# Eco-Friendly Design for Sustainable Gift Packaging
## 3 Results
### Consumer Feedback  
The graphical presentation in Figure 6 analyzes the multipurpose packaging's average ratings across different product categories--\"handle\", \"packaging for different products\", and \"nesting house\"--in relation to various demographic groups, including age, education level, employment status, and average monthly income. The \"handle\" category evaluates both the usability of the handle (whether it is practical for carrying) and its importance (whether users consider it essential). The \"packaging for different products\" category assesses the usability of packaging designed for multiple products (whether this feature is practical) and the importance of versatility (whether consumers value packaging which can accommodate various items). Lastly, the \"nesting house\" category examines the usability of repurposing the packaging into a nesting house for solitary bees (whether users find this function practical) and the importance of reuse (whether sustainability and repurposing are considered valuable). Numerical values are given in Table A1 (Appendix A). The analysis included key statistical metrics like the average rating, median, and mode to offer detailed insights into user preferences and variability in ratings. Generation Z and Generation Y provided the highest ratings across most categories, with averages of about 4.2-4.3. This indicates strong satisfaction among younger users. Figure 5: Visual presentation of the scenario of the animation. Figure 6: The average ratings of multipurpose functions according to socioeconomic factors. Generation X and the baby boomers generally rated products lower, especially in the \"nesting house\" category (averages of about 3.5-3.6), reflecting possible differing expectations or product experiences. Users with an elementary school education rated the products the highest, particularly for the \"handle\" category, with averages up to 4.4. High school and university graduates provided relatively lower ratings, especially for the \"nesting house\" category (3.0-3.3). Master's degree holders and more-educated particpants had balanced ratings across all products, but they generally rated the \"nesting house\" category higher than the other two variations. Students and employed users were the ones most satisfied with the products, with average scores of 4.1-4.4. Unemployed and retired individuals provided lower ratings, particularly for the \"nesting house\" category, indicating possible alignment with income or usability perceptions. Users with mid-to-high income levels (EUR 1300-1800) provided the most favorable ratings across all categories. The lowest ratings came from the lowest (below EUR 800) and highest (over EUR 1800) income groups, especially for the \"nesting house\" category, suggesting differing value perceptions or product expectations. The median values presented in Table A1 (Appendix A) are generally higher and consistent across product categories and demographic groups, indicating that the middle user experience was often favorable. In most cases, the median was four or five, showing that at least 50% of the respondents gave high ratings. This suggests a predominantly positive reception, even if the averages dipped slightly lower in some cases. For the \"nesting house\" category, the median was consistently lower (about three or four) for the older users (baby boomers) and lower-education group, pointing to less satisfaction among these segments. The mode for most categories and groups was five, indicating that the most frequent rating was the highest possible score. This reflects strong enthusiasm or a favorable bias among many users. There were exceptions, such as the \"nesting house\" ratings by high school-educated users, where the mode dipped to two or three, highlighting that dissatisfaction was not uncommon in specific subgroups.