Indicators of Consumers’ Preferences for Bio-Based Apparel: A German Case Study with a Functional Rain Jacket Made of Bioplastic
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Which attributes of bio-based apparel are relevant for consumers’ preferences?
- Which covariates have an influence on certain attributes of bio-based apparel?
- How strong are the influences of certain covariates on consumer choices?
2. Literature Findings and Hypotheses
3. Data and Methods
3.1. Data Collection
3.2. Methods
3.2.1. Choice Based Conjoint Analysis
3.2.2. Attributes, Levels and Product-Concepts
3.2.3. Factor Analysis
3.2.4. Mathematical Approach for the Estimation of the Covariates
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Relative Importance of the Attributes
4.2. Utilities of the Attribute-levels
4.3. Influences of the Covariates
5. Methodological Limitations, Conclusions and Implications
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
First, please put yourself in the following situation: You want to buy a new rain jacket. You are looking for a high-quality product from a brand you know in an outdoor clothing store. After a short search, you will find what you are looking for and have the choice between different alternatives. Size, color, cut and function of the jacket meet your expectations. The seller points out that some jackets are made of bioplastics. He goes on to say that, various renewable raw materials were used instead of petroleum for its production, but that no impairment of product quality is to be expected. He advises you further that the raw materials come from different countries of origin, and there are also various certifications on the rain jackets, which say something about production or material of functional clothing. |
Alternative 1 | Alternative 2 | Alternative 3 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Percentage of bioplastic | 100% | 20% | 50% | NONE: I would not choose any of these. |
Raw material | Sugar cane | Potatoes | Corn | |
Origin of resource | USA | Asia | EU | |
Certification | Free of pollutants | No certificate | Fair production | |
Price | 239 € | 349 € | 109 € |
Item | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 | Factor 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Green Consumer Values (1) | 0.741 | 0.251 | 0.121 | 0.086 | 0.094 |
Green Consumer Values (2) | 0.667 | 0.158 | 0.316 | 0.036 | 0.006 |
Green Consumer Values (3) | 0.824 | 0.162 | 0.096 | 0.027 | 0.111 |
Green Consumer Values (4) | 0.804 | 0.106 | −0.006 | 0.062 | 0.037 |
Green Consumer Values (5) | 0.835 | 0.154 | 0.123 | 0.052 | 0.069 |
Green Consumer Values (6) | 0.804 | 0.155 | 0.074 | 0.026 | 0.099 |
Innovation-friendly (1) | 0.102 | 0.059 | 0.103 | 0.059 | 0.875 |
Innovation-friendly (2) | 0.034 | 0.068 | 0.003 | 0.025 | 0.879 |
Innovation-friendly (3) | 0.170 | 0.148 | 0.162 | 0.049 | 0.743 |
BFI10 (1 item on trust) | 0.008 | 0.246 | −0.040 | 0.600 | 0.030 |
KUSIV3 (1) | 0.102 | 0.141 | 0.021 | 0.833 | 0.006 |
KUSIV3 (2) | 0.019 | 0.029 | 0.070 | 0.714 | 0.035 |
KUSIV3 (3) | 0.080 | 0.128 | 0.036 | 0.824 | 0.062 |
Altruism (1) | 0.165 | 0.719 | 0.134 | 0.151 | 0.094 |
Altruism (2) | 0.240 | 0.614 | 0.000 | 0.186 | 0.006 |
Altruism (3) | 0.161 | 0.793 | 0.014 | 0.119 | 0.081 |
Altruism (4) | 0.135 | 0.843 | 0.075 | 0.126 | 0.128 |
Altruism (5) | 0.178 | 0.772 | 0.100 | 0.057 | 0.035 |
Attitude towards bioplastics (1) | 0.147 | 0.071 | 0.774 | 0.039 | 0.052 |
Attitude towards bioplastics (2) | 0.128 | 0.059 | 0.749 | 0.023 | 0.038 |
Attitude towards bioplastics (3) | 0.052 | 0.040 | 0.728 | 0.029 | 0.119 |
Attitude towards bioplastics (4) | 0.122 | 0.076 | 0.794 | −0.002 | 0.047 |
References
- Verma, R.; Vinoda, K.S.; Papireddy, M.; Gowda, A.N.S. Toxic Pollutants from Plastic Waste—A Review. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2016, 35, 701–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jambeck, J.R.; Geyer, R.; Wilcox, C.; Siegler, T.R.; Perryman, M.; Andrady, A.; Narayan, R.; Law, K.L. Marine pollution. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 2015, 347, 768–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Benson, P.J. China’s plastic waste import ban. Science 2018, 360, 1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eriksen, M.; Lebreton, L.C.M.; Carson, H.S.; Thiel, M.; Moore, C.J.; Borerro, J.C.; Galgani, F.; Ryan, P.G.; Reisser, J. Plastic Pollution in the World’s Oceans: More than 5 Trillion Plastic Pieces Weighing over 250,000 Tons Afloat at Sea. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e111913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Endres, H.-J.; Siebert-Raths, A. Engineering Biopolymers. Markets, Manufacturing, Properties, and Applications; Hanser Publishers: München, Germany, 2011; ISBN 978-1-56990-461-9. [Google Scholar]
- Endres, H.-J. Bioplastics. In Biorefineries; Wagemann, K., Tippkötter, N., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 427–468. ISBN 978-3-319-97117-9. [Google Scholar]
- Endres, H.-J.; Bengs, M.; Schulz, C.; Siebert-Raths, A. Market opportunities, Land Use Requirement and Future Developments. Kunstst. Int. 2011, 101, 54–58. [Google Scholar]
- Pilla, S. Handbook of Bioplastics and Biocomposites Engineering Applications; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; ISBN 1118177045. [Google Scholar]
- Blesin, J.M.; Klein, F.; Emberger-Klein, A.; Scherer, C.; Menrad, K.; Möhring, W. Bevölkerungsrepräsentative Online-Befragung in Deutschland zu Biokunststoffen: Arbeitsbericht Oktober 2017. Available online: http://biokunststoffe-nachhaltig.de/files/Downloads/BiNa%20Working%20Paper%20zur%20Bevoelkerungsbefragung%202016.pdf (accessed on 25 December 2019).
- Behnsen, H.; Spierling, S.; Endres, H.-J. Biobasierte Kunststoffe als Produkt der Bioökonomie. Ökologisches Wirtsch. Fachz. 2018, 33, 28–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatachalam, V.; Spierling, S.; Endres, H.-J.; Siebert-Raths, A. Integrating Life Cycle Assessment and Eco-design Strategies for a Sustainable Production of Bio-based Plastics. In Designing Sustainable Technologies, Products and Policies; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 487–497. [Google Scholar]
- Spierling, S.; Knüpffer, E.; Behnsen, H.; Mudersbach, M.; Krieg, H.; Springer, S.; Albrecht, S.; Herrmann, C.; Endres, H.-J. Bio-based plastics-A review of environmental, social and economic impact assessments. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 185, 476–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scherer, C.; Emberger-Klein, A.; Menrad, K. Biogenic product alternatives for children: Consumer preferences for a set of sand toys made of bio-based plastic. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2017, 10, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scherer, C.; Emberger-Klein, A.; Menrad, K. Consumer preferences for outdoor sporting equipment made of bio-based plastics: Results of a choice-based-conjoint experiment in Germany. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 203, 1085–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scherer, C.; Emberger-Klein, A.; Menrad, K. Segmentation of interested and less interested consumers in sports equipment made of bio-based plastic. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2018, 14, 53–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sijtsema, S.J.; Onwezen, M.C.; Reinders, M.J.; Dagevos, H.; Partanen, A.; Meeusen, M. Consumer perception of bio-based products—An exploratory study in 5 European countries. NJAS Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2016, 77, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rumm, S. Verbrauchereinschätzungen Zu Biokunststoffen: Eine Analyse Vor Dem Hintergrund Des Heuristic-Systematic Model. Ph.D. Thesis, Technische Universität München, München, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Kainz, U. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Durable Biobased Plastic Products. Findings from an Experimental Auction. Ph.D. Thesis, Technische Universität München, München, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Kurka, S. Biomasse-basierte Produkte Aus Konsumentensicht-Ausgewählte Europäische Länder Im Vergleich. Ph.D. Thesis, Technische Universität München, München, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Nimon, W.; Beghin, J. Are Eco-Labels Valuable?: Evidence from the Apparel Industry. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1999, 81, 801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nimon, W.; Beghin, J. Ecolabels and international trade in the textile and apparel market. In Nontariff Measures and International Trade: World Scientific Studies in International Economics; Beghin, J.C., Ed.; World Scientific: London, UK, 2017; pp. 321–326. ISBN 978-981-314-440-8. [Google Scholar]
- Meyer, A. What’s in it for the customers?: Successfully marketing green clothes. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2001, 10, 317–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brosdahl, D.J.C.; Carpenter, J.M. Consumer knowledge of the environmental impacts of textile and apparel production, concern for the environment, and environmentally friendly consumption behavior. J. Text. Appar. Technol. Manag. 2010, 6, 4. [Google Scholar]
- Han, T.-I.; Chung, J.-E. Korean consumers’ motivations and perceived risks toward the purchase of organic cotton apparel. Cloth. Text. Res. J. 2014, 32, 235–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casadesus-Masanell, R.; Crooke, M.; Reinhardt, F.; Vasishth, V. Households’ willingness to pay for “green” goods: Evidence from Patagonia’s introduction of organic cotton sportswear. J. Econ. Manag. Strategy 2009, 18, 203–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiederhold, M.; Martinez, L.F. Ethical consumer behaviour in Germany: The attitude-behaviour gap in the green apparel industry. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2018, 42, 419–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cowan, K.; Kinley, T. Green spirit: Consumer empathies for green apparel. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2014, 38, 493–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khare, A.; Sadachar, A. Green apparel buying behaviour: A study on I ndian youth. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2017, 41, 558–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nam, C.; Dong, H.; Lee, Y.-A. Factors influencing consumers’ purchase intention of green sportswear. Fash. Text. 2017, 4, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lin, S.-H. A case study in Hawaii: Who will pay more for organic cotton? Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2010, 34, 481–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haws, K.L.; Winterich, K.P.; Naylor, R.W. Seeing the world through GREEN-tinted glasses: Green consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly products. J. Consum. Psychol. 2014, 24, 336–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosegrant, M.W.; Msangi, S. Consensus and contention in the food-versus-fuel debate. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2014, 39, 271–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrison, R.W. The food versus fuel debate: Implications for consumers. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2009, 41, 493–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thompson, P.B. The agricultural ethics of biofuels: The food vs. fuel debate. Agriculture 2012, 2, 339–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ellis, J.L.; McCracken, V.A.; Skuza, N. Insights into willingness to pay for organic cotton apparel. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. Int. J. 2012, 16, 290–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, T.B.; Chai, L.T. Attitude towards the environment and green products: Consumers’ perspective. Manag. Sci. Eng. 2010, 4, 27–39. [Google Scholar]
- Umberson, K. Environmentally-Friendly Purchase Intentions. Debunking the Misconception Behind Apathetic Consumer Attitudes. Master’s Thesis, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Batson, C.D.; Powell, A.A. Altruism and Prosocial Behavior. Handbook of Psychology; Wiley, J., Ed.; Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003; pp. 463–484. [Google Scholar]
- Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Kalof, L. Value Orientations, Gender, and Environmental Concern. Environ. Behav. 1993, 25, 322–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pfattheicher, S.; Sassenrath, C.; Schindler, S. Feelings for the Suffering of Others and the Environment. Environ. Behav. 2016, 48, 929–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teng, Y.-M.; Wu, K.-S.; Liu, H.-H. Integrating Altruism and the Theory of Planned Behavior to Predict Patronage Intention of a Green Hotel. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2015, 39, 299–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hefner, D. Wie kriegen wir sie ins Boot? Eine Typologie zur Entwicklung von Kommunikationsstrategien zur Förderung umweltschützenden Verhaltens. Medien. Kommun. 2013, 61, 387–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lusk, J.L.; Nilsson, T.; Foster, K. Public Preferences and Private Choices: Effect of Altruism and Free Riding on Demand for Environmentally Certified Pork. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2007, 36, 499–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grolleau, G.; Ibanez, L.; Mzoughi, N. Too much of a good thing? Why altruism can harm the environment? Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 2145–2149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartmann, P.; Apaolaza-Ibáñez, V. Consumer attitude and purchase intention toward green energy brands: The roles of psychological benefits and environmental concern. J. Bus. Res. 2012, 65, 1254–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Souza, C.; Taghian, M.; Lamb, P. An empirical study on the influence of environmental labels on consumers. Corp. Commun. Int. J. 2006, 11, 162–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Beierlein, C.; Kemper, C.; Kovaleva, A.; Rammstedt, B. Kurzskala Zur Messung Des Zwischenmenschlichen Vertrauens. Die Kurzskala Interpersonales Vertrauen (KUSIV3). GESIS-Working Papers No. 22. 2012. Available online: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-312126 (accessed on 25 December 2019).
- Atkinson, L.; Rosenthal, S. Signaling the green sell: The influence of eco-label source, argument specificity, and product involvement on consumer trust. J. Advert. 2014, 43, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Young, W.; Hwang, K.; McDonald, S.; Oates, C.J. Sustainable consumption: Green consumer behaviour when purchasing products. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.-S.; Chang, C.-H. Greenwash and green trust: The mediation effects of green consumer confusion and green perceived risk. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 114, 489–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.-S.; Chang, C.-H. Towards green trust: The influences of green perceived quality, green perceived risk, and green satisfaction. Manag. Decis. 2013, 51, 63–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thøgersen, J. Promoting “green” consumer behavior with eco-labels.: Chapter 5 in New Tools for Environmental Protection: Education, Information and Voluntary Measure. In New Tools for Environmental Protection: Education, Information, And Voluntary Measures; National Research Council, Ed.; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2002; pp. 83–104. [Google Scholar]
- Sammer, K.; Wüstenhagen, R. The influence of eco-labelling on consumer behaviour–Results of a discrete choice analysis for washing machines. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2006, 15, 185–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nuttavuthisit, K.; Thøgersen, J. The Importance of Consumer Trust for the Emergence of a Market for Green Products: The Case of Organic Food. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 140, 323–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamzaoui Essoussi, L.; Zahaf, M. Decision making process of community organic food consumers: An exploratory study. J. Consum. Mark. 2008, 25, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Padel, S.; Foster, C. Exploring the gap between attitudes and behaviour: Understanding why consumers buy or do not buy organic food. Br. Food J. 2005, 107, 606–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fandos Herrera, C.; Flavián Blanco, C. Consequences of consumer trust in PDO food products: The role of familiarity. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2011, 20, 282–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiménez, N.H.; San Martín, S. The role of country-of-origin, ethnocentrism and animosity in promoting consumer trust. The moderating role of familiarity. Int. Bus. Rev. 2010, 19, 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tellis, G.J.; Yin, E.; Bell, S. Global consumer innovativeness: Cross-country differences and demographic commonalities. J. Int. Mark. 2009, 17, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rahman, S.U.; Saleem, S.; Akhtar, S.; Ali, T.; Khan, M.A. Consumers’ adoption of apparel fashion: The role of innovativeness, involvement, and social values. Int. J. Mark. Stud. 2014, 6, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jansson, J. Consumer eco-innovation adoption: Assessing attitudinal factors and perceived product characteristics. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2011, 20, 192–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osburg, V.-S.; Strack, M.; Toporowski, W. Consumer acceptance of Wood-Polymer Composites: A conjoint analytical approach with a focus on innovative and environmentally concerned consumers. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 110, 180–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evans, J.R.; Mathur, A. The value of online surveys. Internet Res. 2005, 15, 195–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- German Federal Statistical Office. Microzensus. Available online: https://www.destatis.de/ (accessed on 14 May 2018).
- Sawtooth. SSI Web; Sawtooth Software Inc.: Orem, UT, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows; IBM Corp.: Armonk, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Klein, F.; Emberger-Klein, A.; Menrad, K.; Möhring, W.; Blesin, J.-M. Influencing factors for the purchase intention of consumers choosing bioplastic products in Germany. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019, 19, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Louviere, J.J.; Woodworth, G. Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: An approach based on aggregate data. J. Mark. Res. 1983, 350–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eggers, F.; Sattler, H. Preference measurement with conjoint analysis. Overview of state-of-the-art approaches and recent developments. GfK Mark. Intell. Rev. 2011, 3, 36–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sanad, R.A. Consumer Attitude and Purchase Decision towards Textiles and Apparel Products. World J. Text. Eng. Technol. 2016, 2, 16–30. [Google Scholar]
- Chekima, B.; Wafa, S.A.W.S.K.; Igau, O.A.; Chekima, S.; Sondoh Jr, S.L. Examining green consumerism motivational drivers: Does premium price and demographics matter to green purchasing? J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 3436–3450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borin, N.; Cerf, D.C.; Krishnan, R. Consumer effects of environmental impact in product labeling. J. Consum. Mark. 2011, 28, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Price, L.L.; Feick, L.F.; Guskey, A. Everyday Market Helping Behavior. J. Public Policy Mark. 1995, 14, 255–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rammstedt, B.; Kemper, C.J.; Klein, M.C.; Beierlein, C.; Kovaleva, A. A Short Scale for Assessing the Big Five Dimensions of Personality. Big-Five-Inventory-10 (BFI-10). methoden, daten, analysen No. 2. 2013. Available online: https://orbilu.uni.lu/bitstream/10993/21183/1/MDA_Vol7_2013-2_Rammstedt.pdf (accessed on 25 December 2019).
- Orme, B.; Howell, J. Application of Covariates within Sawtooth Software’s CBC/HB progr$am: Theory and Practical Example. Available online: https://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/HBCovariates.pdf (accessed on 25 December 2019).
- Rahbar, E.; Abdul Wahid, N. Investigation of green marketing tools’ effect on consumers’ purchase behavior. Bus. Strategy Ser. 2011, 12, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rumm, S.; Klein, A.; Zapilko, M.; Menrad, K. Labelling for bio-based plastics. In First International Conference on Resource Efficiency in Interorganizational Networks ResEff 2013; Geldermann, J., Schumann, M., Eds.; Universitätsdrucke Göttingen: Göttingen, Germany, 2013; pp. 403–414. ISBN 978-3-86395-142-9. [Google Scholar]
- Aguilar, F.X.; Cai, Z. Conjoint effect of environmental labeling, disclosure of forest of origin and price on consumer preferences for wood products in the US and UK. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 70, 308–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hustvedt, G.; Bernard, J.C. Effects of social responsibility labelling and brand on willingness to pay for apparel. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2010, 34, 619–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- D’Souza, C.; Taghian, M.; Lamb, P.; Peretiatko, R. Green decisions: Demographics and consumer understanding of environmental labels. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2007, 31, 371–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sawtooth Software, I. The CBC/HB System for Hierarchical Bayes Estimation Version 5.0 Technical Paper; Sawtooth Software, Inc.: Sequim, WA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, Y.-J.; Young, R.D.; Marans, R.W. Factors Influencing Individual Recycling Behavior in Office Settings. Environ. Behav. 1995, 27, 380–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thøgersen, J.; Ölander, F. Human values and the emergence of a sustainable consumption pattern: A panel study. J. Econ. Psychol. 2002, 23, 605–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Callegaro, M.; Baker, R.; Bethlehem, J.; Göritz, A.S.; Krosnick, J.A.; Lavrakas, P.J. Online Panel Research; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2014; ISBN 9781118763520. [Google Scholar]
- Hillygus, D.S.; Jackson, N.; Young, M. Professional respondents in non-probability online panels. Online Panel Res. Data Qual. Perspect. 2014, 1, 219–237. [Google Scholar]
Variable | Sample | Germany Population 16+ [64] |
---|---|---|
Age | ||
16–19 years | 0.050 | 0.046 |
20–29 years | 0.127 | 0.141 |
30–39 years | 0.124 | 0.141 |
40–49 years | 0.166 | 0.180 |
50–59 years | 0.185 | 0.180 |
60+ years | 0.348 | 0.312 |
Sex | ||
Female | 0.519 | 0.513 |
Male | 0.481 | 0.487 |
Education | ||
Not yet graduated | 0.025 | 0.025 |
Secondary modern school without apprenticeship | 0.071 | 0.079 |
Secondary modern school with apprenticeship | 0.320 | 0.306 |
General certificate of secondary education | 0.298 | 0.303 |
General qualification for university entrance | 0.127 | 0.131 |
Academic studies | 0.160 | 0.157 |
Attributes | Levels |
---|---|
Percentage of bioplastic in fabric | 100% |
50% | |
20% | |
Biogenic resource | Potatoes |
Chipped wood | |
Sugar cane | |
Corn | |
Origin of resource | South America |
European Union | |
United States of America | |
Asia | |
Product certificate | Free of pollutants |
Climate protection | |
Fair production | |
Without certificate | |
Price | 349 € |
239 € | |
109 € | |
69 € |
Factors & Item-Scales of Factors | Statements | Possible Answers | Cronbachs Alpha | Source |
---|---|---|---|---|
Prior behavior Product experience | Have you ever deliberately opted for bioplastic products? | 1 = No; 2 = Yes | n.a. | Reformulated according to [15,17] |
Factor 1 Green Consumer Values | Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements. 1. It is important to me that the products I use do not harm the environment. 2. I consider the potential environmental impact of my actions when making many of my decisions. 3. My purchase habits are affected by my concern for our environment. 4. I am concerned about wasting the resources of our planet. 5. I would describe myself as environmentally responsible. 6. I am willing to be inconvenienced in order to take actions that are more environmentally friendly. | 1 = I do not agree at all; 2 = I rather do not agree; 3 = partly; 4 = I rather agree; 5 = I totally agree | 0.895 | [31] |
Factor 2 Altruism | How important is to you: A1) To help other people A2) To serve mankind A3) To share what you have A4) To give to others A5) To be unselfish | 1 = not important at all; 2 = rather not important; 3 = maybe important; 4 = rather important; 5 = important in any case | 0.845 | [73] |
Factor 3 Attitude towards bioplastics | Below you can see statements from various organizations on bioplastics. Please state per statement whether you would convince them or prevent them from supporting increased use of bioplastics. If the statement does not matter for your rating, select “I do not care.” 1. The long-term goal is to produce bioplastics from non-edible plant residues. 2. Bioplastics can withstand just as much as conventional plastics. 3. The carbon footprint of bioplastics is lower than that of conventional plastics. 4. The plants for bioplastics come from non-regional cultivation. | 1 = I do not agree at all; 2 = I rather do not agree; 3 = I do not care; 4 = I rather agree; 5 = I totally agree | 0.782 | Reformulated according to [17] |
Factor 4 Trust (KUSIV3 and trust-item of BFI-10 short scale) | KUSIV3: The next questions are about your attitude towards other people. Please indicate to what extent you agree with each statement. 1. I am convinced that most people have good intentions. 2. You cannot rely on anyone these days. 3. In general people can be trusted. | 1 = don’t agree at all 2 = agree a bit 3 = agree somewhat 4 = agree mostly 5 = agree completely | 0.747 | [47] |
BFI10-Item: 4. How well do the following statements describe your personality? I see myself as someone who is generally trusting | 1 = disagree strongly 2 = disagree a little 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree a little 5 = agree strongly | [74] | ||
Factor 5 Innovation-friendly | Please indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements. 1. I am excited to try out new products. 2. I appreciate having novel products. 3. I like to be confronted with new ideas. | 1 = I do not agree at all; 2 = I rather do not agree; 3 = partly; 4 = I rather agree; 5 = I totally agree | 0.810 | [13,59] |
Attributes | Average Importance (%) | Standard Deviation |
---|---|---|
Percentage of bioplastic in fabric | 13.6 | 8.6 |
Biogenic resource | 8.4 | 5.7 |
Origin of resource | 13.6 | 9.3 |
Product certificate | 19.1 | 9.4 |
Price | 45.3 | 17.9 |
Attributes | Attribute-Levels | Average Utilities (Zero-Centered Diffs) | Standard Deviation |
---|---|---|---|
Percentage of bioplastic in fabric | 100% | 29.97 | 26.54 |
50% | 1.80 | 11.30 | |
20% | −31.76 | 25.36 | |
Biogenic resource | Potatoes | −2.53 | 15.64 |
Chipped wood | 6.44 | 27.41 | |
Sugar cane | −0.06 | 15.72 | |
Corn | −3.84 | 16.39 | |
Origin of resource | South America | −11.57 | 15.39 |
European Union | 36.95 | 35.91 | |
United States | −6.01 | 15.08 | |
Asia | −19.36 | 21.24 | |
Product certificate | Free of pollutants | 20.37 | 22.42 |
Climate protection | 17.74 | 20.67 | |
Fair production | 18.09 | 24.36 | |
No certificate | −56.20 | 31.67 | |
Price | 349 € | −116.06 | 54.12 |
239 € | −35.47 | 36.27 | |
109 € | 61.53 | 27.94 | |
69 € | 90.00 | 68.42 | |
None Option | 37.44 | 145.42 |
Attributes & Levels | Intercept | Product-Experience | Green Consumer Values | Altruism | Attitude towards Bioplastic | Trust | Innovation-Friendly |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Percentage of Bioplastic | |||||||
100% | 1.13 *** | 0.05 | 0.21 *** | −0.01 | 0.36 *** | 0.02 | 0.21 *** |
50% | 0.00 | 0.10 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.00 |
20% | −1.14 *** | −0.15 | −0.23 *** | 0.00 | −0.38 *** | −0.03 | −0.21 ** |
Biogenic resource | |||||||
Potatoes | 0.38 * | −0.56 *** | 0.02 | −0.04 | −0.18 *** | −0.12 * | −0.03 |
Chipped wood | 0.22 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.15 * | 0.04 | −0.09 |
Sugar cane | −0.43 ** | 0.49 ** | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.04 | −0.01 | 0.03 |
Corn | −0.17 | 0.04 | −0.10 | −0.07 | 0.00 | 0.09 | 0.09 |
Origin of resource | |||||||
South America | −0.59 *** | 0.18 | −0.02 | 0.07 | 0.05 | −0.12 * | 0.04 |
European Union | 1.23 *** | 0.15 | 0.16 * | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.11 | −0.07 |
United States | 0.00 | −0.26 | −0.11 | −0.06 | 0.06 | 0.11 * | 0.05 |
Asia | −0.65 *** | −0.06 | −0.03 | −0.01 | −0.13 * | −0.09 | −0.02 |
Product certificate | |||||||
Pollutant free | 0.84 *** | −0.13 | 0.09 | 0.18 ** | −0.01 | −0.11 * | −0.08 |
Climate protection | 0.65 *** | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.13 * | −0.02 | −0.05 |
Fair production | 0.40 * | 0.34 * | 0.09 | −0.05 | 0.19 ** | 0.18 ** | 0.15 ** |
Without certificate | −1.89 *** | −0.26 | −0.26 *** | −0.20 ** | −0.31 *** | −0.05 | −0.02 |
Price | |||||||
349 € | −4.23 *** | −0.59 * | 0.66 *** | 0.52 *** | −0.26 * | 0.00 | 0.11 |
239 € | −1.27 *** | −0.30 | 0.19 * | 0.21 ** | −0.05 | 0.09 | 0.25 *** |
109 € | 2.12 *** | 0.43 * | −0.12 | −0.20 ** | 0.25 *** | 0.08 | −0.08 |
69 € | 3.38 *** | 0.45 | −0.72 *** | −0.53 *** | 0.05 | −0.17 * | −0.28 ** |
None option | |||||||
None | −0.25 | 2.22 *** | −0.53 *** | −0.50 *** | −0.80 *** | −0.67 *** | −1.04 *** |
© 2020 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
Klein, F.F.; Emberger-Klein, A.; Menrad, K. Indicators of Consumers’ Preferences for Bio-Based Apparel: A German Case Study with a Functional Rain Jacket Made of Bioplastic. Sustainability 2020, 12, 675. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020675
Klein FF, Emberger-Klein A, Menrad K. Indicators of Consumers’ Preferences for Bio-Based Apparel: A German Case Study with a Functional Rain Jacket Made of Bioplastic. Sustainability. 2020; 12(2):675. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020675
Chicago/Turabian StyleKlein, Florian Felix, Agnes Emberger-Klein, and Klaus Menrad. 2020. "Indicators of Consumers’ Preferences for Bio-Based Apparel: A German Case Study with a Functional Rain Jacket Made of Bioplastic" Sustainability 12, no. 2: 675. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020675
APA StyleKlein, F. F., Emberger-Klein, A., & Menrad, K. (2020). Indicators of Consumers’ Preferences for Bio-Based Apparel: A German Case Study with a Functional Rain Jacket Made of Bioplastic. Sustainability, 12(2), 675. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020675