INTRODUCTION
Research background
Increasing plastic waste poses threat to globally sustainable development as they are destroying ocean ecosystem and sustain in the environment for hundreds of years Plastic production is one of the industrial production activities causing serious pollution to the air environment (Center for International Environmental Law, 2019) The amount of harmful emissions with extremely unpleasant odors seriously affects the health of those exposed
In the process of burning plastic will produce toxic substances, including 3 toxic gases: CO 2 , SO 2 and vinyl chloride In the long term, they also affect the atmosphere, creating a greenhouse effect
The plastic production in global scale has been increasing rapidly since past
50 years When comparing the global production of 1950, which respectively accounts for 2 million tones, annual production has increased nearly 200-fold, reaching 381 million tones by 2015 (Plastic global production, 2018) While the impacts of plastic waste causing to the environment, the ecosystem, especially the marine ecosystem have been clearly shown, the effects of plastic on climate change are gradually being clarified (Center for International Environmental Law, 2019) The plastic production is highly dependent on fossil coal, a non-renewable resource In 2019, the burning and production of plastic contributed 850 million metric tons of GHG to the atmosphere This is equivalent to emissions from 189 megawatt coal fired power plant
By 2030, this amount of emissions could reach 1.34 gigatons per year if plastic production and use grow under the current plan This is equivalent to emissions from more than 295 new 500 MW coal fired power plants By
2050, the accumulation of these GHGs emissions from plastics can exceed 56 gigatons per year, accounting for 10-13% of the remaining carbon budget, the plastics industry can account for 20% of the world's total oil consumption
The increase of GHGs emission from plastic sector will threat the ability of global communities to limit the total global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius and making efforts to stay below 1.5 degrees Celsius as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in October 2018 highlighted in an IPCC special report on the impact of global warming of 1.5 degree Celsius
In particular, plastic product packaging (plastic bags, plastic bottles, product packaging) accounts for about 36% Plastic construction materials, household appliances and other types of industries such as electronics, electricity, and transportation account for 16%, 36% and 12% respectively (United Nation Environmental Programme, 2018) In 2015, plastic packaging waste accounted for 47% of the world's plastic waste, half of which seemed to come from Asia
Vietnam, China, Indonesia and Philippines are among top 20 countries produce the highest amount of plastic waste to ocean Vietnam is ranked as the fourth country that discharge plastic waste into the ocean with 1.83 million metric tons per years, after China in the first place with 8,82 million metric tons, Indonesia in the second place with 3.22 million tons, Philippines in the third place with 1.88 million metric tons (Jambeck et al., 2015)
According to the National Environment Report in 2015, solid waste is mainly treated by dumping or incineration The main sources of waste are Hanoi city, Hai Phong city and Ho Chi Minh city With the proportion of products in the total volume of plastic products produced annually, plastic packaging in
Vietnam has an average output of about 1 million tons/year According to previous data, the average consumption of plastic is about 25 – 35kg plastic/person/year Up to now, with the growth rate of plastic industry of about 15 – 20%/year, at the same time the economic life is growing, the average plastic consumption reaches more than 40kg/person/year
Along with future economic and population development, the amount of plastic waste will also increase rapidly, while land fund for landfill is shrinking, outdated waste treatment technology, create a heavy burden on the environment and human health
In addition to the single - use plastic waste treatment measures such as applying modern treatment technology, sorting waste from sources, taxes and prohibited laws, reducing the use of single - use plastic from consumers is a solution in the context of a developing country like Vietnam Therefore, it is necessary to raise people’s awareness on environmental impact of plastic waste and understand level of willingness to reduce the use of single-use plastic The study will present the current situation of single – use plastic consumption in Hanoi And the results will be valued as the base for policy makers to issue regulation or to organize media campaign to reduce single – use plastic waste.
Motivation
Given the fact that plastic pollution becomes urgent all over the world in general and in Vietnam in particular, there is a lack of study on Vietnamese people’s awareness on single – use plastic consumption
In the context of the Government of Vietnam efforts to eliminate disposable plastic year by 2025 and prevent the amount of waste spilled into the ocean by the Prime Minister's decision to promulgate a national action plan on ocean plastic waste management by 2030 On 9 th June, 2019, Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc stated Vietnam has aimed to stop selling single – use plastic at supermarket by 2021 Hanoi City President Nguyen Duc Chung also said Hanoi will make efforts to December 2020 to ban plastic bags in all shopping centers As impacted by global movement on anti-plastic waste, Vietnamese government has organized media campaign to raise people’s awareness on plastic waste harmfulness.
Purpose of the study
The aim of the research is to provide the information relate to Hanoi population’s attitudes towards the consumption of single-use plastic bags by showing their level of willingness to reduce
This research also identified the Hanoi population’s awareness of human health impact and environmental impacts caused by single –use plastic
Base on the results, some recommendations will be given This result may be used by any organizations such as Government authorities, non-profit organization, or individuals in order to create the strategies and take actions based on the actual attitudes.
Scope
The study is aimed at people from 18 years old and older living in Hanoi By creating an online questionnaire using Google forms, both closed and open; and face to face survey The questionnaire will be sent to respondents via Facebook social networks The link to the questionnaire will be posted on the researcher's Facebook and ask everyone in the friends list to share it with others, to increase the diversity of respondents.
Research questions
1 What is Hanoi people’s perception towards the consumption of single- use plastic and their willingness to reduce the consumption?
2 Whether is the willingness of single-use plastic bag consumption differentiated in gender?
Hypothesis
1 People use plastic bags for convenience, also having basic knowledge about the harmful effects of plastic waste
2 Women and younger people have higher level of willingness to reduce single – use plastic.
Structure of the thesis
Six chapters were designed in this thesis, as presented as below:
This chapter briefly introduces about the background of research, research objective, research questions and scope
This part provides the fundamental information about single – use plastic, the relationship between plastic and climate change and reducing plastic related climate change mitigation
Chapter 3: Research Methodology The process of the research, sample size and data collection, the data analysis method are described
Chapter 4: Results presentation and finding
This chapter presents the data collected and show the results after analysis from Excel and Chi- square
The research question will be answered in this part, adding more information to explain and the result from expert interview
The discussion about reducing plastic and climate change mitigation
Chapter 6: Conclusion and recommendation Summary the main issue from data analysis and discussion, giving some suggestions, also limitations and further research direction.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Single – use plastic
According to United Nations Environment, single-use plastics, or disposable plastics, are used only once before they are thrown away or recycled Single – use plastic is made of plastic which is lightweight, sanitary, frustrate material These items are things like plastic bags, straws, coffee stirrers, soda water bottles, containers, cups, cutlery and most food packaging
In 2015, the waste of plastic packing occupied for 47% of the global plastic waste generated, Asian a lone contributed half of the total
Figure 2.1: Disposal of all plastic waste generated in 2015 (Roland Geyer et al., 2017)
Once no longer in use, a product or package may be recycled, incinerated, buried, dumped in an uncontrolled location, or disposed of into the environment Because of the percentage of recycling is just 9 %, 12 %, so the most of the plastic waste was solve by landfills or dumping into the environment (Roland Geyer et al., 2017)
79% recycled Incinerated Landfill and dumping
Plastic cannot be biodegraded It will take hundreds of years for them to split up into small pieces that known as micro-plastics Especially, the productions made of expanded polystyrene foam might need thousands of years to decompose
If plastic waste leaks into the environment, it will cause problems Plastic bags can block waterways and worsen natural disasters by clogging sewers
Plastic bags and bottles also provide breeding grounds for mosquitoes and pests, which can increase diarrhea and infectious diseases Polystyrene foam products, containing carcinogenic chemicals like styrene and benzene, are highly toxic when ingested and can damage the nervous system, lungs and reproductive organs The toxins in the foam can seep into food and drinks In poor countries, plastic waste is often burned by heat and cooking, and people are exposed to toxic gases Burning and disposing of plastic waste in an outdoor pit releases toxic gases such as furan and Dioxin (United Nation Environmental Programme, 2018)
The application of plastic for single – use production is various LDPE is material for plastic bags, trays, food packing film and containers Water bottles and other drinks, biscuit trays, dispensing boxes for cleaning fluids are made of PET Milk bottles, bags for freezers, soap bottles, ice cream containers are made of HDPE PS can be used to make cutlery, plates and cups EPS is applied to produce hot drinks cups, insulated food packing, fragile items with protective packing There are some familiar products like microwave dishes, ice cream tubs, potato chip bags, bottle caps are made of
According to Oxford dictionaries in 2017, plastic bags are given freely at places of sale for customers to contain and carry goods Plastics are obtained by ethylene polymerization The characteristic of plastic bag is thin, light, tough, waterproof and cheap compared to other materials Grocery stores are generally the largest single-use consumer markets (Wagner, 2017)
When it first came out, plastic bags were considered an alternative to paper bags at the time to reduce deforestation and timber in the 1960s When at that time, paper bags were the common way to carry and carry things (Petru,
2014) When it was first launched in the US in the 1970s, plastic bags were not quickly accepted by consumers at the time Manufacturers of plastic bags have resorted to media campaigns to try to change consumer attitudes in actively accepting plastic bags It was not until 1977 that American supermarkets began to provide plastic bags to consumers when shopping
Europe began to supply them consistently in the 1980s In the 1990s, developing countries began to popularize plastic bags Today, plastic bags become popular worldwide with between 500 billion and 1.5 trillion plastic bags used for shopping each year (Jennifer Clapp et al., 2009)
Single-use plastic bags are widely used because they are tough, cheap and hygienic to transport goods Plastic grocery bags consume less energy and water to produce and produce less solid waste than paper bags, taking up less space in landfills The advantages of plastic bags have helped them to be widely consumed and become globally popular However, they are also difficult to recycle and adversely affect the environment, especially when we lack in management (United Nation Environmental Programme, 2018)
According to zero waste Europe, there are three basic types of normal plastic bags and 1 type of degradable plastic bags In particularly, High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) bags are used for making unbranded bags and is often used in markets, service stations and grocery stores HDPE bags are produced from ethylene and are by-products of gas or oil purification In the US, these types of bags used in grocery stores and supermarkets usually have a thickness from 0.7 to 1.75 mils, including the handle straps The fact that these types of bags have handles to distinguish them from bags used only to wrap foods such as vegetables, meat, fish at each counter to bring to the cashier Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE) bags are branded printed bags and are used at places that sell higher value goods at shopping malls or stores
These types of bag usually have a thickness range from 2.25 to 3 mils in general LDPE is also a side product of gas or oil filtration and is also made from ethylene (Wagner, 2017) Non-woven Polypropylene is the type of plastic used to make reusable bags
In recent years, biodegradable plastic bags are also a product of public attention to replace conventional plastic bags These types of bags have the ability to decompose through the action of bacteria, algae, fungi Synthetic or biological polyesters such as potatoes, corn, sugar are material to make biodegradable bags (ICF, 2010) However, biodegradable bags cost more than plastic bag; therefore, the manufacturers and retailers are not interested in promoting the use of bio-bags (MESTECC, 2018)
The recycling rate of plastic bags is quite low There is no exact statistics on the number of plastic bags once recovered and reused According to a report by the US Environmental Protection Agency, 2015 plastic bag recovery rate was 12.3%, down 1.2% compared to 2013 (US EPA, 2015) Normally, if plastic bags are collected and recycled, they will have to be sorted at source to avoid mixing with other types of recycling, affecting quality However, the cost for sorting is high and the recycling value of plastic bags is very low
Therefore, plastic bags are considered as disposable products The recycling of plastic bags is mainly based on individual people, which can be used more than once, such as storage of household items, garbage, and containers when taken out (WRAP, 2015)
Plastic issue and climate change
2.2.1 Heat emissions from crude oil making
According to “the use of crude oil in plastic making contributes to global warming” (Gervet, 2007), the net generation from plastic making is overestimated Unfortunately, it is not possible to know the amount of plastic that already burnt or decomposed Moreover, it is not known whether to crude oil production reports consider the oil related raw material in plastic making
The net heat generation from the use of crude oil in plastic making is roughly 0.414 kWh from 1939 – 2000 It corresponds to 1.3% of the missing heat and contributes to 0.5% of the global warming Its contribution is about the same magnitude with the gas flaring, less than impact of nuclear power, but more than coal fires The contribution of plastic production and disposal to climate change has been largely hidden which estimates the GHGs footprint of plastic from the cradle to the grave for the first time (Center for International Environmental Law, 2019)
After the extraction of fossil fuels to produce plastic, the carbon footprint of a material which has become ubiquitous across the globe continues through the refining process, and on well past its useful life as a drinks bottle or plastic bag, through the way it is disposed of and the plastic afterlife, most of plastic items sustain for more than 200 years in the environment prior to decay so most of them are dumped into landfill
2.2.2 Greenhouse gases emission from plastic waste treatment
As mentioned before, plastic products contribute directly or indirectly to greenhouse gas emissions, from production to refining and transport The effects of plastic products on the climate do not end when they are thrown away They will continue to be a climate threat through the disposal of plastic waste such as recycling, landfill, incineration, and an amount of waste that is freely dumped into the environment Among these types of disposable packaging, plastic packing is one of the types that cause the most problems because of the unique, disposable packaging characteristics Therefore, plastic packing accounts for 40% of the total waste
According to the report published by Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) about the hidden climate polluter from plastic incineration, plastic packaging burns an additional 16 million tons of GHG into the atmosphere at a global level This is equivalent to more than 2.7 million households using electricity every year If the petrochemical industry expands by 2050, GHG emissions from burning plastic packaging will increase to 309 million tons These estimates only account for plastic packaging, which accounts for 40% of total plastic waste and 64% of plastic packaging waste is managed after use This is just over a quarter of plastic waste Therefore, the potential for much bigger climate impacts still comes to rest
Plastic waste is still increasing, and greenhouse gas emissions from plastic waste incineration have also increased despite the urgency of addressing plastic pollution and climate change by reducing plastic use and burning
The quantity of gases emitted from dumping grounds and landfill sites depends considerably on the air temperature and climatic season It increases when the temperature is high and the emission quantity in summer is higher than in winter It is estimated that in the degradation process of garbage, 30% of the gas emission from landfill sites can lead to the ground surface without any intervention Greenhouse effect due to the emission of CH4 and CO2
Burning waste produces carbon dioxide and smoke containing particles harmful to health, but smoke also contains small black particles that have a significant impact on the climate in the short term The amount of soot is maximized when the garbage contains two types of plastic: polystyrene and polyethylene terephthalate (commonly abbreviated as PET, commonly used in the manufacture of beverage bottles) When burning waste containing fiber, many of which are plastic and soot emissions rise (Natalia et al, 2019)
Black carbon from burning open waste has an effect of global warming equivalent to 2% to 10% of global carbon dioxide emissions If this situation does not change, this problem is set to get worse as the amount of waste we throw away is expected to increase by 70% by 2050
Compared to other plastics and organic wastes, large carbon black emission factors are observed, especially with PET and polystyrene, which means these resins are a major source of overall black carbon (Natalia et al, 2019)
2.2.3 Greenhouse gases emission from plastic
In 2018, a study from Hawaii University led by Sarah - Jeanne Royer showed that the increasing accumulation of plastics in the environment contributes to climate change These effects are the result of plastic exposure to solar radiation in a decaying or degrading environment The study also shows that of the most commonly used plastics worldwide, LDPE, the most abundant plastic found in the ocean, releases methane, ethylene, ethane and propylene at the highest levels Another finding suggests that the larger the surface area of the plastic, the greater the release of greenhouse gases
For example, sanitized LDPE produces methane up to 488 times faster than pellet form at the same weight
The study has proven that plastics exposed to sunlight produce more gas
LDPE releases about twice as much methane and 76 times as much ethylene when exposed to air than when incubated in water As such, the plastic floating on the ocean surface and the plastic on the shallow environment emit greenhouse gases even though it has not been mentioned
After a period of survival in the environment, the plastic exposed to environmental conditions such as temperature, light, and moisture will begin to weaken, often becoming brittle and breaking into small pieces In water like the ocean, biodegradation, oxidative degradation, thermal degradation, hydrolysis and solar radiation contribute to greenhouse gas production
This finding suggests that a large amount of greenhouse gases from plastic waste has not been shown in the past And that amount of greenhouse gases tends to increase as the amount of plastic and plastic thrown into the environment still increases every year (Andrady, 2011)
2.2.4 Impact on the oceanic carbon sink
The ocean becomes the largest reservoir of greenhouse gases to absorb greenhouse gases It absorbed 30% to 50% of the total CO2 from the industrial era in the late 18th century The problem of plastic waste in the ocean emitting greenhouse gases has been mentioned in many studies However, in addition to those direct effects, a recent study also pointed out that the indirect impact of plastic waste on the ocean affects climate change through its impact on the activities of living organisms like Plankton, what brings carbon to the bottom of the ocean (Tim de Vries et al., 2017)
Waste management in Vietnam
According to Vietnam Standard about normal solid waste classification (TCVN 6705-2009), solid waste is classified as follows:
Domestic solid waste: including solid waste generated from households, commercial businesses and agencies;
Construction waste: Waste generated from construction /demolition activities;
Ordinary industrial solid waste: Waste generated from processing and non- processing industries including craft villages
According to the report of Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE) at the National Conference on Environment Protection, while the ability to deal with waste is limited, Vietnam created more than 7 million tons of industrial solid waste, more than 23 million ton of domestic waste every year (N.T.D et al., 2019)
In addition to indiscriminate dumping of waste, the disposal of waste collected at official waste disposal sites does not conform to international design standards and is inefficiently operated Waste management in Vietnam currently lacks the principle of "polluters pay" with very low fees hitting households and other emission units, and at least 80% of the costs are generated by the Government subsidized The actual collection, sorting, treatment and landfill activities are carried out by state urban environmental companies Waste collection rates are reported to be around 85% of the population in urban areas and 40% in rural areas, although actual figures may be lower About 63% of collected waste goes to landfills and 22% (about 14,000 tons / day) is taken to different treatment facilities (recycling accounts for 10%, compost compost 4%, and incinerates 14 %) There are currently about 105 waste treatment units, including small-capacity incinerators (42%), composting plants (24%), facilities incorporating composting incinerators and incinerators (24%), and other technologies (10%) The total installed capacity is 17,600 tons /day (World Bank, 2018)
Figure 2.4: Waste collection process (World Bank, 2018)
According to a report by the Ministry of Construction, there are 660 landfills in Vietnam receiving 20.200 tons of waste daily Out of these 660 waste disposal sites across the country, only 30% are classified as valid landfills
(sanitary landfills require daily covering of rubbish, which is often uncommon in Vietnam) The big cities like Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City also have large burial sites with 85 and 130 hectares respectively Only 9% of landfills have weight, and 36% have a bottom lining Most landfills do not have presses, gas collection systems, leachate treatment systems, environmental monitoring systems and management constraints, mainly due to lack of funding (MONRE, 2019).
Mitigating plastic related greenhouse gas emissions
There are some options to reduce the GHGs from single – use plastic sector, plastic packing If 14 million Mt of plastic packing can be reduced to 7 million Mt, 14.85 million Mt CO2e could have been prevented (US EPA,
Another USEPA study compared climate change mitigation by different waste management practices such as waste source recycling, recycling, incineration, composting and landfill Specifically, the study will test and compare on different types of waste including HDPE, LDPE and PET The results show that the option to reduce plastic waste is most effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions If the amount of waste were reduced by the 1990s, 18 million Mt of CO2e could be cut This is a significant contribution to climate mitigation (US EPA, 2006)
Figure 2.5: Net greenhouse gas emissions from source reduction and municipal solid waste management option (US EPA, 2006)
The figure above shows that reducing the source of waste and recycling benefits in reducing climate, in which source reduction is the highest
Meanwhile, burning waste adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and with the current rate of increasing plastic waste, the amount of greenhouse gases also increases rapidly
As a result of the amount of greenhouse gases from burning plastic waste, this type of waste disposal plan should be considered for disposal Even when plastic waste is being processed by burning to generate electricity, this form consumes more energy, and results in further emissions of greenhouse gases
During incineration, waste is often mixed with leftovers, organic waste, that contains water, so that the amount of glass will produce more than normal because of the energy loss process (GAIA, 2019)
IPPC and several other organizations have measured GHGs emissons and method to reducing the emssion Although, there are some different ways to approach but the common target are the similar that to keep the temperature increasing 1.5C or below 2C If the production, consumption, and incineration after use continues to increase, the goal of keeping the warming below 1.5 o C will be ruined (Luke, 2018)
By 2030, these emissions could reach 1.34 gigatons per year - the equivalent of more than 296 coal plants with the scale five –hundred –megawatt It is estimated that by 2050, plastic production and plastic incineration will contribute an additional 56 million tons of CO2e, equivalent to more than 10% of global carbon footprint And by the end of the century, plastic emissions could account for one-fourth of total emissions, higher than energy groups, economic activities, transport and land use
Under the agreement of the countries in the Paris agreement, the countries agreed to keep global warming below 2C However, these commitments have not been achieved (UNEP, 2018) Therefore, the plastic production and waste disposal activities has no room to emit The urgent requirement is to cut emissions from the plactic sector
As mentioned, emissions from the plastic's life cycle indicate that the plastic itself has caused the problem Reducing emissions during plastic manufacturing is only partially, because burning plastic waste contributes a large amount of emissions Therefore, a very effective way to reduce emissions is to reduce plastic consumption
At the 2019 global climate conference in Mandrid, experts from many countries discussed the content of plastic waste, reducing plastic waste to reduce greenhouse gas emissions Acorrding to the press release of EIT Climate-KIC, the discussion was chaired by EIT Climate-KIC, Europe's largest public-private partner, to address climate change through innovation
The event will be co-sponsored by the non-profit non-governmental organization, the Asia-Europe Foundation, to focus on developing a network to strengthen the relationship between Asia and Europe by establishing a platform to share learning experiences and exchange ideas
Compared to addressing climate change, it is much easier to solve the plastic emissions challenge It will cost less money, less time, less problems and fewer stakeholders And once the plastic sector's emissions are addressed, climate change is also addressed.
METHODOLOGY
Research process
Figure 3.1: Research process proposed by the author
Sampling and data collection
The primary data were gathered by author to find out the awareness of Hanoi people and their willingness to reduce single – use plastic, in which the data were collected as below:
The number of questionnaires were created online via google doc form is 217
And 50 questionnaires were done face to face
The advantage of implementing an online questionnaire is that it can reach many respondents at the same time, saving costs, time, and respondents can easily make honest choices without fear of being judged However, those who responded online are young people, have access to modern technology and feel familiar with this form In addition, the online questionnaire does not guarantee gender balance among respondents So, direct interviews have been added to balance the above issue.
Questionnaire design
The questionnaire is divided in four parts, with 23 questions:
Part A: Consumption behavior (question 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11) Part B: Environmental impact awareness (question 13, 14, 15) Part C: Willingness to reduce (question 6, 7, 12, 16, 17, 18) Part D: Background information (question from 19-23)
This study focused on 2 types of single – use plastics: plastic bags and plastic takeaway food containers The questions were divided equally between the two categories, except for the last question about the option to reduce the use of single – use plastic bags Complementary questionnaire completed based on the research experience of the research on willingness to reduce the use of plastic bags before The results of that survey were not included in the total number of questionnaires.
Statistic method
After collecting data, the results will be processed on Excel Chi – square p – value in Excel will be used to compare the variables in contingency table if they are related
A Chi – square test will issue a p – value The p – value will present if the results are significant or not (Statistic how to, 2020)
If p ≤ 0.05, the data fit the expected data extremely well
If p > 0.05, the data doesn’t fit well The result is not significant
The formula for Chi – square statistic used in the Chi – square test is:
2 = (o − e) 2 e o is measurement data e is the correct predicted value
Expert method
An interview with the Legislation Department of MONRE was established in October 2019 The author contacted the expert via phone and Email to ask for a direct interview After receiving consent, an interview took place for about
60 minutes at the office of the Legislation Department Topically designed questions related to the research questionnaire to understand assessors' opinions, what programs have been implemented and will be implemented in the future, solutions to mitigation issues disposable plastic in Hanoi from the expert perspective.
Study site
According to a world bank report in 2018 about Solid and industrial hazardous waste management assessment: options and actions areas, the area of Hanoi is about 335,000 hectares and a population of about 7.5 million, is one of the 17 largest capital cities in the world Hanoi has 30 district-level administrative units / town and 584 communes / wards / towns and is one of the fastest growing cities in Vietnam By 2015, the urbanization rate of the city is 47.55%, which is 1.42 times higher than the national average urbanization rate (33.40%) and the annual population growth rate is 1.89%
The population in inner-city districts is 3.699.500 people (accounting for
49.2% of the total population) The population in suburban districts is 3.823.100 people (accounting for 50.8% of the total population) In the period of 2018 to 2030, with the goal of developing strategies and plans (financial) on options for improvement of solid waste management, the urban population is expected to increase and the rural population will continue keep decreasing
Hanoi is one of the three cities along with Ho Chi Minh City and Hai Phong with the largest amount of domestic waste nationwide (world bank, 2018) In Hanoi, between 4,000 and 5,000 tons of waste products day, plastic waste accounts for 7 – 8%, about 80 tons of plastic and nylon are discharged into the environment (MONRE, 2011) The volume of solid wastes in Hanoi increase on an average of 15%/year (MONRE, 2017) It is estimated that the waste collection rate was 95% in inner district and 60% in outer district; this rate was 80%-90% for industrial solid waste and 60 – 70% for hazardous wastes
According to incomplete statistics of MONRE, each household uses 5 – 7 plastic bag/day
To facilitate the survey in the city area, the questionnaire was designed on google and shared on social networks like Facebook To increase the diversity of the respondents The questionnaire will be asked for wider sharing All citizens 18 years of age and older, who are living in Hanoi can participate in the survey.
RESULTS
Background information
Figure 4.1: Gender and aged of respondent
As the results of the questionnaire implementation, 257 responses were obtained from the distribution of the questionnaire Among the respondents, 56% was female, 44 % was male The efforts have been made to provide fair questionnaires among potential respondents to gain representation from both sexes However, the number of female and male wasn’t be equal
During the implementation of the questionnaire, attempts were made to reach potential respondents to gain representation from all age groups Figure 4.2 depicts that the highest number of responses came from people under 26 to 35 years of age (41%) Respondents from 18 to 25 years of age correspond to 30% of the sample, followed by 20% from 36 to 45 years old and then, 5% from 46 to 55 years old and 4% from group of age more than 55
As figure 4.3 illustrates more than half of the interviewees (56%) went to University and 18% attend college or vocational school, after university level accounts for 10% of respondents For low education level, 9% of the respondents went to high school, 7% went to secondary school None of the respondents with the highest educational attainment is primary.
Consumption behavior
Results from figure 4.4 show the situation of using disposable plastic containers and foam boxes of people in Hanoi The choices were divided into five different groups, respondents usually use one to three with the highest 45%, followed by up to 27% of respondents who said they did not use plastic or foam boxes 1 week, a small number of the group using 4 to 6 pieces a week is 15%, 10% is the representative of the respondents from 7 to 10 pieces a week, there are still people using more than 10 boxes a week with 3% modest
Figure 4.4: Number of single - use plastic container used base on gender per week (p > 0.05)
In order to understand more specifically the level of willingness to reduce dependence on gender, this chart was created to compare the differences between the two sex groups However, there is not much difference in the level of use of these two groups
Figure 4.5: The number of containers use base on ages (p < 0.05)
Figure 4.5 shows that with the exception of the age group > 55 years, the remaining groups use the most between 1 and 3 times a week And there is significant difference in the usage of the ages
This question was asked for the purpose of finding out if the respondent brought reusable containers when going to buy food or not With 3 options, always, no and sometime, the most likely answer was "No" with 73%, followed by 22% for "Sometimes", and only 5% of the respondents always brought reusable containers when going to buy food
Figure 4.7: The reasons for bring reusable container
To understand why 22% of respondents chose sometimes and 5% of respondents always choose to bring a box when shopping for food, this question gave 5 different reasons Figure 4.7 shows that the most worrying about choosing disposable plastic and foam containers with 46 health concerns, 39 suggested that they care about the environment, continued
According to the influence of the lifestyle of family and friends around with
23 choices, responding to the award at work or school has 20 choices And finally, there are other ideas with 4 choices, specifically the reason is that near the house, they can only use one-time styro-foam boxes for preservation
Health concern Environment concern Movevement for work place Family and friend effection
Figure 4.8: The reason for not bring reusable container
The figure 4.8 performed why single -use plastic boxes are so popular This question offers four different reasons Selected more than 180 times as "Not convenient", 70 times the reason respondents said "there is no problem to use single - use plastic container", "forget to bring" has 47 options and 15 other reasons are that the respondents did not need these boxes, they did not have any transactions using these boxes, the food contained in these boxes looked cleaner, or they did not have the habit of carrying boxes when you go to buy processed foods
Not convenient No problem to use Forget to bring Others
Figure 4.9: Number of plastic bags used per week
For the purpose of understanding people's plastic bag usage behavior, this question has been formulated to estimate a certain number of plastic bags per week The number of plastic bags used by each individual is a major factor in determining behavior towards single-use plastic consumption
The choices were divided into five different groups, with only 3% of the respondents saying they had absolutely not taking any plastic bags The highest percentage of respondents using 1-5 bags was 52%, followed by 25% using 6 – 10 bags per week Regarding the respondents who used more than
Figure 4.10: Plastic bags usage base on gender (p > 0,05)
In order to compare the level of willingness to decrease between the sexes, a comparison of the level of use of the sexes is created The use status of both sexes is similar In general, both male and female use the most between 1 and
5 plastic bags a week, then from 6 to 10 pieces, over 10 Although there are no big differences between 6 and 10 and above 10 Lastly, the number of people who said they didn't take any plastic bags was very modest
In addition, there is not much different between male and female about the demand of using plastic bags
The majority of respondents (63%) answered that they reused part and discarded some of the plastic bags once they took home 19% of respondents claimed they reused all plastic bags after they used them to take home A number of other 18% respondents said they threw them all away, meaning they didn't use the bag in any case There is no opinion for option “others”
The result is shown in figure 4.11
Figure 4.12: Reusable bags usage status
In this question, respondents gave the habit of using reusable bag for shopping The options are given in 4 different levels: always, often, sometimes, never to better understand the frequency of reusable bag usage
Figure 4.12 shows that more than half of respondents (54%) said they never carried a bag when shopping, 46% is a very good number for respondents who said they have a bag when they go Shopping with different frequency from sometimes, often and always 32%, 11% and 3% respectively
Figure 4.13: The reason for not bringing reusable bags
Understanding why respondents never or sometimes don't bring reusable bags when shopping is a useful information for future adjustments such as designing programs to enhance reusable bag when shopping Four specific choices and one choice for respondents to give their own reasons
Environmental impacts awareness
The results in figure 4.14 show the respondents' understanding of the effect of plastic once on the environment Of the respondents, 91% agreed that once affected the environment, 7% were unaware or unsure about the problem and 2% said that plastic once did not have any negative effect on the environment
Figure 4.14: Environmental impact awareness with detail
Soil pullution River and Ocean pullution
The purpose of this question is verifying how respondents know about disposable plastic bags can have the negative impacts to the environment, and, if confirmed, to identify which substances they deem harmful
With this question, the respondent can choose more than one answer As the results are illustrated in the figure 4.15, the answer with the most voted is pollution of the river and the sea, 205 times chosen
In the second place, soil pollution was chosen 154 times The third place is taken by the air pollution with 142 times
Besides, there are also 2 respondents informed that single – use plastic is the cause of landscape pollution, destruction of landscapes around living areas and tourist areas
Figure 4.15: Important of the environmental issue (on a scale from 1 to 5)
In this question, the Likert scale is used to measure the importance of respondents' negative impacts on the environment Number 5 is represented for extremely important level of respondents, while not important at all is represented by number 1
1 (Not important at all) 2 3 4 5 (Extremely important)
The number are shown in figure 4.16 clearly with 44% of respondents think environmental issues are “extremely important” (number 5) The number respondents stated that environmental issues are important is 25% (number 4) and 18% as neutral option (number 3) On the other hand, the options of not important (number 2) and not important at all (number 1) are 8% and 5% in order
Learning about sources of information from where respondents know about the environmental impact of plastic bags once on the environment will help point out a more effective way of communicating to people The results indicated that the highest number of times to choose media channels The media is a popular source of information among respondents, including the internet, newspapers, magazines, TV and radio with 198 times Own experience is surprise finding with 126 times
It is not strange for people to share information via friends or family members 80 times Information obtained from schools is more modest when
Friend, family School Media (TV, radio, internet, newspaper)
Others respondents choose 70 times Regarding other sources of information, no respondents answered.
Willingness to reduce
In an effort to understand consumer interest and preference for emission reduction stores, using eco-friendly products, this question was created to see how the level of importance and priority of the people like From there, there will be discussions or suggestions for future sustainable development directions, both ensuring economic development and being responsible for environmental protection
For the more than half of the respondents (56%) would prefer the shop what use eco – friendly food takeaway containers but price is also important when it is also considered, as shown in figure 4.18 18% of respondents said that they will always choose that kind of store without any concerns
On the other hand, the number of respondents will not prioritize and don’t
If food stores use eco-friendly food containers, will that affect your buying decision?
No, I don't care Yes, always Yes, but consider the price Others some other opinions about this question like distance or the quality of product, easy for transport are represented by 2% of respondents
Figure 4.18: Willingness to reduce single – use plastic container
Respondents directly asked about their readiness to reduce the use of disposable plastic containers Among them, the number of people willing to decrease is 69% (Figure 4.19) The number of respondents who said that they could not reduce nor not small accounted for 22% of the total And other ideas raised by 9% like they are not sure if they can reduce, they think this is very difficult because disposable plastic containers are convenient, others share that they will reduce if they remember it
Figure 4.19: Willingness to reduce single – use plastic container based on gender (p < 0.01)
To answer the question whether gender affects to the level of willingness, male or female will be the group has higher willingness, the figure 4.20 show that women have higher willingness to reduce the amount of single – use plastic container And the difference is so significant
Figure 4.20: Willingness to reduce plastic container based on age (p < 0.05)
Another factor to compare is age Whether age affects willingness to reduce plastic containers The results show that younger people have a higher degree of willingness
Figure 4.21: Willingness to cooperate by paying for single - use eco-friendly container
The willingness to pay for eco-friendly disposable products represents the level of cooperation of Hanoi people in dealing with environmental issues
Among the total number of respondents, the number of people choosing to pay from over 0 Dong to 3 thousand Dong is the highest with 122 people accounting for 48% Following that, the number of people who said they would not pay and were willing to pay from over 3 thousand Dong to 3 thousand Dong was equal to 19% for each group (50 people) The willingness to pay over 5 thousand to 10 thousand Dong and over 10 thousand Dong respectively are 22 people accounting for 9% and 12 people accounting for 5%.
Figure 4.22: Education level and willingness to cooperate by paying for single–use eco-friendly container (p < 0.01)
In addition, to consider the educational factor influences the decision to pay for environmentally friendly disposable container A comparative table has combined educational attainment into two sections are below university, university and upper For the payment part, there are two options: paid and non-paid
As a result, figure 4.23 shows a huge difference between the two groups of educational attainment The higher the education level, the higher the number of people willing to pay.
University and upper Below university
Figure 4.23: Willingness to reduce the usage of single – use plastic bag in general
In general, the number of respondents show their answer that they will totally reduce the use of single-use plastic bags for shopping accounts for 28%
Beside, 20% of the respondents admitted that they cannot reduce More than half of the respondents answered that they will reduce as much as they remember (52%)
Figure 4.24: Willingness to reduce the usage of single – use plastic bag based on gender (p < 0.05)
Yes,totally No, I can't Others
Yes,totally No, I can't Others
Between the two gender groups, women are more willing to reduce than man
This finding also coincides with many other studies in the world on sex and plastics, in particular that women are more willing to use disposable alternatives than men These study also show that women have higher willing and practices of reducing, reusing and recycling than man (Madigele et al., 2017; Ryan et al., 1996; Sharp et al., 2010)
Figure 4.25: Willingness to reduce the usage of single – use plastic bag based on ages (p < 0.01)
Age group of respondents is divided into main group from 18 - 35 and over
35 years old The result is shown in the form of a bar chart as a figure shows that there is a significant different between the willingness to reduce between these two groups The younger people tend to have higher willingness than older people
Figure 4.26: Willingness to cooperate to stop taking plastic bag at the shopping places
To deal with the problem of plastic bags, one of the ways is the cooperation of people in refusing to take plastic bags completely during shopping
Respondents' responses are completely random from their opinions and are aggregated according to five levels of the amount they agree to receive
In figure 4.27, the highest number of respondents who wanted to receive money from 0 dong to 3 thousand dong was 110 people After that, the number of respondents who were willing to stop taking plastic bags and did not need to receive money, with a positive number of 59 people Finally, in the order of over 3 thousand to 5 thousand dong, there are 53 people, from over 5 thousand dong to 10 thousand dong are 25 people, and 8 people want to receive over 10 thousand dong to stop taking plastic bags when going shopping
Figure 4.27: Education and willingness to cooperate by how people accept to stop taking plastic bag at the shopping places (p