IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/ijbmjn/v15y2021i7p158.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Value-Belief-Norm Theory and Technology Acceptance Model on Use Intention of Green Design Packaging

Author

Listed:
  • ChinHung Liu
  • YaHui Wu

Abstract

This study mainly investigates the relationships among VBN value-belief-norm (environmental moral obligation), technology acceptance model (perceived ease-of-use, perceived usefulness), and the intention to use designing sustainable packaging. A questionnaire survey was administered to consumers in various areas of Taiwan, and the responses were analyzed using statistical methods. The study results indicated the following- 1. The significant and positive impacts existed among VBN value-belief-norm (environmental moral obligation), perceived ease-of-use, perceived usefulness, and the intention to use sustainable packaging, with the influence of biospheric value in VBN on the new environmental paradigm being the most significant. 2. The consumers with various age and marital status had a significantly different perception on their intention to use designing sustainable packaging; the consumers with various age and occupation had a significantly different perception on their norms (environmental moral obligation), and when consumers purchased products that require packaging, whether they chose packaging with recyclable or reusable marks and functions had a significantly different perception on their VBN value-belief-norm, perceived ease-of-use, perceived usefulness, and intention to use designing sustainable packaging. Based on the analysis results above, we put forward suggestions regarding the recycling and reuse of resources, sustainable development technologies, and the cherishing of the ecological value of nature from the perspectives of consumers, companies, and the government.

Suggested Citation

  • ChinHung Liu & YaHui Wu, 2021. "The Impact of Value-Belief-Norm Theory and Technology Acceptance Model on Use Intention of Green Design Packaging," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 15(7), pages 158-158, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:ijbmjn:v:15:y:2021:i:7:p:158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/download/0/0/42996/44970
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/view/0/42996
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cooper, Philip & Poe, Gregory L. & Bateman, Ian J., 2004. "The structure of motivation for contingent values: a case study of lake water quality improvement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 69-82, September.
    2. Clive L Spash, 2009. "Social Ecological Economics," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-08, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    3. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    4. Viswanath Venkatesh & Fred D. Davis, 2000. "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 186-204, February.
    5. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2007. "Altruistic, egoistic and biospheric values in willingness to pay (WTP) for wildlife," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 807-814, September.
    6. Henry Kaiser, 1974. "An index of factorial simplicity," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 39(1), pages 31-36, March.
    7. Spash, Clive L. & Urama, Kevin & Burton, Rob & Kenyon, Wendy & Shannon, Peter & Hill, Gary, 2009. "Motives behind willingness to pay for improving biodiversity in a water ecosystem: Economics, ethics and social psychology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 955-964, February.
    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. Bonaiuto, M. & Mosca, O. & Milani, A. & Ariccio, S. & Dessi, F. & Fornara, F., 2024. "Beliefs about technological and contextual features drive biofuels’ social acceptance," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 189(PA).

    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. Lombardi, Alessia & Carfora, Valentina & Cicia, Gianni & Del Giudice, Teresa & Lombardi, Pasquale & Panico, Teresa, 2017. "Exploring Willingness to Pay for QR Code Labeled Extra-Virgin Olive Oil: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 8(1), pages 1-18, January.
    2. Michela Faccioli & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk & Julia Martin-Ortega, 2018. "Environmental attitudes and place identity as simultaneous determinants of preferences for environmental goods," Working Papers 2018-08, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    3. Tsai, Juin-Ming & Hung, Shiu-Wan & Yang, Ting-Ting, 2020. "In pursuit of goodwill? The cross-level effects of social enterprise consumer behaviours," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 350-361.
    4. Ju Hyoung Han & Andy S. Choi & Chi-Ok Oh, 2018. "The Effects of Environmental Value Orientations and Experience-Use History on the Conservation Value of a National Park," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-17, September.
    5. Muhammad Ali & Syed Ali Raza & Chin-Hong Puah & Mohd Zaini Abd Karim, 2017. "Islamic home financing in Pakistan: a SEM-based approach using modified TPB model," Housing Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(8), pages 1156-1177, November.
    6. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    7. Jane Mills & Peter Gaskell & Julie Ingram & Janet Dwyer & Matt Reed & Christopher Short, 2017. "Engaging farmers in environmental management through a better understanding of behaviour," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(2), pages 283-299, June.
    8. Ulrich J Frey & Frauke Pirscher, 2018. "Willingness to pay and moral stance: The case of farm animal welfare in Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-20, August.
    9. Carlos Jurado-Rivas & Marcelino Sánchez-Rivero, 2019. "Willingness to Pay for More Sustainable Tourism Destinations in World Heritage Cities: The Case of Caceres, Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-21, October.
    10. Faccioli, Michela & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Glenk, Klaus & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2020. "Environmental attitudes and place identity as determinants of preferences for ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    11. Alex Y. Lo, 2013. "Household Preference and Financial Commitment to Flood Insurance in South-East Queensland," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 46(2), pages 160-175, June.
    12. Sauer, Uta & Fischer, Anke, 2010. "Willingness to pay, attitudes and fundamental values -- On the cognitive context of public preferences for diversity in agricultural landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 1-9, November.
    13. Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Håkan Eggert & Ståle Navrud & Jesper Stage, 2014. "What do respondents bring to contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 253-267, November.
    14. Rosenberger, Randall S. & Needham, Mark D. & Morzillo, Anita T. & Moehrke, Caitlin, 2012. "Attitudes, willingness to pay, and stated values for recreation use fees at an urban proximate forest," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 271-281.
    15. Yuanhong Liao & Weihong Yang, 2022. "The determinants of different types of private-sphere pro-environmental behaviour: an integrating framework," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 8566-8592, June.
    16. Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Håkan Eggert & Ståle Navrud & Jesper Stage, 2014. "What do respondents bring to contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 253-267, November.
    17. Abayomi Samuel Oyekale, 2018. "Determinants of households’ involvement in waste separation and collection for recycling in South Africa," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(5), pages 2343-2371, October.
    18. Hart O. Awa & Ojiabo Ukoha & Bartholomew C. Emecheta, 2016. "Using T-O-E theoretical framework to study the adoption of ERP solution," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 1196571-119, December.
    19. Ye Jin & Qingning Lin & Shiping Mao, 2022. "Tanzanian Farmers’ Intention to Adopt Improved Maize Technology: Analyzing Influencing Factors Using SEM and fsQCA Methods," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-23, November.
    20. Lloyd J.S Baiyegunhi & Sikhumbuzo E Mashabane & Nonjabulo C Sambo, 2018. "Influence of Socio-Psychological Factors on Consumer Willingness to Pay (WTP) for Organic Food Products," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 10(5), pages 208-219.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ibn:ijbmjn:v:15:y:2021:i:7:p:158. 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: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    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.