# Eco-Friendly Design for Sustainable Gift Packaging
## 3 Results
### Consumer Feedback
The ratings for usability and importance of turning the packaging into a nesting house were similar for the survey and focus groups, reflecting lower perceptions of this feature. The ratings for usability of the handle and usability for different products were consistently high across all focus groups (FGs), with averages of 4.6 and 4.5, respectively. This indicates strong satisfaction with these aspects. FG 4 scored particularly high for usability, showing a favorable perception of practicality. Usability as a nesting house received the lowest scores overall (average 3.5), with FG 3 rating it most critically (3.0). The ratings for promotional stand usability were stronger (from 3.6 to 4.4). Across the board, the importance of the handle and packaging for different products received high scores (averages of 4.6 and 4.5), reflecting their perceived relevance to the users. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l} \hline  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Survey**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**FG 1**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**FG 2**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**FG 3**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**FG 4**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**FG av**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(p\) **Value**} \\ \hline Packaging & & & & & & & \\ \hline Usability of Handle & 4.1 & 5 & 4.6 & 4 & 4.8 & 4.6 & 0.185 \\ \hline Usability for different products & 4.2 & 4.8 & 4 & 4.4 & 4.8 & 4.5 & 0.182 \\ \hline Usability as a nesting house & 3.6 & 4.2 & 3 & 3.4 & 3.2 & 3.5 & 0.644 \\ \hline Usability as a promotional stand & / & 4.4 & 4 & 3.6 & 4.2 & 4.1 & 0.623 \\ \hline Importance of Handle & 3.9 & 4.8 & 4.8 & 3.8 & 5 & 4.6 & 0.135 \\ \hline Importance of different products & 3.9 & 4.8 & 3.8 & 4.6 & 4.6 & 4.5 & 0.210 \\ \hline Importance of nesting house & 3.4 & 4 & 2.2 & 2.8 & 3.8 & 3.2 & 0.166 \\ \hline Importance of promotional stand & / & 4 & 3.8 & 3.6 & 4.4 & 4 & 0.173 \\ \hline Label & & & & & & & \\ \hline Quality A & 3.4 & 3.4 & 3.6 & 3.6 & 2.2 & 3.2 & 0.035 \\ \hline Quality B & 3.4 & 3.6 & 3 & 2.8 & 3.2 & 3.2 & 0.168 \\ \hline Quality C & 3.6 & 4.8 & 4.2 & 3.4 & 5 & 4.4 & 0.706 \\ \hline Quality D & 3.1 & 4.4 & 3.6 & 3 & 4.2 & 3.8 & 0.001 \\ \hline Price range A & 3 & 2.6 & 3 & 3.4 & 2.8 & 3 & 0.121 \\ \hline Price range B & 3.1 & 3.6 & 2.6 & 2.6 & 3.2 & 3 & 0.200 \\ \hline Price range C & 3.6 & 4.2 & 4 & 3.8 & 5 & 4.3 & 0.428 \\ \hline Price range D & 3.3 & 4 & 3.8 & 3.2 & 4 & 3.8 & 0.024 \\ \hline Visual attraction A & 3.2 & 2.8 & 3.2 & 2.4 & 2 & 2.6 & 0.084 \\ \hline Visual attraction B & 3.3 & 3.4 & 3.2 & 3.2 & 3 & 3.2 & 0.236 \\ \hline Visual attraction C & 3.6 & 4.6 & 4.2 & 4.4 & 5 & 4.6 & 0.084 \\ \hline Visual attraction D & 2.9 & 3.8 & 3.4 & 2.8 & 4 & 3.3 & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline Interactive packaging label & & & & & & & \\ \hline Quality of animation & 3.9 & 4.4 & 4.4 & 3.8 & 4.2 & 4.2 & 0.331 \\ \hline Visual appeal & 3.7 & 4.4 & 3.8 & 3.2 & 4 & 3.9 & 0.347 \\ \hline Usability and practical value & 3.2 & 3.8 & 3.2 & 3 & 3.6 & 3.4 & 0.451 \\ \hline Ease of use & 3.6 & 4.4 & 3.8 & 4 & 4 & 4.1 & 0.555 \\ \hline Overall satisfaction & 3.6 & 4.6 & 3.6 & 3.6 & 3.6 & 3.9 & 0.237 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Mean scores from survey and focus groups, with results for multifunctional packaging, label design for bottles, and interactive label for packaging. Similar to usability, the importance of the nesting house scored the lowest (3.2), indicating limited prioritization of this feature by the respondents. For both usability and the importance of different features of multipurpose packaging, the p values were greater than 0.05, suggesting no statistically significant differences in the ratings between the four focus groups. This indicates that while there were some differences in the averages, they lacked statistical significance. The focus groups rated the quality of labels C and D higher than the survey respondents, indicating stronger preference for these compared with the broader audience. Label C stood out with the highest average score (4.4), driven by high ratings from FG 4 (5) and FG 2 (4.8).