Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Guilberto Himang Borongan
 -- 2527 2022-05-25 09:08:46 |
2 format correct
Vivi Li
 + 77 word(s) 2604 2022-05-26 03:58:51 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Borongan, G.; , . Marine Plastic Litter Reduction in Manila. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/23334 (accessed on 22 July 2024).
Borongan G,  . Marine Plastic Litter Reduction in Manila. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/23334. Accessed July 22, 2024.
Borongan, Guilberto, . "Marine Plastic Litter Reduction in Manila" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/23334 (accessed July 22, 2024).
Borongan, G., & , . (2022, May 25). Marine Plastic Litter Reduction in Manila. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/23334
Borongan, Guilberto and . "Marine Plastic Litter Reduction in Manila." Encyclopedia. Web. 25 May, 2022.
Marine Plastic Litter Reduction in Manila
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su14106128

Without coordinated intervention, the annual flow of plastics into the ocean is expected to nearly triple by 2040, from 11 million tons today to 29 million metric tons, globally. Manila Bay, situated in Manila, is where the challenges related to plastic pollution are of great importance nationally and, thus, make headlines globally, as plastic waste that is not properly managed has increased the economic and environmental effects of marine plastics. At the global governance forum on 2 March 2022, at the UN Environment Assembly in Nairobi, 175 countries endorsed a historic resolution to end plastic pollution and forge an international, legally binding agreement by the end of 2024. With this global and binding agreement, cities like Manila could properly enforce measures to end this plastic pollution—which needs the political will of the administrators and the participation of the relevant constituents. 

environmental governance marine plastic litter structural equation model analysis solid waste management

1. Introduction

Without coordinated intervention, the annual flow of plastics into the ocean is expected to nearly triple by 2040, from 11 million tons today to 29 million metric tons, globally [1]. Marine plastic pollution presents significant risks to the marine environment and has been attributed to land-based plastic leakage from improper plastic waste management systems. Five ASEAN countries in 2016, including Indonesia (4.28 metric tons (Mt)), the Philippines (1.01 Mt), Vietnam (0.57 Mt), Thailand (1.16 Mt), and Malaysia (0.33 Mt)) are among the top ten countries with this problem in the world, accounting for 28 percent of the land-based marine plastic litter (MPL) that could end up in the ocean [2][3]. As a result, marine plastic litter issues should be addressed in a holistic, land-to-sea approach. According to reports, most ASEAN countries have developed a roadmap for reducing marine plastic litter in accordance with the ASEAN Framework of Action on Marine Debris. The country’s MPL roadmap must be enacted and translated into action at the local and city level.
The Philippines is no exception, ranking third in the world in terms of ocean plastic waste leakage, with 0.28–0.75 million Mt per year (after China and Indonesia, which are first and second, respectively) [4]. Manila Bay, situated in Manila, is where the challenges related to plastic pollution are of great importance nationally and, thus, make headlines globally, as plastic waste that is not properly managed has increased the economic and environmental effects of marine plastics.
Many notable scholars have argued that plastic leakages caused by land-based mismanagement are related to socio-economic activities along the value chain—plastic use and production and domestic and retail consumption, as well as plastic disposal (end-of-life) via unproductive waste management services [3][4]. Willis et al. (2018) [5] evaluated the most effective policies and strategies for reducing plastic pollution and provided a variety of evidence bases for decision-making in addressing the challenges of marine plastic litter and its pressures on the environment, the economy, and society. However, other scholars argue that designing and implementing legitimate, effective, and efficient actions need to be built on a complete understanding of the context of local governance at the city level [6][7]. Effective environmental governance at various levels, e.g., community and/or city level, is, thus, crucial for identifying solutions to the above-mentioned challenges and potential opportunities. The practices, guidelines, policies, and institutions that shape human interaction with the environment are referred to as environmental governance [8] (UNEP Factsheet Series, n.d.). At the global governance forum on 2 March 2022, at the UN Environment Assembly in Nairobi, 175 countries endorsed a historic resolution to end plastic pollution and forge an international, legally binding agreement by the end of 2024. The resolution, entitled “End Plastic Pollution: Toward an internationally legally binding instrument”, stipulated, among other provisions, “an affirmation of an urgent need to strengthen global governance to take immediate actions towards long-term elimination of plastic pollution” [9] (UNEP, 2022). With this global and binding agreement, cities like Manila could properly enforce measures to end this plastic pollution—which needs the political will of the administrators and the participation of the relevant constituents. In addition, action against marine plastic pollution has been linked to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as SDG 6 (regarding clean water and sanitation); SDG 11 (“Make Cities and Human Settlements Inclusive, Safe, Resilient, and Sustainable”); SDG 12 (“Ensure Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns”); and SDG 14 (“Conserve and Sustainably Use the Oceans, Seas, and Marine Resources for Sustainable Development”). Similarly, shifting to more sustainable production and consumption practices, which are also promoted by the SDGs, has been suggested as a solution to marine litter [7].
Whereas past studies have focused on the context of plastic waste pollution for upstream research activities, such as the circular economy and waste management, the research framework, and coordination, very little research on environmental governance, e.g., laws, administrative measures and action plans, guidelines, and current standards [10]. Yang, Y. et al. (2021) [11] proposed countermeasures, including environmental governance, to accelerate China’s abatement of marine plastic waste. Moreover, their research highlighted the importance of establishing and implementing an accountable and responsible marine plastic waste governance system. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there has been no empirical research on the relationships between the challenges and opportunities among factors affecting the reduction of marine plastic litter. Although there are studies on the challenges and opportunities for MPL reduction, specifically, the clean-up campaign drive, waste separation, and recycling, most of them are descriptive and qualitative. It is necessary to conduct an empirical investigation into the relationships between factors (challenges and opportunities) affecting the reduction of marine plastic litter. Furthermore, because of the current COVID-19 pandemic there has been an increase in the use of plastics and their subsequent disposal, in the form of personal protective equipment such as face masks, single-use disposable food containers from food delivery services, and e-commerce from online package shipping. Several researchers emphasized how the disruption caused by COVID-19 can be a catalyst for change in global plastic waste management practices in the short and long term [12][13], as they proposed to mitigate the likely impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on waste management systems.

2. Waste Infrastructure and Environmental Governance

In terms of the changes of administration of most local governments, policy should include de-risking waste infrastructure investment to encourage private sectors to engage. Complex infrastructural systems comprising technologies, regulations, public services, and user practices are required to address urban waste, yet there were no links between waste infrastructure and governance in a previous empirical study [14]. Soltani et al., (2017) [15] report that the ideal waste facility and technology option will fit in with municipality/city objectives, as well as help to save resources in terms of the environmental and financial resources of the community. It was suggested that central and local governments will need to formulate policies to encourage private sectors to invest in their waste infrastructure or technology to effectively reduce MPL [16]. However, Kenisha, G. et al., (2017) [17] conceded that in terms of MSW facilities and infrastructures, public acceptance is vital to ensuring the effectiveness of waste strategies; the authorities in the municipality and city need to seek a practical approach in engaging communities and stakeholders in the decision-making process. Nevertheless, there is a need for waste infrastructure with local governments in public spaces for the effective and efficient implementation of SWM policy, e.g., waste bins along the shoreline or beaches; this will be part of the environmental governance actions at the city and barangay levels. 

3. Environmental Governance Related to COVID-19 Waste

The contemporary literature suggests that environmental governance on some specific types of municipal waste has visibly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, when communities and cities experienced the highest generation of waste for plastic packaging and food waste. While this situation has put additional pressure on waste management systems, it has proven useful in terms of insights for city administrations and municipal utilities on consumption patterns during emergency situations. Moreover, Benson, Fred-Ahmadu, et al. (2021) [18], and [19] Shiong et al. (2021) provided insights on plastic waste management status, especially PPE, during the COVID-19 pandemic—which emphasized the sudden spike of medical waste that has had a large impact on plastic waste management. Conversely, Benson, Bassey, et al. (2021) [20] suggested that designated waste separation facilities be provided at marked points in different areas to collect used PPEs—as part of the urgent need for effectively handling COVID-19-related healthcare waste. 

4. Community Participation

Regarding the community participation factor, GESAMP 2019 [21] reports an overview of key value-chain stages corresponding to stakeholders/interest groups, and the consequences of environmental plastics connected to each value stream and level. Conversely, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) [22] reported the fundamentals of extended producer responsibility (EPR) for packaging and the many roles that stakeholders might play in the plastic packaging value chain. The study goes through numerous possibilities for allocating duties, as well as the actions that must be followed to reach an agreement and lay the groundwork for the implementation of an EPR system. Producers, retailers, distributors, consumers, and local and central governments are key stakeholders in the plastic packaging value chain, e.g., most local governments are responsible for the collection of plastic packaging [23]. Wilson et al., 2015 [24] demonstrate that the SWM system is made up of two intersecting “triangles”, one for physical variables such as collection, recycling, and disposal, and the other for governance factors such as inclusion, financial sustainability, sound institutions, and proactive policies. Experience confirms the utility of indicators in allowing comprehensive performance measurement and comparison of both “hard” physical components and “soft” governance aspects, and in prioritizing the “next steps” in developing a city’s solid waste management system, by identifying both local strengths that can be built on and weak points that must be addressed [5][24][25][26]. The private sector, a powerful actor, is able to negotiate and adjust regulations for its own benefit [27]. The waste policy also has a contemplative and encompassing responsibility to the private sector in order that manufacturers, distributors, and importers who are contributing market products, which are eventually turned into waste, should also be responsible for contributing to the recycling or disposal cost.

5. Socio-Economic Activities Related to MPL Pollution

Large volumes of plastic litter are transported to the sea or ocean through rivers, adding to the serious environmental, economic, and social issues of marine litter contamination [28]. The study by Adam et al. (2021) [29] emphasizes the effect of residents’ attitudes and behaviors regarding single-use plastics in Ghana’s coastal cities of Accra and the Cape Coast. The significance of their results for reducing marine single-use plastic pollution includes policies and programs, particularly those that are behavioral in character and are built on the idea that the public has a variety of emotions and behaviors. Socio-economic activities differ depending on “socio-demographic factors” (e.g., gender), political orientation, marine contact factors (e.g., maritime occupations and participation in coastal recreation activities). There is a great deal of evidence that plastic has a harmful influence on marine wildlife and ecosystems [30]. Moreover, marine plastic litter is having an increasing influence on the environment, human health, and economies in the South Pacific [31]. 

6. Manila Public Behavior Related to MPL Pollution

The types and origins of marine plastic litter vary greatly, ranging from direct losses from recreational and commercial ships and vessels in seas and rivers to indirect losses produced by land-based sources in conjunction with the plastic value chain [28]. Several distinguished scholars have argued that plastic leakage caused by land-based mismanagement is related to plastic use and production and to domestic and retail consumption, as well as plastics disposal (end-of-life) via unproductive waste management services [3][4]. Asia has driven the growth in plastic production over recent decades. It is now the leading plastic consumer in this region, with per-capita plastic use growing at a faster rate than in other regions. The year 2017 saw the global production of 348 million tons of plastic [32] and in the next two decades, the total volume of plastics that will be produced is projected to double [33]. As a result of ocean currents, the leaked ocean plastic waste can potentially travel lengthy distances to other areas and countries—which makes it transboundary in nature. Plastic waste pollution has even started to travel to isolated places, leading to the current challenge and making its prevention globally significant [3]. There is evidence that marine plastic pollution has a substantial economic impact, especially on “fisheries, aquaculture, recreation, and heritage values”. Moreover, marine litter has a negative impact on Small Island developing states, owing to their limited waste disposal infrastructure. According to researchers, marine plastic waste has a spillover effect on aquatic marine life, posing severe health concerns for aquatic marine life and maybe even to humans if they consume it.

7. Environmental Governance

Environmental governance brings forth the underlying institutional theory [34], which tends to be associated with the institutional environment, such as the political, cultural, and social processes. While environmental governance on SWM or marine plastic litter exists, waste and marine plastic pollution is governed by actors beyond formal government; however, it is not clear from the policy statements and documents how the various actors in the different spheres of governance interact. An amalgamation of institutional theory and resource dependence theory underpins this to enhance the strength of the theories utilized for enhancing environmental governance in the local context. Oliver’s contribution reveals how institutional and resource-dependence theories can be combined to discover a variety of strategic and tactical responses to the institutional environment and other elements [35]. While Oti-Sarpong, K., et al. (2022) [36] used institutional theory to examine the factors driving the increased use of offsite manufacturing to construct new housing in selected countries, their findings highlight the need for more institutional theory research into off-site manufacturing to better understand path dependence. Researchers used these theories to investigate the relationship between environmental governance and resource availability in barangays and in the city of Manila for tackling SWM and marine plastic litter. The mentioned amalgamation of theories averred an integrated solution for the abatement of MPL. It is worthy of note that researchers continue to uncover vital approaches to the momentum of the diffusion of knowledge to aid decision-makers in addressing marine plastic pollution challenges, in order that they would, in turn, be able to assist the community and city. Previous studies have supported the evolution of environmental governance grounded on historical screening, on a level and integration that cannot be reflected upon without consideration of the temporal aspect [37]. However, Whiteman, A., Smith, P., and Wilson (2001) [38] explicitly elaborated on environmental governance to assess the performance of the three main aspects of governance, such as inclusivity of stakeholders, financial sustainability, and sound institutions and proactive policies. On the other hand, Glasbergen (1998) [39] “identifies and describes five main models of environmental governance, these include: regulatory, market regulation, civil society, co-operative, contextual control, and self-regulation”. The works of Willis et al. (2018) [5] suggest that the combined solution of the applied model to reduce waste volumes includes litter prevention, recycling, and illegal dumping—which result in the significant reduction of plastic waste in the local government’s coastal areas [5]. Furthermore, previous research suggests that municipalities or cities that invest and/or spend on waste management, as well as on a fund for coastal initiatives, have reduced the waste burden in their coastal areas. Other scholars, such as Breukelman et al. (2019) [40], acknowledge that more research is needed using diagnostic analysis regarding the failure of SWM services in the cities of developing countries to better enable interventions to address impacts such as marine plastic litter. “The success of a city’s SWM system can be used as a proxy indication of excellent governance,” according to one scholar. Most of the existing literature has stressed that the key practical challenge in SWM is a lack of data and data consistency when comparing cities. Moreover, the existing literature calls for indicator sets for integrated sustainable waste management (ISWM), for benchmarking SWM effectiveness in developed and developing cities, particularly for monitoring applications [23][41]. 

References

  1. The Pew Charitable Trusts. Breaking the Plastic Wave; The Pew Charitable Trusts: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2020; Volume 56, Available online: https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2020/07/breakingtheplasticwave_summary.pdf (accessed on 25 March 2022).
  2. Law, K.L.; Starr, N.; Siegler, T.R.; Jambeck, J.R.; Mallos, N.J.; Leonard, G.H. The United States’ contribution of plastic waste to land and ocean. Sci. Adv. 2020, 6, eabd0288.
  3. Lebreton, L.C.M.; Van Der Zwet, J.; Damsteeg, J.W.; Slat, B.; Andrady, A.; Reisser, J. River plastic emissions to the world’s oceans. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 15611.
  4. Jambeck, J.R.; Geyer, R.; Wilcox, C.; Siegler, T.R.; Perryman, M.; Andrady, A.; Narayan, R.; Law, K.L. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 2015, 347, 768–771.
  5. Willis, K.; Maureaud, C.; Wilcox, C.; Hardesty, B.D. How successful are waste abatement campaigns and government policies at reducing plastic waste into the marine environment? Mar. Policy 2018, 96, 243–249.
  6. Van Assche, K.; Beunen, R.; Duineveld, M. Evolutionary Governance Theory: An Introduction; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014.
  7. Löhr, A.; Savelli, H.; Beunen, R.; Kalz, M.; Ragas, A.; Van Belleghem, F. Solutions for global marine litter pollution. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 28, 90–99.
  8. UNEP Factsheet Series. In Environmental Governance; UNEP: Vienna, Austria; Available online: http://www.unep.org/environmentalgovernance/ (accessed on 2 July 2020).
  9. UNEP. Resolution 3/4-United Nations Environment Assembly of the United Nations Environment Programme; United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2022; pp. 1–6. Available online: https://papersmart.unon.org/resolution/uploads/k1900699.pdf (accessed on 25 March 2022).
  10. Lyons, B.P.; Cowie, W.J.; Maes, T.; Le Quesne, W.J.F. Marine plastic litter in the ROPME Sea Area: Current knowledge and recommendations. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 187, 109839.
  11. Yang, Y.; Chen, L.; Xue, L. Chinese Journal of Population, Resources and Environment Looking for a Chinese solution to global problems: The situation and countermeasures of marine plastic waste and microplastics pollution governance system in China. Chin. J. Popul. Resour. Environ. 2022, 19, 352–357.
  12. Kulkarni, B.N.; Anantharama, V. Repercussions of COVID-19 pandemic on municipal solid waste management: Challenges and opportunities. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 743, 140693.
  13. Klemeš, J.J.; Van Fan, Y.; Tan, R.R.; Jiang, P. Minimising the present and future plastic waste, energy and environmental footprints related to COVID-19. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 127, 109883.
  14. Bugge, M.M.; Fevolden, A.M.; Klitkou, A. Governance for system optimization and system change: The case of urban waste. Res. Policy 2019, 48, 1076–1090.
  15. Soltani, A.; Sadiq, R.; Hewage, K. The impacts of decision uncertainty on municipal solid waste management. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 197, 305–315.
  16. Ocean Conservancy. The Next Wave: Investment Strategies for Plastic Free Seas; Ocean Conservancy: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
  17. Garnett, K.; Cooper, T.; Longhurst, P.; Jude, S.; Tyrrel, S. A conceptual framework for negotiating public involvement in municipal waste management decision-making in the UK. Waste Manag. 2017, 66, 210–221.
  18. Benson, N.U.; Fred-Ahmadu, O.H.; Bassey, D.E.; Atayero, A.A. COVID-19 pandemic and emerging plastic-based personal protective equipment waste pollution and management in Africa. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 105222.
  19. Shiong, K.; Yiing, L.; Ren, H.; Yi, H.; Wayne, K. Plastic waste associated with the COVID-19 pandemic: Crisis or opportunity? J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 417, 126108.
  20. Benson, N.U.; Bassey, D.E.; Palanisami, T. COVID pollution: Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on global plastic waste footprint. Heliyon 2021, 7, e06343.
  21. GESAMP. Guidelines for the monitoring and assessment of plastic litter in the ocean. In Reports and Studies; Kershaw, P.J., Turra, A., Galgani, F., Eds.; IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP/ISA Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Prote; GESAMP: London, UK, 2019; Volume 99, Available online: http://www.gesamp.org/publications/guidelines-for-the-monitoring-and-assessment-of-plastic-litter-in-the-ocean (accessed on 25 March 2022).
  22. GIZ. Marine Litter Prevention: Reducing Plastic Waste Leakage into Waterways and Oceans through Circular Economy and Sustainable Waste Management; GIZ: Berlin, Germany, 2018.
  23. PREVENT Waste Alliance. EPR Toolbox: Know-How to Enable Extended Producer Responsibility for Packaging; PREVENT Waste Alliance: Bonn, Germany, 2020; pp. 1–205. Available online: https://prevent-waste.net/en/epr-toolbox/ (accessed on 25 March 2022).
  24. Wilson, D.C.; Rodic, L.; Cowing, M.J.; Velis, C.A.; Whiteman, A.D.; Scheinberg, A.; Vilches, R.; Masterson, D.; Stretz, J.; Oelz, B. “Wasteaware” benchmark indicators for integrated sustainable waste management in cities. Waste Manag. 2015, 35, 329–342.
  25. Oke, A.; Osobajo, O.; Obi, L.; Omotayo, T. Rethinking and optimising post-consumer packaging waste: A sentiment analysis of consumers’ perceptions towards the introduction of a deposit refund scheme in Scotland. Waste Manag. 2020, 118, 463–470.
  26. Ryberg, M.W.; Laurent, A.; Hauschild, M. Mapping of Global Plastics Value Chain and Plastics Losses to the Environment (with a Particular Focus on Marine Environment); UN Environ: Nairobi, Kenya, 2018; pp. 1–99.
  27. Soria, K.Y.; Palacios, M.R.; Morales Gomez, C.A. Governance and policy limitations for sustainable urban land planning. The case of Mexico. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 259, 109575.
  28. Alpizar, F.; Carlsson, F.; Lanza, G.; Carney, B.; Daniels, R.C.; Jaime, M.; Ho, T.; Nie, Z.; Salazar, C.; Tibesigwa, B.; et al. A framework for selecting and designing policies to reduce marine plastic pollution in developing countries. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 109, 25–35.
  29. Adam, I.; Walker, T.R.; Clayton, C.A.; Carlos Bezerra, J. Attitudinal and behavioural segments on single-use plastics in Ghana: Implications for reducing marine plastic pollution. Environ. Chall. 2021, 4, 100185.
  30. Gall, S.C.; Thompson, R.C. The impact of debris on marine life. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 92, 170–179.
  31. Binetti, U.; Silburn, B.; Russell, J.; van Hoytema, N.; Meakins, B.; Kohler, P.; Desender, M.; Preston-Whyte, F.; Fa’abasu, E.; Maniel, M.; et al. First marine litter survey on beaches in Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, South Pacific: Using OSPAR protocol to inform the development of national action plans to tackle land-based solid waste pollution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 161, 111827.
  32. Plastics Europe. Plastics–the facts 2018. In An Analysis of European Plastics Production, Demand and Waste Data; Plastics Europe: Brussels, Belgium, 2018.
  33. Geyer, R.; Jambeck, J.R.; Law, K.L. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, 25–29.
  34. DiMaggio, P.J.; Powell, W.W. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism & Collective Rationality in Organizational Field. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1983, 48, 147–160.
  35. Oliver, C. Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1991, 16, 147–179.
  36. Oti-Sarpong, K.; Shojaei, R.S.; Dakhli, Z.; Burgess, G. How countries achieve greater use of offsite manufacturing to build new housing: Identifying typologies through institutional theory. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 76, 103403.
  37. Bolognesi, T.; Nahrath, S. Environmental Governance Dynamics: Some Micro Foundations of Macro Failures. Ecol. Econ. 2020, 170, 106555.
  38. Whiteman, A.; Smith, P.; Wilson, D.C. Waste management: An indicator of urban governance. In Proceedings of the UN-Habitat Global Conference on Urban Development, New York, NY, USA, 4 June 2001.
  39. Glasbergen, P. The Question of Environmental Governance. In Co-Operative Environmental Governance; public-private agreements as a policy strategy; Glasbergen, P., Ed.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1998.
  40. Breukelman, H.; Krikke, H.; Löhr, A. Failing services on urban waste management in developing countries: A review on symptoms, diagnoses, and interventions. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6977.
  41. Cai, K.; Xie, Y.; Song, Q.; Sheng, N.; Wen, Z. Identifying the status and differences between urban and rural residents’ behaviors and attitudes toward express packaging waste management in Guangdong Province, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 797, 148996.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Environmental Studies
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Guilberto Borongan
,
View Times: 453
Entry Collection: Environmental Sciences
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 26 May 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback