Impact report
January 2020

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary
2. Introduction
3. Methodology & Demographics
4. Behavior Predictors
5. Behaviors
6. Advocacy & Other Issues
7. Conclusions & Next Actions

2•

Executive summary: predictors & behaviors
Audience Reception. All full survey respondents reported that they enjoyed the Pulau Plastik episode (83% strongly
agree, 17% agree)

Behavior Predictors

Awareness. All respondents either agreed (16%) or strongly agreed (84%) that plastic pollution is an important
problem. This means that awareness of the issue is already quite high among Bali communities.
Motivation. At the second follow-up, the level of motivation (66% strongly agree, 34% agree) to help reduce plastic
pollution decreased compared to both the first follow-up (80% strongly agree, 20% agree) and the baseline (74%strongly agree, 24% agree).
Perceived Knowledge. After the screening, more respondents (from 94% at the baseline to 98% at the first follow-up)
reported that they know about actions that can be taken to reduce plastic pollution. However, as with awareness andmotivation, this perceived knowledge dropped again at the second follow-up.
Perceived Ability. 97% of respondents reported that they are already taking action to reduce plastic pollution before
the screening. 98% of them expressed that they want to take more action. However, when we asked them again at
the second follow-up, the level of their perceived ability to take action decreased.
Single-use Plastic Usage Reduction. One-month after screening, we observed a consistently positive pattern ofusage reduction of: single use plastic bags, straws, bottles, and cups. The most significant decrease occurred in theusage of plastic bags, where 50% of respondents reduced their usage. Followed by plastic bottles or cups, where
34% of respondents reduced their usage. This pattern did not occur with take-away containers and sachet usage.

Behaviors

Waste Sorting. At the follow-up, 73% of the respondents were doing household waste sorting; an increase comparedto the baseline (49%). 11% of respondents started to sort their waste and 13% others were doing it more often.
Waste Disposal. We found positive changes in terms of respondents’ waste disposal practices. 8% of respondents
stopped disposing of their trash at the local mixed waste collection points. More respondents dispose of their waste
better, which includes: having their recyclables picked up by formal or informal waste collectors (5%); bringing
recyclables to local a recycling point (3%); and composting organic waste (7%).
3Executive summary: advocacy & others
STAKEHOLDER ROLESAdvocacy & Other
IssuesRole of Banjar. All respondents expressed that the Banjar (village) plays an important role to help villagers to reduceand manage their waste (84% strongly agree, 16% agree), although the level of their agreement slightly decreased at
the second follow-up (79% strongly agree, 20% agree, 1% slightly agree).
Role of Restaurant and Warung (Small Kiosks). All respondents agreed (83% strongly agree, 16% agree, 1% slightly
agree) that the availability of more sustainable take-away packaging is important.
Role of Producers. At baseline, there were 4% of respondents who did not think that it was the role of producers toprovide more sustainable packaging alternatives. At the second follow-up, 99% of respondents agreed that
producers should provide better alternatives (73% strongly agree, 25% agree, 1% slightly agree).
ADVOCACY
Willingness to Advocate. 95% of respondents expressed that they were willing to advocate for relevant stakeholders
to change their practices after viewing the episodes. However their level of willingness to do so decreased slightly at
the second follow-up (94%).
Perceived Knowledge of How to Advocate for Change. Immediately after watching the series, respondents
expressed that they have more knowledge on how to lobby relevant stakeholders to improve their practices (from24% strongly agree, 39% agree to 43% strongly agree, 28% agree). This change however, was not sustained, as at
second follow up, respondents reported a lower level of knowledge on how to advocate for change (13% strongly
agree, 28% agree).
What to Advocate. The majority of respondents expressed that: the wide use of plastic packaging for daily products(71%) and unavailability of alternatives (56%) are the main factors that affect their ability to reduce plastic waste. Thisconfirms the need to advocate for packaging alternatives.
4TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary
2. IntroductionI.

The Campaign

II.

The Series

3. Methodology & Demographics
4. Behavior Predictors
5. Behaviors
6. Advocacy & Other Issues
7. Conclusions & Next Actions

5•

introduction: the campaign
Pulau Plastik (Plastic Island) is a collaborative campaign totackle the issue of single-use plastic in Bali and beyond.
Pulau Plastik leverages popular culture and includes social
media campaigns, short videos, and a feature-length
documentary to increase awareness about the hazards ofsingle-use plastic, to change people’s behavior and toadvocate for change.
Through community screenings and events, and the
distribution of Pulau Plastik content, the main goals of thiscampaign are to:•Change people’s behavior so they begin to refuse,
reduce, reuse and recycle•

Support the implementation of government policy
concerning single-use plastics

6

introduction: the series
We produced four 20-minuteepisodes that strongly feature
Balinese philosophy and its
relationship with single-use plastics.
The episodes feature practicalsolutions and calls to action for
individuals to reduce single use
plastics.

Episode 1 - Segara Kertih (In Harmony with Our Oceans) explores
how microplastics have entered our food chain through the seafood
we eat, and what companies can do to be more sustainable andprioritize planet over profit.

Episode 2 - Karmaphala (Consequences of Our Actions) explores
how our consumer culture produces large amounts of plastic waste
and introduces the importance of waste separation to reduce thewaste going to Bali’s landfills.

Episode 3 - Bedawang Nala (The Turtle that Carried the World)features the first Zero Waste Restaurant in Indonesia and explores
alternatives to plastic for food packaging, including how thesesolutions can be applied to small kiosks and restaurants.

Episode 4 - Tri Hita Karana (The Relationship between Humans,
God and Nature) features thousands of Balinese youth coming
together to tackle plastic pollution in their most sacred place — theMother temple Besakih.

7

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary
2. Introduction
3. Methodology & Demographics
I.
II.

Impact Assessment Framework
Impact Assessment Plan & Sampling

III. Profile of Respondents
4. Behavior Predictors
5. Behaviors
6. Advocacy & Other Issues
7. Conclusions & Next Actions

8•

methodology: impact assessment framework
Goal: to reduce the amount of single-use plastic waste in Bali that isn’t recycled
OUTPUTINDIVIDUAL/
HOUSEHOLD• Greater awareness and understanding of
the problem of plastic waste in Bali andhow protecting Bali from waste is linked
with Balinese traditional philosophy• Greater separation of household waste bytype before it is collected or is disposed of

COMMUNITYSYSTEM

MEANS OFVERIFICATION:

IMPACT / OUTCOME
Short-term• Change in knowledge about the
problem of plastic waste in Bali;• Change in understanding of how
protecting Bali from waste is linked
with Balinese traditional philosophy• Change in reported separation ofhousehold waste by type before it iscollected or is disposed of• Change in composting of organic waste
at household and small community level• Increased composting of organic
waste at household and small
community level• A government ban or other policychange that substantially limits plastic
bag use• Google and social media analytics• Event reports• Attendance records

Long-term• Change in policy that substantially limits
plastic bag use• Audience survey before and after
the organized screenings + Control
group survey• Audience survey 1-2 months after
screenings + Control group survey• Interviews with local recycling/waste bankfacilities and relevant stakeholders

9methodology: impact assessment plan & sampling
The target population of this assessment is the audience of Pulau Plastik series screenings which were held across Bali. 80 respondents
were surveyed for this assessment, which was conducted between September – December 2019. We also surveyed 30 respondents as partof the control group.
There were three phases of the assessment: Registration & Baseline, Follow-up 1, and Follow-up 2. Each respondent was surveyed acrossthe three phases to measure changes in respondent’s behavior predictors and actual reported behavior.
Registration & Baseline(Before the screening)

80 Respondents

Follow-up 1(Right after screening)

Follow-up 2(1-month after screening)

Measuring changes

Pulau Plastik Team Conducting Surveys

10methodology: sampling distribution
The distribution of the respondents, corresponds with the distribution of screening audience across Bali. The majority of the audience live in,and attended a screening in Denpasar, followed by Badung and Gianyar districts.
Distribution of impact
assessment respondents
Buleleng, 9%

Karangasem, 3%

Jembrana, 5%
Actual distribution of screening
audience in Bali

Tabanan, 4%
Gianyar, 21%

Badung, 23%

Denpasar, 36%11methodology: community screenings in bali
The Pulau Plastik Series has been screened at more than 40 community events across Bali, reaching at least 6,605 people.

Distribution of screening
audience in Bali

Distribution of screening
audience in Indonesia

12methodology: community screenings in indonesia
The Pulau Plastik Series has been screened at more than 100 community events across Indonesia, reaching at least 10,000 people.

Community screenings in Indonesia

13methodology: profile of respondents
There is a balanced distribution of female and male respondents.
The typical Pulau Plastik audience consisted of university students, with the median age being 21 years.

Education level

Gender identity

Bachelor

49%
Female

57%

Male

31%

43%

57%

Senior HighSchool

64%

27%
11%
Screening
Audience

THE MEDIAN AGE OFSCREENING AUDIENCE IS

21 YEARS

Teacher

51%

6%
ControlGroup

47%

Housewife

Elementary
SchoolOthersScreening
Audience

College or SchoolStudent
Private Employee

Junior HighSchool51%

Occupation

17%
ControlGroup

40%
Community Leader
or Committee
Others

19%
5%
3%
3%
8%

7%
7%

Screening
Audience

ControlGroup

THE MEDIAN AGE OF
CONTROL GROUP IS

23 YEARS

14

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary
2. Introduction
3. Methodology & Demographics
4. Behavior Predictors
I.

Audience Reception

II. Awareness & Motivation
III. Perceived Knowledge & Ability
IV. Ability-affecting Factors
5. Behaviors
6. Advocacy & Other Issues
7. Conclusions & Next Actions
15•

behavior predictors: audience reception
Full Survey. All respondents reported that they enjoyed the Pulau Plastik episodes they watched (Fully Agree = 83%, Agree = 17%).
Lean Survey. 97% of respondents reported that they enjoyed the episode, 2% were neutral and 1% reported that they did not enjoy it.

Audience Feedback (Full Survey)“I enjoyed watching the Pulau Plastik episode”

Strongly Agree

Audience Feedback (Lean Survey*)“I enjoyed watching the Pulau Plastik episode”

1%
2%

17%

Strongly Agree

Agree
Slightly Agree

Agree

NeutralNeutralSlightly Disagree

DisagreeDisagreeStrongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

83%

16%

81%

*The lean survey is a online and shorter version of our assessment survey aiming to get quick feedback from our audience and was conducted in addition to the full survey(n = 229)

16behavior predictors: awareness & motivation
Awareness. All of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that plastic pollution is an important problem, meaning that awareness of
the issue is already quite high among Bali communities. After watching the series, the respondents’ level of awareness increased. At second
follow up it dropped again, but was still higher than prior to watching the episode.
Motivation. Respondents’ reported motivation to reduce plastic pollution follows a similar pattern as awareness. Motivation increases at first
follow up, but drops again at second follow up.

Awareness“Plastic pollution is an important problem”

Motivation“I want to help reduce plastic pollution”

Strongly Agree
Agree
Slightly Agree

60%
80%

Neutral

91%

84%

74%

80%

66%

57%

Slightly Disagree
DisagreeStrongly Disagree

40%
20%Baseline

9%
Follow-up 1

16%
Follow-up 2

Control Group

33%
24%
Baseline

20%
Follow-up 1

34%
7%
Follow-up 2

Control Group17

behavior predictors: perceived knowledge & ability
Perceived Knowledge. After the screening, more respondents (from 94% at the baseline to 98% at the first follow-up) reported that theyknow about actions that can be taken to reduce plastic pollution. However, as with awareness and motivation, this perceived knowledge
dropped again at the second follow-up.
Perceived Ability. 97% of respondents reported that they were already taking action to reduce plastic pollution before the screening. 98%
expressed that they want to take more action. However, when we asked them again at the second follow-up, the number of respondents
who reported that they were taking action to reduce plastic pollution, was smaller than at baseline.
Perceived Ability
Perceived Knowledge“I know actions I can take to reduce plastic pollution”

Strongly Agree
Agree

23%
53%

55%

46%

Neutral30%
56%

Slightly Agree

65%

50%

63%

Slightly Disagree
DisagreeBaseline: “I am taking action to reduce plastic pollution”
Follow-up 1: I will start taking action or do more to reduce plastic pollution”
Follow-up 2: “I am taking action to reduce plastic pollution”

38%

40%

44%

Strongly Disagree

60%
39%

44%
31%
7%

10%
Baseline

Follow-up 1

Follow-up 2

Control Group

Baseline

Follow-up 1

Follow-up 2

Control Group

18

behavior predictors: ability-affecting factors
Ability-affecting Factors“Top 3 factors that affect your ability to reduce plastic waste.”
Baseline

Follow-up

1. Some of the packaging I need is only available
in plastic

63%
71%

2. I can’t find the available alternatives to plastic
packaging

65%
56%

3. I don’t know if there are alternatives to theplastic packaging that I use

26%
38%
35%
35%

4. There is nowhere to recycle
5. I can’t afford the available alternatives toplastic packaging

19%
23%
18%
23%
18%
21%
24%
16%
20%
14%

6. I know where to recycle but it is too hard toreach
7. I don’t know what plastic packaging can berecycled
8. There is somewhere to recycle but I don’tknow where it is
9. It is too time-consuming or difficult to get theavailable alternatives to plastic packaging
10. I don’t know what actions I can take to reduce
plastic pollution
11. I don’t think it’s important to reduce plastic
pollution
12. Other

WIDE USE OF PLASTIC PACKAGING
AND UNAVAILABILITY OF
ALTERNATIVES ARE SEEN TO BE
THE MAIN FACTORS THAT AFFECTRESPONDENTS’ ABILITY TO
REDUCE PLASTIC WASTE.

5%
3%
6%
0%
3%
1%

19

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary
2. Introduction
3. Methodology & Demographics
4. Behavior Predictors
5. Behaviors
I.

Single-use Plastic Usage

II.

Waste Sorting

III. Waste Disposal
6. Advocacy & Other Issues
7. Conclusions & Next Actions

20•

Behavior measurement: single-use plastic usage
Based on the respondents’ reports on their single-use plastic usage one month after the screening, we observed a consistently positive
pattern of usage reduction of: single use plastic bags, straws, bottles, and cups. The most significant decrease occurred in the usage of plastic
bags, where 50% of respondents reduced their usage. Followed by plastic bottles or cups, where 34% of respondents reduced their usage. We
presume that these changes are also attributable to the introduction of government regulations regarding single-use plastics in Bali
On the other hand, this pattern did not occur for take-away containers and sachet usage. For the usage of take-away container, 11% of
respondents reduced their usage, 11% increased their usage, and the rest (78%) stayed the same. For the sachet usage, 3% of respondents
reduced their usage, 14% increased their usage, and the rest (83%) stayed the same

BAG

Never
Almost Never

15%

15%

17%

28%

17%
34%

37%

43%

Occasionally

19%

26%

13%

18%

Almost Always

50%

21%

Non-Hindu
9%

41%
26%

15%

5%

Baseline Follow-up

Control

Baseline Follow-up

Control

5%

14%

Baseline Follow-up

21%

Positive pattern of usage reduction

25%

17%

27%
11%
6%
4%
24%

10%
Baseline Follow-up

SACHET

24%

23%
30%

24%

33%

19%
33%

43%

55%

47%

23%

36%

10%

13%

10%
24%

Control

11%

10%

17%
7%

20%

24%

5%
9%

26%

40%
14%

11%

31%

30%

TAKE-AWAYCONTAINER

18%
33%

63%
38%

10%

30%

11%

31%

59%

13%

21%

34%
Often

BAG FOROFFERINGSBOTTLEOR CUP

STRAW

13%Control

20%

9%Baseline Follow-up

13%
Control

20%

15%

4%

6%

20%

Baseline Follow-up

Mixed pattern of usage reduction

21

ControlBehavior measurement: waste sorting
At the follow-up one month after the screening, 73% of respondents were sorting their household waste, an increase compared to thebaseline (49%). 11% of respondents started to sort their waste and 13% others were doing it more often.

Recyclables Sorting“I separate recyclables(plastic, paper, metal)”

Household Waste Sorting“At my household we separate recyclables(plastic, metal, paper) and/or organic waste”

11% started to sortthe waste, 13% do
it more often

35%
48%
Yes
Occasionally

14%

Almost Always
Often

14%

23%

Organic Waste Sorting“I separate organic waste”

13%

15%

33%

21%

13%

14%

34%

13%

Occasionally
25%

No
51%

28%

No
51%

Follow-up

51%
28%

27%

Baseline

25%

Baseline

Follow-up

28%

Baseline

Follow-up
22

Behavior measurement: waste disposal
We found positive changes in terms of respondents’ waste disposal. 8% of respondents stopped disposing of trash at the local mixed waste
collection point. More respondents disposed their waste better, such as: having their recyclables picked up by formal or informal waste
collectors (5%); bringing recyclables to local recycling point (3%); and composting organic waste (7%).
Household Waste Disposal“I dispose of the household waste in the...”Baseline

Follow-up
46%

Banjar mixed waste collection point

38%
23%

Have someone pick up myrecyclables

28%
16%

Burn the trash

16%
8%

Banjar recycling collection point

11%
6%

At a special recycling collection point
outside the banjar (eg. wastebank)Compost the organic waste at home

Other

8% OF RESPONDENTS STOPPEDDISPOSING OF THEIR TRASH AT
THE LOCAL MIXED WASTE
COLLECTION POINT

6%
4%
11%

MORE RESPONDENTS STARTED TODISPOSE OF THEIR WASTE BETTER:

1. Have their recyclables picked up
by formal or informal waste
collectors (5%)
2. Go to local recycling point (3%)
3. Composting organic waste (7%)

5%
13%

23

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary
2. Introduction
3. Methodology & Demographics
4. Behavior Predictors
5. Behaviors
6. Advocacy & Other Issues
I.

Perception on Stakeholder’s RolesII.

Willingness & Perceived Knowledge

7. Conclusions & Next Actions

24•

advocacy: perceptions on the roles of relevant stakeholders
Role of Banjar. All respondents expressed that the Banjar (village) plays an important role in providing waste reduction and recycling options(84% strongly agree, 16% agree), although the level of their agreement slightly decreased at the second follow-up.
Role of Restaurant and Warung (Small Kiosks). All respondents agreed (83% strongly agree, 16% agree, 1% slightly agree) that it is importantthat restaurants and warungs should provide more sustainable take-away packaging.
Role of Producers. At baseline, there were 4% of respondents who did not think that it was the role of producers to provide more sustainable
packaging alternatives. At the second follow-up, 99% of respondents agreed that producers should provide better alternatives although the levelof their agreement slightly decreased (from 75% strongly agree and 20% agree to 73% strongly agree and 25% agree).
Role of Banjar (Local Government)“It's important that Banjars provide proper
waste reduction and recycling options”

Role of Restaurant and Warung“It's important that restaurants andwarungs provide greener alternative
packaging for their take-away”

Role of Producer (Company)“It's important that consumer goods
companies provide alternative
packaging for their goods”

Strongly Agree
Agree
Slightly Agree
Neutral

47%
84%

86%

79%

73%

84%

83%

83%

70%

75%

85%

73%

Slightly Disagree
47%

DisagreeStrongly Disagree

16%Baseline

14%

20%

Follow-up 1 Follow-up 2

23%

Control Group

15%

16%

16%

Baseline Follow-up 1 Follow-up 2

27%

20%

25%
15%

Control Group

Baseline Follow-up 1 Follow-up 2

7%
Control Group25

advocacy: willingness & perceived knowledge
Willingness to Advocate. 95% of respondents expressed that they were willing to advocate for relevant stakeholders to change theirpractices after viewing the episodes. However their level of willingness to do so decreased slightly at the second follow-up (94%).
Perceived Knowledge on How to Advocate for Change. Immediately after watching the series, respondents expressed that they have more
knowledge on how to lobby relevant stakeholders to improve their practices (from 24% strongly agree, 39% agree to 43% strongly agree,
28% agree). This change however, was not sustained, as at second follow up, respondents reported a lower level of knowledge on how to
advocate for change (13% strongly agree, 28% agree).
Willingness to Advocate“I want to help lobby my local government, companies
and/or restaurants to change their practices”
Strongly Agree
Agree

51%

Slightly Agree39%

DisagreeStrongly Disagree

13%

24%
43%

58%
39%

NeutralSlightly Disagree

27%

Perceived Knowledge of Advocacy“I know what actions I can take to lobby local government,
companies and/or restaurants to change their practices”

28%

49%

19%

38%
9%
5%

3%

6%
6%

Baseline

Follow-up 1

Follow-up 2

17%

38%

49%

10%
7%

11%

Control Group

Baseline

5%

40%

6%

53%
35%

7%

23%

6%
13%
Follow-up 1

3%

7%

Follow-up 2

Control Group26

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary
2. Introduction
3. Methodology & Demographics
4. Behavior Predictors
5. Behaviors
6. Advocacy & Other Issues
7. ConclusionsI.

Key Insights

II.

Summary & Next Actions27•

conclusions: key insights
Positive Reception. The Pulau Plastik series screenings received overwhelmingly positive responses from ouraudience, confirming that the format is appropriate for our target audience.

Behavior Predictors

Short-term Changes. Immediately after the screenings, we found significant positive changes on audienceawareness, motivation, knowledge, and perceived ability to take action. However, such changes did not last long,as seen in the results of the second follow-up where there is a reduction in the positive changes – in some caseseven lower than baseline. This suggests that continued engagement and multi-stakeholders’ involvement beyond
the screening is necessary.
Audience Self-selection. Generally, audience awareness, motivation, knowledge, and perceived ability are higher
than their control group counterpart. This implies that audience self-selection may be occurring.
Reduce Single-use. We found a consistently positive pattern of usage reduction of: single use plastic bags, straws,
bottles, and single-serve cups. So even though the positive changes in awareness and motivation did not appear
to persist, there does seem to have been a positive influence on people’s actions and reduction of single-use
plastic items. The reduction is also likely related to the impact of the Government ban on certain single-use plastic
items in Bali.

Behaviors

Advocacy & Other
IssuesSort Better, Dispose Better. The improvements in respondents’ waste-sorting behavior corresponded with theirwaste disposal behavior.
Willingness to Advocate. In general, respondents understood that the issue of plastic pollution goes beyond
individual behavior and must include the whole system of stakeholders. They expressed their willingness to
advocate for change with those stakeholders, but are hindered by a lack of knowledge on how to do so.
What to Advocate. The wide use of plastic packaging and the unavailability of alternatives are seen to be themain factors that affect respondents’ ability to reduce their plastic waste.

28

conclusions: summary & next actions
Positive Reception.
Short-term Changes.
Behavior Predictors

Audience Self-selection.

Reduce Single-use.

1

Continue to screen the series in Bali and across other partsof Indonesia

2

Work directly with local communities and initiatives toconnect our campaign tools (series, PSAs, and social media
content) with practical action and locally available solutions

3

Develop and distribute action kits for schools and small
businesses, and facilitate their implementation

4
5

Continue to work with the government to assist them to
implement policy related to plastic waste reduction

Sort Better, Dispose Better.
Behaviors

Willingness to Advocate.
What to Advocate.
Advocacy & Other
IssuesContinue to engage in discussions with the private sector
on redesign of packaging

29

Authors of the report:
This report was researched and written by Pulau Plastik Research
Team, namely Gumilang R. Andika, Astrid Aristamaya, Ayumi
Danuswari, Begawan R. Dewata, Raka Wulandari, Sheila N. Baity.
Photos by Ayyiex Falgunadi, Fadilah P. Haliyani, and Mikael Aldo.

30