The Role of Food Packaging Design in Consumer Recycling Behavior—A Literature Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (1)
- How does the design of food packaging influence the sorting of packaging waste?
- (2)
- Regards to the sorting of food packaging waste, what attributes of the packaging are preferred by consumers?
- (3)
- How have different scientific disciplines and fields, that are linked to food packaging design, taken sorting of the packaging waste into consideration?
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Material Collection
2.2. Descriptive Analyses
2.2.1. Time Development of Publications and Research Topics
2.2.2. The Journals where the Reviewed Literature was Published
2.2.3. Scientific Methods Used in the Reviewed Articles
- -
- Interviews, which include structured and semi-structured interviews, some of which are face-to-face and in some cases the interviews were recorded.
- -
- Questionnaires and surveys that include online, email, and postal surveys.
- -
- Case study methods that use a combination of techniques such as observation, interviews, and surveys.
- -
- Modeling methods that often use computer simulations and can include life-cycle assessment (LCA).
- -
- Empirical methods that collect data, such as observations, tests, and waste composition studies.
- -
- Documentary methods where previous studies are reviewed, such as literature reviews.
3. Results
3.1. Concept Categories
3.1.1. Attributes of Food Packaging That Influence Consumer Behavior, Including Recycling Behavior
Communication
Quality
Facilitating Sorting
3.1.2. Other, Non-Packaging Factors That Influence Consumer Recycling Behavior
4. Reflection
- -
- Consumers environmental knowledge
- -
- Consumer attitude towards recycling and sorting
- -
- Consumer uncertainty about sorting of different materials
- -
- Consumers perceived difficulty (inconvenience) of sorting
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Attributes of Food Packaging That Influence Consumer Behavior, Including Recycling Behavior.
Ref. No. | Author (s) | Research Theme | Packaging Attribute | Packaging Function | Consumer Related Issue | Results |
60 | Ampuero andVila. (2006) | Consumer perception of packaging attributes | Color, typography, shapes, images | Communication, quality, appealing | Consumers willingness to buy, perceived quality | High quality of packaging usually presents bold, large, upper case letters with expanded characters. Vertical straight lines, squares, straight outlines, and symmetrical composition with one single element are preferred for graphic design. |
73 | Azzi et al. (2012) | Conceptual framework for packaging design | Material, shape, mass | Ergonomics, logistics, sustainability, safety and marketing | Consumers environmental knowledge, attitude | A packaging decision is a complex process involving different actors, design of packaging can enhance some activities such as recycling. |
31 | Buelow et al. (2014) | Packaging labels impact on recycling behavior | Material, label | Recyclability, easy to sort | Consumer sorting behavior, intention for recycling | Recycling labels are not helpful for sorting. Consumers rely on their own knowledge and external information provided in collection places for sorting. Action labels e.g. 'remove cap and recycle' are helpful. Consumers inability to judge material results in miss-sorting. Labels should be designed to convey a clear message. |
61 | Carrillo et al. (2014) | Consumer perception of health-related information on packaging | Visual (symbol), verbal cue (information as a text) | Communication, quality, appealing, attractiveness | Consumers willingness to buy, perceived quality | A symbol is more appealing than a phrase on a package. Furthermore, images have higher relative importance than verbal cue. |
69 | Gofman et al. (2010) | Consumer interaction with packaging | Graphic, image, health information as a text | Communication, appealing | Consumers willingness to buy | Consumers should co-create the package to ensure that they will eventually buy it. Utilizing computer software allows for dynamic creation and evaluation of experimentally designed packages. |
62 | Grönman et al. (2013) | A framework to design a sustainable package | Material, form, label, information as a text, size, weight | Recyclability, protection, useability, appealing, easy to fold, easy to empty, recloseability, easy to sort | Consumer attitude, consumer willingness to buy, perceived quality | There is an obvious need for different methods in the sustainable packaging design process. The quality attributes related to packages are valued by consumers e.g. the prevention of leakages, the packing and the best-before date, the protection and the declaration of contents. |
30 | Henriksson et al. (2010) | Consumer uncertainty impact on waste handling | Material, information as a text, label/symbol | Recyclability, easy to separate, communication | Recycling knowledge, perceived convenience, consumers recycling behavior | Many consumers readily and willingly discriminate between different materials but not between packaging and other items (i.e., non-packaging) made of the same material. This uncertainty results in miss sorting. |
57 | Klaiman et al. (2017) | Packaging attributes impact on recycling behavior | Material | Easy to recycle, easy to clean | Inconvenience, storage problems | Packaging that is difficult to clean can hinder consumers from active involvement in the recycling process. Distance from recycling stations hinders recycling behavior. |
56 | Langely et al. (2011) | Attributes of packaging and influences on waste | Material, size, label | Refillability, resealability, cleanability- content (wet, dry, unopened, used, dirty), informational | Consumer attitude, consumers perceived value/quality, consumers perceived inconvenience | Materials such as glass, metal and cardboard are more likely to be recycled than plastic materials due to higher perception of higher value. Higher quality means more chance to recycle or re-use. Packaging function can change consumers attitude and perception of quality. Difficulty to clean prevents consumers from proper sorting. |
55 | Lewis, H. (2012) | Packaging for sustainability | Material, anti-litter label, information as a text | Containment, protection, handling, delivery, presentation, promotion, use of products, recyclable, appealing, easy to open, easy to separate | Perceived convenience | Design is critical for achieving packaging sustainability goals. For this reason, life cycle thinking must be embedded in the product-packaging development. |
86 | Lindh et al. (2016) | Packaging contribution to sustainable development | Material, size, mass, quality, text, picture | Protection: mechanical, barrier, thermal and sealing properties, facilitate handling (Physical design, fill rate, openability, gripability, resealability), recyclability, communication | Consumer attitude, perceived inconvenience | Packaging has great potential to contribute to sustainable development by reducing product waste along the whole life cycle. Consumers have limited knowledge about the environmental effects of packaging. |
78 | Lockamy (1995) | Improve packaging design | Visual and verbal | Containment, apportionment, protection, convenience, communication, eco-friendly, quality | Perceived quality/value, willingness to buy | Packaging is a key strategic variable capable of providing a competitive advance in the marketplace. |
77 | Marsh and Bugusu. (2007) | Food packaging impact on the environment | Material | Quality, protection | Perceived convenience | The impact of packaging waste on the environment can be minimized by prudently selecting materials, following guidelines, and reviewing expectations of packaging in terms of environmental impact. |
87 | Martinho et al. (2015) | Sustainable packaging impact on recycling & purchasing behavior | Label, material | Useability, design, quality, communication | Gender, environmental awareness, concerns about societal opinions, attitude | The packaging price and quality can shape consumers green behavior. Theory of planned behavior is not able to explain the motivation for recycling behavior. |
79 | Meroni, A. (2000) | Introducing active packaging | Mechanical and chemical | Protecting, containing, communication, packaging as service provider | Consumers environmental knowledge, attitude | More effort is needed to change consumer attitude about advances in packaging technology, and advances from utilizing active packaging in terms of preservation and hygiene. |
29 | Miliute-Plepiene and Plepys (2015) | Influence of food waste sorting on sorting of packaging waste | Material, verbal | Quality | Attitude towards sorting, recycling information, perceived convenience, environmental awareness, socio- demographic factors, recycling infrastructure, waste tariffs | An increased sorting of packaging waste in connection with food waste sorting is an expected effect in many municipalities, because if people sort one fraction more, they are more likely to better sort other fractions. Furthermore, waste fees did not have a big effect on waste minimization and almost no effect on packaging waste sorting. |
89 | Molina-Besch andPålsson (2016) | Packaging development to reduce negative environmental impact | Size, data label, information as text | Containment, protection, easy to empty, easy to reseal, informational | Perceived convenience | The green packaging approaches presented in the literature can be used to improve the design of packaging. The improvement can be coupled whether with economic benefits or without any positive economic effect. |
75 | Nordin and Selk (2010) | Definition of sustainable packaging | Material, environmental label | Recyclability, functionality, quality, containment, protection, preservation, communication | Environmental knowledge, attitude | Development of sustainable packaging should begin with consideration of meeting the psychological and social needs of consumers, which ultimately influence their attitude and behavior. |
41 | Plumb et al. (2013) | Improvement in packaging design to be recycled and sorted | Label, material, information as a text | Recyclability, communication, protection, easy to separate | Consumers environmental knowledge, attitude | There is a strong correlation between concerns about packaging materials and how easy it is to recycle them at home. Informational labels on packaging can encourage consumers to sort properly. |
42 | Robertson. (1990) | Eco-friendly packaging | Label | Containment, apportionment, protection, convenience, communication, eco-friendly packaging, perception of quality | Environmental knowledge | Eco-friendly labeling is not enough for packaging to be judged as a good or bad, it is also depends on the consumer. |
82 | Ryynänen et al. (2015) | Consumer interaction with packaging | Color, typography, graphical shapes, images, shape, size, material | Communication, quality, appealing, attractiveness, useability, tactile interplay | Symbiotic relationship, consumers willingness to buy | It is really hard for a consumer to explain why something is appealing. It is something they cannot articulate. Consumers perceive packaging and the product as one entity. For the consumer, well-designed packaging provides functional and pleasing experiences at the same time. |
54 | Seo et al. (2016) | Eco-friendly packaging | Size, color, shape, material | Quality, eco-friendly content, eco-friendly appearance, communication | Environmental knowledge, willingness to buy, perceived value | Consumer preference for an eco-friendly package is higher than the preference for an eco-friendly product. |
48 | Silayoi and Speece (2007) | Packaging as a vehicle for consumer communication | Colors, designs, shapes, symbols, messages, graphic, label, picture, size | Picture, communication, quality | Consumers attitude, consumers willingness to buy | The packaging technology, convenience, information, graphic and shape can influence consumers behavior to buy. |
80 | Svanes et al. (2010) | Sustainable packaging design | Label, texture, color | Protection, preservation, easy to empty, recyclable, communication, right quantity, legal requirements, quality | Consumer attitude | The methodology introduced in the article is to assist packaging designers to evaluate all requirements for packaging and product solutions throughout the packaging design process, and to be able to balance between the different requirements. |
76 | Vieira et al. (2013) | Packaging influence on consumer behavior | Material , label, color, shape, design, size | Communication, appealing | Willingness to buy, perceived value, environmental awareness | Packaging and its influence on consumer behavior is a multidisciplinary subject, relevant in different areas of knowledge such as purchase decisions, conscious consumption, food preservation, innovation in warehousing processes, health problems, storage and transport, contamination, etc. |
71 | Westerman et al. (2013) | Effect of packaging visual attributes on consumers assessment | Visual attributes | Communication, quality, appealing | Consumers willing to buy, perceived quality | Consumer response to packaging may be influenced by a range of design variations, including the type, number, size, and combination of graphical design elements. Consumers reaction to visual attributes are affected by the type of product and its brand. |
32 | Wever et al. (2010) | Packaging design impact on disposal behavior | Label, information as a text | Recloseability, communication | Consumers environmental knowledge, awareness, attitude, disposal behavior | Labels must be designed explicit and vivid, packaging changes consumers behavior although it could be not yet predictable. Labels need a big space and size to be visible. |
68 | Wikström et al. (2014) | Packaging impact on food waste | Material, mass, shape, surface, data and smart label, information as a text | Protection, convenient handling, contain the desired quantity, resealability, easy to open, grip, dose and empty, facilitate sorting | Consumer attitude | The connection between packaging design and food waste must be acknowledged and valued by all involved stakeholders such as food producers, manufacturers, brand owners, retailers and consumers. |
36 | Wikström et al. (2016) | Packaging attributes impact on recycling behavior | Shape, material, mass, sorting-related information, symbol, label | Easy to empty, easy to clean, easy to separate, easy to fold, informational, preservation, containing the desired quantity | Recycling information, attitude | Packaging material and weight can change the value perception and low-value package is likely to end up in mixed-waste. Difficulty to clean and separate may hinder recycling behavior. |
70 | Williams et al. (2012) | Packaging impact on food waste | Size | Easy to empty, easy to reseal, easy to recycle | Consumer attitude, price awareness | Packaging and its functions may play a significant role for the amount of food waste in households. About 20 to 25% of the food waste was related to the packaging design attributes. |
72 | Wilson et al. (2017) | Packaging impact on food waste | Data label, size | Quality, safety, communication | Perceived value, willingness to waste | Date labels impact consumer behavior and the amount of the food that they waste. |
Appendix B. Other, Non-Packaging, Factors That Influence Consumer Recycling Behavior.
Ref. No. | Author (s) | Research Theme | Influential Factors | Consumer Related Issue | Results |
18 | Chen et al. (2017) | The effect of household's attitudes and behavior on sorting | Government facilitators, motivations, social-demographic factors | Sorting behavior, environmental knowledge, attitude | The inconsistency between people’s environmental awareness and behavior may be contribute to the lack of environmental knowledge. Also, environmental education is necessary to translate people’s environmental awareness into actual behavior and improve source separation. |
94 | Czajkowski et al. (2014) | Factors that influence sorting behavior | Recycling facilities, pay as you throw, inconvenience, income, social norms, community norms | Attitude, willingness to recycle | Households believe that home sorting of wastes is more effective than collective sorting. They assumed a self-sorting as a moral duty. |
63 | Martin et al. (2006) | Factors that influence recycling behavior | Recycling awareness, motivation, economic incentives, publicity and promotion, cultural factors | Attitude, willingness to recycle | Households are willing to participate in recycling; however, local recycling services are too unreliable and inconvenient to allow them to do it. |
90 | Nguyen et al. (2015) | Factors that influence sorting behavior | Trust, personal moral norms, perceived difficulties, reciprocity | Sorting behavior, environmental knowledge | Trust of individuals is a decisive factor in their waste separation intentions. Policies and initiatives centering on building trust are crucial to an increased participation of households in waste separation. |
20 | Ordoñez et al. (2015) | Enhancing household sorting rates | Access to sorting facilities, information, mismatches between the technical system and the user's perspective, inconvenience | Attitude, environmental knowledge | Users do not categorize between packaging and non-packaging waste in their everyday life, they simply categorize it by material. In this case, housing companies can provide better information for sorting to tenants. It is important that any advance in recycling improvement is matched with habitants needs. |
64 | Rousta et al. (2016) | Factors that influence sorting behavior | Attitudes, environmental concern, convenience, easy access to recycling facilities, distance to the recycling stations, motivation | Sorting behavior | To improve source separation in the pilot area the following intervention could be relevant: 1) decrease the distance to recycling station and 2) providing adequate information. |
65 | Xu et al. (2016) | Enhancing household food waste sorting rates | Facilities provided, frequency of collection, attitude, beliefs, social norms, self-efficacy, motivation, education | Attitude, willingness to recycle | Volunteer involvement with sorting of food waste was key to forming good habits. In particular, the volunteers activities were perceived by some to be encouraging, at a personal level, and the characteristic of “personal encouragement” has previously been reported to increase recycling behavior. |
67 | Xu et al. (2017) | Factors that influence sorting behavior | Market incentives, market facilitators , informal recycling market, government incentives and facilitators, motivations, social-demographic factors | Sorting behavior | Market incentives, government incentives and government facilitators have significant effects on recycling intention thus effect on recycling behavior. Lower income groups produce less waste by means of budgetary rewards, while higher income groups are more likely to be affected by government facilitators. |
66 | Zhang et al. (2012) | Factors that influence sorting behavior | Negative neighbor effects, confused classification of MSW, mixed transportation and disposal method | Sorting behavior, environmental knowledge, attitude | Habitants are motivated to sort at home. However it is limited to particular materials such as paper or plastic. They seem reluctant to sort food or kitchen waste. For glass and hazardous waste, the convenience of the collection facilities is not always adequate. |
93 | Zhang et al. (2014) | Factors that influence sorting behavior | Attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, intentions, situational factors | Sorting behavior, intention to separate, environmental knowledge | Attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, intention, socioeconomic, education and situational factors significantly affect household waste behavior. Lack of time and inconvenience in terms of place will likely hinder waste sorting. |
91 | Zhang et al. (2015) | Factors that influence sorting behavior | Age, source separation facilities, government policies, accessibility to waste management service, community type | Sorting behavior, environmental knowledge, attitude | Though the respondents have a very positive attitude about source separation, it has not transformed into separation behavior. The main factors that make them reluctant are residents’ age, source separation facilities and government policies. |
References
- Rousta, K.; Dahlén, L. Source Separation of Household Waste: Technology and Social Aspects. In Resource Recovery to Approach Zero Municipal Waste; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015; pp. 61–76. [Google Scholar]
- SEPA. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency: Sweden’s Waste Plan 2012–2017; Swedish EPA: Stockholm, Sweden, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- AvfallSverige. Swedish Waste Management 2018 Contents; AvfallSverige: Malmö, Sweden, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Trudel, R.; Argo, J.J. The Effect of Product Size and Form Distortion on Consumer Recycling Behavior. J. Consum. Res. 2013, 40, 632–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rousta, K.; Taherzadeh, M.J.; Richards, T. An Overview of Solid Waste Management toward Zero Landfill:A Swedish Model. In Resource Recovery to Approach Zero Municipal Waste; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015; pp. 1–22. [Google Scholar]
- Bolton, K.; De Mena, B.; Schories, G. Sustainable Management of Solid Waste. In Resource Recovery to Approach Zero Municipal Waste; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015; pp. 23–40. [Google Scholar]
- Kassim, S.M. The Importance of Recycling in Solid Waste Management. Macromol. Symp. 2012, 320, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finnveden, G.; Ekvall, T.; Arushanyan, Y.; Bisaillon, M.; Henriksson, G.; Gunnarsson Östling, U.; Söderman, M.; Sahlin, J.; Stenmarck, Å.; Sundberg, J.; et al. Policy Instruments towards a Sustainable Waste Management. Sustainability 2013, 5, 841–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pickin, J.G.; Yuen, S.T.S.; Hennings, H. Waste Management Options to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Paper in Australia. Atmos. Environ. 2002, 36, 741–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Genovese, A.; Acquaye, A.A.; Figueroa, A.; Koh, S.C.L. Sustainable Supply Chain Management and the Transition towards a Circular Economy: Evidence and Some Applications. Omega 2017, 66, 344–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghisellini, P.; Cialani, C.; Ulgiati, S. A Review on Circular Economy: The Expected Transition to a Balanced Interplay of Environmental and Economic Systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 114, 11–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, J.; Ordoñez, I. Resource Recovery from Post-Consumer Waste: Important Lessons for the Upcoming Circular Economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 134, 342–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marini Higgs, M. China Isn’t Taking Plastic Recycling, It’s Creating a Crisis. Available online: https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/4/2/18290956/recycling-crisis-china-plastic-operation-national-sword (accessed on 10 July 2019).
- Wong, S. New World Order—Recycling Today. Available online: https://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/national-sword-china-plastics-recycling/ (accessed on 10 July 2019).
- Rousta, K. Household Waste Sorting at the Source. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Borås, Borås, Sweden, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Bernstad, A. Household Food Waste Separation Behavior and the Importance of Convenience. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 1317–1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Briguglio, M. Household cooperation in waste management: initial conditions and intervention. J. Econ. Surv. 2016, 30, 497–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, H.; Yang, Y.; Jiang, W.; Song, M.; Wang, Y.; Xiang, T. Source Separation of Municipal Solid Waste: The Effects of Different Separation Methods and Citizens’ Inclination—Case Study of Changsha, China. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2017, 67, 1096–2247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marcinkowski, A.; Kowalski, A.M. The Problem of Preparation the Food Packaging Waste for Recycling in Poland. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2012, 69, 10–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ordoñez, I.; Harder, R.; Nikitas, A.; Rahe, U. Waste Sorting in Apartments: Integrating the Perspective of the User. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 669–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vassanadumrongdee, S.; Kittipongvises, S. Factors Influencing Source Separation Intention and Willingness to Pay for Improving Waste Management in Bangkok, Thailand. Sustain. Environ. Res. 2017, 28, 90–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plastemart. Food Packaging Accounts for Almost 35% of the Global Packaging Market. Available online: http://www.plastemart.com/plastic-technical-articles/food-packaging-accounts-for-almost-35-of-the-global-packaging-market/2337 (accessed on 9 January 2019).
- Transparency. Food Packaging Market—Global Industry Analysis and Forecast 2015–2023. Available online: https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/food-packaging-market.html (accessed on 9 January 2019).
- Donnelly, B. New Report Identifies Challenges and Opportunities for the Australian Packaging Ecosystem. Available online: https://www.packagingcovenant.org.au/news/new-report-identifies-challenges-and-opportunities-for-the-australian-packaging-ecosystem (accessed on 9 July 2019).
- EPA, US. Containers and Packaging: Product-Specific Data; EPA: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
- Pongrácz, E. The environmental impacts of packaging. In Environmentally Conscious Materials and Chemicals Processing; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007; pp. 237–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Varun Sharma, A.; Nautiyal, H. Environmental Impacts of Packaging Materials; Springer: Singapore, 2016; pp. 115–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rousta, K.; Ordoñez, I.; Bolton, K.; Dahlén, L. Support for Designing Waste Sorting Systems: A Mini Review. Waste Manag. Res. 2017, 35, 1099–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Miliute-Plepiene, J.; Plepys, A. Does Food Sorting Prevents and Improves Sorting of Household Waste? A Case in Sweden. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 101, 182–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henriksson, G.; Akesson, L.; Ewert, S. Uncertainty Regarding Waste Handling in Everyday Life. Sustainability 2010, 2, 2799–2813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Buelow, S.; Lewis, H.; Sonneveld, K. The Role of Labels in Directing Consumer Packaging Waste. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2010, 21, 198–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wever, R.; van Onselen, L.; Silvester, S.; Boks, C. Influence of Packaging Design on Littering and Waste Behaviour. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2010, 23, 239–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trudel, R.; Argo, J.J.; Meng, M.D. The Recycled Self: Consumers’ Disposal Decisions of Identity-Linked Products. J. Consum. Res. 2016, 43, 246–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy Closing the Loop; European Commission Digital Publication: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Williams, H.; Wikström, F.; Wetter-Edman, K.; Kristensson, P. Decisions on Recycling or Waste: How Packaging Functions Affect the Fate of Used Packaging in Selected Swedish Households. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wikström, F.; Williams, H.; Venkatesh, G. The Influence of Packaging Attributes on Recycling and Food Waste Behaviour—An Environmental Comparison of Two Packaging Alternatives. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 137, 895–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gotoh, S.; Tanaka, E.; Yonemura, Y. Source Separation for Resource Recovery—State-of-the-Art. Conserv. Recycl. 1979, 3, 305–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karlsson, T. Packaging Reducing Food Waste. Available online: http://blog.flexlink.com/the-role-of-packaging-in-reducing-food-waste/ (accessed on 11 June 2018).
- Mayring, P. Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Background and Procedures; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 365–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacInnis, D.J. A Framework for Conceptual Contributions in Marketing. J. Mark. 2011, 75, 136–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Plumb, A.; Downing, P.; Consulting, I.; Andrew, P. Consumer Attitudes to Food Waste and Food Packaging: Summary of Research Findings; WRAP: Banbury, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Robertson, G.L. Good and Bad Packaging:Who Decides? Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 1990, 20, 37–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miafodzyeva, S. Understanding the Recycling Behaviour of Householders in Multicultural Urban Areas: Case Study Järva, Stockholm; KTH Royal Institute of Technology: Stockholm, Sweden, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Tucker, P. Newspaper Industry Environmental Technology Initiative. In Understanding Recycling Behaviour: A Technical Monograph; University of Paisley: Paisley, Scotland, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Barr, S. Household Waste in Social Perspective: Values, Attitudes, Situation, and Behaviour; Ashgate: Farnham, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Thøgersen, J. Facilitating Recycling: Reverse—Distribution Channel Design for Participation and Support. Soc. Mark. Q. 1997, 4, 42–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, J.H. Innovations in Food Packaging; Elsevier Science: Burlington, NJ, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Silayoi, P.; Speece, M. The Importance of Packaging Attributes: A Conjoint Analysis Approach. Eur. J. Mark. 2007, 41, 1495–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sayers, A. Tips and Tricks in Performing a Systematic Review. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2007, 57, 425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- VOSviewer. Available online: http://www.vosviewer.com/ (accessed on 6 March 2018).
- EU Commission. Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/framework/ (accessed on 8 August 2017).
- Pires, A.; Martinho, G.; Ribeiro, R.; Mota, M.; Teixeira, L. Extended Producer Responsibility: A Differential Fee Model for Promoting Sustainable Packaging. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108, 343–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lucacher, R.H. Competitive Advantage and the Environment; Building a Framework for Achieving Environmental Advantage. In Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, Dallas, TX, USA, 6–8 May 1996; pp. 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seo, S.; Ahn, H.K.; Jeong, J.; Moon, J. Consumers’ Attitude toward Sustainable Food Products: Ingredients vs. Packaging. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewis, H. Designing for Sustainability. In Packaging for Sustainability; Springer: London, UK, 2012; pp. 41–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Langley, J.; Turner, N.; Yoxall, A. Attributes of Packaging and Influences on Waste. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2011, 24, 161–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klaiman, K.; Ortega, D.L.; Garnache, C.E. Perceived Barriers to Food Packaging Recycling: Evidence from a Choice Experiment of US Consumers. Food Control 2017, 73, 291–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Creswell, J.W.; Creswell, D. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Available online: https://www.adlibris.com/se/bok/research-design-qualitative-quantitative-and-mixed-methods-approaches-9781506386706 (accessed on 11 January 2019).
- Ampuero, O.; Vila, N. Consumer Perceptions of Product Packaging. J. Consum. Mark. 2006, 23, 100–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrillo, E.; Fiszman, S.; Lähteenmäki, L.; Varela, P. Consumers’ Perception of Symbols and Health Claims as Health-Related Label Messages. A Cross-Cultural Study. Food Res. Int. 2014, 62, 653–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grönman, K.; Soukka, R.; Järvi-Kääriäinen, T.; Katajajuuri, J.M.; Kuisma, M.; Koivupuro, H.K.; Ollila, M.; Pitkänen, M.; Miettinen, O.; Silvenius, F.; et al. Framework for Sustainable Food Packaging Design. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2013, 26, 187–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, M.; Williams, I.D.; Clark, M. Social, Cultural and Structural Influences on Household Waste Recycling: A Case Study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2006, 48, 357–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rousta, K.; Bolton, K.; Dahlén, L. A Procedure to Transform Recycling Behavior for Source Separation of Household Waste. Recycling 2016, 1, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, D.Y.; Lin, Z.Y.; Gordon, M.P.R.; Robinson, N.K.L.; Harder, M.K. Perceived Key Elements of a Successful Residential Food Waste Sorting Program in Urban Apartments: Stakeholder Views. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 134, 362–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, W.; Che, Y.; Yang, K.; Ren, X.; Tai, J. Public Opinion about the Source Separation of Municipal Solid Waste in Shanghai, China. Waste Manag. Res. 2012, 30, 1261–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, L.; Ling, M.; Lu, Y.; Shen, M. External Influences on Forming Residents’ Waste Separation Behaviour: Evidence from Households in Hangzhou, China. Habitat Int. 2017, 63, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wikström, F.; Williams, H.; Verghese, K.; Clune, S. The Influence of Packaging Attributes on Consumer Behaviour in Food-Packaging Life Cycle Assessment Studies—A Neglected Topic. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 73, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gofman, A.; Moskowitz, H.R.; Mets, T. Accelerating Structured Consumer-driven Package Design. J. Consum. Mark. 2010, 27, 157–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, H.; Wikström, F.; Otterbring, T.; Löfgren, M.; Gustafsson, A. Reasons for Household Food Waste with Special Attention to Packaging. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 24, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Westerman, S.J.; Sutherland, E.J.; Gardner, P.H.; Baig, N.; Critchley, C.; Hickey, C.; Mehigan, S.; Solway, A.; Zervos, Z. The Design of Consumer Packaging: Effects of Manipulations of Shape, Orientation, and Alignment of Graphical Forms on Consumers’ Assessments. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 27, 8–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, N.L.W.W.; Rickard, B.J.; Saputo, R.; Ho, S.T. Food Waste: The Role of Date Labels, Package Size, and Product Category. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 55, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azzi, A.; Battini, D.; Persona, A.; Sgarbossa, F. Packaging Design: General Framework and Research Agenda. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2012, 25, 435–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindh, H.; Olsson, A.; Williams, H. Consumer Perceptions of Food Packaging: Contributing to or Counteracting Environmentally Sustainable Development? Packag. Technol. Sci. 2015, 29, 3–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nordin, N.; Selke, S. Social Aspect of Sustainable Packaging. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2010, 23, 317–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vieira, K.; Alcantara, V.; do Prado, J.W.; Pinto, C.; Rezende, D. How Does Packaging Influence Consumer Behavior? A Multidisciplinary Bibliometric Study. Int. Bus. Res. 2015, 8, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marsh, K.; Bugusu, B. Food Packaging and Its Environmental Impact; The Institute of Food Technology: Chicago, IL, USA, 2007; Volume 46. [Google Scholar]
- Lockamy, A. A Conceptual Framework For Assessing Strategic Packaging Decisions. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 1995, 6, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meroni, A. Active Packaging as an Opportunity to Create Package Design That Reflects the Communicational, Functional and Logistical Requirements of Food Products. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2001, 13, 243–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Svanes, E.; Vold, M.; Møller, H.; Pettersen, M.K.; Larsen, H.; Hanssen, O.J. Sustainable Packaging Design: A Holistic Methodology for Packaging Design. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2010, 23, 161–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magnier, L.; Crié, D. Communicating Packaging Eco-Friendliness. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2015, 43, 350–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryynänen, T.; Rusko, E. Professionals’ View of Consumers’ Packaging Interactions—A Narrative Analysis. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2014, 28, 341–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, E.S.T. The Influence of Visual Packaging Design on Perceived Food Product Quality, Value, and Brand Preference. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2013, 41, 805–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steenis, N.D.; van Herpen, E.; van der Lans, I.A.; Ligthart, T.N.; van Trijp, H.C.M. Consumer Response to Packaging Design: The Role of Packaging Materials and Graphics in Sustainability Perceptions and Product Evaluations. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 286–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magnier, L.; Schoormans, J. How Do Packaging Material, Colour and Environmental Claim Influence Package, Brand and Product Evaluations? Packag. Technol. Sci. 2017, 30, 735–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindh, H.; Williams, H.; Olsson, A.; Wikström, F. Elucidating the Indirect Contributions of Packaging to Sustainable Development: A Terminology of Packaging Functions and Features. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2016, 29, 225–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martinho, G.; Pires, A.; Portela, G.; Fonseca, M. Factors Affecting Consumers’ Choices Concerning Sustainable Packaging during Product Purchase and Recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 103, 58–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klaiman, K.; Ortega, D.L.; Garnache, C. Consumer Preferences and Demand for Packaging Material and Recyclability. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 115, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molina-Besch, K.; Palsson, H. A Supply Chain Perspective on Green Packaging Development-Theory Versus Practice. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2016, 29, 45–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.T.P.; Zhu, D.; Le, N.P. Factors Influencing Waste Separation Intention of Residential Households in a Developing Country: Evidence from Hanoi, Vietnam. Habitat Int. 2015, 48, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, D.; Huang, G.; Yin, X.; Gong, Q. Residents’ Waste Separation Behaviors at the Source: Using SEM with the Theory of Planned Behavior in Guangzhou, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 9475–9491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What Are the Barriers to pro-Environmental Behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.; Wen, Z.G. Residents’ Household Solid Waste (HSW) Source Separation Activity. Sustainability 2014, 6, 6446–6466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Czajkowski, M.; Kądziela, T.; Hanley, N. We Want to Sort! Assessing Households’ Preferences for Sorting Waste. Resour. Energy Econ. 2014, 36, 290–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGrow, P. What’s the Ultimate Goal of Marketing? Available online: https://www.mcgrawmarketing.com/what-is-ultimate-goal-for-marketing/ (accessed on 26 August 2018).
- KRAV. Packaging Guide Step by Step Towards Environmentally Friendly Packaging; KRAV: Uppsala, Sweden, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Wright, C.; Nyberg, D. An Inconvenient Truth: How Organizations Translate Climate Change into Business as Usual. Acad. Manag. J. 2017, 60, 1633–1661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Method Used | Interview | Questionnaire & Survey | Caste Study | Modeling | Empirical | Documentary |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Articles | ||||||
Ampuero and Vila (2006) | ||||||
Azzi et al. (2012) | ||||||
Buelow et al. (2010) | ||||||
Carrillo et al. (2014) | ||||||
Chen et al. (2017) | ||||||
Czajkowski et al. (2014) | ||||||
Gofman et al. (2010) | ||||||
Grönman et al. (2013) | ||||||
Henriksson et al. (2010) | ||||||
Klaiman et al. (2017) | ||||||
Langley et al. (2011) | ||||||
Lewis (2012) | ||||||
Lindh et al. (2016) | ||||||
Lockamy (1995) | ||||||
Marsh and Bugusu (2007) | ||||||
Martin et al. (2006) | ||||||
Martinho et al. (2015) | ||||||
Meroni (2000) | ||||||
Miliute-Plepiene and Plepys (2015) | ||||||
Molina-Besch and Pålsson (2016) | ||||||
Nguyen et al. (2015) | ||||||
Nordin and Selke (2010) | ||||||
Ordoñez et al. (2015) | ||||||
Plumb et al. (2013) | ||||||
Robertson (1990) | ||||||
Rousta et al. (2016) | ||||||
Ryynänen and Rusko (2015) | ||||||
Seo et al. (2016) | ||||||
Silayoi and Speece (2007) | ||||||
Svanes et al. (2010) | ||||||
Vieira et al. (2015) | ||||||
Westerman et al. (2013) | ||||||
Wever (2010) | ||||||
Wikström et al. (2014) | ||||||
Wikström et al. (2016) | ||||||
Williams et al. (2012) | ||||||
Wilson et al. (2017) | ||||||
Xu et al. (2016) | ||||||
Xu et al. (2017) | ||||||
Zhang et al. (2012) | ||||||
Zhang et al. (2014) | ||||||
Zhang et al. (2015) |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nemat, B.; Razzaghi, M.; Bolton, K.; Rousta, K. The Role of Food Packaging Design in Consumer Recycling Behavior—A Literature Review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4350. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164350
Nemat B, Razzaghi M, Bolton K, Rousta K. The Role of Food Packaging Design in Consumer Recycling Behavior—A Literature Review. Sustainability. 2019; 11(16):4350. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164350
Chicago/Turabian StyleNemat, Babak, Mohammad Razzaghi, Kim Bolton, and Kamran Rousta. 2019. "The Role of Food Packaging Design in Consumer Recycling Behavior—A Literature Review" Sustainability 11, no. 16: 4350. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164350
APA StyleNemat, B., Razzaghi, M., Bolton, K., & Rousta, K. (2019). The Role of Food Packaging Design in Consumer Recycling Behavior—A Literature Review. Sustainability, 11(16), 4350. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164350