4.7 Article

Linkage between recycling and consumption: a case of toilet paper in Japan

Journal

RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING
Volume 30, Issue 3, Pages 177-199

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0921-3449(00)00060-4

Keywords

paper recycling; Japan; consumption

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examines consumer factors of paper recycling in Japan. The study specifically focuses on toilet paper as a paper product and attempts to reveal how individuals evaluate recycled toilet paper, how the evaluation relates to toilet paper consumption, and why people use or do not use recycled toilet paper. The study also examines what factors influence collection recycling behavior, and what people believe as necessary to achieve a society with better recycling. Responses were obtained from 1242 respondents in Japan. Four results were found. (1) People cannot judge the raw material of virgin toilet papers correctly, while people can correctly judge the raw material of recycled toilet paper. The quality and appearance of recycled toilet paper was not high enough to compete with virgin toilet paper. Furthermore, the image of recycled toilet paper also had negative impact on the willingness to use recycled toilet paper. (2) The primary criterion for purchasing recycled toilet paper was pro-environmental attitude. For the virgin toilet paper, it was brand. As expected, recycled toilet paper users had a positive evaluation and image of recycled toilet paper, while virgin toilet paper users had a negative evaluation and image of it. (3) Actual recycling behavior might not relate directly to consumption behavior of recycled paper. Rather, it was determined by the knowledge of waste collection system and payment system. (4) Most people have not realized that without the consumption of recycled products, the recycling system is not completed. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available