.0762 * | −0.104 | −0.104 |
(0.0408) | (0.0406) | (0.0691) | (0.0701) | |
income | 0.0450 | 0.0450 | 0.0688 | 0.0688 |
(0.0437) | (0.0465) | (0.0763) | (0.0856) | |
cons | −0.115 ** | −0.115 ** | −0.167 * | −0.167 * |
(0.0518) | (0.0547) | (0.0901) | (0.0996) | |
Constant | 4.271 *** | 4.271 *** | ||
(0.335) | (0.347) | |||
Observations | 703 | 703 | 703 | 703 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
VARIABLES | Satisfaction | Satisfaction | Satisfaction | Satisfaction | Satisfaction | Satisfaction |
disclosure1 | 0.313 | 0.167 ** | 0.0806 | 0.310 *** | 0.0473 | 0.351 |
(0.188) | (0.0805) | (0.0930) | (0.0656) | (0.0482) | (0.194) | |
disclosure2 | 0.0639 | 0.186 ** | 0.192 ** | 0.116 * | 0.253 *** | 0.259 ** |
(0.178) | (0.0831) | (0.0827) | (0.0599) | (0.0458) | (0.106) | |
age | 0.0339 | 0.0860 | 0.206 ** | −0.0319 | −0.0374 | −0.0656 |
(0.171) | (0.0872) | (0.0793) | (0.0907) | (0.0983) | (0.200) | |
sex | 0.0151 | −0.0639 | 0.116 | 0.00191 | 0.105 * | −0.00335 |
(0.158) | (0.114) | (0.106) | (0.0809) | (0.0608) | (0.249) | |
occ | 0.0928 | 0.0112 | −0.0391 | −0.106 ** | −0.0164 | −0.0389 |
(0.0913) | (0.0347) | (0.0366) | (0.0497) | (0.0497) | (0.154) | |
wp | 0.418 | 0.116 | −1.306 *** | 0.227 | 0.554 * | −0.283 |
(0.516) | (0.261) | (0.355) | (0.292) | (0.305) | (0.565) | |
income | −0.414 * | −0.00170 | 0.0109 | 0.180 | 0.164 *** | 0.291 |
(0.242) | (0.0883) | (0.118) | (0.128) | (0.0580) | (0.336) | |
cons | 0.449 | 0.0179 | −0.192 | −0.187 | −0.257 *** | 0.144 |
(0.341) | (0.0884) | (0.133) | (0.119) | (0.0791) | (0.471) | |
Constant | 2.684 *** | 3.604 *** | 5.519 *** | 3.775 *** | 3.361 *** | 1.151 |
(0.882) | (0.636) | (0.595) | (0.588) | (0.490) | (2.201) | |
Observations | 49 | 108 | 97 | 111 | 322 | 16 |
R-squared | 0.305 | 0.239 | 0.360 | 0.416 | 0.212 | 0.835 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
VARIABLES | Satisfaction | Satisfaction | Satisfaction | Satisfaction | Satisfaction | Satisfaction | Satisfaction |
disclosure1 | 0.117 | 0.0878 | 0.118 | 0.181 ** | 0.117 | 0.156 | −0.180 |
(0.106) | (0.0603) | (0.0716) | (0.0698) | (0.108) | (0.172) | (0.162) | |
disclosure2 | 0.255 ** | 0.138 ** | 0.238 *** | 0.237 *** | 0.242 ** | 0.181 | −0.685 *** |
(0.117) | (0.0583) | (0.0579) | (0.0627) | (0.104) | (0.154) | (0.111) | |
age | 0.0251 | 0.0943 | 0.0219 | 0.0770 | −0.251 | 0.166 | −0.301 * |
(0.138) | (0.0865) | (0.0841) | (0.0809) | (0.201) | (0.145) | (0.154) | |
sex | −0.0434 | −0.00599 | 0.00384 | 0.147 * | 0.0418 | 0.193 | 0.417 ** |
(0.191) | (0.0792) | (0.0740) | (0.0782) | (0.143) | (0.209) | (0.189) | |
occ | 0.0214 | −0.00356 | −0.0445 | 0.0295 | 0.146 | −0.282 ** | 0.243 |
(0.0679) | (0.0323) | (0.0417) | (0.0404) | (0.107) | (0.100) | (0.175) | |
wp | 0.525 | −0.269 | −0.315 | −0.826 ** | −0.176 | −0.437 | |
(0.350) | (0.231) | (0.411) | (0.381) | (0.949) | (0.495) | ||
edu | 0.00209 | −0.00961 | −0.0850 | −0.00140 | −0.257 | −0.198 | 0.141 |
(0.158) | (0.0838) | (0.0826) | (0.0743) | (0.209) | (0.228) | (0.211) | |
cons | −0.0996 | −0.328 ** | −0.126 | 0.105 | 0.0650 | −0.0392 | −0.402 *** |
(0.115) | (0.130) | (0.146) | (0.135) | (0.298) | (0.183) | (0.0888) | |
Constant | 3.163 *** | 5.116 *** | 4.887 *** | 3.370 *** | 4.756 ** | 5.901 ** | 2.813 ** |
(0.926) | (0.683) | (0.838) | (0.713) | (2.277) | (2.341) | (1.273) | |
Observations | 68 | 163 | 228 | 143 | 44 | 26 | 31 |
R-squared | 0.270 | 0.198 | 0.216 | 0.377 | 0.410 | 0.396 | 0.725 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | |
---|---|---|---|
VARIABLES | Satisfaction | Evaluate | Satisfaction |
disclosure1 | 0.00136 | 0.114 *** | |
(0.0329) | (0.0321) | ||
disclosure2 | 0.122 *** | 0.189 *** | |
(0.0305) | (0.0294) | ||
age | 0.113 ** | 8.87 × 10−5 | 0.0460 |
(0.0439) | (0.0405) | (0.0395) | |
sex | 0.0502 | −0.0120 | 0.0622 |
(0.0424) | (0.0352) | (0.0382) | |
occ | 0.00447 | −0.0235 | −0.0120 |
(0.0213) | (0.0177) | (0.0193) | |
wp | −0.263 | 0.0410 | −0.240 |
(0.165) | (0.133) | (0.152) | |
edu | 0.00140 | −0.0477 | −0.0541 |
(0.0422) | (0.0382) | (0.0380) | |
income | 0.0703 | 0.0785 * | 0.0502 |
(0.0486) | (0.0435) | (0.0444) | |
cons | −0.116 * | −0.0737 | −0.128 ** |
(0.0602) | (0.0491) | (0.0531) | |
evaluate | 0.429 *** | 0.329 *** | |
(0.0413) | (0.0386) | ||
Constant | 2.845 *** | 5.129 *** | 2.670 *** |
(0.416) | (0.323) | (0.382) | |
Observations | 703 | 703 | 703 |
R-squared | 0.160 | 0.059 | 0.318 |
(1) | (2) | (3) | |
---|---|---|---|
VARIABLES | Satisfaction | Satisfaction | Satisfaction |
disclosure1 | 0.107 *** | 0.1000 *** | 0.108 *** |
(0.0347) | (0.0349) | (0.0348) | |
disclosure2 | 0.231 *** | 0.233 *** | 0.227 *** |
(0.0305) | (0.0304) | (0.0308) | |
awareness | 0.0560 | 0.140 *** | 0.0775 |
(0.0513) | (0.0534) | (0.0481) | |
disclosure1a_c | 0.0982 *** | ||
(0.0307) | |||
disclosure2a_c | 0.0496 * | ||
(0.0271) | |||
age | 0.0456 | 0.0446 | 0.0460 |
(0.0412) | (0.0414) | (0.0415) | |
sex | 0.0603 | 0.0562 | 0.0577 |
(0.0402) | (0.0395) | (0.0400) | |
occ | −0.0216 | −0.0206 | −0.0212 |
(0.0201) | (0.0202) | (0.0202) | |
wp | −0.227 | −0.232 | −0.233 |
(0.156) | (0.157) | (0.158) | |
edu | −0.0727 * | −0.0740 * | −0.0705 * |
(0.0391) | (0.0385) | (0.0388) | |
income | 0.0774 * | 0.0764 * | 0.0681 |
(0.0434) | (0.0424) | (0.0436) | |
cons | −0.152 *** | −0.153 *** | −0.141 *** |
(0.0523) | (0.0512) | (0.0524) | |
Constant | 4.031 *** | 3.495 *** | 3.892 *** |
(0.454) | (0.458) | (0.439) | |
Observations | 703 | 703 | 703 |
R-squared | 0.246 | 0.261 | 0.251 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yang, Y.; Shen, L.; Li, Y.; Li, Y. The Impact of Environmental Information Disclosure on Environmental Governance Satisfaction. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7888. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137888
Yang Y, Shen L, Li Y, Li Y. The Impact of Environmental Information Disclosure on Environmental Governance Satisfaction. Sustainability. 2022; 14(13):7888. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137888
Chicago/Turabian StyleYang, Yongliang, Liwen Shen, Yuwen Li, and Yi Li. 2022. "The Impact of Environmental Information Disclosure on Environmental Governance Satisfaction" Sustainability 14, no. 13: 7888. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137888