Chapter 5
Results, Analyses, and Findings
This chapter explores the
results of the educational campaign, including the distribution of brochures
and diaper offers, sales of reusable bags and diaper service, and tallies for
the baseline and follow-up surveys. These survey results are further analyzed
to extract general findings of the study.
Baseline Survey Results
The baseline survey was
administered from late June, 1993 until August, 1993, in-person to 401
shoppers at the west side Gristede’s store and 399 shoppers at the east side
Gristede’s store. The results, in percents of total responses, are delineated
in Table 3 below.
Table 3 -- Baseline Survey Results --
Demographics
Which do
you consider yourself to be?
|
|
White
|
African descent |
Asian |
Other |
|
|
71.8% |
7.5% |
3.0% |
6.0% |
|
East |
73.8% |
4.3% |
3.3% |
4.8% |
Are you of Spanish or Hispanic origin?
|
|
Yes |
No |
|
West |
5.7% |
71.8% |
|
East |
6.3% |
72.0% |
Please
check the highest level of education you have completed.
|
|
West |
East |
|
|
2.0% |
1.5% |
|
High school graduate |
8.0% |
4.8% |
|
College graduate or some college |
45.4% |
47.9% |
|
Graduate work or advanced degree |
37.2% |
35.8% |
Are you
|
|
West |
East |
|
|
31.2% |
30.2% |
|
Female |
57.6% |
57.4% |
Please
check the range which reflects your total household income.
|
|
West
|
East |
|
Less than $20,000 |
9.2% |
8.6% |
|
$20,000 - $30,000 |
15.5% |
16.4% |
|
$30,000 - $40,000 |
16.0% |
16.9% |
|
|
11.2% |
11.8% |
|
Over $50,000 |
33.9% |
33.2% |
Please circle your age range.
|
|
West |
East |
|
less than 30 |
25.9% |
34.5% |
|
30 – 44 |
38.7% |
31.5% |
|
45 – 60 |
23.4% |
15.9% |
|
over 60 |
4.2% |
6.5% |
The demographic questions,
taken together, show that the two sample populations (west and east) are very
similar (within a few percentage points) in almost all respects. The age
distribution is slightly different, with the east side having slightly more
younger shoppers, and the west side having slightly more middle-aged
shoppers. These data show that the original basis for structuring the
experiment to test two different levels of education at the two stores as if
they were being tested on one population was sound.
Table 4 --
Baseline Survey Results -- Knowledge
To your knowledge, does the City government require
all Manhattan residents and businesses to separate materials for
recycling?
|
|
Yes |
No |
Don’t Know |
|
|
77.6% |
8.2% |
11.7% |
|
East |
76.6% |
12.3% |
9.3% |
Which of the following materials are picked up from
apartment buildings by the City for recycling?
|
|
|
Yes |
No |
Don’t
Know |
|
|
West |
89.8% |
1.0% |
9.0% |
|
|
East |
92.2% |
1.8% |
5.5% |
|
Plastic bags |
West |
33.7% |
29.2% |
30.7% |
|
|
East |
41.1% |
24.7% |
26.2% |
|
Aluminum cans |
West |
88.3% |
2.2% |
8.0% |
|
|
East |
87.7% |
2.8% |
7.6% |
|
Aluminum foil |
West |
63.1% |
11.2% |
21.2% |
|
|
East |
67.8% |
10.6% |
18.1% |
|
Tin cans |
West |
81.3% |
3.5% |
14.0% |
|
|
East |
76.8% |
6.3% |
14.4% |
Environmental shopping involves the purchase of fewer
disposable items, fewer products containing toxics, more durable items, and
more products in recyclable, reduced, and recycled packaging.
Have you
heard about environmental shopping before?
|
|
Yes |
No |
|
|
57.4% |
41.4% |
|
East |
59.7% |
39.3% |
The knowledge questions showed
a basic understanding of New York City’s recycling program, a good foundation
on which to begin education about environmental shopping. The questions that
required more sophisticated understanding were answered correctly by fewer
shoppers, as expected. For example, that the City’s recycling program was
mandatory was not as well understood as the recyclable materials collected by
the program (a shortcoming in the City’s recycling enforcement program by that
time). Also, more of the shoppers didn’t realize that plastic bags were not
recyclable and fewer understood that aluminum foil was as recyclable as
aluminum cans. Slightly more than half had even heard of environmental
shopping. As expected, since the demographics of the east and west side
shoppers were the same, the baseline survey showed little difference between
the responses to these questions.
Table 5 --
Baseline Survey Results -- Source of Knowledge
As expected, the shoppers had
received decidedly more education about recycling than environmental shopping
prior to the educational campaign, and from a variety of sources, chief among
them, TV/radio, building management and newspapers/magazines. Their
environmental shopping knowledge came more from newspapers/magazines, TV/Radio
and their friends and neighbors. The differences between the east and west
side shoppers for all responses were small.
Where have you heard about .........
|
|
|
RECYCLING
|
ENVIRONMENTAL SHOPPING |
|
|
|
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
|
Mailings |
West |
58.9% |
28.7% |
11.5% |
63.3% |
|
|
East |
66.0% |
25.4% |
11.1% |
69.0% |
|
TV or radio |
West |
75.8% |
15.0% |
24.4% |
52.6% |
|
|
East |
77.6% |
16.1% |
21.9% |
58.7% |
|
Subway Ads or billboards |
West |
65.3% |
21.4% |
10.5% |
64.3% |
|
|
East |
67.8% |
22.9% |
7.6% |
70.3% |
|
Videos in store displays |
West |
15.7% |
63.3% |
4.5% |
68.8% |
|
|
East |
12.6% |
68.8% |
2.5% |
75.6% |
|
Posters or brochures in stores |
West |
39.2% |
42.9% |
11.5% |
62.6% |
|
|
East |
39.8% |
44.8% |
10.1% |
67.8% |
|
Your building's management |
West |
75.8% |
15.2% |
6.2% |
67.8% |
|
|
East |
70.0% |
22.2% |
3.5% |
74.6% |
|
Friends or neighbors |
West |
58.1% |
26.2% |
24.7% |
52.4% |
|
|
East |
58.9% |
26.7% |
24.7% |
55.2% |
|
Newspapers and magazines |
West |
80.0% |
11.0% |
27.2% |
50.9% |
|
|
East |
75.8% |
15.6% |
26.7% |
55.4% |
Table 6 --
Baseline Survey Results -- Attitudes
The shoppers’ attitudes towards
environmental concepts and conservation, in general, were quite positive, with
over half to two-thirds agreeing with all the statements that would indicate a
predisposition towards the environment. The questions that would elicit a
negative personal attitude towards the environment (e.g., that technology
would solve our environmental problems, mandatory recycling infringes on
personal rights, and a personal preference to buy disposable products) were
agreed with by fewer shoppers.
A few questions probed
shoppers’ motivations when buying products. Cost was the most important
factor and brand name and environmental considerations were the least
important when shoppers were asked to rank the motivations. When asked
specifically about the importance of certain intrinsic and extrinsic factors
in motivating them to recycle, shoppers considered the intrinsic motivators
(e.g., conservation of natural resources, landfill space, the right thing to
do) to be considerably more important. The fact that it is a legal
requirement to recycle in New York was important to these shoppers, but far
less so than the intrinsic motivators. Interestingly, there was a difference
between west and east side shoppers in the answer to this question, with those
on the west side considering this extrinsic factor to be more important than
the east siders (perhaps due to differences in the Department of Sanitation’s
recycling education or enforcement programs in these two areas).
If a new store opened near
you that encouraged environmentally safe products and practices, all other
things being equal, would you be likely to change the supermarket where
you do most of your shopping?
Definitely not Probably
not Don't know Probably Definitely
|
West |
|
11.5% |
16.2% |
39.2% |
30.4% |
|
East |
1.8% |
9.1% |
14.4% |
38.3% |
35.5% |
Please indicate how you feel
about the following statements using this rating scale:
1) strongly disagree 2) mildly disagree 3) neutral
4) mildly agree 5) strongly agree
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
People in the US
buy/consume too much |
West |
3.0% |
2.5% |
12.5% |
21.4% |
54.6% |
|
|
East |
4.0% |
3.8% |
13.6% |
19.9% |
50.6% |
|
Environmental
shopping is important for preserving the natural environment |
West |
0.7% |
2.0% |
10.2% |
20.0% |
60.6% |
|
|
East |
2.3% |
1.8% |
10.6% |
19.6% |
56.9% |
|
A person helps the
environment by reducing the quantity of packaging and products they buy |
West |
1.7% |
2.2% |
8.0% |
19.5% |
62.3% |
|
|
East |
2.5% |
2.5% |
7.8% |
20.2% |
58.7% |
|
Individuals must
take the most active role in solving any trash disposal problems |
West |
3.2% |
3.2% |
13.0% |
26.9% |
46.9% |
|
|
East |
3.3% |
4.5% |
8.1% |
26.7% |
48.4% |
|
Governments must
take the most active role in solving any trash disposal problems |
West |
3.2% |
4.0% |
15.0% |
26.9% |
42.9% |
|
|
East |
3.8% |
5.0% |
11.6% |
24.9% |
45.6% |
|
Mandatory
recycling infringes on my rights |
West |
56.4% |
14.0% |
10.2% |
5.2% |
4.5% |
|
|
East |
52.4% |
13.6% |
12.3% |
6.8% |
4.5% |
|
Technology alone
will solve any trash problem |
West |
57.4% |
20.0% |
8.7% |
3.0% |
3.5% |
|
|
East |
49.6% |
20.9% |
9.3% |
5.0% |
6.5% |
|
I like to repair
things rather than discard them |
West |
8.0% |
6.0% |
32.4% |
21.9% |
24.2% |
|
|
East |
6.0% |
7.3% |
27.0% |
23.9% |
25.7% |
|
I prefer to buy
disposable products |
West |
19.0% |
15.7% |
30.2% |
14.0% |
13.5% |
|
|
East |
17.6% |
16.4% |
29.0% |
14.4% |
13.9% |
|
Products are not
made as durably as they were in the past |
West |
3.7% |
3.2% |
25.2% |
19.2% |
41.4% |
|
|
East |
4.3% |
3.5% |
20.2% |
22.7% |
39.8% |
|
Using refills or
concentrates is good for the environment |
West |
2.5% |
1.5% |
16.7% |
24.7% |
46.6% |
|
|
East |
1.8% |
3.0% |
15.1% |
20.9% |
50.4% |
Please rank the following in order of preference
from 1 to 4 in their importance to you when buying groceries (where 1 is most
important).
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
West |
16.0% |
18.2% |
22.2% |
29.2% |
|
|
East |
16.4% |
17.4% |
15.1% |
33.8% |
|
Economic value or cost |
West |
53.6% |
19.5% |
7.2% |
6.5% |
|
|
East |
52.4% |
17.4% |
8.3% |
5.0% |
|
Product's convenience |
West |
12.7% |
31.9% |
25.9% |
13.7% |
|
|
East |
12.6% |
26.2% |
28.0% |
14.1% |
|
Environmental impact |
West |
6.7% |
18.7% |
28.2% |
30.7% |
|
|
East |
7.1% |
18.6% |
26.7% |
27.0% |
If you do recycle, please indicate how
important each of the following is in inspiring you to recycle.
(where 1 is of no importance and 5 is extremely important)
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
I recycle to help conserve natural resources |
West |
2.2% |
1.0% |
11.5% |
17.7% |
57.9% |
|
|
East |
4.0% |
1.3% |
8.1% |
16.1% |
56.7% |
|
I recycle to help conserve landfill space |
West |
3.5% |
2.0% |
16.7% |
19.0% |
48.9% |
|
|
East |
3.5% |
3.3% |
12.8% |
17.4% |
49.4% |
|
I recycle because it's the law |
West |
14.7% |
7.5% |
13.5% |
13.5% |
40.6% |
|
|
East |
14.4% |
10.8% |
19.4% |
14.4% |
28.7% |
|
I recycle because it seems like the
right thing to do |
West |
3.2% |
0.7% |
8.5% |
18.7% |
59.4% |
|
|
East |
3.5% |
3.8% |
7.8% |
16.4% |
55.4% |
The behavior questions are
the most useful ones in determining the degree to which the educational
campaign changed shoppers’ habits, and form the basis for comparison with the
post-intervention survey responses. Comparing the general tenor of the
shoppers’ behaviors with their attitudes and level of environmental knowledge,
there appears to be a disconnect. Whereas the shoppers tended to have
positive attitudes and a high level of recycling knowledge, they seemed a bit
more ambivalent when it came to actually practicing environmental behaviors.
Recycling was one exception to this, where a vast majority of shoppers from
east and west recycled cans, bottles, and magazines. On the other end of the
spectrum, it was clear that shoppers did not bring their own bags to the
supermarket. Though more than half didn’t buy products in single-serving
packages, they did buy disposable products, so again shoppers showed a
reluctance to abandon environmentally deleterious behaviors. There was, once
again, little difference between the east and west side shoppers.
Table 7 – Baseline Survey Results --
Self-Reported Behaviors
How often do you, personally, actually do each
of the following things?
(where 1 is never and 5 is always)
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
Buy disposable products |
West |
4.5% |
9.2% |
46.9% |
20.0% |
8.2% |
|
|
East |
2.8% |
13.1% |
45.6% |
22.2% |
4.3% |
|
Buy refills or concentrates |
West |
10.7% |
12.2% |
31.2% |
29.7% |
7.0% |
|
|
East |
7.8% |
11.6% |
30.7% |
29.0% |
10.1% |
|
Buy items in single-serving packages |
West |
23.7% |
23.4% |
25.7% |
13.2% |
4.2% |
|
|
East |
24.7% |
21.% |
23.4% |
13.6% |
4.5% |
|
Select products in recyclable packaging |
West |
4.7% |
8.7% |
28.9% |
36.2% |
11.7% |
|
|
East |
4.5% |
7.8% |
30.5% |
35.5% |
9.6% |
|
Avoid buying aerosols |
West |
11.0% |
9.5% |
16.0% |
16.7% |
37.4% |
|
|
East |
9.1% |
9.3% |
15.9% |
17.9% |
37.8% |
|
Return beverage containers for deposit |
West |
28.7% |
7.0% |
11.2% |
12.7% |
31.7% |
|
|
East |
27.2% |
9.3% |
11.8% |
11.6% |
28.7% |
|
Bring your own bag to the store |
West |
51.9% |
14.2% |
13.2% |
8.7% |
4.0% |
|
|
East |
51.1% |
13.1% |
12.6% |
10.3% |
2.3% |
|
Patronize repair shops |
West |
9.0% |
15.5% |
34.2% |
18.2% |
13.2% |
|
|
East |
12.6% |
12.1% |
31.5% |
19.9% |
11.1% |
|
Recycle cans and bottles |
West |
2.5% |
|
5.0% |
18.0% |
64.1% |
|
|
East |
5.3% |
4.3% |
6.3% |
17.1% |
56.7% |
|
Recycle magazines |
West |
11.0% |
4.7% |
5.5% |
13.5% |
57.6% |
|
|
East |
8.6% |
4.8% |
8.6% |
15.4% |
52.1% |
Follow-Up Survey Results
The follow-up survey was
administered by telephone to as many baseline survey respondents as possible
from late January 1994 until April 1994. The results of this survey are given
in the tables immediately below. Analyses of the baseline and follow-up
surveys are discussed in the next section.
Table 8
Follow-Up Survey Results -- Knowledge
To your knowledge, does
the City government require all Manhattan residents and businesses to
separate materials for recycling?
|
|
Yes
|
No |
Don’t know |
|
West |
87.9% |
3.0% |
8.3% |
|
East |
80.6% |
5.8% |
11.7% |
Which of the following materials are picked up from apartment buildings by
the City for recycling? (Note: “Don't Know” was an option in the baseline
survey)
|
|
|
Yes |
No |
|
Plastic bottles and
jugs |
West |
78.8% |
21.2% |
|
|
East |
77.7% |
22.3% |
|
Plastic bags* |
West |
47.7% |
52.3% |
|
|
East |
52.4% |
47.6% |
|
Aluminum cans |
West |
55.3% |
44.7% |
|
|
East |
73.8% |
26.2% |
|
Aluminum foil |
West |
41.7% |
58.3% |
|
|
East |
40.8% |
59.2% |
|
Tin cans |
West |
39.4% |
60.6% |
|
|
East |
39.8% |
60.2% |
*Plastic bags have never been picked up for recycling by New York City.
Have you heard about environmental shopping before?
|
|
Yes |
No |
|
West |
53.0% |
47% |
|
East |
55.3% |
44.7% |
Where have you heard about ...
|
|
|
Recycling |
Environmental Shopping |
|
|
West |
28.0% |
3.0% |
|
|
East |
28.2% |
3.9% |
|
TV or radio |
West |
53.8% |
10.6% |
|
|
East |
53.4% |
8.7% |
|
Subway Ads or billboards |
West |
31.1% |
6.8% |
|
|
East |
29.1% |
4.9% |
|
Videos in store displays |
West |
9.1% |
6.8% |
|
|
East |
1.0% |
3.9% |
|
Posters/brochures in stores |
West |
13.6% |
18.2% |
|
|
East |
23.3% |
15.5% |
|
Your building's management |
West |
18.9% |
0.0% |
|
|
East |
29.1% |
3.9% |
|
Friends or neighbors |
West |
26.5% |
9.8% |
|
|
East |
28.2% |
13.6% |
|
Newspapers and magazines |
West |
57.6% |
12.9% |
|
|
East |
64.1% |
21.4% |
Due to space constraints in the
follow-up questionnaire, many of the attitude questions had to be dropped.
Again about two-thirds of respondents from east and west were positively
disposed towards shopping at a store that encouraged environmental products,
and again cost was the most important factor for motivating shoppers towards
their purchases. Second was convenience, and here this seemed a little more
important to east-siders than west-siders. In this survey environmental
considerations were alone at the bottom of shoppers’ priorities, when compared
with other, extrinsic and intrinsic factors. In evaluating the importance of
the three intrinsic and one extrinsic motivators to recycle, a clear majority
of shoppers considered the intrinsic motivators to be important or extremely
important, again more so than the fact that it is against the law not to
recycle. However, some differences between east and west appeared after the
educational intervention. For all three intrinsic motivators, 12 to 23% more
west-siders considered these reasons extremely important in motivating them to
recycle, as compared with east siders. Perhaps the greater educational
intensity at the west side store influenced these shoppers about the
relationship between their recycling and conservation of natural resources,
landfill space and environmental quality, in general. This difference was not
apparent for the extrinsic factor, which was not mentioned in the educational
materials.
Table 9
Follow-up Survey Results -- Attitudes
If a new store opened near
you that encouraged environmentally safe products and practices, all other
things being equal, would you be likely to change the supermarket where
you do most of your shopping?
|
|
East |
West |
|
|
3.9% |
3.8% |
|
Probably not |
17.5% |
12.1% |
|
Don't know |
13.6% |
15.2% |
|
Probably |
35.0% |
33.3% |
|
Definitely |
29.1% |
35.6% |
Please rank the following
in order of preference from 1 to 4 in their importance to you when buying
groceries (where 1 is most important).
|
|
Rank |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
Brand name |
West |
28.8% |
16.7% |
23.5% |
28.0% |
|
|
East |
26.2% |
26.2% |
21.4% |
26.2% |
|
Economic value/cost |
West |
47.0% |
32.6% |
11.4% |
6.1% |
|
|
East |
47.6% |
22.3% |
18.4% |
10.7% |
|
Product convenience |
West |
12.9% |
25.8% |
31.8% |
26.5% |
|
|
East |
20.4% |
27.2% |
28.2% |
21.4% |
|
Environmental Impact |
West |
12.1% |
21.2% |
28.0% |
35.6% |
|
|
East |
10.7% |
18.4% |
27.2% |
40.8% |
If you do
recycle, please indicate how important each of the following is in inspiring
you to recycle. (where 1 is of no importance and 5 is extremely important)
I
Recycle:
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
To help conserve natural resources |
West |
6.8% |
5.3% |
14.4% |
16.7% |
56.1% |
|
|
East |
3.9 % |
14.6% |
22.3% |
22.3% |
33.0% |
|
To help conserve landfill space |
West |
4.5% |
8.3% |
16.7% |
20.5% |
48.5% |
|
|
East |
4.9% |
17.5% |
19.4% |
26.2% |
28.2% |
|
Because it's the law |
West |
18.9% |
16.7% |
17.4% |
12.9% |
33.3% |
|
|
East |
8.7 % |
7.8% |
24.3% |
24.3% |
31.1% |
|
Because it seems like the
right thing to do |
West |
6.1% |
6.1% |
13.6% |
21.2% |
52.3% |
|
|
East |
3.9 % |
8.7% |
11.7% |
31.1% |
40.8% |
As with the baseline survey,
shoppers did not exhibit a convincing tendency towards environmental shopping
behaviors, again with the exception of recycling cans and bottles. Behaviors
were varied, depending on which purchasing habit they were being queried
about. For example, a clear majority frequently returned containers for
deposit, but almost all the rest of the respondents never did (in other
words, the respondents were either avid about the behavior or
non-participants). On the other hand, behaviors like patronizing repair
shops, buying refills and concentrates, and buying disposable products were so
varied that no trend was evident. Comparing these results to the baseline
produced more interesting results. These are discussed in the analysis
section.
Table 10 Follow-Up Survey -- Self-Reported
Behaviors
How often do you,
personally, actually do each of the following things?
(where 1 is never and 5 is
always.
|
|
|
1 (never) |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 (always) |
|
Buy disposable products |
West |
4.5% |
14.4% |
38.6% |
16.7% |
25.8% |
|
|
East |
3.9% |
14.6% |
26.2% |
26.2% |
28.2% |
|
Buy refills or concentrates |
West |
16.7% |
18.9% |
15.2% |
21.2% |
28.0% |
|
|
East |
8.7% |
17.5% |
18.4% |
24.3% |
29.1% |
|
Buy items in single-serving packaging |
West |
27.3% |
24.2% |
25.0% |
9.1% |
11.4% |
|
|
East |
22.3% |
20.4% |
26.2% |
13.6% |
15.5% |
|
Select products in recyclable packaging |
West |
4.5% |
26.5% |
31.8% |
19.7% |
15.2% |
|
|
East |
2.9% |
22.3% |
36.9% |
21.4% |
15.5% |
|
Avoid buying aerosols |
West |
18.9% |
10.6% |
10.6% |
18.9% |
39.4% |
|
|
East |
8.7% |
5.8% |
16.5% |
23.3% |
43.7% |
|
Return containers for deposit |
West |
31.8% |
3.8% |
6.8% |
13.6% |
42.4% |
|
|
East |
24.3% |
8.7% |
3.9% |
22.3% |
36.9% |
|
Bring your own bag to the store |
West |
51.5% |
22.7% |
13.6% |
5.3% |
6.1% |
|
|
East |
34.0% |
29.1% |
17.5% |
8.7% |
8.7% |
|
Patronize repair shops |
West |
25.0% |
23.5% |
22.0% |
15.2% |
12.9% |
|
|
East |
18.4% |
24.3% |
32.0% |
12.6% |
11.7% |
|
Recycle cans and bottles |
West |
7.6% |
0.8% |
2.3% |
12.1% |
73.5% |
|
|
East |
5.8% |
5.8% |
6.8% |
15.5% |
65.0% |
It is interesting to note that
well over 50% and often more than 60% or 70% of both east and west side
shoppers sometimes, often, or always (values = 3, 4, or 5) participated in
most of the environmental behaviors above. The exception was bringing their
own bags to the store, where the participation rate was between 25% and 30%.
Bag results
In addition to the
questionnaire results, above, a special focus of the data gathering and
analysis efforts was the impact of the educational campaign on the use of
disposable and reusable grocery bags by the shoppers. Data to illustrate
changes in bag use came partially from the questionnaires, originally to be
verified by objective data from Red Apple.
Disposable Grocery Bags
given out by Gristede’s
Red Apple headquarters promised
monthly data on disposable bags given away by the stores before, during and
after the campaign. However, after repeated requests once the campaign was
over, none was forthcoming. Also, Red Apple headquarters had originally
agreed to provide information on the distribution to customers of the smaller,
produce bags, but did not. The project never received information on how many
disposable bags of any kind were given away. So it was not possible to
evaluate whether the educational campaign or sales of the project’s cotton
bags had any negative impact on the number of disposable grocery bags taken by
customers.
Cloth Bags Sold
The last-minute decision to
permit sales of the Environmental Shopper bags by the cashiers, instead of at
the courtesy counter, resulted in some confusion in accounting for the number
of bags sold. The bags were assigned a code, which the cashiers were to
register at every sale. Though the west side store seemed to have this
straight from the outset, the east side store rang up bags under another code
for the first several weeks of the educational period. The store chain
assigned these bags a code number (901) so that sales could be monitored and
the project could be reimbursed. Data under code #901 was never forthcoming
from headquarters, despite attempts to get it. The project was eventually
reimbursed for bags delivered to the stores.
Without realizing that this
would be relied upon as a source of project data, a log was kept to record
each delivery of bags to each store, including the number of bags delivered
and the date. Since actual bag sales data were not available, this
information was used to infer the sale of the Environmental Shopper bags. By
mid-February, 200 bags had been left at the west-side store, an estimated 13
per week during the six weeks before the price change and 10 per week during
the twelve weeks that followed. Somewhat at odds with this, was the
perception of the west side’s assistant store manager that the bags did not
sell very fast in November and at least the first half of December, but they
did seem to start selling better when the price was reduced. At the east-side
store 160 bags had been left during the campaign, an estimated 10 per week
during the six weeks before the price change and 8 per week during the twelve
weeks that followed.
On March 18, about two months
after the posters and brochures were removed at the end of the active
educational campaign, the assistant store manager in the east side store
continued to report bag sales down. He attributed it to the absence of the
project brochures, etc. Similar to the east-side store, the west-side’s
assistant manager also reported bag sales down two months after the end of the
campaign. Since the passive campaign phase was not to include as frequent
maintenance visits, the coat hanger rigs on which balled up cotton bags were
displayed, were beginning to look a bit shabby, and this may have contributed
to lowered sales in the west side store. However, since a similar drop in
sales was also noted by the east side store manager (with no alteration of the
bag display there), it is more likely that the lowered sales were due to
saturation of the market or the lack of supportive messages from the
educational campaign, or both.
Bags were removed from stores
on April 27, 1994. By this time, it is inferred that 337 bags had been sold
at the two stores (150 for the east side store, and 187 for the west side
store) taking into account the bags that were remaining unsold at the end of
the campaign (10 – East; 13 – West). This would indicate that there were
roughly 20% more sales at the west side store during the same period. Table
11, below, shows the bag deliveries for each store.
Table 11
Bag
deliveries as of May 2,
1994
|
Date |
East (50) |
West (56) |
|
10/29/93 |
|
20 |
|
11/1/93 |
20 |
|
|
11/2/93 |
10 |
10 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
11/19/93 |
30 |
30 |
|
12/16/93 |
30 |
30 |
|
12/26/93 |
|
30 |
|
1/2/94 |
30 |
30 |
|
1/8/94 |
20 |
10 |
|
2/14/94 |
20 |
20 |
|
Totals |
160 |
200 |
The price change, from $4 each to $2.50, took place
on December 15, 1994.
These data may have to be viewed cautiously. Due to the efforts of the
assistant manager, the east-side store provided weekly, and in some cases,
daily data on number of bags sold (see Table 4). According to him, the
east-side store sold only 53 bags during the same period that 150 bags were
left at the store. This can be interpreted optimistically (the assistant
manager did not have accurate data for all the bags sold while he was not at
the store – he worked nights and not every day) or pessimistically (all the
unaccounted bags were stolen), or something in-between. No comparable sales
information was forthcoming from the west-side store managers. It seems
likely that there might be some missing sales data from the east side store
because certain days of the week are preferentially covered in the sales
breakdowns in Table 12, and other days are typically missing. Pilferage is
always a problem in supermarkets, but considering the facts that the bags were
within an arm’s length and in full view of the cashiers, and in the east side
store, above her head, and clearly marked with neon green or pink price signs,
stealing bags would not be so easy. Logic would dictate that the actual
number sold is close to the higher figure.
Table 12 East side bag sales
(from the assistant store
manager’s figures)
Week ending
|
Number
sold |
Breakdown |
|
12/26/93 |
6 |
Na |
|
1/2/94 |
10 |
1 Mon, 9 Sat. |
|
1/9 |
20 |
5 Mon, 9 Wed, 1 Th, 2 Sat |
|
1/16 |
|
Na |
|
1/23 |
2 |
1 Wed, 1 Sat |
|
1/30 |
1 |
1 Sat |
|
2/6 |
2 |
Na |
|
2/13 |
1 |
Na |
|
2/20 |
6 |
Na |
|
2/27 |
4 |
Na |
|
|
1 |
Na |
|
Total |
53 |
|
Survey Bag Results
The following data, extracted
from the baseline surveys, indicates that increasing the economic incentive to
shoppers for bringing their own bag from two to five cents would have a small
positive impact on the likelihood of doing so. After the educational
campaign, these numbers did not change much. When asked whether and how
frequently the shoppers bring a bag to the supermarket, before and after the
educational campaign, the west side shoppers were fairly consistent, but the
east side shoppers did tend to bring more bags than before the education.
Table 13 Baseline and Follow-Up Survey
Bag Results
Baseline:
If you were offered a small incentive, say 2 cents, to
bring your own bag to the supermarket for your groceries, would you bring your
own bag?
Definitely not Probably not Don't know Probably
Definitely
|
West |
8.7% |
26.9% |
12.5% |
28.2% |
23.2% |
|
East |
7.6% |
24.9% |
12.8% |
36.3% |
18.1% |
Baseline:
If the incentive were five cents, would you bring your
own bag?
Definitely not Probably not Don't know Probably
Definitely
|
West |
7.2% |
21.2% |
12.2% |
29.7% |
27.9% |
|
East |
5.3% |
20.9% |
13.1% |
35.5% |
23.7% |
Follow-Up:
If the incentive were five
cents, would you bring your own bag?
Definitely not Probably not Don't know Probably
Definitely
|
West |
12.1% |
19.7% |
9.1% |
33.3% |
25.8% |
|
East |
9.7% |
21.4% |
18.4% |
26.2% |
24.3% |
Baseline:
Have you used one of Gristede's reusable canvas bags
in the past month?
|
|
Yes
|
No |
Can’t
remember |
|
|
3.2% |
85.0% |
3.7% |
|
East |
2.5% |
81.9% |
4.5% |
Baseline:
If yes,
how often have you brought one with you when you go shopping?
(Of total respondents)
|
|
Occasionally |
Sometimes |
Often |
Always |
|
West |
4.7% |
4.5% |
2.2% |
.7% |
|
East |
4.3% |
6.3% |
2.3% |
.3% |
Baseline:
How often do you, personally, actually do each
of the following things?
(where 1 is never and 5 is always)
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
Bring your own bag to the store |
West |
51.9% |
14.2% |
13.2% |
8.7% |
4.0% |
|
|
East |
51.1% |
13.1% |
12.6% |
10.3% |
2.3% |
Follow-Up:
How often do you,
personally, actually do each of the following things?
(where 1 is never and 5 is
always.
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
Bring your own bag to the store |
West |
51.5% |
22.7% |
13.6% |
5.3% |
6.1% |
|
|
East |
34.0% |
29.1% |
17.5% |
8.7% |
8.7% |
Diaper Results
About 175 diaper offers were
initially sent to each store, and it was about three weeks before these were
depleted. A second supply of 175 was sent in early December, and these were
largely depleted by the end of the active educational phase. About 70
undistributed diaper offers came back from the east side store at the end of
the campaign and about 5 came back from the west side store. There was no
indication that anyone at the stores replenished the cashiers' supplies of
these offers as they were depleted, though a handful was given to each cashier
during the periodic visits to each store. There was no accurate way to track
how many shoppers who bought disposable diapers were not given diaper service
offers, though there were questions on the follow-up survey inquiring about
this.
In a conversation with General Health Care Corporation, on March 8, 1994 it
was learned that, despite project efforts to educate shoppers (particularly
those having infants) about the solid waste generation and disposal benefits
of switching from buying disposable diapers to using diaper service, there
were no new GHCC customers resulting from the educational campaign. GHCC
indicated that all personnel fielding calls on the 800 number given out to
prospective customers, via the diaper service offers, were familiar with the
Gristede's educational effort. Although GHCC could not guarantee that all
shoppers calling the number were asked if they were from the Gristede's
stores, any serious calls from shoppers would have soon resulted in their
identification as having been generated due to the project, because the diaper
offers featured special low pricing.
GHCC suggested a reason for the
poor results. The most important explanation given was that people are loathe
to switch to using cotton diapers or to diaper service once they are used to
disposables. The decision to change to diaper service has been rare and
usually in instances where the baby has severe diaper rash. Also, even GHCC's
own customers don't tend to stay with diaper service for the diapering life of
the child. This is because older children void more quantity at a time,
possibly requiring double-diapering when using cloth. In addition, because
the gels used in some disposable diapers are designed to absorb many times
their weight, some parents who use disposables on their infants may leave the
diaper on their child for longer periods of time (as much as six hours at a
time and for 3 or more voids). Even though common wisdom dictates that to
minimize rash, diapers should be changed after each voiding, parents would be
disappointed to find that cotton diapers cannot be left on the child as long
as is typical for disposables.
Reluctance on the part of
consumers to change to a product viewed as less convenient is the reason for
GHCC's main advertising efforts having been directed towards pregnant women,
and mothers of newborns at the hospital. If this were the explanation for the
project's results, it suggests either that the supermarket is not the best
venue for educating people regarding the solid waste impacts of diaper
selection or that the diaper offers should have been given to pregnant
shoppers rather than those purchasing disposable diapers.
There may be other reasons to
explain why no shoppers signed up for diaper service. The follow-up survey
included a question designed to find out if respondents with infants had
received a diaper offer at the store. This information could also help
explain to what extent the poor response rate for diaper service was due to
the design of the educational materials, the message itself, and/or the
distribution of the diaper offers. As it turned out, only 17% of respondents
with babies received diaper offers in the east side store and 6% in the west
side store. The former corresponds to 2 of 12 respondents with babies
receiving the education in the east side store, and 1 of 17 on the west side.
Oddly enough, the survey results showed that one shopper in each store said
that he or she signed up for diaper service. Even if this were the case, it
is clear that it is not primarily the design of the educational materials or
the message which is the cause of the poor enrollment rate at the diaper
service, but rather that the vast majority of the intended audience never
received the educational treatment in the first place. The store chain and
managers had agreed that the cashiers could be asked to hand out these diaper
offers. Each manager had been given letters for the cashiers describing the
project and what they were being asked to do; and there was always sufficient
stock of diaper offers in each store. Two possible conclusions are that the
cashiers did not receive the letters, or did not implement it. So the
shoppers, most not having received the educational treatment, could not have
been expected to switch to diaper service.
Survey Results for Diaper
Use
This section shows the results
of the surveys as they pertain to the use of diapers by shoppers. As expected
a small minority of shoppers buy diapers, twice as many on the west side as
the east side. The number of shoppers with babies increased by a considerable
factor after the educational campaign was over. Also, the vast majority of
those using diapers use disposables, though about 5% used diaper service
before the start of the campaign, and some use some disposables with diaper
service (see Appendix D for a fuller discussion of the cost comparison for
diapers). Despite the low penetration of the diaper service advertising in
the stores, the results show that other alternatives involving cloth diapers
(e.g., washing them, diaper service) were used by more respondents after the
educational intervention than before, and that the rate of increase in these
alternatives was greater than that for disposable diapers.
Since there was a suspicion
that not all parents of infants were receiving diaper offers during the
campaign, a few questions were added to the follow-up survey to elicit more
information about this cohort and how the campaign impacted their decisions.
No one in the west side store claimed to have received a diaper offer either
from a cashier or from the shelf. At the east side store one of the nine
answering the questions received a diaper offer from a cashier and another got
one off the shelf. One shopper in each store claims to have registered for
diaper service. Of the 11 who answered the question at the west side store,
one gave cost, another gave inconvenience, and a third gave health
considerations as reasons for not using diaper service; five liked
disposables. Three at the east side store thought that diaper service was too
expensive, one thought it inconvenient, and another cited health reasons; four
liked disposables.
Table 14 Baseline and Follow-Up Survey
Diaper Results
Baseline:
Is there
an infant in your household, who uses diapers?
|
|
Yes |
No |
|
|
10.0%
(40) |
80.8%
(324) |
|
|
5.5%
(22) |
83.6%
(332) |
Follow-Up
Is there an infant in your household, who uses diapers?
|
|
Yes
|
No |
|
West |
12.9% (17) |
74.2% (98) |
|
East |
11.7% (12) |
85.4% (88) |
Baseline:
If yes, how does your household deal with
soiled diapers? Do you
|
|
|
Percent
of shoppers |
Percent
of those using diapers |
Number |
|
Throw them in the
garbage? |
West |
9.2% |
92.5% |
37 |
|
|
East |
5.3% |
87.5% |
21 |
|
Wash them at home or in your building? |
West |
0.5% |
5.3% |
2 |
|
|
East |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0 |
|
Wash them at a nearby laundry? |
West |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0 |
|
|
East |
0.0% |
0.0% |
0 |
|
Have them picked up by a diaper service? |
West |
0.5% |
5.3% |
2 |
|
|
East |
0.3% |
4.0% |
1 |
Follow-Up
If yes, how does your household deal with soiled diapers? Do you
|
|
|
Percent
of shoppers |
|
|
|
Throw them in the garbage? |
West |
10.6% (14) |
|
|
|
East |
8.7% (9) |
|
|
Wash them at home or in
your building? |
West |
1.5% (2) |
|
|
|
East |
2.9% (3) |
|
|
Wash them at a nearby
laundry? |
West |
2.3% (3) |
|
|
|
East |
0.0% (0) |
|
|
Have them picked up by
a diaper service? |
West |
0.0% (0) |
|
|
|
East |
1.0% (1) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Follow-Up Survey
Did you receive an offer for diaper service?
|
|
Yes |
No |
|
|
0.8% (1) |
10.6% (14) |
|
East |
1.9% (2) |
9.7% (10) |
Refills and Concentrates
Results
Baseline:
Please indicate how you feel about the following
statements using this rating scale:
1)
strongly disagree 2) mildly disagree 3) neutral 4) mildly agree 5)
strongly agree
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
Using refills or concentrates is good for the
environment |
West |
2.3% |
2.1% |
15.6% |
22.4% |
49.3% |
|
|
East |
1.9% |
3.3% |
16.6% |
22.9% |
55.2% |
Baseline:
How often do you, personally, actually do each
of the following things?
(where 1 is never and 5 is always)
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Buy refills or concentrates
|
West |
9.0% |
11.9% |
31.6% |
29.3% |
|
|
|
East |
8.8% |
13.0% |
34.5% |
32.5% |
11.3% |
Follow-Up Survey:
How often do you,
personally, actually do each of the following things?
(where 1 is never and 5 is
always.
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Buy refills or concentrates
|
West |
16.7% |
18.9% |
15.2% |
21.2% |
|
|
|
East |
8.7% |
17.5% |
18.4% |
24.3% |
29.1% |
Brochures Distributed
By the end of the educational
campaign it became clear that thousands of brochures had been distributed at
the test stores. In ten weeks, 1800 overall summary brochures had been
distributed at the east-side store and 2600 had been given out at the west
side store. Of the green brochures, 1350 were distributed at the east-side
store and 1750 were distributed at the west-side store. Of the goldenrod
brochures, 2100 were distributed at the east-side store, and 1500 at the west
side store. The store managers at west side were asked if cashiers could hand
out the overall brochures to every customer on about four occasions starting
the last two weeks of November. Roughly two hundred were handed out each
time. It is estimated that at least 500 brochures or sets of brochures were
handed out as a result of this effort. Roughly 75 summary brochures were
given out on November 13, another 200 were given out on November 26 and 28.
Respondents’ Recollections of the Educational Campaign
Table 16, below, illustrates
the results of the follow-up survey questions pertaining to respondents'
recollection of the features of the educational treatment. Perhaps due to
difficulties cited earlier in displaying educational devices, many of the
survey respondents did not recall one or more of the educational features or
required prompting to remember them. The educational materials that were
noticed most were the cotton bags and the NYC DOS Bring Your Own Bag signs.
Reasons for this are that the items are large (i.e., take up more of the
visual field near the cashier than the other educational materials), are
unusual and attention-grabbing (e.g., colorful), and the materials likely
stayed in place throughout the campaign. The Environmental Shopper bags were
noticed by over 45% of the east-side shoppers and about 57% of the west-side
shoppers (prompted plus unprompted). This might be explained by the fact
that the bag displays in the west side store were arranged lower down than in
the east side store, more at eye level, over the conveyor. The DOS Bring Your
Own Bag signs were noticed by almost 64% on the east side and about 61% on the
west side, a negligible difference, but still a relatively high figure. The
brochures, noticed by roughly 40% (prompted plus unprompted) coexisting in
racks with magazines and tabloids, may have blended in with them in some
shoppers’ eyes, accounting for the lower recognition rate. It’s possible that
the brochures were moved or discarded, lessening their impact. It is known
that the posters were not up for long, and were in locations that some
shoppers could have missed, and the shelf cards were only near the produce
bags (not all shoppers buy produce). Both of these educational materials were
noticed by about 15%. At the west side store, the sound on the video was
frequently not audible, and volunteers distributed literature on several
occasions, but could easily have been missed by shoppers. Nonetheless, these
educational treatments were noticed by about a third of respondents. That not
all of the survey respondents received the educational treatment guided the
design of some of the data analyses, as described in the next section.
Table 16
Follow-Up Survey -- Recollection of Education
Can you tell me, what
features of the environmental campaign you noticed?
Unprompted Prompted
East West
East West
|
Three brochures |
24.3% |
17.4% |
14.6% |
25.0% |
|
DOS' Bring Your Own Bag
signs |
40.8% |
37.9% |
23.3% |
23.5% |
|
Environmental Shopper
bags |
34.0% |
38.6% |
11.7% |
18.9% |
|
Gristede's or Minnesota
store posters |
6.8% |
9.8% |
10.7% |
14.4% |
|
Shelf cards (bring back
product bags) |
6.8% |
7.6% |
6.8% |
9.1% |
|
|
|
18.9% |
|
17.4% |
|
Volunteers distributing
literature |
|
12.9% |
|
23.5% |
Survey Analyses
In order to assess whether, and
the degree to which the educational campaigns were effective in changing
shoppers’ purchasing attitudes and behaviors, and to answer the other research
questions posed in Chapter 2, the baseline and follow-up surveys can be
analyzed using statistical techniques. In this section the techniques used
include test of mean difference between paired measures, factor analysis,
regression and path analysis. Further analyses of the data are made by
examining subgroups of the sample populations. For example, certain
demographic groups may have answered questions differently from other
demographic groups. Groups of different age, race, educational level, and
income might respond differently to the educational devices and to the
environmental shopping campaign as a whole, and this information would be
useful in tailoring such campaigns to the locality. Answers to questions by
cohorts of shoppers that received different combinations of the educational
treatment can be compared with the responses of other groups that somehow
missed seeing the educational materials. Such comparisons are useful in
evaluating the effectiveness of the materials and/or their display and
distribution. These analyses are described below.
Socio-demographic
Differences in Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors
Tables 17 – 23 show some of the
more interesting comparisons of means between groups (in this case,
demographic groups) for the baseline survey results. Since responses to
survey questions were all numerical (e.g., yes/no (1/0), on a scale of 1 to 5,
or ranked 1 to 4), the mean or average answer for each question by each group
can be calculated, and is a useful measure for comparisons. The baseline
analysis combines the east and west side respondents into one cohort with a
sample size of roughly 700; the follow-up crosstabs sample size is closer to
200 (the exact numbers vary depending on the specific question asked). Knowing
how different groups respond to questions about environmental attitudes and
behaviors both prior to and after educational intervention can be helpful in
designing educational materials and targeting educational campaigns to
optimize participation across-the-board.
Table 17 Selected Cross-tabulations
of Race vs. Attitude and Behavior
(For precise wording of
questions, see questionnaires in Appendix Q)
Race
Whites Blacks Asians Hispanic
Baseline Survey
|
Means |
|
ATTITUDES
(1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) |
N=( ) |
N= ( ) |
N= ( ) |
N= ( ) |
|
People in US buy/consume too much |
4.34 (576) |
3.58 (45) |
4.48 (25) |
4.40 (45) |
|
Mandatory Recycling infringes on my rights |
1.67 (565) |
2.23 (44) |
2.13 (23) |
2.09 (44) |
|
I prefer to repair over discarding |
3.63 (568) |
3.18 (44) |
3.30 (23) |
3.43 (44) |
|
Products are not made as durable as in
past |
4.02 (569) |
4.00 (46) |
3.67 (24) |
3.79 (43) |
|
Individuals must take
most active role in solving any trash disposal problems |
4.20 (572) |
4.09 (45) |
4.16
(25) |
4.46 (44) |
|
I prefer to buy
disposable products |
2.82 (567) |
3.28 (45) |
3.04 (25) |
3.20 (45) |
|
|
|
BEHAVIORS
(1 = never; 5 = always) |
N= ( ) |
N=( ) |
N= ( ) |
N= ( ) |
|
I buy single-serving packages |
2.46 (561) |
2.77 (43) |
2.25 (24) |
2.50 (42) |
|
I select products in recyclable packaging |
3.48 (558) |
3.07 (46) |
3.54 (24) |
3.44 (43) |
|
I avoid buying aerosols |
3.82 (566) |
2.89 (45) |
3.24 (25) |
3.47 (43) |
|
I return beverage containers for deposit |
3.13 (565) |
2.67 (45) |
3.04 (25) |
2.91 (42) |
|
I bring my own bag to the store |
1.90 (570) |
1.58 (45) |
2.12 (25) |
1.73 (44) |
|
I patronize repair shops |
3.15 (558) |
2.89 (46) |
2.92 (24) |
2.81 (43) |
|
I buy disposable products |
3.14 (555) |
3.46 (46) |
3.21 (24) |
3.50 (44) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Race Whites
Blacks Asians Hispanic
Follow-up Survey
|
Means |
|
BEHAVIORS
(1 = never; 5 = always) |
N= ( ) |
N= ( ) |
N= ( ) |
N= ( ) |
|
How Often do you buy disposable products? |
1.80 (176) |
.182 (11) |
1.78 (9) |
1.53 (15) |
|
How often do you buy refills &
concentrates |
1.97 (175) |
1.00 (11) |
1.78 (9) |
1.93 (15) |
|
I buy single-serving packages |
1.45 (175) |
.36 (11) |
1.22 (9) |
.80 (15) |
|
I select products in recyclable packaging |
3.36 (179) |
3.18 (11) |
3.67 (9) |
2.93 15) |
|
I avoid buying aerosols |
3.86 (178) |
3.64(11) |
3.56 (9) |
3.87 (15) |
|
I return beverage containers for deposit |
2.96 (172) |
2.55 (11) |
3.00 (9) |
3.13 (15) |
|
I bring my own bag to the store |
2.02 (175) |
1.82 (11) |
.87 (9) |
1.67 (15) |
|
I patronize repair shops |
2.65 (177) |
3.18 (11) |
3.11 (9) |
2.87 (15) |
For the most part, the
cross-tabs did not show a great deal of disparity amongst the groups, usually
less than a few tenths of a point separated the different demographic groups.
In the case of race (Table 17), whites and Asians were often the groups that
had the more positive environmental attitudes and behaviors, but not always.
Blacks bought single-serving packages and disposable products significantly
less than the other racial groups in the follow-up survey, but bought more of
them at the time of the baseline survey. This might indicate more of an
effect of the campaign on this group, or be an artifact of a small follow-up
survey sample size for that group. Interestingly, when it came to bringing a
bag to the store, whites and blacks both increased this behavior slightly
after the campaign, but Asians and others decreased it dramatically. After
the campaign whites didn’t patronize repair shops as often, and blacks
patronized them more. Blacks bought fewer products in recyclable packaging
and returned beverage containers for deposit both before and after the
campaign as compared with the other groups. When compared with individual
racial groups (Table 17), Hispanics did not appear to be too different.
However, when compared to non-Hispanics as a whole, Hispanics were a study in
contrasts (Table 18). On the one hand, they more firmly believed that
individuals must take the most active role in solving trash problems, but on
the other they prefer to buy disposable products more so than non-Hispanics
before the educational campaign, and were less likely to practice
environmental shopping behaviors after the educational campaign.
Table 18 Selected Cross-tabs of Hispanic
Origin vs. Attitude and Behavior
Hispanic
Origin
Non-Hispanic Hispanic
Baseline Survey
|
Means |
|
ATTITUDES
(1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly
agree |
N=560-565 |
N=44-45 |
|
Individuals must take
active role in solving trash problems |
4.20 |
4.46 |
|
I prefer to buy
disposable products |
2.85 |
3.20 |
|
|
|
BEHAVIORS
(1 = never; 5 = always) |
N=550 |
N=44 |
|
I buy disposable
products |
3.14 |
3.50 |
Hispanic
Origin
Non-Hispanic Hispanic
Follow-up Survey
|
Means |
|
|
|
BEHAVIORS
(1 = never; 5 = always) |
N=174-177 |
N=15 |
|
I buy single-serving
packaging |
1.36 |
.80 |
|
I select products in
recyclable packaging |
3.33 |
2.93 |
|
I bring my own bag to
the store |
1.98 |
1.67 |
|
I buy disposable
products |
1.67 |
1.53 |
Table 19 Selected Cross-tabs of
Education vs. Attitude and Behavior
Education Some H.S.
HS Grad College Grad school
Baseline Survey
|
Means |
|
ATTITUDES
(1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) |
N=13-14 |
N=41-44 |
N=359-361 |
N=268-283 |
|
Mandatory Recycling infringes on my rights |
2.79 |
1.90 |
1.82 |
1.70 |
|
I prefer to repair over discarding |
3.14 |
3.50 |
3.60 |
3.57 |
|
Products are not made as durable as in
past |
3.62 |
4.07 |
4.00 |
4.00 |
|
|
|
BEHAVIORS
(1 = never; 5 = always) |
N=12-14 |
N=44-47 |
N=356-366 |
N=278-284 |
|
I buy disposable products |
3.93 |
3.20 |
3.18 |
3.13 |
|
I select products in recyclable packaging |
3.62 |
3.07 |
3.46 |
3.50 |
|
I avoid buying aerosols |
3.33 |
3.04 |
3.74 |
3.78 |
|
I recycle cans and bottles |
4.64 |
4.26 |
4.37 |
4.44 |
|
I return beverage containers for deposit |
3.69 |
3.45 |
3.09 |
3.05 |
Education Some H.S. HS
Grad College Grad school
|
|
Means |
|
|
|
BEHAVIORS
(1 = never; 5 = always) |
N=5 |
N=11 |
N=107-110 |
N=89-93 |
|
I buy disposable products |
.60 |
1.27 |
1.84 |
1.66 |
|
I select products in recyclable packaging |
3.40 |
3.45 |
3.35 |
3.31 |
|
I avoid buying aerosols |
3.80 |
3.72 |
3.83 |
3.89 |
|
I return beverage containers for deposit |
2.80 |
3.09 |
2.89 |
2.92 |
|
I buy refills concentrates |
1.00 |
1.64 |
1.99 |
1.89 |
|
I buy single-serving packaging |
.80 |
1.00 |
1.47 |
1.26 |
|
I patronize repair shops |
2.60 |
3.18 |
2.71 |
2.68 |
|
I recycle cans and bottles |
3.20 |
3.18 |
3.60 |
3.66 |
|
I bring a bag to the store |
1.60 |
1.64 |
2.03 |
2.04 |
The
degree of educational level sometimes was loosely associated, positively or
negatively, with certain environmental attitudes and behaviors (Table 19).
For example, in the baseline survey returning beverage containers for deposit
was more likely to be practiced by those with less education. Those with less
education bought disposable products less frequently (both baseline and
follow-up). In the follow-up survey, bringing a bag to the store and buying
refills and concentrates both increased with increasing education. In
general, recycling-related behaviors were practiced more across-the-board than
those more associated with source reduction. Thus, it would appear that there
is no consistent correlation between educational level and participation in
environmental shopping and recycling behaviors.
Table 20 Selected Cross-tabs of Gender
vs. Attitude and Behavior
Gender
Men Women
Baseline Survey
|
Means |
|
ATTITUDES
(1 = strongly disagree; 5 =
strongly agree) |
N= 230-240 |
N= 443-453 |
|
People in the US buy/consume too much |
4.06 |
4.38 |
|
Mandatory recycling infringes on my rights |
2.07 |
1.65 |
|
|
|
BEHAVIORS
(1 = never; 5 = always) |
N= 234-235 |
N= 445-446 |
|
I avoid buying aerosols |
3.37 |
3.91 |
|
I return beverage containers for deposit |
2.85 |
3.24 |
|
I bring my own bag to the store |
1.62 |
2.02 |
Gender
Men Women
Follow-up Survey
|
Means |
|
|
|
BEHAVIORS
(1 = never; 5 = always) |
N= 72-74 |
N= 130-134 |
|
I avoid buying aerosols |
3.84 |
3.88 |
|
I return beverage containers for deposit |
2.83 |
3.01 |
|
I bring my own bag to the store |
1.89 |
2.09 |
Where there was a noticeable
disparity in the answers given by men and women, it was the women who
exhibited the environmental behaviors and attitudes (Table 19). Men
considered that mandatory recycling infringed more on their rights. Both
sexes brought bags to the supermarket more often after the campaign. The
disparities between men and women seemed to be less after the campaign.
Table 21 Selected Cross-tabs of Age vs.
Attitude and Behavior
Age
< 30 30 – 44 45 – 60 > 60
Baseline survey
|
Means |
|
ATTITUDES
(1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly
agree) |
N=239 |
N=271-272 |
N=151-152 |
N=41-43 |
|
I prefer to buy disposable products |
2.86 |
2.89 |
2.87 |
3.16 |
|
Products are not made as durably as in the
past |
3.72 |
3.99 |
4.33 |
4.37 |
|
|
|
BEHAVIORS
(1 = never; 5 = always) |
N=236 |
N=268 |
N=150 |
N=38 |
|
I select products in recyclable packaging |
3.54 |
3.49 |
3.35 |
3.05 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Age <
30 30 – 44 45 - 60 > 60
Follow-up survey
|
Means |
|
|
|
BEHAVIORS
(1 = never; 5 = always) |
N=81-83 |
N=73-76 |
N=40-43 |
N=15 |
|
I select products in recyclable packaging |
3.35 |
3.43 |
3.09 |
3.33 |
|
I bring my own bag to the store |
2.13 |
1.91 |
1.95 |
.94 |
|
I buy single-serving packaging |
1.53 |
1.18 |
1.18 |
1.67 |
|
I buy disposable products |
1.93 |
1.61 |
1.42 |
1.87 |
|
I buy refills and concentrates |
2.16 |
1.84 |
1.60 |
1.73 |
|
I return beverage containers for deposit |
2.96 |
2.93 |
3.03 |
2.53 |
In some cases the answers to
the attitude and behavior questions were correlated positively with age (e.g.,
agreement with the statement that products are not made as durably as in the
past), or negatively with age (e.g., I bring my own bag to the store, and I
return beverage containers for deposit, I select products in recyclable
packaging). In other cases the middle-aged shoppers were more environmental
than either the young or the old (e.g., purchasing fewer products in
single-serving packaging). The oldest shoppers said they preferred to buy
disposable products more so than the other groups, but the youngest group
bought the most refills and concentrates, but also the most disposable
products.
Table 22
Importance of Mandatory Recycling Law
in Motivating Attitudes / Behavior Amongst Demographic Groups: Means
(baseline survey)
(1 = of no importance; 5 = extremely important)
|
RACE |
White |
Black |
Asian |
Other |
|
|
|
3.45 |
4.07 |
3.79 |
3.64 |
|
|
|
|
EDUCATION |
Some HS |
HS Grad |
College |
Grad school |
|
|
|
3.71 |
3.96 |
3.34 |
3.62 |
|
|
|
|
GENDER |
Men |
Women |
|
|
|
|
|
3.22 |
3.67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME |
< 20K |
20K - 30K |
30K - 40K |
40K - 50K |
> 50K |
|
|
3.09 |
3.39 |
3.52 |
3.55 |
3.64 |
|
|
|
AGE |
< 30 |
30 – 44 |
44 - 60 |
> 60 |
|
|
|
3.22 |
3.46 |
3.90 |
3.98 |
|
Table 23 How Often Do You Bring a Reusable
Bag With You?:
Means Comparison Amongst
Demographic Groups
(1 = occasionally; 4 = always) (baseline survey)
Mean,
(Standard Deviation), N
|
RACE |
White |
Black |
Asian |
|
|
|
1.90 (1.2) n=570 |
1.58 (.89) n=45 |
2.12 (1.24) n=24 |
|
|
|
|
GENDER |
Men |
Women |
|
|
|
|
1.62 (1.08) n=236 |
2.02 (1.22) n=449 |
|
|
|
|
|
AGE |
< 30 |
30 - 44 |
45 - 60 |
> 60 |
|
|
1.98 (1.23) n=239 |
1.84 (1.15) n=270 |
1.87 (1.26) n=154 |
1.71 (1.01) n=41 |
The groups that most often
brought a bag to the supermarket prior to the introduction of the educational
treatment were Asians, women, and the younger shoppers.
Table 24 If You Were Offered Two Cents Would You Bring You Own Bag?
(baseline survey)
(1 = definitely not; 5 = definitely)
Mean, (Standard Deviation), n
|
GENDER |
Men |
Women |
|
|
|
|
|
3.00 (1.27) n=245 |
3.54 (1.23)
n=457 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INCOME |
< 20K |
20K - 30K |
30K - 40K |
40K - 50K |
> 50K |
|
|
3.44 (1.28)
n=71 |
3.45 (1.21)
n=127 |
3.53 (1.30)
n=131 |
3.33 (1.19)
n=92 |
3.16 (1.30)
n-267 |
|
|
|
|
AGE |
< 30 |
30 – 44 |
45 - 60 |
> 60 |
|
|
|
3.57 (1.23)
n=241 |
3.18 (1.21)
n=278 |
3.30 (1.39)
n=156 |
3.19 (1.26)
n=43 |
|
Comparisons of Means
between Baseline Store Shoppers
In order to determine if the
two cohorts of shoppers (east and west sides) were samples from essentially
the same population, the test of mean difference between paired measures was
used. This test is conducted by comparing pairs of responses from shoppers
from the east and west side stores. The means are calculated by averaging the
shoppers’ responses on individual questions. For example, a mean of 4 for one
of the behavior questions for which the answers are measured on a 1 to 5
scale, where 1 is never and 5 is always, indicates that the group as a whole
practices the behavior frequently. If the same groups are measured for the
same questions subsequent to an educational intervention, and the mean
response is 4.5, the difference of the means is 0.5. The data can be further
analyzed to determine if this difference is statistically significant.
The groups that were compared
were the full baseline group from the east side store and the baseline group
from the west side store. As expected, the shoppers' awareness, attitudes and
self-reported behaviors and the purchases of target items made at one store
before the education begins were not significantly different from those at the
other store. The 2 tail prob values for the differences in means of east side
vs. west side baseline groups varied from a low of .075 to 1.000, the latter
representing no difference in means east side vs. west side the education for
a particular question (People Buy/Consume too much). This supports the null
hypothesis of no difference of means. At the other end of the spectrum, the
.075 prob value indicates that there was a 7.5% probability that the
difference in means for that variable was significant in statistical terms.
Using a standards significance level (a)
of .05, we do not reject the null hypothesis in this case. This demonstrates
that the differences in means between the east and west side shoppers’ answers
to the baseline surveys are not significant. This was expected since the
stores were selected to be in demographically similar areas, and the
demographics of the east and west baseline respondents were also shown to be
similar. The mean values for these two groups of shoppers, as well as t
values, and prob values are included as a table in Appendix SA.
Differences Between Persons Exposed and
Not Exposed to Educational Materials
The results section indicated
that many shoppers did not receive the educational treatment (i.e., they
didn’t notice the brochures, posters, videos, etc.). Since the shoppers that
didn’t see the educational materials were exposed to everything else going on
in the test stores (and in society in general) at the time that those shoppers
that did get the experimental treatment, the shoppers not exposed to the
treatment could be considered as controls. Having a cohort of controls with
which to compare any changes in knowledge, attitudes and behaviors is useful,
since the difference between the controls and the experimental cohorts
isolates the impact of the educational campaigns on the shoppers. For this
study those who did not see the brochures are considered to be the controls,
since the brochures contained the most information.
Several comparisons of
experimental cohorts with the controls can be made since the follow-up survey
elicited information on shoppers’ recollection of each of the educational
materials (i.e., brochures, Bring Your Own Bag signs, the bags themselves, and
the videos). Another type of variation in the experimental cohort is that
those who did notice one or more aspect of the education varied in their
degree of recollection of it. For example, some did not have to be prompted
to recall details of the educational treatment, and others did; some
remembered specific details of the messages, and others didn’t. Those who not
only remembered the brochures, for example, and who also recalled a specific
message (e.g., recycling, reuse, or resource conservation) could be considered
to have received more educational treatment than those who merely remembered
having seen the brochures. Therefore, the answers from each of the subgroups
that recalled different aspects of the educational materials and the messages
contained in them were compared with the controls separately.
Table 25 shows the changes in
self-reported behavior that occurred at the each store after the educational
campaign. The six groups of shoppers that received educational treatments
that were large enough to have a significant sample size were (1) those who
did see brochures (east [N=37-40] and west [N=52-54]), (2) those who saw
brochures and remembered a recycling message (east [N=24-25] and west
[N=25-26]), (3) those who saw the brochures and remembered either a reuse,
conserve resources or pollution from production message (east side only
[N=27-29]), and (4) those who saw the brochures and the video (west side only
[N=21-22]). Those groups of east and west side shoppers who didn’t see
brochures were considered to be controls against which these intervention
groups were compared. Columns in the tables not only show the “before” and
“after” percentages, but also the difference or net change between before and
after for each group. The difference between the net change of each
educational treatment group (after – before) and the control group’s net
change (after – before) is also depicted to show the incremental impact of the
campaign on those who received the educational treatment (as compared with the
controls). Some of the results are puzzling.
On the one hand, in some cases,
the groups receiving more intervention became less environmental. For
example, they reported buying more products in single-serving packaging. This
net increase (vs. the controls) was a few percentage points for the east-side
store but ranged from 18 to 30% at the west-side store. (Perhaps there were
more items available in single-serving packaging by the time the campaign was
finished.) Recycling of cans and bottles and patronage of repair shops
occurred somewhat less frequently after the campaign among those receiving
treatment vs. the controls. In absolute terms though, recycling of cans and
bottles at home was reported as often or always by over 80% of the respondents
in all groups.
Also disappointing was the fact
that shoppers reported buying fewer products in recyclable packaging in both
stores. In absolute terms, 35 to 40% of east side shoppers reported buying
recyclable packaging often or always after the campaign, as did 25 to 40% of
west side shoppers. But the east-side controls decreased such purchases by
about 10%, and the west side controls by 20% before vs. after the campaign.
This disparity between the changes in the two stores’ controls probably caused
a larger range in net decrease of the intervention groups (from 12 to 26%,
depending on the intervention group) vs. the controls at the west-side store,
though this comparison at the east-side store varied a only few percent in
either direction.
On the other hand, the more
intensive the educational treatment, the greater the number of respondents
that brought cans and bottles back to the store for deposit. This effect was
across-the-board; those that saw the brochures were 12% more likely to bring
the cans and bottles back to the east side store and 5% more likely on the
west side. But those who also remembered the resources message at the
east-side store were 20% more likely to bring the cans and bottles back, and
those remembering the recycling message were 24% more likely to bring them
back to the east side store and were 30% more likely at the west-side store
(vs. controls). (In absolute terms, those who often or always brought these
items back to the store for deposit increased considerably after the campaign,
ending up between approximately 50% and 70%, still less than recycling at
home.) One conclusion that might be drawn from this is that economic
considerations were driving behavior, since bringing back cans and bottles for
deposit was more remunerative than giving them to the City for free, so
home-based recycling was sacrificed slightly in favor of getting the deposit
back.
Also on the positive side,
those receiving the educational treatments at the east side store bought fewer
disposable products than the controls after the campaign (in five of the six
intervention cases). Specifically, shoppers bought from 20 to 36% fewer
disposables than the controls (who bought more after the campaign than
before). Respondents increased their purchases of refills and concentrates
after the campaign to a greater extent than the controls (ranging from 6 to
25% more on the east side, with the 25% representing the cohort remembering
the resource message, and ranging from negligible to 26% more on the west side
with the higher number representing those who recollected the recycling
message). In absolute terms, those who reported buying refills and
concentrates often or always after the campaign were well in excess of 50% for
east-side shoppers. The same was true for purchase of disposable products.
In the west-side store there
was great variation in those who bought disposable products. Those who saw
the brochures and the video bought 15% fewer disposables than the controls,
but those who saw the brochures and remembered a recycling message bought 21%
more disposables than the controls. There were also mixed results insofar as
bringing a bag to the store was concerned, but the percentages varied just a
few percent in either direction. In absolute terms, more east side than west
side shoppers reported bringing a bag to the store often or always after the
campaign, over 20% (east) and 10 to 15% (west), depending on intervention
group. But the east-siders also bought more disposable products than west-siders
in absolute terms after the education (over 50% vs. over 40%, respectively).
That impacts of the educational
campaign appear to trend in different directions depending on which question
was asked, indicates that the different survey methods (in-person baseline vs.
telephone follow-up) did not result in consistent samping error with respect
to environmental behaviors. In some cases the behaviors became less
environmental after the educational treatments as compared with the control
group, but in other cases the education seemed to have a positive effect.
Tables 26 and 27 show the
changes in the amount and source of knowledge that occurred at the stores
after the educational treatments (these are distilled from Appendix SA).
Oddly, more respondents knew more about what was collected in the City’s
recycling program and environmental shopping in general before the educational
campaign vs. afterwards, and only a few more shoppers knew that the City’s
recycling program was mandatory after the campaign. There was not much
difference between the cohorts receiving different levels of intervention,
with one notable exception. The west side shoppers who saw brochures and
videos experienced a smaller fall-off in knowledge about the recycling program
and environmental shopping than the controls by twenty to thirty percent in
four cases (e.g., metal and tin cans, foil, and hearing about environmental
shopping). At the same time, these same shoppers gave the wrong answer for
whether the City picks up plastic bags in its recycling program, and by the
same margin.
Comparison of East- Vs.
West-Side Store Data
Another of the hypotheses
tested was that the west-side’s educational program would result in a more
significant change in knowledge, attitudes, and/or self-reported shopping
behavior as compared with the east side store’s program. It was expected that
those exposed to the more intensive educational treatment given at the
west-side would behave more environmentally than those given the basic
educational treatment for the east-side.
In most cases, comparing
impacts of the campaign on the environmental behaviors of east vs. west-side
shoppers, there was little difference between shoppers at the two stores.
Where a difference was found between cohorts of shoppers who received the
interventions at the east vs. west side stores, east side shoppers reported
more net increases in environmentally sound purchasing and other behaviors
(i.e., buying less single-serving packaging and disposable products, and
buying more recyclable packaging, and patronizing more repair shops).
With regard to knowledge about the City’s recycling program, there was not
much difference between east and west side, with the exception of the shoppers
on the west side who saw the brochures and video, more of whom knew about the
recycling program’s mandatory nature. In absolute terms, a large proportion
(at least 75%) of all the respondents knew the City required residents to
separate recyclables. West side intervention shoppers increased their
knowledge more about what materials the City picked up for recycling than the
west side controls, vs. their east side counterparts. East side intervention
shoppers that saw the brochures, and those who saw brochures and remembered
the recycling message, knew about environmental shopping more than the west
side shoppers. But comparing only the shoppers in each store who received
more educational treatment, the shoppers from the west-side store knew more
than the east side shoppers. In absolute terms, after the campaign, west side
respondents who saw brochures and the videos knew which materials were picked
up for recycling, and said they knew about environmental shopping 20% to 30%
more than any other intervention or control cohort at either store.
Table
25
Changes in
Behavior vs. Extent of Educational Intervention*
