How to encourage citizens to participate in co-production is a prominent concern. Yet the role of information communication, particularly the influence of different media types, has received limited attention. Based on national survey data in China, we found that both traditional and new media use are positively associated with environmental co-production willingness. The association is stronger for traditional media use and is mediated by environmental concern, unlike for new media use. This study extends gatekeeping theory by examining its applicability in the era of new media, and incorporates an interdisciplinary perspective to provide new insights into factors influencing co-production.
AderC. R. (1995). A longitudinal-study of agenda-setting for the issue of environmental-pollution. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(2), 300–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909507200204
2.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In AlbarracínD.JohnsonB. T.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173–221). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
AtwaterT.SalwenM. B.AndersonR. B. (1985). Media agenda-setting with environmental-issues. Journalism Quarterly, 62(2), 393–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908506200227
8.
BarberaC.NabatchiT.SancinoA.SiciliaM. (2025). Monetary and symbolic rewards: Do they matter for fostering co-commissioning and co-delivery of public services?Public Management Review, 27(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2219265
9.
Barzilai-NahonK. (2008). Toward a theory of network gatekeeping: A framework for exploring information control. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(9), 1493–1512. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20857
BergkvistL.RossiterJ. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.2.175
13.
BianY.LiL. (2012). The Chinese general social survey (2003–8) sample designs and data evaluation. Chinese Sociological Review, 45(1), 70–97. https://doi.org/10.2753/csa2162-0555450104
14.
BovairdT. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.x
15.
BovairdT.LoefflerE.YatesS.Van RyzinG.AlfordJ. (2023). International survey evidence on user and community co-delivery of prevention activities relevant to public services and outcomes. Public Management Review, 25(3), 657–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1991665
16.
BoyleD.HarrisM. (2009). The challenge of co-production. NESTA.
17.
BrandsenT.HoninghM. (2016). Distinguishing different types of coproduction: A conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 427–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12465
18.
BrandsenT.TrommelW.VerschuereB. (2017). The state and the reconstruction of civil society. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83(4), 676–693. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315592467
19.
BrudneyJ. L.EnglandR. E. (1983). Toward a definition of the co-production concept. Public Administration Review, 43(1), 59–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/975300
20.
ChanK. (1998). Mass communication and pro-environmental behaviour: Waste recycling in Hong Kong. Journal of Environmental Management, 52(4), 317–325. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1998.0189
21.
ChenB.LinJ. Y. (2014). Development strategy, urbanization and the urban-rural income gap in China. Social Sciences in China, 35(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02529203.2013.875651
22.
ChengX. (2020). Malaise effect or virtuous effect? The dynamics of Internet use and political trust in China. International Journal of Communication, 14, 1995–2016.
23.
ClarkB. Y.BrudneyJ. L.JangS. G. (2013). Coproduction of government services and the new information technology: Investigating the distributional biases. Public Administration Review, 73(5), 687–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12092
24.
CruzS. M. (2017). The relationships of political ideology and party affiliation with environmental concern: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 53, 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.06.010
25.
de ZunigaH. G.JungN.ValenzuelaS. (2012). Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x
26.
DekoninckH.SchmuckD. (2022). The mobilizing power of influencers for pro-environmental behavior intentions and political participation. Environmental Communication—A Journal of Nature and Culture, 16(4), 458–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2022.2027801
27.
DunlapR. E.JonesR. E. (2002). Environmental concern: Conceptual and measurement issues. In DunlapR. E.MichelsonW. (Eds.), Handbook of environmental sociology (pp. 482–524). Greenwood Press.
28.
DvirR.LiuX.VedlitzA. (2024). Exploring public participation modes in government: The case of infrastructure policies. Public Management Review, 26(10), 2754–2775. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2196550
29.
FanB.YangW.HanT. (2018). Impact of basic public service level on pro-environmental behavior in China. International Sociology, 33(6), 738–760. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580918792778
30.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Psychology Press.
31.
GivensJ. E.JorgensonA. K. (2013). Individual environmental concern in the world polity: A multilevel analysis. Social Science Research, 42(2), 418–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.10.005
32.
GongX.ZhangJ.ZhangH.ChengM.WangF.YuN. (2020). Internet use encourages pro-environmental behavior: Evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 256, Article 120725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120725
33.
GordonM. T. (2000). Public trust in government: The US media as an agent of accountability?International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(2), 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852300662006
34.
GuanB. (2023). Does local government competition reduce environmental governance performance? The role of public value conflict and media sentiment. Administration & Society, 55(5), 824–867. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997231157744
35.
GuerinD.CreteJ.MercierJ. (2001). A multilevel analysis of the determinants of recycling behavior in the European countries. Social Science Research, 30(2), 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1006/ssre.2000.0694
36.
HayesA. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Benny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360
37.
HoS. S.LiaoY.RosenthalS. (2015). Applying the theory of planned behavior and media dependency theory: Predictors of public pro-environmental behavioral intentions in Singapore. Environmental Communication—A Journal of Nature and Culture, 9(1), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.932819
38.
HolbertR. L.KwakN.ShahD. V. (2003). Environmental concern, patterns of television viewing, and pro-environmental behaviors: Integrating models of media consumption and effects. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4702_2
39.
HuS.ZengR.YiC. (2019). Media use and environmental public service satisfaction—An empirical analysis based on China. Sustainability, 11(14), Article 3873. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143873
40.
HuangH. (2016). Media use, environmental beliefs, self-efficacy, and pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Business Research, 69(6), 2206–2212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.031
41.
HynesN.WilsonJ. (2016). I do it, but don’t tell anyone! Personal values, personal and social norms: Can social media play a role in changing pro-environmental behaviours?Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 111, 349–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.06.034
42.
IacobucciD. (2012). Mediation analysis and categorical variables: The final frontier. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(4), 582–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2012.03.006
43.
ImT.ChoW.PorumbescuG.ParkJ. (2014). Internet, trust in government, and citizen compliance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus037
44.
JiangJ.WangP. (2020). Is linking social capital more beneficial to the health promotion of the poor? Evidence from China. Social Indicators Research, 147(1), 45–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-019-02145-5
45.
KaspersonR. E.RennO.SlovicP.BrownH. S.EmelJ.GobleR.KaspersonJ. X.RatickS. (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb01168.x
46.
KingG.KeohaneR. O.VerbaS. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton University Press.
47.
KlingerK.MetagJ. (2022). Media effects in the context of environmental issues. In TakahashiB.MetagJ.ThakerJ.ComfortS. E. (Eds.), The handbook of international trends in environmental communication (pp. 31–49). Routledge.
48.
KollmussA.AgyemanJ. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401
KristensenL. M.BroP. (2024). News values in a digital age- intra-media, inter-media, and extra-media platforms. Journalism, 25(4), 819–836. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849231165855
LeeK. (2011). The role of media exposure, social exposure and biospheric value orientation in the environmental attitude-intention-behavior model in adolescents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(4), 301–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.08.004
53.
LemberV.BrandsenT.TonuristP. (2019). The potential impacts of digital technologies on co-production and co-creation. Public Management Review, 21(11), 1665–1686. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1619807
54.
LevineC. H.FisherG. (1984). Citizenship and service delivery: The promise of coproduction. Public Administration Review, 44, 178–189. https://doi.org/10.2307/975559
55.
LewinK. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: II. Channels of group life; social planning and action research. Human relations, 1(2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674700100201
LiuB.LinS.HeS.ZhangJ. (2024). Encourage or impede? The relationship between trust in government and coproduction. Public Management Review, 26(12), 3501–3528. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2220002
58.
LiuB.LinS.YuanX.HeS.ZhangJ. (2024). Nudge citizen participation by framing mobilization information: A survey experiment in China. Journal of Chinese Governance, 9(1), 78–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/23812346.2023.2191413
59.
LiuL.ZhangB.BiJ. (2012). Reforming China’s multi-level environmental governance: Lessons from the 11th Five-Year Plan. Environmental Science & Policy, 21, 106–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.05.001
60.
LiuP.HanC.TengM. (2021). The influence of Internet use on pro-environmental behaviors: An integrated theoretical framework. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 164, Article 105162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105162
61.
LiuZ.WangJ.WangY. (2018). Understanding individual environmental concern in the context of local environmental governance in China: A multi-level analysis. Society & Natural Resources, 31(11), 1283–1301. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2018.1456595
62.
LuH.SidortsovR. (2019). Sorting out a problem: A co-production approach to household waste management in Shanghai, China. Waste Management, 95, 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.06.020
63.
LuH.TongP.ZhuR. (2020). Does Internet use affect netizens’ trust in government? Empirical evidence from China. Social Indicators Research, 149(1), 167–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-019-02247-0
64.
LuedeckeG.BoykoffM. T. (2017). Environment and the media. In RichardsonD.CastreeN.GoodchildM. F.KobayashiA.LiuW.MarstonR. A. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of geography: People, the earth, environment, and technology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
65.
MaartenssonH.LoiN. M. (2022). Exploring the relationships between risk perception, behavioural willingness, and constructive hope in pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental Education Research, 28(4), 600–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2021.2015295
66.
MacKinnonD. P.LockwoodC. M.WilliamsJ. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4
67.
MatthesJ.CorbuN.JinS.TheocharisY.SchemerC.Van AelstP.StrombackJ.Koc-MichalskaK.EsserF.AalbergT.CardenalA. S.CastroL.De VreeseC.HopmannD.SheaferT.SplendoreS.StanyerJ.StepinskaA.StetkaV.ZoiznerA. (2023). Perceived prevalence of misinformation fuels worries about COVID-19: A cross-country, multi-method investigation. Information Communication & Society, 26(16), 3135–3158. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2022.2146983
MeesH. L. P. (2022). Why do citizens engage in climate action? A comprehensive framework of individual conditions and a proposed research approach. Environmental Policy and Governance, 32(3), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1981
70.
MeijerA. J. (2014). New media and the coproduction of safety: An empirical analysis of Dutch practices. American Review of Public Administration, 44(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012455843
71.
NabatchiT.SancinoA.SiciliaM. (2017). Varieties of participation in public services: The who, when, and what of coproduction. Public Administration Review, 77(5), 766–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12765
72.
National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2021). China statistical yearbook 2021. China Statistics Press.
OstromE.ParksR. B.WhitakerG. P.PercyS. L. (1978). The public service production process: A framework for analyzing police services. Policy Studies Journal, 7(s1), 381–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1978.tb01782.x
78.
OstromV.OstromE. (1977). Public goods and public choices. In SavasE. S. (Ed.), Alternatives for delivering public services: Toward improved performance. Westview Press.
79.
ParksR. B.BakerP. C.KiserL.OakersonR.OstromE.OstromV.PercyS. L.VandivortM. B.WhitakerG. P.WilsonR. (1981). Consumers as coproducers of public services: Some economic and institutional considerations. Policy Studies Journal, 9(7), 1001–1011.
80.
ParradoS.Van RyzinG. G.BovairdT.LofflerE. (2013). Correlates of co-production: Evidence from a five-nation survey of citizens. International Public Management Journal, 16(1), 85–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2013.796260
81.
PavlikJ. V. (2001). Journalism and new media. Columbia University Press.
PestoffV. (2012). Co-production and third sector social services in Europe: Some concepts and evidence. Voluntas, 23(4), 1102–1118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9308-7
84.
PodsakoffP. M.OrganD. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408
85.
PotterW. J. (2014). A critical analysis of cultivation theory. Journal of Communication, 64(6), 1015–1036. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12128
86.
PutnamR. D. (2020). Bowling alone: Revised and updated: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
87.
QiY.WuT. (2013). The politics of climate change in China. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Climate Change, 4(4), 301–313. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.221
88.
RiccucciN. M.Van RyzinG. G.LiH. (2016). Representative bureaucracy and the willingness to coproduce: An experimental study. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12401
89.
RiceR. E.MillerL. B. (2023). Media use, environmental mediators, and pro-environmental behaviors across and within countries. Environmental Communication—A Journal of Nature and Culture, 17(2), 187–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2023.2179649
90.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
91.
SchultzP. W. (2001). The structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(4), 327–339.
92.
SchynsP.KoopC. (2010). Political distrust and social capital in Europe and the USA. Social Indicators Research, 96(1), 145–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9471-4
93.
ScognamiglioF.SancinoA.CaloF.Jacklin-JarvisC.ReesJ. (2023). The public sector and co-creation in turbulent times: A systematic literature review on robust governance in the COVID-19 emergency. Public Administration, 101(1), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12875
94.
ShahD. V.KwakN.HolbertR. L. (2001). “Connecting” and “disconnecting” with civic life: Patterns of Internet use and the production of social capital. Political Communication, 18(2), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846001750322952
95.
ShoemakerP. J.EichholzM.KimE.WrigleyB. (2001). Individual and routine forces in gatekeeping. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(2), 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900107800202
96.
ShoemakerP. J.VosT. P. (2009). Gatekeeping theory. Routledge.
97.
SorokaS. N. (2012). The gatekeeping function: Distributions of information in media and the real world. Journal of Politics, 74(2), 514–528. https://doi.org/10.1017/s002238161100171x
98.
SternP. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.
99.
SternP. C.DietzT.AbelT.GuagnanoG. A.KalofL. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81–97.
100.
StuartE. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical Science, 25(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1214/09-sts313
101.
SunS.MerollaA. J.SeoM. (2018). Public and personal responses to environmental pollution in China: Differential susceptibility, direct experience, and media use. International Journal of Communication, 12, 1501–1522.
102.
SundeenR. A. (1988). Explaining participation in coproduction: A study of volunteers. Social Science Quarterly, 69(3), 547–568.
TadesseT. (2009). Environmental concern and its implication to household waste separation and disposal: Evidence from Mekelle, Ethiopia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 53(4), 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.11.009
105.
TakahashiB.DuanR.JoshiA.Van WitsenA.LiW. (2022). Covering the environment beat: A systematic review of research on news media coverage of the environment. In TakahashiB.MetagJ.ThakerJ.ComfortS. E. (Eds.), The handbook of international trends in environmental communication (pp. 17–30). Routledge.
106.
TakahashiB.TandocE. C.DuanR.Van WitsenA. (2017). Revisiting environmental citizenship: The role of information capital and media use. Environment and Behavior, 49(2), 111–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916515620892
107.
The Institute of Sociology of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. (2019). The 2019 Chinese Social Survey. http://csqr.cass.cn/
108.
The Institute of Sociology of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. (2021). The 2021 Chinese Social Survey. http://csqr.cass.cn/
109.
ThomsenM. K. (2017). Citizen coproduction: The influence of self-efficacy perception and knowledge of how to coproduce. American Review of Public Administration, 47(3), 340–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074015611744
110.
ThomsenM. K.JakobsenM. (2015). Influencing citizen coproduction by sending encouragement and advice: A field experiment. International Public Management Journal, 18(2), 286–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2014.996628
111.
Van EijkC.SteenT. (2016). Why engage in co-production of public services? Mixing theory and empirical evidence. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(1), 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314566007
112.
VoorbergW. H.BekkersV. J. J. M.TummersL. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505
113.
WallaceJ. (2018). Modelling contemporary gatekeeping: The rise of individuals, algorithms and platforms in digital news dissemination. Digital Journalism, 6(3), 274–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1343648
114.
WangB. Z.ChengZ. (2017). Environmental perceptions, happiness and pro-environmental actions in China. Social Indicators Research, 132(1), 357–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1218-9
115.
WangD.LyuX.ChenL. (2024). The social status of women in China: Analysis based on age, period, and cohort effects. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 27(4), 586–599. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12616
116.
WangH. (2022). Knowledge or responsibility? The role of media use on citizens’ willingness to pay for environment governance. Sustainability, 14(21), Article 14538. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114538
WangY.ZhangJ. (2024). Promoting citizens’ willingness to participate in coproduction in public service through information frames. Public Administration, 102(2), 479–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12932
119.
WanousJ. P.ReichersA. E. (1996). Estimating the reliability of a single-item measure. Psychological Reports, 78(2), 631–634. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1996.78.2.631
120.
WelbersK.OpgenhaffenM. (2018). Social media gatekeeping: An analysis of the gatekeeping influence of newspapers’ public Facebook pages. New Media & Society, 20(12), 4728–4747. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818784302
WilliamsB. A.CarpiniM. X. D. (2004). Monica and Bill all the time and everywhere: The collapse of gatekeeping and agenda setting in the new media environment. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(9), 1208–1230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764203262344
123.
WuY.XiaoH.YangF. (2022). Government information disclosure and citizen coproduction during COVID-19 in China. Governance-an International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions, 35(4), 1005–1027. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12645
124.
YangY.TangM.ZhouW.HuheN. (2014). The effect of media use on institutional trust in China. Problems of Post-Communism, 61(3), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.2753/ppc1075-8216610304
125.
YangZ. J.KahlorL. (2013). What, me worry? The role of affect in information seeking and avoidance. Science Communication, 35(2), 189–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012441873
126.
YiC. (2024). How does the Internet impact the public’s perception of information security risk?Social Sciences in China, 45(2), 184–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/02529203.2024.2367322
127.
YiC.HanJ.LongC. (2023). Does Internet use increase public perception of environmental pollution?—Evidence from China. Social Indicators Research, 166(3), 665–685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-023-03083-z
ZhangF.XuM.YanY.HuangK. (2023). Public discourses and government interventions behind China’s ambitious carbon neutrality goal. Communications Earth & Environment, 4(1), Article 437. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01101-z
131.
ZhangX.WenF.TangZ. (2023). Why do the public participate in community regeneration co-production? The case of He Ping, Tianjin. Administration & Society, 55(6), 1144–1170. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997231165996
132.
ZhangY.LiuX.VedlitzA. (2020). How social capital shapes citizen willingness to co-invest in public service: The case of flood control. Public Administration, 98(3), 696–712. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12646
133.
ZhangY.ZhuX. (2022). Social ties and citizen-initiated contacts: The case of China’s local one-stop governments. Journal of Chinese Governance, 7(3), 418–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/23812346.2021.1933809
134.
ZhaoX. (2012). Personal values and environmental concern in China and the US: The mediating role of informational media use. Communication Monographs, 79(2), 137–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2012.672999
135.
ZhouD.DengW.WuX. (2020). Impacts of Internet use on political trust: New evidence from China. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 56(14), 3235–3251. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496x.2019.1644161
136.
ZhouQ.TangS. (2017). Media use and Chinese public’s pro-environmental behavior: Analyzing the multiple mediation effects of environmental knowledge and environmental risk perception. Journal of China University of Geosciences (Social Sciences Edition), 17(5), 80–94 (in Chinese).
