Next Article in Journal
The Impact of Government-Led Green Certification on Enterprise Green Transformation—Evidence from Green Factory Recognition
Previous Article in Journal
Environmental and Health Benefits: A Bibliometric and Knowledge Mapping Analysis of Research Progress
 
 
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 5
10.3390/su17052270
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

The Mediating Role of Gender Equality Awareness on the Environmental Willingness to Pay: An Analysis Based on CGSS2021 Data

by
Jing Ren
1,
Chuntian Lu
1 and
Long Niu
2,*
1
Department of Sociology, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China
2
Center for Physical Education, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(5), 2270; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052270
Submission received: 27 November 2024 / Revised: 18 February 2025 / Accepted: 4 March 2025 / Published: 5 March 2025
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Gender and willingness to pay for environmental protection (WTP) have long been pivotal topics in environmental sociology. However, studies investigating the impact of gender on WTP have reported divergent findings between China and Western countries. To address this discrepancy, we introduce gender equality awareness as a mediating concept to explore the effect of gender on WTP. Our hypothesis proposes that gender equality awareness influences individuals’ attitudes toward WTP. This study utilizes data from the 2021 Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS) and applies multiple linear regression models to analyze the relationships among gender, gender equality awareness, and WTP. Furthermore, gender equality awareness is incorporated into the model as a mediating variable. The findings reveal that (1) women in China demonstrate significantly higher WTP than men; (2) greater gender equality awareness is positively correlated with stronger WTP; and (3) gender equality awareness partially mediates the relationship between gender and WTP. Notably, men tend to exhibit higher levels of gender equality awareness, which attenuates the positive effect of gender on WTP, thereby narrowing women’s advantage in this domain.

1. Introduction

As the concept of sustainable development continues to evolve, environmental issues have emerged as one of the most pressing global concerns [1]. In efforts to promote environmental sustainability and establish a robust ecological environment, public co-governance was recognized as a vital complement to government-led environmental governance initiatives [2]. Against this backdrop, evaluating public monetary contributions to environmental protection behaviors and strategically guiding individuals to participate in environmental governance through economic incentives have become key areas of academic inquiry. Research suggests that analyzing public behavioral intentions can, to some extent, provide insights into their actual actions [3]. Environmental willingness to pay (WTP) serves as a precise indicator of the public’s support for environmental protection measures and their readiness to bear economic costs to enhance environmental quality [4]. As a result, WTP is widely regarded as a critical indicator of public attitudes toward environmental governance and their willingness to invest, which, to some extent, shapes the effectiveness of addressing environmental issues [5,6].
Extensive academic discussions have emerged regarding the factors influencing WTP. Numerous empirical studies have identified a strong association between sociodemographic factors and WTP. For instance, variables such as personal income and educational attainment have consistently shown significant positive effects on WTP [7,8]. Notably, several studies highlight the distinct role of gender in shaping individuals’ environmental attitudes, behaviors, and modes of participation, with some scholars even proposing gender as a crucial indicator of environmental protectionism [9,10]. In this context, further investigation into the specific mechanisms through which gender influences WTP, along with potential moderating factors, holds substantial theoretical and practical significance for advancing our understanding of environmental behavior and guiding the development of more effective environmental policies.
Although the academic community broadly acknowledges gender differences in environmental issues, there remains no consensus on how these differences manifest. The prevailing view in Western countries holds that women display greater environmental concern and stronger pro-environmental intentions than men [11,12]. Conversely, some studies offer an alternative perspective, suggesting that men, compared to women, possess a deeper understanding of environmental issues, which translates into higher participation in environmental behaviors [13,14]. Research within the Chinese context also yields mixed findings: some studies indicate that men exhibit higher levels of environmental concern, while women demonstrate greater engagement in pro-environmental behaviors within private spheres [15,16]. These discussions often draw upon gender socialization theory and gender structure theory to explain these differences [17]. Gender socialization emphasizes the division of labor and value formation, where women are encouraged to adopt caregiving roles, fostering empathy and a protective attitude toward environmental issues [10,18]. Gender structure theory, on the other hand, argues that women’s marginalized and subordinate positions within economic and occupational structures lead them to prioritize values such as sharing, cooperation, and emotional support over instrumental and competitive economic values. This orientation heightens their sensitivity to environmental issues that threaten family health and community well-being [19].
Recent scholars have moved beyond traditional theoretical frameworks, arguing that women’s greater environmental concern arises from their lower support for hierarchical social dominance orientations [20]. This perspective aligns with ecofeminist theories, which attribute gender differences in environmental issues to gender inequality and emphasize the growing role of gender egalitarianism in shaping environmental attitudes and behaviors [21]. Building on these insights, this study aims to examine the specific impacts of gender and gender equality awareness on environmental issues within China’s unique social and cultural context and its gender structure. Although previous studies have explored the relationship between gender and environmental behavior, the complex interaction between gender equality awareness and WTP has not been fully examined. Therefore, this study seeks to fill this research gap by focusing on two core questions: first, whether significant gender differences exist in WTP for the environment; and second, how gender equality awareness potentially mediates the relationship between gender and WTP. By addressing these questions, the study seeks to contribute to theoretical advancements and offer empirical evidence to support the development and implementation of environmental policies in China.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

2.1. Gender and Environmental Willingness to Pay

Environmental willingness to pay (WTP), as a key indicator of pro-environmental intent, quantifies an individual’s readiness to engage in environmental behaviors and serves as an effective predictor of public environmental payment behaviors [22]. Current research on environmental WTP spans various macro-level perspectives, including economics, values, and regional environmental issues [23,24,25]. At the individual level, the analysis primarily focuses on sociodemographic characteristics. Some studies based on the Chinese social context have shown that factors such as education level, economic status, and urban–rural differences significantly influence WTP, with urban residents, who are generally more educated and have higher incomes, demonstrating a stronger WTP [26,27,28]. In terms of generational differences, recent studies in Portugal have also shown that Generation Z, driven by their consumption habits and perceptions of green products, also exhibits higher WTP [29]. However, some studies present contrasting viewpoints, arguing that higher income does not necessarily correlate with a greater willingness to pay for environmental protection. In fact, rural residents, who are more vulnerable to environmental pollution and ecological degradation, as well as elderly individuals with deep emotional attachments to their local environment, may be more willing to contribute financially or in other ways to environmental protection [30,31]. Overall, while existing research has made strides in identifying the effects of sociodemographic characteristics on WTP, the inconsistencies in findings suggest that these effects may be moderated or influenced by other factors, warranting further investigation into the underlying mechanisms at play.
Gender, as a significant predictor among sociodemographic variables [32,33], exhibits variability and uncertainty in its impact on WTP. Some studies based on the Chinese social context have found no significant gender differences in WTP, with certain scholars concluding that gender was not a significant factor in their analyses [34]. Other research also confirms that there is no difference between men and women in their willingness to bear economic costs for environmental issues [35]. However, some studies suggest that men tend to have a higher WTP. Hayes, through the analysis of cross-national data from the United States, the United Kingdom, Norway, the Netherlands, Germany, and Japan, indicates that, in many countries, women are not more concerned about environmental issues than men [36]. In these countries, the socialization of gender roles and differences in public policies may explain the gender differences observed. Particularly in some highly industrialized and market-driven countries, men may place greater emphasis on economic interests and resource ownership, which leads to higher levels of involvement in environmental issues and a higher WTP compared to women. In the Chinese context, related studies support this view, showing that Chinese men are more concerned about environmental issues than women [16,19], possess greater environmental knowledge [37], and engage in more proactive environmental behaviors [38,39]. Some scholars argue that this gender difference stems from the fact that, within the Chinese social context, men generally have higher average incomes than women and are more concerned with public environmental issues, leading them to exhibit a stronger willingness to pay for the environment compared to women [40,41].
In the field of environmental sociology, the view that women have a higher WTP remains widely supported. Early studies in North America have shown that women are more active in environmental behaviors, a tendency that is reflected not only in their daily actions but also in their consumption patterns, as women are more likely to pay for green products [42,43]. Furthermore, women tend to recognize the negative impacts of environmental pollution on health more deeply, leading to greater concern about environmental issues [44]. Some cross-national studies, based on large samples, confirm that women are more likely than men to engage in environmental behaviors and are more willing to bear the economic costs of addressing environmental problems; this conclusion is more pronounced in countries with higher gross national income, such as the United States, Japan, and Norway [45,46]. While many studies in the Chinese context suggest that men are more concerned with environmental issues, other research points out that men focus more on resource possession and are thus less willing to pay additional costs for environmental protection [47]. Despite the heterogeneity in statistical results across different studies, gender differences in WTP are still widely recognized. Given that women, through socialization, are more concerned with the welfare of others and possess stronger environmental values, this paper supports the view that women are more willing to bear economic costs for environmental protection. Based on this, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1. 
Females have a higher WTP for environmental protection than males among Chinese residents.

2.2. Gender Equality Awareness and Environmental Willingness to Pay

The debates surrounding gender differences suggest that relying solely on the gender identity differences between men and women is insufficient to fully understand and explain individual variations in WTP. Stern according to the Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) theory, an individual’s environmental behavior is often driven by intrinsic values and moral norms [48]. While early research attributed women’s greater concern for environmental issues to their altruistic values, recent studies in China have challenged this view, proposing that egalitarianism rather than altruism is the value basis for environmental concern [49]. In fact, some scholars have already focused on the relationship between social dominance orientation (SDO) and environmental behavior. SDO refers to the degree to which individuals support unequal relations and hierarchical structures between social groups. Some foreign studies suggest that SDO can predict an individual’s attitudes and behaviors toward environmental issues. Individuals who do not support group equality are generally less willing to make personal sacrifices for environmental protection. This phenomenon may occur because individuals with a higher level of social dominance orientation are more likely to prioritize personal interests over collective environmental goals, thereby reducing their willingness to pay for environmental services. Additionally, women typically possess stronger empathy and have lower levels of social dominance orientation, which leads them to exhibit higher levels of environmental concern compared to men [50,51].
The rise in egalitarian perspectives calls for a re-examination of gender differences in environmental issues, with gender equality awareness reflecting such egalitarian value norms. Existing research has demonstrated that gender equality awareness, as a component of egalitarianism, plays a crucial role in increasing individuals’ concern for and support of environmental issues. For example, Smith first proposed that while there is no direct relationship between gender and environmental issues, a significant relationship exists between gender egalitarian attitudes and environmental concern [21]. Empirical studies in China have also supported this view, asserting that it is not gender identity, but rather the value foundation of gender equality, that truly influences individuals’ environmental concern [49]. Ecofeminism argues that there is a close connection between the development of women and the development of nature, with women being the foundation for promoting a harmonious coexistence between humans and nature. These findings demonstrate a positive correlation between gender equality as a core value and environmentalism, thereby supporting ecofeminist theory to some extent. A cross-national study based on the sixth wave of the World Values Survey indicates that individuals with egalitarian gender attitudes typically show a higher level of concern for the environment [52]. Studies focusing on China, South Korea, and Japan have shown that individuals who hold traditional gender role beliefs tend to exhibit lower levels of environmental concern [53]. These studies provide new perspectives for the further exploration of how gender equality awareness influences environmental protection behaviors.
In fact, globally, many environmental organizations have recognized that gender equality is not only a core issue for advancing social justice but also a significant driver for increasing participation in environmental behaviors. For example, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has explicitly stated that gender equality is a core element of environmental sustainability, advocating for increased female participation in environmental decision-making and emphasizing the unique role of women in natural resource management. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has also released a recent report, “Gender equality for greener and bluer futures—Why women’s leadership matters for realizing environmental goals”, which argues that gender equality in environmental work is closely linked to women’s empowerment and improvements in economic outcomes. As global awareness of gender equality continues to deepen, an increasing number of environmental actions are beginning to incorporate gender considerations, not only recognizing women as important drivers of environmental protection but also acknowledging that promoting gender equality can enhance public participation in environmental behaviors.
In this context, gender equality awareness is an ideology that reflects core values of equality and justice, emphasizing an individual’s perspective on their relationship with the environment from an egalitarian viewpoint. On one hand, holding gender equality beliefs encourages individuals to view environmental issues from an equal perspective, where they believe that both men and women should have equal rights to participate in environmental matters. This helps enhance the sensitivity and awareness of this group toward environmental issues, fostering a greater recognition of the importance of environmental protection and motivating them to take corresponding actions. On the other hand, gender equality awareness is often closely related to a sense of social responsibility, prompting individuals to pay more attention to social and public interests, and to support green policies and sustainable development. Thus, gender equality awareness not only influences individuals’ attitudes toward gender issues but also shapes their behavior in fulfilling social responsibilities, such as environmental protection, by reinforcing moral norms of equality and justice. In terms of environmental behavior, cross-national studies have shown that in countries with higher levels of gender equality, women are more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviors than men [54]. However, when women’s gender awareness aligns with traditional views, their willingness to engage in environmental behaviors significantly decreases, whereas men’s willingness remains largely unaffected by such views [55]. These findings suggest that gender equality awareness may influence individuals’ environmental concern and behavior, thereby affecting their WTP. Based on this, it is reasonable to hypothesize that environmental WTP is positively influenced by gender equality awareness. Therefore, Hypotheses 2 and 2a are proposed as follows:
H2. 
The more egalitarian an individual’s gender equality awareness, the stronger their environmental willingness to pay.
H2a. 
Chinese females have higher levels of gender equality awareness than Chinese males.
Accompanying the transformation and development of Chinese society, the social value system of freedom and equality has driven a growing trend toward gender equality in people’s awareness [56]. Women are increasingly participating in social and economic activities, taking on roles similar to those of men. The development of the modern economy has not only reshaped employment and family structures but has also enhanced women’s educational levels and employment opportunities, providing a foundation for the widespread acceptance of gender equality. This social transformation has significantly benefited women, making them more inclined to support values of social gender equality and fairness [57]. Numerous studies have confirmed this, showing that women are more likely than men to support notions of fairness and gender equality [58,59,60]. However, despite the gradual advancement of gender equality awareness, unequal gender beliefs and cultural norms persist in real life, especially within the family, where women continue to face traditional and unequal pressures in the division of labor. This creates a conflict between beliefs and reality [61]. As a result, women tend to have a clearer understanding of social gender inequality than men, making them more likely to recognize and challenge unequal gender relations in society [62,63].
Gender equality awareness not only plays a crucial role in shaping attitudes toward gender issues but may also extend to attitudes and behaviors related to environmental issues. It can be hypothesized that women, who are more active in supporting egalitarian gender values, may allow this awareness to further influence their willingness to pay (WTP) for the environment. Under the value norms of gender equality, women may be more inclined than men to align their environmental behaviors with their commitment to social gender equality. Therefore, it can be inferred that gender equality awareness may influence individuals’ WTP through gender differences. Based on this reasoning, Hypotheses 3 and 3a are proposed as follows:
H3. 
Gender equality awareness significantly mediates the relationship between gender and willingness to pay for the environment.
H3a. 
Women with higher levels of gender equality awareness exhibit a stronger willingness to pay for environmental protection.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Data Source

The data for this study were drawn from the 2021 China General Social Survey (CGSS), conducted by Renmin University of China. Launched in 2003, CGSS is China’s first national, comprehensive, and continuous academic survey. It targets Chinese citizens aged 18 and older and gathers multi-level information on various aspects of society, communities, families, and individuals. The survey utilizes a multistage stratified sampling method, covering 2801 districts and counties across 22 provinces, four autonomous regions, and four municipalities, with a total sample size of 8148 respondents. This extensive coverage ensures the study’s broad explanatory power and validity. The focus of this research is the willingness to pay (WTP) for environmental protection. After excluding cases with missing values, imputing the remaining data, and removing outliers, the final dataset included 2707 valid responses concerning WTP. Of these, 1460 respondents were male (53.93%) and 1247 were female (46.07%).

3.2. Variables

3.2.1. Dependent Variable

The dependent variable in this study is the willingness to pay (WTP) for environmental protection. WTP was measured using three items from the environmental module of the 2021 China General Social Survey (CGSS): (1) “To what extent are you willing to pay higher prices to protect the environment?”; (2) “To what extent are you willing to pay higher taxes to protect the environment?”; and (3) “To what extent are you willing to lower your standard of living to protect the environment?”. Respondents’ answers were categorized into five levels: “Very unwilling”, “Somewhat unwilling”, “Neutral”, “Somewhat willing”, and “Very willing”. These responses were assigned scores from 1 to 5, respectively, with the “Unable to choose” option treated as neutral and given a score of 3. The scores from the three questions were summed, with higher total scores reflecting a stronger willingness to pay for the environment. To assess the internal consistency of the scale, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for reliability analysis. The WTP scale in this study yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.81, indicating high reliability.

3.2.2. Independent Variables

The core independent variables in this study are gender and gender equality awareness. Gender was coded as a dummy variable, where 0 represents male and 1 represents female. Gender equality awareness was measured using a scale derived from five items in the Social Attitude Module, including the following: (1) “Should a man’s career take precedence over a woman’s family responsibilities?”; (2) “Are men naturally more capable than women?”; (3) “Is it better for a woman to marry well than to have a successful career?”; (4) “In times of economic difficulty, should women be the first to be laid off?”; and (5) “Should husbands and wives share household chores equally?”. Respondents’ answers were rated on a Likert scale ranging from “Strongly agree”, “Somewhat agree”, “Unsure/Neutral”, “Somewhat disagree”, to “Strongly disagree”. The responses were reverse-coded on a scale from 1 to 5, with “Don’t know” and “Refuse to answer” treated as neutral and assigned a value of 3. The summed scores reflect the extent to which an individual’s gender equality awareness is egalitarian, with higher scores indicating stronger gender equality awareness. A reliability analysis of the gender equality awareness scale revealed a Cronbach’s α of 0.73, indicating moderate internal consistency. Additionally, gender equality awareness was used as a mediating variable in the analysis.

3.2.3. Control Variables

Building on previous research, this study includes several control variables to further investigate potential influencing mechanisms. These variables include age, urban–rural differences, educational attainment, employment status, annual personal income, socioeconomic status, and parental role. Specifically, the urban–rural variable is coded as a dummy variable, with 0 representing rural residency and 1 representing urban residency. Employment status is also coded as a dummy variable, with 0 indicating unemployment and 1 indicating employment. The parental role is similarly coded as a dummy variable, with 0 representing no children and 1 indicating the presence of children.
For educational attainment, a categorical scale was used, with the following assignments: primary school or below = 1, middle school = 2, high school = 3, vocational/technical school = 4, and university or above = 5. This results in a continuous variable ranging from 1 to 5. To explore the impact of economic income on willingness to pay (WTP) for environmental protection, a logarithmic transformation of personal income was employed during data processing. Socioeconomic status was categorized into three levels: lower class = 1, middle class = 2, and upper class = 3.

3.3. Methods

This study employs descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models, and mediation effect analysis to examine the data. First, descriptive statistics are used to analyze the differences in willingness to pay (WTP) based on the values of relevant variables. Second, an OLS regression nested model is constructed for WTP, where gender and gender equality awareness are progressively introduced as independent variables in the baseline model. This approach allows for the examination of the specific impact of gender and gender equality awareness on WTP. Finally, a stepwise regression analysis was conducted using the “three-step method”, and the Sobel test was performed to analyze the mediating effect. The bootstrap method was then used to test the indirect effect and the mediation effect analysis was conducted to explore the mediating role of gender equality awareness in influencing WTP among both men and women, thereby uncovering the underlying mechanisms through which gender and gender equality awareness affect WTP.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for the main variables in this study. The mean value of the dependent variable, environmental willingness to pay (WTP), is 9.038, slightly above the median (7.5) of the scale, with a standard deviation of 2.759. This indicates moderate variability in WTP among Chinese residents, with the overall level slightly exceeding the average and suggesting potential for further improvement. The mean value of the primary independent variable, gender equality awareness, is 17.140, which is also slightly above the median (15) of the scale, with a standard deviation of 3.955. This implies some variability in gender equality awareness among the sample, but it generally leans toward a slightly above-average level.
Regarding the distribution of the key independent variable, gender, 46.1% of the sample are female, indicating an almost equal gender distribution, which provides a balanced basis for analyzing the impact of gender on WTP. As for other control variables, the sample exhibits an even urban–rural distribution, a broad range of age groups, and representation across various levels of educational attainment. The standard deviation of annual personal income is 3.962, reflecting significant variation in income levels within the sample, with the majority of respondents falling within the middle socioeconomic class. Additionally, 34.2% of the residents in the sample are employed, and 42.9% have children.

4.2. Correlation Analysis

Table 2 presents the correlation analysis results between environmental willingness to pay (WTP) and each of the variables included in the study. The results indicate that the primary independent variables, gender and gender equality awareness, are significantly positively correlated with WTP, with correlation coefficients of 0.056 and 0.057, respectively. Among the control variables, socioeconomic status (SES) exhibits the strongest correlation with WTP, with a correlation coefficient of 0.116. Other variables, including educational attainment and personal annual income, also show significant correlations with WTP.
Furthermore, gender equality awareness is significantly positively correlated with both education level and SES, suggesting that these factors play a crucial role in shaping individuals’ gender equality awareness. Overall, the correlation analysis results provide a solid foundation for the subsequent regression analysis, highlighting the potential influence of gender, gender equality awareness, and other control variables on WTP.

4.3. The Impact of Gender and Gender Equality Awareness on Environmental Willingness to Pay

Table 3 presents the results of the OLS regression analysis. This study uses OLS nested models to examine the specific effects of gender and gender equality awareness on environmental willingness to pay (WTP).
In Model 1, the baseline model includes only control variables. The results show that socioeconomic status (SES) and education level have significant positive effects on WTP (Edu: coef. 0.111, p < 0.05; SES: coef. 0.586, p < 0.001), indicating that individuals with higher education and higher SES are more willing to pay for environmental protection.
Model 2 examines the impact of gender on WTP. The results indicate that gender has a significant positive effect on WTP (coef. 0.296, p < 0.01), suggesting that, after controlling for other variables, women are willing to pay significantly more for environmental protection than men, supporting Hypothesis 1. Furthermore, the R2 value of Model 2 increases, indicating that the inclusion of gender as an independent variable enhances the model’s explanatory power.
Model 3 explores the impact of gender equality awareness on WTP. The results show that gender equality awareness has a significant positive effect on WTP (coef. 0.037, p < 0.05), indicating that individuals with higher gender equality awareness are more likely to have a stronger WTP, thus supporting Hypothesis 2. Notably, after accounting for gender equality awareness, the effect of education level becomes insignificant, while urban–rural differences begin to show a significant negative effect on WTP (coef. −0.271, p < 0.05). This suggests that gender equality awareness reduces the influence of education level, and rural residents exhibit a higher WTP compared to their urban counterparts.
Model 4 simultaneously includes both gender and gender equality awareness to assess their combined effects on WTP. The results indicate that women and individuals with higher gender equality awareness are more likely to bear economic costs for environmental protection. Additionally, in Model 4, the effect of gender equality awareness on WTP becomes stronger (coef. 0.042, p < 0.01), suggesting that the presence of gender as a variable amplifies the positive influence of gender equality awareness on WTP, further supporting the role of gender equality awareness in driving environmental behavior. Among the control variables, education level and socioeconomic status consistently show significant effects on WTP across all models, highlighting their importance as determinants of WTP. However, while the direct effects of gender and gender equality awareness are established, the specific mechanism through which gender equality awareness mediates the relationship between gender and WTP remains unclear. Therefore, a more in-depth exploration is needed to understand how gender equality awareness mediates the effect of gender on WTP.

4.4. The Mediating Role of Gender Equality Awareness Between Gender and Environmental Willingness to Pay

To explore the mechanisms through which gender equality awareness influences the relationship between gender and WTP, this study employs the Sobel–Goodman mediation test and conducts 5000 bootstrap resampling to robustly estimate the mediation effect and verify its significance.
The Sobel test reveals that the indirect effect of gender equality awareness on the relationship between gender and WTP is −0.034 (p < 0.05). This result indicates a significant mediating effect of gender equality awareness in the relationship between gender and WTP. Furthermore, the bootstrap test confirms the significance of this mediation effect, with a 95% bias-corrected confidence interval of [−0.060, −0.008], validating the robustness of the mediation effect. The mediation effect accounts for −11.71% of the total effect, suggesting that gender equality awareness partially mediates the relationship between gender and WTP, supporting Hypothesis 3.
Table 4 presents the detailed mediation analysis results. It shows that the direct effect of gender on WTP is significant (coef. 0.330, p < 0.001), indicating that, after controlling for gender equality awareness, women’s WTP remains significantly higher than that of men, thereby supporting Hypothesis 1. However, gender has a significant negative effect on gender equality awareness (coef. −0.819, p < 0.001), suggesting that men exhibit higher levels of gender equality awareness than women, which contradicts Hypothesis 2a.
Moreover, gender influences WTP through gender equality awareness with a negative indirect effect. This implies that gender equality awareness, as a mediating variable, weakens the total effect of gender on WTP. Specifically, while men have higher gender equality awareness, this does not translate into a higher WTP. Conversely, women’s lower gender equality awareness, compared to men’s, partially diminishes their WTP, rejecting Hypothesis 3a. Nonetheless, since the total effect of gender on WTP remains significantly positive, the direct effect of gender on WTP is greater than the suppressive effect of gender equality awareness. In other words, while gender equality awareness partially mediates the relationship, it does not entirely negate the higher WTP among women compared to men.
Overall, the mediation analysis underscores the importance of enhancing gender equality awareness to foster greater environmental engagement among women. It illustrates the different ways in which gender equality awareness operates between men and women, shedding light on the complex relationship between gender, gender equality awareness, and WTP. These findings provide a deeper understanding of how gender dynamics and awareness levels interact to influence environmental behaviors, offering valuable insights for designing targeted interventions and policies aimed at promoting environmental engagement across genders.

5. Discussion

This study aims to explore the mechanisms by which gender and gender equality awareness influence environmental willingness to pay (WTP), with a particular focus on gender differences. First, the study confirms significant gender differences in WTP among Chinese residents, with women exhibiting higher WTP than men. This finding partially supports previous research [42,43,45,46], though some studies suggest that Chinese men may demonstrate a stronger tendency toward pro-environmental behaviors [40,41]. These divergent findings highlight the complexity of environmental research, indicating that differences in conclusions may stem from varying socio-cultural contexts. This underscores the importance of considering broader social and cultural factors when studying environmental behaviors.
In the context of rapidly modernizing China, gender differences in individual environmental behaviors may be shaped by the interplay of various factors and are likely to evolve over time. For example, analysis of the 2010 China General Social Survey (CGSS) revealed no significant gender differences in WTP between men and women, while a shift compared to the 2003 CGSS data indicated that the gap in environmental concern between the genders was gradually narrowing [64]. This trend further supports the conclusions of the present study, suggesting that, with the continuous progress of Chinese society, women have increasingly surpassed men in terms of WTP.
Secondly, this study verifies the significant role of gender equality awareness in environmental WTP. The research finds that individuals with more egalitarian gender awareness exhibit higher WTP, supporting the positive role of gender equality awareness in promoting environmental behaviors [49,65]. However, this positive effect still varies between men and women. Although men scored higher in gender equality awareness, women still demonstrate a higher WTP. This phenomenon may be influenced by multiple factors. First, Chinese society has consistently advocated for gender equality and the enhancement of women’s rights, which has led to the continuous improvement of women’s social status. This, to some extent, may motivate women to engage in pro-environmental behaviors, making them more willing to contribute to environmental protection. Second, the increasing educational level of Chinese women allows them to receive a more comprehensive environmental education, strengthening their environmental awareness. Higher education levels may also influence the internalization of gender equality awareness, with gender equality becoming an intrinsic value that further promotes their involvement in environmental protection activities. Third, gender equality awareness itself is closely linked to social responsibility, altruism, and collective interests. Although men may have a higher recognition of gender equality, their environmental behaviors are more influenced by economic and self-interests, while women’s stronger inclination toward altruism typically results in more pro-environmental actions. Additionally, factors such as gender socialization, personal values, social role expectations, and the cultural shaping of gender roles may also play a significant role. This may be related to the internalization process of gender equality awareness, offering a new perspective for exploring the relationship between gender equality and environmental behavior. Future research could delve deeper into the mechanisms of this internalization process and its impact on different groups.
Additionally, the study’s Hypothesis 2a, which posited that women have higher gender equality awareness than men, was not positively supported. Instead, the results indicate that Chinese men have higher gender equality awareness than women, prompting further reflection. On one hand, with the widespread adoption of gender equality concepts in China and the significant improvement in women’s social status, men might display higher gender equality awareness due to societal pressures to meet social expectations. On the other hand, data from the 2017 CGSS reveals that men’s educational attainment is generally higher than that of women [66], which may reinforce men’s identification with egalitarian values, as education is often associated with higher social awareness and values. However, it remains to be explored whether this gender equality awareness stems from genuine value identification or is an adaptive response by men to societal expectations. Future research should further analyze this phenomenon by examining the complex interactions among education, social expectations, and gender awareness, and how these factors influence different gender groups. This would not only enhance our understanding of the mechanisms behind the formation of gender equality awareness but also provide empirical evidence for promoting more comprehensive gender equality policies.
Lastly, this study identifies the partial mediating role of gender equality awareness between gender and WTP. The higher gender equality awareness among men did not translate into a higher WTP; instead, the mediation effect analysis revealed a negative effect. While women demonstrate a higher WTP than men, their lower gender equality awareness compared to men somewhat diminishes their environmental proactivity. The lack of support for Hypotheses 2a and 3a also indicates the need to further explore the different ways in which gender equality awareness operates among men and women, and also indicates that the mechanism of gender equality awareness is not purely a positive influence, but may be constrained by the complex interplay of traditional gender roles and values. Specifically, in the Chinese context, traditional gender role divisions continue to subtly influence male behavior choices. Men may feel the impact of these traditional roles, making them more likely to excel in professional and economic fields, thus reducing their willingness to invest in areas like environmental protection. In terms of values, men with higher gender equality awareness may be more inclined to view environmental protection as a collective responsibility rather than relying on individual economic behaviors. This value system, to some extent, suppresses their WTP protection. In other words, gender equality awareness encourages men to support collective action on environmental protection and the fairness of policies, rather than individual economic actions. Conversely, women, who often shoulder more family responsibilities, may have a heightened sensitivity and willingness to participate in public affairs such as environmental protection [67]. Therefore, because women’s gender equality awareness is lower than that of men, this somewhat impacts their enthusiasm for environmental protection. As gender equality awareness increases, women’s enthusiasm for environmental protection may be enhanced, especially as their personal values and awareness of environmental issues become more aligned. These conclusions remind us that gender equality awareness operates through different mechanisms in different gender groups. Future research should systematically explore the potential impact of individual value orientations on environmental issues, fully considering how gender roles and social expectations affect environmental behavior across different groups. Further research could investigate how to effectively increase WTP among different gender groups and how to motivate men in environmental protection, thereby achieving broader social participation and environmental protection goals.
At the same time, this study aims to provide theoretical support for the development of environmental protection policies in China, particularly in incorporating a gender equality perspective into environmental policymaking. Existing international studies have shown that the link between gender and the environment has become one of the key focal points in the research and development of environmental policies and practices [68]. Therefore, we believe that Chinese environmental policymakers could also consider designing environmental policies with gender sensitivity to effectively motivate pro-environmental behavior across different gender groups. For example, when drafting environmental laws, a gender equality perspective can be integrated to ensure women’s equal participation in environmental decision-making. Additionally, environmental policy design should fully consider the needs and behavioral differences in different gender groups to encourage broader public participation in environmental protection activities and promote collective action on environmental issues across society. Furthermore, future research can explore how gender equality awareness interacts with other social values, such as social responsibility and collectivism, and how these interactions affect individuals’ environmental behaviors and willingness to pay for environmental protection, encouraging more people to deeply reflect on the importance of environmental conservation.
Of course, the factors influencing willingness to pay (WTP) are broad and multifaceted, with individual willingness shaped by the integration of various conditions. As such, this study has three main limitations. First, the focus on gender and gender equality awareness as key determinants of WTP represents only one aspect of the broader sociodemographic variables and individual value systems that influence environmental behaviors. The discussion of the specific mechanisms underlying WTP is limited, and the explanatory power of the regression analysis suggests that other potential environmental factors—such as social culture, social structure, regional differences, and economic influences—warrant further exploration. Second, scholars have pointed out the discrepancy between willingness and actual behavior [69], suggesting that an individual’s stated willingness may not always translate into concrete actions. This highlights a potential limitation in predicting individual environmental behaviors based solely on WTP. Future research should aim to verify the mechanisms through which WTP influences behavior. Understanding this relationship is critical for fostering social participation in environmental protection, both theoretically and practically, and will provide valuable insights into achieving sustainable development goals. Third, while this study demonstrates that gender equality awareness significantly mediates the relationship between gender and WTP, with differing effects for men and women, it does not fully explore the specific manifestations and underlying causes of these gender differences. This gap limits a comprehensive understanding of how gender equality awareness shapes WTP in different gender groups. Future research should examine additional factors within the mediation effect model to offer a more nuanced and in-depth understanding of these dynamics.

6. Conclusions

Based on data from the 2021 Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS), this study explores the complex relationships among gender, gender equality awareness, and willingness to pay (WTP) for environmental protection. The findings underscore the significant role of gender equality perceptions in shaping individual environmental behaviors. Specifically, the key conclusions of this study are as follows:
First, the research reveals that, within the Chinese social context, women exhibit significantly higher WTP compared to men. This finding aligns with previous studies and highlights the gender differences in environmental behavior, particularly in terms of individual willingness to support environmental protection financially.
Second, the incorporation of gender equality awareness into the analysis provides deeper insights into individual WTP. The results show that individuals with more egalitarian views on gender equality tend to have higher WTP, highlighting the critical influence of gender equality awareness in promoting pro-environmental behaviors. This suggests that fostering gender equality awareness may enhance individuals’ environmental engagement.
Lastly, the mediation effect analysis reveals that gender equality awareness partially mediates the relationship between gender and WTP. Although women demonstrate a higher WTP than men, their generally lower levels of gender equality awareness somewhat attenuate their environmental proactivity. This suggests that enhancing women’s gender equality awareness is crucial for increasing their involvement in environmental protection efforts. Moreover, this finding may reflect an adaptive response by men to evolving social gender roles and expectations.
In conclusion, this study highlights the profound influence of gender equality awareness as a social driver in shaping environmental attitudes and behaviors. It suggests that promoting gender equality awareness could serve as an effective strategy for encouraging greater participation in environmental protection. The study provides valuable theoretical and empirical insights that could inform future research and policy initiatives aimed at integrating gender equality with environmental sustainability efforts.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.L. and J.R.; data curation, J.R.; methodology, L.N; writing—original draft, J.R.; writing—review and editing, C.L and L.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Key project of the National Social Science Foundation (grant number: 23ASH010) and the Shaanxi Province Soft Science Project (grant number: 2024ZC-YBXM-095).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

The relevant permission was obtained and all data in the paper are copyright free.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the people at Xi’an Jiaotong University for their assistance in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Bown, C.P.; McCulloch, R. Environmental issues. In The World Trade Organization: Legal, Economic and Political Analysis; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; pp. 1734–1767. [Google Scholar]
  2. Cai, X.M.; Su, Y.; Wu, B.H.; Wang, Y.; Yang, R.; Xu, W.H.; Min, Q.W.; Zhang, H.X. Theoretical Considerations and Innovative Practices in the Development of Nature Protected Areas in China under the Background of Ecological Civilization Construction. J. Nat. Resour. 2023, 38, 839–861. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ye, R.K.; Pan, T.; Wu, H.J.; Bian, M.Y. The “Dual Dichotomy” of Cognition and Attitudes: A Study on Public Willingness to Pay for Environmental Governance. Nanjing Tech Univ. J. Soc. Sci. 2021, 20, 97–110. [Google Scholar]
  4. Davis, R.K. Recreation planning as an economic problem. Nat. Resour. J. 1963, 3, 239. [Google Scholar]
  5. Buntaine, M.T.; Greenstone, M.; He, G.; Liu, M.; Wang, S.; Zhang, B. Does the squeaky wheel get more grease? The direct and indirect effects of citizen participation on environmental governance in China. Am. Econ. Rev. 2024, 114, 815–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Shao, H.T.; Luo, J.F.; Fei, X.M. The Impact of Public Perception of Climate Change on Environmental Payment Willingness and Emission Reduction Behavior. J. Zhejiang A F Univ. 2019, 36, 1012–1018. [Google Scholar]
  7. Adaman, F.; Karalı, N.; Kumbaroğlu, G.; Or, I.; Özkaynak, B.; Zenginobuz, Ü. What determines urban households’ willingness to pay for CO2 emission reductions in Turkey: A contingent valuation survey. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 689–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ren, Y.D.; Zhang, H.B. Analysis of Factors Affecting Individual Environmental Payment Willingness: Based on Data from the CGSS 2010 Survey in China. Sichuan Environ. 2015, 34, 146–150. [Google Scholar]
  9. Dunlap, R.E. Male-female differences in concern for environmental quality. Int. J. Women’s Stud. 1983, 6, 291–301. [Google Scholar]
  10. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Kalof, L. Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environ. Behav. 1993, 25, 322–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tindall, D.B.; Davies, S.; Mauboules, C. Activism and conservation behavior in an environmental movement: The contradictory effects of gender. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2003, 16, 909–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lee, E.; Park, N.; Han, J.H. Gender difference in environmental attitude and behaviors in adoption of energy-efficient lighting at home. J. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 6, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Diamantopoulos, A.; Schlegelmilch, B.B.; Sinkovics, R.R.; Bohlen, G.M. Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. J. Bus. Res. 2003, 56, 465–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Eisler, A.D.; Eisler, H.; Yoshida, M. Perception of human ecology: Cross-cultural and gender comparisons. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 89–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Xiao, C.; Hong, D. Gender differences in environmental behaviors in China. Popul. Environ. 2010, 32, 88–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gong, W.J.; Lei, J. Gender Differences in Environmental Concern and Environmentally Friendly Behavior Among Urban Residents in China. Hainan Univ. J. 2007, 25, 340–345. [Google Scholar]
  17. Zelezny, L.C.; Chua, P.P.; Aldrich, C. Elaborating on Gender Differences in Environmentalism. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 443–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Blocker, T.J.; Eckberg, D.L. Gender and environmentalism: Results from the 1993 general social survey. Soc. Sci. Q. 1997, 4, 841–858. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hong, D.Y.; Xiao, C.Y. Sociological Analysis on Gender Difference of Environmental Concern. Sociol. Study 2007, 2, 111–135+244. [Google Scholar]
  20. Milfont, T.L.; Richter, I.; Sibley, C.G.; Wilson, M.S.; Fischer, R. Environmental consequences of the desire to dominate and be superior. Pers. Soc. Psychol. B 2013, 39, 1127–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Smith, D.C. Environmentalism, Feminism, and Gender. Sociol. Inq. 2010, 71, 314–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Vicente, P.; Marques, C.; Reis, E. Willingness to pay for environmental quality: The effects of pro-environmental behavior, perceived behavior control, environmental activism, and educational level. Sage Open 2021, 11, 1915358568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Li, H.; Xie, M.H.; Du, X.M. An Empirical Analysis of the Effectiveness of Renewable Energy Subsidies in China: Based on Residents’ Environmental Willingness to Pay. Financ. Trade Econ. 2011, 3, 102–109. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hojnik, J.; Ruzzier, M.; Fabri, S.; Klopčič, A.L. What you give is what you get: Willingness to pay for green energy. Renew. Energ. 2021, 174, 733–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sun, Y.T.; Wang, W.D.; Fang, S.C.; Wang, Y. Analysis of Factors Influencing Residents’ Environmental Willingness to Pay under the Implementation of Plain Greenification Projects: A Case Study of Beijing. Forest Econ. 2014, 36, 114–118. [Google Scholar]
  26. Zhang, P.; Jin, Y.J.; Qi, Z.J. Investigation on Environmental Willingness to Pay and Its Comprehensive Influencing Factors among Urban and Rural Residents in China: Analysis Based on 2010 China General Social Survey Data. Nanjing Univ. Technol. J. 2016, 15, 38–47. [Google Scholar]
  27. Shao, S.; Tian, Z.; Fan, M. Do the rich have stronger willingness to pay for environmental protection? New evidence from a survey in China. World Dev. 2018, 105, 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ma, J.; Yang, X.; Wen, Q. Protecting the environment for a brilliant future: Prospects of upward mobility and environmental willingness to pay in China. Appl. Econ. 2024, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gomes, S.; Lopes, J.M.; Nogueira, S. Willingness to pay more for green products: A critical challenge for Gen Z. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 390, 136092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Liang, Z.F.; Xiao, X.C.; Ni, J.P. Analysis of Willingness to Pay and Influencing Factors for Rural Household Waste Manage-ment in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area. Environ. Pollut. Control 2014, 36, 100–105. [Google Scholar]
  31. Yu, W.J.; Zou, X.Q.; Zhu, D.K. CVA Quality Control Study on Residents’ Willingness to Pay for Ecological Environment Governance Projects. Arid. Zone Geogr. 2009, 32, 978–984. [Google Scholar]
  32. Olli, E.; Grendstad, G.; Wollebaek, D. Correlates of environmental behaviors: Bringing back social context. Environ. Behav. 2001, 33, 181–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wolters, E.A. Attitude–behavior consistency in household water consumption. Soc. Sci. J. 2014, 51, 455–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gao, Y.M. Empirical Analysis of Environmental Payment Willingness and Its Influencing Factors. Sichuan Environ. 2016, 35, 130–133. [Google Scholar]
  35. Joireman, J.; Liu, R.L. Future-oriented women will pay to reduce global warming: Mediation via political orientation, environmental values, and belief in global warming. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 40, 391–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hayes, B.C. Gender, scientific knowledge, and attitudes toward the environment: A cross-national analysis. Polit. Res. Quart. 2001, 54, 657–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gong, W.J.; Du, Z.Y. Unity of Knowledge and Action? From Environmental Problem Perception to Environmentally Friendly Behavior—The Moderating Roles of Environmental Knowledge, Media Use, and Informal Network Communication. J. China Univ. Geosci. 2019, 19, 72–83. [Google Scholar]
  38. Du, P.; Zhang, L.X. Gendered Pro-Environmental Behavior—An Analysis of the Mediating Effects of Gender Equality Awareness and Environmental Problem Perception. Sociol. Rev. 2020, 8, 47–60. [Google Scholar]
  39. Xiao, C.; Hong, D. Gender differences in environmental behaviors among the Chinese public: Model of mediation and moderation. Environ. Behav. 2018, 50, 975–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wu, L.J.; Li, H.B. Assessment of Rural Non-Use Value at Rural Tourism Destinations—A Case Study of Beixi Village, Yongchun, Fujian. Adv. Geogr. Sci. 2010, 29, 1606–1612. [Google Scholar]
  41. Chi, S.X.; Chen, C.; Xu, Y. Environmental Concern and Environmental Payment Willingness: The Moderating Effect of Government Trust—Discussion on the Dilemmas of Environmental Governance. J. China Univ. Geosci. 2017, 17, 72–79. [Google Scholar]
  42. Mainieri, T.; Barnett, E.G.; Valdero, T.R.; Unipan, J.B.; Oskamp, S. Green buying: The influence of environmental concern on consumer behavior. J. Soc. Psychol. 1997, 137, 189–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Laroche, M.; Bergeron, J.; Barbaro Forleo, G. Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. J. Consum. Mark. 2001, 18, 503–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Johnson, B.B. Gender and race in beliefs about outdoor air pollution. Risk Anal. Int. J. 2002, 22, 725–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Migheli, M. Brown parents, green dads: Gender, children, and environmental taxes. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 180, 183–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hunter, L.M.; Hatch, A.; Johnson, A. Cross-national gender variation in environmental behaviors. Soc. Sci. Quart. 2004, 85, 677–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Du, L.Y.; Cai, Z.J.; Jiang, Z. Economic Valuation of Ecological and Environmental Restoration in the Yangtze River Basin: A Case Study of Residents’ Payment Willingness in Nanjing. J. China Univ. Geosci. 2011, 11, 34–42. [Google Scholar]
  48. Stern, P.C. New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Li, L.; Song, L. Sex, Gender Awareness and Environmental Concerns: Survey among University Students. Collect. Women’s Stud. 2013, 1, 18–24. [Google Scholar]
  50. Stanley, S.K.; Wilson, M.S.; Sibley, C.G.; Milfont, T.L. Dimensions of social dominance and their associations with environmentalism. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 2017, 107, 228–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Milfont, T.L.; Sibley, C.G. Empathic and Social Dominance Orientations help Explain Gender Differences in Environmentalism: A one-year Bayesian Mediation Analysis. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2016, 90, 85–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Echavarren, J.M. The gender gap in environmental concern: Support for an ecofeminist perspective and the role of gender egalitarian attitudes. Sex Roles 2023, 89, 610–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kim, S.; Kim, S. Comparative Studies of Environmental Attitude and its Determinants IN Three East Asia Countries: Korea, Japan, and China. Int. Rev. Public Adm. 2010, 15, 17–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Dzialo, L. The feminization of environmental responsibility: A quantitative, cross-national analysis. Environ. Sociol. 2017, 3, 427–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Strapko, N.; Hempel, L.; MacIlroy, K.; Smith, K. Gender differences in environmental concern: Reevaluating gender socialization. Soc. Natur. Resour. 2016, 29, 1015–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Liu, A.Y.; Tong, X. The Present Situation of Gender Attitudes and the Factors Influencing Them: Based on the Third Survey of Women’s Social Status in China. Soc. Sci. China 2014, 2, 116–129. [Google Scholar]
  57. Tu, S.-H.; Liao, P.-S. Gender Differences in Gender-Role Attitudes: A Comparative Analysis of Taiwan and Coastal China. J. Comp. Fam. Stud. 2006, 36, 545–566+i+v+ix. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cha, Y.; Thébaud, S. Labor markets, breadwinning, and beliefs: How economic context shapes men’s gender ideology. Gender Soc. 2009, 23, 215–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Xu, X.Y.; Chen, L.; Li, Z.Z. Literature Review on Recognition of Gender Equality and It’s Influencing Factors. Collect. Women’s Stud. 2010, 3, 87–93. [Google Scholar]
  60. Eagly, A.H.; Diekman, A.B.; Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C.; Koenig, A.M. Gender gaps in sociopolitical attitudes: A social psychological analysis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2004, 87, 796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zeng, W.F. Division of Household Labor and Young Female’s Gender Consciousness. Youth Stud. 2016, 3, 87–93+96. [Google Scholar]
  62. Wiley, S.; Kirby, C.A.; Richards, J.; Stockfisch, A.E. Positive contact with feminist women as a predictor of feminist solidarity, gender privilege awareness, and public and domestic support for gender equality in straight men. Sex Roles 2021, 85, 688–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Wu, L.J. Is Gender Equality Achieved in Chinese Society? Cognitive Differences and Constructions of Gender Inequality. Acad. Res. 2017, 1, 64–73. [Google Scholar]
  64. Xiao, C.; Hong, D. Gender differences in concerns for the environment among the Chinese public: An update. Soc. Natur. Resour. 2017, 30, 782–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sun, Y.; Fan, Y.C.; Yang, L. Gender Role Attitude and Environmental Concern among Undergraduate Students. J. Soc. Dev. 2020, 3, 227–241. [Google Scholar]
  66. Qiu, H.; Zhang, L.Y. The Heterogeneity of Educational Attainment among Chinese Youth and Its Impact on Subjective Well-being. Popul. J. 2021, 43, 85–93. [Google Scholar]
  67. Liu, X.H. The Analysis of the Theoretical Connotation of Gender Equality. J. Shandong Women’s Univ. 2017, 5, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  68. Leach, M.; Joekes, S.; Green, C. Gender Relations and Environmental Change. Transform. Dev. Knowl. 2025, 561A, 28–35. [Google Scholar]
  69. Yu, W.Z.; Luo, X.F.; Li, R.R.; Xue, L.F.; Huang, L. The paradox between farmer willingness and their adoption of green technology from the perspective of green cognition. Resour. Sci. 2017, 8, 1573–1583. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
VariableMeanSDMinMax
WTP9.0382.759315
Gender Equality Awareness17.1403.955525
Gender
(0 = male, 1 = female)		0.4610.49901
Urban
(0 = rural)		0.4010.49001
Edu2.5211.50415
Age51.49017.5901894
Income8.0753.962013.82
Employed
(0 = unemployed)		0.3420.47501
SES1.7930.52913
Parenthood
(0 = without children)		0.4290.49501
Notes: WTP = environmental willingness to pay; SES = socioeconomic status.
Table 2. Correlation coefficients between variables.
Table 2. Correlation coefficients between variables.
VariableGender Equality AwarenessGenderUrbanEduAgeIncomeWorkSESParenthood
WTP1
Gender Equality Awareness0.057 **1
Gender0.056 **−0.082 ***1
Urban0.0080.231 ***0.0271
Edu0.048 ***0.451 ***0.074 ***0.417 ***1
Age−0.007−0.379 ***0.044 **−0.032−0.553 ***1
Income0.046 **0.089 ***0.170 ***0.279 ***0.214 ***−0.0091
Employed0.0170.198 ***0.123 ***0.146 ***0.373 ***−0.397 ***0.391 ***1
SES0.116 ***0.067 ***−0.0200.169 ***0.151 ***−0.034 **0.148 ***0.132 ***1
Parenthood0.0090.326 ***0.0220.044 **0.455 ***−0.756 ***0.059 **0.359 ***0.038 **
Standard errors in parentheses: ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 3. OLS regression models of impact of gender and gender equality awareness on WTP.
Table 3. OLS regression models of impact of gender and gender equality awareness on WTP.
Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4
Gender 0.296 ** 0.330 **
(0.108) (0.109)
Gender Equality Awareness 0.037 *
(0.015)		0.042 **
(0.015)
Urban−0.240
(0.125)		−0.221
(0.125)		−0.271 *
(0.126)		−0.255 *
(0.126)
Edu0.111 *0.099 *0.0830.066
(0.049)(0.049)(0.050)(0.050)
Age0.0030.0020.0050.03
(0.005)(0.005)(0.005)(0.005)
Income0.0260.0210.0260.021
(0.015)(0.015)(0.015)(0.015)
Employed−0.121−0.151−0.116−0.149
(0.135)(0.135)(0.135)(0.135)
SES0.586 ***0.601 ***0.586 ***0.603 ***
(0.102)(0.102)(0.102)(0.102)
Parenthood0.006−0.021−0.012−0.046
(0.164)(0.164)(0.164)(0.164)
Cons7.457 ***7.471 ***6.838 ***6.765 ***
(0.394)(0.394)(0.469)(0.469)
N2707270727072707
F6.615 ***6.730 ***6.533 ***6.843 ***
R2_a0.0140.0170.0160.019
Standard errors in parentheses: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 4. Mediation analysis of gender equality awareness on the relationship between gender and WTP.
Table 4. Mediation analysis of gender equality awareness on the relationship between gender and WTP.
PathCoef.Std. Err.Z-Valuep-Value95%Conf. Interval
Direct Effect (c′) 0.3300.1093.0270.002[0.116, 0.544]
Direct Effect (b′)−0.8190.136−3.2560.001[−1.045, −0.593]
Indirect Effect (a × b)−0.0340.014−2.5080.012[−0.063, −0.007]
Total Effect (c)0.2960.1082.7250.006[0.083, 0.508]
Sobel Test−0.0340.0142.4780.013-
Mediation Effect Ratio11.710%----
Bootstrap−0.0340.014−2.4300.015[−0.060, −0.008]
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

Ren, J.; Lu, C.; Niu, L. The Mediating Role of Gender Equality Awareness on the Environmental Willingness to Pay: An Analysis Based on CGSS2021 Data. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2270. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052270

AMA Style

Ren J, Lu C, Niu L. The Mediating Role of Gender Equality Awareness on the Environmental Willingness to Pay: An Analysis Based on CGSS2021 Data. Sustainability. 2025; 17(5):2270. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052270

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ren, Jing, Chuntian Lu, and Long Niu. 2025. "The Mediating Role of Gender Equality Awareness on the Environmental Willingness to Pay: An Analysis Based on CGSS2021 Data" Sustainability 17, no. 5: 2270. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052270

APA Style

Ren, J., Lu, C., & Niu, L. (2025). The Mediating Role of Gender Equality Awareness on the Environmental Willingness to Pay: An Analysis Based on CGSS2021 Data. Sustainability, 17(5), 2270. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052270

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