The First Step of Single-Use Plastics Reduction in Thailand

Abstract

Single-use plastics reduction is the primary mission of SDG promotion in Thailand. This study discusses the implementation and challenges of plastics reduction campaigns through interviews and field investigations focusing on stakeholder participation and perceptions of policy approaches in Bangkok. Convenience and economic factors are the major challenges for reduction practices in addition to insufficient financial support and the weak participation of stakeholders, all of which lead to the avoidance of penalties, reliance on voluntary collaborations, and market-led measures. The implementation of a ban without preparation guidelines for alternatives, practices, and an unequal regulatory scope has created tensions for consumers and businesses. Suasive instruments drawing on consumer merit, emotion, and ethics, in addition to incentives that lead to the perception of benefits related to single-use plastics reduction, could provide a motivation for society and shift current behaviors. Policymakers need to collaborate with academics and NGOs to provide the private sector and consumers with detailed, suitable, and short- and long-term strategies that promote pro-environmental behavior, encourage reuse, and discourage single-use practices—including clear duration times, targets, detailed guidelines, and facilities. The combination of a ban and a penalty, while still offering a fee as an alternative option and maintaining acknowledgment and communication with stakeholders, would result in better consumer feedback.

1. Introduction

Single-use plastics (SUPs) refer to disposable plastic that is produced with the intention of only being used one time before disposal [1,2]. SUPs have supported the food supply chain in urban society as the main type of packaging, especially in business-to-consumer applications because of their preferable properties such as convenience, cheapness, hygiene, light weight, strength, and flexibility [3]. The changing consumption patterns coupled with the growth of takeaways, delivery services, and eating-out culture in urban society have influenced the demand for SUPs relating to food consumption (such as bags, straws, cups, cutlery, plastic wrap, and seasoning condiments) and increased the amount of waste, marine pollution, and health issues in the long term [3,4,5]. Coupled with rapid urbanization, high population density, and strong economic dynamism, the ASEAN regions are especially concerned about the challenges of municipal solid waste (MSW) management systems [6,7,8].

The domestic waste management regulations for mitigating MSW from urban consumption are a challenge for Thailand as they have been criticized as ineffective in adapting to long-term public participation and not being conducive to pro-environmental behaviors [5,6]. The 3Rs have been incorporated into national MSW management schemes, and thus, the waste management hierarchy suggests prioritizing prevention or reduction steps, followed by reuse from sources, before recycling and disposal [5,9,10]. However, campaign approaches are more likely to focus on the recycling stage [5,6]. The majority of reduction campaigns for SUPs target carrier bags, while policy interventions directed at other SUP products in consumption-related activities are lacking, whilst plastic cups, food containers, and straws have also been reported to be of serious concern at waste management facilities and in marine debris [5].

Thailand has been ranked the world’s sixth biggest contributor in terms of plastic pollution to oceans among 192 countries, with 23 coastal provinces generating an estimate of 11.47 million tons of waste daily [9]. The Thai government has planned to move forward with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12 to promote responsible consumption and production by proposing stronger tools for SUP reduction (i.e., no-plastic-bags day, ban, increased waste management fee, etc.) following other countries, i.e., China, India, Malaysia, Nepal, and Africa, where partial or complete bans are the main approach. However, numerous countries that have adopted the single tool of a ban have received an unexpected result—consumer conflicts [10,11,12,13,14]. As public opinions are important for a market-based society, the balance of society, economy, and environment has to be considered when mitigating the impact of schemes on stakeholders. It has therefore been proposed that a mix of regulatory (Sticks), economic (Carrots), and information-based (Sermons) policy concepts are employed rather than a single tool to control human behavior [15,16].

Understanding the partnerships between stakeholders may aid firms by promoting environmental behavior among consumers [17]. Public–private participation (PPP) is necessary for the implementation of public policy to prioritize public awareness and take required actions to create environmental awareness among consumers. Ethical/moral responsibility is typically embraced as a contextual background aspect (e.g., CSR for environmentally responsible shopping lifestyle) [6,18,19]. In the context of Asian countries, Malaysia proposed the scheduling of a weekly “No Plastic Bag Day” in 2011, which was a combination of a plastic levy and restriction, resulting in behavioral changes among consumers to adapt to reuse practices and refuse SUP bags, with available fees to create awareness [20].

This study aimed to understand the current situation of SUPs in food and beverage consumption in Thailand and stakeholders’ perception of policy instrument approaches on reduce and reuse practices. Mixed policy instruments were investigated during the transition toward SUP reduction while considering the barriers, challenges, and motivation factors that shaped personal human behaviors, such as the environmental and cultural context [21]. Furthermore, more delicate aspects need to be considered in the reuse of and reduction in food-contact SUPs, i.e., food safety and consumer satisfaction [18,19]. The present paper is organized into two sections. Firstly, the current situation and stakeholders’ views of SUPs in Bangkok’s urban food consumption and disposal systems are overviewed. Secondly, the roles of stakeholders, the perceptions of approaches, and policy support from the private sector represent the voices of SUP users.

2. Methodology

To understand how stakeholders prioritize influential strategic procedures during the development of SUP reduction campaigns, all data and information were obtained from primary and secondary sources. Primary data consisted of semi-structured expert interviews and field observations in commercial areas of the Bangkok Metropolitan Region (BMR) to represent Thailand’s urban context. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) tools, as well as the application of the “No Plastic Bag Day” campaign according to the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the government and shopping malls and supermarkets, were also investigated. For the secondary data, documents based on published reports were reviewed, and the participants of the organizations were interviewed, with a focus on current situations, policies, action plans, and campaign implementation for SUP reduction. The interview questions (Table 1) were designed based on information from the secondary data and aimed to gain insight into participants’ perceptions of the current situation, instrumental approaches, and feedback, e.g., the roles of SUPs and waste management and how they perceived the policy approaches, action plans, participation, and challenges to sustainable consumption among Thai consumers.

Semi-structured expert interviews with various key stakeholders were conducted with 31 participants (a total of 19 interviews; three groups of policymakers and 16 groups of policy supporters) from March to November 2019. Participant selection was based on their professional experiences and affiliations toward SUPs in consumers’ consumption activities from government, educational institutions, NGOs, and private businesses where green campaigns were implemented. However, the marketing project managers of various companies refused to participate in the interview that may expose confidential information; therefore, interviews were conducted with field employees and former employees who participated in the marketing campaigns, i.e., managers, baristas, and shopkeepers (Appendix A). Names of participants were kept confidential; cognitive biases might exist as participants were able to freely express their personal opinions from their experiences on SUP reduction campaigns as well as other topics relating to the MSW management regime, including political points of view, aimed at rich and holistic data [22,23]. Interviews were transcribed, the specific terminology was analyzed, and the interviews were translated from Thai to English and then contextualized with data from secondary sources and field observations before being analyzed with open coding and constructed into conceptual categories and themes [24,25]. Two researchers discussed the commonalities and independently coded line-by-line all responses. Disagreements were discussed to deduct irrelevant responses from the reliability evaluation and resulted in approximately 95% inter-coder reliability. Main categories and subcategories were identified from each quotation using grounded theory analysis [26].

3. Single-Use Plastics in Daily Consumption and Policy Approaches

3.1. The Current Situation of SUPs in Thai Society

Participants from both policymakers and policy supporters revealed that the critical points of SUP emergence are food quality trust, low cost, accessibility, and fulfilled demands for convenience in Thailand’s urban society, which rise with the growth of takeaway and delivery services. The perceptions of norms, perceived usefulness, and strong marketing forces have all contributed to an increase in the demand for single-use disposable containers, which fill the void of traffic issues or individuals spending their limited time in line at the restaurant. According to a report from the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA, 2020), 85% of 376 Thai respondents use food delivery services, and the trend is expected to continue, which even rose higher from the fear and restaurant restrictions for dine-in during the COVID-19 pandemic [27,28]. It created the emergence of takeaway food businesses and delivery services as the main SUP users [29,30,31,32].

3.1.1. Roles of SUPs and Alternatives

SUPs are playing an important role to gain consumers’ trust in food safety and quality control for consumption and transportation. Well-designed containers are expected to be informative and elevate the customers’ satisfaction experiences toward convenience, quality, and brand value. For instance, bags, straws, and cutlery are usually given away automatically as the last step to complete the service, fresh products are pre-portioned in containers to prolong shelf life and protect from physical damage, or custom features are included, e.g., brand logos and lines for accurate measurement and convenience services (Interviews E and F).

“We have reusable cups but some customers asked to change for disposable cups because they could not finish the beverages or wanted to grab and go” (Interview E)

“The current plastic cup is transparent, including measuring lines and space for writing down customer’s orders or names” (Interview F)

Policy supporters revealed that the fundamental barriers for the business sector to choose reuse practices are related to their economic concerns, i.e., the high initial investment, maintenance (e.g., dishwashing machines, basins, staffs), and the risk of reusable items being damaged or stolen. Therefore, without a green policy implemented along with the consumer preference for takeaway, single-use containers are viewed as more profitable due to lower costs and quick services, which convince businesses to keep their limited commercial spaces for selling services rather than invest in cleaning facilities for reuse practices.

“It depends on the policy of rental owners. Some franchise owners have limited spaces in the mall, so they eliminate unnecessary activities such as washing spaces and substitute them with disposable containers, which also reduce cost from expensive reusable stuffs being thrifted.” (Interview L)

Participants from the business sector are interested in adopting CSR by replacing SUPs with compostable materials such as edibles, bioplastics, and paper. Thus, policymakers and policy supporters pointed out that weaknesses that SUP alternatives need to overcome are economic properties (i.e., distribution channels and prices) and product properties (e.g., paper straws have a strange aftertaste, bio-based containers are poorly designed and have low durability, etc.) which raise concerns over consumer purchasing decisions [19] and still require research to reach appropriate SUP physical properties, especially tolerance to grease, liquids, and high-temperature foods and investment in lower-price mass production, which cause limited green alternatives in the niche market and barriers for low-cost food businesses [33]. Bio-based packaging was reported with prices three to four times higher than conventional plastics. As a result, greener packaging can be selected only by moderate-to-high-price businesses where green CSR campaigns are already implemented. Particularly when street food sells for less than THB 100 (USD 3), street merchants are concerned with cost rather than brand identification, product value, product design, or CSR.

“For Thai food, we love hot soup. Most of them are in a clear plastic bag with a rubber band. Bioplastic still cannot produce the same properties like heat durability, clearness, and I’m not talking about the price yet” (Interview C).

3.1.2. Municipal Solid Waste Management Situation

Reuse and reduction practices are being seen as supportive strategies, while waste separation and recycling have been mentioned as critically urgent from the policymakers’ point of view. The inadequate waste management capacity from the lack of proper MSW management procedures and infrastructure is their primary concern. Even though 3Rs campaigns have operated for decades, the knowledge of waste management is still inefficient even in the academic sector. The low levels of plastic waste separation and collection, according to policymakers’ concerns, result from waste management practices that primarily rely on recycling from waste pickers and use plastic waste selling prices as the key incentives.

“At least 6–7 universities have their researches on the bioplastic, I think we have good numbers of researchers on bioplastic development, yet still need more, but we need to do research more on the management side, on the policy side, on the composting side still insufficient” “Now recycle rate is so low, due to we have limited recycling facilities, only several types of plastic can be recycled. But if there is an infrastructure or policy that makes that low-value plastic more valuable, then the recycling rate will be higher” (Interview C).

PCD reported over 45 billion pieces of SUP bags were given away to consumers each year, approximately 30% from department stores, 30% from local grocery stores, and 40% from fresh markets and vendors. The rise of single-use containers is a concern for the increase in waste; even some recycled waste is sent to refuse-derived fuel (RDF) participation programs to convert plastic waste into electricity generation. Most MSW is sent to sanitary landfills, which is the primary waste management facility in Thailand. Thus, only 480 sites (19.6%) of 2450 open disposal facilities provide proper waste management practices. Only four out of seven groups of cleaned plastics relating to consumption can be sold back to the recycling market under the low-price range (Table 2). PET is usually found as disposable bottles and cups for beverages or food boxes in restaurants and cafes, but only clear PET bottles are recyclable, while beverage cups from mixed materials or HDPE and LDPE are usually sent to landfills. Similar to PS and PP plastic straws, which are recyclable but are rejected from recycling facilities due to their small size and light weight, it leads to high recycling costs.

Furthermore, the low recycling rate leads to an increase in imported plastics for the efficient RDF program, and a lower price of domestic plastic waste is the main motivation for waste separation from the source. Participants revealed that even though bioplastics are being seen with potential in the bio-economy market, they are similar to traditional plastics. The lack of information on the proper sorting method and waste management facilities support results in waste separation issues and rejection from the recycling systems and is counted as another type of waste sent to landfill.

3.2. Stakeholders’ Participation and Approaches: Barriers and Challenges

Despite the fact that the Plastic Waste Management Plan for 2017–2021 was approved, stakeholders criticized it for the lack of potential and detailed long-term strategies. The public policy approaches are primarily private-sector-driven, with public authorities acting as a middle-man, which is criticized for avoiding law enforcement or disincentives that may cause economic disruption, i.e., weak penalties, slow approval processes for acts and regulations, low engagement between public departments, and unclear policy integration, targets, and public relations.

“The policymaker is like a middle-man. So, that’s not a big influence on the party. They can form a committee, most things discussed in the general meeting are how to propose the policy to the government. So, it’s the private sector drive”. “I think the Thai government is afraid to use sticks within a limited time or tax plastics, they tend to use carrots. So, everything is quite slow” (Interview B)

The low awareness and willingness for waste separation from sources among citizens are consequences of the lack of continuous promotion of environmental-awareness-raising campaigns. The interview results show that fragmented responsibility amid various ministries at different levels was mentioned as another factor leading to difficulty for participation between authorities, similar to challenges found in policy studies in SEA regions, i.e., Indonesia and Malaysia [6].

“They are linked to many ministries, we don’t have very good integration. Also because of the political issue, Thai government consisted of many political parties. There are no committees from the national level, therefore, each sector goes to different directions” (Interview B)

The insufficiency of financial allocation for waste management is a major barrier for public authorities to foster many incentives, schemes, and facilities. As a result, the government tends to select collaborative instruments that require private-sector support and campaigns with low investment as the main approaches, such as the campaign by giving away reusable items to raise awareness of reuse practices (e.g., sharing ideas on social media).

“We cannot do it on our own, we need cooperation, many agencies are concerned, but still need some time to talk, to make understanding, and also in terms of incentives. From the annual budget from the government side, we can have only 30% of the total budget needed” (Interview A)

Thus, the process to build pro-environmental behaviors requires time, and with the provision of SUP alternatives, sellers and consumers are more likely to choose innovative single-use choices such as straw-free lids or compostable materials rather than changing their behaviors that lead to inconvenience. Therefore, the promotion of the research and development (R&D) of green innovative products was considered a benefit by all stakeholders. Regarding the codependency on the economic context, the Thai economy relies on tourism (approximately 17% of total GDP) [34,35] which is linked to the country’s policy prioritizing the encouragement of investment, consumption, and increasing public spending on built infrastructure rather than discouragement policies such as tax for imported plastic beads or plastic waste.

The government, public, and investors revealed interest to fund and invest in R&D or green technologies from their perception that the increasing green trend may lead to achieving the goal of creating environmental knowledge and awareness, e.g., the emergence of integrated knowledge sharing of SDGs, climate change, and environmental studies in the educational sector, combined with the supportive bottom-up norms from young generations as an opportunity for the promotion of circular economy. However, policymakers from the academic side suggested that research on holistic environmental management by covering social, economic, and environmental aspects is still insufficient and needed.

“It doesn’t have to be 100% strict, we are not seeing plastics as enemy, but should know more about reuse. That means if we get a plastic bag, we have to deal with it. For example, some houses will keep it in trash bags or keep one in your pocket for reuse. I believe that there are good signs. Because young people in their 20 s began to focus on this” (Interview D)

“They started to have the course at schools and universities. That means they are much more concerned compared to the past and many universities start teaching the environmental (topic). Because the new generation, they are quite powerful to others” (Interview A)

Chain restaurants, coffee shops, and supermarkets perceived top-down campaigns from their firm, while non-franchise shops perceived from bottom-up peer experiences, i.e., social media, news, other shops’ campaigns, and customers’ behavioral change. Participants recognized the increasing number of customers performing reuse practices by bringing bags and personal cups to the shop and buying beverages by approximately 20–30% and by less than 10% in the group of food containers, straws, and cutlery.

Policy supporters suggested that the critical concern is that reusable containers need to be carefully checked and cleaned, which could lead to slow services and risks of food contamination. Therefore, the perception of health concerns for food safety could be either a critical barrier (e.g., purchasing bottled drinking water) or motivation for the decision to select greener consumption [36,37,38,39]. Businesses started to adapt and update their service training to be resilient to a variety of reuse practices, i.e., payments, security checks, weighing, and brewing processes. For instance, food stalls adapted to show food and produce in trays, pots, or bulk-size containers and pack per order as other options rather than pre-packed in single servings. Policy instrument approaches were categorized in Table 3 and discussed as follows:

3.2.1. Suasive Instruments: Acknowledgment and Beliefs

Acknowledgment and direct communication by considering service flows and creating difficulties are the main approaches to society, aimed at preparing customers for the ban. For instance, coffee shops placed posters that motivate customers to bring their cups to the noticeable area, let customers decide to pick straws by themselves by placing them away from the cashier counter or in food delivery applications, used direct verbal or actual communication between shop sellers and customers, i.e., straws and cutlery were given upon request, or asked if the customer would like to receive a plastic bag before providing services. However, SUP reduction campaigns mainly used voluntary participation and were sometimes rejected by consumers due to their perceived lack of personal benefits.

Activities and celebrities/influencers promotions were used to remind and encourage consumers of “Good”, “Merits”, and “Guilty”. Emotional pictures related to SUPs’ effects on wildlife were advertised as symbolic topics to nudge consumers’ awareness through several media sources, e.g., television, social media advertisement, and posters, aimed at emphasizing the image of ethical/moral responsibilities. Stories targeting moral emotions and the obligation to protect the environment—i.e., “Mariam” baby dugongs consuming plastic—were widely disseminated on social media and have influenced urban consumers to pay attention to online-published material that comprises information about environmental effects and how to encourage behaviors. However, the effectiveness of advertisement messages depends on factors of individual and social contexts which appeared to be lower among distanced stakeholders, and negative affect may induce negative spillovers which do not lead to subsequent behaviors [40,41,42].

“Thai people tend to sympathy on the Mariam case (iconic baby dugong died from consumed plastics) or the pilot whale case, once they’ve seen these, they have deep of feelings conducted. They would do it if they know they can make merits or that they would help each other) (Interview C)

“We need more time to let them understand, or something like the crisis. Even the dugong case because they don’t affect a human being. Only the environmental-concerned people will think about that, but not locals, they know and then forget” (Interview A)

Even philanthropy and reciprocation were identified as the link toward ethical values among Asian consumers, which is a powerful approach for CSR in numerous businesses [43]. Communication messages need to be designed carefully, as they may differently influence customers’ perceptions. The investigation found a difference between campaigns that both involved fees and ethical/moral beliefs (i.e., declared to donate to charity), which not only provide motivation but also reduce the chance of a negative business reputation (i.e., profit gain behind the CSR campaigns) [44,45]. Direct communication messages from field staff approaches need to be concerned with the campaign’s purposes. For example, the donation campaign for each plastic bag “being refused” (THB 0.2) from 7-Eleven created both actual SUP reduction and persuaded consumers to avoid SUP. On the other hand, the supermarket that provided an option of a plastic bag fee (THB 1) for customers who forget to bring a reusable bag after the ban was implemented. The staff’s proactive message of offering SUPs and donating to charity would encourage consumers’ willingness to pay without significantly affecting the intention for reduction.

Stakeholders revealed that consumers are more likely motivated by simple challenges, especially when combined with small incentives, i.e., fun games or lotto. The case study of Greenery performed offline and online campaigns through social media platforms, i.e., Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, to create an online community that emphasizes the linkage between healthy consumption and the environment with creativity. Best practices for an eco-friendly lifestyle were explained with easily understandable guidelines, such as photos and infographics. It leads to the establishment of a consumer-led green network to develop pro-environmental habits using “commitment-feedback” and “small goal setting” such as monthly activities, as well as providing flexible, yet challenging, activities, along with a creative and informative environment. It creates the perception of “self-efficacy” as the positive predictor for environmental behavior among members and market customers [46,47]. Moreover, comprising voluntary user-generated content, it leads to stronger awareness and satisfaction while also motivating other consumers by mitigating the barrier of social norms [48,49].

3.2.2. Commands and Controls

Strong regulatory instruments, such as prohibiting SUPs, are primarily allocated to the public authorities and environmental conservation areas. The MOU for reducing and prohibiting seven types of plastics was applied through public authorities, hospitals, shopping malls, and supermarkets, including cap seals, oxo-degradable bags (plastic bags with additives for faster fragmentation [50], SUP bags with a thickness of less than 100 microns, SUP cups, plastic straws, and polystyrene-foam food containers. The stronger act of the SUP bag ban was brought forward by 1st January 2020 from 2022, starting with department stores before expanding to local markets.

The “No Plastic Bag Day” aimed to increase awareness and prepare consumers for a stronger approach to the plastic bag ban. The campaign started by massively advertising through many channels, i.e., social media, the radio inside the store, billboards, and advertisement posters, before the campaign started, followed by announcing the countdown to the ban, stopping giving plastic bags for a few items purchased, then every 4th of the month (refers to December 4th, the National Environment Day), once a week, and then completely banning the SUP bag.

However, when the campaign days were top-down and designed individually by policy supporters, malls and supermarkets selected weekdays (every Tuesday or Wednesday) to avoid high consumer traffic on weekends. As a result, the established date that is difficult to remember was unable to nudge a large group of consumers compared to the No Plastic Bags Weekend in Malaysia [20,51]. In addition, endowed with improper alternative solutions by service providers, such as offering used paper boxes for free or selling reusable bags at THB 29–99 (USD 1–3), it induced the perception of having no options but being forced to buy expensive reusable bags, without creating acknowledgment for plastic avoidance, resulting in aggressive feedback from customers and a loss of customer loyalty. Sellers have concerns about whether the ban campaign would affect their selling situation, especially when the regulation is enforced unequally and the adaptation strategies were not fixed. Some cashier staffs were reported giving free plastic bags and ignored the company’s banning policy to avoid customer conflicts, as they believed difficulty or dissatisfaction would make customers decide to avoid stores where the campaign was implemented and shift to purchasing from online stores or other shops that offer convenience.

“Many customers complained in the very first months, some left their shopping cart here and went to other places that is not the campaign day and still provide free bags. What we can do is advertise about the global warming, environmentally friendly campaign, and acknowledge them a few days before the campaign’s day. Also, prepare some reusable bags for sale near the cashier counter.” (Interview M)

“Customers complained about used paper boxes which are not convenient for ride motorcycles or public transportation. We also received some complaints about the reusable bags selling at the cashier being too expensive.” (Interview N)

Following the act of plastic bag bans, supermarkets urgently proposed their solutions without the acknowledgment of sustainable materials and operation guidelines. It led to confusion from a variety of approaches selected by low-cost economic demands. For instance, supermarkets supplied oxo-degradable bags, which easily break down into microplastics but are suitable for the demand for inexpensive reusable bags.

Economic disincentive tools are found as food container fees (THB 5, USD 0.15), at approximately 10% of the food price. However, due to the availability of options to dine in or pay container fees at reasonable costs, the customers’ complaints about food container fees were reported to be low. In comparison to the governmental policy approaches, the small plastic bag fee (THB 1–2, USD 0.03–0.06) was initially implemented from the start of the ban on university campuses and declared to support environmental activities, such as donating to the Sea Turtle Treatment Fund. As a result, 80% of consumers refused to pay and adapted to reusable shopping bags, and approximately 3 million bags were reduced. The public was made aware of the evaluation of several users’ performance and the outcome of plastic waste reduction.

3.2.3. Economic Incentive and Value Approaches

The economic disparity in developing countries alters businesses’ and consumers’ decision to rely on economic-based approaches. The result from observation and interviews found economic instruments are the main approaches on the private sector’s side, in which perceived benefits and cost reduction appeared to be motivations for both businesses and consumers. Most reusable containers brought by customers are reported with additional benefits, e.g., thermos cups or tumblers that can prolong the product’s quality and shelf life or have a unique design. Private sectors developed green business models and coping strategies not only to respond to the government’s green policy but also to catch the wave of green trends from customers bottom-up, prioritizing benefits and profits. For example, by offering a higher value of consumption experiences and green practices combined with marketing campaigns, e.g., pre-packed vegetables wrapped with banana leaves, the green packaging only covers a few varieties of fresh products that are inexpensive and have a fast turnover, aiming not to extend the shelf life but to engage CSR and the organic image.

“We like when they bring their container because they help us reduce the cost of packaging.” (Interview I)

Therefore, additional incentives are quick and low-cost motivations performed by the private sector. For example, cafes and coffee shops are more likely to offer 5–10% discounts to motivate customers to bring their containers to buy beverages and subsidize water dispensers with guaranteed quality to encourage new users to refill cooled drinking water rather than purchasing bottled water, both of which have resulted in positive feedback. Malls and supermarkets are collaboratively encouraging partners to design their bundled promotions with eco-friendly gifts yet reminding them of reuse practices, e.g., bundle deals for reusable and/or collectible gifts, discounts, or extra points for members, as a win-win opportunity to influence customers to purchase more to reach promotion goals and engagements with the brand. However, it is essential to provide long-term plans to support and encourage the repeating of reuse practices to mitigate the skepticism of the environmental effects of the energy and resources used for reusable item production [52].

In summary, SUPs are being chosen from the provision of low cost and convenience. The importance of increasing public knowledge and awareness was mentioned by all stakeholders and supported by various studies [5,53]. Thus, insufficient financial incentives are a key barrier for public agency and resulted in private-sector-led approaches. The perception of benefits appeared to be the main internal driver of fostering SUP reduction practices, mainly focused on convenience-prioritized habits through cost reduction, improvement of economic value, and protection from bad reputation by engaging with CSR activities [44,45]. The consequences of banning policy implemented without proper strategic guidelines to prepare consumers and the private sector resulted in public perception of the ban as a punishment; then, a solving procedure was chosen that was economically oriented and provided convenience, with low effectiveness in creating public awareness of plastics reduction. However, the demand for cheap alternatives led to some greenwash solutions.

This supported the importance of combined instruments of knowledge, fees, charges, and levy campaigns in Malaysia, Portugal, and the USA, where the addition of choice along with the ban may create positive responses and nudge consumers’ behavior more than a single banning policy [12,20,54,55,56,57]. The application of economic tools is delicate as a small fee for SUPs may acknowledge the consumers’ awareness to pay for the unnecessary disposable materials [58], whereas high-priced bags create the perception of punishment or “buck-passing”, which refers to a business strategy metaphor of avoiding responsibility by delegating it to someone else [59].

4. Policy Recommendation

Stakeholders expected SUP reduction through the advanced technology for affordable degradable single-use products, increasing waste management facilities for a higher recycling rate, while expecting to prioritize the growth of environmental awareness from the limited financial situation. In the meantime, focusing on public awareness without a proper waste management system awaiting led to coping activities prepared randomly and failure to create any environmental behavior. Policy recommendation comprises three steps:

4.1. Stepwise Approach for SUP Reduction Policy

Even though the National Waste Management Master Plan (2016–2021) and Plastic Debris Management Plan (2017–2021) mentioned the 3Rs approach, the lack of a detailed long-term strategy and facilities to influence pro-environmental behavior for actual repeat usage for the reduce and reuse campaign would lead to greenwash or over-production for CSR [52,60]. Policymakers may participate with academia and NGOs to acknowledge business and consumers with suitable short- and long-term strategies, with detailed guidelines, clear duration time, and targets [16,61]. Stepwise approaches may be integrated into the policy intervention to divide it into smaller steps with available spaces for adaptation and problem solving during the instrument approaches [62,63], and the result of each step should be declared for public perception.

4.2. Effective and Collaborative SUP Reduction Systems

Policy interventions should focus on the mixed instrument of awareness and market-based tools. Disincentive tools such as the plastic bag ban and fees should be continuously used by a large target group of consumers and also be equally implemented, as several studies revealed the growth of consumers’ acceptance and induced behavioral change over time [64,65]. Government interventions need to consider holistic management by emphasizing reduce and reuse practices, rather than recycling alone. Supportive facilities that continuously promote awareness and perception of benefits from SUP reduction should be promoted and subsidized through collaboration with private sectors, such as water refill, cleaning, or sanitizer stations for reuse containers installed in the built environment with regular maintenance declaration to encourage consumers for safety trust [38].

4.3. Create Awareness by Prioritizing Perception of Simple Challenges, Benefits, and Self-Efficacy

Stakeholders may encourage consumers with collaborative campaigns of knowledge sharing and activities with marketing incentives through online and on-site channels. This not only aims to promote know-how and creativity in practices but also mitigates the effective barriers of social norms among consumers from promoting reduce and reuse as normal behaviors by emphasizing information about others, implemented as regular events and linked to other daily practices [66,67,68]. Thus, the result and feedback of the campaign should be monitored and declared to influence consumers to believe that their actions lead to actual changes and environmental benefits [46] which also helps reduce the skeptical pressure that the SUP reduction campaign only aims to benefit businesses through cost reduction [45].

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

Single-use packaging is still in demand due to the properties of convenience, cheapness, availability, and solving hygienic requirements and transportation problems in food and beverage businesses. Biodegradable materials are considered SUP substitutes, but their plastic-liked appearance, properties, price, and supply chain are still major challenges for users and waste management. Barriers to recycling SUPs are their low recycling price and contamination and lead to their disposal in landfills. The lack of financial support has limited governmental approaches to rely on the private sector and market-led measures that avoid penalties, regulatory enforcement, and lack of continuously supportive actions. The transition prioritizes technology and facilities to be built while lacking effective policy intervention on behavior, waste management, and communication between stakeholders. Acknowledgment and direct communication by considering service flows and creating difficulties become the main approaches by stakeholders, i.e. persuasive instruments of merit, emotion, ethics/morals, and simple consumer challenges combined with small incentives lead to a perception of benefits, which could be a motivation or nudge. Thus, the SUP ban proposed without preparation guidelines for proper alternatives or structural practices and an unequal regulatory scope have created tension for consumers and businesses.

Policymakers need to collaborate with academics and NGOs to provide the private sector and consumers with detailed, suitable, short- and long-term strategies that promote pro-environmental behavior by encouraging reuse and discouraging single-use practices, including clear duration time, targets, detailed guidelines, and facilities. Businesses must be aware of their customers’ value orientations and avoid penalizing approaches. The combination of a ban and a penalty, while still offering a small fee as an alternative option and maintaining acknowledgment and communication with stakeholders, would result in better consumer feedback.

This study has some limitations, as it focused on the policymaker and business user side with a small group of participants. Some cognitive and social desirability bias may have been introduced as the selected participants were currently holding responsibilities in the national waste management project, and therefore, issues could be mentioned from their point of view with less significance and overestimation of the positive through their perceptions [69]. Future research is recommended to explore the perception of policy intervention, initiatives, and adaptation techniques directly from target consumers by including quantitative methods to fulfill every aspect of stakeholders.

Author Contributions

S.S. designed conceptualization and methodology. S.S. and V.N. collected and analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript. S.G.C. worked on the flow, organizational structure, discussions, conclusions, and review of the manuscript. M.M.A. revised the manuscript and correspondence. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved exemptions for the review by the Research Ethics Review Committee of Asian Institute of Technology (RERC2022/030, 16 December 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Acknowledgments

Interview participants were gratefully acknowledged and consented to provide information anonymously.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Tables

Table 1

Research questions for the interview with stakeholders.

Participants	Questions
Policymakers and Specialists	Please explain your perception of the SUPs situation in Thai society. Please explain about instruments that are being used by your department/organization to mitigate SUPs. What kind of factors and barriers that are currently influencing green practices? Please explain about stakeholder participation for SUPs reduction campaign.
Policy supporters	Demographic questions, i.e., position of participants, shop locations, main products, and type of business. What are your current SUPs reduction campaigns? Where the campaign came from? How often do consumers refused SUPs? (approximate in percentage) Please explain or give example about consumers’ green practices. Have you ever found any problems or received complaints of the campaign? Do you have any problem-solving procedure for the complaints?

Table 2

Plastic types, selling, and recycling price.

Plastic Type	General Properties	Common Use	Selling Price	Recycle Price
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]PETPolyethyleneterephthalate	Resistance to heat (high melting point of 245 °C), clear and strong, solvent-resistant, lightweight	Plastic bottles (water, soft drinks, cooking oil), cold beverage cups, food and bakery packaging, egg trays	16–22 Oz. beverageTHB 2–3/cup	THB 0.7–14.7/Kg.
			Salad or lunchboxTHB 1.2–7/box
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]HDPEHigh-densitypolyethylene	Excellent moisture and chemical resistance, hard to break down in sunlight, gas-permeable, rigid and strong, soft waxy surface	Milk and non-carbonated drink bottles, ice-cream containers, squeezable bottles, grocery bags	Plastic carry bagTHB 0.1–0.45/bag	THB 7.0–19.6/Kg.
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]PVCPolyvinyl chloride	Resistance to chemicals, grease, and oil, excellent transparency, hard and rigid	Medicine tablets, breath mints, candies, and chewing gum packaging	N/A	N/A
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]LDPELow-densitypolyethylene	Low-cost, versatile (strong, tough, flexible, lightweight), low melting point (fails under mechanical and thermal stress)	Bottle lids, food tubs, food packaging film, frozen food bags, fruit/vegetable wraps	4 × 6 inches iced or food bagTHB 60–80/kg.Approximately,THB 0.065/bag	THB 7.0–12.6/Kg.
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]PPPolypropylene	Resistance to heat, chemicals, grease, and oil, microwavable, and versatile	Hot/cold drink cups, plastic bags for hot food, microwavable containers, bottle lids, sauce/syrup bottles, plastic straws	4 × 6 inches bagTHB 60–80 /kg.Approximately,THB 0.065/bag	THB 3.5–14.7/Kg.
			Food container box (1000 mL)THB 5–6.2/box
			22 Oz. thin cupTHB 0.8–1.5/cup
			22 Oz. thick cupTHB 3–3.4/cup
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]PSPolystyrene	Resistance to heat, chemicals, grease, and oil, lightweight, structurally weak, easily dispersed	Takeaway food containers, disposable cups, plastic cutlery, egg trays	Food boxTHB 0.43–1.6/box	N/A
			Plastic strawsTHB 0.3–0.46/Pc.
[Image omitted. Please see PDF.]OtherOther plastics	Various properties and wide range of usage, e.g., acrylic, polycarbonate, bioplastic polylactide (PLA)	Cups and bottles, coffee cup lids, gallon containers	N/A	N/A

Sources: Survey from Makro, Unipack, junkbank.co, Wongpanit (2 March 2019).

Table 3

Initiatives, challenges, and gaps in SUP reduction.

SUP Items		Shopping Bags	Food Containers	Beverages	Straws and Cutlery
Policies and initiatives	Suasive/Sermons	- Countdown to plastic bag ban day; - Verbal nudge (i.e., ask before the giveaway, give upon request); - Ethical/moral motivation (i.e., donate upon refuse, impacts on wild animals); - Celebrity motivation; - Simple consumer challenges;	- Poster; - Online advertisement; - Simple consumer challenges.	- Poster; - Online advertisement; - Simple consumer challenges.	- Verbal nudge (i.e., ask before giveaway, give upon request); - Ethical/moral motivation (e.g., impacts on wild animals); - Provide choices; - Create difficulty/barrier; - Simple consumer challenges;
	Incentives/Carrots	- Bundle deals/giveaway reusable bags.	- Discount for a personal reusable container; - Financial and nonfinancial support for bioplastics R&D and production.	- Bundle deals/ Giveaway; - Discount for personal container; - Subsidize water refill station (started at some campus, canteen, and businesses); - Financial and nonfinancial supports for bioplastics production	- Bundle deals/giveaway reusable straws and cutlery.
	Regulatory/Sticks	- No-plastic-bag day; - Plastic bag ban; - Plastic bag fee/charge.	- Polystyrene foam ban; - Packaging fee.	- Bottle cap seal ban.	- Plastic straws ban (plan).
	Innovative	- Degradable bags, i.e., oxo and spunbonded; - Reusable thick plastic (polypropylene), clothes bags; - Resilience services.	- Bio-based containers; - Personal reusable containers from glass, stainless metal, silicone, etc.	- Bio-based containers; - Thermos containers; - Brand containers.	- Straw-free lids; - Supply with green alternatives (i.e., paper, bioplastic); - Reusable straws and cutlery (i.e., glass, stainless metal, silicone).
Challenges		- Inconvenient; - Expensive alternatives; - Lack of awareness; - Lack of environmental and material knowledge (i.e., oxo are promoted as green alternatives); - Campaigns were coped with differently by each store.	- Inconvenient; - Expensive alternatives; - Lack of awareness; - Avoidance of cross-contamination and quality control; - The increase in delivery services.	- Inconvenient; - Expensive alternatives; - Lack of awareness; - Avoidance of cross-contamination and quality control; - Consumption patterns; - The increase in delivery services.	- Inconvenient; - Expensive alternatives; - Lack of awareness; - Avoidance of cross-contamination and quality control; - Customers’ barrier for alternatives.
Gaps		- Unequal controls; - Customers are not aware of the campaign day; - Improper alternatives lead to the perception of punishment.	- No control approaches; - Improper/no alternatives; - Reusable containers are not suitable for consumption patterns or transportation.	- No control approaches; - Improper/no alternatives; - Reusable containers are not suitable for consumption patterns or transportation; - Refill stations are not available.	- No control approaches; - Improper/no alternatives; - Expensive alternatives.

Appendix A

Table A1

Overview table of research interviews and investigation.

Code	Number of Participants	Organization	Information	Date
A	2	Pollution control department	Policymakers	November 2019
B	1	Office of industrial economy	Policymaker	November 2019
C	1	Chula Zero Waste	Policymaker, Institution	November 2019
D	1	The Greenery (Greenery market, Chulalongkorn University)	NGOs	March 2019
E	3	Non-franchise coffee shop 1	Owner	July 2019
F	1	Non-franchise coffee shop 2	Manager	July 2019
G	2	Franchise coffee shop 1	Manager	August 2019
H	1	Franchise coffee shop 2	Manager	August 2019
I	1	Food stall in canteen (Kasetsart University)	Sellers	August 2019
J	1	Food stall in MOF	Sellers	August 2019
K	2	Food stall in the shopping mall (Central)	Sellers	September 2019
L	1	Food chain restaurant (KFC)	Production Manager	July 2019
M	3	Supermarket (Tesco)	Cashier and manager	September 2019
N	2	Supermarket (Tops)	Cashier and manager	September 2019
O	1	Supermarket (Foodland)	Cashier staff	October 2019
P	3	Market (Samyan)	Shop owners	August 2019
Q	1	Market (MOF)	Shop owners	August 2019
R	2	Convenience store (7-Eleven) 1	Cashier and manager	September 2019
S	2	Convenience store (7-Eleven) 2	Cashier and manager	September 2019
Total	31

References

1. Boucher, J.; Faure, F.; Pompini, O.; Plummer, Z.; Wieser, O.; Felippe de Alencastro, L. (Micro) plastic fluxes and stocks in Lake Geneva basin. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem.; 2019; 112, pp. 66-74. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2018.11.037]

2. Watkins, E.; Gionfra, S.; Schweitzer, J.-P.; Pantzar, M.; Janssens, C.; ten Brink, P. EPR in the EU Plastics Strategy and the Circular Economy: A focus on plastic packaging. Inst. Eur. Environ. Policy; 2017.

3. Geyer, R.; Jambeck, J.R.; Law, K.L. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci. Adv.; 2017; 3, 1700782. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28776036]

4. Jambeck, J.R.; Geyer, R.; Wilcox, C.; Siegler, T.R.; Perryman, M.; Andrady, A.; Narayan, R.; Law, K.L. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science; 2015; 347, pp. 768-771. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25678662]

5. Wichai-utcha, N.; Chavalparit, O. 3Rs Policy and plastic waste management in Thailand. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag.; 2019; 21, pp. 10-22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0781-y]

6. Akenji, L.; Bengtsson, M.; Hotta, Y.; Kato, M.; Hengesbaugh, M. Policy responses to plastic pollution in Asia. Plastic Waste and Recycling; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 531-567.

7. Sukholthaman, P.; Shirahada, K. Technological challenges for effective development towards sustainable waste management in developing countries: Case study of Bangkok, Thailand. Technol. Soc.; 2015; 43, pp. 231-239. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2015.05.003]

8. UN.ESCAP. Population and Development in Asia and the Pacific: Lessons Learned from the Midterm Review of the Asian and Pacific Ministerial Declaration on Population and Development. 2019; Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12870/626. (accessed on 20 September 2019).

9. Styllis, G. Thailand Falling behind in Global Battle with Plastic Waste. Available online: https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Thailand-falling-behind-in-global-battle-with-plastic-waste (accessed on 20 September 2019).

10. Bharadwaj, B.; Baland, J.M.; Nepal, M. What makes a ban on plastic bags effective? the case of Nepal. Environ. Dev. Econ.; 2020; 25, pp. 95-144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X19000329]

11. Chitotombe, J.W. The plastic bag ‘ban’ controversy in Zimbabwe: An analysis of policy issues and local responses. Int. J. Dev. Sustain.; 2014; 3, pp. 1000-1012.

12. Darling Selvi, V.; Ilankumaran, G. Citizen’s response to a state’s environmental management through enforcement of ban. Int. J. Eng. Adv. Technol.; 2019; 8, pp. 820-827. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.35940/ijeat.F1156.0886S19]

13. Rayne, S. The need for reducing plastic shopping bag use and disposal in Africa. African J. Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2008; 3, pp. 7-9.

14. Zhu, Q. An appraisal and analysis of the law of “Plastic-Bag Ban”. Energy Procedia.; 2011; 5, pp. 2516-2521. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.03.432]

15. Harrison, K. Talking with the Donkey: Cooperative Approaches to Environmental Protection. J. Ind. Ecol.; 1998; 2, pp. 51-72. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jiec.1998.2.3.51]

16. Pacheco-Vega, R. Environmental regulation, governance, and policy instruments, 20 years after the stick, carrot, and sermon typology. J. Environ. Policy Plan.; 2020; pp. 620-635. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2020.1792862]

17. Matjasko, J.L.; Cawley, J.H.; Baker-Goering, M.M.; Yokum, D.V. Applying Behavioral Economics to Public Health Policy: Illustrative Examples and Promising Directions. Am. J. Prev. Med.; 2016; 50, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.02.007]

18. Kitz, R.; Walker, T.; Charlebois, S.; Music, J. Food packaging during the COVID-19 pandemic: Consumer perceptions. Int. J. Consum. Stud.; 2022; 46, pp. 434-448. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12691]

19. Jonsson, A.; Andersson, K.; Stelick, A.; Dando, R. An evaluation of alternative biodegradable and reusable drinking straws as alternatives to single-use plastic. J. Food Sci.; 2021; 86, pp. 3219-3227. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.15783] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34118069]

20. Asmuni, S.; Hussin, N.B.; Khalili, J.M.; Zain, Z.M. Public Participation and Effectiveness of the no Plastic Bag Day Program in Malaysia. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci.; 2015; 168, pp. 328-340. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.238]

21. McDonald, F. Developing an Integrated Conceptual Framework of Pro-Environmental Behavior in the Workplace through Synthesis of the Current Literature. Adm. Sci.; 2014; 4, pp. 276-303. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/admsci4030276]

22. Silverman, D. Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and Interaction; SAGE: London, UK, 2006.

23. Banuri, S.; Dercon, S.; Gauri, V. Biased Policy Professionals. World Bank Econ. Rev.; 2019; 33, pp. 310-327. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/wber/lhy033]

24. Creswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches; 4th ed. SAGE: London, UK, 2014.

25. Polkinghorne, D.E. Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research. J. Couns. Psychol.; 2005; 52, pp. 137-145. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.137]

26. Charmaz, K. Constr. Grounded Theory; SAGE: London, UK, 2014.

27. Liu, C.; Bunditsakulchai, P.; Zhuo, Q. Impact of COVID-19 on food and plastic waste generated by consumers in bangkok. Sustain.; 2021; 13, 8988. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13168988]

28. Makki, F.; Lamb, A.; Moukaddem, R. Plastics and the coronavirus pandemic: A behavioral science perspective. Mind Soc.; 2021; 20, pp. 209-213. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11299-020-00258-w]

29. Elango, D.; Dowpiset, K.; Chantawaranurak, J. A Study on Factors Impacting Consumers’ Intention to Use On-demand Food Delivery Applications in Bangkok, Thailand. SSRN Electron. J.; 2019; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3321587]

30. Pechinthorn, K.; Irawan, N.; Thant Zin, K.S.; Suasungnern, S.; Samarkjarn, J.; Rahmawati, R. Disentangling the role of income level on premium brand perceived quality, awareness, association, and loyalty: A comparative study within Thailand and Indonesia. JEMA J. Ilm. Bid. Akunt. dan Manaj.; 2021; 18, pp. 80-95. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.31106/jema.v18i1.10208]

31. Srivong, A.T. Quality of Service Influencing Customer Loyalty of Coffee Shop. Psychol. Educ. J.; 2021; 58, pp. 3767-3770.

32. Tamkaew, N. Consumer Behavior of Starbucks Coffee Shops in Bangkok. Turkish J. Comput. Math. Educ.; 2021; 12, pp. 4149-4155.

33. Wongmonta, S. An assessment of household food consumption patterns in Thailand. J. Asia Pacific Econ.; 2020; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13547860.2020.1811191]

34. Manakitsomboon, H. Share of Tourism to GDP Value Thailand 2017–2020. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1143467/thailand-share-of-tourism-to-gdp/ (accessed on 10 June 2022).

35. Surawattanawong, N. Thailand Tourism 2019. Available online: https://www.bot.or.th/Thai/ResearchAndPublications/articles/Pages/Article_29Oct2019.aspx (accessed on 10 June 2022).

36. Kruawal, K.; Sacher, F.; Werner, A.; Müller, J.; Knepper, T.P. Chemical water quality in Thailand and its impacts on the drinking water production in Thailand. Sci. Total Environ.; 2005; 340, pp. 57-70. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.08.008]

37. Thalang, D.P.N.; Sornsaruht, P.; Pimdee, P. Hot, tropical and thirsty: An analysis of bottled water consumer satisfaction in Thailand. African J. Hosp. Tour. Leis.; 2019; 8, pp. 1-15.

38. Thongplew, N.; Kotlakome, R. Getting a drink: An experiment for enabling a sustainable practice in Thai university settings. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 218, pp. 294-303. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.006]

39. Williams, D.L.; Gerba, C.P.; Maxwell, S.; Sinclair, R.G. Assessment of the potential for cross-contamination of food products by reusable shopping bags. Food Prot. Trends; 2011; 31, pp. 508-513.

40. McDonald, R.I.; Chai, H.Y.; Newell, B.R. Personal experience and the “psychological distance” of climate change: An integrative review. J. Environ. Psychol.; 2015; 44, pp. 109-118. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.10.003]

41. Chatelain, G.; Hille, S.L.; Sander, D.; Patel, M.; Hahnel, U.J.J.; Brosch, T. Feel good, stay green: Positive affect promotes pro-environmental behaviors and mitigates compensatory “mental bookkeeping” effects. J. Environ. Psychol.; 2018; 56, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.02.002]

42. Park, S.Y. The Moderating Role of Descriptive Norms on Construal-Level Fit: An Examination in the Context of “Less Plastic” Campaigns. Environ. Commun.; 2021; 15, 1819364. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1819364]

43. Schubert, C. Green nudges: Do they work? Are they ethical?. Ecol. Econ.; 2017; 132, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.11.009]

44. Ditlev-Simonsen, C.D.; Midttun, A. What motivates managers to pursue corporate responsibility? a survey among key stakeholders. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.; 2011; 18, pp. 25-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.237]

45. Lozano, R. A holistic perspective on corporate sustainability drivers. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.; 2015; 22, pp. 32-44. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.1325]

46. Huang, H. Media use, environmental beliefs, self-efficacy, and pro-environmental behavior. J. Bus. Res.; 2016; 69, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.031]

47. Lee, Y.K.; Kim, S.; Kim, M.S.; Choi, J.G. Antecedents and interrelationships of three types of pro-environmental behavior. J. Bus. Res.; 2014; 67, pp. 2097-2105. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.04.018]

48. Colicev, A.; Kumar, A.; O’Connor, P. Modeling the relationship between firm and user generated content and the stages of the marketing funnel. Int. J. Res. Mark.; 2019; 36, pp. 100-116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2018.09.005]

49. Närvänen, E.; Mesiranta, N.; Sutinen, U.M.; Mattila, M. Creativity, aesthetics and ethics of food waste in social media campaigns. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 195, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.202]

50. Napper, I.E.; Thompson, R.C. Environmental Deterioration of Biodegradable, Oxo-biodegradable, Compostable, and Conventional Plastic Carrier Bags in the Sea, Soil, and Open-Air over a 3-Year Period. Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2019; 53, pp. 4775-4783. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06984] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31030509]

51. Quoquab, F.; Mohammad, J. Striving for Obtaining Sustainability: Toil to Adopt ‘No Plastic Bag Use’ Behaviour. Dev. Corp. Gov. Responsib.; 2020; 16, pp. 131-144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S2043-052320200000016008]

52. Bisinella, V.; Albizzati, P.F.; Astrup, T.F.; Damgaard, A. Life Cycle Assessment of grocery carrier bags. Danish Environ. Prot. Agency.; 2018.

53. Jallaludin, N.S.K.; Sukarno, N.S.; Md Nasir, S.N.B.; Ismail, N.A.; Amir Shah, N.A.; Mohamat Sabri, H.N.; Mohammad, N. A Systematic Review On Consumer Behavior toward Plastic Consumption In Asian Countries. Adv. Bus. Res. Int. J.; 2021; 7, 150. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24191/abrij.v7i1.14298]

54. Klöckner, C.A. A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour—A meta-analysis. Glob. Environ. Chang.; 2013; 23, pp. 1028-1038. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.05.014]

55. Muralidharan, S.; Sheehan, K. Tax and ‘“fee”’ message frames as inhibitors of plastic bag usage among shoppers: A social marketing application of the theory of planned behavior. Soc. Mar. Q.; 2016; 22, pp. 200-217. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1524500416631522]

56. Martinho, G.; Balaia, N.; Pires, A. The Portuguese plastic carrier bag tax: The effects on consumers’ behavior. Waste Manag.; 2017; 61, pp. 3-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.01.023]

57. Bartolotta, J.F.; Hardy, S.D. Ban the Bag: Support for Plastic Bag Reduction Strategies in Northeast Ohio. J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ.; 2021; 174, pp. 61-84. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2021.3361.x]

58. Poortinga, W.; Whitaker, L. Promoting the Use of Reusable Coffee Cups through Environmental Messaging, the Provision of Alternatives and Financial Incentives. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 873. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10030873]

59. Al-Saleh, Y.; Mahroum, S. A critical review of the interplay between policy instruments and business models: Greening the built environment a case in point. J. Clean. Prod.; 2015; 109, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.042]

60. Greene, J. Life Cycle Assessment of Reusable and Single-Use Plastic Bags in California; Institute for Sustainable Development, California State University: Long Beach, CA, USA, 2011; pp. 1-26.

61. Clayton, C.A.; Walker, T.R.; Bezerra, J.C.; Adam, I. Policy responses to reduce single-use plastic marine pollution in the Caribbean. Mar. Pollut. Bull.; 2021; 162, 111833. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111833] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33213855]

62. Siu, W.S.; Kirby, D.A. Research into small firm marketing: A contextual stepwise approach. Qual. Mark. Res. An Int. J.; 1999; 2, pp. 135-146. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13522759910270043]

63. Lu, H.T.; Wang, Y.C. The impact of media reputation on customers behavioral intention—The contextual stepwise approach. Filomat; 2016; 30, pp. 4243-4252. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2298/FIL1615243L]

64. Jakovcevic, A.; Steg, L.; Mazzeo, N.; Caballero, R.; Franco, P.; Putrino, N.; Favara, J. Charges for plastic bags: Motivational and behavioral effects. J. Environ. Psychol.; 2014; 40, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.09.004]

65. Vassanadumrongdee, S.; Hoontrakool, D.; Marks, D. Perception and behavioral changes of thai youths towards the plastic bag charging program. Appl. Environ. Res.; 2020; 42, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.35762/AER.2020.42.2.3]

66. Berthoû, S.K.G. The Everyday Challenges of Pro-Environmental Practices. J. Transdiscipl. Environ. Stud.; 2013; 12, pp. 53-67.

67. Reese, G.; Junge, E. Keep on Rockin’ in a (Plastic-)Free World: Collective Efficacy and Pro-Environmental Intentions as a Function of Task Difficulty. Sustainability; 2017; 9, 200. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9020200]

68. Rettie, R.; Burchell, K.; Riley, D. Normalising green behaviours: A new approach to sustainability marketing. J. Mark. Manag.; 2012; 28, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2012.658840]

69. Bergen, N.; Labonté, R. “Everything Is Perfect, and We Have No Problems”: Detecting and Limiting Social Desirability Bias in Qualitative Research. Qual. Health Res.; 2020; 30, pp. 783-792. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732319889354]