ABSTRACT
Plastic litter negatively affects the environment and human health. Therefore, some countries and states have banned or taxed plastic bag use. For example, Rwanda, Mexico City, and China have introduced bans on plastic bags, as have Kenya and Rwanda in Africa. In this study, I assessed public perceptions of a proposed federal ban on plastic bags in Nigeria. Using a structured questionnaire, I interviewed 200 customers and 10 shop managers in Yola-Jimeta, northeastern Nigeria. More than half of the respondents throw away plastic bags after one use, and few reuse their plastic bags. Cross-tabulations showed that gender was the only significant predictor regarding what shoppers do with plastic bags. Men were more likely to throw away plastic bags after single use. Respondents in this study had a relatively high degree of environmental awareness: Most (90%) said plastic bags are harmful to the environment, and 73.5% said plastic bags are harmful to human health. Thus, it was not surprising that many respondents (71%) were willing to support a federal ban on plastic bags. For those who were unwilling or unsure, a brief educational presentation on the negative impacts of plastic bags changed the minds of 45% of these respondents in favor of a ban (McNemar’s test, p = .000, n = 58). This study
vii
shows that education may play an important role in public acceptable of a federal ban on plastic bags in Nigeria. Thus, the Nigerian government should conduct awareness programs using traditional and social media before implementing any ban.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATION……………………………………………………………….……ii
READER’S APPROVAL……………………………………………………….……iii
DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………….iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………….……..v
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………….vi
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………..vii
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………viii
CHAPTER 1…………………………………………………………………………..1
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………1
Life cycle of plastic bags…………………………….………………….…………..2
Environmental impacts……………………………………………………………..4
Dealing with plastic bags……………………………………………..……………10
Public reaction to plastic bag restrictions…………………………………….……13
Proposed an in Nigeria……………………………….………………..………….15
HYPOTHESIS…………………………………………………………………………17
AIM & OBJECTIVES…………………………………….………………………17
CHAPTER 2…………………………………………………………………………18
MATERIALS & METHODS……………………………………………………..18
Study site……………………………………………………………….……18
Sampling…………………………………………………………………….19
Data collection…………………………………….………………………..20
Data analysis………………………………………………………………..20
Ethical guidelines……………………………………………………………21
CHAPTER 3…………………………………………………………………………22
ix
RESULTS (CUSTOMERS)…………………………………………………………22
Demographics ………………………………………………………………22
Plastic and reusable bag use habit………………………………………….22
Environmental and health effects of plastic bags…………………..….……23
Plastic bags ban …………………………………….…………………….…24
Effect of education on attitude……………………………………………….25
Ways to reduce the use of plastic bags……………………………..….…….25
RESULTS (SHOP OWNERS)………………………………………………………26
Description of respondent’s shop use of plastic bags…………………….….26
Environmental and health effects of plastic bags (shop owners)……………26
Plastic bag use, ban and effect to business…………………….……………26
Additional comments on plastic bags……………………………………..…27
CHAPTER 4…………………………………………………………………….…..28
DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………………….28
Limitations…………………………………………………………………..32
Recommendations…………………………………………………………….33
CHAPTER 5…………………………………………………………………………34
CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………34
APPENDIX I…………………………………………..……………………………35
APPENDIX II……………………………………………………………………….36
APPENDIX III………………………………………………………………………43
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………44
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Different types of polyethylene with their packaging applications……………………………………………………………………………3
Table 2. Relationship between predictor variables and the use of plastic bags after shopping……………………………………………………………..………………23
Table 3. Relationship between predictor variables and plastic bags’ harm to the environment…………………………………………………………………………………………………24
Table 4. Relationship between predictor variables and plastic bags’ harm to human health………………………………………………………………………………….24
Table 5. Relationship between predictor variables and the support of plastic bag ban……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….25
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1. The life cycle of plastic bags from the extraction of crude oil to the disposal of waste at the end of its useful life………………………………………..……………….4
Fig. 2. Waste disposal at landfills from 1960 to 2008………………………..…………7
Fig. 3. Sources of microplastics and macroplastics pollution to freshwater and marine environment………………………………………………………………………………8
Fig. 4. Top 10 trash items found in the world’s oceans; plastic bags are the 4th most abundant item in ocean trash……………………………………………………….….9
Fig. 5. Countries that took actions in reducing plastic bag consumption…………..…13
Fig. 6. Map of Yola -Jimeta, Adamawa State northeastern Nigeria……………..……19
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In the late 1970s, single-use plastic bags became prevalent in supermarkets and stores across the United States (Clapp & Swanston, 2009). Plastic bags then spread to Europe in 1980s, and by 1990s, these bags were commonplace in developing countries (Clapp & Swanston, 2009). At present, plastic bags are ubiquitous across the world. They are now provided free of charge in most countries. People make use of plastic bags daily in different ways, such as for shopping, disposal of waste, and storage of food items.
It is estimated that, globally, people use 500 billion to 1 trillion plastic bags annually (Spokas, 2008). For example, estimates of annual plastic bags used include 8 billion bags annually in the United Kingdom, 9.8 billon in Hong Kong, 6.9 billion in Australia, 100 billion in the United States, 3.3 billion in Bangladesh, and 300 billion in China (Clapp & Swanston, 2009). This widespread usage of plastic bags can be credited to the convenience in the use of the plastic bags because they are cheap and lightweight. After a single use, most of the plastic bags are thrown away to the environment as waste (Adane & Muleta, 2011).
As plastic bags began to pile up in the environment, governments and the general public began to see a downside to the widespread use of these bags. First, they are not biodegradable. Plastic bags may take up to 1,000 years to degrade by sunlight (Sutton & Turner, 2012). Second, these bags comprise one of the largest portions of solid waste in the world today. Third, they cause the death of wild and domestic animals (Adane & Muleta, 2011). Some animals’ mistake plastic bags as food, and
2
when consumed, this might end up killing them. Fourth, plastic bags cause environmental hazards, including toxins released from manufacturing of the bags and pollution in the form of plastic litter and waste (Nhamo, 2008). Both the manufacturing process and the use of plastic bags play a significant role in adding pollution to water, air, and soil.
Because of the effects caused by plastic bags, different countries started taking actions to control the usage of plastic bags. Some regions introduced compulsory taxes; some provided a discount for consumers who carry their own reusable bags for shopping; and some placed an outright ban on the use of plastic bags. Some of these countries have succeeded in reducing the amount of plastic bag consumption, while some failed. Ban on plastic bags has led to a drastic decrease in the consumption of plastic bags in different countries around the world. For example, a ban on plastic bags in China has led to an enormous decrease in the amount of plastic bags consumed in the country. Since the implementation of the ban, the country’s consumption on plastic bags has decreased by one third (“Plastic Bag Ban,” 2013).
Life cycle of plastic bags
The life cycle of plastic bag starts with extraction of ethylene from crude oil or natural gas and ends with the disposal of bags as waste after usage (Fig. 1). Ethylene, which is the main component of a synthetic bag, is derived from the catalytic cracking of crude oil gasoline or from modifying natural gas, such as ethane, methane, or propane mix (Ruban, 2012; Greene, 2011). Ethylene is transformed to polyethylene (a polymer of ethylene) by a process known as polymerization. After the polymerization stage, plastic bags are processed via conversion of film,
3
production of a vest shaped bag , and printing the plastic bag (Ruban, 2012). Plastic bags can be manufactured from low-density polyethylene (LDPE), linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), and high-density polyethylene (HDPE). Bags produced from LDPE are very soft compared to bags produced from HDPE (Ruban, 2012). LDPE and LLDPE are mainly use for department store bags, while HDPE is mainly use for single-use plastic bags (Greene, 2011). HDPE is thicker than the LDPE because the textile used in production is stronger than that of low-density polyethylene.
Table 1. Different types of polyethylene with their packaging applications (Andrady, 2003). Type Co monomer Density g/cm Melt Index Applications LDPE None 2–5% vinyl acetate 7% vinyl acetate None 0.919-0.923 0.922–0.925 0.925–0.930 0.927–0.945 0.924–0.926 0.2-0.8 1.5–2.0 1.5–2.0 0.2–0.4 6–10 Heavy duty sacs Bread, bakery and general-purpose bags Frozen food Liquid packaging and extrusion coating Bottles and closures LLDP Butene Hexene, octene 0.917–0.922 0.912–0.919 0.8–2.5 2.0–4.0 General-purpose packaging Stretch wrap HDPE None BM 0.960 0.940 0.960 0.35 0.2 30 Containers, bottles, and pails, General purpose Food containers
Once produced, plastic bags are transported to stores and markets where they are sold. Only a few of these plastic bags are later recycled; most of them are used once
4
and then disposed as waste (Greene, 2011). Some of these plastic bags are shipped from different countries. For example, 67% of the 6 billion HDPE bags used in Australia are imported (Environment Protection and Heritage Council, 2002). It was also reported that in the years 2001 to 2002, 225 million LDPE bags were imported to Australia (Environment Protection and Heritage Council, 2002).
Environmental impacts
The production of plastic bags leads to a number of environmental impacts. The drilling of crude oil and gas, for example, releases toxic contaminants to the atmosphere, which include benzene, xylene, hydrogen sulfide, toluene, sulfur dioxide, ethyl benzene, ozone, and volatile organic compounds. Most of the harmful gases released in the process of plastic bag production are greenhouse gases, which are the major causes of global warming. Some of these gases also lead to acid rain and ozone-layer depletion (Ruban, 2012).
Fig. 1. The life cycle of a plastic bag from extraction of crude oil to the disposal of waste at the end of its useful life. (Credit: http://techalive.mtu.edu/meec/module14/title.htm)
5
The manufacturing of plastic bags also involves buying raw materials, such as dyes, polyethylene granules, and solvent. The transportation of these materials by lorries causes the emission of greenhouse gases and other harmful gases, such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and sulfur oxide, to the environment (Ruban, 2012). Over the last few decades, the raw materials required for the manufacture of plastics, tiny pallets and micro-plastics have become more abundant and can travel large distances in oceans (Barnes, Galgani, Thompson, & Barlaz, 2009).
The release of harmful gases and other problems of production-based pollution are not the only effects of plastic bags on the environment; most of the negative environmental effects come from the daily use of plastic bags. Plastic shopping bags are mostly used for disposing waste, transporting goods, packaging food items, and sometimes transporting food items and drinking water. Inappropriate waste management is the main reason behind the release of plastics to the environment (Barnes et al., 2009). In 2001, it was estimated that 80% of the used plastic bags end up in solid waste dumps and landfills, whereas 7% of the bags are burned; the rest of the plastic bags are either reused or end up in the environment (Spokas, 2008). Even when plastic bags are burned, they contribute to air pollution by releasing harmful gasses to the environment.
Plastic bags also have a negative impact on wildlife and agriculture. Plastic bag disposal on streets and dump sites may be consumed by wildlife and livestock, thereby causing harm to them. Plastic bags consumption also cause animal death and injury (Rayne, 2008). Plastic bags can also affect cropland; as a result of their non-
6
biodegradable structure, it can leads to the loss of the productivity of soil (Njeru, 2006).
One of the biggest problems with plastic bags in developing countries is that they block sewage systems (Adane & Muleta, 2011). When sewage systems are blocked, this creates foul odors and a breeding ground for disease vectors, such as mosquitoes, which are responsible for the transmission of malaria (Rayne, 2008). For example, in India and Bangladesh, sewage blockage has led to human deaths. In India, for example, flooding in Mumbai led to the death of a thousand individuals. This flood was claimed on the blockage of storm drains by plastic bags (Somanathan & Gupta, 2009). As a result, different states in India and governments across the world placed legislation to reduce plastic bag consumption (Somanathan & Gupta, 2009).
Landfills
Plastic bags usually end up in landfills. They are the main contributors to landfill waste; contributing more than 12 percent of municipal waste (Negussie & Mustefa, 2017). Even if plastic bags are reused sometimes; they ultimately end up in landfills (Fig 2). In Australia, it is estimated that 6.67 billion units of plastic bags end up in landfills (Environment Protection and Heritage Council, 2002). Increase in human population brings an increase in waste production. The more waste generated from the use of plastic bags, the more the use of landfills increases, thereby decreasing the availability of landfills and increasing hazards caused by landfills. Since plastics take centuries to disintegrate by photo degradation, and when they end up in landfills, they take much longer time to because of the lack of access to UV radiation (Sutton & Turner, 2012).
7
Landfills are dangerous to the environment as well as human health. Most landfills are open dumps that contaminate ground water, rivers, and lakes. When water is contaminated by landfills and consumed by animals and humans, it can lead to disease and death (Sutton & Turner, 2012). For example, a survey that was conducted in 2008 shows that 82% of landfills had openings that emit toxins into ground and surface water (Waste and Recycling Facts) .
Water
Few studies have been conducted on plastic pollution in freshwater systems (lakes and rivers), despite the contribution of plastic bags as marine debris in marine environments (Dris et al., 2015; Free et al., 2014). Some of the plastic bags that are present in oceans also known as macroplastics give rise to smaller pieces of plastics known as microplastics. Microplastics occur as a result of the breakdown of macroplastics by ultraviolet (UV) radiation; microplastics contribute to the amount of plastic debris in both marine environment and freshwater (Dris et al., 2015).
Fig. 2. Waste disposal of municipal waste from 1960 to 2008. (Credit: http://green-plastics.net/posts/45/plastic-biodegradation-in-landfills/)
8
Microplastic in lakes consist of mostly polyethylene, polypropylene, and polystyrene (Wagner et al., 2014). These microplastics that are present in freshwater and marine environments are usually deposited by industrial activities (Fig. 3). Runoff from agricultural land also adds microplastics to lakes and rivers (Wagner et al., 2014). Microplastics can also be transported by wind to freshwater environment.
Fig.3. Different sources of microplastics and macroplastics pollution to freshwater and marine environment. (Credit: Horton, 2016).
Some studies have investigated the existence of microplastics in lakeshore sediments and have shown that there are microplastics in freshwater lakes and rivers which affect the life of aquatic animals (Free et al., 2014). For example, sediments from four rivers in Germany showed that plastic fragments make up 60% of the microplastic presented in the rivers (Wagner et al., 2014).
Microplastic pollution has a negative impact on species living in freshwater environments. Aquatic animals such as fish can consume microplastics, thereby affecting their digestive track. In a study that was conducted to investigate the
9
occurrence of microplastics in the digestive system of gudgeon from French rivers, it was found that microplastics are present in the digestive tracts in 12% of freshwater fish (Sanchez, Bender, & Porcher, 2014). When fish are exposed to the accumulation of microplastics, it can lead to adverse effects, such as histopathological alteration and depletion of glycogen (Wagner et al., 2014). Most of the dumped plastic bags generated on land end up in streams and the oceans (Fig. 4) and can harm marine animals, as well as entire marine ecosystems.
The abundance of plastic debris is one of the observable drastic changes that has occurred in the last half-century (Barnes et al., 2009). The accumulation of plastic
Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. Top 10 trash items found in the world’s oceans; plastic bags are the 4Top 10 trash items found in the world’s oceans; plastic bags are the 4thth most most abundant item in ocean trash. Data are from the 2016 Ocean Conservancy’s international abundant item in ocean trash. Data are from the 2016 Ocean Conservancy’s international annual Coastal Cleanup. annual Coastal Cleanup. (Credit: https://oceanconservancy.org/trash(Credit: https://oceanconservancy.org/trash–freefree–seas/internationalseas/international–coastalcoastal–cleanup/)cleanup/)
10
items in the deep sea, open sea, terrestrial environments, and shorelines have started within a few decades from the start of the production of plastic products in the 1950s (Barnes et al., 2009). Plastic pollution from land may enter the ocean through wastewater outflow, transport by wind, inland waterways such as rivers and streams. That is, because of their lightweight properties, plastic bags can be easily picked up by wind and water from landfills or litterbins and carried to the ocean.
Another reason plastic bags are a major constituent of marine debris is their non-biodegradable nature; it may take centuries before they disintegrate by photo degradation (Sutton & Turner, 2012). As a result of their non-biodegradable nature, they accumulate in the sea, increasing the amount of marine pollution. When they accumulate in the ocean, waves and currents keep breaking them down into smaller pieces (Sutton & Turner, 2012). They can also be broken down into smaller pieces by UV radiation, a process known as photo degradation (Clapp & Swanston, 2009). The smaller particles or pieces of plastics may be mistaken as food by most marine animals. Annually, animals that live in marine ecosystems, such as seabirds, dolphins, whales, and sea turtles, are threatened because of marine debris. For example, marine animals such as whales and dolphins may consume plastic bags thinking that they are eating smaller fish such as jelly fish (Sutton & Turner, 2012).
Dealing with plastic bags
Because of the negative environmental impacts of plastic bags, some states, regions, and countries around the world have taken action. In some cases, plastic bags have been banned outright, or taxed. Incentives to use re-usable bags have also been
11
provided to shoppers. Since the 1990s, countries such as Denmark, Ireland, South Africa, Canada, and Australia introduced taxes on plastic bags (Dunn, 2012). Some states in the United States., such as Washington, Minnesota, New York, Texas, California, Idaho, and Oregon, also proposed a tax on plastic bags.
In 1994, Denmark became the first country to place a compulsory levy on the manufacturers of plastic bags. The tax on manufacturers and retailers was very successful in Denmark because the usage of plastic bags in the country was reduced to 66% (Akullian, Karp, Austin, & Durbin, 2006; Dunn, 2012).
Similarly, Ireland introduced a tax on the use of plastic bags by consumers in grocery stores and supermarkets in March 2002. The tax on plastic bags was supported by the public. When the tax was initially placed e0.15 (Euro) was collected from consumers per bag and later raised to e0.22. In a short period of time, there was a drastic decrease of 90-95% in the demand of plastic bags in Ireland (Convery, McDonnell, & Ferreira, 2007). Implementation of plastic bag regulation in Botswana took place in 2007 (Dikgang & Visser, 2012), involving an environmental levy on retailers. In September 2002, a plastic bag regulation took effect in South Africa (Hasson, Leiman, & Visser, 2007). This regulation placed a levy on each bag that is thicker than 30 microns and a ban on plastic bags with a gauge 30 microns. Consumers were asked to pay 46 cents for each plastic bag, after which plastic bag sales decreased by 60 percent to 90 percent because of the tax placed on consumers for the use of plastic bags (Hasson et al., 2007).
12
Plastic bags were introduced to China in the early 1980s (He, 2010). Local government and states in China introduced policies to reduce the amount of plastic bags in the 1990s, but they did not work. Therefore, in 2008, a regulation on the use of plastic bags went into effect in China. The regulation is based on levies on every retailer, store, and supermarket for the use of plastic bags by consumers. A study in which data was collected before and after implementation of the regulation showed that the new regulation led to a decrease in plastic-bag use of 49% in China (He, 2010). In Canada and the United States, different states and cities have proposed a tax on the use of plastic bags. Example of some states that placed taxes on the use of plastic bags include New York; California, Washington, D.C., and Toronto. For example, in Toronto and New York, 5-cent and 6-cent taxes have been placed on plastic bags, and this has been going on since 2008–2009 (Gupta, 2011)
Bans
To reduce the use of plastic bags, some countries have banned plastic bags. Examples of countries and cities that have plastic-bag bans include Rwanda, Kenya, Bangladesh (ban on thinner plastic bags), Mexico City, China (ban on free plastic bags), Austin (Texas, USA), San Francisco (California, USA), and Oakland (California, USA) (Fig. 5). In 2007, San Francisco became the first U.S. city to ban the use of plastic bags (Clapp & Swanston, 2009).
In Africa, Kenya and Rwanda have banned plastic bags, in 2017 and 2004, respectively. The Kenyan ban disallows producing, importing, or using plastic bags (Dunn, 2012). The ban on plastic bag in Kenya became effective in August 2017. The ban focuses on the production, importation, and uses of plastic bags. There is
13
severe punishment for anyone who violates the rules of the ban. The first penalty is a jail time, and the second is an exorbitant fine. Violators must either pay the fine of $38,000, which is equivalent to 32,000 euros, or 4-year jail sentence (BBC, 2017).
Public reaction to plastic bag restrictions
Public perception towards plastic bags is among the important things to consider when taking actions to reduce the usage of plastic bags. Some people may be willing to accept the ban on plastic bag, whereas some may not. Research has shown that people will use reusable bags if a tax is applied to plastic bags (Dunn, 2012). For
example, in Utah, people who use reusable bags for some of their shopping needs were willing to switch completely to reusable bags for all shopping if they were paid $0.12 per reusable bag they brought from home (Dunn, 2012). Hence, the study concluded that people are willing to switch to reusable bags if taxes will be
Fig. 5. Countries that have banned the use of plastic bags. The green color indicates sites with plastic-bag bans. Red indicates sites that tried to ban plastic bags, but failed, and blue indicates sites that charge fees for plastic bag usage. (Credit: http://www.factorydirectpromos.com/plastic-bag-bans)
14
minimized. This is because people are more open to taxes than outright bans (Dunn, 2012).
A similar study was conducted in Delhi to identify the effect of some possible tools, both price and non-price, that can be used to reduce the use of plastic bags without enforcing any legislation. The non-price tools used in the research are policy treatments, which include alternatives for plastic bags, consumer education, and the price tool used is a cashback scheme that depends on the use of plastic bags (Gupta, 2011). The study was carried out on consumers in Delhi market and National Capital Region of Delhi. More consumers brought their own shopping bags (an increase from 4.6 percent to 17.7 percent), and the percentage of consumers who used only plastic bags decreased to 57.1 percent from 80.8 percent (Gupta, 2011). Thus, this study showed that polices such as subsidies for consumers who bring their own bags when shopping discourage the use of plastic bags. These policies are low-cost interventions and may be more appropriate to reduce plastic bag use in developing countries than a ban (Gupta, 2011).
Proposed ban in Nigeria
Nigeria is the most populous country in Africa. It has a population of over 190 million people (UN, 2017). As such, Nigerians generate tons of waste daily, which includes single-use plastic bags. Traditional African societies, which had smaller populations, used native leaves use for wrapping items. Increase in the number of population in Nigeria brings about the use of polyethylene in wrapping items (Akinro, Ikumawoyi, Yahaya, & Ologunagha, 2012; Aziegbe, 2007). In Nigeria, polyethylene is used in wrappers such as table water, biscuit, salt, and ice cream.
15
Polyethylene bags are use in all markets, restaurants, homes, and shopping centers in Nigeria. These bags are found in the entire streets and corners of the country, for example in Edo State and Ondo State in Nigeria (Akinro et al., 2012; Aziegbe, 2007). In Nigeria, most states and cities such as Ado-Ekiti encounter waste management problems as a result of poor management of waste (Adefemi & Awokunmi, 2009).
A study was carried out to investigate the seasonal variation of polyethylene generation and disposal in Akure City in Nigeria (Akinro et al., 2012). In the study, five daily markets were randomly selected and in each markets, two sites were used: the processed food section and raw food section. The results of the study showed that polyethylene is generated more during dry season than rainy season. The results also showed that sachets of table water are the major contributors to polyethylene waste followed by ice cream sachets and biscuits sachets. This is because sachet water is very cheap (ranging from 5 Naira to 10 Naira); therefore it is consumed throughout the year (Akinro et al., 2012).
In 2017, during the 10th Global Environment Facility National Steering meeting in Abuja, Nigeria, the head of the Ministry of Environment noted the negative impacts of plastic bags and the government’s wish to ban plastic bags (Sustyvibes, 2017). Although the government has not implemented this proposed ban, it would, when implemented, have widespread impacts across the country, given the reliance of millions of Nigerians on plastic bags for daily activities. The ban may be ineffective if the government does not enforce it or if the general public does not support it.
16
Therefore, the study proposes to investigate the willingness of the public to accept the proposed federal ban on plastic bags, using adult consumers and shop owners in Yola-Jimeta, northeastern Nigeria, as a case study. More so, the study will determine how awareness of the negative environmental impacts of plastic bags may influence views. Ultimately, findings will be shared with the Adamawa State Ministry of Environment.
17
HYPOTHESES
Null Hypothesis: Increasing awareness of the environmental impacts of plastic bags has no effect on the Nigerian public’s willingness to accept a proposed federal ban on plastic bags.
Research Hypothesis: Increasing awareness of the environmental impacts of plastic bags increases the Nigerian public’s willingness to accept a proposed federal ban on plastic bags.
AIMS & OBJECTIVES
Aim: To assess the Nigerian public’s willingness to accept a proposed federal ban on plastic bags in Yola-Jimeta, northeastern Nigeria.
Objectives:
• To determine the number of plastic bags purchased monthly by shop owners
• To find out the opinions of shop owners toward the proposed ban
• To find out the opinions of consumers toward the proposed ban
• To identify socio-demographic factors that may influence respondents’ attitudes towards the proposed ban
• To make respondents with negative opinions of the ban aware of plastic bag pollution
• To evaluate if this new awareness affects those respondents’ attitudes toward the proposed ban
• To share my findings with Adamawa State Ministry of Environment.
DISCLAIMER: All project works, files and documents posted on this website, UniProjectTopics.com are the property/copyright of their respective owners. They are for research reference/guidance purposes only and some of the works may be crowd-sourced. Please don’t submit someone’s work as your own to avoid plagiarism and its consequences. Use it as a reference/citation/guidance purpose only and not copy the work word for word (verbatim). The paper should be used as a guide or framework for your own paper. The contents of this paper should be able to help you in generating new ideas and thoughts for your own study. UniProjectTopics.com is a repository of research works where works are uploaded for research guidance. Our aim of providing this work is to help you eradicate the stress of going from one school library to another in search of research materials. This is a legal service because all tertiary institutions permit their students to read previous works, projects, books, articles, journals or papers while developing their own works. This is where the need for literature review comes in. “What a good artist understands is that nothing comes from nowhere. All creative work builds on what came before. Nothing is completely original.” - Austin Kleon. The paid subscription on UniProjectTopics.com is a means by which the website is maintained to support Open Education. If you see your work posted here by any means, and you want it to be removed/credited, please contact us with the web address link to the work. We will reply to and honour every request. Please notice it may take up to 24 – 48 hours to process your request.
