For Presentation at the Air & Waste Management Association’s 90^th Annual Meeting & Exhibition, June 8-13, 1997, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

97-WP86.06

Do Environmental Shopping Educational Campaigns Work?

Marjorie J. Clarke

Center for Applied Studies of the Environment, City University of New York

Introduction

In order to promote greater understanding of the factors leading to the success of environmental shopping programs, USEPA Region II, funded a Solid Waste Research project in part, to determine to what extent consumers practice environmental shopping and for what reasons (e.g., level of awareness, attitude, type of motivation, previous behaviors, demographics, etc...). Another focus of the research has been to devise, test, and evaluate the success of two different environmental shopping educational programs in two retail supermarkets on the upper east and west sides of Manhattan, New York City. The analysis will also determine the extent of changes in consumer knowledge of and attitudes towards environmental issues after shoppers receive education, and document whether and to what extent consumers will change their behavior as a result of educational programs. The evaluation of program success is based on baseline and follow-up surveys from the same respondents in each store. Other objectives of the project have been to educate shoppers about the relationship between their purchasing actions and the environment and to develop more specific information on effective consumer education techniques, so that more effective in-store environmental education programs might be implemented.

Since previous reports on this project (1, 2, 3) provide more specifics on project design, this paper briefly describes these features, but gives more detail about the implementation of the environmental shopping campaign in the two test stores, and some survey results.

Project Schedule and Outline

The research program consists of three phases: study design, implementation, including survey distribution and in-store education, and analysis/writing. The project was laid out as follows:

Phase I -- Study Design

The study design began in September 1991 with review of other studies of conservation attitudes and behaviors and other environmental shopping programs and educational materials. The decision was made to focus the educational campaign on four aspects of environmental shopping: recyclable packaging, cloth bags, diaper service, and refills and concentrates. The statistical design was devised (including the grocery items chosen for monitoring), the educational materials were developed and printed, arrangements were made with purveyors of diaper service and cloth bags, and the baseline and follow-up survey instruments, were finalized. Two retail stores, frequented by shoppers of varied economic class, and located in congested Manhattan neighborhoods of similar racial and economic characteristics were chosen as test sites.

Phase II -- Implementation

In the data gathering phase, baseline surveys of shoppers’ environmental knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported behaviors were completed. The environmental shopping campaign began and the educational materials were placed in the stores and the setups maintained. Store personnel were recruited to assist in distribution of some of the diaper offers and brochures to customers. After two and a half months of education, the follow-up surveys were completed, and most of the educational materials were removed.

Phase III -- Analysis/Writing

The results of the survey data have been analyzed to elucidate findings and test hypotheses. These will be compared with the findings of research previously conducted in this area. The conclusions and recommendations are based on the significance of the findings. Initial results are presented in the Tables and Figures and are discussed below.

Environmental Shopping Educational Emphasis

The universe of objectives for environmental shopping educational programs is large, potentially including many products in a store. For example, since most packaging purchased in grocery stores ends up in the solid waste management system, and packaging and containers constitutes 31% of the nation's solid waste by weight, (4) the educational focus could be to encourage bulk packaging, concentrates, lightweighted packaging, recycled content packaging, recyclable packaging, packaging with few toxic constituents, "biodegradable packaging", reusable packaging, and/or to discourage individual-sized packaging, packaging containing toxic precursors, and overpackaging. Reducing purchases of disposable products would have an even greater effect on solid waste management than reducing packaging, since both the product and the package are diminished. Also, purchase of products and packaging using fewer toxic constituents reduces toxicity of the waste stream.

In this project four representative targets for environmental shopping education and monitoring have been chosen: reduced packaging (refills and concentrates), two reusable products (shopping bags/produce bags, and cloth diapers), and recyclable packaging. In order to make such diaper service available, the company which serves most of New York City (General Health Care Corporation or GHCC) agreed to participate in the project, supplying diaper service offers for distribution, and recording timing and location of new diaper service customers generated by the campaign. Likewise, since the stores did not carry reusable bags, an arrangement was made with the parent chain, Red Apple stores, to sell a cotton bag with the project's logo (the Earth in a shopping cart) during the campaign.

Design of the Educational Materials

To maximize the impact on harried New Yorkers, expert at unconsciously filtering out all but the most important stimuli necessary to enable them to finish their shopping expeditiously, it was decided that the educational devices would be many and varied, and placed in as many locations as possible throughout the stores. One purpose of the educational materials was to increase shoppers' awareness of the relationship between their actions and the environment, specifically, on the merits of their purchases, to motivate them to modify their attitudes and behaviors to be more environmentally friendly in their shopping habits. Another purpose included education about the City's recycling program.

The project brochures, the primary means of education, were thus designed to make consumers want to change their shopping behaviors because of the beneficial effects on the environment. Each of the brochures featured the project logo, and was done in a different color, cream, apple green, and goldenrod, to signal to shoppers that they were different brochures. The first to be distributed, an overall brochure, introduced the concept of environmental shopping, the three aspects of environmental shopping on which this project was focused -- recyclable packaging, reusable bags, and reusable diapers -- and their environmental advantages. The second brochure described some of the environmental impacts of depleting natural resources for disposables, such as grocery bags, and recommended ways shoppers could reduce the number of bags they take. The third brochure described the environmental and energy advantages of choosing recyclable packaging over that which cannot be recycled in New York City's curbside program. This brochure also suggested choosing refills, concentrates, and recycled packaging, bulk purchasing, and avoiding overly packaged products.

The educational materials for both stores consisted of these brochures developed especially for the project, color storefront posters with the project logo announcing the project, environmental shopping posters with a single slogan and logo (from the state of Minnesota), small hot-pink signs advertising the cotton bags, and some shelf cards borrowed from different sources. Another group of signs, of plastic-laminated eye-catching, green and yellow on a black background, were donated by the City Department of Sanitation to cajole shoppers into bringing their own bags to prevent waste. In the West Side store, in which a more extensive educational program was tested, three environmental shopping videos (two from Hillsborough County, Florida Cooperative Extension and one from Ulster County Resource Recovery Authority) were used. Further, on several occasions, volunteers were to staff a table and distribute literature from other states’ environmental shopping campaigns as well as our own brochures. This was done (and videos were shown) to increase the variety of educational methods and the likelihood that education would be imparted on the West Side, as a means of comparison to the East Side campaign.

The Educational Campaigns

The active educational phase ran from November 1, 1993 until January 17, 1994. During this phase all the educational materials developed for the campaign were placed in the stores. Since there was so much information to present, it was decided that the educational materials would be presented in a staggered fashion, to keep awareness and interest in the program at a higher level. The brochures were introduced over the first three weeks of the period, the posters and signs went up at the beginning, as did the diaper offer information. The video at the West Side store began showing on December 6. The volunteer tabling took place later in December at the West Side store.

An important factor, which may have affected the ability of shoppers to receive the educational messages, was the size and layout of the two stores. The East Side store is larger, with higher ceilings and wider aisles than the West Side store. But by comparison with a typical supermarket in the suburbs or elsewhere in the country, both stores are cramped. The daily receipt of boxes of inventory and the perpetual shelf-stocking process further reduced aisle width, and was most certainly a distraction to store customers. Unfortunately, the use of the large educational posters was not maximized, what with the shortage of wall space, and the difficulty of hanging posters from ceilings in these stores.

Another factor affecting receipt of the educational treatment was competition for the attention of shoppers from other distractions. Holiday promotions and decorations competed directly with our project for space on the walls and ceilings. Competing images and decorations for the Thanksgiving, Hanukkah, and Christmas holidays were present throughout both stores starting a few weeks after the beginning of the educational phase of the project. This probably had some impact on shoppers' ability to focus on and remember our messages. Special holiday sales and displays also competed for attention. Christmas music was also a factor, as is described below in discussion of the video education.

After discussion with the store managers, the project brochures were placed in magazine racks which happened to be empty at the time the materials were first set out, and in Plexiglas brochure holders affixed to the wall in a couple of rare cases. Also, the sturdy, but very compact, reusable cotton bags with the project's logo and a fold-in pouch were sold at the checkout counters at both stores as an alternative to disposable grocery bags.

It was expected that once the initial installations were made, there would not be much need for frequent maintenance visits. This turned out not to be the case. The West side manager was quite innovative, and by November 1 (the start of the campaign) had designed and put up two arrangements of posters, signs, and bags, on the walls on either side of the escalators/stairs. At the East side store the Gristede's Environmental Shopping signs were placed back to back on the outside window near the store's entrance, in the deli and meat/fish counter areas, the bakery, and the manager's courtesy counter.

Since magazine vendors paid for the racks and for the right to place their magazines there, it is suspected that the vendors may have removed our brochures when they restocked their magazines. In any event, keeping enough brochures displayed at all times required constant attention, and the stores were visited once every three days, on average, to make sure that each of the brochures was available at each checkout lane. By the end of the campaign, 1800 overall summary brochures had been distributed at the East Side store and 2600 had been given out at the West Side store.

The Environmental Shopper bags were installed immediately behind and/or above the cash registers. Originally, the store managers suggested using "shelf extenders", or short metal rods which are able to swivel, on which to display the bags. But, these were not sturdy and did not work out, since the installations stayed in place for only a matter of days. Better arrangements were innovated, but required periodic monitoring. The NYCDOS plastic “Bring Your Own Bag” signs were placed and maintained on the side of every cash register in both stores. By mid-February, 187 bags had been sold at the West side store, averaging sales of an estimated 13 per week during the six weeks before the price was lowered from $4 to $2.50 and 10 per week during the twelve weeks that followed. At the East Side 150 had been sold, averaging sales of an estimated 10 per week during the six weeks before the price change and 8 per week during the twelve weeks that followed. It is probable that the sales rate dropped after the price lowered coincidentally with the saturation of the potential market for these bags.

During December and January the environmental shopping videos played continuously on two TVs at the West Side's checkout area. Two different videos were shown during the period, each for two to three weeks. The installation of the video equipment was plagued by a 6-day delay, and when it was completed, one of the two TV brackets started to come off the wall (with a TV on it!). This took another week to remediate. The operation of the video setup was smooth insofar as the functioning of the equipment was concerned. However, it was a constant challenge to find a volume level that would attract viewers from the checkout line, but not drive the cashiers and managers to distraction. During the first month, each time an unannounced visit was made to the store, the volume on the TV's had been turned down to a barely audible level. On a more positive note, while in the line buying groceries at the store one night a few days after the initial video installation (before the sound was turned down), a customer was heard to ask the cashier whether she knew her 5 R's, a theme in the video. Then the customer rattled off three of them and another person in the line then rattled off a fourth. A couple of days later, a cashier mentioned that a customer purchased a bag after mentioning the video.

The tabling effort at the West Side store took place for a couple of hours on each of five occasions. It is estimated that at least 500 brochures or sets of brochures were handed out as a result of this effort. The diaper offers were to be handed out by the cashiers to those who bought disposable diapers. For the first few weeks of the educational campaign cardboard holders for diaper offers were affixed to shelves stocked with disposable diapers. During the educational campaign, 300 to 350 were distributed at each store, though there was evidence that opportunities for distribution were missed. As of two months after the educational phase was completed, no one from the stores had enrolled in diaper service. The follow-up questionnaire included a question designed to find out if respondents with infants had received a diaper offer at the store. This question was designed to help explain to what extent the response rate 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 and 1 of 17 receiving the education on the West Side. Thus 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.

Experimental Design

To evaluate the project's success, a number of statistical experiments are underway. The data were analyzed to determine if different demographic groups (race, age, educational level, income level, and gender) have different baseline levels of environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. The follow-up survey’s questions on respondents’ recollection of the educational treatment turned out to be very important in evaluating effectiveness of the intervention. Data from the baseline surveys have been compared with data from the follow-up surveys at each store to measure and compare the effectiveness of each educational program (east and west sides) in changing attitudes, environmental knowledge, and other attributes and self-reported behaviors of the survey respondents. The answers to groups of knowledge, attitude and behavior questions have been analyzed to see if there is a relationship between a person’s knowledge and his/her attitudes and his/her self-reported behaviors as regards recycling and environmental shopping. In addition, these data are being compared with other studies to determine the answers to questions like, where do consumers get their information on recycling and environmental shopping from, and what are the characteristics of recyclers and environmental shoppers. Some of these results are presented later in this paper. A full report will be issued within the coming year.

In addition to the surveys, the plan was to gather actual purchasing data from volunteers who filled out the surveys. Diary volunteers were asked to keep track of their purchases of selected items for 18 weeks, before, during, and after the education. The target items chosen, milk, juice, detergent, softener, nuts, pudding, soup, and coffee, were each available in different kinds of packaging. The diary volunteers were asked to fill in or check off the size, whether in refill or concentrate form, and what type of packaging from a list (i.e., glass, tin can, plastic bottle, aluminum, paper carton, juice box, cardboard box, plastic bag, and other (specify)). There were a number of other questions regarding the number of product and grocery bags taken or purchased, and the number of disposable diapers purchased. These results are regrettably not usable, since only seven of the initial 50 volunteers maintained the diaries.

In an attempt to verify the survey and diary results with objective data, the project was designed to collect storewide inventory information before, during, and after the educational campaigns. The target of the storewide data collection was the same list of product types as the diary volunteers were collecting. As there were no scanners at the checkout counters in these stores, no retail sales data were available. Hard copy invoices from numerous distributors were available, but extraction of data proved extremely time-consuming for a number of reasons. Data on target product types were mixed with thousands of others of no interest to this study. The invoices were replete with abbreviations, invoices for the two stores of interest were mixed with invoices from scores of other stores, invoices were located in boxes stacked seven high, and some could not be found. Six thousand data records for the time period prior to the educational campaign were recorded (an estimated one-third of the total) when it was learned that the rest of the needed invoices had been made unobtainable due to space constraints by the store chain. Thus, it was not possible to conduct a comparison of recycling and environmental shopping behaviors as reported in the surveys with actual purchasing behavior as shown in the invoices.

Survey Data Gathering -- General Points

An initial sample size of 400 survey respondents per store was chosen to provide 95% confidence that the study would produce significant results. To get a statistically valid sample of survey respondents, survey collection volunteers asked every person entering the two test stores to complete the three-page baseline survey. The average completion rate was seven questionnaires per hour. The data collection took place in July and August 1993. The follow-up surveys, of about seven minutes in duration, were administered by phone to as many as possible of those who filled out a baseline survey and left a name and phone number (roughly 50%), in the weeks following the educational program (late January to March 1994). (It had originally been intended to do both the initial and follow-up surveys by phone, but the store chain did not permit it.) About 250 follow-up surveys were completed of the initial 800 respondents; in the months since the baseline survey was administered, many had moved and some were no longer interested. Others just could not be reached after several attempts by phone.

Survey Design

Most of the questions in both the baseline and follow-up surveys were the same. The two surveys differed in that the baseline survey asked demographic questions, where instead, the follow-up survey asked respondents to recall specific aspects of the educational programs. Several of the other questions on both surveys elicit sources of environmental knowledge (e.g., through which channels consumers learn about environmental products and activities), the level of awareness of environmental issues, the local recycling program, and "environmentally friendly" products (including target items) and awareness towards environmental behaviors in general. Another group of questions, some of which could not be repeated in the second survey due to space/time constraints, tested attitudes towards participating in the desired behaviors and environmental satisfactions (e.g. to what degree respondents like conservationist behaviors such as frugality, self-sufficiency, and participation in community-wide programs). Other questions tested their intentions to participate in the desired behaviors (e.g. motivational factors). The last group in both surveys asks consumers to self-report their purchase of "environmentally friendly" products and target items, and participation in specific recycling and reuse activities).

Survey Data Analysis

Respondents’ Recollections of the Educational Campaign

Delineated in the Tables and Figures are the survey data analyses. Table 1 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. This finding guided the design of some of the data analyses, as described below.

Before vs. After Educational Treatment

One of the hypotheses tested was that each educational program (East and West Side stores) would result in a statistically significant change in knowledge, attitudes, and/or self-reported shopping behavior in matched pairs (i.e., the same survey respondents queried before vs. after the educational treatment). It was expected that those exposed to the educational treatment given at the West Side would behave more environmentally than those given the basic educational treatment for the East Side. However, it was determined that not all shoppers received the educational treatment, and those who did notice one or more aspect of the education varied in the 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. Thus, it would be expected that the answers by those who did not receive education would not change much before vs. after, whereas answers by those receiving education would be expected to change. By examining these groups separately, the effectiveness of the educational devices (e.g., the brochures, videos, and posters) can be differentiated from the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the campaign's promotional techniques or methods of distribution to shoppers. In fact, the cohorts in each store that did not see the brochures are used as control groups against which the cohorts that did see the brochures and other educational treatments are compared.

Table 2 shows the changes in self-reported behavior that occurred at the East Side store after the educational campaign. Columns in the tables not only show the “before” and “after” percentages, but also the difference or net change between before and after, and also the difference between each educational treatment group’s net change and the control group’s net change. Some of the results are puzzling. On the one hand, it appears that the more they saw and remembered the messages of the campaign, the more they bought disposable products, for example. Those who saw or recalled the message also recycled fewer cans and bottles. On the other hand, the respondents who had seen and recalled the message reported bringing recyclable cans and bottles back to the store more frequently. One conclusion one might draw from this is that economic considerations are driving behavior, since bringing back cans and bottles for deposit is more remunerative than giving them to the City for free. That not all the baseline vs. follow-up data trend in the same direction, indicates that the different survey methods (in-person baseline vs. telephone follow-up) could not be at fault. A quick examination of these tables shows that, in most cases the behaviors became less environmental after the educational treatments, but as compared with the control group, the changes (before vs. after) for those seeing or remembering the message were somewhat less. This indicates that there might be factors affecting the respondents that were going on outside the control of this experiment between the times the respondents were queried in the summer of 1993 and the winter of 1994 (e.g., the “Republican revolution”).

The results are not all discouraging. Tables 3 and 4 show the changes in the amount and source of knowledge that occurred at the East Side store after the educational treatment, and are set up in the same way as Table 2. More respondents recalled getting environmental and recycling knowledge after vs. before the education. Comparisons before and after intervention on subgroups of respondents receiving varying amounts of the educational treatments show that, at least for knowledge of the City’s recycling program and self-reported behaviors to bring bags and buy refills and concentrates, more improved environmental shopping behavior occurred after exposure to more (vs. fewer) features of the campaign. These results are shown in Tables 5 through 8. These results also show that the videos in the West Side store did not have much impact for the most part. This was not surprising considering that the video was frequently not audible, as discussed above. Table 1 shows that less than 40% noticed the videos either prompted or unprompted.

Other Research on the Impact of Environmental Shopping Campaigns on Purchasing

Cornell University Waste Management Institute conducted a consumer education research project to determine how environmental educational strategies influence purchasing behavior in the supermarket. Five different consumer education strategies were developed: countywide education, in-store shopper education, direct mailings, educational shoppers’ tours of supermarkets, and financial incentives (i.e., coupons), and were applied over a nine-month period. Three groups of shoppers received different educational approaches (some more, some less) and a fourth group was the control. Fourteen product categories were identified as having more waste generating and less waste generating product choices (similar to the approach taken here to identify target products for diaries and storewide purchases). Using supermarket scan data and shopper identification numbers, the research tracked the purchases of shoppers for groups receiving different education treatments for nine months. Statistical tests were applied to the purchase data to assess patterns of change between the groups by treatment period.

The expectation had been that successive waves of waste reduction education would lead to growing reductions in the amount of waste associated with shoppers’ purchases. Analysis of the data revealed few meaningful statistical differences between study groups or changes in behavior over time. (In essence the same findings as ours.) The Cornell study concluded, “broadly focused consumer education about waste reduction is not effective in the short term at changing waste-related purchase behavior”.(5) But it may help create awareness about environmental shopping issues. The study concluded that the answer to waste reduction might require action on the parts of manufacturers and retailers, government intervention, and better-informed consumers.

Relationships between Shoppers’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior

Path analysis is a statistical technique that is useful in structuring and quantifying models involving causative factors that interact to produce effects. 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. Both path analyses used the “before intervention” dataset for the East Side store as this was the largest of the four datasets. 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 composites of all 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 9 – 11 below:

The first path analysis utilized the composite variables, KNOWLEDG, ATTITUDE, and BEHAVIOR and investigated the simple model of knowledge impacting directly on attitudes and on behavior, and attitudes, in turn impacting directly on behavior (see Figure 1). The results in Figure 1 show that the total (in this case, direct) impact of ATTITUDE on BEHAVIOR (.623) is greater than the total (direct plus indirect via attitudes) impacts of KNOWLEDG on BEHAVIOR combined (.507) (or (.472 x .623) + .213). So KNOWLEDG, by itself, has little direct impact on BEHAVIOR (.213) and moderate impact on ATTITUDE (.472). Further, the residuals (unexplained sources of impact) for behavior and attitude are both quite large; 68% of the impact on behavior is caused by something other than knowledg and attitude, and 97% of the effect on attitude is caused by factors external to the model.

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 recycles packaging, recycles cans, recycles 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, and environmental shopping behavior modification involves understanding of more concepts (reduction in consumption of packaging and nondurable products, replaced by consumption of durable products – all of which can be accomplished in a number of different ways).

It would be expected that increases in environmental knowledge might translate to increases in environmental attitudes and behaviors. But this was not the case in the composites path analysis above nor in the factor path analysis. There was a strong influence of attitude on behavior (as with the composites path analysis), but the influence of knowledge on attitude was considerably less than with the previous analysis.

Figure 2 shows that most of the total impact on RECYCBEH comes from 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 of environmental shopping knowledge, at .21 (the same as the direct impact of the composite variables KNOWLEDG on BEHAVIOR in the path analysis above). Oddly enough, it appears that RECYCKNO, or recycling knowledge, has a slightly negative contribution to the model at -.035, and so is not shown, but RECYCKNO did have a small positive impact on environmental shopping knowledge. Again, there are factors affecting recycling behavior which are unaccounted for in this model, amounting to 59%, similar to the analysis above. Thus, these two path analyses show that knowledge has little direct or indirect effect on behavior. Attitudes have a considerably greater effect on behavior, but there are still other factors unaccounted for in these models. This finding agrees with the “before”/”after” findings mentioned above.

Other Research on the Impact of Knowledge on Behavior

King County, Washington (Seattle) investigated the relationship between information and behavioral change by conducting a literature review, and found there are barriers besides information to overcome in achieving changes in behavior (6). 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 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: 1) lifestyle changes require role models; 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).

Several researchers 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. 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.

Conclusions

It is safe to say that conducting environmental shopping education in New York City grocery stores presents a challenge due to the cramped nature of the stores and the harried quality of New York City shoppers and New York City supermarket managers. Our experience has suggested that even minor differences in how an educational brochure or video is displayed in the store can be extremely important to the results. One of the most important operational findings is that the degree of support of the chain and individual store management and personnel can seriously affect the implementation of an environmental shopping campaign, and therefore, its results. The study seems to indicate that due to these constraints, attempting to change the behavior of shoppers while they are shopping may be futile, and that other methods of behavioral change (e.g., TV-based, motivational ads) might have a greater rate of success. Furthermore, since changing shoppers’ behavior depends only partly on how well they are educated about environmental purchasing, this study argues that other methodologies besides education (e.g., institution of requirements on manufacturers to use recyclable packaging, levying advance disposal fees on disposable products, or tax credits on environmentally preferably products such as those with little packaging or great durability) should be pursued as well.

References

1. Clarke, Marjorie J., "Consumer Response to Environmental Shopping Campaigns: Design of a New York City Case Study", presented and published in the Proceedings of The Ninth International Conference on Solid Waste Management, Philadelphia, PA, November 14-17, 1993

2. Clarke, Marjorie J., "Implementation of Environmental Shopping Educational Campaigns: Preliminary Results of a New York City Case Study", presented at and published in the Proceedings of the 87th Annual Meeting and Exhibition, Air and Waste Management Association, Cincinnati, Ohio, June 19-24, 1994

3. Clarke, Marjorie J., “Survey Results of a Store-Based Environmental Shopping Campaign in New York City”, presented at and published in the Proceedings of the 88th Annual Exhibition and Meeting, Air and Waste Management Association, San Antonio, TX, June 18-23, 1995.

4. Franklin Associates, Ltd., “Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States – 1995 Update”, for USEPA Report No. EPA 530-R-96-001, March 1996.

5. Harrison, Ellen Z. “Waste Reduction through Consumer Education, Final Report”, Cornell Waste Management Institute, Cornell University for New York State Energy Research and Development Authority”, NYSERDA Report 96-8, May 1996.

6. 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.

Table 1. Recollection of Education (Follow-up survey only)

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	n/a	18.9%	n/a	17.4%
Volunteers distributing literature	n/a	12.9%	n/a	23.5%

Table 2. Changes in Behavior After Educational Treatments

Percentages refer to those who always or often engage in the behavior (East Side only)

Group Saw Brochures and

Behavior Control Group Group that Saw Brochures Recalled Resource Message


	before	after	net chg	before	after	net chg	Vs. contrl	before	after	net chg	Vs. contrl
Buy Disp. Products	20.6%	5.5%	-15.1%	43.2%	55.0%	11.8%	26.9%	48.1%	62.0%	13.9%	29.0%
Buy Refills/ Concentr	43.3%	49.1%	5.8%	38.5%	62.5%	24.0%	18.2%	31.0%	62.1%	31.1%	25.3%
Buy single -servings	20.0%	27.1%	7.1%	20.5%	32.5%	12.0%	4.9%	20.6%	37.9%	17.3%	10.2%
Buy Recycl. Packaging	56.7%	35.0%	-21.7%	60.6%	40.0%	-20.6%	1.1%	55.1%	37.9%	-17.2%	4.5%
Avoid Aerosols	66.7%	67.7%	1.0%	76.9%	70.0%	-6.9%	-7.9%	72.4%	69.0%	-3.4%	-4.4%
Return Deposit cont	41.6%	57.6%	16.0%	36.9%	65.0%	28.1%	12.1%	35.7%	72.4%	36.7%	20.7%
Bring Bag	6.7%	13.6%	6.9%	20.5%	22.5%	2.0%	-4.9%	20.6%	24.1%	3.5%	-3.4%
Patronize repair shops	35.6%	31.7%	-3.9%	28.2%	15.0%	-13.2%	-9.3%	24.1%	13.8%	-10.3%	-6.4%
Recycle cans/bottles	83.3%	81.7%	-1.6%	89.7%	80.0%	-9.7%	-8.1%	89.6%	79.3%	-10.3%	-8.7%

Table 3. Changes in Source of Knowledge After Educational Treatment

Percentages refer to those answering “yes” (East Side only)

Source of

Knowledge Control Group that Group Saw Brochures &

- Behavior Group Saw Brochures Recall Resource message

before after net chg before after net chg Vs. ctrl before after net chg Vs.ctrl

Mailings - Recycling	72.4%	21.3%	-51.1%	67.5%	37.5%	-30.%	21.1%	58.6%	48.3%	-10.3%	40.8%
Mailings - Envshop	16.7%	4.9%	-11.8%	5.6%	2.5%	-3.1%	8.7%	7.4%	3.4%	-4.0%	7.8%
TV - Recycling	82.5%	49.2%	-33.3%	75.0%	60.0%	-15.0%	18.3%	69.0%	65.5%	-3.5%	29.8%
TV - Envshop	32.1%	9.8%	-22.3%	25.0%	7.5%	-17.5%	4.8%	18.5%	10.3%	-8.2%	14.1%
Subway - Recycling	81.8%	29.5%	-52.3%	67.5%	27.5%	-40.%	12.3%	69.0%	17.2%	-51.8%	0.5%
Subway - Envshop	5.8%	3.3%	-2.5%	2.9%	7.5%	4.6%	7.1%	3.8%	6.9%	3.1%	5.6%
Storvideos - Recycling	28.3%	0.0%	-28.3%	5.4%	2.5%	-2.9%	25.4%	7.4%	3.4%	-4.0%	24.3%
Storvideos - Envshop	0.0%	4.9%	4.9%	0.0%	2.5%	2.5%	-2.4%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	-4.9%
Post/Broch- Recycling	50.9%	18.0%	-32.9%	39.5%	30.0%	-9.5%	23.4%	37.0%	27.6%	-9.4%	23.5%
Post/Broch- Envshop	15.4%	18.0%	2.6%	8.6%	10.0%	1.4%	-1.2%	3.8%	10.3%	6.5%	3.9%
Bldg Mgmt – Recyclng	79.3%	29.5%	-49.8%	83.8%	30.0%	-53.8%	-4.0%	88.9%	27.6%	-61.3%	-11.5%
Bldg Mgmt - Envshop	5.7%	0.0%	-5.7%	2.9%	10.0%	7.1%	12.8%	3.8%	6.9%	3.1%	8.80%
Friends - Recycling	67.9%	24.6%	-43.3%	81.6%	35.0%	-46.6%	-3.3%	82.1%	34.5%	-47.6%	-4.30%
Friends - Envshop	35.8%	9.8%	-26.0%	37.8%	20.0%	-17.8%	8.2%	37.1%	20.7%	-16.4%	9.60%
Nsp/Mag - Recycling	86.2%	62.3%	-23.9%	79.5%	65.0%	-14.5%	9.4%	79.3%	69.0%	-10.3%	13.60%
Nsp/Mag - Envshop	43.6%	21.3%	-22.3%	19.4%	22.5%	3.1%	25.4%	11.5%	24.1%	12.6%	34.90%

Table 4. Changes in Knowledge After Educational Treatment

Group Which Group Saw Brochures Group saw brochures

Control Group Saw Brochures & Recall Resource Message & Recall Recycle Message

before after chng before after chng Vs ctrl before after chng Vs.ctrl before after chng Vs.ctrl

Govt. Require

Recycling?

75.4%

80.0%

4.6%

75.%

84.6%

9.6%

5.0%

79.3%

82.1%

2.8%

-1.8%

76.%

83.3%

7.3%

2.70%

Heard of Env. Shopg Before?

67.2%

58.9%

-8.3%

59.%

62.2%

3.2%

11.5%

57.1%

59.3%

2.2%

10.5%

52.%

54.2%

2.2%

10.5%

Table 5. Level of Educational Treatment vs. Self-Reported Recycling Knowledge.

Does the Government Require Manhattan Residents to Separate Recyclables?

(Figures represent those answering yes.)

Educational Treatments	EAST SIDE		WEST SIDE
Those who:	Before	After	Before	After
Saw Brochures	75.0%	84.6%	81.5%	85.2%
Saw Brochures and Remembered Recycling Message in Brochures	76.0%	83.3%	80.8%	76.9%
Saw Brochures and Video	no video	no video	81.8%	95.5%

Table 6. Level of Educational Treatment vs. Self-Reported Environmental Shopping Behavior.

How Often Do You Buy Refills / Concentrates? (Always or often)

EDUCATIONAL TREATMENTS	EAST SIDE		WEST SIDE
Those Who:	Before	After	Before	After
Saw Brochures	38.5%	62.5%	41.5%	51.9%
Saw Brochures and Remembered Recycling Message in Brochures	48.0%	60.0%	30.8%	57.6%
Saw Brochures and Video			52.4%	54.6%

Table 7. Level of Educational Treatment vs. Self-Reported Environmental Shopping Behavior.

How Often Do You Bring a Reusable Bag With You?

(Figures represent those who always or often bring a bag.)

Educational Treatments	EAST SIDE		WEST SIDE
Those who:	Before	After	Before	After
Saw Brochures	20.5%	22.5%	9.3%	9.5%
Saw Bring Back Your Bag Signs	17.0%	25.6%	9.0%	10.5%
Saw Brochures and Signs	18.2%	26.1%	8.0%	12.0%
Saw Brochures and Remembered Recycling Message in Brochures	16.0%	24.0%	3.8%	12.0%
Saw Brochures and Video			18.0	14.3%

Table 8. Level of Educational Treatment vs. Self-Reported Environmental Shopping Behavior.

How often do you Return Deposit Containers? (Always or often)

EDUCATIONAL TREATMENTS	EAST SIDE		WEST SIDE
Those Who:	Before	After	Before	After
Saw Brochures	36.9%	65.0%	46.2%	57.7%
Saw Brochures and Remembered Recycling Message in Brochures	28.0%	68.0%	34.6%	68.0%
Saw Brochures and Remembered Reuse or Resources Messages	35.7%	72.4%	NA	NA
Saw Brochures and Video			47.6%	50.0%

Table 9. Survey Variables Comprising Composite Variable: KNOWLEDG

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)

Table 10. Survey Variables Comprising Composite Variable: ATTITUDE

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)

Table 10 continued

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

Table 11. Survey Variables Comprising Composite Variable: BEHAVIOR

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?

Figure 1. Path Analysis for Composite Knowledge, Attitude, and Behavior Variables

Figure 2. Path Analysis for Factor Knowledge, Attitude, and Behavior Variables

For Presentation at the Air & Waste Management Association’s 90th Annual Meeting & Exhibition, June 8-13, 1997, Toronto, Ontario, Canada