# Analyzing Lifestyle and Consumption Pattern of Hire Groups under Product Service Systems in Taiwan

Authors: Jui-Che Tu; Yu-Chen Huang; Chuan-Ying Hsu; Yu-Wen Cheng
Journal: Mathematical Problems in Engineering
 (2013)

---

## Abstract

This study explores the characteristics of rental goods, integrates the green concept in the design and development, and introduces the concept of product service into the rental consumption trend in Taiwan. This study takes the questionnaire survey to collect various opinions of the consumers to rental consumption and also classifies the Taiwanese consumers into five clusters based on the life styles, and the names of clusters are simple financial management cluster, environment and taste cluster, fashionable and flexible cluster, careful purchase cluster, and smart consumption cluster. Finally, conclusions are as follows. (1) The green consumption cognition and attitude of the consumers to the environmental goods can help to master the factor of green consumption property for developing the rental commodities. (2) The market segmentation of the rental consumption market can be enhanced by the variables of available life styles. (3) The applications with product service rental characteristics should take the opinion feedback of the consumers into the sustainable product development conditions and expand the service property of the product. (4) As the cost of cradle-to-cradle recycling pattern is high, the support and promotion of the government can help to construct the business model of product service rental consumption and develop the rental economy.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Human plunder and the destruction of nature are closely related to consumption patterns. The purpose of consumption is to satisfy needs; however, in a society of capitalism, in order to sell more products, capitalists stimulate need through the use of various kinds of marketing measures that result in unnecessary consumption [1–3]. With the rise of environmental consciousness, green consumption has been proposed in response to unsustainable crisis in economic development. According to Marx, consumption is not only the end but also the start of production. Consumption both fulfills and enhances production. It also influences exchange and distribution [4–8]. Critical positions of consumption suggest that, in order to avoid the crisis of unsustainable development, human beings must change the current consumption model, which is destroying the environment [9, 10]. Leasing changes the consumption habit of manufacturers and consumers. Purchase has changed into leasing. The sold products are changed as services [11, 12]. Consumers benefit from functions of products, but the ownership still belongs to manufacturers. Thus, manufacturers not only satisfy customers’ needs of product functions, but also reduce product output and sales by services provided [13–15]. It will decrease resource consumption and pollutant output and control the total volume.According to WRAP of the UK, in 2009, every year in the UK 143 billion GBP of usable goods are disposed. Using clothing as an example, the current average utilization rate is only 66%. If goods can be fully used until the end of product life, it will save 47 billion GBP for consumers every year. According to the data, with environmental protection, by means of rental, hire groups are becoming the new green consumption group [11, 13, 14].When consumption trends change from buying-selling consumption to that of rental consumption, rental behavior will enhance the circular consumption. It will not only save their product resources but also their social public resources. Leases can be divided into capital leases and operating leases. Capital leases are financial leases. The lessees authorize the purchase of new machines and equipment to the lessors and then rent the equipment from the lessors. All depreciation is paid by the lessees’ accounting in different periods. During the period of the lease, the lessees have the usage right of the goods [11, 15].Thus, the risk should be particularly evaluated and guaranteed. An operating lease refers to a noncapital lease. With an operating lease, the lessors (leasing firms) have the ownership of the leasing subjects (machines and equipment), while the lessees (enterprises) have the usage right of the leasing subjects. Once the lease term expires, ownership of the leasing subjects remains with the lessors. During the rental period, the lessors must undertake the expenditures of renewal, maintenance, and prevention of leasing subjects [11, 12].Rentals change the consumption patterns of manufacturers and consumers. As purchase has changed into rental service, the original sold product is changed into a service, where consumers can benefit from product functions while ownership belongs to the manufacturer. The manufacturer can meet customer demands of product functions, and reduce product output and sales by providing a service. In this way, the resource consumption and pollutant output can be decreased to achieve the effect of total amount control [11–15].In modern society, people are concerned about enjoyment and have developed new lifestyles using the rental concept to enjoy lives that are limited by money. New lifestyle groups known as hire groups have thus been constructed. Hire groups enjoy renting items, and they only care about possessing the items for a period of time instead of for the life of the product. With limited cash, consumers can experience unlimited rentals [16–18]. Leasing firms sell services and consumers spend money to satisfy temporary needs instead of receiving ownership. Some products are used rarely during the year. For these products, customers can pay a small amount of money for usage rights that last a few days. They do not need to pay a large amount of money [6–8]. In addition, the same products can be repeatedly used and rented. Thus, rentals are not only good for finance; they also decrease the waste of resources and help protect the environment [1, 13–15].Such a model of meeting the “environmental protection” demand by “selling service” is in line with the concept of “PSS (product service system).” “PSS” is based on environmental protection and economic considerations [19–22]. It combines product and service to satisfy the consumption demand in order to realize the purpose of dematerialization of the product [23–26]. The system is usually operated by rentals, shared use, or pricing by unit of use. Consumers purchase the product “service,” as provided by this system, rather than the product “substance” [27–31]. Hence, this study introduces the product service concept into the rental development trends of Taiwan, conducts a survey on consumer preferences of rental commodities, and plans to create “Taiwan’s environmentally friendly rental life.” It is expected to develop products inline with consumer demands and implement the sustainable development of the environment in order to usher in a new era of environmental protection in Taiwan. The purposes of this study are as following.(1)
Using the above literature review, this study probed into time and the influence of rental consumption groups. Through the investigation on lifestyle, this study explored the life and characteristics of hire groups in Taiwan and analyzed their cognition of rental consumption, behavior, and attitude.(2)
Through in-depth interviews and questionnaire surveys, this study probed into the rental patterns and product service systems preferred by Taiwan consumers, as well as consumers’ views and expectations of the rental industry.


## 2. Materials and Methods

### 2.1. Research Framework

In order to probe into lifestyle of rental consumption groups in Taiwan from the perspective of product service systems, this study adopted a literature review, a questionnaire survey on consumer lifestyles, factor analysis, and clustering analysis, in order to recognize the needs of rental consumption groups in Taiwan and generalize the important factors, as shown in Figure1.Figure 1
Research framework.Through a literature review, this study explored theories related to product service systems, rental consumption, sustainable product development, and lifestyles. The first stage of interviews was conducted. Using a questionnaire survey, this study analyzed the types and patterns of rental consumption accepted by the Taiwanese, factors of the leases and lifestyles of rental consumption preferred by different groups, and recognized Taiwanese consumers’ expectations and thoughts about the rental industry.


### 2.2. Research Subjects

This study aimed to probe into Taiwanese consumers’ views of the rental industry and generalize the lifestyle of potential rental consumption groups in Taiwan. The subjects were consumers with the cognitive and purchasing capability. Subjects include age 18~55 years old, college educational level, annual income 0.3~1.2 million NTD, occupation respectively labor industry, professional personnel, student and service industry, and residential places from northern, central, and southern of Taiwan. The questionnaire survey was conducted to screen potential hire groups in order to explore their lifestyles.


### 2.3. Research Design

This study used a questionnaire survey and the investigation included demographics and the subjects’ personal basic information. The subjects’ consumption behavior of rental goods demonstrated their purchases, consumption cognition, and consumption attitude, as well as factors of their selection of rental consumption. There were five parts in the questionnaire survey.First, the demographic variable of the subjects mastered the structure of samples and provided enough information for analysis of problems and interpretation of abilities.Next, rental consumption behavior of the subjects was used to understand the preference of Taiwanese consumers’ rental consumption.Third part, the awareness of the subjects’ rental consumption used the Likert scale five forms on the questionnaire survey. Each question had “strongly agree,” “agree,” “average,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree” with selection of 5~1 points. The contents of the questionnaire included the leasing concepts, the environmental sustainability, and the sustainable rental consumption.Fourth part, the subjects’ attitudes of rental consumption primarily tried to understand the impact factors of rental consumption.Finally, this study investigated the subjects’ rental of goods in the product service system. The questions were designed according to the dimensions of attitude, interest, and Opinion (A.I.O.) to investigate the consumers’ lifestyles. By clustering, the subjects’ lifestyle types were clustered to analyze the reactions of different lifestyle and demographic groups in order to find if there were significant rental consumption differences among the groups.


## 2.1. Research Framework

In order to probe into lifestyle of rental consumption groups in Taiwan from the perspective of product service systems, this study adopted a literature review, a questionnaire survey on consumer lifestyles, factor analysis, and clustering analysis, in order to recognize the needs of rental consumption groups in Taiwan and generalize the important factors, as shown in Figure1.Figure 1
Research framework.Through a literature review, this study explored theories related to product service systems, rental consumption, sustainable product development, and lifestyles. The first stage of interviews was conducted. Using a questionnaire survey, this study analyzed the types and patterns of rental consumption accepted by the Taiwanese, factors of the leases and lifestyles of rental consumption preferred by different groups, and recognized Taiwanese consumers’ expectations and thoughts about the rental industry.


## 2.2. Research Subjects

This study aimed to probe into Taiwanese consumers’ views of the rental industry and generalize the lifestyle of potential rental consumption groups in Taiwan. The subjects were consumers with the cognitive and purchasing capability. Subjects include age 18~55 years old, college educational level, annual income 0.3~1.2 million NTD, occupation respectively labor industry, professional personnel, student and service industry, and residential places from northern, central, and southern of Taiwan. The questionnaire survey was conducted to screen potential hire groups in order to explore their lifestyles.


## 2.3. Research Design

This study used a questionnaire survey and the investigation included demographics and the subjects’ personal basic information. The subjects’ consumption behavior of rental goods demonstrated their purchases, consumption cognition, and consumption attitude, as well as factors of their selection of rental consumption. There were five parts in the questionnaire survey.First, the demographic variable of the subjects mastered the structure of samples and provided enough information for analysis of problems and interpretation of abilities.Next, rental consumption behavior of the subjects was used to understand the preference of Taiwanese consumers’ rental consumption.Third part, the awareness of the subjects’ rental consumption used the Likert scale five forms on the questionnaire survey. Each question had “strongly agree,” “agree,” “average,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree” with selection of 5~1 points. The contents of the questionnaire included the leasing concepts, the environmental sustainability, and the sustainable rental consumption.Fourth part, the subjects’ attitudes of rental consumption primarily tried to understand the impact factors of rental consumption.Finally, this study investigated the subjects’ rental of goods in the product service system. The questions were designed according to the dimensions of attitude, interest, and Opinion (A.I.O.) to investigate the consumers’ lifestyles. By clustering, the subjects’ lifestyle types were clustered to analyze the reactions of different lifestyle and demographic groups in order to find if there were significant rental consumption differences among the groups.


## 3. Result and Discussion

### 3.1. Investigation and Analysis on the Lifestyles of Hire Groups

#### 3.1.1. Factor Analysis and Reliability Test of the Lifestyles

In order to analyze the subjects’ different types of lifestyle, by factor analysis, this study simplified 31 questions on the subjects’ lifestyles and adopted principal component analysis and varimax in factor analysis for orthogonal rotation, in order to extract the main factors. As to the reliability of the scale of the questionnaire, after reliability analysis, the total reliability wasα=0.776, which was higher than 0.7. Thus, the scale of this study was reliable (see Table 1):
(1)α=kk-1(1-∑Si2S2)=3131-1(1-31124.497)=3130(0.751)=0.776.Table 1
Analysis of the total reliability of the lifestyle scale.
Number of subjects
Cronbach’sα
Number of items
198
0.776
31Factor analysis aims to extract common factors of numerous variables in order to simplify the number of variables. The purpose is to represent a great number of variables using few factors while keeping most of the information in the original variables. Before the extraction of factor analysis, this study conducted the KMO measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity in order to find if the data is suitable for factor analysis. Kaiser suggested that when the KMO value is higher, it is more effective after factor analysis [32]. A value of at least 0.9 means the effect is extremely appropriate, at least 0.8 means the effect is appropriate, at least 0.7 means the effect is acceptable, and at least 0.6 means the effect is normal. Below 0.5 means the effect is inappropriate. According to Table 2, the KMO=0.763 and the significance of Bartlett’s test of sphericity is X2=0.000, indicating that the data were proper:
(2)KMO=∑i∑j(i≠j)rij2∑i∑j(i≠j)rij2+∑i∑j(i≠j)rij2,X2=(N-K)ln(Sp2)-∑i=1K(n1-1)ln(Si2)1+(1/3(k-1))(∑i=1k(1/(ni-1))-1/(N-k)).Table 2
KMO and Bartlett’s test of lifestyle scale.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy
0.763
Bartlett’s test of sphericity
Significance
0.000After the test, principal component analysis was conducted to extract the common factors. A total eigenvalue>1 is the standard. The total explained variance was 58.896%, which matched the standard of being >40%. The least eigenvalue was 1.416, which matched the standard eigenvalue of >1, as shown in Table 3.Table 3
Eigenvalue of factors, explained variance after rotation, and cumulative explained variance of the lifestyle scale.
Primary eigenvalue
Component
Eigenvalue
Explained variance
Cumulative explained variance
1
4.646
14.986
14.986
2
2.313
7.463
22.449
3
2.271
7.325
29.774
4
2.230
7.195
36.969
5
2.176
7.018
43.987
6
1.695
5.467
49.454
7
1.511
4.876
54.329
8
1.416
4.567
58.896Using VarimaxMaxSai22=(1/m)∑J=1k(aji2-ai-2)2, this study conducted orthogonal rotation and reduced 31 questions into eight factors. According to the significance principle of factor loading proposed by Hair et al. [33], a factor loading that reaches 0.3 is acceptable. The questions used for the factors in this study are shown in Table 4:
(3)MaxSai22=1m∑J=1k(aji2-ai-2)2.Table 4
Component matrix of the lifestyle scale of principal component analysis after rotation.
Questions of lifestyle
Factors
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
Factor 5
Factor 6
Factor 7
Factor 8
Question  19
0.817
−0.124
0.074
0.035
−0.118
0.170
−0.042
0.061
Question  30
0.795
−0.145
0.022
0.044
0.059
−0.008
−0.125
−0.107
Question  10
0.710
0.080
0.000
−0.026
0.007
0.252
−0.237
0.209
Question  1
0.688
0.107
0.062
−0.366
−0.014
0.129
−0.003
−0.024
Question  16
0.688
−0.100
0.139
0.005
0.007
−0.109
−0.134
−0.067
Question  28
0.642
0.102
−0.094
−0.177
−0.010
0.323
0.079
−0.057
Question  20
0.565
−0.074
−0.090
0.141
−0.299
0.279
0.142
0.282
Question  27
0.539
0.149
0.126
0.139
−0.218
−0.329
0.028
−0.074
Question  2
0.515
−0.030
0.313
−0.214
0.016
−0.110
0.309
0.102
Question  13
0.081
0.801
−0.036
−0.032
0.005
0.014
−0.088
0.194
Question  29
−0.058
0.693
0.116
0.144
0.063
0.109
0.064
0.084
Question  14
−0.005
0.643
−0.170
0.323
0.144
0.043
−0.039
−0.261
Question  15
−0.166
0.428
0.038
0.058
0.085
0.066
0.401
−0.091
Question  11
0.005
−0.104
0.650
0.206
0.217
0.052
0.063
0.077
Question  26
0.078
−0.172
0.609
0.193
0.167
0.227
−0.068
−0.060
Question  3
0.428
0.165
0.542
−0.295
−0.092
0.023
−0.141
−0.102
Question  5
0.010
0.380
0.541
−0.370
0.030
0.067
0.021
0.085
Question  12
0.389
0.190
0.398
−0.168
0.166
0.069
0.056
−0.161
Question  25
0.179
0.232
0.389
0.310
0.009
0.314
0.087
−0.293
Question  22
0.014
0.101
−0.071
0.719
0.027
−0.004
0.029
0.007
Question  23
−0.155
0.055
0.172
0.653
−0.019
0.081
0.054
0.084
Question  24
−0.109
0.273
0.067
0.501
0.122
0.053
0.271
−0.275
Question  6
0.019
0.047
0.147
0.101
0.831
0.003
−0.084
−0.026
Question  7
−0.196
0.113
0.163
−0.021
0.732
0.143
−0.082
0.084
Question  31
−0.021
0.077
0.045
0.045
0.659
0.080
0.453
0.140
Question  9
0.312
0.152
0.180
0.118
0.015
0.733
−0.034
0.067
Question  17
0.105
0.038
0.249
−0.065
0.349
0.561
0.276
−0.197
Question  8
0.017
0.201
0.236
0.402
0.166
0.444
−0.205
0.130
Question  4
−0.113
−0.042
−0.019
0.105
−0.062
−0.009
0.773
0.112
Question  21
−0.002
0.112
−0.043
−0.022
0.070
−0.007
0.056
0.806
Question  18
0.029
0.019
0.365
0.148
0.202
0.075
0.260
0.399The principles for deleting the items were(1) items with a low factor loading; (2) items that included three common factors; (3) factors that only included two or fewer than two items; and (4) items with low reliability [34]. According to the component matrix after rotation in Table 4, Factor 7 and Factor 8 only included one and two items, respectively. The comparison revealed that the factor loading of Factor 7 was lower than that of Factor 8. Thus, Factor 7 was deleted.By deleting factors having one or fewer than one item, the researcher obtained seven factors. According to the meanings of the items in the factor coefficients shown in Table4, the factors were named as fashionable, stable and cautious, unique taste, strict budgeting, environmental, interactive consumption, and economic and flexible, as shown in Table 5.Table 5
Meanings of the names of factors.
Factor
Names
Meanings
Factor 1
Fashionable
(i) The subjects are concerned about fashion and change, and they try new things.(ii) They carefully dress themselves to show their extraordinary taste.(iii) They reward themselves by purchasing luxury goods.(iv) They are careful about the quality of the goods.
Factor 2
Stable and cautious
(i) The subjects are more conservative and good at financial management.(ii) They do not have unnecessary dreams or expenses.(iii) They always make plans and are satisfied with their current lives.
Factor 3
Unique taste
(i) The subjects have their own opinions.(ii) They enjoy challenging work and are concerned about the taste of life.(iii) They do not mind using secondhand goods.(iv) Before purchasing goods, they prefer having a trial period,and they believe that they can obtain a life with personal style and unique tastefrom a flea market.
Factor 4
Strict budgeting
(i) The subjects prefer purchasing goods by the most practical measures.(ii) They do not care about fashion.(iii) They enjoy classic and resistant patterns.(iv) They do not have unnecessary expenses.(v) They save extra money in the banks.
Factor 5
Environmental
(i) The subjects are concerned about the environment and ecology.(ii) They use their own shopping bags, cups, and tableware.(iii) They avoid goods that are only used once.(iv) They treat the environment as a priority when purchasing products.
Factor 6
Interactive consumption
(i) The subjects have frequent interaction.(ii) Besides offering the latest consumption information to relatives and friends,they are careful about green information and recommend environmentally friendly goods.(iii) They engage in a purchase behavior that has the most economic effectiveness.(iv) They use coupons and wait for discount periods to buy goods.
Factor 7
Economic and flexible
(i) The subjects prefer flexible purchases of products.(ii) They are good at paying with credit cards.(iii) They obtain usage rights with little money and treat them as a flexible measureto keep their money.(iv) They prefer rentals instead of buying goods.


#### 3.1.2. Lifestyle Clusters and Difference Analysis

The analysis in this section was conducted according to the lifestyle items of the questionnaire. Consumers were divided into different clusters. At the first stage, Ward’s method, also known as the minimum variance methoddij=d({Xi},{Xj})=∥Xi-Xj∥2, was adopted. According to the interval of the squared Euclidean distance, this study judged the maximum increase of total variance and the stage in order to recognize the number of clusters [35]. As shown in Table 6, when the percentage of the coefficient of concentration was reduced from three to two clusters, the change was the most significant. Thus, there should be three clusters:
(4)dij=d({Xi},{Xj})=∥Xi-Xj∥2.Table 6
Coefficient of concentration of Ward’s method.
Cluster
Coefficient
Incremental value
Percentage
7
948.655
54.442
5.73%
6
1,003.097
63.153
6.29%
5
1,066.250
65.687
6.16%
4
1,131.937
73.396
6.48%
3
1,205.333
79.986
6.63%
2
1,285.319
93.681
7.28%
1
1,379.000After the three clusters were decided using Ward’s method, this study conducted k-mean clustering analysis and allocated 198 consumers into three lifestyle clusters. According to the results of the three clusters of k-mean clustering analysis, in one cluster, there was only one subject. With the division of six clusters, two clusters only had one subject. Thus, this study tried to adopt two, four, and five clusters. However, the clustering precision rate needed to be validated by judgment analysis. Based on Table7, significance 0.000<α=0.05, and the judgmental capability was significant. This study probed into differences of the factors of the groups and the lifestyle groups using one-way ANOVA ST=∑(Xi-μ)2, SSB=∑n×(μ-μ)2, SSW=∑∑(Xgi-μ)2 and validated the clustering result, as shown in Table 8. According to the result of ANOVA, when there were five clusters, the P values of all factors were <α=0.05. Thus, five clusters are significantly different for seven factors. The different groups were effectively segmented:
(5)SST=∑(Xi-μ)2,SSB=∑n×(μ-μ)2,SSW=∑∑(Xgi-μ)2.Table 7
Validation result of clustering by judgment analysis.
Coefficient test
Wilks’  Lambda
Chi-square
Freedom
Significance
1 to 4
0.066
519.173
28
0.000
2 to 4
0.182
325.848
18
0.000
3 to 4
0.395
177.251
10
0.000
4
0.711
65.154
4
0.000Table 8
ANOVA clustering significance test of 2, 4, and 5 clusters.
7 factors
2 clusters
4 clusters
5 clusters
Fashionable
0.585
0.000
0.000
Stable and cautious
0.000
0.000
0.000
Unique taste
0.000
0.000
0.000
Strict budgeting
0.000
0.000
0.000
Environmental
0.000
0.000
0.000
Interactive consumption
0.042
0.110
0.038
Economic and flexible
0.022
0.000
0.000Finally, the seven factors were divided into five clusters by k-mean clustering, as shown in Table9. According to the figures, Factor 1 (fashionable) had a significantly positive relation with Cluster 3 and had a significantly negative relation with Cluster 5. Cluster 1 had a positive correlation with Factor 2 (stable and cautious) and Factor 4 (strict budgeting). It had a negative correlation with Factor 1 (fashionable), Factor 3 (unique taste), Factor 5 (environmental), Factor 6 (interactive consumption), and Factor 8 (economic and flexible). Thus, Cluster 1 was more practical and not fashionable, as the subjects did not have unnecessary expenses. Based on the above, Cluster 1 was named simple financial management.Table 9
Factors of the lifestyle clusters and means of coefficients.
7 factors
Cluster 1Simple financial management
Cluster 2Environment and taste
Cluster 3Fashionable and flexible
Cluster 4Careful purchase
Cluster 5Smart consumption
Factor 1Fashionable
−0.22001
0.07168
0.80084
−0.36694
−1.14294
Factor 2Stable and cautious
0.76913
−0.22018
−0.41585
1.10397
−0.72273
Factor 3Unique taste
−0.45461
0.43147
−0.09925
1.33478
−0.21367
Factor 4Strict budgeting
0.08988
0.32764
−0.17508
−1.29227
0.42305
Factor 5Environmental
−0.37356
1.20943
−0.13446
0.12425
−0.64711
Factor 6Interactive consumption
−0.29853
0.26664
0.02640
0.40808
−0.07634
Factor 8Economic and flexible
−0.44042
−0.56035
0.53754
0.33632
0.18783
Number of people
52
38
62
15
31
Percentage
26%
19%
31%
8%
16%According to Table9, this study used one-way ANOVA to determine the differences among the groups and factors. According to the characteristics, the clusters were named as follows: Cluster 1: simple financial management; Cluster 2: environment and taste; Cluster 3: fashionable and flexible; Cluster 4: careful purchase; and Cluster 5: smart consumption. After clustering analysis, the cross analysis and chi-square test were conducted to find the significant differences of the groups. The distribution between the group demographics is shown in Table 10.Table 10
Distribution of the demographics of different groups.
Item
Cluster 1Simple financialmanagement
Cluster 2Environment andtaste
Cluster 3Fashionable andflexible
Cluster 4Careful purchase
Cluster 5Smartconsumption
Number ofpeople (%)
Number ofpeople (%)
Number ofpeople (%)
Number ofpeople (%)
Number ofpeople (%)
Gender
Male
17 (8.6%)
18 (9.1%)
22 (11.1%)
9 (4.5%)
13 (6.6%)
Female
35 (17.7%)
20 (10.1%)
40 (20.2%)
6 (3.0%)
18 (9.1%)
Age
Less than 18 years old
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
18–24 years old
18 (9.1%)
5 (2.5%)
8 (4.0%)
10 (5.1%)
8 (4.0%)
25–30 years old
11 (5.6%)
11 (5.6%)
6 (3.0%)
2 (1.0%)
6 (3.0%)
31–40 years old
9 (4.5%)
12 (6.1%)
15 (7.6%)
0 (0.0%)
5 (2.5%)
41–50 years old
8 (4.0%)
8 (4.0%)
23 (11.6%)
1 (0.5%)
7 (3.5%)
51–60 years old
5 (2.5%)
2 (1.0%)
8 (4.0%)
2 (1.0%)
4 (2.0%)
More than 60 years old
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
2 (1.0%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (0.5%)
Educational level
Elementary school (and below)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Junior high school
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Senior high school and vocational school
3 (1.5%)
3 (1.5%)
8 (4.0%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (0.5%)
University (including college)
35 (17.7%)
22 (11.1%)
36 (18.2%)
10 (5.1%)
18 (9.1%)
Graduate school (and above)
14 (7.1%)
13 (6.6%)
18 (9.1%)
5 (2.5%)
12 (6.1%)
Annual income
Less than 0.3 million NTD
20 (10.1%)
5 (2.5%)
10 (5.1%)
10 (5.1%)
9 (4.5%)
0.31~0.5 million NTD
7 (3.5%)
9 (4.5%)
9 (4.5%)
2 (1.0%)
5 (2.5%)
0.51~0.8 million NTD
14 (7.1%)
11 (5.6%)
9 (4.5%)
0 (0.0%)
5 (2.5%)
0.81~1 million NTD
5 (2.5%)
6 (3.0%)
13 (6.6%)
1 (0.5%)
4 (2.0%)
1.01~1.2 million NTD
5 (2.5%)
1 (0.5%)
10 (5.1%)
0 (0.0%)
2 (1.0%)
More than 1.21 million NTD
1 (0.5%)
6 (3.0%)
11 (5.6%)
2 (1.0%)
6 (3.0%)
Occupation
Student
13 (6.6%)
4 (2.0%)
4 (2.0%)
9 (4.5%)
8 (4.0%)
Public official
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Service industry
6 (3.0%)
4 (2.0%)
8 (4.0%)
1 (0.5%)
2 (1.0%)
Self-employed
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
2 (1.0%)
Labor industry
9 (4.5%)
9 (4.5%)
14 (7.1%)
3 (1.5%)
4 (2.0%)
Agricultural, forestry, fishery, and husbandry
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Professional personnel
10 (5.1%)
12 (6.1%)
20 (10.1%)
0 (0.0%)
12 (6.1%)
Housewife
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Unemployed
1 (0.5%)
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Retired
1 (0.5%)
1 (0.5%)
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (0.5%)
Others
10 (5.1%)
7 (3.5%)
13 (6.6%)
2 (1.0%)
2 (1.0%)
Residential places
Northern Taiwan
43 (21.7%)
29 (14.6%)
55 (27.8%)
10 (5.1%)
22 (11.1%)
Central Taiwan
5 (2.5%)
7 (3.5%)
2 (1.0%)
4 (2.0%)
7 (3.5%)
Southern Taiwan
3 (1.5%)
2 (1.0%)
4 (2.0%)
1 (0.5%)
1 (0.5%)
Eastern Taiwan
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Offshore islands
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Other
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (0.5%)
Total
52 (26.3%)
38 (19.2%)
62 (31.3%)
15 (7.6%)
31 (15.7%)According to the result of the chi-square test, the lifestyle groups in this study showed a significant difference in age and annual income. The chi-square values of the rest of the items were above the significance level of 0.05, indicating there was no significant difference. In other words, the clusters were not significantly different, as shown in Table11.Table 11
Significance of the Pearson chi-square test.
Items
Approximate significance
Gender
0.278
Age
0.003
Educational level
0.630
Annual income
0.002
Occupation
0.086
Residential places
0.318According to the result of the clustering analysis, the demographics of different groups shown in Tables9 and 10 were compared, as shown in Table 12.Table 12
Names and descriptions of clusters.
Number
Names of clusters
Descriptions of clusters
1
Simplefinancialmanagement
(i) The subjects purchase goods by the most practical measures.(ii) They are more conservative and are good at financial management. (iii) They do not have unnecessary dreams nor expenses. (iv) They make plans and they save extra money. (v) They are mostly 18–30 years old and their annual incomes are mostly below 0.3 million NTD. Thus, it was inferred that the cluster includes students. (vi) The second annual income range was 0.51~0.8 million NTD. (vii) Although their salaries are not low, they should work hard. (viii) They live a moderate life in order to fulfill their future plans.
2
Environmentand taste
(i) The subjects have their own opinions and they enjoy challenging work.(ii) They are concerned about the environment and ecology. (iii) They use personal shopping bags, cups, and tableware. (iv) They value the taste of life. (v) They are mostly 25–40 years old. (vi) Their annual incomes are mostly 31,000–80,000 NTD. (vii) They tend to engage in traditional consumption and are not used to credit cards. (viii) They do not mind using secondhand products. (ix) They are concerned about using trials before purchasing goods. (x) They believe that they can find products with personal style and unique taste in flea markets. (xi) They are careful about environmental protection.
3
Fashionableand flexible
(i) The subjects are concerned about fashion and change.(ii) They try new things and dress themselves to demonstrate their extraordinary taste. (iii) They reward themselves with luxurious goods. (iv) They are careful about the quality of goods. (v) They are mostly 31–50 years old and their annual incomes are mostly 0.81–1.21 million NTD (and above). (vi) They are in the middle class to high salary groups. (vii) According to the distribution of their ages, they are still working. Thus, it was inferred that their purchased goods should match their identities to demonstrate the value.(viii) They are good at paying with credit cards. (ix) They obtain the usage rights of products with little money, and this is a measure to keep their current money.
4
Carefulpurchase
(i) The subjects have their own opinions.(ii) They enjoy challenging work. (iii) They are concerned about the taste of life. (iv) They do not mind using secondhand things. (v) They are cautious about making purchases. (vi) They use coupons and wait for discount periods. (vii) However, they do not only buy classic and resistant goods. With extra money and after careful judgment, they will buy the products they like or need instead of saving the money. (viii) They have frequent interaction and often provide the latest consumption information to relatives and friends. (ix) They are concerned about green information and recommend environmentally friendly goods.(x) They are mostly 18–24 years old and their annual incomes are mostly below 0.3 million NTD. Thus, it was inferred that most of them are students. (xi) They do not have economic advantages and they discuss consumption information with each other.
5
Smartconsumption
(i) The subjects prefer making purchases using the most economic measures.(ii) They do not care about fashion and they buy classic and resistant goods. (iii) They do not have unnecessary expenses. (iv) They save extra money. Most of them are 18–24 and 41–50 years old. (v) Distribution of their annual incomes is extreme. Most of them have less than 0.3 million NTD or more than 1.21 million NTD. Thus, they include students and practical subjects with high salaries. (vi) They are flexible with their consumption. For instance, they pay using credit cards and obtain the usage rights of products using small installments of money. (vii) This is the measure to keep their current money. They do not mind obtaining the usage rights of goods by renting them.


### 3.2. Investigation on Rental Consumption in the Product Service System

Using the questionnaire survey in the first stage, this study screened potential rental groups. The items of the questionnaire were generalized according to the literatures and included rental consumption behavior, rental consumption cognition, rental consumption attitude, and a lifestyle AIO questionnaire. After integrating the related data, this study treated the result as the criterion of the expected goals. The subjects were consumers with cognitive and purchasing capability. This study focused on consumers above 18 years of age. At the first stage, 206 questionnaires were distributed and 198 valid questionnaires were retrieved. The majority of the questionnaires were online questionnaires, followed by paper-based questionnaires. The aim was to find the rental patterns and types that could be accepted by consumers in Taiwan, as well as the lifestyle factors of the groups that could accept the rental model.


#### 3.2.1. Analysis of the Rental Consumption Behavior in the Product Service System

According to the figures shown in Table13, 181 subjects had engaged in rental behavior (91.41%). However, 8.59% subjects had never engaged in leasing behavior. According to the responses for the items of the products, common real estate, publications, and transportations had long been associated with the rental business. At least 80% of the subjects had rental experience. Only 20% of the subjects had rented clothing, outdoor items, and cards, which can be rented in many different places. As to the rental of furniture, 15.66% of the subjects had experience. It was inferred that the furniture in rented rooms was considered to be rented furniture, and this was common for the public in Taiwan. As to various assistive devices, which are expensive and rental of the devices is promoted by the government, only 10.61% subjects had rented them. As to baby items that are renewed frequently, only 8.08% of the subjects had rented them. This shows that the subjects were used to purchasing instead of renting such items, not to mention the rental of electric appliances, daily articles, and live objects, which are rare in the market. The above indicated that Taiwanese consumers are not used to renting goods for short-term usage. The implementation of rental business should be significantly improved.Table 13
Scale cross table of the subjects’ rental consumption behavior.
Item
Yes
No
Frequency
Percentage
Frequency
Percentage
Have you rented things (such as rooms, cars, and books)?
181
91.41%
17
8.59%
If necessary, do you accept renting things?
195
98.48%
3
1.52%
Have you rented real estate (such as rooms or land)?
144
72.73%
54
27.27%
Have you rented electrical appliances (such as cameras, computers, and air conditioners)?
10
5.05%
188
94.95%
Have you rented clothing (such as wedding dresses, luxurious bags, or jewelry)?
46
23.23%
152
76.77%
Have you rented transportation (such as cars, bikes or motorcycles)?
162
81.82%
36
18.18%
Have you rented publications (such as books, DVDs, and music CDs)?
159
80.30%
39
19.70%
Have you rented daily articles (such as thick blankets, window curtains, and carpets)?
1
0.51%
197
99.49%
Have you rented live object (such as plants, pets, or persons to pose as girl/boyfriends)?
1
0.51%
197
99.49%
Have you rented outdoor things (such as camping equipment and luggage)?
51
25.76%
147
74.24%
Have you rented cards (such as membership cards)?
47
23.74%
151
76.26%
Have you rented baby things (such as baby buggies and toys)?
16
8.08%
182
91.92%
Have you rented assistive tools (such as wheelchairs and electric vehicles)?
21
10.61%
177
89.39%
Have you rented furniture (such as tables, chairs, or beds in rented rooms)?
31
15.66%
167
84.34%


#### 3.2.2. Analysis of Rental Consumption Cognition of the Product Service System

According to the figures shown in Table14, the subjects agreed with the green effectiveness of leasing and they had a positive attitude. Thus, the development of leasing in a product service system could be a new green consumption model.Table 14
Scale cross table of the subjects’ rental consumption cognition.
Item
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Total
Renting is not a respectable behavior.
00.00%
42.02%
2512.63%
13367.17%
3618.18%
198100%
Renting is for only when we cannot afford something.
10.51%
199.60%
199.60%
11357.07%
4623.23%
198100%
Renting is a better bargain than purchasing.
136.57%
7839.39%
7738.89%
2914.65%
10.51%
198100%
The use of rented goods is a kind of strict budgeting and saving behavior.
147.07%
10151.01%
6834.34%
157.58%
00.00%
198100%
The repeated use of goods is environmentally friendly, and I will consider leasing.
3015.15%
11960.10%
3618.18%
136.57%
00.00%
198100%
Renting and the green consumption of goods are environmentally friendly and they are measures to solve environmental problems.
3517.68%
12161.11%
3417.17%
84.04%
00.00%
198100%
I am willing to share the concept of renting and green consumption with my family or friends.
4221.21%
11558.08%
4020.20%
10.51%
00.00%
198100%
In order not to waste resources, and for the sustainable development of the earth, it is worthy to change consumption habits (such by using rented goods, shopping at flea markets, and exchanging goods).
5929.80%
11357.07%
2412.12%
21.01%
00.00%
198100%
Governments and enterprises should implement and promote rental plans for goods.
4824.24%
12060.61%
2914.65%
10.51%
00.00%
198100%


#### 3.2.3. Analysis on Rental Consumption Attitude of the Product Service System

According to the figures in Table15, the most significant conditions for consumers to accept rental consumption were low use frequency and high prices of goods. There should be a clear rental contract and process. Renting is not the traditional consumption model in which ownership changes in trading. There are many extended situations. Thus, the subjects worried that the rented goods would not always be used privately and the conditions were uncertain. They questioned the cleanness and compensation after damage. Leasing firms should be extremely careful about the quality of the rented goods. Clean goods in good condition should not be easily damaged by consumers’ common use.Table 15
Scale cross table of the subjects’ rental consumption attitude.
Items
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Total
Prices of the goods are the factors of my rental selection.
5326.77%
11558.08%
2110.61%
94.55%
00.00%
198100%
If the products are not used frequently, I will choose leasing.
6532.83%
12161.11%
105.05%
10.51%
10.51%
198100%
I will consider leasing since I should use (or match) different products in different occasions.
2110.61%
13568.18%
3316.67%
94.55%
00.00%
198100%
I will consider leasing since I worry that I will buy the wrong goods.
126.06%
8643.43%
7035.35%
3015.15%
00.00%
198100%
I will consider leasing since I can update products at any time.
73.54%
8140.91%
8140.91%
2914.65%
00.00%
198100%
If enterprises provide a clear leasing process, I will consider leasing.
2211.11%
15276.77%
2211.11%
21.01%
00.00%
198100%
I do not consider leasing since I would like to use new goods.
42.02%
3417.17%
8643.43%
7336.87%
10.51%
198100%
I do not consider leasing since I do not have a sense of ownership.
63.03%
3417.17%
7236.36%
7839.39%
84.04%
198100%
I do not consider leasing since I worry about compensation.
126.06%
6432.32%
7236.36%
4422.22%
63.03%
198100%
I do not consider leasing since I worry about cleanness.
3015.15%
10854.55%
3919.70%
189.09%
31.52%
198100%
If I can have additional services other than purchasing, I will choose leasing.
3919.70%
13065.66%
2311.62%
52.53%
10.51%
198100%


### 3.3. Difference Analysis of Different Lifestyle Groups on Rental Consumption in the Product Service System

This section explored different groups’ rental intention, prices, use frequency, matching of goods, goods propriety, goods renewal, leasing process details, goods exclusiveness, damage of goods, cleanness of goods, and additional services. Regarding the content of the items, this study conducted cross analysis and chi-square test to find the significant differences among the groups.According to the figures of the 11 items of different lifestyle groups shown in Table16, the chi-square test result showed that the chi-square value was below the 0.05 significance level. The items that reached a significant difference were item 2 (prices), item 4 (matching of goods), and item 5 (propriety of goods). The rest of the items were not significantly different and were therefore not discussed.Table 16
Distribution of figures of 11 items in different lifestyle groups.
Items
Cluster 1Simplefinancialmanagement
Cluster 2Environmentand taste
Cluster 3Fashionableand flexible
Cluster 4Carefulpurchase
Cluster 5Smartconsumption
Pearsonchi-squaretestsignificance
1
If necessary, do you accept leasing?
Yes
52 (100.0%)
37 (97.4%)
60 (96.8%)
15 (100.0%)
31 (100.0%)
0.551
No
0 (0.0%)
1 (2.6%)
2 (3.2%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
2
The price of goods is the factor of my selection of leasing.
Strongly agree
12 (23.1%)
12 (31.6%)
10 (16.1%)
5 (33.3%)
14 (45.2%)
0.041
Agree
34 (65.4%)
21 (55.3%)
42 (67.7%)
5 (33.3%)
13 (41.9%)
Neutral
5 (9.6%)
3 (7.9%)
8 (12.9%)
2 (13.3%)
3 (9.7%)
Disagree
1 (1.9%)
2 (5.3%)
2 (3.2%)
3 (20.0%)
1 (3.2%)
Strongly disagree
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
3
When goods are not used frequently, I will prefer leasing.
Strongly agree
19 (36.5%)
10 (26.3%)
18 (29.0%)
4 (26.7%)
14 (45.2%)
0.056
Agree
32 (61.5%)
26 (68.4%)
40 (64.5%)
10 (66.7%)
13 (41.9%)
Neutral
1 (1.9%)
2 (5.3%)
4 (6.5%)
0 (0.0%)
3 (9.7%)
Disagree
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (6.7%)
0 (0.0%)
Strongly disagree
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (3.2%)
4
I consider leasing since I have to use (or match) different products in different occasions.
Strongly agree
6 (11.5%)
3 (7.9%)
1 (1.6%)
3 (20.0%)
8 (25.8%)
0.022
Agree
40 (76.9%)
24 (63.2%)
44 (71.0%)
10 (66.7%)
17 (54.8%)
Neutral
6 (11.5%)
10 (26.3%)
12 (19.4%)
1 (6.7%)
4 (12.9%)
Disagree
0 (0.00%)
1 (2.6%)
5 (8.1%)
1 (6.7%)
2 (6.5%)
Strongly disagree
0 (0.00%)
0 (0.00%)
0 (0.00%)
0 (0.00%)
0 (0.00%)
5
I consider leasing since I worry that I will buy the wrong goods.
Strongly agree
6 (11.5%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
3 (20.0%)
3 (9.7%)
0.048
Agree
20 (38.5%)
16 (42.1%)
30 (48.4%)
6 (40.0%)
14 (45.2%)
Neutral
20 (38.5%)
18 (47.4%)
19 (30.6%)
5 (33.3%)
8 (25.8%)
Disagree
6 (11.5%)
4 (10.5%)
13 (21.0%)
1 (6.7%)
6 (19.4%)
Strongly disagree
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
6
I consider leasing since I can update goods at any time.
Strongly agree
1 (1.9%)
1 (2.6%)
1 (1.6%)
1 (6.7%)
3 (9.7%)
0.139
Agree
23 (44.2%)
14 (36.8%)
25 (40.3%)
6 (40.0%)
13 (41.9%)
Neutral
26 (50.0%)
19 (50.0%)
21 (33.9%)
5 (33.3%)
10 (32.3%)
Disagree
2 (3.8%)
4 (10.5%)
15 (24.2%)
3 (20.0%)
5 (16.1%)
Strongly disagree
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
7
If enterprises provide a clear leasing process, I will consider leasing.
Strongly agree
6 (11.5%)
2 (5.3%)
4 (6.5%)
1 (6.7%)
9 (29.0%)
0.110
Agree
42 (80.8%)
30 (78.9%)
47 (75.8%)
12 (80.0%)
21 (67.7%)
Neutral
4 (7.7%)
5 (13.2%)
10 (16.1%)
2 (13.3%)
1 (3.2%)
Disagree
0 (0.0%)
1 (2.6%)
1 (1.6%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Strongly disagree
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
8-1
I do not consider leasing because I would like to use new products.
Strongly agree
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
2 (3.2%)
1 (6.7%)
1 (3.2%)
0.307
Agree
6 (11.5%)
10 (26.3%)
7 (11.3%)
4 (26.7%)
7 (22.6%)
Neutral
30 (57.7%)
17 (44.7%)
25 (40.3%)
4 (26.7%)
10 (32.3%)
Disagree
16 (30.8%)
11 (28.9%)
27 (43.5%)
6 (40.0%)
13 (41.9%)
Strongly disagree
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (1.6%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
8-2
I do not consider leasing since I do not have the sense of ownership.
Strongly agree
1 (1.9%)
1 (2.6%)
2 (3.2%)
2 (13.3%)
0 (0.0%)
0.219
Agree
5 (9.6%)
9 (23.7%)
7 (11.3%)
4 (26.7%)
9 (29.0%)
Neutral
24 (46.2%)
12 (31.6%)
23 (37.1%)
4 (26.7%)
9 (29.0%)
Disagree
19 (36.5%)
16 (42.1%)
26 (41.9%)
5 (33.3%)
12 (38.7%)
Strongly disagree
3 (5.8%)
0 (0.0%)
4 (6.5%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (3.2%)
9
I do not consider leasing because I worry about compensation.
Strongly agree
4 (7.7%)
1 (2.6%)
4 (6.5%)
2 (13.3%)
1 (3.2%)
0.810
Agree
17 (32.7%)
13 (34.2%)
17 (27.4%)
6 (40.0%)
11 (35.5%)
Neutral
18 (34.6%)
15 (39.5%)
27 (43.5%)
2 (13.3%)
10 (32.3%)
Disagree
11 (21.2%)
9 (23.7%)
12 (19.4%)
5 (33.3%)
7 (22.6%)
Strongly disagree
2 (3.8%)
0 (0.0%)
2 (3.2%)
0 (0.0%)
2 (6.5%)
10
I do not consider leasing because I worry about cleanness.
Strongly agree
5 (9.6%)
5 (13.2%)
9 (14.5%)
3 (20.0%)
8 (25.8%)
0.706
Agree
31 (59.6%)
23 (60.5%)
31 (50.0%)
8 (53.3%)
15 (48.4%)
Neutral
9 (17.3%)
8 (21.1%)
15 (24.2%)
1 (6.7%)
6 (19.4%)
Disagree
6 (11.5%)
2 (5.3%)
5 (8.1%)
3 (20.0%)
2 (6.5%)
Strongly disagree
1 (1.9%)
0 (0.0%)
2 (3.2%)
0 (3.2%)
0 (0.0%)
11
If I can have additional services, I will choose leasing.
Strongly agree
14 (26.9%)
6 (15.8%)
8 (12.9%)
3 (20.0%)
8 (25.8%)
0.569
Agree
34 (65.4%)
25 (65.8%)
41 (66.1%)
9 (60.0%)
21 (67.7%)
Neutral
3 (5.8%)
7 (18.4%)
9 (14.5%)
2 (13.3%)
2 (6.5%)
Disagree
1 (1.9%)
0 (0.0%)
3 (4.8%)
1 (6.7%)
0 (0.0%)
Strongly disagree
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (1.6%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)According to the figures of item 2 (prices), all the clusters agreed that the prices of goods were a factor of choosing to rent. There were two meanings of the result. One was that when the goods are expensive, they are more likely to be rented. The other was that the prices of the rented goods should be advantageous in order to attract the consumers. Noticeably, among Cluster 4, up to 20% of the subjects stated they disagreed. It was inferred that they mostly did not have economic advantages and were supported by their families. They did not have economic pressure. Besides, they were concerned about taste, they did not save all their extra money, and they were more likely to spend money on goods that they liked or needed. After careful consideration, they would pay for certain types of products.Based on the figures of item 4 (matching of goods), all the lifestyle clusters agreed that they would consider obtaining the usage rights of products by renting them when they had to use (or match) different products in different occasions. This showed that they could rent more expensive goods or products that are changed frequently (such as luxury bags) to demonstrate their identities.According to figures of item 5 (propriety of goods), this study realized that more than half of Cluster 4 and Cluster 5 agreed with careful purchases and being concerned about taste and that they did not mind using second-hand goods. They were careful about using trials before purchasing. Cluster of smart consumption is pragmatic when selecting goods and they obtained products by the most economic measures. They did not mind obtaining the usage rights of goods by renting them. Thus, if the products of the rental firms match the characteristics of these two groups, they can treat the groups as the subjects.


## 3.1. Investigation and Analysis on the Lifestyles of Hire Groups

### 3.1.1. Factor Analysis and Reliability Test of the Lifestyles

In order to analyze the subjects’ different types of lifestyle, by factor analysis, this study simplified 31 questions on the subjects’ lifestyles and adopted principal component analysis and varimax in factor analysis for orthogonal rotation, in order to extract the main factors. As to the reliability of the scale of the questionnaire, after reliability analysis, the total reliability wasα=0.776, which was higher than 0.7. Thus, the scale of this study was reliable (see Table 1):
(1)α=kk-1(1-∑Si2S2)=3131-1(1-31124.497)=3130(0.751)=0.776.Table 1
Analysis of the total reliability of the lifestyle scale.
Number of subjects
Cronbach’sα
Number of items
198
0.776
31Factor analysis aims to extract common factors of numerous variables in order to simplify the number of variables. The purpose is to represent a great number of variables using few factors while keeping most of the information in the original variables. Before the extraction of factor analysis, this study conducted the KMO measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity in order to find if the data is suitable for factor analysis. Kaiser suggested that when the KMO value is higher, it is more effective after factor analysis [32]. A value of at least 0.9 means the effect is extremely appropriate, at least 0.8 means the effect is appropriate, at least 0.7 means the effect is acceptable, and at least 0.6 means the effect is normal. Below 0.5 means the effect is inappropriate. According to Table 2, the KMO=0.763 and the significance of Bartlett’s test of sphericity is X2=0.000, indicating that the data were proper:
(2)KMO=∑i∑j(i≠j)rij2∑i∑j(i≠j)rij2+∑i∑j(i≠j)rij2,X2=(N-K)ln(Sp2)-∑i=1K(n1-1)ln(Si2)1+(1/3(k-1))(∑i=1k(1/(ni-1))-1/(N-k)).Table 2
KMO and Bartlett’s test of lifestyle scale.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy
0.763
Bartlett’s test of sphericity
Significance
0.000After the test, principal component analysis was conducted to extract the common factors. A total eigenvalue>1 is the standard. The total explained variance was 58.896%, which matched the standard of being >40%. The least eigenvalue was 1.416, which matched the standard eigenvalue of >1, as shown in Table 3.Table 3
Eigenvalue of factors, explained variance after rotation, and cumulative explained variance of the lifestyle scale.
Primary eigenvalue
Component
Eigenvalue
Explained variance
Cumulative explained variance
1
4.646
14.986
14.986
2
2.313
7.463
22.449
3
2.271
7.325
29.774
4
2.230
7.195
36.969
5
2.176
7.018
43.987
6
1.695
5.467
49.454
7
1.511
4.876
54.329
8
1.416
4.567
58.896Using VarimaxMaxSai22=(1/m)∑J=1k(aji2-ai-2)2, this study conducted orthogonal rotation and reduced 31 questions into eight factors. According to the significance principle of factor loading proposed by Hair et al. [33], a factor loading that reaches 0.3 is acceptable. The questions used for the factors in this study are shown in Table 4:
(3)MaxSai22=1m∑J=1k(aji2-ai-2)2.Table 4
Component matrix of the lifestyle scale of principal component analysis after rotation.
Questions of lifestyle
Factors
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
Factor 5
Factor 6
Factor 7
Factor 8
Question  19
0.817
−0.124
0.074
0.035
−0.118
0.170
−0.042
0.061
Question  30
0.795
−0.145
0.022
0.044
0.059
−0.008
−0.125
−0.107
Question  10
0.710
0.080
0.000
−0.026
0.007
0.252
−0.237
0.209
Question  1
0.688
0.107
0.062
−0.366
−0.014
0.129
−0.003
−0.024
Question  16
0.688
−0.100
0.139
0.005
0.007
−0.109
−0.134
−0.067
Question  28
0.642
0.102
−0.094
−0.177
−0.010
0.323
0.079
−0.057
Question  20
0.565
−0.074
−0.090
0.141
−0.299
0.279
0.142
0.282
Question  27
0.539
0.149
0.126
0.139
−0.218
−0.329
0.028
−0.074
Question  2
0.515
−0.030
0.313
−0.214
0.016
−0.110
0.309
0.102
Question  13
0.081
0.801
−0.036
−0.032
0.005
0.014
−0.088
0.194
Question  29
−0.058
0.693
0.116
0.144
0.063
0.109
0.064
0.084
Question  14
−0.005
0.643
−0.170
0.323
0.144
0.043
−0.039
−0.261
Question  15
−0.166
0.428
0.038
0.058
0.085
0.066
0.401
−0.091
Question  11
0.005
−0.104
0.650
0.206
0.217
0.052
0.063
0.077
Question  26
0.078
−0.172
0.609
0.193
0.167
0.227
−0.068
−0.060
Question  3
0.428
0.165
0.542
−0.295
−0.092
0.023
−0.141
−0.102
Question  5
0.010
0.380
0.541
−0.370
0.030
0.067
0.021
0.085
Question  12
0.389
0.190
0.398
−0.168
0.166
0.069
0.056
−0.161
Question  25
0.179
0.232
0.389
0.310
0.009
0.314
0.087
−0.293
Question  22
0.014
0.101
−0.071
0.719
0.027
−0.004
0.029
0.007
Question  23
−0.155
0.055
0.172
0.653
−0.019
0.081
0.054
0.084
Question  24
−0.109
0.273
0.067
0.501
0.122
0.053
0.271
−0.275
Question  6
0.019
0.047
0.147
0.101
0.831
0.003
−0.084
−0.026
Question  7
−0.196
0.113
0.163
−0.021
0.732
0.143
−0.082
0.084
Question  31
−0.021
0.077
0.045
0.045
0.659
0.080
0.453
0.140
Question  9
0.312
0.152
0.180
0.118
0.015
0.733
−0.034
0.067
Question  17
0.105
0.038
0.249
−0.065
0.349
0.561
0.276
−0.197
Question  8
0.017
0.201
0.236
0.402
0.166
0.444
−0.205
0.130
Question  4
−0.113
−0.042
−0.019
0.105
−0.062
−0.009
0.773
0.112
Question  21
−0.002
0.112
−0.043
−0.022
0.070
−0.007
0.056
0.806
Question  18
0.029
0.019
0.365
0.148
0.202
0.075
0.260
0.399The principles for deleting the items were(1) items with a low factor loading; (2) items that included three common factors; (3) factors that only included two or fewer than two items; and (4) items with low reliability [34]. According to the component matrix after rotation in Table 4, Factor 7 and Factor 8 only included one and two items, respectively. The comparison revealed that the factor loading of Factor 7 was lower than that of Factor 8. Thus, Factor 7 was deleted.By deleting factors having one or fewer than one item, the researcher obtained seven factors. According to the meanings of the items in the factor coefficients shown in Table4, the factors were named as fashionable, stable and cautious, unique taste, strict budgeting, environmental, interactive consumption, and economic and flexible, as shown in Table 5.Table 5
Meanings of the names of factors.
Factor
Names
Meanings
Factor 1
Fashionable
(i) The subjects are concerned about fashion and change, and they try new things.(ii) They carefully dress themselves to show their extraordinary taste.(iii) They reward themselves by purchasing luxury goods.(iv) They are careful about the quality of the goods.
Factor 2
Stable and cautious
(i) The subjects are more conservative and good at financial management.(ii) They do not have unnecessary dreams or expenses.(iii) They always make plans and are satisfied with their current lives.
Factor 3
Unique taste
(i) The subjects have their own opinions.(ii) They enjoy challenging work and are concerned about the taste of life.(iii) They do not mind using secondhand goods.(iv) Before purchasing goods, they prefer having a trial period,and they believe that they can obtain a life with personal style and unique tastefrom a flea market.
Factor 4
Strict budgeting
(i) The subjects prefer purchasing goods by the most practical measures.(ii) They do not care about fashion.(iii) They enjoy classic and resistant patterns.(iv) They do not have unnecessary expenses.(v) They save extra money in the banks.
Factor 5
Environmental
(i) The subjects are concerned about the environment and ecology.(ii) They use their own shopping bags, cups, and tableware.(iii) They avoid goods that are only used once.(iv) They treat the environment as a priority when purchasing products.
Factor 6
Interactive consumption
(i) The subjects have frequent interaction.(ii) Besides offering the latest consumption information to relatives and friends,they are careful about green information and recommend environmentally friendly goods.(iii) They engage in a purchase behavior that has the most economic effectiveness.(iv) They use coupons and wait for discount periods to buy goods.
Factor 7
Economic and flexible
(i) The subjects prefer flexible purchases of products.(ii) They are good at paying with credit cards.(iii) They obtain usage rights with little money and treat them as a flexible measureto keep their money.(iv) They prefer rentals instead of buying goods.


### 3.1.2. Lifestyle Clusters and Difference Analysis

The analysis in this section was conducted according to the lifestyle items of the questionnaire. Consumers were divided into different clusters. At the first stage, Ward’s method, also known as the minimum variance methoddij=d({Xi},{Xj})=∥Xi-Xj∥2, was adopted. According to the interval of the squared Euclidean distance, this study judged the maximum increase of total variance and the stage in order to recognize the number of clusters [35]. As shown in Table 6, when the percentage of the coefficient of concentration was reduced from three to two clusters, the change was the most significant. Thus, there should be three clusters:
(4)dij=d({Xi},{Xj})=∥Xi-Xj∥2.Table 6
Coefficient of concentration of Ward’s method.
Cluster
Coefficient
Incremental value
Percentage
7
948.655
54.442
5.73%
6
1,003.097
63.153
6.29%
5
1,066.250
65.687
6.16%
4
1,131.937
73.396
6.48%
3
1,205.333
79.986
6.63%
2
1,285.319
93.681
7.28%
1
1,379.000After the three clusters were decided using Ward’s method, this study conducted k-mean clustering analysis and allocated 198 consumers into three lifestyle clusters. According to the results of the three clusters of k-mean clustering analysis, in one cluster, there was only one subject. With the division of six clusters, two clusters only had one subject. Thus, this study tried to adopt two, four, and five clusters. However, the clustering precision rate needed to be validated by judgment analysis. Based on Table7, significance 0.000<α=0.05, and the judgmental capability was significant. This study probed into differences of the factors of the groups and the lifestyle groups using one-way ANOVA ST=∑(Xi-μ)2, SSB=∑n×(μ-μ)2, SSW=∑∑(Xgi-μ)2 and validated the clustering result, as shown in Table 8. According to the result of ANOVA, when there were five clusters, the P values of all factors were <α=0.05. Thus, five clusters are significantly different for seven factors. The different groups were effectively segmented:
(5)SST=∑(Xi-μ)2,SSB=∑n×(μ-μ)2,SSW=∑∑(Xgi-μ)2.Table 7
Validation result of clustering by judgment analysis.
Coefficient test
Wilks’  Lambda
Chi-square
Freedom
Significance
1 to 4
0.066
519.173
28
0.000
2 to 4
0.182
325.848
18
0.000
3 to 4
0.395
177.251
10
0.000
4
0.711
65.154
4
0.000Table 8
ANOVA clustering significance test of 2, 4, and 5 clusters.
7 factors
2 clusters
4 clusters
5 clusters
Fashionable
0.585
0.000
0.000
Stable and cautious
0.000
0.000
0.000
Unique taste
0.000
0.000
0.000
Strict budgeting
0.000
0.000
0.000
Environmental
0.000
0.000
0.000
Interactive consumption
0.042
0.110
0.038
Economic and flexible
0.022
0.000
0.000Finally, the seven factors were divided into five clusters by k-mean clustering, as shown in Table9. According to the figures, Factor 1 (fashionable) had a significantly positive relation with Cluster 3 and had a significantly negative relation with Cluster 5. Cluster 1 had a positive correlation with Factor 2 (stable and cautious) and Factor 4 (strict budgeting). It had a negative correlation with Factor 1 (fashionable), Factor 3 (unique taste), Factor 5 (environmental), Factor 6 (interactive consumption), and Factor 8 (economic and flexible). Thus, Cluster 1 was more practical and not fashionable, as the subjects did not have unnecessary expenses. Based on the above, Cluster 1 was named simple financial management.Table 9
Factors of the lifestyle clusters and means of coefficients.
7 factors
Cluster 1Simple financial management
Cluster 2Environment and taste
Cluster 3Fashionable and flexible
Cluster 4Careful purchase
Cluster 5Smart consumption
Factor 1Fashionable
−0.22001
0.07168
0.80084
−0.36694
−1.14294
Factor 2Stable and cautious
0.76913
−0.22018
−0.41585
1.10397
−0.72273
Factor 3Unique taste
−0.45461
0.43147
−0.09925
1.33478
−0.21367
Factor 4Strict budgeting
0.08988
0.32764
−0.17508
−1.29227
0.42305
Factor 5Environmental
−0.37356
1.20943
−0.13446
0.12425
−0.64711
Factor 6Interactive consumption
−0.29853
0.26664
0.02640
0.40808
−0.07634
Factor 8Economic and flexible
−0.44042
−0.56035
0.53754
0.33632
0.18783
Number of people
52
38
62
15
31
Percentage
26%
19%
31%
8%
16%According to Table9, this study used one-way ANOVA to determine the differences among the groups and factors. According to the characteristics, the clusters were named as follows: Cluster 1: simple financial management; Cluster 2: environment and taste; Cluster 3: fashionable and flexible; Cluster 4: careful purchase; and Cluster 5: smart consumption. After clustering analysis, the cross analysis and chi-square test were conducted to find the significant differences of the groups. The distribution between the group demographics is shown in Table 10.Table 10
Distribution of the demographics of different groups.
Item
Cluster 1Simple financialmanagement
Cluster 2Environment andtaste
Cluster 3Fashionable andflexible
Cluster 4Careful purchase
Cluster 5Smartconsumption
Number ofpeople (%)
Number ofpeople (%)
Number ofpeople (%)
Number ofpeople (%)
Number ofpeople (%)
Gender
Male
17 (8.6%)
18 (9.1%)
22 (11.1%)
9 (4.5%)
13 (6.6%)
Female
35 (17.7%)
20 (10.1%)
40 (20.2%)
6 (3.0%)
18 (9.1%)
Age
Less than 18 years old
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
18–24 years old
18 (9.1%)
5 (2.5%)
8 (4.0%)
10 (5.1%)
8 (4.0%)
25–30 years old
11 (5.6%)
11 (5.6%)
6 (3.0%)
2 (1.0%)
6 (3.0%)
31–40 years old
9 (4.5%)
12 (6.1%)
15 (7.6%)
0 (0.0%)
5 (2.5%)
41–50 years old
8 (4.0%)
8 (4.0%)
23 (11.6%)
1 (0.5%)
7 (3.5%)
51–60 years old
5 (2.5%)
2 (1.0%)
8 (4.0%)
2 (1.0%)
4 (2.0%)
More than 60 years old
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
2 (1.0%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (0.5%)
Educational level
Elementary school (and below)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Junior high school
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Senior high school and vocational school
3 (1.5%)
3 (1.5%)
8 (4.0%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (0.5%)
University (including college)
35 (17.7%)
22 (11.1%)
36 (18.2%)
10 (5.1%)
18 (9.1%)
Graduate school (and above)
14 (7.1%)
13 (6.6%)
18 (9.1%)
5 (2.5%)
12 (6.1%)
Annual income
Less than 0.3 million NTD
20 (10.1%)
5 (2.5%)
10 (5.1%)
10 (5.1%)
9 (4.5%)
0.31~0.5 million NTD
7 (3.5%)
9 (4.5%)
9 (4.5%)
2 (1.0%)
5 (2.5%)
0.51~0.8 million NTD
14 (7.1%)
11 (5.6%)
9 (4.5%)
0 (0.0%)
5 (2.5%)
0.81~1 million NTD
5 (2.5%)
6 (3.0%)
13 (6.6%)
1 (0.5%)
4 (2.0%)
1.01~1.2 million NTD
5 (2.5%)
1 (0.5%)
10 (5.1%)
0 (0.0%)
2 (1.0%)
More than 1.21 million NTD
1 (0.5%)
6 (3.0%)
11 (5.6%)
2 (1.0%)
6 (3.0%)
Occupation
Student
13 (6.6%)
4 (2.0%)
4 (2.0%)
9 (4.5%)
8 (4.0%)
Public official
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Service industry
6 (3.0%)
4 (2.0%)
8 (4.0%)
1 (0.5%)
2 (1.0%)
Self-employed
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
2 (1.0%)
Labor industry
9 (4.5%)
9 (4.5%)
14 (7.1%)
3 (1.5%)
4 (2.0%)
Agricultural, forestry, fishery, and husbandry
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Professional personnel
10 (5.1%)
12 (6.1%)
20 (10.1%)
0 (0.0%)
12 (6.1%)
Housewife
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Unemployed
1 (0.5%)
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Retired
1 (0.5%)
1 (0.5%)
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (0.5%)
Others
10 (5.1%)
7 (3.5%)
13 (6.6%)
2 (1.0%)
2 (1.0%)
Residential places
Northern Taiwan
43 (21.7%)
29 (14.6%)
55 (27.8%)
10 (5.1%)
22 (11.1%)
Central Taiwan
5 (2.5%)
7 (3.5%)
2 (1.0%)
4 (2.0%)
7 (3.5%)
Southern Taiwan
3 (1.5%)
2 (1.0%)
4 (2.0%)
1 (0.5%)
1 (0.5%)
Eastern Taiwan
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Offshore islands
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Other
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (0.5%)
Total
52 (26.3%)
38 (19.2%)
62 (31.3%)
15 (7.6%)
31 (15.7%)According to the result of the chi-square test, the lifestyle groups in this study showed a significant difference in age and annual income. The chi-square values of the rest of the items were above the significance level of 0.05, indicating there was no significant difference. In other words, the clusters were not significantly different, as shown in Table11.Table 11
Significance of the Pearson chi-square test.
Items
Approximate significance
Gender
0.278
Age
0.003
Educational level
0.630
Annual income
0.002
Occupation
0.086
Residential places
0.318According to the result of the clustering analysis, the demographics of different groups shown in Tables9 and 10 were compared, as shown in Table 12.Table 12
Names and descriptions of clusters.
Number
Names of clusters
Descriptions of clusters
1
Simplefinancialmanagement
(i) The subjects purchase goods by the most practical measures.(ii) They are more conservative and are good at financial management. (iii) They do not have unnecessary dreams nor expenses. (iv) They make plans and they save extra money. (v) They are mostly 18–30 years old and their annual incomes are mostly below 0.3 million NTD. Thus, it was inferred that the cluster includes students. (vi) The second annual income range was 0.51~0.8 million NTD. (vii) Although their salaries are not low, they should work hard. (viii) They live a moderate life in order to fulfill their future plans.
2
Environmentand taste
(i) The subjects have their own opinions and they enjoy challenging work.(ii) They are concerned about the environment and ecology. (iii) They use personal shopping bags, cups, and tableware. (iv) They value the taste of life. (v) They are mostly 25–40 years old. (vi) Their annual incomes are mostly 31,000–80,000 NTD. (vii) They tend to engage in traditional consumption and are not used to credit cards. (viii) They do not mind using secondhand products. (ix) They are concerned about using trials before purchasing goods. (x) They believe that they can find products with personal style and unique taste in flea markets. (xi) They are careful about environmental protection.
3
Fashionableand flexible
(i) The subjects are concerned about fashion and change.(ii) They try new things and dress themselves to demonstrate their extraordinary taste. (iii) They reward themselves with luxurious goods. (iv) They are careful about the quality of goods. (v) They are mostly 31–50 years old and their annual incomes are mostly 0.81–1.21 million NTD (and above). (vi) They are in the middle class to high salary groups. (vii) According to the distribution of their ages, they are still working. Thus, it was inferred that their purchased goods should match their identities to demonstrate the value.(viii) They are good at paying with credit cards. (ix) They obtain the usage rights of products with little money, and this is a measure to keep their current money.
4
Carefulpurchase
(i) The subjects have their own opinions.(ii) They enjoy challenging work. (iii) They are concerned about the taste of life. (iv) They do not mind using secondhand things. (v) They are cautious about making purchases. (vi) They use coupons and wait for discount periods. (vii) However, they do not only buy classic and resistant goods. With extra money and after careful judgment, they will buy the products they like or need instead of saving the money. (viii) They have frequent interaction and often provide the latest consumption information to relatives and friends. (ix) They are concerned about green information and recommend environmentally friendly goods.(x) They are mostly 18–24 years old and their annual incomes are mostly below 0.3 million NTD. Thus, it was inferred that most of them are students. (xi) They do not have economic advantages and they discuss consumption information with each other.
5
Smartconsumption
(i) The subjects prefer making purchases using the most economic measures.(ii) They do not care about fashion and they buy classic and resistant goods. (iii) They do not have unnecessary expenses. (iv) They save extra money. Most of them are 18–24 and 41–50 years old. (v) Distribution of their annual incomes is extreme. Most of them have less than 0.3 million NTD or more than 1.21 million NTD. Thus, they include students and practical subjects with high salaries. (vi) They are flexible with their consumption. For instance, they pay using credit cards and obtain the usage rights of products using small installments of money. (vii) This is the measure to keep their current money. They do not mind obtaining the usage rights of goods by renting them.


## 3.1.1. Factor Analysis and Reliability Test of the Lifestyles

In order to analyze the subjects’ different types of lifestyle, by factor analysis, this study simplified 31 questions on the subjects’ lifestyles and adopted principal component analysis and varimax in factor analysis for orthogonal rotation, in order to extract the main factors. As to the reliability of the scale of the questionnaire, after reliability analysis, the total reliability wasα=0.776, which was higher than 0.7. Thus, the scale of this study was reliable (see Table 1):
(1)α=kk-1(1-∑Si2S2)=3131-1(1-31124.497)=3130(0.751)=0.776.Table 1
Analysis of the total reliability of the lifestyle scale.
Number of subjects
Cronbach’sα
Number of items
198
0.776
31Factor analysis aims to extract common factors of numerous variables in order to simplify the number of variables. The purpose is to represent a great number of variables using few factors while keeping most of the information in the original variables. Before the extraction of factor analysis, this study conducted the KMO measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity in order to find if the data is suitable for factor analysis. Kaiser suggested that when the KMO value is higher, it is more effective after factor analysis [32]. A value of at least 0.9 means the effect is extremely appropriate, at least 0.8 means the effect is appropriate, at least 0.7 means the effect is acceptable, and at least 0.6 means the effect is normal. Below 0.5 means the effect is inappropriate. According to Table 2, the KMO=0.763 and the significance of Bartlett’s test of sphericity is X2=0.000, indicating that the data were proper:
(2)KMO=∑i∑j(i≠j)rij2∑i∑j(i≠j)rij2+∑i∑j(i≠j)rij2,X2=(N-K)ln(Sp2)-∑i=1K(n1-1)ln(Si2)1+(1/3(k-1))(∑i=1k(1/(ni-1))-1/(N-k)).Table 2
KMO and Bartlett’s test of lifestyle scale.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy
0.763
Bartlett’s test of sphericity
Significance
0.000After the test, principal component analysis was conducted to extract the common factors. A total eigenvalue>1 is the standard. The total explained variance was 58.896%, which matched the standard of being >40%. The least eigenvalue was 1.416, which matched the standard eigenvalue of >1, as shown in Table 3.Table 3
Eigenvalue of factors, explained variance after rotation, and cumulative explained variance of the lifestyle scale.
Primary eigenvalue
Component
Eigenvalue
Explained variance
Cumulative explained variance
1
4.646
14.986
14.986
2
2.313
7.463
22.449
3
2.271
7.325
29.774
4
2.230
7.195
36.969
5
2.176
7.018
43.987
6
1.695
5.467
49.454
7
1.511
4.876
54.329
8
1.416
4.567
58.896Using VarimaxMaxSai22=(1/m)∑J=1k(aji2-ai-2)2, this study conducted orthogonal rotation and reduced 31 questions into eight factors. According to the significance principle of factor loading proposed by Hair et al. [33], a factor loading that reaches 0.3 is acceptable. The questions used for the factors in this study are shown in Table 4:
(3)MaxSai22=1m∑J=1k(aji2-ai-2)2.Table 4
Component matrix of the lifestyle scale of principal component analysis after rotation.
Questions of lifestyle
Factors
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
Factor 5
Factor 6
Factor 7
Factor 8
Question  19
0.817
−0.124
0.074
0.035
−0.118
0.170
−0.042
0.061
Question  30
0.795
−0.145
0.022
0.044
0.059
−0.008
−0.125
−0.107
Question  10
0.710
0.080
0.000
−0.026
0.007
0.252
−0.237
0.209
Question  1
0.688
0.107
0.062
−0.366
−0.014
0.129
−0.003
−0.024
Question  16
0.688
−0.100
0.139
0.005
0.007
−0.109
−0.134
−0.067
Question  28
0.642
0.102
−0.094
−0.177
−0.010
0.323
0.079
−0.057
Question  20
0.565
−0.074
−0.090
0.141
−0.299
0.279
0.142
0.282
Question  27
0.539
0.149
0.126
0.139
−0.218
−0.329
0.028
−0.074
Question  2
0.515
−0.030
0.313
−0.214
0.016
−0.110
0.309
0.102
Question  13
0.081
0.801
−0.036
−0.032
0.005
0.014
−0.088
0.194
Question  29
−0.058
0.693
0.116
0.144
0.063
0.109
0.064
0.084
Question  14
−0.005
0.643
−0.170
0.323
0.144
0.043
−0.039
−0.261
Question  15
−0.166
0.428
0.038
0.058
0.085
0.066
0.401
−0.091
Question  11
0.005
−0.104
0.650
0.206
0.217
0.052
0.063
0.077
Question  26
0.078
−0.172
0.609
0.193
0.167
0.227
−0.068
−0.060
Question  3
0.428
0.165
0.542
−0.295
−0.092
0.023
−0.141
−0.102
Question  5
0.010
0.380
0.541
−0.370
0.030
0.067
0.021
0.085
Question  12
0.389
0.190
0.398
−0.168
0.166
0.069
0.056
−0.161
Question  25
0.179
0.232
0.389
0.310
0.009
0.314
0.087
−0.293
Question  22
0.014
0.101
−0.071
0.719
0.027
−0.004
0.029
0.007
Question  23
−0.155
0.055
0.172
0.653
−0.019
0.081
0.054
0.084
Question  24
−0.109
0.273
0.067
0.501
0.122
0.053
0.271
−0.275
Question  6
0.019
0.047
0.147
0.101
0.831
0.003
−0.084
−0.026
Question  7
−0.196
0.113
0.163
−0.021
0.732
0.143
−0.082
0.084
Question  31
−0.021
0.077
0.045
0.045
0.659
0.080
0.453
0.140
Question  9
0.312
0.152
0.180
0.118
0.015
0.733
−0.034
0.067
Question  17
0.105
0.038
0.249
−0.065
0.349
0.561
0.276
−0.197
Question  8
0.017
0.201
0.236
0.402
0.166
0.444
−0.205
0.130
Question  4
−0.113
−0.042
−0.019
0.105
−0.062
−0.009
0.773
0.112
Question  21
−0.002
0.112
−0.043
−0.022
0.070
−0.007
0.056
0.806
Question  18
0.029
0.019
0.365
0.148
0.202
0.075
0.260
0.399The principles for deleting the items were(1) items with a low factor loading; (2) items that included three common factors; (3) factors that only included two or fewer than two items; and (4) items with low reliability [34]. According to the component matrix after rotation in Table 4, Factor 7 and Factor 8 only included one and two items, respectively. The comparison revealed that the factor loading of Factor 7 was lower than that of Factor 8. Thus, Factor 7 was deleted.By deleting factors having one or fewer than one item, the researcher obtained seven factors. According to the meanings of the items in the factor coefficients shown in Table4, the factors were named as fashionable, stable and cautious, unique taste, strict budgeting, environmental, interactive consumption, and economic and flexible, as shown in Table 5.Table 5
Meanings of the names of factors.
Factor
Names
Meanings
Factor 1
Fashionable
(i) The subjects are concerned about fashion and change, and they try new things.(ii) They carefully dress themselves to show their extraordinary taste.(iii) They reward themselves by purchasing luxury goods.(iv) They are careful about the quality of the goods.
Factor 2
Stable and cautious
(i) The subjects are more conservative and good at financial management.(ii) They do not have unnecessary dreams or expenses.(iii) They always make plans and are satisfied with their current lives.
Factor 3
Unique taste
(i) The subjects have their own opinions.(ii) They enjoy challenging work and are concerned about the taste of life.(iii) They do not mind using secondhand goods.(iv) Before purchasing goods, they prefer having a trial period,and they believe that they can obtain a life with personal style and unique tastefrom a flea market.
Factor 4
Strict budgeting
(i) The subjects prefer purchasing goods by the most practical measures.(ii) They do not care about fashion.(iii) They enjoy classic and resistant patterns.(iv) They do not have unnecessary expenses.(v) They save extra money in the banks.
Factor 5
Environmental
(i) The subjects are concerned about the environment and ecology.(ii) They use their own shopping bags, cups, and tableware.(iii) They avoid goods that are only used once.(iv) They treat the environment as a priority when purchasing products.
Factor 6
Interactive consumption
(i) The subjects have frequent interaction.(ii) Besides offering the latest consumption information to relatives and friends,they are careful about green information and recommend environmentally friendly goods.(iii) They engage in a purchase behavior that has the most economic effectiveness.(iv) They use coupons and wait for discount periods to buy goods.
Factor 7
Economic and flexible
(i) The subjects prefer flexible purchases of products.(ii) They are good at paying with credit cards.(iii) They obtain usage rights with little money and treat them as a flexible measureto keep their money.(iv) They prefer rentals instead of buying goods.


## 3.1.2. Lifestyle Clusters and Difference Analysis

The analysis in this section was conducted according to the lifestyle items of the questionnaire. Consumers were divided into different clusters. At the first stage, Ward’s method, also known as the minimum variance methoddij=d({Xi},{Xj})=∥Xi-Xj∥2, was adopted. According to the interval of the squared Euclidean distance, this study judged the maximum increase of total variance and the stage in order to recognize the number of clusters [35]. As shown in Table 6, when the percentage of the coefficient of concentration was reduced from three to two clusters, the change was the most significant. Thus, there should be three clusters:
(4)dij=d({Xi},{Xj})=∥Xi-Xj∥2.Table 6
Coefficient of concentration of Ward’s method.
Cluster
Coefficient
Incremental value
Percentage
7
948.655
54.442
5.73%
6
1,003.097
63.153
6.29%
5
1,066.250
65.687
6.16%
4
1,131.937
73.396
6.48%
3
1,205.333
79.986
6.63%
2
1,285.319
93.681
7.28%
1
1,379.000After the three clusters were decided using Ward’s method, this study conducted k-mean clustering analysis and allocated 198 consumers into three lifestyle clusters. According to the results of the three clusters of k-mean clustering analysis, in one cluster, there was only one subject. With the division of six clusters, two clusters only had one subject. Thus, this study tried to adopt two, four, and five clusters. However, the clustering precision rate needed to be validated by judgment analysis. Based on Table7, significance 0.000<α=0.05, and the judgmental capability was significant. This study probed into differences of the factors of the groups and the lifestyle groups using one-way ANOVA ST=∑(Xi-μ)2, SSB=∑n×(μ-μ)2, SSW=∑∑(Xgi-μ)2 and validated the clustering result, as shown in Table 8. According to the result of ANOVA, when there were five clusters, the P values of all factors were <α=0.05. Thus, five clusters are significantly different for seven factors. The different groups were effectively segmented:
(5)SST=∑(Xi-μ)2,SSB=∑n×(μ-μ)2,SSW=∑∑(Xgi-μ)2.Table 7
Validation result of clustering by judgment analysis.
Coefficient test
Wilks’  Lambda
Chi-square
Freedom
Significance
1 to 4
0.066
519.173
28
0.000
2 to 4
0.182
325.848
18
0.000
3 to 4
0.395
177.251
10
0.000
4
0.711
65.154
4
0.000Table 8
ANOVA clustering significance test of 2, 4, and 5 clusters.
7 factors
2 clusters
4 clusters
5 clusters
Fashionable
0.585
0.000
0.000
Stable and cautious
0.000
0.000
0.000
Unique taste
0.000
0.000
0.000
Strict budgeting
0.000
0.000
0.000
Environmental
0.000
0.000
0.000
Interactive consumption
0.042
0.110
0.038
Economic and flexible
0.022
0.000
0.000Finally, the seven factors were divided into five clusters by k-mean clustering, as shown in Table9. According to the figures, Factor 1 (fashionable) had a significantly positive relation with Cluster 3 and had a significantly negative relation with Cluster 5. Cluster 1 had a positive correlation with Factor 2 (stable and cautious) and Factor 4 (strict budgeting). It had a negative correlation with Factor 1 (fashionable), Factor 3 (unique taste), Factor 5 (environmental), Factor 6 (interactive consumption), and Factor 8 (economic and flexible). Thus, Cluster 1 was more practical and not fashionable, as the subjects did not have unnecessary expenses. Based on the above, Cluster 1 was named simple financial management.Table 9
Factors of the lifestyle clusters and means of coefficients.
7 factors
Cluster 1Simple financial management
Cluster 2Environment and taste
Cluster 3Fashionable and flexible
Cluster 4Careful purchase
Cluster 5Smart consumption
Factor 1Fashionable
−0.22001
0.07168
0.80084
−0.36694
−1.14294
Factor 2Stable and cautious
0.76913
−0.22018
−0.41585
1.10397
−0.72273
Factor 3Unique taste
−0.45461
0.43147
−0.09925
1.33478
−0.21367
Factor 4Strict budgeting
0.08988
0.32764
−0.17508
−1.29227
0.42305
Factor 5Environmental
−0.37356
1.20943
−0.13446
0.12425
−0.64711
Factor 6Interactive consumption
−0.29853
0.26664
0.02640
0.40808
−0.07634
Factor 8Economic and flexible
−0.44042
−0.56035
0.53754
0.33632
0.18783
Number of people
52
38
62
15
31
Percentage
26%
19%
31%
8%
16%According to Table9, this study used one-way ANOVA to determine the differences among the groups and factors. According to the characteristics, the clusters were named as follows: Cluster 1: simple financial management; Cluster 2: environment and taste; Cluster 3: fashionable and flexible; Cluster 4: careful purchase; and Cluster 5: smart consumption. After clustering analysis, the cross analysis and chi-square test were conducted to find the significant differences of the groups. The distribution between the group demographics is shown in Table 10.Table 10
Distribution of the demographics of different groups.
Item
Cluster 1Simple financialmanagement
Cluster 2Environment andtaste
Cluster 3Fashionable andflexible
Cluster 4Careful purchase
Cluster 5Smartconsumption
Number ofpeople (%)
Number ofpeople (%)
Number ofpeople (%)
Number ofpeople (%)
Number ofpeople (%)
Gender
Male
17 (8.6%)
18 (9.1%)
22 (11.1%)
9 (4.5%)
13 (6.6%)
Female
35 (17.7%)
20 (10.1%)
40 (20.2%)
6 (3.0%)
18 (9.1%)
Age
Less than 18 years old
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
18–24 years old
18 (9.1%)
5 (2.5%)
8 (4.0%)
10 (5.1%)
8 (4.0%)
25–30 years old
11 (5.6%)
11 (5.6%)
6 (3.0%)
2 (1.0%)
6 (3.0%)
31–40 years old
9 (4.5%)
12 (6.1%)
15 (7.6%)
0 (0.0%)
5 (2.5%)
41–50 years old
8 (4.0%)
8 (4.0%)
23 (11.6%)
1 (0.5%)
7 (3.5%)
51–60 years old
5 (2.5%)
2 (1.0%)
8 (4.0%)
2 (1.0%)
4 (2.0%)
More than 60 years old
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
2 (1.0%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (0.5%)
Educational level
Elementary school (and below)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Junior high school
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Senior high school and vocational school
3 (1.5%)
3 (1.5%)
8 (4.0%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (0.5%)
University (including college)
35 (17.7%)
22 (11.1%)
36 (18.2%)
10 (5.1%)
18 (9.1%)
Graduate school (and above)
14 (7.1%)
13 (6.6%)
18 (9.1%)
5 (2.5%)
12 (6.1%)
Annual income
Less than 0.3 million NTD
20 (10.1%)
5 (2.5%)
10 (5.1%)
10 (5.1%)
9 (4.5%)
0.31~0.5 million NTD
7 (3.5%)
9 (4.5%)
9 (4.5%)
2 (1.0%)
5 (2.5%)
0.51~0.8 million NTD
14 (7.1%)
11 (5.6%)
9 (4.5%)
0 (0.0%)
5 (2.5%)
0.81~1 million NTD
5 (2.5%)
6 (3.0%)
13 (6.6%)
1 (0.5%)
4 (2.0%)
1.01~1.2 million NTD
5 (2.5%)
1 (0.5%)
10 (5.1%)
0 (0.0%)
2 (1.0%)
More than 1.21 million NTD
1 (0.5%)
6 (3.0%)
11 (5.6%)
2 (1.0%)
6 (3.0%)
Occupation
Student
13 (6.6%)
4 (2.0%)
4 (2.0%)
9 (4.5%)
8 (4.0%)
Public official
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Service industry
6 (3.0%)
4 (2.0%)
8 (4.0%)
1 (0.5%)
2 (1.0%)
Self-employed
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
2 (1.0%)
Labor industry
9 (4.5%)
9 (4.5%)
14 (7.1%)
3 (1.5%)
4 (2.0%)
Agricultural, forestry, fishery, and husbandry
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Professional personnel
10 (5.1%)
12 (6.1%)
20 (10.1%)
0 (0.0%)
12 (6.1%)
Housewife
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Unemployed
1 (0.5%)
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Retired
1 (0.5%)
1 (0.5%)
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (0.5%)
Others
10 (5.1%)
7 (3.5%)
13 (6.6%)
2 (1.0%)
2 (1.0%)
Residential places
Northern Taiwan
43 (21.7%)
29 (14.6%)
55 (27.8%)
10 (5.1%)
22 (11.1%)
Central Taiwan
5 (2.5%)
7 (3.5%)
2 (1.0%)
4 (2.0%)
7 (3.5%)
Southern Taiwan
3 (1.5%)
2 (1.0%)
4 (2.0%)
1 (0.5%)
1 (0.5%)
Eastern Taiwan
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Offshore islands
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Other
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (0.5%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (0.5%)
Total
52 (26.3%)
38 (19.2%)
62 (31.3%)
15 (7.6%)
31 (15.7%)According to the result of the chi-square test, the lifestyle groups in this study showed a significant difference in age and annual income. The chi-square values of the rest of the items were above the significance level of 0.05, indicating there was no significant difference. In other words, the clusters were not significantly different, as shown in Table11.Table 11
Significance of the Pearson chi-square test.
Items
Approximate significance
Gender
0.278
Age
0.003
Educational level
0.630
Annual income
0.002
Occupation
0.086
Residential places
0.318According to the result of the clustering analysis, the demographics of different groups shown in Tables9 and 10 were compared, as shown in Table 12.Table 12
Names and descriptions of clusters.
Number
Names of clusters
Descriptions of clusters
1
Simplefinancialmanagement
(i) The subjects purchase goods by the most practical measures.(ii) They are more conservative and are good at financial management. (iii) They do not have unnecessary dreams nor expenses. (iv) They make plans and they save extra money. (v) They are mostly 18–30 years old and their annual incomes are mostly below 0.3 million NTD. Thus, it was inferred that the cluster includes students. (vi) The second annual income range was 0.51~0.8 million NTD. (vii) Although their salaries are not low, they should work hard. (viii) They live a moderate life in order to fulfill their future plans.
2
Environmentand taste
(i) The subjects have their own opinions and they enjoy challenging work.(ii) They are concerned about the environment and ecology. (iii) They use personal shopping bags, cups, and tableware. (iv) They value the taste of life. (v) They are mostly 25–40 years old. (vi) Their annual incomes are mostly 31,000–80,000 NTD. (vii) They tend to engage in traditional consumption and are not used to credit cards. (viii) They do not mind using secondhand products. (ix) They are concerned about using trials before purchasing goods. (x) They believe that they can find products with personal style and unique taste in flea markets. (xi) They are careful about environmental protection.
3
Fashionableand flexible
(i) The subjects are concerned about fashion and change.(ii) They try new things and dress themselves to demonstrate their extraordinary taste. (iii) They reward themselves with luxurious goods. (iv) They are careful about the quality of goods. (v) They are mostly 31–50 years old and their annual incomes are mostly 0.81–1.21 million NTD (and above). (vi) They are in the middle class to high salary groups. (vii) According to the distribution of their ages, they are still working. Thus, it was inferred that their purchased goods should match their identities to demonstrate the value.(viii) They are good at paying with credit cards. (ix) They obtain the usage rights of products with little money, and this is a measure to keep their current money.
4
Carefulpurchase
(i) The subjects have their own opinions.(ii) They enjoy challenging work. (iii) They are concerned about the taste of life. (iv) They do not mind using secondhand things. (v) They are cautious about making purchases. (vi) They use coupons and wait for discount periods. (vii) However, they do not only buy classic and resistant goods. With extra money and after careful judgment, they will buy the products they like or need instead of saving the money. (viii) They have frequent interaction and often provide the latest consumption information to relatives and friends. (ix) They are concerned about green information and recommend environmentally friendly goods.(x) They are mostly 18–24 years old and their annual incomes are mostly below 0.3 million NTD. Thus, it was inferred that most of them are students. (xi) They do not have economic advantages and they discuss consumption information with each other.
5
Smartconsumption
(i) The subjects prefer making purchases using the most economic measures.(ii) They do not care about fashion and they buy classic and resistant goods. (iii) They do not have unnecessary expenses. (iv) They save extra money. Most of them are 18–24 and 41–50 years old. (v) Distribution of their annual incomes is extreme. Most of them have less than 0.3 million NTD or more than 1.21 million NTD. Thus, they include students and practical subjects with high salaries. (vi) They are flexible with their consumption. For instance, they pay using credit cards and obtain the usage rights of products using small installments of money. (vii) This is the measure to keep their current money. They do not mind obtaining the usage rights of goods by renting them.


## 3.2. Investigation on Rental Consumption in the Product Service System

Using the questionnaire survey in the first stage, this study screened potential rental groups. The items of the questionnaire were generalized according to the literatures and included rental consumption behavior, rental consumption cognition, rental consumption attitude, and a lifestyle AIO questionnaire. After integrating the related data, this study treated the result as the criterion of the expected goals. The subjects were consumers with cognitive and purchasing capability. This study focused on consumers above 18 years of age. At the first stage, 206 questionnaires were distributed and 198 valid questionnaires were retrieved. The majority of the questionnaires were online questionnaires, followed by paper-based questionnaires. The aim was to find the rental patterns and types that could be accepted by consumers in Taiwan, as well as the lifestyle factors of the groups that could accept the rental model.


### 3.2.1. Analysis of the Rental Consumption Behavior in the Product Service System

According to the figures shown in Table13, 181 subjects had engaged in rental behavior (91.41%). However, 8.59% subjects had never engaged in leasing behavior. According to the responses for the items of the products, common real estate, publications, and transportations had long been associated with the rental business. At least 80% of the subjects had rental experience. Only 20% of the subjects had rented clothing, outdoor items, and cards, which can be rented in many different places. As to the rental of furniture, 15.66% of the subjects had experience. It was inferred that the furniture in rented rooms was considered to be rented furniture, and this was common for the public in Taiwan. As to various assistive devices, which are expensive and rental of the devices is promoted by the government, only 10.61% subjects had rented them. As to baby items that are renewed frequently, only 8.08% of the subjects had rented them. This shows that the subjects were used to purchasing instead of renting such items, not to mention the rental of electric appliances, daily articles, and live objects, which are rare in the market. The above indicated that Taiwanese consumers are not used to renting goods for short-term usage. The implementation of rental business should be significantly improved.Table 13
Scale cross table of the subjects’ rental consumption behavior.
Item
Yes
No
Frequency
Percentage
Frequency
Percentage
Have you rented things (such as rooms, cars, and books)?
181
91.41%
17
8.59%
If necessary, do you accept renting things?
195
98.48%
3
1.52%
Have you rented real estate (such as rooms or land)?
144
72.73%
54
27.27%
Have you rented electrical appliances (such as cameras, computers, and air conditioners)?
10
5.05%
188
94.95%
Have you rented clothing (such as wedding dresses, luxurious bags, or jewelry)?
46
23.23%
152
76.77%
Have you rented transportation (such as cars, bikes or motorcycles)?
162
81.82%
36
18.18%
Have you rented publications (such as books, DVDs, and music CDs)?
159
80.30%
39
19.70%
Have you rented daily articles (such as thick blankets, window curtains, and carpets)?
1
0.51%
197
99.49%
Have you rented live object (such as plants, pets, or persons to pose as girl/boyfriends)?
1
0.51%
197
99.49%
Have you rented outdoor things (such as camping equipment and luggage)?
51
25.76%
147
74.24%
Have you rented cards (such as membership cards)?
47
23.74%
151
76.26%
Have you rented baby things (such as baby buggies and toys)?
16
8.08%
182
91.92%
Have you rented assistive tools (such as wheelchairs and electric vehicles)?
21
10.61%
177
89.39%
Have you rented furniture (such as tables, chairs, or beds in rented rooms)?
31
15.66%
167
84.34%


### 3.2.2. Analysis of Rental Consumption Cognition of the Product Service System

According to the figures shown in Table14, the subjects agreed with the green effectiveness of leasing and they had a positive attitude. Thus, the development of leasing in a product service system could be a new green consumption model.Table 14
Scale cross table of the subjects’ rental consumption cognition.
Item
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Total
Renting is not a respectable behavior.
00.00%
42.02%
2512.63%
13367.17%
3618.18%
198100%
Renting is for only when we cannot afford something.
10.51%
199.60%
199.60%
11357.07%
4623.23%
198100%
Renting is a better bargain than purchasing.
136.57%
7839.39%
7738.89%
2914.65%
10.51%
198100%
The use of rented goods is a kind of strict budgeting and saving behavior.
147.07%
10151.01%
6834.34%
157.58%
00.00%
198100%
The repeated use of goods is environmentally friendly, and I will consider leasing.
3015.15%
11960.10%
3618.18%
136.57%
00.00%
198100%
Renting and the green consumption of goods are environmentally friendly and they are measures to solve environmental problems.
3517.68%
12161.11%
3417.17%
84.04%
00.00%
198100%
I am willing to share the concept of renting and green consumption with my family or friends.
4221.21%
11558.08%
4020.20%
10.51%
00.00%
198100%
In order not to waste resources, and for the sustainable development of the earth, it is worthy to change consumption habits (such by using rented goods, shopping at flea markets, and exchanging goods).
5929.80%
11357.07%
2412.12%
21.01%
00.00%
198100%
Governments and enterprises should implement and promote rental plans for goods.
4824.24%
12060.61%
2914.65%
10.51%
00.00%
198100%


### 3.2.3. Analysis on Rental Consumption Attitude of the Product Service System

According to the figures in Table15, the most significant conditions for consumers to accept rental consumption were low use frequency and high prices of goods. There should be a clear rental contract and process. Renting is not the traditional consumption model in which ownership changes in trading. There are many extended situations. Thus, the subjects worried that the rented goods would not always be used privately and the conditions were uncertain. They questioned the cleanness and compensation after damage. Leasing firms should be extremely careful about the quality of the rented goods. Clean goods in good condition should not be easily damaged by consumers’ common use.Table 15
Scale cross table of the subjects’ rental consumption attitude.
Items
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Total
Prices of the goods are the factors of my rental selection.
5326.77%
11558.08%
2110.61%
94.55%
00.00%
198100%
If the products are not used frequently, I will choose leasing.
6532.83%
12161.11%
105.05%
10.51%
10.51%
198100%
I will consider leasing since I should use (or match) different products in different occasions.
2110.61%
13568.18%
3316.67%
94.55%
00.00%
198100%
I will consider leasing since I worry that I will buy the wrong goods.
126.06%
8643.43%
7035.35%
3015.15%
00.00%
198100%
I will consider leasing since I can update products at any time.
73.54%
8140.91%
8140.91%
2914.65%
00.00%
198100%
If enterprises provide a clear leasing process, I will consider leasing.
2211.11%
15276.77%
2211.11%
21.01%
00.00%
198100%
I do not consider leasing since I would like to use new goods.
42.02%
3417.17%
8643.43%
7336.87%
10.51%
198100%
I do not consider leasing since I do not have a sense of ownership.
63.03%
3417.17%
7236.36%
7839.39%
84.04%
198100%
I do not consider leasing since I worry about compensation.
126.06%
6432.32%
7236.36%
4422.22%
63.03%
198100%
I do not consider leasing since I worry about cleanness.
3015.15%
10854.55%
3919.70%
189.09%
31.52%
198100%
If I can have additional services other than purchasing, I will choose leasing.
3919.70%
13065.66%
2311.62%
52.53%
10.51%
198100%


## 3.2.1. Analysis of the Rental Consumption Behavior in the Product Service System

According to the figures shown in Table13, 181 subjects had engaged in rental behavior (91.41%). However, 8.59% subjects had never engaged in leasing behavior. According to the responses for the items of the products, common real estate, publications, and transportations had long been associated with the rental business. At least 80% of the subjects had rental experience. Only 20% of the subjects had rented clothing, outdoor items, and cards, which can be rented in many different places. As to the rental of furniture, 15.66% of the subjects had experience. It was inferred that the furniture in rented rooms was considered to be rented furniture, and this was common for the public in Taiwan. As to various assistive devices, which are expensive and rental of the devices is promoted by the government, only 10.61% subjects had rented them. As to baby items that are renewed frequently, only 8.08% of the subjects had rented them. This shows that the subjects were used to purchasing instead of renting such items, not to mention the rental of electric appliances, daily articles, and live objects, which are rare in the market. The above indicated that Taiwanese consumers are not used to renting goods for short-term usage. The implementation of rental business should be significantly improved.Table 13
Scale cross table of the subjects’ rental consumption behavior.
Item
Yes
No
Frequency
Percentage
Frequency
Percentage
Have you rented things (such as rooms, cars, and books)?
181
91.41%
17
8.59%
If necessary, do you accept renting things?
195
98.48%
3
1.52%
Have you rented real estate (such as rooms or land)?
144
72.73%
54
27.27%
Have you rented electrical appliances (such as cameras, computers, and air conditioners)?
10
5.05%
188
94.95%
Have you rented clothing (such as wedding dresses, luxurious bags, or jewelry)?
46
23.23%
152
76.77%
Have you rented transportation (such as cars, bikes or motorcycles)?
162
81.82%
36
18.18%
Have you rented publications (such as books, DVDs, and music CDs)?
159
80.30%
39
19.70%
Have you rented daily articles (such as thick blankets, window curtains, and carpets)?
1
0.51%
197
99.49%
Have you rented live object (such as plants, pets, or persons to pose as girl/boyfriends)?
1
0.51%
197
99.49%
Have you rented outdoor things (such as camping equipment and luggage)?
51
25.76%
147
74.24%
Have you rented cards (such as membership cards)?
47
23.74%
151
76.26%
Have you rented baby things (such as baby buggies and toys)?
16
8.08%
182
91.92%
Have you rented assistive tools (such as wheelchairs and electric vehicles)?
21
10.61%
177
89.39%
Have you rented furniture (such as tables, chairs, or beds in rented rooms)?
31
15.66%
167
84.34%


## 3.2.2. Analysis of Rental Consumption Cognition of the Product Service System

According to the figures shown in Table14, the subjects agreed with the green effectiveness of leasing and they had a positive attitude. Thus, the development of leasing in a product service system could be a new green consumption model.Table 14
Scale cross table of the subjects’ rental consumption cognition.
Item
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Total
Renting is not a respectable behavior.
00.00%
42.02%
2512.63%
13367.17%
3618.18%
198100%
Renting is for only when we cannot afford something.
10.51%
199.60%
199.60%
11357.07%
4623.23%
198100%
Renting is a better bargain than purchasing.
136.57%
7839.39%
7738.89%
2914.65%
10.51%
198100%
The use of rented goods is a kind of strict budgeting and saving behavior.
147.07%
10151.01%
6834.34%
157.58%
00.00%
198100%
The repeated use of goods is environmentally friendly, and I will consider leasing.
3015.15%
11960.10%
3618.18%
136.57%
00.00%
198100%
Renting and the green consumption of goods are environmentally friendly and they are measures to solve environmental problems.
3517.68%
12161.11%
3417.17%
84.04%
00.00%
198100%
I am willing to share the concept of renting and green consumption with my family or friends.
4221.21%
11558.08%
4020.20%
10.51%
00.00%
198100%
In order not to waste resources, and for the sustainable development of the earth, it is worthy to change consumption habits (such by using rented goods, shopping at flea markets, and exchanging goods).
5929.80%
11357.07%
2412.12%
21.01%
00.00%
198100%
Governments and enterprises should implement and promote rental plans for goods.
4824.24%
12060.61%
2914.65%
10.51%
00.00%
198100%


## 3.2.3. Analysis on Rental Consumption Attitude of the Product Service System

According to the figures in Table15, the most significant conditions for consumers to accept rental consumption were low use frequency and high prices of goods. There should be a clear rental contract and process. Renting is not the traditional consumption model in which ownership changes in trading. There are many extended situations. Thus, the subjects worried that the rented goods would not always be used privately and the conditions were uncertain. They questioned the cleanness and compensation after damage. Leasing firms should be extremely careful about the quality of the rented goods. Clean goods in good condition should not be easily damaged by consumers’ common use.Table 15
Scale cross table of the subjects’ rental consumption attitude.
Items
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Total
Prices of the goods are the factors of my rental selection.
5326.77%
11558.08%
2110.61%
94.55%
00.00%
198100%
If the products are not used frequently, I will choose leasing.
6532.83%
12161.11%
105.05%
10.51%
10.51%
198100%
I will consider leasing since I should use (or match) different products in different occasions.
2110.61%
13568.18%
3316.67%
94.55%
00.00%
198100%
I will consider leasing since I worry that I will buy the wrong goods.
126.06%
8643.43%
7035.35%
3015.15%
00.00%
198100%
I will consider leasing since I can update products at any time.
73.54%
8140.91%
8140.91%
2914.65%
00.00%
198100%
If enterprises provide a clear leasing process, I will consider leasing.
2211.11%
15276.77%
2211.11%
21.01%
00.00%
198100%
I do not consider leasing since I would like to use new goods.
42.02%
3417.17%
8643.43%
7336.87%
10.51%
198100%
I do not consider leasing since I do not have a sense of ownership.
63.03%
3417.17%
7236.36%
7839.39%
84.04%
198100%
I do not consider leasing since I worry about compensation.
126.06%
6432.32%
7236.36%
4422.22%
63.03%
198100%
I do not consider leasing since I worry about cleanness.
3015.15%
10854.55%
3919.70%
189.09%
31.52%
198100%
If I can have additional services other than purchasing, I will choose leasing.
3919.70%
13065.66%
2311.62%
52.53%
10.51%
198100%


## 3.3. Difference Analysis of Different Lifestyle Groups on Rental Consumption in the Product Service System

This section explored different groups’ rental intention, prices, use frequency, matching of goods, goods propriety, goods renewal, leasing process details, goods exclusiveness, damage of goods, cleanness of goods, and additional services. Regarding the content of the items, this study conducted cross analysis and chi-square test to find the significant differences among the groups.According to the figures of the 11 items of different lifestyle groups shown in Table16, the chi-square test result showed that the chi-square value was below the 0.05 significance level. The items that reached a significant difference were item 2 (prices), item 4 (matching of goods), and item 5 (propriety of goods). The rest of the items were not significantly different and were therefore not discussed.Table 16
Distribution of figures of 11 items in different lifestyle groups.
Items
Cluster 1Simplefinancialmanagement
Cluster 2Environmentand taste
Cluster 3Fashionableand flexible
Cluster 4Carefulpurchase
Cluster 5Smartconsumption
Pearsonchi-squaretestsignificance
1
If necessary, do you accept leasing?
Yes
52 (100.0%)
37 (97.4%)
60 (96.8%)
15 (100.0%)
31 (100.0%)
0.551
No
0 (0.0%)
1 (2.6%)
2 (3.2%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
2
The price of goods is the factor of my selection of leasing.
Strongly agree
12 (23.1%)
12 (31.6%)
10 (16.1%)
5 (33.3%)
14 (45.2%)
0.041
Agree
34 (65.4%)
21 (55.3%)
42 (67.7%)
5 (33.3%)
13 (41.9%)
Neutral
5 (9.6%)
3 (7.9%)
8 (12.9%)
2 (13.3%)
3 (9.7%)
Disagree
1 (1.9%)
2 (5.3%)
2 (3.2%)
3 (20.0%)
1 (3.2%)
Strongly disagree
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
3
When goods are not used frequently, I will prefer leasing.
Strongly agree
19 (36.5%)
10 (26.3%)
18 (29.0%)
4 (26.7%)
14 (45.2%)
0.056
Agree
32 (61.5%)
26 (68.4%)
40 (64.5%)
10 (66.7%)
13 (41.9%)
Neutral
1 (1.9%)
2 (5.3%)
4 (6.5%)
0 (0.0%)
3 (9.7%)
Disagree
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (6.7%)
0 (0.0%)
Strongly disagree
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (3.2%)
4
I consider leasing since I have to use (or match) different products in different occasions.
Strongly agree
6 (11.5%)
3 (7.9%)
1 (1.6%)
3 (20.0%)
8 (25.8%)
0.022
Agree
40 (76.9%)
24 (63.2%)
44 (71.0%)
10 (66.7%)
17 (54.8%)
Neutral
6 (11.5%)
10 (26.3%)
12 (19.4%)
1 (6.7%)
4 (12.9%)
Disagree
0 (0.00%)
1 (2.6%)
5 (8.1%)
1 (6.7%)
2 (6.5%)
Strongly disagree
0 (0.00%)
0 (0.00%)
0 (0.00%)
0 (0.00%)
0 (0.00%)
5
I consider leasing since I worry that I will buy the wrong goods.
Strongly agree
6 (11.5%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
3 (20.0%)
3 (9.7%)
0.048
Agree
20 (38.5%)
16 (42.1%)
30 (48.4%)
6 (40.0%)
14 (45.2%)
Neutral
20 (38.5%)
18 (47.4%)
19 (30.6%)
5 (33.3%)
8 (25.8%)
Disagree
6 (11.5%)
4 (10.5%)
13 (21.0%)
1 (6.7%)
6 (19.4%)
Strongly disagree
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
6
I consider leasing since I can update goods at any time.
Strongly agree
1 (1.9%)
1 (2.6%)
1 (1.6%)
1 (6.7%)
3 (9.7%)
0.139
Agree
23 (44.2%)
14 (36.8%)
25 (40.3%)
6 (40.0%)
13 (41.9%)
Neutral
26 (50.0%)
19 (50.0%)
21 (33.9%)
5 (33.3%)
10 (32.3%)
Disagree
2 (3.8%)
4 (10.5%)
15 (24.2%)
3 (20.0%)
5 (16.1%)
Strongly disagree
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
7
If enterprises provide a clear leasing process, I will consider leasing.
Strongly agree
6 (11.5%)
2 (5.3%)
4 (6.5%)
1 (6.7%)
9 (29.0%)
0.110
Agree
42 (80.8%)
30 (78.9%)
47 (75.8%)
12 (80.0%)
21 (67.7%)
Neutral
4 (7.7%)
5 (13.2%)
10 (16.1%)
2 (13.3%)
1 (3.2%)
Disagree
0 (0.0%)
1 (2.6%)
1 (1.6%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
Strongly disagree
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
8-1
I do not consider leasing because I would like to use new products.
Strongly agree
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
2 (3.2%)
1 (6.7%)
1 (3.2%)
0.307
Agree
6 (11.5%)
10 (26.3%)
7 (11.3%)
4 (26.7%)
7 (22.6%)
Neutral
30 (57.7%)
17 (44.7%)
25 (40.3%)
4 (26.7%)
10 (32.3%)
Disagree
16 (30.8%)
11 (28.9%)
27 (43.5%)
6 (40.0%)
13 (41.9%)
Strongly disagree
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (1.6%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
8-2
I do not consider leasing since I do not have the sense of ownership.
Strongly agree
1 (1.9%)
1 (2.6%)
2 (3.2%)
2 (13.3%)
0 (0.0%)
0.219
Agree
5 (9.6%)
9 (23.7%)
7 (11.3%)
4 (26.7%)
9 (29.0%)
Neutral
24 (46.2%)
12 (31.6%)
23 (37.1%)
4 (26.7%)
9 (29.0%)
Disagree
19 (36.5%)
16 (42.1%)
26 (41.9%)
5 (33.3%)
12 (38.7%)
Strongly disagree
3 (5.8%)
0 (0.0%)
4 (6.5%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (3.2%)
9
I do not consider leasing because I worry about compensation.
Strongly agree
4 (7.7%)
1 (2.6%)
4 (6.5%)
2 (13.3%)
1 (3.2%)
0.810
Agree
17 (32.7%)
13 (34.2%)
17 (27.4%)
6 (40.0%)
11 (35.5%)
Neutral
18 (34.6%)
15 (39.5%)
27 (43.5%)
2 (13.3%)
10 (32.3%)
Disagree
11 (21.2%)
9 (23.7%)
12 (19.4%)
5 (33.3%)
7 (22.6%)
Strongly disagree
2 (3.8%)
0 (0.0%)
2 (3.2%)
0 (0.0%)
2 (6.5%)
10
I do not consider leasing because I worry about cleanness.
Strongly agree
5 (9.6%)
5 (13.2%)
9 (14.5%)
3 (20.0%)
8 (25.8%)
0.706
Agree
31 (59.6%)
23 (60.5%)
31 (50.0%)
8 (53.3%)
15 (48.4%)
Neutral
9 (17.3%)
8 (21.1%)
15 (24.2%)
1 (6.7%)
6 (19.4%)
Disagree
6 (11.5%)
2 (5.3%)
5 (8.1%)
3 (20.0%)
2 (6.5%)
Strongly disagree
1 (1.9%)
0 (0.0%)
2 (3.2%)
0 (3.2%)
0 (0.0%)
11
If I can have additional services, I will choose leasing.
Strongly agree
14 (26.9%)
6 (15.8%)
8 (12.9%)
3 (20.0%)
8 (25.8%)
0.569
Agree
34 (65.4%)
25 (65.8%)
41 (66.1%)
9 (60.0%)
21 (67.7%)
Neutral
3 (5.8%)
7 (18.4%)
9 (14.5%)
2 (13.3%)
2 (6.5%)
Disagree
1 (1.9%)
0 (0.0%)
3 (4.8%)
1 (6.7%)
0 (0.0%)
Strongly disagree
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (1.6%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)According to the figures of item 2 (prices), all the clusters agreed that the prices of goods were a factor of choosing to rent. There were two meanings of the result. One was that when the goods are expensive, they are more likely to be rented. The other was that the prices of the rented goods should be advantageous in order to attract the consumers. Noticeably, among Cluster 4, up to 20% of the subjects stated they disagreed. It was inferred that they mostly did not have economic advantages and were supported by their families. They did not have economic pressure. Besides, they were concerned about taste, they did not save all their extra money, and they were more likely to spend money on goods that they liked or needed. After careful consideration, they would pay for certain types of products.Based on the figures of item 4 (matching of goods), all the lifestyle clusters agreed that they would consider obtaining the usage rights of products by renting them when they had to use (or match) different products in different occasions. This showed that they could rent more expensive goods or products that are changed frequently (such as luxury bags) to demonstrate their identities.According to figures of item 5 (propriety of goods), this study realized that more than half of Cluster 4 and Cluster 5 agreed with careful purchases and being concerned about taste and that they did not mind using second-hand goods. They were careful about using trials before purchasing. Cluster of smart consumption is pragmatic when selecting goods and they obtained products by the most economic measures. They did not mind obtaining the usage rights of goods by renting them. Thus, if the products of the rental firms match the characteristics of these two groups, they can treat the groups as the subjects.


## 4. Conclusions

Due to the importance of consumption, the only way to get rid of the unsustainable development crisis for us is to start from changing the consumption pattern of resource exhaustion which can destroy our living environment. Rental is a consumption pattern which can make the goods used repeatedly. As purchase has been changed into rental service, consumers can benefit from the product functions, but the ownership still belongs to the manufacturer. The manufacturer can not only meet the customer demands of the product functions, but also reduce the product output and selling by providing service. In this way, the resource consumption and pollutant output can be decreased. Selling service can achieve the pattern of environmental appeal, which is exactly the way of product service system. This study explores the characteristics of rental goods, integrates the green concept in the design and development end, and introduces the concept of product service into the rental consumption trend in Taiwan. As a result, the sustainable product can be developed for the rental consumption to maximize the green effect. This study takes the questionnaire survey to collect various opinions of the consumers to rental consumption and also classifies the Taiwanese consumers into five clusters based on the life styles, and the names of clusters are simple financial management cluster, environment and taste cluster, fashionable and flexible cluster, careful purchase cluster, and smart consumption cluster. Furthermore, this study details the product service rental patterns and types preferred by each cluster, as well as their opinions and expectations of the rental industry. Finally, the following conclusions are obtained from the phenomenon showed in the statistics and research data.


### 4.1. According to Consumers’ Green Consumption Cognition and Attitude toward Environmental Goods, Control the Green Consumption Factors of Rental Goods Development

Green consumption and environmental goods influence each other. In the use of rented goods, environmental effectiveness can be enhanced by increasing the use rate. Thus, if goods are consumed using a rental model, such action can be seen as green consumption. Consumers agree with this concept; thus, rental goods have environmental implications for consumers. However, consumers have different market characteristics. At the early stage of development of rental products, surveys must be conducted in order to recognize the different subject preferences for goods. At present, consumers in Taiwan worry about situations related to the change of ownership of rental consumption. Thus, if the rental characteristics of goods can be reinforced at the stage of development and if the development of rental goods is guided by the extracted factors, the total value of rented goods can be effectively upgraded.


### 4.2. In a Rental Market, Market Segmentation Can Be Reinforced by Lifestyle Variables

According to interviews with the enterprises, leasing firms suggested that an important measure to develop rental goods is product market segmentation. This study focused on consumers with purchase capabilities and extracted lifestyle factors by factor analysis in AIO to find 31 items. Through clustering analysis, the factors were divided into five clusters. It was found that the public is willing to acquire the usage rights of products by rental consumption. Thus, rental consumption in Taiwan can be economically effective. Difference analysis of the lifestyle survey in this study indicated the different cluster preferences in detail. Thus, lifestyle surveys could help probe into rental consumption groups’ preferences, could serve as a reference for market segmentation, and allow firms to easily deal with marketing.


### 4.3. In Development of Rental Consumption Characteristics of Product Service System, Consumers’ Opinions Should Be Included in Development Conditions and It Must Reinforce Product Service

As to sustainable goods developed upon rental consumption of product Service System, the main concerns are extension of the product life cycle of components and processed waste returned to the development end. Besides, users’ feedback after using the products is also important for the development of the next stage. From consumers’ perspective, users use rental goods more frequently, in comparison to goods purchased. It is difficult to predict users’ usage. Thus, when developing products, design engineers should be concerned about the new lifestyle of rental goods groups in order to reinforce services of the products. This study generalizes sustainable product development principles of rental consumption of product service system as new rules for developing rental goods. Recycling and usage are particularly critical. Consumers’ feedback can be provided by information platform.


### 4.4. Cost of Cradle-to-Cradle Recycling Pattern Is High: Governmental Assistance and Promotion Will Help Construct Sustainable Consumption Model of Rental Consumption in Product Service System and Influence Consumers’ and Enterprises’ Selection of the Rental Business Model

According to expert interview and analytical result, in overall green regulations, rental consumption model should particularly modify usage stage and waste recycling stage. It is the result of the change of ownership. However, not all types of firms can accomplish cradle-to-cradle recycling model. Using Aurora Office Furniture as an example, cradle-to-cradle recycling is a huge burden for the enterprise and it will not adopt it. However, the implementation of sustainable goods development of rental consumption of product service system should be assisted by the government and led by large enterprises. It must establish a model rental economy in Taiwan and indirectly influence product selection and operation of consumers and small and medium enterprises in the future.


## 4.1. According to Consumers’ Green Consumption Cognition and Attitude toward Environmental Goods, Control the Green Consumption Factors of Rental Goods Development

Green consumption and environmental goods influence each other. In the use of rented goods, environmental effectiveness can be enhanced by increasing the use rate. Thus, if goods are consumed using a rental model, such action can be seen as green consumption. Consumers agree with this concept; thus, rental goods have environmental implications for consumers. However, consumers have different market characteristics. At the early stage of development of rental products, surveys must be conducted in order to recognize the different subject preferences for goods. At present, consumers in Taiwan worry about situations related to the change of ownership of rental consumption. Thus, if the rental characteristics of goods can be reinforced at the stage of development and if the development of rental goods is guided by the extracted factors, the total value of rented goods can be effectively upgraded.


## 4.2. In a Rental Market, Market Segmentation Can Be Reinforced by Lifestyle Variables

According to interviews with the enterprises, leasing firms suggested that an important measure to develop rental goods is product market segmentation. This study focused on consumers with purchase capabilities and extracted lifestyle factors by factor analysis in AIO to find 31 items. Through clustering analysis, the factors were divided into five clusters. It was found that the public is willing to acquire the usage rights of products by rental consumption. Thus, rental consumption in Taiwan can be economically effective. Difference analysis of the lifestyle survey in this study indicated the different cluster preferences in detail. Thus, lifestyle surveys could help probe into rental consumption groups’ preferences, could serve as a reference for market segmentation, and allow firms to easily deal with marketing.


## 4.3. In Development of Rental Consumption Characteristics of Product Service System, Consumers’ Opinions Should Be Included in Development Conditions and It Must Reinforce Product Service

As to sustainable goods developed upon rental consumption of product Service System, the main concerns are extension of the product life cycle of components and processed waste returned to the development end. Besides, users’ feedback after using the products is also important for the development of the next stage. From consumers’ perspective, users use rental goods more frequently, in comparison to goods purchased. It is difficult to predict users’ usage. Thus, when developing products, design engineers should be concerned about the new lifestyle of rental goods groups in order to reinforce services of the products. This study generalizes sustainable product development principles of rental consumption of product service system as new rules for developing rental goods. Recycling and usage are particularly critical. Consumers’ feedback can be provided by information platform.


## 4.4. Cost of Cradle-to-Cradle Recycling Pattern Is High: Governmental Assistance and Promotion Will Help Construct Sustainable Consumption Model of Rental Consumption in Product Service System and Influence Consumers’ and Enterprises’ Selection of the Rental Business Model

According to expert interview and analytical result, in overall green regulations, rental consumption model should particularly modify usage stage and waste recycling stage. It is the result of the change of ownership. However, not all types of firms can accomplish cradle-to-cradle recycling model. Using Aurora Office Furniture as an example, cradle-to-cradle recycling is a huge burden for the enterprise and it will not adopt it. However, the implementation of sustainable goods development of rental consumption of product service system should be assisted by the government and led by large enterprises. It must establish a model rental economy in Taiwan and indirectly influence product selection and operation of consumers and small and medium enterprises in the future.



---

*Source: 710981-2013-12-26.xml*