Hello! In this week’s blog, I’ll be revealing the rest of my survey results!
Let’s recall… the topic of my blog is the AFFORDABILITY of a sustainable lifestyle! Of course, I would be conducting primary research on whether others felt the same way as me!
Here’s what I found out ~
Respondents were asked to rank how they viewed the affordability of sustainable products in Singapore (whereby 1 is very affordable and 5 is very expensive). This concludes that most of the respondents do agree that sustainable products are generally on the pricier spectrum in Singapore. However, is this really true?
This perception that green products are more expensive may have been due to the lack of exposure and knowledge on the types of sustainable products!
In general, one-time use green products are generally more expensive as compared to mass-produced conventional substitutes. This might deter potential customers as the green product would have the same results as a cheaper, non-sustainable substitute! However, purchasing a more expensive durable product may be cost-saving in the long run!
Let us use dish sponges as an example. We are advised to replace dish sponges every 2 weeks! Therefore, it would be more cost-effective to purchase a more expensive substitute – silicone sponge – that may last for months! Taking into consideration that many tend to overlook the long-term cost savings of some sustainable products, this might explain the rationale as to why a majority of the respondents consider sustainable products to be expensive
To add on, sustainable food items may be a difficult category to tackle. With organic vegetables and fruits as an example, it comes without a doubt that it would taste and resemble nearly as identical as the non-organic version. However, the price tag has a staggering difference due to the higher production costs of organic products. For example, the price of 2 hearts of organic celery is more than twice the price of a non-organic substitute!
I do agree on my part that my survey question should have been phrased better as respondents might have been conflicted if they should have included long-term cost savings.
If I could have turned back the clock, the first question will remain the same, with a scale of 1-5. Some might argue that the middle option, ‘3’ would give a vague perception of the respondents’ true opinions. However, I believe the neutral option should still be included to give an option to respondents who think that sustainable products are neither expensive nor affordable! To add on, I have included a new question on the long term cost savings of durable sustainable products. I was conflicted as to if I should include “Not sure” as an option to receive a more definite response. However, it would not be fair for respondents who are not knowledgeable about durable sustainable products. What do you think?
That is all for this week! See you 🙂
Hi Amira! I do agree certain sustainable products are rather expensive and it made me pause before choosing what to purchase. I do agree that the silicon sponge is more long lasting and hence its price. It is a greener alternative since we do not have to regularly discard the normal sponge. However, do you know if there are items that the normal product are more damaging to the environment compared to those products that are supposedly sustainable? For instance, the production of the sustainable product is extremely harmful to the environment.
Cheers,
Nicole
Hello Nicole! Sincere apologies for the late reply 🙁 First of all, what a great question! It didn’t occur to me that such an event could happen :”) I did some research and discovered that there is not yet a definite answer to your question (will definitely get back to you if I find anything interesting). However, I do find it ironic that some organic fruits and vegetables are still packaged identically to its non-organic substitute. Given that organic vegetables and fruits are supposedly the ‘more’ sustainable version, I would assume that the entire product would be more eco-friendly. In Singapore, most organic produce is imported from New Zealand, Australia, and European countries while non-organic produce comes from neighbouring countries such as Malaysia. Taking into consideration the carbon footprint and packaging of the produce, would it be more sustainable to purchase the organic produce? If organic produce were produced closer home, it would be more evident that it has a smaller environmental impact compared to a non-organic substitute. Hopefully this managed to solve your query 🙂
References:
https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/report/downloadreportbyfilename?filename=Organic%20Foods%20_Singapore_Singapore_3-27-2017.pdf
https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/SGP/Year/LTST/TradeFlow/Import/Partner/by-country/Product/06-15_Vegetable#:~:text=In%202018%2C%20the%20top%20partner,China%2C%20United%20States%20and%20Australia.
Great post overall, Amira. Would appreciate if you post this comment with feedback for everyone to benefit from (not a criticism, just ways to do this better next time).
HOW WE USE LIKERT SCALES
Respondents were asked to rank how they viewed the affordability of sustainable products in Singapore (whereby 1 is very affordable and 5 is very expensive).
I love that you reflect on the wording of the Q. But…
If you do it like this, and you don’t stipulate exactly what 2, 3 and 4 signify, then this can mess up your results because people may interpret the meaning of each level differently.
Also, a respondent could interpret this question in at least two ways. One is “do you think sustainable products in SG are more expensive than other similar products in SG?”. Another is “do you think sustainable products cost more in SG compared to other locations?” I’m sure there are many other ways people could interpret this Q. So it’s quite important to think carefully about our Qs so we get the data we’re looking for.
Finally, you say that 3 is a neutral option. What you’re forgetting is that there are people who use that option for “I don’t know”. And you have no way to ID those people. So one way to get around this whole issue is to ask…
“Compared to their non-sustainable counterparts, how would you describe the cost of sustainable products in Singapore?”
1 = much cheaper
2 = somewhat cheaper
3 = same price
4 = a bit more expensive
5 = much more expensive
and include an option for “I don’t know”.
Does this make sense to you ?
Hi Dr Coleman! Thank you for much for the feedback 🙂 I do agree on my part that I overlooked the possibility that respondents may interpret the question differently due to my phrasing! I should have been more precise to ensure that respondents were confident on what basis they had to compare the prices of sustainable products to! It also didn’t occur to me that many would choose “3” for the simplicity of it and regard it as an “I dont know” option 🙁 The way you phrased my question is a MUCH better representation of what I wanted to find out from my survey! The specific indications of what each number represents would provide the respondents with a more precise understanding of what the rankings meant. To add on, the question provides a better focus to respondents on the 2 factors they were comparing, a better version of my original question, where the respondents were free to interpret the question. Once again, thank you so much for the feedback 🙂
Also, I have a question. Why is a 100 % recycled phone case considered a single-use item in your beautiful diagram ?
Thanks,
jc
Hello Dr Coleman! Honestly, when I was designing the diagram, I was contemplating whether to include ‘100% recycled phone case’ as one of the options. My interpretation of single-use items refers to sustainable products that would last the same amount of time as the non-sustainable substitute. Therefore, I included 100% recycled phone cases as it would be used for the same duration as a traditional plastic phone case. There is no durability benefit of a 100% recycled phone case compared to a plastic phone case. If the sustainable item offered a long-term solution to a non-sustainable product that has a shorter duration use, it would have been classified as a durable product instead! Hope this helps answer your question 🙂
I see. To me, “single-use” is essentially synonymous with “disposable”. I didn’t realise there was any other interpretation.
Hi Amira!
Thanks for the insightful read! Having worked at an environmentally-friendly store before, it is really interesting to see how the general public feels about this. One additional reason why we charged slightly higher prices for our goods was to make the customer feel ‘responsible’ for their purchase. As people are more likely to use something they spent more on than to just forget about it.
I was actually quite curious about this, I read that a metal straw uses over a hundred times as much energy to manufacture compared to a plastic one. However most of the time, people do not use it enough times to make the net energy used worth it. In that case, should we be really encouraging the switch to these environmentally friendly products?
I hope to hear from you soon!
Mark
Hello Mark! So sorry for the late reply 🙁
But… after reading your comment, I realised that your point about sustainable products being expensive to make customers feel more responsible is something that I have not thought about before! Thank you so much for informing me of such practices :”)
To answer your question about whether we should really be encouraging the switch to more eco-friendly products, my answer would be yes! In regards to your example about metal and plastic straws, in my opinion, the fact that they would purchase metal straws means that they are trying to be more environmentally conscious about their actions (which is already a big step for many!). I feel that it takes many mini steps (for example the switch to metal straws or bamboo toothbrushes), to make someone truly appreciate and understand their own environmental impacts 🙂