See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348275524
Was Mauritius really successful in banning plastic carry bags, after
promulgation of the regulation prohibiting plastic bags usage?
Article in Environment Development and Sustainability · August 2021
DOI: 10.1007/s10668-020-01134-w
CITATIONS
READS
7
1,205
4 authors:
Rajendra Kumar Foolmaun
Dinkar Sharma Chamilall
Minsitry of Environment and Sustainable Development, Mauritius
Ministry of Environment and Sustaianble development
9 PUBLICATIONS 425 CITATIONS
3 PUBLICATIONS 41 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Girish Munhurrun
Anand Sookun
Ministry of Environment & Sustainable Development, Mauritius
University of Mauritius
2 PUBLICATIONS 41 CITATIONS
13 PUBLICATIONS 32 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Situational analysis of the recent regulation on banning of plastic carry bags in Mauritius View project
Mauritius National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Rajendra Kumar Foolmaun on 23 February 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Environment, Development and Sustainability
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01134-w
Was Mauritius really successful in banning plastic carry bags,
after promulgation of the regulation prohibiting plastic bags
usage?
Rajendra Kumar Foolmaun1
Anand Sookun1
· Dinkar Sharma Chamilall1 · Girish Munhurrun1 ·
Received: 8 June 2018 / Accepted: 29 November 2020
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. part of Springer Nature 2021
Abstract
Plastic carry bags are increasingly seen as environmental hazards that threaten human and
animal welfare, rather than being modern conveniences. Environmental impacts resulting
from improper disposal of plastic bags have been well documented in the literature. To
overcome these impacts, many countries around the globe have taken actions either to ban
or limit the use of plastic bags. Likewise, in Mauritius, a regulation banning the use of
plastic bags was introduced in 2016. Whether this regulation has been successful in stopping the usage of banned plastic bags or not, is the overall objective of the present study.
The study was conducted on the Mauritian population. It equally investigated: the quantity
of plastic bags utilized before and after regulation; the alternatives to plastic bags used;
the level of awareness on environmental and health impacts resulting from indiscriminate
disposal of plastic bags; and the perception of the regulation. 65% of the respondent population claimed that the regulation has failed to prohibit the usage of banned plastic bags.
A statistical test result supported that the extensive plastic bags users have less preference
for alternatives to plastic bags such as cloth bags. The study further examined the possible
reasons for the failure and proposes recommendations for the complete banning of plastic
bags in Mauritius.
Keywords Plastic carry bags consumption · Awareness on plastic bags · Environmental
and health impacts · Mauritius
1 Introduction
Today, plastic bags have become an indispensable commodity in our shopping journeys. These bags, commonly referred to as ‘single-use’ plastic bags, very often, are used
only once or for a short period of time. For example, a plastic bag may be used to carry
purchased items from the shop to home and disposed of after use. The consumption of
* Rajendra Kumar Foolmaun
rfoolmaun@gmail.com
1
Falcon Citizen League (an Environmental NGO in Mauritius), Terre Rouge, Mauritius
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
R. K. Foolmaun et al.
single-use plastic bags globally is estimated to be in the range of 500 billion to 1 trillion
plastic bags; in other words, about one million bags are used every minute (Anon 2018a,
b). This widespread use of plastic bags is attributed to their lightness, cheapness, durability, and convenience to use.
Though plastic bags offer practical advantages, the benefits are, however, outweighed by
the numerous dreadful impacts they have onto the environment. Some of these impacts are
elaborated in Section. 2. To curb down these impacts, various regulatory policies/instruments have emerged worldwide to either limit or ban plastic bags usage. In the same vein,
the Government of Mauritius has taken several initiatives to limit the use of plastic bags—
the recent initiative being a regulation to ban plastic bags consumption from January 2016.
The overall objective of the present study is to investigate whether the imposition of the
regulation banning the use of plastic bags has met the expected goal, and if not what have
been the underlying causes for failure. The study, among others:
• Estimates the plastic bags usage pre- and post-regulation;
• Evaluates the alternatives to plastic bags used;
• Assesses the level of awareness on environmental and health impacts resulting from
indiscriminate disposal of plastic bags; and the perception of the regulation;
• Analyses the weaknesses of the present system; and
• Proposes measures to improve the current system.
2 Environmental and health impacts of improper disposal of plastic
bags
Plastics bags are used in huge numbers in many countries and are often given away freely
in supermarkets and other retail outlets. As a result, there is excessive and careless use
of plastic bags. In such circumstances, a major proportion of plastic bags are often disposed of indiscriminately after a single-use (Adane and Muleta 2011). Moreover, the lightness and mobility of plastic bags make them more likely to end up as litter, as they can
be transported easily by wind and water. Once littered they are visually intrusive and can
persist into the environment up to 1000 years without being decomposed by sunlight and/
or microorganisms (Stevens 2001, as quoted by Adane and Muleta 2011; Miller 2012).
Accumulation of plastic bag wastes is the source of multifarious environmental problems.
Some of these are:• Clogging of drains and waterways: Clogged drains result in sanitation and sewage
problems and often lead to flooding. Gupta and Somanathan (2011) reported a case of
flooding in India, where the lives of about a thousand people were lost. One of the main
reasons for the flooding was the clogging of drains by plastic bags. Similarly, deadly
flash floods hit Mauritius, in March 2008 and March 2013. These floods caused the
demise of 4 and 11 Mauritian citizens, respectively. Following the first flash flood, the
Supreme Court Judge concluded in his report that one of the causative factors leading
to the clogging of drains, and eventually to flooding, was the haphazard disposal of
bulky waste as well as plastic materials including plastic bags and plastic bottles;
• Proliferations of vector-borne diseases: Stagnated water in disposed plastic bags provides ideal breeding grounds for mosquitoes and other pests. Mosquitoes are vectors of
diseases such as Chikungunya and Dengue fever (Adane and Muleta 2011);
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Was Mauritius really successful in banning plastic carry bags,…
• Unsightly landscape: Accumulation of wind-blown plastic bags on trees, fences, abandoned or remote sites/lands, wasteland, nature trails and forests, constitute an eyesore
and decrease the aesthetic value of magnificent landscapes (Adane and Muleta 2011);
• Threats to marine and terrestrial animals: Plastic bags in seawater are mistaken as food
by many marine species including mammals, fish, and seabirds. Ingestion and entanglement of many marine species have been well documented in the literature (Laist 1997;
Baulch and Perry 2014; Lavers et al. 2014; Duncan et al. 2017 as quoted by Botterell
et al. 2019). Nowadays, there is growing concern about small plastic fragments (microplastics: usually of size 1 μm-5 mm), as they have the potential to interact with a greater
number of species, across trophic levels (Botterell et al. 2019). According to Botterell
et al. 2019, research has shown that microplastics are readily ingested by a wide range
of marine species, including zooplankton, with associated negative impacts on their
biological processes. Plastic bags equally pose health threats to free-roaming animals,
for example Krulwich 2000—as quoted by Clapp and Swanston 2009—reported the
death of the sacred cows in India, after ingesting garbage commingled with disposed
bags. Moreover, at least one case per day of animals with plastics in their digestive systems is reported in every abattoir in Kenya (Wakhungu 2017); and
• Depletion of non-renewable resources: Manufacture of plastic bags requires non-renewable resources such as crude oil and natural gas (Anon 2012). 4% of the world’s total
oil production is estimated to be used for bag manufacturing (Muthu et al. 2009). Plastic bags, therefore, contribute to depleting our finite, non-renewable resources and also
generates global warming emissions (UNEP 2005).
2.1 Economic instruments used across the world to limit or ban plastic bags
consumption
Indiscriminate disposal of plastic bags presents a huge threat to the environment. Consequently, since the early 1990s, a variety of strategies/regulatory policies have emerged
globally to either reduce consumption or ban plastic bags. Some of these include: compulsory selling of plastic bags instead of free distribution, imposing levies either at selling or
at manufacturing, providing incentives whilst bringing own bags, promoting awarenessraising campaigns and in some cases, strict enforcement to ban the consumption of plastic
bags (Gupta and Somanathan 2011).
According to Akullian et al. (2006), as reported by Gupta and Somanathan (2011),
Denmark was the first country to have introduced compulsory charges in 1994 on plastic bag manufacturers. This policy measure successfully reduced plastic bag consumption by 66% (Dikgang et al. 2012). In 2002, Bangladesh became the first country in the
world to ban thinner plastic bags, as these bags obstructed the drains during the devastating
floods (Onyanga-Omara 2013). Over time and with growing environmental consciousness,
many countries such as India, Kenya, Rwanda, Botswana, Uganda, Tanzania, Ethiopia,
Mali, Malawi, Morocco, South Africa, Cameroun, Zanzibar, Italy, Germany, U.K., Scotland, USA (some states), Australia (some states), Brazil, Argentina, and Ghana have either
banned partially or fully the use of plastic bags. An example of a partial ban on plastic bags
is in Ethiopia. This country introduced a partial ban by setting a minimum thickness of
the bags to be manufactured in the country and / or imported into the country (Adane and
Muleta 2011).
Some countries have imposed taxes to discourage the use of plastic bags. For example, Ireland instituted a tax on plastic bags in 2002, to the tune of 15 Euro cents on each
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
R. K. Foolmaun et al.
plastic bag at the point of sale. With this measure, plastic bag consumption dropped from
1.2 billion bags to 60 million bags in the following year, and 9.6 million Euros were generated for environmental protection (Akullian et al. 2006). Botswana in 2007 adopted a
similar approach but with a slight modification. The plastic bag tax was introduced as
an environmental levy on retailers. Under this policy, the retailers were not compelled to
charge a fixed price for plastic bags (Gupta and Somanathan 2011); instead, each retailer
was allowed to charge its customers a price the retailer deemed appropriate. Thus, different
retailers charged different prices for plastic bags. Dikgang and Visser (2010) investigated
on the post-effect of the plastic bag regulation in Botswana. These authors found that the
price of plastic bags increased by 31% and consequently, plastic bag consumption dropped
by 50% in only 18 months.
Taiwan and China started enforcement of their regulations on plastic bags use in 2003
and 2008, respectively. In both cases, the regulations have compelled the retailers to explicitly price plastic bags. A study conducted in China to compare the use of plastic bags preand post-regulation, showed a 49% decline in new plastic bags purchased and a considerable rise in the re-use of old bags (He 2010). In the case of Taiwan, researchers found
that the regulation not only lowered plastic bags consumption, but it equally triggered an
appreciable reduction in the amount of domestic waste produced by households (Yan and
Innes 2006).
South Africa, on the other hand, adopted a slightly different approach in 2002. It combined plastic bag levies with thickness restrictions. Under these regulations, the thickness
of the plastic bag had to be at least 30 microns and was sold to consumers with an additional fee of 46 cents. This fee included an environmental levy of 2 cents on each plastic
bag. With these economic instruments, the sales of plastic bags dropped by 60–90% (Gupta
and Somanathan 2011). Similarly, Scotland in 2014 introduced a 5 pence charge on each
plastic bag sold with the ultimate objective to encourage customers to bring their own reusable bags from home. With this measure, it is estimated that in only one year, the plastic
bag consumption dropped by 650 million units (Zimmer 2015). Other examples of such
initiatives have been extensively covered by Gupta and Somanathan (2011).
In addition to providing several examples, Gupta and Somanathan (2011) have raised
another pertinent issue. They have highlighted that though developing countries such as
Bangladesh, Bhutan, and India have banned the use of plastic carry bags, they have, however, failed to sustain the initial decline following the legislation. The study by Gupta and
Somanathan (2011) showed that within a year following the ban, above 90% of consumers
progressively started reusing the banned plastic bags. These authors argued that the initial
momentum has gradually declined mainly due to poor enforcement.
3 Socio‑economic highlights of Mauritius
Mauritius is a small island developing state, located in the Indian Ocean and has a mix
of ethnic groups which include Hindus, Muslims, Creoles, Chinese and Europeans. The
island is a popular tourist destination mainly due to its beautiful sandy beaches.
Mauritius is densely populated with around 1.22 million inhabitants (Statistics Mauritius 2017) residing in an area of 1865 square kilometres. Within the African countries, the
island proudly demarcates itself for its remarkable expansion in trade and investment outreach around the globe, as indicated by the significant rise in the Gross Domestic Product
per capita from US$ 8 030.05 in 2008 to US$ 11 228.11 in 2018 (Statista 2020).
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Was Mauritius really successful in banning plastic carry bags,…
The economic progress has undoubtedly raised the standard of living of the Mauritian
population (Foolmaun and Ramjeawon 2008; Foolmaun et al. 2011) as evidenced by the
change in consumption pattern. One parameter to depict this change is the quantity of
waste generated by the population over time. In 2009, 415 948 tons of waste were landfilled at the sole landfill of the island and this figure rose to 543 197 tons in 2018 (Statistics
Mauritius 2018). Among the waste generated, plastic wastes accounted around 8% in 2007,
whilst in 2017, the percentage has augmented to 12.4% (Statistics Mauritius 2017). A recycling plant has never been implanted in the small island state of Mauritius owing to its
small scale of economies, high operational costs, and hence not economically viable. Thus,
in the absence of a formal plastic bags recycling system, used plastic bags are very often
disposed of commingled with domestic waste.
In 2009, plastic bags consumption was estimated to be 400 million annually (Chamilall
2009). Formal figure on plastic bag usage before the regulation on banning of plastic bags
in 2016, is not available. However, as per observation, this figure has undoubtedly been on
the rise, hence the urgent need for banning plastic bags.
3.1 Initiatives to reduce plastic bag consumption in Mauritius
Alike several governments in the world, the Mauritian Government was also sensitive to
the environmental impacts caused by improper disposal of plastic bags. Numerous sensitization campaigns have been organized, however with little effect. In 2004, the Environment Protection (Plastic Carry Bags) Regulations 2004 were promulgated by the then Ministry of Environment & National Development Unit. The objectives of these regulations
were to prohibit the local manufacture and import of non-degradable plastic carry bags
with gussets and handles having a wall thickness of less than 20 microns (Chamilall 2009).
However, shortly after, to counteract these regulations, plastic bags without handles were
introduced in Mauritius. Consequently, the consumption of plastic bags with no handles
escalated to a level higher than it was prior to the coming into force of the said regulations
(Chamilall 2009).
In 2006, the Government imposed an excise duty of Rs 1 [one Mauritian rupee (Rs) is
about 0.03 US $] on a plastic bag with gusset and handles. This move was undertaken to
discourage the use of plastic bags and at the same time encourage users to shift towards
thicker reusable bags. Later, in 2010, the excise duty was raised to Rs 2.00 (0.06 US $).
However, these taxes seemed to have little effect on plastic bag consumption, as these bags
continued to be widely used and thus disposed of indiscriminately throughout the island.
As a result, the Government of Mauritius promulgated the “Banning of Plastic Bags Regulation”. This regulation came into force in January 2016 to prevent the import, manufacture, sale and distribution of plastic bags, with the exception of biodegradable plastic bags
and exempted ones.
3.2 Methodology
The methodology used in this research comprises the steps illustrated in Fig. 1. Mauritius was taken as the sample area. However, according to Raosoft (a statistical software), for a population of 1.2 million, the recommended sample size to get a correct
representation should be 385. In this respect, 385 questionnaires were administered to
respondents of various age groups, sex, marital status and different education levels.
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
R. K. Foolmaun et al.
Step 1
Formulation of the Research Problem and aims of study
Step 2
Literature Review
Step 3
Preparaon of Quesonnaire
Step 4
Sample Design Definion
Step 5
Survey undertaken
Step 6
Data collecon
Step 7
Data analysis and interpretaon
Step 8
Conclusion and Recommendaon
Fig. 1 Methodology
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Was Mauritius really successful in banning plastic carry bags,…
This ensured that the different categories of the users of plastic bags in rural as well as
urban regions, including different social classes, were fairly represented.
3.3 Data collection
Questionnaires were hand delivered to respondents three days in advance prior to conducting a face-to-face interview. This timeframe was given so that the respondents
could familiarize themselves with the questionnaire prior to filling in during the faceto-face interview. The majority of the respondents answered favourably to participate
in the survey. Most questionnaires were subsequently filled in during the face-to-face
interviews, whilst the remaining ones were filled in by phone interviews owing to unavailability of the respondents during face-to-face contacts. This approach ensured that
the respondents fully understood the questions set for them and thus provided accurate
data. The non-response was addressed by administering extra questionnaires to fresh
respondents.
The questionnaire consisted of five main parts. Part 1 investigated the amount of
plastic bags utilized prior to the regulation on banning of plastic bags, whilst Part 2
scrutinized the consumption of plastic bags post-regulation. Part 3 sought the views of
the respondents on whether the regulation was effective in banning the use of plastic
bags. Respondents who affirmed that the regulation failed to ban plastic bags were provided with a list of possible reasons which they had to choose to explain the failure. Part
4 prompted respondents who felt that the regulation was ineffective, to suggest ways for
improvement. Part 5 was devoted to socio-demographic information of the respondent,
viz. sex, age, educational background and post held. Parts 1 to 3 provided questions
with choices, and respondents had to tick the answer which in their opinion was correct.
Data were entered in Microsoft Excel ™ where the answers from each questionnaire
were input as columns and the rows contained all the questionnaires completed. Analyses of the data comprised simple graphical illustrations, as well as some statistical tests
to understand the relationship between different variables, for example the relationship
between the extent of plastic bags use and adoption of environmentally friendly alternatives. To this end, a contingency table analysis or Chi-squared test for independence
(Waller and Health 2012) was carried out.
4 Results
Out of 385 questionnaires administered, responses were received from 308 people.
Extra questionnaires were administered to address non-responses. Unfortunately,
despite callbacks and follow-ups, the number of responses (308) remained unchanged.
308 responses were judged to be sufficient as it corresponded to a response rate of 80%,
which is a good representation of the total population. With our response rate of 80%
and a population of 1.2 million, the overall confidence limits of the results are found
to be 4.47, i.e. with a 95% confidence level, the results are expected to be more or less
accurate with a margin of error of 4.47 (or approximately 5%). Analyses of the results
from the responses were thus considered adequate for drawing important conclusions
and basis for formulating proper recommendations.
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
R. K. Foolmaun et al.
4.1 Plastic bags used prior to the introduction of banning of plastic bag regulation
Prior to the introduction of the plastic ban regulation, 76% of the population were using
between 5 and 15 plastic bags in a week, as shown in Fig. 2. Only 18% of the respondents
were using less than 5 plastic carry bags in a week, whilst 6% of the population admitted to
be using above 15 plastic bags in a week.
85% of the subjects admitted that the widespread use of plastic bags is due to their lightweight, durability, affordability, hygienic aspects, and convenience for transportation. The
majority of the respondents, claiming to use less than 5 plastic bags in a week, falls in the
category of persons who have acquired either secondary and/or tertiary level of education.
Another interesting observation was that the age groups 46–55 and 56–65 years use more
plastic bags than others do.
4.2 Alternatives to plastic bags
In addition to using plastic bags, the respondents also acknowledged utilizing alternatives
to plastic bags. The different alternatives and the percentage used weekly are shown in
Fig. 3. 46% of the respondents preferred cloth bags among the different alternatives to
plastic bags. The next popular alternative was paper bags. The least common alternative
was found to be ‘tente vacoas’ (bags made from Pandanus leaves). This product is potentially a sustainable alternative, though it is not the current preferred alternative owing to its
high production cost, as it is hand-made and is sold as an artisanal product. Respondents
within the age group 25–45 years were found to have a preference for cloth bags as far as
160
50%
45%
45%
140
40%
120
100
31%
30%
80
60
25%
20%
18%
% of individuals
No. of Individuals
35%
15%
40
10%
20
6%
0
5%
0%
less than 5
between 5 & 10
Between 10 & 15
Above 15
Plasc bags used per week
Fig. 2 Average weekly use of plastic carry bags before the ban. Note: red line represents the % of individuals
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Was Mauritius really successful in banning plastic carry bags,…
Use of alterna ves to plas c carry bags
18%
Cloth bags
46%
Paper bags
15%
Tente Vacoas (made from Pandanus
leaves)
Tente Raffia- (made from nylon)
21%
Fig. 3 Alternatives to plastic bags used in a week
alternatives to plastic bags are concerned (58%). Within the age group above 65 years, 72%
prefer to use artisanal bags made of Pandanus leaves.
4.3 Impacts of indiscriminate disposal of plastic bags into the environment
Figure 4 shows that over 80% of the respondents were aware of environmental impacts
(in terms of flooding, eyesores, persistence into the environment) and health hazards
Respondent's awareness of Environmental impacts
350
300
5
16
5
18
7
23
7
9
5
28
56
250
No of repondents
17
disagree
neutral
Agree
200
150
287
285
278
291
275
235
100
50
0
Indiscriminate
Disposal
Flooding
problems
Mosquitoes
proliferaon
Aquac life
Eyesore
Persistence in
the
environment
Fig. 4 Environmental impacts and health hazards associated with improper disposal of plastic bags
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
R. K. Foolmaun et al.
(mosquitoes proliferation and threats to terrestrial and marine life) associated with
improper disposal of plastic bags. Of these, 85% of the respondents have higher levels
of education (secondary and tertiary level). Additionally, 70% were found to be within
the age group 15–45 years.
4.4 Perception about the regulation on banning of plastic bags
Figure 5 shows the opinion of the sampled population on whether the regulation banning the use of plastic bags was successful or a failure. 65% of the population expressed
that the ban was a failure since according to their observations, plastic bags were being
distributed free of charge at market and vegetable sale points. 23% opined that the ban
has been successful. These individuals confessed that at supermarkets, hypermarkets
and branded shops, only biodegradable bags were being sold. The remaining 12% had
no opinion. In this category, it was observed that 84% of the respondents were aged
above 55 years old.
4.5 Possible reasons for the failure of the regulation on banning of plastic bags
The possible reasons put forwards by individuals claiming the ban to be a failure were
compiled and are shown in Fig. 6. The prime reason put forward by the majority of the
respondents was poor enforcement.
4.6 Perception of the introduced biodegradable bags
Most of the respondents felt that the quality of biodegradable bags on the market is
poor. It easily gets torn and is unsuitable for the slightly heavier items as opposed to
banned plastic bags which were much stronger.
Fig. 5 Sampled population opinion on the recent plastic bag regulation
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Was Mauritius really successful in banning plastic carry bags,…
Fig. 6 Compiled reasons explaining failure of the regulation
banning use of plastic bags
4.7 Analysis of the relationship between the extent of use and adoption
of alternatives
Another important feature of the survey was to find out the correlation between the
extent of use of plastic bags and the use of its alternatives. The results obtained in
Figs. 2 and 3 have been combined and are shown in Table 1.
Interestingly, people who used less than 5 plastic bags, were perhaps those who were
aware of the environmental impacts of indiscriminate disposal of plastic bags. These
respondents also used a high proportion of alternatives, i.e. 55 out of 308 (18%). To a
lesser extent, those who used between 5 and 10 bags also preferred alternative bags, i.e.
139 out of 308.
On the other hand, those respondents who used more plastic bags, used fewer alternatives. These categories of alternative users represent 66% (75 out of 114) of plastic
bags users who use over 10 plastic bags per week on average. If there were an association between plastic bag users who also used alternatives, we would expect these counts
to differ between groups in some way and this is examined with statistical analysis.
Table 1 Cross-tabulation of
average number of plastic
bags used per week and use of
alternatives
Extent of use Average number of plastic
bags used per week prior to banning
Total
Use of alternatives. Do you use
alternatives to
plastic bags?
No
a. Less than 5 plastic bags
b. 5 to 10 plastic bags
c. 10 to 15 plastic bags
d. above 15 plastic bags
Total
Yes
5
50
55
55
39
0
99
84
57
18
209
139
96
18
308
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
R. K. Foolmaun et al.
4.8 Statistical analysis of the association between the extent of use of plastic bags
and the use of alternatives
A Chi-squared test was carried out to test whether there is an association between (1)
extent of use of plastic bags prior to banning and (2) the use of alternatives to plastic
bags (i.e. whether the 2 variables are independent or related). The results of this analysis are presented in Table 2.
The “Pearson Chi-Square” value of the Chi-square statistic has a p-value (asymptotic
significance (2-sided)) of 0.017. The result is significant as this p-value is less than the
designated alpha level (normally 0.05). Therefore, there is enough evidence to reject the
null hypothesis that asserts the two variables are independent of each other. To put it
simply, the data suggest that the variables Extent of plastic bags use (average per week
use) and Use of alternatives are associated with each other.
The statistical test results, therefore, substantiate that ‘people who use more plastic bags, use fewer alternatives’. Consequently, it can be inferred that as long as there
would be constant supplies of plastic bags on the market, the adoption of eco-friendly
alternatives would be hampered.
5 Discussions
Alike climate change, plastic pollution is a global threat. Plastic bags, once hailed as a
panacea for practical problems, have gradually turned out to be the root causes of many
environmental and health-related dilemmas. With growing environmental concerns,
various initiatives have been taken worldwide to curb down or ban the use of single-use
plastic bags. Some of these measures have been successful (e.g. in the case of Denmark), whilst in other countries especially in developing countries (e.g. Bhutan), the
ban has not delivered the desired results.
Through the present study, the authors wish to show that Mauritius, being both a small
island developing state (SIDS) and a developing country, is not aloof of plastic pollution.
A few measures applied in other countries to curb down plastic bag consumption have been
adapted and introduced in Mauritius but with little success. As a result, in 2016, regulations banning the import, sale, distribution and manufacture of plastic bags were introduced. A more or less similar legislation have been introduced in other SIDS, for example
in Seychelles in 2017 (Akwei 2017) and in Vanuatu in 2018 (Graue and Livingstone 2018).
Four years post-banning, it became important to evaluate the effectiveness of the recent
ban through the present study. The results are discussed below.
Table 2 Results of the Chisquare tests to examine the
relationships between extent of
use of plastic bags and use of
alternatives
Value
df
Asymp.
Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
10.151a
3
.017
Likelihood ratio
N of valid cases
11.839
166
3
.008
a
13
0 cells (0%) have expected counts less than 5
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Was Mauritius really successful in banning plastic carry bags,…
Some 500 billion to one trillion plastic bags are used annually in the world (Anon
2018a, b). Assuming the world population to be 7.6 billion (Anon 2018a), this implies that
one person uses in between 66 and 132 plastic bags annually. In Mauritius, Fig. 2 shows
that before the ban, 76% of the population was using between 5 and 15 plastic bags per
week which is equivalent to 240–720 bags annually. The result clearly shows that there
has been an excessive use of plastic bags prior to the regulation. Our result confirms the
findings of the study made by Chamilall 2009, who also found that there was an excessive
usage of plastic bags among consumers. A number of factors contributed to the excessive
use of plastic bags. These included: free distribution at almost all retail outlets, (or even if
priced, the cost of the plastic bag was very low), lightweight, durability, hygienic, ease of
handling, convenience for transportation, and education level as well the age group of consumers. Moreover, as plastic bags were available free of charge and in large numbers, these
have unfortunately resulted in:
• Indiscriminate dumping of used plastic bags leading to various environmental problems
including littering our environmental landscape, blocking of drains and watercourses;
• Failing to arouse interest for reducing use of plastic bags or shifting towards alternatives; and
• Hindering the development of a culture of ’bringing your own shopping bag’ in the
Mauritian population.
Another important finding of the present study was to establish a relationship between
the number of the plastic bags utilized and the number of alternatives to plastic bag used.
The results show that some correlations exist and people using more plastic bags use less
alternatives. This implies that people who has the habit to use plastic bags do not bother to
buy and use alternative bags, such as cloth bags or other artisanal and re-usable bags. On
the other hand, our study equally found out that most of the consumers using less than 5
plastic bags in a week had a higher level of education and were from the age group 15 to
45 years.
Our study also showed that most of the respondents (86.4% out of which 70% were from
15 to 45 years old and 85% of respondents had a high level of education) knew at least one
health hazard of plastics. This result is much better than results obtained in studies conducted in India and other parts of the world whereby only 50% to 81.1% participants admitted to be mindful of associated health hazards (Gupta and Somanathan 2011). Although
above 80% of the respondents knew the environmental as well as economic impacts associated with improper disposal of plastic bags, they were excessively using plastic bags.
Joseph et al. 2016 concluded a similar finding in his study. The results of the present survey
infer that the majority of the population had no willingness to refrain from using plastic
bags prior to the regulation. This finding therefore justifies the government’s decision to
impose the ban on plastic bags.
The results of post-regulation are also quite interesting. 23% of the respondents claimed
that the regulation imposed was successful in banning plastic bags in Mauritius. In reality,
hypermarkets, supermarkets and branded shops are using only biodegradable bags. Many
consumers do not opt for these bags as they are relatively expensive (about Rs 3, i.e. 0.102
US $), very fragile and thus very often limited to single-use only. Unfortunately, banned
plastic bags are still being widely distributed and used in markets, by small shop owners, small vegetable sellers, hawkers, street vendors—in brief are used by small-scale businesses which exist in large numbers. This is the reason why 65% of the population believe
that the regulation failed to ban plastic bags. In other words, the regulation has to some
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
R. K. Foolmaun et al.
extent, been able to avoid the supply and eventually use of banned plastic bags, but has
been regrettably unsuccessful in forbidding completely the supply and utilization of the
prohibited bags.
According to the above 65% respondents, the main factors contributing to the failure (as
per Fig. 6) are in order of priority:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Poor enforcement (98%): Enforcement is conducted by the environmental police (limited to around 32 officers), some environment officers and local authority inspectors.
Altogether, these officers are few in numbers (for a population of around 1.2 million)
and are unable to service the whole island, per say. Moreover, there are certain local
companies which are still manufacturing illegally the banned plastic bags. The sale of
the banned plastic bags occurs at odd hours through an established network of distributors which is quite difficult to trace. Furthermore, the banned plastic bags manufactured
locally are much cheaper compared to biodegradable bags. Consequently, the banned
plastic bags continue to be distributed free of charge;
Reluctance to adopt eco-friendly bags (98%): As already pointed out, Mauritians are
yet to develop the culture of bringing their own bags whilst going for shopping. Some
respondents also attributed the reluctance to the poor quality of the biodegradable bags
available on the market.
Insufficient sensitization (95%)- Although there was a mass sensitization carried out
prior to entry into force of the regulation, the sensitization was perhaps not aggressive
enough and the time frame was short. According to Gupta and Somanathan (2011),
lack of awareness among people of developing countries is the principal cause for the
citizens to adopt unsustainable practices. As per the results, a considerable number of
consumers of the age group 15 to 45 years are already conscious about the dreadful
impacts of plastic and most of them are already using alternatives to plastic bags. An
action plan for sustained sensitization campaigns is therefore of essence. The action
plan should be chartered in light of the findings of our present study;
Lengthy prosecution process (81%): As previously indicated the judicial system in
Mauritius and in many countries are quite lengthy. The judgement thus takes time and
it is most probable that a minimum fine is imposed, as has been in a few recent cases;
and
Short moratory period (59%): Although a moratorium period of one year was provided
prior to entry into force of the regulation, respondents felt that the moratorium period
should have been longer so as to better prepare the population in the coming into force
of the regulation.
6 Recommendation and conclusion
The present study investigated whether the recent ban was really successful in prohibiting
the use of plastic bags, and if not, probe the possible reasons for the failure and propose the
remedial measures. Assessing the socio-economic factors and analysing the complexities
of the real situation, are outside the scope of the present study. An in-depth study investigating the above issues would be highly recommended.
Important findings of the study are:
• There was an excessive utilization of plastic bags prior to the ban;
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Was Mauritius really successful in banning plastic carry bags,…
• The Mauritian are yet to develop the ‘bring your own shopping bag culture’;
• The regulation failed to forbid completely the use of plastic bags in Mauritius;
• Majority of the population is aware of the negative impacts of indiscriminate disposal
of plastic bags into the environment;
• Young generation with a higher level of education are more environment conscious and
tend to use fewer plastic bags and often opt for alternative bags;
• Main reasons attributed to the failure were: poor enforcement, insufficient sensitization,
lengthy prosecution process and short moratory period.
In our opinion, complete banning of plastic bags would be made possible in Mauritius,
if the following measures are adopted:
• The whole enforcement system should be reviewed. In addition to Environmental
Police, Environment Officers and Local Authority Inspectors, the whole Police Force
should be instructed to enforce the regulation. (Theoretically, any regulation should be
enforced by the Police Force; however, in practice, environmental police only enforces
the environmental legislations). Frequent surprise checks should be effected to plastic
manufacturing industries and small-scale businesses, to track down illegal manufacture
and trade of plastic bags. These checks should not be limited to office hours, but be
equally conducted during odd hours and during weekends;
• The rigorous enforcement should be accompanied by an aggressive and sustained
sensitization campaign. The citizens should be clearly explained why the use of the
petroleum-based plastic bags is harmful to our health and environment. They should
equally be made aware of the different alternatives that can be used. The use of a range
of social media and public communication platforms should also be explored to widely
spread this information. The school curriculum should equally be reviewed to include
the environmental and health impacts of plastics. Incentives should equally be provided
to develop a culture of ‘bring your own shopping bag’;
• Amendment to the regulation. The present regulation covers the import, manufacture,
sale and distribution. Under this regulation, if someone is not caught buying/selling
or distributing, but is found carrying a plastic bag, is not illegal. Thus, the regulation
should be amended to include even possession as an offence. The fine imposed should
also be increased. A mechanism to shorten the lengthy prosecution process should be
established, for example, instead of going through the normal prosecution process,
these cases should be dealt with by other instances such as Environment Tribunal;
• The price of biodegradable bags should be subsidized by government. In parallel, quality control should be exercised so as to flood the market with good quality biodegradable bags;
• Local production of alternatives to plastic bags encourages the use of locally available
products such as gunny (or jute) bags, Pandanus leaves for manufacture of artisanal
attractive reusable bags and other products. This step will not only provide the obvious
benefits of eliminating the use of plastic bags, but will equally create employment and
promote local artisanal crafts;
• Stricter control at Customs. Under the present Customs regulations, there is a single
coding system for pellets imported for the manufacture of certain listed plastic materials (including pellets for the manufacture of banned plastic bags). It is thus difficult to
distinguish whether the pellets are being imported to manufacture items other than the
banned plastic bags. The coding system should therefore be reviewed. Moreover, LDPE
pellets are used not only to manufacture banned plastic bags, but are equally used to
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
R. K. Foolmaun et al.
manufacture other items such as plastic films and wraps. A stricter control should be
imposed on the manufacture of plastic products (for example, they should provide a
monthly/tri-monthly return of products manufactured) so as to ensure that banned plastic bags are not being manufactured.
Finally, with the increasing availability of biodegradable alternatives to plastic materials
onto the market, it is now possible to eliminate plastics in Mauritius. Two important enabling factors would be: a strong determination and concerted actions of all players in the
field (including government, importers, manufacturers and consumers). A proper strategy
and a roadmap for gradual phase out of plastic materials should be formulated jointly with
all relevant stakeholders for timely execution.
References
Adane, L., & Muleta, D. (2011). Survey on the usage of plastic bags, their disposal and adverse impacts on
environment: A case study in Jimma City, Southwestern Ethiopia. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Sciences, 3(8), 234–248.
Akullian, A., Karp, C., Austin, K. & Durbin, D. (2006). Plastic Bag Externalities and Policy in Rhode
Island - Seattle Bag Tax. Retrieved April 20, 2018, from http://seatt​lebag​tax.org/refer​enced​pdfs/enakull​ianet​al.pdf.
Akwei, I. (2017): Seychelles has banned the importation, sale and commercial use of plastic bags, cups,
plates and cutlery. Retrieved December 26, 2018, from http://www.afric​anews​.com/2017/07/07/seych​
elles​-bans-plast​ic-bags-cups-plate​s-and-cutle​ry/.
Anon (2012). Plastics & The Non-Renewable Component. Retrieved November 21, 2019, from http://green​
ingfo​rward​.org/plast​ics-the-non-renew​able-compo​nent/.
Anon (2017). Free of plastic bags. Retrieved June 1, 2018, from https​://wedoc​s.unep.org/bitst​ream/handl​
e/20.500.11822​/22271​/Our_Plane​t_dec20​17.pdf?seque​nce=1&isAll​owed=y.
Anon (2018). Plastic Bag Consumption Facts. Retrieved April 25, 2018, from https​://conse​rving​now.com/
plast​ic-bag-consu​mptio​n-facts​/.
Anon (2018a). Current world population. Retrieved April, 2018, from http://www.world​omete​rs.info/world​
-popul​ation​/.
Botterell, Z. L. R., Beaumont, N., Dorrington, T., Steinke, M., Thompson, R. C., & Lindeque, P. K. (2019).
Bioavailability and effects of microplastics on marine zooplankton: A review. Environmental Pollution., 245, 98–110. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpo​l.2018.10.065.
Chamilall, D.S., (2009). An assessment of the effectiveness of the regulations to control excessive use of
plastic- carry bags and its impacts on the attitude and behaviour of Mauritian Citizens. M.Sc Thesis,
pp. 148
Clapp, J., & Swanston, L. (2009). Doing away with plastic shopping bags: international patterns of
norm emergence and policy implementation. Environmental Politics, 18(3), 315–332. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/09644​01090​28237​17.
Dikgang, J. & Visser, M. (2010). Behavioral response to plastic bag legislation in Botswana. Environment
for Development, Discussion Paper Series, Resources for the Future, Washington DC, pp. 10–13.
Retrieved April 25, 2018, from http://www.rff.org/files​/share​point​/WorkI​mages​/Downl​oad/EfDDP-10-13.pdf.
Dikgang, J., Leiman, A., & Visser, M. (2012). Analysis of the plastic levy in South Africa. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 66, 56–65.
Foolmaun, R. K., & Ramjeeawon, T. (2008). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of PET bottles and comparative
LCA of three disposal options in Mauritius. International Journal of Environment and Waste Management, 2(1/2), 125–138.
Foolmaun, R. K., Chamilall, D. S., & Munhurrun, G. (2011). Overview of nonhazardous solid waste in the
small island state of Mauritius. Resouruces Conservation and Recycling, 55, 966–972.
Graue, C. & Livingstone, N. (2018). Vanuatu bans non-biodegradable plastic to protect ocean life. Retrieved
December 25, 2018, from https​://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-04/vanua​tu-bans-non-biode​grada​bleplast​ic/93033​48.
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Was Mauritius really successful in banning plastic carry bags,…
Gupta, K. & Somanathan, R. (2011). Consumer Responses To Incentives To Reduce Plastic Bag Use:
Evidence From A Field Experiment In Urban India. Retrieved Febraury 25, 2018, from www.isid.
ac.in/~pu/confe​rence​/dec_11_conf/Paper​s/Kanup​riyaG​upta.pdf.
He, H. (2010). The effects of an environmental policy on consumers: lessons from the Chinese plastic bag
regulation. Sweden: School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg. Retrieved
Febraury 25, 2018, from https​://gupea​.ub.gu.se/bitst​ream/2077/22459​/1/gupea​_2077_22459​_1.pdf.
Joseph, N., Kumar, A., Majgi, S. M., Kumar, G. S., & Prahalad, R. B. Y. (2016). Usage of plastic bags and
health hazards: A study to assess awareness level and perception about legislation among a small population of Mangalore City. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, 10(4), LM01–LM04. https​://
doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/16245​.7529.
Miller, R.M. (2012). Plastic Shopping bag: An Analysis of Policy Instruments for Plastic Bag Reduction.
M.Sc Thesis, pp. 66. Retrieved January 16, 2018, from https​://dspac​e.libra​ry.uu.nl/handl​e/1874/25390​
4.
Muthu, S. S., Li, Y., Hu, J. Y., & Mok, P. Y. (2009). An exploratory comparative study on eco-impact. Journal of Fiber Bioengineering and Informatics., 1(4), P307-320.
Onyanga-Omara, J. (2013). BBC News - Plastic bag backlash gains momentum. Retrieved April 25, 2018
from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24090​603.
Statista, (2020). Mauritius: Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in current prices from 1984 to 2024
(in U.S. dollars). Retrieved April 24, 2020, from https​://www.stati​sta.com/stati​stics​/72901​2/gross​
-domes​tic-produ​ct-gdp-per-capit​a-in-mauri​tius/.
Statistics Mauritius, (2017). Population and vital statistics- 2017. http://stats​mauri​tius.govmu​.org/Engli​sh/
Publi​catio​ns/Pages​/Pop_Vital​_Yr17.aspx
Statistics Mauritius, (2018). Digest of Environment Statistics. Vol 17 of 2020. Retrieved April 24, 2020,
from
http://stats​mauri​tius.govmu​.org/Engli​sh/Stats​bySub​j/Docum​ents/Diges​t/Envir​onmen​t/Diges​t_
Env_Yr18.pdf.
United Nations Environment Programme, (2005). Selection, Design and Implementation of Economic
Instruments in the Solid Waste Management Sector in Kenya- The Case for Plastic Bags. Retrieved
June 1, 2018, from http://wedoc​s.unep.org/handl​e/20.500.11822​/8655.
Waller, J.L. & Health, G., (2012). How to Perform and Interpret Chi-Square and T-Tests. Retrieved March
13, 2018, from http://suppo​rt.sas.com/resou​rces/paper​s/proce​eding​s12/155-2012.pdf.
Wakhungu, J. (2017). Free of plastic bags. How the menace of polythene bags has been handled in Kenya.
Retrieved November 20, 2019, from https​://wedoc​s.unep.org/bitst​ream/handl​e/20.500.11822​/22271​/
Our_Plane​t_dec20​17.pdf?seque​nce=1&isAll​owed=y.
Yang, H & Robert, I. (2006). Incentives and residential waste management in Taiwan: An empirical investigation, Environmental and Resource Economics 37: P 489–519. Retrieved 2 June, 208, from https​://
link.sprin​ger.com/artic​le/https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1064​0-006-9040-0.
Zimmer, L. (2015). Scotland bans plastic bags, spares landfill 650 million bags in just one year. Retrieved
November 9, 2017, from https​://inhab​itat.com/scotl​and-bans-plast​.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
View publication stats