Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of Impacts and Sustainability Indicators of Construction in Prefabricated Concrete Houses in Ecuador
Previous Article in Journal
A Model for Complementing Landslide Types (Cliff Type) Missing from Areal Disaster Inventories Based on Landslide Conditioning Factors for Earthquake-Proof Regions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 17
10.3390/su17177617
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

How Media and Environmental Water Pollution Affect Chinese Residents’ Willingness to Pay for Environmental Protection: Empirical Evidence from China

by
Fangyuan Sun
1 and
Zeming Kong
2,*
1
School of Journalism & Communication, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China
2
School of International Communication and Arts, Hainan University, Haikou 570228, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(17), 7617; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177617
Submission received: 24 July 2025 / Revised: 17 August 2025 / Accepted: 21 August 2025 / Published: 23 August 2025
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

The field of communication studies shares significant connections with environmental science, where environmental monitoring constitutes one of the fundamental functions of communication. Based on data from the China General Social Survey (CGSS2021), this study establishes two research models and employs ordered logistic regression to examine the relationships between media usage, environmental water pollution, cognition of environmental policies, and willingness to pay (WTP) for environmental protection. The findings reveal that the perception of water pollution significantly enhances public cognition of environmental policies and WTP. However, the impact of water pollution itself is insignificant, indicating a weak public perception of long-term environmental risks. Both traditional media usage and new media usage significantly improve cognition of environmental policies, with traditional media playing a more pronounced role; yet, media trust does not significantly enhance cognition. Furthermore, new media usage and media trust exhibit a negative impact on WTP for environmental protection, revealing the effects of the “clicktivism” mechanism and the “trust-efficacy perception” negative feedback loop. The negative impact of cognition of environmental policies on WTP further uncovers a “cognition-behavior paradox,” where groups with higher cognition tend to attribute environmental responsibility to the government, thereby reducing their personal WTP. Based on these findings, this paper proposes recommendations including optimizing environmental communication strategies, strengthening public participation, and designing differentiated policies to enhance public environmental awareness and promote the effective implementation of water pollution governance.

1. Introduction

With rapid economic development, environmental issues have become increasingly prominent. Water pollution, in particular, poses a significant challenge to public health and sustainable societal development. It not only threatens ecological security but also directly impacts public quality of life and willingness to engage in environmental protection behaviors. Against this backdrop, enhancing public awareness of water pollution and promoting participation in environmental actions have become urgent priorities. Concurrently, the media, as a vital channel for information dissemination, plays a critical role in shaping public environmental perceptions and behaviors. Regarding the aforementioned issues, scholars from diverse research fields have conducted studies from various perspectives.
Significant connections exist between the environment and communication studies. In this context, Lasswell incorporated environmental monitoring as a fundamental function of communication. Consequently, environmental communication has emerged as a prominent research domain within academia. In 1989, the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann proposed the concept of “environmental communication.” In his book Ökologische Kommunikation (Environmental Communication), he defined it as “any communication practice and form concerning the articulation of environmental issues, which aims to change social communication structures and discourse systems” [1]. This provides a theoretical framework for analyzing the role of media in constructing cognition of water pollution issues.
First, regarding environmental communication, numerous scholars have conducted relevant research. In the area of narrative strategies and discourse construction within environmental communication, Liu et al. point out that the rise of digital media has reconfigured the representational methods of environmental issues, arguing that digital narratives constructing environmental issues can enhance public environmental literacy. They posit that digital media narratives, represented by convergent journalism, unfold along symbolic, aesthetic, interactive, and production dimensions, forming a new “narrative schema” [2]. Liu et al. propose that the public rhetorical practice of environmental communication needs to incorporate an emotional narrative system. Through narratives framed within the dimensions of ecological security, ecological values, and ecological aesthetics, this approach aims to promote public identification with and recognition of environmental risks [3]. Peng et al. explore the symbolic-discursive construction of the concept of a “human and natural life community,” arguing that this framework facilitates the reconstruction of environmental communication discourse and advances global environmental protection [4]. Additional research focuses on specific themes and practices in environmental communication. Chen et al. experimentally investigate how protagonist similarity and temporal distance in climate narratives influence their persuasive effect on pro-environmental behaviors, identifying that specific narrative perspective combinations yield particularly strong persuasive outcomes [5]. Ashita et al. examine the process of environmental mediatization and its impact on environmental movements through a field study of desertification control campaigns in Alxa Left Banner [6]. Furthermore, Zhan et al. analyze agenda interactions among multiple stakeholders within carbon neutrality discourse [7].
Numerous scholars have investigated the relationship between water pollution and environmental policy cognition as well as WTP for environmental protection. Since the onset of rapid industrialization and urbanization in the early 1980s, China has faced severe environmental pollution, with progressive deterioration of water quality in its major rivers and lakes [8]. Water pollution constitutes a significant category of environmental pollution. Some scholars have conducted research on the impact of water pollution or environmental pollution on environmental policy cognition and WTP. Research indicates that an association exists between the perception of water pollution and environmental policy cognition as well as WTP. When citizens perceive air or water pollution as severe, they exhibit greater political distrust [9], which indirectly affects their implementation of environmental protection behaviors. Wang et al. find that physical presence (including exposure to water pollution) significantly positively influences environmental policy cognition, while demonstrable pollution (including water pollution) positively affects cognition but negatively impacts support for environmental policies [10]. ZHENG et al. demonstrate that environmental pollution levels influence residents’ willingness to pay (WTP) for environmental protection, with residents in more heavily polluted cities showing stronger WTP [11].
Research indicates that media usage influences public environmental awareness. Zhao et al. demonstrate that informational media use partially mediates the relationship between individual difference variables and environmental concern, thereby shaping public attention to environmental issues and subsequently environmental awareness [12]. Östman et al. identify direct and indirect links between news media consumption frequency and daily pro-environmental behaviors among Swedish adolescents, noting that news media use enhances environmental issue cognition, which facilitates pro-environmental behaviors—indicating media’s role in acquiring environmental knowledge and strengthening environmental consciousness [13]. Wu et al. examine sand animation with environmental themes, finding that innovative media formats enhance public clarity in understanding environmental topics, revealing differential impacts of media forms on shaping environmental awareness [14].
Media usage promotes public engagement in pro-environmental behaviors to some extent. Liu et al. construct an integrated theoretical framework indicating that internet use not only directly affects pro-environmental behaviors but also exerts indirect effects through mediating variables including environmental knowledge, perceived environmental pollution threats, and satisfaction with government environmental efforts. Specifically, environmental knowledge and perceived pollution threats demonstrate positive mediating effects, while satisfaction with government environmental actions exhibits a negative mediating effect [15]. Zhou et al., utilizing nationally representative Chinese sample data, find that public media plays a more substantial role than social relationships in promoting pro-environmental behaviors, highlighting its critical value in guiding public environmental actions [16]. Gao et al., utilizing CGSS2013 data, find that media use amplifies the process through which environmental risk perception translates into behavioral responses [17]. Zhang et al.’s survey in Hong Kong indicates positive correlations between news media usage and both environmental activism and environmental consumption [18]; concurrently, Skoric et al. identify self-perceived opinion leadership, news media use, and Weibo usage as significant predictors of environmental engagement among Chinese citizens, with partial mediation through environmental knowledge [19]. Media usage demonstrates discernible associations with WTP for environmental protection. Wang et al., from an environmental communication perspective, conceptualize media’s environmental effects across two dimensions: knowledge acquisition and responsibility cultivation. Empirical analysis of CGSS2018 data confirms that media use frequency significantly enhances citizens’ WTP, mediated specifically by individual environmental responsibility rather than environmental knowledge; however, further analysis reveals that traditional media use exerts significant effects on WTP, while new media use shows no comparable impact [20].
The influence of different media usage on environmental satisfaction and participation behaviors varies significantly, particularly between traditional and new media. Traditional media is defined as media channels characterized by one-way communication, institutionalized production, and mass dissemination, such as newspapers, magazines, radio, and television; their dissemination is often one-way and top-down. New media refers to digital platforms enabling interactive communication, user-generated content, and algorithmic dissemination, such as social media and online forums; their communication is generally multidirectional and intersecting.
Hu et al., analyzing CGSS2015 data, find that traditional media use positively correlates with satisfaction toward environmental public services, whereas new media use exhibits a negative correlation. Individuals relying primarily on new media for information demonstrate lower satisfaction with environmental public services than those predominantly using traditional media [21]. Zhang et al., utilizing 2013 Chinese Social Survey data, identify a significant negative correlation between internet use and residents’ satisfaction with government environmental protection. Increased frequency of accessing diverse online content reduces satisfaction levels; however, residents holding conservative or skeptical attitudes toward online information report higher satisfaction with governmental environmental efforts, reflecting the complex relationship between media usage and public evaluation of environmental governance [22]. Jin et al. demonstrate that individuals with higher traditional media usage exhibit stronger inclinations to discuss environmental issues and engage in pro-environmental behaviors, while intensive new media users participate more actively in environmental social activities [23].
As environmental issues grow increasingly prominent, research in environmental communication continues to expand, providing substantial insights into the relationship between media and public environmental attitudes/behaviors. Nevertheless, certain limitations persist, leaving avenues for further exploration. Within environmental communication studies, existing scholarship has predominantly concentrated on communication theories, narrative strategies, and discourse construction, emphasizing digital media’s role in reshaping environmental issues and the value of emotional narratives in dissemination. Concurrently, scholars have investigated the impact of environmental pollution on cognition of environmental policies and WTP for environmental protection. While these contributions offer theoretical support for enhancing public environmental awareness, they exhibit insufficient exploration of the distinctive characteristics of specific environmental issues—particularly water pollution—within communication processes, alongside a lack of in-depth analysis on divergent communication mechanisms across different environmental topics.
Research on the relationship between media usage and public environmental engagement has yielded significant progress in understanding environmental awareness, behaviors, and WTP. Regarding environmental awareness, studies confirm the crucial role of media in shaping public cognition, with notable differences observed across media formats. In environmental behaviors, researchers have clarified multiple pathways through which media influences actions, highlighting the critical functions of new media platforms, environmental knowledge, and risk perception. For WTP, evidence indicates a positive correlation between media use frequency and environmental WTP, though traditional and new media exhibit distinct effects.
This study employs CGSS2021 data (Supplementary Materials) to investigate the impact of environmental water pollution and media usage on environmental awareness and WTP. By examining multivariate interaction mechanisms, it aims to provide targeted and scientifically grounded evidence for optimizing environmental protection policies and environmental communication strategies, thereby advancing research in environmental communication. Through this work, we seek to offer novel theoretical support and practical insights for enhancing public environmental consciousness and promoting water conservation initiatives, ultimately contributing to sustainable development efforts in China and globally.

2. Research Design and Hypotheses

2.1. Data Source

This study employs data from the China General Social Survey 2021 (CGSS2021), a nationally representative survey initiated in 2003 as China’s first comprehensive longitudinal social research program. The CGSS2021 dataset comprises 8148 valid responses, encompassing fundamental demographic variables alongside media usage patterns, environmental awareness metrics, and environmental behavioral intentions. Following exclusion of incomplete records and responses irrelevant to this study’s variables, the final analytical sample consists of 2095 rigorously validated observations.

2.2. Model Design

In this study, two models were established, both using ordered regression models. This is because the core dependent variables of this study, namely “cognition of environmental policies” (on a 1–4 scale) and “willingness to pay for environmental protection” (on a 1–5 scale), are both ordinal categorical variables with clear order. Moreover, many similar relevant studies conducted previously also adopted the ordered logistic regression method. The analysis software used is SPSS 26.0. The specific details of the two models are as follows:
Model 1: Residential water pollution conditions and media usage serve as independent variables, with environmental policy cognition as the dependent variable
Model 2: Residential water pollution conditions, media usage, and environmental policy cognition serve as independent variables, with WTP for environmental protection as the dependent variable.
The design diagrams of the two models are shown in Figure 1.

2.3. Variable Design

The variable specification for this study includes independent variables, dependent variables, and control variables.

2.3.1. Dependent Variable

Cognition of environmental policies (which serves as an independent variable in Model 2): The CPC Central Committee and State Council attach great importance to water pollution prevention. In 2015, the State Council issued the “Water Pollution Prevention and Control Action Plan” to accelerate water quality improvement. In CGSS2021′s “Environment Module 1,” Question H10 asks, “How familiar are you with the following matters or knowledge points?” including “Water Pollution Prevention and Control Action Plan,” with familiarity measured on a four-point scale (1 = unfamiliar, 2 = somewhat unfamiliar, 3 = somewhat familiar, 4 = very familiar).
Willingness to Pay for Environmental Protection: Items P11a and P11b in “Environmental Module 2” are, respectively, “To protect the environment, to what extent are you willing to pay higher prices?” and “To protect the environment, to what extent are you willing to pay higher taxes?” The willingness to pay for environmental protection is measured as the average value obtained by summing the scores of these two items, with a higher value indicating a stronger willingness to pay (the value range is 1–5).

2.3.2. Independent Variables

Factors Related to Water Pollution Status
Perception of water pollution: Item H2-2 in the questionnaire refers to the severity of water pollution in the residential area. It was recoded to measure the public’s perception of water pollution, where a higher value indicates a more severe level of water pollution in the residential area (no such question = 1; extremely severe = 6).
Impact of water pollution: Item P22-b in the questionnaire assesses the extent to which the respondent’s community is affected by water pollution. A higher value indicates a greater degree of impact of water pollution on the community where they live (no impact at all = 1; extremely significant impact = 5).
Media Factors
Frequency of new media usage: Item A28 in the questionnaire investigates media usage in the past year. The frequency of new media usage is measured as the average value obtained by summing the usage scores of the Internet (including mobile Internet access) and mobile customized messages, with a higher value indicating a higher frequency of new media usage (the value range is 1–5).
Frequency of traditional media usage: The frequency of traditional media usage is calculated as the average value by summing the usage scores of newspapers, magazines, radio, and television from Item A28 of the questionnaire. A higher value indicates a higher frequency of traditional media usage (the value range is 1–5).
Media trust: This variable is measured using Item P5 in the questionnaire, which codes the level of trust in news media. A higher value indicates a higher degree of trust (completely distrust = 1; completely trust = 10). Media trust refers to people’s reliance on the information provided by media. Metzger argues that the credibility of media information (especially online information) is an important factor affecting users’ attitudes and behaviors [24].
Individual Factors
Gender: Defined as a categorical variable (male = 1, female = 2). Gender differences significantly influence environmental concern and policy cognition levels, with females typically exhibiting higher environmental concern and policy cognition [25]; Hunter et al. found significant gender differences in willingness to pay for environmental protection, with females more inclined to support environmental payment measures [26].
Age: Calculated as survey year (2021) minus respondent’s birth year. Franzen et al. found that the relationship between age and personal environmental engagement follows an inverted U-shape, mirroring the age pattern observed in voluntary political activities [27]. Wiernik et al.’s analysis revealed that younger people in developing countries may be more inclined to support environmental payment measures [28].
Education: The highest education level in the questionnaire was recoded as follows: no formal education = 1, literacy classes/private tutoring = 2, primary school = 3, junior high school = 4, senior high school/vocational school (including vocational high, regular high, technical secondary, polytechnic) = 5, associate degree (adult higher education/formal higher education) = 6, bachelor’s degree (adult higher education/formal higher education) = 7, postgraduate and above = 8. Hines et al. demonstrate a significant positive correlation between education level and environmental policy cognition [29]; Torgler et al. find that education significantly positively influences willingness to pay for environmental protection [30].
Income: Based on questionnaire item A8a (respondent’s total annual income in 2020, unit: yuan), natural logarithm was calculated after adding one to the value. Income level positively correlates with environmental policy cognition (Inglehart et al.) [31]; income significantly positively influences willingness to pay for environmental protection (Kotchen et al.) [32].
Economic status: Self-identified socioeconomic status was recoded from questionnaire responses, with higher values indicating higher perceived socioeconomic standing (lower = 1, upper = 5). Dunlap et al. demonstrate a positive correlation between economic status and environmental policy cognition [33]; Stern et al. find that economic status significantly positively influences willingness to pay for environmental protection [34].
The descriptive statistics of the variables are presented in Table 1.

2.4. Research Questions and Hypotheses

In summary, this study focuses on the relationship between water pollution in Chinese residents’ living environments and their media usage as independent variables, and environmental policy cognition and WTP for environmental protection as dependent variables. The research questions include the following:
Q1: How does water pollution in Chinese residents’ residential areas (perception of water pollution, impact of water pollution) affect cognition of environmental policies?
Q2: How does Chinese residents’ media usage (new media, traditional media, media trust) affect cognition of environmental policies?
Q3: How does water pollution in Chinese residents’ residential areas (perception of water pollution, impact of water pollution) affect WTP for environmental protection?
Q4: How does Chinese residents’ media usage (new media, traditional media, media trust) affect WTP for environmental protection?
Q5: How does Chinese residents’ cognition of environmental policies affect WTP for environmental protection?
The research hypotheses are shown in Table 2:

3. Results

This study is based on two models. The parallel trend assumption tests for Model 1 (dependent variable: environmental policy cognition) and Model 2 (dependent variable: willingness to pay for environmental protection) yielded values of 0.132 and 0.327, respectively, both exceeding the 0.1 threshold and thus satisfying the criterion. The regression results for both models are presented in Table 3.
From the perspective of individual factors, gender, economic status, and education demonstrate correlations with cognition of environmental policies, while gender and economic status exhibit correlations with WTP for environmental protection. When using females as the reference category, males exhibit a significantly positive impact on cognition of environmental policies (β = 0.404, p < 0.001), indicating higher cognition levels among males compared to females. However, males show a negative impact on WTP for environmental protection (β = −0.247, p < 0.01), reflecting lower willingness to pay among males. Economic status demonstrates a positive effect on cognition of environmental policies (β = 0.214, p < 0.001), signifying that individuals with higher economic status possess higher policy cognition levels. Conversely, it negatively affects WTP for environmental protection (β = −0.262, p < 0.001), indicating reduced willingness to pay at higher economic status levels. Education positively influences cognition of environmental policies (β = 0.259, p < 0.001), demonstrating enhanced policy cognition with higher education. However, it shows no significant effect on WTP for environmental protection (β = 0.005, p = 0.883).
The relationships among the key variables in this study are as follows:

3.1. Perception of Water Pollution Positively Affects Cognition of Environmental Policies

Perception of water pollution exerts a significantly positive impact on cognition of environmental policies (β = 0.084, p < 0.01); hypothesis H1a is accepted. The coefficient for impact of water pollution is statistically non-significant (β = 0.059, p = 0.265), suggesting no direct linkage between residents’ perception of pollution consequences or lived experiences of water pollution impacts and policy cognition; hypothesis H1b is rejected.

3.2. New Media Usage and Traditional Media Usage Both Positively Affect Cognition of Environmental Policies

New media usage significantly enhances cognition of environmental policies (β = 0.210, p < 0.001); hypothesis H2a is accepted. Traditional media significantly enhances cognition of environmental policies and demonstrates a stronger effect (β = 0.436, p < 0.001); hypothesis H2b is accepted. The coefficient for media trust is statistically non-significant (β = 0.029, p = 0.202), indicating that trust in media institutions alone does not necessarily enhance cognition of environmental policies; hypothesis H2c is rejected.

3.3. Perception of Water Pollution Positively Affects WTP for Environmental Protection

Perception of water pollution significantly and positively drives WTP for environmental protection (β = 0.100, p < 0.001); hypothesis H3a is accepted. Impact of water pollution shows no significant direct effect on WTP for environmental protection (β = 0.061, p = 0.133), reconfirming the behavioral limitations of “consequence abstractness”; hypothesis H3b is rejected.

3.4. New Media Usage and Media Trust Negatively Affect WTP for Environmental Protection

New media usage exhibits a weakly negative impact on WTP for environmental protection (β = −0.079, * p * < 0.05); hypothesis H4a is rejected. Traditional media usage shows no significant effect on WTP for environmental protection (β = −0.101, p = 0.114), indicating that its policy communication function fails to effectively translate into behavioral motivation; hypothesis H4b is rejected. Media trust exerts a significantly negative impact on WTP for environmental protection (β = −0.128, p < 0.001). High media trust may suppress payment willingness through a “trust-efficacy perception” negative feedback mechanism; hypothesis H4c is rejected.

3.5. Cognition of Environmental Policies Negatively Affects WTP for Environmental Protection

Cognition of environmental policies significantly negatively affects WTP for environmental protection (β = −0.350, p < 0.001), forming a “cognitive-behavioral paradox”; hypothesis H5 is rejected.

4. Discussions

This study aims to investigate how media usage, media trust, and environmental water pollution influence Chinese residents’ willingness to pay (WTP) for environmental protection. Building upon prior research, it incorporates novel methodological elements. A total of eleven research hypotheses were proposed, among which four were supported, three contradicted the initial hypotheses, and four showed no statistical significance.
Firstly, perception of water pollution exerts a significantly positive impact on cognition of environmental policies, indicating that stronger public perception of local water pollution severity correlates with higher cognition levels regarding water pollution prevention policies. This aligns with the Risk Perception Theory [35], where direct environmental threats stimulate individuals’ attention to policy information. However, the coefficient for impact of water pollution is statistically non-significant, suggesting no direct linkage between residents’ perception of pollution consequences or lived experiences of water pollution impacts and policy cognition. Impact of water pollution is often perceived as a distant or collective risk, leading individuals to exhibit optimistic bias [36]—the tendency to underestimate personal susceptibility to negative events (e.g., health damage)—thereby weakening attention to policy information.
Secondly, new media usage significantly enhances cognition of environmental policies. New media usage improves cognition of environmental policies through the convenience of information access, interactivity, and enhanced efficacy perception [37]. However, its effect is weaker than traditional media, likely due to fragmented content potentially undermining in-depth understanding. Traditional media demonstrates a stronger effect, confirming its advantage in authoritative and systematic reporting for policy interpretation. This aligns with Media Dependency Theory, which posits that when society faces high-risk or high-uncertainty situations, public reliance on institutionalized, high-credibility media significantly increases [38]. However, the coefficient for media trust is statistically non-significant, indicating that trust in media institutions alone does not necessarily enhance cognition of environmental policies. This reflects a structural mismatch between content supply and demand: public cognition needs are problem-oriented (e.g., focusing on local water quality improvement measures), while media content may prioritize macro-level policy advocacy, resulting in a “weak coupling” between trust and cognition. This phenomenon is particularly pronounced in environmental communication due to the need to balance scientific rigor and public accessibility [39].
Thirdly, perception of water pollution significantly and positively drives WTP for environmental protection. This result aligns with the “loss aversion logic” in behavioral economics [40]: the more profoundly residents experience existing environmental pollution, the more inclined they are to mitigate future risks through economic payments. But impact of water pollution shows no significant direct effect on WTP for environmental protection, reconfirming the behavioral limitations of “consequence abstractness.” Spence et al. demonstrate that when environmental issues are perceived as distant or collective risks, individuals develop “psychological distance” [41], perceiving the issue as unrelated to themselves. This psychological distance diminishes behavioral responses to environmental problems. Weiner’s Attribution Theory indicates that individuals tend to attribute responsibility for negative events to external factors (e.g., corporations, governments) rather than personal actions. This “external attribution of responsibility” phenomenon weakens individual behavioral motivation [42].
Fourthly, new media usage exhibits a weakly negative impact on WTP for environmental protection. Within the new media environment, some users gain a sense of satisfaction from “symbolic participation” (e.g., sharing environmental content or engaging in online discussions), thereby substituting actual payment behaviors. This “clicktivism” phenomenon diminishes the role of new media in driving substantive actions [43]. Additionally, to attract traffic, new media often employs emotionalized headlines. While such affective communication can garner attention, it may obscure rational policy discussions and foster public skepticism regarding the actual utility of environmental payments [44]. However, traditional media usage shows no significant effect on WTP for environmental protection, indicating that its policy communication function fails to effectively translate into behavioral motivation. Considering the earlier finding that traditional media usage significantly positively affects cognition of environmental policies, we conclude that this non-significant impact on WTP may stem from traditional media’s emphasis on policy advocacy rather than cultivating individual responsibility. Media trust exerts a significantly negative impact on WTP for environmental protection. High media trust may suppress payment willingness through a “trust-efficacy perception” negative feedback mechanism: first, through cognitive bias in trust and efficacy, where high-trust individuals may over-rely on media reports of “policy benefits,” underestimating environmental urgency and weakening payment motivation [45], and second, through “confirmation bias” in information selection, where high-trust groups tend to selectively consume information confirming their preexisting views, reinforcing beliefs that “no additional payment is needed” [46].
What’s more, cognition of environmental policies significantly negatively affects WTP for environmental protection, forming a “cognitive-behavioral paradox”. Highly cognizant groups better understand governments’ statutory duties in pollution governance, thus attributing payment responsibilities to public finance. Rational Choice Theory suggests that individuals adjust decisions based on cost-benefit analyses [47]. Those deeply comprehending policy complexity may question the actual utility of personal payments, opting for “free-riding” strategies. Additionally, Critical Citizens Theory explains that highly cognizant groups tend toward reflective policy evaluation, potentially leading to reserved attitudes toward additional payment measures [48].

5. Conclusions, Recommendations and Limitations

5.1. Conclusions

This study, utilizing CGSS2021 data, examines the impact of environmental water pollution and media usage on environmental cognition and WTP for environmental protection. The findings reveal that perception of water pollution significantly enhances both cognition of environmental policies and WTP, while the impact of water pollution shows non-significant effects, indicating weaker public perception of long-term environmental risks. Both traditional media usage and new media usage significantly improve cognition of environmental policies, yet media trust fails to enhance cognition significantly. Moreover, new media usage and media trust negatively affect WTP. Additionally, the negative impact of cognition of environmental policies on WTP reveals a “cognitive-behavioral paradox”: highly cognizant groups tend to attribute environmental responsibilities to governments, thereby reducing personal willingness to pay.

5.2. Recommendations

China has prioritized the governance of water pollution and environmental protection, as evidenced by key policy initiatives. For instance, the “Beautiful Rivers and Lakes Protection and Construction Action Plan (2025–2027),” jointly released by the Ministry of Ecology and Environment and other departments in June 2025, serves as an upgraded guiding document following the Water Pollution Prevention and Control Action Plan. Furthermore, the national strategy “Guidelines on Comprehensive Advancement of River Basin Protection and Governance” issued by the General Office of the CPC Central Committee and the State Council in June 2025 establishes targets for 2035, including the development of a modernized basin flood control system, significant improvements in water resource conservation efficiency, and the restoration of healthy, stable river ecosystems. These measures collectively demonstrate China’s active commitment to addressing water pollution.
Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are proposed to enhance public environmental awareness and WTP for environmental protection:
First, strengthen water pollution risk communication to enhance public cognition and willingness to act on water environmental issues. Perception of water pollution significantly enhances public cognition of environmental policies and WTP, indicating greater public sensitivity to tangible water environmental problems. Governments and media should therefore intensify water pollution risk communication, particularly through localized cases and data to help the public intuitively understand the severity and urgency of water pollution. For example, publish water quality monitoring data and conduct in-depth reporting on water pollution incidents. Simultaneously, integrate the authority of traditional media with the interactivity of new media to innovate communication formats—such as producing documentaries and short videos on water pollution control—thereby elevating public awareness of water environment protection.
Second, promote public participation in water pollution governance to strengthen responsibility awareness and WTP. Addressing the “cognitive-behavioral paradox”—where highly cognizant groups tend to attribute environmental responsibilities to governments—it is recommended to enhance public engagement in water pollution control. For example, implement community water quality monitoring programs and organize river protection volunteer activities. These initiatives enable direct public involvement in water conservation actions, bolstering their responsibility awareness and WTP. Additionally, governments should ensure public disclosure of water pollution control fund allocation and outcomes, increasing trust in the practical utility of environmental payments, thereby encouraging broader public support for financial contributions to water pollution management.
Third, optimize water pollution governance policy design by developing differentiated strategies for distinct population groups. The study reveals significant disparities in environmental cognition and WTP across demographic segments. Therefore, water pollution governance policies should adopt targeted approaches: for high-income, highly educated groups, enhance WTP through economic instruments such as tax incentives and green finance; for low-income groups, strengthen environmental awareness via community engagement and environmental education. Concurrently, governments should intensify water environmental risk education to improve public understanding of long-term pollution impacts, thereby reinforcing behavioral motivation for environmental protection.

5.3. Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, while demographic factors—including gender, age, economic status, income, and education level—were incorporated as controls, finer-grained categorizations were not applied. Consequently, individual heterogeneity could not be fully accounted for. Second, as the research adopts China as a case study, whether these findings generalize to other nations remains to be tested. Additionally, the reliance on 2021 data may render some insights temporally dated. We acknowledge these constraints and aim to address them in future research through more comprehensive and methodologically rigorous approaches.

Supplementary Materials

The data used in this study are from the Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) 2021. The original dataset is publicly available at https://www.cnsda.org/index.php?r=projects/view&id=65635422, accessed on 25 July 2025.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.S. and Z.K.; methodology, F.S.; software, F.S.; validation, Z.K.; formal analysis, F.S.; resources, Z.K.; data curation, Z.K.; writing—original draft preparation, F.S. and Z.K.; writing—review and editing, F.S. and Z.K.; funding acquisition, Z.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the China Humanities and Social Sciences Research Project “Research on Dimensions and Influencing Factors of Media Literacy” [Project No.: 22YJC860015].

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. These data can be found here: https://www.cnsda.org/index.php?r=projects/view&id=65635422, accessed on 25 July 2025.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviation is used in this manuscript:
WTPwillingness to pay

References

  1. Liu, T. Nine research domains in environmental communication (1938–2007): Perspectives of discourse, power and politics. J. Univ. 2009, 4, 97–104. [Google Scholar]
  2. Liu, T.; Pang, Y. Digital narrative mechanisms in environmental issue construction. News Writ. 2023, 7, 75–85. [Google Scholar]
  3. Liu, T.; Liu, Q. Emotional narrative: Public rhetorical practice in environmental communication. Press Circ. 2023, 4, 4–20. [Google Scholar]
  4. Peng, J. Symbolic discourse construction of the concept of “human and nature life community”. Press Circ. 2022, 10, 25–32. [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen, M.; Li, B. Experimental study on persuasive effects of protagonist similarity and temporal distance in climate narratives. Contemp. Commun. 2024, 4, 71–77. [Google Scholar]
  6. Ashita. How does environment become mediatized? Field study based on desertification control campaigns in Alxa Left Banner. Journal. Univ. 2024, 4, 45–56+118. [Google Scholar]
  7. Zhan, Q.; Tu, Y. Multi-subject agenda interaction in carbon neutrality discourse from environmental communication perspective. Journal. Lover 2024, 3, 38–41. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ebenstein, A. The consequences of industrialization: Evidence from water pollution and digestive cancers in China. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2012, 94, 186–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chen, L.; You, Y. How does environmental pollution erode political trust in China? A multilevel analysis. Environ. Impact Assess. Review. 2021, 88, 106553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wang, J.; Wu, X.; Luo, J. Media usage, embodied cognition, and environmental policy support among Chinese residents: An empirical study based on CGSS2021. J. Southwest Minzu Univ. (Humanit. Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2023, 44, 50–58. [Google Scholar]
  11. Zheng, S.; Kahn, M.E. Land and residential property markets in a booming economy: New evidence from Beijing. J. Urban Econ. 2008, 63, 743–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zhao, X.Q. Personal Values and Environmental Concern in China and the US: The Mediating Role of Informational Media Use. Commun. Monogr. 2012, 79, 137–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Östman, J. The Influence of Media Use on Environmental Engagement: A Political Socialization Approach. Environ. Commun.-J. Nat. Cult. 2014, 8, 92–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wu, J.; Gao, Y.; Tsai, S.B.; Lin, R. Empirical Study of Communication of Audience Cognition of Environmental Awareness. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Liu, P.H.; Han, C.F.; Teng, M.M. The influence of Internet use on pro-environmental behaviors: An integrated theoretical framework. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 164, 105162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhou, H.; Yin, H.T.; Yuan, F.; Wang, F. Social relationships, public media, and pro-environmental behaviors. Empir. Econ. 2019, 57, 569–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gao, S.; Li, W.M.; Ling, S.; Dou, X.; Liu, X. An Empirical Study on the Influence Path of Environmental Risk Perception on Behavioral Responses In China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhang, N.; Skoric, M.M. Media Use and Environmental Engagement: Examining Differential Gains from News Media and Social Media. Int. J. Commun. 2018, 12, 380–403. [Google Scholar]
  19. Skoric, M.M.; Zhang, N. Opinion Leadership, Media Use, and Environmental Engagement in China. Int. J. Commun. 2019, 13, 4602–4623. [Google Scholar]
  20. Wang, H. Knowledge or Responsibility? The Role of Media Use on Citizens’ Willingness to Pay for Environment Governance. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hu, S.J.; Zeng, R.X.; Yi, C.Z. Media Use and Environmental Public Service Satisfaction-An Empirical Analysis Based on China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhang, J.P.; Cheng, M.W.; Wei, X.Y.; Gong, X.; Zhang, S. Internet use and the satisfaction with governmental environmental protection: Evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 212, 1025–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jin, H.; Yu, L.; Zhang, G. The impact of media usage on individual environmental behaviors: An empirical study based on China General Social Survey (CGSS 2013) data. J. Univ. 2017, 2, 46–55+148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Metzger, M.J.; Flanagin, A.J.; Eyal, K.; Lemus, D.R.; Mccann, R.M. Credibility for the21st Century: Integrating Perspectives on Source, Message, and Media Credibility in the Contemporary Media Environment. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. 2003, 27, 293–335. [Google Scholar]
  25. Xiao, C.; McCright, A.M. Gender differences in environmental concern: Revisiting the institutional trust hypothesis in the USA. Environ. Behav. 2015, 47, 17–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hunter, L.M.; Hatch, A.; Johnson, A. Cross-national gender variation in environmental behaviors. Soc. Sci. Q. 2004, 85, 677–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Franzen, A.; Meyer, R. Environmental Attitudes in Cross-National Perspective: A Multilevel Analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 2010, 26, 219–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wiernik, B.M.; Ones, D.S.; Dilchert, S. Age and environmental sustainability: A meta-analysis. J. Manag. Psychol. 2013, 28, 826–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hines, J.M.; Hungerford, H.R.; Tomera, A.N. Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Educ. 1987, 18, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Torgler, B.; García-Valiñas, M.A. The determinants of individuals’ attitudes towards preventing environmental damage. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63, 536–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Inglehart, R. Public support for environmental protection: Objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. PS Political Sci. Politics 1995, 28, 57–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kotchen, M.J.; Boyle, K.J.; Leiserowitz, A.A. Willingness-to-pay and policy-instrument choice for climate-change policy in the United States. Energy Policy 2013, 55, 617–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Dunlap, R.E.; York, R. The globalization of environmental concern and the limits of the postmaterialist values explanation: Evidence from four multinational surveys. Sociol. Q. 2008, 49, 529–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Kalof, L. Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environ. Behav. 1993, 25, 322–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Slovic, P. Perception of risk. Science 1987, 236, 280–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Weinstein, N.D. Unrealistic optimism about future life events. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1980, 39, 806–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhang, W.; Skoric, M.M. Media use and environmental engagement: Examining the role of perceived knowledge and efficacy in promoting pro-environmental behaviors. Environ. Commun. 2018, 12, 926–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ball-Rokeach, S.J.; DeFleur, M.L. A dependency model of mass-media effects. Commun. Res. 1976, 3, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Fischhoff, B. The sciences of science communication. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110 (Suppl. 3), 14033–14039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kahneman, D.; Tversky, A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979, 47, 263–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Spence, A.; Poortinga, W.; Pidgeon, N. The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Anal. 2012, 32, 957–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Weiner, B. An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychol. Rev. 1985, 92, 548–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Kristofferson, K.; White, K.; Peloza, J. The nature of slacktivism: How the social observability of an initial act of token support affects subsequent prosocial action. J. Consum. Res. 2014, 40, 1149–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Anderson, A.A. Effects of social media use on climate change opinion, knowledge, and behavior. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control; W.H. Freeman: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Nickerson, R.S. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 1998, 2, 175–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Coleman, J.S. Foundations of Social Theory; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  48. Norris, P. Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 17 07617 g001
Figure 1. Model design diagram.
Figure 1. Model design diagram.
Sustainability 17 07617 g001
Table 1. Descriptive statistical results of variables.
Table 1. Descriptive statistical results of variables.
DescriptionMinMaxMean/
Proportion		Std. Dev.
Dependent WTP for environmental protection1–5 increasing152.841.024
Cognition of environmental policies1–4 increasing141.350.550
IndependentWater PollutionPerception of water pollution1–6 increasing163.981.583
Impact of water pollution1–5 increasing151.850.980
Media FactorsNew media usage1–5 increasing152.771.246
Traditional media usage1–5 increasing152.140.668
Media trust0–10 increasing0106.302.326
Demographic FactorsGenderMale = 1
Female = 2		//Male 47.7%
Female 52.3%		/
Age2021-Birth year189450.8617.080
Economic status1–5 increasing152.28
IncomeNatural logarithm016.128.274.156
Education1–8 increasing184.271.677
Table 2. Research hypotheses.
Table 2. Research hypotheses.
Research
Question		CodeHypothesis
1H1aPerception of water pollution positively affects Cognition of Water Pollution Prevention Action Plan
H1bImpact of water pollution positively affects Cognition of Water Pollution Prevention Action Plan
2H2aNew media usage positively affects Cognition of Water Pollution Prevention Action Plan
H2bTraditional media usage positively affects Cognition of Water Pollution Prevention Action Plan
H2cMedia trust positively affects Cognition of Water Pollution Prevention Action Plan
3H3aPerception of water pollution positively affects WTP for environmental protection
H3bImpact of water pollution positively affects WTP for environmental protection
4H4aNew media usage positively affects WTP for environmental protection
H4bTraditional media usage positively affects WTP for environmental protection
H4cMedia trust positively affects WTP for environmental protection
5H5Cognition of Water Pollution Prevention Action Plan positively affects WTP for environmental protection
Table 3. The regression results.
Table 3. The regression results.
Independent
Dependent		Cognition of Environmental PoliciesWTP for Environmental Protection
Perception of water pollution0.084 (0.034) **0.100 (0.025) ***
Impact of water pollution0.059 (0.053)0.061 (0.041)
New media usage0.210 (0.050) ***−0.079 (0.040) *
Traditional media usage0.436 (0.079) ***−0.101 (0.064)
Media trust0.029 (0.023)−0.128 (0.017) ***
Gender (Male = 1)0.404 (0.103) ***−0.247 (0.081) **
Age−0.007 (0.004)0.000 (0.003)
Economic status 0.214 (0.13) ***−0.262 (0.45) ***
Income0.004 (0.013)0.002 (0.010)
Education0.259 (0.041) ***0.005 (0.031)
cognition of environmental policies/−0.350 (0.076) ***
R20.1650.079
Standardized output of direct effects. Note: * significant at the 5% level; ** significant at the 1% level; *** significant at the 0.1% level.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sun, F.; Kong, Z. How Media and Environmental Water Pollution Affect Chinese Residents’ Willingness to Pay for Environmental Protection: Empirical Evidence from China. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7617. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177617

AMA Style

Sun F, Kong Z. How Media and Environmental Water Pollution Affect Chinese Residents’ Willingness to Pay for Environmental Protection: Empirical Evidence from China. Sustainability. 2025; 17(17):7617. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177617

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sun, Fangyuan, and Zeming Kong. 2025. "How Media and Environmental Water Pollution Affect Chinese Residents’ Willingness to Pay for Environmental Protection: Empirical Evidence from China" Sustainability 17, no. 17: 7617. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177617

APA Style

Sun, F., & Kong, Z. (2025). How Media and Environmental Water Pollution Affect Chinese Residents’ Willingness to Pay for Environmental Protection: Empirical Evidence from China. Sustainability, 17(17), 7617. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177617

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop