10 - Chapter 4 PDF

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 RESPONDENTS’ DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

This section presents an analysis of the socio-economic and demographic
characteristics of the samples as well as their relationship with eco-awareness,
their attitude, behavior and perceived barrier to green lifestyle. In order to
visualize a better understanding of the basic profile of the sample surveyed and
to obtain a description of distribution of responses, percentage to each variable
were taken into consideration.
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of respondents

S No. General Information Number Percentage
Age in Years
a. 19-29 387 77.4
1 94 18.8
b. 30-39
c. 40-49 12 2.4
d. 50 and above 7 1.4
Gender
2 Male 285 57
Female 215 43
Household Income/ month (INR)
Under- 15000 111 22.2
15000- 30000 175 35
3
30000- 50000 119 23.8
50000- 75000 43 8.6
75000 and above 52 10.4
Educational Qualification:
4 Graduate 310 62
Post Graduate 190 38
Occupation:
Students 205 41
5 House wife 40 8
Business 93 18.6
Service 162 32.4
85
The majority (77%) of the sample was young, falling under the age group of
19-26 years. 18.8% were of 30-39 years of age while 40-49 year old people
were 2.4% and only 1.4% people were 50 years and above. Out of 300
questionnaires distributed to males, only 285 properly filled questionnaire were
received which comprised 57% of the sample. Whereas, out of 300 distributed
to females, only 215 questionnaires were valid.
For the study only educated people were considered. The findings revealed that
62.2% were graduates and remaining 37.8% were postgraduates. Of those who
reported their job types, the majority (41%) were students, followed by service
class people (32.4%) and self-employed (18.6%). 8% were housewives.
Majority of respondents (35%) had monthly income between Rs15000-30000.

Respondents having income between Rs 30000-50000 were 23%. The monthly
personal income of respondents below Rs. 15000 was found to be (22%), Only
8% of the respondents had income between Rs. 50000-75000 per month.
4.2 ASSESSMENT OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DEMOGRAPHIC

CHARACTERISTICS AND OTHER VARIABLES:
A number of past studies have made attempts to identify demographic
variables that correlate with ecologically conscious attitudes and behavior.
Such variables, if significant, offer easy and efficient ways for marketers to
segment the market and capitalize on green attitudes and behavior. Consumer’s
awareness regarding green products can be assessed by way of applying
different analytical tools. From the present research study; the researcher
intended to know about the attitudes and behavior of the respondents and to
identify perceived obstacles in the way of adoption of green lifestyle. Chi
square test and ANOVA have been employed for the analysis of data.
86
In the study of consumer behavior, demographic characteristics play a vital
role. It is said that consumer attitude and behavior depend greatly on the
demographic attributes they carry. Keeping in view the objective of finding out
the relationship between demographic attributes and their respective
environmental concerns, the present study took up one way ANOVA test. In
the test quantitative demographic variables such as age and income level of the
respondents were separately taken to see the relationship between
demographics and environmental concern.
Age carries with it culturally defined behavioral and attitudinal norms (Alreck
2000)5. Age affects consumers self concept and life styles (Henry 2000)61.
Age determines the consumption of various products, media and shopping
centers, and has been used by marketers to segment the markets. Hence, age
might be responsible for consumer differential eco-behavior.
Table 2: ANOVA TABLE
Table showing the relationship between age and environmental concern
Source
of 5% F-limit
SS Df MS F-ratio
variance from F-table
Between
22891.69 (4-1)=3 7630.5633 15.773774 F(3,16)=3.24
Samples
Within
7740 (20-4)=16 483.75
Samples
30631.69 (20-1)=19
Total
Note: SS=sum of the squares, df= degree of freedom, MS=Mean

square
87
Taking age as an independent variable and eco concern as dependent variable,
the above table shows that, the calculated value of F is 15.77 (approx), which
is more than the table value ie. 3.24 at 5% level with d.f. being v1=3 and v2=16.
This could not have arisen because of chance but due to the difference in
sample means. It proves the first part of the 1st hypothesis which states that
“Environmental concern varies with age and income of respondents”. Hence, it
is inferred that, the difference in opinion about different variables (Attitude,
behavior and lifestyle etc.) is visible and is due to the difference in age level of
the respondents.
Once it was established that age has an impact upon the attitude, behavior and
respondents’ perception about adoption green lifestyle, percentage analysis was
done to establish the nature of relationship between age of the respondents and
their eco- concern.
In the survey multiple choice questions were presented to respondents about

their knowledge, attitude, purchase and conservation behavior (Refer Appendix
A for Questionnaire). All multiple choice questions with 4 options were asked
and the percentage response to each option was taken into consideration. For
the purpose of establishing relationship between demographics and eco-
concern of the sample population the percentage response towards various
questions are classified as under:
88
AGE WISE CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS’
RESPONSES
Table 3
Response of samples to various questions (age group of 19-29 years)
(All values are in percentages)

SNo Knowledge Attitude Purchase Conservation Barriers to
Behavior Behavior green lifestyle
1 13.9539 7.49354005 12.9198966 9.302325581 9.302325581
2 48.0629 20.1550387 34.3669250 37.20930233 37.20930233
3 28.1659 32.0413436 24.2894056 22.73901809 22.73901809
4 9.819 40.3100775 28.4237726 30.74935401 30.74935401
Analysis of respondent's opinion (age 19-29

years)
120
100
80 4
3
60
2
1
40
20
0
knowledge Attitude Pur Behav Con Behav Barriers
Figure 13: Analysis of respondent’s opinion (age 19-29 years)
89
Knowledge: It is observed that, the youngest of all respondents, showed good
knowledge i.e., 13% had “great” idea As many people have responded to know
a great deal about solid waste disposal in the knowledge section of the
questionnaire about the environment, 48% knew a lot about the environment,
28% possess some idea, while 9% were those who did not have any
information about environmental degradation.
Attitude: The attitude of this group showed a poor sign as only 7% fell under
the category of most positive attitude, 20% were those who were somewhat
positive but 32% people under this group had a little non-environmental
attitude, and the major part of the population i.e., 40% had a very reluctant
attitude towards the environment.
Purchase Behavior: It was found that, the behavior pattern of this group was
also not very satisfactory as 12% were very religiously behaving towards
purchasing green products, 34% behaved in a green manner while purchasing,
although 24% were those who were not very keen to buy green and 28% were
under the category of non green purchasers.
Conservation behavior: Regarding conservation behavior, it was found that,

among this age group, 9% were highly involved in conserving resources. It was
evident from the fact that they conserve water, recycle bottles and cans, and
avoid excessive packaging. Majority (37%) were conserving resources,
whereas 22% were less interested in such acts. 30% of respondents were not at
all concerned with conserving resources.
Barriers to Green lifestyle: It was found that, the perceived barriers to green
lifestyle for this group was lowest for only 9% respondents, while 37% felt that
the barriers are not very high, 22% perceived very high barriers and found
really difficult to adopt green lifestyle, while 30% assumed that barriers were
too high to cross.
90
Table 4
Response of samples to various questions (age group of 30-39)
SNo Knowledge Attitude Purchase Conservation Barriers to

Behavior Behavior Green
Lifestyle
1 9.574468085 57.4468085 15.95744681 6.382979 8.510638
2 40.42553191 20.2127659 44.68085106 43.61702 43.61702
3 28.72340426 18.0851063 21.27659574 26.59574 21.2766
4 21.27659574 4.25531914 18.08510638 23.40426 26.59574
Analysis of respondents' opinion (Age 30-39

years)
100
90
80
70
4
60
3
50
2
40 1
30
20
10
0
Figure 14: Analysis of Respondents’ opinions (Age 30-39 years)
91
Knowledge: This age group of respondents showed that only 9% had great
idea about the environment, 40% knew a lot about the environment, 28%
possessed some idea, while 21% were those who did not have any information
about the environmental degradation.
Attitude: The majority i.e., 57% of this age group people were found to have
very positive eco attitude because they believe there is a lot that individuals can
do to improve the environment. 20% were those who were somewhat positive,
18% people had a little non environmental attitude. Showing signs of maturity,
this group had the lowest of all i.e., only 4% of the population with negative
attitude towards the environment as they said that plastic has become a lifestyle
in Pune and it is impossible to avoid it.
Purchase Behavior: Unlike attitude, the purchase behavior of this group was
not very promising. 15% people of this age group behaved in an eco friendly
manner while purchasing. 44% (the highest) behaved in a green manner while
purchasing, although 21% were those who were not very keen to buy green.
18% were under the category of non green purchasers.
Conservation Behavior: This age group showed a similar pattern in

conservation behavior as well. In this group only 6% of people were found to
conserve resources as very few has said that they write to politicians to draw
their attention towards environmental issues. 44%, the majority were
conserving resources to some extent. 26% of this group was less interested in
such acts, while 23% were not conserving any resources at all.
Barriers to green lifestyle: The perceived barriers in the way of adoption of

green lifestyle for this age group were very high for the majority of people ie
43% as they find the green lifestyle to be very expensive. Only 8% said that
such lifestyle is required. Respondents felt that the barriers were not very high.
21% found barriers to be high and found it really difficult to adopt green
lifestyle. While 26% assumes barriers too high to cross.
92
Table 5
Response of samples to various questions (age group of 40-49 years)
S No Knowledge Attitude Purchase Conservation Barriers to

Lifestyle
1 0 75 0 0 8.333333
2 25 8.33333333 66.6666666 83.33333 16.66667
3 58.3333333 8.33333333 33.3333333 16.66667 50
4 16.6666666 8.33333333 0 0 25
Analysis of respondent's opinion

(age 40-49 years)
100
80
4
60
3
2
40 1
20
0
Figure 15: Analysis of respondent’s opinion (age 40-49 years)
93
Knowledge: It is the catastrophe only, that not a single person in this so called
mature group possesses entire information about environmental degradation
(0%). Only 25% knew a lot about the environment 58% had some idea, while
16% did not have any information about the environmental degradation as they
reported to have no knowledge about the global warming.
Attitude: Although the knowledge part was low, the attitude of this group was
quite encouraging with majority i.e. 75% were enriched with most positive
attitude and in all other categories the responses were equivocal i.e. 8.33%.
Purchase Behavior: Unlike attitude the results of purchase behavior of this

age group were very de-motivating. In this group no one was in the extreme
favor of purchasing green products (0%) but still this group consisted of 66%
people behaving in green manner while purchasing as they opt for products
whose packages can be reused. 33% members of this group were those who
were not very keen to buy green. But this group did not have any member who
never went in for green purchases.
Conservation Behavior: This age group showed a similar pattern in

conservation behavior as well. In this group none (0%) conserved resources
dutifully. Majority (83%) answered that they conserved resources energy and
water, 16% were not very much interested in such acts, while there was no one
who did not believe in resource conservation. Thus it can be concluded that
this category is neither strictly green nor anti green.
Perceived Barriers to Green Lifestyle: The perceived barriers to green

lifestyle for this group was lowest for only 8% of respondents, 16% were of
opinion that the barriers were not very high. As these people does not fine such
lifestyle to be expensive or time consuming. However, there existed a blockage
in the minds of 50% people that the barriers in adaptation of green life were
very high hence it was really difficult to adopt green lifestyle. 25% of the
respondents found barriers too high to cross because according to them it is not
required only.
94
Table 6
Response of samples to various questions (age group of 50 yrs and above)
S No Knowledge Attitude Purchase Conservation Barriers to Green

Behavior Behavior Lifestyle
1 0 85.7142857 0 0 0
2 14.2857142 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 57.1428571 57.14286 14.28571
4 85.7142857 14.2857142 42.8571428 42.85714 85.71429
Analysis of respondent's opinion (age 50

years and above)
100
80
4
60
3
2
40
1
20
0
Figure16: Analysis of respondent’s opinion (age 50 years and above)
95
Knowledge: The most mature group of all, lacked in-depth knowledge about
the environment, as no one had great deal of knowledge about the
environmental degradation (0%). 14% knew a lot, and many people (0%) did
not even know something about it. The majority (85%) did not have answered
all knowledge related questions in the negative side that means they does not
have any clue of environmental degradation.
Attitude: The oldest of all respondents showed a very positive attitude with
85% falling in the first category of highly positive attitude. Very negative
attitude holders were just 14%, whereas mediocre were none (Both middle
categories have 0%)
Purchase Behavior: The elders failed to behave in an eco friendly manner

with no one purchasing green products (0% in first two categories). All fell
towards the negative side ie 57% and 42% respectively in the last two
categories like people never volunteer for an environmental group.
Conservation Behavior: The same is the case with conservation behavior.

This age group shows exactly the same results for conservation behavior as it
was for purchase behavior.
Barriers to green lifestyle: Similarly there does not appear any scope for
adopting green lifestyle. Whatever be the reason the older lot saw high barriers
in adaptation of green lifestyle too (14% and 85%) respectively.
To conclude, it was observed that the consumer’s behavior changes with age.
The present study testifies that the younger generation is more into saving the
ecology.
Age has been explored by a number of researchers with regard to ecology and
green marketing. The general belief is that younger individuals are likely to be
more sensitive to environmental issues. There are a number of theories in
support of this belief, but the most common argument is that those who have
96
grown up in a time period in which environmental concerns have been an
important issue , are more likely to be sensitive towards ecology.
The results of the present study which found the age to be negatively related to
eco concern substantiate many researchers’ view who found the relationship
between age to be significant and negatively correlated with environmental
sensitivity and/or behavior (e.g.Thompson147 et al., 2010, Van981994).
Sardianou137 (2007) taking age as a deciding factor for electricity expenditures

found age to be negatively associated with the number of energy-conserving
actions that a consumer is willing to adopt, is in confirmation with present
study which shows that the oldest generation does not show any conservation
behavior.
However, others have found the relationship to be significant, but positively

correlated (e.g. Roberts132, 1996). Explanations for this positive correlation
include attitudes formed as a result of “depression-era'' conservation
(Roberts132, 1996) and/or behaviors stemming from a general increase in social
and ecologically conscious consumers.
INCOME WISE CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS:

Income of the family combined with the family's accumulated wealth,
determines their purchasing power (Hawkins60 et al 2003). However, income
enables purchases but does not generally cause or explain them. It is likely that
the occupation and education directly influence the preferences for products,
media and activities. Income provides the means to acquire them (Mulhern112
et al 1998). Jain and Sharma80 (2002). Slama and Taschian142 (1985) identified
that income influences the involvement levels.
97
To test the 3rd Hypothesis which says that “Environmental concern varies with
age and income of respondents” ANOVA test was used in the following
manner:
Table 7 ANOVA TABLE
(Showing relationship between Income and environmental concern)
Source of 5% F-limit
variance SS Df MS F-ratio (from F-Table)
Between Sample 4171.44 (5-1)= 4 1042.86 6.41602 F(4,20)=2.87
Within Sample 3250.8 (25-5)= 20 162.54
Total 7422.24 (25-1)= 24
The above table exhibits that the calculated value of F is 6.416 (aprox.), which
is more than the table value of 2.87 at 5% level with d.f. being v1=4 and v2=20
and hence could have arisen because of difference in the sample means and not
because of chance. This analysis accepts the 3rd hypothesis of difference in
sample means. It can therefore be concluded that the difference in opinion
about different variables (Attitude, behavior and lifestyle etc.) is significant
and because of difference in income level of the respondents.
In other words, it can be said that the income is a deciding factor which
influences the consumer’s buying and conservation behavior.
98
Table 8
Response to various questions (Income level Rs.15000 or less p. m.)
S No Knowledge Attitude Purchase Conservation Barriers

Behavior Behavior to Green
Lifestyle
1 12.61261261 6.306306306 13.51351351 9.009009 11.71171
2 31.53153153 26.12612613 53.15315315 47.74775 21.62162

3 38.73873874 28.82882883 24.32432432 30.63063 48.64865
4 17.11711712 38.73873874 9.009009009 12.61261 18.01802
Analysis of respondent's opinion (Income

under 15000 Rs. p.m. )
120
100
80
4
3
60
2
1
40
20
0
Figure17: Analysis of respondent’s opinion (Income under Rs.15000

p.m.)
99
Knowledge: Only 12% of the respondents reported to have great information
about environment. 31% in this group knew sufficient about environmental
degradation. The majority of the group members (38%) knew something about
environment and 17% were those who did not have any information about
environmental degradation. Hence it can be inferred that the lowest income
group of Pune possessed low knowledge about environment as most of the
respondents knew nothing about global warming.
Attitude: The attitude of this group also showed a poor sign as most of the
people did not consider themselves to be responsible or efficient to improve the
natural environment as they responded in the negative side of this particular
question. The study showed that 6% people had a good positive attitude, 26%
were those who were to an extent positive but 28% people of this group had a
little non environmental attitude, and the major part of the population ie. 38%
had reluctant attitude towards the environment.
Purchase Behavior: Unlike attitude the behavior pattern of this group was
quite satisfactory as 13% behaved in the direction of purchasing green
products. Majority (53%) behaved in a green manner while purchasing,
although 24% consisted of those who were not very keen to buy green and
28% fell under the category of non green purchasers.
Conservation Behavior: Majority of them (37%) conserved resources to some

extent as they reported top saver energy and water but do not avoid non veg for
environmental protection, 22% were less interested in such acts, while 30% did
not conserve any resource at all. Only 9% of this group was seriously involved
in conserving resources as they said that they write to politicians about the
environmental issues and recycle bottles and cans.
Barriers to green lifestyle: Barriers as revealed by the study were very high
for 9% of the respondents, 37% felt that the barriers were not very high, 22%
found barriers to be high and showed difficulty to adopt green lifestyle, while
100
30% said that barriers were too high to cross as they reported to have no
information about it.
Table 9
Response of respondents to various questions (Income level Rs. 15000-

30000 p.m.)
S No Knowledge Attitude Purchase Conservation Barriers

Behavior Behavior to Green
Lifestyle
1 10.2857142 8.57142857 10.2857142 4.571429 8
2 49.1428571 21.1428571 30.8571428 30.85714 40
3 29.7142857 33.7142857 33.7142857 40 22.85714
4 10.8571428 36.5714285 25.1428571 24.57143 29.14286
Analysis of respondent's opinion (Income

level Rs. 15000-30000 p.m.)
120
100
80 4
3
60
2
40 1
20
0
Figure 18: Analysis of respondent’s opinion (income Rs. 15000-30000

p.m.)
101
Knowledge: The middle income earners of Pune were not well aware of
environmental knowledge. Only 10% reported to have proper environmental
knowledge. The good sign is that the maximum respondents of the group ie
49% had considerably good knowledge of environment. 29% had some
knowledge while 10% were reluctant as they answered that they have no
information about the green lifestyle and it’s not even required.
Attitude: The attitude shown by this group was not very encouraging. This
group consisted of only 8% with very positive attitude, 21% were positive to
some extent, 33% were a little negligent and majority (36%) showed an
unfavorable attitude.
Purchase Behavior: Just like their knowledge and attitude, these people had
not showed enthusiasm towards green purchase behavior. 10% of this group
always bought green products, 30% bought green frequently, 33% were
occasional buyers, but a considerably high percentage (25%) was of those who
did not buy green any time.
Conservation Behavior: Similarly responses towards conservation behavior

showed that only 4% were very much interested in conservation of resources.
30% conserved resources occasionally. Maximum (40%) had little concern for
environment and 24% were non conservers.
Barriers to green lifestyle: Although this group falls under the middle income
category, still people were quite interested in adopting green lifestyle as 8%
reported to have adopted the green lifestyle Most i.e., 40% did not see tall
barriers in the way, 22% found some hurdles while 29% people were of an
opinion that the green lifestyle is at all not easy.
102
Table 9
Response to various questions (Income level Rs. 30000-50000)
S No Knowledge Attitude Purchase Conservation Barriers to

Lifestyle
1 11.76471 8.403361 14.28571 8.403361 5.042017
2 51.2605 5.042017 31.93277 34.45378 32.77311
3 21.0084 32.77311 16.80672 21.0084 19.32773
4 15.96639 53.78151 36.97479 36.13445 42.85714
Analysis of respondents' opinion (Income

level Rs.30000-50000 p.m.)
100
90
80
70
4
60
3
50
2
40
1
30
20
10
0
Figure 19: Analysis of respondents' opinion (Income Rs.30000-50000

p.m.)
103
Knowledge: The higher middle income group of Pune showed a better
knowledge about environment since they consisted of 14% well informed
people. In this income group, 51% people had sufficient information, 21 %
were those who did not have sound knowledge about it, while 13% did not
have any knowledge.
Attitude: This group showed a very negative attitude towards ‘green’ as only
5% had very positive attitude, same was the percentage (5%) for good attitude.
32% consisted of those who did not possess positive attitude while the majority
of 56% were reluctant.
Purchase Behavior: As far as behavior was concerned, the higher middle

income people were found to be non green purchasers. Only 5% said that they
bought green products regularly, 31% bought green products frequently, 16%
of them bought green sometime, and the highest of all (36%) did not buy green
any time.
Conservation Behavior: The conservation behavior of this group revealed that

only 7% members of this group conserved the resources regularly.34%
sometimes conserved resources. 21% of them did not express much interested
in resource conservation conserving and 36% were non conservers.
Barriers to green lifestyle: 5% of people did not perceive barriers to green life
style, 32% saw very less barriers, while 19% felt high barriers, and majority of
them (42%) were reluctant to adopt green life style as the barriers are too high
to cross.
104
Table 10
Respondent’s response to various questions (Income level Rs.50000-75000

p.m.)
Knowledge Attitude Purchase Conservation Barriers to

Lifestyle
1 9.615384615 3.846153846 15.38461538 13.46154 13.46154
2 50 13.46153846 42.30769231 40.38462 32.69231
3 25 34.61538462 13.46153846 21.15385 13.46154
4 15.38461538 48.07692308 28.84615385 25 40.38462
Analysis of respondent's opinion

(Income Rs. 50000-75000)
100
80
4
60
3
2
40
1
20
0
Figure 20: Analysis of respondent’s opinion (Income Rs. 50000-75000)
105
Knowledge: This ‘financially well off’ group did not have very wide
knowledge as only 9% reported to have full knowledge about environment.
(50%) in this group had sufficient knowledge. This income group included
25% people who just had a little environmental knowledge. A few of them
(15%) did not know anything about the environmental degradation.
Attitude: The attitude of this group showed an inclination towards negative

with only 3% showed a very strong green attitude, 13% had a positive attitude,
13% of the group members were still low in attitude and 48% were reluctant.
Purchase Behavior: As far as behavior pattern is concern, this group with low
environmental attitude 15% always bought green, and 42% frequently
purchased eco friendly products. Only 13% had little non green purchase
behavior whereas 28% of them possessed very non green behavior traits.
Conservation Behavior: The conservation behavior of this group was also

satisfactory. 13% behaved in eco conservation manner. 40% were good at
conserving resources, 21% were not really concerned. A prominent 25%
people, did not believe in conserving resources.
Barriers to green lifestyle: A prominent portion of this income group (32%)

had adopted a green lifestyle while only 13% were in the process of adoption.
13% of them were not able to overcome the barriers in the way of adopting
green lifestyle, and 40% did not believe that these hurdles can be removed.
106
Table 11:
Respondents response to various questions (Income level Rs.75000 p.m.

and above)
Knowledge Attitude Purchase Conservation Barriers to

Lifestyle
1 10.96774194 7.419354839 12.25806452 6.451613 9.032258
2 44.83870968 21.29032258 37.09677419 36.45161 33.54839
3 31.29032258 32.25806452 29.67741935 35.16129 31.6129
4 12.90322581 39.03225806 20.96774194 21.93548 25.80645
Analysis of respondents' opinion

(Income-Rs. 75000 p. m. and above)
100
80
4
60
3
2
40
1
20
0
Figure 21: Analysis of respondent’s opinion (Income-Rs. 75000 p.m. and

above)
107
Knowledge: The highest income group of Pune were mediocre as far as
knowledge is concern, with 10% of the sample falling in the area of high
information holders, 44% had proper knowledge and 31% had some
information about environmental degradation, and only 12% had no knowledge
about environment.
Attitude: Attitude of this group did not give a pleasant picture; here only 7%
were highly positive about the environment problems. 21% showed a good
attitude about environment, 32% did not have very positive attitude, whereas
39% were not having eco friendly attitude.
Purchase Behavior: The purchase behavior shown by this income group was
also acceptable. As 12% respondents had a very positive purchase behavior,
37% having interest in green purchasing frequently, 29% were not such
frequent green purchasers while 20% were not buying green at all.
Conservation Behavior: Regarding conservation behavior, the high income

earners were not very different from other groups. Only 6% were very good at
conserving resources, 36% were found to conserve resources at a satisfactory
level and again 35% were those who occasionally showed conservation
behavior, whereas 21% did not conserve resources.
Barriers to green lifestyle: The barriers do not exist only for 9% people in
this income group, although 33% people expressed the presence of some
barriers, but 31% of the group members were not very keen to adopt green
lifestyle, and 25% were not bothered about eco friendly lifestyle.
Income is generally thought to be positively related to environmental

sensitivity. The most common justification for this belief is that individuals
can, at higher income levels, bear the marginal increase in costs associated
with supporting green causes and favoring green product offerings. Numerous
108
studies have addressed the role of income as a predictor of ECCB
(Environmental concern conservation behavior) or a related construct.
Other studies have shown a non significant direct effect of income on

environmental awareness (e.g. Thompson147 et al, 2010; Antil7 (1978);
Liere98,1981) However, the opposite is the case with present study were there
exist significant relationship between income level and eco concern of people.
Several other studies have shown the widely mentioned positive relationship
between income and environmental attitudes and behaviors (e.g. Roper73,
1990; 1992;). Finally, a few studies have found the opposite, a negative
relationship between income and environmental concerns (e.g. Roberts132,
1996;) . In his study, Roberts (1996) theorizes that the differences shown in
early studies may have been washed out by the overall growth in
environmental concerns across all income levels. He also cautions that
although the relationship in his study was significant, the amount of variance
explained was small.
Thus it can be concluded that the overall concern of consumers towards

ecology, to a great extent is driven by the age level they belongs to, and the
income level of the consumers. It is very important to mention here. Where the
age is negatively related to eco concern (age increases, eco concern decreases);
income level has relatively positive relation with the eco concern may be
because of the high cost associated with green products.
These assertions are clearly generalizations. However, they are based on

discernible statistical patterns. What must be noted is that there are no clear
distinctions that can be drawn along a continuum, from ‘committed’ to ‘non-
environmentalist’. There are variable demographic characteristics depending
on which cluster one examines. Nonetheless, there are clear trends that have
significant implications for policy makers
109
4.3 ASSESMENT OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ATTITUDE AND
BEHAVIOR WITH RESPECT TO GREEN PRODUCTS: (CHI
SQUARE TEST)
The relationship between attitudes and behavior is one, which has been
explored in a variety of contexts. In the environmental literature, the question
has been addressed by exploring the relationship between the attitudinal
construct, environmental concern, and various behavioral measures and/or
observations. For establishing a relationship between attitude and both types of
behaviors i.e. purchase and conservation, the Chi Square test was used. For the
sake of accuracy, the relation of each attitude question was checked with each
behavior question.
The first attitude (Independent variable) question “I believe there is a lot that,
individuals can do to improve the environment” was checked for its
relationship with all purchase behavior questions with the help of chi square
test in the following manner:
110
Table 13
Chi square test of attitude (Question No. 1) and purchase behavior
‘I believe there is a lot that individuals can do to improve the environment’

(A1)
Significance Table
Chi square df
level value
10. Avoid buying products which are tested
53.617077 9 5% sign 16.9
on animals
11. Read labels before buying to see if
86.867713 9 5% sign 16.9
contents are environmentally safe
12. Use biodegradable soaps, detergents etc. 41.762629 9 5% sign 16.9
13. Buy products whose packages can be
54.717213 9 5% sign 16.9
reused
14. Carry own bags to supermarkets 52.29472 9 5% sign 16.9
15. Buying bio fuel 238.03978 9 5% sign 16.9
16. Buy products which contribute money
71.491834 9 5% sign 16.9
for environment protection cause
17. Buy organic foods and bottled water 84.520354 9 5% sign 16.9
18. Boycott tuna, ivory, leather 163.82587 9 5% sign 16.9
19. Buy “cruelty free” cosmetics 362.43377 9 5% sign 16.9
20. Dump hazardous waste at safe disposal
303.38184 9 5% sign 16.9
site
To test the first hypothesis, a Chi Square test was performed on the collected
data. The first attitude question (Column) was tested with all purchase behavior
questions (Rows). The table value of χ2 for 9 d.f. at 5% level of significance is
16.9. The calculated value of χ2 in each case was much higher than the table
value which means that, the calculated value cannot be said to have arisen just
because of chance. It is significant. Hence, the hypothesis holds good. This
means that the attitude of considering oneself capable of doing something good
to the environment portrayed by the respondents does not relate with the
purchase behavior. Hypothesis 2 accepted.
111
Table 14:
I believe there is a lot that Pune Municipal Corporation can do to improve the
environment (A2)
Chi Significance Table

square d.f. level Vale
10. Avoid buying products which are tested
on animals 307.426 9 5% sign 16.9
11. Read labels before buying to see if
contents are environmentally safe 592.541 9 5% sign 16.9
13. Buy products whose packages can be
reused 407.46 9 5% sign 16.9
16. Buy products which contribute money for
environment protection cause 574.824 9 5% sign 16.9
20. Dump hazardous waste at safe disposal
site 664.831 9 5% sign 16.9
To test first hypothesis, a Chi Square test was performed on the data where
second attitude question (Column) was tested with all purchase behavior
questions (Rows) The table value of χ2 for 9 degrees of freedom at 5% level of
significance is 16.9. The calculated value of χ2 in each case was much higher
than the table value which means that the calculated value cannot be said to
have arisen just because of chance. It is significant. Hence, the hypothesis
holds good. This means that the attitude that Municipal corporation can
improve the environment as given by respondents does not relate with their
purchase behavior. Hypothesis 2 accepted.
112
Table 15:
Plastic has become a lifestyle in Pune and it is impossible to (A3)
Chi square d. f. Signific- Table

ance Value
level
10. Avoid buying products which are tested 135.059301 9 5% sign 16.9
on animals
11. Read labels before buying to see if 173.574154 9 5% sign 16.9
contents are environmentally safe
12. Use biodegradable soaps, detergents 162.128914 9 5% sign 16.9
etc.
13. Buy products whose packages can be 136.61778 9 5% sign 16.9
reused
16. Buy products which contribute money 78.6936688 9 5% sign 16.9
for environment protection cause
20. Dump hazardous waste at safe disposal 312.063249 9 5% sign 16.9
site
Respondents, who consider the municipal corporation as a responsible

authority for the betterment of the eco system, may or may not depict eco
friendly purchase behavior when it comes to their own buying behavior.
The 2nd hypothesis, was again tested for its validity with the help of Chi
Square test which as performed on the data where third attitude question
(Column) was tested with all purchase behavior questions (Rows) The table
value of χ2 for 9 degrees of freedom at 5% level of significance is 16.9. The
calculated value of χ2 in each case was much higher than the table value which
means that the calculated value cannot be said to have arisen just because of
chance. It is significant. Hence, the hypothesis does hold good. This means that
the attitude towards plastic which has become a lifestyle of Pune is impossible
113
to change, answered by the respondents does not relate with their purchase
behavior. Hypothesis 2 accepted.
Thus, those people who accept plastic as a daily requirement and a part of
human lifestyle, do not behave in eco friendly manner when they go for buying
goods, and the vice versa case is also equally true.
Table 16
I believe in the environmental Information of product label (A4)
Chi d. Significa- Table

square f. nce value
level
10. Avoid buying products which are tested on 264.606 9 5% sign 16.9
animals
11. Read labels before buying to see if contents 396.846 9 5% sign 16.9
are environmentally safe
13. Buy products whose packages can be reused 310.61 9 5% sign 16.9
16. Buy products which contribute money for 296.308 9 5% sign 16.9
environment protection cause
20. Dump hazardous waste at safe disposal site 735.171 9 5% sign 16.9
Finally the fourth and the last attitude question (Column) was tested with all
purchase behavior questions (Rows) the table value of χ2 for 9 degrees of
freedom at 5% level of significance is 16.9. The calculated value of χ2 in each
case is much higher than the table value which means that the calculated value
cannot be said to have arisen just because of chance. It is significant. Hence,
the hypothesis hold good. This means that the attitude of respondents’ belief in
the environmental information on the product does not relate with the purchase
behavior. Hypothesis 2 again accepted.
114
Hence it can be said that even those who believe in the environmental
information on the product label does not purchase such products, the reason
could be anything ranging from non availability of such products to the
expensive nature of green products.
The researcher was planning to find out the nature of relationship between
attitude and behavior but, all the four attitude questions when checked with
their relationship with purchase behavior of the respondents, failed to establish
any relationship, the researcher found no scope for further investigation.
Certainly the reasons for failure can be found out which are well taken care by
the open ended question which allows the respondents to express their views
openly about the reasons for failure and suggestions to improve the natural
environment.
There exists no relationship between attitude of the respondents and their

purchase behavior, but it has been noticed that people do not buy green but are
good at conserving the resources. And it is very much expected from those
who have a positive attitude towards saving the ecology.
The study has one of the hypotheses of testing the relationship of attitude and
conservation behavior further investigates it with the help of Chi Square test in
the same manner which was done for attitude and purchase behavior
relationship.
115
Table-17
Chi square test of attitude (Qu.No.1) and conservation behavior

I believe there is a lot that individuals can do to improve the
environment A1
Chi d. Significance Table

square f. level value
21. Conserve energy, water 53.6171 9 5% sign 16.9
22. Recycle bottles, can 86.8677 9 5% sign 16.9
23. Avoid excessive packaging 41.7626 9 5% sign 16.9
24. Volunteer for an environment group 54.7172 9 5% sign 16.9
25. Use sunscreens 106.208 9 5% sign 16.9
26. Write to politicians to draw their 34.1905 9 5% sign 16.9
attention towards environmental issues
27. Replace light bulbs to lower wattage 69.5903 9 5% sign 16.9

to conserve electricity
28. Avoid Non- vegetarian food 80.7371 9 5% sign 16.9
The 3rd hypothesis which states “There is no relationship between consumer’s

attitude and conservation behavior” was tested for its validity with a Chi
Square test where first attitude question (Column) was tested with conservation
behavior questions (Rows) The table value of χ2 for 9 degrees of freedom at 5%
level of significance is 16.9. The calculated value of χ2 in each case is much
higher than this table value which means that the calculated value cannot be
said to have arisen just because of chance. It is significant. Hence, the
hypothesis is proved. This means that the attitude of considering oneself
capable of doing something good to the environment as portrayed by the
respondents does not relate with the conservation behavior. Hypothesis 3
accepted.
116
Similarly the second attitude question was tested with the conservation
behavior questions in the following manner:
Table 18
Chi square test of attitude (Question No. 2) and conservation
behavior
I believe that there is a lot that Municipal Corporation can do to improve the
environment (A2)
Chi d Significance Table

square f level Value
26. write to politicians to draw their 150.93 9 5% sign 16.9
27. Replace light bulbs to lower wattage 78.6552 9 5% sign 16.9
to conserve electricity
The 3rd hypothesis which states “There is no relationship between consumer’s

attitude and conservation behavior” was tested for its validity with a Chi
Square test where second attitude question (Column) was tested with
conservation behavior questions (Rows) The table value of χ2 for 9 degrees of
case is much higher than this table value which means that the calculated value
the hypothesis is proved. This means that the attitude of considering Municipal
Corporation as a responsible body to improve the natural environment as
answered by the respondents does not relate with the conservation behavior.
Hypothesis 3 accepted.
117
The next attitude question which addresses the plastic issue, the biggest
offender to ecology was also checked in the similar manner for its validity and
the results are as under:
Table 19
Chi square test of attitude (Question No. 3) and conservation behavior
Plastic has become a lifestyle in Pune and it is impossible to avoid it (A3)

square f. level Value
26. write to politicians to draw their 73.8778 9 5% sign 16.9
27. Replace light bulbs to lower 66.4144 9 5% sign 16.9
wattage to conserve electricity
Chi Square test performed here on third attitude question (Column) and all
conservation behavior questions (Rows). The table value of χ2 for 9 degrees of
case is much higher than the table value which means that the calculated value
the hypothesis does hold good. This means that the group of consumers who
agree that plastic has become a lifestyle of Pune is impossible to change, even
after knowing the fact are not necessarily behaving in the manner to conserve
scarce resources. Hypothesis 3 accepted.
The last question of attitude was also checked for its validity and relationship
with the conservation behavior in the similar manner as follows:
Table-20
118
Chi square test of attitude (Question No.4) and conservation behavior
I believe in the environmental Information of product label (A4)

square f. level Value
26. Write to politicians to draw their 130.87 9 5% sign 16.9
27. Replace light bulbs to lower 113.834 9 5% sign 16.9
wattage to conserve electricity
The results of Chi Square test as was performed on the data where forth
attitude question (Column) was tested with all conservation behavior questions
(Rows). The table value of χ2 for 9 degrees of freedom at 5% level of
significance is 16.9. The calculated value of χ2 in each case was much higher
than the table value which means that the calculated value cannot be said to
have arisen just because of chance. It is significant. Hence, the hypothesis
holds valid. This means that the attitude of respondents’ belief in the
environmental information on the product does not relate with the conservation
behavior. Hypothesis 3 accepted.
As with many of the demographic variables, however, the findings have been
somewhat equivocal. Some of the researchers correlated green attitudes and
behavior and found non-significant relationships (e.g. Roper, 1990; 1992)
between the two. The same hold true with the present study as well, where the
chi square test has rejected the existence of any significant relationship
between attitude and behaviors of sample respondents, where as studies
conducted by Antil7, 1984; Roberts132, 1995; 1996b; Liere98, 1981 examining
environmental concern as a correlate of environmentally friendly behavior
depicted totally contrast results and found a positive correlation between the
119
two. There exists no relationship between consumer attitudes and their
purchase and conservation behaviors. There is still a great scope of having
many eco savers in Pune. Thus the study further moves towards dividing
Pune’s total population into 5 predetermined segments.
ASSESSING AWARENESS AND SEGMENTATION OF SAMPLE

POPULATION ON PERCENTAGE BASIS:
One of the objectives of the present study was to classify the Pune consumers
into five categories according to their knowledge about environment
degradation, attitude towards environment, their purchase and conservation
behavior and perceived barriers in the way of adopting green lifestyle. For the
purpose, the method adopted for segmentation was the one adopted by Roper’s
Green gauge survey (Please refer Chapter 2: Review of Literature - Green
consumer segmentation). Roper divided the US population on the basis of their
environmental attitudes and environmental behavior, barriers to green lifestyle
and environmental knowledge.
Basis of segmentation (adopted from Roper’s Green gauge 1996)73
Segments Environmental Environmental Barriers to Environmental

Attitudes Behaviors Green Knowledge
Living
True Blue High High Low High

Greens
Green Backs High Moderate Moderately Moderate

Low
Sprouts Moderately Moderate Moderate Moderately

Low Low
Grousers Low Moderately High Low

Low
Basic Browns Low Low High Low
120
Percentage analysis was conducted for dividing the population and results are
presented as under:
Results of Percentage analysis for consumer segmentation
 TRUE BLUE GREENS 20 (4%)

 GREEN BACKS 36 (7.2%)
 SPROUTS 163 (32.6%)
 GROUSERS 4 (0.8%)
 BASIC BROWNS 277 (55.4%)
SHADES OF GREEN- A CONSUMER SEGMENTATION

ON ATTITUDE AND BEHAVIOR
Attitude (High)
True Blue Greens(20)
Green Backs (36)
Sprouts (163)
Behavior (Low) Behavior (High)
Grousers (4)
Browns (277)
Attitude (Low)
Figure 22: Shades of green
121
The percentage analysis shows that major population of Pune lies in basic
brown group which have low environmental attitude and behavior but portray
high barriers in adaptation of green lifestyle. The 4th hypothesis is hereby
proved incorrect as the major (277 or 55.4%) of the sample population does
not possess proper knowledge about environmental degradation and the ways
to uplift the environmental present state. Or in other words the 4th hypothesis
which states that “Pune people are well aware of the environmental
degradation” does not hold good here as more than half sample population
does not have proper knowledge about the environment.
However, the good news is that, the sample consisted of 163 (32.6%) sprouts
who although have somewhat low information about the environment and
having moderately low environmental attitude, still there is a great chance of
converting them to the green back and finally into True blues as they are
behaving in the direction of environmental conservation and show little
barriers in adopting eco friendly lifestyle.
Only 0.8% of Pune’s sample population falls under the category of grousers
which is quite a good sign for ecology as only 4 people out of 500 show low
concern about the environment in four variables except for behavior.
4% and 7.2% of the population is True blue greens and green backs
respectively which are the most concerned environmentalists. Although the
number is less but if given proper chance they can prove to be change leader
who can convert sprouts into green backs.
The above results are parallel with the findings of Roper’s study conducted in
US in 199673 which depict that major US population falls under Basic Brown
category (37%), sprouts consist of 33% which is more than grousers (15%).
10% of US population is true blue greens and only 5% population is green
backs.
122
Sarigollu138 (2005) have come up with three distinct segments of Turkish
consumers on basis of their attitudes and behavior toward the environment as
follows:
1. Active concerned, are those who are concerned about the environment and
actively participating in such activities which are similar to the true blue
greens of our study (some more parameters have been taken for the present
segmentation)
2. Passive concerned, having concern for environment but unable to translate
into action because of any reason this group appears similar to our green
backs.
3. And unconcerned do not even believe that environmental problem is so big
to be bothered about; we can call them basic brown in our research.
The unconcerned are perhaps most reluctant to respond to environmentally
sensitive messages, mostly because their concern for day to day survival looms
larger than their concern for the environment. For the basic browns (In our
case) environmental action implies both financial and time costs. Another
factor that may inhibit the unconcerned from responding to environmental
messages is their belief that destiny and luck, not they themselves, are shaping
the future.
An essential step towards preventing further environmental problems is to

educate the basic browns. Simple but informative campaigns should convey a
reason and motivation for them to act in an environmentally sensitive manner.
The unconcerned are, in fact, concerned about the ill effects of the environment
on themselves and their family. However they do not act upon their concern.
An effective public campaign that first uses fear and guilt appeals and then
suggest an environmentally sensitive behavior as a simple solution may be
used. In the contest of Pune, such a public campaign would be most effectively
implemented by volunteer ambassadors who would visit poorer neighborhoods
to make personal and convincing appeals. There is evidence that personal
123
appeals have worked wonders in slum areas. In addition advertisements
promoting environmental behavior should be encouraged.
All environmentalists cannot be said to belong to one single category, because

people working for environment have their own motives like saving the planet,
conserving animals or simply protecting their own health. The population is
further sub divided into 3 groups on the basis of the criteria below:
Table 22
Categorization of Eco savers
Planet Passionate Health Fanatics Animal Lovers

1. Use Paper products 1. Use products 1. Boycott tuna,
made from recycled made from ivory and fur
paper natural raw 2. Check if
2. Use Biodegradable material products are
Household cleaning Cruelty free
2. Use sun
products, Laundry 3. Likely to be
screen lotion
detergent, Lawn/garden Vegetarian
products 3. Use bottled
3. Use Biodegradable water
diapers Cars with
alternative fuel engines
On the basis of questions asked to the consumers, the result shows that
against the group of planet passionate, most of the people are interested in
their own health (206), 152 people showed their inclination towards saving
the planet. Only 139 people were found to be animal lovers.
SUB DIVISION OF ECO FRIENDLY CONSUMERS
 Planet Passionate 152
 Health Fanatics 206

 Animal Lovers 142
124
N
u
m
b 250
Given a chance I would like to be a part of
e
r
200
o
f
R 150
e
s
p Friendds of
100 Earth National Wild Life
o
Organisation National Health
n
Organisation
d
e 50
n
t
s 0
1
Figure23: Sub division of eco savers
Figure 23 ; Subdivision of Eco Savers
The open ended question requesting the suggestions to improve the

condition of the environment produces the following results (the
frequently given suggestions are included)
4.5 COMPILATION OF SUGGESTIONS GIVEN BY RESPONDENTS

TO PROTECT AND IMPROVE THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
• Using eco-friendly products
• Regular vehicular pollution check ups
• Avoid using plastic
• Gather and spread environmental information
125
• Make optimal use of resources
• More use of public transport
• Tree plantation
• Enforcement of law
• Water harvesting
• Proper treatment and disposal of industrial and household waste
• Educate people about ways to conserve scarce resources
• Improve public transport system
• Developing green pastures
• NGO should come forward for environmental protection
• Water management and waste treatment
• Recycling scrap
Many of the suggestions given by respondents are matching with the study of
Times of India (2011)143 which reported that Indians believe that the
government should invest in improved public transport systems (23%) and that
there should be government incentives (tax breaks or subsidies 22%) to
promote non-polluting behavior. 28% Indians felt that there should be major
government-led initiatives for research into scientific and technological
solutions like low-emission cars and renewable energy. Nearly three out of
every 10 Indians said that there should be a change to use of more energy
efficient bulbs, fixtures and electrical appliances to combat climate change.
More than a quarter of Indian consumers believe in recycling consumer waste
and saving electricity to address issues of climate change and global warming
Finally, from the above study even the self declared green consumers were not
equipped or motivated enough to make decisions regarding the most significant
issue for each purchase, and alter their purchase accordingly. In addition, they
126
did not have the time for research, information interpretation and product
search required for green purchasing. So it’s a matter of worry that any
government policy that solely relies on green consumers (never mind grey
consumers) as agents of change for consumer products is misguided. The
results showed that green consumers can use their buying power to make a
difference, but a high cost in terms of effort and time, is a significant barrier.
These consumers need help from government in the form of incentives and
single issue labels to show them where they should be concentrating their
limited efforts. More fundamentally, “being green” needs time and space in
peoples’ lives that is not available in increasingly busy lifestyles. Therefore,
there need to be coherent sustainable production and consumption policies
across government departments, not just “green advice” to consumers.
Evidently there are more trends that can be described from the table, but for the
purposes of brevity only limited and important implications have been drawn.
It is interesting to note that those most committed to sustainable consumption
were older. In contrast, those who were non-environmentalists tended to be
males, on low incomes.
127

10 - Chapter 4 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 - Chapter 4 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 - Chapter 4 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 RESPONDENTS’ DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

Demographic Characteristics of respondents

Majority of respondents (35%) had monthly income between Rs15000-30000.

4.2 ASSESSMENT OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DEMOGRAPHIC

Table 2: ANOVA TABLE

Table showing the relationship between age and environmental concern

Note: SS=sum of the squares, df= degree of freedom, MS=Mean

In the survey multiple choice questions were presented to respondents about

Response of samples to various questions (age group of 19-29 years)

(All values are in percentages)

Behavior Behavior green lifestyle

1 13.9539 7.49354005 12.9198966 9.302325581 9.302325581

2 48.0629 20.1550387 34.3669250 37.20930233 37.20930233

3 28.1659 32.0413436 24.2894056 22.73901809 22.73901809

4 9.819 40.3100775 28.4237726 30.74935401 30.74935401

Analysis of respondent's opinion (age 19-29

Figure 13: Analysis of respondent’s opinion (age 19-29 years)

Conservation behavior: Regarding conservation behavior, it was found that,

Response of samples to various questions (age group of 30-39)

(All values are in percentages)

SNo Knowledge Attitude Purchase Conservation Barriers to

2 40.42553191 20.2127659 44.68085106 43.61702 43.61702

3 28.72340426 18.0851063 21.27659574 26.59574 21.2766

4 21.27659574 4.25531914 18.08510638 23.40426 26.59574

Analysis of respondents' opinion (Age 30-39

Figure 14: Analysis of Respondents’ opinions (Age 30-39 years)

Conservation Behavior: This age group showed a similar pattern in

Barriers to green lifestyle: The perceived barriers in the way of adoption of

S No Knowledge Attitude Purchase Conservation Barriers to

2 25 8.33333333 66.6666666 83.33333 16.66667

3 58.3333333 8.33333333 33.3333333 16.66667 50

Analysis of respondent's opinion

Figure 15: Analysis of respondent’s opinion (age 40-49 years)

Purchase Behavior: Unlike attitude the results of purchase behavior of this

Conservation Behavior: This age group showed a similar pattern in

Perceived Barriers to Green Lifestyle: The perceived barriers to green

Response of samples to various questions (age group of 50 yrs and above)

S No Knowledge Attitude Purchase Conservation Barriers to Green

3 0 0 57.1428571 57.14286 14.28571

4 85.7142857 14.2857142 42.8571428 42.85714 85.71429

Analysis of respondent's opinion (age 50

Figure16: Analysis of respondent’s opinion (age 50 years and above)

Purchase Behavior: The elders failed to behave in an eco friendly manner

Conservation Behavior: The same is the case with conservation behavior.

Sardianou137 (2007) taking age as a deciding factor for electricity expenditures

However, others have found the relationship to be significant, but positively

INCOME WISE CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS:

Table 7 ANOVA TABLE

(Showing relationship between Income and environmental concern)

Response to various questions (Income level Rs.15000 or less p. m.)

S No Knowledge Attitude Purchase Conservation Barriers

2 31.53153153 26.12612613 53.15315315 47.74775 21.62162

4 17.11711712 38.73873874 9.009009009 12.61261 18.01802

Analysis of respondent's opinion (Income

Figure17: Analysis of respondent’s opinion (Income under Rs.15000

Conservation Behavior: Majority of them (37%) conserved resources to some

Response of respondents to various questions (Income level Rs. 15000-