Reducing Plastic Waste in Hong Kong - Civic Exchange€¦ · Reducing Plastic Waste in Hong Kong:...

Reducing Plastic Waste in Hong Kong:Public Opinion Survey on Bottled Water Consumption and Attitudes Towards Plastic Waste

Summary Report

January 2014Carine Lai and Mandy Lao Man-lei

2

About Civic ExchangeCivic Exchange is a Hong Kong-based non-profit public policy think tank that was established in 2000. It is an independent organisation that has access to policy makers, officials, businesses, media and NGOs—reaching across sectors and borders. Civic Exchange has solid research experience in areas such as air quality, energy, urban planning, climate change, conservation, water, governance, political development, equal opportunities, poverty and gender. For more information about Civic Exchange, visit www.civic-exchange.org.

About the AuthorsCarine Lai is a project manager at Civic Exchange focusing on urban liveability and well-being. She is also a graphic artist who creates infographics to make complex data accessible to a wider audience. She has an MSc in international planning and a dual BA/BFA in political science and studio art. Carine is also the co-author of From Nowhere to Nowhere: A Review of Constitutional Development Hong Kong 1997-2007 and Reflections of Leadership: Tung Chee Hwa and Donald Tsang (1997 – 2007).

Mandy Lao Man-lei is a senior project manager at Civic Exchange. She graduated from Cardiff University with a master’s degree in city and regional planning (specialising in urban and built environment). Mandy has rich experience in directing and managing social and policy research projects. She is the co-author of Rethinking the Small House Policy published by Civic Exchange in 2003. She also co-authored the Walkable City, Living Streets in 2012 and authored the Small House Policy II: An Update in 2013. Her major research interests include urban built environment, public space design, community planning and sustainable development.

3

Preface and Acknowledgements

4

Table of ContentsIntroduction……………………………………………………………… 5

Overall Bottled Water Consumption…………………………… 6

Concern and Action…………………………………………………… 8

Making Change Easy…………………………………………………… 15

Targeting the Right People: Demographics of Bottled Water Consumption…………………………………………………… 16

Methodology and Limitations…………………………………… 30

5

Hong Kong’s daily municipal waste generation rate is high compared to other developed Asian cities.1

Generation of municipal solid waste has put enormous pressure on the three existing landfills, which are expected to reach full capacity before 2020.2 Plastic waste constituted 19.7 per cent of municipal solid waste, translating to 1,826 tonnes of plastic waste generated every day.3

This survey focuses on the consumption of bottled water, which is in theory an unnecessary and avoidable source of plastic waste as potable water is easily available from the municipal water supply. A survey by the Global Environmental Journalism Initiative and Hong Kong Baptist University in 2010 found that Hong Kong residents were buying up to ten bottles each week.4 This survey aims to better understand consumer habits, attitudes, and environmental awareness with regards to bottled water and plastic waste in Hong Kong. This will help to develop targeted policy recommendations which are more likely to reduce consumption of bottled water or encourage recycling behaviour.

The following pages present a condensed summary of key findings from Civic Exchange’s report, Reducing Plastic Waste in Hong Kong: A Public Opinion Survey of Bottled Water Consumption, the full version of which can be found online at www.civic-exchange.org/en/publications/XXXXXXX. In August 2014, 1,013 random household telephone surveys were conducted. After the completion of the telephone survey, two focus group discussions were held with selected respondents in order to explore alternatives to bottled water.

Introduction 1

1. Council for Sustainable Development (2014), “Municipal Solid Waste Charging—Public Engagement Process: Knowledge Portal”, 28 March 2014, Hong Kong SAR, http://www.susdev.org.hk/english/knowledge_portal/knowledge_portal.php, accessed 30 January 2015.

2. Environmental Protection Department, “Waste: Sustainable use of Resources, Five-Pronged Approach”, 4 September 2014, Hong Kong SAR, http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/waste/waste_maincontent.html, accessed 30 January 2015.

3. Environmental Protection Department (2012), Monitoring of Solid Waste in Hong Kong—Waste Statistics for 2012, January 2012, Hong Kong: HKSAR Government, https://www.wastereduction.gov.hk/en/materials/info/msw2012.pdf, accessed 30 January 2015.

4. Global Environmental Journalism Initiative and Hong Kong Baptist University (2010), Plastic Bottles Around the World: Key Points of Interest, http://www.gejiplasticbottles.com/2011/04/plastic-bottles-around-the-world-key-points-of-inter-est/, accessed 1 November 2014.

6

Overall Bottled Water Consumption2

DRINKING PREFERENCE

PURCHASE FREQUENCY

MONEY SPENT WEEKLY

Don’t know

1004 valid cases

15.9% are “heavy drinkers” of bottled water

46.9

% a

re “

tap

wat

er d

rinke

rs”

46.9

% ta

p w

ater

drin

kers

37.1% are “light drinkers” of bottled water2.9%

Never

25.7% month

ly to

rare

ly

14.9% weekly to

several times/m

onth

46.9

% ta

p w

ater

drin

kers

2.9%Never 11.3% $0

15.9

% $

1-10

$11-208.1%

$21-30

4.8%

0.7% $31-401.8% $41-50

3.4% $51+

8.8% daily toseveral times/week

People who drink some bottled water

but never buy it

All currency in HK$

Respondents were asked about whether they drank more tap water or bottled water in their daily lives. Those who drank any bottled water were asked how frequently they bought bottled water, and how much money they spent on it per week during the last month.

Over half of the respondents drink at least some bottled water. 37.1 per cent say that they drink more tap water than bottled water, and so for the purposes of this report, are classified “light drinkers of bottled water”. About 16.9 per cent say that at least half of their water intake comes from bottled water, and are therefore classified as “heavy drinkers of bottled water”.

Based on purchase frequency and spending data, we can estimate that about a quarter of the respondent pool are occasional consumers who buy it once a month or less, or spend less than HK$10 a week on it. The remaining respondents are regular consumers of bottled water, who buy it at least several times a month. A small minority, around 5-9 per cent, are very heavy consumers who buy it at least several times a week or spend more than HK$40, with a few individuals reporting amounts well over HK$100. However, this underestimates bottled water consumption among the public due to the oversampling of older people and women (see Methodology).

Figure 1: Overall drinking preference, frequency of purchase and weekly spending on bottled water

7

Interestingly, while large bottles (1L or more) make up a small proportion of purchases, they are more likely to be bought by frequent consumers. Moderate and infrequent consumers overwhelmingly buy small- or medium-sized bottles (less than 1L), which are more wasteful of plastic. In order to tackle the problem of plastic waste, the behaviour of occasional as well as frequent consumers must be addressed.

Survey question: I would like to ask about your daily water drinking habits. Do you usually drink: 1 Tap water only? 46.7% “Tap water drinkers”2 More tap water than bottled water? 37.1% “Light bottled water drinkers”3 About half and half? 9.3%

“Heavy bottled water drinkers”4 More bottled water than tap water? 5.7%5 Bottled water only? 1.0%6 Don’t know? 0.2%Survey question: How often do you buy bottled water? 1 Every day or nearly every day 3.1%

“Daily to several times/week”2 A few times a week 5.7%

3 About once a week 6.7%“Weekly to several times/month”

4 Several times a month 8.2%5 About once a month 5.2%

“Monthly to rarely”6 Rarely 20.5%7 Never 2.9% “Never”8 Don’t know 1.0%

Tap water drinkers (excluded) 46.7%Survey question: How much did you spend on bottled water per week on average in the previous month? 1 HK$0 11.3%2 HK$1-10 15.9%3 HK$11-20 8.1%4 HK$21-30 4.8%5 HK$31-40 0.7%6 HK$41-50 1.8%7 HK$51 or more 3.4%8 Don’t know 4.5%

People who never buy bottled water (excluded) 2.9%Tap water drinkers (excluded) 46.7%

Figure 2: Detailed breakdown of overall drinking preference, frequency of purchase and weekly spending on bottled water

Figure 3: Size of bottles purchased “most of the time” by frequency of purchase

% frequent moderate raresmall 1 25.3 45.6 45.5med 2 52.9 46.3 48.6large 3 16.1 6.0 4.7v large 4 5.7 2.0 1.2

Less than 500ml

500ml to 1L

1L-2L

More than 2L

Frequent purchasers

Daily to a few times per week

Moderate purchasers

Once a week to several times a

month

Infrequent purchasersMonthly to

rarely

25.3%

52.9%

45.6% 45.5%

48.6%

4.7%

1.2%

46.3%

6.0%

2.0%

16.1%

5.7%

Count: 87 Count: 149 Count: 255“Don’t know” excluded491 valid cases

8

Concern and Action

3.1 Overall attitudes towards plastic waste

Respondents were asked three questions reflecting how much they cared about the problem of plastic waste. They were asked to rate its seriousness as a problem, their degree of personal concern towards the plastic waste problem, and the level of priority to which the government should give the problem.

Figure 4 shows that the overwhelming majority of respondents agree that plastic waste is a problem, with over 80 per cent of respondents saying the problem is “very serious” or “serious; and that the government should make it a “top” or “medium” level concern. However, far fewer say that they are personally concerned about it.

During the focus group, some participants expressed the view that compared to other environmental problems such as air pollution and food waste, plastic waste did not command as much of their attention. The prevailing attitude is that plastic waste is a problem, but not one which has an immediate impact on their lives, or which people spend much time thinking about. This is demonstrated by the relatively high proportion of respondents who replied “don’t know”, especially to the question on government priority, where 11.8 per cent replied “don’t know”.

3

Box 1: Section summary

Key findings1. Over 80 per cent of respondents recognise plastic waste as a serious or very serious problem,

but only about 15 per cent express a great deal of personal concern about it. 2. Caring about plastic waste has no clear relationship with whether or not respondents drank

bottled water. Among bottled water drinkers, those who care more about plastic waste buy bottled water slightly less frequently.

3. Respondents who care more about plastic waste are no more likely to use public water dispensers. However, they express more willingness to drink from public water dispensers if they are widely available and of good quality.

4. Respondents who care more about plastic waste are more likely to say they recycle. 5. Satisfaction with the quality of tap water has no obvious link to whether respondents drink

bottled water. 6. Respondents’ top self-reported reason for their drinking water choices (for either tap or bottled

water) is convenience and availability.

Conclusions and recommendations1. Inconvenience appears to be an important reason why concern does not get translated into

action. Policy should be aimed at making it easier and more convenient for people to engage in environmentally-friendly behaviours such as using refillable bottles.

2. As there is no clear relationship between concern about plastic waste and bottled water consumption, current public education is not effective in motivating behavioural change. More research is needed on what sorts of messages will be more effective at changing behaviour. One gap might be that the public needs to be educated on why recycling is not an adequate substitute for reduction at source.

9

3.2 Environmental attitudes have limited effect on behaviour

3.2.1 Consumption

No obvious relationship could be found between attitudes towards plastic waste and whether a respondent drinks bottled water or not. Figures 5 to 7 show that respondents who rate plastic waste a very serious problem, a top government priority, or have a great deal of concern about it, are not noticeably more likely to drink only tap water than those who place less importance on the problem.

The only noticeable trend is that those who replied “don’t know” to all three questions are the least likely to drink bottled water of all, with over 50 per cent saying that they only drank tap water. Respondents who reply “don’t know” tend to be older and less educated than other respondents, two demographic groups which were found to consume less bottled water than others (see Section 5). For example, on the question of seriousness, 62.7 per cent of those who replied “don’t know” are above age 55 compared to 40.3 per cent of the overall sample. Furthermore, 48 per cent have form 3 education or less, compared to 28.3 per cent of the overall sample.

1,013 valid cases

How

serious do you think the plastic waste problem is in

Hon

g Ko

ng?

How

high of a priority should the government make the plastic waste problem in

Hong

Kong

?How much concern do you have about the plastic waste problem in Hong Kong?

31.0% very serious

32.3% top priority

15.0% great deal of concern

46.0% some concern

7.7% not so serious

3.3% low

1.7% not a problem

0.2% not serious at all

11.8% don’t know

29.3

% li

ttle

con

cern

5.1% none

51.2% medium priority

53.7% serious

7.4% don’t know

4.5% don’t know

Figure 4: Overall attitudes towards plastic waste: seriousness, government priority, and personal concern

10

However, among respondents who do drink bottled water, attitudes towards plastic waste are mildly associated with a lower frequency of buying bottled water. Dividing respondents into those who buy bottled water several times a week or more (the brown shading on Figures 23 to 25), and those who buy it once a month or less (the green shading), the proportion of those who fall into the latter category increases as respondents place more importance on plastic waste in all three questions. Still, there is at most only a 10 per cent difference between the least and most concerned respondents in the proportion of respondents who buy bottled water once a month or less.

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

0

20

40

60

80

100

Heavy bottledwater drinkers

Light bottled water drinkers

Tap water drinkers



Tap water drinkers

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

0

20

40

60

80

100

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

0

20

40

60

80

100

Very serious

Top government priority

Medium government priority

Low government priority/ Not a problem

Don’t know

Great deal of concern

Some concern Little concern None Don’t know

Serious Not so serious/Not serious at all

Don’t know 1,001 valid cases

1,001 valid cases



Tap water drinkers

1,001 valid cases

49.7%

34.5%

16.4% 16.5% 13.3%

39.7% 35.4% 32.0%

43.9%48.1% 54.7%

47.0%

47.0%

46.6% 44.2% 53.2% 56.3%

38.6%27.7% 33.6%

37.6%

15.8% 17.2% 19.1%10.1%

34.4%

18.5% 15.0% 16.5% 22.0%6.8%

41.4% 32.3%40.0%

31.8%

43.6%51.2%

38.0%

61.4%

310 537 79 75Count:

322 513 47 119Count:

151 459 297 50 44Count:

15.8%

Figurre 5: Drinking preference by view on seriousness of plastic waste problem Pe

rcen

tage

of r

espo

nden

ts

0

20

40

60

80

100



Tap water drinkers



Tap water drinkers

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

0

20

40

60

80

100

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

0

20

40

60

80

100

Very serious




Don’t know





1,001 valid cases



Tap water drinkers

1,001 valid cases

49.7%

34.5%

16.4% 16.5% 13.3%

39.7% 35.4% 32.0%

43.9%48.1% 54.7%

47.0%

47.0%

46.6% 44.2% 53.2% 56.3%

38.6%27.7% 33.6%

37.6%

15.8% 17.2% 19.1%10.1%

34.4%

18.5% 15.0% 16.5% 22.0%6.8%

41.4% 32.3%40.0%

31.8%

43.6%51.2%

38.0%

61.4%

310 537 79 75Count:

322 513 47 119Count:

151 459 297 50 44Count:

15.8%

Figure 6: Drinking preference by level of government priority for plastic waste

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

0

20

40

60

80

100



Tap water drinkers



Tap water drinkers

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

0

20

40

60

80

100

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

0

20

40

60

80

100

Very serious




Don’t know





1,001 valid cases



Tap water drinkers

1,001 valid cases

49.7%

34.5%

16.4% 16.5% 13.3%

39.7% 35.4% 32.0%

43.9%48.1% 54.7%

47.0%

47.0%

46.6% 44.2% 53.2% 56.3%

38.6%27.7% 33.6%

37.6%

15.8% 17.2% 19.1%10.1%

34.4%

18.5% 15.0% 16.5% 22.0%6.8%

41.4% 32.3%40.0%

31.8%

43.6%51.2%

38.0%

61.4%

310 537 79 75Count:

322 513 47 119Count:

151 459 297 50 44Count:

15.8%

Figure 7: Drinking preference by level of concern about plastic waste

11

Again, those who express no opinion at all still purchase bottled water at similar frequencies to those who give the issue a high level of importance.Therefore, while concern does appear to be associated with a reduction in purchase frequency, on the whole the relationship is weak.

3.2.2 Water dispenser usage

Respondents were also asked about whether or not they had used a public water dispenser within the last six months. They were then asked about whether they would be willing to use a public water dispenser if certain conditions such as wide availability and quality were met.

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

0

20

40

60

80

100

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

0

20

40

60

80

100

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

0

20

40

60

80

100

Daily to several times a month

Monthly to never


Monthly to never


Monthly to never

Very serious

42.9%

57.1% 54.0%

46.0%

52.4%

47.6%

51.6%

48.4%




Don’t know


Some concern Little concern/ None

Don’t know


Don’t know 525 valid cases

525 valid cases

525 valid cases

43.3%

56.7%

40.5%

59.5%

44.2%

55.8%

50.3%

49.7%

33.3%

66.7%

46.3%

53.7%

54.5%

45.5%

42.9%

57.1%

155 298 42 31Count:

171 283 22 49Count:

79 258 173 15Count:

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

0

20

40

60

80

100

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

0

20

40

60

80

100

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

0

20

40

60

80

100


Monthly to never


Monthly to never


Monthly to never

Very serious

42.9%

57.1% 54.0%

46.0%

52.4%

47.6%

51.6%

48.4%




Don’t know



Don’t know



525 valid cases

525 valid cases

43.3%

56.7%

40.5%

59.5%

44.2%

55.8%

50.3%

49.7%

33.3%

66.7%

46.3%

53.7%

54.5%

45.5%

42.9%

57.1%

155 298 42 31Count:

171 283 22 49Count:

79 258 173 15Count:

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

0

20

40

60

80

100

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

0

20

40

60

80

100

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

0

20

40

60

80

100


Monthly to never


Monthly to never


Monthly to never

Very serious

42.9%

57.1% 54.0%

46.0%

52.4%

47.6%

51.6%

48.4%




Don’t know



Don’t know



525 valid cases

525 valid cases

43.3%

56.7%

40.5%

59.5%

44.2%

55.8%

50.3%

49.7%

33.3%

66.7%

46.3%

53.7%

54.5%

45.5%

42.9%

57.1%

155 298 42 31Count:

171 283 22 49Count:

79 258 173 15Count:

Figure 8: Frequency of purchase by view on seriousness of plastic waste problem

Figure 9: Frequency of purchase by level of government priority for plastic waste

Figure 10: Frequency of purchase by level of concern about plastic waste

12

There is no clear association between current water dispenser usage and environmental attitudes (see Figure 11). However, respondents who place a high or moderate level of importance on plastic waste express more willingness to use public water dispensers. Basic awareness of the issue is also associated with increased willingness to use a water dispenser, as those who reply “don’t know” to questions about plastic waste are the least willing to use water dispensers.

Figure 11: Water dispenser usage by attitudes towards plastic waste

0

40

20

60

80

100

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

48.5% 49.7%38.5% 35.7%

50.2% 50.7%34.8% 30.4%

51.7% 50.1% 46.0% 34.0% 30.2%

Seriousness Government priority Concern

Count: 307 529 78 70 321 505 46 112 149 455 287 50 43

74.1% 70.5% 77.5% 89.3% 73.1% 71.6% 74.5% 83.2% 73.2% 71.4% 73.6% 80.4% 89.1%Would be willing to use a water dispenser

Would not be willing to use a water dispenser

984 valid cases“Don’t knows” excluded

Very serio

us

Serio

us

Not so se

rious/

Not serio

us at a

llTo

p

Medium

Low/ N

ot

a problem

Don’t know

Great deal

of conce

rn

Some co

ncern

Little co

ncern

None

Don’t know

Don’t know

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

51.5% 50.3% 61.5% 64.3% 49.8% 65.2%49.3% 69.6% 48.3% 49.9% 54.0% 66.0% 69.8%

0

40

20

60

80

100

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

25.9% 29.5%22.5%

10.7%26.9% 28.4% 25.5%

16.8%26.8% 28.6% 26.4% 19.6%

10.9%


Count: 313 535 80 75 323 514 47 119 149 462 295 51 46

74.1% 70.5% 77.5% 89.3% 73.1% 71.6% 74.5% 83.2% 73.2% 71.4% 73.6% 80.4% 89.1%Used water dispensers in last 6 months

Did not use water dispensers in last 6 months

1013 valid cases“Don’t knows” excluded

Very serio

us

Serio

us

Not so se

rious/

Not serio

us at a

llTo

p

Medium

Low/ N

ot

a problem

Don’t know

Great deal

of conce

rn

Some co

ncern

Little co

ncern

None

Don’t know

Don’t know

Very serio

us

Serio

us

Not so se

rious/

Not serio

us at a

llTo

p

Medium

Low/ N

ot

a problem

Don’t know

Great deal

of conce

rn

Some co

ncern

Little co

ncern

None

Don’t know

Don’t know

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

0

20

40

60

80

100

1013 valid cases

66.9% 66.2%51.3% 45.3%

67.3% 66.9% 61.7%40.8%

73.7% 69.3% 60.6%

28.3%32.7%


Count: 314 544 80 75 327 519 47 120 152 466 297 52 46

Mentioned recycling

Did not mention recycling

33.1% 33.8% 48.8% 54.7% 32.7% 33.1% 38.3% 59.2% 26.3% 30.7% 39.4% 67.3% 71.7%

Figure 13: Self-reported recycling by concern about plastic waste

Figure 12: Willingness to use water dispensers by attitudes towards plastic waste

13

3.2.3 Recycling

In terms of recycling, a different pattern prevails. Respondents were asked open-endedly to tell the interviewer what they normally do with empty plastic bottles. Overall, 65.2 per cent of respondents mention recycling, although more research is needed on the how consistently people recycle their waste.

Those who have a great deal or some concern about plastic waste are much more likely to recycle plastic bottles than those who rate it of little or no concern. While high levels of concern are associated with only slight reductions in the frequency of purchasing bottled water, even moderate levels of concern appear to be enough to prompt people to recycle their waste at least some of the time. As with willingness to drink from water dispensers, basic awareness of the plastic waste issue is associated with increased recycling, as those who replied “don’t know” are the least likely to recycle.

Very poor

Don’t know

Poor

So-so

Good

Very good

Tap water only drinkers


Heavy bottled water drinkers

39.9%

36.9%

5.3%

0.6%

8.1% 9.2% 7.5%

41.1%

41.4%

3.8%1.6%4.6%

11.3%

34.0%

46.7%

6.7%

0.7% 0.7%

Count: 469 372 150

991 valid cases

Figure 14: Rating of tap water quality by drinking preference

37.0%1. Convenience/Availability

58.2%1. Convenience/Availability

36.5%2. Cost

22.4%2. No other choice

16.8%3. Safety/Quality/Clean

13.4%3. Safety/Quality/Clean

14.7%4. Health/Nutrition

4.5%4. Health/Nutrition

8.7%5. Environmental concerns

4.5%5. Taste

Top 5 reasons for drinking tap water

Top 5 reasons for drinking bottled water

Respondents who drink only or mainly tap water 841 valid cases

Respondents who drink only or mainly bottled water 67 valid cases

Figure 15: Self-reported reasons for drinking water choices

14

3.2 Tap water quality is not the issue

Worries about the quality of tap water in Hong Kong are at best a minor factor in motivating bottled water consumption. Figure 14 shows minimal differences in the opinions of tap water drinkers, light bottled water drinkers, and heavy bottled drinkers on tap water quality. This indicates that focusing on tap water quality is unlikely to be effective in reducing bottled water consumption.

3.3 Convenience is the main consideration

Respondents were asked, unprompted, to name the reason or reasons why they drank primarily tap or bottled water. In both groups, convenience is the most commonly stated reason. Among respondents who only or mostly drank tap water, cost is the second most common reason.

Among the 7 per cent of respondents who drank only or mostly bottled water, the second most commonly given reason is a lack of other options. These respondents often said that they drank bottled water supplied by their employers as there was no potable tap water available at their workplace.

This implies that a substantial number of these heavy users can be persuaded to switch to tap water if it were available at their workplaces. However, since there are so few of them, major inroads can only be made by addressing the habits of occasional bottled water consumers.

3.4 Conclusion and recommendations

There are gaps between concern, intent and action. Awareness and concern about plastic waste is linked to increases in recycling and willingness to use water dispensers, but only to a mild decrease in the frequency of bottled water purchase. Concern is also unrelated to current water dispenser usage. Public policy must address these gaps.

One major gap is in awareness. Existing public education and school curriculum programmes appear to be relatively ineffective in reducing bottled water consumption. More research is needed to find out why it is ineffective and what sorts of messages would be more successful. One possible problem was revealed during the focus group, when some participants expressed the view that as long as bottles were recycled, then bottled water consumption would have no environmental impact. The public needs to be better informed on why this is a misconception, as recycled materials must often be downcycled into lesser quality products, and new petrochemicals are still required to make plastic bottles.

While large majorities recognise plastic waste as a serious issue and as a problem for the government to deal with, smaller numbers say it is a major personal concern. A majority of respondents also say that convenience is their main consideration in their drinking water choices.

This suggests that policy-makers need to focus on making it more convenient to consume less bottled water, or giving people incentives to engage in more environmentally-friendly behaviour. This will be more fully addressed in the next section.

15

Making Change Easy 4Box 2: Section summary

Key findings1. Only about a quarter of respondents used water dispensers in the last 6 months, but nearly

half expressed willingness to use water dispensers if they were widely available and provided good quality water.

2. Altogether, sports grounds, parks, swimming pools and schools account for almost 80 per cent of locations where respondents reported using water dispensers. People who do not participate in sports or who do not attend or work in schools rarely encounter them.

3. Judging from the difference between current usage and willingess to use them, adults aged 35-55, especially clerks, service and “blue-collar” workers, and “housewives” appear to be the most underserved by existing public water dispensers.

4. Greater satisfaction with recycling facilities is associated with higher rates of recycling among respondents who are not personally concerned about the plastic waste problem.

5. Older respondents and those from lower socio-economic backgrounds, e.g. aged 55+, form 3 education or less, service and “blue-collar” workers and the retired are least likely to recycle.

Conclusions and recommendations1. To encourage reduction at source, high quality drinking water dispensers should be positioned in

prominent locations frequented by working adults and “housewives”, such as MTR stations, bus terminuses, shopping malls, and outside wet markets/community complexes. The water should be filtered and the dispensers should be well-maintained.

2. The Government should also encourage developers to provide potable tap water sources (e.g. pantries with a sink) on each floor in newly constructed office buildings. Employers should be offered incentives to retrofit potable tap water sources into existing workplaces.

3. Although reduction at source is better, recycling should still be encouraged. One way to to do so is to improve the reliability and trustworthiness of plastic waste collection.

4. A bottle deposit and exchange scheme should be piloted in lower-income neighbourhoods with older populations in order to offer incentives for recycling.

4.1 Alternatives to plastic waste

This section will explore how to encourage people to adopt behaviours that reduce plastic waste: refilling bottles from public water dispensers, and recycling. It examines the behaviours of different demographic groups in order to help policy-makers target their policies more effectively.

4.2 Expanding water dispenser usage

4.2.1 Quality and satisfaction

Only a quarter of respondents report having used a public water dispenser in the last 6 months, and just 9 per cent report “usually” drinking from them. However, the overall proportion of respondents wiling to use them is 46.4 per cent provided that standards of availability and quality are met.

Those who were satisfied with the quality of existing water dispensers were asked if they would be willing to use them if they were more widely

16

Figure 17: Satisfaction with and willingness to use water dispensers

Yes50.3%

No47.4%

Yes41.5%

No55.1%

3.3% Don’t know 2.3% Don’t know

20.3% Satisfied

11.8%Dissatisfied

33.2% So-so

30.3% Don’t know

1.5% Very satisfied

2.9% Very dissatisfied

How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality of existing public dispensed water in Hong Kong?

Would you bring your own drinking bottle to refill water if a water

dispenser is available?

Would you bring your own drinking bottle to refill water if a water dispenser provided with similar quality of bottled water is available?

1,003 valid cases

555 valid cases448 valid cases

At home

At work or at school

96.6% From public water fountains or dispensers9.2%

32.8% Others4.8%*

Figure 18: Where do you usually drink tap water?

992 valid cases. “Don’t know” excluded. Respondents allowed to choose more than one answer.

Yes26.4%

No72.7%

Don’t know 0.9% Don’t know 2.8%

Yes46.4%

No50.8%

Survey question: Have you used a public water dispenser within the last 6 months?

Survey question: Would you bring your own bottle to refill drinking water if a water dispenser is available/if a water dispenser provided with similar quality of bottled water is available?

Figure 16: Current and hypothetical water dispenser usage

17

available. Over half said yes. Those who were dissatisfied with the existing quality, or who had no opinion, were asked whether they would be willing to use water dispensers if the water quality were comparable to bottled water. About 4 in 10 said they would.

Dissatisfied respondents cited concerns about safety, poor maintenance and odd tasting water. Even though Section 3 showed no relationship between bottled water consumption and dissatisfaction with tap water, less than 1 per cent of respondents drink tap water straight from the tap. 67.9 per cent boil it, 4.8 per cent filter it, and 26.6 per cent do both. Public water dispensers which offered filtered water would be more likely to win public acceptance. Maintenance and cleaning schedules should also be prominently displayed.

4.2.2. Targeting likely users

Looking at the demographics of water dispenser usage (Figure 20) can help focus policy-makers’ efforts. Women, adults aged 35-54, people earning less than HK$30,000 and those without post-secondary education have the biggest gaps between current water dispenser usage and willingess to use them. Clerks, service and “blue-collar” workers and “housewives” show up as groups with large potential for expansion. Students are already well-served by water dispensers in schools, while older adults, especially the retired, are not especially interested in using them.

The locations where people report using water dispensers (Figure 19) help explain why these populations are underserved. 67.2 per cent of respondents drank from water dispensers at recreational facilities including sports grounds, swimming pools and parks, and another 11.2 per cent at schools. Only people who participate in sports (a group that likely skews younger and male) and people who attend or work in schools and universities are likely to regularly encounter water dispensers. 30.3 per cent of respondents so unfamiliar with them that they unable to give a satisfaction rating.

Sports ground or sports centre

Park

40.7%

Airport6.7%

Library4.3%

Workplace3.6%

Hospital or clinic3.6%

Church2.0%

Other2.4%

19.4%

School or university11.5%

Swimming pool7.1%

*253 valid casesRespondents allowed to name more than one place.

Figure 19: Location of water dispenser usage

18

21.3 23.2 15.1

13.9%

35.2%

50.9% 57.5% 43.6%26.3 26 10.7

24.5%

47.7%

38.1%

53.2%

20.3%

45.3% 47.5%

36.2%

25 11.3

Women

Form 3 and below educational attainment

Form 4 to Form 7 educational attainment

Post-secondary educational attainment

Men

Percentage who have used a water dispenser within the past 6 months

Percentage willing to use a water dispenser if available/high quality

Gap between willingness and current usage

GENDER

EDUCATION

PERSONAL INCOME

18-34 yrs

35-54 yrs

55+ yrs

40.8%

55.6%14.8

26.8%

53.4%26.5

18.1%

34.3%16.2

AGE

1,013 valid cases

1,002 valid cases 1,004 valid cases

Count: 640

Managers and Administrators

Professionals & Associate

Professionals

Clerks Service and “Blue Collar”

“Housewives” Retired Unemployed

30.4%

49.3%18.8

38.2%

49.3%11

26.5%

57.8%31.4

19.9%

50.7%30.9

16.3%

45.6%29.3

19.6%

29.6%10

25.0%

61.4%36.4

50.6%

59.3%8.6

OCCUPATIONStudents

976 valid cases

Count: 69 Count: 136 Count: 102 Count: 136 Count: 147 Count: 260 Count: 44 Count: 81

Count: 287

Count: 167 Count: 146 Count: 101

Count: 350

Count: 223

Count: 373

Count: 408Count: 365

Count: 373

414 valid cases

24.6% 31.5% 32.7%<HK$15,000 HK$15,000-29,999 HK$30,000+

Figure 20: Demographics of water dispenser usage

19

Water dispensers offering should therefore be located in places frequented by working adults, such as MTR stations and shopping malls. Entrances to wet markets and community centres may also be considered.

The Government should also encourage employers to provide potable tap water in workplaces, as only 32.8 per cent of respondents said that they “usually” drank tap water at work or school, and just 3.6 per cent reported that they had used a water dispenser at work. To set a good example, potable tap water should be made available in all public sector office buildings. The Buildings Department should encourage developers to make sure that new commercial buildings’ plumbing is configured so that each floor can have a pantry with a tap. Employers should be offered incentives to retrofit potable tap water sources into existing workplaces.

4.3 Encouraging recycling While recycling is not a perfect substitute for reduction, it still reduces the amount of plastic waste going into landfills and should also be encouraged. As mentioned in Section 3, 65.2 per cent of respondents reported that they recycled plastic waste. However, recycling varies between demographic groups.

GENDER

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

65.9%76.6%

66.2% 69.2% 61.5% 55.2%

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

Age group

AGE

1,004 valid cases

975 valid cases

1,013 valid cases

67.7%

62.3% 75.7% 77.5% 58.1% 72.1% 52.3% 56.8% 65.4%

56.8%

EDUCATION PERSONAL INCOME

1,002 valid cases 414 valid cases

53.0% 59.9% 78.1% 73.3%66.0% 70.2%Form 3 and below Form 4 to Form 7 Post-secondary



Professionals


“Housewives” Retired Unemployed

OCCUPATIONStudent

<HK$15,000 HK$15,000-29,999 HK$30,000+

Figure 21: Self-reported recycling by demographic categories

20

The propensity to recycle decreases with age and rise with educational attainment and income. “blue-collar” and service workers, the retired, and the unemployed are the least likely to report recycling.

More public awareness campaigns to foster concern among these groups may not be effective because respondents aged 55-65 and those with Form 3 or less education already report comparatively high levels of concern about plastic waste —see Section 5. Other strategies, such as a bottle deposit and return scheme offering a small cash incentive,

Satisfaction with plastic

recycling facilities

38.1%

37.2%

8.3%

14.8%

1.6% Very satisfied

Satisfied

Dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

Don’t know

1,013 valid cases

68.4%

43.3%

66.2%

Percentage of v. satisfied and satisfied respondents who mentioned recycling

Percentage of dissatisfied and v. dissatisfied respondents who mentioned recycling

Percentage of “don’t know” respondents who mentioned recycling

Overall, 65.2% of respondents mentioned recycling

Figure 22: Self-reported recycling by satisfaction with recycling facilities

Great deal or some concern about plastic waste

Very satisfied or satisfied with recycling facilities

Dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with recycling facilities

Don’t know

Little or no concern about plastic waste

Don’t know




Mentioned recycling Did not mention recycling

72.7% 27.3% 32.8%

41.3%

63.5% 84.6%

30.2%

36.7%

67.2% 27.3% 72.7%

25.0%75.0%

15.4%

58.7%

36.5%

69.8%

63.3%

Figure 23: Self-reported recycling by satisfaction with recycling facilities and concern about plastic waste

21

might be more successful. It should be piloted in lower-income neighbourhoods with older populations. Supermarkets or convenience stores in public housing estates would be good locations to test. Improving the reliability and trustworthiness of plastic collection for recycling, thereby raising people’s satisfaction with recyling facilities, may modestly increase recycling rates. During the focus group, some participants expressed dissatisfaction with recycling facilities as they doubted that plastic placed in recycling bins would really be recycled instead of ending up in landfills. This lack of confidence in collection arrangements might discourage people from recycling their waste.

Figure 22 shows that people who have little or no concern about plastic waste are more deterred by dissatisfaction with recycling facilities than those who are concerned. Among concerned respondents, nearly identical percentages of respondents recycle whether they are satisfied or dissatisfied with recycling facilites. However, for unconcerned respondents, dissatisfaction with recycling facilities is associated with an 8.5 percentage point drop in the proportion of respondents who recycle.

4.4 Conclusion and recommendations

Inconvenience and lack of confidence in alternatives are obstacles to action. To change people’s habits, these problems must be addressed.

In order to encourage people to use refillable bottles and public water dispensers, water dispensers must be located in more convenient locations accessible during daily activities, and not just when doing exercise. MTR stations, shopping malls, and possibly wet markets and community centres are options to consider. However, water dispensers must be perceived to be well-maintained and safe in order for people to be willing to use them. The water should be filtered and the maintenance schedule prominently displayed.

Developers and employers should also be encouraged to provide potable tap water sources in new and existing workplaces, as only a minority of respondents reported drinking tap water at work. People will drink bottled water at work if that is what is available, and many of them would happily switch to tap water if that became the default option.

Although people who are concerned about plastic waste are more likely to recycle, financial incentives in the form of a bottle deposit return scheme might also be more successful in motivating people to do so than concern alone. Bottle deposit schemes should be piloted in low-income neighbourhoods with older age distributions in order to test the response from older residents and less educated, “blue-collar” workers who are currently the least likely to recycle.

Improving the reliability and trustworthiness of plastic waste collection will also encourage even those who are not too concerned about plastic waste to recycle.

22

5.1 Demographics of bottled water consumption

Gender, age group, educational attainment and occupation were all found to be correlated with drinking preference. Men drink bottled water more than women. Preference for bottled water also rises with educational attainment, and falls with age. Employed respondents and students drink bottled water much more than “housewives” and retirees. Respondents earning more than HK$30,000 a month are marginally less likely to drink tap water only than those who earned less. However, personal income may not be the most reliable indicator of discretionary spending because people usually pool their finances with family members, yet the question does not disclose any information about other earners in their household.

Similar patterns held for gender, age and educational attainment for the frequency of purchase and weekly spending on bottled water. However, no relationship could be found for income or occupation as the sample sizes were too small after excluding those who are not in the workforce or who do not drink bottled water.

Collectively, these figures point towards bottled water consumption being most prevalent among those of moderate to high socio-economic status, and among those under the age of 55, but especially young adults.

Those aged 18-34 buy bottled water the most frequently, but typically spend HK$1-10 a week on it. They are also more likely to shop at convenience stores. This points towards a pattern of small but frequent unplanned purchases.

Targeting the Right People: Demographics of Bottled Water Consumption

5

Box 3: Section summary

Key findings1. Demographics, including gender, age, educational attainment are strongly correlated with

bottled water consumption. This shows that socio-economic status and social environment have more to do with bottled water consumption than concern about plastic waste.

2. The data tentatively indicates that those who do not consume much bottled water do so mainly due to longstanding habits, lifestyle and financial constraints rather than due to environmental attitudes. Less educated and lower-income respondents drink less bottled water, as do those who are likely to spend much of their time at home, namely “housewives” and retirees.

3. Younger and more educated respondents tend to have mildly pro-environment attitudes, which is associated with some environmentally-friendly behaviours like recycling and being willing to drink from water dispensers, but they also are the biggest consumers of bottled water.

Conclusions and recommendations1. In order to reduce bottled water consumption, policy-makers and opinion-makers need to

target high-consuming demographics, namely the young and well-educated. On the other hand, campaigns to encourage recycling should be targeted towards older and less-educated demographics.

2. More detailed research should be carried out on the consumption patterns and behaviours of these specific demographic groups in order to better identify levers for change.

23

Respondents aged 30-55 buy bottled water less frequently than their younger counterparts, and are slightly more likely to drink only tap water. Their spending patterns are broadly similar to 18-34 year-olds, but a greater percentage of those who drank bottled water report not spending any money on it in the past month (25.9 per cent vs.16.3 per cent).

Unlike younger age groups, a majority of respondents over 55 report drinking only tap water, and those who do drink bottled water purchase it less frequently and spend less money on it. 66 per cent buy it once a month or less, and 68.7 per cent report spending HK$10 or less on it. Those who buy bottled water are about equally likely to usually buy it at supermarkets as convenience stores. Supermarket purchases are usually planned shopping trips and more likely to involve bulk purchases.

5.2 Demographics of attitudes towards plastic waste

Attitudes towards plastic waste vary between different demographic groups, but higher levels of concern about plastic waste do not necessarily align with lower consumption of bottled water or more environmentally-friendly behaviours in the same groups.

Figure 29 shows the extreme responses to three questions on seriousness, government priority and personal concern towards the plastic waste problem. As shown in Section 3, “Concern and Action” (p.9), a majority or

69.7% 72.5%

31.3%21.8%

40.7%

10.5%

Convenience Stores Supermarkets Grocers

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

of

eith

er g

ende

r

0

20

40

60

80

100506 valid cases

84.6

%

17.6

%

24.2

%

19.7

%

7.6%

5.4% 12

.6%

36.6

%

32.8

%

34.8

%

31.5

%

48.3

%

43.9

%73.8

%

81.5

%

51.5

%

54.0

%

41.5

%

18-24 yrs

25-34 yrs

35-44 yrs

45-54 yrs

55-64 yrs

65+ yrs

Convenience Stores Supermarkets Grocers

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

in

age

gro

up

0

20

40

60

80

100502 valid cases

Figure 24: Location of purchase by gender

Figure 25: Location of purchase by age group

24

Count: 636 365 1003

Heavy bottled water drinkers“half and half, more bottled water than tap water, or only bottled water”

Light bottled water drinkers“more tap water than bottled water”

Tap water only drinkers“only tap water”

Survey question: I would like to ask about your daily water drinking habits. Do you usually drink:

GENDER

OCCUPATION

EDUCATION

50.5%

37.7%

11.8%

36.2%

23.3%

40.5%

37.2%

16.0%

46.9%

“Don’t know” excluded Valid cases = 1,003

Below Form 3 Form 4-7 Post-secondary

“Don’t know” and “Refuse” excluded 990 valid cases


Count: 284 345 361

65.1%

27.5%

7.4%

44.3%

35.7%

20.0%

34.3%

46.5%

19.1%

Professionals and Associate

Professionals


Clerks

34.7%

43.6%

21.8%

Service & “Blue Collar”

37.1%

35.6%

26.5%

Count: 68 136 101 131 146 260 80 41

31.9%

37.7%

29.0%

35.3%

42.6%

18.4%

Retired

69.2%

27.3%

3.5%

Students

27.5%

46.3%

26.3%

Unemployed

38.1%

45.2%

14.3%

AGE

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

“Don’t know” excluded Total valid cases = 992

Count: 126 93 151 218 202 202

27.0%

46.0%

27.0%

34.4%

35.5%

30.1%

39.1%

41.7%

19.2%

36.7%

44.0%

19.3%

54.0%

34.2%

11.9%

73.8%

24.8%

1.5%

Count: 163 145 101

PERSONAL INCOME “Don’t know” and “Refuse” excluded 409 valid cases

Less than HK$15,000 HK$15,000-HK$29,999 HK$30,000+

35.2%

37.2%

27.6%

38.0%

36.8%

25.2%

25.7%

52.5%

21.8%

“Housewives”

54.8%

38.4%

6.8%

Figure 26: Demographic breakdown of drinking habits

plurality of respondents selected the moderate positive answer on each question, e.g. that it was a “serious” problem, it should be a “medium” government priority, and that they had “some” concern about it. These are the socially acceptable answers given by those who do not have strong feelings about the issue. It is more useful to compare the extreme answers on both ends: those who placed a very high importance on plastic waste (very serious, top priority and a “great deal” of concern), and those who gave negative answers (e.g. not a serious problem, should be a low or non-priority for government, and had little or no concern). Outlined below are some highlights.

The strongest correlation is between age and personal concern. People aged 18-35 express much less concern than older age groups. Almost half of respondents aged 18-35 have little or no concern, compared with

25

Count: 636 365 1003

Heavy bottled water drinkers“half and half, more bottled water than tap water, or only bottled water”

Light bottled water drinkers“more tap water than bottled water”

Tap water only drinkers“only tap water”

Survey question: I would like to ask about your daily water drinking habits. Do you usually drink:

GENDER

OCCUPATION

EDUCATION

50.5%

37.7%

11.8%

36.2%

23.3%

40.5%

37.2%

16.0%

46.9%

“Don’t know” excluded Valid cases = 1,003

Below Form 3 Form 4-7 Post-secondary



Count: 284 345 361

65.1%

27.5%

7.4%

44.3%

35.7%

20.0%

34.3%

46.5%

19.1%

Professionals and Associate

Professionals


Clerks

34.7%

43.6%

21.8%

Service & “Blue Collar”

37.1%

35.6%

26.5%

Count: 68 136 101 131 146 260 80 41

31.9%

37.7%

29.0%

35.3%

42.6%

18.4%

Retired

69.2%

27.3%

3.5%

Students

27.5%

46.3%

26.3%

Unemployed

38.1%

45.2%

14.3%

AGE

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

“Don’t know” excluded Total valid cases = 992

Count: 126 93 151 218 202 202

27.0%

46.0%

27.0%

34.4%

35.5%

30.1%

39.1%

41.7%

19.2%

36.7%

44.0%

19.3%

54.0%

34.2%

11.9%

73.8%

24.8%

1.5%

Count: 163 145 101

PERSONAL INCOME “Don’t know” and “Refuse” excluded 409 valid cases

Less than HK$15,000 HK$15,000-HK$29,999 HK$30,000+

35.2%

37.2%

27.6%

38.0%

36.8%

25.2%

25.7%

52.5%

21.8%

“Housewives”

54.8%

38.4%

6.8%

just over a quarter of those aged 55 and over. Nevertheless, the younger respondents do not give more negative answers to the “seriousness” or “government priority” questions. These answers seem consistent with mildly positive environmental attitudes but little personal investment in the plastic waste problem. This may help to explain the paradox of why younger respondents consume more bottled water, but are also more likely to recycle and to be willing to use water dispensers.

Regarding educational attainment, the least educated respondents (form 3 or below) are the most divided. They are slightly more likely to give strongly positive answers to the questions about plastic waste, but also more likely to give negative answers. Less educated respondents consume less bottled water, but report less recycling or willingness to use water dispensers. As shown in Section 3, both strong and moderate concern towards the plastic

26

Count: 310 215 525

GENDER

AGE

EDUCATION

“Don’t know” excluded Valid cases = 525

Count: 152 226 144

Count: 95

“Don’t know” and “Refuse” excluded Valid cases = 522

Daily to several times a week

Once a week to several times a month

Monthly to rarely

Never

11.9%23.7%

34.4%

37.7%

4.2%

24.5%

57.1%

6.5%

16.8%

28.6%

49.1%

5.5%

Survey question: How often do you buy bottled water?

24.3% 15.9%

27.0%

52.7%

4.4%

37.5%

37.5%

0.7%

9.7%

21.5%

56.3%

9.7%


18.3%

27.2%

49.7%

4.7%

10.5%

22.1%

52.6%

14.7%

Count: 191 Count: 235

17.4%

32.3%

47.7%

2.6%

18-34 35-54 55+

Figure 27: Demographic breakdown of frequency of purchase among bottled water drinkers

waste problem is associated with recycling and willingness to drink from water dispensers, and the relative lack of these attitudes among less educated may account for the behavioural patterns observed.

Personal income also shows some unusual patterns. Lower-income respondents (earning less than HK$15,000 per month) are less personally concerned with plastic waste, but more likely to think the government should make it a top priority. The opposite case is true for the highest income respondents (earning more than HK$30,000 per month). They are slightly more likely to be personally concerned, but less likely to think it should be a top priority for government. Yet, there is not much difference between the level of seriousness that all income groups assigned to the plastic waste problem. It is probable that high income respondents think that there are other, more important problems for the government to deal with.

27

Figure 28: Demographic breakdown of weekly spending on bottled water

HK$41-50

HK$51+

HK$0

HK$1-10

HK$11-20

HK$21-30

HK$31-40

25.9%

30.2%

17.1%

12.7%

2.0%

3.9%

8.3%

HK$41-50

HK$51+

HK$0

HK$1-10

HK$11-20

HK$21-30

HK$31-40

32.1%

36.6%

13.4%

7.1%

0.9%

2.7%

7.1%

“Don’t know” excluded 458 valid cases

35-54 yrs

55+ yrs

Percentage of respondents

HK$0

HK$1-10

HK$11-20

HK$21-30

HK$31-40

HK$41-50

HK$51+

“Don’t know” excluded 461 valid cases

29.7%

35.7%

16.9%

6.0%

2.3%

1.9%

7.5%

17.4%

33.3%

18.5%

14.4%

9.2%

6.2%

1.0%

GENDERCount: 266 195

AGE

HK$0

HK$1-10

HK$11-20

HK$21-30

HK$31-40

HK$41-50

HK$51+

16.3%

40.4%

20.6%

9.9%

1.4%

5.0%

6.4%18-34 yrs

Count: 141

Count: 205

Count: 112

EDUCATION 458 valid cases“Don’t know” and “Refuse” excluded

HK$4

1-50

HK$5

1+

HK$0

HK$1

-10

HK$1

1-20

HK$2

1-30

HK$3

1-40

22.0%34.5%

20.8%

8.3%1.2% 3.6%

9.5%

21.5%

36.4%

17.3% 13.1%1.9% 3.3% 6.5%

39.5%

28.9%

10.5% 7.9%1.3% 6.6% 5.3%

Count: 76

Count: 168

Count: 214

Form 3 and below

Form 4-7

Post-secondary

Survey question: How much did you spend on bottled water per week on average in the previous month?

Among the occupational groups, students stand out. Only 14.8 per cent of them rate plastic waste a “very serious” problem, and only single digit percentages of them feel it should be a top government priority or an issue of great personal concern. Students are among the heaviest consumers of bottled water, moderately likely to recycle, and the most likely to use water dispensers due to the prevalence of water dispensers on school campuses. The fact that those who are still in school are such heavy consumers of bottled water, despite being in close proximity to environmentally-friendly alternatives, indicates that environmental messages conveyed through the education system are ineffective in reducing consumption.

28


14.5%32.3% 32.2%

15.8%

33.0%

3.9%

34.5% 24.9%

11.8%6.7%

5.7%

8.6% 12.8%

5.9%

10.2% 37.0%

4.7% 4.3%

GENDER

OCCUPATION

35.3% 32.9% 31.7% 37.1% 29.5% 27.7%11.4% 15.8% 19.8%

7.2%

7.2% 6.2% 4.0% 9.0% 4.1% 8.9%

1.8%1.4% 4.0%

4.8% 6.9% 4.8% 5.5% 3.0%

44.3%34.9% 26.8%

PERSONAL INCOME

How serious do you think the plastic waste problem is in Hong Kong?

How high a priority should the government make the plastic waste in Hong Kong?

How much concern do you have about the plastic waste problem in Hong Kong?

1,013 valid cases

“Refuse” excluded 975 valid cases

24.2%36.5% 29.7%

8.5% 13.7% 20.1%18.8%33.2% 39.0%

6.3%3.1% 5.4%

11.5%3.6% 8.3% 18.9%

7.5% 9.3% 5.4% 4.5% 4.4%

49.8%

0.9%

33.3%

3.5%

27.4%

7.1%

AGE “Refuse” excluded 1,004 valid cases

31.4% 33.4% 28.2% 37.6% 32.3% 27.7% 18.1% 14.0% 14.0%

11.4%12.5% 6.3% 4.1% 22.3% 7.1% 7.4%

10.1%

7.2% 5.8% 5.5% 4.5% 4.1%33.1% 37.2%

2.0%

27.4%

1.9%

EDUCATION “Refuse” excluded 1,002 valid cases


Very serious

Not so serious/ Not serious at all

Don’t know

Not shown: Serious

Women

18-34 35-55 55+

Form 3 and below

<$HK15,000 $HK15,000-29,999

$HK30,000+

Form 4-7 Post-secondary

Men

Not shown: Medium

Top

Low/Not a problem

Don’t know

Not shown: Some

Great deal

Little/None

Don’t know

Bars left to right:

Managers and

Administrators


Professionals


“Housewives” Retired Unemployed Students

Seriousness

Government priority

Concern

26.1%

7.2%2.9%

4.3%5.8%

36.2%

2.9%2.2%

4.4%4.8% 7.7% 6.8%

29.4% 38.2% 39.7% 31.3% 28.8% 29.5%55.6%

7.4% 5.9%9.6% 12.9%

20.0% 4.5% 4.9%

3.7%

3.7%3.9% 5.9% 3.4% 4.6% 4.5% 6.2%

7.4%5.1%

2.0% 4.9%10.3% 8.2% 11.2% 9.1% 3.7%

9.1%11.9%5.4%8.1%

33.3%

18.8% 15.4% 12.7% 16.2% 12.9% 20.0% 11.4%

30.9% 28.4% 36.8% 34.7% 37.3% 38.6%

8.6%

34.6% 36.3% 35.3% 27.9% 28.8%47.7%

14.8%

Count:640 373

Count: 69 136 102 136 147 260 44 81

Count:

223 373 408

Count:

287 350 365

Count:

167 146 101

Figure 29: Demographic breakdown of attitudes towards plastic waste

29


14.5%32.3% 32.2%

15.8%

33.0%

3.9%

34.5% 24.9%

11.8%6.7%

5.7%

8.6% 12.8%

5.9%

10.2% 37.0%

4.7% 4.3%

GENDER

OCCUPATION

35.3% 32.9% 31.7% 37.1% 29.5% 27.7%11.4% 15.8% 19.8%

7.2%

7.2% 6.2% 4.0% 9.0% 4.1% 8.9%

1.8%1.4% 4.0%

4.8% 6.9% 4.8% 5.5% 3.0%

44.3%34.9% 26.8%

PERSONAL INCOME

How serious do you think the plastic waste problem is in Hong Kong?

How high a priority should the government make the plastic waste in Hong Kong?

How much concern do you have about the plastic waste problem in Hong Kong?

1,013 valid cases


24.2%36.5% 29.7%

8.5% 13.7% 20.1%18.8%33.2% 39.0%

6.3%3.1% 5.4%

11.5%3.6% 8.3% 18.9%

7.5% 9.3% 5.4% 4.5% 4.4%

49.8%

0.9%

33.3%

3.5%

27.4%

7.1%

AGE “Refuse” excluded 1,004 valid cases

31.4% 33.4% 28.2% 37.6% 32.3% 27.7% 18.1% 14.0% 14.0%

11.4%12.5% 6.3% 4.1% 22.3% 7.1% 7.4%

10.1%

7.2% 5.8% 5.5% 4.5% 4.1%33.1% 37.2%

2.0%

27.4%

1.9%

EDUCATION “Refuse” excluded 1,002 valid cases


Very serious

Not so serious/ Not serious at all

Don’t know

Not shown: Serious

Women

18-34 35-55 55+

Form 3 and below

<$HK15,000 $HK15,000-29,999

$HK30,000+

Form 4-7 Post-secondary

Men

Not shown: Medium

Top

Low/Not a problem

Don’t know

Not shown: Some

Great deal

Little/None

Don’t know

Bars left to right:

Managers and

Administrators


Professionals


“Housewives” Retired Unemployed Students

Seriousness

Government priority

Concern

26.1%

7.2%2.9%

4.3%5.8%

36.2%

2.9%2.2%

4.4%4.8% 7.7% 6.8%

29.4% 38.2% 39.7% 31.3% 28.8% 29.5%55.6%

7.4% 5.9%9.6% 12.9%

20.0% 4.5% 4.9%

3.7%

3.7%3.9% 5.9% 3.4% 4.6% 4.5% 6.2%

7.4%5.1%

2.0% 4.9%10.3% 8.2% 11.2% 9.1% 3.7%

9.1%11.9%5.4%8.1%

33.3%

18.8% 15.4% 12.7% 16.2% 12.9% 20.0% 11.4%

30.9% 28.4% 36.8% 34.7% 37.3% 38.6%

8.6%

34.6% 36.3% 35.3% 27.9% 28.8%47.7%

14.8%

Count:640 373

Count: 69 136 102 136 147 260 44 81

Count:

223 373 408

Count:

287 350 365

Count:

167 146 101

30

The survey was conducted using Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) to randomly dial residential land-lines between 8 August and 12 August 2014 between 6:30pm and 10:00pm. Eligible respondents consisted of Hong Kong residents aged 18 or above who spoke Cantonese, Putonghua or English. Foreign domestic helpers were excluded from the sample. The “next birthday” method was used to select members of households for interview.5 A total of 25,284 calls were attempted, resulting in 10,159 successful contacts of eligible respondents, yielding a contact rate of 40.1 per cent.6 Of these, 1,013 interviews were successfully completed, yielding a completion rate of 10 per cent.7 The margin of error for a sample of this size is +/-3.08 per cent. To see the questionnaire used, please refer to the full report at www.civic-exchange.org/en/publications/XXXXXXX

Compared with the general population distribution of Hong Kong, women, those aged 55 and over, and non-employed participants were over-represented in the sample. This is due to the fact that these groups are more likely to be found at home and to be available to answer telephone surveys. Older households may also be more likely to have land-line telephones. Although Hong Kong’s land-line telephone penetration rate is still very high, younger households are more likely to have abandoned land-lines in favour of mobile phones, which are as still less feasible to survey due to higher rates of dropped calls. The demographic breakdown of the sample is shown in the table opposite.

While the survey somewhat overrepresents the views of older people and women, the data still allows valid comparisons between different demographic groups such as men and women, or people of different educational backgrounds.

Methodology and Limitations

5. The next birthday method is a method of randomising within-household selection of respondents. The household member who answers the telephone is asked to find the person in the household whose birthday will occur next. The interviewer then asks this person to participate in the survey. As birth dates are randomly distributed across the population, this method should in theory result in a random sample. However, in Hong Kong, this method results in an oversampling of women as some households simply put the most available person on the phone.

6. The contact rate is the percentage of eligible respondents successfully contacted out of the total number of calls attempted.

7. The completion rate is calculated as the percentage of respondents who completed the interview out of the number of eligible respondents contacted.

31

Gender Base = 1,013 Occupation Base = 975

Male 36.8% Managers and Administrators 7.1%

Female 63.2%

Professionals and associate professionals 14.0%

Age Base = 1,00418-24 12.8% Clerks 10.5%25-34 9.4% Service and “blue-collar” workers 14.0%35-44 15.3% Housewife 15.1%45-54 21.8% Retired 26.7%

55-64 20.4% Unemployed person 4.5%

65 or above 20.2% Student 8.3%

Marital Status Base = 989 Personal Monthly Income Base = 414

Never married 31.6% Below HK$9,999 17.9%

Married 62.6% HK$10,000-19,999 38.7%

Divorced 4.0% HK$20,000-29,999 19.1%

Separated/Widowed 1.7% HK$30,000-39,999 10.6%

Number of children under 12 Base = 689 HK$40,000-49,999 4.6%

None 79.8% HK$50,000 or above 9.1%1 11.9% Household Location Base = 982

2 6.8% Hong Kong Island 20.1%

3 or above 1.5% Kowloon 28.2%

Educational Attainment Base = 1,002 New Territories 51.7%

Secondary 3 or below 28.6%

Secondary 4 to 7 34.9%

University or above 36.4%

Workplace Base = 481

Indoor 83.4%

Outdoor 11.9%

Indoor & Outdoor 4.8%

Figure 29: Demographic breakdown of survey sample

23/F, Chun Wo Commercial Centre, 23-29 Wing Wo Street, Central, Hong KongT (852) 2893 0213 F (852) 3105 9713 www.civic-exchange.org

© Civic Exchange, February 2015The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Civic Exchange.

Reducing Plastic Waste in Hong Kong - Civic Exchange€¦ · Reducing Plastic Waste in Hong Kong:...

Documents

Transcript of Reducing Plastic Waste in Hong Kong - Civic Exchange€¦ · Reducing Plastic Waste in Hong Kong:...