Consumer Preferences for Less Packaging:
A Stated Preference Study
Keiko Yamaguchi
Kenji Takeuchi
September 2011
Discussion Paper No.1117

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS
KOBE UNIVERSITYROKKO, KOBE, JAPANConsumer Preferences for Less Packaging:
A Stated Preference Study∗

Keiko Yamaguchi
Associate Professor,
Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Okayama University.
Kita-ku, Okayama, 700-8530, Japan
yamaguchi@e.okayama-u.ac.jp

Kenji Takeuchi
Associate Professor,
Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University.
Nada-ku, Kobe, 657-8501, Japan
takeuchi@econ.kobe-u.ac.jp∗

Acknowledgement A previous version of this paper was presented at the 86th Annual West-ern Economic Association International Conference. We acknowledge helpful comments from
Masanobu Ishikawa, Koichi Kuriyama, Takahiro Tsuge, Taro Ohdoko, Masashi Yamamoto, andBevin Ashenmiller. This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) (22730198)
and a Grant-in-Aid for Scientiﬁc Research (B) (21330056).

1

Abstract
This study estimates the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for packaging with lessmaterial by using contingent valuation. We found that people who care about
the environmental friendliness of a product, who have a positive perception ofless packaging, and who live in a municipality implementing unit-based pricing
of waste have a higher WTP. Use of economic instruments potentially aﬀects
the purchase of products with reduced packaging. However, when unit-based
pricing is combined with plastic separation for recycling, it reduces the WTP.
This suggests the possibility that the eﬀect of economic instruments on source
reduction of waste is weakened by the recycling policy.

Keywords Less packaging; Contingent valuation; Unit-based pricing
JEL Classiﬁcation M31, Q51, Q53

2

1

Introduction

The amount of municipal solid waste ﬁnal disposed of in Japan gradually decreased
over the last decade, dropping from 109 million tons in 2000 to 51 million tons in2009 (Japanese Ministry of the Environment 2011). This was presumably due tothe implementation of several laws concerning the recycling of materials. As a resultof such legislation, the amount of recycled municipal solid waste showed a steadyincrease from 70 million tons in 2000 to 95 million tons in 2009. While recycling
can reduce the amount of waste ﬁnally disposed of, it requires energy and labor
input. This leads to the assertion that in waste management more attention shouldbe paid to the source reduction. In comparison with recycling activities, there seems
to have been less activity aimed at source reduction of waste. For this reason, it isimportant to understand what problems are connected with source reduction andhow we can better promote it.
Buying commodities packaged with less material is one of the signiﬁcant waysof practising source reduction of waste. Dewees (1998) reviews the regulation of
packaging waste in Canada and ﬁnds that source reduction has reduced the disposalof soft drink packaging waste more than either mandatory deposit-refund programsor household recycling. He concludes that, except for reﬁllable beer bottle, Canadian
consumers have rejected reﬁllable beverage containers and that source reduction has
been achieved mainly by manufacturers as a market-driven measure.
When it comes to green packaging, a broader concept than less packaging, several
studies have investigated consumer perceptions and behavior. Bech-Larsen (1996)3

investigated Danish consumers’ attitudes to food packaging by using several questionnaire surveys. His results indicate that a number of consumers are concerned
about the environmental consequences of packaging waste, though their perceptions
seldom aﬀect actual purchasing behavior. Furthermore, it seems that consumers do
not think that they are able to solve the packaging waste problem. Bech-Larsen
suggests that environmental information should stress, by means of shelf labeling,shop signs, and other forms of communication at the place of selection, the positive
contribution to environmental quality that consumers can make.
Rokka and Uusitalo (2008) investigate Finnish consumers’ preference for recyclable packaging by using a choice-based conjoint analysis. Their results indicatethat consumers evaluate recyclable packaging positively, as well as the resealabilityof packages. They also identiﬁed various distinctive consumer segments in the market. Contrary to previous studies, they found that the largest consumer segment
favored environmentally labelled packaging as the most important criteria in theirchoice.
This paper focuses on less packaging and studies how consumers evaluate it byusing the stated preference approach. By examining consumer preferences, we can
empirically investigate the potential demand for products with less packaging andits price competitiveness as compared to the products with conventional packaging.
Estimation of willingness-to-pay (WTP) for less packaging has signiﬁcant implications for designing an adequate waste policy. First of all, a higher WTP for such a
qualitatively diﬀerent goods means that it would be possible to promote these goods4

to green consumers. If products with less packaging are attractive enough, they canincrease their market share without need for any policy intervention. Secondly, theWTP would be aﬀected by various factors such as consumers’ demographic characteristics and their perception of the pros and cons of less packaging. Understanding
the characteristics of consumers who prefer less packaging would provide signiﬁcanthints for eﬀective green marketing. Furthermore, we also investigate the eﬀect ofpolicy instruments relating to waste management on the promotion of products withless packaging. Economic instruments like the unit-based pricing of waste collection
might induce a higher WTP for less packaging due to higher disposal costs. On
the other hand, the separation of waste for recycling might reduce WTP for lesspackaging, since source reduction becomes less attractive when people believe thatrecycling is preferable.
We use a bidding game contingent valuation method in our survey. In the bidding
game format, respondents are iteratively asked whether they would be willing to
pay a certain amount to acquire the product. The amounts are raised or lowered,depending on the response to the previously oﬀered amount. This process allows
researchers to estimate the individual WTP of each respondent more eﬃciently. It
has been pointed out, however, that this approach may suﬀer from starting point
bias, and so we prepare scenarios with three diﬀerent starting bids and examine if
there is or is not a starting point bias.
The aim of this paper is twofold. First, it is to investigate consumers’ WTP for
less packaging. Although there have been several studies on consumer perceptions

5and their behavior in regard to green packaging (Bech-Larsen 1996; Rokka andUusitalo 2008; Matsumoto 2011), no attempt has been made to study WTP for lesspackaging and analyze the individual characteristics that aﬀect how much people
are willing to pay. Secondly, it is to investigate the eﬀect of policy instrumentson consumer preference for less packaging. Previous studies on green packaging
tend to emphasize the eﬀect of environmental information provided at the store
shelves, whereas this study looks at the interaction between waste policies and green
marketing. From both the theoretical and empirical point of view, we investigate
how waste policies would aﬀect the consumer preference for packaging with lessmaterials.
The reminder of this paper proceeds as follows. We develop a simple model ofconsumer preference in Section 2. Section 3 describes the survey design and the data.
Following that, econometric models are provided in Section 4. Section 5 summarizes
the empirical results of our estimation. Section 6 discusses the implication of thoseresults. Section 7 presents our conclusions.

2

A model of consumer preference

Our theoretical model is based on Björner et al. (2004); for the sake of simplicity
we omit the choice of an optimal quantity of products and restrict our attention to
the marginal purchasing decision. We assume a linear utility function

Ui = αi + βXi + γ(M − pi ),6(1)

where subscript i = l, c represents a type of the product (l is a product with lesspackaging and c is a product with conventional packaging), Xi is a vector of observable good attributes, M is exogenously given income, pi is the price of the products,
αi captures the utility eﬀect of unobserved type speciﬁc attributes, β is the vector ofparameters for observable good attributes, and γ is the marginal utility of income.
A consumer will prefer a product with less packaging rather than a product withconventional packaging when

Ul > Uc .

(2)

If a consumer switches his/her choice at pl − pc , the willingness to pay for lesspackaging can be deﬁned as

p l − pc = W T P =αl − αc + β(Xl − Xc )
.
γ

(3)

When there is a unit-based pricing policy for waste disposal, households have to
pay tZi , where t represents a disposal fee per volume of waste and Zi represents thevolume of waste from consuming the product. The WTP for less packaging under aunit-based disposal fee now takes into account the diﬀerence in the fee payment:

WTPt =

αl − αc + β(Xl − Xc )− (tZl − tZc ).
γ(4)Since tZl < tZc , W T P t should be higher than WTP. So there is a higher WTP for
less packaging when there is a unit-based pricing policy.

7

When plastic separation for recycling is implemented in the municipality where
the consumer lives, the consumer would engage in recycling activities to some extent.
We use r to indicate the ratio of separation and assume that it is motivated mainlyby the social norms of the consumer and is not inﬂuenced by the type of products.
Therefore, the expected WTP for less packaging under a plastic separation policy
can be expressed as the weighted sum of two kinds of WTP, thus:

W T P ρ = (1 − r)W T P + rW T P s
αl − αc + β(Xl − Xc )αls − αcs + β s (Xl − Xc )= (1 − r)
+r
γ
γ

(5)
(6)

where fraction (1 − r) is emitted as a waste and fraction r is emitted as recyclable
plastic. W T P is the willingness to pay for less packaging when it is treated as waste
and W T P s the willingness to pay for less packaging when it is treated as recyclable.
If an individual believes that recycling is environmentally at least as good as source
reduction, the diﬀerence in evaluation between a product with less packaging anda product with conventional packaging becomes smaller. That means that the ﬁnal
term of equation (6) becomes smaller. In that case, W T P ρ is lower than W T P :waste separation for recycling might reduce WTP for less packaging.
When there is a combination of a unit-based pricing policy and a plastic separation policy, there is an incentive for the consumer to avoid the payment of a disposal
fee by separating the waste, since typically there is no charge for recyclables. Thus,
the separation ratio r′ under the combined policy would be higher than r. We
express the expected WTP for less packaging under a combined policy as

8W T P tρ = (1 − r′ )W T P t + r′ W T P s .

(7)

As long as W T P s is small, W T P tρ is lower than W T P t . That is, WTP for lesspackaging under the combined policy might be lower than that under the unit-based
pricing only. Furthermore, the diﬀerence between W T P tρ and W T P t is larger fora higher r′ . When the consumer is more likely to avoid the payment of a disposal
fee by separating the waste, the eﬀect of the combined policy to reduce the WTP
becomes stronger.

3

Data

3.1

Survey Design

The survey was implemented in December 2010, after several pretests with a small
number of respondents to reﬁne survey wording and to reduce scenario rejection.
We sent e-mails to registered monitors of a survey company to invite them to answer on-line questionnaires. Among 10,717 persons who received the e-mails, 2,411
completed the questionnaire (the response rate was 22.5 percent). After incomplete
answers were rejected, 2,214 responses remained for analysis.
The survey instrument is divided into four sections. The ﬁrst section asks about
respondents’ daily shopping behavior, such as their degree of concern about the price,
quality, brand, and environmental friendliness of body care products. The second
section consists of contingent valuation (CV) questions on reduced packaging. We

9use a bidding game type of CV question with pairwise comparison of products.
The reason for using the bidding game format is that it enables us to estimate anindividual’s WTP more precisely. In addition, pairwise comparison is useful when
we ask a consumer to choose, for example, between a bottle shampoo and a reﬁllpack shampoo on a retailers shelves. The third section includes questions about
factors that might aﬀect the WTP of respondents: for example, we ask their viewson less packaging and whether or not there is a unit-based pricing of waste collectionin their municipalities. Questions on socio-demographic characteristics are asked in
the last section.
In the CV section we described two products (bottle shampoo and reﬁll-packshampoo) with prices indicated and asked respondents to answer which would be
preferable if they were to choose. We explained that these products are identical in
quality and quantity but are diﬀerent with respect to their packaging. The bottle
shampoo is packaged in a plastic bottle; the reﬁll-pack shampoo is packaged in aplastic ﬁlm and consumers usually pour it into an empty bottle before use. An
example of a question in that section is given in Figure 1.
//Figure 1////Figure 2//
Figure 2 shows the structure of the bidding process. We indicate the price ofthe bottle shampoo as pil and the price of the reﬁll-pack shampoo as pic , where irepresents the stage of the bidding game. In the ﬁrst stage, the respondents are
asked to choose one from two products that are the same price (p1l = p1c ). This10

initial bid for a respondent is determined by his/her answer to the question on theprice range of shampoos that he/she usually buys. We used the median value ofthe price range as the starting bid. After the respondent’s choice in the ﬁrst stage,
the price of the product chosen increases by 25 Japanese yen in the second stage,
while the price of the unchosen product remains the same as in the ﬁrst stage (1Japanese yen = 0.0119 US dollar as of 1 December 2010). The bidding is iterated
until the respondent switches his/her choice of the preferred product. Since it seems
unreasonable to expect respondents’ WTP to be 50 % higher than the average priceof the product, the maximum iteration is set at 13 times.
To detect any starting-point bias, we prepare subsamples whose starting bid on
the reﬁll pack is higher or lower by 50 Japanese yen compared to the base case(p1l +50 or p1l -50). The diﬀerence between these subsamples is only the ﬁrst bid.
The price change in each bidding sequence is always kept at 25 Japanese yen. We
also prepare subsamples that face a decreasing, instead of an increasing, price in thecourse of the bidding game. For these subsamples, the price of the unchosen productin the ﬁrst stage decreases by 25 Japanese yen in the second stage, while the priceof the chosen product is same as the ﬁrst stage. By comparing respondents’ WTP
with the base case, we can examine if the direction of the bidding sequence aﬀects
the result. In summary, there are six diﬀerent scenarios, depending on diﬀerencesin the starting bid between products and on the directions of the bidding sequences(Table 1).

//Table 1//

11

3.2

Perceptions of Less Packaging

After the CV questions, we asked respondents their perceptions of reﬁll-pack shampoo, using a four-point Likert scale. The four possible responses range from “strongly
agree” to “strongly disagree”. Items evaluated are; It is compact (Percep1); It isenvironmental friendly (Percep2); It is unpleasant when the container gets old (Percep3); Reﬁlling is troublesome (Percep4); and Waste separation is easy (Percep5).

//Figure 3//

Figure 3 shows the summary of the responses. Many respondents admit theenvironmental friendliness of the reﬁll pack, while many people also agree that thecontainer looks unsightly when it gets old. Responses to the statement that the
reﬁlling is troublesome were divided roughly in half. Correlations between theseperception scores are not very high, as the highest correlation is -0.281 between“environmental friendliness” (Percep2) and “waste separation” (Percep5).

3.3

Descriptive Statistics of Variables

Descriptive statistics are reported in Table 2. The demographic variables of respondents are gender (Gender), age (Age), size of household (F aminumb), type of thedwelling (House), education (U niv), and annual income (Income).
We asked respondents their consciousness of four attributes when buying bodycare products from “very important” to “not important at all”. The four attributes
are price (Cprice), quality (Cquality), brand name (Cbrand), and environmental

12

friendliness (Cenv). These scores are useful to investigate how what respondents
look for when shopping could aﬀect their WTP for reduced packaging.
There are diﬀerences in the prices of the shampoo that respondents usuallypurchase, and this might aﬀect their WTP. We divide prices into ﬁve ranges: below
300 yen (base), 300 yen to 500 yen (U p300), 500 yen to 700 yen (U p500), 700 yen
to 900 yen (U p700), and above 900 yen (U p900). This information is used to set
the starting bid in the CV questions. U ref ill is a dummy variable that takes 1
when the respondent usually purchases the reﬁll-pack shampoo. This variable is notincluded in the WTP model; instead, it is used as a dependent variable to examine
the determinants of the usual purchase behavior of reﬁll-pack shampoo.
To consider the inﬂuence of policies by municipalities regarding containers andpackaging on the WTP for reduced packaging, we added a question on the implementation of unit-based pricing of waste (P aypbag) and implementation of separate
collection of the plastic containers and packaging (P lastic). While it is expectedthat the unit-based pricing will increase the WTP for less packaging, the eﬀect of
separation of plastics is indeterminate, since separation would be necessary for both
plastic bottles and plastic ﬁlms if such a policy were implemented. WTP for lesspackaging would be reduced by the introduction of plastic separation for recycling,if the consumer believes that recycling is a better option than source reduction.
P aypla is the interaction term of P aypbag and P lastic. When unit-based pricing is
combined with plastic separation, WTP for less packaging would become lower thanthat when there is unit-based pricing only. This is because recyclables are typically13

collected without a fee and consumers can avoid unit-based pricing by separating
plastic containers and packaging.
//Table 2//

4

Econometric Models

4.1

Interval Regression Model

Since the responses to the bidding game are censored data, we use the interval
regression model for estimating the WTP (Cameron and Huppert 1989). If the
responses change at a certain range of the suggested bid, the WTP of individual ilies in the interval between the lower bid (tli ) and the upper bid (tui ).
W T Pi = x′i β + εi ,(8)where εi is normal distribution with N(0, σ). The probability that W T Pi lies between the interval is
Pr(W T Pi ⊆ (tli , tui )) = Pr((tli − βXi )/σ < zi < (tui − βXi )/σ),(9)where zi is the normal random variable. Let zui and zli represent the upper andlower limits in the above equation, respectively. Then for a given observation, it
can be written by using Φ(zui ) and Φ(zli ), where Φ is the cumulative standard
normal density function. The joint probability density function for n independent
observation is deﬁned by the following log-likelihood function:logL =

n∑log[Φ(zui ) − Φ(zli )].

i=1

14

(10)

4.2

Purchase Behavior Model

The purchase behavior model examines the determinants of behavior to buy thereﬁll shampoo, using the binary choice model and taking U ref ill as the dependent
variable. Independent variables are the same as the WTP models except for variables
with respect to the settings of the CV questionnaire (P rup , P atpl50, and P atmn50).
The utility function is deﬁned as

Uki = βXki + εki ,(11)where the subscripts k = l, c denote the reﬁll shampoo and bottle shampoo, respectively. The dependent variable U ref ill is unity if Uli ≥ Uci , while U ref ill is zero if
Uli < Uci .

5

Empirical Results

5.1

Results by Interval Regression Model

Table 3 shows the estimated results by three interval regression models with diﬀerent
explanatory variables included. Model 3 contains the full set of variables with area
ﬁxed eﬀect. The area variable divides Japan into ten groups, each composed ofseveral prefectures: Hokkaido, Tohoku, Kanto, Koshin, Hokuriku, Tokai, Kansai,
Chugoku, Shikoku, and Kyushu.

//Table 3//15Consciousness of Attributes
We asked respondents regarding their consciousness of four attributes in purchasing
body-care products: price, quality, brand, and environmental friendliness. The
positive and signiﬁcant coeﬃcient of environmental friendliness (Cenv) suggests that
respondents who care about the environmental impact of a product have a higher
WTP. Other coeﬃcients of variables related to consciousness are not signiﬁcant.

Perception on Reﬁll-Pack Shampoo
Respondents have various perceptions regarding reﬁll-pack shampoo, and these factors might have an impact on their WTP. Among the perception variables, P ercep1(compact), P ercep2 (environmental friendliness), P ercep5 (waste separation) havepositive and signiﬁcant coeﬃcients. On the other hand, the coeﬃcients of P ercep3(containers looks unsightly when it gets old) and P ercep4 (reﬁlling is troublesome)are negative and signiﬁcant.

Policy Instruments for Waste Management
A positive and signiﬁcant coeﬃcient for P aypbag suggests a higher WTP by respondents who live in a municipality implementing a unit-based pricing of waste
collection. Because the unit-based pricing increases the cost of disposal, the demand for less packaging becomes higher. A policy intervention through economic
instruments potentially aﬀects the purchase of products with reduced packaging.
Plastic separation (P lastic) is positive and signiﬁcant in two models. Therefore,

16

less packaging would be evaluated positively although its statistical signiﬁcance isweak even under the plastic separation policy. P aypla is negative and signiﬁcant.
When combined with unit-based pricing, plastic separation reduces WTP for lesspackaging. This suggests the possibility that the eﬀect of economic instruments on
promotion of source reduction is weakened by the existence of a recycling policy.

Starting Point Bias and Bidding Scheme
The coeﬃcients of P atpl50 are positive and those of P atmn50 are negative. Statistical signiﬁcance suggests the existence of a starting point bias in this sample. Increasing sequence (P rup ) is not signiﬁcant and this implies that the bidding scheme does
not aﬀect the WTP. This suggests that there is no framing eﬀect and respondents
appropriately recognize the diﬀerence in prices between two substitutes regardlessof the sequence of bidding.

The WTP for Reduced Packaging
The mean WTP is estimated as 2.469 [-3.378, 8.315] Japanese yen (approximately
2.5 US cents) when the starting bid is zero, that is, when there are no price diﬀerences
between conventional packaging and less packaging in the ﬁrst question (the numbers
in square brackets mean a 95% conﬁdence interval). The mean WTP becomes 14.122[7.646, 20.599] Japanese yen when the starting bid is 50 Japanese yen and -7.495[-13.144, -1.846] Japanese yen when the starting bid is minus 50 Japanese yen . On
average, consumers are willing to pay a very small amount for less packaging. Whenthe starting point is negative, it can become even negative. In the next section,17

we consider models that explain the usual purchase behavior of products with lesspackaging.

5.2

Usual Purchase Behavior

Taking U ref ill as a dependent variable, we can estimate a model that explains theusual purchase behavior of reﬁll shampoo. Table 4 shows the estimated results inlogit and probit models. When the results is compared with that of the interval
models of WTP, diﬀerences can be found in the determinants.
//Table 4//First, consciousness of quality is signiﬁcant in the purchase behavior model while
it is not signiﬁcant in the WTP model. On the other hand, consciousness of environmental friendliness is not signiﬁcant in the purchase behavior model but it is significant in the WTP model. These diﬀerences suggest that even though consciousnessof environmental friendliness contributes to a higher WTP, it does not necessarily
explain the actual behavior of purchasing a reﬁll pack. In general, reﬁll-pack shampoos are sold at retailers with cheaper prices than bottle shampoos. This means that
consumers are motivated to buy a reﬁll pack even if they are not concerned about
the environmental friendliness of the products. The signiﬁcant coeﬃcient of the
consciousness of quality supports this supposition, since a focus on quality naturallymeans attributing value to the content of products, not to the packaging. The insigniﬁcance of the coeﬃcient for perception of environmental friendliness (P ercep2)in the behavior model also coﬁrms this interpretation.

18

Second, all coeﬃcients for price ranges (U p300, U p500, U p700, U p900) are statistically signiﬁcant in the purchase behavior model, while some of them are notsigniﬁcant in the WTP model. Moreover, the size of the coeﬃcient estimated in the
behavior model is lower for the higher price range. While this can be interpreted asa natural result of the fact that reﬁll packs are sold at lower prices, it might be areﬂection of the possibility of choice at the store shelves. When there are constraints
facing consumers who want products in the higher price range, e.g., the unavailability of reﬁll-pack variants, consumers would have no choice but to purchase a bottle
shampoo.
The policy variables (P aypbag, P lastic, P aypla) are not statistically signiﬁcantin the behavior model. This is in contrast to the theoretical and empirical investigations in earlier sections suggesting that WTP for less packaging would be aﬀectedby unit-based pricing and waste separation. A part of the reason might again be
the price diﬀerence between reﬁll-pack and bottle shampoos. When the diﬀerenceis large enough, even consumers who have a negative WTP would buy a reﬁll pack.
The impact of policy instruments might not be detectable from actual behavior
when the price eﬀect is strong.

6

Discussion

Many studies have conﬁrmed that consumers are willing to pay some premium forenvironmental attributes of products. Examples include agricultural products produced with environmentally sound production and management techniques (Moon19

et al. 2002), environmentally certiﬁed forest products (O’Brien and Teisl 2004), andorganic ﬁbers embodied in apparel goods (Nimon and Beghin 1999). The motivation for accepting the premium on green products has been analyzed within theframework of internalized moral norms (Nyborg et al. 2006) or conformity to otherpeople’s behavior (Carlsson et al. 2010).
Despite the studies suggesting a willingness to pay some premium for green
products, this study ﬁnd the WTP for less packaging of shampoo items is a verysmall amount (2.469 Japanese yen, approximately 2.5 US cents) and can be negative
when the starting bid for a reﬁll pack is negative. This result might be attributed totwo distinct characteristics of this particular type of green product. The ﬁrst is thatthe reﬁll-pack shampoo is sold at a lower price than bottle shampoo. As WTP for
hypothetical products is inﬂuenced by the starting bid, the WTP for less packaging
in the real market would be inﬂuenced by this reference point. Although many
consumers are choosing reﬁll-pack shampoo, the estimated results of the behavior
models suggest that the motivation behind the choice may not be concern for theenvironment. This is a virtue of less packaging, since green products is promoted
through price incentives even if people are not environmentally conscious.
The second characteristic is the negative perceptions connected with the products with the less packaging. Estimation results suggest that P ercep3 (container
looks unsightly when it gets old) and P ercep4 (reﬁlling is troublesome) are negativeand signiﬁcant. This negative characteristic of a reﬁll pack contrasts with green
products evaluated in previous studies. In most of those studies, the sole diﬀerence

20

(other than price) between green products and conventional products is the positive
contribution of the former to the environmental quality. Reducing these negative
perceptions by technological innovation and providing more information regarding
the environmental friendliness of less packaging would contribute to increase WTP
and strengthen the competitiveness of products.

7

Conclusion

We investigated the WTP for reduced packaging products by using the bidding gamecombined with a web-based survey. Estimated results showed that the average WTP
for eco-friendly packaging is roughly 2.5 Japanese yen for the base case of the startingbid. The individual characteristics that signiﬁcantly aﬀect WTP were: concern for
the environment in daily shopping; perceptions regarding reﬁll-pack shampoo; andthe implementation of unit-based pricing of waste collection.
Our results suggest that there is an interaction between waste policy and green
marketing. Because the unit-based pricing increases the cost of disposal, the demand for less packaging becomes higher through the use of economic instruments.
However, when unit-based pricing is combined with plastic separation, it reduces
WTP for less packaging. This suggests the possibility that the eﬀect of economic
instruments on promotion of source reduction is weakened by the existence of arecycling policy.
Since the estimated WTP is low and depends on the starting bid, the current
situation of the diﬀerence in price between bottle shampoos and reﬁll-pack shampoos

21

would serve as a reference point that leads to negative WTP. Nevertheless, if theenvironmental friendliness of less packaging were emphasized in sales promotion,
this would highten the WTP and strengthen the competitiveness of the product.

22

References[1] Bech-Larsen, T., 1996. Danish consumers’ attitude to the functional and environmental characteristics of food packaging. Journal of Consumer Policy 19,339-363.
[2] Björner, T.B., Hansen, L.G., Russell, C.S., 2004. Environmental labeling andconsumers’ choice - An empirical analysis of the eﬀect of the Nordic Swan.
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 47, 411?434.
[3] Cameron, T.A., Huppert, D.D., 1989. OLS versus ML estimation of non-market
resource values with payment card interval data. Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management 17, 230-246.
[4] Carlsson, F., Garcia, J.H., Lofgren, A., 2010. Conformity and the demand forenvironmental goods. Environmental and Resource Economics 47, 407-421.
[5] Dewees, D.N., Hare, M.J., 1998. Economic analysis of packaging waste reduction. Canadian Public Policy 24(4), 453-470.
[6] Long, J.S., Freese, J., 2005. Regression models for categorical outcomes using
Stata. Second Edition. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
[7] Japanese Ministry of the Environment, 2011. Waste Treatment in Japan 2009.
(in Japanese.)[8] Matsumoto, S., 2011. Market work and pro-environmental activities: Are we
spending time on promoting the environment or earning more money? Paper

23presented at the Environmental Economics Seminar at Kobe University, May
20, 2011.
[9] Moon, W., Florkowski, W.J., Bruckner, B., Schonhof, I., 2002. Willingness topay for environmental practices: Implications for eco-labeling. Land Economics,
78(1), 88-102.
[10] Nimon, W., Beghin, J., 1999. Are eco-labels valuable? Evidence from the apparel industry. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81, 801-811.
[11] Nyborg, K., Howarth, R.B., Brekke, K.A., 2006. Green consumers and public
policy: On socially contingent moral motivation. Resource and Energy Economics 28, 351-366.
[12] O’Brien, K.A., Teisl, M.F., 2004. Eco-information and its eﬀect on consumer
values for environmentally certiﬁed forest products. Journal of Forest Economics
10, 75-96.
[13] Rokka, J., Uusitalo, L., 2008. Preference for green packaging in consumer product choices - Do consumers care? International Journal of Consumer Studies
32, 516-525.

24

Table 1: The numbers of respondents in subsamples
p1l

p1l +50 p1l -50 Total

Increasing sequence

310

313

309

932

Decreasing sequence

301

309

366

976

Total

611

622

675

1,908

25

26

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics
Variables

Mean

Std.Dev.

Gender

0.403

0.491

1=Male, 0=FemaleAge

46.12714.088Years

F aminumb

2.901

1.298

Size of a household

House

0.563

0.496

1=Detached house, 0=Multiple dwelling house

U niv

0.583

0.493

1=Bachelor’s or higher degree, 0=Others

Income584.801

278.799

Annual income (in 10 thousand yen)

Cprice

3.394

0.634

Consciousness on price

Cquality

3.256

0.586

Consciousness on quality

Cbrand

2.745

0.726

Consciousness on brand

Cenv

2.462

0.726

Consciousness on environmental friendliness

U p300

0.410

0.492

Price range of usual purchase: 300-500 yen

U p500

0.225

0.418

Price range of usual purchase: 500-700 yen

U p700

0.085

0.280

Price range of usual purchase: 700-900 yen

U p900

0.132

0.339

Price range of usual purchase: above 900 yen

P ercep1

2.777

0.803

Perception of reﬁll pack (It is compact.)

P ercep2

3.227

0.696

Perception of reﬁll pack (It is environmentally friendly.)

P ercep3

2.927

0.781

Perception of reﬁll pack (Container looks unsightly
when it gets old.)

P ercep4

2.540

0.819

Perception of reﬁll pack (Reﬁlling is troublesome.)

P ercep5

2.889

0.783

Perception of reﬁll pack (Waste separation is easy.)

P aypbag

0.614

0.487

Implementation of unit-based pricing of waste collection

P lastic

0.764

0.425

Implementation of separate collection of the plastic
containers and packaging

P aypla

0.488

0.500

Paypbag * Plastic

U ref ill

0.782

0.412

1=usually purchases reﬁll pack, 0=Others[continued on the next page]

27

Variables

Mean

Std.Dev.

P rup

0.488

0.500

1=Increasing price sequence, 0=Decreasing price sequence

P atpl50

0.326

0.469

1=Starting bid is +50, 0=Otherwise

P atmn50

0.354

0.478

1=Starting bid is -50, 0=Otherwise

28

Table 3: Estimated results of interval model
Variables
Constant
CpriceCquality
CbrandCenv
P r upP ercep1
P ercep2
P ercep3
P ercep4
P ercep5
P aypbag
P lastic
P ayplaGenderAge
F aminumb
House
U niv
IncomeModel 1
-11.268(26.268)
2.136(3.488)-3.060(3.545)0.465(2.639)10.237***(2.694)-1.912(3.181)9.302***(2.293)5.335*(3.025)-11.102***(2.314)-11.396***(2.294)9.288***(2.256)15.98***(5.562)7.051(3.374)-13.534*(7.196)-2.948(3.509)-0.451***(0.131)-1.868(1.368)2.313(3.575)-2.098(3.425)-0.011*(0.006)

Model 2-21.461(25.983)-0.845(3.555)2.412(3.577)-1.256(2.812)11.735***(2.808)-2.069(3.252)
7.464***(2.330)5.839*(2.992)-8.837***(2.405)-10.427***(2.361)
10.581***(2.233)16.931***(6.063)9.108*(5.185)-14.438**(7.290)-4.358(3.786)-0.363***(0.139)-1.356(1.430)1.817(3.728)-4.421(3.502)-0.002(0.006)[continued on the next page]

29

Model 3-37.101(26.679)-1.291(3.500)2.523(3.551)-1.303(2.815)11.930 ***(2.800)-2.179(3.255)7.370***(2.338)5.860**(2.962)-9.044***(2.395)-10.130***(2.356)10.924***(2.239)21.814***(6.529)10.142*(5.225)-18.599**(7.529)-4.178(3.774)-0.363***(0.137)-1.239(1.437)2.171(3.765)-4.693(3.473)-0.002(0.006)

Variables

Model 1Model 2Model 321.608***(4.095)-12.844 ***(3.818)17.180***(4.235)-15.045***(3.960)-1.551(3.931)-6.365(4.861)-27.273***(7.635)-31.514***(7.398)17.158***(4.216)-15.557***(3.939)-1.927(3.977)-6.733(4.872)-27.787***(7.608)-31.429***(7.432)

Area

No

No

Yes

N

2,214

1,908

1,908

AIC

4.996

4.916

4.918

McKelvey & Zavoina’s R2

0.117

0.136

0.142

P atpl50
P atmn50
U p300U p500U p700U p900***=Signiﬁcant at 1%. **=Signiﬁcant at 5%. *=Signiﬁcant at 10%.
Numbers in parentheses are robust standard errors.
McKelvey & Zavoina’s R2 are computed by using SPost (Long and Freese 2005).

30

Figure 1: An example of a CV question

Please imagine that you are now going to buy a shampoo andanswer the following questions.
Q6. There are two shampoos, as shown in Figure 1. The quality
and quantity of both shampoos are the same, and only the packaging of
the containers is different. One is “bottle shampoo,” which is
packaged in a plastic bottle. The other is a “refill pack,” which is
packaged in a plastic film. Which product will you buy if the pricesof the products are as indicated below?
Figure 1
Bottle shampoo

Refill pack

500

500

Yen

1. Bottle shampoo (Go to Q7)
2 Refill pack (Go to Q8)

31

Yen

Table 4: Estimated results of purchase behavior models (N=1,908)
Variables

Logit

Probit3.621***(0.832)-0.090
Cprice(0.106)0.252**
Cquality(0.124)-0.104
Cbrand(0.100)0.065
Cenv(0.100)-1.654***
U p300(0.404)-2.714***
U p500(0.405)-3.295***
U p700(0.427)-4.447***
U p900(0.418)0.299***
P ercep1(0.088)-0.072
P ercep2(0.107)-0.214**
P ercep3(0.091)-0.177**
P ercep4(0.084)0.133
P ercep5(0.092)-0.009P aypbag(0.284)-0.352
P lastic(0.230)0.089
P aypla(0.315)-0.501***
Gender
(0.141)-0.010*Age(0.005)0.076
F aminumb(0.057)0.000
House(0.146)
0.203
U niv(0.136)
0.243
Income (*1000)(0.259)1.906***(0.451)-0.047(0.061)0.152**(0.071)-0.082(0.057)0.045(0.057)-0.783***(0.177)-1.372***(0.180)-1.718***(0.198)-2.422***(0.190)0.175***(0.050)-0.038(0.061)-0.113**(0.051)-0.099**(0.047)0.074(0.052)0.014(0.161)-0.196(0.131)
0.014(0.179)-0.280***(0.080)-0.006**(0.003)0.037(0.032)-0.005(0.083)0.120(0.078)0.150(0.148)Constant

Area

Yes

Yes

Pseudo R2

0.214

0.214

***=Signiﬁcant at 1%. **=Signiﬁcant at 5%. *=Signiﬁcant at 10%.
Numbers in parentheses are robust standard errors.

32

Figure 2: Bidding scheme of the survey
BottleBottle or Refill?
4

Bottlep 3c vs p 3l

Bottle or Refill?
Bottle4p c vs p l

Bottle or Refill?

Refillp 2c vs p 2l

Stop

Stop

RefillBottle or Refill?
1

p c vs p 1l
BottleRefillStop

Bottle or Refill?

BottleStop2

p c vs p 2l

Bottle or Refill?
Refillp 3c vs p 3l

Bottle or Refill?
Refill33

4p 4c vs p l

Figure 3: Perceptions regarding reﬁll-pack shampoo (%)(%) 100

75

50

25

0
Percep1

Percep2

Strongly Disagree

Percep3

Disagree

Percep4

Agree

Percep5

Strongly Agree

Note: Percep1 = It is compact; Percep2 = It is environmentally friendly; Percep3= Container looks unsightly when it gets old; Percep4 = Reﬁlling is troublesome;
Percep5 = Waste separation is easy.

34