The Silent Majority: Local residents’ environmental behavior and its influencing factors in coal mine area

Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118275

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

The Silent Majority: Local residents’ environmental behavior and its influencing factors in coal mine area Xingmin Shi*, Zhen Song School of Geography Science and Tourism, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi'an, 710062, China

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 21 January 2019 Received in revised form 21 August 2019 Accepted 2 September 2019 Available online 5 September 2019

Although there are many studies of environmental behavior, local residents' environmental behavior in the coal mine area has a unique feature. This paper undertakes the first investigation of the vulnerable group in the coal mine area, China and aims to clarify the influencing factors of local residents’ environmental behavior. The differences of environmental behavior among different groups are divided by gender, age, educational level, proximity and household income using rank sum test. Furthermore, this paper discusses the effects of natural environment perception, social environment perception and environmental attitudes using the structural equation model. The results are as follow: most of the residents keep silent in the face of environmental pollution, and this is different from the Western environmental resistance behavior. No prior research has studied this silent group in the environmental behavior context. This study proves the heterogeneity in this association between socio-demographic and environmental behavior. Natural environment perception has a significant positive effect on environmental behavior. The environmental attitude has a significant negative effect on environmental behavior. Perception of the social environment has no significant effect on environmental behavior. The paper finally proposes that the government should consider these factors when it creates environmental policy. © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Handling Editor: Dr Sandra Caeiro Keywords: Environmental behavior Perception Environmental pollution Resident in coal mine China

1. Introduction A comprehensive study of environmental behavior is helpful to the formulation of environmental protection policies and encouraging the citizens to participate in the environmental protection activity. This is not only a frontier topic of the behavioral academia, but also a concern for the government. At present, there is no uniform definition of environmental behavior. Some emphasize the positive effects of daily life behavior on improving environmental conditions and quality, such as environmentally friendly behavior, pro-environmental behavior (Wakefield et al., 2006; Kaida and Kaida, 2016; Duan and Sheng, 2017) and ecological behavior (Peng, 2011). In other articles, it is believed that environmental behavior refers to environmental resistance behavior or environmental movement (Rootes, 2005; Feng, 2007; Lang and Xu, 2013). The study about the public's adjustment and adaptation behavior to environmental problems also belongs to the field of environmental behavior (Shi, 2012).

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (X. Shi). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118275 0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

With the rapid economic development, environmental pollution is also very serious in China which is one of the most densely populated countries. Less than 1% of the Chinese 500 largest cities meet the World Health Organization's recommended air quality standard. Meanwhile, 7 of the 10 most polluted cities in the world are in China. Local residents who cannot stop pollution and cannot afford to move have to endure environmental pollution for a long time. In these context, local residents can only apply adaptive behaviors against environmental pollution firstly, and then generate a series of resistance behaviors (defense rights, protests, etc.), and finally there will be environmentally friendly behaviors that enhance the environmental condition. However, the current research mainly focuses on pro-environmental behavior and environmental resistance behavior. And the mainly research of environmental resistance behavior is Not In My Backyard (NIMB) and Not In Our Backyard (NIOB) (Pol and Masso, 2006; Tan, 2017; Maria and Thomas, 2017). But for most Chinese residents, they are only against pollution rather than oppose the government. Meanwhile, different confrontations are taken by local residents in China. Firstly, they are mainly non-confrontational behaviors, such as reporting their interest demand to gross root government (such as

2

X. Shi, Z. Song / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118275

written petitions), because the demonstration, strike, and blockades are regard as social unstable factors in China. Secondly, the environmental behavior of Chinese residents is mostly individual action rather than collective action (Feng, 2007). Therefore, the environmental behavior of Chinese residents is completely different from that of NIMB. The environmental behavior in this study mainly refers to the contention and habitual adaption behavior of environmental pollution taken by local residents, when the environment are worsening, and it is different from the environmental struggles initiated by specific environmental hazard events. Many studies on environmental behavior have been done which is mainly in the following aspects: ① The impact of socio-demographic factors on environmental behavior. For example, Kromm explored the effects of residents’ attributes on the adaptation behavior of air pollution (Kromm, 1973); Wall found that residents with lower status complained more about pollution (Wall, 1974). Demographic characteristics such as gender, age, and education level have always been variables that cannot be ignored among those factors affecting public environmental behavior. But specific indicators and conclusions show distinct regional differences and non-reproducibility (Engel and Potschke, 1998; Wang and Yin, 2010). So it is necessary to strengthen empirical research in different regions. ② The impact of environmental perception (cognition) on environmental behavior. For example, Sharma studied whether concern about environmental pollution can lead to anti-pollution actions (Sharma, 1975); Cutter found that people of high social class were less concerned about environmental pollution (Cutter, 1981); Wesley and other researchers studied the relationship between environmental awareness and environmental behavior in six countries including Germany and Belgium (Wesley et al., 2005). There are also some studies on the effects of economy, environmental pressure, and environmental education on environmental behavior (Stern, 2000). The choice of human environmental behavior is not only influenced by external objective factors, but also by human subjective factors (Tang and Cui, 2010). Factors affecting environmental behavior also include environmental attitudes, environmental knowledge, environmental assessment, environmental ethics, environmental participation, environmental sensitivity, and so on (Preston et al., 1983; Bamberg, 2003; Tang and Cui, 2010). However, due to the wide range of environmental knowledge, some factual knowledge has no significant relationship with environmental behavior (Tanner and Kast, 2003). In addition, the definitions of these factors are sometimes not uniform. Although the measurement of these factors has been studied in many regions, the portability is poor under different cultural backgrounds (Yu, 2010). Moreover, the subjects of environmental behavior study mainly include urban residents (Korfiatis et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2018), farmers (Lazaridou et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2018), college students (Chen et al., 2017), rowers (Cottell, 2003), companies (He et al., 2016), families (Poortinga, 2004), and residents in nature reserves (Xu et al., 2006). However, few studies have been done on the residents of the coal mine area. At present, the study on environmental behavior pays more attention to environmental protection behavior (Markle, 2013; Klaniecki et al., 2018), adaptation to climate change (Whitemash, 2009; Hisali et al., 2011), violence in environmental conflicts (Navas et al., 2018). There have been few studies on protest

behavior against environmental pollution. The study areas of environmental behavior are mainly concentrated in large cities (Sharma et al., 1975; Chen et al., 2011; Larson et al., 2015; Maria and Thomas, 2017; Ulhasanah & Goto et al., 2018), and little attention is paid to coal mine communities with very serious environmental problems. The coal mine community is a special kind of community in China. Firstly, it has a large population, including farmers who have lived there for generations, as well as workers who work for coal mines and their descendants. Secondly, the pollution is serious. For example, water pollution caused by coal mining drainage, coal washing water, and coal gangue leaching due to rainfall; air pollution caused by poisonous and harmful gases, coal gangue spontaneous combustion and dust in the mine; noise pollution caused by blasting, transportation, drainage and other production processes (Shi et al., 2010). These environmental problems have seriously affected the quality of local residents' life. However, the environmental concerns of the coal mine area were mostly focused on technical measures in the past, such as clean coal technology, noise control technology, comprehensive utilization of coal gangue, land reclamation (Dong and Liu, 2005). There are very few studies on the environmental behavior of residents in the coal mine area who are suffering from environmental pollution. Because of the characteristics of energy structure and strategy, China's coal-based energy consumption structure is difficult to change, and this kind of pollution will continue for a long time. Residents in the coal mine area belong to the vulnerable group. It is difficult for them to have the same voice as those in big cities and they rarely receive less attention from the government and the media. This study selects the residents of coal mine area with outstanding environmental problems as the study object, analyzes the environmental behavior and influencing factors of the local residents, and provides the basis for the environmental management, planning and related policy-making of the coal mine area. 2. Study area Four coal mines were selected from Shanxi and Shaanxi Province (Fig. 1) which were two major coal resource provinces in China. The output of coal mines in these two provinces account for more than one third of the national total output, and the population density was relatively high and the impact of environmental pollution was relatively large. The basic information of the four coal mines is as follows: ① Binchang coal mine (108.08
E, 35.04
N) is the second largest one in Shaanxi Province with a total area of 1275 km2 and proven reserves of 6.8 billion tons of raw coal. This coal mine, which owns high-quality power, chemical and domestic coal, has the characteristics such as large reserves, low sulfur, low phosphorus, low ash and high calorific value. The total designed production capacity of Bin County coal mine has reached 20 million tons, and the contribution rate of the coal industry economy to GDP is more than 70%. The population is 325,400. ② With a total area of 2,314 km2 and a reserve of 13.8 billion tons, Pinglu coal mine in Shuozhou (112.26
E, 39.19
N), Shanxi Province has an annual output of more than 45 million tons and has become one of the largest and Since the residents’ environmental perception of the most modernized coal production bases in China. Its population is 185,000. ③ The total area of Hancheng coal mine (110.27
E, 35.28
N) in Shaanxi Province is 1,532 km2. Its reserve of coal resources is 2.7 billion tons; the annual output is 8.26 million tons and the population is 400,000.

X. Shi, Z. Song / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118275

3

Fig. 1. Study area.

④ Tongchuan coal mine (109.07
E, 35.06
N), in Shaanxi Province, has a total area of 140.5 km2 with a reserve of 798 million tons, an annual output of 10 million tons and a population of 217,000.

3. Data collection and analysis 3.1. Scale and survey methods This study examined the impact of the following factors on environmental behavior: ① According to the new environmental paradigm theory, demographic characteristics of the public have a positive impact on environmental behavior (Kalantari et al., 2007), so the scale included the individual's gender, age, education level and the distance from the coal mine area. ② On the basis of the previous interviews and Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS2003), the main dimensions of environmental behavior are contention behavior (Make a phone call to the law enforcement agencies, Write to the law enforcement agencies, Talk to the press, Complain to the National People's Congress member and Sue the coal mining enterprises) and adaptation behavior (transfer job, move house and stay at home). ③ Natural environment perception will affect the environmental behavior of residents, and people's intention of the environmental behavior will be affected by the surrounding environment(Grothmann and Patt, 2005; Chen et al., 2013). Natural environment perception includes residents'

perception of air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution, environmental sanitation, ground fissures and collapse in coal mine area. ④ Social environment is related to the residents' living convenience. Considering the coal mining brings environmental pollution, the enterprises have built roads and living facilities. So the residents’ social environment perception may affect their environmental behavior. Social environment includes six aspects containing transportation environment, medical care, primary and secondary education and so on. ⑤ Environmental attitudes lead environmental behavior subjectively. Appropriate environmental attitudes, which include willingness to endure pollution for economic or employment reasons, positive attitudes toward the exploitation of coal resources and trust in the government and coal mines, lead to favorable environmental behavior (Leung and Rice, 2002). The environmental behavior variables used a 4-point scale, while the variables of natural environment perception, social environment perception, and environmental attitude were all measured by a 5-point scale (Table 1). According to the factors affecting environmental behavior, this paper proposed the following hypotheses: H1. Natural environment perception has a positive impact on environmental behavior H2. Social environment perception has a negative impact on environmental behavior H3. Environmental attitudes has a negative impact on environmental behavior

4

X. Shi, Z. Song / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118275

Table 1 Model variables. Latent variables

Observed variables

Definition

Scale

Mean Standard error(%)

N(perception of natural environment)

N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 S7 S8

Intensity of air pollution perception Intensity of water pollution perception Intensity of sanitation perception Intensity of noise pollution perception Intensity of subside perception Intensity of ground fissure perception How satisfied are you with the health service How satisfied are you with the Primary and secondary education How satisfied are you with the business service How satisfied are you with the recreational facilities How satisfied are you with the public order How satisfied are you with public transport facilities Coal mining can bring economic benefit to respondent Coal mining enterprises attached importance to environmental protection The residents' awareness of environmental protection is high Government can be trusted to respond to environmental pollution Write to the law enforcement agencies Talk to the press Make a phone call to the law enforcement agencies Sue the coal mining enterprises Complain to the National People's Congress member Transfer jobs Moving Stay at home

1 ¼ none, 5 ¼ very serious

1 ¼ extremely dissatisfied, 5 ¼ extremely satisfied

4.25 4.07 4.16 4.16 3.82 3.79 2.94 2.82

0.93 1.12 0.95 1.01 1.34 1.39 0.99 1.01

1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree

2.90 2.58 2.51 2.78 1.99 2.12

0.91 0.92 1.11 1.06 1.09 1.21

2.93

1.22

2.27

1.12

1.59 1.66 1.87 1.47 1.66 1.24 1.50 3.16

0.95 1.04 1.12 0.90 1.05 0.71 0.92 1.15

S(perception of social environment)

A(environmental attitude)

S9 S10 S11 S12 A13 A14 A15 A16

Y(environmental behavior)

Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8

H4. Natural environment perception has a negative impact on social environment perception H5. Social environment perception has a positive impact on environmental attitudes H6. Natural environment perception has a negative impact on environmental attitudes The survey was conducted by three graduates and twelve senior students from Xianyang Normal University and Shaanxi Normal University. They received training in survey techniques and perception analysis before the formal survey began. This questionnaire survey involved respondents over the age of 18. Respondents completed the questionnaires on their own. After completing the survey, some small gifts of thanks were distributed to every respondent. 2,328 questionnaires of the 2,500 were returned. At last, the effective ratio of the returned questionnaires was around 83.20% as 1,936 were considered effective. The basic information of the samples is shown in Table 2. 3.2. Analytical methods (1) Since the residents’ environmental perception of the coal

1 ¼ never, 4 ¼ often

mine area has certain subjectivity, it is very important to choose the correct test method to judge whether there are differences between the environmental behaviors of residents with different attributes. If the sample does not generally conform to the normal distribution, a rank sum test is needed (She and He, 2012). In this paper, the single sample Kolmogorov-Sminov test was used. It was found that the p-value of the normal test of each variable was less than 0.05, indicating that the sample data did not conform to the normal distribution, so the non-parametric test was adopted to analyze the impact of resident attributes on environmental behavior. The Mann-Whitney rank sum test was usually used for ranked data using two independent samples for the gender group. Calculated as follows:

U¼W 

kðk þ 1Þ 2

(1)

where k is the number of sample data in the sample group corresponding to W. The Kendall rank correlation test is used for the analysis of two ordinal variables (age, education level, proximity, income) based on the Kendall rank correlation coefficient t having the formula:

Table 2 The demographical characteristics of the sample. Item Age

Education Gender

<30 30e40 41e50 51e60 >60 High school >High school Male Female

(%)

Item

36.7 18.4 24.3 13.5 7.1 57.5 42.5 64.8 35.2

Proximity (Distance from mine area)

Household income (Chinese Yuan)

(%) <1 km 1~2 km 2~3 km 3~4 km 4~5 km >5 km ¥10,000 ¥10,001~¥20,000 ¥20,001~¥30,000 >¥30,000

43.9 24.6 9.8 3.7 4.7 13.3 41.9 30.3 13.5 14.2

X. Shi, Z. Song / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118275

t¼

4u 1 nðn  1Þ

(2)

where u is the consistency logarithm of y, and t ranges from 1 to 1. When t is equal to 1, the two groups of ranks have a complete positive correlation; whereas when t is equal to 1, the two groups of ranks have a complete negative correlation. (2) Structural equation model, namely the latent variable model, is a method for establishing, estimating and testing the causality model. It can replace multiple regression and path analysis methods, which enables researchers to effectively identify the causal relationships between potential variables. In recent years, it has been widely used in various fields. Therefore, this model was adopted to analyze the influencing factors of residents’ environmental behavior (Fig. 2).

5

aggregated into 4 effective factors whose eigenvalues are greater than 1 by using maximum variance orthogonal rotation with Kaiser standardized method, and the 4 component factors cumulatively explained 61.835% of the information, demonstrating that the 4 extracted factors were acceptable. The results of using AMOS 20.0 for confirmatory factor analysis showed that the factor load values were between 0.358 and 0.788. Generally, the minimum factor load standard exceeding 0.30 was considered significant, and the observed variables need to be retained. The average variance extracted (AVE) values of 4 firstorder latent variables were between 0.513 and 0.665 (all greater than 0.5), and the composite reliability (CR) values were between 0.71 and 0.83. Convergence validity and discriminant validity of the model were effectively tested.

4. Results 3.3. Factor analysis 4.1. Descriptive statistics of environmental behavior Above all, the reliability and validity of the measured indicators were analyzed. The results showed that the Cronbach's a value was 0.838, indicating that the data reliability of the study was reliable. The KMO value was 0.803, which indicated that the factor analysis was suitable. The Bartlett sphere test has an approximate chisquare value of 3046.725, which passed Bartlett's sphericity test (p value was close to 0). A significant difference was found in the correlation coefficient matrix as the null hypothesis of the sphere test was rejected, which verified the suitability analysis of the data. SPSS20.0 was used for exploratory factor analysis to achieve dimensionality reduction of measurement indicators (Table 3). The intercept point of factor load was 0.5, and the item with a load less than 0.5 on any factor or a load greater than 0.4 on multiple factors was deleted. Finally, “transfer job”, “moving” and “at home” in the environmental behavior and “Government can be trusted to respond to environmental pollution” in the environmental attitude were deleted, and then exploratory factor analysis was carried out to extract the common factor and factor load. The result showed that all the 20 measured variables were

(1) 5 types of environmental contention behaviors were surveyed. 74.63% of residents had never sued the local coal mining enterprises, which was the behavior with the largest number of people choosing “never”, followed by writing to the law enforcement agencies (67.24%) and complaining to the National People's Congress (66.84%). Meanwhile, 66.51% of residents had never talked to the press about their bad living environment, and 56.05% would not make a phone call to the law enforcement agencies to express their appeal. The results revealed that the residents seldom sought help from the institutions and organizations. If residents are not satisfied with the local environment, what measures will they take to adapt to the local environment? Most residents chose to stay at home when they were troubled by the poor environment (59.05%). Among other environmental behaviors, “never” was the most chosen option by residents (Fig. 3). In addition to “transfer job” and “stay at home”, the ratios of "seldom", "sometimes" and "often" were all below 20%. This showed that the majority of residents had not taken action to deal with

Fig. 2. Structure equation model of the environmental behavior.

6

X. Shi, Z. Song / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118275

Table 3 Results of factor analysis. Variable

Loading of Exploratory Factor Analysis

Loading of Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Latent variables

Accumulative Variance Contribution(%)

N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 A13 A14 A15 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5

0.614 0.512 0.626 0.522 0.682 0.657 0.701 0.691 0.673 0.574 0.550 0.543 0.612 0.558 0.536 0.626 0.521 0.583 0.548 0.539

0.549 0.535 0.565 0.548 0.426 0.563 0.630 0.572 0.526 0.545 0.408 0.450 0.518 0.788 0.505 0.658 0.592 0.493 0.490 0.442

N (natural environment)

30.218

S(social environment)

42.284

A(environmental attitude)

61.835

Y(environmental behavior)

52.304

Fig. 3. The frequency of environmental behavior.

environmental problems, which we called “The silent majority”. (2) Why the local residents didn't take action to secure their rights? The result of investigating showed that 50.38% of the residents believed the environmental behavior was “useless” and 24.81% didn't know how to do it (Fig. 4). In addition, 8.52% of the residents said that they didn't take measures to improve the local environment for fear of getting into trouble with offending people. A few residents said they didn't have time or just hope others take measures to solve the environmental problems of the coal mine area. It can be seen that the adjustment behavior to the environmental problems adopted by residents in residential areas is relatively passive. This result was worthy of reflection for the competent authorities. More than half of the residents thought the measures were useless, another quarter of residents didn't know how to improve the environmental quality and monitor environmental pollution, indicating that the competent authorities were not able to solve the previous environmental problems and lost their credibility. Therefore, the government departments urgently need to strengthen publicity and environmental education in the future.

4.2. Social-demographic factors impact on environmental behavior Table 4 shows that means of residents’ environmental behavior

intention are mostly below 2.0, revealing that the overall intention to act is weak. Most people rarely took measures to solve environmental problems. There were significant differences in gender groups between “reflect to the media” and “reflect to the People's Congresses deputies”. The means revealed that the intention of men to act was higher than that of women. Age had a significant impact on “write to the relevant departments”, “call the relevant departments” and “transfer job”. The level of education had a significant impact on “call the relevant departments” and “transfer job”. The distance from the coal mine area had a significant impact on “reflect to the People's Congresses deputies” and “transfer job”. In general, the closer the living distance from the coal mine area, the stronger the environmental intention to act. Residents who were closer to the coal mine area were more troubled by the poor environment, so their intention to adopt environmental behavior was greater.

4.3. Influencing factors on residents' environmental behavior based on structural equation model In order to explore the impact of natural environment perception, social environment perception and environmental attitudes on environmental behavior, a structural equation model (SEM) was established by AMOS 20.0 (Fig. 2).

X. Shi, Z. Song / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118275

7

Fig. 4. The reasons for taking no action.

Table 4 The environmental behavior means of the different demographical group.

In this paper, the Maximum Likelihood Estimation was selected to estimate the parameters of the model by using AMOS 20.0 software. Among the estimated results, 4 absolute fit indexes (c2/

df ¼ 2.69, RMSEA ¼ 0.065, GFI ¼ 0.938, AGFI ¼ 0.912) of the modified model all met the standard value; 2 relative fit indexes (NFI ¼ 0.905, CFI ¼ 0.919) met the standard value; 2 parsimony fit

8

X. Shi, Z. Song / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118275

indexes (PNFI ¼ 0.711, PGFI ¼ 0.712) were much higher than the 0.5 standard value. All the indices met the recommended levels. The structural results of the model are displayed in Table 5. The analysis results of path coefficients exerted that the path coefficient of N (natural environment perception) to Y (environmental behavior) was 0.245, which was a positive correlation and passed the significance test; the path coefficient of A (environmental attitude) to Y (environmental behavior) was 0.208, which was a negative correlation and passed the significance test; the path coefficient of N (natural environment attitude) to A (environment attitude) was 0.350, which was a negative correlation and passed the significance test. It can be seen from the structural equation model of environmental behavior that natural environment perception has a significant positive impact on environmental behavior, environmental attitude has a significant negative impact on environmental behavior, and social environment perception has no significant impact on environmental behavior. In the coal mine area, the natural environment problem is more prominent. The stronger the natural environment perception, the greater the environmental intention to take action. The more positive the environmental attitude, the weaker the environmental intention to take action. 5. Discussion (1) Residents' environmental behavior intention is weak overall in the coal mine area. Most people, who are called “The Silent Majority” (Feng, 2007), take few measures against environmental problems. They don't fight but adapt to pollution, which also confirms the “resigned activism” proposed by Lora-Wainwright (2017). Local residents often take pollution as part of the economic development, their activism is tempered by their resignation. Because of the silence kept all the time, they don't receive enough attention from the government and social support. Nowadays, this phenomenon are prevalent in China (Lu, 2014). The current lack of attention to these residents, whether in academic research or media report, has left them trapped in persistent inequality, which can spread across generations and have a huge impact. Therefore, these groups should be given special attention in the future study (Auyero and Swistun, 2009). 50.38% of respondents think environmental behavior has no effect, because some grass-governments and coal mining enterprises have formed interest alliances, which have not ever taken residents' opinions into account. For inaction in environmental protection, indifference and even repression to the residents’ protests, local governments make more than half of the local residents regard the environmental behavior as “useless” so that they keep silence. The local residents are losing their confidence in environmental behavior. 24.81% of respondents have no idea how to take environmental behavior. People's movement has always been a kind of common social phenomenon in China rural areas, especially in heavy polluted areas. Because of the migration of elite population, there is

a lack of effective organization and leadership which make the local residents confused and hesitate to take environmental behavior. Environmental behavior usually is one kind of collective action. There exists free rider tendency (Sufrin, 1965) in collective action. The results revealed that 8.52% of respondents were very concerned about accountability so they adopted a wait and see attitude to environmental behavior. Meanwhile, 3.76% of respondents stated clearly that they are waiting for someone else to take action. Besides, 7.27% of respondents said that they are gradually accustomed to pollution in the coal mine area. Typically most of them are belong to the free-rider and these have led to the dilemma of environmental resistance. Without the backing of environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGO), the protest tends to fail, so the residents are more likely to keep silent (Yet, 2017). Moreover, the reasons for residents’ silence may be related to politics, economy, psychology, and culture (Lora-Wainwright, 2013; Lu, 2014). (2) Social-demographic factors have an impact on environmental behavior. Men are more likely to “reflect to the media” and “reflect to the People's Congresses deputies” than that of women. Gender differences in environmental protection have been a concern at home and abroad for a long time. Some studies suggest that women generally think environmental problems are more seriously (Zelezny et al., 2000) and exhibit more pro and Escario, 2018). environmental behavior than men (Casalo However, the results of the study in the coal mine area are reversed. The reason may be that men are more concerned about the public environment, while women are more concerned about the family environment (Flynn et al., 2006). Our questionnaire is more inclined to the survey of public environmental pollution, so it shows that men think the environmental problems are more serious and they are more likely to take environmental behavior. Furthermore, influenced by the traditional Chinese culture that the man goes off to work while the woman looks after the family at home, environmental pollution protests are also considered more to be the man's responsibility. Age has a significant impact on “write to the relevant departments”, “call the relevant departments” and “transfer job”. The older the age, the lower the score, so the environmental behavior intention of young people is greater than that of the elder. Some studies have shown that the young people are more concerned about environmental issues (Shen and Saijo, 2008), so they are nchez et al., 2015). prone to take the environmental behavior (Sa The education level has a significant impact on “call the relevant departments” and “transfer job”. Generally speaking, the higher educated residents tend to take more environmental behavior. People with lower education level has lower environmental satisfaction, but their environmental behavior intention is weaker. People with higher education level has more environmental knowledge (Wang and Ann, 2011) and stronger right awareness, so they are more willing to conduct environmental behavior (Chen et al., 2011). The distance from the coal mine area has a significant impact on

Table 5 The evaluation index of model and hypothesis test results. Path

N/Y S/Y A/Y N/A S/A N/S

Non-standard regression Coefficient

Standard error

C.R. statistics

P-value

0.245 0.108 0.208 0.350 0.025 0.108

0.065 0.060 0.069 0.108 0.063 0.057

2.231 1.273 2.565 3.236 0.399 1.891

0.026 0.203 0.018 0.001 0.690 0.059

Hypothesis

Remarks

H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6

Supported Unsupported Supported Supported Unsupported Unsupported

X. Shi, Z. Song / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118275

9

“reflect to the People's Congresses deputies” and “transfer job”. In general, the closer the distance from coal mine area, the greater the impact of mining activities. Residents closer to the coal mine area tend to reflect to the deputies and prefer to transfer their jobs. However, there is not much information about the impact of space on environmental behavior. In the future, the impact of twodimensional space should be taken into account. Those with higher household income can be free from the limit of material conditions and thus can pursue the environmental protection behavior beyond the material (Inglehart, 1995). But this study finds that household income has no significant effect on environmental behavior. Many studies have also shown no significant relationship between income and pro-environmental  and Escario, 2018). behavior (Shen and Saijo, 2008; Casalo It has a long history to use the demographic and social attributes of residents as predictors of environmental behavior intention (Patel et al., 2017). As different regions have different environmental problems, different historical and cultural backgrounds, the conclusions drawn from the survey in one place cannot be deemed to be one of another place. Nevertheless, instead of abandoning such study, the scholars should take advantage of geography, carry out regional research, and put forward targeted recommendations for environmental policy formulation in different regions. (3) The impact of perception on behavior has been confirmed in many studies. Climate change perception, disaster perception and environmental pollution perception all have significant effects on behavior (Grothmann and Patt, 2005; Shi, 2012). In this study, the natural environment perception is separated from the social environment perception. It is found that only natural environment perception has a significant impact on environmental behavior, while social environment perception has no significant impact on environmental behavior intention. Therefore, the environment of transportation, medical care and education in a region do not affect environmental behavior. The impact of environmental attitude on environmental behavior has been demonstrated in many studies, for example, environmental attitude has a significant positive effect on pro and Escario, 2018). However, the environmental behavior (Casalo environmental behavior in this study is protest behavior, so environmental attitude has a negative impact on environmental behavior.

factors work together to shape the environmental behavior. So both psychological and socio-demographic factors should be considered and included in the future study. Third, the study results show that natural environment perception has a significant impact on environmental behavior, while social environment perception has no significant impact on environmental behavior intention. This result suggests that merely improving the social environment can not affect the environmental behavior of the local residents. It is recommended that relevant administrative departments should strengthen the management of natural environment, guide the coal mine companies to participate in the construction of harmonious mining areas, create more employment opportunities for local residents, effectively increase environmental education and publicity, and enhance the residents’ behavioral intention. Finally, this study demonstrates that natural environment perception, environmental attitude, and some attribute variables have impacts on environmental behavioral intention. It is of great significance to environmental policy making, environmental supervision, and governance in the coal mine areas. This study does not incorporate environmental morals and environmental sensitivity into the model. In the future, reasonable variables will be considered to examine their relationship with local residents’ environmental behavior in the coal mine area. With different mechanism and different influencing factors, the environmental protest behavior and the pro-environmental behavior in this study belong to different kinds of environmental behavior. This is an issue that needs to be addressed in the future research.

6. Conclusion

Appendix A. Supplementary data

The environmental behavior of the residents living in the coal mine area where the environmental problems are relatively more serious should be widely concerned for the tremendous pressure from the environment. But there is still not too much research in China and abroad. This study highlighted several common subjects that could tell future local efforts to address environmental issues. First, the majority of residents had not taken action to deal with environmental problems, and their silence has often made them forgotten. So far, the residents of the coal mine area, though suffering from environmental pollution all the time, have not got much attention from the academia, the media, and the government. It is of great theoretical and practical significance to strengthen the research on the causes of their silence in the future. Second, gender, age, education level, and proximity to the coal mine have significant impacts on environmental behavior. Early researchers examined the relationship between social attributes and environmental behavior of the population in terms of statistical methods. In recent years, they have tended to use psychological models to study environmental behavior. It is suggested that the social attributes of respondents have an impact on their environmental behavior, and the psychological and socio-demographic

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118275.

Acknowledgments This research was supported by the 13th Five-Year National Major R&D Program of China (No. 2017YFC0504702), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41571260), Humanity and Social Science Youth Foundation of Ministry of Education of China (No. 15YJCZH141). The authors would like to thank the local residents and their knowledgeable guide. Liu Rong, He Fei, He Dazhou, Liao Wenguo, Zhang Xiaonan, Gao Qiaoqiao, Zhang Guowen, Yu Chao, Yang Yang, Liu Chunxia, Cao Jiliang, Guo Xiaoge, Guo Hu, Wei Jin, and Jia Pei contributed to the questionnaire survey. The authors also appreciate constructive advice of anonymous reviewers.

References Auyero, J., Swistun, D.A., 2009. Flammable: Environmental Suffering in an Argentine Shantytown. Oxford University Press, New York. Bamberg, S., 2003. How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. J. Environ. Psychol. 23 (1), 21e32.  , L.V., Escario, J.J., 2018. Heterogeneity in the association between environCasalo mental attitudes and pro-environmental behavior: a multilevel regression approach. J. Clean. Prod. 175, 155e163. Cutter, S.C., 1981. Community concern for pollution: social and environmental influences. Environ. Behav. 13 (1), 105e124. Chen, F., Chen, H., Guo, D., et al., 2017. Analysis of undesired environmental behavior among Chinese undergraduates. J. Clean. Prod. 162, 1239e1251. Chen, X., Peterson, M.N., Hull, V., et al., 2013. How perceived exposure to environmental harm influences environmental behavior in urban China. Ambio 42 (1), 52e60. Chen, X.D., Peterson, M.N., Hull, V., et al., 2011. Effects of attitudinal and sociodemographic factors on pro-environmental behavior in urban China. Environ. Conserv. 38, 45e52. Cottell, S.P., 2003. Influence of socio-demographics and environmental attitudes on general responsible environmental behavior among recreational boaters. Environ. Behav. 35 (3), 347e375.

10

X. Shi, Z. Song / Journal of Cleaner Production 240 (2019) 118275

Dong, X.L., Liu, D.M., 2005. Environment pollution during coal development and control measures. Coal Sci. Technol. 33 (5), 67e71. Duan, W., Sheng, J., 2017. How can environmental knowledge transfer into proenvironmental behavior among Chinese individuals? Environmental pollution perception matters. J. Public Health 1e12. Engel, U., Potschke, M., 1998. Willingness to pay for the environment: social structure, value orientations and environmental behavior in a multilevel perspective. Innovat.- Abingon 11 (3), 315e332. Feng, S.Z., 2007. The silent majority: chaxu geju and environmental action in urban China. J. Renmin Univ. China. 21 (1), 122e132. Flynn, J., Slovic, P., Mertz, C.K., 2006. Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal. 14 (6), 1101e1108. Grothmann, T., Patt, A., 2005. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to climate change. Glob. Environ. Chang. 15, 199e213. He, Z.X., Xu, S.C., Shen, W.X., et al., 2016. Factors that influence corporate environmental behavior: empirical analysis based on panel data in China. J. Clean. Prod. 133, 531e543. Hisali, E., Birungi, P., Buyinza, F., 2011. Adaptation to climate change in Uganda: evidence from micro level data. Glob. Environ. Chang. 21 (4), 1245e1261. Inglehart, R., 1995. Public support for environmental protection: objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. Polit. Sci. Polit. 28, 57e72. Kaida, N., Kaida, K., 2016. Pro-environmental behavior correlates with present and future subjective well-being. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 18 (1), 1e17. Kalantari, K., Fami, H.S., Asadi, A., et al., 2007. Investigating factors affecting environmental behavior of urban residents: a case study in tehran city-Iran. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 3 (2), 67e74. Klaniecki, K., Leventon, J., Abson, D.J., 2018. Humanenature connectedness as a ‘treatment’ for pro-environmental behavior: making the case for spatial considerations. Sustain. Sci. 1e14 (online). Korfiatis, K.J., Hovardas, T., Pantis, J.D., 2004. Determinants of environmental behavior in societies in transition: evidence from five european countries. Popul. Environ. 25 (6), 563e584. Kromm, D.E., 1973. Response to air pollution in ljubljana, yugoslavia. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 63 (2), 208e217. Lang, G., Xu, Y., 2013. Anti-incinerator campaigns and the evolution of protest politics in China. Environ. Pol. 22 (5), 311e336. Larson, L.R., Stedman, R.C., Cooper, C.B., et al., 2015. Understanding the multidimensional structure of pro-environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 43, 112e124. Lazaridou, D., Michailidis, A., Trigkas, M., 2018. Socio-economic factors influencing farmers' intention to undertake environmental responsibility. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 1e10 (online). Leung, C., Rice, J., 2002. Comparison of Chinese-Australian and Anglo-Australian environmental attitudes and behavior. Soc. Behav. Personal. 30, 251e262. Liu, Y., Li, M., Zhao, J., et al., 2018. Responding to environmental pollution-related online posts: behavior of Web surfers and its influencing factors. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 1e13. Lora-Wainwright, A., 2013. Plural forms of evidence and uncertainty in environmental health: a comparison of two Chinese cases. Evid. Polciy. 1 (1), 49e64. Lora-Wainwright, A., 2017. Resigned Activism: Living with Pollution in Rural China. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Lu, J.X., 2014. Concerned about the "silent majority" of living in environmental pollution. J. China Agric. Univ. Soc. Sci. Ed. 31 (1), 150e155. Markle, G.L., 2013. Pro-environmental behavior: does it matter how it's measured? Development and validation of the pro-environmental behavior scale (PEBS). Hum. Ecol. 41 (6), 905e914. Maria, B., Thomas, J., 2017. Beyond localized environmental contention: horizontal and vertical diffusion in a Chinese anti-incinerator campaign. J. Contemp. China 26 (106), 504e520. Navas, G., Mingorria, S., Aguilar-Gonz alez, B., 2018. Violence in environmental conflicts: the need for a multidimensional approach. Sustain. Sci. 13 (4), 649e660. Patel, J., Modi, A., Paul, J., 2017. Pro-environmental behavior and socio-demographic factors in an emerging market. Asian J. Bus. Ethics. 6 (2), 189e214. Peng, C.Y., 2011. Review of China's environmental behavior research. Soc. Sci. Res. 1, 104e109. Pol, E., Masso, A.D., 2006. Psychological parameters to understand and manage the NIMBY effect. Eur. Rev. Appl. Psychol. 56, 43e51.

Poortinga, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., 2004. Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior: a study into household energy use. Environ. Behav. 36 (1), 70e93. Preston, V., Taylor, S.M., Hodge, D.C., 1983. Adjustment to natural and technological hazards: a study of an urban residential community. Environ. Behav. 15 (2), 143e164. Rootes, C., 2005. Environmental movements: local, national and global. Frank Cass, Abingdon. nchez, M., Natalia, L.M., Lera-Lo pez, F., 2015. Improving pro-environmental beSa haviors in Spain: the role of attitudes and socio-demographic and political factors. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 18 (1), 47e66. Sharma, N.C., Kivlin, J.E., Fliegel, F.C., 1975. Environmental pollution: is there enough public concern to lead to action? Environ. Behav. 7 (4), 455e471. Shen, J., Saijo, T., 2008. Reexamining the relations between socio-demographic characteristics and individual environmental concern: evidence from Shanghai data. J. Environ. Psychol. 1, 42e50. Shi, X.M., He, F., 2012. The environmental pollution perception of residents in coal mining areas: a case study in the Hancheng mine area, Shaanxi province, China. Environ. Manage. 50, 505-513. Shi, X.M., Han, S.S., An, P.F., 2010. The environment vulnerability assessment of typical resources-based urban in mid-west China. Areal Res. Dev. 29 (6), 63e68. Shi, X.M., 2012. Residents' behavior adjustment to environmental pollution in a coal mine: a case study of Hancheng mine area, Shaanxi province. Prog. Geogr. 28 (8), 1106-1103. Stern, P., 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 56 (3), 407e424. Sufrin, S.C., 1965. The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Mancur Olson. Soc. Forces. 52 (1), 159e192. Tan, S., 2017. NIMBY movements and construction of the environmental civil society -a "backward pass" cross-case study. J. Public Manage. 2, 48e58. Tanner, C., Kast, S.W., 2003. Promoting sustainable consumption: determinants of green purchases by Swiss consumers. Psychol. Mark. 20 (10), 883e902. Tang, G.J., Cui, F., 2010. Human environmental behavior and its selectivity. Stud. Explor. 6, 108e112. Ulhasanah, N., Goto, N., 2018. Assessment of citizens' environmental behavior toward municipal solid waste management for a better and appropriate system in Indonesia: a case study of Padang City. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 20 (1), 1257e1272. Wakefield, S.E., Elliott, S.J., 2006. Eyles J D, et al. Taking environmental action: the role of local composition, context, and collective. Environ. Manage. 37 (1), 40e53. Wall, G., 1974. Complaints concerning air pollution in Sheffield. Area 6 (1), 3e8. Wang, F., Ann, R., 2011. Factors influencing private and public environmental protection behaviors: results from a survey of residents in Shaanxi, China. J. Environ. Manag. 92, 429e436. Wang, Y., Yang, J., Liang, J., et al., 2018. Analysis of the environmental behavior of farmers for non-point source pollution control and management in a water source protection area in China. Sci. Total Environ. 633, 1126e1135. Wang, F., Yin, D., 2010. Study of public environmental behavior changes and environmental policies. Econ. Manag. 32 (12), 158e164. Wesley, S.P., Gouveia, V.V., Cameron, L.D., et al., 2005. Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 36 (4), 457e475. Whitmarsh, L., 2009. Behavioral responses to climate change: asymmetry of intentions and impacts. J. Environ. Psychol. 29 (1), 13e23. Xu, J.Y., Chen, L.D., Lu, Y.H., et al., 2006. Local people's perceptions as decision support for protected area management in Wolong Biosphere Reserve, China. J. Environ. Manag. 78, 362e372. Yet, S., 2017. Environmental contention in China: Why some succeed or fail?. In: Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the APSA Annual Meeting & Exhibition. TBA, San Francisco, CA. http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p1258647_ index.html. (Accessed 23 May 2019). Yu, W., 2010. Study on the formation mechanism of urban environmental behavior from TPB: investigation from large and medium-sized cities in shandong province. Ecol. Environ. Times 6, 160e163. Zelezny, L.C., Chua, P., Aldrich, C., 2000. New ways of thinking about environmentalism: elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. J. Soc. Issues 3, 443e457.