Global_Environmental_Research_Vol.25No1&2
67/124

‘never.’ If they selected ‘never,’ ‘rarely,’ or ‘seldom,’ they were asked to select one reason from the following list: ‘forgot,’ ‘bothersome,’ ‘time consuming,’ ‘inconvenient,’ ‘no one does it,’ ‘no rule,’ ‘no consideration,’ ‘cost,’ ‘no chance to do,’ ‘not environmentally-friendly,’ ‘not cool,’ ‘not necessary to do’ and ‘other.’ The R-group were asked whether they had tried to increase their refill product purchasing in the previous one month. The respondents were asked to choose an answer from this list: ‘increased greatly,’ ‘increased to some extent,’ ‘did not change my behavior,’ and ‘never used refill products.’ The respondents who selected ‘did not change my behavior’ or ‘never used refill products’ were asked to select one reason from the list shown above. The follow-up survey was conducted using the same company as for the previous survey (Intage Inc., Japan) during 10–17 November 2016. A total of 1,093 respondents replied, representing 45% of the respondents who had replied to the previous questionnaire. Concerning previous knowledge, most of the WA respondents the differences between performing waste separation in Bangkok compared to Tokyo and Seoul were larger or a bit larger than what they had imagined (KWA). One-third of the WL respondents said they had been fairly aware (30.9%) and another one-third had been well aware (29.4%) of the mechanism of environmental-load reduction through waste separation (KWL). The respondents who had never, seldom or slightly been aware of the mechanism accounted for 15%. One-third of the RL respondents said they had been fairly aware (30.3%) of environmental-load reduction through use of refills instead of single-use products (KRL). Another third of respondents had never (8.6%), seldom (5.9%), or slightly (14.2%) been aware of it. Among the RA respondents, 32% said that they had been aware of all categories presented in the information provided, and 36% had not been aware of one category. The least known category was car and air refill products (36.3%), followed that thought Usefulness of Information Provided The socio-demographic characteristics of all the subgroups were similar. The ratio of males to females was 50% and most respondents were in their 20s or 30s, had an undergraduate degree and lived in detached houses with a family size of 3–5 people. Table 3 Mean scores of attitudes after and before. Group WL WA RL RA Measuring question: “How important is waste separation (WL, WA) /purchasing refill products (RL, RA) to preserving the environment and conserving our natural resources?” using a six-point scale. Effect of Life Cycle Thinking-based Information on Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors Attitude (after) S.D. Mean 5.66 0.56 0.59 5.70 0.66 5.56 5.45 0.68 Attitude (before) S.D. Mean 5.66 0.61 0.56 5.69 0.72 5.33 5.28 0.76 by instant drink products (19.5%). Concerning the respondents’ degree of understanding of the information, scores of 1–6 were provided from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree.’ Between the two types of information, LCT-based information showed slightly higher average scores (WL, 5.48; RL, 5.56) than alternative information types (WA, 5.45; RA, 5.53), but the differences were not significant (t-test, p>0.05). The average scores on usefulness are presented in Table 2. Between two significantly different scores on usefulness, LCT-based showed higher average scores than the alternative information types (t-test, p<0.05). The same questions about attitude were asked of the respondents before and after they received the information, and the differences in scores between A1before and A1after were analyzed by paired t-test to determine the effects of information on attitude change. The differences between A1before and A1after were small for waste separation cases (WA and WL) and not significantly different (Table 3). However, RL and RA groups showed significantly higher scores for A1after than A1before (t-test, p<0.05). The RL showed a higher average score of change than the RA, but the difference was not significant (t = 1.08, df = 812, p=0.28). In addition, Cohen’s d effect size was calculated for determining the size of each information type’s effect on attitude. A relatively minor effect was observed in the W groups (d < 0.2, Fritz et al., 2012) while a small (d = 0.2) to medium (d = 0.5) level was observed in the R groups. It should be noted that the score of A1before was already high and there was limited room for improvement as measured by the six-point scale. The average scores of A1before for waste separation were higher than those for refill products. De Young (1990) also found that a high antecedent attitude toward recycling (4.40 out of a maximum of 5) was a possible reason for unimproved attitude (4.21 of 5) after an education program. To deal with this issue, additional analyses were carried out; the respondents were divided into two groups: Measuring question: ‘Do you think this information is helpful?’ using a six-point scale. N 411 407 409 405 Mean 5.55 5.45 5.61 5.46 Paired t-test (two-tailed) 0.01 0.02 0.32 0.23 p=0.866 p=0.749 p<0.005 p<0.005 information S.D. 0.59 0.71 0.64 0.63 t-test p=0.025 p=0.001 61 3.2 Effects on Attitudes and Intentions Table 2 Mean scores on usefulness of information types. Group WL WA RL RA Effect size (Cohen’s d) 3. Results 3.1 Prior Knowledge, Comprehensibility and

元のページ  ../index.html#67

このブックを見る