PLASTIC PERCEPTIONS: SURVEYING PUBLIC OPINION OF PLASTIC POLLUTION IN RHODE ISLAND

This research surveyed 200 coastal and noncoastal Rhode Island residents to determine their perceptions of marine plastic debris and their support for plastic and paper bag legislation. The results suggest that one’s residency, or geographic distance from the coast, has no bearing on plastic and paper bag policy support and that most participants, 77%, classify plastic pollution as a serious threat to various types of wildlife, the marine environment, human health, and Rhode Island’s economy. The data also seems to suggest support for a statewide plastic bag ban and a statewide fee of 10 cents on paper bags as a means to address the problem. Approximately 77% of participants support the bag ban while 68% support, or are neutral towards, a statewide paper bag fee of 10 cents. While this research was being completed, Governor Gina Raimondo’s Task Force to Tackle Plastics published its final report in February of 2019 ultimately proposing that the state enact both a statewide ban on single-use plastic bags and a statewide 5 cent fee on recyclable paper bags. Rhode Island Senate bill S0410, the Plastic Waste Reduction Act, was modeled after the final report’s recommendations to the Governor and was introduced on February 27, 2019. The results from this research generally support and endorse the recommendations and S0410. Approximately 86% of participants were also found to be aware of, and 75% were found to be highly knowledgeable of, the severity of this global issue. The high levels of concern, awareness and knowledge are associated with participants’ proecological worldviews measured by the New Ecological Paradigm.

continued to rise, and today, researchers report billions of pounds of plastic can be found in the ocean, making up 40% of the world's ocean surfaces (Center for Biological Diversity, 2018), and outweighing plankton by a ratio of six to one (Moore et al., 2001). Great demand for plastics persists, and continues to increase, due to its versatility, flexibility, strength and relatively inexpensive cost. The attractiveness of plastics, coupled with rising modernization and industrialization around the globe, has generated an international plastic pollution problem whose severity is often invisible to the everyday consumer; meanwhile, large plastic debris degrades fragile ocean habitats, and marine organisms fatally ingest that plastic, sometimes returning microplastics to humans through our diets.
Marine pollution, including plastic pollution, causes several environmental, social and economic issues for coastal communities and animals (Schultz et al., 2013), but since the sources of plastic pollution are expansive and the issues surrounding it are still largely misunderstood, it is often difficult for policy makers and scientists alike to address mitigation of marine plastic pollution. Due to the increasing nature of this global issue, Rhode Island's shores and beaches are among the many coastal areas that could soon be profoundly affected. As a state that relies heavily on coastal tourism throughout the summer months, Rhode Island and its economy could experience negative, financial repercussions if no measures are taken to mitigate plastic pollution inputs into the ocean. Evidence of ocean plastics around Newport, Rhode Island, a significant tourist destination, has already been found by the local non-profit organization Clean Ocean Access. In 2018 alone, the organization reported that over 870 plastic items, including plastic particles, straws, stirrers, caps, lids, beverage bottles and bags, were collected from its Newport harbor marina trash skimmer, one of 4 skimmers on Aquidneck Island. Since 2016, Clean Ocean Access's Newport trash skimmers have removed 18,786 pounds of marine debris, indicating that plastic pollution, among other types of marine debris, are affecting Rhode Island's marinas and coastlines (Kraimer et al., 2019). Therefore, Rhode Islanders' awareness of marine plastic pollution, and their reactions to policies that might help prevent the issue from rising, must be researched in order to best address the problem statewide. In addition, the perceptions of Rhode Island residents from different parts of the state must be explored as some parts of Rhode Island, like Aquidneck Island, already have specific plastic bag legislation enacted, while others, like Providence, have recently rejected similar policies.
This research is particularly timely as Rhode Island's Governor Gina Raimondo established a Task Force to Tackle Plastics in July of 2018 to combat marine plastic pollution. During the course of this research, the Task Force released a report that recommended a series of initiatives to be implemented around the state to mitigate plastic pollution and among these is the S0410 Plastic Waste Reduction Act that, as of April 2019, has been proposed to the Rhode Island state legislature. This act proposes a statewide ban on single-use plastic bags and a statewide 5 cent fee on paper bags, and the research put forth here will help determine whether or not Rhode Islanders support a statewide plastic bag ban among other types of disposable bag legislation.
This paper will present the findings of the investigation into how proximity of residence to, or distance from, the coast affects, or does not affect, Rhode Islanders perceptions and knowledge of marine plastic pollution, and their reception to plastic legislation similar to the ideas proposed in S0410. The second chapter will detail the impacts of marine plastic pollution on wildlife, human beings and coastal tourism in addition to surveying the literature on public attitudes and perceptions, proximity and pro-environmental behavior. The third and fourth chapters will present the methodology and results of the study followed by a discussion of the findings and recommendations for future research and policy implications. The information gathered will be helpful for policy-makers to better understand which policies might be best for Rhode Islanders, at the state or municipal levels, to prevent plastic from entering the marine environment. Mitigating plastic pollution in Rhode Island will help to set an example for plastic policies to be implemented on a larger scale which will decrease marine plastic pollution and its associated negative effects.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND BACKGROUND
This section will explore some of the existing literature on the impacts of plastic pollution to humans, wildlife and coastal economies. It will also provide literature on public attitudes and perceptions, studies of proximity, and pro-environmental behavior, and the hypotheses and research questions for this study will be overviewed.

Impacts of Plastic Pollution
With more than 5 trillion pieces of plastic floating in the world's oceans (Eriksen et al. 2014), many complications arise from plastic pollution, including the widespread, direct and negative effects on both wild and human life. Since many types of plastic pollution take hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of years to decay, fish and wildlife get sick from these plastics they inadvertently ingest (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2012). Consequentially, the toxins from the plastics have entered the food chain and now could threaten human health from the consumption of corrupted fish.
One of the most direct effects on humans derives from the ingestion of sick fish. A scientific team from the College of Pharmacy at Nihon University in Japan found that degrading plastics leach potentially toxic chemicals, like bisphenol A, into the seas (Saido, 2009). According to lead researcher Katsuhiko Saido, the team found derivatives of polystyrene, Styrofoam and DVD cases in the water samples it collected from the US, Europe, India, Japan and other sites. Although scientists had previously thought plastics broke down only at very high temperatures over hundreds of years, this research team found that "plastic breaks down at cooler temperatures than expected, and within a year of the trash hitting the water" (Saido, 2009). When plastic breaks down and releases harmful chemicals into the ocean, these chemicals harm the marine life that human beings consume as seafood and can easily progress through the food chain. According to Charles Moore (2008), an oceanographer and chemist at the Algalita Marine Research Foundation, "Pollutants also become more concentrated as animals eat other contaminated animals-which could be bad news for us, the animals at the top of the food chain". Some of these pollutants include polyethylene and polypropylene, which can affect many organisms (Galgani et al., 1996). Rochman et al. also found anthropogenic debris in over half of the species they purchased or collected from the fish market and noted that there is great concern over chemicals from debris that could be transferred to humans through biomagnification (2015).
Plastics might also endanger human lives since they absorb dangerous, highly toxic pollutants like PCBs, DDT and PAH that have a wide range of chronic effects, including endocrine disruption and cancer-causing mutations. The Center for Biological Diversity (2018) reports that animals absorb these toxins when they eat plastics, causing their eventual progression up the food chain and hazardous effects on humans. For example, a study by Moore on the ingestion of microplastics by filter feeders raises concerns over biomagnification: filter feeders, some of which are at the bottom of the marine food chain, ingest plastics, which could then cause the chemicals within plastics, including hydrophobic pollutants, to move up the food chain (Moore, 2008). It is noted in many studies, however, that more research is needed on plastics and microplastics to determine the long-term effects on humans (Moore, 2008;Rochman et al., 2015;Taylor et al., 2016). Although research on the associated health effects on humans from plastic chemicals is far from conclusive, since it is very difficult for scientists to control for the multitude of variables involved in health studies, the existing data on chemicals leached by plastic pollution suggests that plastic could potentially affect, and harm, human lives in the future.
In the ocean, plastic debris also negatively affects wildlife as it injures and kills fish, marine mammals, and seabirds. The most visible environmental impact of plastic pollution on wildlife is the harming and killing of marine organisms through entanglement and ingestion. After reviewing 280 papers on entanglement in and ingestion of marine debris, the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2012), reported that all marine litter, not just plastic, has impacted 663 species, and more than half of impacted species ingested, or were entangled by plastic. Among the wildlife affected are multiple endangered species, like Pacific loggerhead sea turtles, that eat and become entangled in plastic bags since they resemble jellyfish in the midocean (Moore, 2008).
Plastic pollution on beaches can also pose social and economic issues for beach goers as it is aesthetically unpleasing. Studies conducted by Iñiguez, Conesa, and Fullana (2016) and Sheavly and Register (2007) indicate that the aesthetic of any marine debris floating in the water and washing up on beaches can discourage visitation to coastal areas, which affects local economies that depend on tourism and recreation. The local economies of coastal communities might also be negatively impacted by the aesthetics of plastic pollution since litter deters visitors from beaches and more frequent cleanups are required to maintain optimal levels of tourism and recreation (Sheavly and Register, 2007). The presence of plastic debris on beaches then also increases the collection and total disposal cost of beach litter for coastal communities, which negatively affects their economies (Muñoz-Cadena et al., 2012).
Californian communities experienced some of the detriments of plastic pollution prior to enacting a statewide plastic bag ban in November 2016. According to California's Secretary for Natural Resources John Laird, up until 2017 "every Californian, on average, used about 400 plastic bags a year, forcing the state to spend an estimated $400 million -or roughly $10 per resident -every year trying to clean them up" (ctd. In Mercury News, 2017). As Rhode Island is comprised of many coastal communities, the aesthetic impacts of plastic pollution alone might be enough to severely impede the state's tourism industry.

Public Attitudes and Perceptions
Although there exists very little literature regarding perceptions of marine plastic pollution specifically, public attitudes surrounding environmental issues and pro-environmental behaviors have been thoroughly studied. Survey work conducted by Slavin et al. (2012) on the linkages of social drivers of marine debris and actual quantities of marine debris on beaches has found that residency, income, age and gender influence littering behavior, which is reflected in the amount of debris detected on Tasmanian beaches. Although the researchers involved in this study hypothesized that participants "would not acknowledge that marine debris was a pressing issue, and hence their actions would reflect littering behaviors" (2012, p. 1584) they found to the contrary that a majority of participants acknowledge that marine debris is a pressing issue, and report that they do not litter while at the beach; presumably to keep more debris from entering the ocean. This perception of marine debris as a threat to marine and coastal environments is reflected in other studies (for instance Jedrezejczak, 2004;Scott and Parsons, 2005;Fletcher et al., 2009) indicating that many individuals are aware that their actions contribute to the marine debris issue.
Although little research has been published concerning coastal perception, many studies focused on hazard perception of climate change and oil spills can be applied to perception of plastics pollution research, as plastic debris on the coasts can be considered hazardous. In Brody et al.'s (2007) study of public perceptions of climate change, researchers correlated physical distance to shore with their own measure of perceived vulnerability in a national U.S. data set. In this study, they found a very small but significant correlation of perceived vulnerability to physical distance.
However, physical vulnerability accounted for only 4% of the variance in perceived vulnerability. Burroughs' and Dyer's (1996) place-based research on public perceptions of the Rhode Island oil spill, on the other hand, found comparable opinions, anger and concern towards the oil spill, "despite geographic separation and disparate cultural settings."

Proximity
Proximity is the degree of closeness that one feels towards another entity in space, time or relationships (Li, Luo, & Qin, 2013). This concept is applied with cultural, social, psychological and physical contexts but, for the purpose of this study, will only be examined within the physical dimension. Physically, proximity is the distance between two regions or locations and multiple studies have been conducted to determine the effects of proximity on pro-environmental behavior. In a 2013 study by Li, Luo and Qin, the researchers found that higher degrees of physical proximity to areas of environmental pollution, like the heavily polluted Xiangjiang River, had "significant positive effects on individuals' environmental protection behavior" (p. 663). The researchers involved in this study defined high proximity as a place "very close" to the participants and ultimately found that the closer an individual lives to a polluted area, the more likely the individual was to engage in pro-environmental behaviors, like holding oneself accountable for the pollution in that area (Li, Luo, & Qin, 2013, p. 666).
Environmental psychologists support this notion that location, place and space can influence environmental protection. Many experts in this field hypothesize that proximity and exposure to natural features, like wildlife habitat or water bodies, may be important factors in forming an individual's understanding, and views toward, the quality of the surrounding natural environment (Brody, Highfield, & Alston, 2004 perceptions of the environment in that those residents who lived closer to the polluted Salado and Leon Creeks were more likely to believe that it was unsafe for human use and consumption by livestock (p. 242). The study also found that those who lived closer to the creeks were more familiar with them and were significantly more likely to believe the water was polluted (p. 244). It is worth noting that these perceptions were consistent with the TNRCC's views on the safety of these creeks from the year 2000. Research has also found that proximity to coasts specifically affects climate change beliefs. Results from a Milfont et al. (2014) study of New Zealanders found that distance from the coast significantly predicted decreased levels of belief in climate change. Proximity to the coast was associated with increased belief that climate change is real and increased support for government regulation of carbon emissions and other similar policies (Milfont et al., 2014).
Findings from these studies on proximity and environmental protection and behavior suggest that the perceptions of Rhode Island coastal residents will differ from those who live inland, and that coastal residents might be more aware and concerned of the plastic pollution issue.

Pro-Environmental Behavior
The reasoning behind pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors has also been heavily researched since the dawn of environmental psychology in the 1960s.
According to Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002), multiple theoretical frameworks have been formulated to help explain the gap of knowledge between environmental awareness and pro-environmental behavior, including the US linear progression models of the 1960s, prosocial behavior models and sociological models.  (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). Although many models have been created to explain the gap between attitudes and actions, all have been found to only have some degree of validity in certain circumstances and none are able to singlehandedly predict behavior with success. This implies that no single framework can fully incorporate all the factors that shape and influence proenvironmental behavior since there are many conflicting factors that sway humans' attitudes and actions (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002).
What makes people care about the environment is a complex topic that scientists continue to research. Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) argue that some of the most influential factors of pro-environmental behavior are demographics, external factors (e.g. institutional, economic and social) and internal factors like motivation, environmental knowledge, values, and awareness. Many theories only examine proenvironmental behavior or environmentalism in terms of people's values. A wide range of studies over the past 30 years has found that multiple values and views affect an individual's concern for the environment including the belief that the environment is sacred (Dietz et al., 1998ctd. In Stern, 2000, an individual's propensity to be sympathetic to others (Allen & Ferrand, 1999ctd. In Stern, 2000), or one's affinity towards nature (Kals, Schumacher & Montada, 1999ctd. In Stern, 2000). Although a range of complex factors has been found to influence proenvironmental attitudes and behavior and although the interconnectedness of these ideas is still not fully understood, these relationships must be considered in order to advance environmental protection.
One way to measure pro-environmental behavior is by utilizing the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale. Originally created as the New Environmental Paradigm in 1978 by Dunlap and Van Liere, the NEP scale is one of the most widely used measures of environmental attitudes towards environmental issues and policies and advocacy efforts to address them (Hawcroft & Milfont, 2010;Dunlap, 2008). The NEP scale is used to understand a person's broader environmental worldview, which can help to determine whether or not he or she may engage in certain proenvironmental behaviors. This measure has become a common predictor in environmental behavior studies (Wynveen, Kyle & Sutton, 2014;Brick & Lewis, 2016;Barr, 2007) and Boubonari, Markos and Kevrekidis found in 2013 that a higher NEP score resulted in stronger pro-environmental behavior towards marine pollution in general.

Hypotheses and Research Questions
A substantial body of research has been conducted on the detriments of plastic pollution, and public attitudes and perceptions of marine debris and hazards to the natural environment. Theories of prosocial behavior have also been developed to better understand which elements invoke concern for the environment. Further study of the linkages between varying groups' perceptions of the Rhode Island coast and marine plastic pollution and the reasons behind these perceptions will ultimately lead to a better understanding of local policy implications and management outcomes concerning this extensive issue.
After exploring the literature, multiple hypotheses might be drawn to help answer the main research question due to the complexity of the issue. For instance, Burroughs' and Dyer's (1996) study Perceptions of the Rhode Island Oil Spill found that "…communities that are seasonally connected to resources, even though not geographically proximate, can also perceive threats to resources at levels equal to those living near the resource base" (p. 13). To the contrary, other studies have shown that proximity to forms of land or air pollution negatively affects perception of water pollution (Shi, 2012). Therefore inland residents who might be more subjected to viewing trash or plastic on the streets, instead of the beaches, could hold less severe opinions of marine plastic pollution than those of the coastal residents.
Having reviewed and considered the aforementioned literature, the hypothesis for this research is that "H1: Residents from coastal areas of Rhode Island more negatively perceive marine plastic pollution since they live closer to the coast," and "H2: Coastal residents are more aware of the severity of the issue." Finally, "H3: The perceptions from coastal and inland residents will differ from each other." This study seeks to answer the primary question, "How does proximity to the coast affect Rhode Islanders' perceptions of plastic pollution and associated policies?" This research will identify whether or not a Rhode Island resident's immediacy to the coast affects his or her perception of marine plastic pollution. This study will specifically try to answer the sub research questions: "How aware/how knowledgeable are Rhode Island residents of the marine plastic pollution issue?" "Do Rhode Islanders classify marine plastic pollution as a significant threat to human health, the marine environment or the local economy?" "Do Rhode Islanders support plastic legislation?" "Do Rhode Islanders already participate in pro-environmental behavior related to mitigating plastic pollution?" This study seeks to answer these questions and evaluate whether or not the answers are statistically related to Rhode Islanders' places of residency.

Research Design
An intercept survey of closed-ended questions was conducted at 2 locations in Rhode Island in order to study various Rhode Islanders' perceptions and knowledge of and concern about marine plastic pollution. After being approached and agreeing to complete the survey, participants were given the option to either be read the questions and answers and have their answers selected for them on an IPad or privately take the survey themselves. To maintain the validity of the study, the 2 research locations were split between coastal and noncoastal environments to produce a more balanced data set, which more accurately represents the state's geographic diversity. A total sample size of 200 responses was collected between both locations. Once the data set was compiled, it was downloaded from Kobo Toolbox, the online survey tool used to collect data and entered into the statistical software SPSS. Analyses were conducted amongst variables to explore potential associations and patterns within the data.
Participants were asked 18 questions that measured their proximity to the coast, their awareness and knowledge of marine plastic pollution along with their concern for the issue. They were also asked if they engage in pro-environmental behaviors like recycling or non-environmental behaviors like purchasing bottled water and using plastic bags from the grocery store. Participants also had to provide their support or opposition for 6 policy initiatives that could be introduced at the state or municipal levels and rate their agreement on statements taken from the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP). The NEP was included in this survey to control for ecological worldview in regression analyses. Finally, age, gender, income range and education level were gathered to gain insight into the demographics of the sample. The survey itself can be found in Appendix A.

Data Analysis
After downloading an Excel file of respondents' answers from Kobo Toolbox, all answers were coded for the initial statistical analyses. The responses to each question were coded with numbers ranging from 1 to 8 based on the order and quantity of the response options. In other words, the first response was coded 1, the second coded 2 etc. However, not all numbers from 1 to 8 were used as codes for every question's responses since not all questions had 8 responses. For instance, if there were only 4 responses to a question then only the numbers 1 through 4 were used.
These codes were only used initially to run frequency and descriptive statistics on each individual question and they are especially appropriate for the questions with Likert scale response options that become increasingly positive from strongly disagree to strongly agree. It is worth noting that the zip code responses were not coded in this manner and their coding will be detailed further. A table of all codes can be found in Appendix B.
All zip codes provided by respondents were recorded in the researcher's spreadsheet of codes and then researched to determine which cities or towns they correspond to. These locations were then documented in the spreadsheet as well and each city or town was given a code of 1, 2 or 3. All zip codes that border the Atlantic coast and lower Narragansett Bay, south of East Greenwich and Bristol, were considered "coastal" towns or cities and were coded with a 1. The zip codes that border the upper Narragansett Bay were deemed "upper bay" and coded with a 2.
Finally, all other zip codes in Rhode Island were considered "inland" and coded with a 3. Although this research initially aimed to test the perceptions of coastal and inland residents, it was very difficult to define where a "coastal" resident lives in a state that has over 400 miles of coastline. Many participants who live in Warwick, East Greenwich, Providence, Cranston and Pawtucket considered themselves coastal residents since they live close to bodies of water like Greenwich Bay and the Providence River. Therefore, it was determined by the researcher that those who live around upper Narragansett Bay should be considered a separate category from the "inland" residents who live in zip codes that do not surround any bodies of water and the "coastal" residents who reside in zip codes that surround the lower Narragansett and either loosely define it, or do not define it all, the researcher chose to use the aforementioned RIDEM definition to determine the zip codes that border upper Narragansett Bay. All zip codes and their respective codes for statistical analyses, either "coastal," "upper Bay" or "inland," can be found in Appendix B and a map of Rhode Island's zip codes with these respective classifications can be found in Appendix C.
For regression analyses, additional codes were used to create average, index and dummy variables within SPSS. To measure ecological worldview, policy support and concern, each participant's Likert scale responses to these questions were averaged. Running Cronbach's alpha tests for reliability gave the values .761, .889 and .893 for ecological worldview (NEP score), policy support and concern, respectively.
To measure knowledge about marine plastic pollution, correct responses to each true or false statement in question 7 were added together to create an index variable. For some questions, dummy variables had to be created in order to control for a particular response. For gender, awareness of plastic pollution, plastic bag usage, bottled water purchases, recycling and zip code dummy variables were created and the codes for these variables, and their reference categories, can be found in Appendix B. Before creating dummy variables for plastic bag usage and bottled water purchases, however, the responses to these questions, 8 and 12, needed to be recoded so that the 1s corresponded to pro-environmental behaviors to measure whether or not the proenvironmental behaviors not using plastic bags and not purchasing bottled water affected the dependent variables.

Profile of Survey Respondents
Of the 200 people surveyed, 72 of the participants were male while the remaining 128 were female leading to a skewed perspective. Those surveyed ranged from 18, the minimum age required to participate, to over 75 years old. It can be seen in Table 1 below that almost one fourth of participants were between 55 and 64 years old, closely followed by the 25 -34 years old age group and the 65 -74 years old group. 50.5% of participants were 54 years or younger and 49.5% were aged 55 and above, indicating a stronger prevalence of older residents than younger. The combined household income levels of respondents can be seen in Table 2 below. Most participants, 45.5%, come from homes that make less than $100,000 per year, 41.5% make greater than that, 12.5% did not wish to report their income and 1 participant did not answer the question. A bar chart of the percentages can also be seen in Figure 1 on the following page.

Figure 1: Bar Chart of Percentages of Respondents' Household Income Level
Education level frequencies are seen in Table 3 below and it is worth noting that nearly half of respondents, 44.5%, have graduate or professional degrees, 80.5% have at least a bachelor's degree and no respondents had less than a high school diploma.  Finally, the frequencies of participants' estimates of how far they live from the coast can be seen on the following page in Table 5. 1 respondent did not answer this question.

Hypotheses Tests
This section summarizes the results of statistical analyses that ultimately tested whether or not zip code, distance from the coast, and other independent variables, affect knowledge and awareness of and concern for marine plastic pollution. To begin the analyses, the first hypothesis, "Residents from coastal areas of Rhode Island more negatively perceive marine plastic pollution since they live closer to the coast," was tested by comparing the means for the variable "concern." It is important to note that the tests detailed in this section only constitute a preliminary analysis and results from regression analyses to test the aforementioned variables for statistical significance will be provided in section 4.3. As previously stated in the Methodology section, "concern" was measured by creating an average score for each participant of the Likert scale ratings they provided for each item in question 6. Since the Cronbach's alpha for these "concern" items is .893, creating an average "concern" score was a feasible calculation for this data set. Participants were asked to rate how much of a threat they believe plastic pollution poses to the marine environment, marine wildlife, terrestrial wildlife, human health and the local economy. The highest concern score an individual could have was a 5, indicating that plastic pollution is "very serious" to all items, and the lowest was a 1 signifying plastic pollution is "not at all serious" to all items.
The mean concern scores for coastal, upper Bay and inland residents can be seen in Table 6 below. While the coastal residents do have a higher mean, and therefore appear to more negatively perceive plastic pollution and how it affects the marine environment, marine wildlife, terrestrial wildlife, human health and the economy, the mean is not substantially higher than the Upper Bay residents' or inland residents' mean concern scores. In addition, a one-way ANOVA test between concern and zip code regions gave a p value of .11, indicating that the means across zip code groups are not statistically different from each other. In the regression that tested concern against all other independent variables, results seen below in tables 13 and 14, individuals' NEP and knowledge scores and their propensity to donate to environmental organizations were found to be significant predictors of concern but residency did not. The second hypothesis, "Coastal residents are more aware of the severity of the issue," was then tested by looking at each zip code groups' responses to question 5, which asked whether or not they had heard of marine plastic pollution prior to taking the survey. This question was asked to determine if they were aware of the issue and by viewing Table 7 below, it appears that more coastal residents had heard of the issue prior to taking the survey than upper Bay or inland residents. However, it is difficult to further test statistical difference in these means due to the small amount of participants that said they had not heard of plastic pollution, or that they did not know whether they had heard of the issue. The frequencies of the responses to the awareness question can be seen in Table 8. Due to little variance in the awareness variable, 86% of the sample indicated they were aware of the issue, further statistical tests could not be run and it is difficult to determine if one group is more aware than another.  The second hypothesis was also tested by comparing the knowledge scores of coastal, upper Bay and inland residents. The knowledge scores are indexes of each participants' responses to the 6 true or false statements provided in question 7. Since H2 seeks to study how aware residents are of the severity of marine plastic pollution, and not just whether they were previously aware of the issue, it was determined by the researcher that the means for the knowledge question should also be looked at to test this hypothesis. As can be seen in Table 9 below, the upper Bay residents have a higher average knowledge score, therefore, they are presumed to be the most knowledgeable about plastic pollution and its effects on the environment. However, a one-way ANOVA test between knowledge scores and zip codes groups found that these means are not statistically different from each other as the p value was .15.
Therefore, it cannot be determined from this sample which group is truly more knowledgeable about marine plastic pollution. Since it is difficult to say which zip code group is more knowledgeable or aware about plastic pollution, the researcher wondered whether there was a discrepancy between her classification of coastal residency and participants' idea of what it means to be "coastal." This was asked of participants in question 4 and it can be seen in  The third hypothesis was not supported in that all the aforementioned means for concern, awareness and knowledge across zip code groups were not significantly different from each other. Therefore, these results suggest that the individuals sampled from coastal, upper Bay and inland areas have similar perceptions of plastic pollution, and H3 is not supported.

Main Research Question
The main research question, "How does proximity to the coast affect Rhode The regression tested the policy support average scores against all independent variables surveyed, including: gender, income, age, education level, residency (coastal, upper bay area or inland based on the zip codes they provided), the number of beach visits in a year, New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) score, knowledge score, concern score, awareness of plastic issue, and engagement in the pro-environmental behaviors recycling, not buying bottled water, not using single-use plastic bags from the grocery store, and donating to an environmental organization. The output can be seen below. It should be noted that alpha was .05 for all regression analyses and that dummy variables were created for both coastal and upper Bay residents. The results can be seen in Tables 11 and 12.  The only statistically significant variables found to influence policy support are age (p = .014), NEP score (p = .039), not purchasing bottled water (p = .040), not using plastic bags (p = .001) and the concern score (p = .000). Residency, i.e. zip code classification, had no statistically significant effect on policy support. Therefore, it can be deduced that part of the answer to the primary research question is "geographic proximity to the coast does not affect Rhode Islanders' perceptions of policies associated with plastics." It is also worth noting that the only demographics variable with any significance is age and with a negative correlation coefficient indicates that older individuals might not favor policies as much as younger people do. After finding statistically significant relationships between the indicated covariates and policy support, regression analyses were performed that tested NEP score, bottled water use, plastic bag use and concern as dependent variables, against all independent variables listed in the above section, to learn which parameters might affect these influencers of policy support. Age was not tested. The results from the concern regression are provided below, as it was the only test that yielded unexpected findings that differ from the literature on pro-environmental attitudes and behavior. Only the statistically significant variables are provided in Table 14.
It seems that a participant's NEP score, knowledge score and propensity to donate to environmental organizations have slightly significant effects on concern for the marine environment, marine and terrestrial wildlife, human health and the local economy. What is particularly noteworthy is that the knowledge score from the true or false questions is negatively correlated with concern, potentially implying that educational programs to increase knowledge about plastic pollution might not be the most effective measure to mitigate plastic pollution in Rhode Island. In addition to the regression findings, it was calculated that most respondents, 77%, are concerned about plastic pollution to the degree that they classify it as a "serious" or "very serious" threat to the environment, wildlife, health and Rhode Island's economy.

Sub Research Questions
The first sub research question that was asked was, "How aware/how knowledgeable are Rhode Island residents of the marine plastic pollution issue?" By looking at the table of crosstabulation below it is clear that, as a whole, survey participants are highly knowledgeable about marine plastic pollution. From here it can be seen that at least 75% of all participants got at least 5 of the 6 true or false questions correct and 94% of the sample got at least 4 correct.
A multiple linear regression test was then performed on the knowledge score to learn about which variables might associate with knowledge since much of the surveyed population got high knowledge scores. The results of this test can be seen below. After all independent variables were tested in the model, gender, awareness of plastic pollution, NEP score and concern were found to be significant predictors of knowledge. It appears that women got more answers correct on the knowledge questions that tested how much individuals know about plastic pollution and how it affects the environment. It is also interesting to note that awareness and NEP score are both positively correlated with knowledge but concern is negatively correlated.  To answer this question, the researcher also looked at the question that asked participants whether or not they had heard of marine plastic pollution prior to taking the survey. This question was asked in order to test "awareness" and it was found 86% of the surveyed population knew of this issue before taking the survey. Since awareness did not affect policy support, further analyses into which covariates affect the variable were not conducted.
The next question that was tested was, "Do Rhode Islanders classify marine plastic pollution as a significant threat to human health, the marine environment or the local economy?" Although a one-way ANOVA test between zip code categories and concern did not indicate statistically significant differences in concern means, overall Rhode Islanders across zip code categories seem very concerned about plastic and its effects. This result is evident in the magnitude of the means for each zip code group's concern for human health, the marine environment and the local economy.
Below are the means for the threat to human health question for each zip code group. The means are all very high in magnitude, which indicates that the survey respondents classify plastic as a serious threat to human health, as opposed to a very serious threat which would be denoted by a 5. Below are the means for the threat to the marine environment question for each zip code group. All the means are very high indicating that most survey respondents classify plastic as a serious or very serious threat to the marine environment. The means for the threat to the local economy question for each zip code group can be seen below. All the means are high indicating that most survey respondents classify plastic as a serious threat to the local economy. It is also important to note that the mean concern for the local economy is lower for each zip code group than they were for the marine environment and human health. The next sub question that was tested was, "Do Rhode Islanders support plastic legislation?" To answer this, the mean of the policy support score for the whole dataset was calculated. The mean was 3.7576, which indicates more support than opposition as a whole since the highest average could have been 6. It was also found that 48% of participants scored a 4.0 or above indicating that almost half of the sample supports a majority of the policies proposed. The individual policies proposed in the survey were then examined to learn about which policies in particular got the most support from respondents. By looking at the means in the table below it is clear that the town and state plastic bag bans received the most support. The fees are less popular. More specifically, it was found that 77% of the total population supports a statewide plastic bag ban and 68% is neutral towards or supportive of a statewide 10 cent fee on paper bags.  The next question that was examined was, "Do Rhode Islanders already participate in pro-environmental behavior related to mitigating plastic pollution?" To answer this question, participants were asked whether or not they recycle, purchase bottled water and use plastic bags. Recycling is considered a pro-environmental behavior but using plastic bottles and bags are not, therefore, not engaging in these behaviors is considered pro-environmental. The percentages of answers to these questions, for all participants, can be seen in the table below. The average policy support score of the surveyed population indicated more support than opposition towards the policies presented in the survey and it is also interesting to note that plastic bag bans, at both the town and state levels, were the policies most supported by the surveyed population. This data suggests that wealthier and more educated Rhode Islanders across the state might support a statewide plastic bag ban since geographical location does not affect one's support for plastic bag policies.
What was found to predict support for policies were NEP score, i.e. proecological world view, age, plastic bottle and bag use and concern over how plastic affects the marine environment, different types of wildlife, human health and the local economy. These findings are not surprising, as many studies have found that older individuals are less likely to be supportive of environmental policies, and that those who have pro-environmental attitudes or engage in pro-environmental behaviors are more likely to support environmental policy. The idea that ecological worldview affects support for pro-environmental policies or initiatives has also been found in a  The bill, as well as the recommendation to the Governor, defines what constitutes a banned plastic or paper bag (banned paper bags include those that are not recyclable and usually given by restaurants) and what is an acceptable, reusable alternative.
There are numerous types of plastic bags that still are not banned by this legislation, however. Some of the exclusions include "bags used…to package loose items, such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, ground coffee, grains, candies, or small hardware items," "bags used to contain unwrapped prepared foods or bakery goods," "laundry, dry cleaning, or garment bags…" and "bags used to contain live animals, such as fish or insects sold in pet stores" among others (RIDEM, 2019). These exclusions are among some of the concerns of a few Task Force members. Another concern noted within the report is the fact that the proposed bill would override existing municipal bans. Some Task Force members offered the opinion that local leaders should be able to create more stringent requirements and they only advocate for a statewide ban if it is more rigorous than all of the existing bans throughout the state (RIDEM, 2019). Other Task Force members advocated for a harsher definition of reusable alternatives that includes "requirements for stitched handles" since many areas around the US that have enacted bag bans have seen retailers turn to reusable plastic bags (RIDEM, 2019). If a requirement for stitched handles existed, a feature not compatible with plastic bags, then this would help eliminate the potential for stores to get away with selling thicker polyethylene bags as "reusable alternatives," when they are still in fact non-recyclable, single-use plastic bags. Some Task Force members also hoped that polyester would be excluded from the definition of reusable bags since it is another form of plastic. These concerns over semantics within the legislation have been voiced in order to decrease the potential for any loopholes that could be taken advantage of by retailers in the future and allow more plastic bags to enter the marine environment.

Limitations
It is worth noting that this study had multiple limitations and that the equity of plastic bag bans and paper bag fees needs to be considered before these are enacted at

Policy Alternatives and Recommendations
This study suggests that some Rhode Islanders support plastic bag bans at the state and municipal levels and plastic and paper bag fees and that the passing of S0410 would be consistent with the policy support of the 200 survey respondents. Although municipal bans were also highly supported by participants, a statewide ban could prevent more plastic bags from entering the marine environment than a few municipal bans. A statewide ban will also make implementation and enforcement more consistent, especially for chain stores that have used plastic bags in the past. Fees on paper bags, to discourage their use since they are resource intensive to produce, are also encouraged to promote the utilization of reusable bags.
This study proposes new policy as the best chance to mitigate plastic pollution in Rhode Island and rejects educational programs to invoke behavior change. The latter are often suggested in the literature regarding marine plastic pollution or proenvironmental behavior and recommended by the Governor's Task Force. (Ajaps & McLellan, 2015;Hunter & Rinner, 2003;RIDEM, 2019;Wynveen et. al, 2015). The results of this study, seen in Table 14, suggest that knowledge of marine plastic pollution and concern over its affects on the environment, human health and the local economy are negatively correlated; implying here that the more knowledgeable one is about the issue, the less concern he or she has over plastic's effects. These findings are consistent with Barber et al.'s 2009 study that found a negative relationship between environmental knowledge and attitudes towards environmental issues. Therefore, it seems counterintuitive to initiate educational programs that seek to increase Rhode Islanders' knowledge or awareness of marine plastic pollution, especially since this study found that participants are already both knowledgeable and aware of the issue.
Also, many studies have already found that education alone is seldom enough to promote behavior change (Geller, 1992) and that people often persist in old patterns of behavior despite awareness of the negative consequences for the environment and the presence of alternatives (Bolderdijk et al., 2012).
There are often multiple barriers to any behavior change, which can prevent people from acting pro environmentally. This is often the case regarding using reusable bags. Without bans to keep plastic bags out of stores in the first place, some individuals find that using reusable bags, or remembering to bring them, is inconvenient. In a 2017 study by the Ohio Sea Grant and Stone Laboratory, researchers found that the most common reason people do not use reusable bags is because they forget them and then feel they need the plastic bags provided to them at the store (Hardy & Bartolotta, 2017). For many individuals, using reusable bags requires more planning, like keeping bags in the car or at workplaces, and increased maintenance, like having to wash the bags to prevent bacterial growth. This makes the case for plastic bag bans or other policies that keep plastics out of stores, since without plastic bags in the stores in the first place, consumers will not have this option to fall back on if they forget their reusable bags, thus decreasing potential plastic outputs to the ocean.
Taxes and fees on plastic and paper bags are other examples of bag policies that have been initiated across the United States. Figure 2 below depicts the states with enacted plastic bag legislation. It is interesting to note that some states have enacted preemption laws at the state level that prevent local governments within those states from banning or taxing plastic bags. The efficacy and equity of statewide plastic bag bans and fees on paper bags will be examined in the following sections. Final policy recommendations will then be provided and future research into how Rhode Islanders perceive plastic bottle bans will also be proposed as another type of policy that could prevent other plastics from entering the marine environment.

Effectiveness of Statewide Plastic Bag Bans
In August of 2014 California became the first state to impose a statewide ban on single-use plastic bags in retail stores. The bill also required a 10-cent minimum fee on recycled paper bags, reusable plastic bags, and compostable bags at certain Although there is limited data on the success and equity of Hawaii's bans, it was public knowledge that many environmental groups and other stakeholders opposed Honolulu's initial ban that allowed thicker, reusable plastic bags and compostable plastic bags to still be available at businesses (Honolulu's Department of Environmental Services, 2017). Surfrider also reported that local residents had noted an increase in paper bag use after the Honolulu ban was first passed in April 2012 (Hickman & Coleman, 2012). Since this ban was instated, however, amendments have been made that now require consumers to pay a 15-cent fee on reusable and compostable plastic bags and recyclable paper bags. Also, effective January 1, 2020, plastic film bags with a thickness of 10 millimeters or less shall no longer be considered "Reusable Bags" and compostable plastic bags will no longer be The California bag ban has proven effective and efficient in that it has curbed plastic bag usage and kept it from polluting the environment. This policy, however, may not be equitable for all stakeholders since retailers have to pay higher prices for paper bags to replace the single-use plastic bags. Disadvantaged members of certain communities may have also suffered from the legislating of the ban since they may have been forced to buy reusable bags they could not afford. This law is also enforceable at the county, city and state levels since violations can be reported to the General's Office, they "may be fined $1,000 per day for the first violation, $2,000 per day for the second violation, and $5,000 per day for the third and subsequent violations" (2019). Since there are penalties in place for violating the statewide California ban, this policy seems to have sufficient enforcement mechanisms but it may not be the most equitable solution because of how detrimental the large fees could be to smaller, local businesses. It should be noted, however, that the California ban requires stores to provide a reusable grocery bag or a recycled paper bag free of charge to customers using a WIC or EBT payment card (CalRecycle, 2018) making the policy more equitable to residents of lower income. Similar stipulations could also be instituted as part of a statewide ban in Rhode Island to increase legislation's equitability.

Effectiveness of Paper Bag Fees and Taxes
Throughout the United States, municipalities have initiated legislation to charge consumers on paper bag usage. Towns and cities throughout California, Arizona, Alaska, Colorado, Washington DC, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Washington, and Boston and Chicago have passed fees or taxes on paper bags to discourage their consumption. Taxes collected from paper bag sales are usually collected by the state or town's government, while individual retailers collect and keep paper bag fees. Since paper bags are highly resource intensive to manufacture, and sometimes difficult to industrially recycle, they are not the most ecologically responsible alternative to single-use plastic bags.
Although there is limited data on the reductions in paper bag use since the aforementioned areas enacted paper bag legislation, there is evidence in the social science literature that when taxes and fees on plastic bags are framed as "penalties," shoppers are more motivated to bring reusable bags (Muralidharan & Sheehan, 2016;Dikgang & Visser, 2012). Muralidharan and Sheehan also found that not only does the prospect of a tax or fee increase the potential for pro-environmental behavior, in this case reusable bag use, but that both 10-cent penalties were perceived differently by shoppers as fees are considered "gains" in economics while taxes are framed as losses (2016). These researchers therefore recommended a tax as a penalty to more effectively motivate consumers to bring reusable bags from grocery stores and skip plastic bags. The findings from these studies support the Rhode Island Task Force's stipulation for a fee on paper bags but a tax, instead of a fee, could perhaps enhance the current proposed legislation since the penalty it implies could better motivate consumers to switch to reusable bags. In Rhode Island, taxes or fees on paper bags could be considered, and are encouraged by the findings of this research, to deter consumers from seeking paper bags as alternatives to single-use plastics.
There is also evidence, however, that paper bag penalties might not actually decrease bag use as effectively as proponents might hope. A Washington Post article from 2015 highlights Washington DC's revenue from plastic and paper bag fees after the initiation of these fees in 2010. Washington DC City Councilman David Greenfield told the Post that from 2010 to 2015 revenue from plastic and paper bags in DC actually had not decreased in the 5 years since the fees were put in place and said, "What that means, logically, is that people are still paying to use [disposable] bags, and therefore you have not significantly reduced that" (Brittain & Rich, 2015).
Although this indicates that people were still paying for bags and potentially not making the switch to reusable alternatives, former DC council member Tommy Wells, who created the law in 2009, believes that the fees have been "extraordinarily successful," and substantiates this claim by pointing to the Alice Ferguson Foundation's report that found a 60 percent decrease in bags recovered in volunteer cleanups of the Potomac Watershed (Brittain & Rich, 2015). Since it is difficult to obtain quantitative metrics of the paper bag fee and tax successes or failures, this policy alone might not prove the most environmentally conscious for Rhode Islanders to decrease disposable bag waste and increase reusable bag use. This study did find, however, that participants were, overall, supportive of 10-cent fees on paper bags at the town and state levels. These results, coupled with the successes of fees and taxes as message frames to increase reusable bag use, make the case for Rhode Island to implement similar policies on paper bags in addition to a statewide plastic bag ban.

Effectiveness of the Combination of Ban and Fee
While these policies have helped curb behavior in some parts of the world, not all bans, at the state and municipal, and taxes have proven as effective as desired. In some places, the failures of fees and bans are due to the lack of social campaigns, while in others consumers are still willing to pay for convenience (Anastasio & Nix, 2016). Also, some policies are not comprehensive enough to fully mitigate marine plastic pollution because they contain loopholes. For instance, certain bans do not distinguish between the types of plastic bags banned, like other non-biodegradable plastic bags or thicker plastic bags like those previously mentioned in Hawaii. Also, some legislation fails to tax paper bags, which become substitute litter products (Anastasio & Nix, 2016). Due to the inadequacies of these types of regulations, it seems that a combination of policies are the plausible way forward to work together to change consumer behavior and hopefully incentivize industry to innovate and create a plastic bag free market.
Since taxes and fees have the potential for success in developed countries (Xanthos & Walker,22)  It should be noted that Santa Monica charges a 10-cent fee on paper bags, while San Jose charged 10 cents per bag until 2014 when it increased the fee to 25 cents, and Los Angeles' fees are at the discretion of the retailer, but must be at least 10 cents (Equinox Center, 2013). It can be seen in Figure 3 below that after the ordinances took effect significant increases in paper and reusable bags were experienced. Under these ordinances retailers retained fees collected for paper bags to partially recover the cost of purchasing more paper bags. Although policies like these may lead to increased baggage costs for retailers in the short-term, these costs can be mitigated in the long run if customers purchase their own reusable bags from those same businesses. This takes into account the fact that retailers will initially incur higher costs switching from plastic to paper bags if fees are only 10 cents since paper bags, on average, cost 15 cents per bag. With its "phased in" fee, the initial fee of 10 cents increased to 25 cents after two years, San Jose actually profited from the

Future Research -Plastic Bottle Bans
Other studies into Rhode Islanders' support for other types of policies against plastics are strongly encouraged as this study only looked at support for plastic and paper bag legislation. This study found that those individuals who do not purchase plastic water bottles are more supportive of plastic and paper bag policies and that a majority of participants do not purchase bottled water. Therefore, the researcher encourages other studies into how plastic bottle bans might be perceived by Rhode Islanders and perhaps studies into the reasoning why some individuals still purchase bottled water since the U.S. is the largest market for bottled water in the world.
Research by Hu et al. found that "U.S. consumers are more likely to report bottled water as their primary drinking water source when they perceive that drinking water is not safe" (2011). Since perceptions of water quality have been found to affect bottled water consumption and since Americans consume 50 billion plastic water bottles each year alone (Fishman, 2007), research into plastic water bottle bans and their efficacy should be conducted in order to decrease this form of plastic consumption in Rhode Island and in the United States as a whole.
In the United States a few municipalities have already taken action to ban plastic water bottles including Concord, Massachusetts and San Francisco, California.
In 2013, Concord became the first town to enact a ban that prohibited the sale of "

CONCLUSION
This study looked at Rhode Islanders' support or opposition for plastic and paper bag policies and found a majority of respondents supported legislation as a whole. The researcher hypothesized that coastal residents more negatively perceive marine plastic pollution, and are more aware of the issue than inland residents, because they live closer to the coast. This study found that a Rhode Island resident's geographical proximity to the coast does not significantly affect his or her negative perceptions and awareness of plastic. Coastal residents were not found to be more concerned for or knowledgeable about plastic pollution than the other geographic groups surveyed. It was also hypothesized that coastal and inland residents would hold differing perceptions of plastic pollution, but this was not supported by this study's findings as the means for concern, awareness and knowledge across zip code groups were not significantly different from each other in one-way ANOVA tests. The surveyed population overall is concerned about plastic's affects on the marine environment, wildlife, human health and the local economy. Respondents are also, as a whole, supportive of plastic and paper bag policies in general.
This study found that the Rhode Islanders surveyed are highly aware and knowledgeable about marine plastic pollution and the great extent of its consequences on the marine environment. Most of the surveyed population, 77%, classified plastic pollution as a "very serious" or "serious" threat to different forms of wildlife, the marine environment, human health and the local economy, and in turn, support was found for plastic bag bans and fees and paper bag fees at the city and state levels. This support can be attributed to respondents' engagement in other pro-environmental behaviors, like recycling, bringing reusable bags to stores and not purchasing singleuse plastic water bottles, and their already high pro-ecological worldviews according to the New Ecological Paradigm. These findings bode well for future proenvironmental legislation, either to mitigate plastic pollution or to address other conservation issues.
These findings could help inform programming efforts that aim to increase pro-environmental behaviors, because, ultimately, those surveyed that engage in these behaviors, and have a pro-ecological worldview, support policies to prevent plastic pollution. Additionally, it was found that concern over plastic pollution and knowledge about the issue are inversely correlated in the multiple linear regression model (p = .007, β = -.193) for this group of surveyed participants. Many articles suggest that more knowledge of environmental issues is positively correlated with concern and pro-environmental behavior (Ajaps & McLellan, 2015;Hunter & Rinner, 2003;Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002;Wynveen et al., 2015); however, this study found different results which are supported by the similar findings in Barber et al.'s 2009 study that found a negative relationship between environmental knowledge and attitudes. This result suggests that educational programs to simply increase knowledge or awareness in Rhode Island may actually have little to no effect on concern over plastic pollution and policies to mitigate it. Educational programs are suggested by the Governor's Task Force but are not strongly supported by this research. In order to decrease plastic inputs into the ocean, consumers must switch from single-use plastics to reusable and more sustainable alternatives. One way to aid this switch and change in behavior is to enact policies that ban the material in the first place. Since plastic is still relatively cheap, producers will continue to manufacture billions of plastic bags, bottles and other materials each year for the foreseeable future.
Therefore, to keep plastics from making their way into the ocean, Americans must refuse them all together and make change at the individual level. By purchasing or using one or two reusable bags, each American could keep as many as 1,000 singleuse plastic bags from entering landfills around the country (Environmental Protection Agency, 2012). Reducing American reliance on and consumption of plastic is one of the first steps required to make widespread change around the world, and although this behavior change might be difficult at first for many individuals, it is a feasible change that becomes increasingly easier with continued practice. With policies put into place at the state level that ban or tax disposable bags, Americans can begin to adopt a mindset that encourages reducing and reusing over wastefully disposing. Small changes by each state and each American, in terms of both mindsets and everyday practices, will begin to invoke the great change the ocean needs.