Global_Environmental_Research_Vol.25No1&2
68/124

62 low and high A1before levels. The cut-off point was set based on the proportion of respondents’ answers. Respondents who had rated A1before at ‘6’ were counted as the high baseline group (WAhigh and WLhigh), whereas the respondents who had rated at ‘5’ or lower were counted as the low baseline group (WAlow and WLlow). The results showed that the average scores of changes were larger in the low baseline groups for both information types, 0.50 for WAlow (n = 109) and 0.49 for WLlow (n = 112), than those in the whole sample groups, 0.01 for WA (n = 407) and 0.00 for WL (n = 411), and these increases were also significant (t-test, p<0.01). The almost equal size of attitude changes between WAlow (0.50) and WLlow (0.49) indicated slightly different effects of information types on changes in attitude among the low baseline groups. Most respondents in both high baseline groups, 87% for WAhigh (n = 298) and 83% for WLhigh (n = 299), showed no change after receiving information. The average scores were slightly negative (WAhigh, −0.17; WLhigh, −0.18), with no significant effect of information types (t-test, p>0.05). The effects of information provision were also investigated for differences between baseline practices and intentions. The scores on practice rate asked before and intention to do asked after information provision were compared. It is important to note, however, that the questions themselves were different (current practice rate and intention to do) and different measuring scales were used: ‘always,’ ‘often,’ ‘sometimes,’ ‘seldom,’ ‘rarely,’ and ‘never’ for practice; but ‘absolutely,’ ‘certainly,’ ‘possibly,’ ‘moderately,’ ‘may not,’ and ‘never’ for the intention scale. Therefore, with careful interpretation, the differences between practice and intention could be compared only among the same behavior: waste separation or refill product purchase. The average scores on differences between baseline practice and intention to perform waste separation are shown in Table 4. The scores were calculated from the intention score minus the baseline practice score. The score of the WA group was higher than that of WL group. The scores of both treatment groups were lower than the control group score, but there were no significant differences between the scores of the control and treatment groups (t-test, p>0.05). In short, there were no differences between the respondents with and without the information terms of changes between baseline practices and intention to peform waste separation. in For refill products (Table 4), both treatment groups had significantly higher scores than the control group (t-test, p<0.05), with the RL group non-significantly higher than that of RA group. One month later, another survey was carried out to follow up on changes in behaviors of all the respondents that participated in the first survey. The response rate the score of S. PHUPHISITH et al. Table 5 Follow-up scores of practices by groups. GroupWC WL WA RC RL RA Measuring questions for baseline practice: ‘How often do you do waste separation?’ (WC, WL, WA); ‘How often do you buy refill products?’ (RC, RL, RA). Measuring questions for intention: ‘How much will you try to do or keep doing waste separation within this month?’ (WC, WL, WA); ‘How much will you try to buy or keep buying refill products within this month?’ (RC, RL, RA). All responses were measured using a six-point scale. Measuring questions for baseline practice: ‘Last month, did you do waste separation?’ (WC, WL, WA); ‘Last month, did you try to increase your purchase of refill products?’ (RC, RL, RA). All responses were measured using a six-point scale. S.D. 0.99 1.07 1.06 0.93 1.08 1.20 Comparison N Mean4.52 1864.36 1764.51 1761982.75 1882.86 1692.76 S.D. 1.36 1.44 1.29 0.90 0.89 0.95 is, 3.3 Effects on Follow-up Practice range was 41.7% –48.3% for all subgroups. The numbers of females were higher than males in all subgroups, but the other major characteristics were similar to those in the first survey. The average scores on state of practice during the month are shown in Table 5; the scores were calculated from ‘never’ = 1 to ‘always’ = 6. The scores of the treatment groups (WA, WL) were lower than those of the control group (WC), but the differences were not significant (t-test, p>0.05). That there was no significant difference in follow-up practices between the respondents with and without information provision. Although follow-up practices were asked about using the same scale as for the baseline practice rates—a six-point scale—no direct comparison was possible because the questions differed slightly. The follow-up survey used the words ‘previous month,’ but no specific period had been indicated in the previous survey. The difference in the wording could have some impact on the respondents’ perceptions or feelings in their reports about their practices. For refill-product behavior, the respondents were asked about their practices using a four-point scale, and the average scores were calculated from ‘never or not used’ = 1 to ‘increased greatly’ = 4. Both treatment groups (RL, RA) had higher scores than the control (RC), but the differences were not significant (t-test, p>0.05; Table 5). In addition to the practice rates, the respondents who selected ‘never,’ ‘rarely’ or ‘seldom’ for the previous- month target behaviors were asked to choose one reason for not doing so. The three waste separation groups (WC, WL and WA) showed similarities in major reasons for not Table 4 Mean scores of baseline practices and intentions by groups.GroupMean change0.51 WC WL 0.47 0.50 WA 0.41 RC 0.64 RL RA 0.56 t-test p-value WC vs WL WC vs WA RC vs RL RC vs RA RL vs RA p=0.532 p=0.823 p=0.001 p=0.039 p=0.348 t-test Comparison p-value WC vs WL WC vs WA p=0.283 p=0.910 RC vs RL RC vs RA p=0.257 p=0.912

元のページ  ../index.html#68

このブックを見る