Factors Affecting the Adoption of Innovative Eco-Friendly Charcoal-Based Forest Fire Prevention Products
Keywords:
Sustainable Innovation, Environmental Concerns, Forest Fire Prevention, Eco-friendly Technologies and Solutions, Consumer Adoption, Product DevelopmentAbstract
Forest fires are a major concern as they can cause extensive damage to the environment, properties, and endanger the lives of both humans and animals. Traditional forest fire prevention methods frequently rely on the use of chemicals that can have detrimental effects on the environment and human well-being. New solutions, like charcoal-based forest fire prevention sprays, provide potential alternatives that address safety requirements while also considering environmental concerns. These solutions employ biochar, derived from forest waste, to create efficient forest fire prevention methods that have the potential to decrease carbon emissions. The successful implementation of eco-friendly solutions, particularly charcoal-based forest fire prevention sprays, heavily relies on consumer perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors. The objective of this research is to examine the factors that affect consumers' decision to use eco-friendly products, particularly charcoal-based forest fire prevention sprays. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and the Environmental Concern Theory were adopted as theoretical frameworks in this study. The data collected from 155 individuals from diverse backgrounds in Thailand was subjected to thorough statistical analysis, which demonstrated that perceived effectiveness, environmental compatibility, and safety consciousness played a crucial role in stimulating adoption intentions. Surprisingly, factors such as price sensitivity, certification requirements, and distribution mechanisms have secondary effects on the collaboration approach. This study offers evidence-based recommendations for product developers, policymakers, and environmental conservation practitioners who are seeking to implement sustainable and collaborative approaches to mandatory forest fires.
References
Barling, J., Loughlin, C., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Development and test of a model linking safety-specific transformational leadership and occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 488-496. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.3.488
Bento-Gonçalves, A., Vieira, A., Úbeda, X., & Martin, D. (2012). Fire and soils: Key concepts and recent advances. Geoderma, 191, 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.01.004
Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. (2014). Lost in translation: Exploring the ethical consumer intention-behavior gap. Journal of Business Research, 67(1), 2759-2767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.09.022
Chen, S., & Rodriguez, L. (2022). Safety first, environment second? Examining consumer responses to eco-friendly safety helmets. Journal of Sustainable Product Design, 18(3), 245-267.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Davis, R., Smith, K., & Johnson, T. (2021). Sustainable innovation in personal protective equipment: Consumer perceptions and adoption factors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 305, 127153.
DeBano, L. F. (2000). The role of fire and soil heating on water repellency in wildland environments: a review. Journal of Hydrology, 231-232, 195-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00194-3
Doerr, S. H., Shakesby, R. A., & Walsh, R. P. D. (2000). Soil water repellency: its causes, characteristics and hydro-geomorphological significance. Earth-Science Reviews, 51(1-4), 33-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-8252(00)00011-8
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425-442. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176
Fernández, C., Vega, J. A., Fonturbel, T., & Jiménez, E. (2022). Effectiveness of post-fire soil erosion mitigation treatments: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Earth-Science Reviews, 226, 103956.
Garcia-Torres, S., Rey-Garcia, M., & Albareda-Vivo, L. (2022). Effective disclosure of sustainable and circular economy indicators for green product adoption. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(3), 1040-1055.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Johnson, K., Thompson, R., & Williams, P. (2023). Biochar applications in forest fire prevention: Converting forest waste to safety solutions. Journal of Forest Fire Sciences, 41(2), 134-149.
Keeley, J. E. (2009). Fire intensity, fire severity and burn severity: a brief review and suggested usage. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 18(1), 116-126. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF07049
Lehmann, J., Cowie, A., Masiello, C. A., Kammann, C., Woolf, D., Amonette, J. E., Cayuela, M. L., Camps-Arbestain, M., & Whitman, T. (2021). Biochar in climate change mitigation.Nature Geoscience, 14(12), 883-892. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00852-8
Lichtenstein, D. R., Ridgway, N. M., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1993). Price perceptions and consumer shopping behavior: A field study. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(2), 234-245. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379303000208
Lin, Y., & Chang, C. A. (2022). Double standard: The role of environmental consciousness and green performance in consumer assessment of green products. Journal of Marketing, 86(1), 125-142.
Martinez, C., & Thompson, J. (2022). Sustainable innovation in safety products: A review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 39(1), 73-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12605
Moser, A. K. (2022). Consumers' purchasing decisions regarding environmentally friendly products: An eye-tracking investigation of the willingness to pay for reusable packaging. Journal of Cleaner Production, 330, 129922.
Nakamura, T. (2023). Eco-friendly emergency response tools: Innovation trends and consumer acceptance. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 85, 103467.
Nielsen Global Corporate Sustainability Report. (2023). The sustainability imperative: New insights on consumer expectations. The Nielsen Company.
Patel, S., & Johnson, M. (2023). Adoption of sustainable building materials: The role of perceived safety and environmental benefits. Building and Environment, 229, 109825.
Pausas, J. G., et al. (2004). Changes in fire and climate in the eastern Iberian Peninsula (Mediterranean basin). Climatic Change, 63(3), 337-350. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000018508.94901.9c
Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Wardle, D. A., Zackrisson, O., & Nilsson, M. C. (1998). The charcoal effect in Boreal forests: mechanisms and ecological consequences. Oecologia, 115(3), 419-426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050536
White, K., & Simpson, B. (2023). The influence of ecological worldviews and identity on sustainable consumption behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 33(1), 113-129.
Wong, S. H., & Li, Y. (2022). Green building materials: Balance between forest fire safety performance and environmental sustainability. Forest fire Technology, 58(3), 1201-1225.
World Forest Fire Statistics Centre. (2023). World forest fire statistics report no. 38. The Geneva Association.
Zackrisson, O., Nilsson, M. C., & Wardle, D. A. (1996). Key ecological function of charcoal from wildfire in the Boreal forest. Oikos, 77(1), 10-19. https://doi.org/10.2307/3545580
Zhang, Y., Chen, H., & Li, W. (2022). Consumer perceptions of plant-based forest fire retardants: An exploratory study. Forest fire Safety Journal, 127, 103473.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2023). Safety first, sustainability second? Understanding consumer priorities in safety product purchases. Journal of Consumer Research, 49(5), 923-942.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 NIDA Business School, National Institute of Development Administration
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
