factors influencing green restaurant patronage in usj · factors influencing green restaurant...

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



PROJET TUTORÉ


Étude élaborée par Presented by


28/4/14 Sous la direction de Under the direction of

Dr. Yeoh Tow Kuang



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


ID NUMBER 1004JP89035

DISSERTATION

TOPIC


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


DRAFT OF PART 1

15/2/14 Worked on the arrangement, and talked about the variables chosen for the research


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.


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.


FINAL DISSERTATION


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


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


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


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


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.



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


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



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


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.



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


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.



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


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.



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


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.



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


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


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


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


1 Regression 478.115 1 478.115 34.061 .000b

Residual 2779.305 198 14.037

Total 3257.420 199


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.



1 (Constant) 9.710 2.083 4.661 .000

Concern .209 .036 .383 5.836 .000 1.000 1.000


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


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


1 Regression 504.060 1 504.060 36.248 .000b

Residual 2753.360 198 13.906

Total 3257.420 199


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.



1 (Constant) 14.190 1.286 11.031 .000

Attitude .230 .038 .393 6.021 .000 1.000 1.000


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


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


1 Regression 14.455 1 14.455 .883 .349b

Residual 3242.965 198 16.379

Total 3257.420 199


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


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


1 Regression 1.553 1 1.553 .094 .759b

Residual 3255.867 198 16.444

Total 3257.420 199


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


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


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


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


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


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


1 Regression 83.543 1 83.543 5.290 .023b

Residual 3095.467 196 15.793

Total 3179.010 197


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.



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


N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error


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




1.111 3 194 .346

Table 2.2.5.3.5: Educational Level One Way ANOVA; Test of Homogeneity of Variances

ANOVA



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




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



Tukey HSD

(I) Education Level (J) Education Level

Mean

Difference (I-

J)

Std.

Error Sig.


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


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


1 Regression 16.558 1 16.558 1.015 .315b

Residual 3049.643 187 16.308

Total 3066.201 188


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


N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error


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




2.736 4 184 .030

Table 2.2.5.4.4: Income Level One Way ANOVA; Test of Homogeneity of Variances

ANOVA



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




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



Tukey HSD

(I) Income Level (J) Income Level

Mean

Difference (I-

J) Std. Error Sig.


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.

http://www.hotelnewsresource.com/article36072.html

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

http://www.greenpackaginggroup.com/foodservice/smart-restaurants-add-sustainability-to-their-menus/

http://www.greenpackaginggroup.com/foodservice/smart-restaurants-add-sustainability-to-their-menus/

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,

http://www.restaurant.org/News-Research/Research/Facts-at-a-Glance

http://www.restaurant.org/News-Research/Research/Facts-at-a-Glance

http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/4577/

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

https://etd.ohiolink.edu/

http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33013.pdf

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 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 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 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


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


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


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


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 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 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 implement environmental management courses as regular educational training for their employees

86


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


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


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