Next Article in Journal
Prevalence of Child Maltreatment and Its Association with Parenting Style: A Population Study in Hong Kong
Next Article in Special Issue
Differences in Eysenck’s Personality Dimensions between a Group of Breast Cancer Survivors and the General Population
Previous Article in Journal
Handgrip Strength of World Trade Center (WTC) Responders: The Role of Re-Experiencing Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Symptoms
Previous Article in Special Issue
“We Are More than Our Parents’ Mental Illness”: Narratives from Adult Children
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 16
Issue 7
10.3390/ijerph16071129
ijerph-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

PM2.5 Concentrations and Subjective Well-Being: Longitudinal Evidence from Aggregated Panel Data from Chinese Provinces

by
Pan Zhang
1,2,* and
Zhiguo Wang
3,4
1
School of International and Public Affairs, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030, China
2
China Institute for Urban Governance, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030, China
3
School of Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong 999077, China
4
Business School, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong 999077, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16(7), 1129; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071129
Submission received: 7 March 2019 / Revised: 20 March 2019 / Accepted: 27 March 2019 / Published: 29 March 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Mental Health and Emotional Wellbeing)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Although haze pollution with PM2.5 as the chief pollutant has become a critical threat worldwide, little research has examined the effects of PM2.5 concentrations on subjective well-being. Based on a longitudinal aggregated panel dataset from Chinese provinces, this study investigates the effects of PM2.5 concentrations on levels of happiness and the inequality of happiness. The results showed that high ground-level PM2.5 concentrations decreased the average level of happiness and high PM2.5 concentrations had stronger negative effects on the happiness of persons with high income than those with low income. In addition, PM2.5 concentrations were also significantly negatively related to inequality of happiness in Chinese provinces. Further empirical tests showed that the negative effects of PM2.5 concentrations on the inequality of happiness could be explained by the stronger influence of PM2.5 concentrations on the subjective well-being of individuals with a higher initial level of happiness than those with a lower initial level of happiness. This confirms that PM2.5 pollution can do harm to subjective well-being and reduce variations in the subjective well-being of individuals. The policy implications of controlling haze pollution and improving well-being are discussed.

1. Introduction

Improving subjective well-being is one of the most important missions of governments [1]. Subjective well-being refers to one’s overall perception about her/his life [2] and it is usually measured by two interchangeable items: happiness and life satisfaction [3]. Previous research has generally explored the influences of micro factors on the subjective well-being of individuals, including demographic factors and the socio-economic status of individuals [3]. Recently, macro factors have attracted scholars’ attention due to their policy importance, such as the quality of government [1,4,5] and economic conditions [6,7,8]. Particularly, air pollution is becoming a prominent problem in the world [9,10] and many studies have confirmed that air pollution does great harm to human’s physical health [11,12], environmental economic scientists have definitely emphasized the urgency of evaluating the effects of pollution on subjective well-being [13,14].
Recently, studies examining the relationship between environmental pollution and subjective well-being have emerged, but there are still at least the following two critical research gaps. First, current studies have examined the effects of some air pollutants on subjective well-being, including PM10 [15,16,17,18,19], sulfur dioxide [20,21,22,23,24,25], nitrogen dioxide [19,20,25,26,27,28], and carbon emissions [16,29]. Actually, PM2.5 is the chief pollutant in China’s emerging haze pollution [30] and it is most harmful to human’s physical health among pollutants [31]. However, little research has examined the relationship between PM2.5 concentrations and subjective well-being. Second, the level of happiness and the variations in happiness (or the inequality of happiness) have been two critical topics in subjective well-being research [7,32]. Nevertheless, the current literature has mainly analyzed the effects of air pollution on the level of subjective well-being [3,13], with no research examining the effects of air pollution on the inequality of subjective well-being.
Against this background, this work constructed a unique panel dataset from Chinese provinces, including the annual PM2.5 concentrations, average happiness levels, and happiness inequality. Running a set of panel data models, it aims at investigating the effects of annual PM2.5 concentrations on the average level of happiness and the inequality of happiness across Chinese provinces. Its theoretical contributions are two-fold. On the one hand, this study is the first to examine the impacts of PM2.5 concentrations on subjective well-being. In view that PM2.5 is the chief pollutant in haze pollution and little research pays attention to how PM2.5 concentrations influence subjective well-being, it provides new evidence about the well-being loss effects of PM2.5 pollution. On the other hand, previous studies have just focused on the effects of air pollution on individuals’ levels of happiness [3,13], while this study takes the first step to investigate the effects of air pollution on the inequality of happiness by focusing on PM2.5. Therefore, this study contributes to the current literature by uncovering the effects of annual ground-level PM2.5 concentrations on variations of individuals’ subjective well-being.

2. Literature Review

Examining the effects of air pollution on people’s subjective well-being is an important research issue in environmental economics [3]. Due to the difficulty of directly measuring the monetary value of air quality, economists have developed a novel approach to assessing air quality using happiness data, called the “happiness approach” [13]. This approach considers people’s subjective well-being to be a function of air pollution, income, and other factors [13]. In general, it assumes that income is positively related to subjective well-being, while air pollution is negatively related to subjective well-being. Then, to keep subjective well-being stable, the substitution relationship between air quality and income is calculated based on the marginal effects of air pollution and income on subjective well-being [13,33]. Although some studies have quantified the equivalent monetary value of air quality based on subjective well-being data, not all types of air pollution have significant negative effects on subjective well-being [26,29].
Overall, the literature on the effects of air pollution on subjective well-being can be divided into two clusters. The first cluster examined how people’s perceptions of the severity of air pollution influenced their subjective well-being [34,35,36,37,38]. For example, perceived risks related to the intensity of exposure to polluted air and the hazards of pollutants have been found to be significantly negatively related to respondents’ happiness in Jinchuan, China [36]. In addition, some scholars have confirmed the significant negative effects of perceived air pollution and noise on life satisfaction in Germany [35]. However, Wang and Cheng [38] found that the perceived severity of environmental issues had little effect on happiness in China. Interestingly, some scholars provided evidence that endogenous perceived air pollution was negatively related to happiness in Germany [37]. Moreover, when objective air pollution was used as the instrumental variable, the negative effect of perceived air pollution was not significant [37].
The second cluster used objective air pollution indicators to investigate the effects of air pollution on people’s subjective well-being. Specifically, most studies have examined the correlations between subjective well-being and air pollution, as measured by annual pollutant concentrations [16,17,18,20,22,24,27,28]. For example, Welsch [26] found that nitrogen dioxide was negatively related to subjective well-being in European countries. Menz [15] provided cross-national evidence of the negative relationship between PM10 and life satisfaction. Finally, Luechinger [23] revealed that annual mean sulfur dioxide concentrations were negatively related to life satisfaction in 13 European countries. These studies proved the effects of exposure to air pollution on subjective well-being in the medium and long term, but failed to reveal the short-term effects of air pollution on subjective well-being. As a result, some studies have begun to fill this gap by matching self-reported well-being data with daily air quality data when respondents are surveyed [29,33,39]. For example, Levinson [28] used matched daily data to confirm that daily PM10 pollution was significantly related to happiness in the U.S. Using a similar method, Zhang, Zhang, and Chen [39] found that a high air pollution index was negatively related to hedonic happiness and positively related to depression, but had little impact on life satisfaction in China.
Although some studies have contributed to the current literature by investigating the relationship between air pollution and subjective well-being, there are still some limitations. First, current studies have mainly focused on the effects of air pollution index or air quality index [39,40], PM10 [15,16,17,18,19], sulfur dioxide [20,21,22,23,24,25], nitrogen dioxide [19,20,25,26,27,28], and carbon emissions [16,29]. However, PM2.5 is the dominating pollutant of haze pollution in most parts of China and is known to pose a greater threat to human health than PM10 [9]. Yet, to the best of our knowledge, only several studies have empirically examined the effects of PM2.5 on subjective well-being recently [29,31,40]. For example, investigating the effects of six pollutants on hedonic happiness using well-matched daily data in China, including PM2.5, PM10, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, and sulfur dioxide, Zhang, Zhang, and Chen [29] showed that only PM2.5 and PM10 significantly decreased hedonic happiness.
Second, current research has mainly examined the effects of air pollution on the level of subjective well-being, which corresponds to the level of happiness (or life satisfaction) of each individual or the average level of happiness (or life satisfaction) of respondents in each region [3,13]. However, the distribution of subjective well-being in the population, as measured by the inequality of subjective well-being, has been another critical topic in well-being research [32]. Yet no research has examined the relationship between air pollution and the inequality of subjective well-being. Third, current evidence of the relationship between air pollution and subjective well-being has mainly come from developed countries or regions, including European regions [23,24,26], the U.S. [33], the UK [28], Germany [22], Australia [17], and Spain [16]. As developing countries are increasingly affected by severe air pollution, especially China [9,30], further research is needed to revisit the effects of air pollution on subjective well-being in developing countries.

3. Methodology

3.1. Model Specifications

This study constructed a panel dataset of 25 mainland Chinese provinces from 2003 to 2015 to examine the effects of annual PM2.5 concentrations on the average level of happiness and the inequality of happiness. Nine provincial jurisdictions in China were excluded from the analysis because of the unavailability of happiness data, namely Inner Mongolia, Hainan, Tibet, Qinghai, Ningxia, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan. The provinces in the sample are located in eastern, western, and central China. Thus, based on a nationwide sample in China, this study complements previous cross-national studies [15,20,23,26,27] and those conducted in a certain sub-region of a country [17,28,36]. In addition, focusing on the Chinese provincial level has the advantage of maximizing variations in the level of happiness and the inequality of happiness between regions, thus providing a solid basis for examining the effects of PM2.5 concentrations. The empirical model used was the following:
Hi,t = α + β × PMi,t + γ × Ci,t−1 + εi,t,
where Hi,t is the dependent variable, denoting the average level of happiness or the inequality of happiness of each sample province in the year under study, PMi,t is the key explanatory variable and the annual PM2.5 concentrations in each province, Ci,t−1 is a vector composed of all of the control variables, which were derived from the literature on determinants of subjective well-being, εi,t is the error term, and α, β, and γ are the regression coefficients. All of the control variables were lagged for one year to avoid possible reverse causal relationships, while the PM2.5 concentration variable was not lagged due to the timely effect of haze pollution.
Based on Equation (1), we first ran a panel data model to examine the impacts of PM2.5 concentrations on the average level of happiness using all the samples. Then, we divided the sample Chinese provinces into two groups according to the urban disposable income per capita: the high income group and the low income group. By examining the effects of PM2.5 concentrations on the average level of happiness in these two groups respectively, we identified the heterogenous effects of PM2.5 concentrations. In addition, we also ran a panel data model to investigate the relationship between PM2.5 concentrations and the inequality of happiness. The influences of PM2.5 concentrations on the inequality of happiness proved statistically significant, and then, we also divided the sample Chinese provinces into two groups according to the initial average level of happiness: the high happiness group and the low happiness group. By examining the effects of PM2.5 concentrations on the level of happiness in the high happiness group and the low happiness group respectively, we explained the mechanism behind the negative influences of PM2.5 concentrations on the inequality of happiness. Particularly, when we ran each panel data model, the Hausman test was conducted to choose the appropriate model between the fixed-effects model and the random-effects model.

3.2. Dependent Variables

To construct a longitudinal panel dataset, we aggregated happiness data from all surveyed individuals located in the same province from the same wave of the Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS). The CGSS is a representative nationwide survey in China with a multi-stage stratified probability proportional to size sampling method [41]. The CGSS was conducted for 10 waves, in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2015. Nine waves of data were used in this study (2004 was excluded due to data unavailability). The CGSS is one of the most used data sources in academic research on Chinese issues because of its high quality, large sample, long series, and broad representation [38,41].
Happiness data came from the following survey question: “In general, to what extent do you think your life is happy?” The respondents were asked to choose one of five answers: 1 (very unhappy), 2 (unhappy), 3 (just so so), 4 (happy), and 5 (very happy). All waves of the CGSS used the same five-level Likert scale to collect information on respondents’ self-reported happiness to obtain comparable happiness data across waves. To measure the average level of happiness, we calculated the mean values of self-reported happiness levels for all respondents in the same province for each wave of CGSS. Inequality of happiness was measured by the standard deviations of self-reported happiness levels for all respondents in the same province for each wave of CGSS. Both measures have been used in previous studies published in high-ranking, peer-reviewed quality of life journals [5,7].

3.3. Independent Variables

The independent variable was annual PM2.5 concentrations in the Chinese provinces under study. In general, obtaining high quality data on longitudinal PM2.5 concentrations is a big challenge for empirical studies investigating haze pollution issues in China, as the first PM2.5 monitoring stations and official PM2.5 data only appeared in 2013 [9]. To obtain accurate PM2.5 concentration data in the Chinese provinces, we retrieved the PM2.5 concentration data from each grid from the global annual PM2.5 grids developed by a famous international research team [42,43]. By combining aerosol optical depth retrievals from multiple satellite instruments, this approach made it possible to estimate annual ground-level PM2.5 concentrations (μg/m3) from 1998 to 2016, after removing dust and sea salt. Based on these gridded datasets, we agglomerated them to obtain annual ground-level PM2.5 concentrations for each Chinese province for each year.

3.4. Control Variables

To reduce omitted variable bias, we controlled a set of factors that could affect subjective well-being. First, previous studies at the individual level have discussed the effects of individuals’ demographic variables on subjective well-being (e.g., age, gender, education, income, employment status) [44]. Therefore, we controlled the proportion of older people, the sex ratio, the ratio of people with a Bachelor’s degree or above to the total population, disposable income per capita, and the unemployment rate. Second, previous studies confirmed that health status was an important predictor of happiness [44]. Because not all waves of the CGSS collected data about respondents’ self-reported health status, we used the outpatient service frequency per capita in each province as a proxy to control the physical health status of persons. Third, some studies at the regional level have argued that certain macro conditions can affect subjective well-being, especially inflation [6], urbanization [45], and income inequality [8,46]. Thus, we controlled the consumer price index, the urbanization rate in each province, the Atkinson Index estimated by previous research to reflect income inequality [47], and the total population. The detailed measures of the dependent, independent, and control variables are presented in Table 1, including their descriptive statistics.

4. Empirical Results

Figure 1 shows the spatial distribution of annual ground-level PM2.5 concentrations, the average level of happiness, and the inequality of happiness in selected years. Annual PM2.5 concentrations showed large variations between Chinese provinces. For example, some provinces suffered from more severe haze pollution, such as Tianjin, Shandong Jiangsu, and Shanghai. However, PM2.5 concentrations in other provinces, especially Yunnan, Sichuan, Fujian, and Gansu, were lower. Besides, the average level of happiness in some provinces was higher in 2015 (e.g., Beijing, Shandong, and Jilin), while the average level of happiness in some other provinces was lower in that year (e.g., Guangxi, Sichuan, Guangdong, and Hubei). In addition, the inequality of happiness in Chinese provinces seemed also significantly different. The inequality of happiness in Guangdong, Gansu, Fujian, and Shanghai was higher than that in other provinces, but the inequality of happiness in Shandong, Henan, and Guizhou was lower.
Figure 2 presents the temporal trends of annual ground-level PM2.5 concentrations in Chinese provinces. As this study used annual ground-level PM2.5 concentrations without dust and sea salt, the PM2.5 concentrations obtained were lower than those reported in previous research [9,30]. Overall, despite strong fluctuations, mean of the annual average PM2.5 concentrations increased gradually over time. According to our calculation, mean of the annual average PM2.5 concentrations in Chinese provinces increased from 33.57 μg/m3 in 2003 to 37.40 μg/m3 in 2015. In addition, the annual ground-level PM2.5 concentrations in some provinces increased more significantly over time, such as Heilongjiang, Jilin, Liaoning, Anhui, and Jiangsu. Nevertheless, PM2.5 concentrations in some other provinces remained a little more stable.
In addition, Figure 3 shows the level of happiness and the inequality of happiness by province over the nine waves of the CGSS. It illustrates the significant increase in the average level of happiness in most Chinese provinces. Indeed, the average level of happiness in most provinces increased from about three in the first wave of the CGSS to about four in the last wave. This indicates that the happiness of most Chinese people increased over the last decade. However, the inequality of happiness in the Chinese provinces showed a weaker upward trend. According to our calculation, the mean happiness inequality in the Chinese provinces during the first wave of the CGSS was 0.7985, while it was 0.885 during the last wave. This suggests a general increase in variations in individuals’ self-reported happiness in the provinces. Moreover, this implies that the increase in the level of happiness was also accompanied by an increase in the inequality of happiness in the Chinese provinces.
In Table 2, Model 1 presents the estimated effects of PM2.5 concentrations on the average level of happiness using all the samples. In Model 1, the coefficient of PM2.5 was −0.006 and statistically significant (p < 0.05), supporting the negative effects of high PM2.5 concentrations on individuals’ subjective well-being. Specifically, when annual ground-level PM2.5 concentrations increased by one μg/m3, the average level of happiness decreased by 0.006. Therefore, reducing PM2.5 concentrations may be a prospective policy measure to increase subjective well-being. Interestingly, among the control variables, Income level was significantly positively related to the average level of happiness (1.666, p < 0.01). Then, Models 2 and 3 present the estimated impacts of PM2.5 concentrations on the average level of happiness using the samples in the high income group and those in the low income group, respectively. PM2.5 concentrations were significantly negatively related to the average level of happiness in the high income group (Model 2, −0.0051, p < 0.1), while the coefficient of PM2.5 was −0.0047 and not significant (Model 3, p > 0.1) in the low income group. This means PM2.5 pollution had greater negative effects on the subjective well-being of individuals with high income than those with low income.
In addition, Model 4 in Table 3 shows the estimated impacts of PM2.5 concentrations on the inequality of happiness based on all the samples. The coefficient of PM2.5 was −0.0012 and was statistically significant (p < 0.05) in Model 4, confirming that high PM2.5 concentrations reduced the inequality of happiness. Specifically, the standard deviation of individuals’ self-reported happiness decreased by 0.0012 when annual ground-level PM2.5 concentrations increased by 1 μg/m3. One explanation may be that PM2.5 pollution has a stronger negative effect on the happiness of individuals with a higher initial level of happiness than those with a lower initial level of happiness, reducing the happiness gap between these two groups of people. Regression results of Models 5 and 6 confirmed this argument. Specifically, the regression coefficients of PM2.5 on the level of happiness in the high happiness group (see Model 5) and in the low happiness group (see Model 6) were both significantly negative (−0.0081, p < 0.05; −0.0062, p < 0.1), while the absolute value of the coefficient of PM2.5 in the high happiness group was greater than the absolute value of the coefficient of PM2.5 in the low happiness group.
Most control variables had inconsistent effects on the level of happiness and the inequality of happiness according to Models 1 and 4. For example, Income level and Income inequality had strongly significant effects on the average level of happiness in Model 1, while only Population and Income level had significant effects on the inequality of happiness in Model 4. This implies that the determinants of the level of happiness and the inequality of happiness may be significantly different. Therefore, future research should pay more attention to the level of happiness and the inequality of happiness simultaneously. It is worth noting that Income level was significantly positively related to the average level of happiness (Model 1, 1.666, p < 0.01) and the inequality of happiness (Model 4, 0.232, p < 0.01). This strongly supports that income played an important role in individuals’ subjective well-being. Surprisingly, the coefficients of Outpatient were not significant in Models 1 and 4. A possible explanation may be the limitation that the outpatient service frequency per capita as a proxy could not reflect the health status of respondents directly and accurately.

5. Discussion

High PM2.5 concentrations turned out to be significantly negatively related to the level of happiness in this study. We can make two possible explanations: the direct mechanism and the indirect mechanism, which are similar to the mechanisms behind negative effects of environmental pollution discussed in previous studies [18]. The first reason is that PM2.5, the chief pollutant in haze pollution, may directly affect subjective well-being. Previous studies have shown that PM2.5 can affect individuals’ emotions, including increasing depression [48] and negative emotions [49]. Thus, PM2.5 pollution is also expected to directly affect individuals’ judgments of their quality of life [18]. Specifically, high PM2.5 concentrations or severe haze pollution can mainly result in low or limited visibility. Then, low visibility in haze days can easily increase individuals’ negative emotions and decrease their positive feelings about their quality of life.
The second reason is that high PM2.5 concentrations may also affect subjective well-being indirectly. First, PM2.5 is expected to indirectly reduce subjective well-being by affecting physical health. For example, previous studies have found that PM2.5 pollution poses a significant risk to physical health [11] and then, poor physical health is usually negatively related to subjective well-being [44]. Second, PM2.5 concentrations could hinder economic growth [50] and low wealth would reduce subjective well-being [44]. Thus, PM2.5 can also indirectly do harm to subjective well-being by hindering economic development. Third, previous studies also confirmed that, when PM2.5 concentrations were high, individuals tended to engage in less physical activities and visits to the outdoors, which would then reduce their subjective well-being [31]. All these three channels above provide an incomplete picture about how PM2.5 concentrations may influence subjective well-being indirectly.
In addition, the findings show that PM2.5 concentrations had a significant negative relationship with the inequality of happiness, which means PM2.5 concentrations reduced variations in the subjective well-being of individuals in each province. Previous studies mainly concentrate on the relationship between air pollution and the average level of subjective well-being [3,13], but no research examines the impacts of PM2.5 concentrations on the variations in subjective well-being in the population. This research gap hinders our systematic understanding of the “pollution—subjective well-being” nexus. This work takes the first step to examine how air pollution influences the inequality of happiness by focusing on PM2.5. Thus, it adds new knowledge in this field by uncovering the effects of annual ground-level PM2.5 concentrations on the inequality of individuals’ subjective well-being in China.
The negative relationship between PM2.5 concentrations and the inequality of happiness can be understood as follows. Indeed, PM2.5 concentrations can reduce individuals’ subjective well-being [29], while the negative effects of PM2.5 concentrations on individuals’ happiness are expected to be heterogeneous. PM2.5 pollution is expected to have a greater effect on individuals with a higher initial level of happiness than those with a lower level of happiness. This argument was confirmed by the regression results by using sub-samples in the high happiness group (see Model 5) and those in the low happiness group (see Model 6). In general, people with a higher level of happiness are those with higher income, better education background, and social status. Because they are habituated to a high quality of life, the subjective well-being of these individuals is expected to be more vulnerable to external shocks. When their lives are affected by severe haze pollution, they are more likely to judge that the decrease of quality of life is more dramatic. Thus, the heterogeneous effects of PM2.5 concentrations on the subjective well-being of these two groups of individuals would promote the equality of happiness.

6. Conclusions

In the context of China’s severe haze pollution with PM2.5 as the chief pollutant [9,30], this study examined the well-being effects of PM2.5 concentrations in the Chinese provinces. To this end, a unique panel dataset from Chinese provinces was constructed, including annual ground-level PM2.5 concentrations, average happiness level, and happiness inequality. Panel data analysis techniques were used to conduct the empirical analysis. The results showed that high annual ground-level PM2.5 concentrations had significant negative effects on the average level of happiness. Specifically, when annual ground-level PM2.5 concentrations increased by 1 μg/m3, the average level of happiness decreased by 0.006. Besides, PM2.5 concentrations showed stronger negative effects on the happiness of individuals with high income than those with low income. In addition, high annual ground-level PM2.5 concentrations also reduced the inequality of happiness and the standard deviation of individuals’ self-reported happiness decreased by 0.0012 when annual PM2.5 concentrations increased by 1 μg/m3. Further empirical tests confirmed that the negative effects of PM2.5 concentrations on the inequality of happiness resulted from the stronger influence of PM2.5 concentrations on the subjective well-being of individuals with a higher initial level of happiness than those with a lower initial level of happiness.
The findings of this study have important policy implications. First, the study confirms that high PM2.5 concentrations can do harm to subjective well-being, and environmental economic literature usually assesses the monetary value of air quality with the “happiness approach” [13]. As mentioned earlier, previous studies have found that PM2.5 pollution can hinder economic growth [50] and threaten people’s physical health [11]. Thus, it is necessary to control PM2.5 concentrations, especially setting mandatory performance targets [30,51], improving energy utilization efficiency [52,53], developing renewable energies [54,55] and updating the economic structure [9]. However, to control haze pollution needs high fiscal expenditure or even to slow down economic growth. Thus, when conducting a cost-benefit analysis for haze pollution control, all benefits should be calculated, including the increase in subjective well-being and the reduction of diseases. Second, high PM2.5 concentrations can reduce the inequality of happiness. In other words, to control haze pollution may increase the inequality of happiness. However, the inequality of well-being is a major threat to social stability. Therefore, our findings emphasize that policy measures should be adopted to decrease the inequality of happiness when efforts are devoted to controlling PM2.5 concentrations.
Although it is the first to investigate the effects of PM2.5 concentrations on the average level of happiness and the inequality of happiness systematically, this study has some limitations, which leave room for future research. First, this study was conducted in the Chinese context. However, some global data sources on subjective well-being are available, containing data from most countries, such as the World Values Survey. Therefore, future studies should examine the effects of PM2.5 concentrations on subjective well-being using a cross-national analysis. Second, this study investigated the correlation relationship between PM2.5 concentrations and subjective well-being. However, experimental or quasi-experimental designs have become increasingly popular for examining causal relationships [55]. Thus, using an experimental design offers a prospective avenue to investigate the causal relationship between PM2.5 concentrations and subjective well-being.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.Z.; methodology, P.Z.; software, P.Z.; validation, P.Z. and Z.W.; formal analysis, P.Z.; investigation, P.Z.; resources, P.Z. and Z.W.; writing—original draft preparation, P.Z.; writing—review and editing, P.Z. and Z.W.; funding acquisition, P.Z.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Social Science Fund of China, grant number 17CGL069.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ott, J.C. Greater happiness for a greater number: Some non-controversial options for governments. J. Happiness Stud. 2010, 5, 631–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Soukiazis, E.; Ramos, S. The structure of subjective well-being and its determinants: A micro-data study for portugal. Soc. Indic. Res. 2016, 126, 1375–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Welsch, H. Implications of happiness research for environmental economics. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 2735–2742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Helliwell, J.F.; Huang, H. How’s your government? International evidence linking good government and well-being. Br. J. Political Sci. 2008, 38, 595–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ott, J.C. Government and happiness in 130 nations: Good governance fosters higher level and more equality of happiness. Soc. Indic. Res. 2011, 102, 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Di Tella, R.; MacCulloch, R.J.; Oswald, A.J. Preferences over inflation and unemployment: Evidence from surveys of happiness. Am. Econ. Rev. 2001, 91, 335–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ott, J.C. Level and inequality of happiness in nations: Does greater happiness of a greater number imply greater inequality in happiness? J. Happiness Stud. 2005, 6, 397–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Oishi, S.; Kesebir, S.; Diener, E. Income inequality and happiness. Psychol. Sci. 2011, 22, 1095–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wu, J.; Zhang, P.; Yi, H.; Qin, Z. What causes haze pollution? An empirical study of PM2.5 concentrations in Chinese cities. Sustainability 2016, 8, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zeng, Y.; Cao, Y.; Qiao, X.; Seyler, B.C.; Tang, Y. Air pollution reduction in China: Recent success but great challenge for the future. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 663, 329–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Franklin, M.; Zeka, A.; Schwartz, J. Association between PM2.5 and all-cause and specific-cause mortality in 27 US communities. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2007, 17, 279–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Darçın, M. Association between air quality and quality of life. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2014, 21, 1954–1959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Welsch, H.; Kühling, J. Using happiness data for environmental valuation: Issues and applications. J. Econ. Surv. 2009, 23, 385–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ferreira, S.; Moro, M. On the use of subjective well-being data for environmental valuation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2010, 46, 249–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Menz, T. Do people habituate to air pollution? Evidence from international life satisfaction data. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 71, 211–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cuñado, J.; De Gracia, F.P. Environment and happiness: New evidence for Spain. Soc. Indic. Res. 2013, 112, 549–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ambrey, C.L.; Fleming, C.M.; Chan, A.Y. Estimating the cost of air pollution in South East Queensland: An application of the life satisfaction non-market valuation approach. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 97, 172–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Orru, K.; Orru, H.; Maasikmets, M.; Hendrikson, R.; Ainsaar, M. Well-being and environmental quality: Does pollution affect life satisfaction? Qual. Life Res. 2016, 25, 699–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Li, Y.; Guan, D.; Tao, S.; Wang, X.; He, K. A review of air pollution impact on subjective well-being: Survey versus visual psychophysics. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 184, 959–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Welsch, H. Preferences over prosperity and pollution: Environmental valuation based on happiness surveys. Kyklos 2002, 55, 473–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Smyth, R.; Mishra, V.; Qian, X. The environment and well-being in urban China. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 68, 547–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Luechinger, S. Valuing air quality using the life satisfaction approach. Econ. J. 2009, 119, 482–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Luechinger, S. Life satisfaction and transboundary air pollution. Econ. Lett. 2010, 107, 4–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ferreira, S.; Akay, A.; Brereton, F.; Cuñado, J.; Martinsson, P.; Moro, M.; Ningal, T.F. Life satisfaction and air quality in Europe. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 88, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Du, G.; Shin, K.J.; Managi, S. Variability in impact of air pollution on subjective well-being. Atmos. Environ. 2018, 183, 175–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Welsch, H. Environment and happiness: Valuation of air pollution using life satisfaction data. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 58, 801–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Welsch, H. Environmental welfare analysis: A life satisfaction approach. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 62, 544–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. MacKerron, G.; Mourato, S. Life satisfaction and air quality in London. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 1441–1453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Zhang, X.; Zhang, X.; Chen, X. Valuing air quality using happiness data: The case of China. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 137, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhang, P.; Wu, J. Impact of mandatory targets on PM2.5 concentration control in Chinese cities. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 197, 323–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Laffan, K. Every breath you take, every move you make: Visits to the outdoors and physical activity help to explain the relationship between air pollution and subjective wellbeing. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 147, 96–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kalmijn, W.; Veenhoven, R. Measuring inequality of happiness in nations: In search for proper statistics. J. Happiness Stud. 2005, 6, 357–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Levinson, A. Valuing public goods using happiness data: The case of air quality. J. Public Econ. 2012, 96, 869–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ferrer-i-Carbonella, A.; Gowdyb, J.M. Environmental degradation and happiness. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 60, 509–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rehdanz, K.; Maddison, D. Local environmental quality and life-satisfaction in Germany. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 64, 787–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Li, Z.; Folmer, H.; Xue, J. To what extent does air pollution affect happiness? The case of the Jinchuan mining area, China. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 99, 88–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Goetzke, F.; Rave, T. Regional air quality and happiness in Germany. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 2015, 38, 437–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wang, B.Z.; Cheng, Z. Environmental perceptions, happiness and pro-environmental actions in China. Soc. Indic. Res. 2017, 132, 357–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zhang, X.; Zhang, X.; Chen, X. Happiness in the air: How does a dirty sky affect mental health and subjective well-being? J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2017, 85, 81–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zheng, S.; Wang, J.; Sun, C.; Zhang, X.; Kahn, M.E. Air pollution lowers Chinese urbanites’ expressed happiness on social media. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2019, 3, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Yang, J.; Liu, K.; Zhang, Y. Happiness inequality in China. J. Happiness Stud. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. van Donkelaar, A.; Martin, R.V.; Brauer, M.; Hsu, N.C.; Kahn, R.A.; Levy, R.C.; Lyapustin, A.; Sayer, A.M.; Winker, D.M. Global estimates of fine particulate matter using a combined geophysical-statistical method with information from satellites. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 3762–3772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. van Donkelaar, A.; Martin, R.V.; Brauer, M.; Hsu, N.C.; Kahn, R.A.; Levy, R.C.; Lyapustin, A.; Sayer, A.M.; Winker, D.M. Global Annual PM2.5 Grids from MODIS, MISR and SeaWiFS Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD) with GWR, 1998–2016; NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC): Palisades, NY, USA, 2018. [CrossRef]
  44. Dolan, P.; Peasgood, T.; White, M. Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being. J. Econ. Psychol. 2008, 29, 94–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kim, D. Cross-national pattern of happiness: Do higher education and less urbanization degrade happiness? Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2018, 13, 21–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Huang, J. Income inequality, distributive justice beliefs, and happiness in China: Evidence from a nationwide survey. Soc. Indic. Res. 2019, 142, 83–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Long, X.; Ji, X. Economic growth quality, environmental sustainability, and social welfare in China—Provincial assessment based on genuine progress indicator (GPI). Ecol. Econ. 2019, 159, 157–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wang, R.; Xue, D.; Liu, Y.; Liu, P.; Chen, H. The relationship between air pollution and depression in China: Is neighbourhood social capital protective? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Sun, X.; Yang, W.; Sun, T.; Wang, Y. Negative emotion under haze: An investigation based on the microblog and weather records of Tianjin, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Hao, Y.; Peng, H.; Temulun, T.; Liu, L.; Mao, J.; Lu, Z.; Chen, H. How harmful is air pollution to economic development? New evidence from PM2.5 concentrations of Chinese cities. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 743–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zhang, P.; Wu, J. Performance-based or politic-related decomposition of environmental targets: A multilevel analysis in China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Feng, C.; Wang, M.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, G. Decomposition of energy efficiency and energy-saving potential in China: A three-hierarchy meta-frontier approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 176, 1054–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhang, P.; Wang, X.; Zhang, N.; Wang, Y. China’s energy intensity target allocation needs improvement! Lessons from the convergence analysis of energy intensity across Chinese provinces. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 223, 610–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zhang, D.; Wang, J.; Lin, Y.; Si, Y.; Huang, C.; Yang, J.; Huang, B.; Li, W. Present situation and future prospect of renewable energy in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 76, 865–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zhang, P. Do energy intensity targets matter for wind energy development? Identifying their heterogeneous effects in Chinese provinces with different wind resources. Renew. Energy 2019, 139, 968–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 16 01129 g001 550
Figure 1. Spatial distribution of PM2.5 concentrations, the level of happiness, and inequality of happiness in selected years.
Figure 1. Spatial distribution of PM2.5 concentrations, the level of happiness, and inequality of happiness in selected years.
Ijerph 16 01129 g001
Ijerph 16 01129 g002 550
Figure 2. Annual Average Ground-level PM2.5 Concentrations in the Chinese Provinces.
Figure 2. Annual Average Ground-level PM2.5 Concentrations in the Chinese Provinces.
Ijerph 16 01129 g002
Ijerph 16 01129 g003 550
Figure 3. The level of Happiness and Inequality of Happiness in the Chinese Provinces.
Figure 3. The level of Happiness and Inequality of Happiness in the Chinese Provinces.
Ijerph 16 01129 g003
Table
Table 1. Measures, data sources, and descriptive statistics.
Table 1. Measures, data sources, and descriptive statistics.
VariablesMeasuresSourcesMeanS.D.
Level of happinessThe mean value of respondents’ self-reported happiness in each Chinese province in the investigated yearCGSS3.650.28
Inequality of happinessThe standard deviation of respondents’ self-reported happiness in each Chinese province in the investigated yearCGSS0.830.12
PM2.5Annual average PM2.5 concentrations in each Chinese province in the investigated year (μg/m3)[42,43]36.2115.13
UnemploymentThe registered urban unemployment rate of each Chinese province in the year before the investigated yearCSY3.640.72
GenderThe male-to-female sex ratio of each Chinese province in the year before the investigated yearCSY104.033.51
CPIThe consumer price index of each Chinese province in the year before the investigated yearCSY102.492.13
ElderThe number of people aged 65 and over divided by the total population in each Chinese province in the year before the investigated yearCSY9.321.62
EducationThe number of people with a Bachelor’s degree or above divided by the total population in the year before the investigated yearCSY9.096.28
PopulationThe base-10 logarithm of the total population of each Chinese province in the year before the investigated yearCSY3.640.23
Income levelThe base-10 logarithm of urban disposable income per capita in each Chinese province in the year before the investigated yearCSY4.180.21
UrbanizationThe urban population divided by the total population in each Chinese province in the year before the investigated yearCSY50.5415.87
Income inequalityThe Atkinson Index used to reflect income inequality in each Chinese province in the year before the investigated year[47]0.3420.062
OutpatientThe outpatient service frequency per capita in each Chinese province in the year before the investigated yearCSY; CHSY1.6191.135
Notes: CGSS refers to the Chinese General Social Survey; CSY refers to China Statistical Yearbooks; CHSY refers to China Health Statistics Yearbooks.
Table
Table 2. Impacts of PM2.5 concentrations on the level of happiness and their heterogenous effects.
Table 2. Impacts of PM2.5 concentrations on the level of happiness and their heterogenous effects.
Model 1Model 2Model 3
All the SamplesHigh Income GroupLow Income Group
Coef.S.D.Coef.S.D.Coef.S.D.
PM2.5−0.006 **(0.002)−0.0051 *(0.00248)−0.0047(0.0034)
Unemployment−0.0287(0.043)−0.154(0.0873)0.0118(0.0307)
Gender−0.0012(0.004)−0.0012(0.0052)0.0028(0.0062)
CPI0.0044(0.0056)−0.0053(0.0076)0.0074(0.0062)
Elder0.0119(0.0153)0.0149(0.0178)0.0132(0.0299)
Education−0.0061(0.0072)−0.0014(0.0106)−0.0075(0.0117)
Population1.074 *(0.573)1.532 *(0.828)−0.602(1.393)
Income level1.666 ***(0.246)1.371 ***(0.342)2.096 ***(0.300)
Urbanization−0.0116(0.0079)−0.0012(0.009)−0.0155 **(0.0061)
Income inequality2.557 ***(0.725)3.674 **(1.204)0.202(1.728)
Outpatient−0.0634(0.0695)−0.0735(0.069)−0.436(0.308)
Constant−7.468 ***(2.181)−7.426 **(3.099)−2.679(4.810)
N225117108
R20.70590.70480.7453
Hausman Test42.09 ***36.42 ***29.61 ***
ModelFixed-effectsFixed-effectsFixed-effects
Notes: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1. Robust standard errors are shown in parentheses. Within R2 is reported for the fixed-effects models.
Table
Table 3. Impacts of PM2.5 concentrations on the inequality of happiness and the mechanism.
Table 3. Impacts of PM2.5 concentrations on the inequality of happiness and the mechanism.
Model 4Model 5Model 6
DV: Inequality of HappinessDV: Level of HappinessDV: Level of Happiness
All the SamplesHigh Happiness GroupLow Happiness Group
Coef.S.D.Coef.S.D.Coef.S.D.
PM2.5−0.0012 **(0.0006)−0.0081 **(0.0035)−0.0062 *(0.0033)
Unemployment0.0191(0.0182)−0.092(0.0901)0.0188(0.0383)
Gender0.0042(0.0026)0.0015(0.0058)−0.0039(0.0076)
CPI0.0043(0.0031)−0.0021(0.0062)0.0079(0.0084)
Elder−0.0015(0.0058)−0.0173(0.0257)0.0273(0.0157)
Education−0.0042(0.0041)−0.0109(0.0107)−0.0162(0.0118)
Population−0.121 ***(0.0336)1.975(1.247)2.176 **(0.87)
Income level0.232 ***(0.0596)1.040 **(0.402)2.141 ***(0.18)
Urbanization−0.0007(0.0018)0.0075(0.0112)−0.0139 **(0.006)
Income inequality0.136(0.247)3.406 ***(1.025)2.577 ***(0.671)
Outpatient0.0058(0.0318)0.0025(0.06)−0.193 ***(0.0601)
Constant−0.569(0.414)−8.560(4.780)−13.30 ***(3.601)
N225108117
R20.17070.73280.7356
Hausman Test15.1335.04 ***30.67 ***
ModelRandom-effectsFixed-effectsFixed-effects
Notes: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1. Robust standard errors are shown in parentheses. Overall R2 is reported for the random-effects model and within R2 is reported for the fixed-effects models.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, P.; Wang, Z. PM2.5 Concentrations and Subjective Well-Being: Longitudinal Evidence from Aggregated Panel Data from Chinese Provinces. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1129. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071129

AMA Style

Zhang P, Wang Z. PM2.5 Concentrations and Subjective Well-Being: Longitudinal Evidence from Aggregated Panel Data from Chinese Provinces. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16(7):1129. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071129

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Pan, and Zhiguo Wang. 2019. "PM2.5 Concentrations and Subjective Well-Being: Longitudinal Evidence from Aggregated Panel Data from Chinese Provinces" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 7: 1129. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071129

APA Style

Zhang, P., & Wang, Z. (2019). PM2.5 Concentrations and Subjective Well-Being: Longitudinal Evidence from Aggregated Panel Data from Chinese Provinces. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(7), 1129. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071129

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