Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Human Perceptions and Behaviour Determine Aquatic Plastic Pollution

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Plastics in the Aquatic Environment - Part II

Part of the book series: The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry ((HEC,volume 112))

Abstract

Aquatic plastic pollution is entirely due to humans. Throughout the whole life cycle of plastic, from production via consumption to disposal, it is human decisions and behaviour that ultimately lead to plastic ending up in aquatic environments. Every sector, every individual plays a role in the fate of plastic waste. For example, designers and producers make decisions about materials, appearance and functionality; consumers make purchasing decisions and dispose of items after use; policy makers decide on regulation and legal frameworks. These processes can be documented and explained using theories and methods from the social and behavioural sciences. More importantly, these insights can guide social change processes systematically and help develop and evaluate effective communication and behaviour change interventions. This chapter will summarise recent work on the human dimension in aquatic plastic pollution. Our focus will be on relevant literature from social and environmental psychology on risk perception, risk communication and behaviour change. We will draw on interdisciplinary and international work to highlight challenges to such integrative research and misunderstandings between disciplines. We will include research on macro- and microplastics and a range of stakeholders such as fishermen, the general public and young people. This will be complemented by a selective review of research on littering, media coverage and international initiatives. Finally, we will summarise remaining challenges and outline gaps in research.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 299.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Pahl S, Wyles KJ, Thompson RC (2017) Channelling passion for the ocean towards plastic pollution. Nat Hum Behav 1(10):697–699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jambeck JR et al (2015) Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347(6223):768–771

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Beaumont NJ et al (2019) Global ecological, social and economic impacts of marine plastic. Mar Pollut Bull 142:189–195

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Law KL (2017) Plastics in the marine environment. Annu Rev Mar Sci 9:205–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Galgani L et al (2019) Impacts of marine litter. Front Mar Sci 6:208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. SAPEA, Science Advice for Policy by European Academies (2019) A scientific perspective on microplastics in nature and society. SAPEA, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.26356/microplastics. https://www.sapea.info/microplastics-launch/

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. World Health Organization (2019) Microplastics in drinking-water. Geneva. License: CC

    Google Scholar 

  8. GESAMP (2020) In: Kershaw PJ, Carney Almroth B, Villarrubia-Gómez P, Koelmans AA, Gouin T (eds) Proceedings of the GESAMP international workshop on assessing the risks associated with plastics and microplastics in the marine environment. (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/ UNEP/UNDP/ISA Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection). Reports to GESAMP No. 103, 68 pp. http://www.gesamp.org/publications/gesamp-international-workshop-on-assessing-the-risks-associated-with-plastics-and-microplastics-in-the-marine-environment

  9. European Commission. A European strategy for plastics in a circular economy

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sunstein CR (2019) How change happens. MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  11. Independent (2020). https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/new-york-plastic-bag-ban-twitter-blacklash-single-use-plastics-a9371061.html

  12. Telegraph (2018). https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/01/top-australian-supermarket-backs-plastic-bag-ban-critics-blame/

  13. Alpizar F et al (2020) A framework for selecting and designing policies to reduce marine plastic pollution in developing countries. Environ Sci Pol 109:25–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gupta K (2011) Consumer responses to incentives to reduce plastic bag use: evidence from a field experiment in urban India, Nepal: South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics (SAMDEE)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bolderdijk JW et al (2013) Comparing the effectiveness of monetary versus moral motives in environmental campaigning. Nat Clim Chang 3(4):413–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Benartzi S et al (2017) Should governments invest more in nudging? Psychol Sci 28(8):1041–1055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Campaign (2019). https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/iceland-md-richard-walker-no-idea-rang-tan-film-blocked-tv/1578724

  18. Peacock M, et al. (2019) Recycle, Reuse, Renew: food packaging pledges and promises in the fight against plastic pollution

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hoskins R (2008) Ban the plastic bag: a community action plan for a carrier bag free world. Penguin Books

    Google Scholar 

  20. GESAMP (2015) In: Kershaw PJ (ed) Sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the marine environment: a global assessment. IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/ UNDP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection. p 96

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tankard ME, Paluck EL (2016) Norm perception as a vehicle for social change. Soc Issues Policy Rev 10(1):181–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA (1990) A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J Pers Soc Psychol 58(6):1015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Keizer K, Lindenberg S, Steg L (2013) The importance of demonstratively restoring order. PLoS One 8(6):e65137

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Horcajo J, Briñol P, Petty RE (2014) Multiple roles for majority versus minority source status on persuasion when source status follows the message. Soc Influ 9(1):37–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Prislin R, Christensen PN (2005) Social change in the aftermath of successful minority influence. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 16(1):43–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Nemeth C, Swedlund M, Kanki B (1974) Patterning of the minority’s responses and their influence on the majority. Eur J Soc Psychol 4(1):53–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Moscovici S, Nemeth C (1974) Social influence: II. Minority influence

    Google Scholar 

  28. Clark RD, Maass A (1988) Social categorization in minority influence: the case of homosexuality. Eur J Soc Psychol 18(4):347–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Smith LG, Thomas EF, McGarty C (2015) “We must be the change we want to see in the world”: integrating norms and identities through social interaction. Polit Psychol 36(5):543–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Anderson A et al (2016) Microplastics in personal care products: exploring perceptions of environmentalists, beauticians and students. Mar Pollut Bull 113(1–2):454–460

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Bergmann M et al (2017) Citizen scientists reveal: marine litter pollutes Arctic beaches and affects wild life. Mar Pollut Bull 125(1):535–540

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Evans J, Jones P (2011) The walking interview: methodology, mobility and place. Appl Geogr 31(2):849–858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Henderson L, Green C (2020) Making sense of microplastics? Public understandings of plastic pollution. Mar Pollut Bull 152:110908

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Troschinetz AM, Mihelcic JR (2009) Sustainable recycling of municipal solid waste in developing countries. Waste Manag 29(2):915–923

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Hartley BL et al (2018) Exploring public views on marine litter in Europe: perceived causes, consequences and pathways to change. Mar Pollut Bull 133:945–955

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Oppenheim AN (2000) Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. Bloomsbury Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  38. Sheeran P, Webb TL (2016) The intention–behavior gap. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 10(9):503–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kormos C, Gifford R (2014) The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: a meta-analytic review. J Environ Psychol 40:359–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Martin L et al (2020) Nature contact, nature connectedness and associations with health, wellbeing and pro-environmental behaviours. J Environ Psychol 68:101389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Jakovcevic A et al (2014) Charges for plastic bags: motivational and behavioral effects. J Environ Psychol 40:372–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Schultz PW et al (2013) Littering in context: personal and environmental predictors of littering behavior. Environ Behav 45(1):35–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hartley BL, Thompson RC, Pahl S (2015) Marine litter education boosts children’s understanding and self-reported actions. Mar Pollut Bull 90(1–2):209–217

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Abrahamse W, Steg L (2013) Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: a meta-analysis. Glob Environ Chang 23(6):1773–1785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. McKenzie-Mohr D (2013) Fostering sustainable behavior: an introduction to community-based social marketing. New Society Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  46. Peters G-JY, Ruiter RA, Kok G (2013) Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory. Health Psychol Rev 7(Supp 1):S8–S31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Steg L, Vlek C (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J Environ Psychol 29(3):309–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Nuojua S, Pahl S, Thompson RC (2020) Ocean connectedness and consumer responses to single-use packaging. Manuscript under review

    Google Scholar 

  49. Nolan JM et al (2008) Normative social influence is underdetected. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 34(7):913–923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Wyles KJ (In Press) An issue buried under the ice? National survey examining people's perceptions to marine plastic waste in the Arctic and its influence on their plastic behaviour. Manuscript in preparation

    Google Scholar 

  51. Klöckner CA (2013) A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour—a meta-analysis. Glob Environ Chang 23(5):1028–1038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York

    Google Scholar 

  53. De Groot JI, Steg L (2008) Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior: how to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environ Behav 40(3):330–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Heidbreder LM et al (2019) Tackling the plastic problem: a review on perceptions, behaviors, and interventions. Sci Total Environ 668:1077–1093

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. O'Connor RT et al (2010) Effects of number and location of bins on plastic recycling at a university. J Appl Behav Anal 43(4):711–715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Varotto A, Spagnolli A (2017) Psychological strategies to promote household recycling. A systematic review with meta-analysis of validated field interventions. J Environ Psychol 51:168–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Geiger JL et al (2019) A meta-analysis of factors related to recycling. J Environ Psychol 64:78–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Van Eygen E, Laner D, Fellner J (2018) Circular economy of plastic packaging: current practice and perspectives in Austria. Waste Manag 72:55–64

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Ohtomo S, Ohnuma S (2014) Psychological interventional approach for reduce resource consumption: reducing plastic bag usage at supermarkets. Resour Conserv Recycl 84:57–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Rivers N, Shenstone-Harris S, Young N (2017) Using nudges to reduce waste? The case of Toronto’s plastic bag levy. J Environ Manag 188:153–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Poortinga W, Whitmarsh L, Suffolk C (2013) The introduction of a single-use carrier bag charge in Wales: attitude change and behavioural spillover effects. J Environ Psychol 36:240–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Dorn M, Stöckli S (2018) Social influence fosters the use of a reusable takeaway box. Waste Manag 79:296–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Lawman HG et al (2020) Peer reviewed: hydrate philly: an intervention to increase water access and appeal in recreation centers. Prev Chronic Dis 17

    Google Scholar 

  64. Poortinga W, Whitaker L (2018) Promoting the use of reusable coffee cups through environmental messaging, the provision of alternatives and financial incentives. Sustainability 10(3):873

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Nelms S et al (2017) Marine anthropogenic litter on British beaches: a 10-year nationwide assessment using citizen science data. Sci Total Environ 579:1399–1409

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Wyles KJ, Pahl S, Holland M, Thompson RC (2017) Can beach cleans do more than clean-up litter? Comparing beach cleans to other coastal activities. Environ Behav 49:509–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916516649412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Schofield J et al (2020) Object narratives as a methodology for mitigating marine plastic pollution: multidisciplinary investigations in Galápagos. Antiquity 94(373):228–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Lawson DF et al (2019) Children can foster climate change concern among their parents. Nat Clim Chang 9(6):458–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. DiCenso A et al (2002) Interventions to reduce unintended pregnancies among adolescents: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Br Med J 324(7351):1426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Dilkes-Hoffman L et al (2019) Public attitudes towards bioplastics–knowledge, perception and end-of-life management. Resour Conserv Recycl 151:104479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Fletcher S et al (2009) Public awareness of marine environmental issues in the UK. Mar Policy 33(2):370–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Gelcich S et al (2014) Public awareness, concerns, and priorities about anthropogenic impacts on marine environments. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111(42):15042–15047

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Scott N, Parsons E (2005) A survey of public opinion in south-West Scotland on cetacean conservation issues. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshwat Ecosyst 15(3):299–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. EU Open Data Portal, Special Eurobarometer 501: Attitudes of European citizens towards the Environment (2020) European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  75. Davison et al. Public concern about, and desire for research into, the human health effects of marine plastic pollution: Results from a 15-country survey across Europe and Australia. Manuscript in preparation

    Google Scholar 

  76. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public's views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociol Q 52(2):155–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Slovic P (1999) Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal 19(4):689–701

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Spence A, Poortinga W, Pidgeon N (2012) The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Anal 32(6):957–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. White MP, Eiser JR (2006) Marginal trust in risk managers: building and losing trust following decisions under uncertainty. Risk Anal 26(5):1187–1203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Klöckner CA (2015) The psychology of pro-environmental communication: beyond standard information strategies. Palgrave Macmillan, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  81. Plous S (1993) The psychology of judgment and decision making. Mcgraw-Hill

    Google Scholar 

  82. Böhm G, Tanner C (2018) Environmental risk perception. In: Steg L, Groot JIM (eds) Environmental psychology, pp 13–25

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  83. Kasperson RE, Kasperson JX (1996) The social amplification and attenuation of risk. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 545(1):95–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Morgan MG et al (2002) Risk communication: a mental models approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  85. Arnett JJ (2016) The neglected 95%: why American psychology needs to become less American. Am Psychol 63(7):602–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A (2010) Most people are not WEIRD. Nature 466(7302):29–29

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A (2010) The weirdest people in the world? Behav Brain Sci 33(2–3):61–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Simmons EC, Fielding KS (2019) Psychological predictors of fishing and waste management intentions in Indonesian coastal communities. J Environ Psychol 65:101324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Van der Linden S (2015) The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: towards a comprehensive model. J Environ Psychol 41:112–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Goldstein N, Cialdini RB, Griskevicius V (2008) A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J Consum Res 35(3):472–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Singhirunnusorn W, Donlakorn K, Kaewhanin W (2012) Contextual factors influencing household recycling behaviours: a case of waste bank project in Mahasarakham municipality. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 36:688–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Pakpour AH et al (2014) Household waste behaviours among a community sample in Iran: an application of the theory of planned behaviour. Waste Manag 34(6):980–986

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Thongpila K (2019) Fabricated future: applying the theory of planned behavior to influence purchase intention of green fashion made from recycled plastic in Thailand, in textile management. University of Boras, Boras

    Google Scholar 

  95. Halder P, Singh H (2018) Predictors of recycling intentions among the youth: a developing country perspective. Recycling 3(3):38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Mtutu P, Thondhlana G (2016) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: energy use and recycling at Rhodes University, South Africa. Habitat Int 53:142–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Bratt C (1999) The impact of norms and assumed consequences on recycling behavior. Environ Behav 31(5):630–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Schultz PW (2002) Knowledge, information, and household recycling: Examining the knowledge-deficit model of behavior change. New tools for environmental protection: Education, information, and voluntary measures. pp 67–82

    Google Scholar 

  99. Afroz R et al (2010) A survey of recycling behaviour in households in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Waste Manag Res 28(6):552–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Akil AM, Foziah J, Ho CS (2015) The effects of socio-economic influences on households recycling behaviour in Iskandar Malaysia. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 202:124–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Miafodzyeva S, Brandt N (2013) Recycling behaviour among householders: synthesizing determinants via a meta-analysis. Waste Biomass Valorization 4(2):221–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Rist S et al (2018) A critical perspective on early communications concerning human health aspects of microplastics. Sci Total Environ 626:720–726

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Wardman T, Koelmans AA, Whyte J, Pahl S (2010) Communicating the absence of evidence for microplastics risk: balancing sensation and reflection. Environ Int:106116, ISSN 0160–4120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106116. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412020320717

  104. Rozin P, Royzman EB (2001) Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 5(4):296–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Richter I, Thøgersen J, Klöckner CA (2018) A social norms intervention going wrong: boomerang effects from descriptive norms information. Sustainability 10(8):2848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Newman S et al (2015) The economics of marine litter. In: Marine anthropogenic litter. Springer, Cham, pp 367–394

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  107. Czigány T, Ronkay F (2020) The coronavirus and plastics. Express Polym Lett 14(6):510–511

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Prata JC et al (2020) COVID-19 pandemic repercussions on the use and management of plastics. Environ Sci Technol

    Google Scholar 

  109. Thompson RC, Pahl S. University of Plymouth. Unpublished data

    Google Scholar 

  110. Dietz T et al (2009) Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(44):18452–18456

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology and Marine Institute, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK

    Sabine Pahl, Isabel Richter & Kayleigh Wyles

  2. Urban and Environmental Psychology Group, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Sabine Pahl

  3. University of Surrey, Surrey, UK

    Kayleigh Wyles

Authors
  1. Sabine Pahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Isabel Richter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kayleigh Wyles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sabine Pahl .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. German Federal Institute of Hydrology, Koblenz, Germany

    Friederike Stock

  2. German Federal Institute of Hydrology, Koblenz, Germany

    Georg Reifferscheid

  3. German Federal Institute of Hydrology, Koblenz, Germany

    Nicole Brennholt

  4. P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

    Evgeniia Kostianaia

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pahl, S., Richter, I., Wyles, K. (2020). Human Perceptions and Behaviour Determine Aquatic Plastic Pollution. In: Stock, F., Reifferscheid, G., Brennholt, N., Kostianaia, E. (eds) Plastics in the Aquatic Environment - Part II. The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, vol 112. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/698_2020_672

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation