Modeling the Intention to Use Carbon Footprint Apps

  • Arno SagaweEmail author
  • Burkhardt Funk
  • Peter Niemeyer
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)


Today, there is an increasing number of smartphone apps which support users to understand their personal carbon footprint that is being developed by them. But until now there are not many users. In this paper, we discuss the relevant concepts that drive intention of smartphone users to use carbon footprint apps (CFA). To do so, we apply the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and adapt it to the context of carbon footprint apps. Furthermore, we present the design of an empirical study with more than 200 participants. We suggest, to measure and discuss positive and negative effects on the intention to use CFA. This should help in future development of CFA.


Environmental Concern Carbon Footprint Technology Acceptance Model Perceive Behavioral Control Perceive Usefulness 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adams DA, Nelson RR, Todd PA (1992) Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology: a replication. MIS Q 16(2):227–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agarwal R, Karahanna E (2000) Time flies when you’re having fun: cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Q 24(4):665–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. App Store (2015) Apps for iOS smartphones. Accessed 15 Feb 2015
  4. Aram S, Troiano A, Pasero E (2012) Environment sensing using smartphone. In: ITEE sensors applications symposium 2012, University of Brescia, Brescia, 7–9 Feb 2012Google Scholar
  5. Bruner GC, Kumar A (2005) Explaining consumer acceptance of handheld Internet devices. J Bus Res 58(5):553–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark CF, Kotchen MJ, Moore MR (2003) Internal and external influences on pro-environmental behavior: participation in a green electricity program. J Environ Psychol 23(3):237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13(3):319–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis FD (1992) Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. J Appl Soc Psychol 22(14):1111–1132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis GB, Olson MH (1985) Management information systems: conceptual foundations, structure, and development, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Dunlap RE, Van Liere KD (2008) The “new environmental paradigm”. J Environ Educ 40(1):19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Emarketer (2015) Worldwide smartphone usage to grow 25% in 2014. Accessed 29 Apr 2015
  12. Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. Fraj E, Martinez E (2006) Environmental values and lifestyles as determining factors of ecological consumer behaviour: an empirical analysis. J Consum Mark 23(3):133–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. GooglePlay (2015) Apps for Android smartphones. Accessed 15 Feb 2015
  15. Gosling SD, Mason W (2015) Internet research in psychology. Annu Rev Psychol 66:877–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haanpää L (2007) Consumers’ green commitment: indication of a postmodern lifestyle? Int J Consum Stud 31(5):478–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haythornthwaite C (2009) Crowds and communities: light and heavyweight models of peer production. In: Proceedings of the 42nd annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Big Island, 5–8 Jan 2009Google Scholar
  18. Hong S-J, Tam KY (2006) Understanding the adoption of multipurpose information appliances: the case of mobile data services. Inf Syst Res 17(2):162–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hong SH, Tam K, Kim J (2006) Mobile data service fuels the desire for uniqueness. Commun ACM 49(9):89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Igbaria M, Schiffman SJ, Wieckowski TJ (1994) The respective roles of perceived usefulness and perceived fun in the acceptance of microcomputer technology. Behav Inform Technol 13(6):349–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jackson CM, Chow S, Leitch RA (1997) Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use an information system. Decis Sci 28(2):357–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaiser FG, Wölfing S, Fuhrer U (1999) Environmental attitude and ecological behaviour. J Environ Psychol 19(1):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim H-W, Chan HC, Gupta S (2007) Value-based adoption of mobile internet: an empirical investigation. Decis Support Syst 43(1):111–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. King WR (2006) A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Inf Manag 43(6):740–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koufaris M (2002) Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer behavior. Inf Syst Res 13(2):205–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kranz J, Picot A (2011) Why are consumers going green? The role of environmental concerns in private Green-IS adaption. In: Proceedings of the 19th European conference on information systems (ECIS) at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL), Helsinki, Finland, 9–11 June 2011Google Scholar
  27. Lee H-J, Lim H, Jolly LD, Lee J (2009) Consumer lifestyles and adoption of high-technology products: a case of South Korea. J Int Consum Mark 21(2):153–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liao C-H, Tsou C-W, Shu Y-C (2008) The roles of perceived enjoyment and price perception in determining acceptance of multimedia-on-demand. Int J Bus Inf 3(1):27–52Google Scholar
  29. Luarn P, Lin H-H (2005) Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use mobile banking. Comput Hum Behav 21(6):873–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moon JW, Kim YG (2001) Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context. Inf Manag 38(4):217–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nysveen H, Pedersen PE, Thorbjørnsen H (2005a) Intentions to use mobile services: antecedents and cross-service comparisons. J Acad Mark Sci 33(3):330–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nysveen H, Pedersen PE, Thorbjørnsen H (2005b) Explaining intention to use mobile chat services: moderating effects of gender. J Consum Mark 22(5):247–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pelletier NL, Ayer NW, Tyedmers PH, Kruse SA, Flysjo A, Robillard G, Ziegler F, Scholz AJ, Sonesson U (2007) Impact categories for life cycle assessment research of seafood production systems: review and prospectus. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(6):414–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shen J, Saijo T (2008) Reexamining the relations between socio-demographic characteristics and individual environmental concern: evidence from Shanghai data. J Environ Psychol 28(1):42–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Subramanian GH (1994) A replication of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use measurement. Decis Sci 25(5–6):863–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tanner C (1999) Constraints on environmental behaviour. J Environ Psychol 19(2):145–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Taylor S, Todd PA (1995) Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Inf Syst Res 6(2):144–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van der Heijden H (2003) Factors influencing the usage of websites: the case of a generic portal in The Netherlands. Inf Manag 40(6):541–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Van der Heijden H (2004) User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Q 28(4):695–704Google Scholar
  40. Venkatesh V, Bala H (2008) Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis Sci 39(2):273–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Verkasalo H, López-Nicolás C, Molina-Castillo FJ, Bouwman H (2010) Analysis of users and non-users of smartphone applications. Telematics Inform 27(3):242–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vijayasarathy LR (2004) Predicting consumer intentions to use on-line shopping: the case for an augmented technology acceptance model. Inf Manag 41(6):747–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weidema BP, Thrane M, Christensen P, Schmidt J, Løkke S (2008) Carbon footprint. J Ind Ecol 12(1):3–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wright LA, Kemp S, Williams I (2011) ‘Carbon footprinting’: towards a universally accepted definition. Carbon Manag 2(1):61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität Lüneburg LeuphanaLüneburgGermany

Personalised recommendations