Waste Management 141 (2022) 63–78

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Drivers of and barriers to consumers’ plastic packaging waste avoidance

and recycling – A systematic literature review
Lina Fogt Jacobsen *, Susanne Pedersen, John Thøgersen
Department of Management, Aarhus University, Fuglesangs Allé 4, 8210 Aarhus V, Denmark

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Plastic waste, primarily from packaging, is a growing threat to nature and the environment and a waste of re­
Consumer behaviour sources, calling for a greener, circular economy based on waste avoidance and recycling. This paper contributes
Plastic packaging waste to this goal by providing a systematic review of research, published in English between 2015 and 2020, on
Waste avoidance
drivers and barriers of consumers’ plastic packaging waste avoidance and recycling in private households. Focus
Recycling
Economically developed countries
is specifically on economically developed countries because they are responsible for the biggest share of plastic
Private household packaging waste and have implemented the most advanced and ambiguous legislation and regulation for plastic
packaging waste prevention and recycling. Based on a search in Scopus, 36 peer-reviewed articles were identified
that empirically address what motivates consumers to engage in these activities and what difficulties and hin­
drances they experience for doing so in an effective way. According to this research, the most important drivers
of consumers’ plastic packaging waste avoidance and recycling are environmental concern and task-specific
benefits, and the most important barriers are lack of knowledge and understanding as well as lack of opportu­
nities, inconvenience, and task difficulty. Moreover, there is some evidence that plastic packaging waste
avoidance and recycling behaviours are interlinked, contingent on shared motives and understanding, which
calls for an integrated approach considering potential positive and negative spill-over between plastic packaging
waste behaviours.

1. Introduction one of the focus areas in the European Commission’s action plan for
creating a circular economy (EU, 2015a).
Transition towards a greener, circular economy requires policy Since consumers increasingly buy manufactured, packaged products
regulation, investments and technological innovation, but also behav­ (Boesen et al., 2019; Monnot et al., 2019), packaging of fast-moving
iour change at all levels of society (Hazen et al., 2017; UNIDO, 2020). consumer goods (FMCG) and packaging waste are important in their
Especially, the everyday choices and behaviours of private consumers own right in the transition to a circular economy (Testa et al., 2020).
play an important, but somewhat overlooked, role (Borrello et al., 2020; Due to the size of its contribution to the waste stream and litter, the EU
Stangherlin and Thøgersen, 2020; Stern, 2000). Carbon emissions can waste directive (EU, 2008) demands that member states drastically
often be reduced considerably at relatively low costs by means of reduce packaging waste and increase its recycling. The goal is that 70%
changes in consumer behaviour (Dietz et al., 2009; Moran et al., 2020). of packaging waste is recycled in 2035 (DE, 2020). In 2017, plastic waste
However, consumer behaviour is complex and multifaceted, and a range accounted for 19% of the packaging waste generated by packaging
of factors impact “circular” consumer behaviour, including values, at­ material in the EU (Eurostat, 2020). Consequently, actions on reducing
titudes, knowledge, goals, emotions, and the situational and wider plastic packaging and plastic packaging waste (PPW), as the main con­
context (Mylan et al., 2016; Thøgersen, 2014; Wells et al., 2011). In tributors to plastic waste in general, are a high priority in the European
addition, mobilising consumers for the transition to a circular economy Union’s New Circular Economy Plan (EU, 2020).
is complicated by the fact that substantial changes are needed in many Packaging accounts for 40% of global plastic consumption, which
different behaviours (e.g. Hazen et al., 2017; White et al., 2019). makes it by far the largest user of plastic (PlasticsEurope and EPRO,
Acknowledging the importance of consumer behaviour, consumption is 2019). In addition, most PPW is not recycled - in many European

Abbreviations: PPW, Plastic packaging waste; FMCG, fast-moving consumer good.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Fogt Jacobsen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2022.01.021
Received 20 September 2021; Received in revised form 5 January 2022; Accepted 16 January 2022
Available online 29 January 2022
0956-053X/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
L. Fogt Jacobsen et al. Waste Management 141 (2022) 63–78

countries (e.g., Malta, France, Hungary, Denmark, Austria, Finland, and in our literature review.
Luxemburg), less than one third was recycled in 2017 (Eurostat, 2021),
which is much less than other packaging materials. In 2015, an EU 2.1. Plastic packaging waste prevention and recycling
directive required the reduction of plastic carrier bags (EU, 2015b), and
in 2018, a directive was introduced requiring the avoidance and recy­ In the acquisition stage, the key interest is on how, why, and when
cling of PPW (EU, 2018b). The goal is to increase recycling of PPW to consumers try to avoid plastic packaging. Avoiding plastic packaging
50% in 2025 and to 55% in 2030 (EU, 2018a). Based on the EU Directive can be achieved, for instance, by buying packaging free/reduced prod­
on Packaging and Packaging Waste (EU, 1994, Directive 94/62/EC, ucts (Louis et al., 2021; Scharpenberg et al., 2021; Yamaguchi and
Article 3), we define PPW as plastic waste derived from ‘packaging Takeuchi, 2016) or products with bio-based or other alternative plastic
conceived as to constitute a sales unit to the final user or consumer at the point packaging solutions (Asgher et al., 2020). Despite positive attitudes to­
of purchase’. Because they are responsible for the generation of the wards FMCG with sustainable packaging solutions, the sustainable
biggest share of PPW, and have implemented the most advanced and choice can be difficult to make, especially when the consumer has to
ambitious legislation and regulation aiming for serious PPW prevention navigate without clear information about the environmental impact of
and recycling, we limit the focus of this article, and literature review, to his/her choices (Boz et al., 2020; Herbes et al., 2019; Rokka and Uusi­
economically developed countries (Brems et al., 2012). talo, 2008; Testa et al., 2020). For example, a packaging type that in
The use of plastic packaging is an integrated part of modern lifestyle, itself has low environmental impact may indirectly lead to less desirable
which makes it difficult to change, but also an illustrative example of outcomes, such as more food waste (Boesen et al., 2019; White and
complex consumer behaviour. The goal of national governments and the Lockyer, 2020; Wikström et al., 2014). Moreover, the moral reasons for a
EU with regard to PPW is double: (1) to prevent plastic waste by sustainable choice are likely to prevail mainly when consumers do not
reducing the acquisition and use of plastic packaging, and (2) to secure have to compromise other important product characteristics such as
the recycling of what is left (van den Bergh, 2008). Removing plastic price, quality, or convenience (Olson, 2013; Thφgersen, 1999).
packaging or substituting it with materials with inferior barrier prop­ Regarding the post-use stage, much plastic packaging is recyclable
erties can cause concern for the quality (hygiene, shelf life, etc.) of (Dahlbo et al., 2018) and many consumers are motivated to engage in
products and for the environmental impacts of the replacing materials waste separation (Nainggolan et al., 2019). However, a waste separation
(Koutsimanis et al., 2012; White and Lockyer, 2020). Moreover, recy­ system for plastic is crucial (Nainggolan et al., 2019; Stoeva and
cling packaging waste is complicated, among other things, because Alriksson, 2017). Extant research suggests perennial problems with
consumers face not only many types of plastic, but also, depending on consumers’ ability to sort waste correctly (Rousta and Ekström, 2013;
the context, varying instructions, waste sorting systems, and informa­ Thøgersen, 1994) related to, for instance, diverse waste infrastructure
tion standards, which can cause confusion, concern and errors in the and mixed plastic streams including different types of PPW that are
specific situation (Koutsimanis et al., 2012). Both avoiding and recycling difficult to distinguish from each other (Hahladakis and Iacovidou,
plastic packaging can conflict with convenience, consumer habits, and 2019).
perceived responsibility, and it demands consumer knowledge and skills
(Koutsimanis et al., 2012). Hence, interventions to reduce PPW through 2.2. Drivers of and barriers to consumer behaviour: motivation, ability,
prevention and recycling requires a solid knowledge of the drivers and and opportunity
barriers influencing these behaviours.
Due to its significance from a circular economy perspective and the Several behavioural theories have been proposed to better under­
importance of consumer behaviour for PPW, the objective of this article stand drivers and barriers towards desired behaviour. In the fields of
is to provide a systematic review of research on the drivers of and bar­ waste prevention and recycling, reasoned action theories (Fishbein and
riers to PPW avoidance and recycling by consumers in economically Ajzen, 2009), such as the Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein and
developed countries, answering the following research question: What is Ajzen, 1975) and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991), are
currently known about drivers of and barriers to consumers’ plastic pack­ most widely used. These theories concentrate primarily on consumers’
aging waste avoidance and recycling in private households in economically motivation to act as reflected in behavioural intentions, viewed as the
developed countries? immediate and most important antecedent of actual behaviour. How­
ever, consumers also need ability and opportunity to conduct most be­
2. Conceptual framework haviours (Verplanken, 2018; Ölander and Thøgersen, 1995). Hence,
various studies have classified drivers of and barriers to sustainable
Consumers’ provisioning of FMCGs can be described as a process consumer behaviour according to the Motivation, Opportunity, and
starting with product acquisition and ending with the post-use stage Ability (MOA) framework (e.g., de Koning et al., 2015; Soma et al.,
(Borrello et al., 2020). There is a broad consensus on the need to 2021; Thøgersen, 1994). In line with this research, we classify con­
transform the current linear model of production and consumption, sumers’ drivers and barriers towards engaging in PPW prevention and
which leads to excess waste and overconsumption, towards a circular recycling in the three broad categories of motivation, ability, and
and more sustainable model (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Ghisellini et al., opportunity.
2016). Consumers can take different actions to reduce waste and support According to the reasoned action approach, motivation factors are all
a circular economy (Maitre-Ekern and Dalhammar, 2019). Regarding factors that influence behavioural intentions, including ‘the attitude to­
plastic packaging, consumers are often given different choice options in wards and the social norms regarding the behaviour’ (Ölander and
the acquisition stage, both with regard to the packaging materials and Thøgersen, 1995, p. 361). The motivation, for example, to avoid plastic
amount and type of packaging (Boesen et al., 2019). Next, how the packaging or increase recycling can be completely extrinsic (such as
consumer uses and maintains the packaging at home – for example, for monetary incentives) or more or less internalised, when it is perceived as
storing the original product and/or as a container for other things after meaningful in its own right and aligned with the person’s own values
its original use – also has implications for waste generation (Haws et al., (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Pro-environmental consumer behaviour is
2014). Finally, in the post-use stage, consumers may engage in waste typically related to self-transcendence (social-altruistic and biospheric)
sorting and recycling with different skills and levels of enthusiasm values (Lundblad and Davies, 2016; Pepper et al., 2009).
(Maitre-Ekern and Dalhammar, 2019; Stangherlin and Thøgersen, In addition to being motivated, consumers need to possess the ability
2020). Most of extant research has focused on either the acquisition or to perform the behaviour (Lazzarini et al., 2018). The required abilities
the post-use (i.e., waste sorting) stage, and both aspects are considered to perform a given behaviour may include skills, task knowledge, habit,
relevant for the reduction of PPW. Hence, we focus on these two stages and resources (Ölander and Thøgersen, 1995). For instance, recycling

64
L. Fogt Jacobsen et al. Waste Management 141 (2022) 63–78

packaging waste is easier when the consumer has acquired a habit of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Moher
recycling, and correctly sorting of packaging waste material requires et al., 2009). The process is illustrated in Fig. 1.
knowledge of how to do that (Thøgersen, 1994). Limited knowledge Scopus was chosen as the scientific database for the search because of
about the problem and how to solve it is a general psychological barrier its comprehensive coverage of well-respected academic journals and
to engage in sustainable consumer behaviour (Gifford, 2011). Con­ because it is one of the few academic databases available that were
sumers’ product knowledge and familiarity (e.g. Kang et al., 2013) as assessed suitable for systematic review by a recent systematic assess­
well as understanding of information (Lazzarini et al., 2018; Longo et al., ment (Gusenbauer and Haddaway, 2020). The database was screened
2019; White et al., 2019) are therefore often addressed in behavioural for relevant peer-reviewed papers focusing on plastic packaging or PPW
interventions. Consumers are more likely to engage in a particular avoidance and/or recycling at the household level based on the search
behaviour if they believe it will make a difference and contribute to string: TITLE-ABS-KEY ((household* OR consum*) AND (plastic*) AND
environmental sustainability (Antonetti and Maklan, 2014; Leary et al., (reduc* OR minim* OR avoid* OR recycl* OR dispos* OR sort* OR
2014). reus*)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,
Opportunity is the objective conditions for performing the behaviour 2020) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2019) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2018)
(Ölander and Thøgersen, 1995). This often relates to convenience in the OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2017) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2016) OR
form of place and time utility. By optimising these conditions, con­ LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2015)).
sumers’ likelihood of engaging in a given sustainable behaviour be­ The initial search in Scopus was conducted in October 2020 and
comes higher (Thøgersen, 2005). Consumers face various structural yielded 2,898 hits (step 1). Based on a screening of titles and abstracts,
barriers to engage in sustainable behaviour (Verplanken, 2018) and 2,830 papers were excluded because they did not focus on plastic
their engagement depend on the actual context (Barr et al., 2011). packaging or PPW avoidance and/or recycling at the consumer/house­
By systematically structuring and synthesising existing research on hold level in economically developed countries. This resulted in 68 pa­
consumers’ motivation, ability, and opportunity to increasingly avoid pers for further assessment (step 2). Of these, 37 papers were excluded
and recycle PPW, this paper will provide an overview of the currently because they did not include primary empirical data (step 3). The
most important drivers of and barriers to these behaviours in econom­ reference lists of the remaining 31 papers were then searched for addi­
ically developed countries and identify potential research gaps in tional, relevant publications, which resulted in 5 additional papers (step
existing literature. 4). Hence, the final pool of research papers included in the analysis
consisted of 36 papers (see Table 1).
3. Method
4. Results
We performed a systematic review of published empirical research
on plastic packaging and PPW avoidance and recycling limited to pri­ An overview of the papers and their findings appears in Table 1. Most
vate consumers in economically developed (operationalised as OECD) of the papers, 32 out of 36 papers, were based on quantitative methods
countries and in English language. Because it is judged that the rela­ only, such as experiments, observations, and surveys. Three papers took
tively recent increased focus on PPW combined with recent institutional a mixed approach combining quantitative methods with qualitative in­
and legal changes makes older research less informative for assessing terviews or open-ended survey questions. One paper was based on
current consumers’ motivation, ability, and opportunity, the search was qualitative methods only. The studies were primarily conducted in
limited to research published in the last five years, that is 2015–2020. Europe (20 studies) followed by North America (10 studies, including
For the literature search, we followed the Preferred Reporting Items for one with no specification of country, but with data collected through

Fig. 1. Flowchart of the systematic literature review.

65
L. Fogt Jacobsen et al. Waste Management 141 (2022) 63–78

Table 1
Overview of papers included in the systematic literature review.
Author(s)/year Outlet Theoretical Methodology Sample Country Main findings Motivation Ability Opportunity
foundation size

Aprile and Journal of Intrinsic Survey n= Italy Greater environmental X X X

Fiorillo Cleaner motivation; value- 26,168 concern is related to
(2019) Production based likelihood of separate
environmental waste collection at the
concern household level.
Social capital positively
relates to separate
waste collections.
Bartolotta and Marine Social marketing Online survey n = 982 USA Consumers are positive X
Hardy Pollution theory towards a fee and/or a
(2017) Bulletin ban on plastic bags and
plastic water bottles.
Implementation of
more water refill
stations can encourage
re-use of plastic water
bottles.
Certain consumer
segments are
concerned about the
safety of re-using
plastic water bottles.
Bell et al. Land Economics Three areas of Natural n = 2,800 USA Single-stream X X
(2017) recycling research: experiment based (compared to dual-
1) laws and on longitudinal stream) waste
requirements, 2) data comparing programs increase
consumer household waste recycling behavior in
characteristics, and in areas with households.
3) convenience singlestream vs.
dual-stream.
Best and Kneip Environmental Utility maximizing Quasi-experiment n = 1,567 Germany The introduction of a X X
(2019) and Resource theory based on curbside collection
Economics longitudinal self- system positively
reported data of affects plastic
households packaging recycling
sampled from behavior in
three city areas. households.
This effect depends on
the distance prior faced
by consumers to bring-
in collection
containers.
Consumers with pro-
environmental
attitudes are less
affected by the
initiative.
Boesen et al. Journal of Research on Online survey and n = 197 Denmark Among different X X
(2019) Cleaner consumer qualitative n = 10 packaging types,
Production perception interviews consumers consider
plastic the least
environmentally
friendly solution.
Consumers lack
knowledge about
certain dimensions of
environmental
sustainability of
packaging.
Borg et al. Journal of Research on Online survey n = 1,001 Australia Descriptive norms are a X
(2020) Consumer normative social strong predictor of
Behavior behaviour single-use plastic
avoidance.
This relationship is
moderated by
especially injunctive
norms, but also
perceived benefits and
anticipated costs.
The influential role of
each factor depends on
the specific plastic type
avoidance behaviour.
(continued on next page)

66
L. Fogt Jacobsen et al. Waste Management 141 (2022) 63–78

Table 1 (continued )
Author(s)/year Outlet Theoretical Methodology Sample Country Main findings Motivation Ability Opportunity
foundation size

Chirico et al. Virtual Reality Research on Experiment n = 60 Italy Information presented X

(2020) message (between in a concrete or mixed
communication subjects) format is more
influential on pro-
environmental
attitudes and
intentional behaviour
than when presented in
numerical format.
Some attitudes are
influenced by social
desirability.
Information format
have different
emotional effects.
Gill et al. Resources, Research on Online survey n = 218 USA Attributes containing X X
(2020) Conservation & consumer ‘no plastic’ appeal to a
Recycling perception wide range of
consumers.
Environmentally
knowledgeable
consumers are more
likely to perceive the
attribute ‘no plastic’
positively.
Dilkes- Resources, Research on Online survey n = 2,518 Australia Consumers generally X X
Hoffman Conservation & consumer have limited
et al. Recycling preferences and knowledge about the
(2019a) perceptions characteristics of
bioplastics.
Consumers perceive
bioplastics as
environmentally
friendly.
Dilkes- Resources, Research on public Online survey n = 2,518 Australia Consumers perceive X X
Hoffman Conservation & attitudes towards plastic as a problem for
et al. Recycling environmental the environment
(2019b) issues Consumers associate
plastic with food
packaging and
convenience.
Hage et al. Letters in Spatial Theory on spatial Waste collection n = 282 Sweden Municipalities with X
(2018) and Resource econometric data from weight-based waste
Sciences dependence municipalities collection systems have
higher plastic
packaging recycling
rates.
Curbside recycling
systems as well as
intensive distribution
of drop-off recycling
stations also explain
higher recycling rates.
Hahladakis Waste Literature on types Waste collection n = 320 England Curbside waste X
et al. (2018) Management of waste collection data from public collection system
authorities. accounted for higher
recovering rates of
plastics than bring-
banks and household
waste recycling
centers.

Heidbreder Sustainability Theory on rational Repeated n = 509 Germany A campaign in the form X X X
et al. (2020) choice, moral measures online n = 366 of an action period
choice, and habit survey reduced plastic
experiment consumption especially
among consumers with
low pro-environmental
identity.
Perceived difficulty is a
strong predictor of
consumers’ plastic
consumption
reduction.
X X
(continued on next page)

67
L. Fogt Jacobsen et al. Waste Management 141 (2022) 63–78

Table 1 (continued )
Author(s)/year Outlet Theoretical Methodology Sample Country Main findings Motivation Ability Opportunity
foundation size

Herbes et al. Journal of Research on Cross-cultural n = 948 Germany, In their evaluation of

(2018) Cleaner consumer survey n = 443 France, environmental
Production perception and n = 610 USA friendliness, consumers
decision making focus on end-of-life
attributes such as
recyclability and
biodegradability of the
product.
They focus much less
on attributes related to
production and
transport.
There is a gap between
consumers’ perception
of a product’s
environmental
friendliness and its
actual environmental
impact.
Jacobsen et al. Waste Literature on waste Waste collection n = 308 Belgium The quantity of X
(2018) Management collection and data from public separated plastic
plastic types authorities packaging waste differs
between municipalities
with different waste
collection systems.
Klaiman et al. Resources, Random utility Online choice n = 1,500 USA Among other material X X
(2016) Conservation theory and experiment types, consumers’
and Recycling Lancastrian (between willingness to pay is
consumer theory subjects) highest for plastic
packaging material.
Information
communicated by
video positively affects
consumers’
willingness-to-pay for
packaging
recyclability.
Klaiman et al. Food Control Random utility Online choice n = 1,500 USA Consumers perceive X X X
(2017) theory experiment the requirement to
(between clean the packaging as
subjects) a barrier to recycling.
Whereas the
information
communication does
not affect recycling
behavior, it may
influence the
preference for plastic
packaging material.
Latinopoulos Marine Random utility Choice n = 240 Greece The information X
et al. (2018) Pollution theory and experiment campaign had an
Bulletin Lancastrian influence on
consumer theory consumers’ preference
for reducing plastic
waste marine pollution
as well as on their
willingness to pay for
protecting the marine
environment.
The information
campaign had no effect
on consumers’
willingness to take
action in reducing the
plastic waste marine
pollution by changing
their current use of
plastic bags.
Lindh et al. Packaging Research on Online survey n = 157 Sweden Consumers perceive X X
(2016) Technology and consumer (open-ended and plastic packaging to be
Science preference close-ended) less environmentally
friendly than, for
instance, paper
packaging.
Consumers are aware
(continued on next page)

68
L. Fogt Jacobsen et al. Waste Management 141 (2022) 63–78

Table 1 (continued )
Author(s)/year Outlet Theoretical Methodology Sample Country Main findings Motivation Ability Opportunity
foundation size

of their limited
knowledge in judging
the environmental
friendliness of
packaging material.
Luis et al. Resources, Research on Structured n = 12 Portugal Consumers are positive X
(2020) Conservation consumer interviews and n = 198 towards the plastic bag
and Recycling perception and online survey charge and support its
motivation widening to other types
of plastic.
The charge had positive
spillover effects on
other pro-
environmental
behaviours.
Consumers increased
their reuse of shopping
bags.
Macintosh Resources, Literature on Three surveys n = 1,025 Australia The net effect of the X
et al. (2020) Conservation plastic bag policy (supermarket n = 44 shopping plastic bag
and Recycling consumers, n = 1,058 ban on its reduction
retailers, local was relatively small.
residents) Instead of using the
banned types of bags,
consumers increased
their use of other types
of plastic shopping
bags.
Consumers were
generally (and
increasingly)
supportive of the ban.
Martinho et al. Waste Literature on Face-to-face n = 210 Portugal The introduction of a X
(2017) Management plastic bag policy survey n = 208 plastic bag tax
decreased the amount
of plastic bags used and
increased their reuse.
Muralidharan Social Theory of Planned Online survey n = 315 USA Framing the X
and Sheehan Marketing Behavior communication
(2016) Quarterly message as a gain vs.
loss for consumers may
influence the impact of
factors related to
attitude and social
norm on plastic
shopping bag
avoidance.
Oliveira et al. Journal of Literature on waste Data from n = 42 Portugal Consumers’ use of X X
(2018) Environmental collection types regional database bring-bank waste
Management collection systems is
related to their
accessibility and
number per inhabitant.
The more years
consumer in the region
attended school the
more the bring-bank
system was used.
Orset et al. Waste Literature on Online n = 148 France Providing consumers X
(2017) Management plastic packaging experiment with information on
the different types of
plastic packaging
material influences
their willingness-to-pay
for the products.
Recyclability of the
plastic packaging
material is important to
consumers.
Rhein and Resources, Theory on Semi-structured n = 124 Germany Consumer awareness X
Schmid Conservation consumer interviews can be divided into five
(2020) and Recycling awareness different types
containing both
positive and negative
aspects.
(continued on next page)

69
L. Fogt Jacobsen et al. Waste Management 141 (2022) 63–78

Table 1 (continued )
Author(s)/year Outlet Theoretical Methodology Sample Country Main findings Motivation Ability Opportunity
foundation size

Almost all consumers

associate plastic
packaging with
environmental
pollution.
Rivers et al. Journal of Nudging theory Longitudinal Between Canada A fee on single-use X X
(2017) Environmental survey in four n= plastic shopping bags
Management waves (telephone 14,000 increased the use of
and via mail/ and n = reusable shopping
online) 21,000 bags.
per wave The incentive primarily
works on consumers
who are already
frequent users of
reusable shopping bags
as well as in households
of high socio-economic
status.
Septianto and Australasian Construal level Three n = 190 Not Consumers respond X
Lee (2020) Marketing theory experiments n = 193 specified – emotionally differently
Journal n = 148 data to pictures of plastic
collected waste vs. plastic waste
via MTurk victims.
Images evoking disgust
are more effective
when combined with a
“why”-message
whereas images
evoking sadness are
more effective when
combined with a
“how”-message.
Sörme et al. Recycling Literature on waste Natural n = 87 Sweden Introduction of the new X
(2019) collection systems experiment and n = 15 kerbside waste
interviews collection system
decreased the amount
of residual waste and
increased the amount
of sorted food waste.
Consumers perceived
the collection system to
facilitate sorting.
Taufik et al. Science of the Research on Experiment n = 281 Germany Despite consumers’ X
(2020) Total consumer (between perception of benefits
Environment perception of subjects) related to compostable
packaging bio-based packaging,
many are not able to
dispose of it correctly.
Consumers who are
familiar with bio-based
products dispose more
correctly of
compostable bio-based
packaging, but not of
recyclable bio-based
packaging.
Taylor and Applied Literature on Natural n = 2,136 USA Success of disposable X
Villas-Boas Economic plastic bag policy experiment with n = 2,288 shopping bag bans vs.
(2016) Perspectives and observational fees depends on the
Policy data types and prices of
alternative bags
provided by the store.
Combined with a paper
bag fee, the disposable
plastic bag ban
decreases the total
amount of disposable
bags used; however, it
increases the usage of
disposable paper bags.
van Velzen Waste Literature on waste Observation study n = 21 The The particular waste X
et al. (2019) Management collection systems Nether- collection system
lands focusing on lightweight
packaging is used
optimally by the
(continued on next page)

70
L. Fogt Jacobsen et al. Waste Management 141 (2022) 63–78

Table 1 (continued )
Author(s)/year Outlet Theoretical Methodology Sample Country Main findings Motivation Ability Opportunity
foundation size

households.

Thomas et al. Journal of Theory on Online survey n= Wales The single-use plastic X
(2016) Environmental behavioural 17,636 England bag charge resulted in
Psychology spillover effects + Scotland consumers’ increased
self-determination reuse of own shopping
theory bags.
The behavioural and
attitudinal spillover
effects are limited.
Thomas et al. Frontiers in Theory on Survey n = 1,230 England The plastic bag charge X
(2019) Psychology behavioural Observations n = 3,764 Wales resulted in consumers’
spillover effects Interviews n = 43 Scotland reduction of single-use
(all longitudinal) shopping plastic bags.
Consumers seem to find
it easy to bring their
own bag for shopping.
Support for the plastic
bag charge result in
spillover effect in the
form of increased
support for other
charges with the aim of
reducing plastic waste.
Winterich et al. Journal of Theory on Two lab n = 111 USA Communicating the X
(2019) Marketing information experiments n = 187 transformation of
communication (between n = 150 recyclables into new
subjects) n = not products positively
One online available affects consumers’
experiment n = not recycling intention and
(between available behavior.
subjects) This effect is mediated
Three field by inspiration.
experiments
Yamaguchi Waste Theory on Online survey n = 2,214 Japan Generally, consumers’ X X
and Management economic value including bidding willingness-to-pay for
Takeuchi game less packaging material
(2016) is low.
Unit-based pricing of
waste collection
increases consumers’
willingness-to-pay for
less plastic packaging
material.
This effect decreases if
a plastic waste
separation policy is
introduced.

Mturk), Australia (four papers), and Japan (only one paper). In addition, type of research in recent years. Fig. 2 provides a trend chart of publi­
one paper was based on data collected in both USA and Europe. Eighteen cations within the areas of PPW avoidance and PPW recycling
papers were published in 2019–2020, whereas six papers were pub­ respectively.
lished in each year during 2016–2018. No papers were published in The papers are published in a diverse range of journals taking
2015. Hence, there appears to be an increasing trend in publishing this different approaches to research. The most popular outlet for this
research is Resources, Conservation & Recycling (seven papers) fol­
lowed by Waste Management (six papers), Journal of Cleaner Produc­
tion (three papers), and Marine Pollution Bulleting (two papers),
respectively. The remaining papers were distributed between various
outlets. Most studies (13 papers) were based on survey data of which 11
used a single, cross-sectional survey and only two papers were based on
longitudinal data. Nine papers were based on controlled experiments
(online or in laboratory) of which one paper used longitudinal data and
one included both laboratory experiments and field experiments. Nine
papers were based on natural experiments. Eight of these nine papers
used observational/objective data (one added interview data) whereas
one of them used self-reported data. One paper was based on qualitative
interviews, two papers on survey data combined with interviews, one
paper on several surveys, and one paper on a combination of longitu­
dinal survey, observation, and interview data.
The included papers focus on different drivers and barriers related to
Fig. 2. Trend chart for publications on PPW avoidance and PPW recycling.

71
L. Fogt Jacobsen et al. Waste Management 141 (2022) 63–78

plastic packaging or PPW avoidance or recycling that can be classified as in Japan have a lower WTP for products with less packaging material,
motivation, ability, or opportunity for consumers to engage in these but that environmentally concerned consumers have a higher WTP for
activities (Fig. 3). Only a few papers explicitly mention a theoretical these products. The authors note, however, that this could be due to
framework, such as the Theory of Planned Behaviour, random utility consumers being used to retailers selling products with less packaging
theory, or construal level theory (e.g., Klaiman et al., 2017; Mur­ material (i.e., a refill pack) at lower prices.
alidharan and Sheehan, 2016; Septianto and Lee, 2020). Most of the Besides the consumer’s own perceptions, attitudes, and preferences,
papers do not explicitly present their theoretical approach but rely on studies based on a reasoned action framework found a significant impact
literature within the area of consumer perception, motivation, prefer­ of social norms on intentions to avoid PPW (Muralidharan and Sheehan,
ence, choice, attitude, decision-making, social behaviour, behavioural 2016). For example, Borg et al. (2020) found that (descriptive) social
spill-over, and information communication (e.g., Boesen et al., 2019; norms have a strong impact on consumers’ self-reported avoidance of
Thomas et al., 2019; Winterich et al., 2019). Finally, several papers take single-use plastic items, such as bags, straws, cups, and takeaway boxes.
a more technical perspective and are based on descriptions of current This suggests that consumers are more likely to engage in plastic
practical issues around, for instance, waste collection systems and avoidance if they believe this behaviour to be ‘normal’. Klaiman et al.
plastic bag policies (e.g., Martinho et al., 2017; Oliveira et al., 2018). (2016) revealed another social norm effect, which they interpreted as a
The following sections will present an overview of identified PPW social desirability effect, on stated preferences for recyclability of
reducing behaviours (i.e., avoidance and/or recycling) and their related packaging material. When asked indirectly, consumers reported a
drivers and/or barriers (i.e., motivation, ability, opportunity). significantly lower WTP for recyclable packaging material than when
asked directly (Klaiman et al., 2016).
4.1. Plastic packaging waste avoidance Several studies have investigated consumers’ perceptions of alter­
natives to plastic packaging (e.g., Dilkes-Hoffman et al., 2019a; Gill
4.1.1. Consumer motivations et al., 2020; Herbes et al., 2018). Consumers generally perceive plastic
Studies that focus on consumers’ motivation for PPW avoidance packaging as less environmentally friendly than, for instance, paper
typically address attitudes towards recyclability of the packaging type, packaging (Lindh et al., 2016). Related, Gill et al. (2020) found that
environmental concern, and social norms. Notably, several studies find disposable dinnerware containing ‘no plastic’ appealed to a broader
that consumers value recyclability of the packaging material (e.g., range of consumers compared to plastic solutions. However, not all
Boesen et al., 2019; Klaiman et al., 2016; Lindh et al., 2016). For plastics are perceived to be identical. For example, Dilkes-Hoffman et al.
example, investigating consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for (2019a) found that bio-based plastics are perceived as being better for
different packaging materials for juice products, Klaiman et al. (2016) the environment. Dilkes-Hoffman et al. (2019b) also found that con­
found a positive WTP for recyclability in general, and a higher WTP for sumers generally associate plastic with food packaging and convenience
recyclability of plastic than for other packaging materials. They also but are aware of the negative impacts of plastic on the environment.
found that consumers’ WTP is linked to believing that recyclability helps Despite many consumers agreeing with PPW being an environmental
to improve water quality among other things. Similarly, Boesen et al. problem and wanting to reduce their own plastic packaging consump­
(2019) found that plastic is perceived as the least environmentally tion, (self-reported) reduction seems to be rare (Dilkes-Hoffman et al.,
friendly packaging material for liquid food and that consumers evaluate 2019b).
this based mainly on perceived recycling possibilities. When evaluating Based on three online experiments on perceptions and attitudes
bio-based plastic packaging, consumers mostly emphasise attributes regarding plastic consumption after exposure to images of plastic waste
related to the end-of-life stage, such as recyclability and biodegrad­ or plastic waste victims, Septianto and Lee (2020) found that consumers
ability, whereas they focus less on attributes related to production, respond with different emotions depending on the picture content:
transportation, and retailing (Herbes et al., 2018). It appears that con­ whereas plastic waste images evoke disgust, images of plastic waste
sumers primarily attend to the packaging’s environmental attributes in victims evoke sadness.
the post-usage stage, where they make decisions regarding its disposal.
Although there are differences, this appears to be a general trend across 4.1.2. Consumer ability
countries (in this case France, Germany, and USA) (Herbes et al., 2018). Studies with a focus on consumers’ ability to engage in PPW avoid­
Muralidharan and Sheehan (2016) found that environmental ance typically address limited knowledge or awareness of the packaging
concern for plastic litter is a significant predictor of attitudes towards type. Rhein and Schmid (2020) found that consumers differ widely
plastic bag reduction, and Heidbreder et al. (2020) found a positive regarding awareness of plastic packaging’s environmental impacts, its
relationship between pro-environmental consumer identity and support positive packaging properties, and what consumers can do to reduce
for a policy encouraging reduction of single-use plastic. PPW. However, almost all participants associated PPW with environ­
Yamaguchi and Takeuchi (2016) found that mainstream consumers mental pollution. Furthermore, Lindh et al. (2016) found that most
consumers feel uncertain when it comes to judging the environmental
friendliness of plastic packaging. Gill et al. (2020) found that consumers
who perceived themselves as environmentally knowledgeable were
more likely to choose ‘no plastic’ products, and Heidbreder et al. (2020)
found that consumers who were more aware of plastic-pollution were
also more supportive of plastic-reducing policies. In line with this, Lat­
inopoulos et al. (2018) found that an information campaign aimed at
increasing consumer knowledge and awareness of plastic pollution in
the marine environment led to higher consumer support for reducing
this type of pollution. However, the campaign showed no effect on
consumers’ willingness to reduce their own use of plastic bags.
Consumers especially lack knowledge about the different plastic
packaging types and their impacts (Boesen et al., 2019; Herbes et al.,
2018). For instance, Dilkes-Hoffman et al. (2019a) found that consumers
generally have limited knowledge about bioplastic, especially its
Fig. 3. Number of publications addressing motivation, ability, and/or oppor­ biodegradability, but they still believe it is better for the environment
tunity to engage in PPW avoidance or PPW recycling. than fossil-based plastic.

72
L. Fogt Jacobsen et al. Waste Management 141 (2022) 63–78

Klaiman et al. (2016) found that exposure to video on recyclable PPW were positively perceived by consumers. In Japan, Yamaguchi and
packaging materials increased WTP for recyclable packaging material, Takeuchi (2016) found that a unit-based pricing system for waste
and Klaiman et al. (2017) found that information provision increased collection increased consumer preferences for refill packaging for
consumer preferences for cardboard packaging for (in this case) sand­ shampoo as means to reduce PPW. However, when consumers were
wiches. Similarly, Orset et al. (2017) found that information about the required to separate their plastic waste at the same time, it appears that
environmental impacts of the different types of plastic packaging ma­ they prefer to recycle rather than buying refill packaging.
terial indeed influenced consumers’ WTP in the expected direction. Heidbreder et al. (2020) found that a plastic free week campaign led
Together, this research emphasises the perceived complexity of the to a small, but significant, reduction in single-use plastics consumption,
environmental impacts of different packaging types and the importance particularly among consumers with low pro-environmental identity.
of supporting consumers regarding these issues. Overall, research suggests that consumers’ plastic packaging and
Besides knowledge, consumer ability to avoid PPW also appears to be PPW avoidance depends on motivational as well as opportunity and
related to socio-demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the ability factors. The motivation to avoid plastic packaging and PPW is
household. For example, Gill et al. (2020) found that consumer prefer­ related to the consumer’s general environmental concern, attitude to­
ences for ‘no-plastic’ in disposable dinnerware is positively related to wards the plastic packaging material, and its recyclability, but con­
household income. In line with this, Rivers et al. (2017) found that a sumers are also influenced by perceived social norms. The ability to
charge on single-use plastic shopping bags primarily influenced higher- avoid PPW particularly depends on the consumer’s knowledge and
income households, despite of being small ($0.05/bag). awareness of PPW and its consequences, which is influenced by infor­
mation communicated from different stakeholders. Available personal
4.1.3. Consumer opportunity resources, as reflected in socio-economic status indicators also play a
Several studies have focused on how the context facilitates or im­ role. Finally, research on consumers’ opportunity to avoid plastic
pedes consumer activities for avoiding PPW (e.g., Bartolotta and Hardy, packaging and PPW has mainly focused on policies restricting the con­
2017). For instance, Heidbreder et al. (2020) found that perceived dif­ sumption of single-use plastics, which appear to enjoy widespread
ficulty was the strongest predictor of willingness to reduce single-use support amongst the public.
plastic. Specifically, the perceived lack of plastic-free alternatives was
a major reason for consumers not to reduce their consumption. Many 4.2. Plastic packaging waste recycling
studies in this category investigated the impact of policy interventions
aiming at reducing single-use plastics, such as shopping bags (e.g., Luis 4.2.1. Consumer motivation
et al., 2020; Martinho et al., 2017; Rivers et al., 2017) and water bottles Not many studies within the area of PPW recycling focus on con­
(Bartolotta and Hardy, 2017). sumers’ motivation, but those that do typically include environmental
Dilkes-Hoffman et al. (2019b) found that consumers perceive the concern. Aprile and Fiorillo (2019) found that consumer motivation to
government and the industry to be the main actors responsible for engage in separate waste collection by having separate bins placed
plastic reduction. At the same time, research finds interventions such as outside the home – including bins for PPW – is based on their value
a plastic bag charge to be supported by consumers (Luis et al., 2020). priorities, including egoistic (i.e., self-enhancing), altruistic (i.e.,
The introduction of a plastic bag charge has shown effective at concern for other human beings), and biospheric (i.e., concern for the
increasing consumers’ reuse of bags (Luis et al., 2020; Martinho et al., non-human environment). Best and Kneip (2019) found that the intro­
2017), but especially for consumers who were relatively frequent users duction of a kerbside waste collection system, making source separation
of reusable bags already (Rivers et al., 2017). For example, Thomas et al. of household waste more convenient, mostly affected recycling among
(2016) found that the introduction of a single-use plastic bag charge consumers with less pro-environmental attitudes. Klaiman et al. (2017)
resulted in consumers increasing their reuse of own shopping bags in segmented consumers according to their reasons for recycling or not.
Wales. In a later study, Thomas et al. (2019) confirmed the effectiveness The biggest segment emphasised environmental reasons for recycling. A
of a charge, significantly decreasing plastic bag use one month after the smaller segment emphasised time requirements as a barrier for recy­
policy introduction. In addition, they found a positive spill-over effect cling. Bell et al. (2017) found that consumers with higher levels of ed­
between the support for the plastic bag charge and support for other ucation and social status perceive recycling as more valuable and thus
policies charging to reduce plastic waste. are more likely to recycle PPW. Klaiman et al. (2017) found that poorer
A plastic bag charge creates a financial incentive for consumers to (vs. wealthy) households are to a larger extent motivated to recycle by a
bring their own bag and may also work as a reminder of the pro- reduction of financial costs. In addition, Klaiman et al. (2017) found no
environmental behaviour (Martinho et al., 2017; Rivers et al., 2017). effect on consumers’ recycling behaviour of information on benefits of
Luis et al. (2020) distinguish between economic and environmental recycling. However, Winterich et al. (2019) found that a message
motivation for changing behaviour after the introduction of a charge on focusing on the transition of recycled materials into a new product
single-use plastic bags and found that consumers in Portugal believed positively affected consumers’ recycling intentions and behaviours.
that the charge was implemented with an environmental aim and not
with the aim of increasing tax collection. They also found that the plastic 4.2.2. Consumer ability
bag policy not only encouraged most consumers to decrease their use of Knowing how to dispose of PPW correctly can be a challenge for
disposable plastic materials in general, but also to increase their waste consumers. For example, consumers’ knowledge of the correct disposal
separation (i.e., a positive spill-over effect). However, at the same time, of bio-based plastics influences their perception of how environmentally
a substantial segment of consumers reported to actually reduce their friendly the bioplastic is (Dilkes-Hoffman et al., 2019a). Taufik et al.
waste separation behaviour (a negative spill-over effect). (2020) found that consumers’ ability to correctly dispose of bio-based
Macintosh et al. (2020) investigated the effect of a ban on some types plastics increases with their familiarity with these products, but many
of plastic bags and found a relatively small net effect since other types of are not able to dispose of it correctly.
plastic bags were used instead. However, consumers generally sup­ In a 3D virtual reality (VR) experiment, Chirico et al. (2020) inves­
ported the ban. In a natural experiment, Taylor and Villas-Boas (2016) tigated the impact of different visualization formats (i.e., numerical,
found that the introduction of a disposable plastic bag ban combined showing an amount of plastic bottles in numbers; concrete, showing the
with a paper bag charge decreased the total amount of disposable bags amount of plastic bottles as a 3D picture; or mixed) on the recycling of
used, but increased the amount of paper bags. PPW. They found that both the concrete and mixed format were more
Bartolotta and Hardy (2017) found that a ban on plastic bags and effective than the numerical.
disposable plastic water bottles and financial incentives as ways to avoid Whereas some studies find significant relationships between socio-

73
L. Fogt Jacobsen et al. Waste Management 141 (2022) 63–78

economic factors, such as age, gender, education, household income, 5. Discussion ON FINDINGS AND RESEARCH GAPS
health, and employment status, and recycling (Aprile and Fiorillo, 2019;
Oliveira et al., 2018), others do not (Best and Kneip, 2019). For instance, In the following, the most important drivers of and barriers for PPW
Oliveira et al. (2018) found that consumers’ use of bring-banks for waste reducing behaviours as well as research gaps according to the reviewed
separation increases with years of school attendance, which might partly literature are discussed. We found 36 papers from the period 2015–2020
reflect the fact that the understanding of the waste separation instruc­ providing relevant empirical evidence on what drives or impedes con­
tion increases with length of education. sumers in economically developed countries to engage in PPW avoid­
Aprile and Fiorillo (2019) found that social capital, understood as ance and/or recycling. Results are summarised in Table 2.
consumers’ relation to others, is positively related to consumers’ waste
separation behaviour, perhaps because support from friends decrease 5.1. Consumer motivation for reducing PPW
the perceived costs of recycling.
Consumer motivation for reducing PPW primarily depends on per­
4.2.3. Consumer opportunity ceptions of and attitudes towards the specific behaviour (Orset et al.,
Several studies investigated the effectiveness of different waste 2017; Taufik et al., 2020), but also on more general environmental
sorting/collection systems addressing consumers’ opportunity to concerns and attitudes (Heidbreder et al., 2020). What is considered
recycle. Some are based on self-reported measures (e.g., Aprile and common or normal in the context seems to play a role (Borg et al., 2020;
Fiorillo, 2019; Best and Kneip, 2019), whereas others are based on ob­ Klaiman et al., 2016; Muralidharan and Sheehan, 2016). The motivation
servations of the amount of waste sorted/recycled under different cir­ is primarily internalised, value based, and transformed into a moral
cumstances (e.g., Hage et al., 2018; van Velzen et al., 2019). norm (Ryan and Deci, 2000; Thøgersen, 2006). Consumers’ motivation
Most studies addressing different types of waste sorting or collection for PPW avoidance and recycling is influenced by their general concern
systems from a consumer perspective include plastic as well as other for the environment, indicating that beliefs about what is right and
packaging materials (Best and Kneip, 2019). Aprile and Fiorillo (2019) wrong regarding the environment is crucial for PPW reducing initiatives
found that consumers’ inclination to recycle decreases with increasing to work as intended. Moreover, PPW avoidance and recycling are
distance to the waste sorting bins. Sörme et al. (2019) found that the related, since consumers judge a packaging based on its recyclability in
introduction of a new kerbside waste collection system, including the disposal phase, which suggests that the two behaviours should not be
differently coloured plastic bags for different types of waste, led to a viewed in isolation.
decrease in the amount of residual waste. Similarly, Best and Kneip More research is needed on consumer motivation, especially in
(2019) found that kerbside collection had a positive effect on self- relation to PPW recycling. For achieving a high recycling rate, conve­
reported recycling of PPW. Also, Bell et al. (2017) found that reducing nience is key, but a better understanding of how waste sorting can be
behavioural costs by introducing a single-stream waste sorting system, communicated in a motivating and educating way is also relevant. The
instead of a dual-stream requiring more effort, led to increased recy­ literature review includes both observational studies (Aprile and Fio­
cling, particular of PPW. Confirming the importance of convenience, rillo, 2019; Hage et al., 2018) and studies based on self-reported data
Klaiman et al. (2017) found that requiring consumers to clean the (Best and Kneip, 2019; Klaiman et al., 2017). Whereas both approaches
packaging after use has a negative effect on the willingness to recycle. have their strengths and weaknesses, it is important to recognise the risk
van Velzen et al. (2019) collected data on the weight of the waste of social desirability bias (Klaiman et al., 2016) and the often found gap
from households and found that more consumers participate in recycling between intentions and actual sustainable behaviour. Especially in
when kerbside collection systems are used, compared to drop-off relation to PPW avoidance, more research based on observational data is
collection. Based on a comparative analysis of municipalities’ waste desired. Also, more qualitative research digging deeper into the moti­
collection data, Hage et al. (2018) found that differences in waste vational drivers of consumers’ PPW reducing behaviour could be
collection systems account for substantial differences in household beneficial to gain a better understanding of the triggers that may
recycling rates. Weight-based waste collection fees generally result in a encourage behaviour change.
higher recycling rate, and so do kerbside collection and a high density of
drop-off waste collection stations. Table 2
Similarly, using data from a regional database, Oliveira et al. (2018) Overview of motivations, abilities, and opportunities driving PPW avoidance
found that the number of bring-banks for recyclables per inhabitant and and PPW recycling.
their relative accessibility are positively related to consumers’ use of Driving factors of PPW avoidance PPW recycling
such bring-banks. Hahladakis et al. (2018) found that kerbside collec­ PPW avoidance
tion accounted for far more of the recovery of consumers’ PPW than and recycling
bring-banks and household waste recycling centres. Also, Jacobsen et al. Motivation Perceptions and preferences Environmental concerns and
(2018) found a significant difference in quantity of separated PPW be­ for alternative packaging attitudes.
tween municipalities with different waste collection systems. Specif­ solutions.
ically, systems with sorting schemes for rigid and soft plastics combined General environmental
attitude.
performed better than sorting schemes with only a rigid plastic mix. Social norms.
Overall, research suggests that consumers’ PPW recycling is driven Ability Knowledge/awareness of Knowledge/awareness of
by their environmental concern and that environmentally related mes­ environment and packaging how to recycle correctly.
sages can increase their motivation to recycle. Research on consumers’ type. Communication of recycling
Communication of functions and consequences.
ability to recycle mainly uncovered a negative impact of insufficient
information on functions and Socio-economic factors.
consumer knowledge on how to source-separate correctly and also environmental consequences Social capital.
found that recycling can be increased through better communication. of packaging material.
The research on consumers’ opportunity to recycle find that the design Socio-economic status.
of the waste sorting system and its built-in convenience (in terms of time Opportunity Perceived difficulty and Waste sorting/collection
availability of alternatives. systems related to
and effort to recycle) are strong determinants of consumers’ PPW Policies in terms of ban or convenience (e.g., time,
recycling. charge for single-user effort, and accessibility).
plastics.
Consumer engagement in
action period.

74
L. Fogt Jacobsen et al. Waste Management 141 (2022) 63–78

5.2. Lack of knowledge and understanding Villas-Boas, 2016). Since convenience is valued by consumers, the
convenience of bringing one’s own bag compared to buying a single-use
Much of the reviewed research emphasises lack of sufficient knowl­ one in the store should also be studied.
edge as a main reason why consumers do not make an effort to avoid and Recycling studies rarely focus on PPW alone, but the reviewed
recycle PPW. Many alternatives to regular plastic packaging are avail­ research suggests that the design of the waste systems typically has a
able, but consumers have a hard time figuring out the environmentally strong effect on the recycling of PPW – sometimes more than other
best solution (Dilkes-Hoffman et al., 2019a; Herbes et al., 2018). When packaging materials (Bell et al., 2017). This indicates that for PPW in
consumers do not understand the characteristics, functions, and conse­ particular, a convenient waste sorting and collection system is important
quences of different packaging materials, or how to sort the PPW for more effective recycling by consumers.
correctly, they are not able to engage effectively in PPW reducing In relation to convenience, future research might explore how con­
behaviour. It is therefore crucial to understand how to effectively inform sumers perceive their own responsibility and empowerment in reducing
and educate consumers (Lazzarini et al., 2018; Longo et al., 2019; White PPW relative to, for instance, industry and policy makers (Dilkes-Hoff­
et al., 2019), which is the focus of several papers (Rhein and Schmid, man et al., 2019b).
2020; Winterich et al., 2019). Studies address different types of message
framing and nudging (Muralidharan and Sheehan, 2016; Rivers et al., 5.4. Linking different drivers
2017) as well as communication tools (Chirico et al., 2020; Heidbreder
et al., 2020; Latinopoulos et al., 2018), but results are inconclusive. If a convenient waste sorting system is implemented, it may increase
Hence, more research is needed in this area. An alternative to educating or impede consumer motivation to buy less packaging (Yamaguchi and
and informing consumers (or a supplement) is to make the task easier Takeuchi, 2016). A few studies touch upon potential spill-over effects
(Thøgersen, 2005), for instance, through changes in materials, better between recycling and avoiding plastic packaging (Luis et al., 2020;
labelling, and clearer rules and guidelines for recycling. Thomas et al., 2016), and they mostly find small effects, at best (Yang
Generally, the study of information provision could be further et al., 2021). However, the research on this topic is very limited so more
developed by focusing more on actual behavioural effects of different research is needed to build a better understanding of interrelationships
communication initiatives and exploring whether various consumer between PPW avoidance and recycling behaviours, which might be
types react in different ways. Although they are typically not the main useful for increasing the effectiveness of interventions promoting the
focus of the reviewed papers, some socio-economic variables are two behaviours. More research is also needed on the potential negative
important because they reflect consumers’ ability to avoid and recycle or positive spill-over between PPW avoidance and recycling behaviours
PPW (Bell et al., 2017; Orset et al., 2017). When acknowledging that it is in different contexts (e.g., workplace, school setting, household).
not equally easy for all consumer segments to overcome the barriers for
PPW avoidance and recycling, targeted solutions can be developed for 6. Conclusion and implications
specific segments. Also, only a few studies were based on cross-country
data, and future research should do this to a higher extent, as consumers This paper investigated what is currently known on drivers of and
in different cultures may react differently to sustainable behaviour barriers to consumers’ plastic packaging waste avoidance and recycling
promoting initiatives (Ceglia et al., 2015) in private households in economically developed countries. First, con­
sumer motivation to reduce PPW is typically rooted in general envi­
5.3. Perceived difficulty and convenience ronmental concern and ‘green’ values, but is even more influenced by
their specific perception and evaluation of the task at hand. Second,
From our literature review, it appears that convenience is important consumers often lack sufficient knowledge and understanding, both on
for consumers to engage in PPW reducing behaviour. Even for people the environmental characteristics of different packaging and on how to
having the motivation and ability to reduce PPW, the context can make recycle correctly and effectively. Third, a main barrier for consumers’
the task too difficult. Whereas research on PPW avoidance has focused PPW reduction is difficulty or inconvenience, increasing the effort
primarily on the impact of bans and charges (Luis et al., 2020; Macintosh required for making and/or implementing the most sustainable decision,
et al., 2020; Martinho et al., 2017), research on PPW recycling has both with regard to avoiding plastic packaging and PPW in the acqui­
mainly focused on waste sorting and collection systems (Aprile and sition stage, and with regard to waste sorting/recycling. Finally, con­
Fiorillo, 2019; Bell et al., 2017; Best and Kneip, 2019; Sörme et al., sumers appear to understand the relationship between PPW avoidance
2019). Hence, both of the two research areas emphasise contextual and recycling, which suggests a broader perspective in future studies,
conditions. The effectiveness of policies for increasing PPW avoidance taking into account potential positive and negative spill-over effects
will depend on how easy it is for consumers to adjust to these policies. between the two. As a consumer, taking the most environmentally
Likewise, the effectiveness of waste sorting systems depends on how friendly action in a situation can be a challenge, and despite many
convenient it is for consumers to use them. Convenience also makes it consumers linking PPW with environmental issues, they still need sub­
easier to develop a new habit. Some studies based on plastic bag policy stantial support to effectively avoid and recycle PPW. Avoiding and
address the long-term effect of the intervention (e.g., Rivers et al., 2017), recycling plastic packaging and PPW are typically related in the mind of
but other studies (e.g., on information provision) would benefit from a consumers, since they evaluate product packaging based on its recy­
longitudinal approach considering the effect of various interventions in clability. The potential for recycling must therefore be clearly commu­
creating a habitual PPW reducing behaviour. nicated on the packaging, if consumers are to choose an environmentally
Papers on PPW avoidance primarily focused on plastic bags, and friendly alternative to plastic packaging. At the same time, it may be
more research is needed on consumer avoidance of other types of PPW. worth educating consumers better about the environmental impacts of
Most consumers assess a product’s environmental friendliness based on the earlier stages in the value chain, where companies invest. A better
its function at the recycling stage (Boesen et al., 2019; Herbes et al., explanation on the possible trade-off between packaging and hygiene/
2019), but without the opportunity to buy products with alternative or food waste would also support consumers in making an informed choice
less packaging material, PPW cannot be avoided. Therefore, future of the most desirable packaging type for a given product.
research could address consumer perception and understanding of Generally, there is a need for better consumer education on PPW
different alternatives to regular plastic packaging. It may also be less from an environmental perspective, including both how to avoid and
convenient for consumers to access products packaged in alternative or recycle PPW. An increasingly important aspect is new alternatives, such
less material. Moreover, impact on use of different materials, such as as bioplastics. To be effective, this communication should adapt message
paper bags, needs more research (Macintosh et al., 2020; Taylor and content, source, and media to effectively target specific consumer

75
L. Fogt Jacobsen et al. Waste Management 141 (2022) 63–78

segments. Especially when targeting consumers who are not particularly Boz, Z., Korhonen, V., Sand, C.K., 2020. Consumer Considerations for the
Implementation of Sustainable Packaging: A review. Sustain 12 (2192), 21. https://
environmentally concerned, it is important to identify alternative
doi.org/10.3390/su12062192.
sources of value. Brems, A., Baeyens, J., Dewil, R., 2012. Recycling and Recovery of Post-Consumer Plastic
Since consumers’ plastic packaging and PPW reducing intention and Solid Waste in a European Context. Therm. Sci. 16, 669-685 http://doi.org/
behaviour depend on their general knowledge and environmental 610.2298/TSCI120111121B.
Ceglia, D., de Oliveira Lima, S.H., Leocádio, Á.L., 2015. An Alternative Theoretical
concern, PPW reducing initiatives should in general educate consumers Discussion on Cross-Cultural Sustainable Consumption. Sustain. Dev. 23 (6),
and emphasise the environmental rationale. This can be done via 414–424. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1600.
communication taking a broader perspective on environmental issues Chirico, A., Scurato, G.W., Maffi, C., Huang, S., Graziosi, S., Ferrise, F., Gaggiolo, A.,
2020. Designing Virtual Environments for Attitudes and Behavioral Change in Plastic
related to plastic consumption, such as the harms created by plastic litter consumption: A comparison between concrete and nummerical information. Virtual
in a marine or natural environment, which can be easily processed even Real. 1–15 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-10020-00442-w.
by less environmentally concerned or involved consumers. Social norms Dahlbo, H., Poliakova, V., Mylläri, V., Sahimaa, O., Anderson, R., 2018. Recycling
Potential of Post-Consumer Plastic Packaging Waste in Finland. Waste Manage. 71,
marketing may also be an effective way to increase consumer inclination 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.1010.1033.
to avoid PPW and handle it properly. Consumers wish to behave ‘nor­ DE, 2020. Ændringer af Affaldsrammedirektivet skal styrke cirkulær økonomi og
mally’, and by making PPW reducing behaviour a social norm, more genanvendelse. https://www.danskerhverv.dk/presse-og-nyheder/nyheder/
andringer-afaffaldsrammedirektivet-skal-styrke-cirkular-okonomi-og-
consumers will be inclined to adopt this behaviour. It may be worth genanvendelse/.
making an effort to identify the “opinion leaders”, who could be the de Koning, J.I.J.C., Crul, M.R.M., Wever , R., Brezet, J.C., 2015. Sustainable
most effective influencers on general consumer behaviour (Jansson Consumption in Vietnam: An explorative study among the urban middle class. Int. J.
Consumer Stud. 39, 608-618 http://doi.org/610.1111/ijcs.12235.
et al., 2017; Keys et al., 2016).
Dietz, T., Gardner, G.T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P.C., Vandenbergh, M.P., 2009. Household
Finally, it is important to understand that consumers differ in terms Actions can Provide a Behavioral Wedge to Rapidly Reduce US Carbon Emissions.
of resources and environmental concern, and different segments must be PNAS 106 (44), 18452–18456.
identified and targeted when implementing interventions to promote Dilkes-Hoffman, L., Ashworth, P., Laycock, B., Pratt, S., Lant, P., 2019a. Public Attitudes
Towards Bioplastics - Knowledge, perception and end-of-life management. Resour.
PPW avoidance and recycling. Convenience should be a key priority Conserv. Recycle. 151, 104479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104479.
since consumers will only engage in PPW reduction if the effort required Dilkes-Hoffman, L., Pratt, S., Laycock, B., Ashworth, P., Lant, P.A., 2019b. Public
is not too high. Convenience is especially important for consumers who Attitudes Towards Plastics. Resour. Conserv. Recycle. 147 (227–235), 2. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.1005.1005.
are not strongly environmentally concerned. For instance, PPW avoid­ EU, 1994. Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste. European Parliament
ance can be promoted by sufficient and clearly communicated alterna­ and Council Directive. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
tives in the shopping situation, whereas PPW recycling can be supported uri=CELEX:01994L0062-20180704&qid=1601299890698&from=DA.
EU, 2008. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19
by easily accessible and understandable waste sorting/collection November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, OJ L 212/3, Article 4(1)
systems. C.F.R. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%
3A32008L0098.
EU, 2015a. Closing the loop - An EU action plan for the Circular Economy. https://eur-
Declaration of Competing Interest lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0614.
EU, 2015b. Directive (EU) 2015/720 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial April 2015 amending Directive 94/62/EC as regards reducing the consumption of
lightweight plastic carrier bags. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015L0720&from=DA.
the work reported in this paper. EU, 2018a. The circular economy package: new EU targets for recycling. https://www.
europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20170120STO59356/the-circular-
References economy-package-new-eu-targets-for-recycling.
EU, 2018b. Directive (EU) 2018/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30
May 2018 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste.
Ajzen, I., 1991. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:
(2), 179–211. 32018L0852&rid=6.
Antonetti, P., Maklan, S., 2014. Feelings that Make a Difference: How guilt and pride EU, 2020. COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN
convince consumers of the effectiveness of sustainable consumption choices. J Bus. PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
Ethics 124 (1), 117–134. COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS A new Circular Economy
Aprile, M.C., Fiorillo, D., 2019. Intrinsic Incentives in Household Waste Recycling: The Action Plan For a cleaner and more competitive Europe COM/2020/98 final.
case of Italy in the year 1998. J. Clean. Prod. 227 (98–110), 1. https://doi.org/ https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020AE1189.
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.1004.1184. Eurostat, 2020. Packaging Waste Statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
Asgher, M., Quamar, S.A., Bilal, M., Iqbal, H.M.N., 2020. Bio-Based Active Food explained/index.php/Packaging_waste_statistics#Waste_generation_by_packaging_
Packaging Materials: Sustainable alterntive to conventional petrochemical-based material.
materials. Food Res. Int. 137, 109625 109610.101016/j.foodres.102020.109625. Eurostat, 2021. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-
Barr, S., Shaw, G., Coles, T., 2011. Times for (Un)sustainability? Challenges and 20210113-1.
opportunities for developing behaviour change policy. A case-study of consumers at Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention. and Behavior. Addison-Wesley,
home and away. Global Environ. Change 21 (4), 1234–1244. Reading.
Bartolotta, J.F., Hardy, S.D., 2017. Barriers and Benefits to Desired Behaviors for Single Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., 2009. Predicting and Changing Behaior: The reasoned action
Use Plastic Items in Northeast Ohio’s Lake Erie Basin. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 127 approach. Psychology Press, New York.
(576–585), 5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.1012.1037. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M., Hultink, E.J., 2017. The Circular Economy -
Bell, J., Huber, J., Viscusi, W.K., 2017. Fostering Recycling Participation in Wisconsin A new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 143 (757–768), 7. https://doi.org/
Households through Single-Stream Programs. Land Econ. 93, 481-502 http://doi. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.1012.1048.
org/410.3368/le.3393.3363.3481. Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., Ulgiati, S., 2016. A Review on Circular Economy: The expected
Best, H., Kneip, T., 2019. Assessing the Causal Effect of Curbside Collection on Recycling transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J. Clean.
Behavior in a Non-Randomized Experiment with Self-Reported Outcome. Environ. Prod. 114, 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.1009.1007.
Resour. Econ. 72, 1202-1223 http://doi.org/1210.1007/s10640-10018-10244-x. Gifford, R., 2011. The Dragons of Inaction - Psychological barriers that limit climate
Boesen, S., Bey, N., Niero, M., 2019. Environmental Sustainability of Liquid Food change mitigation and adaption. Am. Psychol. Assoc. 66 (290–302), 2. https://doi.
Packaging : Is there a gap between Danish consumers’ perception and learnings from org/10.1037/a0023566.
life cycle assessment? J. Clean. Prod. 210 (1193–1206), 11. https://doi.org/ Gill, M.B., Jensen, K.L., Lambert, D.M., Upendram, S., English, B.C., Labbé, N.,
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.1111.1055. Jackson, S.W., Menard, R.J., 2020. Consumer Preferences for Eco-Friendly Attributes
Borg, K., Curtis, J., Lindsay, J.o., 2020. Social Norms and Plastic Avoidance: Testing the in Disposable Dinnerware. Resour. Conserv. Recycle 161, 104965. https://doi.org/
theory of normative social behaviour on an environmental behaviour. J. Consum. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104965.
Behav. 19 (6), 594–607. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1842. Gusenbauer, M., Haddaway, N.R., 2020. Which Academic Search Systems Are Suitable
Borrello, M., Pascucci, S., Caracciolo, F., Lombardi, A., Cembalo, L., 2020. Consumers are for Systematic Reviews or Meta-Analyses? Evaluating retrievals qualities of Google
Willing to Participate in Circular Business Models: A practice theory perspetive to Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Res. Synth. Method 11 (181–217), 1.
food provisioning. J. Clean. Prod. 259, 121013 121010.121016/j. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378.
jclepro.122020.121013. Hage, O., Sandberg, K., Söderholm, P., Berglund, C., 2018. The Regional Heterogeneity
of Household Recycling: A spatial-econometric analysis of Swedish packing waste.

76
L. Fogt Jacobsen et al. Waste Management 141 (2022) 63–78

Lett. Spat. Resour. Sci 11 (245–267), 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12076-12017- Monnot, E., Reniou, F., Parguel, B., Elgaaied-Gambier, L., 2019. “Thinking Outside the
10200-12073. Packaging Box”: Should brands consider store shelf context when eliminating
Hahladakis, J.N., Iacovidou, E., 2019. An Overview of the Challenges and Trade-Offs in overpackaging? J Bus. Ethics 154 (2), 355–370.
Closing the Loop of Post-Consumer Plastic Waste (PCPW): Focus on recycling. Moran, D., Wood, R., Hertwich, E., Mattson, K., Rodriguez, J.F.D., Schanes, K.,
J. Hazard. Mater. 380, 120887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.120887. Barrett, J., 2020. Quantifying the Potential for Consumer-Oriented Policy to Reduce
Hahladakis, J.N., Purnell, P., Iacovidou, E., Velis, C.A., Atseyinku, M., 2018. Post- European and Foreign Carbon emissions. Clim. Policy 20 (sup1), S28–S38.
Consumer Plastic Packaging Waste in England: Assessing the yield of multiple Muralidharan, S., Sheehan, K., 2016. “Tax” and “Fee” Message Frames as Inhibitors of
collection-recycling schemes. Waste Manage. 75 (149–159), 1. https://doi.org/ Plastic Bag Usage Among Shoppers: A social marketing application of the Theory of
10.1016/j.wasman.2018.1002.1009. Planned Behavior. Soc. Marketing Q. 22 (3), 200–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Haws, K.L., Winterich, K.P., Naylor, R.W., 2014. Seeing the World Through Green-Tinted 1524500416631522.
Glasses: Green consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly Mylan, J., Holmes, H., Paddock, J., 2016. Re-Introducing Consumption to the ’Circular
products. J. Consum. Psychol. 24 (3), 336–354. Economy’: A sociotechnical analysis of domestic food provisioning. Sustain. 8, 1–14.
Hazen, B.T., Mollenkopf, D.A., Wang, Y., 2017. Remanufacturing for the Circular https://doi.org/10.3390/su8080794.
Economy: An examination of consumer switching behavior. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 26 Nainggolan, D., Pedersen, A.B., Smed, S., Zemo, K.H., Hasler, B., Termansen, M., 2019.
(4), 451–464. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1929. Consumers in a Circular Economy: Economic analysis of household waste sorting
Heidbreder, L.M., Steinhorst, J., Schmitt, M., 2020. Plastic-Free July: An experimental behaviour. Ecol. Econ. 166, 106402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
study of limiting and promoting factors in encouraging a reduction of single-use ecolecon.2019.106402.
plastic consumption. Sustain 12 (4698), 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114698. Oliveira, V., Sousa, V., Vaz, J.M., Dias-Ferreira, C., 2018. Model for the Separate
Herbes, C., Beuthner, C., Ramme, I., 2018. Consumer Attitudes Towards Biobased Collection of Packaging Waste in Portuguese Low-Performing Recycling Regions.
Packaging - A crosscultural comparative study. J. Clean. Prod. 194 (203–218), 2. J. Environ. Manage. 216, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.1005.1106. jenvman.2017.1004.1065.
Herbes, C., Beuthner, C., Ramme, I., 2020. How Green is Your Packaging - A comparative Olson, E.L., 2013. It’s Not Easy Being Green: The effects of attribute tradeoffs in green
international study of cues consumers use to recognize environmentally friendly product preference and choice. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 41 (171–184), 1. https://doi.org/
packaging. Int. J. Consumer Stud. 44 (3), 258–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 10.1007/S11747-11012-10305-11746.
ijcs.12560. Orset, C., Barret, N., Lemaire, A., 2017. How consumers of Plastic Water Bottles are
Jacobsen, R., Willeghems, G., Gellynck, X., Buysse, J., 2018. Increasing the Quantity of Responding to Environmental Policies? Waste Manage. 61, 13–27. https://doi.org/
Separated Post-Consumer Plastics for Reducing Combustible Household Waste: The 10.1016/j.wasman.2016.1012.1034.
case of rigif plastics in Flanders. Waste Manage. 78 (708–716), 7. https://doi.org/ Pepper, M., Jackson, T., Uzzell, D., 2009. An Examination of the Values that Motivate
10.1016/j.wasman.2018.1006.1025. Socially Conscious and Frugal Consumer Behaviours. Int. J. Consumer Stud. 33
Jansson, J., Nordlund, A., Westin, K., 2017. Examining Drivers of Sustainable (126–136), 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00753.x.
Consumption: The influence of norms and opinion leadership on electric vehicle PlasticsEurope, EPRO, 2019. Plastics – the Facts 2019: An analysis of European plastics
adoption in Sweden. J. Clean. Prod. 154 (176–187), 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. production, demand and waste data: https://www.plasticseurope.org/application/
jclepro.2017.1003.1186. files/9715/7129/9584/FINAL_web_version_Plastics_the_facts2019_14102019.pdf,
Kang, J., Liu, C., Kim, S.-H., 2013. Environmentally Sustainable Textile and Apparel Brussels.
Consumption: the role of consumer knowledge, perceived consumer effectiveness Rhein, S., Schmid, M., 2020. Consumers’ Awareness of Plastic Packaging: More than just
and perceived personal relevance. Int. J. Consumer Stud. 37 (4), 442–452. https:// environmental concerns. Resour. Conserv. Recycle. 162, 105063. https://doi.org/
doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12013. 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105063.
Keys, N., Thomsen, D.C., Smith, T.F., 2016. Adaptive Capacity and Climate Change: The Rivers, N., Shenstone-Harris, S., Young, N., 2017. Using Nudges to Reduce Waste? The
role of community opinion leaders. Local Environ. 21 (4), 432–450. case of Toronto’s plastic bag levy. J. Environ. Manage. 188 (153–162), 1. https://
Klaiman, K., Ortega, D.L., Garnache, C., 2016. Consumer Preferences and Demand for doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.1012.1009.
Packaging Material and Recyclability. Resour. Conserv. Recycle. 115, 1–8. https:// Rokka, J., Uusitalo, L., 2008. Preference for Green Packaging in Consumer Product
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.1008.1021. Choices - Do consumers care? Int. J. Consumer Stud. 32 (516–525), 5. https://doi.
Klaiman, K., Ortega, D.L., Garnache, C., 2017. Perceived Barriers to Food Packaging org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2008.00710.x.
Recycling: Evidence from a choice experiment of US consumers. Food Control 73 Rousta, K., Ekström, K.M., 2013. Assessing Incorrect Household Waste Sorting in a
(291–299), 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.1008.1017. Medium-Sized Swedish City. Sustain. 5 (4349–4361), 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/
Koutsimanis, G., Getter, K., Behe, B., Harte, J., Almenar, E., 2012. Influences of su5104349.
Packaging Attributes on Consumer Purchase Decisions for Fresh Produce. Appetite Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2000. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic definitions and
59 (2), 270–280. new directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25 (1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/
Latinopoulos, D., Mentis, C., Bithas, K., 2018. The Impact of a Public Information ceps.1999.1020.
Campaign on Preferences for Marine Environmental Protection. The case of plastic Scharpenberg, C., Schmehl, M., Glimbovski, M., Geldermann, J., 2021. Analyzing the
waste. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 131, 151–162. Packaging Strategy of Packaging-Free Supermarkets. J. Clean. Prod. 292, 126048.
Lazzarini, G., Visschers, V.H.M., Siegrist, M., 2018. How to Improve Consumers’ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126048.
Environmental Sustainability Judgements of Foods. J. Clean. Prod. 198 (564–574), Septianto, F., Lee, M.S.W., 2020. Emotional Responses to plastic Waste: Matching image
5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.1007.1033. and message framing in encouraging consumers to reduce plastic consumption.
Leary, R.B., Vann, R.J., Mittelstaedt, J.D., Murphy, P.E., Sherry, J.F., 2014. Changing the Australas. Mark. J. 28 (1), 18–29.
Marketplace One Behavior at a Time: Perceived marketplace influence and Soma, T., Li, B., Maclaren, V., 2021. An Evaluation of a Consumer Food Waste Awareness
sustainable consumption. J. Bus. Res. 67 (9), 1953–1958. Campaign Using the Motivation Opportunity Ability Framework. Resour. Conserv.
Lindh, H., Olsson, A., Williams, H., 2016. Consumer Perceptions of Food Packaging: Recycle. 168, 105313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105313.
Contributing to or counteracting environmentally sstainable development? Packag. Stangherlin, I.D.C., Thøgersen, J., 2020. Consumption and Materialism: From acquisitive
Technol. Sci. 29, 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2184. to responsible materialism. In: Tudor, T., Dutro, C. (Eds.), A Handbook of Waste.
Longo, C., Shankar, A., Nuttall, P., 2019. “It’s Not Easy Living a Sustainable Lifestyle”: Resources and the Cirular Economy, Routhledge.
How greater knowledge leads to dilemmas, tensions and paralysis. J Bus. Ethics 154 Stern, P.C., 2000. Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behaviour.
(3), 759–779. J. Soc. Iss. 56 (407–424), 4. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175.
Louis, D., Lombart, C., Durif, F., 2021. Packaging-Free Products: A lever of proximity and Stoeva, K., Alriksson, S., 2017. Influence of Recycling Programmes on Waste Separation
loyalty between consumers and grocery stores. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 60, 102499. Behaviour. Waste Manage. 68 (732–741), 7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102499. wasman.2017.1006.1005.
Luis, S., Roseta-Palma, C., Matos, M., Lima, M.L., Sousa, C., 2020. Psychological and Sörme, L., Voxberg, E., Rosenlund, J., Jensen, S., Augustsson, A., 2019. Coloured Plastic
Economic Impacts of a Charge in Lightweight Plastic Carrier Bags in Portugal: Keep Bags for Kerbside Collection of Waste from Households - To improve waste recycling.
calm or carry on? Resour. Conserv. Recycle. 161, 104962 104910.101016/j. Recycl. 4, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling4020020.
resconrec.102020.104962. Taufik, D., Reinders, M.J., Molenveld, K., Onwezen, M.C., 2020. The Paradox Between
Lundblad, L., Davies, I.A., 2016. The Values and Motivations Behind sustainable Fashion the Environmental Appeal of Bio-Based Plastic Packaging for Consumers and Their
Consumption. J. Consum. Behav. 15 (2), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/ Disposal Behaviour. Sci. Total Environ. 705, 135820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cb.1559. scitotenv.2019.135820.
Macintosh, A., Simpson, A., Neeman, T., Dickson, K., 2020. Plastic Bag Bans: Lessons Taylor, R.L., Villas-Boas, S.B., 2016. Bans vs. Fees: Disposable Carryout Bag Policies and
from the Australian capital territory. Resour. Conserv. Recycle. 154, 104638. Bag Usage. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 38 (2), 351–372.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104638. Testa, F., Iovino, R., Iraldo, F., 2020. The Circular Economy and Consumer Behaviour:
Maitre-Ekern, E., Dalhammar, C., 2019. Towards a Hierarchy of Consumption Behaviour The mediating role of information seeling in buying circular packaging. Bus. Strateg.
in the Circular Economy. Maastricht J. Eur. Consum. Law 26 (3), 394–420. https:// Environ. 29 (3435–3448), 34. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2587.
doi.org/10.1177/1023263X19840943. Thomas, G.O., Poortinga, W., Sautkina, E., 2016. The Welsh Single-Use Carrier Bag
Martinho, G., Balaia, N., Pires, A., 2017. The Portuguese Plastic Carrier Bag Tax: The Charge and Behavioural Spillover. J. Environ. Psychol. 47 (126–135), 1. https://doi.
effects on consumers’ behavior. Waste Manage. 61, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.1005.1008.
wasman.2017.1001.1023. Thomas, G.O., Sautkina, E., Poortinga, W., Wolstenholme, E., Whitmarsh, L., 2019. The
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., 2009. Preferred reporting items for English Plastic Bag Charge Changed Behavior and Increased Support for Other
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6 (7). Charges to Reduce Plastic Waste. Front. Psychol. 10, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2019.00266.

77
L. Fogt Jacobsen et al. Waste Management 141 (2022) 63–78

Thøgersen, J., 1994. A Model of Recycling Behaviour. With evidence from Danish source Wells, V.K., Ponting, C.A., Peattie, K., 2011. Behaviour and Climate Change: Consumer
separation. Int. J. Res. Mark. 11, 145-163 110.1016/0167-8116(1094)90025-90026. perceptions of responsibility. J. Mark. Manag. 27 (7-8), 808–833.
Thφgersen, J., 1999. The Ethical Consumer. Moral norms and packaging choice. White, A., Lockyer, S., 2020. Removing Plastic Packaging from Fresh Produce - What’s
J. Consumer Policy 22 (4), 439–460. the impact? Nutr. Bull. 45 (1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/nbu.12420.
Thøgersen, J., 2005. How May Consumer Policy Empower Consumers to Sustainable White, K., Habib, R., Hardisty, D.J., 2019. How to SHIFT Consumer Behaviors to be More
Lifestyles. J. Consumer Policy 28 (143–178), 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603- Sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework. J. Marketing 83 (3), 22–49.
10005-12982-10608. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919825649.
Thøgersen, J., 2006. Norms for Environmentally Responsible Behaviour: An extended Wikström, F., Williams, H., Verghese, K., Clune, S., 2014. The Influence of Packaging
taxonomy. J. Environ. Psychol. 26 (4), 247–261. Attributes on Consumer Behaviour in Food-Packaging Life Cycle Assessment Studies
Thøgersen, J., 2014. Unsustainable Consumption: Basic causes and implications for - A neglected topic. J. Clean. Prod. 73 (100–108), 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
policy. Eur. Psychol. 19 (2), 84–95. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000176. jclepro.2013.1010.1042.
UNIDO, 2020. Circular Economy https://www.unido.org/our-focus-cross-cutting- Winterich, K.P., Nenkov, G.Y., Gonzales, G.E., 2019. Knowing What It Makes: How
services/circular-economy, in: Organization, U.N.I.D. (Ed.). product transformation salience increases recycling. J. Marketing 83 (4), 21–37.
van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., 2008. Environmental Regulation of Households: An empirical https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919842167.
review of economic and psychological factors. Ecol. Econ. 66 (4), 559–574. Yamaguchi, K., Takeuchi, K., 2016. Consumer Preferences for Reduced Packaging under
van Velzen, E.U.T., Brouwer, M.T., Feil, A., 2019. Collection Behaviour of Lightweight Economic Instruments and Recycling Policy. Waste Manage. 48 (540–547), 5.
Packaging Waste by Individual Households and Implications for Analysis of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.1011.1015.
Collection Schemes. Waste Manage. 89 (284–293), 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Yang, S., Wei, J., Cheng, P., 2021. Spillover of Different Requlatory Policies for Waste
wasman.2019.1004.1021. Sorting: Potential influence on energy-saving policy acceptability. Waste Manage.
Verplanken, B., 2018. Promoting Sustainability: Towards a segmentation model of 125 (112–121), 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.1002.1008.
individual and household behaviour and behaviour change. Sustain. Dev. 26 (3), ölander, F., ThØgersen, J., 1995. Understanding of Consumer Behaviour as a Prerequisite
193–205. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1694. for Environmental Protection. J. Consumer Policy 18 (4), 345–385.

78