Evaluation of the Introduction of the Single-Use Carrier Bag Charge in Wales: Attitude Change and Behavioural Spillover

Evaluation Of The Introduction Of The Single-Use Carrier Bag Charge In Wales: Attitude Change And Behavioural Spillover

Prepared by: Wouter Poortinga, Lorraine Whitmarsh and Christine Suffolk

Report to the Welsh Government, June 2012

This document has been prepared by the Welsh School of Architecture and School of Psychology, Cardiff University who carried out the research on behalf of Welsh Government. Views expressed in this report are those of the researcher and not necessarily those of the Welsh Government.

Should you require any further information about this document or the information contained within please contact:

Local Environmental Quality Branch

Welsh Government

Cathays Park

Cardiff

CF10 3NQ

E:mail: [email protected]

Tel: 02920 82 5130

Dr. W. Poortinga Welsh School of Architecture and School of Psychology Cardiff University Bute Building, King Edward VII Avenue Cardiff, Wales, CF10 3NB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)29 2087 4755 Fax: +44 (0)29 2087 4623 Email: [email protected]

Table of Contents 1 Introduction ...... 5 1.1 Background...... 5 1.2 Aims and Objectives ...... 7 2 Method ...... 7 2.1 Procedure and Respondents ...... 7 2.2 The Questionnaire ...... 9 2.3 Statistical Analyses ...... 9 3 Results ...... 10 3.1 Before and After Comparisons (Wales only) ...... 10 3.2 Socio-Demographic Differences (Wales only) ...... 20 3.3 Before and After Comparisons (Wales versus England) ...... 28 4 Summary of Findings ...... 38 4.1 Own Bag Use ...... 38 4.2 Support for and Attitudes to the Single-Use Carrier Bag Charge ...... 39 4.3 Environmental Behaviours, Identity and Concern ...... 40 4.4 Overall Conclusions ...... 41 5 References ...... 44

Appendix A: Questionnaire

4 1 Introduction

1.1 Background

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 5 pence for each single-use carrier bag at point of sale. The charge aims to reduce the number of carrier bags being used in Wales and is part of the Welsh Government’s strategy to minimise the proportion of waste going to landfill to 5% by 2025; eliminating it altogether by 2050 (Welsh Assembly Government 2010). 1 In this study, commissioned by the Welsh Government, we will examine the attitudinal and behavioural implications of the introduction of the carrier bag charge in Wales.

There is some prior evidence that a charge on carrier bags can reduce its use, and that attitudes towards the charge itself may become more positive after the implementation of the policy. It has been estimated that a national plastic bag charge introduced in China in 2008 led to a 49% reduction in the use of new plastic bags (He, 2010). A similar charge introduced in Ireland in 2002 was hailed as an outstanding success.2 Research by Convery et al. (2007) suggests that the charge reduced plastic bag use by more than 90% and raised revenues in the order of €12-14 million for the Environment Fund. Despite Irish consumers being somewhat resistant to the plastic bag charge prior to its introduction (Drury Research, 2000), Convery et al (2007) reported more positive responses after the implementation of the charge. This is in line with observations regarding other environmental and behavioural change policies. Research on the effectiveness of smoking bans has shown that they have become more acceptable after they came into force. Smokers as well as non-smokers have been found to express more support for bans after the benefits of the ban became visible (Borland et al., 1990; Owen et al., 1991; Seo et al., 2011). Similar attitude changes have also been reported following the Stockholm congestion charge trial in 2006 (Schuitema et al. 2010). Respondents believed that the charge had more positive consequences and fewer negative consequences after the trial than they had expected beforehand. Research conducted by Transport for London (2004) found that London residents perceived fewer negative effects from the congestion charge than they had expected prior to its implementation in 2003. Residents were also more likely to recognise the benefits of the scheme after the introduction of the congestion charge.

1 http://www.carrierbagchargewales.gov.uk 2 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2205419.stm

5 These findings raise an interesting question about the attitudinal effect of behavioural change policies, such as the carrier bag charge. Although it can be argued that positive public attitudes are a pre-requisite for behaviour change and the acceptance of policies aimed at motivating such changes (Spence & Pidgeon, 2009), the results suggest that public attitudes also follow behaviour change policies after the public has experienced the benefits of the policy and have changed their behaviour.

Attitude change as a result of behaviour change and behaviour change policies can be understood from both cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) and self-perception (Bem, 1967) perspectives. Cognitive dissonance theory posits that people feel discomfort if they hold conflicting attitudes and behaviour, and they have a motivational drive to reduce such dissonance. They will do this by either changing their attitudes or their behaviours. Self- perception theory holds that people derive their attitudes from observing their own behaviour and then concluding what attitudes may have caused them.

A possible side effect of cognitive dissonance and self-perception processes may be that the policies and their accompanying attitude and behaviour changes may lead to behavioural spillover – the idea that engagement in a single pro-environmental behaviour may lead to other lifestyle changes (Thøgersen & Crompton, 2009). Engagement in pro-environmental behaviour may encourage changes in environmental values and self-identity as a result of self-perception processes, which may then stimulate further behavioural changes in line with the revised identity (Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010). That is, if people reduce the number of single-use carrier bags they are using after the implementation of the charge, they may develop a more waste conscious identity, which then may lead to other waste-conscious decisions and behaviours. Furthermore, it is thought that experience of a particular behaviour results in knowledge and skill gains which may then be applied to other similar behaviours (Thøgersen, 1999). Knowledge and skill gains are therefore thought to contribute to spillover effects to other waste-related environmental behaviours, but not necessarily to other environmental behaviours in unrelated (non-waste) domains.

6 1.2 Aims and Objectives

The main aim of the study is to investigate the behavioural and attitudinal effects of the implementation of the single-use carrier bag charge on waste-relevant attitudes and behaviours. More specifically, the research objectives are to:

1) Examine the impacts of the carrier bag charge on the use of single-use carrier bags. It is expected that own bag use will be higher after the introduction of the carrier bag charge than before;

2) Examine changes in support for the carrier bag charge. It is expected that support for the carrier bag charge will be higher after its introduction than before;

3) Find evidence that attitude change may follow environmental policies and accompanying behaviour change. It is expected that people develop more positive attitudes towards the charge after its introduction. It is also expected that those changing their behaviour will develop a more waste-conscious identity;

4) Explore potential behavioural spillover effects of the carrier bag charge. It is expected that the carrier bag charge leads to changes in other waste-related behaviours (e.g. recycling) but not in non-waste related environmental behaviours (e.g. energy use).

2 Method

2.1 Procedure and Respondents

A controlled field experiment was conducted to evaluate the attitudinal and behavioural impacts of the carrier bag charge. A telephone survey was conducted in Wales before and after the introduction of the charge. Similar telephone surveys were conducted in England at the same time. The interviews conducted in England – where no carrier bag charge was introduced – served as the control for the study.

The ‘before’ telephone interviews were conducted from 19th to 30th September 2011 in Wales (the two weeks before the introduction of the charge) and from 19th September to 8th October 2011 in England. In this first wave of data collection, 500 responses were collected in Wales and 500 responses were collected in England. The ‘after’ telephone interviews were conducted from 8th April to 1st May 2012. In the second wave of data collection, again 500 responses were collected in Wales and 500 in England.

Table 1: Characteristics of the weighted ‘before’ and ‘after’ samples in Wales and England (%) Wales England Before After Before After (n=500) (n=500) (n=500) (n=500) Gender Male 48 48 48 48 Female 52 52 52 52

Geographic Urban 65 65 81 83 location Rural 35 35 19 17

Age 16-24 years 14 14 14 13 25-34 years 16 16 18 18 35-44 years 18 18 19 19 45-54 years 17 17 17 17 55-64 years 14 14 13 13 65+ years 22 22 20 20

Income band per Under £10,000 19 23 26 25 annum £10,001 - £20,000 23 21 23 18 £20,001- £30,0000 13 12 13 11 £30,001 or more 12 11 13 17 Prefer not to say 25 25 21 23 Don’t know 9 8 5 7

Broad quotas were set for the Welsh and English samples for gender, age and urban-rural location to have all socio-demographic groups represented in the sample. The ‘before’ and ‘after’ samples were then further weighted to the known socio-demographic profile of the Welsh and English populations as recorded in the 2001 Census. The ‘before’ and ‘after’ samples were therefore similar in terms of their socio-demographic characteristics. Table 1 provides the socio-demographic breakdown of the weighted ‘before’ and ‘after’ samples in Wales and England.

Some differences were found between the Welsh and English samples: income levels were somewhat lower in Wales than in England; fewer people knew or were willing to disclose their income in Wales than in England ( 2(5)=18.645, p<0.01); and the Welsh sample was more rural than the English one ( 2(1)=70.584, p<0.001), reflecting differences in the makeup of the Welsh and English populations. No differences were found for the other socio-demographic variables.

2.2 The Questionnaire

The questionnaire contained 32 questions covering the topics of (1) own bag use; (2) support for and attitudes towards the carrier bag charge; (3) environmental behaviours (waste-related and non-waste related); (4) environmental identity and concern; (5) waste knowledge; and (6) socio-demographic background information (age, gender, voting intention, and income). The specific wording of the questions and response categories can be found in Appendix A. The results are described according to the different sections of the questionnaire.

2.3 Statistical Analyses

Different analyses were conducted to examine the attitudinal and behavioural effects of the single-use carrier bag charge.

First, the before and after samples in Wales were compared to assess absolute change in own bag use, support for/ attitudes towards the carrier bag charge, waste and non-waste related environmental behaviours, environmental identity and concern, and waste knowledge in Wales. Differences between the ‘before’ and ‘after’ samples were assessed using Chi square ( 2) tests.

Second, logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine whether attitudes and behaviours varied across different socio-demographic groups.

Third, controlled analyses were conducted using two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), making before and after comparisons for the Welsh and English samples at the same time. These analyses show the relative changes in Wales in comparison with England. The two- way ANOVA included ‘measurements occasion’ (before or after) and ‘country’ (Wales or England) as the fixed factors.

9 3 Results

3.1 Before and After Comparisons (Wales only)

3.1.1 Own Bag Use

Current levels of own bag use were assessed by asking (1) At your last visit to the supermarket, did you bring your own bag; (2) How often do you take your own bag/s to the supermarket; (3) How often do you take your own bag/s to other shops; and (4) How often do you re-use carrier bags for other purposes (e.g. as a bin liner)? People could respond to the first question with ‘yes’, ‘no’, or ‘don’t know’. The following three questions could be responded to using the options of ‘always’, ‘often’, ‘occasionally’, or ‘never’.

Table 2: Own bag use before and after the introduction of the carrier bag charge (Wales only, in %)

Wales Before After (n=500) (n=500) At your last visit to the Yes 61 82 supermarket, did you bring your No 38 18 own bag Don’t know/ Can’t remember 1 0

Table 2 shows that before the introduction of the carrier bag charge 61% of the respondents reported bringing their own bag when they last visited the supermarket. After the introduction of the charge 82% of the respondents reported bringing their own bag when they last visited the supermarket. This shows that own bag use in Wales has increased significantly after the introduction of the carrier bag charge ( 2(2)=55.905, p<0.001).

Table 3 shows that before the introduction of the carrier bag charge 42% of the Welsh sample reported ‘always’ taking their own bag to the supermarket; after the introduction a significantly higher proportion (64%) reported doing so ( 2(3)=83.351, p<0.001).

When respondents were asked how often they take their own bag to other shops, a significant difference was found between the before and after samples ( 2(3)=59.749, p<0.001). Whilst before the introduction of the carrier bag charge only 27% ‘always’ took their own bag to other shops, more than two-fifths (43%) reported doing so after the introduction of the carrier bag charge (see Table 3).

10 Welsh respondents less frequently re-use carrier bags for other purposes (e.g. as a bin liner) after the introduction of the carrier bag charge than before ( 2(3)=9.244, p<0.05). For example, the proportion ‘always’ doing so dropped from 57% to 51% (Table 3).

Table 3: Carrier bag use before and after the introduction of the carrier bag charge (Wales only, in %) Wales Before After (n=500) (n=500) How often do you take your own bag/s to Always 42 64 the supermarket Often 22 24 Occasionally 21 10 Never 15 3 How often do you take your own bag/s to Always 27 43 other shops Often 18 23 Occasionally 19 17 Never 36 16 How often do you re-use carrier bags for Always 57 51 other purposes (e.g. as a bin liner)? Often 18 21 Occasionally 15 13 Never 10 15

3.1.2 Acceptability of the Single-Use Carrier Bag Charge

The acceptability of the single-use carrier bag charge was assessed by asking respondents “how strongly do you support or oppose a 5 pence charge on single-use carrier bags”, with a 5-point response scale ranging from ‘strongly support’ to ‘strongly oppose’ (see Table 4). They were then asked what their main reasons are for opposing or supporting such a charge. In order to elicit more specific attitudes to the charge, respondents were also asked to what extent they agree or disagree with three statements: Charging 5 pence for each single-use carrier bag is a good way of reducing waste; Charging 5 pence for each single-use carrier bags helps to reduce litter; I am more willing to pay a 5 pence charge for a single-use carrier bag if the money goes to charity.

11 Support for the carrier bag charge increased from 59% before its introduction to 70% after its introduction. ‘Strong’ support for the charge increased from 35% before to 49% after its introduction. Opposition to the charge dropped from 26% to 17%. These differences are highly statistically significant ( 2(4)=23.452, p<0.001).

Table 4: Support for the 5 pence charge before and after the introduction of the carrier bag charge (Wales only, in %)

Wales Before After (n=500) (n=500) How strongly do you support or Strongly support 35 49 oppose a 5 pence charge on Tend to support 24 21 single-use carrier bags Neither support nor oppose 14 14 Tend to oppose 9 6 Strongly oppose 17 11

Table 5 provides a breakdown of the extent to which the Welsh respondents agree or disagree with statements measuring people’s attitudes regarding the effectiveness of the charge to reduce waste and litter and whether they would be more willing to pay a 5 pence charge if the money goes to charity.

Charging 5 pence for each single-use carrier bag is a good way of reducing waste: Before the introduction of the carrier bag charge 44% strongly agreed with this statement, but after the introduction 54% strongly agreed with the statement ( 2(4)=12.858, p<0.05).

Charging 5 pence for each single-use carrier bag helps to reduce litter: Strong agreement with this statement increased from 41% before the introduction of the carrier bag charge to 54% after the introduction ( 2(4)=25.729, p<0.001).

I am more willing to pay a 5 pence charge for a single-use carrier bag if the money goes to charity: An increase in agreement was found for this statement ( 2(4)=6.651, p<0.01). Before the introduction of the carrier bag charge 58% strongly agreed with this statement, whereas after the introduction of the charge 67% agreed with this statement.

12 When combining the three statements presented in Table 5 (Cronbach’s α=0.77), attitudes towards the carrier bag charge were found to be more positive after its introduction (Mean: M=4.18, Standard Deviation: SD=1.02) than before (M=4.01, SD=0.98; t(996)=2.447, p<0.05). 3

Table 5: Attitudes to the 5 pence charge before and after the introduction of the carrier bag charge (Wales only, in %)

Wales Before After (n=500) (n=500) Strongly agree 44 54 Tend to agree 33 25 Charging 5 pence for each single- Neither agree nor disagree 7 7 use carrier bag is a good way of Tend to disagree 7 5 reducing waste Strongly disagree 9 9 Strongly agree 41 54 Tend to agree 30 22 Charging 5 pence for each single- Neither agree nor disagree 4 6 use carrier bags helps to reduce Tend to disagree 17 9 litter Strongly disagree 8 9 Strongly agree 58 67 Tend to agree 28 18 I am more willing to pay a 5 pence Neither agree nor disagree 5 7 charge for a single-use carrier bag Tend to disagree 5 3 if the money goes to charity Strongly disagree 4 5

3 The scale ranged from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree”, with 3 “neither agree nor disagree” as the scale midpoint.

Table 6: Environmental behaviours before and after the introduction of the carrier bag charge (Wales only, in %)

Wales Before After (n=500) (n=500) Buy products with less packaging Always 18 15 Often 22 22 Occasionally 36 43 Never 24 20 Recycle household waste Always 82 85 Often 10 8 Occasionally 4 4 Never 4 2 Repair or maintain an item to avoid Always 35 34 buying something new Often 23 28 Occasionally 32 31 Never 10 7 Walk or cycle short distance Always 33 29 (i.e trips of less than 3 miles) Often 24 25 Occasionally 20 26 Never 23 21 Turn off tap while brushing your teeth Always 53 49 Often 10 12 Occasionally 13 16 Never 24 23 Buy energy-saving light bulbs Always 74 72 Often 11 11 Occasionally 8 12 Never 7 5 Wash clothes at 30 degrees or less Always 42 40 Often 15 21 Occasionally 19 21 Never 23 18

14 3.1.3 Environmental Behaviours

Respondents were subsequently asked how often they engaged in a number of other waste- related and non-waste related environmental behaviours (see Appendix A). People could respond using the answers: ‘always’ ‘often’, ‘occasionally’, or ‘never’. Table 6 provides an overview of the self-reported, waste-related and non-waste related behaviours of Welsh respondents before and after the introduction of the carrier bag charge. Very few real differences were found between the before and after samples in Wales. Welsh respondents were more likely to ‘often’ wash clothes at 30 degrees or less, while they were less likely to ‘never’ wash clothes at 30 degrees or less after the introduction of the charge ( 2(3)=10.252, p<0.001). However, no significant differences were found for the other behaviours.

3.1.4 Environmental Identity and Concern

The questionnaire included four statements that were designed to assess respondents’ waste-related and environmental identity (e.g. “I think of myself as a waste conscious person” and “I think of myself as someone who is very concerned about environmental issues”, respectively). The statements could be responded to on a 5-point agree-disagree scale (see Table 7).

Before the introduction of the carrier bag charge 84% of the Welsh sample agreed that “to engage in recycling is an important part of who I am” compared to 86% after the introduction of the charge. This difference was not significant ( 2(4)=3.827, p=0.430).

A greater proportion of the Welsh respondents agreed that they think of themselves as a waste conscious person after the introduction of the carrier bag charge (90%) in comparison with before (87%). However, this difference was not significant ( 2(4)=6.045, p=0.196).

No significant differences were found in the agreement with the statement “I think of myself as someone who is very concerned about environmental issues” before and after the introduction of the carrier bag charge ( 2(4)=3.744, p=0.442).

The differences in agreement with the statement “Being environmentally friendly is an important part of who I am” before (80%) and after (84%) the introduction of the carrier bag charge approached significance ( 2(4)=9.084, p=0.059).

15 While no significant differences were found for the individual items, they were observed after combining the four statements into a reliable scale (Cronbach’s α=0.87). Overall, respondents expressed a higher level of environmental identity after (Mean: M=4.25, Standard Deviation: SD=0.76) than before (M=4.15, SD=0.82) the introduction of the carrier bag charge (t(996)=2.053, p<0.05). 4

Table 7: Environmental identity before and after the introduction of the carrier bag charge (Wales only, in %)

Wales Before After (n=500) (n=500) Strongly agree 50 54 To engage in recycling is an Tend to agree 34 32 important part of who I am Neither agree nor disagree 8 8 Tend to disagree 5 4 Strongly disagree 3 2 I think of myself as a waste Strongly agree 45 50 conscious person Tend to agree 42 40 Neither agree nor disagree 7 5 Tend to disagree 5 3 Strongly disagree 2 3 I think of myself as someone Strongly agree 38 39 who is very concerned about Tend to agree 45 45 environmental issues Neither agree nor disagree 10 11 Tend to disagree 3 4 Strongly disagree 3 1 Being environmentally friendly Strongly agree 36 42 is an important part of who I am Tend to agree 44 42 Neither agree nor disagree 11 11 Tend to disagree 5 5 Strongly disagree 3 1

4 The scale ranged from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree”, with 3 “neither agree nor disagree” as the scale midpoint.

16 Respondents were also asked how concerned they are about the following environmental issues: climate change, sometimes referred to as global warming; litter in your neighbourhood; pollution of rivers, lakes, and seas; and using up resources that are not replaceable, such as oil and coal (see Table 8).

Table 8 shows that concern about litter in your neighbourhood increased slightly from 85% before the introduction of the carrier bag charge to 87% after its implementation. This difference was statistically significant ( 2(4)=13.459, p<0.01).

No significant differences were found in concern about climate change ( 2(4)=3.435, p=0.488); pollution of rivers, lakes, and seas ( 2(4)=3.753, p=0.440); and using up resources that are not replaceable ( 2(4)=5.384, p=0.250) for the before and after samples in Wales.

When combining the four items into a single reliable scale (Cronbach’s α=0.65), no significant differences in environmental concern were found between the before (Mean: M=3.28, Standard Deviation: SD=0.57) and after (M=3.31, SD=0.52) samples (t(845)=0.910, p=0.363). 5

5 The scale ranged from 1 “not at all concerned” to 4 “very concerned”.

Table 8: Environmental concerns before and after the introduction of the carrier bag charge (Wales only, in %)

Wales

How concerned, if at all, are you about each of the Before After following issues? (n=500) (n=500) Climate change (sometimes Very concerned 27 24 referred to as global warming) Fairly concerned 43 48 Not very concerned 14 15 Not at all concerned 8 7 No opinion/not stated 8 7 Litter in your neighbourhood Very concerned 52 58 Fairly concerned 33 29 Not very concerned 7 9 Not at all concerned 6 2 No opinion/not stated 3 2 Pollution of rivers, lakes and Very concerned 59 61 seas Fairly concerned 31 33 Not very concerned 5 4 Not at all concerned 2 1 No opinion/not stated 3 2 Using up resources that are not Very concerned 39 38 replaceable, such as oil and Fairly concerned 41 43 coal Not very concerned 9 9 Not at all concerned 3 5 No opinion/not stated 9 6

18 3.1.5 Waste Knowledge

Table 9 shows that there is a small but significant difference in waste knowledge before and after the introduction of the carrier bag charge in Wales ( 2(3)=9.308, p<0.05). More people indicated that they know ‘a fair amount’ about reducing household waste after the introduction of the carrier bag charge, while fewer people indicated that they know ‘a small amount’.

Table 9: Waste knowledge before and after the introduction of the carrier bag charge (Wales only, in %)

Wales Before After (n=500) (n=500) How much, if anything, would A lot 33 32 you say you know about A fair amount 50 57 reducing household waste? A small amount 16 10 Nothing 1 1

19 3.2 Socio-Demographic Differences (Wales only)

Logistic regression analyses were carried out to examine whether there were socio- demographic differences in (1) own bag use (bring your own bag to the supermarket at your last visit; always taking your own bag/s to the supermarket; always bringing own bag/s to other shops), and (2) strong support for the carrier bag charge. The analyses were conducted on the Welsh ‘before’ and ‘after’ samples only.

Table 10: Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for bringing own bag to supermarket at the last visit

OR 95% CI P Gender (female) Male 0.44 0.32-0.59 ***

Age (25-34) 16-24 0.76 0.46-1.26 n.s. 35-44 1.80 1.10-2.95 * 45-54 2.10 1.27-3.46 ** 55-64 2.47 1.45-4.23 *** 65 and over 6.94 3.87-12.44 ***

Income (up to £10k) £10k - £20k 0.94 0.61-1.46 n.s. £20k - £30k 0.68 0.41-1.12 n.s. £30k and more 0.83 0.48-1.44 n.s. Don’t know/ Refused 0.88 0.56-1.37 n.s.

Location (urban) Rural 0.94 0.68-1.30 n.s.

Wave (Before) After 3.26 2.38-4.46 *** Note: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, n.s.=non-significant; reference categories are given in brackets.

20 3.2.1 Own Bag Use

Only ‘gender’ and ‘age’ were significantly associated with ‘bringing your own bag/s to the supermarket at your last visit’ (see Table 10).

Men were 56% less likely than women to report that they brought their own bag to the supermarket at their last visit (see Table 10).

Figure 1 shows that both men and women reported an increase in bringing their own bags to the supermarket after the introduction of the charge. It further shows that women were more likely to bring their own bag to the supermarket then men, both before and after the introduction of the charge.

There was a clear age gradient in bringing one’s own bag to the supermarket at the last visit, with older participants being more likely to report this (see Table 10).

Overall, respondents were more than three times more likely to report that they bring their own bags to the supermarket at their last visit after the introduction of the carrier bag charge than they were before (OR=3.26, 95%CI=2.38-4.46); see Table 10).

Figure 1: Bringing own bag to supermarket at the last visit (Wales only, in%)

100

10 Before After 0 Female Male

21 All age groups reported an increase in bringing their own bags to the supermarket after the introduction of the charge (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Bringing own bag to supermarket at the last visit (Wales only, in %)

100

10 Before After 0 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

Gender, age and income were associated with ‘always’ taking one’s own bag/s to the supermarket and to other shops (see Table 11).

Men were 37% and 32% less likely to always take their own bag/s to the supermarket and to other shops, respectively (see Table 11).

In general, younger participants (aged between 16 and 24) were less likely to take their own bag/s to the supermarket and other shops, whilst older participants (in particular those aged 65 and over), were more likely to take their own bag/s to the supermarket and other shops (see Table 11).

Those on higher incomes are less likely to take their own bags to other shops than those on the lowest (up to £10k) incomes.

22 Table 11: Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for always taking own bag/s to the supermarket (Supermarket) and to other shops (Other Shops).

Supermarket Other Shops OR 95% CI p OR 95% CI P Gender (female) Male 0.63 0.48-0.82 ** 0.68 0.51-0.90 ***

Age (25-34) 16-24 0.49 0.29-0.80 ** 0.30 0.16-0.58 *** 35-44 1.38 0.87-2.18 n.s. 1.56 0.95-2.56 n.s. 45-54 1.27 0.80-2.01 n.s. 1.29 0.78-2.13 n.s. 55-64 1.57 0.97-2.54 n.s. 1.70 1.02-2.82 * 65 and over 3.52 2.23-5.58 *** 3.65 2.29-5.80 ***

Income (up to £10k) £10k - £20k 0.64 0.43-0.94 * 0.89 0.60-1.32 n.s. £20k - £30k 0.57 0.36-0.91 * 0.38 0.22-0.64 *** £30k and more 0.66 0.41-1.08 n.s. 0.47 0.28-0.81 *** Don’t know/ Refused 0.67 0.45-0.97 * 0.73 0.50-1.07 n.s.

Location (urban) Rural 0.90 0.68-1.19 n.s. 1.23 0.92-1.65 n.s.

Wave (Before) After 2.54 1.94-3.32 *** 2.24 1.68-2.98 *** Note: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, n.s.=non-significant; reference categories are given in brackets

Respondents were about two-and-a-half times more likely to always take their own bag/s to the supermarket and to other shops after the introduction of the carrier bag charge than they were before (OR=2.54, 95%CI=1.94-3.32; see Table 11).

23 3.2.2 Support for the Carrier Bag Charge

There were a number of significant differences in support for the carrier bag charge across the different socio-demographic groups (see Table 12).

Men were 25% less likely to strongly support the carrier bag charge than women (see Table 12).

The ‘65 and over’ age group was 63% more likely to express strong support for the carrier bag charge than the reference group (25 to 34 years; see Table 12)

Respondents living in rural areas were 63% more likely to express strong support for the carrier bag charge than those living in urban areas (see Table 12).

Respondents were on average 82% more likely to express strong support for the carrier bag charge after its introduction than before (OR=1.82, 95%CI=1.41-2.36; see Table 12).

Both men and women reported increased support for a 5 pence carrier bag charge after its introduction (see Figure 3).

All age groups (16-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54 and 65 and over) reported increased support for a 5 pence carrier bag charge after its introduction (see Figure 4).

24 Table 12: Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of socio-demographic groups support for the charge

OR 95% CI P Gender (female) Male 0.75 0.57-0.97 **

Age (25-34) 16-24 0.98 0.60-1.60 n.s. 35-44 1.08 0.69-1.70 n.s. 45-54 0.89 0.56-1.41 n.s. 55-64 1.08 0.67-1.74 n.s. 65 and over 1.63 1.06-2.50 **

Income (up to £10k) £10k - £20k 1.35 0.93-1.95 n.s. £20k - £30k 1.36 0.87-2.13 n.s. £30k and more 1.41 0.87-2.28 n.s. Don’t know/ Refused 1.05 0.73-1.51 n.s.

Location (urban) rural 1.63 1.24-2.13 ***

Wave (Before) After 1.82 1.41-2.36 *** Note: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, n.s.=non-significant; reference categories are given in brackets.

25 Figure 3: Strong support for the charge – gender differences (Wales only, in %)

100

10 Before After 0 Female Male

Figure 4: Strong support for the charge – age group differences (Wales only, in %)

100

10 Before After 0 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

26 3.2.3 Waste Consciousness

Very few socio-demographic differences were found for strong agreement with the statement “I think of myself as a waste conscious person” (see Table 13).

The ‘65 and over’ age group was more than two-and-a-half times more likely to see themselves as a waste conscious person than the reference group (25-34 years).

Respondents were on average 41% more likely to see themselves as a waste conscious person after the introduction of the carrier bag charge than before.

Table 13: Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for waste consciousness

OR 95% CI p Gender (female) Male 1.10 0.84-1.45 n.s.

Age (25-34) 16-24 0.52 0.24-1.15 n.s. 35-44 0.94 0.56-1.60 n.s. 45-54 0.97 0.59-1.60 n.s. 55-64 1.46 0.88-2.43 n.s. 65 and over 2.66 1.62-4.36 ***

Income (up to £10k) £10k - £20k 1.04 0.69-1.57 n.s. £20k - £30k 1.64 1.01-2.67 * £30k and more 1.56 0.94-2.57 n.s. Don’t know/ Refused 1.10 0.76-1.59 n.s.

Location (urban) Rural 1.04 0.79-1.37 n.s.

Wave (Before) After 1.41 1.09-1.83 ** Note: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001, n.s.=non-significant; reference categories are given in brackets.

27 3.3 Before and After Comparisons (Wales versus England)

Analyses were conducted using two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to make before and after comparisons of the Welsh and English samples at the same time. The fixed factors were ‘measurement occasion’ (before or after) and ‘country’ (Wales or England). The analyses show the relative changes in Wales in comparison to England where no carrier bag charge was introduced.

3.3.1 Own bag use

When respondents were asked if they brought their own bag to the supermarket at their last visit, a significant difference was found between the before and after samples (F(1, 2173)=81.373, p<0.001). Overall, respondents were more likely to report that they brought their own bag to the supermarket at their last visit after the introduction of the charge (see Figure 5).

Figure 5: At your last visit to the supermarket, did you bring your own bag (% yes)

28 A significant difference was also found between the Welsh and English samples (F(1, 2173)=12.176, p<0.01), with the Welsh sample being more likely to report that they took their own bag to the supermarket at their last visit (see Figure 5).

Before the introduction of the charge the Welsh and English samples had similar levels of own bag use. While own bag use increased in both samples, the increase was greater in the Welsh sample than in the English sample (see Figure 5). This interaction effect was highly significant (F(1, 2173)=4.206, p<0.001).

Figure 6: How often do you take your own bag/s to the supermarket (% always)

100

10 Wales England 0 Before After

A significant difference was found in the number of respondents who always take their own bag/s to the supermarket between the before and after samples (F(1, 2199)=42.841, p<0.001), with respondents being more likely to do so in the ‘after’ samples (see Figure 6).

A significant difference was also found between the Welsh and the English samples (F(1, 2199)=13.680, p<0.001), with the Welsh sample being more likely to always bring their own bag/s to the supermarket than the English sample (see Figure 6).

29 Before the introduction of the charge, the Welsh respondents were slightly less likely to always take their own bag/s to the supermarket than English respondents (see Figure 6). While there was an increase in always bringing one’s own bag/s to the supermarket in both samples, the increase was greater in the Welsh sample than in the English sample. This interaction effect was highly statistically significant (F(1, 2199)=12.246.135, p<0.001).

Figure 7: How often do you take your own bag/s to other shops (% always)

100

10 Wales England 0 Before After

There was a significant difference in the number of respondents who always take their own bag/s to other shops between the before and after samples (F(1, 2199)=14.054, p<0.001). Overall, respondents were more likely to always take their own bag/s to other shops after the introduction of the carrier bag charge (see Figure 7).

A significant difference was also found between the Welsh and the English samples (F(1, 2199)=36.677 p<0.001), with the Welsh sample being more likely than the English sample to always bring their own bag/s to other shops (see Figure 7).

30 Before the charge was introduced the Welsh and English samples reported similar levels of always taking their own bag/s to other shops (see Figure 7). While the number of respondents always taking their own bag/s to other shops increased in the Welsh sample, it decreased in the English sample. This interaction effect was highly statistically significant (F(1, 2199)=27.589, p<0.001).

Figure 8: How often do you re-use carrier bags for other purposes (% always)

100

10 Wales England 0 Before After

A significant difference was found in the number of respondents who always re-use their carrier bags for other purposes between the ‘before’ and ‘after’ samples (F(1, 2173)=5.345, p<0.05). Overall, fewer respondents reported using their carrier bags for other purposes after the introduction of the charge than before (see Figure 8).

A significant difference was also found between the Welsh and English samples (F(1, 2173)=22.131, p<0.001), with the Welsh sample reporting lower levels of re-using carrier bags for other purposes than the English sample (see Figure 8).

No significant differences were found between the Welsh and English before and after samples for how often they re-use carrier bags for other purposes (F(1, 2173)=0.340, p=0.560).

31 3.3.2 Support for the Carrier Bag Charge

When respondents were asked how strongly they support or oppose a 5 pence charge on single-use carrier bags, there was more support for the charge after its introduction than before (F(1, 2199)=14.955, p<0.001; see Figure 9).

The Wales sample reported higher levels of strong support for a 5 pence charge than the England sample (see Figure 9). This difference was highly statistically significant (F(1, 2199)=24.536, p<0.001).

A significant interaction effect was found for the Welsh and English before and after samples (F(1, 2199)=7.638, p<0.01); the Welsh sample showed a greater increase in support for a 5 pence charge than the English sample (see Figure 9).

Figure 9: How strongly do you support or oppose a 5 pence charge on single-use carrier bags (% strongly support)

100

10 Wales England 0 Before After

When respondents were asked whether charging 5 pence for each single-use carrier bag is a good way of reducing waste, significant differences were found in the number of respondents who strongly agreed with the statement in the ‘before’ and ‘after’ samples (F(1, 2199)=14.207, p<0.001). More respondents strongly agreed with the statement after the introduction of the charge than before (see Figure 10).

32 The Welsh sample reported higher levels of strong agreement with the statement charging 5 pence for each single-use carrier bag is a good way of reducing waste in comparison with the English sample (F(1, 2199)=12.672, p<0.001; see Figure 10).

No significant interaction effect was found for the Welsh and English before and after samples (F(1, 2199)=2.823, p=0.093; see Figure 10).

Figure 10: Charging 5 pence for each single-use carrier bag is a good way of reducing waste (% strongly agree)

100

10 Wales England 0 Before After

When asked whether charging 5 pence for each single-use carrier bag is a good way of reducing litter, significant differences were found in the number of respondents who strongly agreed with the statement in the ‘before’ and ‘after’ samples (F(1, 2199)=14.909, p<0.001). More respondents strongly agreed with the statement in the ‘after’ samples than in the ‘before’ samples (see Figure 11).

The Welsh sample reported a higher level of strong agreement with the statement that charging 5 pence for each single-use carrier bag is a good way of reducing litter than the English sample (F(1, 2199)=17.366, p<0.001; see Table 11).

When comparing the Welsh and English before and after samples, the Welsh sample showed a greater increase in strong agreement with the statement that charging 5 pence for each single-use carrier bag is a good way of reducing litter than the English sample (see Figure 11). This interaction effect was statistically significant (F(1, 2199)=5.606, p<0.05).

Figure 11: Charging 5 pence for each single-use carrier bag helps to reduce litter (% strongly agree)

100

10 Wales England 0 Before After

34 When the three attitude items were combined into a single scale, attitudes to a 5 pence carrier bag charge were found to be more positive in the ‘after’ samples than in the ‘before’ samples (F(1, 2199)=11.506, p<0.001; see Figure 12).

Overall, attitudes to a 5 pence charge on carrier bags were more positive in Wales than in England (F(1, 2199)=15.051, p<0.001; see Figure 12).

No interaction effect was found (F(1, 2199)=0.343, p=0.558; see Figure 12). While attitudes to a 5 pence carrier bag were more positive in Wales after its introduction than before, a comparable increase was observed in England.

Figure 12: Attitudes to a 5 pence carrier bag charge (scale 1-5)

4.5

3.5

Wales England 3 Before After

35 3.3.3 Environmental Identity

The questionnaire included four statements that were designed to measure respondents’ waste and environmental identity (see Table 7). The statements were combined to create a single environmental identity scale.

Overall, there were no significant differences in environmental identity between the ‘before’ and ‘after’ samples (F(1, 2199)=0.259 p=0.611; see Figure 13).

The Welsh sample reported a slightly higher level of environmental identity than the English sample (F(1, 2199)=5.226, p<0.05).

When comparing the Welsh and English before and after samples, a significant interaction effect was found (F(1, 2199)=8.126, p<0.01). While the Welsh sample saw an increase in environmental identity the English sample saw a decrease in environmental identity (see Figure 13).

Figure 13: environmental identity (scale 1-5)

4.5

3.5

Wales England 3 Before After

36 The effects for environmental identity can further be illustrated by looking at agreement with the specific statement “I think of myself as a waste conscious person” (see Figure 14). There were no significant differences between the ‘before’ and ‘after’ samples (F(1, 2173)=1.430, p=0.232), or between the Welsh and English samples for strong agreement with the statement (F(1, 2173)=0.729, p=0.393).

When comparing the Welsh and English before and after samples, a significant interaction effect was found (F(1, 2173)=4.886, p<0.05). While the Welsh sample showed an increase in waste consciousness, a decrease in waste consciousness was found for the English sample (see Figure 14).

Figure 14: I think of myself as a waste conscious person (% strongly agree)

100

10 Wales England 0 Before After

37 4 Summary of Findings

This report presents the findings of a controlled field study set up to evaluate the behavioural and attitudinal implications of the single-use carrier bag charge that was introduced in Wales on the 1st of October 2011. A telephone survey was conducted in the two weeks running up to the introduction of the carrier bag and repeated about six months after. England – where no such charge was introduced – served as the control for the study. Similar telephone interviews were conducted during the same time periods in England. Before and after comparisons were made in Wales and compared with those in England.

Key objectives of the study were to examine the impacts of the charge on the use of single- use carrier bags (as indicated by own bag use); changes in support for and attitudes to the charge after its introduction; and potential behavioural spillover effects brought about by the charge.

The main findings of the study are summarised and discussed in this section.

4.1 Own Bag Use

Own bag use in Wales increased from 61% before the introduction of the single-use carrier bag charge to 82% after the introduction.

While own bag use increased in both Wales and England, the increase was greater in Wales.

The carrier bag charge appears to have brought about a habit in Wales of bringing one’s own bag to the supermarket and other shops.

The number of people in Wales who ‘always’ bring their own bag to the supermarket increased from 42% before the introduction of the carrier bag charge to 64% after the introduction. This increase was greater than the one observed in England.

The number of people in Wales who ‘always’ bring their own bag to other shops increased from 27% before the introduction of the carrier bag charge to 43% after the introduction. While Wales saw an increase in ‘always’ bringing one’s own bag to other shops, England saw a decrease in this habit.

38 Perhaps not surprisingly, re-use of carrier bags for other purposes (e.g. as a bin liner) decreased in Wales from 57% before to 51% after the introduction of the carrier bag charge. A comparable decrease was observed in England.

Women, older age groups and those on the lowest incomes were generally more likely to take their own bag to the supermarket and to other shops.

Both men and women and all age groups reported an increase in own bag use after the introduction of the carrier bag charge in Wales.

4.2 Support for and Attitudes to the Single-Use Carrier Bag Charge

Support for the single-use carrier bag charge was already high before its introduction in Wales.

Support for the charge increased from 59% before its introduction to 70% after. Strong support for the charge increased from 35% before its introduction to 49% after.

While support for a 5 pence charge on single-use carrier bags increased in Wales, support for such a charge remained largely the same in England.

Attitudes to the single-use carrier bag charge were already positive before its introduction in Wales.

Attitudes to the single-use carrier bag charge have become even more positive after its introduction. Slightly more people in Wales agree that the charge is a good way of reducing waste and litter after the introduction of the charge than before. A comparable increase was found in England at a slightly lower level.

Women and older age groups generally expressed higher levels of support for the 5 pence charge on single-use carrier bags than men and younger age groups.

Both men and women and all age groups reported an increase in support for a 5 pence charge on single-use carrier bags after its introduction in Wales than before.

39 4.3 Environmental Behaviours, Identity and Concern

No support was found for the hypothesis that the carrier bag charge may lead to behavioural spillover to other waste-related behaviours. Very few real differences were found in waste-related and non-related behaviours before and after the introduction of the carrier bag charge in Wales.

While no support was found for behavioural spillover effects, changes in environmental identity were observed that might bring about behavioural spillover in the longer term.

Respondents in Wales reported higher levels of environmental identity after the introduction of the carrier bag charge than before.

While reported environmental identity increased in Wales, it decreased in England over the same time period.

Concern about environmental issues did not increase substantially in the wake of the introduction of the carrier bag charge. While concern about litter in the neighbourhood increased slightly in Wales, a comparable increase was observed in England.

There was a small but significant increase in knowledge about reducing household waste following the introduction of the charge in Wales.

4.4 Overall Conclusions

This evaluation of the behavioural and attitudinal impacts of the introduction of the single-use carrier bag charge in Wales has shown that the policy is popular and effective.

The charge has helped to greatly increase own bag use in Wales (from 61% to 82%) across all age groups and for men and women alike. This is consistent with findings from other countries where a similar charge has been introduced. Perhaps most importantly, it has helped to instil a habit in Wales of ‘always’ bringing one’s own bag to the supermarket and other shops. While the study also showed an increase in own bag use in England, where no carrier bag charge was introduced, the increase was greater in Wales.

The carrier bag charge is widely supported in Wales. Before its introduction, the charge was supported by a clear majority of the Welsh population (59%). Support for the charge increased even further after its introduction to 70%. The increase in support for a 5 pence carrier bag charge was much greater in Wales than in England, suggesting that the policy becomes more acceptable after the general public has adapted to the changes by bringing their own bag to the supermarket and other shops.

A great majority of the Welsh population believe that charging 5 pence for each single-use carrier bag charge is an effective way of reducing waste and litter, and are generally willing to pay a 5 pence charge if the money goes to charity. Attitudes to the carrier bag charge in Wales have become even more positive after its introduction, although a comparable increase was found in England at a lower level. Together, these findings support observations from other policy case studies and self-perception and cognitive dissonance theories (Bem, 1976; Festinger, 1957) that attitude change may follow behaviour change.

No evidence was found that the carrier bag charge has led to behavioural spillover to other waste-related behaviours. No changes were found in waste-related or non-waste related environmental behaviours before and after the introduction of the carrier bag charge in Wales. However, in line with self-perception theory (Bem, 1967), more people in Wales regarded themselves as a waste-conscious person and knowing about household waste after the introduction of the carrier bag charge than before, while England saw a decrease in ‘environmental identity’ over the same time period. These changes may suggest that, even if no behavioural spillover effects have been observed yet, they may be brought about over the longer term.

42 43

5 References

Bem, D.J. (1967). Self-perception: an alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74, 183-200. Borland, R., Owen, N., Hill, D., Chapman, S. (1990). Changes in acceptance of workplace smoking bans following their implementation: A prospective study, Preventive Medicine, 19, 314-322. Convery, F., McDonnell, & Ferreira, S. (2007). The most popular tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish plastic bags levy. Environment and Resource Economics, 38, 1-11 Drury Research (2000). Attitudes and actions – a national survey on the environment. Research on Behalf of the Department of the Environment and Local Government. Dublin: Drury Research. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press. He, H. (2010). The effects of an environmental policy on consumers: lessons from the Chinese plastic bag regulation. Working Papers in Economics, No 453. Gothenburg: School of Business, Economics, and Law, University of Gothenburg. Owen, N., Borland, R., & Hill, D. (1991). Regulatory Influences on Health-Related Behaviours: The Case of Workplace Smoking-Bans. Australian Psychologist, 26, 188-191. Schuitema, G., Steg, L., & Forward, S. (2010). Explaining differences in acceptability before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in Stockholm. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 44, 99-109. Seo, D-C., Macy, J.T., Torabi, M.R., & Middlestadt, S.E. (2011). The effect of a smoke-free campus policy on college students' smoking behaviors and attitudes. Preventive Medicine, 53, 347-352. Spence, A., & Pidgeon, N.F. (2009). Psychology, climate change and sustainable behaviour. Environment, 51, 8-18. Thøgersen, J. (1999), Spillover processes in the development of a sustainable consumption pattern. Journal of Economic Psychology, 20, 53-81. Thøgersen, J., & Crompton, T. (2009). Simple and painless? The limitations of spillover in environmental campaigning. Journal of Consumer Policy, 32, 141-163. Transport for London (2004). Congestion Charging Central London: Impacts monitoring Second Annual Report. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/Impacts-monitoring-report-2.pdf. Whitmarsh, L. & O’Neill, S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 305-314. Welsh Assembly Government (2010). Towards Zero Waste. One Wales: One Planet. Overarching Waste Strategy Document for Wales, June 2010.