Self-reported behaviours and measures related to plastic waste reduction: European citizens’ perspective

Abstract

Consumer attitudes and behaviour regarding consumption of plastic goods and proper waste management are of importance for reducing plastic and microplastic (MP) pollution. Therefore, based on Eurobarometer survey, this study aims to analyse European attitudes and behaviour related to plastic pollution reduction. Europeans acknowledge marine and river pollution as important environmental problems and are worried about plastics and MP environmental impacts. However, this does not translate into related plastic reduction behaviours. Regression analysis show that analysed behaviours are likely to be undertaken by women, younger, with higher incomes respondents and by those who express higher worry about plastic and MP environmental impacts. Industry and big companies are seen as having the main role in reducing plastic waste and littering, chargers for single use plastics being less important. Respondents also stress the role of education. Hence, focus on concrete steps to reduce plastic waste, highlighting the interaction of individual actions and environment should be given.

Keywords

Waste plastics microplastics pro-environmental behaviour perception Europe

Introduction

Plastics and microplastic (MP) pollution attracts research and policy attention due to its negative human health and environmental impacts. Estimations show that in 2016 some 19–23 million tonnes (11%) of plastic waste generated globally got into aquatic ecosystems (Borrelle et al., 2020). It is estimated that single use plastics account for some 60–95% of global marine plastic pollution (Schnurr et al., 2018). Another issue is MP; though many of the MPs (such as microbeads; Napper et al., 2015) are intentionally added into the products, the majority of the MP particles found in the environment is a result of weathering of bigger plastic units during or after their use. Hence, MPs of primary and secondary origin are found all over the world (Anik et al., 2021).

Though threats of plastics and MPs invading into the oceans and seas are identified as one of the main environmental problems (Dilkes-Hoffman et al., 2019), plastics and MPs can have negative effects for human and animal health and overall functioning of different ecosystems (Prata et al., 2021). Negative effects occur not only because of the plastic itself but also due to different additives used in their production (Chen et al., 2021). Ingested MPs by aquatic animals affect their growth and development; in turn, consumption of aquatic products results in human exposure to MPs. MPs might cause oxidative stress, cytotoxicity or can act as vectors for microorganisms and toxic chemicals (Rahman et al., 2021). MPs can transfer via food chain into human body or be inhaled; however, findings regarding impacts on human health are not uniform (Anik et al., 2021). Nevertheless, potential risk to human health on system (neurological, reproductive, cardiovascular etc.) and cell level is reported (Stapleton, 2021).

It is estimated that despite efforts to reduce plastic use and pollution, plastic waste generated will grow and may reach up to 53 million tons annually by 2030 (Borrelle et al., 2020). Considering that only a small part of single use plastics is recycled and usually they are disposed in landfills (for the numbers for different regions and countries see for e.g. Chen et al. 2021), people’s attitudes and behaviour regarding consumption of plastic goods and afterward proper waste management are of importance for reducing plastic and MP pollution (Deng et al., 2020; Filho et al., 2021). Consumers might play an important role both in addressing the problem directly by reducing plastic use and pollution and indirectly by applying pressure on governments and producers. The European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy (EC, 2018) highlights that consumers play an important role in the transition to the circular economy regarding plastics and by 2030 ‘citizens are aware of the need to avoid waste and make choices accordingly’. The importance of knowledge for pro-environmental behaviour regarding MPs is also highlighted by Garcia-Vazquez and Garcia-Ael (2021). A Portuguese case (Soares et al., 2021) also shows awareness about the impacts of plastic pollution to be associated with pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental knowledge, awareness of the consequences and attitudes towards marine environment are estimated to be predictors for Italian junior high school students’ pro-environmental behaviour towards marine protection (Gusmerotti et al., 2016). A study by Deng et al. (2020) indicates knowledge of plastics and MPs, and concern about MPs to have significant impact for willingness to reduce MP pollution in a Chinese case. Hartley et al. (2018) also find that concern and perceived risk about marine pollution predict corresponding behavioural intentions. In general, environmental concern is considered to contribute to more environmentally friendly behaviours (Liobikienė and Juknys, 2016).

Some studies find that financial incentives (Soares et al., 2021), social norms (social pressure, guilt, identity) (Gusmerotti et al., 2016; Heidbreder et al., 2019) and positive emotions (Heidbreder and Schmit, 2020) also are important predictors for plastic-related behaviours.

In addition, socio-demographic factors influence plastic-related behaviour, too (Heidbreder et al., 2019). Hartley et al. (2018) analyse age, gender and education as socio-demographic variables determining behavioural intentions to reduce marine litter. Soares et al. (2021) also assess the influence of age, gender, level of education and having a child in the family on pro-environmental behaviours for the reduction of plastic littering and pollution and find that older respondents and women express more pro-environmental behaviours. Review by Heidbreder et al (2019) show women and higher educated people being more pro-environmentally active regarding plastic pollution, however age showing different directions of influence. Filho et al. (2021) also demonstrate a significant role of gender, educational background and age in the level of engagement to reduce plastic usage and the actions undertaken.

Studies on pro-environmental behaviour regarding plastic pollution reduction address behaviours like avoiding single use plastic products, minimizing use of plastic products, or using alternatives to them (Filho et al., 2021). In addition to before mentioned ones, activities like alerting family and friends to the environmental issues, recycling, consuming less in general (Soares et al., 2021) and reducing packaging through buying at packaging free, zero waste stores (Dilkes-Hoffman et al., 2019) are analysed.

This study, referring to the Eurobarometer survey on environmental attitudes (EC, 2020a, 2020b), aims to analyse the self-reported actions related to reduction of plastic and MP pollution by Europeans and factors influencing actions undertaken. So far most of the studies focus on some particular country (see Deng et al., 2020; Gusmerotti et al., 2016; Soares et al., 2021). In addition, studies covering the European region (Filho et al., 2021; Hartley et al., 2018) are based on non-representative surveys and do not include all European Union (EU) member states. The need to expand geographically the scope of the studies on MP concerns and behaviour is also highlighted by Garcia-Vazquez and Garcia-Ael (2021). Therefore, this study aims to fill beforementioned gap by analysing all EU members and considering psychological and socio-demographic factors as predictors for pro-environmental behaviour related to plastic pollution reduction using representative survey data.

Data and methods

Analysis of behaviour regarding plastic and MP pollution and factors behind is based on the Eurobarometer survey on environmental attitudes (EC, 2020a), conducted between 6 and 19 December 2019 in the 28 EU Member States. Survey data for scientific purposes is available at Eurobarometer Data Service. The study covers all EU member states, including the United Kingdom, as it was still a member of the EU at that time. During the surveys, respondents were questioned face-to-face in their national language at home, applying the same methodology for all countries covered. The detailed interview methods and confidence intervals are presented in the report by the European Commission (EC, 2020b). As survey itself is not intended for plastic pollution directly, results enable overcoming strategic bias. In total 27,498 EU citizens from different social and demographic categories are interviewed and 27,083 are included into the analysis (Table 1) excluding younger than 18 respondents from the research. Respondents’ age under analysis ranged from 18 to 98 years old (average 51.8 years). During analysis, cases with no answers in particular questions are removed from the analysis.

Table 1.

Socio-demographic respondents’ profile.

	Number (N)	Percentage (%)
Gender
Male	12,400	45.8
Female	14,683	54.2
Age
18–24	1951	8.6
25–34	3380	12.3
35–44	4087	14.9
45–54	4441	16.2
55-64	5151	18.7
>64	8073	29.4
Household size
1	6134	22.6
2	10,348	38.2
3	4553	16.8
4 and more	6048	22.3
Type of community
Rural area or village	8910	32.9
Small or middle-sized town	10,384	38.3
Large town	7783	28.7
Not specified	6	0.0
Incomes (difficulty to pay bills)
Most of the time	2091	7.7
From time to time	6590	24.3
Almost never/never	18,073	66.7
Not specified	329	1.2

As self-stated pro-environmental behaviour related to plastic use and handling 3 activities are selected: Avoided buying over-packaged products, Avoided single-use plastic goods other than plastic bags (e.g. plastic cutlery, cups, plates) or bought reusable plastic products, Separated most of the waste for recycling (Table 2). Items of behaviour are measured using dichotomous approach (0 – no action, 1 – action taken).

Table 2.

Self-stated behaviour related to the plastic and MP pollution reduction.

Activity	Mean	SD
Avoided buying over-packaged products	0.29	0.452
Avoided single-use plastic goods other than plastic bags (e.g. plastic cutlery, cups, plates) or bought reusable plastic products	0.44	0.496
Separated most of the waste for recycling	0.66	0.475

MP: microplastic; SD: standard deviation.

Concern regarding plastics and MPs pollution environmental impact, perception on environment-consumption interaction, perceived importance of environmental protection personally (Table 3) and socio-demographic variables (Table 1) are analysed as possible predictors for pro-environmental behaviour to reduce plastic pollution. Items of the constructs are measured using a four-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) very important (or totally agree) to (4) not at all important (or totally disagree). The validity and reliability of scales is tested using Cronbach’s α. This coefficient for all scales range in-between 0.526 and 0.771, indicating moderate reliability of the scales. Binary logistic regression analysis is applied to reveal the influence of socio-demographic, concern and perception variables for self-reported behaviour related to the reduction of plastics pollution. Similar approach is applied by Liobikienė and Minelgaitė (2021). Self-reported behaviour denotes separate actions (Table 2) and all three actions being undertaken by the respondent (no action and less than 3 = 0, all three actions = 1). To evaluate the fitness of the regression model omnibus test is applied (p < 0.5).

Table 3.

Constructs, reliability of scales and mean scores.

Construct/factor	Variable	Cronbach’s α	Mean	SD
Environment/consumption interaction	Environmental issues have a direct effect on your daily life and health	0.526	1.95	0.938
Environment/consumption interaction	Your consumption habits adversely affect the environment in Europe and the rest of the world		2.32	1.071
Worried about plastic and MP pollution	You are worried about the environmental impact of everyday products made of plastic	0.731	1.67	0.789
Worried about plastic and MP pollution	You are worried about the environmental impact of MPs		1.71	0.906
Environmental protection	Importance of protecting the environment to you personally		1.55	0.661

MP: microplastic; SD: standard deviation.

Results and discussion

Importance of environmental problems

Results show that in general marine pollution is considered as an important environmental issue by 36.4% and pollution of rivers by 38.8% of Europeans (Figure1). Growing amount of waste is indicated as an important environmental problem most often (48.9%) and the least often – noise pollution (9.7%). Waste problem is easy to notice local problem of everyday life, to compare to distant problems or problems that attract less attention. As indicated by Liobikienė and Juknys (2016) local environmental problems remain more important as compared to regional or global problems. Studies on different countries indicate differences regarding importance of environmental problems for citizens, showcasing local peculiarities of environmental problems. For example, study on Australia (Dilkes-Hoffman et al., 2019) also indicates that waste related problems, particularly plastic in the oceans, are rated the highest, and water pollution is the fourth out of nine environmental problems. Lithuanian case (Liobikienė and Dagiliūtė, 2021) reports citizens’ priority to water pollution problem, followed by air pollution.

Figure 1.

Importance of environmental problems (survey results).

In addition to importance of waste problem revealed, majority of the respondents totally agree or tend to agree that they are worried about plastics’ and MPs’ environmental impacts (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Distribution of the respondents’ answers regarding worry about plastic and microplastic pollution environmental impacts (survey results).

Data also shows that European citizens understand that the environment affects them, and their daily life affects the environment (Table 2). Nevertheless, citizens admit personal consumption to affect environment negatively less often (65.9%, mean = 2.32) to compare to the perceived negative effects of environment on their daily lives (79.4%, mean = 1.95). Interestingly, despite citizens less often seeing their consumption impacts on environment, still a significant proportion of the respondents indicate that environmental protection is very important (53.2%) or important for them (41.4%) personally.

Undertaken actions related to plastic pollution reduction

Regarding the actions taken to reduce plastic and MP waste and pollution, EU respondents most often are separating waste (66.5%) (Table 4). Some 45.2% of the respondents’ state avoiding single use plastic products (except plastic bags) and only 29.8% say they are avoiding overpacked products. Studies employing earlier Eurobarometer surveys also indicate waste separation as the most dominant pro-environmental behaviour, as it does not require any additional cost and even can save expenditures related to waste management (Liobikienė and Minelgaitė, 2021). Lower level of avoiding single use plastics or overpacked products could be determined by perceived lack of plastic-free alternatives (Heidbreder et al., 2020). Moreover, already existing alternatives to plastic packaging like zero packaging grocery stores might be seen as inconvenient (more time-consuming shopping, limited product range etc.) (Beitzen-Heineke et al., 2017) and contribute to low avoidance of overpacked products.

Table 4.

Frequency of taking actions in relation to plastic pollution by the respondents in EU member states in 2019 (based on Eurobarometer data).

	Avoided overpacked products (%)	Avoided single use plastics (%)	Separated waste for recycling (%)	All three actions (%)
Austria	43.4	45.9	47.6	25.6
Belgium	35.8	41.8	72.2	21.5
Bulgaria	25.7	33.1	24.9	12.0
Cyprus	24.5	51.3	70.8	15.3
Croatia	22.8	34.5	58.3	8.3
Czechia	19.4	32.1	67.0	11.5
Denmark	31.6	60.0	79.9	21.6
Estonia	36.4	47.3	65.0	18.7
Finland	33.5	53.6	80.6	22.3
France	35.2	43.0	78.4	23.0
Germany	48.7	60.0	61.5	29.4
Greece	19.5	48.6	66.1	11.0
Hungary	23.8	46.6	51.8	10.6
Ireland	31.1	35.5	62.4	15.8
Italy	21.6	37.3	58.8	9.3
Latvia	26.0	38.9	51.8	11.4
Lithuania	26.8	43.0	78.9	13.5
Luxemburg	48.0	61.9	80.4	33.6
Malta	28.8	50.1	78.2	17.2
Netherlands	33.5	60.5	86.4	25.5
Poland	15.9	34.9	53.3	8.2
Portugal	17.5	37.7	79.9	7.6
Romania	20.3	28.1	25.7	4.4
Slovakia	24.6	38.4	65.4	10.6
Slovenia	37.9	52.8	83.5	26.5
Spain	26.5	39.8	74.6	15.3
Sweden	34.6	65.8	88.5	28.1
United Kingdom	39.7	46.1	80.5	27.5
EU27	29.8	45.2	66.5	15.2

Values in bold – top three highest frequencies of activity; values in italics – top three lowest frequency of activity.

EU: European Union.

Other studies on plastic-related behaviour also find relatively low levels of action taken. Filho et al. (2021) find that 42% of respondents refuse single use plastics, 34% minimize plastic use and only 24% use alternative products. Soares et al. (2021) also highlight that the most frequent pro-environmental behaviour is depositing litter in specific containers and recycling; plastic use reduction/avoidance and adopting alternatives being moderate. Dilkes-Hoffman et al. (2019) report 19.1% Australian citizens most of the time or always use own take-away plastics (coffee cup or container), 16% reduce non-disposable plastics and only 11% reduce plastic packaging buying at packaging free, zero waste stores. Nevertheless, to compare to the previous data on EU level (Liobikienė, Minelgaitė, 2021), over 2 years, more people started to avoid single use plastic goods (34% in 2017) and overpacked products (24% in 2017).

Data on different actions taken in separate EU countries shows that the highest frequency of avoidance of overpacked products is in Germany (48.7%), the lowest in Poland (15.9%) (Table 4). Avoiding single use plastics (except plastic bags) is the highest in Sweden (65.8%) and the lowest in Romania (28.1%). Also, Romanians separate waste rather seldom (25.7%) as compared to the other countries; only Bulgarians show lower rate of waste separation for recycling (24.9%). The leader in the stated waste separation is Sweden (88.5%).

All three actions analysed in this study are taken only by 15.2% of the respondents. The most often all three actions are taken in Luxemburg (33.3%), Germany (29.4%) and Sweden (28.1%), the least frequency is recorded in Romania (4.4%) (Table 4), indicating probable differences in environmental awareness, infrastructure and economic development of the countries. Another study on European countries (Liobikienė and Minelgaitė, 2021) analysing nine pro-environmental behaviours, also finds some similar results: most of pro-environmental actions are taken in Sweden, followed by Luxemburg and Finland.

Considering that overall level of behaviours regarding plastic pollution reduction is rather low and is dominated by waste separation, to foster desirable behaviour interventions are needed. To achieve desirable results, chosen measures should address social pressure, ease of actions, proper timing (Borg et al., 2022) and concrete steps to be implemented in practice (Heidbreder and Schmit, 2020) to reduce plastic use and waste.

Determinants of plastic pollution reduction-related behaviour

Regression analysis shows that from socio-demographic determinants gender, age and incomes significantly influence the undertaking of all three actions related to the reduction of plastic pollution (Table 5). Hence, female, younger and relatively with higher incomes are more likely to perform all three actions related to the plastic waste.

Table 5.

Binary regression results for all three actions taken related to the reduction of plastic and MP pollution (reference value = 0).

Parameter/test	B coefficient	SE	Wald chi-square	Sig.
Worried about plastic and MP pollution	−0.904	0.042	465.94	<0.001
Environment/consumption interaction	0.214	0.028	56.926	<0.001
Environmental protection	−0.658	0.041	262.953	<0.001
Type of community	0.007	0.024	0.083	0.773
Gender [male]	−0.233	0.038	38.233	<0.001
Age	−0.034	0.013	7.256	0.007
Incomes	0.413	0.035	137.919	<0.001
Size of the household	0.008	0.019	0.167	0.683

Omnibus test p < 0.001, bold values are significant at p < 0.05.

MP: microplastic; SE: standard error.

Regarding the gender, other studies indicate some similar results. Hartley et al. (2018) and Soares et al. (2021) report women to be more likely to express behavioural intentions to reduce marine litter and plastic pollution. Another study on European countries (Filho et al., 2021) also indicate that more women refuse straws and cutlery from plastics, choose products with less plastics and bottle their own water compared to men. However, regarding the age influence, other studies show mixed results. The research of Hartley et al. (2018) and Soares et al. (2021) indicate older participants having more pro-environmental behaviours. Liobikienė and Minelgaitė (2021) also find that older people are more likely to avoid single-use plastic goods and separate waste. Despite that, Filho et al. (2021) report younger age groups (18–25 and 36–45) respondents to choose products with less plastic and bringing their own takeaway cup as compared to the other age groups.

Results of our study show that respondents with higher income (having no difficulties paying bills) perform all three actions more often (Table 5). Study on Malaysia (Afroz et al., 2017) also finds high-income respondents to be more willing to participate in ‘no plastic bag’ campaign compared to the others. Nevertheless, in general it is estimated that use of plastic packaging is increasing with the per capita income (Chen et al., 2021).

Next to the discussed socio-demographic variables, perception and concern variables appear to be significant predictors of pro-environmental behaviour regarding plastic waste reduction (Table 5). Both declared personal importance of environmental protection and being worried about plastic and MP pollution positively influence analysed behaviour, indicating that declared values are expressed to some extend in practise. However, other studies show some mixed results. Liobikienė and Minelgaitė (2021) also reveal that environmental concern contributes to pro-environmental behaviours, but the gap between high problem awareness and plastic-related behaviour is highlighted by the other scholars (Dilkes-Hoffman et al., 2019; Easman et al., 2018; Heidbreder et al., 2019).

Perceived environment/consumption interaction influences analysed behaviour negatively (Table 5). This might be the case that plastic pollution is not linked with the life quality. In addition, as for example, Henderson and Green (2020) reports, respondents who do not live near beaches or the ocean can see plastic pollution as a ‘far away’ problem rather than a local issue, hence not seeing their own contribution being required. Therefore, increasing understanding about environment contribution to well-being and especially daily life impacts on environment is important.

In general, results show that concern variables influence pro-environmental behaviour more than socio-demographic ones. Thus, giving priority to these factors would be an option to increase the level of pro-environmental behaviours regarding plastic.

Determinants of separate plastic pollution reduction-related actions

Analysing possible predictors of separate pro-environmental actions, some similar determinants dominate; however, several differences can be observed (Table 6). To compare to the other analysed behaviours’ environment/consumption interconnection has no influence on avoiding overpacked products. In addition, contrary to all three actions taken together and avoiding overpacked products, type of community has an influence on single use plastics avoidance and waste separation. However, the direction of influence is completely different: those from larger towns more often avoid single use plastics, but significantly less often separate waste.

Table 6.

Binary regression results for separate action taken (reference value = 0).

	Avoided overpacked products		Avoided single use plastics		Separated waste for recycling
Parameter/test	B	Sig.	B	Sig.	B	Sig.
Worried about plastic and MP pollution	−0.502	<0.001	−0.633	<0.001	−0.434	<0.001
Environment/consumption interaction	0.042	0.063	0.150	<0.001	0.257	<0.001
Environmental protection	−0.257	<0.001	−0.419	<0.001	-0.494	<0.001
Type of community	−0.01	0.594	0.056	0.001	−0.051	0.005
Gender [male]	−0.213	<0.001	−0.184	<0.001	−0.127	<0.001
Age	−0.058	0.007	−0.013	0.164	0.084	<0.001
Incomes	0.225	<0.001	0.274	<0.001	0.378	<0.001
Size of the household	−0.026	0.084	0.031	0.028	0.046	0.001
Omnibus test		<0.001		<0.001		<0.001

Bold values are significant at p < 0.05.

MP: microplastic.

Results (Table 6) also reveal that age has no influence on single use plastics use, but younger respondents tend to avoid overpacked products and older tend to separate waste more often. Study of Liobikienė and Minelgaitė (2021) also report older respondents to separate waste more often but found no age influence on overpacked products. In addition, respondents from larger households are likely more often to avoid single use plastics and separate waste, while for avoiding overpacked products this determinant is insignificant (Table 6). The latter might be a result of purchasing in bigger packages and in bigger amounts for larger families.

Stated importance of different measures to combat plastic pollution

For reducing plastic waste and littering, Europeans most often indicate the important role of industry and big companies (68%), followed by product design enabling easier recycling (67.8%) (Figure 3), which could also be attributed to the responsibility of industries. Provision of better collection facilities for plastic recycling (57%) is also considered as an important measure to combat plastic waste and littering (Figure 3). However, results reveal that economic measures are least desirable: extra charges for single use plastic products are acknowledged as very important measure only by 35.5% respondents (Figure 3). In line with perceived responsibility of industries for plastic pollution and littering, the least preference of consumer-targeted charges indicates low acknowledgement of personal responsibility and lack of willingness to pay.

Figure 3.

Importance of measures in reducing plastic waste and littering (survey results).

Regarding the role of industries, study of Dilkes-Hoffman et al. (2019) also indicate that companies/industry are perceived to hold the highest level of responsibility for curbing the plastics problem. Nevertheless, study on some European countries (Filho et al., 2021) show citizens to be in favour (75%) of regulatory instruments – bans – to reduce plastic use. According to Chen et al. (2021) so far this is the dominant measure for single use plastics adopted by the European countries.

Though study results indicate low willingness to pay for plastic use reduction, other research shows contrary results. Studies on Australia showcase citizens would be willing to pay for MP pollution reduction (Borriello and Rose, 2022) and in general supporting a single-use plastic tax (Heidbreder et al., 2020). Filho et al. (2021) also indicate Europeans’ support for economic instruments like fees or taxes to be paid by the industry or consumers to reduce plastic usage. The latter study also highlights the importance of accessibility to recycling schemes and more infrastructure for recycling and reuse to combat plastic waste, which is very much in line with the results of our study presented in the Figure 3.

Though most often the role of industries is identified to be an important measure for the reduction of plastic waste, the importance of consumer education is also acknowledged. Some 60.3% of respondents consider education as a very important measure for plastic waste reduction. Other studies find some similar results, indicating lack of information as one of the reasons for non-pro-environmental behaviour regarding plastics (Soares et al., 2021; Jacobsen et al., 2022) and seeing educational and awareness-raising initiatives as appropriate measures for the reduction of plastic use (Filho et al., 2021). As some studies show relatively low bioplastics (Dilkes-Hoffman et al., 2019; Filho et al., 2021) and MPs (Henderson, Green, 2020) knowledge in general, targeted specific information campaigns might be needed. Garcia-Vazquez and Garcia-Ael (2021) suggest increasing public awareness campaigns to address general public, simultaneously introducing the topic on MPs in school curriculum. The topic of bioplastics should also be addressed as very often it is considered to be a better option, though having the same negative effects as conventional plastics (Green et al., 2016). Also, different types of knowledge could be targeted, as consumers display different types of awareness regarding plastics (Rhein and Schmid, 2020). Moreover, educational campaigns would be more effective if they address intentions at the right moment – when people are ready or willing to change – and present concrete action steps to be taken (Heidbreder and Schmit, 2020).

Study limitations and aspects to consider

Eurobarometer survey addresses a variety of environmental aspects and do not focus particularly on the plastic and MP pollution problem. Hence, it does not represent in full the problem awareness and the whole range of possible actions to reduce plastic and MPs pollution. Study is limited to several psychological factors, though there might be a lot of psychological factors behind as other studies show (see for example, Heidbreder et al., 2020). In addition, dichotomous values for pro-environmental behaviour does not reveal the frequency of the actions undertaken by each respondent, which would be of importance to determine the continuity (‘habituation’) of desirable plastic pollution reduction-related behaviour. Interpretation of incomes on reported behaviour is based on variable referring to difficulties paying bills, which is not necessarily always representative of income level. Addressing those limitations are of importance for consideration and application of the study results.

In addition, more recent data on analysed behaviours during COVID-19 could be of interest, as during pandemics people have started to shop less frequently, but in bigger amounts and packages, shopped more on-line and more often bought take-away food, that is, there were fewer possibilities to avoid single-use plastics and overpacked products. Nevertheless, pre-COVID data enables comparison and analysis of COVID influence on pro-environmental behaviour. Even considering potentially worse situation regarding behaviours for reducing plastic use and waste during pandemics, low pre-pandemic overall level of pro-environmental behaviour (15.2%) suggests that measures to combat plastic use and waste have to be strengthened and continued.

Conclusions

The role of consumers is not of the least importance in tackling plastics and MPs pollution problem and pro-environmental behaviour is crucial to combat it. Results indicate that marine and river pollution as important problems are acknowledged by less than a half of EU citizens. The most important problem remains to be waste generated. Though respondents indicated being worried about plastics and MP environmental impacts, this does not translate into behaviours tackling plastic consumption and waste. Only some 15% Europeans undertake all analysed behaviours related to the reduction of the plastic pollution; a majority of the respondents conduct only one of the three analysed actions. According to scientific literature, lack of alternatives to the plastic products and perceived ease of use might be the reasons of relatively low undertaking of behaviours related to plastic pollution reduction.

Psychological determinants have the highest role in predicting pro-environmental behaviours. Being worried about plastic and MPs environmental effects and personal importance of environmental protection positively contribute to plastic pollution-related actions. Socio-demographic determinants are also of importance. Hence, while raising awareness and promoting plastic pollution reduction behaviours, next to the concern factors age, gender and incomes should also be considered. Nevertheless, regarding separate action taken, different determinants and different directions of influence should be addressed.

Europeans assign responsibility for reduction of plastic waste and littering to industry and big companies mainly. The significant role of education is also acknowledged, but support for the charges for single use plastics is rather moderate to compare to the other measures. Having in mind the relatively low level of plastic pollution-related behaviours, awareness raising with some regulatory measures remains an important tool to reduce plastic use and waste at consumption stage.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iDs

Renata Dagiliūtė

Jūratė Žaltauskaitė

References

Afroz

Rahman

Masud

, et al. (2017) The knowledge, awareness, attitude and motivational analysis of plastic waste and household perspective in Malaysia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 24: 2304–2315.

Anik

Hossain

Alam

, et al. (2021) Microplastics pollution: A comprehensive review on the sources, fates, effects, and potential remediation. Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 16: 100530.

Beitzen-Heineke

Balta-Ozkan

Reefke

(2017) The prospects of zero-packaging grocery stores to improve the social and environmental impacts of the food supply chain. Journal of Cleaner Production 140: 1528–1541.

Borg

Lennox

Kaufman

, et al. (2022) Curbing plastic consumption: A review of single-use plastic behaviour change interventions. Journal of Cleaner Production 344: 131077.

Borrelle

Ringma

Law

, et al. (2020) Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts to mitigate plastic pollution. Science 369: 1515–1518.

Borriello

Rose

(2022) The issue of microplastic in the oceans: Preferences and willingness to pay to tackle the issue in Australia. Marine Policy 135: 104875.

Chen

Awasthi

Wei

, et al. (2021) Single-use plastics: Production, usage, disposal, and adverse impacts. Science of the Total Environment 752: 141772.

Deng

Cai

Sun

, et al. (2020) Public attitudes towards microplastics: Perceptions, behaviors and policy implications. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 163: 105096.

Dilkes-Hoffman

Pratt

Laycock

, et al. (2019) Public attitudes towards plastics. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 147: 227–235.

10.

Easman

Abernethy

Godley

(2018) Assessing public awareness of marine environmental threats and conservation efforts. Marine Policy 87: 234–240.

11.

EC (2020a) Eurobarometer 92.4 (2019) GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA7602 Data file Version 1.0.0, https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13652.

12.

EC (2020b) Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment. Report. Special Eurobarometer 501. European Union, p. 164.

13.

EC (2018) A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy. Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. Brussels, 16 January 2018, COM (2018) 28 final. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/circular-economy/pdf/plastics-strategy.pdf

14.

Filho

Salvia

Bonoli

, et al. (2021) An assessment of attitudes towards plastics and bioplastics in Europe. Science of the Total Environment 755: 142732.

15.

Garcia-Vazquez

Garcia-Ael

(2021) The invisible enemy. Public knowledge of microplastics is needed to face the current microplastics crisis. Sustainable Production and Consumption 28: 1076–1089.

16.

Green

Boots

Sigwart

, et al. (2016) Effects of conventional and biodegradable microplastics on a marine ecosystem engineer (Arenicola marina) and sediment nutrient cycling. Environmental Pollution 208: 426–434.

17.

Gusmerotti

Corsini

Testa

, et al. (2016) Predicting behaviours related to marine litter prevention: An empirical case based on junior high school students in Italy. International Journal of Sustainable Society 8: 1–21.

18.

Hartley

Pahl

Veiga

, et al. (2018) Exploring public views on marine litter in Europe: Perceived causes, consequences and pathways to change. Marine Pollution Bulletin 133: 945–955.

19.

Heidbreder

Schmit

(2020) Fasting plastic: An intervention study to break habits of plastic consumption (Ayuno de plástico: una intervención para cambiar los hábitos de consumo de plásticos). PsyEcology 11: 170–192.

20.

Heidbreder

Steinhorst

Schmit

(2020) Plastic-free July: An experimental study of limiting and promoting factors in encouraging a reduction of single-use plastic consumption. Sustainability 12: 4698.

21.

Heidbreder

Bablok

Drews

, et al. (2019) Tackling the plastic problem: A review on perceptions, behaviors, and interventions. Science of The Total Environment 668: 1077–1093.

22.

Henderson

Green

(2020) Making sense of microplastics? Public understandings of plastic pollution. Marine Pollution Bulletin 152: 110908.

23.

Jacobsen

Pedersen

Thøgersen

(2022) Drivers of and barriers to consumers’ plastic packaging waste avoidance and recycling – A systematic literature review. Waste Management 141: 63–78.

24.

Liobikienė

Juknys

(2016) The role of values, environmental risk perception, awareness of consequences, and willingness to assume responsibility for environmentally-friendly behaviour: The Lithuanian case. Journal of Cleaner Production 12: 3413–3422.

25.

Liobikienė

Dagiliūtė

(2021) Do positive aspects of renewable energy contribute to the willingness to pay more for green energy? Energy 231: 120817.

26.

Liobikienė

Minelgaitė

(2021) Energy and resource-saving behaviours in European Union countries: The Campbell paradigm and goal framing theory approaches. Science of The Total Environment 750: 141745.

27.

Napper

Bakir

Rowland

, et al. (2015) Characterisation, quantity and sorptive properties of microplastics extracted from cosmetics. Marine Pollution Bulletin 99: 178–185.

28.

Prata

da Costa

Lopes

, et al. (2021) A One Health perspective of the impacts of microplastics on animal, human and environmental health. Science of the Total Environment 777: 146094.

29.

Rahman

Sarkar

Yadav

, et al. (2021) Potential human health risks due to environmental exposure to nano- and microplastics and knowledge gaps: A scoping review. Science of The Total Environment 757: 143872.

30.

Rhein

Schmid

(2020) Consumers’ awareness of plastic packaging: More than just environmental concerns. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 162: 105063.

31.

Schnurr

REJ

Alboiu

Chaudhary

, et al. (2018) Reducing marine pollution from single-use plastics (SUPs): A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 137: 157–171.

32.

Soares

Miguel

Venâncio

, et al. (2021) Public views on plastic pollution: Knowledge, perceived impacts, and pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Hazardous Materials 412: 125227.

33.

Stapleton

(2021) Microplastic and nanoplastic transfer, accumulation, and toxicity in humans. Current Opinion in Toxicology 28: 62–69.