Demographics of Environmental Responsibility: Who Keeps Up? Edith Lai

Demographics of Environmental Responsibility – Who Keeps Up?

AUTHOR: Edith Lai

ABSTRACT: To help minimize waste production, many individuals have taken it upon themselves to replace single-use goods with reusable products. Governments and environmentally conscious businesses are increasingly interested in knowing how to better promote sustainable practices and understanding how green consumerism varies across demographic categories on a global scale. In New Zealand, bringing a reusable cup, colloquially called a “keepcup”, to a coffee shop can significantly reduce the amount of single-use paper cups ending up in landfills. This observational study examines whether the economic incentive of a discount is effective in motivating individuals to use keepcups. At coffee shops throughout Wellington, New Zealand, we counted the number of keepcup users among customers ordering takeaway coffee and compared the values based on whether the shop offered discounts for using keepcups. Preliminary study results confirm that offering a discounted price of coffee for using a keepcup significantly increases the proportion of keepcup users. After stratifying the data set by gender, results show that economic incentives only significantly increase keepcup usage amongst males but not females, supporting analogous research on environmental behavior theorizing that females are inherently more socially conscious consumers. Stratifying the data set by age showed that young and old consumers are equally motivated by discounts, thus age may not be as much an explanatory variable to environmental behavior. A more nuanced understanding of environmental behavior is necessary to ensure that all social and demographic groups contribute equally to the collective effort to reduce waste.

INTRODUCTION

In the past few decades, rapid and rampant industrialization has produced a worldwide climate crisis threatening the health and wellbeing of individuals, communities, and ecosystems (Pachauri). Although corporations are responsible for the vast majority of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and should be held accountable in the efforts to mitigate climate change, individuals can supplement the global movement towards sustainability by adopting more environmentally conscious behavior (Caney). Individuals can help limit GHG emissions by collectively reducing waste production. By opting for reusable products over single-use goods, consumers can gradually lessen their dependence on high intensity production and waste facilities (Castellani et al.).

In general, people prefer cutting costs and avoiding unnecessary expenses (Viscusi et al., Poortinga et al.). A common policy tactic for encouraging environmental behavior within communities is providing economic incentives like subsidies and discounts. For example, bottle recycling is promoted through the bottle-deposit system, which rewards recycling with a small financial reward. This system has been effective in promoting a sustainable action despite the slight inconvenience taken by the individual (Viscusi et al.). Similar methods have been applied on different scales, such as governments reducing GHG emissions with carbon taxes and businesses advising individuals to bring their own grocery bags (“How Carbon Tax Works”, Laroche et al.). The use of economic incentives to alter consumer behavior is ubiquitous, but it is important to confirm and evaluate its effectiveness in different contexts.

Environmentalists must also take into account that certain people may be more willing than others to adopt environmental behavior. Understanding the motivating factors for environmental behavior can promote green consumption and waste reduction. One measurement used to determine amiability to environmental behavior is willingness to pay for a sustainable good. Factors affecting willingness to pay include demographics, knowledge, values, attitudes, and behavior (Laroche et al.). Despite being one of the weaker explanatory variables, research on demographics can help businesses focus marketing towards specific groups (Laroche et al., Follows et al.). Studies have noted that females are typically more socially conscious and more concerned about the environment than their male counterparts (Laroche et al., Berkowitz and Lutterman, Fisher et al., Anderson and Cunningham). In general, women also demonstrate greater value in collectivism than individualism (Triandis). These studies conclude that women are more likely to engage in environmental behavior regardless of individual cost or benefit while men need more external incentives before choosing to act for the greater good (Fisher et al., Anderson and Cunningham). In addition to gender, there is interest in deter

mining environmental behavior trends among age groups. The basis for understanding age-based trends in social responsibility is the socioemotional theory, which posits that the perceived amount of time remaining in their lives will lead people to pursue different social goals (Cartensen et al.). However, the body of research studying this theory’s application in environmental responsibility is often inconclusive. Some studies suggest that younger people have higher environmental awareness and knowledge out of concern for their futures, while older people are comfortable with prioritizing short term benefits regardless of their effects on the environment (Wiernik et al.). Conversely, studies also suggest that older individuals engage in more conservation behaviors, due to more time spent engaging with nature (Wiernik et al.). While a general relationship between age and environmentalism is unclear, a correlation could occur in highly specific contexts. council promotes keepcups by partnering with reustives for environmental behavior. The primary objective is to confirm that economic incentives significantly motivate keepcup usage in Wellington. We hypothesize that when the price of takeaway coffee is lower for keepcup users than single-use cup users, the proportion of keepcup usage among consumers is greater. Moreover, we question if the effectiveness of economic incentives differs depending on demographic groupings, specifically gender and age. Regarding gender, we hypothesize that the discounted coffees will be more effective in motivating males to bring a keepcup than females based on socially conscious consumer behavior trends. For age, we hypothesize that discounted coffees will be more effective in motivating young people to bring reusables than older people based on both increased environmental awareness and short term economic benefits.

One consumption change people can make to reduce Site Selection waste is avoiding single-use cups and instead bringing Data collection occurred at 12 coffee shops throughout a reusable mug, otherwise called a keepcup, when the Te Aro and Lambton suburbs of Wellington, New purchasing takeaway coffee. A life cycle assessment of Zealand. The coffee shop names and distribution are carton based cups found that while manufacturing shown in Figure 1. These two suburbs present high cups do contribute to global warming, the end of life density of both coffee shops and working professiondisposal is more significant in environmental impact als, which maximized sample size and became the (Garrido and Castillo). This is especially pertinent in focus of the study. To randomize coffee shop selection, New Zealand as locals (kiwis) throw away approxiwe first listed out all coffee shops within the two mately 300 million takeaway coffees per year (Higsuburbs and eliminated those that opened later than gins). In Wellington, the inability to recycle coffee cups 8:30am. The coffee shops were then stratified by and the lack of composting facilities available means streets and then randomly chosen. This process that all single-use cups end up in landfills (“Public ensured that observation locations were spread out Place Recycling Project”). To address the issue, city throughout each suburb.

METHODS

able cup programs, and businesses incentivize keepData Collection cup usage with discounted coffee (Woolf, “Discounts”). Two researchers observed a single coffee shop each While these actions have helped the city make great morning from 7:30am - 9:30am, or for a total of two strides in waste reduction, they should be regularly hours right after opening. Researchers worked in pairs evaluated to determine how effective these strategies to minimize observational biases and maximize data are, and for whom. points. The time frame and the suburbs of choice together maximized the number of people ordering This study evaluates two aspects of economic incentakeaway coffee. For each customer, we recorded gender, an estimation of age, and whether they brought a keepcup or used a single-use cup. Age was estimated by decade (20s, 30s, etc.) and then group into “young”, ≤35 years old, and “old”, >35 years old, subgroups. 35 years of age was chosen as the cutoff point because it separates millennials from generation X and roughly divides the population in half. If a customer sat in, they were not included in the study. If a customer ordered multiple drinks, each cup was counted as a separate observation. For each coffee shop, we noted if a discount was offered for those bringing their own Figure 1. Distribution of Wellington coffee shops where data collection occurred mug. After concluding the study, each locaSpring 2020 / Perennial

tion was called to confirm discount status, as many places did not openly advertise if a discount was offered. A coffee shop was considered as offering a discount if the takeaway coffee is cheaper than regular price when a customer brings their own mug or if the takeaway coffee is more expensive than the regular price when a customer opts for a single-use cup.

Data Analysis Each observation was recorded as a set of binary variables gender (male: 0, female: 1), age (>35 years of age: 0, ≤35 years of age: 1), cup (single-use: 0, keepcup: 1), and discount at location visited (no discount: 0, discount: 1). To answer the first question, a Chi-Square test of independence was performed comparing gender to coffee shop discounts to ensure that gender was evenly distributed across locations. To test if the proportion of keepcup users is higher at coffee shops with discounts, we performed a two proportion Z test and calculated an odds ratio. To answer the second question, the data set was then stratified by gender and age. We performed two proportion Z tests to quantify the difference in keepcup usage between discounted coffee shops and non-discounted coffee shops separately for gender and age. We also performed Chi-Square tests of independence to confirm if the relationship between discount and keepcup usage was or was not independent. For each test, a p-value of >0.05 indicates significance. We then calculated percent differences in Z scores between males and females and between young and old. Finally, odds ratios were calculated.

RESULTS

Table 1. Counts of keepcup and single-use cup users at coffee shops offering a discount or no discount for bringing in a keepcup

Chi-squared test of independence between gender and coffee shop discount status. The results (X² = 1.2311, df = 1, p = 0.267189) confirm that gender is evenly distributed across coffee shops and that the distribution is independent of discount status. We then repeated the same test between age and discount status. The results (X² = 0.3336, df = 1, p = 0.563568) confirm that age is also distributed across coffee shops independent of discount status.

The first study question asks if economic incentives are effective in promoting environmental behavior across all customers. In this study, we expected the proportion of keepcup users to be significantly higher at coffee shops offering a discounted coffee to keepcup users. To test, we performed a one sided Z-test of two proportions between all customers at discount or no discount shops. As displayed in Figure 2, the proportion of keepcup users at coffee shops with discounts was 0.4279 and the proportion of keepcup users at coffee shops with no discounts was 0.3354. The results of the Z-test (Z = 1.8319, p = 0.0336) confirm that the proportion of keepcup users at coffee shops with discounts is significantly greater than the proportion of keepcup users at coffee shops with no discounts at p>0.05 significance level. In addition, the odds that someone who uses a keepcup is visiting a coffee shop offering a discount is 1.4823 times higher than the odds of someone visiting a coffee shop offering no

discount (OR = 1.4823). Figure 2. Proportion of keepcup users at coffee shops offering a discount for bringing a keepcup in comparison to coffee shops offering no discount for bringing a keepcup

The second study question asks if economic incentives promote environmental behavior differentially across gender and age. Beginning with gender, customers were stratified between female and male to calculate the proportion of keepcup or single-use cup users. An initial Z-test comparing keepcup usage among females and males (Z = 3.6018, p = 0.0003) showed that females

are overall more likely to use keepcups than males. We then looked at each gender’s relationship with discounts. The results are visually displayed in Figure 3. The first two bars show that the proportion of females using a keepcup are very similar at coffee shops with and without discounts. The third and fourth bars show that the proportion of males using a keepcup is much higher at coffee shops with discounts than at coffee shops without discounts. Among females, the Z-test results (Z = 0.4144, p = 0.6818) comparing keepcup users and single-use cup users at discount versus no discount coffee shops show that there is no significant relationship between keepcup usage and coffee shop discount status. The Chi-Square test of independence (X2 = 0.1693, df = 1, p = 0.1693) confirms that keepcup usage and discounts are independent. The odds that a female using a keepcup is visiting a coffee shop offering a discount is also not much higher than the odds that a female using a keepcup is visiting a coffee shop offering no discount (OR = 1.1303). Within males, the Z-test results (Z = 1.9865, p = 0.0466) comparing keepcup users and single-use cup users at discount versus no discount coffee shops show that there is a significant relationship between keepcup usage and coffee shop discount status. The Chi-Square test of independence (X2 = 3.9464, df = 1, p = 0.0470) results also support the notion that keepcup usage and discounts are not independent. The odds that a male using a keepcup is visiting a coffee shop offering a discount is 1.9060 times higher than the odds that a male using a keepcup is visiting a coffee shop offering no discount (OR = 1.9060). The percent difference between Z-scores of keepcup usage among females and males, 130.9592%, indicates a higher efficacy of discount programs on males.

those above or below the age of 35, we again used a Z-test to determine whether one group was more likely to use keepcups than the other. Results (Z = 1.2967, p = 0.1936) show that there is no significant difference in the proportion of keepcup uses among those ≤35 years of age and those >35 years of age. Regardless of this result, we checked to see if the effect of a discount differs between young and old consumers. Visually displayed in Figure 4, there is a large difference in keepcup usage for both young and old consumers at coffee shops with and without discounts. Within the young group, the Z-test results comparing keepcup users and single-use cup users at discount versus no discount coffee shops (Z = 2.5018, p = 0.0124) show that there is a significant relationship between keepcup usage and coffee shop discount status. The Chi-Square test of independence (X2 = 6.2598, df = 1, p = 0.0124) results also support the notion that keepcup

Figure 3. Proportions of keepcup users among females and males who visit coffee shops offering a discount for keepcup users or offering no discount for keepcup users

usage and discounts are not independent.

Figure 4. Proportions of keepcup users among old and young consumers who visit coffee shops offering a discount for keepcup users or offering no discount for keepcup users

The odds that a young customer using a keepcup is visiting a coffee shop offering a discount is 2.6947 times higher than the odds that a young customer using a keepcup is visiting a coffee shop offering no discount (OR = 2.6947). Within the old group, the Z-test results comparing keepcup users and single use cup users at discount versus no discount coffee shops (Z = 2.5535, p = 0.0107) show that there is a significant relationship between keepcup usage and coffee shop discount status. The Chi-Square test of independence (X2 = 6.518, df = 1, p = 0.0107) results also support the notion that keepcup usage and discounts are not independent. The odds that an old customer using a keepcup is visiting a coffee shop offering a discount is 2.6561 times higher than the odds that an old customer using a keepcup is visiting a coffee shop offering no discount (OR = 2.6561). The percent difference between Z-scores of keepcup usage among young and old consumers, 2.0453%, indicates a minimal difference in

DISCUSSION

Due to the simple design, there are some weaknesses to the methodology that limit the applicability of the results to wider contexts. One issue with evaluating the effect of economic incentives was that the coffee discount initiative was not standardized across the cafes. Many coffee shops did not openly advertise the discount, but discreetly applied it to each purchase depending on the customer’s cup choice. Therefore, knowledge about discounts would be based predominantly on experience and word of mouth. While this is true in many coffee shops around the world, it is harder to extrapolate the efficacy of discounts for keepcups to understand other environmental behaviors with economic incentives. We expect that the significance of increased keepcup usage at coffee shops offering discounts would be even greater if more shops openly promoted their discounts. In addition, the discounts range from 10 to 40 cents depending on location. For a more robust study, we should group coffee shops with the same discount amount rather than using a binary discount or no discount variable. This was not viable due to the small sample size, but could be possible in further study.

The few number of variables observed for this study also expose vulnerability to confounding factors. In studies on demographics and behavior, it is typically necessary to include race, education, socioeconomic status, and more in addition to gender and age. The intersectionality of these factors often manifest as confounders or effect modifiers. Due to resource limitations, only gender and age were collected or estimated for in this study. We did confirm with a Chi-Square test of independence that age and gender are independent variables in relation to keepcup usage. However, further research in this field would benefit from the inclusion of more demographic categories. Additionally, while this study uses a binary measurement for gender, as is conventional in behavioral studies and market research, we do recognize the identities of non-binary genders. Suggestions for study replication include expanding the locations to beyond central Wellington, where residents may be of similar education and socioeconomic statuses, and employing questionnaires to collect more information.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study conclude that within Wellington, discounts are generally effective in motivating people to bring their own cups to coffee shops when ordering takeaway coffee. This conclusion supports background research on environmental behavior by confirming that economic incentives strongly correlate with environmental behavior. Individual businesses interested in reducing waste should therefore keep discounts in mind as an effective tool for promoting reusable products.

Regarding differential discount efficacy on demographic groups, there was no significant relationship between age and keepcup usage, nor are young people differently influenced by economic incentives than older people. Both young and old customers alike use keepcups more often when a coffee shop offers a discount, and this increase in likelihood is similar for the two groups. Based on these results, there is likely no need to use age-based marketing tactics to promote keepcup usage. This conclusion corresponds with the ambiguous relationship between age and environmentally responsible actions. Conversely, the economic incentives do have differential levels of influence with regards to gender. Discounts are more influential in affecting keepcup usage among men than among women. While keepcup usage among men drastically increases at coffee shops offering discounts, keepcup usage among females is independent of a coffee shop’s discount offering. These results support theories that males are more economically motivated to participate in environmentally conscious behavior while females are willing to engage in environmentally conscious behavior regardless of personal cost. This conclusion also suggests a more generalizable paradigm in which women often carry more social responsibility in combating environmental issues.

The conclusions of this study can be used in developing programs for promoting the replacement of single-use goods with reusable goods. Understanding how the underlying drivers for environmental behavior differ among men and women is critical to acknowledging who is contributing to the efforts in waste reduction. While discounts or subsidies may encourage green consumerism for men, businesses and governments may need to diversify environmental promotion methods to increase environmental behavior in women. Education, green labeling, choice editing, and collective action are other effective drivers for environmental behavior which can be integrated alongside economic incentives to target women (21). Overall, environmental behavior studies focused on demographic characteristics can be useful for ensuring that everyone, and not just demographic subsets of a population, contribute equally to waste reduction.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my groupmates for their collaboration on the project, as well as Chris Fink and Michael Jackson from BIOL328 Behaviour and Conservation

WORKS CITED

1. “Alternatives to Single-Use Plastic Shopping Bags by Business Type.” Ministry for the Environment. https://www.mfe.govt.nz/waste/single-use-plastic-shopping-bag-ban/alternatives-for-businesses 2. Anderson, W. Thomas, and William H. Cunningham, “The Socially Conscious Consumer.” Journal of Marketing, vol. 36, no. 3, 1972, pp. 23–3. 3. Berkowitz, Leonard, and Kenneth G. Lutterman, “The Traditional Socially Responsible Personality.” The Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 32, no.2, 1968, pp. 169–185. 4. Caney, Simon. “Justice and the Distribution of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Journal of Global Ethics, vol. 5, no. 2, 2009, pp.125-146. 5. Carstensen, Laura L., et al. Taking Time Seriously: A Theory of Socioemotional Selectivity.” American Psychologist, vol. 54, no. 3, 1999, pp. 165-181. 6. Castellani, Valentina, et al. “Beyond the Throwaway Society: A Life Cycle-Based Assessment of the Environmental Benefit of Reuse.” Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, vol.11, no.3, 2015, pp. 373–382. 7. “Discounts Offered to Customers With Reusable Coffee Cups, but Not Everyone Is on Board.” News.Com.Au, 21 July 2018, https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/food/drinks/discounts-offered-to-customers-with-reusable-coffee-cups-but-no t-everyone-is-on-board/news-story/f2b61c70b6fe1ab 0642514fe67629bb5 8. Dowdey, Sarah. “How Carbon Tax Works.” HowStuffWorks, 2007, https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/carbon-tax.htm#pt2. 9. Fisher, Caroline, et al. “Demographic Impacts on Environmentally Friendly Purchase Behaviors.” Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, vol. 20, 2012, pp.172–184. 10. Follows, Scott B, and David Jobber. “Environmentally Responsible Purchase Behaviour: A Test of a Consumer Mode.” European Journal of Marketing, vol. 34, no. 5/6, 2000, pp.723-746. 11. Garrido, Nuria, and M. Doris Alvarez del Castillo, Environmental Evaluation of Single-Use and Reusable Cups. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 12, 2007, pp. 252–256. 12. Higgins, Nadine. “Kiwi City Slickers Are Among the World’s Most Wasteful.” Stuff, 28 Jan. 2018, https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/100870915/nadine-higgins-kiwi-city-slickers-embrace-throwaway-culture. 13. Laroche, Michel, et al. J. “Targeting Consumers Who Are Willing to Pay More for EnvironmentallFriendly Products.” Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 18, no. 6, 2001, pp. 503–520. 14. Pachauri, Rajendra Kumar, and Leo A. Meyer. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, 2015. 15. Peattie, Ken. “Green Consumption: Behavior and Norms.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources, vol. 35, no. 1, 2010, pp. 195–228. 16. Poortinga, Wouter, and Louise Whitaker. “Promoting the Use of Reusable Coffee Cups through Environmental Messaging, the Provision of Alternatives and Financial Incentives.” Sustainability, vol.10, no.3, 2018, pp. 873. 17. “Public Place Recycling project.” Wellington City Council. https://wellington.govt.nz/services/environment-and-waste/rubbish-and-recycling/ reducing-your-waste/reducing-waste-at-events -and-in-yo ur-community/public-place-recycling-project 18. Triandis, Harry C. “Collectivism and Individualism as Cultural Syndromes.” Cross-Cultural Research, vol. 27, no. 3-4, 1993, pp. 155–180. 19. Viscusi, W.Kip, et al. “Promoting Recycling: Private Values, Social Norms, and Economic Incentives.” American Economic Review, vol. 101, no. 3, 2011, pp. 65–70. 20. Wiernik, Brenton M., et al. “Age and Environmental Sustainability: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 28, no. 7/8, 2013, pp. 826–85. 21. Woolf, Amber-Leigh. “Wellington Cafes Take on New Reusable Cup Scheme to Reduce Waste.” Stuff, 20 Nov. 2018, https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/108 731377/wellington-cafes-take-on-new-reusable-cupscheme-to-reduce-waste