## 4 Results
### Results of the Analysis of Descriptive Statistics on Proenvironmental Behavior Practices  
The calculation of descriptive statistics on the respondents' assessments of the frequency of using the proposed patterns of proecological consumer behavior shows that the most popular practices across all 57 were P1 \"Avoiding overloading the refrigerator\", P2 \"Reducing the opening and closing of the refrigerator door\", \"P4 \"Putting hot food into refrigerator after cooling\", P7 \"Adjusting the temperature of the air conditioner\", P8 \"Turning off lights in empty rooms\", P10 \"Turning off the TV when people are not watching\", P11 \"Using energy saving mode or turning off when not in use\", P28 \"Using own cup\", P31 \"Covering the pan with a lid when cooking or boiling water\" in P44 \"Attempting to fix things before buying a replacement\", they have a median score of 2.7 to 3. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Designation of Practice** & **Description of PEBs** & **R** & **K** \\ \hline P6 & Cleaning filter of the air conditioner or cleaner & is not significant & 0.054452 \\ P35 & Using own bag when going shopping & \(-\)0.084402 & \(-\)0.072595 \\ P47 & Using bicycle or walking & \(-\)0.100478 & \(-\)0.087474 \\ P48 & Using public transportation & \(-\)0.087542 & \(-\)0.075391 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Correlations (at the \(p=0.05\) level) between the respondent’s income level and the frequency of using proenvironmental practices. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Practice** & **H-Statistics** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline P4 & 15.64615 & 0.0158 \\ P11 & 14.51215 & 0.0244 \\ P16 & 14.22839 & 0.0272 \\ P18 & 17.12929 & 0.0088 \\ P23 & 13.33903 & 0.0380 \\ P28 & 20.03792 & 0.0027 \\ P29 & 13.21269 & 0.0398 \\ P31 & 14.12257 & 0.0283 \\ P34 & 12.65754 & 0.0488 \\ P37 & 23.60005 & 0.0006 \\ P38 & 15.38802 & 0.0174 \\ P47 & 16.87749 & 0.0097 \\ P53 & 20.70417 & 0.0021 \\ P54 & 13.48528 & 0.0359 \\ P56 & 23.78589 & 0.0006 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: The results of calculating the Kruskal-Wallis statistics to test the hypothesis about the influence of the respondent’s level of involvement in environmental activities on the frequency of using proenvironmental practices. The least popular practices, with a median score of 1.5 to 2.1, are: P21 \"Avoiding throwing away waste cooking oil\", P25 \"Collection and delivery of glass containers to appropriate collection points\", P27 \"Collection and delivery of used batteries, light bulbs to appropriate collection points\", P33 \"Throwing away kitchen garbage after it has dried\", P34 \"Using receptacle instead of plastic bag\", P42 \"Choosing goods with their CO2 emission in mind (carbon footprint)\", P49 \"Joining the one day without car program\", P52 \"Reducing idling of the car\", P53 \"Maintaining the air pressure in the tire\", P55 \"Using the dishwasher\" in P57 \"Using residual heat when cooking on an electric stove\" (Figure 1). The most consistent respondents from the regions rated the practices: P1 \"Avoiding overloading the refrigerator\", P2 \"Reducing opening and closing the door of the refrigerator\", P3 \"Using a lower setting in the refrigerator compartment\", P17 \"Taking short showers\", P36 \"Reducing use of disposable products\", P41 \"Buying ecomark-appliances\" (the standard deviation is slightly more than 1). The largest scatter of assessments is observed across practices: P57 \"Use of residual heat when cooking on an electric stove\", P16 \"Turning off the water when washing face or brushing teeth\", P51 \"Avoiding overloading the car\", P53 \"Maintaining air pressure of tire\". Moscow's respondents did not show consistency in applying practices (standard deviation is on average more than 1.0).