�
�
���
CHAPTER IV
BEHAVIOURAL CHANGES IN CONSUMERS IN PURCHASING
AND USING PACKAGED DRINKING WATER
Water is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen and it is a precious natural gift
which is very essential for the survival of mankind and animals. The water used for
potable purposes should be free from undesirable impurities. The water available
from untreated sources such as wells, boreholes and springs is generally not hygienic
and safe for drinking. Thus it is desirable and necessary to purify the water and supply
it under hygienic conditions for human consumption. As the name implies, mineral
water is purified water fortified with requisite amounts of minerals such as Barium,
Iron, Manganese, etc. which can be absorbed by the human body. It is either obtained
from natural resources like springs and drilled wells or it is fortified artificially by
blending and treating it with mineral salts. Mineral water should be manufactured and
packed under hygienic conditions in properly washed and cleaned bottles in sterilised
conditions (Packaged drinking water/Mineral water 2003)1.
Fig 4.1
Purchase Frequency of packaged drinking water
�
��
���
���
���
���
��
��������
� !��
�"���
� !��
��"���
� !��
��"���
� !��
#� �$
��
��
�
����
�
��
���
����
����
����� ����
����� �� ���
�
�
���
Fig 4.1 shows the monthly purchase of packaged drinking water. Majority of
the respondents (39%) buy below five times per month. It is followed by 27% of the
respondents who buy 6-10 times per month, 15.2% buy 16-20 times and 11.2% buy
daily. Only 7.6% of the respondents buy 11-15 times. It is concluded that majority of
the respondents buy below 5 times per month.
EDUCATION AND PURCHASE OF PACKAGED DRINKING WATER
Socio-economic status is also a factor affecting consumer decisions,
particularly given the high cost associated with bottled water. Gender and educational
differences have been found to affect the preference of bottled water over tap water
because of noted differences in the perception of environmental risk (Anadu 2000).
Table 4.1
Influence of education on purchasing of packaged drinking water
Purchase requirements per month
Total Education
Below
5 times
6-10
times
11-15
times
16-20
times Daily
Illiterate
No of
Respondents 15 9 0 9 6 39
Percentage 38.5% 23.1% .0% 23.1% 15.4% 6.4%
School
level
No of
Respondents 102 62 19 56 27 266
Percentage 38.3% 23.3% 7.1% 21.1% 10.2% 43.8%
College
level
No of
Respondents 120 93 27 27 35 302
Percentage 39.7% 30.8% 8.9% 8.9% 11.6% 49.8%
Total
No of
Respondents 237 164 46 92 68 607
Percentage 39.0% 27.0% 7.6% 15.2% 11.2% 100.0%
Source: Primary Data
Table 4.1 analyses the relationship between the education of the respondents
and the frequency in purchasing of mineral water. Nearly half of the college level
respondents (49.8%) use packaged drinking water. Here, 39.7% of the respondents
buy below five times a month and 30.8% of the respondents buy 6-10 times. About
�
�
���
43.8% of the respondents completed school level education and among them 38%
purchase below five times per month and the remaining 23.3% of them buy 6-10
times. Only 6.4% of the illiterate respondents buy below five times in a month.
Further, 23.1% of the respondents buy 6-10 times and the same 23.1% of the
respondents buy 16-20 times. This analysis concludes that the majority of the
respondents at all levels of education buy below five times a month and the college
level respondents use more mineral water.
Table 4.2
The family types and purchase frequency of packaged drinking water
Purchase requirements per month
Total Family
type
Below 5
times
6-10
times
11-15
times
16-20
times Daily
Joint
No of
Respondents 70 72 16 15 21 194
Percentage 36.1% 37.1% 8.2% 7.7% 10.8% 32.0%
Nuclear
No of
Respondents 167 92 30 77 47 413
Percentage 40.4% 22.3% 7.3% 18.6% 11.4% 68.0%
No of
Respondents 237 164 46 92 68 607
Percentage 39.0% 27.0% 7.6% 15.2% 11.2% 100.0%
Source: Primary Data
Table 4.2 shows the purchase pattern of mineral water and the family types of
the respondents. Majority of the respondents (68%) are in nuclear family system and
use more packaged drinking water. Here, 40.4% of the respondents buy below 5 times
a month and 22.3% of the respondents buy 6-10 times. About 32% of the respondents
live in a joint family system. In it, 37.1% of the respondents buy 6-10 times and the
remaining 36.1% of the respondents purchase below five times a month. This analysis
concludes that the majority of the respondents buy below five times. Only the least of
them buy packaged drinking water daily.
�
�
���
Table 4.3
Influence of family types on the purchase frequency of packaged drinking water
Value df P value
Pearson Chi-Square 21.971a
4 .000*
Likelihood Ratio 22.758 4 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 2.198 1 .138
N of Valid Cases 607
*Significant at 5% level
Table 4.3 analyses the association between the family types of the respondents
and their purchase frequency of packaged drinking water. It is clear from the analysis
that there is a significant association between the family types and purchase frequency
of packaged drinking water. Hence, the type of the respondents influences their
purchase frequency of packaged drinking water.
Table 4.4
Association of family size and purchase frequency
Value Df P value
Pearson Chi-Square 22.972a
8 .003*
Likelihood Ratio 24.071 8 .002
Linear-by-Linear Association 8.822 1 .003
N of Valid Cases 607
*Significant at 5% level
Table 4.4 reveals that Chi-square value of 22.972 (df = 8, N=607), P<0.05 is
significant at 16 degrees of freedom, showing that there is a significant difference in
expected and observed frequencies. As such, the null hypothesis is rejected and the
alternate hypothesis is accepted. Hence, it is concluded that the purchase
requirements of packaged drinking water is influenced by the family types.
�
�
���
Tab
le 4
.5
Occ
up
ati
on
an
d p
urc
hase
fre
qu
ency
of
Pack
aged
Dri
nk
ing w
ate
r
P
urc
has
e re
qu
irem
ents
per
mo
nth
T
ota
l
Occ
upat
ion
B
elo
w 5
tim
es
6-1
0 t
imes
11-1
5 t
imes
16-2
0 t
imes
Dail
y
Em
plo
yed
N
o o
f R
espo
ndents
79
63
18
12
20
192
Per
centa
ge
41.1
%
32.8
%
9.4
%
6.3
%
10.4
%
31.6
%
Busi
nes
s N
o o
f R
espo
ndents
28
38
15
49
29
159
Per
centa
ge
17.6
%
23.9
%
9.4
%
30.8
%
18.2
%
26.2
%
Ho
use
wif
e
No
of
Res
po
ndents
48
31
7
26
13
125
Per
centa
ge
38.4
%
24.8
%
5.6
%
20.8
%
10.4
%
20.6
%
Labo
ure
r N
o o
f R
espo
ndents
22
12
3
2
2
41
Per
centa
ge
53.7
%
29.3
%
7.3
%
4.9
%
4.9
%
6.8
%
Stu
den
ts
No
of
Res
po
ndents
60
20
3
3
4
90
Per
centa
ge
66.7
%
22.2
%
3.3
%
3.3
%
4.4
%
14.8
%
Tota
l N
o o
f R
espo
ndents
237
164
46
92
68
607
Per
centa
ge
39.0
%
27.0
%
7.6
%
15.2
%
11.2
%
100.0
%
So
urc
e: P
rim
ary D
ata
�
�
���
Table 4.5 relates the occupation and the purchase pattern of mineral water.
Less than half of the respondents (31.6%) are employed, among them 41.1% of the
respondents buy below 5 times a month, followed by 32.8% who buy 6-10 times and
10.4% of them buy daily. About 26.2% of the respondents are have their own
business and among them 30.8% buy 16-20 times, whereas 23.9% of the respondents
buy 6-10 times and the remaining 18.2% of them buy daily. Next, 20.6% of the
respondents are housewives. Among them, 38.4% of the respondents purchase below
5 times a month, 20.8% of them buy 16-20 times and 5.6% buy 11-15 times. A few
respondents (6.8%) are labourers, and 53.7% of them purchase below 5 times a
month; about 29.3% of them buy 6-10 times, 7.3% buy 11-15 times, followed by 16-
20 times and daily. It is concluded that majority of the respondents who are employed
buy packaged drinking water below 5 times a month.
PACKAGED DRINKING WATER AND INCOME
High awareness of safety and hygiene and increase in disposable income are
driving sales of bottled water in India. With an increase in the number of waterborne
diseases, consumers are concerned about safety and do not mind spending on bottled
water (Bottled Water in India (2013).
�
�
���
Table 4.6
Influence of income on purchasing packaged drinking water
Purchase requirements per month
Total Monthly
income
Below
5 times
6-10
times
11-15
times
16-20
times Daily
Below Rs.
10000
No of
Respondents 163 109 30 43 26 371
Percentage 43.9% 29.4% 8.1% 11.6% 7.0% 61.1%
Rs.10000-
20000
No of
Respondents 59 39 14 43 31 186
Percentage 31.7% 21.0% 7.5% 23.1% 16.7% 30.6%
Rs.20001-
30000
No of
Respondents 8 7 1 2 7 25
Percentage 32.0% 28.0% 4.0% 8.0% 28.0% 4.1%
Above
Rs.30000
No of
Respondents 7 9 1 4 4 25
Percentage 28.0% 36.0% 4.0% 16.0% 16.0% 4.1%
Total
No of
Respondents 237 164 46 92 68 607
Percentage 39.0% 27.0% 7.6% 15.2% 11.2% 100.0%
Source: Primary Data
Table 4.6 analyses the association of the income of the respondents with their
frequency of purchasing mineral water. Majority of the respondents (61.1%) earn
below Rs.10000, and they purchase mineral water less than 3 times a month (43.9%),
followed by 16-20 times (29.4%) and daily (7.0%). In the income group of Rs.
10,000 to 20,000 (30.6%), the purchase pattern per month is less than 5 times
(31.7%), followed by 6-10 times (21%) and 11-15 times (7.5%). The respondents in
the income group of above Rs. 40,000 (4.1%) purchase below 5 times a month (32%),
followed by 16-20 times (8%) and 11-15 times (4%).
�
�
���
Table 4.7
Association between monthly income and purchase frequency of packaged
drinking water
Value Df P value
Pearson Chi-Square 40.283a
12 .000*
Likelihood Ratio 38.459 12 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 17.728 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 607
*Significant at 5% level
Table 4.7 shows that the Chi-square value of 40.283 (df = 12, N=607), P<0.05
is significant at 12 degrees of freedom, revealing a significant difference in expected
and observed frequencies. As such, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternate
hypothesis is accepted. Hence, it is concluded that the purchase frequency of
packaged drinking water is based on the income.
REASONS FOR PURCHASE AND PURCHASE FREQUENCY
Arsenic, unfortunately, is present in almost all drinking water, and those that are
described as chronic endemic regional hydro-arsenicosis are attributed to the use of
naturally contaminated domestic water (Sciacca and Conti, 2009). The chronic
ingestion of arsenic in contaminated drinking water is known to cause skin cancer and
may increase risk for bladder, lung, kidney, liver, colon, and prostate cancers. There is
also adequate evidence that supports an association between arsenic ingestion and
cardiac and cerebrovascular diseases and diabetes mellitus (Afzal 2006).
�
�
���
Table 4.8
Reasons for Purchase and Purchase frequency
NX
σ F value P value
Unsafe drinking water
Below 5 times 237 3.55 1.494
3.549 .007* 6-10 times 164 3.83 1.468
11-15 times 46 4.09 1.363
16-20 times 92 4.15 1.444
Daily 68 3.93 1.642
Contaminated water
Below 5 times 237 3.36 1.491
1.012 0.400*
6-10 times 164 3.50 1.403
11-15 times 46 3.80 1.392
16-20 times 92 3.42 1.188
Daily 68 3.46 1.419
*Significant at 5% level
Table 4.8 shows the frequency in purchasing of packaged drinking water and
its safety. As per the rejection of null hypothesis (P<0.05), there is a significant
relationship between the frequency of purchasing packaged drinking water and the
concern for safety.
In the contaminated water factor, as per the acceptance of null hypothesis
(P>0.05), there is no significant association between purchase frequency and
contaminated water. It is concluded that the contaminated water does not influence
the purchase frequency of packaged drinking water.
MOTIVATION FOR PURCHASING PACKAGED DRINKING WATER AND
PURCHASE FREQUENCY
According to recent research by IKON Marketing Consultants, Indian Natural
Mineral Water market was worth Rs 187 Cr during 2009 -10 and was growing at
CAGR of 21%, which will cross Rs 10 billion mark in the decade. The increasing
awareness about health consciousness and the health benefits of natural mineral water
along with the rise in purchasing power among the Indian consumers has speeded up
the growth of natural mineral water market. (Taruna Sondarva 2011).
�
�
�
���
Table 4.9
Motivation for purchasing packaged drinking water and purchase frequency
NX
σ F value P value
Shopkeepers
Below 5 times 237 3.40 1.480
1.467 .211*
6-10 times 164 3.50 1.472
11-15 times 46 3.67 1.446
16-20 times 92 3.79 1.628
Daily 68 3.69 1.605
Neighbours
Below 5 times 237 3.31 1.319
1.145 .334*
6-10 times 164 3.34 1.411
11-15 times 46 3.15 1.414
16-20 times 92 3.16 1.557
Daily 68 2.96 1.501
Friends
Below 5 times 237 3.27 1.316
3.893 .004*
6-10 times 164 3.26 1.309
11-15 times 46 3.61 1.238
16-20 times 92 2.77 1.250
Daily 68 3.18 1.315
Relatives
Below 5 times 237 3.03 1.334
3.195 .013*
6-10 times 164 3.13 1.275
11-15 times 46 3.41 1.292
16-20 times 92 2.83 1.164
Daily 68 2.66 1.367
Salesmen
Below 5 times 237 2.70 1.395
.828 .507*
6-10 times 164 2.52 1.231
11-15 times 46 2.52 1.362
16-20 times 92 2.48 1.253
Daily 68 2.69 1.261
*Significant at 5% level
Table 4.9 analyses the motivation for purchasing packaged drinking water and
the purchase frequency. In the variables shopkeepers, neighbours and salesmen, as
per the acceptance of null hypothesis, there is no significant association between
purchase frequency and purchase of drinking water. It is clearly revealed that
purchase frequency is not influenced by the shopkeepers, neighbours and salesmen.
In the variables friends and relatives, as per the rejection of null hypothesis (P<0.0a5),
there is a significant association between the purchase frequency and the motivation
for purchasing packaged drinking water. It is clear from the result that purchase
�
�
���
frequency is motivated by friends and relatives. Friends and relatives influence the
purchase frequency of packaged drinking water.
Table 4.10
Doctors’ Advice and purchase frequency of packaged drinking water
NX
σ F value P value
Below 5 times 237 2.25 1.385
3.847 .004*
6-10 times 164 2.29 1.343
11-15 times 46 2.43 1.424
16-20 times 92 2.90 1.520
Daily 68 2.38 1.415
Total 607 2.39 1.414
*Significant at 5% level
Table 4.10 associates doctors’ advice with the purchase frequency of packaged
drinking water. As per the rejection of null hypothesis, there is a significant
association between doctors’ advice and the purchase frequency of packaged drinking
water such as below 5 times, 6-10 times, 11-15 times, 16-20 times and daily. It is
clearly shown that doctors’ advice influences the purchase of packaged drinking
water. Hence, it is concluded that the purchase frequency of packaged drinking water
is based on doctors’ advice.
�
�
��
Table 4.11
Sources of awareness and purchase frequency
Sources NX
σ F value P value
T.V
Below 5 times 237 2.39 1.471
.431 .786*
6-10 times 164 2.29 1.392
11-15 times 46 2.11 1.433
16-20 times 92 2.29 1.347
16-20 times 92 3.79 1.628
Daily 68 3.69 1.605
Internet
Below 5 times 237 2.36 1.335
2.051 .086*
6-10 times 164 2.27 1.384
11-15 times 46 1.78 1.009
16-20 times 92 2.18 1.257
Daily 68 2.13 1.413
Radio
Below 5 times 237 2.41 1.364
3.195 .013*
6-10 times 164 2.21 1.289
11-15 times 46 1.76 1.099
16-20 times 92 2.04 1.213
Daily 68 2.35 1.336
Press
Below 5 times 237 2.39 1.360
1.419 .226*
6-10 times 164 2.28 1.355
11-15 times 46 1.89 1.303
16-20 times 92 2.29 1.288
Daily 68 2.41 1.438
Pamphlets
Below 5 times 237 2.54 1.469
2.326 0.055*
6-10 times 164 2.40 1.364
11-15 times 46 1.87 1.087
16-20 times 92 2.35 1.288
Daily 68 2.47 1.430
*Significant at 5% level
This table 4.11 explains the relationship between the source of awareness and
the purchase frequency of packaged drinking water. In the variables TV, internet,
press and pamphlets, as per the acceptance of null hypothesis, there is no significant
association between the purchase frequency and the source of awareness. The
purchase frequency of packaged drinking water is not based on the awareness created
by TV, internet, press and pamphlets.
In the variable radio, as per the rejection of null hypothesis (P<0.05), there is
a significant association between the source of awareness and the purchase frequency
�
�
��
of packaged drinking water. Hence, it is concluded that the awareness from radio
influences the purchase frequency of packaged drinking water.
PURCHASE FREQUENCY AND QUANTITY
Consumption of bottled water is increasing by ten percent every year
worldwide, with the fastest growth is seen in the developing countries of Asia and
South America. The United States (U.S.) is the largest consumer market for bottled
water in the world (Gleick 2004 – 2005).
Table 4.12
Purchase Frequency and Quantity
Purchase requirements per month
Total Quantity Below 5
times
6-10
times
11-15
times
16-20
times Daily
250 ml
No of
Respondents33 2 4 7 1 47
Percentage 70.2% 4.3% 8.5% 14.9% 2.1% 7.7%
300 ml
No of
Respondents15 13 2 5 7 42
Percentage 35.7% 31.0% 4.8% 11.9% 16.7% 6.9%
500 ml
No of
Respondents15 27 3 3 3 51
Percentage 29.4% 52.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 8.4%
1 Litre
No of
Respondents60 18 5 5 5 93
Percentage 64.5% 19.4% 5.4% 5.4% 5.4% 15.3%
2 Litres
No of
Respondents49 33 9 38 21 150
Percentage 32.7% 22.0% 6.0% 25.3% 14.0% 24.7%
5 Litres
No of
Respondents10 17 4 23 11 65
Percentage 15.4% 26.2% 6.2% 35.4% 16.9% 10.7%
20 Litres
No of
Respondents55 54 19 11 20 159
Percentage 34.6% 34.0% 11.9% 6.9% 12.6% 26.2%
Total
No of
Respondents237 164 46 92 68 607
Percentage 39.0% 27.0% 7.6% 15.2% 11.2% 100.0%
Source: Primary Data
�
�
���
Table 4.12 shows the association of quantity with the purchase frequency of
packaged drinking water. Majority of the respondents (26.2%) prefer 20 litre packs of
packaged drinking water. Among them, 34.6% of the respondents buy below 5 times
a month. It is followed by 6-10 times (34%), daily (12.6%) and 11-15 times (11.9%).
Only a few respondents (6.9%) buy 16-20 times a month. About 10.7% of the
respondents prefer to buy 5 litre packs of packaged drinking water. In it, majority of
them (35.4%) buy 16-20 times in a month. About 26.2% of the respondents buy 6-10
times, daily (16.9%), below 5 times (15.4%) and 6.2% of them buy 11-15 times a
month. Only a few respondents (6.9%) prefer 300ml of packaged drinking water. In
this category, 35.7% of the respondents buy below 5 times a month. It is followed by,
31% of the respondents who buy 6-10 times, daily (16.7%), 16-20 times (11.9%) and
11-15 times (4.8%). It is concluded that majority of the respondents prefer 20 litre
packs of packaged drinking water and buy below 5 times a month.
Table 4.13
Influence of family type and the quantity purchased
Quantity of purchase of packaged drinking water at a time
Total Famiy
type 250 ml 300 ml 500 ml 1 Litre 2 Litres 5 Litres 20 Litres
Joint Respondents 13 16 18 34 39 16 58 194
Percentage 6.7% 8.2% 9.3% 17.5% 20.1% 8.2% 29.9% 32.0%
Nuclear Respondents 34 26 33 59 111 49 101 413
Percentage 8.2% 6.3% 8.0% 14.3% 26.9% 11.9% 24.5% 68.0%
Total Respondents 47 42 51 93 150 65 159 607
Percentage 7.7% 6.9% 8.4% 15.3% 24.7% 10.7% 26.2% 100.0%
Source: Primary Data
Table 4.13 shows the influence of family type on the quantity of packaged
water purchased. Majority of the respondents (68%) live in nuclear family. Among
them, 26.9% of the respondents prefer 2 litre of packaged drinking water at a time. It
�
�
���
is followed by 20 litres (24.5%), 1 litre (14.3%) and 5 litres (11.9%). Only a few
respondents (6.3%) prefer 300 ml. About 32% of the respondents live in joint family
type. In this category, majority of the respondents (29.9%) prefer 20 litre packs of
package drinking water. It is followed by 20.1% and 17.5% of the respondents who
prefer 2 litres and 1 litre respectively. Further, 9.3% of them prefer 500 ml and a few
among them prefer 250 ml packs of packaged drinking water. It is concluded that
majority of the respondents in the nuclear family prefer 2 litre packs of packaged
drinking water.
Table 4.14
Association between family types and quantity of purchase
Value df P value
Pearson Chi-Square 7.847a
6 .250*
Likelihood Ratio 7.947 6 .242
Linear-by-Linear Association .011 1 .916
N of Valid Cases 607
*Significant at 5% level
Table 4.14 shows the association between family types and the quantity of
purchase. As per the acceptance of null hypothesis (P>0.05), the family type is
associated with the quantity of purchase. Hence, it is concluded that the quantity of
purchase of packaged drinking water is not based on the joint and individual family
type of the respondents. Both types of families give equal importance in purchasing
mineral water.
�
�
���
Table 4.15
Family size of the respondents and quantity of purchase
Quantity of purchase of packaged drinking water at a time
Total Family
size 250 ml 300 ml 500 ml 1 Litre 2 Litres 5 Littres
20
Litres
2-3 Respondents 13 10 14 24 20 11 28 120
Percentage 10.8% 8.3% 11.7% 20.0% 16.7% 9.2% 23.3% 19.8%
4-5 Respondents 28 26 29 55 107 46 101 392
Percentage 7.1% 6.6% 7.4% 14.0% 27.3% 11.7% 25.8% 64.6%
Above
5
Respondents 6 6 8 14 23 8 30 95
Percentage 6.3% 6.3% 8.4% 14.7% 24.2% 8.4% 31.6% 15.7%
Total Respondents 47 42 51 93 150 65 159 607
Percentage 7.7% 6.9% 8.4% 15.3% 24.7% 10.7% 26.2% 100.0%
Source: Primary Data
This table analyses the relationship between the family size of the
respondents and the quantity of purchase. Majority of the respondents’ (64.6%)
family size is between 4 – 5 members. Among them, 27.3% of the respondents prefer
2 litre packs of packaged drinking water. It is followed by 25.8% who prefer 20 litre
packs 1 litre (14%), 5 litre (11.7%) and least of the respondents (6.6%) prefer 300 ml
packs of packaged drinking water. About 15.7% of the respondents’ family size is
above 5 members. In this category, majority of the respondents (31.6%) prefer 20
litre packs of packaged drinking water. About 14.7% of them prefer 1 litre and 6.3%
of the respondents prefer 250 ml and 300 ml packs of packaged drinking water. It is
concluded that majority of the respondents’ family size is between 4 – 5 members and
they prefer 2 litre packs of packaged drinking water.
� �
�
���
Table 4.16
Association of family size of the respondents with their quantity purchase
Value df P value
Pearson Chi-Square 13.292a
12 .348*
Likelihood Ratio 13.208 12 .354
Linear-by-Linear Association 4.503 1 .034
N of Valid Cases 607
*Significant at 5% level
Table 4.16 associates the family size of the respondents with their quantity
purchase. As per the acceptance of null hypothesis (P>0.05), the family size of the
respondents is associated with the quantity of purchase. Hence, it is concluded that
the family size of the respondents influences the quantity of purchase.
Table 4.17
Possession of different types of houses and quantity of purchase
Quantity of purchase of packaged drinking water at a time Total
Types
of house
250
ml
300
ml
500
ml
1
Litres
2
Litres
5
Littres
20
Litres
Hut Respondents 11 9 10 10 9 3 20 72
Percentage 15.3% 12.5% 13.9% 13.9% 12.5% 4.2% 27.8% 11.9%
Tiles Respondents 24 26 32 41 107 48 61 339
Percentage 7.1% 7.7% 9.4% 12.1% 31.6% 14.2% 18.0% 55.8%
TerraceRespondents 12 7 9 42 34 14 78 196
Percentage 6.1% 3.6% 4.6% 21.4% 17.3% 7.1% 39.8% 32.3%
Total Respondents 47 42 51 93 150 65 159 607
Percentage 7.7% 6.9% 8.4% 15.3% 24.7% 10.7% 26.2% 100.0%
Source: Primary Data
Table 4.17 illustrates the possession of different house types and the quantity
of purchase. More than half of the respondents (55.8%) reside in tiled houses.
Among them, 31.6% of the respondents prefer 2 litre packs of packaged drinking
water. It is followed by 18% of them who prefer 20 litre packs and the least of the
respondents (7.1%) prefer 250 ml packs of packaged drinking water. About 11.9% of
the respondents reside in huts. In it, majority of them (27.8%) prefer 20 litre packs of
� �
�
���
packaged drinking water. Further, 13.9% of them prefer 500 ml and 1 litre packs of
drinking water. A very few of the respondents (4.2%) prefer 5 litre packs of packaged
drinking water. It is concluded that majority of the respondents reside in tiled house
and they prefer 2 litre packs of packaged drinking water.
Table 4.18
Frequency of purchase and waterborne diseases
N X σ F value P value
Fever
Below 5 times 237 1.91 1.135
3.572 .007*
6-10 times 164 1.85 1.116
11-15 times 46 1.76 1.015
16-20 times 92 1.43 .929
Daily 68 1.63 1.132
Vomiting
Below 5 times 237 1.78 1.055
7.222 .000*
6-10 times 164 1.93 1.178
11-15 times 46 1.87 1.293
16-20 times 92 1.34 .842
Daily 68 1.35 .748
Diarrhea
Below 5 times 237 1.96 1.156
9.200 .000*
6-10 times 164 1.99 1.105
11-15 times 46 1.83 1.081
16-20 times 92 1.34 .905
Daily 68 1.41 .833
Unsettled stomach
Below 5 times 237 1.57 1.005
2.903 .021* 6-10 times 164 1.62 .949
11-15 times 46 1.63 1.019
16-20 times 92 1.29 .833
Daily 68 1.31 .758
Allergy
Below 5 times 237 1.55 .958
1.348 .251*
6-10 times 164 1.57 .873
11-15 times 46 1.50 .937
16-20 times 92 1.34 .917
Daily 68 1.40 .883
*Significant at 5% level
Table 4.18 shows the relationship between the frequency of purchasing
mineral water and waterborne diseases. The F test analysis shows the relationship
between waterborne diseases fever, vomiting, diarrhea, unsettled stomach and the
frequency of purchasing of packaged drinking water. Waterborne diseases are
significantly related with the frequency of purchase packaged drinking water. The
� �
�
���
waterborne diseases are influenced by the frequency of purchasing and the usage of
packaged drinking water.
As per the acceptance of null hypothesis (P>0.05), there is no significant
association between the purchase frequency of packaged drinking water and allergy, a
waterborne disease. Hence, it is concluded that waterborne diseases like fever,
vomiting, diarrhea and unsettled stomach are not related with the frequency of the
purchase of packaged drinking water.
Table 4.19
Quantity of purchase and waterborne diseases N
Xσ F value P value
Fever
250 ml 47 1.53 .975
1.997 .064*
300 ml 42 2.10 1.394
500 ml 51 2.08 1.278
1 Litre 93 1.81 1.096
2 Litres 150 1.68 1.058
5 Litres 65 1.65 .991
20 Litres 159 1.80 1.054
Vomiting
250 ml 47 1.96 1.285
2.928 .008*
300 ml 42 1.76 1.206
500 ml 51 1.94 1.223
1 Litre 93 1.78 1.141
2 Litres 150 1.43 .797
5 Litres 65 1.66 1.108
20 Litres 159 1.81 1.052
Diarrhoea
250 ml 47 1.83 1.274
1.987 .065*
300 ml 42 1.79 1.200
500 ml 51 2.02 1.157
1 Litre 93 2.01 1.137
2 Litres 150 1.63 1.020
5 Littres 65 1.60 1.072
20 Litres 159 1.86 1.030
Unsettled stomach
250 ml 47 1.68 1.163
2.030 .060*
300 ml 42 1.79 1.200
500 ml 51 1.59 .920
1 Litre 93 1.48 .904
2 Litres 150 1.34 .793
5 Litres 65 1.66 1.122
20 Litres 159 1.49 .871
Allergy
250 ml 47 1.62 1.012
1.723 .113*
300 ml 42 1.67 1.074
500 ml 51 1.45 .757
1 Litre 93 1.55 .866
2 Litres 150 1.33 .755
5 Litres 65 1.68 1.264
20 Litres 159 1.51 .892
*Significant at 5% level
� �
�
���
Table 4.19 shows the F-test analysis, which reveals that the null hypothesis is
accepted (P>0.05) in the variables fever, diarrhoea, unsettled stomach and allergy.
These variables are not significantly related with the quantity of purchase packaged
drinking water and waterborne diseases. So the occurrence of the waterborne diseases
is not based on the quantity of purchase.
In the other variable vomiting, as per the rejection of null hypothesis (P<0.05),
there is significant association between the purchase quantity and vomiting. Hence, it
is concluded that the purchase quantity of packaged drinking water does not influence
the occurrence of vomiting.
Table 4.20
Association of the education of the respondents on the amount spent on
packaged drinking water
Value df P value
Pearson Chi-Square 9.344a
6 .155*
Likelihood Ratio 9.208 6 .162
Linear-by-Linear Association .501 1 .479
N of Valid Cases 607
*Significant at 5% level
Table 4.20 shows the education of the respondents and the amount spent for
packaged drinking water. As per the acceptance of null hypothesis (P>0.05), there is
no significant association between the education of the respondents and the amount
spent for packaged drinking water. Hence, it is concluded that the amount spent for
packaged drinking water is not based on the education of the respondents.
� �
�
���
Table 4.21
Association of family type of the respondents with amount spent on packaged
drinking water
Value df P value
Pearson Chi-Square 25.404a
3 .000*
Likelihood Ratio 24.313 3 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.319 1 .251
N of Valid Cases 607
*Significant at 5% level
Table 4.21 shows relationship between the family type of the respondents and
the amount spent for packaged drinking water. As per the rejection of null hypothesis
(P<0.05), the amount spent for packaged drinking water is associated with the family
type of the respondents. Hence, it is concluded that the family types influences the
amount spent for packaged drinking water.
Table 4.22
Family size and amount spent on packaged drinking water
Amount spent for purchase of packaged
drinking water per month Total
Family size Less than
Rs. 200
Rs.201-
Rs.500
Rs.501-
Rs.750
Above
Rs. 750
2-3 No of Respondents 67 38 9 6 120
Percentage 26.8% 20.4% 7.9% 10.5% 19.8%
4-5 No of Respondents 144 124 88 36 392
Percentage 57.6% 66.7% 77.2% 63.2% 64.6%
Above 5 No of Respondents 39 24 17 15 95
Percentage 15.6% 12.9% 14.9% 26.3% 15.7%
Total No of Respondents 250 186 114 57 607
Percentage 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Primary Data
Table 4.22 shows the relationship between the education of the respondents
and the amount spent for packaged drinking water. Families with 4-5 members
(64.6%) spent more amounts for purchase of packaged drinking water. In it, 77.2% of
the respondents spend Rs. 501-750, 63.2% spend above Rs.750 and 57.6% spend less
� �
�
��
than Rs. 200. In the family size of 2-3 members, 19.8% spend less than Rs.200 it is
followed by Rs. 201-500 (20.4%), and Rs. 501-750 (7.9%). Further, families with
above 5 members (15.7%) spend above Rs. 750 (26.3%), Rs. 501-Rs. 750 (14.9%)
and Rs.201-500 (12.9%). It is concluded that majority of the respondents’ family size
is 4-5 member and they spend Rs.501 to Rs.750 for purchasing packaged drinking
water a month.
Table 4.23
Association of family size of the respondents and the amount spent on
packaged drinking water
Value df P value
Pearson Chi-Square 26.804a
6 .000*
Likelihood Ratio 28.353 6 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 13.504 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 607
*Significant at 5% level
Table 4.23 shows the association between family size and the amount spent
for packaged drinking water. As per the rejection of null hypothesis (P<0.05), the
analysis indicates that there is a significant association between family size and the
amount spent for packaged drinking water. Amount spent for packaged drinking
water is based on the family size of the respondents.
Table 4.24
Association of house types and amount spent for packaged drinking water
Value df P value
Pearson Chi-Square 55.618a
6 .000*
Likelihood Ratio 58.658 6 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association .770 1 .380
N of Valid Cases 607
*Significant at 5% level
Table 4.24 analyses the relationship between the types of house of the
respondents and the amount spent for packaged drinking water per month. As per the
� �
�
��
rejection of null hypothesis, there is a significant association between different house
types and the amount spent for packaged drinking water. It is inferred that the amount
spent for drinking water by respondents differs according to their types of houses.
OCCUPATION AND AMOUUNT SPENT FOR PACKAGED
DRINKING WATER
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC 1999) estimates that people spend
anywhere from 240 to 10,000 times more for a gallon of bottled water than they will
for the same amount of tap water.
Table 4.25
Occupation and Amount Spent for Packaged Drinking Water
Amount spent for purchase of packaged
drinking water per month Total
OccupationLess than
Rs. 200
Rs.201-
Rs.500
Rs.501-
Rs.750
Above
Rs. 750
Employed
No of
Respondents 83 68 19 22 192
Percentage 33.2% 36.6% 16.7% 38.6% 31.6%
Business
No of
Respondents 32 46 60 21 159
Percentage 12.8% 24.7% 52.6% 36.8% 26.2%
House wife
No of
Respondents 54 37 25 9 125
Percentage 21.6% 19.9% 21.9% 15.8% 20.6%
Laborer
No of
Respondents 19 17 3 2 41
Percentage 7.6% 9.1% 2.6% 3.5% 6.8%
Students
No of
Respondents 62 18 7 3 90
Percentage 24.8% 9.7% 6.1% 5.3% 14.8%
Total
No of
Respondents 250 186 114 57 607
Percentage 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Primary Data
Table 4.25 shows the different occupations of the respondents and the amount
spent for purchase of packaged drinking water. Majority of the respondents (31.6%)
� �
�
���
are employed and among them 38.6% spend above Rs. 750 and 33.2% spend Rs. 501-
750 for packaged drinking water per month. 26.2% of the respondents are business
people and they spend Rs. 501-750 (52.6%) and Rs. 201-500 (24.7%) and less than
Rs. 200 (33.2%) for mineral water. Further, 20.6% of the housewife respondents
spend Rs. 201 – Rs. 500 (24.7%) and above Rs. 750 (15.8%). Finally, 14.8% of the
respondents are students who spend less than Rs.200 (24.8%), Rs. 501 – Rs. 750
(6.1%) and above Rs. 750 (38.6%) for packaged drinking water. Only 6.8% of the
respondents are labourers. Among them, 9.1% spend Rs. 201-Rs. 500 followed by Rs.
501 – Rs. 750 (2.6%) and above Rs.750 (3.5%) for packaged drinking water.
Table 4.26
Association of amount spent for packaged drinking water and different
occupation
Value Df P value
Pearson Chi-Square 96.636a
12 .000*
Likelihood Ratio 96.393 12 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 20.377 1 .000
8N of Valid Cases 607
*Significant at 5% level
Table 4.26 shows the relationship between occupation and the amount spent
for packaged drinking water. As per the rejection of null hypothesis (P<0.05), the
alternative hypothesis is accepted. This indicates that there is a significant association
between the occupation and the amount spent for packaged drinking water. The
amount spent for drinking water is based on the occupation of the respondents.
� �
�
���
Table 4.27
Amount spent for packaged drinking water and waterborne diseases
NX
σ F value P value
Fever
Less than Rs. 200 250 1.94 1.169
6.463 .000*
Rs.201-Rs.500 186 1.81 1.122
Rs.501-Rs.750 114 1.40 .817
Above Rs. 750 57 1.72 1.065
Total 607 1.78 1.101
Vomiting
Less than Rs. 200 250 1.86 1.107
4.908 .002*
Rs.201-Rs.500 186 1.70 1.052
Rs.501-Rs.750 114 1.40 .909
Above Rs. 750 57 1.70 1.180
Total 607 1.71 1.073
Diarrhoea
Less than Rs. 200 250 1.91 1.099
3.187 .023*
Rs.201-Rs.500 186 1.85 1.100
Rs.501-Rs.750 114 1.54 1.049
Above Rs. 750 57 1.70 1.117
Total 607 1.80 1.098
Unsettled stomach
Less than Rs. 200 250 1.62 1.043
2.182 .089*
Rs.201-Rs.500 186 1.46 .826
Rs.501-Rs.750 114 1.37 .865
Above Rs. 750 57 1.53 1.002
Total 607 1.51 .947
Allergy
Less than Rs. 200 250 1.63 1.003
5.632 .001*
Rs.201-Rs.500 186 1.38 .756
Rs.501-Rs.750 114 1.32 .834
Above Rs. 750 57 1.74 1.078
Total 607 1.50 .921
*Significant at 5% level
Table 4.27 shows the amount spent for packaged drinking water and the
occurrence of waterborne diseases like fever, vomiting, diarrhea, unsettled stomach
and allergy. As per the acceptance of null hypothesis (P>0.05),waterborne diseases
like unsettled stomach are not influenced by the amount spent on packaged drinking
water as in the other four variables of fever, vomiting, diarrhea and allergy. As such,
the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. Hence, it is
concluded that the fever, vomiting, diarrhea and allergy are influenced by the amount
spent for packaged drinking water.
� �
�
���
Table 4.28
Doctors’ advice and amount spent for mineral water
NX
σ F value P value
Less than Rs. 200 250 2.31 1.413
1.974 .117*
Rs.201-Rs.500 186 2.31 1.303
Rs.501-Rs.750 114 2.67 1.532
Above Rs. 750 57 2.46 1.489
Total 607 2.39 1.414
*Significant at 5% level
Table 4.28 shows the relationship between the doctors’ advice and the amount
spent for packaged drinking water. As per the acceptance of null hypothesis (P>0.05),
the doctors’ advice is not associated with the amount spent for packaged drinking
water. This analysis indicates that the doctors’ advice does not influence the amount
spent for packaged drinking water.
Table 4.29
Influence of doctors’ advice and quantity of packaged drinking water
NX
σ F value P value
250 ml 47 2.49 1.333
.736 .621*
300 ml 42 2.52 1.273
500 ml 51 2.35 1.440
1 Litre 93 2.34 1.347
2 Litres 150 2.35 1.502
5 Litres 65 2.68 1.426
20 Litres 159 2.28 1.419
Total 607 2.39 1.414
*Significant at 5% level
Table 4.29 shows that the F-test value of 0.736. P>0.05 is not significant,
showing that there is no significant difference between doctors’ advice and the
quantity of purchase of packaged drinking water. As per the acceptance of null
hypothesis, the quantity of packaged drinking water is not influenced by the doctors’
advice.
� �
�
���
Table 4.30
Purchase frequency and reasons for purchasing packaged drinking water
NX
σ F value P value
Family function
Below 5 times 75 3.29 1.683
5.813 .000*
6-10 times 68 3.66 1.589
11-15 times 14 4.00 1.519
16-20 times 65 4.48 1.276
Daily 35 4.11 1.451
Total 257 3.84 1.579
Special occasion
Below 5 times 75 3.04 1.202
3.035 .018*
6-10 times 68 3.06 1.370
11-15 times 14 3.29 1.437
16-20 times 65 3.57 .901
Daily 35 3.63 1.190
Total 257 3.27 1.213
Travel time
Below 5 times 75 2.96 1.409
.396 .812*
6-10 times 68 3.04 1.202
11-15 times 14 3.29 1.684
16-20 times 65 3.00 .829
Daily 35 3.20 1.158
Total 257 3.04 1.206
Summer season
Below 5 times 75 2.76 1.460
.509 .729*
6-10 times 68 2.81 1.307
11-15 times 14 2.79 1.626
16-20 times 65 3.08 1.384
Daily 35 2.86 1.458
Total 257 2.87 1.405
Rainy season
Below 5 times 75 2.39 1.413
1.244 .293*
6-10 times 68 2.26 1.300
11-15 times 14 2.71 1.326
16-20 times 65 2.72 1.352
Daily 35 2.60 1.218
Total 257 2.49 1.341
*Significant at 5% level
Table 4.30 analyses the frequency of purchase and the reasons for change in
quantity. As per the acceptance of null hypothesis (P>0.05), there is no significant
difference between the frequency of purchase and reasons of purchase such as special
occasion, travel time, summer season and rainy season. Another variable, family
function is significant, showing that there is a relationship between family function
and purchase frequency. Hence, the purchase frequency is influenced by the family
function.
� �
�
���
QUANTITY OF PURCHASE ON DIFFERENT OCCASIONS
High awareness for safety and hygiene and increase in disposable income are
driving sales of bottled water in India. With an increase in the number of waterborne
diseases, consumers are concerned about safety and do not mind spending on bottled
water. In fact bottled water has become a necessity when travelling (Bottled water in
India 2013).
Table 4.31
Quantity of purchase on different occasions N
Xσ F value P value
Family function
250 ml 23 2.91 1.929
9.436 .000*
300 ml 24 3.67 1.579
500 ml 27 4.00 1.359
1 Litre 32 3.44 1.435
2 Litres 78 4.63 .968
5 Litres 40 4.08 1.607
20 Litres 33 2.73 1.737
Special occasion
250 ml 23 3.30 1.020
3.377 .003*
300 ml 24 3.42 1.100
500 ml 27 3.41 1.248
1 Litre 32 3.16 1.439
2 Litres 78 3.60 1.024
5 Littres 40 3.13 1.042
20 Litres 33 2.55 1.481
Travel time
250 ml 23 2.96 1.147
2.439 .026*
300 ml 24 2.83 1.090
500 ml 27 3.04 1.315
1 Litre 32 3.53 1.459
2 Litres 78 3.18 .990
5 Littres 40 3.03 1.165
20 Litres 33 2.48 1.326
Summer season
250 ml 23 2.74 1.322
.375 .894*
300 ml 24 2.71 1.334
500 ml 27 2.74 1.375
1 Litre 32 2.91 1.594
2 Litres 78 3.03 1.309
5 Littres 40 2.93 1.474
20 Litres 33 2.70 1.551
Rainy season
250 ml 23 2.39 1.469
1.067 .383*
300 ml 24 1.96 1.083
500 ml 27 2.59 1.338
1 Litre 32 2.66 1.405
2 Litre 78 2.40 1.241
5 Littre 40 2.73 1.261
20 Litre 33 2.61 1.638
*Significant at 5% level
� �
�
���
Table 4.31 shows the results of F-test analysis. As per the acceptance of null
hypothesis (P>0.05), there is no significant association with the quantity of purchase
and summer and rainy seasons. As per the rejection of null hypothesis (P<0.05), the
quantity of purchase is associated with the family function, special occasion and
travel time. The quantity of purchase varies with family functions, special occasions
and travel time.
Table 4.32
Influence of occupation on purchasing packaged drinking water
*Significant at 5% level
NX
σ F value P value
Family function
Employed 57 3.53 1.605
10.839 .000* Business 103 4.52 1.119
House wife 59 3.36 1.827
Laborer 18 3.78 1.309
Students 20 2.70 1.625
Special occasion
Employed 57 3.23 1.402
4.102 .003* Business 103 3.61 .952
House wife 59 2.90 1.269
Laborer 18 3.00 1.283
Students 20 3.00 1.257
Travel time
Employed 57 3.25 1.455
2.201 .069* Business 103 3.10 .975
House wife 59 2.66 1.154
Laborer 18 3.06 1.305
Students 20 3.30 1.418
Summer season
Employed 57 3.09 1.479
1.661 .159* Business 103 2.97 1.424
House wife 59 2.47 1.291
Laborer 18 2.89 1.530
Students 20 2.85 1.182
Rainy season
Employed 57 2.68 1.583
4.876 .001*
Business 103 2.22 1.154
House wife 59 2.71 1.175
Laborer 18 1.78 1.166
Students 20 3.25 1.585
� �
�
���
Table 4.32 shows that the F-test values 2.201 and 1.661, P>0.05 are not
significant and there is no relationship between occupation and the variables summer
season and travel time. As such, the null hypothesis is accepted and the alternative
hypothesis is rejected. Hence, occupation does not influence the purchase during
summer season and travel time. As per the rejection of null hypothesis (P<0.05), the
variables family function, special occasion and rainy season are associated with the
occupations of the respondents. It is concluded that occupation influences the
purchase of packaged drinking water for family functions, special occasions and in
rainy season.
Table 4.33
Income and reasons to purchase
NX
σ F value P value
Family function
Below Rs. 10000 158 3.68 1.597
2.232 .085* Rs.10000-20000 92 4.10 1.541
Rs.20001-30000 2 2.50 2.121
Above Rs.30000 5 4.60 .548
Special occasion
Below Rs. 10000 158 3.17 1.293
2.284 .079* Rs.10000-20000 92 3.43 1.041
Rs.20001-30000 2 2.00 1.414
Above Rs.30000 5 4.00 1.000
Travel time
Below Rs. 10000 158 3.04 1.294
2.179 .091* Rs.10000-20000 92 3.02 1.027
Rs.20001-30000 2 1.50 .707
Above Rs.30000 5 4.00 1.000
Summer season
Below Rs. 10000 158 2.93 1.446
1.022 .384* Rs.10000-20000 92 2.83 1.364
Rs.20001-30000 2 2.00 .000
Above Rs.30000 5 2.00 .707
Rainy season
Below Rs. 10000 158 2.54 1.362
2.037 .109* Rs.10000-20000 92 2.48 1.313
Rs.20001-30000 2 1.00 .000
Above Rs.30000 5 1.40 .548
*Significant at 5% level
� �
�
���
Table 4.33 the null hypothesis is accepted (P>0.05) for the variables family
function, special occasion, travel time, summer season and rainy season. These
variables are not significantly related with the monthly income of the respondents.
The variables family function, special occasion, travel time, summer season and rainy
season are not influenced by the income of the respondents. The respondents buy
packaged drinking water during these circumstances irrespective of their income.
HANDLING EMPTY BOTTLE AFTER USE
Plastic bottles are a waste problem adding to landfill overload when not recycled and
they cause number of environmental and social concerns (Glennon 2002).This table
illustrates the respondents’ handling of empty bottle after use.
Fig 4.2
Handling of empty bottle after use
Fig 4.2 shows the handling of empty bottles after use. Majority of the
respondents (39.0%) recycle the empty bottle after use; it is followed by reuse
(36.2%), throw away (15.7%) and crush (9.1%). Majority of the respondents sell to
recycle the empty bottle after use.
���
���
���
���
���
����
���
����
����� ��� �������
�� ��� �� ���
���� ���� ��� ��
���������
������ ����
� �
�
��
Table 4.34
Age of the respondents and handling of empty bottles after use
Empty bottle after use
Total
Age
Throw
away Reuse Crush
Sell to
Recycle
Below 18 No of Respondents 2 28 3 35 68
Percentage 2.1% 12.7% 5.5% 14.8% 11.2%
18-25 No of Respondents 40 74 15 79 208
Percentage 42.1% 33.6% 27.3% 33.3% 34.3%
26-33 No of Respondents 29 46 16 91 182
Percentage 30.5% 20.9% 29.1% 38.4% 30.0%
34-40 No of Respondents 8 35 13 19 75
Percentage 8.4% 15.9% 23.6% 8.0% 12.4%
Above 40
years
No of Respondents 16 37 8 13 74
Percentage 16.8% 16.8% 14.5% 5.5% 12.2%
Total No of Respondents 95 220 55 237 607
Percentage 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Primary Data
Table 4.34 shows the age group of the respondents and the handling of empty
bottles after use. Majority of the respondents (34.3%) who are in the age group of 18-
25 years throw away the empty bottle (42.1%). It is followed by 33.6% of them who
reuse and recycle the empty bottles.30.0% of the respondents are in the age group of
26-30 years. In it, 38.4% recycle, followed by those who throw away (30.5%) the
empty bottle after use. Further, 12.4% of the respondents are in the age group of 34-
40 years. Among them, 23.6% crush the empty bottle, reuse (8.4%) and sell to
recycle. Finally, 11.2% of the respondents are in the age group of below 18 years and
among them recycle (14.8%), reuse (12.7%) and throw away (2.1%) the empty bottle
after use. It is concluded that the majority of the respondents who are in the age
groups of 18 – 25 yrs takes important role in throw away, reuse and crash the empty
bottle .Though in the age group of 26 – 33 years sell to recycling the empty bottles.
� �
�
��
Table 4.35
Association between handling of empty bottle and age of the respondents
Value Df P value
Pearson Chi-Square 53.276a
12 .000*
Likelihood Ratio 58.121 12 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 11.153 1 .001
N of Valid Cases 607
*Significant at 5% level
Table 4.35 shows that the Chi square value of 53.276 (df=12, N=607) P<0.05
is significant at 12 degrees of freedom, showing there is a significant difference
between expected and observed frequencies. As such, the null hypothesis is rejected
and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. Hence, it is concluded that the respondents’
age influences the handling of empty bottles after use.
Table 4.36
Education and handling of empty bottles
Users of empty bottle after use
Total Education Throw
away
Reuse Crush Sell to
Recycle
Illiterate
No of
Respondents 9 15 5 10 39
Percentage 9.5% 6.8% 9.1% 4.2% 6.4%
School
level
No of
Respondents 31 92 15 128 266
Percentage 32.6% 41.8% 27.3% 54.0% 43.8%
College
level
No of
Respondents 55 113 35 99 302
Percentage 57.9% 51.4% 63.6% 41.8% 49.8%
Total No of
Respondents 95 220 55 237 607
Percentage 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: primary Data
� �
�
���
Table 4.36 shows the relationship between the education of the respondents
and the handling of empty bottle after use. At the different levels of education, college
level respondents (49.8%) use packaged drinking water more. In it, 57.9% of them
throw away the empty bottles after use followed by reuse (51.4%) and crush (63.6%).
In the school level educated respondents, (54.0%), recycle, reuse (41.8%) and throw
away (32.6%) the empty bottles. Finally, among the 6.4% the illiterate respondents,
9.5% throw away reuse (6.8%) and sell to recycle (4.2%) the empty bottles. Majority
of the educated respondents reuse the empty bottles.
Table 4.37
Association between handling of empty bottle and education of the respondents
Value df P value
Pearson Chi-Square 22.341a
6 .001*
Likelihood Ratio 22.698 6 .001
Linear-by-Linear Association 2.298 1 .130
N of Valid Cases 607
*Significant at 5% level
Table 4.37 shows the relationship between the education of the respondents
and the handling of empty bottles after use. As per the rejection of null hypothesis
(P<0.05) the education of the respondents influences the handling of empty bottles
after use. The handling of empty bottles is closely related with the education of the
respondents.
Table 4.38
Association of family types and handling empty bottle
Value Df P value
Pearson Chi-Square 14.322a
3 .002*
Likelihood Ratio 14.629 3 .002
Linear-by-Linear Association 10.139 1 .001
N of Valid Cases 607
*Significant at 5% level
� �
�
���
Table 4.38 shows relationship between the family type of the respondents and
the handling of empty bottle after use. As per the rejection of null hypothesis
(P<0.05), the alternate hypothesis is accepted. The family type is associated with the
handling of empty bottle after use. Handling of empty bottle after use is influenced by
the family type of the respondents.
Table 4.39
Association between handling of empty bottles and types of house
Value df P value
Pearson Chi-Square 17.106a
6 .009*
Likelihood Ratio 17.145 6 .009
Linear-by-Linear Association 2.425 1 .119
N of Valid Cases 607
*Significant at 5% level
Table 4.39 shows that Chi square value of 17.106 (df=6, N=607) P<0.05 is
significant at 6 degrees of freedom, showing that there is a significant difference
between expected and observed frequencies. As such, the null hypothesis is rejected
and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. It is concluded that the different house
types of the respondents influences the handling of empty bottles.
� �
�
���
Table 4.40
Occupation of the respondents and handling of empty bottle
Users of empty bottle after use
Total Occupation
Throw
away Reuse Crush
Sell to
Recycle
Employed
No of
Respondents 35 81 23 53 192
Percentage 36.8% 36.8% 41.8% 22.4% 31.6%
Business
No of
Respondents 15 40 9 95 159
Percentage 15.8% 18.2% 16.4% 40.1% 26.2%
Housewife
No of
Respondents 26 45 11 43 125
Percentage 27.4% 20.5% 20.0% 18.1% 20.6%
Labourers
No of
Respondents 8 26 2 5 41
Percentage 8.4% 11.8% 3.6% 2.1% 6.8%
Students
No of
Respondents 11 28 10 41 90
Percentage 11.6% 12.7% 18.2% 17.3% 14.8%
Total
No of
Respondents 95 220 55 237 607
Percentage 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Primary Data
Table 4.40 shows the different occupations of the respondents and their
handling of empty bottle. Majority of the respondents (31.6%) are employed. In it,
41.8% of them crush the empty bottle, 36.8% throw away and 36.8% reuse the empty
bottle after use. 26.2% of the respondents are business people. Among them, 40.1% of
them sell to recycle the empty bottle, 16.4% crush and 15.8% throw away the empty
bottle. Further, 20.6% of the housewife respondents are house wives throw away are
(27.4%). Here, it is followed by reuse (20.5%) and sell to recycle (18.1%). Finally,
14.8% of the respondents are students. Among them, 18.2% of them crush the empty
bottle, 12.7% reuse and 11.6% throw away the empty bottle. Only 6.8% of the
respondents are labourers. Among them, 11.8% reuse the empty bottle, 3.6% crush it
and 2.1% sell to recycle the empty water bottle after use.
� �
�
���
Table 4.41 Association of occupation with handling of empty bottle Value df P value
Pearson Chi-Square 62.379a 12 .000*
Likelihood Ratio 63.223 12 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association .390 1 .532
N of Valid Cases 607
*Significant at 5% level
Table 4.41 shows the relationship between the occupation of the respondents
and the handling of empty bottle. As per the rejection of null hypothesis (P<0.05),
occupation is associated with the handling of empty bottles after use. Hence, handling
of empty bottle is influenced by the occupation of the respondents.
Table 4.42 Influence of awareness in handling of empty bottles N
Xσ F value P value
T.V
Throw away 95 2.77 1.484 5.485 .001*
Reuse 220 2.27 1.406
Crush 55 1.84 1.330
Sell to Recycle 237 2.31 1.394
Internet
Throw away 95 2.48 1.359 2.004 .112*
Reuse 220 2.19 1.285
Crush 55 1.96 1.374
Sell to Recycle 237 2.26 1.339
Radio
Throw away 95 2.46 1.367 3.103 .026*
Reuse 220 2.13 1.236
Crush 55 1.91 1.405
Sell toRecycle 237 2.34 1.313
Press
Throw away 95 2.44 1.374 1.295 .275*
Reuse 220 2.26 1.300
Crush 55 2.04 1.453
Sell to Recycle 237 2.37 1.370
Pamphlets
Throw away 95 2.48 1.413 3.185 .023*
Reuse 220 2.42 1.439
Crush 55 1.87 1.248
Sell to Recycle 237 2.50 1.346
*Significant at 5% level
Table 4.42 shows that F-test values are 2.004 and 1.773. P<0.05 is not
significant, showing there is no significant relationship with internet, press and
handling of empty bottle. Hence, internet and press are not related to the handling of
empty bottles. As per the acceptance of the null hypothesis there is a significant
difference between the variables T.V, radio, pamphlets and handling of empty
bottles. It is concluded that the sources of information from T.V. and radio are useful
for proper handling of empty bottles.
� �
�
���
REFERENCES
1. Packaged drinking water/Mineral water (2003). Small Industries Service
Institute 111 and 112, B.T. Road, Kolkata - 35 (W. B.) Phone: 577-0595,
2596, 0597 and 0598. Fax: 577-5531. March 2003. E-Mail- gram-smallindben
2. Afzal, B.,M. 2006. Drinking Water and Women's Health.J Midwifery
Womens Health 51:12-18. http://www.ukessays.com/essays/environmental-
studies/water-is-an-essenti al-component-in-our-life.php#ixzz2VKXQyRtc
3. Sciacca, S. and Conti. G.,O. 2009. Mutagens and carcinogens in drinking
water.Mediterr J Nutr Metab 2:157-162.
4. Glennon R., J. Water Follies: Groundwater Pumping and the Fate of
America’s Fresh Waters. Island Press; Washington, DC, USA: 2002. pp. 1–3.
5. Anadu E., C. Harding A.,K. Risk perception and bottled water use. Amer. J.
Water Works Assoc. 2000;92:82–92. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK. Gender,
race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal. 1994;14:1101–
1108. [PubMed].
6. NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). 1999. Bottled Water: Pure Drink
or Pure Hype? http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/bw/bwinx.asp, last
accessed Mar 31 2011.
7. Bottled Water in India (2013). Region: Asia, India, Euromonitor International
Published: July 2013 56 pages.
8. Bottled Water in India (2013). Region: Asia, India, Euromonitor International
Published: July 2013 56 pages.
9. �Taruna Sondarva (2011). Natural Mineral Water Market in India: Spring time
ahead… Dated: 21st April 2011.
10. Gleick P., H. The World’s Water: The Biennial Report on Freshwater
Resources 2004–2005. Island Press; Washington, DC, USA: 2004. The myth
and reality of bottled water.