case study on single use plastic

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Sage Choice

Considerations, benefits and unintended consequences of banning plastic shopping bags for environmental sustainability: A systematic literature review

Asphat muposhi.

1 Department of Marketing Management, Midlands State University, Zimbabwe

Mercy Mpinganjira

2 School of Consumer Intelligence & Information Systems, University of Johannesburg, South Africa

Marius Wait

Although the ban on plastic bags is gaining in prominence as a policy option to manage plastic bag litter, there are mixed views on its rationale and effectiveness. This study employs a systematic literature review to understand considerations, benefits and unintended consequences of banning plastic bags. The review’s results pointed to the limited success of a plastic bag ban owing to lack of suitable alternatives, limited state capacity to monitor and enforce the ban, thriving black market, structural and instrumental power of the plastic industry. The power of the industry was manifested by the covert practice of deflecting accountability to consumers by focusing on business-oriented solutions, including an inclination towards self-regulation. The findings of this study underscored the need for a global treaty to address the transient nature of plastic bag litter and moving away from the symbolic gesture of targeting only plastic shopping bags but considering the environmental impact of all forms of plastic such as straws, foamed plastics, plastic bottles and caps. There is a general consensus in literature that the end of plastic shopping bags is not nigh due to their utilitarian benefits. This study therefore recommends the promotion of a circular economy focusing on ecological modernisation, sustainable plastic bag manufacturing and recovery strategies such as recycling as a long-term strategy. A significant strand of literature reviewed also recommends the adoption of community-driven approaches such as voluntary initiatives as opposed to a plastic bag ban as they proved to be effective in promoting environmental citizenship behaviours in countries such as Finland.

Introduction

Single-use plastic shopping bags (SUPBs) are a significant source of environmental pollution ( Jambeck et al., 2015 ; Xanthos and Walker, 2017 ). Improperly disposed SUPBs clog waterways resulting in flooding ( Martinho et al., 2017 ), impair the visual appeal of landscapes ( Xanthos and Walker, 2017 ) and reduce the recreational value of seashores ( Jory et al., 2019 ). The magnitude of this problem has resulted in the growing tide of an anti-plastic bag sentiment characterised by the implementation of several interventions that include bans, taxes, nudges and voluntary initiatives ( Clapp and Swanston, 2009 ). In this regard, the plastic bag tax and plastic bag ban emerged as the most commonly employed tools ( Rivers et al., 2017 ). In Europe, guided by Directive 2015/720, which required European Union countries to achieve a target of 40 plastic bags per capita by 31 December 2025, a plastic bag tax is the popular policy instrument ( European Commission, 2017 ). This explains why the majority of empirical studies in Europe focused on the efficacy of the plastic bag tax as a plastic bag governance tool ( Convery et al., 2007 ; Martinho et al., 2017 ; Oosterhuis et al., 2014 ).

In contrast to the plastic bag tax that was predominantly adopted by European Union members, the majority of countries in Asia and Africa implemented a plastic bag ban (PBB). Bangladesh, India, Taiwan and China pioneered the implementation of a PBB in Asia ( Gupta, 2011 ; He, 2012 ; Larsen and Venkova, 2014 ). Floods forced the implementation of a ban in Bangladesh in 2002, while China was motivated by the need to reduce coastal litter and the desire to host ‘green’ Olympic Games in 2008 ( He, 2012 ). As of 31 December 2018, more than 25 African countries had implemented a PBB ( UNEP, 2018a ), becoming the continent with the largest number of PBB in the world. In North America, a PBB was mainly introduced by states such as California, Hawaii and New York ( Nielsen et al., 2019 ), while Australian states (e.g. South Australia, Tasmania and Australia Capital Territory) and Papua New Guinea introduced the ban in Oceania ( UNEP, 2018a ). In South America, Brazil (Sao Paulo) and Argentina (Buenos Aires) introduced the ban while Chile opted for voluntary initiatives ( Larsen and Venkova, 2014 ; Macintosh et al., 2020 ). Figure 1 provides a map of countries with a PBB, while specific names and timeframes are provided in Appendix 1 .

Countries with a plastic bag ban.

Source: Xanthos and Walker (2017) .

A PBB prohibits the manufacturing, importation and selling of plastic bags that do not meet recommended thickness thresholds ( Rivers et al., 2017 ). The PBB targets ultra-thin, non-biodegradable plastic bags used in the grocery retail sector ( Clapp and Swanston, 2009 ). The thickness thresholds however vary across jurisdictions from less than 30 µm to 100 µm ( Larsen and Venkova, 2014 ). A PBB is regarded as a punitive, command-and-control approach of addressing plastic shopping bag litter ( Macintosh et al., 2020 ), and has triggered divergent views on its rationale and effectiveness. Proponents of the PBB such as McLellan (2014) and Behuria (2019) consider bans to be the most effective tool to manage the burgeoning problem of plastic bag litter. On the other hand, the PBB is criticised for causing shopping inconvenience Wagner (2017) , failing to consider the influence of shopping occasions ( He, 2012 ), increasing shopping cost owing to expensive alternatives ( Coulter, 2009 ), focusing on short-term benefits ( Zhu, 2011 ), triggering deviant behaviours such as illegal dumping ( Taylor, 2019 ), imposing an enforcement burden on national governments ( He, 2012 ), and causing negative economic impacts such as job losses and plastic industry disinvestment ( Klick and Wright, 2012 ; Stephenson, 2018 ).

To date, empirical studies on PBB ( Macintosh et al., 2020 ; McLellan, 2014 ; Xing, 2009 ; Zhu, 2011 ) have been confined to specific municipalities or countries. While such studies permit an assessment of the effectiveness of the PBB based on contextual realities, the comparative quality of gleaning best practices from multiple scenarios is lost. Given the transient nature of plastic bag pollution ( Vince and Hardesty, 2017 ), this study argues that a holistic approach that harnesses best practices in several jurisdictions is critical in assessing the effectiveness of a PBB. To this end, this study adopts a systematic literature review with the overreaching objective of assessing the considerations, benefits and unintended consequences of PBBs implemented in several jurisdictions. This study also intends to understand current research gaps and provide input to the development of current and long-term plastic bag policies. A systematic literature review was preferred for this study because it is recommended for public policy studies ( Saunders et al., 2012 ).

This study contributes to the environmental sustainability debate by addressing the following key objectives: (a) to understand considerations influencing adoption and implementation of a PBB as a policy option; (b) to delineate the benefits and unintended consequences of PBB; and (c) to suggest strategies for managing the problem of SUPB litter. The remainder of this article is structured as follows: The next section discusses the research methodology. Thereafter the results, implications, limitations and conclusion are presented.

Materials and methods

A systematic literature review was employed to achieve the research objectives. It involved a predetermined, comprehensive approach of searching, analysing and synthesising extant literature on plastic bag bans with the objective of drawing conclusions and identifying research gaps. A systematic literature review was used as it is recommended for public policy studies ( Saunders et al., 2012 ) and it permits replicability ( Denyer and Tranfield, 2009 ). It was also a preferred methodology in previous studies on plastic bag policies ( Pietzsch et al., 2017 ; Rivers et al., 2017 ; Xanthos and Walker, 2017 ). The review focuses on PBB implemented at both national and municipal level, and was operationalised by developing the PRISMA checklist recommended by Denyer and Tranfield (2009) and Moher et al. (2009) . The beginning of January 2002 was identified as the base year, up to December 2020. In 2002, Bangladesh and India became the first countries to introduce plastic bag ban legislation ( Synthia and Kabir, 2015 ).

The first stage of the review involved the definition of the research objectives, which were to understand the considerations, benefits and unintended consequences associated with banning plastic shopping bags. The next stage involved database selection. Following the example of Pietzsch et al. (2017) and Xanthos and Walker (2017) , databases that publish peer-reviewed articles and proceedings on environmental sustainability such as Science Direct, Scopus, ProQuest, Google Scholar, Emerald Insight, EBSCO Host and Web of Science were selected. Working papers, book chapters and environmental reports from reputable institutions such as the United Nations Environment Programme, European Commission, World Economic Forum, Greenpeace, Earth Policy Institute, PlasticsEurope and EuroCommerce were also considered following established practice ( Nielsen et al., 2019 ; Xanthos and Walker, 2017 ). Grey literature from print and online newspapers was not included owing to validity and reliability concerns. The second step involved the identification of key search words. Plastic bag ban, plastic bag policies, plastic bag regulations, plastic bag interventions, and plastic bag ordinances were identified as search terms and phrases. The third stage involved article search. Articles were manually searched from the selected databases. A total of 159 potential articles emerged from the search.

The fourth stage involved the selection of compatible articles and evaluation. The selection process involved carefully checking search terms in the titles, key words, abstracts and full texts of the extracted articles. To be included in the review, the article had also to be aligned with the research objectives. Articles focusing on plastic bag hazards, solid waste management and anti-plastic bag tools such as taxes, nudges and voluntary initiatives were excluded. Forty-six duplicate articles were dropped; 15 articles were further dropped for having irrelevant abstracts. After reading and analysing the full texts, an additional 17 articles were found to be inappropriate. The remaining articles were further evaluated by three independent researchers for methodological quality, using the Oxford Quality Scale ( Jadad et al., 1996 ). This was done by reading and analysing the titles, abstracts and full texts. A minimum score of 3 out of 5 was required for the inclusion of an article in the study. Eleven more articles were dropped for scoring below the minimum threshold of the Oxford Quality Scale. Figure 2 provides a graphical depiction of the inclusion and exclusion criteria for reviewed articles.

Article selection flow diagram.

The last stage involved data extraction and aggregation. This was done by following Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) content analysis procedure. The selected articles were critically evaluated by three independent researchers focusing on three aspects: considerations, benefits and unintended consequences of banning plastic bags. The aggregation process was done by comparing, integrating and summarising themes that emerged from the systematic review process. The themes that emerged were independently confirmed by three researchers, thereby enhancing the credibility and rigour of the study findings. The distribution of the reviewed articles was to a greater extent representative of the continents where PBBs were implemented, that is, Africa, Asia and Europe, thereby enhancing the study’s generalisability. The findings were categorised under four themes: considerations for PBBs, benefits of PBBs, impact of PBBs, and unintended consequences of PBBs. Table 1 provides a list of articles that were considered for systematic review.

Systematic literature review – selected articles.

This section provides the results from the systematic literature review, focusing on the considerations, benefits, effectiveness and unintended consequences of PBB.

Considerations for PBB

The implementation of a PBB policy is justified on the basis of negative externalities posed by SUPBs ( Thompson et al., 2009 ; Vince and Hardesty, 2017 ). Content analysed from the sampled articles identified environmental, economic and social factors as the main drivers for PBBs. It was evident from the literature reviewed that SUPBs are more than an environmental issue: the economic and social costs of using such bags are as much part of the considerations for plastic bans as is their environmental impact. Included under ‘economic concerns’ are the costs of managing plastic bag litter, and the costs associated with repairing clogged waterways, both of which come with high opportunity costs, as they deprive citizens of funds that could have been used to provide other much-needed services. Furthermore, the pollution of land, including coastlines, results in a loss of tourism income. And, considering that plastic bags are a petroleum derivative, SUPBs are a wasteful way of using up precious oil resources. Negative social effects include adverse health effects on both humans and animals. Table 2 summarises the articles discussing the considerations for banning plastic shopping bags.

Considerations for plastic bag bans.

SUPB: single-use plastic bag; UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme.

Benefits of plastic bag bans

The implementation of PBBs is rationalised by more than the concerns associated with the negative effects of using SUPBs. For example, banning SUPBs can promote a circular economy, for example economic activities aimed at eliminating waste through the continual use of resources, among other ways. Thus economic, environmental and social benefits are expected from banning plastic bags ( Kloblauch et al. 2018 ; Muralidharan and Sheehan 2016 ). Table 3 summarises the benefits of PBBs.

Benefits of plastic bag bans.

SUPB: single-use plastic bag.

Effectiveness of plastic bag bans

While many benefits may be expected from PBBs, the impact of any public policy – including a PPB – needs to be assessed in order to justify its implementation. The articles reviewed pointed to the limited success of such initiatives, as well as a general lack of detailed data for a proper impact assessment ( UNEP, 2018b ). The limited availability of data renders efforts to quantify the economic and social impact of the ban difficult ( Macintosh et al., 2020 ; Xanthos and Walker, 2017 ). Equally, there is limited data from the reviewed articles on the environmental impact in areas such as reduced ingestion and entanglement of micro-plastics by animals in land and marine environments before and after the ban ( Thompson et al., 2009 ; Vince and Hardesty, 2017 ). Several factors were identified during the review to contribute to the failure to implement PPBs effectively. These included a lack of business support, with some businesses advocating against such bans. Moreover, businesses that support banning SUPBs, especially those in the retail industry, are often accused of profiteering from the alternatives by charging high margins. In the end, this discourages consumers from taking up the alternatives to SUPBs. Community support captures general support of the ban by members of the public, while green consumerism focuses on specific support from consumers in adopting green habits. The plastic litter category looks at the impact from the perspective of the general reduction (or not) of the problem of plastic littering, while green innovation focuses specifically on the impact of green economic activities. Table 4 presents a summary of the findings relating to the impact of PBBs in different countries.

Impact of plastic bag bans.

PBB: plastic bag ban; SUPB: single-use plastic bag.

Unintended consequences

The review showed that an outright ban on plastic bags triggered a host of challenges that were unforeseen during the policy’s promulgation. Examples of such unintended consequences included job losses resulting from disinvestments in the plastic industry, health and hygiene problems resulting from the increased use of unwashed reusable shopping bags. Moreover, profiteering by retailers and entrepreneurs through the sale of bags with unsubstantiated environmental claims tended to also escalate with PBBs. Table 5 provides a list of the unintended consequences of PBBs from the reviewed articles.

Unintended consequences of plastic bag bans.

Discussion of results

A systematic literature review was conducted to understand the considerations, benefits, impacts and unintended consequences of the plastic bag ban policy. There was a broad consensus in the reviewed literature that environmental, economic and social factors were the main motivating drivers of a plastic bag ban policy ( Oyake-Ombis et al., 2015 ; Xing, 2009 ; Zhu, 2011 ). As shown in Appendix 1 , there are variations in the success rate of plastic bag bans, ranging from minimal success in India, Bangladesh and Bhutan to remarkable success in the cases of Australia and Rwanda. China, The Gambia, Mali, Niger, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe are still struggling to enforce the plastic bag ban ( UNEP, 2018a ). For example, bans were announced in Mali in 2012 and in Tanzania in 2016; but by December 2019 they were yet to be implemented. China and India continue to be the largest contributors of plastic bag litter, pointing to the limited success of the ban ( Jambeck et al., 2015 ).

The literature reviewed attributed the limited success rate of the various bans to a lack of stakeholder support, the absence of a global treaty, and lapses in enforcement and monitoring ( Dauvergne, 2018 ; He, 2012 ). Incidences of consumer and business disobedience in the form of reluctance to comply with the ban were reported in China, India, Kenya, Uganda and Zimbabwe ( Chitotombe, 2014 ; Death, 2015 ; He, 2012 ). Consumer concerns centre on the inconvenience associated with the ban, especially with unplanned buying behaviour and the high cost of alternatives such as reusable shopping bags ( Coulter, 2009 ; Wagner, 2017 ). Critics of reusable shopping bags doubt the credibility of their claimed environmental benefits ( Muthu et al., 2013 ). Such doubts are encouraged by the lack of a universally acceptable instrument for measuring the ecological characteristics of reusable plastic shopping bags ( UNEP, 2018b ). The literature also highlighted concerns about the use of paper bags as an alternative. For instance, although paper bags easily biodegrade, they consume more energy in production than do plastic bags ( Macintosh et al., 2018 ; Wagner, 2017 ).

The literature also indicated that the effective implementation of a PBB is undermined by the unbridled power of large corporates ( Dauvergne, 2018 ). Several articles showed that the majority of businesses rejected the plastic ban outright by deflecting accountability for plastic bag litter to national governments, lobbying for business-centred solutions, and – in some instances – advocating for self-regulation. In Kenya, business’s power led to the postponement of a plastic bag ban more than five times ( Njeru, 2006 ). The literature reviewed also showed that powerful companies often circumvent the ban by negotiating directly with government. A typical example is Rwanda, where RAMCO and Bobmil Industries were granted special permits to produce plastics for selected sectors ( Behuria, 2019 ). Companies in the plastic industry rationalise their pro-plastic bag stance by citing the fear of job losses, the threat of disinvestment and the failure of government to provide incentives and subsidies for the production of sustainable alternatives ( Behuria, 2019 ; Clapp and Swanston, 2009 ). For this reason, Clapp and Swanston (2009) argue that the success rate of PBBs largely depends on the structural power of the plastic industry and the profile of the consumer market. For example, He (2012) notes that a ban can be more easily enforced in a formalised retail system than in an open market system. In the latter case, found in most developing economies, the competitive retail environment often compels marketers to offer plastic bags to entice shoppers to buy their merchandise.

The complexity of plastic bag governance emerged from the reviewed literature as one of the key issues. One glaring challenge relates to the absence of a global treaty against plastic bags. This has led to variation in thickness thresholds of plastic bags subjected to the ban. For instance, in Kenya and Mozambique plastic bags of less than 30 µm were targeted, while in Rwanda the focus was on non-biodegradable bags of less than 100 µm ( Nielsen et al., 2019 ). In the EU, Directive 2015/720 addressed plastic bags of 15–50 µm ( European Commission, 2017 ).

This makes it a challenge to manage the trans-boundary nature of plastic bag pollution. The reviewed articles showed that some countries enacted PBBs without any formal agreements with other countries. This results in excessive plastic bag leakages ( Taylor, 2019 ). For instance, in Cameroon, Rwanda and Zimbabwe, plastic bags were smuggled from neighbouring countries when the ban was enforced ( Behuria, 2019 ; Chitotombe, 2014 ). Articles also showed a variation in the thickness thresholds for the banned plastic bags. The literature also noted that the PBB policy remains uncoordinated, fragmented and uneven in its implementation ( Dauvergne, 2018 ). Evidence from the reviewed articles also points to the importance of developing strict implementation guidelines and enforcement of the ban. For example, the success of Rwanda’s PBB is attributed to sound leadership, since the ban was linked to the country’s Vision 2020. Its implementation involved a $150 fine or one year’s imprisonment for carrying a plastic bag, and luggage searches at ports of entry ( Behuria, 2019 ).

The literature also highlighted the unintended consequences of PBB. In particular, PBB was found to have the effect of transferring plastic bag consumption from the regulated public sphere to illegal private spheres ( Njeru, 2006 ; Stephenson, 2018 ). According to Heidbreder et al. (2019) , pressuring citizens to comply with PBB has the effect of triggering the moral hazard of unobservable behaviours, such as illegal dumping. Further, instances of the smuggling of plastic bag imports were cited in Rwanda and Zimbabwe ( Behuria, 2019 ; Chitotombe, 2014 ). There are also concerns that the ban has triggered the unethical behaviour of opportunistic retailers and entrepreneurs who sell shopping bags using unsubstantiated environmental claims ( Stephenson, 2018 ; Taylor and Vilas-Boas, 2016 ). The PBB has also been contested on health grounds. For instance, Klick and Wright (2012) note that reusable bags need to be thoroughly washed to minimise the bacterial contamination of groceries. The PBB is also criticised for imposing a monitoring and enforcement burden on national governments, often with hefty costs ( Stephenson, 2018 ). The PBB, according to Wagner (2017) , has also resulted in the increased consumption of non-banned plastic bags in retail sectors such as clothing, which has the effect of negating the intended gains.

Another key finding from the literature is a lack of consensus on the rationale for a PBB. In view of growing evidence that the age of plastics is still with us, EuroCommerce (2014) , Stephenson (2018) and Behuria (2019) argue that a ban will not succeed with weak waste management infrastructure, institutions and without support from strong social norms. The high cost of ban enforcement and monitoring also makes a ban unsustainable in the long term ( EuroCommerce, 2014 ; He, 2012 ). To address this, He (2012) suggests that the challenges attributed to plastic bags, such as littering behaviour and pollution, can be easily changed through education and engagement. Findings from environmental psychology can be used to develop behavioural change strategies. Regulations have the inherent challenge of crowding out intrinsic behaviour, thereby diluting individuals’ sense of responsibility to engage in good citizenship behaviours ( He, 2012 ). France, Finland, Indonesia and Luxembourg achieved reduced plastic bag litter levels through the use of voluntary initiatives ( Larsen and Venkova, 2014 ). For instance, France reported a decrease in the use of SUPBs from 10.5 billion in 2002 to 800 million in 2013 through the use of voluntary initiatives that focused on promoting reusable shopping bags. Similarly, a plastic bag deposit-refund scheme proved to be effective in Indonesia ( Heidbreder et al., 2019 ). Rather than banning plastics, EuroCommerce (2014) suggests the importance of developing robust policies to promote a circular economy based on key pillars such as green growth, enhancing recyclability and green reverse logistics. In this regard, extended producer responsibility proved to be effective in Denmark ( Larsen and Venkova, 2014 ).

Implications of the study

This study has contributed to the literature on plastic bag governance by reviewing the extant literature on plastic bag bans. The study managed to identify the considerations, benefits and unintended consequences of PBB implementation. The study’s findings have several policy implications. The uncoordinated nature of PBB implementation was apparent in the literature reviewed. Since plastic bag litter is now regarded as a global environmental problem, this study argues that the first step in addressing this challenge is to bring about a global treaty tasked with harmonising plastic bag policies. This approach has the potential to reduce plastic bag leakages through illegal imports across national borders ( Taylor, 2019 ). The envisaged treaty will be instrumental in managing the transboundary nature of plastic bags ( Clapp and Swanston, 2009 ). The proposed treaty could be modelled on the tenets of the Conference of the Parties (COP) on Climate Change. The approach adopted by the European Commission to harmonise plastic bag policies through Directive 2015/720 for European Union members may be used as a foundation to form a coordinated global response.

Plastic bag litter is a typical example of a ‘missing market’ problem ( Heidbreder et al., 2019 ). In order to manage plastic bag litter effectively, policy-makers need to assign rights to manufacturers by way of extended producer responsibility. This approach, which was effective in Denmark, has the effect of fostering sustainable manufacturing practices. The unsubstantiated environmental claims used to market alternatives to plastic bags, such as paper bags and reusable bags, are a recurring concern in the reviewed articles. To address this concern, policy-makers should insist on conducting life cycle assessments to confirm the environmental properties of bags that are promoted as environmentally friendly. This will go a long way in providing conclusive scientific proof of the suitability of alternatives to plastic bags. The need for stakeholder engagement was also highlighted in the reviewed articles. To gain stakeholder support, policy-makers could consider engaging in public-private partnerships, providing incentives and subsidies to promote the adoption of green technologies, and investing in consumer education and awareness campaigns. The high level of compliant behaviour in Rwanda is attributed to a comprehensive awareness campaign that was rolled out prior to the enforcement of the ban ( McLellan, 2014 ).

The lack of conclusive data on plastic bag consumption before and after the implementation of a ban was noted in the reviewed articles as the major challenge in assessing the impact of bans. In the absence of such data, policy-makers are unable to evaluate policy effectiveness. To address this challenge, policy-makers could insist on a mandatory disclosure by manufacturers and retailers of such statistics as part of their reporting systems. This can be done by developing a comprehensive plastic bag information system that tracks the production, consumption and disposal metrics. Owing to the limited success of PBBs in several countries, as noted in the reviewed literature, policy-makers could consider moving away from coercive measures such as bans, and instead adopting initiatives that inculcate a sense of responsibility in manufacturers, retailers and consumers in the form of voluntary initiatives. European countries that have achieved impressive results using voluntary initiatives include France, Finland, Germany, France and Austria ( Kasidoni et al., 2015 ). An interesting case is that of Finland, where the voluntary initiatives of retailers were effective in reducing plastic bag litter without needing the support of any national legislation ( Larsen and Venkova, 2014 ).

Limitations

As with any study, this one is not without its limitations. One of them is to do with the limited number of articles reviewed, mainly because there is not much research on plastic bag bans. While in many countries talks on banning SUPBs are common, actual implementation lags behind. As more countries take the bold step of implementing such bans in future, more reviews to uncover the range of lessons from different countries are recommended. Another limitation of the study is that, in reviewing the articles, consideration was not given to the country in which each study was conducted. This limits the extent to which the findings could be used to shed light on the differences in the considerations, benefits and consequences of banning plastic bags arising from factors such as the characteristics of individual country and/or country groups; for example, the differences between developed and emerging countries. Future reviews could compare the findings from different countries and/or country groups for more insights into the banning of plastic bags. This study focused only on plastic bag bans, and this limited the researchers’ ability to gain a comprehensive understanding of plastic bag policies. Thus future studies could consider conducting a systematic literature review of the impact of plastic bag taxes, levies and voluntary initiatives. The study was also limited by the unavailability of data on the impact of plastic bag bans. In instances where data was available, it often existed in aggregated form that encompasses all plastic litter. Future studies could seek to address this by exploring the possibility of developing a comprehensive information system to track the production, consumption and disposal of plastic bags and disaggregate plastic litter by type. The development of such a system would assist policy-makers in tracking non-compliance and enforcing accountability.

The study sets out to understand the considerations, benefits and unintended consequences associated with the implementation of plastic bag bans. The complexity of managing plastic bag litter owing to its transient nature was a recurring theme in the literature reviewed. In the Global South constituted mainly by developing countries, lack of suitable alternatives to SUPBs, limited state capacity to monitor and enforce the PBB and the thriving black market were identified as the major challenges for effective implementation of the ban. In developing countries that have implemented the PBB such as Rwanda, South Sudan, Tanzania and Kenya, the promise of ecological modernisation and green economic growth that precipitated the ban is yet to be realised due to lack of funding to support the production of alternatives to SUPBs and recycling, stressing the need for financial incentives for manufacturers. The study notes the need by developing countries to develop effective waste management systems before rushing to implement plastic bag bans. In the Global North, constituted by European and North American countries, the implementation of the ban was constrained by the structural and instrumental power of plastic manufacturers, the lobbying by EuroCommerce and PlasticsEurope for business-oriented solutions and voluntary initiatives.

The study also underscored the need for a global treaty to address the transient nature of plastic bag litter. Literature reviewed recommended such a treaty to move away from the symbolic gesture of targeting only plastic shopping bags to considering the environmental impact of all forms of plastic such as straws, foamed plastics, plastic bottles and caps. Criticism levelled against alternatives to plastic bags such as paper bags and reusable bags mainly because of the use of unsubstantiated environmental claims was a main concern. To address this concern, the use of independent life cycle assessments in order to verify the claims for such bags is recommended. There was also general consensus in extant literature that the end of plastic shopping bags is not nigh due to their utilitarian benefits, and that a PBB is coercive and punitive. In view of this, literature reviewed recommended the promotion of a circular economy focused on ecological modernisation that capacitates companies to engage in sustainable plastic bag manufacturing and recovery strategies such as recycling. Community-driven approaches such as voluntary initiatives as opposed to PBB are proposed as an alternative policy tool as they proved to be effective in Chile, Finland and Luxembourg. Such initiatives, when driven by communities, have proved to be effective in promoting environmental citizenship and reducing the cost of regulation enforcement by the government.

Appendix 1.

Examples of countries with a PBB.

Declaration of conflicting interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Single use plastic in healthcare must not become the new normal 

We must not let our reliance on single-use plastic in healthcare become the “new normal” or set-back the strides taken prior to the covid-19 pandemic to address the primary existential crisis concerning our environment.

The covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the huge material footprint required to support frontline healthcare in the NHS. The NHS contributes 5.4% to the UK’s climate footprint. [1] Pre-covid, the NHS had made great strides in tackling waste and contributing to its goal of a net-zero future. In 2019, the NHS had achieved an estimated 62% reduction in its 1990 emission levels. [2] 

However, six months after the initial outbreak of covid-19, the UK government had procured 32 billion items of personal protective equipment (PPE) worth £12.5 billion. [3] Between February 2020 and February 2021, the NHS used more than 1 billion surgical masks. [4] This would generate nearly 3 million kilograms of waste according to a recently published study, which estimated that 123,000 tonnes of unrecyclable plastic waste would be generated in a year if every person in the UK used one disposable surgical mask per day. [5] 

To support the long term plan of achieving net-zero and other sustainability commitments, more systemic approaches to designing out waste and greenhouse gas emissions are needed within the NHS. Current practices of incineration, landfill, and low-value recycling need to be replaced by a “circular” mind-set, where everything is designed, procured, and used for as long as possible, at their highest value, only then recycled back into new products or for alternative high-quality uses. [6] Such approaches are available even during a pandemic. 

For example, a Sterimelt machine, which aims to recycle and repurpose wasted surgical masks and other plastic, was installed during the pandemic at the Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust. [7] A recent study found that the carbon impact of anaesthetic gases can be as small as intravenous anaesthetics, by shifting from desflurane to sevoflurane and employing effective vapour capture technologies. [8] A trial of world’s first bespoke net-zero clinical laundry study for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) piloted across a range of NHS sites for gowns, aprons, coveralls and surgical masks found that the service has the potential to save the NHS an estimated £9m per annum, displacing 5% of the disposable market share in 2022. [9] At a product level, the re-manufacture of electrophysiology catheters was found to reduce its carbon emissions by a minimum of 50% [10]; while a “circular” mindset led to the development of a technology that can transform materials of clinical wastes into feedstock chemicals. [11] At an organisational level, monitoring and increasing the use of building space, shifting to performance-based business models for expensive equipment and lighting, and altering procurement rules to favour remanufactured products are all actions that are needed to create large scale system changes to break out of the current linear model and ways of thinking. 

However, the human element is crucial during this transition. Continuous monitoring and widespread education and awareness training are needed to ensure the correct choices are made and implemented on a daily basis. A recent study highlights that the long list of factors that have contributed to the embedding of single-use practices and norms in US healthcare including: just in time purchasing systems to minimise storage; planned obsolescence from manufacturers and suppliers; mistaken belief that re-use impacts risk and patient safety; concerns about liability and cost; confusing classificatory and asymmetric regulatory frameworks; and split roles and incentives for taking action. [12]

Currently, most medical sites do not have a post-consumption treatment system for composting plastics. The popularity of single-use compostable plastics in a pandemic is understandable, but concerning, as single-use plastic could become a regrettable and expensive option. [13] While staff perceptions of what products can and cannot be recycled in the local area is an on-going issue within the NHS irrespective of the covid-19 pandemic, re-use approaches would remove much of the complexity and confusion about legacy recycling models. 

Some may consider that the plastic crisis caused by the need to use large volumes of PPE during the pandemic is an environmental “price worth paying” during an unprecedented public health emergency; however, the reality of the climate and environment emergency means a step-change is required across the NHS irrespective of the global pandemic. While the process will be difficult, evidence from other resource and asset-heavy sectors demonstrates the positive business cases and low costs of a circular economy approach towards net-zero. [14] It requires leadership from the NHS to hold the corporate and suppliers accountable, and the ambition to create large scale improvement. 

Peter Hopkinson is the co-director of the Exeter Centre for Circular Economy. 

Richard Smith is the inaugural deputy pro-vice Chancellor for the University of Exeter Medical School. 

Lora Fleming is based at the European Centre for Environment and Human Health (University of Exeter Medical School). 

Karyn Morrissey is a Professor at the Department of Technology, Management and Economics Sustainability, Technical University of Denmark.

Xiaocheng Hu is a research fellow at the Environment and Sustainability Institute, University of Exeter.

Competing interests : none declared.

References:

• Health care climate footprint report. Health care without harm. 2019. https://noharm-global.org/documents/health-care-climate-footprint-report (Accessed: 21/03/ 2021)
• NHS report. Delivering a ‘Net Zero’ National Health Service. 2020. https://www.england.nhs.uk/greenernhs/publication/delivering-a-net-zero-national-health-service/ (Accessed: 21/03/ 2021)
• National Audit Office report. The supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Department of Health and Social Care. National Audit Office. 2020. https://www.nao.org.uk/report/supplying-the-nhs-and-adult-social-care-sector-with-personal-protective-equipment-ppe/ (Accessed: 21/03/ 2021)
• Experimental statistics – personal protective equipment distributed for use by health and social care services in England: 31 May to 4 July 2021. Department of Health and Social Care. 2021. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/ppe-distribution-england-31-may-to-4-july-2021/experimental-statistics-personal-protective-equipment-distributed-for-use-by-health-and-social-care-services-in-england-31-may-to-4-july-2021 (Accessed: 21/03/ 2021)
• Allison AL, Ambrose-Dempster E, T Aparsi D, Bawn M, Casas Arredondo M, Chau C, Chandler K, Dobrijevic D, Hailes H, Lettieri P, Liu C. The environmental dangers of employing single-use face masks as part of a COVID-19 exit strategy. UCL Open: Environment Preprint. UCL Press. 2020.
• Hopkinson P, Zils M, Hawkins P, Roper S. Managing a Complex Global Circular Economy Business Model: Opportunities and Challenges. California Management Review. 2018;60(3):71-94.
• Hu X, Davies R, Morrissey K, Smith R, Fleming LE, Sharmina M, Clair RS, Hopkinson P. Single-use plastic and COVID-19 in the NHS: Barriers and opportunities. Journal of Public Health Research. 2021 Aug 4.
• Hu X, Pierce JT, Taylor T, Morrissey K. The carbon footprint of general anaesthetics: A case study in the UK. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2021 Apr 1;167:105411.
• Dawson T. UKRI Revolution-ZERO NHS PPE Feasibility SBRI. 2019. 
• Schulte, A., Maga, D., Thonemann, N. Combining Life Cycle Assessment and Circularity Assessment to Analyze Environmental Impacts of the Medical Remanufacturing of Electrophysiology Catheters. Sustainability. 2021;13(2): 898.
• Oster K, Tedstone A, Greer AJ, Budgen N, Garforth A, Hardacre C. Dehydrochlorination of PVC in multi-layered blisterpacks using ionic liquids. Green Chemistry. 2020;22(15):5132-42.
• MacNeill AJ, Hopf H, Khanuja A, Alizamir S, Bilec M, Eckelman MJ, Hernandez L, McGain F, Simonsen K, Thiel C, Young S. Transforming The Medical Device Industry: Road Map To A Circular Economy: Study examines a medical device industry transformation. Health Affairs. 2020 Dec 1;39(12):2088-97.
• Goel V, Luthra P, Kapur GS, Ramakumar SS. Biodegradable/Bio-plastics: Myths and Realities. Journal of Polymers and the Environment. 2021 Mar 6:1-26. 
• EMF. Universal circular economy policy goals: enabling the transition to scale. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation. 2021. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/universal-circular-economy-policy-goals-enabling-the-transition-to-scale (Accessed: 21/03/ 2021)

Information for Authors

BMJ Opinion provides comment and opinion written by The BMJ's international community of readers, authors, and editors.

We welcome submissions for consideration. Your article should be clear, compelling, and appeal to our international readership of doctors and other health professionals. The best pieces make a single topical point. They are well argued with new insights.

For more information on how to submit, please see our instructions for authors.

Single-Use Plastics 101

Plastic that is made for the trash heap is choking the environment, contaminating our food supply, and driving climate change. We can do something about it.

Matt Rath/Chesapeake Bay Program, CC BY-NC 4.0

• Share this page block

A straw with our iced coffee, a plastic bag to carry our takeout, a wrapper on a candy bar: Taken individually, each seems harmless. These modern conveniences hardly register in our minds, but they come with a steep environmental price. Our plastics addiction has evolved into a plastics crisis, with impacts on our health, our environment, and even our climate. 

Thankfully, by changing some of our habits as consumers—as well as pushing for policy changes at the local and even international levels—we can start to rein it in.

What are single-use plastics?

Why is single-use plastic bad, single-use plastics and pollution, single-use plastics and climate change, what is the global plastics treaty, should we ban single-use plastics, major corporations and single-use plastics, avoiding single-use plastics.

Single-use plastics are goods that are made primarily from fossil fuel–based chemicals (petrochemicals) and are meant to be disposed of right after use—often, in mere minutes. Single-use plastics are most commonly used for packaging and serviceware, such as bags, bottles, wrappers, and straws.

Though plastic—a chain of synthetic polymers—was invented in the mid-19th century, it wasn’t until the 1970s that its popularity skyrocketed. Manufacturers began replacing traditionally paper or glass staples with lighter, more durable, and affordable plastic alternatives, such as plastic jugs replacing milk jars.

Since the 1950s, the world has produced more than  nine billion metric tons of plastics, more than half of which was brought to market after 2000. And we can expect these materials to stick around for thousands of years.

There are many uses for plastic that are not only reasonable but important, such as surgical gloves or  straws for people with disabilities . But these cases make up a small fraction of single-use plastic. More than half of non-fiber plastic, which excludes synthetic fabrics like polyester and nylon, comes from plastic packaging alone, much of which is for single-use items. 

David via Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Single-use plastics are a glaring example of the problems with throwaway culture. Instead of investing in quality goods that will last, we often prioritize convenience over durability and consideration of long-term impacts. Companies bank on this desire for convenience, selling products wrapped in flashy packaging, which could easily be avoided, or designing cheap goods that only fuel more consumerism. 

Our reliance on these plastics means we are accumulating waste at a staggering rate. According to the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), the world produced more than  460 million metric tons of plastic in 2019—already double the amount produced in 2000. 

Plastic litter

The  most common types of plastic waste found in the environment are cigarette butts, followed by food wrappers, bottles and bottle caps, shopping bags, straws, and stirrers. And we’re only just beginning to see the widespread presence of small microplastics, which include things like threads that shed from synthetic clothing and the beads and glitter added to personal products. 

Reducing plastic use is the most effective means of avoiding this waste. After that, recycle (or compost) what you can, being sure to follow the rules of your municipality, since systems vary widely by location. 

Limited recycling

Recycling more plastic, more frequently, reduces its footprint. Polyethylene terephthalate, one of the most commonly recycled plastics and the material that makes up most water and soda bottles, can be turned into everything from polyester fabric to automotive parts. 

But the OECD found that a whopping 91 percent of plastic isn’t recycled at all. Some of it (about 19 percent) is incinerated but the vast majority ends up in landfills or in the environment. Single-use plastics in particular—especially small items like straws, bags, and cutlery—aren’t easy to recycle because they fall into the crevices of recycling machinery. Many recycling centers won’t even accept them.

Microplastic pollution

Left alone, plastics don’t really break  down ; they just break  up.  Wear and tear and washing, as well as sun and heat, can slowly turn plastics into smaller and smaller pieces until they eventually become what are known as microplastics. These microscopic plastic fragments, no more than 5 millimeters long, are hard to detect—and are just about everywhere. (There are even plastic particles that measure less than a micrometer, known as nanoplastics.) Some microplastics are even small by design, like the microbeads used in facial scrubs or the microfibers in polyester clothing. 

These microplastics quite easily end up in the water,  on farmland , getting eaten by wildlife, and inside our bodies. They’ve even made their way up to the secluded Pyrenees mountain range and down to the bottom of the Mariana Trench. 

For wildlife, microplastics can be particularly dangerous; when eaten, they can easily accumulate inside an animal’s body and cause serious health issues, like punctured organs or fatal intestinal blockages.

A laboratory photograph of microplastics found in the Corsica River in the Chesapeake Bay watershed of Maryland

Will Parson/Chesapeake Bay Program, CC BY-NC 4.0

Health harms   from microplastics

When we ingest microplastics, as well as the chemicals that are added to plastics during processing, we face myriad  health risks . Many of the chemicals in plastics are known endocrine disruptors, and research has suggested that human exposure to them could lead to hormonal imbalances, reproductive problems like infertility, and even cancer. The  phthalate DEHP, as just one example from dozens, is often added to plastic goods like shower curtains and garden hoses to make them more flexible—but it was also found to be a probable human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

We’re also just beginning to understand how microplastics are contaminating our food supply.  One study that examined 16 types of commonly consumed proteins—including beef, shrimp, and tofu—found microplastics present in 90 percent of samples, with higher rates in more processed foods. 

Though microplastics have been found throughout the human body, scientists are still unpacking the short- and long-term effects of this contamination. 

Martin Grimm/Picture-alliance via Associated Press

Although plastic pollution accumulates most visibly on our streets, aquatic ecosystems are also suffering. Plastic litter tossed on the ground is easily washed away by rain, or it travels via storm drains into rivers and streams. It’s estimated that  eight million metric tons of plastic make their way into waterways every year—an amount that could  triple by 2040 unless the industry changes how plastic is created, used, and disposed. 

The majority of this pollution—dominated by single-use plastic waste—comes from countries lacking the infrastructure to properly manage waste, particularly those in  Southeast Asia . 

But it’s important to remember that waste management is just one part of the global materials cycle. For instance, a lot of the plastic produced in Asian countries is for products that serve U.S. demand—and the  United States and other high-income countries often send plastic waste back to these countries for processing. 

The sheer amount of plastic waste can inundate communities with pollution. Not only does the waste destroy the land itself, but when plastic is incinerated, which can sometimes be the case, its toxic fumes quickly become a  health hazard for nearby residents, leading to everything from skin rashes to cancer. The ash and other toxins released during combustion may travel long distances, spreading these impacts even farther. 

Marine animals also bear the burden of this influx of garbage into their habitats, and millions die each year because of  plastic entanglement and other impacts. Beached whales have been found with stomachs full of plastic trash—as have dead seabirds, turtles, and many other creatures. In fact, at least  1,565 wildlife species have been found to have accidentally ingested plastic.

An albatross found dead with a belly full of plastic on Midway Atoll

Forest and Kim Starr via Flickr, CC BY 4.0

Because nearly all plastics (99 percent) are made from fossil fuels, our addiction to plastic also  impacts the climate . In fact, the plastics industry (which includes many companies that have invested in or are operating in oil and gas) is currently responsible for  four times more greenhouse gas emissions than the airline industry. And even if production were to stay level, plastics are projected to account for 15 to 19 percent of the global carbon budget by 2050.  

Plastic production emits greenhouse gases at every point in its life cycle. This begins with the process of drilling for the building blocks of plastic:  oil and gas. At the next stage, the industry relies on highly polluting and energy-intensive “cracker plants,” where ethane molecules from  natural gas are cracked into the chemical building blocks of plastic. Finally, corporations are trying to sell the public on a greenwashing scheme for plastic’s “end of life” phase—the deceptively named “ chemical recycling ” process, in which facilities incinerate plastic waste and contaminate the air. 

In the United States, many of these polluting facilities—whether they make plastic or burn it—are built in low-income communities and communities of color, which often have the  fewest resources to block them. Community-based organizations and groups like NRDC are  raising the alarm as the number of these facilities rises, due in part to the unprecedented glut of gas from  fracking and  liquefied natural gas booms.

Natasha Chub-Afanasyeva via Flickr, CC BY 4.0

In 2022, 175 nations gathered at the United Nations Environment Assembly to solve the  global crisis of plastic pollution . There, the nations agreed to draft a legally binding treaty that would identify actions to reduce the production of plastics, particularly its most toxic forms, by the end of 2024.

We don’t yet know what the final U.N. plastics treaty will contain—or how the United States, one of the world’s biggest contributors to plastic waste, will engage—but we do know that this is an opportunity to block the endless stream of unnecessary single-use plastics into our markets, prevent microplastics from entering our water and food supplies, reduce environmental destruction, and cut greenhouse gas emissions (all  popular ideas ). 

NRDC’s health experts have also been advocating to phase out the  most toxic and problematic plastic products , eliminate chemicals of concern, block the expansion of “chemical recycling,” and mandate that manufacturers disclose the chemicals in their plastic products. 

In response to the strain that plastic puts on communities, a wave of single-use plastic bans is sweeping the country and the globe—most often on plastic bags, straws, stirrers, and take-out clamshells. Dozens of U.S. cities and many institutions (from schools to theme parks) have decided to  outlaw plastic straws . Plastic bag bans—ideally accompanied by a fee on paper bags—are also catching on, with at least 12 states (and hundreds of cities) having passed such laws so far. 

What do the bans accomplish? They prevent millions of tons of plastic from entering the waste stream each year. And when it comes to waste that lasts forever, every ton counts. 

But beyond these impacts, the bans have cultural effects. Companies are forced to innovate, rethinking their designs and sourcing sustainable materials. And they help shift consumer mindsets, as people recognize that this waste is both unsustainable—and needless. 

Juan Cristobal Cobo/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Large producers of single-use plastics can make a big environmental impact. As part of the Break Free from Plastic movement, Greenpeace volunteers conduct annual audits of plastic pollution along coastlines, sifting through hundreds of thousands of individual pieces across 41 countries to identify the pollution’s sources. In 2023, they discovered that Coca-Cola, Nestlé, and Unilever products were found most often. 

Coca-Cola on its own produces three million metric tons of plastic packaging each year, equivalent to a terrifying 200,000 plastic bottles per minute. Unfortunately, that number continues to rise, as it does across many global brands. 

In response to calls for change and shifting consumer habits, some companies are taking the initiative and experimenting with designs that reduce waste or utilize reusable or  compostable components. But it’s clear that much more needs to be done. 

Policies and government frameworks, like the forthcoming global plastics treaty, can spur action from private industry. Bottle bill laws, for example—which generally require retailers to add a fee on individual bottles (that customers can partially recoup when they recycle)—are a way to increase corporate responsibility for waste while providing a monetary incentive to consumers to recycle. Even better are incentives that support a zero-waste, circular economy: promoting completely reusable or easy-to-repair components.

Fiona Goodall/Getty Images

Individual choices —and the collective shifts they bring about—add up quickly. Making just one simple change, like resolving to  avoid bottled water whenever possible , can spare the environment of hundreds of plastic bottles each year. Here are a few more tips for ridding your life (and your community) of single-use plastics for good.

• Always pack a reusable bag when shopping. (And yes—reusable totes  are better than plastic.)
• Cook more often—and  store leftovers in your freezer —to reduce your use of plastic-heavy take-out containers.
• Compost your food waste , which has many benefits, including shrinking your personal waste stream.
• Buy in bulk. Avoid individually packaged goods, like snack packs. Zero-waste shops, which are becoming more popular, even encourage you to bring in and fill your own containers.
• Though  buying online sometimes has a lower carbon footprint than shopping in a store ( skip the express delivery option , if you can), online shipments are still chock-full of plastic. Your best bet for reducing your footprint and plastic waste? Walk, bike, or take public transit to buy products in person.
• Avoid plastic wrap altogether by storing leftovers in reusable containers. Or try reusable and compostable beeswax wrap as one easy alternative.
• Buy a metal or glass reusable straw. Pack it alongside reusable cutlery for sustainable eating on the go. 
• Talk to the owners of the restaurants you frequent. Ask if they have nonplastic alternatives to plastic straws, stirrers, or bags.
• Speak out in support of local plastic bans, whether by  calling your local government representative ,  submitting an op-ed to your city’s newspaper, or simply starting conversations with neighbors.
• Let companies that make your favorite products know that you care about the packaging. Tweet, call, or send letters to these companies to ask them to switch to more durable, recyclable, compostable, renewable, or recycled-content packaging.

This story was originally published on January 9, 2020, and has been updated with new information and links.

This NRDC.org story is available for online republication by news media outlets or nonprofits under these conditions: The writer(s) must be credited with a byline; you must note prominently that the story was originally published by NRDC.org and link to the original; the story cannot be edited (beyond simple things such as grammar); you can’t resell the story in any form or grant republishing rights to other outlets; you can’t republish our material wholesale or automatically—you need to select stories individually; you can’t republish the photos or graphics on our site without specific permission; you should drop us a note to let us know when you’ve used one of our stories.

Plastic pollution has been linked to everything from cancer in humans to death in wildlife.

A strong Global Plastics Treaty could help rid the world of harmful plastics—and as one of the world’s largest producers, the U.S. has a critical role to play.

Urge the Biden administration to enact a strong Global Plastics Treaty

Plastic pollution has been linked to everything from cancer in humans to death in wildlife. A strong Global Plastics Treaty could help rid the world of harmful plastics—and as one of the world’s largest producers and consumers of plastic, the United States has a critical role to play.

Related Stories

“Forever Chemicals” Called PFAS Show Up in Your Food, Clothes, and Home

The Particulars of PM 2.5

Mercury’s Journey from Coal-Burning Power Plants to Your Plate

When you sign up, you’ll become a member of NRDC’s Activist Network. We will keep you informed with the latest alerts and progress reports.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 17 March 2021

Single-use plastic packaging in the Canadian food industry: consumer behavior and perceptions

• Tony R. Walker   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9008-0697 1 ,
• Eamonn McGuinty   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5985-038X 1 ,
• Sylvain Charlebois   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9400-0153 2 &
• Janet Music   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3476-1233 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  8 , Article number:  80 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

42k Accesses

83 Citations

44 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Environmental studies

Single-use plastic food packaging is a major contributor to the global solid waste problem. Although the food industry is developing strategies to reduce single-use plastic packaging, it needs to better understand consumer awareness and attitudes about the issue. As consumer awareness about single-use plastic waste outpaces private sector practices, this study considered personal motivation factors, government policies, and innovative solutions related to single-use plastic food packaging. This Canada-wide study surveyed 1014 consumers and their willingness to pay premiums for sustainable food packaging alternatives and motivations to reduce single-use plastic waste. Overwhelmingly, most (93.7%) respondents were personally motivated to reduce consumption of single-use plastic food packaging. Canadians were highly motivated to reduce single-use plastic food packaging, but less willing to pay for sustainable alternatives. While environmental concerns were more critical than food safety, Canadians acknowledged that sustainable packaging alternatives were more desirable than outright plastic bag bans, despite not willing to pay for them. Using approaches that consider multiple driving factors on consumer behavior and opinions towards use of single-use plastic food packaging, limitations, recommendations and future research are proposed.

Similar content being viewed by others

Pro-environmental behavior regarding single-use plastics reduction in urban–rural communities of Thailand: Implication for public policy

Sharing tableware reduces waste generation, emissions and water consumption in China’s takeaway packaging waste dilemma

Beverage bottle capacity, packaging efficiency, and the potential for plastic waste reduction

Introduction.

Consumption of single-use plastics has been identified as a global environmental pollution crisis (UNEP, 2018 ). Plastics have become entrenched in day-to-day lives in everything humans do. Because of its utility, the global plastics production volume has doubled every decade (Geyer et al., 2017 ). The amount of plastic produced globally since 1950 is estimated at 9.2 billion metric tons (MT) and upwards of 6.9 billion MT of plastic has ended up in landfills or worse, “leaking” into the environment (Brooks et al., 2018 ). Since creation of plastic polymers in the 1950s, single-use plastic production, use and mismanagement has resulted in devastating impacts on marine, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (UNEP, 2014 , 2018 ). From bags to food containers, plastics are omnipresent in society and many experts are concerned about the impact of plastic on ecosystem and human health (Worm et al., 2017 ; Karbalaei et al., 2018 ). Addressing global environmental threats of single-use plastics requires government regulation, business innovation, and individual behavior change for cleaner production and potential environmental and economic benefits.

Consumer plastics are designed to be durable and strong, which benefit society through longevity and safety but causes issues with disposal and recycling (Plastics Europe, 2017 ). Plastics consumed for single-use is the largest market globally, where growth has been accelerated by a shift from reusable to single-use containers. Plastic waste generation has increased from 1% in 1960 to >10% by 2005 in high-income developed countries (Jambeck et al., 2015 ). Over half of the world’s mismanaged plastic waste is generated by just five countries: China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka (Brooks et al., 2018 ). These five countries have been overwhelmed by plastic waste exports from developed countries that have exacerbated the single-use plastic problem (Liu et al., 2018 ). Since the 1950s, roughly 40% of the 448 million MT (2015) of plastic produced every year is designed for single use, much of it for packaging intended to be discarded within minutes after purchase (Geyer et al., 2017 ). Assessing global plastic packaging flows comprehensively found that most plastic packaging is used only once and 95% of the value of the material, worth USD$80–120 billion annually, is lost to the economy (World Economic Forum, 2016 ).

Plastic waste awareness, especially from single-use plastic packaging, is linked to recent increases in public attention (Schnurr et al., 2018 ). None of the commonly used plastics in society are fully biodegradable and as a result have accumulated (rather than decomposing) in natural environments and landfills (Walker and Xanthos, 2018 ; Karbalaei et al., 2019 ). Furthermore, public understanding of the correlation between fossil fuel extraction and use of petroleum for plastic production has gained increased attention in recent years (Avery-Gomm et al., 2019 ). In a recent global study, an estimated 9% of plastic waste has ever been recycled, 12% incinerated, and the remaining 79% has accumulated in landfills or leaked into the environment, as of 2015 (Geyer et al., 2017 ). Thus, impacts on natural environments from plastic waste accumulation has become an increasing concern for consumers (Avery-Gomm et al., 2019 ; Walker and McKay, 2021 ).

While Canada’s recycling figures are comparable to global averages, Canada claims to be moving toward a circular economy for plastics by pursuing zero-plastic waste and improving beyond the 89% of total plastics destined for landfills, incineration or leakage into the environment (Walker and Xanthos, 2018 ). By virtue of reactive measures by governments, corporations, non-government organizations and individuals, we are now seeing emerging trends of plastic bag bans, fines, taxes, and industry phase-outs of certain single-use plastics (Xanthos and Walker, 2017 ; Schnurr et al., 2018 ; Adam et al., 2020 ; Clayton et al., 2020 ; Bezerra et al., 2021 ). The range of measures are considered to be tiered by performance-based approaches, market instruments, and voluntary initiatives (CCME, 2018 ). Additionally, the rise of consumer changes is placing significant pressures on industry and governments to take action, including promotion of the circular economy (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2018 ). The circular economy thinking is widely used within countries for closed-loop waste recycling and Canada has been a major exporter of recyclable materials (Liu et al., 2018 ). Although consumers are aware of environmental problems caused by food packaging, they are unaware of sustainable packaging solutions (e.g., circular economy or alternatives) (Scott and Vigar-Ellis, 2014 ; Ketelsen et al., 2020 ). Consumers play an important role in market adoption of alternatives because they are decision-makers when purchasing plastic packaging products (Fernqvist et al., 2015 ).

In Canada, single-use plastic pollution has been recognized as an environmental problem (Walker and Xanthos, 2018 ). There is a growing trend in consumer demand for more corporate responsibility and in response corporations are seeking strategies to reduce their single-use plastic packaging. While maintaining the focus on Canada, global best practices and barriers including the integration of circular economy approaches, extended producer responsibility (EPR) and reverse logistics processes was reviewed to help determine a path forward for emerging trends associated with negative externalities of single-use plastics. Applying circular economy principles to global plastic packaging could transform the plastics economy and reduce negative externalities (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2018 ). Canada needs to lessen consumption and adopt zero-plastic waste strategies by reducing, reusing and recycling single-use plastics (Walker and Xanthos, 2018 ). Adoption of the circular economy and EPR systems will help reshape and rebalance current flow-through of waste volume. As a policy tool, EPR enables the producer of a product to be responsible after initial use and extended to the post-consumer stage of a product lifecycle (CCME, 2018 ; Diggle and Walker, 2020 ). Further understanding of export patterns of recyclable materials from developed to developing countries will help reduce waste pollution transfers (Liu et al., 2018 ; Walker, 2018 ). The aim of this study was to identify driving factors behind change in perception and anticipated behavior of consumers towards the consumption of single-use plastics in the Canadian food industry. Findings gathered from this study will help inform policy decisions by corporations, food packing manufacturers and government.

Consumers are becoming more concerned about food packaging waste (Charlebois et al., 2014 ). This study tackles current single-use plastic packaging consumption patterns and production systems based traditional practices. Generally difficult to reach scale, commercial plastic packaging technologies are now challenged by contemporary market forces (Dües et al., 2013 ). Market-ready technologies and solutions are increasingly in demand and were explored in this survey as viable options to curb single-use plastic packaging waste derived from food products. This study used a survey methodology conducted through a formulated questionnaire within Canada (supplementary material S1). This method was appropriate to identify potential links between consumer willingness to pay for green packaging in food products and industrial approaches to curbing the single-use plastics predicament. Green packaging was assumed to include several board criteria, such as easily or readily recyclable, produced from natural raw materials with limited environmental consequences during production and end-of-life, or reusable materials.

To guide the study and understand repercussions in the Canadian food industry regarding market behavior around single-use plastic packaging, a conceptual framework was developed to probe Canadian perceptions on possible solutions to reduce unnecessary or over-packaging in the food industry (Fig. 1 ). From this, a quantitative survey was developed using a series of statements and 5-point Likert scale (1 Strongly agree 2 Agree, 3 Neither disagree nor agree, 4 Disagree, 5 Strongly disagree) to measure both agreement and uncertainty, where “Strongly Agree” and “Agree” denote high motivation and “Neither Agree nor Disagree” denotes uncertainty. The survey was divided into four parts. First, the socio-economic determinants (age, gender, income, education, region and marital status) of respondents were collected. Second, the survey probed respondents whether their purchasing behavior was based on environmental awareness. Third, a serious of questions on responsibility for green food packaging was asked. Finally, willingness to adapt behavior was queried.

Conceptual framework of single-use plastic use in the Canadian food sector.

Data were collected through an online survey conducted across Canada through an online survey platform administered through a third-party fieldhouse, Qualtrics. The survey was available for seven days from May 10th through 17th of 2019 in French and English. Virtually all Canadians are exposed to food packaging, therefore, using the Qualtrics panel of over 1.3 million self-selecting Canadian consumers was appropriate. This panel has a sampling frame that covers 97% of the Canadian population of adults over the age of 18. Survey results were weighted by age and gender in each region to correct for any sampling bias and non-response bias among difficult-to-reach populations. Based on the sampling design, the margin of error was 3.1% with a 95% confidence interval, which means that respondent data were within 3 percentage points of the real Canadian population value 95% of the time.

Once a pre-test of 50 completes determined that the survey instrument was sound, the survey was administered to 1112 randomly selected adult Canadians and achieved a response rate of 96%. The survey took on average of 11 min to complete. Incomplete responses were removed as were those of respondents who answered in the survey in under 3 min. This left 1014 valid responses. All respondents have lived in Canada for 12 months and are least 18 years of age drawn from the population across British Columbia, the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec, the Atlantic Provinces (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador), and the North (Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut). The regions within Canada used in this study were based on generally accepted subdivisions for the country, which have been used by other studies in their sampling designs (Beck et al., 2005 ; Hajizadeh et al., 2016 ; Naud et al., 2019 ).

Data analysis was completed using the SPSS version 25. Though the fieldhouse, Qualtrics, set quotas within the survey platform based on Canadian census data of age and gender within region, there was a need to weight the data due to over sampling in some regions. As the survey is conducted in real time, quotas can over-fill if many respondents start the survey in a contracted timeframe. As mentioned above, the data was cleaned after the survey finished in field, and any responses under 3 min were removed. Therefore, weights for the data were developed according to Statistics Canada Census Profile 2016 and applied to correct for any sampling deficiencies in age and gender within region at time of collection (Statistics Canada, 2019 ). This study was completed to provide context for future studies. As data were not normally distributed, ranked-based nonparametric tests were used to determine differences between groups. As such, differences in medians were measured with Kruskal–Wallis H tests to determine significance between subgroups, age (18–23 24–38, 39–53, 54–72, 73+), region (British Columbia, Prairies, Ontario, Quebec, Atlantic Provinces, North) income (<$40,000, $40,000-$79,999, $80,000-$149,999, $150,000+) and education (high school diploma, undergraduate degree, college diploma, graduate degree or doctorate, other). A Mann-Whitney U-test was used to determine differences in scores by gender. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the main effect of age and region and education and region on the perceptions of responsibility.

Limitations with self-reported survey data exist. Several studies discuss likelihood of aspirational perceptions of self-behaviors (Hartley et al., 2015 ; Pahl and Wyles, 2017 ; Wyles et al., 2019 ). Despite this, understanding consumers’ perceptions of single-use plastics in the food industry provides insights into larger social implications for the Canadian food industry and for waste management of single-use plastic food packaging after use (Lindh et al., 2016 ). The understanding relies on empirical evidence regarding human decision-making and incentives that go beyond economic metrics (Jia et al., 2019 ).

Socio-demographic characteristics

Socio-demographic profiles by Canadian region were reflected in weighted data (Table 1 ). Distribution of respondents by regions shows that most reside in Ontario (38.2%), followed by Quebec (21.6%), Prairies (Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba) (18.8%), British Columbia (13.5%), Atlantic Provinces (7.6%), and the North (0.03%). There were slightly more females (55.5%) than males (45.5%). Most respondents were aged 54–72 (32.7%), followed by 39–53 (24.6%) 24–38 (22.1%), 18–23 (12.1%) and 73 + (8.5%). Most respondents had attained a high school or college diploma (32.5% and 31%, respectively.

Consumer behavior and opinions

Kruskal–Wallis H tests were run to determine if there were differences in motivation among independent variables (age, region, income, and education). Examples are shown in Table 2 . For example, for the survey question: I am personally motivated to reduce the amount of single-use plastic food packaging because of its environmental impacts , most respondents, 88.9%, answered “Strongly agree” or “Agree” on the 5-point Likert scale. Figure 2 and Table 2 show participant responses related to motivation to reduce consumption by region, income, education, and age. Distributions of motivations scores were similar for all age groups. Median motivation scores were not statistically significantly different between age groups, χ 2 (4) = 4.598, p  = 0.331. Distributions for motivation were not similar for income or education. Median motivation scores were not statistically significantly different between income groups, χ 2 (4) = 5.059, p  = 0.168, or education groups, χ 2 (4) = 8.850, p  = 0.065, respectively. However, the Kruskal–Wallis test, to determine if there were differences in motivation scores between regions, British Columbia ( n  = 142), Prairies ( n  = 201), Ontario ( n  = 405), Quebec ( n  = 231), Atlantic Provinces ( n  = 81), and North ( n  = 3), was statistically significant (Fig. 2 ). Distributions of motivation scores were not similar for all groups. Motivation scores were statistically significantly different between different regional groups, χ 2 (4) = 19.989, p  = 0.001. Subsequently, pairwise comparisons were performed using Dunn’s ( 1964 ) procedure with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (supplementary material S2). Adjusted p -values are presented. This post hoc analysis revealed statistically significant differences in median motivation scores between Quebec (480.13) and the Prairies (571.36) ( p  = 0.001), and Ontario (502.77) and the Prairies (571.36) ( p  = 0.012), but not between other group combinations. A Mann–Whitney U -test was used to determine if there were differences in motivation scores between males and females. Distributions of motivation scores for males and females were similar. Median motivation score was not statistically significantly different between males and females, U  = 125,216.5, z  = −1.271, p  = 0.204, using an exact sampling distribution for U (Dineen and Blakesley, 1973 ).

Panels indicate region ( a ), income ( b ), education level ( c ), and age ( d ). Error bars indicate standard deviation.

Influence on consumer change and adaptation

Many driving forces influence consumer behavior and opinions around single-use plastic packaging. Moreover, the same forces influence change and adaptation. Taking into consideration the four main pillars of driving forces on consumers indicated in the conceptual framework (Fig. 1 ) (industry, government, personal motivation, and sustainable technologies), 91.1% of respondents believe that regulations to reduce consumption of single-use plastic food packaging should be strengthened in Canada. Older respondents were more likely to believe that regulations need to be more robust. Additionally, 74.3% of respondents were in favor of receiving a discount, incentive or rebate for supporting alternative plastic packaging solutions at purchase point. Higher educated respondents were less likely to prefer discounts or incentives if more bans continue to unfold in the marketplace.

Effect of age and region on robustness of regulations was investigated by a two-way ANOVA. Residual analysis was performed to test for assumptions of the two-way ANOVA. There were outliers present, as assessed as being greater than 1 box-length from the edge of the box in a histogram for each variable at both the upper and lower end. Given the nature of population distribution of respondents, this was unsurprising. Rather than removing data points, outliers were left in the dataset. Data was not normally distributed, as assessed by Shapiro–Wilk’s test ( p  < 0.05). The assumption of homogeneity of variances was violated, as assessed by Levene’s test for equality of variances, p  = 3.5354E-16. The interaction effect between age and region on the need for increased regulations was statistically significant, F (13, 987) = 3.393, p  = 0.000039, partial η 2  = 0.043.

The effect of education and region on the need for incentives was investigated by a two-way ANOVA. Residual analysis was performed to test for the assumptions of the two-way ANOVA. There were outliers present, as assessed as being greater than 1 box-lengths from the edge of the box in a histogram for each variable at both the upper and lower end. Outliers were left in the dataset. Data was not normally distributed, as assessed by Shapiro–Wilk’s test ( p  < 0.05). The assumption of homogeneity of variances was violated, as assessed by Levene’s test for equality of variances, p  = 0.000002. The interaction effect between education and region on the need for increased regulations was statistically significant, F (12, 988) = 2.239, p  = 0.009, partial η 2  = 0.026. All pairwise comparisons were run where reported 95% confidence intervals and p -values are Bonferroni-adjusted.

The path to a zero-plastic waste future will not be easy. Possible solutions based on survey responses consists of a mixture between biodegradable product opportunities and commercialization, retail pricing, government bans and taxes, and corporate social responsibility (CSR) tactics from industry participants. Across Canada, 41.9% of respondents were willing to pay more for items containing biodegradable packaging (Fig. 3 ). Younger respondents were more likely to pay more for biodegradable packaging. A Kruskal–Wallis test was conducted to determine if there were differences in willingness to pay scores between age groups 18–23 ( n  = 114) 24–38 ( n  = 234), 39–53 ( n  = 258), 54–72 ( n  = 351), 73 + ( n  = 90), was statistically significant. Distributions of scores were similar for all groups. Willingness to pay scores were statistically significantly different between different age groups, χ 2 (4 = 24.193, p  = 0.00001). Subsequently, pairwise comparisons were performed using Dunn’s ( 1964 ) procedure with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (supplementary material S3). Adjusted p -values are presented. Analysis revealed statistically significant differences in median willingness to pay scores between age group 18–23 (398.59) and age group 24–38 (524.78) ( p  = 0.002), group 18–23 (398.59) and age group 73 + (532.19) ( p  = 0.012), and group 18–23 (398.59) and age group 54–72 (538.11) ( p  = 0.000) but not between other group combinations.

Error bars indicate standard deviation.

For a government tax to disincentivize consumption of single-use plastic food packaging, 33.3% of respondents were in favor. Higher educated respondents were more likely to accept paying a sales tax (Fig. 4 ). A Kruskal–Wallis test conducted to determine if there were differences in tax acceptance scores between education groups high-school diploma ( n  = 341), undergraduate degree ( n  = 173), college diploma ( n  = 326), graduate degree or doctorate ( n  = 102), and other ( n  = 107). However, results showed no statistical difference between groups.

At the forefront of government policy, a ban on all single-use plastics used for food packaging was supported by 73.4% of respondents (Fig. 5 ). Significance testing conducted to determine if there were differences on total ban support scores between regions, British Columbia, Prairies, Ontario, Quebec, Atlantic Provinces, and North, showed significances. Distributions of ban support scores were not similar for all groups, as assessed by visual inspection of a histogram. Motivation scores were statistically significantly different between different regional groups, χ 2 (4) = 17.553, p  = 0.002. Adjusted p -values are present in pairwise comparisons. Statistically significant differences in median ban support scores were present between British Columbia (464.62) and the Prairies (566.86) ( p  = 0.005), and Ontario (488.55) and the Prairies (566.86) ( p  = 0.005), but not between other group combinations (supplementary material S4).

Complementary findings

Of the four driving pillars behind consumer behavior and influence on change, new product opportunities and technology adoption in the marketplace showed some confusion at the consumer level (Fig. 6 ). Up to 44.1% of respondents suggested they were confused with branding and marketing of sustainable single-use plastic food packaging. There was no significant difference among education groups on the level of confusion with branding of single-use plastics ( p  = 0.054). To reduce single-use plastic consumption at the food level, 90.6% of respondents believed they should be further educated on recycling processes, plastic use, and overall environmental impacts. There was no significant difference among education groups on the need for further education ( p  = 0.141). Neither were there significant differences among income groups χ 2 (4) = 7.665 p  = 0.053, nor regional differences ( p  = 0.145). Roughly three quarters (76.1%) of respondents believed media coverage and pressure on the food industry was an efficient single-use plastic food packaging reduction strategy. There were no significant differences among demographic groups age ( p  = 0.54), gender ( p  = 0.564), region ( p  = 0.290), education ( p  = 0.858) and income ( p  = 0.789).

A dominant factor identified early in the research was the Canadian population’s perception of single-use plastics. In recent years, awareness and understanding has grown rapidly but remains fragmented amongst regions, household income and education levels (Deloitte and Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), 2019 ). Consumers in Canada tend to respond to market forces as they relate to environmental issues but also have been criticized to have shown patterns of strong ties between convenience and food products. That same convenience was linked to the single-use plastic packaging issue faced in the Canadian food industry: consumers want selection and variety, but plastic packaging provides product safety and longevity. Furthermore, the Canadian federal government announced bans on certain single-use plastics by 2021 and many of the banned items will be single-use food related packaging such as straws, lids and wrappers (Walker, 2019 ). Among the countries around the world pledging to reduce plastic waste, Canada announced in would “ban harmful single-use plastics” in 2019 (Government of Canada, 2019 ). As of 2018, 127 countries had implemented some legislative measures targeting single-use plastics. Since then, some jurisdictions have reversed or paused their measures due to pressure from plastic lobbyists, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as the cause for reversal (Prata et al., 2020 ; Silva et al., 2020 , 2021 ; Walker, 2020 ).

However, Canada is still committed to banning single-use plastics. Under a newly unveiled list of single-use plastics being banned in Canada (announced on October 7 2020), plastic grocery bags, straws, stir sticks, six-pack rings, cutlery and food containers made from hard-to-recycle plastics will be banned nationwide by the end of 2021 (Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada, 2020 ; Government of Canada, 2020 ). Canada is banning harmful single-use plastic items (i.e., where there is evidence that they are found in the environment), under Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act , 1999 (CEPA). This regulatory step using CEPA is one of Canada’s principal laws for preventing pollution and protecting the environment (Government of Canada, 2020 ). Provincial governments, particularly in eastern Canada, have also announced legislation banning single-use plastics. The Plastic Bag Reduction Act in Prince Edward Island came into effect July 1 2019 (Government of Prince Edward Island, 2020 ), followed by the retail plastic bag ban in Newfoundland and Labrador to come into effect original on July 1 2020, but due to the COVID-19 pandemic was paused (CTV News Atlantic, 2020 ). The Plastic Bags Reduction Act (Bill 152) in Nova Scotia takes effect on October 30 2020 (Government of Nova Scotia, 2019 ). Cities in Canada, such as Montreal and Vancouver, respectively also made progress banning single-use plastic items in 2018 (Marchildon, 2019 ).

For the Canadian food sector, the idea of convenience resonates with consumers and plastic has enabled retailers and manufacturers to meet this demand. The ability to increase variety and shelf life of food products in Canada is also directly correlated with plastic evolution and rapid growth seen in the last century of consumption and production (Deloitte and Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), 2019 ). As consumers, policymakers, industry representatives and subject-matter experts debate the future of single-use plastics in food packaging, the implementation of market instruments and policies lags largely because of top-down approaches that have been taken (Xanthos and Walker, 2017 ). These approaches lack social and environmental indicators supporting market-based policy and public participation (Schnurr et al., 2018 ).

To better understand Canadian consumers’ perspectives, the industry must address what consumers are demanding: clearer and better understanding of plastic waste management, recycling processes, and availability of biodegradable and compostable options (Herbes et al., 2018 ). However, biodegradable food packaging options are not always better than alternatives if they cannot be handled by municipal solid waste facilities due to potential risks with breakdown of microplastics (Dilkes-Hoffman et al., 2018 ; Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada, 2020 ; Government of Canada, 2020 ). Without new management strategies, current recycling rates will not be increased and ambitious goals and timelines to a zero-plastic waste future in Canada will be insurmountable (Walker and Xanthos, 2018 ; Karbalaei et al., 2018 , 2019 , 2021 ; Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada, 2020 ). The duo between recycling infrastructure and the redesign of plastic packaging and products to retain value and increase reuse can help support the framework for knowledge sharing and promoting proper management of plastic waste, including harmonization of technical standards and practices (Hanss and Böhm, 2012 ). In essence, this can help build capacity to properly manage the single-use plastic waste derived from food products in Canada.

Food companies such as processors, distributors and retailers may seek to communicate their environmental performance to outside stakeholders but may not always find this easy to do since they may lack full knowledge of processes, and material flowing through supply chains through to customers. Furthermore, food retailers and plastic manufacturers may increase visibility into plastic inputs in food packaging, but to convey to the broader public that improved packaging solutions are readily available in the marketplace remains a challenge. The inability for consumers to distinguish between mainstream and green food packaging is difficult to address and information sharing is critical for coordinating supply chain dynamics (Fig. 7 ). Over the course of the last year, Canadian retailers and major food companies have made improvements and taken leadership positions to reduce single-use plastics in food packaging and banning plastic grocery bags. Major retailers in Canada such as Loblaws, Metro, Sobeys and Walmart have all stated respective plans and initiatives to curb plastic waste from their operations in 2020 (Sagan, 2019 ). In response to consumer demands and government regulations, momentum is building across industry leaders and the opportunity to harness marketplace shifts. Although some announcements came after this national study, they remain relevant as many of these discussions were happening in the media, municipal council meetings and Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) sessions before findings were released.

Panels indicate education ( a ), income ( b ), and region ( c ). Error bars indicate standard deviation.

Gaps and challenges in Canada

Results of this study cannot be generalized across the entire economic system because of the nature of packaging requirements in the food industry compared to electronics, auto-parts, textiles, building and construction, healthcare, and broader agricultural products. In short, the definition of “single-use” needs to be unpacked as it may be possible to explore options of readily available reuse items in today’s marketplace. In an industry forced with tight margins, high-turnover inventory and perishability risks, less change may seem like a logical step where partnerships across the supply chain should not be disrupted. To get to the intended future state levels of prevention and management of single-use plastic packaging, the upstream and downstream relationships need to be improved in the marketplace. Although this study on single-use plastics use can be applied in other jurisdictions, the Canadian market was the primary focus for this research. In Canada, there is currently a lack of sufficient infrastructure to manage plastic waste or plastic recycling. Development of a series of standards, in addition to new processes for value creation of plastic waste, will provide a major economic opportunity for Canada going forward.

Producing food requires many inputs; land, water, fertilizer and energy. Even more, using these finite resources in Canada makes it harder for consumers to accept, especially when perception includes both unacceptable food waste levels and the unknown of plastic waste derived from single-use plastic food packaging. Similar to Europe, this paper finds that Canada must assess how the growth in plastic packaging waste generation over time has witnessed coinciding increases with food waste. For instance, a time series of domestic plastic packaging and food waste in Canada, such as in the Plastics Europe review ( 2017 ), is required to demonstrate the simultaneous movement in waste figures between both categories as they are proven not to be mutually exclusive. Identifying and synthesizing dispersed data on production, use, and end-life management of single-use plastics in food packaging presents a unique opportunity for Canada. Geyer et al. ( 2017 ) found that if current production trends hold constant, by 2050, 12 billion MT of plastic waste will end up in landfills. This study demonstrates how driving factors impact consumer behaviors and perceptions surrounding single-use plastic packaging in food. Analysis and methodology applied suggests that regardless of steps taken to manage the issue going forward in Canada, complexities along the entire food supply chain are long-term (Charlebois et al., 2014 ).

Although research outlining environmental, social and economic impacts of plastic pollution is growing, few studies have examined policy and legislative tools to reduce plastic pollution, particularly single-use plastics (Xanthos and Walker, 2017 ). Furthermore, policies at the global scale for reduction of single-use plastics lack the ability to document or measure their effectiveness (Schnurr et al., 2018 ). There is a growing need for an integrated approach to assessing plastic waste generated by Canadians from single-use plastic food packaging. In Canada, most plastic waste is derived from single-use plastic food packaging, but better assessments should consider more waste management scenarios, which often ignore environmental leakage of packaging (Srivastava, 2007 ). A broad frame of reference for single-use food packaging is not adequately developed, and the Canadian contribution to the issue is not insignificant. In fact, public opinion towards single-use plastics seems to be derived directly from major environmental repercussions (Walker and Xanthos, 2018 ). Production and consumption of more sustainable products is an important step towards achieving higher sustainability targets through less waste and through packaging containing alternative materials (Ertz et al., 2017 ). Further, assessing plastic waste from single-use plastic food packaging must be considered through the lens of raw material use, production processes, and waste management before making recommendations around sustainable packaging alternatives (Molina-Besch et al., 2019 ).

CSR, a result of pressure from customers to improve environmental performance, is a major response to the single-use plastics issue in food packaging (Weinhofer and Hoffmann, 2010 ). When firms downstream in the supply chain seek to achieve environmental improvements, they attempt to complete this step by pressuring upstream suppliers also adopt greener practices. Evidence of the systematic approach where stages of the supply chain start to rely on one another for environmental performance can be characterized as signals towards incentives, but effectiveness varies entirely on relationships between suppliers and customers (Delmas and Montiel, 2009 ).

Consumer pressure on stages of the supply chain producing and using single-use plastics is a driving force behind adoption of new standards and services (Garnett, 2011 ). However, few studies analyze how the relationship between industrial customers and suppliers influence adoption (Delmas and Montiel, 2009 ). Therefore, there remains a knowledge gap and understanding around the issue of tailoring to new consumer demands. A positive perception of a packaged product, however, does not automatically mean a person will purchase it, since many factors are considered in a buying decision. The lack of knowledge around sustainable consumer behavior is considered a “attitude-behavior gap” where many consumers’ positive attitude and noble intentions to act in a sustainable way are not translated into actual consumer behavior (Scott and Vigar-Ellis, 2014 ; Ketelsen et al., 2020 ). Lastly, corporate approaches in Canada to overcome consumer demand changes need to include continuous technological advancements. The notion of green product development must adhere to strong social, economic and technological fundamentals, while following strict and swift adaptation to consumer changes (Rokka and Uusitalo, 2008 ; Arboretti and Bordignon, 2016 ). Although change can be difficult for corporate strategy, it can present new business opportunities (Bowen and Aragon-Correa, 2014 ). This can create competitive advantage if Canada’s food industry can seek a better understanding of the consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for green (sustainable) packaging for food products (Rokka and Uusitalo, 2008 ).

Possible implications

In Canada, plastics remaining in the packaging system need to be simplified and standardized; fewer polymers, pre-vetted material inputs, less additives and easier recycling capacity (Prata et al., 2019 ). Across the supply chain, the use of compostable packaging and value-retention with single-use plastics should be encouraged and incentivized. To achieve this target, policymakers should address regulatory hurdles to enhance and support industrial research and commercialization opportunities of compostable packaging, which includes and involves municipalities. Furthermore, industry should be encouraged to adopt a circular economy model in line with the federal government’s zero-plastic waste strategy (CCME, 2018 ).

Globally, capturing material value in the new plastics economy requires a disciplined approach. According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation ( 2018 ), the plastics industry could be saved by retaining and capture value of waste. In Canada, over half of all disposable plastic products, many of which are derived from the food industry, are used once and thrown away. Most plastic types contribute to approximately CAD$35 billion in annual sales and over 5% of the plastics manufacturing sector in Canada is linked to plastic resin production (Deloitte and Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), 2019 ). The lifecycle of plastics is linear in nature and packaging consists of 43% of the main waste generators in Canada. Plastic materials, more specifically single-use packaging, that are not recovered represents a lost opportunity of CAD$7.8 billion for Canada in 2016 and the outlook to 2030 estimates unrecovered plastics lost value could rise to CAD$11.1 billion (Deloitte and Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), 2019 ).

Extending plastics lifetime to reduce and delay waste generation is a major component in supporting a transition towards a zero-plastic waste future. Finding secondary markets is critical and can overcome barriers such as plastics recovery policies and regulations, process losses and the absence of high-volume recovery options. Holding both producers and retailers accountable for making sure that material used is properly managed by the consumer should be enforced through strict liability. Achieving goals established by the food industry leaders and responding to demands from consumers will require a cohesive and comprehensive approach. Most importantly, Canada needs better alignment between food safety regulations and the agri-food sector’s environmental obligations at all levels of government.

Alternative solutions to consider

Advancements in technology, academic research, policymaking and consumer insights allow for new perspectives to develop. Pursuit of a zero single-use plastic future in Canada must not over-look negative impacts of single-use plastic food packaging used in the food industry, but the food industry needs concrete, measured, and realistic alternative solutions to deploy in the marketplace. As consumer perceptions of single-use plastic packaging informs policymakers and businesspeople, a broad-range of solutions are attainable to improve market dynamics. Moreover, fundamental public-private partnerships should be established to attract investments in research and development with the aim of rapidly scaling commercial solutions for single-use plastic food packaging.

Conclusions

Canadian consumers are highly motivated to reduce single-use plastic food packaging, but less willing to pay for alternatives. Addressing issues of single-use plastic pollution in Canada, including plastic food packaging, requires a holistic view and a well-orchestrated effort. Specific actions are required beyond legislation and policy-driven changes. Canada needs to consider food waste prevention techniques while striving to identify cost-effective alternative materials to single-use plastic packaging to achieve zero-plastic waste, and drive consumer behavior change. Actions from all stakeholders including EPR, partnerships with cutting-edge alternative packaging suppliers, waste prevention initiatives, circular economy systems integration, education at the consumer level, and performance measures are all essential to overcome future environmental risks of single-use plastic packaging waste. Responses to single-use plastic waste derived from food packaging while striving for zero-plastic waste to reduce environmental impacts of plastic pollution is an integral part to Canada’s commitment to create shared value for the food industry, society and government-driven plans. Accelerating action to tackle the issue of the food industry’s contribution to single-use plastic packaging waste is imperative from all participants of the economic system.

Data availability

Data will be made available upon request

Code availability

Not applicable

Adam I, Walker TR, Bezerra JC et al. (2020) Policies to reduce single-use plastic marine pollution in West Africa. Mar Pol 116:103928

Article   Google Scholar  

Arboretti R, Bordignon P (2016) Consumer preferences in food packaging: CUB models and conjoint analysis. Br Food J 118(3):527–540

Avery-Gomm S, Walker TR, Mallory ML et al. (2019) There is nothing convenient about plastic pollution. Rejoinder to Stafford and Jones viewpoint–ocean plastic pollution: a convenient but distracting truth? Mar Pol 106:103552

Beck CA, Metz LM, Svenson LW et al. (2005) Regional variation of multiple sclerosis prevalence in Canada. Mult Scler J 11(5):516–519

Bezerra JC, Walker TR, Clayton CA et al. (2021) Single-use plastic bag policies in the Southern African Development Community. Environ Chall 100029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100029

Bowen F, Aragon-Correa J (2014) Greenwashing in corporate environmentalism research and practice: the importance of what we say and do. Organ Environ 27(2):107

Brooks AL, Wang S, Jambeck JR (2018) The Chinese import ban and its impact on global plastic waste trade. Sci Adv 4(6):eaat0131

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) (2018) Strategy on Zero Plastic Waste. https://www.ccme.ca/files/Resources/waste/plastics/1289_CCME%20Canada-wide%20Action%20Plan%20on%20Zero%20Plastic%20Waste_EN_June%2027-19.pdf . Accessed 15 Sep 2020

Charlebois S, Stern RH, Buhr M (2014) Sharing and preparing: cross-institutional, food security-based knowledge in Canada. Int J Sust Dev World Ecol 21(6):1–8

Clayton CA, Walker TR, Bezerra JC et al. (2020) Policy responses to reduce single-use plastic marine pollution in the Caribbean. Mar Pollut Bull 111833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111833

CTV News Atlantic (2020) Retail plastic bag ban in Newfoundland and Labrador to come into effect July 1. https://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/retail-plastic-bag-ban-in-newfoundland-and-labrador-to-come-into-effect-july-1-1.4788475 . Accessed 15 Sep 2020

Delmas M, Montiel I (2009) Greening the supply chain: when is customer pressure effective? J Econ Manage Strategy 18(1):171–201

Deloitte and Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) (2019) Economic study of the Canadian plastic industry, markets and waste. Gatineau, Quebec. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2019/eccc/En4-366-1-2019-eng.pdf . Accessed 15 Sep 2020

Diggle A, Walker TR (2020) Implementation of harmonized extended producer responsibility strategies to incentivize recovery of single-use plastic packaging waste in Canada. Waste Manage 110:20–23

Dilkes-Hoffman L, Lane JL, Grant T et al. (2018) Environmental impact of biodegradable food packaging when considering food waste. J Clean Prod 180:325–334

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Dineen LC, Blakesley BC (1973) Algorithm AS 62: a generator for the sampling distribution of the Mann- Whitney U Statistic. J R Stat Soc 22: 269–273

Dunn OJ (1964) Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics 6(3):241–252

Dües CM, Tan KH, Lim M (2013) Green as the new lean: how to use lean practices as a catalyst to greening your supply chain. J Clean Prod 40:93–100

Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada (ECCC) (2020) Science assessment of plastic pollution. Cat. No.: En14-424/2020E-PDF. ISBN 978-0-660-35897-0. Retrieved from. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/evaluating-existing-substances/science-assessment-plastic-pollution.html . Accessed 15 Sep 2020

Ellen MacArthur Foundation, ARUP, McKinsey and Company, and UNCTAD (2018) The Circular Economy Opportunity for Urban and Industrial Innovation in China. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/The-circular-economy-opportunity-for-urban-industrial-innovation-in-China_19-9-18_1.pdf . Accessed 15 Sep 2020

Ertz M, François J, Durif F (2017) How consumers react to environmental information: an experimental study. J Int Consum Marketing 29(3):162–178

Fernqvist F, Olsson A, Spendrup S (2015) What’s in it for me? food packaging and consumer responses, a focus group study. Br Food J 117(3):1122–1135

Garnett T (2011) Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)? Food Pol 36:S32

Geyer R, Jambeck JR, Law KL (2017) Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci Adv 3(7):e1700782

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Government of Canada (2019) Canada to ban harmful single-use plastics and hold companies responsible for plastic waste. https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2019/06/10/canada-ban-harmful-single-use-plastics-and-hold-companies-responsible . Accessed 15 Sep 2020

Government of Canada (2020) Canada one-step closer to zero plastic waste by 2030. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/news/2020/10/canada-one-step-closer-to-zero-plastic-waste-by-2030.html . Accessed 15 Sep 2020

Government of Nova Scotia (2019) Bill 152 Plastic Bags Reduction Act. https://nslegislature.ca/legc/bills/63rd_2nd/1st_read/b152.htm . Accessed 15 Sep 2020

Government of Prince Edward Island (2020) Plastic Bag Reduction. https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/en/information/environment-water-and-climate-change/plastic-bag-reduction . Accessed 15 Sep 2020

Hajizadeh M, Mitnitski A, Rockwood K (2016) Socioeconomic gradient in health in Canada: is the gap widening or narrowing? Health Pol 120(9):1040–1050

Hanss D, Böhm G (2012) Sustainability seen from the perspective of consumers. Int J Consum Stud 36(6):678–687

Hartley BL, Holland M, Pahl S et al . (2015) How to communicate with stakeholders about marine litter–A short guide to influencing behavioural change. Plymouth University: Plymouth University Press, UK, http://www.marlisco.eu/how-to-communicate-with-stakeholders-guide.en.html Accessed 15 Sep 2020

Herbes C, Beuthner C, Ramme I (2018) Consumer attitudes towards biobased packaging–A cross-cultural comparative study. J Clean Prod 194:203–218

Jambeck JR, Geyer R, Wilcox C et al. (2015) Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347(6223):768–771

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Jia L, Evans S, van der Linden S (2019) Motivating actions to mitigate plastic pollution. Nat Commun 10(1):4582

Karbalaei S, Hanachi P, Walker TR et al. (2018) Occurrence, sources, human health impacts and mitigation of microplastic pollution. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(36):36046–36063

Karbalaei S, Golieskardi A, Binti Hamzah H et al. (2019) Abundance and characteristics of microplastics in commercial marine fish from Malaysia. Mar Pollut Bull 148:5–15

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Karbalaei S, Hanachi P, Rafiee G et al. (2021) Toxicity of polystyrene microplastics on juvenile Oncorhynchus mykiss (rainbow trout) after individual and combined exposure with chlorpyrifos. J Haz Mat 403:123980

Ketelsen M, Janssen M, Hamm U (2020) Consumers’ response to environmentally-friendly food packaging-A systematic review. J Clean Prod 254:120123

Lindh H, Olsson A, Williams H (2016) Consumer perceptions of food packaging: contributing to or counteracting environmentally sustainable development? Packag Technol Sci 29(1):3–23

Liu Z, Adams M, Walker TR (2018) Are exports of recyclables from developed to developing countries waste pollution transfer or part of the global circular economy? Resour Conserv Recycl 136:22–23

Marchildon J (2019) Another Canadian province just banned single-use plastic bags. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/nova-scotia-plastic-bag-ban/ . Accessed 15 Sep 2020

Molina-Besch K, Wikström F, Williams H (2019) The environmental impact of packaging in food supply chains—does life cycle assessment of food provide the full picture? Int J LCA 24(1):37–50

Naud D, Généreux M, Bruneau JF et al. (2019) Social participation in older women and men: differences in community activities and barriers according to region and population size in Canada. BMC Public Health 19(1):1124

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Pahl S, Wyles KJ (2017) The human dimension: how social and behavioural research methods can help address microplastics in the environment. Anal Methods 9(9):1404–1411

Plastics Europe, & Association of Plastics Manufacturers (2017) Plastics–The Facts 2017. Brussels, Belgium: www.plasticseurope.org . Accessed 15 Sep 2020

Prata JC, Silva ALP, Da Costa JP et al. (2019) Solutions and integrated strategies for the control and mitigation of plastic and microplastic pollution. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16(13):2411

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Prata JC, Silva AL, Walker TR et al. (2020) COVID-19 pandemic repercussions on the use and management of plastics. Environ Sci Technol 54(13):7760–7765

Rokka J, Uusitalo L (2008) Preference for green packaging in consumer product choices–do consumers care? Int J Consum Stud 32(5):516–525

Sagan A (2019) Sobeys phasing out plastic bags from all stores by February, 2020. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-sobeys-phasing-out-plastic-bags-from-all-stores-by-february-2020/ . Accessed 15 Sep 2020

Schnurr REJ, Alboiu V, Chaudhary M et al. (2018) Reducing marine pollution from single-use plastics (SUPs): a review. Mar Pollut Bull 137:157–171

Scott L, Vigar‐Ellis D (2014) Consumer understanding, perceptions and behaviours with regard to environmentally friendly packaging in a developing nation. Int J Consum Stud 38(6):642–649

Silva ALP, Prata JC, Walker TR et al. (2020) Rethinking and optimising plastic waste management under COVID-19 pandemic: policy solutions based on redesign and reduction of single-use plastics and personal protective equipment. Sci Total Environ 742:140565

Silva ALP, Prata JC, Walker TR et al. (2021) Increased plastic pollution due to COVID-19 pandemic: challenges and recommendations. Chem Eng J 405:126683

Srivastava SK (2007) Green supply‐chain management: a state‐of‐the‐art literature review. Int J Manag Rev 9(1):53–80

Statistics Canada (2019) Waste diversion in Canada by type. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3810003401 . Accessed 15 Sep 2020

United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) (2014) Valuing plastics: the business case for measuring, managing and disclosing plastic use in the consumer goods industry. https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/9238 . Accessed 15 Sep 2020

United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) (2018) Single-use plastics: a roadmap for sustainability. https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/single-use-plastics-roadmap-sustainability . Accessed 15 Sep 2020

Walker TR (2018) China’s ban on imported plastic waste could be a game changer. Nature 553(7689):405

Walker TR (2020) COVID-19 plastic pollution pandemic. SSRN 3739955

Walker TR (2019) Citizen science could help address Canada’s plastic pollution problem. https://theconversation.com/citizen-science-could-help-address-canadas-plastic-pollution-problem-121787 . Accessed 15 Sep 2020

Walker TR, Xanthos D (2018) A call for Canada to move toward zero plastic waste by reducing and recycling single-use plastics. Resour Conserv Recycl 133:99–100

Walker TR, McKay DC (2021) Comment on “Five Misperceptions Surrounding the Environmental Impacts of Single-Use Plastic”. Environ Sci Technol 55(2):1339–1340

Weinhofer G, Hoffmann VH (2010) Mitigating climate change–how do corporate strategies differ? Bus Strat Environ 19(2):77–89

Google Scholar  

World Economic Forum, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, and McKinsey and Company (2016) The new plastics economy-rethinking the future of plastics. Retrieved from https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/EllenMacArthurFoundation_TheNewPlasticsEconomy_Pages.pdf . Accessed 15 Sep 2020

Worm B, Lotze HK, Jubinville I et al. (2017) Plastic as a persistent marine pollutant. Annu Rev Environ Resour 42:1–26

Wyles KJ, Pahl S, Carroll L et al. (2019) An evaluation of the fishing for litter (FFL) scheme in the UK in terms of attitudes, behavior, barriers and opportunities. Mar Pollut Bull 144:48–60

Xanthos D, Walker TR (2017) International policies to reduce plastic marine pollution from single-use plastics (plastic bags and microbeads): a review. Mar Pollut Bull 118(1-2):17–26

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported with financial contributions from the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and the Angus Reid Institute in Canada.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

Tony R. Walker & Eamonn McGuinty

Faculty of Management, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

Sylvain Charlebois & Janet Music

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tony R. Walker .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary material, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Walker, T.R., McGuinty, E., Charlebois, S. et al. Single-use plastic packaging in the Canadian food industry: consumer behavior and perceptions. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8 , 80 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00747-4

Download citation

Received : 23 July 2020

Accepted : 26 January 2021

Published : 17 March 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00747-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Pharmacotherapeutic potential of ginkgetin against polystyrene microplastics–instigated testicular toxicity in rats: a biochemical, spermatological, and histopathological assessment.

• Muhammad Umar Ijaz

Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2024)

A facile alternative strategy of upcycling mixed plastic waste into vitrimers

• Kok Wei Joseph Ng
• Jacob Song Kiat Lim
• Xiao Matthew Hu

Communications Chemistry (2023)

Eco-advertising and Ban-on-Plastic: the Influence of CSR Green Practices on Green Impulse Behavior

• Khizar Hayat
• Zhu Jianjun
• Mohammed Moosa Ageli

Journal of the Knowledge Economy (2023)

Sustainable plastics waste management framework based on the analysis of people’s awareness, knowledge, attitude, skills, and action: development of sustainable plastics waste management approaches

• R. Y. Paquibut
• M. C. Legion

International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology (2023)

From shops to bins: a case study of consumer attitudes and behaviours towards plastics in a UK coastal city

• Stephanie Lucy Northen
• Laura Karoliina Nieminen
• Stephen Fletcher

Sustainability Science (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• News, Stories & Speeches
• Get Involved
• Structure and leadership
• Committee of Permanent Representatives
• UN Environment Assembly
• Funding and partnerships
• Policies and strategies
• Evaluation Office
• Secretariats and Conventions

• Asia and the Pacific
• Latin America and the Caribbean
• New York Office
• North America
• Climate action
• Nature action
• Chemicals and pollution action
• Digital Transformations
• Disasters and conflicts
• Environment under review
• Environmental rights and governance
• Extractives
• Fresh Water
• Green economy
• Ocean, seas and coasts
• Resource efficiency
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Youth, education and environment
• Publications & data

How to reduce the impacts of single-use plastic products

Single-use plastic products (SUPPs) may epitomize convenience, but with the damage they cause through production, distribution and litter, they are a major threat to environmental and human health.

The open burning of plastic waste, consumption of plastic-contaminated seafood and creation of harmful microplastics are just some reasons why SUPPs should be phased out.

Eliminating plastic product pollution is an important component of the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration .

The UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP’s) recent report From Pollution to Solution shows there is currently between 75-199 million tons of plastic waste in the ocean, and in 2016 some 9-14 tons of waste entered the aquatic ecosystem. It is estimated that by 2040, this will have almost tripled to 23-37 million tons per year. Plastics are the largest, most harmful and most persistent of marine litter, accounting for at least 85 per cent of all marine waste.

But experts say, simply binning SUPPs and switching to single-use products made of other materials is not the solution.

“It is the single-use nature of products that is the most problematic for the planet, more so than the material that they’re made of,” says Claudia Giacovelli, Programme Officer of the UNEP Life Cycle Unit. “The best solution may not be the same in all societies but taking a life cycle approach can help in setting the base towards the right decision.”

So how can we phase out SUPPs and what are the alternatives?

Here are some recommendations from UNEP and the Life Cycle Initiative’s meta-analyses of life cycle assessment studies on SUPPs :

Opt for reusable alternatives

Prioritizing reusable products is not only critical for environmental health, but it can also be cost-effective. Businesses that allow consumers to bring their own bags, cups or containers can save on SUPP-associated supply and storage expenditure, while customers can avoid potentially paying extra for shopping bags or containers.

Cotton and non-woven polypropylene shopping bags are increasingly common, as are reusable and portable plastic and stainless steel bottles, cups, and tableware. Reusability is also increasingly viable for personal hygiene products, through products like silicone menstrual cups and cloth nappies.

Turn ‘single-use’ into ‘multi-use’

The more any product is reused, the lower its environmental impact. When consumers can’t avoid SUPPs, they should mitigate their environmental impact by reusing them when possible instead of immediately disposing of them. For example, durable single-use plastic bags, bottles, cups, tableware, and take-away food packaging can be reused or repurposed.

Single-use alternatives made of other materials are not intrinsically better, meaning that they should be reused when possible too. Such as, a paper shopping bag may need to be used four to eight times to have a lower environmental impact than one single-use plastic bag.

Design products with circularity and end-of-life consideration

Consumers should not shoulder the entire burden of decreasing the impacts of SUPP. Guided by policymaker and retailer action, products should be designed to be both lightweight and durable to maximize reusability. Production should be sustainable, such as by using renewable energy and recycled materials.

Sourcing locally and avoiding air-freight transported goods is another way to reduce the environmental impact of products over their life cycle. Finally, end-of-life impacts must be considered, so that products can be recycled or discarded in an environmentally friendly manner when they can no longer be reused.

Geographical and social context matters

As more areas propose bans to SUPPs, policymakers must consider geographical and social contexts when identifying appropriate alternatives. Factors such as production requirements, expected use, reusability, likelihood of littering, local waste management infrastructure and education can all impact how environmentally friendly proposed alternatives are.

Shifting to reusable options and bolstering recycling and waste management infrastructure must take priority. In the interim period, areas with littering problems should avoid using lighter products because they are more likely to be littered, even though they are generally less resource-intensive to produce.

Ultimately, eliminating SUPPs is only one way to reduce environmental damage.

As Giacovelli notes, “Countries are encouraged to promote actions that lead to keeping resources at their highest value in the economy, by consuming less and replacing single-use products with fit-for-purpose reusable alternatives for a healthier planet.”

Contact Information: To learn more, please contact Llorenç Milà i Canals, UNEP’s Head of the Secretariat of the Life Cycle Initiative: [email protected] .

Hosted by UNEP, the Life Cycle Initiative is a public-private, multi-stakeholder partnership that enables the global use of credible life cycle knowledge by private and public decision makers.

UNEP’s “ Addressing Single-use plastic products pollution, using a life cycle approach ” summary report, based on the findings of a series of meta-analyses on SUPPs, was produced in response to Resolution  UNEP/EA.4/R.9 . A new report in the series, focused on masks, will be released in December 2021.

• Chemicals & pollution action
• Waste management

Further Resources

• Addressing Single-Use Plastic Products Pollution using a Life Cycle Approach
• Legal limits on single-use plastics and microplastics
• From Pollution to Solution
• Beat Plastic Pollution

Related Content

Related Sustainable Development Goals

© 2024 UNEP Terms of Use Privacy   Report Project Concern Report Scam Contact Us

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Single-use plastic bans: exploring stakeholder perspectives on best practices for reducing plastic pollution.

1. Introduction

2. the circular economy and extended producer responsibility, 3. who is willing to do what, 4. a gelatinous solution, 5. theoretical framework and methods.

• Waste Sorting
• Seasonality
• River Runoffs
• Invasive species
• Consumption patterns

6.1. Workshop and In-Depth Interviews in Norway—Stakeholder Perceptions of the Challenge

“ It’s an extensive job to gain a good assessment and to find out where the disposal/release occurs and how, and which technological solutions are necessary to solve this. ” (Norwegian NGO 2)

“ Focus on pathways. I mean that the attention should be on pathways and where the microplastic ends up. How you can avoid it, how you can be preventative to avoid the dispersion of microplastic everywhere. ” (Norwegian WWTP)

“ We are talking about putting plastic into the circular economy, but that is difficult unless we reduce our consumption. The first thing we must do is reduce our general consumption on unnecessary plastic. The plastic that we still need could then be produced in a more sustainable manner, without the dependency on fossil raw materials. ” (Norwegian NGO 2)

“ We have seen that it is possible to ban microplastics added in cosmetics on the EU level. The unnecessary redundant microplastic cannot be removed only by placing a ban. For example, food packaging needs alternatives that we know are just as good or better. ” (Norwegian NGO 1)

6.2. Slovenia Workshop—Finding a Solution

7. discussion and conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• 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. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vanapalli, K.R.; Sharma, H.B.; Ranjan, V.P.; Samal, B.; Bhattacharya, J.; Dubey, B.K.; Goel, S. Challenges and strategies for effective plastic waste management during and post COVID-19 pandemic. Sci. Total Environ. 2021 , 750 , 141514. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Silva, A.L.P.; Prata, J.C.; Walker, T.R.; Duarte, A.C.; Ouyang, W.; Barcelò, D.; Rocha-Santos, T. Increased plastic pollution due to COVID-19 pandemic: Challenges and recommendations. Chem. Eng. J. 2020 , 405 , 126683. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Adyel, T.M. Accumulation of plastic waste during COVID-19. Science 2020 , 369 , 1314–1315. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Ford, D. COVID-19 Has Worsened the Ocean Plastic Pollution Problem. Scientific America , 17 August 2020. Available online: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/covid-19-has-worsened-the-ocean-plastic-pollution-problem/ (accessed on 1 August 2021).
• Silver, M. If You Shouldn’t Call It the Third World, What Should You Call It? National Public Radio: Washington, DC, USA, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith, O.; Brisman, A. Plastic Waste and the Environmental Crisis Industry. Crit. Criminol. 2021 , 29 , 289–309. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• McCarthy, J.; Sanchez, E. 23 Million Pounds of Plastic Removed from Beaches in Unprecedented Cleanup. Global Citizen , 4 September 2019. Available online: https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/international-coastal-cleanup-report/ (accessed on 1 August 2021).
• Geyer, R.; Jambeck, J.R.; Law, K.L. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci. Adv. 2017 , 3 , e1700782. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Parker, L. We Made Plastic. We Depend on it. Now We’re Drowning in It. 2018. Available online: https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/2018/05/we-made-plastic-we-depend-it-now-were-drowning-it (accessed on 1 August 2021).
• Chen, Y.; Awasthi, A.K.; Wei, F.; Tan, Q.; Li, J. Single-use plastics: Production, usage, disposal, and adverse impacts. Sci. Total Environ. 2020 , 752 , 141772. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• McNeish, R.E.; Kim, L.H.; Barrett, H.A.; Mason, S.A.; Kelly, J.J.; Hoellein, T.J. Microplastic in riverine fish is connected to species traits. Sci. Rep. 2018 , 8 , 11639. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Picó, Y.; Barceló, D. Analysis and prevention of microplastics pollution in water: Current perspectives and future directions. ACS Omega 2019 , 4 , 6709–6719. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Conkle, J.L.; del Valle, C.D.B.; Turner, J.W. Are we underestimating microplastic contamination in aquatic environments? Environ. Manag. 2018 , 61 , 1–8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hopewell, J.; Dvorak, R.; Kosior, E. Plastics recycling: Challenges and opportunities. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2009 , 364 , 2115–2126. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Andrady, A.L. Plastics and Environmental Sustainability ; Wiley Online Library: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• World Resources Institute. Climate Watch Historical GHG Emissions ; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zheng, J.; Suh, S. Strategies to reduce the global carbon footprint of plastics. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2019 , 9 , 374–378. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• European Commission. SUP Directive (EU) 2019/904 ; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Auta, H.; Emenike, C.; Fauziah, S. Distribution and importance of microplastics in the marine environment: A review of the sources, fate, effects, and potential solutions. Environ. Int. 2017 , 102 , 165–176. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• De-la-Torre, G.E. Microplastics: An emerging threat to food security and human health. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2020 , 57 , 1601–1608. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Coffin, S.; Wyer, H.; Leapman, J. Addressing the environmental and health impacts of microplastics requires open collaboration between diverse sectors. PLoS Biol. 2021 , 19 , e3000932. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Rubio, L.; Marcos, R.; Hernández, A. Potential adverse health effects of ingested micro-and nanoplastics on humans: Lessons learned from in vivo and in vitro mammalian models. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part B 2020 , 23 , 51–68. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thompson, R.C.; Olsen, Y.; Mitchell, R.P.; Davis, A.; Rowland, S.J.; John, A.W.; McGonigle, D.; Russell, A.E. Lost at sea: Where is all the plastic? Science 2004 , 304 , 838. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Koelmans, B.; Pahl, S.; Backhaus, T.; Bessa, F.; van Calster, G.; Contzen, N.; Cronin, R.; Galloway, T.; Hart, A.; Henderson, L.; et al. A Scientific Perspective on Microplastics in Nature and Society ; SAPEA: Brussels, Belgium, 2019; Available online: https://www.sapea.info/wp-content/uploads/report.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2021).
• World Health Organization. Microplastics in Drinking-Water ; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019; p. 124. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241516198 (accessed on 1 August 2021).
• EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM). Presence of microplastics and nanoplastics in food, with particular focus on seafood. EFSA J. 2016 , 14 , e04501. [ Google Scholar ]
• Purcell, J.E. Environmental effects on asexual reproduction rates of the scyphozoan Aurelia labiata. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2007 , 348 , 183–196. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gibbons, M.; Boero, F.; Brotz, L. We should not assume that fishing jellyfish will solve our jellyfish problem. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2016 , 73 , 1012–1018. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ben-David, E.A.; Habibi, M.; Haddad, E.; Hasanin, M.; Angel, D.L.; Booth, A.M.; Sabbah, I. Microplastic distributions in a domestic wastewater treatment plant: Removal efficiency, seasonal variation and influence of sampling technique. Sci. Total Environ. 2021 , 752 , 141880. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cavaliere, A.; Pigliafreddo, S.; De Marchi, E.; Banterle, A. Do consumers really want to reduce plastic usage? Exploring the determinants of plastic avoidance in food-related consumption decisions. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 9627. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hartley, B.L.; Pahl, S.; Veiga, J.; Vlachogianni, T.; Vasconcelos, L.; Maes, T.; Doyle, T.; Metcalfe, R.D.; Öztürk, A.A.; Di Berardo, M.; et al. Exploring public views on marine litter in Europe: Perceived causes, consequences and pathways to change. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018 , 133 , 945–955. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Watkins, E.; Gionfra, S.; Schweitzer, J.P.; Pantzar, M.; Janssens, C.; ten Brink, P. EPR in the EU Plastics Strategy and the Circular Economy: A Focus on Plastic Packaging ; Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP): London, UK, 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Raubenheimer, K.; Urho, N. Rethinking global governance of plastics–The role of industry. Mar. Policy 2020 , 113 , 103802. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Røine, K.; Lee, C.-Y. With a Little Help from EPR? Technological Change and Innovation in the Norwegian Plastic Packaging and Electronics Sectors. J. Ind. Ecol. 2006 , 10 , 217–237. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Deloitte. Reducing Plastic Pollution and Creating a True Circular Economy for Plastics through Extended Producer Responsibility ; Deloitte: Boston, MA, USA, 2020; p. 56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reed, M.S. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biol. Conserv. 2008 , 141 , 2417–2431. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• De Vente, J.; Reed, M.S.; Stringer, L.C.; Valente, S.; Newig, J. How does the context and design of participatory decision-making processes affect their outcomes? Evidence from sustainable land management in global drylands. Ecol. Soc. 2016 , 21 , 24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Jia, L.; Evans, S.; Van Der Linden, S. Motivating actions to mitigate plastic pollution. Nat. Commun. 2019 , 10 , 4582. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• European Commission. Special Eurobarometer 468: Attitudes of European Citizens towards the Environment ; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• European Commission. Protecting the Environment—Eurobarometer Survey ; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Convery, F.; McDonnell, S.; Ferreira, S. The most popular tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish plastic bags levy. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2007 , 38 , 1–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thomas, G.O.; Sautkina, E.; Poortinga, W.; Wolstenholme, E.; Whitmarsh, L. The English plastic bag charge changed behavior and increased support for other charges to reduce plastic waste. Front. Psychol. 2019 , 10 , 266. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Sharp, A.; Høj, S.B.; Wheeler, M. Proscription and its impact on anti-consumption behaviour and attitudes: The case of plastic bags. J. Consum. Behav. 2010 , 9 , 470–484. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• European Commission. Impact Assessment: Reducing Marine Litter: Action on Single Use Plastics and Fishing Gear ; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2018; p. 254. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reed, M.S.; Graves, A.; Dandy, N.; Posthumus, H.; Hubacek, K.; Morris, J.; Prell, C.; Quinn, C.H.; Stringer, L.C. Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J. Environ. Manag. 2009 , 90 , 1933–1949. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brotz, L.; Cheung, W.W.L.; Kleisner, K.; Pakhomov, E.; Pauly, D. Increasing jellyfish populations: Trends in Large Marine Ecosystems. Hydrobiologia 2012 , 690 , 3–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Condon, R.H.; Graham, W.M.; Duarte, C.M.; Pitt, K.; Lucas, C.; Haddock, S.H.; Sutherland, K.; Robinson, K.L.; Dawson, M.; Decker, M.B.; et al. Questioning the Rise of Gelatinous Zooplankton in the World’s Oceans. BioScience 2012 , 62 , 160–169. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Kawahara, M.; Uye, S.-I.; Ohtsu, K.; Iizumi, H. Unusual population explosion of the giant jellyfish Nemopilema nomurai (Scyphozoa: Rhizostomeae) in East Asian waters. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2006 , 307 , 161–173. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Purcell, J.E. Jellyfish and ctenophore blooms coincide with human proliferations and environmental perturbations. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 2011 , 4 , 209–235. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Halpern, B.S.; Frazier, M.; Potapenko, J.; Casey, K.S.; Koenig, K.; Longo, C.; Lowndes, J.S.; Rockwood, R.C.; Selig, E.R.; Selkoe, K.A.; et al. Spatial and temporal changes in cumulative human impacts on the world’s ocean. Nat. Commun. 2015 , 6 , 1–7. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Liu, Y.; Mork, J. Emerging jellyfish and its significance in local fisheries—A Periphylla periphylla story in the Trondheimsfjord. In Engaging Marine Scientists and Fishers to Share Knowledge and Perceptions—Early Lessons ; Briand, F., Ed.; CIESM Publisher: Monaco; Paris, France, 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tiller, R.G.; Borgersen, L.; Knutsen, Ø.; Bailey, J.; Bjelland, H.; Mork, J.; Eisenhauer, L.; Liu, Y. Coming Soon to a Fjord Near You: Future Jellyfish Scenarios in a Changing Climate. Coast. Manag. 2016 , 45 , 1–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tiller, R.G.; Mork, J.; Liu, Y.; Borgersen, L.; Richards, R. To Adapt or Not Adapt: Assessing the Adaptive Capacity of Artisanal Fishers in the Trondheimsfjord (Norway) to Jellyfish (Periphylla periphylla) Bloom and Purse Seiners. Mar. Coast. Fish. 2015 , 7 , 260–273. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Tiller, R.G.; Mork, J.; Richards, R.; Eisenhauer, L.; Liu, Y.; Nakken, J.-F.; Borgersen, Å.L. Something fishy: Assessing stakeholder resilience to increasing jellyfish (Periphylla periphylla) in Trondheimsfjord, Norway. Mar. Policy 2014 , 46 , 72–83. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Freeman, S.; Booth, A.M.; Sabbah, I.; Tiller, R.; Dierking, J.; Klun, K.; Rotter, A.; Ben-David, E.; Javidpour, J.; Angel, D.L. Between source and sea: The role of wastewater treatment in reducing marine microplastics. J. Environ. Manag. 2020 , 266 , 110642. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Patwa, A.; Thiéry, A.; Lombard, F.; Lilley, M.; Boisset, C.; Bramard, J.-F.; Bottero, J.-Y.; Barthélémy, P. Accumulation of nanoparticles in “jellyfish” mucus: A bio-inspired route to decontamination of nano-waste. Sci. Rep. 2015 , 5 , 11387. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Sandu, C.; Takacs, E.; Suaria, G.; Borgogno, F.; Laforsch, C.; Löder, M.M.G.J.; Tweehuysen, G.; Florea, L. Society Role in the Reduction of Plastic Pollution. In The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry ; Springer: Heidelberg/Germany, 2020; pp. 1–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rambonnet, L.; Vink, S.C.; Land-Zandstra, A.M.; Bosker, T. Making citizen science count: Best practices and challenges of citizen science projects on plastics in aquatic environments. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019 , 145 , 271–277. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Jones, B.D.; Baumgartner, F.R. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems ; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu, X.; Lindquist, E.; Vedlitz, A. Explaining media and congressional attention to global climate change, 1969–2005: An empirical test of agenda-setting theory. Political Res. Q. 2011 , 64 , 405–419. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tiller, R.; Arenas, F.; Galdies, C.; Leitão, F.; Malej, A.; Romera, B.M.; Solidoro, C.; Stojanov, R.; Turk, V.; Guerra, R. Who cares about ocean acidification in the Plasticene? Ocean Coast. Manag. 2019 , 174 , 170–180. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chijioke, O.C.; Ikechukwu, A.; Aloysius, A. Understanding theory in social science research: Public administration in perspective. Teach. Public Adm. 2021 , 39 , 156–174. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Figgener, C. What I learnt pulling a straw out of a turtle’s nose. Nature 2018 , 563 , 157–158. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Forrester, J.W. System dynamics, systems thinking, and soft OR. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 1994 , 10 , 245–256. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Freeman, R.E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach ; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lidskog, R.; Sundqvist, G. When does science matter? International relations meets science and technology studies. Glob. Environ. Politics 2015 , 15 , 1–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Andonova, L.B. Public-private partnerships for the earth: Politics and patterns of hybrid authority in the multilateral system. Glob. Environ. Politics 2010 , 10 , 25–53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sun, Y. Transnational public-private partnerships as learning facilitators: Global governance of mercury. Glob. Environ. Politics 2017 , 17 , 21–44. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ellis, S.C. Meaningful consideration? A review of traditional knowledge in environmental decision making. Arctic 2005 , 58 , 66–77. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Bredehoeft, J. The conceptualization model problem—Surprise. Hydrogeol. J. 2005 , 13 , 37–46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Flood, R. The Relationship of ‘Systems Thinking’ to Action Research. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 2010 , 23 , 269–284. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Allegrante, J.; Barry, M.; BeLue, R.; Carmack, C.; Myers, K.; Weinreb-Welch, L.; Lengerich, E. Systems Thinking Tools as Applied to Community-Based Participatory Research: A Case Study. Health Educ. Behav. 2012 , 39 , 745–751. [ Google Scholar ]
• Axelrod, R. Structure of Decision: The Cognitive Maps of Political Elites ; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Biernacki, P.; Waldorf, D. Snowball Sampling: Problems and Techniques of Chain Referral Sampling. Sociol. Methods Res. 1981 , 10 , 141–163. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sandelowski, M. Sample size in qualitative research. Res. Nurs. Health 1995 , 18 , 179–183. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hinchman, L.P.; Hinchman, S. Memory, Identity, Community: The Idea of Narrative in the Human Sciences ; Suny Press: Albany, NY, USA, 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Czarniawska, B. Narratives in Social Science Research ; Sage: London, UK, 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Newcombe, R. From client to project stakeholders: A stakeholder mapping approach. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2003 , 21 , 841–848. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ilyas, M.; Ahmad, W.; Khan, H.; Yousaf, S.; Khan, K.; Nazir, S. Plastic waste as a significant threat to environment—A systematic literature review. Rev. Environ. Health 2018 , 33 , 383–406. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Prata, J.C.; Silva, A.L.P.; Da Costa, J.P.; Mouneyrac, C.; Walker, T.R.; Duarte, A.C.; Rocha-Santos, T. Solutions and integrated strategies for the control and mitigation of plastic and microplastic pollution. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019 , 16 , 2411. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Marazzi, L.; Loiselle, S.; Anderson, L.G.; Rocliffe, S.; Winton, D.J. Consumer-based actions to reduce plastic pollution in rivers: A multi-criteria decision analysis approach. PLoS ONE 2020 , 15 , e0236410. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brooks, A.L.; Wang, S.; Jambeck, J.R. The Chinese import ban and its impact on global plastic waste trade. Sci. Adv. 2018 , 4 , eaat0131. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Misund, A.; Tiller, R.; Canning-Clode, J.; Freitas, M.; Schmidt, J.O.; Javidpour, J. Can we shop ourselves to a clean sea? An experimental panel approach to assess the persuasiveness of private labels as a private governance approach to microplastic pollution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020 , 153 , 110927. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Simon, N.; Raubenheimer, K.; Urho, N.; Unger, S.; Azoulay, D.; Farrelly, T.; Sousa, J.; van Asselt, H.; Carlini, G.; Sekomo, C.; et al. A binding global agreement to address the life cycle of plastics. Science 2021 , 373 , 43–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jiang, B.; Kauffman, A.E.; Li, L.; McFee, W.; Cai, B.; Weinstein, J.; Lead, J.R.; Chatterjee, S.; Scott, G.I.; Xiao, S. Health impacts of environmental contamination of micro-and nanoplastics: A review. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 2020 , 25 , 29. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• De Falco, F.; Di Pace, E.; Cocca, M.; Avella, M. The contribution of washing processes of synthetic clothes to microplastic pollution. Sci. Rep. 2019 , 9 , 6633. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sul, J.A.I.D.; Costa, M.F. The present and future of microplastic pollution in the marine environment. Environ. Pollut. 2014 , 185 , 352–364. [ Google Scholar ]
• Karbalaei, S.; Hanachi, P.; Walker, T.R.; Cole, M. Occurrence, sources, human health impacts and mitigation of microplastic pollution. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018 , 25 , 36046–36063. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lehner, R.; Weder, C.; Petri-Fink, A.; Rothen-Rutishauser, B. Emergence of nanoplastic in the environment and possible impact on human health. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019 , 53 , 1748–1765. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dauvergne, P. Why is the global governance of plastic failing the oceans? Glob. Environ. Chang. 2018 , 51 , 22–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stoll, T.; Stoett, P.; Vince, J.; Hardesty, B.D. Governance and Measures for the Prevention of Marine Debris. In Handbook of Microplastics in the Environment ; Rocha-Santos, T., Costa, M., Mouneyrac, C., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vince, J.; Hardesty, B.D. Governance Solutions to the Tragedy of the Commons That Marine Plastics Have Become. Front. Mar. Sci. 2018 , 5 , 214. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]

Share and Cite

Cowan, E.; Booth, A.M.; Misund, A.; Klun, K.; Rotter, A.; Tiller, R. Single-Use Plastic Bans: Exploring Stakeholder Perspectives on Best Practices for Reducing Plastic Pollution. Environments 2021 , 8 , 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments8080081

Cowan E, Booth AM, Misund A, Klun K, Rotter A, Tiller R. Single-Use Plastic Bans: Exploring Stakeholder Perspectives on Best Practices for Reducing Plastic Pollution. Environments . 2021; 8(8):81. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments8080081

Cowan, Emily, Andy M. Booth, Andreas Misund, Katja Klun, Ana Rotter, and Rachel Tiller. 2021. "Single-Use Plastic Bans: Exploring Stakeholder Perspectives on Best Practices for Reducing Plastic Pollution" Environments 8, no. 8: 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments8080081

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Design Group UK

Case study: reducing single use plastics, “ we want to be industry leaders in reducing single use plastic used in our packaging”, in 2018, we began our journey to actively remove single use plastic from our packaging in the drive to create more sustainable celebrations, gifting, stationery, and creative play categories..

Lucy Regan, Supply Chain Controller and Sustainability Ambassador at DGUK, shares the journey taken by the teams across the UK offices.

How were single-use plastics used previously in our packaging?

Prior to 2018, our approach to packaging was very different! Looking back, we followed the standard, well established packaging formats which would often lead to unnecessary packaging and over packaged products. Very little consideration was taken of the environmental impact the packaging would have post consumer consumption.

Primary packaging previously used in greetings included PET lids on crackers and boxed cards, PP bags on cards, tags and multipacks, PET eurohooks on single bags and LDPE shrink film on our gift wrap. In our other categories, PVC was often used in licensed products, blister cards on writing instruments and stationery accessories and a large amount of shrink film was used on larger items such as frames and albums. This type of packaging was aesthetically pleasing and protected the products   – but at what cost?

As the affect of our demands on the earth’s resources became more apparent, we became more environmentally aware and plastic pollution became a key concern.

What were the initial steps we took to identify the changes required?

We started our journey by reviewing all of our packaging substrates and formats to determine how much was made from recycled material and how much was recyclable, with a view to introduce sustainable alternatives.   We then worked with our technical team to create a Material Classification using a ‘red, amber and green’ system.   This would also form part of our Packaging Materials Policy launched in 2019.

We knew that to successfully make a change, we needed to better educate our internal teams and suppliers on how to develop sustainable packaging in line with the material guidance given and our customer’s own sustainability strategies.

The policy commits DGUK to further reducing the amount of packaging used, to increase the recyclability of it and to increase the amount of recycled material in it.

Tell us about the innovative solutions we have created to replace single use plastic packaging.

As a sustainability project team, bringing together a representative from each business function, we brainstormed new packaging solutions for all of our product categories.

Some areas were less challenging. For example, we very quickly changed all our plastic gift bag euro-hooks to cardboard and offered our single card customers a ‘naked’ card solution. 

Cracker packaging took a little longer to develop, ensuring the board replacement was fit for purpose whilst also maintaining visibility of the product to the consumer.

Licensed stationery moved away from PVC and where possible, we have created keepsake packaging   such as PET storage tubes. 

All blister card solutions have been reviewed and have been replaced with cardboard packaging, also making the product look more premium.

One of our huge success stories to date has been the development of our first-to-market shrink free gift wrap solution.   This involved completing extensive trials to be confident in the solution prior to presenting it to our customers.   Our gift wrap rolls are now available with minimal packaging using recyclable paper labels, eliminating plastic from the process.

Where plastic packaging continues to be used, we have ensured that the material has a recycling stream whether its at kerbside or at a local supermarket.

Were any supporting initiatives used to help drive the importance of this task with internal key players and customers?

We are associate members of The UK Plastics Pact committed to delivering their targets by 2025.   Many of our customers are also members and therefore we are driving for change together with a consistent goal.

To educate and make recycling simple for the end consumer, we have also implemented On Pack Recycling Label scheme (OPRL) for our own brands and on behalf of our customers.

What areas do we plan to continue to drive innovative sustainable solutions moving forward?

We have now successfully ensured that 98% of our primary packaging across greetings and stationery (own brand and customer branded) is fully recyclable*.

Our focus continues to be on creating new sustainable solutions for tertiary / transit packaging.   In addition, we are keen to drive single use plastic out of our products, a project that has progressed alongside the packaging developments.

Our passionate employees here at DGUK really care about the environment.   By implementing the changes we have already and continue to do, we are excited to be making a difference to the world’s future.   This passion really drives us to keep moving forward at pace and be part of the solution.

*Based on 2021 ranges

Plastic pollution on course to double by 2030 

Facebook Twitter Print Email

Plastic pollution in oceans and other bodies of water continues to grow sharply and could more than double by 2030, according to an  assessment  released on Thursday by the UN Environment Programme ( UNEP ). 

The report highlights dire consequences for health, the economy, biodiversity and the climate. It also says a drastic reduction in unnecessary, avoidable and problematic plastic, is crucial to addressing the global pollution crisis overall.  

To help reduce plastic waste at the needed scale, it proposes an accelerated transition from fossil fuels to renewable energies, the removal of subsidies and a shift towards more circular approaches towards reduction. 

Titled  From Pollution to Solution: a global assessment of marine litter and plastic pollution , the report shows that there is a growing threat, across all ecosystems, from source to sea. 

Solutions to hand 

Our oceans are full of plastic. A new @ UNEP assessment provides a strong scientific case for the urgency to act, and for collective action to protect and restore our oceans from source to sea. #CleanSeas https://t.co/97DMOZD3Ee pic.twitter.com/3xjthnsTh2 Inger Andersen andersen_inger

But it also shows that there is the know-how to reverse the mounting crisis, provided the political will is there, and urgent action is taken. 

The document is being released 10 days ahead of the start of the crucial UN Climate Conference,  COP26 , stressing that plastics are a climate problem as well.  

For example, in 2015, greenhouse gas emissions from plastics were 1.7 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent; by 2050, they’re projected to increase to approximately 6.5 gigatonnes. That number represents 15 per cent of the whole global carbon budget - the​​ amount of greenhouse gas that can be emitted, while still keeping warming within the Paris Agreement goals. 

Recycling not enough 

Addressing solutions to the problem, the authors pour cold water on the chances of recycling our way out of the plastic pollution crisis. 

They also warn against damaging alternatives, such as bio-based or biodegradable plastics, which currently pose a threat similar to conventional plastics. 

The report looks at critical market failures, such as the low price of virgin fossil fuel feedstocks (any renewable biological material that can be used directly as a fuel) compared to recycled materials, disjointed efforts in informal and formal plastic waste management, and the lack of consensus on global solutions. 

Instead, the assessment calls for the immediate reduction in plastic production and consumption, and encourages a transformation across the whole value chain. 

It also asks for investments in far more robust and effective monitoring systems to identify the sources, scale and fate of plastic. Ultimately, a shift to circular approaches and more alternatives are necessary.  

Making the case for change 

For the Executive Director of UNEP, Inger Andersen, this assessment “provides the strongest scientific argument to date for the urgency to act, and for collective action to protect and restore our oceans, from source to sea.” 

She said that a major concern is what happens with breakdown products, such as microplastics and chemical additives, which are known to be toxic and hazardous to human and wildlife health and ecosystems. 

“The speed at which ocean plastic pollution is capturing public attention is encouraging. It is vital that we use this momentum to focus on the opportunities for a clean, healthy and resilient ocean”, Ms. Andersen argued.  

Growing problem 

Currently, plastic accounts for 85 per cent of all marine litter. 

By 2040, it will nearly triple, adding 23-37 million metric tons of waste into the ocean per year. This means about 50kg of plastic per meter of coastline. 

Because of this, all marine life, from plankton and shellfish; to birds, turtles and mammals; faces the grave risk of toxification, behavioral disorder, starvation and suffocation. 

The human body is similarly vulnerable. Plastics are ingested through seafood, drinks and even common salt. They also penetrate the skin and are inhaled when suspended in the air. 

In water sources, this type of pollution can cause hormonal changes, developmental disorders, reproductive abnormalities and even cancer. 

Economy 

According to the report, there are also significant consequences for the global economy. 

Globally, when accounting for impacts on tourism, fisheries and aquaculture, together with the price of projects such as clean-ups, the costs were estimated to be six to 19 billion dollars per year, during 2018. 

By 2040, there could be a $100 billion annual financial risk for businesses if governments require them to cover waste management costs. It can also lead to a rise in illegal domestic and international waste disposal. 

The report will inform discussions at the  UN Environment Assembly  in 2022, where countries will come together to decide a way forward for more global cooperation. 

Advertisement

Single-use plastic bags: challenges, consumer’s behavior, and potential intervention policies

• ORIGINAL ARTICLE
• Published: 28 July 2023
• Volume 25 , pages 3404–3413, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Hassan Taghipour   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1557-5563 1 ,
• Asghar Mohammadpoorasl 2 ,
• Mahdihe Tarfiei 3 &
• Nasrin Jafari 2  

928 Accesses

2 Citations

Explore all metrics

Currently, single-use plastic bag consumption and disposal are a global concern. The main aim of this study was to examine the logic and behaviors behind tendencies toward plastic bag use, determine the amount of plastic bag consumption, and assess the current regulation and condition of management of plastic bags in Iran. The plastic bag consumption rate was estimated using a web-based cross-sectional, self-reported survey questionnaire. Meanwhile, a questionnaire was developed in Google form to evaluate consumer behaviors and attitudes. Totally, 1834 people participated in the study done with accessed sampling method. The independent sample t test, Pearson’s correlation, one-way analysis of variance, and chi-square test were used in data analysis. A combination of methods was used to assess current regulation and management. Then, some potential intervention strategies are presented for problem mitigation. The single-use plastic bag consumption is estimated to be 0.83 per capita per day, 69.72 million per day, and 25.45 billion per year in the country, while their waste is generally disposed of in dumpsites and unsanitary landfills or scattered in the environment. About 92.7% of Iran’s people utilize single-use plastic bags, and their easy (free) availability is announced as the main reason for using them. However, the interesting point is that 86.7% of people do a kind of secondary use of plastic bags, and 92.4% are familiar with the major environmental effects of plastic bags. The majority of people (78.2%) agree and compromise for putting in the application of a kind of strategy for plastic bag minimization. So, applying practical interventions and policies such as banning the free presentation of bags, introducing some kinds of tax, and simultaneously better management of waste bags are necessary to reduce relevant environmental effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

A study on consumer consciousness and behavior to the plastic bag ban in Kenya

The relationship between consumption of single-use plastic bags, environmental awareness, and socio-demographic factors

Survey and analysis on the use and disposal of plastic shopping bags before and after the introduction of charges

Adane L, Muleta D (2011) 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 3(8):234–248

Google Scholar  

Musa HM et al (2013) Measures aimed at reducing plastic carrier bag use: a consumer behaviour focused study. Nat Environ 1(1):17–23

Article   Google Scholar  

Nielsen TD, Holmberg K, Stripple J (2019) Need a bag? A review of public policies on plastic carrier bags—where, how and to what effect? Waste Manage 87:428–440

Saidan MN, Ansour LM, Saidan H (2017) Management of plastic bags waste: an assessment of scenarios in Jordan. J Chem Technol Metall 52(1):148–154

O’Brien J, Thondhlana G (2019) Plastic bag use in South Africa: perceptions, practices and potential intervention strategies. Waste Manage 84:320–328

Sharp A, Høj S, Wheeler M (2010) Proscription and its impact on anti-consumption behaviour and attitudes: the case of plastic bags. J Consum Behav 9(6):470–484

Walker TR, Xanthos D (2018) A call for Canada to move toward zero plastic waste by reducing and recycling single-use plastics. Resour Conserv Recycl 133:99–100

Martinho G, Balaia N, Pires A (2017) The Portuguese plastic carrier bag tax: The effects on consumers’ behavior. Waste Manage 61:3–12

Xanthos D, Walker TR (2017) International policies to reduce plastic marine pollution from single-use plastics (plastic bags and microbeads): a review. Mar Pollut Bull 118(1–2):17–26

Jalil MA, Mian MN, Rahman MK (2013) Using plastic bags and its damaging impact on environment and agriculture: An alternative proposal. Int J Learn Dev 3(4):1–14

Verma R et al (2016) Toxic pollutants from plastic waste-a review. Procedia Environ Sci 35:701–708

Schlachter CT (2019) Regulation trends on plastic bag bans and preemptions. Working Paper, December:1–19

Wagner TP (2017) Reducing single-use plastic shopping bags in the USA. Waste Manage 70:3–12

Moharam R, Maqtari MAA (2014) The impact of plastic bags on the environment: a field survey of the City of Sana’a and the surrounding Areas, Yemen. Int J Eng Res Rev 2(4):61–69

Njeru J (2006) The urban political ecology of plastic bag waste problem in Nairobi, Kenya. Geoforum 37(6):1046–1058

Gupta K (2011) Consumer responses to incentives to reduce plastic bag use: evidence from a field experiment in urban India. SANDEE Working Papers, ISSN 1893-1891;WP 65–11

Ritch E, Brennan C, MacLeod C (2009) Plastic bag politics: modifying consumer behaviour for sustainable development. Int J Consum Stud 33(2):168–174

Convery F, McDonnell S, Ferreira S (2007) The most popular tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish plastic bags levy. Environ Resour Econ 38(1):1–11

Worldometer (2021) Population of Iran. https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/iran-population/ (Accessed 2021)

Chung S-S (2008) Using plastic bag waste to assess the reliability of self-reported waste disposal data. Waste Manage 28(12):2574–2584

Zarei M, Taghipour H, Hassanzadeh Y (2018) Survey of quantity and management condition of end-of-life tires in Iran: a case study in Tabriz. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 20(2):1099–1105

Bharadwaj B, Baland JM, Nepal M (2020) What makes a ban on plastic bags effective? The case of Nepal. Environ Dev Econ 25(2):95–114

Lavelle-Hill R et al (2020) Psychological and demographic predictors of plastic bag consumption in transaction data. J Environ Psychol 72:101473

Tough R (2007) Plastic shopping bags: environmental impacts and policy options. http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/571 (Thesis)

Tudor VC et al (2018) The influence of the plastic bags on the Environment. Mater Plast 55(4):595–599

Khanal A (2022) Survey on usage of single use plastic bags in Nepal. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. IOP Publishing.1057(012008):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1057/1/012008

Taiwan Environmental Protection Administration (2005) A feasibility study and evaluation of the plastic bag levy scheme. EPA, 93, H101:02–227

Pasandideh H (2022) Daily production of about 490 tons of plastic bags in the country. https://pasmandiran.ir/Content/Item/7273/ (Accessed 2021, Persian Languge)

Senturk G, Dumludag D (2022) The relationship between consumption of single-use plastic bags, environmental awareness, and socio-demographic factors. J Mater Cycles Waste Manage 24(4):1494–1507

Misgana B, Tucho GT (2022) Assessment of community’s perception toward single-use plastic shopping bags and use of alternative bags in Jimma Town, Ethiopia. Environ Health Insights 16:11786302221085048

Adeyanju GC et al (2021) Effectiveness of intervention on behaviour change against use of non-biodegradable plastic bags: a systematic review. Discover Sustain 2:1–15

Tabriz Municipal Waste Management Organization (2012) Waste management regulations 1–30 (Persian Language)

The Council of Ministers of Iran (2022) Legislations of minimization the use of plastic bags. No: H.57096T./133196. (Persian Language ). https://media.dotic.ir/uploads/org/2022/10/22/166643139602903900.pdf . (Accessed 2022)

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding for this work was provided by the Research Deputy of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Iran (As a master thesis, grant number 64901). The authors wish to thank all members of the research team and all of the people who participated in this study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Health and Environment Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran

Hassan Taghipour

Department of Statistics and Epidemiology, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran

Asghar Mohammadpoorasl & Nasrin Jafari

Department of Environmental Health Engineering, Faculty of Health, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran

Mahdihe Tarfiei

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hassan Taghipour .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Taghipour, H., Mohammadpoorasl, A., Tarfiei, M. et al. Single-use plastic bags: challenges, consumer’s behavior, and potential intervention policies. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 25 , 3404–3413 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-023-01763-z

Download citation

Received : 18 October 2022

Accepted : 18 July 2023

Published : 28 July 2023

Issue Date : November 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-023-01763-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Plastic bags
• Minimization
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research