THE INFLUENCE OF PLASTIC BAG BANS ON PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIORS IN RHODE ISLAND COASTAL COMMUNITIES

One of the greatest threats to the natural environment is marine debris pollution. Single-use plastics, one of many contributors to marine debris, are causing the greatest harm, affecting the well-being of humans and animals. In an effort to mitigate plastic pollution, environmental policies are implemented to reduce the availability of single-use plastic products to the consumer. This research looks explicitly at single-use plastic bag policies to see if implemented plastic bag bans promote pro-environmental behaviors and broader support for plastic bag policies. This study sampled two communities in Rhode Island, one with a single-use plastic bag ban, Middletown, and one without a single-use plastic bag ban, Warwick, performing face-to-face surveys with 50 individuals in each community (N = 100). The findings do not show support of a behavioral spillover effect; however, people living in the town with the implemented plastic bag ban used reusable bags more frequently than individuals in Warwick and showed greater support for a statewide plastic bag policy. In addition, age, gender, and environmental worldview (NEP) were predictors for some pro-environmental behaviors. In all, plastic bag polices could have broader implications for supporting similar and different environmental policies moving forward.


INTRODUCTION
Marine debris, the accumulation of manufactured materials in the natural environment, is classified as a global environmental issue (Sheavly & Register, 2007).
Depending on geographic location, the approach to solve this issue will vary.
Remediation plans may include implementing a new waste management system to cope with the influx of consumer waste, while other plans may focus on limiting the consumer to a specific resource through law and policy and general education about marine debris pollution and preventative actions an individual can take to help mitigate the issue on a local-scale.
Rhode Island, the smallest state in the United States, suffers from marine debris pollution, where marine debris build-up is found along most segments of the state's coastline. Marine debris is a complex topic because once debris enters the environment, it is hard to determine the origin of the debriswas it from recent nearby shoreline activities or did the debris wash in from off-shore? From the personal to the industrial to the governmental level it is easy to point fingers at an opposing party to take responsibility for the accumulation of marine debris. Once marine debris enters the natural environment, however, it becomes a public issue no matter the source.
One way that the communities in Rhode Island have started to address the build-up of marine debris in the environment is through policy, specifically plastic bag policies. Many studies have shown the detrimental effects of plastic bags on the environment, starting off as litter on land and becoming marine debris, and then eventually harming organisms through ingestion and entanglement (Barnes et al. 2009;Derraik, 2002). Plastic bag policies range from local to state levels (as seen in the United States) to national levels. Bangladesh, the first country to pass a law banning single-use plastic bags, created this policy because plastic bag litter was causing a public health issue for citizens through the clogging of storm drains, which began to increase flooding after large storms (UNEP, 2018). However, in industrial nations with established waste management practices that can handle the proliferation of single-use products, public health is not the main driver for implementing plastic bag policies. In the United States, plastic bag policies are an accessible first step towards protecting sacred marine life and set the scene for other future environmental policies.
There is mixed support for plastic bag policies at the individual and municipal and state level governments. Some argue that education and raising awareness about the marine debris issue at large will be sufficient in solving marine debris pollution because the surplus of information will influence individuals to participate in environmentally friendly behaviors; however, the environmental behavior literature suggests that education alone is not sufficient in addressing environmental issues (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). On the other hand, a combined approach of education and policy is said to be an effective measure at reducing forms of marine debris (Sheavly & Register, 2007). Currently in the United States, there is an influx of communities adopting various forms of plastic bag policies as a way to address littering behaviors and marine debris pollution; however, it is still unclear how this particular environmental policy is directly impacting the environment and people living within communities with the implemented legislation. This research investigates whether an implemented plastic bag ban in one Rhode Island coastal community influences residents to participate in pro-environmental behaviors in both public and private-sphere environmentalism.

MARINE DEBRIS
Marine debris pollution, commonly defined as unnatural solid waste that intentionally or accidentally finds its way into the terrestrial or marine environment, has become a widely accepted and acknowledged public phenomenon over the past decade (NOAA, 2008). Sheavly and Register, authors of "Marine Debris & Plastics: Environmental Concerns, Sources, Impacts and Solutions" (2007), identify the most pervasive forms of marine debris to be from consumer waste, boating and vessel activities, and all methods of fishing activities (recreational, local and commercial). As a result, consumer marine debris is often comprised of food wrappers, beverage bottles and cans, cigarettes and cigarette filters and other hard plastics; boating and vessel related debris includes Styrofoam, buoys, and ropes; while fishing related activities leave behind derelict and ghost fishing gear such as traps, netting and line.
The sources of marine debris are attributed to both land-based and ocean-based activities; however, research has proposed that 80 percent of all marine debris pollution comes from land-based sources (UN, 2016;Sheavly & Register, 2007, Barnes et al., 2009). Sheavly and Register (2007) suggest that of the land-based sources, both "legal and illegal waste handling practices contribute to marine debris" in the environment. Illegal dumping, littering, transportation of waste via truck, sewage treatment plants and overflows, and factories and industrial sites, are all credited for adding to the marine debris crisis on land. No matter the source, marine debris is a pollutant that is negatively impacting all living organisms.
Countless research studies have indicated that marine debris is directly impacting animals of all trophic levels either through ingestion, entanglement or a combination of the two. Derriak (2002) discusses the effects of ingestion and entanglement on marine organisms in a literature review. Marine organisms become trapped in derelict fishing gear and discarded packaging materials, which often leads to death from drowning, starvation from decreased mobility and ability of reaching a food source, and/or results in intense wounds which can inhibit long-term movement and eventually cause death. Some large marine animals are lucky enough to become naturally untangled from debris with time or receive human help if they are near shore or are found while boating, but many are not this fortunate.
Ingestion of marine debris occurs because organisms mistake debris for their natural food source, but also marine debris is so pervasive in the marine environment, it is often hard to not consume debris with the natural food source (this is common for filter feeders). The most common form of ingested debris is plastics. Flexible plastics, like plastic bags, often get mistaken for jellyfish by sea-turtles, resulting in ingestion and often times entanglement (Derraik, 2002;Barnes et al., 2009). Derriak (2002 shares that another prolific example of ingestion of debris is in seabirds; many species of seabirds consume plastic pieces because they are indistinguishable from the natural food sources and end up feeding this plastic to their chicks. Ingestion of plastic at any size fills an organism's digestive tract leaving them feeling full but lacking any sustenance, leading to starvation and death.
Marine debris is an environmental issue that is wreaking havoc on marine and terrestrial ecosystems through indirect and direct human actions. However, there are scalable solutions for marine debris pollution, beginning with education and outreach, creating laws and policies that are directly related to waste management practices, and proper management and enforcement of these environmental regulations (Sheavly & Register, 2007). Marine debris is a global issue; however, addressing this issue on a local scale will help to address specific issues and needs tailored to a community.  (Geyer et al., 2017). Plastic soon became the newest and greatest innovation; constituting most toys, food packaging, clothing and other consumer items. "Plastics heralded a new era of material freedom, liberation from nature's stinginess," creating uniformity, convenience and affordability, and color (Freinkel, 2011). However, reveling in the new world of plastics would only last for a short amount of time.
During the developmental years of plastic, Americans were using an estimated 30 pounds of plastic products each year. Fast forward to todaythe average American now consumes over 300 pounds of plastics products a year (Freinkel, 2011). In 1960, plastics comprised less than one percent of the United States total municipal solid waste; however, by 2005, plastics constituted almost 10 percent of municipal solid waste in reported countries around the globe (Jambeck et al., 2015). It is estimated that only 30 percent of all plastic produced in the past 70 years is still being used today (Geyer et al., 2017), suggesting that the remainder of all the plastic ever produced has either been recycled, incinerated, disposed into landfills, or are forms of litter in our terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Even if disposed properly, "plastic persists in landfill sites…durability of plastic ensures that wherever it is, it does not 'go away'; that is, by placing plastics in landfills we may be storing a problem for the future" (Barnes et al., 2009).
One important characteristic of plastics that has not been discussed is their mode of degradation. Plastics only breakdown via photodegradation, meaning that the sunlight breaks down plastic into smaller pieces (Andrady, 1990). However, using the term 'degradation' is a bit of a falsehood because plastic never fully degrades; plastic just breaks down into smaller pieces, becoming micro-and eventually nano-plastics.
As a result, plastics have been monitored in every ocean, ranging from surface water to the deep sea (Li et al., 2016).
In addition, there is curiosity regarding the "lifespan" of plastics, and some estimates suggest plastic will last from hundreds to thousands of years (Barnes et al., 2009). There is still much uncertainty about the impacts of plastics and whether the chemical composition of plastic will have greater impacts on the environment than just the tangible implications such as debris, entanglement or ingestion.
As previously noted, when plastics enter the natural environment, they infect every marine trophic level through ingestion and cause death by entanglement, but there is also evidence that plastics release toxic chemicals into the ocean from degradation, destroy marine habitats, and spread invasive species throughout the water column via floating marine plastic (UN, 2016). Plastics are so pervasive in the natural environment that "plastic is now considered as a geological marker of the Anthropocene, the emerging epoch in which human activities have a decisive influence on the state, dynamics and future of the Earth system" (Villarrubia-Gómez et al. 2018). Once a novelty, plastic has become a normal attribute in the natural environment and will remain part of varying ecosystems into the immediate and foreseeable future.

EVOLUTION OF THE PLASTIC BAG
Shortly after the birth of plastic came the plastic bag, a more durable, less expensive and lighter-weight alternative to the normal paper or cloth bag (Gardner et al. 2004). Versions of plastic bags began entering American households in 1957 via plastic "snack" bags, a new alternative for packing and carrying sandwiches and fruit, while by the 1960s people began using plastic trash bags to dispose of daily household waste (Gardner et al., 2004). In the meantime, Sten Gustaf Thulin, an engineer working for Celloplast, a Swedish company that focuses on product engineering, created the single-use shopping bag from polyethylene in 1960. In 1965, this plastic shopping bag was patented by Celloplast and took hold in the European market (UNEP, 2018). Celloplast fought to maintain the patent for single-use plastic shopping bags in the United States but lost this battle to Mobil in 1977, the leader in petrochemical engineering at the time and arguably still the leader today (Rutan, 2015). By 1979, the plastic bag had officially entered the United States as a widelyaccessible consumer product and was being marketed by many American companies.
The popular grocery store chains, Safeway and Kroger, officially made the switch from paper bags to plastic bags in 1982, supporting a plastic future (UNEP, 2018).
Through the successive entrance of plastic bags into the United States, the use of plastic bags in many aspects of daily life quickly became the consumptive norm. By 2014, the United States alone consumed 103,465 billion single-use plastic bags (Wagner, 2017). The rapid increase and proliferation of the plastic bag in society has framed itself for disaster. In just a short time, plastic bags have wreaked havoc to waste management systems and the environment. Because of the thin and flexible design, the plastic bag has a very low recyclability rate in the United States and, if it is recycled, the bag often lowers the effectiveness of automated recycling machines (Wagner, 2017). If plastic bags are not recycled by the consumer, they often end up in landfills where they will remain indefinitely or become litter in the natural environment due to improper disposal. Due to the product's light weight, plastic bags quickly become airborne, becoming stuck in trees, clogging storm drains, and eventually becoming marine debris (Barnes et al., 2009). As soon as plastic bags become litter, this creates an opportunity to harm terrestrial and marine organisms through entanglement and ingestion.

PLASTIC BAG SOLUTIONS
There are two ways that plastic bag pollution is currently being addressed:   (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002).
De Young (1993) suggests that individuals are more inclined to change their attitudes about an environmental problem (and therefore their behaviors) once they have experienced an environmental concern first-hand. This attitudinal shift was found in an experiment that looked at attitudes towards marine litter after participating in a beach cleanup. Researchers found that participating in a beach cleanup increased levels of well-being in individuals and these participants had greater short-term proenvironmental behavioral intentions, however, the study did not show that these intentions resulted in performance of behaviors (Wyles et al., 2017). Ideally, once people have a personal experience with the environment, they can more confidently change a behavior because they have a deeper understanding and responsibility towards the environmental issue of concern (De Young, 1993).
The second approach that De Young (1993) suggests to influence behavior change is through the use of positive motivational techniques. This method uses incentives and self-recognition to influence behaviors. Studies that use a monetary incentive for participating in a behavior or provide a form of social acknowledgement after an individual performs a behavior result with positive behavior changes. The third approach involves using a coercive motivational technique, which provides a more negative approach to behavior change by disincentivizing certain actions with implementing a tax, producing negative and fearful advertisements, and creating physical barriers to restrict the behavior from occurring, such as a ban. Plastic bag policies are a type of coercive motivational behavioral technique because variations of the policy place a tax or a fee on either plastic bags or alternative paper bags to deter the consumer from using plastic bags, or a ban is placed on plastic bags altogether, completely preventing the consumer from using plastic bags into the future.
Depending on the environmental problem and the human behavior that needs to be changed, one of the previously described techniques may be more appropriate to use than the others. However, it is first important to understand when and why people are more inclined to participate in pro-environmental behaviors. Stern (2000) mentions in his early work that "personal norms to take pro-environmental action are activated by beliefs that environmental conditions threaten things the individual values and that the individual can act to reduce the threat." Here, the theoretical research focuses on the personal and how the individual reacts to behavior changes. However, Kollmuss & Agyeman (2002) expand beyond the individual and suggest, "attitudes do not determine behavior directly, rather they influence behavioral intentions which in turn shape our actions. Intentions are not only influenced by attitudes but also by social ('normative') pressures." Therefore, an individual's behaviors are influenced by both their own beliefs and self-interest, as well as, the beliefs of persons in their surrounding community or social environment. These theories are essential for analyzing the behavior response to a specific environmental problem.
Furthermore, Stern (2000) defines the two types of environmentalism, also understood as categories of environmental behaviors: public-sphere environmentalism and private-sphere environmentalism. Public-sphere environmentalism involves participating in environmental activism or supporting environmental policy, both of which indirectly achieve an environmental goal. Other behaviors, such as volunteering for or donating to environmental organizations, fall into this category of environmentalism. Participating in public-sphere behaviors may result in a large environmental impact depending on the size of the policy and environmental organization being supported (Stern, 2000). Private-sphere environmentalism on the other hand, focuses on individual behaviors such as purchasing environmentally friendly products and disposing of household materials in an environmentally responsible way. Whereas public-sphere behaviors were indirect, private-sphere behaviors have a direct impact on the environment, however, unless these behaviors are performed by a group at large, they will have a relatively small positive impression on the natural environment (Stern, 2000).
The sparse literature on plastic-bag related behaviors focus on private sphere behaviors in communities that do not have a plastic bag policy. One study that takes place in Japan, used a "voice-prompt intervention" at the point of purchase, asking shoppers whether they would like a plastic bag, rather than automatically providing them one. The findings of this study report a five percent decrease in plastic bag usage after the voice-prompt intervention method was put in place. The authors claim that although this is not a large decrease in bag use, they only collected data for a week across four different grocery stores, so a longer period of data collection could attribute to a larger change in behavior (Ohtomo & Ohnuma, 2014).
Another study (Jones et al., 2013) looked at the effectiveness of messaging as a way to reduce plastic bag use and encourage reusable bag use. Researchers used three forms of messaging: (1) injunctive normative messaging that stated, "Shoppers in this store believe that re-using shopping bags is a worthwhile way to help the environment.
Please continue to use your reusable bags;" (2) personal normative messaging that stated, "We thank you for helping the environment by continuing to reuse your bags;" and (3) combined normative messaging that used both previous statements as one new statement. The authors found that the combined messaging approach was the most effective at reducing plastic bag use, while the injunctive normative message and personal normative messaging were also effective at smaller degrees. This study shows that environmental messaging alone was not enough to deter people from using plastic bags, and the authors state that the most effective way to reduce plastic bag consumption is by not offering them for free or making them available at the point of purchase.
Participation in behaviors that fall within private and public sphere environmentalism are rooted in an individual's fundamental values towards the environment. These values can be measured using two survey-based instruments. Two common approaches are: New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) and Connectedness to Nature. NEP is a common measure in environmental behavior literature that considers an individual's environmental worldview more broadly (Dunlap et al., 2000). The literature suggests that the NEP scale is composed of three ecological dimensions: "balance to nature, limits to growth, and human domination of nature" (Dunlap et al., 2000), all of which are embraced through a series of standardized questions regarding the environment. Research has shown that high NEP scores, which correlate to high environmental values, have been significant predictors of pro-environmental behaviors (Gatersleben et al., 2014). On the other hand, Connectedness to Nature measures how much an individual's self is related or connected to the natural world (Shultz et al. 2005; Mayer & Frantz, 2004). Unlike the NEP measure, Connectedness to Nature is a self-reported score through the use of a visual aid that features a series of seven different Venn-diagrams, all containing one circle representing "self" and the other "nature." Depending on how an individual perceives their personal relationship with nature, the respondent will circle the Venn-diagram with the appropriate level of overlap between "self" and "nature." Research has also found connectedness to nature to be a significant predictor of pro-environmental behaviors and environmental concerns as well (Davis et al., 2009).

BEHAVIOR AND POLICY SPILLOVER EFFECTS
A great deal of plastic bag policy research has focused on analyzing the after effects of implemented bag policies using the framework of behavioral and policy spillover effects.
Behavioral spillover effect describes the extent to which performing an environmentally behavior will lead to the performance of another pro-environmental behavior (Nilsson et al., 2016). There are two major types of behavioral spillover effects, positive and negative. A positive spillover effect occurs when performing one environmental behavior increases the chance of an individual performing the same or new pro-environmental behavior again over a period of time. A negative spillover effect occurs when performing a pro-environmental behavior reduces the chance of performing another pro-environmental behavior, often resulting in the previously described 'licensing effect.' (Nilsson et al., 2016). The literature has shown evidence of positive behavioral spillover effects for pro-environmental behaviors such as an increase in recycling habits and a reduction in overall resources, and the consumption of organic foods and increased recycling (Thomas et al., 2016); however, most of these behavioral spillover effects are based on correlational evidence rather than statistically significant relationships (Poortinga et al., 2013). To date, plastic bag policy research has not definitively concluded that plastic bag policies create behavioral spillovers (Poortinga et al., 2013, Thomas et al. 2016. Understanding the potential effects of behavioral spillover on environmental policies is important because often times governments want to know that the proposed policy will be a valuable tool to solve an environmental concern, above and beyond the original intent of said policy (Thomas et al., 2016).
Despite the limited amount of statistically significant research regarding plastic bag policies and behavioral spillover to non-bag related behaviors, there is a substantial amount of research about spillover to bag-related behaviors. One study in particular looked at a community with a plastic bag policy to see if the use of reusable bags promoted more environmentally friendly shopping behaviors (Karmarkar & Bollinger, 2015). The researchers concluded that people who brought their own bags to shop were more likely to buy organic and indulgent foods. This finding is supported by literature about consumer choice and the licensing effect. It is found that when people engage in "good" behaviors, in this case using a reusable bag, this decreases the negative connotations that an individual might have when thinking of buying a "luxury" item, which is unhealthy foods in this study (Kahn & Dahr, 2006). In this case, the use of a reusable bag did not directly impact the physical environment, but instead both negatively and positively influenced the shopping behaviors of the consumer through private-sphere environmentalism.
A different study tried to understand consumer behavior as well as the motivations for certain bag use by (1) observing shoppers' plastic bag use before and after a charge for plastic bags was implemented in food stores and (2) asking consumers their reasoning for either agreeing or disagreeing with implemented plastic bag policy. In the end the researchers observed an increase in reusable bag use at the stores with the implemented policy than at the stores with no bag fee implementation.
Additionally, support for the plastic bag fee was associated with intrinsic concerns, mainly personal care for the environment; however, some people who opposed the plastic bag fee used reusable bags for financial reasons, mostly so they would save money (Jakovcevic et al., 2014). This plastic bag research suggests that an established and enforced plastic bag policy results in more reusable bag use, however, policy support and subsequent behaviors were contingent on an individual's inherent motivations and values.
Policy spillover is similar to behavioral spillover effects, except they explore the effects of an implemented policy causing support for different, but similar environmental policies. Thomas et al. (2019) examines policy spillover in their recent study assessing the effects of the plastic bag charge in the United Kingdom. They found that individuals who had greater support for a plastic bag fee were more likely to support a fee for purchasing plastic bottles and unnecessary packaging, illustrating that "support for the plastic bag charge predicted greater support for policies of similar scope and size." The authors note that there may be a limit to the effect of policy spillovers, meaning that the spillover is constrained to the original policy sphere in question, which in the study was single-use plastic and packaging. However, this acknowledgement does not suggest a downfall to the potential effects of policy spillover because this means many environmental policies regarding marine debris pollution have the potential of gaining public support. This study also notes that if or when behavioral spillover occurs, performance of behaviors is also restricted to context because conceptual connections are stronger among comparable behaviors and situations. Therefore, not only do environmental policies have the potential of influencing more pro-environmental behaviors, but they also could be a catalyst for greater support of environmental policies at large. questions 5 through 7. The answers to questions 5 through 7 were reverse coded for each participant. After reverse coding, the answers to each of these seven questions were added together to create a NEP index that ranged from 1 to 7, which was used for data analysis (Table 1).

RESEARCH QUESTION
The fourth survey section gaged an individual's participation in environmental behaviors, also known as private-sphere environmentalism, by asking if they purchase bottled water, use a reusable water bottle, bring reusable bags to the grocery store, and recycle at home. These four questions were measured on a 4-point scale, where 1 = never, 2 = occasionally, 3 = frequently, and 4 = always ( Table 2). The variables purchasing bottled water and using a reusable water bottle were chosen because like plastic bags, plastic bottles directly contribute to marine debris pollution, and using a reusable water bottle is a behavior that is similar in scope and size to using a reusable bag.  (Table 4).
In order to interpret the results, independent sample T-tests, chi-square goodness of fit tests and multiple linear regression were used for data analysis using IBM SPSS V.25.  For this reason, annual income was not used as a predictive variable for data analysis.   suggesting that an increase in age also results in more frequent reusable bag use. The R squared value for this regression model was 0.183. Gender, education level and Connectedness to Nature were not statistically significant predictors for bringing reusable bags to the grocery store (Table 5).
A new variable was computed to determine how many participants started using reusable bags at the grocery within the past year in each community. A chisquare goodness of fit test suggests that there was a statistically significant association between residence and starting to use reusable bags within the past year (p = 0.002, x 2 = 9.756), indicating that Middletown respondents began to use reusable bags in the past year significantly more than Warwick respondents.
In addition, the responses for participating in household recycling in Middletown and Warwick was rated highly on the 4-point scale, averaging a response of 3.98 in both communities (Table 2). Participants were asked about the duration of their reusable bag use at grocery stores; where on average Middletown respondents have used reusable bags for an average of 4 years, Warwick respondents have used reusable shopping bags for an average of 5.5 years ( Table 2). Neither of these variables showed any statistical significance in data analysis.

SUPPORT FOR STATEWIDE POLICY
Individuals were asked about their support for a statewide plastic bag ban in Rhode Island, resulting with a mean response that equated to a high degree of support for both Middletown (M = 3.66) and Warwick (M = 3.28) participants. An independent sample T-test concluded that there was a statistically significant difference in the means between town of residence and support for a statewide plastic bag ban (p = 0.037), suggesting that Middletown participant's support for a statewide plastic bag ban was significantly higher than Warwick participants. In addition, when classified as the dependent variable in the multiple linear regression model, town of residence and total NEP score were significant positive predictors for support for a statewide plastic bag ban. Middletown participants were more likely to support a statewide plastic bag ban than Warwick participants (p = 0.008, β = 0.279), while individuals that scored higher total NEP scores had greater support for a statewide plastic bag ban (p = 0.000, β = 0.361). The R Square for this regression model was 0.212. Total NEP score had a higher standardized coefficient (0.361) than town residence (0.279), suggesting that total NEP score is a somewhat more effective predictor for support for a statewide ban. Education level, connectedness to nature, gender and age were not significant predictors for support of a statewide plastic bag ban (Table 5). (2) understand individual's general awareness of the plastic bag policy established in their community of residence.
Middletown respondents had a significantly higher level of education than Warwick participants; however, since education level was not a significant predictor in the behavioral analysis, this difference is inconsequential. All other data involving personal characteristics such as age, gender, Connectedness to Nature and total NEP score were uniform between the two communities. The analysis of environmental organization affiliation showed that the majority of participants in both communities are not active volunteers and do not donate or have a membership to environmental organizations. Therefore, this specific study does not support that living in a community with a plastic bag ban encourages community members to become outwardly involved or more financially supportive of environmental organizations, both of which fall within the public-sphere environmentalism.
Regarding participant's knowledge of plastic bag policies in their town of residence, there were no significant differences between the two samples, suggesting that participants in each community were 'correct' about the respective plastic bag policy in their community of residence. More specifically, Middletown participants acknowledged that there was an implemented plastic bag ban in the town of Middletown, plastic bags are not available at the checkout counter in grocery stores, there is no fee for plastic bags in grocery stores, and there is currently not a statewide plastic bag ban in Rhode Island. However, despite being correct, only 29 out of the 50 respondents in the Middletown sample answered the question about an existing statewide plastic bag policy correctly, suggesting that many people living in the community with the plastic bag ban were unsure whether this was due to a local or a statewide policy. Comparatively, 42 of 50 Warwick respondents answered this question correctly. Warwick respondents also correctly answered that there is not an implemented citywide ban, plastic bags are still available in the grocery stores and there is not a fee for any bags currently in grocery stores. Therefore, the majority of respondents in both communities are knowledgeable about the presence or absence of a plastic bag policy in their community.
When analyzing whether the plastic bag ban influenced individual proenvironmental behaviors, recycling and purchasing bottled water did not yield any significant results. It was found that age, gender and total NEP score were all significant predictors for reusable bottle use. This suggests that overall, females use reusable bottles more frequently then male participants; reusable water bottles are used more frequently with younger participants; and individuals that scored a higher NEP score are more likely to use a reusable water bottle. Although these results are not significant between the two communities, they do point out overall trends within the sample population. Literature on environmentalism reveals that historically, females report greater participation in environmental behaviors than males (Zelezny et al., 2000). Also, as mentioned in the literature review, there is evidence for high NEP scores leading to the practice of environmentally friendly behaviors (Gatersleben et al., 2014). In addition, there is extensive research regarding the use of age as a predictor for environmental behaviors. Research has shown discrepancies between age and environmental attitudes and pro-environmental behaviors; however, these differences can be attributed to the various dimensions of environmentalism. Overall, studies have supported that younger individuals participate in more pro-environmental behaviors and have a greater concern for the environment than older individuals (Wiernik et al., 2013).
Furthermore, the results show that reusable bag use is significantly higher among Middletown respondents than Warwick respondents, suggesting that the implemented plastic bag ban in Middletown most likely caused residents to start bringing reusable bags to the grocery store. This conclusion is further supported by the significant result that Middletown participants began using reusable bags significantly more within the past year compared to Warwick respondents. Surveying for this study was performed almost an entire calendar year after the ban on single-use plastic bags went into effect in Middletown (implementation date December 1, 2017), suggesting that the plastic bag ordinance likely caused this behavioral change through the encouragement of using reusable bags. In addition, it is important to note that this plastic bag policy provides Middletown residents with a free choice of paper bags and the option of purchasing or bringing their own reusable bags. Therefore, even with a choice of using the free alternative, there was still an increase in reusable bag use overall, further justifying this significant finding.
In addition, reusable bag use hinted to trends among the entire sample because total NEP score and age were also significant predictors of this behavior. Similar to reusable water bottle use, a higher total NEP score resulted with more frequent reusable bag use. Also, older participants reported more frequent reusable bag use; however, this result was not quite significant at p <0.05. The finding that older people use reusable bags more frequently is consistent with other studies exploring the effects of plastic bag policies on demographics (Thomas et al., 2019), therefore supporting this almost significant result.
Lastly, it was found that town of residence and total NEP score were significant predictors of support for a statewide plastic bag ban. The results show that Middletown respondents were more supportive of a statewide plastic bag ban than Warwick participants, and, similar to reusable water bottle and reusable bag use, participants with a higher NEP score showed greater support for a statewide plastic bag ban. This study suggests that NEP is a predictor for both private-sphere and public-sphere environmentalism, however, within the public-sphere it was only a predictor for supporting policies, not involvement in environmental organizations.
NEP is an important control in this study because since there was not a significant difference between total NEP scores among the two communities, this means respondents in both communities have equivalent environmental worldviews, showing that the implemented plastic bag ban is the likely cause for the changes in reusable bag use and support for a broader plastic bag policy in the state, not the respondents view on environmental issues. In addition, the significance of town of residence and support for a statewide ban suggests that people are more likely to support a scalable environmental policy once they have experienced the policy firsthand. Because policy spillover refers to supporting different but similar environmental policies, the support for a broader plastic bag policy in Rhode Island does not support this framework in particular since the support is for the same environmental policy; however, previous studies have found that support for plastic bag charge increased after a month of its implementation, which helps to support this result (Poortinga et al., 2013;Thomas et al., 2019).
There were a few methodological weaknesses in this study that need to be The major results of the study found that NEP, an indicator for environmental worldview, was a significant predictor for using reusable bags and reusable water bottles, and for supporting a statewide plastic bag policy in Rhode Island. Age was also a significant predictor of reusable bag and reusable water bottle use; however, age range was inversely related to these two these behaviors. Additionally, gender was a predictor for reusable water bottle use. Lastly, the most noteworthy finding illustrated that town of residence was a significant predictor for reusable bag use and support for a statewide plastic bag ban in Rhode Island, suggesting that people who lived in a community with an implemented plastic bag ban had greater support of a plastic bag policy at the state level and used reusable bags more frequently.
This study provides a preliminary look into the possible effects of plastic bag policies on environmental behaviors and environmental policy in the state of Rhode Island. The results of this study could suggest broader support of environmental policies in the state; however, a study encompassing more than one community with an implemented plastic bag policy needs to be completed in order to be more conclusive about this recommendation. In addition, even though this study did not show behavioral spillover, this does not indicate that the plastic policy did not influence other environmental behaviors that were not included in this study.
For policymakers, the findings in this study suggest that implemented plastic bag bans in Rhode Island lead to greater use of reusable bags, even when the consumer has the choice of using a free paper bag at the point of purchase. In addition, this study illustrates that to some degree, the establishment of local environmental policies can create the opportunity for support of similar statewide policies. Therefore, studying the effects of environmental policies is important to assess current policy and the implementation of future policies at the local and state-level. (B) The production, use and disposal of plastic checkout bags, which are commonly not recycled, has been shown to have significant detrimental impacts on the environment, including but not limited to contributing to pollution of the terrestrial and coastal environment, clogging storm water drainage systems, and contributing to the injury and death of terrestrial and marine life through ingestion and entanglement.
(C) The manufacture, transport and recycling of plastic checkout bags requires substantial energy consumption and contributes to greenhouse gases.
(D) Plastic checkout bags create a burden to solid waste collection and recycling facilities.
(E) Prohibiting the use of plastic checkout bags is necessary to protect the environment and the public health, safety, and welfare of all residents and visitors.
The purpose of this chapter is to improve the environment in and around the town and the health, safety, and welfare of its residents by reducing the number of plastic and paper bags being used, encouraging the use and sale of reusable checkout bags and banning the use of plastic bags for retail checkout of goods.
For purposes of this chapter the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning.

BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT.
Any commercial enterprise that provides carryout bags to its customers, including sole proprietorships, joint ventures, partnerships, corporations, or any other legal entity, and includes all employees of the business and any independent contractors associated with the business. BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT does not include sales of goods at yard sales, tag sales, other sales by residents at their homes, and sales by nonprofit organizations.
CARRYOUT BAG. A bag provided by a business establishment to a customer, typically at the point of sale, for the purpose of transporting purchases.

DOUBLE-OPENING PLASTIC BAGS.
Any thin plastic bag with a double opening (top and bottom) to protect clothing or other items for transport.
PLASTIC BARRIER BAG. Any thin plastic bag with a single opening used to: (1) Transport fruit, vegetables, nuts, grains, small hardware items, or other items selected by customers to the point of sale; (2) Contain or wrap fresh or frozen foods, meat, or fish, whether prepackaged or not; (3) Contain or wrap flowers, potted plants, or other items where damage to a good or contamination of other goods placed together in the same bag may be a problem; or (4) Contain unwrapped prepared foods or bakery goods.

PLASTIC CARRYOUT BAG.
Any plastic carry-out bag that is provided by a business establishment to a customer, typically at the point of sale, for the purpose of transporting purchases. PLASTIC CARRYOUT BAG does not include plastic barrier bags or double-opening plastic bags, as defined herein, or plastic bags measuring larger than 28 inches by 36 inches.

RECYCLABLE PAPER BAG.
A paper bag that is fully recyclable overall and contains a minimum of 40% post-consumer recycled content and contains no old growth fiber. The bag should display the words "Reusable" and "Recyclable" or the universal recycling logo on the outside of the bag.

REUSABLE BAG.
A bag with handles that is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuse and is made primarily of cloth or other nonwoven textile or durable plastic with a minimum thickness of four mils. Any straps must be stitched and not heat fused.
(Ord. 2017-7, passed 5-1-17; Am. Ord. 2017-15, passed 11-20-17 (1) Contain bulk items, such as produce, nuts, grains, candy, or small hardware items; (2) Contain or wrap frozen foods, meat, or fish, whether or not prepackaged; (3) Contain or wrap flowers, potted plants or other items to prevent moisture damage to other purchases; (4) Contain unwrapped prepared foods or bakery goods; or (5) Bags used by a non-profit corporation or other hunger relief charity to distribute food, grocery products, clothing, or other household items. This chapter shall be enforced by the Police Department, or any other Town Department designated by the Town Administrator. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to the following penalties: (A) For a first offense, the person charged with a violation of this chapter shall be served with a warning letter by delivering it to him or her personally, or by posting a copy upon a conspicuous portion of the retail sales establishment and sending a copy of the same by certified mail to the person to whom the notice is directed. The warning letter shall inform the person charged of the nature of the violation and that it must be corrected within 14 days of the date of the letter, and shall include a copy of this chapter.
(B) For a second offense more than 14 days after service of a warning letter, a fine of $150. The person charged shall, for a second offense, be given the opportunity to pay the fine assessed by mail, which shall be indicated on the summons issued by the charging officer. Should the alleged violator elect not to pay the fine assessed by mail, said person shall be entitled to a hearing before the Municipal Court.
(C) For a third or subsequent offense, a fine of $300, and a hearing before the Municipal Court shall be required.
(D) Each occurrence of a violation more than 14 days after service of a warning letter, and each day that such violation continues, shall constitute a separate violation and may be cited as such. (C) The requested variance shall be submitted on the towns prescribed forms.
(D) Any variance granted under this section must be the minimum variance necessary to address the hardship.
(E) The Administrator shall prepare a written report of findings to support the grant or denial of the variance.