IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i9p3074-d166447.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Water Bottle Refill Stations Contribute to Campus Sustainability: A Case Study in Japan

Author

Listed:
  • Takuro Uehara

    (College of Policy Science, Ritsumeikan University, 2-150 Iwakura-cho, Ibaraki City, Osaka 567-8570, Japan)

  • Alayna Ynacay-Nye

    (Research Organization of Open Innovation and Collaboration, Ritsumeikan University, 2-150 Iwakura-cho, Ibaraki City, Osaka 567-8570, Japan)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility of installing Water bottle Refill Stations (WRSs) and their contributions to campus sustainability by means of encouraging pro-environmental behavior in students. Plastic waste is one of the most critical environmental issues. Therefore, we investigated how WRS can deter students from using disposable plastic bottles. We conducted a survey at a Japanese university to address (1) students’ Willingness To Pay (WTP) to install WRS, (2) their Willingness To Use (WTU) WRSs while acknowledging its environmental benefits, and (3) the impact of communicating information about points (1) and (2). We utilized Goal-Framing Theory (GFT) and the Integrated Framework for Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behavior (IFEP) as the theoretical background of our study. The results of our survey found that the mean WTP was 2211 JPY (1 JPY = 0.01 USD), an amount students would donate just once. This finding indicates students would be willing to pay to install a WRS at their university. The mean WTP students supported would be enough to cover the WRS installation and maintenance costs. According to our study, 58.82% of students stated that they would be willing to use WRS. In doing so, students would save 45,191 disposable plastic bottles and reduce 10,846 kg of related CO 2 emissions every year. Our study also showed a statistically significant increase in WTP and WTU WRS as we introduced more and more information about pro-environmental behaviors to students. This finding indicates the importance of information campaigning and learning how to encourage pro-environmental behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Takuro Uehara & Alayna Ynacay-Nye, 2018. "How Water Bottle Refill Stations Contribute to Campus Sustainability: A Case Study in Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-19, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:9:p:3074-:d:166447
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/9/3074/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/9/3074/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bohm, Peter, 1972. "Estimating demand for public goods: An experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 111-130.
    2. John C. Bergstrom & John R. Stoll & Alan Randall, 1990. "The Impact of Information on Environmental Commodity Valuation Decisions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(3), pages 614-621.
    3. Kevin J. Boyle & Hugh F. MacDonald & Hsiang-tai Cheng & Daniel W. McCollum, 1998. "Bid Design and Yea Saying in Single-Bounded, Dichotomous-Choice Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(1), pages 49-64.
    4. Lee Cronbach, 1951. "Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 16(3), pages 297-334, September.
    5. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    6. Jennifer Tkac, 1998. "The Effects of Information on Willingness-to-Pay Values of Endangered Species," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1214-1220.
    7. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    8. Peter Bohm, 1972. "Estimating the demand for public goods: An experiment," Framed Field Experiments 00126, The Field Experiments Website.
    9. Zeinab Rezvani & Johan Jansson & Maria Bengtsson, 2018. "Consumer motivations for sustainable consumption: The interaction of gain, normative and hedonic motivations on electric vehicle adoption," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(8), pages 1272-1283, December.
    10. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    11. W. Bruce Traill, 2004. "Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food: evidence from experimental auctions in the United States, England, and France," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(2), pages 179-204, June.
    12. Curtis, Ian A., 2004. "Valuing ecosystem goods and services: a new approach using a surrogate market and the combination of a multiple criteria analysis and a Delphi panel to assign weights to the attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(3-4), pages 163-194, October.
    13. ten Brink, Patrick & Schweitzer, Jean-Pierre & Watkins, Emma & Janssens, Charlotte & De Smet, Michiel & Leslie, Heather & Galgani, François, 2018. "Circular economy measures to keep plastics and their value in the economy, avoid waste and reduce marine litter," Economics Discussion Papers 2018-3, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    14. Subroy, Vandana & Rogers, Abbie A. & Kragt, Marit E., 2018. "To Bait or Not to Bait: A Discrete Choice Experiment on Public Preferences for Native Wildlife and Conservation Management in Western Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 114-122.
    15. Sharmila Moganadas & Victor Corral-Verdugo & Santhi Ramanathan, 2013. "Toward systemic campus sustainability: gauging dimensions of sustainable development via a motivational and perception-based approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 15(6), pages 1443-1464, December.
    16. Seroa da Motta, Ronaldo & Ortiz, Ramon Arigoni, 2018. "Costs and Perceptions Conditioning Willingness to Accept Payments for Ecosystem Services in a Brazilian Case," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 333-342.
    17. Riccardo Scarpa & Ian Bateman, 2000. "Efficiency Gains Afforded by Improved Bid Design versus Follow-up Valuation Questions in Discrete-Choice CV Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(2), pages 299-311.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kathryn Willis & Britta Denise Hardesty & Joanna Vince & Chris Wilcox, 2019. "The Success of Water Refill Stations Reducing Single-Use Plastic Bottle Litter," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-17, September.
    2. Göran Finnveden & Julie Newman & Leendert A. Verhoef, 2019. "Sustainable Development and Higher Education: Acting with a Purpose," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-4, July.
    3. José Ramón Díez & Iñaki Antigüedad & Elena Agirre & Arantza Rico, 2018. "Perceptions and Consumption of Bottled Water at the University of the Basque Country: Showcasing Tap Water as the Real Alternative towards a Water-Sustainable University," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-15, September.
    4. Takuro Uehara & Ryo Sakurai, 2021. "Have Sustainable Development Goal Depictions Functioned as a Nudge for the Younger Generation before and during the COVID-19 Outbreak?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-18, February.
    5. Hong Tian & Xinyu Liu, 2022. "Pro-Environmental Behavior Research: Theoretical Progress and Future Directions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-16, May.
    6. Jimena González-Ramírez & Heyi Cheng & Sierra Arral, 2021. "Funding Campus Sustainability through a Green Fee—Estimating Students’ Willingness to Pay," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-15, February.
    7. Luca Marazzi & Steven Loiselle & Lucy G Anderson & Stephen Rocliffe & Debbie J Winton, 2020. "Consumer-based actions to reduce plastic pollution in rivers: A multi-criteria decision analysis approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-15, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    2. Gubanova, Tatiana & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & McMillan, Melville, 2009. "‘Pocket and Pot’: Hypothetical Bias in a No-Free-Riding Public Contribution Game," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49318, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Murphy, James J. & Stevens, Thomas H., 2004. "Contingent Valuation, Hypothetical Bias, and Experimental Economics," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(2), pages 182-192, October.
    4. Giffoni, Francesco & Florio, Massimo, 2023. "Public support of science: A contingent valuation study of citizens' attitudes about CERN with and without information about implicit taxes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    5. John K. Horowitz & Kenneth E. McConnell & James J. Murphy, 2013. "Behavioral foundations of environmental economics and valuation," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 4, pages 115-156, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    7. List John A. & Sinha Paramita & Taylor Michael H., 2006. "Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-39, January.
    8. Ryan, Mandy, 1998. "Valuing psychological factors in the provision of assisted reproductive techniques using the economic instrument of willingness to pay," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 179-204, April.
    9. Bayham, Jude & Muñoz-García, Félix & Espínola-Arredondo, Ana, 2019. "International coordination of environmental policies: is it always worth the effort?," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(3), pages 294-316, June.
    10. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander James & Stéphane Luchini & Jason Shogren, 2011. "Social Psychology and Environmental Economics: A New Look at ex ante Corrections of Biased Preference Evaluation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 413-433, March.
    11. Qin, Botao, 2020. "Does a promise script work to reduce the hypothetical bias? Evidence from an induced value experiment," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 14, pages 1-15.
    12. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    13. Erpeng Wang & Ning An & Zhifeng Gao & Emmanuel Kiprop & Xianhui Geng, 2020. "Consumer food stockpiling behavior and willingness to pay for food reserves in COVID-19," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(4), pages 739-747, August.
    14. Atozou, Baoubadi & Tamini, Lota D. & Bergeronm, Stephane & Doyon, Maurice, 2020. "Factors Explaining the Hypothetical Bias: How to Improve Models for Meta-Analyses," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(2), March.
    15. List John A., 2007. "Field Experiments: A Bridge between Lab and Naturally Occurring Data," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-47, April.
    16. Eunae Son & Song Soo Lim, 2021. "Consumer Acceptance of Gene-Edited versus Genetically Modified Foods in Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-17, April.
    17. Carina Cavalcanti & Andreas Leibbrandt, 2017. "A glance into the willingness to reduce overfishing: Field evidence from a fishnet exchange program," Monash Economics Working Papers 09-17, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    18. Champ, Patricia A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Brown, Thomas C. & McCollum, Daniel W., 1997. "Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 151-162, June.
    19. Levitt, Steven D. & List, John A., 2009. "Field experiments in economics: The past, the present, and the future," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 1-18, January.
    20. Quainoo, Ruth & Petrolia, Daniel, 2018. "Mitigating Hypothetical Bias: An Application to WTP for Beach Conditions Information," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266715, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:9:p:3074-:d:166447. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.