chapter iv behavioural changes in consumers in purchasing and using packaged drinking...

�

�

��

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


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%


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


8 .003*





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


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


Percentage 32.0% 28.0% 4.0% 8.0% 28.0% 4.1%

Above

Rs.30000

No of


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%


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


12 .000*





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


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


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


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


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


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


Percentage 35.7% 31.0% 4.8% 11.9% 16.7% 6.9%

500 ml

No of


Percentage 29.4% 52.9% 5.9% 5.9% 5.9% 8.4%

1 Litre

No of


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


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%


�

�

��

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%


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


6 .250*


Linear-by-Linear Association .011 1 .916



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%


Percentage 7.7% 6.9% 8.4% 15.3% 24.7% 10.7% 26.2% 100.0%


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


12 .348*





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%


Percentage 7.7% 6.9% 8.4% 15.3% 24.7% 10.7% 26.2% 100.0%


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


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


� �

�

��

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


6 .155*





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


3 .000*





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%


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%


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


6 .000*





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


6 .000*





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


Percentage 12.8% 24.7% 52.6% 36.8% 26.2%

House wife

No of


Percentage 21.6% 19.9% 21.9% 15.8% 20.6%

Laborer

No of


Percentage 7.6% 9.1% 2.6% 3.5% 6.8%

Students

No of


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%


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


12 .000*



8N of Valid Cases 607


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


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


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


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


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


� �

�

��

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


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


� �

�

��

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%


Percentage 42.1% 33.6% 27.3% 33.3% 34.3%


Percentage 30.5% 20.9% 29.1% 38.4% 30.0%


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%


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


12 .000*





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


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

� �

�

��


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


6 .001*






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


3 .002*





� �

�

��

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


6 .009*





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


Percentage 36.8% 36.8% 41.8% 22.4% 31.6%

Business

No of


Percentage 15.8% 18.2% 16.4% 40.1% 26.2%

Housewife

No of


Percentage 27.4% 20.5% 20.0% 18.1% 20.6%

Labourers

No of


Percentage 8.4% 11.8% 3.6% 2.1% 6.8%

Students

No of


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%


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*





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


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


Pamphlets

Throw away 95 2.48 1.413 3.185 .023*

Reuse 220 2.42 1.439

Crush 55 1.87 1.248



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.

chapter iv behavioural changes in consumers in purchasing and using packaged drinking...

Documents