A Proposed Model of Attitudinal and Behavioral Support for Plastic Bag Fee in Turkey

Abstract

This study aims to explore the factors that influence Turkish consumers’ support for the plastic bag fee (PBF) as an environmental policy intervention. For this purpose, a conceptual framework has been developed based on the previous research of environmental consumption, environmental policy support, and the qualitative research findings on responses to plastic bag fee. Within this framework, the impacts of frugality, pro-environmental personal norms, the amount of plastic bag usage, knowledge about the purpose of the practice, perceived effectiveness and perceived cost of the practice, and various demographic factors on the attitudinal and behavioral support were investigated. To test the theoretical framework data was collected through a survey on a sample consisted of 321 consumers living in 23 different cities of Turkey, mainly in Istanbul, Kocaeli, and Bursa. Analysis results showed that behavioral and attitudinal support for the plastic bag fee has some distinct antecedents. However, the perceived effectiveness of and consumers’ knowledge about PBF practice has a critical impact on both attitudinal and behavioral support. The findings also indicated that attitudinal support does not only promote behavioral support for the current practice but also facilitate the adoption of similar future practices. In the light of the findings, suggestions on how to enable a strong consumer support for similar practices that may be used in the future are provided

Keywords

• Plastic bag fee,attitudinal support,behavioral support,antecedents of policy support

Plastik Poşetlerin Ücretlendirilmesi Uygulamasına Gösterilen Tutumsal ve Davranışsal Desteğin Açıklanmasına Yönelik Model Önerisi

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı Türk Tüketicisinin plastik poşetlerin ücretlendirilmesi (PPÜ) uygulamasına yönelik göstereceği desteği açıklamada etkili faktörlerin belirlenmesidir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda çevreci tüketim, çevreci politikaların kabulü literatürüne ve konuya ilişkin nitel araştırma bulgularına dayalı olarak bir kavramsal çerçeve geliştirilmiştir. Bu çerçeve kapsamında PPÜ uygulamasına gösterilen tutumsal destek ile davranışsal destek niyetinin oluşumunda tutumluluk, bireysel çevreci norm, hali hazırdaki plastik poşet kullanım miktarı, uygulamaya ilişkin bilgi düzeyi, uygulamanın algılanan etkililiği, uygulamanın algılanan maliyeti ve çeşitli demografik özelliklerin oynadığı roller incelenmiştir. Önerilen teorik çerçevenin testi için gerekli veri İstanbul, Kocaeli ve Bursa ağırlıklı olmak üzere toplam 23 farklı şehirde yaşayan 321 tüketiciden anket yöntemi ile toplanmıştır. Analiz sonuçları PPÜ uygulamasına yönelik davranışsal ve tutumsal desteğin bazı farklı dinamiklere sahip olduğunu göstermiştir. Ayrıca bulgular gelecekteki benzer uygulamaların kabulü yolunda bu uygulamaya gösterilecek tutumsal desteğin kritik önem taşıdığına işaret etmiştir. Araştırma bulguları politika yapıcılar için, gelecekte kullanılması olası benzer politika araçlarının tüketici desteği ile etkinliğinin artırılması yönünde bazı önemli bilgiler sunmaktadır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Plastik poşetlerin ücretlendirilmesi,davranışsal destek,tutumsal destek,politika desteği öncülleri

Kaynakça

1. Baker, A. R. (2010) Fees on Plastic Bags: Altering Consumer Behavior by Taxing Environmentally Damaging Choices, unpublished working paper Available at: https://works.bepress.com/alice_baker/1/
2. Berglund, C., & Matti, S. (2006). Citizen and consumer: The dual role of individuals in environmental policy, Environmental Politics, 15(4), 550–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010600785176
3. BİK, 2017, Basın İlan Kurumu, http://www.bik.gov.tr/bakanlik-acikladi-2019da-ucretli-olacak/ (Erişim tarihi: 14.12.2018)
4. Carman, C. J. (1998) Dimensions of Environmental Policy Support in the United States, Social Science Quarterly, 79(4), 717-733
5. Clap, J., & Swanston, L. (2009). Doing away with plastic shopping bags: International patterns of norm emergence and policy implementation, Environmental Politics, 18(3), 315–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010902823717
6. CNN TURK, 2019, https://www.cnnturk.com/yerel-haberler/trabzon/merkez/bakan-kurum-depozito-uygulamasi-2021-yilinda-baslayacak-920044 (Erişim tarihi: 12.03.2019)
7. Convery, F., McDonnell, S., & Ferreira, S. (2007). The most popular tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish plastic bags levy, Environmental and Resource Economics, 38(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-006-9059-2
8. Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı, (2019) Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı 12 Ocak 2019 tarihli internet sitesi haberi, https://www.csb.gov.tr/yerel-yonetimlere-plastik-poset-kullaniminin-azaltilmasina-yonelik-genelge-gonderildi-bakanlik-faaliyetleri-25415 (Erişim tarihi: 12.03.2019)

9. D’Astous, A. & Legendre, A. (2009). Understanding consumers’ ethical justifications: A scale for appraising consumers’ reasons for not behaving ethically. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), 255-268.
10. Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B. B., Sinkovics, R. R., & Bohlen, G. M. (2003). Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. Journal of Business research, 56(6), 465-480.
11. Dietz, T., Dan, A., & Shwom, R. (2007). Support for Climate Change Policy: Social Psychological and Social Structural Influences. Rural Sociology, 72(2), 185–214.
12. Dursun İ.,Tümer K. E., Köksal, G. C., & Tuğer, T. A. (2016). Pro-environmental Consumption: Is it Really all about the Envıronment?. Journal of Management Marketing and Logistics, 3(2), 114-114.
13. Dursun, İ. (2019). Türkiye’de Plastik Poşetlerin Ücretlendirilmesi Uygulamasına Yönelik Tüketici Tepkilerinin Belirlenmesi. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 11 (1), 427-446.
14. Eriksson, L., Garvill, J. & Nordlund, A. M. (2006).Acceptability of travel demand management measures: The importance of problem awareness, personal norm, freedom, and fairness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 15–26.
15. EuroCommerce Report, The Use of LCAs on plastic bags in an IPP context Brussels. Retrieved July 19, 2018 from the World Wide Web: https://circabc.europa.eu/webdav/CircaBC/env/ipp_ regmeeting/Library/documents_distribution/eurocommerce/EuroCommerceLCA%20in%20 an%20IPP%20context%20FINAL%20S eptember%202004.pdf.
16. Fujii, S. (2006) Environmental concern, attitude toward frugality, and ease of behavior as determinants of pro-environmental behavior intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology 26, 262–268.
17. Gruber, V. & Schlegelmilch, B. (2014). How techniques of neutralization legitimize norm- and attitude-inconsistent consumer behavior, Journal of Business Ethics, 121 (1), 29-45.
18. Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilke, H. A., (1999). Explaining pro-environmental intention and behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(12), 2505-2528.
19. Harring, N., & Jagers, S. (2013). Should we trust in values? Explaining public support for pro-environmental taxes. Sustainability, 5(1), 210-227.
20. Iyer, R., & Muncy, J. A. (2009). Purpose and object of anti-consumption. Journal of Business Research, 62(2), 160-168.
21. Jackson, T. & Michaelis, L. (2003). Policies for Sustainable Consumption: A report to the Sustainable Development Commission, Retrieved July 19, 2018 from the World Wide Web: http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php@id=138.html
22. Jakovcevic, A., Steg, L., Mazzeo, N., Caballero, R., Franco, P., Putrino, N., & Favara, J. (2014). Charges for plastic bags: Motivational and behavioral effects. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 372-380.
23. Kallbekken, S., & Sælen, H. (2011). Public acceptance for environmental taxes: Self-interest, environmental and distributional concerns. Energy Policy, 39(5), 2966-2973.
24. Kauder, B., Potrafke, N., & Ursprung, H. (2018). Behavioral determinants of proclaimed support for environment protection policies. European Journal of Political Economy, 54, 26-41.
25. Konisky, D. M., Milyo, J., & Richardson, L. E. (2008). Environmental policy attitudes: Issues, geographical scale, and political trust. Social Science Quarterly, 89(5), 1066-1085.
26. Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2010). Social marketing: Influencing behaviors for good (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
27. Lam, S. P. (2015). Predicting support of climate policies by using a protection motivation model, Climate Policy, 15(3), 321–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2014.916599
28. Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro-Forleo, G., (2001). Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(6), 503-520.
29. Lastovicka, J. L., Bettencourt, L. A., Hughner, R. S., & Kuntze, R. J. (1999). Lifestyle of the Tight and Frugal: Theory And Measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 26(1), 85-98.
30. Lewis, H., Verghese, K., & Fitzpatrick, L. (2010). Evaluating the sustainability impacts of packaging: the plastic carry bag dilemma. Packaging Technology and Science, 23, 145-160.
31. Lubell, M. (2003). Collaborative Institutions, Belief-Systems, and Perceived Policy Effectiveness. Political Research Quarterly, 56(3), 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290305600306
32. Mørk, T. Bech-Larsen, T., Grunert, K.G., & Tsalis, G. (2017) Determinants of citizen acceptance of environmental policy regulating consumption in public settings: Organic food in public institutions. Journal of Cleaner Production 148 (2017) 407-414
33. Mostafa, M. M. (2007). Gender differences in Egyptian consumers’ green purchase behaviour: the effects of environmental knowledge, concern and attitude. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(3), 220-229.
34. Musa, H. M., Hayes, C., Bradley, M. J., Clayson, A., & Gillibrand, G. (2013). Measures aimed at reducing plastic carrier bag use: A consumer behaviour focused study, Natural Environment, 1(1), 17–23. doi:10.12966/ne.06.02.2013.
35. NTV,2019. Erişim Adresi: https://www.ntv.com.tr/turkiye/2021-yilinda-depozito-uygulamasina-ge cecegiz,CvAexsAcE0mSZ6snSRKa7g (Erişim tarihi: 12.03.2019)
36. Nunnally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. McGraw–Hill, New York, NY.
37. Ozanne, L. K., & Ballantine, P. W. (2010). Sharing as a form of anti‐consumption? An examination of toy library users. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(6), 485-498.
38. Pelletier, L. G., Dion, S., Tuson, K., & Green-Demers, I. (1999). Why do people fail to adopt environmental protective behaviors? Toward a taxonomy of environmental amotivation, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(12), 2481–2504.
39. Rauwald, K. S., & Moore, C. F. (2002). Environmental attitudes as predictors of policy support across three countries. Environment and behavior, 34(6), 709-739. Resmî Gazete, 2017, Ambalaj Atıklarının Kontrolü Yönetmeliği. Erişim Adresi: http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2017/12/20171227-12.htm
40. Rhodes E., Axsen, J. & Jaccard, M. (2014) Does effective climate policy require well-informed citizen support? Global Environmental Change, 29, 92–104.
41. Rienstra, S., Rietveld, P., & Verhoef, E. (1999). The social support for policy measures in passenger transport, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 4(3), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(99)00005-X
42. Rivers, N., Shenstone-Harris, S., & Young, N. (2017). Using nudges to reduce waste? The case of Toronto's plastic bag levy. Journal of environmental management, 188, 153-162.
43. Romer, J. R. (2010). The Evolution of San Francisco’s Plastic-Bag Ban, Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal, 1(2), 438–466.
44. Schade, J., & Schlag, B. (2003). Acceptability of urban transport pricing strategies. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 6(1), 45-61.
45. Schwartz, S. H., (1977), Normative influences on altruism, In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221–279). New York: Academic Press.
46. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: The Macmillan Company.
47. Steg L., Dreijerink, L., & Abrahamse, W. (2005) Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: A test of VBN theory. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 415–425.
48. Steg, L., & Gifford, R. (2005). Sustainable transportation and quality of life. Journal of Transport Geography, 13, 59–69.
49. Stern, P. C. (2000).Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3), 407-424.
50. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L., (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 81-97.
51. Tan, L.P., Johnstone, M.L., & Yang, L. (2016) Barriers to green consumption behaviours: The roles of consumers' green perceptions. Australasian Marketing Journal, 24 (4), 288-299.
52. Tuğer, A. T., Dursun, İ., & Kabadayı, E. T. (2018). Çevreci Tüketim Davranışı: Etkili Faktörler ve Teorik Açıklamalar. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(4), 2978-3007.
53. UNEP (2018). SINGLE-USE PLASTICS: A Roadmap for Sustainability. Erişim Adresi: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/25496/singleUsePlastic_sustainability.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
54. Wan, C., Shen, G. Q., & Choi, S. (2017). A review on political factors influencing public support for urban environmental policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 75, 70-80.
55. Witkowski, T. H. (2010). A brief history of frugality discourses in the United States. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 13(3), 235-258.