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
West	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
Some high school	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
Male	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%
$40,000 - $50,000	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
West	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
Plastic bottles and jugs	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
West	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	1.7%	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
Brand name	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%	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.

After the administration of the educational treatment in each store some small differences in the shoppers’ responses between stores began to appear in some cases. The west-side shoppers became more aware of the mandatory nature of the City’s recycling program, and they noted the in-store videos as a source of environmental shopping knowledge. The east side shoppers noted the posters and brochures as a source of environmental information more so than the west side shoppers, possibly because the store was more spacious and the educational materials had less competition per square foot of space. There was also a disparity in the amount of information on recycling they received from their building management, possibly pointing to differences in distribution of the City’s recycling educational materials.

As compared with the baseline survey, more of the respondents knew that the City government requires them to separate materials for recycling, perhaps due to heightened awareness of the program after having been surveyed the first time. Strangely, fewer respondents could correctly identify materials collected by DOS for recycling after the educational program; sometimes as many as 40% fewer, in the case of tin cans. The fact that the baseline question had a “don’t know” option would have served to reduce the number of respondents answering these questions correctly for the baseline questionnaire. One possible explanation for the discrepancy could be the difference in survey administration (in person vs. telephone), though it is not clear why that could have made a difference here.

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
Mailings	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

	East	West
Definitely not	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
11/10/93		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
3/6	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
West	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
West	10.0% (40)	80.8% (324)
East	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
West	0.8% (1)	10.6% (14)
East	1.9% (2)	9.7% (10)

Refills and Concentrates Results

Questions were asked in both the baseline and follow-up surveys to gauge shoppers’ attitudes and behaviors regarding buying refills and concentrates. The disconnect between attitude towards refills and concentrates and actually purchasing products in these packages is evident in the baseline survey (see tables below). Comparing the baseline to the follow-up survey, behavior question responses showed a definite increase in those who always buy refills and concentrates (from roughly 10% before to almost 30% after for each store), but there was also an increase in those who never or infrequently choose this behavior (from about 21% before to about 26% (east) and 36% (west). A possible explanation is that those who were already buying this kind of packaging on some occasions increased this behavior, and those who said they were ambivalent to begin with, may have recognized that they overstated their actual purchases of refills and concentrates.

Table 15 Baseline and Follow-Up Survey Results – Refills and Concentrates

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%	8.4%
	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%	28.0%
	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%
Video		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

Follow-up survey	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

The groups that considered the extrinsic factor of a mandatory recycling law the most important in getting them to recycle were blacks, women, those with higher incomes and older shoppers.

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

Younger, lower income and women shoppers were more likely to be motivated to bring a bag to the store if a small, extrinsic inducement were proffered. But, as with Table 23, the differences were so small, and standard deviations so large, that it is not possible to consider these differences statistically significant.

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.

Table 27 (and the more complete depiction in Appendix SA) shows changes in where shoppers got their environmental information before and after the campaign. It’s hard to fathom how, in nearly every case, the shoppers claimed to have gotten far less environmental information after the campaign than before it. A reduction in the City’s overall recycling education program during the course of the campaign could explain some of this change (e.g., the drop by 30 to 50 percentage points in receipt of information via recycling mailings, and a drop by 50 to 70 percentage points by those receiving information in the subway). The recycling program was in an expansion phase in the late summer of 1993 and DOS had rolled out an educational program at that time. However, this educational program had been completed long before the end of the supermarket environmental shopping campaign,

An interesting phenomenon about these data is that patterns emerge if one looks only at the columns of “after” data. When examined this way, there is an apparent relationship between the amount of education that the campaign provided and the percentage of shoppers that said they received recycling or environmental shopping knowledge from each source. This relationship is particularly evident for environmental shopping knowledge from posters and brochures, and in-store videos.

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.

East and west side shoppers differed in where they got their environmental information after the campaign. Comparing those who saw the project brochures and recalled the recycling message in each store, 20% more east-side shoppers got recycling information from posters and brochures than their west side counterparts. But 15% more west side shoppers, who saw the project brochures, but didn’t recall any specific message, said they got recycling and environmental shopping information from posters and brochures than their east side counterparts. As would be expected, 15 to 20% more west side shoppers, who saw the project brochures and videos, claim to have received both recycling and environmental shopping information from in-store videos after the campaign as compared with the east side shoppers. Possibly due to the complementary effect of the in-store videos in the west side store, 10 to 20% more west side shoppers who saw the brochures and videos said they got environmental shopping information from posters and brochures, as compared with the various post-intervention cohorts from the east side store. Similarly, almost 10% more west-side shoppers who saw the brochures and videos said they got environmental shopping information from their friends, as compared with the east-side cohorts.

Relationships between Shoppers’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior

An ancillary research objective was to determine the effect of shoppers’ environmental knowledge on their environmental attitudes and behavior. One of the premises of this research project was that educational campaigns, such as the ones tested here, could be useful in imparting information and motivating shoppers to modify their purchasing attitudes and behaviors. Earlier in these analyses, a disconnect was found between shoppers’ knowledge and attitudes (both of which were initially quite high) and their self-reported behaviors. Since path analysis is a statistical technique that is useful in structuring and quantifying models involving causative factors that interact to produce effects, path analysis was used to determine if and the degree to which a shopper’s environmental knowledge causes environmental behaviors. In this case, two similar path analyses were performed to determine if there were any causative relationships between knowledge and attitudes, between knowledge and self-reported behavior, and between attitudes and self-reported behavior. Behavior was always the dependent variable, the effect produced by the interaction of environmental knowledge and/or attitudes. As only the baseline data sets included the attitude questions, useful for this analysis, and since the east side store was the largest of the data sets, both path analyses used this data set.

In order to conduct this analysis, it was first necessary to group the survey questions according to those most clearly reflecting the three categories: environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. This was done in two ways: first, by simply making three composite variables, averaging the answers to all the questions relating to knowledge, attitude and behavior, and second by using factor analysis to create new factor variables for knowledge, attitude and behavior. The survey questions (variables) which contributed to the three composite variables are shown in Tables 28, 29, and 30 below.

The first path analysis utilized the composite variables, KNOWLEDG, ATTITUDE, and BEHAVIOR and investigated the simple model of environmental and recycling knowledge impacting directly on environmental attitudes and on environmental behavior with attitudes, in turn, impacting directly on behavior (see Figure 3).

The path coefficients measure the effect of one variable on another, expressed in standardized units. For example, the results in Figure 3 show that KNOWLEDG, by itself, has little direct impact on BEHAVIOR (.213) and a moderate impact on ATTITUDE (.472). The indirect effect of KNOWLEDG on BEHAVIOR via ATTITUDE (.472 x .623) is also small, at .294. Thus, the total impact (in this case, equal to the direct impact) of ATTITUDE on BEHAVIOR (.623) is greater than the total (direct plus indirect) impacts of KNOWLEDG on BEHAVIOR combined via attitudes is (.213 + (.472 x .623) = .507). Further, the residuals (unexplained sources of impact) for behavior and attitude are both quite large. Sixty-eight percent of the impact on behavior is caused by something other than knowledg and attitude, and almost all (97%) of the influences on attitude are caused by factors external to the model. External influences can include everything from social norms or peer pressure, religious beliefs, convenience, and economic issues, to name a few.

Figure 3 Path Analysis for Composite Knowledge, Attitude, and Behavior Variables

The second path analysis utilized factor variables. Factor analysis of the questions probing shoppers’ environmental shopping and recycling knowledge yielded two knowledge factor variables. ENVSHKNO represents the questions dealing with environmental shopping knowledge (i.e., Have you heard of environmental shopping?, and most of the questions dealing with the source of environmental shopping knowledge. RECYCKNO is clearly associated with correct answers to the questions about which materials the City collects for recycling.

Factor analysis of all the questions probing shopper attitudes yielded one clear factor, ENVIRATT, which included the survey questions asking respondents’ attitudes (1) towards changing the store they shop at if it became more environmental, (2) regarding the importance of conserving natural resources and landfill space as factors that motivate them to recycle, (3) towards the statement that recycling doesn’t infringe on their rights, (4) towards buying products in reduced packaging, and (5) regarding the statement that environmental shopping is important for preserving the natural environment.

Factor analysis of the behavior-related questions yielded two factors. The more dominant of these, RECYCBEH (Recycling behavior), was found to be influenced by how often the respondent actually buys recyclable packaging, recycles cans and magazines, and brings cans and bottles back for deposit. All these behaviors imply a less sophisticated behavior modification pattern than environmental shopping, since recycling has been a household environmental word (and practice) for some time in New York City and the country, whereas environmental shopping behavior modification involves understanding more concepts (reduced consumption of packaging and non-durable products and substitution of durable products).

Figure 4 shows that most of the total impact on recycling behavior (RECYCBEH) comes from environmental attitudes (ENVIRATT), at .63, which is remarkably similar to what was found in the composite path analysis. The next greatest direct impact on recycling behavior comes from ENVSHKNO, or the effect (.21) of environmental shopping knowledge (the same as the direct impact of the composite variable, KNOWLEDG, on BEHAVIOR in the path analysis above). ENVSHKNO does have a similar effect via ENVIRATT on RECYCBEH (.335 x .6299 = .21) Oddly enough, RECYCKNO, or recycling knowledge, has a slightly negative contribution on behavior at -.035, but RECYCKNO did have a small positive impact on environmental shopping knowledge (0.028). Again, a substantial percentage (59%) of the variation in recycling behavior which is unexplained in this model, similar to the analysis above. A more complete discussion of the regression and other analyses performed to support these path analyses are contained in Appendix FA.

Figure 4 Path Analysis for Factor Knowledge, Attitude, and Behavior Variables

Increases in environmental knowledge should translate to increases in environmental behaviors, but this was not the case in the composite path analysis above, nor in the factor path analysis. These two path analyses show that the amount of environmental or recycling knowledge that a shopper possesses has relatively little direct or indirect effect on the shopper’s environmental behavior. Attitudes have a considerably greater effect on behavior, and are the main determinant of behavior among the factors studied.

One possible explanation for the small impact of KNOWLEDG on attitudes or behavior is that since recycling violations go to building owners and not tenants, and since most respondents are tenants, there can be a disconnect between having received recycling knowledge from the City and implementing it. On the other hand, some people know a lot about recycling and environmental shopping because they care about the environment; these people would have recycling behaviors. With respect to ATTITUDE’s strong effect on BEHAVIOR, if people have a positive attitude towards the environment, they are more likely to recycle and perform other positive environmental behaviors This finding agrees with the disconnect between shoppers’ knowledge and attitudes and their environmental behaviors mentioned above.

Baseline questionnaire

· 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. Fewer shoppers correctly answered the questions that required a more sophisticated understanding.

· 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, their building’s management and newspapers/magazines. Their environmental shopping knowledge came from newspapers/magazines, TV/Radio and their friends and neighbors.

· 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. Fewer shoppers agreed with the questions that would elicit a negative personal attitude towards the environment.

· There appears to be a disconnect between the shoppers’ level of environmental knowledge and attitudes, and their actual behaviors. 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.

Effect of the Educational Campaign on Purchases of Recyclable Packaging, Refills, Concentrates

· Respondents who were exposed to more educational materials and recalled environmental messages, self-reported buying refills and concentrates to a greater extent than those who did not notice the educational materials. In absolute terms, those who reported that they often or always bought refills and concentrates after the campaign were well in excess of 50%.

· Shoppers exposed to more educational materials tended to buy fewer products in recyclable packaging as compared with the controls, particularly in the west side store.

· There was a net increase in purchases of refills and concentrates reported by shoppers who received the intervention after the campaign as compared with the controls, and this result was true for both stores. The net increase by east side shoppers ranged from 6 to 25% more on the east side, with the 25% representing the cohort seeing the brochures and remembering the resource message. The net increase by west side shoppers ranged from negligible to 26% more with the higher number representing those who saw the brochures and recollected the recycling message.

Effect of the Educational Campaign on other Environmental Behaviors

· As with the baseline survey, in absolute terms, shoppers did not exhibit a convincing tendency towards environmental shopping behaviors, but did report they recycled cans and bottles.

· In absolute terms recycling of cans and bottles at home was reported as often or always by over 80% of the respondents in all groups. By comparison, 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%. Bringing back bottles for deposit increased for the controls and even more for the intervention groups, while shoppers reported somewhat less recycling of cans and bottles at home. The more intensive the educational treatment, the greater the number of respondents that brought cans and bottles back to the store for deposit most frequently. This effect was across-the-board. As compared with the controls, east side shoppers that saw the brochures were 12% more likely to bring the cans and bottles back, but those who also remembered the resources message were 20% more likely, and those remembering the recycling message were 24% more likely. At the west side store, those that only saw brochures were 5% more likely to bring cans and bottles back for deposit, but those who also remembered the recycling message were 30% more likely (as compared with the controls).

· Purchase of products in single-serving packaging (a bad environmental behavior) occurred more frequently and patronage of repair shops (a good environmental behavior) occurred somewhat less frequently after the campaign among those receiving educational treatments vs. the controls.

· 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.

Effect of the Campaign on Bags and Bag signage effort

· 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.

· There was little change between the bag attitudes (effect of incentives) and behaviors (actually bringing bags) after the campaign comparing those who received various levels of educational treatment vs. the controls, but all the groups increased slightly in absolute terms.

Effect of the Campaign on the Diaper Service Effort

· Only 17% of respondents with babies received diaper offers in the east side store and 6% in the west side store.

The Relative Effect of the Campaign on East- vs. West-side shoppers

· With regard to knowledge about the City’s recycling program, there was little difference between east and west side, with one exception. The shoppers on the west side who saw the brochures and video tended to know more about the recycling program vs. the west side controls, as compared with their east side counterparts (east side shoppers who received the most educational treatment vs. east side controls).

· East and west-side shoppers differed in where they got their environmental information after the campaign. Comparing those who saw the project brochures and recalled the recycling message in each store, 20% more east-side shoppers got recycling information from posters and brochures than their west side counterparts. But 15% more west side shoppers, who saw the project brochures, but didn’t recall any specific message, said they got recycling and environmental shopping information from posters and brochures than their east side counterparts.

· As expected, fifteen to twenty percent more west side shoppers, who saw the project brochures and videos, claim to have received both recycling and environmental shopping information from in-store videos after the campaign as compared with the east side shoppers. Ten to twenty percent more west side shoppers who saw the brochures and videos said they got environmental shopping information from posters and brochures, as compared with the various post-intervention cohorts from the east side store. Similarly, almost 10% more west side shoppers who saw the brochures and videos said they got environmental shopping information from their friends, as compared with the east side cohorts.

· Where there was a difference between the behavior of shoppers who received the interventions at the east-side vs. west-side stores, more environmentally sound purchasing and other behaviors were reported by east side shoppers (e.g., buying 12 to 26% more recyclable packaging than the controls vs. the west side comparison). Those receiving the educational treatments in the east side store bought fewer disposable products than the controls (in five of the six intervention cases). Specifically, shoppers bought from 20 to 36% fewer disposables than the controls (who bought more, in absolute terms, after the campaign than before).

The Effect of an Educational Campaign (Knowledge) on Attitudes and Behavioral Change

· The two path analyses show that the amount of environmental or recycling knowledge that a shopper possesses has relatively little direct or indirect effect on the shopper’s environmental behavior (amounting to .21 direct impact plus an additional amount for the indirect impact depending on which model is used). Attitudes have a considerably greater effect on behavior (.63 to .68), but there are still other factors unaccounted for in these models. In the first model 97% of attitude is explained by external influences. The factors contributing to behavior, unaccounted for in both models, are .59 to .68.

Effect of the Educational Campaign on Environmental / Recycling Knowledge

· 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 knew more about the recycling program and environmental shopping than the controls by twenty to thirty percent in four cases (e.g., responding with the correct answer about items the City picks up in its recycling program). 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.

· 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 racial groups.

· Where there was a noticeable disparity in the answers given by men and women, it was the women who exhibited more environmental behaviors and attitudes.

· Both sexes brought bags to the supermarket slightly more often after the campaign.

· Younger, lower income and women shoppers were more likely to be motivated to bring a bag to the store if an extrinsic inducement were proffered.

Effect of Educational Materials

· 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 (by two-thirds, including prompted and unprompted) were the cotton bags and the NYC DOS Bring Your Own Bag signs.

Discussion

Although some of the messages seem to have gotten through and changed the shoppers’ behaviors (most notably to buy more refills and concentrates, and to a small extent to more bring bags to the store), what could explain those cases in which the campaigns had no impact (or negative impact) on the shoppers? A number of factors contributed to the results of the study. The two path analyses showed that the amount of environmental or recycling knowledge that a shopper possesses has little direct or indirect effect on the shopper’s environmental behavior. So the premise that an educational program could be completely effective in modifying shopper behavior is erroneous. Attitudes have a considerably greater effect on behavior, but attitudes are only modestly related to knowledge. So a campaign to improve only the shoppers’ knowledge of environmental shopping and recycling would be expected to fall short of the goals. There are still other factors (unexplained variance) unaccounted for in these models, which if identified and used in an environmental shopping campaign, would likely lead to a more positive outcome. The results of this study agree with the disconnect, noted earlier, between shoppers’ knowledge and attitudes and their environmental behaviors. An analogy is the influence of information and addiction on smoking behavior. Information alone (even that which is strongly compelling) is often not sufficient to dissuade people from abandoning a long-held smoking habit. Thus, an environmental information campaign, even in tandem with motivational arguments, is only one small factor among many that influences environmental behaviors.

The path models showed that there are many other factors besides knowledge that mold attitudes and behaviors, and indeed, there were confounding influences on the shoppers at the time of the environmental shopping campaign. A number of these confounding factors pulled shoppers in the opposite direction from where the educational materials were designed to take them. For example, the holidays might have caused shoppers to pay more attention to competing influences, such as cost and convenience, or may have constrained shoppers’ time and attention, interfering with the effectiveness of the educational materials. It is even possible that some of the shoppers were irritated by one more set of competing messages and displays in stores already crowded to the max during holiday season. Additionally, around the time of the baseline survey administration, the NYC DOS was expanding its recycling collection programs in Manhattan. As new districts came online, DOS sent recycling literature to each resident and required building superintendents to post signs about recycling in each apartment building. DOS supplemented this with other media and print advertising, which some of the survey respondents probably saw. This temporary outside source of information may have heightened recycling awareness at the time the baseline survey data were collected. Another possibility is that economic considerations were beginning to drive behavior more, towards the end of the campaign, as evidenced by the increase in shoppers’ bringing back cans and bottles for deposit instead of recycling them. Likewise, by the time the follow-up survey was administered in early 1994, the beginning of the “Republican Revolution” may have engendered an anti-environment sentiment that may have adversely affected responses on that later survey.[1]

Aside from time-dependent factors that may have influenced the campaign’s impact on shoppers, other factors could have motivated shoppers to ignore the campaign’s messages. For example, shoppers were asked to perform some behaviors which were clear-cut (i.e., buying cloth bag instead of taking a disposable one). But in other cases, shoppers were asked to buy recyclable packaging, concentrates, and refills, which may have appeared to conflict with pre-existing beliefs about environmental shopping. For example, environmentally sophisticated shoppers might consider that buying detergent in a recyclable plastic bottle that contains a nonrenewable resource (petroleum) and heavy metals (in the pigments), and which could produce some environmental impacts when melted for recycling, is less environmental than buying the product in paperboard, made from a renewable resource and readily degradable into a benign product in the landfill. Buying soup in a recyclable can vs. Ramen in a non-recyclable plastic wrap is what the campaign recommended, but the plastic wrap uses fewer resources because the product was actually a concentrate (the removal of the water in the product reduced packaging needs). Such confusion can occur because prior knowledge or attitudes can influence the way that a consumer interprets the instructions. So changing consumer behavior where there are many possible choices and conflicting considerations may not be as easy as changing behavior when it’s either an all or nothing proposition.

Another factor which may explain the results is that encouraging shoppers, who have to carry their groceries home by hand (as the vast majority of these shoppers do), to buy more recyclable containers could be at odds with the fact that the non-recyclable packaging is usually lighter in weight. The recyclable packaging for coffee is either a tin can or glass container, but the non-recyclable alternative is packaged in laminated metal/plastic wrap, which weighs a few ounces less. Similarly, the detergent packaged in a recyclable bottle also contains a considerable amount of water, and is consequently heavier as compared to the powdered detergent in a paperboard container. Shoppers may have ignored the message to buy in recyclable containers to save the effort of hauling the extra ounces or pounds. By the same token, refills and concentrates are, by definition, lighter than those with dilute contents, and so encouragement to buy these products would not have faced the same barrier (inconvenience) as encouragement to purchase products in recyclable packaging would. That a compact, durable cloth bag was available for purchase at a reasonable price right at the checkout counter, was a measure designed (and that succeeded to some extent) to overcome the inconvenience barrier that might have been encountered had the shoppers been asked to bring a bag they didn’t own or one that was too unwieldy to carry along.

The literature review showed that shoppers are more likely to change their behavior when they have both a favorable attitude (including intrinsic motivations) as well as when positive external conditions exist (such as pleasant or supportive physical, financial, legal, or social conditions). But even if someone has a somewhat positive attitude towards a behavior, if the external conditions are negative (i.e., barriers exist), then the behavior won’t change. This could explain the disappointing results with the diaper experiment. Many parents find disposables much more convenient than diaper service (despite the fact that delivery of new and collection of used diapers is taken care of by the company). The follow-up survey showed that a significant percentage of the shoppers with infants who did not want to start diaper service cited cost as a reason for not switching, despite the fact that there is little difference in cost between using disposables and diaper service (see Appendix D for further discussion), but inconvenience was cited by a few. GHCC’s experience with advertising for new customers showed that parents are loathe to switch once they have been using disposables for some time, and that is why they attracted most of their new customers by directing their advertising to new mothers at the hospital. That large barrier needed to be overcome before shoppers would forsake disposables for diaper service suggests that some venues are more fruitful than others for launching environmental educational campaigns. Perhaps the diaper focus should have been excluded in favor of some other focus more appropriate for a first-time, small-budget environmental campaign at a supermarket.

These findings are consistent with other research on the relationship between government informational campaigns and behavioral change. A recent study by King County, Washington (Seattle) concludes that there are many barriers besides information which must be overcome in achieving changes in behavior.[2] The typical government method of changing peoples’ behaviors by creating a brochure (“if we build a brochure, they will come”), is questioned by pointing out that if information alone changed behavior, then there would be no more smokers, all kids would wear bike helmets, and all businesses would follow regulations. They quote Jamieson and VanderWerf in supporting the contention that there is no clear causal relationship between providing information and changing behavior. There are two primary reasons why this is true:

2) people may ignore information or interpret it so it reinforces existing attitudes, beliefs, or values.

Further, King County found that to change an audience’s behavior, it is essential to determine their barriers to change. These may be external (e.g., cost of the behavior, technology or feasibility of the behavior is lacking, it isn’t convenient) or internal (e.g., person doesn’t know what to do, doesn’t recognize the problem, doesn’t think it a priority, thinks it’s too hard, doesn’t have friends doing it, etc...). Only the first internal barrier is addressed by most brochures and educational campaigns, in general, although a conscious attempt was made here to show in the brochures the importance of environmental shopping behavior in conserving resources and protecting the environment (i.e., addressing the issues of problem recognition and prioritization).

Researchers [3], [4] found that when people make a commitment to act in a certain way, then they are more likely to act in that way. Commitments ranged from having people sign a pledge or send postcards to officials, to having their names used in publicity about a conservation activity. Simply reminding people of their initial commitment strengthens a “bond” between commitment and behavior. And small commitments lead to larger ones. Another way to overcome barriers to behavior is providing specific, positive reinforcement (feedback) regarding the consequences of their behavior changes. Also, the effectiveness of a message depends directly on the credibility of the message’s source. Thus, a disadvantage of using brochures is that people see information from friends and relatives as more credible than information from other sources. Thus, the effectiveness of a message depends directly on the credibility of the message’s source.

Impacts of Survey Administration on Campaign Results

In addition to the fact that other influences on shoppers’ behaviors were more important to them than the messages from a supermarket-based educational campaign, factors associated with the administration of the surveys that may have affected the shoppers’ responses to questions. The shoppers may have overestimated their environmental attitudes and behaviors when asked the first time, in front of a data collection volunteer, but once the shoppers had been exposed to information about environmental shopping, they were better able to assess their feelings and behaviors. An example of this is the set of questions asking shoppers what things are the most important motivators in getting them to recycle. Initially the responses were surprisingly high for the three intrinsic motivators (saves natural resources, saves landfill space, and is the right thing to do). So, if the initial responses were artificially high to begin with, there was more room to fall in the follow-up survey. Similarly, the knowledge questions about the City’s recycling program showed a high percentage of correct answers in the baseline survey, and fewer in the follow-up survey.

Another possible impact of survey administration on survey results could have stemmed from the fact that the follow-up survey was administered by telephone. Understanding questions read by a stranger over the phone could cause confusion where none existed, whereas the same question read by the respondent from a written survey might have been comprehended without error.

The analysis of the different levels of intervention (i.e., combinations of brochures, videos, signage, etc.) points to the likelihood that a campaign with many educational materials and approaches will be more successful in changing behaviors. One explanation for the mixed results of the analyses is that the campaign was not conducted for a long enough period. It takes time to change peoples’ behaviors, particularly if they are long-held, or if there are other opposing motivations to overcome or barriers to surmount. It also takes sufficient funding to create and sustain a longer, more intensive educational campaign. For example, if the campaign could have hired a full-time staff person to ensure that all purchasers of disposable diapers received a diaper offer, the results of that part of the campaign may have been different. If that staffer were to have handed a project brochure to every shopper while standing in the checkout line during the first week each brochure was available, it would have been more certain that shoppers received those educational materials. Such a staffer could have also worked to keep the video volume at an audible level. A longer educational campaign could have been designed to have more elements to outreach to the shoppers (e.g., a series of flyers focusing on a narrow message, issued on a weekly basis). More tabling events would have enabled shoppers to ask questions, receive more detailed reasons for changing their behaviors, and get feedback.

The City’s recycling program is one example of a long-standing environmental educational campaign that has attempted to modify environmental behavior. But even though the City has been collecting materials for recycling from most districts since the early 1990s, the capture rate (a measure of the participation rate) for targeted materials is still far less than 50% in most districts (the range is from 17% to 62%) as of 1998. [5] The budget for educational outreach has usually been roughly $5 to 10 million per year over the time period in question, or one dollar per resident. One explanation for the low capture rate is that there has been insufficient funding to sustain the message continuously every year, and to develop and deploy new approaches (both education and enforcement) to identify and reach geographic and demographic groups that remain more resistant to recycling. So, the time and the monetary resources available for an environmental educational campaign is critical to its success.

One very important factor affecting the campaign’s results was that not all the shoppers even saw the educational campaign. The data show that the Environmental Shopper bag displays and the Bring Your Own Bag signs were noticed more than the other educational materials. Since the first step in imparting information and motivating shoppers is to ensure that the shoppers see the materials, it is instructive to examine the aspects of the educational materials that attracted the attention of the shoppers. As compared with the brochures, which were placed in magazine racks and might have been ignored by shoppers not interested in buying magazines, the bag signs were larger, in more striking, bright and contrasting colors, with larger letters, and were displayed right on the side of the cash registers. The message was brief and could be read quickly, whereas reading one or more brochures is more time-consuming, and naturally, fewer shoppers would have taken that step. The bags, themselves, were also educational devices, in that they were noticed almost as much as the Bring Your Own Bag signs. One common link that might help explain success of these two educational materials is that both of these were displayed right near the cashiers. Being able to purchase the bags there implied to the customers that the store was supportive of the effort. By contrast, the brochures may have appeared to the shoppers as having been left in the magazine racks by someone not associated with or supported by the store management. The follow-up survey results also showed that the videos in the west Side store were remembered by less than 40%, either prompted or unprompted. This was not surprising considering that the video was frequently not audible. That certain behaviors of those who saw both the brochures and videos changed to a greater extent than the controls, and those who received less of the educational treatments, suggests that video could have great potential for educational campaigns if their use could be better managed.

The study design, including the intricate scheduling of many interconnected planning and design activities (e.g., preparation and administration of the surveys, design of the educational materials, planning for storewide purchasing information, etc.) was predicated on the prearranged agreements with Eac and Red Apple that they would be contributing important functions and providing critical information and access on a timely basis.

EAC was to contribute volunteers to gather baseline and follow-up survey data and to provide volunteers to make periodic reminder calls to diary keepers. They had also agreed to arrange for sufficient volunteers to allow for frequent tabling at the west side store and to assist with maintenance checks and brochure and bag restocking for both stores. EAC had also agreed to assist in the design of educational materials and other planning aspects. However, as a result of insufficient numbers of baseline surveyors, the surveying took several weeks longer than planned. The extra time required for the design of educational materials resulted in an additional delay of two months after the completion of the baseline survey data gathering effort and prior to the start of the educational campaign. Due to the need to call many of the baseline survey respondents repeatedly to find them at home, the volunteer phone surveyors for the follow-up surveys were unable to make reasonable progress, so a delay was introduced between the end of the educational campaign and the administration of the survey. As a result, it became necessary to hire a phone bank to administer the follow-up survey.

These compound delays may have had a deleterious impact on the number of follow-up survey respondents that could be reached, as much as ten months after the baseline surveying began (New Yorkers are a mobile lot). Also, since it is desirable to minimize the time between baseline survey, educational campaign, and follow-up survey, so as to minimize extraneous factors impacting respondents’ responses to the campaign and their recollection of the educational devices and messages, it is possible that these delays affected the results. As EAC volunteers, a phone bank, and I all administered the follow-up survey, this may have introduced variation in the consistency of answers given. Since EAC was not able to provide sufficient volunteers for phoning diary keepers, to provide them encouragement and to answer questions, this may have reduced the number of those eventually providing data, resulting in an insufficient sample size, ensuring that this method of measurement could not be used. That there weren’t as many tabling events in the west side store reduced the degree to which the two stores’ educational efforts were different.

Red Apple management had initially agreed to provide storewide purchase data for specific target products, disposable grocery and produce bags, as well as the Compak cotton bags. The manner in which only some distributors’ invoices were provided, ensured that storewide purchases could not be used as a method of measurement. That Red Apple was not able to provide information about the number of disposable or cotton bags given away/sold, meant that this aspect of the educational effort could not be objectively evaluated. That the prices for target products (e.g., those in recyclable/non-recyclable packaging pairs) may not have remained stable throughout the campaign period, may have affected the purchasing behaviors reported by respondents.

Red Apple headquarters had provided assurances that the store management would cooperate in providing a hospitable environment for the campaign, and this occurred to some extent. The west side manager had been innovative in the initial display of educational materials, and the east side’s assistant manager was also of great assistance in designing display boxes for the diaper offers, and in keeping track of bag sales. However, the problem with maintaining the video volume is likely to have been the main reason that most shoppers in the west side store did not receive this educational treatment. This, in turn, contributed to a smaller difference between the two stores’ educational efforts. The difficulty encountered in maintaining displays for posters and brochures also undoubtedly impacted the degree to which shoppers could receive these educational treatments. Additionally, although store management had agreed that cashiers would distribute diaper offers, and although it was agreed that diaper offers would be affixed to shelves where disposables were sold, neither of these was implemented fully, and few diaper offers were received by respondents. This situation may have contributed to the failure of the effort to have shoppers purchase diaper service.

The foregoing discussion points out the great importance to the success of an environmental shopping campaign of having co-sponsors that are enthusiastic and very supportive of the campaign’s goals and follow through on commitments.

[1] Results released from a national survey conducted on the eve of the 1996 election show that a candidate's stand on environmental issues was a top consideration for voters in 1996. According to the survey of 788 adults, 85% of Americans said that a candidate's position on "clean air, clean water standards, and protecting the environment" was very important or somewhat important in determining how they would vote. This is a 27% increase from last year and a 55% increase from 1994. The poll, conducted by ICR Research of Media, PA, has an error margin of +/- 2.5%.

[2] Frahm, Annette, et. al., “Changing Behavior: Insights and Applications”, Local Hazardous Waste Management Program in King County” King County Water Pollution Control Division, Seattle, WA, July, 1996.

[3] Pardini, A.U and R.D. Katzev "The effects of strength of commitment on newspaper recycling" Journal of Environmental Systems, 1983-4, 13: pp. 245-254.

[4] Katzev, R.D. and A.U. Pardini, "The Comparative Effectiveness of Reward and Commitment Approaches in Motivating Community Recycling", Journal of Environmental Systems, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1987-88, pp. 93-113 in "Promoting Source Reduction and Recyclability in the Marketplace".

[5] Cipollina, Larry, “Residential Recycling Diversion Report for April, 1998”, NYCDOS Memorandum. July, 24, 1998.

East side	Didn’t see brochures (controls)			Saw Brochures				Saw Brochures & Recycling Message				Saw Brochures & either resources, reuse or pollution message
	Before	After	Change	Before	After	Change	Diff. From Control	Before	After	Change	Diff from Control	Before	After	Change	Diff. from control
Buy Disposable Products	20.60%	55.50%	34.40%	43.20%	55.00%	11.80%	-22.60%	54.20%	52.00%	-2.20%	-36.60%	48.10%	62.00%	13.90%	-20.50%
Buy Refills/ Concentrates	43.30%	49.10%	5.80%	38.50%	62.50%	24.00%	18.20%	48.00%	60.00%	12.00%	6.20%	31.00%	62.10%	31.10%	25.30%
Buy single-servings	20.00%	27.10%	7.10%	20.50%	32.50%	12.00%	4.90%	20.00%	40.00%	20.00%	12.90%	20.60%	37.90%	17.30%	10.20%
Buy Recyclable Packaging	56.70%	35.00%	-21.70%	60.60%	40.00%	-20.60%	1.10%	58.30%	36.00%	-22.30%	-0.60%	55.10%	37.90%	-17.20%	4.50%
Avoid aerosols	66.70%	67.30%	1.00%	76.90%	70.00%	-6.90%	-7.90%	76.00%	64.00%	-12.00%	-13.00%	72.40%	69.00%	-3.40%	-4.40%
Return deposit containers	41.60%	58.60%	17.00%	36.90%	65.00%	28.10%	11.10%	28.00%	68.00%	40.00%	23.00%	35.70%	72.40%	36.70%	19.70%
Bring Bag	6.70%	13.60%	6.90%	20.50%	22.50%	2.00%	-4.90%	16.00%	24.00%	8.00%	1.10%	20.60%	24.10%	3.50%	-3.40%
Patronize repair shops	35.60%	31.70%	-3.90%	28.20%	15.00%	-13.20%	-9.30%	32.00%	24.00%	-8.00%	-4.10%	24.10%	13.80%	-10.30%	-6.40%
Recycle cans/bottles	83.30%	81.70%	-1.60%	89.70%	80.00%	-9.70%	-8.10%	84.00%	76.00%	-8.00%	-6.40%	89.60%	79.30%	-10.30%	-8.70%
West side	Didn’t see brochures (controls)			Saw Brochures				Saw Brochures & Recycling Message				Saw Brochures & Video
	Before	After	Change	Before	After	Change	Diff. from Control	Before	After	Change	Diff from Control	Before	After	Change	Diff from control
Buy Disposable Products	30.00%	42.60%	12.60%	32.70%	42.60%	9.90%	-2.70%	24.00%	57.70%	33.70%	21.10%	42.80%	40.90%	-1.90%	-14.50%
Buy Refills/ Concentrates	44.50%	45.40%	0.90%	41.50%	51.90%	10.40%	9.50%	30.80%	57.60%	26.80%	25.90%	52.40%	54.60%	2.20%	1.30%
Buy single-servings	19.40%	12.50%	-6.90%	18.50%	30.20%	11.70%	18.60%	11.50%	34.60%	23.10%	30.00%	22.70%	38.10%	15.40%	22.30%
Buy Recyclable Packaging	49.30%	38.90%	-10.40%	66.70%	29.60%	-37.10%	-26.70%	57.70%	26.90%	-30.80%	-20.40%	63.60%	40.90%	-22.70%	-12.30%
Avoid aerosols	59.10%	60.30%	1.20%	60.40%	59.30%	-1.10%	-2.30%	48.00%	65.40%	17.40%	16.20%	54.50%	59.10%	4.60%	3.40%
Return deposit containers	51.50%	54.70%	3.20%	46.20%	57.70%	11.50%	8.30%	34.60%	68.00%	33.40%	30.20%	47.60%	50.00%	2.40%	-0.80%
Bring Bag	10.90%	13.30%	2.40%	9.30%	9.50%	0.20%	-2.20%	3.80%	12.00%	8.20%	5.80%	18.10%	14.30%	-3.80%	-6.20%
Patronize repair shops	29.60%	29.40%	-0.20%	41.60%	29.80%	-11.80%	-11.60%	34.60%	24.00%	-10.60%	-10.40%	40.90%	19.10%	-21.80%	-21.60%
Recycle cans/bottles	90.40%	91.60%	1.20%	88.90%	84.90%	-4.00%	-5.20%	80.80%	84.60%	3.80%	2.60%	86.30%	81.80%	-4.50%	-5.70%

Survey Variables	Survey Questions

REQRECYC	Does the City require Manhattan residents and businesses to separate materials for recycling?
BOTTLJUG	Are plastic bottles and jugs picked up by the City for recycling?
PLASTBAG	Are plastic bags picked up by the City for recycling?
ALUMCANS	Are aluminum cans picked up by the City for recycling?
ALUMFOIL	Is aluminum foil picked up by the City for recycling?
TINCANS	Are tin cans picked up by the City for recycling?
HRDENVSH	Have you heard about environmental shopping before?

Where have you heard about recycling.... environmental shopping
MAILRECY	Mailings (recycling)
MAILSHOP	Mailings (environmental shopping)
TVRDRECY	TV or radio (recycling)
TVRDSHOP	TV or radio (environmental shopping)
SUBWRECY	Subway Ads or Billboards (recycling)
SUBWSHOP	Subway Ads or Billboards (environmental shopping)
VIDEOREC	Videos in store displays (recycling)
VIDEOSHP	Videos in store displays (environmental shopping)
POSTRREC	Posters or brochures in stores (recycling)
POSTRSHP	Posters or brochures in stores (environmental shopping)
BLDGRECY	Your building’s management (recycling)
BLDGSHOP	Your building’s management (environmental shopping)
FRNDRECY	Friends and neighbors (recycling)
FRNDSHOP	Friends and neighbors (environmental shopping)
NSPRECY	Newspapers and magazines (recycling)
NSPSHOP	Newspapers and magazines (environmental shopping)

Survey Variables		Survey Questions

TWOCENT		If you were offered a small incentive, say 2 cents, to bring your own bag to the supermarket for your groceries, would you bring you own bag?
FIVECENT		If the incentive were 5 cents, would you bring you own bag?
CHNGSTOR		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?

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)
BRANDNAM			Brand Name (rank)
COST			Economic Value or cost (rank)
CONVENCE			Product’s convenience (rank)
ENVIMPC			Environmental impact (rank)

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
BUY2MUCH	People in the US buy/consume too much
PRESVENV	Environmental shopping is important for preserving the natural environment
REDUCPKG	People help the environment by reducing the amount of packaging and products they buy
INDSOLVE	Individuals must take the most active role in solving any trash disposal problems
GOVSOLVE	Governments must take the most active role in solving any trash disposal problems
INFRING2	Mandatory recycling infringes on my rights (inverse)
TECHALO2	Technology alone will solve any trash problem (inverse)
PRFREPAI	I like to repair things rather than discard them
PRFDISP2	I prefer to buy disposable products (inverse)
NOTDURAB	Products are not made as durably as they were in the past
REFILLGD	Using refills or concentrates is good for the environment

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)
NATRESRC			I recycle to help conserve natural resources
LANDFILL			I recycle to help conserve landfill space
THELAW			I recycle because it’s the law
RIGHTHNG			I recycle because it seems like the right thing to do

Survey Variables	Survey Questions

How often do you actually do each of the following things? (Where 1 is never and 5 is always)
DISPROD2	Buy disposable products (inverse)
REFILLS	Buy refills or concentrates
SINGLSV2	Buy items in single-serving packages (inverse)
RECYCPKG	Select products in recyclable packaging
AEROSOLS	Avoid buying aerosols
DEPOSIT	Return beverage containers for deposit
BRINGBAG	Bring your own bag to the store
GOREPAIR	Patronize repair shops
RECYCANS	Recycle cans and bottles
RECYMAGS	Recycle magazines

USEDIAPR	Is there an infant in your household, who uses diapers?
If yes, how does your household deal with soiled diapers? Do you:
GARBAGE	Throw them in the garbage?
WASHHOME	Wash them at home or in your building?
WASHNEAR	Wash them at a nearby building?
DSERVICE	Have them picked up by a diaper service?
REUSBAGS	Have you used one of Gristede’s reusable canvas bags in the past month?
OFTNBAGS	If yes, how often have you brought one with you when you go shopping?

White

West

Table 4 -- Baseline Survey Results -- Knowledge

Table 5 -- Baseline Survey Results -- Source of Knowledge

RECYCLING

Table 6 -- Baseline Survey Results -- Attitudes

Follow-Up Survey Results

Table 8 Follow-Up Survey Results -- Knowledge

Yes

Table 9 Follow-up Survey Results -- Attitudes

Table 10 Follow-Up Survey -- Self-Reported Behaviors

Bag results

Disposable Grocery Bags given out by Gristede’s

Cloth Bags Sold

Table 12 East side bag sales

Week ending

Table 13 Baseline and Follow-Up Survey Bag Results

Yes

Diaper Results

Table 14 Baseline and Follow-Up Survey Diaper Results

Yes

If yes, how does your household deal with soiled diapers? Do you

Follow-Up Survey

Refills and Concentrates Results

Buy refills or concentrates

Buy refills or concentrates

Brochures Distributed

Table 17 Selected Cross-tabulations of Race vs. Attitude and Behavior

(For precise wording of questions, see questionnaires in Appendix Q)

Baseline Survey

Race Whites Blacks Asians Hispanic

Follow-up Survey

Table 18 Selected Cross-tabs of Hispanic Origin vs. Attitude and Behavior

Baseline Survey

Follow-up Survey

Table 19 Selected Cross-tabs of Education vs. Attitude and Behavior

Baseline Survey

Education Some H.S. HS Grad College Grad school

Table 20 Selected Cross-tabs of Gender vs. Attitude and Behavior

Baseline Survey

Follow-up Survey

Table 21 Selected Cross-tabs of Age vs. Attitude and Behavior

Age < 30 30 – 44 45 – 60 > 60

Baseline survey

Age < 30 30 – 44 45 - 60 > 60

Follow-up survey

Table 22 Importance of Mandatory Recycling Law in Motivating Attitudes / Behavior Amongst Demographic Groups: Means

(baseline survey)

Comparisons of Means between Baseline Store Shoppers

Differences Between Persons Exposed and Not Exposed to Educational Materials

Comparison of East- Vs. West-Side Store Data

Relationships between Shoppers’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior

Baseline questionnaire

Effect of the Educational Campaign on Purchases of Recyclable Packaging, Refills, Concentrates

Effect of the Educational Campaign on other Environmental Behaviors

Effect of the Campaign on Bags and Bag signage effort

Effect of the Campaign on the Diaper Service Effort

The Relative Effect of the Campaign on East- vs. West-side shoppers

The Effect of an Educational Campaign (Knowledge) on Attitudes and Behavioral Change

Effect of the Educational Campaign on Environmental / Recycling Knowledge

Effect of Educational Materials

Discussion

Impacts of Survey Administration on Campaign Results