Sustainable Consumption of Households According to the Zero Waste Concept
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
- -
- in the social dimension: participation in public decision-making, community work and equal treatment of women and minorities;
- -
- in the environmental dimension: the ability to influence the purity of air, water and soil, the protection of plants and animals and the health of the local community;
- -
- in the economic dimension: a fair financial return, decent wages and safe working conditions.
3. Materials and Methods
- preparation of the survey concept, definition of the purpose and method of the survey, identification of the statistical community (subject of the survey), identification of the characteristics covered by the survey (subject of the survey),
- conducting of the survey (collection of statistical material), review of the literature on the subject matter covered,
- analysis, evaluation and elaboration of statistical material (graphs, tables, statistical description),
- statistical inference.
- is the observed counts;
- is the theoretical counts.
- are averages in the first and second samples;
- are counts in the first and second samples;
- are variances in the first and second samples.
4. Results and Discussion
- In the case of the influence of gender, one can detect a non-significant effect on the answers: the propensity to purchase products in reusable containers (p = 0.4298—oil) and reusable products (p = 0.9465—razors, p = 0.4490—facial tissues, p = 0.2204—reusable diapers, p = 0.8891—recycled toilet paper, p = 0.2379—plastic-free bags, p = 0.5811—reusable sanitary items). In other cases, we observed the significant effect of gender on survey question responses (p < 0.05). To further confirm the differences (or reject them) between the separated groups, post hoc tests were conducted: NIR and Tuckey’s RIR test. The results indicate that the answers provided by women and men are statistically not different (with a level of significance at p < 0.05).
- In the case of age, the following were observed as non-significant: purchase of unpackaged products (p = 0.1226—rinse/dishwashing/glass cleaner, p = 0.184634—razors, p = 0.648878—plastic-free bags, p = 0.3531—reusable cloths, p = 0.050—reusable vegetable bags/bags). In other cases, we saw the significant effect of age on survey responses. Additional tests indicated significantly different responses between the 18–24 and 25–34 age groups (NIR). Tuckey’s RIR indicated no differences between the groups.
- A non-significant effect concerning education was observed for goals met by zero waste (purchase of products in refillable containers, p = 0.8559 oil, p = 0.6835 cosmetics (e.g., cream), p = 0.1740 laundry detergent, p = 0.1571 rinse/dishwashing liquid/glass cleaner), reusable products (p = 0.9920 straw, p = 0.2882 razors, p = 0.7642 plastic-free bags, p = 0.8035 cloths, p = 0.3133 vegetable bags/bags, p = 0.8777 food packaging). In other cases, there was a significant tidal effect of education on survey responses. Additional tests (NIR, Tuckey’s RIR) did not indicate differences between groups.
- In the case of the influence of the respondent’s country, non-significant differences were observed in the case of the purchase of unpackaged products (p = 0.3971 oil, p = 0.1191 nuts/almonds/raisins, p = 0.3266 cosmetics (e.g., cream), p = 0.2339 laundry detergent, p = 0.2944 rinse/dishwashing liquid/glass cleaner), use of reusable products (p = 0.6866 Straw). In other cases, a significant effect of the respondent’s country on responses was observed. Additional tests did not indicate differences between the groups formed according to the respondent’s country of residence.
- In the case of the influence of residence on respondents’ answers, the results of the analyses indicate the level of significance of answers in the case of purchase of products without packaging (p = 0.2145 dry product (e.g., rice, groats, pasta, muesli), p = 0.7841 oil, p = 0.1495 spices, p = 0.0538 nuts/almond/raisins, p = 0.0545 cosmetics (e.g., cream. cream), p = 0.3868 laundry detergent, p = 0.4289 rinse/dishwashing liquid/glass cleaner), reusable products (p = 0.4113 straw, p = 0.8413 razors, p = 0.0525 facial tissues, p = 0.3263 diapers, p = 0.1626 recycled toilet paper, p = 0.1609 plastic-free bags). For the other items in the survey questions, the place of residence had a significant influence. Additional tests indicated no differences between the groups thus selected.
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wang, J.; Wu, L. The impact of emotions on the intention of sustainable consumption choices: Evidence from a big city in an emerging country. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 126, 325–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mont, O. Clarifying the concept of product–service system. J. Clean. Prod. 2002, 10, 237–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stren, P.C. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Xiang, D.; Yang, Z.; Ma, S. Unraveling customer sustainable consumption behaviors in sharing economy: A socio-economic approach based on social exchange theory. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 869–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ganglmair-Wooliscroft, A.; Wooliscroft, B. An investigation of sustainable consumption behavior systems—Exploring personal and socio-structural characteristics in different national contexts. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 148, 161–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Circular Economy: Definition, Importance and Benefits. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/economy/20151201STO05603/circular-economy-definition-importance-and-benefits (accessed on 10 July 2023).
- Cole, C.; Osmani, M.; Quddus, M.; Wheatley, A.; Kay, K.; Cole, C.; Osmani, M.; Quddus, M.; Wheatley, A.; Kay, K. Towards a Zero Waste Strategy for an English Local Authority. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 89, 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bogusz, M.; Matysik-Pejas, R.; Krasnodebski, A.; Dziekanski, P. The Concept of Zero Waste in the Context of Supporting Environmental Protection by Consumers. Energies 2021, 14, 5964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oslo Symposium, 1994. Oslo Round Table on Sustainable Consumption and Production, 1994—1.2 Defining Sustainable Consumption. Available online: http://www.iisd.ca/consume/oslo004.html (accessed on 10 July 2023).
- Lukman, R.K.; Glavič, P.; Carpenter, A.; Virtič, P. Sustainable consumption and production—Research, experience, and developmen—The Europe we want. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 138, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boć, J.; Nowacki, K.; Samborska-Boć, E. Ochrona Środowiska, 8th ed.; Kolonia: Wrocław, Poland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Głowacki, J.; Kopyciński, P.; Mamica, Ł.; Malinowski, M. Identyfikacja i delimitacja obszarów gospodarki o obiegu zamkniętym w ramach zrównoważonej konsumpcji. In Gospodarka o Obiegu Zamkniętym w Polityce i Badaniach Naukowych; Kulczycka, W., Ed.; Wydawnictwo IGSMiE: Kraków, Poland, 2019; pp. 167–179. [Google Scholar]
- Global Warming of 1.5 °C. Special Report, October 2018. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ (accessed on 15 July 2023).
- European Parliament Environment Policy: General Principles and Basic Framework. Fact Sheets on the European Union. 2019. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/71/vides-politika-visparigi-principi-un-pamatsistema (accessed on 5 July 2023).
- European Commission EU Circular Economy Action Plan, for a Cleaner and More Competitive Europe. 2020. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/pdf/new_circular_economy_action_plan.pdf (accessed on 5 July 2023).
- Korhonen, J.; Honkasalo, A.; Seppälä, J. Circular economy: The concept and its limitations. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 143, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prieto-Sandoval, V.; Jaca, C.; Ormazabal, M. Towards a consensus on the circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 179, 605–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geissdoerfer, M.; Savaget, P.; Bocken, N.; Hultink, E.J. The circular economy—A new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 757–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muranko, Ż.; Aurisicchio, M.; Baxter, W.; Childs, P. Behavior chains in circular consumption systems: The reuse of FMCGs. In Proceedings of the IS4CE2020 Conference of the International Society for the Circular Economy, Exeter, UK, 6–7 July 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Calvo-Porral, C.; Lévy-Mangin, J.-P. The Circular Economy Business Model: Examining Consumers’ Acceptance of Recycled Goods. Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogall, H. Ekonomia Zrównoważonego Rozwoju. Teoria i Praktyka; Zysk i S-ka: Poznań, Poland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Prendeville, S.; Sanders, C.; Sherry, J.; Costa, F. Circular Economy: Is It Enough? Ecodesign Centre (EDC): Cardiff, UK, 2014; pp. 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Zink, T.; Geyer, R. Circular economy rebound. J. Ind. Ecol. 2017, 21, 593–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kirchherr, J.; Reike, D.; Hekkert, M. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 127, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lehmann, S. Resource recovery and materials flow in the city: Zero waste and sustainable consumption as paradigms in urban development. Law Policy 2011, 11, 28–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zero Waste International Alliance. Available online: https://zwia.org (accessed on 15 July 2023).
- Zero Waste—co to Jest? Available online: https://www.jozefow.pl/zero-waste-co-to-jest-1488 (accessed on 5 July 2023).
- Hannon, J.; Zaman, A.U. Exploring the Phenomenon of Zero Waste and Future Cities. Urban Sci. 2018, 2, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yule, G.U. On the association of attributes in statistics, with examples from the material of the childhood society &c. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 1900, 66, 22–23. [Google Scholar]
- Cramér, H. Mathematical Methods of Statistic; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1946. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Pogotowie Statystyczne. Available online: https://pogotowiestatystyczne.pl/slowniki/anova/ (accessed on 5 July 2023).
- Jäger-Roschko, M.; Petersen, M. Advancing the circular economy through information sharing: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 369, 133210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donia, E.; Mineo, A.M.; Sgroi, F. A methodological approach for assessing business investments in renewable resources from a circular economy perspective. Land Use Policy 2018, 76, 823–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luzzati, T.; Distefano, T.; Lalenti, S.; Andreoni, V. The circular economy and longer product lifetime: Framing the effects on working time and waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 380, 134836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kiełczewski, D. Konsumpcja a Perspektywy Zrównoważonego Rozwoju; Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku: Białystok, Poland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Kiełczewski, D. Zmiany zachowań konsumenckich jako czynnik zrównoważonego rozwoju. Hand. Wewnęt. 2012, 5, 201–208. [Google Scholar]
- Bywalec, C.; Rudnicki, L. Konsumpcja; PWE: Warszawa, Poland, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Greer, R.; von Wirth, T.; Loorbach, D. The Waste-Resource Paradox: Practical Dilemmas and Societal Implications in the Transition to a Circular Economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 303, 126831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Razzaq, A.; Ajaz, T.; Li, J.C.; Irfan, M.; Suksatan, W. Investigating the asymmetric linkages between infrastructure development, green innovation, and consumption-based material footprint: Novel empirical estimations from highly resource-consuming economies. Resour. Policy 2021, 74, 102302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meulenberg, M.T.G. Consumer and citizen. Meaning for the market of agricultural products and food products. Tijdschr. Soc. Wetens. Onderz. Landb. 2003, 18, 43–54. [Google Scholar]
- Nycz-Wóbel, J. Ecological behavior in households (on the example of opinion of residents of the podkarpackie province). Zesz. Nauk. Politech. Rzesz. Zarządzanie Mark. 2012, 19, 39–50. [Google Scholar]
- Cooreman-Algoed, M.; Boone, L.; Taelman, S.E.; Van Hemelryck, S.; Brunson, A.; Dewulf, J. Impact of consumer behavior on the environmental sustainability profile of food production and consumption chains—A case study on chicken meat. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 178, 106089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nekmahmud, M.; Ramkissoon, H.; Fekete-Farkas, M. Green Purchase and Sustainable Consumption: A Comparative Study between European and Non-European Tourists. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2022, 43, 100980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patrzałek, W. Dekonsumpcja—Racjonalny wybór czy ekonomiczny przymus? In Nowe Trendy w Konsumpcji i Zmiany w Komunikowaniu Społecznym. Współczesne Orientacje i Metody Badań; Patrzałek, W., Ed.; Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego: Wrocław, Poland, 2013; pp. 15–30. [Google Scholar]
- Lorek, E. Zmiany zachowań producentów i konsumentów na rynku w świetle wymogów zintegrowanej polityki produktowej UE. In Badania Rozwoju Rynków Produktów Rolnictwa Ekologicznego i Żywności Ekologicznej w Polsce; Graczyk, A., Mazurek-Łopacińska, K., Eds.; Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego: Wrocław, Poland, 2009; pp. 114–129. [Google Scholar]
- Russo, I.; Confente, I.; Scarpi, D.; Hazen, B.T. From trash to treasure: The impact of consumer perception of bio-waste products in closed-loop supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 218, 966–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pisitsankkhakarn, R.; Vassanadumrongdee, S. Enhancing purchase intention in circular economy: An empirical evidence of remanufactured automotive product in Thailand. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 156, 104702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Zhu, Q.; Krikke, H.; Hazen, B. How product and process knowledge enable consumer switching to remanufactured laptop computers in circular economy. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2020, 161, 120275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, T.-Y.; Chiu, Y.; Xu, W.-Z. Environmental efficiency and sustainability of food production and consumption in the EU. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 34, 440–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, D.; Stanszus, L.; Geiger, S.; Grossman, P.; Schrader, U. Mindfulness and sustainable consumption: A systematic literature review of research approaches and findings. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 544–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackson, T. Sustainable consumption. In Handbook of Sustainable Development; Atkinson, G., Dietz, S., Neumayer, E., Agarwala, M., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2014; pp. 279–290. [Google Scholar]
- Jaros, B. Sustainable consumption in practice. Summary of research findings. Studia Ekonom. 2016, 3, 148–161. [Google Scholar]
- Dziekański, P.; Prus, P.; Sołtyk, P.; Wrońska, M.; Imbrea, F.; Smuleac, L.; Pascalau, R.; Błaszczyk, K. Spatial Disproportions of the Green Economy and the Financial Situation of Polish Voivodeships in 2010–2020. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sustainable Development Report 2023. Available online: https://dashboards.sdgindex.org/rankings (accessed on 26 August 2023).
Environmental | |
---|---|
Problems | Solutions |
|
|
Socio-cultural | |
|
|
Economic | |
|
|
Characteristics | Poland N = 503 | Ukraine N = 138 | Slovakia N = 180 | Poland % | Ukraine % | Slovakia % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | ||||||
Female | 357 | 80 | 130 | 70.97 | 57.97 | 72.22 |
Male | 146 | 58 | 50 | 29.03 | 42.03 | 27.78 |
Age | ||||||
Under 18 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 0.40 | 8.70 | 0.00 |
18–24 | 344 | 84 | 42 | 68.39 | 60.87 | 23.33 |
25–34 | 63 | 16 | 34 | 12.52 | 11.59 | 18.89 |
35–44 | 33 | 16 | 40 | 6.56 | 11.59 | 22.22 |
45–54 | 35 | 6 | 30 | 6.96 | 4.35 | 16.67 |
55–64 | 18 | 4 | 16 | 3.58 | 2.90 | 8.89 |
Over 64 | 8 | 0 | 18 | 1.59 | 0.00 | 10.00 |
Level of education | ||||||
Elementary | 5 | 8 | 2 | 0.99 | 5.80 | 1.11 |
Vocational | 6 | 8 | 2 | 1.19 | 5.80 | 1.11 |
Secondary | 308 | 30 | 18 | 61.23 | 21.74 | 10.00 |
Higher | 184 | 92 | 158 | 36.58 | 66.67 | 87.78 |
Place of residence | ||||||
Village | 241 | 18 | 56 | 47.91 | 13.04 | 31.11 |
City of less than 10 thous. residents | 33 | 34 | 10 | 6.56 | 24.64 | 5.56 |
City of 10.1 thous.–50 thous. residents | 83 | 24 | 10 | 1.65 | 17.39 | 5.56 |
City of 50.1 thous.–100 thous. residents | 27 | 22 | 82 | 5.37 | 15.94 | 45.56 |
City of more than 100 thous. residents | 119 | 40 | 22 | 23.66 | 28.99 | 12.22 |
Poland % | Ukraine % | Slovakia % | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I Often Behave this Way | I Rarely Behave this Way | I Never Behave this Way | I Often Behave this Way | I Rarely Behave this Way | I Never Behave This Way | I Often Behave this Way | I Rarely Behave this Way | I Never Behave this Way | |
I go shopping with a list so I do not buy unnecessary products | 60.24 | 30.82 | 7.95 | 69.57 | 17.39 | 10.14 | 63.33 | 30.00 | 4.44 |
I go shopping with my own reusable bag | 83.10 | 14.51 | 1.79 | 59.42 | 34.78 | 2.90 | 78.89 | 15.56 | 3.33 |
I do not take a printout of the transaction confirmation | 62.23 | 22.27 | 13.92 | 43.48 | 33.33 | 17.39 | 27.78 | 50.0z | 18.89 |
I do not take samples of goods (e.g., cosmetics) if I know I will not use them up | 47.91 | 33.40 | 17.10 | 53.62 | 33.33 | 7.25 | 43.33 | 33.33 | 18.89 |
I do not take gadgets (e.g., pens, reflective tags, USB memory stick) if I know they will not be useful | 39.96 | 40.76 | 18.09 | 59.42 | 30.43 | 7.25 | 35.56 | 37.78 | 22.22 |
I try to repair clothes/shoes/electrical equipment instead of throwing them away | 62.82 | 32.41 | 3.58 | 68.12 | 24.64 | 4.35 | 54.44 | 34.44 | 6.67 |
I buy good quality products to make them last longer | 74.75 | 22.66 | 1.79 | 69.57 | 21.74 | 5.80 | 65.56 | 30.00 | 2.22 |
Selected Behaviors | I Go Shopping with a List to Avoid Buying Unnecessary Products I Go Shopping with My Own Reusable Bag | I Go Shopping with my Own Reusable Bag I Do not Buy Plastic Bags in the Store | I Do not Buy Plastic Bags in the Store I Use Glass Containers (Jars, Bottles) in the Household |
---|---|---|---|
Country | |||
Poland | Pearson’s χ2 = 67.442316 | Pearson’s χ2 = 32.120708 | Pearson’s χ2 = 2.545925 |
df = 2 | df = 2 | df = 2 | |
p < 0.000001 | p < 0.000001 | p = 0.280001 | |
Ukraine | Pearson’s χ2 = 14.656679 | Pearson’s χ2 = 5.878224 | Pearson’s χ2 = 6.767439 |
df = 2 | df = 2 | df = 2 | |
p = 0.000657 | p = 0.052913 | p = 0.033921 | |
Slovakia | Pearson’s χ2 = 11.592117 | Pearson’s χ2 = 38.206643 | Pearson’s χ2 = 10.49884 |
df = 2 | df = 2 | df = 2 | |
p = 0.00304 | p < 0.000001 | p = 0.005251 |
Products without Packaging | Respondent’s Answer (%) * | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
Poland (N = 503) | Dry products (e.g., rice, groats, pasta, muesli) | 6.76 | 7.36 | 16.90 | 16.30 | 51.49 |
Oil | 15.51 | 20.48 | 20.28 | 15.11 | 27.04 | |
Spices | 5.77 | 10.14 | 17.50 | 19.68 | 44.73 | |
Nuts/almonds/raisins | 5.37 | 5.96 | 13.12 | 19.48 | 54.47 | |
Cosmetics (e.g., cream) | 23.26 | 17.89 | 20.68 | 13.72 | 22.86 | |
Washing powder | 6.76 | 7.16 | 16.70 | 19.88 | 47.91 | |
Washing liquid | 8.95 | 8.15 | 17.89 | 20.28 | 43.14 | |
Fabric softener/dishwashing liquid/glass cleaner | 8.35 | 8.55 | 17.10 | 19.48 | 45.33 | |
Ukraine (N = 138) | Dry products (e.g., rice, groats, pasta, muesli) | 13.04 | 2.90 | 7.25 | 15.94 | 56.52 |
Oil | 15.94 | 13.04 | 23.19 | 17.39 | 27.54 | |
Spices | 11.59 | 5.80 | 10.14 | 24.64 | 42.03 | |
Nuts/almonds/raisins | 7.25 | 4.35 | 13.04 | 18.84 | 52.17 | |
Cosmetics (e.g., cream) | 20.29 | 7.25 | 17.39 | 27.54 | 24.64 | |
Washing powder | 5.80 | 17.39 | 21.74 | 18.84 | 31.88 | |
Washing liquid | 11.59 | 10.14 | 20.29 | 27.54 | 27.54 | |
Fabric softener/dishwashing liquid/glass cleaner | 11.59 | 8.70 | 11.59 | 27.54 | 36.23 | |
Slovakia (N = 180) | Dry products (e.g., rice, groats, pasta, muesli) | 15.56 | 10.00 | 23.33 | 18.89 | 30.00 |
Oil | 22.22 | 15.56 | 24.44 | 15.56 | 18.89 | |
Spices | 17.78 | 11.11 | 14.44 | 18.89 | 30.00 | |
Nuts/almonds/raisins | 10.00 | 10.00 | 14.44 | 15.56 | 45.56 | |
Cosmetics (e.g., cream) | 20.00 | 20.00 | 26.67 | 11.11 | 18.89 | |
Washing powder | 3.33 | 16.67 | 18.89 | 17.78 | 37.78 | |
Washing liquid | 10.00 | 12.22 | 13.33 | 22.22 | 38.89 | |
Fabric softener/dishwashing liquid/glass cleaner | 10.00 | 13.33 | 14.44 | 24.44 | 33.33 |
Poland–Ukraine | Poland–Slovakia | Ukraine–Slovakia | |
---|---|---|---|
Dry products (e.g., rice, groats, pasta, muesli) | t = 1.68191157 | t = 1.5368266 | t = −0.602118607 |
df = 8 | df = 8 | df = 8 | |
p = 0.131089615 | p = 0.162890003 | p = 0.563766883 | |
Oil | t = 6.30237276 | t = 5.66480389 | t = −1.65805334 |
df = 8 | df = 8 | df = 8 | |
p = 0.000232192741 | p = 0.000473236913 | p = 0.135893313 | |
Spices | t = 2.0537375 | t = 1.88767565 | t = −0.668964732 |
df = 8 | df = 8 | df = 8 | |
p = 0.0740770068 | p = 0.0957678914 | p = 0.522350095 | |
Nuts/almonds/raisins | t = 1.53919994 | t = 1.36836156 | t = −0.47179785 |
df = 8 | df = 8 | df = 8 | |
p = 0.162317847 | p = 0.208391221 | p = 0.649671264 | |
Cosmetics (e.g., cream) | t = 7.12307336 | t = 6.44778534 | t = −1.2160358 |
df = 8 | df = 8 | df = 8 | |
p = 0.0000996980343 | p = 0.000198776843 | p = 0.258632187 | |
Washing powder | t = 1.89836525 | t = 1.66328013 | t = −0.663104572 |
df = 8 | df = 8 | df = 8 | |
p = 0.0942047811 | p = 0.134827244 | p = 0.525905116 | |
Washing liquid | t = 2.23738603 | t = 1.93032297 | t = −0.736210174 |
df = 8 | df = 8 | df = 8 | |
p = 0.0556519634 | p = 0.089675956 | p = 0.482629133 | |
Fabric softener/dishwashing liquid/glass cleaner | t = 2.09383187 | t = 1.86131078 | t = −0.744322928 |
df = 8 | df = 8 | df = 8 | |
p = 0.0696020761 | p = 0.0997296269 | p = 0.47797234 |
Products Shaping Sustainable Consumption | Respondent’s Answer (%) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
Poland (N = 503) | Reusable water bottle | 3.18 | 4.97 | 8.35 | 13.52 | 69.38 |
Reusable travel/thermal mug | 1.79 | 3.18 | 7.95 | 12.13 | 73.76 | |
Reusable straw | 16.90 | 11.13 | 14.51 | 13.92 | 42.54 | |
Reusable razors | 6.16 | 7.75 | 13.72 | 16.10 | 55.07 | |
Reusable facial tissues | 35.39 | 18.69 | 22.27 | 8.35 | 14.31 | |
Reusable containers for sandwiches and food | 1.39 | 3.78 | 7.55 | 9.54 | 76.54 | |
Reusable diapers | 34.99 | 19.88 | 21.87 | 8.35 | 13.52 | |
Fabric shopping bags | 1.59 | 2.78 | 4.97 | 7.16 | 81.91 | |
Recycled toilet paper | 12.72 | 13.32 | 21.07 | 18.89 | 32.60 | |
Plastic free bags | 2.98 | 3.78 | 11.33 | 16.10 | 63.42 | |
Reusable sanitary articles | 18.69 | 14.31 | 27.63 | 15.90 | 21.87 | |
Reusable cloths | 4.77 | 8.35 | 14.71 | 19.68 | 50.89 | |
Reusable nets/bags for vegetables | 2.19 | 4.97 | 11.13 | 18.09 | 62.23 | |
Reusable food packaging | 1.99 | 5.37 | 11.53 | 20.87 | 59.24 | |
Ukraine (N = 138) | Reusable water bottle | 10.14 | 7.25 | 4.35 | 26.09 | 49.28 |
Reusable travel/thermal mug | 2.90 | 13.04 | 4.35 | 24.64 | 52.17 | |
Reusable straw | 10.14 | 1.45 | 26.09 | 19.71 | 39.13 | |
Reusable razors | 13.04 | 5.80 | 11.59 | 20.29 | 44.93 | |
Reusable facial tissues | 15.94 | 11.59 | 15.94 | 20.29 | 33.33 | |
Reusable containers for sandwiches and food | 4.35 | 5.80 | 10.14 | 20.29 | 56.52 | |
Reusable diapers | 14.49 | 21.74 | 20.29 | 13.04 | 27.54 | |
Fabric shopping bags | 5.80 | 4.35 | 7.25 | 14.49 | 65.22 | |
Recycled toilet paper | 10.14 | 8.70 | 23.19 | 14.49 | 40.58 | |
Plastic free bags | 7.25 | 4.35 | 8.70 | 10.14 | 65.22 | |
Reusable sanitary articles | 4.35 | 8.70 | 18.84 | 30.43 | 30.43 | |
Reusable cloths | 4.35 | 10.14 | 8.70 | 27.54 | 46.38 | |
Reusable nets/bags for vegetables | 4.35 | 5.80 | 10.14 | 20.29 | 56.52 | |
Reusable food packaging | 2.90 | 4.35 | 13.04 | 17.39 | 59.42 | |
Slovakia (N = 180) | Reusable water bottle | 7.78 | 7.78 | 14.44 | 11.11 | 56.67 |
Reusable travel/thermal mug | 7.78 | 10.00 | 14.44 | 20.00 | 45.56 | |
Reusable straw | 14.44 | 8.89 | 20.00 | 16.67 | 35.56 | |
Reusable razors | 13.33 | 8.89 | 20.00 | 15.56 | 36.67 | |
Reusable facial tissues | 18.89 | 16.67 | 26.67 | 7.78 | 26.67 | |
Reusable containers for sandwiches and food | 11.11 | 4.44 | 16.67 | 10.00 | 53.33 | |
Reusable diapers | 20.00 | 22.22 | 20.00 | 13.33 | 15.56 | |
Fabric shopping bags | 7.78 | 2.22 | 11.11 | 7.78 | 65.56 | |
Recycled toilet paper | 6.67 | 6.67 | 20.00 | 14.44 | 46.67 | |
Plastic free bags | 12.22 | 7.78 | 151.11 | 11.11 | 50.00 | |
Reusable sanitary articles | 7.78 | 17.78 | 22.22 | 11.11 | 26.67 | |
Reusable cloths | 7.78 | 6.67 | 33.33 | 17.78 | 30.00 | |
Reusable nets/bags for vegetables | 5.56 | 8.89 | 14.44 | 20.00 | 46.67 | |
Reusable food packaging | 6.67 | 12.22 | 12.22 | 22.22 | 42.22 |
Poland-Ukraine-Slovakia | Gender | Age | Education | Country | Place of Residence |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Purchase of products without packaging | p—level of significance | ||||
Dry products (e.g., rice, groats, pasta, muesli) | 0.019582 | 0.000021 | 0.026678 | 5.7095 | 0.214503 |
Oil | 0.429884 | 0.017016 | 0.855967 | 0.9896 | 0.784186 |
Spices | 0.001424 | 0.000658 | 0.029675 | 4.6098 | 0.149549 |
Nuts/almonds/raisins | 0.001072 | 0.000013 | 0.003909 | 1.9572 | 0.053888 |
Cosmetics (e.g., cream) | 0.030033 | 0.010902 | 0.683540 | 1.1537 | 0.054597 |
Washing powder | 0.038570 | 0.012022 | 0.019795 | 3.1067 | 0.011645 |
Washing liquid | 0.029873 | 0.025645 | 0.174088 | 1.4261 | 0.386899 |
Fabric softener/dishwashing liquid/glass cleaner | 0.021773 | 0.122690 | 0.157118 | 1.2393 | 0.428969 |
Use of products | p—level of significance | ||||
Reusable water bottle | 0.000001 | 0.000049 | 0.013984 | 5.1091 | 0.013305 |
Reusable travel/thermal mug | 0.000000 | 0.000379 | 0.000001 | 13.8305 | 0.004248 |
Reusable straw | 0.000000 | 0.013522 | 0.992043 | 0.4939 | 0.411384 |
Reusable razors | 0.946546 | 0.184634 | 0.288250 | 4.1309 | 0.841329 |
Reusable facial tissues | 0.449038 | 0.000000 | 0.000004 | 11.7600 | 0.052549 |
Reusable containers for sandwiches and food | 0.004262 | 0.002613 | 0.000143 | 11.6134 | 0.000001 |
Reusable diapers | 0.220412 | 0.000000 | 0.006350 | 7.0626 | 0.326363 |
Fabric shopping bags | 0.000407 | 0.000029 | 0.001572 | 6.4866 | 0.010134 |
Recycled toilet paper | 0.889105 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 | 3.5064 | 0.162648 |
Plastic free bags | 0.237993 | 0.648878 | 0.764212 | 6.6797 | 0.160998 |
Reusable sanitary articles | 0.581118 | 0.001184 | 0.004022 | 5.0589 | 0.090480 |
Reusable cloths | 0.000002 | 0.353117 | 0.803570 | 3.8736 | 0.002136 |
Reusable nets/bags for vegetables | 0.000908 | 0.050205 | 0.313394 | 3.1592 | 0.075997 |
Reusable food packaging | 0.000104 | 0.012826 | 0.877766 | 4.5714 | 0.001954 |
NIR test | differences between groups: women and men | difference between groups: 18–24 and 25–34 | none | none | none |
RIR Tukey test | differences between groups: women and men | none | none | none | none |
HSD test (uneven N) | none | none | none | none | none |
Position in the Ranking | Country | Score |
---|---|---|
1 | Finland | 86.76 |
2 | Sweden | 85.98 |
3 | Denmark | 85.68 |
4 | Germany | 83.36 |
5 | Austria | 82.28 |
6 | France | 82.05 |
8 | Czech Republic | 81.87 |
9 | Poland | 81.80 |
10 | Estonia | 81.68 |
12 | Croatia | 81.50 |
13 | Slovenia | 81.01 |
14 | Latvia | 80.68 |
16 | Spain | 80.43 |
17 | Ireland | 80.15 |
18 | Portugal | 80.02 |
19 | Belgium | 79.46 |
20 | Netherlands | 79.42 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bogusz, M.; Matysik-Pejas, R.; Krasnodębski, A.; Dziekański, P. Sustainable Consumption of Households According to the Zero Waste Concept. Energies 2023, 16, 6516. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16186516
Bogusz M, Matysik-Pejas R, Krasnodębski A, Dziekański P. Sustainable Consumption of Households According to the Zero Waste Concept. Energies. 2023; 16(18):6516. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16186516
Chicago/Turabian StyleBogusz, Małgorzata, Renata Matysik-Pejas, Andrzej Krasnodębski, and Paweł Dziekański. 2023. "Sustainable Consumption of Households According to the Zero Waste Concept" Energies 16, no. 18: 6516. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16186516
APA StyleBogusz, M., Matysik-Pejas, R., Krasnodębski, A., & Dziekański, P. (2023). Sustainable Consumption of Households According to the Zero Waste Concept. Energies, 16(18), 6516. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16186516