4.1. Data Analysis
PCQ software, a program used for implementing factor analysis for the Q-technique [
54], was applied to perform correlations and factor analysis by using sorts completed by the P-set. If there are correlation relationships between Q-sorts, it is reasonable to conduct factor analysis. Factors are operant combinations of similar people [
40].
After collecting the samples, correlation relationship analysis was conducted to compare the degree of agreement/disagreement among 36 Q sorts. Strong correlation relationship exists among those 36 Q sorts. So, the factor analysis conducted for these 36 Q sorts is reasonable. We conducted factor analysis using Principal Components Analysis to find associations among the different Q sorts. With the criteria of eigenvalue greater than or equal to one [
55], four Q sorts are canceled because their eigenvalues are lower than one. The four Q sorts’ details are as follows: two male and two female; three aged between 20–29, one aged over 40; one doctor, one master student and two bachelor students and below; two with income between $450 and 800; one with income less than $450 and one with income more than $800, and two employees and two students.
The other 32 Q sorts are categorized into three groups, which means three factors are extracted for further analysis.
These three factors are subjected to Varimax rotation, ensuring that each factor only contained Q-sorts that were highly correlated with each other and that were uncorrelated with the remaining Q sorts [
52,
56], to identify significant orthogonal factors. The standard error (SE) for a factor loading is calculated by the expression 1/
, where N equals the number of items [
15]. So, the SE for this study is 0.158 (1/
= 0.158). Participants with factor loadings in excess of 2.58 × SE are considered statistically significant at
p < 0.01 [
57] and, hence, “indicative of a meaningful relationship between the participant’s Q sort and the factor type” [
55]. So, for this study, loading over 2.58 × 0.158 or 0.41 are statistically significant at
p < 0.01. Based on this standard, an ideal Q sorts for each factor was identified by determining factor loadings (
z score) of Q sorts participants associated with a factor (see
Table 2). Factor 1 includes 18 Q sorts, factor 2 seven and factor 3 seven, which means that people can be classified into three different groups from the perspective of sustainable consumption.
Table 2.
Factor loadings table.
Table 2.
Factor loadings table.
P set | Factor Loadings | P set | Factor Loadings |
---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
---|
P26 | 0.7829 | 0.1433 | 0.2148 | P20 | 0.6426 | 0.0949 | 0.1058 |
P27 | 0.6238 | 0.0483 | 0.4520 | P21 | 0.5119 | 0.0661 | 0.2727 |
P31 | 0.5023 | 0.1319 | 0.1102 | P29 | 0.2185 | 0.7621 | −0.0510 |
P23 | 0.4964 | 0.1069 | 0.1224 | P30 | 0.2136 | 0.5293 | −0.0847 |
P25 | 0.7521 | 0.0987 | 0.1452 | P12 | 0.2216 | 0.6235 | 0.3734 |
P1 | 0.5534 | 0.2817 | 0.2863 | P2 | 0.2920 | 0.5313 | 0.1650 |
P3 | −0.6117 | 0.1968 | 0.2341 | P16 | 0.2501 | 0.6025 | 0.4663 |
P7 | 0.7351 | 0.3521 | 0.0149 | P22 | −0.1910 | 0.5244 | 0.4621 |
P32 | 0.7470 | −0.1209 | 0.2692 | P17 | −0.2552 | 0.4745 | −0.0582 |
P5 | 0.5485 | 0.4284 | 0.0884 | P18 | 0.4146 | 0.1920 | 0.5371 |
P8 | 0.6589 | 0.2318 | 0.0034 | P4 | 0.1843 | 0.4629 | 0.6380 |
P28 | 0.6371 | 0.2445 | 0.0515 | P6 | −0.2110 | −0.1021 | 0.5976 |
P9 | 0.4744 | −0.0929 | 0.2463 | P10 | 0.4071 | 0.1478 | 0.7253 |
P15 | 0.5722 | −0.2210 | 0.3608 | P11 | 0.2335 | −0.0125 | 0.5665 |
P24 | 0.4946 | 0.0837 | 0.3875 | P13 | 0.2084 | 0.2982 | 0.5178 |
P19 | 0.6966 | 0.2802 | −0.0334 | P14 | 0.0237 | 0.2351 | 0.4820 |
Meanwhile, for each group, their traits are developed by defining those items ranked at 4 and −4. The items and their standard scores for each group are shown in
Table 3.
Table 3 shows that for those positive statements on sustainable consumption, item 17, 24, 21, 40 and 11, Group 1 marked them with positive scores, while for those negative statements, item 23, 10, 15, 4 and 13, Group 1 marked them with negative scores. Therefore, Group 1 can be deemed the sustainable consumption group. For Group 2, two positive statements (item 34 and 24) were marked with positive scores, two negative statements (1 and 26) with positive scores and five positive statements (7, 35, 25, 8 and 33) with negative scores. It is worth noting that those five positive statements with negative scores are all about sustainable consumption knowledge and information. Although Group 2 conducts sustainable consumption behavior to some extent, they lack adequate knowledge on it. Thus, Group 2 can be renamed as the potential sustainable consumption group. Similarly, based on the statements and their scores conducted by Group 3, this group can be renamed as the unsustainable consumption group.
Table 3.
The +4/−4 items of the three groups selected by the participants.
Table 3.
The +4/−4 items of the three groups selected by the participants.
Factor/group | item | Description | Standard score |
---|
Group 1: Sustainable consumption group | 17 | I would like to buy green food for the health of my family. | 1.685 |
24 | I usually reuse reusable stuffs | 1.606 |
21 | We should conduct sustainable consumption for the harmoniousness between human beings and the earth | 1.394 |
40 | I am a moderate consumer. | 1.386 |
11 | Sustainable consumption benefits environment and I will perform. | 1.089 |
23 | I don’t care the certificate marks of green product. | −1.065 |
10 | I would like to buy those products with perfect package in order to show my status and position. | −1.140 |
15 | I don’t know the role of sustainable consumption in environmental protection. | −1.264 |
4 | It’s inconvenient for me to reuse and I never reuse reusable stuff. | −2.178 |
13 | Sustainable consumption is nothing to do with me. | −2.260 |
Group 2 Potential sustainable consumption group | 21 | We should conduct sustainable consumption for the harmoniousness between human beings and the earth. | 2.440 |
31 | I am sensitive to the prices of green products. | 1.816 |
19 | The policies about sustainable consumption have impact on my life and consumption style. | 1.316 |
17 | I would like to buy green food for the health of my family. | 1.216 |
3 | I would like to consume sustainably if governments provide rewards. | 1.153 |
39 | My personal consumption behavior has no impact on environment. | −1.120 |
12 | Green marketing has no impact on my consumption style. | −1.151 |
15 | I don’t know the role of sustainable consumption in environmental protection. | −1.319 |
35 | I would like to understand laws and policies about sustainable consumption. | −1.722 |
13 | Sustainable consumption is nothing to do with me. | −2.280 |
Group 3 unsustainable consumption group | 31 | I am sensitive to the prices of green products. | 1.807 |
34 | I am concerned about quality of products itself rather than package. | 1.547 |
24 | I usually reuse reusable substances. | 1.446 |
26 | I don’t care about the government policies. | 1.396 |
1 | I don’t know what sustainable consumption behaviors are. | 1.357 |
7 | I will behave sustainable consumption whatever others do or not. | −1.191 |
35 | I would like to understand laws and policies about sustainable consumption. | −1.339 |
25 | I know the positive role of sustainable consumption in environmental protection. | −1.342 |
8 | I understand what sustainable transport is about. | −1.837 |
33 | I know what sustainable consumption behaviors are. | −1.950 |
4.2. Results
According to
Table 3, in Group 1, the highest positive scores belong to the items 17, 24, 21, 40, and 11, and the highest negative scores were items 13, 4, 15, 10, and 23. Item 24 (I usually use reusable stuffs) and item 4 (It’s inconvenient for me to reuse and I never use reusable stuff) express the meaning of reuse from positive and negative view and they get the highest positive (+4) and negative (−4) scores, which also shows that the Q-sample used in this study is credible.
From those items with the highest positive and negative scores, we can see that Group 1 prefers to purchase green food for their health and try to use reusable stuff in their daily life. They think sustainable consumption is part of their lifestyle and benefits the environment. In fact, protecting the environment is one of the most important drivers for them to conduct sustainable consumption. They are against unsustainable consumption and hope to establish a harmonious relationship between human beings and nature.
Precisely, Group 1 knows what sustainable consumption is about. They care about the environment and show a positive attitude towards sustainable consumption. Day to day, they would like to gain knowledge about actively conducting sustainable consumption. So, Group 1 is considered to consist of sustainable consumers.
In Group 2, the highest positive scores belong to the items 21, 31, 19, 17 and 3, and the highest negative scores to items 13, 35, 15, 12 and 39. Group 2 think that sustainable consumption is a positive thing to protect the environment and they should conduct sustainable consumption for the harmony between human beings and the earth. They do not think sustainable consumption has nothing to do with them. They do not care about understanding the laws and policies about sustainable consumption although their consumption style could be impacted by those laws and policies. They are sensitive to the price of green products and would like to consume sustainably if the government provided rewards.
From the items with the highest scores, we can see that Group 2 has a better environmental attitude and some knowledge about sustainable consumption, and they think personal consumption behavior is closely interconnected with the environment. However, whether or not they conduct sustainable consumption is influenced by many factors. Firstly, price is a key factor that determines how they consume. Secondly, they will adjust their consumption style according to policies or laws. If rewards are provided by governments, they are more likely to conduct sustainable consumption. Thirdly, the green marketing conducted by enterprises also impacts on their consumption behavior. Group 2, with some degree of environment attitude and awareness, would conduct sustainable consumption if some external incentives are provided. Therefore, Group 2 is considered to consist of potential sustainable consumers.
In Group 3, the highest positive scores belong to the items 31, 34, 24, 26 and 1, and the highest negative scores belong to items 33, 8, 25, 35 and 7. From those items with high scores, we can see that Group 3 is not aware of what sustainable consumption behavior is and what sustainable consumption is about. They are very sensitive to product price, which indicates if green product prices are more expensive than that of the corresponding products, they would not buy them. Meanwhile, they are not concerned about the product quality or the product packaging. They seldom use reusable substances, and they do not care about the result of their consumption behavior. They also would not want to understand the government policies on sustainable consumption.
The information collected about Group 3 indicates that they know little about sustainable consumption and its role and, therefore, are not sensitive to sustainable consumption policies. Meanwhile, price has a strong impact on their consumption behavior. Hence, Group 3 is considered to consist of unsustainable consumers.
To understand the differences and similarities of these three groups distinctly, we first collected the same items the three groups chose. Then, different items between each two groups were identified. The same items chosen by the three groups are item 3, 10 and 20. The contents of those three items and their scores are presented in
Table 4.
Table 4.
The consistent items among the three groups and their scores.
Table 4.
The consistent items among the three groups and their scores.
Item | Description | Factor |
---|
1 | 2 | 3 |
---|
3 | I would like to consume sustainably if governments provide rewards. | 0.645 | 1.106 | 1.153 |
10 | I would like to buy those products with over packaging in order to show my status and position. | −1.140 | 0.793 | −1.055 |
20 | I know what can be reused in our daily life | 0.842 | 0.899 | 0.400 |
The
Table 4 indicates that the three groups understand what can be reused in their daily lives although the scores for the item are different, from 0.842 for Group 1 to 0.400 for Group 3. The rewards provided by governments have a stronger effect on Group 3 (the score is 1.153, the highest among the three groups). Of course, Group 1 prefers to buy products without over-packaging (with the lowest negative score of −1.140) whereas Group 2 would like to buy products with over-packaging to show their status and position. It is interesting that Group 3 also does not like to buy over-packaged products. The reason may be that the prices of over-packaged products are usually more expensive than those of the corresponding conventional ones, as Group 3 is very sensitive to price.
The different items for each combination of two of the three groups are shown in
Table 5.
Table 5.
The different statements for each two groups and their scores.
Table 5.
The different statements for each two groups and their scores.
| Item | Description | Score |
---|
Group1 | Group2 | difference |
---|
Group 1 and Group 2 | 24 | I usually reuse reusable stuff | 1.606 | −0.401 | 2.006 |
35 | I would like to understand laws and policies about sustainable consumption. | −0.060 | −1.722 | 1.662 |
40 | I am a moderate consumer. | 1.386 | −0.263 | 1.649 |
19 | The policies about sustainable consumption have impact on my life and consumption style. | 0.006 | 1.316 | −1.310 |
2 | I don’t care whether or not the enterprise conducts sustainable production when I buy its products | −0.480 | 0.935 | −1.415 |
31 | I am sensitive to the prices of green products. | 0.281 | 1.816 | −1.536 |
Group 1 and Group 3 | 33 | I know what sustainable consumption behaviors are. | 0.684 | −1.950 | 2.634 |
8 | I understand what sustainable transport is about. | 0.527 | −1.837 | 2.364 |
25 | I know the positive role of sustainable consumption in environmental protection. | 0.888 | −1.342 | 2.229 |
26 | I don’t care about the government policies. | −0.625 | 1.396 | −2.021 |
29 | I don’t consider environment when I consume | −0.958 | 1.136 | −2.094 |
1 | I don’t know what sustainable consumption behaviors are. | −0.889 | 1.357 | −2.246 |
Group 2 and Group 3 | 1 | I don’t know what sustainable consumption behaviors are. | −0.883 | 1.357 | −2.240 |
15 | I don’t know the role of sustainable consumption in environmental protection. | −1.319 | 0.552 | −1.871 |
13 | Sustainable consumption is nothing to do with me. | −2.280 | −0.414 | −1.866 |
30 | My sustainable consumption behavior is important to environment protection. | 0.904 | −0.875 | 1.778 |
25 | I know the positive role of sustainable consumption in environmental protection. | 0.585 | −1.342 | 1.927 |
19 | The policies about sustainable consumption have impact on my life and consumption style. | 1.316 | −0.676 | 1.992 |
Group 1 and Group 2 have similar attitudes (either positive or negative values) towards items 35, 19 and 31, although the scores of each item for the two groups rated are different. For example, both two groups think that government policies have an effect on them but they would not like to understand those policies actively. Moreover, they are both influenced by price, whereas Group 2 is more sensitive to price than Group 1. Hence, it can be assumed that external factors such as policy and price have a stronger effect on Group 2 than Group 1. However, Group 1 is more concerned about enterprise sustainability and they usually use reusable substances. Thus, it can be assumed that they have stronger environmental awareness than Group 2.
The different items for Group 1 and Group 3 provide two major insights. Based on the items 33, 8, 25 and 1, and the scores given by the two groups, Group 1 can be considered to have much more knowledge, and understand the roles of sustainable consumption much better than Group 3. Meanwhile, Group 3 seldom considers external factors such as policies and the environment when compared with Group 1.
The differences between Group 2 and Group 3 are as follows: Group 2 is aware of what sustainable consumption behavior is and its importance. They believe sustainable consumption is important to environmental protection and are positively influenced by sustainable consumption policies. Group 3 gives opposite answers to the aforementioned aspects compared with Group 2. Although Group 3 also disagrees on item 13, “sustainable consumption is nothing to do with me”, its degree of disagreement (the score is 0.414) is much lower than that of Group 2 (the score is 2.28).