consumers' perception on packaged …shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/33808/4/...103...

103

CHAPTER IV

CONSUMERS' PERCEPTION ON

PACKAGED DRINKING WATER

Introduction

Consumer behaviour is the study of when, why, how, and where people do or do

not buy a product. It blends elements from psychology, sociology, social anthropology

and economics. It attempts to understand the buyer decision making process, both

individually and in groups. It studies characteristics of individual consumers such as

demographics and behavioural variables in an attempt to understand people's wants.

It also tries to assess influences on the consumer from groups such as family, friends,

reference groups, and society in general.1

Consumers Behaviour

Consumers are growing more health-conscious and are more careful of their

drinking habits. Brand loyalty is very high as all the products differ in taste. So they can

buy product which is on the shelf, same as that of soft drink and fruit beverage.

Availability in the chilled form and brand awareness plays a crucial role in purchase

decisions. Availability is another factor that should be taken care of by the companies as

consumers depend on availability of the products.

Consumers often drink packaged drinking water as an alternative to tap water.

They think it tastes better (no chlorine taste) and perceive it to be safer and of better

quality. They also look for security. Food scandals in industrialized countries and

waterborne diseases in developing countries greatly influence consumers‟ attitudes.

It is perceived as a healthy alternative to other beverages.

Higher living standards and auto usage enable people to easily bring home more and

heavier packaged drinking water. At the office, packaged drinking water is now a common

1 J. Scott Armstrong (1991). "Prediction of Consumer Behavior by Experts and Novices", Journal of

Consumer Research Inc. pp. 251–256

Please purchase PDF Split-Merge on www.verypdf.com to remove this watermark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_(business)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer

104

sight on the desk next to the computer and the telephone. Drinking packaged drinking water

is a sign in the social scale. Above all, it has become a huge marketing success.

Model followed for the study

The black box model shows the interaction of stimuli, consumer characteristics, and

decision process and consumer responses.2 It can be distinguished between interpersonal

stimuli (between people) or intrapersonal stimuli (within people). The black box model is

related to the black box theory of behaviourism, where the focus is not set on the processes

inside a consumer, but the relation between the stimuli and the response of the consumer. The

marketing stimuli are planned and processed by the companies, whereas the environmental

stimuli are given by social factors, based on the economical, political and cultural

circumstances of a society.3 The buyers‟ black box contains the buyer characteristics and the

decision process, which determines the buyers‟ response. The black box model considers the

buyers response as a result of a conscious, rational decision process, in which it is assumed

that the buyer has recognized the problem. However, in reality many decisions are not made

in awareness of a determined problem by the consumer.

Figure - 4.1

Black Box Model (OR) Stimulus Response Model

ENVIRONMENTAL

FACTORS BUYER'S BLACK BOX

BUYER'S

RESPONSE Marketing

Stimuli

Environmental

Stimuli

Buyer

Characteristics

Decision

Process

Product

Price

Place

Promotion

Economic

Technological

Political

Cultural

Demographic

Natural

Attitudes

Motivation

Perceptions

Personality

Lifestyle

Knowledge

Problem recognition

Information search

Alternative

evaluation

Purchase decision

Post-purchase

behaviour

Product choice

Brand choice

Dealer choice

Purchase

timing

Purchase

amount

2 J. Scott Armstrong (1991). "Prediction of Consumer Behavior by Experts and Novices". Journal of

Consumer Research, Inc.pp. 251–256 3 J. Scott Armstrong and Terry Overton (1971). "Brief vs. Comprehensive Descriptions in Measuring

Intentions to Purchase". 114-117


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulus_(psychology)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing

http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/ideas/pdf/armstrong2/brief.pdf

http://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/ideas/pdf/armstrong2/brief.pdf

105

History

The modern term "black box" seems to have entered the English language around

1945. The process of network synthesis from the transfer functions of black boxes can be

traced to Wilhelm Cauer who published his ideas in their most developed form in 1941.4

Although Cauer did not himself use the term, others who followed him certainly did

describe the method as black-box analysis.5 Vitold Belevitch

6 puts the concept of

black-boxes even earlier, attributing the explicit use of two-port networks as black boxes

to Franz Breisig in 1921 and argues that 2-terminal components were implicitly treated as

black-boxes before that.7

This Model also called the Stimulus Response Model is based on the Phylosofical

Theory of Behaviourism, which uses a metaphor of a black box to represent the human

mind, the internal processes that are unknown, and learning happens when a correct

response is demonstrated following the presentation of a specific environmental stimulus.

Emphasis is put on external, environmental variables and behaviour, where those are

observable and measureable.

The Black Box model shows the interaction between Marketing stimuli,

Environmental stimuli, buyer characteristics, the decision process and the outputs or

consumer responses. Marketing stimuli comprises all its 4 P's while the environmental

stimulus is composed of social, economical, technological and political variables. All of

these stimuli have a direct effect on the consumer's "black box" where the buyer's

characteristic such has attitudes, perception or personality and decision process will

produce an adequate response. By this model the consumer behaviour is dictated and

inferred directly from the response to the stimuli, in the form of retailer choice, brand

choice or for example purchase frequency has shown in the figure above.

4 W. Cauer. Theorie der linearen Wechselstromschaltungen, Vol.I. Akad. Verlags-Gesellschaft Becker und

Erler, Leipzig, 1941 5 E. Cauer, W. Mathis, and R. Pauli, "Life and Work of Wilhelm Cauer (1900 – 1945)", Proceedings of the

Fourteenth International Symposium of Mathematical Theory of Networks and Systems (MTNS2000),

p4, Perpignan, June, 2000. Retrieved online 19th September 2008 6 Belevitch, V, "Summary of the history of circuit theory", Proceedings of the IRE, Vol. 50, Issue 5,

pp.848-855, May 1962 7 Boris, Beizer (1995). “Black-Box Testing: Techniques for Functional Testing of Software and Systems”,.

ISBN. 0471120944


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_synthesis_filters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_function

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Cauer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitold_Belevitch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-port_network

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Breisig

http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall03/cs323/links/cauer.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0471120944

106

The black box has a place of rational decision making where the decision process is

carried out in its full extension. But we now know that irrational decisions are made, and

this is a decisive critique to the model. As an extension of Behaviourism this knowledge

is based mainly on philosophical research and thought and not in science. All the

variables shown are accepted in most models but the core of this theory the black box has

been broken down today and it is no more a dark place. In recent neuroscience advances

and research we know what physiological processes are involved in decision making and

how they affect and influence our responses.

Figure - 4.2

Conceptual Model for Consumer

Source: developed for this research based on black box model

Gender

Age

Education

Marital status

Nature of house

Occupation

Monthly income

Number of earning

members in family

Product choice

Brand choice

Dealer choice

Knowledge

Purchase timing

Purchase amount

Alternative

Demographic factors

(Independent variables)

Psychological factors

(Independent variables)

Consumer

perception

(Dependent

variable)


107

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Demographic Details of the Respondents

The demographic details of the respondents were collected to examine the

purchase behaviour of packaged drinking water. An effort has been made to study the

usage of the packaged drinking water among the consumers based on their physiological

and psychological needs and depending on their social-cultural role. Hence, the present

study considers gender, age, and education as an important demographic factor. Table 4.1

describes the distribution of respondents with reference to gender, age and education.

Table - 4.1

Demographic Details of the Respondents

Gender of the Respondents Frequency(N=578) Percentage

Male 364 63.0

Female 214 37.0

Age of the Respondents

18-27 years 117 20.2

28-37 years 244 42.2

38- 47 years 114 19.7

48- 57 years 71 12.3

Above 57 years 32 5.6

Education of the Respondents

School 57 9.9

Diploma 144 24.8

College 246 42.6

Professional 131 22.7

It is inferred from table 4.1 that out of 578 total respondents 63 per cent of the

respondents were males and 37 per cent of them were females. More than three - fifth of

the total respondents were male.


108

20.2 per cent of the respondents belonged to 18-27 years age group. 42.2 per cent

belonged to the age group of 28-37. Respondents belonging to the age group of 38-47

and 48- 57 years amount to 19.7 and 12.3 per cent respectively and 5.6 per cent of the

total respondents belonged to the age group of above 57 years. Majority of (42.2 %) the

respondents belonged to age group of 28-37 years.

It is also understood from the table 4.1 that 9.9 per cent of the respondents had

School education. 24.8 per cent of the respondents were Diploma holders. 42.6 per cent

had college education and 22.7 of the respondents have Professional education. Majority

(42.6%) of the respondents had college education.

Family Profile of the Respondents

Marital status and size of the family of the respondent will influence the buying of

packaged drinking water when the respondent is married; the decision on usage depends

upon the number of family members based on marital status. Table 4.2 illustrates the

information about the personal profile of the respondents such as marital status, nature of

house, type of family, and number of family members of the respondents.

Table - 4.2

Family Profile of the Respondents

Marital Status Frequency(N=578) Percentage

Married 355 61.4

Unmarried 223 38.6

Nature of House

Rented house 398 68.9

Own house 180 31.1

Size of Family Members

Up to 4 members 429 74.2

Above 4 members 149 25.8

Table 4.2 reveals that 61.4 per cent of total respondents were married and 38.6 per cent

of the respondents were unmarried. Majority (61.4%) of the respondents were married.


109

68.9 per cent of the respondents are residents in the rented houses and 31.1 per cent

of the respondents were residents of own house. Majority (68.9 %) of the respondents

were residents in rented house.

While considering the size of the family of the respondents , it was found that the

families of 74.2 per cent of the respondents had up to 4 members and 25.8 per cent of the

respondents‟ families had more than 4 members. Maximum (74.2%) of the respondents

had less than 4 members in their family.

Income Profile of the Respondents

Occupation tends to differentiate potential buyers in terms of their interest and

capacity to pursue their desires. Table 4.3 demonstrates information about the income of

the respondents such as occupation and monthly income of the family of the respondents.

Table - 4.3

Income Profile of the Respondents

Occupation of the Respondents Frequency(N=578) Percentage

Business 42 7.3

Private Employee 143 24.7

Marketing executive 157 27.2

Government Employee 52 9.0

Professional 54 9.3

Homemaker 82 14.2

Student 48 8.3

Monthly Income of the Family

Below Rs.10, 000 66 11.4

Rs.10,001-15,000 158 27.3

Rs. 15,001-20,000 199 34.4

Rs.20,001- 25,000 116 20.1

Above 25,000 39 6.9


110

It is known from Table 4.3 that 7.3 per cent of total respondents run business.

24.7 per cent of the respondents work in private sector, 27.2 per cent of the respondents were

marketing executives. 9.0 per cent and 9.3 per cent were government employee and

professionals, respectively 14.2 were homemakers and the remaining 8.3 per cent of the

respondents were student. The majority of (27.2%) the respondents were marketing executives.

It also reveals that 11.4 per cent of the total respondents come under the income

group less than 10,000 per month. 27.3 per cent of the respondents come under the

income group between Rs.10, 001-15,000. 34.4 per cent of the respondents come under

the income group of 15,001-20,000. 20.1 per cent of the respondents belonged to

Rs.20, 000- Rs.25, 000 and the remaining 6.9 per cent of the respondents come under the

income group of above Rs. 25,000 per month. Majority (34.4%) of the respondents come

under the income group of 15,001-20,000.

Sources of Knowledge about Packaged Drinking Water

Brand name plays a vital role in marketing of products. It tells about the quality, taste,

price and maintenance of standard. People get knowledge about the product on the basis of

advertisement in different sources. Table 4.4 exhibits the information about the brand

awareness and sources of knowledge about packaged drinking water of the respondents.

Table - 4.4

Sources of Knowledge about Packaged Drinking Water

Awareness of Packaged Drinking Water Frequency(N=578) Percentage

Yes 578 100

No Nil Nil

Sources about Packaged Drinking Water

Advertisement 43 7.4

Shopkeeper 26 4.5

Neighbour 101 17.5

Friends and relatives 133 23.0

Salesman 245 42.4

All 30 5.2


111

Table 4.4 implies that 100 per cent of total respondents were aware of the

packaged drinking water. It is also observed that 7.4 per cent of the respondents came to

know about packaged drinking water through advertisements, 4.5 per cent of the

respondents got knowledge about packaged drinking water through shopkeepers, 17.5 of

the respondents were introduced to packaged drinking water by neighbours, 23 per cent

of the respondents came to know about packaged drinking water through friends and

relatives, 42.4 per cent of the respondents became aware of the packaged drinking water

through salesmen and 5.2 per cent of the respondents came to know about packaged

drinking water through all the above mentioned sources. Majority (42.4 %) of the

respondents got knowledge about packaged drinking water through salesman.

Awareness through Media of advertisement

Advertising is a form of communication used to encourage or persuade an audience

(viewers, readers or listeners; sometimes a specific group of people) to continue or take

some new action. The purpose of advertising may also be to reassure employees or

shareholders that a company is viable or successful. Advertising messages are usually

paid for by sponsors and viewed via various traditional media; including mass media

such as newspaper, magazine, television commercial, radio advertisement, outdoor

advertising or direct mail; or new media such as blogs, websites or text messages.

Table 4.5 describes information about the awareness through media of advertisement

about packaged drinking water among the respondents.

Table - 4.5

Awareness through Media of Advertisement

Media of Advertisement Frequency Percentage

Newspaper and Magazine 1 2.3

Banners and Hoarding 4 9.3

Pamphlets and notice 5 11.6

Television 7 16.3

Radio 5 11.6

Window display 12 28.0

All 9 20.9

Total 43 100


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuade

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsor_(commercial)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_media

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_commercial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_advertisement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outdoor_advertising

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outdoor_advertising

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_mail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_media

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Website

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_messaging

112

It is observed from Table 4.5 that 2.3 per cent of respondents out of 43 total

respondents had the awareness of the packaged drinking water through newspaper and

magazine, 9.3 per cent and 11.6 per cent of the respondents had awareness through

banners and hoarding, pamphlets and notice. It also observed that 16.3 per cent and

28 per cent of the respondents came to know through television and radio, 11.6 per cent

and 20.9 per cent of the respondents got knowledge about packaged drinking water

through window display and all the sources respectively. Majority of (28.0%) the

respondents had awareness through media of advertisement by window display.

Purchase Time of Packaged Drinking Water

Packaged drinking water may be very useful and handy in times or place where tap

water is unavailable or of bad quality. Yet in most developed countries, as well as many

developing countries there is a good market for packaged drinking water of good quality.

Table 4.6 exhibits the information about the purchase time of packaged drinking water

among the respondents.

Table - 4.6

Purchase Time of Packaged Drinking Water

Purchase Time Frequency Percentage

Travel alone 34 5.9

Travel and Domestic use 147 25.4

Party time 79 13.7

Scarcity of water 77 13.3

Contamination in tap water 85 14.7

All 156 27.0

Total 578 100.0

Table 4.6 shows that 5.9 per cent of the total respondents purchased the packaged

drinking water at the time of travelling alone. 25.4 of the respondents purchased

packaged drinking water at time of travel and for domestic use. 13.7 per cent of the

respondents bought for party time, 13.3 per cent and 14.7 per cent of the respondents


113

bought when there was scarcity and contamination in tap water respectively. It was also

observed that 27 per cent of the respondents bought packaged drinking water all the time.

Majority of (27%) the respondents consumed packaged drinking water all the time.

Preference of Package by the Respondents

Consumers‟ preference of packaged drinking water depends on brand name, nature

of package and period of purchase. These factors play a vital role in marketing of

products. Hence these factors are examined in this present study. Table 4.7 explains the

preference of package by the respondents.

Table - 4.7

Preference of Package by the Respondents

Type of Packaged Drinking Water Frequency(N=578) Percentage

Branded 501 86.7

Branded and Non-Branded 77 13.3

Nature of package

Polyethylene pouch 43 7.4

PET Bottle 446 77.2

Both 89 15.4

It is clear from Table 4.7 that 86.7 per cent of respondents prefered branded

packaged drinking water. 13.3 per cent of the respondents prefered branded and also non-

branded. It also reveals that 7.4 per cent of the respondents prefered drinking water

packaged in Polyethylene pouches, 77.2 per cent of the respondents prefered drinking

water packaged in PET bottle and 15.4 of the respondents prefered both. Majority of

(86.7) the respondents prefered branded packaged drinking water.

Purchase Period of Packaged Drinking Water

Table 4.8 shows the distribution of the respondents‟ purchase period of packaged

drinking water such as Less than a year, 1-3 years, more than 3 years - 5 years, more than

5 years -7 years, more than 7-10 years, above 10 years.


114

Table - 4.8

Purchase Period of Packaged Drinking Water

Purchase Period of Packaged

Drinking water Frequency(N=578) Percentage

Less than a year 22 3.8

1-3 years 81 14.0

More than 3 years - 5 years 206 35.6

More than 5 years -7 years 158 27.3

More than 7-10 years 55 9.6

Above 10 years 56 9.7

Table 4.8 reveals that 3.8 per cent of the respondents had been buying packaged

drinking water for less than a year. 14.0 per cent and 35.6 of the respondents had been

purchasing packaged drinking water for 1 year to 3 years and more than 3 years to 5

years respectively. 27.3 per cent and 9.6 per cent of the respondents had been purchasing

packaged drinking water for 5 years to 7 years and 7 years to 10 years respectively and

the remaining 9.7 per cent of the respondents had been purchasing packaged drinking

water for over 10 years. Majority (35.6%) of the respondents had been consuming

packaged drinking water for more than 3 years to 5 years.

Quantum of Purchase of Packaged Drinking Water at a Time

The quantity of monthly consumption of packaged drinking water differs.

It depends upon the need of the family. Table 4.9 indicates the quantum of packaged

drinking by a family in a month.


115

Table - 4.9

Quantum of Purchase of Packaged Drinking Water at a Time

Quantum of Purchase of Packaged

Drinking Water at a Time Frequency Percentage

1 litre PET bottle 48 8.3

2 litre PET bottles 108 18.7

5 litre cans 66 11.4

20 litre cans 356 61.6

Total 578 100.0

It is confirmed from Table 4.9 that 8.3 per cent of respondents out of total

respondents purchased 1 litre packaged drinking water at a time. 18.7 per cent of the

respondents bought 2 litres at a time. 11.4 per cent of the respondents bought 5 litres at a

time and the remaining 61.6 per cent of the respondents purchased 20 litres at a time.

Majority of (61.6%) the respondents purchased 20 litre can at a time.

Purchase Point of Packaged Drinking Water

Packaged drinking water is available in all places throughout the city. People buy

packaged drinking water according to their needs. Table 4.10 shows the purchase point of

packaged drinking water, it is important to know from which place the consumers are

buying packaged drinking water such as from dealer point, medical shop, nearby place,

restaurant, grocery shop, soft drink shop, vendors in bus stand and railway, bakery and

from any place.


116

Table - 4.10

Purchase Point of Packaged Drinking Water

Purchase Point of Packaged Drinking Water Frequency Percentage

Dealer point 49 8.5

Medical Shop 47 8.1

Nearby place 68 11.8

Restaurant 58 10.0

Grocery Shop 40 6.9

Soft Drink Shop 86 14.9

Vendors in Bus Stand and Railway Station 56 9.7

Bakery 47 8.1

Any place 127 22.0

Total 578 100.0

It is known from table 4.10 that 8.5 per cent of respondents purchased packaged

drinking water from dealer point, 8.1 per cent and 11.8 per cent of the respondents

purchased packaged drinking water from medical shop and nearby place. 10.0 per cent

and 6.9 per cent of the respondents bought packaged drinking water from restaurant and

grocery shop respectively. 14.9 per cent and 9.7 per cent of the respondents bought

packaged drinking water from soft drink shop and vendors in bus stand and railway

station and the remaining 22.0 per cent of the respondents purchased packaged drinking

water from any place. Majority (22.0%) of the respondents purchased packaged drinking

water at any place.


117

Amount Spent for Purchasing of Packaged Drinking Water in a Month

Table 4.11 exhibits the distribution of respondents on the amount spent in a month

for packaged drinking water.

Table - 4.11

Amount Spent for Purchasing of Packaged Drinking Water in a Month

Amount Spent for Packaged

Drinking Water Frequency Percentage

Less than Rs.200 23 4.0

Rs.201-Rs.400 85 14.7

Rs.401- Rs.600 133 23.0

Above Rs.600 337 58.3

Total 578 100.0

It is clear from table 4.11 that 4.0 per cent of respondents spent less than

Rs. 100 per month for buying packaged drinking water. 14.7 per cent of the respondents

spent Rs. 201 – Rs. 400. 23.0 per cent of the respondents spent Rs.401 – Rs.600 and

58.3 per cent of the respondents spent above Rs. 600 per month. Majority of (58.0%) the

respondents spent above Rs. 600 in a month for packaged drinking water.

Checking the Content in the Label of Packaged Drinking Water

Consumer of any product should be careful while buying a packed product.

They should verify the expiry date, price etc. Table 4.12 explains whether the customer

check the information about packaged drinking water printed on the label and what are

the specific information they check.


118

Table - 4.12

Checking the information in the Label on Packaged Drinking Water

Checking the information in the Label on

Packaged Drinking Water Frequency Percentage

Yes 135 23.4

No 443 76.6

Total 578 100.0

Items Checked in the Label

Manufacture Date only 13 9.7

Price only 60 44.4

Both 62 45.9

Total 135 100.0

It is evident from the table 4.12 that out of 578 respondents 23.4 per cent of the

respondents did not check the information on the label of packaged drinking water and

76.6 per cent of the respondents checked the information in the label. Table 5.12 also

reveals that out of 135 respondents 9.7 per cent of the respondents checked manufacture

date only. 44.4 per cent of the respondent checked price only and the remaining 45.9 of

the respondents checked both. Majority (76.6%) of the respondents do not check the

information printed in the label.

Paying More than Maximum Retail Price for Packaged Drinking Water

Sometimes, consumers are forced to pay more than the maximum retail price for

the products which they purchase. Table 4.13 represents the distribution of respondents

who paid more than the maximum retail price and it also indicates the place where the

respondents paid more than the maximum retail price for packaged drinking water.


119

Table - 4.13

Paying More than Maximum Retail Price for Packaged Drinking Water

Paying More than Maximum Retail Price Frequency Percentage

Yes 93 76.2

No 29 23.8

Total 122 100.0

Place Paid More than Maximum Retail Place

Restaurant 10 10.8

Soft Drink Shop 21 22.6

Medical shop 14 15.0

Bus Stand and Railway station 48 51.6

Total 93 100.0

It is obvious from the table 4.13 that out of 122 respondents 76.23 per cent of them

paid more than the maximum retail price for packaged drinking water and 23.77 per cent of

the respondents did not pay more than maximum retail price for packaged drinking water.

Maximum (76.2%) of the respondents had paid more than the maximum retail price for

packaged drinking water.

Table 4.13 also exposes that 10.8 per cent of the respondents paid more than the

maximum retail price at restaurants. 22.6 and 15.0 per cent of the respondents paid more

than the maximum retail price at soft drink shops and medical shops respectively and the

remaining 51.6 of the respondents paid more than the maximum retail price at bus

stands and railway stations. Majority (51.6%) of the respondents paid more than the

maximum retail price at bus stands and railway stations.

Complaints against Packaged Drinking Water

Table 4.14 signifies the distribution of respondents regarding complaints made on

packaged drinking water regarding packing, quality, price and taste.


120

Table - 4.14

Complaints against Packaged Drinking Water

Have Complaints on Packaged Drinking Water Frequency Percentage

Yes 251 43.4

No 327 56.6

Total 578 100

If yes, the Complaint in the Nature

Packing 44 17.5

Quality 55 21.9

Price 72 28.7

Taste 80 31.9

Total 251 100

It is observed from the table 4.14 that out of 578 respondents who used packaged

drinking water, 43.4 per cent of the respondents had different kinds of complaints and

56.6 per cent of the respondents do not have any complaints on packaged drinking water.

Majority of (56.6%) of the respondents did not have any complaints on packaged

drinking water.

Table 4.14 also exposes that 17.5 per cent of the respondents have complaints on

packing; 21.9 per cent and 31.9 per cent of the respondents had complaints on quality and

price, the remaining 28.7 of the respondents had complaints on the taste of the packaged

drinking water. Majority (31.9%) of the respondents had complaints on the taste of the


Complaints made Regarding Packaged Drinking Water

Table 4.15 indicates the distribution of respondents who made complaints on

packaged drinking water to concerned seller or not.


121

Table - 4.15

Complaints Made Regarding Packaged Drinking Water

The Complainant Frequency Percentage

Seller 82 32.7

None 169 67.3

Total 251 100.0

It is evident from the table 4.15 that out of 251 respondents who had complaints

about packaged drinking water 32.7 per cent of the respondents had made complaints to

the seller and 67.3 per cent of the respondents did not make any complaints on packaged

drinking water. A majority (67.3%) of the respondents did not made complaint on

packaged drinking water to anyone.

Awareness about the Environment Impact of Packaged Drinking Water

The improper disposal of single-serving PET bottles used for bottled water can

cause a heavy burden on the environment. Although PET bottles recycling rate is

unknown at a global level, it is estimated to be very low. Data for the United States, the

leading country of bottled water consumption in the world, might roughly reflect the

global PET bottles recycling rate. There are real environmental impacts of extracting

large volumes of water from local aquifers and of producing and disposing of plastic

containers. It is estimated that $100 billion are conservatively annually spent to purchase

bottled water worldwide. It is the failure to meet basic human needs for water should not

open the door to replacing a public good with a private commodity, but rather should

motivate to spend the same resources to produce a more widely available, and far less

costly, public product. Table 4.16 shows the awareness about the environment impact of

packaged drinking water among the respondents.


122

Table - 4.16

Awareness about the Environment Impact of Packaged Drinking Water

Awareness about the Environment Impact Frequency Percentage

Yes 255 44.1

No 323 55.9

Total 578 100.0

If yes, the Nature of Impact on Environment known

Ground water exploitation 21 8.2

Usage of plastic for packing water 141 55.3

Both 93 36.5

Total 255 100.0

It is obvious from the table 4.16 that 44.1 per cent of the respondents were a

aware of the environment impact of packaged drinking water and 55.9 per cent of the

respondents were not aware of the environment impact of packaged drinking water.

Majority of (55.9%) of the respondents were not aware of the environment impact of


It also implies that 8.2 per cent of the respondents were aware of ground water

exploitation. 55.3 per cent of the respondents had awareness regarding usage of plastic

for packing water and 36.5 per cent of the respondents were aware of ground water

exploitation and usage of plastic for packing water. More than five-tenth of the

respondents were aware that usage of plastic will affect the environment.

Disposal of Non-Returnable Bottles by the Respondents

In terms of manufacturing costs, the Earth Policy Institute estimates that around

1.5 million tons of plastic are used globally each year in water bottles, Instead of relying

on a mostly pre-existing infrastructure of underground pipes and plumbing, delivering

bottled water to North America from far-off places such as Italy, France, Iceland, and the

islands of southern Pacific burns fossil fuels and results in the release of thousands of

tons of harmful emissions and pollutants. Table 4.17 indicates the disposing pattern of

non returnable bottle by the respondents.


123

Table - 4.17

Disposal of Non-Returnable Cans by the Respondents

After using the Non returnable Cane Frequency Percentage

Crush 494 85.5

Re-use 84 14.5

Total 578 100.0

If Crushed the Place of Disposal

Dustbin 150 30.4

Any place 344 69.6

Total 494 100.0

It is inferred from table 4.17 that 85.5 per cent of the respondents used to crush

the non-returnable bottles after using and 14.5 per cent of the respondents re-used the

non-returnable can. Majority of (85.5%) the respondents crushed the non-returnable

bottles after use.

It also reveals that out of 494 respondents, 30.4 per cent of the respondents

disposed the crushed cans in a dustbin properly. Whereas the remaining 69.6 per cent of

the respondents disposed the crushed cans at any place. Majority (69.6 %) of the

respondents disposed PET bottles at any place.

Re-Use of Non-Returnable Can and Awareness of Health Issues by the Respondents

Table 4.18 shows the reuse pattern of non-returnable bottle and awareness that re-

use of PET bottles will affect the health.


124

Table - 4.18

Re-Use of PET Bottles and Awareness of Health Issues by the Respondents

If re-use, Period of usage of the PET Bottle Frequency Percentage

1 Week 23 27.4

1 Month 51 60.7

More than 1 month 10 11.9

Total 84 100.0

Awareness that re-use of PET Bottle will Affect the

Health

Yes 38 45.2

No 46 54.8

Total 84 100.0

Table 4.18 reveals that out of 84 respondents 27.4 per cent of the respondents re-used

the PET bottle for one week, 60.7 per cent of the respondents re-used the PET bottle for

one month and 11.9 per cent of the respondents re-used the PET bottle for more than one

month. Majority of (60.7%) the respondents were re-using the PET bottle for one month.

It is also observed that 45.2 per cent of the respondents had the awareness that

re-use of can will affect the health and the remaining 54.8 per cent of the respondents

were not aware of the fact that the re-use of PET bottle will affect the health. Majority

(54.8 %) of the respondents did not have the awareness about the re-use of PET bottle

will affect the health.

Preference of Brand of Packaged Drinking Water by the Respondents

Brand personality is defined formally as the set of human characteristics

associated with a brand. Human personality perceptions are the basis of individual`s

behaviour, attitudes and beliefs, physical characteristics and demographic characteristics.

Table 4.19 illustrates which brand of packaged drinking water is preferred by the respondents.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic

125

Table - 4.19

Preference of Brand of Packaged Drinking Water by the Respondents

Brand Preference Frequency Percentage

Bisleri 94 16.3

Sabols 78 13.5

Kinley 70 12.1

Aqua sure 59 10.2

Kingfisher 43 7.4

Aquafina 102 17.6

Siruvani 48 8.3

Season 24 4.2

All 60 10.4

Total 578 100.0

Table 4.19 exhibits that out of 578 respondents 16.3 per cent of the respondents

preferred Bisleri, 13.5 percent of the respondents preferred Sabols, 12.1 percent of the

respondents preferred Kinley, 10.2 per cent of the respondents preferred Aquasure,

7.4 per cent of the respondents preferred Kingfisher, 17.6 per cent of the respondents

preferred Aquafina, 8.3 per cent of the respondents preferred Siruvani, 4.2 per cent of the

respondents preferred Season and the remaining 10.4 per cent of the respondent preferred

all brands. Majority (17.6%) of the respondents preferred Aquafina.

Reasons for Preferring a Specific Brand

Common characteristics or traits represented includes: uniqueness, sincerity,

intellectualism, competence, excitement and sophistication. The brand personality gives

consumers something with which they can relate, effectively increasing brand awareness

and popularity. Table 4.20 shows the distribution of respondents by the reason for

preferring the specific brand.


http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/common.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/competence.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/consumer.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/brand-awareness.html

126

Table - 4.20

Reasons for Preferring a Specific Brand

Reason Mean scores Rank

Good taste 6.56 I

Easy availability 2.72 V

Best quality 3.45 III

Convenient package 3.11 IV

Brand loyalty 4.32 II

Table 4.20 indicates the preference of the respondents for a particular brand. It is

because of various reasons like good taste, easy availability etc. “Good taste” is the first

reason followed by the brand loyalty , best quality , convenient package and easy availability

are third, fourth and fifth reasons for preferring a specific brand of packaged drinking water.

The higher the mean scores the higher the rank. Majority (with the highest mean score of

6.56) of the respondents prefered a particular brand because of the good taste.

Effect of Increase in Price on the Favourite Brand

Table 4.21 indicates the effect of price increment on the favourite brand concern

with percentage of increment of packaged drinking water.

Table - 4.21

Effect of Increase in Price on the Favourite Brand

Percentage of increase

in Price

Definitely

buy May buy Not sure

Definitely not

buy

Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage

10 83 17 Nil Nil

20 76 24 Nil Nil

30 Nil Nil 47 53

40 Nil Nil Nil 100


127

It is made known from table 4.21 that 83 per cent of the respondents opined that

they will definitely buy and the remaining 17 per cent of the respondent may buy when

there is 10 per cent of rise in price in their favourite brand. 76 per cent of the respondents said

they will definitely buy and the remaining 24 per cent of the respondents said that they may

buy when there is 20 per cent of rise in price in their favourite brand. 47 per cent of the

respondents were not sure whether they will buy or not sure and the remaining 53 per cent

of the respondents were sure that they definitely will not buy when there is 30 per cent of rise

in price in their favourite brand. 100 per cent of the respondents said that they will definitely

not buy when there is 40 per cent of rise in price in their favourite brand.

Shifted to Other Brand and Reason for Shifted

The consumer has power in the purchase chain, the consumer has the power in the

consumption and media and message chain. The consumers have a lot more choices.

Table 4.22 exhibits the distribution of respondents on shifting to other brands and the

reasons for shifting to other brands.

Table - 4.22

Shifting to Other Brands and Reasons for Shifting

Shifting to other Brands Frequency Percent

Yes 109 18.9

No 469 81.1

Total 578 100.0

Reasons for Shifting

Non-availability 51 46.8

Change in taste 39 35.8

Presence of fungus/dust/worms 19 17.4

Total 109 100.0


128

It is obvious from the table 4.22 that 18.9 per cent of the respondents had shifted

to other brands of packaged drinking water and 81.1 per cent of the respondents did not

shift to other brands of packaged drinking water. It also shows that 46.8 per cent of the

respondents had shifted to other brands because of Non- availability, 35.8 per cent of the

respondents had shifted due to change in taste and 17.4 per cent of the respondents had

shifted because of Presence of fungus/dust/worms in packaged drinking water. Majority

of (81.1%) the respondents did not shift to other brands of packaged drinking water.

More than four-tenth of the respondents shifted to other brands due to change in taste.

Water Purifier at Home

Water purifier is one of the threats for marketing of packaged drinking water.

The consumers are ready to purchase packaged drinking water even though the

respondents have water purifiers at home. Table 4.23 shows the distribution of

respondents having water purifiers at home.

Table - 4.23

Water Purifier at Home

Water Purifier at Home Frequency Percentage

Yes 173 29.9

No 405 70.1

Total 578 100.0

It is observed from the table 4.23 that out of 578 respondents 43.4 per cent of the

respondents had water purifiers at home and 70.1 per cent of the respondents did not have

water purifiers at home. Seven-tenth of the respondents did not have water purifiers at home.

Plan to buy Water Purifier in Future

Table 4.24 indicates whether respondents have plans to buy water purifier

in future.


129

Table - 4.24

Plans to buy Water Purifier in Future

Plans to Buy a Water Purifier Frequency Percentage

Yes 164 40.5

No 241 59.5

Total 405 100.0

It is known from the table 4.24 that out of 578 respondents, 40.5 per cent of the

respondents were planning to buy water purifier in future and the remaining 59.5 per cent

of the respondents did not have any plan to buy purifier in future. Nearly six-tenth of the

respondents did not have any plans to buy purifier in future.

Opinion about Water Purifier

Table 4.25 explains the opinion about water purifier by the respondents regarding

cost aspects that water purifier is cost-saving than packaged drinking water in four point

Likert scale: strongly disagree, disagree, agree and strongly agree.

Table - 4.25

Opinion about Water Purifier

Water purifier is Cost Saving than Packaged

Drinking Water Frequency Percentage

Strongly disagree 4 2.3

Disagree 32 18.5

Agree 82 47.4

Strongly agree 55 31.8

Total 173 100.0

It is obvious from table 4.25 that 2.3 per cent of the respondents strongly

disagreed with the statement that water purifier is more cost-saving than packaged

drinking water. 18.5 per cent of the respondents disagreed with the statement that water

purifier is more cost-saving than packaged drinking water. 47.4 per cent of the


130

respondents agreed to the statement that water purifier is more cost-saving than packaged

drinking water. 31.8 per cent of the respondents strongly agreed the statement that water

purifier is cost saving than packaged drinking water. Majority of 47.4 per cent of the

respondents agreed that water purifier is cost saving than packaged drinking water.

ASSOCIATE STATISTICS

Age and the Level of Satisfaction on Packaged Drinking Water

H0: There is no significant difference in the mean value of the age and level of

satisfaction on packaged drinking water among the respondents.

Table - 4.26

ANOVA - Age and the Level of Satisfaction on Packaged Drinking Water

Sources of Variance Sum of

Squares Df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Null

Hypothesis

Quality Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

1.481

303.988

305.469

4

573

577

.370

.531

.698 .594 Accepted

Price Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

.331

144.029

144.360

4

573

577

.083

.251

.329 .858 Accepted

Package Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

2.164

228.703

230.867

4

573

577

.541

.399

1.355 .248 Accepted

Taste Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

1.960

179.190

181.151

4

573

577

.490

.313

1.567 .182 Accepted

Reliability of

advertisement Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

3.345

302.544

305.889

4

573

577

.836

.528

1.584 .177 Accepted

Availability Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

5.637

239.602

245.239

4

573

577

1.409

.418

3.370 .010 Rejected


131

It is inferred from Table 4.26 that the probability value for age and the level of

satisfaction by respondents in quality, price, package, taste, reliability of advertisement

and availability (.594, .858, .248, .182, and .177) is higher than the 0.05 critical level of

significance at 95 per cent confidence level which means that there is no statistically

significant difference between these variables. Hence the null hypothesis is accepted.

So it is concluded that there is no statistically significant difference in the mean value of

age and level of satisfaction of respondents in quality, price, package, taste and reliability

of advertisement of packaged drinking water.

It is also observed that the probability value (.010) for age and availability of

packaged drinking water is lower than the 0.05 critical level of significance at 95 per cent

level of confidence. Hence the null hypothesis is rejected in this case. So it is concluded

that there is a statistically significant difference in the mean value of the age and

availability of packaged drinking water.

Education and the Level of Satisfaction on Packaged Drinking Water

H0: There is no significant difference in the mean value of education and level of

satisfaction among the respondents on packaged drinking water.

Table - 4.27

ANOVA - Education and the Level of Satisfaction on Packaged Drinking Water


Squares Df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Null

Hypothesis

Quality Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

2.501

302.968

305.469

3

574

577

.834

.528

1.579 .193 Accepted

Price Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

.247

144.113

144.360

3

574

577

.082

.251

.328 .805 Accepted


132


Squares Df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Null

Hypothesis

Package Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

1.307

229.560

230.867

3

574

577

.436

.400

1.089 .353 Accepted

Taste Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

.953

180.198

181.151

3

574

577

.318

.314

1.012 .387 Accepted

Reliability of

advertisement

Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

1.953

303.936

305.889

3

574

577

.651

.530

1.230 .298 Accepted

Availability Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

1.340

243.898

245.239

3

574

577

.447

.425

1.051 .369 Accepted

It is revealed from Table 4.27 that the probability value for education and the

level of satisfaction by respondents in quality, price, package, taste, reliability of

advertisement and availability (.193, .805, .353, .387, .298 and .369) are higher than the

0.05 critical level of significance at 95% level of confidence. This shows that the

difference if any is not statistically significant. Hence the null hypothesis is accepted. So

it is concluded that there is no statistically significant difference in the mean value of

education and level of satisfaction of respondents in quality, price, package, taste,

reliability of advertisement and availability of packaged drinking water.

Monthly Income and Amount Spent on Packaged Drinking Water

H0: There is no significant difference in the mean value of monthly income and amount

spent for purchasing of packaged drinking water by the respondents.


133

Table - 4.28

ANOVA - Monthly Income and Amount Spent on Packaged Drinking Water

Sources of

Variance

Sum of

Squares Df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Null

hypothesis

Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

20.919

419.663

440.581

4

573

577

5.230

.732

7.140 .000 Rejected

It is clear from table 4.28 that the probability value (.000) is less than the 0.01

critical level of significance at 99 per cent level of confidence. This means that the

difference is statistically significant. Hence the null hypothesis is rejected. So it is

concluded that there is statistically significant difference in the mean value of monthly

income and amount spent for purchasing of packaged drinking water by the respondents.

Education of the Respondents and checking information in the Label on Packaged

Drinking

H0: There is no significant difference in the mean value of education of the respondents

and checking the content in the label of packaged drinking water.

Table - 4.29

ANOVA - Education of the Respondents and checking the

information in the Label on Packaged Drinking Water

Sources of

Variance

Sum of

Squares Df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Null

Hypothesis

Between Groups

Within Groups

Total

.658

102.810

103.469

3

574

577

.219

.179

1.225 .300 Accepted

Table 4.29 indicates that the probability value (.300) is higher than the 0.05 critical

level of significance at 95 per cent level of confidence i.e. the difference does not have any

statistical significance. Hence the null hypothesis is accepted. So it is concluded that there is

no statistically significant difference in the mean value of education of the respondents and

checking the information in the label of packaged drinking water.


134

Gender and level of satisfaction on Packaged Drinking Water

H0: There is no significant difference in the mean value of gender and level of

satisfaction of respondents.

Table - 4.30

Z – Test (Gender and Level of Satisfaction on Packaged Drinking Water)

Factors Gender N Mean Std.

Deviation

Z

value

Degree

of

freedom

P

value

Null

Hypothesis

Quality Male

Female

364

214

4.2500

4.2056

.72395

.73463

.708

.705

576

441.252

.932 Accepted

Price Male

Female

364

214

2.4615

2.5234

.49920

.50062

-1.436

-1.435

576

445.490

.520 Accepted

Package Male

Female

364

214

4.3819

4.3178

.61640

.65861

1.177

1.157

576

423.033

.405 Accepted

Taste Male

Female

364

214

4.5659

4.5935

.57356

.53791

-.570

-.579

576

469.761

.164 Accepted

Reliability of

advertisement

Male

Female

364

214

1.9863

1.9860

.71376

.75358

.004

.004

576

427.204

.183 Accepted

Availability Male

Female

364

214

4.4615

4.4393

.63952

.67382

.397

.391

576

427.916

.284 Accepted

It is observed from Table 4.30 that the probability values for gender and the level

of satisfaction by respondents in quality, price, package, taste, reliability of advertisement

and availability (.932, .520, .405, .164, .183 and .284) are higher than the 0.05 critical

level of significance at 95 per cent level of confidence, which means there is no

statistically significant difference. Hence the null hypothesis is accepted. So it is

concluded that there is no statistically significant difference in the mean value of gender

and level of satisfaction of respondents regarding quality, price, package, taste, reliability

of advertisement and availability of packaged drinking water.


135

Marital status and Level of Satisfaction on Packaged Drinking Water

H0: There is no significant difference in the mean value of marital status and level of

satisfaction of respondents.

Table - 4.31

Z –Test (Marital status and Level of Satisfaction on Packaged Drinking Water)

Factors Marital

status N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Z

value

Degree

of

freedom

P

value

Null

hypothesis

Quality

Married

Unmarried

355

223

4.2338

4.2332

.73951

.70989

.010

.010

576

486.157

.288 Accepted

Price

Married

Unmarried

355

223

2.4732

2.5022

.49999

.50112

-.678

-.678

576

470.965

.429 Accepted

Package

Married

Unmarried

355

223

4.3408

4.3857

.64606

.61084

-.829

-.839

576

491.438

.418 Accepted

Taste

Married

Unmarried

355

223

4.5746

4.5785

.55431

.57098

-.080

-.079

576

461.281

.722 Accepted

Reliability of

advertisement

Married

Unmarried

355

223

1.9972

1.9686

.72290

.73760

.459

.457

576

464.642

.427

Accepted

Availability Married

Unmarried

355

223

4.4873

4.3991

.62593

.68930

1.586

1.551

576

437.870

.039 Rejected

It is observed from table 4.31 that the probability value for marital status and the

level of satisfaction by respondents in quality, price, package, taste, reliability of

advertisement and availability (.288, .429, .418, .722 and .427) are higher than the

0.05 critical level of significance at 95 per cent level of confidence this proves no

statistically significant difference. Hence the null hypothesis is accepted. So it is

concluded that there is no statistically significant difference in the mean value of gender

and level of satisfaction of respondents regarding quality, price, package, taste and

reliability of advertisement towards packaged drinking water.


136

But it is observed that the probability value for marital status and the level of

satisfaction by respondents in availability (0.39) is lower than the 0.05 level of

significance and 95 per cent level of confidence. This proves the statistical significance.

Hence the null hypothesis is rejected. So it is concluded that there is a statistically

significant difference in the mean value of marital status and level of satisfaction of

respondents regarding availability of packaged drinking water.

Nature of House and having a Water Purifier at Home

H0: There is no significant association between type of house and water purifier at home.

Table - 4.32

Chi – square Test (Nature of house and having a water purifier at home)

Chi-square Value P value Significant/Not

Significant Null Hypothesis

194.610 .000 Significant Rejected

Table 4.32 indicates that the probability value (.000) is lower than the 0.01 critical

level of significance at 99 per cent level of confidence. Hence the null hypothesis is

rejected. So it is concluded that there is a statistically significant association between the

type of house and having a water purifier at home.

Age and Percentage of Increment rise in price on Favourite Brand of Packaged

Drinking Water

H0: There is no significant association between age and rise in price on favourite brand

of packaged drinking water.


137

Table - 4.33

Chi – square Test (Age and Percentage of rise in Price on (Favourite Brand of

Packaged Drinking Water)

Percentage of

Increment

Chi-square

value

P value Significant/Not

Significant

Null

Hypothesis

10 194.610 .026 Significant Rejected

20 4.120 .846 Not significant Accepted



It is derived from table 4.33 that the probability value (.026) for 10% price

increment is lower than 0.05 critical level of significance at 95 per cent level of

confidence. This proves the existence of significance. Hence the null hypothesis is

rejected. So it is concluded that there is statistically significant association between age

and 10 per cent rise in price on favourite brand of packaged drinking water.

The probability values (.846, .768, and .713) for 20, 30 and 40% price increments

are higher than 0.05 critical level of significance at 95 per cent level of confidence. This

shows that there is no statistical significance. Hence the null hypothesis is accepted. So it

is concluded that there is no statistically significant association between age and 20, 30

and 40 per cent rise in price on favourite brand of packaged drinking water.

Occupation and Percentage of rise in Price on Favourite Brand of Packaged

Drinking Water

H0: There is no significant association between occupation and price increment on

favourite brand of packaged drinking water.


138

Table - 4.34

Chi – square Test (Occupation and Percentage of Increment of Price on Favourite

Brand of Packaged Drinking Water)

Percentage of

Increment

Chi-square

value P value

Significant/Not

Significant

Null

Hypothesis

10 15.842 .015 Significant Rejected




The test result shows in table 4.34 that the probability value (.015) for 10% price

increment, is lower than 0.05 critical level of significance at 95 per cent level of

confidence i.e. there is a statistical significance. Hence the null hypothesis is rejected. So

it is concluded that there is statistically significant association between occupation and 10

per cent rise in price on favourite brand towards packaged drinking water.

But the probability values (.520, .170, and .857) for 20, 30 and 40% price

increment are higher than 0.05 critical level of significance at 95 per cent level of

confidence. Hence the null hypothesis is accepted. So it is concluded that there is no

statistically significant association between occupation and 20, 30 and 40 per cent rise

in price on favourite brand towards packaged drinking water.

Education and Awareness of the Environment Impact of Packaged Drinking Water

H0: There is no significant association between educational qualifications and awareness

of the environment impact of packaged drinking water among respondents.


139

Table - 4.35

Chi – square Test (Education and Awareness of the Environment Impact of

Packaged Drinking Water)

Chi-square Value P value Significant/Not

Significant Null Hypothesis

6.308 .098 Not Significant Accepted

Table 4.35 points out that the probability value (.098) is higher than the

0.05 critical level of significance at 95 per cent level of confidence. This means there is

no statistical significance Hence the null hypothesis is accepted. So it is concluded that

there is no statistically significant association between educational qualifications and

awareness of the environment impact of packaged drinking water among the respondents.

Consumer Perception on Packaged Drinking Water

Table 4.36 explains the principal component analysis. Before the principal

component analysis Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy and Bartlett's

Test of Sphericity was performed through the SPSS. The K-M-O test and Bartlett's Test

of Sphericity found that all extraction values are as per the expected values, therefore all

items were used to further analysis. Item communalities also found to be good in the data

set. Item communalities are considered “high” if they are all .8 or greater although this is

unlikely to occur in the social sciences therefore low to moderate communalities of more

than .50 is acceptable.

Consumer Perception on Packaged Drinking Water

Principal Component Analysis:

Table - 4.36

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling

Adequacy.

.505

Bartlett's Test of

Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square 312.158

Df 253

Sig. .007


140

Table 4.36 indicates (K-M-O test is significant because test value is greater than

.500 at .505) this shows a Factor Analysis is possible and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity also

found significant χ =312.158, P < .01). It indicates that there is relationship between the

variables influencing consumer perception on packaged drinking water and data set was

adequate to perform factor analysis. In the process of factor analysis of the scale, the

Varimax Rotation technique was employed to examine the obtained factors and all items

with loadings above .40.

Table - 4.37

Total Variance

ExplainedCompone

nt

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of

Squared Loadings

Rotation Sums of

Squared Loadings

Tota

l

% of

Varianc

e

Cumulativ

e %

Tota

l

% of

Varianc

e

Cumulativ

e %

Tota

l

% of

Varianc

e

Cumulativ

e %

1 1.43

8

6.254 6.254 1.43

8

6.254 6.254 1.27

2

5.530 5.530

2 1.35

3

5.881 12.136 1.35

3

5.881 12.136 1.25

9

5.476 11.006

3 1.33

2

5.790 17.925 1.33

2

5.790 17.925 1.21

4

5.280 16.286

4 1.26

3

5.491 23.416 1.26

3

5.491 23.416 1.20

4

5.233 21.520

5 1.25

4

5.453 28.870 1.25

4

5.453 28.870 1.19

5

5.197 26.716

6 1.17

6

5.112 33.982 1.17

6

5.112 33.982 1.18

8

5.165 31.882

7 1.10

9

4.820 38.802 1.10

9

4.820 38.802 1.17

4

5.106 36.988

8 1.07

3

4.663 43.466 1.07

3

4.663 43.466 1.16

8

5.077 42.065

9 1.05

8

4.599 48.065 1.05

8

4.599 48.065 1.14

6

4.984 47.049

10 1.04

4

4.539 52.604 1.04

4

4.539 52.604 1.14

6

4.981 52.030


141

11 1.00

8

4.382 56.986 1.00

8

4.382 56.986 1.14

0

4.956 56.986

12 .983 4.273 61.260

13 .956 4.155 65.414

14 .942 4.095 69.510

15 .888 3.860 73.369

Component

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of

Squared Loadings

Rotation Sums of

Squared Loadings

Tota

l

% of

Varianc

e

Cumulativ

e %

Tota

l

% of

Varianc

e

Cumulativ

e %

Tota

l

% of

Varianc

e

Cumulativ

e %

16 .861 3.745 77.114

17 .820 3.567 80.681

18 .804 3.495 84.176

19 .788 3.428 87.604

20 .749 3.258 90.863

21 .728 3.166 94.029

22 .711 3.092 97.121

23 .662 2.879 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.


142

Table 4.37, labeled “Total Variance Explained,” shows that total variance of the

observed variables is explained by each of the principal components. The first principal

component explains the largest part of the total variance, this accounts to 5.53% of the

total variance, second component explains 5.47% of the total variance, third component

explains 5.28% of the total variance, fourth component explains 5.23% of the total

variance, fifth component explains 5.19% of the total variance, sixth component explains

5.16 %, seventh components explains 5.10%, eighth components explains 5.07% , ninth

component explains 4.98%, tenth components explains 4.98% and the eleventh

components explains 4.96% of the total variance. A component that displays an

eigenvalue greater than 1.00 is accounting for a greater amount of variance. Therefore,

only those components which are considered as principal components have eigenvalue

greater than 1.00. Here, eleven components having eigenvalue more than 1.0 explain 57%

of the total variance and the remaining components explain 43% of the total variance.

Figure 2 demonstrates this distribution of variance among the components graphically.


143

Downward slope after the fourth or fifth principal component imply that out of twenty-

three variables by the first ten or eleven are principal components.

Table - 4.38

Rotated Component Matrix

Component

Issues

Boiled water is better than packaged drinking water

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

.779

Plastic Packing of water will affect the environment

.479

I can get packaged drinking water everywhere

-.493

Commercialization

Packaged drinking water becomes the commercial business

-.592

Packaged drinking water is consumed when respondent stayed in other places

.683

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Packaged drinking water is safer for children when they stayed out of station

.447

Luxury

Packaged drinking water is a luxury item

.751

Quality concept

Packaged drinking water is safer than tap water

.659

Packaged drinking water is refreshing and thirst quenching

-.660

Brand value

I am very conscious of brand in 20 litre can

.825

Hygienic aspect

Packaged drinking .500


144

water is hygienic

There is no problem in using packaged drinking water

.654

Taste consideration

The advertisement for packaged drinking water is less effective

-.680

Boiled water is less tasty than packaged drinking water

.646

Image

Packaged drinking water is a status symbol

.748

I trust Packaged drinking water

.514

Alternative drinks

Carbonate drinks (soft drinks) are good alternative for packaged drinking water

.476


145

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Appearance of package is attractive

.530

I prefer packaged drinking water due to waterborne diseases

-711

Convenient aspect

Packaged drinking water is purchased at the time of travel

-.638

I am satisfied with the taste of tap water rather than packaged drinking water

.713

Occasion usage

Packaged drinking water is suitable for special occasions in family

.810

% of variance 5.53 5.47 5.28 5.23 5.19 5.16 5.10 5.07 4.98 4.98 4.95

Cumulative % 5.53 11.0 16.3 21.5 26.7 31.9 36.9 42.0 47.0 52.0 57.0

Extraction method: Principal component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with

Kaiser Normalisation.

Table 4.38 rotated solutions is shows rescaled factor loadings (correlations) to

evaluate which variables load on each factor. Which indicates that, Issues was the first

factor (loading .779, .479 and -.493), Benefits was the second factor (loading -.592, .683

and .447), Luxury was the third factor (loading .751), Quality concept was the fourth

factor (loading .659, -.660) Brand value was the fifth factor (loading .825), Hygienic

aspect was the sixth factor (loading .500,.654), Taste consideration was the seventh

factor (loading -.680 and .648), Image was the eighth factor (loading .748 and .514),

Alternative drinks was the ninth factor (loading .476,.530 and -.711), Convenient

aspect was the tenth factor (loading-.638 and .713) and Occasion usage was the

eleventh factor (loading .810).


146

Gender and Belief on Packaged Drinking Water

Table 4.39 explains the significant discriminant between gender and belief on


H0: There is no significant discriminant between gender and belief on packaged drinking

water.

Discriminant analysis (Gender and Belief on Packaged Drinking Water)

Table - 4.39

Tests of Equality of Group Means

Belief on packaged

drinking water

Wilks'

Lambda F df1 df2 Sig.

Packaged drinking water

is safer than tap water 1.000 .013 1 576 .909


is status symbol 1.000 .017 1 576 .897


is hygienic .999 .828 1 576 .363


is safer for children when

stayed in out station

1.000 .000 1 576 .986

I prefer packaged

drinking water to avoid

water borne diseases

.999 .309 1 576 .578

I trust packaged drinking

water 1.000 .001 1 576 .973

There is no problem in

using packaged drinking

water

.999 .609 1 576 .435

In the table 4.39 test of equality of group means the result of univariate ANOVA

carried out for each independent variables are presented here in that there is no significant

difference in between male and female towards belief on packaged drinking water at

(0.05) level of significant.


147

Box's Test of Equality of Co-variance Matrices

Log Determinants

Gender Rank Log Determinant

Male 7 -2.801

Female 7 -2.812

Pooled within-groups 7 -2.754

The ranks and natural logarithms of determinants printed are those of the group

covariance matrices.

Test Results

Box's M 29.295

F Approx. 1.031

df1 28

df2 709832.897

Sig. .419

Tests null hypothesis of equal population co-variance matrices.

The significance value of .419 indicates that the data do not significant

multivariate normal. This means one can proceed with analysis.

Summary of Canonical Discriminant Functions

Eigenvalues

Function Eigenvalue % of Variance Cumulative % Canonical Correlation

1 .003(a) 100.0 100.0 .057

a ) First 1 canonical discriminant functions were used in the analysis.

An Eigen value indicates the proportion of variance explained (between groups

sum of squares divided by within group sum of squares). A smaller Eigen value is

associated within a function. The canonical relation is no correlation between the


148

discriminant scores and the levels of dependent variables. A low correlation indicates a

function that does not discriminate well. The present correlation of .057 is not extremely

high (1.00 is perfect).

Wilks' Lambda

Test of Function(s) Wilks' Lambda Chi-square df Sig.

1 .997 1.881 7 .966

Wilk‟s Lambda is the ratio of within groups sum of squares to the between sum of

the square. This is the proportion of the total variance in the discriminant scores not

explained by differences among groups. A Lambda of 1.00 occurs when observed group

means are equal (all the variance is explained by factors other than difference between

than means) while a small lambda occurs when within groups variability is small

compared to total variability. A high lambda indicates that group means appear the same.

The associated significance value indicates whether the difference is significant. Here the

lambda of .997 has no significant value (.966) thus the group appear to same.

Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients

Belief on packaged drinking water Function

1

Packaged drinking water is safer than tap water -.080

Packaged drinking water is status symbol .083

Packaged drinking water is hygienic -.820

Packaged drinking water is safer for children when they stay in out of

station .071

I prefer packaged drinking water to avoid waterborne diseases .445

I trust packaged drinking water -.062

There is no problem in using packaged drinking water .841

(Constant) -1.993

Unstandardized coefficients


149

The canonical discriminant function coefficient indicates the unstandardised scores

concerning the independent variables. It is the list of coefficient of the unstandardised scores

concerning the independent variables. It is the list of coefficient of the unstandardised

discriminant equation. Each subject discriminant scores would be computed by entering his

(or) her variables (raw data) for each of the variables in the equation.

Functions at Group Centroids

Gender

Function

1

Male -.044

Female .075

Unstandardized canonical discriminant functions evaluated at group means

A function at group centroids indicates that not having average discriminant score

of subjects in the two groups. More variable means (rather than individual values for each

subject) are entered into the discriminant equation. Note that the two scores are not equal

in value having opposite signs.

Classification Results (a,b,c)

Gender

Predicted Group

Membership

Total Male Female

Original

Count

Male

Female

200

94

164

120

364

214

%

Male

Female

54.9

43.9

45.1

56.1

100.0

100.0

Cross-validated(a)

Count

Male

Female

178

121

186

93

364

214

%

Male

Female

48.9

56.5

51.1

43.5

100.0

100.0

a) Cross validation is done only for those cases in the analysis. In cross validation, each

case is classified by the functions derived from all cases other than that case.

b) 55.4% of original grouped cases correctly classified.

c ) 46.9% of cross-validated grouped cases correctly classified.


150

“Classification result” is a simple summary of member and percent of subjects

classified correctly and incorrectly. The “leave-one-out classification” is a cross

validation method of which the results are also presented.

Discriminant analysis was conducted to assess whether the gender could

distinguish. Wilks' lambda was not significant at .997, chi- square value= .966, p > .001,

which indicates that the model including these variables was not able to significantly

discriminate the two groups. The classification results show that the model correctly

predicts 55.4% of male having belief on packaged drinking water and 46.9% of female

having belief on packaged drinking water. The correlation coefficients in the table

indicate the extent to which each variable correlates with the resulting discriminant

function. Note that even though mosaic did contribute weakly to the discriminant

function, it is moderately (negatively) correlated with the overall discriminant function.

Hence the hypothesis is accepted that there is no significant discriminant between gender

and belief on packaged drinking water.

Correlations among Belief, Perception and Buying Behaviour of Packaged Drinking

Water

H0: There is no correlation between beliefs and packaged drinking water buying behaviour.

H1: There is no correlation between perception and packaged drinking water buying behaviour.

Table - 4.40

Correlations among Belief Perception and Buying Behaviour of

Packaged Drinking Water

Belief Perception Buying behavior

Belief Pearson Correlation 1

Perception Pearson Correlation -.077(*) 1

Buying behaviour Pearson Correlation -.043 .374(**) 1

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.


151

From the table 4.40 it is understood that r-value (Pearson correlation) of -.043 of

the variable „beliefs‟ indicates that there is no relationship between „beliefs‟ and „buying

behavior‟. Hence, the beliefs of bottled water have no influence on the buying behavior.

Here null hypothesis is accepted. It also indicates that „perception‟ and „belief‟ are

negatively correlated and significant at 0.05 level (r = -.077, Sig = .033), also „buying

behaviour‟ and „perception‟ are positively correlated and significant at 0.01 level (r =

.374, Sig = .374). There is correlation between „perception‟ and buying behaviour.

Hence the null hypothesis is rejected.


consumers' perception on packaged …shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/33808/4/...103...

Documents