Does Engagement in One Pro-Environmental Behaviour Cause a Spillover Effect: The Case of the Plastic Bag Levy
Introduction
The anthropogenic impact on the environment is often adverse, significant and stems from a multitude of actions and behaviours. Increasing global awareness of how humanity adversely impacts the environment has led to the implementation of many initiatives designed to reduce the scope and the magnitude of specific adverse impacts, an example of which is the plastic bag levy (Nielsen et al., 2019). These targeted campaigns have the goal of changing specific products or behaviours to encourage the adoption of those that considered more environmentally friendly, in the plastic bag example this would be to re-use plastic bags or to use bags made of an alternative material (Evans et al., 2013). However, changing one behaviour in isolation is not going to led to a substantial reduction in environmental degradation overall, instead it is necessary that all behaviours are considered with regards to reducing their adverse impact on the environment. Thus arises the question of whether engagement in one pro-environmental behaviour, such as bring your own bags to the supermarket, causes a spillover effect whereby pro-environmental behaviours are engaged in within other aspects of the individuals life (Verfuerth and Gregory-Smith, 2018).
What Drives Engagement in Pro-Environmental Behaviour?
There have been numerous studies published that have attempted to understand what factors drive engagement with pro-environmental behaviours (Lynn, 2014; Moser, 2015). There is a need to understand why individuals engage in pro-environmental behaviours so that environmental strategies can be developed based on these factors and thereby increase the likelihood of adoption and proliferation within society (Abrahamse, 2019). Arguably one of the most notable concepts that has arisen from studies of pro-environmental behaviour is the identification of the attitude-behaviour gap (Bernardes et al., 2018; Wiederhold and Martinez, 2018). The attitude-behaviour gap is the term that describes the difference between the environmental attitude that an individual perceives that they have and the pro-environmental behaviours that they engage in (Bernardes et al., 2018). It has been reported in several studies that many individuals who profess to be conscious of the environmental and desire to reduce the adverse impacts that they have on the environment, frequently do not actually exhibit pro-environmental behaviours within their life (Kennedy et al., 2009). One potential explanation for this is that pro-environmental behaviours are typically not engaged in due to altruism, rather they are commonly motivated by reason that are considered to be more selfish (Kennedy et al., 2009). An example of this is seen in the plastic bag levy. Before the plastic bag levy there was a general awareness that plastic bags could present a substantial environmental hazard due to the time that plastic takes to degrade and the plastic contamination of specific environments, such as microplastics in the oceans (Tziourrou et al., 2021). Although there was a general public awareness of this issue there was limited voluntary action taken to reduce plastic bag use. However, when plastic bag levies are introduced the number of individuals purchasing single use plastic bags dropped significant in many areas (Kish, 2018). Thus, the motivation for the public engagement in reducing the consumption of single use plastic bags was not through an altruistic concern for the environment but rather due to the expense to themselves of having to purchase single use plastic bags.
It has been postulated by some researchers that if an individual engages in one pro-environmental behaviour, then this may lead them to engage in other pro-environmental behaviours, termed the spillover effect (Verfuerth and Gregory-Smith, 2018). However, if pro-environmental behaviours are not typically altruistic and instead are motivated by personal gain and other more selfish factors, then it is unlikely that a spillover effect will occur. The example of single use plastic bags is used to examine whether a spillover effect occurs.
Does a Plastic Bag Levy Result in Spillover Pro-Environmental Behaviours?
The use of a financial motivator has resulted in a significant reduction in the consumption of single use plastic bags in the vast majority of locations where it has been implemented, there are specific cases where a plastic bag levy has failed, such as Botswana, however this type of failure is rare (Madigele and Mogomotsi, 2017; Mogomotsi et al., 2019). However, whilst the introduction of a plastic bag levy has generally resulted in reductions in the consumption of single use plastic bags, it has not completely eliminated the use of this type of bag, for example, He (2012) found that in China a plastic bag levy resulted in a new plastic bag use reduction of 49%. The reasons that He (2012) found for this reduction in single use plastic bags not being greater were that it was highly dependent on consumer attitude. For instance, individuals who felt that they were inconvenienced consumed and average of 0.4 more new plastic bags per week in comparison to the average consumption (He, 2012). It was also found that a higher level of education resulted in an above average decrease in new plastic bag consumption, whereas individuals inhabiting a less developed region used significant more new plastic bags at 2.7 above the average per week (He, 2012). The study by He (2012) highlights the complexity of factors that influence individual engagement in pro-environmental behaviours. Even with the implementation of a financial penalty for not engaging with the pro-environmental behaviours there are still many sections of society who do not effectively alter their behaviour patterns. If this is the case across all areas, then it suggests that there is a low likelihood that there will be a spillover effect from the introduction of a plastic bag levy.
A study conducted by Thomas et al., (2016) examined whether the plastic bag levy resulted in a spillover effect in Wales. It was found that there was a general increase in the frequency of individuals bringing their own bags from home and that there was limited evidence of some spillover effect (Thomas et al., 2016). Thomas et al., (2016) reported that individuals who had a relatively higher rate of own bag usage were those that were most likely to exhibit a spillover effect. The other pro-environmental behaviours that were found to increase after the introduction of a plastic bag levy were identified as conserving water, lowering thermostat temperatures, using recycled paper products and reducing private vehicle use for transport (Thomas et al., 2016). Whilst these links were observed Thomas et al., (2016) concluded that they did not identify the link as a causal predictor of increases in pro-environmental behaviours and that where a spillover effect did occur it was weak.
It has been suggested by some researchers that the use of an external motivation, such as the financial incentivisation of the plastic bag levy, are unlikely to result in a spillover effect due to the removal of intrinsic motivations replaced with external pressures (Truelove et al., 2014). It has additional been suggested that the use of an external motivation that results in the individual feeling pressured or manipulated could actually result in a negative spillover effect (Truelove et al., 2014).
Conclusion
The factors that influence pro-environmental behaviour are complex and vary between individuals. It can therefore be difficult to predict what pro-environmental strategies may effectively engage the public in behaviour changes to reduce their environmental impact. The examination of the plastic bag levy found that it has generally been successful in reducing the consumption of single use plastic bags, however the magnitude of this reduction has varied between demographic groups. There was no evidence found that the use of plastic bag levy results in a significant spillover effect into other pro-environmental behaviours. Some studies have reported a slight increase in pro-environmental behaviours in individuals that have effectively engaged with the plastic bag levy aims, however this link has been identified as primarily a correlation rather than a causation relationship. Finally, it should be noted that care should be taken when using external motivators to drive pro-environmental behaviours as there is the potential for negative spillover effects to occur due to the removal of intrinsic motivation and increases in perceptions of being manipulated or coerced.
References
Abrahamse, W., 2019. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: What works, what doesn’t, and why. Academic Press.
Bernardes, J.P., Ferreira, F., Marques, A.D. and Nogueira, M., 2018. “Do as I say, not as I do”-a systematic literature review on the attitude-behaviour gap towards sustainable consumption of Generation Y. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 459, No. 1, p. 012089). IOP Publishing.
Evans, L., Maio, G.R., Corner, A., Hodgetts, C.J., Ahmed, S. and Hahn, U., 2013. Self-interest and pro-environmental behaviour. Nature Climate Change, 3(2), pp.122-125.
He, H., 2012. Effects of environmental policy on consumption: lessons from the Chinese plastic bag regulation. Environment and Development Economics, 17(4), pp.407-431.
Kennedy, E.H., Beckley, T.M., McFarlane, B.L. and Nadeau, S., 2009. Why we don’t” walk the talk”: Understanding the environmental values/behaviour gap in Canada. Human Ecology Review, pp.151-160.
Kish, R.J., 2018. Using legislation to reduce one‐time plastic bag usage. Economic Affairs, 38(2), pp.224-239.
Lynn, P., 2014. Distinguishing dimensions of pro-environmental behaviour (No. 2014-19). ISER Working Paper Series.
Madigele, P.K. and Mogomotsi, G.E.J., 2017. “Polluter pays or polluter enriching the retailers”: the case of plastic bag levy failure in Botswana. Ethiopian Journal of Environmental Studies and Management, 10(4), pp.472-481.
Mogomotsi, P.K., Mogomotsi, G.E. and Phonchi, N.D., 2019. Plastic bag usage in a taxed environment: Investigation on the deterrent nature of plastic levy in Maun, Botswana. Waste Management & Research, 37(1), pp.20-25.
Moser, A.K., 2015. Thinking green, buying green? Drivers of pro-environmental purchasing behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 32(3), pp.167-175.
Nielsen, T.D., Holmberg, K. and Stripple, J., 2019. Need a bag? A review of public policies on plastic carrier bags–Where, how and to what effect?. Waste management, 87, pp.428-440.
Thomas, G.O., Poortinga, W. and Sautkina, E., 2016. The Welsh single-use carrier bag charge and behavioural spillover. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47, pp.126-135.
Truelove, H.B., Carrico, A.R., Weber, E.U., Raimi, K.T. and Vandenbergh, M.P., 2014. Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and theoretical framework. Global Environmental Change, 29, pp.127-138.
Tziourrou, P., Kordella, S., Ardali, Y., Papatheodorou, G. and Karapanagioti, H.K., 2021. Microplastics formation based on degradation characteristics of beached plastic bags. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 169, p.112470.
Verfuerth, C. and Gregory-Smith, D., 2018. Spillover of pro-environmental behaviour. In Research handbook on employee pro-environmental behaviour. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Wiederhold, M. and Martinez, L.F., 2018. Ethical consumer behaviour in Germany: The attitude‐behaviour gap in the green apparel industry. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 42(4), pp.419-429.