• No results found

This study aimed to investigate the relation between consumers’ environmental concern (EC) and their intention to participate in the circular economy by choosing a more circular business model. The specific model reviewed in this study is the pay-per-use model which can contribute to the transition from the linear “extract-produce-use-dump” material model to a more circular re-use, reduce and recycle model (Gullstrand Edbring, Lehner, & Mont, 2016). The central question is to what extent will the increasing consumer awareness trend (Chitra, 2007) affect

46 the intention to use the pay-per-use model instead of product ownership for personal electric transportation in the form of e-bikes and e-cars? Furthermore, is there an interaction effect for the type of access to the product (or service) in the form of private or shared, or regarding the product value, which van either be low in the case of an e-bike or high in the case of an e-car?

As consumers tend not to be very rational in decision making, the Theory of Planned Behavior is used to measure intention via three determinants for intention: attitude toward behavior (ATB), subjective norm (SN) and perceived behavioral control (PBC).

When looking into the effect of environmental concern on intention to use, a significant effect is found on all three determinants of intention to use the PPU model vs product ownership.

Although the effects were relatively small, due to the nature of the study and the use of the Theory of Planned Behavior, we do know that when EC rises, the intention to choose the PPU model vs product ownership is more likely when an opportunity presents itself (Ajzen, 2011).

As the R2 for the model was approximately .10 for each of the determinants of intention (ATB=.115, SN=.044, PBC=.078), we could say that the intention to choose a PPU model over product ownership is not extraordinarily strong, but present. This 10% of variation explained by EC can be seen as a good starting point for further research. Also, it can help organizations in their strategic business- or revenue model renewal. As currently consumer EC is on the rise, the intention to use the PPU models to contribute to a more circular economy will rise with it.

Unfortunately, the moderation effects for “access type” and “product value” were not found, meaning that there is no interaction effect between either access type or product value, on the effect of EC on any of the determinants of intention (ATB, SN and PBC). This limits the usability of this study as it would provide more information on how the relation between EC and Intention to use PPU works, providing the possibility to be more selective in the PPU type and type of product that fit this payment model.

47 To provide some information about this the direct effect of access type and value on the intention to use, we found no effect for “access type”, meaning that from these results we could not derive a significant relation between the type of access, which was either private or shared, and the intention to use the PPU model instead of product ownership. With a larger sample, an effect might be found although it not likely to be exceptionally large. Regarding product value, being either low in the case of an e-bike vs high in the case of an e-car, there is a significant effect on two determinants of intention to use: ATB and SN. This results in a higher intention to use the PPU model vs product ownership for an e-car then for an e-bike. However, this result is unrelated to the consumer environmental concern.

Based on the qualitative formative research which is part of the Theory of Planned Behavior we found other key features of the PPU model and from the quantitative we can say that the top reason to choose the PPU model instead of product ownership is the reduces worries about maintenance and repair of the personal transportation device. So, when organizations decide to offer PPU as service model for personal transportation for consumers, this can be an important feature of a marketing campaign, besides the claim for reduced environmental pressure.

Hopefully, organisations will not only look at the economic benefits but include the environmental benefits directly in their consideration to offer the pay per use model for a swifter transition toward a more circular economy.

48 References

Adua, L., Clark, B., & York, R. (2020). The ineffectiveness of efficiency: The paradoxical effects of state policy on energy consumption in the United States. Energy Research and Social Science, 71, 101806.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior And Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychology and Health, 26(9), 1113–1127.

Ajzen, I. (2015). The theory of planned behaviour is alive and well, and not ready to retire: a commentary on Sniehotta, Presseau, and Araújo-Soares. Health Psychology Review, 9(2), 131-137.

Ajzen, I. (2020). The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(4), 314-324.

Ajzen, I., & Kruglanski, A. (2019). Reasoned action in the service of goal pursuit.

Psychological review, 126(5), 774-786.

Albarracin, D., Fishbein, M., & Goldestein de Muchinik, E. (1997). Seeking Social Support in Old Age as Reasoned Action: Structural and Volitional Determinants in a Middle‐

Aged Sample of Argentinean Women. Journal of applied psychology, 27(6), 463-476.

Albrecht, D. (1982). Measuring Environmental Concern: The New Environmental Paradigm Scale. The journal of environmental education, 13(3), 39.

Alcott, B. (2005). Jevons' paradox. Ecological Economics, 1, 9-21.

Alibeli, M., & White, N. (2011). The Structure of Environmental Concern. International Journal of Business and Social science, 2(4), 1-8.

Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (1999). The theory of planned behaviour: Assessment of predictive validity and `perceived control’. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 35-54.

Benton, D., Hazell, J., & Hill, J. (2014). The Guide to the Circular Economy: Capturing Value and Managing Material Risk. Oxford: Do Sustainability.

Bocken, N. M., Mugge, R., Bom, C. A., & Lemstra, H. (2018). Pay-per-use business models as a driver for sustainable consumption: Evidence from the case of HOMIE. Journal of Cleaner Production, 498-510.

Bohnsack, R., Pinkse, J., & Kolk, A. (2014). Business models for sustainable technologies:

Exploring business model evolution in the case of electric vehicles. Research Policy(2), 284-300.

Boons, F., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013). Business models for sustainable innovation: State-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 9-19.

49 Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What's Mine Is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative

Consumption. New York: HarperCollins.

Cherry, C. E., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2018). Why is ownership an issue? Exploring factors that determine public acceptance of product-service systems. Sustainability, 1-15.

Cheung, S. F., Chan, D. K.-S., & Wong, Z. S.-Y. (1999). Reexamining the Theory of Planned Behavior in Understanding Wastepaper Recycling. Environment and behavior, 31(5), 587-612.

Chitra, K. (2007). In Search of the Green Consumers: a Perceptual Study. Journal of Services Research, 173-191.

City of Amsterdam. (2019). Clean air action plan Emission-free Amsterdam. Amsterdam:

City of Amsterdam, Space and Sustainability, Air Quality Team.

Daly, H. (2018). Envisioning a Successful Steady-State Economy. The Journal of Population and Sustainability, 3(1), 21-33.

Dilkes-Hoffman, L. S., Pratt, S., Laycock, B., Ashworth, P., & Lant, P. A. (2019). Public attitudes towards plastics. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 227-235.

Dunlap, R. E., & van Liere, K. D. (1978). The ‘new environmental paradigm’: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10-19.

Dunlap, R. E., & van Liere, K. D. (1984). Commitment to the Dominant Social Paradigm and Concern for Environmental Quality. Social Science Quarterly, 65(4), 1013-1028.

Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425-442.

Elzinga, R., Reike, D., Negro, S. O., & Boon, W. P. (2020). Consumer acceptance of circular business models. Journal of Cleaner Production, 254.

Ester, P., & Van Der Meer, F. (1982). Determinants of Individual Environmental Behavior:

An Outline of a Behavioral Model and Some Research Findings. The Netherlands’

Journal of Sociology, 18(15), 54-94.

Fang, K., Heijungs, R., & De Snoo, G. R. (2015). Understanding the complementary linkages between environmental footprints and planetary boundaries in a footprint-boundary environmental sustainability assessment framework. Ecological Economics, 218-226.

Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (Vol. 5). London: SAGE.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York: Psychology press.

Fishman, E., & Cherry, C. (2016). E-bikes in the Mainstream: Reviewing a Decade of Research. Transport Reviews, 36(1), 72-91.

Fromm, E. (2002). The Sane Society. Abingdon: Routledge Classics 2002.

50 Frosch, Robert A, & Gallopoulos, Nicholas E. (1989, September). Strategies for

Manufacturing the impact of industry on the environment. Scientific American, 261, 144-153.

Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971). The entropy law and the economic problem. Alabama:

University of Alabama.

Global Footprint Network. (2020). Calculating Earth Overshoot Day 2020.

Gullstrand Edbring, E., Lehner, M., & Mont, O. (2016). Exploring consumer attitudes to alternative models of consumption: Motivations and barriers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 5-15.

Hagger, M., Chatzisarantis, N., & Biddle, S. (2002). A Meta-Analytic Review of the Theories of Reasoned Action and Planned Behavior in Physical Activity: Predictive Validity and the Contribution of Additional Variables. Journal of Sport and Exercise

Psychology, 24, 3-32.

Hanemaaijer, A., Kishna, M., Kooke, M., Brink, H., Koch, J., Prins, A., & Rood, T. (2021).

Integrale Circulaire Economie Rapportage 2021. Den Haag: Uitgeverij PBL.

Hawcroft, L., & Milfont, T. (2010). The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the last 30 years: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 143-158.

Heinis, T. B., Loy, C. L., & Meboldt, M. (2018). Improving Usage Metrics for Pay-per-Use Pricing with IoT Technology and Machine Learning. Research Technology

Management, 61(5), 32-40.

Hickel, J. (2020). Less in more How degrwoth will save the world. London: Penguin Random House UK.

Hirschey, R., Bryant, A. L., Battaglini, C. L., Macek, C., Santacroce, S., Courneya, K. S., . . . Sheeran, P. (2020). Predicting physical activity among cancer survivors:

Meta-analytic path modeling of longitudinal studies. Health Psychology, 39(4), 269-280.

Korhonen, J., Honkasalo, A., & Seppälä, J. (2018). Circular Economy: The Concept and its Limitations. Ecological Economics, 37-46.

Liu, X., Vedlitz, A., & Shi, L. (2014). Examining the determinants of public environmental concern: Evidence from national public surveys. Environmental Science and Policy, 39, 77-94.

MacArther, E. (2013). Towards the Circular Economy, Economic and Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition. Journal of industrial ecology, 23-34.

Mainieri, T., Barnett, E. G., Valdero, T. R., Unipan, J. B., & Oskamp, S. (1997). Green buying: The influence of environmental concern on consumer behavior. Journal of social psychology, 189-204.

Meissner, M. (2019). Against accumulation: lifestyle minimalism, de-growth and the present post-ecological condition. Journal of Cultural Economy, 185-200.

51 Mont, O., & Plepys, A. (2003). Customer satisfaction: review ofliterature and application to

the product-service systems. Lund: International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics at Lund University.

Nardi, V., Jardim, W., Wagner, L., & Santini, F. (2019). Predicting food choice: a meta-analysis based on the theory of planned behavior. British Food Journal, 121(10), 2250-2264.

Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO.nl). (2019). Mission zero - powered by Holland.

Utrecht: Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water.

Nunes, P., & Breene, T. (2011). Reinvent Your Business Before It’s Too Late. Harvard Business Review, 81-87.

Pellow, D., Dunlap, R., & Michelson, W. (2003). Handbook of Environmental Sociology.

Greenwood Press.

Riebl, S., Estabrooks, P., Dunsmore , J., Savla, J., Frisard, M., Dietrich, A., . . . Davy, B.

(2015). A systematic literature review and meta-analysis: The Theory of Planned Behavior's application to understand and predict nutrition-related behaviors in youth.

Eat Behav., 18(1), 60-78.

Rolls Royce. (2012, 10 30). Rolls-Royce celebrates 50th anniversary of Power-by-the-Hour.

Retrieved from royce.com/:

https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases-archive/yr-2012/121030-the-hour.aspx

Schneider, F., Kallis, G., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2010). Crisis or opportunity? Economic degrowth for social equity and ecological sustainability. Introduction to this special issue. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(6), 511-518.

Sniehotta, F. F., Presseau, J., & Araújo-Soares, V. (2014). Time to retire the theory of planned behaviour. Health Psychology Review, 8(1), 1-7.

Steinmetz, H., Knappstein, M., Ajzen, I., Schmidt, P., & Kabst, R. (2016). How effective are behavior change interventions based on the theory of planned behavior?: A three-level meta analysis. Journal of Psychology, 224(3), 216-233.

Steitz, C. (2021, June 8). Volkswagen weighs autonomous driving from 7 euros an hour. (S.

Orlofsky, Editor, & Reuters) Retrieved from Reuters:

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/volkswagen-weighs-autonomous-driving-7-euros-an-hour-2021-06-08/

Stern, P. C., Kalof, L., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). Values, Beliefs, and

Proenvironmental Action: Attitude Formation Toward Emergent Attitude Objects.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(18), 1611-1636.

Tukker, A. (2004). Eight types of product-service system: Eight ways to sutainability?

Experiences from suspronet. Business strategy and the environment, 246-260.

Tyson, M., Covey, J., & Rosenthal, H. E. (2014). Theory of Planned Behavior Interventions for Reducing Heterosexual Risk Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis. Health Psychology, 33(12), 1454 –1467.

52 Wallendorf, M., & Arnould, E. J. (1988). "My Favorite Things": A Cross-Cultural Inquiry

into Object Attachment, Possessiveness, and Social Linkage. Journal of Consumer Research, 531-547.

Wei, S., Ang, T., & Jancenelle, V. E. (2018). Willingness to pay more for green products : The interplay of consumer characteristics and customer participation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 230-238.

Weigel, F., Hazen, B., Cegielski, C., & Hall, D. (2014). Diffusion of Innovations and the Theory of Planned Behavior in Information Systems Research: A Metaanalysis.

Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 34(31), 619-636.

Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Keyßer, L. T., & Steinberger, J. K. (2020). Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nature Communications, 1-10.

Yuzhanin, S., & Fisher, D. (2016). The efficacy of the theory of planned behavior for

predicting intentions to choose a travel destination: a review. Tourism Review, 71(2), 135-147.

53 Appendices

1. Page 55 - Salient beliefs survey (pre-test) 2. Page 56 - Salient beliefs results

3. Page 57 - Main quantitative survey questions 4. Page 58 - Main quantitative survey flow

5. Page 59 - Full principal component analysis result 6. Page 61 - Robustness testing result including P-P plot

54 Appendix 1

Pretest. Exploratory survey for eliciting salient beliefs in the population. Respondents were asked to reply on the open questions in short phrases for easy processing.

Link to survey on Qualtrics:

https://uva.fra1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_2l3O2821n7ayt2C

55 Appendix 2

Result of salient beliefs survey:

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Ownership responsibilities User experience Investment Desire to own Quality younger people hipsters friends family Good UX Contract (flexibility) urban resident Cost are clear drop it anywhere Peers use it Nice models available Option to try the service/product Option to economically purchase at… None Aesthetics safety disabled persons rural areas

ATB SN PBC

56 Appendix 3

Main quantitative survey.

Respondents replied via a 7-point bi-polar scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

NEP to measure EC

1 The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset by human activities 2 The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources 3 Plants and animals do not exist primarily for human use

4 Modifying the environment for human use often causes serious problems

5 There are no limits to growth for nations like the United States and The Netherlands (reverse coded) 6 Humans are meant to rule over the rest of nature (reverse coded)

7 To maintain a healthy economy we will have to develop a ‘‘steady–state’’ economy where industrial growth is controlled.

Attitude toward behavior (ATB)

8 Me, choosing the PPU model instead of product ownership (buy the product) would be good 9 Me, choosing the PPU model instead of product ownership (buy the product) would be pleasant 10 Me, choosing the PPU model instead of product ownership will result in less worries about maintenance

or repairs

11 Me, having less worries about maintenance or repairs is good

12 Me, choosing the PPU model would change the initial purchase cost to a flexible monthly fee 13 For me, no initial purchase cost but a flexible monthly fee is good

14 Me, choosing the PPU model instead of product ownership is more expensive in the long run with higher use

15 For me, more expensive in the long run with higher use is good

16 Me, choosing the SPPU model instead of product ownership would result in extended product longevity (less environmental impact):

17 For me, extended product longevity (better product lifetime --> less environmental impact) is good 18 For me, choosing the PPU model instead of product ownership would result in more flexibility 19 For me, more flexbility is good

Subjective Norm (SN)

20 Most people who are important to me approve of me using the PPU model instead of product ownership 21 Most people like me use the PPU model instead of product ownership

22 My peers think I should use the PPU model instead of product ownership.

23 When it comes to using the PPU model instead of product ownership, I want to do what my peers thinks I should do.

24 Older generations think I should use the PPU model instead of product ownership.

25 When it comes to using the PPU model, I want to do what older generations thinks I should do 26 Environmentalists think I should use the PPU model instead of product ownership.

27 When it comes to using the PPU model, I want to do what environmentalists thinks I should do.

28 Progressive people think I should use the PPU model instead of product ownership.

29 When it comes to using the PPU model, I want to do what progressive people think I should do.

30 Hipsters think I should use the PPU model instead of product ownership.

31 When it comes to using the PPU model instead of product ownership, I want to do what hipsters think I should do.

Perceived behavioral control (PBC)

32 I am confident that I can use the PPU model instead of product ownership 33 Me choosing the PPU model instead of product ownership is up to me 34 I expect that I will receive good customer service with the PPU service

35 Good customer service would enable me to choose the PPU model instead of product ownership 36 I expect that I will have charging options for the product (near by)

37 Having charging options would enable me to choose the PPU instead of product ownership

57

38 I expect that I will have to sign a long term contract

39 Signing a long term contract would discourage me to choose the PPU instead of product ownership 40 I expect that the service is reasonably priced

41 The service to be reasonably priced would enable me to choose PPU instead of product ownership

Intention

42 I intend to use the PPU model instead of product ownership

Demographics 43 Gender

44 Age

45 Location 46 Urban/rural 47 Education 48 Income

Link to survey on Qualtrics:

https://uva.fra1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_bvVf1ZEOEqbyF02

Appendix 4

Main quantitative survey flow

58 Appendix 5 - Full principal component analysis result

Full PCA result of all extraction values:

59 Communalities per Group

Communalitiesa Extraction (PCA)

ATB_General 0,776 0,675 0,775 0,809

ATB_Maintenance_worries 0,605 0,801 0,775 0,605

ATB_Investment 0,931 0,800 0,845 0,698

ATB_HighCost_LessAvailability 0,974 0,932 0,946 0,923

ATB_Env_impact 0,649 0,691 0,687 0,767

ATB_Flexibility 0,645 0,584 0,723 0,607

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Group 4 (S/H) Group 3

(P/H) Group 2

(S/L) Group 1

(P/L)

Communalitiesa Extraction (PCA)

SN_general 0,683 0,920 0,741 0,796

SN_Peers 0,867 0,797 0,868 0,842

SN_OlderGens_Materialists 0,934 0,902 0,859 0,969

SN_Environmentalists 0,854 0,895 0,754 0,789

SN_Progressivists 0,914 0,857 0,794 0,808

SN_Hipsters_youngers 0,697 0,805 0,979 0,793

Group 4 (S/H) Group 3

(P/H) Group 2

(S/L) Group 1

(P/L)

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Communalitiesa Extraction (PCA)

PBC_General 0,767 0,944 0,873 0,787

PBC_CS_UX 0,760 0,772 0,652 0,744

PBC_Charging_availability 0,595 0,825 0,606 0,905

PBC_LTcontract_Quality 0,986 0,793 0,939 0,622

PBC_ReasonablyPriced 0,619 0,944 0,949 0,924

Group 1 (P/L)

Group 4 (S/H) Group 3

(P/H) Group 2

(S/L)

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN