i

Disposable Hot Beverage Container Usage

by Residents of Kitchener, Ontario:
Causes, Consequences and Solutions
Maria Legault (ID# 20266913)
412B Thesis Project
April 4
th
, 2010
Sarah Wolfe

ii

Summary
Prompted by the negative environmental impacts of consumption, this study provides an
overview of its antecedents and outcomes. Three primary questions form the basis of this
research. First, temporal changes to the number of coffee and tea beverages being prepared in
the home are investigated. Contextual and individual factors driving reliance on the marketplace
are suggested, along with an overview of the environmental problems caused by high levels of
consumption. Data used to answer these questions are drawn from a phone survey and the
related literature. Methods are identified, in accordance with study findings, for encouraging in-
home beverage preparation because of its social and environmental benefits.















iii

Acknowledgements
Thanks go out to my thesis advisor, Professor Sarah Wolfe, for her constant guidance,
support and editing expertise. My family is also deserving of thanks for their unending support
throughout my years of university. In particular, my mothers help during this thesis project was
invaluable for her suggestions and comments.












iv

Table of Contents
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Research Questions ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.2. Study Rationale .................................................................................................................................. 2
2. Context ...................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1. Overview of Market Changes ............................................................................................................ 3
2.2. Overview of Household Changes ...................................................................................................... 4
2.3. Study Boundaries ............................................................................................................................... 6
2.4. Target Audience ................................................................................................................................. 7
2.5. Theoretical Framework ...................................................................................................................... 7
3. Literature Review ...................................................................................................................................... 9
3.1. Sustainable Consumption Definition and Policies ............................................................................. 9
3.2. Environmental Impacts of Disposable Beverage Cups .................................................................... 10
3.3. Stakeholder Response to Environmental Impacts ............................................................................ 13
3.4. Environmental Impacts of and Motivations for Household Consumption ...................................... 14
3.5. Interpretations of Consumer Motivations ........................................................................................ 16
3.6. Summary of Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 18
4. Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 18
4.1. Overview of Study Methodology ..................................................................................................... 18
4.2. Site Population and Sampling Methods ........................................................................................... 19
4.3. Tools of Data Collection and Data Analysis .................................................................................... 20
4.4. Data Validity and Reliability ........................................................................................................... 21
4.5.Study Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 22
5. Results and Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 23
5.1. Profile of Respondents and Survey Results ..................................................................................... 24
5.2. Results on Factors Motivating Consumption ................................................................................... 27
5.3. Potential Solutions for Influencing Consumption ............................................................................ 30
6. Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................................................................ 34
7. References ............................................................................................................................................... 38
8. Appendices .............................................................................................................................................. 51
1

1. Introduction
1.1. Research Questions
Consumption, a social and economic activity, is having biophysical impacts which are of
increasing concern to North American society (Stern 1997; Jackson 1999). In particular, quick-
service restaurants (QSRs) are generating significant volumes of solid waste from disposable
beverage containers (Reiter 1991). This research asks: 1) compared to 50 years ago, are fewer
people in the Doon Pioneer Park Census Tract (DPPCT) of Kitchener, Ontario, preparing hot
beverages in their households?; 2) what motivates individuals to purchase disposable beverage
cups?; and 3) how can disposable cup usage be reduced to alleviate associated environmental
impacts? Household beverage preparation is regarded as being the environmentally-preferable
option because it provides informed individuals with the opportunity to reduce their personal
environmental impacts.
In-home beverage preparation is regarded as the permanent solution to this problem, but
is challenged by contextual barriers and internal consumer motivations. Once consumers
become aware of the social, physical and mental benefits of cooking at home, they may be less
inclined to purchase problematic convenience products (Allen, et al. 2004). For example,
cooking in the home can provide the opportunity for social bonding amongst family members
(Caraher, et al. 1999). Urban sprawl and technology could be preventing in-home preparation
activities by altering household time allocation decisions (Humbert, et al. 2009; Razza, et al.
2009). This study will provide an in-depth discussion on how and why these two contextual
issues may be affecting beverage purchase. Theory indicates that purchase decisions are also
2

influenced by the individuals cognitive, emotive and social motivations. Consequently, each
factor is evaluated here in relation to contextual influences.
Suburban residents who purchase Tim Hortons coffee and tea beverages are the
particular focus of this study. People living in the suburbs often have lengthy commute times
between home and work which reduce time available for other activities (Scheer and Petkov
1998). Tim Hortons, which provides fast and convenient service to commuters, has benefitted
from this situation (Rousell 2006; Canada Newswire 2010); in 2006, the franchise operated
2,613 retail stores in Canada (Wilson 2006: 92). Multiple stakeholder groups have thus far been
unsuccessful at limiting waste generation from Tim Hortons outlets through large-scale
technical, manufacturing and recycling innovations (Ziada 2009). Individual consumers
therefore play an important role in this issue because they can make positive lifestyle choices and
pressure government and industry for change (Schaefer and Crane 2005). This research proposes
various education and training methods based on ideological movements (e.g. Slow Food) to
increase the frequency of in-home beverage preparation.
1.2. Study Rationale
Disposable beverage containers symbolize how convenience products, along with their
associated environmental impacts, have become a central aspect of North American society
(Zylstra 1999; Alsop, et al. 2004; Boccalettie 2008). Despite the growing relevance of this issue,
Garriguet (2008) points out that few academic studies have been published on beverage
consumption and the environment. Multiple studies exist on the environmental impacts of large
household appliances, the globalization of food products and the industrial production of
beverages (Roberts 2002; Hensher, et al. 2005; Chaudhuri and Majumdar 2006; Bell and
Hollows 2007; Bidhendi, et al. 2008; Ferrara 2008a; Kristrom 2008; Serret and Ferrara 2008;
3

Vera and Young 2009; Maas 2010). This literature gap is partially addressed by this study on the
factors motivating consumers to purchase QSR beverages. Household and market changes over
time have contributed to the formation and relevance of this issue (Caraher, et al. 2004).
2. Context
2.1. Overview of Market Changes
Societal changes have affected Canadian consumption levels and restaurant growth over
the past 50 years. Canadians preference for coffee has remained the same over this time period,
but restaurants have captured a growing portion of this demand. In 2010, it was found that 63
percent of Canadians consumed coffee on a daily basis (Coffee Association of Canada [CAC]
2010:1-2). During the breakfast hour, 16 percent of coffee consumption occurred at eating
places and 12 percent occurred at workplaces (CAC 2010: 15-16). These figures were found to
be similar to consumption statistics from the 1960s (Gilbert, et al. 1976; Duffey and Popkin
2007). A study conducted by Serecon Management Consulting Inc. (2005) for Agri-Food
Canada found that both beverages are expected to remain in high demand, with tea consumption
increasing 40 percent by 2020 (66). However, household spending on QSR beverages has been
increasing concurrently with growing Canadian wealth (Bumstead 1998; Binkley 2006; Minister
of Industry 2008).
Restaurants in Canada have had a long history of strong economic growth. Bulk
production methods developed in the 1960s and 1970s lowered costs and contributed to their
rapid expansion (Emerson 1990). In 1988, 39 percent of each food dollar in Canada was being
spent on food away from home (Reiter 1991: 15). Between 1989 and 1998, spending on QSRs
continued to grow steadily to 42.2 percent of each food dollar (Bennett and Little 1999: 20).
4

This growth stalled in 2004 and analysts at Statistics Canada (2004) have predicted a decline in
the establishment of new restaurants due to rising costs and a saturated market (Kara, et al.
1995). Future QSR expansion will also be affected by changing consumer preferences
(Cynamon and Fazzari 2008). As will be discussed in a subsequent chapter, the uncertain future
of this industry is reflected in the research conclusions of this study.
2.2. Overview of Household Changes
The interactive effects of technology and urban sprawl have altered household time
allocation decisions away from in-home production. This shift is interacting negatively with
womens expected household role as the primary producers of food and beverage items (Lee
2009; Cohen 2010; Morais, et al.2010; York 2010). Women have traditionally been expected to
express their familial love through household food preparation. Accordingly, a growing number
of working women feel frustrated and anxious when unable to organize healthy family meals
(Carrigan, et al. 2006). Advances in labour-saving technologies have allowed women to spend
more time on work and leisure pursuits; however, they are still pressured to fulfill certain
household needs (Lang, et al. 1999; Demory-Luce 2005; Popkin, et al. 2005; Binkley 2006;
Carrigan, et al. 2006; Bell and Hollows 2007; Jabs, et al. 2007; Tashiro 2009; Popkin 2010).
Convenience meals have therefore become an important household staple when time is scarce
(Uusitalo 1982; Caraher, et al. 1999).
5

Urban sprawl is another significant household change which has altered time allocation
decisions for Canadians. Sprawl can be defined as the movement of housing and industrial
complexes away from the core in response to transportation networks, the availability of cheap
land at the periphery, consumer demand and land use regulations (Bruce and Carter 2003). The
car has become an essential part of North American lifestyles because of its contribution to
reduced travel times and the spread of people away from the downtown core (Audirac and
Fitzgerald 2003). The negative effects of urban sprawl include poor air quality, obesity and road
systems which fragment natural habitat (Chandler, et al. 2005; Freudenberg, et al. 2005). The
financial burden of these problems has caused municipalities to promote the idea of smart
growth (see Box 1); this concept encourages pedestrian usage, the combination of work and
living areas and environmentally-friendly housing design (Chandler, et al. 2005; Kinkade-
Levario 2007; Ferrara 2008b; Kristrom 2008; Organization for Economic Co-operative
Development [OECD] 2008). This study examines how long commute times affect the
frequency of QSR patronage.
Box 1
Principles of Smart Growth
1. Combine different land use types
2. Preserve open space
3. Centralize neighbourhoods
4. Make multiple housing types available
5. Develop around existing communities
6. Design communities to encourage walking
7. Make fair and cost-effective development decisions
8. Encourage stakeholder and community collaboration
in development decisions
Source: Bruce and Carter 2003
6

Urban sprawl could contribute significantly to feelings of time stress in the Canadian
population and increase the desirability of quick, convenient QSR hot beverages (Sarzynski, et
al. 2006; Bloom 2010). Time stress, which is the feeling of not having enough time to complete
all required tasks in a single day, can be influenced by congestion as well as the significant
distance between work, housing and leisure activities in sprawling cities (Jabs, et al. 2007;
Beshara, et al. 2010). Causes and solutions for congestion in cities is a hotly debated topic in the
literature and does not always stimulate demand for alternative forms of public transportation,
such as bus service (Hanssen, et al. 2007; Dargay 2008). Many North American cities are
afflicted with this problem because of public resistance towards the perceived difficulties and
costs associated with changing urban forms (Hanssen, et al. 2007).
The issue of urban sprawl is of particular salience in the DPPCT of Kitchener, Ontario,
where residents have easy access to the Highway 401 (Swayze 2010). The census of Kitchener
in 2006 found that commuters travelled from Waterloo Region to Guelph (10,130 people),
Mississauga (3,490 people) and Toronto (2,830 people), respectively (Planning, housing and
community services [PHCS] 2006; 2). Additionally, the census indicated most people drive to
work alone, and that their length of commute increased from 5.6 kilometres in 2001 to 5.8
kilometres in 2006 (PHCS 2006; 4). Consequently, this study site was used as a research
boundary.
2.3. Study Boundaries
Three types of boundaries were used to increase the tractability of this research. First, a
spatial boundary delineated the DPPCT in Kitchener as the study site of interest. As lifestyle
preferences, purchases and behaviours tend to vary with age, the socio-economic diversity of this
area was regarded as desirable by the researcher. The Conestoga College Doon Campus and
7

multiple retirement communities were thought to contribute to this diversity. Second, the study
was temporally limited to a 50-year reference period in which North American society
experienced multiple demographic and consumption-related changes (Bumsted 1998). Lastly,
the study focused on hot beverages because they cannot be produced in a separate facility and
shipped directly to the consumer. This shifts the act of consumption from the industrial arena
into the choices of the individual consumer. Consequently, this study empowers consumers to
take action on their personal environmental impacts.
2.4. Target Audience
Researchers and the general public are the two primary audiences of this research. Food
and beverage industry stakeholders are not addressed in this discussion because copious research
already exists on their activities (Hanssen, et al. 2007; Darlington, et al. 2009; Beverage Industry
2010; Calderon, et al. 2010). It is also unlikely that large-scale changes in the industry will
occur without significant pressure from paying customers (Schaefer and Crane 2005).
Consequently, this article hopes to find methods for appealing to the general public. Researchers
are targeted because of their previous success at altering beverage industry practices; for
example, they successfully reduced the packaging volumes required for pre-packaged beverage
products (Saint-Pierre 1998; Rouan 2010). By highlighting the various disadvantages associated
with disposable beverage containers, this study hopes that researchers will invest more effort in
this issue and encourage the public to alter their lifestyles in environmentally positive ways.
2.5. Theoretical Framework
Four theories explaining household and individual consumption levels were evaluated for
their efficacy in this research. This study bases its evaluation of household consumption
behaviours on the characteristics of individuals living in the household and critically evaluates
8

how household purchases could be divided into needs and luxuries. In combination, the four
theories used continued to the survey design and data gathering efforts of this research, although
individually they each possessed various strengths and weaknesses. The two theories used to
understand household consumption levels included the Household Life Cycle (HLC) and
Household Equilibrium Model (HEM).
In the HLC, the number and gender of household heads are considered for their degree of
influence over household purchase decisions (Putler,et al. 2007). Also important to the HLC is
the degree to which the presence or absence of children alters family spending patterns (Putler, et
al. 2007). Although the theory has the potential to indicate very generally the health, activity,
and eating preferences of individuals based on family structure, it is limited by its focus on only
socio-demographic factors (Caraher, et al. 1998; Caraher, et al. 1999). Another weakness of this
theory is its inability to distinguish between necessary and luxury spending habits.
Consequently, the HLC needs to be combined with the HEM to fully understand
household consumption patterns. The HEM suggests that households use certain activities and
inputs to fulfill their dynamic and evolving desires (Nelson and Consoli 2010). Needs are met
through the purchase of items to increase or maintain quality of living; however, these needs
change over time based on family member characteristics and preferences (Chen and Kwang-
Wen 1982). For example, older households spend a higher proportion of their money on food,
while clothing and shelter spending is higher in younger households (Chen and Kwang-Wen
1982). Past a basic level of need, however, households cannot discern between required and
luxury items (Nelson and Consoli 2010). This disrupts the equilibrium between necessary and
excessive spending habits and negatively impacts the sustainability of household and individual
consumption levels (Chaudhuri and Majumdar 2006).
9

Individual consumption levels were here evaluated based on two different theories: 1) the
Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), and 2) the Cue-Based Decision Model (CBDM). TPB
states that purchase behaviours occur in response to an individuals attitudes towards the
behaviour, their perceived degree of control over the behaviour, and subjective interpretations of
the activity (Conner 1993; Abrahamse and Steg 2009: Lee, et al.2009). Product and household
characteristics affecting purchase decisions are not considered in this theory. The CBDM is a
necessary addition to this theory because it states that consumption decisions do not always
occur in a linear, rational progression from discovery to purchase (Hamlin 2010). Instead,
purchase decisions are often based on a single, spontaneous, and largely emotional evaluation of
product cues (Hamlin 2010).
3. Literature Review
To provide a context for this research study, a thorough literature review was conducted.
The following section provides definitions of and problems with sustainable consumption, waste
reduction studies, household consumption motivations, and factors driving individual consumers.
It concludes with a brief summary of the presented information.
3.1. Sustainable Consumption Definition and Policies
Sustainable consumption is of increasing concern for both national and international
agendas; however, policies related to altering society in accordance with this broad term have
thus far proved unsuccessful (OECD 2002). Sustainability can be defined as the maintenance of
biodiversity and human health over time (Rimmington,et al. 2006; Bakker and Kooy 2008;
Theodore 2008; Stahls, et al. 2010). Consumption describes household purchase and use of
material possessions to increase personal satisfaction and social position (Hume 2010).
10

Sustainable consumption therefore occurs when households purchase certain goods in quantities
which do not harm environmental resources for current or future generations (Stern 1997).
Policies aimed at moderating consumption levels have thus far proven to be unsuccessful.
The OECD (2002) Environment Directorate has actively worked on sustainable consumption
since 1994, but has only recently determined the need for multi-stakeholder involvement in
altering the structure of consumption and production levels. Critical stakeholders, including non-
governmental organizations, consumers, private businesses, and public agencies, must determine
feasible methods for reducing waste at the source (OECD 2002). The basis for these new, future
policies must be consumer perspectives and motivations.
3.2. Environmental Impacts of Disposable Beverage Cups
Multiple researchers have noted the ongoing impact of disposable beverage containers
and are trying to evaluate their impacts through Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) studies (Nicholls and
Nystuen 1993; Sonesson, et al. 2005; Garrido and Del Castillo 2007; Theodore 2008; Darlington,
et al. 2009; Humbert, et al. 2009; Razza, et al. 2009; Calderon, et al. 2010; Hu, et al. 2010; Xue
and Landis 2010). Disposable cups from QSRs were initially considered to be an important
sanitary innovation in the business world, but are increasingly targeted as a source of
environmental problems (Dineen 2009). LCA studies discussed in this section are problematic
because they present contradictory information which fails to identify long-term solutions for
reducing overall use levels of disposable beverage cups.
The life stages examined in an LCA include extraction, production, transportation, use,
and disposal; the process of calculating impacts in each area highlights where improvements are
needed (Ceridon 2010; Rouan 2010).Table 1, below, summarizes the components evaluated in an
11

LCA for a disposable cup as discussed in several research studies. It should be noted that the
highest resource use intensity occurred during the second and fourth phases (Tukker, et al. 2005;
Marcotte,et al. 2006; Hanssen, et al. 2007).
Table 1: Product Life Cycle Stages with description of Stage Characteristics, Inputs, and Outputs
Broad Stages of
Product Life Cycle
Stage Characteristics Inputs Outputs
1: Extraction -Select forest resources
-Extract resources using
harvesting technology
-Transport resources to
production facility
-Forest
resources
-Energy

-Solid waste produced during
extraction activities
-Airborne emissions from
transportation

2: Production and
Transportation
-Process and manufacture
product
-Package product for
transport
-Transport product to
distributor
-Forest
resources
-Water
-Energy
-Primary and secondary products
-Water effluents from
manufacturing
-Solid waste as manufacturing by-
products
-Chemical emissions for pulping
(e.g. sodium hydroxide)
-Airborne emissions from
transportation
3: Use -Customer use phase

-Forest
resources
-Water
-Energy
-Solid waste from packaging
-Airborne emissions from energy
usage
4: Disposal -Disposal phase
-Waste and recycling
management
-Forest
resources
-Water
-Energy

-Solid waste from product disposal
-Water effluents from disposal
facility
-Airborne emissions produced
during product transport to disposal
facility
-Airborne emissions produced
during break down of the product
Sources: Ceridon (2010); Hocking (1991, 1994); Vercalsteren, et al. 2010
Garrido and Del Castillo (2007) and Hocking (1994) present contradictory information
on the trip rate of reusable containers. The trip rate is the number of times that the beverage
container must be used to make up for the resources and energy embedded in its production
(Vercalsteren, et al. 2010). Garrido and Del Castillo (2007) determined that a reusable cup must
12

be used 10 times before it gains superiority over the disposable cup as an environmentally-
preferable option (Garrido and Del Castillo 2007: 252). In contrast, Hocking (1994) argues
against the use of reusable containers because of their high trip rate, estimated at anywhere from
15 to 1,000 uses (894). The study by Hocking (1994) is outdated and therefore overestimates
required usages because of low dishwasher efficiency. However, the strongly technical nature of
both LCA studies causes them to ignore the underlying reasons driving demand for both reusable
and disposable cups. The articles fail to note that reusable beverage containers, if poorly
designed, could become an even greater waste problem if planned for obsolescence. Their
conclusions do not indicate long-term solutions because they both fail to address innovations
occurring in the beverage production industry (Sonesson, et al. 2005; Darlington,et al. 2009).
Hocking (1991) and Humbert, et al. (2009) use LCAs to evaluate the impacts of
disposable beverage container waste, but again propose few long-term solutions. Hocking
(1991) notes that the thin polystyrene liner added to paper cups to make them more durable and
heat-resistant also prevents them from being recycled. He fails to note that beverage containers
labelled as biodegradable do not always decompose in the landfill if moisture and temperature
conditions are not ideal (Theodore 2008; Darlington, et al. 2009; Vercalsteren, et al. 2010).
Humbert, et al. (2009) suggests that efficiency, or minimized input for maximum output, could
reduce the problems associated with disposable beverage container waste in QSRs (Razza, et al.
2009). However, he fails to note that efficiency is challenged in practice by staff error and
customer dissatisfaction. The nature of this problem is difficult to solve, as staff turnover is high
and it is time-consuming to regulate all new employees for efficiency. This suggests that
disposable beverage container waste will continue to be an issue despite product innovations.
13

3.3. Stakeholder Response to Environmental Impacts
According to the environmental risk theory proposed by Beck (1992), negative
externalities from the marketplace threaten all consumers indiscriminately; however, Canadian
residents, companies, and government stakeholders are currently not taking sufficient action on
the impacts caused by disposable beverage containers. The materialistic and busy lifestyles of
the current generation of youth have been identified as the reason for their immobility on
environmental protection issues (Omann, et al. n.d.; Ouellette n.d.; The Globe and Mail 1990;
Duecy 2006; Statistics Canada 2009; Adams and Raisborough 2010). Public concern regarding
the environmental impacts of disposable beverage containers is higher in the United States, and
residents have pushed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2002) to undertake multiple
programs for environmental protection. This is due to residents awareness that these cups are
not recyclable and use old-growth forests in their production (Dogwood Alliance 2008;
Erickson-Davis 2008). In Canada, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been the primary
control on the impacts of disposable beverage containers.
Under the concept of CSR, QSRs are attempting to reduce disposable beverage container
waste. CSR policies were first defined in the 1970s as being exclusively economic; today, these
policies protect environmental, economic, and socio-cultural protection simultaneously
(Silberhorn and Warren 2007; Laing and Frost 2010). Tim Hortons has been less successful at
this than Starbucks, another QSR known for its coffee beverages. This is because Tim Hortons
has not devoted sufficient time and money towards making its coffee cup more sustainable (Tim
Hortons n.d.; Demirbas 2010). Starbucks created an Alliance Task Force to conduct in-store
studies on disposable container usage (Alliance for Environmental Innovation [AEI] 2000).
They proposed installing reusable mugs with a chip that would act like a debit card and
14

encourage customers to remember their mugs (AEI 2000). Starbucks began this initiative to
reduce company costs for disposable containers, but it would ultimately benefit all stakeholders.
The government of the City of Toronto only recently began to take action on the
problems with disposable beverage containers. Urban areas like Toronto struggle with shrinking
availability of landfill space for these cups (Jackson 1999; Welsh 2008). The City of Toronto
created a Hot Drink Task Force (HDTF) in response to this problem, and they determined that
1 million cups were purchased each day in Toronto in 2009 (Kelleher Environmental [KE] 2009:
4). To determine potential solutions, they evaluated other municipalities which have been
attempting to recycle disposable beverage containers (e.g. Owen Sound) (KE 2009). However,
recycling is only feasible for polyethylene terephthalate (PET) containers because they have a
high concentration of post-consumer waste and are increasing in production volumes
(Georgakellos 2006; Penn 2007; Amcor 2010; Rouan 2010). The Task Force therefore proposed
banning disposable cups, a disposable cup tax, or a deposit-return program (KE 2009). In
response to these potential changes, Tim Hortons instituted recycling systems at its store
locations; however, once off the property, customers are no longer able to access these facilities
(KE 2009). This shows how there is should be a shift towards in-home production, where the
informed consumer can control their personal environmental impacts.
3.4. Environmental Impacts of and Motivations for Household Consumption
Researchers have identified how household behaviour is critical to minimizing the
environmental impacts of beverage consumption, although there should be less of a focus on
technological solutions. Behaviours which can increase impacts from beverage preparation
include inefficient dishwashing techniques, boiling excess water unnecessarily, or leaving the
coffee machine switched on (Hanssen, et al. 2007; Humbert, et al. 2009). Technology is
15

perceived as the most expedient way to alter these behaviours because it controls cumulative
consumer impacts (Soron 2010). However, technology was identified by Sen (1983) as the
basis for many of [societys] mistakes (76). Accordingly, solutions proposed in this study are
based on the perspectives of consumers and encourage the use of the precautionary principle to
encourage residents to make small, proactive, and beneficial changes to their lifestyles.
Past research studies have identified a wide variety of household characteristics which
affect their motivations for purchase from QSRs. The quantitative characteristics discussed in
Table 2 are supported by extensive data; however, the following section discusses intangible
factors which are also influential in human decisions (Leibenstein 1950; Husic and Cicic 2009).
Table 2: Household factors contributing to or constraining QSR patronage
Controlling Factor Description Literature
Reference(s)
Household
Composition
- Young, single person households are more
likely to patronize QSR
- Single women with children are less likely to
patronize QSR
- Women with families working outside the
home are more likely to patronize QSR
Little and Beland
1998; Bennett
and Little 1999;
Meyers and
Wallace 2003;
Binkley 2006;
Fanning, Marsh
and Stiegert2010
Household Income
- Household income affects the type and
amount of QSR spending, although its
correlation to patronage frequency is less
clear
- Longer hours spent working at a job increased
QSR patronage (due to time constraints)
Bennett and Little
1999; Demory-
Luce 2005;
Binkley 2006
Household Attitudes
- Health-conscious individuals are less likely to
patronize QSRs
- Socio-demographic variables are unrelated to
QSR patronage when households place a
higher priority on activities outside the home
Bennett and Little
1999; Demory-
Luce 2005; SMCI
2005; Binkley
2006; Tashiro
2009; Moser
16

2010
Household Location
- Households in British Columbia, Quebec, and
Alberta are more likely to patronize QSR
- Urban households more likely to patronize
QSR (due to the high density of QSR in urban
areas)
Reiter 1991;
Bennett and Little
1999; Tashiro
2009; Fanning, et
al.2010; Moser
2010
3.5. Interpretations of Consumer Motivations
Within an interpretive framework, consumers are understood to have multiple views and
internal motivations affecting purchase decisions. These interpretive views do not have a clearly
stated value for sustainable consumption levels, and the focus is on the multiple and interacting
perspectives of involved stakeholders (Schaefer and Crane 2005). Stakeholder groups have
similar goals and language habits; these diverse sets of people have consequently formed
differing ideas about consumption (Schaefer and Dervin 2009; Irwin and Hramiak 2010).
The multiplicity of consumer views suggests that there is no single method for
encouraging them towards more sustainable behaviours. Consumers can be understood as
rational beings or entities responding to the dictates of cultural pressures (Schaefer and Crane
2005). The former suggests that individual act according to individual utility, while the latter
indicates cultural expectations as a major motivating force (Schaefer and Crane 2005).
Advertising has taken advantage of this situation by targeting people based on these motivating
forces (Humphreys 2010; Irwin and Hramiak 2010; Medley-Rath and Simonds 2010).
Consumers who purchase items for personal pleasure, social advancement, or self-identity may
struggle to understand the utility of altering their consumption behaviours for environmental
benefits (Schaefer and Crane 2005; Cherrier 2009; Irwin and Hramiak 2010).Consequently, there
is no single way to reach an individual and change their personal consumption habits.
17

Emotional ties and social groups are two internal motivating factors which generate
feelings of customer satisfaction and therefore influence purchase decisions (Espejel, et al. 2008;
Nelson and Consoli 2010; Ute, et al. 2010). Emotional ties to a product can be created by
sensory perceptions, such as taste and smell, which activate consumer memories of past
experiences (Honkanen and Frewer 2009; Shukla 2010). Products also possess symbolic
properties which can appeal to an individuals emotions; however, product values vary
worldwide due to cultural differences (Lee and Ulgado 1997; Chaudhuri and Majumdar 2006;
Kniazeva and Venkatesh 2007). These differences, which alter global consumption patterns, can
be evaluated through the communicative model (Lee 2009; Soron 2010). Although this model
ignores the broader societal context, it aids in an identification of cultural signifiers and identity
markers associated with individual products (Soron 2010). To gain a complete picture of
internal motivations, social interaction in product purchase must also be considered.
Social interaction in product purchase is based on the activities of reference groups.
Reference groups are defined social groups against which the consumer compares their personal
activities (Cynamon and Fazzari 2008). Multiple researchers have found that customers are
more likely to rely on these intangible product benefits over prices during decision-making
processes (Johns and Pine 2002; Iop, et al. 2006; Barrena and Sanchez 2010; Milijkovic and
Effertz, 2010). This is due to the perceived importance of adhering to group preferences and
gaining social status (Veblen 1965; Bevan 2010; Martinon-Torres 2010; Pinheiro-Machado
2010). Market segmentation is a well-known theory based on reference groups, because it
involves dividing the population and targeting specific groups with personalized promotion
efforts (Iop, et al. 2006; Chen-Wen and Chi-Shun 2009; Lin and Chienwen 2009). Households
can also be categorized into different groupings.
18

3.6. Summary of Literature Review
The preceding section provided an overview of sustainable consumption, environmental
impacts and associated responses, and motivations for the purchase of disposable beverage
containers. This information is important because it helps answer the second and third questions
of this research. Sustainable consumption, in which excessive purchase of goods is moderated,
is necessary because of the negative environmental impacts from disposable beverage cups.
Many existing LCAs provide a general rationale for reducing disposable cup usage, but provide
few solutions to this problem. Responses to disposable cup waste from Canadian residents,
businesses, and government stakeholders have also not identified potential solutions.
In this study, household production is emphasized as a solution because of the potential
for knowledgeable residents to control their own environmental impacts. Household
characteristics typically determine their QSR patronage. However, consumer behaviours could
be altered by utilizing the internal purchase motivations of emotional ties and social reference
groups within the existing views of consumption. This information assisted in the design of the
survey conducted on residents of the DPPCT. More specific solutions for reducing market
consumption will be discussed in Section 5.4.
4. Methodology
4.1. Overview of Study Methodology
This research was based on qualitative methodology, although the survey provided
quantitative data. A strong focus on words rather than numbers in qualitative methodology
requires that the researcher remain aware of their own perspective during the research process, as
this bias could alter their eventual conclusions (Sayer1997). This research project was strongly
19

focused on understanding how social actors create their own subjective meanings towards their
daily consumptive activities (Vollmer 2005; Kay 2008; Bryman, et al. 2009). Consequently, the
research includes a broad range of secondary research sources to identify individual and societal
perspectives relevant to the study questions.
Secondary research was taken from a variety of online sources. Boolean searches in
scholarly databases such as Scholars Portal and ProQuest were combined with Google and
Yahoo! search engines to yield peer-reviewed journal articles, government documents,
newspaper articles, and other official documents (Bryman, et al. 2009). Secondary information
from these sources can be problematic because of its complexity and the fact that the researcher
has no control over data quality (Hanssen, et al. 2007; Bryman, et al. 2009). These problems
were addressed via a background check on the source as well as a critical reading of its contents.
4.2. Site Population and Sampling Methods
Primary research was drawn from a survey conducted in the Doon Pioneer Park Census
Tract (DPPCT) in Kitchener, Ontario. Census Tracts (CTs) are small geographic areas typically
located within the larger census metropolitan areas (CMAs) and census agglomerations (CAs)
(Census Tract Profiles 2006). In 2006, the DPPCT had a population of 8,902 individuals, up
55.5 percent from 2001 (Census Tract Profiles 2006). The populations median age in 2006 was
33.2 years, with a median income of $51,531 (Census Tract Profiles 2006). This study site was
selected for two primary reasons: 1) socio-economic diversity of the areas population as shown
through the Census Tract Profile (2006) of their age, gender, and other demographic
characteristics; and, 2) the presence of multiple Tim Hortons franchises in the area.
Additionally, it was thought that many residents from the DPPCT would commute long distances
to and from their workplace because of the close proximity of the Highway 401 to the
20

community. This study was interested in these factors because of the effects that household time
availability and factors discussed in the HLC are assumed to have on QSR patronage.
4.3. Tools of Data Collection and Data Analysis
Primary research for this study consisted of a survey on beverage consumption habits.
The approximately 15-minute survey (Appendix A) was conducted over the phone during
January 2011 with 50 consenting residents. Telephone surveys were used because they provide
an inexpensive and efficient way to gather data (Calvert and Pope 2005). A modified random
sampling technique was used to select a sample of participants from within the larger DPPCT
population (Calvert and Pope 2005). First, the N2P postal code for the southeast portion of the
DPPCA neighbourhood was used to get a list of full, associated postal codes from
www.postalcodedownload.com/; a total of 340 postal codes were gathered from this process and
pasted into the first column of a blank Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. In the second column, each
cell was filled with Excels Random function, =rand(), and both columns were sorted from the
smallest to largest random numbers.
Next, the first 100 postal codes from the list created were selected as potential
participants. Using Canada411.ca, a reverse lookup for households, the researcher looked up
each postal code and selected a single phone number from within the group. Postal codes which
did not have any associated phone numbers were discarded and the next code was used. The
researcher then hand-delivered an ethics form to each selected residence, followed by a phone
call to determine residents interest in participating. Next, the researcher asked consenting
residents each survey question over the phone and recorded each response in Microsoft Excel.
21

Data analysis was conducted through the use of Excel because of the need to maintain
clarity in research interpretations. An alternative statistical program considered was the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). SPSS is valuable to researchers because of
its ability to conduct chi-squared tests examining whether a relationship exists between different
variables; however, sufficient insights into the thesis questions were gathered during Excel
analyzes (OConnor 2000). Excel was also of greater familiarity to the researcher, thus ensuring
that results were interpreted correctly.
4.4. Data Validity and Reliability
Survey questions and associated participant responses may have affected the internal and
external validity of research results. External validity implies that results were based on the
correct causal variables, thus allowing conclusions to be generalized across a variety of different
social settings (Bryman, et al. 2009). If, for example, a measurement of coffee consumption was
not accurate, it would be inappropriate to correlate this faulty data to a respondents age and
expect the results to provide an accurate portrayal of the concept. Internally, a study is valid
when it rests on a strong theoretical basis (Bryman, et al. 2009).
Attempts were made to keep survey information internally and externally valid. The
researcher designed the survey with short, specific closed questions to avoid participant
confusion and provide insight into the motivations underlying behaviours (Hedrick, et al. 2010).
Multiple causal variables, including family composition, commitments outside of the home, and
length of commute, were analyzed to build a profile of the respondent that could be connected
back to the HLC model. Quantitative (e.g. how long is your commute?) and qualitative (e.g. do
you often feel so pressured that you do not taste what you are eating or drinking) questions were
used to evaluate the concept of time stress. Results were also analyzed in the context of historical
22

data to provide a clear picture of consumption over time. However, components beyond the
researchers control may affect the reliability of survey results.
Participant responses could alter the reliability of conclusions in this study. Reliability
means that the same results would be achieved consistently if a particular measurement
technique was administered multiple times to the same research subject (Bryman, et al. 2009).
However, social pressure to provide the perceived correct response could alter participant
responses; consequently, results may vary with the same survey administered at different times
(Bryman, et al. 2009). Respondents behaviours may also differ from their stated intentions
(Dargay 2008). To minimize variations in study responses, more fluid research techniques such
as key contact interviews were not used.
4.5. Study Limitations
This study did not attempt to undertake an LCA and was limited by survey distribution
times and incommensurable historical data. First, an LCA was not conducted as a part of this
study because it would have necessitated specialized knowledge and a long time frame. Instead,
existing LCAs were used to provide information on the environmental impacts of disposable hot
beverage containers through an assessment of energy and material inputs required for the product
(Calderon, et al. 2010).
Second, the survey was distributed immediately after the Christmas season. It is during
this time that people become financially conservative and tend to avoid spending disposable
income on luxury items, such as QSR coffee and tea (Cynamon and Fazzari 2008). Conducting
the survey during the annual Roll up the Rim to win contest, which encourages purchase by
offering prizes such as bicycles and vehicles, would likely have produced very different results.
23

Lastly, historical data was not available at the scale of this study. Coffee and tea
consumption data was primarily available at the national scale (e.g. Coffee Association of
Canada). This meant that only a general timeline of consumption versus in-home production
levels were presented in chapter 2 of this article. In combination with survey results, this general
information proved adequate for illustrating how, within certain demographic groups, patronage
of quick-service restaurants declined and then increased in response to factors such as market
saturation. All three of the above limitations are considered in the results and discussion section,
which analyzes survey results from the case study area.
5. Results and Discussion
Three primary questions guided the literature and data-gathering efforts of this research
project. General characteristics and theoretical bases of the following questions have been
discussed in the literature review:
1. How has the quantity of hot beverages prepared in the home versus those consumed at
QSRs shifted over the past 50 years?
2. What are the environmental impacts of disposable hot beverage containers, and how can
consumption be altered to reduce these impacts?
3. Why are people purchasing disposable hot beverage containers from QSRs in Canada,
and how can consumption levels be altered for environmental benefits?
The remainder of this chapter will use survey results from the DPPCA to answer these
questions. Several of the survey questions were less relevant than initially thought and yielded a
limited amount of useful data. For example, Question 9 asked respondents what items were
present in their household kitchen (Appendix A). The purpose of this question was to determine
whether or not respondents frequently prepared items in their household, as measured through
the presence of various appliances. This question provided little insight because all items were
generally present in each participating household; consequently, well-established literature
24

findings were carefully considered in comparison to survey findings and are presented in the
following discussion.
5.1. Profile of Respondents and Survey Results
A profile of households, based on survey responses and the HLC, was created to analyze
variables of interest to this study. Coffee and tea consumption levels were as expected, although
respondents purchasing habits, time stress, and commuting activities were contrary to the
literature. First, the household profile indicates that the typical household in the study area is
headed by two parents with financially-dependent children. Individuals aged 31 to 40 years of
age were the largest age category at 20 percent of all respondents (Appendix B). Three-resident
households made up 36 percent of respondents, and 64 percent were married with children
(Appendix C and D). The HLC indicates that household needs in this situation tend to vary
greatly; however, survey results indicate that in-home production was the typical method for
fulfilling these needs (Nelson and Consoli 2010).
As expected, respondents favoured coffee as their hot beverage of choice. This finding is
supported by the literature (e.g. Gilbert, et al. 1976; Duffey and Popkin 2007). Coffee was
consumed at least once in the past week by 68 percent of respondents. Coffee makers were also
used quite frequently in the home by participating households; they were used more than 6 times
over the past week by 18 percent of respondents, while 3 to 4 usages was the next largest
category at 12 percent (Appendix E). Tea kettles were not used by 48 percent of respondents and
were therefore the slightly less popular drink between the two options (Appendix F). It is
possible that consumption is dropping for both hot beverages because companies are producing
beverages which claim to provide health-conscious consumers with vitamins, minerals, and
antioxidants (Penn 2007). A good example of kind of beverage is the Fuze drink, which claims
25

to provide consumers with healthy methods for achieving energy, relaxation, or stress relief
(Kara, et al. 1995; Beverage Industry 2010).
Due to the importance of in-home production in the study site, few respondents
purchased Tim Hortons coffee frequently. A little over half, or 52 percent, of respondents stated
that they had not purchased a hot beverage from Tim Hortons in the week prior to the survey
(Appendix G). Those who did frequent Tim Hortons establishments were regular, but not
necessarily heavy, users. Only 24 percent of respondents had purchased a Tim Hortons hot
beverage 6-10 times in the past week (Appendix G). If this survey had been conducted in two
different locations simultaneously (e.g. a neighbourhood and a university campus), results may
have captured a larger proportion of Tim Hortons patrons. Consequently, this survey is useful
for contradicting existing studies, rather than for what it confirms from the literature.
Despite the high volume of female survey respondents and their degree of time stress, in-
home production levels were still high. The study therefore does not support the earlier
assumption that women are leading household decisions towards greater purchase of disposable,
convenient hot beverage containers because of contextual factors such as technology and urban
sprawl (Emerson 1990; Serret and Ferrara 2008; Vera and Young 2009). A strong majority of
respondents were female at 74 percent of the total survey (Appendix H). Recall the earlier
definition of time stress as being an individuals sense that they do not have enough time in the
day to complete all desired activities (Jabs, et al. 2007). Exactly 50 percent of respondents
agreed that they felt so pressured that they often did not taste what they were eating and
drinking; additionally, 52 percent indicated that they had a full-time, paid position outside of the
home (Appendix I and J). However, 66 percent of respondents agreed that they spend a
significant amount of time each day preparing food and beverage items inside the home
26

(Appendix K). There are several potential explanations for the high degree of in-home
production at the study site.
Respondents personal preferences and time spent in the home could be contributing to
the frequency of in-home production. Meyers and Wallace (2003) indicated that health concerns
surrounding QSR items can increase to the desirability of food and beverage prepared inside the
home. Consequently, it could be that respondents in this study underwent trade-offs in their time
to avoid purchasing QSR items. In-home production levels may also have been increased by the
large number of respondents who do not work outside of the home. There were 48 percent of
respondents who did not work outside of the home; of these, 34 percent felt that they were not
required to be outside of the home for long periods each day (Appendix J and L). The low
number of respondents working outside the home also affected results on commuting.
Despite the proximity of the Highway 401 to the study area, few residents were found to
commute long distances each day. Urban sprawl was identified earlier in this study as a potential
contextual factor contributing to the desirability of QSR disposable beverage containers (Reiter
1991). Results on commuting levels were influenced by the 48 percent of respondents who did
not work outside of the home, and thus did not have a daily commute (Appendix J). For those
who did commute, a one way trip to their place of paid employment took less than 1 hour for 38
percent of travellers, while 12 percent had to travel for about 1 hour (Appendix M). There were
only 22 percent of respondents who felt that they spent too much time each day commuting; this
suggests that urban sprawl is not contributing to feelings of time stress by participants (Appendix
N). The preceding discussion has illustrated how contextual factors, including technology and
urban sprawl, have little influence over beverage purchasing habits in the study site.
Consequently, there is an even greater potential for the consumer to alter their environmental
27

impacts from beverage consumption. However, changes to their purchase behaviour may be
predicated on internal motivations. This issue is discussed in the following section.
5.2. Results on Factors Motivating Consumption
The literature review of this report identified individual perspectives of consumption,
social reference groups, and emotional ties as influential factors in consumption decisions.
These motivations have been used in other studies evaluating behaviour and its antecedents (e.g.
Boccalettie 2008; McDonald, et al. 2009; Soron 2010). This study provides further support
regarding the importance of these internal motivations, as it identified the limited influence that
contextual factors have on influencing peoples decisions. However, the researcher was
challenged to accurately identify which motivation was most influential in purchase decisions
due to the low number of survey respondents who were regular patrons of Tim Hortons. Data
from two survey questions were evaluated in the context of the literature to provide information
on these three variables. Survey results discussed here have implications for both the study site
and the wider community.
Questions 17 and 18 from the survey were used to evaluate respondents internal
motivations for beverage purchase (Appendix A). Question 17 evaluated general QSR
purchases, while Question 18 investigated Tim Hortons specifically; respondents ranked various
factors influencing their decisions on a scale from 1 (Not very Important) to 5 (Extremely
Important). With regards to general QSR beverages,convenience was identified as being the
most influential factor; 14 percent of respondents indicated that it was Very Important in their
purchase decisions. The second most important factor was the value and quality of QSR hot
beverages, at 12 percent of all respondents ranking it as Very Important. It was explained to
respondents that value and quality meant a fair volume of the beverage was provided for its cost.
28

These results suggest that people perceive disposable beverage containers to be convenient and
well-priced. Consequently, their perspectives of consumption could be based on the utility of the
product to their lifestyle, rather than social advancement amongst their peers or personal identity
formation (Schaefer and Crane 2005). Schaefer and Crane (2005) disagree with this finding and
state that societal expectations are the most significant factor to influence purchase decisions.
To deal with this contradiction in results, data on Tim Hortons consumption motivations
were interpreted with caution. This was especially a concern because so few respondents were
regular Tim Hortons patrons. With regards to Tim Hortons beverages, taste and fast service
were identified as the most important factors in purchase decisions. Both factors were rated as
Very Important by 34 percent of respondents. Although the literature indicates that social
reference groups and emotional ties are influential in the formation of a consumers self-image,
54 percent of respondents did not think that they would purchase Tim Hortons hot beverages to
fit in with other social groups (Veblen 1965; Chaudhuri and Majumdar 2006; Cherrier 2009;
Husic and Cicic 2009; McDonald, et al. 2009; Shukla 2010; Soron 2010). It is more likely that
the Tim Hortons brand, when purchased, is regarded as desirable because of its association with
patriotic pride (Ouellette n.d.). The limited importance of social groups and emotional ties to
purchase of Tim Hortons hot beverages suggests that behavioural changes could occur by
providing information to consumers on the personal utility of alternative options. Such efforts
are required for the larger community, but not within the study site.
For the study site, these findings imply that residents are already fully aware of the
benefits of in-home production and regularly engage in this activity. Although this study was
conducted over a short period of time in a spatially restricted region, the popularity of preparing
beverages in the study site supports market research that QSRs are reaching market saturation
29

and becoming a less popular option. This appears to be the case even for time-stressed
individuals, who were thought to be carefully allocating their time each day so that they could
prepare food and beverage items in the home. Question 22 of the survey found that 30 percent of
individuals were not interested in relying on QSRs for their food and beverage items, even when
time stressed (Appendix O). Several respondents noted, informally, that they preferred the taste
of their own cooking, regardless of environmental or health concerns. However, it is thought
that conducting this study in multiple locations and at different times would have lowered in-
home production levels.
As the literature review suggested that the wider community frequently relies on QSRs
for their food and beverage items, this study investigated methods for increasing in-home
beverage preparation. Despite the limited importance of social reference groups for influencing
purchase decisions, social interaction could be an attractive motivator for increasing in-home
beverage preparation. A strong majority of respondents, at 64 percent of the population, felt that
drinking coffee or tea is something that they might enjoy more with other people around
(Appendix P). The OECD (2002) also supports the needs for social solutions over technical
ones, although social ideas must be supported by firm educational initiatives.
Providing consumers with information and education on legitimate methods for
becoming environmentally responsible can inspire them to behave differently (Soron 2010).
Consumers lack complete knowledge of products environmental impacts; for example,
Starbucks researchers found that consumers thought beverage containers were environmentally-
friendly if they appeared natural in their colour, texture, and composition (AEI 2000). Educating
consumers on the benefits of and methods for preparing beverages in the home could allow them
to take complete control of their environmental impacts and feel environmentally empowered.
30

5.3. Potential Solutions for Influencing Consumption
Although ideas borrowed from the Slow Food movement and Japanese Way of Tea
ceremony could hold promise for altering North American beverage consumption habits, barriers
to making this change are evaluated throughout the following section. Training and education
methods for communicating with the public on this issue are also addressed. These issues are
included in this section because of the need to alter consumers perceptions rather than provide
them with strictly technical or financial incentives for changing their behaviour. Neither
instruments were considered in this study because they do not always internalize environmental
costs, are subject to political acceptability, and generate social equity concerns (OECD 2002).
Slow Food ideology suggests that positive reinforcement of environmentally-friendly
behaviour has the potential to change consumer activities. The Slow Food movement was
founded by Carlo Petrini in the 1970s after a McDonalds threatened local food production in the
small town of Bra, Italy (Bell and Hollows 2007; Andrews 2008; Laing and Frost 2010;
Sassatelli and Davolio 2010). Its focus on taste, bodily pleasure, and social interaction during
food consumption activities has contributed to its widespread acceptance around the world
(Sassatelli and Davolio 2010). This focus also helps connect individuals to each other and the
environment when consuming certain products (Hayes-Conroy 2009). However, several aspects
of the movement are problematic and must be avoided.
The Slow Food movement suffers from cultural ignorance, elitist tendencies, and
unrealistic ideals. After its creation in Italy, the movement spread across the globe by re-
labelling adherents to eco-gastronomists and its gatherings to food communities (Sassatelli
and Davolio 2010). However, it continues to rely on Italy for its image and has failed to develop
appropriate techniques for appealing to individuals in different cultures (Andrews 2008). This
31

study therefore limits its analysis and proposed solutions to the North American context.
Second, the movement has elitist tendencies which posit food producers as passive agents, which
shifts power to upper-class individuals (Andrews 2008). It also ignores the information and
financial barriers associated with purchasing high-quality local food products (Boccalettie 2008).
This study proposes overcoming both issues by providing free workshops on beverage
preparation, a solution which has been used successfully in other contexts (OECD 2002).
Lastly, the movement is predicated on unrealistic ideals. Carlo Petrini stated that there
can be no slow food without slow life, meaning we cannot influence food culture without
changing our culture as a whole (Andrews 2008:39). Due to current economic realities, it is
idealistic to hope that entire cultures will become slow, utopian communities. Instead, the
movement should be defining more concrete, realistic goals. For example, the movement could
create small enclaves in large malls where customers would be provided with reusable beverages
mugs for in-store drink purchases. This would encourage more social interaction between
customers and reduce the de-socializing impacts of consumption activities.
The Japanese Way of Tea ceremony has similar benefits and challenges to the Slow
Food movement for creating social and environmental benefits through beverage consumption.
Tea ceremonies can enhance human relationships with each other and the natural world by
promoting the ideals of moderation and mindfulness (Sen 1983; Blofeld 1985). Coffee
production is similarly sacred in Ethiopia, where coffee roasting is done slowly three times to
represent peace, health, and spirit (Rousell 2006). Preparing coffee or tea in the home is even
more beneficial because it can create a strong bond between the host and guest; this genuine
relationship could potentially reduce the consumers need to emulate reference groups or
purchase brands in an attempt to createsocial ties (Chen-Wen and Chi-Shun 2009).
32

Despite the positive and engaging ideals inherent in the Way of Tea, it is specific to a
single culture, intellectually elitist, and based on unrealistic ideals. In China and Japan, the Way
of Tea developed during the 12
th
century as a practice used for advancing spiritual ideals,
community unity, and connections to the natural world (Chen-Wen and Chi-Shun 2009). As this
practice could potentially be rejected by fast-paced North American culture, the ideas distilled
from this movement are thought to be more accessible to North Americans. It is possible that
these ideas, which are intangible and do not provide immediate gratification, may only be
accepted by certain portions of the population. Disseminating information on this topic to the
general public via the internet could overcome this problem because of the high degree of
penetration that this technology has in individual households (DiPietro, et al. 2007). Websites
are valuable modes of communication because they can cheaply distribute large volumes of
information to enhance an individuals decision-making ability (Auger 2005; DiPietro, et al.
2007).Using this technology is acceptable because it merely guides an individuals behaviour
and does not replace or eliminate human effort.
To aid in the guidance of individual behaviours through the ideals of the Slow Food
movement and Japanese Way of Tea ceremony, training and education programs could be used.
Awareness of how to appropriately design and deliver information to the public is growing,
leading to communication programs which link to individual concerns, place consumer decisions
in a wider context, and avoid creating information overload (OECD 2002).Training programs are
important to this study because they reveal how creating cooking competency can reward people
and reinforce compliance with behavioural changes (Caraher, et al. 2004; KE 2009; Abrahamse
and Steg 2009). Children in North America are not learning how to cook from their parents
because of the declining frequency of this activity (Sidin, et al. 2008). However, in-home food
33

and beverage preparation makes the consumer aware of the volume of natural resources that they
consume and can provide them with a form of self-expression separate from the market provision
(Cherrier 2009; Moser 2010; Shukla 2010; Soron 2010).
Box 2
Critical Aspects of Education Programs
1) Incremental learning process: New ideas are introduced
slowly over time
2) Simple and clear instructions: Program design must be
understandable to adherents
3) Provision of required tools: Adherents must be provided
with the resources that they will need to carry out the program
4) On-going support: Community support of the idea must be
maintained through new goals, constant information provision,
and communication over long periods of time

Source(s): Babooram 2008; Kelleher Environmental
2009;Waylen 2009

Public education campaigns use psychological methods for altering consumption
behaviour, but are faced with several challenges. Box 2, above, illustrates some of the primary
methods for altering behaviour through education programs. Current understanding of education
techniques is based on studies of how and why education programs have been effective; this
typically involves an evaluation of media source used, message clarity, its temporal duration and
spatial coverage, and resultant changes in public behaviour (Heath and Mitchell 2002).
Recycling programs are a good example of using education to alter behaviour (KE 2009).
Dominant social groups accepted recycling and encouraged wide-spread adoption of these
programs for two reasons; first, it addressed peoples feelings of guilt over consumption
activities and encouraged them to monitor their neighbours simultaneously (KE 2009). Second,
the item-specific processing theory was used in marketing techniques to appeal to a specific
target audience (Heath and Mitchell 2002; Putrevu 2010). This involved highlighting select
features of recycling programs to encourage its public acceptability (Ayala, et al. 2008).
34

Educational programs for beverages are challenged by the intangible nature of this
experience good. Consequently, consumers are purchasing new beverages based on their past
experiences with taste, availability, and affordability (Boccalettie 2008; Sen and Block 2009;
Xue and Landis 2010). The diversity of each experience could challenge the structure of
education techniques, which rely on repetition to communicate. Additionally, language is the
mode through which values and ideas are transmitted to consumers; however, media can misuse
language in an effort to generate profit (Crescentini and Mainardi 2009; Dilevko and Gottlieb
2009; Laing and Frost 2010). The media is therefore a strong external force which can structure
public information in ways which benefit or harm educational initiatives (Humphreys 2010).
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
The three primary goals of this research were to describe beverage consumption habits
over time, identify what motivates individuals to purchase disposable beverage cups, and suggest
potential methods for reducing this market reliance. Secondary literature was used to provide
information on the environmental impacts of disposable beverage containers and beverage
consumption habits over the past 50 years. A survey was conducted over the phone with
residents of the DPPCT neighbourhood of Kitchener to ascertain possible factors motivating
current consumption levels. In-home beverage preparation was identified as the preferred, long-
term solution because it allows consumers to control their own environmental impacts (Hayes-
Conroy 2009). However, barriers to increasing in-home production activities were identified
from the literature as being the contextual factors of technology and urban sprawl, while it was
thought that consumers were internally motivated to purchase QSR items.
35

Although the source of hot beverages has changed, type and volume preferences remain
the same. The survey found that coffee continues to be the most popular beverage for residents,
and is consumed in greater volumes than tea. Overall consumption of both beverages is
declining due to the increasing popularity of pre-packaged health drinks. The source of
beverages is slowly evolving over time in response to changes in the restaurant industry.
Restaurants in Canada have maintained consistent growth over time; however, changing
consumer preferences, rising costs, and a saturated market are expected to reduce restaurant
patronage in the coming years. This is reflected in the findings of the study site, where in-home
beverage preparation was practiced regularly by respondents. Within the theoretical framework
of the HLC, it was determined that household needs were being satisfied by in-home preparation
of coffee and tea beverages. The low number of respondents who were Tim Hortons patrons
made it difficult to interpret which factors were most influential in their purchase decisions.
However, a comparison between data and the literature yielded several general conclusions.
Contextual factors, including technology and urban sprawl, were determined to have a
limited influence on respondents in the case study area. Labour-saving technologies in the home
have increased the amount of time that women spend on work and leisure activities outside of the
home; however, this trend has increased their number of responsibilities and associated levels of
time stress. Survey findings did not support the researchers belief that time stress was
contributing to the desirability of convenient, disposable QSR beverages. Although respondents
did indicate that they had limited available time, it could be that they are undergoing trade-offs in
their time distribution because they prefer the taste of their own beverages.
Long commutes associated with sprawling urban cities were thought to be affecting
household time allocation decisions. This would be particularly problematic for women already
36

pressured from a variety of different demands on their time. The DPPCT neighbourhood was
also found to have a high incidence of commuters due to the proximity of the Highway 401.
Consequently, it was thought that the purchase of convenience beverages would be valuable to
individuals during their commute to work. However, the length of time spent commuting by
respondents was low and few felt antagonistic towards the length of time they spent commuting.
Accordingly, urban sprawl does not appear to be contributing overtly to the beverage purchase
habits of survey respondents.
Internal motivations included multiple perspectives of consumption, emotional ties, and
social reference groups. Multiple factors are involved in each of these internal motivations, and
this study struggled to accurately capture each of the relevant motivations. It appeared that
respondents perceived consumption within the context of its utility to their lifestyle. The
findings also determined that other internal motivations were contributing to respondents Tim
Hortons purchase behaviours; consequently, there is a significant area of opportunity for
researchers to investigate motivational factors and use social interaction as a motivator for
preparing beverages in the home.
Solutions involved education and training techniques to encourage the adoption of social
methods for reducing disposable beverage container purchase. The literature evaluated in this
study clearly identifies how disposable beverage containers have significant environmental
impacts; they generate a significant amount of pollution during production, transportation, and
disposal phases. Their impacts are problematic for the achievement of sustainable consumption
for future generations. Households are frequently ignoring the importance of sustainable
consumption because they can no longer distinguish between goods which are needs and those
which are luxuries. This problem could develop when the individual consumer has certain
37

attitudes and perspectives towards the product. Consequently, solutions should be based on the
consumers perspectives of their consumption activities. This would help motivate individual
consumers to take action on issues of environmental protection.
Modifying the Slow Food movement and Japanese Way of Tea ceremony to fit in with
the North American context could be valuable for altering current consumption patterns. Both
techniques are used here because of their strong focus on rewarding participants for their
participation in in-home preparation. The problems with both movements can be overcome
through the use of only certain portions of their ideas.
Education and training were identified as two methods for communicating the benefits of
the Slow Food Movement and Way of Tea ceremony to the general public. Training would
provide the public with an enhanced set of cooking skills in an effort to reduce their reliance on
QSR food and beverage items. Educational programs, though challenged by the experience
nature of this good, can effectively utilize media to encourage the wide-spread adoption of these
ideals in the dominant social groups of society.
Further studies on consumption motivations surrounding disposable beverages are
needed. Several decisions made by the researcher altered the results of this study and meant that
certain features were not clearly identified in the results. For example, future research could be
directed towards the barriers that individuals are confronted with during their attempts to develop
more environmentally-friendly behaviours. It would also be advantageous to conduct a complete
analysis of in-home consumption activities so that clear statistics can be used to argue in favour
of increasing this activity. Future studies might also consider paying for the expensive
38

demographic data collected by quick-service restaurants on their typical patrons to better link
personal characteristics to purchase of certain beverages.













7. References
Abrahamse, W., and Steg, L. 2009. How do socio-demographic and psychological factors relate
to households direct and indirect energy use and savings? Journal of Economic
Psychology, 30(5): 711-720.
Adams, M., and Raisborough, J. 2010.Making a difference: Ethical consumption and the
everyday.The British Journal of Sociology, 61(2): 256-274.

Allen, S.R., Saccary, L., Wishart, J.G., and Vigneau, A.M. 2004. A Characterization of Nova
Scotian Litter: 2004 Litter Survey. Presented by Nova Scotia Youth Conservation Corps
& Nova Scotia Department of Environment and
Labour.<http://www.gov.ns.ca/nse/waste/docs/2004_NS_LitterSurvey_NSYCC.pdf>.
Accessed March 3
rd
, 2011.
39

Alliance for Environmental Innovation. 2000. Report of the Starbucks coffee company/alliance
for environmental innovation joint task force. Produced in association withEnvironmental
Defence and The Pew Charitable
Trusts.<http://www.edf.org/documents/523_starbucks.pdf>. Accessed on November 26
th
,
2010.

Alsop, J., Field, T., Kalkreuth, J., Kemp, J., Malach, S., and Popper, A. 2004. Reusable Mugs:
Reducing Waste on Dalhousies Studley Campus.ENVS 3502- Environmental Problem
Solving, Dr. Tarah
Wright.<http://environmental.science.dal.ca/Files/Environmental%20Programs/lug-a-
mug_projectcompilation1.pdf>. Accessed on March 3
rd
, 2011.
Amcor.2010. PET Packaging
Sustainability.<http://www.amcor.com/businesses/rigid_plastics/39302332.html>.
Accessed on November 28
th
, 2010.

Andrews, G. 2008.The Slow Food Story: Politics and Pleasure. Kingston, ON: McGill-Queens
University Press.
Audirac, I. and Fitzgerald, J. 2003. Information technology (IT) and urban form: an annotated
bibliography of the urban deconcentration and economic restructuring literatures. Journal
of Planning Literature, 17(4):480-511.
Auger, P. 2005. The impact of interactivity and design sophistication on the performance of
commercial websites for small businesses.Journal of Small Business Management,
43(2): 119-137.
Ayala, G.X., Rogers, M., Arredondo, E.M., Campbell, N.R., Baquero, B., Duerksen, S.C. and
Elder, J.P. 2008. Away-from-home food intake and risk for obesity: Examining the
influence of context. Obesity, 16(5):1002-1008.
Babooram, A. 2008.Canadian participation in an environmentally active lifestyle. EnviroStats,
2(4): 7-11. Ottawa, ON. Catalogue no. 16-002-X.<http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-002-
x/16-002-x2008004-eng.pdf>. Accessed on September 28
th
, 2010.

Bakker, K., and Kooy, M. 2008. Governance failure: Rethinking the institutional dimensions of
urban water supply to poor households. World Development, 36(10):1891-1915.

Barrena, R. and Sanchez, M. 2010. The link between household structure and the level of
abstraction in the purchase decision process: an analysis using a functional food.
Agribusiness, 26(2):243-264.
Beck, U. 1992.Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London, UK: Sage.
Bell, D., and Hollows, J. 2007. Mobile homes.Space and Culture, 10(1): 22-39.
40

Bennett, L. and Little, D. 1999. Food services competition in the 1990s. Statistics Canada, 6(4).
Ottawa, ON. Catalogue no. 63-016-XIB.< http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/63-016-x/63-
016-x1999004-eng.pdf>.Accessed on September 28
th
, 2010.
Beshara, M., Hutchinson, A., and Wilson, C. 2010.Preparing meals under time stress: The
experience of working mothers.Appetite, 55(3): 695-700.

Bevan, A. 2010. Making and marking relationships: Bronze age brandings and Mediterranean
commodities. In Cultures of Commodity Branding, ed. D. A. Bevan and D. Wengrow, 35-
85. California: Left Coast Press, Inc.
Beverage Industry. 2010. Emerging Beverage Trends.
<http://www.powerbrands.us/beverageInd.htm>. Accessed on October 11
th
, 2010.
Bidhendi, G.N., Nasrabadi, T., Vaghefi, H.R.S., Hoveidi, H., and Jafari, H.R. 2008. Role of
water-saving devices in reducing urban water consumption in the mega-city of Tehran,
case study: A residential complex. Journal of Environmental Health, 70(8): 44-47.
Binkley, J.K. 2006.The effect of demographic, economic and nutrition factors on the frequency
of food away from home.Journal of Consumer Affairs, 40(2):372-391.
Blofeld, J. 1985. The Chinese art of tea. London, UK: George Allen &Unwin Ltd.
Bloom, J. 2010. Saving food could save us all. Waterloo Region Record. Saturday, November
13, 2010. A 13.
Boccalettie, S. 2008. Environmentally responsible food choice. In Household Behaviour and the
Environment: Reviewing the Evidence,117-139. Paris, France: OECD Publications.
Bruce, D. And Carter, T. 2003. Literature review of socio-economic trends affecting
consumers and housing markets: Final report. Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation.< http://www.cmhc-
schl.gc.ca/odpub/pdf/63411.pdf?fr=1287269751984>.Accessed on October 16, 2010.
Bryman, A., Teevan, J.J., and Bell, E. 2009.Social Research Methods.Don Mills, ON: Oxford
University Press.
Bumsted, J.M. 1998. A History of the Canadian Peoples. Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press.
Calderon, L.A., Iglesias, L., Laca, A., Herrero, M., and Diaz, M. 2010.The utility of Life Cycle
Assessment in the ready meal food industry.Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
54(12): 1196-1207.
Calvert, P., and Pope, A. 2005.Telephone survey research for library managers.Library
Management, 26(3): 139-151.
41

Canada Newswire. 2010. Tim Hortons introduces healthier breakfast option with real homestyle
oatmeal. Canada Newswire. Ottawa, Ontario.
<http://proquest.umi.com.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/pqdweb?did=2171465531&sid=3&Fmt
=3&clientId=16746&RQT=309&VName=PQD>. Accessed on November 28
th
, 2010.
Caraher, M., Baker, H., and Burns, M. 2004.Childrens views of cooking and food preparation.
British Food Journal, 106(4): 255.
Caraher, M., Dixon, P., Lang, T., and Carr-Hill, R. 1999. The state of cooking in England: The
relationship of cooking skills to food choice. British Food Journal, 101(8):590-603.
Caraher, M., Lang, T., Dixon, P., and Carr-Hill, R. 1998. Barriers to accessing healthy foods:
Differentials by gender, social class, income and mode of transport. Health Education
Journal, 57(3): 191-201.
Carrigan, M., Szmigin, I., and Leek, S. 2006. Managing routine food choices in UK families: the
role of convenience consumption. Appetite, 47(3):372-383.
Census Tract Profiles. (2006). Statistics Canada.<http://www12.statcan.ca/census-
recensement/2006/dp-pd/prof/92-
597/P3.cfm?customPROFILE_ID=1000&customPROFILE_ID=2000&customPROFILE
_ID=5000&customPROFILE_ID=6000&customPROFILE_ID=7000&customPROFILE
_ID=14000&customPROFILE_ID=15000&customPROFILE_ID=18000&customPROFI
LE_ID=21000&customPROFILE_ID=22000&customPROFILE_ID=29000&customPR
OFILE_ID=30000&Lang=E&CTCODE=4137&CACODE=541&PC=N2P1S2&B1=Cust
om>.Accessed on November 14, 2010.
Ceridon, K. 2010. Fuelling product innovation.Appliance Design, 58(8):14-17.
Chandler, R., Clancy, J., Dixon, D., Goody, J., and Wooding, G. 2005.Building type basics for
housing, ed. S.A. Kliment. New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Chaudhuri, R. and Majumdar, S. 2006. Of diamonds and desires: Understanding conspicuous
consumption for a contemporary marketing perspective. Academy of Marketing Science
Review, 10(8):1-18.

Chen, Y.P., and Kwang-Wen, C. 1982. Household expenditure patterns: The effect of age of
family head. Journal of Family Issues, 3(2):233-250.
Cheng-Wen, L. and Chi-Shun, L. 2009.The effects of consumer preferences and perceptions of
Chinese tea beverages on brand positioning strategies.British Food Journal, 111(1):80-
96.
Cherrier, H. 2009.Anti-consumption discourses and consumer-resistant identities. Journal of
Business Research, 62(2):181-192.

42

Coffee Association of Canada. 2010. Highlights: 2003 Canadian Coffee Drinking Study.
<http://www.coffeeassoc.com/coffeeincanada.htm>. Accessed on November 28
th
, 2010.
Cohen, A.M. 2010. Homes are getting smarter. Futurist, 44(4):10-12.

Conner, M.T. 1993.Understanding determinants of food choice.British Food Journal, 95(9): 27-
31.
Crescentini, A. and Mainardi, G. 2009. Qualitative research articles: Guidelines, suggestions and
needs. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(5): 431-439.
Cynamon, B.Z., and Fazzari, S.M. 2008. Household debt in the consumer age: Source of growth-
risk of collapse. Unpublished research paper in Capitalism and Society.
<http://artsci.wustl.edu/~fazz/Cyn%20Fazz%20Dist%200807.pdf>. Accessed on October
27
th
, 2010.
Dargay, J. 2008. Personal transport choice. In Household Behaviour and the Environment:
Reviewing the Evidence,59-94. Paris, France: OECD Publications.

Darlington, R., Staikos, T., and Rahimifard, S. 2009.Analytical methods for waste minimisation
in the convenience food industry.Waste Management, 29(4):1274-1281.
Demirbas, A. 2010.Use of algae as biofuel sources.Energy Conversion and Management,
51(12):2738-2749.
Demory-Luce, D. 2005. Fast food and children and adolescents: Implications for practitioners.
Clinical Pediatrics, 44(4): 279-288.

Dilevko, J. and Gottlieb, L. 2009. The relevance of classification theory to textual analysis.
Library and Information Science Research, 31(1): 92-100.
Dineen, S. 2009. The throwaway generation: 25 billion Styrofoam cups a year. E-magazine.com.
<http://www.emagazine.com/view/?2933>.Accessed on November 26
th
, 2010.
DiPietro, R.B., Wang, Y., Rompf, P., and Severt, D. 2007. At-destination visitor information
search and venue decision strategies. International Journal of Tourism Research,
9(3):175-188.
Dogwood Alliance. 2008. 2008 Fast food industry packaging report.
<http://www.nofreerefills.org/files/NoFreeRefillsReport.pdf>. Accessed on October 27
th
,
2010.

Duecy, E. 2006. QSR afternoon, late-night snack dayparts see traffic gains. Nations Restaurant
News, 40(30): 22.
43

Duffey, K.J. and Popkin, B.M. 2007. Shifts in patterns and consumption of beverages between
1965 and 2002.Obesity, 15: 2739-2747.
Emerson, R. L. 1990. The new economics of fast food. New York, USA: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Doing What it Takes to be WasteWise.
<http://www.epa.gov/wastes/partnerships/wastewise/pubs/bevfact.pdf>. Accessed on
November 26
th
, 2010.
Erickson-Davis, M. 2008.Fast-food industry destroying forests in the Southern U.S.
Mongabay.com.<http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0428-davis_nofreerefills.html>.
Accessed on October 27
th
, 2010.

Espejel, J., Fandos, C., and Flavian, C. 2008. Consumer satisfaction: A key factor of consumer
loyalty and buying intention of a PDO food product. British Food Journal, 110(9): 865-
881.
Fanning, J., Marsh, T., and Stiegert, K. 2010. Determinants of US fast food consumption 1994-
1998. British Food Journal, 112(1):5-20.
Ferrara, I. 2008a. Residential water use. In Household Behaviour and the Environment:
Reviewing the Evidence,153-180. Paris, France: OECD Publications.
Ferrara, I. 2008b. Waste generation and recycling. In Household Behaviour and the
Environment: Reviewing the Evidence,19-58. Paris, France: OECD Publications.

Freudenberg, N., Galea, S., and Vlahov, D. 2005. Beyond urban penalty and urban sprawl: Back
to living conditions as the focus of urban health. Journal of Community Health, 30(1):1-
11.

Garrido, N., and Del Castillo, M.D.A. 2007.Environmental evaluation of single-use and reusable
cups.International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 12(4):252-256.
Garriguet, D. 2008. Beverage consumption of Canadian adults.Statistics Canada, p. 1-8.
Catalogue no. 82-003-X. Ottawa, ON.< http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/82-003-
x2008004-eng.pdf#page=25>. Accessed on September 28
th
, 2010.

Georgakellos, D.A. 2006. The use of the LCA polygon framework in waste management.
Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 17(4):490-507.
Gilbert, R.M., Marshman, J.A., Schwieder, M., and Berg, R. 1976. Caffeine content of
beverages as consumed. CMA Journal, 114:205-208.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1956955/pdf/canmedaj01551-
0031.pdf>.Accessed on September 27, 2010.

44

Hamlin, R.P. 2010. Cue-based decision making.A new framework for understanding the
uninvolved food consumer.Appetite, 55(1):89-98.
Hanssen, O.J., Rukke, E.O., Saugen, B., Kolstad, J., Hafrom, P., von Krogh, L., Raadal, H.L.,
Roenning, A., and Wigum, K.S. 2007.The environmental effectiveness of the beverage
sector in Norway in a factor 10 perspective.International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 12(4):257-265.

Hayes-Conroy, A. 2009. Bodily geographies of slow food: Food activism and visceral politics.
Dissertation Abstracts International: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 70(4): 1380.
Heath, K., and Mitchell, B. 2002. Education for water efficiency initiatives in the Regional
Municipality of Waterloo, Ontario: Measuring current effectiveness to improve future
success. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 27(3):317-333.
Hedrick, V.E., Comber, D.L., Estabrooks, P.A., Savla, J., and Davy, B.M. 2010. The beverage
intake questionnaire: Determining initial validity and reliability. Journal of the American
Dietetic Association, 110(8):1227-1232.
Hensher, D., Shore, N., and Train, K. 2005. Households willingness to pay for water service
attributes. Environmental and Resource Economics, 32(4):509-531.

Hocking, M.B. 1991. Relative merits of polystyrene foam and paper in hot drink cups:
Implications for packaging. Environmental Management, 15(6):731-747.
Hocking, M.B. 1994. Reusable and disposable cups: An energy-based evaluation. Environmental
Management, 18(6):889-899.
Honkanen, P. and Frewer, L. 2009. Russian consumers motives for food choice.Appetite, 52(2):
363-371.
Hu, H.H., Parsa, H.G., and Self, J. 2010.The dynamics of green restaurant patronage.Cornell
Hospitality Quarterly, 51(3):344-362.
Humbert, S., Loerincik, Y., Rossi, V., Margni, M., and Jolliet, O. 2009. Life cycle assessment of
spray dried soluble coffee and comparison with alternatives (drip filter and capsule
espresso). Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(15):1351-1358.
Hume, M. 2010. Compassion without action: Examining the young consumers consumption and
attitude to sustainable consumption. Journal of World Business, 45(4): 385-394.
Humphreys, A. 2010. Semiotic structure and the legitimation of consumption practices: The case
of casino gambling. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3): 490-510.
Husic, M. and Cicic, M. 2009.Luxury consumption factors.Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management, 13(2): 231-245.

45

Iop, S.C.F., Teixeira, E., and Deliza, R. 2006. Consumer research: extrinsic variables in food
studies. British Food Journal, 108(11): 894-903.
Irwin, B. and Hramiak, A. 2010.A discourse analysis of trainee teacher identity in online
discussion forums.Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(3): 361-377.
Jabs, J., Devine, C.M., Bisogni, C.A., Farrell, T.J., Jastran, M., and Wethington, E. 2007. Trying
to find the quickest way: Employed mothers constructions of time for food.Journal of
Nutrition Education and Behaviour, 39(1):18-25.
Jackson, J. 1999. Resources-not garbage: Municipal solid waste in Ontario. Prepared for The
Environmental Agenda for Ontario Project.
<http://www.cielap.org/pdf/EnvAgenda_Resources.pdf>. Accessed on November 28
th
,
2010.
Johns, N. and Pine, R. 2002. Consumer behaviour in the food service industry: a review.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 21(2): 119-134.
Kara, A., Kaynak, E., and Kucukemiroglu, O. 1995. Marketing strategies for fast-food
restaurants: a customer view. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 7(4): 16-22.
Kelleher Environmental. 2009. City of Toronto Hot Drink Cup Strategy: Research on Behaviour
Change. Draft Report Submitted to City of Toronto.
<http://www.toronto.ca/garbage/packaging_reduction/pdf/kell_env_hot_drink_report_be
haviour_change.pdf>.Accessed on November 28
th
, 2010.
Kinkade-Levario, H. 2007.Design for water: Rainwater harvesting, stormwater catchment, and
alternate water reuse. British Columbia, Canada: New Society Publishers.

Kniazeva, M. and Venkatesh, A. 2007. Food for thought: a study of food consumption in
postmodern US culture. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6(6): 419-435.
Kristrom, B. 2008.Residential energy demand. In Household Behaviour and the Environment:
Reviewing the Evidence, 95-115. Paris, France: OECD Publications.
Laing, J., and Frost, W. 2010. How green was my festival: Exploring challenges and
opportunities associated with staging green events. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 29(2):261-267.
Lang, T., Caraher, M., Dixon, P., and Carr-Hill, R. 1999.The contribution of cooking to health
inequalities. London, UK: Health Education Authority.
Lee, K. 2009. Is a glass of Merlot the symbol of globalization? An examination of the impacts of
globalization on wine consumption in Asia.International Journal of Wine Business
Research, 21(3): 258-266.

46

Lee, M., and Ulgado, F.M. 1997. Consumer evaluations of fast-food services: a cross-national
comparison. Journal of Services Marketing, 11(1): 39-52.
Lee, R., Murphy, J., and Neale, L. 2009. The interactions of consumption characteristics on
social norms.The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(4): 277-284.
Leibenstein, H. 1950. Bandwagon, snob, and Veblen effects in the theory of conspicuous
demand.Quarterly Journal of Economics, 64: 183-207.

Lin, C., and Chienwen, H. 2009. Development of a marketing information system for supporting
sales in a tea-beverage market.Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3): 5393-5401.
Little, D. and Beland, R. 1998. Can I help you?: The rise in household spending on services.
Statistics Canada, 5(2). Ottawa, ON. Catalogue no. 63-016-XIB.
<http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/63-016-x/63-016-x1998002-eng.pdf>. Accessed on
September 28
th
, 2010.
Maas, C. 2010. Shower with a friend. Alternatives Journal, 36(1): 22-25.

Marcotte, M., Maxime, D., and Arcand, Y. 2006.Development of eco-efficiency indicators for
the Canadian food and beverage industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(6-7):636-
648.

Martinon-Torres, M. 2010. Of marks, prints, pots, and becherovka: Freemasons branding in
early modern Europe? In Cultures of Commodity Branding, eds. D. A. Bevan and D.
Wengrow, 213-233. California, USA: Left Coast Press, Inc.
McDonald, S., Oates, C., Thyne, M., Alevizou, P., and McMorland, L. 2009.Comparing
sustainable consumption patterns across product sectors.International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 33(2):137-146.

Medley-Rath, S.R., and Simonds, W. 2010. Consuming contraceptive control: gendered
distinctions in web-based contraceptive advertising. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 12(7):
783-795.
Meyers, M.S., and Wallace, S. 2003. Factors influencing the purchasing of fast food meals.
Proceedings from the Allied Academies International Conference, 8(2): 51-55.
Milijkovic, D. and Effertz, C. 2010. Consumer behavior in food consumption: Reference price
approach. British Food Journal, 112(1):32-43.
Minister of Industry. 2008. Spending Patterns in Canada. Statistics Canada. Ottawa, ON.
Catalogue no. 62-202-X. <http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/62-202-x/62-202-x2007000-
eng.pdf>.Accessed on September 28
th
, 2010.

47

Morais, C.D., Afonso, C. and Almeida, M.D.V. 2010. Ageing and food consumption in Portugal:
New or old paradigms? British Food Journal, 112(5):511-521.

Moser, A. 2010. Food preparation patterns in German family households. An econometric
approach with time budget data.Appetite, 55(1):99-107.
Nelson, R. and Consoli, D. 2010. An evolutionary theory of household consumption
behaviour.Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 20(5): 665-687.
Nicholls, L., &Nystuen, C. 1993. Future foodservice waste management.Journal of Hospitality
& Tourism Research, 17(1): 231-241.
OConnor, B.P. 2000. SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using
parallel analysis and Velicers MAP test. Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments, &
Computers, 32(3): 396-402.
Omann, I., Friedl, B., Hammer, M., and Pack, A. N.D.The environmental effects of food
consumption for different household categories.
<http://seri.at/wpcontent/uploads/2009/09/ESEE-2007-sufotrop-Presentation1.pdf>.
Accessed on September 17
th
, 2010.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.2002. Towards Sustainable
Household Consumption? Trends and Policies in OECD Countries. Retrieved January
27
th
, 2011 from http://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/docserver/download/fulltext/9702041e.pdf?expires=1296142312&id=0000&
accname=ocid47018459&checksum=66C29CA10ED310E3EA71B72078051C94
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2008. Introduction. In Household
Behaviour and the Environment: Reviewing the Evidence,5-17. Paris, France: OECD
Publications.
Ouellette, M. N.D. Youve always got time: (Disposable) coffee cup litter as discursive
regime(s). <http://verb.lib.lehigh.edu/index.php/verb/article/viewFile/68/62>. Accessed
on September 17
th
, 2010.

Pinheiro-Machado, R. 2010.The attribution of authenticity to real and fake branded
commodities in Brazil and China. In Cultures of Commodity Branding, eds. D. A. Bevan
and D. Wengrow, 109-129. California, USA: Left Coast Press, Inc.
Planning, housing and community services. 2006. Place of work, and commuting to work:
Statistics from the 2006 census for Waterloo region. Census Bulletin #10.Region of
Waterloo.<http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca/web/region.nsf/0/A2888970473334228525
73700060C1D7/$file/Bulletin_10.pdf?openelement>. Accessed March 4
th
, 2011.
Popkin, B.M. 2010. Patterns of beverage use across the lifecycle.Physiology & Behavior, 100(1):
4-9.
48

Popkin, B.M., Duffey, K., and Gordon-Larsen, P. 2005. Environmental influences on food
choice, physical activity and energy balance. Physiology and Behaviour, 86(5): 603-613.
Putler, D.S., Li, T., and Liu, Y. 2007. The value of household life cycle variables in consumer
expenditure research: An empirical examination. Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences, 24(1):284-299.
Putrevu, S. 2010. An examination of consumer responses toward attribute- and goal-framed
messages.Journal of Advertising, 39(3): 5-25.

Razza, F., Fieschi, M., Innocenti, F.D., and Bastioli, C. 2009. Compostable cutlery and waste
management: An LCA approach. Waste Management, 29(4):1424-1433.
Reiter, E. 1991. Making fast food: From the frying pan into the fryer. Montreal, ON: McGill-
Queens University Press.
Rimmington, M., Smith, J.C., and Hawkins, R. 2006.Corporate social responsibility and
sustainable food procurement.British Food Journal, 108(10):824-837.
Roberts, P.W. 2002. Fast food: Roadside restaurants in the automobile age. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 68(2):224-226.

Rouan, R. 2010. Seeking a solution for recycling.Beverage Industry, 101(10):50-51.
Rousell, K.D. 2006. Whats the rush? [Tim Hortons] [Addis Ababa, Toronto]. Toronto Life,
40(1): 85.
Saint-Pierre, E. 1998.Insights.Statistics Canada, 3(1).Catalogue no.
61F0019XIE.<http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/61f0019x/61f0019x1999001-eng.pdf>.
Accessed on September 28
th
, 2010.
Sarzynski, A., Wolman, H., Galster, G., and Hanson, R. 2006. Testing the conventional wisdom
about land use and traffic congestion: The more we sprawl, the less we move? Urban
Studies, 43(3):601-626.
Sassatelli, R., and Davolio, F. 2010. Consumption, pleasure and politics: Slow food and the
politico-aesthetic problematization of food. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(2):202-232.
Sayer, A. 1997.Critical realism and the limits to critical social science.Journal for the Theory of
Social Behaviour, 27(4): 473-488.

Schaefer, D.J. and Dervin, B. 2009. From the dialogic to the contemplative: a conceptual and
empirical rethinking of online communication outcomes as verbing micro-practices.
Ethics and Information Technology, 11(4): 265.
Scheer, B.C. and Petkov, M. 1998. Edge city morphology: a comparison of commercial centers.
Journal of American Planning Association, 64(3): 298-310.
49

Sen, S. 1983. Tea life, tea mind. New York, USA: Weatherhill.
Sen, S., and Block, L.G. 2009. Why my mother never threw anything out: The effect of product
freshness on consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(1):47-56.
Serecon Management Consulting Inc. 2005. Canadian Food Trends to 2020: A Long Range
Consumer Outlook. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
<http://www4.agr.gc.ca/resources/prod/doc/agr/pdf/ft-ta_eng.pdf>. Accessed on
November 28
th
, 2010.
Serret, Y., and Ferrara, I. 2008. Conclusions and policy implications. In Household Behaviour
and the Environment: Reviewing the Evidence,181-200. Paris, France: OECD
Publications.

Schaefer, A., & Crane, A. 2005.Addressing sustainability and consumption.Journal of
Macromarketing, 25(1): 76-92.
Shukla, P. 2010. Status consumption in cross-national context: Socio-psychological, brand and
situational antecedents. International Marketing Review, 27(1):108-129.

Sidin, S., Rahman, M.K.A., Rashid, M.Z.A., Othman, M.N., and Bakar, A.Z.A. 2008.Effects of
social variables on urban childrens consumption attitude and behaviour intentions.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(1):7-15.
Silberhorn, D., and Warren, R.C. 2007.Defining corporate social responsibility: A view from
big companies in Germany and the UK.European Business Review, 19(5):352-372.
Sonesson, U., Anteson, F., Davis, J., and Sjoeden, P. 2005. Home transport and waste:
Environmentally relevant household activities in the life cycle of food. Ambio, 34(4):371-
375.
Soron, D. 2010. Sustainability, self-identity and the sociology of consumption.Sustainable
Development, 18(3):172-181.
Stahls, M.H., Mayer, A.L., Tikka, P.M., and Kauppi, P.E. 2010. Disparate geography of
consumption, production, and environmental impacts: Forest products in Finland 1991-
2007. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 14(4):576-585.
Statistics Canada. 2004. Restaurant, caterer and tavern statistics. Statistics Canada, 36(3).
Ottawa,ON. Catalogue no. 63-011-XIE.<http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/63-011-x/63-011-
x2004003-eng.pdf>.Accessed on September 28
th
, 2010.
Statistics Canada. 2009. Food available, by major food groups (Beverages). Ottawa, ON.
Catalogue no. 21-020-X. <http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/famil102c-eng.htm>.
Accessed on September 28
th
, 2010.
50


Stern, P.C. 1997. Toward a working definition of consumption for environmental research and
policy. In P.C. Stern, T. Dietz, V.W. Ruttan, R.H. Socolow, and J.L. Sweeney (Eds),
Environmentally Significant Consumption: Research Directions (pp. 12-25). Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press.
Swayze, K. 2010. Celebrating 50 years of the 401.Waterloo Region Record. Saturday,
November 13, 2010. A1 & A9.
Tashiro, S. 2009. Differences in food preparation by race and ethnicity: Evidence from the
American time use survey. The Review of Black Political Economy, 36(3-4): 161-180.
The Globe and Mail. 1990. Is coffee still a favourite drink?Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc.,
May 12 < http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/hottopics/lnacademic/?>.
Accessed September 28
th
, 2010.
Theodore, S. 2008. Walking the green line.Beverage Industry, 99(8):34.
Tim Hortons. N.D. Tim Hortons: Making a True Difference. Sustainability and Responsibility
Summary.<http://www.timhortons.com/ca/pdf/2009CSR.pdf>. Accessed on November
28
th
, 2010.
Tukker, A., et al. 2005. Environmental impact of products (EIPRO): Analysis of the life cycle
environmental impacts related to the total final consumption of the EU25. European
Science and Technology Observatory and the Institute for Prospective Technological
Studies.<http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ipp/pdf/eipro_summary.pdf>. Accessed on
September 17
th
, 2010.

Ute, W., Edvardsson, B., and Ostrom, A. 2010. Drivers of customers service experiences: A
study in the restaurant industry. Managing Service Quality, 20(3): 236-258.
Uusitalo, L. 1982. Environmental impact of changes in consumption styles.Journal of
Macromarketing, 2(2):16-30.
<http://www.csulb.edu/journals/jmm/pdfs/Environmental_impact.pdf>. Accessed on
September 17
th
, 2010.
Veblen. 1965. The theory of the leisure class. New York, USA: A.M. Kelley bookseller.
Vera, B., & Young, D. 2009. Time-saving innovations, time allocations, and energy use:
Evidence from Canadian households. Ecological Economics, 68(11): 2859-2867.
Vercalsteren, A., Spirinckx, C., and Geerken, T. 2010. Life cycle assessment and eco-efficiency
analysis of drinking cups used at public events.International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 15: 221-230.

51

Vollmer, F. 2005. The narrative self.Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 35(2): 189-
205.
Waylen, C. 2009. Where does the water go? Utility Week, 31(1):18-20.
Welsh, M. 2008. City eyes coffee cup ban. TheStar.com. Environment Report on Sunday,
September 14, 2008. <http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/499032>. Accessed on
November 28
th
, 2010.
Wilson, M. 2006. Expediting development.Chain Store Age, 82(10):92.
Xue, X. and Landis, A.E. 2010.Eutrophication potential of food consumption patterns.
Environmental Science and Technology, 44(16):6450-6456.
York, E.B. 2010.McDs unleashes summer sales weapon: beverages. Advertising Age, 81(27).

Ziada, H. 2009. Disposable Coffee Cup Waste Reduction
Study.<http://msep.mcmaster.ca/epp/publications/DisposableCofeeCup.pdf>. Accessed
on March 3
rd
, 2011.
Zylstra, P. 1999. Food producers maintain expansion. Statistics Canada. Ottawa, ON.
<http://www.statcan.gc.ca/start-debut-eng.html>. Accessed on September 28
th
, 2010.
8. Appendices
Appendix A: Survey administered to residents of the Doon Pioneer Park Census Tract (DPPCT)
1. What is your age?
o 18-25 years old
o 26-30 years old
o 31-40 years old
o 41-50 years old
o 51-60 years old
o 61-70 years old
o More than 70 years old
2. What is your marital status?
o Single without children
o Single with children
o Married without children
o Married with children
o Common law without children
52

o Common law with children
o Other (please state):___________________________
3. What is your gender?
o Male
o Female
4. Do you have a full-time (40 hours per week), paid position outside of the home which requires
regular commutes to and from the home?
o Yes
o No
5. If you responded no to question #4: Do you have other commitments outside of the home
which consume a large amount of your time each day (e.g. leisure activities, volunteering, etc.)?
o Yes
o No
6. If you responded yes to question #4: How long, on average, does it take you to make a one-
way trip TO your paid position?
o Less than 1 hour
o 1 hour
o 2 hours
o 3 hours
o 4 hours or more
7. If you responded yes to question #4: How long, on average, does it take you to make a one-
way trip home FROM your paid position?
o Less than 1 hour
o 1 hour
o 2 hours
o 3 hours
o 4 hours or more
8. What is the size of your household?
o 1 resident
o 2 residents
o 3 residents
o 4 or more residents
53

9. Which of the following items are currently present in your household kitchen? Please fill in all
the circles which apply to you.
o Fridge
o Stove
o Dishwasher
o Microwave
o Toaster
o Tea kettle
o Coffee maker
o Other (please state):_________________________________
10. In the past week, how often did you personally use your tea kettle to prepare tea in the home?
o Do not have a tea kettle
o Did not use tea kettle
o 1-2 times
o 3-4 times
o 5-6 times
o More than 6 times
11. In the past week, how often did you personally use your coffee maker to prepare coffee in the
home?
o Do not have a coffee maker
o Did not use coffee maker
o 1-2 times
o 3-4 times
o 5-6 times
o More than 6 times
12. How often did you consume a single coffee or tea beverage while at home yesterday?
o Did not consume coffee or tea at home
o 1-2 times
o 3-4 times
o 5-6 times
o More than 6 times
13. How often did you consume a single coffee or tea beverage while at work yesterday?
o Do not work outside the home
o Did not consume coffee or tea at work
o 1-2 times
54

o 3-4 times
o 5-6 times
o More than 6 times
14. Which of the following beverages have you consumed at least once within the past week?
Please fill in all of the circles which apply to you.
o Carbonated beverages (e.g. Coca-cola, Pepsi, Ginger Ale, etc.)
o Coffee
o Tea
o Water
o Specialty beverages (e.g. Gatorade)
o Other (please state):_________________________
15. Within the past work week (i.e.Monday-Friday), how often did you purchase a single hot
beverage (coffee or tea) from a Tim Hortons establishment?
o Did not purchase a hot beverage from Tim Hortons
o 1-5 times
o 6-10 times
o 11-15 times
o 16-20 times
o More than 20 times
16. Please indicate, below, how much you agree with the following statement: I feel that drinking
a coffee and/or tea beverage is an important part of each day.
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Undecided
o Disagree
o Strongly Disagree
17. What might cause you to purchase hot beverages (coffee and/or tea) from a fast-food
establishment? Please indicate in the table below the importance of each beverage characteristic
which might influence your decision (1=Not very important; 5= Extremely important).
Not very
important
Somewhat
important
Important Very
Important
Extremely
Important
Convenience of
hot beverages
(i.e. they are
ready quickly)
1 2 3 4 5
Taste of hot 1 2 3 4 5
55

beverages
Reasonable cost
of hot beverages
1 2 3 4 5
Value and
quality of hot
beverages (i.e.
large size)
1 2 3 4 5
Other (please
specify:
_____________)
1 2 3 4 5

18. Please indicate the degree to which you feel the following factors are important in your
decision to purchase coffee and tea beverages from Tim Hortons establishments:
Not very
important
Somewhat
important
Important Very
Important
Extremely
Important
Opportunity
to spend time
talking with
friends over
Tim Hortons
coffee or tea
1 2 3 4 5
Value of Tim
Hortons
brand over
competitors
(e.g.
Starbucks)
1 2 3 4 5
Taste of Tim
Hortons
products over
competitors
(e.g. Coffee
Time)
1 2 3 4 5
Fast service of
Tim Hortons
establishments
(inside the
store or at the
drive-thru)
1 2 3 4 5
Need to fit in
with other
social groups
who drink
Tim Hortons
1 2 3 4 5
56

beverages
Other (please
specify:
___________)
1 2 3 4 5

19. Please indicate, below, how much you agree with the following statement: I spend the
majority of my time each day engaged in compulsory activities outside of the home (e.g. paid
employment, schooling, etc.).
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Undecided
o Disagree
o Strongly Disagree
20. Please indicate, below, how much you agree with the following statement: I am often so
pressured to get things done that I do not notice the taste of what I am eating or drinking.
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Undecided
o Disagree
o Strongly Disagree
21. Please indicate, below, how much you agree with the following statement: I spend a
significant amount of time each day preparing food and beverage items inside the home.
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Undecided
o Disagree
o Strongly Disagree
22. Please indicate, below, how much you agree with the following statement: I feel that fast-
food establishments are a valuable source for beverages when I do not have the time to prepare
them at home.
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Undecided
o Disagree
o Strongly Disagree
57

23. Please indicate, below, how much you agree with the following statement: I feel like too
much of my time is spent commuting to and from work.
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Undecided
o Disagree
o Strongly Disagree
24. Please indicate, below, how much you agree with the following statement: I feel that fast-
food establishments (e.g. Tim Hortons) are a valuable source of beverages during my daily
commute to and/or work.
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Undecided
o Disagree
o Strongly Disagree
25. Please indicate, below, how much you agree with the following statement: I feel that drinking
coffee and tea is a social activity which I enjoy more with other people around.
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Undecided
o Disagree
o Strongly Disagree
26. Please indicate, below, how much you agree with the following statement: I feel that drinking
coffee and tea in a social situation could be a relaxing activity.
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Undecided
o Disagree
o Strongly Disagree
27. Please indicate, below, how much you agree with the following statement: I am concerned
about the health of the environment.
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Undecided
o Disagree
58

o Strongly Disagree
28. Please indicate, below, how much you agree with the following statement: I would be willing
to change my daily habits if it would result in environmental benefits.
o Strongly agree
o Agree
o Undecided
o Disagree
o Strongly Disagree
Appendix B: Question 1 Results (Age of Respondents)
Age Category of Respondents
(in years)
Percentage of
Respondents (%)
18 to 25 0.18
26 to 30 0.10
31 to 40 0.20
41 to 50 0.18
51 to 60 0.14
61 to 70 0.18
Greater than 70 0.02
Total 1.00

Appendix C: Question 8 Results (What is the size of your household?)
Number of Residents
Percentage of
Respondents (%)
1 resident 0.08
2 residents 0.26
3 residents 0.36
4 or more residents 0.30
Total 1.00
Appendix D: Question 2 Results (What is your marital status?)
Marital Status
Percentage of
Respondents
(%)
Single without children 0.24
Single with children 0.04
Married without children 0.04
Married with children 0.64
Common law without 0.00
59

children
Common law with
children 0.00
Other 0.04
Total 1.00

Appendix E: Question 11 Results (In the past week, how often did you personally use your
coffee maker to prepare coffee in the home?)
Frequency of Coffee Maker Use Percentage of Respondents (%)
Do not have coffee maker 0.10
Did not use coffee maker 0.42
1-2 times 0.10
3-4 times 0.12
5-6 times 0.08
More than 6 times 0.18
Total 1.00

Appendix F: Question 10 Results (In the past week, how often did you personally use your tea
kettle to prepare tea in the home?)
Frequency of Tea Kettle Use
Percentage of
Respondents (%)
Do not have tea kettle 0.08
Did not use tea kettle 0.48
1-2 times 0.16
3-4 times 0.10
5-6 times 0.08
More than 6 times 0.10
Total 1.00

Appendix G: Question 15 Results (Within the past work week, how often did you purchase a
single hot beverage from a Tim Hortons establishment?)
Frequency of Hot Beverage Purchase from
Tim Hortons Percentage of Respondents (%)
Did not purchase from Tim Hortons 0.52
1-5 times 0.24
6-10 times 0.24
11-15 times 0.00
60

16-20 times 0.00
More than 20 times 0.00
Total 1.00

Appendix H: Question 3 Results (What is your gender?)
Gender
Percentage of
Respondents (%)
Females 0.74
Males 0.26
Total 1.00

Appendix I: Question 20 Results (I am often so pressured to get things done that I do not notice
the taste of what I am eating or drinking)
Scale from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 5 (Strongly Disagree)
Percentage of
Respondents (%)
Strongly agree 0.06
Agree 0.50
Undecided 0.02
Disagree 0.38
Strongly disagree 0.04
Total 1.00

Appendix J: Question 4 Results (Do you have a full-time, paid position outside of the home
which requires regular commutes to and from the home?)
Employment Status
Percentage of
Respondents (%)
Have a job outside the home 0.52
Do not have a job outside the home 0.48
Total 1.00

Appendix K: Question 21 Results (I spend a significant amount of time each day preparing food
and beverage items inside the home)
Scale from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 5 (Strongly Disagree) Percentage of Respondents
Strongly agree 0.04
Agree 0.66
Undecided 0.04
Disagree 0.24
61

Strongly disagree 0.02
Total 1.00

Appendix L: Question 5 Results (Do you have other commitments outside of the home which
consume a large amount of your time each day?)
Presence of Commitments Percentage of Respondents (%)
Have commitments outside the home 0.34
Do not have commitments outside the home 0.14
Not applicable (working individuals) 0.52

Appendix M: Question 6 Results (How long, on average, does it take you to make a one-way trip
TO your paid position?)
Length of Travel Time (One-Way) Percentage of Respondents (%)
Less than 1 hour 0.38
1 hour 0.12
2 hours 0.02
3 hours 0
Not applicable (non-working
individuals) 0.48


Appendix N:Question 23 Results (I feel like too much of my time is spent commuting to and
from work)
Scale from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 5 (Strongly Disagree) Percentage of Respondents (%)
Strongly agree 0
Agree 0.18
Undecided 0.56
Disagree 0.22
Strongly disagree 0.04
Total 1.00

Appendix O: Question 22 Results (I feel that fast-food establishments are a valuable source for
beverages when I do not have the time to prepare them at home)
Scale from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 5
(Strongly Disagree)
Percentage of Respondents
(%)
Strongly agree 0.12
Agree 0.32
62

Undecided 0.22
Disagree 0.30
Strongly disagree 0.04
Total 1.00

Appendix P: Question 25 Results (I feel that drinking coffee and tea is a social activity which I
enjoy more with other people around)
Scale from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 5 (Strongly Disagree) Percentage of Respondents (%)
Strongly agree 0.20
Agree 0.64
Undecided 0.08
Disagree 0.08
Strongly disagree 0.00
Total 1.00