Perceptions, Choices and Usage of Ecological Household Chemicals: Results from an Online Citizen Survey in Latvia

[1] Wang J., Shen M., Chu M. Why is green consumption easier said than done? Exploring the green consumption attitudeintention gap in China with behavioral reasoning theory. Clean. Responsible Consum. 2021:2:100015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2021.10001510.1016/j.clrc.2021.100015 Search in Google Scholar

[2] El Haffar G., Durif F., Dubé L. Towards closing the attitude-intention-behavior gap in green consumption: A narrative review of the literature and an overview of future research directions. J. Clean. Prod. 2020:275:122556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.12255610.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122556 Search in Google Scholar

[3] Rizomyliotis I., et al. Sustaining brand loyalty: The moderating role of green consumption values. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2021:30(7):3025–3039. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.278610.1002/bse.2786 Search in Google Scholar

[4] Lu X., Buchsbaum J., Zilberman D. Economics of the Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture. Extreme Events and Climate Change. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2021:49–65.10.1002/9781119413738.ch4 Search in Google Scholar

[5] United States Environmental Protection Agency. Introduction to Ecolabels and Standards for Greener Products. 2022 [Online]. [Accessed 12.09.2022]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/greenerproducts/introduction-ecolabels-andstandards-greener-products Search in Google Scholar

[6] Cai Z., Xie Y., Aguilar F. X. Eco-label credibility and retailer effects on green product purchasing intentions. For. Policy Econ. 2017:80:200–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.04.00110.1016/j.forpol.2017.04.001 Search in Google Scholar

[7] Bearth A., et al. Barriers to the safe use of chemical household products: A comparison across European countries. Environ. Res. 2019:180:108859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.10885910.1016/j.envres.2019.10885931706596 Search in Google Scholar

[8] Xu D., Karray M. H., Archimède B. A knowledge base with modularized ontologies for eco-labeling: Application for laundry detergents. Comput. Ind. 2018:98:118–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2018.02.01310.1016/j.compind.2018.02.013 Search in Google Scholar

[9] Buchmüller K., Bearth A., Siegrist M. Consumers’ perceptions of chemical household products and the associated risks. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2020:143:111511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2020.11151110.1016/j.fct.2020.11151132610062 Search in Google Scholar

[10] Bearth A., Siegrist M. Situative and product-specific factors influencing consumers’ risk perception of household cleaning products. Saf. Sci. 2018:113:126–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.11.02310.1016/j.ssci.2018.11.023 Search in Google Scholar

[11] Järvi P., Paloviita A. Product-related information for sustainable use of laundry detergents in Finnish households. J. Clean. Prod. 2007:15(7):681–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.12.00110.1016/j.jclepro.2005.12.001 Search in Google Scholar

[12] Richards S., et al. The contribution of household chemicals to environmental discharges via effluents: Combining chemical and behavioural data. J. Environ. Manage. 2015:150:427–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.12.02310.1016/j.jenvman.2014.12.02325560657 Search in Google Scholar

[13] European Commission. Buying Green! A Handbook on Green Public Procurement. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016. Search in Google Scholar

[14] Akulova L., Bukina A., Martinsone Z. Environmental Management Challenges and Possible Solutions Regarding Chemical Pollution Caused by Households in Latvia: A Qualitative Pilot Study. Environ. Clim. Technol. 2020:24(3):534–544. https://doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2020-012210.2478/rtuect-2020-0122 Search in Google Scholar

[15] Guo J., et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on household disinfectant consumption behaviors and related environmental concerns: A questionnaire-based survey in China. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021:9(5):106168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.10616810.1016/j.jece.2021.106168834942834395190 Search in Google Scholar

[16] Nolan J. M., et al. Normative Social Influence is Underdetected. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2008:34(7):913–923. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616720831669110.1177/014616720831669118550863 Search in Google Scholar

[17] Kumar S., et al. What drives brand love for natural products? The moderating role of household size. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020:58:102329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.10232910.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102329 Search in Google Scholar

[18] Habib R. R., El-Masri A., Heath R. L. Women’s strategies for handling household detergents. Environ. Res. 2006:101(2):184–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2006.02.00110.1016/j.envres.2006.02.00116616916 Search in Google Scholar

[19] ‘Strada vesels’ Homepage (‘Work healthy’ Homepage) [Online]. [Accessed 15.03.2022]. Available: www.stradavesels.lv (in Latvian) Search in Google Scholar

[20] Official Statistics Portal of Latvia. Population in regions and cities by age and gender at the beginning of the year 1971 - 2021. PxWeb [Online]. [Accessed 10.04.2022]. Available: https://data.stat.gov.lv/pxweb/en/OSP_PUB/START__POP__IR__IRD/IRD040/ Search in Google Scholar

[21] Calculator.net. Sample Size Calculator [Online]. [Accessed 10.04.2022]. Available: https://www.calculator.net/sample-size-calculator.html?type=1&cl=95&ci=5&pp=50&ps=1893223&x=99&y=13 Search in Google Scholar

[22] World Economics. Latvia’s Median Age [Online]. [Accessed 11.04.2022]. Available: https://worldeconomics.com/Demographics/Median-Age/Latvia.aspx Search in Google Scholar

[23] Bearth A., et al. Barriers to the safe use of chemical household products: A comparison across European countries. Environ. Res. 2020:180:108859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.10885910.1016/j.envres.2019.10885931706596 Search in Google Scholar

[24] Lin B., Shi L. Do environmental quality and policy changes affect the evolution of consumers’ intentions to buy new energy vehicles. Appl. Energy 2022:310:118582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.11858210.1016/j.apenergy.2022.118582 Search in Google Scholar

[25] Buchmüller K., et al. Consumers’ decision-making process when choosing potentially risky, frequently used chemical household products: The case of laundry detergents. Environ. Res. 2022:209:112894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.11289410.1016/j.envres.2022.11289435149112 Search in Google Scholar

[26] Arslan A., et al. Climate change, consumer lifestyles and legitimation strategies of sustainability-oriented firms. Eur. Manag. J. 2021:39(6):720–730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2021.03.00510.1016/j.emj.2021.03.005 Search in Google Scholar

[27] D’Souza C., Taghian M., Lamb P. An empirical study on the influence of environmental labels on consumers. Corporate Communications 2006:11(2):162–173. https://doi.org/10.1108/1356328061066169710.1108/13563280610661697 Search in Google Scholar

[28] Hwang J.-A., Park Y., Kim Y. Why do consumers respond to eco-labels? The case of Korea. Springerplus 2016:5(1):1915. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3550-110.1186/s40064-016-3550-1509510727867822 Search in Google Scholar

[29] Sucapane D., Roux C., Sobol K. Exploring how product descriptors and packaging colors impact consumers’ perceptions of plant-based meat alternative products. Appetite 2021:167:105590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.10559010.1016/j.appet.2021.10559034242733 Search in Google Scholar

[30] Donato C., Adıgüzel F. Visual complexity of eco-labels and product evaluations in online setting: Is simple always better? J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022:67:102961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.10296110.1016/j.jretconser.2022.102961 Search in Google Scholar

[31] Zumaica I. Zaļā karotīte ar pircējiem jau 20 gadus (Green spoon with customers for 20 years) [Online]. [Accessed 11.04.2022]. Available: http://karotite.lv/jaunumi/zala-karotite-ar-pircejiem-jau-20-gadus (in Latvian) Search in Google Scholar