ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES AND CONSUMER PREFERENCE FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY-FRIENDLY BEVERAGE PACKAGING: THE ROLE OF INFORMATION PROVISION AND IDENTITY LABELING IN INFLUENCING CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

doi:10.15302/J-FASE-2022478

Front. Agr. Sci. Eng.

2023, Vol. 10

Issue (1) : 95-108 https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FASE-2022478

RESEARCH ARTICLE

ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES AND CONSUMER PREFERENCE FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY-FRIENDLY BEVERAGE PACKAGING: THE ROLE OF INFORMATION PROVISION AND IDENTITY LABELING IN INFLUENCING CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

Yingchen XU^1,²(

), Patrick S. WARD^1,²

¹. Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
². Duke Kunshan University, Kunshan 215316, China

Download: PDF(2288 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

● Consumer preference for environmentally-friendly beverage packaging was investigated.

● Consumers are willing to pay a premium for post-consumer recycled materials.

● Environmental information and green identity labels have synergistic effect on consumer willingness to pay.

● Product unit size seems irrelevant in most consumer decisions.

This study examined whether urban Chinese consumers with stronger environmental values have higher valuations for plastic beverage bottles that are made of post-consumer recycled material (rPET) or that come in large sizes that use plastic more efficiently. It also assesses the effectiveness of environmental information provision and green identity labeling in increasing consumer willingness to pay for environmentally-friendly packaging. The results suggest that urban Chinese consumers are willing to pay a premium for rPET bottles, indicating that there is a potential market for rPET food and beverage packaging in China that calls for manufacturing guidelines, safety standards, or regulations. Providing environmental information and attaching green identity labels increases consumer valuations of rPET bottles, with their joint use exerting the largest effect. Pro-environmental consumers are more responsive to environmental information and green identity labeling and thus are willing to pay a higher premium for rPET bottles. However, in terms of choosing large bottles as a means to reduce plastic use in product packaging, consumers were found to be indifferent about plastic bottle sizes even after receiving environmental information. It is suggested that the inconvenience of carrying or storing large bottles might have offset their perceived environmental benefits.

Keywords China consumer preference food and beverage packaging green identity label information treatment plastics

Corresponding Author(s): Yingchen XU

Just Accepted Date: 22 December 2022 Online First Date: 09 February 2023 Issue Date: 03 April 2023

Cite this article:

Yingchen XU,Patrick S. WARD. ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES AND CONSUMER PREFERENCE FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY-FRIENDLY BEVERAGE PACKAGING: THE ROLE OF INFORMATION PROVISION AND IDENTITY LABELING IN INFLUENCING CONSUMER BEHAVIOR[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2023, 10(1): 95-108.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/10.15302/J-FASE-2022478
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/Y2023/V10/I1/95

Tab.1 Attributes and levels used in experimental design

Tab.2 Example choice set

Tab.3 Treatment group assignment

Tab.4 rPET bottles with and without green identity label

Variable	T1 = Control	T2 = Green label	T3 = rPET info	T4 = rPET info + Green label	T5 = Size info	T6 = Size info + Green label	T7 = Both info	T8 = Both info + Green label	Overall
Gender
Male	38.03	32.05	45.57	32.50	46.84	29.89	35.71	38.16	37.22
Female	61.97	67.95	54.43	67.50	53.16	70.11	64.29	61.84	62.78
X² = 11.5, df = 7, P = 0.12
Age (years)
18–24	25.35	16.67	22.78	22.50	25.32	18.39	25.00	23.68	22.40
25–34	47.89	52.56	43.04	41.25	46.84	54.02	45.24	57.89	48.58
35–44	22.54	21.79	25.32	21.25	18.99	20.69	23.81	11.84	20.82
> 45	4.23	8.97	8.86	15.00	8.86	6.90	5.95	6.58	8.20
X² = 22.65, df = 21, P = 0.36
Marital status
Married	64.79	73.08	67.09	68.75	65.82	72.41	66.67	56.58	67.03
Single/separated/ divorced	35.21	26.92	32.91	31.25	34.18	27.59	33.33	43.42	32.97
X² = 8.32, df = 7, P = 0.31
Educational attainment
High school or below	4.23	5.13	8.86	6.25	7.59	4.60	14.29	6.58	7.26
Three-year college/diploma	11.27	16.67	16.46	17.50	11.39	19.54	8.33	14.47	14.51
Undergraduate	73.24	71.79	64.56	65.00	62.03	64.37	63.10	64.47	65.93
Graduate	11.27	6.41	10.13	11.25	18.99	11.49	14.29	14.47	12.30
X² = 26.90, df = 21, P = 0.17
Number of adults in the household
1 or 2	33.80	47.44	43.04	33.75	37.97	45.98	41.67	35.53	40.06
3	30.99	25.64	26.58	35.00	29.11	32.18	25.00	23.68	28.55
4	25.35	19.23	20.25	23.75	21.52	14.94	27.38	28.95	22.56
5 or more	9.86	7.69	10.13	7.50	11.39	6.90	5.95	11.84	8.83
X² = 19.28, df = 21, P = 0.57
Number of children under 18 in the household
0	19.72	28.21	24.05	33.75	27.85	25.29	26.19	26.32	26.50
1	63.38	61.54	56.96	52.50	58.23	60.92	58.33	48.68	57.57
2 or more	16.90	10.26	18.99	13.75	13.92	13.79	15.48	25.00	15.93
X² = 15.73, df = 14, P = 0.33
Monthly household income (RMB)
≤ 7000	7.04	6.41	11.39	6.25	11.39	12.64	13.10	9.21	9.78
7001–11,000	16.90	12.82	15.19	13.75	17.72	10.34	14.29	13.16	14.20
11,001–15,000	18.31	25.64	16.46	17.50	17.72	18.39	15.48	25.00	19.24
15,001–19,000	15.49	12.82	11.39	25.00	13.92	16.09	19.05	11.84	15.77
19,001–23,000	14.08	15.38	17.72	11.25	17.72	19.54	17.86	19.74	16.72
23,001–27,000	7.04	5.13	3.80	10.00	13.92	8.05	5.95	7.89	7.73
> 27,000	21.13	21.79	24.05	16.25	7.59	14.94	14.29	13.16	16.56
X² = 47.72, df = 42, P = 0.25
Region
North	22.54	16.67	26.58	20.00	18.99	28.74	22.62	21.05	22.24
North-east	2.82	5.13	5.06	8.75	7.59	6.90	1.19	9.21	5.84
East	40.85	42.31	27.85	32.50	35.44	28.74	39.29	28.95	34.38
South Central	23.94	25.64	32.91	27.50	22.78	26.44	27.38	36.84	27.92
North-west & South-west	9.86	10.26	7.59	11.25	15.19	9.20	9.52	3.95	9.62
X² = 34.29, df = 28, P = 0.19
Place of residence
First-tier cities	49.30	50.00	55.70	51.25	40.51	48.28	53.57	42.11	48.90
New first-tier cities	22.54	33.33	24.05	36.25	41.77	29.89	26.19	34.21	31.07
Others	28.17	16.67	20.25	12.50	17.72	21.84	20.24	23.68	20.03
X² = 21.48, df = 14, P = 0.09
N	71	78	79	80	79	87	84	76	634

Tab.5 Sociodemographic characteristics as a proportion (%) of the sample

Fig.1 Distribution of GREEN scores.

Tab.6 Marginal WTP means and 95% confidence intervals across treatment groups

Tab.7 Probability (P)-values from complete combinatorial tests for the equivalence of WTP estimates

1	R C, Thompson S H, Swan C J, Moore Saal F S vom . Our plastic age. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 2009, 364(1526): 1973–1976 https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0054 pmid: 19528049
2	R, Geyer J R, Jambeck K L Law . Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science Advances, 2017, 3(7): e1700782 https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782 pmid: 28776036
3	M, Bergmann S, Mützel S, Primpke M B, Tekman J, Trachsel G Gerdts . White and wonderful? Microplastics prevail in snow from the Alps to the Arctic. Science Advances, 2019, 5(8): eaax1157 https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax1157 pmid: 31453336
4	N J, Beaumont M, Aanesen M C, Austen T, Börger J R, Clark M, Cole T, Hooper P K, Lindeque C, Pascoe K J Wyles . Global ecological, social and economic impacts of marine plastic. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 2019, 142: 189–195 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.03.022 pmid: 31232294
5	J R, Jambeck R, Geyer C, Wilcox T R, Siegler M, Perryman A, Andrady R, Narayan K L Law . Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science, 2015, 347(6223): 768–771 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352 pmid: 25678662
6	L C, Jenner J M, Rotchell R T, Bennett M, Cowen V, Tentzeris L R Sadofsky . Detection of microplastics in human lung tissue using μFTIR spectroscopy. Science of the Total Environment, 2022, 831: 154907 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154907 pmid: 35364151
7	K, Marsh B Bugusu . Food packaging-roles, materials, and environmental issues. Journal of Food Science, 2007, 72(3): R39–R55 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00301.x pmid: 17995809
8	J N, Hahladakis E Iacovidou . Closing the loop on plastic packaging materials: What is quality and how does it affect their circularity. Science of the Total Environment, 2018, 630: 1394–1400 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.330 pmid: 29554759
9	X, Jiang T, Wang M, Jiang M, Xu Y, Yu B, Guo D, Chen S, Hu J, Jiang Y, Zhang B Zhu . Assessment of plastic stocks and flows in China: 1978–2017. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2020, 161: 104969 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104969
10	S, Sachdeva J, Jordan N Mazar . Green consumerism: Moral motivations to a sustainable future. Current Opinion in Psychology, 2015, 6: 60–65 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.03.029
11	Retail Federation (NRF) National . Consumers want it all. NRF, 2022. Available at NRF website on January 20, 2022
12	A, Kollmuss J Agyeman . Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior. Environmental Education Research, 2002, 8(3): 239–260 https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401
13	Jacobsen L, Fogt S, Pedersen J Thøgersen . Drivers of and barriers to consumers’ plastic packaging waste avoidance and recycling—A systematic literature review. Waste Management, 2022, 141: 63–78 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2022.01.021 pmid: 35093857
14	M, Barnes C, Chan-Halbrendt Q, Zhang N Abejon . Consumer preference and willingness to pay for non-plastic food containers in Honolulu, USA. Journal of Environmental Protection, 2011, 2(9): 1264–1273 https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2011.29146
15	C L, Neill R B Williams . Consumer preference for alternative milk packaging: the case of an inferred environmental attribute. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 2016, 48(3): 241–256 https://doi.org/10.1017/aae.2016.17
16	J, Wensing V, Caputo L, Carraresi S Bröring . The effects of green nudges on consumer valuation of bio-based plastic packaging. Ecological Economics, 2020, 178: 106783 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106783
17	Asselt J, Van Y, Nian M, Soh S, Morgan Z Gao . Do plastic warning labels reduce consumers’ willingness to pay for plastic egg packaging?—Evidence from a choice experiment.. Ecological Economics, 2022, 198: 107460 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107460
18	S, Laville M Taylor . A million bottles a minute: world’s plastic binge ‘as dangerous as climate change’. The Guardian, 2017. Available at The Guardian website on January 20, 2022
19	C, Orset N, Barret A Lemaire . How consumers of plastic water bottles are responding to environmental policies. Waste Management, 2017, 61: 13–27 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.12.034 pmid: 28117128
20	C, Grebitus R D, Roscoe Loo E J, Van I Kula . Sustainable bottled water: how nudging and internet search affect consumers’ choices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, 267: 121930 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121930
21	Marchi E, De S, Pigliafreddo A, Banterle M, Parolini A Cavaliere . Plastic packaging goes sustainable: an analysis of consumer preferences for plastic water bottles. Environmental Science & Policy, 2020, 114: 305–311 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.08.014
22	Y, Yu L Lin . Legal regulation of recycling of food contact plastic packaging materials in China: a case study on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) beverage bottles. Food Science, 2019, 40(19): 370−377 (in Chinese)
23	R, Becerril-Arreola R E Bucklin . Beverage bottle capacity, packaging efficiency, and the potential for plastic waste reduction. Scientific Reports, 2021, 11(1): 3542 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82983-x pmid: 33633137
24	D J Bem . Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1972, 6: 1–62 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60024-6
25	D, Schwartz G, Loewenstein L Agüero-Gaete . Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour through green identity labelling. Nature Sustainability, 2020, 3(9): 746–752 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0543-4
26	W, Lin R M Jr Nayga . Green identity labeling, environmental information, and pro-environmental food choices. Food Policy, 2022, 106: 102187 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102187
27	K L, Haws K P, Winterich R W Naylor . Seeing the world through green-tinted glasses: green consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2014, 24(3): 336–354 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.11.002
28	K J Lancaster . A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 1966, 74(2): 132–157 https://doi.org/10.1086/259131
29	D McFadden . The measurement of urban travel demand. Journal of Public Economics, 1974, 3(4): 303–328 https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727(74)90003-6
30	A R Hole . DCREATE: stata module to create efficient designs for discrete choice experiments. Statistical Software Components S458059, Boston College Department of Economics, 2015, revised August 25, 2017
31	Loo E J, Van V, Caputo R M Jr, Nayga J F, Meullenet S C Ricke . Consumers’ willingness to pay for Organic Chicken Breast: evidence from choice experiment. Food Quality and Preference, 2011, 22(7): 603–613 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.02.003
32	R G, Cummings L O Taylor . Unbiased Value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the Contingent Valuation Method. American Economic Review, 1999, 89(3): 649–665 https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.3.649
33	G L, Poe K L, Giraud J B Loomis . Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2005, 87(2): 353–365 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2005.00727.x
34	H Aizaki . mded: Measuring the difference between two empirical distributions, R package version 0.1–1, 2014

[1]

FASE-22478-OF-XYC_suppl_1

Download

[1]	Qiulin WU, Juan ZENG, Kongming WU. RESEARCH AND APPLICATION OF CROP PEST MONITORING AND EARLY WARNING TECHNOLOGY IN CHINA[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2022, 9(1): 19-36.
[2]	Ning YANG. EGG PRODUCTION IN CHINA: CURRENT STATUS AND OUTLOOK[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2021, 8(1): 25-34.
[3]	Maryna STROKAL, Annette B.G. JANSSEN, Xinping CHEN, Carolien KROEZE, Fan LI, Lin MA, Huirong YU, Fusuo ZHANG, Mengru WANG. GREEN AGRICULTURE AND BLUE WATER IN CHINA: REINTEGRATING CROP AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION FOR CLEAN WATER[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2021, 8(1): 72-80.
[4]	Shuai ZHANG, Xin WU, Dandan HAN, Yong HOU, Jianzhuang TAN, Sung Woo KIM, Defa LI, Yulong YIN, Junjun WANG. PORK PRODUCTION SYSTEMS IN CHINA: A REVIEW OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT, CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS IN GREEN PRODUCTION[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2021, 8(1): 15-24.
[5]	Qiuxia MENG, Jianjie ZHANG, Wenyan XIE, Huaiping ZHOU, Qiang ZHANG. Chinese agricultural technology transfer to African typical dry areas: practice and experience[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2020, 7(4): 440-454.
[6]	Xiaoqiang JIAO, Jianbo SHEN, Fusuo ZHANG. A potential solution for food security in Kenya: implications of the Quzhou model in China[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2020, 7(4): 406-417.
[7]	Xia LIANG, Jizheng HE, Fusuo ZHANG, Qirong SHEN, Jinshui WU, Iain M. YOUNG, Anthony G. O'DONNELL, Ligang WANG, Enli WANG, Julian HILL, Deli CHEN. Healthy soils for sustainable food production and environmental quality[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2020, 7(3): 347-355.
[8]	Zhenling CUI, Zhengxia DOU, Hao YING, Fusuo ZHANG. Producing more with less: reducing environmental impacts through an integrated soil-crop system management approach[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2020, 7(1): 14-20.
[9]	Yuelai LU, David NORSE, David POWLSON. Agriculture Green Development in China and the UK: common objectives and converging policy pathways[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2020, 7(1): 98-105.
[10]	Marco ROELCKE, Lisa HEIMANN, Yong HOU, Jianbin GUO, Qiaoyun XUE, Wei JIA, Anne OSTERMANN, Roxana Mendoza HUAITALLA, Moritz ENGBERS, Clemens OLBRICH, Roland W. SCHOLZ, Joachim CLEMENS, Frank SCHUCHARDT, Rolf NIEDER, Xuejun LIU, Fusuo ZHANG. Phosphorus status, use and recycling in a Chinese peri-urban region with intensive animal husbandry and cropping systems Results from case study in a Sino-German applied research collaboration project[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2019, 6(4): 388-402.
[11]	David KEMP, Guodong HAN, Fujiang HOU, Xiangyang HOU, Zhiguo LI, Yi SUN, Zhongwu WANG, Jianping WU, Xiaoqing ZHANG, Yingjun ZHANG, Xuyin GONG. Sustainable management of Chinese grasslands—issues and knowledge[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2018, 5(1): 9-23.
[12]	Deli WANG, Ling WANG, Jushan LIU, Hui ZHU, Zhiwei ZHONG. Grassland ecology in China: perspectives and challenges[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2018, 5(1): 24-43.
[13]	Yaojian XIE, Roger J. ARNOLD, Zhihua WU, Shuaifei CHEN, Apeng DU, Jianzhong LUO. Advances in eucalypt research in China[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2017, 4(4): 380-390.
[14]	Wenming LU, Maharaj MUTHOO. Progress of forest certification in China[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2017, 4(4): 414-420.
[15]	Yubao WANG, Lijie SHI, Haojie ZHANG, Shikun SUN. A data envelopment analysis of agricultural technical efficiency of Northwest Arid Areas in China[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2017, 4(2): 195-207.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed