Empirical evidence indicates media usage and water pollution influence public willingness to pay in China, highlighting governance implications.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sun et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: