Resources, Conservation & Recycling 154 (2020) 104638

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Full length article

Plastic bag bans: Lessons from the Australian Capital Territory T

Andrew Macintosh*, Amelia Simpson, Teresa Neeman, Kirilly Dickson
The Australian National University, Australia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Bans on single-use plastic shopping bags are amongst the most popular policy interventions taken by govern-
Plastic bags ments to address the harms associated with plastics. Yet, there are few published studies on their effectiveness
Plastic pollution and durability. This article addresses this gap, presenting the results of a study on the impacts of a ban on single-
Plastic bag bans use plastic bags introduced in the Australian Capital Territory in 2011. The study assessed whether the ban has
Effectiveness of bag bans
reduced plastic bag consumption and litter, and whether community support for the ban was sustainable. The
results suggests the ban has not been overly effective in reducing plastic bag consumption or litter. Over the
almost seven-year study period, between 2011 and 2018, the ban reduced consumption of single-use conven-
tional polyethylene bags by ∼2600 tonnes. However, these reductions were largely offset by increases in the
consumption of other bags. The net effect of the ban on plastic consumption over the period was relatively
minor; a 275 t reduction. Notwithstanding this, the ban is widely supported. When it was first introduced, 58 %
of the community supported the ban. By 2018, this had increased to 68 %. The article explores the implications
of the results and the need for better information on plastic bag consumption.

1. Introduction Programme (UNEA, 2018).

In the space of 70 years, plastics have gone from relative obscurity
to the most ubiquitous material ever created by humanity. In 1950,
global plastic production was only 1.5 million tonnes (Mt) per year.
Within four decades, production had passed 100 Mt per annum and, in
2016, it was 335 Mt yr−1 (Plastics Europe, 2017). Today, plastics are a
constant companion in modern life, being found in thousands of dif-
ferent products, from phones, cars and planes to bags, straws and food
packaging.
The success of plastics is a testament to their utility (Andrady and
Neal, 2009). They are versatile, cheap, lightweight and, in many forms,
durable (Macintosh et al., 2018). While useful, plastics can have ad-
verse environmental impacts. Amongst other things, they are a major
source of litter, cause damage to marine animals and birds through
ingestion and entanglement, and can absorb and redistribute other
pollutants in the environment (Teuten et al., 2009; Rochman et al.,
2012; Eriksen et al., 2014; Hardesty et al., 2014; Gall and Thompson,
2015; Thompson, 2017). Concern about these and other forms of plastic
pollution has led to calls for restrictions on the production and use of
different types of plastics, including plastic shopping bags (Thompson
et al., 2009; Rochman et al., 2013; United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP, 2014; World Economic Forum (WEF, 2016; United
Nations Environment Assembly of the United Nations Environment
Policy measures to reduce the use of plastic shopping bags have
been introduced in approximately 90 countries at national, provincial
and/or municipal levels (Xanthos and Walker, 2017; Steensgaard et al.,
2017; Schnurr et al., 2018; Nielson et al., 2019). These measures
usually target lightweight single-use plastic bags made of high or low
density polyethylene (HDPE and LDPE bags). The two most popular
policy responses have been:
• bans on single-use shopping plastic bags, which typically prohibit
the sale and distribution of non-biodegradable or all plastic bags
that do not satisfy a minimum thickness threshold; and
• levies or taxes, which are typically charged on a per bag basis or the
mass of the bags (Convery et al., 2007; Hasson et al., 2007; Dikgang
et al., 2012; Rivers et al., 2017; Xanthos and Walker, 2017;
Steensgaard et al., 2017; Schnurr et al., 2018; Nielson et al., 2019).
A number of jurisdictions, including China, South Africa, Kenya,
Botswana and Mozambique, have used a combination of bans and levies
(Hasson et al., 2007; Zho, 2011; Dikgang et al., 2012; Nielson et al.,
2019). A small number of jurisdictions have also prohibited the dis-
tribution of plastic bags without charge or imposed mandatory
minimum bag charges (Xanthos and Walker, 2017; Steensgaard et al.,
2017).

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: andrew.macintosh@anu.edu.au (A. Macintosh).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104638
Received 5 February 2019; Received in revised form 6 December 2019; Accepted 6 December 2019
0921-3449/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A. Macintosh, et al.
In Australia, attempts to curb the use of single-use plastic shopping
bags began in 2003, when the Environment Protection and Heritage
Council (EPHC)—a now defunct body comprised of environment min-
isters from Australia and New Zealand—signalled an intention to phase
out lightweight bags by 2008 and endorsed an industry voluntary code
of practice to reduce single-use plastic bag consumption. While the
voluntary code was reasonably successful, it was abandoned in late
2005 in anticipation of an agreement between Australian governments
on a nationally-consistent approach to plastic bag regulation
(Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC, 2005; 2006;
2008).
When the federal government and the governments of Australia’s
eight self-governing states and territories were unable to reach agree-
ment on a national approach, the four smallest jurisdictions—South
Australia, the Northern Territory (NT), the Australian Capital Territory
(ACT) and Tasmania—introduced their own measures. South Australia
was the first to move, passing legislation in 2008 that, from May 2009,
banned the sale and distribution of plastic shopping bags of less than 35
microns (μm) except biodegradable bags and bags that are an integral
part of the packaging in which goods are sealed prior to sale. The South
Australian legislation provided the format for the bans that were in-
troduced over the following four years in the NT (in September 2011),
ACT (November 2011) and Tasmania (November 2013). Five years
later, in July 2018, two of the larger Australian jurisdictions,
Queensland and Western Australia, banned lightweight plastic shop-
ping bags, while also extending the ban to include biodegradable and
compostable bags. At the time of writing, Victoria was in the process of
introducing a similar law, which was scheduled to commence in
November 2019. By late 2019, the only jurisdiction without a ban is
likely to be New South Wales, Australia’s most populous state.
The ACT’s plastic bag ban has been politically contentious, with
various stakeholders questioning the ban’s environmental effectiveness.
In the political arena, the main opposition party has repeatedly sug-
gested it is purely a symbolic measure designed to appease environ-
mental constituencies (Hanson, 2013a, 2013b; 2014; Smyth, 2013; Lee,
2017). Aside from the questions about its true purpose, the primary
technical question concerning its effectiveness has been the extent to
which the banning of < 35 μm bags has resulted in the substitution of
other types of plastics bags, particularly conventional plastic bags ≥35
μm, biodegradable shopping bags and bin liners, without any associated
behavioural change concerning reuse. In the worst case, banning single-
use plastic bags could result in an increase in plastic consumption and
an increase in more durable bags in the litter stream. A further issue of
importance is the durability of community support for the ban. With the
political opposition to the ban and its potential adverse effects on
household budgets, there has been a question about whether commu-
nity support for the efforts to reduce plastic bag consumption is sus-
tainable.
The existing academic literature on the environmental effectiveness
and political durability of plastic bag policies is limited and largely
confined to the impacts of levies and taxes (Convery et al., 2007;
Hasson et al., 2007; Dikgang et al., 2012; Poortinga et al., 2016; Rivers
et al., 2017; Martinho et al., 2017). We were unable to find any research
in the academic literature on the efficacy of plastic bag bans. This is
surprising, both because of the explosion of interest in plastic pollution
over the past decade and the fact at least 65 countries now have plastic
bag bans at national or sub-national levels (Xanthos and Walker, 2017;
Nielson et al., 2019).
This article addresses this gap in the literature. It presents the results
of a study on the effectiveness of the ACT plastic bag ban that evaluated
its impact on plastic consumption and litter and the durability of
community support.1 The remainder of the article is set out as follows.
1 4
The study involved an update of a review originally undertaken for the ACT
Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment in 2018 (Macintosh et al.,
2
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 154 (2020) 104638
Section 2 provides contextual information on the ACT and its plastic
bag ban. Section 3 details the method used to evaluate the ban’s im-
pacts on consumption and litter, and the level of community support.
Section 4 presents the results, Section 5 discusses the implications and
Section 6 provides conclusions.
2. Policy context on the ACT and its plastic bag ban
2.1. Background on the ACT
The ACT is Australia’s federal district, containing the national ca-
pital (Canberra), federal parliament and a significant proportion of the
federal executive and judiciary. The Territory gained self-government
in 1988. Since then, the laws of the Territory have been made by the
ACT Legislative Assembly. The centre-left Australian Labor Party has
held government in the Territory for the past 18 years, at times in
coalition with the Australian Greens (a minor progressive party). The
primary opposition party is the centre-right Liberal Party of Australia,
which held office from 1995 to 2001.
The ACT is a small jurisdiction by Australian standards, with a land
area of only 2358 km2 and a population in 2018 of almost 420,000
(Geoscience Australia, 2018; Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS,
2018a). The Territory is landlocked and surrounded on all sides by the
State of New South Wales. The population of the ACT is, by Australian
and international standards, wealthy and highly educated (Australian
Bureau of Statistics (ABS, 2018b).
2.2. The ACT plastic bag ban
The stated purpose of the Plastic Shopping Bags Ban Act 2010 (ACT)
is to reduce the use of plastic bags and their impacts on the environment
(ACT Government, 2010). To do this, the Act prohibits retailers from
supplying ‘plastic shopping bags’, which are defined as either (i) a bag
made from polyethylene with a thickness of < 35 μm or (ii) any other
bag so designated in regulations made under the Act, with the exception
of biodegradable bags, integrated packaging and barrier bags.2 Biode-
gradable bags are defined for these purposes as plastic bags that meet
the Australian Standard for plastic bags that are able to be composted in
commercial composting systems (i.e. bags that decompose at rates
comparable with other compostable materials through the action of
microorganisms under prescribed commercial composting conditions).3
Supplying a plastic shopping bag in contravention of the Act is an of-
fence, carrying fines of up to AU$37,500 (˜US$26,000).4
2.3. Statutory reviews of the effectiveness of the ACT bag ban
Under the bag ban Act, the ACT Government was required to review
the operation of the ban within two years of its commencement. An
interim review was published in November 2012 (Directorate of
Environment and Sustainable Development (DESD, 2012), with the
final statutory review published in April 2014 (Directorate of
Environment and Sustainable Development (DESD, 2014). Both the
interim and final reviews found the ban had reduced plastic bag con-
sumption. However, they suffered from a common methodological flaw:
the failure to evaluate the effectiveness of the ban against a robust
counterfactual scenario (Ferrero, 2009).
(footnote continued)
2018). Data from the review were used in the study with the consent of the
Commissioner, as well as new data collected after the review’s completion.
2
Plastic Shopping Bag Ban Act, 2010 (ACT), s 6(a).
3
Australian Standard AS 4736-2006: Biodegradable plastics-Biodegradable
plastics suitable for composting and other microbial treatment.
Legislation Act 2011 (ACT), s 133(2). On 22 October 2019, AU$1 was buying
US$0.6876 (Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA, 2019).
A. Macintosh, et al.
Ideally, to assess the environmental effectiveness of the ban, the
observed consumption of plastic bags and their environmental impacts
should be compared to the patterns of use and impacts that would have
occurred if the ban had not been introduced. While counterfactual
analysis is best practice, it is complex and requires the analysis of the
variables that influence plastic bag use and management. The difficulty
in devising robust counterfactuals often results in the use of a ‘simple
difference’ approach, where effectiveness is judged on the basis of
plastic bag consumption and impacts before and after the policy in-
tervention. The 2012 and 2014 reviews both used a simple difference
approach. This is not unique. Other published reviews of plastic bag
policies have relied on similar before and after comparisons, a point
noted by Rivers et al. (2017).
3. Method
3.1. Environmental effectiveness of the ACT plastic bag ban
The environmental effectiveness analysis had two components:
• an assessment of the impact of the ban on the consumption of re-
levant types of plastic bags; and
• an assessment of the impact of the ban on the presence of plastic
bags in the ACT litter stream.
3.1.1. Plastic bag consumption
Prior to the introduction of the ban, there were four main types of
plastic shopping bags distributed in the ACT: conventional single-use
HDPE bags; reusable LDPE bags; reusable polypropylene bags; and
barrier bags (Directorate of Environment and Sustainable Development
(DESD, 2014). The conventional single-use HDPE bags were the
dominant form of carry bags and were provided free of charge by major
supermarkets. These bags weigh ∼5.4 g and are ∼15 μm thick.5 In
some households they were reused as garbage bags, although the extent
of this practice is unknown (Directorate of Environment and
Sustainable Development (DESD, 2014).
The introduction of the ban prompted the major supermarkets to
stop providing free carry bags and begin selling reusable LDPE and/or
polypropylene bags, for ∼AU$0.15 and AU$1 respectively.6 Many
smaller supermarkets responded by offering ‘just legal’ 35 μm conven-
tional HDPE bags, either without charge or at a small AU$0.10–15 fee.
A small proportion of stores also started offering biodegradable 15 μm
single-use HDPE bags for AU$0.05 or free.7
Reflecting the usage patterns of plastic bags, seven types of bags
were covered in the analysis: single-use conventional HDPE, single-use
biodegradable HDPE, reusable conventional HDPE, reusable conven-
tional LDPE, reusable polypropylene, household garbage bags and
barrier bags (Table 1).
The analysis of the impact of the ban on the consumption of plastic
bags was undertaken in two stages: (a) estimation of the consumption of
relevant bags types; and (b) scenario analysis to estimate the impact of
the ban on consumption.
3.1.1.1. Estimation of consumption of plastic bags in the ACT. Despite the
degree of public interest in plastic shopping bags and the regulatory
measures put in place to reduce their use, there are little publicly
available data on their consumption and disposal, either in the ACT or
5 Aldi stores in the ACT, spread across the five divisions. Two Woolworth
Derived from a sample of single-use HDPE bags from New South Wales,
where they are still provided free of charge. The results are consistent with
O’Farrell (2018).
6
Data derived from observations at 20 out of 39 large supermarkets in the
ACT.
7
Data derived from interviews with 24 smaller supermarket and Asian gro-
cery stores in the ACT, out of an estimated 63.
3
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 154 (2020) 104638
any part of Australia (Marsden Jacob Associates, 2016; Hardesty et al.,
2016). This is partly due to the fact most plastic bags used in Australia
are now imported, particularly from China, Thailand and Malaysia
(Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS, 2018c). In the early 2000s,
domestic manufacturers accounted for over 30 % of the local HDPE
shopping bag market (Hyder Consulting, 2008). Now almost all retail
shopping bags, with the exception of a small proportion of reusable
LDPE bags, are imported.8
The heavy reliance on imported bags means the primary source of
public data on national consumption patterns is the Australian Customs
Service, which collects data on imports under seven harmonised tariff
item statistical classification codes (Australian Bureau of Statistics
(ABS, 2018c). While useful for various purposes, these data are not
sufficiently disaggregated to enable the accurate estimation of plastic
bag consumption by bag type. The Australian Customs Service also does
not track the internal distribution of bags entering Australia.
Owing to the problems with the import data, major bag importers,
major retailers and a sample of smaller supermarkets and grocery stores
in the ACT were asked to provide data on plastic bag sales and dis-
tribution. Only some were willing to assist. Due to this, two surveys
were undertaken to devise a robust estimate of plastic bag consumption
in the ACT:
• a supermarket consumer survey, which sought information from
consumers at major supermarkets on household consumption and
use of reusable conventional LDPE bags, reusable polypropylene
bags, household garbage bags and barrier bags; and
• a retailer HDPE bag survey, which sought information from small
supermarkets, grocers and other retailers on the sale and distribu-
tion of reusable conventional 35 μm HDPE bags and single-use
biodegradable < 35 μm HDPE bags.
3.1.1.1.1. Supermarket consumer survey. The supermarket consumer
survey was undertaken over 7–15 April 2018 using a cluster sampling
method, where surveys were undertaken at selected major
supermarkets. The survey asked shoppers four questions about
household plastic bag consumption and use.
1 [While holding up a reusable conventional LDPE bag] This is known
as a boutique plastic bag. Over the past month, how many boutique
plastic bags do you think your household purchased or took from
shops, including department stores?
2 [While holding up a reusable polypropylene bag] This is known as a
polypropylene or green bag. Over the past 12 months, how many of
these bags do you think your household has purchased?
3 On average, how many plastic household garbage bags does your
household use in a week?
4 [While holding up a barrier bag] This is a known as a barrier bag. In
the last week, how many plastic barrier bags do you think your
household took from grocery stores, including supermarkets and
fresh food markets?
Over the research period, there were three major supermarket
chains that operated in the ACT: Woolworths, Coles and Aldi. In 2018,
the three had almost 80 % of the national grocery market and are likely
to have held a similar or higher share of the ACT market (IBISWorld,
2018). Shoppers were surveyed at randomly selected Woolworths,
Coles and Aldi stores. To select the stores, the ACT was stratified into its
five electoral divisions: Kurrajong, Ginninderra, Yerrabi, Murrambidgee
and Brindabella. In 2018, there were 18 Woolworths, 12 Coles and 9
stores, 1 Coles and 1 Aldi were randomly selected from each district
8
In interviews conducted over March and May 2018, anonymous industry
sources indicated local manufacturers account for a maximum of between 2%
and 5% of the reusable LDPE shopping bag market. See also O’Farrell (2018).
A. Macintosh, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 154 (2020) 104638

Table 1
Types of plastic bags covered in the analysis.
Source: Author measurements derived from a sample of bags from ACT supermarkets, grocery stores and retailers.
Bag type Legal status Description

Single-use conventional HDPE bags
Single-use biodegradable HDPE bags
Reusable conventional HDPE bags
Reusable conventional LDPE bags
Reusable polypropylene bags
Household garbage bags
Barrier bags
Banned Typically grey or white singlet type plastic bags made of HDPE that are < 35 μm thick and weigh ∼5.4 g.
Legal Singlet type plastic bags made of biodegradable plastic (AS 4736-2006 compliant) that weigh ∼5.4 g.
Legal White singlet type plastic bags made of HDPE that are 35 μm thick and weigh ∼14.2 g.
Legal Thicker carry bags (∼40−60 μm) made of LDPE that weigh ∼25−50 g. Often called ‘boutique bags’.
Legal Non-woven polypropylene bags (‘green bags’) with a plastic base that weigh ∼100 g (∼70 g without the plastic base).
Legal Household garbage bags made of either HDPE or LDPE that range in size from 12−15 L kitchen tidy bags, 35-50 L bin liners
to 75-80 L rubbish bags. Assumed mean weight of ∼15 g.
Legal Also known as single-use produce bags, barrier bags are made of either HDPE or LDPE and weigh ∼2.5 g. They are
commonly used to package and carry fresh produce.

Table 2
Supermarket consumer survey – respondents, by electorate division and weekday/weekend.
Kurrajong Ginninderra Yerrabi Murrum-bidgee Brindabella ACT total

Weekend 103 134 157 79 200 673

Weekday 46 99 77 78 52 352
Total 149 233 234 157 252 1025

using a random number generator.
The surveys were undertaken at each selected store on the weekend
and during a weekday. There were three stores where surveying was
not able to be undertaken on both a weekday and the weekend (i.e. they
were surveyed once only). Shoppers were selected using a systematic
method to eliminate bias in selection. This involved researchers
choosing a physical starting point at the supermarket and approaching
the first shopper who left a designated checkout area after the com-
mencement of the survey. If they agreed to participate and were eli-
gible, the researcher completed the survey and then returned to the
start point. If the shopper do not agree to participate or was ineligible,
the researcher returned to the start point and, once there, approached
the first shopper identified leaving the designated checkout area.
Depending on store size and layout, the checkout areas were stratified
into groups, including self-serve areas, to help eliminate bias. There
were 1025 respondents to the survey (Table 2).
3.1.1.1.2. Retailer survey. The only plastic carry bags offered by
major supermarket chains in 2018 in the ACT were reusable
conventional LDPE bags and reusable polypropylene bags. They did
not sell or distribute reusable conventional HDPE bags or single-use
biodegradable HDPE bags. These bag types were only offered by smaller
supermarkets, grocers and other retailers. The retailer survey was
designed to capture data on the use of these bag types from these
retailers.
To do this, the ACT retailer population was stratified into six shop
types: small supermarkets; Asian grocery stores; fruit and vegetable
stores; butchers and poultry stores; fishmongers;9 and other retailers.
The shop types were designed to capture the major distributors of
conventional and biodegradable HDPE carry bags. Using online and
physical searches, a database of stores in the ACT in the first five shop
types (i.e. excluding ‘other retailers’) was compiled. 113 individual
retail stores were identified: 42 small supermarkets; 21 Asian grocers;
12 fruit and vegetable stores; 32 butchers; and six fishmongers.
Retailers from the five store types were randomly selected and asked
two open-ended questions about the distribution of reusable conven-
tional HDPE bags and single-use biodegradable HDPE bags:
• on average, how many plastic carry bags do you currently sell or
distribute in a week; and
9
To be classified as butchers or fishmongers, stores had to primarily retail
raw meat (rather than cooked meat, like ‘fish and chip’ stores, which were
classified as ‘other retailers’ with other restaurants and takeaways).
• what type of plastic carry bags do you sell or distribute?
The survey was conducted by phone and in person over the period
18–23 May 2018. Responses were provided by 44 retailers (Table 3).
Further details on the supermarket consumer and retailer surveys, in-
cluding summary results, are provided in the Online Supplementary
Material.
3.1.1.2. Scenario analysis to estimate the impact of the ban on
consumption. To estimate the impact of the ban on plastic bag
consumption, two scenarios were developed:
• Scenario 1 (with the ban), which sought to estimate actual con-
sumption of the seven plastic bag types in the ACT over the period
2010-11 to 2017-18; and
• Scenario 2 (without the ban), which projected consumption of the
seven plastic bag types in the ACT over the period 2010-11 to 2017-
18 under the assumption the plastic bag ban was never introduced.
Scenario 1 was devised using data from the ACT Government’s 2014
review of the plastic bag ban (Directorate of Environment and
Sustainable Development (DESD, 2014; ACT Government, pers.
comms), the results of the supermarket consumer and retailer surveys,
and the Australian Bureau of Statistics (Australian Bureau of Statistics
(ABS, 2017; 2018a; 2018d). Details of the approach taken for each of
the seven bag types are provided below.
• Single-use conventional and biodegradable HDPE. Using data from
the ACT Government’s 2014 review (Directorate of Environment
and Sustainable Development (DESD, 2014; ACT Government, pers.
comms), consumption of single-use conventional HDPE bags in
2010-11 (the financial year prior to the introduction of the ban) was
estimated at 61.5 million (M) bags. In the first four months of the
2011-12 financial year (prior to the ban commencing in November),
the data from the 2014 review suggests consumption was approxi-
mately 20.8 M. For the remainder of 2011-12, consumption was
assumed to consist of illegally distributed single-use conventional
HDPE bags and legally distributed single-use biodegradable HDPE
bags.
○ Illegal single-use conventional HDPE consumption. Information
from the ACT Government suggests the rate of non-compliance
with the ban has been low since its introduction (Directorate of
Environment and Sustainable Development (DESD, 2014; ACT

4
A. Macintosh, et al.
Table 3
Retailer survey – store types, numbers and respondents.
No. stores Respondents
Small supermarkets 42 23
Asian grocery stores 21 10
Fruit and vegetable stores 12 4
Butchers and poultry stores 32 5
Fishmongers 6 2
Total 113 44
Government, pers. comms.). Nevertheless, in conducting the re-
tailer survey, a small number of minor retail outlets (e.g. bakeries
and small grocery stores) were observed selling single-use con-
ventional HDPE bags. To account for this, it was assumed 34,000
single-use conventional HDPE bags were sold in 2011-12 in the
eight months after the ban was sold (0.01 % of 2010-11 con-
sumption levels) and 53,000 bags in 2012-13 (0.01 % of 2010-11
consumption levels, adjusted for population growth). From 2013-
14, illegal single-use conventional HDPE bag consumption was
assumed to grow in line with population growth.
○ Legal single-use biodegradable HDPE consumption. The data
collected in the retailer survey suggests approximately 7.5 % of
single-use HDPE bags distributed in 2017-18 were biodegradable,
or almost 704,000 bags. Consumption over the period 2011-12 to
2016-17 was back-calculated from this estimate using an as-
sumed growth rate of 3.1 % yr−1. The growth rate was based on
weighted final ACT household consumption (chain volume
measures) of food, clothing and footwear, alcohol and tobacco,
and miscellaneous items (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS,
2017).10
• Reusable conventional HDPE. From the data collected through the
retailer survey, consumption in 2017-18 was estimated to be 8.8 M
bags. Consumption over the period 2011-12 to 2016-17 was back-
calculated using an assumed growth rate of 3.1 % yr−1 (as for
single-use biodegradable HDPE bags).
• Reusable LDPE. Based on data from the ACT Government’s 2014
review (Directorate of Environment and Sustainable Development
(DESD, 2014, ACT Government, pers. comms), consumption in
2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 was estimated to be 1.66
M, 6.22 M, 8.65 M and 8.88 M bags respectively. From the data
collected through the supermarket consumer survey, consumption
in 2017-18 was estimated to be 9.64 M bags. Consumption is as-
sumed to have grown linearly in the intervening period.
• Reusable polypropylene. Based on data from the ACT Government’s
2014 review (Directorate of Environment and Sustainable
Development (DESD, 2014; ACT Government, pers. comms), con-
sumption in 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 was estimated
to be 0.40 M, 0.58 M, 0.35 M and 0.36 M. From the supermarket
consumer survey, consumption in 2017-18 was estimated to be 0.90
M. Consumption is assumed to have grown linearly in the inter-
vening period.
• Garbage bags. The data from the ACT Government’s 2014 review on
household garbage bags was incomplete, which made it impossible
to devise a robust estimate of total consumption over the period
immediately before and after the introduction of the ban. However,
the data from the 2012 and 2014 reviews suggests that, immediately
following the introduction of the ban, consumption of bin-liners
increased by ∼30 %, before falling back to pre-ban levels in the May
to October 2013 period. Due to this, consumption over the study
period was calculated from the 2017-18 estimate derived from the
supermarket consumer survey (30.1 M). Consumption in the
10
The assumed weightings between these categories were 0.75, 0.10, 0.025
and 0.125 respectively.
5
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 154 (2020) 104638
intervening period was then back-calculated using an assumed
growth rate of 3.1 % yr−1 (as for single-use biodegradable HDPE
bags), only with a 15 % spike in consumption in 2011-12 to account
for the observed short-term increase in bin-liner consumption (based
on the assumption bin-liners that were substitutable with single-use
conventional HDPE bags made up 50 % of total garbage bag con-
sumption).
• Barrier bags. On the basis of the results from the supermarket con-
sumer survey, consumption in 2017-18 was estimated to be 36.2 M
bags. Consumption over the period 2010-11 to 2016-17 was back-
calculated using an assumed growth rate of 2.6 % yr−1, in line with
the growth rate of final ACT household consumption (chain volume
measures) of food (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS, 2017).
Scenario 2 involved a counterfactual assessment of the likely con-
sumption of the seven plastic bag types in the absence of the ban.
Details of the assumptions made in relation to each bag type are pro-
vided below.
• Single-use conventional HDPE. As in scenario 1, consumption in
2010-11 was estimated at 61.5 M bags. Between 2007 and 2017,
Australian consumption of single-use HDPE bags grew at 3.8 %
yr−1, despite the introduction of plastic bag bans in four of
Australia’s eight jurisdictions (South Australia, Northern Territory,
ACT and Tasmania) (Hyder Consulting, 2008; O’Farrell, 2018). The
continued strong growth in national consumption reflects the fact
that the jurisdictions without bans over this period accounted for 88
% of the Australian population (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS,
2018a). It was conservatively assumed that, in the absence of the
ban, single-use conventional HDPE bag consumption in the ACT
would have grown at the national rate of 3.8 % yr−1 over the period
2011-12 to 2017-18.
• Single-use biodegradable and reusable conventional HDPE. These
bag types were introduced in the ACT as a substitute for single-use
conventional HDPE bags following the commencement of the ban. It
was assumed that, in the absence of the ban, the market for these
bags would have been negligible.
• Reusable LDPE. Consumption in 2010-11 was estimated at 1.66 M
bags using data from the ACT Government’s 2014 review
(Directorate of Environment and Sustainable Development (DESD,
2014; ACT Government, pers. comms.). For the remainder of the
period through to 2017-18, consumption was assumed to grow at
1.83 % yr−1, in line with ACT population growth (Australian Bureau
of Statistics (ABS, 2018a).
• Reusable polypropylene. Consistent with scenario 1, consumption in
2010-11 was estimated at 0.40 M bags. In the absence of the ban,
over the period 2011-12 to 2017-18, consumption was assumed to
grow at 1.83 % yr−1 in line with population growth (Australian
Bureau of Statistics (ABS, 2018a).
• Garbage bags. Consumption was assumed to be the same as in sce-
nario 1, only without the 30 % spike in consumption in 2011-12.
• Barrier bags. It was assumed for these purposes that the ban did not
affect consumption of barrier bags (i.e. there was no substitution
with this type of bag). Hence, barrier bag consumption in scenario 2
was assumed to be the same as in scenario 1.
3.1.2. Plastic bags in the litter stream
The best available data on the ACT’s litter stream is from the Keep
Australia Beautiful National Litter Index (‘KABNLI’), which has been
maintained since 2005-06. The KABNLI is derived from biannual litter
counts at 983 sites across Australia, 76 of which are in the ACT. The 76
KABNLI survey sites in the ACT cover a total area of 115,955 m2 (0.12
km2). The physical locations of the KABNLI sites are not disclosed. The
only information reported on the nature of the sites is their type: beach
(8 sites); carpark (11 sites); highway (13 sites); industrial (9 sites); re-
creational park (7 sites); residential (13 sites); retail (8 sites); and
A. Macintosh, et al.
shopping centres (7 sites). The Keep Australia Beautiful Network kindly
provided KABNLI data to assist with the analysis (McGregorTan
Research, 2018).
Ideally, an analysis of the impact of the ban on litter would involve a
counterfactual analysis that compared plastic shopping bag litter in the
ACT with and without the ban. This was not possible because of lim-
itations with the KABNLI data (most particularly, it was not possible to
determine how representative they were of the ACT litter stream) and
the absence of information on other variables that influence the litter
stream (e.g. other efforts to control litter). Due to this, the best available
alternative was to compare trends in the KABNLI data before and after
the introduction of the ban, and compare these trends to those from
other Australian jurisdictions. For these purposes, data on the two main
KABNLI plastic bag categories (‘Bags – supermarket type lightweight
carry bags’ and ‘Bags – heavier glossy typically branded carry bags’)
were extracted and normalised (plastic bags per 1000 m2). The nor-
malisation of the data enabled comparisons to be made between jur-
isdictions with and without bag bans over the study period (2011 to
June 2018).
3.2. Durability of community support
To evaluate the durability of community support, a phone survey of
1058 ACT residents was undertaken on 5 March 2018 using a stratified
random sampling technique, with stratification and weighting of results
by age and gender (Table 4). The weighting was applied using Aus-
tralian Bureau of Statistic data to reflect the demographics of the ACT
population (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS, 2018a; 2018d).
The survey asked respondents eight closed-ended questions about
the ban.
Q1. Do you support or oppose the plastic bag ban? [strongly sup-
port/ support/ oppose/ strongly oppose/ unsure]
Q2. Of the following, which best describes how you have responded
to the “Bag Ban”? [my plastic bag use has not changed/ I now use more
plastic bags/ I now use fewer plastic bags/ unsure]
Q3. If the Plastic Bag Ban was removed, do you think you would?
[use more plastic bags/ use fewer plastic bags/ position unchanged/
unsure]
Q4. How often would you say you take reusable bags when you go
shopping? [always/ most of the time/ occasionally/ never]
Q5. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: ‘The
plastic bag ban has had a positive impact on the environment’ [strongly
agree/ agree/ disagree/ strongly disagree/ unsure]
Q6. Would you support or oppose changes to the Plastic Bag Ban to
further reduce plastic bag use and the impacts of plastic bags on the
environment? [strongly support/ support/ oppose/ strongly oppose/
unsure]
Q6(a). [To respondents who answered ‘strongly support’, ‘support’
or ‘unsure’] Which of the following changes do you support the most?
[require all plastic bags to be biodegradable and compostable/ keep the
existing ban on lightweight plastic bags but increase the minimum
thickness requirements to encourage reuse/ impose a levy on plastic
bags and use the money to recycle plastics and reduce litter/ ban all
plastic bags]
Q7. How much would you be willing to pay per week to help further
reduce plastic bag use and the impacts of plastic bags on the
Table 4
Community support phone survey – unweighted data on respondents.
Age Male Female Total
18–34 31 39 70
35-50 82 84 166
51-65 119 180 299
Plus 65 194 329 523
Total 426 632 1058
6
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 154 (2020) 104638
environment? [$0/ $0.01-$0.50/ $0.51-$1.00/ $1.01-$2.00/ $2.01-
$5.00/ > $5.00]
The survey was modelled on two previous surveys carried out on the
ban for the ACT Government in 2012 and 2014 (Piazza Research, 2012;
Directorate of Environment and Sustainable Development (DESD,
2014). Aligning the surveys ensured there was time series data on
community attitudes towards the plastic bag ban since its introduction.
Further details on the survey are provided in the Online Supplementary
Material.
4. Results
4.1. Impact of the ban on the consumption of plastic bags
The results suggest the ban resulted in only a temporary decline in
relevant plastic bag consumption (Fig. 1). Estimated consumption of the
seven bag types was 924 tonnes in the financial year in which the ban
was introduced (2011-12). Four years later, in 2015-16, it surpassed
these levels, reaching 960 tonnes. In the final year of the study period,
2017-18, consumption is estimated to have reached 1030 tonnes. On-
going population and household consumption growth are likely to lead
to continued growth in plastic bag consumption, unless there is a
marked shift in retailer and/or consumer behaviour. This is likely to
require further government intervention.
Despite the upward trajectory of plastic bag consumption, the re-
sults suggest the ban reduced plastic consumption relative to what
would have happened in the counterfactual, where the ban was not
introduced. However, the reduction was relatively modest. The ban
resulted in a significant reduction in single-use HDPE bag consumption
but these reductions were offset, to a large extent, by an increase in
consumption of other bags types, particularly reusable conventional
HDPE bags and reusable conventional LDPE bags (Fig. 2). In the ab-
sence of the ban, it was estimated that, over the period November 2011
to 30 June 2018, 2601 tonnes of single-use conventional HDPE bags
would have been consumed. The ban reduced the consumption of these
bags to a mere 2.4 tonnes over this period. However, there was sig-
nificant substitution of reusable conventional HDPE bags and reusable
conventional LDPE bags that offset these reductions. The increase in
consumption of these two bag types relative to the estimated con-
sumption in scenario 2 (without the ban) was 776 tonnes and 1362
tonnes respectively. There were also offsetting increases in reusable
polypropylene bags (108 tonnes), garbage bags (53 tonnes) and single-
use biodegradable HDPE bags (24 tonnes). Overall, it is estimated that
the ban only reduced plastic consumption by 275 ts over the almost
seven year study period.
Readers should note that the results are subject to a degree of un-
certainty due to gaps in the information on historical consumption le-
vels of the seven bag types, particularly garbage bags. Improved time-
series data are required to facilitate more precise analysis of the impacts
of the ban.
4.2. Impact of the ban on the presence of plastic bags in the litter stream
Even prior to the plastic bag ban, plastic shopping bags did not
feature prominently in the ACT litter stream. Over the period
2009–2011, the number of lightweight plastic bags and heavier glossy
plastic bags counted in KABNLI surveys averaged a mere 0.17 and
0.013 bags per 1,000 m2 respectively (Fig. 3). This equates to an
average of 20 lightweight and 1.5 heavier glossy plastic bags counted
across the entire 115,955 m2 ACT KABNLI survey area per year over the
period.
In the five years following the commencement of the ban
(2013–2017), the average number of lightweight plastic bags counted
in the KABNLI surveys fell by more than 60 %, dropping from the
2009–2011 average of 0.17 to 0.06 bags per 1,000 m2. In contrast, the
average number of heavier glossy plastic bags increased by 27 %, rising
A. Macintosh, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 154 (2020) 104638

Fig. 1. ACT plastic bag ban consumption (scenario 1 – with the ban), tonnes, 2010-11 to 2017-18.
Source: author estimates.

Fig. 2. Estimated impact of ACT plastic bag ban on plastic bags consumption (tonnes), cumulative difference between scenarios 1 and 2, November 2011 to 30 June
2018.
Source: author estimates.

7
A. Macintosh, et al.
Fig. 3. Lightweight and heavier glossy plastic bags in ACT litter stream, 2009–2017, plastic bags per 1000 m2.
Source: McGregorTan Research (2018)
from the 2009–2011 average of 0.013 to 0.016 per 1,000 m2 (Fig. 3).
This equates to 13 fewer lightweight bags and 0.3 more heavier glossy
bags counted across the ACT KABNLI survey area each year.
At a superficial level, the trends in the number of plastic bags
counted in KABNLI surveys in the ACT align well with the plastic bag
consumption analysis. The fall in counted lightweight plastic bag litter
correlates with the marked drop in single-use HDPE bag consumption
and the small increase in counted heavier glossy plastic bags roughly
matches the increase in consumption of reusable LDPE bags. However,
it is unclear to what extent the observed trends in counted plastic bag
litter are attributable to the plastic bag ban.
As noted above, the number of plastic bags counted in KABNLI
surveys both before and after the introduction of the ban was small. It is
also unclear how representative the results of the KABNLI surveys are of
the actual ACT litter stream. Further, even if the results are re-
presentative, there are a number of factors, other than the plastic bag
ban, that may account for the change in the prevalence of plastic bags
in the litter stream. For example, observed falls in litter could be a
product of greater resources being devoted to deterring littering and
litter collection and removal (Willis et al., 2018; Hardesty et al., 2016).
The difficulty in attributing the change in litter levels to the plastic
bag ban can be illustrated by looking at the trends in counted light-
weight plastic bag litter in KABNLI surveys in other Australian jur-
isdictions (Figs. 4 and 5). The trends have not been consistent, parti-
cularly in the jurisdictions with bans on lightweight plastic shopping
bags. In both the ACT and Tasmania, the number of lightweight plastic
bags counted in KABNLI surveys dropped noticeably following the in-
troduction of their bans (in 2011 and 2013 respectively) (Fig. 4). Yet, in
the other two jurisdictions with bans, South Australia (from 2009) and
the Northern Territory (from 2011), there was no notable decline in
counted lightweight bags following the introduction of their bans. The
most notable pattern in the data is high volatility.
In jurisdictions without bans, the aggregate number of lightweight
bags counted in KABNLI surveys over the period 2009–2017 fell
slightly, from 0.34 to 0.31 bags per 1000 m2 (Fig. 5). However, again,
the aggregate number hides significant variability between jurisdic-
tions. New South Wales consistently had the highest number of light-
weight plastic bags counted in KABNLI surveys over this period. In
contrast, for most of the period since 2011 Victoria’s plastic bag count
was among the lowest in Australia (average 0.12 bags per 1,000 m2).
8
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 154 (2020) 104638
4.3. Durability of community support for the ban
The ACT plastic bag ban has enjoyed high levels of public support
since it was introduced. A survey conducted for the ACT Government in
2012 found 58 % of respondents supported the ban, while 33 % did not
and 9 % were unsure (Directorate of Environment and Sustainable
Development (DESD, 2012) (Fig. 6). A similarly structured survey in
2014 found support for the ban had increased to 65 % and opposition
had fallen to 26 %, with 9 % unsure (Directorate of Environment and
Sustainable Development (DESD, 2014). Our 2018 phone survey found
support had increased again to 68 %: 20 % said they supported the ban
and 48 % said they strongly supported it. Twenty-seven per cent (27 %)
either opposed (14 %) or strongly opposed (13 %) the ban, with 5 %
unsure. Of note was the fact support for the ban in 2018 was highest
amongst older voters (51–65 years, 76 %; > 65 years, 75 %) and lowest
amongst those aged 18–34 years (56 %).
5. Discussion
The aims of the study were to evaluate whether the ACT plastic bag
ban has reduced plastic bag consumption and litter, and whether
community support for the ban is sustainable. The results suggests the
ban has not been overly effective in reducing plastic bag consumption
or litter but, notwithstanding this, it has enjoyed a high level of com-
munity support.
Given the high administrative capacity of the ACT Government, the
magnitude of the penalties for non-compliance, and the relatively small
number of retailers in the jurisdiction, there was little doubt the ban
would reduce consumption of single-use conventional HDPE bags. The
key question was whether, and to what extent, banning < 35 μm con-
ventional polyethylene bags would trigger an offsetting increase in
consumption of other bag types.
The findings suggest that, while the ban almost eliminated the
consumption of single-use conventional HDPE bags, there has been
significant substitution of other plastic bag types, particularly reusable
HDPE and LDPE carry bags. While single-use conventional HDPE bag
consumption is estimated to have been reduced by ∼2600 tonnes over
the almost seven year study period, the net effect of the ban on plastic
consumption over this period was relatively minor; a 275 t reduction,
the equivalent of 50.72 M single-use conventional HDPE bags.
The results of the assessment of the impacts of the ban on plastic bag
litter were inconclusive. The data from KABNLI litter surveys are
A. Macintosh, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 154 (2020) 104638

Fig. 4. Lightweight plastic bags in litter stream, plastic bags per 1000 m2, jurisdictions with plastic bag bans.
Source: McGregorTan Research (2018)

consistent with the hypothesis that the bag ban has reduced overall
plastic bag litter. However, data limitations prevent definitive conclu-
sions being reached on whether the observed litter trends are attribu-
table to the ban. The observed reductions were also small in absolute
terms.
Beyond litter, it is unclear to what extent the ban has produced
other positive environmental impacts related to the production, use and
disposal of plastic bags. Given Australia’s dependence on plastic bag
imports, and the dynamics in global plastics markets, it is unlikely the
decline in plastic bag consumption in the ACT has resulted in a 1:1
reduction in the production and consumption of plastics globally or
production-related environmental impacts (e.g. greenhouse gas emis-
sions). At least some of the decrease in consumption is likely to have
been offset by an increase in plastic consumption in other markets,
thereby reducing the production-related environmental benefits of the
ban.
The ACT Government’s 2014 review found the ban reduced plastics
going to landfill (Directorate of Environment and Sustainable
Development (DESD, 2014) and our results are consistent with this
finding. However, other than marginally reducing the land required for
landfill, it is unlikely that reducing the plastic bags going to landfill
produced any material environmental benefits. The disposal of plastic
bags to landfill can contribute to the release of toxins to the environ-
ment (Asakura et al., 2004; Lund and Peterson, 2006; Teuten et al.,
2009; Eggen et al., 2010; Halden, 2010; Yang et al., 2011; Lithner et al.,
2011, 2012; Alam et al., 2018). Unreacted residual monomers and

Fig. 5. Lightweight plastic bags in litter stream, plastic bags per 1000 m2, jurisdictions without plastic bag bans.
Source: McGregor Tan Research (2018)

9
A. Macintosh, et al.
Fig. 6. Attitudes to the ACT plastic ban bag, 2012, 2014 and 2018.
Source: DESD (2012; 2014); author estimates
chemical additives in plastics can leach from landfills into surface
water, groundwater and soils. Microplastics formed from the break-
down of plastic bags can also absorb toxins in landfills then transport
them to other terrestrial and aquatic environments through leachate.
However, the extent of the chemical risks associated with the disposal
of plastic bags to landfill depends on the characteristics of the bags and
the design and management of relevant landfills. At well designed and
managed landfills, where the base is lined to prevent contamination
through leachate, drainage systems are maintained to move water off
the landfill, and landfill cells are capped, the risks are limited.
In the case of the ACT, municipal solid waste, including plastic
shopping bags, is generally deposited at the Territory’s single operating
landfill (Mugga Lane Landfill) and, to a lesser extent, another major
landfill in New South Wales (Woodlawn Bioreactor). Both of these
landfills are well-designed and managed, with linings, caps and drai-
nage systems that drain leachate into properly maintained leachate
dams.11 Landfill gas from both sites is also captured and combusted in
onsite generators and both sites are regulated by environmental pro-
tection agencies. Given the best practice nature of these facilities, the
disposal of plastic bags consumed in the ACT to landfill is likely to pose
minimal risks to the environment.
Policies aimed at reducing plastic bag consumption are frequently
justified on the basis of the impacts of plastic bags on marine animals,
particularly through ingestion and entanglement. There is an extensive
scientific literature that documents the adverse impacts of plastic
marine debris, including plastic bags, on wildlife, particularly sea tur-
tles, marine mammals and sea birds (Hardesty et al., 2014; Gall and
Thompson, 2015; Thompson, 2017). Plastic bags are regarded as one of
the highest risk items because of their persistence in the environment,
prevalence, three-dimensional structure and similarity to marine food
sources (Wilcox et al., 2016; Ocean Conservancy, 2017).
While ocean plastic bag pollution is an important issue, the ACT bag
ban is unlikely to have made a material contribution to addressing it.
This is because only a relatively small number of plastic shopping bags
consumed in the ACT are likely to end up as ocean litter. No detailed
research has been conducted on the migration of plastic bag litter from
the ACT to the coast. However, the Territory’s geography—150km from
the coast with waterways that flow inland, through highly regulated
11
Environmental Authorisation under the Environment Protection Act 1997:
Authorisation No. 0375 (ACT Government, 2017).
10
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 154 (2020) 104638
river systems with extensive channel infrastructure (e.g. dams and
weirs) that obstructs the movement of plastic waste—and the low his-
torical prevalence of plastic bag litter make it unlikely that ACT bags
frequently end up in the ocean. Both international and Australian re-
search suggests most marine debris comes from direct deposition and
sources in reasonably close proximity to the coast (Ocean Conservancy,
2010; Jambeck et al., 2015; Hardesty et al., 2016, 2017).
Despite the seemingly modest environmental benefits associated
with the ban, it has enjoyed sustained high levels of public support.
Soon after the ban started, around 58 % of the ACT community said
they supported it (Directorate of Environment and Sustainable
Development (DESD, 2014). In 2018, the proportion supporting the ban
was 68 %, with 48 % strongly in support. 64 % of respondents to the
2018 survey also said they would support changes to the ban to further
reduce plastic bag use and the impacts of plastic bags on the environ-
ment.
The apparent incongruity between the levels of public support for
the ban and its modest environmental achievements could be explained
by the symbolism associated with plastic bags and the sense of agency
consumers derive from contributing to reducing bag consumption.
Plastic bags are seen by many as a symbol of an unnecessarily wasteful
and environmentally harmful society. As Dikgang et al. (2012: 60) note
in their study on the South African bag levy, ‘the plastic bag may be
(and probably is) a symbol of uncaring abuse of the environment,
without being intrinsically problematic’. With plastic bags having be-
come a totem of wastefulness, consumers may feel reducing plastic bag
consumption is a practical and low cost way they can help improve
environmental outcomes. In introducing the ban in 2011, the ACT
Government referenced this, saying ‘plastic bags have become a symbol
of excessive consumption and reducing plastic bag use is an action that
everyone can contribute to’ (ACT Government, 2010: 2). The emphasis
on the symbolism associated with plastic bags may lessen people’s in-
terest in the actual environmental effects of policy interventions de-
signed to reduce their use.
While this dynamic cannot be discounted, in our survey, almost 70
% of respondents said they believed the ban has had a positive impact
on the environment. This suggests community support for the ban is at
least partially based on a belief it has improved environmental out-
comes. However, as noted above, there is a marked lack of publicly
available information on which to make this assessment. People see-
mingly want to believe the ban has had a positive impact on the en-
vironment and, in the absence of information, have no grounds for
A. Macintosh, et al.
questioning this belief.
The lack of information on plastic bags clearly affects the ability of
the general public to assess the effectiveness of policies like the bag ban.
However, it also undermines effective policymaking. At present, there
are no publicly available time-series data on plastic bag consumption in
the ACT or any other Australian jurisdiction. Similarly, while time-
series data are collected on the presence of plastic bags in the litter
streams of different jurisdictions, there are limitations with the publicly
disclosed information that impede analysis. In the absence of these
basic data, it is not possible to design and calibrate cost-effective policy
interventions.
A potential solution to this problem is the creation of mandatory
disclosure regime(s) for plastic bags, similar to the pollution release and
transfer registers (PRTRs) that publish information on the release and
transfer of toxic chemicals and pollutants from industrial facilities
(Konar and Cohen, 1997). Australia’s PRTR, the National Pollution In-
ventory (NPI), is a collaborative federal, state and territory regime that
provides free information on emissions of 93 pollutants and the source
and location of the emissions (National Environment Pollution Council
(NEPC, 2018). The Australian Government also maintains a public in-
ventory of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions from large emitting
facilities in the energy, industrial and waste sectors, known as the
National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System (NGERS).
Disclosure regimes like the NPI and NGERS were intended to im-
prove the information base for government policymaking and arm third
parties with the capacity to apply pressure on polluters to alter their
practices. A mandatory disclosure regime for plastic bags could be built
on a similar philosophy. It would require importers, manufacturers and
retailers who sell or distribute plastic bags to report annually on bag
imports, sales and distribution, by bag type, size (volume) and mass.
These data would then be reported on a freely available public website,
with processes (similar to those under the NPI and NGERS) for the
management of commercially sensitive information.
As PRTRs and other information-based policy instruments have
demonstrated, on its own, improved information does not necessarily
lead to improved environmental outcomes (Oberholzer-Gee and
Mitsunari, 2006; Cañón-de-Francia et al., 2008; Huang and Chen, 2015;
Kasim, 2017). However, the absence of information can serve as a
substantive barrier to progress. The creation of a mandatory disclosure
regime for plastic bags is a low cost way of ensuring government and
non-government actors have access to the information necessary to
properly inform policy choices.
6. Conclusion
Bans on single-use plastic shopping bags are amongst the most
popular policy interventions taken by governments to address the
harms associated with plastics. Despite their popularity, they have at-
tracted little academic interest. This study addresses this gap in the
literature, presenting the results of an evaluation of the ban on single-
use plastic shopping bags introduced in the ACT in 2011.
The findings suggest the ban was only mildly successful in reducing
plastic bag consumption. There was a substantial reduction in the
consumption of single-use conventional HDPE bags. However, these
reductions were offset, to a large extent, by an increase in consumption
of other bags types, particularly reusable conventional HDPE bags and
reusable LDPE bags. Over the almost seven year study period, the ban is
estimated to have reduced net plastic bag consumption by only 275 ts,
less than a year’s consumption of single-use conventional HDPE bags in
the ACT prior to the introduction of the ban.
Beyond the relative modest reduction in plastic consumption, no
other clear and material environmental benefits were identified.
Reducing plastic litter is often cited as an objective of policies aimed at
reducing plastic bag use. In this case, the data on the impacts of the ban
on plastic bag litter were inconclusive. Despite this, the available in-
formation suggests that, if the ban did reduced litter over the study
11
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 154 (2020) 104638
period, the reductions are likely to have been small. For similar reasons,
the ban is unlikely to have made a material contribution to reducing
ocean plastic pollution. Any production and disposal-related environ-
mental benefits are also likely to have been small.
Despite its apparent environmental ineffectiveness, community
support for the bag ban has proven remarkably durable. The ban was
widely supported when first introduced and the results of this study
suggest that, if anything, the level of community support has increased.
This could be attributable to the symbolism associated with plastic
bags, the sense of agency consumers derive from reducing plastic bag
consumption and role plastic bag policies can play in raising environ-
mental awareness. However, it may also be a product of a lack of in-
formation. Improved information systems are needed to ensure the
community and policymakers are better informed about the impacts of
policy interventions designed to reduce the environmental harms as-
sociated with plastics.
Author contributions
Andrew Macintosh designed the study, led the collection and ana-
lysis of data, and led the writing of the article.
Amelia Simpson assisted with the design of the study, data collec-
tion and the writing of the article.
Teresa Neeman assisted with survey design and data analysis.
Kirilly Dickson assisted with the writing of the article.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The study involved an update of a review undertaken in 2018.
Funding for the original review was provided by the Office of the ACT
Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment. Kirilly Dickson is
also an employee of the Office of the ACT Commissioner for
Sustainability and the Environment.
Acknowledgements
We thank the ACT Commissioner for Sustainability and the
Environment, Professor Kate Auty, and her office for the support pro-
vided for this project.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the
online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.
104638.
References
Alam, O., Billah, M., Yajie, D., 2018. Characteristics of plastic bags and their potential
environmental hazards. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 132, 121–129.
Andrady, A., Neal, M., 2009. Applications and societal benefits of plastics. Philos. Trans.
R. Soc. B 364, 1977–1984.
Asakura, H., Matsuto, T., Tanaka, N., 2004. Behavior of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in
leachate from MSW landfill sites in Japan. Waste Manage. 24 (6), 613–622.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2017. Australian National Accounts: State Accounts,
5220.0. Australian Government, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2018a. Australian Demographic Statistics, 3101.0.
Australian Government, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2018b. Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA),
Australia, 2016, 2033.0.55.001. Australian Government, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2018c. International Merchandise Trade: Imports of
Specified Plastic Bags, by Country of Origin, By State of Final Destination. Australian
Government, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2018d. Census of Population and Housing.
Australian Government, Canberra.
Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Government, 2010. Plastic Shopping Bags Ban Bill
2010: Explanatory Statement. ACT Government, Canberra.
Cañón-de-Francia, J., Garcés-Ayerbe, C., Ramírez-Alesón, M., 2008. Analysis of the ef-
fectiveness of the first European Pollutant Emission Register (EPER). Ecol. Econ. 67,
83–92.
Convery, F., McDonnell, S., Ferreira, S., 2007. The most popular tax in Europe? Lessons
A. Macintosh, et al.
from the Irish plastic bags levy. Environ. Resour. Econ. 38, 1–11.
Dikgang, J., Leiman, A., Visser, M., 2012. Analysis of the plastic-bag levy in South Africa.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 66, 59–65.
Directorate of Environment and Sustainable Development (DESD), 2012. Interim Review
of the Plastic Shopping Bags Ban. ACT Government, Canberra.
Directorate of Environment and Sustainable Development (DESD), 2014. Review of the
Plastic Shopping Bags Ban. ACT Government, Canberra.
Eggen, T., Moeder, M., Arukwe, A., 2010. Municipal landfill leachates: a significant
source for new and emerging pollutants. Sci. Total Environ. 408, 5147–5157.
Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC), 2005. Environment Protection and
Heritage Council Communique, 26 October 2005: Council Tackles Environmental
Costs of Modern Living. EPHC, Canberra.
Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC), 2006. Environment Protection and
Heritage Council Communique, 23 June 2006: Ministers Tackle Environmental
Pressure Points of Urban Living. EPHC, Canberra.
Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC), 2008. Environment Protection and
Heritage Council Communique, 17 April 2008: Ministers Seek Sustainable Solutions.
EPHC, Canberra.
Eriksen, M., Lebreton, L., Carson, H., Thiel, M., Moore, C., Borerro, J., Galgani, F., Ryan,
P., Reisser, J., 2014. Plastic pollution in the world’s oceans: more than 5 trillion
plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea. PLoS One 9 (12), e111913.
Ferrero, P., 2009. Counterfactual thinking and impact evaluation in environmental
policy. In: Birnbaum, M., Mickwitz, P. (Eds.), Environmental Program and Policy
Evaluation: Addressing Methodological Challenges. New Directions for Evaluation.
Wiley Inter Science, pp. 75–84 Issue 122.
Gall, S., Thompson, R., 2015. The impact of debris on marine life. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 92,
170–179.
Geoscience Australia, 2018. Area of Australia – States and Territories. Australian
Government, Canberra Available at: http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/na-
tional-location-information/dimensions/area-of-australia-states-and-territories
[Accessed 4 February 2019].
Halden, R., 2010. Plastics and health risks. Annu. Rev. Public Health 31, 179–194.
Hanson, J., 2013a. ACT Legislative Assembly Hansard, 27 February 2013. ACT
Government, Canberra.
Hanson, J., 2013b. ACT Legislative Assembly Hansard, 5 June 2013. ACT Government,
Canberra.
Hanson, J., 2014. ACT Legislative Assembly Hansard, 7 May 2014. ACT Government,
Canberra.
Hardesty, B., Wilcox, C., Lawson, T., Lansdell, M., van der Velde, T., 2014. Understanding
the Effects of Marine Debris on Wildlife: Report to Earthwatch Australia.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia.
Hardesty, B., Schuyler, Q., Lawson, T., Opie, K., Wilcox, C., 2016. Understanding Debris
Sources and Transport from the Coastal Margin to the Ocean: Report to the Australian
Packaging Covenant Organisation Ltd. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation. CSIRO, Australia.
Hardesty, B., Lawson, T., van der Velde, T., Lansdell, M., Wilcox, C., 2017. Estimating
quantities and sources of marine debris at continental scale. Front. Ecol. Environ. 15
(1), 18–25.
Hasson, R., Leiman, A., Visser, M., 2007. The economics of plastic bag legislation in South
Africa. South Afr. J. Econ. 75 (1), 66–83.
Huang, R., Chen, D., 2015. Does environmental information disclosure benefit waste
discharge reduction? Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics 129, 535–552.
Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd, 2008. Plastic Retail Carry Bag Use. Environment Protection and
Heritage Council, Canberra.
IBISWorld, 2018. Supermarkets and Grocery Stores in Australia. IBIS World, Australia.
Jambeck, J., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., Narayan, R.,
Law, K., 2015. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347 (6223),
768–771.
Kasim, M., 2017. Evaluating the effectiveness of an environmental disclosurepolicy: an
application to New South Wales. Resource Energy Econ. 49, 113–131.
Konar, S., Cohen, M., 1997. Information as regulation: the effect of community right to
know laws on toxic emissions. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 32, 109–124.
Lee, E., 2017. ACT Legislative Assembly Hansard, 22 August 2017. ACT Government,
Canberra.
Lithner, D., Larsson, A., Dave, G., 2011. Environmental and health hazard ranking and
assessment of plastic polymers based on chemical composition. Sci. Total Environ.
409, 3309–3324.
Lithner, D., Nordensvan, I., Dave, G., 2012. Comparative acute toxicity of leachates from
plastic products made of polypropylene, polyethylene, PVC, acryloni-
trile–butadiene–styrene, and epoxy to Daphnia magna. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 19
(5), 1763–1772.
Lund, K., Peterson, J., 2006. Migration of formaldehyde and melamine monomers from
12
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 154 (2020) 104638
kitchen- and tableware made of melamine plastic. Food Addit. Contam. 23 (9),
948–955.
Macintosh, A., Simpson, A., Neeman, T., 2018. Regulating Plastic Shopping Bags in the
Australian Capital Territory: Plastic Shopping Bag Ban Act 2010 Options Analysis.
The Australian National University, Canberra.
Marsden Jacob Associates, 2016. Plastic Bags Ban Options – Cost Benefit Analysis.
Victorian Government, Melbourne.
Martinho, G., Balaia, N., Pires, A., 2017. The Portuguese plastic carrier bag tax: the effects
on consumers’ behaviour. Waste Manage. 61, 3–12.
McGregorTan Research, 2018. Keep Australia Beautiful National Litter Index. Keep
Australia Beautiful, Australia.
National Environment Pollution Council (NEPC), 2018. Review of the National Pollution
Inventory: Discussion Paper. Australian Government, Canberra.
Nielson, T., Holmberg, K., Stripple, J., 2019. Need a bag? A review of public policies on
plastic carrier bags – where, how and to what effect? Waste Manage. 87, 428–440.
Oberholzer-Gee, F., Mitsunari, M., 2006. Information regulation: do the victims of ex-
ternalities pay attention? J. Regul. Econ. 30, 141–158.
Ocean Conservancy, 2017. Together for Our Ocean: International Coastal Cleanup 2017
Report. Ocean Conservancy, Washington DC.
O’Farrell, K., 2018. 2016–17 Australian Plastics Recycling Survey. Envisage Works,
Melbourne.
Plastics Europe, 2017. Plastics – The Facts 2017. Plastics Europe. Available at: https://
www.plasticseurope.org/application/files/5715/1717/4180/Plastics_the_facts_2017_
FINAL_for_website_one_page.pdf [Accessed 4 February 2019].
Poortinga, W., Sautkina, E., Thomas, G., Wolstenholme, E., 2016. The English Plastic Bag
Charge: Changes in Attitudes and Behaviour. Welsh School of Architecture/School of
Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales.
Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), 2019. Exchange Rates. https://www.rba.gov.au/
statistics/frequency/exchange-rates.html.
Rivers, N., Shenstone-Harris, S., Young, N., 2017. Using nudges to reduce waste? The case
of Toronto’s plastic bag levy. J. Environ. Manage. 188, 153–162.
Rochman, C., Hoh, E., Hentschel, B., Kaye, S., 2012. Long-term field measurement of
sorption of organic contaminants to five types of plastic pellets: implications for
plastic Marine debris. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 1646–1654.
Rochman, C., et al., 2013. Classify plastic waste as hazardous. Nature 494, 169–171.
Schnurr, R., Alboiu, V., Chaudhary, M., Corbett, R., Quanz, M., Sankar, K., Srain, H.,
Thavarajah, V., Xanthos, D., Walker, T., 2018. Reducing marine pollution from
single-use plastics (SUPs): a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 137 (12), 157–171.
Smyth, B., 2013. ACT Legislative Assembly Hansard, 27 February 2013. ACT
Government, Canberra.
Steensgaard, I., Syberg, K., Rist, S., Hartmann, N., Boldrin, A., Hansen, S., 2017. From
macro- to microplastics: analysis of EU regulation along the life cycle of plastic bags.
Environ. Pollut. 224, 289–299.
Teuten, E., et al., 2009. Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the en-
vironment and to wildlife. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 364, 2027–2045.
Thompson, R., 2017. Future of the Sea: Plastic Pollution. UK Government Office for
Science, London.
Thompson, R., Moore, C., vom Saal, R., Swan, S., 2009. Plastics, the environment and
human health: current consensus and future trends. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 364,
2153–2166.
United Nations Environment Assembly of the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEA), 2018. Resolution 3/7. Marine Litter and Microplastics. UNEP/EA.3/Res.7.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), pp. 2018.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2014. UNEP Yearbook 2014: Emerging
Issues in Our Global Environment. United Nations. United Nations.
Willis, K., Maureaud, C., Wilcox, C., Hardesty, B., 2018. How successful are waste
abatement campaigns and government policies at reducing plastic waste into the
marine environment? Mar. Policy 96, 243–249.
Wilcox, C., Mallos, N., Leonard, G., Rodriguez, A., Hardesty, B., 2016. Using expert eli-
citation to estimate the impacts of plastic pollution on marine wildlife. Mar. Policy
65, 107–114.
World Economic Forum (WEF), 2016. The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future
of Plastics. Available at: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_New_Plastics_
Economy.pdf Accessed 4 February 2019. .
Xanthos, D., Walker, T., 2017. International policies to reduce plastic marine pollution
from single-use plastics (plastic bags and microbeads): a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
118 (1–2), 17–26.
Yang, C., Yaniger, S., Jordon, V., Klein, D., Bittner, G., 2011. Most plastic products release
estrogenic chemicals: a potential health problem that can be solved. Environ. Health
Perspect. 119 (7), 989–996.
Zho, Q., 2011. An appraisal and analysis of the law of “Plastic-bag Ban”. Energy Procedia
5, 2516–2521.