-------
A TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC STUDY
OF WASTE OIL RECOVERY
Part II: An Investigation of Dispersed Sources of Used Crankcase 011s
This report (SW-90c.2) was written by
PETER CUKOR, MICHAEL JOHN KEATON, and GREGORY WILCOX
Teknekron, Inc., and The Institute of Public Administration
under contract no. 68-01-1806
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1974
-------
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Its publication does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use by the U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW-90c.2) 1n the solid waste
management series.
-------
Notice
The report A Technical and Economic Study of Waste 011
Recovery, prepared by Teknekron, Inc. and The Institute
of Public Administration under EPA Contract 68-01-1806,
has been published 1n three separate volumes under the
following titles:
A Technical and Economic Study of Waste 011 Recovery -
ly of Waste Oil Recovery -
Waste Oil From Automobiles
Part I; FederaTResearcnon waste uvl
A Technical and Economic Study of Waste 011 Recovery -
Part II; An Investigation of Dispersed Sources of Used
Crankcase 011s
A Technical and Economic Study of Waste Oil Recovery -
Part III: Economic. Technical and Institutional
Barriers to Waste Oil Recovery
111 Preceding page blank
-------
TARI F ftp
I rtDLt vr.
1.0 INTRODUCTION .1
2.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ... 3
3.0 OIL PURCHASES AND TYPES OF BUYERS.............. 9
3.1 Purchase of Oi 1 ........ 9
3.2 Who Are The Buyers?.. 11
4.0 WHAT KIND OF OIL IS PURCHASED AND WHY?.:..!..;. ......... 17
4.1 What Grades of Oil Are Purchased?.......... ...17
4.2 Brand Name and Price.............. ,.<,..... 18
4.3 Is Price Related to Quantity Purchased? —......20
4.4 A Semi-Technical Note.................. , 22
5.0 LOCATIONS AND REASONS FOR CHANGING ONE'S OWN OIL ..23
5.1 Where Is the Oil Change Performed? 23
5.2 Why Do They Change Their Own 011?.... 24
6.0 DISPOSAL OF THE USED OIL AND PREDISPOSITION TOWARDS
ECOLOGICALLY SOUND MEANS OF DISPOSAL. 27
6.1 How is the Used Oil Disposed? 27
6.2 Predispositions Toward Ecologically Sound Means of Disposal 29
6.3 Amount of Trouble Experienced in Used 011 Disposition 30
6.4 Some Speculations 32
7.0 HOW MUCH USED OIL WILL BE RETURNED?..... 35
7.1 What "Causes" Willingness to Return Used 011? 35
7.2 Some Implications for Public Management 40
8.0 ARE THERE OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING WILLINGNESS
TO RETURN USED OIL? 43
8.1 What is a "Reasonable" Deposit for a Resealable Container? 43
8.2 Does "Ecology-Consciousness" Affect Willingness
to Return Used Oil?.. 44
8.3 Does "Conservation Awareness" Account for
Willingness to Return Used Oil? 45
9.0 A PROBE INTO CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES... 47
9.1 Government-Certification 47
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
9.2 A Probe Into Semantics .48
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ^ 51
APPENDIX A
CONSUMER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 53
APPENDIX B
THE SAMPLE 63
v1
-------
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1: Purpose of Purchase ...... 9
Table 2: Frequency Distribution of Annual Consumption
of 011 for 011 Changes ......,; ....11
Table 3: Age and Annual 011 Con sump t ton , 12
Table 4: Education and Annual 011 Consumption.... 13
Table 5: Income and Annual 011 Consumption 14
Table 6: 0-Types Derived From Demographic Data...* 15
Table 7: 0-Types and Annual 011 Consumption .16
Table 8: Grade of 011 Purchased -. 18
Table 9: Factors in Oil Purchase Decisions 19
Table 10: Most Important Factor 1n Purchase Decision 20
Table 11: Most Important Factor in Purchase Decision
and Annual Oil Consumption 21
Table 12: Location of Oil Change for Those Changing Their Own 011 23
Table 13: Reasons for Changing One's Own Oil 24
Table 14: Most Important Reason for Changing One's Own Oil 25
Table 15: Means of Disposing of Used 011 27
Table 16: Annual Amount of Oil Disposed of By Each Means of Disposal 28
Table 17: Annual Amount of Oil Disposed of By Methods Requiring
High vs. Low Degrees of Activity 29
Table 18: Water and Land Pollution Caused by Oil Disposal 30
Table 19: Trouble in Disposing of Oil 31
Table 20: Trouble Experienced By Various Means of Disposal 32
Table 21: Effect of Amount of Disposal Activity on Trouble
Experienced in Disposing of Used Oil , 33
Table 22: Willingness to Return Oil in Resealable Containers 35
Table 23: Trouble in Disposal and Willingness to Return Used Oil 36
Table 24: Disposal Activity and Willingness to Return Oil 37
vtl
-------
TABLE OF TABLES (continued)
Table 25: Willingness to Return By Trouble 1n Disposal and
Act1 v1 ty 1 n 01 sposal : .39
Table 26: Annual 011 Consumption (In Quarts) By Activity and
Trouble In Disposal and Willingness to Return Used 011 41
Table 27: Hypothetical Deposit Which Would Induce Oil
Return (In Cents) * 43
Table 28: Ecological Rating of Respondent's Means of 011 Disposal
and His Willingness to Return Used 011 45
Table 29: Buying Recycled 011 and Willingness to Return Used 011 46
Table 30: Respondent Willingness to Use Government Certified
Recycled 011 48
Table 31: Respondent Impression of Highest Quality 011 for
Different Terms 49
-------
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Passenger-Car Motor-011 Market 2
1x
-------
AN INVESTIGATION OF DISPERSED SOURCES OF USED CRANKCASE OILS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Since the early 1960's the sales distribution of automotive engine
oil has shifted drastically from service stations to retail stores which
sell major brands of oil at discount prices. As shown 1n Figure 1, In
1961 service stations accounted for about 70 percent of all sales of lube
oil for passenger cars while mass marketers accounted for just 7 percent
of this market. By 1971, service stations' share of the lube oil market
had fallen to 45 percent. Most of these sales were lost to mass marketers
whose market share had climbed to 28 percent. By the late 1970's some oil
industry officials expect that mass marketers will have cornered 40 percent
of all passenger car lube oil sales with sarvlct stations accounting for
only 35 percent of the market.
This shift in lube oil sales patterns has also brought about a marked
change in the disposition of waste crankcase oils. Formerly more than 80
percent of all used oils from passenger cars were handled by service sta-
tions, car dealers, or garages who, in the main, either paid collectors to
haul the oil away or received a payment from collectors for the waste oil.
The collectors would sell the used oil to re-refiners and producers of
asphalt or use the oil for highway maintenance and dust control. At present,
less than 60 percent of these wastes are handled 1n this fashion. Prior
to the present study no information was available as to the ultimate disposi-
tion of more than 40 percent of all used crankcase oils from passenger cars.
Indiscriminate disposal of used crankcase oils can lead to serious pol-
lution problems if the oil is discharged to a body of water or if it is
dumped on the ground and seeps through to the water table. In addition, lubri-
cating oils are a valuable resource and are now in short supply. Further,
the survival of many companies which re-refine used oils 1s being threatened
due to inadequate supplies of feedstock.
r
In order to estimate the magnitude of dispersed sources of used oil, the
methods of used oil disposal and consumer attitudes towards oil purchases
(especially the purchase of recycled oil), i study was made of the purchase
attitudes and disposal practices of persons who buy automobile crankcase oil
1n discount stores and subsequently change their own oil. In cooperation
with West Coast Community Surveys, Inc. of Berkeley, California, and Prof.
Francesco Nicosia of the University of California at Berkeley, a questionnaire
was prepared and used in interviews with approximately 600 persons who were
buying oil at discount stores in Oakland, California. A copy of the question-
naire is contained in Appendix A of this report. The results of the survey
were analyzed and interpreted by Prof. Nicosia. The results of this analysis
form the basis of this report.
-------
Figure 1
Passenger-car motor-oil market
Estimated size of market-600-milliwi gal.
Estimated share of market at retail: Q1961 Q1971
Service
stations
Car dealers
drifts, auto
supply stores
Mass
marketers
45%j
I7T]
Source: National Petroleum News; McGraw Hill, Inc; New York; August, 1971, p.54.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
In this survey consumers who change their own engine oil have been
Interviewed. The main purposes of the Interviews were to Identify the
ways these consumers dispose of the used o1l> to estimate the quantity of
oil disposed of 1n each way, and to probe Into the psychological predis-
positions that underlie the choice of different methods. The stress was
on problems concerning pollution, although some attention was given to
problems concerning conservation of resources.
The research design chosen was as follows. "Discount" stores in the
Oakland, California,area, and a few 1n near-by areas, were selected on a
judgmental basis. Permission from the store managers was obtained to
Interview buyers of engine oil 1n the store. 598 personal Interviews
were obtained during the last three weeks of August 1973, The completed
questionnaires ( Appendix A ) were coded and varifted: key punching and
contingency cleaning were followed by data analysis.
The structure of the analysis and the findings are presented 1n the
report beginning on page 9 . The following section summarizes the results
of data analysis according to the areas of Interest explored.
-------
OIL PURCHASES AND TYPES OF BUYERS
During the Interviewing days, 3,027 quarts of oil were purchased. Of
this amount, 774 quarts were purchased for adding only; 1,722 for oil chang-
ing only; and 531 quarts for both adding and changing oil.
On the basis of respondents' estimates, the total annual volume of oil
purchases for oil changes only amounts to 13,300 quarts, for a man of 27.4
quarts per year per respondent.
Several demographic characteristics are related to purchases of oil-
age, education, Income, race, and typt of residence (e.g. house or apart-
ment). For example, respondents 1n their forties, with about twelve years of
schooling, and relatively higher Incomes (about 93 respondents) record a mean
annual purchase of 31.4 quarts; whereas subjects 1n their sixties* with about
10 years of schooling, and relatively lower Incomes, record a mean purchase
of 21.9 quarts per year.
WHAT KIND OF OIL IS PURCHASED AND WHY?
A very large proportion of the respondents buy "high reputation" oils.
For example, over 55% of the respondents bought brands like Pennzoll,
Quaker State and Castrol, and another 20% bought brands such as Standard,
Shell, Chevron and Havollne (Texaco). Furthermore, about 80% of the Inter-
viewees bought high quality, heavy duty oil (API grades SC, SO, and SE).
Brand name and lowest price are the most frequently mentioned reasons
for oil purchases. Note, however, that those who buy larger quantities of
oil tend to be less concerned with price than those who buy smaller quan-
tities of oil. A factor analysis of the "reasons for purchase" strongly sug-
gests that the respondents tend to buy oil directly from "discount" stores
1n order to save money v1s-a-v1s the prices prevailing at gasoline stations
and car dealers. Yet among the brands available 1n such stores, the respon-
dents tend to buy the more expensive products.
LOCATION AND REASONS FOR CHANGING ONE'S OWN OIL
Over 80% of the respondents mentioned "home garage" or "street or drive-
way" as the location where they change engine oil. The most Important reason
for doing so 1s cost (64%); "auto hobby" and "better for car" are the next
most important reasons (24%).
-------
DISPOSAL OF THE USED OIL AND PREDISPOSITIONS TOMARD
ECOLOGICALLY SOUND MEANS OF DISPOSAL
About 33% of the interviewees dispose of the used oil by dumping 1t in
the backyard or elsewhere on the property. The remainder of the respondents
dispose of their used oil in the following manners: service stations (15%),
public dump (11%), storm sewer (11%), garbage can (10%), empty lots (3%),
and other means (17%). The quality of oil disposed of by each of these means,
per year, follows the same order of Importance. For example, 3,776 quarts
per year are dumped 1n backyards while 394 quarts per year are dumped in empty
lots.
Some of the methods of disposal mentioned by the respondents require
more effort and activity than others. About 40% of the oil 1s disposed of
by methods requiring a high level of activity (taking 1t to service stations,
public dumps, or empty lots). Thus a significant amount of human energy
might be harnessed by a program concerned with returning used oft to central
collection facilities.
Furthermore, those consumers who dispose of the used oil by high acti-
vity methods tend to experience more trouble 1n getting rld'Of their used
oil than those who use methods requiring a low level of activity such as
dumping the oil in backyards and storm sewers.
HOW MUCH USED OIL MILL BE RETURNED?
The respondents were asked a hypothetical question: "If all oil were
sold in resealable containers, how likely would you be to return your used
oil to a collection facility?" The level of willingness is high: 35% said
they would definitely do so, and 30% said they would probably do so.
However, experience suggests that responses to hypothetical questions
are not reliable. The data analysis shows that the level of expressed
willingness varies a great deal according to two underlying psychological
factors: (a) whether the respondents experience trouble with their present
method of disposal of used oil, and (b) whether their method Implies a high
or low level of activity.
More importantly, the amount of used oil that may be returned varies
not only by the level of respondents' willingness but also by the amount
of trouble experienced and type of disposal method. There 1s some evidence
that three variables may affect "amount of returned used oil" in a
non-linear fashion.
This section concludes with an Illustration of the wide range of esti-
mates of the total amount of used oil that may be returned, and with some
-------
suggestions of how this range may be narrowed. There 1s a need for further
analysis if policy decisions are to be based on the prediction of how much
used oil is likely to be returned 1f oil 1s sold 1n resealable containers.
ARE THERE OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING WILLINGNESS TO RETURN USED OIL?
Factors which may affect the amount of used oil the respondents would
return to collection facilities have been considered. Two Variables were
derived — "ecology consciousness" and "conservation awareness" — but data
analyses, although limited, show weak or no relationships between those
scales and willingness to return used oil.
Another potentially very Important factor does not seem to be re-
lated to the likelihood of returning oil. We asked the Interviewees to
express what would be the minimum deposit charge that would make them re-
turn a resealable container. Here 1t was found that those who buy large
volumes of oil are no more likely to mention a low deposit than those who
buy small volumes of oil; similarly, those 1n higher Income groups are no
more likely to mention a high deposit than those in lower Income groups.
Further analysis may clarify this lack of association.
A PROBE INTO CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES
As mentioned above, the stress of the research design was on problems
concerning pollution. Regarding conservation of resources, it was found
that the willingness to buy recycled oil -- if government certified -- is
high: 57% of the respondents said that they would definitely buy or prob-
ably buy (26% and 31%, respectively). Further analysis of this willingness
is advisable for here, too, the respondents were reacting to a "hypothe-
tical" question.
The study indicated that labeling of recycled oil may be a signifi-
cant factor in the public's assessment of Hs quality. The survey showed
that the term "re-refined" implies "high quality oil" for 51% of the re-
spondents, while "reprocessed" Implies high quality for 20%, and "recycled"
for 13% of the respondents.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
In this project,information about two interdependent aspects of the
problem of dispersed oil sources was studied. First, 1t was determined
how much oil is bought, what kind of oil is bought, and how much oil is
disposed of by which method. Second, the reasons why people behave differ-
ently were explored. Associations were found between some demographic
-------
attributes of the buyers and their volume of purchases. Associations were
also found among a few psychological variables, the current methods of oil
disposal, and the Intentions to return used oil to central collection fa-
cilities.
At different points in this chapter, possibilities for further anal-
yses of the what and the why of the respondents1 behaviors and feelings
are indicated"!Other useful questions can be answered with the present
data base.
For example: Are demographic characteristics associated with differ-
ent methods of disposal? Are Income and education related with scales of
"ecological consciousness" and "conservation awareness"? Since the num-
ber of non-white and white respondents 1s nearly equal, and since 1t 1s
generally true that the two ethnic groups vary In Income and education dis-
tribution, do some of the findings for the entire sample vary substan-
tially in each ethnic group? And, finally, can ways be found to limit to
a more manageable range the estimate of how much used oil 1s likely to be
returned if resealable containers are made available?
A word about generalizing the results of the study. Appendix 36
(The Sample) gives an idea of how closely the present sample reproduces
some demographic characteristics of the Oakland area. A natural question
is to wonder whether this area represents, say, the standard metropolitan
areas of the entire country. Simple, though time consuming, computations
can be made and a reliable answer obtained.
It should be stressed, however, that other more Important factors
should be kept in mind, concerning both the ability to generalize the re-
sults and any future studies that may be undertaken. First, evidence
seems to show that both the what and why may depend on social-psychologi-
cal predispositions. Thus a sample which 1s "representative" of age, In-
come, education and race may not be representative of other relevant
psychological variables. This 1s a consideration which 1s all too often
overlooked and may lead to misuses and misinterpretations of higher order
statistical analyses. Second, different climates and other environmental
conditions throughout the nation may well affect the computation of the
annual purchases and disposal of oil. Finally, buyers were observed only
during the last three weeks of August. It 1s probable that the volume
of their purchases and their uses of different methods of disposal may
vary throughout the year.
-------
3.0 OIL PURCHASES AND TYPES OF BUYERS
3.1 Purchase of 011
The respondents were buying oil for their cars and motorcycles* for
the following purposes:
TABLE 1: Purpose of Purchase
TO ADD OIL ONLY 43.5* .(260)
TO CHANGE THE OIL ONLY 47.SK (284)
TO ADD AND CHANGE OIL 9.0$ ( 54)
598
Of these respondents, twenty-four were buying oil to add to a second car,
twenty-nine were buying oil to change 1n a second car, and elaht for adding
and changing the oil in their second vehicle. The "add and change" category
Includes both those people who will first add some oil and later change 1t,
and those who will change their oil first but have anticipated the need for
oil to be added at a later time.
Among those who bought oil only to add (260), 73.856 (192) said that
they usually change the oil 1n their vehicle themselves. Therefore, for
purposes of studying issues related to the purchase of oil (e.g., consumer
attitudes with respect to recycled oil), there is a total of 598 respondents.
For issues dealing with the changing of oil (e.g., modes of disposing of
used oil),, there is an upper limit of 530 respondents (I.e., 192 plus 284
plus 54).
The total quantity of oil purchased by the respondents on the days of
the interviewing was 3,027 quarts. Of this amount 774 quarts were used for
adding only, 1,722 were used for changing only, and 531 quarts were used
for adding and changing.
The amount of oil purchased, or poured into engines, does not equal
* There were only 9 respondents who bought oil for motorcycles.
9 Preceding page blank
-------
the amount of oil which 1s drained from engines during oil changes. Some
oil is burned by the engine and 1s discharged to the atmosphere. Therefore
the annual amount of oil used by each respondent for oil changes was comput-
ed by dividing a respondent's estimate of how many nnlles per year he and
his family drove a particular veh1cle,by his estimate of the average number
of miles driven between oil changes. This new quantity was then multiplied
by the respondent's estimate of the amount of oil required to change the
oil in this engine once:
# of miles driven/year
' amount of oil required c annual amount of
* to make an oil change c oil used for oil
# of miles between oil changes changes
This estimate was computed for all of the respondents with the exception of
those who never change their oil themselves* since their estimates could be
expected to be less accurate.
The frequency distribution of annual amounts of oil used for oil changes
is shown in Table 2.
10
-------
TABLE 2
Frequency Distribution of Annual Consumption
of 011 for 011 Changes
Total 011 Consumption* Number of Respondents
1-10 quarts 89
11 - 20 157
21 - 30 82
31 - 40 46
41 - 50 22
51-60 23
61 - 70 11
71-80 17
81-90 4
91 - 100 9
More than 100 5
Number of Respondents = 465
The estimates of annual oil usage for oil changes were then summed
to obtain the total annual amount of oil Involved 1n oil changes — 13,300
quarts. The mean is 27.4 quarts per year.
3.2 Mho Are The Buyers?
Who are the respondents who buy large versus small amounts of oil
annually (relative to each other)? Of course, the size of one's vehicle
makes a difference. But if vehicle size 1s held constant, how does one's
Estimates of less than 4 quarts and more than 125 are ex
11
-------
age, education and Income correlate with the amount of oil used for oil chan-
ges annually? Tables 3, 4, and 5 answer this question.
TABLE 3
Age and Annual 011 Consumption
Age
18 &
19 -
23 -
27 -
31 -
36 -
46 -
Over
under
22
26
30
35
45
60
60
Number of
Respondents
23
73
101
67
53
55
77
25
Average Quarts
20.985
24.321
28.701
26.400
29.668
32.964
31.409
24.950
Total Quarts
483
1775
2899
1769
1572
1813
2418
624
^Estimates of less than 4 quarts and more than 125 are excluded.
12
-------
TABLE 4
tducation and Annual 011 Consumption
Education
(years)
5
6
7
8
Q
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Number of
Respondents
10
6
6
12
9
21
21
153
46
60
33
42
55
Average Quarts
27.700
39.600
15.417
35.052
34.556
29.400
25.168
27.802
29,648
29.627
30.511
24.272
26.315
Total Quarts
277
238
93
421
311
617
529
4254
1364
1778
1007
1019
1447
13
-------
TABLE 5
Income and Annual 011 Consumption
Income
Under $3000
3000 - 4999
5000 - 7999
8000 - 9999
10,000 - 14,999
15,000 - 19,999
Over 20,000
Number of
Respondents
40
32
49
73
148
74
50
Average Quarts
22.684
22.243
26.136
28.114
27.780
30.497
36.603
Total Quarts
907
712
1281
2052
4111
2257
1830
Some Inferences can be made from these tables. First, the relation-
ship between age and oil consumption 1s, 1n principle, complex. The results
suggest a nonlinear relationship -- the largest consumers (1n terms of av-
erage number of quarts used annually for oil changes) are those between 31
and 60 years of age, with both those younger and older consuming consider-
ably less. In essence, large purchases coincide with the high activity per-
iod of a person's life.
With respect to education, the relationship 1s unclear. The largest
average users are men who have not completed high school, but Increased
education does not seem to bring lower oil usage, except, perhaps, for those
in the highest educational categories. Further data analyses could clarify
this relationship (e.g., by considering the respondent's occupation).
There is a strong positive relationship between annual income and oil
consumption. With the exception of only one category, oil usage for oil
changes increases steadily with income.
A typology (in Euclidean space) was computed of the respondents based
on their aqe, education, income, residence (house/apartment), and ethnicity.
Four distinct types were found which differ significantly, particularly with
respect to age, education, income, and annual oil consumption. The four
types are defined in Table 6.
14
-------
TABLE 7
0-Types and Annual Oil Consumption
0-Type Number of Members
1 150
2 58
3 93
4 283
Total Annual
Consumption
3724.25
2921.38
7202.40
Mean Annual
Consumption
24.83
21.90
31.41
25.45
From Table 7 It 1s clear that there is a particularly large difference
In the mean consumption figures for types 2 and 3. Type 2 appears to be
composed of older men, with relatively low education and Income. Respon-
dents with these characteristics would tend not to drive a great deal. In
contrast, the members of type 3 are middle-aged, most likely at the peak of
their earning power. Although these respondents would tend to rely heavily
on their cars, both for commuting and leisure activities, they are also able,
because of their relatively high Incomes, to take care of their vehicles
and change the oil 1n them frequently. Types 1 and 4 are marked by moderate
oil consumption. Type 1 contains people who are over a decade older, have
slightly higher educational attainment, and have somewhat higher Incomes
than those in type 4.
In sum, 1t 1s evident that relatively simple demographic characteris-
tics are associated with the quantity of 011 bought. Although further ana-
lyses would be necessary to assess more preelsely the Interactions among
such variables, the data strongly suggest that any program designed to af-
fect buying patterns would have to take these findings Into account.
16
-------
4.0 WHAT KIND OF OIL IS PURCHASED AND WHY?
4.1 What Grades of 011 Are Purchased?
The present sample was drawn entirely from Individuals purchasing oil
from retail stores as opposed to service stations. Although no data were
obtained on those customers who buy oil at service stations, 1t appears that
those who purchase their oil from retail stores are primarily Interested
in obtaining high quality oils.
Over 55% of the respondents bought high reputation oil produced by in-
dependent oil companies (e.g., Pennzbll, Quaker State, Castrol, Valvollne),
and another 2Q% purchased oils bearing the trademark of a major oil producer
(e.g. Standard, Shell, Chevron, Havollne [Texaco]).
Another indication of the desire for oil of high quality 1s the grade
of oil purchased. The findings, shown 1n Table 8, Indicate that over 80%
of the respondents purchased the highest grades of oil: API grades SC, SD,
and SE.
17
-------
TABLE 8
Grade of Oil Purchased
SC and SE
SO and SE
SC and SD-SE
SE
SA or ML
SC or MS
SB and SC
Others - rated
Others - not rated
Number of
Respondents
245
96
69
68
40
21
20
20
9
588
41,7
16.3
11.7
11.6
6.8
3.6
3.4
3.4
1.5
100.0
4.2 Brand Name and Price
The concern for high quality in oil purchased was further explored by
determining the criteria used by consumers 1n choosing among oils. The
factors are listed below in the order of the frequency with which they were
mentioned (a respondent was allowed to name several criteria):
18
-------
TABLE 9
Factors 1n 011 Purchase Decisions
Number of times
Factor mentioned Relative Frequency
Brand name 461 56.3%
Lowest price 199 24.3
Viscosity 69 8.4
SAE rating 12 1.5
Recommendations of mechanic,
dealer, or manufacturer 13 1.6
Medium price 6 .7
Recommendations of friends
or relatives 5 .6
High price 5 .6
Labeling* ' 3 .4
Other reasons 46 5.6
819 100.0
Respondents were then asked to rank these factors 1n their order of
Importance 1n deciding which oil to buy. Whereas brand name was mentioned
2.3 times as often as lowest price, brand name Was selected as the most
Important factor fn the purchase decision 3.1 times as often as lowest price:
*refers to phrases like "meets or exceeds all car manufacturers' warranty
requirements"
19
-------
TABLE 10
Most Important Factor in Purchase Decision
Number of times
Factor mentioned
Brand name 349
Lowest price 114
Viscosity 34
SAE rating 8
Others 31
Relative Frequency, %
536
These findings have several Implications for the marketability of re-
cycled oil. First, since brand name (which we take as an Insurance of high
quality 1n the minds of consumers) 1s generally more Important than lowest
price, recycled oil produced by one of the well-known Independents or by
one of the major oil companies may be able to gain acceptance. Furthermore,
as is shown in Table 30 below, recycled oil would be most attractive to the
consumer 1f 1t were also certified by the government as equal 1n quality to
virgin oil.
4.3 Is Price Related to Quantity
Questions arise as to whether those who buy a great deal of oil annually
are particularly Interested 1n lowest price and whether those who use re-
latively little oil can afford to concern themselves with maximizing quality.
In other words, one might anticipate that those who buy relatively more oil
might mention lowest price as the most Important factor 1n their purchase
decision more often than those who buy relatively less oil.
Table 11 shows, however, that, if anything, those who buy larger vol-
umes of oil are less concerned with buying oil on the basis of lowest price
than those who buy smaller quantities of oil.
This finding could be interpreted in several ways. First, large pur-
chases of oil may indicate high vehicle usage (and, therefore, a high degree
20
-------
TABLE 11
Most Important Factor in Purchase Decision
*
and Annual Oil Consumption
Very Low Low
Moderate
High
Most Important
Factor
Lowest price
Brand name
Viscosity
SAE rating
Labeling
Performance
Other
Number of
Respondents
25
71
9
0
0
0
4
Number of Number of
% Respondents % Respondents &
22.9
65.1
8.3
0
0
0
3.7
27
84
2
2
0
3
7
21.6
67.2
1.6
7.6
0
2.4
5.6
27
83
7
5
0
5
10
19.7
60.6
5.1
3.6
0
3.6
7.3
Number of
Respondents
10
45
3
0
1
2
4
%
15.4
69.2
4.6
0
1.5
3.1
6.2
* The observed relationship 1s statistically significant at the 0.136 level.
ow: less than or equal to 12 quarts per year
over 12 but less than or equal to 20 quarts per year
ite: over 20 but less than or equal to 50 quarts per year
over 50 quarts per year
r of Respondents « 436
-------
of reliance on the vehicle), which could explain the desire to maximize
quality rather than minimize cost. Similarly,, frequent oil changes may re-
flect meticulous car care; such an owner would probably want the best oil
possible for his car, regardless of price. Further, It 1s possible that
those who buy greater volumes of oil own larger ears, and therefore re-
quire more oil per change, than those who buy smaller volumes of oil. In
any case, the major significance of this finding 1s that low price does not
constitute a powerful means by which to Influence those who buy a large
volume of oil annually.
4.4 A Semi-Technical Note
The Identification and measurement of the reasons underlying people's
behavior are complex and time consuming operations. They usually require
a number of "pre-tests" and data analyses before reliability and validity
can be established. Although these operations were omitted 1n this study,
a factor analysis has been performed for the responses 1n Tables 9 and 10,
separately. Some Interesting results were obtained. First, price and
brand name measure with high reliability one "cognitive" dimension (I.e.,
reason) in the minds of the respondents. Furthermore, price and brand are
negatively associated in this dimension.
The results Indicate, however, that much more probing will be necess-
ary should one be Interested 1n a more precise Identification of the re-
spondents' motivations and their effects on quality and quantity of oil
purchased by different types of people*
22
-------
5.0 LOCATIONS AND REASONS FOR CHANGING ONE'S OWN OIL
5.1 Where is the Oil Change Performed?
One of the goals of this effort was to determine the following (for
those respondents that change their oil at least some of the time): (1)
who changes the oil, (2) where 1s 1t changed, and (3) the reasons why the
respondent changes Ms own oil.
Of the 531 respondents who buy oil for oil changes, 95% change the oil
themselves or have a friend do 1t. Among this group of the 496 people,
there is substantial variation as to where they change their oil:
TABLE 12
Location of 011 Change for Those
Changing Their Own 011
Location Number of Respondents Relative Frequency. %
Home garage 192 38.7%
Street or driveway 209 42.1
Service Station 79 16.0
Others 16 3.2
496 100.0
Since only 16% of those who change their oil themselves do 1t at a service
station, the vast majority of respondents probably experience some difficulty
in disposing of their oil. They may not have suitable containers 1n which
to put their waste oil and may not know where to dispose of 1t.
23
-------
5.2 Why Do They Change Their Own Oil?
The most common reason given for changing and adding one's own oil was
the savings involved. As mentioned earlier an Individual's decision to
purchase oil at a discount store 1s motivated primarily by a desire to save
money. Since nearly all service stations and garages charge persons who
purchase their oil elsewhere a significant fee for changing oil, little or
no savings would be realized by buying oil at a discount store and paying
someone else to change it. Evidently, spending a little extra at the dis-
count store in order to obtain the best grades of oil 1s rationalized by
the savings which results from servicing one's own vehicle.
Cost was not the only factor which people mentioned as reasons for chang-
ing their own oil, however. One hundred and fourteen respondents said that
they changed their own oil because they enjoyed doing the maintenance work
on their car. Convenience was also a significant reason, as was the belief
that it was better for the car.
TABLE 13
Reasons for Changing One's Own 011
Reason Number of Times Mentioned Relative Frequency, %
Cost 378 56
Auto hobby 114 17
Better for car 87 13
Convenience 55 8
Lower quality of oil
available at service station 24
Other reasons 14
672
(a respondent was permitted to give several reasons)
Persons interviewed were then asked which factor was the most important
in deciding to change their own oil.
24
-------
TABLE 14
Most Important Reason for Changing One's Own 011
Reason Absolute Frequency Relative Frequency
Cost 320 64.6*
Auto hobby 63 12.7
Better for car 56 11.3
Convenience 34 6.9
Lower quality of oil
available at service stations 12 2.4
Other reasons 10 2.0
495 100.0
As illustrated in the previous technical note, some further analysis of these
"verbal" responses should give a stronger Insight Into the psychological
meaning(s) and the statistical strength of these observed reasons.
25
-------
6.0 DISPOSAL OF THE
TOWARDS ECOLOGICALLY SOUND MEANS OF DISPOSAL
6.1 How 1s the Used 011 Disposed?
As shown 1n Table 12, over 80% of the respondents who change their own
oil change 1t either in their garage ©r 1n front of their residence. The
following table illustrates the means of disposing of the used oil:
TABLE 15
Means of Disposing of Used 011
Means Absolute Frequency Relative Frequency
Dump in backyard or else-
where on property 157 33.6%
Take to service station 73 15.6
Take to public dump 54 11.6
Dump in storm sewer 53 11.4
Dump in garbage can 50 10.7
Dump in empty lot 16 3.4
Pour down toilet 4 0.9
Sell 3 0.6
Pour down sink 2 0.4
Use around the house 3 0.6
Other means of disposal _52_ 11.2
467* 100.0%
* approximately fifty respondents gave multiple answers
27
-------
In addition to the number of respondents who use a particular means
of disposal, the annual amount of used oil which was disposed of by each
method was determined:
TABLE 16
Annual Amount of 011 Disposed of By
Each Means of Disposal
Annual Amount, (quarts)
3776
2014
1663
1244
677
394
145
9
1858
11,780 (quarts)
Note that although pouring oil into the storm sewer was mentioned only
one time less than taking it to a public dump, the latter method of disposal
accounted for about 33 percent more oil than the former method. Consequent-
ly (and fortunately), those who use the sewer are relatively light users of
oil compared to those who take their used oil to a public dump. Similarly,
those consumers who place their used oil in garbage cans also appear to be
light users relative to both of the groups mentioned above.
28
-------
6.2 Predispositions Toward Ecologically Sound Means of Disposal
The means of disposal listed in Table 16 require different amounts of
activity from each respondent. Ne can group these means Into those that
imply "high" or "low" activity as follows:
TABLE 17
Annual Amount of 011 Disposed of By Methods
Requiring High Vs. Low Degrees of Activity
(in quarts)
High Activity Methods Low Activity Methods
• ••""^^^•"^^^•"^^•^^••^••"••^^••^•••""^
Service station 2014 Backyard 3776
Public dump 1663 Storm sewer 1244
Empty lot 394 Garbage 677
Sell 9 Toilet 145
4080 5842
About 40% of the total amount of oil was disposed of by methods which
require a relatively high level of effort. It 1s therefore possible that
there 1s a significant amount of human energy which might be harnessed 1n
a program of returning used oil to a reasonably convenient collection
facility.
These figures also permit an examination of the distribution and amount
of pollution generated annually by the respondents. (It has been assumed
that used oil which 1s sold or returned to a service Station creates no
pollution.)
Oil dumped on the ground will seep down and has some chance of reach-
ing the water table, depending on location of the disposal site. Oil is
biodegradable, however, and dumping 1t in thousands of backyards and lots
is preferable to concentrating it in one area, as 1n public dumps (which in
the case of Oakland are located quite near San Francisco Bay.) 011 placed
in garbage cans ends up 1n the public dump, too. Oil flushed down the toi-
let receives the same processing as sewage, which is to say, processing
not designed for oil. In some areas, the storm run-off and sewage are
combined 1n one system, but assuming that they are not, pe1""-5"" nil down
the storm sewer is the most ecologically dangerous form ol
29
-------
especially during the rainy season when the amount of run-off may exceed
filtering capacity. Table 18 summarizes the data for the volume of oil
disposed of in environmentally harmful ways:
TABLE 18
Water and Land Pollution Caused by 011 Disposal
4,170 quarts are dumped in backyards
2,340 quarts end up in the public'dump
1,244 quarts are dumped 1n the,, stqrm sewer
145 quarts are flushed down the toilet
7,899 -^
6.3 Amount of Trouble Experienced In Used Oil Disposition
i
In addition to the 73 people who toolr their used oil to a service
station after draininq it at home, tflere were 79 respondents who changed
their own oil at a service station. Whereas these 79 respondents were
generally omitted from the analysis involving the various means of disr
posal, the existence of this group should be kept in mind when inter-
preting particular results. For instance, the responses Of these 79 peo-
ple were not included in the answers to the following question:
How much trouble do you have getting rid of the
used oil -- is it a lot of trouble, quite a bit
of trouble, a little trouble, or no trouble at all?
30
-------
TABLE 19
Trouble in Disposing of 011
Amount of Trouble Absolute Frequency Relative Frequency
A lot of trouble 15 3.6*
Quite a bit 16 3.8
A little trouble 70 16.6
No trouble 320 76.0
421 100.0%
Since, as 1s shown 1n Table 20, those who take their used oil to a
service station are the group most likely to say that they experience a
lot of trouble, we can assume that adding the 79 respondents who chanqe
their oil at a service station would Increase, although not dramatically,
the estimation of the amount of trouble which consumers experience 1n dis-
posing of their used oil. The point 1s not so uuch that 1n every case the
addition of this group would make a difference for the analysis, for 1n
this instance the association between means of disposal and trouble ex-
perienced in disposing of used oil is extremely weak, but rather that the
policy maker should be alert to the possible difference the Inclusion of
this group could make.
31
-------
TABLE 20
Trouble Experienced By Various Means of Disposal
Trouble
Means of Disposal A lot Quite a bit A Uttle None
Sell
Service Station
Sewer
Toilet
Garbage
Backyard
Empty Lot
Public Dump
Other
5.1* 3.4*
(3) (2)
2.4*
(1)
M •»
2.3% 4.7
(1) (2)
4.9* 1.4%
(7) (2)
7.1*
(1)
7.5*
(4)
3.6* 8.9*
(2) (5)
3.4* 3.9*
(14) (16)
50*
(1)
15.3*
(9)
11.9*
(5)
33.3*
(1)
25.6*
(11)
11.9*
(17)
14.3*
(2)
24.5*
(13)
14.3*
(8)
16.1*
(67)
50*
(1)
76. 3<
(45)
85.7*
(36)
66.7*
(2)
67.4*
(29)
81.8*
(117)
78.6*
(ID
67.9*
(36)
73.2*
(41)
76.6*
(318)
( ) = number of respondents
6.4 Some Speculations
It is interesting that while some respondents engage in considerable
activity in disposing of their oi1! (e.g., taking it to the public dump),
32
-------
very few people find it particularly troublesoma to dispose of their oil.
There is some relationship between the amount of activity Involved In
disposing of the used oil asid the amount ©f trouble experienced, but the
relationship is not particularly strong.
TABLE 21
Effect of Amount of Disposal Activity on Trouble
Experienced in Disposing of Used Oil*
Activity
A lot
Quite a bit
Amount of Trouble
A little
None
Total
High Activity 10
Low Activity 13
7.J
5.6%
25 93 128
19.5% 72.7% 100%
34 184 231
14.7% 79.7% 100%
Number of Respondents 359
High Activity: Sell, service station, public dump, empty lot
Low Activity: Storm sewer, toilet, backyard, garbage
* The observed relationship 1s statistically significant at the 0.15 level.
Whereas 27.3% (7.8% + 19.5%) of those engaging in high activity means of
disposal experience some trouble, only 20.3% (5,6% + 14.7%) of those en-
gaging in low activity means of disposal experience some trouble. The re-
lationship exists in the expected direction, but it 1s not as strong as one
might have anticipated.
Although the respondents do not experience a great deal of trouble in
disposing of their oil, this may be largely at the expense of the environ-
ment. It is probably not so much a question of people not caring about
what happens to the oil as it 1s a matter of their not realizing where the
oil eventually goes. We can speculate that they are unaware of the eco-
logical implications of their actions.
Compounding the problem is the absense of a well-publicized and feasible
means of ecologically-sound disposition. Even those who take their used oil
to service stations may encounter resistance since the stations themselves
-------
in some Instances must pay to have used oil carted away. Probably, a large
portion of the respondents who are able to change their oil at a service
station or bring their oil there may be able to do this because the service
station has special facilities for user-performed oil changes, they are
friendly with the management or because they do It without the knowledge or
permission of the service station owners. In sum, the consumer may be rela-
tively unaware of the implications of his actions, and market forces may
not be structured to direct used oil Into ecologically-sound means of dis-
posal .
34
-------
7.0 HOW MUCH USED OIL WILL BE RETURNED?
In this section, a few key questions for public management will be
examined by Identifying some of the psychological processes that may
describe the potential success of different options dealing with pollution
control policies.
7.1 What "Causes" Willingness to Return Used 011?
How can public willingness to return resealable containers to a col-
lection facility be estimated? To begin with, the level of willingness
of the interviewees is high, as illustrated in Table 22:
TABLE 22
Willingness to Return Oil in Resealable Containers
Absolute Frequency Relative Frequency
Definitely would ... 210 35.9*
Probably would 181 30.9
Might 71 12.1
Probably would not 73 12.5
Definitely would not 50 8.5
585 100.0%
Experience in conducting surveys has shown that answers to "hypothe-
tical" questions have low predictive values. The results in Table 22 can
be analyzed by asking: What factors may account for willingness to return
used oil? In Table 23 the amount of trouble that one currently experiences
in disposing of his oil is positively related to willingness, but the re-
lationship is not particularly strong:
35
-------
TABLE 23
Trouble in Disposal and Willingness to Return Used 011*
A lot !HHfe2£
Willing to Return Quite a lot A little None
Definitely would 15 32 118
50* 45.n 37.1%
Probably would 9 24 96
30% 34.3% 30.2%
Might 4 6 44
13* 8.6* 13.8*
Probably not and
definitely not 2 8 60
7* 11.4* 18.9*
30 70 318
100* 100* 100*
* The observed relationship 1s statistically significant at the 0.25 level.
Since it has already been shown that the amount of activity involved in
disposing of one's oil 1s positively, although weakly, related to the amount
of trouble experienced (Table 21), it would not be surprising to find that
the amount of disposition activity 1s positively related to willingness to
return used oil. Table 24 shows that this is 1n fact the case:
36
-------
TABLE 24
Disposal Activity and Willingness to Return 011*
Activity
Willingness to Return High . Low
Definitely would 61 80
47.7% 34.6%
Probably would 41 70
32.0% 30.4%
Might 11 36
8.6% 15.7%
Probably would not
Definitely would not 15 44
11.7% 19.1%
128 230
100% 100%
Number of respondents = 358
* The observed relationship 1s statistically significant at the 0.015 level
Positive relationships among three psychological variables have been
established, but the casual nature, if any, of such relationships has not
yet been explored. What is known at this stage can be represented 1n the
flow chart below:
37
-------
ACTIVITY
Involved In
disposing of1
used oil
WILLINGNESS
to return used
oil to collection
facility 1f sold
1n resealable con-
tainers
TROUBLE
experienced 1n
disposing of
used oil
Is the relationship between "activity" and "willingness" simply due to
the Intervening effect of "trouble"? Or does "activity" specify the con-
ditions under which the relationship between "trouble" and "willingness"
holds more or less strongly?
If the relationship between activity and willingness were spurious
(I.e., due to the Intervening effect of trouble), then the association be-
tween them would be wiped out for each of the two values of the variable
"trouble" (i.e., for "no trouble", and for "some or more trouble"). This
situation is presented in Table 25:
38
-------
V9
TABLE 25
Willingness tp Return By Trouble in Disposal and Activity in Disposal
Willingness
Definitely would
Probably would
Might
Probably would not
Definitely would not
Trouble
Some or More
Means of Disposal
High ActivityLow Activity
24
63.2%
13
34.2%
2.62
18
36.0%
19
38.0%
14.0%
12.03
None
Means of Disposal
High ActivityLow Activity
39
41.5%
30
31.9%
11
11.7%
14
14.9%
62
33.0%
55
29.3%
30
16.0%
41
38
SO
94
188
-------
The figures in Table 25 clearly show that the relationship between
activity and willingness is not spurious; 1n fact, 1t 1s specified by the
variable trouble. When trouble 1s experienced, the relationship becomes
stronger; when it is absent, the relationship becomes weaker.
7.2 Some Implications for Public Management
What are the implications for public management of the psychological
process which seems to underlie the respondents' willingness to return used
oil in resealable containers to central collection points? This question
can be answered by proceeding in two steps.
First, the number of respondents likely to return used oil must be
determined. For example, 35% of the Interviewees said they would definite-
ly do so (Table 22). However, the relationships established in Table 25
indicate that this willingness depends on the amount of trouble experienced
and the activity implied by the methods of oil disposal.
This suggests that respondents who said they were willing to return
the oil may have a different probability of doing so. To Illustrate, while
the respondents who experience trouble and dispose of their oil by a high
activity method may be very likely to return used oil to a central collection
point (24 respondents), the respondents at the opposite end of the scale
(no trouble, low activity) may be much less likely to do so (a total of 62
respondents). The same considerations apply to the Interpretation of the
other degrees of willingness 1n Table 25.
All in all, the number of people who will return used oil to a central
facility may differ substantially from the verbal "hypothetical" responses
recorded in Table 22. Further data analysis could yield an estimate of
the probability of respondents to do 1n fact what they think they would do,
and thus provide an estimate of the size of the "good" market segment.
Now, step two. As in many other management questions, the size of the
market potential depends not only on number of people but also, and more
importantly, on the volume of their purchases; that is, in this study, on
the volume of used oil returned to the environment. For Instance, the 24
respondents who may have the highest probability to return their used oil
may account for only a tiny fraction of the oil consumed annually. Table
26 provides the required information:
40
-------
TABLE 26
Annual Oil Consumption (In Quarts) By Activity and Trouble
In Disposal and Willingness to Return Used 011
Trouble
Willingness
Def. Would
Prob. Would
Might
Prob. Would Not
Def. Would Not
Some
Disposal Activity
TflghTow
482
278
132
639
332
0
974
None
Disposal Activity
TTTgF "*" Cow
1399
918
394
1502
1698
772
Total Volume
of Oil
4022
3226
1298
1776
10,322
Table 26 indicates that those who experience no trouble dispose of
jnore oil than those who experience some trouble. Similarly, more oil is
disposed of by those who engage 1n little disposal activity than by those
who exert much energy.
It can now be asked: How much used oil will be returned to central
collection facilities? The complexity of the Information in Table 26
calls for a cautious answer.
First, if the respondent's expressed willingness were to be "trusted",
one would predict that 4,022 quarts,, plus some percentage of 3,226 quarts,
would be returned.
Second, if the willingness of only those respondents who experience
some trouble and currently dispose of oil by high activity methods were to
be trusted, then one would predict that 639 quarts, plus some percentage
of 332 quarts, woMld be returned.
It should be clear that other estimates are also legitimate on the
basis of the results in Table 26. As suggested earlier, one way
to narrow the range of possible estimates is to compute first the prob-
ability of returning used oil for each of the relevant cells in the table,
and then employ regression methods.
In this study, strong evidence has been found to show that "returning
-------
used oil" is a complex domain. Further analyses are necessary 1f policy
decisions are to be based on the prediction of how much oil 1s likely to
be returned.
The remaining part of this report adds further evidence supporting
this call for caution in interpreting the data presented so far.
-------
8.0 ARE THERE OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING WILLINGNESS
TO RETURN USED OIL?
8-1 What is a "Reasonable" Deposit for a Resealable Container?
The Interviewees were presented with a hypothetical question: "If
there were a deposit required for these resealable containers, what do
you feel would be the minimum deposit charge that would make you return the
container?"
Recall that the respondents' willingness to return oil explicitly
referred to oil 1n resealable containers. Therefore, the Interviewees'
estimate of the "minimum" deposit acceptable to them will be Interpreted
as another indicator of their willingness to return used oil.
Twenty-one people gave no amount, and the others gave the estimates
recorded in Table 27:
TABLE 27
Hypothetical Deposit Which Would Induce Oil Return (In Cents)
Deposit Abs. Freq, Rel. Freq.,%
1-5 138 27
6-10 136 26
11-20 52 10
21-30 82 16
31-50 58 11
51-97 8 1
98 or more 45 9_
519 100
Mean =24.5
43
-------
The amounts given are high when taken as a percentage of the cost
of one can of oil. In a more comprehensive survey, however, one could ex-
plore whether consumers can appreciate that one deposit, 1n the long run,
applies to many oil changes. Note also that 1n this study the respondents
may have answered the question thinking only 1n terms of one can of oil;
if forced to think about the number of quarts used per change (and therefore
the total amount required as a deposit), they might lower their estimates.
The responses in Table 27 have been examined by relating them with
the interviewees' annual oil purchases and with their Incomes. No corre-
lations were found. For instance, those who buy relatively large volumes
of oil are no more likely to mention a low deposit than those who buy re-
latively small volumes of oil. Similarly, those In higher income groups
are no more likely to mention a high deposit than those 1n lower Income
groups.
8.2 Does "Ecology-Consciousness" Affect Willingness to Return Used 011?
The data collected may give further Insights Into the respondents'
probability of returning used oil. Willingness to return used oil might be
influenced by one's "ecology-consciousness". Although no direct measure of
this was made 1n the survey, one may assume a latent connection between a
respondent's predisposition toward ecologically-sound waste disposal and the
means by which he currently disposes of his own oil.
To test this, an ordinal scale measuring the extent to which various
means of oil disposal are ecologically acceptable was constructed. The
criterion for ecological acceptability was the probability of the oil
entering San Francisco Bay. Taking one's oil to a service station receives
the highest score because it minimizes the probability of the oil entering
the Bay. While the scale 1s specific to the San Francisco Bay area, simi-
lar scales could be constructed for any given area.
The scale's categories are as follows:
BEST -- selling or taking oil to service station
GOOD -- dumping in backyard or empty lot
FAIR -- dumping in garbage can and taking to public dump
POOR -- flushing down toilet or dumping in storm sewer
The relationship between this scale (an ecological evaluation of means
of disposal) and willingness to return used oil can now be examined. As
Table 28 indicates, there is some association.
44
-------
TABLE 28
Ecological Rating of Respondent's Means of 011 Disposal and
His Willingness to Return Used 011*
Ecological Rating
Willingness
Def. Would
Prob. Would
Might
Prob. Would Not
Def. Would Not
BEST
31
50*
20
32.3$
5
8.1%
6
9.7*
GOOD
49
31.4*
44
28.2*
25
16.0*
38
24.4*
FAIR.
45
47.4*
31
32.6*
9
9.5*
10
10.5*
POOR
16
36.6*
16
36.6*
8
17.8*
5
11.1*
62 156 95 45
* The observed relationship is statistically significant at the 0.025 level.
8.3 Does "Conservation Awareness" Account for Willingness to Return
Used Oil?
Perhaps willingness to return used oil reflects one's awareness
of problems of conservation more than one's awareness of problems of
pollution (e.g.. as indicated by one's means of disposal, and the eco-
logical rating of it in Table 28). In other words, "Ecology Consciousness"
could have both a pollution component and a conservation component, with
only the latter being relevant 1n explaining differences In willingness
to return used oil.
The respondents were asked two questions related to awareness of Is-
sues concerning conservation of resources. The questions focused on the
respondents' awareness of the availability of recycled oil, and whether
they had ever purchased recycled oil.
Thirty-two percent of the respondents (191) said that they knew that
recycled oil was available on the market. However, only 21.6* of these
45
-------
respondents (41), or about 7% of the entire sample, said that they had ever
bought recycled oil. Forty-seven respondents, or 7.9/K of the total sample,
thought that recycled oil was not available on the market. The majority of
the respondents, 60.1%, did not know whether or not recycled oil was cur-
rently available on the market. In sum, a minority of respondents knew of
recycled oil availability, and only a minority of these respondents ever pur-
chased it.
If buying recycled oil Indicates a concern for the recycling of non-
renewable natural resources, 1t might serve as an Indicator of a respon-
dent's willingness to return his waste oil. Table 29 shows the relation-
ship between these two variables:
TABLE 29
Buying Recycled 011 and Willingness to Return Used 011*
Buys Recycled 011
Willingness to Return
Used Oil
Def. Would
Prob. Would
Might
Prob. Would Not
Def. Would Not
Yes
8
32%
8
32*
3
12%
No
40
t
33
42.1%
24X
25
34.7%
9.5X
13
13.7%
95
Number of respondents « 120
* The observed relationship 1s statistically significant at the 0.30 level.
The number of respondents is too small to make strong statements but,
if anything, those who buy recycled oil are less willing to return their
used oil! Thus, no evidence was obtained of a positive association between
conservation-consciousness and willingness to return waste oil to a col
lection facility.
46
-------
9.0 A PROBE INTO CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES
Although the survey focused on used oil as a potential pollutant,
a few issues concerning conservation of resources with reference to re-
cycled oil were also explored.
9.1 Government Certification
The Interviewees were asked a question directly concerning consumer
acceptance of recycled o11°, that 1s:
If the government certified that the recycled oil
you were buying was as good as the brand new oil
you usually buy, how would that affect your wil-
lingness to use recycled oil?
The responses reveal a rather high hypothetical public willingness
to try government certified recycled oil:
47
-------
TABLE 30
Respondent Willingness to Use Government Certified Recycled Oil
Willingness Abs. Freq. Rel. Freq.
Definitely Would Buy 156 26.3%
Probably Would Buy 184 31.0
Might or Might Not Buy 112 18.9
Probably Would Not Buy 62 10.5
Definitely Would Not Buy 79 13.3
593 100.0%
Less than a quarter of the sample are negatively predisposed toward
government certified recycled oil. One can most likely assume that govern-
ment certification is a crucial factor 1n getting consumers to try a re-
cycled oil, especially in light of the high concern for quality manifested
by the majority of the respondents (see Section 4.1).
9.2 A Probe Into Semantics
There was a great deal of agreement among the interviewees on which
"name" for recycled oil implies the highest quality. Respondents were
asked which of the following terms they would expect to imply oil of the
highest quality:
48
-------
TABLE 31
Respondent Impression of Highest Quality Oil for Different Terms
Name Abs. Freq. Rel. Freq.
Re-refined 294 51.5%
Reprocessed 114 20.0
Recycled 75 13.1
Reclaimed 22 3.9
Recovered 21 3.7
All mean the same 45 7.9
571 100.0%
The label "re-refined" has the greatest appeal probably because it
implies that the entire process of crude oil refining is repeated from the
beginning.
49
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Teknekron, Inc. and The Institute of Public Adminis-
tration wishes to acknowledge the Resource Recovery
Division, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, for support of
this study. In particular we are grateful to Dr.
John H. Skinner, Acting Deputy Director, Resource
Recovery Division and to the Project Officers, Messrs.
Thomas D. Clark and Laurence B. McEwen for their
guidance and assistance 1n the performance of this
research.
Preceding page blank
51
-------
APPENDIX A
CONSUMER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
53 Preceding page blank
-------
MCCS 386
August 1973
WEST COAST CONMIITY SURVTfS
2268 Fulton Strett
Berkeley, California 94704
S«r1al Hoi.
Store Name: ...
Street:
City:
Date of Interview:
Time Began: *'"'
p.m.
Hello, I'm of West Coast Conwnlty Sun*ys and !'• working
on a research study which Involves talking to pen who buy wtor oil and I'd like to
ask you a few questions.
55 Preceding page blank
-------
1. A. What brand of motor oil (are you buying)
(did yog just buy)? CIRCLE ALL THAT
APPLY. USE ONE COLUIH FOR EACH, ASKING
B - H FOR ONE, BEFORE ASKING ABOUT NEXT.
IF 2 OR MORE BRANDS AND/OR
GRAOKS. USE EXTRA COLUMN TO
PERMIT SINGLE CODING
8. What grade 1s that? STAMPED ON LID. IF
MORE THAN ONE RATING IS GIVEN, CIRCLE
EACH. IGNORE STAMPED LETTERS OR
NUMBERS NOT LISTED IN COLUMN.
C. How much of this (BRAND & GRADE) (are you
buy1ng)(d1d you buy)?
D. And what car or other vehicle are you
nntnn *n II*A frh4e 'fnDANH ft COAflT) fnv» __
going 10 use inis IOKWU & biwut/ ror ••
can you give me the make and year? IF NOT
FOB AUTO OP i/iTnurvn r THANK AND TFRMIN.
ATE. IF 2 OR MORE VEHICLES, USE EXTRA
COLUMNS.
E. On the average how many miles per year
would you say you and your family drive
this (VEHICLE)?
F. (Are you buying) (Did you buy) the (BRAND
& GRADE) to add to your (VEHICLE), to
change the oil In your (VEHICLE), or both?
V IF ADD DULY: Do you usually
change the oil 1n your (VEHICLE)
. yourself? :
H. IF EVER CHANGES OIL:
a. On the average how often do you
change the oil In your (VEHICLE)
-- about how many thousand miles?
b. How much oil does that usually
take?
c. Do you ever change your own oil
filter?
*
IF YES: Every how many thousand
•riles?
56
Pennjoll. . . . .1 l
Standard. ... .2
Shell 3
Exxon 4
Other (SPECIFY:
5
SA or ML 1
SB or MM 2
SC or MS 3
SO or MS 1968 . .4
SE 5
No rating ... .6
quarts
Make
19
miles
per year
Add Only . . . . T
Change Only. . . 2
Add ;. 'Change . . 3
Yes (ASK H). . . 1
No (SKIP TO Q 2) 2
Changes every
miles
qts
Y« ...... 1*
He (SKIP TO
02) 2
Changes every
miles
Penniol 1 1
Standard. . . 2
Shell .... 3
Exxon 4
Other (SPECIFY:
5
SA or ML .1
Mor MM 2
SC or MS 3
SD or MS 1968 .4
SE 5
No rating . . .6
quarts
Make
19
wiles
per year
Add Only. . . . 1*
Change Only . . 2
Add & Change. . 3
Yes (ASK H) . . 1
No (SKIP TO Q 2)2
Changes every
miles
qts
Y« T
No (SKIP TO
02} 2
Changes every
•lies
-------
«. A. ASK ALL:
How do you decide which oil to buy •• do you go by price, brand naaa), or what?
CODE ALL THAT APPLY IN FIRST COLUM1 B&OW.
B. IF MORE THAU ONE FACTOR HENTIOHED: And now I'd like yw to rank then factors
in tit order of importance to you 1f» deciding which oil to toy.
(Which ont 1t the wit Important?) (Second?)
JL JL
Lowest price 1 •
Quality
Brand name 2 _______
Viscosity (e.g. 10-30) 3
SAE rating 4
Labeling 5
Other (SPECIFY: 6
3- IF ADDS ONLY. SKIP TO Q 5
A. IF EVER CHANGES OIL IN 0 1: Do you change the oil yourself, take 1t to a
service station and have then do It, or what?
Do 1t myself 1*
Have service station do It 2
Have dealer do 1t 3
Other (SPECIFY: 4*
*1F DO IT MYSELF OR DONE BY FRIEND/RELATIVE:
B. Mtere do (you)(he/she/they) do It - 1n the garage at (your)(their) house,
on the street. In a drive-way, at a service station, or where?
Hone garage 1
On street or In driveway 2
Service station 3
Car dealer 4
Other (SPECIFY: S
C. Nhy do you (change)(change and add) your own oil — Is It because It costs
less, because automobiles are your hobby, or what? CODE ALL THAT APPLY.
IF MORE THAN ONE MENTIONED: Of the reasons you mentioned, which Mould you
say Is the mt ImportanTreesonT CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX.
MOST
IMPORTANT
Cost 1 [ ]
Convenience 2 [ ]
Auto hobby 3 [ ]
Equal to or better than
oil at service station
or car dealer 4
Better for car 8
Other (SPECIFY:
sy .
-------
4. IF EVtH CHANGES OIL AVIAY FROM SERVICE STAV10H OR DEAIES:
A. How do you eventually dispose of the used oil — do you sail 1t, takt 1t to
a service station, dump 1t In a sewer, flush It down the toilet,-put 1t In
your garbage can, take It to the dinp, or whatT (COOf ALL THAT APPLY)
Sell 1
Take to service station 2
Storm sewer . 3
Toilet 4
Dump 1n garbage can . 5
Bum In Incinerator 6
Dump In backyard 7
Dump In empty lot 8
Take to public dump. .... 9
Other (SPECIFY: _JO
B. How much trouble do you have getting rid of the used oil — 1s It • lot of
trouble, quite a bit of trouble, a little trouble, or no trouble at all?
A lot of trouble 1
Quite a bit of trouble 2
A Uttle trouble 3
No trouble at all 4
5. ASK ALL; It's been suggested that there 1s technology to take tne used oil and
reprocess and purify 1t.
A. I'd like you to look at the five terms on this card. HAND CARD 5A. Which
would you expect to be the highest quality oil?
Recycled 1
Re-refined 2
Reprocessed 3
Reclaimed 4
Recovered 5
All mean the same 6
B. Do you happen to know whether any of these 1s currently available on the
market or not?
Yes, available 1
No, not available 2
DK 3
*1F YES: Do you buy any of them?
Yes }
No
58
-------
C. If the government, certified that the recycled oil you were buying was as good
as the brand new oil you usually buy, how would that affect your willingness to
having recycled oil. HAND CARD SC I 0. HMch of these corns clomt to describ-
ing whether you would or would not buy recycled oil If 1t were government certi-
fied?
A. Definitely would buy 1
B. Probably would buy 2
C. Might or might not buy 3
D. Probably would not buy 4
E. Definitely would not buy. ..... 5
0. If all oil — whether 1t was brand new oil or reprocessed oil — were sold 1n
resealable containers, how likely would you be to return your used oil to a
collection facility? Please choose one of the categories on the card.
A. Definitely would return 1
B. Probably would return 2
C. Might or might not return 3
D. Probably would not return 4
E. Definitely would not return . . . . 5
E. If there were a deposit required for these resealable containers, what do you
feel would be the minimum mount for a deposit charge that would make you return
the container?
6. Now a couple of background questions about you and I'll be all through »
A. Do you live 1n a house, an apartment, or what?
House 1
Apartment 2
Other (SPECIFY: 3
B. Do you own or rent?
Own 1
Rent 2
C. Hay I have your age on your last birthday? years of age
D. And what was the highest grade of school you completed?
Less than 6th grade 678
*— W School —*
9 10 11 12
t— College )
13 14 IS . 16
17*
59
-------
E. Please tell me which of these corns closest to what you do. I just need the
letter. HAND CARD 6E. (IF CURRENTLY UNEMPLOYED, CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX Alt)
ASK: Mhat 1s your usual occupation?) (IF RETIRED, CHECK AfPWPRlATE NX
AND ASK: What was your occupation before you retired?)
( ] UNEMPLOYED A. Small businessman 02
B. Clerk/typist/secretary 04
[ ] RETIRED
C. Unskilled or Mnual 06
D. Student 08
E. Professional, technical 01
F. Salesman 03
G. Skilled crafts . 05
H. Farmer 07
I. Armed Forces member 09
J. Other (SPECIFY:
10
F. And would you pick the letter on this card that Indicates which Income group
you and your family art In. Please count all sources of Income for you and
the other members of your family living with you before taxes. HMD CAW ff.
A. Under $3,000. 1
B. $3.000 - $4,999 . 2
C. $5,000 - $7,999 3
D. $8.000 - $9,999 4
E. $10.000 - $14,999 5
F. $15,000 - $19,999 6
6. $20,000 and over 7
6. If you're Interested, we can make the report of our findings available for
you to look at. And also my supervisor will be checking a small percentage
of my work at random. In case this Interview 1s selected or If you'd like
to see the results of this project, may I have your name, addresi and phone
number?
NAME: PHONE:.
ADDRESS I CITYs
THANK R AND COMPLETE LAST PA8E
60
-------
Time tnded:
BEST GUESS OF RACE PROM OBSERVATION: WMtt ................. 1
Black ................. 2
Oriental ................ 3
Ntxlctn ............. ... 4
Othtf (SPECIFY: _ S
INTERVIEWER'S SIGNATURE: __
61
-------
APPENDIX B
THE SAMPLE
The respondents, interviewed in eleven retail stores either in or adja-
cent to the city of Oakland, were males fifteen years old and above. The age
distribution of respondents Is generally representative of that of Oakland,
although young people are slightly overrepresented and old people are slightly
underrepresented.
The sample is not representative of Oakland with respect to ethnicity.
Forty-five percent of the respondents were blacks, whereas only 34 percent
of Oakland's population is comprised of blacks. Similarly, 42% of the sam-
ple were whites, whereas 59% of Oakland is white. The sample also included
29 orientals and 40 chicanes. The roughly equivalent number of non-whites
and whites offers the advantage of allowing for statistically significant
comparisons of the two groups. Although this possibility was not pursued
in the analysis, it could prove valuable in future studies.
The sample contains a high number of well-educated respondents when com-
pared to the popualtion of Oakland. While 29% of Oakland's male citizens
have attended or graduated from college, approximately half of the respondents
have this distinction. This is probably related to the fact that the sample
contains a relatively higher number of young people, but it may also reflect
higher average educational attainment of those people who change their own
oil.
The sample is roughly representative of Oakland in terms of annual income
although lower income categories are slightly underrepresented. For example,
while 21% of Oakland's population earns less than $5000 annually, only 15.3%
of the sample fell into this category.
Finally, the sample is reasonably representative of those whose family
owns their housing unit versus those whose families rent. The sample is
slightly biased toward those whose families own their dwelling units -- 50.2%
of the sample own their own homes while only 42.4% of Oakland families own
their own homes.
63
Preceding page blank
-------