Exploring and Addressing the User Acceptance Issues Embedded in the Adoption of Reusable Packaging Systems
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- I.
- What are the user acceptance issues affecting consumers’ adoption of RPSs?
- II.
- What design recommendations can be made to support packaging professionals in addressing the user acceptance issues?
2. Theoretical Foundation
2.1. Identification of the Attitudinal Factors
2.2. Identification of the Contextual Factors
2.3. Behaviour Change Strategies
3. Research Methodology
4. Results
4.1. Overview of the Results
4.2. Identification of User Acceptance Issues
4.3. Addressing the User Acceptance Issues
5. Discussion of the Results
5.1. Refined User Experience
5.2. Design Recommendations to Address These Issues
5.2.1. Design Recommendations to Address Hygiene Issues
Packaging Professionals Should Consider Giving Live Demonstrations of the Packaging Washing Process
Packaging Professionals Should Design the Service in Order to Not Allow People to Access the Packaging if They Don’t Want to Use the Service (Particularly in the Self-Service)
Packaging Professionals Need to Consider How to Maintain the Hygienic Standard of the Designated Locations for Consumers to Return the Packaging
5.2.2. Design Recommendations to Address Usability Issues
Packaging Professionals Should Consider How to Maximize the Availability of the Service Providers
Packaging Professionals Should Design the Service to Allow Consumers to Obtain the Instruction Information in a Convenient and Responsive Manner
Packaging Professionals Should Avoid Collecting Consumers’ Personal Data, or Should Collect Only the Personal Data That Are Strictly Necessary
Packaging Professionals Should Design the Service to Enable Consumers to Opt out Easily
5.2.3. Design Recommendations to Address Motivation Issues
Packaging Professionals Should Provide Financial Benefits in Order to Attract Consumers to Adopt the Services
Packaging Professionals Should Highlight the Environmental Benefits of Consumers’ Adoption, and Should Make Consumers Realise That Their Efforts Can Make a Difference
5.2.4. Design Recommendations to Address Finance Issues
Packaging Professionals Should Consider Pay-as-You-Go as the Primary Approach to Charging Consumers
Packaging Professionals Should Clearly Communicate That the Deposits Are Refundable through Explicit Textual Information
Packaging Professionals Should Prefer the Deposit Refund System over the Penalty Charge System in Order to Encourage Consumers to Return the Packaging
6. Limitations of This Research
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. The User Experience Evaluated in This Research
Appendix B. The Codes and Themes Identified in the Thematic Analysis
Codes | Themes (The Issues Are Related to …) | User Acceptance Issues |
---|---|---|
1. Question the hygienic standard |
| Hygiene |
2. Hygiene is strictly relevant to health | ||
3. Uncleaned packaging threatens health | ||
4. Concern other people’s use of the packaging is unhygienic |
| |
5. Dust flies into bottles and other people touch the bottles |
| |
6. Desire to know the washing process |
| |
7. Concern whether washing is done properly | ||
8. Concern packaging touched by other people | ||
9. Too many service touchpoints |
| Usability |
10. Consumers value their efforts | ||
11. Using this service consumes people’s energy | ||
12. Keeping packaging is difficult |
| |
13. Carry bottle is inconvenient | ||
14. Carry bottles requires efforts | ||
15. Heavy bottles | ||
16. Girl’s objection towards returning |
| |
17. Returning packaging is hard to perform | ||
18. Returning is time-consuming | ||
19. Why return the packaging | ||
20. The availability of drop-off location matters |
| |
21. The distance between consumers and drop-off locations is important | ||
22. Travel to locations is inconvenient | ||
23. Consumers like to stick to what they know |
| |
24. Challenging habit | ||
25. Issues in buying new products before finish | ||
26. Prefer competitors’ service | ||
27. Email cancellation burdensome |
| |
28. Hard to verify customer’s identify | ||
29. Sign-up process is complicated | ||
30. Sharing privacy should not be needed | ||
31. Embarrassment in standing to know the instruction |
| |
32. Standing also affects other consumers | ||
33. System hard to understand | ||
34. Sharing financial details seems risky |
| Finance |
35. Subscription seems financial risky | ||
36. Dislike to pay for subscription | ||
37. Unreturned packaging is financially risky | ||
38. Financial stress in using the service | ||
39. Charging consumers’ deposit is hard |
| |
40. Feeling of deposit leads to more costs | ||
41. Paying deposit is an issue | ||
42. Paying deposits seems financially risky | ||
43. Paying deposits seems a lack of transparency | ||
44. Wonder reason for deposits | ||
45. Relatively expensive deposit | ||
46. Unsure whether like the service or not before paying for it |
| |
47. Service lacks benefits |
| Motivation |
48. Lack of the acknowledge of the importance of the service | ||
49. Pay for environmental protection doesn’t make sense |
|
Codes | Themes (The Issues Are Related to …) | Issues |
---|---|---|
|
| Hygiene |
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
| |
|
| |
| ||
|
| |
| ||
|
| Usability |
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
| |
|
| |
|
| Finance |
| ||
| ||
|
| |
|
| Motivation |
|
Codes | Themes (The Issues Are Related to ……) | Issues |
---|---|---|
|
| Hygiene |
| ||
|
| Usability |
|
| |
|
| Finance |
|
|
References
- 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]
- Peng, Y.; Wu, P.; Schartup, A.T.; Zhang, Y. Plastic Waste Release Caused by COVID-19 and Its Fate in the Global Ocean. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2111530118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Laville, S. About 26,000 Tonnes of Plastic COVID Waste Pollutes World’s Oceans–Study|Pollution. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/08/about-26000-tonnes-of-plastic-covid-waste-pollutes-worlds-oceans-study (accessed on 30 March 2022).
- Geyer, R.; Jambeck, J.R.; Law, K.L. Production, Use, and Fate of All Plastics Ever Made. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1700782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Marsh, K.; Bugusu, B. Food Packaging—Roles, Materials, and Environmental Issues: Scientific Status Summary. J. Food Sci. 2007, 72, R39–R55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Eygen, E.; Laner, D.; Johann, F. Circular Economy of Plastic Packaging: Current Practice and Perspectives in Austria. Waste Manag. 2018, 72, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phelan, A.; Meissner, K.; Humphrey, J.; Ross, H. Plastic Pollution and Packaging: Corporate Commitments and Actions from the Food and Beverage Sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 331, 129827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heidbreder, L.M.; Bablok, I.; Drews, S.; Menzel, C. Tackling the Plastic Problem: A Review on Perceptions, Behaviors, and Interventions. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 668, 1077–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Löhr, A.; Savelli, H.; Beunen, R.; Kalz, M.; Ragas, A.; Van Belleghem, F. Solutions for Global Marine Litter Pollution. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 28, 90–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Williams, M.; Helm, A. Waste-to-Energy Success Factors in Sweden and The United States: Analysing the Transferability of The Swedish Waste-to-Energy Model to The United States. Analyzing the Tranferability of the Swedish Waste-to-Energy Model to the United States; George Washington University: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Reuse-Rethinking Packaging; Ellen MacArthur Foundation: Isle of Wight, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Coelho, P.M.; Corona, B.; ten Klooster, R.; Worrell, E. Sustainability of Reusable Packaging–Current Situation and Trends. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. X 2020, 6, 100037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greenwood, S.; Walker, S.; Baird, H.M.; Parsons, R.; Mehl, S.; Webb, T.L.; Slark, A.T.; Ryan, A.J.; Rothman, R.H. Many Happy Returns: Combining Insights from the Environmental and Behavioural Sciences to Understand What Is Required to Make Reusable Packaging Mainstream. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 1688–1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ketelsen, M.; Janssen, M.; Hamm, U. Consumers’ Response to Environmentally-Friendly Food Packaging—A Systematic Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 120123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Testa, F.; Iovino, R.; Iraldo, F. The Circular Economy and Consumer Behaviour: The Mediating Role of Information Seeking in Buying Circular Packaging. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2020, 29, 3435–3448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van der Laan, A.Z.; Aurisicchio, M. Archetypical Consumer Roles in Closing the Loops of Resource Flows for Fast-Moving Consumer Goods. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 236, 117475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kunamaneni, S.; Jassi, S.; Hoang, D. Promoting Reuse Behaviour: Challenges and Strategies for Repeat Purchase, Low-Involvement Products. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019, 20, 253–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bashir, H.; Jørgensen, S.; Pedersen, L.J.T.; Skard, S. Experimenting with Sustainable Business Models in Fast Moving Consumer Goods. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 270, 122302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P.C. Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Odhiambo Joseph, O. Pro-Environmental Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review of Literature. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2019, 15, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Okumah, M.; Martin-Ortega, J.; Novo, P.; Chapman, P.J. Revisiting the Determinants of Pro-Environmental Behaviour to Inform Land Management Policy: A Meta-Analytic Structural Equation Model Application. Land 2020, 9, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, P.C. Information, Incentives, and Pro-environmental Consumer Behavior. J. Consum. Policy 1999, 22, 461–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hovland, C.; Janis, I.; Kelley, H. Communication and Persuasion; Yale University Press: London, UK, 1953. [Google Scholar]
- Jackson, T. Motivating Sustainable Consumption: A Review of Evidence on Consumer Behaviour and Behavioural Change: A Report to the Sustainable Development Research Network; University of Surrey, Centre for Environmental Strategy: Guildford, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Moorman, C.; Diehl, K.; Brinberg, D.; Kidwell, K. Subjective Knowledge, Search Locations, and Consumer Choice. J. Consum. Res. 2004, 31, 673–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ajzen, I.; Fishein, M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1980; p. 278. [Google Scholar]
- Wong, C.A.; Afandi, S.H.M.; Ramachandran, S.; Kunasekaran, P.; Chan, J.K.L. Conceptualizing Environmental Literacy and Factors Affecting Pro-Environmental Behaviour. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2018, 19, 128–139. [Google Scholar]
- Ajzen, I. Behavioral Interventions Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. In Action Control; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1985; pp. 11–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sniehotta, F.F.; Presseau, J.; Araújo-Soares, V. Time to Retire the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Health Psychol. Rev. 2014, 8, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reser, J.P.; Bentrupperbäumer, J.M. What and Where Are Environmental Values? Assessing the Impacts of Current Diversity of Use of “environmental” and “World Heritage” Values. J. Environ. Psychol. 2005, 25, 125–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrington, M.J.; Neville, B.A.; Whitwell, G.J. Why Ethical Consumers Don’t Walk Their Talk: Towards a Framework for Understanding the Gap Between the Ethical Purchase Intentions and Actual Buying Behaviour of Ethically Minded Consumers. Springer Pap. 2010, 97, 139–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, S.H. Awareness of Consequences and the Influence of Moral Norms on Interpersonal Behavior. Sociometry 1968, 31, 355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okumah, M.; Ankomah-Hackman, P. Applying Conditional Process Modelling to Investigate Factors Influencing the Adoption of Water Pollution Mitigation Behaviours. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 2020, 6, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Abel, T.; Guagnano, G.A.; Kalof, L. A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of Environmentalism. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 1999, 6, 81–97. [Google Scholar]
- Steg, L.; Vlek, C. Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behaviour: An Integrative Review and Research Agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fogg, B. Creating Persuasive Technologies. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology—Persuasive ’09, Claremont, CA, USA, 26–29 April 2009; p. 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niedderer, K.; Cain, R.; Clune, S.; Lockton, D.; Ludden, G. Creating Sustainable Innovation through Design for Behaviour Change; University of Wolverhampton: Wolverhampton, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Geller, S. Actively Caring for the Environment An Integration of Behaviorism and Humanism. Environ. Behav. 1995, 27, 184–195. [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]
- Grilli, G.; Curtis, J. Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behaviours: A Review of Methods and Approaches. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 135, 110039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lilley, D. Design for Sustainable Behaviour: Strategies and Perceptions. Des. Stud. 2009, 30, 704–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tang, T.; Bhamra, T. Putting Consumers First in Design for Sustainable Behaviour: A Case Study of Reducing Environmental Impacts of Cold Appliance Use. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 2012, 5, 288–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhamra, T.; Lilley, D.; Tang, T. Design for Sustainable Behaviour: Using Products to Change Consumer Behaviour. Des. J. 2011, 14, 427–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lockton, D.; Harrison, D.; Stanton, N.A. The Design with Intent Method: A Design Tool for Influencing User Behaviour. Appl. Ergon. 2010, 41, 382–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- De Medeiros, J.F.; Da Rocha, C.G.; Ribeiro, J.L.D. Design for Sustainable Behavior (DfSB): Analysis of Existing Frameworks of Behavior Change Strategies, Experts’ Assessment and Proposal for a Decision Support Diagram. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 188, 402–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Long, Y.; Ceschin, F.; Mansour, N.; Harrison, D. Product-Service Systems Applied to Reusable Packaging Systems: A Strategic Design Tool. Des. Manag. J. 2020, 15, 15–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Eval. Res. Educ. 1994, 24, 221–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tiseo, I. UK: Plastic Packaging Waste Concerns. 2017. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/813512/plastic-packaging-waste-concerns-united-kingdom-uk/ (accessed on 26 March 2021).
- Whiting, L.S. Semi-Structured Interviews: Guidance for Novice Researchers. Nurs. Stand. 2008, 22, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kallio, H.; Pietilä, A.M.; Johnson, M.; Kangasniemi, M. Systematic Methodological Review: Developing a Framework for a Qualitative Semi-Structured Interview Guide. J. Adv. Nurs. 2016, 72, 2954–2965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strauss, A.L.; Corbin, J.M. Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria. Qual. Sociol. 1990, 13, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bloor, M.; Wood, F. Theoretical Saturation; Sage Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rowlands, T.; Waddell, N.; Mckenna, B. A Pragmatic Definition of the Concept of Theoretical Saturation. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2016, 56, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guest, G.; MacQueen, K.; Namey, E. Applied Thematic Analysis; Sage Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Terry, G.; Hayfield, N.; Clarke, V.; Braun, V. Thematic Analysis; Sage Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alhojailan, M.I. Thematic Analysis: A Critical Review of Its Process and Evaluation. West East J. Soc. Sci. 2012, 1, 39–47. [Google Scholar]
- Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zachrisson, J.; Boks, C. Exploring Behavioural Psychology to Support Design for Sustainable Behaviour Research. J. Des. Res. 2012, 10, 50–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdalkrim, G.M.; Id, R.; Al-Hrezat, S. The Role of Packaging in Consumer’s Perception of Product Quality at the Point of Purchase. Eur. J. Bus. Manag. 2013, 5, 69–82. [Google Scholar]
- Beitzen-Heineke, E.F.; Balta-Ozkan, N.; Reefke, H. The Prospects of Zero-Packaging Grocery Stores to Improve the Social and Environmental Impacts of the Food Supply Chain. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 1528–1541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ma, X.; Park, C.; Moultrie, J. Factors for Eliminating Plastic in Packaging: The European FMCG Experts’ View. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 256, 120492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lofthouse, V.; Bhamra, T. APPENDIX 3—An Investigation into the Drivers and Barriers Relating to the Adoption of Refillable Packaging (WR0113: Objective 2, Deliverable for DEFRA Waste and Resources Evidence Programme); Loughborough University: Loughborough, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Lofthouse, V.; Bhamra, T.A. Refillable Packaging Systems: Design Considerations. In Proceedings of the DESIGN 2006, the 9th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 15–18 May 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Kalafatis, S.P.; Pollard, M.; East, R.; Tsogas, M.H. Green Marketing and Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Cross-Market Examination. J. Consum. Mark. 1999, 16, 441–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abrahamse, W.; Steg, L.; Vlek, C.; Rothengatter, T. A Review of Intervention Studies Aimed at Household Energy Conservation. J. Environ. Psychol. 2005, 25, 273–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, F.; Ahmed, W.; Najmi, A. Understanding Consumers’ Behavior Intentions towards Dealing with the Plastic Waste: Perspective of a Developing Country. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 142, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, H.C.; Choong, W.W.; Alwi, S.R.W.; Mohammed, A.H. Using Theory of Planned Behaviour to Explore Oil Palm Smallholder Planters’ Intention to Supply Oil Palm Residues. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 126, 428–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aboelmaged, M. E-Waste Recycling Behaviour: An Integration of Recycling Habits into the Theory of Planned Behaviour. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 124182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurtmollaiev, S.; Fjuk, A.; Pedersen, P.E.; Clatworthy, S.; Kvale, K. Organizational Transformation Through Service Design: The Institutional Logics Perspective. J. Serv. Res. 2018, 21, 59–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rosenbaum, L.F.; Kaur, J.; Abrahamson, D. Shaping Perception: Designing for Participatory Facilitation of Collaborative Geometry. Digit. Exp. Math. Educ. 2020, 6, 191–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Theory | Definition | Limitation | Attitudinal Factor |
---|---|---|---|
Persuasion Theory | Behaviour change is realised through the provision of the required information, which influences consumers’ knowledge, awareness of the consequences and attitudes [23]. |
| Knowledge—an individual’s own understanding of a subject [24,25]. |
Theory of Reasoned action | Behaviour change is influenced by the intention, moderated by attitude and subjective norm [26]. | Attitude—the degree to which a person has a favourable or unfavourable belief or evaluation of a given behaviour [26,28]. (Subjective norm and Perceived behaviour control are out of the scope of this research because it is impossible to evaluate them in a virtual evaluation) | |
Theory of Planned behaviour | Behaviour change is influenced by the intention, which is moderated by the attitude, subjective norm and perceived behaviour control [28]. | ||
Theory of Norm Activation | Behaviour change is only influenced by the personal norm, which is defined as the feelings of moral obligation that individuals have to adopt the particular behaviour [24,32]. |
| Value—something that individuals consider important [34]. |
Theory of Value-Norm-Belief | Behaviour change is triggered once the value influences the belief, which subsequently affects personal norms, the only behaviour factor determines the behaviour change [24,34]. |
|
Behaviour Factors | Aim of Applying the Strategies | Steg and Vlek [35] | Lilley [41]; Tang and Bhamra [42] | Lockton et al. [44] |
---|---|---|---|---|
Attitudinal factors | Increasing the desire | Informational strategies | Eco-information/Eco-choice/Eco-feedback | Cognitive/Error-proofing/Persuasive/Visual Security |
Attitudinal/contextual factors | Increasing the desire/Reduce the difficulties | Informational strategies/structural strategies | Eco-spur/Eco-steer | Architectural/Error-proofing/Persuasive/Visual/Security |
Contextual factors | Reduce the difficulties | Structural strategies | Eco-technology/Clever Design | Architectural/Error-proofing/Security |
Business | Description |
---|---|
Case 1 | This business is an innovative grocery store offering food products through automated dispensers. Case 1 sells liquid products such as oil and wine. Consumers can rent Case 1’s bottles for containing the products. Consumers need to operate the automated dispensers by selecting the amounts and product categories to have the products. When checking out, consumers pay extra deposits for using bottles besides payment of the actual products. When consumers finish the products, they can visit stores to return the empty bottles for a deposit refund. |
Case 2 | This business collaborates with food providers to offer food in reusable takeaway packaging to consumers on-the-go. Consumers need to firstly download Case 2’s mobile app, create an account and pay either monthly or annually for the subscription of the services. Consumers can use the mobile app to find the list of the collaborated food providers and locations. Upon arriving at the place, consumers need to find the verification codes to enter in the app. Afterward, consumers can make the payment for ordering their food and leave the place. When consumers finished the food, they need to return the empty packaging to the drop-off locations within a given time, otherwise, the business would press a financial surcharge on them. If consumers want to cancel their subscription plan, they need to email Case 2 to explain that they want to cancel the subscription. |
Case 3 | This business collaborates with the beverage providers to offer drinks in reusable cups to consumers on-the-go. Consumers need to firstly download the app and register their payment methods (No charge at this stage). Consumers can use the app to find the list of the collaborated providers and locations. Arriving at the place, consumers need to scan the QR code from the app and subsequently pay and order their drinking. When consumers finish the drink, they need to visit a designated location for returning the cups within a given time. If consumers do not return the cup on time, Case 3 will financially charge them. |
Step | Research Activities | Details of the Research Activities |
---|---|---|
Step 1 | Research preparation | The research preparation included activities such as obtainment of ethics approval, selection and visualisation of cases (The visualisation of the cases was achieved via storyboard, which refers to the sequences of illustrations about service touchpoints), development of questionnaires, pre-test the research methods, and identification and recruitment of target participants. |
Step 2 | Research protocol | Before the beginning of each interview, the research protocol, including the research purpose, research ethics, and the research process, was sent to inform the participants. |
Step 3 | First evaluation—explaining the storyboards | The visualised user experiences (Appendix A) were shown to participants, who were given a few minutes to learn how each user experience worked. Subsequently, the researcher explained each service touchpoint to ensure participants fully understood. |
Step 4 | First evaluation—participants’ evaluation | Participants were interviewed individually, and two tasks were given to participants. First, participants were asked to rate the level of their user acceptance [Strongly unacceptable (1 point), unacceptable (2 points), neutral (3 points), acceptable (4 points), and strongly acceptable (5 points)] for each case. Second, participants were asked three questions one by one: I. Which service touchpoint(s) can you not accept? II. Why are you not able to accept the service touchpoint(s)? III. What are some overall opinions you can give to each case? |
Step 5 | Analysis of the first evaluation | The data was collected by voice record and transcribed, and thematic analysis was used to evaluate the patterns of meaning underlying the textual data that led to new themes’ identification [42]. This process resulted in the identification of user acceptance issues, which included hygiene, usability, finance, and motivation. |
Step 6 | Adaption of Theory of Attitude-Behaviour-Context | In order to better understand the user acceptance issues, the adapted Theory of Attitude-Behaviour-Context was applied to allocate these four issues based on attitudinal and contextual factors. Consequently, the findings offered a better understanding of why participants could not accept these three cases. |
Step 7 | Application of the behaviour change strategies | The behaviour change strategies were applied to address these user acceptance issues and refine the user experience. |
Step 8 | Second and third evaluation | The same research process was applied to the second and third evaluation. Since this research implemented an iterative evaluation and refinement process, the refined user experiences were evaluated two more times with different groups of participants in three evaluations. The principle of theoretical saturation was applied. In total, this research recruited 12 participants for the first evaluation, 15 participants for the second, and 15 participants for the third. |
Step 9 | Developing the design recommendations | The discussion was encouraged not only to generalise the research results but also to suggest what design recommendations could be applied by packaging professionals to design RPSs. |
Strongly Unacceptable (1) | Unacceptable (2) | Neutral (3) | Acceptable (4) | Strongly Acceptable (4) | Avg | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
First evaluation | ||||||
Case 1 | 1 (8.33%) | 3 (25%) | 7 (58.33%) | 1 (8.33%) | 2.67 | |
Case 2 | 6 (50%) | 4 (33.33%) | 1 (8.33%) | 1 (8.33%) | 1.75 | |
Case 3 | 1 (8.33%) | 8 (66.67%) | 2 (16.66%) | 1 (8.33%) | 2.25 | |
Second evaluation | ||||||
Case 1 | 1 (6.67%) | 4 (26.67%) | 8 (53.33%) | 2 (13.33%) | 3.73 | |
Case 2 | 1 (6.67%) | 4 (26.67%) | 3 (20.00%) | 6 (40.00%) | 1 (6.67%) | 3.13 |
Case 3 | 1 (6.67%) | 2 (13.33%) | 5 (33.33%) | 7 (46.67%) | 4.20 | |
Third evaluation | ||||||
Case 1 | 1 (6.67%) | 2 (13.33%) | 6 (40.00%) | 6 (40.00%) | 4.13 | |
Case 2 | 2 (13.33%) | 1 (6.67%) | 6 (40.00%) | 6 (40.00%) | 4.07 | |
Case 3 | 2 (13.33%) | 7 (46.67%) | 6 (40.00%) | 4.27 |
Hygiene | Usability | Finance | Motivation | |
---|---|---|---|---|
First evaluation (12 participants) | ||||
Case 1 | 4 | 10 | 3 | N/A |
Case 2 | 3 | 12 | 7 | 6 |
Case 3 | 4 | 10 | 5 | N/A |
Second evaluation (15 participants) | ||||
Case 1 | 10 | 4 | N/A | 3 |
Case 2 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 7 |
Case 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
Third evaluation (15 participants) | ||||
Case 1 | 3 | 3 | N/A | N/A |
Case 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | N/A |
Case 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | N/A |
Issues: Themes Are in the Backets and Codes Come after the Hyphen | Behaviour Change Strategies: Details of the Behaviour Change Strategies in the Brackets | Aim |
---|---|---|
C1HK/C2HK/C3HK: (Consumers’ perception of the hygiene/Consumers’ biased of the hygiene of reusable packaging/Lack of the understanding of the washing process) | 1. Cognitive lens: C1HK(printing texts on the surface of the box to inform consumers that all bottles are sterilized and also to inform other consumers not to touch it); C2HK (the texts on the collection box inform consumers that this is commercial wash); C3HK (the texts in the picture on the wall where consumers can see when they are to purchasing the coffee inform that reusable packaging is same hygienic as what consumers are used to have) 2. Visual lens: C1HK (putting two graphic images meaning no bacteria and no touch at the end of each sentence); C2HK (graphic illustration of how packaging is washed and circulated across different stakeholders was given next to commercial wash); C3HK (the picture of hand wash was given next to texts to inform the quality washing) | 1. To persuade consumers the packaging is hygienic 2. To explain that the packaging is bacteria-free and warn other consumers not to touch it. |
C1HF: (The hygiene of use context)—Bottles on the table could be a hygienic concern | Error-proofing lens: using box to contain bottles on the table | To establish a physical barrier to prevent other consumers to touch the bottles |
C1FA: (Consumers’ perception of paying deposits)—Feeling of deposit leads to more costs/Paying deposit is an issue/Paying deposits seems financially risky/Paying deposits seems a lack of transparency | 1. Architectural lens: adding an information board in front of the table to explain the gravity of the plastic crisis 2. Visual lens: using graphic image to implicate that purchasing Case 1 equals multiple purchasing of single-use packaging | 1. To increase consumers’ environmental awareness and trigger purchasing intention 2. To highlight the importance of adopting Case 1 which could encourage consumers to overcome obstacles |
C2FA: (Consumers regarding payment plan as financial discomfort)—Subscription seems financial risky/Dislike to pay for subscription/Financial stress in using the service | 1. Eco-choice: enabling consumers another payment option which is pay-as-you-go. 2. Cognitive lens: adding textual and graphic information on the payment pages of mobile app to highlight the security and flexibility of the payment. 3. Persuasive lens: adding an extra reminder through app when there is within 24 h to return the packaging. | 1. To offer an option that consumers can accept easily 2. To make it very clear that the payment system is reliable and no pressure to stay in the service 3. To ensure consumers return the packaging on time for avoiding extra charge |
C3FK: (Consumers regarding payment plan as financial discomfort)—Sharing financial details seems risky | Cognitive lens: adding textual guarantee on the mobile app page when consumers are about to register bank account details | To influence consumers’ decision-making process and make it very clear that companies will not charge consumers for no reason. |
C1FP: (Consumers’ perception of paying deposits)—Relatively expensive deposit/Charging consumers’ deposit is hard | Informational strategy: using interrogative and personified sentences to underline that the deposit is fully refundable | To assure consumers that they are not paying more because the deposits are refundable. |
C3FP: (Consumers regarding payment plan as financial discomfort)—Unreturned packaging is financially risky | 1. Structural strategy: increasing the availabilities of the drop-off locations 2. Eco-spur: establishing the reward mechanism for consumers to buy four drinks getting one for free on the main app page. 3. Eco-technical: enabling collection machine to have the function to issue receipt when consumers returned the packaging | 1. To make it more convenient by facilitating consumers to return the packaging. 2. To incentivize consumers to return the packaging and repeat the purchase. Therefore, they have to return packaging on time. 3. To reduce consumers’ concern regarding inaccurate defection of returning packaging |
C2MV: (Consumers’ motivation in adopting the services/Consumers lack the motivation in paying for environmental protection) | Architectural lens: merging first five mobile pages into one page and removing pages related to provide their personal information. | To make it more convenient by simplifying the service touchpoints in the user journey |
C1UF/C2UF/C3UF: (Consumers’ access to the drop-off locations/Returning the empty packaging) | Structural strategy: increasing the availabilities of the drop-off locations | To make it more convenient for facilitating consumers to return the packaging |
C1UP: (Consumers’ understanding of the use instruction of the service) | Eco-choice: putting a bundle of leaflets about how the system works on the table for consumers to take and read | To offer a less stressful way to understand how the system works |
C2UP: (Consumers’ feeling of inconvenience in adopting particular service touchpoints) I. Consumers could feel difficulties regarding entering code to verify the consumers identifies. II. Consumers may not like to cancel subscription service via email. III. Consumers could feel sign-up process too complicated | 1. Eco-steer (addressing I): replacing entering code for verifying consumers identifies by scanning QR code for verification 2. Eco-steer (addressing II): adding a function on mobile page for consumers to cancel their subscription 3. Architectural lens (addressing III): removing the unnecessary service touchpoints | 1. To encourage consumers to adopt the service by facilitating the verification process 2. To reduce consumers’ financial stress by enabling them to cancel the subscription directly. 3. To make it more convenient by simplifying the service touchpoints in the user journey |
Issues: Themes Are in the Backets and Codes Come after the Hyphen | Behaviour Change Strategy: Details of the Behaviour Change Strategies in the Brackets | Aim |
---|---|---|
C1HK: (Consumers’ biased of the hygiene of reusable packaging/Lack of the understanding of the washing process/The effectiveness of persuasion from business) | 1. Architectural lens: requiring staff to sanitize the bottles in front of consumers. 2. Persuasive lens: implementing a digital screen to show the live demonstration of the washing process 3. Visual lens: playing some auditory sounds along with the video to inform consumers that the washing process has credential certificate (e.g., bacteria-free proved by NHS) | 1. To show consumers that the hygienic issues are fully considered. 2. To show the fact for those who concern what is the washing process. 3. To persuade consumers that the washing process is high standard. |
C2HK: (The effectiveness of persuasion from business) | Persuasive lens: implementing a digital screen to show consumers the live demonstration of the washing process | To show the fact for those who concern what is the washing process. |
C1HF: (The hygiene of use context)—Cannot control others’ behaviour/Concern packaging touched by other people | Error-proofing lens: removing bottles on the table to a cupboard that only staff can access. | To prevent the potential cross-contamination by disenabling other consumers to touch the bottles. |
C2HF: (The hygiene of use context)—Seeing a disgusting scene is negative/Cleaning service gap/Cannot control others’ behaviour | 1. Error-proofing lens: redesigning the collection box to require consumers to insert empty packaging to a hole so that they will not see the inside of the box 2. Architectural lens: adding an extra food waste bin in which consumers can dispose their unfinished food. | 1. To prevent consumers from seeing the inside of the box therefore consumers won’t be triggered to concern the hygienic issues. 2. To facilitate consumers to bin the unfinished food in order to avoid food waste in the collection box. |
C2FA: (Consumers’ perception of pre-paid services)—Competitors give a free try first/Desire to better understand the quality of the service/Unsure whether like the service or not before paying for it | Eco-choice: giving consumers the option of free trial in the page of selecting | To offer an option consumers can experience the service first therefore they can accept it easily. |
C1MV/C2MV: (Consumers’ motivation in adopting the services) | Eco-spur: C1MV (creating an incentive that is to give a voucher for consumers who use this service 4 times); C2MV (creating an incentive to give a free takeaway for those who use this service four times and also give them a sense of achievement by giving them titles of the reuse.) | To reward consumers’ adoption by offering the benefits that are directly relevant to them. Therefore, it can motivate consumers to adopt the service |
C1UP: (Consumers’ understanding of the service) | Architectural lens: employing staff near the equipment who can explain how the service works and answering questions. | To offer a service that is more responsive and interactive that consumers can accept more easily. |
Key Characteristics | |
---|---|
Case 1 | Consumers visit the providers/pay per refill service/consumers pay deposits/consumers return the empty packaging |
Case 2 | Consumers visit the providers/pay for subscription for packaging service/consumers may be charged for deposits/consumers return the empty packaging |
Case 3 | Consumers visit the providers/pay per refill service/consumers may be charged for deposits/consumers return the empty packaging |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Long, Y.; Ceschin, F.; Harrison, D.; Terzioğlu, N. Exploring and Addressing the User Acceptance Issues Embedded in the Adoption of Reusable Packaging Systems. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6146. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106146
Long Y, Ceschin F, Harrison D, Terzioğlu N. Exploring and Addressing the User Acceptance Issues Embedded in the Adoption of Reusable Packaging Systems. Sustainability. 2022; 14(10):6146. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106146
Chicago/Turabian StyleLong, Yuan, Fabrizio Ceschin, David Harrison, and Nazlı Terzioğlu. 2022. "Exploring and Addressing the User Acceptance Issues Embedded in the Adoption of Reusable Packaging Systems" Sustainability 14, no. 10: 6146. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106146
APA StyleLong, Y., Ceschin, F., Harrison, D., & Terzioğlu, N. (2022). Exploring and Addressing the User Acceptance Issues Embedded in the Adoption of Reusable Packaging Systems. Sustainability, 14(10), 6146. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106146