The COVID-19 pandemic caused widespread disruption across the globe and compelled organizations to rapidly alter their operational methods. Higher education institutions (HEIs) worldwide confronted the challenge of maintaining educational continuity during the pandemic, which highlighted their shortcomings in adequately planning for a potential crisis, resulting in several negative impacts on both research and teaching activities (Shamsir et al., 2022). The responses of HEIs were very diverse, including measures such as space management, sanitation protocols, and, in more severe cases, lockdowns. However, the most prevalent solution was the shift to online classes (Furiv et al., 2021; Oleksiyenko et al., 2021). Some universities adapted swiftly to the new operational landscape, as exemplified by their rapid transition to online learning (Cordova et al., 2021).

The COVID-19 pandemic forced universities to embrace innovation and digitization, accelerating a rapid adaptation process that, while challenging, brought a range of tangible benefits to teaching and learning processes (Chukwuere, 2024). The shift to online education also posed significant organizational challenges, requiring adaptation from teachers, students, and administrative staff alike. The way classes were taught during the COVID-19 pandemic at HEIs worldwide later influenced students’ perceptions of those institutions. Some managed this situation more effectively than others.

The aim of this article is to explore the potential relationship between HEIs’ transition to online operations (including remote administration and remote classes) and student loyalty, as measured by the Net Promoter Score (NPS). The NPS is a well-established methodology that aids in assessing HEIs’ organizational performance and enhancing the quality of their offerings (Cruz et al., 2019). It has been effectively used, for example, in studies such as German and Lestari’s (2021) evaluation of teachers and students’ feedback on the Cambridge Learning Management System.

2. Literature review

The key determinants of service quality in higher education include the quality of academic services, facilities, lecturers, and programs (Kwarteng & Mensah, 2018). Bouranta et al. (2024) identified access, academic aspects, online learning, and program-related issues as critical factors influencing student satisfaction in Greek higher education. Guzmán Rincón et al. (2024) found that satisfaction with different elements of online higher education at HEIs in Colombia had a varying impact on overall satisfaction with the institution and dropout intentions. Such findings highlight the critical role of administrative and support services in shaping student satisfaction, suggesting that satisfaction with organizational aspects serves as a key indicator of students’ overall perception of the institution.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a significant reduction in face-to-face interactions for a period, often limiting all interactions to conversations via webcams. Traditional study programs and courses, initially designed for in-person instruction, had to be adapted for online delivery. This abrupt shift presented significant challenges for academic staff, who needed to adapt the content and structure of their courses to a virtual environment. Given that the quality of academic staff and study programs are key elements in generating value for students (Lapina et al., 2016), these adaptations were crucial. Unfortunately, the transition to online education was not always successful for HEIs, as this process encountered numerous barriers, which were observed to varying degrees worldwide. Challenges in adopting this solution affected not only students but also HEIs’ academic staff and administrative personnel.

Cramarenco et al. (2023) and Zamora-Antuñano et al. (2022) highlight several obstacles that impeded this transition, such as inadequate equipment for both students and teachers, limited digital literacy, unstable internet access, increased demands for support services, student attitudes, and student attendance at class sessions. Revising courses, lectures, seminars, laboratory sessions, and assessments to integrate digital and mobile technologies often required additional work from faculty members (Cramarenco et al., 2023; Camilleri et al., 2021; Zizka & Probst, 2022). Conrad et al. (2022) further noted that factors such as information overload and the perceived technical skills required for online platforms adversely impacted satisfaction with the virtual learning environment, and that certain design elements – such as class structure and teaching quality – negatively influenced student experiences. Similarly, Turnbull et al. (2021) identified key barriers in the shift to online education, including issues with integrating synchronous and asynchronous tools, access to necessary technology, faculty and student digital competency, concerns over academic integrity, and privacy. Gonzalez-Ramirez et al. (2021) also noted challenges including connectivity and financial constraints, along with negative effects on social interactions, motivation, and health-related behaviors associated with this learning mode.

Research findings illustrate that, across various countries, the shift to online learning was not universally accepted or welcomed. Iqbal et al. (2022) found that Pakistani students were largely dissatisfied with online education during the COVID-19 pandemic, citing insufficient institutional support and low-quality online instruction. They also expressed little interest in continuing online learning once pandemic restrictions were lifted. Similar sentiments were observed among Indonesian students, who generally held negative views of their online learning experiences during the pandemic (Maydiantoro et al., 2020). In South Africa, research conducted at higher education institutions revealed a preference among students for face-to-face learning over online formats, which were hindered by various issues, such as limited data availability, unstable network connections, unconducive home environments, and feelings of isolation (Matarirano et al., 2021). Research in India by Kundu and Bej (2021) further suggests that students feared encountering significant challenges in the online learning environment and felt unprepared for virtual classes during the pandemic.

In certain instances, students initially viewed online learning as an innovative approach; however, over time, it often came to be perceived as monotonous. Zizka and Probst (2023) found that although students in Switzerland recognized the practical benefits of online education, their motivation gradually declined. Similarly, Alexa et al. (2022) reported that Romanian students initially exhibited high motivation in online classes, but this waned as this mode of instruction continued. Limited or absent interaction between the students and instructors in this study, as well as among the students themselves, further reduced motivation and adversely affected their mental health. Packmohr and Brink (2021) found that students expressed a stronger preference for blended learning formats over fully online courses, noting that shifts in course delivery modes hindered their learning outcomes. Due to methodological differences, not all courses could be delivered at a comparable level online – in laboratory-based classes, for example, some competencies can only be effectively developed in person. This is corroborated by Behera et al. (2023), whose findings revealed a marked preference among engineering students for face-to-face instruction, particularly in laboratory settings.

The findings presented in the literature underscore the diverse perceptions and outcomes associated with the shift to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, with numerous studies indicating that this teaching approach was not universally effective. While many studies revealed significant challenges, others highlighted potential benefits and neutral outcomes. For example, a study conducted in Portugal found that students’ perceptions of lecturer performance remained unchanged despite the transition from in-person to online education, with no significant differences between pre- and post-COVID-19 conditions (Alves dos Reis, 2021). Additionally, emergency remote education during the pandemic provided students with opportunities to gain new educational and learning experiences. Ukrainian students, for instance, primarily enhanced their digital literacy and communication skills (Mospan et al., 2022).

Interestingly, alongside computers and laptops, students also relied on smartphones to participate in online learning. Krishnan and Sharma (2021) identified smartphones as students’ preferred devices for this purpose. Similarly, Biswas et al. (2020) reported that most student respondents in Bangladesh viewed mobile learning (m-learning) positively during the COVID-19 pandemic. Consistent with these findings, research among female students in the United States also indicated a favorable perception of m-learning throughout the pandemic (Saleh and Jalambo, 2022).

Given the marked differences in how online studies are evaluated by students across various countries, as illustrated in the above literature review, further research on HEI stakeholders’ perceptions of online classes in additional contexts and countries is essential for understanding the factors that drive these differences. For instance, comparative research by K. Fuchs (2021) demonstrated striking contrasts between students in Thailand and Finland. While both groups agreed that complete courses could be delivered online, the Thai students – unlike their Finnish counterparts – did not perceive digital collaboration with their peers as beneficial. Similarly, Cranfield et al. (2021) found significant cross-country differences in students’ views on emergency online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In Poland, after the COVID-19 outbreak was declared, the government announced the suspension of educational institutions’ activities starting on March 11, 2020 (NIK, 2021). Initially, and even later in the pandemic, no explicit guidelines were provided on how HEIs should operate, including how to conduct classes. As such, HEIs in Poland were granted considerable autonomy in deciding on operational formats. As the pandemic evolved, so did educational approaches, with some universities opting to conduct classes entirely online, while others adopted a hybrid model. Every university that continued its educational activities throughout the pandemic utilized online instruction for at least some period, enabling comparative studies on the satisfaction of HEI stakeholders in Poland with this mode of learning.

Research among first-year undergraduate students in Poland revealed a preference for distance learning over traditional in-person instruction, with enjoyment of the online format and a sense of self-efficacy being the primary factors contributing to that preference (Cicha et al., 2021). However, challenges associated with the abrupt transition were significant. A study conducted among Polish undergraduates suggests that the lack of information and dysfunctional communication that resulted in chaos were the most important ones (Kulikowski et al., 2021). Turbulent changes in the functioning of HEIs impacted perceptions of service quality, a critical determinant of student satisfaction, which, Borishade et al. (2021) have shown, can have a significant impact on student loyalty.

3. Research design

An empirical study was conducted to assess the readiness of Polish HEIs for the COVID-19 pandemic. The study employed the Computer-Assisted Web Interview (CAWI) technique, involving 2,832 students (N=2832) at six economic universities, the management faculties of two technical universities, and seven universities across Poland1. The proprietary research questionnaire covered several areas: the functioning of universities during the COVID-19 pandemic (17 variables), the organization and delivery of online classes during the COVID-19 pandemic (20 variables), the likelihood of students recommending their HEI to friends or acquaintances, as well as demographic data – such as gender, mode of study, type of degree program, and year of study.

The scope of the empirical study can be summed up as follows:

a) Subject – students from economic HEIs or departments with an economic profile at other HEIs.
b) Object – evaluation of crisis management at HEIs, focusing on aspects of the organization of higher education operations during the COVID-19 pandemic.
c) Spatial scope – Poland.
d) Temporal scope – the first half of 2021.

Table 1 presents the structure of the study population based on the following criteria: gender, mode of study, type of degree program, and year of study.

The PS IMAGO Pro 10 (IBM SPSS Statistics 29) statistical package was utilized to analyze the collected data. A five-point Likert scale was employed to evaluate students’ perceived preparedness of universities to conduct online classes during the COVID-19 pandemic, with values as follows: 1 – very poor preparation, 2 – rather poor preparation, 3 – average preparation, 4 – rather good preparation, and 5 – very good preparation. Assuming equal dis-tances between categories on the ordinal scale, mean values were calculated to rank aspects of university operations, as well as the organization and conduct of classes at the surveyed insti-tutions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further methodological steps included exploratory factor analysis (EFA), analysis of variance (ANOVA), independent samples t-test, NPS and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient.

4. Results

The analysis covered two primary sets of variables: the first encompassed those related to the functioning of universities during the COVID-19 pandemic, while the second included variables related to the organization and delivery of online classes at universities during this period. A list of variables along with their mean values is presented in Table 2.

The aspects rated highest by respondents were as follows:

a) reorganization of classes to an online format (x̅₃ = 3.92), the organization of the recruitment process (x̅₉ = 3.90) and the general impression/perception of the university (x̅₁ = 3.87), among the variables related to the functioning of universities during the COVID-19 pandemic,
b) the opportunity to participate in online consultations (x̅₁₉ = 4.17), materials for online classes (x̅₁₃ = 4,12) and instructors’ attitude towards students (x̅₁₄ = 4.04), among the variables related to the organization and delivery of online classes at universities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Due to the presence of multi-element sets of variables, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was employed to identify latent dependencies among the studied variables and reduce the number of original variables into newly defined components (Watkins, 2018; Reio & Shuck, 2015; Taherdoost et al., 2014). To assess data quality in the context of EFA, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) coefficient and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were used – the test values are presented in Tables 3 and 4. In the process of extracting components, the VARIMAX orthogonal rotation was used (Lloret et al., 2017; Goretzko et al., 2021). The results of EFA within the set of variables related to the functioning of universities during the COVID-19 pandemic allowed for the reduction of 17 variables to 2 components 2. The first component includes variables associated with the administrative and organizational efficiency of the university, while the second encompasses variables relating to the offer of professional and academic development (Table 3).

Analysis of the mean values of the new components indicates a higher rating for variables relating to the administrative and organizational efficiency of the university (x̅ = 3.77) than for those addressing the evaluation of the professional and academic development offer (x̅ = 3.38).

EFA was subsequently applied to the variables relating to the organization and delivery of online classes at universities during the COVID-19 pandemic. This method allowed the original set of 20 variables to be reduced to 2 distinct components. The first encompasses factors related to technical and didactic support in remote education, while the second includes elements contributing to the atmosphere and practical value of online education (Table 4).

A comparison of mean values for the identified components indicates a higher rating for technical and didactic support in remote education (x̅ = 3.84) than for the atmosphere and practical value of online education (x̅ = 3.68).

Next, the mean values of components identified through EFA were compared based on selected characteristics of the respondents (including included gender, study mode, type of degree program, and year of study) and the likelihood of recommending their HEI to others (in line with the according to the Net Promoter Score framework). A ten-point scale developed by F. Reichheld was used to calculate NPS (Vélez et al., 2020; Reichheld, 2003; Rocks, 2016; Reichheld & Schefter, 2000), where a score of ‘1’ indicated a very low likelihood of recommendation and a score of ‘10’ indicated almost certain recommendation. Responses were categorized into three groups: detractors (scores 1–6), passively satisfied (scores 7–8), and promoters (scores 9–10). The NPS indicator was then calculated by subtracting the percentage of detractors from the percentage of promoters (NPS = P – D). Positive NPS values indicate a higher prevalence of promoters over detractors, signifying favorable evaluations of universities’ preparedness during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The independent samples t-test was applied when there were no more than two groups of respondents, whereas analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for comparisons across three or more respondent groups (Armstrong et al., 2000; Ferreira et al., 2014). The comparison of university functioning components during the COVID-19 pandemic across selected respondent groups is presented in Table 5.

Analysis of these results reveals the following patterns regarding university functioning during the COVID-19 pandemic:

a) Female respondents rated both components higher than male respondents.
b) Part-time students rated both components higher than full-time students.
c) The highest rating for administrative and organizational efficiency was observed among master’s degree students.
d) First-year students, both at the first-degree and second-degree levels, rated both components higher than students in other years.
e) In terms of the NPS framework, promoters had the highest ratings, followed by passively satisfied respondents, whose ratings were higher than those of detractors.

The significance of the identified components related to the functioning of universities during the COVID-19 pandemic was then compared between female and male groups. The obtained results are presented in Table 6.

Analysis of the results for university functioning during the COVID-19 pandemic revealed the following patterns:

a) Among female students, part-time students rated both components higher than full-time students. For male students, no statistically significant differences were observed.
b) Female students in bachelor’s and master’s programs rated administrative and organizational efficiency higher than female students in engineering programs; no significant differences were found among male students.
c) First-year female students, at both undergraduate and graduate levels, rated both components higher than females in other years. Among male students, this pattern was observed only in administrative and organizational efficiency (for professional and academic development, the lowest ratings came from males in the final year of graduate studies).
d) In terms of the NPS framework, promoters rated both components highest, followed by passively satisfied respondents, whose ratings were higher than those of detractors. This pattern was consistent across both female and male groups.

Next, the ratings of components related to the organization and delivery of online classes at universities during the COVID-19 pandemic were compared across selected respondent groups. The results are presented in Table 7.

Analysis of these results concerning the organization of online classes during the COVID-19 pandemic revealed the following patterns:

a) Female respondents rated both components higher than male respondents.
b) Part-time students rated both components higher than full-time students.
c) In terms of technical and didactic support in remote education, master’s students provided the highest ratings, followed by bachelor’s students, with the lowest ratings from students in engineering degree programs. For atmosphere and practical value of online education, ratings from master’s and bachelor’s students were higher than those from engineering students.
d) First-year students, both undergraduate and graduate, rated both components higher than students in other years.
e) In terms of recommendation likelihood in the NPS framework, the highest ratings were given by promoters, followed by passively satisfied respondents, with the lowest ratings from detractors.

Additionally, the ratings of components related to the organization and delivery of online classes at universities during the COVID-19 pandemic were compared between female and male groups. The obtained results are presented in Table 8.

Analysis of the results based on the division into female and male groups evaluating the organization and delivery of online classes during the COVID-19 pandemic reveals the following patterns:

a) Part-time students rated both components higher than full-time students in both female and male groups.
b) Among female students, those in bachelor’s and master’s programs rated university preparedness higher than those in engineering programs. No statistically significant differences were observed among male students.
c) First-year students, both undergraduate and graduate, rated both components higher than students in other years in both gender groups.
d) Promoters gave the highest ratings, passively satisfied respondents gave moderate ratings, and detractors gave the lowest ratings, consistent across both female and male groups.

The final two steps of the research procedure involved assessing the likelihood of university students recommending their institutions to friends or acquaintances. An analysis of the distribution of responses regarding the likelihood of recommendation in selected respondent groups is presented in Table 9.

In the first part of Table 9, the distribution of responses regarding the likelihood of recommending their university is shown across groups of students overall, and separately by gender, study mode (full-time or part-time), type of degree program (engineering, bachelor’s, or master’s), and year of study. The analysis reveals positive NPS values in the following groups: overall (+0.9%), female students (+3.9%), part-time students (+5.0%), master’s students (+4.6%), and first-year students of both first-degree studies (+13.7%) and second-degree studies (+6.2%). It should be noted that these positive NPS values are relatively small – except for first-year first-degree students – which may suggest a declining tendency for students to recommend their universities as the duration of their studies increases.

In the final step of the analysis, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients were calculated to verify the relationship between the level of student loyalty and components related to the functioning, organization, and delivery of online classes during the COVID-19 pandemic. The obtained results are presented in Table 10.

All Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients presented in Table 10 are statistically significant, confirming the presence of relationships between the level of loyalty (as measured using NPS) and the evaluated areas related to the functioning, organization, and delivery of online classes at the university during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among the components related to university functioning, higher correlation values with loyalty are generally observed for FC1 (“Administrative and organizational efficiency of the university”) than for FC2 (“Offer of professional and academic development”); an exception to this pattern is observed in the evaluations of students in the final year of second-degree studies.

Regarding the organization and delivery of online classes, the correlation values with loyalty are generally higher for OC1 (“Technical and didactic support in remote education”) than for OC2 (“Atmosphere and practical value of online education”).

5. Discussion

The study conducted assessed the functioning of higher education institutions in Poland during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a particular focus on university operations as well as the organization and delivery of online classes. Analysis of the results highlighted varied student opinions, which can be grouped into several key areas.

Firstly, in terms of administrative and organizational support, universities were rated relatively high (x̅ = 3.77); notably, female students and part-time students expressed higher satisfaction with the functioning of universities than male students and full-time students. This suggests that these demographic groups may have experienced better alignment between their expectations and the administrative responses of universities during the pandemic.

Similarly, technical and didactic support was also rated highly (x̅ = 3.84), particularly concerning access to materials, platform functionality, and instructor willingness to collaborate and provide responses. Lower ratings were observed for professional and academic development opportunities (x̅ = 3.38) and for the atmosphere and practical value of online classes (x̅ = 3.68), with master’s and bachelor’s students expressing greater satisfaction than engineering students.

In terms of student loyalty, NPS analysis suggests that first-year undergraduate and second-year graduate students exhibit higher loyalty levels. While NPS values were positive, they were generally relatively low, which may indicate a decline in satisfaction as studies progress. This trend warrants further empirical investigation to explore its causes and potential remedies. These observations are further supported by factors influencing loyalty levels – the strongest correlations with student loyalty were observed for FC1. Administrative and organizational efficiency of the university and OC1. Technical and didactic support in remote education. Notably, higher correlation values were found among female students and part-time students.

6. Limitations and future research directions

This study has a number of limitations. The first pertains to its geographic scope: the survey was carried out solely among Polish students; therefore, its findings may contribute to the scientific discussion on evaluating actions taken by HEIs during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the conclusions are only locally applicable. Additionally, the respondents were students of economics programs, which further narrows the scope. Expanding the study to include students from other disciplines and incorporating a broader set of variables is recommended to enhance the applicability of the findings.

A number of avenues remain open for future research. First, attention could be directed toward analyzing long-term relationships between online education and loyalty (especially considering the observed declines in loyalty in later years of study). Such longitudinal studies could provide insights into the potential for a lasting relationship between remote education experiences and students’ perceptions of their studies, and, consequently, their loyalty. Comparative studies focusing on differences between universities in Poland and abroad could also be beneficial, identifying the most effective practices in online education. Additionally, the role of social interactions and psychological support could be analyzed, particularly regarding the role of atmosphere and interaction in online education. Qualitative research would be especially suitable for exploring the impact of limited interaction on student motivation.

From the perspective of recommendation likelihood, an interesting research direction could involve evaluating the effectiveness of various hybrid education models. This could be informed by variations in satisfaction based on the type of degree program (engineering, bachelor’s, and master’s), with specific attention to verifying how different hybrid models cater to student needs according to the nature of their study programs. Furthermore, applying loyalty indicators to assess specific universities could provide deeper insights: the results from ANOVA analyses and statistically significant correlation findings suggest the utility of NPS in evaluating university preparedness. Exploring diverse educational environments unique to different higher education institutions could be insightful in this regard.

Conducting further research in these areas would enable higher education institutions to better tailor management strategies and online class organization to student expectations, ultimately increasing loyalty toward universities in evolving educational contexts.

References

Alexa, L., et al. (2022). Exploring Romanian engineering students’ perceptions of Covid-19 emergency e-learning situation: A mixed-method case study. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 20(1), 19–35.

Alves dos Reis, C. A., Simões, M., & Flores-Tena, M. (2021). Students’ pre and post COVID-19 perception of higher education switch to online: An exploratory study in Portugal. Cypriot Journal of Educational Science, 16(5), 2368–2377.

Armstrong, R. A., Slade, S. V., Eperjesi, F. (2000). An introduction to analysis of variance (ANOVA) with special reference to data from clinical experiments in optometry, Ophthal. Physiol. Opt., 20(3), 235–241. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1475-1313.2000.00502.x.

Behera, A. K., de Sousa, R. A., Oleksik, V., Dong, J., & Fritzen, D. (2023). Student perceptions of remote learning transitions in engineering disciplines during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-national study. European Journal of Engineering Education, 48(1), 110–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2022. 2080529.

Biswas, B., Roy, S. K., & Roy, F. (2020). Students’ perception of mobile learning during COVID-19 in Bangladesh: University student perspective. Aquademia, 4(2), ep20023. https://doi.org/10.29333/aquademia/8443.

Borishade, T. T., Ogunnaike, O. O., Salau, O., Motilewa, B. D., & Dirisu, J. I. (2021). Assessing the relationship among service quality, student satisfaction, and loyalty: The Nigerian higher education experience. Heliyon, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07590.

Bouranta, N., Psomas, E.L. and Kafetzopoulos, D. (2024), „Integrating online learning into service quality assessment in higher-education its influence on student satisfaction”, The TQM Journal, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-06-2023-0180.

Camilleri, M. A. (2021). Evaluating service quality and performance of higher education institutions: A systematic review and a post COVID-19 outlook. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-03-2020-0034.

Chukwuere, J. (2024). Rapid review of the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on the digitalization of higher education. Research on Education and Media, 16(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.2478/rem-2024-0002.

Cicha, K., Rizun, M., Rutecka, P., & Strzelecki, A. (2021). COVID-19 and higher education: First-year students’ expectations toward distance learning. Sustainability, 13(4), 1889. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su13041889.

Conrad, C., Deng, Q., Caron, I., Shkurska, O., Skerrett, P., & Sundararajan, B. (2022). How student perceptions about online learning difficulty influenced their satisfaction during Canada’s Covid-19 response. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53, 534–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13206.

Cordova, M., Floriani, D. E., Gonzalez-Perez, M. A., Hermans, M., Mingo, S., Monje-Cueto, F., Nava-Aguirre, K. M., Rodriguez, C. A., & Salvaj, E. (2021). COVID-19 and higher education: Responding to local demands and the consolidation of e-internationalization in Latin American universities. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 34(4), 493–509. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARLA-01-2021-0020.

Cramarenco, R. E., Burcă-Voicu, M. I., & Dabija, D.-C. (2023). Student perceptions of online education and digital technologies during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Electronics, 12(2), 319. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12020319.

Cranfield, D. J., Tick, A., Venter, I. M., Blignaut, R. J., & Renaud, K. (2021). Higher education students’ perceptions of online learning during COVID-19—A comparative study. Education Sciences, 11(8), 403. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080403.

Cruz, J. O., Moreno, E. E., & Silupu, W. C. (2019). Effect of the implementation of university accreditation on the satisfaction of engineering students using the Net Promoter Score. 2019 IEEE Sciences and Humanities International Research Conference (SHIRCON), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SHIRCON 48091.2019.9024870.

Ferreira, E.B., Cavalcanti, P.P., Nogueira, D.A. (2014). ExpDes: An R Package for ANOVA and Experimental Designs, Applied Mathematics, 5(19), 2952–2958. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/am.2014.519280.

Fuchs, K. (2021). Students’ Perceptions Concerning Emergency Remote Teaching During COVID-19: A Case Study between Higher Education Institutions in Thailand and Finland. Perspectives on Global Development and Technology, 20(3), 278-288. https://doi.org/10.1163/15691497-12341595.

Furiv, U., Kohtamäki, V., Balbachevsky, E., & Virta, S. (2021). COVID-19 Crisis Response of Higher Education Institutions: Tampere University (TAU) and University of São Paulo (USP). In T. Connolly, & S. Farrier (Eds.), Leadership and Management Strategies for Creating Agile Universities, IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-8213-8.

German, E., & Lestari, D. E. (2021). Teachers and students’ Net Promoter Score (NPS) on the Cambridge Learning Management System (CLMS). Journal of English Teaching, Applied Linguistics and Literatures (JETALL), 4(2), 141. https://doi.org/10.20527/jetall.v4i2.9708.

Gonzalez-Ramirez, J., Mulqueen, K., Zealand, R., Silverstein, S., Mulqueen, C., & BuShell, S. (2021). Emergency online learning: college students’ perceptions during the COVID-19 pandemic. College Student Journal, 55(1), 29-46.

Goretzko, D., Huong Pham, T. T., Bühner, M. (2021). Exploratory factor analysis: Current use, methodological developments and recommendations for good practice, Current Psychology, 40, pp. 3510–3521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00300-2.

Guzmán Rincón, A., Sotomayor Soloaga, P. A., Carrillo Barbosa, R. L., & Barragán-Moreno, S. P. (2024). Satisfaction with the institution as a predictor of the intention to drop out in online higher education. Cogent Education, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2351282.

Iqbal, S. A., Ashiq, M., Rehman, S. U., Rashid, S., & Tayyab, N. (2022). Students’ perceptions and experiences of online education in Pakistani universities and higher education institutes during COVID-19. Education Sciences, 12(3), 166. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030166.

Krishnan, N., & Sharma, R. (2021). Student perception of online teaching in higher education institutions during COVID-19 pandemic: A survey study. Journal of Ayurveda and Integrated Medical Sciences, 6(6), 48–61. Retrieved from https://www.jaims.in/jaims/article/view/1528.

Kulikowski, K., Przytula, S., & Sulkowski, L. (2021). Emergency forced pandemic e-learning – feedback from students for HEI management. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 36(3), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2021.1942810.

Kundu, A., & Bej, T. (2021). COVID-19 response: Students’ readiness for shifting classes online. Corporate Governance, 21(6), 1250–1270. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-09-2020-0377.

Lapina, I., Roga, R. and Müürsepp, P. (2016), „Quality of higher education: International students’ satisfaction and learning experience”, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 8(3), 263–278. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-04-2016-0029.

Lloret, S., Ferreres, A., Hernández, A. Tomás, I. (2017). The exploratory factor analysis of items: guided analysis based on empirical data and software, Anales de psicología, 33(2), 417–432. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.6018/analesps.33.2.270211.

Matarirano, O., Gqokonqana, O. & Yeboah, A. (2021). Students’ Responses to Multi-Modal Emergency Remote Learning During COVID-19 in a South African Higher Institution. Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 6(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.46303/ressat.2021.19

Mattah, P. A. D., Kwarteng, A. J., & Mensah, J. (2018). Indicators of service quality and satisfaction among graduating students of a higher education institution (HEI) in Ghana. Higher Education Evaluation and Development, 12(1), 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/HEED-10-2017-0006.

Maydiantoro, A.A., Winatha, I.K., Riadi, B., Hidayatullah, R., Putrawan, G.E., & Dzakiria, H. (2020). (Emergency) Online Remote Learning in Higher Education Institutions during COVID-19 Crisis: Students’ Perception of the Situation. Universal Journal of Educational Research 8(12), 6445—6463. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.081210.

Mospan, N. V., Ognevyuk, V. O., & Sysoieva, S. S. (2022). Emergency higher education digital transformation: Ukraine’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Information Technologies and Learning Tools, 89(3), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.33407/itlt.v89i3.4827.

NIK. (2021). Funkcjonowanie szkół w sytuacji zagrożenia COVID-19 [School Function in the Situation of COVID-19 Threat]. Najwyższa Izba Kontroli. Retrieved from https://www.nik.gov.pl/kontrole/P/21/021.

Oleksiyenko, A., Mendoza, P., Riaño, F. E. C., Dwivedi, O. P., Kabir, A. H., Kuzhabekova, A., Charles, M., Ros, V., & Shchepetylnykova, I. (2022). Global crisis management and higher education: Agency and coupling in the context of wicked COVID-19 problems. Higher Education Quarterly, 77(2), 356–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12406.

Packmohr, S., & Brink, H. (2021). Comparing pre- and intra-COVID-19 students’ perception of the digitalization of higher education institutions. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd’21) (p. 13044). Universitat Politècnica de València. http://dx.doi.org/10.4995 /HEAd21.2021.13044.

Reichheld, F. F. (2003). The one number you need to grow. Harvard Business Review, December, 81(12), 46–54.

Reichheld, F. F., Schefter P. (2000). E-Loyalty: Your Secret Weapon on the Web, Harvard Business Review, July/August, 78(4).

Reio, T. G., & Shuck, B. (2015). Exploratory Factor Analysis: Implications for Theory, Re-search, and Practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 17(1), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422314559804.

Rocks, B. (2016). Interval Estimation for the “Net Promoter Score”, The American Statistician, 70(4), 365–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2016.1158124.

Saleh, N. F., & Jalambo, M. O. (2022). Female students’ perception of m-learning in the higher education institutions of Palestine during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cogent Education, 9(1), 2147775. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2147775.

Shamsir, M. S., Krauss, S. E., Ismail, I. A., et al. (2022). Development of a Haddon Matrix framework for higher education pandemic preparedness: Scoping review and experiences of Malaysian universities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Higher Education Policy, 35, 439–478. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-020-00221-x.

Taherdoost, H., Sahibuddin, S., Jalaliyoon, N. (2014). Exploratory Factor Analysis: Concepts and Theory. In J. Balicki (Ed.), Advances in Applied and Pure Mathematics (Vol. 27, pp. 375–382). WSEAS. Mathematics and Computers in Science and Engineering Series. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02557344.

Turnbull, D., Chugh, R., & Luck, J. (2021). Transitioning to e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: How have higher education institutions responded to the challenge? Education and Information Technologies, 26, 6401–6419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10633-w.

Vélez, D., Ayuso, A., Perales-González, C., Tinguaro Rodríguez, J. (2020). Churn and Net Promoter Score forecasting for business decision-making through a new stepwise regression methodology, Knowledge-Based Systems, 196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2020.105762.

Watkins, M.W. (2018). Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Guide to Best Practice, Journal of Black Psychology, 44(3), 219–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798418771807.

Zamora-Antuñano, M. A., Rodríguez-Reséndiz, J., Cruz-Pérez, M. A., Reséndiz Reséndiz, H., Paredes-García, W. J., & Díaz, J. A. G. (2022). Teachers’ perception in selecting virtual learning platforms: A case of Mexican higher education during the COVID-19 crisis. Sustainability, 14(1), 195. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010195.

Zizka, L., & Probst, G. (2022). Teaching during COVID-19: Faculty members’ perceptions during and after an “exceptional” semester. Journal of International Education in Business, 15(2), 202–220. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIEB-12-2020-0099.

In the past decade, serious global environmental issues such as climate change, global warming, depletion of natural resources, and air pollution have made customers more aware of their purchasing decisions and their impact on the environment. As environmental problems intensify, it is necessary to alter consumption patterns, lifestyles, and the ways products and services are extracted, distributed, and consumed. Consequently, understanding green purchasing behavior has become increasingly crucial. Numerous studies in recent decades have examined the environmentally friendly behavior of consumers in response to escalating environmental hazards.

Pro-environmental products – also known as environmentally friendly, green or sustainable products – are designed to minimize environmental impacts throughout their entire life-cycle by conserving resources, using renewable energy sources, reducing or eliminating packaging, and minimizing toxicity (Ritter et al. 2015; Durif, Boivin & Julien, 2017). These products benefit both society and the environment, being made from materials that are recyclable, biodegradable or easily reusable (Chen & Chai, 2010).

Green purchasing behavior involves buying pro-environmental products and reducing the purchasing and use of products that harm the environment (Seema et al., 2023; Mohammad et al., 2020; Jaiswal & Kant, 2018). Green consumption is a social phenomenon whereby consumers consider the impact of the products they purchase on present and future generations (Paul et al., 2016; Carman & Cheng, 2016; Mostafa, 2006; Yang et al, 2015). Pro-ecological behavior includes not only consumer practices and motivation to adopt a more sustainable lifestyle, such as separating waste and recycling, conserving resources like water or energy, and changing travel habits (switching from cars to walking or cycling), but can also include specific purchasing decisions, such as buying sustainable products (e.g. local food, organic food, ecological cleaning products, ecological cosmetics, or electric vehicles). Nowadays an increasing number of consumers are interested in pro-environmental products that pose fewer threats to the environment throughout their life-cycle, from production, to use and disposal (Lee & Haley, 2022).

Researchers have focused on a wide range of environmentally friendly products, including food products (Li et al., 2020; Woo & Kim, 2019, De Toni et al., 2018), skin care products (Chin et al., 2018; Hsu et al., 2017), apparel products (Saepudin et al., 2023; Moon & Lee, 2018; Jim Gam, 2011; Lee, 2011), and green electronic appliances (Zhang et al., 2022; Mansoor, Awan & Paracha, 2021).

The main objective of this article is to explore Poles’ attitudes towards pro-environmental behaviors, specifically focusing on environmental concern (EC), promoting pro-environmental behavior (PPB), the belief that Poland should move away from coal (MAFC), and willingness to pay (WTP). Thereby it seeks to advance our knowledge regarding the pro-environmental behavior of Polish consumers.

2. Liturature review

Various contexts of green purchasing behavior have for years been the subject of research around the world. It is extremely important to understand when, how, and why people consume and conserve resources, advocate for environmental causes, and engage in various pro-ecological behaviors. These behaviors have been studied in terms of a variety of factors that influence consumers’ green purchasing decisions. The existing literature has identified a number of individual and social-level variables that affect consumers’ pro-environmental behaviors. However, it remains remarkably difficult to predict responsible consumer behavior, due to the supporting and hindering factors that give rise to individual dilemmas (Dursun et al., 2016). A growing number of researchers agree that there is a clear inconsistency between consumers’ attitudes and their actual sustainable consumption practices; this is known as the attitude–behavior gap (Quoquab et al., 2019; Sudbury-Riley & Kohlbacher, 2016; Carrington et al., 2010; Eckhardt, Belk and Devinney, 2010). The need for additional research to understand pro-environmental behaviors is often discussed.

Environmentally friendly purchasing behavior is a complex and multifaceted issue, influenced by many factors (Sheng et al., 2019). Among the most important factors shaping pro-environmental consumer behavior, researchers have distinguished the following: pro-environmental awareness (Wang, 2013; Liu et al., 2017; Eze, 2020), environmental knowledge (Vasiljevic-Shikaleska et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2014; Mei et al., 2016), environmental concern (Polonsky, 2014; Suki & Suki, 2015), green purchase intention (Polonsky, 2014; Mei et al., 2012; Ramayah et al., 2010), consumer values (Laroche et al., 2001), and consumer attitude (Paul et al., 2016).

Ecological awareness and knowledge in this area have a major impact on pro-ecological behavior. When consumers have a deeper understanding of the environment and pollution problems, they are more likely to adopt environmentally friendly green consumption. Research has demonstrated that consumers who have extensive knowledge of green consumption are more likely to adopt pro-environmental consumption behaviors (Liobikien et al., 2016). In addition, many studies have shown that consumers’ sense of responsibility for the environment has a significant positive influence on their willingness to buy pro-environmental products (Sheng et al., 2019). Environmental responsibility is a sense of commitment that individuals have when they are willing to make efforts to solve ecological and environmental problems, both at the individual and national levels.

Another factor that affects the degree of environmental concern is consumers’ country of origin. Empirically, consumers from developed countries have been shown to be more concerned about the environment than those from developing countries. Nevertheless, further research is needed to understand the particular environmental purchasing behaviors of consumers in each country and how they differ from their counterparts around the world in terms of environmental concerns, beliefs, and attitudes (Singh & Gupta, 2013). This entails a need to conduct research in individual countries, as consumer behavior may vary significantly.

3. Hypothesis Development

The scope of our study includes examining the impact of four contextual variables: environmental concern (EC), promoting pro-environmental behavior (PPB), willingness to pay (WTP), and the belief that Poland should move away from coal (MAFC). In addition, the paper explores the interrelationships between these factors of pro-environmental behavior. We aim to verify not only whether people are concerned about environmental changes, but whether they are also active advocates for changes in consumer behavior and whether they are willing to bear the costs of transformation (regarding products and energy). Specifically, we want to determine if passive concern translates into an intention for action and readiness to make financial sacrifices.

Willingness to pay (WTP)

In this paper, willingness to pay (WTP) is understood as a readiness to share in the costs of transitioning from conventional or less sustainable practices to more environmentally friendly alternatives. The acceptance of environmentally friendly products is strongly influenced by price (Laroche et al., 2001). Consumers who feel an ethical responsibility toward society and the environment demonstrate this through their consumption behavior (Lee et al., 2015). Customers with a strong environmental consciousness and a desire to minimize their impact on the environment are more likely to invest in pro-environmental products, even if it comes at a higher cost.

Consumers who prioritize environmental sustainability are willing to pay more for their beliefs. Environmentally conscious consumers focus on long-term environmental benefits. They are willing to make an upfront investment for a more sustainable future. Findings from Arpad’s (2018) study indicate that in five countries analyzed, a majority of citizens would prefer to increase funding for environmental protection even if doing so requires higher taxes.

Environmental concern (EC)

Environmental concern refers to a consumer’s overall attitude towards protecting the environment (De Canio, 2023). This variable is considered the most important predictor of pro-environmental behavior because it can influence consumers to minimize the impact of human actions on the environment (Newton et al., 2015). The level of environmental concern can range from recycling to green purchasing (Mohammad, 2020). Previous studies have confirmed the positive relationship between environmental concern and pro-environmental consumer behavior (Scott & Vigar-Ellis, 2014), demonstrating that environmental concerns do significantly impact green purchase intentions (Yadav et al., 2022; De Canio et al., 2021; Akehurst et al., 2012; Hartmann & Apaolaza-Ibáñez, 2012). Customers with a higher level of environmental concern try to protect the environment by purchasing green products. Geng et. al.’s (2023) study found environmental awareness (concern) to be a significant predictor of willingness to pay a premium for living a green lifestyle (e.g., paying more for green products). Li et. al. (2016), in turn, also confirmed that the more people are concerned about the negative impact of climate change, the more they are willing to pay more for energy-efficient and environmentally friendly products. Kim and Kim (2023) showed that environmentalism has a positive effect on willingness to pay for sanctioning instruments (e.g., imposing a carbon tax in response to climate change, increasing electricity rates). Dienes (2015) reported that people with higher climate concerns are more likely to pay for mitigating the effects of climate change. Irfan et al.’s (2020) study, on the other hand, found that environmental concern did not have a significant effect on WTP for renewable energy, whereas Liobikienė and Dagiliūtė (2021) reported that environmental concern negatively, albeit insignificantly, influenced the willingness to pay more for green energy. Lin and Syrgabayeva (2016) found that environmental concern has a positive and significant impact on attitudes toward renewable energy.

Based on this review of past research, we formulated the following hypotheses for the present study:
Hypothesis 1 (H1). Polish consumers’ environmental concern (EC) positively influences promoting pro-environmental behavior (PPB).
Hypothesis 2 (H2). Polish consumers’ environmental concern (EC) positively influences the belief that Poland should move away from coal (MAFC).
Hypothesis 3 (H3). Polish consumers’ environmental concern (EC) positively influences willingness to pay (WTP).

Promoting pro-environmental behavior (PPB)

Individual consumers are encouraged to be more environmentally friendly not only by many initiatives, but also by friends or family members. Environmentally conscious individuals inspire others to act in accordance with shared values. Some environmentally concerned consumers actively advocate for environmental causes and engage in activism to raise awareness and promote change.

Socially engaged people tend to be more consistent in their pro-environmental behavior. A stronger sense of connection with others motivates people to strive to fulfil their social roles and to participate in actions that promote environmentally friendly purchasing behavior. Vanegas-Rico et al. (2022) argued that in social dilemma situations, the expectation by significant others for cooperation enhances an individual’s chances to act pro-environmentally. Expectations regarding the environmental behavior of others have a positive effect on one’s own pro-environmental behavior. Carrico (2021) observed that the norm of buying green products by peers and colleagues encourages individuals to purchase these environmentally friendly products themselves.

Based on this background, we formulated the following hypotheses for the present study:

Hypothesis 4 (H4). Promoting pro-environmental behavior (PPB) by Polish consumers positively influences their belief that Poland should move away from coal (MAFC).

Hypothesis 5 (H5). Promoting pro-environmental behavior (PPB) by Polish consumers positively influences their willingness to pay (WTP).

The belief that Poland should move away from coal (MAFC)

Poland was the world’s ninth-largest producer of coal in 2022 (GlobalData, 2022). Compared to other EU countries, Poland has much larger reserves of hard coal and lignite, which are extensively harnessed for electricity generation. Poland’s renewable energy capacity is increasing, but the country’s electricity and heat generation is still dominated by coal and is the largest contributor to emissions. National energy consumption generates a significant proportion of global carbon emissions and damages the quality of the environment (Vivian et al., 2011). The introduction of pro-environmental solutions in the energy sector is associated with convergence costs, which in turn may result in incurring higher taxes and/or energy prices.

Based on previous research, we aimed to test whether positive attitudes toward greener energy solutions translates into a willingness to bear such additional costs. Lin and Qiao (2023) found that more than 80% of Chinese households are willing to pay extra for green electricity. Wang et. al. (2022) reported that the ecological environmental cognition significantly influenced rural residents’ willingness to spend (WTS) on Biomass Briquette Fuel (BBF) to replace coal. Lin and Syrgabayeva (2016) showed that attitudes toward renewable energy have a positive and significant impact on willingness to spend more for renewable energy. Hojnik (et. al., 2021) also found that acceptance of green energy has a significant positive impact on WTP for green energy.

Based on these findings, we posited the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 6 (H6). The belief that Poland should move away from coal (MAFC) positively influences willingness to pay (WTP).

The following conceptual research model is proposed (Figure 1):

4. Research findings

The data for this study was collected through an online research panel (Nationwide Research Panel Ariadna) in April 2023. The online survey included a total of 554 Polish respondents; all interviews were complete (with no missing data). A non-random sampling method was used; the sample structure matched the demographics of adult Poles in terms of gender, age, education level, and place of residence. The dataset was created with SPSS, version 28 (IBM). A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed and a structural equation model (SEM) was developed using IBM SPSS AMOS Graphics, version 25. A multi-item measurement scale was developed to measure the attitudes of Poles regarding environmental concern (EC) (adopted from Polonsky et al., 2014), promoting pro-environmental behavior (PPB), the belief that Poland should move away from coal (MAFC) and willingness to pay (WTP) (based on Laroche et. al., 2001). Each factor was measured by three items using a five-point Likert scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Since ordinal variables were used in the measurement process, before conducting further analyses, it was assumed that there were equal distances between the categories on the measurement scale. The selection of the research sample was carried out by the quota method (selection criteria: sex, age and place of residence). The structure of the research sample is presented in Table 1.

5. Results

Measurement Model

Table 2 shows the results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), including factor loadings and descriptive statistics. One of the four sets of variables was found to be characterized by a high average – environmental concern (EC) (meanEC = 3.92). The remaining sets of variables were considered by the respondents as less important – the belief that Poland should move away from coal (MAFC) (meanMAFC = 3.26), promoting pro-environmental behavior (PPB) (meanPPB = 3.17) and, as the least important, willingness to pay (WTP) (meanWTP = 2.84).

A structural equation model was used to test hypothetical relationships between observable and/or latent variables in experimental and non-experimental research (Konarski, 2009, p. 15). The structural equation model consists of two parts – the structural and the measurement parts. The structural part of the model describes the theoretical cause-and-effect or correlation between the studied phenomena, while the measurement part defines the variables which are not directly measurable (therefore they are represented in the constructed model by unobservable/latent variables). This means that before starting the estimation of the structural equation model, its measurement part should be determined and verified. One of the methods of verifying the measurement model is confirmatory factor analysis (Bedyńska, Książek, 2012, pp. 219–223). The reliability of measurement instrument was tested using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), where the results showed acceptable model fit indices.

The overall measurement model and reliability and validity of the constructs were evaluated with a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

In the process of evaluating the measurement model, both discriminant and convergent validity were verified. Discriminant validity measures the extent to which the factors intended to measure a specific construct are actually unrelated (Wang & Wang, 2012). For this, Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) approach was used, which states that the average variance extracted (AVE) for each research construct should be higher than the square of the correlation between that construct and other constructs (Ode & Ayavoo, 2020). The diagonal elements in Table 4 (shown in bold with asterisks) are the squares of multiple correlations between the research variables. The AVE values ranged from 0.69 to 0.91, while the diagonal values ranged from 0.83 to 0.89, indicating that all constructs have the appropriate discriminant validity. Table 4 shows that the measurement model has a satisfactory discriminant validity.

Convergent validity, in turn, measures the degree to which the factors measuring single constructs are consistent with each other. Convergent validity was assessed using composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) – the minimum values adopted in the analysis were such that AVE should be greater than 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), factor loadings should be greater than 0.6 and CR should be greater than 0.6 (Hair et al., 2009; Ahmed et al., 2020; Popa & Dabija, 2019; Szczepańska-Woszczyna, 2021). On the basis of the obtained results, all three minimum values were reached, which suggests that the reliability and validity of the model and the constructs used are acceptable.

Structural Model

Based on the literature review, the results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and the adopted research hypotheses, a research model was developed and is graphically illustrated in Figure 3.

The fit indices indicate that the structural equation model is appropriate for verifying the research hypotheses.

Testing Hypothesis

The hypothesis test results are shown in Table 5 below. The results indicate that promoting pro-environmental behavior (PPB) was influenced by environmental concern (EC) (ꞵ = 0.575, p < 0.001). We found that the belief that Poland should move away from coal (MAFC) was influenced by environmental concern (EC) (ꞵ = 0.525, p < 0.001) and promoting pro-environmental behavior (PPB) (ꞵ = 0.140, p ≤ 0.005). Furthermore willingness to pay (WTP) was influenced by promoting pro-environmental behavior (PPB) (ꞵ = 0.541, p < 0.001) and the belief that Poland should move away from coal (MAFC) (ꞵ = 0.279, p < 0.001). The results obtained confirm the validity of hypotheses H1, H2, H4, H5 and H6, whereas hypothesis H3, which posited that environmental concern (EC) affects willingness to pay (WTP), was not supported.

6.Discussion

The results of our study indicate that while environmental concern (EC) positively influences promoting pro-environmental behavior (PPB) and the belief that Poland should move away from coal (MAFC), it does not significantly influence willingness to share in the costs of conversion. Therefore, a certain dissonance was observed between concern for the environment and the willingness to make financial commitments to improve it, which may result from the rising costs of living in Poland, including energy costs. Our findings suggest that EC influencers PPB. Taking on the role of an opinion leader and making efforts to ensure that people around oneself are also more pro-ecological, in turn, influences both attitudes towards changing energy sources to more environmentally friendly ones and the willingness to bear the associated costs. We found that the belief that Poland should move away from coal (MAFC) positively influences willingness to pay (WTP), indicating that opinions on the need to change to more pro-ecological ones are backed by declarations about the willingness to pay for them. Our research shows that environmental concern alone is not enough for some Poles to be willing to spend additional money on (more expensive) pro-ecological products or support changing the energy mix to a more ecological one. The lack of a significant impact of CE on WTP shows that further research in this area is needed, as in the literature this relationship remains ambiguous. Perhaps it depends on the level of development and wealth of the citizens of a given country, hence comparative studies in other countries would be advisable. Our study partially fills this research gap on the influence of EC on WTP among Polish consumers.

Limitations and future research directions

The study has several limitations. Due to the sample size and the selected method of sampling, the results cannot be treated as representative for the general population of Polish consumers. Our research focused on four factors – environmental concern (EC), promoting pro-environmental behavior (PPB), the belief that Poland should move away from coal (MAFC), and willingness to pay (WTP) – so future research could widen the spectrum of factors in future research. While our results are relevant to Polish consumers, cultural differences may result in varying attitudes toward environmentally friendly behavior in other countries. Conducting transnational research in this area would be valuable.

References

Ahmed, R. R., Romeika, G., Kauliene, R., Streimikis, J., & Dapkus , R. (2020). ES-QUAL model and customer satisfaction in online banking: evidence from multivariate analysis techniques. Oeconomia Copernicana, 11(1), 59–93. https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2020.003

Akehurst, G., Afonso, C., & Martins Gonçalves, H. (2012). Re-examining green purchase behaviour and the green consumer profile: New evidences. Management Decision, 50(5), 972–988. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211227726

Anderson, E. W. (1996). Customer satisfaction and price tolerance. Marketing Letters, 7, 265–274.

Arpad, T. (2018). Willing to pay to save the planet? Evaluating support for increased spending on sustainable development and environmentally friendly policies in five countries. PLoS ONE, 13(11), e0207862. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0207862

Bedyńska, S. & Książek, M. (2012). Statystyczny drogowskaz 3. Praktyczny przewodnik wykorzystania modeli regresji oraz równań strukturalnych. Szkoła Wyższa Psychologii Społecznej: Warsaw, POL, pp. 219–223, ISBN 9788363354053

Carrington, M., Neville, B., & Whitwell, G. (2010). Why ethical consumers don’t walk their talk: Towards a framework for understanding the gap between the ethical purchase intentions and actual buying behaviour of ethical minded consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0501-6

Carman, K. M. L., & Cheng, E. W. L. (2016). Green purchase behavior of undergraduate students in Hong Kong. The Social Science Journal, 53(1), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2015.11.003

Carrico, A. R. (2021). Climate change, behavior, and the possibility of spillover effects: Recent advances and future directions. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.03.025

Chen, T. B., & Chai, L. T. (2010). Attitude towards the environment and green products: Consumers’ perspective. Management Science and Engineering, 4(2), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.3968/j.mse.1913035×20100402.002

Chin, J., Jiang, B., Mufidah, I., Persada, S., & Noer, B. (2018). The investigation of consumers’ behavior intention in using green skincare products: A pro-environmental behavior model approach. Sustainability, 10(11), 3922. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10113922

De Canio, F. (2023). Consumer willingness to pay more for pro-environmental packages: The moderating role of familiarity. Journal of Environmental Management, 339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117828

De Toni, D., Eberle, L., Larentis, F., & Milan, G. S. (2018). Antecedents of perceived value and repurchase intention of organic food. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 24, 456–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2017.1314231

Dienes, C. (2015). Actions and intentions to pay for climate change mitigation: Environmental concern and the role of economic factors. Ecological Economics, 109, 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.11.012

Durif, F., Boivin, C., & Julien, C. (2017). In search of a green product definition. Innovative Marketing, 6(1), 25–33.

Dursun, I., Kabadayi, E. T., Koksal, C. G., & Tuger, A. T. (2016). Pro-environmental consumption: Is it really all about the environment? Journal of Management Marketing and Logistics, 3(2), 114–134. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia. 2016219940

Eckhardt, G. M., Belk, R., & Devinney, T. M. (2010). Why don’t consumers consume ethically? Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(6), 426–436. https://doi.org/10.1002/ cb.332

Eze, E. (2020). Sociographic analysis of climate change awareness and proenvironmental behaviour of secondary school teachers and students in Nsukka local government area of Enugu State, Nigeria. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 29, 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10382046.2019.1657683

Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18/3, pp. 382–388.

Geng, J., Yang, N., Zhang, W., & Yang, L. (2023). Public willingness to pay for green lifestyle in China: A contingent valuation method based on integrated model. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20, 2185. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032185

GlobalData. (2022). Poland power market size and trends by installed capacity, generation, transmission, distribution, and technology, regulations, key players and forecast, 2022–2035.

Hair, J.F. Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. & Anderson, R.E. (2009). Multivariate Data Analysis, 7-th ed.; Pearson International Edition, Upper Saddle River: New Jersey, USA, pp. 627–686, ISBN 9780138132637

Hartmann, P., & Apaolaza-Ibañez, V. (2012). Consumer attitude and purchase intention toward green energy brands: The roles of psychological benefits and environmental concern. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1254–1263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.11.001

Hojnik, J., Ruzzier, M., Fabri, S., & Klopčič, A. L. (2021). What you give is what you get: Willingness to pay for green energy. Renewable Energy, 174, 733–746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.04.037

Hsu, C.-L., Chang, C.-Y., & Yansritakul, C. (2017). Exploring purchase intention of green skincare products using the theory of planned behavior: Testing the moderating effects of country of origin and price sensitivity. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 34, 145–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser. 2016.10.006

Irfan, M., Zhao, Z. Y., Li, H., et al. (2020). The influence of consumers’ intention factors on willingness to pay for renewable energy: A structural equation modeling approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 21747–21761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08592-9

Jaiswal, D., & Kant, R. (2018). Green purchasing behaviour: A conceptual framework and empirical investigation of Indian consumers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 41, 60–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.11.008

Jin Gam, H. (2011). Are fashion-conscious consumers more likely to adopt eco-friendly clothing? Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 15(2), 178–193. https://doi.org/10.1108/13612021111132627

Kim, S., & Kim, S. (2023). Willingness to pay for what? Testing the impact of four factors on willingness to pay for facilitating and sanctioning energy policy instruments. Energy Reports, 10, 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2023. 06.021

Konarski, R. (2009). Modele równań strukturalnych. Teoria i praktyka. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN p. 15, ISBN 9788301160944.

Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(6), 503–520. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006155

Lee, K. H., Bonn, M. A., & Cho, M. (2015). Consumer motives for purchasing organic coffee. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27, 1157–1180. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-02-2014-0060

Lee, J., & Haley, E. (2022). Green consumer segmentation: Consumer motivations for purchasing pro-environmental products. International Journal of Advertising, 41(8), 1477–1501. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2022.2038431

Lee, S. (2011). Consumers’ value, environmental consciousness, and willingness to pay more toward green-apparel products. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 2(3), 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/20932685.2011.10593094

Li, L., Long, X., & Laubayeva, A. et al. (2020). Behavioral intention of environmentally friendly agricultural food: The role of policy, perceived value, subjective norm. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 18949–18961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08261-x

Li, Y., Mu, X., Schiller, A., & Zheng, B. (2016). Willingness to pay for climate change mitigation: Evidence from China. The Energy Journal, 37(1_suppl), 179–194. https://doi.org/10.5547/01956574.37.SI1.yli

Lin, B., & Qiao, Q. (2023). Exploring the participation willingness and potential carbon emission reduction of Chinese residential green electricity market. Energy Policy, 174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113452

Lin, C. Y., & Syrgabayeva, D. (2016). Mechanism of environmental concern on intention to pay more for renewable energy: Application to a developing country. Asia Pacific Management Review, 21(3), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.apmrv.2016.01.001

Liobikienë, G., & Dagiliûtë, R. (2021). Do positive aspects of renewable energy contribute to the willingness to pay more for green energy? Energy, 231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120817

Liobikienë, G., Mandravickaitë, J., & Bernatonienë, J. (2016). Theory of planned behavior approach to understand the green purchasing behavior in the EU: A cross-cultural study. Ecological Economics, 125, 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ecolecon.2016.02.008

Liu, W., Wang, X., & Chen, Z. (2017). The consistency of rural residents’ ecological consumption awareness and behavior based on the investigation of eco-civilization demonstration areas in Jiangxi Province. Issues in Agricultural Economy, 38, 37–49. https://doi.org/10.13246/j.cnki.iae.2017.09.006

Mansoor, M., Awan, T. M., & Paracha, O. S. (2021). Predicting pro-environmental behaviors of green electronic appliances’ users. International Journal of Business and Economic Affairs, 6(4), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.24088/IJBEA-2021-64002

Mei, N. S., Wai, C. W., & Ahamad, R. (2016). Environmental awareness and behaviour index for Malaysia. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 222, 668–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.223

Mohammad, H. M., Morteza, M. M., Azim, Z., & Golnar, S. B. (2020). Knowledge foundation in green purchase behaviour: Multidimensional scaling method. Cogent Business & Management, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020. 1773676

Monroe, K. B. (1973). Buyers’ subjective perceptions of price. Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 70–80.

Moon, H., & Lee, H.-H. (2018). Environmentally friendly apparel products: The effects of value perceptions. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 46(8), 1373–1384. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6392

Mostafa, M. M. (2006). Antecedents of Egyptian consumers’ green purchase intentions: A hierarchical multivariate regression model. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 19(2), 97–126. https://doi.org/10.1300/J046v19n02_06

Newton, J. D., Tsarenko, Y., Ferraro, C., & Sands, S. (2015). Environmental concern and environmental purchase intentions: The mediating role of learning strategy. Journal of Business Research, 68, 1974–1981. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jbusres.2015.01.007

Ode, E. & Ayavoo, R. (2020). The mediating role of knowledge application in the relationship between knowledge management practices and firm innovation. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 5, pp. 209–217

Paul, J., Modi, A., & Patel, J. (2016). Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior and reasoned action. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 29, 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.11.006

Polonsky, M. J., Vocino, A., Grimmer, M., & Miles, M. P. (2014). Temporal and environmental orientation and PECB. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38, 612–619. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12131

Popa, I.D. & Dabija, D.C. (2019). Developing the Romanian Organic Market: A Producer’s Perspective. Sustainability, 11, 467.

Quoquab, F., Mohammad, J., & Sukari, N. N. (2019). A multiple-item scale for measuring “sustainable consumption behaviour” construct: Development and psychometric evaluation. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 31(4), 791–816. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-02-2018-0047

Ramayah, T., Lee, J. W., & Mohamad, O. (2010). Green product purchase intention: Some insights from a developing country. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 54, 1419–1427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.06.007

Ritter, A. M., Borchardt, M., Vaccaro, G. L. R., Pereira, G. M., & Almeida, F. (2015). Motivations for promoting the consumption of green products in an emerging country: Exploring attitudes of Brazilian consumers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 507–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.066

Saepudin, D., Shojaei, A. S., Barbosa, B., & Pedrosa, I. (2023). Intention to purchase eco-friendly handcrafted fashion products for gifting and personal use: A comparison of national and foreign consumers. Behavioral Sciences, 13(2), 171. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13020171

Scott, L., & Vigar-Ellis, D. (2014). Consumer understanding, perceptions and behaviours with regard to environmentally friendly packaging in a developing nation. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38, 642–649. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12136

Seema, B., Naman, S., Manish, D., & Asmita, C., Sushant, K. (2023). Product specific values and personal values together better explains green purchase. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser. 2023.103434

Sheng, G., Yue, B., & Xie, F. (2019). The driving mechanism of Chinese residents’ green consumption behavior from the perspective of environmental co-governance. Statistical Information Forum, 34, 109–116. https://doi.org/10.3969/ j.issn.1007-3116.2019.01.014

Singh, N., & Gupta, K. (2013). Environmental attitude and ecological behaviour of Indian consumers. Social Responsibility Journal, 9(1), 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 17471111311307787

Sudbury-Riley, L., & Kohlbacher, F. (2016). Ethically minded consumer behavior: Scale review, development, and validation. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2697–2710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.11.005

Suki, N. M., & Suki, N. M. (2015). Consumption values and consumer environmental concern regarding green products. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 22(3), 269–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509. 2015.1013074

Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K. (2021). Management Theory, Innovation, and Organisation. A Model of Managerial Competencies; Routledge: Milton Park, UK, ISBN 9780367485528

Vanegas-Rico, M.-C., Corral-Verdugo, V., Bustos-Aguayo, J.-M., & Ortega-Andeane, P. (2022). Expectations of others’ environmental behaviour and its effect on personal pro-environmental behaviour. PsyEcology, 13, 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/21711976.2021.1992872

Vasiljevic-Shikaleska, A., Trpovski, G., & Gjozinska, B. (2018). Environmental awareness and pro-environmental consumer behavior. Journal of Sustainable Development, 8, 4–17.

Vivian, S., Haslam, K., Soldner, M., & Sangster, M. (2011). Assessment of European energy and carbon profiles of manual and automatic dishwashing. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35, 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00986.x

Wang, J. (2013). The effect of resource saving consciousness on resource saving behavior – an interactive effect and moderating effect model under the background of Chinese culture. Management World, 8, 77–90. https://doi.org/10.19744/j.cnki.11-1235/f.2013.08.008

Wang, Q., Song, W., & Peng, X. (2022). The behavior-driven mechanism of consumer participation in “carbon neutrality”: Based on the promotion of replacing coal with biomass briquette fuel. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 15133. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192215133

Wang, Z. & Wang, N. (2012). Knowledge sharing, innovation and firm performance. Expert Systems With Applications. 39(10), pp. 8899–8908

Woo, E., & Kim, Y. G. (2019). Consumer attitudes and buying behavior for green food products: From the aspect of green perceived value (GPV). British Food Journal, 121(2), 320–332. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-01-2018-0027

Yadav, S., Patel, S., Killedar, D. J., Kumar, S., & Kumar, R. (2022). Eco-innovations and sustainability in solid waste management: An Indian upfront in technological, organizational, start-ups and financial framework. Journal of Environmental Management, 302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113953

Yang, D., Lu, Y., Zhu, W., & Su, C. (2015). Going green: How different advertising appeals impact green consumption behavior. Journal of Business Research, 68(12), 2663–2675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.04.004

Zhang, J., Cherian, J., Sandhu, Y. A., Abbas, J., Cismas, L. M., Negrut, C. V., & Negrut, L. (2022). Presumption of green electronic appliances purchase intention: The mediating role of personal moral norms. Sustainability, 14, 4572. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084572

The circular economy (CE) is an increasingly popular approach to create sustainable business. The aim of a CE is to attain a sustainable society and economy by avoiding and minimising resource consumption through multiple product-and-material loops (Ellen MacArthur Foundation [EMF], 2015). Sustainable consumption (SC) is a complex and ambivalent concept composed of two visibly opposite terms-consumption and sustainability. Existing definitions nevertheless show that the main aim of SC is to reach the harmony between the satisfaction of consumer needs and preservation of the environment (Piligrimiene, Žukauskaite, Korzilius, Banyte & Dovaliene, 2020). SC entails satisfying consumer needs while reducing negative impacts caused during material extraction, production and consumption (Mont and Plepys, 2008; Cooper, 2013).

SC emphasises individual actions of consumers in the areas of acquisition, usage and disposal of goods, products and services, taking into account the impact on ecological and socioeconomic conditions for today’s and future generations (Geng, Mansouri & Aktas, 2017). According to Phipps et al. (2013), SC is a compromise between environmental, social and economic aims, acquiring, using and utilising products, seeking global welfare for the present and future generations. SC, representing the demand side of the consumption/production coin, should allow for potential changes in consumer behaviour (Phipps et al., 2013). SC patterns are necessary to realise a sustainable society and economy (Druckman & Jackson, 2010). Customer SC behaviours facilitate the efficient use of underutilised resources (e.g. sharing spare household resource) and extend the life cycle of accessed products (e.g. keeping items in good conditions for others), thereby reflecting the significant potential of sustainability in the sharing economy (SE) (Munoz & Cohen, 2017). Second-hand clothing is an example of recycling that extends the life of products by reusing. Reuse of clothing is associated with reducing the amount of disposed clothing, thereby reducing environmental pollution (Farrant, Olsen & Wangel, 2010). Second-hand and vintage clothes are getting popular due to environmental benefits and also for a personal style (Johansson, 2010).

The main purpose of this paper is to identify the importance and to determine the influence of selected types of motives on the attitudes towards using collaborative fashion consumption (CFC) applications/ platforms and willingness to use them in the future.

The Concept of CFC

Collaborative consumption (CC) is one of the new consumption trends in consumer behaviour that includes an alternative approach to meeting needs. This trend is based on access to goods without the need to own and transfer property rights. In Belk (2014), the term 'collaborative consumption’ was defined as 'people coordinating the acquisition and distribution of a resource for a fee or other compensation’. CC is dynamically developing in various areas of human activity. The popularity of CC has significantly increased due to the development of digitalisation. Owing to the dissemination of smartphones, the development of mobile technologies, Internet accessibility and the proliferation of online payment, the CC has never been so easy and widespread (Muangmee, Kot, Meekaewkunchorn, Kassakorn & Khalid, 2021; Kapoor & Vij, 2021). The growing consumer awareness of environmental concerns and anticonsumerist attitudes also contribute to the development of CC. The areas in which it is most developed include transport, tourism, education, food, clothing, healthcare and leisure (Paczka, 2020). CC is most often studied in the context of the SE (Belk, 2014), prosumption (Ritzer & Jurgenson, 2010), sharing (Belk, 2010; Lamberton & Rose, 2012), access-based consumption (Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2012) or connected consumption (Schor & Fitzmaurice, 2015). The principal idea behind all of these approaches is to promote the notion of using, as opposed to owning, products (Iran & Schrader, 2017).

According to Iran and Schrader (2017), CFC is a consumption trend 'in which consumers, instead of buying new fashion products, have access to already existing garments either through alternative opportunities to acquire individual ownership (gifting, swapping or second hand) or through usage options for fashion products owned by others (sharing, lending, renting or leasing)’. CFC can be between peers; then, we are talking about 'pure cooperation’, a form that has existed since forever, when clothes were shared between family members prior to the industrial revolution (Belk, 2014). Nowadays, it could be organised by peers themselves either through online or offline platforms. But it can also take place between businesses and end consumers; then, we are talking about 'trading cooperation’. There are companies offering either service as substitutes for product ownership (renting and leasing) or second-hand retail service to make the purchase of new products dispensable (Iran & Schrader, 2017). Finally, CFC can be mediated by a third party; then, we are talking about 'sourcing collaboration’ (Henninger, Brydges, Iran & Vladimirova, 2021). On the basis of the literature review, the following forms of CFC can be distinguished: sharing, borrowing, reuse, charity, second-hand market, SC, anti-consumption, swapping, resale, take-back schemes and repurpose. These practices result in reduced new product acquisitions, increased product reuse and extended product life cycle (Armstrong, Niinimäki, Lang & Kujala, 2016). Various forms of CFC are accepted and practiced by consumers. Some people accept one or more form(s) of CFC, while others reject the concept entirely and are against sharing their clothes (Iran, Geiger & Schrader, 2018). In the apparel industry, the SE enables consumers to have access to fashion products that would not be accessible otherwise, achieving more variety in apparel choice (Balck & Cracau, 2015).

CFC has gained an increasing amount of attention among not only consumers but also academia (Lang, Seo & Liu, 2019). Researchers identify that CFC serves to not only reduce waste and negative environmental impact (Gopalakrishnan & Matthews, 2018) but also increase sustainability in the apparel industry (Geissdoerfer, Savaget, Bocken & Hultink, 2017).

The emergence of new information and communication technologies has caused significant changes in the rules of fashion sharing. Such activities, initially carried out only with family members or friends and acquaintances, gradually began to be undertaken also with previously unknown people. Access to new technology and digital platforms makes it easier to communicate at a distance and to find people who have spare resources and those who would like to use them. More and more platforms for CFC have emerged around the world, e.g. Rent the Runway, Share Wardrobe, GlamCorner, Dress & Go, Vinted, Zalando Pre-owned and E-Garderobe.com (Lee, Jung & Lee, 2021). Such platforms are having a serious impact on the fashion industry. Contemporary SE applications create a market form in which strangers rather than kin and communities exchange garments, thereby creating new ways of provisioning goods and services as well as opportunities for CC. Many consumers are becoming more open to renting and thrifting and, as a result, businesses are adapting by making the shift from not only selling products but also offering subscription services. An individual who cannot afford to buy luxury goods can rent various designer fashion items at lower prices. It is worth noting that CFC applies to different consumer segments of the clothing market. According to experts, CFC could rapidly grow into one of the fastestgrowing segments of retail in the next 10 years (Chieng, 2021).

Hypotheses Development and Conceptual Model

Users’ motivation to participate in CFC has been the subject of research by scientists all over the world for many years. Guiot and Roux (2010) distinguished three main categories of motives for second-hand shopping: critical motivations (distance from the consumption system, ethics and ecology), economic motivations (gratificative role of price, searching for a fair price) and hedonic/recreational motivation (treasure hunting, originality, social contact and nostalgia). Padmavathy, Swapana and Paul (2019) proposed a scale to measure online second-hand shopping motivation and focussed on economic motivation (price orientation, bargaining power and critical orientation), convenience motivation (usefulness and ease of use) and ideological motivation (need to be unique, nostalgia, trust and assurances). Based on a literature review, Becker-Leifhold and Iran (2018) identified the drivers of CFC from a consumers’ perspective — hedonic motives (e.g. availability of rare items, excitement, fun, satisfaction, treasure hunting, nostalgia and social interaction), utilitarian motives (smart purchase behaviour, fair price, frugality and bargains) and biospheric motives (environment-friendly consumption, prevention of wasteful disposal and distance from the system). Zaman, Park, Kim and Park (2019) distinguished six consumer orientations relevant to second-hand clothing shopping: frugality, style consciousness, ecological consciousness, dematerialism, nostalgia proneness and fashion consciousness. Park and Armstrong (2019) classified five basic consumer motivations for collaborative apparel consumption: saving money, saving time, finding desirable product assortment, utility and no burden of ownership. Cervellon, Carey and Harms (2012) have studied the influence of nostalgia, fashion involvement, need for uniqueness, need for status, frugality and value consciousness and environmental-friendly proneness on the intention to purchase second-hand fashion pieces (and vintage pieces). Xu, Chen, Burman and Zhao (2014), in their cross-cultural study, distinguished four perceived values for purchasing second-hand clothing: economic value, hedonic value or treasure hunting, uniqueness and environmental value. The results of their study have shown significant differences in second-hand clothing consumption behaviour between US and Chinese consumers. This justifies the conduct of research in individual countries, as the behaviour of consumers from different countries may differ significantly from each other.

The subject scope of our study includes the recognition of the impact of economic and utility motives (e.g. promotions, convenience and saving time), social motives (e.g. being a part of a group of people with similar interests, image and following trends) and ecological motives (e.g. to protect/care for the natural environment, to limit excessive consumption and to extend the life of the products) on attitudes towards CFC applications and the willingness to use them in the future.

Economic and Utility Motives

The analysed literature on the consumption of used clothing suggests that pragmatic motivations based on time and money saving play an important role in shaping attitudes towards second-hand buying (Williams & Paddock, 2003). Guiot and Roux (2010) state that economic motivations are important incentives of second-hand purchase behaviour. The results of a study conducted by Cervellon et al. (2012) have shown that the main driver for the purchase of second-hand clothes is frugality. Studies indicate that economic factors play the most important role for clients when making decisions on the use of SE (Barnes & Mattsson, 2016). However, it should be noticed that the findings of the study by Won and Kim (2020) suggest that utilitarian motives (saving money or maximising utility) do not affect consumer attitude towards fashion-sharing platforms. On the other hand, the findings of Ek Styvén and Mariani (2020) indicate that economic motivations influence positively the attitude towards buying second-hand clothing on SE platforms. The study by Yan, Bae and Xu (2015) has shown that college students’ shopping frequency for second-hand clothing was predicted by price sensitivity.

Based on a review of previous research, the authors propose the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1a (H1a): Economic and utility motives positively influence the attitudes towards using CFC applications/platforms.

Hypothesis 1b (H1b): Economic and utility motives positively influence the willingness to use CFC applications in the future.

Social Motives

Social motives are incorporated for instance in the possibility of getting to know other people who have similar desires (Benoit, Baker, Bolton, Gruber & Kandampully, 2017). Findings from a study by Angelovska, Èeh Èasni and Lutz (2020) suggest that motives such as meeting with people and social responsibility are significant predictors of participation in the SE. A study by Yan et al. (2015) suggests that consumers who shopped for second-hand clothing might do so for social reasons (among others). Psychological factors promote people to interact on peer-to-peer (P2P) platforms and form the basis for borrowing and rental mechanisms, as well as transferring ownership through exchange, donation or purchase of used goods (Hamari, 2013; Hamari, Sjöklint & Ukkonen, 2016; Piscicelli, Cooper & Fisher, 2015).

Based on a review of previous research, the authors propose the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 2a (H2a): Social motives positively influence the attitudes towards using CFC applications/platforms.

Hypothesis 2b (H2b): Social motives positively influence the willingness to use CFC applications in the future.

Ecological Motives

The SE is part of ethical consumerism, and participation in it can be perceived as a form of sustainable consumer behaviour (Perlacia, Duml & Saebi, 2017). Sold sales, transition, renting or transferring unwanted/unnecessary clothes contributes to the extension of the product life, reduction of production and fashion waste (Perlacia et al., 2017; Sarigöllü, Hou & Ertz, 2021). Although participation in the sharing economy may potentially have a positive impact on the environment (Botsman & Rogers, 2010) (no resource consumption), it does not seem to be a strong motivator for many consumers (Habibi et al., 2016). Furthermore, Leismann, Schmitt, Rohn and Baedeker (2013) show that 'use instead of having’ patterns may also have undesirable ecological side effects, because customers can abuse shopping, which can eliminate positive environmental effects. Some studies suggest that purchase of second-hand clothes is not driven by ecological consciousness directly but through the mediating effect of bargain hunting (Cervellon et al., 2012). Findings from the study by Won and Kim (2020) indicate that hedonic and ecological motivation affects consumer attitude towards fashion-sharing platforms. Ek Styvén and Mariani (2020) found that perceived sustainability influences positively the attitude towards buying second-hand clothing on sharing-economy platforms. On the other hand, the study by Yan et al. (2015) did not confirm the relationship between environmental attitudes and the shopping frequency for second-hand clothing among college students. Those authors noticed, however, that second-hand shoppers tend to be more environmentally conscious than non-shoppers.

The literature review findings regarding the impact of ecological motives on attitudes towards SE/CC and participation in SE/CC are ambiguous. The authors propose the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 3a (H3a): Ecological motives positively influence the attitudes towards using CFC applications/platforms.

Hypothesis 3b (H3b): Ecological motives positively influence the willingness to use CFC applications in the future.

Attitude

According to the theory of planned behaviour, an individual’s intention to perform a certain behaviour is determined by a combination of three factors: attitudes towards the behaviour, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control (Ajzen, 1991). The assumption of the positive influence of the attitude towards CC or second-hand shopping on behaviour intention (participation in CC or buying second-hand fashion) is supported in the literature. In the study by Hamari et al. (2016), attitude had a significant positive effect on behavioural intentions to participate in CC. Ek Styvén and Mariani (2020) suggest that attitude towards buying second-hand fashion positively influences behavioural intention to buy second-hand goods on P2P-SE platforms. Won and Kim (2020) indicate that consumers’ attitudes towards fashion-sharing platforms have a positive effect on their purchase intentions.

Based on a review of past research, the authors assume that the attitude towards CFC positively affects behavioural intention and thus propose the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 4 (H4): The attitudes towards using CFC applications/platforms positively influence the willingness to use them in the future.

The following conceptual research model is proposed (Figure 1):

Research Design

The data was collected through an online research panel (Nationwide Research Panel Ariadna) with the use of an online survey in 2021 on a total of 412 Polish respondents. The non-random sampling method was used in the selection of the research sample. The structure of the research sample corresponded to the structure of adult Poles in terms of gender, age, education level and place of residence. The dataset was created with SPSS, version 27 (IBM). A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed and a structural equation model (SEM) was developed using AMOS, version 21.0. Based on prior studies, a multi-item measurement scale was developed to measure motives and attitude. Economic and utility motives, social motives, ecological motives and attitude were each measured with four items and behaviour intention with one item. All items were measured utilising a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

The selection of the research sample was carried out by the quota method (selection criteria: sex, age and place of residence). The structure of the research sample is presented in Table 1.

Measurement Model

Table 2 shows the results of the CFA, including factor loadings and descriptive statistics. Two of three motives to participate as a user of CFC platforms were of relatively high importance: economics and utility motives (EU) (meanEU = 3.88) and ecological (ECO) (meanECO = 3.65). Social (SOC) motives were considered by the respondents as less important (meanSOC = 3.22).

SEM was used to test the hypothetical relationships between observable and/or latent variables in experimental and non-experimental research (Konarski, 2009, p. 15). The SEM consisted of a structural and a measurement part — the structural part of the model describes the theoretical cause-and-effect relation or correlation between the studied phenomena, while the measurement part takes place when the analysed phenomena are not directly measurable (therefore, they are represented in the constructed model by unobservable/latent variables). This means that before starting the estimation of the SEM, its measurement part should be determined and verified. One of the methods of verification of the measurement model is by the use of CFA (Bedyńska & Książek, 2012, pp. 219–223). The reliability of the measurement instrument was tested using CFA, where the results showed acceptable model fit indices (Table 3).

The evaluation of the overall measurement model (Figure 2) and the assessment of reliability and validity of the constructs were performed with a CFA. In the process of evaluating the measurement model, the discriminant and convergent validities were verified — the discriminant validity measures the extent to which the factors intended to measure a specific construct are actually unrelated (Wang & Wang, 2012). The Fornell and Larcker approach for the assessment of discriminant validity was used (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Within this approach, the average variance extracted (AVE) for each research construct should be higher than the square of the correlation between the construct and other constructs (Ode & Ayavoo, 2020). The diagonal (shown in bold with asterisks — *) elements shown in the table are the squares of multiple correlations between the research variables. As shown in Table 4, the AVE ranges from 0.57 to 0.81, while the diagonal values range from 0.75 to 0.90, indicating that the diagonal variables are higher than the AVE values (in rows); this result suggests that all constructs have appropriate discriminant validity. The data presented in the table shows that the measurement model has satisfactory discriminant validity.

Convergent validity measures the degree to which the factors measuring single constructs are consistent with each other. Convergent validity was assessed using composite reliability (CR) and AVE — the minimum values adopted in the analysis were such that AVE should be >0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), factor loadings should be >0.6 and CR should be >0.6 (Hair, Black, Babin & Anderson, 2009; Ahmed, Romeika, Kauliene, Streimikis & Dapkus, 2020; Popa & Dabija, 2019; Szczepańska-Woszczyna, 2021). On the basis of the obtained results, all three minimum values were reached, which suggests that the reliability and validity of the model and the constructs used are acceptable.

Structural Model

Based on the research conducted in the literature review, the results of CFA and the proposed hypotheses, a research model was developed and is graphically illustrated in Figure 3. All the fit indices of the SEM allow us to proceed to the verification of the research hypotheses.

Testing the Hypotheses

The test results for the hypotheses are shown in Table 5. The results indicate that ATT was influenced by EU (β = 0.410, p < 0.001), SOC (β = –0.195, p = 0.002) and ECO (β = 0.455, p < 0.001). We found that EU (β = 0.255, p < 0.001), SOC (β = –0.223, p < 0.001) and ATT (β = 0.706, p < 0.001) influenced BI. ECO has been found to be not significantly associated with BI. It should be noticed that the hypothesis regarding social motives (H2a and H2b) were not supported due to the negative effect of those factors on ATT and BI.

Discussion

Our study allowed to identify the importance and to determine the effect of economic and utility motives, social motives and ecological motives on the attitudes towards using CFC apps/platforms and behavioural intention regarding the willingness to use them. We investigated also the influence of attitude towards using CFC platforms on behavioural intention. As assumed, our study confirmed the effect of attitude on willingness to use CFC applications in the future.

The findings suggest that economic and utility motives were considered by the respondents to be the most important type of motivation for participation as a user (consumer) of CFC applications. The results confirm previous findings wherein economic/utility/frugality motivation was suggested to be a main or important driver of secondhand fashion consumption (Guiot & Roux, 2010; Cervellon et al., 2012). Furthermore, economic and utility motives significantly affected the attitude towards CFC apps and the willingness to use them in the future. Those conclusions are in line with the works of other researchers (e.g. Ek Styvén & Mariani, 2020; Yan et al., 2015). It should be recalled that the overall findings of prior studies in this area are ambiguous. In some studies, utilitarian motives (saving money or minimalising utility) did not affect consumer attitude towards fashion-sharing platforms (Won & Kim, 2020).

Social motives turned out to be the least important factor (among the three types of motivation) for participation in CFC as a consumer. While analysis of the literature suggests that social motives might be an important reason for second-hand clothing shopping behaviour (Yan et al., 2015) or can be a significant predictor of participation in the SE (Angelovska et al., 2020), our findings seem to be quite interesting in that aspect. In our research, social motives significantly affected both attitude towards CFC platforms and intention to use them in the future; however, the effect on those variables was negative.

Ecological motives were considered to be a relatively important factor for buying second-hand clothing through CFC platforms. Our study findings confirm that ecological motives positively influence the attitudes towards using CFC applications/platforms, which is in line with previous studies by Won and Kim (2020) or Ek Styvén and Mariani (2020). It should be noted, however, that our results did not support the hypothesis that those motives positively influence the willingness to use CFC applications in the future, same as in Yan et al. (2015). Ecological motivation can be seen as a quite important factor regarding participation in CFC platforms, but they may not directly affect the behavioural intention to use them.

Conclusions

The results of our research have shown that there is significant evidence to conclude that the most important motives for using online applications for collaborative fashion consumption were economic and utility motives. Moreover, their impact on attitudes towards these applications and the willingness to use them was confirmed. Past research demonstrates that second-hand consumers are more likely to be price-sensitive and motivated by low prices. Saving money is a key driver for consumers. Thus, low prices exert a major influence on consumers’ willingness to purchase second-hand goods (Cervellon et al., 2012; Guiot & Roux, 2010; Isla, 2013; Williams & Paddock, 2003). Ecological motives emerged as relatively important determinants of the use of CFC applications. Environmental and ethical benefits of garment reuse are also significant drivers according to previous research (Guiot & Roux, 2010; Waight, 2013; Xu et al., 2014). Social motives not only were the least important determinants of participation in CFC, but they seem to have a negative impact on both ATT and willingness to use CFC platforms.

From a theoretical perspective, this study contributes to the fashion literature by shedding light on the motivations for using CFC online platforms, especially in the context of the results on social motives. The findings presented in this article can be extremely valuable and useful in designing and implementing solutions to support CFC, such as mobile applications or dedicated websites. The results of our research can be used when designing activities in the field of marketing communication. In order to promote their applications/platforms, enterprises should first of all focus on economic and utility benefits, as well as on ecological aspects, and not focus on social benefits.

Limitations and future research directions

The study has several limitations. Because of the sample size and the selected method of sampling, the results cannot be treated as representative for the general population of Polish consumers who use CFC platforms to buy second-hand clothing. Due to the differences in consumer behaviour regarding various forms of participation in SE/CC, it should be kept in mind that the possibility of inference is limited only to CFC platforms. Our research was focussed on three types of motivation regarding the usage of CFC applications, so it would be a good idea to widen the spectrum of motives in future research. The research findings could be used to describe the consumer behaviour of Polish consumers; however, it should be noticed that due to cultural differences, the importance and the influence of motives for using CFC platforms can differ in other countries. It would be interesting to conduct cross-country research in that aspect. Future studies could also explore other forms of consumer behaviour regarding the usage of CFC platforms, e.g. consumer engagement.

Acknowledgements

The study was conducted within the research project Economics in the face of the New Economy financed within the Regional Initiative for Excellence programme of the Minister of Science and Higher Education of Poland, years 2019–2022, grant no. 004/RID/2018/19, financing 3,000,000 PLN.

References

1. Ahmed, R. R., Romeika, G., Kauliene, R., Streimikis, J., & Dapkus, R. (2020). ES-QUAL model and customer satisfaction in online banking: Evidence from multivariate analysis techniques. Oeconomia Copernic, 11, 59–93.

2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

3. Angelovska, J., Èeh Èasni, A., & Lutz, C. (2020). Turning consumers into providers in the sharing economy: Exploring the impact of demographics and motives. Ekonomska misao i praksa, 29(1), 79–100. Retrieved from https://hrcak.srce.hr/239585.

4. Armstrong, C. M., Niinimäki, K., Lang, C., & Kujala, S. (2016). A use-oriented clothing economy? Preliminary affirmation for sustainable clothing consumption alternatives. Sustainable Development, 24, 18–31. doi:10.1002/sd.1602

5. Balck, B., & Cracau, D. (2015). Empirical analysis of customer motives in the shareconomy. Working Paper Series, University of Magdeburg. Retrieved from https://www.fww.ovgu.de/fww_media/femm/femm_2015/2015_02.pdf

6. Bardhi, F., & Eckhardt, G. M. (2012). Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing, Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 881–898. doi:10.1086/666376.

7. Barnes, S., & Mattsson, J. (2016). Understanding current and future issues in collaborative consumption: A Four-Stage Delphi Study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 104, 200–211. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.01

8. Becker-Leifhold, C., & Iran, S. (2018). Collaborative fashion consumption — Drivers, barriers and future pathways. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 22, 189–208. doi:10.1108/JFMM-10-2017-0109

9. Bedyńska, S., & Książek, M. (2012). Statystyczny drogowskaz 3. Praktyczny przewodnik wykorzystania modeli regresji oraz równań strukturalnych; Szkoła Wyższa Psychologii Społecznej: Warsaw, POL, pp. 159–200, ISBN 9788363354053

10. Belk, R. W. (2010). Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(5), 715–734. doi:10.1086/612649.

11. Belk, R. W. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1595–1600. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres. 2013.10.001.

12. Benoit, S., Baker, T. L., Bolton, R. N., Gruber, T., & Kandampully, J. A. (2017). Triadic framework for collaborative consumption (CC): Motives, activities and resources & capabilities of actors. Journal Business Research, 79, 219–227.

13. Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours. The rise of collaborative consumption.? New York: Harper Business.

14. Cervellon, M., Carey, L., & Harms, T. (2012). Something old, something used: Determinants of women’s purchase of vintage fashion vs second-hand fashion. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 40(12), 956–974. doi:10.1108/09590551211274946

15. Chieng, F. Y. L. (2021). Collaborative fashion consumption: You don’t have to own high fashion to own it. Curtin Insight Articles. Retrieved from https://news.curtin.edu. my/insight/2021-2/collaborative-fashion-consumption-you-dont-have-to-own-highfashion-to-own-it/

16. Cooper, T. (2013). .Sustainability, Consumption and the Throwaway Culture. W: Walker S. and Giard J. (red.) The Handbook of Design for Sustainability, pp. 137–155, Bloomsbury Academic.

17. Druckman, A., & Jackson, T. (2010). The bare necessities: How much household carbon do we really need? Ecological Economics, 69(9), 1794–1804.

18. Ek Styvén, M., & Mariani, M. M. (2020). Understanding the intention to buy secondhand clothing on sharing economy platforms: The influence of sustainability, distance from the consumption system, and economic motivations. Psychology Marketing, 37(5) 1–16. doi:10.1002/mar.21334

19. Farrant, L., Olsen, S. I., & Wangel, A. (2010). Environmental benefits from reusing clothes. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15(7), 726–736.

20. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18/3, 382–388.

21. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular economy — A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757–768. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048.

22. Geng, R., Mansouri, S. A., & Aktas, E. (2017). The relationship between green supply chain management and performance: A meta-analysis of empirical evidences in Asian emerging economies. International Journal of Production Economics, 183, 245-258. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.10.008

23. Gopalakrishnan, S., & Matthews, D. (2018). Collaborative consumption: A business model analysis of second-hand fashion. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 22(3), 354–368. doi:10.1108/JFMM-05-2017-0049.

24. Guiot, D., & Roux, D. (2010). A second-hand shoppers’ motivation scale: Antecedents, consequences, and implications for retailers. Journal of Retailing, 86(4), 355–371. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2010.08.002

25. Habibi, M. R., Davidson, A., & Laroche, M. (2017). What managers should know about the sharing economy. Business Horizons, 60(1), 113–121. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2016.09.00

26. Hair, J.F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed., pp. 627–686). Upper Saddle River: NJ, USA: Pearson International Edition. ISBN 9780138132637.

27. Hamari, J. (2013). Transforming homo economicus into homo ludens: A field experiment on gamification in a utilitarian peer-to-peer trading service. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12, 236–245 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2013.01.004.

28. Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2016). The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. The Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67, 2047–2059. doi:10.1002/asi.23552

29. Henninger, C. E., Brydges, T., Iran, S., & Vladimirova, K. 2021. Collaborative fashion consumption — A synthesis and future research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 319, 128648.I doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128648

30. International EMF Project — Progress reports — June 2015–2016. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/international-emf-project-progress-report2015-2016

31. Iran, S., & Schrader, U. (2017). Collaborative fashion consumption and its environmental effects. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 21(4), 468–482. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.163

32. Iran, S., Geiger, A. M., & Schraeder, U. L. (2018). Collaborative fashion consumption — A cross-cultural study between Tehran and Berlin. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, 313–323. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.163

33. Isla, V. L. (2013). Investigating second-hand fashion trade and consumption in the Philippines: expanding existing discourses. Journal of Consumer Culture, 13(3), 221–240. doi:10.1177/1469540513480167

34. Johansson, J. K. (2010). Global Marketing Strategy. Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing.doi:10.1002/9781444316568.wiem01024

35. Kapoor, A. P., & Vij, M. (2021). Want it, Rent it: Exploring attributes leading to conversion for online furniture rental platforms. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16, 188–207. doi:10.4067/S0718-18762021000200113.

36. Konarski, R. (2009). Modelowanie równań strukturalnych. Teoria i praktyka (p. 15). Warsaw, Poland: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. ISBN 9788301160944

37. Lamberton, C. P., & Rose, R. L. (2012). When is ours better than mine? A framework for understanding and altering participation in commercial sharing systems, Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 109–125. doi:10.1509/jm.10.0368.

38. Lang, C., Seo, S., & Liu, C. (2019). Motivations and obstacles for fashion renting: A crosscultural comparison. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 23(4), 519–536. doi:10.1108/JFMM-05-2019-0106

39. Lee, S. E., Jung, H. J., & Lee, K.-H. (2021). Motivating collaborative consumption in fashion: Consumer benefits, perceived risks, service trust, and usage intention of online fashion rental services. Sustainability, 13, 1804. doi:10.3390/su13041804

40. Leismann, K., Schmitt, M., Rohn, H., & Baedeker, C. (2013). Collaborative consumption: Towards a resource-saving consumption culture. Resources, 2(3), 184–203. doi:10.3390/resources2030184

41. Mont, O., & Plepys, A. (2008). Sustainable consumption progress: Should we be proud or alarmed? Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(4), 531–537.

42. Muangmee, C., Kot, S., Meekaewkunchorn, N., Kassakorn, N., & Khalid, B. (2021). Factors determining the behavioral intention of using food delivery apps during COVID19 pandemics. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16, 1297–1310. doi:10.3390/jtaer16050073

43. Munoz, P., & Cohen, B. (2017). Mapping out the sharing economy: A configurational approach to sharing business modeling. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 125, 21–37. 44. Ode, E., & Ayavoo, R. (2020). The mediating role of knowledge application in the relationship between knowledge management practices and firm innovation. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 5, 209–217.

45. Paczka, E. (2020). Collaborative consumption i jej wpływ na rozwój przedsiębiorczości w obliczu zmian pokoleniowych. Przegląd Prawa I Administracji, 120, tom 2, 749–761. doi:10.19195/0137-1134.120.104.

46. Padmavathy, C., Swapana, M., & Paul, J. (2019). Online second-hand shopping motivation — Conceptualization, scale development, and validation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51, 19–32. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.014

47. Park, H., & Armstrong, C. M. J. (2019). Is money the biggest driver? Uncovering motives for engaging in online collaborative consumption retail models for apparel. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51, 42–50. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.022

48. Perlacia, A. S., Duml, V., & Saebi, T. (2017). Collaborative consumption: Live fashion, don’t own it. Beta, 31, 6–24. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2860021

49. Phipps, M., Ozanne, L. K., Luchs, M. G., Subrahmanyan, S., Kapitan, S., Catlin, J. R., & Weaver, T. (2013). Understanding the inherent complexity of sustainable consumption: A social cognitive framework. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1227–1234.

50. Piligrimiene, Ž., Žukauskaite, A., Korzilius, H., Banyte, J., & Dovaliene, A. (2020). Internal and external determinants of consumer engagement in sustainable consumption. Sustainability, 12(4), 1349. doi:10.3390/su12041349

51. Piscicelli, L., Cooper, T., & Fisher, T. (2015). The role of values in collaborative consumption: Insights from a product-service system for lending and borrowing in the UK. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 21–29, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.032.

52. Popa, I. D., & Dabija, D. C. (2019). Developing the Romanian organic market: A producer’s perspective. Sustainability, 11, 467.

53. Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, consumption, prosumption: The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital 'prosumer’. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(1), 13–36. doi:10.1177/1469540509354673

54. Sarigöllü, E., Hou, C., & Ertz, M. (2021). Sustainable product disposal: Consumer redistributing behaviors versus hoarding and throwing away. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(1), pp. 340–356. doi:10.1002/bse.2624

55. Schor, J. B., & Fitzmaurice, C. J. (n.d.). Collaborating and connecting: the emergence of the sharing economy. Handbook of Research on Sustainable Consumption, 410–425. doi:10.4337/9781783471270.00039

56. Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K. (2021). Management theory, innovation, and organisation. A model of managerial competencies. Milton Park, UK: Routledge. ISBN 9780367485528

57. Waight, E. (2013). Eco babies: reducing a parent’s ecological footprint with second-hand consumer goods. International Journal of Green Economics, 7(2), 197–211. doi:10.1504/IJGE.2013.057444

58. Wang, Z., & Wang, N. (2012). Knowledge sharing, innovation and firm performance. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(10), 8899–8908.

59. Williams, C. C., & Paddock, C. (2003). The meanings of informal and second hand retail channels: some evidence from Leicester. International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 13(3), 317–336. doi:10.1080/0959396032000101372

60. Won, J., & Kim, B.-Y. (2020). The effect of consumer motivations on purchase intention of online fashion — Sharing platform. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(6), 197–207. doi:10.13106/JAFEB.2020.VOL7.NO6.197

61. Xu, Y., Chen, Y., Burman, R., & Zhao, H. (2014). Second-hand clothing: A cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38, 670–677. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12139

62. Yan, R.-N., Bae, S.Y., & Xu, H. (2015). Second-hand clothing shopping among college students: The role of psychographic characteristics. Young Consumers, 16(1), 85–98. doi:10.1108/YC-02-2014-00429

63. Zaman, M., Park, H., Kim, Y.-K., & Park, S.-H. (2019). Consumer orientations of secondhand clothing shoppers. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, 10(2), 163–176. doi: 10.1080/20932685.2019.1576060

Changes in the lifestyle of inhabitants, economic issues, and the growing importance of environmental issues in consumer choices are redefining mobility patterns in cities (Aguilera-García et al., 2019). For many years, changes in access to various forms of urban transport that are assumed to be consistent with the concept of sustainable development have been observed. An increasingly common trend around the world (including Poland) is the growing importance of low-emission transport and the introduction of short-term rental systems of bicycles, electric cars, e-scooters and moped e-scooters (Sojkin & Michalak, 2019). The shift from „ownership” to „usership” — using resources made available „on demand” or sharing them with others — observed on the mobility market is a response to the negative consequences caused by mass motorization and the rapid increase of the number of private vehicles (Jurczak, 2019; Machado et al., 2018). Despite the increasing development of electric moped scooter sharing services/systems, the subject literature includes far fewer studies on the conditions of their use than in the case of other „sharing” services/systems (Aguilera-García et al., 2021; Bieliński & Ważna, 2020; Eccarius & Lu, 2018, Wortmann et al., 2021). On a dynamically changing market of transport services, understanding the mobility patterns of inhabitants is crucial for urban planners, administrators and transport service providers in order to adapt their services to the evolving needs of consumers (Aguilera-García et al., 2019). The main aim of this paper is to identify and assess the motives for and barriers to the use of electric moped scooter sharing services among the inhabitants of selected Polish cities and to define the main travel destinations using this form of transport.

Electric moped scooter sharing services as a form of shared micro-mobility

In recent years, a certain evolution of the transport services market has been observed, within which two main trends should be noted — shared mobility and electrification (Liao & Correia, 2020). Among the forms of shared mobility, there are services related to shared micro-mobility, which is considered an innovative and „green” form of transport (Flores & Jansson, 2021). Micro-mobility is an innovative urban transport solution and relates to trips over a shorter distance for personal transport by using low-speed modes of transportation e.g., bike, scooter/e-scooter, moped e-scooter, Segway, etc. (Lee et al., 2021; Eccarius & Lu, 2020; Mitra & Hess, 2020). The essence of shared micro-mobility is the temporary use of goods and services by consumers without having to own them (Machado et al., 2018). The use of shared micro-mobility services by consumers may contribute to reducing the problems faced by the authorities and inhabitants of many cities, e.g. excessive transport costs, traffic jams, air pollution, shortage of (parking) spaces and noise (Bieliński & Ważna, 2020; Zhu et al., 2020). One of the results of the acceptance of this innovative form of urban transport may be a change in inhabitants’ attitudes towards the necessity for private vehicle ownership and thus the inhibition of mass motorization and a reduction in the number of private cars (Abduljabbar et al., 2021). It should be noted that the rapid increase in the popularity of shared micro-mobility services was and still is a certain challenge for city authorities and public administration, e.g. in terms of appropriate legal regulations regarding the use of various forms of micro-mobility, the issue of adapting transport infrastructure, and ensuring the safety of pedestrians who are at risk of being hit by users of micro-mobility modes (Milakis et al., 2020; Reck & Axhausen, 2021). In addition, attention is also drawn to the fact that rare metals as well as fossil fuel energy are used in the production of batteries to power micro-mobility electric modes (Milakis et al., 2020).
The motives for and barriers to using particular forms of micro-mobility differ from each other. For example, in the case of bike-sharing, the top facilitators to bikeshare use among users were: convenience, easy access to bikes, health benefits, economics benefits and fun/new experience. The top reported barriers were: no helmet, trouble with renting/returning, traffic safety concerns, bad weather and inconvenient stations (Franckle et al., 2020). On the other hand, the main benefits associated with the use of e-scooters by regular users in the USA include: they are faster than walking, they are convenient, they can be fun/relaxing, they are better in hot weather than walking and they allow users to reach places without the need to drive e.g. by car), are inexpensive to use, good for the environment or that users feel safer when using them (less likely to commit a crime on them). The main barriers to using e-scooters are related to safety concerns (e.g. hitting someone or being hit by someone, not enough safe places to ride, feeling unsteady / worrying about falling off), practicality-related barriers (e.g. no space for carrying luggage or transport other people, impractical for longer distances) and equipment-related barriers (e.g.
broken e-scooters, trouble finding one when needed, battery not always charged, worrying that equipment will break / malfunction (Sanders et al., 2020). The main reasons for using e-scooters in Taiwan were primarily environmental issues, as well as convenience, the ability to access without owning, saving money, flexibility and pricing. The main barriers to the use of e-scooters were concerns about their condition (cleanliness, technical condition), availability / distance to the next e-scooter, price, helmet hygiene, and vehicle speed (Eccarius & Lu, 2018).

Despite the fact that the availability and popularity of electric moped scooter sharing services is growing rapidly in Europe (Wortmann et al., 2021), in the literature on the subject, there are few studies on the motives for and barriers to using this micro-mobility mode. The main reasons for using a moped scooter-sharing system listed by Spanish consumers were: the benefits of easily parking the moped, flexibility mobility/avoiding traffic jams, a well-functioning system, competitive pricing and environmental awareness (Aguilera-García et al., 2021).
It should be borne in mind that the use of various modern urban mobility systems is possible after meeting certain criteria for a given form, e.g. in the case of bike-sharing in Poznań — people under the age of 13 may use bikes only under the care of a parent or legal guardian, for people from 10 to 18 years of age to drive an electric scooter, it is required to have the same qualifications as for cycling, i.e. a bicycle card or driving license of categories AM, A1, B1 or T, in the case of car-sharing it is obligatory to have driving license, and in the case of moped e-scooters legal age and the use of a helmet are required.

Research design

An empirical study verifying the motives, barriers and goals of using electric moped scooter sharing services was conducted in cooperation with Blinkee1 in the first half of 2021 using the online survey technique in Google Forms. The areas of empirical research included the following scopes:

a) subjective — electric moped scooter users (having an active account in the application, regardless of the frequency of using the moped scooters),
b) subject — frequency of using the selected form of urban transportation, motives, barriers and goals of using city electric moped scooter sharing services,
c) spatial — selected voivodeship capital cities of Poland: Białystok, Bydgoszcz, Gdańsk, Gdynia, Katowice, Kraków, Lublin, Łódź, Poznań, Warsaw and Wrocław,
d) temporary — first half of 2021.

The size of the research sample was 352 observations (N = 352). In the process of selecting the research sample, purposive selection was used, where the basic criterion was to have an active account in the Blinkee application for renting electric moped scooters. The analysis of the empirical data obtained was carried out using the IBM SPSS Statistics program — the response distribution indicators, statistical description indicators were calculated, and selected methods of analysis of variance and the method of exploratory factor analysis were used.
The research sample was dominated mainly by men (93.5% of all respondents) and people aged 25–34 (42.6% of all respondents), with higher education (64.8% of all respondents), with a material status above national average (52.6% of all respondents). The structure of the research sample, taking into account selected characteristics of the respondents, is presented in the table below (Tab. 1).

In assessing the motives for electric moped scooter sharing services, 17 factors were verified (tab. 2). The significance of the selected motifs was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale, on which the values were scaled from 1 — definitely not, to 5 — definitely yes. For the purposes of the study, it was assumed that the distances between the categories on the Likert scale are equal. Such an assumption is common in the social sciences and allows the use of parametric tests. The analysis of mean values allows the most and least important motives from the perspective of the respondents to be identified. The set of the most important motives included the flexibility of using moped e-scooters (mean7 = 4.19), making it easier to travel (mean8 = = 4.17), the possibility of reaching the destination point directly (mean11 = = 4.05), independence from public transport (mean16 = 3.91) and time savings compared to the use of other forms of urban mobility (mean17 = 3.86).

The average significance of all the identified motives for using electric moped scooter sharing services is presented in the table below (Tab. 2).

Additionally, the significance of the selected motives for using electric moped scooter sharing services was compared between the two groups of respondents — the first group includes respondents who do not use moped e-scooters or use moped e-scooters very rarely (less than once a month), while the second group includes respondents who declare more frequent use of moped e-scooters. The results obtained clearly indicate the higher importance of the surveyed motives in the group of respondents who use electric moped scooter sharing services at least once a month — the only motive, the importance of which is similar in both groups of the respondents, is the lack of the need to incur additional costs of parking in the city (mean4_N ≈ mean4_Y — Tab. 2).

The next step in the research procedure was to assess the importance of barriers to using electric moped scooter sharing services (the relevant data presented in Tab. 3). The significance of these examined barriers was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale, on which the values were scaled from 1 — definitely no, to 5 — definitely yes. In the context of barriers to using moped e-scooters, respondents primarily focused on the availability of scooters in places where they would like to use them (mean4 = 3.89), weather conditions (mean5 = 3.84), travel price (mean6 = = 3.36) and the concern about the cleanliness and hygiene of scooters (mean8 = 3.11).

The comparison of the significance of the identified barriers between the groups of respondents (not using or rarely using and using moped e-scooters at least once a month) allowed for the identification of only a few statistically significant differences — in the group of active scooter users, the number of scooters in places where they can be used (mean4_N < < mean4_Y) and the battery level in the scooter (mean14_N < mean14_Y) are more important, while in the group of people who do not or occasionally use moped e-scooters, preferences regarding other forms of urban transportation (mean9_N > mean9_Y) and difficulties in driving and using scooters (mean12_N > mean12_Y) are more important.

In the next step of the research procedure, based on the frequency of using electric moped scooter sharing services, the significance of the purposes of their rental was verified (data presented in Tab. 4). The assessment was made using a 5-point Likert scale, on which the values were scaled from 1 — not at all or very rarely (less frequently than once a month), to 5 — very often (every day or almost every day). The mean values obtained (mean values ≤ ≤ 2.33) indicate a relatively rare use of this method of urban transportation — the key importance in this context seems to be the time of the study coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic and the related remote work and teaching at all levels of education. Nevertheless, the results indicate that the use of electric moped scooter sharing services occurs most often when dealing with various matters (mean6 = 2.33), traveling to or from a place where you spend your free time (mean7 = 2.22), restaurants or cafes (mean9 = 2.09), cinema, theatre, opera or concert (mean8 = 2.07). It is relatively popular to use this micro-mobility urban transportation mode when „driving” (mean11 = = 2.06) and visiting family or friends (mean5 = 2.04).

The comparison of the average importance of the purposes of using electric moped scooter sharing services between groups of respondents who rarely or occasionally, or at least once a month, use this form of urban transportation clearly indicates a greater role played by all the goals studied in the group of active users. Such an assessment, despite the period of the COVID-19 pandemic, may indicate the purposefulness of the development of this micro-mobility form of urban transportation.
In the last step of the research procedure, the original sets of measurable variables (motives, barriers and purposes of using electric moped scooter sharing services) were reduced using the exploratory factor analysis method — this allowed the original sets to be reduced, including 17 variables to 5 components in the case of motives, in the case of barriers, 17 variables to 3 components, while for the purposes of using scooters, 11 variables to 2 components2. A semantic interpretation was given to new components (results presented in Tab. 5).

As in the case of measurable variables, the average values of the newly distinguished components were compared between the group of respondents who do not use scooters or use moped e-scooters very rarely (less than once a month) and the group declaring more frequent use of electric moped scooters (Tab. 6).

The analysis of the results confirms the regularities identified at the stage of the results analysis in terms of directly observable variables. The most important reasons for using the electric moped scooter sharing services included the convenience of this mobility mode (mean = 3.97) and no city parking costs (mean = 3.38). The biggest barriers to choosing this micro-mobility mode for Polish consumers were those related to the safety of use (mean = 2.83). The comparison of the mean values of the components between the groups of respondents surveyed indicates the greater importance of the motives and goals of using electric moped scooter sharing services in the group of respondents using them at least once a month. On the other hand, the analysis of the significance of the barriers did not allow the identification of statistically significant differences between the surveyed groups of respondents — the absence of differences in this respect may indicate the need to emphasize the advantages (motives) of using moped e-scooters as the basic determinants that can increase the popularity of this method of urban transportation.

Summary

The analysis of the results shows that there are specific challenges faced by administrators of electric moped scooter sharing services. In this context, the most important thing is to identify the most attractive routes for moped e-scooter users, which should ensure the availability of scooters and minimize the costs associated with their possible logistics to these places. This is confirmed by the analysis of the purposes of using electric moped scooters, which indicates the informal nature of scooter trips. At this point, however, attention should be paid to the period of the COVID-19 pandemic, which certainly influenced the way a typical work or study day was organized by residents of large cities.

The analysis of barriers, in turn, indicates the occurrence of concerns related primarily to the safety of use, the availability of moped e-scooters and weather conditions. The last of these barriers indicates fluctuations in the demand for this micro-mobility mode, both irregular (e.g. rainfall in summer) and seasonal (e.g. low temperatures in late autumn and early spring), which certainly translates into economic calculations for the businesses providing the infrastructure of electric moped scooters.

The analysis of the importance of the goals of using electric moped scooter sharing services shows the potential for the development of the scooter market in large cities in Poland — this is indicated by higher average values in terms of goals of using scooters in the group of people using electric moped scooter sharing services at least once a month. The relatively low average values in the assessment of the goals of using scooters indicate the need to emphasize the advantages and minimize the significance of the identified barriers to using scooters identified in the groups of current and potential users — this should allow for a growing substitution in comparison with other forms of mobility in large cities.

Limitations and future research directions

It should be noted that due to the lack of a large number of studies on the determinants and scope of use of moped e-scooters by consumers,
future studies should be conducted to advance knowledge on the topic and fill the research gap. Future research topics could focus on identification of a potential relationship between user experience and willingness to use electric moped scooter sharing services in the future. A certain limitation of the research carried out for the purpose of writing this paper is the spatialsubjective scope covering only Polish consumers, hence an interesting idea would be comparative research in other countries. Cross-Country comparative research could identify differences in consumer behavior between users in different countries. Due to the selection sampling method and the size of the research sample, the results are not representative of the entire population of Polish electric moped scooter sharing services users. It should also be remembered that the study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, so it is worth comparing the behavior of consumers regarding the use of electric moped scooter sharing services during and after the pandemic.

Endnotes

1 Blinkee is the leader of electric moped scooter sharing market in Poland. The company has over half a million registered users in Poland and its portfolio also includes other micro-mobility modes.
2 The minimum values of the factor loadings were set at the level of 0.6.

References

1. Abduljabbar, R. L., Liyanage, S. & Dia, H. (2021). The role of micro-mobility in shaping sustainable cities: A systematic literature review. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 92, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102734
2. Aguilera-García, Á., Gomez, J., Sobrino, N., & Díaz, J. J. V. (2021). Moped Scooter Sharing: Citizens’ Perceptions, Users’ Behavior, and Implications for Urban Mobility.
   Sustainability, 13(12), 6886. https://doi:10.3390/su13126886
3. Aguilera-García, Á., Gomez, J. & Sobrino, N. (2020). Exploring the adoption of moped scooter-sharing systems in Spanish urban areas. Cities, 96, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cities.2019.102424
4. Bieliński, T., & Ważna, A. (2020). Electric Scooter Sharing and Bike Sharing User Behaviour and Characteristics. Sustainability, 12(22), 9640. https://doi:10.3390/ su12229640
5. Eccarius, T., & Lu, C-C. (2018). Exploring Consumer Reasoning in Usage Intention for E-Scooter Sharing. Transportation Planning Journal, 47(4), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.6402/TPJ
6. Eccarius, T., & Lu, C-C. (2020). Adoption intentions for micro-mobility — Insights from electric scooter sharing in Taiwan. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 84, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102327
7. Flores, P. J., & Jansson, J. (2021). The role of consumer innovativeness and green perceptions on?green innovation use: The case of shared e-bikes and e-scooters. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1957
8. Franckle, R. L., Dunn, C. G., Vercammen, K. A., Dai, J., Soto, M. J. & Bleich, S. N.
   (2020). Facilitators and barriers to bikeshare use among users and non-users in a socioeconomically diverse urban population. Preventive Medicine Reports, 20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101185
9. Jurczak M. (2019). Koncepcje zrównoważonej logistyki miejskiej w wybranych polskich miastach [Concepts of Sustainable Urban Logistics in Selected Polish Cities].
   Ekonomika i Organizacja Logistyki 4(2), DOI: 10.22630/EIOL.2019.4.2.11
10. Lee, H., Baek, K., Chung, J-H. & Kim, J. (2021). Factors affecting heterogeneity in willingness to use e-scooter sharing services. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 92, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102751
11. Liao, F. & Correia, G. (2020). Electric carsharing and micromobility: A literature review on their usage pattern, demand, and potential impacts. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, DOI: 10.1080/15568318.2020.1861394
12. Machado, C., de Salles Hue, N., Berssaneti, F., & Quintanilha, J. (2018). An Overview of Shared Mobility. Sustainability, 10(12), 4342. http://doi:10.3390/su10124342
13. Malarska A. (2005). Statystyczna analiza danych wspomagana programem SPSS [Statistical Data Analysis Aided by SPSS]. Wydawnictwo SPSS Polska, Kraków.
14. Milakis, D., Gebhardt, L., Ehebrecht, D. & Lenz, B. (2020) Is micro-mobility sustainable?
    An overview of implications for accessibility, air pollution, safety, physical activity and subjective wellbeing. In: Carey Curtis (red.), Handbook of Sustainable Transport, 180–189. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
15. Mitra, R. & Hess, P. M. (2021). Who are the potential users of shared e-scooters? An examination of socio-demographic, attitudinal and environmental factors. Travel Behaviour and Society, 23, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2020.12.004
16. Reck, D. J. & Axhausen, K. W. (2021). Who uses shared micro-mobility services? Empirical evidence from Zurich, Switzerland. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 94, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102803
17. Sanders, R. L., Branion-Calles, M. & Nelson, T. A. (2020). To scoot or not to scoot: Findings from a recent survey about the benefits and barriers of using E-scooters for riders and non-riders. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 139, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.07.009
18. Sojkin, B. & Michalak, S. (2019). Innowacyjność zachowań mieszkańców aglomeracji poznańskiej na rynku usług transportowych [Innovative Behavior of the Inhabitants of Poznań Agglomeration on the Market of Transport Services]. Marketing Instytucji Naukowych i Badawczych, 33, DOI: 10.2478/minib-2019-0040
19. Wortmann, C., Syré, A. M., Grahle, A., & Göhlich, D. (2021). Analysis of Electric Moped Scooter Sharing in Berlin: A Technical, Economic and Environmental Perspective. World Electric Vehicle Journal, 12(3), 96. doi:10.3390/wevj12030096
20. Zhu, R., Zhang, X., Kondor, D., Santi, P. & Ratti, C. (2020). Understanding spatiotemporal heterogeneity of bike-sharing and scooter-sharing mobility. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 81, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2020.101483

W artykule przedstawione zostały zachowania mieszkańców aglomeracji poznańskiej w zakresie korzystania z dostępnych usług oferowanych przez Miasto Poznań oraz instytucje i podmioty działające w sferze transportu. Rozwój zrównoważonych systemów transportowych w miastach, charakteryzujących się w znacznym stopniu innowacyjnymi rozwiązaniami determinuje ocenę poziomu jakości życia w mieście [Wyszomirski 2017]. Pojawiające się nowe propozycje ułatwień w codziennym „miejskim bytowaniu” dla mieszkańców są świadectwem, z jednej strony otwarcia się miasta na nowości technologiczne i dążenia do poprawy poziomu świadczenia usług publicznych, z drugiej zaś budowania wizerunku „smart city” i rozwoju oferty usług publicznych. Dynamiczny rozwój technologii informacyjno-komunikacyjnych i ich powszechna dostępność indukuje nowe rozwiązania biznesowe w zakresie procesu świadczenia usług indywidualnych jak i publicznych. Konsekwencją są korzyści związane z poprawą jakości życia przejawiające się w łatwości, dogodności i swobodzie dostępu do różnych usług transportowych. Coraz większe możliwości urządzeń mobilnych wspólnie z rosnącym dostępem do Internetu (przede wszystkim do Internetu mobilnego) i coraz niższymi kosztami korzystania z niego, nie tylko wpływają na rozwój e-commerce (i m-commerce), ale także skutkują postępującą wirtualizacją korzystania z różnego rodzaju usług, pojawieniem się nowych kategorii produktów, czy wzrostem znaczenia nowych trendów w zachowaniach konsumentów. Dwa z nich — prosumpcja i ekonomia współdzielenia — szczególnie dynamicznie rozwijają się w odniesieniu do zachowań rynkowych mieszkańców polskich miast. Celem głównym artykułu jest pokazanie stopnia innowacyjności zachowań mieszkańców aglomeracji poznańskiej w zakresie korzystania z nowych rozwiązań oferowanych na rynku usług transportowych w Poznaniu. W pierwszej części artykułu omówiono obserwowany na przestrzeni ostatnich kilku lat dynamiczny rozwój technologii informacyjno-komunikacyjnych (ICT) w Polsce, trendy w zachowaniach rynkowych konsumentów, stopień i zakres wykorzystywania przez Polaków technologii mobilnych, jak również zmiany zachodzące na rynku e-commerce i m-commerce. Dalej uwagę skupiono na ekonomii współdzielenia jej istocie i omówieniu wyników badań dotyczących uczestnictwa Polaków w tej formie konsumpcji. W części badawczej przedstawione zostały wybrane wyniki badań dotyczących innowacyjności mieszkańców aglomeracji poznańskiej z zakresie korzystania z nowych rozwiązań transportowych dostępnych w mieście zrealizowanych w Katedrze Marketingu Produktu Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Poznaniu, a będące odzwierciedleniem praktycznych rozwiązań ekonomii współdzielenia i prosumpcji wdrażanych w mieście 1 .

Rozwój ICT w Polsce i ich wpływ na życie i zachowania rynkowe Polaków

Zachodzące od wielu lat w Polsce zmiany w zachowaniach rynkowych konsumentów, pojawianie się nowych kategorii produktów, czy generalna wirtualizacja życia, są konsekwencją dynamicznego rozwoju ICT. W 2008 roku jedynie 58,9% gospodarstw domowych w Polsce było wyposażonych w komputery, gdzie w 2018 roku odsetek ten wzrósł do 82,7%. Wielkość omawianego wskaźnika w dalszym ciągu (choć w coraz mniejszym stopniu) jest zależna od miejsca zamieszkania — komputer w domu posiadało w 2018 roku 86,6% mieszkańców dużych miast i 80,5% mniejszych miast i 81% obszarów wiejskich, a dekadę temu było to odpowiednio: 64%, 59,6% i 52,8%. W ostatnim dziesięcioleciu miał miejsce wręcz skokowy rozwój Internetu w Polsce. W 2008 roku dostęp do niego posiadało 47,6% gospodarstw domowych, a w 2018 roku było to już 84,2%. Należy jednak zaznaczyć, że w 2017 roku wskaźnik gospodarstw domowych z dostępem do Internetu był o 5 p.p. niższy od średniej dla Unii Europejskiej i o 16 p.p. niższy od Holandii będącej liderem w tym zakresie w UE [GUS 2012, 2018].

Z roku na rok zwiększa się także odsetek gospodarstw domowych posiadających dostęp do szerokopasmowego Internetu — w 2018 roku wyniósł on 79,3%. W 2017 roku wskaźnik ten w Polsce był o 7 p.p. niższy niż średnia UE-28. Rośnie również częstotliwość „bycia on-line” — codziennie lub prawie codziennie w 2018 roku z Internetu korzystało aż 63,9% Polaków, czyli o 6,7 p.p. więcej niż w 2016 roku [GUS 2018].

Zmiany zachowań rynkowych Polaków związane z rozwojem Internetu w pewnym stopniu obrazuje wykres 1, na którym przedstawiono cele korzystania z sieci w latach 2013 i 2017 [GUS 2017]. Zmiany są bardzo widoczne, czego odzwierciedleniem jest dynamiczny wzrost odsetka osób czytających lub pobierających czasopisma on-line, co stanowi oczywistą przyczynę spadku popularności prasy drukowanej. Internet w coraz większym stopniu staje się miejscem poszukiwania informacji o towarach i usługach m.in. za pomocą dedykowanych porównywarek cenowych.

Od wielu lat obserwować można tzw. efekt ROPO (ang. Research Online, Purchase Offline) polegający na zbieraniu przez klientów informacji o produktach (w tym usługach) w Internecie przed dokonaniem zakupu w placówce stacjonarnej. Wraz z dynamicznym rozwojem e-commerce w Polsce 2 w procesie zakupowym klientów obserwowany jest także odwrócony efekt ROPO (ang. Research Offline, Purchase Online) polegający na zbieraniu informacji przez klientów o produktach w placówce stacjonarnej (np. oglądając, przymierzając produkt, czy rozmawiając ze sprzedawcą), a dokonaniu zakupu w Internecie (przede wszystkim ze względu na niższą cenę).

Prostota i szybkość uzyskiwania informacji o produktach sprzyja rozwojowi trendu jakim jest smart shopping, który związany jest z poświęcaniem przez konsumentów swojego czasu i wysiłku na poszukiwanie informacji o produktach (w tym usługach) w celu znalezienia najbardziej atrakcyjnej cenowo oferty i uzyskania z tego tytułu oszczędności (Koniorczyk 2014). Jest to obecnie szczególnie proste przy wykorzystaniu internetowych porównywarek cenowych, czy też aplikacji z gazetkami handlowymi (promocyjnymi) na smartfony. Wyraźnie rośnie również częstość korzystania z bankowości internetowej, co jest wynikiem rosnącego dostępu do Internetu mobilnego i poprawiającym swoją funkcjonalność dedykowanym aplikacjom na urządzenia mobilne. Dla części klientów znacznie ograniczają lub wręcz eliminują one konieczność wizyty w stacjonarnych placówkach bankowych, gdyż prawie wszystko lub nawet wszystko co chcą wykonać w kontekście bankowości, mogą zrobić w dogodnym dla siebie momencie z poziomu smartfonu.

Według raportu Digital 2019 Polacy korzystając z jakiekolwiek urządzenia spędzają dziennie w Internecie średnio 6 godzin i 2 minuty. Wirtualizacja życia widoczna jest również szczególnie w odniesieniu do popularności portali społecznościowych, w których Polacy spędzają dziennie średnio 1 godzinę i 45 minut. W Polsce w 2019 roku z social mediów korzystało 18 mln (o 1 mln więcej niż rok wcześniej) aktywnych użytkowników, z czego 16 mln za pośrednictwem urządzeń mobilnych (o 2 mln więcej niż w 2018 roku) [DataReportal 2018 i 2019]. Z rosnącą popularnością portali społecznościowych powiązane jest tworzenie się tzw. wspólnot sieciowych — czyli grupy ludzi tworzących społeczną interakcję, uznające podobne normy zachowania lub praktyki w przestrzeni wirtualnej [Grzega, Kieżel 2017]. Postępująca wirtualizacja życia społeczeństw na całym świecie, nie odnosi się oczywiście jedynie do zachowań rynkowych — wspomniane wspólnoty wirtualne stają się wprawdzie źródłem informacji na temat produktów, ale należy podkreślić generalną zmianę w sposobie pracy, życia czy spędzaniu czasu wolnego, w tym przede wszystkim komunikowania się pomiędzy sobą — ze swoją rodziną lub znajomymi. Coraz częściej komunikacja ta przyjmuje charakter wirtualny — „tradycyjne” telefonowanie zastępowane jest wykonywaniem połączeń wideo za pomocą aplikacji mobilnych, wysyłanie SMS zastępowane jest „rozmową” na czatach w portalach społecznościowych, które mogą być tworzone dla całych grup znajomych. Co ważne, w kontekście zmian w zwyczajach zakupowych i zacierania się granicy pomiędzy konsumentem a sprzedawcą, w 2017 roku aż 20,4% Polaków wykorzystywało Internet do sprzedawania towarów (wykres 1).

W 2017 roku 64% Polaków posiadało smartfon [Mobee Dick 2018], a według raportu Digital 2019 aż 80% polskich internautów ogląda filmy na swoich smartfonach, 48% gra na nich gry, 51% wykorzystuje je do bankowości internetowej i 36% kupuje za ich pośrednictwem produkty [DataReportal 2019]. Dane Gemius natomiast pokazują, że smartfony są drugim najpopularniejszym urządzeniem wykorzystywanym do e-zakupów. Laptop wykorzystywany jest w tym celu przez 74% kupujących, smartfon przez 61%, komputer stacjonarny przez 54%, a tablet przez 27% [Gemius 2019]. Rozwój mobilnego Internetu i wzrost popularności smartfonów sprawia, że konsumenci są coraz częściej określani jako mobilni konsumenci, czy konsumenci 24/7, do których można dotrzeć w każdym miejscu z dostępem do Internetu o każdej porze dnia i nocy [Grzega, Kieżel 2017]. Tempo zachodzących w ostatnich latach zmian technologicznych, rozwój sieci 5G, czy widoczne zmiany we wzorcach zachowań nabywczych i konsumpcyjnych mieszkańców, każą przypuszczać, iż wirtualizacja życia Polaków będzie postępować, a wykorzystując urządzenia mobilne wykonywać będziemy coraz więcej czynności — związanych z różnymi sferami życia — począwszy od już teraz popularnych zakupów, czy korzystania z bankowości elektronicznej, przez opiekę zdrowotną, załatwianie spraw związanych z administracją publiczną, rozrywkę, czy zarządzanie inteligentnymi domami czy mieszkaniami. Należy jednocześnie mieć na uwadze, że rozwój technologii i sposób jej wykorzystania będzie prawdopodobnie silnie zdeterminowany przez postępy prac nad sztuczną inteligencją.

Uczestnictwo w ekonomii współdzielenia i prosumpcji jako przejawy innowacyjności polskich konsumentów

Korzystanie przez Polaków z mediów społecznościowych, pojawienie się tzw. konsumentów 24/7, czy smart shopping to trendy w zachowaniach świadczące o ich innowacyjności. Oprócz nich innowacyjne zachowania konsumentów związane są z wieloma innymi trendami, w tym między innymi z prosumpcją i ekonomią współdzielenia (sharing economy) [Baruk 2017, Zalega 2016]. Dogłębna analiza literatury przedmiotu dokonana przez S. K. Curtisa i M. Lehnera wskazuje, że rozwój sharing economy związany był/jest przede wszystkim z tzw. kryzysem gospodarczym zapoczątkowanym w 2007 roku, wzrostem nierówności społecznych, zwiększeniem świadomości ekologicznej, rozwojem technologii informacyjno-komunikacyjnych i po prostu wygodą. Stąd motywy uczestnictwa w tej ekonomii współdzielenia to w pierwszej kolejności motywy ekonomiczne, środowiskowe i socjalne [Curtis i Lehner 2019]. Samo pojęcie sharing economy funkcjonuje w literaturze przedmiotu od wielu lat, lecz w dalszym ciągu dostrzec można różnice w jego definiowaniu, czy jego związków z innymi pojęciami. Niektórzy wskazują, że ekonomia współdzielona określana jest także jako peer-to-peer economy, mesh economy, collaborative economy, czy collaborative consumption [Zgiep 2014].

Inni badacze zaznaczają, że używanie wymienionych wyżej pojęć a także innych (np. access economy, circular economy, gift economy, gig economy, rental economy, on-demand economy, collaborative economy, mesh economy, alternative finance) zamiennie z sharing economy jest nie do końca uprawnione. Z jednej strony bowiem te pojęcia w niektórych przypadkach ze sobą silnie powiązane i się przenikają, ale z drugiej strony niekiedy zakres poszczególnych pojęć wyraźnie się od siebie różni i np.

jedno pojęcie wychodzi poza ramy drugiego [Sobiecki G. 2016]. Według J. W. Pietrewicza i R. Sobieckiego (2016) sharing economy to forma organizacji prowadzenia działalności gospodarczej z wykorzystaniem platform internetowych, opartej na odpłatnym lub nieodpłatnym korzystaniu z dostępnych i niezagospodarowanych zasobów stanowiących własność innych podmiotów. Zdaniem A. Sundararajana sharing economy składa się z platformy internetowej (pobierającej prowizję) za pośrednictwem której dokonuje się opłat za dobra i usługi, przedsiębiorców i konsumentów. G. Petropoulos zwraca uwagę, że sharing economy polega na łączeniu ze sobą użytkowników w sieci, którzy chcą dzielić się ze sobą swoimi dobrami i usługami [Banaszek 2018].

W tym miejscu powstają dwa zasadnicze pytania. Pierwsze dotyczy tego, czy dzielenie się niezagospodarowanymi zasobami musi odbywać się z wykorzystaniem / za pośrednictwem platformy internetowej? Drugie z pytań jest być może bardziej kontrowersyjne, gdyż związane jest z istotą omawianego pojęcia — czy oferowane na rynku produkty, które mają w nazwie „sharing” i stają się coraz bardziej popularne w polskich miastach, a więc np. car-sharing, czy bike-sharing, nie wypaczają poniekąd idei ekonomii współdzielenia? Podawane jako sztandarowe przykłady ekonomii współdzielenia są przecież jedynie formami wynajmu oferowanego przez przedsiębiorstwa zainteresowanym klientom. Ideą sharing economy jest w końcu umożliwienie innym korzystania z niezagospodarowanych zasobów czyli z takich, z których dany podmiot w danym momencie nie korzysta. Czy można jednak mówić o niezagospodarowanych zasobach w przypadku modelu biznesowego opierającego się na dostarczeniu na rynek produktu w postaci krótkoterminowego wynajmu samochodów, w którym liczba udostępnianych w danym mieście samochodów na minuty jest dostosowywana po prostu do popytu na tę usługę? Idea sharing economy zakładała przede wszystkim „dzielenie się” nadwyżkami zasobów / niewykorzystywanymi zasobami (zwłaszcza osób prywatnych), a nie dostosowywaniem ilości zasobów (podaży samochodów, rowerów, skuterów, hulajnóg…) do zgłaszanego na nie zapotrzebowania. Odwołując się do bardzo ciekawego zestawienia definicji pojęć dokonanego przez G. Sobieckiego (2016) który przyjmuje, że sharing economy to: systemy, które ułatwiają dzielenie się nie w pełni wykorzystanymi zasobami lub usługami — odpłatnie lub bezpłatnie — bezpośrednio między podmiotami indywidualnymi lub organizacjami — czy wynajem samochodów / rowerów / hulajnóg / skuterów na minuty nie jest po prostu formą „gospodarki wynajmu” (wg. G. Sobieckiego — Systemy, które umożliwiają odpłatny wynajem zasobów, aby nie trzeba było ich kupować)? lub „gospodarki dostępności” (wg. G. Sobieckiego — Systemy, które umożliwiają płatność za dostęp do dóbr zamiast otrzymywania dóbr na własność). W przeciwnym razie wynajem kortu tenisowego na godzinę gry ze znajomym również należy traktować jako uczestnictwo w sharing economy. W literaturze przedmiotu można odnaleźć także opinie, że sharing economy odnosi się do konsumentów, którzy udzielają sobie czasowego dostępu do niewykorzystywanych zasobów, w tym również za pieniądze (np. poprzez wynajem, zamianę, czy wypożyczanie) [Vaskelainen i Piscicelli 2018]. Curtis i Lehner [2019] starając się zdefiniować pojęcie sharing economy w kontekście zrównoważonego rozwoju, postulują by z zakresu omawianego pojęcia wyłączyć modele wymiany B2C, w tym właśnie carsharing, czy bike sharing. Jak wspomniano wcześniej takie podejście do rozumienia czym jest sharing economy z wykluczeniem z tego pojęcia wspomnianych form „sharingu” z jednej strony może być odbierane jako kontrowersyjne, między innymi z uwagi na ilość prac naukowych, raportów komercyjnych, czy nawet badań GUS, w których zaliczane są one do ekonomii współdzielenia, ale z drugiej strony pozwala uwypuklić ideę tej koncepcji i jej systematyczny rozwój przedmiotowy jaki podmiotowy. Niezależnie od zajętego w tym zakresie stanowiska, korzystanie z samochodów, rowerów, skuterów, czy hulajnóg na minuty, wykorzystując w do tego aplikacje mobilne jest bez wątpienia przejawem innowacyjności (przynajmniej obecnie) w zachowaniach rynkowych konsumentów.

Zgodnie z przyjętymi przez GUS założeniami metodycznymi, z przeprowadzonych przez tę instytucję badań wynika, że Polacy coraz częściej są uczestnikami ekonomii współdzielenia (tabela 1). W coraz większym zakresie korzystają bowiem ze stron internetowych lub aplikacji służących do łączenia z sobą osób prywatnych oferujących usługi zakwaterowania lub transportu z prywatnymi odbiorcami tych usług. W 2017 roku ze stron lub aplikacji związanych z organizacją zakwaterowania korzystało 15% Polaków, gdzie rok później było to 17,1%. Analogiczne odsetki w odniesieniu do korzystania ze stron internetowych i aplikacji związanych z organizacją transportu wyniosły 6,2% i 7,2%. Dane GUS pokazują, że kobiety i mężczyźni w bardzo zbliżonym stopniu są uczestnikami ekonomii współdzielenia w kategoriach produktowych wchodzących w skład zakresu przedmiotowego badania. Wyraźnie różnice w tym zakresie obserwowalne są ze względu na miejsce zamieszkania, czy wiek; co nie powinno stanowić zaskoczenia.

Z jednej strony osoby w najmłodszej grupie wiekowej mogą po prostu nie posiadać odpowiednich środków finansowych do korzystania z różnego rodzaju produktów (w tym usług) związanych z zakwaterowaniem lub transportem, z drugiej strony natomiast grupa osób 55+ charakteryzuje się generalnie relatywnie niskim stopniem wykorzystywania technologii informacyjno-komunikacyjnych, stąd również korzystanie z ze stron internetowych i aplikacji w ramach ekonomii współdzielenia także jest na relatywnie niskim poziomie. Uczestnictwo w ekonomii współdzielenia zdeterminowane jest wielkością miejsca zamieszkania — może to wynikać z samej dostępności produktów zaliczanych do sharing economy, które są do dyspozycji przede wszystkim w dużych miastach (z powodzeniem przyjmują się w coraz większym stopniu również w mniejszych miejscach zamieszkania).

Mówiąc o gospodarce współdzielenia nie można zapominać również o wspomnianej na początku tego punktu — prosumpcji, której korzenie za sprawą A. Tofflera sięgają zdecydowanie bardziej wstecz w latach niż gospodarka współdzielenia. Ale też przez ponad pięćdziesiąt lat pojęcie prosumpcji (prosumenta) zmieniło swoją istotę i zakres przedmiotowy za sprawą rozwoju społeczno-gospodarczego, a przede wszystkim rewolucji w ICT [Baruk, Iwanicka 2015, s. 40]. Współczesny wymiar funkcjonowania każdego z rynków to głównie rezultat dynamicznych zmian w relacjach i ich zakresach między jego uczestnikami. A współczesne podejście do relacji i jej wielowymiarowości pomiędzy producentem/dostawcą a konsumentem zmieniło istotę prosumpcji, która stała się z jednym z istotnych elementów poprawy warunków życia, a w zasadzie podniesienia jego jakości w wymiarze indywidualnym i publicznym. Prosumpcja stała się również źródłem dla kreowania nowych rozwiązań czy doskonalenia dotychczasowych, a więc narzędzia ICT i ich dostępność sprawiły, że zmieniła się natura i możliwości komunikowania się w ramach związków i relacji pomiędzy uczestnikami rynku. Zatem nie tylko ważne stało się oferowanie konkretnych rozwiązań zaspokajających potrzeby konsumentów, ale także aktywność konsumentów w zakresie korzystania, kreowania pomysłów na doskonalenie i pojawienie się nowych dóbr i usług zaspokających nowe potrzeby lub stare w inny sposób. To co jest istotne w relacji między oferentem/dostawcą a konsumentem to wspólne dążenie do podnoszenia wartości dostarczanych/otrzymanych dóbr i usług [Szul 2018, s. 64]. Podnoszenie wartości to nic innego jak kreowanie wartości dodanej/dodatkowej, której tworzenie nie jest możliwe bez poznania opinii uczestników relacji na temat uzyskanych efektów oraz zbadania poziomu satysfakcji jej uczestników z wartości dostarczonej na poziomie podstawowym jak i zaspokojenia dodatkowych oczekiwań i pragnień.

W kreowaniu wartości dodanej nieocenione znaczenie ma wzajemna komunikacja tej wartości przez strony relacji, gdyż praktyka gospodarcza bogata jest w przypadki, w których brak działań komunikacyjnych, czy dbałości o stworzenie przestrzeni do wymiany doświadczeń, bądź też wymiany poglądów przekłada się na brak satysfakcji stron z relacji (najbardziej znany to Segway/Ginger — transporter miejski). Z kolei dobrym przykładem może być Uber, który w miarę rzetelnie podchodzi do kształtowania relacji z konsumentem poprzez jest systematyczną ocenę poziomu satysfakcji z usług. Ponadto dąży do rozszerzania oferty świadczonych usług począwszy od standardu Uber Pop, dalej Uber Black (samochodu o wyższym standardzie), Uber Eats, Uber Health, Uber Bike czy Uber Freight.

Innowacyjność zachowań mieszkańców aglomeracji poznańskiej w świetle badań korzystania ze środków transportu w mieście W artykule przyjęto za K. Gutkowską (2011) że innowacyjność konsumentów jest to stosunek konsumentów do innowacji rynkowych, a więc również ich gotowość do zakupu innowacyjnych produktów (w tym usług).

Innowacyjność jest cechą osobowości człowieka, a co za tym idzie może stanowić podstawę do różnicowania konsumentów, ze względu na ich stosunek do innowacji i prezentowane postawy wobec innowacji, które przede wszystkim przejawiają się tempem akceptacji innowacji produktowych. W klasycznym modelu dyfuzji innowacji E.M. Rogers (1983) wyszczególnił 5 grup konsumentów — innowatorów, wczesnych naśladowców, wczesną większość, późną większość i maruderów. Innowacyjność w zachowaniach mieszkańców aglomeracji poznańskiej przejawiać się więc będzie w akceptacji innowacji produktowych w zakresie przemieszczania się po mieście, a więc przede wszystkim w stopniu korzystania z platform łączących kierowców i pasażerów (np. Uber), czy usług wynajmu krótkoterminowego za pośrednictwem aplikacji mobilnych (np. samochodów, rowerów, skuterów, hulajnóg).

Z badania przeprowadzonego przez Instytut ARC Rynek i Opinia (na zlecenie firmy Straal i Digital Poland) wśród mieszkańców miast o populacji powyżej 100 tys. osób wynika, że w 2018 roku w grupie osób deklarującej korzystanie z usług typu „Mobility-as-a-Service” (MaaS) wyraźnie najpopularniejszą było wynajmowanie rowerów miejskich na minuty (61% wskazań). Kolejne miejsca pod względem odsetka wskazań zajęły: zamawianie licencjonowanej taksówki za pomocą aplikacji mobilnej (47%), zamawianie przejazdu samochodem wykorzystując do tego aplikację mobilną kojarzącą kierowców z osobami potrzebującymi transportu (35%), przejazd okazjonalny jednym pojazdem z podziałem kosztów przez jego uczestników (24%), wynajem samochodu na minuty/godziny (18%) i wynajem skutera na minuty/godziny (5%) [Straal i Digital Poland 2018].

Dla osób niekorzystających z MaaS najczęściej wskazywanym czynnikiem powstrzymującym przed tego typu usługami były przede wszystkim — preferowanie własnego pojazdu (48% wskazań), preferowanie korzystania z tradycyjnej komunikacji miejskiej (39%), brak odpowiedniej wiedzy/niejasne zasady korzystania (22%), lokalizacja pojazdów/stacji wypożyczeni (15%), mała dostępność/zbyt uboga oferta usługodawców (15%), czy obawy związane z błędnym naliczaniem opłat za usługę (14%).

Z przeprowadzonych badań wynika, że pomimo niezwykle dynamicznego rozwoju segmentu produktów transportowych związanych z wynajmem krótkookresowym pojazdów, wśród mieszkańców aglomeracji poznańskiej poruszanie się komunikacją miejską (tramwaj, autobus) i jazda własnym samochodem to zdecydowanie najpopularniejsze środki komunikacji w Poznaniu.

Z komunikacji miejskiej korzysta aż 85% mieszkańców aglomeracji poznańskiej, z czego 42,4% deklaruje, że robi to bardzo często lub wyłącznie.

Pewne różnice w popularności omawianej formy transportu widoczne są ze względu na płeć badanych. Wcale z komunikacji nie korzysta 19,3% mężczyzn i 11,5% kobiet, a zawsze/wyłącznie przemieszcza się nią po Poznaniu 17,6% kobiet i 11,1% mężczyzn. W tym miejscu należy zaznaczyć, że flota miejskiego przewoźnika została powiększona w 2019 roku o autobusy elektryczne i należy się spodziewać, że w wyniku każdego kolejnego zakupu taboru autobusowego zamawiane będą wyłącznie niskoemisyjne pojazdy. Posiadanie przez miasta innowacyjnego, zrównoważonego i bezpiecznego systemu transportu, to bardzo ważny aspekt smart mobility, czyli obszaru będącego jednym z filarów rozwijania miasta zgodnie z ideą smart city. Jednak problemy z punktualnością i czasem przejazdu na wielu trasach zarówno tramwajów i autobusów stają się przyczyną wyboru innych ofert przejazdu.

Z prywatnego samochodu jako środka transportu nie korzysta w Poznaniu jedynie 18,3% badanych, natomiast bardzo często lub wyłącznie tym środkiem transportu porusza się aż 50,8% respondentów. Podobnie jak to ma miejsce w odniesieniu do komunikacji miejskiej, także w przypadku jazdy prywatnym samochodem, widoczne są różnice ze względu na płeć. Jest on wyłączną formą przemieszcza się po Poznaniu dla aż 29% mężczyzn i 18,8% kobiet. I nie stanowi to zaskoczenia, albowiem jest on wygodnym i dostępnym w każdym momencie środkiem transportu, mimo coraz poważniejszych trudności z parkowaniem.

Prywatnym rowerem lub hulajnogą porusza się po Poznaniu aż 55,7% mieszkańców aglomeracji, ale należy zaznaczyć, że większość z nich robi to bardzo rzadko lub rzadko. Bardzo często lub wyłącznie z tych dwóch form przemieszczania korzysta 13,6% badanych. Oczywiście trzeba pamiętać, że częstotliwość korzystania z (zarówno prywatnych, jak wynajmowanych) rowerów i hulajnóg jest silnie uwarunkowana przez pogodę, czy po prostu porę roku. Należy mieć na uwadze również fakt, iż w ostatnich latach w Poznaniu rozbudowywana jest infrastruktura rowerowa.

W 2017 roku dostępnych było ok. 140 kilometrów dróg dla rowerów, dróg dla pieszych i rowerów oraz pasów ruchu dla rowerów. Przyjęty Program Rowerowy M. Poznania 2017–2022 z perspektywą do roku 2025, którego główne cele zakładają wykonania spójnej sieci tras rowerowych, zapewniających możliwość bezpiecznego i wygodnego poruszania się rowerem, jak również osiągnięcie 12% udziału przemieszczeń rowerowych w podziale zadań przewodu do roku 2025 (10% do roku 2022), zakłada powstanie do 2022 roku sieci dróg rowerowych łączących centrum Poznania z jego przedmieściami [Rada Miasta Poznania 2017]. Realizacja tego przedsięwzięcia poprawiająca warunki i możliwości poruszania się po Poznaniu rowerem, powinna oczywiście pozytywnie wpłynąć na wzrost popularności tej formy transportu.

W przypadku usług firm taksówkarskich korzysta 57,1% badanych (59,6% kobiet i 53,9% mężczyzn), ale robią to oni przeważnie bardzo rzadko (23,7%) lub rzadko (15,9%). Należy przypuszczać, że udział ten formy transportu w sposobie przemieszczania się po Poznaniu (jak i innych miastach) będzie się zmniejszał. W związku z pojawieniem się konkurencji w postaci aplikacji łączących kierowców i pasażerów (np. Uber), „tradycyjne” korporacje taksówkarskie zmuszone będą do zredefiniowania swojego modelu biznesowego, wprowadzania rozwiązań mobilnych i przede wszystkim podniesienia jakości świadczonych usług.

Uber obecny jest na polskim rynku od 2014 roku, od 2015 roku można korzystać z tej usługi w Poznaniu. W 2019 roku z przejazdów Uberem korzystała ok. połowa mieszkańców aglomeracji poznańskiej, a więcej w dalszym ciągu mniej niż ma to miejsce w przypadku taksówek. Warto jednak zwrócić uwagę, że często, bardzo często lub wyłącznie z Uberem jeździ 22,7% badanych, gdy w przypadku usług świadczonych przez taksówkarzy odsetek ten wynosi 17,5%. Trzeba przypomnieć, że w badaniach ARC Rynek i Opinia dla Straal i Digital Poland (2018), „jedynie” 35% osób korzystających z MaaS zamawiało przejazd samochodem przez aplikację mobilną kojarzącą kierowców z osobami potrzebującymi przejazdu (do których zalicza się właśnie Ubera), a z badań GUS wynikało, że jedynie 7,2% mieszkańców Polski w wieku 16+ korzystało w 2018 roku ze stron internetowych lub aplikacji związanych z organizacją transportu. Zrealizowane badania własne pokazały więc, że mieszkańcy aglomeracji poznańskiej charakteryzują się relatywnie większym stopniem innowacyjności w zachowaniach rynkowych, w zakresie korzystania z aplikacji mobilnych takich jak Uber, niż ogół Polaków. Dalszy rozwój Ubera i podobnych aplikacji uwarunkowany będzie przede wszystkim kwestiami prawnymi, zmianami funkcjonowania firm taksówkarskich i innowacyjnością polskich konsumentów, a także (co równie ważne) opłacalności pracy dla kierowców współpracujących z Uberem (i jemu podobnymi firmami).

Przeprowadzone badania pokazują, że z usługi carsharingu korzysta 19,2% mieszkańców aglomeracji. Podkreślić należy, że częstość jazdy samochodem na minuty jest relatywnie niska — jedynie 2,8% użytkowników przemieszcza się w ten sposób po Poznaniu co najmniej bardzo często. Trzeba pamiętać także, że usługi te są obecne na poznańskim rynku dopiero od połowy 2017 roku, stąd w najbliższych latach należy spodziewać się wzrostu popularności tej formy transportu. Tym bardziej, że również władze Miasta Poznania są przychylne idei carsharingu, jako alternatywy dla samochodów prywatnych i podejmują działania mogące wpłynąć na rozwój tej usługi np. wydzielają w mieście dedykowane miejsca postojowe dla samochodów na minuty. Warto również ponownie przywołać ogólnopolskie badania ARC Rynek i Opinia dla Straal i Digital Poland (2018), w których wynajem samochodu na minuty/godziny deklarowało 18% osób korzystających z MaaS, więc podobnie jak ma to miejsce w przypadku Ubera, również w odniesieniu do carsharingu, w zachowaniach mieszkańców aglomeracji poznańskiej widoczny jest wyższy poziom innowacyjności niż ogółu mieszkańców polskich miast (o populacji powyżej 100 tys. osób). Jednocześnie trzeba pamiętać, że dostępność floty samochodów na minuty (a także skuterów na minuty) różni się znacznie w zależności od miasta, a usługi tego typu zostały uruchomione jedynie w największych miastach w Polsce.

Według raportu Mobility-as-a-Service [Straal i Digital Poland 2018] aglomeracja poznańska jest jednym z najbardziej rozwiniętych regionów (po Warszawie, Lublinie, Kaliszu, Zielonej Górze i Łodzi) jeśli chodzi o liczbę rowerów publicznych. Liczba mieszkańców przypadająca na jeden rower publiczny wynosiła 439 osób, gdzie w Zabrzu wskaźnik ten wynosił 3487, w Tychach 2137, a Rzeszowie 1897. W zeszłorocznym sezonie (2018) Poznańskiego Roweru Miejskiego mieszkańcy aglomeracji jeździli na rowerach ponad 1,65 miliona razy, a liczba użytkowników zbliżyła się do 150 tysięcy [Poznański Rower Miejski 2018]. Z przeprowadzonych badań własnych wynika, że w 2019 roku rowerem na minuty poruszało się po Poznaniu 30,7% mieszkańców aglomeracji poznańskiej (27,5% kobiet i 34,7% mężczyzn), czyli w zasadzie tyle samo ile średnio w innych miastach powyżej 100 tys. mieszkańców. Ten środek transportu wykorzystywany był jednak przeważnie bardzo rzadko lub rzadko.

Kolejną nowością w ofercie, którą stanowią skutery elektryczne na minuty poruszało się 14,5% badanych z czego 11,3% bardzo rzadko lub rzadko. Jest to następny przykład niskoemisyjnej formy transportu i podobnie jak to ma miejsce w przypadku rowerów, należy mieć na uwadze, że korzystanie ze skuterów na minuty silnie uzależnione jest od warunków pogodowych. Co więcej na rynku (w tym poznańskim) od czasu wprowadzenia elektrycznych skuterów, w coraz większej ilości dostępne są również hulajnogi elektryczne na minuty. Ponownie jednak należy podkreślić, iż mieszkańcy aglomeracji poznańskiej w większym stopniu niż ma to miejsce w przypadku ogółu mieszkańców miast powyżej 100 tys. osób korzystają z tego środka transportu.

Pod koniec 2018 roku w Poznaniu wprowadzona została możliwość wypożyczania elektrycznych hulajnóg na minuty, a ich liczba systematycznie się zwiększa. Wyniki badań potwierdzają, że z hulajnóg elektrycznych na minuty korzystało w 2019 roku 18% mieszkańców aglomeracji. W tym miejscu należy zaznaczyć, że konsumenci mogą mieć uzasadnione obawy związane z użytkowaniem tego środka transportu, przede wszystkim wynikające z braku odpowiednich (jednoznacznych) przepisów prawnych regulujących to, do jakiej kategorii pojazdów powinny być zaklasyfikowane hulajnogi elektryczne, kto może być ich użytkownikiem, w jaki sposób/gdzie należy się nimi poruszać, czy z jaką prędkością można nimi jeździć, itp. (obecnie trwają prace legislacyjne w tym zakresie).

Z jednej strony hulajnogi elektryczne są kolejnym przykładem niskoemisyjnych środków transportu dostępnych dla mieszkańców polskich miast, ale z drugiej strony ich pojawienie się niesie za sobą pewne zagrożenia związane z bezpieczeństwem nie tylko użytkowników, ale także osób postronnych. Poruszanie się z relatywnie dużą prędkością po chodnikach stwarza bowiem bezpośrednie zagrożenie dla zdrowia pieszych, a zostawianie hulajnóg po skończeniu ich użytkowania na chodnikach, stwarza bezpośrednie zagrożenie dla innych użytkowników np. dla osób niewidomych czy o innych rodzajach fizycznej niepełnosprawności.

Zakończenie

Rozwój MaaS w Poznaniu traktować należy jako element polityki transportowej w mieście i powinien być rozpatrywany w kontekście zrównoważonego rozwoju całej aglomeracji poznańskiej oraz miasta przyjaznego mieszkańcom. Przy tendencji do systematycznego zmniejszania się liczby mieszkańców w Poznaniu i przenoszenia się do okolicznych gmin rośnie znaczenie mobilności w ich życiu codziennym. Przy stosunkowo niskiej ocenie przez mieszkańców Poznania poziomu świadczenia usług publicznego transportu miejskiego konieczne są działania w zakresie rozszerzenia oferty typu MaaS [Styś, Tubis, Zaborowski 2016, s. 59]. Obok korzyści w postaci zwiększenia mobilności mieszkańców aglomeracji niewątpliwie niesie ona za sobą wiele korzyści głównie natury ekologicznej, jak również udostępniania nowych rozwiązań komunikacyjnych w przestrzeni publicznej. Zarówno wzrost popularności wypożyczania rowerów miejskich, jak i samochodów, skuterów, czy hulajnóg na minuty prowadzi do zwiększania znaczenia niskoemisyjnego transportu, co wpisuje się w rozwijanie miasta zgodnie z ideą smart city. W najbliższych latach w zależności od uwarunkowań prawnych i rozwiązań infrastrukturalnych powinniśmy spodziewać się dalszego wzrostu popularności alternatywnych dla „tradycyjnych” środków przemieszczania się po mieście. Część z wchodzących dopiero na rynek rozwiązań lub będących na nim relatywnie krótko, jest użytkowana bowiem obecnie (odwołując się do modelu dyfuzji innowacji Rogersa) przede wszystkim przez innowatorów, wczesnych naśladowców i w coraz większym stopniu wczesną większość. Dynamiczny rozwój ICT, dostępności urządzeń mobilnych i coraz powszechniejsze ich wykorzystywanie powinny dodatkowo stymulować konsumentów do próbowania i korzystania z innowacji produktowych w zakresie transportu, a przedsiębiorstwa działające na tym rynku zmusić do zredefiniowania swojego modelu biznesowego dopasowanego do zmieniającego się dynamicznie otoczenia społeczno — gospodarczego, technologicznego oraz demograficznego. Zrealizowane badania pokazały, że w dalszym ciągu podstawowymi formami przemieszczania się po Poznaniu były komunikacja miejska i prywatny samochód, ale z drugiej strony mieszkańcy aglomeracji poznańskiej nie obawiają się korzystać z nowych, innowacyjnych produktów, co wskazuje na innowacyjność ich zachowań. Jest to szczególnie widoczne w przypadku korzystania z aplikacji mobilnej do łączenia kierowców i pasażerów, jaką jest Uber. Pomimo jego relatywnie krótkiego okresu obecności na poznańskim rynku, już prawie połowa badanych zadeklarowała, że korzystała z niego. Co więcej, odsetek osób podróżujących Uber często, bardzo często lub wyłącznie jest wyższy niż analogiczny odsetek wśród osób korzystających z jego tradycyjnej alternatywy jakim są taksówki. Mając na uwadze, że obecnie firmy wynajmujące samochody i skutery na minuty prowadzą swoją działalność jedynie w największych miastach w Polsce, można stwierdzić, że mieszkańcy aglomeracji poznańskiej także w przypadku carsharingu i skutersharingu wykazują się postawami świadczącymi o wysokim stopniu innowacyjności w swoich zachowaniach komunikacyjnych. Poza tym korzystanie z własnego roweru lub jego wypożyczanie na minuty w celu przemieszczania się stało się elementem krajobrazu komunikacyjnego Poznania i zaakceptowanym przez wielu mieszkańców, szczególnie widocznym w okresie sprzyjającej pogody. A rozszerzenie oferty o rowery ze wspomaganiem elektrycznym niewątpliwie może zachęcić kolejnych mieszkańców do korzystania z tej formy transportu. Natomiast skutery i hulajnogi na minuty jako środki transportu miejskiego należy traktować obecnie jako testowanie nowej propozycji komunikacyjnej w mieście, której znaczenie jest niewielkie. Niemniej w dobie przemian stylów życia i zachowań mieszkańców dużych miast, wzroście ofert udogodnień jak i znaczenia ekologii mogą one zyskać akceptację niektórych segmentów mieszkańców (szczególnie młodych otwartych na nowe możliwości komunikacyjne). Jednocześnie pamiętać, że zmiana dotychczasowych przyzwyczajeń (zachowań) komunikacyjnych mieszkańców wymaga systematyczności, solidności i zwiększania ich atrakcyjności (wartość dodana) w ich oferowaniu oraz łatwości i niezawodności w korzystaniu z nich. Wówczas proces akceptacji nowych rozwiązań będzie zdecydowanie szybszy i niewątpliwie będzie wpływał na wzmocnienie wizerunku miasta przyjaznego mieszkańcom.

Przypisy

1 Badanie zostało przeprowadzone w maju 2019 roku techniką wywiadu bezpośredniego z wykorzystaniem kwestionariusza ankietowego i kwotowym doborem próby badawczej, która liczyła 795 mieszkańców aglomeracji poznańskiej (Poznań — 525 mieszkańców, podpoznańskie gminy — 270 mieszkańców). Kryterium doboru jednostki badawczej stanowiły: płeć, wiek i miejsce zamieszkania (dzielnica, gmina).

2 Według raportów Gemius dla e-Commerce Polska [2016 i 2019] — w 2016 roku 48% polskich internautów dokonało kiedyś zakupów online, gdzie w 2019 roku było to już 62%. Z danych GUS (2018) z kolei wynika, że w 2018 roku zakupów przez Internet dokonało 47,8% w wieku 16–74 lata (prawie 14 mln osób), co stanowi wzrost o prawie 11 p p. w stosunku do 2015 roku.

Bibliografia

1. Baruk A. I., Prosumpcja jako sposób na osiągnięcie sukcesu przez przedsiębiorstwo. Zarządzanie i Finanse — Journal of Management and Finance, Vol. 14, No. 2/2016.
2. Baruk A. I., Iwanicka A. Prosumpcja jako trend konsumencki w opiniach potencjalnych konsumentów. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego, Problemy Zarządzania, Finansów i Marketingu nr 41, t. 1, 2015.
3. Baruk A. I. Prosumpcja jako wielowymiarowe zachowanie rynkowe. Zakres aktywności współczesnych nabywców, PWE, 2017.
4. GUS, 2012. Społeczeństwo informacyjne w Polsce. Wyniki badań statystycznych z lat 2007–2011. Warszawa.
5. GUS, 2017. Społeczeństwo informacyjne w Polsce. Wyniki badań statystycznych z lat 2013–2017. Zakład Wydawnictw Statystycznych. Warszawa.
6. GUS, 2018. Społeczeństwo informacyjne w Polsce. Wyniki badań statystycznych z lat 2014–2018. Zakład Wydawnictw Statystycznych. Warszawa.
7. e-Commerce Polska. (2016). E-commerce w Polsce 2016. Gemius dla e-Commerce Polska. Izba Gospodarki Elektronicznej, Warszawa.
8. e-Commerce Polska. (2019). E-commerce w Polsce 2019. Gemius dla e-Commerce Polska. Izba Gospodarki Elektronicznej, Warszawa.
9. Koniorczyk 2014. Smart shopping a zachowania zakupowe polskich konsumentów, Handel Wewnętrzyny 2014; 3(350), 15–24.
10. DataReportal. Raport Digital 2018, https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2018-poland
11. DataReportal. Raport Digital 2019, https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2019-poland
12. Grzega U., Kieżel E. (2017). Trendy w zachowaniach konsumentów, W: M. Bartosik-Purgat (red.). Zachowania konsumentów. Globalizacja, nowe technologie, aktualne trendy,otoczenie społeczno-kulturowe. Warszawa, PWN.
13. Mobee Dick. 2018. POLSKA. JEST. MOBI 2018 .
14. PWC. 2018. Polacy na zakupach. 5 filarów nowoczesnego handlu.
15. Zalega 2016. Nowe trendy konsumenckie jako przejaw innowacyjnych zachowań współczesnych konsumentów. Nierówności Społeczne a Wzrost Gospodarczy, nr 46(2/2016).
16. Curtis, S. K.; Lehner, M., 2019. Defining the Sharing Economy for Sustainability. Sustainability, 11, 567.
17. Zgiep Ł., 2014. Sharing economy jako ekonomia przyszłości. Myśl Ekonomiczna i Polityczna, nr 4(47), s. 193–205.
18. Sobiecki G. 2016. Sharing economy — dylematy pojęciowe [w:] red. Poniatowska-Jaksch M., Sobiecki R., 2016. Sharing Economy (gospodarka współdzielenia), Oficyna Wydawnicza SGH — Szkoła Główna Handlowa w Warszawie.
19. Pietrewicz J. W. i Sobiecki R., 2016. Przedsiębiorczość sharing economy, [w:] red. Poniatowska-Jaksch M., Sobiecki R., 2016. Sharing Economy (gospodarka współdzielenia). Oficyna Wydawnicza SGH — Szkoła Główna Handlowa w Warszawie.
20. Banaszek M, 2018. Ekonomia współdzielenia w opinii urzędników i przedsiębiorców województwa świętokrzyskiego — wnioski z badań empirycznych. Ekonomia Społeczna Nr 1/2018, s. 57–67.
21. Vaskelainen, T. i Piscicelli, L. 2018. Online and Offline Communities in the Sharing Economy. Sustainability, 10, 2927.
22. Rada Miasta Poznania. (2017). Program Rowerowy Miasta Poznania 2017–2022 z perspektywą do roku 2025.
23. https://poznanskirower.pl/rekordy-wypozyczen-rowerow-miejskich-w-poznaniu-i-szamotulach/ [dostęp: 30.07.2019].
24. Gutkowska. 2011, Innowacyjność konsumentów wobec produktów żywnościowych jako warunek rozwoju rynku żywności. Konsumpcja i Rozwój, nr 1/2011.
25. Straal i Digital Poland 2018. Mobility as a Service PL. Warszawa.
26. Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations (Third Edition). The Free Press, A Division of Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc, Nowy Jork.
27. Styś, T., Tubis A., Zaborowski Ł. Inteligentny transport — wpływ na gospodarkę. Instytut Sobieskiego, Warszawa, 2016.
28. Szul, E., Prosumpcja młodych konsumentów — korzyści i wyzwania dla firm. Studies & b Proceedings of Polish Association for Knowledge Management, nr 88, 2018.
29. Wyszomirski, O. Zrównoważony rozwój transportu w miastach a jakość życia. Transport miejski i regionalny, 12/2017.