Author(s)

XiaoBo Shi¹, XuJie Zhao², Yu Fu³, WenNa Wang^1*, ChongHui Fu^1*

Affiliation(s)

¹Guangdong Medical University, Dongguan 523808, Guangdong, China.

²Guangzhou Institute of Energy Conversion, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, 510640, China.

³Shenzhen Yuntian Institute of Statistical Science, Shenzhen 518000, Guangdong, China.

Corresponding Author

WenNa Wang, ChongHui Fu

ABSTRACT

This paper explores the impact mechanisms of population mobility on climate behavior. Based on survey data derived from telecommunications big data, it employs a path analysis model and a logistic regression model to examine the characteristics of the floating population regarding energy conservation, emission reduction, resource conservation, green travel, and other climate behaviors. Additionally, it investigates the mediating roles of climate cognition and economic rationality in climate behavior decisions. The results show that the floating population is more inclined toward climate-friendly behavior patterns than the local population, and population mobility can promote climate mitigation behavior both directly and indirectly. The floating population exhibits heterogeneity in different climate mitigation behaviors, and climate cognition partially explains the differences in these behaviors. However, even after controlling for climate cognition, the floating population remains more proactive in energy conservation, emission reduction, resource conservation, and green travel. The floating population considers the balance between economic and environmental factors in climate behavior decisions, and the mediating roles of climate cognition and economic rationality constitute the mechanisms through which population mobility impacts climate behavior. This paper has theoretical and practical value for understanding the intrinsic link between population mobility and climate change, as well as for promoting low-carbon emission reduction participation across society.

KEYWORDS

Population mobility; Climate behavior; Impact mechanisms

CITE THIS PAPER

XiaoBo Shi, XuJie Zhao, Yu Fu, WenNa Wang, ChongHui Fu. How population mobility shapes climate behavior: mechanisms and evidence from China’s floating population. Trends in Social Sciences and Humanities Research. 2024, 2(7): 84-93. DOI: 10.61784/tsshr3071.

REFERENCES

[1]  IPCC. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Accessed December 13, 2021.

[2]  Goldberg M H, Gustafson A, Ballew M T. Identifying the most important predictors of support for climate policy in the United States. Behavioural Public Policy, 2021, 102(5): 1-23.

[3]  Zawadzki, SJ, Bouman, T, Steg, L. Translating climate beliefs into action in a changing political landscape. Climatic Change, 2020, 161(1): 21-42.

[4]  Chatman DG, Klein N. Immigrants and Travel Demand in the United States: Implications for Transportation Policy and Future Research. Public Works Management & Policy, 2009, 20(2): 312-327.

[5]  Hu L, Klein N J, Smart M J. Comparing immigrant commute travel adaptation across and within racial/ethnic groups. Transport Policy, 2021, 110(5): 112-127.

[6]  Squalli, J. Disentangling the relationship between immigration and environmental emissions. Population and Environment, 2021, 43(1): 1-21.

[7]  Laurian, L, Funderburg, R. Environmental justice in France? A spatio-temporal analysis of incinerator location. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2014, 57(3): 424-446.

[8]  Viel, JF, Hagi, M, Upegui, E, et al. Environmental justice in a French industrial region: are polluting industrial facilities equally distributed? Health & Place, 2011, 17(1): 257-262.

[9]  Khan I, Hou F, Le HP. The impact of natural resources, energy consumption, and population growth on environmental quality: Fresh evidence from the United States of America. Science of the Total Environment, 2021, 754(1): 142-162.

[10]  Ma G, Erin TH. Hofmann. Population, immigration, and air quality in the USA: a spatial panel study. Population and Environment, 2019, 40(3): 1-20.

[11]  Blumenberg E, Smart M. Brother can you Spare a Ride? Carpooling in Immigrant Neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, 2014, 51(9): 1871-1890.

[12]  MacGregor, S, Walker, C, Katz-Gerro, T. It’s what I’ve always done: continuity and change in the household sustainability practices of Somali immigrants in the UK. Geoforum, 2019, 107(2): 143-153.

[13]  Yang Juhua. Research on the social integration of China's migrant population. Chinese Social Sciences, 2015, 110(2): 19-28.

[14]  Van den Broek, KL, Walker, I, Klockner, CA. Drivers of energy-saving behavior: The relative influence of intentional, normative, situational and habitual processes. Energy Policy, 2019, 132: 811-819.

[15]  Samaratunga C D. Essays on determinants of climate change beliefs in the United States. Queensland University of Technology, 2022.

[16]  Milfont, TL, Zubielevitch, E, Milojev, P, et al. Ten-year panel data confirm generation gap but climate beliefs increase at similar rates across ages. Nature Communications, 2021, 12(1): 1-8.

[17]  Swim, JK, Gillis, AJ, Hamaty, KJ. Gender bending and gender conformity: The social consequences of engaging in feminine and masculine pro-environmental behaviors. Sex Roles, 2019, 82(3): 363-385.

[18]  Liu Lei. Progress and enlightenment in addressing gender considerations in climate change adaptation. Progress in Climate Change Research, 2021, 17(5): 11-19.

[19]  Ergas, C, Greiner, PT, McGee, JA, et al. Does gender climate influence climate change? The multidimensionality of gender equality and its countervailing effects on the carbon intensity of well-being. Sustainability, 2021, 13(7): 1-23.

[20]  Czarnek, G, Kossowska, M, Szwed, P. Right-wing ideology reduces the effects of education on climate change beliefs in more developed countries. Nature Climate Change, 2021, 11(1), 9-13.

[21]  Grossman, GM, Krueger, AB. Economic growth and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1995, 110(2), 353-377.

[22]  Bohon, SA, Stamps, K, Atiles, JH. Transportation and migrant adjustment in Georgia. Population Research and Policy Review, 2008, 27(3): 273-291.

[23]  Meyer, AG. Do economic conditions affect climate change beliefs and support for climate action? Evidence from the US in the wake of the Great Recession. Economic Inquiry, 2022, 61(1): 64-87.

[24]  National Health Commission. China's Migrant Population Development Report. China Population Publishing House, 2018, 10.

[25]  Bonnie, R, Diamond, EP, Rowe, E. Understanding rural attitudes toward the environment and conservation in America. Duke Nicholas Institute, 2020, 7.

[26]  Wang Xiaohua, Feng Zhenmin. Consumption of biomass energy in rural China and its impact on the environment. Journal of Nanjing Agricultural University, 2004, 27(1): 108-110.

[27]  McCright, AM, Dunlap, RE, Marquart-Pyatt, ST. Political ideology and views about climate change in the European Union. Environmental Politics, 2016, 25(2): 338-358.

[28]  Fang Xiang, Zhou Yujiao. Differences in eco-friendly behaviors among different types of migrants - discussing the mediating effect of lifestyle. Resources Science, 2021, 43(11): 13-27.

[29]  Cologna V, Siegrist M. The role of trust for climate change mitigation and adaptation behaviour: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2020, 69(5): 101-128.

[30]  Zhou Ruiquan. A retrospective analysis of the historical process of waste classification in China and some opinions. Research on Economic and Social Development, 2021, (22): 256-257.

[31]  Gu Limei, Li Huanhuan. Administrative mobilization and pluralistic participation: the implementation path of participatory governance of domestic waste classification - based on the practice in Shanghai. Journal of Public Administration, 2021, (2): 13-22.

[32]  UNEP. The Emissions Gap Report 2020. United Nations Environment Programme, 2021.

[33]  Liu Changsong. Research on family carbon emissions and emission reduction policies. Social Sciences Literature Publishing House, 2015.

[34]  Diederich, J, Goeschl, T. To mitigate or not to mitigate: The price elasticity of proenvironmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2017, 84(4): 209-222.

[35]  Alberini A, Scasny M, Bigano A. Policy-v. individual heterogeneity in the benefits of climate change mitigation: Evidence from a stated-preference survey. Energy policy, 2018, 121(6): 565-575.

[36]  Sokhna, NP. Immigrants and natives in France: an analysis of consumer behaviour. Economie Prevision, 2019, 20(1): 29-63.

Dorner, Z. A behavioral rebound effect. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2019, 98(1): 1-28.

[37] Dorner, Z. A behavioral rebound effect. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2019, 98(1): 1-28.