Journal of Cleaner Production 384 (2023) 135609

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Behavioral barrier-based framework for selecting intervention measures
toward sustainable plastic use and disposal
Takuro Uehara a, *, Misuzu Asari b, Ryo Sakurai a, Mateo Cordier c,
Maheshwari Kalyanasundaram baCollege of Policy Science, Ritsumeikan University, Ibaraki, Osaka, Japan
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
Research Centre Cultures–Environnements–Arctique–Représentations–Climat (CEARC), Université de Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, Université Paris-Saclay,
Guyancourt, Francebc

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Cecilia Maria Villas Bôas deAlmeidaThere is an urgent need to implement sustainable plastic use and disposal to prevent further negative conse­
quences. As it involves human behavior, intervention measures that induce individual human behavioral changes
are essential. While studies and good practices are rapidly increasing in this regard, there is no guarantee that
good practices in one area will work equally well in other areas. Therefore, policymakers require appropriate
guidance to choose suitable intervention measures for their context. This study proposes a behavioral barrierbased framework (BBBF) to aid policymakers in selecting context-appropriate intervention measures. The
BBBF is built on the assumption that certain barriers prevent people from making desirable behavioral changes.
The BBBF can help policymakers choose suitable intervention measures for lowering the barriers that inhibit
desirable sustainable plastic use and disposal-related behaviors. The framework includes a generic list of barriers
derived from possible intervention measures that integrate market-based, regulatory, and behavioral approaches
to expedite the identification of critical barriers and corresponding intervention measures. Local stakeholders are
involved in the whole process to reflect contextuality and elicit context-specific intervention measures, desirable
behavioral measures, and their barriers. A BBBF application was developed and tested in Kyoto City, Japan. Thisapplication involved 1000 residents, two focus groups, 14 businesses, and three city officials connected to theissue. Fifteen intervention measures and three barrier types to induce sixteen desirable behavioral changes forachieving Kyoto City’s four established policy targets were identified. All barriers were categorized per behav­
ioral approach. The feasibility of the proposed intervention measures was assessed by stakeholders.

Keywords:
Barriers
Behavioral change
Context dependency
Intervention measures
Plastic waste
Policy Delphi

1. Introduction
Plastic production has increased since the inception of mass pro­duction in the 1950s and has resulted in over 8300 million metric tons ofvirgin plastics and over 6300 million metric tons of plastic waste glob­
ally (Geyer et al., 2017). The negative impact of plastic waste permeatedglobal social-ecological systems deeply and irreversibly (Persson et al.,2022; Villarrubia-Gómez et al., 2018). Plastic debris has harmed marine
species through entanglement, ingestion, chemical contamination, andsmothering (Derraik, 2002; Kühn et al., 2015; Wilcox et al., 2016).
Additionally, plastic debris can function as a substratum for pathogenic
micro-organisms and parasites (Vethaak and Leslie, 2016). The plastic

problem is irreversible because macro plastic eventually breaks down
into microplastic and nanoplastic particles, which are difficult to clear
due to their small size and ubiquity (Hohn et al., 2020; Lebreton et al.,2019; Uehara, 2020). Thus, there is an undeniable need to address theplastic waste problem.
Though there is a growing body of research that reveals the negative
impact of plastic on human health, such as disrupting endocrine
signaling (Landrigan et al., 2020), further research on this topic iswarranted. Even if we can prevent plastic waste from entering the oceanusing good waste management practices, the production and incinera­tion of plastic have a significant effect on the global atmospheric carbon
budget (Hohn et al., 2020).

* Corresponding author. College of Policy Science Ritsumeikan University, 2-150 Iwakura-Cho, Ibaraki City, Osaka, 567-8570, Japan.
E-mail addresses: takuro@fc.ritsumei.ac.jp (T. Uehara), mezase530@gmail.com (M. Asari), ryo223sak@gmail.com (R. Sakurai), mateo.cordier@uvsq.fr(M. Cordier), maheshwari015.divya@gmail.com (M. Kalyanasundaram).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135609
Received 1 August 2022; Received in revised form 29 November 2022; Accepted 12 December 2022
Available online 15 December 2022
0959-6526/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

T. Uehara et al.

Journal of Cleaner Production 384 (2023) 135609

Studies on the economic impacts of plastic and plastic waste include
a comprehensive analysis of the natural capital valuation (UNEP, 2014),
reduction of ecosystem services (Beaumont et al., 2007), social costs ofmarine litter measured by willingness to pay and volunteering to clean itup (Brouwer et al., 2017), and economic costs of addressing marine
plastic problems (Cordier and Uehara, 2019).
There has been an increasing number of modeling and simulation
analyses of long-term changes in plastic pollution (Borrelle et al., 2020;
Chenillat et al., 2021; Cordier et al., 2021; Cordier and Uehara, 2019;
Geyer et al., 2017; Hohn et al., 2020; Lau et al., 2020; van Wijnen et al.,2019); however, only two common outcomes have been noted. First, allbusiness-as-usual scenarios project an increase in plastic waste. Second,
reducing the amount of accumulated plastic waste requires significant
effort, including a systemic change in plastic production (Lau et al.,2020), transformation of the global plastic economy (Borrelle et al.,2020), or a combination of solutions (Hohn et al., 2020; Lau et al.,2020). Furthermore, as studies claim that technological solutions are
insufficient, implementing non-technological measures, such as chang­ing people’s behavior, has become urgent (Cordier et al., 2021; Cordierand Uehara, 2019).
Two primary phenomena cause unsustainable plastic use and waste
problems: overproduction and overuse of plastic and inadequate man­agement of plastic waste (e.g., littering and failure to sort plastic waste
for recycling). The social-ecological negative impacts of plastic use andwaste indicate that the production and consumption of plastic are in an
undesirable state (Villarrubia-Gómez et al., 2018). Inadequate plastic
waste management is a primary cause of marine plastic pollution(Jambeck et al., 2015; Lebreton et al., 2017).

on previous studies by Alpizar et al. (2020), House of Lords (2011), ICF(2018), Lehner et al. (2016), Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development (2017a), Sterner et al. (2019), Sterner and Coria(2011), and World Bank (1997). While the first two types of measures
are drawn from conventional economics (Sterner and Coria, 2011),
behavioral measures are gathered from various disciplines, including
neuroscience, psychology, sociology, and behavioral economics (Houseof Lords, 2011). Market-based measures include price-based (Pigouvian)and rights-based (Coasian) measures. Price-based measures exert con­trol over price signals, which lead to the internalization of negativeenvironmental externalities such as climate change induced by eco­nomic activities (World Bank, 1997). While price-based measures con­trol price signals by using existing markets (e.g., taxation on gasoline),right-based measures directly control quantities, such as those of pol­lutants (e.g., carbon dioxide emissions), by creating a trading market forpollution allowances (Tietenberg, 2005). Regulatory measures change
people’s behaviors by eliminating or restricting their choices (House ofLords, 2011).
Although behavioral measures are often limited to nudging, thebehavioral measures presented in Table 1 include other non-marketbased and non-regulatory measures, such as non-monetary incentives,
deterrents, and persuasions (House of Lords, 2011; Sunstein, 2014). A
nudge is “any aspect of the choice architecture that alters people’s
behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or
significantly changing their economic incentives” (Thaler and Sunstein,
2008, p. 6). Nudging is intended to take advantage of or change people’s
choice architecture to ensure that they behave for their own sake or acollective end (Beshears and Kosowsky, 2020).

1.1. Intervention measures for behavioral changes

1.2. Study aim

The problems caused by plastics can be considered a conventional
economic problem (e.g., externalities, misaligned incentives, informa­tion asymmetries), behavioral problem outside the scope of conven­tional economic problems (e.g., internalities, bounded rationality,
bounded willpower, and bounded selfishness), or their combination(Carlsson et al., 2019; Kahneman, 2003; Loewenstein and Chater, 2017;
Mullainathan and Thaler, 2015; Thaler and Sunstein, 2008). An example
of a conventional economic problem is overproduction; that is, a type ofmarket failure referred to as negative externalities (Sterner et al., 2019).
If the social-ecological cost of plastic use and disposal is not fully re­flected in the market prices of plastic, the production and consumptionof plastic exceed an optimal level. The price signals that govern pro­
ducers’ and consumers’ behavior send the wrong message. An example
of a behavioral problem is failure to sort garbage, indicative of inade­quate internalization of social norms into people’s decision-making(Akbulut-Yuksel and Boulatoff, 2021; Czajkowski et al., 2019).
Table 1 presents a comprehensive list of intervention measures,
which could change individuals’ behavior. The list was compiled based

This study aims to develop and test the application of a behavioral
barrier-based framework (BBBF) for selecting intervention measures tolower barriers inhibiting behaviors that contribute to sustainable plastic
use and disposal. While there is a wealth of literature on intervention
measures (ICF, 2018; Sterner et al., 2019; Sterner and Coria, 2011;
World Bank, 1997) and good practices (European Environment Agency,2019), such studies are inadequate because the measures are context
dependent (Fogt Jacobsen et al., 2022; Grilli and Curtis, 2021; Löhr
et al., 2017; Sterner et al., 2019). Further, good practices in one context
may not be suitable in other contexts. Additionally, not all measures areequally effective (Grilli and Curtis, 2021). Policymakers face countless
choices regarding policy targets, desirable behavioral changes that
contribute to them, barriers to changes, and intervention measures tolower the barriers. While the body of knowledge on intervention mea­sures drawn from behavioral sciences has increased, its use has been
unsystematic (Lehner et al., 2016). Therefore, a framework for selecting
appropriate measures for each context from a wealth of literature isneeded (Alpizar et al., 2020).
To fill this gap, the BBBF provides guidance for selecting appropriate
measures for each context from a comprehensive list of intervention
measures. The BBBF includes intervention measures from classicaleconomics and behavioral sciences and aims to address environmental
issues (Table 1). Compiling a single framework will assist policymakers
in systematically selecting an intervention measure from various
options.
This paper explains each step of the BBBF, followed by examples of
its outcomes, using Kyoto City as a case study. Subsequently, we discuss
the strengths and limitations of the BBBF identified during the case study
and draw conclusions.

Table 1
Types and examples of intervention measures to change individuals’ behavior.
Types of measures

ExamplesMarket-based

Taxes, fees, or charges
Deposit-refund schemes
Subsidies
Bans
Standards
Permits (non-tradable)
Mandatory rules
Simplification and framing information
Changes to the physical environment
Changes to the default policy
Use of social norms and salience
Use of feedback mechanisms
Goal setting and commitment devices
Persuasion Non-monetary incentives and disincentives

Regulatory

Behavioral

2. Proposed framework
Fig. 1 provides an overview of the BBBF. Except for Step 0, policy­
makers and residents were involved in the entire process to ensure thefeasibility and appropriateness of the selected intervention measures.
2

T. Uehara et al.

Journal of Cleaner Production 384 (2023) 135609

Fig. 1. Overview of the BBBF
Note. The dashed line indicates that Step 0 is the foundation for Steps 3 and 4.

Throughout BBBF development and application, we consulted con­cerned policymakers to ensure its usefulness.

they are not coordinated with policy targets, they are of little use (Grilli
and Curtis, 2021; Löhr et al., 2017; Sterner et al., 2019).

Step 0. Developing a generic list of barriers to intervention measures

Step 2 . Identifying desirable behavioral changes to achieve policy
targets

Step 0 is optional as policymakers can adopt the generic list prepared
for this study (Table 2). We identified 11 barriers (B1–B11) corre­
sponding to 15 intervention measures (I1–I15). The barriers corre­
sponding to each intervention measure type (Table 1) were drafted bydrawing on relevant theories and case studies. They were finalized
through discussion among the authors, who are from diverse fields
including waste management, environmental economics, environmental
education, and psychology. The list of barriers matched with interven­tion measure types provides input for identifying context-specific bar­riers in Step 3 and intervention measures in Step 4. While the term
“barriers” is widely used in behavioral measures (The Behavioural In­
sights Team, n.d.), we use this term in a broader sense, following thenotion of the “sciences of human behavior” proposed by the House ofLords (2011, p. 9).

Given the policy targets agreed upon, desirable behavioral changes
corresponding to each target are identified through focus groups. As the
purpose of the focus group is to list desirable behavioral changes rather
than rank them, participant recruiting is purposive. Participants should
satisfy one of two criteria. First, they should be interested in andknowledgeable about sustainable plastic use and disposal. People withlittle interest in this issue might not be aware of possible behavioral
changes. Second, participants must live in the target area and know thecontext. Focus groups can be held online using an online whiteboard anda visual collaboration platform where multiple participants can simul­
taneously post and edit sticky notes.
The researchers using the BBBF subsequently filter and amend thedesirable behavior changes proposed by the focus groups using four
criteria. First, only changes in individual behaviors are included, notorganizational behaviors or other people’s behaviors. Second, theidentified desirable behavioral changes must contribute directly topolicy targets. For example, learning about the seriousness of plastic
waste problems is not included. Third, changes must be appropriate. For
example, some behaviors may not be recommended for sanitary orsafety reasons. Fourth, if critical behaviors are not covered, researchers

Step 1. Setting policy targets for behavior change
The BBBF adopts policy targets set by municipalities identified dur­ing document analysis and through consultations with policymakers(Fig. 1). It is critical to elicit intervention measures readily useful formunicipalities. Such intervention measures must be context-specific; if
3

T. Uehara et al.

Journal of Cleaner Production 384 (2023) 135609

is required, as they implement desirable behaviors) and the latter does
not provide any information about the frequency. Ci,k is the criticality ofthe barrier i (1 if selected as a barrier, 0 otherwise) for participant k. For
each behavior, a barrier with the highest standardized Bi,j is chosen to
consider intervention measures.

Table 2
Generic list of barriers corresponding to intervention measures.
Barrier

Corresponding intervention measure

No.

Barrier

No.

Intervention
measure type

B1

Lack of financial
incentives/disincentives

I1

Taxes, fees, or
charges
Deposit-refund
schemes
Subsidies
Bans
Standards
Permits (nontradable)

B2

B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
B10
B11

Current behavior goesunchecked (i.e., no bans or
restrictions enforced bygovernments ormunicipalities)
Lack of rules that mandate
required behavior
Approaches for required
behavior are unclear
Necessary conditions or
facilities for required
behavior are lacking
Current behaviors arefamiliar or habitualNo monitoring, behavior
goes unnoticed
Effectiveness and meaningof required behavior are
unknown
Details regarding extent
and quality of required
behavior are unclear
Lack of persuasion to
engage in required
behavior
Lack of non-monetary
incentives/disincentives

I2
I3
I4
I5
I6
I7

Mandatory rules

I8

Simplification andframing
information
Changes to thephysicalenvironment
Changes to default
policyUse of social norms
and salience
Use of feedback
mechanisms

I9
I10
I11
I12
I13
I14
I15

Intervention
measurecategory
Market-based

Step 4 . Select intervention measures by evaluating feasibility from amulti-perspective
Considering critical barriers to behavioral changes identified in Step
3, relevant potential intervention measures to lower these barriers arelisted. As barriers are derived from the 15 intervention measure types(Table 2), intervention measures are chosen from those matched withthe corresponding intervention measure type. Local stakeholders, suchas municipalities and local businesses, should implement the identified
measures. For example, the development of water bottles made of bio­plastic would not be considered, as it would need cooperation with nonlocal manufacturers.
Two methods are employed to evaluate the feasibility of intervention
measures according to its key stakeholder. A semi-structured groupinterview is conducted to evaluate intervention measures implemented
by municipalities. This method is desirable because it obtains views
from several officials (Punch, 2013) and does not require collecting
diverse opinions from multiple organizations. The interview partici­
pants jointly answer questions about the feasibility of intervention
measures using a 5-point scale (1: very easy to implement to 5: very
difficult to implement) and provide remarks. However, intervention
measures for retailers need an approach that can reflect their diverse
opinions. Therefore, the BBBF proposes a policy Delphi to evaluate thefeasibility of intervention measures led by retailers.
A policy Delphi aims to identify diverse views on an issue throughiterative questionnaires completed by participants who have knowledgeof the issue (de Loë et al., 2016; Uehara et al., 2021). It is suitablebecause the BBBF intends to provide policymakers with useful comple­
mentary information, such as feasibility and necessary conditions to
implement measures, rather than a final decision. The design of thepolicy Delphi follows the specifications developed by de Loë et al.
(2016).

Regulatory

Behavioral

Goal setting andcommitment
devices
Persuasion
Non-monetary
incentives anddisincentives

may add them to the list.
Step 3 . Identifying critical barriers that must be overcome to promotedesirable behavioral changes

3. Application of the BBBF: the case study with Kyoto City

Step 3 identifies the critical barrier to each desirable behavioral
change revealed in Step 2 using a questionnaire completed by residentsof the target city or town. The questionnaire asks participants to choosebarriers from a set of generic barriers in Table 2 (1 if selected as a bar­rier; 0 otherwise) for each identified desirable behavioral change. It
rates the frequency with which a desirable behavior is implemented on a
6-point Likert scale (always, very often, sometimes, rarely, never, and don’tknow). We adopted a multiplicative model (Smith and Beran, 2012;
Stutsky et al., 2012) to identify the most significant barriers to the
proposed desirable behavioral changes. The model combines the fre­quency of implementing a desirable behavior and the criticality of abarrier to the behavior. Frequency is a weighting factor that measures
the scope to improve participants’ behavior. The most significant barriercorresponding to each behavior is chosen using a multiplicative model
based on the following index:
standardized Bi,j =n1∑
Fj,k Ci,kn k=1

The BBBF was applied to Kyoto City. Informed consent was obtained
from all participants involved in the BBBF application.
3.1. Policy targets
Kyoto City is in central Japan and has 1,464,890 residents and727,566 households (Statistics Bureau of Japan, 2021). In 2019, theemission of single-use plastic was estimated at 51,000 metric tons, andthe estimated use of plastic shopping bags and polyethylene tere­phthalate (PET) bottles was 2500 metric tons (220 bags per person) and
3400 metric tons (90 PET bottles per person), respectively (Kyoto City,
2021). Kyoto City designed a plan for a recycle-based society, which
includes policy targets to realize sustainable use and plastic disposal(Kyoto City, 2021). It comprises a reduction in the use of plastic shop­
ping bags, PET bottles, and single-use plastic, improving the separationof plastic waste, and increasing the use of products made of bioplastic(Kyoto City, 2021). Throughout the process, we consulted Kyoto city
officials to maintain BBBF application validity. These officials were fromthe section of the organization that was involved in developing the plan
for a recycle-based society.

(1)where standardized Bi,j is the standardized score, divided by the numberof participants of the survey, n; it captures the significance of barrier i tobehavior j. Fj,k is the frequency of participant k’s involvement in the
behavior j rated on a Likert scale (always = 0, very often = 1, sometimes= 2, rarely = 3, never = 4, don’t know = 0). We assigned 0s to “always”
and “don’t know.” The former indicates no barrier (i.e., no intervention

3.2. Desirable behavioral changes to achieve policy targets (steps 1 and 2)
Table 3 presents the policy targets and corresponding desirable
4T. Uehara et al.

Journal of Cleaner Production 384 (2023) 135609

Environment Japan, 2021), although its impact on the environment
remains unclear (Emadian et al., 2017). Second, as it differed from otheralternatives in terms of its convenience and function, we presumed thatthe barriers related to bioplastics might differ from the other alterna­
tives. While there may be a difference in market prices, bioplastics offer
convenience and function, such as lightness and durability, similar tofossil-based plastics.

Table 3
Policy targets and corresponding desirable behavioral changes.
Policy target (Kyoto City)

Desirable behavioral change

1. Reduction of plastic bag use from
2500 tons (2019) to 400 tons (2030),
and from 220 bags per resident (2019)
to 35 bags per resident (2030)

D1D2

2. Reduction of plastic bottle waste from3400 tons (2019) to 1600 tons (2030),
and from 90 bottles per resident(2019) to 45 bottles per resident(2030)

D5

3. Reduction of disposable plastic wastefrom 51,000 tons (2019; 2030 not set)

D8

D3
D4

D6
D7

D9
D10
D11
D12

4. Improve plastic waste sorting from46% (2019) to 60% (2030)

D13
D14
D15
D16

Reuse plastic bags repeatedly
Use alternatives to plastic bags
(excluding bioplastics)
Use bioplastic bags
Adopt lifestyles that avoid
plastic bag use
Do not buy or accept plastic
bottles
Use alternatives to plastic bottles(excluding bioplastics)
Use plastic bottles with low
environmental impact
Do not accept or use plastic, or
return plastic without using it
Choose non-disposable
alternatives (excluding
bioplastics)
Choose bioplastic products
Choose products that use lessplastic packaging
Adopt lifestyles that use less or
no disposable plastics
Follow correct methods of wastesorting
Make it easy to sort waste
Cooperate with in-store
collection
Choose products based on ease ofwaste sorting

3.3. Critical barriers to the desired behavioral changes (Step 3)
An online questionnaire (Appendix B) was administered to Kyoto
residents in November 2021 to identify barriers to desirable behavioral
changes for each policy target. Participants were selected from a preregistered panel at a survey company to represent the age and sex dis­tribution of the population (Appendix C). The barriers were rephrased
from the generic barriers in Table 2 to fit each desired behavioral
change. We consulted city officials on October 20, 2021 to verify thevalidity of the questions. The questionnaire was tested with 100 par­ticipants before the survey. Finally, 1000 residents participated in thesurvey. The data needed to replicate the results of this study are pro­vided as supplementary materials.
Fig. 2 shows the ranking of the criticality of barriers corresponding todesirable behavioral changes based on Eq. (1) (Appendix D). The matrixof criticality is read horizontally, that is, row by row for each policy
target, and cells with maximum values are selected. Out of 11 barriers(B1–B11), 3 barriers were selected as critical: “B4. Approaches to carryout the required behavior are unclear (How to),” “B6. Current behaviors
are familiar or habitual (Habits),” and “B9. Details of how much to do or
how well one is doing in terms of the required behavior are unclear(Contributions).” All barriers were categorized per behavioral approach(Table 2).

behavioral changes for Kyoto City listed in focus groups and in consul­
tation with city officials. Examples of each change raised in the focus
groups are provided in Appendix A.
After consulting with city officials, we included all policy targets thecity had proposed, except for increasing the use of bioplastic containers.
While bioplastic is a promising alternative to fossil-based plastic (Min­istry of the Environment Japan, 2021), the quantification of a target for
its use is undetermined, as its future availability is difficult to predict.
Furthermore, the current amount being used is unknown. However,
because of its importance, we reflected it in the questionnaire withresidents of Kyoto to capture the current use of bioplastic with otherpolicy targets.
We held two online focus groups using miro on July 30 and
September 2, 2021. The participants were recruited using snowball
sampling. The first focus group comprised five Kyoto residents, whowere split into two groups. Each group worked on identifying behavioral
changes to achieve an assigned policy target, and 60 sticky notes werecreated. Following the four filtering criteria for identifying andamending the list of desirable behaviors, the authors reorganized andsummarized the notes as 18 behavioral changes.
The second focus group comprised 10 participants, including 4
participants who did not live in Kyoto City but were interested in andknowledgeable about plastic use and disposal issues. Participants were
presented with the 18 behavioral changes obtained from the first focus
group and produced 109 sticky notes. We applied the four filtering
criteria and reorganized the notes into 16 behavioral changes (D1–D16
in Table 3). Some behavioral changes were excluded, such as “reusing
plastic bottles.” Although it can reduce plastic bottle consumption, it is
not recommended for sanitary and safety reasons (Japan Soft Drink
Association, n.d.; Ono et al., 2004). We separated bioplastics from al­
ternatives to plastic shopping bags, PET bottles, and single-use plastic
for two reasons. First, bioplastic is of special policy importance.
Increasing the rate of bioplastic container use is one of Kyoto City’s
primary targets; however, we did not include it as a policy target in ourstudy because of feasibility constraints. Additionally, the Japanese
government developed a roadmap for introducing bioplastics as part of
the resource circulation strategy for plastics (Ministry of the

3.4. Intervention measures for lowering barriers to desirable behavioral
changes (Step 4)
Step 4, the final step, proposes intervention measures to induce
desirable behavioral changes toward the policy targets. Table 4 is the
final output of the BBBF.
We designed the proposed intervention measures for Kyoto City by
applying the intervention measure types corresponding to critical bar­riers identified in Step 3 (white numbers in Fig. 2). Accordingly, we
proposed intervention measures categorized per type “P8. Simplificationand framing information” for the barrier “B4. Approaches to carry out
the required behavior are unclear (How to),” type “P10. Changes to thedefault policy” for the barrier “B6. Current behaviors are familiar or
habitual (Habits),” and type “P13. Goal setting and commitment de­vices” for the barrier “B9. Details of how much to do or how well one isdoing in terms of the required behavior are unclear (Contributions).”
As simplification and framing of information (intervention measuretype I8) can prevent information overload, such interventions caneffectively activate individuals’ targeted values and attitudes (OECD,
2017b). Eco-labeling is a commonly-used measure (OECD, 2017b;
Prieto-Sandoval et al., 2016; van der Ven et al., 2018; Wensing et al.,2020). However, as eco-labels are applied by manufacturers rather thanlocal businesses, it was not proposed in the BBBF. We proposed thatretailers place information displays in-store, such as in front of products
made of bioplastics.
There are six behavioral changes in which the barrier “B6. Current
behaviors are familiar or habitual (Habits)” is critical (Fig. 2). The
corresponding intervention measure type is to change to the default
policy. People tend to resist change by maintaining the status quo (ordefault) until or unless change is inevitable (Johnson and Goldstein,
2003; OECD, 2017a). Mundt et al. (2020) found that separating straws
from drinking cups by default decreased the use of plastic straws. We
proposed to reduce the sales of targeted products, such as plastic bottles,
as changes to the default policy.
5

T. Uehara et al.

Journal of Cleaner Production 384 (2023) 135609

Fig. 2. Matrix for ranking critical barriers by desirable behavioral change
Note. Numbers represent ranking of barrier criticality per desirable behavioral change. B1 to B11 correspond to barrier numbers in Table 2. D1 to D16 correspond tobehavioral change numbers in Table 3.

The intervention measure type “I13. Goal setting and achievement
tracking devices” can encourage commitment to effortful behavioral
changes (OECD, 2017b). The efficacy and generality of goal setting havebeen well documented (Locke and Latham, 2006, 2019). Czajkowski
et al. (2019) found that goal setting can help promote household recy­cling. We proposed measures that clarify required actions and help
people understand how well they are doing (Table 4). While this attempt
could be effective, it is difficult in certain circumstances, such ascontinuous measurement of and reporting how often plastic bags are
replaced with their alternatives.
To assess the feasibility of the proposed intervention measures, we
held semi-structured group interviews and a policy Delphi with key
stakeholders of the measures (“Feasibility” and “Feasibility comments”
in Table 4); that is, a semi-structured group interview with Kyoto City
officials and a policy Delphi with retailers. The semi-structured inter­view with Kyoto City officials was conducted in December 2021 to assess

the feasibility of the proposed measures corresponding to desirable
behavioral changes D4, D13, and D14 (Table 4). The results were mixed.
Preparing a checklist for devising ways to make it easy to separate
plastic waste (proposed intervention measure P4) and for lifestyles
without using plastic bags (desirable behavioral change D13) were rated
as easy (2) and very easy (1), respectively. In contrast, informing resi­
dents of how well others in their area were separating waste wasconsidered difficult due to a lack of information (P12). It would bepossible to inform residents of the separation on average across the city,
as it is analyzed annually; however, the average across the city is lessconnected to how an individual is performing, likely resulting in weakermotivation to improve one’s behavior. This point warrants further
investigation. Further, we asked the officials regarding the BBBF as apolicy tool and received positive responses, as the BBBF provides useful
information. However, the respondents also mentioned that a pilot testwith a small number of households is required before adopting it.
6

T. Uehara et al.

Journal of Cleaner Production 384 (2023) 135609

Table 4
Proposed measures and key stakeholders for lowering barriers to desirable behavioral change.
Policy target

Desirable behavioral
changeBarrier tobehavioral
changeIntervention
measure type

Proposed intervention
measureKey
stakeholder

Reduction ofplastic bag
use

D1

Reuse plastic bags
repeatedly

B9

I13

P1

Install informational
displays to inform of
possibility and extent
of plastic bag reuse.

Retailers

D2

Use alternatives toplastic bags
(excluding
bioplastics)

B9

I13

P2

Retailers

D3

Use bioplastic
bags

B4

I8

P3

Install informational
displays to encourage
people to stop using
plastic bags and use
alternative products.
Install informational
displays to facilitate
selection of bioplastic
bags.

D4

Adopt lifestylethat avoids plastic
bag use

B9

I13

P4

Propose specificlifestyle choices that
do not use plastic
bags.

Municipality

D5

Do not buy or
accept plastic
bottles

B6

I10

P5

Reduce number ofplastic bottles
handled to 50% of
current level by 2030.

Retailers

D6

Use alternatives toplastic bottles(excluding
bioplastics)

B6

I10

P6

Replace 25% of
current PET bottles
with alternatives by
2030.

Retailers

D7

Use plastic bottles
with lowenvironmental
impactB4I8P7Retailers

D8

Do not accept or
use plastic, or
return plastic
without using it

B6

I10

P8

Install informational
displays to facilitate
selection of PET
bottles with low
environmental
impact.
Reduce amount ofdisposable plastics
handled to 50% of
current level by 2030.

D9

Choose nondisposable
alternatives(excluding
bioplastics)
Choose bioplastic
products

B6

I10

P9

Replace 25% of
current disposable
plastics withalternatives by 2030.

Retailers

B4

I8

P10

Provide informational
displays to facilitate
selection of bioplastic
products.

Retailers

D11

Choose productsthat use lessplastic packaging

B4

I8

P11

Retailers

D12

Adopt lifestylethat uses less or nodisposable plastics

B6

I10

P8

Install informational
displays to facilitate
selection of productsthat use less plastic
packaging.
Reduce amount ofdisposable plastics
handled to 50% of
current level by 2030.

D13

Follow correct
methods of wastesorting

B9

I13

P12

Communicate
district’s actual andtarget plastic waste
separation rate.

Municipality

Reduction ofplastic
bottlewaste

Reduction of
disposable
plastic
waste

D10

Improve
plastic
waste
sorting

Feasibility

Feasibility comments“I think it is relatively easy
to display posters for plastic
reduction if the municipality
etc. prepare them (D).”Retailers

1. Very easy

“Because bioplastic
shopping bags are
expensive, there are noplans to introduce them atpresent (D).”“It is easy to create achecklist. However,delivering the checklist to
citizens is difficult. It is alsodifficult to spend money on
publicity.”“Because it is greatly
influenced by customer
demand and manufacturer’s
efforts (D).”“Currently, most of the
products by manufacturers
are PET bottles.
Additionally, it is notpossible to collect glass
bottles (VD).”“We are thinking about not
replacing it with asubstitute, and to not use it
in the future (Oth.).”Retailers“Because we cannot find asuitable alternative toplastic from the viewpoint ofquality assurance and cost(D).”
“It is difficult for us tocontrol whether plastic bags
for foods and food wraps
will be replaced (N).”Retailers

4. Verydifficult“Because we cannot find asuitable alternative toplastic from the viewpoint ofquality assurance and cost(D).”
“We have not surveyed theplastic waste separation ratein the district where people
live. However, as surveys
are conducted at threelocations every year for thewhole city, it would bepossible to report the
separation rate for thewhole city.”(continued on next page)7

T. Uehara et al.

Journal of Cleaner Production 384 (2023) 135609

Table 4 (continued )Policy target

Desirable behavioral
changeBarrier tobehavioral
changeIntervention
measure type

Proposed intervention
measureKey
stakeholder

Feasibility

Feasibility comments

D14

Make it easy tosort waste

B9

I13

P13

Outline types of
specific activities
people should
undertake.

Municipality

2. Easy

D15

Cooperate with instore collection

B6

I10

P14

Install in-store
collection boxes.

Retailers“It is easy to create achecklist. However, the kindof activities that should beundertaken in the list should
be further considered.
Additionally, delivering thechecklist to citizens is adifficult issue.”“Difficult to secure a place(VD).”“Because it may not matchthe store image (D).”D16

Choose products
based on ease ofwaste sorting

B4

I8

P15

Install informational
displays to facilitate
selection of easy-tosort products.

Retailers“Because the target is toovague (D).”Note. VD/D: Very difficult or Difficult; N: Neutral, E/VE: Easy or Very easy; AI: Already implemented; Oth.: Other.

4. Insights from the BBBF for selecting context-specificintervention measures

A policy Delphi was implemented online (Appendix E) to test thefeasibility of proposed intervention measures, whose key stakeholders
are retailers (Table 4). The policy Delphi comprised two rounds ofquestionnaires. The recruitment of the panel of participants was pur­posive to include targeted types of retailers, such as supermarkets andgrocery stores. In addition to consultations with city officials, we usedthe composition analysis of disposed plastic waste by retailer types in
Kyoto City to identify key retailers (Sakai et al., 2019). The panel
included 15 retailers in the first round and 14 out of the 15 in the second,with a panel completion rate of 93.3%, which is considered high (de Loëet al., 2016). The panel included supermarkets (3), a convenience store(1), a drugstore (1), specialty stores (3), restaurants (3), and others (3:bookstore, souvenir shop, and large retailer). The first round was hosted
online between January 13 and January 23, 2021. The second roundwas hosted online between February 10 and February 14, 2022.
Participants assessed the feasibility of each proposed intervention
measure. We asked the participants if they would voluntarily adopt themeasures, with answers rated on a 5-point scale (1 = very difficult [VD];
5 = very easy [VE]). Additionally, we included option 6 for measuresthat had already been implemented (AI) and option 7 for other measures(Oth.) and comments, if any. Voluntary approaches are becoming pop­
ular, complementary to traditional legislation (European Environment
Agency, 2019). Although the questionnaire in the second round asked
the same questions as the first round, the results obtained from the firstround, including the overall summary of all the participants’ inputs andindividual responses, were presented to participants to reconsider theiranswers from the first round.
Table 4 presents the feasibility of adopting the proposed measuresvoluntarily. Of the twelve proposed measures for businesses, five mea­sures (P1, P2, P7, P10, and P11) were considered easy (E) or very easy(VE), and two measures (P5 and P14) were considered difficult (D) orvery difficult (VD) to adopt. The remaining four measures (P6, P8, P9,
and P15) were rated neutrally. The comments presented in Table 4 wereselected to focus on barriers to adopting the proposed measures. Overall,
local businesses cannot adopt certain measures without cooperatingwith manufacturers, the municipality, and consumers. In particular, thefeasibility of the proposed measures involving reduction targets by 2030
(i.e., P5, P6, P8, and P9) is dependent on factors such as whether
manufacturers will provide alternatives at a reasonable cost. Therefore,
they were rated as neutral. This finding corroborates the importance ofcollaboration among stakeholders.

We developed and tested the BBBF for selecting intervention mea­sures to realize sustainable plastic use and disposal in Kyoto City. To
effectively use the BBBF, it is crucial to articulate insights regarding theselection of context-specific intervention measures and the strengths andlimitations elucidated through BBBF application.
The BBBF has four strengths. First, it can help policymakers identify
suitable intervention measures from the growing number of studies andgood practices (Grilli and Curtis, 2021; Löhr et al., 2017; Sterner et al.,2019). While there are typologies of intervention measures (Alpizar
et al., 2020; House of Lords, 2011; ICF, 2018), they do not provide
sufficient guidance for choosing context-specific measures. The Behav­
ioural Insights Team (n.d.) provides a tool to identify critical barriers;
however, it focuses on behavioral approaches.
The application of the BBBF in Kyoto City identified 15 intervention
measures for lowering barriers, which were classified into three barriertypes, for 16 behavioral changes that contribute to the four policy tar­gets set by Kyoto City. Because the application intended to reflect thesituation of Kyoto City, the types of critical barriers and corresponding
behavioral changes may differ in other places. All barriers were cate­gorized per behavioral approach (Table 2). Interestingly, a review re­ported that policies for plastic bags are dominated by bans (56%) andpricing mechanisms (32%), although some use voluntary agreements
and information campaigns (Nielsen et al., 2019). Similarly, while in­formation measures dominate in addressing plastic waste in Europe(42% of all measures), regulatory and market-based measures are rela­
tively popular in the field of plastic waste (European Environment
Agency, 2019). Second, the generic list provided in the BBBF reveals acomprehensive typology of barriers and intervention measures drawn
from recent developments in behavioral economics and conventional
market-based and regulatory approaches (Alpizar et al., 2020; House ofLords, 2011; ICF, 2018; Lehner et al., 2016; OECD, 2017a; Sterner et al.,2019; Sterner and Coria, 2011; World Bank, 1997). In line with thescience of human behavior (House of Lords, 2011) and behavioral
change approaches (Grilli and Curtis, 2021), it is important to embrace
all approaches to change human behavior. This enables policymakers to
identify which type of intervention measures to consider for achieving
their policy targets based on critical barriers to desirable behavioral
changes. Although the selection of intervention measures is undeniably
context-specific, the generalization of barriers and corresponding
intervention measures gathered from the literature (i.e., the list devel­
oped for the BBBF) should be universally applicable and instrumental.
Some studies examined barriers and corresponding intervention
8

T. Uehara et al.

Journal of Cleaner Production 384 (2023) 135609

measures (Grilli and Curtis, 2021; McKenzie-Mohr, 2011). However, theBBBF, including the generic list, is comprehensive in its selection ofcorresponding measures and barriers and targets sustainable plastic use
and disposal with explicit steps that reflect the context. Third, byinvolving local stakeholders during Steps 2 to 4 (Fig. 1), context-specificintervention measures were elicited (Step 4) along with desirable
behavioral changes (Step 2) and their critical barriers (Step 3) for
contextual policy targets (Step 1; Table 4). Fourth, the steps are simple
and do not require sophisticated analytical techniques. As the genericlist is readily available, the steps can be implemented without the help ofhighly skilled professionals.
Several limitations of the BBBF should be noted. First, the BBBF
should be tested in other contexts to validate its usefulness. Second, it
focuses on intervention measures that can be implemented by local
stakeholders; however, resolving plastic problems should involve awider range of stakeholders, including manufacturers (Alpizar et al.,2020). For example, a national beverage company developed plastic
bottles made with 100% plant-derived materials (Suntory, 2021), giving
retailers an important option for reducing the amount of fossil-based
plastic bottles. Further studies including multiple level stakeholders
are required. Third, while the BBBF evaluates the feasibility of eachmeasure, it does not guarantee implementation, which involves addi­
tional processes. Furthermore, some proposed intervention measures
may not be easy to implement. Although the BBBF was tested anddeveloped in consultation with policymakers, the effectiveness of pro­
posed measures using the BBBF was not tested. Nonetheless, the eval­uation provides references or starting points for considering thepossibilities. Fourth, the BBBF does not examine synergies and trade-offs
between intervention measures, although they are important (Fogt
Jacobsen et al., 2022; Sterner and Coria, 2011).

Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Our research data are provided as supplementary material.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Environment Research and Tech­
nology Development Fund JPMEERF21S11920 of the Environmental
Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135609.
References
Akbulut-Yuksel, M., Boulatoff, C., 2021. The effects of a green nudge on municipal solid
waste: evidence from a clear bag policy. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 106, 102404
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2020.102404.
Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F., Lanza, G., Carney, B., Daniels, R.C., Jaime, M., Ho, T., Nie, Z.,
Salazar, C., Tibesigwa, B., Wahdera, S., 2020. A framework for selecting anddesigning policies to reduce marine plastic pollution in developing countries.
Environ. Sci. Pol. 109, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.04.007.
Beaumont, N.J., Austen, M.C., Atkins, J.P., Burdon, D., Degraer, S., Dentinho, T.P.,
Derous, S., Holm, P., Horton, T., Van Ierland, E., 2007. Identification, definition andquantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: implications
for the ecosystem approach. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 54, 253–265. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006.12.003.
Beshears, J., Kosowsky, H., 2020. Nudging: progress to date and future directions. Organ.
Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 161, 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
obhdp.2020.09.001.
Borrelle, S.B., Ringma, J., Law, K.L., Monnahan, C.C., Lebreton, L., McGivern, A.,
Murphy, E., Jambeck, J., Leonard, G.H., Hilleary, M.A., Eriksen, M., Possingham, H.
P., De Frond, H., Gerber, L.R., Polidoro, B., Tahir, A., Bernard, M., Mallos, N.,
Barnes, M., Rochman, C.M., 2020. Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts
to mitigate plastic pollution. Science 369, 1515–1518. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.aba3656.
Brouwer, R., Hadzhiyska, D., Ioakeimidis, C., Ouderdorp, H., 2017. The social costs ofmarine litter along European coasts. Ocean Coast Manag. 138, 38–49. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.01.011.
Carlsson, F., Gravert, C., Johansson-Stenman, O., Kurz, V., 2019. The Use of Green
Nudges as an Environmental Policy Instrument. Department of Economics, Göteborg
University, Gothenburg.
Chenillat, F., Huck, T., Maes, C., Grima, N., Blanke, B., 2021. Fate of floating plastic
debris released along the coasts in a global ocean model. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 165,
112116 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112116.
Cordier, M., Uehara, T., 2019. How much innovation is needed to protect the ocean fromplastic contamination? Sci. Total Environ. 670, 789–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2019.03.258.
Cordier, M., Uehara, T., Baztan, J., Jorgensen, B., Yan, H., 2021. Plastic pollution andeconomic growth: the influence of corruption and lack of education. Ecol. Econ. 182
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106930.
Czajkowski, M., Zagórska, K., Hanley, N., 2019. Social norm nudging and preferences forhousehold recycling. Resour. Energy Econ. 58 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
reseneeco.2019.07.004.
de Loë, R.C., Melnychuk, N., Murray, D., Plummer, R., 2016. Advancing the state ofpolicy Delphi practice: a systematic review evaluating methodological evolution,
innovation, and opportunities. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 104, 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.12.009.
Derraik, J.G.B., 2002. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: areview. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 44, 842–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(02)00220-5.
Emadian, S.M., Onay, T.T., Demirel, B., 2017. Biodegradation of bioplastics in naturalenvironments. Waste Manag. 59, 526–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2016.10.006.
Preventing plastic waste in Europe. https://doi.org/10.2800/096909, 2019.
Fogt Jacobsen, L., Pedersen, S., Thøgersen, J., 2022. Drivers of and barriers to
consumers’ plastic packaging waste avoidance and recycling – a systematic literature
review. Waste Manag. 141, 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2022.01.021.
Geyer, R., Jambeck, J.R., Law, K.L., 2017. Production, use, and fate of all plastics evermade. Sci. Adv. 3 https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782.

5. Conclusions
The BBBF helps identify suitable intervention measures from infinite
possibilities. However, it does not primarily intend to contrive innova­
tive measures. The BBBF assumes that an intervention measure thatlowers critical barriers to desirable behavioral change is effective forattaining sustainable plastic use and disposal. To expedite the identifi­
cation of barriers and corresponding intervention measures, we devel­
oped a generic list of barriers corresponding to and derived from existing
intervention measure types. Among the proliferation of barriers andintervention measures, as well as their combinations, the generic list
helps policymakers identify critical barriers and derive corresponding
intervention measures, guided by the identified intervention measuretypes linked to the listed barriers. By applying the BBBF in Kyoto City,
this study revealed 15 potential desirable behavioral changes, three
types of critical barriers to these changes, and 16 corresponding inter­
vention measures to attain four policy targets (Table 4). As the BBBF,
including the generic list, is based on broad literature and not restricted
to plastic use and disposal, it could be applied to other waste-related
problems requiring interventions to lower barriers to desirable behav­
ioral change.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Takuro Uehara: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis,
Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administra­tion, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Misuzu Asari: Data
curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Resources, Validation.
Ryo Sakurai: Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Writing – re­view & editing. Mateo Cordier: Validation, Writing – review & editing.
Maheshwari Kalyanasundaram: Data curation.

9

T. Uehara et al.

Journal of Cleaner Production 384 (2023) 135609
OECD, 2017a. Tackling environmental problems with the help of behavioural insights.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264273887-en.
OECD, 2017b. Tackling Environmental Problems with the Help of Behavioral Insights(Paris).
Ono, K., Kon, S., Mori, N., Ohta, S., 2004. Study of the Drink with the PET Bottle. Bulletinof the Faculty of Education. Hirosaki University 133–145.
Persson, L., Carney Almroth, B.M., Collins, C.D., Cornell, S., de Wit, C.A., Diamond, M.L.,
Fantke, P., Hassellöv, M., MacLeod, M., Ryberg, M.W., Søgaard Jørgensen, P.,
Villarrubia-Gómez, P., Wang, Z., Hauschild, M.Z., 2022. Outside the Safe Operating
Space of the Planetary Boundary for Novel Entities. Environmental Science &Technology acs. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c04158 est.1c04158.
Prieto-Sandoval, V., Alfaro, J.A., Mejía-Villa, A., Ormazabal, M., 2016. ECO-labels as amultidimensional research topic: trends and opportunities. J. Clean. Prod. 135,
806–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.167.
Punch, K.F., 2013. Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative
Approaches. sage.
Sakai, S., Yano, J., Tomita, Y., Asari, M., Yashiro, Y., 2019. The state and policy of use
and dispal of plastic bags (shopping bags). Kankyo Kanri 55, 30–35.
Smith, S.D., Beran, T.N., 2012. A comparison of empirical ranking methods of frequency
and severity ratings of clinical presentations. Eval. Health Prof. 35, 383–395.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278711425041.
Statistics Bureau of Japan, 2021. Population Census [WWW Document]. URL. https://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/kokusei/index.html, 10.JanuaryJune.21.
Sterner, T., Barbier, E.B., Bateman, I., van den Bijgaart, I., Crépin, A.S., Edenhofer, O.,
Fischer, C., Habla, W., Hassler, J., Johansson-Stenman, O., Lange, A., Polasky, S.,
Rockström, J., Smith, H.G., Steffen, W., Wagner, G., Wilen, J.E., Alpízar, F., Azar, C.,
Carless, D., Chávez, C., Coria, J., Engström, G., Jagers, S.C., Köhlin, G., Löfgren, Å.,
Pleijel, H., Robinson, A., 2019. Policy design for the anthropocene. Nat. Sustain. 2,
14–21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0194-x.
Sterner, T., Coria, J., 2011. Natural resource management: challenges and policy options.
Annual review of resource economics 3, 203–230. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9781315780894.
Stutsky, B.J., Singer, M., Renaud, R., 2012. Determining the weighting and relative
importance of CanMEDS roles and competencies. BMC Res. Notes 5, 1–7. https://doi.
org/10.1186/1756-0500-5-354.
Sunstein, C.R., 2014. Why Nudge?: the Politics of Libertarian Paternalism. Yale
University Press.
Suntory, 2021. Succeeded in Developing a PET Bottle that Uses 100% Plant-Derived
Materials (Tokyo).
Thaler, R.H., Sunstein, C.R., 2008. Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, andhappiness, nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. doi.org/
10.1016/s1477-3880(15)30073-6.
The Behavioural Insights Team. n.d. Barrier Identification Tool [WWW Document]. URL.
https://www.bitbarriertool.com/, 3.March0.21.
Tietenberg, T., 2005. Tradable permits in principle and practice. Penn St. Envtl. L. Rev.
14, 251.
Uehara, T., 2020. Can young generations recognize marine plastic waste as a systemic
issue? Sustainability 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072586.
Uehara, T., Sono, M., Tsuge, T., Onuma, A., 2021. Can prior informed consent create
virtuous cycle between biodiversity conservation and genetic resources utilization?
J. Environ. Manag. 300, 113767 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113767.
UNEP, 2014. Valuing Plastics: the Business Case for Measuring, Managing and Disclosing
Plastic Use in the Consumer Goods Industry (Nairobi, Kenya).
van der Ven, H., Rothacker, C., Cashore, B., 2018. Do eco-labels prevent deforestation?
Lessons from non-state market driven governance in the soy, palm oil, and cocoa
sectors. Global Environ. Change 52, 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2018.07.002.
van Wijnen, J., Ragas, A.M.J., Kroeze, C., 2019. Modelling global river export of
microplastics to the marine environment: sources and future trends. Sci. Total
Environ. 673, 392–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.078.
Vethaak, A.D., Leslie, H.A., 2016. Plastic debris is a human health issue. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 50, 6825–6826. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02569.
Villarrubia-Gómez, P., Cornell, S.E., Fabres, J., 2018. Marine plastic pollution as aplanetary boundary threat – the drifting piece in the sustainability puzzle. Mar. Pol.
96, 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.035.
Wensing, J., Caputo, V., Carraresi, L., Bröring, S., 2020. The effects of green nudges on
consumer valuation of bio-based plastic packaging. Ecol. Econ. 178, 106783 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106783.
Wilcox, C., Mallos, N.J., Leonard, G.H., Rodriguez, A., Hardesty, B.D., 2016. Using expert
elicitation to estimate the impacts of plastic pollution on marine wildlife. Mar. Pol.
65, 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.10.014.
World Bank, 1997. Five Years after Rio: Innovations in Environmental Policy(Washington, DC).

Grilli, G., Curtis, J., 2021. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviours: a review ofmethods and approaches. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 135, 110039 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2020.110039.
Hohn, S., Acevedo-Trejos, E., Abrams, J.F., Fulgencio de Moura, J., Spranz, R.,
Merico, A., 2020. The long-term legacy of plastic mass production. Sci. Total
Environ. 746, 141115 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141115.
House of Lords, 2011. Behaviour Change (London).
ICF, Eunomia, 2018. Assessment of Measures to Reduce Marine Litter from Single Use
Plastics (London).
Jambeck, J.R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T.R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A.,
Narayan, R., Law, K.L., 2015. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science
347, 768–771. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352.
n.d. Japan Soft Drink Association. Can PET bottles be reused as a container? [WWWDocument]. URL. http://www.j-sda.or.jp/ippan/qa_view.php?id=161&cat=2, 9.
November.21.
Johnson, E.J., Goldstein, D., 2003. Do defaults save lives? Science 302, 1338–1339.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091721.
Kahneman, D., 2003. A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded
rationality. Am. Psychol. 58, 697–720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003066X.58.9.697.
Kühn, S., Bravo Rebolledo, E.L., van Franeker, J.A., 2015. Deleterious effects of litter on
marine life. In: Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M. (Eds.), Marine Anthropogenic
Litter. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 75–116. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3_4.
Kyoto City, 2021. Kyoto City Basic Plan for the Promotion of Recycle-Based Society2021-2030.
Landrigan, P.J., Stegeman, J.J., Fleming, L.E., Allemand, D., Anderson, D.M., Backer, L.
C., Brucker-Davis, F., Chevalier, N., Corra, L., Czerucka, D., Bottein, M.Y.D.,
Demeneix, B., Depledge, M., Deheyn, D.D., Dorman, C.J., Fénichel, P., Fisher, S.,
Gaill, F., Galgani, F., Gaze, W.H., Giuliano, L., Grandjean, P., Hahn, M.E.,
Hamdoun, A., Hess, P., Judson, B., Laborde, A., McGlade, J., Mu, J., Mustapha, A.,
Neira, M., Noble, R.T., Pedrotti, M.L., Reddy, C., Rocklöv, J., Scharler, U.M.,
Shanmugam, H., Taghian, G., Van De Water, J.A.J.M., Vezzulli, L., Weihe, P.,
Zeka, A., Raps, H., Rampal, P., 2020. Human health and ocean pollution. Annals of
Global Health 86, 1–64. https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.2831.
Lau, W.W.Y., Shiran, Y., Bailey, R.M., Cook, E., Stuchtey, M.R., Koskella, J., Velis, C.A.,
Godfrey, L., Boucher, J., Murphy, M.B., Thompson, R.C., Jankowska, E., Castillo, A.,
Pilditch, T.D., Dixon, B., Koerselman, L., Kosior, E., Favoino, E., Gutberlet, J.,
Baulch, S., Atreya, M.E., Fischer, D., He, K.K., Petit, M.M., Sumaila, U.R., Neil, E.,
Bernhofen, M.V., Lawrence, K., Palardy, J.E., 2020. Evaluating scenarios toward zeroplastic pollution. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba9475.
Lebreton, L., Egger, M., Slat, B., 2019. A global mass budget for positively buoyant
macroplastic debris in the ocean. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-019-49413-5.
Lebreton, L.C.M., Van Der Zwet, J., Damsteeg, J.W., Slat, B., Andrady, A., Reisser, J.,
2017. River plastic emissions to the world’s oceans. Nat. Commun. 8, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15611.
Lehner, M., Mont, O., Heiskanen, E., 2016. Nudging – a promising tool for sustainableconsumption behaviour? J. Clean. Prod. 134, 166–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.11.086.
Locke, E., Latham, G.P., 2019. The development of goal setting theory: a half century
retrospective. Motivation Science 5, 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000145.
Locke, E.A., Latham, G.P., 2006. New directions in goal-setting theory new directions ingoal-setting theory. Psychol. Sci. 15, 265–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14678721.2006.00449.x.
Loewenstein, G., Chater, N., 2017. Putting nudges in perspective. Behavioural Public
Policy 1, 26–53. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2016.7.
Löhr, A., Savelli, H., Beunen, R., Kalz, M., Ragas, A., Van Belleghem, F., 2017. Solutions
for global marine litter pollution. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 28, 90–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.08.009.
McKenzie-Mohr, D., 2011. Fostering Sustainable Behavior: an Introduction to
Community-Based Social Marketing. New society publishers.
Ministry of the Environment Japan, 2021. Roadmap for Bioplastic Introduction: for the
Sustainable Use of Plastics (Tokyo).
Mullainathan, S., Thaler, R.H., 2015. Behavioral economics. In: International
Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, second ed. 3, pp. 437–442.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.71007-5.
Mundt, D., Carl, S., Harhoff, N., 2020. A field experiment on reducing drinking straw
consumption by default. Front. Psychol. 11, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2020.565537.
Nielsen, T.D., Holmberg, K., Stripple, J., 2019. Need a bag? A review of public policies onplastic carrier bags – where, how and to what effect? Waste Manag. 87, 428–440.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.02.025.

10