Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1 Tackling the plastic problem: A review on perceptions, 2 behaviors, and interventions 3 4 Lea Marie Heidbredera,b*, Isabella Babloka*, Stefan Drewsc,d, Claudia Menzelc‡ 5 a 6 Interdisciplinary Research Group for Environmental Studies, University of Koblenz-Landau, 7 Germany b 8 Personality, Psychological Assessment, and Psychological Methods, Department of 9 Psychology, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany c 10 Social, Environmental, and Economic Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of 11 Koblenz-Landau, Germany d 12 Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 13 Spain 14 15 * these authors contributed equally to this work ‡ 16 corresponding author: Claudia Menzel, menzel@uni-landau.de, Social, Environmental, and 17 Economic Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Koblenz-Landau, Fortstraße 18 7, 76289 Landau, Germany 19 20 21 1 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 22 Abstract 23 The excessive production and consumption of plastic has serious consequences on the 24 environment and human health. The reduction of plastic has therefore become a major global 25 challenge. As technical solutions might be insufficient to curb the problem, a perspective 26 highlighting the impact of human behavior is needed. The current literature review provides 27 an overview of the existing social-scientific literature on plastic, ranging from risk awareness, 28 consumers’ preferences, and predictors of usage behavior to political and psychological 29 intervention strategies. By reviewing the literature, we aim to identify potential factors for 30 future interventions to reduce plastic consumption. The 187 studies reviewed show that 31 people much appreciate and routinely use plastic, despite a pronounced awareness of the 32 associated problems. Habits, norms, and situational factors seem to be especially predictive 33 for plastic consumption behavior. Both political and psychological interventions are 34 potentially effective, although long-term effects are often uncertain. The review closes with 35 implications for behavior-based solutions and future research, which should combine 36 interdisciplinary approaches and take into account cultural differences. 37 38 Keywords: plastic pollution; problem awareness; consumer behavior; behavior-based 39 solutions; environmental psychology 40 41 1 Introduction 42 Today we live in an era that some have called the “Plastic Age” (Thompson, Swan, 43 Moore, & Vom Saal, 2009). The production of plastic has markedly increased over the last 44 decades, currently reaching about 350 million tons per year (PlasticsEurope, 2018). Many 45 advantages of the material, such as durability, flexibility, and cheapness, make plastic 2 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 46 ubiquitous and indispensable in daily life, and thus it is distributed globally. However, there is 47 growing evidence that the current use and disposal of plastic leads to substantial pollution of 48 terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (Bläsing & Amelung, 2018; Horton, Walton, Spurgeon, 49 Lahive, & Svendsen, 2017), already discussing plastic waste as a new planetary boundary 50 threat (Galloway & Lewis, 2016; Rockström et al., 2009). Over 250,000 tons of plastic are 51 estimated to float in the sea (Eriksen et al., 2014), adversely affecting marine wildlife and 52 humans by plastic entering the food chain (W. C. Li, Tse, & Fok, 2016; Rochman et al., 2016; 53 Seltenrich, 2015; Sigler, 2014). In addition, the widespread use of plastic in agriculture has 54 been postulated as a relevant source of soil degradation and microplastics (i.e., plastic 55 particles smaller than 5mm) in soil (e.g., Liu, He, & Yan, 2014; Steinmetz et al., 2016). 56 Furthermore, lab experiments demonstrate plastic to be a source of anthropogenic climate 57 change as the most commonly used plastics might produce greenhouse gases when exposed to 58 sunlight (Royer, Ferrón, Wilson, & Karl, 2018). Thus, plastic has a tremendous effect on 59 various aspects of the environment, including wildlife, through diverse routes. 60 The most discussed risk to human health associated with the use of plastic is the 61 exposure to harmful chemicals that are used as plastic additives (e.g., Hodson, Duffus- 62 Hodson, Clark, Prendergast-Miller, & Thorpe, 2017; Rist, Almroth, Hartmann, & Karlsson, 63 2018; Smith, Love, Rochman, & Neff, 2018). Moreover, plastic particles may act as vehicles 64 of persistent pollutants (Peng, Wang, & Cai, 2017). The potential danger to human health 65 might therefore arise from the uptake of food products that were in contact with plastic or 66 contain microplastic. 67 As the entire production and application of plastic is of human origin, human solutions 68 to the plastic problem are both necessary and feasible. Therefore, various societal actors (e.g., 69 consumers, producers, policy makers, industries) need to be involved in the solutions (e.g., 70 Löhr et al., 2017). Although a number of technical approaches of alternative materials or 71 infrastructure have been developed to curb the problem (e.g., the production of biodegradable 3 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 72 plastic or appropriate recycling procedures), there are two major obstacles: First, it is unlikely 73 that technical approaches will solve the plastic problem comprehensively and in the required 74 time. Second, there are well-known psychological effects that often undermine technical 75 solutions, such as increased usage after an intervention (i.e., rebound effects; Hertwich, 2005) 76 or increased littering of biodegradable products (Haider, Völker, Kramm, Landfester, & 77 Wurm, 2018). Thus, efficiency strategies (e.g., recycling) can save resources at first glance 78 but may eventually lead to a change in people’s behavior as they consume more and thus 79 reduce the resource savings. Moreover, technical approaches require people’s acceptance, 80 thus bringing additional factors into play. Hence, although technical solutions are definitively 81 needed, a focus on human behavior is necessary to tackle the plastic problem from a 82 multidisciplinary approach. To develop effective solutions, insights on perceptions, attitudes, 83 and behaviors related to plastic is needed. As there is, to our knowledge, no compilation of 84 social-scientific literature on the described issue, we aim at providing one that is useful for 85 researchers and stakeholders. 86 87 2 Aims 88 In the current review, we provide an overview of the existing empirical social- 89 scientific literature on human perception and behavior related to plastic use and disposal. 90 Plastic is defined as a synthetic material composed of polymers. In the review, we did not 91 give special attention to plastic additives, such as Bisphenol A, although they might affect risk 92 awareness. Since the research field of plastic-related perception and behavior is relatively new 93 and very diverse, the review is of a narrative nature. The main part of this review summarizes 94 the studies and their findings. In the discussion, we integrate these findings to identify 95 promising factors important for behavior-based solutions to the plastic problem and to reveal 96 research gaps that future studies should address. This review, thus, provides both an overview 4 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 97 of the existing literature helping to identify promising research questions, and useful 98 information for practitioners and those developing interventions. 99 100 3 Methods 101 To identify relevant studies for the present review, we used several databases 102 (PsychINFO, PsychArticles, Pubmed, and Web of Science). A first search using a set of 103 keywords and their combinations (e.g., “plastic”, “waste”, “consumer behavior”, “packaging”, 104 “recycling”) led to an initial collection of studies. An article identified in the search was 105 considered relevant if a) plastic was addressed as a material (ignoring other meanings, such as 106 plastics in arts or plastic surgery), b) plastic was explicitly studied (and not just mentioned as 107 an example or to specify the material of something that was not studied further), and c) 108 attitudes, perceptions, or behaviors were examined. The list of studies was then extended 109 using a snowball strategy of searching backward and forward citations (Wohlin, 2014) and 110 again applying the above criteria. Only articles published before September 27, 2018 were 111 considered. The final pool comprised 187 articles that were included in this review. Figure 1 112 shows the worldwide distribution of the samples described in the reviewed literature. 113 5 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 114 115 Figure 1. Countries represented by reviewed studies. Numbers indicate amount of 116 studies investigating a sample from a particular country (several countries per article possible; 117 same original sample might be counted repeatedly when presented in different articles). One 118 article (Clapp et al., 2009) was excluded because no sample was investigated. 119 120 121 122 4 Results 123 Based on the literature found, we structured the review in three sections: problem 124 awareness and perception of plastic (section 4.1), plastic consumption behavior (section 4.2), 125 and solutions to the plastic problem (section 4.3 and Discussion). 126 6 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 127 4.1 Perception of plastic 128 As outlined above, the increasing use of plastic has a severe impact on the 129 environment and involves certain risks for human health. In the first part of this section, we 130 review available literature on the awareness of such impacts. In the second part, we examine 131 the perception of plastic in the context of consumption. Knowledge about problem awareness 132 and preferences helps to identify predictors of plastic consumption behavior and thus leads to 133 potential starting points for solutions. Note that within this chapter, perceptions were 134 described and that these may not be in line with the real circumstances (e.g., the perceived 135 environmental impact might diverge from the actual one). 136 137 4.1.1 Problem awareness 138 4.1.1.1Perceived impacts of plastic pollution on the environment 139 Plastic used as a material for packaging and bags is generally seen as environmentally 140 problematic (e.g., Adane & Muleta, 2011; Fernqvist, Olsson, & Spendrup, 2015; Otsyina, 141 Nguhiu-Mwangi, Mogoa, Mbuthia, & Ogara, 2018; van Dam & van Trijp, 1994). 142 Furthermore, in social media “plastic” is discussed and associated with “sustainability” and 143 “waste”, indicating certain problem awareness (Richardson, Grose, Nelmes, Parra, & Linares, 144 2016). In an earlier Danish study (Bech-Larsen, 1996), environmental problems due to 145 (packaging) waste were considered as less serious compared to other societal and 146 environmental issues. However, as might be expected by the increased use and disposal of 147 plastic ever since, more recent and large-scaled surveys conducted on citizens in several 148 countries (e.g., Portugal, UK, Germany, Canada, Kenya) show that pollution in general and 149 plastic waste in particular are perceived as major environmental problems (Gelcich et al., 150 2014; Hartley, Pahl, Veiga, et al., 2018; Lotze, Guest, O’Leary, Tuda, & Wallace, 2018). The 151 immense use of plastic (esp. in packaging) and related human behavior are perceived as 7 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 152 significant causes of pollution (Hartley, Pahl, Veiga, et al., 2018; I. R. Santos, Friedrich, 153 Wallner-Kersanach, & Fillmann, 2005). In fact, problem awareness is already high among 154 school children from different countries (United Arab Emirates: Hammami et al., 2017; UK: 155 Hartley, Thompson, & Pahl, 2015; Hong Kong: So, Cheng, Chow, & Zhan, 2016). Plastic 156 litter is highly abundant at most coastlines worldwide and often beach visitors and locals are 157 perceived to be the source of such litter (Beeharry, Bekaroo, Bokhoree, Phillips, & Jory, 158 2017; Brennan & Portman, 2016; Campbell, Slavin, Grage, & Kinslow, 2016; Hartley, Pahl, 159 Veiga, et al., 2018; Kiessling, Salas, Mutafoglu, & Thiel, 2017; Rangel-Buitrago, Williams, & 160 Anfuso, 2018; Santos et al., 2005). However, the amount of former fishing and aquaculture 161 utensils (e.g., fishing lines, buoys, pipes) made from plastic is also very high both in the sea 162 and at beaches, and this debris is perceived as a major threat for marine wildlife, boats, and 163 humans (Barnett, Wiber, Rooney, & Curtis Maillet, 2016; Pearson, Mellish, Sanders, & 164 Litchfield, 2014). Additionally, plastic waste is perceived to negatively affect terrestrial 165 animals (Adane & Muleta, 2011; Otsyina et al., 2018). 166 Although microplastic has become a hot topic in media and environmental science, 167 social-scientific studies on the perception of microplastic and its risks are rare to date. By 168 definition, such plastic particles are small and thus difficult to see and retrieve from the 169 environment compared to macrodebris (cf., Barnett et al., 2016, for such an observation by 170 Candian fishermen). Interviews with beauticians, students, and environmentalists show that 171 only the latter were aware of microplastics in facial scrubs (Anderson, Grose, Pahl, 172 Thompson, & Wyles, 2016). The majority of participants indicated awareness that these 173 particles will go into the ocean after use. After participants of this UK study were made aware 174 of these issues, they reported environmental concerns, especially risks for marine fauna. 175 However, for them these environmental problems are not as pressing as others (Anderson et 176 al., 2016). Overall, (macro- and micro-) plastic is generally seen as an environmental hazard, 177 though to a varying degree. 8 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 178 179 4.1.1.2Perception of human health and well-being risks 180 Besides the perceived environmental risks, people are concerned about hazards related 181 to their health and well-being. For example, litter is associated with reduced preference for 182 and perceived restorative quality of a given place and this is especially true when the litter 183 originates from the general public (e.g., plastic bottles) compared to fishing-related litter (e.g., 184 fishing ropes; Ballance, Ryan, & Turpie, 2000; Kiessling et al., 2017; Wyles, Pahl, Thomas, 185 & Thompson, 2016). Furthermore, potentially health-threatening litter items (e.g., syringes 186 and condoms) were perceived as more offensive than other beach litter (Tudor & Williams, 187 2003). In general, coastal scenic quality seems to be negatively affected by the amount of 188 (plastic) litter but it is noted that this appeal might be restored by beach clean-ups (Corraini, 189 de Souza de Lima, Bonetti, & Rangel-Buitrago, 2018; Rangel-Buitrago et al., 2018; Williams, 190 Rangel-Buitrago, Anfuso, Cervantes, & Botero, 2016), which are being carried out with 191 increasing frequency nowadays (e.g., Loizidou, Loizides, & Orthodoxou, 2018; see also 192 4.3.2.3 for more information on clean-up interventions). In a Spanish study, beach litter was 193 perceived as higher the more plastic was seen and the more often one visits the beach (Rayon- 194 Viña, Miralles, Gómez-Agenjo, Dopico, & Garcia-Vazquez, 2018). 195 Although the beaches investigated in an Australian study were relatively clean, about 196 22% of beach goers experienced injuries (e.g., small cuts) from litter which mainly consisted 197 of plastic items (Campbell et al., 2016; see also I. R. Santos et al., 2005, for similar results). 198 The majority of respondents, however, did not perceive plastic litter as a human (but rather an 199 environmental) hazard, and previous injuries did not affect the perception of litter (Campbell 200 et al., 2016). However, in a similar – but older – study human risks were rated higher than or 201 similar to environmental hazards (I. R. Santos et al., 2005). The difference between these two 202 studies might illustrate the increased awareness of the environmental hazards described 203 above. 9 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 204 Although US consumers of facial scrubs considered the products safe to use, most of 205 them deny purchasing or using it when confronted with the fact that it contains plastic (M. 206 Chang, 2015), and others reported both health (related to the skin while using the scrub and 207 accumulation in the food chain) and environmental concerns (see above, Anderson et al., 208 2016). 209 Consumers from different countries (Turkey, Sweden, India, and Ghana) expressed 210 concerns about health-affecting properties of plastic, such as harmful substances in plastic and 211 reduced food quality due to the packaging (Aday & Yener, 2014; Fernqvist et al., 2015; 212 Joseph, Kumar, Majgi, Kumar, & Prahalad, 2016; Omari & Frempong, 2016; Omari, 213 Frempong, & Arthur, 2018). However, compared to cans made from metal, plastic is 214 perceived as safe (e.g., Peters-Texeira & Badrie, 2005). In fact, compared to glass bottles or 215 cans made from metal, plastic is reported to cause less injuries when opening a package 216 (Caner & Pascall, 2010). In a Ghanaian study, the degree of worry about leaking substances 217 from plastic packaging into food is similar to other chemical-related risks, such as those from 218 pesticides or artificial coloring (Omari et al., 2018). While the majority of participants from a 219 Hawaiian study on plastic alternatives preferred microwavable containers for takeout food 220 (Barnes, Chan-Halbrendt, Zhang, & Abejon, 2011) other participants of a Swedish study 221 reported concern related to plastic food packages designed for microwave use (Fernqvist et 222 al., 2015). Additionally, plastic bag use is associated with health risks that were not further 223 specified in an Ethiopian study (Adane & Muleta, 2011). Not only were consumers worried 224 about potential health hazards of plastic but regulatory officials were also concerned and 225 uncertain as pointed out in an UK case study (Rothstein, 2003). In general, the risk perception 226 of plastic (pollution) has changed within the few last decades and some characteristics of 227 plastic (e.g., its highly abundant and thus involuntary exposure, unnecessary use, and 228 uncontrollable spread) have lead to high risk perception (Syberg, Hansen, Christensen, & 229 Khan, 2018). 10 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 230 231 4.1.2 Consumer Perceptions 232 Much of the plastic waste found in the environment consists of food-related 233 packaging, including bottles, bags, and eating accessories (e.g., Carpenter & Wolverton, 234 2017; see also Marsh & Bugusu, 2007). Moreover, one third of the worldwide plastic 235 production is for packaging (PlasticsEurope, 2017). Therefore, knowledge about the 236 perception and preferences of consumers is necessary to tackle the plastic problem. 237 238 4.1.2.1Perception of the environmental impact of plastic packaging and bags 239 Packaging fulfills a number of functions, including protection of the product and 240 communication of product characteristics (as reviewed by Lindh, Williams, Olsson, & 241 Wikström, 2016; Marsh & Bugusu, 2007). Although the product itself and other aspects of 242 production and transportation usually have a larger impact on the environment than the 243 packaging per se (Jungbluth, Tietje, & Scholz, 2000; Wikström, Williams, Verghese, & 244 Clune, 2014, but see also Pasqualino, Meneses, & Castells, 2011), unsuitable packaging 245 increases the amount of food waste and therefore packaging should be appropriate to reduce 246 environmental impacts (e.g., Silvenius et al., 2014; Williams, Wikström, Otterbring, Löfgren, 247 & Gustafsson, 2012). For example, when Norwegian consumers were unsatisfied with the 248 packaging, they may use their own plastic bag to maintain the freshness of bread and thereby 249 reduce food waste (Østergaard & Hanssen, 2018). 250 Although appropriate packaging is important for the protection and environmental 251 impact of a product, its material plays only a minor role in the preference of one product over 252 another (Eldesouky & Mesias, 2014; Gelici-Zeko, Lutters, ten Klooster, & Weijzen, 2013; 253 Silayoi & Speece, 2004, but see also Rokka & Uusitalo, 2008, for different results when 254 recyclability of the material was made salient for the choice, and also Widaningrum, 2014, for 255 divergent findings). Other properties of the product or package, such as price, visual and 11 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 256 functional aspects of the package, size, and previous experience with the product or brand are 257 rated as more important (Draskovic, Temperley, & Pavicic, 2009; Eldesouky & Mesías, 2014; 258 Gelici-Zeko et al., 2013; Isa & Yao, 2013; Koutsimanis, Getter, Behe, Harte, & Almenar, 259 2012; Peters-Texeira & Badrie, 2005; Scherer, Emberger-Klein, & Menrad, 2017; Silayoi & 260 Speece, 2004; Young, 2008)When directly asked about the packaging material, respondents 261 of a study from Thailand stated in interviews that it should be non-toxic, convenient, and 262 prolong high product quality (Silayoi & Speece, 2004). 263 The negative environmental impacts of plastic packaging are considered 264 disadvantageous (Aday & Yener, 2014; Fernqvist et al., 2015). Plastic-only packaging was 265 ranked medium for environmental friendliness by both Dutch consumers and a life cycle 266 analysis (Steenis, van Herpen, van der Lans, Ligthart, & van Trijp, 2017). In the same study, 267 bioplastic (which was not specifically defined) and glass were rated as especially sustainable 268 by consumers, while a life cycle analysis ascertains that carton and mixed carton-plastic 269 packages are more sustainable in the example of a soup package. Similarly, respondents of 270 other studies rated glass (and sometimes also paper-based materials) most environmentally 271 friendly, while plastic and metal were rated most negative (Lindh, Olsson, & Williams, 2016; 272 van Dam, 1996). Note, however, as mentioned in van Dam (1996, p. 612) that “consumers 273 judge environmental friendliness only from their beliefs concerning the post-consumption 274 treatment of the packaging waste”, and therefore consumer perception and results of life cycle 275 analyses may diverge (e.g., Jungbluth et al., 2000; Steenis et al., 2017; van Dam, 1996; 276 Wikström et al., 2014). 277 In line with this focus on post-consumption, consumers focus more on recyclability, 278 biodegradability, and reusability than on the origin of the raw material when evaluating the 279 environmental friendliness of a material. However, there were also differences among the 280 different nationalities investigated (Germany, USA, and France; Herbes, Beuthner, & 281 Ramme, 2018). Recyclability of the package is generally perceived positively and in 12 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 282 experimental studies consumers were willing to pay more for a product with recyclable 283 (plastic) packaging material (Barnes et al., 2011; Klaiman, Ortega, & Garnache, 2016; Rokka 284 & Uusitalo, 2008; Vones, Allan, Lambert, & Vettese, 2018; Young, 2008). However, 285 recyclability of the package is rarely a reason to buy a product (Aday & Yener, 2014; 286 Koutsimanis et al., 2012; but see Rokka & Uusitalo, 2008). This might have various reasons 287 as, for example, post-consumer recycling is sometimes perceived as difficult (e.g., Venter, 288 van der Merwe, de Beer, Kempen, & Bosman, 2011) or impossible (Y. Li et al., 2010). The 289 need to clean a package hinders people from recycling a package (irrespective of material; 290 Klaiman, Ortega, & Garnache, 2017). Furthermore, the environmental attitudes of consumers 291 affect their perception of a packaging made from recycled materials as was indicated by an 292 experimental study showing that French participants with low environmental concern 293 perceived it negatively (i.e., as ‘green washing’) when there was a claim “made from recycled 294 material” on a plastic bottle compared to an ecologically looking non-plastic bottle (Magnier 295 & Schoormans, 2015). 296 Generally, biobased materials (i.e., made from plant or other renewable material; 297 irrespective of biodegradability) were preferred over conventional plastic (Kainz, Zapilko, 298 Decker, & Menrad, 2013; Koutsimanis et al., 2012; Magnier & Schoormans, 2015, 2017). 299 Similarly, biodegradable materials (i.e., degradable with the help of microorgansims and/or 300 sunlight) were also preferred over conventional plastic and people may be willing to pay more 301 for it (Muizniece-Brasava, Dukalska, & Kantike, 2011; Yue et al., 2010).The preference for 302 biodegradable and other (seemingly) environmental friendly materials might be due to the 303 perceived advantages of reduced pollution and health hazards (Magnier & Crié, 2015). 304 However, a Romanian study indicated that biodegradable plastic (compared to paper, 305 cardboard, or glass) was rated as the least preferred environmentally friendly packaging 306 material (Orzan, Cruceru, Bălăceanu, & Chivu, 2018). This discrepancy highlights that 307 consumers lack knowledge about the properties of both biodegradable and biobased plastic 13 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 308 (Kainz et al., 2013; Koutsimanis et al., 2012; Mohamed, 2015). For example, consumers 309 confound characteristics of bioplastic (i.e., biobased) and biodegradable materials and thus 310 have incorrect associations to them (Blesin, Jaspersen, & Möhring, 2017; see also Young, 311 2008, for similar findings on recyclability vs. recycled source material). The lack of 312 knowledge might furthered derived from the facts that those materials are both rarely in use 313 and its environmental effects were understudied so far (Rujnić-Sokele & Pilipović, 2017; 314 Spierling et al., 2018). Relatedly, a Bangladeshi study by Synthia and Kabir (2015) showed 315 that characteristics of plastic alternatives were unknown and the authors highlighted the need 316 for more education when banning plastic products. Their study revealed that after a ban of 317 certain plastic bags, new alternative bags (e.g., net, nylon, or polyethene bags designed 318 differently to the banned ones) were used increasingly and considered more environmentally 319 friendly although the latter was not always true. 320 321 4.1.2.2Perceived advantages of plastic packaging and bags 322 Preference for plastic as a packaging material is based on its functional aspects (e.g., 323 Bech-Larsen, 1996). Several studies from all over the world showed that plastic is preferred 324 due to its convenience, light weight, transparency, resistance, option for resealability, as well 325 as hygienic and protective properties (e.g., Aday & Yener, 2014; Draskovic, 2010; Draskovic 326 & Guszak Cerovecki, 2014; Draskovic et al., 2009; Hollywood, Wells, Armstrong, & Farley, 327 2013; Phillips, 2016; Venter et al., 2011). The consumers’ perception of these advantages is in 328 line with those of Croatian employees of a soft drink company and Australian salespersons 329 (Drašković, 2010; Phillips, 2016). For bags, plastic is the preferred material, because such 330 bags are perceived as convenient, easily available, waterproof, and cheap (Adane & Muleta, 331 2011; Madara, Namango, & Wetaka, 2016; Musa, Hayes, Bradley, Clayson, & Gillibrand, 332 2013; Negussie & Mustefa, 2017; Nittala, 2014; Prendergast, Wai Ng, & Lee Leung, 2001). 333 14 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 334 4.1.2.3Packaging preferences depending on contextual factors 335 Although plastic is generally appreciated for several advantages (see above), 336 preference for a certain packaging differs depending on several factors, such as the product 337 category. For example, fruits and vegetables are preferred to be bought loose without any 338 packaging (Ali & Kapoor, 2008; van Herpen, Immink, & van den Puttelaar, 2016). If 339 participants were asked to choose between several materials for fruit and vegetable packaging, 340 they preferred biobased and degradable materials (e.g., cotton or paper) over conventional 341 plastic (Ali & Kapoor, 2008; Fernqvist et al., 2015; Koutsimanis et al., 2012). These findings 342 are in contrast to the approach used by many supermarkets. When Danish consumers were 343 asked to rate different packages for fresh carrots (plastic bag, plastic or cardboard box with 344 plastic foil), they preferred the boxes over the bag due to higher perceived value and quality 345 (and thus favoring over-packaging; Nørgaard Olesen & Giacalone, 2018). The majority of 346 these respondents mentioned the transparency of the packaging as most important, while 347 environmental friendliness was only mentioned by 15% of the participants. Note that these 348 results were not compared to no packaging. Willingness to pay for less packaging of shampoo 349 was rather low (Yamaguchi & Takeuchi, 2016). Thereby, the motivation to buy a refill- 350 shampoo bottle was mainly a price argument rather than concern for the environment. In 351 addition, these Japanese participants perceived refillable bottles as unsightly or troublesome 352 when reusing them (Yamaguchi & Takeuchi, 2016). 353 When explicitly confronted with different kinds of cheese packages, Spanish 354 consumers preferred plastic – mainly because of its transparency (Eldesouky, Mesías, 355 Elghannam, Gaspar, & Escribano, 2016; Eldesouky & Mesías, 2014; see Peters-Texeira & 356 Badrie, 2005, for a similar result on fruit preserves). However, some consumers indicated in a 357 word completion task a disfavor of a particular cheese when packed in plastic, likely due to 358 perceived overpackaging and hence its contribution to pollution (Eldesouky, Pulido, & 359 Mesías, 2015). Additionally, Malaysian consumers preferred vinegar in glass rather than 15 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 360 plastic bottles although they liked plastic lids more than metal ones (Latiff, Mokhtar, Soon, & 361 Ayob, 2018). For milk and other cold chain products, plastic (and glass) bottles or Tetra Briks 362 (i.e., typical cuboid plastic-coated carton of the Tetra Pak company) with a cap were the 363 preferred packaging materials (Gómez, Martín-Consuegra, & Molina, 2015; Hollywood et al., 364 2013; Van der Merwe, Viljoen, De Beer, Bosman, & Kempen, 2013 but see also van Dam & 365 van Trijp, 1994, for divergent findings when consumers were asked for perceived 366 environmental friendliness). However, as indicated above, packaging preference depends 367 partly on the context. For drinks, plastic bottles are preferred generally, and especially on the 368 go, but clearly not in the context of cafés and restaurants where glass is preferred, as was 369 suggested by Croatian studies (Drašković, 2010; Drašković & Cerovečki, 2014; Draskovic et 370 al., 2009). 371 Besides the described contextual and product-related factors, the consumers’ cultural 372 background, age, and environmental attitude influence preferences for plastic as a packaging 373 material (e.g., Draskovic et al., 2009; Lal, Yambrach, & McProud, 2015; van Dam & van 374 Trijp, 1994), see also below in 4.2 for predictors of plastic-related behavior). 375 376 4.1.2.4 Priming effects of plastic 377 The material of a package provides more than its functionality; it also affects the 378 consumers' perception of the product and subsequent consumption. For example, plastic 379 packaging is associated with different characteristics of the product such as higher (compared 380 to carton) or lower (compared to glass) hygienic properties (Drašković & Cerovečki, 2014; 381 Venter et al., 2011). Some Croatian and South African consumers perceive products packed in 382 plastic as relatively expensive and assume retained food quality, while others associate it with 383 being cheaper and of lower quality (Drašković & Cerovečki, 2014; Venter et al., 2011). The 384 product itself is perceived as more environmentally friendly when packed in biobased 385 material compared to a plastic alternative as suggested by a French study (Magnier & 16 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 386 Schoormans, 2017). Another French study showed that while over-packaging seems to be 387 associated with better quality of the product, it is also perceived as environmentally 388 unfriendly (Elgaaïed-Gambier, 2016). 389 Besides these more general associations evoked by the packaging, it directly affects 390 the taste and quality of a product. Croatian consumers stated that plastic negatively affects the 391 taste and quality of carbonated drinks due to gas migration (Draskovic et al., 2009). 392 Furthermore, the material of eating utensils influences the perception of a product, whereby 393 plastic is often perceived as less favorable compared to other materials (Piqueras-Fiszman & 394 Spence, 2011; Schifferstein, 2009; Spence & Wan, 2015; Tu, Yang, & Ma, 2015). In addition, 395 tactile perceptions differ between plastic and other bottle materials (Lefebvre et al., 2010). 396 Moreover, waiving plastic consumption by bringing one's own shopping bag instead 397 of using offered plastic bags affects subsequent behavior by priming (i.e., buying organic 398 food) or licensing (i.e., buying indulgent products) effects, as was shown by an US study 399 (Karmarkar & Bollinger, 2015). Relatedly, an Indian study showed that positive attitudes 400 towards plastic bags negatively affect the willingness to buy environmentally friendly 401 products (Nittala, 2014). 402 403 4.2 Plastic-related behavior and its antecedents 404 Despite high awareness of the problem, usage rates of plastic products such as bags 405 are generally high (Arı & Yılmaz, 2017; Musa et al., 2013; Shao, Cai, & Chen, 2014; Sharp, 406 Høj, & Wheeler, 2010; see also section 4.1). When investigating the relationship between 407 awareness and behavior explicitly, awareness of harmful effects of plastic had no effect on 408 usage behavior (Hammami et al., 2017). To identify predictors of plastic-related behavior, we 409 review studies that investigated possible predictors for the consumption, avoidance, and waste 410 behavior related to plastic. 17 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 411 412 4.2.1 Factors influencing plastic consumption behavior 413 4.2.1.1Sociodemographic variables 414 Gender differences were reported for plastic bag use in a study by Hohmann et al., 415 (2016), though without specifying in which direction. Other studies reported in more detail 416 that women were more willing to accept and apply alternatives to plastic bags than men 417 (Madigele, Mogomotsi, & Kolobe, 2017; Ryan & Jewitt, 1996; Sharp et al., 2010), and 418 showed overall more practices of reusing, reducing, and recycling than men – as do older 419 people in most cases (Kurisu & Bortoleto, 2011). 420 Older participants were more likely to participate in a no-plastic-bag-campaign (Afroz, 421 Rahman, Masud, & Akhtar, 2017). In contrast, a study on overpackaging showed that younger 422 participants were more willing to give up their convenience in order to help the environment 423 (Elgaaïed-Gambier, 2016). A Croatian study reported that younger participants favored plastic 424 and carton bottles over glass and metal, while older participants were not concerned about the 425 packaging material during purchase (Draskovic et al., 2009). 426 Higher educated people were less willing to pay for plastic bags (Madigele et al., 427 2017) and more likely to participate in a no-plastic-bag-campaign (Afroz et al., 2017), thus 428 showing stronger plastic avoidance than less educated people. 429 430 4.2.1.2Environmental attitudes 431 People (esp. women) with higher environmental attitudes and education stated that 432 they more often avoided disposable plastic packaging (Jeżewska-Zychowicz & Jeznach, 433 2015). Food-related environmental attitudes were also associated with avoiding plastic 434 packaging and bags (and thus bringing one’s own bag more often; Lea & Worsley, 2008). 435 Notably, in another study on reusable bags, social desirability significantly predicted 436 environmental attitudes (Yeow, Dean, & Tucker, 2014). Therefore, it is always advisable to 18 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 437 take social desirability into account when looking at self-reported plastic-related behavior (see 438 also below in 4.2.1.7). 439 440 4.2.1.3Convenience 441 As outlined in 4.1.2.2, convenience is associated with plastic. Convenience is also a 442 main reason for plastic bag usage (Braun & Traore, 2015) with respondents especially 443 emphasizing easy availability and low price of such bags (Adane & Muleta, 2011; Otsyina et 444 al., 2018). Similarly, having no alternative option at hand was the most frequently reported 445 reason for using plastic bags (Avallone, Giraldi, & de Oliveira, 2012). Convenience 446 outperformed the classical factors of the theory of planned behavior (i.e., attitudes, subjective 447 norms, and perceived behavioral control; Ajzen, 1991) by being most strongly associated with 448 the intention of using plastic bags (Sun, Wang, Li, Zhao, & Fan, 2017). Relatedly, alternatives 449 to plastic products (e.g., zero packaging grocery stores) were seen as inconvenient and thus 450 rendering the plastic option more attractive (Beitzen-Heineke, Balta-Ozkan, & Reefke, 2017). 451 452 4.2.1.4Context factors 453 Generally, the perceived advantages of plastic products seem to be more important 454 than other psychological variables at the moment of making a decision as was indicated by a 455 Taiwanese study on plastic bags (Lam & Chen, 2006). While both buying and reusing 456 intentions were related to attitudes, environmental concern, and personal norms, the actual 457 purchase behavior was not correlated with such psychological variables. Instead, only 458 situational variables (e.g., the amount of goods being greater than expected) had predictive 459 value (Lam & Chen, 2006). Notably, here the perceived advantages of using plastic bags are 460 probably not inherent to plastic itself but rather due to its availability compared to 461 alternatives. In other conditions, specific characteristics of plastic were reported to be more 462 relevant (e.g., transparency of plastic packaging; Nørgaard Olesen & Giacalone, 2018). 19 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 463 464 4.2.1.5Habits 465 Additionally and related to convenience, habits are important for plastic consumption. 466 In a study on Brazilian immigrants in Canada, the participants indicated that plastic usage in 467 their homeland had been “just a habit” (Romero, Laroche, Aurup, & Ferraz, 2018, p. 8). 468 Having moved, they changed their behavior by showing greater plastic bag avoidance and 469 waste separation (Romero et al., 2018). Notably, pro-environmental attitudes remained 470 unchanged throughout the process of habitual change (Romero et al., 2018). Changed norms 471 and/or external conditions might have facilitated a change of habits in this case (see also 472 below in 4.2.1.7), which highlights the importance of cultural factors for the emergence of 473 habits. 474 Even when participants were willing to reduce their plastic consumption, they partly 475 failed because they were not able to apply new habits, as was suggested by two studies in 476 which the most common reason reported for the use of plastic bags was forgetting to bring 477 one’s own bag (Bartolotta & Hardy, 2018; Musa et al., 2013). Similarly, in a Malaysian study 478 on a plastic-free-day-campaign, about 60% of the respondents regularly forgot to bring their 479 own bags during the campaign (Zen, Ahamad, & Omar, 2013). 480 481 4.2.1.6Diffusion of responsibility 482 Another reason that consumers do not act in line with their risk perception might be 483 that they shift responsibility to other actors like politicians (Synthia & Kabir, 2015). In 484 interviews on plastic bag pollution, Malian women emphasized structural problems (e.g., the 485 lack of appropriate waste collection services) and called for political solutions (Braun & 486 Traore, 2015). Intriguingly, when policy makers were interviewed, they emphasized the 487 consumers’ responsibility (Braun & Traore, 2015). 488 20 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 489 4.2.1.7Social factors 490 Several studies suggested that social pressure is an important variable influencing the 491 use of plastic (Arı & Yılmaz, 2017; Carrigan, Moraes, & Leek, 2011; Musa et al., 2013). 492 Furthermore, social desirability seems to be relevant for reporting plastic avoidance behavior 493 (Sharp et al., 2010; Yeow et al., 2014). 494 Initial evidence showed that guilt affects plastic avoidance (Muralidharan & Sheehan, 495 2017). For example, people reported both feelings of guilt and the fear of being judged or 496 criticized by other customers, when taking plastic bags at a counter (Cherrier, 2006). 497 Avoidance of plastic is further utilized as a symbolic action conveying a certain social 498 identity, as suggested by Australian consumers reporting to use reusable bags to be visibly 499 identified as part of an environmentally friendly group (Cherrier, 2006). Similarly, avoiding 500 plastic might be a deliberate act to firm one’s cultural identity, as it was reported by women in 501 Mali (Braun & Traore, 2015). This effect was influenced by age, as older women were more 502 concerned about preserving their cultural heritage by avoiding plastic bags, while younger 503 women felt rather proud of being “modern” by using plastic bags (Braun & Traore, 2015). 504 Relatedly, fans of a certain shoe brand that promotes its plastic shoes as especially flexible 505 and robust due to its material, form their own identity including their own name (Ferreira & 506 Scaraboto, 2016). Similar to the emotionality of these fans of the plastic shoes, another study 507 indicated that emotions play a larger role than rational evaluations for purchasing a product in 508 an environmental-friendly package (Koenig-Lewis, Palmer, Dermody, & Urbye, 2014; see 509 also Phillips, 2016, for qualitative data on affective responses towards plastic use). 510 Since social desirability and identity are relevant for plastic use and avoidance, it is 511 likely that related norms are important too. When analyzing the case of a town in England 512 where a plastic bag ban had been enforced by local traders, Carrigan and colleagues (2011) 513 reported a shift in community norms for plastic bags throughout the process of becoming 514 plastic bag free. Additionally, ethical evaluations had a direct (R. Y. K. Chan, Wong, & 21 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 515 Leung, 2008) or indirect influence on the intention to bring one’s own bag (Chang & Chou, 516 2018). 517 Clapp and Swanston (2009) pointed out that anti-plastic norms first occurred in 518 Southern countries, driven by simultaneous, non-networked bottom-up initiatives. Notably, 519 changes in anti-plastic-norms usually go hand in hand with structural changes. Therefore, it is 520 often difficult to attribute behavioral changes to changed norms or to facilitating external 521 conditions as was shown in the study on immigrants by Romero and colleagues (2018; see 522 above). 523 524 4.2.2 Factors influencing plastic waste handling 525 Dealing with plastic does not only include the consumption or avoidance of plastic 526 products but also handling its waste, which includes recycling, littering, and reusing. The 527 behavior shown depends strongly on the respective country and its cultures and infrastructure. 528 For example, open dumping or burning is reported to be common in African countries or 529 China (e.g., Madigele et al., 2017; Otsyina et al., 2018), whereas studies from Europe usually 530 rate plastic as one of the most commonly recycled materials (e.g., Jones, Jackson, Bates, & 531 Tudor, 2016). In an Indian study, households with lower income reused waste themselves, 532 while households with higher income gave it away for reuse and recycling, suggesting that 533 socioeconomic differences within a country might play a role as well (Pandey, Surjan, & 534 Kapshe, 2017). There are further studies on creative waste disposal (e.g., the production of art 535 from of recycled plastics; McKay & Perez, 2018), which are not reported here due to their 536 individual case character. As the majority of studies addressed recycling or littering, we will 537 focus on these. 538 22 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 539 4.2.2.1Recycling 540 Several studies focused on predicting recycling behavior or its intention using the 541 theory of planned behavior. By doing so, between 29% (Knussen, Yule, MacKenzie, & Wells, 542 2004) and 44% (Chan, 1998) of the variance of recycling intention could be explained. 543 Contrary to the findings mentioned above on the avoidance of plastic, social norms had no 544 (Knussen et al., 2004; Pakpour, Zeidi, Emamjomeh, Asefzadeh, & Pearson, 2014; Tonglet, 545 Phillips, & Bates, 2004; Tonglet, Phillips, & Read, 2004) or only weak (K. Chan, 1998; Tih & 546 Zainol, 2012) influence on recycling intention and behavior. Examining norms further, one 547 study found that descriptive (i.e., perception of how others actually behave) but not injunctive 548 (i.e., perception of how others expect somebody to behave) norms predicted the intention to 549 engage in household recycling (White, Smith, Terry, Greenslade, & McKimmie, 2009). 550 Constructs having an influence exceeding the constructs of the theory of planned 551 behavior were past behavior (Knussen et al., 2004; Pakpour et al., 2014; Tonglet, Phillips, & 552 Bates, 2004), habits (Klöckner & Oppedal, 2011; Knussen et al., 2004; Ofstad, Tobolova, 553 Nayum, & Klöckner, 2017), action planning (Pakpour et al., 2014), moral norms, and self- 554 identity (Pakpour et al., 2014; White et al., 2009), as well as green practice consequences (i.e., 555 knowledge of the outcomes associated with one’s green practices; Tih & Zainol, 2012). 556 Tonglet, Phillips, and Bates (2004) reported that recycling attitudes are the main 557 determinant of recycling behavior, and that opportunities, knowledge, and not feeling deterred 558 by behavior costs are antecedents of pro-recycling attitudes. Similarly, convenience or cost of 559 recycling (e.g., the necessity of cleaning packaging before recycling; Ahmad, Bazmi, Bhutto, 560 Shahzadi, & Bukhari, 2016; Klaiman et al., 2016), and context factors, such as the availability 561 of waste bins (Madigele et al., 2017) or waste bins being overloaded (Vogt & Nunes, 2014), 562 were considered important. Mass communication was identified as an antecedent of 563 subjective norms (Chan, 1998). Unlike individual personal decisions, where environmental 564 reasons seemed more relevant than financial incentives (Afroz et al., 2017), financial 23 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 565 considerations played a crucial role in company decisions (Meng, Klepacka, Florkowski, & 566 Braman, 2015). 567 568 4.2.2.2Littering 569 Sociodemographic variables predicting littering are gender, income, and education. 570 Men took stronger action against littering (Rayon-Viña et al., 2018) though findings are 571 inconsistent as in another study where women reported more concern about litter and had 572 greater personal motivation and competence to reduce it (Hartley, Pahl, Veiga, et al., 2018). 573 Littering amount per day at beaches was higher in a region frequented by people with lower 574 income and literacy degree (I. R. Santos et al., 2005). 575 People from less littered regions showed more engagement in waste reduction 576 strategies (Kiessling et al., 2017), although elsewhere concern and willingness to act were 577 higher the more litter people noticed (Hartley, Pahl, Veiga, et al., 2018). Another study found 578 no correlation between the perception of and action against littering (Rayon-Viña et al., 579 2018). 580 Social norms were found to be an important predictor for the act of littering, and 581 awareness of the anti-social nature of littering was strongly related (Shimazu, 2018). 582 Interestingly, environmental awareness was less predictive for reported littering behavior 583 (Shimazu, 2018). Tourists were found to be primarily responsible for littering – again 584 implying the relevance of social norms as tourists might have different norms than locals (I. 585 R. Santos et al., 2005). However, this finding may also be explained by the fact that tourists 586 feel less responsible for their travel destination than locals as they stay for shorter time and 587 take less consequences, or because being on holiday may activate certain behavior patterns. 588 In summary, dealing with plastic is highly influenced by social factors (e.g., social 589 desirability and norms), context factors, convenience, and habits. As far as the handling of 590 plastic waste is concerned, there are mainly studies on recycling and littering. Recycling 24 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 591 behavior can be well predicted by the constructs of the theory of planned behavior, with social 592 norms being least important. In turn, social factors are particularly significant for littering. 593 The studies reviewed imply to consider cultural differences when studying plastic-related 594 behavior. These differences can arise because distinct external conditions prevail in different 595 countries, but they may also be explained by varying norms, among others. 596 597 4.3 Solutions to tackle the plastic problem 598 In view of the huge challenges elicited by plastic consumption, solutions to tackle the 599 plastic problem are needed. First, we introduce a variety of regulatory and economic policy 600 instruments aimed at reducing plastic use which either already exist or are considered for 601 implementation in countries around the world. Second, we will review “softer” and more 602 psychological intervention strategies which are currently tested. 603 604 4.3.1 Regulatory and economic policy instruments to reduce plastic use 605 There are two main types of policy instruments aimed at reducing plastic use. While 606 some countries have imposed full or partial bans on plastic bags or other plastic items, other 607 countries prefer economic policy instruments such as fees, levies, or taxes that are paid either 608 by the retail industry or the consumers (Ritch, Brennan, & MacLeod, 2009; Saidan, Ansour, 609 & Saidan, 2017; Syberg et al., 2018; Wagner, 2017). The implementation of these instruments 610 varies between and within countries with respect to policy details (e.g., the size and thickness 611 of plastic bags). Here, we provide a brief overview of the two types of policy instruments and 612 discuss some related psychological and political aspects. It is still unclear which instruments 613 are most environmentally effective and politically acceptable (Ritch et al., 2009). In addition, 614 note that another policy strategy, namely the so-called ‘Extended Producer Responsibility’, 615 aims to return the responsibility for products after their use back to the producers, for example 25 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 616 by taking back, reusing, or recycling products (optionally by a third party; see Hanisch, 2000; 617 McKerlie, Knight, & Thorpe, 2006). However, as we focus on consumers in this review it is 618 not elaborated here. 619 620 4.3.1.1Bans 621 Bans of some kind are a widely adopted policy action and they are, by their nature, an 622 effective way to reduce plastic use. Nevertheless, it is important to consider some potential 623 unintended consequences, such as the use of alternative bags (e.g., of paper). The latter may 624 be as harmful for the environment as plastic bags, but may be judged by consumers as more 625 environmentally friendly (Synthia & Kabir, 2015; and see above in section 4.1.2.1). This 626 effect can be countervailed by also imposing fees or taxes on alternative bags, which was 627 done successfully in many US local governments (Wagner, 2017). Another problem 628 associated with bans is that they may evoke strong consumer resistance. This, in turn, may 629 reduce the political acceptability of this policy instrument. However, research from Australia 630 indicates that those consumers who strongly relied on plastic bags before a ban became 631 supportive of the policy after its introduction, which may be due to visibility of their positive 632 environmental effects (Sharp et al., 2010). A study from Brazil also showed high approval 633 ratings after the ban was introduced, with over 86% of the participants considering the new 634 law important or very important (Santos, Sousa, Sampaio, & Fagundes, 2013). 635 636 4.3.1.2Plastic charges and other types of economic incentives 637 The seemingly most widespread policy instrument to reduce plastic use is the 638 introduction of a charge (alternatively referred to as “tax” or “fee”, depending on context). 639 Several studies have examined the effectiveness of a charge in changing behavior as well as 640 its acceptance by customers and industry. With respect to effectiveness, studies from various 641 high- and low-income countries indicated that disposable plastic bag use dropped by 40% to 26 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 642 90% after implementing a charge (e.g., Convery, McDonnell, & Ferreira, 2007; Dikgang, 643 Leiman, & Visser, 2012; Dikgang & Visser, 2012; He, 2012; Poortinga, Whitmarsh, & 644 Suffolk, 2013; Thomas, Poortinga, & Sautkina, 2016). For example, Wales introduced a 0.07€ 645 charge for “single-use carrier bags” in 2011. The distribution of such bags fell by over 80%, 646 while the number of people “always” bringing their own shopping bag increased by over 20% 647 (Poortinga et al., 2013; Thomas et al., 2016). Noteworthy, such changes were not observed in 648 other UK countries where no charge was introduced during that time. Moreover, the results 649 from Thomas and colleagues (2016) suggest that the plastic charge had additional 650 environmental effects, namely insofar as the use of one’s own bag seemed to have increased 651 the adoption of other, unrelated types of pro-environmental behaviors and attitudes (see also 652 Truelove, Carrico, Weber, Raimi, & Vandenbergh, 2014, for a theoretical review on spillover 653 research). 654 Some authors, however, suggested that the impact of a plastic charge might be 655 overestimated, because unobserved factors such as changes in social norms are often not 656 accounted for when comparing simple differences before and after the implementation of a 657 charge (Rivers, Shenstone-Harris, & Young, 2017). In other words, it may not just be the 658 monetary incentive that drives the behavioral changes, but also anti-plastic norms which 659 inspire the introduction of the policy, but arguably may also be a consequence of it. This 660 relates to research investigating the underlying motives of behavioral change resulting from a 661 plastic charge. For example, a study from Portugal showed that for most of the participants 662 indeed the main reason for not using plastic bags was to avoid the payment, but other reasons 663 associated with convenience and environmental concern were mentioned as well (Martinho, 664 Balaia, & Pires, 2017). Another issue related to the policy effectiveness is the long-term 665 dynamics. That is, in some countries such as South Africa it was observed that demand for 666 plastic bags went down as a consequence of introducing a charge, but after approximately a 667 year increased again, though never completely to initial levels (Dikgang et al., 2012; Dikgang 27 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 668 & Visser, 2012; Hasson, Leiman, & Visser, 2007). While this particular case can partially be 669 explained by the fact that the initial charge levels were decreased, these observations certainly 670 suggest the need for more long-term research to assess the instrument effects. 671 Finally, plastic charges are relatively accepted by consumers as well as the retail 672 industry. For example, the Irish plastic bag levy is very well perceived by retailers because of 673 financial savings, whereas almost all consumers perceived positive environmental benefits 674 and no negative effects in terms of convenience (Convery et al., 2007; see also Zen et al., 675 2013). Nevertheless, research from Argentina indicates somewhat lower levels of acceptance 676 by consumers, which may be due to differences in environmental concern or in terms of how 677 the government has implemented and communicated the policy (Jakovcevic et al., 2014). 678 Another type of economic incentive is provided by deposit-refund systems, which 679 compensate consumers monetarily for returning plastic products. For example, research from 680 the US and Australia shows that coastal debris is approximately 40% lower in states that have 681 such a refund system compared to others without it (Schuyler, Hardesty, Lawson, Opie, & 682 Wilcox, 2018). Relatedly, we present additional findings on recycling schemes below in 683 section 4.3.2.1. 684 To conclude, regulatory and economic public policies are effective in reducing plastic 685 use. While bans are evidently most effective, they may not be politically feasible in every 686 context. Plastic charges are a promising alternative, though more research is needed to 687 investigate their long-term effects. 688 689 4.3.2 Psychological interventions 690 Beyond regulatory and economic interventions less coercive ones, such as educational 691 approaches or improvement of infrastructure, are aimed at increasing awareness and to 692 encourage behavior change. Guided by the three R’s of waste management (recycle, reuse, 28 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 693 and reduce; Thompson, Moore, vom Saal, & Swan, 2009), we now provide an overview of 694 psychological interventions that aim at tackling the plastic problem. 695 696 4.3.2.1Recycle 697 In the 1980’s, many studies examined recycling and littering behavior as well as the 698 influence of personal and situational factors on them (for reviews, see Schultz, Oskamp, & 699 Mainieri, 1995; Huffman, Grossnickle, Cope, & Huffman, 1995). Later meta-analyses have 700 focused on recycling in different settings such as at the workplace (Oke, 2015) or at home 701 (Varotto & Spagnolli, 2017). However, most studies did not explicitly focus on plastic. Yet, a 702 generalization over materials might be problematic when predicting recycling behavior 703 (Schultz et al., 1995). In the following, only studies that investigated plastic explicitly are 704 reviewed. 705 Accessibility of recycling schemes. Most of the studies investigated interventions at 706 the point of action. The implementation of recycling stations in university settings encouraged 707 recycling behavior (McCoy, Oliver, Borden, & Cohn, 2018; O’Connor, Lerman, Fritz, & 708 Hodde, 2010; Ofstad et al., 2017). While lower distances to recycling bins enhanced 709 recycling, a mere increase of bin quantity did not (O’Connor et al., 2010). Recycling amount 710 of household plastic waste was higher when people had to bring it to public places, compared 711 to when it was collected at the sidewalk, although more people participated in the latter 712 (McDonald & Ball, 1998). In other studies, the recycling rate for household collection was 713 higher than for “bring” schemes (Struk, 2017; Viscusi, Huber, & Bell, 2012). Additionally, 714 incentives increased the overall recycling rate of plastic (Struk, 2017). Similarly, deposit 715 systems for plastic bottles increased the attractiveness of “bring” schemes (Viscusi et al., 716 2012). Although, higher density of drop-off sites for “bring” schemes had only small effects 717 (Struk, 2017), recycling rates decreased markedly when they were more than five miles away 718 (Viscusi et al., 2012). In a Japanese study, people had a higher willingness to pay for less 29 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 719 packaged shampoo when a unit-based pricing system of waste collection existed in their 720 municipality. However, the general willingness to pay was quite low. When unit-based 721 pricing was combined with plastic separation, willingness to pay decreased suggesting that 722 recycling can lessen plastic reduction behavior (Yamaguchi & Takeuchi, 2016). 723 Appearance of recycling stations. People in Greece associate certain colors of public 724 bins with different waste materials; while yellow was preferred for used plastic water bottles 725 in particular, orange, yellow, or purple was chosen for plastic or packaging in general 726 (Keramitsoglou & Tsagarakis, 2018). However, only changing the color of the bin had no 727 effects on recycling rate as a US study indictaed (O’Connor et al., 2010). Moreover, covered 728 bins with special drop slots and lids were preferred (Keramitsoglou & Tsagarakis, 2018). 729 Other studies showed that signs prompting recycling increased correct recycling even when 730 proximity to the bin decreased, and hence highlight the role of messages on the bins, 731 especially in combination with the implementation of recycling schemes (Fritz et al., 2017; 732 Miller, Meindl, & Caradine, 2016). Furthermore, positive messages such as “thank you” or 733 those referring to the environment encouraged people to continue recycling (Keramitsoglou & 734 Tsagarakis, 2018). 735 Informational campaigns. Recycling behavior was strengthened when information 736 campaigns were added to the implementation of recycling schemes (Cheung et al., 2018; 737 Ofstad et al., 2017; Pearson et al., 2014). Information campaigns using posters, TV screens, 738 flyers, websites, or broader environmental campaigns increased awareness, knowledge, and 739 self-reported disposal behavior (Cheung et al., 2018; Ofstad et al., 2017; Pearson et al., 2014). 740 In contrast, informational treatments using text or video did not increase recycling behavior 741 but rather changed using preferences from plastic packaging to paper and boxboard (Klaiman 742 et al., 2016). Nevertheless, a lack of instructions might be a barrier to recycle plastic (Vogt & 743 Nunes, 2014). While pushy requests (e.g., “You must recycle plastic container”) were 744 persuasive for recipients who already valued recycling as important, suggestive appeals (e.g., 30 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 745 “It’s worth recycling plastic containers”) were more effective to initiate recycling intention 746 for those who find recycling less important (Kronrod, Grinstein, & Wathieu, 2012). When 747 participants were asked to plan and visualize when, where, and how to recycle their used 748 plastic cups and old paper, this type of implementation intention increased recycling rates and 749 thus decreased the number of cups in the dustbins by roughly 75% (Holland, Aarts, & 750 Langendam, 2006). An awareness campaign including knowledge transfer and vocational 751 training was also proposed to increase recycling in refugee camps in Jordan (Saidan, Drais, & 752 Al-Manaseer, 2017). 753 Rebound effects. In an online experiment participants were asked to do their typical 754 grocery shopping in an online supermarket. After shopping they got fictitious feedback 755 independent of their real shopping behavior. When people were told that they were considered 756 as "green shoppers" (in comparison to a bogus peer group), participants recycled less of 757 disposed material they got for a creativity task before (Longoni, Gollwitzer, & Oettingen, 758 2014). The decreased motivation to gain a green identity in this group indicates a self- 759 licensing effect, signifying people who feel save in their goal achievement (e.g., being a green 760 consumer) makes people to worry less about other unsustainable behavior (Longoni et al., 761 2014). Similarly, US students were experimentally triggered to either recycle a water bottle, 762 to throw it in the trash, or neither. Those who identified as Democrats and recycled their 763 bottle were less willing to support a green fund compared to the control condition (Truelove, 764 Yeung, Carrico, Gillis, & Raimi, 2016). This effect was mediated by environmental identity, 765 indicating that for Democrats (who already show a high recycling baseline) recycling might 766 be too easy to increase environmental identity. Thus, promoting recycling in certain groups 767 could lead to a decrease in pro-environmental behavior in general (Truelove et al., 2016). 768 Conclusion. Implementing recycling schemes are necessary to increase recycling. 769 However, it needs to be well planned, especially with a view on local conditions (i.e., 770 proximity of bins, combination with incentives and information) and rebound effects of 31 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 771 recycling policy. An elaborate but powerful approach is implementation intention to tackle 772 habit change for a concrete behavior. 773 774 4.3.2.2Reuse 775 One main characteristic of plastic is its durability. In a somewhat paradoxical contrast, 776 it is mostly used in a disposable manner. Increasing the reuse of plastic products might 777 therefore provide a solution to the wastage of this durable material. For example, in 778 interviews, respondents stated to use plastic bottles “for a purpose other than that for which it 779 was initially designed” (Caner & Pascall, 2010, p. 418) when a screw-type closure is used and 780 bottles could be easily cleaned and refilled. However, only a few studies, which we review in 781 this section, evaluated interventions related to reuse in order to avoid plastic waste. Most of 782 them focus on beverage containers or plastic bags. 783 Provision of alternatives. US students who received a reusable water bottle and plastic 784 cutlery for their matriculation used less disposable bottles and supported the bottle ban at the 785 university (Santos & Van der Linden, 2016). Similarly, information about the reduction of 786 plastic bottles before implementing a water refill system helped to increase the willingness to 787 pay, environmental awareness, and responsibility attribution in Japanese students (Uehara & 788 Ynacay-Nye, 2018). In the UK, different interventions on reusable coffee cups were evaluated 789 and the study authors concluded that providing a reusable cup increased its use, even in the 790 long run (Poortinga & Whitaker, 2018). Furthermore, a charge on disposable cups – but not a 791 discount – increased the use of the reusable cup. The single intervention had only small 792 effects but they increased when combining interventions, in particular when message framing 793 is added (Poortinga & Whitaker, 2018). 794 Rewards and framing. The interventions using a ban or taxes leading to the reuse of 795 plastic bags were already mentioned above. Another program successfully encouraged 796 consumers – even in the long run – to use reusable instead of plastic bags via monetary 32 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 797 rewards and peer pressure (Jiang, 2016). Advertisements in a US supermarket encouraging 798 consumers to bring reusable bags were either formulated as a gain “Bring reusable bags and 799 avoid a fee” or as a loss “Bring reusable bags or pay the tax”. While both ads worked, the first 800 was less effective for people with low self-transcendence values (i.e., higher egoistic needs 801 and low environmental awareness; Muralidharan & Sheehan, 2016, 2017). Vones, Allan, 802 Lambert, and Vettese (2018) presented another option to build awareness for the reuse of 803 plastic (without evaluating the project) by doing a beach-clean-up with a subsequent 3-D- 804 printing workshop reusing the collected waste. 805 Conclusion. Providing alternatives such as reusable coffee cups or refillable bottles are 806 promising approaches to reduce plastic waste. However, they are quite expensive and thus 807 charges or bans may be more attractive for stakeholders. Moreover, alternatives have only 808 selective effects with regard to a concrete product questioning the broader scope. Regulations 809 of prices yielded to more reuse – not only due to the money benefit but also because of a 810 subsequent shift in norms. Similar to recycling, a combination of available options and 811 information campaigns seem to be promising. 812 813 4.3.2.3Reduce 814 While both recycling and reuse practices lower the plastic waste in the environment, 815 they cannot alleviate resource use in general. Thus, reducing plastic use and production are 816 critical. Both consumers and salespersons play essential roles for demand and supply. 817 Recently, so called “zero waste” grocery stores emerged, and both advantages and 818 disadvantages thereof are discussed in the literature (Beitzen-Heineke et al., 2017). However, 819 most of the studies focusing on plastic reduction behavior refer to education on marine litter 820 and address children, educators, and public. 821 Educating school children. School education programs increased both knowledge 822 about causes and impacts of marine litter and environmental behavior intention in children 33 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 823 (Hartley et al., 2015; Owens, 2018; So et al., 2016; Veiga et al., 2016). Active learning 824 elements such as gaming simulations with role plays in a simulated city (Yeung, So, Cheng, 825 Cheung, & Chow, 2017), inquiry learning strategies including independent learning with 826 experiments (Hartley et al., 2015; Yeung et al., 2017), collecting of marine debris and report 827 writing for a state legislator (Owens, 2018), and video contests about marine litter in different 828 European countries (Hartley, Pahl, Holland, et al., 2018; Veiga et al., 2016) were used to 829 change knowledge and behavior. Gaming simulation further induced attitude change via 830 cognitive dissonance (i.e., psychological discomfort due to inconsistency between one’s 831 beliefs and behaviors; Yeung et al., 2017). Inquiry learning strategies focusing on the 832 classification of plastics failed to increase waste-related behavior (i.e., reduce, reuse, and 833 recycle) but led to an increase in knowledge about plastic types (So et al., 2016). Inquiry 834 learning strategies including experiments, artworks, and demonstrations on marine litter 835 revealed some overarching effects, as school children’s self-reported behavior on littering and 836 buying plastic packaging was reduced while the motivation to encourage others to do so 837 increased (Hartley et al., 2015). 838 Training of stakeholders. Some programs did not address school children directly but 839 aimed at teaching educators. After working with an online tool that included learning about 840 marine litter and pedagogical skills, knowledge and perceived skills of educators increased 841 and they expressed high intentions to integrate marine litter education in future classes 842 (Hartley, Pahl, Holland, et al., 2018; see Cheung et al., 2018, for a similar study). Moreover, 843 art presentation in an educational context was discussed to initiate useful conversations with 844 children about mass consumption and pollution (O’Gorman, 2017). 845 Educating the public. To raise awareness for plastic pollution, several countries have 846 implemented campaigns. For example, activities developed by the MARLISCO initiative 847 (e.g., public exhibitions, stakeholder meetings, and education tools) increased the feeling of 848 being part of the solution as well as societal awareness and engagement related to marine 34 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 849 litter (Veiga et al., 2016). An online campaign for adolescents that included tailored 850 information (e.g., small action steps) increased knowledge, attitude, or behavior intention 851 depending on the respective participants’ stage of change (Chib, Chiew, Kumar, Choon, & 852 Ale, 2009). When different councils in Australia were compared, those with educational 853 campaigns on why and how to dispose waste correctly had less waste on their coastlines 854 (Willis, Maureaud, Wilcox, & Hardesty, 2018). Furthermore, Greek informational campaigns 855 aimed to reduce plastic bags raised the willingness to pay for protection of coastal 856 environments but had no effect on the willingness to take action (Latinopoulos, Mentis, & 857 Bithas, 2018). 858 Participation in plastic-reduction activities. Citizen science projects in which people 859 are asked to participate in beach clean-ups increased the awareness of marine littering (Syberg 860 et al., 2018; Yeo et al., 2015). Knowledge and positive attitudes were underlying factors for 861 the willingness to participate in “plastic-free”-campaigns in Malaysia (Afroz et al., 2017). 862 When fishermen encouraged others not to litter and participated also in beach clean-ups they 863 developed a sense of ownership for “their” beaches along with a feeling of responsibility 864 (Brennan & Portman, 2017). Involving school students in plastic-free practices, in which they 865 helped to organize activities as co-researchers, led to an improvement in their awareness and 866 behavior of littering (Mapotse & Mashiloane, 2017). 867 Interventions at the point of consumption. Looking at the product presentation, a non- 868 overpacked product tagged with “No excess packaging” increased the purchase of these 869 products. When this tagged product was additionally combined with a premium brand the 870 purchase rate was highest (Elgaaïed-Gambier, 2016). A voice prompt by the salesperson 871 during the purchase situation (i.e., customers were asked whether they wanted a free plastic 872 bag instead of automatically handing them one) lead to a 5% decrease in plastic bag 873 consumption (Ohtomo & Ohnuma, 2014). To motivate shop owners in Indonesia to sell 874 reusable instead of plastic bags, information activating authority endorsements (i.e., head of 35 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 875 the village supports the idea of distributing reusable bags) was more effective than 876 information activating social norms or monetary incentives (Spranz, Schlüter, & Vollan, 877 2018). Such social influence of role models is also important for recipients indicated by the 878 finding that the intention to reduce plastic waste was increased when recipients have read a 879 media report with an actor behaving ecologically, whereas the actor’s social proximity was 880 relevant when recipients had low environmental consciousness (Arlt, Kuhlmann, & Wolling, 881 2012). Furthermore, making one’s intention public helps to reduce plastic consumption via 882 social pressure. Participants who signed a commitment to refuse free plastic bags were more 883 likely to reduce their use afterward (Rubens, Gosling, Bonaiuto, Brisbois, & Moch, 2015). 884 Reese and Junge (2017) used a game in which people could mark a plastic consumption 885 pattern on a card after its realization (e.g., using a bag for purchase or making a purchase 886 without plastic packaging) and then give it to another person of choice. When the task was 887 perceived as moderately difficult, participants’ collective efficacy (i.e., their feeling that 888 acting together helps reach a goal) was highest and most predictive for behavioral intentions. 889 Conclusion. Participation in clean-up activities and educational approaches was 890 effective to raise awareness and partly also to change behavior intention. Focusing on school 891 children and their educators is promising to create awareness for environmental challenges at 892 an early age. Overall, inquiry learning strategies and gaming approaches encouraging people 893 to get active themselves seem most promising. The role of social norms became apparent as 894 far as the concrete purchase situation is concerned. Making one’s purpose public via 895 commitment or introducing role models were successful approaches to reduce plastic 896 consumption. Nevertheless, more research is needed to identify factors for a general 897 transformation in purchase or reduction behavior. 898 36 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 899 5 Discussion 900 5.1 Summary 901 The current review gave a comprehensive overview of the available social-scientific 902 literature addressing plastic with a focus on risk awareness, consumer preferences, plastic use 903 and disposal behavior, and behavior-oriented intervention strategies. By reviewing 187 904 articles from all over the world, this review provides a summary of the existing knowledge for 905 researchers and stakeholders worldwide. Further, it identifies promising behavior-based 906 solutions for the plastic problem. 907 The literature search revealed that interest in the plastic problem has markedly 908 increased in social science in the last few years (Figure 2). These studies were from different 909 countries worldwide. Although large-scaled surveys were relatively rare and focused mostly 910 on countries in Europe or the US (Gelcich et al., 2014; Hartley, Pahl, Veiga, et al., 2018; 911 Herbes et al., 2018), single studies were from all over the world and lead to a relatively weak 912 bias for industrialized nations compared to other areas of research in which this bias is 913 stronger. As plastic pollution is most often perceived as a threat for marine ecosystems (see 914 Lotze et al., 2018, for a worldwide comparison), our review also indicates that most studies 915 originate from countries with a coastline (Figure 1). The visibility of the problem in marine 916 areas might have led to a stronger interest in this field. In total, across the 187 studies 917 reviewed samples from 57 countries were investigated (Figure 1). Similarly, the first authors 918 of the reviewed studies had an affiliation in 49 different countries (see S1 for an overview of 919 all reviewed studies, the location of data collection, and the country where the first author was 920 based at the time of publication). Although this diversity of study samples is important and 921 much appreciated, drawing general conclusions is – so far – difficult due to the yet limited 922 number of studies per country and their associated culture(s), laws, infrastructure, and further 923 situational factors. 37 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 924 925 Figure 2. Number of articles reviewed by year of publication. * Note that only articles 926 published before September 27, 2018 were considered in this review. 927 928 Overall, the studies reviewed were from different (sub-)disciplines, including 929 marketing, consumer studies, psychology, educational science, and environmental science, 930 presenting a diversity of perspectives on the present topic. The articles covered various 931 methodological approaches making comparisons and general conclusions difficult. Many 932 studies, especially those focusing on awareness, perception, and attitudes, were of a 933 qualitative nature. Moreover, most studies on behavior either focused on intention or self- 934 reported behavior rather than actual behavior – although there are well-known gaps between 935 attitudes, intentions, and behavior (see Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). 936 The studies identified high problem awareness of plastic pollution. In addition, people 937 perceive certain health hazards related to plastic consumption. Although plastic is perceived 938 as rather environmentally unfriendly, it is frequently used and appreciated for its practical 939 functions and availability. Thus, plastic consumption is generally high, but this also seems to 38 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 940 vary between contexts and cultures. Similarly, this might be the case for reusing plastic as, for 941 example, people with lower income tend to reuse plastic more often (Pandey et al., 2017). The 942 reviewed studies showed that knowledge about alternatives to plastics and their characteristics 943 is relatively low. Behaviors related to the use of plastic seem to be most affected by habits and 944 (social) norms. Both political (e.g., bans, charges) and psychological (e.g., inquiry learning 945 strategies, implementation intention) intervention strategies aim to change these by focusing 946 on habits, availability, costs, situational factors, and awareness. 947 948 5.2 Implications for behavior-based solutions 949 Although problem awareness is high, behavior change does not follow automatically, 950 mainly because of the following obstacles: 1) perceived practicability and convenience in the 951 consumption context, 2) lack of knowledge on how to implement alternatives or lack of 952 opportunities, 3) strong habits, and 4) shift of responsibility. Therefore, behavior-based 953 solutions need to approach these issues. This may be done in an interdisciplinary manner. For 954 example, by designing (by engineers), evaluating (by material, environmental, and social 955 scientists) and promoting (by media) alternative materials that do have the appreciated 956 properties of plastic but are more environmentally friendly (e.g., see Haider et al., 2018, for a 957 good example considering some of these aspects). Consumers have not only insufficient 958 knowledge about alternative materials but also about what an environmentally friendly 959 material is, as indicated by the divergence of consumer perception and life cycle analyses (see 960 chapter 4.1.2.1). Since consumers focus mainly on post-consumption (e.g., recyclability), 961 more information about environmental impacts in the whole life cycle of a product may 962 increase the knowledge about environmentally friendly materials and guide the consumer to 963 better alternatives. However, since awareness and knowledge are not the only relevant factors 964 influencing behavior, an increase in these does not necessarily imply a change in behavior. 39 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 965 Despite the attitudes of the consumers, situational factors such as an appropriate infrastructure 966 for alternatives need to be considered. Moreover, social and personal factors as well as habits 967 play a crucial role, as suggested by the studies on plastic-related behavior. To initiate a habit 968 change, ‘windows of opportunity’ (Schäfer, Jaeger-Erben, & Bamberg, 2012) – periods where 969 people are open for new behaviors as external conditions change (e.g., relocation) – may be 970 preferably used. As windows of opportunity are not always available, a change in situational 971 factors such as the provision of alternatives should also be used to initiate new behavior. 972 Individuals that start a new behavior, might lead others to follow, can hence change norms, 973 and set a spiral of action in motion. Thus, reaching a critical mass of acting people is helpful. 974 For all behavior-based solutions, it is important to consider structural, situational, and 975 cultural factors. Although, the available literature is insufficient to make a final conclusion, 976 awareness of the situation in a specific region (e.g., whether there is infrastructure for 977 recycling) and what problems are most pressing (e.g., health hazards and thus importance of 978 hygienic packaging) helps to identify the change of behavior that is most promising (cf., Steg 979 & Vlek, 2009). Moreover, depending on particular circumstances and/or cultural background, 980 demands of situational factors and infrastructure need to be considered (e.g., waste 981 management in refugee camps vs. residential complexes; cf., O’Connor et al., 2010; Saidan, 982 Drais, et al., 2017). 983 The reviewed literature shows that plastic consumption and avoidance is generally 984 similar to other environmental behaviors as 1) it affects several aspects in life (as does 985 mobility, for instance), 2) there is a conflict between problem awareness and behavior, and 3) 986 it is predicted by situational factors as well as personal factors such as sociodemographics, 987 habits, control beliefs, moral, and social norms. Therefore, models explaining pro- 988 environmental behavior, such as the so-called SIMPEA which addresses social identity 989 processes that affect appraisal and response to collective environmental challenges (Fritsche, 990 Barth, Jugert, Masson, & Reese, 2017), might be helpful to further understand and study 40 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 991 plastic-related behavior. Additionally, knowledge from available behavior-based solutions on 992 other environmental behaviors can be used to create interventions – and vice versa. For 993 example, the success of plastic bag bans, fees, and taxes may motivate bans of other 994 environment-damaging products. However, so far, the field lacks studies evaluating the long- 995 term effects of such political interventions. What makes plastic-related behavior special is its 996 diversity (consumption of alternatives, avoidance, reuse, recycling). Thus, a close look at 997 specific behavioral antecedents as well as examining the impact of political measures as bans 998 or change in infrastructure becomes therefore necessary in intervention context. 999 Citizen science and organized clean-ups appear to be promising approaches to raise 1000 awareness and responsibility, motivate reuse, and change behavior since, for example, people 1001 residing near clean beaches engage more in waste-reduction approaches (Kiessling et al., 1002 2017). Further, organized clean-ups might be successful due to two other factors: creating a 1003 new habit by doing it once with instructions and strengthening the social norm by doing it 1004 with others. Since humans are social beings, social norms play a major role in 1005 (environmental) behavior. As it was pointed out throughout the review, norms predict 1006 different forms of plastic-related behavior although they were not as strong as in classical 1007 studies using the theory of planned behavior. Moreover, successful intervention studies with 1008 role models and voice prompts by salespersons highlight the social factor. Therefore, 1009 interventions that change norms are promising. When combined with adjusted situational 1010 factors and information they might have even bigger effects. Overall, intervention strategies 1011 should be combined since, so far, no strategy alone is sufficient to reduce the immense use of 1012 plastic. Moreover, the interventions need to be well-planned to reduce unwanted effects (e.g., 1013 licensing effects, perceived green-washing, or rebound-effects) and to meet the needs of the 1014 target group and therefore gain their acceptance. 1015 Furthermore, different actors are needed to approach the plastic problem from various 1016 directions. While educators, media directors, and organizers of activities, such as beach clean- 41 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1017 ups, are in positions to raise awareness, increase knowledge, and train alternative behavior 1018 patterns, stakeholders, politicians, and salespersons are capable to adjust general 1019 circumstances and situational factors to change consumption and waste behavior. For 1020 example, promoting a ‘circular economy’ or implementing an ‘Extended Producer 1021 Responsibility’ might be fruitful to make producers accountable and thus should be pursued 1022 by politics and public. Despite recently introduced laws on the national level that contribute to 1023 tackling the plastic problem (e.g., prohibition of plastic microbeads in cosmetics, U.S. 1024 Government Publishing Office, 2015), present developments (e.g., China’s recent decision to 1025 stop accepting plastic from other countries) underline the pressing need for global, integrated 1026 solutions. 1027 1028 5.3 Implications for future research 1029 The current review and conclusions have some limitations which, on the one hand, are 1030 due to the nature of plastic and behavior related to it, and on the other hand due to 1031 characteristics of the available literature. Plastic-related behavior is diverse and thus difficult 1032 to delineate. Although we reviewed a large amount of studies, only few focused on a 1033 particular behavior (e.g., avoiding plastic) and thus conclusions on these are limited. In 1034 contrast, recycling behavior is very well studied but plastic was explicitly considered only 1035 sparsely. This diversity, non-specificity, and the limited amount of studies might lead to 1036 different predictors of behavior and a low comparability of findings. Therefore, future studies 1037 should further investigate plastic-specific behavior and focus on real instead of reported or 1038 intended behavior. Furthermore, methods measuring (plastic) avoidance behavior should be 1039 developed. Moreover, research should endeavor to study breaking habits, since this is needed 1040 to change plastic-related behavior in the long-term. 42 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1041 In general, most studies investigating perception and consumption focused on plastic 1042 as packaging material or bags, while littering and recycling studies often did not classify 1043 waste origin or type. Interestingly, we found only a few studies investigating attitudes or 1044 behaviors related to microplastics, although this issue is hotly debated in both science and 1045 media. So far, the social-scientific literature largely ignored plastic types other than packaging 1046 or bags. We therefore recommend that future studies focus also on microplastics and other 1047 origins of plastic waste (e.g., from fishing utensils, electronic devices, or agriculture). 1048 Noteworthy, some studies were interdisciplinary, combining for example psychology 1049 and environmental science. However, the field lacks studies in the areas of media and 1050 communication science although plastic became more and more abundant in the media and 1051 thus scientific work on the effects of such media presence is much needed. Since plastic- 1052 related perception and behavior and the research of these is so diverse, this review is rather 1053 descriptive, and may not sufficiently cover the entire literature relevant. Furthermore, the 1054 quality of the studies reviewed varied strongly and was generally rather low compared to the 1055 standard of current psychological research. Therefore and because of the limitations above, 1056 conclusions should be taken with caution and future studies are needed to confirm the 1057 findings. 1058 1059 5.4 Conclusion 1060 The plastic problem is a major challenge of our times and needs interdisciplinary and 1061 global solutions. This review provides a first overview of the social-scientific literature and 1062 can serve as a basis for both researchers and stakeholders to develop further investigations 1063 and implement behavior-based solutions. The current work shows that the research field is 1064 growing, very diverse, originating from different countries and disciplines, and using a wide 1065 range of methods. Because of the limitations mentioned above, general conclusions are 43 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1066 difficult. Nevertheless, the reviewed literature suggests that, although problem awareness is 1067 high, the perceived advantages of plastic, consumer habits, and situational factors make it 1068 difficult for people to act accordingly. Bans and increased costs of plastic products as well as 1069 a combination of psychological interventions seem to be promising measures to reduce plastic 1070 consumption and waste. All actors from science, policy, industry, trade, and the general 1071 public have to work together to avoid a shift of responsibility. More research is needed to 1072 improve current interventions and to create additional powerful, immediate, and global 1073 solutions to limit the amount of plastic waste in the environment. 1074 1075 6 Acknowledgments 1076 The authors would like to thank Katherine Muñoz for her valuable input to the natural 1077 scientific problem description. We thank Manfred Schmitt, Gerhard Reese, and Zacharias 1078 Steinmetz for helpful comments on a previous version of the manuscript, as well as Michaela 1079 Maier, Jutta Milde, Gabriele Schaumann, and Kristen Werling for fruitful discussions. 1080 Furthermore, we like to thank Sophie Dickel for her support in reference management. The 1081 authors have no competing interests to declare. 1082 1083 7 Funding 1084 This work was supported by the European Research Council [grant number 741087]. 1085 1086 8 Author statement 1087 Lea Marie Heidbreder: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing - 1088 Original Draft, Visualization. Isabella Bablok: Conceptualization, Methodology, 44 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1089 Investigation, Writing - Original Draft, Visualization. Stefan Drews: Investigation, Writing - 1090 Original Draft. Claudia Menzel: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing - 1091 Original Draft, Visualization. 1092 1093 9 References 1094 *Adane, L., & Muleta, D. (2011). Survey on the usage of plastic bags, their disposal and 1095 adverse impacts on environment: A case study in Jimma City, Southwestern Ethiopia. 1096 Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Sciences, 3(8), 234–248. 1097 *Aday, M. S., & Yener, U. (2014). Understanding the buying behaviour of young consumers 1098 regarding packaging attributes and labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 1099 38(4), 385–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12105 1100 *Afroz, R., Rahman, A., Masud, M. M., & Akhtar, R. (2017). The knowledge, awareness, 1101 attitude and motivational analysis of plastic waste and household perspective in 1102 Malaysia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(3), 2304–2315. 1103 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7942-0 1104 *Ahmad, M. S., Bazmi, A. A., Bhutto, A. W., Shahzadi, K., & Bukhari, N. (2016). Students’ 1105 Responses to Improve Environmental Sustainability Through Recycling: Quantitatively 1106 Improving Qualitative Model. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 11(1), 253–270. 1107 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-014-9366-7 1108 Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human 1109 Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T 1110 *Ali, J., & Kapoor, S. (2008). Consumers’ perception on fruits and vegetables packaging in 1111 India. In 18th Annual World Symposium of the International Food and Agribusiness 1112 Management Association (IAMA) on Meeting Food System Challenges through 1113 Innovation and Entrepreneurship (pp. 1–12). Monterey, California. 45 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1114 *Anderson, A. G., Grose, J., Pahl, S., Thompson, R. C., & Wyles, K. J. (2016). Microplastics 1115 in personal care products: Exploring perceptions of environmentalists, beauticians and 1116 students. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 113(1–2), 454–460. 1117 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.10.048 1118 *Arı, E., & Yılmaz, V. (2017). Consumer attitudes on the use of plastic and cloth bags. 1119 Environment, Development and Sustainability, 19(4), 1219–1234. 1120 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9791-x 1121 *Arlt, D., Kuhlmann, C., & Wolling, J. (2012). Ecological role models? The effect of the 1122 depiction of ecological activities in the media on the behavioral intentions of the 1123 recipients. Studies in Communication and Media, 1(3–4), 411–442. 1124 https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2012-3-411 1125 *Avallone, I. V., Giraldi, J. D. M. E., & de Oliveira, S. V. W. B. (2012). Conscious 1126 consumption: A study on plastic bags’ consumers in Brazil. International Journal of 1127 Psychological Studies, 4(1), 122–134. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijps.v4n1p122 1128 *Ballance, A., Ryan, P. G., & Turpie, J. K. (2000). How much is a clean beach worth? The 1129 impact of litter on beach users in the Cape Peninsula, South Africa. South African 1130 Journal of Science, 96, 210–213. 1131 *Barnes, M., Chan-Halbrendt, C., Zhang, Q., & Abejon, N. (2011). Consumer preference and 1132 willingness to pay for non-plastic food containers in Honolulu, USA. Journal of 1133 Environmental Protection, 2(9), 1264–1273. 1134 *Barnett, A. J., Wiber, M. G., Rooney, M. P., & Curtis Maillet, D. G. (2016). The role of 1135 public participation GIS (PPGIS) and fishermen’s perceptions of risk in marine debris 1136 mitigation in the Bay of Fundy, Canada. Ocean and Coastal Management, 133, 85–94. 1137 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.09.002 1138 *Bartolotta, J. F., & Hardy, S. D. (2018). Barriers and benefits to desired behaviors for single 1139 use plastic items in northeast Ohio’s Lake Erie basin. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 127, 46 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1140 576–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.12.037 1141 *Bech-Larsen, T. (1996). Danish Consumers’ Attitudes to the Functional and Environmental 1142 Characteristics of Food Packaging. Journal of Consumer Policy, 19, 339–363. 1143 *Beeharry, Y. D., Bekaroo, G., Bokhoree, C., Phillips, M. R., & Jory, N. (2017). Sustaining 1144 anti-littering behavior within coastal and marine environments: Through the macro- 1145 micro level lenses. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 119(2), 87–99. 1146 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.04.029 1147 *Beitzen-Heineke, E. F., Balta-Ozkan, N., & Reefke, H. (2017). The prospects of zero- 1148 packaging grocery stores to improve the social and environmental impacts of the food 1149 supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1528–1541. 1150 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.227 1151 Bläsing, M., & Amelung, W. (2018). Plastics in soil: Analytical methods and possible 1152 sources. Science of The Total Environment, 612, 422–435. 1153 *Blesin, J.-M., Jaspersen, M., & Möhring, W. (2017). Boosting Plastics’ Image? 1154 Communicative Challenges of Innovative Bioplastics. Journal of Historic Polymeric 1155 Materials, Plastics Heritage and History, 3, 1–5. 1156 *Braun, Y. A., & Traore, A. S. (2015). Plastic bags, pollution, and identity: Women and the 1157 gendering of globalization and environmental responsibility in Mali. Gender & Society, 1158 29(6), 863–887. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243215602101 1159 *Brennan, R. E., & Portman, M. E. (2017). Situating Arab-Israeli artisanal fishermen’s 1160 perceptions of marine litter in a socio-institutional and socio-cultural context. Marine 1161 Pollution Bulletin, 115(1–2), 240–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.12.001 1162 *Campbell, M. L., Slavin, C., Grage, A., & Kinslow, A. (2016). Human health impacts from 1163 litter on beaches and associated perceptions: A case study of “clean” Tasmanian beaches. 1164 Ocean and Coastal Management, 126, 22–30. 1165 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.04.002 47 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1166 *Caner, C., & Pascall, M. A. (2010). Consumer complaints and accidents related to food 1167 packaging. Packaging Technology and Science, 23(7), 413–422. 1168 https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.908 1169 *Carpenter, E., & Wolverton, S. (2017). Plastic litter in streams: The behavioral archaeology 1170 of a pervasive environmental problem. Applied Geography, 84, 93–101. 1171 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.04.010 1172 *Carrigan, M., Moraes, C., & Leek, S. (2011). Fostering responsible communities: A 1173 community social marketing approach to sustainable living. Journal of Business Ethics, 1174 100(3), 515–534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0694-8 1175 *Chan, K. (1998). Mass communication and pro-environmental behaviour: waste recycling in 1176 Hong Kong. Journal of Environmental Management, 52(4), 317–325. 1177 https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1998.0189 1178 *Chan, R. Y. K., Wong, Y. H., & Leung, T. K. P. (2008). Applying ethical concepts to the 1179 study of ``green’’ consumer behavior: An analysis of chinese consumers’ intentions to 1180 bring their own shopping bags. Journal of Business Ethics, 79(4), 469–481. 1181 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9410-8 1182 *Chang, M. (2015). Reducing microplastics from facial exfoliating cleansers in wastewater 1183 through treatment versus consumer product decisions. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 101(1), 1184 330–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.10.074 1185 *Chang, S.-H., & Chou, C.-H. (2018). Consumer intention toward bringing your own 1186 shopping bags in Taiwan: An application of ethics perspective and theory of planned 1187 behavior. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(6), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061815 1188 *Cherrier, H. (2006). Consumer identity and moral obligations in non-plastic bag 1189 consumption: a dialectical perspective. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 1190 30(5), 515–523. 1191 *Cheung, T. Y., Fok, L., Cheang, C. C., Yeung, C. H., So, W.-M. W., & Chow, C. F. (2018). 48 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1192 University halls plastics recycling: a blended intervention study. International Journal of 1193 Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(6), 1038–1052. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE- 1194 10-2017-0175 1195 *Chib, A., Chiew, H. J., Kumar, C., Choon, L. G., & Ale, K. (2009). [minus]plastic: 1196 influencing pro‐environmental attitudes among Singaporean youth. Environmental 1197 Education Research, 15(6), 679–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620903296001 1198 *Clapp, J., & Swanston, L. (2009). Doing away with plastic shopping bags: International 1199 patterns of norm emergence and policy implementation. Environmental Politics, 18(3), 1200 315–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010902823717 1201 *Convery, F., McDonnell, S., & Ferreira, S. (2007). The most popular tax in Europe? Lessons 1202 from the Irish plastic bags levy. Environmental and Resource Economics, 38(1), 1–11. 1203 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-006-9059-2 1204 *Corraini, N. R., de Souza de Lima, A., Bonetti, J., & Rangel-Buitrago, N. (2018). Troubles 1205 in the paradise: Litter and its scenic impact on the North Santa Catarina island beaches, 1206 Brazil. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 131, 572–579. 1207 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.04.061 1208 *Dikgang, J., Leiman, A., & Visser, M. (2012). Analysis of the plastic-bag levy in South 1209 Africa. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 66, 59–65. 1210 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.06.009 1211 *Dikgang, J., & Visser, M. (2012). Behavioural response to plastic bag legislation in 1212 Botswana. South African Journal of Economics, 80(1), 123–133. 1213 *Drašković, N. (2010). Packaging convenience: Consumer packaging feature or marketig 1214 tool? International Journal of Management Cases, 12(2), 267–274. 1215 https://doi.org/10.5848/APBJ.2010.00061 1216 *Drašković, N., & Cerovečki, I. G. (2014). Moderating variables of consumer perception of 1217 packaging material. In 7th Annual EuroMed Conference of the EuroMed Academy of 49 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1218 Business (pp. 609–620). 1219 *Draskovic, N., Temperley, J., & Pavicic, J. (2009). Comparative perception(s) of consumer 1220 goods packaging: Croatian consumers perspective(s). International Journal of 1221 Management Cases, 11(2), 154–163. https://doi.org/10.5848/APBJ.2009.00028 1222 *Eldesouky, A., & Mesías, F. (2014). An insight into the influence of packaging and 1223 presentation format on consumer purchasing attitudes towards cheese: A qualitative 1224 study. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 12(2), 305–312. 1225 https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2014122-5520 1226 *Eldesouky, A., Mesías, F. J., Elghannam, A., Gaspar, P., & Escribano, M. (2016). Are 1227 packaging and presentation format key attributes for cheese consumers? International 1228 Dairy Journal, 61, 245–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2016.06.011 1229 *Eldesouky, A., Pulido, A. F., & Mesías, F. J. (2015). The Role of Packaging and 1230 Presentation Format in Consumers’ Preferences for Food: An Application of Projective 1231 Techniques. Journal of Sensory Studies, 30(5), 360–369. 1232 https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12162 1233 *Elgaaïed-Gambier, L. (2016). Who Buys Overpackaged Grocery Products and Why? 1234 Understanding Consumers’ Reactions to Overpackaging in the Food Sector. Journal of 1235 Business Ethics, 135(4), 683–698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2491-2 1236 Eriksen, M., Lebreton, L. C. M., Carson, H. S., Thiel, M., Moore, C. J., Borerro, J. C., … 1237 Reisser, J. (2014). Plastic Pollution in the World’s Oceans: More than 5 Trillion Plastic 1238 Pieces Weighing over 250,000 Tons Afloat at Sea. PLoS ONE, 9(12), 1–15. 1239 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111913 1240 *Fernqvist, F., Olsson, A., & Spendrup, S. (2015). What’s in it for me? Food packaging and 1241 consumer responses, a focus group study. British Food Journal, 117(3), 1122–1135. 1242 https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-08-2013-0224 1243 *Ferreira, M. C., & Scaraboto, D. (2016). “My plastic dreams”: Towards an extended 50 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1244 understanding of materiality and the shaping of consumer identities. Journal of Business 1245 Research, 69(1), 191–207. 1246 Fritsche, I., Barth, M., Jugert, P., Masson, T., & Reese, G. (2017). A social identity model of 1247 pro-environmental action (SIMPEA). https://doi.org/http :/ /dx.doi.org/ 1248 10.1037/rev0000090 1249 *Fritz, J. N., Dupuis, D. L., Wu, W. L., Neal, A. E., Rettig, L. A., & Lastrapes, R. E. (2017). 1250 Evaluating increased effort for item disposal to improve recycling at a university. 1251 Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50(4), 825–829. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.405 1252 Galloway, T. S., & Lewis, C. N. (2016). Marine microplastics spell big problems for future 1253 generations. PNAS, 113(9), 2331–2333. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1600715113 1254 Gelcich, S., Buckley, P., Pinnegar, J. K., Chilvers, J., Lorenzoni, I., Terry, G., & Guerrero, M. 1255 (2014). Public awareness, concerns, and priorities about anthropogenic impacts on 1256 marine environments. PNAS, 111(42), 15042–15047. 1257 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1417344111 1258 Gelici-Zeko, M. M., Lutters, D., ten Klooster, R., & Weijzen, P. L. G. (2013). Studying the 1259 Influence of Packaging Design on Consumer Perceptions (of Dairy Products) Using 1260 Categorizing and Perceptual Mapping. Packaging Technology and Science, 26(4), 215– 1261 228. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.1977 1262 *Gómez, M., Martín-Consuegra, D., & Molina, A. (2015). The importance of packaging in 1263 purchase and usage behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(3), 203– 1264 211. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12168 1265 Haider, T. P., Völker, C., Kramm, J., Landfester, K., & Wurm, F. R. (2018). Plastics of the 1266 future? The impact of biodegradable polymers on the environment and on society. 1267 Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 58(1), 50–62. 1268 *Hammami, M. B. A., Mohammed, E. Q., Hashem, A. M., Al-Khafaji, M. A., Alqahtani, F., 1269 Alzaabi, S., & Dash, N. (2017). Survey on awareness and attitudes of secondary school 51 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1270 students regarding plastic pollution: implications for environmental education and public 1271 health in Sharjah city, UAE. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24(25), 1272 20626–20633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9625-x 1273 Hanisch, C. (2000). Is Extended Producer Responsibility Effective? Environmental Science & 1274 Technology, 34(7), 170–175. 1275 *Hartley, B. L., Pahl, S., Holland, M., Alampei, I., Veiga, J. M., & Thompson, R. C. (2018). 1276 Turning the tide on trash: Empowering European educators and school students to tackle 1277 marine litter. Marine Policy, 96, 227–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.02.002 1278 *Hartley, B. L., Pahl, S., Veiga, J., Vlachogianni, T., Vasconcelos, L., Maes, T., … 1279 Thompson, R. C. (2018). Exploring public views on marine litter in Europe: Perceived 1280 causes, consequences and pathways to change. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 133, 945–955. 1281 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.05.061 1282 *Hartley, B. L., Thompson, R. C., & Pahl, S. (2015). Marine litter education boosts children’s 1283 understanding and self-reported actions. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 90, 209–217. 1284 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.10.049 1285 *Hasson, R., Leiman, A., & Visser, M. (2007). The economics of plastic bag legislation in 1286 South Africa. South African Journal of Economics, 75(1), 66–83. 1287 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1813-6982.2007.00101.x 1288 *He, H. (2012). Effects of environmental policy on consumption: Lessons from the Chinese 1289 plastic bag regulation. Environment and Development Economics, 17(4), 407–431. 1290 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X1200006X 1291 *Herbes, C., Beuthner, C., & Ramme, I. (2018). Consumer attitudes towards biobased 1292 packaging - A cross-cultural comparative study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 194, 1293 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.106 1294 Hertwich, E. G. (2005). Consumption and the Rebound Effect: An Industrial Ecology 1295 Perspective. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(1–2), 85–98. 52 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1296 https://doi.org/10.1162/1088198054084635 1297 Hodson, M. E., Duffus-Hodson, C. A., Clark, A., Prendergast-Miller, M. T., & Thorpe, K. L. 1298 (2017). Plastic Bag Derived-Microplastics as a Vector for Metal Exposure in Terrestrial 1299 Invertebrates. Environmental Science and Technology, 51(8), 4714–4721. 1300 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b00635 1301 *Hohmann, R., Wattana, C., Sracheam, P., Siriapornsakul, S., Ruckthum, V., & Clapp, R. 1302 (2016). An exploration of the factors concerned with reducing the use of plastic carrier 1303 bags in Bangkok, Thailand. ABAC ODI Journal : Vision. Action. Outcome., 3(2), 162– 1304 181. 1305 *Holland, R. W., Aarts, H., & Langendam, D. (2006). Breaking and creating habits on the 1306 working floor: A field-experiment on the power of implementation intentions. Journal of 1307 Experimental Social Psychology, 42(6), 776–783. 1308 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.11.006 1309 *Hollywood, L., Wells, L., Armstrong, G., & Farley, H. (2013). Thinking outside the carton: 1310 attitudes towards milk packaging. British Food Journal, 115(6), 899–912. 1311 https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-Jul-2010-0127 1312 Horton, A. A., Walton, A., Spurgeon, D. J., Lahive, E., & Svendsen, C. (2017). Microplastics 1313 in freshwater and terrestrial environments: Evaluating the current understanding to 1314 identify the knowledge gaps and future research priorities. Science of the Total 1315 Environment, 586, 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.190 1316 Huffman, K. T., Grossnickle, W. F., Cope, J. G., & Huffman, K. P. (1995). Litter Reduction: 1317 A Review and Integration of the Literature. Environment and Behavior, 27(2), 153–183. 1318 *Isa, S. M., & Yao, P. X. (2013). Investigating the preference for green packaging in 1319 consumer product choices: A choice-based conjoint approach. Business Management 1320 Dynamics, 3(2), 84–96. 1321 *Jakovcevic, A., Steg, L., Mazzeo, N., Caballero, R., Franco, P., Putrino, N., & Favara, J. 53 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1322 (2014). Charges for plastic bags: Motivational and behavioral effects. Journal of 1323 Environmental Psychology, 40, 372–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.09.004 1324 *Jeżewska-Zychowicz, M., & Jeznach, M. (2015). Consumers’ Behaviours Related To 1325 Packaging And Their Attitudes Towards Environment. Journal of Agribusiness and 1326 Rural Development, 3(37), 447–457. Retrieved from 1327 https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/pojard/253597.html 1328 *Jiang, J. (2016). Peer Pressure in Voluntary Environmental Programs: A Case of the Bag 1329 Reward Program. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 16(2), 155–190. 1330 *Jones, J., Jackson, J. I., Bates, M., & Tudor, T. (2016). Factors influencing corporate pro- 1331 environmental behaviour – a case study from the UK construction sector. Int. J. 1332 Environment and Sustainable Development, 15(1), 1–15. 1333 https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESD.2016.073314 1334 *Joseph, N., Kumar, A., Majgi, S. M., Kumar, G. S., & Prahalad, R. B. Y. (2016). Usage of 1335 Plastic Bags and Health Hazards : A Study to Assess Awareness Level and Perception 1336 about Legislation Among a Small Population of Mangalore City. Journal of Clinical and 1337 Diagnostic Research, 10(4), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/16245.7529 1338 Jungbluth, N., Tietje, O., & Scholz, R. W. (2000). Food purchases: Impacts from the 1339 consumers’ point of view investigated with a modular LCA. The International Journal of 1340 Life Cycle Assessment, 5(3), 134. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978609 1341 *Kainz, U., Zapilko, M., Decker, T., & Menrad, K. (2013). Consumer-relevant information 1342 about bioplastics. In J. Geldermann & M. Schumann (Eds.), First International 1343 Conference on Resource Efficiency in Interorganizational Networks (pp. 391–402). 1344 Universitätsverlag Göttingen. 1345 *Karmarkar, U. R., & Bollinger, B. (2015). BYOB: How bringing your own shopping bags 1346 leads to treating yourself and the environment. Journal of Marketing, 79, 1–15. 1347 *Keramitsoglou, K. M., & Tsagarakis, K. P. (2018). Public Participation in Designing the 54 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1348 Recycling Bins to Encourage Recycling. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(4), 16–18. 1349 https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041240 1350 *Kiessling, T., Salas, S., Mutafoglu, K., & Thiel, M. (2017). Who cares about dirty beaches? 1351 Evaluating environmental awareness and action on coastal litter in Chile. Ocean and 1352 Coastal Management, 137, 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.11.029 1353 *Klaiman, K., Ortega, D. L., & Garnache, C. (2016). Consumer Preferences and Demand for 1354 Packaging Material and Recyclability Kimberly. Resources, Conservation and 1355 Recycling, 115, 1–25. 1356 *Klaiman, K., Ortega, D. L., & Garnache, C. (2017). Perceived barriers to food packaging 1357 recycling: Evidence from a choice experiment of US consumers. Food Control, 73, 291– 1358 299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.08.017 1359 *Klöckner, C. A., & Oppedal, I. O. (2011). General Versus Domain Specific Recycling 1360 Behaviour - applying a multilevel comprehensive action determination model to 1361 recycling in Norwegian student homes. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(4), 1362 463–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.12.009 1363 *Knussen, C., Yule, F., MacKenzie, J., & Wells, M. (2004). An analysis of intentions to 1364 recycle household waste: The roles of past behaviour, perceived habit, and perceived 1365 lack of facilities. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 237–246. 1366 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2003.12.001 1367 *Koenig-Lewis, N., Palmer, A., Dermody, J., & Urbye, A. (2014). Consumers’ evaluations of 1368 ecological packaging – Rational and emotional approaches. Journal of Environmental 1369 Psychology, 37, 94–105. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/display/29204991 1370 Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the Gap: Why Do People Behave 1371 Environmentally and What are the Barriers to Pro-Environmental Behaviour. 1372 Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260. 1373 https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462022014540 55 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1374 *Koutsimanis, G., Getter, K., Behe, B., Harte, J., & Almenar, E. (2012). Influences of 1375 packaging attributes on consumer purchase decisions for fresh produce. Appetite, 59(2), 1376 270–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.05.012 1377 *Kronrod, A., Grinstein, A., & Wathieu, L. (2012). Go Green! Should Environmental 1378 Messages Be So Assertive? Journal of Marketing, 76(1), 95–102. 1379 https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.10.0416 1380 *Kurisu, K. H., & Bortoleto, A. P. (2011). Comparison of waste prevention behaviors among 1381 three Japanese megacity regions in the context of local measures and socio- 1382 demographics. Waste Management, 31(7), 1441–1449. 1383 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.03.008 1384 *Lal, R. C., Yambrach, F., & McProud, L. (2015). Consumer Perceptions Towards Package 1385 Designs: A Cross Cultural Study. Journal of Applied Packaging Research, 7(2), 61–94. 1386 https://doi.org/10.14448/japr.04.0004 1387 *Lam, S. P., & Chen, J. K. (2006). What makes customers bring their bags or buy bags from 1388 the shop? A survey of customers at a Taiwan hypermarket. Environment and Behavior, 1389 38(3), 318–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916505278327 1390 *Latiff, Z. A. A., Mokhtar, S. I., Soon, S. W., & Ayob, M. A. (2018). Study on the Customer 1391 Perception of the Tropical Fruit Vinegar in Kelantan and Kuala Lumpur. Journal of 1392 Food Products Marketing, 24(3), 263–279. 1393 https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2017.1266557 1394 *Latinopoulos, D., Mentis, C., & Bithas, K. (2018). The impact of a public information 1395 campaign on preferences for marine environmental protection. The case of plastic waste. 1396 Marine Pollution Bulletin, 131, 151–162. 1397 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.04.002 1398 *Lea, E., & Worsley, A. (2008). Australian consumers’ food-related environmental beliefs 1399 and behaviours. Appetite, 50(2), 207–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2005.07.012 56 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1400 *Lefebvre, A., Bassereau, J. F., Pensé-lheritier, A. M., Rivère, C., Harris, N., & Duchamp, R. 1401 (2010). Recruitment and training of a sensory expert panel to measure the touch of 1402 beverage packages: Issue and methods employed. Food Quality and Preference, 21(1), 1403 156–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.08.020 1404 Li, W. C., Tse, H. F., & Fok, L. (2016). Plastic waste in the marine environment: A review of 1405 sources, occurrence and effects. Science of the Total Environment, 566–567, 333–349. 1406 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.084 1407 *Li, Y., Muthu, S. S., Hu, J., Pik-Yin, M., Ding, X., Wang, L., & Chen, W. (2010). Eco- 1408 Impact of Shopping Bags: Consumer Attitude and Governmental Policies. Journal of 1409 Sustainable Development, 3(2), 71–83. https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v3n2p71 1410 *Lindh, H., Olsson, A., & Williams, H. (2016). Consumer Perceptions of Food Packaging: 1411 Contributing to or Counteracting Environmentally Sustainable Development? Packaging 1412 Technology and Science, 29(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2184 1413 Lindh, H., Williams, H., Olsson, A., & Wikström, F. (2016). Elucidating the Indirect 1414 Contributions of Packaging to Sustainable Development: A Terminology of Packaging 1415 Functions and Features. Packaging Technology and Science, 29(4–5), 225–246. 1416 https://doi.org/10.1002/pts 1417 Liu, E. K., He, W. Q., & Yan, C. R. (2014). “White revolution” to “white pollution” - 1418 Agricultural plastic film mulch in China. Environmental Research Letters, 9(9), 13–16. 1419 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/9/091001 1420 Löhr, A., Savelli, H., Beunen, R., Kalz, M., Ragas, A., & Van Belleghem, F. (2017). 1421 Solutions for global marine litter pollution. Current Opinion in Environmental 1422 Sustainability, 28, 90–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.08.009 1423 *Loizidou, X. I., Loizides, M. I., & Orthodoxou, D. L. (2018). Persistent marine litter: small 1424 plastics and cigarette butts remain on beaches after organized beach cleanups. 1425 Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 190(414), 1–10. 57 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1426 *Longoni, C., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2014). A green paradox: Validating green 1427 choices has ironic effects on behavior, cognition, and perception. Journal of 1428 Experimental Social Psychology, 50(1), 158–165. 1429 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.09.010 1430 *Lotze, H. K., Guest, H., O’Leary, J., Tuda, A., & Wallace, D. (2018). Public perceptions of 1431 marine threats and protection from around the world. Ocean and Coastal Management, 1432 152, 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.11.004 1433 *Madara, D. S., Namango, S. S., & Wetaka, C. (2016). Consumer-Perception on 1434 Polyethylene-Shopping-Bags. Journal of Environment and Earth Science, 6(11), 12–36. 1435 *Madigele, P. K., Mogomotsi, G. E. J., & Kolobe, M. (2017). Consumer willingness to pay 1436 for plastic bags levy and willingness to accept eco-friendly alternatives in Botswana. 1437 Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment, 15(3), 255–261. 1438 https://doi.org/10.1080/10042857.2017.1369243 1439 *Magnier, L., & Crié, D. (2015). Communicating packaging eco-friendliness: An exploration 1440 of consumers’ perceptions of eco-designed packaging. International Journal of Retail 1441 and Distribution Management, 43(4/5), 350–366. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-04- 1442 2014-0048 1443 *Magnier, L., & Schoormans, J. (2015). Consumer reactions to sustainable packaging : The 1444 interplay of visual appearance , verbal claim and environmental concern. Journal of 1445 Environmental Psychology, 44, 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.09.005 1446 *Magnier, L., & Schoormans, J. (2017). How Do Packaging Material, Colour and 1447 Environmental Claim Influence Package, Brand and Product Evaluations? Packaging 1448 Technology and Science, 30(11), 735–751. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2318 1449 *Mapotse, T. A., & Mashiloane, T. K. (2017). Nurturing learners’ awareness of littering 1450 through environmental campaigns: An action research approach. Eurasia Journal of 1451 Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(10), 6909–6921. 58 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1452 https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/76658 1453 Marsh, K., & Bugusu, B. (2007). Food packaging - Roles, materials, and environmental 1454 issues: Scientific status summary. Journal of Food Science, 72(3). 1455 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00301.x 1456 *Martinho, G., Balaia, N., & Pires, A. (2017). The Portuguese plastic carrier bag tax : The 1457 effects on consumers ’ behavior. Waste Management, 61, 3–12. 1458 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.01.023 1459 *McCoy, K., Oliver, J. J., Borden, D. S., & Cohn, S. I. (2018). Nudging waste diversion at 1460 Western State Colorado University: application of behavioral insights. International 1461 Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(3), 608–621. 1462 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-05-2017-0063 1463 *McDonald, S., & Ball, R. (1998). Public participation in plastics recycling schemes. 1464 Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 22(3–4), 123–141. 1465 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(97)00044-X 1466 *McKay, D., & Perez, P. L. (2018). Plastic masculinity: How everyday objects in plastic 1467 suggest men could be otherwise. Journal of Material Culture, 23(2), 169–186. 1468 https://doi.org/10.1177/1359183517742424 1469 McKerlie, K., Knight, N., & Thorpe, B. (2006). Advancing extended producer responsibility 1470 in Canada. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(6–7), 616–628. 1471 *Meng, T., Klepacka, A. M., Florkowski, W. J., & Braman, K. (2015). What drives an 1472 environmental horticultural firm to start recycling plastics? Results of a Georgia survey. 1473 Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 102, 1–8. 1474 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.04.011 1475 *Miller, N. D., Meindl, J. N., & Caradine, M. (2016). The Effects of Bin Proximity and 1476 Visual Prompts on Recycling in A University Building. Behavior and Social Issues, 25, 1477 4–10. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v.25i0.6141 59 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1478 *Mohamed, N. A. (2015). Promoting of Environment Friendly Packaging Utilizing in the 1479 Egyptian Market “Study on Grocery Bags by Carrefour Egypt.” Civil and Environmental 1480 Research, 7(4), 54–61. 1481 *Muizniece-Brasava, S., Dukalska, L., & Kantike, I. (2011). Consumer’s knowledge and 1482 attitude to traditional and environmentally friendly food packaging materials in market 1483 of Latvia. In In The 6th Baltic Conference on Food Science and Technology “FoodBalt - 1484 2011” (pp. 187–192). 1485 *Muralidharan, S., & Sheehan, K. (2016). “Tax” and “fee” message frames as inhibitors of 1486 plastic bag usage among shoppers: A social marketing application of the theory of 1487 planned behavior. Social Marketing Quarterly, 22(3), 200–217. 1488 https://doi.org/10.1177/1524500416631522 1489 *Muralidharan, S., & Sheehan, K. (2017). “Tax” and “Fee” Frames in Green Advertisements: 1490 The Influence of Self-Transcendence in Reusable Bag Usage. Journal of Promotion 1491 Management, 23(6), 851–871. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2017.1323260 1492 *Musa, H. M., Hayes, C., Bradley, M. J., Clayson, A., & Gillibrand, G. (2013). Measures 1493 Aimed at Reducing Plastic Carrier Bag Use: A Consumer Behaviour Focused Study. 1494 Natural Environment, 1(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.12966/ne.06.02.2013 1495 *Negussie, B., & Mustefa, J. (2017). Community’s perception of utilization and disposal of 1496 plastic bags in Eastern Ethiopia. Pollution, 3(1), 147–156. 1497 https://doi.org/10.7508/pj.2017.01.013 1498 *Nittala, R. (2014). Green consumer behavior of the educated segment in India. Journal of 1499 International Consumer Marketing, 26(2), 138–152. 1500 https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2014.878205 1501 *Nørgaard Olesen, S., & Giacalone, D. (2018). The influence of packaging on consumers’ 1502 quality perception of carrots. Journal of Sensory Studies, 33(1), 1–8. 1503 https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12310 60 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1504 *O’Connor, R. T., Lerman, D. C., Fritz, J. N., & Hodde, H. B. (2010). Effects of Number and 1505 Location of Bins on Plastic Recycling At a University. Journal of Applied Behavior 1506 Analysis, 43(4), 711–715. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2010.43-711 1507 *O’Gorman, L. (2017). Sustainability, the Arts and Big Numbers: The Challenge of 1508 Researching Children’s Responses to Chris Jordan’s Images. International Journal of 1509 Early Childhood, 49(3), 321–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-017-0199-z 1510 *Ofstad, S. P., Tobolova, M., Nayum, A., & Klöckner, C. A. (2017). Understanding the 1511 mechanisms behind changing people’s recycling behavior at work by applying a 1512 comprehensive action determination model. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(2). 1513 https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020204 1514 *Ohtomo, S., & Ohnuma, S. (2014). Psychological interventional approach for reduce 1515 resource consumption: Reducing plastic bag usage at supermarkets. Resources, 1516 Conservation and Recycling, 84(November), 57–65. 1517 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.12.014 1518 Oke, A. (2015). Workplace waste recycling behaviour: A meta-analytical review. 1519 Sustainability (Switzerland), 7(6), 7175–7194. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7067175 1520 *Omari, R., & Frempong, G. (2016). Food safety concerns of fast food consumers in urban 1521 Ghana. Appetite, 98, 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.12.007 1522 *Omari, R., Frempong, G. K., & Arthur, W. (2018). Public perceptions and worry about food 1523 safety hazards and risks in Ghana. Food Control, 93, 76–82. 1524 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2018.05.026 1525 *Orzan, G., Cruceru, A. F., Bălăceanu, C. T., & Chivu, R.-G. (2018). Consumers’ Behavior 1526 Concerning Sustainable Packaging : An Exploratory Study on Romanian Consumers. 1527 Sustainability (Switzerland), 10, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061787 1528 *Østergaard, S., & Hanssen, O. J. (2018). Wasting of Fresh-Packed Bread by Consumers — 1529 Influence of Shopping Behavior, Storing, Handling, and Consumer Preferences. 61 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1530 Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(7), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072251 1531 *Otsyina, H. R., Nguhiu-Mwangi, J., Mogoa, E. G. M., Mbuthia, P. G., & Ogara, W. O. 1532 (2018). Knowledge, attitude, and practices on usage, disposal, and effect of plastic bags 1533 on sheep and goats. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 50(5), 997–1003. 1534 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-018-1523-9 1535 *Owens, K. A. (2018). Using experiential marine debris education to make an impact: 1536 Collecting debris, informing policy makers, and influencing students. Marine Pollution 1537 Bulletin, 127, 804–810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.10.004 1538 *Pakpour, A. H., Zeidi, I. M., Emamjomeh, M. M., Asefzadeh, S., & Pearson, H. (2014). 1539 Household waste behaviours among a community sample in Iran : An application of the 1540 theory of planned behaviour. Waste Management, 34, 980–986. 1541 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.10.028 1542 *Pandey, R. U., Surjan, A., & Kapshe, M. (2017). Exploring linkages between sustainable 1543 consumption and prevailing green practices in reuse and recycling of household waste: 1544 Case of Bhopal city in India. Journal of Cleaner Production, 173, 49–59. 1545 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.227 1546 Pasqualino, J., Meneses, M., & Castells, F. (2011). The carbon footprint and energy 1547 consumption of beverage packaging selection and disposal. Journal of Food 1548 Engineering, 103(4), 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.11.005 1549 *Pearson, E., Mellish, S., Sanders, B., & Litchfield, C. (2014). Marine wildlife entanglement: 1550 Assessing knowledge, attitudes, and relevant behaviour in the Australian community. 1551 Marine Pollution Bulletin, 89(1–2), 136–148. 1552 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.10.014 1553 Peng, J., Wang, J., & Cai, L. (2017). Current understanding of microplastics in the 1554 environment: Occurrence, fate, risks, and what we should do. Integrated Environmental 1555 Assessment and Management, 13(3), 476–482. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.1912 62 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1556 *Peters-Texeira, A., & Badrie, N. (2005). Consumers’ perception of food packaging in 1557 Trinidad, West Indies and its related impact on food choices. International Journal of 1558 Consumer Studies, 29(6), 508–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00419.x 1559 *Phillips, C. (2016). Alternative food distribution and plastic devices: Performances, 1560 valuations, and experimentations. Journal of Rural Studies, 44, 208–216. 1561 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.02.006 1562 *Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Spence, C. (2011). Do the material properties of cutlery affect the 1563 perception of the food you eat? An exploratory study. Journal of Sensory Studies, 26(5), 1564 358–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2011.00351.x 1565 PlasticsEurope. (2017). Plastics - the facts 2017: An analysis of European plastics 1566 production, demand and waste data. Retrieved from 1567 https://www.plasticseurope.org/application/files/5715/1717/4180/Plastics_the_facts_201 1568 7_FINAL_for_website_one_page.pdf 1569 PlasticsEurope. (2018). Plastics - the facts 2018: An analysis of European plastics 1570 production, demand and waste data. Retrieved from 1571 https://www.plasticseurope.org/download_file/force/2387/319 1572 *Poortinga, W., & Whitaker, L. (2018). Promoting the use of reusable coffee cups through 1573 environmental messaging, the provision of alternatives and financial incentives. 1574 Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030873 1575 *Poortinga, W., Whitmarsh, L., & Suffolk, C. (2013). The introduction of a single-use carrier 1576 bag charge in Wales : Attitude change and behavioural spillover effects. Journal of 1577 Environmental Psychology, 36, 240–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.09.001 1578 *Prendergast, G., Wai Ng, S., & Lee Leung, L. (2001). Consumer perceptions of shopping 1579 bags. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 19(7), 475–481. 1580 https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006217 1581 *Rangel-Buitrago, N., Williams, A., & Anfuso, G. (2018). Killing the goose with the golden 63 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1582 eggs: Litter effects on scenic quality of the Caribbean coast of Colombia. Marine 1583 Pollution Bulletin, 127, 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.11.023 1584 *Rayon-Viña, F., Miralles, L., Gómez-Agenjo, M., Dopico, E., & Garcia-Vazquez, E. (2018). 1585 Marine litter in south Bay of Biscay: Local differences in beach littering are associated 1586 with citizen perception and awareness. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 131, 727–735. 1587 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.04.066 1588 *Reese, G., & Junge, E. A. (2017). Keep on Rockin’ in a (plastic-)free world: Collective 1589 efficacy and pro-environmental intentions as a function of task difficulty. Sustainability 1590 (Switzerland), 9(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020200 1591 *Richardson, J., Grose, J., Nelmes, P., Parra, G., & Linares, M. (2016). Tweet if you want to 1592 be sustainable: a thematic analysis of a Twitter chat to discuss sustainability in nurse 1593 education. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(5), 1086–1096. 1594 https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12900 1595 Rist, S., Almroth, B. C., Hartmann, N. B., & Karlsson, T. M. (2018). A critical perspective on 1596 early communications concerning human health aspects of microplastics. Science of the 1597 Total Environment, 626, 720–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.092 1598 *Ritch, E., Brennan, C., & MacLeod, C. (2009). Plastic bag politics : modifying consumer 1599 behaviour for sustainable development. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33, 1600 168–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00749.x 1601 *Rivers, N., Shenstone-Harris, S., & Young, N. (2017). Using nudges to reduce waste? The 1602 case of Toronto’s plastic bag levy. Journal of Environmental Management, 188, 153– 1603 162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.12.009 1604 Rochman, C. M., Browne, M. A., Underwood, A. J., van Franeker, J. A., Thompson, R. C., & 1605 Amaral-Zettler, L. A. (2016). The ecological impacts of marine debris: unraveling the 1606 demonstrated evidence from what is perceived. Ecology, 97(2), 302–312. 1607 Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Iii, F. S. C., Lambin, E., … Liverman, D. 64 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1608 (2009). Planetary Boundaries : Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. 1609 Ecology and Society, 14(2). 1610 *Rokka, J., & Uusitalo, L. (2008). Preference for green packaging in consumer product 1611 choices – Do consumers care? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(5), 516– 1612 525. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2008.00710.x 1613 *Romero, C. B. A., Laroche, M., Aurup, G. M., & Ferraz, S. B. (2018). Ethnicity and 1614 acculturation of environmental attitudes and behaviors: A cross-cultural study with 1615 Brazilians in Canada. Journal of Business Research, 82, 300–309. 1616 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.09.009 1617 *Rothstein, H. (2003). Neglected risk regulation: The institutional attenuation phenomenon. 1618 Health, Risk & Society, 5(1), 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369857031000066023 1619 Royer, S.-J., Ferrón, S., Wilson, S. T., & Karl, D. M. (2018). Production of methane and 1620 ethylene from plastic in the environment. PLoS ONE, 13(8), 1–13. 1621 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200574 1622 *Rubens, L., Gosling, P., Bonaiuto, M., Brisbois, X., & Moch, A. (2015). Being a Hypocrite 1623 or Committed While I Am Shopping? A Comparison of the Impact of Two Interventions 1624 on Environmentally Friendly Behavior. Environment and Behavior, 47(1), 3–16. 1625 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916513482838 1626 Rujnić-Sokele, M., & Pilipović, A. (2017). Challenges and opportunities of biodegradable 1627 plastics: A mini review. Waste Management & Research, 35(2), 132–140. 1628 https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X16683272 1629 *Ryan, P. G., & Jewitt, D. (1996). The “free” shopping bag debate: Costs and attitudes. South 1630 African Journal of Science, 92, 163–164. 1631 *Saidan, M. N., Ansour, L. M., & Saidan, H. (2017). Management of Plastic Bags Waste: An 1632 Assessment of Scenarios in Jordan. Journal of Chemical Technology and Metallurgy, 1633 52(1), 148–154. 65 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1634 *Saidan, M. N., Drais, A. A., & Al-Manaseer, E. (2017). Solid waste composition analysis 1635 and recycling evaluation: Zaatari Syrian Refugees Camp, Jordan. Waste Management, 1636 61, 58–66. 1637 *Santos, I. R., Friedrich, A. C., Wallner-Kersanach, M., & Fillmann, G. (2005). Influence of 1638 socio-economic characteristics of beach users on litter generation. Ocean and Coastal 1639 Management, 48, 742–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.08.006 1640 *Santos, J. M., & Van Der Linden, S. (2016). Changing Norms by Changing Behavior: The 1641 Princeton Drink Local Program. Environmental Practice, 18(2), 116–122. 1642 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466046616000144 1643 *Santos, S. C., Sousa, C. V. e, Sampaio, D. de O., & Fagundes, A. F. A. (2013). The impact 1644 of using compostable carrier bags on consumer behaviour in the City of Belo Horizonte, 1645 Brazil. Ambiente and Sociedade, 16(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1414- 1646 753X2013000400002 1647 Schäfer, M., Jaeger-Erben, M., & Bamberg, S. (2012). Life Events as Windows of 1648 Opportunity for Changing Towards Sustainable Consumption Patterns? Journal of 1649 Consumer Policy, 35(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-011-9181-6 1650 *Scherer, C., Emberger-Klein, A., & Menrad, K. (2017). Biogenic product alternatives for 1651 children: Consumer preferences for a set of sand toys made of bio-based plastic. 1652 Sustainable Production and Consumption, 10, 1–14. 1653 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2016.11.001 1654 *Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2009). The drinking experience: Cup or content? Food Quality and 1655 Preference, 20(3), 268–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.11.003 1656 Schultz, P. W., Oskamp, S., & Mainieri, T. (1995). Who recycles and when? A review of 1657 personal and situational factors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(2), 105–121. 1658 https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90019-5 1659 *Schuyler, Q., Hardesty, B. D., Lawson, T., Opie, K., & Wilcox, C. (2018). Economic 66 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1660 incentives reduce plastic inputs to the ocean. Marine Policy, 96, 250–255. 1661 Seltenrich, N. (2015). New Link in the Food Chain? Marine Plastic Pollution and Seafood 1662 Safety. Environmental Health Perspective, 123(2), A34–A41. 1663 https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.123-A34 1664 *Shao, Y., Cai, H., & Chen, G. (2014). Rethinking plastic bag pollution problems in China. 1665 Environmental Science: An Indian Journal, 9(6), 215–222. 1666 *Sharp, A., Høj, S., & Wheeler, M. (2010). Proscription and its impact on anti-consumption 1667 behaviour and attitudes: The case of plastic bags. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(6), 1668 470–484. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.335 1669 *Shimazu, H. (2018). Littering Behavior Analysis Based on Survey and Questionnaire About 1670 Littering in the Nagase River. International Journal of GEOMATE, 14(41), 95–101. 1671 https://doi.org/10.21660/2018.41.59010 1672 Sigler, M. (2014). The effects of plastic pollution on aquatic wildlife: Current situations and 1673 future solutions. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 225, 2184. 1674 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-014-2184-6 1675 *Silayoi, P., & Speece, M. (2004). Packaging and purchase decisions: An exploratory study 1676 on the impact of involvement level and time pressure. British Food Journal, 106(8), 1677 607–628. 1678 *Silvenius, F., Grönman, K., Katajajuuri, J.-M., Soukka, R., Koivupuro, H.-K., & Virtanen, 1679 Y. (2014). The Role of Household Food Waste in Comparing Environmental Impacts of 1680 Packaging Alternatives. Packaging Technology and Science, 27(4), 277–292. 1681 https://doi.org/10.1002/pts 1682 Smith, M., Love, D. C., Rochman, C. M., & Neff, R. A. (2018). Microplastics in Seafood and 1683 the Implications for Human Health. Current Environmental Health Report, 5(3), 375– 1684 386. 1685 *So, W. M. W., Cheng, N. Y. I., Chow, C. F., & Zhan, Y. (2016). Learning about the types of 67 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1686 plastic wastes: effectiveness of inquiry learning strategies. Education 3-13, 44(3), 311– 1687 324. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2014.976239 1688 *Spence, C., & Wan, X. (2015). Beverage perception and consumption: The influence of the 1689 container on the perception of the contents. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 131–140. 1690 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.07.007 1691 Spierling, S., Knüpffer, E., Behnsen, H., Mudersbach, M., Krieg, H., Springer, S., … Endres, 1692 H.-J. (2018). Bio-based plastics - A review of environmental, social and economic 1693 impact assessments. Journal of Cleaner Production, 185, 476–491. 1694 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.014 1695 *Spranz, R., Schlüter, A., & Vollan, B. (2018). Morals, money or the master: The adoption of 1696 eco-friendly reusable bags. Marine Policy, 96, 270–277. 1697 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.01.029 1698 *Steenis, N. D., van Herpen, E., van der Lans, I. A., Ligthart, T. N., & van Trijp, H. C. M. 1699 (2017). Consumer response to packaging design: The role of packaging materials and 1700 graphics in sustainability perceptions and product evaluations. Journal of Cleaner 1701 Production, 162, 286–298. 1702 Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review 1703 and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309–317. 1704 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004 1705 Steinmetz, Z., Wollmann, C., Schaefer, M., Buchmann, C., David, J., Tröger, J., … 1706 Schaumann, G. E. (2016). Plastic mulching in agriculture. Trading short-term agronomic 1707 benefits for long-term soil degradation? Science of The Total Environment, 550, 690– 1708 705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.01.153 1709 *Struk, M. (2017). Distance and incentives matter: The separation of recyclable municipal 1710 waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 122, 155–162. 1711 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.01.023 68 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1712 *Sun, Y., Wang, S., Li, J., Zhao, D., & Fan, J. (2017). Understanding consumers’ intention to 1713 use plastic bags: Using an extended theory of planned behaviour model. Natural 1714 Hazards, 89(3), 1327–1342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-3022-0 1715 *Syberg, K., Hansen, S. F., Christensen, T. B., & Khan, F. R. (2018). Risk Perception of 1716 Plastic Pollution: Importance of Stakeholder Involvement and Citizen Science. In M. 1717 Wagner & S. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Chemistry (Vol. 58, pp. 203– 1718 221). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61615-5 1719 *Synthia, I. J., & Kabir, S. (2015). An Investigation of Consumer Attitudes Towards New 1720 Varieties of Shopping Bags: Exploring Eco-Awareness and the Possibility of Behavior 1721 Change. The Journal of Developing Areas, 49(5), 183–196. 1722 https://doi.org/10.1353/jda.2015.0062 1723 *Thomas, G. O., Poortinga, W., & Sautkina, E. (2016). The Welsh Single-Use Carrier Bag 1724 Charge and behavioural spillover. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47(2880), 126– 1725 135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.05.008 1726 Thompson, R. C., Moore, C. J., vom Saal, F. S., & Swan, S. H. (2009). Plastics, the 1727 environment and human health: Current consensus and future trends. Philosophical 1728 Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1526), 2153–2166. 1729 https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0053 1730 Thompson, R. C., Swan, S. H., Moore, C. J., & Vom Saal, F. S. (2009). Our plastic age. 1731 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1526), 1732 1973–1976. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0054 1733 *Tih, S., & Zainol, Z. (2012). Minimizing Waste and Encouraging Green Practices. Jurnal 1734 Ekonomi Malaysia, 46(1), 157–164. 1735 *Tonglet, M., Phillips, P. S., & Bates, M. P. (2004). Determining the drivers for householder 1736 pro-environmental behaviour : waste minimisation compared to recycling. Resources, 1737 Conservation and Recycling, 42, 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2004.02.001 69 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1738 *Tonglet, M., Phillips, P. S., & Read, A. D. (2004). Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour 1739 to investigate the determinants of recycling behaviour: A case study from Brixworth, 1740 UK. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 41(3), 191–214. 1741 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2003.11.001 1742 Truelove, H. B., Carrico, A. R., Weber, E. U., Raimi, K. T., & Vandenbergh, M. P. (2014). 1743 Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior : An integrative review 1744 and theoretical framework. Global Environmental Change, 29, 127–138. 1745 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.09.004 1746 *Truelove, H. B., Yeung, K. L., Carrico, A. R., Gillis, A. J., & Raimi, K. T. (2016). From 1747 plastic bottle recycling to policy support: An experimental test of pro-environmental 1748 spillover. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46, 55–66. 1749 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.03.004 1750 *Tu, Y., Yang, Z., & Ma, C. (2015). Touching tastes: The haptic perception transfer of liquid 1751 food packaging materials. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 124–130. 1752 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.07.001 1753 *Tudor, D. T., & Williams, A. T. (2003). Public Perception and Opinion of Visible Beach 1754 Aesthetic Pollution: The Utilisation of Photography. Journal of Coastal Research, 19(4), 1755 1104–1115. 1756 U.S. Government Publishing Office. (2015). Microbead-Free Waters Act, Public Law 114- 1757 114 §. 1758 *Uehara, T., & Ynacay-Nye, A. (2018). How water bottle refill stations contribute to campus 1759 sustainability: A case study in Japan. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(9), 1–19. 1760 https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093074 1761 *van Dam, Y. K. (1996). Environmental assessment of packaging: The consumer point of 1762 view. Environmental Management, 20(5), 607–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01204134 1763 *van Dam, Y. K., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (1994). Consumer perceptions of, and preferences 70 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1764 for, beverage containers. Food Quality and Preference, 5(4), 253–261. 1765 https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-3293(94)90050-7 1766 *Van der Merwe, D., Viljoen, S., De Beer, H., Bosman, M., & Kempen, E. (2013). 1767 Consumers’ experiences of cold chain food packaging : A qualitative study among 1768 women in South Africa. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(6), 650–657. 1769 https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12052 1770 *van Herpen, E., Immink, V., & van den Puttelaar, J. (2016). Organics unpacked: The 1771 influence of packaging on the choice for organic fruits and vegetables. Food Quality and 1772 Preference, 53, 90–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.05.011 1773 *Varotto, A., & Spagnolli, A. (2017). Psychological strategies to promote household 1774 recycling. A systematic review with meta-analysis of validated field interventions. 1775 Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 168–188. 1776 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.03.011 1777 *Veiga, J. M., Vlachogianni, T., Pahl, S., Thompson, R. C., Kopke, K., Doyle, T. K., … 1778 Alampei, I. (2016). Enhancing public awareness and promoting co-responsibility for 1779 marine litter in Europe: The challenge of MARLISCO. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 1780 102(2), 309–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.01.031 1781 *Venter, K., van der Merwe, D., de Beer, H., Kempen, E., & Bosman, M. (2011). Consumers’ 1782 perceptions of food packaging: an exploratory investigation in Potchefstroom, South 1783 Africa. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35(3), 273–281. 1784 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00936.x 1785 *Viscusi, W. K., Huber, J., & Bell, J. (2012). Alternative policies to increase recycling of 1786 plastic water bottles in the united states. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 1787 6(2), 190–211. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/res006 1788 *Vogt, J., & Nunes, K. R. A. (2014). Recycling behaviour in healthcare: Waste handling at 1789 work. Ergonomics. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.887786 71 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1790 *Vones, K., Allan, D., Lambert, I., & Vettese, S. (2018). 3D-printing ‘Ocean plastic’– 1791 Fostering childrens’ engagement with sustainability. Materials Today Communications, 1792 16, 56–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2018.04.001 1793 *Wagner, T. P. (2017). Reducing single-use plastic shopping bags in the USA. Waste 1794 Management, 70, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.09.003 1795 *White, K. M., Smith, J. R., Terry, D. J., Greenslade, J. H., & McKimmie, B. M. (2009). 1796 Social influence in the theory of planned behaviour : The role of descriptive, injunctive, 1797 and ingroup norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(1), 135–158. 1798 *Widaningrum, D. L. (2014). The Importance of Take-Out Food Packaging Attributes: 1799 Conjoint Analysis and Quality Function Deployment Approach. In EPJ Web of 1800 Conferences (Vol. 68, p. 36). EDP Sciences. 1801 Wikström, F., Williams, H., Verghese, K., & Clune, S. (2014). The influence of packaging 1802 attributes on consumer behaviour in food-packaging life cycle assessment studies - a 1803 neglected topic. Journal of Cleaner Production, 73, 100–108. 1804 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.042 1805 *Willis, K., Maureaud, C., Wilcox, C., & Hardesty, B. D. (2018). How successful are waste 1806 abatement campaigns and government policies at reducing plastic waste into the marine 1807 environment? Marine Policy, 96, 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.037 1808 *Williams, A. T., Rangel-Buitrago, N. G., Anfuso, G., Cervantes, O., & Botero, C. M. (2016). 1809 Litter impacts on scenery and tourism on the Colombian north Caribbean coast. Tourism 1810 Management, 55, 209–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.02.008 1811 *Williams, H., Wikström, F., Otterbring, T., Löfgren, M., & Gustafsson, A. (2012). Reasons 1812 for Household Food Waste With Special Attention to Packaging. Journal of Cleaner 1813 Production, 24, 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.11.044 1814 Wohlin, C. (2014). Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a 1815 replication in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference 72 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1816 on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering - EASE ’14. London, United 1817 Kingdom: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2601248.2601268 1818 *Wyles, K. J., Pahl, S., Thomas, K., & Thompson, R. C. (2016). Factors That Can Undermine 1819 the Psychological Benefits of Coastal Environments: Exploring the Effect of Tidal State, 1820 Presence, and Type of Litter. Environment and Behavior, 48(9), 1095–1126. 1821 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916515592177 1822 *Yamaguchi, K., & Takeuchi, K. (2016). Consumer preferences for reduced packaging under 1823 economic instruments and recycling policy. Waste Management, 48, 540–547. 1824 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.11.015 1825 Yeo, B. G., Takada, H., Taylor, H., Ito, M., Hosoda, J., Allinson, M., … McGrath, J. (2015). 1826 POPs monitoring in Australia and New Zealand using plastic resin pellets, and 1827 International Pellet Watch as a tool for education and raising public awareness on plastic 1828 debris and POPs. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 101(1), 137–145. 1829 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.11.006 1830 *Yeow, P., Dean, A., & Tucker, D. (2014). Bags for Life: The Embedding of Ethical 1831 Consumerism. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(1), 87–99. 1832 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1900-2 1833 *Yeung, S.-K., So, W.-M. W., Cheng, N.-Y. I., Cheung, T.-Y., & Chow, C.-F. (2017). 1834 Comparing pedagogies for plastic waste management at university level. International 1835 Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 18(7), 1039–1059. 1836 https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371311312905 1837 *Young, S. (2008). Packaging and the Environment: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Design 1838 Management Review, 19(4), 42–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1948-7169.2008.tb00140.x 1839 *Yue, C., Hall, C. R., Behe, B. K., Campbell, B. L., Dennis, J. H., & Lopez, R. G. (2010). Are 1840 consumers willing to pay more for biodegradable containers than for plastic ones? 1841 Evidence from hypothetical conjoint analysis and nonhypothetical experimental 73 Heidbreder et al., accepted manuscript, to appear in ‘Science of the Total Environment’, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.437 © 2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 1842 auctions. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 42(4), 757. 1843 *Zen, I. S., Ahamad, R., & Omar, W. (2013). No plastic bag campaign day in Malaysia and 1844 the policy implication. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 15(5), 1259–1269. 1845 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-013-9437-1 1846 1847 *article met review criteria 74