Chapter 2
Conceptual Design and Literature Review
This chapter describes how the objectives, as outlined in Chapter 1, were molded into a research and educational program designed to gather data and test hypotheses. This chapter discusses the hypotheses to be tested in this study, and why they were chosen, based on a review of the literature of other research in this area. Also evaluated are the possible educational foci of the research and aspects of the educational materials and campaign that will need to be designed.
Consumer Behavior and Advertising
Though the average citizen responds positively to environmental polls and questionnaires, there is little hard data on consumer willingness to buy “green” [1], in supermarkets in urban areas. Many factors influence peoples’ purchases, and these influences are modified over time in the natural course of events (e.g., as a result of changes in product and packaging design and availability, and shifts in the consumer’s economic status, family size, and lifestyle).
People can also be influenced to modify their purchasing habits, as illustrated by the success of the advertising industry over the last fifty years. After World War II there was a period of peace and prosperity, where disposable incomes rose for the first time since the 1920s, which, coupled with the advent of television and wider use of advertising on radio and in the print media in the late 1940s and 1950s, engendered today’s disposable society. It wasn’t until the 1970s that the environmental impacts of over-consumption began to be understood by researchers, and these are still not widely known in society as a whole. In the meantime, the expenditure of resources on advertising has continued to grow, exceeding four billion dollars annually on advertising solely for food products since 1995.[2]
Since over-consumption is driven, in large measure, by the actions of consumers, one approach to reversing this trend is counter-advertising, or re-education of the general public to explain the environmental ramifications of over-consumption and provide alternative ways to shop to reduce waste. In recognition of this, environmental education has been used in recent years by governments, environmental groups and others as a serious tool by which to influence people and businesses to institute new, or modify existing environmental behaviors, pertaining to everything from recycling and littering to energy and water conservation.
Starting in the late 1980s, some supermarkets were used as venues for educating shoppers on environmentally preferable alternatives. But most environmental shopping campaigns that had been tried by the start of this research program in 1991 either did not involve post-campaign evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the educational materials in changing shopping behaviors, or did not collect objective data by which to make such an evaluation. Since measurement of the effectiveness of an environmental shopping campaign is essential to improving its success in changing behaviors and in its replication elsewhere, this investigation measures the effectiveness of an environmental education campaign carefully designed to effect changes in shoppers’ purchasing behaviors.
The research hypothesis of this investigation is that New York City Shoppers will change their shopping habits and become more environmentally friendly shoppers if given motivational information in a supermarket setting.
In order to test the research hypothesis, a small number of retail supermarkets in heavily urbanized New York City were to serve as locations for providing education to shoppers, using specially designed educational materials, and for testing the effectiveness of these and other approaches in changing purchasing practices. If possible, more than one level of educational campaign would be evaluated using the different stores, to see which might be more effective in producing results. Since there are many aspects of environmental purchasing that could be studied, it was decided to limit the number of educational foci so as to increase the likelihood that shoppers would remember, and implement desired behaviors, so that the results could be more clearly attributable to the education. Measurement of changes in consumers’ purchasing patterns as a result of the educational program was important, and an effort would be made to obtain this data using at least two methods.
Aspects of the educational campaign and its evaluation that needed to be answered as the campaign and the evaluation instruments were in the initial design phase included the following:
1. On what environmental messages should the educational campaign focus? There are many possible foci, including purchase of “green products” made with recycled content packaging and/or less toxic constituents, products packaged in less packaging (buying in bulk, avoiding overly packaged products), products in recyclable packaging, and reusable products (that substitute for disposables). Some of these concepts are easier to explain to shoppers than others (e.g., recyclability is easier for the public to grasp than toxics and recycled content). The number of educational foci is important as well as the choice of which to employ, since the more education the project tries to impart, the less effective it might become, due to the saturation point of the consumers. A literature survey of environmental shopping campaigns was conducted to inform the process of designing the messages and vehicles for delivering them.
2. Which kinds of educational devices (e.g., brochures, videos, signs, etc.) should be employed, and how should these best be developed?
3. How long should the educational campaign last? Over what period of time should the measurement tools be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the campaign? It made sense to survey the literature of similar types of campaigns to see how long those were conducted and to what degree the duration affected the results. Other important factors that had to be considered were EPA’s deadline for project completion and the amount of financial support available to fund a longer program.
4. During what time of year should the campaign take place? In order that the population of shoppers exposed to the education campaign was as close to normal as possible, and consistent throughout the campaign, it was decided that summertime should be avoided, since vacations disrupt the usual shopping patterns. EPA’s deadline for project completion was a factor.
5. What are the characteristics of a successful environmental shopping educational program in a retail supermarket in the unique environment of New York City?
6. Should there be more than one stage of educational program at each venue (i.e., an “active” phase where all the educational devices are deployed followed by a “passive” phase where monitoring of shoppers’ behavior continues)? If so, how passive should the passive educational phase be? In order to be distinguishable from the active phase the educational materials used must be substantially different from and have a much smaller effect than those used in the active phase. The passive phase might involve no educational stimuli at all, or just a few brochures, to see how well the original education held.
7. In how many stores should the educational campaign be tested (i.e., how many educational programs should there be)? The larger the combination of educational elements, the greater the amount of information generated about the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful campaigns. By this token, two stores would generate a limited amount of information, but on the other hand, the addition of each new store would require considerable effort in data collection and analysis. There was also a trade-off between the number of stores and number of ways to measure the campaigns’ impact, since expansion of each required a greater investment of time.
8. In what ways should the active educational programs in the stores differ from each other? Assuming that at least two educational campaigns would be designed and implemented, the differences could be: which educational instruments would be used, and when during the campaign they would be deployed. Factors influencing this decision were findings from the literature survey and the number of stores selected.
9. How many types, and which methods, of data collection and analysis should be used to evaluate the success of each educational campaign, and what types of information should be sought?
10. What types of information should be gathered to evaluate the success of the campaign? The research questions above provide the main guidance in this regard. A literature survey was also employed to provide others’ viewpoints.
11. To what extent do changes in environmental knowledge and attitudes translate to changes in environmental purchasing?
12. If a change is detected in environmental shopping behaviors, what are the reasons (e.g., level of previous environmental knowledge, previous environmental attitudes, type of motivation, demographics, and degree of awareness of the educational campaign)?
More detail on the decision-making process and the literature surveys entailed in answering these research questions is provided in this chapter and Chapter 3.
The universe of target products on which to focus the environmental shopping educational programs is large, potentially including many thousands of products in a store. For example, since packaging ends up in the solid waste management system, and, as of 1993, supermarket packaging constituted 12% of the nation's solid waste by weight[3], one 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. Even though the contents contained in most packaging (i.e. the products themselves) are consumed in such a way that the resulting residue is discharged to a municipality's wastewater treatment system rather than the solid waste management system, changes in purchasing behavior towards the following two choices of product categories can have considerable effects on the environmental impacts resulting from solid waste management: disposable products vs. reusable products, and toxic products vs. less toxic products.
Reducing purchases of disposable products would have an even greater effect on solid waste management than reducing over-packaging alone, since the packaging as well as the packages' contents for disposables are eliminated.
With this many potential subjects on which an environmental shopping program can be focused, it made sense to study only a subset at one time. To try to do otherwise would befuddle the shoppers and bankrupt the budget. By what means can the list be narrowed to a manageable number of target consumer items? One of the main criteria for determining the products and/or packaging types on which to focus the educational programs should be the relative environmental benefit[4] to be gained by customers making the choices they are being educated to make.
One methodology with which to compare the overall environmental impact of a particular product or packaging versus another, lifecycle assessment (LCA), has been under development by the Society of Toxicology and Chemistry since a ground-breaking workshop in 1990 [5]. The report produced by the participants of this workshop details the environmental, social, natural resources and other cradle-to-grave releases, costs, and impacts to be included in producing lifecycle inventories, and assessments of products, processes, and activities, and how such a study is structured. Though this methodology is not yet completed, it is nonetheless instructive to review the results of one of the first LCA’s, on packaging, by the Tellus Institute.[6]
This study indicates that the environmental impacts of packaging production (i.e., mining or extraction, refining, manufacture, transportation, and marketing) are several times greater than the environmental impacts of managing packaging as solid waste. The environmental impacts and economic costs of production are lessened considerably when recycling is employed instead of repeated production of non-recycled virgin product, as is the case with disposable and non-recycled products and packaging. Since, in recycling, the same materials are used perhaps twenty or thirty times (the number varies depending on the material), the need for and environmental production costs associated with extraction, refinement and transportation of materials is reduced. Another reason that the environmental costs of production are reduced by recycling, is that the impacts from secondary production (using recycled materials) are significantly smaller than the impacts from virgin production.[7]
As beneficial as recycling is to reducing the environmental and economic costs of production, these costs are reduced further, or avoided entirely, when waste prevention measures, such as source reduction, or reuse of products and packaging are employed. For instance, when comparing the environmental production costs of the reusable sponge vs. the environmental production costs of disposable paper towels, it is clear that some environmental costs are expended when the sponge is made, but there is no secondary production involved in making the sponge fit for subsequent usage, since the sponge need only be rinsed to be used again. By contrast, recycling has secondary production costs and environmental impacts every time the recycling loop is traversed. As with recycling, the environmental costs of production of the product (in this case, the sponge) are expended only once, as compared with the repeated costs of producing disposable paper towels. The reductions in environmental and economic costs of production likewise apply when source reduction is applied to packaging. For example, when a package is lightweighted or if the product is sold in bulk or concentrated form, there is a lower ratio of package to product. Were shoppers to choose to buy more products packaged in bulk, in concentrate or that are less heavily packaged, ultimately less packaging is created, and the environmental costs of production of the foregone packaging are eliminated.
Environmental impacts and economic costs associated with management of discarded packaging and products follow the same patterns as the environmental costs of production outlined. Since source reduction measures require no collection, processing, or disposal, both the economic and environmental costs of waste management are eliminated when source reduction measures are used. New York City, as part of its initial Solid Waste Management Plan, estimated in 1992 that a group of programs, which together prevent 7% of the waste stream, can succeed in avoiding the expenditure of about $90 million dollars annually, and $700-800 million cumulatively over an 18-year period in a city the size of New York.[8] Recycling programs are not nearly as cost-effective as waste prevention measures. When products and packaging are recycled, solid waste management impacts and costs are reduced but not entirely eliminated, due to the impacts associated with collection, processing, and marketing of the recyclables and management of recycling residues.
The production- and solid waste management-related environmental impacts of waste prevention are less than those for recycling; and prevention and recycling impacts are less than those for disposal. These relationships form the basis for deciding which products and/or packaging should be the targets for an environmental shopping educational program. The farther up a specific target item is on the solid waste management hierarchy, the greater is its desirability as a target focus of an educational or research program.
There are a number of other factors to take into account when deciding how to narrow the educational focus for an environmental shopping campaign. Location can be an important factor (e.g., an urban setting may have not been used in researching particular foci before, so doing it here would be innovative). Appendix G explores a number of possible educational foci for this environmental shopping campaign, and the knowledge gained therefrom supports the following discussion:
In order to conduct this study within pre-specified budget and time frame, the focus of the environmental educational programs, and particularly the data gathering phase, was limited to the following target products and packaging for environmental shopping education and monitoring: reduced packaging (refills and concentrates), two reusable products (cloth shopping bags and cloth diapers), and recyclable packaging vs. non-recyclable packaging.
Specifically:
1. Recyclable vs. non-recyclable (R/N) packaging, with “recyclable” defined as those materials that are recycled in the local district in which the test store is located. At the time the research design was being developed, the Department of Sanitation was collecting glass and metal containers, aluminum foil and foil containers, and plastic bottles and jugs in Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island, and some parts of Queens and Brooklyn. Thus, the test stores would be located within these areas. Since the Associated supermarket survey (see Appendix A) showed that a typical NYC supermarkets sells thousands of products, it was decided that the storewide purchases of R/N pairs in the chosen stores would be monitored weekly for purposes of the statistical analysis. Instead of gathering data on all R/N pairs, a small sample, say a few pairs would be chosen (e.g., coffee in glass or metal vs. paper; juice in glass or High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) plastic containers vs. paper or juice box; cleaners in HDPE pump spray vs. aerosols).
2. Disposable diapers vs. reusable diapers: The basic premises of stocking reusable diapers in supermarkets are (1) to provide the consumer a choice, and (2) to reduce the quantity of disposable diapers consumed/disposed. In comparison with suburban shoppers who live in a house and frequently own washers and dryers, New York City shoppers are not likely to have as easy access to these appliances for purposes of cleaning reusable diapers. But since the cost and convenience of diaper service is comparable to disposable diapers (see Appendix D for the calculation), having the choice available in the store was considered to be the optimal way of giving consumers a choice. Most New Yorkers do not go grocery shopping by car, and have to carry their shopping home by hand or in carts, so the purchase of fewer bulky packages of diapers means fewer trips to the supermarket. For these and other reasons stated above, the decision was made to offer, in the supermarket setting, the option of diaper service as the convenient, reusable alternative.
In order to make such diaper service available, it was necessary to devise a scheme to counter the advertising of the major disposable diaper manufacturers (the largest of which, Proctor and Gamble, was the leading national advertiser in 1996 in terms of dollars spent, [9] and the manufacturer of two of the top four disposable diapers, three of which are the popular store brands: Huggies, Pampers, and Luvs ) The extent of the advertising budget for these brands of disposable diaper exceeded $115 million in 1996. [10] The diaper service company which serves much of New Jersey and most of New York City (General Health Care Corporation or GHCC) was contacted, and they agreed to participate in the project. GHCC had already developed a method by which their services could be offered and sales monitored within small areas such as zip codes. It was agreed that purchasers of disposable diapers would receive brochures on using diaper service and would be issued coupons for the service, which would be sent in to GHCC if diaper service was desired. Since the coupons would be encoded to ensure issuance of credit to the proper store, the stores would be compensated for all diaper services lasting for at least twelve weeks sold, by means of this method (12 weeks was seen as a reasonable commitment to diaper service). Thus, the educational scheme could be tested, and any shift in purchasing habits could be measured.
3. Disposable bags given out at the cash register vs. reusable cloth bags to be sold at the store: The sheer number of non-recyclable plastic bags given out every week (e.g., the 20,000 at the Associated store) justifies this as a research focus. In addition, as described in the literature search below, shopping bags has been a common focus of supermarket-based environmental shopping educational campaigns (providing rebates for bringing one’s own bag, provision of bins for used plastic bags, and selling reusable bags). Different kinds of cloth and string bags are available, so their procurement for use in this study would not be a problem. Chapter 3 provides more detail about the design and deployment of the bags in the educational campaign.
4. Purchase of more laundry refills and juice concentrates: This focus was added on consideration of the information in the Associated supermarket study. Though the study had been designed to show which product categories provided consumers the opportunity to select either recyclable or non-recyclable packaging, information on refills and concentrates was also gathered. Recognizing that the purchase of concentrates and refills reduces packaging use, as well as reductions in transportation impacts avoided by not having to ship the water used in diluted products, it was clear that this was a discrete choice for consumers that could be monitored by the study.
Though the original design of the educational programs included the above research target items, it might not have been possible to inspire two stores, which met all other store selection criteria, to permit research directed at changing consumer acquisition of these particular items. As a contingency measure, three pairs of contingency target items were designated: (1) bulk packaging / small-serving packaging, (2) non-diaper service diapers vs. disposable diapers, and (3) sponges and cloth towels / paper towels. As it turned out, a grocery chain that supported the original four foci, was found. The process of selecting a store chain for the experiment is detailed below.
Initially, it was conceived that cloth diapers could be made available in supermarkets in two ways: find a purveyor of cloth diapers, or work with a diaper service to stock the diapers. The choice to give shoppers a choice in diapers was guided by the convenience of diaper service vis a vis laundering cloth diapers at home, and the relative cost of diaper service vs. disposables over the diapering life of the child. In Manhattan nearly everyone lives in an apartment building and either does laundry in the basement or at a neighborhood Laundromat.
Knowing that stores are typically not eager to change what is stocked on their shelves, and some manufacturers may pay supermarket chains for the privilege of being guaranteed shelf space, a successful strategy to encourage supermarkets to stock cloth diapers would have to be economically attractive. One means of accomplishing this would be for the diaper service association to pay the stores a fee (on a monthly basis or similar) based on the amount of shelf area used. Another would be to give the store a commission on the quantity of reusable diapers sold; this would have the added impetus of encouraging greater sales of diaper service.
FMI warned that affixing a coupon for diaper service to disposable diaper packages might not please the disposable diaper manufacturers, so they recommended distributing any advertising for diaper service via the cashiers. Also, GHCC pointed out that the replacement cost for a week's worth of diapers was $90, but the first week's diaper service costs only $15. Selling diapers in the stores risked pilferage of the diapers (buying the $15 package and never signing up for service).
Service is usually started with 90 diapers (1 week, 12/day) plus a container which stays with the customer (customer also keeps the set of diapers at the end of the need for service). 90 diapers plus container are worth $100. Diaper covers with velcro fasteners are used with these diapers. GHCC has developed a state-of-the-art, form-fitting diaper with gathers, etc. for a bit more weekly cost.
GHCC has recruited most of its customers by targeted direct mail, and the rest by working with auxiliary guilds in hospitals and childbirth educators who give coupons to people who attend classes. The educator receives a rebate for new customers thus generated.
The advantages of giving shoppers a choice of diapers includes the following:
1. This would address a major, nonrecyclable, disposable input to NYC's solid waste stream.
2. According to FMI and the literature searches conducted for this study, nothing like this has been done before, so it would be a new innovation in education, and the data produced would also be rather unique.
3. Measurement of disposables and diaper service purchased would be straightforward. GHCC's operations are computerized, and they indicated they could help keep track of new services ordered due to the project’s efforts.
4. If this approach to marketing diaper service were successful, it could aid the diaper service industry, which has been on the decline since Procter and Gamble’s deceptive advertising, claiming its plastic and pulp diapers would become soil in 90 days.
5. More frequent changes are required when using cloth since the disposables use a chemical called polyacrylite, which absorbs 700 times its weight, allowing a thinner diaper which needs changing infrequently. It would be informational and motivational to address this in the educational literature.
The disadvantage was that not every household in New York City could be serviced by GHCC. GHCC has exclusion areas, due to threats to the safety of his workers. Every day a GHCC driver is hurt, despite signs on the trucks saying there is no cash on board. GHCC won't service Harlem (122-160), most of the Bronx (except East Bronx, Van Cortlandt, and Riverdale), Bedford Stuyvesant, East New York, Brownsville, parts of Greenpoint/Williamsburg, and some parts of Queens (except Flushing, Astoria, Forest Hills, Bayside, Douglaston, LIC, Jamaica, and some of Jackson Heights). This geographical constraint was added to the others in selecting test stores, and did not turn out to be problematic in siting test stores. (GHCC’s Irvington, NJ plant was operating at 20% capacity, due to P&G's advertising, so this plant could absorb all the diaper service diapers that New Jersey and New York City could generate.)
The design and deployment of the diaper service educational materials is detailed in Chapter 3.
The choice of venue for the educational campaigns and evaluations was influenced by the choice of educational foci, as discussed above, and, in turn influenced, to some degree, the experimental design and the design of the educational materials. Since the recyclability of packaging was one of the educational foci of the project, and a limited number of New York City districts were collecting metal, glass and plastic packaging for recycling at that time, it was necessary to choose stores located within such recycling districts. Working with one store chain was considered better in many ways, than with two or more, so a search for a suitable store chain with at least two stores in recycling districts began. An important criterion for selecting a store chain was its willingness to track (or allow others to track) purchases by groups of customers before, during and after the educational campaign, since the data provided would be numerical and objective, perfect for producing reliable results via statistical analysis.
The investigation of supermarket chains that might be agreeable to provide test stores, with the understanding that such information would be collected from customers, was initiated prior to the start of the project. Early discussions with officials at Red Apple had showed initial agreement to participate in the study. Once more of the experimental design was known, the evaluation of store chains was expanded and advice was sought from the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) and the NYS Food Merchants Association (FMA, a statewide industry organization) on which store chains might be suitable as a partner in this project. A few names and numbers were provided, and major chains located within the New York metropolitan area were contacted to determine general interest in the research objectives of the project and get a feel for the general acceptability to the store chains of the store selection criteria, below. These organizations provided contacts at Pathmark, A&P, and D’Agostino. Contact was reestablished with the Red Apple organization, which was also the parent organization for the Gristede’s and Sloans chains.
In telephone discussions with these contacts, the project’s interest in gathering customer purchase information from stores with scanners and “Club Cards” was expressed, as well as the interest in surveying their customers and marketing reusable products, such as cloth bags and diapers, in the stores. Club Cards were initially seen as the preferred method of gathering purchasing data over time from individual shoppers. FMI indicated that a number of their member chains gave cents off for returning bags to the supermarket and/or marketed reusable bags. Though FMI had not heard of any store marketing cloth diapers, they thought it an interesting idea. Unfortunately, FMA indicated that the NYS Consumer Affairs Department had begun to scrutinize privacy issues as regards consumer cards, and, when approached about this project, A&P indicated that they would not share any information on customers gathered using Club Cards. Also, A&P only had one pilot store in New York City with the Club Card, and this was in “suburban” Bayside, Queens. Pathmark did not use Club Cards, and said that they would not allow others to survey their customers.
Selecting the right store chain and test stores to conduct the experiment is a delicate process, particularly since finding cooperating stores has been found by other researchers to be critical in conducting a successful research program. The criteria and procedure by which test stores are selected is important and cannot be too numerous or stringent, or it will be too difficult to find any stores to participate in the study. On the other hand, the stores should place few demands on the project (i.e., changes to design of the campaign and the educational materials). Thus, the first unalterable criterion in selecting a store is that the store management must be happy with the research design, and be willing to cooperate with project team. As will be shown, it was essential to divine the true intentions of store management in this regard, and to what degree management would communicate this support to all store personnel. To choose the test stores the following criteria were initially applied:
Priority 1: Must Have:
· Location of store within DOS recycling districts. (This was critical to the packaging recyclability segment of the educational program.) During the period the study was under design, not all districts collected glass, metal, and plastic packaging, so certain parts of the City were excluded from consideration for this reason.
· Location of store within five boroughs of New York City. (This was a requirement of the project as originally submitted to EPA.)
· Electronic scanners at checkout and easy access to computerized inventory information (This was needed to track the purchasing behavior of consumers before, during, and after the educational process.)
· Location of store within service area of Diaper Service.
· Willingness of store management to stock, go along with stocking, or make available and advertise reusable diapers and bags. (This is critical to the diapers and bags reuse segments of the educational program.)
· Willingness of store management to permit and facilitate surveying of their customers. (This was critical to the attitudes survey segment of the research program.)
· Willingness of store management to permit brochures to be distributed, and signs to be placed/hung within stores. (This was a minimum requirement of the educational program.)
· Two stores from the same type of neighborhood. (It was important to the design of the experiment to have two stores chosen from areas with similar demographics, so that they would be considered statistically the same. This will permit two educational programs to be tested as if they were tested on the same population of consumers.
Priority 2: Would Like to Have:
· Consumer purchases tracking cards (Club Cards). (This was highly desirable in that the purchasing behavior of individual consumers can be matched to their attitudes as measured in the before and after surveys.) Stores having Club Cards must also have electronic scanners at the checkout counters and provide access to computerized inventory information.
· Willingness of store management to permit extensive experimentation with educational tools, e.g., video, audio, booths, use of clerks in educational program.... (This was highly desirable, particularly in the store chosen for the more extensive educational program.)
· Location of store -- inner city, diverse ethnicity of neighborhood/clientele. (This would add to the uniqueness of this research program because most similar types of environmental education programs tested in supermarkets are done in smaller communities and suburbs.)
· A minimum of previous environmental educational programs in the store -- particularly in the target items -- recyclability of packaging, reuse of bags and diapers, purchase of refills and concentrates. (If there have already been extensive educational programs in any of these areas, the impact of our educational program may be harder to measure or evaluate.)
Priority 3: Would Like to Have If Possible
· Willingness of store management to print some/all educational materials and permit store clerks to assist in distributing educational materials. (Some other research programs in supermarkets have benefited from the store footing the bill for some of the printing costs, for example, printing the environmental message with the store's name on the grocery bags.) Having the store’s name on educational materials might motivate respect for the program by some shoppers.
· Location of store -- easily accessible by mass transit. (This was highly desirable to minimize transit time of the PI and interns to the store for installation and monitoring of the educational program, and collection of survey and inventory data.
Once a short list of potentially cooperative stores was obtained (i.e., only the Red Apple and D’Agostino’s chains made the short list), discussions with each was begun to describe the study objectives and the target educational foci. If an original educational focus was not acceptable, then discussions began to negotiate the possibility of a modified or alternative target focus (e.g., if diaper service is not acceptable, then maybe selling cloth diapers would be). As it turned out, D’Agostino’s was undergoing a major renovation in its inventory tracking system and would not have wanted to have an educational campaign focusing at all on cloth diapers, so more extensive talks were joined with Red Apple. Upon further discussion, it appeared that Red Apple agreed to all the conditions in the Priority 1 list, and almost all of the other criteria. However, Red Apple stores (including the Gristede’s and Sloans chains) did not employ scanners at the checkout to monitor storewide purchases, but Red Apple management indicated that inventory records would be made available. Management also expressed a willingness to permit surveying of its customers and use of distributors’ invoices to gauge storewide purchases of target products.
Preliminary reconnaissance of the two chosen stores revealed the following. The East 86th Street store, just off First Avenue, is a street-level store, which was perhaps at least 50% larger than the west side store and was less cramped as well. There was a deli counter, a bakery area, and a fish/meat counter. There were about 7 checkout lines. The west side store was located in a basement just off Broadway, with access by escalator, stairway, and elevator with a small street-level vestibule. The store was small and very cramped. To compound this, delivery boxes were stacked in the narrow aisles on a regular basis. There was a deli counter, a very small bakery section, and 5 checkout aisles, making passage with a shopping cart nearly impossible. Red Apple Management suggested that the west side store would be more appropriate for the intensive educational effort because of the extra space in the lobby vestibule (where volunteer tables could be set up), as well as the space on the walls adjacent to the stairs/escalator.
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the educational campaign, several measurement methods were used to gather data. In the research literature, surveys were the most frequent method used to gauge the impact of conservation education on the public, though the data gathered in this manner is subjective. In a few cases (e.g., the Suffolk County study [11] and the and Michigan SORED study [12]) the researchers asked volunteer shoppers to keep track of the purchases they made, by holding onto store receipts in diaries. To make this study as useful as possible, and since previous studies did not often gather objective data, and this kind of information is less open to misinterpretation, collection of objective data was considered important for this study. Thus, the impact of the campaign would be measured using three methods, for the purpose of cross-checking and verifying the accuracy of the results.
On the recommendation of a packaging expert at Rutgers [13], surveys were administered to the same shoppers before and after the educational campaign, rather than issuing huge numbers of before and after surveys in the store to different people. Since the objective was to determine how consumers would respond to the educational campaign, it was important to survey the same individuals before and after the campaign, and repeat some of the questions in both surveys. If the education had no impact, then the answers to the repeated questions would not change. Similarly, any change measured would more accurately reflect a change caused by the experiment. Two other methods of evaluation entailed collection of objective data. Those shoppers that answered the baseline survey were asked to keep diaries of purchases, and storewide purchasing information were collected. As for the kinds of information that should be gathered and how it should be analyzed, a literature survey was undertaken to provide others’ perspectives. Chapter 3 and Appendix E provides more detail on the design, administration and results of the surveys and diaries used by other researchers.
To test the research hypothesis and investigate the research questions, the data collected had to be useful in statistical analyses. The structure of the questions was purposely designed to produce numerical answers that could be used in statistical analyses. The questions were multiple choice (e.g., for demographics questions), yes/no (knowledge, knowledge sources), ranking (1 to 4) for motivation questions, and Likert scale (e.g., 1 = never to 5 = always) in the case of attitude and behavior questions. In keeping with the research questions, and instructed by the research literature, the data gathering effort was designed to elicit comparisons of the customers’ shopping behaviors, attitudes, environmental knowledge, and other demographic attributes and behaviors. Collection of such data would permit comparison of the two different levels of educational campaign at the two stores.
Survey Data Gathering and Administration -- General Points
The survey design and testing was based on the strategy for its administration and analysis. In order to make the results statistically valid and useful for analysis, it was as important to have the correct number of respondents as it was that they be randomly selected. Other prerequisites of the statistical analysis, that the same target products be available in each store, and that each store be from a similar area demographically, were also satisfied. To refine the surveys and reduce the number of possible questions to those which are most useful, a questionnaire can be tested on a group in advance, to cull or reword those questions which are misunderstood or less important to the results.
The original plan had been for the surveys to be administered by phone, as Red Apple had promised access to their check cashing customer’s phone numbers. Telephone was considered to be the best option the same shoppers would complete both before- and after-campaign surveys. Mail-in surveys are notorious for poor response rates, so a greater effort would be necessary to obtain the same number of responses were that method to be chosen. In addition, respondents in mail surveys are more self-selected (less random) than by telephone, and since this is a longitudinal study, it was thought that fewer responses would be obtained for the second survey administered by this method. In-person survey administration was also problematic; having shoppers complete the baseline surveys in-person in the stores, and then finding the same ones in the store again months later would be logistically infeasible.
An initial sample size of 400 survey respondents per store was chosen to provide 95% confidence that the study would produce significant results. (Three hundred eight-four is the minimum number of individuals required to achieve this level of confidence). To get a statistically valid sample of survey respondents, survey collection volunteers were instructed to randomize the selection of respondents. Every person entering the two test stores that the volunteers could reach was asked to complete the three-page baseline survey. In order to make the answers usable in statistical analyses such as regression and correlation, the data collection instruments would have to be structured so that the answers to the questions would be discrete and quantified, preferably on an integer or ratio scale, allowing dummy variables (e.g., yes/no, true/false), or groupings (e.g., Likert scales, or 0-20%, 21-40%...)
Though most of the decisions regarding of the experimental design were self-generated, a number of elements were imposed upon the project by the supermarket management. Just before survey administration was to begin, Red Apple unexpectedly announced its abandonment of the entire project, and it turned out to be because they did not want to give out customers’ phone numbers. It was quickly agreed that the project volunteers could approach customers in the stores to have them fill out the baseline questionnaires. But this delayed and prolonged the completion of this data-gathering phase, as volunteers would have to arrange to spend hours per day at Gristede’s stores. It also meant that the methods of survey administration would be mixed (i.e., in-person for baseline and telephone for follow-up), fraught with the possibility for confounding influences on the results based solely on the method of data gathering. Red Apple also reneged on their offer of coupon books as a small incentive for their customers to complete both the baseline and the follow-up surveys. As a result, it is likely that fewer follow-up surveys were completed, reducing the sample size for that cohort. Nonetheless, the sample size for the baseline survey was greater than those for many of the surveys summarized in Appendix E.
The follow-up surveys were designed to repeat many of the questions for purposes of comparison, but could not be too long or the respondents would lose patience with a telephone interview. The surveys, of about seven minutes in duration, were administered to those who filled out a baseline survey and left a name and phone number by which they could be contacted in the weeks following the educational program.
Knowledge of the environment is a prerequisite for having attitudes about it or appreciation of it. Questions should address both previous knowledge and attitudes categories. Examples of questions in these areas are:
- Do you believe that your shopping habits have an impact on the amount of garbage you generate?
- Rate the following as contributing to environmental ills: (inspired by a list prepared by Warwick, Baker, & Fiore [14])
- disposable diapers
- cloth diapers washed at home
- cloth diapers washed by a service
- plastic grocery bags
- paper grocery bags
- cloth or string grocery bags
- packaging in glass containers
- packaging in plastic containers
- packaging in metal containers
- packaging in plastic wrap
- packaging in Styrofoam
- packaging in paperboard
- concentrates
- individual-serving packages
To measure appreciation of the environment, questions were structured to measure the respondent's rating of importance of the environment on the public agenda, compared to other pressing problems (see the study by Angus Reid [15]).
Sources of environmental information cover a considerable range (see list in Appendix E). Potential sources of environmental information are the media, building management, friends, children and other family members.
Based on information in Appendix E, demographics (e.g., social attributes such as gender, age, income, race, education, family size) were not found to influence environmental attitudes directly. However, demographics can affect the economic constraints imposed by the program, and therefore can be deterrents in some conservation behaviors.
Awareness of a recycling program was investigated in the study by Kok and Siero [16] by asking questions about respondents' reading of advertisements in written media, how frequently respondents visit the vicinity of the recycling container, and whether respondents have a child at a school where attention to the program has been given. These types of questions were effective to some extent in making the public aware of the program.
In a study by Tracy and Oskamp [17] 96 randomly selected adults in a Los Angeles suburb were asked about their adoption of 15 ecologically responsible behaviors. The study found that a lack of awareness of what an individual or household can do to benefit the environment was associated with a very low rate of participation for all ecologically responsible behavior, including recycling and purchase of more ecologically compatible goods. Participants recycled and/or consumed more ecologically compatible products in direct relationship to their concern for environmental problems. Thus, a prerequisite for environmental behaviors is sufficient awareness of how individuals can effect positive change in the environment, and the behaviors that are and are not ecologically responsible.
Comprehension
Comprehension of ecological and recycling issues is considered to be an important predictor of recycling behavior, and an even better predictor than environmental attitude according to one researcher.[18] But Kok and Siero found that it is possible for respondents to have positive scores on attitude, intention, and behavior without having a positive score on comprehension. That is, some people did not need a full comprehension of the utility of the tin-recycling program in order to participate. (Their study did show that the vast majority of those who did have positive attitude and intention did have positive comprehension.) To measure comprehension of the recycling program, Kok and Siero asked questions designed to elicit respondents' lack of comprehension with respect to six aspects of the program: (1) location of the container 4.0%, (2) in what way the tin should be delivered 14.7%, which objects have to be put into the container 20.0%, what happens to the tin after being collected 50.3%, which are the raw materials of tin 58.8%, and which of the raw materials is scarce 70.1%.
Many studies have shown positive relationships between ecological attitudes and environmentally protective behavior.[19] Recent Roper polls and others (Van Liere & Dunlap, 1980 as reported in Oskamp) have shown that people who are concerned about environmental quality tend to be younger, better educated, and more liberal politically. However, Cutter[20] indicates that in metropolitan areas such as Chicago, the highest levels of concern about pollution are apt to be shown by residents of poor, non-white, high-density neighborhoods that have high levels of solid waste. This finding has obvious implications for our study, here in Manhattan.
Fishbein and Ajzen define an attitude as a person's general feeling of favorableness or unfavorableness towards that behavior. A person's social norm is his/her perception of whether the majority of people who are important to him/her think he/she should or should not perform the behavior in question. Specific consequences of positive behavior used by Kok and Siero to measure the structure of attitudes towards participation included: that the program is pro-ecology, reduces the extent of refuse dumps, reduces waste of raw materials, reduces the amount of refuse discarded, reduces exhaustion of raw materials, favors the children's' future, reduces the waste of energy, is ineffective, always needs some kind of subsidy, gives trouble at home, and costs time and effort.
Kok and Siero showed that a person's attitude towards a specific behavior has an important effect on the change in that behavior. But they found that six difficulties or inconveniences associated with performing the desired behavior have a relationship with subjects implementing the behavior, though these barriers have a less significant influence than attitude and social norm. The six difficulties included: 'must keep it in mind all the time', sharp lids, cleaning the tins, occupying space at home, distance to the central collection container, bring to the central collection container, and spending time. (The last is not as significant as the others.) As one would expect, those who do not participate in the program anymore are most likely to have had difficulties.[21]
Schwartz [22] pointed out that the acceptance of responsibility is a moderator variable between attitude and behavior, and that only people with a high level of responsibility will behave in accordance with their positive attitudes. But Kok and Siero found that those respondents with a high level of responsibility have the same correlation between attitude and behavior as those with the lowest level of responsibility. Related to this idea is one posed by Fishbein and Ajzen, that persons with a high acceptance of responsibility believe that their ecological behavior has ecological consequences. The data gathered by Kok and Siero confirm this idea. Thus, for this study, it was important to measure understanding of actions and the environmental consequences, as well as acceptance of some responsibility for environmental problems.
A study in Sweden[23] determined that there are two basic attitudes that led to sorting of recyclables: (1) recycling is a means to protect nature and environment, ensuring a higher quality of life, and (2) recycling is economically sensible. However, it was shown that it wasn't economic motives but rather idealistic motives that more often brought people to participate in source separation. Even non-recyclers held the view that environmental protection was more important than economy as a reason to recycle. The five most frequent reasons for non-recyclers not participating in source separation were (in descending order): 1) too small a household, not worthwhile, 2) prefer to handle garbage themselves or to have another organization do it, 3) prefer to have their own compost (backyard composting of household waste is illegal in Sweden), 4) complaints against the way municipalities handle garbage collection, and 5) not enough knowledge, need more information.
A study which may explain this (by De Young)[24] has reported a close association between derived satisfactions (i.e., the structure of satisfactions people derive from behaving in an environmentally responsible manner) and intrinsic motivation. He also found that intrinsic motivation mechanisms rather than overt extrinsic solutions result in a greater likelihood of continuation of behaviors for the long-term.
Dunlap et. al.,[25] suggested that concern for the environment would be a significant motivation for recycling or other pro-environmental behavior when basic economic or survival needs are met. Higher order values (e.g. desire for high quality environment) were held more by recyclers and lower order values (e.g., safety and security) were held more important by non-recyclers. However, as awareness of the health effects of environmental pollution increased, the differences between the two groups narrowed, pointing out the importance of environmental education and awareness on attitudes. It could be useful to ask about the level of safety and security the respondent feels (in his/her building/neighborhood) in addition to income to address these concerns.
In a study relating attitudes and behaviors with respect to energy conservation, Olsen[26] found that the strongest factor stimulating energy conservation is the perception of personal consequences of the energy crisis. The counterpart to this in the solid waste field is peoples' reaction to garbage piling up in the streets, or the belief that reduction and recycling behavior will reduce garbage bills (as under quantity-based user fees). The second strongest factor stimulating energy conserving actions is holding a personal norm of conservation (e.g. feeling personally responsible to help solve the energy (solid waste) crisis). Also, two studies [27],[28] indicate that those who believe there are negative comfort or health consequences of energy-conservation actions (convenience also is applicable to solid waste prevention or materials conservation) are unlikely to achieve actual energy savings.
De Young[29] demonstrates that people derive satisfaction from such frugal activities as recycling, reusing, and other types of conservation behavior. This suggests that people might carry out conservation behavior not for the promise of a tangible external reward, but for the personal satisfaction they derive from the activity. He lists a number of questions involving attitude (satisfaction items) and behavior, which we could adapt to measure our shoppers before and after education.
The aforementioned study by Kok and Siero[30] examined to what degree the following three factors facilitated or inhibited participation in a recycling program: (1) attitude change through communication -- which is the prime mechanism to be used in this study, (2) the relationships between belief, attitude, intention, and behavior, (theory of reasoned action) and (3) acceptance of responsibility. One reason that awareness, comprehension, attitude change, and behavioral change may be related is that they are all steps in a process whereby the individual exposed to education is subsequently infused with these ideas and changes behavior, as suggested by McGuire.[31] Kok and Siero integrated these three theoretical points of view in a stepwise model of participation in a recycling program (see Figure 1). These authors determined a partial confirmation of the theory of reasoned action, indicating the need to take into account the difficulties with and opportunities for behavior modification.
The steps of the model and influences on these are further described and
supported below:
Intentions are a direct predictor of actual participation (in a recycling program), according to a dissertation by Florence Lansana [33]. This study also demonstrated that awareness, comprehension, attitude change, and behavioral change may be related. Specifically, Lansana showed that both environmental attitudes and economic constraints predict a household's intentions, and that a household's awareness of a recycling program directly affects its attitudes about the environmental impact of the program and directly affects its participation in the program.
Similarly, another study found that asking questions related to the intended behavior (e.g., attitudes towards pollution, conservation of natural resources, and importance of an unpolluted environment) are not as good in predicting the participation in Sierra Club activities as questions about the attitudes towards participating in those specific activities (i.e., intentions).[34]
Fishbein and Ajzen[35] theorize that a person's intention to perform a behavior is a function of two factors: the attitude towards that behavior and the social norms. Kok and Siero reaffirmed that direct measures of attitude and social norm are better predictors of intention than models of a person's beliefs, evaluations of the consequences of behavior, and motivation to comply. They also found that attitudes influence the intention to participate more than social norms do, though they did find that the most important reference persons for the social norm are partner, children, and friends. They also found that some people did not know that the government and utilities want them to participate in the program.
Since positive attitudes and intentions are two of the most important factors in predicting program participation (performance of desired behaviors), it is important to ask questions in these areas. Thus, to characterize shoppers' intentions, questions are asked about customers' attitudes towards environmental shopping (e.g., rated on a numerical scale), how they understand the social norms (as being/acting environmental), and to what degree they are motivated to behave according to social norm. To characterize shoppers' attitudes, we need to know what shapes these attitudes, specifically, and to what degree each type of environmental education (sources, descriptions) is effective in changing attitudes.
Intrinsic motivation to act comes from within the individual. De Young [36] demonstrated that people derive satisfaction from such frugal activities as recycling, reusing, and other types of conservation behavior. This suggests that people carry out conservation behaviors not for the promise of a tangible external reward, but are motivated by the personal satisfaction they derive from the activity. Some interesting findings of De Young’s research are that modern themes thought to govern purchasing habits, such as comfort and convenience, could actually be used to encourage “desired behavior patterns by emphasizing qualities such as durability and the sensual quality of environmentally appropriate products. For example, the desire for quality might be satisfied in an environmentally appropriate manner by purchasing only a few, high quality and long-lasting items rather than buying large quantities of disposable or less-durable goods.”[37]
In another study [38] De Young found that important motivations for recycling behavior were non-monetary, for example environmental values and intrinsic satisfaction. Therefore, the study recommended that when promoting waste reduction and recycling one should design programs to concentrate on the effect recycling has on the environment, any benefits recycling may have for a charitable organization, and the personal, intrinsic satisfaction gained from doing the right thing. In addition, the study suggested that efforts should concentrate on helping people know how to make the choices in environmental shopping.
Extrinsic Motivation
Extrinsic motivation strategies, those outside the self that motivate behavioral change, can include rewards for performing the desired behavior (e.g., recycling lotteries) as well as reductions in cost (e.g., discounts for particular environmentally-preferable products). Monetary incentives (a form of extrinsic incentive) have been found to be successful reinforcers of behavior in energy conservation research.[39] Other extrinsic incentives and disincentives include increased or decreased comfort or convenience, and social approval or disapproval.[40],[41] Lyben and Cummings [42] found that the combination of a prompt, lottery, and contests was more effective in promoting beverage container recycling than a baseline educational treatment using only the prompt and convenient recycling containers. Other extrinsic incentives and disincentives include increased or decreased comfort or convenience, and social approval or disapproval [43], [44]
On the other hand, Katzev and Johnson [45] showed that the desired conservation behavior is usually maintained only as long as the incentive is in effect. In another study of paper recycling, Witmer and Geller [46] found that after removal of the extrinsic incentives, there was an immediate return to baseline levels. Investigators in some experimental studies offered incentives greater than the value of the energy saved. [47] Monetary disincentives, such as increasing the costs of gasoline and electricity, have been shown to have effects on behavior, but a certain price inelasticity has been found in some, but not all cases.[48], [49] These findings illustrate the problems with depending on extrinsic incentives to promote long-term, enduring changes in behavior.
The University of Michigan Source Reduction (SORED) study [50] was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of using environmental arguments, economic arguments, and both in combination as motivation for source reduction behaviors in supermarkets. The environmental arguments were contained in educational instruments that showed the environmental benefits of environmental shopping (conserved resources, reduced pollution, etc...). The economic arguments, presented in other brochures, pointed out the typical cost savings to shoppers of buying in bulk, for example. This study found that educational prompts with intrinsic (environmental) or extrinsic (economic) arguments had a significant impact on changing source reduction shopping behavior vis a vis the control group. But for the cohort given both intrinsic and extrinsic arguments, the change was even greater than those given either alone.
Geller [51] found that targeted strategies designed to change consumer behavior and purchase decisions are more likely to gain widespread acceptance and produce long lasting changes in buying habits than are programs that focus solely on attitudes. Geller and Lehman [52] also found that the most successful large-scale educational programs are likely to be those which utilize a diverse set of strategies to induce and promote and desired behaviors, since different people respond to different stimuli. Similarly, studies[53], [54] have shown a negligible relationship between the actual conservation actions of people and their enthusiastic attitudes, intentions, and reports of conservation actions after they had received education. So self-reported data should be cross-checked with objective data.
Although studies have shown that behavior can be modified, maintenance of changed behavior does not always occur. Some studies show that extrinsic motivations (e.g., monetary incentives) are needed to stimulate desired behaviors, others show that behavior is maintained only as long as extrinsic incentives are in effect.[55],[56] Another study [57] found that the tone of the message is important to maximizing its impact (i.e., a more upbeat tone gets better results). Two studies [58], [59] show that in newspaper recycling programs the participants' accuracy in separating newspapers declines over time. Another study reaffirms this, showing that changed behavior continues only when the behavior has the expected positive consequences. [60] Yet another study [61] showed that the desired behavior is usually maintained only as long as an incentive is in effect. In another study of paper recycling, Witmer and Geller [62] found that after removal of the extrinsic incentives, there was an immediate return to baseline levels.
In a study of newspaper recycling, Pardini and Katzev [63], [64] achieved a maintenance of recycling behavior using a moderate form of external inducement (asking participants to give a verbal commitment to recycle or to sign a legally non-binding commitment statement). They suggested that the participants, by virtue of their commitment to carry out the behavior, may have been led to find their own (intrinsic) reasons for recycling, to begin to even like it, and continue to perform these and more desired behaviors on their own. (This approach is termed the “foot-in-the-door technique”.) Furthermore, these researchers found that participation rates in recycling were typically low when incentives were used, that many of the incentive programs were not cost-effective, and that incentive programs did not produce lasting changes in recycling behavior. They found that encouraging individuals to begin conserving resources by making a small commitment to recycle a household product can often times act as a catalyst for initiating and sustaining further conserving acts.
These studies illustrate the problems with depending on extrinsic incentives to promote long-term enduring changes in behavior. Since one of the objectives of this study is to design an educational program that will be successful in the long-term, it is important to design the study to focus more on intrinsic motivations. One way to determine if the shoppers in this study maintain new behaviors after the educational campaign is over is to monitor their purchasing patterns for a while (during a “passive phase” of the campaign implementation) via storewide purchases and diaries.
Feedback regarding consumption is another important behavioral approach to conservation. When used as the only educational approach to encouraging energy conservation, it has produced savings in the 10-20% range [65], and more when used in combination with other techniques, such as modeling or monetary incentives.[66] More important for this study, feedback has been found to have continuing effects for several months after the experimental treatment was discontinued.[67],[68] Also, for best results, feedback should be at least several times a week rather than weekly or monthly. Theoretical analyses of feedback indicate that it appears to be more effective than other behavioral techniques, since it has both informational and motivational properties and can result in longer maintenance of changed behaviors and increased program effectiveness.[69], [70]
Schnelle tested feedback (positive information provided to participants regarding program success) as one method of encouraging continued conservation behavior,[71] and it was found that the amount of litter in city streets was significantly reduced when weekly reports of the volume of litter were published in the local newspaper. According to EPA’s Kashmanian [72], another benefit of structuring opportunity for participants to feedback their experiences or suggestions into follow-up surveys is that program organizers not only learn to what extent participants change attitudes and behavior, but also to what degree consumers respond to each of the different educational tools used in the campaign (e.g., informational pamphlets, posters, etc...). This type of feedback permits the organizations conducting the education to modify the program to fit the audience.
Another approach to feedback is self-monitoring, or training the householder to read and record the utility meter (or in our case, their grocery purchases) on a periodic basis. This has typically produced energy savings of almost 10%.[73] Therefore, use of a self-selected group to record purchases in a diary may produce biased results, since devoting attention to this activity may result in more environmental shopping. Such a bias would have to be taken into account when used as a cross-check for other methods of measuring behavioral change.
The literature survey shows the breadth of categories and topics on which the data gathering effort could focus. In keeping the with research objectives of this study, the most important area for data collection is the customers’ shopping and other environmental behaviors. In order to find out what might cause or be related to these behaviors, surveys about shoppers’ environmental attitudes and knowledge, sources of environmental information, and demographics are important. Based on other research into consumers’ environmental behaviors, it makes sense to focus questions to elicit shoppers’ self-reported behavior utilizing two methods: surveys to elicit information on recycling and other environmental behaviors already practiced by the respondents (e.g., what percentage of your recyclables do you recycle?), and volunteer reports on store purchases specific to our target items. The questions could address the frequency of purchase/use of the target items (recyclable/non-recyclable pairs, reusable/disposable bags, and disposable diapers/ diaper service. Since studies [74], [75] have shown a negligible relationship between the actual conservation actions of people and their enthusiastic attitudes, intentions, and reports of conservation actions after they had received education, it would be useful to verify the accuracy of the self-reporting data generated by the surveys. One method would be to check those who claim to have started diaper service, since the names of those who do will be available. Another objective verification of shopper purchases of the other target items could be comparison of storewide purchases of these items. The two objective mechanisms used to confirm the self-reported results will be discussed later in this chapter.
Key questions in the survey measure changes in purchasing behaviors in the supermarket. Other questions delve into shoppers’ motivations for such behaviors (e.g., their attitudes on various environmental issues including environmental shopping and their environmental knowledge), as well as demographics, to explain changes in behavior. Certain questions are targeted towards the use of diapers and bringing one’s own bag to the supermarket.
Expanding upon the hypothesis and research questions, the basic parameters for the baseline and follow-up surveys accomplish the following:
1. determine whether and to what extent environmental education as part of an in-store campaign, targeted to certain environmental behaviors, resulted in positive changes,
2. determine the relationship of age, race, gender, income, and other attributes of consumers with their environmental knowledge, attitudes and behaviors before vs. after education,
3. test the level of consumer awareness of environmental issues and problems, including the local recycling program, and “environmentally friendly” products (including target items) and towards “environmentally friendly” behaviors in general (e.g. recycling, environmental shopping).
4. test shoppers’ awareness and understanding of the educational program's existence, purpose, features, and message, and the relative effectiveness (recognition) of each of the project's educational channels (brochures, video, signage, etc...). Determine the extent to which the consumers understood the environmental messages in the education program. Determine whether and to what extent the consumer found each educational method to be pleasing (fostering knowledge) or whether there was a negative impression,
5. determine the sources of shoppers’ environmental knowledge (e.g., through which channels consumers learn about environmental products and activities -- media, in-store brochures, signage, etc...),
6. determine environmental satisfactions (e.g. to what degree respondents are satisfied by conservationist behaviors such as frugality, self-sufficiency, and participation in community-wide programs),
7. test consumer attitudes towards purchase of environmentally friendly products (and what it takes to encourage this)
8. find the motivations for consumer attitudes towards environmental friendly behaviors in general (e.g. recycling, conservation)
9. determine the non-environmental factors and barriers that influence consumer willingness to purchase environmentally friendly products (e.g., cost, convenience, brand name),
10. determine the shoppers’ practice of environmental behaviors (e.g. purchase of “environmentally friendly” products and target items, participation in specific recycling and reuse activities,),
11. evaluate the relative effectiveness of each of the educational materials featured in the campaign.
12. evaluate the feasibility of expanding environmental shopping programs. Determine whether and to what extent the presence of the environmental education program enhanced their likelihood of shopping at the store, and effect of the educational program on the store.
The literature survey provided extensive guidance with regard to the types of questions often asked on surveys, and to the questions themselves. Based on the literature survey, the following is an expansion of the outline used by Kok and Siero [76], that lists types of survey questions that might be suitable for this study.
|
I Demographic information |
Income, race, gender, education, age |
|
II General knowledge and appreciation |
Information about knowledge of environmental problems, solid waste crisis, natural resources depletion, solid waste conservation behaviors, lifestyle impacts, lifecycle impacts, high regard for environment |
|
III Preexisting environmental satisfactions |
De Young, e.g. frugality, self-sufficiency, Participation |
|
IV Preexisting environmental behaviors |
Intensity/frequency of recycling, reuse, etc (De Young) |
|
V Sources of environmental info |
See questions delineated in Appendix E |
|
VI Awareness of program existence |
Information about the existence of the program |
|
VII Comprehension of program purpose |
Information about the purpose of the program |
|
VIII Attitude towards participation |
Beliefs and evaluations positive and negative) regarding value of contribution made by environmental shopping and solid waste conservation behaviors / acceptance of responsibility for actions and their impacts on the environment |
|
IX Intention to participate |
Understanding and motivational factors motivation to adhere to Social norms (and economic constraints, safety considerations, intrinsic satisfactions, extrinsic motivation) Lansana, safety considerations – Dunlap, satisfactions -- De Young, extrinsic motivation -- Olsen, Lyben & Cummings) |
|
X Baseline purchasing behaviors |
Questions should center on the frequency of purchase/use of the target items (recyclable vs. non-recyclable pairs, reusable/disposable bags, and disposable diapers/ diaper service. |
The following would be in a survey administered immediately after the campaign
|
XI Understanding of program teachings |
Information about target items, impact of target vs. non-target items on environment |
|
XII Perceived benefit of program |
Impacts of one's actions on the environment |
|
XIII Behavior -- participation |
Ability and opportunity to participate; problems understanding or implementing our message; self-reported shopping practices |
|
XIV Sources of our program information |
Evaluation of the degree to which each of our educational materials (and the information in them) were noticed and produced desired behaviors |
|
XV Behavior Maintenance |
Experiences with behavior; recollection of our message |
Taking into account the research questions and the literature review, as well as the assumption that objective data on actual changes in purchasing behavior would be available via the diaries and storewide purchase data, it was decided to include at least one from each of the following categories of questions:
¨ Demographics
¨ Recycling and Environmental Shopping Knowledge
¨ Sources of Environmental Knowledge
¨ Attitudes Towards Environmental Issues
¨ Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Motivations
¨ Preexisting Environmental Behaviors
¨ Awareness of the Environmental Shopping Campaign and its Message (post-survey only)
More detail on the actual questions chosen for the baseline and follow-up surveys and the rationale for choosing them is provided in Appendix E and Chapter 3.
In order to gauge, more objectively, the impact of the educational program on the purchasing behavior of the customers, recruitment of volunteer shoppers to keep track of purchases in a diary was an option. Self-reported survey data may or may not be reliable; so if a subset of the original survey group to were asked to keep track of their purchases by means of store receipts, it would increase confidence in the veracity of the self-reported survey answers. Since the research design called for multiple means of measuring the impact on consumer behavior of the environmental shopping campaign, volunteer shopper diaries was one method explored for its potential for use in this study. The Suffolk County [77] and Michigan SORED [78] studies studied shopper behavior both via questionnaires and diaries of purchases kept by shoppers over the study period. Suffolk trained their 50 volunteer families for two hours. The Michigan SORED study also asked volunteer shoppers to keep their store receipts before and during the educational phase of the study. The two studies lasted from eight to ten weeks and varied with regard to how the shoppers were trained (weekly reminder postcards and focus groups were two methods of keeping the volunteers involved). This and lessons learned from these two studies is explored further in Appendix VD.
In order to evaluate whether the educational program actually motivated the shoppers to choose a product in recyclable packaging vs. the same product in a non-recyclable package, for example, the diary should be designed to elicit specific information about the purchases, not just that they bought coffee, but the brand, size, price, and container material. Diary volunteers were asked to keep track of their purchases of selected items for 18 weeks, before, during, and after the 10-week educational campaign.
Information to be obtained from the diary volunteers included the product’s size, whether it came in refill or concentrate form, and the type of packaging from a list (e.g., glass, tin can, plastic bottle, aluminum, paper carton, juice box, cardboard box, plastic bag). It was important to include a number of other questions on the diary record sheets regarding the number of product and grocery bags taken or purchased, and the number of disposable diapers purchased. More specific detail about the design of the diary instruments and the experience with this aspect of the data gathering effort is in Chapter 3 and Appendix VD.
Parameters of the Storewide Purchasing Evaluation
To verify the survey results with objective data, the project was designed to collect storewide inventory information before, during, and after the educational campaigns. For example, it is beneficial to know that survey respondents self-report that they have changed their purchasing habits to buy more products in recyclable packaging, and more so that a cohort of diary-keepers have receipts to demonstrate that fact. But if storewide purchases of products in recyclable packaging rise at the same time that those same products packaged in non-recyclable packaging fall, and that this change occurs at the same time as the educational campaign, its impact is demonstrably greater as was hoped. Since changes in purchasing habits can best be traced by studying only those products for which there is a choice between environmentally preferable and less preferable packaging, tracking the all the thousands of products sold in these stores would be unnecessary. As a cross-check on the purchasing patterns being tracked by the volunteer diary-keepers, it made sense to track the purchases of the same products storewide. The products targeted to track the use of recyclable vs. nonrecyclable packaging included orange juice, coffee, milk, chocolate pudding, chicken soup, detergent, and fabric softener. A subset of these was also available in either concentrate or refill (orange juice, detergent, and fabric softener), so purchase of these products signified this purchasing behavior.
The design of educational materials is integral to the results of the investigation. The focus is on the target items, but not entirely to the exclusion of other compatible environmental messages (bulk packaging, reduced purchase of other disposables). In order to design educational campaigns for two supermarkets in Manhattan it was necessary to decide and justify the kinds of educational materials to be used in each store, and when, where and how they should be deployed. In addition, the materials themselves would need to be designed to inform and motivate the shoppers regarding the desired environmental behaviors, and to do this in such a way as to maximize the impact on harried New York shoppers. The designs of the educational campaign and materials had to reflect the study’s research questions, and mesh with the design of the surveys and other measurement devices. For example, 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 modify attitudes and environmental behaviors. Another purpose was to provide information about the City's recycling program. Thus, the main thrust of the educational materials was to induce long-term changes in behavior via positive, intrinsic motivations and informational messages. Since the impact on behavior of two levels of educational program was tested at two stores, the hypothesis that intrinsic motivation optimizes the effectiveness of environmental shopping programs can be tested twice. Chapter 3 will provide more detail about how the campaign and each of the educational devices were designed, and why.
The following is a discussion of some specific types of strategies available for inclusion in educational programs, as found in the literature. These form the basis on which the educational strategies, as well as the designs and installations of the educational instruments themselves, were chosen.
Educational Instruments or materials are used to convey the environmental messages of the campaign. They can include such items as brochures, videos, posters, as described below.
Prompts
Prompts are brief signals about what actions to take. They can vary from general (“Conserve electricity”) to specific (“Students and faculty -- turn off lights after 5:00 p.m. or when room is empty”). Geller [79] found that such prompts are more successful if they are polite rather than demanding, request a response that is easy to perform, and are administered close to the point of response. Signage placed in a supermarket near products targeted in an educational study would be considered to be prompts. Such prompts are generally more effective when combined with reinforcing consequences than when used alone. Other educational tools that prompt behavior include: informational / motivational brochures, buttons worn by store personnel, imprints/logos for shopping bags, shelf labels, posters in store windows, booklets given away at tables set up in the supermarket, and “bag stuffers”. In the Boulder study [80], it was found that shelf labeling (i.e., labeling products by their characteristics or in environmental groups – green for good, red for bad) was difficult to maintain, in practical terms. While a shelf label would remain stationary, the products on the shelves were usually shifted to the left and right as new inventory came in, necessitating considerable continuing expenditure of effort to shift the labels. Also arguing against use of shelf labels for this study were the results of a question asked by the Food Marketing Institute in its 1990 survey of shoppers (see Appendix E for details on others’ survey questions and results). Shelf labels were considered the least effective means of communicating information about products; labels on the products were perceived as most effective, followed by brochures.
In one study [81] that is somewhat similar to this one in design, a project logo was developed and used on the shopping bags as a means of identification with the project and to increase participation. A logo can also be used on signage, brochures, and other educational instruments.
As the project brochure is a common feature of environmental shopping educational programs, special care was taken in exploring how others implemented this educational approach. The initial design phase for our project brochures included a survey of existing environmental shopping brochures and booklets, by Cooperative Extensions in Florida and a number of local and state solid waste management agencies. Many of these brochures used numerous startling statistics to convey information and to motivate a change in attitude or behavior. Others used cartoons, logos, and effective use of color to make a message memorable.
Modeling procedures
Modeling procedures present information in ways that make it more concrete and easier to learn. By definition, modeling involves explicit demonstration of desired behaviors or practices. [82] This can be done through audiovisual media, or through in-person demonstrations where participants can try out the desired behaviors and receive feedback and further individualized instruction. Several energy conservation behaviors resulted from the use of a 20-minute video on the subject [83], and in-person modeling of desired hot-water conservation behaviors was shown to be much more successful than a prompting sign alone. [84]
Number, variety and focus of educational devices
For large-scale programs designed to educate and change behavior, Geller and Lehman[85] found that the most successful ones are likely to be those which use a diverse set of strategies to induce and promote desired behaviors, since different people respond to different stimuli. In addition, Geller [86] found that targeted strategies designed to change consumer behavior and purchase decisions are more likely to gain widespread acceptance and produce long lasting changes in buying habits than are programs that focus solely on attitudes. For these reasons our environmental shopping program will consist of a number of strategies both to communicate background information about the solid waste crisis to raise awareness and change attitudes, as well as to encourage the desired purchasing behaviors.
Presentation
In order to maximize the possibility for success, both the message and the desired behavior changes must be simple and readily understandable both by the consumers and store personnel. If the prompts are not seen, or if the objectives of the educational program are not quickly comprehended, or if the program requires significant alteration of behavior, the program may be ignored. This was illustrated in the Red Owl stores in Wisconsin, which initiated a program to encourage consumers to reuse containers.[87] In this case both the customers and store personnel found that giving small cash refunds for reusing grocery bags and refilling egg cartons, milk and soda bottles became too cumbersome, making the campaign unsuccessful. Taylor[88] found that if awareness programs were poorly run, if communication, consistency, and dependability of the program were poor, then households were confused and uncooperative. However, De Young [89], and Crosby and Taylor [90] found that if sufficient time and help were given to overcome barriers or difficulties in recycling, behaviors were more reliably improved. The latter study also found that it took six to eight months for consumers to adapt to the new behaviors required under a beverage container deposit law. The authors suggested that the reasons for this might be that the development of recycling-oriented behavior follows standard skill development processes (i.e., it requires practice), and that as behavior is learned and becomes more efficient, it will tend to be perceived as more convenient.
Vining and Ebreo [91] recommended that an educational approach should emphasize the role played by recycling in protecting the environment and ways to make recycling more convenient. The medium used for education and information campaigns should be tailored to the demographic characteristics of the target audience: television and school programs should be more effective for lower and middle income groups, and newspapers for those with higher educational and income levels.
Shapek [92] reported that recycling rates in 63 Florida counties was highly correlated with the use of radio (r =.53), newspapers (including news conferences and press releases)
(r =.59), direct mailings (including newsletters and billing inserts) (r =.49), county sponsored events (r =.45) and the use of other printed matter (including displays, brochures and stickers)(r =.42). A lower correlation was found in the use of hotlines
(r = .15), TV advertising (r =.10), billboards (r =.25) and consultants (r=.002). Though the use of specific media was significantly correlated to recycling rates, these may or may not have caused the higher or unchanged rates.
Other Factors Affecting Success of an Educational Campaign
Since De Young and others have found that a large percentage of people agree that recycling is an appropriate behavior, future programs need to focus more on overcoming barriers and converting people's good intentions to actual behavior, and for prolonging participation until the changed behavior is perceived as convenient.
Several other factors, identified by EPA’s Kashmanian, [93] were found to affect the success or failure of educational programs to stimulate consumer purchase of source reduced and recyclable products and packaging:
· consumer awareness of the Municipal Solid Waste management crisis and environmental consequences of their purchase decisions,
· content and quality of consumer education and promotional activities,
· involvement of different interest groups and cooperation of retailers, and
· development of consumer education programs designed for the long term. Three program features, key to longevity and success of an environmental shopping program are: long-term funding, effective feedback of audience responses, and adaptability of program elements to needs of the situation.
· Following from these factors, EPA has suggested some general principles shown to have advanced the effectiveness of consumer-oriented programs designed to promote source reduction and recyclability:
· Attention-getting techniques for education programs must compete with other advertising. To be successful, educational programs must be of high quality and as sophisticated as other advertising in targeting appropriate messages to various audiences. In addition, there should be no other competing store-wide campaign vying for the consumers' attention. One example of an environmental shopping campaign, undertaken in the 1970s in Palo Alto, featured large, in-store posters resembling traffic lights. This design grabbed shoppers' attention, and the three colors were used on shelf labels to identify packaging characteristics: refillable (green), recyclable (yellow), and costly to recycle (red).[94]
· Another example of an attention-getting technique would be a booth situated near the entrance of the store with a setup containing free literature, examples of reusable bags and diapers, and staffed by a person knowledgeable about the program and environmental shopping. A glass container filled with candy is one means of drawing customers to the booth.
· Long-term changes in consumer behavior depend upon changing basic consumer attitudes and motives. Consumer education programs should not be limited to short-term, non-durable incentives, but should be combined with self-sustaining motivation (having long-term durability). Kashmanian compiled evidence from various sources that public education campaigns should not make consumers feel that they are losing control of their environment or lowering their standard of living. Instead the program should be designed to stress the relationship between source reduction/recyclability and environmental effects and associated societal benefits.
· Household consumer awareness programs should make consumers feel that their participation will be a positive contribution to the solution of an important problem. For example, Kashmanian has suggested that the consumer education program needs to take on a positive tone (e.g., “We can do it!” or “Be a Part of the Solution”). Otherwise, consumers might become overwhelmed by the problem to the point that they feel their actions are futile and their contribution to the solution is meaningless. Thus, consumer education programs should focus on the benefits that come from recycling, rather than the problems created by not recycling. Put another way, conservation should be promoted by how it can make us “richer, more self-reliant, and secure in our economy”.
These points are in agreement with other research on consumer environmental attitudes and behaviors. The following is a discussion of some specific strategies available for inclusion in educational programs:
· Definitions, labeling, and other important messages must be standardized, simple, and well publicized, so that they are readily recognized and understood by consumers. In addition, others who have undertaken similar campaigns have recommended that there needs to be a simple and effective method by which consumers can identify target products and packaging, and that store personnel must have a thorough understanding of the elements of the program and be enthusiastic about it. It has also been suggested that programs should make use of in-store promotions and free media publicity, for example, the store's newspaper advertising and flyers.[95]
· Another example of the benefit of a positive emphasis was evinced by an environmental shopping program implemented by the Pennsylvania Resources Council[96], which was severely under-funded and short-lived, was nonetheless quite successful in reaching consumers with the message because it emphasized the effectiveness of individual actions. Ergo, if the tone of an environmental shopping education program is positive, and there is sufficient information and emphasis to demonstrate clearly how an individual's actions have an impact, then it is possible to counteract the effect of having a short-lived program.
Olsen [97] has summarized several recommendations for future studies, which can be adapted here:
(1) emphasize individual benefits of conservation rather than sacrifices (e.g., fewer diapers to take home, fewer bags to throw away),
(2) don't make financial savings the sole justification for conservation,
(3) don't expect information alone to motivate people to conserve,
(4) stress the benefits of conservation to society in order to give people an altruistic rationale for conserving, and
(5) whenever possible, spread conservation information through interpersonal interaction and “hands on” demonstrations, rather than through the impersonal mass media.
In order to augment the information gathered from the conservation literature with some real world experience specific to environmental shopping campaigns, practitioners in this field were interviewed and written surveys were sent to supermarkets currently or previously involved in environmental shopping campaigns.
Over forty supermarkets and chains in the U.S. which have conducted environmental shopping campaigns in their stores were mailed a survey to improve the prospects of creating an optimal design for the educational materials for this study. The two-page survey, sent to a list of supermarkets and chains that FMI indicated had experience with in-store environmental shopping campaigns, requested information on the target items chosen by each store, copies of the educational materials used, and the results of the educational program. Some of the questions in the survey asked, to whom the brochures were distributed, how many, and over what time period, when the brochures were distributed, and how effective the educational materials were in improving peoples' knowledge, attitudes, and/or behaviors. Of the few that responded, most did not answer the questions, but some sent copies of brochures or flyers. These were useful as an introduction to the types of materials that have been used.
To get a better idea of the success of environmental shopping campaigns, a number of Cooperative Extensions and agencies were interviewed, using the aforementioned survey to elicit information. Appendix X provides a synopsis of each discussion with designers/issuers of environmental shopping brochures and campaigns. In addition to surveying environmental shopping programs conducted by supermarkets, existing brochures, booklets, slide shows, videos, and other educational tools which have been developed by governments, environmental and consumer groups were gathered for further evaluation. Finally, the results of a few other environmental shopping investigations similar to this one were examined in order to learn successful approaches and avoid the pitfalls experienced in these other studies.
To summarize, a few state agencies (e.g., Minnesota), city/local governments (e.g., San Francisco), and County Cooperative Extensions (e.g., Hillsborough and Broward Counties in Florida, Cornell, in New York) developed various educational materials and analyzed their effectiveness using different measurement methodologies. The educational materials included brochures, videos, shelf cards and posters. One organization’s campaign logo, an earth in a shopping cart, was considered to impart a message similar to the one intended for this investigation. The measurement techniques involved questionnaires, which provide subjective information (that is, self-reported descriptions of attitudes and behaviors), and cash register scanner data and diaries, which objectively quantify changes in purchasing behavior due to the campaign. The campaigns also varied; some materials were never distributed in supermarkets; other agencies (e.g., the State of Washington) came back year after year with new materials and approaches with new displays each month after experiencing initially undesirable results.
In the case of Minnesota’s campaign, posters and shelf cards were displayed, and 7500 brochures were distributed at each of two stores in one week. (This provided an idea of how many brochures that could physically be distributed in such a short period.) Minnesota found that 50% of respondents were aware of the campaign and a third could recall some of the message. These results provided our project with the idea that some questions should be directed towards finding out the extent to which the campaign materials were actually noticed. See Appendix X for more details regarding these and other environmental shopping campaigns.
To accomplish the project's objectives and research questions, two multi-focus environmental shopping educational campaigns (and educational instruments) were designed to be conducted in two Manhattan Gristede’s supermarkets, located in congested neighborhoods of the upper east and upper west sides of Manhattan (east and west 86th Street), with similar demographic characteristics so that only the difference in intensity of the two educational efforts could be measured. The purposes of the in-store educational campaigns were to inform and motivate shoppers to buy products in recyclable rather than non-recyclable packaging, to buy more refills and concentrates, and to buy and use cloth bags sold in the store, and cloth diapers via the GHCC service. Data derived from the baseline surveys were compared with data from the follow-up surveys at each store in order to measure and evaluate the effectiveness of each educational program in changing attitudes, environmental knowledge, and other attributes and behaviors of the survey respondents. To validate this self-reported, subjective information, sales of target items storewide and purchase diary data were to be measured before, during, and after the education at each store. Also, purchase data after the active educational campaign was to be compared with that after the passive education to note how well shoppers retained the education and maintained changed behaviors.
The study's design phase involved a review of other investigations of conservation attitudes and behaviors and other environmental shopping programs. In addition, information was gathered to aid the selection of the target grocery items for which storewide purchase data would be sought. Many aspects of the study design drew from successes and avoided failures experienced by other researchers in this field. Other aspects of the study design innovated new areas of research, including the evaluating an urban area such as Manhattan for conduct of an in-store environmental shopping campaign, the sale of diaper service in supermarkets, and evaluating impact of the education via storewide purchasing information. Other innovations, in the selection and design of educational materials and analytical methods, will be described.
In Chapter 1 the relative lack of investment by the public sector in researching and implementing waste prevention was apparent. In New York City participation in recycling lags far behind the potential. More must be done to find out why this is so to remedy this problem if large-scale waste export in the near-term is to be avoided. This study design, as described above, aspires to analyze the reasons for the low waste prevention and recycling rates, and offer some answers regarding the willingness of New Yorkers to change their behaviors if they are given information and motivation to do so. In Chapter 3 the design, development and production of the educational materials, surveys, diaries, and storewide purchasing methodology, in preparation for implementation of the educational campaigns is described.
Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7
[1] Bukro, C. (1991, November 17). Shopping for an Ideal. The Chicago Tribune, Section 20, pp. 24-25; Gallup, G., Jr., & Newport, F. (1990, April). Americans strongly in tune with the purpose of Earth Day 1990. The Gallup Poll Monthly, pp. 5-14; Schorsch, J. (1990, November). Can our economy come clean? USA Today, pp. 84-85; Staff. (1991, July). Polls show support for recycling. Waste Age, pp. 16-17.
[2] Total Measured U.S. ad spending by Category and Media in 1996, 1995. Advertising Age’s website: http://adage.com/dataplace/archives/dp208.html
[3] Seiler, Elizabeth, Grocery Manufacturers of America, during presentation at the Seventh Annual NYSDEC Recycling Conference, October 17-18, 1995.
[4] Reduced or avoided environmental impacts due to a reduced quantity of waste sent to incinerator or landfill, as well as the impacts avoided due to reduced mining, refining, manufacturing, transportation of raw materials
[5] A Technical Framework for Life-Cycle Assessments, Marjorie J. Clarke, Co-Author. Published by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), Washington, DC., January, 1991; Produced at product Lifecycle Workshop sponsored by SETAC, August 17-23, 1990, Smuggler's Notch, VT.
[6] "Tellus Institute Packaging Study", presented by John Schall at 1992 NYS Legislative Commission on Solid Waste Management Conference.
[7] "Tellus Institute Packaging Study", presented by John Schall at 1992 NYS Legislative Commission on Solid Waste Management Conference.
[8] "A Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for New York City and Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement", New York City Department of Sanitation, August, 1992, p. 17.2-2.
[9] 100 Leading National Advertisers, Advertising Age’s website: http://adage.com/dataplace/archives/dp268.html
[10] Top Ten diaper brands: Market Share and Measured Advertising, Advertising Age’s website: http://adage.com/dataplace/arhives/dp198.html
[11] Foulke, Sally, "Environmental Supermarket Shopping -- Final Report", Cornell Cooperative Extension, Riverhead, NY
[12] De Young, Raymond, et. al., "Individual Source Reduction Behavior: A Study of the Effect of Environmental and Economic Motivational Information", Masters Project, University of Michigan School of Natural Resources, June 21, 1991.
[13] Notes from Meeting 1/9/92 with Dr. Chaim Mannheim, Rutgers Plastics and Packaging Institute, Piscataway, NJ.
[14] "Findings on Environmental Issues", Decision Research, March, 1991, and Warwick, Baker, & Fiore Advertising, May, 1990 (in Ottman, J. Green Marketing: Challenges and Opportunities for the New Marketing Age, NTC Business Books, Lincolnwood, IL, 1992.)
[15] Environment U.S.A., The Angus Reid Group, 1991 (in Ottman, J. Green Marketing: Challenges and Opportunities for the New Marketing Age, NTC Business Books, Lincolnwood, IL, 1992.)
[16] Kok, Gerjo and Sjef Siero, "Tin Recycling: Awareness, Comprehension, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior", Journal of Economic Psychology, 6 (1985) 157-173. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North Holland).
[17] Tracy, A.P. and S. Oskamp, "Relationships Among Ecologically Responsible Behaviors", Journal of Environmental Systems, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1983-4, pp. 115-126, as reported in "Promoting Source Reduction and Recyclability in the Marketplace.
[18] Arbuthnot, J., "The role of attitudinal and personality variables in the prediction of environmental behavior and knowledge", Environment and Behavior, 9 (2), 1977. pp. 217-232, as reported in Kok, Gerjo and Sjef Siero, "Tin Recycling: Awareness, Comprehension, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior", Journal of Economic Psychology, 6 (1985) 157-173. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North Holland).
[19] Bruvold, 1972; Heberlein & Black, 1981, Humphrey, Bord, Hammond, & Mann, 1977, McGuinness, Jones, and Cole, 1977; Weigel, Vernon, & Tognacci, 1974 as reported in Oskamp, Stuart, "Psychology's Role in the Conserving Society" Applied Social Psychology, Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1984.
[20] Cutter, S.C., "Community concern for pollution: Social and environmental influences" Environment and Behavior, 1981, 1, pp. 339-343.
[21] Kok, Gerjo and Sjef Siero, "Tin Recycling: Awareness, Comprehension, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior", Journal of Economic Psychology, 6 (1985) 157-173. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North Holland).
[22] Schwartz, S.H., "Normative influences on altruism", in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, L. Berkowitz (ed.,), Vol. 10, Academic Press, New York, pp. 221-279 as reported in Kok, Gerjo and Sjef Siero, "Tin Recycling: Awareness, Comprehension, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior", Journal of Economic Psychology, 6 (1985) 157-173. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North Holland).
[23] Israel, Lena, "Reasoning Out Recycling Reluctance", Waste Age, March 1991, pp. 226-230.
[24] De Young, R. "Encouraging environmentally appropriate behavior: the role of intrinsic motivation", Journal of Environmental Systems, 1985-6, 15: pp. 281-292.
[25] Dunlap, R.E., et. al., "Human values and pro-environmental behavior" in W.D. Conn (ed.) Energy and Material Resources: Attitudes, Values, and Public Policy, Westview Press, Boulder, CO 1983. pp. 145-168.
[26] Olsen, M.E., "Consumers' attitudes toward energy conservation" Journal of Social Issue, 1981, 37(2), pp. 108-131.
[27] Becker, L.J. et. al., "Relating attitudes to residential energy use" Environment and Behavior, 1981, 13, pp 590-609.
[28] Seligman, C., et. al., "Predicting summer energy consumption from homeowners' attitudes" Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1979, 9, pp. 70-90.
[29] De Young, Raymond. "Some Psychological Aspects of Recycling: The Structure of Conservation Satisfactions" Environment and Behavior, Vol. 18, No. 4, July, 1986, pp. 435-449.
[30] Kok, Gerjo and Sjef Siero, "Tin Recycling: Awareness, Comprehension, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior", Journal of Economic Psychology, 6 (1985) 157-173. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North Holland).
[31] McGuire, W.J., "Persuasion, resistance and attitude change", in I. de Sola Pool and W. Schramm (eds.), Handbook of Communication, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, 1973. pp. 216-252, as reported in Kok, Gerjo and Sjef Siero, "Tin Recycling: Awareness, Comprehension, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior", Journal of Economic Psychology, 6 (1985) 157-173. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North Holland).
[32] Kok, Gerjo and Sjef Siero, "Tin Recycling: Awareness, Comprehension, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior", Journal of Economic Psychology, 6 (1985) 157-173. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North Holland).
[33] Lansana, Florence, "Recycling Behavior: The Causal Role of Demographic, Communication, and Attitudinal Factors", PhD Dissertation, Kent State University.
[34] Wiegel, R.H., et. al., "Specificity of the attitude as a determinant of attitude behavior congruence" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 30(6), 1974, pp 724-728 as reported in Kok, Gerjo and Sjef Siero, "Tin Recycling: Awareness, Comprehension, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior", Journal of Economic Psychology, 6 (1985) 157-173. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North Holland).
[35] Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen, Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research, Addison Wesley, Reading, MA. 1975 as reported in Kok, Gerjo and Sjef Siero, "Tin Recycling: Awareness, Comprehension, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior", Journal of Economic Psychology, 6 (1985) 157-173. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North Holland).
[36] De Young, Raymond. "Some Psychological Aspects of Recycling: The Structure of Conservation Satisfactions" Environment and Behavior, Vol. 18, No. 4, July, 1986, pp. 435-449.
[37] De Young, R. and S. Kaplan, "Conservation Behavior and the Structure of Satisfactions," Journal of Environmental Systems, Vol. 15, No. 3, 1985-86, pp. 233-242 in "Promoting Source Reduction and Recyclability in the Marketplace".
[38] De Young, Raymond. "Recycling as appropriate behavior: a review of survey data from selected recycling education programs in Michigan", Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 3 (1990) pp 253-266.
[39] Winett, R.A. et. al., "The effects of monetary rebates and fees? on electricity conservation" Journal of Environmental Systems, 1977, 6, pp. 329-341.
[40] Cook, S.W. and J.L. Berrenberg "Approaches to encouraging conservation behavior: a review and conceptual framework" Journal of Social Issues, 1981, 37, pp. 73-107.
[41] Nielsen, J.M. and B.L. Ellington, "Asocial processes and resource conservation: a case study in low technology recycling", in N. R. Feimer and E. S. Geller (eds.) Environmental Psychology: Directions and Perspectives McGraw-Hill, New York, 1983.
[42] Luyben, P. and S. Cummings "Motivating beverage container recycling on a college campus", Journal of Environmental Systems 11, 1981-2, pp. 235-245.
[43] Cook, S.W. and J.L. Berrenberg "Approaches to encouraging conservation behavior: a review and conceptual framework" Journal of Social Issues, 1981, 37, pp. 73-107.
[44] Nielsen, J.M. and B.L. Ellington, "Asocial processes and resource conservation: a case study in low technology recycling", in N. R. Feimer and E. S. Geller (eds.) Environmental Psychology: Directions and Perspectives McGraw-Hill, New York, 1983.
[45] Katzev, R.D. and T.R. Johnson, "A social-psychological analysis of residential electricity consumption: the impact of minimal justification techniques", Journal of Economic Psychology 3: 1983, pp. 267-284.
[46] Witmer, J. F. and E.S. Geller "Facilitating paper recycling: effects of prompts, raffles, and contests", Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1976, 9: pp. 315-322.
[47] Oskamp, Stuart, "Psychology's Role in the Conserving Society" Applied Social Psychology, Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1984.
[48] Foxx, R. M. and Hake, K. F., "Gasoline conservation: A procedure for measuring and reducing the driving of college students" Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1977, 10, pp. 61-74.
[49] Winett, R.A. and Neale, M.S. "Psychological framework for energy conservation in buildings: Strategies, outcomes, directions" Energy and Buildings, 1979, 2, pp 101-11?
[50] DeYoung, Raymond, et. al., “Individual Source Reduction Behavior: A Study of the Effect of Environmental and Economic Motivational Information”, Masters Project, University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources, June 21, 1991.
[51] Geller, E.S., "Prevention of Environmental Problems", in B.A. Edelstein and L. Michelson (eds.), Handbook of Prevention, Plenum Publishing Corporation, 1986, Ch. 16, pp. 361-383.
[52] Geller, E. S., and G. Lehman "Motivating Desirable Waste Management Behavior; Applications of Behavior Analysis", Journal of Resource Management and Technology, Vol. 15, Nos. 2&3, December, 1986, pp. 58-68.
[53] Geller, E.S., "Evaluating energy conservation programs: Is verbal report enough? Journal of Consumer Research, 1981, 8, pp. 331-335.
[54] Olsen, M. and Cluett, C. "Evaluation of the Seattle City Light neighborhood energy conservation program", Seattle: Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers, 1979.
[55] Katzev, R.D. and T.R. Johnson, "A social-psychological analysis of residential electricity consumption: the impact of minimal justification techniques", Journal of Economic Psychology 3: 1983, pp. 267-284.
[56] Witmer, J.F. and E.S. Geller "Facilitating paper recycling: Effects of Prompts, raffles, and contests", Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1976, 9: pp. 315-322.
[57] "Promoting Source Reduction and Recyclability in the Marketplace: A Study of Consumer and Industry Response to Promotion of Source Reduced, Recycled, and Recyclable Products and Packaging", prepared for Richard M. Kashmanian, USEPA, Washington, DC, September, 1989.
[58] Humphrey, C.R., et. al., "Attitudes and conditions for cooperation in a paper recycling program" Environment and Behavior 9(1), 1977, pp. 107-124 as reported in Kok, Gerjo and Sjef Siero, "Tin Recycling: Awareness, Comprehension, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior", Journal of Economic Psychology, 6 (1985) 157-173. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North Holland).
[59] Reid, D.H., et. al., "Newspaper recycling behavior: the effects of prompting and proximity of containers" Environment and Behavior, 8(3), 1976, pp. 471-482 as reported in Kok, Gerjo and Sjef Siero, "Tin Recycling: Awareness, Comprehension, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior", Journal of Economic Psychology, 6 (1985) 157-173. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North Holland).
[60] Rogers, E.M., Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, New York, 1983, as reported in Kok, Gerjo and Sjef Siero, "Tin Recycling: Awareness, Comprehension, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior", Journal of Economic Psychology, 6 (1985) 157-173. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North Holland).
[61] Katzev, R.D. and T.R. Johnson, "A social-psychological analysis of residential electricity consumption: the impact of minimal justification techniques", Journal of Economic Psychology 3: 1983, pp. 267-284.
[62] Witmer, J. F. and E.S. Geller "Facilitating paper recycling: effects of prompts, raffles, and contests", Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1976, 9: pp. 315-322.
[63] 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.
[64] 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".
[65] Winett, R.A. and Neale, M.S. "Psychological framework for energy conservation in buildings: Strategies, outcomes, directions" Energy and Buildings, 1979, 2, pp 101-11?
[66] Winkler, R.C. and Winett, R.A. "Behavioral interventions in resource conservation systems approach based on behavioral economics" American Psychologist, 1, pp. 421-435.
[67] Pallak, M.S. et. al., "Commitment and energy conservation" in L Bickman (Ed.), Applied social psychology annual (Vol. 1), Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 1980.
[68] Winett, R.A., et. al., "Effects of self-monitoring and feedback... residential electricity consumption" Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1979, ...p 184.
[69] Seligman, C. et. al., "Encouraging residential energy conservation through feedback" in A. Baum and J. E. Singer (Eds.) Advances in environmental psychology (vol 3): Psychological perspectives. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ 1981.
[70] Ellis, P. and Gaskell, G.A. "A Review of social research on the individual energy consumer" Unpublished manuscript. London School of Economics and Political Science, 1978.
[71] Schnelle, J.G. et. al., "Mass media techniques for prompting behavior change in the community" Environment and Behavior, 1980, Vol 12: pp. 157-166.
[72] "Promoting Source Reduction and Recyclability in the Marketplace: A Study of Consumer and Industry Response to Promotion of Source Reduced, Recycled, and Recyclable Products and Packaging", prepared for Richard M. Kashmanian, USEPA, Washington, DC, September, 1989.
[73] Winett, R.A., et. al., "Effects of self-monitoring and feedback... residential electricity consumption" Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1979, ...p 184.
[74] Geller, E.S., "Evaluating energy conservation programs: Is verbal report enough? Journal of Consumer Research, 1981, 8, pp. 331-335.
[75] Olsen, M. and Cluett, C. "Evaluation of the Seattle City Light neighborhood energy conservation program", Seattle: Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers, 1979.
[76] Kok, Gerjo and Sjef Siero, "Tin Recycling: Awareness, Comprehension, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior", Journal of Economic Psychology, 6 (1985) 157-173. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North Holland).
[77] Foulke, Sally, "Environmental Supermarket Shopping -- Final Report", Cornell Cooperative Extension, Riverhead, NY. 1992.
[78] DeYoung, Raymond, et. al., “Individual Source Reduction Behavior: A Study of the Effect of Environmental and Economic Motivational Information”, Masters Project, University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources, June 21, 1991.
[79] Geller, E.S., "The energy crisis and behavioral science: A conceptual framework for large scale intervention" in A.W. Childs and G.B. Melton (Eds.), Rural psychology, Plenum, New York, 1981.
[80] Peters, Alison Gold. “Precycle” Final Report, by Recycle Boulder, Boulder, CO. 1991.
[81] Foulke, Sally, "Environmental Supermarket Shopping -- Final Report", Cornell Cooperative Extension, Riverhead, NY
[82] Bandura, A. Social learning theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1977.
[83] Winett, R.A. et. al., "The effects of videotape modeling and daily feedback on residential electricity conservation, home temperature and humidity, perceived comfort, and clothes worn: Winter and summer" Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1982, 15, pp. 381-4??
[84] Aronson, E and O'Leary, M "The relative effectiveness of models and prompts on energy conservation: A field experiment in a shower room" Journal of Environmental Systems 1982-3, 12, pp. 219-224.
[85] Geller, E. S., and G. Lehman "Motivating Desirable Waste Management Behavior; Applications of Behavior Analysis", Journal of Resource Management and Technology, Vol. 15, Nos. 2&3, December, 1986, pp. 58-68.
[86] Geller, E.S., "Prevention of Environmental Problems", in B.A. Edelstein and L. Michelson (eds.), Handbook of Prevention, Plenum Publishing Corporation, 1986, Ch. 16, pp. 361-383.
[87] "Promoting Source Reduction and Recyclability in the Marketplace: A Study of Consumer and Industry Response to Promotion of Source Reduced, Recycled, and Recyclable Products and Packaging", prepared for Richard M. Kashmanian, USEPA, Washington, DC September, 1989.
[88] Taylor, E.H., "Consumer Reaction to Solid Waste Problems and Regulations", The Procter & Gamble Company, a report on work in progress, July 15, 1988 in "Promoting Source Reduction and Recyclability in the Marketplace".
[89] De Young, Raymond. "Clean Michigan Fund (1986-1987) Resource Recovery Education Grants: A Comparison of Selected Programs," University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources, Spring, 1987. in "Promoting Source Reduction and Recyclability in the Marketplace".
[90] Crosby, L.A. and J.R. Taylor, "Consumer Satisfaction with Michigan's Container Deposit Law -- an Ecological Perspective," Journal of Marketing, Winter 1982, pp. 47-60 in "Promoting Source Reduction and Recyclability in the Marketplace".
[91] Vining, Joanne, and Angela Ebreo "What Makes a Recycler? A Comparison of Recyclers and Nonrecyclers" Environment and Behavior, Vol 22, No. 1, January 1990, pp. 55-73.
[92] Shapek, Raymond A. "Measuring the Effect of Media Use in Recycling Education/Information Programs" based on Incentives for Recycling in Florida, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL July, 1990.
[93] "Promoting Source Reduction and Recyclability in the Marketplace: A Study of Consumer and Industry Response to Promotion of Source Reduced, Recycled, and Recyclable Products and Packaging", prepared for Richard M. Kashmanian, USEPA, Washington, DC September, 1989.
[94] Palo Alto Material Resource Recovery Program, "Report on Packaging Labeling" and other materials, 1970s in "Promoting Source Reduction and Recyclability in the Marketplace".
[95] Environmental Action Foundation, Implementing Waste Reduction at the Supermarket, 1976 in "Promoting Source Reduction and Recyclability in the Marketplace" A Study of Consumer and Industry Response to Promotion of Source Reduced, Recycled, and Recyclable Products and Packaging", prepared for Richard M. Kashmanian, USEPA, Washington, DC September, 1989.
[96] Becker, R.H., "Packaging and Waste Reduction: The Need for Consumer Awareness," paper presented at the Conference on Solid Waste Management and Materials Policy, New York, NY., February, 13, 1987.
[97] Olsen, M.E., "Consumers' attitudes toward energy conservation" Journal of Social Issue, 1981, 37(2), pp. 108-131.