Consequences of living environment insecurity on health and well‐being in southwest China: The role of community cohesion and social support

Abstract

Growing populations in developing countries have exacerbated inequality in the spatial distribution of living environments. As a result, whether living environment factors matter to health and well‐being is increasingly attracting policy and scholarly attention. Yet, crucial knowledge gaps remain regarding the implications, consequences and mechanisms of one's living environment on health and well‐being in developing countries. This study examined the association between living environment and psychological distress, self‐rated health and satisfaction with life among Chinese adults. Furthermore, it also explored the moderating role of community cohesion and the mediating role of social support on these factors. Using probability proportionate to size sampling methods, 3765 respondents and 148 community organisers were recruited from 160 communities in Yunnan, China, in 2018. Ordinary least squares regression and structural equation modelling were conducted. The findings indicate that residents who lived in communities with higher levels of environment insecurity had lower levels of subjective health and well‐being (psychological distress: β = 1.088, p < 0.001; self‐rated health: β = −0.104, p < 0.01; satisfaction with life: β = −0.164, p < 0.001). Moreover, community cohesion played a moderating role in the relationship between living environment insecurity and self‐rated health (β = 0.212, p < 0.05) and satisfaction with life (β = 0.183, p < 0.05); however, it had no significant effects on psychological distress. Furthermore, the moderated effects of community cohesion on living environment insecurity were mediated through perceived social support for self‐rated health (proportion of total effect mediated = 11%) and satisfaction with life (proportion of total effect mediated = 29%). The present findings have implications for policy makers and community committees who can work towards social inequality in developing countries. The integrated programmes of improving living conditions and strengthening community capacity are crucial to residents' health and well‐being.

Examining the Relationship between Individualism and Pro-Environmental Behavior: The Moderating Role of Social Cohesion

“…It is plausible that individuals with high levels of individualism are less likely to engage in PEB because they perceive ecological behaviors for improving environmental sustainability as unbeneficial to personal gain and self-interest [ 6 , 18 ]. Conversely, social cohesion encourages individuals to conduct PEB through mutual interactions with each other in terms of environmental protection and conservation because the improvement of environmental sustainability is a crucial collective goal [ 12 ].…”

“…In particular, the findings show that social cohesion not only has a positive impact on PEB but also moderates the negative association between individualism and PEB. We recognize that social cohesion, as a key collective asset of the community, promotes individuals’ PEB [ 12 , 17 ]. That is, social processes characterized by supportive resident interactions—being caring and willing to help each other—lead to individuals having greater concerns and awareness of the environment because attention to environmental sustainability is congruent with community wellbeing [ 10 ].…”

“…When the community is cohesive, residents willingly take care of their neighborhoods and help each other [ 10 ]. These strong social connections between residents lead to environmental awareness and induce a collective effort to preserve the environment because they perceive that environmental protection enhances the well-being of their community beyond their own interests [ 11 , 12 ]. Consequently, it seems plausible that social cohesion is positively associated with PEB.…”

“…Consequently, it seems plausible that social cohesion is positively associated with PEB. Furthermore, social cohesion not only directly affects PEB but may also condition the negative relationship between individualism and PEB [ 10 , 12 ]. According to social exchange theory (SET), individuals who perceive interactions with others as valuable and receive desirable treatment from others are likely to reciprocate with positive behavior [ 13 , 14 ].…”

“…According to social exchange theory (SET), individuals who perceive interactions with others as valuable and receive desirable treatment from others are likely to reciprocate with positive behavior [ 13 , 14 ]. This social exchange mechanism can be applied to explain the moderating role of social cohesion in the individualism–PEB link [ 12 , 15 ]. In particular, because individualists can see strong emotional connectedness resulting from care and concern received from neighbors and helping behavior shown toward others as favorable gestures, social cohesion encourages them to show behaviors that are beneficial to environmental sustainability as a form of reciprocity of social exchange [ 16 , 17 ].…”