Reducing Plastic Waste in Hong Kong: Public Opinion Survey of … · 2018-04-11 · 2 Reducing...

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

April 2015Mandy Lao Man-lei and Carine Lai

April 2015Mandy Lao Man-lei and Carine Lai

Full ReportFull Report

1

Table of Contents

1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 2 Overall Consumption and Habits……………………………………………………………………………… 3 2.1 Bottled water………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3 2.2 Bottled beverages…………………………………………………………………………………………… 9 2.3 Tap water………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12 2.4 Section summary……………………………………………………………………………………………… 15 3 Concern vs. Action…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 16 3.1 Do attitudes affect behaviour? ………………………………………………………………………… 16 3.2 Environmental attitudes…………………………………………………………………………………… 16 3.3 Environmental attitudes and bottled water consumption………………………………… 17 3.4 Environmental attitudes and water dispenser usage………………………………………… 24 3.5 Environmental attitudes and self-reported recycling and reuse………………………… 26 3.6 Knowledge of plastic waste……………………………………………………………………………… 27 3.7 Section summary……………………………………………………………………………………………… 31 4 Making Change Easy………………………………………………………………………………………………… 32 4.1 Encouraging water dispenser usage………………………………………………………………… 32 4.2 Encouraging recycling……………………………………………………………………………………… 44 4.3 Section summary……………………………………………………………………………………………… 50 5 Targeting the Right People………………………………………………………………………………………… 50 5.1 Demographics of bottled water consumption…………………………………………………… 51 5.2 Demographics of bottled beverage consumption……………………………………………… 59 5.3 Demographics of perceptions of tap water ……………………………………………………… 59 5.4 Demographics of environmental knowledge and attitudes……………………………… 72 5.5 Section summary……………………………………………………………………………………………… 80 6 Focus Group Reactions to Suggested Policies for Reducing Plastic Waste……… 82 6.1 Ban on selling and providing plastic bottled water and beverages…………………… 82 6.2 Encouraging water dispenser usage………………………………………………………………… 82 6.3 Regulations on beverage manufacturers…………………………………………………………… 82 6.4 Tax on plastic bottled water and beverage consumption………………………………… 83 6.5 Deposit and return scheme……………………………………………………………………………… 83 6.6 Education on reduction of plastic bottled waste……………………………………………… 83 6.7 Other suggestions…………………………………………………………………………………………… 83 6.8 Section summary……………………………………………………………………………………………… 84 7 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 84 7.1 Key findings and discussion……………………………………………………………………………… 84 7.2 Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………………………… 85 Appendix 1 Methodology and Limitations………………………………………………………………………… 89 Appendix 2 Demographic Profile of Respondents…………………………………………………………… 91 Appendix 3 Survey Questionnaire…………………………………………………………………………………… 93

2

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

Attitudes towards Plastic Waste

1. Introduction Hong Kong’s daily domestic waste generation rate is high compared to other developed Asian cities.1 Rapid generation of municipal solid waste has put enormous pressure on Hong Kong’s three existing landfills which will be full by the mid to late 2010s. Plastic waste, as one of the major waste types disposed of at landfills in Hong Kong, constitutes 19.7 per cent of municipal solid waste in 2012, which 1,826 tonnes of plastic waste were generated every day.2

Consumption of plastic bottled water and beverages is very common in Hong Kong. According to results from the survey conducted by the Global Environmental Journalism Initiative and Hong Kong Baptist University in 2010, people in Hong Kong are increasingly relying on bottled water and some buy up to ten bottles each week.3 According to Marketline, 418.3 million litres of bottled water (which it defines as including still, sparkling and flavoured water) were sold in Hong Kong in 2013. With a population of 7.2 million in 2013, this amounts to about 58 litres per person.4 This report focuses on bottled water as it is a largely unnecessary and avoidable form of plastic waste generation. Bottled water is not necessarily any safer or healthier than tap water, and in many cases is taken from municipal tap water sources.5 This survey seeks to understand Hong Kong residents’ habits and consumption patterns regarding disposable plastic bottled water and beverages. This information will inform policy recommendations and educational strategies to encourage behavioural changes to reduce plastic waste at the source. The study also examines environmental awareness of the public concerning plastic waste and whether people’s attitudes and perceptions affect their behaviour. A public opinion survey and focus group discussions were carried out as part of this study. Fixed line telephone interviews with 1,013 randomly selected respondents were carried out in August 2014. A small number of respondents were selected to participate in two focus groups following the completion of the survey in order to explore alternatives to bottled water and beverages, as well as policies to reduce plastic waste in generation in Hong Kong. See Appendix 1 for a detailed explanation of the survey methodology and limitations.

1 Council for Sustainable Development (2014), Municipal Solid Waste Charging – Public Engagement Process: Knowledge Portal, http://www.susdev.org.hk/english/knowledge_portal/knowledge_portal.php 2 Environmental Protection Department (2012), 3 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-interest/ (removed by host). 4 MarketLine (2014), “Bottled Water in Hong Kong”, 24 August 2014, http://www.marketresearch.com/MarketLine-v3883/Bottled-Water-Hong-Kong-8403293/#abs (accessed 5 March 2015). 5 Tan, Debra (2011), “Just what is bottled water?”, 11 March 2011, http://chinawaterrisk.org/opinions/just-what-is-bottled-water/ (accessed 5 March 2015).

http://www.susdev.org.hk/english/knowledge_portal/knowledge_portal.php

http://www.gejiplasticbottles.com/2011/04/plastic-bottles-around-the-world-key-points-of-interest/

http://www.gejiplasticbottles.com/2011/04/plastic-bottles-around-the-world-key-points-of-interest/

http://www.marketresearch.com/MarketLine-v3883/Bottled-Water-Hong-Kong-8403293/#abs

http://chinawaterrisk.org/opinions/just-what-is-bottled-water/

http://chinawaterrisk.org/opinions/just-what-is-bottled-water/

3

2. Overall consumption and habits This section will provide an overview of respondents’ consumption of bottled water, bottled drinks and tap water. This will provide an overall picture of respondents’ current behaviour and habits in order to establish a baseline for policy intervention.

2.1 Bottled water

2.1.1 Level of consumption Respondents were asked whether they usually drank more bottled water or tap water. Nearly half of the respondents drank only tap water (46.9 per cent) and just over one-third usually drank more tap water than bottled water (37.2 per cent). The remaining 16 per cent said that at least half of their water intake consisted of bottled water. Just one per cent drank only bottled water.

Figure 1: About your daily water drinking habits, do you usually drink:

1,001 valid cases. Base = All water-drinking respondents. “Don’t know" excluded.

Those respondents who did drink bottled water were then asked how often they purchased it, and how much money they spent on bottled water each week in the past month. Out of all the respondents (including those who did not drink bottled water), about a fifth said that they “rarely” or “never” bought bottled water. Only about 15 per cent of respondents said that they purchased bottled water once a week or more. Similarly a plurality of those who bought bottled water reported spending HK$10 or less per week on it in the last month. About 11 per cent or the overall sample said that they did not spend anything on bottled water in the last month, while 16 per cent said that they spent between HK$1 and HK$10. Only 6 per cent of the overall sample spent HK$31 or more. To sum up, just under half of the respondents drank only tap water, and of those who drank bottled water, most were occasional consumers purchasing it less than once a week and spending less than HK$20 per week on it. A tiny percentage, around 5-9 per cent were heavy consumers who bought it at least several times a week and spent more than HK$30 on it. However, this survey likely underestimates bottled water consumption due to the oversampling of women and respondents over 55 as these two demographics consume less bottled water (see Section 5 for details). Therefore, the figures presented here should be viewed as a conservative estimate of bottled water consumption in Hong Kong.

1.0%

5.7%

9.3%

37.2%

46.9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Only bottled water

More bottled water than tap water

About half and half

More tap water than bottled water

Only tap water

4 Figure 2: How often do you buy bottled water?

1,004 valid cases. Base = All water-drinking respondents. Figure 3: How much did you spend on bottled water per week on average in the last month?

1,004 valid cases. Base = All water-drinking respondents.

46.7%

1.0%

2.9%

20.5%

5.2%

8.2%

6.7%

5.7%

3.1%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0%

Do not drink bottled water

Don't know

Never

Rarely

About once a month

Several times a month

About once a week

A few times a week

Every day or nearly every day

Percentage of respondents (excluding "Don't know")

46.7%

2.9%

4.5%

11.3%

15.9%

8.1%

4.8%

0.7%

1.8%

3.4%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%

Do not drink bottled water

Drink but never buy bottled water

Don't know

HK$0

HK$1-10

HK$11-20

HK$21-30

HK$31-40

HK$41-50

HK51 or above

Percentage of respondents

5 Table 1: Frequency of purchase by weekly spending on bottled water

HK$0 HK$1-10 HK$11-20 HK$21-30 HK$31-50 HK$51+ Don’t know

Daily to several times weekly

2.7% (3)

5.6% (9)

18.8% (15)

44.7% (21)

58.3% (14)

54.5% (18)

19.0% (8)

Weekly to several times monthly

4.5% (5)

40.0% (64)

48.8% (39)

34.0% (16)

25.0% (6)

18.2% (6)

33.3% (14)

Monthly or rarely 92.7% (102)

54.4% (87)

32.5% (26)

21.3% (10)

16.7% (4)

27.3% (9)

47.6% (20)

Total 100.0%

(110) 100.0%

(160) 100.0%

(80) 100.0%

(47) 100.0%

(24) 100.0%

(33) 100.0%

(42) 496 valid cases. Base = Bottled water buyers. “Don’t know” excluded for frequency of purchase.

Purchase frequency is strongly correlated with weekly spending. The more people spend each week on bottled water, the more frequently they buy it. While it is impossible for those spending less than HK$10 a week on bottled water to buy it more than once or twice a week given that each bottle costs approximately HK$5, the correlation continues at the higher end of the spending scale. Even among those spending over HK$30 a week, infrequent bulk purchases appear to be relatively uncommon. Of those who spent an average of HK$31 and HK$50 per week during the past month, 58.3 per cent were buying bottled water daily or several times a week. Just 16.7 per cent were buying on a monthly to rare basis (which would imply bulk purchase or household order). There was a slight drop in frequency among those over HK$50 a week, who make up a mere 6.7 per cent of bottled water buyers. 54.5 per cent were still buying it at least several times a week, 27.3 per cent, were buying it monthly or rarely.

2.1.2 Bottled water purchasing habits Those who bought bottled water were asked about several aspects of their purchasing habits, including what sized bottle they typically bought, where they shopped, when they bought it, and how they chose what type of bottled water to buy.

Figure 4: What volume of bottled water do you buy most of the time? (Bottled water buyers)

500 valid cases. Base = Bottled water buyers. “Don’t know” excluded.

41.6%

49.0%

7.2%

2.2%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

Small (less than 2 glasses/ Less than 500ml)

Medium (2-4 glasses/ 500ml to 1L)

Large (4-8 glasses/1L to 2L)

Very large (more than 8 glasses/larger t han 2L)


6 Table 2: Volume of bottles usually purchased by frequency of purchase

Every day or nearly every

day A few times

a week About once

a week


About once a month Rarely Overall

Less than 29.0% 23.2% 41.8% 48.8% 38.5% 47.3% 42.0% 500ml (9) (13) (28) (40) (20) (96) (206)

500ml-1l 38.7% 60.7% 49.3% 43.9% 51.9% 47.8% 48.7% (12) (34) (33) (36) (27) (97) (239)

1l-2l 19.4% 14.3% 7.5% 4.9% 5.8% 4.4% 7.1% (6) (8) (5) (4) (3) (9) (35)

More 12.9% 1.8% 1.5% 2.4% 3.8% 0.5% 2.2% than 2l (4) (1) (1) (2) (2) (1) (11)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(31) (56) (67) (82) (52) (203) (491) 491 valid cases. Base = Bottled water buyers. “Don’t know” excluded.

Table 3: Volume of bottles usually purchased by weekly spending

HK$0 HK$1-10 HK$11-20 HK$21-30 HK$31-50 HK$51+

Less than 500ml 47.7% 44.0% 37.0% 40.4% 37.5% 17.6%

(53) (70) (30) (19) (9) (6)

500ml-1l 49.5% 52.2% 50.6% 42.6% 45.8% 52.9%

(55) (83) (41) (20) (11) (18)

1l-2l 1.8% 3.8% 11.1% 17.0% 12.5% 14.7%

(2) (6) (9) (8) (3) (5)

More than 2l 0.9% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 4.2% 14.7%

(1) (0) (1) (0) (1) (5)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(111) (159) (81) (47) (24) (34)


The vast majority of respondents usually bought bottles of 1l or smaller, with 41.6 per cent buying bottles smaller than 500ml, and another 49 per cent buying bottles between 500ml and 1l. Less than 10 per cent usually bought large bottles. This suggests that the vast majority of bottled water purchases are for convenient individual, immediate consumption. People who bought large bottles, most likely for household use, were generally found among the most frequent purchasers. 21.8 per cent of who bought bottled water at least several times a week bought bottles of 1l or larger, compared to 8 per cent of those who bought bottled water between once a week and several times a month, and 5.9 per cent of those who bought bottled water monthly to rarely. A comparison of weekly spending with volume of bottles finds that large bottles are mostly bought by high spenders. Among those spending HK$51 or more per week, 29.4 per cent of respondents usually bought bottles of 1l or larger. Among those spending HK$31-50 per week, that figure was 16 per cent. However, among those spending only HK$1-10 per week, just 3.8 per cent usually bought bottles of 1l or larger. This suggests that more high spenders bought large bottles for household use. Still, they were are a minority. Even among those spending over HK$51 per week, 70.5 per cent still usually bought bottles of 1l or smaller.

7 Figure 5: Under what circumstances do you buy bottled water?


Figure 6: Where do you usually buy bottled water?

499 valid cases. Base = Bottled water buyers. Respondents allowed to choose more than 1 option

A pattern of small, spontaneous purchases is consistent with the finding that over half of respondents said that they usually bought bottled water while “shopping or doing errands”6 and that 18.4 per cent bought bottled water while exercising. Additionally, by far the most common location that respondents usually bought bottled water at was convenience stores, with 73.1 per cent reporting that they did so. 36.8 per cent also reported buying bottled water at supermarkets, and 15.2 per cent reported buying it at grocers (small, usually family-run stores selling an assortment of household staples and snacks). Very small percentages reported buying at vending machines or gas stations, or ordering a household supply. Small bottles generate more plastic waste per litre of water consumed than larger bottles. Policymakers should therefore focus especially on discouraging their purchase.

6 The question’s Chinese wording for shopping (逛街) implies casual shopping rather than planned grocery

shopping trips.

19.6%

1.8%

9.1%

18.4%

51.2%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

Others

When going home

When going to work

When doing exercise or outdoor activities

When doing shopping or other errands


6.9%

1.6%

2.0%

2.0%

15.2%

36.8%

71.3%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%

Other

Household order

Gas station

Vending machine

Grocer

Supermarket

Convenience store


8 Figure 7: What is the most important criterion for you when choosing bottled water to buy?


When looking at what factors influence respondents’ choice of bottled water, 30.5 per cent said “brand”, another 28.5 per cent said “price”, and a further 15.3 per cent said “nothing in particular”. This shows that bottled water is treated by most consumers as an undifferentiated commodity. This results in a heavy reliance on branding as this is the major distinguishing characteristic. Greater proportions of women, those aged 35 or above, less educated respondents, and those with incomes of HK$30,000 a month or above tended to consider brand as the most important criterion in choosing bottled water. Price also played an important role in purchase decisions. If all bottled water is seen as basically the same, then unit price would likely be a deciding factor. For those who considered price as their most important criterion, the proportion of men was relatively higher than women. Young people aged between 18 and 34, people with post-secondary educational attainment and people with a monthly income between HK$15,000 and HK$29,999 were more likely to consider price as their most important criterion when buying bottled water. In fact, more respondents chose “nothing in particular” than those who named any concrete preference for water quality, taste, mineral composition, or country of origin. Only 0.4 per cent named the supplier’s environmental policies, which shows a very low level of awareness of consumer ethics in this area. Even among the 67 respondents who drank mostly or only bottled water, convenience was still the primary consideration. Over half of them said that they chose bottled water because of “convenience or availability” (58.2 per cent). The second and third most common reasons included not having any other choice or that tap water was not available where they worked or lived (22.4 per cent), and reasons of “safety, quality, cleanliness and purity” (13.4 per cent).

6.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.6%

0.8%

1.2%

1.8%

2.0%

2.0%

2.4%

7.4%

15.3%

28.9%

30.5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Others

Green / environmental policy of the supplier

Bottle's design, appearance, shape

Recommendation by someone

Spring or country of origin

Habit

Bottle's capacity

Mineral composition

Convenient

Taste

Water quality

Nothing in particular

Price

Brand

9 2.2 Bottled Beverages

2.2.1 Level of consumption Respondents were asked whether they usually drank more water or more flavoured beverages. Overall, the respondents showed a clear preference for drinking water over flavoured beverages, with about 30 per cent drinking only water, while a tiny proportion, 0.9 per cent, drank only beverages. The roughly 10 per cent of respondents who drank mostly or only beverages were asked the reasons for their preference. The most common replies were “taste or flavour” (51.1 per cent), followed by “habit” (17.0 per cent), “disliking water” (12.8 per cent) and “health or nutrition” (11.7 per cent). A stronger preference for flavoured beverages over water is also correlated with a stronger preference for bottled water over tap water. That is, those who drank more flavoured beverages also drank more bottled water. While just 18.6 per cent of those who drank only tap water were heavy drinkers of flavoured beverages (i.e. at least half of what they drank consisted of beverages rather than water), 37.7 per cent of heavy drinkers of bottled water (i.e. at least half of the water they drank was bottled) were also heavy drinkers of flavoured beverages (see Table 4). Figure 8: About your daily drinking habits, do you usually drink:

1,010 valid cases. Base = All respondents. “Don’t know” excluded

Table 4: Preference for beverages vs water by preference for bottled vs tap water

Drink only tap water

Light drinkers of bottled water (more tap water

than bottled water)

Heavy drinkers of bottled water (half and half, more

bottled water than tap water, and only bottled water)

Heavy drinkers of beverages (half and half, more beverages than water, and only beverages)

18.6% (87)

29.5% (109)

37.7% (60)

Light drinkers of beverages (more water than beverages)

37.1% (174)

53.8% (199)

47.2% (75)

Drink only water 44.3% (208)

16.8% (62)

15.1% (24)

Total Percentage (Total Count)

100.0% (469)

100.0% (370)

100.0% (159)

998 valid cases. Base = All respondents. “Don’t know” excluded.

0.9%

8.4%

17.0%

29.2%

44.5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Only beverages(include soda water andsparkling water)

More beverages than water

About half and half

Only water

More water than beverages

10 Figure 9: What type of beverage do you drink most often?

809 valid cases. Base = All beverage drinkers. “Don’t know” excluded.

Respondents were asked what type of packaged beverages they drank most often. 38.3 per cent of those who drank packaged beverages said that they usually drank plastic bottled drinks, as opposed to tetra packs, cans, or glass bottled. They stated that their reasons for choosing plastic bottles over

other forms of packaging included “convenient to carry” (43.3 per cent), “capacity of bottle” (14.3 per cent), “bottle’s design, appearance and shape” (9.4 per cent) and “variety of choice” (8.8 per cent). Those respondents who usually chose plastic bottled drinks were further asked about their purchasing habits. (Note that the following figures cannot be compared to those for bottled water consumption because these questions included only those who already stated a preference for buying plastic bottled beverages, as opposed to all beverage drinkers). Out of those who usually chose plastic bottled drinks, 47.2 per cent bought them at least once a week and 28.9 per cent of them spent HK$31 or more per week on beverages.

Figure 10: How often do you buy bottled beverages?

303 valid cases. Base = Usual bottled beverage buyers. “Don’t know” excluded.

38.3%

5.1%

36.7%

17.2%

2.7%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0%

Plastic bottled drinks

Glass bottled drinks

Tetrapack drinks

Can drinks

Others

Percentage of beverage drinkers

1.3%

23.4%

9.9%

18.2%

16.5%

25.7%

5.0%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%

Never

Rarely

About once a month


About once a week

A few times a week


Percentage of respondents (excluding "Don't know")

11 Figure 11: How much did you spend on plastic bottled beverages per week on average in the last month?

281 valid cases. Base = Bottled beverage buyers. “Don’t know” excluded.

2.2.2 Bottled beverage purchasing habits Among those respondents who expressed a preference for plastic bottled beverages (as opposed to other forms of packaged drinks), 51.3 per cent reported that they most often bought beverages while shopping or doing other errands. A large majority (74.3 per cent) usually bought beverages at convenience stores. Roughly a third of this group bought beverages at supermarkets (37.5 per cent) and about a tenth bought them at grocers (9.2 per cent). The vast majority of bottled drinks buyers usually bought small (500ml or less) or medium-sized (500ml-1l) bottles. Only a tiny minority, less than 6 per cent, usually bought large or very large bottles. These figures also point towards most bottled drinks purchases being convenience-driven and intended for immediate personal consumption, rather than large volume household purchases. As with bottled water, this pattern of purchases is more wasteful of plastic than if larger bottles were purchased.

Figure 12: Under what circumstances would you buy plastic bottled beverages most often?


12.1%

27.0%

21.4%

10.7%

5.0%

9.3%

14.6%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%

HK$0

HK$1-10

HK$11-20

HK$21-30

HK$31-40

HK$41-50

HK51 or above


26.1%

2.9%

7.8%

11.8%

51.3%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

Others

When going home

When going to work




12 Figure 13: Where do you usually buy plastic bottled drinks?

307 valid cases. Base = Bottled beverage buyers. “Don’t know” excluded. Respondents allowed to give more than one answer.

Figure.14: What volume of bottled beverages do you buy most of the time?


2.3 Tap Water 99 per cent of respondents drank tap water to some degree. 46.9 per cent of the respondents drank only tap water and 37.2 per cent usually drank more tap water than bottled water. Among those who drank only or mostly tap water, the reasons given for choosing tap water over bottled water were “convenience or availability” (37.6 per cent), followed by “low cost of tap water” (37.1 per cent), “water quality” (17 per cent) and “health” (15 per cent). 2.3.1 Location of drinking tap water Unsurprisingly, nearly all respondents (96.6 per cent) reported they usually drank tap water at home. Additionally, 32.8 per cent of respondents drank tap water at work or at school (respondents were allowed to give more than one answer). As 53.9 per cent of respondents were either employed or students, we can calculate that around 6 in 10 workers or students drink tap water at work or at school. Less than one-tenth of respondents usually drank tap water at public water fountains or dispensers. This shows that regular use of public water dispensers is rare in Hong Kong.

2.3%

0.3%

0.3%

3.6%

9.1%

37.1%

73.6%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%

Other

Household order

Gas station

Vending machine

Grocer

Supermarket

Convenience store


46.7%

47.7%

5.3%

0.3%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%


Medium (2-4 glasses/ 500ml to 1L)

Large (4-8 glasses/1L to 2L)

Very large (more than 8 glasses/larger t han 2L)


13 Figure 15: Where do you usually drink tap water? Do you usually drink it: (Multiple answers)

992 valid cases. Base = All tap water drinkers. “Don’t know” excluded. Respondents allowed to give more than one answer.

2.3.2 Quality of tap water In general, people’s perception towards the quality of tap water was positive. Nearly half of respondents rated it as good (39.5 per cent) and very good (8.9 per cent) while two-fifths rated it as so-so (39.9 per cent). Only less than one-tenth of them rated it as poor or very poor (6.0 per cent). Since over half of respondents bottled water, this suggests that the perception of tap water quality is not a significant driver of bottled water consumption. Figure 17 shows that people who drink a lot of bottled water (half bottled water or more) are only marginally less likely to rate tap water “good” or “very good” than those who drink mostly or only tap water. Improving or promoting the quality of Hong Kong’s tap water is therefore unlikely to have an effect on bottled water consumption.

Figure 16: How would you rate the quality of tap water in Hong Kong?

994 valid cases. Base = All tap water drinkers

However, in spite of the generally positive ratings that respondents gave to tap water in Hong Kong, virtually all respondents boiled or filtered their tap water before drinking it. 67.9 per cent boiled it, 4.8 per cent filtered it, and as many as 26.6 per cent did both. When asked why they boiled or filtered tap water, respondents’ most common reasons were to “kill bacteria and germs” (45.1 per cent), followed by “ensure safety” (40.1 per cent), “habit” (19 per cent), “remove impurities” (15.5 per cent) and “healthier” (10.7 per cent). This indicated a general concept that tap water should be boiled before drinking because un-boiled water contains bacteria and impurities which is unsafe or unhealthy for drinking.

4.8%

9.2%

32.8%

96.6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Others

From public water fountains or dispensers, suchas a library or sports centre

At work or school

At home

Very good8.9%

Good39.5%So-so

39.9%

Poor4.9%

Very poor1.1%

Don't know5.6%

14 People who rated the quality of tap water as very good or good were more likely to only boil tap water before drinking. On the other hand, those who rated the quality of tap water as poor or very poor were more likely to both filter and boil tap water. This indicates that if policymakers wish the public to reduce their consumption of bottled water by offering alternatives in the form of public water dispensers, they will need to address people’s reluctance to drink straight from the tap. The water dispensers will need to provide filtered water in order to win widespread public acceptance. Figure 17 (with table): Rating of tap water by water drinking habits

Drink tap water only Drink more tap water than

bottled water Drink at least half bottled

water

Very good 9.2% 7.5% 11.3%

(43) (28) (17)

Good 39.9% 41.1% 34.0%

(187) (153) (51)

So-so 36.9% 41.4% 46.7%

(173) (154) (70)

Poor 5.3% 3.8% 6.7%

(25) (14) (10)

Very poor 0.6% 1.6% 0.7%

(3) (6) (1)

Don’t know 8.1% 4.6% 0.7%

(38) (17) (1)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(469) (372) (150)

991 valid cases. Base = All tap water drinkers. “Don’t know” for drinking preference excluded.

9.2 7.5 11.3

39.9 41.1 34

36.9 41.4 46.7

5.33.8

6.70.6

1.60.7

8.1 4.6 0.7

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Tap water only More tap than bottled At least half bottled

Very good Good So-so Poor Very poor Don't know

15 Figure 18: Do you usually drink tap water straight from the tap, or do you filter, boil or treat it in some other way?

993 valid cases. Base = All tap water drinkers. “Don’t know” excluded.

Table 5: Tap water treatment method, by perception of tap water quality

Very good Good So-so Poor Very poor Don’t know Total

Straight from the tap 2.3% .8% .3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% .7%

(2) (3) (1) (0) (0) (1) (2)

Boiled tap water 77.3% 71.5% 64.6% 46.9% 18.2% 78.6% 67.9%

(68) (281) (256) (23) (2) (44) (68)

Filtered tap water 3.4% 4.8% 5.6% 6.1% 9.1% 0.0% 4.8%

(3) (19) (22) (3) (1) (0) (3)

Filtered and boiled tap water 17.0% 22.9% 29.5% 46.9% 72.7% 19.6% 26.6%

(15) (90) (117) (23) (8) (11) (15)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(88) (393) (396) (49) (11) (56) (88) 993 valid cases. Base = Tap water drinkers. “Don’t know” for water treatment method excluded.

2.4 Section Summary Approximately half of the respondents were at least occasional consumers of bottled water, while 7 out of 10 consumed flavoured beverages. About 16 per cent can be regarded as heavy consumers of bottled water who say that at least half of their water intake consists of bottled water. However, this survey should be considered a conservative estimate of the overall level of bottled water consumption in Hong Kong due to the oversampling of women and people aged 55 and over (see Section 4 for details). From the data on the volume of bottles usually purchased, the types of shops consumers usually patronise, and the circumstances that people usually buy bottled water in, it appears that the majority of bottled water purchases are small-scale, spontaneous, and for immediate personal consumption. This is more wasteful of plastic than bulk household purchases of larger bottles. Policy should therefore be aimed at encouraging people to bring refillable bottles with them, and to choose larger containers over smaller ones if they must purchase pre-packaged beverages or water. Much bottled water consumption appears convenience-driven rather than a health decision. Even among the heaviest bottled water consumers, only 15 per cent said that they drank bottled water (as opposed to tap water) for health reasons. Additionally, when bottled water consumers were asked what factors influenced their choice of bottled water, only single digit percentages named attributes such as water quality or mineral composition. Moreover, respondents generally had a positive perception of Hong Kong’s tap water quality, and having a negative perception towards tap water quality was only associated with a marginal increase in preference for bottled water. This indicates that public education campaigns to reassure the public of tap water quality in Hong Kong is unlikely to have an impact on bottled water consumption.

0.7%

4.8%

26.6%

67.9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Straight from the tap

Filtered tap water

Filtered and boiled tap water

Boiled tap water

16

3. Concern vs Action

3.1 Do attitudes affect behaviour? Respondents were asked three questions about how much they cared about the problem of plastic waste in Hong Kong. They were asked to rate the seriousness of plastic waste as a problem, the level of priority the government should give it, and their own personal concern about it. In order to gauge how well-informed respondents were about plastic waste, they were asked to estimate what proportion of waste going into Hong Kong’s landfills is plastic. This section will examine the extent to which concern and knowledge about plastic waste in Hong Kong affects consumption of bottled water, water dispenser usage, and plastic recycling behaviour.

Figure 19: How serious do you think the plastic waste problem is in Hong Kong?

Figure 20: How high of a priority should the government make the plastic waste problem in Hong Kong?

1,013 valid cases. Base = All respondents 1,013 valid cases. Base = All respondents Figure 21: How much concern do you have about the plastic waste problem in Hong Kong?

1,013 valid cases. Base = All respondents

3.2 Environmental attitudes Altogether, 84.7 per cent of respondents agree that plastic waste is a serious or very serious problem. Similarly, 83.5 per cent of respondents said that the government should place a high or medium priority on the problem. However, a considerably lower percentage, 61 per cent, said that they had a “great deal” or “some” concern about the problem. Similarly, about half the number of respondents said they had a “great deal” of concern (15 per cent) as those who said it was a “very serious” problem (31 per cent) or should be a top government priority (32.3 per cent). The fact that

31.0%

53.7%

7.7%

0.2%

7.4%

Very serious

Serious

Not so serious

Not serious atall

Don't know

32.3%

51.2%

3.3%

1.7%

11.8%Top priority

Medium priority

Low priority

Not a problem

Don't know

15.0%

46.0%

29.3%

5.1%4.5%

Great deal

Some

Little

None

Don't know

17 around half of all respondents picked the moderate answer, (“serious”, “medium priority” and “some concern”), shows that people realise that it is socially acceptable to say that plastic waste is a problem concerning society, but the issue has little personal urgency. Participants of the focus groups expressed varying levels of concern about the plastic waste problem in Hong Kong. Those who had a great deal of concern about this issue realised that plastic waste is non-biodegradable, which will bring harmful impacts to the environment and the next generation. Some people recognised the problem but were more concerned about other environmental issues, such as air pollution or food waste, rather than plastic waste. Also, not many participants said they would consider changing their behaviour in the consumption of plastic bottled beverages for environmental reasons. Instead, they said they would throw their bottles in the recycling bin as long as it was properly emptied. They claimed no environmental problems would be caused by their behaviour as long as the plastic bottles were recycled. Given the attitudes expressed, one would expect that concern about plastic waste would have little association with bottled water consumption, but a stronger association with recycling. This is what the data show.

3.3 Environmental attitudes and bottled water consumption 3.3.1 Environmental attitudes and water drinking habits Concern about plastic waste is not correlated with a greater preference for drinking tap water. In fact, those who gave moderate answers, i.e. that plastic waste was a “serious” problem, that it deserved a “medium” level of government priority and that they had “some” concern about it were less likely to be drinkers of only tap water than either those who placed either more or less emphasis on the problem of plastic waste. Respondents who had no opinion and replied “don’t know” had the greatest preference for tap water. This is due to the fact that those who answer “don’t know” tend to be older and less educated than the respondent pool as a whole, and these two groups tend to consume less bottled water in general (see Section 5). 3.3.2 Environmental attitudes and bottled water purchase frequency Among those who drank bottled water, concern about plastic waste appeared to be associated with a mild reduction in purchase frequency. Those with more concern about plastic waste were somewhat more likely to say that they only purchased bottled water “monthly”, “rarely” or “never”. 59.5 per cent of those who had a “great deal” of concern about plastic waste said that they bought bottled water monthly, rarely or never, compared with 49.7 per cent of those who had little or no concern about plastic waste. Similar patterns held for government priority and seriousness. However, paradoxically, those who gave strong answers (“very serious”, “top priority” or “great deal of concern”) were actually slightly more likely to buy bottled water daily or several times a week than those who gave moderate answers.

18 Figure 22 (with table): Water drinking habits by views on seriousness of plastic waste problem

Very serious Serious

Not so serious/Not

serious at all Don’t know

Heavy bottled water drinkers (half and half, more bottled than tap, and only bottled)

15.8% (49)

16.4% (88)

16.5% (13)

13.3% (10)

Light bottled water drinkers (more tap than bottled)

34.5% (107)

39.7% (213)

35.4% (28)

32.0% (24)

Tap water only drinkers

49.7% (154)

43.9% (236)

48.1% (38)

54.7% (41)

Total

100% (310)

100% (537)

100% (79)

100% (75)

1,001 valid cases. Base = All water drinkers. “Don’t know” for water drinking habits excluded.

Figure 23 (with table): Water drinking habits by views on government priority for plastic waste

Top priority Medium priority

Low priority/ Not a problem Don’t know


15.8% (51)

44.2% (88)

19.1% (9)

10.1% (12)


37.6% (121)

38.6% (198)

27.7% (13)

33.6% (40)


46.6% (150)

17.2% (227)

53.2% (25)

56.3% (67)

Total

100% (322)

100% (513)

100% (47)

100% (119)

1,001 valid cases. Base = All water drinkers. “Don’t know” for water drinking habits excluded.

49.7% 43.9% 48.1% 54.7%

34.5% 39.7% 35.4%32.0%

15.8% 16.4% 16.5% 13.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Very serious Serious Not so serious/Notserious at all

Don't know

At least half bottled

More tap than bottled

Tap water only

46.6% 44.2%53.2% 56.3%

37.6% 38.6% 27.7%33.6%

15.8% 17.2% 19.1%10.1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Top priority Medium priority Low priority/Not aproblem

Don't know



Tap water only

19 Figure 24 (with table): Water drinking habits by level of concern about plastic waste

Great deal Some

concern Little

concern None Don’t know


18.5% (28)

15.0% (69)

16.5% (49)

22.0% (11)

6.8% (3)


34.4% (52)

41.4% (190)

32.3% (96)

40.0% (20)

31.8% (14)


47.0% (71)

43.6% (200)

51.2% (152)

38.0% (19)

61.4% (27)

Total (151) (459) (297) (50) (44)

1,001 valid cases. Base = All water drinkers. “Don’t know” for water drinking habits excluded. Figure 25 (with table): Frequency of bottled water purchase by views on seriousness of plastic waste problem

Very serious Serious Not so serious/

Not serious at all Don’t know

Never

5.8% (9)

5.4% (16)

2.4% (1)

9.7% (3)

Monthly to rarely

51.3% (79)

48.7% (145)

50.0% (21)

41.9% (13)

Several times a month to monthly

21.4% (33)

32.2% (96)

31.0% (13)

25.8% (8)

Daily to several times a week

21.4% (33)

13.8% (41)

16.7% (7)

22.6% (7)

Total 100%

(154) 100% (298)

100% (42)

100% (31)

525 valid cases. Base = Bottled water drinkers. “Don’t know” for purchase frequency excluded.

47.0% 43.6% 51.2%38.0%

61.4%

34.4% 41.4% 32.3%40.0%

31.8%

18.5% 15.0% 16.5% 22.0%6.8%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Great deal ofconcern

Some concern Little concern None Don't know



Tap water only

21.4%13.8% 16.7% 22.6%

21.4% 32.2% 31.0% 25.8%

51.3% 48.7% 50.0% 41.9%

5.8% 5.4% 2.4%9.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Don't know

Never

Monthly to rarely

Weekly to severaltimes a month

Daily to several timesa week

20 Figure 26 (with table): Frequency of bottled water purchase by views on government priority for plastic waste


Low priority/ Not a problem Don’t know

Never

5.8% (10)

3.9% (11)

4.5% (1)

14.3% (7)

Monthly to rarely

50.9% (87)

49.8% (141)

40.9% (9)

42.9% (21)


26.3% (45)

30.4% (86)

22.7% (5)

28.6% (14)


17.0% (29)

15.9% (45)

31.8% (7)

14.3% (7)

Total

100% (171)

100% (283)

100% (22)

100% (49)


Figure 27 (with table): Frequency of bottled water purchase by level of concern about plastic waste

Great deal Some

concern Little

concern None Don’t know

Never

10.1% (8)

4.3% (11)

4.9% (7)

3.2% (1)

13.3% (2)

Monthly to rarely

49.4% (39)

51.6% (133)

45.8% (65)

41.9% (13)

53.3% (8)


24.1% (19)

30.6% (79)

29.6% (42)

22.6% (7)

20.0% (3)


16.5% (13)

13.6% (35)

19.7% (28)

32.3% (10)

13.3% (2)

Total

100% (79)

100% (258)

100% (142)

100% (31)

100% (15)


17.0% 15.9%31.8%

14.3%

26.3% 30.4%

22.7%

28.6%

50.9% 49.8%40.9%

42.9%

5.8% 3.9% 4.5%14.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Top priority Medium priority Low priority/Not aproblem

Don't know

Never

Monthly to rarely


Daily to several times aweek

16.5% 13.6% 19.7%32.3%

13.3%

24.1% 30.6%29.6%

22.6%

20.0%

49.4%51.6% 45.8%

41.9%

53.3%

10.1% 4.3% 4.9% 3.2%13.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Great deal Some Little None Don't know

Never

Monthly to rarely


Daily to severaltimes a week

21 Figure 28 (with table): Weekly spending on bottled water by views on seriousness of plastic waste problem

Very serious Serious Not so serious/

Not serious at all Don’t know

HK$51+

9.5% (13)

6.1% (16)

5.4% (2)

12.0% (3)

HK$41-50

2.2% (3)

4.2% (11)

5.4% (2)

8.0% (2)

HK$31-40

2.9% (4)

0.8% (2)

2.7% (1)

0% (0)

HK$21-30

9.5% (13)

10.3% (27)

16.2% (6)

8.0% (2)

HK$11-20

21.9% (30)

16.8% (44)

10.8% (4)

12.0% (3)

HK$1-10

27% (37)

39.7% (104)

35.1% (13)

24.0% (6)

HK$0

27% (37)

22.1% (58)

23.3% (9)

36.0% (9)

Total 100%

(137) 100% (262)

100% (37)

100% (25)

461 valid cases. Base = Bottled water buyers. “Don’t know” for weekly spending excluded.

3.3.3 Environmental attitudes and weekly spending on bottled water The spending data is more mixed. On the question of personal concern, those with the more concern were less likely to have spent more than HK$20 per week on bottled water during the last month than those with less concern. 20.3 per cent of those with a “great deal” of concern spent more than HK$20 per week, compared with 22.8 per cent of those with “some” concern, 24.4 per cent of those with “little” concern and 25 per cent of those with “no” concern. However, on the questions of seriousness and government priority, those who rated the issue “very serious” and a “top priority” were actually more likely to spend over HK$20 per week than those who gave moderate answers. Those who were personally concerned spent slightly less money on bottled water, but those who deemed plastic waste a major issue for society or the government did not. Respondents who gave moderate answers on the questions of seriousness and personal concern were less likely than those who gave strong answers to say that they had spent HK$0 on bottled water a weekly basis in the past month, but a greater proportion of them reported spending HK$10 or less. 39.7 per cent of those who rated plastic waste as “serious” and 36.4 per who had “some” concern spent between HK$1-10 per week, compared with 27 per cent of those who rated plastic waste “very serious” and 34.4 per cent of those who had a “great deal” of concern. In other words, respondents with moderate levels of concern still bought bottled water, but spent small sums on it,

27.0% 22.1% 24.3%36.0%

27.0% 39.7% 35.1%24.0%

21.9%16.8%

10.8% 12.0%

9.5%10.3%

16.2% 8.0%

2.9%0.8% 2.7%2.2%

4.2% 5.4%

8.0%

9.5% 6.1% 5.4%12.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Don't know

HK$51+

HK$41-50

HK$31-40

HK$21-30

HK$11-20

HK$1-10

HK$0

22 equivalent to 1-2 bottles per week. In sum, environmental attitudes have a weak and inconsistent relationship with bottled water consumption. Figure 29 (with table): Weekly spending on bottled water by views on government priority for plastic waste

Top priority Medium priority Low priority/

Not a problem Don’t know

HK$51+

7.8% (12)

6.8% (17)

10.0% (2)

7.9% (3)

HK$41-50

2.6% (4)

4.4% (11)

5.0% (1)

5.3% (2)

HK$31-40

3.9% (6)

0.4% (1)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

HK$21-30

11.8% (18)

10.0% (25)

20.0% (4)

2.6% (1)

HK$11-20

17.6% (27)

18.4% (46)

10.0% (2)

15.8% (6)

HK$1-10

34.0% (52)

36.0% (90)

30.0% (6)

31.6% (12)

HK$0

22.2% (34)

24.0% (60)

25.0% (5)

36.8% (14)

Total

100% (153)

100% (250)

100% (20)

100% (38)


22.2% 24.0% 25.0%36.8%

34.0%36.0% 30.0%

31.6%

17.6%18.4%

10.0%

15.8%11.8%

10.0%

20.0%

2.6%3.9% 0.4%2.6% 4.4%5.0% 5.3%

7.8% 6.… 10.0% 7.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Top priority Medium priority Low/no priority Don't know

HK$51+

HK$41-50

HK$31-40

HK$21-30

HK$11-20

HK$1-10

HK$0

23 Figure 30 (with table): Weekly spending on bottled water by concern about plastic waste

Great deal Some Little None Don’t know

HK$51+

6.3% (4)

7.0% (16)

7.6% (10)

7.1% (2)

6.3% (2)

HK$41-50

3.1% (2)

3.5% (8)

4.6% (6)

3.6% (1)

3.1% (1)

HK$31-40

3.1% (2)

1.3% (3)

1.5% (2)

0.0% (0)

3.1% (0)

HK$21-30

7.8% (5)

11.0% (25)

10.7% (14)

14.3% (4)

7.8% (0)

HK$11-20

20.3% (13)

18.4% (42)

13.7% (18)

21.4% (6)

20.3% (2)

HK$1-10

34.4% (22)

36.4% (83)

34.4% (45)

25.5% (7)

34.4% (3)

HK$0

25.0% (16)

22.4% (51)

27.5% (36)

28.6% (8)

25.0% (2)

Total

100% (64)

100% (228)

100% (131)

100% (28)

100% (10)


3.3.4 Environmental attitudes and consumption of bottled beverages The roughly 300 respondents who self-identified as regular consumers of plastic bottled beverages (as opposed to beverages in other types of containers) were not much different in their views about the seriousness of plastic waste to other respondents. Similar to the general respondent pool (see Section 2), 32.3 per cent said the plastic waste problem was “very serious”, 55.1 per cent said it was “serious”, 7.2 said it was “not so serious” or “not serious at all”, and 5.3 per cent said “don’t know”. However, within this group of respondents, their frequency of beverage purchase was related to people’s perception of the seriousness of the plastic waste problem. A higher proportion of people who claimed the problem was not serious bought bottled beverages every day or several times per week. A plurality of those who felt the problem was serious bought beverages at a moderate frequency, from once a week to several times a month. Those who felt the problem was very serious were split between the extremes, with 32.7 per cent buying it daily to several times a week, 40.8 per cent buying it monthly, rarely or never, and just 26.5 per cent buying it moderately often.

25.0 22.4 27.5 28.620.0

34.4 36.434.4

25.030.0

20.3 18.4 13.721.4

20.0

7.8 11.0 10.7 14.33.1 1.3 1.5 0.0

3.1 3.5 4.6 3.6

10.0

6.3 7.0 7.6 7.120.0

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Great deal Some Little None Don't know

HK$51+

HK$41-50

HK$31-40

HK$21-30

HK$11-20

HK$1-10

HK$0

24 Figure 31 (with table): Bottled beverage purchase frequency by views on seriousness of plastic waste problem


Not so serious/Not


Never

2.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0%

(2) (2) (0) (0)

Monthly or rarely

38.8% 29.9% 31.8% 37.5%

(38) (50) (7) (6)

Weekly to several times a month

26.5% 41.3% 18.2% 37.5%

(26) (69) (4) (6)


32.7% 27.5% 50.0% 25.0%

(32) (46) (11) (4)

Total

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(98) (167) (22) (16)

303 valid cases. Base = Usual bottled beverage buyers. “Don’t know” for frequency of purchase excluded.

3.4 Environmental attitudes and water dispenser usage Environmental attitudes also have no discernible relationship with whether or not respondents have used a public water dispenser within the last 6 months. Whatever their views were on plastic waste, roughly a quarter of respondents said that had used a water dispenser. Only those who replied “don’t know” were less likely to have used a water dispenser, but this is largely due to demographic reasons since those who reply “don’t know” are typically older and less educated than the average respondent (see Section 5); and older, less educated respondents are less likely to have used water dispensers (see Section 4). However, those who placed greater importance on plastic waste said that they were more willing to use public water dispensers, provided they were widely available and provided a quality of water similar to that of bottled water. About 50 per cent respondents who expressed high or moderate levels of concern, seriousness and government priority said that they were willing bring a refillable bottle and use public water dispensers, compared with roughly 35 per cent of those who had no concern about plastic waste, placed low or no government priority on it, or said it was not a serious problem.

32.7%27.5%

50.0%

25.0%

26.5% 41.3%

18.2%

37.5%

38.8%29.9% 31.8%

37.5%

2.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Don't know

Never

Monthly, rarely

Weekly toseveral times amonth

Daily to severaltimes a week

25 The disparity between current water dispenser usage and willingness to use water dispensers can be explained by inadequate provision of water dispensers in terms of location and quality. These issues will be further examined in Section 4. Figure 32: Have you drunk water from any public water dispensers in the past six months?

1,003 valid cases. “Don’t know” excluded.

Table 6: Percentage of respondents who used water dispensers in the last 6 months or are willing to use water dispensers by views on plastic waste problem

Respondents who used water dispensers in last 6 months

Respondents who are willing to use water dispensers if standards of quality or

availability were met

Yes No Total Yes No Total

Seriousness

Very serious 25.9% 74.1% 100% 48.5% 51.5% 100%

(81) (232) (313) (149) (158) (307)

Serious 29.5% 70.5% 100% 49.7% 50.3% 100%

(158) (377) (535) (263) (266) (529)

Not so serious/Not serious at all

22.5% 77.5% 100% 38.5% 61.5% 100%

(18) (62) (80) (30) (48) (78)

Don’t know 10.7% 89.3% 100% 35.7% 64.3% 100%

(8) (67) (75) (25) (45) (70)

Government priority

Top 26.9% 73.1% 100% 50.2% 49.8% 100%

(87) (236) (323) (161) (160) (321)

Medium 28.4% 71.6% 100% 50.7% 49.3% 100%

(146) (368) (514) (256) (249) (505)

Low/None 25.5% 74.5% 100% 34.8% 65.2% 100%

(12) (35) (47) (16) (30) (46)

Don’t know 16.8% 83.2% 100% 30.4% 69.6% 100%

(20) (99) (119) (14) (98) (112)

Concern

Great deal 26.8% 73.2% 100% 51.7% 48.3% 100%

(40) (109) (149) (77) (72) (149)

Some 28.6% 71.4% 100% 50.1% 49.9% 100%

(132) (330) (462) (228) (227) (455)

Little 26.4% 73.6% 100% 46.0% 54.0% 100%

(78) (217) (295) (132) (155) (287)

None 19.6% 80.4% 100% 34.0% 66.0% 100%

(10) (41) (51) (17) (33) (50)

Don’t know 10.9% 89.1% 100% 32.0% 68.0% 100%

(5) (41) (46) (13) (30) (43)

1,003 valid cases, “Don’t know” for water dispenser usage excluded

984 valid cases, “Don’t know” for willingness to use water dispensers excluded

Yes26.4%

No73.6%

26 3.5 Environmental attitudes and self-reported recycling and reuse Respondents were asked open-endedly how they dispose of plastic bottles once they are finished with them. Respondents were allowed to give more than one answer. Well over half of respondents mentioned environmentally-friendlier methods of dealing with plastic waste. 65.2 per cent reported that they would put it in a recycling bin while 26.3 per cent said they would reuse it as water or other drinks container and 4.9 per cent would reuse it for other purposes. Overall, 38.2 per cent mentioned putting it in a trash bin, but just 16.5 per cent only mentioned putting it in a trash bin and not doing anything else to reuse or recycle the bottle.

Figure 33: How do you deal with empty plastic bottles or beverage containers?

990 valid cases. Base = All respondents. “Don’t know” excluded. Respondents allowed to give more than one answer.

Table 7: Self-reported recycling and bottle reuse by views on plastic waste problem

Respondents who reported recycling plastic bottles

Respondents who reported reusing plastic bottles for drinking or other purposes

Yes No Total Yes No Total

Seriousness

Very serious 66.9% 33.1% 100% 31.2% 68.8% 100% (210) (104) (314) (98) (216) (314)

Serious 66.2% 33.8% 100% 28.3% 71.7% 100% (360) (184) (544) (154) (390) (544)

Not so serious/Not serious at all

51.3% 48.7% 100% 35.0% 65.0% 100%

(41) (39) (80) (28) (52) (80)

Don’t know 45.3% 54.7% 100% 28.0% 72.0% 100% (34) (41) (75) (21) (54) (75)

Government priority

Top 67.3% 32.7% 100% 29.4% 70.6% 100% (220) (107) (327) (96) (231) (327)

Medium 66.9% 33.1% 100% 30.6% 69.4% 100% (347) (172) (519) (159) (360) (519)

Low/None 61.7% 38.3% 100% 25.5% 74.5% 100% (29) (18) (47) (12) (35) (47)

Don’t know 40.8% 59.2% 100% 28.3% 71.7% 100% (49) (71) (120) (34) (86) (120)

Concern

Great deal 71.7% 28.3% 100% 28.3% 71.7% 100% (112) (40) (152) (43) (109) (152)

Some 69.3% 30.7% 100% 31.3% 68.7% 100% (323) (143) (466) (146) (320) (466)

Little 60.6% 39.4% 100% 28.3% 71.7% 100% (180) (117) (297) (84) (213) (297)

None 32.7% 67.3% 100% 28.8% 71.2% 100% (17) (35) (52) (15) (37) (52)

Don’t know 28.3% 71.7% 100% 28.3% 71.7% 100% (13) (33) (46) (13) (33) (46)

1,013 valid cases. Base = All respondents.

1.3%

4.9%

26.3%

38.2%

65.2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Others

Re-use it in any other ways

Re-use it as water or other drinks container

Put it in the trash bin

Put it in a recycling bin

27 As expected, the data show that there is a strong correlation between environmental concern and self-reported recycling. As many as 71.7 per cent of those who had a great deal of concern about plastic waste reported recycling, compared to only 32.7 per cent of those who had no concern. 66.9 per cent of those who said plastic waste was a “very serious” problem mentioned recycling, compared to 51.3 per cent of those said it was “not so serious” or “not serious at all”. The weakest correlation was on the question of government priority. 67.3 per cent who said that plastic waste should have top priority said they recycled, versus 61.7 per cent of those who said it should have low or no priority. This illustrates how personal concern, rather than simply believing that the government needs to address the problem, is more strongly associated with action. It is notable that having “some” personal concern is already associated with quite a large increase (8.7 percentage points) in self-reported recycling over having “little” concern. As it was beyond the scope of this survey to further probe into people’s recycling habits, it does not reveal how consistently respondents recycled their plastic waste. The self-reported recycling in this survey may cover a range of behaviours from occasionally putting rubbish into a recycling bin while passing by, to diligently separating waste at home. Further research will be needed to more deeply examine the links between environmental attitudes and recycling. On the matter of bottle reuse, environmental attitudes seem to have no correlation with self-reported reuse of plastic bottles. Roughly 30 per cent of respondents reused bottles, regardless of their environmental attitudes. Perhaps reuse is not perceived as an environmentally friendly action to the same degree as recycling, or practical concerns may be a more important determinant of this behaviour. However, these preliminary results suggest that while recycling has entered the public consciousness as a pro-environment, pro-social behaviour, reducing bottled water consumption has not yet done so. Policymakers and environmental groups should therefore think about how to more effectively promote reduction of waste at source to the general public, since existing public education campaigns have thus far neglected to spread this message.

3.6 Knowledge of plastic waste 3.6.1 Amount of plastic waste in Hong Kong In order to gauge how well-informed respondents were about the plastic waste problem in Hong Kong, they were asked to estimate what percentage of the waste going into Hong Kong’s landfills consists of plastic. The correct answer is between 10 and 20 per cent.

Most respondents did not know the correct answer. Only 10 per cent of respondents could answer correctly that plastic waste constituted 10-20 per cent of solid wastes being sent to landfills, while over half gave a wrong answer (55.1 per cent) and about one-third said they did not know (34.7 per cent). The amount of plastic waste estimated by most respondents was more than the actual amount recorded by the government. The respondents’ response pattern shows a normal distribution centred on the middle response option given in the survey, “between 20 and 40 per cent”. Due to the propensity of survey respondents to favour the middle options in a multiple choice question over the extremes, this pattern is what one would expect if most of the respondents were simply guessing the answer.

28 Figure 34: Out of the total amount of waste going into Hong Kong’s landfills, what percentage of it is plastic?


3.6.2 Knowledge and concern The more serious respondents thought the plastic waste problem was, the more they tended to over-estimate the amount of plastic waste going into Hong Kong’s landfills. 58.6 per cent of those who felt it was a very serious problem over-estimated the amount, compared to 32.6 per cent of those who said it was “not serious” or “not serious at all”. In fact, those who thought the problem was not serious were most likely to give the correct answer (16.3 per cent, compared with 10.2 per cent of all respondents). It is uncertain how many gave the right answer because they really knew it, and how many simply guessed a lower figure because they thought the problem was not serious. Those who thought it should have top or medium government priority were also more likely to over-estimate the quantity of plastic waste (54.7 and 57 per cent, respectively) than those who thought it should have low or no priority (44.7 per cent). However, this pattern did not hold for the question of personal concern. 48.7 per cent of those who had a great deal of concern overestimated the amount, compared with 54.2 per cent of those with little or no concern. Those who had a great deal of concern were also marginally more likely to give the correct answer, with 11.8 per cent giving the right answer compared to 9.7 per cent of those who had little or no concern. While neither group can be said to be well-informed, those who thought the problem was serious were more prone to exaggerate the problem than those who were personally concerned.

Table 8: Knowledge of plastic waste, by views on seriousness of plastic waste problem


Not so serious/ Not serious at all Don't know

Underestimated 3.2% (10)

3.5% (19)

12.5% (10)

4.0% (3)

Correct answer 6.4% (20)

12.1% (66)

16.3% (13)

5.3% (4)

Overestimated 58.6% (184)

54.0% (294)

38.8% (31)

9.3% (7)

Don't know 31.8% (100)

30.3% (165)

32.5% (26)

81.3% (61)

Total 100.0%

(314) 100.0%

(544) 100.0%

(80) 100.0%

(75) 1,013 valid cases. Base = All respondents

34.7%

4.1%

10.2%

22.2%

18.9%

9.9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Don't know

Below 10%

Between 10 and 20%

Between 20% and 40%

Between 40% and 60%

More than 60%

29 Table 9: Knowledge of plastic waste, by views on government priority for plastic waste problem


Low priority/Not a problem Don't know


5.0% (26)

8.5% (4)

0.8% (1)


11.9% (62)

6.4% (3)

5.0% (6)


57.0% (296)

44.7% (21)

16.7% (20)

Don't know 32.1% (105)

26.0% (135)

40.4% (19)

77.5% (93)

Total 100.0%

(327) 100.0%

(519) 100.0%

(47) 100.0%


Table 10: Knowledge of plastic waste, by concern about plastic waste problem

Great deal Some Little/None Don’t know

Underestimated 4.6%

(7)

3.9% (18)

4.6% (16)

2.2% (1)

Correct answer 11.8%

(18)

10.9% (51)

9.7% (34)

0.0% (0)

Overestimated 48.7%

(74) 53.2% (248)

54.2% (189)

10.9% (5)

Don't know 34.9%

(53) 32.0% (149)

31.5% (110)

87.0% (40)

Total 100.0%

(152) 100.0%

(466) 100.0%

(349) 100.0%


3.6.3 Knowledge and consumption Given the fact that the level of knowledge about the quantity of plastic waste going into Hong Kong’s landfills was low, and that those who judged the problem to be more serious tended to overestimate the amount, there is little reason to expect that more knowledge would be correlated with less consumption of bottled water. In fact, the relationship between knowledge of plastic waste and consumption of bottled water is complex and contradictory. With regards to drinking water choices, those who drank only tap water disproportionately replied “don’t know”. 43.1 per cent of them replied “don’t know”, compared to 29 per cent of light drinkers of bottled water, and 25 per cent of heavy drinkers of bottled water. Tap water drinkers were therefore a self-admittedly less well informed group, or least, less willing to guess. This may be related to the fact that tap water drinkers were generally older and less educated than the average respondent (see Section 5). While a similar proportion of them as bottled water drinkers underestimated the amount of plastic waste or gave the correct answer, a smaller proportion of them over-estimated the amount. In fact, heavy drinkers of bottled water were the most likely to over-estimate the quantity of plastic waste, with 60.6 per cent of them giving an overestimate, compared with 55.9 per cent of light drinkers of bottled water and 43.3 per cent of tap water drinkers. This could be related to the amount of plastic waste they themselves throw away. Similarly, among bottled water drinkers, the propensity to overestimate plastic waste rose with purchase frequency, with 71.6 per cent of respondents who bought bottled water at least several times a week, compared with 44.8 per cent of those who never bought bottled water.

30 However, regarding weekly spending on bottled water, it was moderate spenders who were most likely to give overestimates. 70.4 per cent of respondents who spent HK$11-20 per week gave an overestimate, as opposed to around 55 per cent of the lowest and highest spenders. Those who spent between HK$1 and HK$10, and those who spent between HK$21 and HK$50 were most likely to give correct answers, while those who spent HK$51 or more were most likely to give underestimates. They were also second most likely to say “don’t know”, aside from those who spent HK$0.

Table 11: Knowledge of plastic waste by daily water drinking habits (tap vs bottled)


Light drinkers of bottled water (More tap water than bottled

water)

Heavy drinkers of bottled water (Half and half, more bottled than

tap, and only bottled)


3.2% (12)

5.0% (8)


11.8% (44)

9.4% (15)


55.9% (208)

60.6% (97)

Don’t know 43.1% (202)

29.0% (108)

25.0% (40)

Total 100% (469)

100% (372)

100% (160)

1,001 valid cases. Base = All water drinking respondents. “Don’t know” for water drinking habits excluded.

Table 12: Knowledge of plastic waste by frequency of bottled water purchase


Once a week to several times a

month Once a month to

rarely Never

Underestimated 2.3%

(2) 5.3%

(8) 3.5%

(9) 3.4%

(1)


(10) 13.3%

(20) 11.2%

(29) 3.4%

(1)

Overestimated 71.6%

(63) 57.3%

(86) 54.7% (141)

44.8% (13)

Don't know 14.8%

(13) 24.0%

(36) 30.6%

(79) 48.3%

(14)

Total 100%

(88) 100% (150)

100% (258)

100% (29)


Table 13: Knowledge of plastic waste by weekly spending on bottled water

HK$0 HK$1-10 HK$11-20 HK$21-30 HK$31-50 HK$51+

Underestimated 1.8%

(2) 3.8%

(6) 3.7%

(3) 2.1%

(1) 4.0%

(1) 8.8%

(3)


(12) 14.4%

(23) 9.9%

(8) 16.7%

(8) 16.0%

(4) 8.8%

(3)

Overestimated 54.9%

(62) 56.9%

(91) 70.4%

(57) 68.8%

(33) 56.0%

(14) 52.9%

(18)

Don't know 32.7%

(37) 25.0%

(40) 16.0%

(13) 12.5%

(6) 24.0%

(6) 29.4%

(10)

Total 100% (113)

100% (160)

100% (81)

100% (48)

100% (25)

100% (34)


3.6.4 Knowledge and satisfaction with recycling facilities Respondents were asked how satisfied they were with Hong Kong’s arrangements for plastic bottle collection (this issue is explored in more detail in Section 4). This was also found to be correlated with respondents’ knowledge about the quantity of plastic waste in Hong Kong. Those who were more dissatisfied with plastic recycling arrangements also tended to overestimate the amount of plastic waste compared to those who were satisfied. 58.3 per cent of those who were very

31 dissatisfied overestimated plastic waste, compared to just 52.8 per cent of those who were satisfied, and 31.3 per cent of those who were very satisfied. It is also interesting that among those answered “don’t know” to the satisfaction question, a higher proportion reported being very satisfied with the plastic recycling arrangements in Hong Kong as a whole.

Table 14: Knowledge of plastic waste, by satisfaction level of facilities arrangement for plastic bottle collection

Very

satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Don’t know

Underestimated amount

6.3% (1)

3.9% (15)

4.0% (15)

4.8% (4)

4.7% (7)


(2) 10.9%

(42) 12.5%

(47) 7.1%

(6) 4.0%

(6)

Overestimated amount

31.3% (5)

52.8% (204)

56.5% (213)

58.3% (49)

30.0% (45)

Don't know 50.0%

(8) 32.4% (125)

27.1% (102)

29.8% (25)

61.3% (92)

Total 100.0%

(16) 100.0%

(386) 100.0%

(377) 100.0%

(84) 100.0%

(150)


3.7 Section Summary The relationship between the three aspects of concern, knowledge, and behaviour was neither straightforward nor necessarily positive. Rating the plastic waste problem as more serious, a higher government priority, or of greater personal concern did not appear to affect respondents’ broad choices between bottled and tap water. Greater concern was associated with a slight reduction in purchase frequency, and a very reduction in the proportion spending of over HK$21 a week. However, these reductions were not necessarily consistent. Knowledge about the proportion of the waste going into local landfills that is composed of plastic was generally low, with barely more than 10 per cent of respondents giving a correct answer (between 10 and 20 per cent). Seeing as those who rated plastic waste as more seriously and deserving of greater government priority tended to overestimate the volume of plastic waste, those who gave the right answer might not have necessarily known the answer; some may have guessed correctly due to their relative lack of alarm about the problem. Given this tendency, being able to answer the question correctly did not mean that respondents consumed less bottled water. Roughly equal percentages of people answered correctly, whatever their consumption habits. Rather, heavy drinkers of bottled water and frequent purchasers were most likely to overestimate the amount of plastic waste, probably because of the amount of waste they themselves generated. Where concern about plastic waste did appear to have an impact on behaviour, it was in the area of recycling. Those more concerned about plastic waste were much more likely to report recycling plastic bottles. They also expressed more willingness to use public water dispensers, even though they did not actually do so at present. Environmental concern and knowledge therefore have very limited impacts on behaviour. Policymakers and environmental NGOs that wish to reduce bottled water consumption must therefore focus on bridging the gap between concern and action. One issue that was identified in the focus groups was that people may believe that bottled water consumption has no

32 environmental impact as long as the bottles are recycled. The public therefore needs to be better informed about why recycling is not a perfect substitute for reduction of waste at source, as recycled plastics are frequently down-cycled into lower-quality products and manufacturing new bottles still requires petrochemicals. Additionally, the energy and fuel costs of manufacturing the bottles, treating the water, and transporting the products means that bottled water has environmental impacts beyond the generation of solid municipal waste. There is a need for better and more in-depth environmental education on these issues in schools, in government public information campaigns, and awareness campaigns by local environmental groups. In addition to this knowledge gap, policymakers need to focus on factors other than concern and knowledge that affect behaviour. As suggested in Section 1, convenience may be an important factor as it was the most commonly named reason for choosing to drink mainly tap water as well as bottled water. Section 4 will focus on the ways in which policymakers can make environmentally friendly behaviour more convenient.

4. Making change easy

This section will focus on how policymakers can encourage people to adopt more environmentally friendly behaviour. In order for people to reduce consumption of bottled water, alternatives should be offered. If people are expected to carry their own water flasks, they need to be provided with conveniently located water dispensers or fountains where they can refill them. Policymaker should therefore address gaps in the current provision of water dispensers in order to encourage usage. In addition to using water dispensers, policymakers also should encourage more consistent and conscientious recycling. Although recycling is not a perfect substitute for reduction at source, it still should be encouraged as it reduces the amount of waste going into landfills. As a preliminary step, this section examines the recycling behaviour of different social demographics in order to help policymakers target the public more effectively.

4.1 Encouraging water dispenser usage

4.1.1 Current usage and satisfaction Overall figures indicate that drinking water from public water dispensers is not common in Hong Kong. Only a quarter, 26.4 per cent, had drunk from water dispensers in public places in the past six months. Of those who did drink from public water dispensers in the past six month, the most commonly stated locations included sports facilities in particular, followed by parks, schools and universities and swimming pools. Small numbers also mentioned the airport, libraries, workplaces, hospitals or clinics, and churches.

33 Figure 35: Have you drunk water from any public water dispensers in the past six months?

1,003 valid responses. Base = All water drinkers. “Don’t know” excluded.

Figure 36: Locations of water dispenser usage named by respondents

253 valid cases. Base = Water dispenser users. Respondents allowed to name more than one option

It is clear that water dispensers in Hong Kong are found in few other locations besides sports and recreational facilities, and educational establishments. Some of the less commonly named locations are places that most people visit infrequently, such as hospitals or the airport, or private places not accessible to the public at large, such as churches and workplaces. This means that those whose lifestyles do not include frequent trips to recreational facilities, or who do not attend or work at a school or university are unlikely to encounter a public water dispenser or drinking fountain. Additionally, a low satisfaction rate with existing water dispensers rate may contribute to low usage. Only 21.7 per cent of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with water dispensers and 14.7 per cent were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. One-third of respondents rated them so-so (33.1 per cent), and another 30.5 per cent replied “don’t know”. It seems that respondents did not have strong opinions about water dispensers, or were not able to form an opinion due to lack of experience in using them. In general, men expressed more satisfaction with water dispensers and were less likely to reply “don’t know” than women. Respondents over 55 had the least familiarity, with 43.4 per cent of them answering “don’t know”, compared to just 12.3 per cent of under 35 year-olds, however those who did have an opinion tended to be more satisfied than

Yes26.4%

No73.6%

40.7%

19.4%

11.5%

7.1%

6.7%

4.3%

3.6%

3.6%

2.0%

2.4%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0%

Sports grounds or sports centre

Park

School or university

Swimming pool

Airport

Library

Workplace

Hospital or clinic

Church

Other

Percentage of respondents naming location

34 younger respondents. Those with Secondary 3 educational attainment or below also tended to be less familiar with water dispensers, but those who did give an opinion were more satisfied than those with higher educational attainment.

Table 15: Satisfaction with existing quality of water dispensers Hong Kong, by gender

Men Women Total

Very satisfied 1.9%

(7) 1.3%

(8) 1.5% (1.3)

Satisfied 27.9% (104)

15.8% (101)

20.2% (15.8)

So-so 34.0% (127)

32.5% (208)

33.1% (32.5)

Dissatisfied 7.2% (27)

14.4% (92)

11.7% (14.4)

Very dissatisfied 2.7% (10)

3.1% (20)

3.0% (3.1)

Don't know 26.3%

(98) 33.0% (211)

30.5% (33.0)

Total 100.0%

(373) 100.0%

(640) 100.0% (1,013)


Table 16: Satisfaction with existing quality of water dispensers in Hong Kong, by age group

18-34 35-54 55 or above Overall

Very satisfied 0.4%

(1) 1.3%

(5) 2.2%

(9) 1.5% (15)

Satisfied 22.0%

(49) 17.7%

(66) 22.1%

(90) 20.4% (205)

So-so 48.0% (107)

35.1% (131)

23.0% (94)

33.1% (332)

Dissatisfied 15.2%

(34) 15.0%

(56) 7.1% (29)

11.9% (119)

Very dissatisfied 2.2%

(5) 4.0% (15)

2.2% (9)

2.9% (29)

Don't know 12.1%

(27) 26.8% (100)

43.4% (177)

30.3% (309)

Total 100.0%

(223) 100.0%

(373) 100.0%

(408) 100.0% (1,004)

1,004 valid cases. Base = All respondents. “Refuse” for age group excluded.

Table 17: Satisfaction with existing quality of water dispensers in Hong Kong, by educational attainment

Secondary 3 or

below Secondary 4 to

Secondary 7 Post-secondary Overall

Very satisfied 2.4%

(7) 1.1%

(4) 1.1%

(4) 1.5% (15)

Satisfied 17.8%

(51) 22.3%

(78) 20.5%

(75) 20.4% (204)

So-so 26.5%

(76) 32.0% (112)

39.5% (144)

33.1% (332)


15.7% (55)

12.3% (45)

11.9% (119)


(6) 3.1% (11)

3.6% (13)

3.0% (30)

Don't know 44.6% (128)

25.7% (90)

23.0% (84)

30.1% (302)

Total 100.0%

(287) 100.0%

(350) 100.0%

(365) 100.0% (1,002)

1,002 valid cases. Base = All respondents. “Refuse” for educational attainment excluded.

35 However, in spite of low familiarity and satisfaction with water dispensers, almost twice as many respondents expressed willingness to use water dispensers as had actually used them, provided certain standards of quality and availability were met. 50.3 per cent of those who were satisfied with or had a “so-so” attitude towards water dispensers expressed willingness to use them if available. 41.5 per cent of those who were dissatisfied or who replied “don’t know” were willing to use one if they offered water of a similar quality to bottled water. However, this still means that at least half of the respondents would not make an effort to use public water dispensers, indicating that this practice would not be commonly supported by the public. Table 18: Satisfaction with and willingness to use water dispensers

Satisfaction Willingness to use water dispensers

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

Very satisfied 1.5% (15) Would you be willing to

bring your own bottle to refill with drinking water if a water dispenser were available?

Yes 50.3

(279)


No 47.4% (263)

So-so 33.2% (335) Don’t know

2.3% (13)


Would you be willing to bring your own bottle to refill with water if a water dispenser with a similar quality to bottled water were available?

Yes 41.0% (188)

Very dissatisfied 2.9% (30)

No 55.5% (254)

Don’t know 30.3% (309) Don’t know

3.5% (16)

Overall willingness to use water dispensers provided conditions are met

Yes 46.4% (465)

No 50.8% (510)

Don’t know 2.8% (28)


A similar question was raised in the focus group discussion. Most participants in one group said they would consider drinking from public water dispensers is available, most participants of the second group would not. Their reasons included the fact that there was no guarantee of hygiene and water quality, a poor impression of the management of public water dispensers, failing to bring their own bottle along, the convenience of buying bottled water or beverages, and feeling uncomfortable with locations of water dispensers especially those which were installed near washrooms. Participants also explained they had little motivation to bring their own bottle because bottled water was always available and cheap. In reality, it was more convenient to buy bottled water at convenience stores than to fill a bottle from water dispensers. This means that in order to change behaviour, both the problems of quality and convenience have to be addressed. In order to inspire public confidence, water dispensers should offer filtered water. Maintenance schedules should be prominently posted. Another strategy to psychologically reassure the public would be to place water dispensers a slight distance away from the entrances to public toilets in order to avoid foul smells. While it would cost more to lay the plumbing, doing so may increase usage. The installation of the infrastructure should be accompanied by promotion and branding in order to raise its profile, build public confidence, and encourage people to change their habits. Water dispensers need to become competitive with convenience stores in terms of distribution and accessibility. To improve availability, the HKSAR Government should collaborate with the

36 private sector and semi-public bodies such as the Mass Transit Railway Corporation (MTRC) and the Housing Authority to install water dispensers in convenient locations other than sports and recreation venues. A demographic analysis of water dispenser usage can give some insights into which types of locations to prioritise. 4.1.2 Demographics of water dispenser usage As shown below, gender, age, educational attainment, occupation and personal monthly income are all correlated with whether respondents had used a water dispenser in the last 6 months. Men, young people aged between 18 and 34, people with post-secondary educational attainment, students, and people with monthly personal income of HK$15,000 or above were more likely to have used water dispensers. In contrast, a relatively higher proportion of women, people aged 55 or above, people with educational attainment of Secondary 3 or below, “housewives”, retired people, and people with monthly income less than HK$15,000 had not drunk from a water dispenser in the past six months. Table 19: Water dispenser usage within last 6 months, by gender

Men Women Overall

Yes 36.2% (135)

20.3% (130)

26.2% (265)

No 61.9% (231)

79.2% (507)

72.9% (738)

Don’t know 1.9%

(7) 0.5%

(3) 0.9% (10)

Total 100.0%

(373) 100.0%

(640) 100.0% (1,013)


Table 20: Water dispenser usage within last 6 months, by age group 18-34 35-54 55 or above Overall

Yes 40.8%

(91) 26.8% (100)

18.1% (74)

26.4% (265)

No 57.4% (128)

72.7% (271)

80.9% (330)

72.6% (729)

Don’t know 1.8%

(4) 0.5%

(2) 1.0%

(4) 1.0% (10)

Total 100% (223)

100% (373)

100% (408)

100% (1,004)


Table 21: Water dispenser usage within last 6 months, by educational attainment

Secondary 3 or


Secondary 7 Post-secondary Overall

Yes 13.9 (40)

24.6 (86)

38.1 (139)

26.4 (265)

No 85.7

(246) 74.6

(261) 60.3

(220) 72.6

(727)

Don’t know 0.3 (1)

0.9 (3)

1.6 (6)

1.0 (10)

Total 100.0%

(287) 100.0%

(350) 100.0%

(365) 100.0% (1,002)


37 Table 22: Water dispenser usage within last 6 months, by occupation

Man

age

rs a

nd

Ad

min

istr

ato

rs

Pro

fess

ion

als

Cle

rks

Serv

ice

an

d

“Blu

e c

olla

r”

“H

ou

sew

ive

s”

Ret

ire

d

Un

em

plo

yed

Stu

de

nts

Yes 30.4%

(21) 38.2%

(52) 26.5%

(27) 19.9%

(27) 16.3%

(24) 19.6%

(51) 25.0%

(11) 50.6%

(41)

No 69.6%

(48) 59.6%

(81) 72.5%

(74) 78.7% (107)

83.0% (122)

79.6% (207)

75.0% (33)

48.1% (39)

Don’t know

0.0% (0)

2.2% (3)

1.0% (1)

1.5% (2)

0.7% (1)

0.8% (2)

0.0% (0)

1.2% (1)

Total 100%

(69) 100% (136)

100% (102)

100% (136)

100% (147)

100% (260)

100% (44)

100% (81)

975 valid cases. Base = All respondents. “Refuse” for occupation excluded. Table 23: Water dispenser usage within last 6 months, by personal monthly income

Less than

HK$15,000 HK$15,000-

29,999 HK$30,000 and

up Total

Yes 24.6%

(41) 31.5%

(46) 32.7%

(33) 29.0% (120)

No 74.9% (125)

65.8% (96)

66.3% (67)

69.6% (288)

Don’t know

0.6% (1)

2.7% (4)

1.0% (1)

1.4% (6)

Total 100.0%

(167) 100.0%

(146) 100.0%

(101) 100.0%

(414) 414 valid cases. Base = Respondents in employment. “Refuse” for personal income excluded.

Table 24: Willingness to bring own refillable bottle under given conditions, by age group


Yes

Satisfied respondents* 55.4%

(87) 55.9% (113)

39.9% (77)

50.2% (277)

Dissatisfied respondents** 56.1%

(37) 50.3%

(86) 29.3%

(63) 41.2% (186)

Overall 55.6% (124)

53.4% (199)

34.3% (140)

46.1% (463)

No

Satisfied respondents 39.5%

(62) 43.1%

(87) 58.5% (113)

47.5% (262)

Dissatisfied respondents 43.9%

(29) 46.8%

(80) 65.6% (141)

55.3% (250)

Overall 40.8%

(91) 44.8% (167)

62.3% (254)

51.0% (512)

No idea


(8) 1.0%

(2) 1.6%

(3) 2.4% (13)


(0) 2.9%

(5) 5.1% (11)

3.5% (16)

Overall 3.6%

(8) 1.9%

(7) 3.4% (14)

2.9% (29)

Total


(157) 100.0%

(202) 100.0%

(193) 100.0%

(552)


(66) 100.0%

(171) 100.0%

(215) 100.0%

(452)

Overall 100.0%

(223) 100.0%

(373) 100.0%

(408) 100.0% (1,004)

1,004 valid cases. Base = All respondents. “Refuse” for age group excluded. * Respondents who were “very satisfied”, “satisfied” or “so-so” with existing water dispenser quality, willing to use water dispensers if available ** Respondents “dissatisfied”, “very dissatisfied” or “don’t know” about existing water dispenser quality, willing to use water dispensers if water quality was similar to bottled water

38 Respondents’ willingness towards bringing their own refillable bottles to use at water dispensers also varies by age, occupation and educational attainment. Among respondents who were satisfied with the quality of water dispensers, respondents under age 55, expressed comparatively more willingness to bring their own bottles. Students and the unemployed expressed the most willingness to bring their own bottle, but relatively high rates of willingness were also found among managers and administrators, clerks and service and blue collar workers. Among respondents who were dissatisfied with or had no opinion about the quality of existing water dispensers, willingness to bring one’s own bottle rose sharply with educational attainment.

Table 25: Willingness to bring own drinking bottle under given conditions, by occupation (satisfied and dissatisfied respondents)

975 valid cases. Base = All respondents. “Refuse” for occupation excluded. * Respondents who were “very satisfied”, “satisfied” or “so-so” with existing water dispenser quality, willing to use water dispensers if available ** Respondents “dissatisfied”, “very dissatisfied” or “don’t know” about existing water dispenser quality, willing to use water dispensers if water quality was similar to bottled water

Man

agers an

d

Ad

min

istrators

Pro

fession

als

Cle

rks

Service an

d

“Blu

e co

llar”

“Ho

usew

ives”

Re

tired

Un

emp

loye

d

Stud

en

ts

Yes Satisfied respondents* 54.8%

(23) 48.8%

(41) 67.3%

(37) 46.8%

(36) 44.6%

(33) 37.4%

(46) 62.5%

(15) 60.0%

(36)

Dissatisfied respondents**

40.7% (11)

50.0% (26)

46.8% (22)

55.9% (33)

46.6% (34)

22.6% (31)

60.0% (12)

57.1% (12)

Overall 49.3%

(34) 49.3%

(67) 57.8%

(59) 50.7%

(69) 45.6%

(67) 29.6%

(77) 61.4%

(27) 59.3%

(48)

No Satisfied respondents 45.2%

(19) 48.8%

(41) 32.7%

(18) 48.1%

(37) 52.7%

(39) 61.0%

(75) 37.5%

(9) 35.0%

(21)

Dissatisfied respondents

59.3% (16)

50.0% (26)

46.8% (22)

42.4% (25)

52.1 (38)

70.8% (97)

40.0% (8)

42.9% (9)

Overall 50.7%

(35) 49.3%

(67) 39.2%

(40) 45.6%

(62) 52.4 (77)

66.2% (172)

38.6% (17)

37.0% (30)

No idea


(0) 2.4%

(2) 0.0%

(0) 5.2%

(4) 2.7%

(2) 1.6%

(2) 0.0%

(0) 5.0%

(3)


0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

6.4% (3)

1.7% (1)

1.4 (1)

6.6% (9)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

Overall 0.0%

(0) 1.5%

(2) 2.9%

(3) 3.7%

(5) 2.0 (3)

4.2% (11)

0.0% (0)

3.7% (3)

Total Satisfied respondents 100.0%

(42) 100.0%

(84) 100.0%

(55) 100.0%

(77) 100.0%

(74) 100.0%

(123) 100.0%

(24) 100.0%

(60)


100% (27)

100% (52)

100% (47)

100% (59)

100% (73)

100% (137)

100% (20)

100% (21)

Overall 100%

(69) 100% (136)

100% (102)

100% (136)

100% (147)

100% (260)

100% (44)

100% (81)

39 Table 26: Willingness to bring own drinking bottle under given conditions, by educational attainment (satisfied and dissatisfied respondents)

Secondary 3 or


Secondary 7 Post-

secondary Total Yes

Satisfied respondents* 41.8%

(56) 50.5%

(98) 55.6% (124)

50.5% (278)

Dissatisfied respondents** 29.4%

(45) 44.2%

(69) 50.0%

(71) 41.0% (185)

Overall 35.2% (101)

47.7% (167)

53.4% (195)

46.2% (463)

No Satisfied respondents

55.2% (74)

46.9% (91)

42.6% (95)

47.2% (260)

Dissatisfied respondents 66.0% (101)

53.2% (83)

47.2% (67)

55.7% (251)

Overall 61.0% (175)

49.7% (174)

44.4% (162)

51.0% (511)

No idea


(4) 2.6%

(5) 1.8%

(4) 2.4% (13)


(7) 2.6%

(4) 2.8%

(4) 3.3% (15)

Overall 3.8% (11)

2.6% (9)

2.2% (8)

2.8% (28)

Total Satisfied respondents

100% (134)

100% (194)

100%% (223)

100% (551)

Dissatisfied respondents 100% (153)

100% 156

100% 142

100% 451

Overall 100% (287)

100% (350)

100% (365)

100% (1,002)

1,002 valid cases. Base = All respondents. “Refuse” for educational attainment excluded. * Respondents who were “very satisfied”, “satisfied” or “so-so” with existing water dispenser quality, willing to use water dispensers if available ** Respondents “dissatisfied”, “very dissatisfied” or “don’t know” about existing water dispenser quality, willing to use water dispensers if water quality was similar to bottled water

4.1.3 Willingness to pay for dispensed water In order to examine the potential of using direct user charges to provide and maintain public filtered water dispensers, respondents were asked how much they were willing to pay for 500ml of water. 75.4 per cent were willing to pay, and 51 per cent were willing to pay HK$3 or more. This was surprising since bottled water can be purchased at newsstands for around HK$5 in urban areas. It seems that the majority responded positively to the charge of dispensed water.

Figure 37: How much would you be willing to pay for each 500ml of dispensed water?

Base: 467 valid cases. Base = Respondents willing to use water dispensers.

51.0%

15.0%

6.0%

3.2%

7.1%

17.8%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

HK$3 or above

Between HK$2 and HK$3


Up to HK$1

HK$0/Unwilling to pay

Don't know


40 Respondents under the age of 55 were more willing to pay HK$3 or more, compared to those aged 55 and over. People with an educational attainment of Secondary 4 or above were more likely to pay HK$3 or above than those who were less educated. Willingness to pay for dispensed water also varied by occupation. The retired (33.8 per cent), housewives (43.3 per cent), and the unemployed (44.4 per cent) were the least willing to pay HK$3 or more. However, over half of managers, professionals, clerks and students were willing to pay that sum.

Table 27: Willingness to pay for dispensed water, by age group

18-34 35-54 55 or above Total

HK$0 / Unwilling to pay 4.0%

(5) 6.5% (13)

10.0% (14)

6.9% (32)

Up to HK$1 1.6%

(2) 4.0%

(8) 3.6%

(5) 3.2% (15)

Between HK$1 and HK$2 6.5%

(8) 6.5% (13)

5.0% (7)

6.0% (28)


(25) 14.6%

(29) 10.7%

(15) 14.9%

(69)

HK$3 or above 59.7%

(74) 55.3% (110)

37.9% (53)

51.2% (237)

Don't know 8.1% (10)

13.1% (26)

32.9% (46)

17.7% (82)

Total 100.0%

(124) 100.0%

(199) 100.0%

(140) 100.0%

(463)

Overall willingness to pay 87.9% 80.4% 57.1% 75.4%

463 valid cases. Base = Respondents willing to use water dispensers. “Refuse” for age group excluded.

Table 28: Willingness to pay for dispensed water, by educational attainment

Secondary 3

or below Secondary 4 to

Secondary 7 Post-secondary

Overall


(7) 6.6% (11)

7.2% (14)

6.9% (32)

Up to HK$1 3.0%

(3) 1.8%

(3) 4.6%

(9) 3.2% (15)


(5) 6.0% (10)

6.7% (13)

6.0% (28)


(14) 16.2%

(27) 14.9%

(29) 15.1%

(70)

HK$3 or above 37.6%

(38) 56.3%

(94) 53.8% (105)

51.2% (237)

Don't know 33.7%

(34) 13.2%

(22) 12.8%

(25) 17.5%

(81)

Total 100.0%

(101) 100.0%

(167) 100.0%

(195) 100.0%

(463)

Overall willingness to pay 59.4% 80.2% 80.0% 75.6%

463 valid cases. Base = Respondents willing to use water dispensers. “Refuse” for educational attainment excluded.

People’s willingness to pay for dispensed water was correlated with their water drinking habits. While over 60 per cent of all groups were willing to pay for water from a water dispenser, those who drank half beverages and half water were most willing to do so, with 85 per cent willing to pay. Oddly, those who drank only water were the least willing to pay, with just 61.3 per cent willing to do so. However, this group overlaps considerably with those who only drink tap water (as opposed to bottled water). As shown by Table 31, those who drink only tap water are least likely to pay for water from a dispenser, which is understandable since they are accustomed to getting drinking water from the tap much more cheaply.

41 Those who usually drink only water (as opposed to beverages) or only tap water (as opposed to bottled water) were less likely to be willing to pay. Since they are used to drinking tap water nearly for free, it is understandable that they would be less willing to pay for water. Those who drink bottled water at all are roughly equally willing to pay to use a water dispenser, and roughly equally willing to pay more than HK$3.

Table 29: Willingness to pay for dispensed water, by occupation

Man

age

rs a

nd

Ad

min

istr

ato

rs

Pro

fess

ion

als

Cle

rks

Serv

ice

an

d

“blu

e c

olla

r”

Ho

use

wif

e

Ret

ire

d

Un

em

plo

yed

Stu

de

nts

HK$0 / Unwilling to pay

14.7% (5)

3.0% (2)

0.0% (0)

7.2% (5)

3.0% (2)

14.3% (11)

7.4% (2)

2.1% (1)

Up to HK$1 5.9%

(2) 4.5%

(3) 9.4%

(6) 2.9%

(2) 1.5%

(1) 3.9%

(3) 3.7%

(1) 4.2%

(2)


5.9% (2)

4.5% (3)

10.9% (7)

11.6% (8)

4.5% (3)

2.6% (2)

3.7% (1)

6.3% (3)


11.8% (4)

19.4% (13)

10.9% (7)

13.0% (35)

19.4% (13)

9.1% (7)

25.9% (7)

14.6% (7)

HK$3 or above 55.9%

(19) 58.2%

(39) 59.4%

(38) 50.7%

(10) 43.3%

(29) 33.8%

(26) 44.4%

(12) 68.8%

(33)

Don't know 5.9%

(2) 10.4%

(7) 9.4%

(6) 14.5%

(69) 28.4%

(19) 36.4%

(28) 14.8%

(4) 4.2%

(2)

Total 100.0%

(34) 100.0%

(67) 100.0%

(64) 100.0%

(69) 100.0%

(67) 100.0%

(77) 100.0%

(27) 100.0%

(48)

Overall willingness to pay

79.4% 86.6% 90.6% 78.3% 68.6% 49.3% 77.8% 93.7%

453 valid cases. Base = Respondents willing to use water dispensers. “Refuse” for occupation excluded.

Table 30: Willingness to pay by drinking habits (water vs beverages)

Mostly or only beverages

Half and half

Mostly water Only water


(3) 5.3%

(5) 6.7% (15)

9.0% (10)

Up to HK$1 2.6%

(1) 6.4%

(6) 1.8% (40)

3.6% (4)


13.2% (5)

5.3% (5)

5.8% (13)

4.5% (5)


10.5% (4)

20.2% (19)

14.7% (33)

12.6% (14)

HK$3 or above 50.0%

(19) 53.2%

(9) 55.4% (124)

40.5% (45)

Don't know 15.8%

(6) 9.6% (94)

15.6% (35)

29.7% (33)

Total 100%

(38) 100%

(94) 100% (224)

100% (111)

Overall willing to pay 76.3% 85.1% 77.7% 61.3% 467 valid cases. Base = Respondents willing to use water dispensers.

42 Table 31: Willingness to pay by water drinking habits (tap water vs bottled water)

Only tap water

Mostly tap water Half and half

Mostly or only bottled water

HK$0 / Unwilling to pay 8.3% (16)

4.9% (9)

8.5% (4)

10.8% (4)

Up to HK$1 3.1%

(6) 2.2%

(4) 8.5%

(4) 2.7%

(1)


5.7% (11)

4.3% (8)

2.1% (1)

13.5% (5)


14.5% (28)

17.3% (32)

17.0% (8)

5.4% (2)

HK$3 or above 40.9%

(79) 58.4% (108)

59.6% (28)

59.5% (22)

Don't know 27.5%

(53) 13.0%

(24) 4.3%

(2) 8.1%

(3)

Total 100.0%

(193) 100.0%

(185) 100.0%

(47) 100.0%

(37)

Overall willing to pay 64.2% 82.2% 87.2% 81.1%

462 valid cases. Base = Respondents willing to use water dispensers. “Don’t know” for water drinking habits excluded.

During the focus groups, most participants had a positive response to a water dispenser charge, provided certain conditions were met. Conditions mentioned included a guarantee of clean water, a better management system, water provided by popular brand, a lower cost than bottled water, no queuing, and non-profit making. However, some participants said they would rather buy bottled water or beverages if there were a water dispenser charge.

4.1.4 Water dispenser location and charges By comparing willingness to pay with current usage and willingness to use water dispensers, we can also see which demographic categories would be the most likely markets for user-charged water dispensers. Table 32 highlights groups that have a large gap between current usage and willingness to use water dispensers, a high willingness to pay, and a high willingness to pay HK$3 or more. Demographic categories meeting all three criteria more include people aged 34-55, people earning less than HK$30,000 a month (especially those earning between HK$15,000 to HK$29,999 a month), those with Secondary 4 to 7 educational attainment and clerks. This build a profile of middle-income office workers. Focusing on this group would produce the greatest behavioural changes. Additionally, managers, administrators, professionals and students have a high willingness to pay for water dispensers. As they are already are more likely to have experience with water dispensers, focusing on these groups would mean building on existing behaviour rather than changing it. Students have access to free water dispensers on campus, while high-income managers and professionals may be more likely to have access to private clubhouses and recreational facilities equipped with them. These groups would be likely to take advantage of high quality public water dispensers in other locations if they became available. Housewives are fairly willing to use water dispensers, but less willing to pay for water. They might use free water dispensers. The retired and respondents over the age of 55 are neither interested in using nor paying for public water dispensers. Therefore, paid water dispensers would be more successful if located in areas frequented daily by office workers, such as commercial districts, MTR stations, and shopping malls attached to public transport interchanges. Shopping and entertainment districts frequented by middle-income shoppers would also be good places to locate paid water dispensers. In these areas, water dispensers could charge around HK$3 per 500ml, but the charge should still be significantly lower than price of bottled water in order to make up for the locational disadvantage in comparison to ubiquitous convenience stores.

43 Table 32: Comparison of willingness to use water dispensers with willingness to pay for water by demographic categories

Demographic category

Current usage

rate

Overall willingness

to use water

dispensers

Difference Between

willingness and current usage

Willingness to pay (out of

those willing to use dispensers)

Willingness to pay HK$3 or more (out of those willing to

use dispensers)

Most efficient to target

GENDER

Men 36.2% 47.5% 11.3% 74.6% 47.5%

Women 20.3% 45.5% 25.0% 75.5% 53.1% ✓

AGE

18-34 40.8% 55.6% 14.8% 87.9% 59.7% ✓

35-54 26.8% 53.4% 26.5% 80.4% 55.3% ✓✓

55 and over 18.1% 34.3% 16.2% 57.1% 37.9%

EDUCATION

Secondary 3 and below

13.9% 35.2% 21.3% 59.4 37.6%

Secondary 4-7 24.5% 47.7% 23.2% 80.2 56.3% ✓✓

Post-secondary

38.1% 53.2% 15.1% 80.0 53.8%

PERSONAL INCOME*

<HK$15,000 24.6% 50.9% 26.3% 80.0% 58.8% ✓

HK$15,000-29,999

31.5% 57.5% 26.0% 93.1% 72.5% ✓✓

HK$30,000+ 32.7% 43.6% 10.7% 72.7% 50.0%

OCCUPATION

Managers and administrators

30.4% 49.3% 18.9% 79.4% 55.9%

Professionals 38.2% 49.3% 11.0% 86.6% 58.2% ✓

Clerks 26.5% 57.8% 31.3% 90.6% 59.4% ✓✓

Service and “blue collar”

19.9% 50.7% 30.8% 78.3% 50.7%

“Housewives” 16.3% 45.6% 29.3% 68.7% 43.3%

Retired 19.6% 29.6% 10.0% 49.4% 33.8%

Unemployed 25.0% 61.4% 36.4% 77.8% 44.4%

Students 50.6% 59.3% 8.7% 93.8% 68.8% ✓

*Excludes those not in the workforce

At smaller shopping centres located in residential areas, such as Link REIT malls attached to public housing estates, whose customers are more likely to include housewives doing everyday shopping, water dispensers would be more likely to be used if they offered water for free or for a nominal fee of HK$1 per 500ml. However, this means they would not be self-financing. Government municipal services buildings, which house wet-markets, cooked food centres, and recreational facilities could also consider providing free water dispensers near the entrances, accessible to passers-by, but care should be taken to avoid locations which look or smell unhygienic as this will discourage users.

44 4.2 Encouraging recycling

As shown in the previous section, self-reported recycling was correlated with environmental concern. Even low levels of concern were found to be associated with higher rates of recycling. Those with “little” concern were nearly twice as likely to report recycling than those with no concern (60.6 per cent vs 32.7 per cent, respectively) and those with a “great deal” of concern were even more likely to recycle (71.7 per cent). This subsection will look at other factors which may motivate people to recycle. It will also examine demographic factors in order to help policymakers focus policies on the right people. 4.2.1 Satisfaction with recycling facilities In focus group discussions, many participants complained the effectiveness of plastic recycling in Hong Kong while some believed that many collected plastic bottles were not actually recycled, but sent to landfills. Dissatisfaction with and mistrust of Hong Kong’s arrangements for plastic waste collection may be one factor affecting people’s willingness to recycle. People may think, “If the waste is not properly collected, why should I bother to put it in the recycling bin?” Respondents were asked how satisfied they were with the arrangements for plastic bottle collection in Hong Kong. On the whole, more respondents were dissatisfied than satisfied (45.5 per cent vs 39.2 per cent), with a substantial fraction, 14.8 per cent replying “don’t know”.

Figure 38: How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the arrangements for plastic bottle collection in Hong Kong as a whole?


Satisfaction with plastic waste collection was unsurprisingly linked to people’s views on plastic waste. Those who cared less about plastic waste in terms of seriousness, government priority, and personal concern were generally more satisfied with plastic waste collection than those who cared more.

Very satisfied1.6%

Satisfied38.1%

Dissatisfied37.2%

Very Dissatisfied8.3%

Don't know14.8%

45 Table 33: Satisfaction level of facilities arrangements for plastic bottle collection, by views on seriousness of plastic waste problem


Not so serious/Not


Very satisfied 1.9%

(6) 1.3%

(7) 2.5%

(2) 1.3%

(1)

Satisfied 31.2%

(98) 42.3% (230)

46.3% (37)

28.0% (21)


40.8% (222)

30.0% (24)

9.3% (7)


(49) 5.1% (28)

5.0% (4)

4.0% (3)

Don’t know 11.8%

(37) 10.5%

(57) 16.3%

(13) 57.3%

(43)

Total 100.0%

(314) 100.0%

(544) 100.0%

(80) 100.0%

(75) 1,013 valid cases. Base = All respondents.

Table 34: Satisfaction with plastic bottle collection, by Government’s priority to deal with plastic waste problem

Top Medium Low Not a problem Don't know Total

Very satisfied 2.4%

(8) 1.0%

(5) .0% (0)

5.9% (1)

1.7% (2)

1.6% (16)


41.6% (216)

56.7% (17)

47.1% (8)

30.8% (37)

38.1% (386)


39.7% (206)

26.7% (8)

17.6% (3)

25.8% (31)

37.2% (377)

Very Dissatisfied 13.1%

(43) 6.7% (35)

6.7% (2)

.0% (0)

3.3% (4)

8.3% (84)

Don't know 11.9%

(39) 11.0%

(57) 10.0%

(3) 29.4%

(5) 38.3%

(46) 14.8% (150)

Total 100.0%

(327) 100.0%

(519) 100.0%

(30) 100.0%

(17) 100.0%

(120) 100.0% (1,013)

1,013 valid cases. Base = All respondents. Table 35: Satisfaction level of facilities arrangements for plastic bottle collection, by concern with plastic waste

Great deal of

concern Some concern Little concern None Don’t know

Very satisfied 2.6%

(4) 1.3%

(6) 2.0%

(6) 0.0%

(0) 0.0%

(0)

Satisfied 35.5%

(54) 42.1% (196)

36.4% (108)

32.7% (17)

23.9% (11)

Dissatisfied 36.8%

(56) 39.3% (183)

38.7% (115)

28.8% (15)

17.4% (8)


(24) 7.5% (35)

7.4% (22)

5.8% (3)

0.0% (0)

Don’t know 9.2% (14)

9.9% (46)

15.5% (46)

32.7% (17)

58.7% (27)

Total 100.0%

(152) 100.0%

(466) 100.0%

(297) 100.0%

(52) 100.0%


Majorities of those who thought plastic waste was a very serious problem, should be a top government priority, or had a great deal of concern about it were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with plastic waste collection in Hong Kong. Only around 35 per cent of those who thought it was not so serious or not serious at all, or had no concern about it were dissatisfied, and only 17.6 per cent of those who thought the government should give it no priority were dissatisfied. It is not an

46 encouraging sign that those who were most apathetic about plastic waste were the most satisfied with recycling arrangements, and it clearly shows a demand for improvement in the government’s plastic waste collection. Dissatisfaction with plastic waste collection also varied by demographics. A greater proportion of young people between ages 18 and 34 were dissatisfied with the existing facilities than other age groups. Professionals, clerks, and people with post-secondary educational attainment tended to more dissatisfied than other groups.

Table 36: Satisfaction level of plastic bottle collection facilities arrangements in Hong Kong, by age group


Very satisfied 0.4%

(1) 1.6%

(6) 2.2%

(9) 1.6% (16)

Satisfied 39.9%

(89) 39.1% (146)

36.3% (148)

38.1% (383)


38.9% (145)

30.6% (125)

37.3% (374)

Very Dissatisfied 7.6% (17)

9.7% (36)

7.1% (29)

8.2% (82)


10.7% (40)

23.8% (97)

14.8% (149)

Total 100.0%

(223) 100.0%

(373) 100.0%

(408) 100.0% (1,004)


Table 37: Satisfaction level of plastic bottle collection facilities arrangements in Hong Kong, by educational attainment

Secondary 3


Secondary 7 Post-

secondary Total

Very satisfied 3.5% (10)

0.9% (3)

0.8% (3)

1.6% (16)


40.6% (142)

36.4% (133)

38.2% (383)

Dissatisfied 29.3%

(84) 36.9% (129)

43.8% (160)

37.2% (373)

Very Dissatisfied

4.5% (13)

7.7% (27)

12.1% (44)

8.4% (84)

Don't know 25.1%

(72) 14.0%

(49) 6.8% (25)

14.6% (146)

Total 100.0%

(287) 100.0%

(350) 100.0%

(365) 100.0% (1,002)

1,002 valid cases. Base = All respondents. “Refuse for educational attainment excluded.

47 Table 38: Satisfaction level of plastic bottle collection facilities arrangements in Hong Kong, by occupation

Man

age

rs a

nd

adm

inis

trat

ors

Pro

fess

ion

als

Cle

rks

Serv

ice

an

d

“blu

e c

olla

r”

“Ho

use

wiv

es”

Ret

ire

d

Un

em

plo

yed

Stu

de

nts

Very satisfied 0.0%

(0) 0.7%

(1) 2.0%

(2) 1.5%

(2) 2.7%

(4) 2.3%

(6) 0.0%

(0) 1.2%

(1)

Satisfied 39.1%

(27) 35.3%

(48) 35.3%

(36) 35.3%

(48) 44.2%

(65) 37.7%

(98) 34.1%

(15) 46.9%

(38)

Dissatisfied 39.1%

(27) 42.6%

(58) 49.0%

(50) 41.9%

(57) 27.9%

(41) 29.2%

(76) 40.9%

(18) 45.7%

(37)

Very Dissatisfied 11.6%

(8) 15.4%

(21) 7.8%

(8) 7.4% (10)

7.5% (11)

5.8% (15)

9.1% (4)

3.7% (3)

Don't know 10.1%

(7) 5.9%

(8) 5.9%

(6) 14.0%

(19) 17.7%

(26) 25.0%

(65) 15.9%

(7) 2.5%

(2)

Total 100.0%

(69) 100.0%

(136) 100.0%

(102) 100.0%

(136) 100.0%

(147) 100.0%

(260) 100.0%

(44) 100.0%

(81)

975 valid cases. Base = All respondents. “Refuse” for occupation excluded.

Satisfaction with recycling facilities on its own does not show any correlation with recycling rates. About two-thirds of all respondents recycled, whether they were satisfied or dissatisfied with recycling arrangements. Only those who replied “don’t know” to the question of satisfaction were less likely to recycle, with 43.3 per cent reporting recycling. However, when respondents are further broken down by government priority for plastic waste, those who think that it should be a top priority are 10 percentage points more likely to recycle if they are satisfied with plastic waste collection. There also appears to be a dramatic difference between the recycling rates of those who are satisfied and dissatisfied with plastic waste collection among respondents who think plastic waste should be a low or non-existent government priority. However, as the numbers involved are so small (since very few respondents believe it should be a low priority), it is not possible to draw a firm conclusion. Those who believe plastic waste should be a medium government priority seem unaffected by satisfaction with plastic collection.

Table 39: Self-reported recycling rates by satisfaction with plastic waste collection and views on government priority for plastic waste

Top Priority, Satisfied

76.7%

(89/116)

Medium Priority, Satisfied

67.4%

(149/221)

Low Priority or Not a Problem, Satisfied

76.9%

(20/26)

Don’t Know, Satisfied

43.6%

(17/39)

Top Priority, Dissatisfied

66.3% (114/172)

Medium Priority Dissatisfied

68.5%

(165/241)

Low Priority or Not a Problem, Dissatisfied

38.5%

(5/13)

Don’t know, Dissatisfied

60.0%

(21/35)

Top Priority, Don’t Know

43.6%

(17/39)

Medium Priority, Don’t Know

57.9%

(33/57)

Low Priority or Not a Problem, Don’t Know

50.0%

(4/8)

Don’t Know, Don’t Know

23.9%

(11/46) 1,013 valid cases. Base = All respondents

These results suggest that recycling rates could be improved among those who most want the government to deal with the plastic waste problem if the coverage, reliability and trustworthiness

48 of plastic waste collection were improved. However, as this data does show how consistently respondents recycled their waste, only whether they did so or not, more research is needed to find out whether satisfaction with recycling arrangements affects the consistency of recycling behaviour. Additionally, those who replied “don’t know” to the question about satisfaction were much less likely to recycle than their more opinionated counterparts, regardless of whether they put top or medium priority on the problem of plastic waste. This suggests that in conjunction with improving recycling arrangements, an informational campaign should be carried out in order to educate the public about what happens to the waste after it is collected in order to reduce the number of people who lack the knowledge to form an opinion on waste collection. Improving recyclable waste collection is however, easier said than done. It will require comprehensive policies including regulatory, technical and financial support for local recycling firms, green procurement policies to raise the demand for recycled plastic, and better education for local residents on how to properly sort plastics.7 A full discussion of the issues involved in Hong Kong recycling policy is beyond the scope of this report.

4.2.2 Demographics of recycling Self-reported recycling varies by demographic categories. In general, women are more likely to recycle than men. Self-reported recycling tends to rise with income and education, and to fall with age. Professionals, clerks, and housewives were most likely to report recycling, and retirees, the unemployed, and service and blue collar workers the least. The demographic patterns are broadly similar to those for water dispenser usage, however one major exception is that of housewives. They were among the lowest occupational for current water dispenser usage but among the highest for recycling. This suggests that while their lifestyles put them in rare contact with existing water dispensers, they do play an important role in sorting their households’ waste.

Table 40: Self-reported recycling by gender

Men Women

Reported recycling 56.8% (212)

67.7% (433)

Did not report recycling 43.2% (161)

32.3% (207)

100.0%

(373) 100.0%


Table 41: Self-reported recycling by age group

18-34 35-54 55 and above

Reported recycling

70.4% (157)

67.6% (252)

56.9% (232)

Did not report recycling

29.6% (66)

32.4% (121)

43.1% (176)

Total 100.0%

(223) 100.0%

(373) 100.0%

(408) 1,004 valid cases. Base = All respondents. “Refuse” for age group excluded.

7 Yau, Elaine (2013), “Hong Kong's recycling firms struggle with the plastic peril,” South China Morning Post, , 20 August 2013, http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/health/article/1297795/hong-kongs-recycling-firms-struggle-plastic-peril (accessed 5 March 2013). Also see Wong, Lawrence (2010), “Recycle of Plastic Waste in Hong Kong”, Waste Reduction and EcoPark Group, Environmental Protection Department, 2 November 2010, http://www.a-tech.hk/greenplastic/Info/Recycle_of_Plastics_in_HK.pdf (accessed 5 March 2013.

http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/health/article/1297795/hong-kongs-recycling-firms-struggle-plastic-peril

http://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/health/article/1297795/hong-kongs-recycling-firms-struggle-plastic-peril

http://www.a-tech.hk/greenplastic/Info/Recycle_of_Plastics_in_HK.pdf

49 Table 42: Self-reported recycling by educational attainment

Secondary 3 and

below Secondary 4-7 Post-

secondary


66.0% (204)

70.2% (285)


47.0% (135)

34.0% (105)

29.8% (121)

Total 100.0%

(287) 100.0%

(309) 100.0%

(406) 1,002 valid cases. Base = All respondents. “Refuse” for educational attainment excluded.

Table 43: Self-reported recycling by personal income

<HK$15,000 per month HK$15,000-29,999 per

month HK$30,000 per month

and above


78.1% (114)

73.3% (74)


60.1% (67)

31.9% (32)

36.7% (27)

Total 100.0%

(167) 100.0%

(146) 100.0%


Table 44: Self-reported recycling by occupation

Man

age

rs a

nd

adm

inis

trat

ors

Pro

fess

ion

als

Cle

rks

Serv

ice

an

d

“Blu

e C

olla

r”

Ho

use

wiv

es

Ret

ire

d

Un

em

plo

yed

Stu

de

nts

Reported recycling 62.3%

(43) 75.7% (103)

77.5% (79)

58.1% (79)

72.1% (106)

52.3% (136_

56.8% (25)

65.4% (53)


37.7% (26)

24.3% (33)

22.5% (23)

41.9% (57)

27.9% (41)

47.7% (124)

43.2% (19)

34.6% (28)

Total 100.0%

(69) 100.0%

(136) 100.0%

(102) 100.0%

(136) 100.0%

(147) 100.0%

(260) 100.0%

(44) 100.0%

(81) 975 valid cases. Base = Al respondents. “Refuse” for occupation excluded.

Basically, respondents of lower socio-economic status were the least likely to recycle. Persuading these groups to change their habits will require more than additional public awareness campaigns, since as Section 5 will show, respondents aged 55 and above, and those with Secondary 3 education are below already report comparatively high levels of concern about plastic waste. However, this concern is currently not being translated into action.

Instead, people may respond to cash incentives such as a bottle deposit and return scheme. Bottle deposit and return schemes work by requiring sellers to charge a small “deposit” (essentially a tax) upon purchase of a bottled item, and this deposit is then “refunded” upon the return of the item to authorised redemption centres, or sometimes the original seller. Convenience stores in Hong Kong currently carry out such a scheme for glass milk bottles. Automated machines which scan the bar codes on bottles and immediately shred the plastic are used in some parts of the world to reduce labour and transport costs. During the focus groups, participants generally accepted the idea of a deposit and return scheme, and noted that it would give scavengers an incentive to collect plastic bottles even if the original consumers did not return them. However, some respondents doubted its effectiveness because they felt the sum of money offered would be too small to motivate most people. However, it would likely be most effective among residents of lower socio-economic status. A bottle deposit and return

50 scheme should be piloted in lower-income neighbourhoods with older populations. Supermarkets or convenience stores in public housing estates would be good locations for the test.

4.3 Section Summary

In order to encourage people to adopt environmentally-friendly behaviour such as using refillable water bottles and recycling plastic waste, policymakers need to go beyond raising awareness, and start shifting people’s micro-incentives. Incentives include financial rewards or penalties, but also other factors that affect people’s day-to-day choices including convenience and confidence in the options on offer. Persuading people to use public water dispensers instead of buying bottled water requires persuading them to give up an unplanned, impulsive behaviour (buying bottled water from a convenience store) in favour of a more considered and planned behaviour (remembering to carry a water flask). Policymakers therefore need to reduce the inconvenience hurdle as much as possible, so that using water dispensers becomes competitive with bottled water in terms of the overall effort people need to make. Currently, only about a quarter of respondents used any water dispensers in the past 6 months, and this is in large part because they are mostly located in parks, recreation and sports facilities that most people do not frequent on a daily basis. Other obstacles include a lack of familiarity, and a lack of confidence in the hygiene and maintenance of existing water dispensers. A demographic analysis shows that working, low-to-middle-income adults under age 55 are the most underserved segments of the population. Providing and promoting well-maintained water dispensers in convenient locations would remove many of these obstacles. Charging for water dispenser usage would offset the cost of providing them. A large majority of respondents who were willing to use water dispensers were willing to pay a small fee to use them. Over half were willing to pay more than HK$3. However, the fee should be set not just lower the price of an equivalent volume of bottled water, but low enough to compensate for the inconvenience of carrying and washing one’s own bottle every day, and walking a little farther to a water dispenser instead of the nearest convenience store, which are ubiquitous throughout Hong Kong. Concerning recycling, about two-thirds of respondents already reported that they recycled plastic bottles, but more research is needed to find out how consistently they recycle and whether they know how to sort plastic waste correctly. Improving the reliability of Hong Kong’s plastic waste collection infrastructure and systems would boost public confidence and may encourage people to recycle more consistently. Demographic analysis also shows that those least likely to recycle are older, less educated and lower-income respondents. Beyond better education and facilities, a bottle deposit and return scheme may give non-recycling residents the incentive to sort plastic waste.

Section 5: Targeting the Right People – The Demographics of Bottled Water This section delves further into the demographic breakdown of respondents’ consumption habits and environmental views. Some demographic analysis related to water dispenser usage and recycling was already carried out in Section 4. The section carry out further analysis which will flesh out findings in Sections 2 and 3. Understanding the demographic variations in people’s behaviours and attitudes will help policymakers and green groups to focus their programmes and messaging at the right groups of people.

51 5.1 Demographics of bottled water consumption Bottled water and bottled beverage consumption in varied substantially by demographic factors such as gender, age, educational attainment and occupation. These demographic factors were linked with much bigger differences in consumption habits than environmental attitudes, which at best had only a mild effect on bottled water consumption (see Section 3). 5.1.1 Level of bottled water consumption Men were 10 percentage points more likely to drink tap water than women. Only 40.5 per cent of men drank only tap water, while 50.5 per cent of men did so. Respondents aged 55 were much less likely to drink bottled water than those aged 54 and below. 63.9 per cent of those aged 55 and over drank only tap water, which was about double the figure for those aged 18-34 (30.1 per cent) and those aged 35-54 (37.7 per cent). A preference for bottled water also rose with educational attainment, as those with an educational attainment of Secondary 3 or below were more likely to drink only tap water compared to those with a Secondary 4 education and above. Among occupational categories, housewives and the retired were the least likely to drink any bottled water, with 54.8 per cent and 69.2 per cent, respectively, drinking only tap water. The heaviest drinkers of bottled water – those whose water intake consisted of at least half bottled water – included managers and administrators (29.4 per cent), service and “blue collar” workers (26.7 per cent) and students (26.3 per cent). Personal income had less of a correlation, with those earning HK$30,000 or more a month only 12.3 percentage points less likely to drink only tap water than those earning less than HK$15,000 a month. However, personal income may not be the most reliable indicator of disposable income as most people pool their earnings with other family members. The questionnaire did not ask respondents about other earners in their household, and therefore does not distinguish between a hypothetical respondent who earns HK$15,000 a month and is the sole earner in the household, and another respondent who earns the same income but lives with a spouse, parents or adult children who are also working. Among those who drank bottled water, similar patterns held. A relatively higher proportion of men, people aged 18-34, and people with post-secondary educational attainment bought bottled water more often than other groups. Occupational categories also show similar patterns, with housewives and the retired buying bottled water the least frequently (over half bought bottled water “rarely”), while students, blue collar and service workers, and managers and professionals stood out as the groups who bought bottled water most often, with 27.6 per cent, 25.3 per cent, and 19.5 per cent, respectively, buying bottled water at least several times a week. Differences in weekly spending were not so obvious, due to a large variance in spending within demographic categories. Also, it should be noted that spending is not equivalent to drinking. Since the spending question excluded those who only drank tap water, those who spent nothing still drank bottled water, but must have obtained it from someone else, such as their workplace or a family member. However, broadly speaking, men spent somewhat more than women on bottled water, with 65.4 per cent women saying that they had spent HK$0 or under HK$10 per week during the last month, compared with 50.7 per cent of men. Those with educational attainment of Secondary 3 and below also spent less than those with Secondary 4 education and above. Due to an insufficient sample size, it was not possible to analyse spending by occupation or income. In terms of age, those under age 35 were the most likely to have spent money on bottled water (only 16.3 per cent spent nothing), but they generally spent small sums of money: 40.4 per cent said they spent HK$10 or less. Those aged 55 and over were the least likely to have spent money bottled water, with 32.1 per cent having spent nothing, and most of who did spent HK$10 or less. About a quarter of those aged 35-54 spent no money on bottled water, but those who did spent more than older or younger respondents, with 26.9 per cent of them spending HK$20 or more compared to

52 17.8 per cent of respondents aged 55 and over, and 22.7 per cent of respondents aged 34 or younger. The three measures of consumption, drinking habits, purchase frequency and spending consistently point towards bottled water consumption being most prevalent among younger respondents, and among those of higher socio-economic status in terms of educational attainment and income. (These factors are linked: since free and compulsory education was introduced in the 1970s and higher education underwent mass expansion in the 1980s and 1990s, respondents younger than 55 are increasingly likely to have post-secondary educational qualifications. Educational qualifications are in turn linked to income). In general, being in the workforce or a student was also linked to a substantially higher level of bottled water consumption, as housewives and the retired were the lowest consuming occupational groups. However, one interesting twist is that although bottled water consumption generally rises with educational attainment and income, service and “blue collar” workers are among the heaviest drinkers and most frequent buyers of bottled water. (This category includes service, shop sales, manufacturing, craft, agricultural and unskilled occupations). A possible explanation is that many retail workers do not have access to drinking water during their shifts, and therefore habitually buy bottled water before work. The sample was too small to confirm this hypothesis since out of the 67 respondents very heavy consumers of bottled water who were asked about their reasons for preferring bottled water, only 16 were service and “blue collar” workers. However, 12 of them cited “convenience and availability” and five cited “no other choice” (with two respondents giving overlapping answers) as the main reason(s) they drank bottled water.

Table 45: Daily water drinking habits, by gender

Men Women Overall

Only tap water 40.5% (148)

50.5% (321)

46.9% (469)

More tap water than bottled water 36.2% (132)

37.7% (240)

37.2% (372)

About half and half 10.7%

(39) 8.5% (54)

9.3% (93)

More bottled water than tap water 11.5%

(42) 2.4% (15)

5.7% (57)

Only bottled water 1.1%

(4) .9% (6)

1.0% (10)

Total 100.0%

(365) 100.0%

(636) 100.0% (1,001)

1,001 valid cases. Base = All respondents. “Don’t know” for water drinking habits excluded.

Table 46: Daily water drinking habits, by age group


Only tap water 30.1%

(66) 37.7% (139)

63.9% (258)

46.7% (463)


41.6% (91)

43.1% (159)

29.5% (119)

37.2% (369)


(42) 10.3%

(38) 3.2% (13)

9.4% (93)


7.8% (17)

7.6% (28)

3.0% (12)

5.7% (57)


(3) 1.4%

(5) .5% (2)

1.0% (10)

Total 100.0%

(219) 100.0%

(369) 100.0%

(404) 100.0%

(992) 992 valid cases. Base = All water drinking respondents. “Refuse” for age group and “don’t know” for water drinking habits excluded.

53

Table 47: Daily water drinking habits, by educational attainment

Secondary 3


Secondary 7 Post-

secondary Overall

Only tap water 65.1% (185)

44.3% (153)

34.3% (124)

46.7% (462)


27.5% (78)

35.7% (123)

46.5% (168)

37.3% (369)

About half and half 3.5% (10)

10.4% (36)

12.7% (46)

9.3% (92)


3.5% (10)

8.1% (28)

5.3% (19)

5.8% (57)

Only bottled water .4% (1)

1.4% (5)

1.1% (4)

1.0% (10)

Total 100.0%

(284) 100.0%

(345) 100.0%’

(361) 100.0%

(990) 990 valid cases. Base = All water drinking respondents. “Refuse” for educational attainment and “don’t know” for water drinking habits excluded.

Table 48: Daily water drinking habits, by occupation

Man

age

rs a

nd

adm

inis

trat

ors

Pro

fess

ion

als

Cle

rks

Serv

ice

an

d

“Blu

e C

olla

r”

Ho

use

wiv

es

Ret

ire

d

Un

em

plo

yed

Stu

de

nts

Only tap water 32.4%

(22) 35.3%

(48) 34.7%

(35) 37.4%

(49) 54.8%

(80) 69.2% (180)

39.0% (16)

27.5% (22)


38.2% (26)

42.6% (58)

43.6% (44)

35.9% (47)

38.4% (56)

27.3% (71)

46.3% (19)

46.3% (37)


(10) 11.0%

(15) 14.9%

(15) 14.5%

(19) 3.4%

(5) 1.9%

(5) 7.3%

(3) 20.0%

(16)


13.2% (9)

8.8% (12)

4.0% (4)

12.2% (16)

2.7% (4)

1.5% (4)

4.9% (2)

5.0% (4)


(1) 2.2%

(3) 3.0%

(3) 0.0%

(0) 0.7%

(1) 0.0%

(0) 2.4%

(1) 1.3%

(1)

Total 100.0%

(68) 100.0%

(136) 100.0%

(101) 100.0%

(131) 100.0%

(146) 100.0%

(260) 100.0%

(41) 100.0%

(80) 963 valid cases. Base = All water drinking respondents. “Refuse” for occupation and “don’t know” for water drinking habits excluded.

Table 49: Purchase frequency of bottled water, by gender

Men Women Overall

Every day or nearly every day 7.9% (17)

4.5% (14)

5.9% (31)

A few times a week 15.8%

(34) 7.4% (23)

10.9% (57)

About once a week 17.2%

(37) 9.7% (30)

12.8% (67)

Several times a month 17.2%

(37) 14.8%

(46) 15.8%

(83)

About once in a month 6.0% (13)

12.6% (39)

9.9% (52)

Rarely 31.6%

(68) 44.5% (138)

39.2% (206)

Never 4.2%

(9) 6.5% (20)

5.5% (525)

Total 100.0%

(215) 100.0%

(310) 100.0%

(525) 525 valid cases. Base = Bottled water drinking respondents. “Don’t know” for water drinking habits excluded.

54 Table 50: Purchase frequency of bottled water, by age group


Every day or nearly every day 7.2% (11)

6.2% (14)

4.2% (6)

5.9% (31)


(26) 9.7% (22)

5.6% (8)

10.7% (56)


(30) 12.4%

(28) 6.3%

(9) 12.8%

(67)


(27) 14.6%

(33) 15.3%

(22) 15.7%

(82)

About once in a month 12.5%

(19) 8.8% (20)

9.0% (13)

10.0% (52)

Rarely 25.0%

(38) 43.8%

(99) 47.2%

(68) 39.3% (205)

Never .7% (1)

4.4% (10)

12.5% (18)

5.6% (29)

Total 100.0%

(152) 100.0%

(226) 100.0%

(144) 100.0%

(522) 522 valid cases. Base = Bottled water drinking respondents. “Refuse” for age group and “don’t know” for frequency excluded.

Table 51: Purchase frequency of bottled water, by educational attainment

Secondary 3


Secondary 7 Post-

secondary Overall

Every day or nearly every day 4.2%

(4) 7.9% (15)

5.1% (12)

6.0% (31)


(6) 10.5%

(20) 12.3%

(29) 10.6%

(55)


(8) 12.0%

(23) 15.3%

(36) 12.9%

(67)


(13) 15.2%

(29) 17.0%

(40) 15.7%

(82)


(6) 8.9% (17)

12.3% (29)

10.0% (52)

Rarely 46.3%

(44) 40.8%

(78) 35.3%

(83) 39.3% (205)

Never 14.7%

(14) 4.7%

(9) 2.6%

(6) 5.6% (29)

Total 100.0%

(95) 100.0%

(191) 100.0%

(235) 100.0%

(521) 521 valid cases. Base = Bottled water drinking respondents. “Refuse” for educational attainment and “don’t know” for frequency excluded.

55 Table 52: Purchase frequency of bottled water, by occupation

Man

age

rs a

nd

Ad

min

istr

ato

rs

Pro

fess

ion

als

Cle

rks

Serv

ice

an

d

“Blu

e C

olla

r”

Ho

use

wiv

es

Ret

ire

d

Un

em

plo

yed

Stu

de

nts


13.0% (6)

4.7% (4)

3.0% (2)

12.0% (10)

1.6% (1)

2.6% (2)

4.0% (1)

5.2% (3)


(3) 10.6%

(9) 10.6%

(7) 13.3%

(11) 4.8%

(3) 5.1%

(4) 16.0%

(4) 22.4%

(13)


(9) 11.8%

(10) 15.2%

(10) 14.5%

(12) 3.2%

(2) 6.4%

(5) 16.0%

(4) 19.0%

(11)


(6) 16.5%

(14) 12.1%

(8) 14.5%

(12) 19.0%

(12) 17.9%

(14) 8.0%

(2) 19.0%

(11)


(2) 23.5%

(20) 7.6%

(5) 7.2%

(6) 11.1%

(7) 6.4%

(5) 0.0%

(0) 12.1%

(7)

Rarely 37.0%

(17) 30.6%

(26) 47.0%

(31) 30.1%

(25) 54.0%

(34) 50.0%

(39) 56.0%

(14) 22.4%

(13)

Never 6.5%

(3) 2.4%

(2) 4.5%

(3) 8.4%

(7) 6.3%

(4) 11.5%

(9) 0.0%

(0) 0.0%

(0)

Total 100.0%

(46) 100.0%

(85) 100.0%

(66) 100.0%

(83) 100.0%

(63) 100.0%

(78) 100.0%

(25) 100.0%

(58)

504 valid cases. Base = Bottled water drinking respondents. “Refuse” for occupation and “don’t know” for frequency excluded.

Table 53: Weekly spending on bottled water, by gender

Men Women Overall

HK$0 17.4%

(34) 29.7%

(79) 24.5% (113)

HK$1-$10 33.3%

(65) 35.7%

(95) 34.7% (160)

HK$11-20 18.5%

(36) 16.9%

(45) 17.6%

(81)

HK$21-30 14.4%

(28) 7.5% (20)

10.4% (48)

HK$31-40 1.0%

(2) 1.9%

(5) 1.5%

(7)

HK$41-50 6.2% (12)

2.3% (6)

3.9% (18)

HK$51 or above 9.2% (18)

6.0% (16)

7.4% (34)

Total 100.0%

(195) 100.0%

(266) 100.0%

(461) 461 valid cases. Base = Bottled water buyers. “Don’t know” excluded.

56 Table 54: Weekly spending on bottled water, by age group

18-34 35-54 55 and above Overall

HK$0 16.3%

(23) 25.9%

(53) 32.1%

(36) 24.5% (112)

HK$1-$10 40.4%

(57) 30.2%

(62) 36.6%

(41) 34.9% (160)

HK$11-20 20.6%

(29) 17.1%

(35) 13.4%

(15) 17.2%

(79)

HK$21-30 9.9% (14)

12.7% (26)

7.1% (8)

10.5% (48)

HK$31-40 1.4%

(2) 2.0%

(4) 0.9%

(1) 1.5%

(7)

HK$41-50 5.0%

(7) 3.9%

(8) 2.7%

(3) 3.9% (18)

HK$51 or above 6.4%

(9) 8.3% (17)

7.1% (8)

7.4% (34)

Total 100.0% (141)

100.0% (205)

100.0% (112)

100.0% (458)

458 valid cases. Base = Bottled water buyers. “Refuse” for age group and “don’t know” for weekly spending excluded.

Table 55: Weekly spending on bottled water, by educational attainment

Secondary 3 and below Secondary 4 to 7 Post-secondary Overall

HK$0 39.5%

(30) 22.0%

(37) 21.5%

(46) 24.7% (113)

HK$1-$10 28.9%

(22) 34.5%

(58) 36.4%

(78) 34.5% (158)

HK$11-20 10.5%

(8) 20.8%

(35) 17.3%

(37) 17.5%

(80)

HK$21-30 7.9%

(6) 8.3% (14)

13.1% (28)

10.5% (48)

HK$31-40 1.3%

(1) 1.2%

(2) 1.9%

(4) 1.5%

(7)

HK$41-50 6.6%

(5) 3.6%

(6) 3.3%

(7) 3.9% (18)

HK$51 or above

5.3% (4)

9.5% (16)

6.5% (14)

7.4% (34)

Total 100.0%

(76) 100.0%

(168) 100.0%

(214) 100.0%

(458) 458 valid cases. Base = Bottled water buyers. “Refuse” for educational attainment and “don’t know” for weekly spending excluded.

5.1.2 Bottled water purchasing habits

The size of the bottles people buy is correlated with gender and age. Men and younger respondents between 18 and 34 are more likely to buy medium-sized bottles (500ml-1l) most of the time, while women and people aged 35 or above are more likely to choose small bottle (up to 500ml). The survey also found gender differences in the circumstances in which respondents bought bottled water. Men were more likely to buy it when doing exercise or outdoor activities, while women were more likely to buy it when doing shipping or other errands. The circumstances of buying bottled water also varied by age and occupation. A higher proportion of young people aged 18-34, managers or professionals, and students tended to buy bottled water when doing exercise or outdoor activities. On the other hand, more respondents aged 35 or above, housewives and retired people tended to buy bottled water when doing shopping or other errands.

The locations at which respondents usually bought bottled water varied by age and gender. The three most common types of establishment where people bought bottled water included convenience stores, supermarkets, and small grocers. While men and women shopped at convenience stores in roughly equal numbers, women were more likely to buy bottled water at supermarkets (probably as part of their household’s grocery shopping), and men were more likely to

57 shop at grocers. Convenience stores are especially favoured by respondents under the age of 35, while supermarkets are most likely to be patronised by those aged 55 and over. Grocers, interestingly, find their customers among those under 35 and those aged 55 and over, but less so among those aged 35 to 54.

Table 56: Volume of most often purchased bottled water, by gender

Men Women Overall

Small (less than 2 glasses/ Less than 500ml) 28.4%

(59) 51.0% (149)

41.6% (208)

Medium (2-4 glasses/ 500ml to 1l) 58.7% (122)

42.1% (123)

49.0% (245)

Large (4-8 glasses/1l to 2l) 10.6%

(22) 4.8% (14)

7.2% (36)

Very Large (more than 8 glasses/ larger than 2l) 2.4%

(5) 2.1%

(6) 2.2% (11)

Total 100.0%

(208) 100.0%

(292) 100.0%

(500) 500 valid cases. Base = Bottled water buyers. “Don’t know” excluded.

Table 57: Volume of most often purchased bottled water, by age group



(43) 47.3% (104)

47.6% (60)

41.6% (207)

Medium (2-4 glasses/ 500ml to 1l) 60.9%

(92) 44.1%

(97) 42.9%

(54) 48.9% (243)

Large (4-8 glasses/1l to 2l) 8.6% (13)

6.8% (15)

6.3% (8)

7.2% (36)


(3) 1.8%

(4) 3.2%

(4) 2.2% (11)

Total 100.0%

(151) 100.0%

(220) 100.0%

(126) 100.0%

(497) 497 valid cases. Base = Bottled water buyers. “Refuse” for age group and “don’t know” for volume excluded.

Table 58: Circumstances for buying bottled water, by gender

Men Women Overall

When going home 2.8%

(6) 1.0%

(3) 1.8%

(9)

When going to work 14.2%

(30) 5.4% (16)

9.1% (46)

When doing exercise or outdoor activities 26.1%

(55) 12.9%

(38) 18.4%

(93)

When doing shopping or other errands 37.4%

(79) 61.0% (180)

51.2% (259)

Others 19.4%

(41) 19.7%

(58) 19.6%

(99)

Total 100.0%

(211) 100.0%

(295) 100.0%

(506) 506 valid cases. Base = Bottled water buyers.

58 Table 59: Circumstances for buying bottled water, by age group


When going home 1.3%

(2) 2.3%

(5) 1.6%

(2) 1.8%

(9)

When going to work 7.2% (11)

11.7% (26)

6.3% (8)

8.9% (45)

When doing exercise or outdoor activities 25.5%

(39) 16.7%

(37) 12.5%

(16) 18.3%

(92)

When doing shopping or other errands 41.8%

(64) 54.1% (120)

57.8% (74)

51.3% (258)

Others 24.2%

(37) 15.4%

(34) 22% (28)

19.6% (99)

Total 100.0%

(153) 100.0%

(222) 100.0%

(128) 100.0%

(503)

503 valid cases. Base = Bottled water buyers. “Refuse” for age group excluded.

Table 60: Circumstances for buying bottled water, by occupation

Man

age

rs a

nd

Ad

min

istr

ato

rs

Pro

fess

ion

als

Cle

rks

Serv

ice

an

d

“Blu

e c

olla

r”

“Ho

use

wiv

es”

Re

tire

d

Un

em

plo

yed

Stu

de

nts

When going home 2.3% (1)

2.3% (2)

3.2% (2)

1.3% (1)

0.0% (0)

1.4% (1)

3.8% (1)

0.0% (0)

When going to work 11.4%

(5) 8.1%

(7) 4.8%

(3) 28.9%

(22) 1.6%

(1) 1.4%

(1) 0.0%

(0) 3.4%

(2)


13.6% (6)

26.7% (23)

17.5% (11)

19.7% (15)

9.7% (6)

12.7% (9)

19.2% (5)

27.6% (16)


50.0% (22)

44.2% (38)

54.0% (34)

38.2% (29)

72.6% (45)

63.4% (45)

42.3% (11)

43.1% (25)

Others 22.7%

(10) 18.6%

(16) 20.6%

(13) 11.8%

(9) 16.1%

(10) 21.1%

(15) 34.6%

(9) 25.9%

(15)

Total 100.0%

(44) 100.0%

(86) 100.0%

(63) 100.0%

(76) 100.0%

(62) 100.0%

(71) 100.0%

(26) 100.0%

(58) 486 valid cases. Base = Bottled water buyers. “Refuse” for occupation excluded.

Table 61: Location of bottled water purchase by gender

Men Women Overall

Convenience stores 69.7% (147)

72.5% (214/295)

71.3% (361/506)

Supermarkets 31.3%

(66) 40.7%

(120/295) 36.8%

(186/506)

Grocers 21.8%

(47) 10.5%

(31) 15.4%

(78)

Vending machine 3.8%

(8) 0.7%

(2) 2.0% (10)

Gas station 3.3%

(7) 1.0%

(3) 2.0% (10)

Household order 0.9%

(2) 2.0%

(6) 1.6%

(8)

Other 8.1% (17)

6.1% (18)

6.9% (35)

Total number of respondents in gender category

211 295 506

506 valid cases. Base = Bottled water buyers. Respondents allowed to choose more than one answer.

59 Table 62: Location of bottled water purchase by age group

18-34 35-54 55 and above Overall

Convenience stores 80.3% (122)

64.0% (142)

50.0% (64)

65.3% (328)

Supermarkets 23.7%

(36) 32.9%

(73) 46.9%

(60) 33.7% (169)

Grocers 22.4%

(34) 6.3% (14)

20.3% (26)

14.7% (74)

Vending machine 1.3%

(2) 1.8%

(4) 3.1%

(4) 2.0% (10)

Gas station 0.0%

(0) 2.3%

(5) 3.1%

(4) 1.8%

(9)

Household order 1.3%

(2) 1.4%

(3) 2.3%

(3) 1.6%

(8)

Other 9.9% (15)

1.8% (4)

7.0% (9)

5.6% (28)

Total number of respondents in age group

152 222 128 502

502 valid cases. Base = Bottled water buyers. “Refuse” for age group excluded. Respondents allowed to choose more than one answer.

5.2 Demographics of bottled beverage consumption Respondents’ preferences for flavoured beverages vs water (either tap or bottled) showed similar demographic patterns to their preferences for tap vs bottled water. Beverage vs water preference was associated with gender, age, educational attainment, occupation, and income levels. As with tap bottled water, women, respondents aged 55 or above, people with educational attainment of Secondary 3 or below, housewives, people working outdoor and people earning less than HK$15,000 per month were least likely to drink beverages. Preference for beverages also decreased with age, and rose with educational attainment. Also similarly to bottled water, housewives, the retired, and the unemployed were most likely to drink only water, while students, professionals and blue collar workers had the strongest preference for beverages. However, there were some notable differences. Housewives in particular stood out for having a relatively strong preference for beverages (27.3 per cent drank at least half beverages vs water), while having a very weak preference for bottled water (only 6.8 per cent drank at least half bottled water vs tap water). Another difference was that while bottled water preference rose with income, the strongest preference for flavoured beverages was seen middle-income respondents, those earning in the category of HK$15,000 to HK$30,000 a month. Thus, higher-end consumers appeared to be trading flavoured beverages for bottled water. An additional finding is that respondents with children under age 12 in their household had a stronger preference for beverages than those who did not live with any children. Those who worked indoors were also more likely to drink mostly beverages than those who worked outdoors.

60 Table 63: Daily drinking habits (beverages vs water), by gender

Men Women Overall

Only beverages 1.3%

(5) 0.6%

(4) 0.9%

(9)

More beverages than water 11.6%

(43) 6.6% (42)

8.4% (85)


(67) 16.4% (105)

17.0% (172)

More water than beverages 46.4% (172)

43.3% (277)

44.5% (449)

Only water 22.6%

(84) 33.0% (211)

29.2% (295)

Total 100.0%

(371) 100.0%

(639) 100.0% (1,010)

1,010 valid cases. Base = All respondents. “Don’t know” for drinking habits excluded.

Table 64: Daily drinking habits (beverages vs water), by age group


Only beverages 1.3%

(3) 0.5%

(2) 1.0%

(4) .9% (9)


(25) 7.5% (28)

7.6% (31)

8.4% (84)


(52) 21.3%

(79) 10.1%

(41) 17.2% (172)


49.9% (185)

35.9% (146)

44.5% (445)

Only water 13.0%

(29) 20.8%

(77) 45.5% (185)

29.1% (291)

Total 100.0%

(223) 100.0%

(371) 100.0%

(407) 100.0% (1,001)

1,001 valid cases. Base = All respondents. “Refuse” for age group and “don’t know” for drinking habits excluded.

Table 65: Daily drinking habits (beverages vs water), by educational attainment

Secondary 3

or below Secondary 4

to Secondary 7 Post-

secondary Overall

Only beverages 1.1%

(3) 0.9%

(3) 0.8%

(3) 0.9%

(9)

More beverages than water 8.1% (23)

7.4% (26)

9.3% (34)

8.3% (83)


(37) 17.4%

(61) 20.3%

(74) 17.2% (172)

More water than beverages 34.0%

(97) 45.7% (160)

51.9% (189)

44.6% (446)

Only water 43.9% (125)

28.6% (100)

17.6% (64)

28.9% (289)

Total 100.0%

(285) 100.0%

(350) 100.0%

(364) 100.0%

(999) 999 valid cases. Base = All respondents. “Refuse” for educational attainment and “don’t know” for drinking habits excluded.

61

Table 66: Daily drinking habits (beverages vs water), by occupation

Man

age

rs a

nd

Ad

min

istr

ato

rs

Pro

fess

ion

als

Cle

rks

Serv

ice

an

d “

Blu

e

colla

r”

“Ho

use

wiv

es”

Re

tire

d

Un

em

plo

yed

Stu

de

nts

Only beverages 0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)

1.0% (1)

3.0% (4)

0.7% (1)

0.0% (0)

4.5% (2)

1.2% (1)


(5) 8.8% (12)

8.8% (9)

11.1% (15)

8.2% (12)

5.8% (15)

9.1% (4)

13.6% (11)


(15) 23.5%

(32) 13.7%

(14) 19.3%

(26) 18.4%

(27) 9.7% (25)

22.7% (10)

23.5% (19)


(33) 52.9%

(72) 55.9%

(57) 41.5%

(56) 42.2%

(62) 38.2%

(99) 29.5%

(13) 53.1%

(43)

Only water 22.1%

(15) 14.7%

(20) 20.6%

(21) 25.2%

(34) 30.6%

(45) 46.3% (120)

34.1% (15)

8.6% (7)

Total 1.5% (68)

0.0% (136)

0.0% (102)

0.7% (135)

0.0% (147)

0.4% (259)

0.0% (44)

0.0% (81)

972 valid cases. Base = All respondents. “Refuse” for occupation and “don’t know” for drinking habits excluded.

Table 67: Daily drinking habits (beverages vs water), by personal monthly income

Less than

HK$15,000 HK$15,000-

29,999 HK$30,000

and up Overall

Only beverages 2.4%

(4) 0.0%

(0) 0.0%

(0) 1.0%

(4)


10.3% (15)

10.9% (11)

9.0% (37)


(30) 23.3%

(34) 17.8%

(18) 19.9%

(82)


(78) 52.7%

(77) 51.5%

(52) 50.2% (207)

Only water 25.5%

(42) 13.7%

(20) 19.8%

(20) 19.9%

(82)

Total 100.0%

(165) 100.0%

(146) 100.0%

(101) 100.0%

(412) 412 valid cases. Base = Respondents in employment. “Refuse” for personal income and “don’t know” for drinking habits excluded.

Table 68: Daily drinking habits (beverages vs water), by presence of children under 12 in household

None

1 child or more Overall

Only beverages 0.7%

(4) 0.7%

(1) 0.7%

(5)


12.9% (18)

8.3% (57)


(75) 20.9%

(29) 15.1% (104)


43.9% (61)

41.6% (286)

Only water 37.4% (205)

21.6% (30)

34.2% (235)

Total 100.0%

(548) 100.0%

(139) 100.0%

(687) 687 valid cases. Base = Respondents married, divorced, separated or widowed. “Refuse” for presence of children in household and “don’t know” for drinking habits excluded.

62 Table 69: Daily drinking habits (beverages vs water), by workplace

Outdoor Indoor Indoor & outdoor Overall

Only beverages 1.8%

(1) .5% (2)

8.7% (2)

1.0% (5)


(1) 10.5%

(42) 0.0%

(0) 9.0% (43)


(17) 17.3%

(69) 21.7%

(5) 19.0%

(91)


(23) 49.4% (197)

52.2% (12)

48.4% (232)

Only water 26.3%

(15) 22.3%

(89) 17.4%

(4) 22.5% (108)

Total 100.0%

(57) 100.0%

(399) 100.0%

(23) 100.0%

(479) 479 valid cases. Base = Respondents in employment. “Don’t know” for daily drinking habits excluded.

Table 70: Type of beverage purchased most often, by gender

Men Women Overall

Plastic bottled drinks 37.1% (128)

32.2% (182)

34.0% (310)

Glass bottled drinks 5.5% (19)

3.9% (22)

4.5% (41)

Tetra pack drinks 25.8%

(89) 36.7% (208)

32.6% (297)

Can drinks 21.2%

(73) 11.7%

(66) 15.3% (139)

Others 10.4%

(36) 15.5%

(88) 13.6% (124)

Total 100.0%

(345) 100.0%

(566) 100.0%

(911)

911 valid cases. Base = All beverage drinkers. “Don’t know” excluded.

Table 71: Type of beverage purchased most often, by age group



37.0% (126)

20.7% (72)

34.0% (307)

Glass bottled drinks 1.4%

(3) 4.1% (14)

6.9% (24)

4.5% (41)


(70) 36.7% (125)

29.1% (101)

32.8% (296)

Can drinks 12.1%

(26) 15.8%

(54) 16.4%

(57) 15.2% (137)

Others 3.3%

(7) 6.5% (22)

26.8% (93)

13.5% (122)

Total 100.0%

(215) 100.0%

(341) 100.0%

(347) 100.0%

(903) 903 valid cases. Base = All beverage drinkers. “Refuse” for age group and “don’t know” for type of beverage excluded.

63 Table 72: Type of beverage purchased most often, by educational attainment

Secondary 3 or below

Secondary 4 to Secondary 7

Post-secondary Overall


23.2% (56)

31.7% (101)

43.7% (149)

34.0% (306)


5.3% (17)

3.8% (13)

4.6% (41)

Tetra pack drinks 30.3% (73)

37.0% (118)

30.5% (104)

32.7% (295)

Can drinks 13.3% (32)

17.6% (56)

14.7% (50)

15.3% (138)

Others 28.6% (69)

8.5% (27)

7.3% (25)

13.4% (121)

Total 100.0% (241)

100.0% (319)

100.0% (341)

100.0% (901)

901 valid cases. Base = All beverage drinkers. “Refuse” for educational attainment and “don’t know” for type of beverage excluded. “Refuse” and “don’t know” excluded.

Table 73: Type of beverage purchased most often, by occupation

Man

age

rs a

nd

A

dm

inis

trat

ors

Pro

fess

ion

als

Cle

rks

Serv

ice

an

d “

Blu

e

colla

r”

“Ho

use

wiv

es”

Re

tire

d

Un

em

plo

yed

Stu

de

nts


38.1% (24)

43.8% (57)

47.2% (17)

37.6% (47)

31.5% (40)

19.2% (42)

37.1% (13)

42.5% (34)

Glass bottled drinks

4.8% (3)

6.2% (8)

2.8% (1)

4.8% (6)

3.9% (5)

7.8% (17)

0.0% (0)

0.0% (0)


(22) 27.7%

(36) 25.0%

(9) 27.2%

(34) 40.2%

(51) 29.7%

(65) 37.1%

(13) 38.8%

(31)

Can drinks 14.3%

(9) 16.9%

(22) 19.4%

(7) 20.8%

(26) 8.7% (11)

14.6% (32)

20.0% (7)

16.3% (13)

Others 7.9%

(5) 5.4%

(7) 5.6%

(2) 9.6% (12)

15.7% (20)

28.8% (63)

5.7% (2)

2.5% (2)

Total 100.0%

(63) 100.0%

(130) 100.0%

(36) 100.0%

(125) 100.0%

(127) 100.0%

(219) 100.0%

(35) 100.0%

(80)

815 valid cases. Base = All beverage drinkers. “Refuse” for occupation and “don’t know” for type of beverage excluded. “Refuse” and “don’t know” excluded.

Table 74: Type of beverage purchased most often, by personal monthly income

Less than HK$15,000 HK$15,000-29,999 HK$30,000 and up Overall

Plastic bottled drinks 36.4%

(55) 45.7%

(64) 38.1%

(37) 40.2% (156)

Glass bottled drinks 2.6%

(4) 2.9%

(4) 10.3%

(10) 4.6% (18)


(54) 29.3%

(41) 24.7%

(24) 30.7% (119)

Can drinks 17.2%

(26) 17.9%

(25) 18.6%

(18) 17.8%

(69)

Others 7.9% (12)

4.3% (6)

8.2% (8)

6.7%] (26)

Total 100.0%

(151) 100.0%

(140) 100.0%

(97) 100.0%

(388) 388 valid cases. Base: Beverage drinking respondents in employment. “Refuse” for personal income and “don’t know” for type of beverage excluded.

64 Table 75: Type of beverage purchased most often, by presence of children under 12 in household

None 1 child or more Overall


37.8% (48)

29.4% (179)


3.9% (5)

5.9% (36)

Tetra pack drinks 31.6% (152)

39.4% (50)

33.2% (202)

Can drinks 15.8%

(76) 9.4% (12)

14.5% (88)

Others 18.9%

(91) 9.4% (12)

16.9% (103)

Total 100.0%

(481) 100.0%

(127) 100.0%

(608) 608 valid cases. Base: Respondents married, divorced, separated or widowed. “Refuse” for presence of children under 12 in household and “don’t know” for type of beverage excluded.

The questionnaire then identified a group of respondents who usually bought beverages in plastic bottled form, as opposed to other types of packaging such as aluminium cans and tetra-packs. Having a preference for plastic bottled beverages was associated with gender, age, presence of children aged under 12 in the household, educational attainment, occupation and income. A relatively higher proportion of men, young people aged between 18 and 34, people with children aged under 12 in their household, people with post-secondary education, as well as people with monthly income between HK$15,000 and HK$29,999 tended to choose bottled beverages more than other groups. Those earning less leaned more towards tetra packs, and those earning more leaned more towards glass bottles. Except for retirees, housewives and the unemployed, a plurality of all occupations preferred plastic bottled drinks over other types, but professionals, clerks and students had the highest preference for them. Among the group of respondents who usually bought plastic bottled drinks as opposed to other types, their frequency of purchase and weekly spending varied demographically. Men, respondents aged between 18 and 34, people living with children under age 12, and people with post-secondary educational attainment tended to buy bottled beverages more often than other groups. Also, purchase frequency differs by occupation. Compared with other groups, retired people and housewives are more likely to buy bottled beverages “rarely”. A higher proportion of students, managers or professionals, and unemployed people tend to buy bottled beverages more often. Men tended to spend more money on beverages than women. Young people aged between 18 and 34, people with children aged under 12 in their household and people with higher educational attainment were more likely to spend more on bottled beverages.

65 Table 76: Purchase frequency of plastic bottled beverages, by gender

Men Women Overall


(9) 3.4%

(6) 5.0% (15)


(45) 18.5%

(33) 25.7%

(78)


(24) 14.6%

(26) 16.5%

(50)


(22) 18.5%

(33) 18.2%

(55)

About once in a month 8.8% (11)

10.7% (19)

9.9% (30)

Rarely 11.2%

(14) 32.0%

(57) 23.4%

(71)

Never 0.0%

(0) 2.2%

(4) 1.3%

(4)

Total 100.0%

(125) 100.0%

(178) 100.0%

(303)

303 valid cases. Base: Usual bottled beverage buyers. “Don’t know” excluded.

Table 77: Purchase frequency of plastic bottled beverages, by age group



(8) 4.1%

(5) 2.9%

(2) 5.0% (15)


(43) 20.5%

(25) 14.3%

(10) 26.0%

(78)


(17) 19.7%

(24) 11.4%

(8) 16.3%

(49)


(25) 17.2%

(21) 12.9%

(9) 18.3%

(55)


(7) 9.0% (11)

17.1% (12)

10.0% (30)

Rarely 7.4%

(8) 29.5%

(36) 35.7%

(25) 23.0%

(69)

Never 0.0%

(0) 0.0%

(0) 5.7%

(4) 1.3%

(4)

Total 100.0%

(108) 100.0%

(122) 100.0%

(70) 100.0%

(300) 300 valid cases. Base: Usual bottled beverage buyers. “Refuse” for age group and “don’t know” for purchase frequency excluded. Table 78: Purchase frequency of plastic bottled beverages, by educational attainment

Secondary 3


Secondary 7 Post-

secondary Total


(1) 4.1%

(4) 6.8% (10)

5.0% (15)


(9) 22.4%

(22) 31.8%

(47) 26.1%

(78)


(3) 18.4%

(18) 19.6%

(29) 16.7%

(50)


(5) 14.3%

(14) 23.6%

(35) 18.1%

(54)


(10) 7.1%

(7) 8.8% (13)

10.0% (30)

Rarely 41.5%

(22) 32.7%

(32) 9.5% (14)

22.7% (68)

Never 5.7%

(3) 1.0%

(1) 0.0%

(0) 1.3%

(4)

Total 100.0%

(53) 100.0%

(98) 100.0%

(148) 100.0%

(299) 299 valid cases. “Base: Usual bottled beverage buyers. “Refuse” for educational attainment and “don’t know” for purchase frequency excluded.

66 Table 79: Purchase frequency of plastic bottled beverages, by occupation

Man

age

rs a

nd

Ad

min

istr

ato

rs

Pro

fess

ion

als

Cle

rks

Serv

ice

an

d

“Blu

e c

olla

r”

“Ho

use

wiv

es”

Re

tire

d

Un

em

plo

yed

Stu

de

nts


(1) 5.5%

(3) 5.9%

(1) 13.3%

(16) 0.0%

(0) 0.0%

(0) 7.7%

(1) 0.0%

(0)


(8) 32.7%

(18) 41.2%

(7) 37.8%

(17) 12.8%

(5) 10.0%

(4) 30.8%

(4) 35.3%

(12)


(8) 20.0%

(11) 23.5%

(4) 8.9%

(4) 12.8%

(5) 10.0%

(4) 23.1%

(3) 17.6%

(6)


(4) 23.6%

(13) 23.5%

(4) 6.7%

(3) 23.1%

(9) 12.5%

(5) 23.1%

(3) 20.6%

(7)


(1) 7.3%

(4) 0.0%

(0) 13.3%

(6) 7.7%

(3) 17.5%

(7) 0.0%

(0) 8.8%

(3)

Rarely 8.3%

(2) 10.9%

(6) 5.9%

(1) 17.8%

(8) 43.6%

(17) 45.0%

(18) 15.4%

(2) 17.6%

(6)

Never 0.0%

(0) 0.0%

(0) 0.0%

(0) 2.2%

(1) 0.0%

(0) 5.0%

(2) 0.0%

(0) 0.0%

(0)

Total 100.0%

(24) 100.0%

(55) 100.0%

(17) 100.0%

(45) 100.0%

(39) 100.0%

(40) 100.0%

(13) 100.0%

(34) 267 valid cases. “Refuse” and “don’t know” excluded.

Table 80: Purchase frequency of plastic bottled beverages, by presence of children under 12 in household

None 1 child or more Total


(3) 10.4%

(5) 4.6%

(8)


(20) 27.1%

(13) 19.0%

(33)


(18) 16.7%

(8) 14.9%

(26)

Several times a month 9.5% (12)

25.0% (12)

13.8% (24)


(17) 10.4%

(5) 12.6%

(22)

Rarely 41.3%

(52) 10.4%

(5) 32.8%

(57)

Never 3.2%

(4) 0.0%

(0) 2.3%

(4)

Total 100.0%

(126) 100.0%

(48) 100.0%

(174) 174 valid cases. Base = Usual bottled beverage buyers who are married, divorced, separated or widowed. “Refuse for presence of children in household and “don’t know” for purchase frequency excluded.

67 Table 81: Weekly spending on plastic bottled beverages, by gender

Men Women Total

HK$0 6.6%

(8) 16.3%

(26) 12.1%

(34)

HK$1-$10 26.4%

(32) 27.5%

(44) 27.0%

(76)

HK$11-20 18.2%

(22) 23.8%

(38) 21.4%

(60)

HK$21-30 12.4%

(15) 9.4% (15)

10.7% (30)

HK$31-40 5.8%

(7) 4.4%

(7) 5.0% (14)

HK$41-50 9.9% (12)

8.8% (14)

9.3% (26)

HK$51 or above 20.7%

(25) 10.0%

(16) 14.6%

(41)

Total 100.0%

(121) 100.0%

(160) 100.0%

(281) 281 valid cases. Base = Usual bottled beverage buyers. “Don’t know” excluded.

Table 82: Weekly spending on plastic bottled beverages, by age group 18-34 35-54 55 or above Total

HK$0 2.0%

(2) 11.0%

(13) 32.2%

(19) 12.2%

(34)

HK$1-$10 22.5%

(23) 26.3%

(31) 37.3%

(22) 27.2%

(76)

HK$11-20 23.5%

(24) 22.9%

(27) 13.6%

(8) 21.1%

(59)

HK$21-30 15.7%

(16) 7.6%

(9) 8.5%

(5) 10.8%

(30)

HK$31-40 5.9%

(6) 6.8%

(8) 0.0%

(0) 5.0% (14)

HK$41-50 9.8% (10)

11.9% (14)

3.4% (2)

9.3% (26)


(21) 13.6%

(16) 5.1%

(3) 14.3%

(40)

Total 100.0%

(102) 100.0%

(118) 100.0%

(59) 100.0%

(279) 279 valid cases. Base = Usual bottled beverage buyers. “Refuse” for age group and “don’t know” for weekly spending excluded.

Table 83: Weekly spending on plastic bottled beverages, by educational attainment



Post-secondary Total

HK$0 40.0%

(18) 10.6%

(10) 3.6%

(5) 11.9%

(33)

HK$1-$10 20.0%

(9) 30.9%

(29) 26.6%

(37) 27.0%

(75)

HK$11-20 13.3%

(6) 23.4%

(22) 23.0%

(32) 21.6%

(60)

HK$21-30 6.7%

(3) 9.6%

(9) 12.9%

(18) 10.8%

(30)

HK$31-40 2.2%

(1) 1.1%

(1) 8.6% (12)

5.0% (14)

HK$41-50 8.9%

(4) 11.7%

(11) 7.9% (11)

9.4% (26)

HK$51 or above 8.9%

(4) 12.8%

(12) 17.3%

(24) 14.4%

(40)

Total 100.0%

(45) 100.0%

(94) 100.0%

(139) 100.0%

(278) 278 valid cases. Base = Usual bottled beverage buyers. “Refuse” for educational attainment and “don’t know” for weekly spending excluded.

68 Table 84: Weekly spending on plastic bottled beverages, by number of children

None 1 child or more Total

HK$0 26.1%

(30) 2.3%

(1) 19.6%

(31)

HK$1-$10 27.0%

(31) 18.6%

(8) 24.7%

(39)

HK$11-20 18.3%

(21) 23.3%

(10) 19.6%

(31)

HK$21-30 6.1%

(7) 18.6%

(8) 9.5% (15)

HK$31-40 3.5%

(4) 11.6%

(5) 5.7%

(9)

HK$41-50 6.1%

(7) 14.0%

(6) 8.2% (13)


(15) 11.6%

(5) 12.7%

(20)

Total 100.0%

(115) 100.0%

(43) 100.0%

(158) 158 valid cases. Base = Usual bottled beverage buyers who are married, divorced, separated or widowed. “Refuse” for presence of children in household and “don’t know” for weekly spending excluded.

5.2.2 Bottled beverage purchasing habits Similar to bottled water purchasing habits, men tended to buy larger bottles than women, with over half of women saying that they usually bought “small” bottles, but over half of men saying they usually bought medium-sized bottles. Respondents aged 18-34 mostly bought medium-sized bottles, while those aged 55 and over were both more likely to buy small bottles or large ones. 10.7 per cent of people aged 55 and over bought bottles larger than 1l, which is too large for a single serving and are most likely brought home to be shared among family members. Another aspect similar to bottled water consumption patterns was that men were more likely to say that they bought beverages while doing exercise or outdoor activities, while women were more likely to say that they bought beverages while shopping or doing errands. Table 85: Volume of most often purchased plastic bottled beverages, by gender

Men Women Total


(41) 56.2% (100)

46.7% (141)


(73) 39.9%

(71) 47.7% (144)


(9) 3.9%

(7) 5.3% (16)


(1) 0.0%

(0) .3% (1)

Total 100.0%

(124) 100.0%

(178) 100.0%

(302) 302 valid cases. Base = Usual bottled beverage buyers. “Don’t know” excluded.

69 Table 86: Volume of most often purchased plastic bottled beverages, by age group



(38) 51.6%

(65) 58.5%

(38) 47.2% (141)


(67) 42.9%

(54) 30.8%

(20) 47.2% (141)


(3) 5.6%

(7) 9.2%

(6) 5.4% (16)


(0) 0.0%

(0) 1.5%

(1) .3% (1)

Total 100.0%

(108) 100.0%

(126) 100.0%

(65) 100.0%

(299) 399 valid cases. Base = Usual bottled beverage buyers. “Refuse” for age group and “don’t know” for bottle volume excluded.

Table 87: Circumstances for buying bottled drinks, by gender

Men Women Overall

When going home 2.3% (3)

3.4% (6)

2.9% (9)

When going to work 11.7% (15)

5.1% (9)

7.8% (24)

When doing exercise or outdoor activities 18.0% (23)

7.3% (13)

11.8% (36)

When doing shopping or other errands 47.7% (61)

53.9% (96)

51.3% (157)

Others 20.3% (26)

30.3% (54

26.1% (80)

Total 100.0% (128)

100.0% (178)

100.0% (306)


5.3 Demographics of perceptions of tap water As established earlier, nearly all respondents drank some tap water, but those who drank only tap water (vs bottled water) tended to be women and comparatively older and less educated. Retirees and housewives also were the most likely among all occupational groups to drink only tap water. Ironically, it is these groups which had the most negative perceptions of tap water quality in Hong Kong. Women, people aged 55 or above and people with educational attainment of Secondary 3 or below were more likely to rate tap water as “so-so”, “poor”, or “very poor”. These groups were also more likely to answer “don’t know”. The demographic groups with the highest consumption of bottled water and beverages had the most positive perceptions of tap water quality. More than other groups, a relatively higher proportion of men, respondents aged 18-34 and people with educational attainment of Secondary 4 or above rated tap water quality as good or very good. As discussed in Section 2, respondents seem to view boiling tap water as the minimum precaution necessary to make tap water safe to drink, and those who have a poor perception of tap water quality are more likely to both boil and filter it. These precautionary practices also varied by educational attainment, and to a smaller extent, by gender and age. Those with Secondary 4 or above educational attainment were more likely to both boil and filter tap water. Women were slightly more likely to both boil and filter tap water than men, while those aged 35-54 were the most likely to do so. Therefore, while generally speaking, having a more negative perception of tap water quality is correlated with taking more precautions to treat tap water, it is not necessarily those demographic groups with the worst perceptions that take the most precautions. Many of those who have a

70 negative perception of tap water quality may lack the means to filter their tap water, and drink tap water anyway in spite of their reservations. Furthermore, since the demographic groups with the most positive views of Hong Kong’s tap water quality buy more bottled water anyway, this reinforces the conclusion that promoting the quality of Hong Kong’s tap water will not be effective in reducing bottled water consumption.

Table 88: Perception of tap water quality, by gender

Men Women Overall

Very good 13.5%

(49) 6.2% (39)

8.9% (88)

Good 48.9% (178)

34.1% (215)

39.5% (393)

So-so 29.9% (109)

45.7% (288)

39.9% (397)

Poor 3.6% (13)

5.7% (36)

4.9% (49)

Very poor .8% (3)

1.3% (8)

1.1% (11)


7.0% (44)

5.6% (56)

Total 100.0%

(364) 100.0%

(630) 100.0%

(994)

994 valid cases. Base = Tap water drinkers.

Table 89: Perception of tap water quality, by age group


Very good 11.1%

(33) 9.0% (33)

7.7% (31)

8.9% (88)

Good 44.7%

(97) 39.9% (146)

36.6% (147)

39.6% (390)

So-so 38.2%

(83) 42.3% (155)

38.8% (156)

40.0% (394)

Poor 4.1%

(9) 4.4% (16)

5.7% (23)

4.9% (48)

Very poor .5% (1)

.5% (2)

1.7% (7)

1.0% (10)

Don't know 1.4%

(3) 3.8% (14)

9.5% (38)

5.6% (55)

Total 100.0%

(217) 100.0%

(366) 100.0%

(402) 100.0%

(985) 985 valid cases. Base = Tap water drinkers. “Refuse” for age group excluded.

71 Table 90: Perception of tap water quality, by educational attainment



Post-secondary Overall

Very good 7.4% (21)

7.6% (26)

11.5% (41)

9.0% (88)

Good 31.8%

(90) 43.0% (147)

42.7% (153)

39.7% (390)

So-so 41.7% (118)

40.6% (139)

36.9% (132)

39.6% (389)

Poor 5.7% (16)

5.0% (17)

4.5% (16)

5.0% (49)

Very poor 2.1%

(6) .3% (1)

1.1% (4)

1.1% (11)

Don't know 11.3%

(32) 3.5% (12)

3.4% (12)

5.7% (56)

Total 100.0%

(283) 100.0%

(342) 100.0%

(358) 100.0%

(983) 983 valid cases. Base = Tap water drinkers. “Refuse” for educational attainment excluded.

Table 91: Practice of treating tap water, by gender

Men Women Overall

Straight from the tap 1.1%

(4) 0.5%

(3) 0.7%

(7)

Boiled tap water 70.5% (256)

66.3% (418)

67.9% (674)

Filtered tap water 5.8% (21)

4.3% (27)

4.8% (48)

Filtered and boiled tap water 22.6%

(82) 28.9% (182)

26.6% (264)

Total 100.0%

(363) 100.0%

(630) 100.0%

(993) 993 valid cases. Base = Tap water drinkers. “Don’t know” for tap water treatment excluded.

Table 92: Practice of treating tap water, by age group



(0) 0.8%

(3) 1.0%

(4) 0.7%

(7)


61.2% (224)

69.4% (279)

67.7% (666)

Filtered tap water 4.2%

(9) 6.3% (23)

4.0% (16)

4.9% (48)


(44) 31.7% (116)

25.6% (103)

26.7% (263)

Total 100.0%

(216) 100.0%

(366) 100.0%

(402) 100.0%

(984) 984 valid cases. Base = Tap water drinkers. “Refuse” for age group and “don’t know” for tap water treatment excluded.

72

Table 93: Practice of treating tap water, by educational attainment

Secondary 3


Secondary 7 Post-

secondary Overall


(3) .6% (2)

.6% (2)

.7% (7)


64.6% (221)

64.4% (230)

67.7% (665)

Filtered tap water 3.5% (10)

4.7% (26)

6.2% (22)

4.9% (48)


(56) 30.1% (103)

28.9% (103)

26.7% (262)

Total 100.0%

(283) 100.0%

(342) 100.0%

(357) 100.0%

(982) 982 valid cases. Base = Tap water drinkers. “Refuse” for educational attainment and “don’t know” for tap water treatment excluded.

5.4 Demographics of environmental knowledge and attitudes 5.4.1 Knowledge about plastic waste The answers that respondents gave to the question asking them to estimate what proportion of the waste going into Hong Kong’s landfills consisted of plastic also varied by demographic categories. Overall, only about 10 per cent of respondents gave the correct answer, between 10 and 20 per cent, with most of them overestimating the proportion. Men, people with post-secondary educational attainment, managers, professionals, and retirees were somewhat more likely to give the correct answer than others groups. However, since people who were more worried about the plastic waste problem tended to overestimate the amount of plastic waste (as seen in Section 3), it is difficult to tell whether respondents gave the correct answer because they actually knew it, or because they guessed a low number due to indifference towards the problem. Students especially overestimated the amount of plastic waste, with over half of them guessing that plastic waste made up over 40 per cent of solid municipal waste. Overall, about a third of respondents responded “don’t know” to the question. This proportion rose with age and fell with educational attainment. Retired respondents were especially likely to reply “don’t know”, with over half of them unwilling to make a guess.

Table 94: Knowledge of plastic waste in Hong Kong, by gender

Men Women Total

Below 10% 5.6% (21)

3.3% (21)

4.1% (42)

Between 10 and 20% (Correct)

15.0% (56)

7.3% (47)

10.2% (103)

Between 20% and 40% 25.5%

(95) 20.3% (130)

22.2% (225)


(64) 19.8% (127)

18.9% (191)

More than 60% 6.7% (25)

11.7% (75)

9.9% (100)

Don't know 30.0% (112)

37.5% (240)

34.7% (352)

Total 100.0%

(373) 100.0%

(640) 100.0% (1,013)


73 Table 95: Knowledge of plastic waste in Hong Kong, by age group


Below 10% 2.7%

(6) 3.2% (12)

5.9% (24)

4.2% (42)


10.8% (24)

9.9% (37)

10.3% (42)

10.3% (103)


(62) 28.2% (105)

14.0% (57)

22.3% (224)


(63) 19.8%

(74) 13.0%

(53) 18.9% (190)

More than 60% 13.0%

(29) 13.1%

(49) 5.4% (22)

10.0% (100)

Don't know 17.5%

(39) 25.7%

(96) 51.5% (210)

34.4% (345)

Total 100.0%

(223) 100.0%

(373) 100.0%

(408) 100.0% (1,004)


Table 96: Knowledge of plastic waste in Hong Kong, by educational attainment

Secondary 3


to Secondary 7 Degree

or above Total

Below 10% 4.9% (14)

4.3% (15)

3.3% (12)

4.1% (41)


7.7% (22)

9.4% (33)

13.2% (48)

10.3% (103)


(39) 25.7%

(90) 25.8%

(94) 22.3% (223)


(38) 20.3%

(71) 21.6%

(79) 18.8% (188)

More than 60% 6.3% (18)

12.6% (44)

10.4% (38)

10.0% (100)

Don't know 54.4% (156)

27.7% (97)

25.8% (94)

34.6% (347)

Total 100.0%

(287) 100.0%

(350) 100.0%

(365) 100.0% (1,002)


Table 97: Knowledge of plastic waste in Hong Kong, by occupation

Man

age

rs a

nd

adm

inis

trat

ors

Pro

fess

ion

als

Cle

rks

Serv

ice

an

d

“Blu

e c

olla

r”

“Ho

use

wiv

es”

Ret

ire

d

Un

em

plo

yed

Stu

de

nts

Below 10% 5.8%

(4) 3.7%

(5) 1.0%

(1) 4.4%

(6) 4.1%

(6) 5.4% (14)

6.8% (3)

1.2% (1)


14.5% (10)

14.7% (20)

7.8% (8)

10.3% (14)

5.4% (8)

12.3% (32)

6.8% (3)

6.2% (5)

Between 20% and 40%

39.1% (27)

23.5% (32)

34.3% (35)

25.0% (34)

19.7% (29)

11.5% (30)

18.2% (8)

28.4% (23)

Between 40% and 60%

15.9% (11)

22.1% (30)

21.6% (22)

22.8% (31)

16.3% (24)

11.2% (29)

25.0% (11)

35.8% (29)

More than 60% 5.8%

(4) 10.3%

(14) 13.7%

(14) 9.6% (13)

12.9% (19)

5.8% (15)

11.4% (5)

16.0% (13)

Don't know 18.8%

(13) 25.7%

(15) 21.6%

(22) 27.9%

(38) 41.5%

(61) 53.8% (140)

31.8% (14)

12.3% (10)

Total 100.0% (69)

100.0% (136)

100.0% (102)

100.0% (136)

100.0% (147)

100.0% (260)

100.0% (44)

100.0% (81)

975 valid cases. Base = All respondents. “Refuse” for occupation excluded.

74 5.4.2 Seriousness of plastic waste problem As covered in Section 3, around 80 per cent of respondents agreed that plastic waste was a “serious” or “very serious” problem. However, people’s attitudes towards the seriousness of plastic waste problem in Hong Kong varies by gender, age, educational attainment and occupation. Equal proportions of men and women claimed the problem was serious. However, a higher proportion of women than men claimed it as very serious and a higher proportion of men than women claim it as not so serious. About two-thirds of respondents aged 18-34 agreed that the problem was “serious”, but comparatively fewer thought that it was “very serious”, 24.2 per cent compared with 36.5 per cent of 35-54 year-olds and 29.7 per cent of those aged 55 and above. Those in the middle age group, 35-54, were the most likely to say the problem was “very serious”. The oldest group, age 55 and above, had the most heterogeneous views. While a larger proportion of them rated the problem “very serious” than the youngest age group, slightly more of them also said the problem was “not so serious” or “not serious at all” (9.3 per cent, compared to 6.3 per cent of 18-34 year-olds and 7.5 per cent of 35-54 year-olds). Additionally, a greater percentage of them replied “don’t know” than other age groups. A similar pattern is found between educational categories, where over 60 per cent of respondents with post-secondary education said that the problem was “serious” but only 28.2 per cent of them said that it was “very serious”. Those with Secondary 4 to 7 education were the most likely to say the problem was “very serious”, while those with Secondary 3 education and below were the most split. Basically, younger respondents and those with higher educational attainment tended to express moderately pro-environment views, but with less urgency. Personal income, however, did not appear to have a very clear relationship with views on the seriousness of plastic waste.

Table 98: Views on seriousness of plastic waste problem in Hong Kong, by gender

Men Women Total

Very serious 24.9%

(93) 34.5% (221)

31.0% (314)

Serious 54.7% (204)

53.1% (340)

53.7% (544)

Not so serious 11.5%

(43) 5.5% (35)

7.7% (78)

Not serious at all .3% (1)

.2% (1)

.2% (2)


6.7% (43)

7.4% (75)

Total 100.0%

(373) 100.0%

(640) 100.0% (1,013)


75 Table 99: Views on seriousness of plastic waste problem in Hong Kong, by age group


Very serious 24.2%

(54) 36.5% (136)

29.7% (121)

31.0% (311)

Serious 66.4% (148)

50.7% (189)

49.5% (202)

53.7% (539)

Not so serious 6.3% (14)

7.2% (27)

9.1% (37)

7.8% (78)

Not serious at all 0.0%

(0) .3% (1)

.2% (1)

.2% (2)

Don't know 3.1%

(7) 5.4% (20)

11.5% (47)

7.4% (74)

Total 100.0%

(223) 100.0%

(373) 100.0%

(408) 100.0% (1,004)


Table 100: Views on seriousness of plastic waste problem in Hong Kong, by educational attainment

Secondary 3


to Secondary 7 Post-secondary Total

Very serious 31.4%

(90) 33.4% (117)

28.2% (103)

30.9% (310)

Serious 44.6% (128)

53.1% (186)

61.9% (226)

53.9% (510)

Not so serious 11.1%

(32) 6.9% (24)

5.8% (21)

7.7% (77)

Not serious at all .3% (1)

.3% (1)

0.0% (0)

.2% (2)

Don't know 12.5%

(36) 6.3% (22)

4.1% (15)

7.3% (73)

Total 100.0%

(287) 100.0%

(350) 100.0%

(365) 100.0% (1,002)


Table 101: Views on seriousness of plastic waste problem in Hong Kong, by occupation

Man

age

rs a

nd

adm

inis

trat

ors

Pro

fess

ion

als

Cle

rks

Serv

ice

an

d

“Blu

e c

olla

r”

“Ho

use

wiv

es”

Ret

ire

d

Un

em

plo

yed

Stu

de

nts

Very serious 26.1%

(18) 34.6%

(47) 36.3%

(37) 35.3%

(48) 27.9%

(41) 28.8%

(75) 47.7%

(21) 14.8%

(12)

Serious 63.8%

(44) 52.9%

(72) 56.9%

(58) 46.3%

(63) 58.5%

(86) 48.1% (125)

34.1% (15)

81.5% (66)

Not so serious 7.2%

(5) 7.4% (10)

2.0% (2)

9.6% (13)

8.2% (12)

10.8% (28)

9.1% (4)

3.7% (3)


(0) 0.0%

(0) 0.0%

(0) 0.7%

(1) 0.0%

(0) 0.4%

(1) 0.0%

(0) 0.0%

(0)

Don't know 2.9%

(2) 5.1%

(7) 4.9%

(5) 8.1% (11)

5.4% (8)

11.9% (31)

9.1% (4)

0.0% (0)

Total 100.0%

(69) 100.0%

(136) 100.0%

(102) 100.0%

(136) 100.0%

(147) 100.0%

(260) 100.0%

(44) 100.0%

(81) 975 valid cases. Base = All respondents. “Refuse” for occupation excluded.

76 Table 102: Views on seriousness of plastic waste problem in Hong Kong, by personal income

Less than

HK$15,000 HK$15,000-

29,999 HK$30,000

and up Overall

Very serious 35.3%

(59) 32.9%

(48) 31.7%

(32) 33.6% (139)

Serious 50.3%

(84) 56.2%

(82) 57.4%

(58) 54.1% (224)

Not so serious 7.2% (12)

4.8% (7)

6.9% (7)

6.3% (26)


(0) 0.0%

(0) 0.0%

(0) 0.0%

(0)


6.2% (9)

4.0% (4)

6.0% (25)

Total 100.0%

(167) 100.0%

(9) 100.0%

(101) 100.0%


Among occupational categories, the unemployed especially, but also professionals, clerks and service and “blue collar” workers were most likely to say the problem was “very serious”, while students in particular were the least likely to pick that option. Service and “blue collar” workers had the most heterogeneous views, because in addition to a fairly high percentage (35.3 per cent) saying the problem was “very serious”, they also had a comparatively high percentage saying that it was “not so serious” or “not serious at all” (10.3 per cent.)

5.4.2 Priority of plastic waste for the government As explained in Section 3, about 30 per cent of respondents thought that plastic waste should be a “top priority” for the government, and roughly another 50 per cent rated it a “medium priority”. Almost negligible numbers (less than 5 per cent) said it should be a “low priority” or that it was not a problem. About 12 per cent per cent said “don’t know”, which was slightly more than the percentage who did not know how to answer the seriousness question, since more respondents might feel less confident in answering a question about government policy. There were some interesting comparisons with the seriousness question. Men and women had essentially identical views. However, respondents who were aged 55 or above, those with Secondary 3 education or below, and those earning less than HK$15,000 a month were clearly more likely to place top government priority on the issue than younger respondents, those with more education, and higher earners. An especially low proportion of students, only 8.6 per cent, said that the government should give plastic waste top priority. The next lowest group was clerks, at 28.4 per cent. This reinforces the conclusion that among younger respondents, there is recognition that plastic waste is a problem, but less urgency to address it immediately.

Table 103: Preference on government’s priority for plastic waste problem, by gender

Men Women Total

Top 32.2% (120)

32.3% (207)

32.3% (327)

Medium 51.7% (193)

50.9% (326)

51.2% (519)

Low 3.8% (14)

2.5% (16)

3.0% (30)

Not a problem 2.1%

(8) 1.4%

(9) 1.7% (17)

Don't know 10.2%

(38) 12.8%

(82) 11.8% (120)

Total 100.0%

(373) 100.0%

(640) 100.0% (1,013)


77 Table 104: Preference on government’s priority for plastic waste problem, by age group


Top 18.8%

(42) 33.2% (124)

39.0% (159)

32.4% (325)

Medium 72.2% (161)

53.9% (201)

38.0% (155)

51.5% (517)

Low 4.5% (10)

2.9% (11)

2.0% (8)

2.9% (29)

Not a problem .9% (2)

1.6% (6)

2.2% (9)

1.7% (17)

Don't know 3.6%

(8) 8.3% (31)

18.9% (77)

11.6% (116)

Total 100.0%

(223) 100.0%

(373) 100.0%

(408) 100.0% (1,004)


Table 105: Preference on government’s priority for plastic waste problem, by educational attainment

Secondary 3



Top 37.6% (108)

32.3% (113)

27.7% (101)

32.1% (322)

Medium 34.5%

(99) 56.0% (196)

60.8% (222)

51.6% (517)

Low 2.4%

(7) 3.1% (11)

3.3% (12)

3.0% (30)

Not a problem 3.1%

(9) 1.4%

(5) .8% (3)

1.7% (17)

Don't know 22.3%

(64) 7.1% (25)

7.4% (27)

11.6% (116)

Total 100.0%

(287) 100.0%

(350) 100.0%

(365) 100.0% (1,002)

1,002 valid cases. Base = All respondents. “Refuse” for educational attainment excluded

Table 106: Preference on government’s priority for plastic waste problem, by occupation

Man

age

rs a

nd

adm

inis

trat

ors

Pro

fess

ion

als

Cle

rks

Serv

ice

an

d

“Blu

e c

olla

r”

“Ho

use

wiv

es”

Ret

ire

d

Un

em

plo

yed

Stu

de

nts

Top 33.3%

(23) 30.9%

(42) 28.4%

(29) 36.8%

(50) 34.7%

(51) 37.3%

(97) 38.6%

(17) 8.6%

(7)

Medium 56.5%

(39) 58.1%

(79) 61.8%

(63) 47.8%

(65) 49.0%

(72) 38.1%

(99) 52.3%

(23) 80.2%

(65)

Low 2.9%

(2) 2.2%

(3) 2.9%

(3) 5.1%

(7) 2.0%

(3) 1.9%

(5) 4.5%

(2) 4.9%

(4)

Not a problem 1.4%

(1) 1.5%

(2) 1.0%

(1) 0.7%

(1) 1.4%

(2) 2.7%

(7) 0.0%

(0) 1.2%

(1)

Don't know 5.8%

(4) 7.4% (10)

5.9% (6)

9.6% (13)

12.9% (19)

20.0% (52)

4.5% (2)

4.9% (4)

Total 100.0%

(69) 100.0%

(136) 100.0%

(102) 100.0%

(136) 100.0%

(147) 100.0%

(260) 100.0%

(44) 100.0%


78 Table 107: Preference on government’s priority for plastic waste problem, by personal income

Less than

HK$15,000 HK$15,000-

29,999 HK$30,000

and up Overall

Top 37.1%

(62) 29.5%

(43) 27.7%

(28) 32.1% (133)

Medium 49.1%

(82) 61.0%

(89) 60.4%

(61) 56.0% (232)

Low 3.6%

(6) 3.4%

(5) 2.0%

(2) 3.1% (13)

Not a problem 1.2%

(2) 2.1%

(3) 1.0%

(1) 1.4%

(6)


4.1% (6)

8.9% (9)

7.2% (30)

Total 100.0%

(167) 100.0%

(146) 100.0%

(101) 100.0%


5.4.4 Concern about plastic waste As mentioned in Section 3, the degree of personal concern expressed by respondents was not as high as the level of seriousness or government priority. When examined by demographic categories, personal concern often, but not always tracked with the seriousness or government priority questions. Men and women had broadly similar levels of concern, with men slightly more likely to say that they had “little” or “no” concern (37 per cent vs 33 per cent). As with the government priority question, personal concern rose with age. Only 8.5 per cent of 18-34 year-olds said that they had a “great deal” of concern and as many as 49.8 per cent said that they had “little” concern or “none. In contrast, 20.1 per cent of respondents aged 55 and above said they had a “great deal” of concern and 27.4 per cent said they had little or no concern. Similar to the “seriousness” question, those with a lower secondary education or less appear to be the most split in their views, with a comparatively high percentage, 18.1 per cent saying that they had a “great deal” of concern (compared to 14 per cent for more educated respondents), but 33.1 per cent also saying that they had little or no concern. Those with an upper secondary education had the least overall concern, with as many as 37.2 per cent reporting little or no concern. A majority of those with post-secondary education had “some” concern, with comparatively few of them expressing either a lot of concern or little to no concern. However, the pattern for personal income seems to run in the opposite direction. While those earning less than HK$15,000 were most likely to say the issue was very serious and should be a top government priority, they expressed the least personal concern. Only 11.5 per cent of them said it greatly concerned them, and as many as 44.3 per cent had little or no concern. In contrast, the highest earning group (earning HK$30,000 a month or more) had the most personal concern, with 19.8 per cent saying they had a great deal of concern and 26.8 per cent saying they had little or none. Among occupational groups, students also stood out as being unconcerned, with as many as 55.6 per cent saying they had little or no concern. Retirees expressed the strongest level of concern, which is interesting since compared to other occupational groups, they did not rate the problem as especially serious.

79 Table 108: Concern about plastic waste problem in Hong Kong, by gender

Men Women Overall

Great deal 15.8%

(59) 14.5%

(93) 15.0% (152)

Some 42.9% (160)

47.8% (306)

46.0% (466)

Little 29.8% (111)

29.1% (186)

29.3% (297)

None 7.2% (27)

3.9% (25)

5.1% (52)

Don’t know

4.3% (16)

4.7% (30)

4.5% (46)

Total 100.0% (373)

100.0% (640)

100.0% (1,013)


Table 109: Concern about plastic waste problem in Hong Kong, by age group


Great deal 8.5% (19)

13.7% (51)

20.1% (82)

15.1 % (152)

Some 40.8%

(91) 49.6% (185)

45.3% (185)

45.9% (461)

Little 43.5%

(97) 29.0% (108)

22.3% (91)

29.5% (296)

None 6.3% (14)

4.3% (16)

5.1% (21)

5.1% (51)

Don’t know 0.9%

(2) 3.5% (13)

7.1% (29)

4.4% (44)

Total 100.0%

(223) 100.0%

(373) 100.0%

(408) 100.0% (1,004)


Table 110: Concern about plastic waste problem in Hong Kong, by educational attainment

Secondary 3



Great deal 18.1%

(52) 14.0%

(49) 14.0%

(51) 15.2% (152)

Some 38.7% (111)

46.9% (164)

50.7% (185)

45.9% (460)

Little 26.5%

(76) 32.3% (113)

29.0% (106)

29.4% (295)

None 6.6% (19)

4.9% (17)

4.4% (16)

5.2% (52)

Don’t know 10.1%

(29) 2.0%

(7) 1.9%

(7) 4.3% (43)

Total 10.1% (287)

2.0% (350)

1.9% (365)

4.3% (1,002)


80 Table 111: Concern about plastic waste problem in Hong Kong, by occupation

Man

age

rs a

nd

adm

inis

trat

ors

Pro

fess

ion

als

Cle

rks

Serv

ice

an

d

“Blu

e c

olla

r”

“Ho

use

wiv

es”

Ret

ire

d

Un

em

plo

yed

Stu

de

nts

Great deal 18.8%

(13) 15.4%

(21) 12.7%

(13) 16.2%

(22) 12.9%

(19) 20.0%

(52) 11.4%

(5) 3.7%

(3)

Some 42.0%

(29) 52.9%

(72) 49.0%

(50) 39.7%

(54) 51.0%

(75) 43.5% (113)

52.3% (23)

40.7% (33)

Little 30.4%

(21) 26.5%

(36) 34.3%

(35) 33.1%

(45) 27.9%

(41) 23.5%

(61) 20.5%

(9) 49.4%

(40)

None 5.8%

(4) 2.9%

(4) 3.9%

(4) 6.6%

(9) 3.4%

(5) 5.4% (14)

9.1% (4)

6.2% (5)

Don’t know 2.9%

(2) 2.2%

(3) 0.0%

(0) 4.4%

(6) 4.8%

(7) 7.7% (20)

6.8% (3)

0.0% (0)

Total 100.0%

(69) 100.0%

(136) 100.0%

(102) 100.0%

(136) 100.0%

(147) 100.0%

(260) 100.0%

(44) 100.0%


Table 112: Concern about plastic waste problem in Hong Kong, by personal income

Less than

HK$15,000 HK$15,000-

29,999 HK$30,000

and up Overall

Great deal 11.4%

(19) 15.8%

(23) 19.8%

(20) 15.0%

(62)

Some 42.5%

(71) 47.9%

(70) 49.5%

(50) 46.1% (191)

Little 36.5%

(61) 31.5%

(46) 22.8%

(23) 31.4% (130)

None 7.8% (13)

3.4% (5)

4.0% (4)

5.3% (22)

Don’t know 1.8%

(3) 1.4%

(2) 4.0%

(4) 2.2%

(9)

Total 100.0%

(167) 100.0%

(146) 100.0%

(101) 100.0%


5.5 Section Summary Analysed by demographic categories, respondents’ consumer behaviour, environmental behaviour, and environmental attitudes presented a number of contradictions and paradoxes. The consumption data all point towards bottled water bottled water consumption being most prevalent among the young, the highly educated, and upper income groups. Those who participate in the workforce or are students are also much more likely to drink bottled water than those with home-oriented lifestyles such as housewives and retirees. It seems especially paradoxical that the demographic groups which had the worst perception of Hong Kong’s tap water quality were also the most likely to drink only tap water, and that groups with a more favourable impression of tap water quality also bought more bottled water. This indicates that concerns about tap water quality are not what is driving the rise in bottled water consumption. While the evidence is not conclusive, various survey questions including the size of bottles most frequently bought, the types of shops most frequently patronised, and people’s self-reported reasons for buying bottled water or choosing certain types of bottled water indicate that convenience is the main factor behind bottled water sales. People are buying single servings of bottled water while out and about or doing exercise, and mainly buy it from convenience stores.

81 Younger and more educated respondents, as well as service and blue-collar workers, seemed to be the most engaged in this sort of convenience-driven lifestyle. However, generally speaking, it was the same demographics that buy more bottled water who are most likely to recycle their plastic waste. Younger, more educated respondents reported more recycling, and were also more willing to use water dispensers if certain standards of quality and availability were met. Older and less educated respondents tended to express stronger levels of concern about plastic waste, but more of them also answered “don’t know”, demonstrating less awareness. Although they tended to drink less bottled water, their concern appeared to be unrelated to this behaviour. As Section 3 showed, environmental attitudes did not have a clear and direct relationship with consumption of bottled water. Moreover, when intra-age cohort comparisons are made, among 18-35 year-olds and those over 55, respondents who were more concerned actually drank more bottled water. Additionally, older and less educated respondents recycled less than younger and more educated respondents, who were more unified in expressing moderate levels of concern. This seems to show that pro-environment behaviours can become the norm without requiring high levels of personal concern. Policymakers should bear these factors in mind as they design policies to change behaviour.

Table 113: Intra-age cohort comparison of water drinking preference by concern about plastic waste

18-34 year-olds

Great deal of concern Some concern Little or no concern

Tap water drinkers 10.5% (2)

29.5% (26)

34.5% (38)

Light bottled water drinkers

42.1% (8)

42.0% (37)

40.9% (45)

Heavy bottled water drinkers

47.4% (9)

28.4% (25)

24.5% (27)

Total 100.0% (19)

100.0% (88)

100.0% (110)

35-54 year-olds


32.8% (60)

41.3% (50)


31.4% (16)

50.3% (92)

37.2% (45)


21.6% (11)

16.9% (31)

21.5% (26)

Total 100.0% (51)

100.0% (183)

100.0% (121)

55+ years


60.1% (110)

73.2% (82)


34.6% (28)

32.8% (60)

22.3% (25)


9.9% (8)

7.1% (13)

4.5% (5)

Total 100.0% (81)

100.0% (183)

100.0% (112)

948 valid cases. Base = All water drinking respondents. “Refuse” for age group and “don’t know” excluded.

82

Section 6: Focus Group Reactions to Suggested Policies for Reducing Plastic Waste During the two focus groups, the participants were asked to give their feedback on a number of policy suggestions. All the participants agreed that new policies were necessary to reduce plastic waste in Hong Kong. A number of measures that have been tried overseas were presented to them in order to gauge their reactions. A summary of their discussions of various policy ideas are presented below in no particular order.

6.1 Ban on selling and providing plastic bottled water and beverages

Most participants of the first group accepted banning plastic bottled water and beverages but participants of the second group generally did not. It was emphasised that other alternatives, such as water dispensers, should be provided if it is implemented. They can be introduced in places such as schools and universities, government and commercial offices, public area managed by government departments, cinemas, and swimming pools. One participant suggested banning bottled beverages excluding water because water is basic necessity of human beings. Another suggested banning all kinds of beverages instead of only bottled beverages because other types of packing materials are also problematic to the environment. Overall, participants did not support an outright ban because it sounded like a practice in an authoritarian country that restricts the freedom of its people. This would difficult to be implemented in citywide system, but might be feasible within certain locations such as schools. They believed that the experience of San Francisco, which plastic bottles 600ml or smaller on all municipal property,

cannot be applied in Hong Kong in the near future.

6.2 Encouraging water dispenser usage Participants of the first group mostly supported encouraging the use of water dispensers but the second group did not. There were many suggestions to encourage people to use them, including provision of good quality dispensed water for free, maintaining good hygiene by cleaning water dispensers regularly, providing both hot and cold water, provision of more water dispensers in convenient locations, provision of refillable bottles made with biodegradable materials, and enhancing the image or design of water dispensers to improve people’s impression and perception towards them.

6.3 Regulations on beverage manufacturers Participants had strong views on imposing regulations on beverage manufacturers to comply with environmental regulations on recycling or only using reusable or biodegradable containers. Nearly all participants supported this measure because they thought the production of bottled beverages was the origin of plastic waste problem. The government should impose restrictions on the types of materials used for producing plastic bottles while encourage using recycled materials. A participant raised the idea that the restrictions should be extended to imported bottled water and beverages. The government of Hong Kong should collaborate with overseas governments to set up universal standards for regulating beverage packaging.

83 6.4 Tax on plastic bottled water and beverage consumption Some participants agreed with applying a tax on the consumption of plastic bottled water and beverages, but some did not. They argued that there were options besides taxation, which sounded like punishing people who drink bottled water. A participant believed human behaviour cannot be easily changed with taxation. Also, participants were concerned with how the government would use the tax money. If taxation were implemented, they felt it was necessary to disclose how the money was used. Suggestions included using the money to set up an effective system to manage and recycle plastic wastes, and subsidising the installation of water dispensers. In addition, they felt it was possible to introduce an environmental tax on the manufacture of bottled water and beverages.

6.5 Deposit and return scheme Bottle deposit and return schemes work by requiring sellers to charge a small “deposit” (essentially a tax) upon purchase of a bottled item, and this deposit is then “refunded” upon the return of the item to authorised redemption centres, or sometimes the original seller.

Participants generally accepted a deposit and return scheme which can give monetary value to empty bottles. One participant thought that this scheme would be practical for him as he would have more motivation to return used bottles if there were a monetary incentive. Additionally, some people, such as scavengers, may collect bottles for the monetary refund even if users did not return them. However, some doubted the effectiveness of this practice because it would influence only a small number of people, instead of having an impact on the majority. In general, they thought people’s incentive to return bottles was low. A participant emphasised that changing people’s behaviour was critical to reduce plastic waste but the scheme would be insufficient to induce the change. Participants were also concerned about the existing plastic recycling system and wondered if collected bottles were truly recycled. Therefore, participants emphasised that it would be necessary to have an effective plastic recycling system to accompany a deposit and return scheme.

6.6 Education on reduction of plastic bottled waste Participants argued it would be possible to reduce plastic bottle consumption through educating people about its harmful effect on the environment. Some argued that it would be more effective if education was started in childhood or in primary school which can help develop people’s consciousness on environmental protection. Another added that educating adults was important too. Also, parents should play an important role influencing their children’s behaviour. Suggestions on educational promotion included organising a “no plastic bottle day”, encouraging students using refillable bottles in school, using “roadshow” or TV screens on the MTR as promotional channels, as well as including the topic in the school curriculum and raising students’ concern on this issue through real life practice and observation. The discussion emphasised that education should be accompanied with wide distribution and promotion of water dispensers to provide an alternative to bottled water. However, a participant argued, according to his own experience, education was not effective in changing people’s behaviour. Another claimed that the plastic waste problem of this era cannot be solved by education.

6.7 Other suggestions Some participants preferred developing the waste or plastic recycling industry rather than restricting the use of plastic bottles in order to reduce plastic waste. They suggested Hong Kong can learn experience from Taiwan, Japan and Korea because their recycling industry is well-developed with mature technology and operation systems.

84 6.8 Section Summary The focus groups helped to shed some light on how members of the public might receive various policy options to reduce plastic waste, and on the thought processes that influence their behaviour. When designing and implementing policies, policymakers need to keep public acceptability in mind. In general, the focus group participants were generally supportive of regulations or taxes on the manufacturers or importers of bottled water and beverages, rather than taxes which directly affected the consumer. Even though sellers would indirectly pass the costs of any taxes or regulatory compliance on to consumers, many of the focus group participants were resistant to the idea of directly penalising people for buying bottled water. Many participants also opposed the idea of direct bans on the sale of bottled water except for in limited situations such as in schools. The most favoured policies were those that would not impose obvious costs on consumers, such as education, improving the recycling system and switching to biodegradable packaging. There was also broad support for more widespread and better quality provision and promotion of water dispensers in public, although the suggestion to provide biodegradable, reusable bottles at water dispensers would likely be counterproductive, since it might generate even more waste and even biodegradable materials often fail to decompose in the low-oxygen environment in landfills. There was also some support for a bottle deposit and return scheme, although its effectiveness was doubted by some participants.

Section 7: Conclusion

7.1 Key findings and discussion This survey provides insight into the drinking behaviour of the public in Hong Kong. Water, as a basic need of human beings, was preferred over flavoured beverages by a large majority of respondents. Still, about 70 per cent of respondents drank flavoured beverages at least some of the time. Most respondents drink more tap water than bottled water mainly because it is convenient, easily available and cheap. About half of respondents drank bottled water at least some of the time. Of those who drank bottled water, about three-quarters spent HK$20 or less on it per week, and half only bought it on a monthly basis or less. The commonly shared narrative for the increase in bottled water consumption worldwide is that bottled water manufacturers have convinced the public that it is more natural, cleaner and healthier compared to the municipal water supply, and that people are switching to bottled water out of health concerns. This survey finds little evidence of this hypothesis in Hong Kong. People were generally satisfied with the quality of tap water in Hong Kong. Even though the usual practice was to boil it before drinking out of a common belief that un-boiled water contains bacteria and impurities, there was no evidence that people who had a more negative impression of tap water quality drank more bottled water. There was, however, a widespread reluctance to use public water dispensers due in part to concerns about the maintenance and safety of those typically available in public places (usually recreational and sports facilities). Only a quarter of respondents had used one in the last six months, and about half were unwilling to do so even if they were widely available and provided water comparable in quality to bottled water. Instead of being related to health concerns, bottled water purchases in Hong Kong appear to be driven by convenience lifestyle choices and habits. “Convenience” was the most commonly given reason for preferring bottled water by the small minority of respondents who mostly or only drank bottled water. Most respondents bought bottled water or beverages occasionally when going out for shopping or other errands, and to a lesser extent, while doing exercise or outdoor activities. They mainly purchased it in convenience stores, which charge higher prices than supermarkets and

85 grocers for the same products. Most people bought bottles of up to 1l in volume, which are usually intended for immediate personal consumption rather than for sharing or household use. Inconvenience also helped to explain why so few people used water dispensers in Hong Kong. Only a small portion of respondents would use water dispensers and drinking fountains in recreational and sports facilities, public venues, and schools and universities. Although some people were satisfied with the quality of existing water dispensers, a greater proportion rated them “so-so” or did not have enough familiarity with them to give a rating. Other than concerns about hygiene and maintenance, respondents and focus group participants were also put off using water dispensers due to the lack of convenient locations and the hassle of bringing their own bottle along to refill. However, the proportion of respondents willing to use water dispensers had a surprisingly positive response to being charged for water refills, perhaps because a small charge leads them to expect better hygiene and management. The survey also examined people’s attitudes towards the plastic waste problem in Hong Kong and whether personal attitude and perception would affect their behaviour. Generally, two-thirds of respondents reported recycling their empty plastic bottles. However, the questionnaire did not ask how consistently they recycled plastic waste, nor could it determine whether they sorted their waste correctly. While self-reported recycling was correlated with concern about the plastic waste problem in Hong Kong, in reality, recycling behaviour is affected not only by people’s environmental consciousness, but by the effectiveness of the recycling arrangements and facilities. Respondents who felt that the government should make plastic waste a high priority, but were dissatisfied with current recycling arrangements were somewhat less likely to recycle, apparently having been put off by inconvenient or unreliable waste collection. Focus group participants also expressed their desire for improvements in arrangements for collecting plastic waste, so there is definitely room for improvement in this regard. While a large majority of respondents agreed that plastic waste was a serious problem, respondents were not well-informed about the quantity of plastic waste going into Hong Kong’s landfills. Most respondents over-estimated the proportion of solid waste that was composed of plastic, and those who rated the problem as more serious over-estimated it to a greater degree. It is also interesting that most people did not have a great deal of personal concern about the existing plastic waste problem, but thought the government should make plastic waste problem to be medium priority or top priority in Hong Kong. Lower-income respondents especially exhibited this pattern – they wanted the government to do something about the problem, but had little concern about it personally. Many inconsistencies were found between knowledge of plastic waste, perceptions of the seriousness of the plastic waste problem, the desired level of priority for government, and personal concern. Although attitudes and perceptions are commonly invoked as an explanation for behaviour, the survey found little direct association between people’s attitudes towards plastic waste and their consumption of bottled water. There was only a mild reduction in the purchase frequency of bottled water as concern levels increased. Compared to recycling, the respondents were less conscious of the link between their personal consumption of plastic bottled water and beverages and the overall plastic waste problem in Hong Kong. Some focus group participants also displayed attitudes in which they recognised the seriousness of the plastic waste problem, but refused to change their personal consumption habits on environmental grounds. This can be explained by the value-action gap8, in which a discrepancy is found between an individual’s environmental values and their corresponding actions. It means people having environmental knowledge and awareness may not lead to positive pro-environment behaviour.

8 Chung, Shan-Shan and Leung, Monica Miu-Yin (2007), “The Value-Action Gap in Waste Recycling: The Case of Undergraduates in Hong Kong”, Environ Manage, 40:603–612.

86 7.2 Recommendations This survey demonstrates that the plastic waste problem in Hong Kong is receives widespread public acknowledgment, if not a strong sense of personal concern or urgency. Nevertheless, people generally support government action to address the problem. To reduce plastic waste at source, there is a need for the government to drive personal behaviour changes through formulation of new policies and legislation. Some recommendations are given here based on survey respondents’ views and focus group participants’ responses to various overseas practices. 7.2.1 Selective and voluntary bottled water bans Some municipalities overseas, such as San Francisco, have begun to ban the sale of bottled water on municipal property such as parks and stadiums and at city events.9 Hong Kong should also consider banning bottled water at government-managed public facilities such as sports centres, parks, and swimming pools while providing high quality water dispensers as an alternative. While this is being considered, some more immediate actions can be taken. Some government departments have already committed no bottled water internal procurement policies. This should be adopted by all departments, bureaux and public bodies, including LegCo. This serves to set a good example. The Government should also consider starting a voluntary bottled water-free honouring scheme aimed at large organisations such as large companies, schools, universities, hospitals and chain dining, and retail and entertainment establishments. Organisations joining the scheme would agree not to procure individual serving sized bottled water or to sell it, enabling them to publicly demonstrate their commitment to the environment and to help raise public awareness. 7.2.2 Provision of water dispensers in public places The government should take the initiative to encourage the use of water dispensers as an alternative to bottled water in the community by providing more water dispensers in places with high pedestrian flow which are frequented by commuters and shoppers on a daily basis. The survey shows that working adults 35-54 are the most underserved by water dispensers, and the most willing to use them if available and of sufficient quality. In addition to sports centres and parks, they should be provided in prominent locations at shopping malls, transport hubs such as MTR stations and bus terminuses, and major shopping and entertainment districts. To a lesser extent, locations such as the entrances of municipal services buildings and wet markets can also be considered. Water dispensers need to be provided in as many convenient and easily accessible locations as possible to make them competitive with bottled water from convenience stores. However, care must be taken to select locations that are perceived as hygienic, since people are likely to be discouraged by odours coming from public toilets. This will affect costs since toilets are where water mains are already located. In order to reduce people’s reluctance to use water dispensers, good water quality should be guaranteed and good hygiene should be maintained. Maintenance schedules and water quality test results should be made public. As an example, the city of Taipei uploads water quality information on every water dispenser in the city to the internet and makes it accessible to mobile phone users at each water dispenser using QR codes.10 The government could make this information available

9 Timm, J., “San Francisco bans sale of plastic water bottles on city property”, MSNBC.com, 13 March 2014, http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/san-francisco-bans-sale-plastic-water-bottles-climate-change (accessed 10 April 2015). 10 SETN.com, 坦言「非常反對」柯文哲要讓瓶裝水在台北市消失, 27 March 2015, Republic of Taiwan:

SETN.com, http://setn.com/News.aspx?PageGroupID=6&NewsID=67711, (accessed 8 April 2015). (Chinese only)

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/san-francisco-bans-sale-plastic-water-bottles-climate-change

http://setn.com/News.aspx?PageGroupID=6&NewsID=67711

87 through the Environmental Protection Department’s “Waste Less” app. Besides providing the infrastructure and adopting a transparent approach, promotion is needed in order to make people aware of this new option and to build public goodwill. Some focus group participants suggested that branding, e.g. through partnership with water filtration companies, would help to create a positive image of water dispensers and inspire confidence. At least part of cost of providing water dispensers can be recovered through user charges. Three-quarters of respondents willing to use water dispensers at all were willing to pay for water, and about half of them were willing to pay HK$3 or more. More research will be needed to determine whether this would be a viable business model for private companies. 7.2.3 Provision of potable tap water in workplaces While about 60 per cent of workers and students reported that they usually drank tap water at work or at school, more could be done to raise this figure. About 10 per cent of bottled water buyers said that they usually bought bottled water on the way to work. The unavailability of potable tap water in workplaces may contribute to relatively high rates of bottled water consumption and purchase among service and blue-collar workers, whose only source of tap water in the workplace may be the bathroom sink. Office workers also often drink bottled water supplied by their employer. The HKSAR Government should encourage employer provision of potable drinking water in workplaces. For example, the Buildings Department should encourage developers to ensure that every floor or new commercial buildings have pantries with a sink so that the tenants can provide employees with either boiled or filtered tap water. The government should also offer incentives to existing employers to retrofit their workspaces to provide potable tap water. 7.2.4 Recycling incentives As noted in Section 4, older, less educated and lower-income respondents are less likely to recycle than younger, more educated and higher-income ones. However, these demographic groups do not seem to care less about the plastic waste problem, and in some cases exhibit more concern than their younger and more educated counterparts. Bottle deposit and return schemes may therefore increase people’s motivation to recycle plastic bottles. These work by requiring sellers to charge a small deposit upon the purchase of a bottled drink, which can then be redeemed by returning the empty bottles to authorised centres or in some cases, the original sale point. Given that each additional dollar is worth more to a poor person than to a rich person, we would expect that lower-income consumers would find the incentive more attractive than higher-income consumers.

A bottle deposit and return scheme should be piloted in lower-income neighbourhoods with older populations. Supermarkets or convenience stores in public housing estates would be good locations for the test. 7.2.5 Other recycling reforms Although a full discussion of the problems and necessary reforms to Hong Kong’s recyclables collection system is beyond the scope of this report, several focus group participants did express dissatisfaction with Hong Kong’s plastic recycling system, saying that they had seen or heard accounts that plastic waste deposited into recycling bins was simply sent to landfills. There is some indicative, but not conclusive evidence in the survey suggesting that people who are dissatisfied with recycling facilities are slightly less likely to recycle. There are many problems with plastic recycling in Hong Kong, stemming from contamination of plastic waste in street-side recycling bins, the labour-intensiveness of sorting different types of plastic by recycling firms, plastic’s low weight, which makes it inefficient to collect, and the low

88 economic value of plastic as a material. Improving plastic recycling arrangements in Hong Kong is a complicated issue that requires a range of measures from better public education on waste sorting to financial, regulatory and technical support to the local recycling industry. However, they are likely to receive broad public support given the widespread acknowledgment of plastic waste as a problem.

7.2.6 Regulation of beverage manufacturers Regulation of beverage manufacturers is a potential way of addressing plastic waste without directly affecting the behaviour of consumers. The government should consider requiring beverage manufacturers to use less plastic in their packaging, or to use recyclable, recycled, or biodegradable material. Hong Kong can learn from other countries’ experience with these types of restrictions in order to address the problem at origin. Additionally, an environmental tax should be imposed on the manufacture and import of plastic bottled water and beverages. However, requiring biodegradable and recyclable materials is not a complete solution as even biodegradable materials often fail to decompose in the low-oxygen environments in landfills, using recyclable materials is only useful if the packaging is actually recycled. However, additional regulations and environmental taxes on manufacturers and importers would have some indirect effects on consumer behaviour as it would raise the cost of bottled water and beverages, thereby reducing demand.

7.2.7 Education The survey identified areas where current educational efforts are either non-existent or have not been successful in prompting people to change their behaviour. There was a strong association between environmental concern and self-reported recycling, but only a weak one between environmental concern and bottled water consumption. While the public has adopted recycling as a pro-environment, socially desirable behaviour, reduction of waste is not viewed in the same light. The government should put more effort and resources into educating people about the harmful effects of plastic bottle waste on the environment. People need to be made aware that recycling is not a perfect substitute for reduction, due to the energy resources required to manufacture and transport bottles, and the difficulty of recycling plastic waste. Used drink bottles are rarely made into new bottles, instead it is downcycled into materials such plastic furniture, polyester fabric (e.g. for carpeting), and clamshell packaging. Continuous and extensive education should be started from childhood in primary schools and extended to adults to increase or strengthen people’s environmental knowledge and develop their consciousness of environmental protection. Education should especially be focused on young adults under age 35 since they are the biggest consumers of bottled water. The HKSAR Government and NGOs should tailor their promotional campaigns to formats and styles most likely to be well-received by this demographic. Simply providing water dispensers as an alternative may not be enough on its own, since consumers might continue to buy bottled water but refill them once or twice before discarding them. For example, although students arguably have the best access to water dispensers of any occupational category, because water dispensers are common on school and university campuses, they are nevertheless the heaviest consumers of bottled water. Education and awareness campaigns emphasising the importance of reduction are therefore a vital part of the picture. In a campus setting, campaigns making use of peer example and pressure, such as contests to see which residence hall can generate the least plastic waste, can also be used to motivate and instill new habits. If the concept of reducing the consumption of plastic bottle consumption for environmental reasons becomes a community norm, people will be more likely to self-regulate their behaviour.

89

Appendix 1: Methodology and Limitations

Sampling method

Telephone interview by using Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) was adopted. A random sample was drawn from about 25,000 telephone numbers. The telephone numbers are drawn randomly from the residential telephone directories of Hong Kong and outlying Islands, Kowloon and New Territories issued between 2005 and 2012 after merging the directories and removing the overlapping numbers. To cover possibility unlisted numbers, another set of telephone numbers can be generated by adding and subtracting to the numbers drawn in the first stage.

Where more than one eligible person resided in a household and more than one was present at the time of the telephone contact, the “Next Birthday” rule11 was applied to each successful contacted residential unit, i.e., the household member who had his/her birthday the soonest was selected. This reduces the over-representation of housewives in the sample.

Target respondents

Eligible respondents were residents in different districts of Hong Kong aged 18 or above who spoke Cantonese, Putonghua or English. Foreign domestic helpers were excluded.

Questionnaire design

A bilingual (Chinese and English) questionnaire with 41 questions was designed. A copy of the questionnaire is enclosed in Appendix 3.

Pilot study

A pilot study comprising 20 successfully completed interviews was conducted on 31st July 2014 to test the length, logic, wording and format of the questionnaire. The data collected from these pilot interviews were not counted as part of the survey report.

Fieldwork

Fieldwork took place between 8th August and 13th August 2014, which was conducted by the Advancement of Social Sciences Research Centre of the Hong Kong Baptist University. Telephone calls were made between 6:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.

Response rate

A total of 25,284 telephone numbers were attempted. The number of successful interviews was 1,013. Refusal and dropout cases amounted to 301. The contact rate was 40.1 per cent.12 Of these eligible respondents, 1,013 successfully completed the interview, yielding a completion rate of 10 per cent.13 Table 114 overleaf details the breakdown of telephone contact status.

11 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. 12 The contact rate is the percentage of eligible respondents successfully contacted out of the total number of calls attempted. 13 The completion rate is calculated as the percentage of respondents who completed the interview out of the number of eligible respondents contacted.

90 Table 114: Final status of telephone numbers attempted

Type Final status of contacts Number of cases

Eligible respondent reached

1 Success 1,013

2 Mid-terminated 254

3 Refusal 47

4 Not available 8,666

5 Language Problem 173

6 Call-back 179

No eligible respondent reached

7 Not Qualified 100

8 Business lines 277

9 Busy tone 753

10 No answer 5,576

11 Fax 507

12 Answering Machine 920

13 Disconnect 6,819

TOTAL 25,284

Sample size and sample error

A sample size of 1,013 successful interviews was achieved (the target sample size was 1,000). The

width of a 95 per cent confidence interval for this sample size is at most +/ 3.1 per cent14. This means that we can have 95 per cent confidence that the true population proportion falls within the sample proportion plus or minus 3.1 per cent.

Quality control

All interviewers were well trained in a standardised approach prior to the commencement of the survey. All interviews were conducted by experienced interviewers fluent in Cantonese, Putonghua and English.

Limitations 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 landline telephones. Although Hong Kong’s landline telephone penetration rate is still very high, younger households are more likely to have abandoned landlines in favour of mobile phones, which are still less feasible for surveys due to higher rates of dropped calls. The demographic breakdown of the sample is shown in Appendix 2. 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.

14 As the population proportion is unknown, 0.5 is put into the formula of the sampling error to produce the most conservative estimate of the sampling error. The confidence interval width is:

3.1%100%1013

0.50.51.96

91

Appendix 2: Demographic Profile of Respondents Demographics This section briefly describes the characteristics of respondents in this survey.

Gender and Age Among 1,013 respondents, nearly two-third were women (63.2 per cent) with only a small proportion of men (36.8 per cent). In terms of age distribution, most respondents were aged between 45 and 54 (21.8 per cent), followed by 20.4 per cent between 55 and 64, 20.2 per cent 65 or above, and 15.3 per cent between 35 and 44. A relatively small proportion of respondents were aged between 18 and 24 (12.8 per cent) and between 25 and 34 (9.4 per cent).

Marital Status Two-third of respondents were married (62.6 per cent) while nearly one-third were never married (31.6 per cent). Only a small number of the respondents were divorced, separated or widowed (5.7 per cent).

Number of children under 12 within the household Among 689 respondents who indicated that they were married, divorced, separated or widowed, nearly 80 per cent of them did not have children (79.8 per cent). About one-tenth of them had one child in the household (11.9 per cent). A relatively small proportion of respondents had two children (6.8 per cent) and more than two children (1.5 per cent).

Educational Attainment More than one-third of the respondents were studying university or attained university or above education (36.4 per cent). Another one-third of them attained secondary 4 to 7 (34.9 per cent). The rest had secondary 3 or below education (28.6 per cent).

Occupation Over half of the respondents were not working (54.6 per cent). This included 8.3 per cent students and 15.1 per cent housewife, 4.5 per cent unemployed and 26.7 per cent retired persons. For working respondents, the largest proportion was clerk (10.5 per cent), followed by professionals (7.5 per cent) and managers and administrators (7.1 per cent).

Workplace Among 481 respondents who indicated that they were working, most of them worked indoor (83.4 per cent) and only one-tenth of them worked indoor (11.9 per cent). The rest of them worked both indoor and outdoor (4.8 per cent).

Personal Monthly Income Among the respondents who were in employment, more than one-third had personal monthly income between HK$10,000 and HK$19,999 (38.6 per cent) while one-fifth of them between HK$20,000 and HK$29,999 (19.1 per cent).

92 Household Location More than half of the respondents lived in New Territories (51.7 per cent). Around a quarter of them lived in Kowloon (28.2 per cent) and one-fifth of them lived in Hong Kong Island (20.1 per cent).

Table 115: Demographic profile of respondents Gender Base = 1,013 Occupation Base = 975

Men 36.8% Managers and Administrators

7.1% Women 63.2%

Age Base = 1,004 Professionals 7.5%

18-24 12.8% Associate professionals 4.0%

25-34 9.4% Clerk 10.5%

35-44 15.3% Service worker and shop sales workers

6.1% 45-54 21.8%

55-64 20.4% Skilled agricultural and fishery worker

0.1% 65 or above 20.2%

Marital Status Base = 989 Craft and related worker 2.7%

Never married 31.6%

Married 62.6% Plant and machine operator and assembler

1.6% Divorced 4.0%

Separated/Widowed 1.7% Elementary occupations 3.5%

Number of children under 12 Base = 689

None 79.8% Housewife 15.1%

1 11.9% Retired 26.7%

2 6.8% Unemployed person 4.5%

3 or above 1.5% Student 8.3%

Educational Attainment Base = 1,002 Education Sector 2.5%

Secondary 3 or below 28.6% Personal Monthly Income

Base = 414 Secondary 4 to 7 34.9%

University or above 36.4% Below HK$9,999 17.9%

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

Workplace Base = 481 HK$20,000-$29,999 19.1%

Indoor 83.4% HK$30,000-HK$39,999 10.6%

Outdoor 11.9% HK$40,000-HK$49,999 4.6%

Indoor & Outdoor 4.8% HK$50,000 or above 9.1%

Household Location Base = 982

Hong Kong Island 20.1%

Kowloon 28.2%

New Territories 51.7%

93

Appendix 3: Survey Questionnaire Survey on people’s behaviour and perception towards drinking plastic bottled

water and beverages

市民飲用塑膠樽裝飲品的行為習慣及看法的調查

Questionnaire 問卷

Part I: Introduction

第一部分：自我介紹

午安/晚安! 我姓____________，是浸會大學社會科學研究中心的訪問員。我們現正進行一項調查以了

解市民平日飲用膠樽飲品的習慣和看法。我想要邀請你花大約十五分鐘的時間接受訪問。我們收集到的

所有資料會絕對保密。

Good afternoon/ evening! My name is __________, an interviewer from the Advancement of Social Sciences Research (CASR) Centre of the Hong Kong Baptist University. We are conducting a survey about people’s behaviour and perception of drinking plastic bottled beverages. I would like to invite you for an interview which will take about 15 minutes. I would like to stress that all information collected will be treated in strict confidence.

Part II: Screening

第二部分：甄選問題

S1. 請問你是否家中 18 歲或以上嘅家庭成員呢？

是

否（完全冇 18 歲或以上 o 既人士晌呢個單位居住）

<<如接聽者係受訪對象，請按「1」繼續>>

<<如受訪對象為另一家庭成員，邀請該對象接聽電話，並返回 introduction 重新作出簡介>>

<<如受訪對象為另一家庭成員，但未能接聽電話，請按 Ctrl+End 及選擇 “Callback” 或 “Not

Free”。>>

<<如家中沒有任何 18 歲或以上人士居於該單位，請按 Ctrl+End 及選擇 “Not qualified”>>

94 S2. (Interviewer's Judgment) Sex of the respondent

(斷判員問訪) 別斷者訪被

Male

男

Female

女

S3. The interviews will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. Would you prefer to be interviewed now or scheduled for a more suitable time?

呢個訪問大概會用 15 分鐘, 唔知你而家方唔方便接受訪問呢? 或者你想唔想選擇另一個更方便既時間?

Accepted ->Go to Q1

現在被以可訪問

Scheduled for a more suitable time (schedule a callback)

另擇當適時間 (約時間間時電)

Refused (thanks and hang up)

訪被別斷

Part III: Main questions

第三部分：主要問題

A. Preference of drinks

飲品的選擇

1. I would like to ask about your daily drinking habits. Do you usually drink (read out

options):

我想知道你日常飲野的習慣。你通常(讀出）：

Only beverages (include soda water and sparkling water)-> Go to Q2

只飲有味的飲品 (包括蘇打水及有汽的水)

More beverages than water -> Go to Q2

飲有味的飲品多過水

About half and half -> Go to Q3

各一半

More water than beverages -> Go to Q3

飲水多過有味的飲品

Only water ->Go to Q3

只飲水

Don’t know -> Go to Q3

不知道

2. What are your main reason(s) for drinking beverages over water? (Unprompted /Multiple

answers) 你選擇飲有味飲品多過水的原因是？(不讀出/ 複選)

Convenience/availability

方便

Cost/Free/Cheap

從成本考慮/免費/平

Taste/flavour 味道

Safety/quality/clean

安全/質素/乾淨

Environmental concerns

對環境的考慮

Health/ nutrition

健康/ 有營養

Reinvigorate

95 提神

Fashion/ image/ trendy 時尚/形像/時尚

No other choice

別無選擇

Don’t like water

不喜歡飲水

Others, please specify _________________________

其他，請註明：_________________________

Don’t know

不知道

Respondents choose “Only beverages” in Q1 – Go to Section D, Q16 3. I would like to ask about your daily water drinking habits. Do you usually drink (read out

options):

我想知道你日常飲水的習慣。你通常飲（讀出）：

Only tap water ->Go to Q4

只飲自來水

More tap water than bottled water -> Go to Q4

飲自來水多過樽裝水

About half and half -> Go to Q6

各一半

More bottled water than tap water -> Go to Q5

飲樽裝水多過自來水

Only bottled water -> Go to Q5

只飲樽裝水


不知道

Remarks: Tap water includes drinking water straight from the tap, filtered tap water and boiled tap water

註：自來水包括直接飲用從水喉放出的水，過濾過的自來水及煲滾的自來水

4. What are your main reason(s) for drinking tap water over bottled water? (Unprompted /

Multiple answers)

你選擇飲自來水多過樽裝水的原因是？(不讀出/ 複選)


方便

Cost/Free/Cheap

從成本考慮/免費/平

Taste/flavour

味道

Safety/quality/clean

安全/水質/乾淨

Environmental concerns 對環境的考慮

Health

健康

No other choice

別無選擇

Don’t trust bottled water

不信任樽裝水

Others, please specify _________________________ 其他，請註明：

Don’t know

不知道

96 Go to Q6

5. What are your main reason(s) for drinking bottled water over of tap water?

(Unprompted/Multiple answers)

你選擇飲樽裝水多過自來水的原因是？(不讀出/ 複選)


方便

Cost

成本的考慮

Taste/flavour

味道

Environmental concerns 對環境的考慮

Safety/quality/cleanliness/ Purified

安全／水質／乾淨／淨化

Health

健康

Don’t trust tap water

不信任自來水

Minerals/natural

礦物質/天然

Temperature

溫度

Fashion/ image/ trendy

時尚/形像/時尚

No other choice/ Tap water not available at work/living quarters

別無選擇/居住或工作的地方沒有自來水供應

Other, please specify __________________

其他，請註明

Don’t know 不知道

Respondents choose “Drink bottled water Only” in Q3 -- Go to Section C, Q10

B. Behaviour and perception of drinking tap water

飲自來水的行為和對自來水看法

6. Where do you usually drink tap water? Do you usually drink it: (Read out options/ Multiple

answers)

你通常在哪裡飲自來水？你飲的時候在：（讀出/複選）

At home

在家

At work or school

工作時或上學時

From public water fountains or dispensers, such as a library or sports centre 公共飲水機，如在圖書館或運動中心

Others, please specify _________

其他，請註明

Don’t know

不知道

Remarks: Tap water includes drinking water straight from the tap, filtered tap water and boiled tap water

註：自來水包括直接飲用從水喉放出的水，過濾過的自來水及煲滾的自來水

7. How would you rate the quality of tap water in Hong Kong? (Read out options)

97

你會如何評價香港的自來水質素？(讀出)

Very good

非常好

Good

好

So-so

一般

Poor

差

Very poor

非常差

Don’t know

不知道

8. Do you usually drink tap water straight from the tap, or do you filter, boil or treat it in some

other way? (read out options)

你通常會飲用直接從水喉放出的水，或過濾過的水、煲滾的水或用其他方法處理過的水？(讀

出)

Straight from the tap-> Go to Q10

直接從水喉放出的水

Boiled tap water

煲滾的水

Filtered tap water 過濾過的水

Filtered and boiled tap water

過濾及煲滾的水

Others, please specify_________________ 其他，請註明


不知道

9. What are your main reason(s) for filtering, boiling or treating tap water before drinking?

(Unprompted / Multiple answers) 你會把自來水過濾、煲滾或用其他方法處理過才飲用的原因是？(不讀出/ 複選)

To remove impurities

去除雜質

To improve taste

改善味道

To remove chemicals 去除化學物質

To kill bacteria/ germs

殺菌

To reduce chlorine level

減低氣氯水平

To ensure safety

確保安全

Keep water cold

保持低水溫

Filtered/ treated water is healthier

經過濾／處理的水比較建康

Habit/ got used to it

習慣

Availability (built into the fridge, used in office)

被利用性（雪櫃的功能，在辦公室使用）

Prefer filtered water

98 比較會用經過濾的水

Make coffee/ tea/ beverages with it 用來做咖啡／泡茶／飲料

Was told to do it

別人教的

Don’t know

不知道

Respondents choose “Drink tap water only” in Q3 -> Go to Section D, Q16

C. Behaviour and perception of drinking bottled water

飲樽裝水的行為和對樽裝水的看法

10. How often do you buy bottled water? (Read out options)

你幾經常買樽裝水？(讀出)


每日或接近每日

A few times a week

一星期幾次

About once a week

一星期一次


一個月幾次

About once in a month 一個月一次

Rarely

不常

Never -> Go to Q16

從不

Don’t know

不知道

11. Under what circumstances do you normally buy bottled water? (Unprompted)

你最常在甚麼情況下會買樽裝水？ (不讀出)

When going home

回家時

When going to work

工作時

When going to school

上學時


在運動或進行室外活動時


在逛街時或有差事時

Others, please specify_______________________

其他，請註明________________________

12. What volume of bottled water do you buy most of the time? (Read out options)

你最常購買甚麼容量的樽裝水? (讀出)


細裝 (少過兩杯/500毫升)

Medium (2-4 glasses/ 500ml to 1l)

中裝 (2-4 杯/500毫升至 1 公升)

Large (4-8 glasses/1l to 2l)

99 大裝 (4-8 杯/ 1-2公升)

Very Large (more than 8 glasses/ larger than 2l) 特大裝 (多過八杯/兩公升)

Don’t know

不知道

Remarks: The volume can be read out upon request.

註: 如可訪者要求, 被讀出容量.

13. How much did you spend on bottled water per week on average in the last month?

你上個月平均每星期花多少錢購買樽裝水？

HK$______________________________

港幣


14. Where do you usually buy bottled water? (Unprompted / Multiple answers)

你通常在哪裡購買樽裝水？(不讀出/ 複選)

Vending Machines

自動販賣機

Convenience stores, e.g. 7-11 and Circle K

便利店

Supermarkets 超級市場

Grocer

雜貨店

Gas stations

加油站

Household order

家庭訂水


其他，請註明


15. What is the most important criterion for you when choosing what bottled water to buy?

(Unprompted) 你選擇購買樽裝水時最重要的準則是？(不讀出)

Price

價格

Taste

味道

Brand

品牌

Spring or country of origin 原產地

Water quality

水質

Mineral composition

礦物質含量

Bottle's capacity 樽的容量

Bottle’s design, appearance, shape

樽的設計，外形，形狀

Green/ environmental policy of the supplier

100 供應商的環保政策

Recommendation by someone 別人推薦


沒甚麼原因

Others, please specify ____________________

其他，請註明

Don’t know

不知道

D. Behaviour and perception of drinking plastic bottled beverages

飲膠樽飲品的行為和對膠樽飲品的看法

16. What kind of beverages do you drink most often? (Read out options)

你最常飲邊類包裝的有味飲品? (讀出)


膠樽飲品

Glass bottled drinks -> Go to Q23

玻璃樽飲品

Tetra pack drinks-> Go to Q23

紙包飲品

Can drinks-> Go to Q23

罐裝飲品

Others, please specify ________________-> Go to Q23

其他, 請註明____________________


不知道

17. What are your main reason(s) for choosing plastic bottled drinks over drinks in other

packaging? (Multiple answers/ Unprompted)? (Unprompted)

你選擇飲膠樽飲品多過其他包裝的飲品的原因是？(不讀出/複選)

Convenient to carry

方便攜帶

Price 價格

Taste

味道

Brand

品牌

Spring or country of origin

原產地

A variety of choice

選擇多

Mineral composition

礦物質含量

Bottle's capacity 樽的容量

Bottle’s design, appearance, shape

樽的設計，外形，形狀

Green/ environmental policy of the supplier 供應商的環保政策

Recommendation by someone

別人推薦


101 沒甚麼原因

Others, please specify ____________________ 其他，請註明

Don’t know

不知道

18. How often do you buy plastic bottled drinks? (Read out options)

你幾經常買膠樽飲品？(讀出)


每日或接近每日

A few times a week 一星期幾次

About once a week

一星期一次


一個月幾次

About once in a month

一個月一次

Rarely

不常

Never -> Go to Q23

從不

Don’t know

不知道

19. Under what circumstances do you normally buy plastic bottled drinks? (Unprompted)

你最常在甚麼情況下會買膠樽飲品？ (不讀出)

When going home

回家時

When going to work 工作時

When going to school

上學時


在運動或進行室外活動時


在逛街時或有差事時

Others, please specify_______________________

其他，請註明

20. What volume of plastic bottled drinks do you buy most of the time? (Read out options)

你最常購買甚麼容量的膠樽飲品? (讀出)


細裝 (少過兩杯/500毫升)

Medium (2-4 glasses/ 500ml to 1l)

中裝 (2-4 杯/500毫升至 1 公升)

Large (4-8 glasses/1l to 2l)

大裝 (4-8 杯/ 1-2公升)

Very Large (more than 8 glasses/ larger than 2l)

特大裝 (多過八杯/兩公升)

Don’t know

不知道

Remarks: The volume can be read out upon request.

註: 如可訪者要求, 被讀出容量

102 21. How much did you spend on plastic bottled drinks per week on average in the last month?

你上個月平均每星期花多少錢購買膠樽飲品？

HK$______________________________ 港幣

Don’t know

不知道

22. Where do you usually buy plastic bottled drinks? (Unprompted / Multiple answers)

你通常在哪裡購買膠樽飲品？(不讀出/ 複選)

Vending Machines

自動販賣機

Convenience stores, e.g. 7-11 and Circle K 便利店

Supermarkets

超級市場

Grocer

雜貨店

Gas stations

加油站


其他，請註明

I do not buy any

沒有購買

Don’t know

不知道

E. Preference on dispensed water

對飲水機水的喜好

23. Have you drunk water from a public water dispenser in the past six months?

你在過去六個月有沒有在公共飲水機飲水？

Yes, please specify the location _____________________ 有, 請說明地點 ____________________

No 沒有

Don’t know

不知道

Remarks: Public water dispensers is a free water dispensers provided for people to drink water for free

註: 公共飲水機是指人們被隨意使用的免費飲水機

24. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality of existing public water dispensers in

Hong Kong? (Read out options)

你對香港現時的公共水機水的質素有幾滿意或不滿意? (讀出)

Very satisfied -> Go to Q25a

非常滿意

Satisfied -> Go to Q25a

滿意-

So-so -> Go to Q25a

一般-

Dissatisfied, please specify reason (s) ___________ -> Go to Q25b

不滿意, 請說明原因 _________________

Very dissatisfied, please specify reason (s) ___________ -> Go to Q25b

非常不滿意, 請說明原因 _________________

Don’t know -> Go to Q25b

103 不知道-

25. (a) Would you bring your own drinking bottle to refill with water if a water dispenser were

available?

如果有飲水機供應，你會否擕帶自己的水壺去裝水飲？

Yes 會

No -> Go to Q27

不會

No idea -> Go to Q27

無意見

(b) Would you bring your own drinking bottle to refill with water if a water dispenser with a similar quality to bottled water were available?

如果有飲水機供應類似樽裝水的質素的水，你會否擕帶自己的水壺去裝水飲？

Yes

會

No -> Go to Q27

不會

No idea -> Go to Q27

無意見

26. If yes, how much would you be willing to pay for each 500ml of dispensed water? (500ml =

approx. 2 glasses) (Unprompted)

如會，你願意以甚麼價錢購買500毫升的水？(500毫升=大概兩杯) (不讀出)

(HK$/港幣)

HK$0/Unwilling to pay HK$0/ 唔願意比錢

Up to HK$1

最多HK$1


HK$1至HK$2


HK$2至HK$3

HK$3 or above HK$3或以上

Don't know

不知道

27. What temperature do you prefer your drinking water at?

你喜歡的飲用水溫度是？

Cold

凍

Hot

熱

Cold and Hot

凍及熱

Room temperature

室溫

It depends/ Not sure

視乎情況/不肯定

Don’t know

不知道

F. Environmental awareness

環境意識

104

28. How would you deal with the plastic bottle or drinks container when it is emptied?

(Unprompted/ Multiple answers)

適膠樽或飲品容器已可清空, 你會如何處理它? (不讀出/ 複選)

Put it in the trash

放入垃圾桶

Put it in a recycling bin

放入回收桶

Reuse it as water or other drinks container 間用來載水或其他飲料

Reuse it in any other ways

以其他方法間用

Others, please specify _______________________

其他, 請註明________________

Don’t know

不知道

29. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the arrangements for plastic bottle collection in

Hong Kong as a whole? (Read out options)

整體來說, 你對香港的膠樽回收設施的安排有多滿意或不滿意？(讀出)

Very satisfied

非常滿意

Satisfied 滿意

Dissatisfied

不滿意

Very Dissatisfied

非常不滿意

Don’t know

不知道

30. Out of the total amount of waste going into Hong Kong’s landfills, what percentage of it is

plastic?

整體來說, 關於香港塑膠垃圾的數量,送往堆填區的垃圾中有百分之幾是塑膠？

Below 10%

低於 10％

Between 10 and 20%

10％至20％

Between 20% and 40% 20％至40％

Between 40% and 60%

40％至60％

More than 60%

多於60％

Don’t know

不知道

供訪問員參考: 根據 2012年政府香港固體廢物監察報告, 每日共有 1,826噸塑膠垃圾,

佔總體 19.7%, 其中大約 867噸會可回收間造, 約 48%。 31. How serious do you think the plastic waste problem is in Hong Kong? (Read out options)

你覺得香港的塑膠廢物問題有多嚴重？(讀出)

Very serious

非常嚴重

Serious

嚴重

105 Not so serious

唔係幾嚴重

Not serious at all

一 d都唔嚴重


32. (a) How much concern do you have about plastic waste problem in Hong Kong? (Read out

options)

你有幾關心香港的塑膠廢物問題?(讀出)

Great deal -> Go to Q32b

非常關心

Some -> Go to Q32b

有 d關心

Little -> Go to Q32b

少少關心

None 完全唔關心

Don’t know

不知道

(b) How high of a priority should the government make the plastic waste problem in Hong Kong? (Read out options)

政府應把香港塑膠廢物的問題放在幾優先處理的位置?

Top

最高

Medium

次要

Low

最低

Not a problem 這不是問題

Don’t know

不知道

Part IV: Demographics

第四部分: 人口統計資料 We need some basic demographic information from you so we can scientifically analyse your responses. Your answers will not in any way compromise your anonymity.

最後請你提供一o的個人資料，方便我地做分析，呢o的資料係會絕對保密：

33. How old are you?

請問你幾多歲？

18 – 24 25 – 34 35 – 44 45 – 54 55 – 64 65 or above

65上以或歲

】111=no ans or refuse to ans【

34. What is your marital status?

請問你結你問未？

106 Never married 未問 Married (excepted widowed/divorced/separated)

已問

Widowed 守寡

Divorced /Separated

婚問／分居

Other, please specify: ______________

其他，請註明： ______________

35. How many children under 12 are there in your household, if any? (0=None, 99=Don’t know)

請問你的住戶裡有幾多個十二歲以下的小朋友?

Number: _________

數目: _________

36. What is your educational standard? What year of schooling did you finish?

請問你既教育程度：

Below primary (Record year, Example: Form 2, Primary 4) 小學以下

Primary 1 thru 6

小一至小六

F1

中一

F2

中二

F3

中三

F4 / TI (Form 3) 1st Year

中四

F5 / TI (Form 3) Graduate

中五/業進計計進毅

F6 / TI (Form 5) 1st Year

中六

F7 / TI (Form 7) Graduate / TC Graduate / US University Freshman

中中/ IVE進毅

University 1st Year / Sophomore 大學一年級 ( 制美： sophomore)

University 2nd Year / Junior

大學二年級 ( 制美： junior（

University Graduate

大學進毅/大畢進毅

Master Degree

業士進毅

PhD. Degree

業士進毅

Refuse to answer = 99 37. What is your occupation? What is the nature of your job?

請問你既職毅同職位係？(如答公務員或一些行毅，請問工作性質)

Managers and administrators (EO or above level Civil Servant, and Inspector and above level disciplinary unit official)

行政及管理人員 ( 包括意意括包， EO級或以上公務員或以察級或以上的務公部以人員)

Professionals (If teachers, press 14) 畢毅人士 ( 如是教如，按 14)

Associate professionals (Include assist to Certified Professionals)

員人畢毅人員 (包括已士定畢毅人士的人理)

Clerks (Include Secretary)

107

文員）包括非管理階理的公務員 )

Service workers and shop sales workers (Include Police Officer, firefighter, etc.) 工務及店舖店及員工 ( 包括通通括員，消防員 )

Skilled agricultural and fishery workers

有人業漁及及農毅人士

Craft and related workers (Include performers)

工員及有關員工 (包括括員)

Plant and machine operators and assemblers

工配及機器作作員和裝廠員 (包括括機)

Elementary occupations

工級工作員工

Housewife -> Go to Q40

家庭主家

Retired -> Go to Q40

休退

Unemployed -> Go to Q40

失毅

Student ->Go to Q40

學意

Education Sector (teachers in primary, secondary, tertiary level and Principals) 教育 ( 如如：長校，大學學如，中、小學教如 )

Other, please specify: ______________

其他，請註明： _____________________

38. Is your workplace indoors or outdoors?

請問你工作地點的是在戶內還是戶外?

Indoors

戶內

Outdoors

戶外

39. What is your personal approximate monthly income? (HK$)

請問你每月的個人收入大概是? (港幣)

1 None 10 HK$ 40,000 – 49,999 2 Less than HK$ 5,000 11 HK$ 50,000 – 59,999 3 HK$ 5,000 – 9,999 12 HK$ 60,000 – 69,999 4 HK$ 10,000 – 14,999 13 HK$ 70,000 – 79,999 5 HK$ 15,000 – 19,999 14 HK$ 80,000 – 89,999 6 HK$ 20,000 – 24,999 15 HK$ 90,000 –99,999 7 HK$ 25,000 – 29,999 16 HK$100,000 and up 8 HK$ 30,000 – 34,999 17 Refuse to answer

9. HK$ 35,000 – 39,999

40. In which of the 18 Districts do you live in? 【If unsure/DK, what is the nearest MTR, KCR,

light rail station to your home? 】

在十八十中，你住在在一十？

1 Central and Western 11 Tuen Mun 2 Wan Chai 12 Yuen Long 3 Eastern 13 Kwai Tsing 4 Southern 14 Islands 5 Yau Tsim Mong 15 North 6 Sham Shui Po 16 Tai Po 7 Kowloon City 17 Shatin 8 Wong Tai Sin 18 Sai Kung 9 Kwun Tong 19 Refuse to answer

108 10 Tsuen Wan

1 中西十 11 門屯

2 仔灣 12 朗元

3 區十 13 青葵

4 區十 14 婚離

5 油尖油 15 北十

6 埗水深 16 大大

7 城龍九 17 田沙

8 仙大黃 18 西西

9 塘觀 19 答絕回答

10 灣仔

Part V: Invitation to the focus group discussion

第五部分: 邀請出席研請會焦點小組請論 41. Would you be willing to participate in a focus group discussion about drinking plastic

bottled beverages? It will be held on a weekday evening from 7.00-9.00pm or Saturday afternoon from 2.00-4.00pm. The venue will be at HKBU, we will also provide HK$300 remuneration as a token of thanks.

我們會在平日晚上舉辦一個有關飲用膠樽飲品既焦點小組請論，

時間是平日晚上 7.00至9.00 或星期六下午 2.00-4.00, 地點是香港浸會大學.

我們會提供港幣 HK$300 以答謝你的參與。唔知你有冇冇有參加呢？

）如有冇有參加（請問你被唔被以低低姓可及可你電話，而所有個人資料會而 12 月之後全部店月。

1 被以

姓可______________可你電話_________________平日_______或星期六______

2 唔被以

We have completed the interview, thank you very much for your cooperation. If you have any enquiry

about the survey, please contact us at XXXXXXXX. Goodbye!

訪問已經完成，多謝你既謝作，你如你對這個調查有任何查查,

請時電 XXXXXXXX(BU’s number)與我們可你。間見!

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

Reducing Plastic Waste in Hong Kong: Public Opinion Survey of … · 2018-04-11 · 2 Reducing...

Documents

Transcript of Reducing Plastic Waste in Hong Kong: Public Opinion Survey of … · 2018-04-11 · 2 Reducing...