Model to Evaluate Pro-Environmental Consumer Practices
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
The Fuzzy Model Used to Identify the Pro-Environmental Consumer Behavior Profiles
- Fuzzification: This interface to each input variable is assigned a grade of membership (or membership function) to each of the fuzzy sets that have been considered.
- Knowledge base: the membership functions define of fuzzy sets used in Fuzzy rules and establish a link logic between the degrees of membership of the different input variables.
- Inference engine: consists in quantifying each premise, which is the application of the fuzzy operator (AND) in the antecedent and active the rules that are the application of the method of involvement or the conclusion of the rule. In this case, the method used is inference from Takagi-Sugeno.
- Defuzzification, consists in passing the grade of membership, coming from consequence of the inference rule, to an actual value.
3. Results
3.1. Consumer Pro-Environmental Behavior
3.2. Consumer Profiles Based on 3Rs Practices
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
- If (X1 is IP) and (X2 is S) and (X3 is B) and (X4 is GA) and (X5 is M40) and (X6 is S), thenY1 = 0.1474 × X1 − 0.121 × X2 − 1.357 × X3 + 0.1782 × X4 − 0.1953 × X5 − 1.208 × X6 + 3.762Y2 = 0.3027 × X1 + 0.1333 × X2 − 1.336 × X3 + 0.4211 × X4 − 0.01914 × X5 + 0.5016 × X6 + 1.45Y3 = 0.1268 × X1 + 0.03734 × X2 − 0.4666 × X3 + 0.1567 × X4 + 0.03573 × X5 − 0.1064 × X6 + 3.125
- If (X1 is P) and (X2 is Pre) and (X3 is M) and (X4 is GA) and (X5 is M40) and (X6 is E), thenY1 = 0.1268 × X1 + 0.03734 × X2 − 0.4666 × X3 + 0.1567 × X4 + 0.03573 × X5 − 0.1064 × X6 + 3.125Y2 = − 0.04091 × X1 − 0.03209 × X2 − 0.05068 × X3 − 0.0494 × X4 − 0.1112 × X5 + 0.5325 × X6 + 1.812Y3 = − 0.01634 × X1 + 0.1287 × X2 − 0.1379 × X3 + 0.09919 × X4 − 0.2026 × X5 + 0.5535 × X6 + 0.5859
- If (X1 is P) and (X2 is Pre) and (X3 is M) and (X4 is GA) and (X5 is A) and (X6 is S), thenY1 = 0.2811 × X1 − 1.111 × X2 − 1.92 × X3 + 0.01461 × X4 − 0.3293 × X5 + 1.302 × X6 + 8.425Y2 = 0.2793 × X1 − 0.681 × X2 − 0.8567 × X3 + 0.0983 × X4 − 0.1781 × X5 + 0.5819 × X6 + 5.521Y3 = 0.1648 × X1 − 0.4863 × X2 − 0.7554 × X3 + 0.08676 × X4 − 0.06143 × X5 − 0.8528 × X6 + 6.334
- If (X1 is P) and (X2 is Pro) and (X3 is A) and (X4 is GT) and (X5 is A) and (X6 is P), thenY1 = 0.002238 × X1 + 0.1278 × X2 − 0.09034 × X3 − 0.1572 × X4 − 0.01485 × X5 + 0.4349 × X6 + 0.9447Y2 = 0.05187 × X1 + 0.01945 × X2 + 0.183 × X3 − 0.7169 × X4 + 0.02324 × X5 + 0.5918 × X6 + 0.4082Y3 = 0.0839 × X1 + 0.02264 × X2 + 0.1095 × X3 − 0.2175 × X4 + 0.02366 × X5 + 0.2687 × X6 + 2.197
- If (X1 is Pre) and (X2 is P) and (X3 is B) and (X4 is I) and (X5 is M) and (X6 is S), thenY1 = 0.3091 × X1 + 0.04351 × X2 − 0.3382 × X3 − 0.1807 × X4 + 0.1641 × X5 + 0.1161 × X6 + 0.1156Y2 = −0.1811 × X1 − 0.5693 × X2 − 0.6107 × X3 + 0.1079 × X4 + 0.648 × X5 + 0.2133 × X6 + 0.8821Y3 = 0.5899 × X1 + 0.2088 × X2 − 0.1664 × X3 − 0.1625 × X4 − 0.1494 × X5 + 0.05849 × X6 + 0.4912
- If (X1 is RM) and (X2 is Pro) and (X3 is A) and (X4 is GA) and (X5 is A) and (X6 is S), thenY1 = 0.2786 × X1 − 0.7009 × X2 − 2.363 × X3 + 0.003252 × X4 + 0.06166 × X5 + 0.2852 × X6 + 12.3Y2 = 0.213 × X1 − 0.5956 × X2 − 1.671 × X3 − 0.01695 × X4 + 0.08459 × X5 + 0.258 × X6 + 9.525Y3 = 0.1629 × X1 − 0.2864 × X2 − 1.465 × X3 + 0.03504 × X4 − 0.04136 × X5 − 0.09205 × X6 + 9.379
- If (X1 is IP) and (X2 is S) and (X3 is B) and (X4 is GT) and (X5 is M40) and (X6 is E), thenY1 = 0.003945 × X1 − 0.009379 × X2 + 0.5911 × X3 + 0.4329 × X5 + 0.0337 × X6 − 0.421Y2 = 0.02499 × X1 − 0.0855 × X2 + 0.125 × X3 − 0.06745 × X4 + 0.003295 × X5 − 0.2303 × X6 + 3.111Y3 = −0.02816 × X1 − 0.2127 × X2 + 0.2183 × X3 − 0.0218 × X4 − 0.07135 × X5 − 0.06195 × X6 + 4.051
- If (X1 is P) and (X2 is P) and (X3 is B) and (X4 is I) and (X5 is M60) and (X6 is S), thenY1 = 0.0001317 × X1 − 0.4063 × X2 + 0.2872 × X3 + 0.1214 × X4 − 0.1505 × X5 − 0.02262 × X6 + 3.13Y2 = 0.3027 × X1 + 0.1333 × X2 − 1.336 × X3 + 0.4211 × X4 − 0.01914 × X5 + 0.5016 × X6 + 1.45Y3 = 0.6292 × X1 − 0.1786 × X2 + 0.07931 × X3 + 0.08387 × X4 − 0.2827 × X5 − 0.03024 × X6 + 4.18
- If (X1 is P) and (X2 is Pro) and (X3 is A) and (X4 is I) and (X5 is A) and (X6 is P), thenY1 = 0.1079 × X1 − 0.01794 × X2 − 0.07268 × X3 − 0.1329 × X4 + 0.03055 × X5 − 0.5873 × X6 + 4.378Y2 = −0.09826 × X1 − 0.218 × X2 − 0.269 × X3 − 0.8943 × X4 + 0.03092 × X5 − 0.8447 × X6 + 9.629Y3 = −0.04441 × X1 − 0.01798 × X2 − 0.008708 × X3 − 0.145 × X4 − 0.07247 × X5 − 0.8903 × X6 + 6.975
- If (X1 is G) and (X2 is S) and (X3 is B) and (X4 is I) and (X5 is M40) and (X6 is S), thenY1 = −0.162 × X1 − 0.07227 × X2 + 0.2649 × X3 + 0.05955 × X4 + 0.4396 × X5 − 0.1693 × X6 + 2.423Y2 = 0.688 × X1 − 0.5726 × X2 + 0.2067 × X3 + 0.6266 × X4 + 0.6097 × X5 − 0.1294 × X6 − 2.915Y3 = 0.4778 × X1 − 0.1189 × X2 + 0.02576 × X3 − 0.003127 × X4 + 0.1928 × X5 + 0.003384 × X6 + 0.3703
Sets | Variable | Simbology | Values |
---|---|---|---|
Inputs | Social stratum | X1 | RM (Residential/Medium) IP (Social interest/Popular) P (Popular Progressive) Pre (Precaroius) G (Farms) |
Education level | X2 | P (Elementary) S (Middle School) Pre (High School) Pro (Professional) | |
Monthly income | X3 | B (<539 USD) M (>539 and <920 USD) A (> 920 USD) | |
Affiliations | X4 | GA (Friends group) GT (Workgroup) I (Church Group) | |
Age | X5 | M40 (<40) A (>40 and <50) M (>50 and <60) M60 (>60) | |
Occupation | X6 | S (Student) E (Employee) P (Professional) | |
Outputs | Reduction | Y1 | |
Reuse | Y2 | ||
Recycling | Y3 |
References
- Afroz, R.; Masud, M.M. Using a contingent valuation approach for improved solid waste management facility: Evidence from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 800–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barr, S.; Gilg, A.W. Conceptualizing and analyzing household attitudes and actions to a growing environmental problem. Development and application of a framework to guide local waste policy. Appl. Geogr. 2005, 25, 226–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Troschinetz, A.M.; Mihelcic, J.R. Sustainable recycling of municipal solid waste in developing countries. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 915–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tadesse, T. Environmental concern and its implication to household waste separation and disposal: Evidence from Mekelle, Ethiopia. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 2009, 53, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurisu, K.H.; Bortoleto, A.P. Comparison of waste prevention behaviors among three Japanese megacity regions in the context of local measures and socio-demographics. Waste Manag. 2011, 3, 1441–1449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Purcell, M.; Magette, W.L. Attitudes and behavior towards waste management in the Dublin, Ireland. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 1997–2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Coelho, T.; Castro, R.; Gobbo, J.A. PET containers in Brazil: Opportunities and challenges of a logistics model for post-consumer waste recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 2011, 55, 291–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karani, P.; Jewasikiewitz, S.M. Waste Management and Sustainable Development in South Africa. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2006, 9, 163–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohan, N.; Selladurai, V.; Santhi, P. Unsustainable development to sustainable development: A conceptual model. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2006, 17, 654–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yau, Y. Domestic waste recycling, collective action and economic incentive: The case in Hong Kong. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 2440–2447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tonglet, M.; Phillips, P.; Bates, M. Determining the drivers for householder pro-environmental behavior: Waste minimization compared to recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 2004, 42, 27–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salhofer, S.; Obersteiner, G.; Schneider, F.; Lebersorger, S. Potentials for the prevention of municipal solid waste. Waste Manag. 2008, 28, 245–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, J.; Han, L.; Li, S. The collection system for residential recyclables in communities in Haidian District, Beijing: A possible approach for China recycling. Waste Manag. 2008, 28, 1672–1680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Prestin, A.; Pearce, K.E. We care a lot: Formative research for a social marketing campaign to promote school-based recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 2010, 54, 1017–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schoot, B.J.; Azadi, H.; Ho, P. Sustainable recycling model: A comparative analysis between India and Tanzania. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 2011, 55, 344–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.; Paik, H.S. Korean household waste management and recycling behavior. Build. Environ. 2011, 46, 1159–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cândido, L.; Kindlein, W.; Demori, R.; Carli, L.; Mauler, R.; Oliveira, R. The recycling cycle of materials as a design project tool. J. Clean Prod. 2011, 19, 1438–1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ekere, W.; Mugisha, J.; Drake, L. Factors influencing waste separation and utilization among households in the Lake Victoria crescent, Uganda. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 3047–3051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Muñoz-Cadena, C.E.; Arenas-Huertero, F.J.; Ramón-Gallegos, E. Comparative analysis of the street generation of inorganic urban solid waste (IUSW) in two neighborhoods of Mexico City. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 1167–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kaseva, M.E.; Mbuligwe, S.E. Appraisal of solid waste collection following private sector involvement in Dar es Salaam city, Tanzania. Habitat Int. 2005, 29, 353–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suttibak, S.; Nitivattananon, V. Assessment of factors influencing the performance of solid waste recycling programs. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 2008, 53, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolaane, B. Instruments for sustainable solid waste management in Botswana. Waste Manag. Res. 2004, 22, 342–353. [Google Scholar]
- Karagiannidis, A.; Xirogiannopoulou, A.; Moussiopoulos, N. On the effect of demographic characteristics on the formulation of solid waste charging policy. Waste Manag. 2006, 26, 110–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vincente, P.; Reis, E. Segmenting households according to recycling attitudes in a Portuguese urban area. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 2007, 52, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI). Population and Housing Count 2010. Available online: http://www3.inegi.org.mx/sistemas/iter/entidad_indicador.aspx?ev=5 (accessed on 19 September 2016).
- Sugeno, M.; Kang, G.T. Structure identification of fuzzy model. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1988, 28, 15–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lazarevic, D.; Aoustin, E.; Buclet, N.; Brandt, N. Plastic waste management in the context of a European recycling society: Comparing results and uncertainties in a life cycle perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 2010, 55, 246–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barr, S.; Gilg, A.W.; Ford, N. Defining the multi-dimensional aspects of household waste management: A study of reported behavior in Devon. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 2005, 45, 172–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhuang, Y.; Wu, S.W.; Wang, Y.L.; Wu, W.X.; Chen, Y.X. Source separation of household waste: A case study in China. Waste Manag. 2008, 28, 2022–2030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Martin, M.; Williams, I.D.; Clark, M. Social, cultural and structural influences on household waste recycling: A case study. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 2006, 48, 357–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, E.J. Life cycle inventory for municipal solid waste management. Waste Manag. Res. 2002, 20, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelly, T.C.; Mason, I.G.; Leiss, M.W.; Ganesh, S. University community responses to on-campus resource recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 2006, 47, 42–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansmann, R.; Bernasconi, P.; Smieszek, T.; Loukopoulos, P.; Scholz, R.W. Justifications and self-organization as determinants of recycling behavior: The case of used batteries. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 2006, 47, 133–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, J.; Saijo, T. Reexamining the relations between socio-demographic characteristics and individual environmental concern: Evidence from Shanghai data. J. Environ. Psychol. 2008, 28, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Babaei, A.A.; Alavi, N.; Goudarzi, G.; Teymouri, P.; Ahmadi, K.; Rafiee, M. Household recycling knowledge, attitudes and practices towards solid waste management. Resour. Conserv. Recy. 2015, 102, 94–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zen, I.S.; Noor, Z.Z.; Yusuf, R.O. The profiles of household solid waste recyclers and non-recyclers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Habitat Int. 2014, 42, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acar, M.; Avci, D. An Adaptive Network-Based Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) for the prediction of stock market return: The case of the Istanbul Stock Exchange. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 7908–7912. [Google Scholar]
- Rahmanian, B.; Pakizeh, M.; Ali, S.; Mansoori, A.; Esfandyari, M.; Jafari, D.; Maddah, H.; Maskooki, A. Prediction of MEUF process performance using artificial neural networks and ANFIS approaches. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2012, 43, 558–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Signh, R.; Kainthola, A.; Singh, T.N. Estimation of elastic constant of rocks using an ANFIS approach. Appl. Soft Comput. J. 2012, 12, 40–45. [Google Scholar]
- Sadiq, R.; Husain, T. A fuzzy-based methodology for an aggregative environmental risk assessment: A case study of drilling waste. Environ. Model. Softw. 2005, 20, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vesely, S.; Klöckner, C.A.; Dohnal, M. Predicting recycling behaviour: Comparison of a linear regression model and a fuzzy logic model. Waste Manag. 2016, 49, 530–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Caniani, D.; Lioi, D.S.; Mancini, I.M.; Masi, S. Application of fuzzy logic and sensitivity analysis for soil contamination hazard classification. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 583–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Stratum | Definition |
---|---|
Residential | In this stratum, housing is a single-family home, the entries are framed by large gates with gardens, their roads are wide, the green areas are forested and in constant maintenance; for remodeling facades, these residences have internal rules to preserve the architectural style, range of colors and building materials. These are houses from 300 to 450 m²; the number of lots per hectare is 13 to 19. |
Medium | The type of housing that corresponds to this stratum is also a single-family home; commercial and/or service areas are not allowed. These houses measure 225 m² in size; the number of lots per hectare is 26. |
Popular | Predominantly single-family homes, allowing commercial and/or service areas in 10% of the total salable surface. The ceilings are manufactured of lightweight materials. The houses are 180 m², and 32 lots exist per hectare. |
Social interest | The predominant use is single-family homes with one parking place; 15% of the total surface is salable for commercial areas. These houses are 120 m² with 48 lots per hectare. |
Popular progressive | These houses have the same characteristics as those of Social Interest. The houses are implemented progressively through an introductory program of services and housing construction, including finished houses (with the house footer) and economic prototypes with insulating materials. |
Precarious | These spaces contain illegal dumping along the margins of dirt roads, abandoned drains, and large vacant lots that are located in the periphery of the city. |
Farms | These lots contain residential use and are located outside the urban area with a maximum density of five houses per hectare. |
INPUT Variables | Simbology | Description |
---|---|---|
Social Stratum | X1 | Residential Medium Popular Social interest Popular progressive Precarious Farms |
Age | X2 | Less than 30 years Between 30 and 50 years Less than 60 years Older than 60 years |
Monthly Income | X3 | Less than $539.00 $540.00–$920.00 More than $921.00 |
Education | X4 | Elementary school Middle Professional |
Occupation | X5 | Students Employees Professionals |
Affiliation | X6 | Workgroup Group of friends Scientific associations Church |
OUTPUT Variables Pro-Environmental 3Rs Practices | Simbology |
---|---|
Reduce | Y1 |
Reuse | Y2 |
Recycle | Y3 |
Statistical Variables | Reduce | Reuse | Recycle |
---|---|---|---|
Mean | 2.16 | 2.54 | 3.22 |
Median | 2.20 | 2.33 | 3.25 |
Standard Deviation | 0.733 | 0.801 | 0.454 |
Variance | 0.537 | 0.642 | 0.206 |
Skewness | 0.405 | 0.245 | –0.177 |
Kurtosis | 0.004 | 0.299 | 0.590 |
n = 2830 | Reduction | Reuse | Recycle |
---|---|---|---|
Reduction | 1 | ||
Reuse | 0.432 ** | 1 | |
Recycle | 0.306 ** | 0.301 ** | 1 |
Consumer Level | Reduction | Reuse | Recycle |
---|---|---|---|
Performed | 68% | 51.7% | 1.7% |
Indifferent | 28.3% | 36.1% | 53.8% |
Not performed | 3.7% | 12.2% | 44.5% |
Pro-Environmental Practices | Behavior Profiles | ||
---|---|---|---|
Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 | |
Reduce | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Reuse | 2 | 3 | 3 |
Recycle | 3 | 3 | 1 |
Level | Cluster | Definition |
---|---|---|
Concerned | 1 | A consumer who is concerned about conservation of the environment and performs reduce and reuse practices. Prone to developing the recycling practice. |
Indifferent | 2 | A consumer whose performance is indifferent with respect to caring for the environment such that they demonstrate this attitude when dealing with the practice of reuse and recycling (occasionally). |
Not concerned | 3 | A consumer who considers a reduction in consumption but is indifferent to the notion of product reuse. Additionally, the consumer’s attitude toward recycling is passive. |
Environmental Behavior | Percentage |
---|---|
Concerned | 35.4% |
Indifferent | 36.4% |
Not concerned | 28.2% |
Socio-Demographic Characteristics | Environmental Behavior Profiles | ||
---|---|---|---|
Concerned | Indifferent | Not concerned | |
Socioeconomic stratum (type of housing ) | Residential, medium, popular, social interest, popular progressive, precarious | Popular | Social interest and farms |
Education level | Elementary school, middle school and professional | High school and Professional | Elementary school and middle school |
Monthly income | Less than $540.00 and more than $921.00 | More than $540.00 | Less than $540.00 |
Affiliations | Group of friends, scientific associations and church | Work group and friends | Work group and church |
Age | Less than 60 years | Between 30 and 50 years | Less than 30 and older than 60 years |
Occupation | None, lecturer and professionals | None, employees and students |
© 2017 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
Aguilar-Salinas, W.; Ojeda-Benitez, S.; Cruz-Sotelo, S.E.; Castro-Rodríguez, J.R. Model to Evaluate Pro-Environmental Consumer Practices. Environments 2017, 4, 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments4010011
Aguilar-Salinas W, Ojeda-Benitez S, Cruz-Sotelo SE, Castro-Rodríguez JR. Model to Evaluate Pro-Environmental Consumer Practices. Environments. 2017; 4(1):11. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments4010011
Chicago/Turabian StyleAguilar-Salinas, Wendolyn, Sara Ojeda-Benitez, Samantha E. Cruz-Sotelo, and Juan Ramón Castro-Rodríguez. 2017. "Model to Evaluate Pro-Environmental Consumer Practices" Environments 4, no. 1: 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments4010011
APA StyleAguilar-Salinas, W., Ojeda-Benitez, S., Cruz-Sotelo, S. E., & Castro-Rodríguez, J. R. (2017). Model to Evaluate Pro-Environmental Consumer Practices. Environments, 4(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments4010011