Consumer Perceptions of the Use of Nondegradable Plastic Packaging and Environmental Pollution: A Review of Theories and Empirical Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studying people’s perceptions of their attitudes and behaviour toward the use and inappropriate disposal of plastics is necessary because it helps explain the meaning of sustainable environmental behaviour in the context of African countries. Formulating appropriate behavioural change interventions may lead to a shift in people’s behaviour in terms of plastic consumption if they become aware of the environmental risk of plastics. Using a qualitative review of literature, relevant materials for this paper were identified using a search strategy that involved keywords and databases. Previous empirical studies employed several theoretical frameworks. However, inconsistences in the use and definition of variables, make comparing the results of these studies difficult. Although the literature is growing, more empirical evidence is still needed to understand the drivers of people’s perceptions toward unsustainable environmental behaviour in the context of African countries and to formulate appropriate behavioural change interventions. A review of the literature determined four broad drivers of people’s perceptions toward unsustainable environmental behaviour. These include policy or institutional variables, product and market attributes, community variables, and individual characteristics. Additionally, we offer a consolidated conceptual framework for analysing consumer perception in relation to the use of nondegradable plastics and environmental pollution and identify the drivers of people’s perceptions. Policy implications for developing countries as well as future research directions are flagged.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".