Chapter II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter includes the related literature and studies of the research. It

will support and explain the ideas and terms to further understand the study.

Related Literature

No-Plastic Policy

The Philippines is the world's third largest source of plastic pollution. Single-

use plastic products is a big contributor to pollution. Plastic bags, straws, coffee

stirrers, water bottles, and sachets are just some of the examples of the products

used by Filipinos only once and then thrown away. These materials can remain in

the environment for 2,000 years or more. The bill, Ban on Single-use Plastic

Products, seeks to ban single-use products and to encourage manufacturers and

consumers to use more sustainable and environmental-friendly products.

Providing strong penalties will help in deterring violations and providing for a

phase-out plan and encouraging proper waste disposal, collection, and treatment

will help in the implementation of the law (Castelo, 2018).

There are many impacts of plastic wastes such as the spread of diseases

and negative human health effects. An increase of plastic littering cannot only

affect the local ecosystems but also it may lead to an economic burden. The

negative effects on human health, the environment, and other aspects of society

continue to increase as plastic use and waste increases. Countries around the

world have addressed plastic issues through different approaches ranging from
national bans and policy-making to have an educational awareness programs.

Banning and taxing single- use- plastic is a strategy used to reduce consumption

on a national scale. Over forty nations and cities have banned or taxed the use of

certain kinds of plastic to reduce the negative impacts associated (Ylitalo and

Gerdin, 2009).

There are local governments that have made a “Plastic Free” ordinance to

be followed by their community. There are 15 cities that have the ordinances the

use of plastics. The major problem in implementing this ordinance is the lack of

cooperation of the community people. Plastic wastes, when broken down, can give

a huge impact in the hormone of animals which can eventually affects human too

(Asmuni, 2015).

Plastics

There are various types of plastics and two of the most commonly used are

Polyethylene Terephtalate (PET) and High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE). The

former is used for plastic bottles and other types of plastic containers that are used

for food and beverages. The latter is more opaque and used for shopping bags,

shampoo containers, milk bottles and ice cream containers (Johnson, 2019).

The polymer of plastic bags are Low-density Polyethylene (LDPE). The

world produces 300 million tons of plastic at present. This is equal to the weight of

the whole human population (UN-Environment, 2018).

The world’s production of plastic is estimated 8300 × 106 mt. commonly

used plastics are made with Polyethylene which accounts to 36% of all plastic
types. Polyethylene produces large amounts of greenhouse gasses, namely,

Methane and ethylene, when exposed to solar radiation (Royer et al., 2018).

Environment (Physical and Inhabitants’ Involvement)

A school environment is defined as a school having appropriate facilities,

well-managed classrooms, available school-based health supports, and a clear,

fair disciplinary policy. It sets the stage for the external factors that affect the

students. There are many hallmarks of the academic, disciplinary, and physical

environments of schools with a positive climate (NCSSLE, 2020).

The school environment promote student safety and student health. It may

include aspects such as the physical plant, the academic environment, available

physical and mental health supports and services, and the fairness and

adequacy of disciplinary procedures. These aspects are factors to the health and

safety of the students (Lawrence et al., 2011).

Generally, the environment is covered with 85% human influence. Today,

50% of land area is covered by urban. A rise in the population of an area impacts

the environment in terms of wastes, energy consumption and deforestation

(Sherbinin et al., 2007).

Plastic wastes make serious problem in the environment and the health of

humans and animals. A total of 500 billion plastic bags are used every year,

globally. This mass production of plastic bags, once accumulated, affects the

natural beauty of the environment (Adane and Muleta, 2011).

 The distribution of plastic debris is a result of certain factors such as wind

and ocean currents, urban areas, and trade routes. Human population in certain

areas also plays a large role. These plastics can also be used as vectors for

chemical contaminants such as persistent organic pollutants and heavy metals in

the environment (Proshad et al., 2017).

Sanitation

Managing plastic wastes has an important role on keeping the sanitation of

the environment. Cleanliness guarantees survival and protection to all life forms.

By simply placing wastes to proper bins and waste management regulations could

have a great impact in protecting the environment (Singh and Singh, 2019).

Littered plastic bags are not pleasing too look at and can be hazardous. In

developing countries, littering is a larger problem compared to developed countries

due to the lack of waste management of the former. Various efforts were made to

curb usage of plastics, decrease littering and increase waste management. People

are encourage to use reusable bags or containers (Rohana and Yusuf, 2010).

Zero waste for school is one of the solution for keeping the environment

clean. It is not about disposing plastics in landfills but converting plastics through

reusing and recycling. Instead of managing waste, a community will manage

resources and eliminate waste (Schumpert and Dietz, 2015).

Related Studies

From the study “Survey on the usage of plastic bags, their disposal and

adverse impacts on environment: A case study in Jimma City, Southwestern

Ethiopia,” A semi-structured questionnaire was used to collect data from 230

randomly selected respondents. The results indicated that the larger proportion

(176, 76.52%) of the respondents used plastic bags more frequently than any other

plastic products regardless of their age, occupation, and economic and educational

status. Low price (159, 69.13%) and easy availability (152, 66.08%) were the main

reasons for the widespread utilization of these products. Among the practices used

for disposal of plastic bag wastes, open dumping to surrounding areas (137,

59.56%) was a practice widely used by almost all the residents of the city. Some

of the major problems were animal death (167, 72.60%), blockage of sewage lines

(162, 70.43%), deterioration of natural beauty of an environment (144, 62.60%)

and human health problems (119, 51.73%). The findings of the present study also

indicated that the trend of utilization of plastic bags is increasing from time to time

in spite of a good deal of awareness of the residents about the adverse effects of

these products. In order to reduce the problems associated with plastic bag

wastes, it is recommended to educate the public (1) not to use plastic bags, and

(2) to use eco-friendly alternative materials (bags) made from clothes, natural

fibers and paper. City level legislation is also highly recommended against

indiscriminate use and disposal of plastic bag wastes as well as to end free

distribution of plastic bags by retailers (Adane and Muleta, 2011).

 The research entitled “Effectiveness of the Implementation of Anti-Plastic

Ordinance” aims to assess the level of implementation of the Anti-Plastic

Ordinance. It used the descriptive type of research and utilized 120 respondents

composed of vendors, households, students and implementers of the ordinance.

The study revealed that the anti-plastic ordinance is effectively implemented,

cooperation amongst community members is the major problem, and profile

variables including age, civil status and respondent’s category affect the effective

implementation of the ordinance. To alleviate problems involved in the

implementation, an improvement plan was proposed by the researchers. The

future researchers may conduct study focusing on other variables or areas of

interest in environmental sanitation (Marcial et al., 2016).

According to the study, “The Influence of Plastic Bag Bans on Pro-

Environmental Behaviors in Rhode Island Coastal Communities,” to mitigate

plastic pollution, environmental policies are implemented to reduce the availability

of single-use plastic products to the consumer. This research looks explicitly at

single-use plastic bag policies to see if implemented plastic bag ban promote pro-

environmental behaviors and broader support for plastic bag policies. This study

sampled two communities in Rhode Island, one with a single-use plastic bag ban,

Middletown, and one without a single-use plastic bag ban, Warwick, performing

face-to-face surveys with 50 individuals in each community (N = 100). The findings

do not show support of a behavioral spillover effect; however, people living in the

town with the implemented plastic bag ban used reusable bags more frequently

than individuals in Warwick and showed greater support for a statewide plastic bag
policy. In addition, age, gender, and environmental worldview (NEP) were

predictors for some pro-environmental behaviors. In all, plastic bag polices could

have broader implications for supporting similar and different environmental

policies moving forward (Touhey, 2019).

From the study, “No plastic bag campaign day in Malaysia and the policy

Implication”, the weekly No Plastic Bag Campaign Day comprises of an added

charge of MYR 0.20 (USD 0.06) per plastic bag in supermarkets and grocery

stores. The objective is to reduce plastic bag consumption and save the

environment. However, the campaign has provoked a range of reactions from the

public including consumers, policy makers, environmentalists and the plastic

industry. Considering consumers as the major consequence, this paper evaluates

the impact of the campaign on consumer awareness, knowledge, attitude and

behavior and discusses and explores the various implications of the policy. The

study gathers a questionnaire survey from 262 households in the State of Johor

and employs a semi-structured interview with the relevant stakeholders. A

descriptive statistical analysis as well as T test and correlations analysis has been

performed using the Statistical Software for Social Science. The T test analysis

explains the complex relationship between attitude and behavior. Consumers are

more supportive of the plastic bag ban in the supermarkets but not its extension to

other types of public markets. The study records the consumers’ behavior-

changing process in the three types of anti-consumer behavior, listed as (1) fully

anti-consumption (67 %), (2) partial anti-consumption (33 %) and (3) no anti-

consumption this last group comprising of those who resent and dissatisfy of the
No Plastic Bag Campaign. The first type of fully anti-consumption behavior reveals

the potential of reusable shopping bag practice to be implemented coupled with

the educational Bring Your Own Shopping Bag campaign. The plastic bag levy in

Malaysia can be seen as part of the government effort to create a sustainable

consumption society; however, it needs a support from the regulatory or legislative

framework that will provide clear guidelines and mechanisms for consumers, the

retailers, supermarkets and the plastic industry. The implications of plastic bag

usage for garbage bin liners as part of the basic requirement of the solid waste

management reveal the urgency to look at the plastic bag levy from the solid waste

management perspective. The regulatory or legislative framework that will provide

clear guidelines and mechanisms for consumers, the retailers, supermarkets and

the plastic industry may be needed. Though the campaign may not achieve the

objective yet to reduce the plastic bag consumption due to the increase in garbage

bin liner usage, the research reveals the urgency to look at the plastic bag levy

from the solid waste management perspective. The enactment of the Solid Waste

and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 (Act 672) needs to support the anti-

littering regulations mostly associated with the implementation of the plastic bag

levy instead of encouraging more usage (Zen et al., 2013).

The research entitled “Student Attitude and Action Regarding the Single-

use Plastic Shopping Bag on the University of Alabama Campus,” explores

discrepancies between attitudes and behaviors of students on the University of

Alabama campus regarding the single-use plastic shopping bag. A survey was

developed and administered to 162 students on campus to assess attitudes and

behaviors related to plastic bags, reusable shopping bags, and related human-

environmental issues. Research focused on worldwide approaches to problems

associated with the single-use plastic bag, consumer and environmental

perceptions related to the topic, attitude and behaviors toward plastic bags and

recycling, the climate of sustainability at the University of Alabama, and human-

environmental impacts of the plastic bag. The research background in conjunction

with the data collected indicated these findings. First, students’ dominant attitude

toward single-use plastic bags is not consistent with dominant behavior or how

they use plastic bags, and present stimuli in many retail environments are strong

enough that students generally use plastic bags despite conflicting attitudes.

Second, though surveyed students are aware of problems associated with the

plastic bag, these items are a valued part of some students’ shopping experiences.

Finally, a store discount for using reusable bags when checking out may be the

best stimulus to derive consistency between student attitude and student behavior

regarding single-use plastic shopping bags at the University of Alabama. The

proposed plan developed specifically for The University according to data findings,

included methods for increasing both recycling rates for plastic bags and use of

the reusable shopping bags on and around the campus (Miller, 2011).
Definition of Terms

Environment - Conceptually, it refers to the complex of physical, chemical,

and biotic factors that act upon an organization or an ecological community

and ultimately determine its form and survival (Bhutia, 2016). Operationally,

this is the surroundings of Notre Dame-Siena College which became the

concern while implementing the policy.

Inhabitants - Conceptually, it refers to a motivational state influenced by

perceptions of the object’s relevance based on inherent needs, values and

interest (Habibi et al., 2016). Operationally, this refers to the personnel and

teachers inhabiting the campus for the school year 2019-2020.

Involvement - Conceptually, it refers to the act or process of taking part in

something (Cambridge, 2020). Operationally, this is the part that the

students and personnel are taking to mitigate the plastic wastes in the

campus.

No-Plastic Policy - Conceptually, no plastic policy or plastic ban refers to

banning single-use plastic such as plastic drinking bottles, plastic grocery

bags plastic sachets, straws or plastic wrappers that are used only once

and thrown away after (Sharma, 2019). Operationally, this refers to the

policy implemented at ND-SCGSC to lessen the plastic wastes littered in

the campus.

Physical - Conceptually, it refers to the existing as or connected with things

that can be seen or touched (Cambridge, 2020). Operationally, this refers

to the surroundings of the campus such as the facilities and natural

environment.

Plastic - Conceptually, it refers to the material made of polyethylene that

can be molded into shapes (Royer et al., 2018).Operationally, these are the

single-use plastic wastes that are used by students. Typically, these plastics

are plastic bottles, plastic cups, candy wrappers and plastic bags.

Operationally, this where the “no-plastic policy” is implemented and the

research is conducted.

Sanitation - Conceptually, it refers to the safe management of solid waste

and animal waste (WHO, 2018). Operationally, this is the cleanliness of the

school campus with less to zero plastic waste.

 Independent Variable Dependent Variable

1. No Plastic Policy 2. Sanitation

3. Environment
a. Physical
b. Inhabitants’
Involvement

Figure 1

Paradigm of the Theoretical Framework