# Eco-Friendly Design for Sustainable Gift Packaging
## 3 Results
### Consumer Feedback
As part of the survey, the participants also assessed the design of the labels, depicted in Figure 3. The average ratings from the online survey, segmented by socioeconomic factors, are illustrated in Figure 7, with specific numerical data available in Table A2 (Appendix A). The lowest recorded ratings were 2.8 for both quality (whether the label conveyed that the product was of high quality) and price range (whether the label suggested that the product belonged to a higher price category), while visual appeal (whether the label was aesthetically pleasing) received a minimum score of 2.4. In contrast, the highest scores reached 4.4 for quality and 4.6 for the price range. The coefficient of variation fluctuated between 4% and 8% for the quality assessments, 4.5% and 9% for the price range evaluations, and 5.6% and 9.5% for visual appeal. Label C emerged as the highest-rated label in terms of quality, followed by labels A and B. When considering socioeconomic demographics, Generation Z, individuals with elementary education, unemployed participants, students, and those with lower income levels consistently ranked label C as the best in terms of quality. Furthermore, label C was perceived as the most visually appealing and most expensive one, with no significant influence from socioeconomic variables on these perceptions. In contrast, label D received the lowest ratings for quality and attractiveness while still being perceived as relatively expensive. In this case as well, socioeconomic factors had no discernible impact on how the label was rated. Generation Z showed relatively higher averages for all categories, especially visual attraction, with a strong mode of five in many cases, indicating a higher frequency of maximum ratings (Table A2 (Appendix A)). The median aligned well with this, confirming consistent positive perceptions among younger users. Generation Y had more moderate ratings, with averages around 3.5 across all categories. The median and mode often converged at three or four, showing less variation but lower enthusiasm compared with Generation Z. Generation X and the baby boomers tended to rate the categories slightly lower on average (3.0-3.4), with median and mode values of three dominating, suggesting a more neutral stance. Elementary school education respondents rated visual attraction the highest on average (4.4) and showed a consistent mode of five, indicating strong appreciation in this area. The high school- and university-educated respondents provided more moderate scores, with medians and modes consistently hovering around three or four across all factors. Master's degree holders and higher-educated respondents generally rated the quality and price range higher, with medians and modes at four, indicating a preference for premium features. The unemployed respondents exhibited the most polarized ratings, with high averages (4.4 for visual attraction) and a consistent mode of five. This could suggest that specific factors resonated strongly within this group. The students and employed respondents aligned closely, with averages between 3.4 and 3.8 and medians of four, showing steady but less-pronounced enthusiasm. Retired individuals tended to give lower ratings, with averages dipping to 2.8-3.5 and modes at three, indicating a generally neutral or slightly negative perception. Respondents in the lowest income bracket (up to EUR 800) rated visual attraction the highest (3.7 average, median = 4, mode = 5) but had more variation in their price range scores (mode ranging from 2 to 5). The middle income groups (e.g., EUR 800-1300) provided more moderate scores across the board, with consistent medians and modes at three or four. High-income respondents (above EUR 1800) rated categories similarly to the lower-income groups, but visual attraction received slightly lower ratings (average = 3.5, median = 4, mode = 3).