Post on 30-May-2020
transcript
TAYLOR’S UNIVERSITY School of Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts
BACHELOR OF CULINARY ARTS AND FOODSERVICE MANAGEMENT (HONS)
PROJET TUTORÉ
Factors Influencing Green Restaurant Patronage in USJ
Étude élaborée par Presented by
Aiman Asyraf Bin Anuar
28/4/14 Sous la direction de Under the direction of
Dr. Yeoh Tow Kuang
This is a flyleaf, please leave this page empty
TAYLOR’S UNIVERSITY School of Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts
BACHELOR OF CULINARY ARTS AND FOODSERVICE MANAGEMENT (HONS)
PROJET TUTORÉ
Factors Influencing Green Restaurant Patronage in USJ
Étude élaborée par Presented by
Aiman Asyraf Bin Anuar
28/4/14 Sous la direction de Under the direction of
Dr. Yeoh Tow Kuang
TAYLOR’S UNIVERSITY School of Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts
BACHELOR OF CULINARY ARTS AND FOODSERVICE MANAGEMENT (HONS)
Nom/Surname: Anuar Prénom/Name: Aiman Asyraf Titre du dossier/Research Title: Factors Influencing Green Restaurant
Patronage in USJ Année/Year: 2014
EVALUATION
MEMBRES DU JURY / MEMBERS OF THE JURY
1ST MARKER
2ND MARKER
APPRECIATION GLOBALE
GENERAL COMMENTS
Checklist of Required Documents
Please tick () to indicate the documents that are included with your dissertation
Cover Page. Printed on hard cover paper
Turnitin Report. Before the flyleaf, after the cover page.
Flyleaf. A blank page for reader to write notes or comments if necessary
Title Page. Similar to cover page, but printed on A4 paper
Evaluation page.
Statement of Originality
Statement of Tutor’s Role and Student’s Role
Dissertation Discussion Log: Student- Tutor
Acknowledgements
Summary of the Table of Contents.
Abstract in French and English
Bibliography.
List of Tables and List of Diagrams. .
Annexes.
Table of Contents. I have ensured that the required documents/forms are completed and are attached to my dissertation. Signature: ________________________ Date: ________________
Statement of Originality
Candidate Name: Aiman Asyraf Bin Anuar Program: Bachelor of Culinary Arts and Food Service Management Index Number: 1004JP89035 Dissertation Title: Factors Influencing Green Restaurant Patronage in USJ I certify that this dissertation and the research to which it refers, are the products of my own work, and that any idea or quotation from the work of other people, published or otherwise, are fully acknowledged in accordance with the standard academic convention. All data used in this dissertation is obtained via legal sources. I also certify that the research work done in this dissertation has not been published or submitted for any other programme or degree in any other universities. Signature: ________________________ Date: ________________
Statement of Tutor’s and Student’s Role
Tutor’s Name: Yeoh Tow Kuang Candidate Name: Aiman Asyraf Bin Anuar Program: Bachelor of Culinary Arts and Food Service Management Index Number: 1004JP89035 Dissertation Title: Factors Influencing Green Restaurant Patronage in USJ Consultation Hour: 5 Hours
Role of the tutor The tutor will undertake the following duties:
a. To provide scientific guidance for the student‘s dissertation; b. To provide consultation hours (Min 1 hour/ week) that is agreeable for students; c. To meet with the student via face to face or email discussion pertaining to literature
review; choices of research questions; research methodology; model of analysis, structure of table of content and bibliography;
d. To read draft of dissertation Part 1 and Part 2/3, and to comment upon the student's progression;
e. To alert lecturer in Research Methodology on weak students‘ performance; f. To assist in final examination sessions; g. To comment on students‘ performance during Board of Examiners‘ meeting.
Signature: ________________________ Date: ________________ Role of the student The student will undertake the following duties:
a. To perform preliminary reading on academic literature related to topic chosen; b. To draft table of content outlining logic of development in chosen topic; c. To select research questions based on literature reviewed; d. To propose research methodology to answer research questions; e. To create research tool to collect primary data; f. To draft data processing plan and model of analysis; g. To attend plenary sessions in Semester 2; h. To consult tutor‘s opinion at least 5 times in Semester 2.
Signature: ________________________ Date: ___________
STUDENT NAME
Aiman Asyraf Bin Anuar
ID NUMBER 1004JP89035
DISSERTATION
TOPIC
Factors Influencing Green Restaurant Patronage in USJ
PART 1- THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
CHOICE OF TOPIC AND TABLE OF CONTENTS
13/8/13 Discussed on my chosen topic, the purpose of my research and gave advice regarding arrangement of dissertation
Signatures: Student/Tutor
QUALITY OF LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS IDENTIFIED
13/8/13 Discussed on the arrangement of my literature review, the way it should be arranged, the way it should be written and how I should relate the literature review with my topic and make it easy to read
Signatures: Student/Tutor
DRAFT OF PART 1
15/2/14 Worked on the arrangement, and talked about the variables chosen for the research
Signatures: Student/Tutor
DISSERTATION DISCUSSION LOG
STUDENT-TUTOR
BACHELOR OF CULINARY ARTS
PART 2- METHODS AND FINDINGS
COLLECTION OF DATA
15/2/14 Talked on the number of required respondents, the method of research of quantitative and discussed on sample target, explaining how the surveys should be formatted.
Signatures: Student/Tutor
ANALYSIS AND WRITING
15/2/14 Advised on the way the analysis should be written. Analysis and writing should explain and answer key research questions in the research. Suggestion on how to write conclusion were also discussed. Conclusion should be a summary of the whole research.
Signatures: Student/Tutor
FINAL DISSERTATION
Signatures: Student/Tutor
DISSERTATION DISCUSSION LOG
STUDENT-TUTOR
BACHELOR OF CULINARY ARTS
AND FOODSERVICE MANAGEMENT (HONS)
11
Acknowledgements
In this section I would like to take the opportunity to give my thanks to all parties that have
guided me and offered me help in the process of doing this research. I believe without their
help my ability to be able to conduct and submit my research would be an impossible feat.
Firstly I would like to thank Taylor‘s University for giving me the necessary resources to do
research on my chosen topic. Without their resources such books from the library, online
databases and citation tutorials, my work would not have been as detailed as it is now.
Next I would like to thank Dr Yeoh, my tutor for this dissertation. His guidance and
suggestion was very helpful for the process of completing my dissertation. He answered all
of my questions honestly and gave his opinions on methods I should use as well as
corrections on mistakes that I did not notice.
I would also like to thank my friends and family for all their support in my work. Their
encouragement helped kept my spirits up and provide extra motivation when it came to
completing my work. My parents especially were very helpful as they were around me most
of time and helped do little things like arranging done questionnaires and making sure I was
always focused on my work.
12
Summary of Contents
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ 11
Summary of Contents .................................................................................................................... 12
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 13
Résumé ............................................................................................................................................ 14
General Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 15
PART 1 Theoretical Framework .................................................................................................. 18
1.1 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 18
1.2 Literature Review............................................................................................................ 19
PART 2 Methods and Findings ................................................................................................... 29
2.1 Research Methodology.................................................................................................. 29
2.2 Findings and Analysis .................................................................................................... 34
General Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 67
Bibliography .................................................................................................................................... 69
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... 77
List of Diagrams .............................................................................................................................. 79
Annexes ........................................................................................................................................... 80
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... 88
13
Abstract
Concern about the environment has been growing steadily and has become a big problem
all over the world. The impact of tourism, hospitality and foodservice industry towards the
environment can no longer be ignored. Green practices in the food service industry have
been gaining popularity. One of the growing trends is the establishment of a green
restaurant. However there is not much knowledge on the motivating factors that influences
consumers to patronize a green restaurant. The research will look into how customer
knowledge on a green restaurant, environmental concern, environmental attitude and
demographics can predict willingness to patronize a green restaurant. A quantitative study
will be done by the researcher in order to explain consumer‘s willingness to patronize a
green restaurant. An analysis on demographics, descriptive data, mean comparison and
linear regression is conducted in order to answer all key questions of the research.
Keywords: green restaurant, willingness to patronize
14
Résumé
Préoccupation au sujet de l'environnement n'a cessé d'augmenter et est devenu un gros
problème dans le monde entier . L'impact du tourisme, hospitalité et foodservice industrie
vers l'environnement ne peut plus être ignoré . Pratiques écologiques dans l'industrie des
services alimentaires ont été gagne en popularité. L'une des tendances de plus en plus est
la création d'un restaurant green. Toutefois, il n'y a pas beaucoup de connaissances sur les
facteurs de motivation qui influence les consommateurs à parrainer un restaurant vert. La
recherche va se pencher sur la connaissance du client sur un restaurant vert, préoccupation
environnementale, l'environnement attitude et la démographie peut prédire volonté de
parrainer un restaurant vert. Une étude quantitative sera effectuée par le chercheur afin
d'expliquer aux consommateurs la volonté de parrainer un restaurant vert. Une analyse sur
les données démographiques, données descriptives, signifie comparaison et de régression
linéaire est menée afin de répondre à toutes les questions clés de la recherche.
Mots-clés: vert restaurant, disposés à parrainer
15
General Introduction
Over the past few years, concern towards the environment among consumers and pro-
environment behaviour have increased and grown in strength (Jain and Kaur, 2004). We are
able to see nowadays more and more actions being taken by the world‘s community in order
to reduce mankind‘s footprint in the environment. Events such as Earth Hour are some of the
examples of actions being taken in order to help our decaying environment. Years of
development and industrialization has caused many changes to the environment (Ismail,
2010). Moreover, increased overall consumption has led to environmental deterioration due
to the overuse of natural resources (Hirsh, 2010). Other reasons include pollution of air,
water, noise and light, and damage due to desertification and acid rain (Chen and Chai,
2010). Environmental disasters such as the BP oil rig explosion in 2010 is one of many
disasters that acts as a reminder to consumers on the importance of the environment and
have increased interest in environmental issues (Cbitra, 2007). Damages done to the
environment have begun to take effect as we can see more news popping up on how the
polar ice caps are melting causing problems such as islands sinking, the flooding of Venice
and freak weather patterns all around the world. This has caused many countries leaders
and governments to start playing a more active role in the environment. In Malaysia, the
government is constantly seeking a balance between economic growth and environmental
sustainability by taking actions such as creating laws and regulations, incentive schemes
and different environmental programs, adopting Environmental Management System (EMS)
and creating the IO 14000 Certification series (Green Purchasing Network Malaysia, 2003).
However, despite the efforts Malaysia is now currently facing water rationing due to
extremely irregular weather patterns and have caused its citizens a great deal of grievances
so far. Consumers nowadays have begun to realize how strongly related environmental
problems are with their purchasing behaviour (Laroche et al, 2001). The above is why there
has been an increase in the amount of evidence that have shown consumers are making
purchasing decisions on products according to their impact on our environment ( Mohr and
Webb, 2005; Tilikidou 2007).
The topic of this dissertation is ―Factors Influencing Green Restaurant Patronage in USJ‖.
Green restaurants are the main subject in my dissertation. In doing this research, the
researcher hopes to give others a better understanding on the trend of green restaurants,
especially those who have plans to open one in an area in USJ. This dissertation also will
find out how much they are willing to spend more for a green restaurant. This research will
be conducted on residents staying in USJ areas thus survey questions will only be
distributed to the locals of USJ.
16
Objectives of research are the following:
To define a green restaurant
To investigate willingness to pay extra for a green restaurant
To determine whether the factors are influencing green restaurant patronage
- Consumers Knowledge of Green Restaurants
- Environmental Concern
- Environmental Attitude
- Demographic Factors
From the objectives, a number of key research questions are asked:
What is a green restaurant?
How much are consumers willing to pay extra for a green restaurant?
Will a customer‘s demographic characteristic affect their willingness to patron a green
restaurant?
How does a consumer environmental attitude towards the environment affect their
attraction towards green restaurants?
How much does a customer‘s knowledge of green restaurants affect his desire to
visit a green restaurant?
Will positive environmental concern push consumers to patronize a green
restaurant?
The dissertation will be split into two parts. Part one will explain the framework used in the
research and in the literature review section of the research, the researcher will be
explaining on current effort done in order to sustain our tired out environment. Then, the
researcher will describe how environmental sustainability is affecting the Culinary, Hospitality
and Tourism Industry as a whole. After that, the researcher will explain what exactly a green
restaurant is and also explain on the green practices practiced by said restaurants. Finally
the researcher will move on to explain how the factors he has studied in this research which
are customers knowledge on green restaurants, environmental concern, environmental
attitude and demographic factors influences a customer‘s desire or willingness to patronize a
green restaurant. The first question in the research questions will be answered in the first
part of the research. While part two of the research will contain the analysis of the data
collected in order to test whether the mentioned factors do actually influence consumer‘s
willingness to patronize a green restaurant. This part is important as it will answer the
remaining key research questions of the research.
17
The quantitative data collected will be analysed through Statistical Package through Social
Analysing or SPSS. SPSS is software commonly used for summarizing and analysing
computed questionnaire data. It analyses data through creating correlations between
variables and allows mean comparison between variables. It is a common tool used by many
researches to highlight statistical similarities of outcomes to be used in their research.
Significance of Study
Hu et al (2010) mentioned in their study that the body of knowledge on green restaurants is
severely lacking. Their research was on the citizens of Taiwan and there has yet been a
research of the same nature done in Malaysia. The researcher choose this topic because he
was curious on whether or not Malaysians would be interested at all in dining in a green
restaurant and was curious on their opinion regarding the environment. As a person involved
in the food service industry, it would be beneficial to have market data on the area available
should there ever be anyone interested in opening up a green restaurant in the area. There
are some organic and vegetarian restaurants in USJ but they cannot truly be called a green
restaurant. It would also be beneficial to discover the current awareness of Malaysian‘s
regarding the environment because the environment is everyone‘s responsibility. We cannot
simply deny responsibility and let other more powerful nations worry about the condition of
our planet.
18
PART 1 Theoretical Framework
1.1 Conceptual Framework
This research conceptual framework was adapted from Hu et al. (2010) study on the
dynamics of green restaurant patronage (Figure 1.1.1). The researcher opted to sub out
ecological behaviour with environmental attitude because in Wu et al (2013) study, it was
recorded that positive environmental attitude led to positive environmental behaviour which
ultimately leads to higher willingness to patronize a green restaurant. A new conceptual
framework was then created to show the relationship between the factors (Figure 1.1.2).
Figure 1.1.1: Hu et al.(2010) Model
Figure 1.1.2: Proposed Conceptual Model
19
1.2 Literature Review
1.2.1 Environmentally Sustainable Efforts
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de
Janeiro in 1992 emphasized environmental sustainability a top priority task in the 21st
century (Harmsen Consultancy BV, 2012). Thus, new products and processes are being
developed in order to minimize environmental impact (Schubert et al., 2010). Development
of products and practices that is less harmful to the environment also continues to grow as
consumers demand for environmentally friendly products increases (Schubert, 2008). These
innovations and development are driven by socially responsible goals, although most of
them are happening mostly due to economic motivations (Choi and Parsa, 2006). An
environmentally sustainable product can be defined and described in a number of different
ways. Some define them as products which are friendly to the environment, environmentally
superior and ecologically harmful (Chan, 1998). D‘Souza, Taghian and Khosla (2007) define
them as products that reduce environmental impact with continued usage. While Hartmann
and Apaolaza (2006) set a requirement for a product to be called an environmentally
sustainable product which is it has to go through environmentally sound production and
responsible product handling. A consumer will often weight the cost of a product with its
benefits before making a purchasing decision (Cheng et al., 2006). Studies have revealed
that more and more consumers are choosing products that are less harmful to the
environment and are willing to pay a premium price (Laroche, et al., 2001; Ottman, 1992).
Another study in the US show consumer are willing to pay more for products that reduces
damage done to the environment and think it is the responsibility of companies as they exist
for the benefit of society (Dutta et al., 2008). Springen and Miller (1991) conducted a study
that showed consumer would go as far as paying 10% extra for products that are socially
responsible. While some consumers, have shown hesitation when it comes to paying extra
for environmentally sound products (Kasim, 2004). Although there have been an increased
in manufacturing and supply of environmentally sustainable products for example recyclable
goods, energy saving electronics, and organic food items, all of the benefits are
overshadowed by the increase in consumption (Midden, Kaise, and McCalley, 2007).
20
1.2.2 Sustainable Efforts in the Industry
Green consumerism is defined as a person that uses their own purchasing power to protect
the natural state of our world (Ottman, 1992). Ottman (1992) predicted that for corporations
to survive and grow in the 1990‘s, they had to adopt an integrated approach to
environmental and business planning. Business sectors can play a role towards
environmental preservations by adopting green practices in their operations (Kasim, 2011).
At first tourism was thought as a soft industry as it had no visible emission contribution
towards the environment (Kasim, 2011). This was due to the fact that service is intangible
(lacks a physical presence), imperishable (cannot be physically stored), heterogeneous
(influenced by human factors) and transaction between customer and server is inseparable
(Kotler et al, 2010). Kasim (2006) was able to show that a hotel operation can consume
huge amounts of energy and water contributing to Malaysia‘s water shortage predicament
despite being a country known for its wet weather seasons. The growing hospitality sector
can no longer deny responsibility for helping environmental degradation and environmental
issues (Kasim, 2009). Hu, et al. (2010) said in their study that the hospitality sector
operations could cause negative effects to the sustainability of local environments due to
overconsumption of resources. Organizations are trying to reduce damage done to the
environment caused by the hospitality industry by using practices that are safe and
environmentally friendly (Tzschentkeet et al., 2004, 2008). Moreover, the rise in consumers
desire to protect the environment and travel has led to an increase of eco-friendly tourist
destinations (Amendah and Park, 2008).
Despite the fact that concern about the environment in the food service sector is relatively
new, there have been talks regarding the responsibilities of the food service industry
concerning reduction of wastages, water consumption, and energy usage and air pollution
(Butler 2008; Carbonara, 2007). Recognition that the food service industry has the ability to
help the environment by reducing solid waste and energy usage has been steadily
increasing. Advertising on problems such as global warming are also being done in order to
stimulate consumers awareness on the dangers the planet is experiencing caused by
industrial activities (Amendah and Park, 2008). Thus, growing awareness of environmental
issues has caused a growing trend for green hotels and restaurants. This concept of green
practices in the tourism and hospitality sector can be traced back to 1987 where it was first
introduced and began to increase in popularity over the years (Ernst and Young, 2008).
Companies such as Hyatt Regency and Scandic have reported the success of green
practices in their hotels in terms of cost reductions, resource savings, customer retention,
customer loyalty and increased employee morale (Goodman, 2000; Enz and Siguaw, 1999).
21
1.2.3 Green Restaurant and its Green Practices
In today‘s world, eating out is a common habit and the number of restaurants operating in
the entire world is huge (Schubert et al., 2010). In Malaysia, the consumer‘s largest
expenditure is on food consumption, as habit of not eating at home or buying takeaways has
become more common (Tan, 2012). The National Restaurant Association (2014) reported
the number of foodservice businesses in the US to reach a total number of 990,000 by the
end of 2014. They also noted that people are becoming more aware on what they eat and
where their food comes from in the year 2014 (National Restaurant Association, 2014). A
restaurant can negatively impact the environment in a number of ways for example through
the construction of the environment which destroys surrounding area, overusing resources
such as water and energy, using non-recyclable products and inefficient recycling protocols,
using harmful chemicals, and promoting release of carbon in the air due to daily delivery of
supplies and also due to transportation used by staff and customers in order to go to and
back from the restaurant (Schubert et al., 2010). Meanwhile in the US, vast amounts of
disposable products, water and energy are consumed by restaurants yearly (Stys, 2008).
While Thimmakkas Resource for Environmental Education (2005) found a restaurant could
generate two 24 feet long garbage tanks full of waste per week and most of the waste
collected could be recycled if it was organized properly. Pacific Gas & Electric Food Service
Technology Center on the other hand labelled the restaurant industry as the retail‘s world
largest energy user (Chou, 2012). A total of 490 tons of carbon dioxide are produced per
year per restaurant as restaurants use up to 5 times more energy per square feet which is
more than any other existing type of commercial building today (Horovitz, 2008).
Green is defined by Wolfe and Shaklin (2001) as ―actions that reduce the impact on the
environment, such as eco purchasing or recycling‖. Green consumers on the other hand are
identified as individuals who are invested in environmental issues and their purchasing
behavior is largely affected by environmental concerns and other environmental factors
(Soonthonsmai, 2007; Tilikidou, 2007). Lorenzini (1994) defined green restaurant as ―new or
renovated structures designed, constructed, operated and demolished in a manner that is
both environmentally friendly and energy efficient. A green restaurant differs from a
traditional restaurant as it focuses are on the 3 R‘s (reduce, reuse and recycle) and the 2 E‘s
(energy and efficiency) (Hu, Parsa, and Self, 2010).
Growing consumer‘s awareness on how food can affect health, coupled with growing
environmental awareness in society, has caused the trend of green restaurants to grow (Wu
et al., 2013). In the US, restaurants are certified by The Green Restaurant Association
22
(GRA, 2014) when they are awarded points in seven different categories which include water
efficiency, waste reduction and recycling, sustainable furnishing and building materials,
sustainable food (local and/or organic), energy consumption (energy saving equipment or
use of renewable energy), use of bio-based and/or recyclable materials and reduce chemical
and other pollutions. Restaurants can be certified as a green restaurant in a number of
programs such as LEED certification, Green Seal certification, Green Restaurant Association
certification and Certified Green Commercial Kitchen and Gen Green certification.
Green practices adoption in food service businesses is growing in popularity in the travel,
tourism and hospitality industry (DiPietro, 2013). This is because growing awareness of
organizations and consumers on green practices has gradually caused the restaurant
industry to shift towards the being green trend. Green practices mean actions that protect
the environment and/or products produced with as little impact on the environment as
possible due to being produced in an environmentally friendly way (Tzschentkeet et
al.,2004,2008). The aims of adopting green practices in a restaurant are to reduce
environmental and social problems that occur either directly or indirectly due to their daily
operations (Tan, 2012). Restaurants in the hospitality industry have adopted green practices
such as recycling glass, cardboard, cooking oil and compost, purchasing products that are
grown locally or organic, installing water saving devices, even building Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED) restaurants (Hu, Parsa and Self, 2010; Tzschentkeet et
al., 2008). Some examples of restaurant who have adopted green practices such as banning
trans-fat and reducing emission of fluoro-carbon into their business would be McDonald,
Wendy‘s, Burger King (Dutta et al., 2008; Namkung, 2014). Not only will adopting green
practices benefit the restaurant it will also cause a chain reaction on the supply side as
suppliers and food producers too start to start adopting green practices as demand of such
products would increase (Tan, 2012).
Green restaurants are not easily available in the market and considering the large number
of consumers who are moderately interested in green purchasing, it is assumed that there is
an unmet need for such restaurants (Schubert et al., 2010). Cause-related marketing used
by Scottish Power helped the company gain and retain customers by advertising their
company as an ecologically conscious company (Nabsiah et al., 2011). By marketing green
practices, restaurants are able to create a new niche market for consumers that are
concerned with the environment and looking for green restaurants, which would help
increase their sales and long term profits (Schubert, 2008). Not only that, they will also help
the environment by differentiating themselves from other competitors (Tan, 2012). Although
at the beginning there were misconceptions that operating a green restaurant would
unnecessarily increase production cost and make it difficult to obtain high quality products
23
(Carbonara, 2007). The misconception was said to be false in Schubert‘s (2008) study
where it was stated environmentally friendly products have become easier and cheaper to
obtain due to their popularity. The advantages of going green are promoting a positive brand
image, obtaining competitive advantage and saving money (Graci and Dodds, 2008).
Though the usage of a sustainable restaurant menu which is a menu made from locally
grown or organic food products, restaurants are able to create a recognizable brand image
(King, 2012). Moreover, using sustainability as a theme, restaurants can attract more loyal
customer that do not mind paying extra or products and services that coincides with their
own values and practice (Namkung, 2014). It can also lead to employee satisfaction and
commitment, thus leading to better service quality which will result in increased customer
satisfaction (Schubert et al., 2010).
1.2.4 Consumers Knowledge of Green Restaurants
The most significant predictor of environmental action is knowledge (Hines, Hungerford and
Tamera, 1987). Knowledge is important as it helps us to find the most efficient path to
achieve a goal (Pellegrini, 2007). Environmental knowledge can be defined as ―a general
knowledge of facts, concepts and relationships concerning the natural environment and its
major ecosystem‖ (Fryxell and Lo, 2003). Laroche et al. (2001) and Loureiro (2013) have
explained that a consumer‘s knowledge is directly related to his or her behaviour. This fact is
proven in Nabsiah, Elsham and Tan‘s (2011) study where it is revealed on how knowledge
can affect consumers in all phases in the buying decision process.
Different studies have proven how knowledge regarding the environment motivates
responsible environmental consumer behavior in different parts of the world (Haron, Paim
and Yahaya, 2005; Lee and Moscardo, 2005; Fryxell and Lo, 2003). One more example
would be a study conducted by Chan (1998) which shows knowledge on ecological issues is
a significant predictor of environmentally friendly behaviour. Besides that, there has also
been links on knowledge influencing pro-environmental attitudes which generally lead to
positive environmental behaviour (Mostafa, 2006; Corral-Verdugo, 1996). Laroche et al.
(2001) study meanwhile revealed that knowledge on environmental issues is a significant
predictor for a consumer‘s willingness to pay extra for environmentally responsible products
and services. A research conducted by Hu, Parsa and Self (2010) on Taiwanese consumers
found knowledge of sustainable restaurant practices and environmental concerns were
major motivators for them to dine in a green restaurant. Their study revealed that half of their
respondents (53.7%) were willing to pay 2% to 6% more when patronizing a green
restaurant while 33.1% were willing to pay between 8% and 12%. However, a measly 5.1 %
24
said they were willing to pay 14% to 20% more than normal. Most surprising is that only
8.1% replied that they would not be willing to pay anything extra. Wu et al. (2013) also
reported that personal knowledge towards green restaurant significantly influences
consumer‘s attitude to dine in a green restaurant however it does not show any significant
effect when it comes to predicting behaviour to patronize said restaurant. An interesting
discovery in one research is that knowledge was found to be an insignificant factor in
predicting consumers purchasing behaviour when there is no difference in price between
green products and normal products (Tilikidou, 2007). It can be concluded that knowledge
regarding the environment ultimately influences people to behave in an environmentally
friendly way and affects their decision of choosing businesses of a similar mind-set
(Diamantopoulos et al., 2013; Hu, Parsa and Self, 2010).
Consumers are lacking information regarding restaurants and their green practices were
expressed in Schubert et al. (2010) and DiPietro‘s (2013) study. This is due to the fact that,
most restaurants products and activities are hidden from the consumer due to the fact that
most operations are conducted at the back of the house away from the eyes of the
consumer (Kassinis and Soteriou, 2003). Research regarding customers perception of green
practices in restaurants are lacking in the current body of knowledge (Hu, Parsa and Self,
2010; Jang et al., 2011).
Thus from the literature review the researcher proposes the following hypothesis:
1. Consumer‘s knowledge on green restaurant will affect his or her willingness to
patronize a green restaurant.
1.2.5 Environmental Concern
Lee (2008) defines environmental concern as ‗the degree of emotional involvement in
environmental issues‘. Said et al. (2003) on the other hand describe environmental concern
to be the belief, stance and degree of concern an individual has towards the environment.
Emotions play an important role when it comes to environmental concern (Nabsiah et al.,
2011). It is regularly used to measure the importance of the environment and environmental
protection and has been cited as the indicator for the greening of consumption (Alwitt and
Pitts, 1996). Besides that, environmental concern shows an individual‘s general stand
regarding the environment and their level of concern towards the environment was
discovered to be a useful tool in predicting environmentally conscious behavior (Arbuthnot
and Ligg, 1975; Kallgren and Wood, 1986; Ottman, 1992; Kim and Choi, 2005). This
25
explains why Hu, Parsa and Self‘s (2010) study that showed consumer‘s environmental
concerns has a significant relationship with consumers‘ willingness to patronize green
restaurants.
Consumers are more willing to purchase green products if they have a higher level of
concern towards the environment as a result of their environmental claims (Mainieri et al,
1997) than those whose level of concern was found to be lower. Individuals that have a
strong environmental concern towards the environment are more prone in consuming
products that reflect that concern (Kim, 2005). Mostafa (2006) conducted a survey of
Egyptian consumers that show that environmental concern was positively related to
consumer‘s intention to purchase green products (Laroche et al., 2001). Although they have
been cases where consumers say that they are environmentally concerned but do not go out
of the way to purchase environmentally safe products in place of products that harm the
environment (Alwitt and Pitts, 1996).
Many research papers have been able to relate consumer‘s environmental concern and
environmentally friendly behaviour positively (Hines et al., 1987; Ellen, Wiener, and Cobb-
Walgren, 1991; Laroche et al., 2001; Kim and Choi, 2005; Hu, Parsa, Self 2010). Lee (2008)
found positive relationship between environmental concern and green purchasing amongst
Hong Kong‘s young consumers. The same results were also found in a research done by
Nabsiah et al (2011) amongst Penang green volunteers.
Another hypothesis is proposed by the researcher based on the findings of the literature
review which is:
2. Environmental concern will positively influence a consumer‘s willingness to patronize
a green restaurant.
1.2.6 Attitude
Ajzen (1985) defined attitude as a learned predisposition toward an action or object. Having
a positive attitude towards an action will increase the chances of an individual undertaking
said action (Ajzen, 1985). It can also affect an individual‘s loyalty towards a product
(Hallowell, 1996). As a consumer‘s attitude towards green product increases, it will
unwillingly also increase his or her knowledge regarding the matter (Smith, 2009).
Attitude is a useful predictor of environmentally concerned behaviour, by measuring
attitudes towards specific behaviours better results can be obtained compared to measuring
general attitudes towards the environment (Bodur and Sarigöllü, 2005). Problems regarding
26
the environment normally occur due to irresponsible environmental behaviour, and as
reported in Bradley et al (1999) and Follows and Jobber (2000) the number one factor
influencing behaviour is attitude. Barber et al. (2009), conducted a survey that showed 77%
of their respondents had positives attitude towards the environment and that they were not
willing to purchase products or services from companies that are labelled as being polluters
or harmful towards the environment. Arbuthnot and Lingg (1975) found in their study that
American‘s higher attitude on recycling than the French led them to have higher recycling
behaviour.
Kaiser et al (1999) show empirical evidence which supports the statement that
environmental attitude and behaviour have a strong association with one another. While
other researchers show proof that attitude toward environmental issue and willingness to
purchase green products are positively related to one another (Alwitt and Pitts, 1996; Barber
et al, 2009; Chen and Chai, 2010). There are many researches that support the statement
that a positive relationship exists between consumer attitude and behavioural intentions for
green purchasing in different cultures (Chan and Lau, 2002; Kalafatis et al., 1999; Tarkiainen
and Sundqvist, 2005). Nabsiah et al. (2011) said it was common sense how environmental
attitude will motivate volunteers in Penang to buy green products. Not all research came to
the same conclusion however as shown by Balderjahn (1988) that found no significant
relationship whatsoever between the two. Follows and Jobber (2000) also found a weak
relationship between environmental attitude and purchase of green products in a similar
study. The same results were also shown in Lee‘s (2008) and Cleveland‘s et al (2005) study
between environmentally positive attitude and green behaviour.
Based on the evidence above, the researcher introduces another hypothesis into the study
which is:
3. Environmental attitude will positively affect consumers‘ willingness to patronize a
green restaurant.
27
1.2.7 Demographics
The demographic factors that are studied in this research is gender, age, income level and
education level. A person‘s demographic may be a defining factor to deduce whether that
person is an unconcerned, passive concerned or active concerned (Bodur and Sarigöllü,
2005). An unconcerned is an individual that places more emphasis on his own survival and
believes that destiny and luck will shape the worlds future and not himself. A passive
concerned individual on the other hand is aware of the environment but requires a push form
either internal or external sources before they can act. Finally an active concerned individual
is already fully aware and committed to the betterment of the environment. Several studies
have concluded that demographic characteristics play an important role in understanding
consumer‘s environmental consumption behaviour (Roberts, 1996; Roberts and Bacon,
1997; Schwartz and Miller, 1991). Varying demographic information can affect a consumer‘s
willingness to pay more for green practices (Amendah and Park, 2008).
In the gender category, many studies came to the conclusion that females are more
responsible towards the environment compared to males (Stern et al., 1993; Mainieri et al.,
1997; Dietz et al., 2002). While some studies show no difference or relationship between the
two genders and environmental responsibility thus aren‘t able to provide conclusive evidence
on the subject (Hines et al., 1987; Blocker and Eckberg, 1997). Zelezny et al. (2000) study
produced results that show females are more concerned about the environment and that
they are more prone to participate in more environmentally focused consumer practices.
Grønhøj, A., & Ölander, F. (2007) in their research found no support to those claims. While
Schubert et al. (2010) reported that females believe restaurant are a healthier choice when
they adopt green practices and rated the importance of green practices to be higher in
females than in males. One reason to explain the difference between genders and the
environment is explain by Schahn and Holzer (1990) whereby gender stereotypes are
reproduced because of the way society‘s generic label of idealized gender representations.
Females are label to be care takers and more volunteering and empathetic towards the
environment while males are more materialistic in nature (Beutel and Marini, 1995; Zelezny
et al., 2000). Moreover, Blocker and Eckberg (1989) explained that differences in gender is
present because of the opinion in western civilizations that the environment is a commodity
that is meant to be used by humans. Besides that, the fact that females value altruism more
than males is another reason for their higher concern towards the environment (Stern et al.,
1993; Dietz et al., 2002). Differences are explained to be the result of the ‗mother and father
effect‘ which states that mothers consider local environmental problems as a priority while
28
fathers pay more attention to economic consequences of consumption (Blocker and
Eckberg, 1989, 1997; Stern et al., 1993).
When it comes to the subject of age, age has been proven by Roberts (1996), Roberts and
Bacon (1997) and Schwartz and Miller (1991) to have a significant affect toward
environmental behaviour. While Torgler et al. (2008) found that age and gender are
significant factors in determining environmental attitudes and behaviours. Consumers who
make green purchasing choices tend to be younger as they have an advantage when it
comes to information processing and they tend to seek out new and alternative information
(Evanschitzky and Wunderlich, 2006; Gilly and Zeithaml, 1985). It is interesting to note that
some of the older studies found a negative relationship between age and green purchase
with environmental behaviour (Zimmer et al, 1994). Hu et al (2010) reported that older
individuals are more environmentally friendly and have a higher intention to patronize a
green restaurant.
Moreover in order to have a deeper understanding of consumer‘s environmental behaviour,
researchers have even studied its relationship with income and education (Newell and
Green, 1997; Roberts 1996; Roberts and Bacon, 1997). A reason why income and education
significantly affects a consumers green purchasing behaviour is due to the fact that as
income and education increase, purchasing power (Namkung, 2014). Furthermore they are
more ecologically conscious and are active when it comes to forming eco-friendly purchasing
behaviour (Roberts, 1996). Bodur and Sarigöllü (2005) found that environmentally
concerned consumers have a higher level of education. Moreover, Hu et al. (2010)
confirmed that as an individual‘s education level increase so ill the value those individual put
toward green practices. An interesting fact discovered by Newell and Green (1997) in their
study is that differences in race become less a less significant factor in predicting
environmental awareness as income and education increases.
Studies have shown that a person‘s race may not be a significant factor to determine his or
her environmental awareness (Newell and Green, 1997). Newell and Green (1997) studies
did not find any significant differences amongst the awareness White Americans and African
American had concerning the environment. Thus, the beliefs that African American was
more empathic about issues concerning the environment were unfounded.
The researcher again introduces a new hypothesis for the study based on the extracted
literature reviews which is:
4. A consumer‘s demographic in terms of gender, age, income level and education level
will influence their willingness to patronize a green restaurant.
29
PART 2 Methods and Findings
2.1 Research Methodology
2.1.1 Research Questions
This research is an explorative study to discover the key factors that affects consumer‘s
willingness to patronize a green restaurant in USJ. It also looks into the matter on the
citizen‘s current environmental awareness its ability to affect their purchasing behaviour and
to better understand the market of green consumer‘s. The key questions proposed to identify
consumer‘s willingness to patronize a green restaurant are as follow;
How much are consumers willing to pay extra for a green restaurant?
Will a customer‘s demographic characteristic affect their willingness to patron a green
restaurant?
How does a consumer environmental attitude towards the environment affect their
attraction towards green restaurants?
How much does a customer‘s knowledge of green restaurants affect his desire to
visit a green restaurant?
Will positive environmental concern push consumers to patronize a green
restaurant?
2.1.2 Research Design
The required data needed in order for the study to be completed was obtained through the
distribution of questionnaires to residents living in USJ are in order to obtain their response
towards green restaurant patronization. In order to obtain the required number of data, a
survey questionnaire would be developed asking participants questions with regards to their
demographic factors, green restaurant knowledge, environmental concern, environmental
attitude and behavioural intent.
Once the data has been finally been collected, the researcher will then run the data through
SPSS and run different analysis and test in order to answer research questions presented.
Independent variables in the research are customer knowledge on green restaurant,
environmental concern, environmental attitude, age, gender, educational level and income
level while the dependent variable in the research is willingness to patronize a green
restaurant.
30
To test the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable, simple
linear regression method will be used. It will help show the relationship between the
variables. Multi linear regression method is not chosen by the research because the main
objectives of the research are to show the relationship between variables one at a time. The
research does not take into consideration about the presence of other variables when testing
a relationship between chosen variables. Moreover for demographic factors, researcher will
run t-test and ANOVA test in order to see if there is a difference within the groups in the
demographic variables. This is done to discover whether or not one group is more willing to
patronize a green restaurant or not. Moreover frequency and descriptive analysis are run by
the researcher in order to provide a better explanation on collected data
2.1.3 Research Procedure
A total of 200 survey questionnaires were distributed to the resident staying in USJ.
Respondents targeted for answering the survey were ranged around the age of 20 and
above and questionnaires were given out without setting barriers in order to ensure the
results were consistent and non-biased. Questionnaires were given out to individuals in
different locations around USJ are such as parks, restaurants, homes, and shopping malls.
Once the data has been finally been collected, the researcher will then run the data through
SPSS and run different analysis and test in order to answer research questions presented.
2.1.4 Sampling Method
Sampling method used in this research is non-probability sampling. A type of non-probability
sampling used was convenience sampling. The research distributed a number of set
questionnaires to associates in the USJ are and they in turn distributed the questionnaires to
family, neighbours and close friends to be answered. The researcher would then collect
completed questionnaires from the associates in order to key the data into the SPSS
system. Another non probability sampling method used was quota sampling. Individuals
found in frequented locations were asked to answer the questionnaire personally in a face to
face setting. This is to ensure that data obtained was from residents living in USJ. Also
probability sampling was also used by the researcher. Cluster sampling was used by the
researcher in order to collect data. Since USJ is divided into different areas, the research
would categorize them based on the areas and pick 5 at random and collect data within the
vicinity of that area. Areas chosen were USJ 3, USJ 4, USJ 9, USJ 12 and USJ 8.
31
2.1.5 Research Instrument
Quantitative data would be collected in order to conduct the research. The researcher
choose quantitative data because he felt that numbers and frequency would provide a more
reliable and better results rather than data on perceptions and experience collected through
qualitative methods. Previous research of a similar nature (Hu et al., 2010; Wu et al., 2013)
also used quantitative data in order to conduct their research.
A survey was developed by the researcher in order to collect 200 units of usable data. The
survey consisted of 5 parts. The first part of the survey was regarding demographic factors
such as gender, age, income level, education level and willingness to pay for a green
restaurant. The second part of the survey was about knowledge on green restaurants and it
contained 16 questions adapted from Hu et al (2010) study. The questions were divided into
5 multi-item factors such as Waste Recycle (4 questions), Energy Efficiency (3 questions),
Noise Pollution (3 questions), Employee Education (3 questions) and Resource Wastage (3
questions). The third part of the survey consists of items about environmental concern with
12 items in total divided into 3 multi-item factors of Human of Nature Balance of Nature and
Limits of Growth (Dunlap and Van Liere, 2008). In the fourth part of the questionnaire, 7
items were asked with regards to environmental concern adapted from Bodur and Sarigöllü
(2005) study. The final part of the survey consist of 4 questions on behavioural intent of
consumers when it came to green restaurants adopted from Wu et al (2013) study. In parts
two to five of the questionnaires, respondents were asked to tick a score on a Likert-scale
ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree).
Table 2.1.5.1 and Table 2.1.5.2 show the cronbach alpha result of the questions distributed
as a pilot test for the developed questionnaire. A total number of 30 questionnaires were
distributed for the purpose of the pilot test. Then data was keyed in SPSS and a reliability
test was conducted on collected data. Questions that had a value >0.7 are considered
reliable and were kept in the official questionnaire while questions with value <0.7 were
considered not as reliable and they were opted out.
Then the questionnaire is distributed and collected back to be analysed. To study the
relationship between the independent and dependent variables a number of techniques are
used. For demographic variable the researcher uses an independent t-test and ANOVA one
way test in order to test the relationship between the dependent variable. While a multiple
regression method is used to test relationship of customer knowledge on a green restaurant,
environmental concern and environmental attitude in the research.
32
Table 2.1.5.1: List of Variables in Questionnaire for Pilot Test (Part 1)
Questions Cronbach Alpha Green Restaurant Knowledge Items
Waste Recycle
WR1 A green environmentally friendly restaurant should set up storage barrel for waste oil in order to recycle collected waste oil
.862
WR2
A green environmentally friendly restaurant‘s kitchen should set up waste recycling bins in order to motivate employees and consumers to recycle kitchen waste and residual food
WR3
A green environmentally friendly restaurant‘s kitchen should set up waste recycling bins in order to motivate employees and consumers to recycle kitchen waste and residual food
WR4 A green environmentally friendly restaurant‘s kitchen should replace or clean their fumes filtering device periodically
Energy Efficiency
EE1 A green environmentally friendly restaurant should change lighting fixtures with energy saving bulbs
.529 EE2
A green environmentally friendly restaurant should use natural lighting as much as possible during the day
EE3 A green environmentally friendly product should choose energy products with an ENERGY LABEL when purchasing energy efficient equipment
Noise Pollution
NP1 A green environmentally friendly restaurant should be equipped with devices that produce low noises (mute air conditioning) in order to reduce noise pollution
.772 NP2
A green environmentally friendly restaurant should install silencers with their range motor hoods to minimize noise produced
NP3 A green environmentally friendly restaurant should be well prepared with their noise control actions
Employee Education
EEDU1 A green environmentally friendly restaurant should train their staff regarding environmental information
.778 EEDU2
A green environmentally friendly restaurant should keep environmental protection efforts as an employee‘s annual assessment criteria
EEDU3 A green environmentally friendly restaurant should implement environmental management courses as regular educational training for their employees
Resource Wastage
RW1 A green environmentally friendly restaurant should avoid using disposable cutleries
.473 RW2
A green environmentally friendly restaurant should be fully powered using green energy
RW3
A green environmentally friendly restaurant should use environmentally friendly or bio-degradable detergent for their hand washing soap and dish washing soap
33
Table 2.1.5.2: List of Variables in Questionnaire for Pilot Test (Part 2)
Environmental Concern
Human over Nature
HON1 Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature
.777
HON2 Humans need not adapt to nature as they can remake it to suit their needs
HON3 Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs
HON 4 Plants and animals exist to be used by humans
Balance of Nature
BON1 Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive
.754
BON2 When humans interfere with nature, it often results it disastrous results
BON3 To maintain a healthy economy, we will have to develop a steady state economy where industrial growth is controlled
BON4 The balance of nature is very delicate and can be easily upset
Limits of Growth
LOG1 We are approaching the limit of the number of people earth can support
.705 LOG2 Mankind is severely abusing the environment
LOG3 There are limits to growth beyond which our industrialized society cannot expand
Environmental Attitude
EA1 I am really willing to go out of my way to do much to help the environment
.741
EA2 I rarely ever worry about the effects of pollution on myself and my family
EA3 The whole pollution issue has never upset me too much because I feel it is somewhat overrated
EA4 I would be willing to join a group, club, or organization that is concerned solely with ecological issues
EA5 I am willing to spend a bit more to buy a product that is more ecologically friendly
EA6 I‘d be willing to write to authorities about ecological problems
EA7 I would be willing to go door to door to discuss and distribute literature on the environment
Willingness to Patronize
BI1 I am willing to patronize a green environmentally friendly restaurant
.845
BI2 There is a very high chance of me patronizing an environmentally friendly restaurant
BI3 Predominantly, I will always choose to patronize an environmentally friendly restaurant
BI4 I would recommend other to patronize an environmentally friendly restaurant
34
2.2 Findings and Analysis
2.2.1 Rate of Response
For the purpose of the research, 200 copies of questionnaires were printed out and
distributed to various people living in the USJ area. Areas involved in the survey include USJ
3, USJ 4, USJ 9, USJ 12, and USJ 8. Out of the 200 distributed questionnaires, the
researcher was able to collect all data back for data recording and analysis (Table 2.2.1.1).
Table 2.2.1.1: Rate of Response
Statistics
Gender Age Education Level Income Level
N Valid 200 200 198 189
Missing 0 0 2 11
Mean 1.5250 3.4550 2.4141 1.6455
Median 2.0000 3.0000 2.0000 1.0000
Mode 2.00 5.00 2.00 1.00
Percentiles 25 1.0000 2.0000 1.0000 1.0000
50 2.0000 3.0000 2.0000 1.0000
75 2.0000 5.0000 3.0000 2.0000
.
35
2.2.2 Demographic of Respondents
In this section the researcher will be analysing the demographic characteristics of
respondents who have participated in the survey. The number of female respondents in the
study (n=105) is bigger than the number of male respondents in the survey (n=95). However
the difference is very small considering how female respondents overshadow male
respondents by 5%.
Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Male 95 47.5 47.5 47.5
Female 105 52.5 52.5 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0
Table 2.2.2.1: Gender
Figure 2.2.2.1: Gender Bar Chart
36
Next the researcher will be looking at the demographic characteristic of age of respondents.
Majority of the respondents were aged at 31-40 years old (n=53) and aged at >51 years old
(n=57). While the minority of respondents were aged at <20 years old (n=11). Respondents
aged 21-30 years old (n=40) and aged 41-50 years old (n=39) were in the middle. This
shows that respondents in the area consisted of individuals of an older generation most
being past their 50‘s.
Age
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid <20 11 5.5 5.5 5.5
21-30 40 20.0 20.0 25.5
31-40 53 26.5 26.5 52.0
41-50 39 19.5 19.5 71.5
>51 57 28.5 28.5 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0
Table 2.2.2.2: Age
Figure 2.2.2.2: Age Bar Chart
37
Then we look into the overall educational level of respondents. Highest number of
respondents had been a college graduate (n=55) while the least number of respondents had
a graduates degree (n=43). Only 52 respondents had high school graduate as their level of
education which means that a good majority of the respondents had received tertiary
education. It can be assumed that respondents in the area are very well educated.
Education Level
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid High School Graduate 52 26.0 26.3 26.3
College Graduate 55 27.5 27.8 54.0
Bachelor‘s Degree 48 24.0 24.2 78.3
Graduates Degree 43 21.5 21.7 100.0
Total 198 99.0 100.0
Missing 99.00 2 1.0
Total 200 100.0
Table 2.2.2.3: Education Level
Figure 2.2.2.3: Education Level Bar Chart
38
Now we have the income level characteristics of participating respondents. The highest
income level most respondents had is <RM5, 000 (n=114) while the least income level most
respondents had is RM15, 001-RM20, 000 (n=7). The total of respondents who had a total
income of >RM10, 001 was only a measly amount of 24 (n=9+7+8). Another interesting note
is that in the data collection a total of 11 respondents did not state their income level. It can
be said that these respondents were not comfortable with revealing their income level even
though it was an anonymous questionnaire. This leads to an assumption that maybe most of
the respondents felt uneasy about revealing their real income level so they opted to pick
<RM5, 000 as an option leading it to become a very high amount.
Income Level
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid <RM5,000 114 57.0 60.3 60.3
RM 5,001-RM10,001 51 25.5 27.0 87.3
RM10,001-RM15,001 9 4.5 4.8 92.1
RM15,001-RM20,000 7 3.5 3.7 95.8
RM>20,000 8 4.0 4.2 100.0
Total 189 94.5 100.0
Missing 99.00 11 5.5
Total 200 100.0
Table 2.2.2.4: Income Level
Figure 2.2.2.4: Income Level Bar Chart
39
Finally we have Table 2.2.2.5 and Figure 2.2.2.5 that shows the willingness of respondents
to pay extra for a green restaurant. A total of 72% are willing to pay an extra amount of 2%
to 10% extra when it comes to green restaurants. The other 28% of respondents however
are willing to pay extra 12% to 20% for a green restaurant. What is interesting is that out of
the 100% of respondents, 11% are willing to pay 20% extra for a green restaurant.
Willingness to Pay Extra
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 2% 36 18.0 18.0 18.0
4% 16 8.0 8.0 26.0
6% 28 14.0 14.0 40.0
8% 22 11.0 11.0 51.0
10% 42 21.0 21.0 72.0
12% 11 5.5 5.5 77.5
14% 13 6.5 6.5 84.0
16% 2 1.0 1.0 85.0
18% 8 4.0 4.0 89.0
20% 22 11.0 11.0 100.0
Total 200 100.0 100.0
Table 2.2.2.5: Willingness to Pay Extra
Figure 2.2.2.5: Willingness to Pay Extra Bar Chart
40
2.2.3 Descriptive Analysis
Descriptive analysis was done to see which questions in the questionnaire mattered most to
respondents according to their category.
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance
WR1 200 1.00 7.00 6.1500 1.04545 1.093
WR2 200 1.00 7.00 6.2000 .86820 .754
WR3 200 1.00 7.00 6.0650 .96719 .935
WR4 200 1.00 7.00 6.2650 .85934 .738
Valid N (listwise) 200
Table 2.2.3.1: Waste Recycle; Green Restaurant Knowledge
In questions regarding green restaurants knowledge in terms of waste recycle, WR 4 had
the highest mean based on Table 2.2.3.1 (m=6.27) followed by WR2 (m=6.2), WR1
(m=6.15) and WR3 (6.07). WR1 had the highest standard deviation value of SD= 1.05 that
means that the most important aspect of waste recycling to respondents is the waste
recycling of used oil.
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance
NP1 200 1.00 7.00 5.9350 1.06605 1.136
NP2 200 1.00 7.00 5.7600 1.03817 1.078
NP3 200 1.00 7.00 5.7650 .94032 .884
Valid N (listwise) 200
Table 2.2.3.2: Noise Pollution; Green Restaurant Knowledge
For questions on noise pollution pertaining to green restaurant knowledge based on Table
2.2.3.2, NP1 had the highest mean value (m=5.94), followed by NP2 (m=5.76) and NP3
(m=5.77). NP1 had the highest standard deviation value of SD=1.07 showing that
restaurants that are equipped with low noise level producing equipment are most important
to respondents.
41
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance
EEDU1 200 1.00 7.00 6.3700 .80395 .646
EEDU2 200 1.00 7.00 6.1450 .90447 .818
EEDU3 200 1.00 7.00 6.0050 .90503 .819
Valid N (listwise) 200
Table 2.2.3.3: Employee Education; Green Restaurant Knowledge
As to employee education with regards towards green restaurant knowledge based on
Table 2.2.3.3, EEDU1 had the highest mean (m=6.37) followed by EEDU2 (m=6.15) and
EEDU3 (m=6.01). From the results of the questionnaire as shown in Table 2.2.3.3, EEDU3
had the highest standard deviation value (SD=.905) meaning that respondent agree strongly
that employee should have be trained on environmental management on a regular basis.
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance
HON1 200 1.00 7.00 4.2100 1.97622 3.905
HON2 200 1.00 7.00 4.1450 1.89524 3.592
HON3 200 1.00 7.00 4.1800 1.85060 3.425
HON4 200 1.00 7.00 4.3200 1.92774 3.716
Valid N (listwise) 200
Table 2.2.3.4: Human over Nature; Environmental Concern
When talking about the factor of environmental concern under the human over nature
category of the questionnaire, HON4 had the highest amount of respondents (m=4.32) as
shown in Table 2.2.3.4. This is then followed by HON1 (m=4.21), HON3 (m=4.18) and HON2
(m=4.15). Most respondents found HON1 to be most important when it came to
environmental concern (SD=1.98) as shown in Table 2.2.3.4. Most of them were in favour of
the statement that man was created to rule over nature.
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance
BON1 200 4.00 7.00 6.1900 .85296 .728
BON2 200 2.00 7.00 5.9400 1.20984 1.464
BON3 200 5.00 7.00 6.2250 .67576 .457
BON4 200 2.00 7.00 5.7750 1.26982 1.612
Valid N (listwise) 200
Table 2.2.3.5: Balance of Nature; Environmental Concern
As for the question on environmental concern with regards to balance of nature, BON3 had
the highest mean (m=6.23) as shown in Table 2.2.3.5 followed by BON1 (m=6.19), BON2
42
(m=5.94) and BON4 (m=5.78). Respondents found BON4 to be most important with a
standard deviation value of 1.27. They agree that the balance of environment is delicate and
can be easily disturbed.
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance
LOG1 200 2.00 7.00 5.3650 1.06652 1.137
LOG2 200 1.00 7.00 5.8750 1.32596 1.758
LOG3 200 2.00 7.00 5.5250 1.18592 1.406
Valid N (listwise) 200
Table 2.2.3.6: Limits of Growth; Environmental Concern
As shown in Table 2.2.3.6, the question on environmental concern under limits of growth
had the highest mean on LOG2 (m=5.88) followed by LOG3 (m=5.53) and LOG1 (m=5.37).
LOG2 is found to be the most agreed to question with a standard deviation value of 1.33 as
shown in Table 2.2.3.6. Respondents agree that the environment is being severely abused
by mankind.
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance
EA1 200 1.00 7.00 5.5300 1.02683 1.054
EA2 200 1.00 7.00 4.0350 1.70243 2.898
EA3 200 1.00 7.00 3.4400 1.81185 3.283
EA4 200 1.00 7.00 5.1500 1.54253 2.379
EA5 200 1.00 7.00 5.2150 1.48316 2.200
EA6 200 1.00 7.00 4.9300 1.36175 1.854
EA7 200 1.00 7.00 4.6300 1.54435 2.385
Valid N (listwise) 200
Table 2.2.3.7: Environmental Attitude
The results under environmental attitude in Table 2.2.3.7 showed EA1 had the highest
mean (m=5.53), followed by EA5 (m=5.22), EA4 (m=5.15), EA6 (m=4.93), EA7 (4.63), EA2
(4.04) and EA 3 (m=3.44). Results from Table 2.2.3.7 shown EA3 to have the highest
standard deviation value of 1.81. Respondents shown strong agreement towards the
statement that they felt the whole pollution issue was overrated. The standard deviation
value of EA2 (SD=1.7) was close to the standard deviation value of EA3 (SD=1.81) showing
highly agreed with both statements.
43
2.2.4 Green Restaurant Patronage in Terms of Green Restaurant Knowledge,
Environmental Concern and Environmental Attitude
To analyse data collected for these variables, the researcher opted to use simple linear
regression model. Linear regression is a technique used to explore the relationship between
a dependent variable (continuous) with many independent variables (mostly continuous). By
using simple linear regression, the researcher is able to analyse how well an independent
variable is able to predict an outcome of a dependent variable. Thus simple linear regression
will be done in order to answer questions related to customer knowledge on green
restaurant, environmental concern and environmental attitude.
2.2.4.1 Green Restaurant Knowledge and Willingness to Patronize
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .204a .041 .037 3.97113
a. Predictors: (Constant), Knowledge Table 2.2.4.1.1: Knowledge Regression; Model Summary
Table 2.2.4.1.1 shows a positive correlation between consumers knowledge and green
restaurant and their willingness on patronizing a green restaurant (R=.204). The R²=.041
(Table 2.2.4.1.1) means approximately 4.1% of total variability in willingness to patronize is
explained by consumers knowledge on a green restaurant.
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 134.981 1 134.981 8.559 .004b
Residual 3122.439 198 15.770
Total 3257.420 199
a. Dependent Variable: Willingness to Patronize
b. Predictors: (Constant), Knowledge Table 2.2.4.1.2: Knowledge Regression; ANOVA
The ANOVA table (Table 2.2.4.1.2) has a null hypothesis that the independent variable has
no explanatory factor on the dependent variable. This null hypothesis is rejected as [F
(1,198) =8.56, p=.004] the p values is <0.5 showing that there is a significant relationship
between consumers knowledge on green restaurants and their willingness on patronizing
one. Since there is some explanatory power between the 2 variables, the model can be used
in testing the relationship between them.
44
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 14.297 2.570 5.563 .000
Knowledge .123 .042 .204 2.926 .004 1.000 1.000
a. Dependent Variable: Willingness to Patronize
Table 2.2.4.1.3: Knowledge Regression; Coefficients
From Table 2.2.4.1.3 we can see that p value is <.05(t=2.93, p=.004) meaning that there is
a significant relationship between the variables. By looking at Table 2.2.4.1.3, a formula can
be obtained from the unstandardized coefficients section;
y=14.3+0.123x
From this formula we can say that when consumer‘s knowledge on green restaurants
increases by 1 unit, willingness to patronize will increase by .123 units thus we will be able to
predict how much willingness to patronize will increase as knowledge of green restaurants
increases. However since both variables cannot really be measured using equal units of
measurement, we can look at the standardized coefficients section of Table 2.2.4.1.3. A
statement that by 1 standard deviation increase in x, model predicts that y will increase in
.204 standard deviation.
45
2.2.4.2 Environmental Concern and Willingness to Patronize
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .383a .147 .142 3.74658
a. Predictors: (Constant), Concern
Table 2.2.4.2.1: Environmental Concern Regression; Model Summary
Table 2.2.4.2.1 shows a positive correlation between environmental knowledge and their
willingness on patronizing a green restaurant (R=.383). The R²=.147(Table 27) means
approximately 14.7% of total variability in willingness to patronize a green restaurant is
explained by consumers environmental concern.
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 478.115 1 478.115 34.061 .000b
Residual 2779.305 198 14.037
Total 3257.420 199
a. Dependent Variable: Willingness to Patronize
b. Predictors: (Constant), Concern
Table 2.2.4.2.2: Environmental Concern Regression; ANOVA
As in the previous table (Table 2.2.4.1.2) this table (Table 2.2.4.2.2) also has a null
hypothesis that the independent variable has no explanatory factor on the dependent
variable. This null hypothesis is rejected as [F (1,198) =34.1, p= 2.1532E-8 or .000] the p
values is <0.5 showing that there is a significant relationship between environmental concern
and willingness on patronizing a green restaurant. Since there is some explanatory power
between the 2 variables, the model can be used in testing the relationship between them.
46
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 9.710 2.083 4.661 .000
Concern .209 .036 .383 5.836 .000 1.000 1.000
a. Dependent Variable: Willingness to Patronize
Table 2.2.4.2.3: Environmental Concern Regression; Coefficients
From Table 2.2.4.2.3 we can see that p value is <.05(t=5.84, p= 2.1532E-8 or .000)
meaning that there is a significant relationship between the variables. By looking at Table
2.2.4.2.3, a formula can be obtained from the unstandardized coefficients section;
y=9.71+0.209x
From this formula we can say that when environmental concern increases by 1 unit,
willingness to patronize will increase by .209 units thus we will be able to predict how much
willingness to patronize will increase as environmental concern increases. However since
both variables cannot really be measured using equal units of measurement, we can look at
the standardized coefficients section of table 9. A statement that by 1 standard deviation
increase in environmental concern, model predicts that willingness to patronize will increase
in .383 standard deviation.
47
2.2.4.3 Environmental Attitude and Willingness to Patronize
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .393a .155 .150 3.72906
a. Predictors: (Constant), Attitude
Table 2.2.4.3.1: Environmental Attitude Regression; Model Summary
Table 2.2.3.3.1 shows a positive correlation between environmental attitude and their
willingness on patronizing a green restaurant (R=.155). The R²=.15 (Table 30) means
approximately 15% of total variability in willingness to be a patron of a green restaurant is
explained by consumers environmental attitude.
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 504.060 1 504.060 36.248 .000b
Residual 2753.360 198 13.906
Total 3257.420 199
a. Dependent Variable: Willingness to Patronize
b. Predictors: (Constant), Attitude Table 2.2.4.3.2: Environmental Attitude Regression; ANOVA
This table (Table 2.2.4.3.2) too had a null hypothesis that the independent variable has no
explanatory factor on the dependent variable similar to Table 2.2.4.1.2 and Table 2.2.4.2.2.
This null hypothesis is rejected as well as [F (1,198) =36.25, p= 8.2991E-9 or .000] the p
value is <0.5 showing that there is a significant relationship between environmental attitude
and willingness on patronizing a green restaurant. Since there is some explanatory power
between the 2 variables, the model can be used in testing the relationship between them.
48
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 14.190 1.286 11.031 .000
Attitude .230 .038 .393 6.021 .000 1.000 1.000
a. Dependent Variable: Willingness to Patronize
Table 2.2.4.3.3: Environmental Attitude Regression; Coefficients
From the table 2.2.4.3.3 we can see that p value is <.05(t=6.02, p= 8.2991E-9or .000)
meaning that there is a significant relationship between the variables. By looking at table
2.2.4.3.3, a formula can be obtained from the unstandardized coefficients section;
y=14.19+0.230x
From this formula we can say that when environmental attitude increases by 1 unit,
willingness to patronize will increase by .230 units thus we will be able to predict how much
willingness to patronize a green restaurant will increase as environmental concern
increases. However since both variables cannot really be measured using equal units of
measurement, we can look at the standardized coefficients section of table 9. A statement
that by 1 standard deviation increase in environmental attitude, model predicts that
willingness to patronize will increase in .393 standard deviation.
49
2.2.5 Green Restaurant Patronage in terms of Demographics
Now in this section we will be analysing the results of our demographic data with the results
of our behavioural intent data. The purpose here would be to find out if certain demographic
factors do affect willingness to patronize a green restaurant.
2.2.5.1 Gender and Willingness to Patronize
For gender, a linear regression test will be done in order to explain the relationship between
gender and willingness to patronize. Besides that, an independent t –test is used to compare
the means between gender and their intent to patronize a green restaurant. An independent
t- test will be able to tell me if there is a significant difference between males and females
when it comes to their intent to patronize a green restaurant.
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .067a .004 -.001 4.04705
a. Predictors: (Constant), Gender Table 2.2.5.1.1: Gender Regression; Model Summary
From Table 2.2.5.1.1 we can see that a very miniscule percentage of gender can predict the
outcome of willingness to patronize a green restaurant which is 0.4% (R²=.004). This means
that only 0.4% of total variability in willingness to patronize a green restaurant is explained
by gender.
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 14.455 1 14.455 .883 .349b
Residual 3242.965 198 16.379
Total 3257.420 199
a. Dependent Variable: Willingness to Patronize
b. Predictors: (Constant), Gender Table 2.2.5.1.2: Gender Regression; ANOVA
Table 2.2.5.1.2 shows us the relationship between gender and willingness to patronize a
green restaurant. It shows us that gender has no explanatory power over willingness to
patronize a green restaurant. The null hypothesis that comes with Table 2.2.5.1.2 that the
50
independent variable is not suitable to predict the dependent variable is accepted by the
researcher as the p value is >.05[F (1,198) =.883, p=.349]
From the results below, we can see (Tables 2.2.5.1.3 and 2.2.5.1.4) that there is no
significant difference between males (M=22.05, SD=3.64) and females as p values is >.05
[M=21.51, SD= 4.38; t (198) =0.94, p=0.34].The chances of a male consumer visiting a
green restaurant is as likely as the chances of a female consumer visiting a green
restaurant.
Group Statistics
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Willingness to Patronize Male 95 22.0526 3.64478 .37395
Female 105 21.5143 4.37896 .42734
Table 2.2.5.1.3: Gender T-Test; Group Statistics
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Willingness
to Patronize
Equal
variances
assumed
7.398 .007 .939 198 .349 .53835 .57306 -
.59173 1.66842
Equal
variances
not assumed
.948 196.668 .344 .53835 .56785 -
.58152 1.65821
Table 2.2.5.1.4: Gender T-Test; Independent Samples Test
51
2.2.5.2 Age and Willingness to Patronize
For age, educational level and income level the researcher also uses simple linear
regression in order to explain the relationship between the independent variables with the
dependent variable. However instead of an independent t-test, a one way ANOVA test is
used to test differences between the variables with willingness on patronizing a green
restaurant. ANOVA test is usually used to analyse when you more than 2 groups under one
variable. By using ANOVA test the researcher can test if there is a significant difference
between the groups with willingness to patronize a green restaurant.
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .022a .000 -.005 4.05509
a. Predictors: (Constant), Age Table 2.2.5.2.1: Age Regression; Model Summary
Results in Table 2.2.5.2.1 are very interesting as the R² value is .000. It shows that
approximately 0.000% of total variability in willingness to patronize a green restaurant is
explained by age.
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1.553 1 1.553 .094 .759b
Residual 3255.867 198 16.444
Total 3257.420 199
a. Dependent Variable: Willingness to Patronize
b. Predictors: (Constant), Age
Table 2.2.5.2.2: Age Regression; ANOVA
The ANOVA table (Table 2.2.5.2.2) explains that age has no explanatory power against
willingness to patronize a green restaurant. This is due to the fact that p value is >.05 [F
(1,198) =.094, p=.759]. Thus the researcher accepts with the null hypothesis present in
Table 2.2.5.2.2.
52
Descriptives
Willingness to Patronize
N Mean
Std.
Deviation Std. Error
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound
<20 11 22.1818 3.94508 1.18949 19.5315 24.8322 15.00 28.00
21-30 40 21.2250 4.42885 .70026 19.8086 22.6414 12.00 28.00
31-40 53 22.3396 3.83277 .52647 21.2832 23.3961 4.00 28.00
41-50 39 20.8718 3.67194 .58798 19.6815 22.0621 15.00 27.00
>50 57 22.1579 4.20370 .55679 21.0425 23.2733 13.00 28.00
Total 200 21.7700 4.04586 .28609 21.2059 22.3341 4.00 28.00
Table 2.2.5.2.3: Age One Way ANOVA; Descriptives
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Willingness to Patronize
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
2.140 4 195 .077
Table 2.2.5.2.4: Age One Way ANOVA; Test of Homogeneity of Variances
ANOVA
Willingness to Patronize
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 70.984 4 17.746 1.086 .365
Within Groups 3186.436 195 16.341
Total 3257.420 199
Table 2.2.5.2.5: Age One Way ANOVA; ANOVA
Robust Tests of Equality of Means
Willingness to Patronize
Statistica df1 df2 Sig.
Welch 1.138 4 56.345 .348
Brown-Forsythe 1.097 4 115.784 .361
a. Asymptotically F distributed. Table 2.2.5.2.6: Age One Way ANOVA; Robust Tests Equality of Means
53
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Willingness to Patronize
Tukey HSD
(I) Age (J) Age
Mean Difference
(I-J) Std. Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
<20 21-30 .95682 1.37624 .957 -2.8326 4.7463
31-40 -.15780 1.33934 1.000 -3.8456 3.5300
41-50 1.31002 1.38004 .877 -2.4899 5.1099
>50 .02392 1.33124 1.000 -3.6416 3.6895
21-30 <20 -.95682 1.37624 .957 -4.7463 2.8326
31-40 -1.11462 .84666 .681 -3.4459 1.2166
41-50 .35321 .90968 .995 -2.1516 2.8580
>50 -.93289 .83378 .796 -3.2287 1.3629
31-40 <20 .15780 1.33934 1.000 -3.5300 3.8456
21-30 1.11462 .84666 .681 -1.2166 3.4459
41-50 1.46783 .85282 .423 -.8804 3.8161
>50 .18173 .77136 .999 -1.9422 2.3056
41-50 <20 -1.31002 1.38004 .877 -5.1099 2.4899
21-30 -.35321 .90968 .995 -2.8580 2.1516
31-40 -1.46783 .85282 .423 -3.8161 .8804
>50 -1.28610 .84004 .544 -3.5991 1.0269
>50 <20 -.02392 1.33124 1.000 -3.6895 3.6416
21-30 .93289 .83378 .796 -1.3629 3.2287
31-40 -.18173 .77136 .999 -2.3056 1.9422
41-50 1.28610 .84004 .544 -1.0269 3.5991
Table 2.2.5.2.7: Age Post Hoc Tests; Multiple Comparisons
Thus a one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact
of age on willingness to patronize a green restaurant. Subjects were divided into groups
according to their age (Group 1; <20, Group 2; 21-30, Group 3; 31-40, Group 4;-41-50, and
Group 5;>5.1)There was no statistical difference at p>.05 between the 5 age groups
[F(4,195)=1.1, p=.365]. Post-hoc comparisons (Table 2.2.5.2.7) using the Tukey HSD test
indicated that the mean score for Group 1(M=22.18, SD=3.95), Group 2 (M=21.23,
SD=4.43), Group 3 (M=22.34, SD=3.83), Group 4 (M=20.87, SD=3.67) and Group
5(M=22.16, SD=4.2) show no significant difference with one another.
54
2.2.5.3 Educational Level and Willingness to Patronize
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .162a .026 .021 3.97407
a. Predictors: (Constant), Education Level
Table 2.2.5.3.1: Educational Level Regression; Model Summary
Educational level and willingness to patronize has a positive correlation based on Table
2.2.5.3.1 (R=.162). From the value of R²=.026 we are able to say that about 2.6% of total
variability in the dependent variable is explained by educational level.
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 83.543 1 83.543 5.290 .023b
Residual 3095.467 196 15.793
Total 3179.010 197
a. Dependent Variable: Willingness to Patronize
b. Predictors: (Constant), Education Level Table 2.2.5.3.2: Educational Level Regression; ANOVA
Results obtained from Table 2.2.5.3.2 show that educational level does have explanatory
power when it comes to predicting willingness to patronize a green restaurant. The null
hypothesis is rejected as p value is <.05 [F (1,196), p=.023]. Since there is a significant
relationship between the two variables it is acceptable to continue and look at the results of
Table 2.2.5.3.3.
55
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 20.277 .683 29.690 .000
Education
Level .592 .258 .162 2.300 .023 1.000 1.000
a. Dependent Variable: Willingness to Patronize Table 2.2.5.3.3: Educational Level Regression; Coefficients
From the table 2.2.5.3.3 we can see that p value is <.05(t=2.3, p=.023) meaning that there
is a significant relationship between the education level and willingness to patronize a green
restaurant. By looking at table 2.2.5.3.3, a formula can be obtained from the unstandardized
coefficients section;
y=20.28+0.592x
From this formula we can say that when educational level increases by 1 unit, willingness to
patronize will increase by .592 units thus we will be able to predict how much willingness to
patronize will increase as environmental concern increases. However since both variables
cannot really be measured using equal units of measurement, we can look at the
standardized coefficients section of Table 2.2.5.3.3. A statement that by 1 standard deviation
increase in environmental attitude, model predicts that willingness to patronize will increase
in .162 standard deviation.
56
Descriptives
Willingness to Patronize
N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
Minimum Maximum
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
High School
Graduate 52 20.6538 3.90015 .54085 19.5680 21.7397 4.00 28.00
College Graduate 55 21.6364 3.91277 .52760 20.5786 22.6941 13.00 28.00
Bachelor‘s
Degree 48 22.3542 4.45540 .64308 21.0605 23.6479 12.00 28.00
Graduates
Degree 43 22.3488 3.61138 .55073 21.2374 23.4603 16.00 28.00
Total 198 21.7071 4.01710 .28548 21.1441 22.2701 4.00 28.00
Table 2.2.5.3.4: Educational Level One Way ANOVA; Descriptives
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Willingness to Patronize
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
1.111 3 194 .346
Table 2.2.5.3.5: Educational Level One Way ANOVA; Test of Homogeneity of Variances
ANOVA
Willingness to Patronize
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 95.767 3 31.922 2.009 .114
Within Groups 3083.243 194 15.893
Total 3179.010 197
Table 2.2.5.3.6: Educational Level One Way ANOVA; ANOVA
Robust Tests of Equality of Means
Willingness to Patronize
Statistica df1 df2 Sig.
Welch 2.034 3 106.253 .114
Brown-Forsythe 2.015 3 187.808 .113
a. Asymptotically F distributed. Table 2.2.5.3.7: Educational Level One Way ANOVA; Robust Tests of Equality of Means
57
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Willingness to Patronize
Tukey HSD
(I) Education Level (J) Education Level
Mean
Difference (I-
J)
Std.
Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
High School
Graduate
College Graduate -.98252 .77110 .580 -2.9808 1.0157
Bachelor‘s Degree -1.70032 .79796 .147 -3.7682 .3675
Graduates Degree -1.69499 .82173 .169 -3.8245 .4345
College Graduate High School
Graduate .98252 .77110 .580 -1.0157 2.9808
Bachelor‘s Degree -.71780 .78744 .799 -2.7584 1.3228
Graduates Degree -.71247 .81152 .816 -2.8155 1.3905
Bachelor‘s Degree High School
Graduate 1.70032 .79796 .147 -.3675 3.7682
College Graduate .71780 .78744 .799 -1.3228 2.7584
Graduates Degree .00533 .83708 1.000 -2.1639 2.1746
Graduates Degree High School
Graduate 1.69499 .82173 .169 -.4345 3.8245
College Graduate .71247 .81152 .816 -1.3905 2.8155
Bachelor‘s Degree -.00533 .83708 1.000 -2.1746 2.1639
Table 2.2.5.3.8: Educational Level Post Hoc Test; Multiple Comparisons
Next a one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact
of educational level on willingness to patronize a green restaurant. Subjects were divided
into groups according to their highest educational level received (Group 1; High School
Graduate, Group 2; College Graduate, Group 3; Bachelor‘s Degree, Group 4;Graduates
Degree)There was no statistical difference at p>.05 between the 4 educational level groups
[F(3,1954)=2, p=.114]. Post-hoc comparisons (Table 2.2.5.3.8) using the Tukey HSD test
indicated that the mean score for Group 1(M=20.65, SD=3.9), Group 2 (M=21.64, SD=3.91),
Group 3 (M=22.35, SD=4.46), and Group 4 (M=22.35, SD=3.61) show no significant
difference with one another.
58
2.2.5.4 Income Level and Willingness to Patronize
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .073a .005 .000 4.03835
a. Predictors: (Constant), Income Level
Table 2.2.5.4.1: Income Level Regression; Model Summary
The results of the regression test concerning income level with willingness to patronize a
green restaurant in show in the results of Table 2.2.5.4.1. From the R² value of .005 we can
say that 0.5% of total variability in willingness to patronize is explained by income level.
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 16.558 1 16.558 1.015 .315b
Residual 3049.643 187 16.308
Total 3066.201 188
a. Dependent Variable: Willingness to Patronize
b. Predictors: (Constant), Income Level Table 2.2.5.4.2: Income Level Regression; ANOVA
The null hypothesis present in Table 2.2.5.4.2 is accepted by the researcher. Income level
has no explanatory power or significant relationship with willingness to patronize. This is
because of the p value which is >.05 [F (1,187) = 1.02, p=.315] Therefore further test from
the regression test are deemed inappropriate by the researcher to be further analyzed.
59
Descriptives
Willingness to Patronize
N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
Minimum Maximum
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
<RM5,000 114 21.2544 3.97739 .37252 20.5164 21.9924 4.00 28.00
RM 5,001-
RM10,001 51 22.2157 3.88491 .54400 21.1230 23.3083 12.00 28.00
RM10,001-
RM15,001 9 23.8889 1.05409 .35136 23.0786 24.6991 23.00 25.00
RM15,001-
RM20,000 7 25.0000 4.50925 1.70434 20.8296 29.1704 16.00 28.00
RM>20,000 8 19.2500 5.20302 1.83955 14.9002 23.5998 14.00 27.00
Total 189 21.6931 4.03851 .29376 21.1136 22.2726 4.00 28.00
Table 2.2.5.4.3: Income Level One Way ANOVA; DescrIptives
Test of Homogeneity of Variances
Willingness to Patronize
Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
2.736 4 184 .030
Table 2.2.5.4.4: Income Level One Way ANOVA; Test of Homogeneity of Variances
ANOVA
Willingness to Patronize
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 203.562 4 50.890 3.271 .013
Within Groups 2862.639 184 15.558
Total 3066.201 188
Table 2.2.5.4.5: Income Level One Way ANOVA; ANOVA
Robust Tests of Equality of Means
Willingness to Patronize
Statistica df1 df2 Sig.
Welch 7.405 4 22.311 .001
Brown-Forsythe 3.188 4 25.046 .030
a. Asymptotically F distributed.
Table 2.2.5.4.6: Income Level One Way ANOVA: Robust Tests of Equality of Means
60
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Willingness to Patronize
Tukey HSD
(I) Income Level (J) Income Level
Mean
Difference (I-
J) Std. Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
<RM5,000 RM 5,001-
RM10,001 -.96130 .66448 .598 -2.7919 .8693
RM10,001-
RM15,001 -2.63450 1.36569 .306 -6.3970 1.1280
RM15,001-
RM20,000 -3.74561 1.53591 .110 -7.9771 .4858
RM>20,000 2.00439 1.44264 .635 -1.9701 5.9789
RM 5,001-
RM10,001
<RM5,000 .96130 .66448 .598 -.8693 2.7919
RM10,001-
RM15,001 -1.67320 1.42608 .767 -5.6021 2.2557
RM15,001-
RM20,000 -2.78431 1.58984 .405 -7.1644 1.5957
RM>20,000 2.96569 1.49993 .281 -1.1666 7.0980
RM10,001-
RM15,001
<RM5,000 2.63450 1.36569 .306 -1.1280 6.3970
RM 5,001-
RM10,001 1.67320 1.42608 .767 -2.2557 5.6021
RM15,001-
RM20,000 -1.11111 1.98776 .981 -6.5874 4.3652
RM>20,000 4.63889 1.91660 .114 -.6414 9.9192
RM15,001-
RM20,000
<RM5,000 3.74561 1.53591 .110 -.4858 7.9771
RM 5,001-
RM10,001 2.78431 1.58984 .405 -1.5957 7.1644
RM10,001-
RM15,001 1.11111 1.98776 .981 -4.3652 6.5874
RM>20,000 5.75000* 2.04139 .042 .1259 11.3741
RM>20,000 <RM5,000 -2.00439 1.44264 .635 -5.9789 1.9701
RM 5,001-
RM10,001 -2.96569 1.49993 .281 -7.0980 1.1666
RM10,001-
RM15,001 -4.63889 1.91660 .114 -9.9192 .6414
RM15,001-
RM20,000 -5.75000
* 2.04139 .042 -11.3741 -.1259
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. Table 2.2.5.4.7: Income Level Post Hoc Tests; Multiple Comparisons
61
Finally a one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the
impact of income level on willingness to patronize a green restaurant. Subjects were divided
into groups according to their income level (Group 1; <RM5, 000, Group 2; RM5, 001-
RM10,000, Group 3; RM10, 001- RM15,000, Group 4;RM15,001-RM20,000, Group
5;>RM20, 001 )There was a statistical difference at p<.05 between the 5 income level
groups [F(4,184)=3.27, p=.03]. Post-hoc comparisons (Table 2.2.5.4.7) using the Tukey
HSD test indicated that the mean score for Group 4 (M=25, SD=4.5) and Group 5 (M=19.25,
SD=5.2) show a significant difference with one another. While mean score for Group
1(M=21.25, SD=3.98), Group 2 (M=22.22, SD=3.88), and Group 3 (M=23.89, SD=1.05)
show no significant difference with other groups.
62
2.2.6 Recommendations
In this research, the researcher examined the relationship of intent to patronize a green
restaurant with consumer‘s knowledge on a green restaurant, consumer‘s environmental
concern, consumer‘s environmental attitude and consumer‘s demographic factors in USJ. In
terms of demographic characteristics, residents of USJ are equally divided between male
and female (Table 2.2.2.1). Majority of residents in the area are over 50 years old or
between the age of 31 to 40 years old (Table 2.2.2.2) meaning that most of them have the
spending power and since most people retire at the age above 50 it means that they have
the drive to spend their hard earned money. Most of the residents in the area have received
tertiary education (Table 2.2.2.3). Finally in the area of income level, a majority of residents
have an income less than RM5, 000 (Table 2.2.2.4). But this in fact could be false as the
number of missing data in the results were quite significant. They might have a higher
income level but due to reasons unknown are not willing to make it known. Descriptive
analysis was also done on the results of the data collection. In terms of waste recycling,
most respondents agreed (SD=1.05) that oil should be recycled by putting it in a separate
bin specially made for oil. It would be advisable for most restaurants to start adopting good
waste oil management as most consumer agreed on the action. Besides that, in terms of
noise pollution, most respondents agreed (SD=1.07) that restaurant should install low noise
producing equipment in their establishment. It might be that most consumer find loud noises
annoying and restaurants operators should take notice on this matter. For employee
education, most respondents agreed (SD=.905) that staff should receive training in terms of
environmental management. It could mean that they want staffs that have received prior
training when serving them in a green restaurant. Green restaurant operators should have
prepared a training programme where they educate their staff in all matters related to the
environment. When it comes to the matter of human over matter which comes under
environmental concern, respondents showed strong agreement (SD=1.98) towards the
statement that man was meant to rule over nature. It shows that consumers in USJ believe
that the environment is their right and since it is their right it means that they have a
responsibility when it comes to taking care of matter related to the environment. Moreover,
respondents showed a high agreement (SD=1.27) that nature is fragile and can be easily
disturbed when asked about the balance of nature. Since it is agreed that nature is fragile,
we as humans have to be careful whenever we do something since all of our actions can
affect the environment in a bad or good way no matter how big or small that action is. Also,
under the questions in the limits of growth category, respondents strongly agree (SD=1.33)
on the statement that mankind is severely abusing the environment. It is not such a bad idea
to start a green restaurant in USJ then since if consumers agree that the environment is
63
being abused, they would seek out ways to help the environment and one of the ways would
be to patronize a green restaurant. It results in a win-win situation as the consumer gets to
help the environment while the restaurant gets good business. In the context of
environmental attitude, respondents showed a high degree of agreement (SD=1.81) to the
statement that they find issues regarding pollution to be overrated. This might be a reason
why most pollution issues brought up to light are deemed unimportant or uninteresting. Care
must be given when relating information or dealing with anything related towards pollution
since it has such a bad reputation. Green restaurants that open up should not focus much on
advertising their business as something that reduces pollution since most respondents find
the matter to be over exaggerated.
Linear regression test done on consumer‘s knowledge on green restaurant with willingness
to patronize a green restaurant showed a positive relationship between each other. As
consumer‘s knowledge on green restaurant increases, willingness to patronize a green
restaurant also increases. This fact is proven with a positive correlation value of R=.204
(Table 2.2.4.1.1). More knowledge on green restaurant will result in more willingness to
patronize a green restaurant. There is also a significant relationship between the two
variables as shown by the p value (t=2.93, p=.004) in Table 2.2.4.1.3. Knowledge was found
to be a significant predictor of willingness to patronize a green restaurant. The results
coincide with results from Hu et al. (2010) study that said that knowledge is an important
predictor of willingness to patronize a green restaurant. Although it might be difficult to
showcase their green practice efforts since most of green practices are not suitable to be
shown to the customers. Green restaurant operators should focus more effort into educating
their customers on their green practices. They should also make marketing their green
practices a priority as suggested by Schubert et al. (2010). One way to increase the
knowledge is through social media exposure and by displaying certificates that show the
authenticity of their green practices publicly. The researcher also suggests green restaurant
operators to work in tangent with known pro environmental organizations so that more
people would be aware of their green practices. By educating their customers, green
restaurants can also attract new potential customers who have become now become aware
of their green practices due to their marketing effort. Thus hypothesis 1 is accepted in this
research.
For the factor of environmental concern and how it affects consumer‘s willingness to
patronize a green restaurant the results of the research shows that there is a positive
relationship between environmental concern and consumer‘s willingness to patronize a
green restaurant. This fact is proven by the researcher with the results shown in Table
2.2.4.2.3 which shows a p value that is <.05(t=5.84, p= 2.1532E-8 or .000). Positive
64
correlation value (R=.383) from Table 2.2.4.2.1 also shows that more environmental concern
will result in more willingness to patronize a green restaurant. It could mean that when a
person is more environmentally aware, they reflect more on how their actions affect the
environment. They would think twice before doing anything that affects the environment as
they are concerned. The results coincide with many past research results (Hines et al. 1987;
Ellen et al., 1991; Laroche et al., 2001; Kim and Choi, 2005; Hu et al., 2010). showing that
friendly behaviour towards the environment is more predictable with a higher level of
environmental concern. Targeting a market which has a concentrated amount of consumer‘s
with high environmental concern is recommended for green restaurant operators as it will
increase the number of consumer‘s who patronize their restaurant. Not only that, by creating
awareness regarding environmental problems, a green restaurant can indirectly increase the
number of customers who patron their restaurant as environmental concern will undeniably
increase. Based on the results of the research, hypothesis 3 which states that higher
environmental concern will positively influence a consumers desire to patronize a green
restaurant is accepted.
The relationship between environmental attitude and willingness to patronize a green
restaurant is proven to be positive in this research. The proof is shown in Table 2.2.4.3.3 that
had p value that is <.05 (t=6.02, p= 8.2991E-9or .000) showing that there is a significant
relationship between the two variables. Table 2.2.4.3.1 that had a positive correlation value
of R=.393 showing that more environmental attitude will result in more willingness to
patronize a green restaurant. The results contradicts with previous results of Follows and
Jobber (2000) that showed environmental attitude to be a weak indicator of purchase of
green products and results of Lee (2008) and Cleveland et al. (2005) on how there is a weak
relationship between environmental attitude and green behaviour. We can interpret from the
results that since environmentally friendly attitude will result in higher willingness to patronize
a green restaurant, it would also lead to higher green purchase and green behaviour and
vice versa. It would be a prudent strategy to open a green restaurant in an area that has a
successful green business since most of the customers of that shop would have high
environmental attitude making it more likely for them to visit a green restaurant. Also, green
restaurant operators can come up with strategies that focus on attracting individuals who
have positive environmental attitude. Therefore, the researcher accepts hypothesis 3 which
is environmental attitude will positively affect willingness to patronize a green restaurant.
The results of this research show that in demographic terms of gender, gender does not
significantly affect a consumer‘s willingness to patronize a green restaurant. From the
analysis done on data collected through regression method, Table 2.2.5.1.2 showed that
gender had no explanatory power when it came to willingness to patronize a green
65
restaurant as p value was >.05[F (1,198) =.883, p=.349]. A male consumer is no more likely
to visit a green restaurant than a female consumer. Independent sample t-test result of Table
2.2.5.1.4 had a p value of >.05 (t (198) =0.94, p=0.34) proves that there is no significant
difference between male and female groups when it came to their willingness to patronize a
green restaurant. The results of the regression analysis (Table 2.2.5.2.2) on age produced
similar results as gender. Results show that age had no predicting power when it came to
willingness to patronize a green restaurant [F (1,198) =.094, p=.759]. Moreover, the results
of the one way ANOVA test (Table 2.2.5.2.5) on age with willingness to patronize a green
restaurant also showed no significant difference between the different age groups. There
was no statistical difference at p>.05 for the age groups [F (4,195) =1.1, p=.365] tested in
the research. This would mean that green restaurant operators do not have to focus on the
age of their target market as the consumer‘s age does not really affect their willingness to
patronize a green restaurant. For the variable of education, the regression analysis showed
that there is a relationship between educational level and willingness to patronize a green
restaurant since the p value is <.05 (t=2.3, p=.023) as shown in Table 2.2.5.3.3. This could
be due to the fact that as a person becomes more educated, they are able to think more
globally and have a broader field of vision. They can easily realize important matters that
others who have a lower education find irrelevant. Thus a step in order to increase
environmental awareness would be through increasing people‘s level of education. The one
way ANOVA test on educational level also showed no significant relationship between
groups on their willingness to patronize a green restaurant. The variable of income level
showed no relationship between the dependent variable of willingness to patronize a green
restaurant. It was concluded so by the researcher due to the results obtained from Table
2.2.5.4.2 that had a p value which is >.05 [F (1,187) = 1.02, p=.315]. Income level is not a
useful predictor to a consumer‘s willingness to patronize a green restaurant. However, there
is a significant difference when it comes to willingness to patronize a green restaurant
between the different groups of income. This could be because spending power increases
as income level increases therefore extra costs charged by green restaurants do not matter
as much. We can see that out of the 4 tested factors under demographics only 1 showed
significance when it comes to consumer‘s willingness to patronize a green restaurant. Thus it
can be concluded that hypothesis 4 that states a consumer‘s demographic factors in terms
of age, gender, and income level will influence their willingness to patronize a green
restaurant is rejected in this research while the hypothesis that consumer‘s demographic
factors in terms of educational level will influence their willingness to patronize a green
restaurant is accepted.
66
The question of how much more are consumer‘s willing to pay extra for a green restaurant
is also answered in the study (Table 2.2.2.5). 21% of respondents answered that they were
willing to pay an extra 10% for a green restaurant while 11% of respondents answered that
they were willing to pay an extra 20% for a green restaurant. This information is useful as it
shows just how supportive consumers are of green restaurants. Restaurant can justify their
increase in price by labelling themselves as a green restaurant. Not only will they have an
increase in sales through their usual customers, they would also be able to attract new
customers to their restaurant. The increase in cost because of green practices can then be
supported through the increase in sales. Green restaurants do not have to worry about
customers not patronizing their restaurant because they do not want to pay extra for green
practices. Therefore key questions on customer‘s willingness to pay extra for a green
restaurant are answered through the results of the research.
The researcher feels that the chosen research methodology adopted for this research is very
affective. Through the procedure and design of the research mentioned in part 2 of the
research, the researcher is able to answer all key questions of the research and also obtain
results needed to accept or reject proposed hypothesis. The targeted number of
respondents (n=200) is achieved through the suggested sampling method. The research
instrument used in the study which is the questionnaire was reliable and provided critical
data in order to test out proposed hypothesis.
67
General Conclusion
Through the research, the researcher is able to shed light on current environmental trends
and give a detailed explanation on green restaurants, their green practices and
environmental efforts in the tourism, hospitality and food service industry. It is also
highlighted in the study on overall environmental efforts nowadays since evidence of our
planet is being affected by our activities have been appearing more and more frequently.
The government in Malaysia has to do its part in creating awareness among its citizens.
Education on the environment should be taught at schools at a young age to create a
generation of environmentally conscious people.
In part 2 of the research, researcher is able to determine the demographic characteristics of
respondents in USJ. They are equally divided between male and female however female
overshadow males by a miniscule 5%. Respondents in USJ are mostly aged between 31 to
40 years old and above 50 years old. 73% of the respondents have received tertiary
education the highest being college graduates (27.8%). When we are talking about income
level, a majority of the respondents have a monthly income of less than RM 5,000. In terms
of their willingness to pay extra for a green restaurant, the highest amount of respondent
(n=42) said they were willing to pay an extra 10%, the second highest amount of
respondents (n=36) said they were willing to pay an extra 2% and the third highest amount
(n=28) showed a willingness to pay an extra 6%.
The analysis done through SPSS was able to answer key questions in the research and
also showed results used to test out the hypothesis stated in the research. Customer
knowledge on green restaurant, environmental concern and environmental attitude had a
positive relationship with willingness to patronize a green restaurant. Thus hypothesis 1, 2
and 3 that was proposed in part 1.2 of the research was accepted by the researcher. In
terms of demographic factors, the research showed that gender age and income level had
no significant relationship with willingness to patronize a green restaurant. Hypothesis 4 in
terms of gender, age and income are rejected by the researcher. However, results in part
2.5.3 of the research proved the hypothesis that educational level was a significant predictor
to willingness to patronize a green restaurant. Thus hypothesis 4 in terms of educational
level is accepted by the researcher.
Contributions and limitations of research
From this research, more information on factors that affect customer willingness to patronize
a green restaurant in USJ can be added to the current body of collective knowledge.
68
Restaurant operators thinking of opening a green restaurant in USJ can come up with a
good business plan and prepare accordingly to ensure the success of their business.
Information on the demographic characteristics of residents of USJ is also revealed in the
research. Not only green restaurant operators but other business operators can use the data
for their market research purposes. Other green business operators have a similar purpose
as a green restaurant and their market of customers could be similar to those of green
restaurants. Besides that this research reveals USJ consumers current views on the
environment, most agree that human are rulers of the environment, nature is fragile and
human beings are causing harm to the environment. It shows that the residents of USJ do
care about the environment and government or non-government organizations can take that
opportunity to start environmentally friendly initiatives. However although, the research
reveals a good amount of information on the area of USJ, the information collected cannot
necessarily be applied to everywhere in Malaysia. Different parts of Malaysia could show
different results. Also the research does not look into how the different independent variables
react with one another to affect the dependent variable. It could be that an increase in one
independent variable will cause an increase in another independent variable which in turn
affects the dependent variable in the study.
Recommendation for future studies
Hence the researcher proposes that for future studies, a researcher could conduct the same
research at a larger scale covering the whole country of Malaysia to get a more generalized
view on the results. A research based on samples of different states can also be done to
highlight differences between consumer‘s willingness to patronize a green restaurant
between states. This kind of research could reveal how there might be a difference between
consumer‘s knowledge on green restaurant, environmental concern, environmental attitude
and demographic factors in each state when compared to one another. Moreover as
previously mentioned, a study can be conducted to test how the independent variables react
with one another to affect willingness to patronize a green restaurant. This would show how
the variables could be multi related to one another. Besides that, more research can be done
on the independent variables found in this research which are knowledge on a green
restaurant, environmental concern and environmental attitude. It would be interesting to find
out the factors that affect these variables and then the results can be linked to the results
obtain from this research. Therefore, steps for increasing environmental awareness in
general can be discovered and implemented in order to safeguard our environment for future
generations.
69
Bibliography
1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes. 50(2), 179-211.
2. Alwitt, L. F., & Pitts, R. E. (1996). Predicting Purchase Intentions for an
Environmentally Sensitive Product. Journal of Consumer Psychology (Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates), 5(1), 49.
3. Amendah, E. & Park, J. (2008). Consumer involvement and psychological
antecedents on eco-friendly destinations: Willingness to pay more. Journal of
Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 17, 262-283.
4. Arbuthnot,J. and Lingg, S. (1975) A comparison of French and American
environmental behaviors, knowledge, and attitudes. International Journal of
Psychology, 10(4), 275.
5. Balderjahn, I. (1988). Personality Variables and Environmental Attitudes as Predictors
of Ecologically Responsible Consumption Patterns. Journal of Business
Research, 17(1), 51-56.
6. Barber N., Taylor D.C., Strick S. (2009) Environmental knowledge and attitudes:
influencing the purchase decisions of wine consumers, ICHRIE Conference 1-11.
7. Beutel, A and Marini, M. (1995) Gender and Values. American Sociological Review,
60(3), 436-448
8. Blocker, T., & Eckberg, D. (1989). Environmental Issues as Women's Issues: General
Concerns and Local Hazards. Social Science Quarterly (University Of Texas
Press), 70(3), 586-593.
9. Blocker, T., & Eckberg, D. (1997). Gender and Environmentalism: Results from the
1993 General Social Survey. Social Science Quarterly (University Of Texas
Press), 78(4), 841-858.
10. Bodur, M. and Sarigöllü, E. (2005) Environmental Sensitivity in a Developing Country:
Consumer Classification and Implications. Environment and Behavior, 37(4), 487-510.
11. Bradley, J., Waliczek, T. M., & Zajicek, J. M. (1999). Relationship between
Environmental Knowledge and Environmental Attitude of High School
Students. Journal of Environmental Education, 30(3), 17.
12. Business & the Environment. (2008). Serving up a green menu. Green Restaurant
Association, 19(1), 1-4
13. Butler, J. (2008). The Compelling "Hard Case" for "Green" Hotel
Development. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 49(3), 234-244.
doi:10.1177/1938965508322174
70
14. Carbonara, J. (2007). Foodservice Goes GREEN. (Cover story). Foodservice
Equipment & Supplies, 60(9), 48-54.
15. Chan, K. (1998). Mass communication and pro-environmental behaviour: waste
recycling in Hong Kong. Journal of Environmental Management, 52, 317-325.
16. Chan, R. K., & Lau, L. Y. (2002). Explaining Green Purchasing Behavior: A Cross-
Cultural Study on American and Chinese Consumers. Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, 14(2/3), 9-40
17. Chen, T.B., Chai, L.T. (2010) Attitude towards the environment and green products,
Management Science and Engineering; 4(2), 27-39.
18. Cheng,S., Lam, T., & Hsu, C. C. (2006). NEGATIVE WORD-OF-MOUTH
COMMUNICATION INTENTION: AN APPLICATION OF THE THEORY OF
PLANNED BEHAVIOR. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 30(1), 95-116.
doi:10.1177/1096348005284269
19. Choi, G., & Parsa, H. G. (2006). Green Practices II: Measuring Restaurant Managers'
Psychological Attributes and Their Willingness to Charge for the "Green
Practices.‖ Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 9(4), 41-63.
20. Chou, C. J., Chen, K. S., & Wang, Y. Y. (2012). Green practices in the restaurant
industry from an innovation adoption perspective: Evidence from Taiwan. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 31, 703-711.
21. Cleveland, M., Kalamas, M., & Laroche, M. (2005). Shades of green: linking
environmental locus of control and pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 22(4), 198-212. doi:10.1108/07363760510605317
22. Corral-Verdugo, V. (1996). A structural model of reuse and recycling in
Mexico. Environment & Behavior, 28(5), 665-696.
23. Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B., Sinkovics, R., and Bohlen, G. (2003). Can
socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the
evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 56 (6), 465-
480
24. Dietz, T., Kalof, L., & Stern, P. C. (2002). Gender, Values, and
Environmentalism. Social Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell), 83(1), 353-364.
doi:10.1111/1540-6237.00088
25. DiPietro, R. B., Cao, Y., & Partlow, C. (2013). Green practices in upscale foodservice
operationsCustomer perceptions and purchase intentions. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25(5), 779-796. doi:10.1108/IJCHM-MAY-
2012-0082
26. D'Souza, C., Taghian, M., & Khosla, R. (2007). Examination of environmental beliefs
and its impact on the influence of price, quality and demographic characteristics with
71
respect to green purchase intention. Journal Of Targeting, Measurement & Analysis
For Marketing, 15(2), 69-78. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jt.5750039
27. Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (2008). The "New Environmental Paradigm". Journal
of Environmental Education, 40(1), 19-28.
28. Dutta, K., Umashankar, V., Choi, G., & Parsa, H. G. (2008). A Comparative Study of
Consumers' Green Practice Orientation in India and the United States: A Study from
the Restaurant Industry. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 11(3), 269-285.
doi:10.1080/15378020802316570
29. Enz, C. A., & Siguaw, J. A. (1999). Best Hotel Environmental Practices. Cornell Hotel
& Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 72.
30. Ernst & Young. (2008). Global hospitality insight—Hospitality going green. Retrieved
from http://www.hotelnewsresource.com/article36072.html
31. Evanschitzky, H., & Wunderlich, M. (2006). An examination of moderator effects: The
four stage loyalty model. Journal of Service Research, 8, 330-345.
32. Follows, S. B., & Jobber, D. (2000). Environmentally responsible purchase behaviour:
a test of a consumer model. European Journal of Marketing, 34(5/6), 723.
33. Fryxell, G. E., & Lo, C. H. (2003). The Influence of Environmental Knowledge and
Values on Managerial Behaviours on Behalf of the Environment: An Empirical
Examination of Managers in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(1), 45-69
34. Gilly, M. C., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1985). The elderly consumer and adoption of
technologies. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 353-357.
35. Goodman, A. (2000). Implementing Sustainability in Service Operations at Scandic
Hotels. Interfaces, 30(3), 202-214.
36. GRA (2014, March 5) Green Restaurant Certification 4.0 Standards.dinegreen.com.
Retrieved April 1,from http://dinegreen.com/standards/GRACompleteStandards.pdf
37. Graci, S., & Dodds, R. (2008). Why Go Green? The Business Case for Environmental
Commitment in the Canadian Hotel Industry. Anatolia: An International Journal of
Tourism & Hospitality Research, 19(2), 251-270.
38. Green Purchasing Network Malaysia (2003) An Introductory Study on Green
Purchasing Activities in Malaysia. 1-39. Retrieved from http://www.apo-
tokyo.org/gp/e_publi/survey_gpp/malaysia_report_mgpn.pdf
39. Grønhøj, A., & Ölander, F. (2007). A gender perspective on environmentally related
family consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6(4), 218-235.
doi:10.1002/cb.216
40. Handelman, J. M., & Arnold, S. J. (1999). The Role of Marketing Actions with a Social
Dimension: Appeals to the Institutional Environment. Journal of Marketing, 63(3), 33-
48.
72
41. Harmsen Consultancy BV. (2012). Retrieved from
http://www.harmsenconsultancy.nl/about/?&lang=en_us&output=json.
42. Haron, S. A., Paim, L., & Yahaya, N. (2005). Towards sustainable consumption: an
examination of environmental knowledge among Malaysians. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 29(5), 426-436. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00460.x.
43. Hartmann, P. and Apaolaza, V. (2006) Green value added. Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, 24(7), 673-680.
44. Hines, J., Hungerford, H. and Tomera, A. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research
on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental
Education, 18, 1-8
45. Hirsh, J.B. (2010) Personality and environment concern. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 20, 245-248.
46. Horovitz, B. (2008, May 15). Can restaurants go green, earn green? usatoday.com.
Retrieved on April 9
from:http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/environment/2008-05-15-green-
restaurants-eco-friendly n.htm
47. Hu, H.H., Parsa, H.G. and Self, J. (2010) The Dynamics of Green Restaurant
Patronage. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 51 (3) 344-362.
48. Ismail, A., Kassim, A. and Zahari, M.S., (2010) Responsiveness of Restaurateurs
towards the Implementation of Environment-friendly Practices. South Asian Journal
of Tourism and Heritage, 3(2), 1-10.
49. Jain, S. and Kaur, G. (2004) Grren Marketing: An Attitudinal and Behavioural Analysis
of Indian Consumers. Global Business Review, 5, 187-205
50. Jang, Y., Kim, W., & Bonn, M. A. (2011). Generation Y consumers‘ selection attributes
and behavioral intentions concerning green restaurants. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 30(4), 803-811. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.12.012
51. Kaiser, G.K., Wölfing, S., & Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmental attitude and ecological
behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 19(1), 1-19.
52. Kalafatis, S., Pollard, M., East, R. and Tsogas, M.H. (1999), ―Green marketing and
Ajzen‘s theory of planned behaviour: a cross-market examination”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 16(5), 441-460.
53. Kallgren, C. A. and Wood, W. (1986) Access to attitude-relevant information in
memory as a determinant of attitude-behavior consistency. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 22(4), 328-338.
54. Kasim, A. (2004). Socio-Environmentally Responsible Hotel Business: Do Tourists to
Penang Island, Malaysia Care? Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 11(4), 5-
28. doi:10.1300/J150v11n04_02
73
55. Kasim, A. (2006). The Need for Business Environmental and Social Responsibility in
the Tourism Industry. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Administration, 7(1), 1-22. doi:10.1300/J149v07n01-01
56. Kasim, A. (2009). Managerial attitudes towards environmental management among
small and medium hotels in Kuala Lumpur. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(6),
709-725. doi:10.1080/09669580902928468
57. Kasim, A., Ismail, A., & Issa, A. (2011). Regulatory pressures affecting the restaurant
business's responsible behaviors in Penang, Malaysia. Anatolia: An International
Journal of Tourism & Hospitality Research, 22(3), 390-400.
doi:10.1080/13032917.2011.634917
58. Kassinis, G. I., & Soteriou, A. C. (2003). GREENING THE SERVICE PROFIT CHAIN:
THE IMPACT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. Production &
Operations Management, 12(3), 386-402.
59. Kim, Y. and Choi, S. (2005) Antecedents of Green Purchase Behavior: An
Examination of Collectivism, Environmental Concern, and PCE. Advances in
Consumer Research, 32, 592-599.
60. King, A. (2012). Smart restaurants add sustainability to their menus. Retrieved from
http://www.greenpackaginggroup.com/foodservice/smart-restaurants-add-
sustainability-to-their-menus/
61. Kotler,P., Bowen, J.T. and Makens, J.C., (2010) Marketing for hospitality and
tourism(5th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ : Pearson
62. Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting consumers who are
willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 18(6), 503-520.
63. Lee, K. (2008). Opportunities for green marketing: young consumers. Marketing
Intelligence and Planning. 26(6),573-586.
64. Lee, W. H., & Moscardo, G. (2005). Understanding the Impact of Ecotourism Resort
Experiences on Tourists' Environmental Attitudes and Behavioural Intentions. Journal
of Sustainable Tourism, 13(6), 546-565.
65. llen, P., Wiener, J., & Cobb-Walgren, C. (1991). The Role of Perceived Consumer
Effectiveness in Motivating Environmentally Conscious Behaviors. Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, 10(2), 102-117.
66. Lorenzini, B. (1994). The Green Restaurant: Part II: Systems And
Service. Restaurants & Institutions, 104(11), 119.
67. Loureiro, M. L. (2003). Rethinking new wines: implications of local and
environmentally friendly labels. Food Policy, 28(5/6), 547.
doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2003.10.004
74
68. Mainieri, T. T., Barnett, E. G., Valdero, T. T., & Unipan, J. B. (1997). Green buying.
The influence of environmental concern on consumer behavior. Journal Of Social
Psychology, 137
69. Midden, C., Kaiser, F., & McCalley, T. (2007). Technology‘s four roles in
understanding individuals‘ conservation of natural resources. Journal of Social Issues,
63(1), 155–174.
70. Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2005). The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility and
Price on Consumer Responses. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(1), 121-147.
71. Mostafa, M. M. (2006). Antecedents of Egyptian Consumers' Green Purchase
Intentions: A Hierarchical Multivariate Regression Model. Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, 19(2), 97-126. doi:10.1300/J046v19n02.06
72. Nabsiah, A.W., Elham, R., Tan, S.S. (2011) Factors influencing the green purchase
behavior of Penang environmental Volunteers, International Business Management;
5(1): 38-49.
73. Namkung, Y. and Jang, S. (2014) Are Consumers Willing to Pay More for Green
Practices at Restaurants? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 1-28.
74. National Restaurant Association (2014, April 4) 2014 Facts at a glance.
Restaurant.org. Retrieved on April 8 from http://www.restaurant.org/News-
Research/Research/Facts-at-a-Glance
75. Newell, S. J. & Green, C. L. (1997). Racial differences in consumer environmental
concern. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 31(1), 53-69.
76. Ottman, J. (1992). Environmentalism will be the trend of the '90s. Marketing
News, 26(25), 13.
77. Pellegrini M. G. (2007). The carbon-saving behaviour of residential households. In:
Futures of Cities - 51st IFHP World Congress, 23-26 September 2007, Copenhagen.
Retrieved from http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/4577/.
78. Roberts, J. (1996). Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and implications for
advertising. Journal of Business Research, 36(3), 217-231
79. Roberts, J. A., & Bacon, D. R. (1997). Exploring the subtle relationships between
environmental concern and ecologically conscious consumer behavior. Journal of
Business Research, 40, 79-89
80. Said A.M., Ahmadun F.R., Paim L.H., Masud J. (2003) Environmental concerns,
knowledge and practices gap among Malaysian teachers. International Journal of
Sustainability Higher Education, 4, 305-313.
81. Schahn J, Holzer E, 1990, Studies of individual environmental concern. The role of
knowledge, gender, and background variables. Environment and Behavior, 22: 767-
786,
75
82. Schubert, F. (2008). Exploring and Predicting Consumers‘ Attitudes and Behaviors
towards Green Restaurants. (Electronic Thesis or Dissertation). Retrieved from
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/
83. Schubert, F., Kandampully, J., Solnet, D., & Kralj, A. (2010). Exploring consumer
perceptions of green restaurants in the US. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 10,
286-300
84. Schwartz, J., & Miller, T. (1991). The earth‘s best friends. American Demographics,
13(2), 26-35.
85. Smith, S. (2009). Eating clean & green? Investigating consumer motivations towards
the purchase of organic food. ANZMAC, 1-8.
86. Soonthonsmai, V. (2007). Environmental or green marketing as global competitive
edge: Concept, synthesis,and implication. EABR (Business) and ETLC (Teaching)
Conference Proceeding, Venice, Italy
87. Springen, K. K., & Miller, A. A. (1991). Doing the right thing. Newsweek, 117(1), 42.
88. Stern, P., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental
concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322–348
89. Stys, B. (2008). GREEN RESTAURANTS: COMMERCIAL KITCHENS FACE
UNIQUE CHALLENGES AS WELL AS OPPORTUNITIES FOR SAVING ENERGY
AND MATERIALS. Environmental Design & Construction, 11(5), 64.
90. Tan,B.C. and Yeap, P.F. (2012) What Drives Green Restaurant Patronage Intention?
International Journal of Business Management, 7(2), 215-223.
91. Tarkiainen, A. and Sundqvist, S. (2005), ―Subjective norms, attitudes and intentions of
Finnish consumers in buying organic food‖, British Food Journal, Vol. 107 No. 11,pp.
808-822.
92. Thimmakkas Resource for Environmental Education (2005). We green business.
Retrieved on January 15, 2014 from http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33013.pdf
93. Tilikidou, I. (2007). The effects of knowledge and attitudes upon Greeks' pro-
environmental purchasing behaviour. Corporate Social Responsibility &
Environmental Management, 14(3), 121-134. doi:10.1002/csr.123
94. Torgler, B., Garcia-Valinas, M. and Macintyre, A. (2008), ‗‗Differences in preference
towards the environment: the impact of a gender, age and parental effect‘‘, discussion
paper 221, QUT School of Economics and Finance, Brisbane, pp. 1-37.
95. Tzschentke, N. A., Kirk, D., & Lynch, P. A. (2008). Going green: Decisional factors in
small hospitality operations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(1),
126-133. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.07.010
76
96. Tzschentke, N., Kirk, D., & Lynch, P. A. (2004). Reasons for going green in serviced
accommodation establishments. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 16(2), 116-124. doi:10.1108/09596110410520007
97. Wolfe, K. L., & Shanklin, C. W. (2001). Environmental practices and management
concerns of conference center administrations. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 25, 209-216
98. Wu, K.S. Huang, D.M. and Teng, Y.M (2013) Environmental Concerns, Attitudes and
Behavior Intention toward Patronize Green Restaurant. Life Science Journal, 10(3),
2329-2340.
99. Zelezny L.C., Chua P.P., Aldrich C., (2000). Elaborating on gender differences in
environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 443-457
100. Zimmer, M. R., Stafford, T. F, & Stafford, M. R. (1994). Green issues: Dimensions of
environmental concern. Journal of Business Research. 30(1), 63-74.
77
List of Tables
Table 2.1.5.1: List of Variables in Questionnaire for Pilot Test (Part 1) ............................... 32
Table 2.1.5.2: List of Variables in Questionnaire for Pilot Test (Part 2) ............................... 33
Table 2.2.1.1: Rate of Response ........................................................................................ 34
Table 2.2.2.1: Gender ........................................................................................................ 35
Table 2.2.2.2: Age .............................................................................................................. 36
Table 2.2.2.3: Education Level ........................................................................................... 37
Table 2.2.2.4: Income Level ............................................................................................... 38
Table 2.2.2.5: Willingness to Pay Extra .............................................................................. 39
Table 2.2.3.1: Waste Recycle; Green Restaurant Knowledge ............................................ 40
Table 2.2.3.2: Noise Pollution; Green Restaurant Knowledge ............................................ 40
Table 2.2.3.3: Employee Education; Green Restaurant Knowledge ................................... 41
Table 2.2.3.4: Human over Nature; Environmental Concern .............................................. 41
Table 2.2.3.5: Balance of Nature; Environmental Concern ................................................. 41
Table 2.2.3.6: Limits of Growth; Environmental Concern .................................................... 42
Table 2.2.3.7: Environmental Attitude ................................................................................ 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.2.4.1.1: Knowledge Regression; Model Summary .................................................. 43
Table 2.2.4.1.2: Knowledge Regression; ANOVA ............................................................... 43
Table 2.2.4.1.3: Knowledge Regression; Coefficients ......................................................... 44
Table 2.2.4.2.1: Environmental Concern Regression; Model Summary ............................... 45
Table 2.2.4.2.2: Environmental Concern Regression; ANOVA ............................................ 45
Table 2.2.4.2.3: Environmental Concern Regression; Coefficients ...................................... 46
Table 2.2.4.3.1: Environmental Attitude Regression; Model Summary ................................ 47
Table 2.2.4.3.2: Environmental Attitude Regression; ANOVA ............................................. 47
Table 2.2.4.3.3: Environmental Attitude Regression; Coefficients ....................................... 48
Table 2.2.5.1.1: Gender Regression; Model Summary ........................................................ 49
Table 2.2.5.1.2: Gender Regression; ANOVA ..................................................................... 49
Table 2.2.5.1.3: Gender T-Test; Group Statistics ................................................................ 50
Table 2.2.5.1.4: Gender T-Test; Independent Samples Test ............................................... 50
Table 2.2.5.2.1: Age Regression; Model Summary ............................................................. 51
Table 2.2.5.2.2: Age Regression; ANOVA ........................................................................... 51
Table 2.2.5.2.3: Age One Way ANOVA; Descriptives.......................................................... 52
Table 2.2.5.2.4: Age One Way ANOVA; Test of Homogeneity of Variances ........................ 52
Table 2.2.5.2.5: Age One Way ANOVA; ANOVA ................................................................ 52
Table 2.2.5.2.6: Age One Way ANOVA; Robust Tests Equality of Means ........................... 52
Table 2.2.5.2.7: Age Post Hoc Tests; Multiple Comparisons ............................................... 53
Table 2.2.5.3.1: Educational Level Regression; Model Summary ........................................ 54
Table 2.2.5.3.2: Educational Level Regression; ANOVA ..................................................... 54
Table 2.2.5.3.3: Educational Level Regression; Coefficients ............................................... 55
Table 2.2.5.3.4: Educational Level One Way ANOVA; Descriptives .................................... 56
Table 2.2.5.3.5: Educational Level One Way ANOVA; Test of Homogeneity of Variances .. 56
Table 2.2.5.3.6: Educational Level One Way ANOVA; ANOVA ........................................... 56
Table 2.2.5.3.7: Educational Level One Way ANOVA; Robust Tests of Equality of Means . 56
Table 2.2.5.3.8: Educational Level Post Hoc Test; Multiple Comparisons ........................... 57
Table 2.2.5.4.1: Income Level Regression; Model Summary............................................... 58
Table 2.2.5.4.2: Income Level Regression; ANOVA ............................................................ 58
Table 2.2.5.4.3: Income Level One Way ANOVA; DescrIptives ........................................... 59
78
Table 2.2.5.4.4: Income Level One Way ANOVA; Test of Homogeneity of Variances ......... 59
Table 2.2.5.4.5: Income Level One Way ANOVA; ANOVA .................................................. 59
Table 2.2.5.4.6: Income Level One Way ANOVA: Robust Tests of Equality of Means ........ 59
Table 2.2.5.4.7: Income Level Post Hoc Tests; Multiple Comparisons ................................ 60
79
List of Diagrams
Figure 1.1.1: Hu et al.(2010) Model ..................................................................................... 18
Figure 1.1.2: Proposed Conceptual Model .......................................................................... 18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 2.2.2.1: Gender Bar Chart ....................................................................................... 35
Figure 2.2.2.2: Age Bar Chart ............................................................................................ 36
Figure 2.2.2.3: Education Level Bar Chart .......................................................................... 37
Figure 2.2.2.4: Income Level Bar Chart .............................................................................. 38
Figure 2.2.2.5: Willingness to Pay Extra Bar Chart ............................................................. 39
80
Annexes
1. Pilot Test Questionnaire
Green Restaurant Patronage Survey Hello dear respondents, I would like to thank you for participating in my research survey. This survey is 100% anonymous and information collected will only be used for educational purposes. Demographic Gender: Male □ Female □ Age: < 20 □ 21-30 □ 31-40 □ 41-50 □ >50 □ Education Level:
High School Graduate □
College Graduate □
Bachelor‘s Degree □
Graduate‘s Degree □ Income Level
<RM5,000 □
RM5,001-RM10,001 □
RM10,001-RM15,001 □
RM15,001-RM20,000 □
>RM20,000 □ How much more would you be willing to pay for a green restaurant?
2% □
4% □
6% □
8% □
10% □
12% □
14% □
16% □
18% □
20% □
81
Please tick one box for every question below
Question Strongly disagree
Neither Strongly
agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Knowledge on Green Restaurant
Waste Recycle
A green environmentally friendly restaurant should set up storage barrel for waste oil in order to recycle collected waste oil
A green environmentally friendly restaurant‘s kitchen should set up waste recycling bins in order to motivate employees and consumers to recycle kitchen waste and residual food
A green environmentally friendly restaurant‘s kitchen should be installed with a fume filtering system or washable cooker hoods
A green environmentally friendly restaurant‘s kitchen should replace or clean their fumes filtering device periodically
Energy Efficiency
A green environmentally friendly restaurant should change lighting fixtures with energy saving bulbs
A green environmentally friendly restaurant should use natural lighting as much as possible during the day
A green environmentally friendly product should choose energy products with an ENERGY LABEL when purchasing energy efficient equipment
Noise Pollution
A green environmentally friendly restaurant should be equipped with devices that produce low noises (mute air conditioning) in order to reduce noise pollution
A green environmentally friendly restaurant should install silencers with their range motor hoods to minimize noise produced
A green environmentally friendly restaurant should be well prepared with their noise control actions
Employee Education
A green environmentally friendly restaurant should train their staff regarding environmental information
A green environmentally friendly restaurant should keep environmental protection efforts as an employee‘s annual assessment criteria
A green environmentally friendly restaurant should implement environmental management courses as regular educational training for their employees
Resource Wastage
A green environmentally friendly restaurant should avoid using disposable cutleries
A green environmentally friendly restaurant should be fully powered using green energy
A green environmentally friendly restaurant should use environmentally friendly or bio-degradable detergent for their hand washing soap and dish washing soap
82
Question Strongly disagree
Neither Strongly
agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Environmental Concern
Human Over Nature
Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature
Humans need not adapt to nature as they can remake it to suit their needs
Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs
Plants and animals exist to be used by humans
Balance of Nature
Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive
When humans interfere with nature, it often results it disastrous results
To maintain a healthy economy, we will have to develop a steady state economy where industrial growth is controlled
The balance of nature is very delicate and can be easily upset
Limits of Growth
We are approaching the limit of the number of people earth can support
Mankind is severely abusing the environment There are limits to growth beyond which our industrialized society cannot expand
Question Strongly disagree
Neither Strongly
agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Environmental Attitude
I am really willing to go out of my way to do much to help the environment
I rarely ever worry about the effects of pollution on myself and my family
The whole pollution issue has never upset me too much because I feel it is somewhat overrated
I would be willing to join a group, club, or organization that is concerned solely with ecological issues
I am willing to spend a bit more to buy a product that is more ecologically friendly
I‘d be willing to write to authorities about ecological problems I would be willing to go door to door to discuss and distribute literature on the environment
83
Question Strongly disagree
Neither Strongly
agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Behavioural Intent
I am willing to patronize a green environmentally friendly restaurant
There is a very high chance of me patronizing an environmentally friendly restaurant
Predominantly, I will always choose to patronize an environmentally friendly restaurant
I would recommend other to patronize an environmentally friendly restaurant
84
Survey Questionnaire
Green Restaurant Patronage Survey Hello dear respondents, I would like to thank you for participating in my research survey. This survey is 100% anonymous and information collected will only be used for educational purposes. Demographic Gender: Male □ Female □ Age: < 20 □ 21-30 □ 31-40 □ 41-50 □ >50 □ Education Level:
High School Graduate □
College Graduate □
Bachelor‘s Degree □
Graduate‘s Degree □ Income Level
<RM5,000 □
RM5,001-RM10,001 □
RM10,001-RM15,001 □
RM15,001-RM20,000 □
>RM20,000 □ How much more would you be willing to pay for a green restaurant?
2% □
4% □
6% □
8% □
10% □
12% □
14% □
16% □
18% □
20% □
85
Please tick one box for every question below
Question Strongly disagree
Neither Strongly
agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Knowledge on Green Restaurant
Waste Recycle
A green environmentally friendly restaurant should set up storage barrel for waste oil in order to recycle collected waste oil
A green environmentally friendly restaurant‘s kitchen should set up waste recycling bins in order to motivate employees and consumers to recycle kitchen waste and residual food
A green environmentally friendly restaurant‘s kitchen should be installed with a fume filtering system or washable cooker hoods
A green environmentally friendly restaurant‘s kitchen should replace or clean their fumes filtering device periodically
Noise Pollution
A green environmentally friendly restaurant should be equipped with devices that produce low noises (mute air conditioning) in order to reduce noise pollution
A green environmentally friendly restaurant should install silencers with their range motor hoods to minimize noise produced
A green environmentally friendly restaurant should be well prepared with their noise control actions
Employee Education
A green environmentally friendly restaurant should train their staff regarding environmental information
A green environmentally friendly restaurant should keep environmental protection efforts as an employee‘s annual assessment criteria
A green environmentally friendly restaurant should implement environmental management courses as regular educational training for their employees
86
Question Strongly disagree
Neither Strongly
agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Environmental Concern
Human Over Nature
Mankind was created to rule over the rest of nature
Humans need not adapt to nature as they can remake it to suit their needs
Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs
Plants and animals exist to be used by humans
Balance of Nature
Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive
When humans interfere with nature, it often results it disastrous results
To maintain a healthy economy, we will have to develop a steady state economy where industrial growth is controlled
The balance of nature is very delicate and can be easily upset
Limits of Growth
We are approaching the limit of the number of people earth can support
Mankind is severely abusing the environment There are limits to growth beyond which our industrialized society cannot expand
Question Strongly disagree
Neither Strongly
agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Environmental Attitude
I am really willing to go out of my way to do much to help the environment
I rarely ever worry about the effects of pollution on myself and my family
The whole pollution issue has never upset me too much because I feel it is somewhat overrated
I would be willing to join a group, club, or organization that is concerned solely with ecological issues
I am willing to spend a bit more to buy a product that is more ecologically friendly
I‘d be willing to write to authorities about ecological problems I would be willing to go door to door to discuss and distribute literature on the environment
87
Question Strongly disagree
Neither Strongly
agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Behavioural Intent
I am willing to patronize a green environmentally friendly restaurant
There is a very high chance of me patronizing an environmentally friendly restaurant
Predominantly, I will always choose to patronize an environmentally friendly restaurant
I would recommend other to patronize an environmentally friendly restaurant
88
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ 11
Summary of Contents .................................................................................................................... 12
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 13
Résumé ............................................................................................................................................ 14
General Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 15
PART 1 Theoretical Framework .................................................................................................. 18
1.1 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 18
1.2 Literature Review............................................................................................................ 19
1.2.1 Environmentally Sustainable Efforts ........................................................................ 19
1.2.2 Sustainable Efforts in the Industry ........................................................................... 20
1.2.3 Green Restaurant and its Green Practices ............................................................ 21
1.2.4 Consumers Knowledge of Green Restaurants ...................................................... 23
1.2.5 Environmental Concern ............................................................................................. 24
1.2.6 Attitude ......................................................................................................................... 25
1.2.7 Demographics ............................................................................................................. 27
PART 2 Methods and Findings ................................................................................................... 29
2.1 Research Methodology.................................................................................................. 29
2.1.1 Research Questions .................................................................................................. 29
2.1.2 Research Design ........................................................................................................ 29
2.1.3 Research Procedure .................................................................................................. 30
2.1.4 Sampling Method........................................................................................................ 30
2.1.5 Research Instrument.................................................................................................. 31
2.2 Findings and Analysis .................................................................................................... 34
2.2.1 Rate of Response ....................................................................................................... 34
2.2.2 Demographic of Respondents .................................................................................. 35
2.2.3 Descriptive Analysis ................................................................................................... 40
2.2.4 Green Restaurant Patronage in Terms of Green Restaurant Knowledge,
Environmental Concern and Environmental Attitude ............................................................ 43
2.2.4.1 Green Restaurant Knowledge and Willingness to Patronize ....................... 43
2.2.4.2 Environmental Concern and Willingness to Patronize.................................. 45
2.2.4.3 Environmental Attitude and Willingness to Patronize ................................... 47
2.2.5 Green Restaurant Patronage in terms of Demographics ..................................... 49
2.2.5.1 Gender and Willingness to Patronize .............................................................. 49
89
2.2.5.2 Age and Willingness to Patronize .................................................................... 51
2.2.5.3 Educational Level and Willingness to Patronize ............................................ 54
2.2.5.4 Income Level and Willingness to Patronize ................................................... 58
2.2.6 Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 62
General Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 67
Bibliography .................................................................................................................................... 69
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... 77
List of Diagrams .............................................................................................................................. 79
Annexes ........................................................................................................................................... 80
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... 88