Reducing Plastic Waste in Hong Kong - Civic Exchange

Reducing Plastic Waste in Hong Kong:

Public Opinion Survey on Bottled Water Consumption and Attitudes Towards Plastic Waste Summary Report January 2014 Carine Lai and Mandy Lao Man-lei

About Civic Exchange Civic Exchange is a Hong Kong-based non-profit public policy think tank that was established in 2000. It is an independent organisation that has access to policy makers, officials, businesses, media and NGOs—reaching across sectors and borders. Civic Exchange has solid research experience in areas such as air quality, energy, urban planning, climate change, conservation, water, governance, political development, equal opportunities, poverty and gender. For more information about Civic Exchange, visit www.civic-exchange.org.

About the Authors Carine Lai is a project manager at Civic Exchange focusing on urban liveability and well-being. She is also a graphic artist who creates infographics to make complex data accessible to a wider audience. She has an MSc in international planning and a dual BA/BFA in political science and studio art. Carine is also the co-author of From Nowhere to Nowhere: A Review of Constitutional Development Hong Kong 1997-2007 and Reflections of Leadership: Tung Chee Hwa and Donald Tsang (1997 – 2007). Mandy Lao Man-lei is a senior project manager at Civic Exchange. She graduated from Cardiff University with a master’s degree in city and regional planning (specialising in urban and built environment). Mandy has rich experience in directing and managing social and policy research projects. She is the co-author of Rethinking the Small House Policy published by Civic Exchange in 2003. She also co-authored the Walkable City, Living Streets in 2012 and authored the Small House Policy II: An Update in 2013. Her major research interests include urban built environment, public space design, community planning and sustainable development.

2

Preface and Acknowledgements

3

Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………

5

Overall Bottled Water Consumption…………………………… 6 Concern and Action…………………………………………………… 8 Making Change Easy…………………………………………………… 15 Targeting the Right People: Demographics of Bottled Water Consumption…………………………………………………… 16 Methodology and Limitations……………………………………

4

30

1 Introduction Hong Kong’s daily municipal waste generation rate is high compared to other developed Asian cities.1 Generation of municipal solid waste has put enormous pressure on the three existing landfills, which are expected to reach full capacity before 2020.2 Plastic waste constituted 19.7 per cent of municipal solid waste, translating to 1,826 tonnes of plastic waste generated every day.3 This survey focuses on the consumption of bottled water, which is in theory an unnecessary and avoidable source of plastic waste as potable water is easily available from the municipal water supply. A survey by the Global Environmental Journalism Initiative and Hong Kong Baptist University in 2010 found that Hong Kong residents were buying up to ten bottles each week.4 This survey aims to better understand consumer habits, attitudes, and environmental awareness with regards to bottled water and plastic waste in Hong Kong. This will help to develop targeted policy recommendations which are more likely to reduce consumption of bottled water or encourage recycling behaviour. The following pages present a condensed summary of key findings from Civic Exchange’s report, Reducing Plastic Waste in Hong Kong: A Public Opinion Survey of Bottled Water Consumption, the full version of which can be found online at www.civic-exchange.org/en/publications/XXXXXXX. In August 2014, 1,013 random household telephone surveys were conducted. After the completion of the telephone survey, two focus group discussions were held with selected respondents in order to explore alternatives to bottled water.

1. Council for Sustainable Development (2014), “Municipal Solid Waste Charging—Public Engagement Process: Knowledge Portal”, 28 March 2014, Hong Kong SAR, http://www.susdev.org.hk/english/knowledge_portal/knowledge_portal.php, accessed 30 January 2015. 2. Environmental Protection Department, “Waste: Sustainable use of Resources, Five-Pronged Approach”, 4 September 2014, Hong Kong SAR, http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/waste/waste_maincontent.html, accessed 30 January 2015. 3. Environmental Protection Department (2012), Monitoring of Solid Waste in Hong Kong—Waste Statistics for 2012, January 2012, Hong Kong: HKSAR Government, https://www.wastereduction.gov.hk/en/materials/info/msw2012.pdf, accessed 30 January 2015. 4. Global Environmental Journalism Initiative and Hong Kong Baptist University (2010), Plastic Bottles Around the World: Key Points of Interest, http://www.gejiplasticbottles.com/2011/04/plastic-bottles-around-the-world-key-points-of-interest/, accessed 1 November 2014.

5

2 Overall Bottled Water Consumption Respondents were asked about whether they drank more tap water or bottled water in their daily lives. Those who drank any bottled water were asked how frequently they bought bottled water, and how much money they spent on it per week during the last month. Over half of the respondents drink at least some bottled water. 37.1 per cent say that they drink more tap water than bottled water, and so for the purposes of this report, are classified “light drinkers of bottled water”. About 16.9 per cent say that at least half of their water intake comes from bottled water, and are therefore classified as “heavy drinkers of bottled water”. Based on purchase frequency and spending data, we can estimate that about a quarter of the respondent pool are occasional consumers who buy it once a month or less, or spend less than HK$10 a week on it. The remaining respondents are regular consumers of bottled water, who buy it at least several times a month. A small minority, around 5-9 per cent, are very heavy consumers who buy it at least several times a week or spend more than HK$40, with a few individuals reporting amounts well over HK$100. However, this underestimates bottled water consumption among the public due to the oversampling of older people and women (see Methodology).

Figure 1: Overall drinking preference, frequency of purchase and weekly spending on bottled water 15.9% ar e

Don’t know

“hea vy d rink ers ”

$2 4. 3.4% $51+ 1 1.8% $41-50 0.7% $31-40

$ 1-10

ap water dri 9% t nke 46. rs

or are

ly

15

.9 %

People who drink some bottled water but never buy it

PUR

D RIN

6

2.9 % N e ve r

yt

0 2.9 % %$ N e ve r 1 1 . 3 MO NEY SP T WEEKLY EN

t

hl

2 5.

7%

m

on

37.1% are “ligh t drin ke r s ” of b ott le d wa te r

tap water drin 46.9% kers

to ekly nth we es/mo .9% tim 14 ral e ev

s

8.1% 20 118%-30 $

are “tap water drin 46.9% kers ”

r ate dw

8.8% several daily time to s/w ee k

of bo ttl e

C H A S E F R EQ U E N C Y

KIN G P R EFE R E N C E

All currency in HK$ 1004 valid cases

Interestingly, while large bottles (1L or more) make up a small proportion of purchases, they are more likely to be bought by frequent consumers. Moderate and infrequent consumers overwhelmingly buy small- or medium-sized bottles (less than 1L), which are more wasteful of plastic. In order to tackle the problem of plastic waste, the behaviour of occasional as well as frequent consumers must be addressed.

Figure 2: Detailed breakdown of overall drinking preference, frequency of purchase and weekly spending on bottled water Survey question: I would like to ask about your daily water drinking habits. Do you usually drink: 1

Tap water only?

46.7%

“Tap water drinkers”

2

More tap water than bottled water?

37.1%

“Light bottled water drinkers”

3

About half and half?

9.3%

4

More bottled water than tap water?

5.7%

5

Bottled water only?

1.0%

6

Don’t know?

0.2%

“Heavy bottled water drinkers”

Survey question: How often do you buy bottled water? 1

Every day or nearly every day

3.1%

2

A few times a week

5.7%

3

About once a week

6.7%

4

Several times a month

8.2%

5

About once a month

5.2%

6

Rarely

20.5%

7

Never

2.9%

8

Don’t know

1.0%

Tap water drinkers (excluded)

46.7%

“Daily to several times/week” “Weekly to several times/month” “Monthly to rarely” “Never”

Survey question: How much did you spend on bottled water per week on average in the previous month? 1

HK$0

11.3%

2

HK$1-10

15.9%

3

HK$11-20

8.1%

4

HK$21-30

4.8%

5

HK$31-40

0.7%

6

HK$41-50

7

% frequent HK$51 or more 1 Don’t knowsmall 2 People whomed never buy bottled water (excluded) 3 large Tap water drinkers (excluded) v large 4

8

25.3 52.9 16.1 5.7

1.8% moderate 3.4% rare 45.6 45.5 4.5% 46.3 48.6 2.9% 6.0 4.7 46.7% 2.0 1.2

Figure 3: Size of bottles purchased “most of the time” by frequency of purchase 1.2%

2.0% 5.7% 16.1%

25.3% Frequent purchasers Daily to a few times per week

52.9% Count: 87

6.0% 45.6% Moderate purchasers Once a week to several times a month 46.3%

Count: 149

4.7% 45.5% Infrequent purchasers Monthly to rarely 48.6%

Count: 255

Less than 500ml 500ml to 1L 1L-2L More than 2L

“Don’t know” excluded 491 valid cases

7

3 Concern and Action Box 1: Section summary Key findings 1. Over 80 per cent of respondents recognise plastic waste as a serious or very serious problem, but only about 15 per cent express a great deal of personal concern about it. 2. Caring about plastic waste has no clear relationship with whether or not respondents drank bottled water. Among bottled water drinkers, those who care more about plastic waste buy bottled water slightly less frequently. 3. Respondents who care more about plastic waste are no more likely to use public water dispensers. However, they express more willingness to drink from public water dispensers if they are widely available and of good quality. 4. Respondents who care more about plastic waste are more likely to say they recycle. 5. Satisfaction with the quality of tap water has no obvious link to whether respondents drink bottled water. 6. Respondents’ top self-reported reason for their drinking water choices (for either tap or bottled water) is convenience and availability. Conclusions and recommendations 1. Inconvenience appears to be an important reason why concern does not get translated into action. Policy should be aimed at making it easier and more convenient for people to engage in environmentally-friendly behaviours such as using refillable bottles. 2. As there is no clear relationship between concern about plastic waste and bottled water consumption, current public education is not effective in motivating behavioural change. More research is needed on what sorts of messages will be more effective at changing behaviour. One gap might be that the public needs to be educated on why recycling is not an adequate substitute for reduction at source.

3.1 Overall attitudes towards plastic waste Respondents were asked three questions reflecting how much they cared about the problem of plastic waste. They were asked to rate its seriousness as a problem, their degree of personal concern towards the plastic waste problem, and the level of priority to which the government should give the problem. Figure 4 shows that the overwhelming majority of respondents agree that plastic waste is a problem, with over 80 per cent of respondents saying the problem is “very serious” or “serious; and that the government should make it a “top” or “medium” level concern. However, far fewer say that they are personally concerned about it. During the focus group, some participants expressed the view that compared to other environmental problems such as air pollution and food waste, plastic waste did not command as much of their attention. The prevailing attitude is that plastic waste is a problem, but not one which has an immediate impact on their lives, or which people spend much time thinking about. This is demonstrated by the relatively high proportion of respondents who replied “don’t know”, especially to the question on government priority, where 11.8 per cent replied “don’t know”.

8

Figure 4: Overall attitudes towards plastic waste: seriousness, government priority, and personal concern 4.5% don’t know 15.0% gre at d ea lo fc on ce rn

one %n 5.1

know on’t d .8% 11

ong?

ng K Ho

ng?

em

Ko

bl

in

p la stic w a s

ro te p

me

ld

diu

the

mp

r i o r it y

g ov ern m en

t make the

tic plas

wa

st

r ep

ob

le

ce rn

i

mu ch con cer n

th e

m

pr

ou

us

ng

yo

fa

sh

in k

rio

Ho

o

ho

.2 %

th

in

.7 %

sd

hig Ho w

se

is

29.3% little concern

53

iou

H ow it y

ious ser

H ow ser

7.7% not so serious

u

or

v

y er

0.2% not serious at all

ity rior pp to

31. 0%

3.3% low

.3%

1.7% not a problem

51

32

7.4% don’t know

0% 46. in lem do y rob p ou ha e t ve about the plastic was

on ec m so

? ng Ko g n Ho 1,013 valid cases

3.2 Environmental attitudes have limited effect on behaviour 3.2.1 Consumption No obvious relationship could be found between attitudes towards plastic waste and whether a respondent drinks bottled water or not. Figures 5 to 7 show that respondents who rate plastic waste a very serious problem, a top government priority, or have a great deal of concern about it, are not noticeably more likely to drink only tap water than those who place less importance on the problem. The only noticeable trend is that those who replied “don’t know” to all three questions are the least likely to drink bottled water of all, with over 50 per cent saying that they only drank tap water. Respondents who reply “don’t know” tend to be older and less educated than other respondents, two demographic groups which were found to consume less bottled water than others (see Section 5). For example, on the question of seriousness, 62.7 per cent of those who replied “don’t know” are above age 55 compared to 40.3 per cent of the overall sample. Furthermore, 48 per cent have form 3 education or less, compared to 28.3 per cent of the overall sample. 9

Percentage of respondents Percentage of respondents Percentage of respondents

Count: 5: Drinking 310 537 Figurre preference by view on7979seriousness of7575plastic waste problem Count: 310 537 100 Count: 100 80 100 80 60 80 60 40 60 40 20 40 20 0 20 0 0

310 15.8% 15.8%

537 16.4% 16.4%

79 16.5% 16.5%

75 13.3% 13.3%

15.8% 34.5% 34.5%

16.4% 39.7% 39.7%

16.5% 35.4% 35.4%

13.3% 32.0% 32.0%

39.7%

35.4% 48.1% 48.1%

34.5% 49.7% 49.7%

43.9% 43.9%

49.7% Very serious Very serious

Serious Serious

Very serious

Serious

Don’t know Don’t know

Tap water drinkers Light bottled Light waterbottled drinkers water drinkers Light bottled Heavy bottled water drinkers Heavy bottled water drinkers water drinkers Heavy bottled water drinkers 1,001 valid cases 1,001 valid cases

Don’t know

1,001 valid cases

32.0% 54.7% 54.7% 54.7%

48.1%

43.9%

Not so serious/ Notserious so serious/ Not at all Not serious at all Not so serious/ Not serious at all

Tap water drinkers Tap water drinkers


Figure 6: Drinking preference by level of government priority for plastic waste Count: Count: 100 Count: 100 80 100 80 60 80 60 40 60 40 20 40 20 0 20 0 0

322 322

513 513

47 47

15.8% 322 15.8%

513 17.2% 17.2%

15.8% 37.6% 37.6%

47 19.1% 19.1%

17.2% 38.6% 38.6%

27.7% 19.1% 27.7%

37.6% 46.6% 46.6%

38.6% 44.2% 44.2%

46.6%

44.2%

Top government Top government priority priority Top government 47.0% priority 47.0%

Medium government Medium government priority priority Medium government priority

119 119 10.1% 119 10.1% Tap water drinkers Tap water drinkers

10.1% 33.6% 33.6%

27.7% 53.2% 53.2%

56.3% 56.3%

53.2%

56.3%

Low government Low government priority/ Not a problem priority/ Not a problem Low government priority/ Not a problem


Tap water drinkers Light bottled Light waterbottled drinkers water drinkers Light bottled Heavy bottled water drinkers Heavy bottled water drinkers water drinkers Heavy bottled watercases drinkers 1,001 valid 1,001 valid cases

Don’t know

1,001 valid cases

33.6%

47.0%


Figure 7: Drinking preference by level of concern about plastic waste Count: 151 Count: 151 100 Count: 151 18.5% 100 18.5% 80 100 80 18.5% 34.4% 60 80 34.4% 60 40 34.4% 60 40 47.0% 20 47.0% 40 20 47.0% 0 20 0 Great deal of Great deal of concern 0 concern Great deal of concern

459 459

297 297

50 50

459 15.0% 15.0%

297 16.5% 16.5%

15.0% 41.4% 41.4%

50 22.0% 22.0%

16.5% 32.3% 32.3%

22.0% 40.0% 40.0%

41.4% 43.6% 43.6% 43.6% Some concern Some concern Some concern

44 44 6.8% 44 6.8% 6.8% 31.8% 31.8%

Tap water drinkers Tap water drinkers

Little concern Little concern

38.0% None None


Tap water drinkers Light bottled Light waterbottled drinkers water drinkers Light bottled Heavy bottled water drinkers Heavy bottled water drinkers water drinkers Heavy bottled watercases drinkers 1,001 valid 1,001 valid cases

Little concern

None

Don’t know

1,001 valid cases

32.3% 51.2% 51.2% 51.2%

40.0% 38.0% 38.0%

31.8% 61.4% 61.4% 61.4%

However, among respondents who do drink bottled water, attitudes towards plastic waste are mildly associated with a lower frequency of buying bottled water. Dividing respondents into those who buy bottled water several times a week or more (the brown shading on Figures 23 to 25), and those who buy it once a month or less (the green shading), the proportion of those who fall into the latter category increases as respondents place more importance on plastic waste in all three questions. Still, there is at most only a 10 per cent difference between the least and most concerned respondents in the proportion of respondents who buy bottled water once a month or less. 10

Figure 8: Frequency of purchase by view on seriousness of plastic waste problem


Count:

155

298

42

31

Count: 100

155

298

42

31

Count: 80 100

155

298

42

31

100 60 80

57.1%

54.0%

52.4%

51.6%

80 40 60

57.1%

54.0%

52.4%

51.6%

57.1% 42.9%

54.0% 46.0%

52.4% 47.6%

51.6% 48.4%

42.9%

46.0%

47.6%

48.4%

Very serious 42.9%

46.0% Serious

47.6% Not so serious/ Not serious at all

48.4% Don’t know

525 valid cases

Very serious

Serious

Not so serious/

Don’t know

525 valid cases

Count: 100

171

283

Not serious at all 22

49

Count: 80 100

171

283

22

49

60 20 40 40 0 20 20 0 0

Monthly to never Daily to several Monthly to never times a month Monthly to never Daily to several times a month Daily to several times a month


at all Figure of purchase by levelNot ofserious government priority waste Count:9: Frequency 283 49know for plastic Very171 serious Serious Not so22 serious/ Don’t 525 valid cases

45.5%

100 60 80

56.7%

53.7%

80 40 60

56.7%

53.7%

56.7% 43.3%

53.7% 46.3%

43.3% Top government 43.3% priority

46.3% 46.3% Medium government priority

54.5% Low government priority/ Not a problem

Top government priority Top government priority Count: 79

Medium government priority Medium government priority 258

Low government priority/ Not a problem Low government priority/ Not a problem 173

60 20 40 40 0 20 20 0 0

45.5% 45.5% 54.5% 54.5%

57.1% 57.1% 57.1% 42.9% 42.9% Don’t know 42.9%


525 valid cases

Don’t know

525 valid cases

Don’t know

525 valid cases


15 Figure 10: Frequency of purchase by level of concern about plastic waste Count: 100

79

258

173

15

Count: 80 100

79

258

173

15

59.5%

55.8%

49.7%

100 60 80

66.7%


80 40 60

59.5%

55.8%

49.7%

60 20 40

59.5% 40.5%

55.8% 44.2%

50.3% 49.7%

40 0 20

40.5%

44.2%

50.3%

20 0

40.5% Great deal of concern

44.2% Some concern

50.3% Little concern/ None

Don’t know 33.3%

525 valid cases

0

Great deal of concern Great deal of concern

Some concern

Little concern/ None Little concern/ None

Don’t know

525 valid cases

Don’t know

525 valid cases

Some concern

66.7% 66.7% 33.3% 33.3%

Again, those who express no opinion at all still purchase bottled water at similar frequencies to those who give the issue a high level of importance. Therefore, while concern does appear to be associated with a reduction in purchase frequency, on the whole the relationship is weak. 3.2.2 Water dispenser usage Respondents were also asked about whether or not they had used a public water dispenser within the last six months. They were then asked about whether they would be willing to use a public water dispenser if certain conditions such as wide availability and quality were met.

11

60 11: Water dispenser usage by attitudes towards plastic waste Figure Seriousness

50

Count: 40

313

535

80

Government priority

75

323

514

Concern

47

119

149

462

295

51

46 Did not use water dispensers in last 6 months

20 80 10

74.1% 70.5% 77.5% 89.3%

60

73.1% 71.6% 74.5% 83.2%

73.2% 71.4% 73.6% 80.4% 89.1%

26.9% 28.4% 25.5%

26.8% 28.6% 26.4%

0

40

19.6%

10.9%

1013 valid cases “Don’t knows” excluded

Gr ea td ea

M

er ys Ve r

16.8%

Used water dispensers in last 6 months

No ne Do n’ tk no w

10.7%

Se N rio No ot s us ts os er eri io ou us s at / Do al l n’ tk no w

22.5%

lo fc on ce So rn m e co nc er Litt n le co nc er n

29.5%

ed iu Lo m w ap /N ro ot b Do lem n’ tk no w

25.9%

0

To p

20

io us

Percentage of respondents

100 30

Figure 12: Willingness to use water dispensers by attitudes towards plastic waste Seriousness

Count:

307

529

78

Government priority

70

321

505

46

Concern

112

149

455

287

50

43

80 60

51.5% 50.3% 61.5% 64.3% 74.1% 70.5% 77.5% 89.3%

49.8% 49.3% 65.2% 69.6% 73.1% 71.6% 74.5% 83.2%

48.3% 49.9% 54.0% 66.0% 69.8% 73.2% 71.4% 73.6% 80.4% 89.1%

48.5% 49.7% 38.5% 35.7%

50.2% 50.7%

51.7% 50.1% 46.0%

40 20

34.8% 30.4%

34.0% 30.2%

Would not be willing to use a water dispenser Would be willing to use a water dispenser 984 valid cases “Don’t knows” excluded

n’

tk

no w

ne

rn

No

ce

rn

Do

le Litt

m So

ea Gr ea td

co n

ce

rn

co n

ce

e

fc on lo

M

io er ys Ve r

ed iu Lo m w ap /N ro ot b Do lem n’ tk no w

Se N rio No ot s us ts os er eri io ou us s at / Do al l n’ tk no w

To p

0 us


100

Figure 13: Self-reported recycling by concern about plastic waste Seriousness

Count:

314

544

80

Government priority

75

327

519

47

Concern

120

152

466

297

52

46


100 33.1% 33.8% 48.8% 54.7%

80

32.7% 33.1% 38.3% 59.2%

26.3% 30.7% 39.4% 67.3% 71.7%

67.3% 66.9%

73.7% 69.3% 60.6%

60 40

66.9% 66.2%

20

51.3% 45.3%

61.7%

40.8%

Mentioned recycling 32.7%

28.3%

no w

1013 valid cases

Do

n’ tk

ne No

rn ce

co n

le Litt

m

e

co n

ce

rn

rn ce fc on lo ea

Gr ea td

So

Lo m a p w/ N ro ot b Do lem n’ tk no w

iu ed

To p

M

ys

er io

us

Se N No ot s rio t s o s us er eri io ou us s at / Do al l n’ tk no w

0

Ve r

Did not mention recycling

There is no clear association between current water dispenser usage and environmental attitudes (see Figure 11). However, respondents who place a high or moderate level of importance on plastic waste express more willingness to use public water dispensers. Basic awareness of the issue is also associated with increased willingness to use a water dispenser, as those who reply “don’t know” to questions about plastic waste are the least willing to use water dispensers.

12

Figure 14: Rating of tap water quality by drinking preference Count:

469

372

0.6% 5.3%

3.8%

150

4.6% 1.6%

8.1% 9.2%

0.7%

7.5%

6.7%

0.7%

Don’t know Very poor

11.3%

Poor Tap water only drinkers

36.9%

Light bottled water drinkers

39.9% 41.4%

Heavy bottled water drinkers

41.1%

So-so 34.0%

46.7%

Good Very good 991 valid cases

3.2.3 Recycling In terms of recycling, a different pattern prevails. Respondents were asked open-endedly to tell the interviewer what they normally do with empty plastic bottles. Overall, 65.2 per cent of respondents mention recycling, although more research is needed on the how consistently people recycle their waste. Those who have a great deal or some concern about plastic waste are much more likely to recycle plastic bottles than those who rate it of little or no concern. While high levels of concern are associated with only slight reductions in the frequency of purchasing bottled water, even moderate levels of concern appear to be enough to prompt people to recycle their waste at least some of the time. As with willingness to drink from water dispensers, basic awareness of the plastic waste issue is associated with increased recycling, as those who replied “don’t know” are the least likely to recycle.

Figure 15: Self-reported reasons for drinking water choices Top 5 reasons for drinking tap water

37.0%

1. Convenience/Availability

58.2%

841 valid cases

36.5% 16.8% 14.7% 8.7% 2. Cost

Top 5 reasons for drinking bottled water

1. Convenience/Availability

Respondents who drink only or mainly tap water

3. Safety/Quality/Clean

5. Environmental concerns

Respondents who drink only or mainly bottled water

22.4% 13.4% 2. No other choice

4. Health/Nutrition

3. Safety/Quality/Clean

4.5%

4. Health/Nutrition

67 valid cases

4.5% 5. Taste

13

3.2 Tap water quality is not the issue Worries about the quality of tap water in Hong Kong are at best a minor factor in motivating bottled water consumption. Figure 14 shows minimal differences in the opinions of tap water drinkers, light bottled water drinkers, and heavy bottled drinkers on tap water quality. This indicates that focusing on tap water quality is unlikely to be effective in reducing bottled water consumption.

3.3 Convenience is the main consideration Respondents were asked, unprompted, to name the reason or reasons why they drank primarily tap or bottled water. In both groups, convenience is the most commonly stated reason. Among respondents who only or mostly drank tap water, cost is the second most common reason. Among the 7 per cent of respondents who drank only or mostly bottled water, the second most commonly given reason is a lack of other options. These respondents often said that they drank bottled water supplied by their employers as there was no potable tap water available at their workplace. This implies that a substantial number of these heavy users can be persuaded to switch to tap water if it were available at their workplaces. However, since there are so few of them, major inroads can only be made by addressing the habits of occasional bottled water consumers.

3.4 Conclusion and recommendations There are gaps between concern, intent and action. Awareness and concern about plastic waste is linked to increases in recycling and willingness to use water dispensers, but only to a mild decrease in the frequency of bottled water purchase. Concern is also unrelated to current water dispenser usage. Public policy must address these gaps. One major gap is in awareness. Existing public education and school curriculum programmes appear to be relatively ineffective in reducing bottled water consumption. More research is needed to find out why it is ineffective and what sorts of messages would be more successful. One possible problem was revealed during the focus group, when some participants expressed the view that as long as bottles were recycled, then bottled water consumption would have no environmental impact. The public needs to be better informed on why this is a misconception, as recycled materials must often be downcycled into lesser quality products, and new petrochemicals are still required to make plastic bottles. While large majorities recognise plastic waste as a serious issue and as a problem for the government to deal with, smaller numbers say it is a major personal concern. A majority of respondents also say that convenience is their main consideration in their drinking water choices. This suggests that policy-makers need to focus on making it more convenient to consume less bottled water, or giving people incentives to engage in more environmentally-friendly behaviour. This will be more fully addressed in the next section.

14

4 Making Change Easy Box 2: Section summary Key findings 1. Only about a quarter of respondents used water dispensers in the last 6 months, but nearly half expressed willingness to use water dispensers if they were widely available and provided good quality water. 2. Altogether, sports grounds, parks, swimming pools and schools account for almost 80 per cent of locations where respondents reported using water dispensers. People who do not participate in sports or who do not attend or work in schools rarely encounter them. 3. Judging from the difference between current usage and willingess to use them, adults aged 3555, especially clerks, service and “blue-collar” workers, and “housewives” appear to be the most underserved by existing public water dispensers. 4. Greater satisfaction with recycling facilities is associated with higher rates of recycling among respondents who are not personally concerned about the plastic waste problem. 5. Older respondents and those from lower socio-economic backgrounds, e.g. aged 55+, form 3 education or less, service and “blue-collar” workers and the retired are least likely to recycle. Conclusions and recommendations 1. To encourage reduction at source, high quality drinking water dispensers should be positioned in prominent locations frequented by working adults and “housewives”, such as MTR stations, bus terminuses, shopping malls, and outside wet markets/community complexes. The water should be filtered and the dispensers should be well-maintained. 2. The Government should also encourage developers to provide potable tap water sources (e.g. pantries with a sink) on each floor in newly constructed office buildings. Employers should be offered incentives to retrofit potable tap water sources into existing workplaces. 3. Although reduction at source is better, recycling should still be encouraged. One way to to do so is to improve the reliability and trustworthiness of plastic waste collection. 4. A bottle deposit and exchange scheme should be piloted in lower-income neighbourhoods with older populations in order to offer incentives for recycling.

4.1 Alternatives to plastic waste This section will explore how to encourage people to adopt behaviours that reduce plastic waste: refilling bottles from public water dispensers, and recycling. It examines the behaviours of different demographic groups in order to help policy-makers target their policies more effectively.

4.2 Expanding water dispenser usage 4.2.1 Quality and satisfaction Only a quarter of respondents report having used a public water dispenser in the last 6 months, and just 9 per cent report “usually” drinking from them. However, the overall proportion of respondents wiling to use them is 46.4 per cent provided that standards of availability and quality are met. Those who were satisfied with the quality of existing water dispensers were asked if they would be willing to use them if they were more widely 15

Figure 16: Current and hypothetical water dispenser usage

Yes 26.4%

Yes 46.4%

Survey question: Have you used a public water dispenser within the last 6 months?

No 72.7%

Survey question: Would you bring your own bottle to refill drinking water if a water dispenser is available/if a water dispenser provided with similar quality of bottled water is available?

No 50.8%

Don’t know 2.8%

Don’t know 0.9%

Figure 17: Satisfaction with and willingness to use water dispensers 1.5% Very satisfied

30.3% Don’t know

2.9% Very dissatisfied

11.8% Dissatisfied

20.3% Satisfied

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

33.2% So-so

1,003 valid cases

555 valid cases

448 valid cases Would you bring your own drinking bottle to refill water if a water dispenser provided with similar quality of bottled water is available?

Would you bring your own drinking bottle to refill water if a water dispenser is available?

Yes 41.5%

Yes 50.3%

No 55.1%

No 47.4% 2.3% Don’t know

3.3% Don’t know

Figure 18: Where do you usually drink tap water?

96.6%

At home

32.8%

At work or at school

*

9.2%

From public water fountains or dispensers

4.8%

Others

992 valid cases. “Don’t know” excluded. Respondents allowed to choose more than one answer.

16

Figure 19: Location of water dispenser usage

40.7%

Sports ground or sports centre

4.3%

Library

19.4%

Park

3.6%

Workplace

11.5%

School or university

3.6%

Hospital or clinic

7.1%

Swimming pool

2.0%

Church

6.7%

Airport

2.4%

Other

*

253 valid cases Respondents allowed to name more than one place.

available. Over half said yes. Those who were dissatisfied with the existing quality, or who had no opinion, were asked whether they would be willing to use water dispensers if the water quality were comparable to bottled water. About 4 in 10 said they would. Dissatisfied respondents cited concerns about safety, poor maintenance and odd tasting water. Even though Section 3 showed no relationship between bottled water consumption and dissatisfaction with tap water, less than 1 per cent of respondents drink tap water straight from the tap. 67.9 per cent boil it, 4.8 per cent filter it, and 26.6 per cent do both. Public water dispensers which offered filtered water would be more likely to win public acceptance. Maintenance and cleaning schedules should also be prominently displayed. 4.2.2. Targeting likely users Looking at the demographics of water dispenser usage (Figure 20) can help focus policy-makers’ efforts. Women, adults aged 35-54, people earning less than HK$30,000 and those without post-secondary education have the biggest gaps between current water dispenser usage and willingess to use them. Clerks, service and “blue-collar” workers and “housewives” show up as groups with large potential for expansion. Students are already well-served by water dispensers in schools, while older adults, especially the retired, are not especially interested in using them. The locations where people report using water dispensers (Figure 19) help explain why these populations are underserved. 67.2 per cent of respondents drank from water dispensers at recreational facilities including sports grounds, swimming pools and parks, and another 11.2 per cent at schools. Only people who participate in sports (a group that likely skews younger and male) and people who attend or work in schools and universities are likely to regularly encounter water dispensers. 30.3 per cent of respondents so unfamiliar with them that they unable to give a satisfaction rating. 17

Figure 20: Demographics of water dispenser usage

GENDER

AGE

47.5%

45.3% 25

18-34 yrs Count: 223

Percentage who have used a water dispenser within the past 6 months

36.2%

Women Count: 640

14.8

Gap between willingness and current usage

11.3

20.3%

55.6%

Percentage willing to use a water dispenser if available/high quality

Men Count: 373

40.8%

53.4%

1,013 valid cases

26.5

EDUCATION 35.2%

47.7%

53.2%

21.3

23.2

15.1

13.9%

24.5%

Form 3 and below educational attainment Count: 287

35-54 yrs Count: 373

34.3%

38.1%

16.2

Post-secondary educational attainment Count: 365

Form 4 to Form 7 educational attainment Count: 350

26.8%

55+ yrs Count: 408

1,002 valid cases

18.1% 1,004 valid cases

PERSONAL INCOME

50.9%

57.5%

26.3

43.6%

26

24.6%

10.7

31.5%