Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T14:55:16.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

TRASH TALK: WHO USES WHICH REUSABLE PRODUCT? USER INSIGHTS AND DESIGN OPPORTUNITIES FOR SINGLE-USE ALTERNATIVES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Laure Herweyers*
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp
Els Du Bois
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp
Ingrid Moons
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp
*
Herweyers, Laure, University of Antwerp, Belgium, laure.herweyers@uantwerpen.be

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Single-use products often end up in the environment as waste, threatening ecosystems and human life. This indicates a need to transition towards sustainable reuse routines. In this study, we investigate to what extent reusable products are already established in society and what design properties users require. We compare the results between user clusters and countries. To create a meaningful list of reusable products to investigate, we distinguish four categories based on typical barriers by means of focus groups (n=3) and interviews (n=32). Next, we did a survey (n=3000) in three countries (Belgium, Russia, U.S.) to define user clusters and investigate product usage and design requirements. Most established products are hard-material products such as lunch boxes, while intimate hygiene products, such as menstrual cups, are not established yet. Multifunctionality and compactness are the most indicated product requirements. There are significant differences between countries and clusters for both research questions. We conclude that different types of users have different needs: while a sharing system might work for one group, a customizable option would be more suitable for others.

Type
Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Ajzen, I. (1985), “From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior”, Action Control, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 1139. 10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amasawa, E., Shibata, T., Sugiyama, H. and Hirao, M. (2020), “Environmental potential of reusing, renting, and sharing consumer products: Systematic analysis approach”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanca-Alcubilla, G., Bala, A., de Castro, N., Colomé, R. and Fullana-i-Palmer, P. (2020), “Is the reusable tableware the best option? Analysis of the aviation catering sector with a life cycle approach”, Science of The Total Environment, Elsevier, Vol. 708, p. 135121. 10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2019.135121CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, L. and Tan, J. (2021), “An integrated sustainability assessment of drinking straws”, Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 9 No. 4, p. 105527. 10.1016/j.jece.2021.105527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chwialkowska, A., Bhatti, W.A. and Glowik, M. (2020), “The influence of cultural values on pro-environmental behavior”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier, Vol. 268, p. 122305. 10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2020.122305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, K.D., Covernton, G.A., Davies, H.L., Dower, J.F., Juanes, F. and Dudas, S.E. (2019), “Human Consumption of Microplastics”, Environmental Science and Technology, American Chemical Society, Vol. 53 No. 12, pp. 70687074. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b01517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Mertig, A.G. and Jones, R.E. (2000), “New Trends in Measuring Environmental Attitudes: Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale”, Journal of Social Issues, Blackwell Publishing Inc., Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 425442, 10.1111/0022-4537.00176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commission, European. (2018), Behavioural Study on Consumers’ Engagement in the Circular Economy.Google Scholar
Parliament, European. (2019), “Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment.”, Brussels, available at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/904/ojGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, S.C., Walker, S., Baird, H.M., Parsons, R., Mehl, S., Webb, T.L., Slark, A.T., et al. (2021), “Many Happy Returns: Combining insights from the environmental and behavioural sciences to understand what is required to make reusable packaging mainstream”, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Elsevier, Vol. 27, pp. 16881702. 10.1016/J.SPC.2021.03.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidbreder, L.M., Bablok, I., Drews, S. and Menzel, C. (2019), “Tackling the plastic problem: A review on perceptions, behaviors, and interventions”, Science of the Total Environment, Elsevier, Vol. 668, pp. 10771093. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herberz, T., Barlow, C.Y. and Finkbeiner, M. (2020), “Sustainability Assessment of a Single-Use Plastics Ban”, Sustainability, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Vol. 12 No. 9, p. 3746. 10.3390/SU12093746Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. (1983), “National Cultures in Four Dimensions: A Research-Based Theory of Cultural Differences among Nations”, International Studies of Management & Organisation, Routledge, Vol. 16 No. 1–2, pp. 4674. 10.1080/00208825.1983.11656358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Insights, Hofstede. (2022), “Compare countries”, available at: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/fi/product/compare-countries/ (accessed 27 November 2022).Google Scholar
Jones, T.L., Baxter, M. and Khanduja, V. (2013), “A quick guide to survey research”, Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, Vol. 95 No. 1, pp. 57. 10.1308/003588413X13511609956372CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klöckner, C.A. and Blöbaum, A. (2010), “A comprehensive action determination model: Toward a broader understanding of ecological behaviour using the example of travel mode choice”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Academic Press, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 574586. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.03.001Google Scholar
Lebreton, L., Slat, B., Ferrari, F., Sainte-Rose, B., Aitken, J., Marthouse, R., Hajbane, S., et al. (2018), “Evidence that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is rapidly accumulating plastic”, Scientific Reports, Nature Publishing Group, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 115. 10.1038/s41598-018-22939-wGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maki, A., Carrico, A.R., Raimi, K.T., Truelove, H.B., Araujo, B. and Yeung, K.L. (2019), “Meta-analysis of pro-environmental behaviour spillover”, Nature Sustainability, Nature Publishing Group, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 307315. 10.1038/s41893-019-0263-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahman, S.U. (2019), “Differences in horizontally individualist and vertically collectivist consumers’ environmental behaviour: A regulatory focus perspective”, International Journal of Business and Emerging Markets, Inderscience Publishers, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 7388. 10.1504/IJBEM.2019.097479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheeran, P. and Webb, T.L. (2016), “The Intention–Behavior Gap”, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, Wiley-Blackwell, Vol. 10 No. 9, pp. 503518. 10.1111/spc3.12265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singelis, T.M., Triandis, H.C., Bhawuk, D.P.S. and Gelfand, M.J. (1995), “Horizontal and Vertical Dimensions of Individualism and Collectivism: A Theoretical and Measurement Refinement”, Cross-Cultural Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 240275. 10.1177/106939719502900302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statista. (2020), Global Plastics Production Forecast 2025-2050.Google Scholar
Statista. (2022a), “Global packaging market shares by material”, available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/271601/packaging-materials-in-the-global-packaging-market-since-2003/ (accessed 23 November 2022).Google Scholar
Statista. (2022b), “Europe: consumers concerned by packaging materials”, available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1073096/consumers-concerned-by-packaging-materials-europe/ (accessed 23 November 2022).Google Scholar
UNEP. (2021), “From birth to ban: A history of the plastic shopping bag”, available at: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/birth-ban-history-plastic-shopping-bag (accessed 24 November 2022).Google Scholar
UNEP. (2022), “UNEP: Beat Plastic Pollution”, available at: https://www.unep.org/interactives/beat-plastic-pollution/ (accessed 23 November 2022).Google Scholar
Whitmarsh, L. and O'Neill, S. (2010), “Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Academic Press, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 305314. 10.1016/J.JENVP.2010.01.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, M.J., Emerson, J.W., Esty, D.C., de Sherbinin, A. and Wendling, Z.A. (2022), “Environmental Performance Index”, New Haven, CT: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy. Epi.Yale.Edu, available at: https://epi.yale.edu/ (accessed 24 November 2022).Google Scholar
Wright, S.L., Thompson, R.C. and Galloway, T.S. (2013), “The physical impacts of microplastics on marine organisms: a review.”, Environmental Pollution, Vol. 178, pp. 483492. 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.02.031CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed