IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i17p10887-d903281.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Preference for Attributes of Single-Use and Multi-Use Plastic Shopping Bags in Cape Town: A Choice Experiment Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Victor Virimai Mugobo

    (Department of Retail Business Management, Faculty of Business and Management Sciences, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town 7530, South Africa)

  • Herbert Ntuli

    (Department of Retail Business Management, Faculty of Business and Management Sciences, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town 7530, South Africa)

Abstract

Single-use plastic bags are increasingly becoming unpopular across the globe due to growing concerns over plastic pollution, which is threatening both terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Creating policy interventions to reduce plastic consumption requires objective information about local conditions. This study uses a choice experiment to elicit consumer preference for attributes of shopping bags from a sample of 250 consumers in Cape Town. Following the literature, we estimate the conditional logit model and the mix logit model and perform appropriate tests to establish a model which fits our data. Our results show that consumers in Cape Town prefer small and medium-sized bags relative to the status quo. They also care about durability, reusability, style, and recyclability of shopping bags. The highest willingness to pay is associated with a medium-sized shopping bag (R3.76), followed by a shopping bag that is reusable (R3.35), then a shopping bag that is styled (R2.16), then a small-sized shopping bag (R1.74), then a durable shopping bag (R1.50) and finally a recyclable shopping bag (R1.25). By aggregation, the willingness to pay of a small-sized shopping bag that is recyclable is R2.99 which is equivalent to the maximum price that the respondent is offering for a single-use plastic bag (R2.92). The willingness to pay of a medium-sized and reusable shopping bag is R7.11 per unit which is at least as high as the minimum price that respondents would consider for alternative packaging (R7.37). Finally, taking into consideration all the important attributes, we arrive at a willingness to pay ranging from R9.99 to R12.01 per bag for a small and medium shopping bag, respectively. Our results call for a combination of policy instruments such as a subsidy on expensive durable and reusable shopping bags to increase demand while at the same time increasing the levy on single-use plastic bags to reduce demand. More effort is needed to increase appreciation and perception of recyclable products.

Suggested Citation

  • Victor Virimai Mugobo & Herbert Ntuli, 2022. "Consumer Preference for Attributes of Single-Use and Multi-Use Plastic Shopping Bags in Cape Town: A Choice Experiment Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-25, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:17:p:10887-:d:903281
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/17/10887/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/17/10887/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Wiktor Budziński & Danny Campbell & Marek Giergiczny & Nick Hanley, 2017. "Spatial Heterogeneity of Willingness to Pay for Forest Management," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 705-727, November.
    2. Hanemann, W Michael, 1984. "Discrete-Continuous Models of Consumer Demand," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(3), pages 541-561, May.
    3. Klaiman, Kimberly & Ortega, David L. & Garnache, Cloé, 2016. "Consumer preferences and demand for packaging material and recyclability," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 1-8.
    4. Joshua K Abbott & U Rashid Sumaila, 2019. "Reducing Marine Plastic Pollution: Policy Insights from Economics," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(2), pages 327-336.
    5. Balint Horvath & Edmund Mallinguh & Csaba Fogarassy, 2018. "Designing Business Solutions for Plastic Waste Management to Enhance Circular Transitions in Kenya," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-20, May.
    6. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    7. Vossler, Christian A. & Watson, Sharon B., 2013. "Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 137-147.
    8. William H. Greene, 1997. "FIML Estimation of Sample Selection Models for Count Data," Working Papers 97-02, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    9. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    10. Stephane Hess & John Rose, 2009. "Should Reference Alternatives in Pivot Design SC Surveys be Treated Differently?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(3), pages 297-317, March.
    11. Amy Weimann & Tolu Oni, 2019. "A Systematised Review of the Health Impact of Urban Informal Settlements and Implications for Upgrading Interventions in South Africa, a Rapidly Urbanising Middle-Income Country," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-17, September.
    12. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, January.
    13. Virimai Victor Mugobo & Herbert Ntuli & Chux Gervase Iwu, 2022. "Consumer Perceptions of the Use of Nondegradable Plastic Packaging and Environmental Pollution: A Review of Theories and Empirical Literature," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-17, May.
    14. Ntuli, Herbert & Muchapondwa, Edwin & Okumu, Boscow, 2020. "Can local communities afford full control over wildlife conservation? The case of Zimbabwe," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    15. Md. Abdul Jalil & Md. Nannu Mian & Muhammad Khalilur Rahman, 2013. "Using Plastic Bags and Its Damaging Impact on Environment and Agriculture: An Alternative Proposal," International Journal of Learning and Development, Macrothink Institute, vol. 3(4), pages 1-14, August.
    16. Contu, Davide & Mourato, Susana, 2020. "Complementing choice experiment with contingent valuation data: Individual preferences and views towards IV generation nuclear energy in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    17. Gheorghe Orzan & Anca Francisca Cruceru & Cristina Teodora Bălăceanu & Raluca-Giorgiana Chivu, 2018. "Consumers’ Behavior Concerning Sustainable Packaging: An Exploratory Study on Romanian Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-11, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cherry C. I. Lau & Christina W. Y. Wong, 2024. "Achieving sustainable development with sustainable packaging: A natural‐resource‐based view perspective," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(5), pages 4766-4787, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    3. Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr & Pascual, Unai & Etxano, Iker, 2012. "Valuing a Natura 2000 network site to inform land use options using a discrete choice experiment: An illustration from the Basque Country," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 329-344.
    4. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    5. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    6. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    7. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    8. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    9. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    10. del Saz Salazar, Salvador & Hernandez Sancho, Francesc & Sala Garrido, Ramon, 2009. "Estimación del valor económico de la calidad del agua de un río mediante una doble aproximación: una aplicación de los principios económicos de la Directiva Marco del Agua," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(01), pages 1-27.
    11. Alemu I, Jahson Berhane & Schuhmann, Peter & Agard, John, 2019. "Mixed preferences for lionfish encounters on reefs in Tobago: Results from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.
    12. Djiby Racine Thiam & Ariel Dinar & Hebert Ntuli, 2021. "Promotion of residential water conservation measures in South Africa: the role of water-saving equipment," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 23(1), pages 173-210, January.
    13. Álvarez-Farizo, Begoña & Gil, José M. & Howard, B.J., 2009. "Impacts from restoration strategies: Assessment through valuation workshops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 787-797, January.
    14. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    15. Balaine, Lorraine & Gallai, Nicola & Del Corso, Jean-Pierre & Kephaliacos, Charilaos, 2020. "Trading off environmental goods for compensations: Insights from traditional and deliberative valuation methods in the Ecuadorian Amazon," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    16. Gebreegziabher, Z. & Mekonnen, A. & Beyene, A.D. & Hagos, F., 2018. "Valuation of access to irrigation water in rural Ethiopia: application of choice experiment and contingent valuation methods," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277168, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.
    18. Aguilar, Francisco X., 2009. "Investment preferences for wood-based energy initiatives in the US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2292-2299, June.
    19. Ponce Oliva, Roberto D. & Vasquez-Lavín, Felipe & San Martin, Valeska A. & Hernández, José Ignacio & Vargas, Cristian A. & Gonzalez, Pablo S. & Gelcich, Stefan, 2019. "Ocean Acidification, Consumers' Preferences, and Market Adaptation Strategies in the Mussel Aquaculture Industry," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 42-50.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:17:p:10887-:d:903281. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.