INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. University M icrofilm s International A Beil & Howell Information C o m p a n y 3 0 0 North Z e e b R oad . Ann Arbor. Ml 4 8 1 0 6 -1 3 4 6 USA 3 1 3 /7 6 1 -4 7 0 0 8 0 0 /5 2 1 - 0 6 0 0 Order Num ber 9134141 A nalysis o f consum er attitudes in M ichigan about products containing recycled m aterials Lai, Mei-Jung, Ph.D. Michigan State University, 1991 UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 ANALYSIS OF CONSUMER ATTITUDES IN MICHIGAN ABOUT PRODUCTS CONTAINING RECYCLED MATERIALS By Mei-Jung Lai A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Resource Development 1991 ABSTRACT ANALYSIS OF CONSUMER ATTITUDES IN MICHIGAN ABOUT PRODUCTS CONTAINING RECYCLED MATERIALS By Mei-Jung Lai This study was conducted to investigate consumer attitudes and actions concerning recycled materials. purposes were to understand consumer's The main attitudes about products and packaging containing recycled materials and to discover whether there is potential for increasing the market for recycled materials. A statewide telephone survey was conducted to measure consumer attitudes toward products and particular. packaging recycling containing Primary shoppers, in general recycled and toward materials in aged 18 years or over, were selected for interviews within the randomly chosen households. A total of 224 respondents completed the interview. Frequencies, correlation coefficients, analysis of variance, t-test, and crosstab tables were used in the test of hypotheses. The results showed that people who were more environmentally conscious were more willing to accept products containing recycled materials and were more willing to pay more for products containing recycled materials. revealed that education level and income The data level did not significantly influence consumer's attitudes toward greater consumption of products containing recycled materials. Mei-Jung Lai Education and income also were not significantly related to willingness to pay more for products or packaging made with recycled materials. Cost and quality both were important factors determining consumers' decisions to purchase products containing recycled materials. The more expensive the recycled product relative to a similar product made from new materials, or the lower the quality of the product made from recycled materials relative to the product made from new materials, the lower the rate of acceptance of the recycled product. The findings also indicated that consumer attitudes about product acceptance differ materials. Consumers for different types viewed quality of of recycled recycled paper products differently than the quality of recycled products from aluminum, difference in glass, plastic, consumer and concerns steel. about A sizeable sanitation or cleanliness is evident when one contrasts food packaging and non-food packaging. The concern about sanitation or cleanliness of food packaging made from recycled materials was more than two times higher than the packaging made from recycled materials. concern for non-food This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Ting-Kuo Lai And Kou Hsiu-Lien Lai. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to many persons and several organizations for their support and contribution to the completion of this dissertation. I would like to thank Dr. Raymond D. Vlasin, my advisor and the chairperson of my doctoral guidance committee. Without his patience, endless support, and insightful advice, this dissertation could not have been completed. Milton Steinmueller for his support program in Resource Development. I thank Dr. throughout my Ph.D. Special thanks are extended also to Dr. Eckhart Dersch who provided great assistance for fundraising of this study, to Dr. John Schweitzer who provided valuable study, assistance for the statistical and to Dr. Sue Selkie, analysis Dr. Cynthia Fridgen, Joel Lichty for their information assistance. Dr. Bella Mody, of this and Mr. I also thank Dr. Rex L. LaMore and Mr. John Melcher for their encouragement, understanding, and assistance during the period I was engaged in the dissertation research and writing. I am grateful also to Urban Affairs Program at Michigan State University, and to the Sage Foundation, Dow Chemical Company, and Kroger Inc. for their financial support. Great appreciation is extended to Mr. John C. Chou for his encouragement and inspiration. v Finally I would like to thank my parents, my brothers and sister understanding, and financial assistance. vi for their love, TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ......................................... ix Chapter I. INTRODUCTION .............................. Statement of the Problem ............... Objectives of the Study ................ II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................. Concept of Attitude .................... The Functions of A t t i t u d e ............... Main Theories and Models of Attitude ... ................ Measurement of Attitude The Characteristics of Consumer Attitudes .............................. Consumer and Agency Attitudes about Products Containing Recycled Materials............................... The Willingness to Accept Products Containing Recycled Materials ....... ................................. Summary 1 2 5 7 8 11 13 19 26 28 34 35 III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ........... Purpose of Research .................... Research Questions ..................... Research Hypotheses .................... Methodology of Data Collection ......... IV. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ..................... 52 Presentation of Frequencies.............. 53 Test of H y p o t h e s e s ....................... 86 Analysis of Demographic Variables and Responses Relative to Consumer Attitudes toward Recycling and Recycled Products or Packaging ......... 105 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............... Summary ................................. Implications ............................ Recommendations ......................... vii 37 37 38 39 40 117 117 122 124 129 Conclusions APPENDICES APPENDIX A: SAMPLE SOURCE MATERIALS ........ 132 APPENDIX B: TELEPHONE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE . 137 APPENDIX C: RESPONSES TO OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS ..................... 172 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................... viii 193 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 4.1 Personal Characteristics of Respondents .... 55 4.2 Importance of Waste Disposal to Respondents ................................. 56 Concerns about Waste Disposal as a Local Issue ................................ 57 4.4 Respondents' Familiarity with Recycling .... 57 4.5 Recycling Efforts Underway in Respondents' Communities ................................ 58 Heard or Read about the Possibility of Recycling During the Past 12 Months..... 60 Participation in Separation of Recyclable Materials ...................... 61 Separation of Recyclable Materials from Garbage .................................... 62 Willingness to Separate Recyclable Materials If Curbside Pick-up Available 63 4.3 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 .... Frequency with which Respondents Look to See If Products They Are Selecting Are Made from Recycled Materials .......... 64 Frequency with which Respondents Look to See If Packaging They Are Selecting Is Made from Recycled Materials ........... 65 Proportion of Respondents Who Have Used Products Made from Recycled Materials .... 66 Choices of Recycled Products vs. New Products Under Alternative Conditions of Price and Q u a l i t y ........................ 69 ix Views on Quality of Products from Recycled Materials Compared to Products from New Materials ......................... 71 Views on Quality of General Products Made from Recycled Materials Compared to Those Made from New Materials ................... 72 Views on Quality of Specific Products Made from Recycled Materials Compared to Those Made from New Materials— Subgroup of 27 Respondents ................................ 73 Views on Sanitation or Cleanliness of General Food Packaging Made from Recycled Materials .................................... 75 Concerns about Sanitation or Cleanliness of Types of Food Packaging Made with Recycled Materials .................................... 76 Views on Sanitation or Cleanliness of General Non-food Packaging Made from Recycled Materials .......................... 77 Concerns about Sanitation or Cleanliness of Types of Non-food Packaging Made with Recycled Materials .......................... 79 Willingness to Pay More for Products Containing Recycled Materials than for Products Containing New Materials........... 80 Magnitude of Additional Payment Respondents Were Willing to Make for Products Containing Recycled Materials ............. 81 Willingness to Pay More for Packaged in Containers Made Materials than for Products in Containers Made from New 82 Products from Recycled Packaged Materials....... Magnitude of Additional Payment Respondents Were Willing to Make for Products Packaged in Containers Made from Recycled Materials .. 83 Views about Government Assistance for Manufacturers to Produce Packaging or Products Made from Recycled Materials....... 84 x Sources of Governmental Assistance Respondents Had in Mind When Recommending Government Assistance to Manufacturers .... 85 Primary Sources of Information about Quality and Safety of Products .................... 86 Relationship between Environmental Awareness and Acceptance of Products Containing Recycled Materials ............. 88 Relationship between Education Level and Attitudes toward Consumption of Products Containing Recycled Materials ............. 89 Relationship between Income Level and Attitudes toward Consumption of Products Containing Recycled Materials .............. 90 Consumers' Views about Quality of Recycled Products ........................... 91 Concerns about Sanitation or Cleanliness of Types of Food Packaging Made from ......................... Recycled Materials 92 Concerns about Sanitation or Cleanliness of Types of Non-food Packaging Made from Recycled Materials ......................... 94 Comparison of Concerns about Sanitation or Cleanliness of Food Packaging and Non-food Packaging Made from Recycled .................................. Materials 95 Relationship between Relative Cost of Recycled Product and the Acceptance of that Product Made with Recycled Materials ..... 97 Analysis of Variance between Relative Cost of Recycled Product and the Acceptance of that Product Made with Recycled Materials ................................... . 98 T-test Analysis of Relationship between Environmental Awareness and Willingness to Pay More for Products and Packaging Containing Recycled Materials 99 Relationship between Education and Willingness to Pay More for Products ............. . Containing Recycled Materials xi 101 4.39 4.40 4.41 Relationship between Education and Willingness to Pay More for Products Packaged in Containers Made from Recycled Materials ................................... 102 Relationship between Income and Willingness to Pay More for Products Containing Recycled Materials ............... 103 Relationship between Income and Willingness to Pay More for Products Packaged in Containers Made from Recycled Materials ................................... 104 4.42 Relationship between Gender and Attitudes about Recycling and Recycled Products or Packaging ........................ 107 4.43 Relationship between Age and Attitudes about Recycling and Recycled Products ................................ or Packaging 108 4.44 Relationship between Community and Attitudes about Recycling and Recycled Products or Packaging ........................ 110 4.45 Relationship between Education and Attitudes about Recycling and Recycled Products or Packaging ........................ 112 4.46 Relationship between Employment Situation and Attitudes about Recycling and Recycled Products or Packaging ........................ 114 4.47 Relationship between Income and Attitudes about Recycling and Recycled Products or Packaging .................................... xii 116 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This behavior research in Michigan materials. market investigates toward consumer products attitudes containing and recycled Consumer attitudes and behavior directly affect demand Increasing for products market demand made for of recycled recycled materials. materials is an essential part of any policy for increased use of recycled materials. The findings should provide insights about how to affect market demand America century. has for recycled materials. become a throwaway society last Americans produce 160 million tons of solid waste annually - 3.5 pounds per person a day amount of while during solid waste produced has disposal decreasing. capacity Nearly one in the third (Beury, continued to nation's of 1989). the increase, landfills nation's The is current landfills should be full within the next five years (O'Leary et. al., 1988). Siting new landfill facilities has been greatly hampered by concerned citizens and protest groups. Citizens, fearing environmental pollution and depressed property values, state openly that they do not want waste in or even near their communities. Disposition of wastes through incineration has not been an answer. While the siting of landfills has been greatly slowed by citizen action, the siting of incinerators has been 1 brought to a standstill in some communities. The issues of dioxins in stack emissions and of organic and heavy metals in ash have brought added local opposition to solid waste incineration. Recycling has been, and now is, considered one of the best alternatives for waste reduction. Nationally, only about 10 recycled. percent of our solid waste is The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set a recycling and waste reduction goal of 25 percent stream by 1992 (Beury, 1989). of the nation's waste Some states such as California, Florida, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Oregon have initiated various mandatory recycling laws which could help meet this goal (Treadaway, 1989). In Michigan, at least 70 percent of the 26,000 tons of waste generated each day could be recovered and converted into reusable materials and energy (Michigan Department of Natural Resources, June 1988). Currently, it is estimated that in Michigan only 10 to 15 percent of the waste is recycled. state Solid Waste Policy promotes a statewide goal The of recycling 20 to 30 percent of solid wastes by 2005 (Michigan Department of Natural Resources, June 1988). Statement of the Problem The general problem to be explored in this research can be phrased in two questions: (1) "What are consumer attitudes and actions regarding products containing recycled materials?" 3 (2) "What actions are the implications of consumer attitudes for recycling efforts and the market and for recycled materials?" Recycling involves separating certain materials from the waste stream future use and processing them or directly into into raw materials new for products.Recyclable materials include paper, glass, metals,plastic and motor A typical households materials community separating from the recycling one or rest of more their oil. program starts with of recyclable these garbage. Then, the recyclable materials are taken to a drop-off site, or may be picked up from each home. Studies show that separation of materials for recycling at the household level can be achieved fairly easily because it makes people feel good that they are contributing to a cleaner environment (White, 1989). survey (Glenn and Riggle, 1989) A 1989 found that separation and collection of materials is becoming widespread. Collection programs were identified in 35 states. However, separation and collection constitute only the first steps of recycling. the materials manufacturing are and Recycling is not completed unless brought back production, into and productive those use materials in are purchased by consumers and other users. The problem is that those to householders who are willing separate their recyclable materials from their garbage may not be willing to buy products containing recycled materials or to foster their production and use. And, householders who are not willing to separate recyclable materials may be even less willing to purchase products made from such materials. At present, the demand for products made from recycled materials lags far behind the available for those purposes. other users results in quantities of materials Lack of demand by consumers and a stockpiling of unmarketable recycled materials that could require landfilling. A report from the Michigan Recycling Promotion Advisory Committee (October, 1988) revealed that there was not a strong demand for recycled products. The reasons given were: (1) some people still believe that products made from waste cannot perform as well as those made from new material; considerable improvements last two decades, (2) despite in recycling technology over the people who have had negative experiences with recycled products in the past are unwilling to try those being made today; and (3) some people will purchase recycled goods only if their initial cost is significantly less than those for goods made from new materials. In a recent article, Treadaway (1989) reported that recycling has proved to be too successful because recycling companies in the Northeast were receiving such massive quantities of paper that a recyclable paper glut resulted. He also pointed out that markets for most recycled products have been slow to develop because of both a persisting bias against products with some recycled content and bias toward those made only from virgin materials. 1979) A survey (O'Riordan and Turner, conducted in one United Kingdom community found that householders viewed recycled paper as being among inferior quality goods. The long term health of recycling efforts depends on the markets for the recycled materials. markets depends upon recycled content. the demands for The health of products made these with Past studies reveal that consumer attitudes must be addressed if communities and states intend to help solve the solid waste crisis through more recycling. the important role of Despite consumer attitudes and actions toward products containing recycled materials, such attitudes and actions have received little attention in previous studies concerning market development of recycled materials. Objectives of the Study The general objective of the study is to learn more about consumers' attitudes and actions toward products made with recycled materials. More specifically, the objectives of this study are: 1. To understand consumers' attitudes about products containing recycled materials. 2. To determine how satisfied consumers are with their uses of products containing recycled materials. 3. To identify circumstances that motivate consumers to accept products containing recycled materials. 4. To discover whether there is potential for increasing the market demand for recycled materials. The study will survey consumers about their attitudes and actions toward products containing recycled materials. findings derived from this study are expected to The provide insights into the nature and importance of consumer attitudes and actions about recycled materials. affect the level the acceptance of products They should help in understanding ways to of market demand for recycled materials. Moreover, the information may be helpful to make use expected of recycled to be (legislative, containing materials. useful to state manufacturers who The findings and local executive and administrative) action plans for improved recycling programs. are also governments as they develop CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Attitude is generally described in terms of intervening mental or regardless hypothetical of its concepts which situational determine context. behavior Behavior is represented as the result of attitudes which are the output of interpersonal information processing. Therefore, it is easy to understand that consumer attitudes are important factors influencing consumers' purchasing decisions. An understanding of the way in which consumer attitudes are formed, reinforced, and modified is therefore or prime importance to the marketing of products containing recycled materials. In the review of the literature, the researcher will first review the relevant concepts concerning attitude, the functions of attitude, and theories and models of attitude. Then the measurement of attitude will be reviewed. These will be followed by the review of key past studies and findings concerning consumer attitudes toward products using recycled materials. This review of past findings will provide a basis for the efforts planned under this study. It will be particularly helpful in the selection and use of theoretical concepts about attitudes and behaviors. It will be helpful also in the design of approaches to measurement of consumer attitudes, and in formulating hypotheses to be addressed in the research. 7 8 Concept of Attitude The concept importance of "attitude" has long been of critical in attempts to explain consumer behavior. The concept of attitude is probably the most characteristic and essential concept in contempory American social psychology (Allport, 1935). An examination of the literature reveals many definitions of attitude. Allport traced the study of "attitudes" to 1862, when Herbert Spencer employed "attitudes" in his First Principles (Allport, 1985, p. 35). Herbert Spercer wrote, ".. arriving at correct judgement on disputed questions, much depends on the attitude of mind we preserve while listening to, or talking part in, the controversy; and for the preservation of a right attitude it is needful that we should learn how true, and yet how untrue, are average human belief." Then in 1888, L. Lange discovered that a subject who was consciously prepared to press a key at the onset of a stimulus responded more instructed quickly than a subject whose mainly to the incoming attention was stimulus and whose consciousness was therefore not focused primarily upon the expected reaction. This phenomenon was called the "subject's task attitude," or "Aufgabe". L. Lange developed the first clearly recognized attitude measures in connection with his study of reaction time (Allport, 1985, p. 36). 9 A second historical root is found attraction to individual differences. in psychology's Individual differences are considered the most important theme throughout the concept of attitude. Because of the feeling of need for a concept to explain consistency the in individual behavior across a variety of situations, many scientists have chosen the concept of "attitude". Whether psychologist or sociologist, both have found the concept of attitude useful. In early twentieth century, Washburn (1916) characterized attitude as "static movement systems" within the organs of the body and the brain. Later, Freuds' followers endowed attitudes with many attributes which are currently ascribed to attitudes, with ''..equating them with longing, hatred, and love, passion stream of and prejudice, unconscious According to Allport, in short, life." with (Allport, the 1985, onrushing p. 37). the sociologists added the important dimensions to the concept of attitude making it popular in contempory American social psychology. Thomas and Znanieck were the theorists who gave the concept of attitude systematic priority in their study of Polish peasants. They defined attitude as "..a process of individual consciousness which determines real or possible activities of the individual in the social world." After a careful survey of the various senses in which it was used, Allport proposed that attitude neural state readiness, organized is "..a mental and throughout experience, 10 exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individual's response to all objects and situations with which it is related." attitudes were (Allport, more or 1985, less p. 37). favorable For or Allport, unfavorable to popularized by particular persons, and events. Another definition of attitude was cognitively-oriented social psychologists. Crutchfield defined an attitude as of motivational, processes with world." emotional, .an enduring organization perceptual, and respect to some aspect of the (Krech and Crutchfield, definition, In 1948, Krech and attitude is 1948, p. viewed as cognitive individual's 152). Under this consisting of three components widely used by many researchers: the cognitive or knowledge component; the affective or emotional component; and the conative or behavior-tendency component. The Cognitive or Knowledge Component The beliefs, cognitive knowledge, component and consists opinions of about an an individual's object. The cognitive beliefs include specific evaluation of aspects and prescriptions about what should be done about the object if it is viewed favorably or unfavorably. The Affective or Emotional Component Individual feelings or emotional reactions to an object represent the affective component of an attitude. A consumer who states, "I like new products" or "new products have better quality," expresses the results of an emotional or affective 11 evaluation of the virgin products. These attitudes statements indicate an overall evaluation of the virgin products. different motivations and personalities, reference groups, and physical Due to past experiences, conditions, different individuals may evaluate the same belief differently. individuals may have a positive "recycled materials Some feeling toward the belief are of same quality as new materials" while others may respond with a negative reaction. The Conative or Behavior-Tendencv Component The conative component refers to behavioral tendencies toward an object. A decision to purchase a product containing recycled materials would reflect the behavioral component of an attitude. Although attitudinal effects on behavior are complex, the conative component seems most closely related to consumer purchasing behavior. The Functions of Attitude More recently, theorists have given more attention to a new definition of attitude which explicitly views attitudes as being multi-dimensional in nature, as opposed to the undimensional emphasis given by earlier definitions. According to Smith, Bruner, and White, attitude was defined as "a predisposition to experience, to be motivated by, and to act toward, a class of objects in a predictable manner" Bruner, and White, 1956, p. 39). (Smith, Smith and colleagues view attitude toward objects as having various characteristics such 12 as differentiation, salience, informational support and object value (Insko, 1967, p. 331). Katz (1960) developed a theory similar in many aspects to that of Smith, et al. Katz indicated that attitudes include both affective and the cognitive elements which describe the object of the attitude, its characteristics and its relations to other objects (Katz 1960, p. 343). Like Smith, et al., Katz presented various dimensions of attitudes. He mentioned various things such as intensity, specificity or generality, differentiation, number and strength of linkages to a related value system and relation to overt behavior (Insko, 1967, p. 334) . Katz identified individuals. function, four major functions of attitude for They are the adjustive function, the ego defense the value expressive function, and the knowledge function (Katz, 1960, p. 170). The Adjustive Function The adjustive function was described as the development of attitudes that lead most efficiently toward perceived desirable rewards and away from perceived undesirable ones. A consumer who learned from past experience that a recycled paper product was inferior in quality to a new paper product, may not readily accept a recycled plastic product. The Eao Defense Function The ego defense function allows people themselves from acknowledging their deficiencies. to protect To a great 13 extent, the attitude of negative prejudice (about other people and things) helps the individual sustain his/her self-concept by maintaining a sense of superiority over others. The Value Expressive Function This function gives positive expression to the external world of an individual's own values. It provides a useful linkage between the nature of "inner self" and the external world. Attitudes of environmental concern may be expressed in drinking beer in returnable bottles, turning in aluminum cans, and buying recycled products. The Knowledge Function This function represents the cognitive component of attitude which gives coherence and direction to experience. Katz argued that knowledge was sought in order to give meaning to what universe. would otherwise be an unorganized and chaotic The knowledge function appears to rule consumers' selective perception processes, and helps explain consumers' resistance to persuasion from unknown or disliked marketers. Main Theories and Models of Attitude Attitude theories develop and change. primarily deal with how attitudes The concept that consumers attempt to have harmonious relationships in their thoughts and feelings is the key concept or component in the theories of consumer attitude. attitude If the mind perceives an inconsistency within its structure, mental tension develops and eventually 14 returns the structure to a consistent state. Two classic theories based upon the consistency principle are the balance theory and the cognitive dissonance theory. The newer multi-attribute attitude theories will be discussed after a review of these two traditional theories. Balance Theory The balance theory was developed in 1946 by Fritz Heider. The balance theory dealt with social impacts on attitudes. influences and their According to Heider, a person perceived her or his environment in terms of triads. That is, a person viewed herself or himself as being involved in a triangular relationship in which all three elements— a key person, second person and an object— had either a favorable or unfavorable relationship with one other. The entire triad represented the perceptions of the key individual and not necessarily an objective reality. A triad could be balanced or unbalanced. represented consistent relations. no particular tendency to change Balanced triads Little tension arose with current attitudes. The unbalanced triads provide very different cases, however. In unbalanced triads, some tension was present and relations were less consistent. And, there was at least some change in attitudes (Wilkie, 1986; Loudon and Della Bitta, 1984). The basic concept of balance theory is that people want to hold beliefs and attitudes that are internally consistent for them. Although consumer attitudes are usually more 15 complex than the triads themselves, proved to be helpful to the the balance theory has recognition operate (Wilkie, 1986, p. 454). of how attitudes When triads are balanced, the stability of a consumer's attitude is presented. are unbalanced, When triads a consumer's attitude is likely to change. The consumer will either (1) shift his/her perception of one of the relationships to bring the triad into balance or (2) reduce his/her involvement level with the product or issue so the tension is easier to handle (Wilkie, 1986, p. 454). Cognitive Dissonance Theory The cognitive dissonance theory was formulated by Leon Festinger in 1957. The central assumption of the theory was that a person could not tolerate inconsistency. Festinger described cognitive dissonance as a psychological state which resulted whenever another. served one cognitive element conflicted The resulting dissonance produced tension, to push the individual to restore harmony with which to the inconsistent elements and thereby reduce unpleasant tension. An important point in the theory was that one of the ways in which the subject could change a set of dissonant cognitive elements his/her to a set behavior, of if consonant that elements behavior was comprises by changing one of the dissonant elements (Zimbardo and Ebbesen, 1969, pp. 67-72). Dissonance usually arises in three ways: (1) any logical inconsistency can create dissonance; (2) when a person experiences an inconsistency either between his/her attitude 16 and behavior or between two of his/her behaviors; and (3) when a strongly-held expectation is disconfirmed. be reduced: seeking Dissonance may (1) by attempting to revoke the decision; additional information that consistent with his/her behavior; is and supportive (3) (2) by of, or by lowering the importance of the cognition or the decision (Zimbardo and Ebbsen, 1969, pp. 67-72). The stress on the consumer's motivation to reduce tension following an important purchase decision is the significant contribution of cognitive dissonance theory. In terms of post-purchase, it is the total amount of dissonance that the consumer experiences that is important (Wilkie, 1986, p. 556) . The more dissonant cognition the consumer experiences regarding a decision, and the more important the decision is to the consumer, the higher the consumer's dissonance will be. Since dissonance produces uncomfortable feelings, the consumer is motivated to reduce the amount of dissonance which he/she is experiencing. Multi-attribute Attitude Models Although the balance and cognitive dissonance theories provide significant insight, recent research attention has focused on multi-attribute attitude models. The attraction of these newer models lies in their views of attributes as having more than one dimension. These models focus on the factors that contribute to overall attitudes and their evaluation by the consumer. 17 The multi-attribute approach suggests there are only two components: 1. Beliefs about the specific attributes of a product, such as price, durability and other characteristics of the object itself. 2. Evaluating consumer evaluates aspects the of those importance of beliefs— how each the attribute in satisfying the consumer’s needs (Berkman and Gilson, 1981, p. 315). Because a number of marketers and consumer behaviorists give much attention to the Fishbein model, it will be reviewed here as an example of multi-attribute models. Fishbein developed the model to predict a person's attitude toward an act (Loudon and Della Bitta, 1984, pp. 531-532): n A = \ BiAi I___ i=i A = the attitude toward performing a particular act, such as purchasing a particular brand; Bi = the individual's perception or belief that performing the behavior will lead to some consequence i; Ai = the individual's evaluation of consequence i; n = represents the number of salient consequences involved. A number of studies have been conducted using the 18 Fishbein model to predict consumer behavior. The general results suggest that information regarding consumers' beliefs and evaluations generated by a multi-attribute model can provide important knowledge relevant to marketing strategies. Fishbein's model provides an insight into the structure of a consumers' attitudes— to tell us why consumers like or dislike certain products. Because Fishbein's attitude model toward objects attitudes (products) and rather than relationships between behaviors, contribution— presented focused on attitude the extend his attitude model. Fishbein— with behavioral intention Ajzen's model to In the behavioral intention model, behavioral intentions are posited as functions of attitudes toward performing an act in a particular situation and of the subject's normative beliefs about the social expediency of performing this act, as they are aroused by his/her motivation to comply with the social norms as he/she perceives them. Compared to Fishbein's attitude model, the important change of this behavioral model is that beliefs and evaluations are about certain actions and the consequences of these actions, rather than about an object's attributes. The subjective norm component of the behavioral intentions model is expressed as follows (Loudon, Della Bitta, 1984, p. 536): 19 _ k ___ SN = \ bimi I___ i=l where SN = the individual's subjective norm regarding the specific behavior in question; bi = the normative beliefs affecting the behavior that the reference group or person i thinks should or should not be performed; mi = the motivation to comply with the thoughts of referent i; k = the number of relevant referents. Measurement of Attitude Research measurement. 1. involving attitude requires some form of Basically, attitude is measured for two reasons; To determine existing attitudes toward a product which will help identify problems and opportunities. 2. To determine the effectiveness of an attitude change strategy. According measuring categories: to Runyon instruments (1977, fall into (1) direct questioning, p. one 276), of all the attitude following (2) scaling techniques, (3) observations of overt behavior, (4) projective techniques, and (5) physiological measures. briefly reviewed. Then, These five categories will be levels of measurement and various types of scaling procedures will be discussed. 20 Direct Questioning Attitude measurement involves asking direct questions of the respondent, either through the use of a self-administered questionnaire or through an interviewer. rely on direct-questioning techniques "yes" or "no" answers to a question. a mix of highly-structured Some questionnaires that require simple Some questionnaires are specific questions that are predetermined and formalized, and others questions that rely on an instructed approach in which the interviewer is free to vary the questions' form and to probe the respondent's reply by designing and asking spontaneous questions based on answers previously given. Scaling Techniques In psychological and consumer research, attitudes are measured by scale ratings of verbal statements about how a consumer feels about a stimulus, object, or situation. They are also measured by ranking the value of objects, ratings of mood, willingness to endorse a product, subsequent behavior. and likelihood of a Various types of scaling techniques will be discussed later in this section. Observations of Overt Behavior Attitudes may be measured by observations of behavior in natural or structured situations. In marketing research, researchers employ observational techniques to determine brand preferences. measuring Observational consumers' techniques reactions to are package used also designs in and 21 advertising. Consumer testing is a technique in which a consumer is given a exposure choice to a among competitive commercial for brands one of before the and after brands. The commercial's effectiveness in changing attitudes is measured in terms of the number of respondents who switch their brand choices after viewing the commercial. Projective Techniques In using projective techniques, researchers show respondents an uncertain situation and ask them to respond. Some researchers may show respondents a picture and ask them to tell a story about it. Or researchers may give subjects an incomplete sentence and ask them to complete it. underlying the use of projective The theory techniques is that respondents will "project" their own feelings and beliefs into the uncertain situations. Physiological Measures Physiological respondents say measures and obtain attempt a to direct unconscious physiological reactions. ignore measure what of the their One instrument used is one which measures changes in the size of the pupil of the eye in response to emotion-evoking stimuli and which records eye-movements, thus enabling the researcher to determine the precise portion of a stimulus field upon which the subject is focusing. Although physiological measures have been used to some extent in determining the appeal of advertising, packages 22 and product designs, they remain in the periphery of attitude measurement. Levels of Measurement In attitude research there measurement scales available. are several types of The appropriate one to use depends on the researcher's assumption about how the numbers resemble real-world observations. Each measurement scale has its own underlying assumption about its correspondence to the real world (Luck and Rubin, 1987, p. 141). variety of measurement scales While there is a available for gathering information, all scales possess the properties of at least one of four types of measurement. The four types of measurement are: nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio. Nominal measures. classify objects. Numbers are used only as labels to Examples would include use of numbers to designate sex, birthplace, college major and brand awareness. Ordinal measures. Variables whose attribute logically rank-ordered are ordinal measures. may be Variables of this type are social class, attitudes and preference. Interval measures. Attributes comprise some variables for which the actual distance separating those attributes has some meaning. Such variables are interval measures. Examples include differences in opinion and in attitudes for which some range exists. example. Differences in index numbers would be another 23 Ratio measures. In ratio measures, the attributes comprising a variable are based on a true zero point. Most of the minimum social scientific variables meeting the requirements for interval measures also meet the requirements for ratio measures. Examples would include age, costs, number of customers, length of residence in a given place, and sales units. Types of Scaling Procedures In 1925, Floyd H. Allport and D. A. Hartman published an article which proved to be the first step in a series leading to techniques for the quantification of attitude measurement (Kiesler, Collins, and Miller, 1969, p. 10). Allport and Hartman began by asking 60 upper-class college students to write their personal prohibition. then asked coincided views on several topics including A larger sample of under-class students were to check with his the or one her own traditional attitude measures indicated a "yes" "no" or statement which views. in most Compared which for a question, the this nearly to the respondent technique divided the subjects into a number of subgroups, which were rank ordered with respect to the attitudinal dimension. In 1957, Edwards pointed out that one major assumption involved in the construction of attitude scale is that there are differences in the belief and disbelief systems of those with favorable attitudes compared to those with unfavorable attitudes (Edward, 1957, pp. 10-12). Although in reality not 24 all opinions and beliefs are expected to differ among persons with different statements attitudes of belief toward are favorable or unfavorable social objects, symptomatic of attitude toward an if some underlying an object, beliefs can be used in a technique of measurement these for the underlying attitude. Scaling procedures considered here include the Thurstone, Likert, Guttman, Stapel and Semantic Differential approaches. Thurstone-tvpe Scales. first step is to scale attitude continuum. In Thurstone-type scales, the attitude statements along the an A number of short opinion statements about the subject to be measured are collected and categorized by judges arranged into in a series sequence from unfavorable statements, This sorting of eleven piles. is intervals". known The piles favorable with a neutral procedure "equal-appearing highly The set as in to highly the center. the percentage are of method of judges who place each item in the different categories composes the basic data for (Kiesler, determining Collins, and the scale Miller, value 1969, of the Berkman statements and Gilson, 1981). Likert procedure Scales. which attitudinal While required continuum, the Thurstone judges Likert to scalesrepresent a sort items along an Scales score attitudes directly from the attitudinal responses without depending on a panel of judges. In Likert scales, the respondent is asked 25 to indicate the degree of agreement or approval to all items on a five-point scale. For each attitude item, five response categories are provided: disagree undecided, are obtained by assigning the responses a 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1. The of score. the strongly disagree. agree, scores sum and strongly agree, item scores Respectively, constitute the individual's total This technique is said to be the method of summated ratings. Guttman Scales. Guttman scales agree Respondents answering questions using or disagree with questions using the Likert scales. an item However, similar to if a Guttman statement is arranged, the agreement with a strongly favorable statement will strong probably favorable indicate statements and agreement with disagreement similarly with highly negative ones. The Guttman scales and resulting analyses are usually applied to dichotomous data. Dichotomous data are data with only two values: 0 and 1, yes and no, agree and disagree. Guttman scales are useful and important because The many behavioral measures are dichotomous. Staoel Scales. The Stapel approach uses a ten-point non­ verbal rating scale to measure both intensity and direction of attitudes. Usually adjectives are used to describe a product or store, and disagreement agreement) respondents with to -5 adjectives indicate on a their scale (strong disagreement). agreement from +5 or (strong This technique is 26 quite useful for its simplicity and economical means of data-gathering. The Semantic Differential. The above four methods all attempt to measure attitudes by having people indicate the extent of their agreement with various opinion statements. In contrast to this approach, the Semantic Differential measures attitude by focusing on the meaning people give a word or concept. The Semantic Differential was developed by Osgood and his associates. The procedure is to have people judge particular word or concept on a set of semantic scales. a These scales are defined by verbal opposites with a mid-point of neutrality and usually consist of seven discriminable semantic steps (Zimbardo, 1969, pp. 127-128). The Characteristics of Consumer Attitudes The concepts and theories of attitude state or imply the following characteristics of consumer attitudes directly applicable to this study: 1. Attitudes are a scheme for simplifying consumer behavior. all The mind cannot process, necessary market information purchases in every situation faced. consumer with an immediate and categorize and evaluate that leads to logical Attitudes provide the appropriate response that bypasses much of the learning and thinking processes. 2. Consumer attitudes have polarity. The position taken 27 toward a market problem is often based on positive or negative attitudes. favorably Positive attitudes lead people to act or react to a product or an issue. Negative attitudes predispose people to avoid a situation by market action, but not preclude purchasing. 3. The positive recognition that consumer or negative direction attitudes is not enough. have There a are degrees of feeling involved with consumer attitudes despite the direction the attitude takes. 4. Consumer attitudes reveal a type of structure which is important in simplifying consumer behavior. Structure refers to the fact that there is a pattern or element of consistency to a person's structure. beliefs and feelings, thus an attitude Attitude structure is particularly important as an indicator of consumer behavior, because a person's purchase behavior can sometimes be determined through observing general behavior. 5. Consumer attitudes are formed as a result of personal learning based on experience. influenced by other people This personal experience is and by culture, including institutional arrangements that influence individual action. Therefore, environment external authorities and the consumer's cultural are important consumer attitudes. influences in the formation of 28 Consumer and Agency Attitudes about Products Containing Recycled Materials In the increasingly 1970s, psychologists interested in and sociologists ecologically-oriented became behavior. Based on responses to a questionnaire designed to measure ecological attitudes and knowledge, Malloney and Ward (1973, pp. 583-583) stated that most people expressed a relatively high degree of verbal commitment and affect, with lower levels of actual Brickman commitment (1972, relationship and knowledge pp. 323-324) between about the environment. found attitudes and a similar littering lack of behavior. Brislin and Olmstead (1973, pp. 259-260) suggested that many people simply did not know how to translate their attitudes and intentions into behavior. However, McGuinness, Jones, and Cole (1977, p. 383) indicated that the majority of the sample demonstrated positive attitudes toward recycling, knew about the recycling program, and participated in the program at some 1 _ 1 C V C 1 • Because solid waste management has became one of the most important issues on national, because of positive attitudes state and local agendas, toward and recycling materials, recycling has been identified as one of the best alternatives for waste reduction. In 1986, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency set a recycling and waste reduction goal of 25 percent of the nation's waste stream by 1992. have set waste stream reduction goals Many states and have initiated various types of mandatory recycling regulations to help reach 29 these goals. Waste administrators have designed many mandatory and voluntary programs for sorting and collecting materials (O'Leary, Walsh and Ham, 1988, p. 38). recyclable The public has sensed the importance of reducing waste, and has developed a positive attitude toward recycling. Many household are willing to separate recyclable materials from their garbage. Since 1985, the Packaging nationwide survey each year. magazine has conducted a The annual surveys revealed that over three quarters of the respondents felt recycling was at least somewhat important (Packaging Magazine, June 1986, June 1987, June 1988, and June 1989). Supplv-Demand Imbalance Although recycling efforts have increased significantly during the past 10 years, studies show that markets for most recycled products did not follow the path efforts. In 1977, recycled materials factor. She suggested that without markets resource recovery. Don DeMeuse, recycling Lois Shapre stated that markets for the had secondary materials, separation would of to be recognized as the critical for separated neither mechanized separation nor home accomplish what the public expected from Her view has proved correct. president of the Fort Howard Company, a leading wastepaper recycler, told the 9th National Recycling Congress in August 1990: "Cities may have enjoyed successful separation and collection programs, but things fell apart when 30 they discovered that no markets exist for their collected. The ultimate indignity is sending those collected materials to the landfill...that has happened over and over again" (Breen, 1990, pp. 44-45). DeMeuse's speech drew a clear picture of the supply-demand imbalance of recycled materials in the late 1980s. The problem of the supply-demand imbalance of recyclable materials (1987) about has been discussed in several studies. Eldred in the industry pointed to a controversy beginning possible commodities recyclable conflicts and public materials. between private programs He also firms promoting noted that processing collection collection of and removal of items from the waste stream does not mean those items will be recycled. Increasing the market demand for products recycled materials would be one major solution. made from White (1989) indicated that compulsory recycling in New Jersey created an over-supply of old newspapers for the local mills. He viewed finding suitable outlets for the old newspapers as a major problem. Treadaway reported that (1989) provided recycling similar companies in observations. the Northeast He were receiving such massive quantities of paper that a recycled paper glut resulted. Private companies began charging local governments for accepting their waste paper for recycling. 31 Negative Attitudes about Recycled Materials Several studies have reported that the negative attitude by consumers toward recycled materials was a critical problem. In 1978, a survey of recycling activities attitudes was conducted in the and householder City of Norwich, Kingdom community (O'Riordan and Turner, 1979). a United The study's principal purposes were to identify the operation of the local market in attitudes secondary toward materials new and recycling recycled paper products. to assess ventures and householder the use of The survey consisted of a household survey of consumer attitudes and behavior toward waste paper and glass bottle recycling, and an investigation of waste material flows in Norwich's secondary markets. Important findings from the United Kingdom community study concerning the use of recycled products included: 1. Recycled paper was identified with inferior quality. 2. If recycled paper products were to be used extensively in place of virgin paper products, then must be public comparable would need either the products in color and texture to alter its view or the about the consuming value of recycled papers. 3. Almost everyone thought that used paper was valuable, so there was a willingness to see it recycled. 4. A high positive motivation existed to recycle paper and a fairly strong feeling existed that recycled paper would be acceptable. 32 5. Differences were revealed in attitudes toward the advantages and drawbacks of recycling recycled paper and those who did not. held by those who Those who consistently recycled believed more than those who did not that recycling would reduce import costs and improve environmental quality. 6. The group that recycled their waste paper also was less inclined to believe that recycled paper would lower the cost of paper, save energy, take too much effort, result in too much waste paper or produce a poorer quality paper than those who did not recycle their used paper. 7. There was a willingness to respond to an initiative to recycle glass bottles, with strong motivations based on the savings of litter and raw materials. A report from the Michigan Recycling Promotion Advisory Committee (1988) revealed that there was not a strong demand for recycled products. The report indicated three reasons: (1) Some people still believed that products made from waste could not perform as well as those made from new material; (2) Despite considerable improvements in recycling technology over the last two decades, people having negative experiences with recycled products in the past were unwilling to try those products from recycled materials being made today; (3) Some people purchased recycled goods only if the initial cost was significantly less than the cost of similar products made from new materials. Similar findings were indicated by Treadaway (1989) in 33 his recent article, "Is Recycling The Answer?". Treadaway mentioned that markets for most recycled products were slow to develop because of a persisting bias against products with some recycled content in favor of those products made only from new materials. Towns and Townships stated: iron Treadaway cited a National Association of report (Treadaway, 1989, p. 44) which "Newsprint competes with pulp wood, scrap iron with ore. Manufacturers available often do not take recycled materials which may advantage require changes of in processing and quality control and additional collection and transportation costs. established Businesses sources also Manufacturers often rely on single or to deal with cited buyer new, unproven resistance to suppliers. products with recycled content as a barrier to greater demand for reclaimed materials..." The report also pointed out "..recycled products experience some of the same discrimination as generic vitamins which a chemist can't distinguish from the name brand, but a significant number of buyers believe they can..." (Treadaway, 1989, p. 44). Kashmanian, Ferrand, Hurst, and Kuusinen (1990) pointed out the common belief that recycled materials are inferior to virgin materials. They also mentioned that manufacturers, marketers, and retailers were challenged to help overcome this perception and educate consumers on the need to purchase products and packaging made with recycled materials. They suggested that without a recycling infrastructure in place, 34 including long-term agreements for the sale and use of these materials, recyclable goods will not be recycled. The Willingness to Accept Products Containing Recycled Materials Despite the negative image of recycled products, the public seems willing to focus less on environmental regulation and more on purchasing behavior in the 1990s. show that consumers Several studies are willing to pay more for recycled products to help improve the environment. A recent Gallup poll consider buying (1990) reported that consumers would products in recycled paperboard packaging. Fifty-four percent reported they were "very interested" in packaging containing recycled materials. Forty-nine percent said they were more inclined to purchase a product whose package was made from waste paper if it was easily identified by a recycling symbol (Duff, 1990, p. 16). In a survey conducted by The Michael Paters Group, 89 percent of the respondents said they were concerned about the environmental impact of products they purchased, and 78 percent reported they were willing to pay extra for goods in recyclable or biodegradable packages (Duff, 1990, p. 16). Stuler (1990, p. 41) stated that consumers were willing to pay up to 5 percent more for recycled, recyclable or degradable packages. A recent study, entitled "The Environment: Public Attitudes and Individual Behavior", was conducted by the Roper 35 Organization in February 1990. A nationwide cross section of 1413 men and women, 18 years of age and over, was surveyed for the study in face-to-face interviews. Some important findings from the survey included: 1. About fifty percent of all consumers have seen labels touting the environmental friendliness of certain products; about 25 percent have seen advertisements of this nature. 2. Nearly one-third of the respondents bought a product specifically because of "green" advertising or labeling. 3. On average, percent more the consumers were willing to pay six for recycled paper products. However, about one-third of all consumers would not accept a price increase for recycled or "green" products. 4. Seventy eight percent of the respondents thought the government needed to make a major effort to improve the environment. 5. Income, education and gender correlated strongly with environmental activism. The more affluent, the better educated, and more women than men were likely to be involved. Summary In general, past studies show the following implications about recycling and consumer attitudes about recycled products: 1. Recycling has became the most widespread of activities performed by individuals to improve the environment since the 36 early 1980s. 2. Successful recycling programs have produced gluts of materials in the late 1980s. The supply-demand imbalance of recycled materials is a critical problem to be solved. 3. Many consumers believe products containing recycled materials are of lower quality than those made from new materials. 4. Many consumers are willing to accept and purchase products containing recycled materials. Some consumers are aware that markets are important to the success of recycling. 5. A substantial portion of the consumers are willing to pay more for the products containing recycled materials than for similar products made from new materials. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Purpose of Research Attitude research studies usually focus on one of two basic purposes: (1) description, or (2) explanation. The descriptive study provides a description of the feelings of some segment of the public. It is the typical public opinion poll, describing the views of the population from which the sample of the respondents is drawn. On the other hand, an explanatory study is conducted chiefly with the development of theoretical statements about relationships and processes. attempts to go to the root of the problem and It offer explanations for existing attitudes. The purpose of this study is to learn more about consumer attitudes and actions concerning products made with recycled materials. It seeks to explore consumers' views, and analyze the significance of those views. The findings derived from this study are expected to provide insights into the nature and importance acceptance of Consequently, of consumer products attitudes containing the researcher will and behaviors recycled attempt to about materials. combine both descriptive and explanatory elements within the framework of this study. 37 38 Research Questions To achieve the research objectives, the following questions will need to be answered: 1. Do consumers recognize that waste disposal is a problem in society? And, do people realize that recycling can diminish or retard the waste disposal problem? 2. Do consumers realize that many products can be made partially or entirely from recycled materials? 3. How do consumers recycled materials? feel about products containing Have consumers used products containing recycled materials? 4. Do consumers think recycled products are the same in quality as products made from new materials? 5. How do consumer attitudes differ toward various types of products containing recycled materials? 6. Will consumers recycled materials? use If so, various products containing which products and under what conditions? 7.Are consumers willing to pay more for products containing recycled materials? How much more would they be willing to pay and under what conditions of price and quality? 39 Research Hypotheses Hypotheses are crucial because they are the working tools in the development and testing of theories. Hypotheses also help direct which relationships are to be investigated and which data are relationships. to be sought and used in testing those Through the use of hypotheses and related tests, relationships can be evaluated and the nature of the relationship can be assessed regardless of personal values and biases. The following hypotheses will help guide this research: 1. There is a positive relationship between environmental awareness and acceptance of products containing recycled materials. 2. Education level and income level of consumers will be positively correlated with positive attitudes toward consumption of products containing recycled materials. 3. Consumers• attitudes about product acceptance will differ for different types of recycled products. 4. The more expensive the recycled product relative to similar products made from new materials, the lower the rate of acceptance of that product. 5. There is a positive relationship between environmental awareness and the willingness to pay more for products containing recycled materials. 6. There is a positive relationship among education 40 level, income level and the willingness to pay more for products containing recycled materials. Methodology of Data Collection Telephone Survey Method Surveys are chiefly used in studies for which individuals are the units of analysis. Surveys are excellent tools for measuring attitudes and orientations in a large population (Babbie, 1986, pp. 203-204). In general, there are three survey methods commonly used for collecting data from individuals: face-to-face interviews, mailed questionnaires, and telephone interviews. A statewide telephone survey of Michigan consumers was used in this study. The telephone interview was selected over the other two methods for the following reasons: 1. The most significant advantage was that the telephone interviews, as organized and conducted, provided control over the entire data collection process, quality including sampling, respondent selection, and questionnaire design and use. Studies showed that interviewing by telephone, when properly organized, closely approached the level of unbiased standardization that is the goal of all (Larvakas, 1987, pp. 11-12, Babbie, 1986, p. 2. From a cost standpoint, the data required interviews. far more good surveys 230). a telephone survey collects efficiently than face-to-face 41 3. Time telephone survey. saving was another major advantage of Data are gathered and entered into the computer at the time of the telephone interview. Thus when the several weeks of interviewing are complete the data entry is also completed and data are ready for analysis. Use of the face-to-face interview technique might take a month or more with a period of data entry to follow. Mail surveys with follow-up mailings could take an even longer period without the guarantee of a satisfactory response rate. However, telephone interviews are constrained by limitations on the complexity and length of the interview. The average person will not participate in a telephone survey for longer than 30 minutes. questionnaires do not Face-to-face interviews and mail seem to be as severely limited. Similarly, complicated questions may be extremely difficult to use in telephone surveys whereas such items may work quite well in both face-to-face interviews and mail questionnaires. These limitations in size of survey and complexity of questions were considered and minimized as much as possible in the process of designing the telephone questionnaire used in this study. Sampling Procedure Sampling Technique. In order to obtain a cross-section sample of Michigan household telephone numbers, the survey sample in this study was ordered from Survey Sampling, Inc., a Connecticut firm that specializes in household sampling the 42 techniques. Dialing Survey Sampling Inc. has employed Random Digit (RDD) to draw the samples. RDD procedures were developed as a reaction to the problems of undercoverage in telephone directories. the inclusion of RDD procedures not only provide for unlisted telephone numbers, they also eliminate the need to list or enumerate units prior to drawing a sample. The characteristics of the samples drawn for this study through use of the RDD technique are as follows: 1. The method telephone households given, within the produced epsem samples in the geographic limits of in sampling available data, which all frame are an equal probability of selection. 2. The method clustered samples. produced element samples rather than This means the company provided various sample sets that could be combined and used. 3. The samples were stratified to all counties in the geographic frame so that the number of telephone households drawn from a county for the sample was proportional to that county's share of telephone households. 4. Samples were drawn systematically from an array of counties and an array of working telephone blocks within each county. 5. The method employed double sampling for the pre-test to ensure no business numbers and no non-use numbers were included (additional detail about the sampling process is 43 provided in the next section). Sample Selection Process. Before any random sample could be drawn, Survey Sampling Inc. conducted a "frame" — a set of operations permitting selection of specific elements of the population with non-residential known probability. exchanges from the To frame, eliminate a special proprietary data file was developed to include all apparent residential listings from every known telephone directory in the state of Michigan. telephone numbers were After names, street addresses, transferred to computer, and they were geographically coded so that the correct mailing post office and ZIP code could be added to each record. In urbanized areas, the addresses were also related to census tracts, block groups or enumeration districts. Survey Sampling Inc. developed a specialized computer program which performs the following operations in building the phone file: 1. Added the appropriate area code and time zone to each telephone number. 2. Sorted all numbers to area code, exchange, and phone number sequence. 3. Tabulated the counties of residence for all listed residential numbers of each exchange. 4. Tabulated which ZIP codes were associated with each exchange and the number of listings in each ZIP. 5. Counted the number of listings in each exchange. 6. Identified the "working blocks" of each exchange, 44 where a block was a group of 100 contiguous number (e.g. 1800-1899) and a working block was one which contained three or more listed residential numbers. In order to make sure the telephone numbers provided pertained only to households, the Center for Survey Research, Michigan State University conducted a "pretest" sample two times to see if any business numbers or non-use numbers were included in the sample listing from Survey Sampling Inc. Data Collection Process Questionnaire Design. The questionnaire used for this study requested the respondent's views on such matters as: 1. The importance of waste disposal; 2. Community efforts in recycling waste materials; 3. The respondent's own efforts to deal with the waste problem; 4. Actions the respondent might be willing to take; 5. Under what conditions the respondent would purchase products or packaging made from recycled materials; 6. How relative price and quality of products (recycled vs. new) would influence the respondent's decision; and 7. Related ideas about use of recycled materials. Direct-questioning and various scaling techniques were used in the questionnaire. The scaling techniques included Likert procedures and the Guttman scales. The questionnaire was organized as follows: Section A: General questions: about waste disposal and 45 recycling. Section B : Questions about recycling of particular kinds of materials. Section C : Questions about recycling efforts in which the respondent might be involved. Section D : Questions about what the respondent might do if curbside pick-up of recyclable materials were available in the community. Section E : Questions about products and packaging made from recycled materials. Section F : Questions about the importance of price and quality in respondent's decisions to purchase products made from new materials or from recycled materials. Section G : Questions about the respondent's impressions of the quality of products containing various kinds of recycled materials. Section H : Questions about the quality of particular types of products that might be made from recycled materials. Section I : Questions about concerns for sanitation or cleanliness of types of food packaging that might be made from recycled materials. Section J : Questions about the concerns for the sanitation or cleanliness of types of non-food packaging that might be made from recycled materials. 46 Section K: Questions about costs of products or packaging and willingness of the consumers to pay. Section L: Questions concerning assistance that levels of government might provide manufacturers to produce packaging or products made from recycled materials. Section M: Question about the sources of respondents use to obtain information about the quality and safety of products. Section N: Questions about the respondent's background information. Center for Survey Research. The Michigan State University Center for Survey Research agreed to conduct the telephone formatting November, survey the and related telephone 1990, data collection. questionnaire after the researcher and It (Appendix began B) in faculty advisors finished the draft questionnaire. Pretest. A pretest was conducted prior to the actual survey to evaluate overall reliability and validity of the completed questionnaire. Survey Research Center On December 6 and 7, conducted 6 pretest 1990. The interviews. Feedback from the pretest was utilized in the revision of the questionnaire used in this study. Training. The purpose of training was to provide interviewers with enough background information so they were well-prepared to begin actual interviewing. The training 47 session was trainer. from held on December 6. The researcher was the Nine interviewers, two managers, and one supervisor the Center for Survey Research participated in the training session. The training session was structured as follows: 1. An explanation of the survey's purposes was provided. It helped interviewers understand the importance of the survey. 2. item The researcher proceeded through the questionnaire by item, reading each question in its entirety and providing examples to all interviewers about the questionnaire and its use. Interviews and Data Collection Telephone interviews were conducted from the Center for Survey Research, Michigan State University during the period from December 7, 1990, to January 20, 1991. Experienced interviewers were assigned by the Center for Survey Research and were monitored throughout the interviewing period. As calls were made to households, primary shoppers 18 years of age or over, were selected by interviewers within the chosen households. Interviews with the primary shopper lasted, on average, about 25 minutes. The Center for Survey Research utilized the Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) technique to record the responses. was done at a Under the CATI system, all interviewing Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) terminal where the 48 interviewer keyed respondents' answers into a CRT. Each interviewer sat at a table in front of a CRT console with a television-like screen directions conducting for displaying the questions, interview. answers, and The was CRT connected to a computer that acted as the survey processor. A bank of telephone numbers were programmed into the survey processor. The interviewer only signaled when ready to begin interviewing, and the first telephone number appeared before her on the screen. inappropriate appeared on immediately entered, response, the asked next. an an screen implemented. the previous If interviewer error keyed message and corrective When the an automatically measures correct computer determined which in response question were was should be The next question would not appear until the question had been answered with an appropriate response category. If a particular telephone number did not result in an answer, the number was returned to the computer bank for later use. In this study, 23.6 percent of those completing interviews were reached on the first call, 19.6 percent on the second call, and another 19.6 percent on the third call. The other 37.2 percent required up to 21 more calls to complete the interview. The average number of calls per party required to complete an interview was 10.5. 49 Response Rate The response rate is often calculated in one of two ways for telephone surveys. One rate is based on the number of completions compared to the number of potential respondents who may or may not have been contacted for a response, but who are eligible. disability, times are Refusals, partial completions, illness or and those unable to be contacted after several included. Another rate compares the number of interviews completed in full to the completions plus refusals and partial except completions for refusals, less all uncompleted regardless of cause interviews, (Frey, 1989, pp. 49-50). In this study, the interviewers used 380 valid numbers. Among the respondents 380 cases completed (eligible the telephone interview, 122 numbers), 224 refused to participate in the interview, 4 were unable to participate in the interview, 27 were unanswered telephone numbers, and 3 were problem phones (bad connection). Because the first rate, discussed above, demonstrated how well a survey had performed in making contact with all possible respondents, and it was the preferred rate for reporting results, the researcher used the formula to calculate the response rate. formula, the response rate was 59 percent. According to the Studies showed that rates of 40-50 percent for telephone surveys could be expected with the first method of calculation (Frey, 1989, p. 50) . Therefore, the response rate in this study was considered 50 high. The 224 completed sample size resulted in a 95 percent confidence level of +/- 6 percent. Studies also indicated that the average refusal rate could be expected to be 20-25 percent for telephone surveys. The 32 percent refusal rate in this study appears higher than average. A major reason was probably due to the timing of the study, which was around the Christmas-New Year's season. This may have contributed to respondents' unwillingness to take the time to be interviewed. It is important to note that this study did not result in partial interviews. was contacted and agreed to participate completed it. The absence of partial have affected both the Each person who in the interview, interviews appears to computed rate of response and the computed rate of refusal, making both somewhat higher than would be the case if partial interviews had existed. Sample Distribution Among the 224 respondents, the distribution was as follows: (1) 110 respondents (49.1 percent) was distributed in Eastern Michigan-Detroit, respondents (21.4 percent) Mid-Michigan-Lansing, respondents (25.4 Flint, and Ann Arbor area, (2) 48 was distributed in the areas of Saginaw, percent) Gaylord, was and Alpena, distributed in (3) 57 Western Michigan-Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Cadillac, Petoskey area, and (4) 9 respondents (4.0 percent) was distributed in the area of Upper Peninsula. Compared the sample distribution with the population 51 distribution in Michigan by county, the data showed a small difference between the state and this study. According to the 1980 census data, the population distribution in Michigan was as follows: (1) 57.6 percent of total population distributed in the area of Eastern Michigan-Detroit, and Ann Arbor, distributed (2) in the 15.2 area Gaylord, and Alpena, distributed Cadillac, in population of total Flint, population of Mid-Michigan-Lansing, was Saginaw, (3) 23.8 percent of total population was Western Petoskey percent was Michigan-Grand area, distributed in and the (4) Rapids, 3.4 area percent of Upper Kalamazoo, of total Peninsula. Comparison of the data shows that the sample selected for this study was fairly representative of the households in Michigan. Recording of Data Data from telephone interviews were entered into SPSSx Information Analysis Computer System for analysis. The percentages, means, medians, correlational measures, analysis of variance, t-test, and other statistics were computed to test the hypotheses and evaluate the relationships. The data results were supplemented with other appropriate secondary materials in developing the findings and related explanations. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS This chapter consists of three sections. The first section presents the frequencies of the survey results. includes ten sub-sections: waste It (1) personal characteristics, disposal, (3) familiarity (2) attitudes about with recycling, (4) recycling efforts, (5) the importance of price and quality in consumers' decisions to purchase products made from recycled recycled materials, materials, (7) (6) attitude concerns about about quality of sanitation or cleanliness of packaging made with recycled materials, (8) willingness to pay more for recycled products and packaging, (9) attitudes about government assistance for recycled products and packaging, and (10) primary source of information about quality and safety of products. The second section addresses the hypotheses testing. Various statistical methods were used to test the hypotheses. The statistical analysis of methods variance, include: reliability, correlation t-test, analysis, crosstab, and frequency. The third section presents the analysis of relationships between demographic variables and responses relative consumer attitudes about recycling and recycled materials. 52 to 53 Presentation of Frequencies Personal Characteristics The personal data were analyzed to obtain a profile of the sample population of 224 consumers participating in the study. The variables include: sex, age, community, education level, employment situation, and household income (Table 4.1) . The survey showed that respondents were female. over three quarters of the Nearly 68 percent of the respondents were 18 to 49 years old. The remaining 32 percent were 50 years and older. Survey data on formal education were classified as: 6th grade or less, school or GED, (5) (2) 7th to 12th grade, of the (3) completed high (4) some college, trade or vocational school, completed college, percent (1) and respondents (6) advanced degree. indicated that About they had 32 "some college, trade or vocational school", with another 23 percent saying they had a high school diploma or GED. Nearly 42 percent of the respondents were employed full time, while 14 percent indicated they were employed part time. Some 18 percent of the respondents were full-time homemakers. Approximately 16 percent of the respondents were "retired". Half of the respondents reported a total household income of $15,000 to $44,999. Another 16 percent of the respondents indicated the total household income was under $15,000. The community is reported here in three categories: city, (2) suburb, and (3) rural. (1) About 41 percent of the 54 respondents said they live in a city, while nearly 34 percent said they live in a rural community. Compared to the profile of State of Michigan, the data showed there were small difference between the state and this study for the variables of age, education level, and community. The 1980 Census data indicated that (1) about 80 percent householders, of in State of Michigan, were aged between 25 years old to 64 years old, compared to 74 percent of the respondents in this study, (2) 75 percent of Michigan residents, aged 18 years or older, were at least high school graduates, compared to 80 percent of the respondents in this study, and (3) 71 percent of the Michigan residents live in a city or suburb, comparison of compared to the 65 percent of this study. statistical data for Michigan and A the personal data from respondents indicates the primary shoppers in this study should be quite representative shoppers in the households of Michigan. of primary 55 Table 4.1: Personal Characteristics of Respondents Variable Category Sex Male Female Age 18-24 years 25-34 years 35-49 years 50-64 years 65 years or older Level of Education Number Percent 51 173 22.8 77.2 25 53 73 39 34 11.2 23.7 32.6 17.4 15.2 6th grade or less 1 7th-12th grade 44 Complete high school or GED 51 Some college, trade or vocational school 72 Completed college 44 Advanced Degree 12 0.4 19.6 22.8 32.1 19.6 5.4 Employment Situation Employed full-time Employed part-time Full-time homemaker Unemployed Retired Full-time student Other 93 31 41 13 36 6 4 41.5 13.8 18.3 5.8 16.1 2.7 1.8 Community City Suburb 40.6 24.1 <■**■» e1 JJ i^ Don't know, no response 91 54 n r /J 4 Less than $15,000 $15,000 to $29,999 $30,000 to $44,999 $45,000 to $59,999 $60,000 to $74,999 $75,000 or over Don't know, no response 35 46 62 31 14 18 18 15.6 20.5 27.7 13.8 6.3 8.0 8.0 ituxcu. A i e c i Household Income 1.8 56 Attitudes About Waste Disposal Respondents were asked how important the disposal wastes was when compared to other environmental issues. of The reply given by 95 percent of the respondents was that disposal of wastes was "most important" or "one of the more important" (Table 4.2). Table 4.2: Importance of Waste Disposal to Respondents Degree of Importance Number Percent 70 31.3 142 63.4 One of the least important 9 4.0 Least important 3 1.3 Most important One of the more important Total respondents 224 100.0 The respondents were asked how concerned they were about waste disposal as a local issue. respondents (Table 4.3). said "very concerned" Nearly 93 percent of the or "somewhat concerned" Table 4.3: Concerns about Waste Disposal as a Local Issue Percent Number Degree of Concern Very concerned 106 47.3 Somewhat concerned 101 45.1 Not very concerned 11 4.9 Not concerned at all 5 2.2 Don't know, no answer 1 0.5 224 100.0 Total respondents Familiarity with Recvclina Approximately 82 percent of the respondents they were "very familiar" recycling (Table 4.4). percent) indicated or "somewhat indicated familiar" And, only a very small percentage (3.1 they were not familiar at all recycling. Table 4.4: Respondents' Familiarity with Recycling Degree of Familiarity Very familiar Number Percent 56 25.0 Somewhat familiar 127 56.7 Not very familiar 34 15.2 7 3.1 224 100.0 Not familiar at all Total respondents with with 58 Another measure of respondents' familiarity with recycling as well as an indication of the community recycling environment is the nature of community recycling underway. The majority (71 percent) of the respondents reported their communities have some recycling efforts under way (Table 4.5) . Among respondents, 60 percent said their community voluntary drop-off points for recyclable materials. has Nearly 17 percent of the respondents pointed out that their communities have curbside pick-up of recyclable materials, while 9 percent said their community has a recycling plant. Table 4.5: Recycling Efforts Underway in Respondents' Communities Types of Community Recycling Efforts Number Percent One or more community recycling efforts underway 160 71.0 Voluntary drops-off points of recyclable materials 135 60.3 Regular curbside pick-up of recyclable materials 37 16.5 A recycling plant 20 8.9 Any other facilities or programs for recycling 22 9.8 No community recycling efforts, don't know or no response 64 28.6 Total respondents reporting 224 100.0 59 One survey question asked respondents was whether they heard or read about the possibility of recycling particular kinds of materials during the past 12 months. There were 14 recyclable items listed for the respondents' consideration in making their responses. According to the survey results, the most "heard or read" item for recycling was respondents citing it. newspapers, with 92 percent of The least "heard or read" item was "plastic bags used to cover dry cleaning" (Table 4.6). Since there were 205 of 224 respondents who read or heard about recycling of newspapers, and another 180 who read or heard about recycling aluminum cans, or glass and plastic bottles with deposits, nearly all respondents were exposed to both the idea of recycling and some specifics of recycling. 60 Table 4.6: Heard or Read about the Possibility of Recycling During the Past 12 Months Recyclable Materials Number Percent Newspapers 205 91.5 Aluminum cans, or glass and plastic bottles with deposits 180 80.4 Other plastic containers with no deposits 155 69.2 Motor oil 153 68.3 Other glass containers with no deposits 143 63.8 Other plastic bags 139 62.1 Other cans with no deposits 134 59.8 Scrap metals 130 58.0 Auto batteries 121 54.0 Paperboards or cardboard boxes 118 52.7 Magazines, catalogues, and other color papers 104 46.4 Tires 59 39.7 Household batteries 73 32.6 Plastics bags used to cover dry cleaning 59 26.3 224 100.0 Total respondents reporting 61 Recycling Efforts In order to understand how actively the respondents were involved in recycling, one question was asked whether they separate recyclable materials from their garbage. respondents, 214, or nearly 96 percent, Of the 224 reported that they were involved in some forms of recycling. In other words, they recycled one or more items (Table 4.7). Table 4.7: Participation in Separation of Recyclable Materials Number Nature of Participation Percent 113 50.4 Separate six to ten items from garbage 88 39.3 Separate more than ten items from garbage 13 5.8 Did not separate items from garbage 10 4.5 224 100.0 Separate one to five items from garbage Total respondents Respondents were asked if they separated from garbage any of 13 items that could be recycled. The survey revealed the top three items were: aluminum cans, or glass and plastic bottles with deposits, newspapers, and motor oil. Some 88 percent of the respondents separated aluminum cans, or glass and plastic bottles for returning and recycling. More than two-thirds (68 percent) separated newspapers for recycling and over 43 percent of the respondents separated motor oil for 62 recycling. metals, The least frequently separated items were: scrap paperboards or cardboard boxes, and household batteries (Table 4.8). Table 4.8: Separation of Recyclable Materials from Garbage Recyclable Materials Number Aluminum cans, or glass and plastic bottles with deposits 198 88.4 Newspapers 152 67.9 Motor oil 97 43.3 Magazines, catalogues, and other color papers 89 39.7 Plastic bags 86 38.4 Auto batteries 85 37.9 Other glass containers with no deposits 84 37.5 Other plastic containers with no deposits 84 37.5 Other cans with no deposits 80 35.7 Tires /•A U7 on O W tw Scrap metals 61 27.0 Paperboards or cardboard boxes 54 24.1 Household batteries 48 21.4 224 100.0 Total respondents reporting Percent Another question asked respondents was their willingness to separate recyclable items from their garbage if curbside pick-up were available. Over 95 percent of the respondents 63 said they would be willing to separate plastic containers, cans and glass containers with no deposits, plus plastic bags, newspaper, and magazines, catalogues and other color papers if provided curbside pick-up. The survey also showed over 87 percent of the respondents were willing to separate every kind of item from their garbage if curbside pick-up were available in their community (Table 4.9). Table 4.9: Willingness to Separate Recyclable Materials If Curbside Pick-up Available Recyclable Materials Number Percent Plastic containers with no deposits 221 98.7 Cans with no deposits 219 97.8 Glass containers with no deposits 219 97.8 Plastic bags 216 96.4 Newspapers 216 96.4 Magazines, catalogues, and other color papers 216 96.4 Paperboards or cardboard boxes 211 94.2 Household batteries 209 93.3 Scrap metals 201 89.7 Auto batteries 200 89.3 Plastic food wraps or sandwich bags 200 89.3 Motor oil 195 87.1 Tires 195 87.1 Total respondents reporting 224 100.0 64 Consumers Recent Actions toward Products and Packaging Made from Recycled Materials Among the 224 consumers participating in this survey, 71 percent indicated that at least '•sometimes" they looked to see whether or not the products were made with recycled materials when selecting products (Table 4.10). respondents said at least About two-thirds of the "sometimes" they looked to see whether or not the packaging was made with recycled materials (Table 4.11). Those who "never" look to see if products or packaging are made from recycled materials outnumber those who "always" look by about four to one. Table 4.10: Frequency with which Respondents Look to See If Products They Are Selecting Are Made from Recycled Materials How Often Respondents Looked Number Percent Always 15 6.7 Frequently 56 25.0 Sometimes 89 39.7 Never 64 28.6 Total respondents 224 100.0 65 Table 4.11: Frequency with which Respondents Look to See If Packaging They Are Selecting Is Made from Recycled Materials Number Percent Always 17 7.6 Frequently 29 12.9 101 45.1 77 34.4 224 100.0 How Often Respondents Looked Sometimes Never Total respondents Nearly 86 percent of the consumers have used products made from recycled materials, while only about 8 percent of the consumers materials haven't (Table 4.12). used products made from recycled Those who indicated they have not used products made from recycled materials were asked why they haven't used them. Their reasons included: lack information, never looked for them, inferior quality, prefer new product, and not available in store. 66 Table 4.12: Proportion of Respondents Who Have Used Products Made from Recycled Materials Percent Number Nature of Use Have used products made of recycled materials 192 85.7 Have not used products made of recycled materials 17 7.6 Don't know 15 6.7 224 100.0 Total respondents Influence of Price and Oualitv Differentiation on Respondent Decisions to Choose Recycled Products Over New Products A series of questions were asked respondents to determine the importance of price and quality in their decisions to purchase products made from new materials or from recycled materials. In designing these questions, price differences presented for products from recycled materials were percent lower, The quality differences presented for products from recycled materials were were asked 10 By combining the two sets respondents were given 9 questions. to (1) (2) the same, and (3) 10 percent lower than products made from new materials. of choices, 10 (2) the same, and (3) 10 percent higher than products made from new materials. percent higher, (1) indicated recycled products, if they would (1) And, they definitely buy (2) probably buy recycled products, (3) definitely buy new products, or (4) probably buy new products. 67 Response to Price Changes. The respondents indicated that if the quality was the same for both products and if the price were the same, 51 percent would "definitely buy" the recycled product and an additional 33 percent would "probably buy" the recycled products— a total of 84 percent (Table 4.13). If these is no difference in quality but if the price of the recycled product is 10 percent more, those reporting they would "definitely buy" drops to 8 percent and those reporting they would "probably buy" increases to 37 percent— a total of 45 percent. However, if quality were the same, but the price of the recycled product was 10 percent less, the respondents reporting they would "definitely buy" it increases to 60 percent and those reporting they would "probably buy" it were 32 percent— a total of 92 percent. One can conclude that the respondents were highly responsive to differences in the price of products. Response to Quality Change. Recall that respondents indicated that if quality and price of recycled products and new products were the same, 51 percent would "definitely buy" the recycled product and an additional 33 percent would "probably buy" it— a total 84 of percent. If the price were the same, but the quality of the recycled product was 10 percent less, those reporting percent and they those would "definitely reporting they buy" would "probably increases to 39 percent— a total of 52 percent. the price were the same and the quality drops of to 13 buy" However, if the recycled 68 products was 10 percent higher, the respondents reporting they would "definitely buy" it increases to 58 percent and those reporting they would "probably buy" total of 90 percent (Table 4.13). can conclude that respondents it were 32 percent— a Given this response, one were highly responsive to differences in the quality of products. Responses to Simultaneous Changes in Price and Quality. Some 69 percent of the respondents indicated they would "definitely buy" a recycled product if it was 10 percent better in quality and 10 percent lower in price, and an additional 24 percent said they would "probably buy" it— a total of 93 percent. However, when the quality, as well as price, was reduced by 10 percent, the respondents who would "definitely buy" dropped sharply to 19 percent, while those who would "probably buy" it rose to 58 percent— a total of 77 percent. If the quality was 10 percent better and price were increased by 10 percent, fewer respondents would chose the recycled product— a total of 61 percent. And, if the quality of the recycled product was 10 percent lower than the new product and the price was 10 percent higher than the new product, less than 25 percent of the respondents would chose the recycled product (Table 4.13) . It appears that if either price or quality of the recycled product is unfavorable, a compensating change by the other will not fully restore the loss in respondent selection. 69 Table 4.13: Choices of Recycled Products vs. New Products Under Alternative Conditions of Price and Quality 1) Quality Price Definitely Buy Recycled Products Percent Same 10% lower Same Same Same 10% more Probably Buy Recycled Products Percent Definitely Probably Buy Buy New New Products Products Percent Percent 60.1 32.3 4.0 1.8 50.9 33.3 6.8 3.2 8.1 36.5 38.3 13.1 10% better Same 58.1 32.4 4.1 2.7 Same Same 50.9 33.3 6.8 3.2 10% lower Same 13.0 38.6 30.9 10.8 10% better 10% lower 69.1 24.2 2.7 1.8 10% lower 19.4 58.1 14.9 3.6 44.6 25.2 6.8 10% lower 10% better 10% more 10% lower 16.7 < " N© _______ _ _ 0 A J.VJ'b UIUi.e t • V A A A 22.0 1) There were a total of 224 respondents. While at least 92 percent of the respondents answered each question on price and quality conditions, some respondents did not know how they would respond or chose not to answer. Therefore, the percentages for each row will total to less than 100 percent. 70 Attitude About Quality of Recycled Materials and Products The researcher asked respondents to rate the quality of various kinds of recycled materials. Five recycled materials were listed: 1) aluminum, 2) glass, 3) paper, 4) plastic, and 5) steel. recycled "about Over 84 percent of the respondents reported that aluminum, the same" glass, or plastic, "higher and quality" steel than were either new materials. Recycled Paper was the least rated material with 73 percent reporting it was the same or higher quality than products made with new materials (Table 4.14). Those who indicated they thought products made from recycled materials were of lower quality than products made from new materials were asked why they believed it. Their reasons included: used materials are inferior, flaws/defects, not as strong as new products, poor color quality, poor appearance, poor quality of ink, and prefer new products. \ Table 4.14: Views on Quality of Products from Recycled Materials Compared to Products from New Materials Respondents Reporting Products from Recycled Materials as the Same or Higher Quality than Products from New Materials Recycled Materials About the Same Quality Higher Quality Combination Same and Higher Quality Number/Percent Number/Percent Number/Percent Glass 198 88.4 2 0.9 200 89.3 Aluminum 190 84.8 2 0.9 192 85.7 Plastic 188 84.7 3 1.4 191 85.3 Steel 187 84.6 2 0.9 189 84.4 Paper 160 71.4 3 1.3 163 72.8 Total Respondents Reporting 224 100.0 224 100.0 224 100.0 72 Another question asked respondents was, "compared to those products made from all new materials, how would you rate the quality of particular types of products made from recycled materials?" In general, nearly 87 percent of the respondents said the quality was "about the same" (Table 4.15). Table 4.15: Views on of Quality of General Products Made from Recycled Materials Compared to Those Made from New Materials Respondents' Choice About the same Lower quality Higher quality Don't know Refused/no response Total Respondents Number Percent 194 86.6 14 6.3 3 1.3 10 4.5 3 1.3 224 100.0 Those who rated the products made from recycled materials as generally lower, generally higher in quality than products made from new materials, and those who answered "don't know" were asked to compare 11 listed specific products. some 27 persons, respondents. The group, constituted only 12 percent of the total Their answers are arrayed by the 11 specific products in Table 4.16. 73 Table 4.16: Views on Quality of Specific Products Made from Recycled Materials with Compared to Those Made from New Materials— Subgroup of 27 Respondents 1) Specific Products Respondents Reporting Same or Higher Quality for Recycled Materials Number Percent Greeting cards 17 7.6 Glassware 14 6.3 Writing paper 12 5.4 Plastic benches, picnic tables, tables and chairs 12 5.4 napkins, tissue paper, and paper towels 10 4.5 Office paper goods 8 3.6 Plastic boards, planks, posts, and fences 8 3.6 Carpeting 8 3. o Toilet paper 6 2.7 Plastic floor coverings, runners and plastic sheeting 6 2.7 Household construction materials 5 2.2 224 100.0 Total respondents reporting 1) There were a total of 224 respondents. While 194 respondents indicated recycled products were generally about the same as products made from new materials, 3 respondents refused to answer the guestion. Therefore, they were not required to answer for the specific products. 74 The Concerns about the Sanitation or Cleanliness of Packaging Made with Recycled Materials The researcher wanted to know how concerned the respondents were about the sanitation or cleanliness of food packaging and non-food packaging made with recycled materials. Respondents were asked about their concern for food packaging as a group, as well as their concern for non-food packaging as a group, when made with recycled materials. In response to the question on food packaging as a group, approximately 18 percent of the respondents indicated that they generally were "not concerned at all" about the sanitation or cleanliness of food packaging made with recycled materials respondents (Table 4.17). indicated A either total of they were 64 percent very of concerned the or somewhat concerned about sanitation and cleanliness of food packaging made from recycled materials. 75 Table 4.17: Views on Sanitation or Cleanliness of General Food Packaging Made from Recycled Materials Respondents' Choice Percent Number Very concerned 97 43.3 Somewhat concerned 47 21.0 Not very concerned 37 16.5 Not concerned at all 40 17.9 3 1.3 224 100.0 Don't know Total respondents Those respondents who indicated that they generally were "very concerned", concerned" "somewhat also were concerned", asked to respond and very to their degree concern about eight listed types of food packaging. eight listed types of food packaging, "not of Among the the highest level of concern was reported for "cereal packages and other paper food packages" with the least concern for glass beverage bottles. However, the magnitude of the concern was across the 8 types of food packaging. concerned" cleanliness or "somewhat ranged from concerned" a high of fairly uniform Those who were "very about 64 sanitation percent for and cereal packages and other paper food packages to a low of 52 percent for glass beverage bottles (Table 4.18). 76 Table 4.18: Concerns about Sanitation or Cleanliness of Types of Food Packaging Made with Recycled Materials 1) Types of Food Packaging Very Somewhat Not Very Not Generally Concerned Concerned Concerned Concerned Not At All Concerned Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent 2) Cereal packages and other paper food packages 41.5 22.3 13.8 3.6 17.9 Plastic food containers 40.6 21.0 16.1 3.1 17.9 Steel food cans 39.7 17.4 17.9 6.7 17.9 Plastic wraps or plastic bags for food items 38.8 21.4 15.6 5.8 17.9 Aluminum beverage cans 38.4 16.5 18.8 8.0 17.9 Plastic beverage bottles 37.1 21.0 17.4 5.8 17.9 Glass beverage bottles 36.2 15.6 20.5 8.9 17.9 Glass food jars 35.3 20.1 16.5 8.9 17.9 1) Since some respondents chose not to answer the question, or could not, the percentage total for each row will be less than 100 percent. 2) Of the total of 224 respondents, this group of 40 persons indicated they were generally not concerned about sanitation of any food packaging item. Therefore, they were not required to answer for the specific food packaging items. 77 In response to the question on non-food packaging as a group, approximately 34 percent of the respondents indicated they were cleanliness generally or "not concerned at all" about the sanitation of non-food packaging made from recycled materials (Table 4.19). The group that reported being "very concerned" "somewhat concerned" totaled 42 percent (Table 4.19). or This is substantially less than the 64 percent of respondents who said they were "very concerned" or "somewhat concerned" about using recycled materials for food packaging items. Table 4.19: Views on Sanitation or Cleanliness of General Non-food Packaging Made from Recycled Materials Respondents Choice Number Percent Very concerned 38 17.0 Somewhat concerned 56 25.0 Not very concerned 54 24.1 Not concerned at all 76 33.9 224 100.0 Total respondents 78 Those respondents who indicated they generally were "very concerned", "somewhat concerned", and "not very concerned" also were asked to respond to their degree of concern about seven listed types of non-food packaging. Among the seven listed types of non-food packaging (using the percentages of "very concerned" and "somewhat concerned"), the highest level of concern was reported for paper containers holding detergents and cleaning solutions, with the least concern for plastic garbage bags (Table 4.20). The range was fairly narrow, with concern for paper containers holding detergents and cleaning solutions reported at a high of 35 percent and plastic garbage bags reported at a low of 25 percent. 79 Table 4.20: Concerns about Sanitation or Cleanliness of Types of Non-food Packaging Made with Recycled Materials 1) Types of Non-food Packaging Very Somewhat Concerned Concerned Percent Percent Not Generally Not very Concerned Concerned Not At All Concerned Percent Percent 2) Percent Paper containers holding detergents and cleaning solutions 13.8 21.4 22.8 8.0 33.9 Glass containers holding detergents and cleaning solutions 13.4 20.5 22.8 8.5 33.9 Plastic containers holding detergents and cleaning solutions 12.9 21.0 24.1 7.6 33.9 Paper shopping bags 12.9 19.2 25.4 8.5 33.9 Plastic shopping bags 11.6 21.9 24.6 8.0 33.9 Corrugated cardboard holding non-food items 9.8 21.0 27.7 7.6 33.9 Plastic garbage bags 8.5 16.5 28.6 12.5 33.9 1) Since some respondents chose not answer the question, or could not, the percentage total for each row may be less than 100 percent. 2) Of the total of 224 respondents, this group of 76 persons indicated they were generally not concerned about the sanitation of any non-food packaging item. Therefore, they were not required to answer for the specific nor-food packaging. 80 The Willingness to Pav More for Recycled Materials Respondents were asked if they would be willing to pay more for products made from recycled materials than for products made from new materials in order to encourage more recycling. Nearly 60 percent of respondents said they would pay more for products containing recycled materials than for products containing only new materials. the respondents About 36 percent of indicated they would pay nothing more for recycled products (Table 4.21). Table 4.21: Willingness to Pay More for Products Containing Recycled Materials than for Products Containing New Materials Number Respondents' Choice Would pay more Would not pay more Don't know Total respondents Percent 134 59.8 81 36.2 9 4.0 224 100. 0 Those respondents indicating a willingness to pay more for a product containing recycled materials in order to encourage recycling were asked about the magnitude of the payment they would make. Choices included 1 to 5 percent more, 6 to 10 percent more, 11 to 15 percent more, 16 to 20 percent more, 21 to 25 percent more, and 26 percent or more. One-third of the respondents would pay "1 percent to 5 percent more" for products containing recycled materials. About one 81 in five consumers said they would willingly pay "6 percent to 10 percent more". more A few were willing to pay over 10 percent for products containing recycled materials and a few others were unsure of what they would pay (Table 4.22). Table 4.22: Magnitude of Additional Payment Respondents Were Willing to Make for Products Containing Recycled Materials Additional Payment Number Percent No more 81 36.2 1% to 5% more 74 33.0 6% to 10% more 47 21.0 11% to 15% more 6 6.7 16% to 20% more 1 0.4 21% to 25% more 0 0 26% or more 2 0.9 13 5.8 224 100 =0 Don't know Total respondents Respondents also were asked if they would be willing to pay more for products packaged in containers made from recycled materials than for products packaged in containers made from new materials. Approximately 63 percent said they would pay more for products packaged in containers made from recycled materials in order to encourage recycling. Approximately 34 percent of the respondents reported that they would pay nothing extra for the products packaged in 82 containers made from recycled materials (Table 4.23). Table 4.23: Willingness to Pay More for Packaged in Containers Made Recycled Materials than for Packaged in Containers Made Materials Respondents1 Choice Percent Number Would pay more 141 63.0 76 33.9 7 3.1 224 100.0 Would not pay more Don't know Total respondents Products from Products from New Again, those respondents willing to pay more for products packaged in containers made from recycled materials were asked the magnitude of the added payment they were willing to make. About 37 percent percent to 5 of the consumers were willing to pay percent more", while 20.5 percent of "1 the consumers were willing to pay "6 percent to 10 percent more" for the products packaged in containers made materials. As in the case of recycled from recycled products, few respondents were willing to pay more than 10 percent more for products packaged in containers made from recycled materials (Table 4.24). 83 Table 4.24: Magnitude of Additional Payment Respondents Were Willing to Make for Products Packaged in Containers Made from Recycled Materials Additional Payment Percent Number No more 76 33.9 1% to 5% more 83 37.1 6% to 10% more 46 20.5 11% to 15% more 8 3.6 16% to 20% more 0 0 21% to 25% more 0 0 26% or more 1 0.4 10 4.5 Don't know Total respondents 224 100.0 Attitudes about Government Assistance for Recvcled Products and Packaging When the researcher asked respondents, "should government provide assistance for manufacturers to produce packaging or products made from recycled materials?", the majority of the respondents reacted government consideration majority (87 positively. assistance in listed making percent) of There were for the six types of respondents' their responses. A the respondents said substantial government should provide grants for research and development to private manufacturers that will produce packaging or products from 84 recycled materials, respondents while indicated that another 86 government percent should of the provide low interest loans (Table 4.25). Table 4.25: Views about Government Assistance for Manufacturers to Produce Packaging or Products Made from Recycled Materials Government Assistance Number Percent Grants for research and development 195 87. 1 Low interest loans 193 86.,2 Start-up assistance 177 79. 1 Technical or business assistance 163 72..8 Tax breaks or tax abatement 160 71.,4 Subsidies for leasing sites or buildings 149 66..5 224 100.,0 Total respondents reporting , , Respondents also were asked whether the government should provide other forms of assistance other than those listed for respondents and reported above in Table 4.25. had additional suggestions for assistance. Few respondents Those that were given included: encourage companies to recycle, fund recycling program, encourage public to use recycled products, provide tax incentives/tax relief, and inspect recycled products. Respondents indicated that when they were recommending various forms of government assistance that they most often were thinking about help from the federal government (Table 4.26). was The next most frequent form of assistance a 85 combination of local, state and federal governments assistance. Table 4.26: Sources of Governmental Assistance Respondents Had in Mind When Recommending Government Assistance to Manufacturers Respondents' Choice Number Percent Federal government 88 39.3 Combinations of local, state, and federal 53 23.6 State government 23 10.3 Local government 19 8.5 Don't know/no response 41 18.3 224 100.0 Total respondents Primary Source of Information about Products One question asked the consumers was, from which "sources do you obtain most of your information about the quality and safety of products you purchase?" One-third of the consumers said the newspaper was a source of most of their information about quality and safety of products, followed by television with 28 percent, and magazines with 16 percent (Table 4.27). 86 Table 4.27: Primary Source of Information About Quality and Safety of Products Sources Number Percent Newspaper 75 33.5 Television 63 28.1 Magazines 36 16.1 Shopping guide 7 3.1 Direct mail advertisements and fliers 6 . 2.7 School 4 1.8 Radio 3 1.3 Work 2 0.9 24 10.7 4 1.8 224 100.0 Other Don't know Total respondents Test of Hypotheses Six hypotheses were identified as important in increasing our understanding of consumer attitudes about acceptance and use of products and packaging containing recycled materials. They are: 1. awareness materials. There is a positive relationship between environmental and acceptance of products containing recycled 87 2. Education level and income level of consumers will be positively correlated with positive attitudes toward consumption of products containing recycled materials. 3. Consumers attitudes about product acceptance will differ for different types of recycled products. 4. The more expensive the recycled product relative to similar products made from new materials, the lower will be the rate of acceptance of that product. 5. There is a positive relationship between environmental awareness and the willingness to pay more for the products containing recycled materials. 6. level, There income is a positive level, relationship and the willingness among to education pay more the products containing recycled materials. These hypotheses supplement the array of observations presented in the previous section of this chapter. The hypotheses not only test important relationships, but provide insights important for both public sector and private sector actions. Hypothesis 1; There is a positive relationship between environmental awareness and acceptance of products containing recycled materials. Six correlations hypothesis. The coefficients were six were computed relationships computed are for listed to examine which in this correlation Table 4.28. Environmental awareness was represented by (1) attitude about 88 waste disposal, (2) familiarity with recycling, and (3) having read or heard about recycling. Acceptance of products containing recycled materials was represented by (1) looking for recycled materials, and (2) willingness to buy recycled products. Statistically significant relationships were found between environmental awareness and the acceptance of products containing recycled materials. Table 4.28 indicates significant relationships for each of six correlations at the 0.01 level. This hypothesis was accepted. Table 4.28: Relationship between Environmental Awareness and Acceptance of Products Containing Recycled Materials Variables Correlation Significance Level Coefficients Attitude about waste disposal/ look for recycled materials 0.3657 0.01 Familiarity with recycling/ look for recycled materials 0.2402 0.01 Read or heard about recycling/ look for recycled materials 0.2648 0.01 Attitudes about waste disposal/ willingness to buy recycled products 0.2211 0.01 Familiarity with recycling/ willingness to buy recycled products 0.2443 0.01 Read or heard about recycling/ willingness to buy recycled products 0.3439 0.01 89 Hypothesis 2 . Education level and income level of consumers will be positively correlated with positive attitudes toward consumption of products containing recycled materials. To test this hypothesis, correlation analysis was used. Correlated with education levels were three indicators of attitude toward consumption of products containing recycled materials: (1) looking for recycled materials, (2) willingness to buy recycled products, and (3) attitudes about quality of recycled products. There were no significant relationships found education between the level and attitudes toward consumption of products containing recycled materials (Table 4.29). Table 4.29: Relationship between Education Level and Attitudes toward Consumption of Products Containing Recycled Materials Correlation Coefficients Variables Look for recycled products Significance Level -0.0447 Willingness to buy recycled products Attitudes about quality of recycled products N.S. 1) 0.0549 N.S. -0.1272 N.S. 1) N.S. means no significance. The data indicate that there was a significant positive relationship between income and willingness to buy recycled products but there was also a negative relationship between income and attitudes about quality of recycled products (Table 4.30). It appears there was no consistent positive 90 relationship between income level and attitudes toward consumption of products containing recycled materials. The data did not support this hypothesis. Table 4.30: Relationship between Income Level and Attitudes toward Consumption of Products Containing Recycled Materials Correlation Coefficients Variables Significance Level Look for recycled products 0.0540 N.S. 1) Willingness to buy recycled products 0.1405 0.05 -0.1416 0.05 Attitudes about quality of recycled products 1) N.S. means no significance. Hypothesis 3 . Consumers attitudes about product acceptance will differ for different types of recycled products. To test this hypothesis, measures were used: recycled products, cleanliness materials, (1) (3) consumers' types views of available about quality of (2) consumers' concern about sanitation or of types and three of food packaging made with recycled consumers' concern about sanitation or cleanliness of non-food packaging items made from recycled materials. tables, and Each shows variable is differences presented for the in the various frequency recycled products. The frequencies show that consumer views about quality differ for different types of recycled products (Table 4.31). Of particular note in Table 4.31 is the large difference in 91 consumers' views about recycled paper products, compared to aluminum and glass or plastic and steel. Table 4.31: Consumers' Views About Quality of Recycled Products 1) Consumers indicating recycled materials lower quality than new materials Percent Recycled Materials Consumers Consumers indicating indicating recycled recycled materials materials about the same higher quality than new quality as new materials materials Percent Percent Aluminum 3.0 84.8 0.9 Glass 2.2 88.4 0.9 Paper 23.2 71.4 1.3 Plastic 5.9 84.7 1.4 Steel 5.9 84.6 0.9 1) Of the total of 224 respondents, some 89 percent to 96 percent were able to provide these qualitative responses. The remaining 4 to 11 percent chose not to answer or were unable to do so. Therefore, the percentages given here for each al Respondents' varied but packaging not made ■f n f a 1 W W 4- W W 1 o r e . 4 . W W W f K a w 1 A H w w r w 4 - w w 4 * ^ . concerns about sanitation and cleanliness greatly, from depending on the recycled materials. types The of food concern was greatest for cereal packages and other paper food packages and the least for (Table 4.32). glass beverage bottles and glass food jars Concern about other forms of food packaging fell within the range. 92 Table 4.32: Concerns about Sanitation or Cleanliness of Types of Food Packaging Made from Recycled Materials 1) Food Very Somewhat Not Very Packaging Concerned Concerned Concerned Percent Percent Percent Not Generally Not Concerned At All Concerned Percent Percent 2) Cereal packages and other paper food packages 41.5 22.3 13.8 3.6 17.9 Plastic food containers 40.6 21.0 16.1 3.1 17.9 Steel food cans 39.7 17.4 17.9 6.7 17.9 Plastic wraps or plastic bags for food items 38.8 21.4 15.6 5.8 17.9 Aluminum beverage cans 38.4 16.5 18.8 8.0 17.9 Plastic beverage bottles 37.1 21.0 17.4 5.8 17.9 Glass beverage bottles 36.2 15.6 20.5 8.9 17.9 Glass food jars 20.1 16.5 8.9 17.9 35.3 1) Since some respondents chose not to answer the question, or could not, the percentage total for each row will be less than 100 percent. 2) Of the total of 224 respondents, this group of 40 persons indicated they were generally not concerned about sanitation of any food packaging item. Therefore, they were not required to answer for the specific food packaging items. 93 Regarding materials, non-food packaging made from recycled concerns about sanitation or cleanliness varied somewhat by type of packaging but not greatly. Concern about packaging for detergents and cleaning solutions was greater than for paper and plastic bags and cardboard boxes holding non-food items (Table 4.33). A sizeable difference in consumer concern is evident, however, when one contrasts food packaging and non-food packaging. The concern about sanitation or cleanliness of food packaging made from recycled materials was more than two times higher than the concern for non-food packaging made from recycled material (Table 4.34). As shown in Table 4.32, Table 4.33, and Table 4.34, consumers' concerns about the sanitation or cleanliness vary for different types of recycled products. In addition, the analysis of variance shows significant difference (F = 5.0806, dc[iiu listed food packaging and significant difference among the seven non-food p roudDi11uy items — u.uuuj Luc packaging items (F = 5.0950, probability = 0.000). hypothesis No. acceptance will 3, "consumer differ products", was accepted. for attitudes different Therefore, about types of products recycled 94 Table 4.33: Concerns about Sanitation or Cleanliness of Types of Non-food Packaging Made from Recycled Materials 1) Non-food Packaging Very Somewhat Concerned Concerned Percent Percent Not Generally Not very Not Concerned Concerned At All Concerned Percent Percent 2) Percent Paper containers holding detergents and cleaning solutions 13.8 21.4 22.8 8.0 33.9 Glass containers holding detergents and cleaning solutions 13.4 20.5 22.8 8.5 33.9 Plastic containers holding detergents and cleaning solutions 12.9 21.0 24.1 7.6 33.9 Paper shopping bags 12.9 19.2 25.4 8.5 33.9 Plastic shopping bags 11.6 21.9 24.6 8.0 33.9 Corrugated cardboard holding non-food items 9.8 21.0 27.7 7.6 33.9 Plastic garbage bags 8.5 16.5 28.6 12.5 33.9 1) Since some respondents chose not answer the question, or could not, the percentage total for each row may be less than 100 percent. 2) Of the total of 224 respondents, this group of 76 persons indicated they were generally not concerned about the sanitation of any non-food packaging item. Therefore, they were not required to answer for the specific non-food packaging items. 95 Table 4.34: Comparison of Concerns about Sanitation or Cleanliness of Food Packaging and Non-food Packaging Made from Recycled Materials 1) Types of Packaging Very Somewhat Not Very Not Generally Concerned Concerned Concerned Concerned Not At All Concerned Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent 2) Food packaging group 3) 38.5 19.4 17.1 6.4 17.9 Non-food Packaging group 4) 11.8 20.2 25.1 8.7 33.9 1) Some respondents chose not to answer the questions, or could not. Therefore, the totals of percentages for each row are less than 100 percent. 2) This group of respondents indicated they were generally not concerned at all about the sanitation of food packaging or non-food packaging. Therefore, they were not required to answer for the specific food packaging items or non-food packaging items. 3) Average percentages for this food packaging group are based on simple arithmetic averages of columns presented for Table 4.32. 4) Average percentages for this non-food packaging group are based on simple arithmetic averages of columns presented for Table 4.33. 96 Hypothesis 4 . The more expensive the recycled product relative to similar products made from new materials, the lower will be the rate of acceptance of that product. To test this hypothesis, lower price, (2) same price, three measures were used and (3) higher price. price" comparisons were represented by: (1) "Lower (1) Recycled product was 10 percent lower in price but 10 percent lower in quality than the same product made from new materials; (2) Recycled product was 10 percent lower in price but had the same quality as the new product; (3) Recycled product was 10 percent lower in price and 10 percent higher in quality than the same product made from new material. "Same price" comparisons were represented by: (1) Recycled product was the same in price but 10 percent lower in quality than the same product made Recycled product was the same from new material; in price and had quality as the product made from new material; the (2) same (3) Recycled product was the same in price but 10 percent better in quality than the same product made from new material. "Higher price" comparisons were represented by: (1) Recycled product was 10 percent higher in price but 10 percent lower in quality than the same product made from new materials; (2) Recycled product was 10 percent higher in price but had the same quality as the product made from new materials; (3) Recycled product was 10 percent higher in price 97 and 10 percent higher in quality than the same product made from new materials. The recycled relationship product and between the the relative acceptance of cost that of the product was analyzed by mean scores and analysis of variance. Table 4.35 indicates that the mean scores for willingness to buy clearly favor those situation in which the relative price of the product made from recycled material is less than, or the same as, the product made with new materials. The mean scores was the largest for the group of lower priced recycled products. The mean scores was the priced recycled products. smallest for the group of higher It can be concluded that the more expensive the recycled product relative to those with new materials, the lower will be the rate of acceptance of that product. The data of analysis of variance presented Table 4.36, also show a very strong relationship (probability = 0) between relative cost and the acceptance of the product made with recycled materials. This hypothesis was accepted. Table 4.35: Relationship between Relative Cost of Recycled Product and the Acceptance of that Product Made with Recycled Materials Mean Score Standard Deviation Lower price 4.2686 0.6795 Same price 3.9269 0.8319 Higher price 2.9132 0.9930 Variables 98 Table 4.36: Analysis of Variance between Relative Cost of Recycled Product and the Acceptance of that Product Made with Recycled Materials Source of Variation Sum of Square Degree of Mean F Freedom Square 297.0891 218 1.3628 438 Within respondents 387.0741 Between measures 217.6470 2 Residual 169.4271 436 0.8837 108.8235 0.3886 656 1.0429 Between respondents Total 684.1632 Hypothesis 5. There is a positive Probability 280.0440 relationship 0 between environmental awareness and the willingness to pay more for products and packaging containing recycled materials. Six t-test relationship willingness measures between to pay were conducted environmental more for containing recycled materials. the to analyze awareness products and and the the packaging The characteristics used as indicators of environmental awareness were, (1) attitude about waste disposal, (2) familiarity with recycling, and (3) reading or hearing about recycling. The statistical data, showing a significant relationship between environmental awareness and the willingness to pay more for products and packaging containing recycled materials, are presented in Table 4.37. for each variable tested The low computed probabilities indicate a strong relationship between environmental awareness indicators and willingness to 99 pay. The mean score of willingness to pay more (the mean score of 'Yes') for each variable is also larger than the mean score of unwillingness to pay more (the mean score of 'No'). Therefore, the hypothesis was accepted. Table 4.37: T-test Analysis of Relationship between Environmental Awareness and Willingness to Pay More for Products and Packaging Containing Recycled Materials Variables Mean Score Probabi­ lity Attitude about waste disposal/ willingness to pay more for recycled products Yes No 3.4104 3.1420 0.001 Attitude about waste disposal/ willingness to pay more for recycled packaging Yes No 3.4078 3.1118 0.000 Familiarity with recycling/ willingness to pay more for recycled products Yes No 2.5410 2.4198 0.035 Familiarity with recycling/ willingness to pay more for recycled packaging Yes No 2.5426 2.4079 0.023 R e a d or h e a r d a b o u t r e c y c l i n g / willingness to pay more for recycled products Yes No 8.6194 7.4198 0.006 Read or heard about recycling/ willingness to pay more for recycled packaging Yes No 8.4752 7.4211 0.018 100 Hypothesis 6 . There is a positive relationship among education level, income level, and the willingness to pay more for products and packaging containing recycled materials. The researcher used crosstabs relationship between education level, to determine income level, the and the willingness to pay more for products and packaging containing recycled materials. 12th grade or The education levels considered were, (1) less, (2) completed high school, (3) some college, (4) completed college, and (5) advanced degree. The analysis of and the relationship between education level willingness to pay shows no significant relationship exists for the survey responses obtained. and 4.39 indicate there was no The data in Tables 4.38 significant relationship between education and the willingness to pay more for products or packaging containing recycled materials. The income levels considered in this analysis were, less than $15,000, (2) $15,000 to $29,999, (3) (1) $30,000 to $44,999, (4) $45,000 to $59,999, and (5) $60,000 or over. The analysis and of the relationship willingness to pay more between income shows no significant level relationship exists for the survey data (Table 4.40 and Table 4.41). Thus, the analysis of survey data did not support this hypothesis. 101 Table 4.38: Relationship between Education and Willingness to Pay More for Products Containing Recycled Materials 1) Education Level 12th Grade or Less No More 1% To 5% 6% TO 10% 11% or More Total Number Percent 17 39.5 15 34.5 10 23.3 1 2.3 43 20.4 Completed High School Number Percent or GED 20 44.4 13 28.9 9 20.0 3 6.7 45 21.3 Some College Number Percent 28 40.0 25 35.7 15 21.4 2 2.9 70 33.2 Completed College Number Percent 13 31.7 17 41.5 9 22.0 2 4.9 41 19.4 Advanced Degree Number Percent 3 25.0 4 33.3 4 33.3 1 8.3 12 5.7 Total Number Percent 81 38.4 74 35.1 47 22.3 9 4.3 211 100.0 Chi-square Value 5.13730 Degree of Freedom 12 Significance 0.95324 1) Since some respondents chose not to answer the question, or could not, the respondent total will be less than 224. In addition, the percentage calculation was based on the total number of respondents who answered the question. 102 Table 4.39: Relationship Between Education and Willingness to Pay More for Products Packaged in Containers Made from Recycled Materials 1) Education Level 12th Grade or Less No More 1% TO 5% 6% TO 10% 11% or More Total Number Percent 13 29.5 18 40.9 12 27.3 1 2.3 44 20.6 Completed High School Number Percent or GED 20 44.4 12 26.7 9 20.0 4 8.9 45 21.0 Some College Number Percent 27 38.0 28 39.4 15 21.1 1 1.4 71 33.2 Completed College Number Percent 12 28.6 21 50.0 7 16.7 2 4.8 42 19.6 Advanced Degree Number Percent 4 33.3 4 33.3 3 33.3 1 8.3 12 5.6 Total Number Percent 76 35.5 83 38.8 46 21.5 Chi-square T7<•>1 11.21549 Degree of 9 4.2 214 100.0 Significance A A- W W M W A U 12 0.51055 1) Since some respondents chose not to answer the question, or could not, the respondent total will be less than 224. In addition, the percentage calculation was based on the total number of respondents who answered the question. 103 Table 4.40: Relationship between Income and Willingness to Pay More for Products Containing Recycled Materials 1) Income Level No More 1% To 5% 6% To 10% 11% or More Total Less than $15,000 Number Percent 15 44.1 13 38.2 5 14.7 1 2.9 34 17.3 $15,000 to $29,999 Number Percent 20 44.4 16 35.6 8 17.8 1 2.2 45 13.0 $30,000 to $44,999 Number Percent 22 36.7 17 28.3 16 26.7 5 8.3 60 30.6 $45,000 to $59,999 Number Percent 12 42.9 9 32.1 6 21.4 1 3.6 28 14.3 $60,000 or Over Number Percent 6 20.7 15 51.7 7 24.1 1 3.4 29 14.8 75 38.3 70 35.7 42 21.4 9 4.6 196 100.0 Total Number Percent Chi-square Value 14.94759 Degree of Freedom 15 Significance 0.45520 1) Since some respondents chose not to answer the question, or could not, the respondent total will be less than 224. In addition, the percentage calculation was based on the total number of respondents who answered the question. 104 Table 4.41: Relationship between Income and Willingness to Pay More for Products Packaged in Containers Made from Recycled Materials 1) Income Level No More 1% TO 5% 6% TO 10% 11% or More Total Less than $15,000 Number Percent 13 38.2 14 41.2 7 20.6 0 0.0 34 17.3 $15,000 to $29,999 Number Percent 17 37.8 19 42.2 8 17.8 1 2.2 45 22.8 $30,000 to $44,999 Number Percent 20 33.3 20 33.3 15 25.0 5 8.3 60 30.5 $45,000 to $59,999 Number Percent 11 36.7 13 43.3 4 13.3 2 6.7 30 15.2 $60,000 or Over Number Percent 7 25.0 12 42.9 8 28.6 1 3.6 28 14.2 Total Number Percent 68 34.5 78 39.6 42 21.3 9 4.6 197 100.0 Chi-square Value 10.58549 Degree of Freedom 15 Significance 0.78139 1) Since some respondents chose not to answer the question, or could not, the respondent total will be less than 224. In addition, the percentage calculation was based on the total number of respondents who answered the question. 105 Analysis of Demographic Variables and Responses Relative to Consumer Attitudes toward Recycling and Recycled Products or Packaging Information was obtained about six demographic conditions in this survey: gender, age, education, employment situation, income and community. understand the The data were obtained in order to significance of relationships between demographic conditions and the various indicators of consumer attitudes toward recycling and recycled products. demographic factors represent The six independent variables. The dependent variables, attitudes toward recycling and recycled products, included, (1) attitude about waste disposal, familiarity with recycling, recycling, (4) recycling willingness to looking for (3) reading efforts separate garbage recycled recycled products, of hearing about respondent, for curbside pick-up, materials, recycled products or packaging, or (7) willingness (2) to (5) (6) buy (8) attitude about quality of (9) attitude about government support for recycled products or packaging, and (10) willingness to pay more for recycled products or packaging. Correlations or analysis of variance were used to determine the relationship between each demographic variable and each of the 10 dependent variables. analyses are The results of the reported below under gender, education, employment situation, and income. age, community, 106 Gender Gender was coded as follows: Therefore, female = 2 and male = 1. positive correlations indicate that females have higher scores on the variable and negative correlations mean males have higher scores. The correlation coefficients show that there was a significant difference between gender and attitude about waste disposal (Table 4.42). that slightly more important issue The data indicate females believed waste disposal and they were more concerned was with an waste disposal as a local issue than were males. Aae The age categories used in the survey ranged years to over 65 years of age. from 18 To determine the relationship between age and the 10 dependent variables, the age categories used were, 49 years, (1) 18 to 24 years, (2) 25 to 34 years, (3) 35 to (4) 50 to 64 years, and (5) 65 years or older. A negative correlation of -0.1438 was observed between age and one dependent variable significance (Table 4.43). were less willing recycled packaging respondents. to or with a 0.05 level of This meant that older respondents support government recycled products assistance than were for younger 107 Table 4.42: Relationship between Gender and Attitudes about Recycling and Recycled Products or Packaging Variables Correlation Significance Level Coefficients Attitude about waste disposal 0.2303 0.01 Familiarity with recycling 0.0922 N.S. 1) Read or heard about recycling -0.0620 N.S. Recycling efforts of respondent -0.1145 N.S. Willingness to separate garbage for curbside pick-up -0.0063 N.S. Look for recycled materials 0.0561 N.S. Willingness to buy recycled products or packaging 0.0531 N.S. -0.0491 N.S. Attitude about government support for recycled products or packaging 0.0017 N.S. Willingness to pay more for recycled products or packaging 0.0670 N.S. Attitude about quality of recycled products or packaging 1) N.S. means no significance. 108 Table 4.43: Relationship between Age and Attitudes about Recycling and Recycled Products or Packaging Variables Correlation Coefficients Significance Level Attitude about waste disposal 0.0959 N.S. 1) Familiarity with recycling 0.0587 N.S. Read or heard about recycling 0.0233 N.S. Recycling efforts of respondent 0.0058 N.S. Willingness to separate garbage for curbside pick-up 0.0584 N.S. Look for recycled materials 0.0239 N.S. Willingness to buy recycled products or packaging -0.1144 N.S. Attitude about quality of recycled products or packaging -0.0482 N.S. Attitude about government support for recycled products or packaging -0.1438 0.05 0.0453 N.S. Willingness to pay more for recycled products or packaging l) N.S. means no significance. 109 Community Respondents were asked to describe the community in which they lived. suburb, and The choices for response were, (3) rural area. (1) city, (2) To determine the relationship between community and the 10 dependent variables, the same three community categories were used. There was significant difference between the type of community within which respondents lived and their willingness to separate the garbage for curbside pick-up (Table 4.44). Those respondents who lived in rural communities were slightly more willing to household garbage participate in the separation if curbside pick-up were respondents who lived in a city or suburb. of available their than 110 Table 4.44: Relationship between Community and Attitudes about Recycling and Recycled Products or Packaging Variables Attitude about waste disposal Correlation Coefficients -0.0051 Significance Level N.S. 1) Familiarity with recycling 0.0755 N.S. Read or heard about recycling 0.0764 N.S. Recycling efforts of respondent 0.0324 N.S. Willingness to separate garbage for curbside pick-up 0.1638 0.05 Look for recycled materials 0.0269 N.S. Willingness to buy recycled products or packaging 0.1222 N.S. Attitude about quality of recycled products or packaging 0.0041 N.S. Attitude about government support for recycled products or packaging -0.1037 N.S. Willingness to pay more for recycled products or packaging N.S. 1) N.S. means no significance. 0.1287 Ill Education The education categories that respondents used were, (1) 6th grade or less, school or GED, (2) 7th to 12th grade, (3) completed high (4) some college, trade or vocational school, (5) completed college, and (6) advanced degree. the relationship between education and each variable, the education categories used were, or less, (2) completed high school or GED, trade or vocational school, To determine dependent (1) 12th grade (3) some college, (4) completed college, and (5) advanced degree. A significant relationship existed between independent variable education and one dependent variable. the A positive relationship exists between education and familiarity with recycling, significant at the 0.01 level (Table 4.45). The results indicate that the more educated respondents were more familiar with recycling and possessed more knowledge about whether their communities have recycling efforts under way than were the less educated respondents. 112 Table 4.45: Relationship between Education and Attitudes about Recycling and Recycled Products or Packaging Variables Correlation Coefficients Attitude about waste disposal -0.0269 Significance Level N.S. 1) Familiarity with recycling 0.2164 0.01 Read or heard about recycling 0.0787 N.S. Recycling efforts of respondent 0.0937 N.S. Willingness to separate garbage for curbside pick-up -0.0432 N.S. Look for recycled materials -0.0447 N.S. Willingness to buy recycled products or packaging 0.0549 N.S. Attitude about quality of recycled products or packaging -0.1272 N.S. Attitude about government support for recycled products or packaging -0.1235 N.S. 0 =0517 N-R- Willingness to pay more for recycled products or packaging 1) N.S. means no significance. 113 Employment Situation Employment categories surveyed were, time, (2) employed part-time, (3) (1) employed full­ full-time homemaker, (4) unemployed, (5) retired, (6) full-time student, and (7) other. To determine the relationship between employment and attitude about recycling and recycled products, these same employment categories were used. Analysis of variance was used to determine the relationship between employment situation and attitude about recycling significant and recycled difference products. between The employment results show situation willingness to buy recycled products (Table 4.46). a and The data indicate the unemployed and retired people were less willing to buy recycled products than were the persons employed full­ time. 114 Table 4.46: Relationship between Employment Situation and Attitudes About Recycling and Recycled Products or Packaging Variables Sum of Square Degree of Freedom Mean Square F 1 Signifi­ 1 cance Attitude about waste disposal 2.0330 6 0.0388 1.2135 0.3004 Familiarity with recycling 0.6784 6 0.1131 0.7835 0.5837 69.8813 6 11.6469 1.1835 0.3161 Recycling efforts 40.7853 6 6.7976 0.7251 0.6298 Willingness to separate garbage for curbside pick-up 25.6013 6 4.2669 1.0787 0.3762 1.9903 6 0.3317 0.4646 0.8341 Willingness to buy recycled products or packaging 5.8447 6 0.9741 2.2267 0.0418 Attitude about quality of recycled products or packaging 0.0700 6 0.0117 0.3691 0.8980 Attitude about government support for recycled products or packaging 0.3496 6 0.0583 0.8274 0.5498 Willingness to pay more for recycled products or packaging 0.9074 6 0.1512 0.7176 0.6358 Read or heard about recycling Look for recycled products 115 Income In this survey, respondents were asked to tell their family's total income. The family income categories, to which respondents' replied were matched, were, $15,000, (2) $15,000 to $29,999, $45,000 to $59,999, more. about (l) less than (3) $30,000 to $44,999, (4) (5) $60,000 to $74,999 and (6) $75,000 or To compute the relationship between income and the 10 dependent variables, these same income categories were used. The analysis relationship recycling". of between correlations income and indicates "read or a positive heard about There is a significant correlation between income and "the willingness to buy recycled products". The analysis revealed a negative relationship between income and attitude about quality of recycled products. The negative relationship was also demonstrated between income and the attitude about government support for recycled products or packaging (Table 4.47). The analysis also indicated that higher income respondents read or heard more about recycling and were more willing to buy recycled products. However, higher income respondents reported less support for government assistance for recycled products or packaging and evidenced a negative attitude about quality of recycled products. 116 Table 4.47: Relationship between Income and Attitudes about Recycling and Recycled Products or Packaging Variables Correlation Coefficients Attitude about waste disposal -0.1313 Significance Level N.S. 1) Familiarity with recycling 0.0500 N.S. Read or heard about recycling 0.1780 0.05 Recycling efforts of respondent 0.1073 N.S. Willingness to separate garbage for curbside pick-up 0.0331 N.S. Look for recycled materials 0.0540 N.S. Willingness to buy recycled products or packaging 0.1405 0.05 Attitude about quality of recycled products or packaging -0.1416 0.05 Attitude about government support for recycled products or packaging -0.1988 0.01 r* i one N.S. Willingness to pay more for W ■ A *4V W 1) N.S. means no significance. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary The consumer purpose of attitudes materials. this study was to concerning products learn made more with recycled The objectives of this study included, understand consumers' recycled materials, attitudes about products about (1) to containing (2) to determine how satisfied consumers are with their uses of products containing recycled materials, (3) to identify accept products circumstances containing that motivate consumers recycled materials, and (4) to to discover whether there is potential for increasing the market demand for recycled materials. A statewide telephone survey was conducted to measure attitudes toward recycling in general and products containing recycled materials in particular. The telephone interviews took place at the Center for Survey Research, Michigan State University. selected Primary shoppers, by households. interviewers A total of aged 18 years or over, were within 224 the randomly respondents chosen completed the interview. The wealth of information provided survey was arranged into three parts. of frequencies attitudes. providing major by the telephone The first was a series information about consumer The second was a series of analyses, guided by six 117 118 hypotheses, which explained important relationships among consumer attitudes and actions about acceptance and use of products and packaging containing recycled materials. The third was an analysis of relationships between demographic variables and consumer attitudes toward recycling and recycled products. Key findings are arranged according to these three parts. Summary Observations from Frequencies 1. Most consumer respondents thought waste disposal was an important environmental issue and were also concerned about it as a local issue. 2. The respondents were familiar with recycling. majority, 7 in 10, recycling efforts indicated their under way. Among communities 14 have recyclable The some items, respondents identified the newspaper's possible recycling as the one item they most heard or read about during the past 12 months. 3. Consumer respondents did not have much involvement in source separation of waste generated by their household, but they were willing to put more effort into garbage separation if curbside pick-up were available in their communities. 4. A majority of respondents have used products made from recycled materials. When selecting products, they also have looked to see whether or not products or packaging were made with recycled materials. 119 5. Among five recycled materials— aluminum, glass, paper, plastic, and steel— paper products were rated the lowest in quality when compared to products made from new materials. 6. A majority of the consumer respondents were concerned about the sanitation or cleanliness of packaging made with recycled materials. Clearly, the concern was greater for food packaging than for non-food packaging. 7. To foster recycling, nearly 6 in 10 of the respondents would willingly pay more for a product or packaging containing recycled materials than for a product or packaging made with new materials. Over one-third of the consumers were willing to pay "1 percent to 5 percent" more, while another one-fifth were willing to pay "6 percent to 10 percent" extra for recycled products or packaging. 8. Most respondents supported government assistance to manufacturers recycled to provide materials. assistance, The products two or most selected by respondents, packaging favored made methods from for were the provision of grants for research and development and the provision of lowinterest loans. Nearly half of the respondents believed the U.S. federal government should provide this assistance to the manufacturers. 9. One-third of the consumer respondents surveyed said the newspaper was their major source for obtaining most information about the quality and safety of products. 120 Summary of Observations from Test of Hypotheses 1. People who were more environmentally conscious were more willing to accept products containing recycled materials. 2. Education level differences and income level differences did not correlate with differences in consumer attitudes toward consumption of products containing recycled materials. 3. Respondents' attitudes about product acceptance differ for different types of recycled materials. 4. Relative cost determining respondents' was the most important factor decisions to purchase products or packaging containing recycled materials. The more expensive the recycled product or packaging relative to a similar ones made from new materials, the lower the rate of acceptance of the product or packaging made from recycled materials. 5. Consumers who were more environmentally conscious were willing to pay more for products containing recycled materials. 6. Higher education levels and higher income levels did not correlate with willingness to pay more for the products or packaging made from recycled materials. Summary of Observations from Analysis of Demographic Variables 1. was an A greater proportion of females thought waste disposal important issue and were more concerned with waste disposal as a local issue than were males. 121 2. Older government respondents assistance to were less willing private manufacturers to support to produce packaging or products containing recycled materials than were younger respondents. 3. Those consumers who lived in rural communities were slightly more willing to participate their household garbage if the in the separation of curbside pick-up for recyclables were available in their communities. 4. More educated people were more familiar with recycling and more knowledgeable about whether their community had recycling efforts in effect. 5. The unemployed and retired people were less willing to buy recycled products than were those employed full-time. 6. Higher income people heard or read more about the possibility of recycling during the past 12 months and were more willing income to buy consumers recycled products. were less willing to Yet these higher support government assistance to manufacturers producing recycled products or packaging and were less likely to believe the recycled products have the same or higher quality than new products. 7. Those consumer respondents who said they were willing to pay more for recycled products and packaging, considered waste disposal an important issue, familiar with recycling, recycling, recycling (4) (5) (1) (2) were more (3) had heard or read more about had more knowledge efforts, also more about their community's frequently participated in 122 recycling efforts, (6) more frequently looked to see whether the products or packaging were made with recycled materials, (7) were more willing to buy recycled products, and (8) had a more positive attitude about the quality of recycled materials. Implications Despite the growing public concern about waste disposal and recycling, participate in consumers recycling returnable bottles, in Michigan efforts. largely With the do exception cans and glass containers, not of most of the primary consumers surveyed did not separate the recyclable items from their household garbage. A high willingness to separate garbage, however, was expressed if curbside pick-up for recyclables were available in the community. community collection This indicates that from households may convenience in be to the key encouraging more voluntary involvement in recycling efforts for individual consumers. Consumers will respond well to recycling if it is made easy for householders to separate and dispose of recyclable materials. private recycling firms that Likewise communities routinely pick up or recyclable materials can expect a strong consumer response. In general, consumers appear highly sensitive to price differentials between products made from recycled materials and those made from new materials. Despite the willingness to 123 advance recycling and to pay more for products made from recycled materials by a majority of respondents, the price differential they would support would be 10 percent or less. Products containing recycled materials have competitively priced when compared to new products. can be priced the materials, same as similar products made to be If they from new or slightly less, their demand can be increased substantially. Pricing them more than 10 percent above similar products made from new materials would results in a serious reduction in demand, despite consumer interest in advancing recycling. In several previous studies, quality of products containing recycled materials was identified as one of the major problems of market demand for recycled materials. studies went so far as to indicate that people Some have a persistent bias against products made with recycled materials. This study, however, did not find the respondents possessed substantial negative attitudes about the quality of recycled materials and products. Most consumers thought the quality of recycled materials to be about the same as new materials. The data indicated that although recycled paper was the lowest rated material among five identified recycled materials, percent of consumers 71 surveyed said the recycled paper was about the same quality as new paper. It can be concluded from this study that, in Michigan, the majority of consumers likely 124 are satisfied with the quality of recycled materials and products. A nationwide Organization, survey in 1990 conducted indicated that income, play important roles environment. by the education, Roper and gender in an individual's commitment to the However, characteristics— income, in this education study, these personal and gender— appeared to have no strong influence on consumer attitudes toward products containing recycled interaction attitudes between toward materials. personal recycling The lack of characteristics and toward significant and products consumer containing recycled materials could lead one to suspect that the social value of recycling has been well publicized and reasonably well understood majority of throughout the State Michigan. consumers have positive perceptions importance of participate in the recycling efforts. possible of that recycling convenience and to were equally consumers about the willing In addition, in The to it is separation and disposition of recyclable materials, and consumer sensitivity to price differentials are far more important in determining consumer attitudes toward recyclable materials. Recommendations Recommendations to Manufacturers This study has demonstrated that consumers have formed positive attitudes toward recycling and products containing 125 recycled materials. Manufacturers would be well advised to develop appropriate demand of strategies recycled for increasing materials. The the market following are recommendations based on the results of this study: 1. Development and offering of competitively priced recycled products is needed for increasing the market demand. Pricing of products and packaging at the same price or slightly lower than similar products made of new materials could greatly increase consumer demand, with likely production and marketing efficiencies and economies to follow. 2. Within the sanitation and health-oriented cleanliness of products important to consumers. percent of sanitation reporting concerned. packages, consumers and they American and packaging surveyed are concerned either somewhat food about is reported as the top concerned concern the packaging— or Recycled cereal packages and other paper were the This study indicates that about 82 cleanliness of recycled were society, by very food consumers. Information about the cleanliness of a product or packaging could be added to the label of recycled food packaging. 3. Analyses of survey data showed, in general, consumers were most receptive to glass recycled products. Concerning specific products, consumers were most receptive to greeting cards and writing paper among the paper products. Consumers were most receptive to plastic benches, picnic tables, tables and chairs among the plastic products. 126 The results of this study also indicate that less than 6 percent of consumers said recycled aluminum, glass, plastic and steel were of a lower quality than new materials. However, over 20 percent of the consumers indicated recycled paper was of a lower quality than new paper. public campaign of information about the Possibly, quality a and usefulness of recycled paper is needed to improve its image. Recommendations to Retailers Retailers play a very important products containing recycled materials. role in promoting A significant number of today's consumer goods commonly contain recycled materials. However, without the positive disclosure of this information, an opportunity will be missed for the high performance of recycled materials. This study indicates that a majority of consumers obtain major information about safety and quality of products from newspapers regularly and run television. newspaper Therefore, advertisements retailers to promote could their environmental efforts and provide consumers with information about recycled technique, products. retailers also As could another use useful shelf tabs promotion to mark recycled products. Likewise, use of some clearly sanctioned and widely used symbols for recycled materials also could be considered by retailers, such as a system is in operation in Canada with support and monitoring by the Canadian government. A similar 127 U.S. system might augment retail demand, and in turn, increase production demand for products made with recycled materials. Recommendations to Government The success of widespread recycling efforts also depends on consumers' response to the policies set by the federal government and to the guidance and policy implementation by state and local governments. If recycling is to become standard, then a national policy should be created to foster market development. Governments, provide grants technologies especially for for the federal development processing government, of recycled new materials exploring new uses for recycled materials. financial and technical assistance, and such should low-cost and for Other forms of as low-interest loans, start-up assistance, and tax breaks to manufacturers to encourage the production and use of products or packaging made with recycled materials, are also recommended. In order to encourage the use of recycled products, governments could have mandatory procurement programs to buy competitively priced goods containing recycled materials. Use of recycled products by federal agencies is important, not only because of the large amount of federal purchase, but also because federal procurement arrangements are often used by state, local, and private organizations as a model for their programs establishment to buy recycled products (World Paper 76, April 1987, p.40). In addition, as the market increases 128 for recycled products, efficiencies and economies should occur and product prices should become more competitive. This study revealed a high degree of consumer willingness to separate garbage if curbside pick-up were available. State and local governments should make every effort to increase curbside pick-up recycling programs. Further, Federal and state governments and manufacturers and wholesale and retail associations may want to consider exploring the system of recycling standards and labeling now in operation symbol of in Canada. recycling if Products they can fully carry the meet the Canadian standards established. Recommendations for Future Research Social conducted psychologists numerous and studies on sociologists consumer have already attitudes about separation and collection of materials for recycling. The subject of consumer attitudes about marketing of recyclable materials has received very limited attention. but one of a few studies about consumer This study is attitudes products and packaging using recycled materials. toward Clearly it is limited in scope. More extensive studies would be desirable. Such studies could address the frequency of consumer purchasing of recycled products, opinions on experience with recycled products used, suggestions on label information and symbols for recycled packaging and recycled products, and consumer views concerning 129 performance of manufacturers and retailers regarding products and packaging made national from approaches, as desirable. attitude production Research of sale well also business and recycled materials. is and of as state studies, recommended industry products to about and Regional would or be assess the recycling and packaging made from recycled materials. Conclusions Growing volumes of waste and a scarcity of disposal sites plague governmental jurisdictions everywhere States. Recycling reduce their waste offers communities and ease environmental offering society new streams of resources. are being tried in many the states and in the United opportunity stresses, to while Recycling programs cities. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency supports aggressive recycling programs and believes it can achieve a goal of 25 percent recycling at waste streams over a relatively short period of time. However, simply increasing the collection and supply of recycled materials without increasing demand only leads to glutted markets for recyclable materials. Glutted markets and resulting elimination of collection and recycling activities until supplies are actions and attitudes. end products, used, undoubtedly impacts consumers' Without strong and stable markets for recycling is disadvantaged and waste streams 130 will cause greater adverse environmental impact than necessary. The achievement of the goals of environmental protection and enhancement depends in part on sound assumptions about the attitudes and behavior of individuals. issues of solid waste, individuals' When it comes to the views and actions are important because they are most directly involved in the solid waste problems. Consumer participation and market development for recycled products and packaging appear to be two keys to successful recycling programs. The main consumer objective attitudes of about this study products was to understand containing materials and to discover whether there recycled is a potential increase market demand for recycled materials. to The results of the study demonstrated that recycling has been well publicized in Michigan and the majority of the consumers have positive attitudes about recycled materials. formed The consumers are willing to contribute money (although only a little more), time, and effort to the purchase of products and packaging made from recycled materials. It appears that potential exists to increase the market demand for recycled materials. It is time for manufacturers, retailers, and governments closely working together to develop strategies materials. and actions for stronger markets for recycled Hopefully, the findings derived from this study have provided some useful insights to encourage actions in the 131 market to enhance the demand for products and packaging made from recycled materials. APPENDICES 132 APPENDIX A: SAMPLE SOURCE MATERIALS In the following sample analysis the percentages are identified as follows: SAMPLE - % of total sample which fell in this county. HHLD'S - % of total households in universe from this county. ESTPHN - % of total telephone households in universe from this county. LISTED - % of total directory-listed households which fell into this county. W/PHN - % of households in this county estimated to have phones. W/LISPHN - % of telephone households were listed. in this county which (The W/LISPHN % may exceed 100 if the number of listed households is too high (due to multiple listed phones per household or S S I 's assignment of exchanges to the county of plurality) or the number of telephone households has been estimated too low (due seasonal homes, use of projected household figures or use of 1983 census phone household data).) to 133 SAMPLE HHLDS ESTPHN % % % ALCONA 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 93.0 78.5 ALGER 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 91.2 32.4 ALLEGAN 1.0 0.9 94.6 62.9 ALPENA 0.3 0.5 94.6 96.6 ANTRIM 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 93.0 76.0 ARENAC 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 88.4 93.2 BARAGA 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 93.0 48.2 BARRY 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 95.4 62.4 BAY 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 95.8 69.5 BENZIE 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 92.2 108.6 BERRIEN 1.9 1.8 1.8 2.1 94.2 71.1 BRANCH 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 92.6 67.6 CALHOUN 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 95.4 61.6 CASS 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 93.8 55.7 CHARLEVOIX 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 93.8 94.9 CHEBOYGAN 0.2 0.3 93.8 83.3 CHIPPEWA 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 91.8 59.2 CLARE 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 92.2 91.7 CLINTON 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 97.0 59.4 CRAWFORD 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 91.6 43.2 DELTA 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 95.0 80.0 DICKINSON 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 96.6 76.3 EATON 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 97.0 69.9 COUNTY NAME 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.9 0.3 0.2 LISTED % W/PHN % W/LISP] % 134 EMMET 0.3 GENESEE 4.7 GLADWIN 0.2 0.3 GOGEBIC 0.2 0.2 GRAND TRAVERSE 0.7 0.7 GRATIOT 0.4 HILLSDALE 0.5 93.8 109.1 4.5 95.4 60.5 0.3 0.3 92.6 85.1 0.2 0.2 93.8 73.5 0.7 1.1 95.8 97.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 93.0 71.7 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 93.8 75.3 HOUGHTON 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 95.0 70.4 HURON 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 93.4 89.0 INGHAM 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.7 96.2 57.3 IONIA 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 94.6 69.9 IOSCO 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 93.0 92.0 IRON 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 95.0 85.6 ISABELLA 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 95.0 69.7 JACKSON 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.6 95.0 67.6 KALAMAZOO 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 96.2 61.7 KALKASKA 0 =1 0 =1 0.1 0.1 91.2 62.2 KENT 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.9 96.2 70.2 KEWEENAW 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.0 2.0 LAKE 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 90.0 54.9 LAPEER 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 94.6 71.9 LEELANAU 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 96.6 73.3 LENAWEE 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.1 95.4 76.1 LIVINGSTON 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 96.2 57.6 LUCS 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 90.8 43.3 MACKINAC 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 90.8 40.9 0.3 4.7 0.3 4.6 135 7.7 98.2 63.0 0.3 0.3 0.4 94.2 90.5 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 95.8 72.4 MASON 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 93.8 74.5 MECOSTA 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 94.6 73.3 MENOMINEE 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 93.2 62.1 MIDLAND 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 96.6 72.9 MISSAUKEE 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 94.2 93.4 MONROE 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 95.8 64.3 MONTCALM 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 91.6 78.6 MONTMORENCY 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 88.8 27.8 MUSKEGON 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.9 94.2 71.2 NEWAYGO 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 92.2 72.0 OAKLAND 12.0 11.7 12.0 13.3 97.8 70.0 OCEANA 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 92.2 58.2 OGEMAW 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 89.6 107.5 ONTONAGON 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 93.4 67.1 OSCEOLA 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 93.4 84.0 OSCODA 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 68.4 80.5 OTSEGO 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 94.2 71.8 OTTAWA 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.6 97.0 90.8 PRESQUE ISLE 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 93.8 60.9 ROSCOMMON 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 93.4 111.4 SAGINAW 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.1 96.2 57.8 ST CLAIR 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.6 95.0 64.5 ST JOSEPH 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 92.6 69.4 7.7 • in 7.7 MACOMB MANISTEE 0.2 MARQUETTE 136 io • o 78.3 0.1 93.0 53.6 0.7 0.9 95.0 78.8 0.6 0.6 0.7 94.6 76.3 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 92.6 63.8 WASHTENAW 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 97.0 59.6 WAYNE 23.2 23.4 23.2 16.7 94.6 45.4 WEXFORD 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 92.2 83.4 in • o 93.8 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.7 TUSCOLA 0.6 VAN BUREN SANILAC 0.4 SCHOOLCRAFT 0.1 SHIAWASSEE Source: Survey Sampling Inc. 137 APPENDIX B: TELEPHONE SURVEY QUESTIONNIARE A1 Compared to other environmental issues, how important to you is the disposal of wastes? Would you say it is the least important environmental issue, one of the less important, one of the more important, or the most important environmental issue? <1> <2> <3> <4> LEAST IMPORTANT ONE OF THE LESS IMPORTANT ONE OF THE MORE IMPORTANT MOST IMPORTANT <8> DON'T KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER A2 How concerned are you about waste disposal as a local issue? Would you say you are very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not concerned at all? <1> VERY CONCERNED <2> SOMEWHAT CONCERNED <3> NOT VERY CONCERNED WOT CONCERNED AT ALL <8> DON'T KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER A3 How familiar are you with recycling? Would you say very familiar, somewhat familiar, not very familiar, or not familiar at all? <1> <2> <3> <4> VERY FAMILIAR SOMEWHAT FAMILIAR NOT VERY FAMILIAR NOT FAMILIAR AT ALL <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER As far as you know, does your community have any recycling efforts currently under way? <1> <5> YES NO [goto Bl] <8> <9> DON'T KNOW [goto Bl] REFUSED/NO ANSWER [goto Bl] Does your community have voluntary drop-off points for recyclable materials? <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (Does your community have . . . ) Regular curbside pick-up of recyclable materials? <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (Does your community have . . . ) a recycling plant? <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER Does your community have any other facilities or programs for recycling? <1> <5> YES NO (SPECIFY) <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER During the past 12 months, have you heard or read about the possibility of recycling . . . aluminum cans, or glass and plastic bottles with deposits? <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (During the past 12 months, have you heard or read about the possibility of recycling . . .) Other cans with no deposits? <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (During the past 12 months, have you heard or read about the possibility of recycling . . .) Other glass containers with no deposits? <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (During the past 12 months, have you heard or read about the possibility of recycling . . .) Other plastic containers with no deposits? <1> <5> YES NO <8> <)> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER 140 B5 (During the past 12 months, have you heard or read about the possibility of recycling . . .) the plastic bags used to cover dry cleaning? B6 <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (During the past 12 months, have you heard or read about the possibility of recycling . . .) Other plastic bags (such as shopping bags)? B7 <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (During the past 12 months, have you heard or read about the possibility of recycling . . .) Newspapers[normal]? B8 <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (During the past 12 months, have you heard or read about the possibility of recycling . . .) Magazines, catalogues, and other colored papers? <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (During the past 12 months, have you heard or read about the possibility of recycling . . .) Paperboard or cardboard boxes (such as cereal boxes)? <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (During the past 12 months, have you heard or read about the possibility of recycling . . .) Scrap metals (all metals)? <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (During the past 12 months, have you heard or read about the possibility of recycling . . .) Automobile batteries[normal]? <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (During the past 12 months, have you heard or read about the possibility of recycling . . .) Household batteries[normal]? <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER 142 B13 (During the past 12 months, have you heard or read about the possibility of recycling . . .) Motor oil[normal]? B14 <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (During the past 12 months, have you heard or read about the possibility of recycling . . .) Tires[normal]? Cl C2 <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER Do you separate items with return deposits such as aluminum cans, glass and plastic bottles from your garbage? <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (Do you separate . . .) Other cans with no deposits (from your garbage)? <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER 143 C3 (Do you separate . . .) Other glass containers with no deposits (from your garbage?) C4 <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (Do you separate . . .) Other plastic containers with no deposits (from your garbage)(such as foam cups and milk jugs)? C5 <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (Do you separate . . .) Plastic bags (from your garbage)(such as shopping bags)? C6 <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (Do you separate . . .) Newspapers (from your garbage)? <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER 144 C7 (Do you separate . . .) Magazines, catalogues, and other colored papers (from your garbage)? C8 <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (Do you separate . . .) Paperboard or cardboard boxes (from your garbage) (such as cereal boxes)? C9 <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (Do you separate . . .) Scrap metals (from your garbage) metals)? CIO <1> <5> YES NO <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (all (Do you separate . . .) Auto batteries (from your garbage)? <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER 145 C ll (Do you separate . . .) Household batteries (from your garbage)? C12 <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (Do you separate . . .) Motor oil (from your garbage)? C13 <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (Do you separate . . .) Tires (from your garbage)? C14 <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER Are there any other materials that you separate for recycling from the rest of your garbage? <1> <5> YES (SPECIFY) NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER If curbside pick-up of recyclable materials were available in your community, would you be willing to separate cans with no deposits from your garbage? <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (If curbside pick-up were available, would you be willing to separate . . .) Glass containers with no deposit? (From your garbage) <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (If curbside pick-up were available, would you be willing to separate . . .) Plastic containers with no deposit? your garbage) (From y <1 v Si/' X£*i3 <5> NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (If curbside pick-up were available, would you be willing to separate . . . ) Plastic food wraps or sandwich bags? (From your garbage) <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER 147 D5 (If curbside pick-up were available, would you be willing to separate . . . ) Plastic bags, such as shopping bags? (From your garbage) D6 <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (If curbside pick-up were available, would you be willing to separate . . . ) Newspapers? D7 (From your garbage) <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (If curbside pick-up were available, would you be willing to separate . . . ) Magazines, catalogues, and other colored papers? (From your garbage) D8 *1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (If curbside pick-up were available, would you be willing to separate . . .) Paperboard or cardboard boxes? garbage)(such as cereal boxes) <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (From your 148 D9 (If curbside pick-up were available, would you be willing to separate . . .) Scrap metals? metals) DIO (From your garbage)(all <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (If curbside pick-up were available, would you be willing to separate . . .) Automobile batteries? Dll <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (If curbside pick-up were available, would you be willing to separate . . . ) Household batteries? D12 (From your garbage) <1> <5> YES NO <8> D O N 'T KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER (From your garbage) (If curbside pick-up were available, would you be willing to separate . . . ) Motor oil? (From your garbage) <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER 149 D13 (If curbside pick-up were available, would you be willing to separate . . . ) Tires? D14 El (From your garbage) <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> D O N ’T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER Are there any other materials that you would be willing to separate from your garbage for recycling (if curbside pick-up were available)? <1> <5> YES (SPECIFY) NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER When selecting products, how often do you look to see whether or not they are made with recycled materials? Would you say never, sometimes, frequently, or always? <1> <2> <3> <4> NEVER SOMETIMES FREQUENTLY ALWAYS <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER When selecting products, how often do you look to see whether or not the packaging is made with recycled materials? Would you say never, sometimes, frequently, or always? <1> <2> <3> <4> NEVER SOMETIMES FREQUENTLY ALWAYS <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER 150 E3 E4 Have you ever used products made from recycled materials? <1> <5> YES [goto FI] NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW [goto FI] REFUSED/NO ANSWER [goto FI] Why haven't you used products made from recycled materials? <1> <2> <3> <4> <5> LACK INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE IN STORE INFERIOR QUALITY HIGHER PRICE PREFER VIRGIN (NEW) PRODUCTS <0> OTHER (SPECIFY) <98> DON'T KNOW [goto FI] <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER [goto FI] FI If a product made of recycled materials were 10% lower in quality but also 10% lower in price than the same product made from new materials. . . Would you definitely buy the recycled product, probably buy the recycled product, probably buy the new product, or definitely buy the new product? <1> <2> <3> <4> <5> <8> <9> DEFINITELY BUY RECYCLED PRODUCT PROBABLY BUY RECYCLED PRODUCT DOESN'T MATTER/MAKES NO DIFF. PROBABLY BUY NEW PRODUCT DEFINITELY BUY NEW PRODUCT DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER 151 F2 If a product made of recycled materials were 10% lower in quality but had the same price as the product made from new materials. . . Would you definitely buy the recycled product, probably buy the recycled product, probably buy the new product,or definitely buy the new product? F3 <1> <2> <3> <4> <5> DEFINITELY BUY RECYCLED PRODUCT PROBABLY BUY RECYCLED PRODUCT DOESN'T MATTER/MAKES NO DIFF. PROBABLY BUY NEW PRODUCT DEFINITELY BUY NEW PRODUCT <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER If a product made of recycled materials were 10% lower in quality but cost 10% more than the same product made from new materials. . . (Would you definitely buy the recycled product, probably buy the recycled product, probably buy the new product, or definitely buy the new product?) F4 <1> <2> <3> <4> <5> DEFINITELY BUY RECYCLED PRODUCT PROBABLY BUY RECYCLED PRODUCT DOESN'T MATTER/MAKES NO DIFF. PROBABLY BUY NEW PRODUCT DEFINITELY BUY NEW PRODUCT <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER If a product made of recycled materials was the same in quality and cost 10% less than the same product made from new materials. . . (Would you definitely buy the recycled product, probably buy the recycled product, probably buy the new product, or definitely buy the new product?) <1> <2> <3> <4> <5> DEFINITELY BUY RECYCLED PRODUCT PROBABLY BUY RECYCLED PRODUCT DOESN'T MATTER/MAKES NO DIFF. PROBABLY BUY NEW PRODUCT DEFINITELY BUY NEW PRODUCT <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER 152 F5 If a product made of recycled materials was the same in quality and cost the same as the same product made from new materials. . . (Would you definitely buy the recycled product, probably buy the recycled product, probably buy the new product, or definitely buy the new product?) <1> <2> <3> <4> <5> DEFINITELY BUY RECYCLED PRODUCT PROBABLY BUY RECYCLED PRODUCT DOESN'T MATTER/MAKES NO DIFF. PROBABLY BUY NEW PRODUCT DEFINITELY BUY NEW PRODUCT <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER If a product made of recycled materials was the same in quality but cost 10% more than the same product made from new materials. . . (Would you definitely buy the recycled product, probably buy the recycled product, probably buy the new product, or definitely buy the new product?) F7 <1> <2> <3> <4> <5> DEFINITELY BUY RECYCLED PRODUCT PROBABLY BUY RECYCLED PRODUCT DOESN'T MATTER/MAKES NO DIFF. PROBABLY BUY NEW PRODUCT DEFINITELY BUY NEW PRODUCT <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER If a product made of recycled materials were 10% better in quality and cost 10% less than the same product made from new materials. . . (Would you definitely buy the recycled product, probably buy the recycled product, probably buy the new product, or definitely buy the new product?) <1> <2> <3> <4> <5> DEFINITELY BUY RECYCLED PRODUCT PROBABLY BUY RECYCLED PRODUCT DOESN'T MATTER/MAKES NO DIFF. PROBABLY BUY NEW PRODUCT DEFINITELY BUY NEW PRODUCT <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER 153 F8 If a product made of recycled materials were 10% better in quality and cost the same as the product made from new materials. . . (Would you definitely buy the recycled product, probably buy the recycled product, probably buy the new product, or definitely buy the new product?) F9 <1> <2> <3> <4> <5> DEFINITELY BUY RECYCLED PRODUCT PROBABLY BUY RECYCLED PRODUCT DOESN'T MATTER/MAKES NO DIFF. PROBABLY BUY NEW PRODUCT DEFINITELY BUY NEW PRODUCT <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER If a product made of recycled materials were 10% better in quality but also cost 10% more than the product made from new materials. . . (Would you definitely buy the recycled product, probably buy the recycled product, probably buy the new product, or definitely buy the new product?) <1> <2> <3> <4> <5> DEFINITELY BUY RECYCLED PRODUCT PROBABLY BUY RECYCLED PRODUCT DOESN'T MATTER/MAKES NO DIFF. PROBABLY BUY NEW PRODUCT DEFINITELY BUY NEW PRODUCT <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER 154 G1 Compared to products made from new aluminum, how would you rate the quality of products made from recycled aluminum? Would you say they are lower quality, higher quality, or about the same? <1> <2> <3> LOWER QUALITY ABOUT THE SAME [goto G2] HIGHER QUALITY [goto G2] <8> <9> DON'T KNOW [goto G2] REFUSED/NO ANSWER [goto G2] Gla Why do you feel products made from recycled aluminum are of lower quality? G2 Compared to products made from new glass, how would you rate the quality of products made from recycled glass? (Would you say they are lower quality, higher quality, or about the same?) G2a G3 <1> <2> <3> LOWER QUALITY ABOUT THE SAME HIGHER QUALITY <8> <9> DON'T KNOW [goto G3J REFUSED/NO ANSWER [goto G3] [goto G3] [goto G3] Why do you feel products made from recycled glass are of lower quality? Compared to products made from new paper, how would you rate the quality of products made from recycled paper? (Would you say they are lower quality, higher quality, or about the same?) <1> <2> <3> LOWER QUALITY ABOUT THE SAME [goto G4] HIGHER QUALITY [goto G4] <8> <9> DON'T KNOW [goto G4J REFUSED/NO ANSWER [goto G4] 155 G3a Why do you feel products made from recycled paper are of lower quality? G4 Compared to products made from new plastic, how would you rate the quality of products made from recycled plastic? (Would you say they are lower quality, higher quality, or about the same?) <1> <2> <3> LOWER QUALITY ABOUT THE SAME [goto G5] HIGHER QUALITY [goto G5] <8> <9> DON'T KNOW [goto G5] REFUSED/NO ANSWER [goto G5] G4a Why do you feel products made from recycled plastic are of lower quality? G5 Compared to products, such as food cans, made from new steel, how would you rate the quality of products made from recycled steel? (Would you say they are lower quality, higher quality, or about the same?) G5a <1> <2> <3> LOWER QUALITY ABOUT THE SAME [goto HO] HIGHER QUALITY [goto HO] <8> <9> DON'T KNOW rr,oto H O 1 REFUSED/NO ANSWER [goto HO] Why do you feel products made from recycled steel are of lower quality? In general, compared to those products made from all new materials, how would you rate the quality of products made from recycled materials? Would you say they are lower in quality, higher in quality, or are they about the same? <1> <2> <3> LOWER QUALITY ABOUT THE SAME [goto 10] HIGHER QUALITY <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER Compared to those made from all new materials, how would you rate the quality of office paper goods made from recycled materials? Would you say they are lower quality, higher quality, or about the same? <1> <2> <3> LOWER QUALITY ABOUT THE SAME HIGHER QUALITY <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER Compared to those made from all new materials, how would you rate the quality of writing paper made from recycled materials? (Would you say they are lower quality, higher quality, or about the saiue?) <1> <2> <3> LOWER QUALITY ABOUT THE SAME HIGHER QUALITY <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (Compared to those made from all new materials,) how would you rate the quality of greeting cards made from recycled materials? (Would you say they are lower quality, higher quality, or about the same?) <1> <2> <3> LOWER QUALITY ABOUT THE SAME HIGHER QUALITY <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (Compared to those made from all new materials,) how would you rate the quality of napkins, tissue paper, and paper towels made from recycled materials? (Would you say they are lower quality, higher quality, or about the same?) <1> <2> <3> LOWER QUALITY ABOUT THE SAME HIGHER QUALITY <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (Compared to that made from all new materials,) how would you rate the quality of toilet paper made from recycled materials? (Would you say it is lower quality, higher quality, or about the same?) <1> <3> LOWER QUALITY ABOUT THE SAME HIGHER QUALITY <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER <2> 158 H6 (Compared to those made from all new materials,) how would you rate the quality of glassware made from recycled materials? (Would you say they are lower quality, higher quality, or about the same?) H7 <1> <2> <3> LOWER QUALITY ABOUT THE SAME HIGHER QUALITY <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (Compared to that made from all new materials,) how would you rate the quality of carpeting made from recycled materials? (Would you say it is lower quality, higher quality, the same?) H8 <1> <2> <3> LOWER QUALITY ABOUT THE SAME HIGHER QUALITY <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (Compared to those made from all new materials,) how would you rate the quality of plastic benches, picnic tables, tables and chairs made from recycled materials? (Would you say they are lower quality, higher quality, or about the same?) <1> <2> <3> LOWER QUALITY ABOUT THE SAME HIGHER QUALITY <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER 159 H9 (Compared to those made from all new materials,) how would you rate the quality of plastic floor coverings, runners, and plastic sheeting made from recycled materials? (Would you say they are lower quality, higher quality, or about the same?) H10 <1> <2> <3> LOWER QUALITY ABOUT THE SAME HIGHER QUALITY <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (Compared to those made from all new materials,) would you rate the quality of plastic boards, planks, posts, and fences made from recycled materials? how (Would you say they are lower quality, higher quality, or about the same?) Hll <1> <2> <3> LOWER QUALITY ABOUT THE SAME HIGHER QUALITY <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (Compared would you materials made from to those rate the (such as recycled made from all new materials,) how quality of household construction roofing shingles and tar paper) materials? (Would you say they are lower quality, higher quality, or about the same?) <1> <2> <3> LOWER QUALITY ABOUT THE SAME HIGHER QUALITY <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER 160 10 In general, compared to the cleanliness or sanitation of food packaging made from only new materials, how concerned are you about the sanitation or cleanliness of food packaging made with recycled materials? Would you say very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not concerned at all? 11 <1> <2> <3> <4> VERY CONCERNED SOMEWHAT CONCERNED NOT VERY CONCERNED NOT CONCERNED AT ALL [goto JO] <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER If cereal packages and other paper food packages were made from recycled materials, how concerned would you be about their sanitation or cleanliness? Would you say very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not concerned at all? 12 <1> <2> <3> <4> VERY CONCERNED SOMEWHAT CONCERNED NOT VERY CONCERNED NOT CONCERNED AT ALL <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER If glass food jars were made from recycled materials, how concerned would you be about their sanitation or cleanliness? (Would you say very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not concerned at all?) 13 <1> <2> <3> <4> VERY CONCERNED SOMEWHAT CONCERNED NOT VERY CONCERNED NOT CONCERNED AT ALL <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER If plastic food containers were made from recycled 161 materials, how concerned would you be about their sanitation or cleanliness? (Would you say very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not concerned at all?) 14 <1> <2> <3> <4> VERY CONCERNED SOMEWHAT CONCERNED NOT VERY CONCERNED NOT CONCERNED AT ALL <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER If steel food cans were made from recycled materials, how concerned would you be about their sanitation or cleanliness? (Would you say very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not concerned at all?) 15 <1> <2> <3> <4> VERY CONCERNED SOMEWHAT CONCERNED NOT VERY CONCERNED NOT CONCERNED AT ALL <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER If aluminum beverage cans were made from recycled materials, how concerned would you be about their sanitation or cleanliness? (Would you say very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not concerned at all?) <1> <2> <3> <4> VERY CONCERNED SOMEWHAT CONCERNED NOT VERY CONCERNED NOT CONCERNED AT ALL <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER If glass beverage bottles were made from recycled materials, how concerned would you be about their sanitation or cleanliness? (Would you say very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not concerned at all?) <1> <2> <3> <4> VERY CONCERNED SOMEWHAT CONCERNED NOT VERY CONCERNED NOT CONCERNED AT ALL <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER If plastic beverage bottles were made from recycled materials, how concerned would you be about their sanitation or cleanliness? (Would you say very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not concerned at all?) <1> <2> <3> <4> VERY CONCERNED SOMEWHAT CONCERNED NOT VERY CONCERNED NOT CONCERNED AT ALL <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER If plastic wraps or plastic bags for feed items were made from recycled materials, how concerned would you be about their sanitation or cleanliness? (Would you say very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not concerned at all?) <1> <2> <3> <4> VERY CONCERNED SOMEWHAT CONCERNED NOT VERY CONCERNED NOT CONCERNED AT ALL <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER 163 JO In general, compared to the sanitation or cleanliness of those made from only new materials, how concerned are you about the sanitation or cleanliness of non-food packaging made from recycled materials? Would you say very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not concerned at all? J1 <1> <2> <3> <4> VERY CONCERNED SOMEWHAT CONCERNED NOT VERY CONCERNED NOT CONCERNED AT ALL [goto Kl] <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER If the glass containers holding detergents and cleaning solutions were made from recycled glass, how concerned would you be about their sanitation or cleanliness? (Would you say very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not concerned at all?) J2 <1> <2> <3> <4> VERY CONCERNED SOMEWHAT CONCERNED NOT VERY CONCERNED NOT CONCERNED AT ALL <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER If the paper containers holding detergents and cleaning solutions were made from recycled paper, how concerned would you be about their sanitation or cleanliness? (Would you say very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not concerned at all?) <1> <2> <3> <4> VERY CONCERNED SOMEWHAT CONCERNED NOT VERY CONCERNED NOT CONCERNED AT ALL <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER 164 J3 If the plastic containers holding detergents and cleaning solutions were made from recycled plastic, how concerned would you be about their sanitation or cleanliness? (Would you say very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not concerned at all?) J4 <1> <2> <3> <4> VERY CONCERNED SOMEWHAT CONCERNED NOT VERY CONCERNED NOT CONCERNED AT ALL <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER If the corrugated cardboard cartons holding non-food items were made from recycled materials, how concerned would you be about their sanitation or cleanliness? (Would you say very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not concerned at all?) j5 <1> <2> <3> <4> VERY CONCERNED SOMEWHAT CONCERNED NOT VERY CONCERNED NOT CONCERNED AT ALL <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER Tf paper shopping bags were made from, r e c y c l e d materials, how concerned would you be about their sanitation or cleanliness? (Would you say very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not concerned at all?) / <1> <2> <3> <4> VERY CONCERNED SOMEWHAT CONCERNED NOT VERY CONCERNED NOT CONCERNED AT ALL <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER 165 J6 If plastic shopping bags were made from recycled plastics, how concerned would you be about their sanitation or cleanliness? (Would you say very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not concerned at all?) J7 <1> <2> <3> <4> VERY CONCERNED SOMEWHAT CONCERNED NOT VERY CONCERNED NOT CONCERNED AT ALL <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER If plastic garbage bags were made from recycled plastics, how concerned would you be about their sanitation or cleanliness? (Would you say very concerned, somewhat concerned, not very concerned, or not concerned at all?) K1 <1> <2> <3> <4> VERY CONCERNED SOMEWHAT CONCERNED NOT VERY CONCERNED NOT CONCERNED AT ALL <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER If it would encourage more recycling, would you be willing to pay more for products containing recycled m a te r ia ls th a n fo r p ro d u cts c o n ta in in g o n ly materials? <1> <5> YES NO [goto K 3 ] <8> <9> DON'T KNOW [goto K3] REFUSED/NO ANSWER [goto K3] new 166 K2 Ingeneral, how much more would you be willing to pay for a product containing recycled materials? Would you say 1 to 5% more, 6 to 10% more, 11 to 15% more, 16 to 20% more, 21 to 25% more, or 26% or higher? K3 K4 <1> <2> <3> <4> <5> <6> 1% TO 5% 6% TO 10% 11% TO 15% 16% TO 20% 21% TO 25% 26% OR MORE <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER If it would encourage more recycling, would you be willing to pay more for products packaged in containers made from recycled materials than for products packaged in containers made from only new materials? <1> <5> YES NO [goto LI] <8> <9> DON'T KNOW [goto LI] REFUSED/NO ANSWER [goto LI] In general, how much more would you be willing to pay for products packaged in containers made from recycled materials? Would you say 1 to 5% more, 6 to 10% more, 11 to 15% more, 16 to 20% more, 21 to 25% more, or 26% or higher? <1> <2> <3> <4> <5> <6> 1% TO 5% 6% TO 10% 11% TO 15% 16% TO 20% 21% TO 25% 26% OR MORE <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER 167 LI L2 L3 L4 In your opinion, should government provide technical or business assistance to private manufacturers to produce packaging or products from recycled materials? <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (In your opinion, should government provide) start-up assistance (to private manufacturers that will produce packaging or products from recycled materials?) <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (In your opinion, should government provide) low interest loans (to private manufacturers that will produce packaging or products from recycled materials?) <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (In your opinion, should government provide) tax breaks or tax abatement (to private manufacturers that will produce packaging or products from recycled materials?) <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (In your opinion, should government provide) subsidies for leasing of sites or buildings (to private manufacturers that will produce packaging or products from recycled materials?) <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER (In your opinion, should government provide) grants for research and development (to private manufacturers that will produce packaging or products from recycled materials?) <1> <5> YES NO <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER Do you think government should provide any other kind of public assistance to private manufacturers producing packaging or products made from recycled materials? <1> <5> YES NO [goto L9] <8> <9> DON'T KNOW [goto L9] REFUSED/NO ANSWER [goto L9] What other kinds of assistance should government provide? <0> COMMENT (SPECIFY) <98> DON'T KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER 169 L9 When you answered the last few questions, were you thinking of local government, state government or the federal government? <1> <2> <3> <4> LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATE GOVERNMENT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COMBINATIONS OF LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL <8> DON'T KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Ml From which of the following do you obtain most of your information about the quality and safety of products you purchase? Shopping guide, the newspaper, magazines, television, radio, direct mail advertisements and fliers, or some other source? <1> <2> <3> <4> <5> <6> SHOPPING NEWSPAPER MAGAZINES TELEVISION RADIO DIRECT MAIL ADVERTISEMENTS AND FLIERS <0> OTHER (SPECIFY) <98> DON'T KNOW <99> REFUSED/NO ANSWER N1 The last few questions concern the background of the people we interview. These will be used for statistical purposes only and to make certain we accurately represent Michigan adults. Any information will be kept strictly confidential. Are you male or female? <1> <2> MALE FEMALE <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER What is your age? <1> <3> <4> <5> 18 TO 24 2 5 TO 34 35 TO 49 50 TO 64 65 YEARS <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER <2> YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS OR OLDER Would you describe the community you live in as a city, a suburb, or a rural area? <1> <2> <3> CITY SUBURB RURAL AREA <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/ NO ANSWER What is the highest grade or year of school that you have completed? <1> <2> <3> <4> <5> <6> 6TH GRADE OR LESS 7TH - 12TH GRADE COMPLETED HIGH SCHOOL OR GED SOME COLLEGE, TRADE OR VOCATIONAL SCHOOL COMPLETED COLLEGE ADVANCED DEGREE <8> <9> DON'T KNOW REFUSED/NO ANSWER What is your present employment situation? Are you employed full-time, part-time, a full-time homemaker, unemployed, retired, or a full-time student? <1> <2> <3> <4> <5> <6> EMPLOYED FULL-TIME EMPLOYED PART-TIME FULL-TIME HOMEMAKER UNEMPLOYED RETIRED FULL-TIME STUDENT <0> OTHER (SPECIFY) <8> DON'T KNOW <9> REFUSED/NO ANSWER Finally, we need to know the general range of incomes of all the people we interview. Thinking about your family's total annual income from all sources (including your job, before taxes), did your family receive $30,000 or more in 1989? <3> <0> YES NO (go to N6a) (go to N6d) <8> <9> DON'T KNOW (go to ND) REFUSED/NO ANSWER (go to ND) Was it $45,000 or more? <4> <3> YES NO OR DON'T KNOW/REFUSED (go to ND) Was it $60,000 or more? <5> <4> YES NO OR DON'T KNOW/REFUSED (go to ND]) Was it $75,000 or more? <6> <5> YES (go to ND) NO OR DON'T KNOW/REFUSED (go to ND) Was it less than $15,000? <1> <2> YES NO OR DON'T KNOW/REFUSED That's all the questions I have. for completing this interview. I want to thank you 172 APPENDIX C: RESPONSES TO OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS A2 A2 A2 A2 A2 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A4 A5 A5 A5 A5 :I should be concerned more. :Fuel contamination in our water, products were found in it. :We had to go to court, and suffered $40,000. :Context is vague on this question. MTY. Any state level. :Important, it varies. :Just moved here a week ago. :Township mostly city, not so much. :They tried a month or so ago, but now there is nothing. : Grocery store encourges to use bags again and again. :Not in our neighborhood. :Not enough recycling here, and we don't any bins, not advertised. :Enough and not enough recycling. A5 A5 A5 :They just started a recycling center about a year :Don't have a car, certain Saturdays. :Mostly paper and plastics. :They built a recycling center, I don't know what on there. :The county next to us does. :It's in the works. :We aren't actually a city we are a township. ago. A6 A6 A6 A6 A6 A6 A6 A6 :We will have it after the 1st of the year. :In parts of town. :Not sure,I live in an apartment. :They are planning on it. :Independent contractors. :Some newspapers. :Stores try to be conscious, but are not. :Paper products are a lot more expensive. A7 A7 A7 A7 A7 :With another community we share a plant. :We're working on one. :Close by, we are outside of Bay city. :People save trees, but they only plant them to cut down for Christmas and they are also fire hazards. :Still discussing it. A8 A8 A8 A8 :We recycle paper at work. :We are going to start them, curbside pick up. :They are working on it. :Don't know. goes 173 A8 A8 A8 A8 : Telephone book drop off, used to be newspaper drop-off. : Through the sanitation service but I don't know if they do anything else. :Just drop off places. :There is a recycling company that is in town, they charge you to take recyclable materials to them. :Can't remember. :I'm sure they do, but I don't know what they are. :We are twin cities and they have one in the city next to us. : All I know is what I read in the paper and that it is the drop off part. :They are working on some. :They have one that will take affect Jan 1. Curbside pick up. : They have some proposed like batteries and things like that. :Don't know what. :Son-in-law has business that recycles plastic. :Small community. :There is something, but I do not know what it is. :I don't know. :I think so, if we bring back our bags for groceries they give us so much money for that. :They have a compost, to take shrubbery, leaves, etc. :There's a cardboard place in town. :Paper and cans. : A private group tried to influence people to recycle, they defeated it. :They have a lot of recycling bins. :Telephone books and Christmas trees. :Goodwill has a pick up for plastic and glass and paper. : 4-H kids do a lot with paper and cardboard products. :I don't know. :Goodwill. B1 :This question does not make sense. B2 :Need biogradeable bottles. B4 :Not as far as antifreeze or rubbing alcohol. B5 B5 :At Krogers there is a box to recycle your bags. :You are confusing me, I read a lot of things about it. B6 :Code is on bottom of bag. B7 B7 B7 :That has been going on for sometime. :Paper re-clean place. : They have a drive somewhere, I do not know what for. A8 A8 A8 A8 A8 A8 A8 A8 A8 A8 A8 A8 A8 A8 A8 A8 A8 A8 A8 A8 A8 A8 A8 174 B8 : Generally. B9 : Haven't heard anything about our community recycling cardboard. :Do not deal with these because I am on a farm. B9 BIO :In companies. Bll Bll Bll :I am aware they do take them back. ;Gas station. :The only reason I know is because within the last six months I went and asked them when I took the newspapers. B12 : I use rechargables. B13 : To the garage. B14 : If entails retiring existing tires. B14 :I know it can be done, but where? Cl C2 C2 C2 C2 :Return the cans to the store. : Did, but piled up and couldn't get it there. :Sometimes. :Separate only to put in dump, separate only to dispose and to recycle. :I do not buy any other cans. C3 C3 :We use them to the maximum limit. :Anything that can not be burned. • (i a w 4 C3 C3 : Not in my area as of now. : Need a container for them to pick it up. C4 C4 C4 C4 : : : : C5 C5 C5 C5 C5 : : : : : Re-clean now takes glass. School things for the kids. Milk cartons. Sometimes. C5 C5 I use them. I use them for trash and diaper pails. Return grocery bags. Used for kitty litter and garbage bags. Separate them all and have garbage men pick them up for twenty dollars a month. : Only paper. : I don't do it, but you are into it. C6 C6 : We do not get. : Once in a while. 175 C6 C6 :We don't get a newspaper. :We use them for different things, around the house for cleaning windows and such. :Whatever we do not use. : Sometimes. :There is no place to take it. :I don't have any. :Yes and no, sometimes I do and sometimes Idon't. :Sometimes I take them to a store, not sure what they do. :I burn them. :Most of the time. :Sometimes. C6 C6 C6 C6 C6 C6 C6 C6 C6 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 :No one can tell me where to take it. :Mainly I go after newspapers. :I don't know what to do with them. :Give them to hospitals and neighbors. :Do the magazines and catalogues but not the other things. C8 C8 C8 C8 :Won't accept it. :They would not take it. :We burn those in our wood burner. :I re-use. C9 C9 C9 C9 C9 C9 C9 Do not have any. Don't have any. I don't have any. Like a can? Do not have. Cans and that I recycle. I do not have that much. no W« CIO CIO CIO CIO CIO CIO CIO CIO CIO CIO Kayo f nn tnnnh nf th O S 6 : : : : : : : : : : : Don't know where to take them. Don't have any. At gas station. I do not know where to take it. Don't throw too many away. If I had one, I may take them to a junk yard. I don't have an auto. Haven't changed mine yet. I have never handled any. Not sure, don't remember throwing one away(asks husband, he doesn't know.) CIO : We haven't run into the use of those. We really don't have to separate them. CIO : The store does it. Cll : In the past we have dropped them off. Cll : Rechargeable and my husband collects them. 176 C12 C12 C12 C12 C12 C12 C12 C12 :Don't have. :They do it at the shop. :Not done at home. :I don't have a car. :I think it is done, but I do not handle it. :I have it changed. :We never change our own oil so we aren't running into that. :I have that done at mechanics. C13 C13 C13 Cl3 C13 C13 Cl3 Cl3 :Do not have any. :I don't have any tires. :Keep them at station. :Do not have, we trade them. :I don't have tires. :Place that does it does. :We just turn cars in and we don't have to take. :I do not have. C14 C14 C14 C14 C14 C14 C14 C14 C14 C14 C14 C14 C14 C14 C14 C14 C14 C14 C14 C14 C14 C14 C14 C14 C14 C14 C14 C14 C14 : Anything that is burn-able , don't throw garbage out. :We separate things, but we don't know what to do with them. : Paint thinners, finishes, aerosol cans that contain paint. :Aerosol cans, because they might cause cancer. :Aluminum foil (ao) anything that doesn't burn; I put them separately. :Tinfoil. :Glass. :Metal and batteries, aluminum. ;Photo chemistry. ;Glass, plastic, and papers. :Clothes. :Styrofoam. :Plastic bottles, such as milk jugs. ;Some foam products, such as meat trays. ;Burn scrap wood. :Anything that is recyclable. :Compost pile. :Just compost items. ;Computer paper. :Styrofoam we recycle, and paper. ;Coffee grounds in the garden. : Compost pile for our garbage, glass clippings, food in the summer time. : Paper bags. : Food. : Compost. : Brown paper bags. : Any garbage edible by wild life. : Food. ; Paint, building supplies. 177 C14 C14 C14 C14 C14 : : : : : Wine bottles. Vegetation and food goes for the animals. Telephone books. Aluminum. Brown paper grocery bags. D2 : Yes I would separate, it'sa good idea— not willing to go unless its close. D4 D4 D4 :My kids do not use those items anymore. :It will be smelly. : Probably. D5 D5 D5 D6 D6 D6 : I use those. :If they picked it up it is not the separating that is :Hard isgetting it down there. :I would burn them first. : Use them for other reasons. : It would be nice if they did, it would be easier. D7 : Most go to the hospitals. D8 : Saves them. D9 D9 D9 : Don't have any. : If I had any. : I don't have them. DIO : Because when you buy, you pay a core deposit. Dll : Don't have much of that. D12 : Have it done at station. M H 1A * O. • • VA r»ii n o A / 4 D12 D12 D12 D12 : : : : We are to drop it off somewhere else, Dad's garage. Take that to deposit place. I don't deal with motor oil. I would do any of the curbside pick-up. 4*a W W f al V 4r> W W wAAnl a V i i W 4 i ^ V X «5+• D13 : Call the people that work with tires. D13 : The same. D13 : I do not handle tires, they end up wherever we buy our new tires. D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 : : : : : : : But I don't know what else is left. Anything. Easy ones, not heavy and not cumbersome. Plastic toys and lumber, bricks, blocks. Anything they asked me to. Anything that's left. Conform with the rule of picking up whatever there was to pick up. 178 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 : : : : : : : : Whatever they want. Whatever there is. Whatever was required. Wood. Whatever else was necessary. Anything that doesn't burn. Anything. Grass and stuff like that. :Anything you could. :Whatever can be used. :Branches and leaves. :Anything. : Can't think of anything. : Anything else left. : Anything. : Wood, concrete, cement. : All of them. : Anything. : Whatever that I would have. : Discarded clothing. : All these questions sound the same. : Anything. : Anything. : Anything. : Anything. : Anything that you could. : Things that are toxins like Draino that have to be disposed of. : Petroleum products. : Do whatever I could to help. : If they want to recycle it and I have it I would recycle. : Can't think of any. : Anything. : Anything. : Styrofoam. : Anything. : Paints that are hard to get rid of, stains, urethane. : Anything they needed. : Anything, clothes. : Don't know, if anything else I would. : I would do it all. : Styrofoam. : Diapers, but shouldn't charge for trash pickup. : Whatever. : If I was aware. : Anything. : Anything. : Anything. : Did separate them all. : Anything that could be recycled. : Anything that is recyclable. 179 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D2.4 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 D14 : : : : : Wood products. I don not know what else is recyclable. If you can think of them. Anything that I could I would. Can't come up w/ any but whatever there was I would separate. : Anything. : Whatever they told me to. : W/in reason. : Anything. : If it had to be separated, I would. : Anything that was recyclable. : Anything. : Organic materials. : If I knew something that they didn't want I would separate anything they took. :If there is a good curbside pickup, I would try to set anything apart, but as far as going to anygreat length, I would not. : Anything. : Anything. : Don't know what else. : Anything. : We would separate anything. : I do not know what is left. : Anything. : Whatever they would pick up. : Anything. : If I found out what else they were. : Anything else. : Refrigerators. : Anything. : Whatever I didn't mention. z Anything f c o u l d bo recycled snd not put more weight on our earth, I would be glad to recycle. : Paint and building supplies. : Whatever they wanted. : I don't know what it would be. : I would really try. : Just let us know. : Whatever we could reuse. : If I knew to separate I would. : Can't think of any. : I don't know just anything that was recyclable. :Any. :If I had a baby I would separate pampers. :Anything recyclable. : Leaves and sticks, and scraps from the garbage. : Fertilizers. : Poisons and insecticides. : If it was brought to my attention that it was recyclable. 180 D14 : Whatever else that would be available, recyclable places in my area are not convenient. D14 :Anything they would take, tape, rags. D14 :Anything. D14 :Styrofoam. D14 : Anything if they made it that easy to deposit. D14 :Anything else. D14 :No. D14 :Everything I would do, I would comply 100%, not economically feasible at this time. D14 :Anything to help. D14 :Whatever is left. D14 :Composing. D14 :Aluminum. D14 :Anything they would take. El El El El El :I have just started that rq. :When available I get them rq. :I am not paying attention I am not going out of my way. :Need to make people aware. :I really don't buy that much, because Iam all alone. E2 E2 E2 :Not very often rq. :Not enough yet to pay attention. :I don't believe them anymore. E3 E3 :I am not sure. :I don't remember.(rq) E4 E4 E4 E4 E4 E4 E4 E4 E4 E4 E4 :We drink out of cans but we put them in aglass. :Dig about cans. :Afraid that they aren't clean. :Do not pay attention. :I 've never come across an y . :I do not look for it. :I don't pay attention. :Never paid attention. :Haven't noticed if I have or not. :Not sure if he has or hasn't. :Not looked. FI FI FI FI FI FI FI :Depending on what it was it. :Were actually impossible for this woman toansweranything I said. : She replied with I will buy whatever serves me best. : Depends. : Depends on the item. : Depend on product. : Depends. F2 : Something may jeopardize safety of my kids going to a 181 F2 F2 F2 F2 F2 F3 F3 F3 F3 lower quality. :Depends what it is. :If it were much inferior would not buy :This is a bad question. :Depends on product. :Depends on what I wanted it for. it. :Depends on jeopardizing safety of my children as far as a toy highchair, I will not take a chance. :It depends. :Depends on the product. :These questions are not really fair. F4 F4 F4 :Some of these questions are difficult for me. :I am cost efficient. :My income is low so I have to get the best value for my money. F5 : But I would also purchase the product made w/ new materials. :I'm getting bored. :Depends on whether indicates it is recycled. F5 F5 F6 F6 F6 F6 F6 F6 F6 F7 F7 :Also examine the new product (wc). :I don't like to pay more for recycled products. :Depends on the product. :Depend on what it is. :If the recycled price was minimal I would buy the recycled but if the price difference was a lot I'd buy the new. : New product would have a better standard. :Cost efficient. F7 F7 :Always buy cheaper. :It depends on the products and the it. :Money is the object. :Depends on the product. F8 F8 F8 :You are asking me the same questions. :This sounds the same. :You asked me this question before. F9 :Depends on the item-sometimes quality is worth more and sometimes if a product is on a shelf it should have a notation that it is made from recycled products so the customer knows. : Depends on product. F9 G1 G1 person who makes : In MI the return bottles the ones that are recycled are soapy. : I don't buy it I can't guess. 182 G1 G1 G1 :I have no opinion. :I dk. I do not notice. :Haven't dealt with any. Gla :My husband is a machinist and he works metals and he would say the new is better. : I'm not sure that they really melt down. : The recycled product. : The material had been used more than once. : Anything recycled is lower. : Cause they have been used before. : I think if they are just going to crush them then it will be of a thinner aluminum. : The ones I bought are flimsy. : Just because they are all crushed together-used again. : Because they have been used before. Gla Gla Gla Gla Gla Gla Gla Gla Gla G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 G2 : Very seldom buy anything in glass. : Really haven't noticed. : Purchases paper towels and garbage bags, I'm living in 4 different places in the last 6 mths. : Don't know the difference! : I have no idea , I'm not knowledgeable about it. : In all the recycled things I bought I do not notice any difference. : Glass is pure. G2a : They have flaws, matter of fact I've taken a lot of glasses back because of defects. G2a : Dig about kids breaking a pitcher. G2a : Materials have been used more than once. G2a : It wouldn't be worth as much as the original. G2a : Because they are used again. G2a : Weaker. G3 G3 G3 G3 G3 G3 G3 G3 G3 G3 : Some are low quality but I can't blame it on because its recycled. : I do not think they sell them in our stores. : I have no knowledge at all because I have never bought recycled paper. :I don't see any difference. :That would depend on the looks I can't say. :Stationary is lower quality and newspaper is about the same darker. : Paper towels are not as good, need more absorbency but others have chemicals in them. : Writing paper is good. : Depends on who did it. :Paper towel and toilet paper and tissues were poor quality but paper bags and greeting cards, etc... were the same quality. 183 G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a G3a :Whenever I get a paper the ink comes off on my hands. :It doesn't seem as strong they looked, the colors in greeting cards weren't as vivid. : Materials are used more than once. : Because not same quality, can't get same grade(color) look. :At funny but some people don't like it. :Roughness of the texture. : I don't know didn't feel the same, not as structurally strong. : Because paper has different thing other than one chem put different stuff in it. : They don't seem to have the same freshness. : I can tell the difference, they are gray. : Like not processed properly almost crude. : I don't know I just noticed it when I bought the paper towel thinner. : Just real course not as absorbent. : Recycled wrapping paper was different than your use to. : Not necessarily dif - just my understanding. : We don't buy them for copy machines because they jam, the paper can not be used for some things. : Usually they are not the glossy, but sometimes it makes it easier to read. : Appearance. : They aren’t as pliable. : The paper is more porous you can always tell. : It doesn't look as nice. : They are less absorbent and soft, and not as good. : They are not as strong. : Sometimes things like that are better new. : The news paper yellows and is brittle, just think of it as not holding together as well: : Don't hold up as good. : I have used paper towels not satisfied newspapers were bad too. : Newsprint leaves off darker color, paper towels can't tell the difference. : Tears up with only a little stuff. : Because they are they flimsier not as durable eg. paper bags. :It taken from the original product. :They don't appear as nice, certain items don't matter. :Not as fresh. :It seems coarser, more porous, shabbier. :Because they have foreign substances, fibers are shorter. : They just don't have the color or the stability, they just look recycled. : Its got a lot of ingredients in it like ink - its not clean. 184 G3a : Their appearance. G3a : Usually the colors are not as clear, not as good grain, its difficult to get the same degree of whiteness. G3a : They are a grayer color and they do not stand up as well. G3a : Because of the first samples I saw they might be better now. G3a : I don't know. G3a : The ones I had experience print less quality and paper was more coarse. G3a : They discolor, and they are thinner. G3a : Mainly deals with the coloring of it and bleminish in it. G3a : They're not as strong thinner. G3a : It just seems like the print or paper is less quality. G3a : They are less and papers less thick. G3a : Fiber lengths are smaller and physical property are flimsier. G3a : Appearance, haven't seen that much. G3a : It seems less substantial less bright. G3a : The paper seems thinner and crisper. G4 G4 G4 G4 G4 : : : : : I can't find a difference - I used to work with it. No knowledge do not know a thing about it. Do not see any difference. I would have to see it. Would rather have a recycled plastic because you use less chemicals. G4a : My in laws had a heavy plastic coffee pot and it melted. G4a : Well ... just because I have in my own that will break easier. G4a : I am talking about plastic bags and they aren't as strong. G4a : I don't know - I don't have any objective reason. G4a : They'd be thinner. G4a : They have been used. G4a : Because of foreign substances. G4a : Same reason as before, then they are going to be thinner. G4a : Because its recycled. G4a : They are made from oil products, they taste differently and may be cancer forming. G4a : Has seen extra heat generation vs it's virgin use. G4a : Because they are used again. G4a : Weaker. G5 G5 : Not into steel, do not know the processes for melting. : Don't know if I've seen it. 185 G5 G5 G5 G5 G5 :I have not run across it. :I do not anything about it either. :I don't. :Don't notice any diff. :I do not think. G5a : My husband says that they are lower if they are recycled. G5a : Because he is a grinder. G5a :Materials have been used. G5a :I don't know -its just my impression. G5a :I don't really know. G5a :I have no idea - just -I don't know. G5a :Tell that from automobiles touch onetoo hard and scratch it. G5a : Once it is used it might lose its strength. G5a : I have that feeling. G5a : More imperfections. G5a : I've heard horror stories about certain bridges being built. G5a :W/ some recycled steel — it fell. G5a :Because I've had cans that have deteriorated in the inside. G5a : Doesn't sound to good, something would be burned out. G5a :I just think they would be. HO HO :Would not know they are just coming out w./ recycled products. :Metals same but not paper. :I won't talk on anything I don't know about and I don't know. : Anything about this. : Can't answer this because it depends on the company that makes the recycled product. : I have never purchased recycled products so I have no opinion. :I don't know. :I can't answer that. : Depends and what processes are used, Plastics metals and glass. : Do good job paper and paper is a so job. HI : Never purchased any so I have no opinion. HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO H10 : Depends entirely on the company. H10 : Most ridiculous questions I have ever heard, I don't purchase these so how can I have an opinion. Hll : I have no opinion. H2 H2 : But you don't need high quality paper to write. : Never purchased any so I have no opinion. 186 H3 H3 :Dig about daughter. :As far as I as know seen or H5 H5 :I have not ran across that. :Never purchased so I have no opinion. H6 :Never purchased and have no idea. H7 H7 :I have not purchased any so I did not have an opinion. :Didn't know you could recycle carpet. H8 : Have no purchases made in those categories so I have no opinion. :I have not purchased any so I have no opinion. H9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 II II II II 11 12 12 used any recyclables. :It depends on what the company is doing that is doing the recycling. :This is a bad survey. :Kind of concerned rq. :I never thought about it , there are laws and have to go. :Through strict tests. :I don't know, I would need to know more about it, I don't know. :Anything about the standards. :What I read what we eat isn't sanitary anyway. :Haven't crossed my mind before. :I don't know rq. :There is a question mark not knowing how they found it. : Certain regulations will be meet and that they will meet the same standards. :I'm thinking there will be standards to meet. 12 12 :Must use heat process. :You could sterilize something like that as opposed to paper. :Well I don't know rq. :I want it clean. 13 :I am concerned in general about those things anyway. 14 :Heat process. 15 15 15 15 :Anything like that you would have to be. :Quite rq. :They do this now right? :I want something I eat out of to be clean. 16 :Don't believe it would be put on market unclean, on 187 16 16 16 17 market. :Would buy it— feels she misinterpreted q. :I am not knowledgeable about that. :I would be concerned about fruits sprayed with insecticides from other countries (Mexico). 17 : It is hard when you do not know the process and how to clean. :Quite concerned rq. 18 18 18 :I would be concerned if it weren't recyclable. :If figure it would all be washed before. :Quite concerned rq. JO JO :I'm a skeptic. : I'm concerned but not because it is a recycled product. :Quite concerned rq. JO J3 :Not worried about this container for detergent but using those recycled for food items. J6 :Quite concerned J7 :I bought some barbies for my daughter and it was wrapped w/recycled cardboard and there was mosquitos that carried diseases all in the package. K1 K1 K1 :It depend on the food budget rq. : Depends on how much and on certain things. : If the recycled materials cost then no but if not then no. : They would have to have a good advertising campaign for me to pay more. :Should be the same. :I shop for price. :If cost went down on recycled things then. :Well it depends on what I wanted it for. :I am cost efficient. :Maybe a little more. : I'm retired and my income is not extremely high, so I would not be able to afford it, I would like to. (wc) :Depends if product is good. :RQ, if I could afford it I would but I probably couldn't. K1 K1 K1 K1 K1 K1 K1 K1 K1 K1 rq. K2 K2 :Depends too vague of questions. :Depends on product. K3 :I'd have to think about it, day may come when we have to. 188 K3 :Yes if everybody else would. K4 :If it were food I would be willing to pay more than the products recycled for non food products. :Depends on product I'm buying. K4 LI LI LI LI LI LI :I noticed that the McDonalds separates their garbage. :To make it cheaper, but same standard. :Then another gov't expense. :I'm not a person for gov't , I'm a states rights person, people are too dependent on the gov't. If it is profitable for the co. :Then they will do it. :If it wouldn't not hurt the public financially. L2 L2 :The government trying to cut costs. :Without hurting financially. L3 : I really don't know how to answer that I don't think that deeply. :To small business only not big corporation. L3 L4 L4 L4 L4 L4 :As long as it is a U.S. product and not foreign. :Nothing additional. :(rq) I don't know what this means. :They should anyway. : Need more information on this question before I answer it. L5 : Some of these are poor questions for me because I'm a senior citizen and the government doesn't help me at all. T C • 4“a M W An4vA*%v*AWAii*« W A4W X a ^ W i . 4 i CVJ' A L7 : They should get it together so it is available to people ours is only available 2 days a week. : Educational information. : Public service message. : I am on the borderline of that answer yes one way and no the other. L8 WW V»a : Legal - would spend years discussing these. :Not a wfyole lot of money though. :If it would not hurt the public, things are hard enough as it is, and it looks like it's going to get more tight financially. L8 L8 L8 ^ « ai • L6 L6 L6 L7 L7 L7 WW»A4*WW«*W AX aM M W :Retraining for unemployed (wpa). :Gov't should take a stand and be more encouraging. :Should provide more ways to pick up more recyclable materials. : Any to any that will attempt to produce recycled I 189 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 packages. : Don't know maybe sanitation make sure every thing is cleaned. : Researchers teaching on recycling ideas. : I think that they should give to the ones that recycle. : Some incentives. : Make public more aware. : Inspections, research of the recyclable materials and what happens after they are recycled, they should really be involved w/ the inspection to make sure they are of high quality and standard. : Ban paper diapers, plastic wraps over cleaning(dry) mandatory to separate garbage — everybody. : Gov't asst should focus on encouraging people to use these materials. They already pay for trash disposal and some of money could be used for recycling products. : A conformed way of collection and recycling. : Make sure that the things that can be recycled are because landfills are so bad, it's a waste to not to use the old product. : Mandatory recycling program. : I think it should be anything if you can't afford should provide monetary assistance and pay back when you could afford it. : Can't think of any. : Results of tests. : They need to do whatever there is to save the environment. : Provide research to the consumer, do the recycling themselves other. : Programs. : I don't know. : To develop education about recycling to children increase curb side pick up. : They should be there when they need them. : I don't know. : All they can. : Maybe for certain community's - like road side pick-up. : Tax free things, government facilities. : Tax breaks. : A little bit but not a whole lot. : Only if needed. : Whatever they deem necessary. : Tax break. : Something only local level. : Should provide the start and breakdown, and more knowledge to the public, gov't should take big step in the program. : More research, more. 190 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 :They should encourage them. :Diagrams on where people could take their materials if not curbside pickup. :Outside of a short term tax release. :Probably education for the public. :To the poor. :I have no idea you have covered it. :I don't know - should be there to make sure they areok. L8 L8 :Anything to help the economy. :Financial assistance. : Do more recycling, use as a source of income for some people. : I don't really know. : They should help w/ money to improve recyclable products, and help the people pick up the recycled material. :Knowledge. :Should be more in the encouragement area. :Probably just research and development. :Knowledge. :Campaign of encouragement. :Whatever the recyclers want. :Technical and financial. :Help give them what ever incentives they can. : Put more deposits on stuff to make people bring them back. :Liability legislation. :Curbside service gov't should get involved. : Make sure there are programs available to give the industries information. :Do what they can. :More ads on tv about what we can recycle and what we can use on our lawns and stufflike that. :Not sure. : Generally they should help the businesses. L9 L9 L9 L9 L9 L9 L9 L9 L9 L9 L9 :State and local. :State and federal but mainly federal. :Local and state. :State and federal. : And state. : Federal and state. : People in general we should not relate on government. :Federal and local. :State and federal. :Mostly. :Most local gov't don't have the money. Ml Ml Ml :All of them. :Conversation w/ others. :Environmental groups. L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 L8 191 Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml : : : : : Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Myself. Basic knowledge. TV and newspaper and fliers. All of them. We watch tv alot newspaper and when I go shopping I watch. My soon to be wife. Personal observation. School. Own knowledge. Newspapers and fliers. All of the above. TV and shopping guide. All of them. From other people or listening to other. 1:os:from place I worked - Clean Water Action. Consumers report. TV and newspaper. The packages themselves. Newspapers and television. Consumers report. My own common sense. TV and newspaper. All - TV, news. TV and radio. Local schools. Newspaper and TV. Mags and news. Mags and news paper. Mag, news, TV. All of them mostly news papers. My own opinion I don't know I try it for myself. Mostly by trying it out. Recycling center in town. Through work, or personal presentations. All. From time to time all of them. And T V . And newspaper. And TV. Mag, shopping guide-local. Newspaper. TV and radio. And magazines. Reading material and your own ingenuity. All of the above. All of them. All of them. All of the above. News and tv and radio. Personal inspection. All of the above. 192 Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml Ml : Combination of all the ones mentioned. : Boyfriend's mom tells me stuff. :All those things. :All of the above. : Television and direct mail. :TV. :4-H dept. :All of them. N3 N3 N3 N3 N3 N3 :Township. :Transitional area no more residential. :Live in city on the rural area of it. :Small. :This is a farm. : This persons lives in a village. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Allport, F. M . , and Hartman, D. A., "The Measurement and Motivation of Atypical Opinion in a Certain Group", American Political Science Review. Vol. 19, 1925, pp. 735-760. Allport, G. W . , "The Historical Background of Modern Social Psychology", Handbook of Social Psychology. AddisonWesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1935. Allport, G. W. "The Historical Background of Social Psychology", The Handbook of Social Psychology. Newbery Award Records, Inc., 1985. Ashton, Robin and Erickson, Greg, "Packaging and the Solid Waste Problem", Packaging. Vol. 34, No. 11, August 1989, pp. 33-36. Babbie, Earl, The Practice of Social Publishing Co., California, 1986. Research. Wadsworth Berkman, Harold W . , and Gilson, Christopher, Consumer Behavior: Concepts and Strategies. Gilson & Frankel, Inc., New York, 1981. Beury, Kim, "EPA Develops an Agenda for Action", American citv & Countv. Vol. 104, No. 2, February 1989, p. 16. Bickman, Leonard, "Environmental Attitudes and Actions", The Journal of Social Psychology. - 1972, 87, pp? 323—324. Breen, Bill, "Getting Rid of Garbage, Selling It! The Making of Markets for Recyclables", Garbage, November/December 1990, pp. 44-49. Brislin, R. W . , and Olmstead, K. H . , "Examination of Two Models Designed to Predict Behavior from Attitude and Other Verbal Measures", Proceedings of the 81th Annual Covention of the American Psychological Association. 1973, pp. 259-260. Bruvold, William H . , "Consistency Among Attitudes, Beliefs, and Behavior", The Journal of Social Psychology. 1972, 86, pp. 127-134. 193 193 Duff, Mike, "Will Supermarkets Find Gold in the 'Green' Issue? Loblaw's, Wal-Mart, and Others Are Betting They Can.", Supermarket Business. Vol. 45, No. 4, April 1990, pp. 15-24, 45. Edward, A. L . , Techniques of Attitude Scale Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1957. Construction. Eldred, Bill, "Changing Economics Revives Recycling", American Citv & Countv. Vol. 102, No. 12, December 1987, pp. 57-69. Erickson, Greg, "Consumers Get Though With Packaging. Vol. 33, No. 8, June 1988. Erickson, Greg, and Packaging. Vol. Packaging", Ashton, Robin, "Rushing to Judgement", 34, No. 11, August 1989, pp. 42-48. Erickson, Greg, "Garbage to Gold", No. 11, August 1989, pp. 70-73. Packaging. Vol. 34, Ferrand, Trisha L . , "Mandatory Recycling: Rhetoric Realism", BioCvcle. Vol. 29, No. 7, August 1988, 54-56. vs. pp. Foxall, Gordon R . , Consumer Choice. New York: Press, Inc., 1983. St. Martin's Freeman, Laurie, "The 'Greening' of America II", Advertising A g e . November 13, 1989, p. s-14. Frey, James H., Survey Research bv Telephone. Sage Publication, Inc., Newbury Park, California, 1989. Galvin, Andrew, "Solid waste Challenge", Beverage Vol. 108, No. 1443, June 1989, pp. 23-26. World. Geller, E. Scott, Farris, John C . , and Post, David S., "Prompting a Consumer Behavior for Pollution Control", Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1973, 6, pp. 367376. Glazer, Walt, "Environmentalism Will Change Course Research", Marketing News. March 19, 1990, p. 19. of Glenn, Jim and Riggle, David, "Where Does The Waste Go?", BioCycle. Vol. 30, No. 4, April 1989, pp. 34-39. Grogan, Pete, "Successful Community Recycling Possible?", Public Works. Vol. 114, No. 1, 1983, pp. 50-52. Is It January 195 Hawkins, Del I . # Best, Roger J . , and Coney, Kenneth A., Consumer Behavior. Business Publications, Inc., Texas, 1986. Hertzberg, Richard, "New Directions In Solid Waste Recycling", BioCvcle. Vol. 27, No. 1, Jan. 1986, 22-27. and pp. Holloway, Robert J., Mittelstaedt, Robert A., and Venkatesan, M., Consumer Behavior. Contemporary Research in Action. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1971. Hume, Scott and Strnad, Patricia, "Consumers Go Advertising Acre. September 25, 1989. 'Green'", Humphrey, Craig, Bord, Richard J., Hammond, Margaret M . , and Mann, Stuart H., "Attitudes and Conditions for Cooperation in a Paper Recycling Program", Environmental and Behavior. Vol. 9, No. 1, March 1977, pp. 107-124. Insko, Chester A., Theories of Attitude Publishing Company, New York, 1967. Change. Meredith Jesen, Holger, "The Recycling Boom", Maclean's. Vol. 103, No. 8, February 19, 1990, pp. 42-44. Kashmanian, Richard M . , Ferrand, Trisha, Hurst, Karen, and Kuusinen, Tapio L . , "Let's Topple the Recycling 'Wall', Too", Marketing New s . March 19, 1990, p. 20. Katz, Daniel, "The Functional Approach to the Study of Attitudes", Public Opinion Quarterly. Vol. 24, 1960, pp. 163-204. Kiesler, Charles A., Collins, Barry E., and Miller, Norman, Attitude Change. A Critical Analysis of Theoretical Approaches. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1969. Kirkpatrick, David, "Environmentalism", Fortune. Vol. No. 4, February 12, 1990, pp. 44-52. 121, Krech, D & Crutchfield, R. S. Theory and Problems of Social Psychology. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1948. Lallande, Ann, "Environmental Marketing: The Next Marketing & Media. December 1988, pp. 174-176. Wave", Larson, Melissa, "Consumers Grapple with 'Green' Packaging", Packaging. Vol. 35, No. 9, July 1990, pp. 8-10. 196 Lavrakas, Paul J ., Telephone Survey Selection, and Supervision. Sage California, 1987. Methods. Sampling. Publications, Inc., Lindzey, Gardner and Aronson, Elliot, The Handbook of Social Psychology. Volume I. Theory and Method. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1985. Loudon, David L. and Della Bitta, Albert J., Consumer Behavior. Concepts and Applications. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1984. Luck, Adele K. and Rubin, Cynthia B . , Englewood Marketing Research. Prentice-Hall, Inc., New 1987. Cliffs, Jersey, Maloney, Michael P. and Ward, Michael P., "Ecology: Let's Hear from the People", American Psychologist. July 1973, pp. 583-586. McGuinness, James, Jones, Allan P., and Cole, Steven G . , "Attitudinal Correlates of Recycling Behavior", Journal of Applies Psychology. Vol. 62, No. 4, August 1977, pp. 376-384. McNeal, James V., Consumer Behavior. An Integrative Approach. Little, Brown and Company, Canada, 1982. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, A Report to the Governor from the Recycling Promotion Advisory Committee. October 1988. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Options Overcome Barriers to Recycling. February 1987. Michigan Department of Natural Waste Policy. June 1988. Resources, Michigan to Solid Miller, Cyndee, "Use of Environment-Friendly Packaging May Take Awhile", Marketing News. March 19, 1990, p. 18. Murphy, Gardner, Murphy, Lois Barelay, and Newcomb, Theodore M., Experimental Social Psychology. Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York, 1937. O'Brien, Terrence V., "Tracking Consumer Decision Making", Journal of Marketing. Vol. 35, January 1971, pp. 34-40. O'Leary, Philip R., Walsh, Patrick W . , and Ham, Robert K . , "Managing Solid Waste", Scientific American. Vol. 259, No. 6, December 1988, pp. 36-42. 197 O'Riordan, T. and Turner, R. K . , "Recycling and Householder Attitudes", Resources Policy. March 1979, pp. 42-50. Ottman, Jacquelyn A., "Environmental Concerns Open Markets for New Products", Marketing News. March 19, 1990, p. 21. Parkinson, Ariel, "Responsible Waste Management in a Shrinking World", Environment. Vol. 25, No. 10, December 1983, pp. 61-67. Ralfes, Rebecca, "How Green is Your Market Basket?", Across the Board. Vol. XXVII, January/February 1990, pp. 4951. Rathje, William L., "Rubbish!", December 1989, pp. 99-109. The The Atlantic Monthly. Roper Organization Inc., The Environment: Public Attitude and Individual Behavior. Commissioned by S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., July 1990. Runyon, Kenneth E ., Consumer Behavior and the Practice of Marketing. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, Columbus, Ohio, 1977. Schiffman, Leon G. and Kanuk, Leslie Lazar, Consumer Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1978. Schlossberg, Howard, '"Greening1 of America Awaits Green Light from Leaders, Consumers", Marketing New s . March 19, 1991, pp. 1,16. Sharpe, Lois, "Public Perceptions of Conservation and Recycling", Materials and Society. Vol. 1, No. 2, 1977, pp. 157-161. Stambler, Lyndon, "The Paper Chase", Sierra. Vol. 74, No. 6, November/December 1989, pp. 22-23. Stuller, Jay, "The Politics of Packaging", Across the Board. Vol. XXVII, January/February 1990, pp. 41-48. Treadaway, Dan, "Is Recycling The Answer?" American Citv and County. Vol. 104, No. 5, May 1989, pp. 40-54. Walters, C. Glenn, Consumer Behavior. Theory and Practice. Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, Illinois, 1978. Weiers, Ronald, M . , Marketing Research. Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey, 1984. 198 Wells, Richard P . , "Environmental Performance Will Count in the 1990s", Marketing Ne w s . March 19, 1990, p. 22. White, R.M., "Packaging and the Green December 1989, pp. 11-12. Issues", Packaging. Wilkie, William L . , Consumer Behavior. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1986. William, Keith C, Behavioral Aspects of Marketing. William Heinemann Ltd., London, 1982. Worldwatch Paper 76, "Mining Urban Wastes: The Potential for Recycling", Worldwatch Institute, 1987. Young, Raymond De, "Encouraging Environmentally Appropriate Behavior: The Role of Intrinsic Motivation", Journal of Environmental Systems. Vol. 15, No. 4, 1985-86, pp. 281-292. Young, Raymond De, "Motivating People to Recycle: The Use of Incentives", Resource Recycling. May/June 1984, pp. 1415, 42. Zimbardo, Philip and Ebbesen, Ebbe B . , Influencing Attitudes and Changing Behavior. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts, 1969.