Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

Assessing the Beliefs and Behaviours of Waste Reduction Practices of Vancouver Residents Erickson, Carly; Sing, Cheryl; Chen, Monica; Wang-Tretiak, Nicholas; Sakai, Ryo Apr 21, 2016

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
18861-Erickson_C_et_al_SEEDS_2016.pdf [ 923.65kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 18861-1.0343152.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0343152-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0343152-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0343152-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0343152-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0343152-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0343152-source.json
Full Text
18861-1.0343152-fulltext.txt
Citation
18861-1.0343152.ris

Full Text

 UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student ReportCarly Erickson, Cheryl Sing, Monica Chen, Nicholas Wang-Tretiak, Ryo SakaiAssessing the Beliefs and Behaviours of Waste Reduction Practices of Vancouver ResidentsPSYC 321April 21, 201614582079University of British Columbia Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS Program provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or a SEEDS team representative about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report”. UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student ReportCarly Erickson, Cheryl Sing, Monica Chen, Nicholas Wang-Tretiak, Ryo SakaiPSYC 321April 21, 201614582079University of British Columbia Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS Program provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or a SEEDS team representative about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report”.Assessing the Beliefs and Behaviours of Waste Reduction Practices of Vancouver Residents CCMNR: Monica Chen, Carly Erickson, Ryo Sakai, Cheryl Sing, Nicholas Wang-Tretiak  Executive Summary  We examined waste reduction beliefs and behaviours in Vancouver, B.C. We were interested in determining what people in Vancouver believe to be the most effective waste reduction practices in their daily lives, what are the costliest, what actions they are currently doing, and what actions they would be willing to adopt. We distributed an online self-report survey questionnaire which a total of 134 Vancouver residents completed. We found several interesting results. First, we found that participants’ willingness to adopt waste reduction practices was higher on average, than their frequency to use the practices in their daily lives, although frequency and willingness were positively correlated. Second, we found that perceived cost did not play as significant a role as does perceived effectiveness in restricting participants’ waste reduction behavior. We found that Willingness and Perceived effectiveness were positively correlated, meaning that Vancouver residents are more willing to adopt the waste reduction practices that they perceive to have more significant impact on the environment. An implication of these results is that there may be another variable at play, other than cost or perceived effectiveness, which makes waste reduction less desirable. If that variable is time/effort, initiatives should be focused on making waste reduction more convenient.  Research Question and Hypothesis   Though the accumulation of waste is by no means a new problem, the rapid rate at which it is occurring demands closer attention. Waste is a global issue if not properly dealt with, it poses a severe threat to public health and to the environment. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP, 2015), waste management should be seen as a basic human right. Managing waste correctly benefits several aspects of society, including public health (by reducing the spread of disease), the economy (by increasing tourism), and the environment (by decreasing pollution) (pp. 2-6). Clearly, waste management is an issue that has a broad impact on our world.  Over the past few decades, economic development, urbanization, and population growth have led to excessive waste production (Singh, Laurenti, Sinha, & Frostell, 2014, p. 800). As a thriving industrial city, Vancouver, B.C. has certainly contributed to such excess. In our study, we sought to learn what people in Vancouver believe to be the most effective waste reduction practices in their day-to-day lives. Furthermore, we wanted to learn which practices Vancouver residents were currently doing, and which ones they would be willing to adopt.  Previous research by Martin, Williams, and Clark (2006) in Burnley, England, found that most participants (>70%) had a positive attitude towards recycling, but not nearly as many actually recycled (only 27.5% recycled on a regular basis). Furthermore, the majority of respondents said that they disapproved of being charged a monetary fee in order to reduce waste (pp. 370-373). Based on these findings, as well as similar findings by Babaei et al. (2015), we came up with two hypotheses. First, participants’ involvement in waste reduction behaviours will be based more on the monetary cost of each practice than on the perceived effectiveness of each practic. Second, participants’ willingness to adopt a given practice will not be correlated with how frequently they perform the practice.  Participants   134 Metro Vancouver residents (75 females, 59 males) participated in the study. The majority of participants (55.2%) were between the ages of 18 and 24. See Appendix A for the remainder of the demographic information.  Conditions   Each participant answered a self-report survey questionnaire that assessed waste reduction behaviours and beliefs. We used a within-subjects design. Our independent variables were eleven waste reduction practice items presented to the participants, while our dependent variables were measures of the reported frequency, perceived effectiveness, perceived costliness and willingness of each participant to perform each waste reduction practice (11 waste reduction practices by 4 belief measures).  Measures  We measured demographic variables by asking questions pertaining to gender, age, race, education level, occupational status, household income, and residential neighborhood. The eleven waste reduction items surveyed were: (1) composting, (2) recycling beverage containers, (3) recycling paper/packaging, (4) recycling batteries/electronics, (5) recycling paints/gases/pesticides, (6) buying in bulk, (7) buying secondhand items, (8) paying surcharge on excess waste, (9) bringing reusable containers to cafes/restaurants, (10) bringing reusable bags to stores, and (11) receiving bills electronically. We came up with these practices by referencing the provincial government’s waste management strategies (see Appendix B). The practices were assessed individually using a 7-point Likert scale.   For each of the eleven waste reduction practices, we asked four questions: (1) how frequently participants currently use the practice (1 = never, 7 = always), (2) how effective participants believe the practice to be (1 = extremely ineffective, 7 = extremely effective), (3) how costly participants believe the practice to be (1 = extremely inexpensive, 7 = extremely expensive), and (4) how willing participants would be to adopt the practice (1 = extremely unwilling, 7 = extremely willing). (See Appendix C for full survey)  Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software. A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was run on each measure separately (Frequency, Effectiveness, Costliness, Willingness) to determine if there was a difference between waste reduction items 1 to 11 for each measure. Next, a post-hoc analysis was completed to determine whether or not there were statistically significant differences between specific items. Correlations were run between all 4 measures for each of the 11 items separately to determine the characteristics of each item.  Procedure  The survey was administered online via Fluidsurveys.com and distributed through link sharing (e.g.  email, social media, or mobile messaging) to Metro Vancouver residents. Participants confirmed their consent before completing the survey independently (see Appendix C for consent form). The survey took less than 10 minutes to complete. Data was collected over a total of 14 days, during which time the survey was open to the public.   Results  The correlations run between all 4 measures for each of the 11 items yielded interesting results, one being that that cost was not the dominant factor in environmental behaviour (frequency of practice or willingness to adopt) that we thought it would be. For 5 of the 11 items, Cost was not correlated with any of the other 3 measures (ie. was not correlated with Frequency, Effectiveness or Willingness). Cost was only negatively correlated with Willingness for 5 items and only with Frequency once. For none of the 11 items was Cost correlated with both Frequency and Willingness. In contrast, for all of the items, Effectiveness was positively correlated with Willingness. And for all but 1, effectiveness was positively correlated with frequency of practice. Also of note was that for every item, Frequency and Willingness were positively correlated. (For detailed correlation data please refer to Appendix E.1-E.11)  The ANOVA results show that within each measure there is a statistical significance to the differences found between items. For frequency of the practice [F(7.8,1037.4) = 103.2, p = 0.00, for perceived effectiveness [F(8.1, 1076.3) = 21.4, p = 0.00, for perceived costliness [F(6.6,886.2) = 57.4, p = 0.00, and for willingness [F(8,1066.7) = 62.6, p = 0.00). The post-hoc analysis that was completed showed a large number of significant differences between items across all measures (for detailed results see Appendix D.1-D.4) In short, the most and largest differences took place in the Frequency measure, while the least and smallest differences came in the Willingness measure. Item #8 Paying a surcharge for excess waste was found to be the most significantly and frequently differing of the 11 items.  Waste reduction practice #8 stood out from the rest, as it was the only item that was not correlated with effectiveness; it was also the most significantly differing item from the post-hoc analysis. However, it should be noted that data for item #8 (paying a surcharge for any waste that exceeds a set amount) is invalid, as the practice does not yet exist and is, by nature, costly. Therefore, all responses for frequency, cost and willingness of waste reduction practice number eight we feel, may be disregarded.   Discussion  The results of the study reject our first hypothesis and support the second. 1st, cost was not related to environmental behaviour as prominently as we had predicted. Rather, results show that participants reported frequency of action and willingness to adopt was more frequently correlated with their perceived effectiveness of the given practice. This means that people’s decisions about the waste reduction practices they adopt depend on how effective in reducing waste they perceive the practices to be. Therefore, Vancouver residents prefer to take action when they believe their efforts are worthwhile and make a significant impact in reducing waste. Future research from this can try to answer what makes people feel their efforts are worthwhile (more scientific data? more encouragement?). We can then try to foster this feeling to encourage increases environmental involvement  Second, although mean scores for Willingness were higher than for Frequency, both measures were positively correlated with one another for all 11 items. Despite this positive correlation between Frequency and Willingness, the discrepancy between means for both lays the potential foundation for potential future research. Despite being very willing to adopt various waste reduction practices, Vancouver residents are potentially encountering factors that are inhibiting following through with behavior. Perhaps future research can look into what factors cause the mean discrepancy between frequency and willingness.  Our ANOVA and post-hoc analysis showed the statistical differences in feelings people have towards various environmental practices. Clearly people do not treat all practices equally. Possible future research can look into what factors inform our perceptions and behaviour of various practices (eg. why is buying in bulk perceived as less effective than using reusable containers?) This can be used to inform how we educate people about environmental behaviours.  A potential factor that we would’ve liked to include in our study is how time/effort factor’s into choosing environmental behaviours. Based on feedback from some of our participants, it seemed that the amount of work it took to follow through with a given practice informed their behaviour more than cost or effectiveness. For this reason, we feel lack of a time/effort measure is a limitation of our study.   Again, item #8 was too dissimilar from the rest of the items to be considered valid. Lastly, our demographic reach was skewed towards a younger more educated population. This may be in part because an environmental survey attracts more of this demographic but it would have been nice to have a broader sample.    Client Recommendations   Across all waste reduction practices, our results showed a higher average for willingness to adopt than frequency of action, a difference not shown to be influenced by cost in a statistically significant way. Due to this inconsistency, along with feedback from participants, we believe that there is another significant variable at play. We presume that the participant’s level of perceived effort or hassle for each waste reduction practice is contributing to this discrepancy. It appears that the inconvenience posed by the various waste reduction practices is deterring Vancouver residents regardless of their perceived effectiveness of the practices or their reported willingness to adopt them. We advise that future waste reduction initiatives, campaigns, regulations or programs be focused on the convenience rather than the monetary cost of possible waste reduction practices. If it were more convenient to recycle and compost than to put everything in the garbage, we predict that unnecessary waste would decrease dramatically. We would expect that the implementation of items such as: smaller household garbage pick up bins alongside larger compost and recycling bins, less frequent garbage pick up, and an imposed fee for residents whose household garbage exceeds a set amount per person, would address this issue of convenience. We expect that initiatives such as these would help in deterring residents from simply putting everything in the garbage; encouraging them to compost and recycle more frequently. Overtime, we would also expect that the convenience of composting and recycling over producing excess waste would alter consumer behaviors, eventually increasing the frequency of each of our waste reduction practices.   Based on our finding that participants perceived effectiveness of waste reduction practices was positively correlated with frequency and willingness of action, new initiatives should also be focused on education about how various practices can reduce waste and should focus on emphasizing the effectiveness or importance of any practices they are promoting. Vancouver residents select waste reduction practices based partly on how effective they perceive various practices to be; they prefer to direct their efforts toward practices that are perceived to be significantly waste reducing.                      References  Babaei, A. A., Alavi, N., Goudarzi, G., Teymouri, P., Ahmadi, K., & Rafiee, M. (2015). Household recycling knowledge, attitudes and practices towards waste management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 102, 94-100.  Martin, M., Williams, I. D., & Clark, M. (2006). Social, cultural and structural influences on household waste recycling: A case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 48, 357-395.  Singh, J., Laurenti, R., Sinha, R., & Frostell, B. (2014). Progress and challenges to the global waste management system. Waste Management & Research, 32(9), 800-812.  United Nations Environment Programme. (2015). Global Waste Management Outlook. Retrieved from http://unep.org/ietc/Portals/136/Publications/Waste%20Management/GWMO%20report/GWMO_report.pdf  Waste Management (n.d). Retrieved from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/waste-management                                Appendix   Appendix A - Demographic Variables  Variable Number Percent Gender Male 59 44%  Female 75 56%     Age (in years) 18-24 74 55.2%  25-34 38 28.4%  35-44 4 3.0%  45-54 4 3.0%  55-64 9 6.7%  65 and above 5 3.7%     Ethnicity East Asian 29 21.7%  South Asian 5 3.7%  SE Asian / Pacific Islander 19 14.2%  Hispanic / Latino 3 2.2%  White Caucasian 68 50.7%  Mixed Race 10 7.5%     Education Graduate or professional degree 11 8.2%  Bachelor's degree 57 42.5%  Associate's degree 7 5.2%  Trade or vocational degree 8 6.0%  Some college 31 23.2%  High school graduate 19 14.2%  Some high school 1 0.7%     Employment Status Employed full-time 49 36.5%  Employed part-time 25 18.5%  Self-employed 10 7.4%  Student 30 22.3%  Homemaker 2 1.5%  Retired 5 3.6%  Unemployed 14 10.4%     Income Under $20,000 36 26.9%  $20,000 - $30,000 15 11.2%  $30,000 - $40,000 14 10.4%  $40,000 - $50,000 11 8.2%  $50,000 - $75,000 14 10.4%  $75,000 - $100,000 12 9.0%  $100,000 - $150,000 12 9.0%  $150,000 or more 5 3.6%  Prefer not to answer 15 11.2%     Neighbourhood Arbutus Ridge 4 3.0%  Downtown 16 11.9%  Dunbar-Southlands 4 3.0%  Fairview 7 5.2%  Hastings Sunrise 3 2.2%  Kensington-Cedar Cottage 4 3.0%  Kerrisdale 3 2.2%  Killarney 1 0.7%  Kitsilano 24 17.9%  Marpole 2 1.5%  Mount Pleasant 10 7.4%  Oakridge 3 2.2%  Renfrew-Collingwood 13 9.7%  Shaughnessy 2 1.5%  South Cambie 3 2.2%  Strathcona 1 0.7%  Sunset 1 0.7%  Victoria-Fraserview 3 2.2%  West End 9 6.7%  West Point Grey 9 6.7%  Unsure 6 4.5%  Greater Metro Vancouver 6 4.5%  Appendix B  Website from which we based our 11 waste reduction practices:  http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/waste-management  Appendix C  PSYC 321 Assessing the Effectiveness of Waste Reduction Practices in Vancouver DEMOGRAPHIC & WASTE PRACTICES SURVEY    Demographic Questions:  1.What is your Gender?  __ Male __ Female __ Other __ Would prefer not to answer  2. What is your age?  __ 18-24 __ 25-34 __ 35-44 __ 45-54 __ 55-64 __ 65 and above __ Would prefer not to answer   2. Please specify your ethnicity:  __ African-American / Black  __ Asian / Pacific Islander __ Southeast Asian  __ Hispanic / Latino   __ Middle Eastern  __ White Caucasian __ Mixed     __ East Asian __ Would prefer not to answer __ Other (please specify): ___________________  3. What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? __ Less than High School Diploma __ High School Diploma   __ Post Secondary Institution (not completed) __ Associate’s Degree __ Bachelor’s Degree    __ Master’s Degree   __ Doctorate Degree    __ Other (please specify): _________________ __ Would prefer not to answer  4. What is your Employment Status? __ Unemployed   __ Student   __ Homemaker  __ Unable to work   __ Retired   __ Self Employed __ Employed (Part-Time)  __ Employed (Full-Time) __ Looking for work __ Would prefer not to answer  5. What is your income? __ Less than $20,000   __ $20,000 - $30,000   __ $30,000 - $40,000   __ $40,000 - $50,000 __ $50,000 - $75,000   __ $75,000 - $100,000 __ $100,000 - $150,000  __ $150,000 or more __ Would prefer not to answer  6. What neighbourhood of Vancouver do you live in? __ Arbutus Ridge   __ Downtown   __ Dunbar-Southlands __ Fairview    __ Grandview-Woodland __ Hastings Sunrise __ Kensington-Cedar Cottage __ Kerrisdale   __ Killarney  __ Kitsilano     __ Marpole   __ Mount Pleasant __ Oakridge    __ Renfrew-Collingwood __ Riley Park   __ Shaughnessy    __ South Cambie  __ Strathcona __ Sunset    __ Victoria-Fraserview __ West End __ West Point Grey    Please read each waste reduction practice and answer the following questions.  1)   Composting all food waste  How often do you currently use this practice?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Never                                                                                                                                 Always   How effective in reducing waste do you feel this practice is?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7   Extremely Ineffective                                                                                                                  Extremely                                                                                                                                                       effective How costly do you feel this practice is?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Extremely inexpensive          Extremely expensive                                                                How willing are you to adopt this practice?                                                                              1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Extremely unwilling                                                                               Extremely willing               2)   Recycling all beverage containers (e.g. cans, bottles, jugs)  How often do you currently use this practice?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Never                                                                                                                                  Always   How effective in reducing waste do you feel this practice is?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7   Extremely Ineffective                                                                                                                  Extremely                                                                                                                                                       effective How costly do you feel this practice is?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Extremely inexpensive          Extremely expensive                                                                How willing are you to adopt this practice?                                                                              1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Extremely unwilling                                                                              Extremely willing                   3)  Recycling all packaging and printed paper  How often do you currently use this practice?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Never                                                                                                                                  Always   How effective in reducing waste do you feel this practice is?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7   Extremely Ineffective                                                                                                     Extremely effective How costly do you feel this practice is?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Extremely inexpensive          Extremely expensive                                                                How willing are you to adopt this practice?                                                                              1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Extremely unwilling                                                                               Extremely willing                          4) Recycling all batteries and electronics  How often do you currently use this practice?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Never                                                                                                                                  Always   How effective in reducing waste do you feel this practice is?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7   Extremely Ineffective                                                                                                                   Extremely                                                                                                                                                        effective How costly do you feel this practice is?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Extremely inexpensive          Extremely expensive                                                                How willing are you to adopt this practice?                                                                              1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Extremely unwilling                                                                               Extremely willing                        5) Recycling all paints, solvents, pesticides and gasolines  How often do you currently use this practice?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Never                                                                                                                                  Always   How effective in reducing waste do you feel this practice is?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7   Extremely Ineffective                                                                                                                  Extremely                                                                                                                                                       effective How costly do you feel this practice is?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Extremely inexpensive          Extremely expensive                                                                How willing are you to adopt this practice?                                                                              1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Extremely unwilling                                                                               Extremely willing  6) Buying items in bulk  How often do you currently use this practice?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Never                                                                                                                                  Always   How effective in reducing waste do you feel this practice is?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7   Extremely Ineffective                                                                                                                   Extremely                                                                                                                                                       effective How costly do you feel this practice is?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Extremely inexpensive          Extremely expensive                                                                How willing are you to adopt this practice?                                                                              1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Extremely unwilling                                                                               Extremely willing  7) Buying items second hand  How often do you currently use this practice?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Never                                                                                                                                 Always   How effective in reducing waste do you feel this practice is?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7   Extremely Ineffective                                                                                                                  Extremely                                                                                                                                                       effective How costly do you feel this practice is?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Extremely inexpensive          Extremely expensive                                                                How willing are you to adopt this practice?                                                                              1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Extremely unwilling                                                                               Extremely willing  8) Paying a surcharge for any household waste pickup that exceeds a set amount  How often do you currently use this practice?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Never                                                                                                                                  Always  How effective in reducing waste do you feel this practice is?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7   Extremely Ineffective                                                                                                          Extremely                                                                                                                                                        effective How costly do you feel this practice is?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Extremely inexpensive          Extremely expensive                                                                How willing are you to adopt this practice?                                                                              1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Extremely unwilling                                                                               Extremely willing  9) Bringing reusable food and drink containers to cafes and restaurants instead of using disposable containers  How often do you currently use this practice?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Never                                                                                                                                 Always   How effective in reducing waste do you feel this practice is?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7   Extremely Ineffective                                                                                                                  Extremely                                                                                                                                                       effective How costly do you feel this practice is?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Extremely inexpensive                     Extremely expensive                                                                How willing are you to adopt this practice?                                                                              1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Extremely unwilling                                                                              Extremely willing  10) Bringing reusable shopping bags to stores  How often do you currently use this practice?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Never                                                                                                                                  Always   How effective in reducing waste do you feel this practice is?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7   Extremely Ineffective                                                                                                                  Extremely                                                                                                                                                       effective How costly do you feel this practice is?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Extremely inexpensive          Extremely expensive                                                                How willing are you to adopt this practice?                                                                              1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Extremely unwilling                                                                                     Extremely willing  11) Using electronic billing as opposed to receiving paper bills in the mail  How often do you currently use this practice?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Never                                                                                                                                 Always   How effective in reducing waste do you feel this practice is?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7   Extremely Ineffective                                                                                                                   Extremely                                                                                                                                                        effective How costly do you feel this practice is?  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Extremely inexpensive          Extremely expensive                                                                How willing are you to adopt this practice?                                                                              1  2  3  4  5  6  7 Extremely unwilling                                                                               Extremely willing  Thank you for completing our survey!  Appendix D ANOVA Tables Frequency (D.1) Descriptive Statistics  Mean Std. Deviation N Composting frequency 4.4254 2.18118 134 Recycling beverage frequency 6.1269 1.21037 134 Recycling packaging frequency 5.3134 1.54831 134 Recycling battery frequency 3.3209 2.05049 134 Recycling paints frequency 2.6866 2.00907 134 Buying in bulk frequency 4.1119 1.43878 134 Buying 2ndhand frequency 3.3881 1.55070 134 Surcharge on waste frequency 1.7761 1.39625 134 Reuseable container frequency 2.6940 1.77801 134 Reuseable bags frequency 4.8881 1.93372 134 Electronic billing frequency 5.6567 1.38794 134    Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure:   MEASURE_1   Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Noncent. Parameter Observed Powera Freq Sphericity Assumed 2569.285 10 256.928 103.283 .000 .437 1032.829 1.000 Greenhouse-Geisser 2569.285 7.800 329.391 103.283 .000 .437 805.618 1.000 Huynh-Feldt 2569.285 8.332 308.349 103.283 .000 .437 860.593 1.000 Lower-bound 2569.285 1.000 2569.285 103.283 .000 .437 103.283 1.000 Error(Freq) Sphericity Assumed 3308.533 1330 2.488      Greenhouse-Geisser 3308.533 1037.414 3.189      Huynh-Feldt 3308.533 1108.208 2.985      Lower-bound 3308.533 133.000 24.876      a. Computed using alpha = .05  Pairwise Comparisons Measure:   MEASURE_1   (I) Freq (J) Freq Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2 -1.701* .179 .000 -2.310 -1.093 3 -.888* .186 .000 -1.519 -.257 4 1.104* .243 .001 .280 1.929 5 1.739* .225 .000 .975 2.503 6 .313 .221 1.000 -.436 1.063 7 1.037* .233 .001 .247 1.828 8 2.649* .232 .000 1.861 3.437 9 1.731* .230 .000 .950 2.513 10 -.463 .202 1.000 -1.147 .222 11 -1.231* .207 .000 -1.934 -.529 2 1 1.701* .179 .000 1.093 2.310 3 .813* .134 .000 .357 1.270 4 2.806* .177 .000 2.206 3.406 5 3.440* .188 .000 2.803 4.078 6 2.015* .171 .000 1.435 2.595 7 2.739* .166 .000 2.174 3.304 8 4.351* .161 .000 3.804 4.897 9 3.433* .183 .000 2.813 4.053 10 1.239* .162 .000 .689 1.789 11 .470 .146 .090 -.026 .967 3 1 .888* .186 .000 .257 1.519 2 -.813* .134 .000 -1.270 -.357 4 1.993* .183 .000 1.370 2.615 5 2.627* .189 .000 1.986 3.268 6 1.201* .177 .000 .600 1.803 7 1.925* .173 .000 1.337 2.513 8 3.537* .178 .000 2.934 4.141 9 2.619* .200 .000 1.941 3.298 10 .425 .180 1.000 -.186 1.037 11 -.343 .171 1.000 -.922 .235 4 1 -1.104* .243 .001 -1.929 -.280 2 -2.806* .177 .000 -3.406 -2.206 3 -1.993* .183 .000 -2.615 -1.370 5 .634* .160 .007 .090 1.179 6 -.791* .215 .019 -1.521 -.061 7 -.067 .193 1.000 -.723 .589 8 1.545* .191 .000 .895 2.194 9 .627 .221 .291 -.124 1.377 10 -1.567* .219 .000 -2.309 -.826 11 -2.336* .207 .000 -3.038 -1.633 5 1 -1.739* .225 .000 -2.503 -.975 2 -3.440* .188 .000 -4.078 -2.803 3 -2.627* .189 .000 -3.268 -1.986 4 -.634* .160 .007 -1.179 -.090 6 -1.425* .213 .000 -2.147 -.703 7 -.701 .210 .059 -1.413 .010 8 .910* .177 .000 .308 1.513 9 -.007 .209 1.000 -.718 .703 10 -2.201* .232 .000 -2.988 -1.415 11 -2.970* .210 .000 -3.684 -2.257 6 1 -.313 .221 1.000 -1.063 .436 2 -2.015* .171 .000 -2.595 -1.435 3 -1.201* .177 .000 -1.803 -.600 4 .791* .215 .019 .061 1.521 5 1.425* .213 .000 .703 2.147 7 .724* .166 .001 .161 1.287 8 2.336* .159 .000 1.798 2.874 9 1.418* .183 .000 .798 2.038 10 -.776* .194 .006 -1.436 -.117 11 -1.545* .176 .000 -2.141 -.949 7 1 -1.037* .233 .001 -1.828 -.247 2 -2.739* .166 .000 -3.304 -2.174 3 -1.925* .173 .000 -2.513 -1.337 4 .067 .193 1.000 -.589 .723 5 .701 .210 .059 -.010 1.413 6 -.724* .166 .001 -1.287 -.161 8 1.612* .179 .000 1.005 2.219 9 .694* .195 .028 .033 1.355 10 -1.500* .196 .000 -2.165 -.835 11 -2.269* .178 .000 -2.873 -1.665 8 1 -2.649* .232 .000 -3.437 -1.861 2 -4.351* .161 .000 -4.897 -3.804 3 -3.537* .178 .000 -4.141 -2.934 4 -1.545* .191 .000 -2.194 -.895 5 -.910* .177 .000 -1.513 -.308 6 -2.336* .159 .000 -2.874 -1.798 7 -1.612* .179 .000 -2.219 -1.005 9 -.918* .186 .000 -1.550 -.286 10 -3.112* .199 .000 -3.787 -2.437 11 -3.881* .173 .000 -4.467 -3.294 9 1 -1.731* .230 .000 -2.513 -.950 2 -3.433* .183 .000 -4.053 -2.813 3 -2.619* .200 .000 -3.298 -1.941 4 -.627 .221 .291 -1.377 .124 5 .007 .209 1.000 -.703 .718 6 -1.418* .183 .000 -2.038 -.798 7 -.694* .195 .028 -1.355 -.033 8 .918* .186 .000 .286 1.550 10 -2.194* .202 .000 -2.880 -1.508 11 -2.963* .194 .000 -3.622 -2.303 10 1 .463 .202 1.000 -.222 1.147 2 -1.239* .162 .000 -1.789 -.689 3 -.425 .180 1.000 -1.037 .186 4 1.567* .219 .000 .826 2.309 5 2.201* .232 .000 1.415 2.988 6 .776* .194 .006 .117 1.436 7 1.500* .196 .000 .835 2.165 8 3.112* .199 .000 2.437 3.787 9 2.194* .202 .000 1.508 2.880 11 -.769* .186 .003 -1.399 -.138 11 1 1.231* .207 .000 .529 1.934 2 -.470 .146 .090 -.967 .026 3 .343 .171 1.000 -.235 .922 4 2.336* .207 .000 1.633 3.038 5 2.970* .210 .000 2.257 3.684 6 1.545* .176 .000 .949 2.141 7 2.269* .178 .000 1.665 2.873 8 3.881* .173 .000 3.294 4.467 9 2.963* .194 .000 2.303 3.622 10 .769* .186 .003 .138 1.399 Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.  Perceived Effectiveness (D.2)  Descriptive Statistics  Mean Std. Deviation N Composting perceived effectiveness 5.2836 1.48482 134 Recycling beverage perceived effectiveness 5.8433 1.30271 134 Recycling packaging perceived effectiveness 5.4776 1.42331 134 Recycling battery perceived effectiveness 5.0597 1.60713 134 Recycling paints perceived effectiveness 4.8731 1.68327 134 Buying in bulk perceived effectiveness 4.1642 1.43109 134 Buying 2ndhand perceived effectiveness 4.9478 1.47315 134 Surcharge on waste perceived effectiveness 4.4328 1.83716 134 Reuseable container perceived effectiveness 5.3582 1.58187 134 Reuseable bags perceived effectiveness 5.7388 1.37611 134 Electronic billing perceived effectiveness 5.6642 1.47635 134     Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure:   MEASURE_1   Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Noncent. Parameter Observed Powera Effectiveness Sphericity Assumed 384.408 10 38.441 21.449 .000 .139 214.493 1.000 Greenhouse-Geisser 384.408 8.093 47.499 21.449 .000 .139 173.588 1.000 Huynh-Feldt 384.408 8.666 44.358 21.449 .000 .139 185.881 1.000 Lower-bound 384.408 1.000 384.408 21.449 .000 .139 21.449 .996 Error(Effectiveness) Sphericity Assumed 2383.592 1330 1.792      Greenhouse-Geisser 2383.592 1076.360 2.214      Huynh-Feldt 2383.592 1152.587 2.068      Lower-bound 2383.592 133.000 17.922      a. Computed using alpha = .05   Pairwise Comparisons Measure:   MEASURE_1   (I) Effectiveness (J) Effectiveness Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2 -.560* .134 .003 -1.014 -.106 3 -.194 .145 1.000 -.685 .297 4 .224 .173 1.000 -.362 .810 5 .410 .163 .719 -.143 .964 6 1.119* .145 .000 .626 1.612 7 .336 .156 1.000 -.195 .867 8 .851* .190 .001 .205 1.496 9 -.075 .158 1.000 -.612 .463 10 -.455 .151 .171 -.968 .058 11 -.381 .164 1.000 -.936 .175 2 1 .560* .134 .003 .106 1.014 3 .366 .124 .211 -.056 .787 4 .784* .144 .000 .295 1.272 5 .970* .146 .000 .475 1.466 6 1.679* .149 .000 1.174 2.184 7 .896* .161 .000 .348 1.443 8 1.410* .190 .000 .764 2.057 9 .485 .157 .132 -.047 1.017 10 .104 .145 1.000 -.386 .595 11 .179 .154 1.000 -.343 .701 3 1 .194 .145 1.000 -.297 .685 2 -.366 .124 .211 -.787 .056 4 .418 .133 .113 -.033 .869 5 .604* .151 .006 .092 1.117 6 1.313* .160 .000 .769 1.858 7 .530 .165 .089 -.029 1.089 8 1.045* .192 .000 .393 1.697 9 .119 .150 1.000 -.390 .629 10 -.261 .152 1.000 -.778 .256 11 -.187 .156 1.000 -.718 .344 4 1 -.224 .173 1.000 -.810 .362 2 -.784* .144 .000 -1.272 -.295 3 -.418 .133 .113 -.869 .033 5 .187 .132 1.000 -.261 .634 6 .896* .173 .000 .308 1.483 7 .112 .171 1.000 -.468 .692 8 .627 .197 .098 -.041 1.294 9 -.299 .171 1.000 -.880 .283 10 -.679* .177 .010 -1.278 -.080 11 -.604 .187 .086 -1.240 .031 5 1 -.410 .163 .719 -.964 .143 2 -.970* .146 .000 -1.466 -.475 3 -.604* .151 .006 -1.117 -.092 4 -.187 .132 1.000 -.634 .261 6 .709* .171 .003 .129 1.288 7 -.075 .167 1.000 -.640 .491 8 .440 .193 1.000 -.214 1.095 9 -.485 .177 .381 -1.085 .115 10 -.866* .182 .000 -1.483 -.248 11 -.791* .174 .001 -1.382 -.200 6 1 -1.119* .145 .000 -1.612 -.626 2 -1.679* .149 .000 -2.184 -1.174 3 -1.313* .160 .000 -1.858 -.769 4 -.896* .173 .000 -1.483 -.308 5 -.709* .171 .003 -1.288 -.129 7 -.784* .155 .000 -1.311 -.256 8 -.269 .170 1.000 -.845 .308 9 -1.194* .168 .000 -1.765 -.623 10 -1.575* .147 .000 -2.075 -1.075 11 -1.500* .151 .000 -2.013 -.987 7 1 -.336 .156 1.000 -.867 .195 2 -.896* .161 .000 -1.443 -.348 3 -.530 .165 .089 -1.089 .029 4 -.112 .171 1.000 -.692 .468 5 .075 .167 1.000 -.491 .640 6 .784* .155 .000 .256 1.311 8 .515 .187 .375 -.121 1.151 9 -.410 .153 .458 -.930 .110 10 -.791* .158 .000 -1.328 -.254 11 -.716* .157 .001 -1.250 -.182 8 1 -.851* .190 .001 -1.496 -.205 2 -1.410* .190 .000 -2.057 -.764 3 -1.045* .192 .000 -1.697 -.393 4 -.627 .197 .098 -1.294 .041 5 -.440 .193 1.000 -1.095 .214 6 .269 .170 1.000 -.308 .845 7 -.515 .187 .375 -1.151 .121 9 -.925* .193 .000 -1.580 -.271 10 -1.306* .181 .000 -1.919 -.692 11 -1.231* .186 .000 -1.863 -.599 9 1 .075 .158 1.000 -.463 .612 2 -.485 .157 .132 -1.017 .047 3 -.119 .150 1.000 -.629 .390 4 .299 .171 1.000 -.283 .880 5 .485 .177 .381 -.115 1.085 6 1.194* .168 .000 .623 1.765 7 .410 .153 .458 -.110 .930 8 .925* .193 .000 .271 1.580 10 -.381 .141 .428 -.859 .097 11 -.306 .170 1.000 -.881 .269 10 1 .455 .151 .171 -.058 .968 2 -.104 .145 1.000 -.595 .386 3 .261 .152 1.000 -.256 .778 4 .679* .177 .010 .080 1.278 5 .866* .182 .000 .248 1.483 6 1.575* .147 .000 1.075 2.075 7 .791* .158 .000 .254 1.328 8 1.306* .181 .000 .692 1.919 9 .381 .141 .428 -.097 .859 11 .075 .144 1.000 -.414 .563 11 1 .381 .164 1.000 -.175 .936 2 -.179 .154 1.000 -.701 .343 3 .187 .156 1.000 -.344 .718 4 .604 .187 .086 -.031 1.240 5 .791* .174 .001 .200 1.382 6 1.500* .151 .000 .987 2.013 7 .716* .157 .001 .182 1.250 8 1.231* .186 .000 .599 1.863 9 .306 .170 1.000 -.269 .881 10 -.075 .144 1.000 -.563 .414 Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.  Perceived Cost (D.3)  Descriptive Statistics  Mean Std. Deviation N Composting perceived cost 2.5448 1.39610 134 Recycling beverage perceived cost 2.4925 1.57874 134 Recycling packaging perceived cost 2.58209 1.576608 134 Recycling battery perceived cost 3.7090 1.55028 134 Recycling paints perceived cost 3.6119 1.44530 134 Buying in bulk perceived cost 3.2687 1.43094 134 Buying 2ndhand perceived cost 2.4925 1.33065 134 Surcharge on waste perceived cost 4.6269 1.53981 134 Reuseable container perceived cost 2.4403 1.54876 134 Reuseable bags perceived cost 1.8582 1.28703 134 Electronic billing perceived cost 1.6567 1.29838 134  Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure:   MEASURE_1   Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Noncent. Parameter Observed Powera Cost Sphericity Assumed 1024.619 10 102.462 57.369 .000 .301 573.694 1.000 Greenhouse-Geisser 1024.619 6.663 153.767 57.369 .000 .301 382.277 1.000 Huynh-Feldt 1024.619 7.052 145.299 57.369 .000 .301 404.558 1.000 Lower-bound 1024.619 1.000 1024.619 57.369 .000 .301 57.369 1.000 Error(Cost) Sphericity Assumed 2375.381 1330 1.786      Greenhouse-Geisser 2375.381 886.237 2.680      Huynh-Feldt 2375.381 937.889 2.533      Lower-bound 2375.381 133.000 17.860      a. Computed using alpha = .05  Pairwise Comparisons Measure:   MEASURE_1   (I) Cost (J) Cost Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2 .052 .139 1.000 -.418 .523 3 -.037 .130 1.000 -.480 .405 4 -1.164* .143 .000 -1.651 -.678 5 -1.067* .158 .000 -1.604 -.530 6 -.724* .171 .002 -1.304 -.144 7 .052 .172 1.000 -.532 .637 8 -2.082* .187 .000 -2.716 -1.448 9 .104 .190 1.000 -.539 .748 10 .687* .156 .001 .156 1.217 11 .888* .151 .000 .376 1.400 2 1 -.052 .139 1.000 -.523 .418 3 -.090 .120 1.000 -.495 .316 4 -1.216* .141 .000 -1.694 -.739 5 -1.119* .164 .000 -1.676 -.562 6 -.776* .193 .006 -1.433 -.119 7 .000 .184 1.000 -.624 .624 8 -2.134* .201 .000 -2.816 -1.452 9 .052 .181 1.000 -.561 .666 10 .634* .144 .001 .145 1.124 11 .836* .142 .000 .355 1.317 3 1 .037 .130 1.000 -.405 .480 2 .090 .120 1.000 -.316 .495 4 -1.127* .138 .000 -1.595 -.659 5 -1.030* .165 .000 -1.589 -.471 6 -.687* .180 .012 -1.298 -.075 7 .090 .179 1.000 -.519 .698 8 -2.045* .193 .000 -2.699 -1.391 9 .142 .190 1.000 -.503 .787 10 .724* .154 .000 .200 1.248 11 .925* .144 .000 .436 1.415 4 1 1.164* .143 .000 .678 1.651 2 1.216* .141 .000 .739 1.694 3 1.127* .138 .000 .659 1.595 5 .097 .129 1.000 -.340 .534 6 .440 .175 .724 -.154 1.035 7 1.216* .183 .000 .594 1.838 8 -.918* .189 .000 -1.560 -.276 9 1.269* .191 .000 .621 1.916 10 1.851* .164 .000 1.296 2.406 11 2.052* .163 .000 1.500 2.605 5 1 1.067* .158 .000 .530 1.604 2 1.119* .164 .000 .562 1.676 3 1.030* .165 .000 .471 1.589 4 -.097 .129 1.000 -.534 .340 6 .343 .171 1.000 -.237 .923 7 1.119* .182 .000 .501 1.738 8 -1.015* .162 .000 -1.566 -.464 9 1.172* .183 .000 .550 1.793 10 1.754* .153 .000 1.235 2.273 11 1.955* .157 .000 1.421 2.490 6 1 .724* .171 .002 .144 1.304 2 .776* .193 .006 .119 1.433 3 .687* .180 .012 .075 1.298 4 -.440 .175 .724 -1.035 .154 5 -.343 .171 1.000 -.923 .237 7 .776* .140 .000 .302 1.250 8 -1.358* .161 .000 -1.906 -.810 9 .828* .157 .000 .297 1.360 10 1.410* .156 .000 .879 1.942 11 1.612* .160 .000 1.068 2.156 7 1 -.052 .172 1.000 -.637 .532 2 .000 .184 1.000 -.624 .624 3 -.090 .179 1.000 -.698 .519 4 -1.216* .183 .000 -1.838 -.594 5 -1.119* .182 .000 -1.738 -.501 6 -.776* .140 .000 -1.250 -.302 8 -2.134* .167 .000 -2.701 -1.567 9 .052 .157 1.000 -.481 .586 10 .634* .143 .001 .150 1.119 11 .836* .160 .000 .293 1.379 8 1 2.082* .187 .000 1.448 2.716 2 2.134* .201 .000 1.452 2.816 3 2.045* .193 .000 1.391 2.699 4 .918* .189 .000 .276 1.560 5 1.015* .162 .000 .464 1.566 6 1.358* .161 .000 .810 1.906 7 2.134* .167 .000 1.567 2.701 9 2.187* .179 .000 1.581 2.793 10 2.769* .171 .000 2.187 3.350 11 2.970* .177 .000 2.369 3.572 9 1 -.104 .190 1.000 -.748 .539 2 -.052 .181 1.000 -.666 .561 3 -.142 .190 1.000 -.787 .503 4 -1.269* .191 .000 -1.916 -.621 5 -1.172* .183 .000 -1.793 -.550 6 -.828* .157 .000 -1.360 -.297 7 -.052 .157 1.000 -.586 .481 8 -2.187* .179 .000 -2.793 -1.581 10 .582* .125 .000 .156 1.008 11 .784* .130 .000 .341 1.226 10 1 -.687* .156 .001 -1.217 -.156 2 -.634* .144 .001 -1.124 -.145 3 -.724* .154 .000 -1.248 -.200 4 -1.851* .164 .000 -2.406 -1.296 5 -1.754* .153 .000 -2.273 -1.235 6 -1.410* .156 .000 -1.942 -.879 7 -.634* .143 .001 -1.119 -.150 8 -2.769* .171 .000 -3.350 -2.187 9 -.582* .125 .000 -1.008 -.156 11 .201 .106 1.000 -.159 .562 11 1 -.888* .151 .000 -1.400 -.376 2 -.836* .142 .000 -1.317 -.355 3 -.925* .144 .000 -1.415 -.436 4 -2.052* .163 .000 -2.605 -1.500 5 -1.955* .157 .000 -2.490 -1.421 6 -1.612* .160 .000 -2.156 -1.068 7 -.836* .160 .000 -1.379 -.293 8 -2.970* .177 .000 -3.572 -2.369 9 -.784* .130 .000 -1.226 -.341 10 -.201 .106 1.000 -.562 .159 Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.  Willingness (D.4) Descriptive Statistics  Mean Std. Deviation N Composting willingness 5.6493 1.47795 134 Recycling beverage willingness 6.2836 1.10781 134 Recycling packaging willingness 5.8582 1.25748 134 Recycling battery willingness 5.0149 1.47146 134 Recycling paints willingness 4.7910 1.72149 134 Buying in bulk willingness 4.8060 1.47906 134 Buying 2ndhand willingness 4.4627 1.66637 134 Surcharge on waste willingness 3.4925 1.65773 134 Reuseable container willingness 4.5597 1.75795 134 Reuseable bags willingness 6.0522 1.28798 134 Electronic billing willingness 6.1716 1.27159 134  Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure:   MEASURE_1   Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Noncent. Parameter Observed Powera Willingness Sphericity Assumed 1032.484 10 103.248 62.567 .000 .320 625.666 1.000 Greenhouse-Geisser 1032.484 8.020 128.738 62.567 .000 .320 501.788 1.000 Huynh-Feldt 1032.484 8.583 120.296 62.567 .000 .320 537.002 1.000 Lower-bound 1032.484 1.000 1032.484 62.567 .000 .320 62.567 1.000 Error(Willingness) Sphericity Assumed 2194.788 1330 1.650      Greenhouse-Geisser 2194.788 1066.669 2.058      Huynh-Feldt 2194.788 1141.525 1.923      Lower-bound 2194.788 133.000 16.502      a. Computed using alpha = .05    Pairwise Comparisons Measure:   MEASURE_1   (I) Willingness (J) Willingness Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2 -.634* .119 .000 -1.039 -.230 3 -.209 .117 1.000 -.605 .187 4 .634* .152 .003 .120 1.148 5 .858* .166 .000 .296 1.420 6 .843* .164 .000 .288 1.399 7 1.187* .185 .000 .559 1.815 8 2.157* .180 .000 1.547 2.767 9 1.090* .174 .000 .499 1.680 10 -.403 .129 .124 -.842 .036 11 -.522* .148 .031 -1.024 -.021 2 1 .634* .119 .000 .230 1.039 3 .425* .090 .000 .120 .731 4 1.269* .125 .000 .845 1.693 5 1.493* .151 .000 .979 2.006 6 1.478* .153 .000 .959 1.996 7 1.821* .168 .000 1.252 2.390 8 2.791* .156 .000 2.263 3.319 9 1.724* .154 .000 1.201 2.247 10 .231 .118 1.000 -.170 .633 11 .112 .126 1.000 -.314 .538 3 1 .209 .117 1.000 -.187 .605 2 -.425* .090 .000 -.731 -.120 4 .843* .123 .000 .427 1.259 5 1.067* .153 .000 .548 1.586 6 1.052* .145 .000 .562 1.543 7 1.396* .173 .000 .808 1.983 8 2.366* .154 .000 1.844 2.887 9 1.299* .163 .000 .746 1.851 10 -.194 .119 1.000 -.598 .210 11 -.313 .134 1.000 -.767 .140 4 1 -.634* .152 .003 -1.148 -.120 2 -1.269* .125 .000 -1.693 -.845 3 -.843* .123 .000 -1.259 -.427 5 .224 .132 1.000 -.225 .672 6 .209 .154 1.000 -.313 .731 7 .552 .167 .067 -.015 1.119 8 1.522* .156 .000 .994 2.050 9 .455 .153 .187 -.063 .973 10 -1.037* .124 .000 -1.459 -.616 11 -1.157* .151 .000 -1.667 -.646 5 1 -.858* .166 .000 -1.420 -.296 2 -1.493* .151 .000 -2.006 -.979 3 -1.067* .153 .000 -1.586 -.548 4 -.224 .132 1.000 -.672 .225 6 -.015 .176 1.000 -.611 .581 7 .328 .184 1.000 -.297 .954 8 1.299* .176 .000 .701 1.896 9 .231 .186 1.000 -.398 .861 10 -1.261* .163 .000 -1.815 -.708 11 -1.381* .172 .000 -1.966 -.796 6 1 -.843* .164 .000 -1.399 -.288 2 -1.478* .153 .000 -1.996 -.959 3 -1.052* .145 .000 -1.543 -.562 4 -.209 .154 1.000 -.731 .313 5 .015 .176 1.000 -.581 .611 7 .343 .163 1.000 -.210 .897 8 1.313* .176 .000 .717 1.910 9 .246 .179 1.000 -.360 .853 10 -1.246* .143 .000 -1.731 -.762 11 -1.366* .149 .000 -1.870 -.862 7 1 -1.187* .185 .000 -1.815 -.559 2 -1.821* .168 .000 -2.390 -1.252 3 -1.396* .173 .000 -1.983 -.808 4 -.552 .167 .067 -1.119 .015 5 -.328 .184 1.000 -.954 .297 6 -.343 .163 1.000 -.897 .210 8 .970* .174 .000 .378 1.562 9 -.097 .182 1.000 -.714 .520 10 -1.590* .171 .000 -2.171 -1.009 11 -1.709* .173 .000 -2.296 -1.122 8 1 -2.157* .180 .000 -2.767 -1.547 2 -2.791* .156 .000 -3.319 -2.263 3 -2.366* .154 .000 -2.887 -1.844 4 -1.522* .156 .000 -2.050 -.994 5 -1.299* .176 .000 -1.896 -.701 6 -1.313* .176 .000 -1.910 -.717 7 -.970* .174 .000 -1.562 -.378 9 -1.067* .191 .000 -1.716 -.418 10 -2.560* .158 .000 -3.097 -2.022 11 -2.679* .174 .000 -3.269 -2.089 9 1 -1.090* .174 .000 -1.680 -.499 2 -1.724* .154 .000 -2.247 -1.201 3 -1.299* .163 .000 -1.851 -.746 4 -.455 .153 .187 -.973 .063 5 -.231 .186 1.000 -.861 .398 6 -.246 .179 1.000 -.853 .360 7 .097 .182 1.000 -.520 .714 8 1.067* .191 .000 .418 1.716 10 -1.493* .156 .000 -2.022 -.963 11 -1.612* .189 .000 -2.252 -.972 10 1 .403 .129 .124 -.036 .842 2 -.231 .118 1.000 -.633 .170 3 .194 .119 1.000 -.210 .598 4 1.037* .124 .000 .616 1.459 5 1.261* .163 .000 .708 1.815 6 1.246* .143 .000 .762 1.731 7 1.590* .171 .000 1.009 2.171 8 2.560* .158 .000 2.022 3.097 9 1.493* .156 .000 .963 2.022 11 -.119 .139 1.000 -.592 .354 11 1 .522* .148 .031 .021 1.024 2 -.112 .126 1.000 -.538 .314 3 .313 .134 1.000 -.140 .767 4 1.157* .151 .000 .646 1.667 5 1.381* .172 .000 .796 1.966 6 1.366* .149 .000 .862 1.870 7 1.709* .173 .000 1.122 2.296 8 2.679* .174 .000 2.089 3.269 9 1.612* .189 .000 .972 2.252 10 .119 .139 1.000 -.354 .592 Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.  Appendix E Correlation Tables Composting (E.1) Descriptive Statistics  Mean Std. Deviation N Composting frequency 4.4254 2.18118 134 Composting perceived effectiveness 5.2836 1.48482 134 Composting perceived cost 2.5448 1.39610 134 Composting willingness 5.6493 1.47795 134   Correlations  Composting frequency Composting perceived effectiveness Composting perceived cost Composting willingness Composting frequency Pearson Correlation 1 .529** .037 .693** Sig. (2-tailed)  .000 .672 .000 N 134 134 134 134 Composting perceived effectiveness Pearson Correlation .529** 1 .001 .474** Sig. (2-tailed) .000  .990 .000 N 134 134 134 134 Composting perceived cost Pearson Correlation .037 .001 1 -.093 Sig. (2-tailed) .672 .990  .288 N 134 134 134 134 Composting willingness Pearson Correlation .693** .474** -.093 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .288  N 134 134 134 134 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).   Recycling Beverage Containers (E.2) Descriptive Statistics  Mean Std. Deviation N Recycling beverage frequency 6.1269 1.21037 134 Recycling beverage perceived effectiveness 5.8433 1.30271 134 Recycling beverage perceived cost 2.4925 1.57874 134 Recycling beverage willingness 6.2836 1.10781 134   Correlations  Recycling beverage frequency Recycling beverage perceived effectiveness Recycling beverage perceived cost Recycling beverage willingness Recycling beverage frequency Pearson Correlation 1 .513** -.155 .769** Sig. (2-tailed)  .000 .074 .000 N 134 134 134 134 Recycling beverage perceived effectiveness Pearson Correlation .513** 1 -.193* .463** Sig. (2-tailed) .000  .026 .000 N 134 134 134 134 Recycling beverage perceived cost Pearson Correlation -.155 -.193* 1 -.197* Sig. (2-tailed) .074 .026  .023 N 134 134 134 134 Recycling beverage willingness Pearson Correlation .769** .463** -.197* 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .023  N 134 134 134 134 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).        Recycling Packaging (E.3)  Descriptive Statistics  Mean Std. Deviation N Recycling packaging frequency 5.3134 1.54831 134 Recycling packaging perceived effectiveness 5.4776 1.42331 134 Recycling packaging perceived cost 2.58209 1.576608 134 Recycling packaging willingness 5.8582 1.25748 134   Correlations  Recycling packaging frequency Recycling packaging perceived effectiveness Recycling packaging perceived cost Recycling packaging willingness Recycling packaging frequency Pearson Correlation 1 .467** -.004 .707** Sig. (2-tailed)  .000 .959 .000 N 134 134 134 134 Recycling packaging perceived effectiveness Pearson Correlation .467** 1 .036 .483** Sig. (2-tailed) .000  .680 .000 N 134 134 134 134 Recycling packaging perceived cost Pearson Correlation -.004 .036 1 -.159 Sig. (2-tailed) .959 .680  .066 N 134 134 134 134 Recycling packaging willingness Pearson Correlation .707** .483** -.159 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .066  N 134 134 134 134 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).        Recycling Batteries and Electronics (E.4)  Descriptive Statistics  Mean Std. Deviation N Recycling battery frequency 3.3209 2.05049 134 Recycling battery perceived effectiveness 5.0597 1.60713 134 Recycling battery perceived cost 3.7090 1.55028 134 Recycling battery willingness 5.0149 1.47146 134   Correlations  Recycling battery frequency Recycling battery perceived effectiveness Recycling battery perceived cost Recycling battery willingness Recycling battery frequency Pearson Correlation 1 .434** -.027 .611** Sig. (2-tailed)  .000 .755 .000 N 134 134 134 134 Recycling battery perceived effectiveness Pearson Correlation .434** 1 -.065 .451** Sig. (2-tailed) .000  .453 .000 N 134 134 134 134 Recycling battery perceived cost Pearson Correlation -.027 -.065 1 -.100 Sig. (2-tailed) .755 .453  .249 N 134 134 134 134 Recycling battery willingness Pearson Correlation .611** .451** -.100 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .249  N 134 134 134 134 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).        Recycling Paints and Gases (E.5) Descriptive Statistics  Mean Std. Deviation N Recycling paints frequency 2.6866 2.00907 134 Recycling paints perceived effectiveness 4.8731 1.68327 134 Recycling paints perceived cost 3.6119 1.44530 134 Recycling paints willingness 4.7910 1.72149 134   Correlations  Recycling paints frequency Recycling paints perceived effectiveness Recycling paints perceived cost Recycling paints willingness Recycling paints frequency Pearson Correlation 1 .339** -.089 .396** Sig. (2-tailed)  .000 .308 .000 N 134 134 134 134 Recycling paints perceived effectiveness Pearson Correlation .339** 1 -.030 .409** Sig. (2-tailed) .000  .734 .000 N 134 134 134 134 Recycling paints perceived cost Pearson Correlation -.089 -.030 1 -.196* Sig. (2-tailed) .308 .734  .023 N 134 134 134 134 Recycling paints willingness Pearson Correlation .396** .409** -.196* 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .023  N 134 134 134 134 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).         Buying in Bulk (E.6) Descriptive Statistics  Mean Std. Deviation N Buying in bulk frequency 4.1119 1.43878 134 Buying in bulk perceived effectiveness 4.1642 1.43109 134 Buying in bulk perceived cost 3.2687 1.43094 134 Buying in bulk willingness 4.8060 1.47906 134   Correlations  Buying in bulk frequency Buying in bulk perceived effectiveness Buying in bulk perceived cost Buying in bulk willingness Buying in bulk frequency Pearson Correlation 1 .290** -.088 .463** Sig. (2-tailed)  .001 .313 .000 N 134 134 134 134 Buying in bulk perceived effectiveness Pearson Correlation .290** 1 -.187* .530** Sig. (2-tailed) .001  .031 .000 N 134 134 134 134 Buying in bulk perceived cost Pearson Correlation -.088 -.187* 1 -.320** Sig. (2-tailed) .313 .031  .000 N 134 134 134 134 Buying in bulk willingness Pearson Correlation .463** .530** -.320** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000  N 134 134 134 134 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).           Buying Second Hand (E.7) Descriptive Statistics  Mean Std. Deviation N Buying 2ndhand frequency 3.3881 1.55070 134 Buying 2ndhand perceived effectiveness 4.9478 1.47315 134 Buying 2ndhand perceived cost 2.4925 1.33065 134 Buying 2ndhand willingness 4.4627 1.66637 134   Correlations  Buying 2ndhand frequency Buying 2ndhand perceived effectiveness Buying 2ndhand perceived cost Buying 2ndhand willingness Buying 2ndhand frequency Pearson Correlation 1 .266** -.002 .721** Sig. (2-tailed)  .002 .980 .000 N 134 134 134 134 Buying 2ndhand perceived effectiveness Pearson Correlation .266** 1 -.179* .411** Sig. (2-tailed) .002  .039 .000 N 134 134 134 134 Buying 2ndhand perceived cost Pearson Correlation -.002 -.179* 1 -.158 Sig. (2-tailed) .980 .039  .069 N 134 134 134 134 Buying 2ndhand willingness Pearson Correlation .721** .411** -.158 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .069  N 134 134 134 134 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).        Paying a Surcharge on Excess Waste (E.8) Descriptive Statistics  Mean Std. Deviation N Surcharge on waste frequency 1.7761 1.39625 134 Surcharge on waste perceived effectiveness 4.4328 1.83716 134 Surcharge on waste perceived cost 4.6269 1.53981 134 Surcharge on waste willingness 3.4925 1.65773 134   Correlations  Surcharge on waste frequency Surcharge on waste perceived effectiveness Surcharge on waste perceived cost Surcharge on waste willingness Surcharge on waste frequency Pearson Correlation 1 .105 -.074 .334** Sig. (2-tailed)  .225 .395 .000 N 134 134 134 134 Surcharge on waste perceived effectiveness Pearson Correlation .105 1 .063 .450** Sig. (2-tailed) .225  .471 .000 N 134 134 134 134 Surcharge on waste perceived cost Pearson Correlation -.074 .063 1 -.104 Sig. (2-tailed) .395 .471  .231 N 134 134 134 134 Surcharge on waste willingness Pearson Correlation .334** .450** -.104 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .231  N 134 134 134 134 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).         Bringing Re-usable containers to Cafés and Restaurants (E.9)  Descriptive Statistics  Mean Std. Deviation N Reuseable container frequency 2.6940 1.77801 134 Reuseable container perceived effectiveness 5.3582 1.58187 134 Reuseable container perceived cost 2.4403 1.54876 134 Reuseable container willingness 4.5597 1.75795 134   Correlations  Reuseable container frequency Reuseable container perceived effectiveness Reuseable container perceived cost Reuseable container willingness Reuseable container frequency Pearson Correlation 1 .355** .254** .560** Sig. (2-tailed)  .000 .003 .000 N 134 134 134 134 Reuseable container perceived effectiveness Pearson Correlation .355** 1 .000 .525** Sig. (2-tailed) .000  .996 .000 N 134 134 134 134 Reuseable container perceived cost Pearson Correlation .254** .000 1 -.028 Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .996  .751 N 134 134 134 134 Reuseable container willingness Pearson Correlation .560** .525** -.028 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .751  N 134 134 134 134 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).      Correlations Bringing Re-usable Bags to the Supermarket (E.10) Descriptive Statistics  Mean Std. Deviation N Reuseable bags frequency 4.8881 1.93372 134 Reuseable bags perceived effectiveness 5.7388 1.37611 134 Reuseable bags perceived cost 1.8582 1.28703 134 Reuseable bags willingness 6.0522 1.28798 134   Correlations  Reuseable bags frequency Reuseable bags perceived effectiveness Reuseable bags perceived cost Reuseable bags willingness Reuseable bags frequency Pearson Correlation 1 .348** -.055 .657** Sig. (2-tailed)  .000 .530 .000 N 134 134 134 134 Reuseable bags perceived effectiveness Pearson Correlation .348** 1 -.182* .568** Sig. (2-tailed) .000  .035 .000 N 134 134 134 134 Reuseable bags perceived cost Pearson Correlation -.055 -.182* 1 -.286** Sig. (2-tailed) .530 .035  .001 N 134 134 134 134 Reuseable bags willingness Pearson Correlation .657** .568** -.286** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .001  N 134 134 134 134 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).         Switching Billing from Paper Mail to Electronic (E.11)  Descriptive Statistics  Mean Std. Deviation N Electronic billing frequency 5.6567 1.38794 134 Electronic billing perceived effectiveness 5.6642 1.47635 134 Electronic billing perceived cost 1.6567 1.29838 134 Electronic billing willingness 6.1716 1.27159 134   Correlations  Electronic billing frequency Electronic billing perceived effectiveness Electronic billing perceived cost Electronic billing willingness Electronic billing frequency Pearson Correlation 1 .472** -.166 .570** Sig. (2-tailed)  .000 .055 .000 N 134 134 134 134 Electronic billing perceived effectiveness Pearson Correlation .472** 1 -.166 .496** Sig. (2-tailed) .000  .055 .000 N 134 134 134 134 Electronic billing perceived cost Pearson Correlation -.166 -.166 1 -.196* Sig. (2-tailed) .055 .055  .023 N 134 134 134 134 Electronic billing willingness Pearson Correlation .570** .496** -.196* 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .023  N 134 134 134 134 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).  Appendix F Methodological Issues  The main issue we faced was that we felt our instructions were unclear. Only much after the initial meeting with our client were we informed that we were to use administered survey measures as opposed to the ones we created. We also received mixed messages about which statistical measures to use (we were initially told to do a 2 way ANOVA) this complications slowed our initial progress and we had to led us having to rush and revise our project multiple times.     

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.18861.1-0343152/manifest

Comment

Related Items