Elsevier

Journal of Environmental Psychology

Volume 36, December 2013, Pages 240-247
Journal of Environmental Psychology

The introduction of a single-use carrier bag charge in Wales: Attitude change and behavioural spillover effects

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.09.001Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The study evaluated the introduction of the single-use carrier bag charge in Wales.

  • A bag charge is an effective way of reducing single-use carrier bag use.

  • The single-use carrier bag charge brought about a change in habits in Wales.

  • Support for the single-use carrier bag charge increased after its introduction.

  • The study found no evidence for positive behavioural spillover.

Abstract

Wales is the first country in the United Kingdom to have introduced a charge for single-use carrier bags. A 2 × 2 quasi-experimental field study was set up to evaluate the effectiveness and further attitudinal and behavioural impacts of the charge. Independent nationally representative quota samples were interviewed before and after the introduction of the carrier bag charge in Wales and at the same times in England (n = 500 each). England, where no carrier bag charge was introduced, served as the comparator for the study. The study found increases in own bag use in both countries. However, the increase was much greater in Wales than in England. The study also found evidence for the policy becoming more popular after its implementation in Wales. While support for the carrier bag charge was already high before its introduction, the Welsh population became even more supportive afterwards. Although no support was found for positive behavioural spillover, the study found changes in self-reported environmental identity that could produce positive spillover effects in the longer term. The theoretical and policy implications of the findings are discussed.

Introduction

Wales is the first country in the United Kingdom to have introduced a charge for single-use carrier bags. From the 1st of October 2011 onwards, shoppers in Wales have to pay a compulsory five pence for each single-use carrier bag at point of sale.1 The charge was introduced to prevent littering and to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill (Welsh Assembly Government, 2010). A quasi-experimental field study was set up to evaluate the effectiveness of the charge to reduce carrier bag use amongst the general public, and to explore further attitudinal and behavioural responses to the charge. More specifically, the introduction of the carrier bag charge in Wales was used as a natural experiment to examine whether environmental policies may become more popular after their introduction and lead to behaviour spillover, i.e., promote pro-environmental behaviours other than the one(s) directly targeted by the policy.

Over the past decade a remarkable shift in the international norms associated with disposable carrier bags has taken place. Single-use carrier bags – plastic ones in particular – are increasingly seen as an environmental hazard threatening human and animal welfare, rather than as a benign modern convenience. Many national and local governments have therefore either banned or put restrictions on the sale or use of disposable plastic bags (Clapp & Swanston, 2009). The success of these countries to reduce plastic bag use among the general public has led to other countries, states and local communities following suit with comparable measures (e.g., Convery, McDonnell, & Ferreira, 2007).

While there have been many initiatives to reduce single-use carrier bags, very few of them have been evaluated. The available evidence suggests that a tax or a charge on disposable carrier bags can be highly effective.2 Research by Convery et al. (2007) shows that plastic bag tax introduced in the Republic of Ireland in 2002 (the ‘plastax’) reduced plastic bag use by more than 90% and raised revenues in the order of €12–14 million for the Environment Fund. However, this conclusion was based on evidence from multiple sources, not on a systematic evaluation of the policy. A national plastic bag charge introduced in China in 2008 led to a 49% reduction in the use of new plastic bags (He, 2010). In this study, independent samples of shoppers were interviewed before and after the implementation of the policy. However, without a comparable control or comparator group, the research was not able to separate the effects of the policy from more general trends in plastic bag use.

There are different ways in which the effectiveness of a tax or a charge on carrier bags can be understood. Economists see a carrier bag tax or charge as a typical market-based instrument that internalises the costs of environmental pollution. The effectiveness is therefore based on the pricing of the external costs of pollution that were not previously part of the consumers' decision to use disposable carrier bags. The functioning of market-based instruments is well supported by economic theory (Tietenberg, Button, & Nijkamp, 1999). According to economic theory, ‘emissions’ (i.e. number of bags used) will be reduced to the point where the marginal benefits of internalisation equal the marginal costs of abatement (Convery et al., 2007). However, while the pricing certainly forms part of the explanation, a singular economic focus may ignore important psychological processes that could contribute to the success of a tax or charge to change behaviour.

The functioning of the carrier bag charge can also be understood from a ‘habit discontinuity’ perspective (Verplanken, Walker, Davis, & Jurasek, 2008). The use of carrier bags may – like many other waste-related behaviours – be strongly habitual (i.e. automatic, frequent and ‘cued’ by stable contexts; Verplanken, Aarts, van Knippenberg, & Moonen, 1998). The introduction of the charge can be seen as a ‘context change’ after which bag use needs to be renegotiated. While previously consumers may have ‘unconsciously’ grabbed a single-use carrier bag at the cashier till, a carrier bag charge or tax forces them to make a conscious decision as to whether they want to use one or not. People are then prompted to adapt their behaviour to either avoid the charge, as argued by economic theory, or to bring behaviour in line with their values, as posited by the self-activation hypothesis (Verplanken et al., 2008). The old wasteful habit then may (or may not) be replaced by the new behaviour of bringing a re-usable bag to the shops, which in the longer term may become a habit in its own.

In addition to the intended changes in the targeted behaviours, environmental policies appear to elicit a number of other less well understood attitudinal and behavioural responses. Despite Irish consumers being somewhat resistant to the plastic bag charge prior to its introduction (Drury Research, 2000), Convery et al. (2007) reported that they became more positive about the policy after its implementation. Convery et al. (2007) even label the policy as “the most popular tax in Europe”. Similar positive attitudinal changes were observed for other environmental and behavioural change policies. Smokers as well as non-smokers have been found to be more supportive of a smoking ban after the benefits became apparent (Borland et al., 1990, Owen et al., 1991, Seo et al., 2011); and a number of congestion charges have become more popular after they came into force (Schuitema et al., 2010, Transport for London, 2004).3

Attitude change brought about by behaviour change policies can be explained by well-established social psychological consistency theories, such as cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) and self-perception theory (Bem, 1967). Cognitive dissonance theory posits that people have a motivational drive to reduce discrepancies between attitudes and behaviour, as such discrepancies produce feelings of discomfort. This can be done by either changing attitudes or behaviours. According to self-perception theory, people infer their own attitudes from observing their own behaviour. Attitude change may therefore occur if policies are successful in changing behaviour.

An alternative explanation for the positive attitudinal changes is that parts of the public have unrealistic expectations regarding the consequences of the proposed policies. These views may then be adjusted after people have experienced the benefits of a policy and/or have been able to adapt to the policy without much difficulty (Ölander & Thøgersen, 1995).

A possible side effect of cognitive dissonance and self-perception processes is that the policies and their accompanying attitude and behaviour changes may lead to further behavioural responses. The spread of effects from a targeted behaviour to other associated behaviours is known as behavioural spillover (Thøgersen, 2004, Thøgersen and Crompton, 2009) or response generalisation (Ludwig, 2002, Ludwig and Geller, 1997). According to Bem's self-perception theory (1967) people do not only infer their attitudes from their behaviours; they also use their behaviours as ‘cues to their internal dispositions’. This means that engagement in pro-environmental behaviour may encourage changes in people's values and identity, which then may lead to further behavioural changes in line with the revised identity (Whitmarsh & O'Neill, 2010). If people stop using single-use carrier bags and start bringing their own reusable bag to the shops, they may see themselves as being more waste conscious and thus are more likely to make other waste-conscious decisions.

Response generalisation theory argues that reinforcement effects may spread to other functionally similar behaviours (Ludwig, 2002). The use of behavioural spillover processes to promote environmentally sustainable lifestyles change has gained some traction in policy circles. It is hoped that certain ‘catalytic’ or ‘wedge’ behaviours may serve as entry points in helping people to make additional changes (Defra, 2008). However, while behavioural spillover or response generalisation has been observed for safety behaviours (Ludwig & Geller, 1997), there is little empirical evidence of spillover effects in the environmental domain. Most of the evidence in the environmental domain is still predominantly correlational (Barr et al., 2005, Poortinga, Spence, et al., 2012, Thøgersen and Noblet, 2012, Whitmarsh and O'Neill, 2010). While response generalisation may have contributed to the covariance between the different (types of) environmental behaviour, a causal relationship can only be established via (field) experimental research.

It also has to be considered that changes in a target behaviour might not necessarily lead to additional attitude and other behavioural change. People need to change their behaviour voluntarily and for the ‘right’ reasons. If behaviour change is (perceived to be) imposed or associated with external contingencies, the behaviour could become extrinsically rather than intrinsically motivated (Deci & Ryan, 1985). This is then unlikely to produce changes in identity and other associated behaviours. Also, evidence is emerging that spillover effects can only be expected if policies appeal to environmental rather than self-interested reasons for behavioural change (Evans et al., 2013).

There are further risks associated with relying too much on behavioural spillover processes to establish further changes in lifestyle. Adopting particular pro-environmental behaviours may establish ‘moral credentials’ (Thøgersen & Crompton, 2009) which may lead to negative spillover through a ‘licensing effect’ (Mazar & Zhong, 2010). By engaging people in one salient environmentally significant act (e.g., recycling), they may feel they earned the right to engage in other more wasteful behaviours (e.g., a flight to an exotic destination).

The overall aim of the study was to investigate the effectiveness and further attitudinal and behavioural impacts of the single-use carrier bag charge in Wales. The focus of the research was four-fold. First, the study examined the effectiveness of the charge to reduce its target behaviour of single-use carrier bag use. It was hypothesised that people in Wales are more likely to bring their own reusable shopping bag/s to supermarkets and other shops after the introduction of the carrier bag charge (Hypothesis 1).

Second, the study examined attitudinal changes brought about by the charge. It was expected that due to self-perception and cognitive dissonance processes, people in Wales would become more positive about the carrier bag charge after its introduction. The specific hypotheses being tested were: people in Wales will become more supportive of the charge after its introduction (Hypothesis 2a) and will develop more positive attitudes towards the charge after its introduction (Hypothesis 2b).

The third aim of the paper was to explore potential changes in identity as a result of the carrier bag charge. It was hypothesised that, as a result of self-perception and cognitive dissonance processes, a waste-conscious/environmental identity will become more prevalent in Wales after the introduction of the carrier bag charge (Hypothesis 3).

Fourth, the study explored possible spillover to other waste and non-waste related environmental behaviours. It was hypothesised (Hypothesis 4) that the carrier bag charge will produce changes in other waste-related behaviours (e.g. recycling) but not in non-waste related environmental behaviours (e.g. energy use).

Section snippets

The study

A quasi-experimental field study consisting of independent samples was set up to evaluate the introduction of the single-use carrier bag charge in Wales. Telephone surveys were conducted in Wales before (n = 500) and after (n = 500) the introduction of the charge. Similar telephone surveys were conducted in England at the same times (n = 500 in both the before and after sample). The interviews conducted in England, where no carrier bag charge was introduced, served as the comparator for the

Own bag use

When respondents were asked if they brought their own bag to the supermarket at their last visit (see Fig. 1), a significant difference was found between the before and after samples, F(1, 2173) = 81.37, p < 0.001. Overall, respondents were more likely to report bringing their own bag after the introduction of the charge. A significant difference was found between the Welsh and English samples, F(1, 2173) = 12.18, p < 0.01. The Welsh respondents were, overall, more likely than the English to

Discussion

This study aimed to evaluate the introduction of the single-use carrier bag charge in Wales by comparing changes in attitudes and behaviour in Wales with those in England, where no charge was introduced at the time of the study. Key objectives of the study were to examine the effectiveness of the charge to reduce the use of single-use carrier bags (as indicated by own bag use); changes in support for and attitudes towards the charge; potential changes in identity as a result of the carrier bag

Acknowledgements

The research was made possible by financial support from the Welsh Government.

References (33)

  • D.J. Bem

    Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena

    Psychological Review

    (1967)
  • J. Clapp et al.

    Doing away with plastic shopping bags: International patterns of norm emergence and policy implementation

    Environmental Politics

    (2009)
  • F. Convery et al.

    The most popular tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish plastic bags levy

    Environment and Resource Economics

    (2007)
  • E.L. Deci et al.

    Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior

    (1985)
  • Defra

    A framework for pro-environmental behaviours

    (2008)
  • Drury Research

    Attitudes and actions – A national survey on the environment

    (2000)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text