57

Effect of Life Cycle Thinking-based Information on Environmental
Attitudes and Behaviors in Bangkok, Thailand
Sarunnoud PHUPHISITH1,2, Kiyo KURISU1* and Keisuke HANAKI1,3
1

Department of Urban Engineering, School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo,
7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan2(current affiliation) Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chiang Mai University,
239, Huay Kaew Road, Muang District, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand,3(current affiliation) School of Information Networking for Innovation and Design, Toyo University,
1-7-11 Akabanedai, Kita-ku, Tokyo 115-8650, Japan*E-mail: kiyo@env.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp

Abstract
The concept of life cycle thinking (LCT) is essential for sustainable consumption and product development.
A thorough evaluation of its impacts on people’s environmental consciousness and behavior is still lacking,however, as is people’s understanding of the LCT concept. The present study aims to evaluate the effect of LCT
on people’s attitudes and behaviors, using an information-provision strategy, and to compare the effects of
LCT-based information with other types of information provision. LCT-based and alternative information werecreated for promoting two pro-environmental behaviors: waste separation and refill product purchase. Designed
information was distributed through a web-based survey conducted in Bangkok, Thailand and its vicinity. The
LCT-based information about both waste separation and refill products had significant impacts on improving
the respondents’ attitudes toward the target behaviors, but its effects on behavior improvement in both cases
were insignificant. Compared with the alternative information provided, the LCT-based information was
significantly more useful in relation to both target behaviors. The results of the present study suggest thepossibility and opportunity for using the LCT concept for both promotion of and education on sustainableconsumption.
Key words: information provision, life cycle thinking, pro-environmental behavior, refill products,
waste separation

1. Introduction
Pro-environmental behavior (PEB), also known asenvironmentally-conscious, green or sustainable behavior,
plays an important role in transitioning to a sustainable
society. Toward that end, environmental education anddissemination of environmental information can be key toinducing consciousness and changed behavior amongpeople.
Information provision has shown its efficacy infostering behavioral change; it helps people understanddetails on how to engage in new behaviors and theeffectiveness of behavioral changes (Schultz, 2002;
Kaiser & Fuhrer, 2003). Information and knowledge canbe categorized into four types: procedural, declarative,
impact and social-norm (Kaiser & Fuhrer, 2003).
Procedural knowledge refers to information about how to
perform or achieve a particular behavior, e.g., how to
Global Environmental Research
25/2021: 057–064
printed in Japan

recycle (Schultz, 2002). Declarative knowledge is theability to provide facts on something, e.g., what climatechange is. Impact or effectiveness knowledge refers tothat on consequences of actions, e.g., the environmental
impact of using bottled water (Bolderdijk et al., 2013).
Lastly, knowledge of social norms, particularly
descriptive norms, includes information about what others
do, e.g., how many people use their own cup or tumbler atcafes (Lee et al., 2015).
Reports on the efficacy of information provision on
behavioral change vary depending on information type
and target behavior. Procedural knowledge has been
widely provided to promote recycling behavior. It canincrease the level of people’s knowledge on recycling andraise their recycling rates even from low levels. Lack ofthis type of knowledge is, however, seen as a barrier torecycling (Schultz, 1999, 2002).
Social descriptive norms have been reported as a
2021 AIRIES

58

S. PHUPHISITH et al.

strong predictor of recycling (Schultz, 2002), and both
descriptive and injunctive social norms affect reduction oflittering in public places (Cialdini et al., 1990). Lee et al.
(2015) found that just providing declarative information
by itself about an existing environmental program could
increase people’s intention to engage in purchasing the
products proposed by the program.
In addition to the above information types, life cycle
thinking (LCT) in information dissemination is being
more commonly included. To implement sustainableconsumption and production and a shift toward a circular
economy, LCT is a vital concept (Lewandowska et al.,2018). This concept provides an opportunity to expand
one’s focus from the narrow specific stages of one
product’s life cycle to consider its entire life cycle and its
consequences for the environment (UNEP, 2012). The
entire life cycle includes extraction of materials fromnature, manufacturing, shipping and transporting, and theuse and disposal of a product. Along this chain, natural
resources are utilized and disposed of accompanied by thegeneration of pollutants. A thorough consideration of all
the impacts throughout the entire life cycle would help
avoid unawareness of the problem shifting from one toanother stage of the cycle. In the academic field, theconcept of LCT has been applied to environmental impact
assessment of products and services, and calculating theimpact of life-cycle assessment (LCA) helps inform andguide consumers in making environmentally-friendly
daily purchasing decisions.
Tsuda et al. (2013) examined the literature on theutility of LCT-based information and found that it has
been disseminated to consumers in various forms such as
numeric data (e.g., a product’s carbon footprint), supply
chain map visualization and documentary films. They
found that although some LCT-based information wasavailable and disseminated in the literature, an evaluationof its effect on environmental consciousness and behavior
was still lacking.
Relevant studies on the effect of LCT-based
information on consumers’ preferences and perceptions
include Upham et al. (2011) and Kikuchi-Uehara et al.
(2016a, 2016b). Upham et al. (2011) found that although
the respondents favored carbon labeling, they showed
confused, questioning and misunderstanding responses tothe labeled samples. Additional information was needed
to improve understanding. Providing LCT-based
information is also important in addition to providing a
final figure based on LCA calculations like carbon
footprints. Kikuchi-Uehara et al. (2016 b) applied the LCT
concept to create information on environmental impacts
for reusable and disposal shopping bags and determinedthe effectiveness of the information on respondents’environmental awareness. They found that LCT-based
information was effective at improving environmental
awareness of respondents with lower LCT skills.
The present study aims to evaluate the effect of

LCT-based information on people’s attitudes andbehaviors, and compare the effect of LCT-based
information with other types of information provision. We
aim to expand knowledge into the context of developing
societies, where environmental deterioration has emergedat an alarming rate but little research on PEBs exists.
Southeast Asia, one of the most dynamic regions in theworld, had the most rapid rate of carbon dioxide
emissions during 1990–2010. In fact, about 90% ofemissions arise from developing countries, namely
Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam andThailand (Asian Development Bank, 2015). As one of thefastest-growing cities and a major contributor to theregion’s emissions, Bangkok, the capital of Thailand wasselected as the study area.
In Thailand, the concept of LCT had been chiefly
employed for quantifying the environmental impact of
products and services, i.e., LCA and footprints (Gheewala& Mungcharoen, 2017). Ecolabels, namely green labels(Type 1), SCG eco value (Type 2), carbon reduction labels(Type 3) and energy labels (other types), have been used
to inform consumers for over a decade (Mungkung et al.,2021). Nonetheless, no studies focusing on the effect of
LCT-based information had been accomplished yet in
Thai society.

2. Materials and Methods
2.1 Target PEBs
Two target behaviors were selected from the resultsof our previous study in Bangkok (Phuphisith et al., 2017)
investigating people’s practice rates of 49 PEBs, reasonsfor conducting or not conducting each behavior, andperceptions toward the environment and PEBs. The two
selected target behaviors were ‘waste separation’ and‘refill product purchase.’ For ‘waste separation,’ ourprevious study showed that it was perceived as the mostenvironmentally-friendly action (29.0%), but practiced
less often by the respondents (50.7% respondents ‘always’
or ‘often’ practiced it). In contrast, ‘refill productpurchase’ was conducted by many respondents (79.0%),
but less perceived as an environmentally-friendly action(2.5%).
2.2 Information Design and Treatment Groups
To determine the effects of LCT-based information,
three groups were established for each behavior according
to the information types provided and codes shown in
Table 1. The information types provided were: noinformation (WC and RC), information based on LCT(WL and RL) and alternative information such as
descriptive norms for waste separation (WA) and productinformation on refill products (RA). Previous studies havedemonstrated the importance of social norms to recycling(e.g., Schultz, 2002; Iyer & Kashyap, 2007); thus, one of
the social norms ― the descriptive norm ― was adopted

Effect of Life Cycle Thinking-based Information on Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors

for alternative information on waste separation (WA).
For ‘refill product purchase,’ information about theavailability of products is considered essential for
engaging in this behavior. This issue relates to the factor
of perceived behavioral control (PBC), which refers to
one’s perceptions about difficulties and controllability
over behavioral performance. According to the Theory ofPlanned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991), PBC is one of the key
determinants for predicting the intention to perform abehavior. Therefore, product availability information wasprovided to the RA group.
The details of the LCT-based information for waste
separation (WL) were on how waste separation could
reduce environmental impacts from the life-cycle
viewpoint, using illustrations on process chains and atextual explanation (Fig. 1). The information included an
explanation that waste separation could decrease theamount of garbage going to landfills and, thereby reducegreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from landfills. In
addition, recycled waste, such as from plastic bottles andaluminum cans could be substituted for virgin materials
and thus contribute to environmental impact reduction.
The WA information was about descriptive norms; thenumber of people carrying out waste separation in
Bangkok was presented together with the corresponding
numbers for Seoul and Tokyo (Fig. 2). The number ofpeople carrying out waste separation in Bangkok was
taken from our previous results (Phuphisith et al., 2017),
and the numbers for Seoul and Tokyo were cited from Lee
et al. (2013).
The LCT-based information for purchasing refill
products (RL) showed how much the environmental load
could be reduced by using refill products instead of
single-use products (Fig. 3). The environmental impact
was presented as the percentage of total GHG reduction
throughout the life cycle based on the estimations by
Shimpo et al. (2012). Instead of showing the exact GHG
values, the approximate impact reduction from switchingfrom single-use bottles to a refillable bottle was shown.
For RA information, available refill products were shownwith brand examples in each category (Fig. 4). Here, 12
product categories were presented: body soap, hand soap,
dishwashing liquid, liquid detergent, softener, spray starch,bleach, kitchen cleaner, bathroom cleaner, floor cleaner,car/air freshener and instant drink powder.
2.3 Questionnaire Surveys
2.3.1 Questionnaire Survey on Attitude Changes andIntentions
The designed information was presented through an
online questionnaire, consisting of five parts: (1)socio-demographics; (2) attitudes before receiving theinformation and current practices; (3) information
provision; (4) comprehensibility, usefulness and priorknowledge about the information provided; and (5)attitudes and intentions after receiving the information.

59

Table 1 Information provision groups.
Information provided(C) Control group—no information(L) LCT information(A) Alternative information(A) Alternative
information

Waste
separation
(W)
WC
WL

Refillproducts
(R)
RC
RL

WA

-

Descriptive norm

WA-

Product availability-

RA

Fig. 1 LCT-based information about waste separation presented
to Group WL.

1Surveyed in 2015,

2

Surveyed in 2010 in Seoul and 2011 in Tokyo (Lee et al., 2013)

Fig. 2 Descriptive norm information about waste separation
presented to Group WA.
How much environmental impact can you prevent by using refill products?

70%* of GHG emissions prevented

Fig. 3 LCT-based information about refill products presented toGroup RL.

All items were provided in the form of closed questions.
First, the respondents were asked about theirsocio-demographics, including gender, age, educationlevel, family size and house type. Then they were asked
about their attitudes toward waste separation or purchaseof refill products. The questions were adapted from thestudies of De Young (1990) and Kikuchi-Uehara et al.

60

S. PHUPHISITH et al.

Fig. 4 Product information about refill product categories
presented to Group RA.

(2016 a). Two questions were used: “How important iswaste separation/purchasing refill products to preserving
the environment and conserving our natural resources?”(A1before) and “How important is waste separation/purchasing
refillproducts
toenvironmental
management?” (A2before). The respondents were requested
to indicate their degree of agreement on a six-point scaleranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree.’ Then,they were asked about their current waste separation orrefill product purchase practices. The practices were
measured on a six-point scale ranging from ‘always’ to‘never.’ In addition, the respondents of the W-group wereasked to select waste types they separated from among the
choices provided, which included wet waste, newspapers
and paper, aluminum cans, glass, milk cartons, plastic
bottles, lamps, batteries and spray bottles, and other.
Respondents of the R-group were asked to selectcategories of refill products they purchased from among
the choices provided, which included body and hand soap,
dishwashing liquid, liquid detergent, household cleaners,
car/air freshener, instant drink powder and other.
After responding to the above questions, therespondents were presented one type of informationaccording to their assigned group as described in Table 1.
Then the respondents were asked about their perceptionsof the comprehensibility and usefulness of the information
provided, using a six-point scale ranging from ‘strongly
agree’ to ‘strongly disagree.’ They were also asked about
their prior knowledge concerning the information
provided. The WA respondents were asked whether they
had ever thought about the differences in practices
between Bangkok, Tokyo and Seoul (KWA). The answer
choices were: “The size of differences is ‘larger,’ ‘a bit
larger,’ ‘similar,’ ‘a bit smaller,’ ‘smaller’ than/to what I

thought,” and “I’ve never thought about this before.”
The WL respondents were asked whether they had beenaware of ( i.e., had knowledge of ) the mechanism ofenvironmental-load reduction by waste separation (KWL).
The answer choices were: I was aware of it ‘very much,’‘much,’ ‘fairly much,’ ‘slightly,’ ‘seldom’ and ‘never.’ The
RL respondents were asked whether they had been awareof GHG reduction resulting from use of refill products
instead of single-use products (KRL) with the same answer
choices as provided to the WL group. The RA respondents
were asked to select the product categories they had neverbeen aware of before from the choices provided (KRA).
One more choice was also prepared for the respondents
who were aware of all the categories: “I am aware of all
the categories listed here.”
The respondents were then asked about their attitudes
and intentions to perform the target behaviors. Question
A1 was asked again after information provision (A1after),and an additional question about attitude was also asked:“Do your daily activities have impacts on environmental
problems due to resource use, product manufacturing,product transportation or disposal?” (A3after). The
respondents were requested to indicate their agreement
using a six-point scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to‘strongly disagree.’ For intentions, the respondents wereasked how much they would try to perform or keep
performing the target behaviors in the following one
month, using a six-point scale ranging from ‘absolutely’to ‘never.’No information was provided to the control groups(WC and RC); therefore, they were promptly asked
question A3after followed by the above-described question
on their intention to perform the target behavior.
The questionnaire was initially developed in English
and then translated into Thai. To avoid misunderstandingof the questions and to check for any difficulties inanswering, the Thai version was preliminarily tested with
10 Thai members of the University of Tokyo (ninestudents and one faculty member) during 19–23
September 2016, and was revised reflecting theircomments. The questionnaire was distributed through a
web-based survey by Intage Inc. (Japan) during 12–24
October 2016, and there was a total of 2,446 respondents.
All respondents were Thai citizens living in Bangkok andits vicinity, aged 20–59 years.
2.3.2 Questionnaire Survey for Follow-up Practice
One month later, another survey was conducted tofollow up on the respondents’ actual practices. The
follow-up questionnaire was sent to all respondents who
had participated in the previous survey. The questionnaire
consisted of two parts: (1) target behavior practice ratesand (2) reasons for not performing the behavior.
The W-group were asked whether they had
performed waste separation in the previous one month ornot, using a six-point scale ranging from ‘always’ toEffect of Life Cycle Thinking-based Information on Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors‘never.’ If they selected ‘never,’ ‘rarely,’ or ‘seldom,’ they
were asked to select one reason from the following list:‘forgot,’ ‘bothersome,’ ‘time consuming,’ ‘inconvenient,’‘no one does it,’ ‘no rule,’ ‘no consideration,’ ‘cost,’ ‘nochance to do,’ ‘not environmentally-friendly,’ ‘not cool,’‘not necessary to do’ and ‘other.’
The R-group were asked whether they had tried toincrease their refill product purchasing in the previous one
month. The respondents were asked to choose an answer
from this list: ‘increased greatly,’ ‘increased to someextent,’ ‘did not change my behavior,’ and ‘never usedrefill products.’ The respondents who selected ‘did notchange my behavior’ or ‘never used refill products’ wereasked to select one reason from the list shown above.
The follow-up survey was conducted using the same
company as for the previous survey (Intage Inc., Japan)
during 10–17 November 2016. A total of 1,093
respondents replied, representing 45% of the respondents
who had replied to the previous questionnaire.

3. Results
3.1 Prior Knowledge, Comprehensibility and
Usefulness of Information Provided
The socio-demographic characteristics of all thesubgroups were similar. The ratio of males to females was
50% and most respondents were in their 20s or 30s, had
an undergraduate degree and lived in detached houses
with a family size of 3–5 people.
Concerning previous knowledge, most of the WA
respondents thought that the differences between
performing waste separation in Bangkok compared toTokyo and Seoul were larger or a bit larger than what they
had imagined (KWA). One-third of the WL respondents
said they had been fairly aware (30.9%) and anotherone-third had been well aware (29.4%) of the mechanismof environmental-load reduction through waste separation(KWL). The respondents who had never, seldom or slightly
been aware of the mechanism accounted for 15%.
One-third of the RL respondents said they had been fairly
aware (30.3%) of environmental-load reduction throughuse of refills instead of single-use products (KRL). Anotherthird of respondents had never (8.6%), seldom (5.9%), or
slightly (14.2%) been aware of it. Among the RA
respondents, 32% said that they had been aware of all
categories presented in the information provided, and
36% had not been aware of one category. The least knowncategory was car and air refill products (36.3%), followed
Table 3 Mean scores of attitudes after and before.
Attitude (after)
Attitude (before)
Group
Mean
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
WL
5.66
0.56
5.66
0.61
WA
5.70
0.59
5.69
0.56
RL
5.56
0.66
5.33
0.72
RA
5.45
0.68
5.28
0.76

61

by instant drink products (19.5%).
Concerning the respondents’ degree of understandingof the information, scores of 1–6 were provided from‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree.’ Between the two
types of information, LCT-based information showedslightly higher average scores (WL, 5.48; RL, 5.56) thanalternative information types (WA, 5.45; RA, 5.53), but
the differences were not significant (t-test, p>0.05).
The average scores on usefulness are presented inTable 2. Between two significantly different scores on
usefulness, LCT-based information showed higher
average scores than the alternative information types(t-test, p<0.05).
3.2 Effects on Attitudes and Intentions
The same questions about attitude were asked of the
respondents before and after they received the information,and the differences in scores between A1before and A1after
were analyzed by paired t-test to determine the effects of
information on attitude change. The differences between
A1before and A1after were small for waste separation cases(WA and WL) and not significantly different (Table 3).
However, RL and RA groups showed significantly higherscores for A1after than A1before (t-test, p<0.05). The RL
showed a higher average score of change than the RA, but
the difference was not significant (t = 1.08, df = 812,
p=0.28). In addition, Cohen’s d effect size was calculated
for determining the size of each information type’s effecton attitude. A relatively minor effect was observed in the
W groups (d < 0.2, Fritz et al., 2012) while a small (d =0.2) to medium (d = 0.5) level was observed in the R
groups. It should be noted that the score of A1before wasalready high and there was limited room for improvement
as measured by the six-point scale. The average scores of
A1before for waste separation were higher than those forrefill products. De Young (1990) also found that a highantecedent attitude toward recycling (4.40 out of a
maximum of 5) was a possible reason for unimproved
attitude (4.21 of 5) after an education program.
To deal with this issue, additional analyses werecarried out; the respondents were divided into two groups:
Table 2 Mean scores on usefulness of information types.
Group
N
Mean
S.D.
t-test
WL
411
5.55
0.59
p=0.025
WA
407
5.45
0.71
RL
409
5.61
0.64
p=0.001
RA
405
5.46
0.63
Measuring question: ‘Do you think this information is helpful?’using a six-point scale.

Effect size
(Cohen’s d)
0.01
0.02
0.32
0.23

Paired t-test(two-tailed)
p=0.866
p=0.749p<0.005p<0.005

Measuring question: “How important is waste separation (WL, WA) /purchasing refill products (RL, RA) to preserving theenvironment and conserving our natural resources?” using a six-point scale.

62

S. PHUPHISITH et al.

low and high A1before levels. The cut-off point was set
based on the proportion of respondents’ answers.
Respondents who had rated A1before at ‘6’ were counted as
the high baseline group (WAhigh and WLhigh), whereas the
respondents who had rated at ‘5’ or lower were counted as
the low baseline group (WAlow and WLlow). The results
showed that the average scores of changes were larger inthe low baseline groups for both information types, 0.50
for WAlow (n = 109) and 0.49 for WLlow (n = 112), thanthose in the whole sample groups, 0.01 for WA (n = 407)
and 0.00 for WL (n = 411), and these increases were alsosignificant (t-test, p<0.01). The almost equal size of
attitude changes between WAlow (0.50) and WLlow (0.49)
indicated slightly different effects of information types onchanges in attitude among the low baseline groups.
Most respondents in both high baseline groups, 87%
for WAhigh (n = 298) and 83% for WLhigh (n = 299),
showed no change after receiving information. The
average scores were slightly negative (WAhigh, −0.17;
WLhigh, −0.18), with no significant effect of information
types (t-test, p>0.05).
The effects of information provision were also
investigated for differences between baseline practices
and intentions. The scores on practice rate asked before
and intention to do asked after information provision werecompared. It is important to note, however, that thequestions themselves were different (current practice rateand intention to do) and different measuring scales wereused: ‘always,’ ‘often,’ ‘sometimes,’ ‘seldom,’ ‘rarely,’and ‘never’ for practice; but ‘absolutely,’ ‘certainly,’‘possibly,’ ‘moderately,’ ‘may not,’ and ‘never’ for theintention scale. Therefore, with careful interpretation, thedifferences between practice and intention could becompared only among the same behavior: waste
separation or refill product purchase.
The average scores on differences between baseline
practice and intention to perform waste separation are
shown in Table 4. The scores were calculated from theintention score minus the baseline practice score. The
score of the WA group was higher than that of WL group.
The scores of both treatment groups were lower than thecontrol group score, but there were no significant
differences between the scores of the control andtreatment groups (t-test, p>0.05). In short, there were nodifferences between the respondents with and without the
information in terms of changes between baseline
practices and intention to peform waste separation.
For refill products (Table 4), both treatment groups
had significantly higher scores than the control group(t-test, p<0.05), with the score of the RL groupnon-significantly higher than that of RA group.
3.3 Effects on Follow-up Practice
One month later, another survey was carried out tofollow up on changes in behaviors of all the respondents
that participated in the first survey. The response rate

range was 41.7% – 48.3% for all subgroups. The numbersof females were higher than males in all subgroups, but
the other major characteristics were similar to those in thefirst survey.
The average scores on state of practice during themonth are shown in Table 5; the scores were calculated
from ‘never’ = 1 to ‘always’ = 6. The scores of thetreatment groups (WA, WL) were lower than those of thecontrol group (WC), but the differences were notsignificant (t-test, p>0.05). That is, there was no
significant difference in follow-up practices between the
respondents with and without information provision.
Although follow-up practices were asked about using thesame scale as for the baseline practice rates—a six-point
scale—no direct comparison was possible because thequestions differed slightly. The follow-up survey used thewords ‘previous month,’ but no specific period had been
indicated in the previous survey. The difference in thewording could have some impact on the respondents’
perceptions or feelings in their reports about theirpractices.
For refill-product behavior, the respondents wereasked about their practices using a four-point scale, andthe average scores were calculated from ‘never or not
used’ = 1 to ‘increased greatly’ = 4. Both treatment groups(RL, RA) had higher scores than the control (RC), but thedifferences were not significant (t-test, p>0.05; Table 5).
In addition to the practice rates, the respondents who
selected ‘never,’ ‘rarely’ or ‘seldom’ for the previousmonth target behaviors were asked to choose one reason
for not doing so. The three waste separation groups (WC,WL and WA) showed similarities in major reasons for not
Table 4 Mean scores of baseline practices and intentions by groups.
t-test
Mean
Group
S.D.
changeComparison
p-value
WC
0.51
0.99
WL
0.47
1.07
WC vs WL
p=0.532
WA
0.50
1.06
WC vs WA
p=0.823
RC
0.41
0.93
RC vs RL
p=0.001
RL
0.64
1.08
RC vs RA
p=0.039
RA
0.56
1.20
RL vs RA
p=0.348
Measuring questions for baseline practice: ‘How often do you do waste
separation?’ (WC, WL, WA); ‘How often do you buy refill products?’(RC, RL, RA). Measuring questions for intention: ‘How much will you
try to do or keep doing waste separation within this month?’ (WC, WL,WA); ‘How much will you try to buy or keep buying refill products
within this month?’ (RC, RL, RA). All responses were measured using a
six-point scale.

Table 5

Follow-up scores of practices by groups.
t-testGroup
N
Mean S.D.
Comparison
p-value
WC
186
4.52
1.36
WL
176
4.36
1.44
WC vs WL
p=0.283
WA
176
4.51
1.29
WC vs WA
p=0.910
RC
198
2.75
0.90
RL
188
2.86
0.89
RC vs RL
p=0.257
RA
169
2.76
0.95
RC vs RA
p=0.912

Measuring questions for baseline practice: ‘Last month, did you do waste
separation?’ (WC, WL, WA); ‘Last month, did you try to increase yourpurchase of refill products?’ (RC, RL, RA). All responses were measured
using a six-point scale.

Effect of Life Cycle Thinking-based Information on Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors

doing so. Most of the respondents did not practice waste
separation for the following reasons: ‘forgot,’‘bothersome,’ ‘inconvenient,’ and ‘no chance to do.’ Forpurchasing refill products, a variety of reasons for notpurchasing were observed across the three groups (RC,RL and RA). The most common reasons were‘inconvenient,’ ‘forgot,’ ‘cost’ and ‘no chance to do.’4. Discussion
Our results showed that LCT-based information was
highly useful for introducing the LCT concept to thegeneral public and significantly more useful thanalternative information for both target behaviors. The
LCT-based information provided was also understandable.
These findings provide support for the use of the LCT
concept through information provision, as well as
educating the public. The average scores on previous
knowledge of the LCT information provided were 4.59
and 4.10 (of 6.00) for waste separation and purchasing
refill products, respectively. A lower level of previous
knowledge was observed for information on specificdetails—in this case the ‘calculated quantity’ of GHG
reduction from using refill products. Thus, such
quantitative data together with some explanation based on
LCT could be more useful toward encouraging publicknowledge.
Our results showed that information provision had
positive impacts on respondents’ attitudes and intentions
toward both target behaviors, but non-significant impacts
on behavior improvement. These findings are similar toothers in the literature showing that information provision
did improve respondents’ knowledge (Schultz, 1999;
Bolderdijk et al., 2013) and intentions (Lee et al., 2015),
but was unsuccessful in improving their behaviors(Schultz, 1999; Lee et al., 2015). Regarding behavioral
theories, internal variables such as attitudes, knowledge
and intentions are important determinants for engaging in
PEBs (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). Performing PEBs is,however, also a function of external variables (Guagnano
et al., 1995; Olander & Thogersen, 1995; Kollmuss &Agyeman, 2002). Information provision can influencesuch internal variables, but improvement of internalvariables alone cannot change behaviors without
considering external factors. Considering the results ofrefill-product purchasing, both of the provided
information types increased people’s attitudes andintentions toward refill-product use. Nevertheless, some
respondents could not increase their behavior practice rate
for the following reasons: ‘inconvenient,’ ‘forgot,’ ‘cost,’and ‘no chance to do.’ The reason of cost indicates thatprices of the existing refill products are perceived as notconsumer-friendly. The reason of inconvenience implies
that the respondents want to perform the action, butcannot or are not yet ready for it. In the case of purchasing
refill products, this may be due to the availability ofpreferred products or brands. The reason of no chance to63

buy indicates much stronger external influences: it isassumed that people want to perform the action or they
are ready to, but there is no way or chance for them topurchase the products. This was supported by thecharacteristics of the respondents who selected ‘no chance
to do;’ most of whom were in their 20s and lived in familygroups of 3–5 members. Young people have fewer
chances to purchase household products when they livewith other family members.
The effects of information type differed between the
two target behaviors. The LCT-based information on refill
products had a greater effect than the alternative
information on changes in attitudes, intentions andbehaviors; whereas the results were opposite for waste
separation. Although the differences between LCT-based
and alternative information were not statisticallysignificant for either target behavior, the impacts observedin the study and the high level of usefulness of the
LCT-based information indicated its benefits and potential
for use as another valuable type of information to enhancepeople’s attitudes and behaviors. Additionally, the LCT
concept would be useful in school education to encouragechildren’s awareness of possible connections between
their daily behaviors and the environmental consequences,which may help in long-term development ofunderstanding and attitudes toward environmentallyfriendly society and behaviors.
Other pragmatic interventions should also be
introduced and implemented along with informationintensive campaigns and environmental education forachieving behavioral change. Examples of behaviorchanging tools include gaining commitment, developing
community norms, improving infrastructure and using
prompts (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000). For instance, topromote purchasing refill products, marketing pricecampaigns, a variety of product brands and quick
reminders presented on the product shelf may be used
together to remove cost barriers, inconvenience and the
problem of forgetting to purchase refill products.

5. Conclusions
The present study has applied the concept of LCT tothe designing of information provided to foster the PEBs
of waste separation and purchase of refill products. The
effects of LCT-based information were investigatedregarding changes in people’s attitudes, intentions andbehaviors, and compared with those of other information
types.
The results showed that the average score ofknowledge about the mechanism of environmental-load
reduction through waste separation was higher than thatof information about GHG reduction through use of refill
products. The LCT-based information about bothbehaviors was significantly more useful than thealternative information provided.
The effects of LCT-based information on changes in

64

S. PHUPHISITH et al.

attitudes, intentions and behaviors differed depending on
the target behavior. The LCT-based information about
refill products had significant effects on changes in
attitudes and intentions, but not on follow-up practices.
However, LCT-based information about waste separation
had a significant effect on attitude change, particularly inrespondents with a low baseline attitude level, but had no
significant effect on intention and follow-up practices.
The results indicate that information based on LCT can
improve people’s attitudes toward target behaviors, but
additional support is needed to facilitate behavioral
change.
Acknowledgement
This study was supported by the Environment
Research and Technology Development Fund (S-16-1(1),
JPMEERF16S11601) of the Environmental Restoration
and Conservation Agency of Japan.
References
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1977) Attitude-behavior relations: A
theoretical analysis and review of empirical research.
Psychological Bulletin, 84 (5): 888.
Ajzen, I. (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational
behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2): 179–211.
Asian Development Bank (2015) Southeast Asia and the Economics
of Global Climate Stabilization. Asian Development Bank,
Mandaluyong City, Philippines. Retrieved from https://www.
adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/178615/sea-economics-glo
bal-climate-stabilization.pdf (accessed 16 May 2021)
Bolderdijk, J. W., Gorsira, M., Keizer, K. and Steg, L. (2013)
Values determine the (in) effectiveness of informational
interventions in promoting pro-environmental behavior. PloS One,
8 (12): e83911.
Cialdini, R.B., Reno, R.R. and Kallgren, C.A. (1990) A Focus
theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to
reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 58: 1015–1026.
De Young, R. (1990) Recycling as appropriate behavior: a review ofsurvey data from selected recycling education programs in
Michigan. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 3: 253–266.
Fritz, C.O., Morris, P.E. and Richler, J.J. (2012) Effect size
estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journalof Experimental Psychology: General, 141 (1): 2–18.
Gheewala, S.H. and Mungcharoen, T. (2017) Perspectives on life
cycle assessment application and research in Thailand.
Indonesian Journal of Life Cycle Assessment and Sustainability,
1 (1): 8–12.
Guagnano, G.A., Stern, P.C. and Dietz, T. (1995) Influences on
attitude-behavior relationships a natural experiment with curbside
recycling. Environment and Behavior, 27 (5): 699–718.
Iyer, E.S. and Kashyap, R.K. (2007) Consumer recycling: role ofincentives, information, and social class. Journal of Consumer
Behaviour, 6: 32–47.
Kaiser, F.G. and Fuhrer, U. (2003) Ecological behavior's dependency
on different forms of knowledge. Applied Psychology, 52 (4):598–613.
Kikuchi-Uehara, E., Nakatani, J. and Hirao, M. (2016 a) Analysis offactors influencing consumers’ proenvironmental behavior basedon life cycle thinking. Part I: effect of environmental awarenessand trust in environmental information on product choice.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 117: 10–18.
Kikuchi-Uehara, E., Nakatani, J. and Hirao, M. (2016 b) Analysis
of factors influencing consumers’ proenvironmental behavior
based on life cycle thinking. Part II: trust model of environmental
information. Journal of Cleaner Production, 125: 216–226.
Kollmuss, A. and Agyeman, J. (2002) Mind the gap: why do people
act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental
behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8 (3): 239–260.
Lee, H., Kurisu, K. and Hanaki, K. (2013) Influential factors on
pro-environmental behaviors – A case study in Tokyo and Seoul.
Low Carbon Economy, 4: 104.

Lee, H., Kurisu, K. and Hanaki, K. (2015) The effect of information
provision on pro-environmental behaviors. Low Carbon Economy,
6: 30–40.
Lewandowska, A., Witczak, J., Giungato, P., Dierks, C.,
Kurczewski, P. and Pawlak-Lemanska, K. (2018) Inclusion of life
cycle thinking in a sustainability-oriented consumer’s typology:
A proposed methodology and an assessment tool. Sustainability,
10 (6): 1826.
Mungkung, R., Sorakon, K., Sitthikitpanya, S. and Gheewala, S. H.
(2021) Analysis of green product procurement and ecolabels
towards sustainable consumption and production in Thailand.
Sustainable Production and Consumption, 28: 11–20.
Olander, F. and Thogersen, J. (1995) Understanding of consumer
behaviour as a prerequisite for environmental protection. Journalof Consumer Policy, 18 (4): 345–385.
Phuphisith, S., Kurisu, K. and Hanaki, K. (2017) Insight into proenvironmental behaviors and people’s perceptions in Bangkok,
Thailand. Journal of Environmental Information Science, 45: 9–20.
Schultz, P.W. (1999) Changing behavior with normative feedback
interventions: A field experiment on curbside recycling. Basicand Applied Social Psychology, 21 (1): 25–36.
Schultz, P.W. (2002) Knowledge, information, and household
recycling: Examining the knowledge-deficit model of behavior
change. In: T. Dietz and P. C. Stern (eds.), New Tools forEnvironmental Protection: Education, Information, and Voluntary
Measures, 67–82. The National Academies Press, Washington,
DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/10401
Shimpo, Y., Nakatani, J., Kurisu, K. and Hanaki, K. (2012)
Life-cycle assessment of household waste prevention behaviors.
Environmental Science, Japan, 25 (2): 95–105. (in Japanese)
Tsuda, K., Hara, K. and Uwasu, M. (2013) Prospects and challenges
for disseminating life cycle thinking towards environmental
conscious behaviors in daily lives. Sustainability, 5 (1): 123–135.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) (2012) Greening
the Economy through Life Cycle Thinking – Ten Years of theUNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. Retrieved from:https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/2
012_LCI_10_years_28.3.13.pdf (accessed 16 May 2021)
Upham, P., Dendler, L. and Bleda, M. (2011) Carbon labelling ofgrocery products: public perceptions and potential emissions
reductions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19 (4): 348–355.

Sarunnoud PHUPHISITH
Sarunnoud Phuphisith is a lecturer in the
Department of Environmental Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering, Chiang Mai
University. She received her D.Eng. in Urban
Engineering from the University of Tokyo in
2017. Her research interests include
promotion of environmentally-friendly lifestyles throughpro-environmental behaviors and people’s perceptions, life-cycle
impact, and sustainability assessment.

Kiyo KURISU
Kiyo Kurisu is an associate professor in the
Department of Urban Engineering, School ofEngineering, the University of Tokyo. She
received her D.Eng. from the University ofTokyo in 2000. Her research interests include
pro-environmental behaviors, LCT-based
education, quality of life, and low-carbon society development.

Keisuke HANAKI
Keisuke Hanaki is a Professor at the School ofInformation Networking for Innovation and
Design, Toyo University. His research fields
include holistic environmental management inurban area for sustainability, greenhouse gas
emission reduction of from urban activities
and creation of a material-circular-oriented society with highquality of life.
(Received 7 June 2021, Accepted 17 August 2021)