Next Article in Journal
Spatiotemporal Evolution and Driving Mechanisms of Land Use in Regions with Frequent Human–Land Interactions: A Case Study in the Dongting Lake Area
Previous Article in Journal
Robust Emergency Frequency Control with Wind Turbines via Decoupling Security Constraints and Modeling Uncertainties
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 5
10.3390/su17051893
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Influence Mechanism of Food Packaging Factors on Consumers’ Intentions Regarding Waste Sorting Behavior in China

by
Juncheng Mu
1,*,
Linglin Zhou
1 and
Chun Yang
2
1
School of Fine Arts, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210023, China
2
School of Design, Jiangnan University, Wuxi 214122, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(5), 1893; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17051893
Submission received: 21 November 2024 / Revised: 7 February 2025 / Accepted: 21 February 2025 / Published: 23 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Food)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Food packaging directly influences consumers’ behavioral tendencies when implementing waste sorting. This study conducted a survey in China, establishing antecedent variables—consumers’ expectations and perceived quality of food packaging—mediating variables—consumer satisfaction and perceived value—and moderating variables—reward mechanisms, to explore the impact mechanisms of these variables on waste sorting behavioral tendencies. The findings indicate: (1) Consumer expectations not only directly influence perceived quality and perceived value but also further affect consumer satisfaction. High expectations lead to increased satisfaction and value recognition, promoting positive intentions for garbage sorting behavior; (2) perceived quality significantly impacts perceived value, but its direct influence on consumer satisfaction is not significant. This suggests that the relationship between perceived quality and satisfaction varies across different product categories; (3) the reward mechanism, as a moderating variable, can enhance consumers’ expectations and perceived quality, but it does not have a notable direct effect on perceived value and satisfaction. This implies that the reward mechanism primarily influences consumer behavior intentions indirectly by enhancing expectations and quality recognition. This study innovatively introduces the reward mechanism as a moderating variable and constructs a research framework on how food security affects consumers’ garbage sorting behavior. This framework can guide food packaging design and thereby enhance consumer adherence to garbage sorting norms. The research findings provide guidance for the practice of food packaging design, enhancing consumer awareness of waste sorting behaviors through improved food packaging, thereby addressing the issues of food packaging pollution and renewable resource waste in China.

1. Introduction

With the development of society and the continuous improvement of human living standards, a large amount of waste fills our habitats. Waste pollution not only leads to the waste of many renewable resources but also affects the ecological environment and human safety. To address this issue, the United Nations and its member states have formulated international treaties regarding waste classification and management, promoting advanced waste treatment and recycling technologies, as well as policies to control the international movement of hazardous waste [1]. For instance, the Basel Convention regulates the international agreement on the transboundary movement and disposal of hazardous waste [2]. Additionally, sustainable materials management (SMM) emphasizes a comprehensive assessment of materials over traditional waste management techniques to achieve sustainable management throughout their lifecycle [3]. This indicates widespread concern regarding waste and how to handle it appropriately. According to relevant data, packaging plastics account for nearly half of the plastic waste across various regions globally [4]. Most food packaging is single-use and is discarded within a short time; this plastic waste ultimately enters the environment, polluting land, water bodies, and the food chain [5]. By 2015, approximately 630 million tons of food packaging plastic waste had been generated globally, of which about 9% was recycled, 12% was incinerated, and 79% accumulated in landfills or the natural environment [6,7]. Furthermore, data from 2020 indicates that approximately 400 million tons of single-use food packaging plastic waste are produced annually worldwide, constituting 47% of total plastic waste [8]. Especially in China, the lack of consumer awareness regarding eco-friendly packaging has led to significant food packaging pollution issues. The costs associated with food packaging disposal and unrecovered resources in China have been increasing annually [9]. While the global plastic recycling rate is relatively low (approximately 14%), the situation in China is even more critical, with a substantial amount of plastic packaging not being effectively recycled, ultimately ending up in landfills or the ocean, resulting in severe environmental pollution and waste of recyclable resources [5]. Therefore, enhancing consumer engagement in the classification of food packaging plastic waste in China is crucial to addressing the serious pollution and resource wastage issues present in the region. It is essential to mitigate plastic waste pollution at the source and improve the utilization of renewable resources.
Relevant research indicates that appropriate food packaging design can effectively enhance consumers’ recycling behaviors [10,11]. The visual attributes of food packaging and its materials positively influence consumers’ recycling practices [12]. Additionally, the choice of packaging materials can significantly guide consumers in properly categorizing food packaging waste [13]. Functional information on packaging, such as expiration dates and weights, can influence consumers’ purchasing decisions [14]. Improving label information and instructions helps consumers understand their behaviors more clearly [15]. Furthermore, a consumer’s education level can encourage them to actively choose products with more environmentally friendly packaging [15,16]. Thus, food packaging factors have a significant impact on consumer behaviors, and correctly categorizing food packaging is crucial for enhancing waste management systems and the quality of recycled products [12]. Excellent food packaging design and the gradually increasing education levels of consumers can effectively improve the recycling of food-related plastic waste. However, while addressing the root causes of food plastic waste, external policy support is also essential. Relevant countries, regions, and enterprises should establish recycling mechanisms to incentivize consumers to recycle and handle food packaging waste. By enhancing consumers’ sense of environmental responsibility through potential income, appropriate recycling incentives can effectively promote consumer recycling behaviors concerning food packaging [17]. To successfully promote the recycling incentive mechanism, comprehensive information on food packaging waste classification and widespread education on recycling are essential. Building on this foundation, it is crucial to enhance consumers’ awareness of the importance of food packaging recycling [18], thus supporting the formation of a positive cycle of recycling through a broadly implemented reward system. At the same time, the related rewards mechanism should cover consumers, establishing a virtuous cycle [19].
Clearly, appropriate food packaging design and effective incentive mechanisms can significantly enhance the enforcement of recycling efforts. However, there is still no consensus on the degree to which these two measures influence the promotion of recycling efforts. To reveal the underlying mechanisms of consumers’ recycling behavior tendencies, we have established antecedent variables—consumers’ expectations and perceived quality of food packaging; mediator variables—consumer satisfaction and perceived value; and moderator variables—the reward mechanism. This framework examines the relationships among perceived value, satisfaction, and recycling behavior tendencies. Perceived value is a crucial factor influencing consumer satisfaction, with a significant positive effect on it [20,21]. Consumer satisfaction is a key determinant of subsequent behavior, and it has a direct positive impact on behavioral intentions [22,23]. Furthermore, reward mechanisms can influence consumers’ purchase intentions and other behaviors, motivating consumers to generate more positive reviews through rewards, thereby enhancing perceived value and consumer satisfaction [24,25]. Therefore, in this paper’s model construction, we innovatively utilize the reward mechanism as a moderating variable. This mechanism influences consumers’ emotional responses, thus modulating the relationship between perceived value and consumer satisfaction.
Perceived value is a critical factor affecting consumer satisfaction, significantly and positively impacting it [21,26]. Consumer satisfaction is a key determinant of subsequent behavior, with a direct positive effect on behavioral intentions [22,23]. Additionally, the reward mechanism can influence consumers’ purchase intentions and other behaviors. By leveraging the reward mechanism, we can encourage consumers to generate more positive reviews, thereby enhancing perceived value and consumer satisfaction [24,25]. Hence, our model innovatively positions the reward mechanism as a moderating variable that affects the relationship between perceived value and consumer satisfaction through emotional responses.

2. Literature Review and Research Hypotheses

2.1. Research Structure

Expectancy theory emphasizes that an individual’s behavioral intentions are influenced by their expected outcomes and the value they place on those outcomes. Oliver first introduced this theory, positing that the discrepancy between a consumer’s psychological expectations of product quality prior to purchase and their actual perceived quality after purchase determines their perception of product quality and overall satisfaction [27]. This theory establishes a theoretical model based on the sequential impact factors affecting customer satisfaction, highlighting the evaluation path of consumer satisfaction formed before and after purchasing a product. Subsequently, Fornell, building on the expectation disparity theory, utilized mathematical methods in conjunction with customer perception to propose the Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) model [28], which was later modified to the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) model [29]. In the context of waste sorting behavior, consumers’ expectations regarding food packaging may encompass characteristics such as ease of sorting and high recyclability. However, if the design of food packaging fails to meet these expectations—such as being difficult to identify or categorize—this can lead to a discrepancy between consumers’ expectations and their actual experiences, thereby influencing their intentions regarding waste sorting [30]. Consequently, the expectation discrepancy theory model provides an effective theoretical framework for examining the impact of food packaging factors on consumers’ intentions to engage in waste sorting by analyzing the differences between consumers’ expectations of food packaging design and their actual experiences, as well as how these differences affect factors such as perceived behavioral control.
Therefore, this paper’s theoretical model is based on the expectation theory model, analyzing the impact of consumer perceptions of food packaging quality and consumers’ expectations as antecedent variables on perceived value and satisfaction. Additionally, it examines the direct and indirect effects of perceived value and satisfaction on consumer behavior [31], exploring their influence on consumer behavioral intentions. Moreover, the model incorporates a reward mechanism as a moderating variable to investigate the moderating effects of expectations and perceived quality on the reward mechanisms influencing perceived value and satisfaction.

2.2. Food Packaging Factor

Research indicates that visual attributes in food packaging play a crucial role in consumers’ perceptions of health and purchase intentions. Blue packaging patterns are often associated with healthy food, while red packaging may signal less healthy options. Green packaging typically reflects environmental consciousness [32]. The shape of food packaging also significantly influences consumer choices. Round packaging tends to attract more attention than square or angular designs, and products in round packaging are perceived as healthier [33]. Effective packaging graphics and clear designs can enhance product perception and increase purchase intent [34]. Visual attributes within food packaging, such as color, shape, and patterns, can considerably impact consumers’ purchasing behavior. These visual elements capture consumer attention and convey specific messages, thereby influencing their actions [35]. This highlights how food packaging’s visual factors shape consumer perceptions.
At the same time, according to Boz and Ziynet, the better the materials used in packaging, the more consumers prefer ecological materials in actual consumption, their willingness to pay, recycling behaviors, and factors influencing sustainable practices reflect their choices for environmentally friendly materials [36]. In other words, consumers believe that recyclable and biodegradable materials can reduce environmental impact, making them more willing to engage in environmental protection, waste sorting, and recycling actions. However, focusing solely on material selection while neglecting visual attributes can lead to a separation of form and function, negatively impacting consumer behavior [13]. This suggests that the choice of packaging materials directly affects consumers’ perceived quality. Furthermore, functional information enhances consumers’ perception and trust in the product, influencing their purchase and recycling decisions. For instance, when food packaging clearly states nutritional claims like “low-fat”, consumers perceive these products as healthier [37]. Similarly, clearly marked recyclable or biodegradable symbols on packaging can not only promote consumer purchasing behavior but also encourage environmentally friendly actions [38]. Therefore, functional information in food packaging plays a critical role in providing consumers with key perceptual information. Food packaging itself possesses the ability to guide consumer behavior, but how consumers understand packaging determines their behavioral intentions. Even with optimized food packaging design, if consumers misunderstand or are unaware of its eco-friendly features, the desired environmental outcome cannot be attained [10,11]. Thus, increasing consumer awareness of food packaging and its environmental impact is crucial for promoting effective waste sorting strategies [39,40].
However, when consumers possess a certain level of awareness, the packaging design may fail to meet their expectations regarding categorization and recycling, potentially leading to a decline in consumer satisfaction [30]. Conversely, when consumers lack sufficient knowledge about food packaging, it can hinder their ability to properly sort waste [11]. This underscores the significance of functional information and educational factors in food packaging. Therefore, it is essential to enhance consumer education and awareness regarding the importance of food packaging recycling through packaging itself [18,41]. Consequently, incorporating educational elements into food packaging can effectively assist consumers in recognizing environmental characteristics and promote waste sorting behaviors.
Moreover, establishing reward mechanisms can serve as an effective strategy to motivate consumers in recycling food packaging. The visual attributes of packaging design and material choices can assist consumers in correctly categorizing and recycling packaging waste [30]. Recycling reward mechanisms can further enhance consumers’ enthusiasm for accurate sorting and recycling practices [42]. This mechanism integrates educational promotion and informational content within packaging, enabling consumers to better comprehend the importance of food packaging, waste recycling, and their impact on the environment [43].

2.3. Research Hypotheses

Consumer expectations regarding food packaging design and their perceptions of food packaging play a crucial role in promoting consumer behavior related to waste sorting and recycling. Based on the theory of expectation disconfirmation, food packaging design should focus on addressing the actual needs and expectations of consumers, particularly in terms of functionality and recyclability. Additionally, food packaging design should assist consumers in making correct sorting decisions through clear visual cues, explicit information communication, and effective reward mechanisms. This approach not only enhances consumer satisfaction but also fosters effective waste sorting behavior. Accordingly, this study proposes the following hypotheses for validation.

2.3.1. Consumer Expectations and Perceived Quality, Perceived Value, and Consumer Satisfaction

Consumer satisfaction is often viewed as a result of the difference between expectations and actual experiences [44]. Relevant studies indicate that consumer expectations significantly affect perceived quality. When consumers’ expectations are met, their perceived quality of the product increases [45,46]. Furthermore, when consumer expectations are high, and actual experiences meet those expectations, their perceived quality of the product also improves, which subsequently increases their satisfaction [27]. Expectations play a crucial role in forming consumer satisfaction, particularly in confirming product value and establishing trust in goods [47]. Therefore, this paper posits that consumer expectations positively influence perceived quality, perceived value, and consumer satisfaction. Based on this, the following three hypotheses are proposed:
H1: 
Consumer expectations positively influence perceived quality.
H2: 
Consumer expectations positively influence perceived value.
H3: 
Consumer expectations positively influence consumer satisfaction.

2.3.2. Perceived Quality and Perceived Value, Consumer Satisfaction

Perceived quality refers to consumers’ evaluations of a product or service’s actual performance, based on personal experiences and expectations [48]. Perceived value, meanwhile, represents the value judgment made by consumers based on price and perceived quality, specifically comparing the value a product or service provides against its cost [49]. Research shows that perceived quality directly affects consumer satisfaction, while perceived value indirectly influences loyalty through its effect on satisfaction [48]. This indicates that improving perceived quality and perceived value can enhance consumer satisfaction and loyalty. Increasing the perceived quality and perceived value can enhance consumer satisfaction and loyalty. Moreover, the influence of perceived value on consumer satisfaction may be stronger than that of perceived quality [50]. Thus, this paper posits that consumers’ perceived quality positively affects perceived value and consumer satisfaction. Based on this, two hypotheses are proposed:
H4: 
Consumers’ perceived quality positively influences perceived value.
H5: 
Consumers’ perceived quality positively influences consumer satisfaction.

2.3.3. Perceived Value, Consumer Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intent

Perceived value refers to the overall assessment of a product or service’s quality, price, and performance by the consumer [49]. In relevant studies, perceived value directly affects consumer satisfaction, proving to be a critical factor influencing it. Perceived value influences consumer behavioral intentions through the intermediary variable of satisfaction [51]. Furthermore, perceived value and consumer satisfaction can be viewed as two independent factors. Perceived value not only directly impacts consumer satisfaction but can also indirectly affect other behavioral intentions through satisfaction [52]. Therefore, I believe that perceived quality positively impacts consumer satisfaction, with satisfaction serving as a mediating variable that positively influences consumer behavioral intentions. Based on this, two additional hypotheses are proposed:
H6: 
Perceived value positively influences consumer satisfaction.
H7: 
Consumer satisfaction positively influences behavioral intent.

2.3.4. The Moderating Role of the Reward Mechanism

Research indicates that reward mechanisms significantly impact individuals’ expectations and perceptions of importance, with rewards positively affecting motivation and satisfaction [53]. In other words, when consumers perceive a positive correlation between rewards and managing food packaging waste, their expectations and perceived importance of waste classification substantially increase. Reward mechanisms enhance perceived importance by increasing individuals’ interest and engagement [54]. Furthermore, reward mechanisms also influence perceived value; rewards can not only enhance individual behavior [55] but also impact perceived decision making by altering the decision process [56]. Reward mechanisms affect intrinsic motivation and self-determination by influencing individuals’ fulfillment of psychological needs [57]. Additionally, external forms of rewards, such as monetary rewards, may diminish intrinsic motivation, while autonomy-based reward methods, like verbal praise and positive feedback within non-monetary rewards, often enhance intrinsic motivation [58]. Therefore, the reward mechanism positively influences expectations, perceived importance, and perceived satisfaction. Based on this, the following five hypotheses are proposed:
H8a: 
The reward mechanism can significantly moderate the relationship between consumer expectations and perceived quality.
H8b: 
The reward mechanism can significantly moderate the relationship between consumer expectations and perceived value.
H8c: 
The reward mechanism can significantly moderate the relationship between consumer expectations and satisfaction.
H8d: 
The reward mechanism can significantly moderate the relationship between perceived quality and perceived value.
H8e: 
The reward mechanism can significantly moderate the relationship between perceived quality and satisfaction.

2.4. Theoretical Model

Based on the analysis above, we constructed a theoretical model, as shown in Figure 1.

3. Questionnaire Design

The design of the scale in this study is derived from relevant scholarly literature and has undergone contextual adjustments. Therefore, based on the research regarding the impact of food packaging factors on consumers’ intentions toward waste sorting behavior, a questionnaire has been developed by integrating the aforementioned literature. The aim is to verify the influence mechanism of food packaging design factors on consumer expectations, perceived quality, perceived value, and satisfaction regarding waste sorting behavior. Additionally, a reward mechanism acts as a moderating variable affecting the mechanisms of user satisfaction and perceived value.
The expectation scale for consumers has been adapted from Hamer [45] and Kenyon’s [46] content on expectations, using items (ET1-ET3) for measurement. For consumer perceptions of product quality, items are designed based on Nemat’s [12] insights into visual attributes and material choices in food packaging, as well as Yokokawa’s [14] content regarding functional information and Buelow’s [15] discussion on educational functions in food packaging for perceived quality. Three items (PQ1–PQ3) measure this aspect.
The perceived value scale is modified from Bảo and Nguyet’s [21] content on perceived value, utilizing items (PV1–PV3) for measurement. Adaptations from Tam [22] and Tarn’s [23] relevant content inform the satisfaction scale, which employs items (CS1–CS3). The items for behavioral intent derive from Eggert’s [52] related content using three items (BI1–BI3). Finally, items measuring the moderating variable stem from Langley [42] and Xia’s [59] discussion on reward mechanisms, using three items (RM1–RM3) for measurement. Based on the above explanations, the questionnaire items are detailed in Table 1.
Table 1. Definition of variable operability and reference scales.
Table 1. Definition of variable operability and reference scales.
ConstructItemsSource
Expectation (ET)ET1: Food packaging can reasonably display goods and meet your psychological expectationsET2: Food packaging can show the quality of the product and meet your psychological expectationsET3: Recyclable concept and value of food packaging to meet your psychological expectations[45,46]
Perceived Quality (PQ)PQ1: When you buy food, the color and graphic design content on food packaging and the choice of environmentally friendly materials convey green environmental protection ideas and garbage classification ideasPQ2: Recyclable packaging and green environmental protection transmitted in the information content on food packaging when you buy foodPQ3: When you buy food, educational information on food packaging helps you package waste classification[12,14,15]
Perceived Value (PV)PV1: Food packaging can help you perceive the price and value of foodPV2: Food packaging can show the quality of goods and the concept of green culturePV3: Food packaging can increase your awareness of green ideas and consumer waste recycling[21]
Consumer Satisfaction (CS)CS1: Food packaging increases your recognition of packaging quality and environmental valueCS2: Food packaging increases your satisfaction with green ideasCS3: Food packaging increases your satisfaction with the concept of waste separation[22,23]
Behavior Intention (BI)BI1: You are willing to implement effective garbage sorting for packaging wasteBI2: You are willing to promote garbage sortingBI3: You are willing to recommend and promote waste sorting and green goods to people around you[52]
Reward Mechanism (RM)RM1: Reward mechanism leads you to garbage sorting behaviorRM2: Has the reward system helped you improve your awareness of garbage sorting and learn how to do itRM3: The reward system promotes your garbage sorting behavior[42]

4. Empirical Research

4.1. Demographic Characteristics of Sample

Due to the vast area of China, achieving comprehensiveness and accuracy in offline survey formats is challenging. Additionally, the limited availability of food packaging that implements reward mechanisms necessitates a more effective approach to gather questionnaire data from consumers who have utilized or experienced food packaging recycling reward systems. Therefore, it has been decided to conduct the survey online from July to September 2024. Questionnaires will be distributed through online platforms to a broad demographic, ensuring that the sample source is not confined to a specific region, thus enhancing the authenticity of the data collected. Furthermore, prior to participating in the survey, an online informed consent form will be presented. Given the online nature of participation, all respondents will provide verbal consent. Additionally, before the survey commences, participants must confirm their understanding of the informed consent form and indicate their agreement by selecting the consent option to access the questionnaire. If a respondent selects the refusal option, the survey will be terminated. The sample regions indicated in this survey primarily include 23 areas from China, such as Jiangsu, Fujian, Shandong, Anhui, Zhejiang, Hunan, Jiangxi, Hubei, and Sichuan, demonstrating the comprehensiveness of the sample collection. However, the issue of uneven development across different regions affects the distribution of consumers who have utilized or experienced food packaging reward mechanisms. Notably, a higher number of consumers from the economically developed regions of Jiangsu, Anhui, Fujian, Guangdong, and Zhejiang indicates the authenticity of the sample collection. The above two points highlight two main issues. Firstly, there is a noticeable regional disparity in the perception of food packaging influenced by the economic conditions in different areas of China, leading to an imbalance. Secondly, the design of waste classification for food packaging in China is inadequate, resulting in minimal consumer participation. This underscores the necessity and urgency of this research. Additionally, the distribution of the survey indicates a growing problem of food packaging pollution and waste of recyclable resources in China, which can be partly attributed to the uneven understanding of food packaging and the shortcomings in the design of waste classification systems. Furthermore, this study does not involve minors due to their lack of full legal capacity.
In the survey, all items, except for personal information, will utilize a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). All respondents will voluntarily answer questions with informed consent and can exit the survey at any time. The online survey collected 255 valid samples, with 255 valid responses. The questionnaire consisted of 18 questions, and the sample size meets the criteria proposed by Jackson [60], which requires a parameter to sample size ratio of greater than 1:10. Consequently, the subsequent data analysis will be based on this foundation, using SPSS 22.0, AMOS 24.0, and Smart PLS 4.0 for data analysis. As shown in Table 2, a descriptive analysis of the sample demographic variables has been conducted.
In a descriptive analysis of 255 samples concerning demographic variables, it is observed that males comprise 52.9% while females account for 47.1%. The age distribution predominantly consists of young and middle-aged individuals under 45, representing 80.4%. In terms of occupational distribution, government and public institution employees make up a substantial 66.7%, while others have a significantly lower proportion. Among the 255 survey respondents, a majority, 69.4%, frequently opt for recyclable green packaging. However, only 27.5% of the respondents engage in waste sorting behaviors. Additionally, regarding the emotional response to unsorted waste, 32.1% of respondents expressed a lack of regret. Therefore, considering the respondents’ behaviors and emotional experiences related to waste sorting, this research on the mechanisms of consumer behavior regarding food packaging design is indeed necessary.

4.2. Reliability and Validity Analysis

Reliability refers to the consistency and stability of data measurement results. Related research indicates that a Cronbach’s α value between 0.7 and 0.9 is generally considered to reflect good internal consistency [61]. Calculations using SPSS 22.0 show that the overall Cronbach’s α for each measurement variable exceeds 0.7 [62]. Additionally, the total correlations after deleting items are all above 0.5 [62], suggesting that this research scale exhibits good reliability, as shown in Table 3.
Relevant research indicates that the KMO value is a crucial indicator for assessing the suitability of data for factor analysis. Generally, a KMO value greater than 0.7 is deemed appropriate for such analysis [63,64]. Additionally, when the significance of Bartlett’s sphericity test is less than 0.05, it suggests that the covariance matrix of variables is not an identity matrix, indicating a significant correlation among variables, which supports the suitability for factor analysis [65]. Therefore, as shown in Table 4, the KMO values for the variables range between 0.705 and 0.720, all exceeding the threshold of 0.7, while the significance of Bartlett’s sphericity test is less than 0.05. All variables exhibit significant results in Bartlett’s sphericity test, laying a strong foundation for the factor analysis of the data. Furthermore, using principal component analysis for factor analysis reveals that each variable extracts a factor with an eigenvalue greater than 1, and the cumulative variance contribution of the variables exceeds 50%. This indicates that the factors analyzed in this study provide a substantial explanation for the variables [66]. Moreover, all items show a commonality greater than 0.5 [67], and the factor loadings exceed 0.6 [68], all within reasonable limits. In summary, this research concludes that the survey results possess strong unidimensionality, indicating no common method bias in the data.
Using Smart PLS to analyze convergent validity, related studies indicate that the composite reliability (CR) value measures the reliability of multiple indicator variables for a latent variable. A higher R value suggests greater consistency in measuring these indicators, resulting in more reliable estimates of the latent variable. Generally, a CR value greater than 0.7 is considered acceptable, indicating a high level of internal consistency for the latent variable and a strong correlation between the samples [69]. The average variance extracted (AVE) value assesses how much of the variance of a latent variable is explained by its indicator variables. An AVE value exceeding 0.5 is favorable, indicating that the indicator variables explain a significant portion of the variance, demonstrating the model’s explanatory power and suggesting good internal consistency among the measurement data, along with high reliability and stability [69,70]. Thus, as shown in Table 5, the model data displays CR values exceeding the threshold of 0.7, with a minimum of 0.875, indicating a strong correlation and high internal consistency among the latent variables. Additionally, all AVE values are greater than 0.5, confirming that the internal consistency among the latent variables is satisfactory, as well as indicating good data stability and reliability. Therefore, the measurement scale in this study demonstrates good convergent validity.
Discriminant validity refers to the differences between distinct latent variables. According to Fornell–Larcker’s recommendation, no value should exceed 0.9, indicating that the scale possesses good discriminant validity [28]. From Table 6, it is clear that the latent variables exceed the correlation coefficients among each latent variable. As shown in the table, significant correlations exist among the main variables in this study, all of which are below 0.9. Moreover, the correlations of the exogenous structures are all less than 0.85 [71], suggesting good discriminant validity. Therefore, the measurement model exhibits strong discriminant validity.

4.3. Model Testing

SRMR is one of the commonly used fit indices in structural equation modeling (SEM) to evaluate the degree of fit between the model and the data. A smaller SRMR value indicates a better fit of the model to the data. Related research shows that SRMR performs well in handling ordered factor analysis models, particularly when data distribution is abnormal; in such cases, the testing results of SRMR are more reliable. An SRMR value less than 0.08 indicates a very high fit of the model to the data [72]. A d-ULS value less than 0.95 suggests a good fit of the model to the data, with a moderate number of free parameters [73]. Similarly, a d-G value less than 0.95 indicates a good fit of the model to the data, with a moderate number of free parameters [74]. Furthermore, an NFI greater than 0.8 reflects a high fit of the model; the closer the value is to 1, the stronger the model fit, signifying that the model can accurately capture the structures and relationships within the data [75]. As shown in Table 7, the SRMR value of 0.054 is below the threshold of 0.08, indicating a good model fit. Additionally, both the d-ULS value of 0.490 and the d-G value of 0.425 are below the threshold of 0.95, further confirming a good model fit. The NFI value of 0.821 is greater than 0.8, indicating a high model fit.

4.4. Path Hypothesis Analysis

Using PLS-SEM to test hypotheses and calculate path coefficients involved employing the Bootstrap method for 5000 resamples. The research values below 0.05 indicate statistical significance. Thus, based on the results in Table 8, the hypothesis model path coefficient tests show that consumer expectations positively and significantly impact perceived quality (T = 8.55, p < 0.05), perceived value (T = 5.415, p < 0.05), and consumer satisfaction (T = 3.144, p < 0.05), supporting Hypotheses H1, H2, and H3. Additionally, perceived quality positively and significantly affects perceived value (T = 3.301, p < 0.05), providing support for Hypothesis H4. However, perceived quality does not have a direct impact on consumer satisfaction (T = 1.884, p > 0.05), invalidating Hypothesis H5. Perceived value positively influences consumer satisfaction (T = 3.838, p < 0.05), supporting Hypothesis H6. Consumer satisfaction significantly impacts the intention for waste sorting behavior (T = 40.668, p < 0.05), supporting Hypothesis H7. The reward value acts as a moderating variable, positively affecting the relationship between consumer expectations and perceived quality (T = 2.391, p < 0.05), supporting Hypothesis H8a. Perceived quality and perceived value show significant correlation (T = 1.984, p < 0.05), supporting Hypothesis H8d. However, no direct effect exists between consumer expectations and perceived value (T = 0.042, p > 0.05), leading to the invalidation of Hypothesis H8b. Likewise, no direct impact exists between consumer expectations and consumer satisfaction (T = 1.187, p > 0.05), invalidating Hypothesis H8c. Perceived quality also does not have a direct influence on consumer satisfaction (T = 0.667, p > 0.05), rendering Hypothesis H8e unsupported.
The results of the hypothesis testing are shown in the above table and in Figure 2.

4.5. Adjustment Effect Test

This paper utilizes Smart PLS 3.0 software to analyze the moderating variables of the incentive mechanism. From the results of the path hypothesis, it is evident that reward value serves as a moderating variable, significantly influencing consumer expectations and perceived quality (T = 2.391, p < 0.05), thus supporting Hypothesis H8a. The path coefficient of consumer expectations on perceived quality is 0.517, while the path coefficient of the reward mechanism as a moderating variable on expectations and perceived quality is 0.117, both being positive. This indicates that the reward mechanism positively moderates the relationship between consumer expectations and perceived quality [76]. The statistical results are illustrated in Figure 3, where the three lines represent data points at three critical levels: one standard deviation below the mean, the mean, and one standard deviation above the mean, corresponding to low, medium, and high levels, respectively. When the level of the reward mechanism is high, consumers’ perception of the quality of expected products increases, thereby promoting consumer behavior. Conversely, when the level of the reward mechanism is low, consumers’ perception of the quality of expected products does not improve and may even decrease their expectations, leading to a decline in their enthusiasm for environmental protection and waste sorting behaviors. As shown in Figure 3, the slope of the low reward mechanism line is relatively gentle, while the slope becomes steeper as the level of the reward mechanism increases. This indicates that under a low reward mechanism, the positive effect on consumers’ perception of the quality of expected products is minimal; however, under a high reward mechanism, the positive effect is substantial. This suggests that the higher the level of the reward mechanism, the greater the consumer expectations, and the higher the likelihood of holding environmental consciousness and intentions for waste sorting.
Perceived quality and perceived value (T = 1.984, p < 0.05) are significantly correlated, supporting the validity of Hypothesis H8d. The path coefficient of perceived quality to perceived value is 0.202, while the reward mechanism, acting as a moderating variable, has a path coefficient of 0.121 between perceived quality and perceived value. Both coefficients are positive, indicating that the reward mechanism positively moderates the relationship between perceived quality and perceived value [76]. The statistical results are illustrated in Figure 4. When the level of the reward mechanism is high, consumers’ expectations of product value increase, thereby enhancing consumer behavior. Conversely, when the reward mechanism is low, consumers’ perceived value of the product does not increase and may even decrease, leading to a decline in their motivation for environmentally friendly behaviors and waste sorting. By selecting data points at three critical levels of the reward mechanism—one standard deviation below the mean, the mean, and one standard deviation above the mean—we can represent low, medium, and high levels, respectively. Figure 4 shows that the slope of the low reward mechanism is relatively gentle, while the slope becomes steeper as the level of the reward mechanism increases. This indicates that when the reward mechanism is low, the positive effect of consumers’ expectations of product quality is minimal; however, when the reward mechanism is high, the positive effect is substantial. This suggests that a higher level of the reward mechanism correlates with a greater recognition of product value by consumers, thereby increasing the likelihood of holding environmentally friendly attitudes and intentions towards waste sorting.

5. Discussion

This paper analyzes the factors related to consumer intentions for waste sorting behavior based on the theory of expected utility, specifically focusing on the influence of food packaging elements. It further explores consumer intentions regarding the sorting of packaging waste in the context of China. The following discussion will be structured according to the sequence of the research model and the verification of hypotheses through structural equation modeling, along with the results obtained. The paper concludes with the following findings:
Firstly, among the relevant factors in food packaging design, visual attributes and materials, functional information, and educational functions serve as items for perceived quality. These aspects reflect consumers’ direct impressions of food packaging and their perception of product quality through food packaging. This consideration aligns with Silayoi’s viewpoint on packaging perception [77]. Additionally, consumers’ expectations regarding products significantly and positively influence their perceived quality (T = 8.55, p < 0.05), indicating that the impact of expectations on perceived quality is direct and significant. This conclusion is consistent with the perspectives of Anderson, Goering, and Kopalle [78,79,80] regarding the direct influence on perceived quality.
Moreover, consumers’ expectations positively and significantly affect their perceived value of products (T = 5.415, p < 0.05), indicating that higher expectations correlate with greater perceived value. This suggests that the recognition of value and motivational intensity also increase accordingly. This aligns with the views of Chang, Dodds, and Zeithaml [49,81,82] regarding the direct and significant impact of expectations on perceived value. Furthermore, consumers’ expectations have a positive and significant effect (T = 3.144, p < 0.05) on consumer satisfaction, suggesting that greater expectations lead to higher levels of satisfaction. This aligns with the significant perspectives of Anderson, Habel, and Oliver [44,83,84] regarding how expectations impact consumer satisfaction. Additionally, consumer expectations and satisfaction form from actual experiences (perceived value) compared to those expectations. It indicates that higher expectations must align with consumer perceptions to result in high satisfaction. From the model data, there is a correlation between expectations and perceived value (T = 5.415, p < 0.05); perceived value and consumer satisfaction (T = 3.838, p < 0.05), supporting Hypotheses H2 and H6. This viewpoint is consistent with Anderson, Habel, and Oliver’s theory on consumer satisfaction arising from the comparison of direct experience to expectations [44,83,84].
Furthermore, perceived quality has a significant correlation with perceived value (T = 1.984, p < 0.05), indicating perceived quality is a critical factor influencing consumers’ perceived value; high perceived quality directly elevates perceived value. This aligns with Snoj and Zeithaml’s findings on the relationship between perceived quality and perceived value [49,85]. However, the hypothesis correlating perceived quality and consumer satisfaction does not hold, suggesting no direct influence. Different studies in this research area reveal varied outcomes regarding the relationship between perceived quality and consumer satisfaction. For instance, Kussudyarsana concluded that in cosmetics, perceived quality directly affects consumer satisfaction [86]. Conversely, Tarumingkeng found that in the automotive sector, perceived quality does not significantly impact consumer satisfaction [87].
These varying conclusions across distinct product categories imply that the direct relationship between perceived quality and consumer satisfaction may differ. In the food packaging domain, the significance between perceived quality and consumer satisfaction is also noted. Ardyan et al. assert that perceived quality of packaging can directly influence consumer trust and satisfaction [88]. However, Mubarrok’s study found that packaging had no significant impact on consumer satisfaction [89]. This suggests that perceived quality in the food packaging sector exhibits some variability regarding consumer satisfaction. Based on the survey and data analysis presented in this paper, the notion that consumer satisfaction directly hinges on the perceived quality of food products appears somewhat unreasonable. This is because perceived quality represents a subjective evaluation [90,91], and in the food sector, actual value holds greater importance. A direct relationship exists between subjective perceptions of quality and objective satisfaction derived from real experiences, rendering the reasoning logically flawed. Therefore, consumer satisfaction emerges from the interplay of perceived quality and the differences in actual experience. This perspective aligns with Anderson’s findings [84]. Consequently, perceived value acts as a mediating variable between perceived quality and consumer satisfaction, confirming Hypotheses H4 and H6. It indicates that the perceived value from actual consumer experiences directly influences satisfaction. This aligns with the views of Adly and Sulivyo [92,93]. The hypothesis that perceived value indirectly affects consumer satisfaction stands validated. This is consistent with Tarn’s findings [23]. Additionally, consumer satisfaction exerts a significant positive influence on consumers’ intentions regarding waste sorting (T = 40.668, p < 0.05).
Finally, the reward mechanism acts as a moderating variable, significantly influencing the relationship between expectations and perceived quality (T = 2.391, p < 0.05), as well as between perceived quality and perceived value (T = 1.984, p < 0.05). The reward mechanism enhances consumers’ expectations and perceived quality of products, thereby increasing their recognition of these products. Additionally, the reward mechanism improves consumers’ perception of product quality and value, which in turn supports their recognition of the product’s value. Thus, the reward mechanism positively facilitates the enhancement of consumers’ perceptual abilities and strengthens their goal-directed awareness. This finding aligns with the perspectives of Hickey, Pleger, and Pooresmaeili regarding reward mechanisms [94,95]. Moreover, as a moderating variable, the reward mechanism shows no significant effects on the relationships between expectations and perceived value, expectations and consumer satisfaction, as well as perceived quality and consumer satisfaction. This is consistent with Tripathi’s view that incentives have no significant impact on consumer satisfaction [96]. Therefore, the reward mechanism guides consumer behavioral intentions as a form of attraction, yet it does not directly influence consumer value and satisfaction when compared to actual experiences.
The hypothesis that food packaging design in China can effectively promote consumers’ intentions to engage in waste sorting is both reasonable and significant. This is particularly evident in the expectations surrounding food packaging, which play a crucial role in shaping consumer perceptions of product value. Furthermore, the implementation of reward mechanisms serves to guide consumers’ attention towards and awareness of product quality, thereby enhancing their engagement. This conclusion offers valuable insights for the development of food packaging strategies aimed at fostering consumer waste sorting behaviors in China, contributing to efforts to mitigate food safety pollution and the waste of renewable resources in the region.

6. Theoretical Contributions and Practical Implications

This study focuses on the Chinese region, examining the hypothesized relational pathways between structures, and validating the path relationships based on the expectation theory model regarding consumers’ intentions to engage in waste sorting behaviors influenced by food packaging design factors. In China, as environmental awareness continues to rise, waste sorting has become a focal point of societal concern. Against this backdrop, the research simulates the waste sorting behavioral intentions of consumers in the Chinese region by integrating food packaging factors with consumer satisfaction and waste sorting behavioral intentions. The validation indicates that the quality of food packaging directly impacts consumers’ expectations and perceived quality in China, which in turn affects their perceived value and experience of products, ultimately influencing their environmentally friendly waste sorting behaviors.
(1)
From a practical perspective, high-quality food packaging in China can significantly enhance consumers’ sense of value and satisfaction. The results from the model validation clearly demonstrate the significance of expectations and perceived quality on value, the significance of expectations and value on satisfaction, and the significance of satisfaction on waste sorting behavioral intentions. This indicates that the activation of consumer behavioral intentions in China is a result of the interplay between intrinsic and extrinsic environmental factors. The higher the expectations consumers have regarding food packaging, the greater their satisfaction, and the stronger their recognition of the concepts and attitudes conveyed by the packaging. Consequently, consumers’ intentions to engage in waste sorting behaviors become increasingly proactive.
(2)
From a theoretical perspective, this study reaffirms the impact of food packaging factors on consumer perception in the Chinese context, as well as the significance of consumers’ intentions to engage in waste sorting behaviors influenced by food packaging. Furthermore, the incorporation of reward value as a moderating variable represents a theoretical innovation of this paper, demonstrating the guiding role of reward mechanisms in food packaging for Chinese consumers. To some extent, the emergence of this new model can provide valuable insights for the development of food packaging design in China, facilitating continuous innovation within the industry under the principles of environmental sustainability.
(3)
The aim of this research extends beyond merely assessing the relationship between food packaging factors and consumer satisfaction and behavioral intentions in China through the establishment of hypothesized path coefficients. It also seeks to provide a theoretical framework for future analyses of how food packaging can guide consumer behavioral intentions in the Chinese market. Consequently, future theoretical research will not be influenced by a series of research subjects. On one hand, the results of this study can be utilized to validate the theoretical model linking food packaging factors with consumer satisfaction and behavioral intentions in China; on the other hand, this research offers a valuable structural reference for the study of the relationship between food packaging and consumers in the Chinese context.
Simultaneously, based on quantitative analysis, this study provides references and suggestions on how to enhance consumer satisfaction and influence consumer behavioral intentions in the Chinese region through the impact of food packaging factors. The findings contribute to the development of visual elements, material selection, functional information, and educational functions in food packaging within China. From the research results, a key consideration in food packaging design in China is how to improve consumers’ intentions regarding waste sorting behavior. In light of this, the application and integration of food packaging factors are particularly crucial in China, necessitating packaging design tailored to the attributes of different food products. Employing food packaging elements and incentive strategies can attract more Chinese consumers to focus on environmental protection and waste sorting. Furthermore, mitigating adverse factors in food packaging for Chinese consumers can enhance their experience, reflecting a greater recognition of environmental values through packaging, ultimately fostering intentions for waste sorting behavior. Therefore, to engage Chinese consumers in environmental protection and waste sorting, innovative design in food packaging is of paramount importance. Consequently, the effects and objectives presented in food packaging design should more effectively encourage consumers in the Chinese region to alter their perspectives on waste sorting behavior and adopt a more environmentally friendly lifestyle, which is the aim and expectation of this research.

7. Conclusions and Suggestions

7.1. Conclusions

This study delves into the impact of food packaging factors on consumer satisfaction and the intention to engage in waste sorting behaviors, providing corresponding models and data. In the context of rapid economic development and rising living standards in China, the food packaging industry has been expanding significantly, leading to increasingly severe issues related to food packaging pollution and the waste of renewable resources. Against this backdrop, a thorough investigation of the relevant influences of food packaging factors holds substantial practical significance.
The research positions food packaging factors as indicators of perceived quality, utilizing antecedent variables such as expectations and perceived quality, alongside mediating variables like perceived value and consumer satisfaction, and incorporating reward mechanisms as moderating variables. This comprehensive approach reflects consumers’ intentions regarding waste sorting behaviors. In China, the inclusion of guidance on waste sorting and environmentally friendly practices within food packaging can positively contribute to public health services. Through sustained guidance and transformation, consumer awareness of waste sorting will continue to improve, effectively addressing the challenges associated with changing consumer waste sorting methods. Furthermore, this will significantly promote the green and sustainable development of food packaging, encouraging a shift in consumer behavior from wastefulness to conservation and environmental responsibility, thereby playing a proactive role in curbing food packaging pollution and the waste of renewable resources in China.
In future research directions, we can effectively leverage packaging design to further advance its development in areas such as public health and hygiene, assisting Chinese consumers in making healthier choices and adopting more environmentally friendly lifestyles. From the perspective of food packaging itself, optimized packaging design not only enhances brand recognition and increases brand influence but also reduces environmental pollution caused by food packaging through measures such as minimizing excessive packaging and utilizing biodegradable materials, thereby achieving effective resource utilization and recycling. Additionally, with the continuous growth of e-commerce in China, the demands for food packaging are becoming increasingly stringent, making the educational aspect of packaging design particularly significant. By incorporating environmental concepts and waste sorting knowledge into packaging design, we can raise consumer awareness of environmental protection and encourage their active participation in eco-friendly initiatives. Therefore, the data and conclusions from this research hold substantial reference value for promoting the development of food packaging design in China, as well as addressing issues related to food packaging pollution and the waste of renewable resources. Furthermore, the factors associated with food packaging have a significant relationship with Chinese consumers’ satisfaction and behavioral intentions, and they exert a lasting influence on the principles of conservation and waste sorting behaviors. This provides valuable insights and references for packaging designers to better present and articulate their design concepts.

7.2. Future Research Suggestions

This study has certain limitations and shortcomings. The questionnaire data for this research was collected online, and due to the predominance of younger individuals in the online survey population, there may be a bias in the demographic characteristics of the sample, with a smaller representation of adolescents and the elderly. In China, adolescents represent the hope for future society, and fostering their awareness of waste sorting should begin at this stage; conversely, the elderly, due to their more entrenched lifestyles and habits, tend to be slower in accepting emerging environmentally friendly concepts and practices. As China has entered an aging society, the elderly will constitute a significant portion of the population in the future. Therefore, it is crucial to pay more attention to these two consumer groups—adolescents and the elderly—to enhance the research on the impact of food packaging factors, providing a more comprehensive basis for addressing issues related to food packaging pollution and the waste of renewable resources.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.M. and C.Y.; methodology, J.M.; formal analysis, J.M., L.Z. and C.Y.; data curation, J.M.; writing—original draft preparation, J.M.; writing—review and editing, J.M., L.Z. and C.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the School of Fine Arts, Nanjing Normal University (ID:NO.NNU SFA-E-2024-005 and 19 June 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

The study was approved by the School of Fine Arts Nanjing Normal University with ID:NO.NNU SFA-E-2024-005. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study and their privacy rights were strictly upheld. Personal information was kept confidential throughout the research process. Participant were informed of the voluntary nature of their participation and had the right to withdraw at any time. All respondents were adults and none were minors.

Data Availability Statement

The data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Meyers, G.D.; McLeod, G.; Anbarci, M.A. An international waste convention: Measures for achieving sustainable development. Waste Manag. Res. 2006, 24, 505–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Kellenberg, D.; Levinson, A. Waste of Effort? Int. Environ. Agreem. 2014, 1, 135–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Rogoff, M. ‘Sustainable materials management’: A new international solid waste paradigm. Waste Manag. Res. 2013, 31, 1187–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Rafey, A.; Siddiqui, F.Z. A review of plastic waste management in India—Challenges and opportunities. Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 2023, 103, 3971–3987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ncube, L.K.; Ude, A.U.; Ogunmuyiwa, E.N.; Zulkifli, R.; Beas, I.N. An Overview of Plastic Waste Generation and Management in Food Packaging Industries. Recycling 2021, 6, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Geyer, R.; Jambeck, J.R.; Law, K.L. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, e1700782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yates, J.; Deeney, M.; White, H.; Joy, E.; Kalamatianou, S.; Kadiyala, S. PROTOCOL: Plastics in the food system: Human health, economic and environmental impacts. A scoping review. Campbell Syst. Rev. 2019, 15, e1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Subha Pradha, S.; Saranya, K. Recycling Plastic Waste into Construction Materials for Sustainability. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2023, 1210, 012016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, P.; Peng, H. Green Food Packaging Industry to Explore and Analyze. Int. J. Nat. Resour. Environ. Stud. (IJNRES) 2024, 3, 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Brennan, L.; Francis, C.; Jenkins, E.L.; Schivinski, B.; Jackson, M.; Florence, E.; Parker, L.; Langley, S.; Lockrey, S.; Verghese, K.; et al. Consumer Perceptions of Food Packaging in Its Role in Fighting Food Waste. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1917. [Google Scholar]
  11. Obersteiner, G.; Cociancig, M.; Luck, S.; Mayerhofer, J. Impact of optimized packaging on food waste prevention potential among consumers. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nemat, B.; Razzaghi, M.; Bolton, K.; Rousta, K. The Role of Food Packaging Design in Consumer Recycling Behavior—A Literature Review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Nemat, B.; Razzaghi, M.; Bolton, K.; Rousta, K. The Influence of Food Packaging on Consumers Sorting Behavior. J. Coast. Zone Manag. 2020, 23, 4. [Google Scholar]
  14. Yokokawa, N.; Kikuchi-Uehara, E.; Amasawa, E.; Sugiyama, H.; Hirao, M. Environmental analysis of packaging-derived changes in food production and consumer behavior. J. Ind. Ecol. 2019, 23, 1253–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Buelow, S.; Lewis, H.; Sonneveld, K. The role of labels in directing consumer packaging waste. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2010, 21, 198–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jeżewska-Zychowicz, M.; Jeznach, M. Consumers’ behaviours related to packaging and their attitudes towards environment. J. Agribus. Rural Dev. 2015, 37, 447–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ren, M. Optimal designing of incentive mechanism for producers taking back and recycling waste products. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE International Conference on Information Science and Technology, Wuhan, China, 23–25 March 2012; pp. 765–770. [Google Scholar]
  18. Lord, K.R. Motivating recycling behavior: A quasiexperimental investigation of message and source strategies. Psychol. Mark. 1994, 11, 341–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Xiao, L.; Fan, R.; Wang, C.; Wang, J. Policy Analyses on Promoting the Recycling of Express Packages. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tran, V.D.; Le, N.M.T. Economics; Business. Impact of Service Quality and Perceived Value on Customer Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions: Evidence from Convenience Stores in Vietnam. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2020, 7, 517–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bảo, N.; Nguyet, N. The Impact of Perceived Value on Consumers’ Positive Word-of-mouth Intention Toward Energy-efficient Appliances. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2024, 14, 383–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tam, J. Customer Satisfaction, Service Quality and Perceived Value: An Integrative Model. J. Mark. Manag. 2004, 20, 897–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tarn, J.L. The Effects of Service Quality, Perceived Value and Customer Satisfaction on Behavioral Intentions. J. Hosp. Leis. Mark. 1999, 6, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fan, C.L.; Su, Y.L.; Chang, S.T.; Liu, D.Y. Exploring How Referral Reward Program Design Affects Consumer Intent to Purchase from a Recipient Perspective. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2014, 9, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhang, Y.; Niu, Y.; Chen, Z.; Deng, X.; Wu, B.; Chen, Y. Money matters? Effect of reward types on customers’ review behaviors. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2023, 18, 391–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lin, T.T.; Yeh, Y.-Q.; Hsu, S.-Y. Analysis of the Effects of Perceived Value, Price Sensitivity, Word-of-Mouth, and Customer Satisfaction on Repurchase Intentions of Safety Shoes under the Consideration of Sustainability. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Oliver, R.L. Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings. J. Retail. 1981, 57, 25–48. [Google Scholar]
  28. Fornell, C.; David, F. Larcker. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Fornell, C.; Johnson, M.D.; Anderson, E.W.; Cha, J.; Bryant, B.E. The American Customer Satisfaction Index: Nature, Purpose, and Findings. J. Mark. 1996, 60, 17–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nemat, B.; Razzaghi, M.; Bolton, K.; Rousta, K. The Potential of Food Packaging Attributes to Influence Consumers’ Decisions to Sort Waste. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yulianto, E. The mediating role of perceived value between product description and repurchase intention. J. Southwest Jiaotong Univ. 2022, 57, 156–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dantas, M.; Minim, V.; Deliza, R.; Puschmann, R. The Effect of Packaging on the Perception of Minimally Processed Products. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2004, 16, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Marques da Rosa, V.; Spence, C.; Miletto Tonetto, L. Influences of visual attributes of food packaging on consumer preference and associations with taste and healthiness. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2019, 43, 210–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hassan, A.A.M.; Musa, Z.K.C.; Muhamad, M.; Abdullah, A.R.; Yunoh, M.N.M.; Muhammad, M.Z.J.S.S.T. A Study on Visual Packaging Elements as an Influencing Factor on Consumer Purchasing Decision. Solid State Technol. 2020, 63, 6332–6342. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ahmadi, G.; Bahrami, H.R.; Ahani, M. An investigation of visual components of packaging on food consumer behavior. Bus. Econ. Res. 2013, 3, 1. [Google Scholar]
  36. Boz, Z.; Korhonen, V.; Koelsch Sand, C. Consumer Considerations for the Implementation of Sustainable Packaging: A Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Huang, L.; Lu, J. The Impact of Package Color and the Nutrition Content Labels on the Perception of Food Healthiness and Purchase Intention. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2015, 22, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ankiel, M.; Grzybowska-Brzezińska, M. Informative Value of Packaging as a Determinant of Food Purchase, Marketing of Scientific and Research Organizations. Mark. Sci. Res. Organ. 2020, 36, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zeng, T. Impacts of consumers’ perceived risks in eco-design packaging on food wastage behaviors. Br. Food J. 2021, 124, 2512–2532. [Google Scholar]
  40. Zeng, T.; Durif, F.; Robinot, E. Can eco-design packaging reduce consumer food waste? an experimental study. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 162, 120342. [Google Scholar]
  41. Iyer, E.S.; Kashyap, R.K. Consumer recycling: Role of incentives, information, and social class. J. Consum. Behav. 2007, 6, 32–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Langley, J.; Turner, N.; Yoxall, A. Attributes of packaging and influences on waste. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2011, 24, 161–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Silvenius, F.; Grönman, K.; Katajajuuri, J.-M.; Soukka, R.; Koivupuro, H.-K.; Virtanen, Y. The Role of Household Food Waste in Comparing Environmental Impacts of Packaging Alternatives. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2014, 27, 277–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Oliver, R.L. A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions. J. Mark. Res. 1980, 17, 460–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hamer, L.O. A confirmation perspective on perceived service quality. J. Serv. Mark. 2006, 20, 219–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kenyon, G.; Sen, K. A Model for Assessing Consumer Perceptions of Quality. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci. 2012, 4, 175–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Olshavsky, R.W.; Kumar, A. Revealing the Actual Roles of Expectations in Consumer Satisfaction with Experience and Credence Goods. J. Consum. Satisf. Dissatisf. Complain. Behav. 2001, 14, 60. [Google Scholar]
  48. Pedraja Iglesias, M.; Jesus Yagüe Guillén, M. Perceived quality and price: Their impact on the satisfaction of restaurant customers. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2004, 16, 373–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zeithaml, V.A. Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence. J. Mark. 1988, 52, 2–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Samudro, A.; Sumarwan, U.; Simanjuntak, M.; Yusuf, E.Z. Assessing the effects of perceived quality and perceived value on customer satisfaction. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2020, 10, 1077–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Patterson, P.G.; Spreng, R.A. Modelling the relationship between perceived value, satisfaction and repurchase intentions in a business-to-business, services context: An empirical examination. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 1997, 8, 414–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Eggert, A.; Ulaga, W. Customer perceived value: A substitute for satisfaction in business markets? J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2002, 17, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ali, R.; Ahmed, M.S. The Impact of Reward And Recognition Programs on Employee’s Motivation and Satisfaction: An Empirical Study. Int. Rev. Bus. Res. Pap. 2009, 5, 270–279. [Google Scholar]
  54. Eisenberger, R.; Rhoades, L.; Cameron, J. Does Pay for Performance Increase or Decrease Perceived Self-Determination and Intrinsic Motivation? J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1999, 77, 1026–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Galaro, J.K.; Celnik, P.; Chib, V.S. Motor Cortex Excitability Reflects the Subjective Value of Reward and Mediates Its Effects on Incentive-Motivated Performance. J. Neurosci. 2018, 39, 1236–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Rakhshan, M.; Lee, V.; Chu, E.; Harris, L.; Laiks, L.S.; Khorsand, P.; Soltani, A.J.b. Influence of expected reward on perceptual decision making. bioRxiv 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychol. Inq. 2000, 11, 227–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Deci, E.L. Effects of Externally Mediated Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1971, 18, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Xia, L.; Kukar-Kinney, M. Examining the Penalty Resolution Process:Building Loyalty Through Gratitude and Fairness. J. Serv. Res. 2013, 16, 518–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jackson, D.L. Revisiting Sample Size and Number of Parameter Estimates: Some Support for the N:q Hypothesis. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 2003, 10, 128–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Oviedo, H.C.; Campo-Arias, A. Metodología de investigación y lectura crítica de estudios Aproximación al uso del coeficiente alfa. Rev. Colomb. Psiquiatr. 2005, 34, 572–580. [Google Scholar]
  62. Wei, H.; Juan, J.; Ying, Z. Analysis on reliability and validity of resident’s satisfaction survey for community health services of Guangzhou. Chin. J. Public Health 2012, 28, 244–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Campos, J.A.D.B.; Bonafé, F.S.S.; Dovigo, L.N.; Marôco, J. Avaliação psicométrica da escala de atitudes em relação à estatística. Revista Brasileira de Biometria. Rev. Bras. Biom. 2013, 31, 327–337. [Google Scholar]
  64. Yordanova, B.; Krastev, L.J. Factorial Structure and Differential Features of Aesthetic Preferences. Psychol. Thought 2018, 11, 112–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Dyer, D.D.; Keating, J.P. On the Determination of Critical Values for Bartlett’s Test. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1980, 75, 313–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Feng, X.; Chen, X. Reliability and Validity of New General Self-efficacy Scale(NGSSE). J. Mudanjiang Norm. Univ. (Philos. Soc. Ences Ed.) 2012, 127–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Liang, L.H.; Ali Khan, M.N.A. Exploring Items for Measuring the Sales and Service Tax (SST) Compliance Constructs using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) Procedure. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2024, 14, 1312–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Elias, S.; Pandiyan, V.; Sundram, L.K.; Ismail, N. Exploring the Items for Measuring e-Procurement Usage Construct: An Exploratory Factor Analysis. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2020, 10, 822–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Haykin, S. Cognitive radio: Brain-empowered wireless communications. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 2005, 23, 201–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. dos Santos, P.M.; Cirillo, M.Â. Construction of the average variance extracted index for construct validation in structural equation models with adaptive regressions. Commun. Stat. Simul. Comput. 2023, 52, 1639–1650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Gelman, A.; Stern, H. The Difference Between “Significant” and “Not Significant” is not Itself Statistically Significant. Am. Stat. 2006, 60, 328–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ximénez, C.; Maydeu-Olivares, A.; Shi, D.; Revuelta, J. Assessing Cutoff Values of SEM Fit Indices: Advantages of the Unbiased SRMR Index and Its Cutoff Criterion Based on Communality. Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 2022, 29, 368–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Bader, M.; Moshagen, M. Assessing the Fitting Propensity of Factor Models. Psychol. Methods, 2022; Advance online publication. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Japutra, A.; Kumar Roy, S.; Pham, T.-A.N. Relating brand anxiety, brand hatred and obsess: Moderating role of age and brand affection. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 60, 102465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Gowen, A.A.; Downey, G.; Esquerre, C.; O’Donnell, C.P. Preventing over-fitting in PLS calibration models of near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy data using regression coefficients. J. Chemom. 2011, 25, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ashfaq, M.; Zhang, Q.; Ali, F.; Waheed, A.; Nawaz, S. You plant a virtual tree, we’ll plant a real tree: Understanding users’ adoption of the Ant Forest mobile gaming application from a behavioral reasoning theory perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 310, 127394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Silayoi, P.; Speece, M. The importance of packaging attributes: A conjoint analysis approach. Eur. J. Mark. 2007, 41, 1495–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Anderson, R.E. Consumer Dissatisfaction: The Effect of Disconfirmed Expectancy on Perceived Product Performance. J. Mark. Res. 1973, 10, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Goering, P.A. Effects of Product Trial on Consumer Expectations, Demand, and Prices. J. Consum. Res. 1985, 12, 74–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kopalle, P.K.; Lehmann, D.R. The Effects of Advertised and Observed Quality on Expectations about New Product Quality. J. Mark. Res. 1995, 32, 280–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Chang, T.-Z.; Wildt, A.R. Price, product information, and purchase intention: An empirical study. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1994, 22, 16–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Dodds, W.B.; Monroe, K.B.; Grewal, D. Effects of Price, Brand, and Store Information on Buyers’ Product Evaluations. J. Mark. Res. 1991, 28, 307–319. [Google Scholar]
  83. Habel, J.; Alavi, S.; Schmitz, C.; Schneider, J.-V.; Wieseke, J. When Do Customers Get What They Expect? Understanding the Ambivalent Effects of Customers’ Service Expectations on Satisfaction. J. Serv. Res. 2016, 19, 361–379. [Google Scholar]
  84. Anderson, E.W.; Sullivan, M.W. The Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction for Firms. Mark. Sci. 1993, 12, 125–143. [Google Scholar]
  85. Snoj, B.; Pisnik Korda, A.; Mumel, D. The relationships among perceived quality, perceived risk and perceived product value. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2004, 13, 156–167. [Google Scholar]
  86. Kussudyarsana, K.; Indraswari, N.R. The Impact of Hedonic, Utilitarian Value, and Perceived Quality Toward Costumer Loyalty in Cosmetic Industry. JBMP (J. Bisnis Manaj. Perbank.) 2022, 8, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Tarumingkeng, P.J. Analisis Pengaruh Persepsi Kualitas Terhadap Kepuasan Dan Loyalitas Pelanggan. J. Ris. Bisnis Manaj. 2019, 7, 433–454. [Google Scholar]
  88. Ardyan, E.; Tanus, E.D.; Sani, F.A.; Marselinus, S.C. Customer satisfaction during the post covid-19 pandemic: Testing the effect of food quality, packaging, and customer trust. Rev. Manag. Entrep. 2023, 7, 271–292. [Google Scholar]
  89. Mubarrok, M.I. Pengaruh kualitas produk, kepercayaan merek dan kemasan terhadap niat beli supermi di surabaya. Doctoral dissertation, Universitas Hayam Wuruk Perbanas, Surabaya, Indonesia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  90. Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.; Berry, L.L. SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. J. Retail. 1988, 64, 12–40. [Google Scholar]
  91. Vantamay, S. Understanding of Perceived Product Quality: Reviews and Recommendations. BUAcademic Rev. 2008, 6, 110–118. [Google Scholar]
  92. El-Adly, M.I. Modelling the relationship between hotel perceived value, customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 50, 322–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Sulivyo, L. Consumer Value, Consumer Experience And Consumer Satisfaction. J. Cafe. 2021, 2, 36–47. [Google Scholar]
  94. Hickey, C.; Chelazzi, L.; Theeuwes, J. Reward Changes Salience in Human Vision via the Anterior Cingulate. J. Neurosci. 2010, 30, 11096–11103. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  95. Pooresmaeili, A.; FitzGerald, T.H.B.; Bach, D.R.; Toelch, U.; Ostendorf, F.; Dolan, R.J. Cross-modal effects of value on perceptual acuity and stimulus encoding. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 15244–15249. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  96. Tripathi, K.N. Impact of employee training and monetary rewards on customer satisfaction. TIJ’s Res. J. Econ. Bus. Stud.–RJEBS 2017, 7. Available online: https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/impact-of-employee-training-and-monetary-rewards-on-customer-satisfaction/82260248 (accessed on 22 November 2024).
Sustainability 17 01893 g001
Figure 1. Structural equation model.
Figure 1. Structural equation model.
Sustainability 17 01893 g001
Sustainability 17 01893 g002
Figure 2. Hypothesis test results.
Figure 2. Hypothesis test results.
Sustainability 17 01893 g002
Sustainability 17 01893 g003
Figure 3. The regulating effect of reward mechanism on consumers’ expectation and perceived quality.
Figure 3. The regulating effect of reward mechanism on consumers’ expectation and perceived quality.
Sustainability 17 01893 g003
Sustainability 17 01893 g004
Figure 4. The moderating effect of reward mechanism on perceived quality and perceived value.
Figure 4. The moderating effect of reward mechanism on perceived quality and perceived value.
Sustainability 17 01893 g004
Table 2. Demographic profile of sample (n = 255).
Table 2. Demographic profile of sample (n = 255).
ParameterCategoryNumberPercentage %
GenderMale13552.9
Female12047.1
AgeUnder 245320.8
25–346123.9
35–449135.7
45–54228.6
Over 552811
OccupationStudent2911.4
Freelance or self-employed239
Public official or public institution17066.7
Others3312.9
Where to buy packaged foodSmall supermarket4517.6
hypermarket11243.9
Online shopping7529.4
Whether the same food will choose green packaging designTake-out239
Choose only recyclable packaging6726.3
Always choose recyclable packaging11043.1
Recyclable packaging is rarely chosen5622
Almost no choice of recyclable packaging228.6
How to dispose of food packaging wasteDiscard at will3614.1
Throw in the trash14958.4
Segregate and place according to garbage category7027.5
Do you feel hesitation or pity about the packaging without garbage sortingWill9336.5
Only a little8031.4
Hardly5923.1
Not at all239
Table 3. Reliability analysis results (n = 255).
Table 3. Reliability analysis results (n = 255).
DimensionItemsCorrected Item-to-Total CorrelationCronbach’s α If Item DeletedCronbach’s α
ETET10.670.7480.817
ET20.6710.748
ET30.6680.749
PQPQ10.6620.7760.825
PQ20.6850.752
PQ30.6930.745
PVPV10.6300.7090.787
PV20.6400.698
PV30.6120.728
CSCS10.6180.7180.786
CS20.6320.703
CS30.6260.709
BIBI10.6180.7440.796
BI20.6480.712
BI30.6510.709
RMRM10.6770.7470.819
RM20.6790.745
RM30.6620.762
Table 4. Exploratory factor analysis result (n = 255).
Table 4. Exploratory factor analysis result (n = 255).
DimensionItemsKMOBartlett Sphericity TestFactor LoadingCommonalityEigenvalueTotal Variation Explained %
ETET10.71900.8560.7332.19773.238
ET20.8560.733
ET30.8550.731
PQPQ10.72000.8490.7212.22174.040
PQ20.8640.746
PQ30.8680.754
PVPV10.70500.8400.7052.10570.179
PV20.8460.716
PV30.8270.684
CSCS10.70600.8320.6932.10170.041
CS20.8410.707
CS30.8370.701
BIBI10.70800.8290.6872.13171.026
BI20.8490.721
BI30.8500.723
RMRM10.71900.8600.7392.20473.460
RM20.8610.742
RM30.8500.723
Table 5. Construct validity and reliability (n = 225).
Table 5. Construct validity and reliability (n = 225).
ParametersComposite Reliability
(CR) 		Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
RM0.8920.735
PQ0.8950.74
ET0.8910.732
CS0.8750.7
BI0.880.71
PV0.8760.702
Table 6. Correlation coefficient and average extraction variance (n = 255).
Table 6. Correlation coefficient and average extraction variance (n = 255).
Latent VariableBICSETPQPVRM
BI0.843
CS0.8110.837
ET0.8230.8070.856
PQ0.8050.7670.8280.86
PV0.8260.8020.8350.7930.838
RM−0.796−0.766−0.807−0.781−0.8050.857
Table 7. Model fit measures.
Table 7. Model fit measures.
Common Indicesd-ULSd-GSRMRNFI
Criteria<0.95<0.95<0.08>0.8
Values0.4900.4250.0540.821
Table 8. Hypothesis model path relationship test.
Table 8. Hypothesis model path relationship test.
HypothesisPathCo-EfficientT Statisticsp ValuesDecision
H1ET → PQ0.5178.5500Accept
H2ET → PV0.3605.4150Accept
H3ET → CS0.2503.1440.002Accept
H4PQ → PV0.2023.3010.001Accept
H5PQ → CS0.1401.8840.060Not Accept
H6PV → CS0.2763.8380Accept
H7CS → BI0.81140.6680Accept
H8aRM × ET → PQ0.1172.3910.017Accept
H8bRM × ET → PV−0.0020.0420.967Not Accept
H8cRM × ET → CS0.0901.1870.235Not Accept
H8dRM × PQ → PV0.1211.9840.047Accept
H8eRM × PQ → CS0.0570.6670.499Not Accept
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mu, J.; Zhou, L.; Yang, C. The Influence Mechanism of Food Packaging Factors on Consumers’ Intentions Regarding Waste Sorting Behavior in China. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1893. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17051893

AMA Style

Mu J, Zhou L, Yang C. The Influence Mechanism of Food Packaging Factors on Consumers’ Intentions Regarding Waste Sorting Behavior in China. Sustainability. 2025; 17(5):1893. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17051893

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mu, Juncheng, Linglin Zhou, and Chun Yang. 2025. "The Influence Mechanism of Food Packaging Factors on Consumers’ Intentions Regarding Waste Sorting Behavior in China" Sustainability 17, no. 5: 1893. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17051893

APA Style

Mu, J., Zhou, L., & Yang, C. (2025). The Influence Mechanism of Food Packaging Factors on Consumers’ Intentions Regarding Waste Sorting Behavior in China. Sustainability, 17(5), 1893. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17051893

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop