Have a personal or library account? Click to login

Perceptions, Choices and Usage of Ecological Household Chemicals: Results from an Online Citizen Survey in Latvia

Environmental and Climate Technologies
Volume 26 (2022): Issue 1 (January 2022)
By:
Open Access
|Nov 2022

References

  1. [1] Wang J., Shen M., Chu M. Why is green consumption easier said than done? Exploring the green consumption attitudeintention gap in China with behavioral reasoning theory. Clean. Responsible Consum. 2021:2:100015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2021.10001510.1016/j.clrc.2021.100015
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  2. [2] El Haffar G., Durif F., Dubé L. Towards closing the attitude-intention-behavior gap in green consumption: A narrative review of the literature and an overview of future research directions. J. Clean. Prod. 2020:275:122556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.12255610.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122556
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  3. [3] Rizomyliotis I., et al. Sustaining brand loyalty: The moderating role of green consumption values. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2021:30(7):3025–3039. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.278610.1002/bse.2786
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  4. [4] Lu X., Buchsbaum J., Zilberman D. Economics of the Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture. Extreme Events and Climate Change. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2021:49–65.10.1002/9781119413738.ch4
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  5. [5] United States Environmental Protection Agency. Introduction to Ecolabels and Standards for Greener Products. 2022 [Online]. [Accessed 12.09.2022]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/greenerproducts/introduction-ecolabels-andstandards-greener-products
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  6. [6] Cai Z., Xie Y., Aguilar F. X. Eco-label credibility and retailer effects on green product purchasing intentions. For. Policy Econ. 2017:80:200–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.04.00110.1016/j.forpol.2017.04.001
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  7. [7] Bearth A., et al. Barriers to the safe use of chemical household products: A comparison across European countries. Environ. Res. 2019:180:108859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.10885910.1016/j.envres.2019.10885931706596
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  8. [8] Xu D., Karray M. H., Archimède B. A knowledge base with modularized ontologies for eco-labeling: Application for laundry detergents. Comput. Ind. 2018:98:118–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2018.02.01310.1016/j.compind.2018.02.013
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  9. [9] Buchmüller K., Bearth A., Siegrist M. Consumers’ perceptions of chemical household products and the associated risks. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2020:143:111511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2020.11151110.1016/j.fct.2020.11151132610062
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  10. [10] Bearth A., Siegrist M. Situative and product-specific factors influencing consumers’ risk perception of household cleaning products. Saf. Sci. 2018:113:126–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.11.02310.1016/j.ssci.2018.11.023
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  11. [11] Järvi P., Paloviita A. Product-related information for sustainable use of laundry detergents in Finnish households. J. Clean. Prod. 2007:15(7):681–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.12.00110.1016/j.jclepro.2005.12.001
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  12. [12] Richards S., et al. The contribution of household chemicals to environmental discharges via effluents: Combining chemical and behavioural data. J. Environ. Manage. 2015:150:427–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.12.02310.1016/j.jenvman.2014.12.02325560657
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  13. [13] European Commission. Buying Green! A Handbook on Green Public Procurement. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  14. [14] Akulova L., Bukina A., Martinsone Z. Environmental Management Challenges and Possible Solutions Regarding Chemical Pollution Caused by Households in Latvia: A Qualitative Pilot Study. Environ. Clim. Technol. 2020:24(3):534–544. https://doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2020-012210.2478/rtuect-2020-0122
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  15. [15] Guo J., et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on household disinfectant consumption behaviors and related environmental concerns: A questionnaire-based survey in China. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021:9(5):106168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.10616810.1016/j.jece.2021.106168834942834395190
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  16. [16] Nolan J. M., et al. Normative Social Influence is Underdetected. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2008:34(7):913–923. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616720831669110.1177/014616720831669118550863
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  17. [17] Kumar S., et al. What drives brand love for natural products? The moderating role of household size. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020:58:102329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.10232910.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102329
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  18. [18] Habib R. R., El-Masri A., Heath R. L. Women’s strategies for handling household detergents. Environ. Res. 2006:101(2):184–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2006.02.00110.1016/j.envres.2006.02.00116616916
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  19. [19] ‘Strada vesels’ Homepage (‘Work healthy’ Homepage) [Online]. [Accessed 15.03.2022]. Available: www.stradavesels.lv (in Latvian)
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  20. [20] Official Statistics Portal of Latvia. Population in regions and cities by age and gender at the beginning of the year 1971 - 2021. PxWeb [Online]. [Accessed 10.04.2022]. Available: https://data.stat.gov.lv/pxweb/en/OSP_PUB/START__POP__IR__IRD/IRD040/
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  21. [21] Calculator.net. Sample Size Calculator [Online]. [Accessed 10.04.2022]. Available: https://www.calculator.net/sample-size-calculator.html?type=1&cl=95&ci=5&pp=50&ps=1893223&x=99&y=13
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  22. [22] World Economics. Latvia’s Median Age [Online]. [Accessed 11.04.2022]. Available: https://worldeconomics.com/Demographics/Median-Age/Latvia.aspx
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  23. [23] Bearth A., et al. Barriers to the safe use of chemical household products: A comparison across European countries. Environ. Res. 2020:180:108859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.10885910.1016/j.envres.2019.10885931706596
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  24. [24] Lin B., Shi L. Do environmental quality and policy changes affect the evolution of consumers’ intentions to buy new energy vehicles. Appl. Energy 2022:310:118582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.11858210.1016/j.apenergy.2022.118582
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  25. [25] Buchmüller K., et al. Consumers’ decision-making process when choosing potentially risky, frequently used chemical household products: The case of laundry detergents. Environ. Res. 2022:209:112894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.11289410.1016/j.envres.2022.11289435149112
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  26. [26] Arslan A., et al. Climate change, consumer lifestyles and legitimation strategies of sustainability-oriented firms. Eur. Manag. J. 2021:39(6):720–730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2021.03.00510.1016/j.emj.2021.03.005
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  27. [27] D’Souza C., Taghian M., Lamb P. An empirical study on the influence of environmental labels on consumers. Corporate Communications 2006:11(2):162–173. https://doi.org/10.1108/1356328061066169710.1108/13563280610661697
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  28. [28] Hwang J.-A., Park Y., Kim Y. Why do consumers respond to eco-labels? The case of Korea. Springerplus 2016:5(1):1915. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3550-110.1186/s40064-016-3550-1509510727867822
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  29. [29] Sucapane D., Roux C., Sobol K. Exploring how product descriptors and packaging colors impact consumers’ perceptions of plant-based meat alternative products. Appetite 2021:167:105590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.10559010.1016/j.appet.2021.10559034242733
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  30. [30] Donato C., Adıgüzel F. Visual complexity of eco-labels and product evaluations in online setting: Is simple always better? J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022:67:102961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.10296110.1016/j.jretconser.2022.102961
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  31. [31] Zumaica I. Zaļā karotīte ar pircējiem jau 20 gadus (Green spoon with customers for 20 years) [Online]. [Accessed 11.04.2022]. Available: http://karotite.lv/jaunumi/zala-karotite-ar-pircejiem-jau-20-gadus (in Latvian)
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2022-0079 | Journal eISSN: 2255-8837 | Journal ISSN: 1691-5208
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 1055 - 1066
Published on: Nov 17, 2022
Published by: Riga Technical University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year
Keywords:
Eco-labelling,
green gap,
household chemicals
Related subjects:
Life sciences,
Life sciences, other

© 2022 Aneka Klavina, Maija Kalpisa, Linda Paegle, Lasma Akulova, Ivars Vanadzins, published by Riga Technical University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 26 (2022): Issue 1 (January 2022)Next article