4.6 Article

How successful are waste abatement campaigns and government policies at reducing plastic waste into the marine environment?

期刊

MARINE POLICY
卷 96, 期 -, 页码 243-249

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.037

关键词

Abatement campaigns; Litter; Policy; Local government; Waste effectiveness

资金

  1. NESP Marine Biodiversity Hub
  2. Oceans and Atmosphere, CSIRO, Tasmania, Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plastic production is increasing globally and in turn there is a rise of plastic waste lost into the coastal and marine environment. To combat this issue, there is an increase in policies that target specific types of plastic waste (such as microbeads and plastic shopping bags). Given that such anthropogenic waste have environmental impacts, reduce the tourism income of an area and result in human health issues, identifying effective abatement policies is imperative to reducing waste and litter before it enters the ocean. Within Australia, state and local governments employ a plethora of policies, campaigns and strategies to target abatement and reduce litter and waste inputs to the environment. Waste managers were interviewed from 40 local councils around Australia on waste abatement strategies and investments implemented in their council. Generalised linear models (GLMs) were used to compare outreach programs (such as 'Don't be a Tosser', Clean Up Australia and Bin your Butts cigarette campaign) and state-enacted policies (e.g. Plastic Shopping Bag Ban, Zero Waste Strategy and Recycling Strategy) aimed at targeting human behaviour to reduce waste. Investments in campaigns led to larger reductions of waste in the environment than did investment in policies. Illegal dumping, litter prevention, recycling, education and Clean Up Australia programs all significantly reduced waste along a council's coastline. Additionally, councils that invested in a coastal waste management budget had fewer littered or waste items on the coastline within their jurisdictions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据