Perception and Behavioural Changes of Residents and Enterprises under the Plastic Bag Restricting Law

Abstract

With the severe plastic pollution issue worldwide, restrictions or bans on plastic bags have become the most popular policy intervention. As essential participants in reducing plastic consumption, residents and enterprises are vital in implementing the plastic bag restriction law (PBRL). Through a questionnaires survey of the 630 consumers and 50 enterprises, this study investigates residents’ and enterprises’ perceptions and behavioural changes toward PBRL in Macao and identifies the key influence factors. The results show that most of the respondents (95%) began to reduce the use of plastic bags after implementing the PBRL. The Internet and TV/radio were essential ways for respondents to acquire knowledge of the PBRL policy. The results of applying the binary regression model indicate that demographic characteristics (gender), plastic bags knowledge, environmental concern, and policy satisfaction were the key factors in individual consumers’ behavioural changes. For enterprises, the supermarkets have the most significant decline in sales of plastic bags. Moreover, some enterprises, especially grocery stores and supermarkets also imply that their sales are affected after implementing the PBRL. The obtained results in this study may serve as a reference for Macao and other regions to promote and improve PBRL in the future.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, plastic bags (PB) have emerged as one of the most effective products worldwide [1]. Globally the unprecedentedly excessive production and consumption of plastics have reached more than 350 million tons per annum. Plastic production in Asia accounted for 51% of the world’s plastic production in 2019, and plastic waste trade flow in Asia was up to 1197 million dollars in 2018 [2,3]. If consumption and waste management patterns do not change, by the year 2050, about 12,000 million tons of plastic waste will be generated [4]. Uncontrolled plastic waste has caused socio-ecological impacts, including visual pollution and the destruction of natural beauty [5]. Additionally, when burned down, PB could release highly toxic and poisonous gases (dioxins and furans), polluting the environment and affecting the health of people [6]. At the same time, single-use plastic is considered a significant contributor to plastic pollution in the ocean [7]. About 8 million metric tons of plastic flow into the ocean every year on top of the 150 million metric tons already in the ocean [8].

With the rapid economic development, population growth and booming tourism in recent years, the large amount of solid waste generated in Macao has exerted great pressure on environmental management and recycling systems [9,10]. In Macao, solid waste has increased from 232,726 tons in 2001 to 550,249 tons in 2019, 23.5% of which were plastic wastes [11]. Furthermore, “waste reduction at source” is always a topic of importance for the Macao government. Thus, PB charges have been an important entry point in the solid waste management policy. Globally, over the past two decades, a remarkable shift in the international norms associated with disposable PB has occurred. Many countries and regions have either banned or put restrictions on the sale or use of disposable PB, varying from straws and utensils to plastic shopping bags [12,13]. International experiences showed that proactive policy instruments, such as bans or charges, are more effective than voluntary campaigns. If carefully designed and enforced, the charging for PB has proven to be effective in many countries [14].

Moreover, the neighbouring areas of Macao have basically implemented the “plastic restriction order”. Since 2008, China (mainland) has implemented the paid use of PB, which led to a 49% reduction in the use of new PB [15]. Hong Kong also implemented the first phase and comprehensive PB charging in 2009 and 2015. PB use reached a 58% drop in Taiwan due to the full restriction [16]. To reduce the excessive use of PB, the Macao Government implemented the plastic bag restriction law (PBRL) on 18 November 2019. One Macao dollar is charged for each plastic bag. Though there have been many initiatives to reduce single-use PB, very few studies have evaluated the effects of the bans or restrictions. Such as the perception and behavioural changes of residents and enterprises, especially combining the perspective of the residents and enterprises. As we know, not many studies have evaluated the efficacy of plastic bag bans from the perspective of customers and enterprises, though at least 65 countries now have plastic bag bans at national or sub-national levels [17,18,19]. The available evidence suggests that a tax or a charge on disposable PB can be highly effective [13]. Thus, it will be indispensable to know the actual behavioural changes of Macao residents and enterprises under PBRL. And exploring enterprises’ views and actions can help us know if consumers better know PBRL and respond to it with actual actions.

Thus, this study aims to investigate residents’ and enterprises’ perceptions, behavioural changes, and attitudes towards PBRL and explore the effects of PBRL and the key influence factors in Macao. The results of this study are expected to provide some basic information (theoretical data and a scientific basis) to improve the implement effects of PBRL further and reduce the use of plastic bags for policy managers and decision-makers.

2. Literature Review

To reduce PB use in the general population, some scholars have researched behavioural changes and the factors influencing PB use. These studies focused on government policy cognition, knowledge about PB, environmental concern, environmental emotion, policy satisfaction, and socioeconomic characteristics (gender, age, education level, family size, and income level), etc. [14,20,21,22]. And those influence factors have a positive influence on anti-plastic bag behaviour.

In environmental behaviour studies, environmental concern and awareness is widely used as a predictor of the pro-environmental behaviour and was found to significantly affect the attitude towards PB use [14,21]. Charges on PB can have a significant impact on plastic reduction as it disrupts consumers’ automated choices of accepting PB and makes them think more consciously [14]. The rising concern about plastic and other environmental pollution would increase the positive perception of the public towards PBRL. Therefore, it is important to know whether environmental concerns development can lead to a sustained change in residents’ behaviour on reducing PB usage, namely, the long-term habit of bringing eco-friendly bags (EFB).

Previous studies stated that a positive attitude highly depended on environmental knowledge, which results in favourable action towards nature. And the relationship between environmental knowledge and attitude showed a significant positive correlation toward plastic usage [23]. In other words, in this study, the knowledge of PB can intuitively understand the residents’ reduction of PB. One of the objectives of this study is to explore the influential relationship between environmental knowledge, namely knowledge about plastic bags, and reduced PB-consumption behaviour amongst Macao residents. Leech and Cronk [24] found that the psychological cognition and cognitive basis of policy actions affect human political behaviour. And the cognition of policies and government measures has a significant impact on public behaviours. Therefore, the first step to knowing the effect of environmental governance can be measured by residents’ cognition of relevant policies. One’s attitude towards using PB is a psychological emotion that can be regarded as a manifestation of environmental emotion. When residents hold a positive attitude towards reducing PB usage, they will form a positive intention to accept PBRL. Policy support can reflect whether residents agreed or disagreed with the PBRL [25], while the degree of policy satisfaction can better reflect the residents’ acceptance of the policy [26].

Many existing studies have used regression analysis to explore the factors that influence behaviour and to measure the strength of the relationship between a behaviour and its influencing factors [27,28,29,30]. Radtke et al. [27] used the logistic regression method to find that community energy influences pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour. Tran and Matsui [28] used logistic regression to analyse waste separation behaviour. Scharmer and Snyder [29] used ordinal logistic regression to test the matching effect on meal plan selection. Hu et al. [30] demonstrated that attitudes towards environmental protection and perceived benefits play a key role in accelerating the adoption of shared electric cars using the logistic regression model. And these studies have obtained satisfactory test results.

Therefore, this study uses a logistic regression model to explore the relationship between various influencing factors and behaviour change. This study is conducted for exploratory purposes. In addition, we will also explore the impact of these influence factors on residents using EFB. It is important that enterprises as the policy actuators can provide customers with the right guidance and positive supervision [31]. Therefore, exploring the views and actions of the enterprises can help us know if consumers better know PBRL and respond to it with actual actions. Compared to the literature, the present study aims to investigate residents’ and enterprises’ perceptions and behavioural changes towards PBRL and explore the effects of PBRL in Macao and the key influence factors.

3. Methods

This section includes the questionnaire design, sample collection, and data analysis methods. The main flow structure of this study is shown in Figure 1.

3.1. Questionnaire Design and Data Collection

In this study, residents and enterprises are the basic units of the questionnaire survey, and two different questionnaires are designed. For residents, the questionnaire has three parts: (1) Respondents’ demographic information, including gender, age, education, income, and family size; (2) Respondents’ perceptions, behavioural changes, and attitudes towards PBRL, including cognition and support attitude towards government measures and policies, and reducing the use of PB; (3) Respondents’ cognition, behaviour, and attitudes towards using an EFB, including knowledge about PB and EFB, behaviour and attitude towards using EFB. For enterprises, the questionnaire also refers to three parts: (1) Enterprises’ behaviours, attitudes, and suggestions on PBRL; (2) Enterprises’ views on residents’ consumption of PB; (3) The actual influence of the implementation of PBRL on enterprises. The questionnaire items are shown in Appendix A and Appendix B.

Before the questionnaire is issued, the residents participating in the survey are assumed to have the same chance of accepting the promotion of the PBRL to reduce bias caused by information closure. In addition, to ensure that respondents can clearly understand the questions, the questionnaire uses general words to describe the questions, avoiding the use of rare words and professional academic words.

Survey methods generally employ mail, online questionnaire, telephone interviews, and face-to-face interviews [32,33]. Considering the impact of COVID-19, this survey adopts the combination of online and offline research to avoid the infection risk. Snowball and random sampling methods are employed using online and face-to-face survey techniques. From June 2020 to July 2020, residents in Macao were conducted through an online survey through the WJX (China) website. All resident respondents were willing to accept the online survey link and fill in the relevant content, and all respondents were anonymous. This is ethical approval and protects them from potential or unforeseen harm [34].

According to Macao Law No. 16/2019, PBRL stipulates that the government prohibits PB’s free provision in retail establishments [35]. Enterprise respondents were identified according to the distribution of characteristic industries in Macao, as we aimed to investigate enterprises’ cognition and behaviour changes after the promulgation of PBRL. In January 2021, face-to-face interviews were conducted to collect information from typical enterprises (such as restaurants, delicatessens, pharmacies, bakeries, supermarkets, convenience stores, grocery stores, digital stores, and fresh food stores) with extensive plastic usage. All enterprise respondents were willing to accept the survey and disclose the interview information after knowing the purpose of our survey. The distribution of surveyed enterprise types is shown in Figure 2.

Finally, we obtained 680 questionnaires (resident: 630; enterprise: 50). After we deleted the questionnaires with omissions and apparent errors, 596 valid questionnaires (residents) and 50 valid questionnaires (enterprises) were obtained, with 94.60% and 100% effective, respectively.

3.2. Logistic Regression Model

Logistic regression procedures can help us understand and test complex relationships among variables [36]. A binary logistic regression model is established to explore the influence of demographic information (Gender (${\mathrm{X}}_1$), Age (${\mathrm{X}}_2$), Education (${\mathrm{X}}_3$), Income (${\mathrm{X}}_4$) and Family size (${\mathrm{X}}_5$)), Policy cognition (${\mathrm{X}}_6$), PB knowledge (${\mathrm{X}}_7$), Environmental emotion (${\mathrm{X}}_8$), Environmental concern (${\mathrm{X}}_9)$, and Policy satisfaction (${\mathrm{X}}_{10}$) on residents’ PB reduction behaviour (${\mathrm{R}}_1$) and EPB use (${\mathrm{R}}_2$), as shown in

Table 1. Statistics of influence factors variables.

Variables	Questions	Scale	N	Mean	S.D.
Dependent variable
Reducing behaviour (${\mathrm{R}}_1$)	After the implementation of the PBRL, have you reduced the use of PB?	0 = Not reduce; 1 = Reduce	596	0.95	0.22
EPB use $({\mathrm{R}}_2$)	Do you use EPB?	0 = No; 1 = Yes	596	0.97	0.18
Independent variables
${\mathrm{X}}_1$$\mathrm{to} {\mathrm{X}}_5$ (Table 1)	Gender, Age, Education, Income, Family size, respectively	-	-	-	-
$\mathrm{PB} \mathrm{knowledge} ({\mathrm{X}}_6$)	Whether or not know the harm of using PB?	1 = Almost total lack of comprehension; 2 = Low level of comprehension; 3 = General; 4 = Moderate comprehension; 5 = High comprehension	596	3.95	0.79
Environmental $\mathrm{concern} ({\mathrm{X}}_7$)	Whether or not agree that PB will harm the environment and human health if they are not handled properly?	1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = General; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly agree	596	4.31	0.89
$\mathrm{Policy} \mathrm{cognition} ({\mathrm{X}}_8$)	Whether or not know the detail of PBRL in Macao?	1 = Don’t know; 2 = General; 3 = Master the policy content	596	2.52	0.55
Environmental $\mathrm{emotion} ({\mathrm{X}}_9$)	Whether or not think the PBRL has had a positive impact on the protection of the environment?	1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = General; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly agree	596	3.70	1.01
Policy $\mathrm{satisfaction} ({\mathrm{X}}_{10}$)	Whether or not satisfied with the PBRL in Macao?	1 = Strongly dissatisfaction; 2 = Dissatisfaction; 3 = General; 4 = Satisfaction; 5 = Strongly Satisfaction	596	4.15	0.97

. Here, the respondents selected their behaviour on PB reduction and EPB use in two alternatives: 0—not reduce the use of PB (0—not use EFB); 1—reduce the use of PB (1—use EFB), making them dependent variable of the regression model noncontinuous.

When the dependent variable is in 0–1 style, we have a choice between logistic regression and probit regression. Some researchers considered that logistic model is a better choice if the response decision is made based on maximization of utility [37,38]. Given that residents’ behavioural changes in reducing the usage of PB mainly depend on the influencing factors to the perception of the PBRL, the logistic model was selected in this work. The regression analysis is mainly carried out by SPSS25.0 software. The specific publicity is as follows:

$$Logit\left(\mathrm{R}\right)=\ln \left(\frac{z}{1-z}\right)={\beta }_o+{\displaystyle \sum }_{i=1}^n{\beta }_i{\mathrm{X}}_i+{ϵ}_i$$

(1)

where $z$ = latent and continuous measure of effectiveness on PBRL, ${\mathrm{X}}_i$ = a vector of observations of explanatory variables (including ${\mathrm{X}}_1-{\mathrm{X}}_{10}$), $\beta$ = a vector of parameters to be estimated, and $ϵ$ = a random error term (assumed to follow a standard normal distribution).

4. Results

4.1. Residents’ Perceptions and Behavioural Changes

4.1.1. The Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Respondents

Table 2. Demographic characteristics information of the survey sample.

Content		Population	Proportion (%)	Description	Sample Average		Macao Statistics (2020)
					Mean	S.D.
$\mathrm{Gender} ({\mathrm{X}}_1$)	Male	236	39.6	0	0.60	0.49	0.53
	Female	360	60.4	1
$\mathrm{Age} ({\mathrm{X}}_2$)	18–24	92	15.4	1 (21)	2.65	1.17	-
	25–29	200	33.6	2 (27)	(33.07)
	30–39	195	32.7	3 (35)
	40–49	54	9.1	4 (45)
	50–59	45	7.6	5 (55)
	≥60	10	1.7	6 (65)
$\mathrm{Education} ({\mathrm{X}}_3$)	Primary school or below	22	3.7	1	3.51	0.89	-
	Secondary school	64	10.7	2
	High school	129	21.6	3
	College or ungraduated	349	58.6	4
	Master degree or above	32	5.4	5
$\mathrm{Income} ({\mathrm{X}}_4$)	<5000	80	13.4	1 (3500)	4.08	1.91	20,000
	5000–10,000	50	8.4	2 (7500)	(18,028.52)
	10,000–15,000	87	14.6	3 (12,500)
	15,000–20,000	154	25.8	4 (17,500)
	20,000–25,000	74	12.4	5 (22,500)
	25,000–30,000	53	8.9	6 (27,500)
	>30,000	98	16.4	7 (32,500)
$\mathrm{Family} \mathrm{size} ({\mathrm{X}}_5$)	1	16	2.7	1	3.91	1.25	2.99
	2	58	9.7	2
	3	140	23.5	3
	4	216	36.2	4
	5	83	13.9	5
	>5	83	13.9	6

reports the respondents’ socioeconomic characteristics. It can be found that female respondents were more willing to be interviewed than male respondents. The average age of the respondents was 33.07 years old. At the same time, the average family size of the respondents was 3.91. The educational level of most respondents was mainly between high school and college, and the average monthly income of the respondents was around 18,028.52 Mop/month. In general, compared to the Macao statistical yearbook data [39], the survey data were close to the average of Macao’s actual situation.

4.1.2. Respondents’ Cognition and Satisfaction

A multiple-choice question was designed to understand the respondents’ information access channels of PB. There are 96.5% of respondents think that the Internet (87.48%) and TV/Radio (68.87%) are the two most important ways, followed by Newspapers (38.26%) and Community promotion (38.43%). As shown in Table 1, for PB knowledge, the average understanding degree of respondents (3.95) is close to “Moderate comprehension (4)”, showing sufficient knowledge of PB. Most people understand the environmental and health risks of PB. The average value of the respondents’ environmental concern is 4.31 (between Agree and Strongly agree), indicating the high agreement on PB’s harm to the environment and human health. For policy cognition, the respondents’ choice is close to “Master the policy content” (2.52), which implies a relatively high degree of cognition level with PBRL. The “General” to “Agree” (3.70) of Environmental emotion show that they have sufficient knowledge of PB. It also indicates that the respondents have a relatively high agreement on the positive impact of PBRL. Consistent with their positive environmental emotion, most respondents are satisfied with the implementation of PBRL (Mean: 4.15).

However, it is noticed that 42 respondents are dissatisfied with the current policy (the PBRL in Macao). There are three primary reasons: 61.90% of respondents think enterprises should bear the cost; 16.67% of respondents point out that it is difficult to benefit the environment truly; 7.14% of respondents think that the use of PB should not be restricted.

4.2. Respondents’ Behaviour Changes and the Influence Factors on Reducing the PB Use

Table 1 reveals that most respondents (Mean: 0.95) began to reduce their PB use after implementing the PBRL. However, 29 respondents still did not reduce their PB use. Among them, 62.1% believed PB usage could bring convenience; 31.0% expressed willingness to PB consumption because of the acceptable price; 37.93% presented the herd behaviour (others still use PB). It implies that if more people use PB, it will hinder other people’s behaviour in reducing PB [40].

Table 3. Influence factors on reducing the use of PB.

Variables	B	S.E.	Wald	df	Sig.	Exp (β)
$\mathrm{Gender} ({\mathrm{X}}_1$)	0.788	0.428	3.395	1	0.065 *	2.200
$\mathrm{Age} ({\mathrm{X}}_2$)	−0.306	0.197	2.400	1	0.121	0.737
$\mathrm{Education} \mathrm{level} ({\mathrm{X}}_3$)	0.076	0.116	0.425	1	0.515	1.078
$\mathrm{Income} \mathrm{level} ({\mathrm{X}}_4$)	−0.287	0.265	1.177	1	0.278	0.750
$\mathrm{Family} \mathrm{size} ({\mathrm{X}}_5$)	−0.209	0.173	1.467	1	0.226	0.811
$\mathrm{PB} \mathrm{knowledge} ({\mathrm{X}}_6$)	0.798	0.239	11.163	1	0.001 ***	2.221
$\mathrm{Environmental} \mathrm{concern} ({\mathrm{X}}_7$)	0.469	0.211	4.951	1	0.026 **	1.598
$\mathrm{Policy} \mathrm{cognition} ({\mathrm{X}}_8$)	0.129	0.369	0.123	1	0.726	1.138
$\mathrm{Environmental} \mathrm{emotion} ({\mathrm{X}}_9$)	0.281	0.237	1.405	1	0.236	1.325
$\mathrm{Policy} \mathrm{satisfaction} ({\mathrm{X}}_{10}$)	1.721	0.792	4.720	1	0.030 **	5.591

* 10% significance level; ** 5% significance level; *** 1% significance level.

shows the influence factors on reducing the use of PB. It is indicated that gender, PB knowledge, environmental concern, and policy satisfaction are the significant factors influencing behaviour. For personal information, the female residents tend use plastic the least. The PB knowledge is positively correlated with the respondents’ plastic reduction behaviour at 1%, which indicates that if the respondents know more about the possible harm of PB, they will have higher willingness to reduce the use of PB. The environmental concern and policy satisfaction are positively correlated at 5%, respectively. It shows that good environmental awareness and understanding of policies can effectively alleviate residents’ use of PB. In addition, some important variables such as monthly income, education level, and family size in other studies are not the potentially important factors in plastic reduction in this study.

4.3. Respondents’ Behaviour and Attitudes towards Using EFB

The survey results indicate that 96.8% of respondents have used EFB, and only 3.2% have never used EFB.

Table 4. Influence factors on residents’ EPB use.

Variables	B	S.E.	Wald	df	Sig.	Exp (β)
$\mathrm{Gender} ({\mathrm{X}}_1$)	1.817	0.597	9.263	1	0.002 ***	6.151
$\mathrm{Age} ({\mathrm{X}}_2$)	0.127	0.239	0.283	1	0.595	1.135
$\mathrm{Education} \mathrm{level} ({\mathrm{X}}_3$)	0.217	0.1 42	2.344	1	0.126	1.242
$\mathrm{Income} \mathrm{level} ({\mathrm{X}}_4$)	−0.110	0.301	0.133	1	0.715	0.896
$\mathrm{Family} \mathrm{size} ({\mathrm{X}}_5$)	0.183	0.194	0.895	1	0.344	1.201
$\mathrm{PB} \mathrm{knowledge} ({\mathrm{X}}_6$)	0.530	0.284	3.488	1	0.062 *	1.699
$\mathrm{Environmental} \mathrm{concern} ({\mathrm{X}}_7$)	−0.069	0.283	0.060	1	0.807	0.933
$\mathrm{Policy} \mathrm{cognition} ({\mathrm{X}}_8$)	−0.005	0.447	0.000	1	0.991	0.995
$\mathrm{Environmental} \mathrm{emotion} ({\mathrm{X}}_9$)	−0.137	0.298	0.213	1	0.645	0.872
$\mathrm{Policy} \mathrm{satisfaction} ({\mathrm{X}}_{10}$)	1.854	0.914	4.117	1	0.042 **	6.383

* 10% significance level; ** 5% significance level; *** 1% significance level.

presents the possible influence factors on residents’ EPB use in Macao. Similar with the PB reduction behaviors, except for environmental concern, the other three factors (including gender, PB knowledge and policy satisfaction) are still the important influence factors at 1%, 10%, and 5% levels, respectively.

4.4. Enterprises’ Perceptions and Behavioural Changes

4.4.1. Enterprises’ Cognition, Satisfaction, and Behaviour Change

Table 5. Statistics on enterprises’ cognition, satisfaction, and behaviour change.

Classification	Questions	Answer	N	Proportion (%)	Mean
Enterprises’ cognition	Have you received any publicity about PBRL?	0 = No	50	22.00	0.78
		1 = Yes		78.00
	Do you know the requirements of PBRL for enterprises?	1 = Don’t know at all	50	6.00	3.74
		2 = Don’t know		6.00
		3 = General		8.00
		4 = Know		68.00
		5 = Very know		12.00
Enterprises’ satisfaction	Do you satisfy PBRL?	1 = Strongly dissatisfied	50	0.00	4.24
		2 = Dissatisfied		0.00
		3 = General		4.00
		4 = Satisfied		68.00
		5 = Strongly satisfied		28.00
Enterprises’ behaviour change	Will you take the initiative to inform customers of the charging requirements?	Not proactively inform	50	4.00	-
		Proactively inform		48.00
		Inform after customer inquiring		48.00
	Will you directly provide PB for customers?	No	50	58.00	-
		Customer request		34.00
		Directly		8.00

indicates that 78% of enterprises have received publicity on the PBRL. The enterprises’ understanding of PBRL is 3.74. At the same time, more than 96% of enterprises are satisfied with PBRL (mean: 4.24).

As shown in Table 5, 48% of enterprises often inform consumers of PB’s charge requirements. Another 48% of enterprises generally tell the charge details after customer inquiring. Only 4% of enterprises do not take the initiative to inform the current charge situation. Most enterprises never voluntarily offer consumers PB, except for some particular enterprises such as delicatessen and bakeries. Additionally, 58% of enterprises do not directly provide PB for consumers, and about 34% of enterprises provide PB upon customer requests.

4.4.2. Customers’ Behaviour from the Enterprises

As shown in

Table 6. Statistics on customers’ behaviour from enterprises’ surveys.

Questions	Answer	N	Proportion (%)	Mean	S.D.	Var.
Will customers ask for PB after shopping?	1 = Never require	50	0.00	3.32	0.77	0.59
	2 = Generally not required		10.00
	3 = Occasionally request		56.00
	4 = Require		26.00
	5 = Strongly request		8.00
Will customers complain about the charges for PB?	1 = Often complaining	50	0.00	3.36	0.92	0.85
	2 = Complaining		14.00
	3 = Normal		24.00
	4 = Not complaining		46.00
	5 = Not complaining at all		16.00

, more than 90% of consumers ask for PB after shopping and is between “Occasionally request” and “Require” (mean: 3.32). Most consumers (86%) do not complain about the PBRL after being informed of the charge, indicating the high approval of the PBRL.

4.4.3. The Decrease Status of PB Use from the Enterprises

As shown in Figure 3a, the PB use in all interviewed delicatessens and bakeries decreased by more than 20%, and 87.5% of the supermarkets had a more than 20% decrease in PB sales. All digital stores decrease between 5–20% in PB use. However, most pharmacies (75.00%) and restaurants (60.00%), and grocery stores (57.14%) have no changes in PB use. The possible reason is that the enterprises referring to unpackaged food or medicine can provide free PB for consumers according to the PBRL. Half of the convenience stores and fresh food stores decreased between 5–20%, and another 50% of convenience stores decreased by more than 20% in PB use.

In general, implementing PBRC could impact the enterprises’ business. Figure 3b shows that the deli enterprises have no impact from the PBRL; all the bakeries also have negligible effects. In addition, about half of convenience stores, digital stores, and supermarkets have normal or slight impacts. On the whole, the impact scope of PBRL on enterprises is acceptable in Macao.

Finally, for the possible revenue from the PB sale, as shown in Figure 3, more than 65% of the enterprises will choose to directly use the revenue to purchase PB. In comparison, 36% will use the revenue as the enterprises’ profit. It is noticed that about 14% will use it in environmental protection activities (such as purchasing EFB), and 2% will donate it to public welfare.

5. Discussions

5.1. The Relationship between Reducing Behaviour and Socioeconomic Information

With regard to socio-demographic factors, women are more likely to act in the interest of the environment protection than men, but this is not a consistent trend, while income and education are often positively related to sustainable actions [41]. And females are more likely to reduce the use of PB and use EFB [22]. It is consistent with our findings that gender has a significant role in Macao residents’ behaviour towards reducing PB use, and women are more willing to reduce PB use. Moreover, good PB and EPB use habits might focus on the persuasion and guidance of the male behaviour.

In general, respondents with higher educational levels are more likely to understand and more easily identify the potential environmental impacts [42,43]. However, the binary regression logic models show that educational level is not the main factor affecting respondents’ PB use, inseparable from the government’s promotion of environmental protection knowledge. Currently, it can enable residents to receive this information fairly and widely. The residents’ reduction in PB use is significantly related to residents’ PB knowledge and environmental concern. Because of good publicity and promotion, residents can fully understand the harm of PB to the environment, develop an appreciation for the environment, and act accordingly. Similarly, age, income, and family size are not the main factors affecting respondents’ reduction of PB use in this study.

5.2. Residents’ Cognition and Behaviour toward PB Use and EFB Use

According to our research, most respondents have sufficient knowledge and cognition about PB use and its environmental issues. PB knowledge is a response to environmental knowledge, and a positive attitude highly depends on environmental knowledge obtained, which results in favorable action towards environmental protection. Furthermore, environmental knowledge and attitude showed a significant positive correlation toward plastic use [23]. This study shows that more than 96% of respondents understand the possible harm of PB, and more than 68% of respondents indicated that they get this knowledge from the Internet and TV/Radio. These data show that the Internet and media play the most effective role. Meanwhile, PB knowledge is the main reason residents choose to use EFB. More attention should be paid to high-quality publicity and knowledge popularization on PB use and EFB use in the future.

And the result obtained in our study indicates that environmental concern has a visible effect on the behaviour in reducing PB use. All respondents agree on PB’s potential environmental and health risks. Good environmental publicity helps to form and improve environmental concerns. In addition, more general environmental education is still crucial for cultivating environmental concerns [43].

Restrictive environmental policies significantly impact public environmental behaviour. In this study, policy satisfaction is a determinant factor in residents’ PB reduction and EFB use. It is founded that there is a very high satisfaction level (97.48%) on PBRL. Furthermore, policy formulation significantly impacts the public’s behaviour, and policy tools still have a positive impact on anti-use PB behaviours and use EFB behaviours. Therefore, before the policy is formulated, considering the residents’ acceptance and satisfaction will help to improve the implementation effects of the policy.

5.3. Enterprises’ Perceptions and Behavioural Changes

Whether PBRC could be implemented successfully among residents depends on effective publicity by policymakers and the right guidance and positive supervision from the service enterprises. In general, manufacturers, suppliers, and service enterprises did not perceive their PB and PB waste management [44]. However, in our research, most service enterprises have obtained publicity about PBRL and expressed their satisfaction with PBRL. It may closely relate to the fact that PB charge is only targeted to customers, and the service enterprises own the profits of PB charges. However, the survey results show that some service enterprises’ businesses are affected to a certain extent because of the PBRL. According to our investigation of the influencing factors of PB use and EFP use, service merchants in Macao (as a member of residents) have high environmental awareness, which is why they are satisfied with the policy.

The PBRL stipulates that service enterprises decide how to use the PB revenues. If more service enterprises use the revenues as a profit or purchase PB for sale, the works on environmental improvements will face significant challenges. To advance this work, some large-scale enterprises and merchants in Macao donated about “plastic bag fees” (430,000 MOP) to the Macao Environmental protection Bureau for supporting environmental protection or social welfare on 23 July 2020 [45].

In addition, excessive packaging still exists in the surveyed enterprise, which will consume a large amount of unnecessary resources. In China (mainland), the government has encouraged express and logistics enterprises to use the integrated packaging of commodities and logistics and establish a recycling system for recyclable logistics distribution appliances [46]. Thus, it suggests that these supermarkets, fresh food stores, delicatessens, and bakeries should promote standardized food sorting and packaging service to reduce PB use. Meanwhile, encouraging biodegradable packaging films (bags) for fresh product packaging is also an important measure.

6. Conclusions and Implications

6.1. Conclusions

Plastic consumption worldwide has increased considerably in recent years, and every minute one million plastic bottles are purchased, and each year 0.5-1 billion PB are used [18,22]. At the same time, the Macao SAR Government has been paying great attention to “Reducing waste at source” and the environmental concern of PB. Macao government introduced the “Plastic bag charge” measure, PBRL, to reduce the excessive use of plastic shopping bags through economic means. This study evaluated the residents’ and enterprises’ perceptions and behavioural changes on plastic bag consumption after PBRL implementation. The above results show that Macao residents have a positive attitude towards PBRL. About 95.14% of respondents have reduced the usage of PB in daily life. At the same time, most of the interviewed enterprises also expressed their satisfaction with PBRL.

In conclusion, the PBRC effectively decreases PB use among residents and increases EFB use in Macao. First, the motivational basis for reducing PB use was mainly intrinsic, reflecting the environmental awareness, like higher PB knowledge, environmental concern, and policy satisfaction. Reducing PB use behaviour can be sustained further in time, independently of how much the PBRC is to charge, as the behaviour change is at least partly motivated by intrinsic (notably environmental) considerations [25]. However, the charge policy may be suitable in the short run or to increase awareness and draw the attention of the residents towards the severity of the environmental issues consequent upon uncontrolled use of plastic bags [47]. In the long run, the government should carry out more campaigns involving all the stakeholders (the residents, the service enterprises, educational institutions, social media, etc.) to improve intrinsic environmental awareness.

6.2. Policy Implications

The enterprise participation may be a key factor in reducing PB’s usage. However, more than half of the enterprises surveyed do not take the initiative to inform consumers of PB’s charge requirements in this study. As the most effective policy worldwide, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) system were widely used to deal with the product waste issues (including the plastic), and it determines the responsibility of different stakeholders (the governments, enterprises, and residents). In future, it is recommended to clarify the informing responsibilities of the enterprises.

As mentioned above, a mere restriction law on residents may not be fruitful for long. Martinho et al. [48] indicate that the Portuguese plastic bag tax (PBT) had boosted service enterprises to offer and sell recyclable PB to alternative offers PB. The government should also ensure that the enterprises decrease non-recyclable and non-biodegradable PB usage rather than just restricting PB.