Being innovative, fun, and green? Hedonic and environmental motivations in the use of green innovations

Figures & data

Figure 1. Cognitive route.

Figure 2. Affective route.

Table 1. Socio-economic characteristics of participants.

		Shared e-bike users (n = 400) – percentage	Shared e-scooter users (n = 400) – percentage
Gender	Male	53.75	48.75
	Female	46.25	51.25
Age	16–29	32.00	48.75
	30–39	22.25	24.50
	40–49	21.50	13.75
	50–65	24.25	13.00
Education	Elementary school	6.00	5.50
	High school	24.50	32.00
	A few years of college studies	14.00	13.25
	College studies completed	44.75	40.50
	Other	10.75	8.75
Income	Less than 20,000 per month before tax	19.25	34.25
(in local currency)	20,000–35,000 per month before tax	28.00	20.50
	35,000–50,000 per month before tax	25.50	18.75
	50,000–65,000 per month before tax	6.50	7.50
	Over 65,000 per month before tax	5.75	6.00
	Prefer not to answer	15.00	13.00

Table 2. Domain-specific innovativeness categories.

Adopter segment	Description	Shared e-bike users, percentage	Shared e-scooter users, percentage
1. Innovators	I am a type of person who closely follows new technological developments in the field of transport and who dares to take risks by being the first to purchase an innovative transport mode.	16.50	15.50
2. Early adopters	I am a type of person who envisions potential advantages in innovative products in the field of transport and who is one of the first to make use of these advantages and to profit from them.	26.75	29.00
3. Early majority	I am a type of person who is interested in innovative products in the transport field, but I am also pragmatic. First, I would like to take my time and be persuaded by the advantages of innovative transport. My decisions are (mainly) based on the recommendations of existing users.	42.75	47.75
4. Late majority	I am a type of person who is not thrilled by innovative products in the transport field, but who rather appreciates security. It is safe to purchase an innovative transport when it has been on the market for some while and offers obvious advantages.	9.25	6.00
5.Traditionalists	am atype of person who is traditional and has little affinity with innovative products in the transport field. Ido not like changes in life and Ipurchase an innovative transport only when the existing model Iuse is not produced anymore.	4.75	1.75

Table 3. Factor loadings, construct reliability, and construct validity.

Measures	Factor loading	Composite reliability, CR	AVE
Green identity		0.864	0.617
It is important for me to protect the environment	0.888
It is important for me to prevent environmental pollution	0.833
It is important for me to respect nature	0.743
It is important for me to live in harmony with nature	0.657
Environmental motivations		0.918	0.739
Renting and using electric bicycles/scooters, in general, would help to reduce the environmental problems caused by car traffic	0.915
Renting and using electric bicycles/scooters, in general, would reduce the climate problems caused by car traffic	0.901
Renting and using electric bicycles/scooters, in general, would help reduce air pollution caused by car traffic in residential areas	0.829
Renting and using electric bicycles/scooters, in general, would reduce society’s dependence on fossil fuel	0.786
Positive emotions
Renting and using electric bicycles/scooters is entertaining	0.852	0.875	0.700
Renting and using electric bicycles/scooters is fun	0.850
Renting and using electric bicycles/scooters makes me enjoy life	0.808

Figure 3. Shared e-bike cognitive–environmental motivation model.

Table 4. Shared e-bike model SEM results.

Construct			β	Hypothesis
Green identity	→	Environmental motivations	0.116**	H1a
DSI	→	Positive emotions	0.249*	H2a
Environmental motivations	→	Positive emotions	0.453*	H3a

Significance level: *p < .001, **p < 0.05.

Figure 4. Shared e-scooter affective–hedonic model.

Table 5. Shared e-scooter model SEM results.

Construct			β	Hypothesis
Green identity	→	Environmental motivations	0.086^a	H1b
DSI	→	Positive emotions	0.296*	H2b
Positive emotions	→	Environmental motivations	0.472*	H4b

Significance level: *p < 0.001^{, a}non-significant.

Table 6. Summary of hypothesis results.

Hypothesis	Supported/rejected/excluded	Significance level
H1a: Green identity is positively related to environmental motivations in shared e-bike use.	Supported	p < .05
H1b: Green identity is positively related to environmental motivations in shared e-scooter use.	Rejected	n/a
H2a: DSI is positively related to positive emotions in shared e-bike use.	Supported	p < .001
H2b: DSI is positively related to positive emotions in shared e-scooter use.	Supported	p < .001
H3a: Environmental motivations are positively related to positive emotions in shared e-bike use.	Supported	p < .001
H3b: Environmental motivations are positively related to positive emotions in shared e-scooter use.	Excluded	-
H4a: Positive emotions are positively related to environmental motivations in shared e-bike use.	Excluded	-
H4b: Positive emotions are positively related to environmental motivations in shared e-scooter use.	Supported	p < .001