Martina Schäfer, Noara Kebir, Daniel Philipp (editors) - TU Berlin

PROCEEDINGS Conference MPDES 2011
Research Question Two
To establish the influence of MTs on environmentally
significant behaviour, it is important to review the
interaction of the variables included within the
supported hypothesis across the entire respondent
population. The table of findings in Annex II
represents the core results of each variable
independently. In short, the univariate analysis
revealed that there is a significant environmental
commitment across the entire respondent population.
This commitment is evidenced by high levels of
respondent commitment to reducing energy use,
reducing rubbish creation, installing energy efficiency
improvements in the home, and environmentally
conscious transport preferences. The analysis also
demonstrates that the apparent uneven distribution
across the responses to categorical or numerical
questions potentially compounds the skewed
responses to nominal responses (i.e. yes/no). Finally,
the uneven distribution of responses may signal a
sampling bias, which might affect the bivariate
analysis of responses from the Generators and
Average Users.
Bivariate Analysis - Research Question One
The application of the scoring matrix to the survey
responses sheds light on the relationship between
MTs in the home and overall individual energy
demand. Generators achieved an average energy
savings score of 78.6 kWh/d, whereas Average Users
attained an averaged energy savings of 58.5 kWh/d.
The difference of 20.1 kWh/d is substantial, achieving
a 5% (F=0.00) significance level (Tp=4.5; p=0.43).
On average, Generators save 26% more energy than
Average Users. Generators and Average Users share a
minimum score of 23kWh/d and differing maximum
scores of 123 kWh/d and 112 kWh/d respectively. In
the behaviours considered, individuals with MTs in
their homes save more (i.e. use less) energy than
individuals who do not generate their own energy.
Bivariate Analysis - Research Question Two
Hypothesis A
The univariate analysis on the Air Temperature
variable discovered that there were two outliers,
which were removed before this test was conducted.
The average home temperatures of the Energy
Generator and Average Energy User groups were
18.98 °C and 19.00 °C respectively—a statistically
insignificant difference. Hypothesis A is rejected at a
5% (F=.93) significance level (Tp=-0.057; p=0.86).
Thus, the results suggest that the presence of MTs has
no relationship with home air temperature.
Hypothesis B
Only thirty-seven (67.3%) Average Users have
double-glazed windows compared to sixty-four
(95.6%) Generators, resulting in a difference of
28.3%. This outcome represents a statistically
significant difference. Hypothesis B is not rejected at
a 5% (F=0.00) significance level. Consequently, the
findings demonstrate that the presence of MTs has a
positive relationship with the likelihood home
windows are double-glazed.
Hypothesis C
Sixty-one (91.0%) Generators have improved
insulation in their home, a number comprising over
70% of total respondents with improved insulation.
Only twenty-five (46.3%) Average Users reported
having improved insulation. This finding represents a
statistically significant result (F=0.00) that supports
Hypothesis C. Therefore, the presence of MTs has a
positive relationship with the likelihood insulation in
the home has been improved.
Hypothesis D
An understanding of the respondents‘ commitment to
recycling was captured by collectively analysing three
recycling oriented variables: commitment to recycling
and recycling of kitchen and electronic waste.
Generators ―always‖, ―sometimes‖ and ―never‖
recycle 82.1%, 17.9%, and 0% respectively,
compared to 80.2%, 18.2% and 1.8% of Average
Users. This result does not represent a statistically
significant difference, exceeding a 5% significance
level (F=0.54). More Generators recycle kitchen
waste (85.1% to 49.1%) and electronic waste (56.7%
to 34.5%) then Average Users. Using a Chi-Squared
test, the kitchen and electronic waste recycling results
represents a statistically significant finding (F=0.0
and F=0.15). Recycling kitchen and electronic waste
represents a commitment to recycling. Findings
indicate that the presence of MTs lead to a greater
commitment to recycling.
Hypothesis E
On average, Generators and Average Users eat meat
4.08 and 3.66 days per week respectively.
Conducting a T-test reveals that this result is
statistically insignificant. Hypothesis E is rejected at a
5% (F=0.29) significance level (Tp = 1.07; p=0.73).
MTs have no relationship with daily meat
consumption.
Hypothesis F
Average Users profess to ―always‖, ―sometimes‖, and
―never‖ consciously reduce the amount of packaging
purchased during shopping 18.9%, 79.2% and 1.9%
of the time respectively. Generators only try to avoid
purchasing of packaging-intensive goods 26.9%,
67.2% and 6.0% of the time for the same response
categories. While the response percentages are each
categorically different, this result fails to meet a 5%
(F=0.27) significance level. Hypothesis F is incorrect.
MTs have no relationship with packaging
consumption behavior.
Hypothesis G
Relating to response trends revealed in Hypothesis F,
Generators and Average Users gave the importance of
reducing less rubbish a score of 1.67 and 1.80
respectively. Responses were ranked on scale of one
to four, one being very important and four being
unimportant. The groups‘ responses trend toward
feeling that creating less rubbish is important (score
179