Plastic Bag Restricting Law: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Rita Xu and Version 1 by Liujie Xu.

With the severe plastic pollution issue worldwide, restrictions or bans on plastic bags have become the most popular policy intervention. As essential participants in reducing plastic consumption, residents and enterprises are vital in implementing the plastic bag restriction law (PBRL). 

  • plastic bag restricting law
  • plastic bag charging

1. Introduction

In recent decades, plastic bags (PB) have emerged as one of the most effective products worldwide [1]. Globally the unprecedentedly excessive production and consumption of plastics have reached more than 350 million tons per annum. Plastic production in Asia accounted for 51% of the world’s plastic production in 2019, and plastic waste trade flow in Asia was up to 1197 million dollars in 2018 [2,3][2][3]. If consumption and waste management patterns do not change, by the year 2050, about 12,000 million tons of plastic waste will be generated [4]. Uncontrolled plastic waste has caused socio-ecological impacts, including visual pollution and the destruction of natural beauty [5]. Additionally, when burned down, PB could release highly toxic and poisonous gases (dioxins and furans), polluting the environment and affecting the health of people [6]. At the same time, single-use plastic is considered a significant contributor to plastic pollution in the ocean [7]. About 8 million metric tons of plastic flow into the ocean every year on top of the 150 million metric tons already in the ocean [8].
PB charges have been an important entry point in the solid waste management policy. Globally, over the past two decades, a remarkable shift in the international norms associated with disposable PB has occurred. Many countries and regions have either banned or put restrictions on the sale or use of disposable PB, varying from straws and utensils to plastic shopping bags [12,13][9][10]. International experiences showed that proactive policy instruments, such as bans or charges, are more effective than voluntary campaigns. If carefully designed and enforced, the charging for PB has proven to be effective in many countries [14][11].
Since 2008, China (mainland) has implemented the paid use of PB, which led to a 49% reduction in the use of new PB [15][12]. Hong Kong also implemented the first phase and comprehensive PB charging in 2009 and 2015. PB use reached a 58% drop in Taiwan due to the full restriction [16][13]. To reduce the excessive use of PB, the Macao Government implemented the plastic bag restriction law (PBRL) on 18 November 2019. One Macao dollar is charged for each plastic bag. Though there have been many initiatives to reduce single-use PB, very few studies have evaluated the effects of the bans or restrictions. Such as the perception and behavioural changes of residents and enterprises, especially combining the perspective of the residents and enterprises. As wresearchers know, not many studies have evaluated the efficacy of plastic bag bans from the perspective of customers and enterprises, though at least 65 countries now have plastic bag bans at national or sub-national levels [17,18,19][14][15][16]. The available evidence suggests that a tax or a charge on disposable PB can be highly effective [13][10].

2. How to improve the implement effects of PBRL

To reduce PB use in the general population, some scholars have researched behavioural changes and the factors influencing PB use. These studies focused on government policy cognition, knowledge about PB, environmental concern, environmental emotion, policy satisfaction, and socioeconomic characteristics (gender, age, education level, family size, and income level), etc. [14,20,21,22][11][17][18][19]. And those influence factors have a positive influence on anti-plastic bag behaviour. In environmental behaviour studies, environmental concern and awareness is widely used as a predictor of the pro-environmental behaviour and was found to significantly affect the attitude towards PB use [14,21][11][18]. Charges on PB can have a significant impact on plastic reduction as it disrupts consumers’ automated choices of accepting PB and makes them think more consciously [14][11]. The rising concern about plastic and other environmental pollution would increase the positive perception of the public towards PBRL. Therefore, it is important to know whether environmental concerns development can lead to a sustained change in residents’ behaviour on reducing PB usage, namely, the long-term habit of bringing eco-friendly bags (EFB). Previous studies stated that a positive attitude highly depended on environmental knowledge, which results in favourable action towards nature. And the relationship between environmental knowledge and attitude showed a significant positive correlation toward plastic usage [23][20]. In other words, in this study, the knowledge of PB can intuitively understand the residents’ reduction of PB. One of the objectives of this studentry is to explore the influential relationship between environmental knowledge, namely knowledge about plastic bags, and reduced PB-consumption behaviour amongst Macao residents. Leech and Cronk [24][21] found that the psychological cognition and cognitive basis of policy actions affect human political behaviour. And the cognition of policies and government measures has a significant impact on public behaviours. Therefore, the first step to knowing the effect of environmental governance can be measured by residents’ cognition of relevant policies. One’s attitude towards using PB is a psychological emotion that can be regarded as a manifestation of environmental emotion. When residents hold a positive attitude towards reducing PB usage, they will form a positive intention to accept PBRL. Policy support can reflect whether residents agreed or disagreed with the PBRL [25][22], while the degree of policy satisfaction can better reflect the residents’ acceptance of the policy [26][23]. Many existing studies have used regression analysis to explore the factors that influence behaviour and to measure the strength of the relationship between a behaviour and its influencing factors [27,28,29,30][24][25][26][27]. Radtke et al. [27][24] used the logistic regression method to find that community energy influences pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour. Tran and Matsui [28][25] used logistic regression to analyse waste separation behaviour. Scharmer and Snyder [29][26] used ordinal logistic regression to test the matching effect on meal plan selection. Hu et al. [30][27] demonstrated that attitudes towards environmental protection and perceived benefits play a key role in accelerating the adoption of shared electric cars using the logistic regression model. And these studies have obtained satisfactory test results.
 

References

  1. Alam, O.; Billah, M.; Yajie, D. Characteristics of Plastic Bags and Their Potential Environmental Hazards. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 132, 121–129.
  2. Liang, Y.; Tan, Q.; Song, Q.; Li, J. An Analysis of the Plastic Waste Trade and Management in Asia. Waste Manag. 2021, 119, 242–253.
  3. PlasticEurope. Plastics—The Facts 2020: An Analysis of European Plastics Production, Demand and Waste Data; PlasticEurope: Brussels, Belgium, 2020; Available online: https://plasticseurope.org/knowledge-hub/plastics-the-facts-2020/ (accessed on 21 July 2021).
  4. Geyer, R.; Jambeck, J.; Law, K. Producción, Uso y Destino de Todos Los Plásticos Jamás Fabricados. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, 1207–1221.
  5. Adane, L.; Muleta, D. Survey on the Usage of Plastic Bags, Their Disposal and Adverse Impacts on Environment: A Case Study in Jimma City, Southwestern Ethiopia. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Sci. 2011, 3, 234–248.
  6. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Plastic Bag Bans Can Help Reduce Toxic Fumes. Available online: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/plastic-bag-bans-can-help-reduce-toxic-fumes (accessed on 2 October 2021).
  7. Costa, K. Public Perceptions of Single-Use Plastic Bans in Rhode Island. Master’s Thesis, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA, 2020.
  8. Ocean Conservancy. The Problem with Plastics. Available online: https://oceanconservancy.org/trash-free-seas/plastics-in-the-ocean/ (accessed on 4 July 2021).
  9. Clapp, J.; Swanston, L. Doing Away with Plastic Shopping Bags: International Patterns of Norm Emergence and Policy Implementation. Environ. Politics 2009, 18, 315–332.
  10. Poortinga, W.; Whitmarsh, L.; Suffolk, C. The Introduction of a Single-Use Carrier Bag Charge in Wales: Attitude Change and Behavioural Spillover Effects. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 36, 240–247.
  11. Vassanadumrongdee, S.; Hoontrakool, D.; Marks, D. Perception and Behavioral Changes of Thai Youths Towards the Plastic Bag Charging Program. Appl. Environ. Res. 2020, 42, 27–45.
  12. He, H. Effects of environmental policy on consumption: Lessons from the Chinese plastic bag regulation. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2012, 17, 407–431.
  13. Lee, C.-H. Taiwanese Plastics Versus Sustainability—From the Perspective Of Glocalization of Sustainable Development And Circular Economy. Law Environ. Dev. J. 2019, 15, 154.
  14. Macintosh, A.; Simpson, A.; Neeman, T.; Dickson, K. Plastic Bag Bans: Lessons from the Australian Capital Territory. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 154, 104638.
  15. Nielsen, T.D.; Holmberg, K.; Stripple, J. Need a Bag? A Review of Public Policies on Plastic Carrier Bags—Where, How and to What Effect? Waste Manag. 2019, 87, 428–440.
  16. Xanthos, D.; Walker, T.R. International Policies to Reduce Plastic Marine Pollution from Single-Use Plastics (Plastic Bags and Microbeads): A Review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 118, 17–26.
  17. Senturk, G.; Dumludag, D. The Relationship between Consumption of Single-Use Plastic Bags, Environmental Awareness, and Socio-Demographic Factors. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2022, 1–14.
  18. Law, C.Y.Y.; Zhao, J.; Lim, P.P. Influence of Environmental Awareness, Education, Government Policies & Regulation and Social Influence on Anti-Plastic Bags Usage Behaviour of Consumers. Taylor’s Bus. Rev. 2019, 8, 24.
  19. Zambrano-Monserrate, M.A.; Alejandra Ruano, M. Do You Need a Bag? Analyzing the Consumption Behavior of Plastic Bags of Households in Ecuador. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 152, 104489.
  20. Hasan, S.N.M.S.; Harun, R.; Hock, L.K. Application of Theory of Planned Behavior in Measuring the Behavior to Reduce Plastic Consumption Among Students at Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2015, 30, 195–200.
  21. Leech, B.L.; Cronk, L. Coordinated Policy Action and Flexible Coalitional Psychology: How Evolution Made Humans so Good at Politics. Cogn. Syst. Res. 2017, 43, 89–99.
  22. Jakovcevic, A. Charges for Plastic Bags: Motivational and Behavioral Effects. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 40, 372–380.
  23. Esaiasson, P.; Gilljam, M.; Persson, M. Responsiveness Beyond Policy Satisfaction: Does It Matter to Citizens? Comp. Political Stud. 2017, 50, 739–765.
  24. Radtke, J.; Yildiz, Ö.; Roth, L. Does Energy Community Membership Change Sustainable Attitudes and Behavioral Patterns? Empirical Evidence from Community Wind Energy in Germany. Energies 2022, 15, 822.
  25. Tran, V.C.M.; Matsui, Y. Predicting the Effect of Promotion Measures on Waste Separation Behavior: A Case Study in Da Nang City, Vietnam. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2022, 24, 122–133.
  26. Scharmer, A.; Snyder, M. Political Message Matching and Green Behaviors: Strengths and Boundary Conditions for Promoting High-Impact Behavioral Change. J. Environ. Psychol. 2021, 76, 101643.
  27. Hu, J.-W.; Javaid, A.; Creutzig, F. Leverage Points for Accelerating Adoption of Shared Electric Cars: Perceived Benefits and Environmental Impact of NEVs. Energy Policy 2021, 155, 112349.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback