| Literature DB >> 33924311 |
Abstract
The promotion of green housings (GHs) is considered a potentially effective way to save energy, reduce air pollution, and promote industrial upgrading. However, the low level of public acceptance of GHs leads to insufficient GH market penetration in China. Thus, it is significant to explore GH purchase decisions to understand and enhance the market demand for GHs effectively. From an extended perspective of perceived value, this study proposes a comprehensive research model that integrates residents' perceptions and personal traits to examine the influencing mechanism of residents' intention to purchase GHs. The proposed model is empirically tested using data collected from 728 urban residents in China. The results reveal that perceived value is a crucial predictor of GH purchase intention. All dimensions of perceived benefits-including perceived functional benefits, perceived emotional benefits, perceived green benefits, and perceived social benefits-have a positive influence on perceived value, while perceived performance risks have a negative influence on perceived value. Two types of personal traits, namely, environmental concern and social trust, significantly affect residents' perceived benefits and perceived risks. The findings contribute to a more in-depth analysis of the effects of residents' perceptions and personal traits on GH purchase behavior. Furthermore, suggestions for policymakers and developers on popularizing GHs are proposed.Entities:
Keywords: green housing; perceived value; personal trait; purchase intention; residents’ perception
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33924311 PMCID: PMC8069697 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18084074
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Research model of green house (GH) purchase intention.
Measurement items.
| Construct | Item | Measurement |
|---|---|---|
| Purchase intention | PI1 | Compared with the traditional housings, I would prefer to GHs. |
| PI2 | The next time I purchase a house, I would give priority to GHs. | |
| PI3 | I would like to recommend friends to purchase GHs. | |
| Perceived value | PV1 | Compared to the sacrifice that I need to make, GHs are worthwhile. |
| PV2 | GHs are considered to be a good buy. | |
| PV3 | Overall, GHs deliver me good value. | |
| Perceived functional benefit | PFB1 | GHs are conducive to improve the residents’ living comfort at home. |
| PFB2 | GHs are beneficial to improve the residents’ health conditions. | |
| PFB3 | GHs are useful to reduce household expenditures, such as water and electricity charges. | |
| PFB4 | GHs are favorable to improve the residents’ quality of living. | |
| Perceived emotional benefit | PEB1 | Living in GHs would be enjoyable. |
| PEB2 | Living in GHs would give me pleasure. | |
| PEB3 | Living in GHs would make me feel relaxed. | |
| PEB4 | Living in GHs would bring me a sense of harmony with nature. | |
| Perceived green benefit | PGB1 | GHs contribute to the prevention of climate warming. |
| PGB2 | GHs contribute to the reduction in the carbon footprint. | |
| PGB3 | GHs contribute to environmental protection. | |
| PGB4 | GHs contribute to the reduction in environmental pollution. | |
| PGB5 | GHs contribute to the reduction in consumption of natural resource. | |
| Perceived social benefit | PSB1 | Living in GHs would improve the way I am perceived. |
| PSB2 | Living in GHs would gain me social approval. | |
| PSB3 | Living in GHs would make a good impression on others. | |
| PSB4 | Living in GHs would help me to feel acceptable to others. | |
| Perceived performance risk | PPR1 | GHs may fall short of the level of benefits I expect. |
| PPR2 | GHs may not work satisfactorily due to a low level of operation and management. | |
| PPR3 | GHs may not perform the functions that were described by the developer. | |
| PPR4 | GHs may not perform well and cause problems in my life. | |
| Perceived financial risk | PFR1 | I am concerned that GHs are too expensive to purchase. |
| PFR2 | I am concerned that GHs may have higher maintenance costs than traditional housing. | |
| PFR3 | I am concerned that GHs may have higher repair costs than traditional housing. | |
| PFR4 | I am concerned about suffering financial losses when purchasing and living in GHs. | |
| Environmental concern | EC1 | I am concerned about the environment. |
| EC2 | I am willing to make sacrifices to protect the environment. | |
| EC3 | I am emotionally involved in environmental protection issues. | |
| Social trust | ST1 | I trust the quality of assessment standards for GHs developed by the official authorities. |
| ST2 | I trust the experts’ evaluation in the GHs assessment process. | |
| ST3 | I trust the authenticity of application documents provided by the developers/investors/consultants. |
Demographic profile of participants.
| Category | Number | Percentage (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female | 361 | 49.6 |
| Male | 367 | 50.4 | |
| Age | 18–29 | 241 | 33.1 |
| 30–39 | 309 | 42.5 | |
| 40–49 | 131 | 18.0 | |
| 50–59 | 33 | 4.5 | |
| 60 and above | 14 | 1.9 | |
| Education level | High school and below | 56 | 7.7 |
| Junior college | 118 | 16.2 | |
| Bachelor | 418 | 57.4 | |
| Master’s degree or above | 136 | 18.7 | |
| Household income per year | Less than 10 | 135 | 18.6 |
| 10–15 | 156 | 21.4 | |
| 15–25 | 193 | 26.5 | |
| 25–50 | 180 | 24.7 | |
| More than 50 | 64 | 8.8 | |
Scale properties.
| Construct | Items | Standard Loadings | Cronbach’s α | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Purchase intention | PI1 | 0.933 | 0.911 | 0.944 | 0.850 |
| PI2 | 0.923 | ||||
| PI3 | 0.909 | ||||
| Perceived value | PV1 | 0.892 | 0.884 | 0.928 | 0.811 |
| PV2 | 0.904 | ||||
| PV3 | 0.906 | ||||
| Perceived functional benefit | PFB1 | 0.885 | 0.867 | 0.909 | 0.715 |
| PFB2 | 0.867 | ||||
| PFB3 | 0.819 | ||||
| PFB4 | 0.809 | ||||
| Perceived emotional benefit | PEB1 | 0.896 | 0.909 | 0.936 | 0.786 |
| PEB2 | 0.887 | ||||
| PEB3 | 0.891 | ||||
| PEB4 | 0.872 | ||||
| Perceived green benefit | PGB1 | 0.860 | 0.917 | 0.938 | 0.751 |
| PGB2 | 0.858 | ||||
| PGB3 | 0.880 | ||||
| PGB4 | 0.904 | ||||
| PGB5 | 0.829 | ||||
| Perceived social benefit | PSB1 | 0.886 | 0.927 | 0.948 | 0.821 |
| PSB2 | 0.920 | ||||
| PSB3 | 0.923 | ||||
| PSB4 | 0.892 | ||||
| Perceived performance risk | PPR1 | 0.882 | 0.927 | 0.947 | 0.818 |
| PPR2 | 0.923 | ||||
| PPR3 | 0.916 | ||||
| PPR4 | 0.897 | ||||
| Perceived financial risk | PFR1 | 0.890 | 0.925 | 0.946 | 0.815 |
| PFR2 | 0.919 | ||||
| PFR3 | 0.919 | ||||
| PFR4 | 0.882 | ||||
| Environmental concern | EC1 | 0.867 | 0.847 | 0.907 | 0.765 |
| EC2 | 0.884 | ||||
| EC3 | 0.873 | ||||
| Social trust | ST1 | 0.893 | 0.882 | 0.927 | 0.809 |
| ST2 | 0.927 | ||||
| ST3 | 0.878 |
Correlation coefficient matrix and square roots of average variances extracted (AVEs).
| PI | PV | PFB | PEB | PGB | PSB | PPR | PFR | EC | ST | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PI | 0.922 | |||||||||
| PV | 0.663 | 0.901 | ||||||||
| PFB | 0.471 | 0.493 | 0.846 | |||||||
| PEB | 0.536 | 0.546 | 0.481 | 0.887 | ||||||
| PGB | 0.437 | 0.475 | 0.473 | 0.543 | 0.867 | |||||
| PSB | 0.502 | 0.554 | 0.371 | 0.625 | 0.461 | 0.906 | ||||
| PRR | −0.217 | −0.251 | 0.006 | −0.057 | −0.061 | −0.175 | 0.905 | |||
| PFR | −0.164 | −0.144 | 0.101 | 0.079 | 0.037 | −0.053 | 0.667 | 0.903 | ||
| EC | 0.396 | 0.372 | 0.507 | 0.296 | 0.384 | 0.298 | −0.065 | 0.041 | 0.875 | |
| ST | 0.519 | 0.565 | 0.512 | 0.508 | 0.461 | 0.480 | −0.225 | −0.120 | 0.311 | 0.899 |
Note: Diagonal elements are the square root of AVE, and the others are the correlation between constructs.
Figure 2Results of hypothesis testing. Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001, n.s. nonsignificant.
Path analysis and significance verification of the structural models.
| Hypotheses | Path | Path Coefficient | Hypothesis Supported | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | PV→PI | 0.664 | 18.530 | 0.000 | Yes |
| H2a | PFB→PV | 0.256 | 5.014 | 0.000 | Yes |
| H2b | PEB→PV | 0.198 | 3.603 | 0.000 | Yes |
| H2c | PGB→PV | 0.127 | 2.583 | 0.010 | Yes |
| H2d | PSB→PV | 0.249 | 5.460 | 0.000 | Yes |
| H3a | PPR→PV | −0.130 | 2.641 | 0.008 | Yes |
| H3b | PFR→PV | −0.090 | 1.572 | 0.116 | No |
| H4a | EC→PEB | 0.153 | 4.069 | 0.000 | Yes |
| H4b | EC→PGB | 0.266 | 5.658 | 0.000 | Yes |
| H4c | EC→PSB | 0.165 | 4.584 | 0.000 | Yes |
| H4d | EC→PFR | 0.087 | 1.917 | 0.055 | No |
| H5a | ST→PFB | 0.512 | 15.290 | 0.000 | Yes |
| H5b | ST→PEB | 0.460 | 11.904 | 0.000 | Yes |
| H5c | ST→PGB | 0.379 | 9.712 | 0.000 | Yes |
| H5d | ST→PSB | 0.429 | 11.340 | 0.000 | Yes |
| H5e | ST→PPR | −0.225 | 5.793 | 0.000 | Yes |
| H5f | ST→PFR | −0.147 | 3.945 | 0.000 | Yes |
Total effects.
| Construct | Total Standardized Effects on GH Purchase Intention |
|---|---|
| PV | 0.664 |
| PFB | 0.170 |
| PEB | 0.131 |
| PGB | 0.084 |
| PSB | 0.165 |
| PPR | −0.086 |
| PFR | −0.060 |
| EC | 0.064 |
| ST | 0.278 |