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
387
94
12
7

77.4
18.8
2.4
1.4

285
215

57
43

Household Income/ month (INR)

Under- 15000
15000- 30000
30000- 50000
50000- 75000
75000 and above

111
175
119
43
52

22.2
35
23.8
8.6
10.4

Educational Qualification:
Graduate
Post Graduate

310
190

62
38

Occupation:
Students
House wife
Business
Service

205
40
93
162

41
8
18.6
32.4

a. 19-29
b. 30-39
c. 40-49
d. 50 and above
Gender
Male
Female

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. Consumers
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
variance
Between
Samples
Within
Samples
Total

F-ratio

5% F-limit
from F-table

SS

Df

MS

22891.69

(4-1)=3

7630.5633 15.773774 F(3,16)=3.24

7740

(20-4)=16

483.75

30631.69

(20-1)=19

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 ecoconcern 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 respondents 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)
(All values are in percentages)
SNo

Knowledge

Attitude

Purchase
Behavior

Conservation
Behavior

9.574468085

57.4468085

15.95744681

6.382979

Barriers to
Green
Lifestyle
8.510638

40.42553191

20.2127659

44.68085106

43.61702

43.61702

28.72340426

18.0851063

21.27659574

26.59574

21.2766

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

40

30
20
10
0
knowledge

Attitude

Pur Behav

Con Behav

Barriers

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)
(All values are in percentages)
S No

Knowledge

Attitude

Purchase
Behavior

Conservation
Behavior

75

Barriers to
Green
Lifestyle
8.333333

25

8.33333333

66.6666666

83.33333

16.66667

58.3333333

8.33333333

33.3333333

16.66667

50

16.6666666

8.33333333

25

Analysis of respondent's opinion

(age 40-49 years)
100

80

60

3
2
40

20

0
knowledge

Attitude

Pur Behav

Con Behav

Barriers

Figure 15: Analysis of respondents 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)
Knowledge

Attitude

Purchase
Behavior

Conservation
Behavior

Barriers to Green
Lifestyle

85.7142857

14.2857142

57.1428571

57.14286

14.28571

85.7142857

14.2857142

42.8571428

42.85714

85.71429

S No

Analysis of respondent's opinion (age 50

years and above)
100

80
4
60

3
2

40

20

0
knowledge

Attitude

Pur Behav

Con Behav

Barriers

Figure16: Analysis of respondents 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 consumers 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
variance
Between Sample

SS
4171.44

Df
(5-1)= 4

MS
1042.86

Within Sample

3250.8

(25-5)= 20

162.54

Total

7422.24

(25-1)= 24

F-ratio
6.41602

5% F-limit
(from F-Table)
F(4,20)=2.87

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 consumers buying and conservation behavior.

98

Table 8
Response to various questions (Income level Rs.15000 or less p. m.)

S No

Knowledge

Attitude

Purchase
Behavior

Conservation
Behavior

Barriers
to Green
Lifestyle

12.61261261

6.306306306

13.51351351

9.009009

11.71171

31.53153153

26.12612613

53.15315315

47.74775

21.62162

38.73873874

28.82882883

24.32432432

30.63063

48.64865

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
knowledge

Attitude

Pur Behav

Con Behav

Barriers

Figure17: Analysis of respondents 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. 1500030000 p.m.)
S No

Knowledge

Attitude

Purchase
Behavior

Conservation
Behavior

10.2857142

8.57142857

10.2857142

4.571429

Barriers
to Green
Lifestyle
8

49.1428571

21.1428571

30.8571428

30.85714

40

29.7142857

33.7142857

33.7142857

40

22.85714

10.8571428

36.5714285

25.1428571

24.57143

29.14286

Analysis of respondent's opinion (Income

level Rs. 15000-30000 p.m.)
120
100
4

80

3
60

2
1

40
20
0
knowledge

Attitude

Pur Behav

Con Behav

Barriers

Figure 18: Analysis of respondents 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 its 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
Behavior

Conservation
Behavior

Barriers to
Green
Lifestyle

11.76471

8.403361

14.28571

8.403361

5.042017

51.2605

5.042017

31.93277

34.45378

32.77311

21.0084

32.77311

16.80672

21.0084

19.32773

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

50

40

30
20
10
0
knowledge

Attitude

Pur Behav

Con Behav

Barriers

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
Respondents response to various questions (Income level Rs.50000-75000
p.m.)

Knowledge

Attitude

Purchase
Behavior

Conservation
Behavior

9.615384615

3.846153846

15.38461538

13.46154

Barriers to
Green
Lifestyle
13.46154

50

13.46153846

42.30769231

40.38462

32.69231

25

34.61538462

13.46153846

21.15385

13.46154

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

20
0
knowledge

Attitude

Pur Behav

Con Behav

Barriers

Figure 20: Analysis of respondents 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
Behavior

Conservation
Behavior

10.96774194

7.419354839

12.25806452

6.451613

Barriers to
Green
Lifestyle
9.032258

44.83870968

21.29032258

37.09677419

36.45161

33.54839

31.29032258

32.25806452

29.67741935

35.16129

31.6129

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

20

0
knowledge

Attitude

Pur Behav

Con Behav

Barriers

Figure 21: Analysis of respondents 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 nonenvironmentalist. 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)

Chi square
10. Avoid buying products which are tested
on animals
11. Read labels before buying to see if
contents are environmentally safe
12. Use biodegradable soaps, detergents etc.
13. Buy products whose packages can be
reused
14. Carry own bags to supermarkets
15. Buying bio fuel
16. Buy products which contribute money
for environment protection cause
17. Buy organic foods and bottled water
18. Boycott tuna, ivory, leather
19. Buy cruelty free cosmetics
20. Dump hazardous waste at safe disposal
site

df

Significance
level

Table
value

53.617077

9 5% sign

16.9

86.867713

9 5% sign

16.9

41.762629

9 5% sign

16.9

54.717213

9 5% sign

16.9

52.29472
238.03978

9 5% sign
9 5% sign

16.9
16.9

71.491834

9 5% sign

16.9

84.520354
163.82587
362.43377

9 5% sign
9 5% sign
9 5% sign

16.9
16.9
16.9

303.38184

9 5% sign

16.9

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 2 for 9 d.f. at 5% level of significance is
16.9. The calculated value of 2 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:
Chi square test of attitude (Question No. 2) and purchase behavior
I believe there is a lot that Pune Municipal Corporation can do to improve the
environment (A2)

10. Avoid buying products which are tested

on animals
11. Read labels before buying to see if
contents are environmentally safe

Chi
square

d.f.

Significance
level

Table
Vale

307.426

5% sign

16.9

592.541
271.313

9
9

5% sign
5% sign

16.9
16.9

9
9
9

5% sign
5% sign
5% sign

16.9
16.9
16.9

9
9
9
9

5% sign
5% sign
5% sign
5% sign

16.9
16.9
16.9
16.9

5% sign

16.9

12. Use biodegradable soaps, detergents etc.

13. Buy products whose packages can be
reused
407.46
14. Carry own bags to supermarkets
588.824
15. Buying bio fuel
561.842
16. Buy products which contribute money for
environment protection cause
574.824
17. Buy organic foods and bottled water
371.045
18. Boycott tuna, ivory, leather
392.486
19. Buy cruelty free cosmetics
980.222
20. Dump hazardous waste at safe disposal
site
664.831

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 2 for 9 degrees of freedom at 5% level of
significance is 16.9. The calculated value of 2 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:
Chi square test of attitude (Question No. 3) and purchase behavior
Plastic has become a lifestyle in Pune and it is impossible to (A3)
Chi square

d. f. Significance
level
9
5% sign

Table
Value

10. Avoid buying products which are tested

on animals

135.059301

11. Read labels before buying to see if

contents are environmentally safe

173.574154

5% sign

16.9

12. Use biodegradable soaps, detergents

etc.
13. Buy products whose packages can be
reused
14. Carry own bags to supermarkets
15. Buying bio fuel
16. Buy products which contribute money
for environment protection cause

162.128914

5% sign

16.9

136.61778

5% sign

16.9

167.073739
76.6886501
78.6936688

9
9
9

5% sign
5% sign
5% sign

16.9
16.9
16.9

17.
18.
19.
20.
site

138.194295
252.838079
397.284196
312.063249

9
9
9
9

5% sign
5% sign
5% sign
5% sign

16.9
16.9
16.9
16.9

Buy organic foods and bottled water

Boycott tuna, ivory, leather
Buy cruelty free cosmetics
Dump hazardous waste at safe disposal

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 2 for 9 degrees of freedom at 5% level of significance is 16.9. The
calculated value of 2 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

16.9

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
Chi square test of attitude (Question No. 4) and purchase behavior
I believe in the environmental Information of product label (A4)
Chi
square

10. Avoid buying products which are tested on

animals
11. Read labels before buying to see if contents
are environmentally safe

d. Significaf. nce
level
264.606 9
5% sign

Table
value
16.9

396.846

5% sign

16.9

12. Use biodegradable soaps, detergents etc.

13. Buy products whose packages can be reused
14. Carry own bags to supermarkets
15. Buying bio fuel
16. Buy products which contribute money for
environment protection cause

304.787
310.61
398.302
418.79
296.308

9
9
9
9
9

5% sign
5% sign
5% sign
5% sign
5% sign

16.9
16.9
16.9
16.9
16.9

17. Buy organic foods and bottled water

18. Boycott tuna, ivory, leather
19. Buy cruelty free cosmetics
20. Dump hazardous waste at safe disposal site

556.576
551.242
489.961
735.171

9
9
9
9

5% sign
5% sign
5% sign
5% sign

16.9
16.9
16.9
16.9

Finally the fourth and the last attitude question (Column) was tested with all
purchase behavior questions (Rows) the table value of 2 for 9 degrees of
freedom at 5% level of significance is 16.9. The calculated value of 2 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
square

d.
f.

Significance
level

Table
value

21. Conserve energy, water

53.6171

5% sign

16.9

22. Recycle bottles, can

86.8677

5% sign

16.9

23. Avoid excessive packaging

41.7626

5% sign

16.9

24. Volunteer for an environment group

54.7172

5% sign

16.9

25. Use sunscreens

106.208

5% sign

16.9

26. Write to politicians to draw their

attention towards environmental issues

34.1905

5% sign

16.9

27. Replace light bulbs to lower wattage

to conserve electricity

69.5903

5% sign

16.9

28. Avoid Non- vegetarian food

80.7371

5% sign

16.9

The 3rd hypothesis which states There is no relationship between consumers

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 2 for 9 degrees of freedom at 5%
level of significance is 16.9. The calculated value of 2 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
square

d
f

Significance
level

Table
Value

21. Conserve energy, water

22. Recycle bottles, can
23. Avoid excessive packaging
24. Volunteer for an environment group
25. Use sunscreens
26. write to politicians to draw their
attention towards environmental issues

117.251
212.648
110.019
138.213
88.3742
150.93

9
9
9
9
9
9

5% sign
5% sign
5% sign
5% sign
5% sign
5% sign

16.9
16.9
16.9
16.9
16.9
16.9

27. Replace light bulbs to lower wattage

to conserve electricity
28. Avoid Non- vegetarian food

78.6552

9 5% sign

16.9

146.253

9 5% sign

16.9

The 3rd hypothesis which states There is no relationship between consumers

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 2 for 9 degrees of
freedom at 5% level of significance is 16.9. The calculated value of 2 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 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)
Chi
square

d. Significance
f. level

Table
Value

21. Conserve energy, water

22. Recycle bottles, can
23. Avoid excessive packaging
24. Volunteer for an environment group
25. Use sunscreens
26. write to politicians to draw their
attention towards environmental issues

57.944
87.9826
112.572
51.3209
110.991
73.8778

9
9
9
9
9
9

5% sign
5% sign
5% sign
5% sign
5% sign
5% sign

16.9
16.9
16.9
16.9
16.9
16.9

27. Replace light bulbs to lower

wattage to conserve electricity
28. Avoid Non- vegetarian food

66.4144

5% sign

16.9

37.1811

5% sign

16.9

Chi Square test performed here on third attitude question (Column) and all
conservation behavior questions (Rows). The table value of 2 for 9 degrees of
freedom at 5% level of significance is 16.9. The calculated value of 2 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 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)
Chi
square

d.
f.

Significance
level

Table
Value

21. Conserve energy, water

22. Recycle bottles, can
23. Avoid excessive packaging
24. Volunteer for an environment group
25. Use sunscreens
26. Write to politicians to draw their
attention towards environmental issues

140.548
170.931
136.645
79.7555
113.912
130.87

9
9
9
9
9
9

5% sign
5% sign
5% sign
5% sign
5% sign
5% sign

16.9
16.9
16.9
16.9
16.9
16.9

27. Replace light bulbs to lower

wattage to conserve electricity

113.834

5% sign

16.9

28. Avoid Non- vegetarian food

98.2573

5% sign

16.9

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 2 for 9 degrees of freedom at 5% level of
significance is 16.9. The calculated value of 2 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
Punes 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 Ropers
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 Ropers Green gauge 1996)73

Segments

Environmental
Attitudes

Environmental
Behaviors

Barriers to
Green
Living

True Blue
Greens

High

High

Green Backs

High

Moderate

Moderately
Low

Moderate

Sprouts

Moderately
Low

Moderate

Moderate

Moderately
Low

Grousers

Low

Moderately
Low

High

Low

Basic Browns

Low

Low

High

Low

Low

120

Environmental
Knowledge

High

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 Punes 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 Ropers 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
1. Use products
1. Use Paper products
made from
made from recycled
natural raw
paper
material
2. Use
Biodegradable
Household
cleaning
2. Use sun
products,
Laundry
screen lotion
detergent, Lawn/garden
products
3. Use bottled
3. Use Biodegradable
water
diapers Cars with
alternative fuel engines

Animal Lovers
1. Boycott tuna,
ivory and fur
2. Check
if
products are
Cruelty free
3. Likely to be
Vegetarian

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
Animal Lovers

206
142

124

N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f

Given a chance I would like to be a part of

250

200

150

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s

Friendds of
Earth

100

National Wild Life

Organisation National Health
Organisation

50

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 its 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