This chapter explores the basic study parameters, identifies the means by which they are to be influenced and measured, and evaluates the locations for the experiments to take place. Innovative aspects of the project design (i.e., those that had not been explored in studies by others) are highlighted. In order to conduct the educational campaign in the supermarkets and evaluate the results, planning and decision-making in a number of areas was necessary. Decisions were needed to define the educational objectives and targets, the types and designs of educational instruments to be used, procurement of the educational instruments, as well as how and when these instruments would be deployed in the stores. Planning also required decisions regarding the methods for evaluating the results of the project (e.g., the selection of survey questions, design of diary instruments, and the method for transcribing and inputting storewide purchase data). Some of these were, of necessity, joint decisions with EAC and Red Apple. Others were influenced by the prior research of others in the fields of environmental consumer behavior and environmental shopping. In this chapter the planning for the environmental shopping campaign and for the measurement of results is detailed and rationale is given for decisions made.
The research program consisted of three phases: study design, implementation, including data gathering and the educational campaign, and analysis/writing. The project schedule was as follows:
Þ Design Phase: September, 1991 – October, 1993
The study design phase began with review of other studies of conservation attitudes and behaviors, and other environmental shopping programs and educational materials. The overall statistical design was devised, the educational focus was narrowed, including selection of grocery items for monitoring.) The educational materials were developed and printed, arrangements were made with purveyors of reusable goods to have them available in stores during the campaign. The data gathering and measurement instruments and methodologies were designed. The stores at which the experiments were to take place were chosen.
Þ Implementation Phase: June, 1993 to April, 1994
During this period, the statistical measurement instruments were deployed, and results gathered. All educational materials developed and procured for the campaign were placed and maintained in the stores.
Þ Analysis/Writing Phase: May, 1994 to late 1998
During this period the results of the statistical measurement instruments were analyzed to test the research hypotheses and elucidate findings. These were compared with the findings of research previously or concurrently conducted in this field of research. Conclusions and recommendations were prepared, based on the significance of the findings.
In order to develop specific questions for the baseline survey, 28 surveys and studies were reviewed, and their objectives, study designs, survey questions, statistical methodologies, and findings were summarized (see Appendix E). Some of the issues studied included the extent to which consumers were concerned about the environment, and the degree to which price was considered important in purchasing decisions vs. environment, profiles of “green consumers” and of recyclers, how important individuals vs. governments are in solving these problems. These studies provided a wealth of experience regarding various aspects of environmental shopping and conservation behaviors, and were of great value in preparing questions for use in this study, and for comparison purposes for evaluating the results. Appendix W contains groups of questions, adapted from those in Appendix E plus new ones developed for this study, that constituted the “short-list” from which the final baseline and follow-up survey questions were eventually drawn.
Based on the research design and research objectives, detailed in Chapter 2, survey questions were designed to elicit information on knowledge, sources of information, attitudes, motivations, self-reported behaviors, demographics, and recollection of the educational treatment for the purpose of evaluating the campaigns’ effectiveness. The literature review suggested certain questions that fit this study’s research objectives, and other questions that could be modified. For example, in order to ascertain what motivates the shoppers to exhibit (or not exhibit) conservation behaviors, one area, explored by the Food Marketing Institute and others, and included in this study’s survey, was shoppers’ opinions of who bears responsibility for solving the garbage problem. The answer to this attitude question points to shoppers’ motivation to perform conservation behaviors; if government is to solve the problem, the shopper won’t feel the impetus to change, but if the individual is responsible, then the campaign may have more impact. If the factors that motivate people to increase conservation behaviors were better known, then more effective educational programs could be designed to focus on those.
Another group of questions, some of which could not be repeated in the second survey due to space/time constraints, tested attitudes towards participating in the desired behaviors, and environmental satisfactions (e.g. to what degree respondents are satisfied by conservationist behaviors such as frugality, self-sufficiency, and participation in community-wide programs).
Since the educational materials were designed to use intrinsic motivators, as De Young has championed, some lines of questioning that he had used in shopper surveys to determine the extent to which intrinsic motivation was responsible for conservation behaviors were adapted for this study. Examples of these, the answers to which were structured on a 5-point Likert scale (e.g., the ends of the scales as agree/disagree) include: People in the US consume too much; Items are not made as durably as they were in the past; Mandatory recycling would infringe on my rights; How convincing do you find the following reasons to source reduce? (Depletes landfill space, Natural resources….) To address the relative importance of environment vs. other considerations in motivating purchasing decisions, one question was designed to find out how environment ranked with brand name, price, and convenience. Another question (similar to one used in the 1990 and 1991 Food Marketing Institute studies) asked the likelihood of changing shopping patterns to go to stores that encouraged environmentally preferable products. Other questions directly asked how likely it would be that a two or five cent rebate would entice them to bring their own bags (economic, or extrinsic motivation).
Clearly, the key area for questioning was the self-reported environmental behaviors. Examples of questions in this area delved into purchasing patterns (e.g., the frequency with which the shopper buys products in recyclable or reduced packaging), the shopper’s recycling activity, use of repair shops, and other conservation behaviors. Other specific behavior questions asked about bringing one’s own bag to the supermarket and about type of diapers are purchased. Again, questions were structured on 5-point Likert scales.
A fruitful avenue to explore was whether and to what extent there might be a relationship between the amount shoppers understood about environmental shopping and recycling (i.e., environmental knowledge). The Champaign-Urbana recycling study[1] asked which materials were recycled in the local program, including materials that were and weren’t actually collected for recycling; and the 1990 Food Marketing Institute study asked whether the local recycling program was mandatory or not. These lines of questioning were adopted for this study.
A few of the studies reviewed also concentrated on the source of environmental knowledge, and this was deemed an important line of inquiry. It was found that some demographic groups received their information more from TV and others from newspapers. Identifying the most effective methods of conveying information is important for planning educational efforts.
Another area for questions was demographics, since it is of great interest to know whether and the extent to which different demographic groups respond differently to educational treatments. Therefore, questions on income, race, heritage, age, gender, and educational level were asked in the baseline questionnaire. Since the baseline and follow-up surveys were administered to the same people, it was not necessary to ask demographic questions in the follow-up survey.
Finally, as the Minnesota [2] and Boulder [3] studies also illustrated, it was important to find out the extent to which the shoppers actually recalled seeing the educational materials and received the intended messages. If the shoppers missed the educational message, they surely would not respond to it, making the follow-up survey results useless. Such an outcome would also point to problems in the design and implementation of the educational treatments.
Once a “short-list” of questions for each category of interest was assembled, in Appendix W, the beta baseline survey questions were developed.
Wording of Questions
Once the ideas for questions had been narrowed, great care had to be given to choosing language to keep the questions objective. Surveys have recently become a tool to be used to extract whatever biased information the survey funder wants to see. This is possible because individual questions can be framed and lists of questions ordered to predispose the respondent towards particular answers. As the purpose of this investigation is to find the truth, the questions were carefully worded to be neutral, and the order of questions was arranged in a logical, straightforward sequence.
Numbers, Types, and Order of Questions
Despite the plethora of questions available from previous studies and the temptation to include many questions, the surveys could not be overly long, or shoppers would not finish them, or the answers they did provide might be rushed and inaccurate. Since length of the baseline survey had to be limited (three pages was chosen based on the beta-testing experience described in Appendix ST), many useful questions had to be pared from the baseline survey both before and after beta testing.
The baseline survey began with straightforward knowledge and source of information questions, followed by attitude and motivation questions, followed by the behavior questions, with demographics at the end. It was expected that the shopper would be tired after filling out the survey, so ending with demographics was something they could do without much thought. This was better than starting with demographics, because that might cause the shoppers to think that the research was delving into their privacy.
The design of the baseline and follow-up surveys were similar, differing mainly in that the baseline survey asked demographic questions, whereas the follow-up survey asked respondents to recall specific aspects of the educational programs. For the follow-up survey, as many questions as possible (particularly in the behavior and knowledge areas) were repeated to gauge the degree to which responses were altered after the educational treatments. Regrettably, since the follow-up survey had to be administered by telephone, and this method of data gathering is more time consuming than checking off answers on a clipboard (or at least seems that way to the respondent hanging on the phone), the follow-up survey had to be shortened even more, reducing the opportunity to compare before / after results for some of the behavior and most of the attitude questions.
Baseline Survey Testing and Refinement
Once the questions for the baseline survey were devised, they had to be put in logical order and tested. The three-page baseline survey was designed in the late spring of 1993, and the prototype was pre-tested in the east side store over an hour and twenty minute period in late June on 30 randomly-chosen shoppers. Most questions were deemed to be sufficiently well-worded for the actual survey, but a few questions had to be dropped to limit the length of the questionnaire to three pages. One of the parts of the question asking what motivates the respondent to recycle: it reduces incineration, was dropped because it would have elicited a similar response to: it reduces landfill space. A subpart in the question asking about the respondents’ environmental behaviors (do you recycle newspapers) was considered to be similar to: do you recycle magazines. One question, in which respondents were asked to rank four items, produced a number of errors, chief of which was use of ratings rather than rankings. This question was reworded in an attempt to produce answers with four different numbers to rank the four items. Two questions, asking “Are you the primary shopper in your household?” and “What percent of your grocery shopping is done at Gristede’s?” were dropped due to lack of space. Appendix ST details the survey beta testing process. Appendix Q shows the baseline questionnaire after refinement.
Baseline Survey Administration
The baseline survey data gathering effort began in late June 1993, when volunteers recruited by the Environmental Action Coalition and the author, over a period of about seven weeks, enlisted 800 shoppers at the two test stores to complete it. It was hoped that the volunteers would get about 100 surveys completed per store per day, but EAC did not attract as many volunteers as they had expected. Typically one or two volunteers worked at a time, and an attempt was made to cover all time periods (with a preference for the 4 to 7 pm time slot, since store managers said this was the busiest time). Also, to make the time during which the surveys were completed random, surveys were collected every day of the week that the stores were open. (Appendix DG details the particulars regarding the data gathering effort.) The shoppers were randomly selected; that is, volunteers went after everyone they could who walked in the door, and most obliged. The respondents were offered no inducement to fill out the questionnaire other than the knowledge that they were participating in a research study. In most cases a survey was handed to each respondent on a clipboard just inside the store near the entrance; others were approached in the checkout line. This method made it possible for volunteers to have up to six respondents completing questionnaires at once. The average completion rate was seven questionnaires per hour, though this rate ran as high as 20 in one hour on one occasion. The data collection took place in July and August, 1993. The number of baseline surveys completed on the west side was 401 and on the east side 399.
In the first few days of the data collection process, less than 50% of the respondents were providing their names and phone numbers for the follow-up telephone survey. Since it was clear that the eventual percentage of those completing the survey would be less than 50% if this trend were to continue (and the pool of possible respondents for the follow-up survey would likewise be further reduced), the request for name and phone was rephrased to increase the likelihood of receiving a response. Tabulations indicated that the improved wording did increase the rate at which respondents gave their names and phone numbers at the west side store to over 51% from 46%, but at the east side store the rate dropped from 46% to 32% after this modification. This oddity worked in our favor since a considerably higher percentage of surveys was collected in the east side store during the initial period than in the west side store. The cumulative percentage of potential follow-up survey recipients ended up at slightly over 50% of the baseline survey respondents at the west side, and 43% of the baseline survey respondents at the east side – 46% overall. Appendix DG includes a log of the baseline data collection for each store, as well as tables showing the change in the rate of respondents’ providing name and phone number during the data collection period.
Survey encoding and data analysis
The encoding of the baseline survey data by one dedicated volunteer began in December 1993 and was completed in March 1994. The final baseline survey, as administered, is included in Appendix Q. The results and analysis of these results and comparison with the data from follow-up surveys are given in Chapter 5. Comparison with data from other similar studies is in Chapter 6.
Follow-up Survey Preparation and Pre-testing
This survey was designed to look as much like the baseline survey as possible, so as to maximize the number of questions that could be compared for each individual answering both surveys. The demographic questions in the baseline survey were eliminated for the follow-up survey, and replaced with a few questions to determine how well, or poorly, the shoppers noticed and learned from the educational program. To keep the follow-up survey to about seven minutes, it was necessary to remove a few questions used in the baseline survey. Four of these questions were actually somewhat repetitive of other questions (two asking about bag use, one about the effect of incentives for reusing bags, and one asking if magazines were recycled). A multi-part question, designed to elicit detailed information about the shoppers' environmental attitudes regrettably had to be dropped, again, to make the survey shorter.
The pre-testing of the follow-up (after education) survey took place over two days -- January 22 and 23, 1994, and consisted of two parts. The survey was initially read to two people who were familiar with the research, but who had not been part of the initial survey respondents. The questionnaires took about nine minutes to administer in both cases. As a result of this step it was decided that a question asking if there was anything about the campaign that could have been better, should be removed to save time. Also, to assist the interviewers and save time, some possible answer categories were listed for the open-ended questions. Other minor wording changes to speed interviewing also resulted from this initial pretest.
The second phase of the pretest was conducted between 8 and 9:20 pm on Sunday, January 23, 1994. Twenty-two of the initial respondents from the east side store had to be phoned in order to obtain five completed surveys. Two of the phones were disconnected, nine asked that we call back at another time, for four of the calls no one was at home, one had weekday hours, and wasn't called, one was the answering machine of someone else. Time was measured for four of the five completed surveys; two took seven minutes, one took six minutes, and one took five minutes. Since this fell into the desired time range, it was decided that no additional questions had to be removed, and the questionnaires were finalized in nearly the same form as the pretest surveys. Both the east and west side final surveys fit on two sides of one 8.5 x 11 inch page. About 250 follow-up surveys were completed. All of the original 800 respondents were not reached because in the months since the baseline survey was administered, many had moved and some were no longer interested. Others could not be reached after several attempts to contact them.
In order to recruit volunteers to keep diaries of their purchases, the baseline questionnaire was used. One of the last questions on the baseline survey asked whether the shopper would participate in such a study (participants were promised a cloth bag as an incentive). An astonishing 110 out of 800 replied in the affirmative. Prior to the start of the campaign, roughly a month after the completion of the baseline survey effort, EAC volunteers called all of the prospective diary volunteers to explain what was involved and confirm their interest in the research, and only 50 still had an interest. Those were sent a booklet containing a welcome letter, an instruction sheet, and diary sheets (see Appendix VD for more detail). The diary-keepers were asked to keep track of their purchases from November 1, 1993 until early March 1994, eight weeks after the educational materials were removed from the stores. All were encouraged to call if there was any question or difficulty. A couple of diary volunteers did call with minor questions, and EAC volunteers were supposed to call all of them periodically as reminders. Unfortunately, this did not occur. In order to increase the chance that more diary information would be returned, diary volunteers were asked to send their diary pages back in two stages of nine weeks each. At the halfway point in the diary-keeping exercise, eight returned their diary sheets, and one of these simply apologized that she could not continue beyond the first week. At the end of the diary-keeping period, four returned the second half of their diary sheets, thus there was insufficient data to use this method to measure project impact. Appendix VD has more detail on how the diaries were designed, how they were to be maintained by the volunteers, and which products were to be tracked.
In addition to the self-reported surveys and diaries, an important third strategy to measure the impact of the educational campaign on shopper behavior, and the only one to gather purely objective data, was the measurement of storewide purchases of the thousands of target recyclable/nonrecyclable pairs, refillable/concentrates and nonrefillable/nonconentrates counterpart products, disposable diapers and disposable shopping bags made by shoppers in the two test stores.
The methodology for documenting and analyzing whether, to what extent, and under what circumstances, all the customers in a store would change their purchasing habits as a result of in-store educational programs depended to a large extent on the inventory methods used by the test stores. In stores with automatic checkout scanners, this information is computerized and available for any discrete time period. But the test stores for this study did not have scanners, so the data would not be actual sales data. Though Red Apple stores did not have scanners or Club Cards with which to measure individual customers’ purchases, Red Apple management did agree, initially, to provide printouts within a few weeks of the end of each month for numbers and descriptions of all relevant products delivered to each of the two test stores. Since the deliveries of most of the products of interest were on a weekly and sometimes daily basis, changes in consumption patterns by the shoppers would soon be reflected in the store’s ordering patterns. So changes in consumer purchases inspired by environmental shopping education could be measured by studying the delivery invoices, a less precise method, but the only method available for inferring changes in storewide purchases by customers over time. Also, the data would have to be collected and inputted manually since the inventory data were not available in computerized form.
In order to assess changes in packaging purchased, the attributes to be tracked were the product, brand, number delivered, date, size, and packaging. Diaper offers taken were to be monitored by the project, and diaper service ordered was to be tracked by GHCC. Red Apple management was to provide the project with invoice information on quantities of disposable diapers and shopping bags (both disposable ones given to customers and sales of the project’s cloth bags) on a weekly basis for purposes of the statistical analysis. Measurement of product purchases, in the case of reduced packaging, is straightforward because categories of products sold in concentrate or refill form are few and easy to identify.
In order to record purchases of recyclable packaging, it is first necessary to isolate the recyclable/non-recyclable (R/N) pairs in the test supermarkets. Only if a consumer switched from a commodity packaged in a non-recyclable package to one in a recyclable package could it be interpreted as resulting from the educational program. To approximate the types and quantity of R/N pairs and packaging types of the target products in a real supermarket, an informal survey was first conducted at an Associated supermarket in Upper Manhattan. Later, as the campaign was about to begin in the two test stores, surveys were done to ascertain which products and packaging types were actually stocked there (see Appendix A for the survey results). More detail on the design of the storewide purchases tracking strategy, including specifics on brands and packaging types, can be found in Appendix SP.
In order to establish a baseline period so that long-term trends can be accounted for, data for the period commencing before the start of the educational campaign (November 1, 1993), were needed. Several hundred baseline questionnaires from shoppers were collected at these stores in July and August, so invoice information starting before July 1993 would be useful. Since the educational period ran through the Thanksgiving, Hanukkah and Christmas holidays of 1993, it was necessary to have data for the two stores for the same months of the previous year (July 1992 - February 1993) to serve as a comparison, to show normal holiday period trends (so that seasonal variations would not confound the analysis). Monitoring of storewide purchasing behaviors was to continue for another two months after the educational campaign was completed to determine whether, and to what extent, any changed behaviors were maintained. In an attempt to reduce the chance of confounding variables, that is, other reasons for a correlation than the ones in the hypotheses being tested, a number of precautions were to be taken. For example, it was important to control for price changes, differences in advertising between products in a target pair (e.g., recyclable/nonrecyclable), and differences in shelf visibility.
Regrettably, as the time approached for the educational campaign to begin, Red Apple management continued to delay setting up a meeting to discuss how and when they would provide the needed information. In fact, discussions with the two store managers elicited the news that once they made note of what they wanted on the only copies of the store delivery printouts, they disposed of them. Numerous attempts were made to get the information in computerized form.
Eventually, the only form made available was paper invoices, in a roomful of very large cardboard boxes provided by each vendor, stacked over seven feet high, each one not clearly marked, and with all hundred or so Gristede’s stores mixed together with Sloan’s and Red Apple stores. For several of the product categories, a single distributor provided invoices for hundreds of products, all mixed together on single invoices. In most cases the line items were in severely abbreviated form, rather difficult to pick out from the other products, increasing the potential for errors in transcription. Invoices for the two stores of interest were mixed with invoices from scores of other stores and some invoices could not be found. Red Apple insisted that the invoices could not be removed from the hot, roach-infested basement of the store in which they were stored. Nonetheless, over months of visits to the basement, six thousand data records for the time period prior to the educational campaign (through September, 1993) were recorded (an estimated one-third of the total records needed to make the evaluation).
In late 1994, when it was time to get access to invoice data after September, 1993, kept at the headquarters offices, there was another delay in getting access, as much of the data from months previous “had to be redone”. Boxes of data arrived from the warehouse and the data mavens were overwhelmed by it. We were told to be more patient. Requests were also made, but answers not received, to get sales price information on each of the tracked product items (and, if possible, to keep the prices stable during the educational campaign). Later, it was learned that the invoices for the period during and after the education were inaccessible (in a trailer in a warehouse in the Bronx) due to space constraints by the store chain, thus ending the possibility of tracking storewide purchases.
In the months immediately preceding the start of the educational campaign a number of last-minute design details were finalized. The number and location of stores were chosen in which to implement the experiment. The number and type of educational devices to be used were chosen and the designs completed. To maximize the impact on harried New Yorkers, expert at unconsciously filtering out all but the most important stimuli necessary to enable them to finish their shopping as expeditiously as possible, it was decided that the educational devices would be many and varied, and placed in as many locations as possible throughout the stores. The educational materials (including brochures developed especially for the project, three-color storefront posters with the project logo announcing the project, and environmental shopping posters, signs advertising the cotton bags, and some shelf cards borrowed from different sources) would need to be designed for the unique requirements of this campaign, and produced in sufficient quantity. Also, the methodology for displaying, distributing, and maintaining these instruments in the stores, over time, had to be determined.
The design of educational materials is integral to the results of the investigation. If the materials don’t focus on the message, are hard to understand, or are not well placed in the store, or if there is insufficient number, then the expected changes in attitudes and purchasing behavior may not occur.
The focus of the materials was on the target items (recyclable packaging, reusable diapers, and reusable bags), but not entirely to the exclusion of other compatible environmental messages (reduced packaging, reduce purchase of other disposables, etc.) Since there are many avenues for educating the shopping public, and therefore, many different possible educational programs, this project will tested two programs: a basic strategy employing three new brochures, designed especially for this project (one introductory and all-encompassing, one on packaging, and one on reuse), shelf cards (from Seattle) on reuse of produce bags, and signs from the State of Minnesota in one store, and a more intensive campaign employing these features plus additional devices (e.g., video from Florida's Cooperative Extension and from Ulster County, NY at the checkout counters and a staffed booth with free booklets, fact sheets, and other educational materials) at the other store. For interest to remain high, the additional educational materials in the intensive store were phased in over the active educational period.
Supporting evidence for the decision to use a large number of educational devices in our study is found in the research by Geller and Lehman who found that in large-scale programs designed to educate and change behavior, the most successful ones are likely to be those which utilize a diverse set of strategies to induce and promote desired behaviors, since different people respond to different stimuli. For this reason three brochures were developed, and a number of different signs, and other devices such as videos, diaper service offers, reusable bags, were included in the educational campaign.
Based on Minnesota’s experience with two stores, and the desire to test the effectiveness of different intensities of educational effort, it was decided that a more extensive educational program would be tested in one store, and a less extensive one in the other. Environmental shopping videos, brochure distribution and tabling by volunteers were added to the other educational devices.
Logo
A number of logo concepts were considered, including the use of a red apple, which seemed appropriate since that symbol embodied New York City as well as the Red Apple grocery chain we were using. However, this notion was discarded in favor of a logo more directly combining images of the environment and shopping. Another concept considered was an Earth inside a shopping bag. At around this time, others’ logos were being gathered and examined, and the National Consumer League’s environmental shopping logo, the Earth in a shopping cart, was noticed. That organization agreed the concept could be adapted for use in campaign brochures, storefront posters and other project literature. A simpler shopping cart was drawn, with an earth with more detailed landforms, but without latitude and longitude lines. Appendix EM shows all educational materials developed and/or used for this project.
The National Consumer League and Metro-Dade’s slogans referring to the future helped inspire one of our slogans: “The Earth’s Future is in Your Shopping Cart: Be An Environmental Shopper at Gristede’s”, which was used on two of the brochures and half the storefront posters. The other slogan was “Be an Environmental Shopper … Shop with Concern For the Environment at Gristede’s”.
Geller found that targeted strategies designed to change consumer behavior and purchase decisions are more likely to gain widespread acceptance and produce longer lasting changes in buying habits than are programs that focus solely on attitudes. For this reason this environmental shopping program was designed to consist of strategies both to communicate background information about the solid waste crisis to raise awareness and change attitudes, as well as to encourage the desired purchasing behaviors.
Based on the literature review (DeYoung, Katzev & Johnson, Witmer & Geller, etc…) described earlier, it was decided that the brochures should emphasize an intrinsic, or satisfaction-based, approach to encouraging shoppers to change their purchasing behaviors over the long-term. The decision to concentrate on using intrinsic motivation in our educational materials was also based on one of our project’s objectives: to maximize sustainable changes in consumer behavior, rather than provide short-lived extrinsic (or monetary) motivation. Thus, though one of the brochures and a few of the posters used as educational materials in this project described economic benefits of choosing reduced packaging, little value was seen in designing a short campaign in which customers were financially rewarded for bringing back bags, or purchasing items packaged in recyclable materials, since the beneficial effect would fall off after the economic incentives were removed.
Use a Positive Message in Educational Devices
New York State Food Marketing Association, an grocery industry trade group, convinced us that any educational campaign that featured messages prompting customers not to buy something because of its poor environmental qualities was not likely to be accepted by most retailers. Having a negative focus could create difficulties in locating a cooperative supermarket in which to perform this study. Kashmanian[4] also indicated that better results are achieved with a more upbeat message.
EPA recommended that messages be simple and that the educational devices be of high quality to compete with other advertising (e.g., a booth situated near the entrance staffed with a knowledgeable person). EPA and De Young recommended stressing durable, internal reasons for environmental shopping, not external (short-lived) incentives. An attempt was made to follow the recommendation that store personnel be knowledgeable about and supportive of the campaign (by numerous meetings with VP, district manager and store managers), and information sheets were provided for all cashiers. As EPA recommended, the campaign solicited and got cooperation from Red Apple to have storefront posters made up by the store’s own sign makers. Unfortunately, despite best efforts, store personnel were not always supportive, and at times, were counterproductive.
Use of Recycling/Prevention Statistics
San Francisco’s environmental shopping guide and the Stauffer article in Resource Recycling were the inspiration for including in our brochures statistics on energy and pollution saved or avoided by recycling various materials. Startling statistics to grab the attention of the shoppers were used in the brochures.
Taylor[5] found that if awareness programs were poorly run (i.e., if communication, consistency, and dependability of the program were poor), results would be poor. Therefore, maintenance consisted of visits to the stores every three days or so to ensure availability of brochures, audibility of videos, sufficient number/proper display of bags, signs, etc.
Brochure Design and Procurement
Since most environmental shopping campaigns depended heavily on brochures to convey information / motivate shoppers, and in fact the state of Minnesota found [6] brochures to be the most useful educational device they used in an environmental shopping pilot study, brochures were used as the primary means of education for this project. In line with the rationale to focus on intrinsic motivators, the project brochures were designed to make consumers want to change their shopping behaviors because of the beneficial effects on the environment. Thus, the brochures highlighted how reducing the consumption of disposable products, overly packaged products, and non-recyclable packaging diminishes environmental impact. Burn & Oskamp [7] found that using persuasive prompts (a flyer encouraging recycling and citing its advantages) significantly increased the number of people participating in a recycling program. Suspecting that persuasive educational materials would be more effective than simply informational ones, it as decided that three informative and persuasive brochures should be designed for this campaign. To attract shoppers’ attention the brochures would use surprising or alarming facts about the extent of natural resources use caused by consumption in supermarkets, as well as the potential for air pollution and energy savings resulting from recycling.
The initial design phase for the brochures included an extensive survey of existing environmental shopping brochures and booklets, by Cooperative Extensions in Florida and a number of local and state solid waste management agencies. Numerous startling statistics were either adapted from some of these brochures or developed as part of the project to show, for example, the tens of thousands of disposable bags given away weekly by each store, the more than one million trees consumed annually in the U.S. for disposable diapers, and the potential energy savings and air pollution avoided by recycling different packaging materials. The brochures also suggested methods the shoppers could use to practice environmental shopping and contained information about the requirements New York City’s curbside recycling program. See Appendix EM for the brochures and other educational materials used.
The project brochures, the primary means of education, were designed to make consumers want to change their shopping behaviors because of the beneficial effects on the environment. Each of the brochures featured the project logo, was done in a different color: cream, apple green, and goldenrod, and used one or the other of the two project slogans, in two different size formats, to signal to shoppers that they were different brochures. All stressed the importance of individual action in reducing environmental problems. In keeping with the environmental shopping theme, all brochures were printed using soy ink (dark green), on recycled content paper. The specific total recycled content and post-consumer content (originating from recycling programs, not industry scrap) were clearly stated at the back of the brochure, and was as high as 100% post-consumer in the cream brochure.
The first brochure to be distributed was 8.5 x 11 inches, a tri-fold in dark green on cream, and introduced the concept of environmental shopping. It featured the three aspects of environmental shopping on which this project was focused -- recyclable packaging, reusable bags, and reusable diapers -- and their environmental advantages. The second brochure, a 8.5 x 11 inches bi-fold in bright green, described some of the environmental impacts of depleting natural resources for disposables, such as grocery bags, and recommended ways shoppers could reduce the number of bags they take. The third brochure, 8.5 x 11 bi-fold in goldenrod, described the environmental and energy advantages of choosing recyclable packaging over that which cannot be recycled in New York City's curbside program. This brochure also suggested choosing refills, concentrates, and recycled packaging, bulk purchasing, and avoiding overly packaged products. (This brochure is illustrated in Appendix Z.) Minnesota’s experience helped estimate the number of brochures needed for campaign (several thousand of each brochure). Bids were received from three purveyors of recycled content papers and printing. Seven thousand of each of the three project brochures were printed by Lyn-Bar Printing at a total cost of $1670. The budget for this and other educational devices is listed here for purposes of comparison with some of the advertising budgets of the large food and diaper vendors, mentioned earlier.
Storefront and In-Store Posters
A number of posters were used in the educational campaign. Their purposes varied; some were designed to introduce the project; others were intended to cajole or to educate.
EPA’s Kashmanian, in recommending utilization of the store’s own advertising mechanisms, inspired the decision to request Red Apple to produce and display three-color storefront posters with the project logo and slogan announcing the project to show the store chain’s support for the project. These served a second purpose, introducing the new campaign to shoppers. Two full-size 34” x 44” window posters were made for each store by the same company that made signs announcing prices on sale products. Appendix Z shows one of these posters at the east side store. In addition, Red Apple provided four 17”x22” three-color posters, using the project logo with the other brochure slogan, for hanging on walls inside the store.
Minnesota Office of Waste Management and the NYCDOS sent large in-store environmental shopping posters some of which were used. Minnesota’s posters featured their slogan (SMART: Saving Money And Reducing Trash) with a single focus with information about the economical aspects of environmental shopping. They were 23” x 35”, green and white on “recycled-brown” background. DOS’ 18” x 23” color posters featured the prominent slogan: “Earth needs some friends” with children and earth beach balls to grab the attention and many aspects of the main message: Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle (see Appendix Z). Had there been more wall space available, more posters would have been used.
Reusable Bags
Minnesota’s environmental shopping campaigns showed that sale of reusable bags could be a useful part of this campaign, since it fit into the target foci, and since it was expected that the sale of the reusable bags and the quantity of disposable plastic and paper shopping bags distributed could also be measured. A compact, cloth bag design was chosen. The Compak bag, in addition to being sturdy (Compak claims a 40-pound limit and has no seam at the bottom), with wide, short handles that don't cut the fingers, contains a small pouch into which the bag can be stuffed. The outside of the off-white bag was imprinted using dark green ink with a 6x7-inch representation of the project's logo and the words, Environmental Shopper (see Appendix Z). This short slogan was conceived to save space and in hopes it could be used more generally by other stores. Even the pouch had a smaller version (2x2-inch) of the logo imprint. Five hundred bags was the minimum order from Compak, and these cost roughly $2,000. As Red Apple had never disagreed with the premise, it was assumed they could advance the money needed to manufacture the minimum order of bags (500 for $4 each). But after some delay, it was learned that they didn't think the project’s cotton bags would sell. (Even later it was learned that Gristede’s had previously had a promotion selling heavy canvas bags for $4, but this was not successful.) In order to maximize the number of bags sold, the sale price of $4 was initially chosen to equal the cost to the project. In order to market the bags, signs and displays needed to be designed, and these also became part of the campaign as educational prompts.
The NYC DOS’ Bring Your Own Bag signs (shown in Appendix Z) were sturdy, roughly 9x12 inches, on laminated plastic, bright and attractive, eye-catching, in green and yellow on a black background, and had the message clearly printed on them, “Please Take a Bag Only if You Need it, or BRING YOUR OWN BAG --We’ll be happy to pack your purchases in it to Help PREVENT WASTE”. Since they were donated by the NYCDOS to cajole shoppers into bringing their own bags, and were available in the quantity needed, they were placed at each cash register near the bag displays.
To market the reusable bags, small 5.5” x 8.5” hot pink or lime green signs with a cardboard backing, advertising the cotton bags, were stapled to the bottom of the DOS signs and affixed to locations nearby. They used the project's logo and a picture of the project's cotton bag folded into a small pouch. The message was quick to read, and advertised the bags as convenient and portable, displaying the $4 price.
To encourage shoppers to reuse produce and bakery bags, the project received from the Seattle Solid Waste Utility roughly twenty 4x6-inch “Shop Smart shelf talkers”, in red, yellow, black, and white (see Appendix Z). To maximize their utility, these shelf-talkers were taped on or near the stands from which shoppers took the disposable plastic produce bags. Because of the unsatisfactory experience in Boulder, this study did not make major use of small shelf labels of the sort used in Boulder.
Diaper Offers
Based on the information received from the NYCDOS and others about the significant presence of diapers in the waste stream, and their inherent recyclability problems and only partial degradability in landfill, a search was conducted to locate and team up with a diaper service providing coverage for Manhattan. The General Health Care Corporation agreed to suspend all other advertising in the zip codes of our two test stores, to keep track of new diaper service orders made by customers from the stores, and to provide large quantities of professionally produced invitations for advertising their services. The offers, inserted into a sealed envelope with a fluorescent yellow sticker on it saying “Special Diaper Offer”, included a number of items: a brief letter from GHCC addressed to “Expectant Parents” comparing benefits of cloth to disposable diapers, a bulleted list of benefits (no pins, no plastic pants, no rinsing, no trash, no stop shopping, no environmental problems), and an invitation to call the 800 number to talk about it, a card with the price per week, and a postage-paid post coupon to take advantage of the offer. GHCC supplied several hundred offers for distribution in each store and offered to record the timing and location of new diaper service customers generated by the campaign. Coupons were included for discounted service (fifth week free), possible since no telemarketing would be required in the two zip codes around the stores. The coupons were to be encoded to ensure issuance of credit to the proper store. As compensation for allowing the sale of diaper service in the stores, the stores would be paid $10 per customer for all diaper services lasting for at least twelve weeks, sold by means of this method. As part of the storewide purchasing measurements, purchase of disposable diapers in the store would also be measured to detect any shift in purchasing habits. The plan for the campaign was to have cashiers distribute diaper offers to those buying disposable diapers, and for some offers to be available in a holder near the disposable diaper shelves.
Videos
After review of several environmental shopping videos, three environmental shopping videos (two from Hillsborough County, Florida Cooperative Extension and one from Ulster County Resource Recovery Authority) were adapted for testing in the education-intensive store. The first two videos, each ten minutes, covered most, if not all, aspects of environmental shopping, emphasizing the 5 R's (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Reject, and Respond), and showing additional “at-home” waste prevention behaviors such as recycling and reuse. The Ulster County video, at five minutes, emphasized the source reduction aspects of environmental shopping. Criteria for review included the degree to which the videos focused on this project’s target foci, the extent to which it presented information clearly, and the use of examples. The Hillsborough videos were condensed slightly into a single video. The Ulster County, NY, Resource Recovery Authority video, done in cooperation with Cornell Cooperative Extension, and hot off the presses, was secured three weeks after the first two videos began showing. In order to show the videos continuously, the two initial videos were recorded repeatedly to fill up a 2-hour videotape, to be replayed continuously on video equipment set up above two checkout counters. In an effort to keep interest high in the campaign, these videos were shown starting in week six of the 12-week campaign, after all the brochures were phased in.
The Ulster County tape was also recorded repeatedly to fill a separate 2-hour tape. So that there would be no need for rewinding and restarting the tapes, a VCR with a special repeat function was procured. This was important so that the success of this educational treatment would not depend upon cashiers or other store personnel. Although the videos themselves were procured gratis from the Cooperative Extensions, the VCR and two 19” monitors and two wall mounts cost roughly $1000.
Use of Volunteers at Information Tables
EPA recommended that one effective attention-getting technique would be a booth situated near the entrance of the store with a setup containing free literature, examples of reusable bags and diapers, and staffed by a person knowledgeable about the program and environmental shopping. For this reason, volunteers were recruited on several occasions to distribute project and other programs’ brochures and answer questions at a table at the entrance of the store at which the more extensive educational effort was made. NYCDOS contributed waste prevention handbooks, household hazardous waste literature, a promotion on reducing unwanted junk mail as well as recycling literature. EPA contributed recycling coloring books and other brochures on waste prevention. In addition, copies of EPA's environmental shopping booklets for children and their waste prevention booklet were offered to shoppers. The project's own brochures and cotton bags rounded out the selection at the table. Tabling was done (and the videos were shown) to increase the variety of educational methods at the education-intensive store, and to increase the likelihood that education would be imparted in that store, as a means of comparison to the basic campaign in the other store.
Though most of the decisions regarding the selection and design of educational devices, and of the experimental design itself was self-generated, it is important to recognize that the store management had to approve all educational materials to be used in their stores. Once Red Apple headquarters selected the stores, there were discussions with each store manager to clearly describe the study objectives (e.g., allow signage, brochures, pass out diaper service coupons, etc...). The reason for this approach is that each store is different in how it has evolved to achieve smooth functioning, and the research program may be disruptive to the store's functioning.
A Longer Campaign
De Young, and Crosby and Taylor found that if sufficient time and assistance were given to participants in overcoming barriers or difficulties in recycling, behaviors were more reliably improved. Though this campaign was 10 weeks in length, the original funding from EPA included deadlines and monetary constraints that precluded the campaign from being longer.
Personnel to Distribute All the Project Brochures
In the Minnesota environmental shopping campaign, a lot of effort was necessary during the pilots to make sure customers received the brochures. With the help of OWM staff and local volunteers they were able to have someone stationed at the entrance to the store from 10am to about 7pm on weekdays; later on weekends. With a little encouragement, most customers were willing to accept a brochure. Such an intensive effort, to have a staff member present at each store all day every day was not possible for this study because of inadequacy of funds and volunteer help.
Use of a Media Campaign
The MN Office of Waste Management believed that its in-store campaign would have been more successful if augmented by a media campaign by the local governmental authority. While this would have been desirable for this project, it was not possible due to lack of funding.
Display and Placement of Educational Materials
Once Red Apple headquarters reviewed every educational material to be used (and not requesting modification), a half hour meeting was held with each of the store managers to discuss the method of displaying each educational device, placement in the stores and timing of their introduction (see Appendix DM for more detail on these meetings). The stores’ personnel were asked to outline what they could do in their particular store to help achieve the project objectives. However, this additional step introduced more delays in starting the campaign and one change in educational materials. The stores had promised their own large, heavy canvas bags could be sold but then reneged. This change probably had a beneficial effect on the project, since superior bags, with the project logo, were procured, though it also cost the project an additional $2,000.
It was agreed that many of the materials would appear at the start of the campaign, November 1, 1993. Others would be phased in to keep interest higher for a longer period. Both store managers offered to allow the project brochures to share the magazine racks immediately adjacent to each cashier, and that in-store posters could be taped to walls and suspended from the ceiling in a few locations. The store managers also agreed to have the storefront posters up on the store windows for the start of the campaign. The cost for these was negligible (less than $5 per poster), and this cost was underwritten by Red Apple. The production was “quick and dirty” (hand done, in the same style as all their storefront signs), but quite serviceable. Red Apple also agreed that the cashiers could give out diaper offers to those purchasing disposable diapers. As to the video installation, Red Apple agreed to put up the brackets on support columns adjacent to the checkout area in the west side store. Requests that the store chain mention the environmental shopping project in their circulars went unfulfilled.
Length of the Educational Campaign
Just prior to the start of the educational campaign, it was important to revisit the length of time that the educational materials should remain in stores, and over what time period(s) diary volunteers should maintain their diaries. Originally, there was to be an active phase followed by a passive phase. During the active phase most or all of the educational materials would be present in the stores. Afterwards, for a couple of months, diaries would continue to be kept, and storewide data could continue to be tracked, to note any waning in environmental shopping behaviors after removal of the educational treatments. Perhaps only the signs and the brochures would remain during the passive phase. Alternatively, the passive phase might involve no educational stimuli at all, or just a few brochures in holders, to see how well any changed behaviors were maintained. Since both the diary and storewide purchasing data gathering efforts were dropped due to insufficient data, these points became moot.
Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7
[1] Vining, Joanne, and Angela Ebreo. “The Pulic Response to Model Recycling Programs”, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, UILU-IES 90 Report 11. March 1990.
[2] Ledermann, Jeff, and Linda Countryman, “Executive Summary of SMART Shopping Pilot Evaluation”, Minnesota Office of Waste Management, July 13, 1992.
[3] “Precycling – Final Report”, City of Boulder, Environmental Affairs. 1991.
[4] "Promoting Source Reduction and Recyclability in the Marketplace: A Study of Consumer and Industry Response to Promotion of Source Reduced, Recycled, and Recyclable Products and Packaging", prepared for Richard M. Kashmanian, USEPA, Washington, DC September, 1989.
[5] Taylor, E.H., "Consumer Reaction to Solid Waste Problems and Regulations", The Procter & Gamble Company, a report on work in progress, July 15, 1988 in "Promoting Source Reduction and Recyclability in the Marketplace".
[6] Ledermann, Jeff and Linda Countryman. “Executive Summary of SMART Shopping Pilot Evaluation”, Minnesota Office of Waste Management, July 13, 1992.
[7] Burn, S., and Oskamp, S. “Increasing Community Recycling with Persuasive Communication and Public Commitment.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Volume 16, pp. 29-41. 1986 as referenced in Lin, Nancy, et. al., “Toward a sustainable Society: Waste Minimization Through Environmentally Conscious Consuming”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Volume 24, Number 17, pp. 1550-1572. 1994.