The study reveals that 96% of the charcoal & ash users belong to income group of annual income less than Rs.1,00,000 per annum. The respondents using bar detergent belong to income group of annual income ranging from Rs.2,00,000 to Rs.4,00,000.
Altogether 75% respondents using bar detergent belong to income group of annual income ranging from Rs.2,00,000 to Rs.3,00,000 per annum. The respondents having annual income between Rs.1,00,000 to Rs.2,00,000 prefer powder detergent.
110 Acceptance of
present condition of dishwashing to progressive society
Percent Cumulative Percent
Not Acceptable 62.5 62.5 Not at all acceptable 37.5 100.0
Figure 3.33: Respondents’ opinion on acceptance of present condition of dishwashing to progressive society
3.4.2 Productivity and dishwashing
Respondents were asked whether they thought that with certain improvement in the present condition of dishwashing, the productivity of the people could be substantially increased. It was observed that 67.5% respondents agreed and 17.5% respondents strongly agreed that that with certain improvement in the present condition of dishwashing, the productivity of the people could be substantially increased.
Improvement of productivity with design
intervention in the dishwashing problem
Percent Cumulative Percent
Strongly agree 17.5 17.5
Agree 67.5 85.0
Cannot say 15.0 100.0
Figure 3.34: Respondents’ opinion on productivity and dishwashing
3.4.3 Environment friendliness and dishwashing
Respondents were asked whether they found the dishwashing process environment friendly or not. It was found that 72.5% respondents did not find the dishwashing process environment friendly.
Dishwashing process environment friendly or not
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Cannot say 27.5 27.5
Not environment friendly 72.5 100.0
Figure 3.35: Respondents’ opinion on environment friendliness and dishwashing Not Acceptable Not at all acceptable
Strongly Agree Agree
Cannot say
Cannot say
Not Environm ent friendly
3.4.4 Hygiene and dishwashing
Respondents were asked whether the dishwashing process could ensure the better health and hygiene of person. It was observed that 62.5% respondents opined that the present dishwashing process was not hygienic. Altogether 37.5% respondents opined it to be not at all hygienic.
Opinion on hygiene and dishwashing
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Not hygienic 62.5 62.5 Not at all hygienic 37.5 100.0
Figure 3.36: Respondents’ opinion on hygiene and dishwashing
3.4.5 Dishwashing and benefit to the poor
Respondents were asked whether they thought that the existing dishwashing process was benefiting the poor. It was found that 70% respondents commented that the existing dishwashing process was not benefiting the poor. Altogether 20% respondents commented that the existing dishwashing process was not at all benefiting the poor.
The existing dishwashing process was benefiting the
poor or not
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Cannot say 10.0 10.0 Not benefiting the poor 70.0 80.0 Not at all benefiting the
poor
20.0 100.0
Figure 3.37: Respondents’ opinion on dishwashing and benefit to the poor 3.4.6 Dishwashing and need of attention from designers
Respondents were asked whether the dishwashing process needed attention from the designers. Altogether 90% respondents agreed that the dishwashing process needed attention from the designers.
Not hygienic
Not at all hygienic
Can not say
Not benefiting the poor Not at all benefiting the poor
112 Dishwashing process
needed attention from the designers or not
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Agree 90.0 90.0
Cannot say 10.0 100.0
Figure 3.38: Respondents’ opinion on need of design intervention on the dishwashing problem
3.4.7 Relationship of benefit to the poor with increase in productivity, environment friendliness and hygiene
A series of chi-square tests were conducted for a significance level of 0.05 to see the significance difference of ranking on the variable ‘benefit to the poor’ with other variables viz. increase in productivity, environment friendliness and hygiene. The results are as follows:
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference of ratings on argument that
‘with certain improvement in the present condition of dishwashing, the productivity of the people could be substantially increased’ with rating on the argument ‘whether the existing dishwashing process was benefiting the poor’.
The null hypothesis was rejected and concluded that there is a strong significant difference of ratings on argument that ‘with certain improvement in the present condition of dishwashing, the productivity of the people could be substantially increased’ with rating on the argument ‘whether the existing dishwashing process was benefiting the poor’ (Sig: 0.003, Contingency Coefficient: 0.535).
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference of ratings on argument that
‘whether the dishwashing process was environment friendly or not’ with rating on the argument ‘whether the existing dishwashing process was benefiting the poor’.
The null hypothesis was rejected and concluded that there is a significant difference of ratings on argument that ‘whether the dishwashing process was environment friendly or not’ with rating on the argument ‘whether the existing dishwashing process was benefiting the poor’ (Sig: 0.039, Contingency Coefficient: 0.374).
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference of ratings on argument that
‘whether the dishwashing process could ensure the better health and hygiene of person’
with rating on the argument ‘whether the existing dishwashing process was benefiting the poor’.
Agree
Can not say
The null hypothesis was rejected and concluded that there is a significant difference of ratings on argument that ‘whether the dishwashing process could ensure the better health and hygiene of person’ with rating on the argument ‘whether the existing dishwashing process was benefiting the poor’ (Sig: 0.012, Contingency Coefficient:
0.425).
Variable of the Chi-Square test Asymp. Sig. Contingency Coefficient Benefit to the poor * Productivity 0.003 0.535 Benefit to the poor * Environment friendliness 0.039 0.374
Benefit to the poor * Hygiene 0.012 0.425
Table 3.25: Results of the chi square tests of the variable ‘benefit to the poor’ with other variables viz. increase in productivity, environment friendliness and hygiene.
It has been observed that the ranking of the variable ‘benefit to the poor’ varies significantly with other variables viz. increase in productivity, environment friendliness and hygiene. The comparatively higher contingency coefficients for the variables productivity and hygiene reveal that improvement in productivity and health & hygiene condition with proper design intervention may largely benefit the poor. It was observed from the descriptive statistics that the current condition of dishwashing process was not satisfactory from the point of view of hygiene, environment and productivity.