Next Article in Journal
Effect of High Biological Value Animal Protein Sources on the Techno-Functional Properties of Ice Cream
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainable Development and Tourism: A Review of the Literature in WoS from 2001 to 2020
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 24
10.3390/su152416807
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Retraction published on 19 November 2024, see Sustainability 2024, 16(22), 10069.
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

RETRACTED: Evaluating the Benefits and Potential of “Plastic Reduction”: A Case Study of College Students in Western China

by
Guoqiang He
1,* and
Tao Yu
2
1
Youth League Committee, Xi’an Shiyou University, Xi’an 710065, China
2
College of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Xi’an Shiyou University, Xi’an 710065, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(24), 16807; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416807
Submission received: 14 October 2023 / Revised: 1 December 2023 / Accepted: 6 December 2023 / Published: 13 December 2023 / Retracted: 19 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Waste and Recycling)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The persistent increase in plastic consumption poses a formidable challenge to attaining climate objectives and mitigating plastic pollution, prompting a global movement towards “plastic reduction”. Given the large number and scale of colleges, it is crucial to analyze the potential for “plastic reduction” on campuses to integrate green and low-carbon practices. This study constructed a source–emission–grave (SEG) plastic waste evaluation framework, which chose Xi’an Shiyou University in Western China as the research object. Furthermore, a tailored plastic-reduction scheme is designed based on students’ daily consumption patterns. The evaluation effectively measures the university’s potential for reducing plastic usage and its direct environmental benefits. Results indicate that by promoting green consumption practices, there could be a potential 45% reduction in plastic usage among students in their daily routines, resulting in an annual per capita decrease of 4.4 kg of plastic consumption and utilization. The aforementioned leads to four environmental benefits, namely raw materials, savings in energy consumption, reduction in carbon emissions, and a decrease in plastic waste, resulting in a total value of CNY 45. If this program were implemented nationwide across colleges and universities, students could collectively reduce their annual plastic consumption by 162,000 tons within their daily lives while simultaneously generating direct economic benefits worth CNY 1.8 billion. These findings can serve as valuable references for other universities in devising effective initiatives to mitigate plastic consumption.

1. Introduction

The continuous growth of the global economy has resulted in a steady rise in carbon dioxide emissions over time. Plastics account for approximately 3.8% of global CO2 emissions [1], while the plastics industry consumes around 8~9% of the world’s annual oil reserves [2]. If current plastic consumption patterns persist, global plastic production is projected to reach 1.6 billion tons per year by 2050 [1], consuming about 20% of the world’s oil reserves [3,4]. Moreover, plastics pose significant threats to both macro and micro environments on a global scale [5], with more than half of man-made plastics entering and accumulating within our environment [6,7,8]. According to statistics, approximately 3 billion plastic bags are used for daily shopping and other activities in China.
Moreover, the average household consumes around 13 plastic bags per day [9]. (A household plastic bag typically weighs around 10 g.) However, it is worth noting that the production, usage, and subsequent decomposition (or incineration) of one kilogram of plastic bags result in approximately 6 kg of carbon dioxide emissions [10,11]. Consequently, an ongoing imperative exists to stimulate and unleash China’s demand for green consumption. Furthermore, it is essential to enhance the long-term mechanism for promoting green consumption and further improve its supportive role in facilitating high-quality economic development. As a commitment to achieving a “carbon peak” by 2030 and “carbon neutrality” by 2060, China has emphasized the urgency of expediting the “green transformation” of its development while actively advocating for a green and low-carbon lifestyle as well as a low-carbon consumption pattern. Considering the abundance of colleges and universities in China, along with a large number of college students, consumption behaviors like takeout and online shopping have resulted in a significant rise in disposable plastic waste on campuses, leading to severe ecological pollution [12,13]. Therefore, it is crucial to address this issue promptly.
Additionally, as the primary drivers of future consumption patterns, college students exert a substantial influence on the trajectory of future consumption. Therefore, enhancing green consumption education among college students and guiding them to embrace eco-friendly consumerism principles while simultaneously implementing measures to reduce the supply and utilization of disposable plastic products on campuses fulfills an educational institution and makes an imperative choice in actively responding to governmental policies. To facilitate sustainable economic and societal development, it becomes imperative to initiate an evaluation of the prevailing plastic consumption practices among college students. This analysis should identify existing issues and influential factors within their plastic-reduction behaviors; educational strategies can be formulated to strengthen college students’ commitment to reducing plastic waste. The reduction of plastic consumption represents a specific aspect of green consumer behavior encompassing various stages, including pre-purchase assessments, the purchasing process itself, product usage periods, feedback evaluations, and post-use disposal methods. It reflects consumers’ conscientious consideration of the environmental impact of their actions when acquiring, utilizing, or disposing of plastic products. To optimize ecological protection, it is crucial to minimize purchases of plastic products, promote the reuse of plastic alternative options, and ensure proper disposal of plastic waste. Given their pivotal role in fostering an ecological civilization, colleges and universities are witnessing substantial growth and undergoing structural transformations in plastic consumption [14,15,16]. Building upon the essence and scope of green consumer behavior while taking into account China’s current plastic consumption situation, this study redefines the concept of plastic-reduction consumption behavior and conducts a comprehensive analysis of its characteristics as well as identifies influential factors.
Taking the college students of Xi’an Shiyou University, a representative university of higher education in Western China, as an example, based on the characteristics of students’ living consumption and the actual characteristics and influencing factors of campus plastic material flow, an evaluation framework of college plastic flow was established, and empirical research and influencing factors were analyzed. Furthermore, in accordance with the practices and trends of plastic reduction in domestic and international higher education institutions, a corresponding plan for plastic reduction was formulated while assessing its feasibility and associated benefits.

2. Literature Review

After consulting a large body of literature, we have observed that the current focus on plastic consumption primarily revolves around research on waste classification. However, there is a lack of publicly available literature that assesses the current state of plastic waste management in academic institutions and proposes strategic initiatives to mitigate its impact. Zhang et al. [17] investigated the factors influencing urban residents’ garbage sorting behavior in Guangzhou through a questionnaire survey. Chen et al. [18], based on in-depth interviews with 323 urban residents in China, identified the lack of garbage classification infrastructure and an imperfect overall garbage classification and recycling system as the primary reasons for people’s reluctance to engage in garbage classification. The research conducted by Karim et al. [19] indicates that individuals are more likely to engage in waste-sorting activities when provided with convenient infrastructure, while also emphasizing the importance of favorable environmental factors such as accessible storage and collection times in enhancing participation in food waste sorting. In their study, Fan et al. [20] observed a positive association between individuals’ perceived benefits of garbage sorting and their likelihood to engage in the practice when comparing the behaviors of Shanghai and Singapore.
Currently, the predominant method for analyzing plastic consumption research is material flow analysis (MFA), which primarily focuses on examining material flows among regions, organizations, and sectors. MFA is a highly effective tool for assessing and managing resource and environmental impacts [21,22]. The flow and inventory of materials or elements in a system are modeled and quantified, primarily employing system analysis methods and adhering to the principle of mass conservation [23]. Material flow analysis (MFA) can establish a robust scientific basis for enhancing resource efficiency and mitigating pollution by accurately quantifying material exchange. Geyer et al. [24,25] conducted a comprehensive investigation on global production, utilization, and fate, revealing that plastic material flow in Europe and the United States experienced an increase from 1.5 to 2.5 years in 2015. The global production of plastic reached 83 billion tons in 2015, resulting in the generation of 6.3 billion tons of plastic waste, with only a mere 9% being recycled, 12% being incinerated, and the remaining majority (79%) ending up in landfills. The study conducted by Millete et al. [26] employed a material flow analysis to investigate the plastic flows in Trinidad and Tobago, revealing that approximately 48% of the accumulated plastic originates from imported packaging materials rather than domestically generated waste. Karayilan [27] comprehensively analyzed the significant environmental impact of plastic demand and proposed strategies to enhance circular economy practices within the plastic packaging value chain. The strategies encompass the implementation of cross-sectoral assessment facilitated by information systems, the enhancement of recycling efficiency within the plastics sector, as well as the introduction of innovative biodegradable plastic products. To optimize both environmental benefits and adhere to circular economy principles, three linear single-objective optimization models were developed to assess potential enhancements in the European waste supply chain to achieve circularity by 2025. The results suggest that the plastic packaging value chain has the potential to generate greater environmental benefits than composting, provided that enhanced recycling opportunities are identified and established in the future, including industrial co-production.
Moreover, all strategies pertaining to the circular economy contribute significantly to the advancement of recycling endeavors. Faraca et al. [28] conducted a material flow analysis on sorted samples of film and PVC waste collected from three recycling centers in Denmark to assess the overall recycling potential of the recycling value chain. The study revealed that the recyclability of high-grade plastic waste varies depending on the polymer type and is higher than that of low-grade plastic waste. Previous research on material flow analysis of plastics has primarily focused on Europe, the United States, and the Asia–Pacific regions, with recent attention being given to examining plastic flows in China. Xing Yiming et al. [29] conducted a material flow analysis of the recycled plastics industry in Qingyuan City, located in Guangdong Province. Mengyu B et al. [30] developed a model using a material flow analysis method based on a life cycle assessment to track plastic products from primary plastic to plastic waste using statistics and monitoring data from accurate sources. Historical calculation and scenario analysis were conducted on the plastic flow and stock of passenger vehicles in China from 1950 to 2050 based on a dynamic material flow model by Jiang Xiaobin et al. [31]. However, these scholars neglect to consider the environmental benefits of reducing plastic usage when assessing the influence of recycling strategies and plastic types on recycling rates and potential.

3. Research Methods and Data Sources

3.1. Research Methods

3.1.1. Plastic Material Flow Analysis Method

Material flow analysis involves modeling and quantitatively discussing the flux and stock of substances or elements within a system, primarily based on system analysis methods and the principle of mass conservation. Material flow analysis encompasses two distinct methodologies: one involves examining the inputs and outputs of specific components, while the other focuses on analyzing the inflows and outflows of substances. Figure 1 depicts the SEG assessment framework, a fundamental tool for analyzing plastic material flows. The framework encompasses the assessment of plastic sourcing, waste, and disposal. This study examines the use of plastics by college students during their academic life cycle, considers the material flow and inventory of various plastics throughout their life cycle, and analyzes key nodes in different plastic resource flows to enhance resource utilization while reducing environmental impacts across the entire life cycle. Therefore, this research establishes a solid theoretical basis for further exploration and policy formulation. Plastic products on campus are sourced from two channels: on-campus canteens and supermarkets and off-campus couriers and takeout services. The range of plastic products encompasses various categories, including express packaging, lunch boxes, cutlery, and plastic bags. The disposal sites for plastic waste demonstrate a significant spatial correlation with student dormitories, primarily distributed across five distinct locations encompassing academic buildings, libraries, dining facilities, residential quarters, and roadside areas. At Xi’an Shiyou University, all locations are equipped with trash cans, and plastic waste on campus has two final destinations: recycling and incineration (sent to a specialized landfill, incinerated to generate electricity).
The evaluation of plastic sources on campus, also known as the evaluation of plastic input streams, is based on the calculated occurrence for each consumption behavior and the plastic utilization factor, as expressed by Equations (1) and (2):
PMi = Ci ∗ fi
P M = ∑ i = 1 n P M i
where PM denotes the amount of plastic consumption utilization; i is the activity type code, including social food delivery, cafeteria packing, on-campus beverage consumption, online shopping (in the form of express delivery), and offline supermarket shopping; and C and f denote the occurrence of a certain type of consumption activity and its plastic utilization coefficient, respectively.
The campus plastic waste emission evaluation, or plastic output stream evaluation, is achieved using on-site observation and measurement statistics. The evaluation of the plastic waste destination follows the principle of “recycling as much as possible”, and 100% of the plastic waste that cannot be recycled is transferred to designated landfills for incineration.

3.1.2. Plastic Reduction Potential and Benefit Assessment Methods

A campus plastic-reduction mechanism is established based on the characteristics and influencing factors of plastic flow on campus. This mechanism refers to the excellent practice of plastic reduction in other universities, with the four principles of prevention at the source, practical measures, reduction when necessary, and no significant increase in campus operation costs. The relative plastic-reduction potential (r) for each consumption is determined, and the absolute plastic-reduction potential is assessed, as expressed by Equation (3):
S p = Σ   P M i × r i
The benefits evaluation of plastic reduction is based on the environmental economy concept of “cost avoidance is a benefit”. The assessment considers the indicators of raw material saving, energy consumption reduction, carbon emission reduction, and waste incineration reduction, as expressed by Equation (4):
TEi = Sp × Ei
where TE indicates the environmental benefits of plastic reduction; Sp indicates the plastic-reduction potential (unit: t); the subscript i indicates the type of environmental effect, i = 1, 2, 3, 4, representing fuel saving (raw material saving), energy saving, carbon reduction, and waste incineration reduction, respectively; and E is the environmental effect coefficient per unit product. Referring to the “Plastics Environmental Footprint in China”, the complete energy consumption coefficient of plastic products commonly used by college students is 1.8 tce/t (tonnes of coal equivalent), the raw material (oil) consumption coefficient is 1.6 tce/t, the full-cycle carbon emission coefficient of products is 5.6 tCO2/t, and the waste incineration reduction factor is 1 t CO2/t.
The environmental benefits of “plastic reduction” are monetized and summarized to obtain the comprehensive benefits of direct “plastic reduction”, as proposed in Equation (5), based on the prevailing market price of the product.
B = ∑ i = 1 n T E i · P i
where P refers to the product price; the carbon price is determined based on China’s carbon trading market, with a value of 60 CNY/tCO2; the crude oil price is determined based on the international crude oil market, with a value of 5000 CNY/t; the energy price is based on the type and scale of energy used in plastic production and its market price, with a value of 800 CNY/tce; and the plastic waste price is based on the opportunity cost method, which is replaced by the reduction in plastic incineration, with a value of 1000 CNY/t.

3.2. Data Sources

In order to obtain the use of disposable plastic packaging by college students, the reasons for use and the attitude and view of college students toward disposable plastic packaging should be analyzed. According to the relevant literature [32], 100 students were randomly selected to conduct face-to-face interviews before the formal distribution of questionnaires. The questionnaire content was adjusted based on their feedback to ensure the logical flow and comprehensibility of the questions and improve the quality of the questionnaires. Using simple random sampling, 3000 students were selected from the whole university and sent out in the form of electronic questionnaires, which students answered. A total of 2361 valid questionnaires were obtained, with an effective recovery rate of 78.7%, after eliminating the discarded questionnaires with a too short response time and no serious or consistent response. Among them, 1258 were boys, accounting for 53.28%, and 1103 were girls, accounting for 46.72%; 868 were first-year students, accounting for 36.76%; 656 were second-year students, accounting for 27.78%; 481 were third-year students, accounting for 20.37%; and 356 were fourth-year students, accounting for 15.08%. There were 1353 students from rural areas, accounting for 57.31%, and 1008 students from urban areas, accounting for 42.69%.
The data on emissions from plastic waste were obtained through field measurements. Stratified sampling was employed to select the target population for investigation, observation, and measurement, utilizing three data collection methods. The observation sites primarily consisted of campus cafeterias and express delivery centers. Considering the limited scope of correlation coverage, an observational approach was employed to quantify the amount of plastic waste in various garbage bins. Garbage bins in library and dormitory buildings were stratified and sampled based on floor levels, while those in teaching buildings, cafeterias, and roadsides were sampled while considering differences in spatial distribution and usage frequency. The proportion of samples taken through stratified sampling in relation to the total sample was approximately 1:6.

4. Results and Analysis

4.1. Analysis of Campus Plastic Material Flow Characteristics

Estimates of material flows indicate that plastic waste generated in universities accounts for most of the consumption (see Figure 2a), with an average daily amount of around 816 kg. In terms of sources, students consume an average of 815.5 kg per day, which translates to approximately 30.03 g per person per day. Emissions resulting from plastic waste are relatively high, primarily attributed to student “hoarding” behavior (students’ hoarding behavior refers to purchasing various daily necessities in advance during online promotions). Among these sources, canteen packaging and beverage consumption contribute to 45% of the total plastic waste, social takeout consumption accounts for 36%, purchases outside the home contribute nearly 18%, and express packaging constitutes the remaining 1%.
The average plastic waste from students amounts to 816 kg/d, equivalent to a per capita value of 30.03 g/d. Based on these data, domestic universities exhibit per capita plastic waste ranging from 45 to 57 g/d (Figure 3). Notably, the University of Lagos in Nigeria demonstrates a remarkably high per capita plastic waste rate of 126 g/d [33]. It can be observed that the per capita plastic usage and waste of students at Xi’an Shiyou University are at a low level.
The amount of plastic waste discharged at each activity by students at Xi’an Shiyou University exhibits significant characteristics, as evidenced by the notable disparity between the waste generated on weekdays and weekends (Figure 4), primarily stemming from evolving student lifestyle patterns. On weekends, a significant decline in the utilization of teaching buildings and libraries is observed as many students adopt a “home life” mode by either staying in dormitories or returning home. The amount of plastic waste in these two places is relatively high on weekdays and relatively low on weekends, with the ratio of plastic waste between working days and weekends being R. The R-value of the teaching building is 1.4 times that of the library. Correspondingly, the amount of plastic waste in male and female dormitory buildings is low on weekdays and high on weekends, with R-values of 0.5 and 0.3, respectively. If students’ eating habits are basically the same on weekends as they are on weekdays, theoretically, the R-value for plastic waste in the school canteen should be approximately 1; however, its actual value is 0.9, indicating that students have a behavioral habit of increasing food and beverage consumption on weekends.

4.2. Enhanced Design of the Campus “Plastic Reduction” Scheme

4.2.1. Best Practices and Emerging Trends in “Plastic Reduction” Initiatives within Domestic and International Universities

In recent years, both domestic and international universities have actively implemented measures to establish universities as pivotal platforms for reducing plastic consumption in society [36,37,38,39]. The primary objective of Chinese colleges and universities is to impart knowledge on ecological civilization to students, guiding them towards adopting ecological consumption practices and implementing waste classification measures to minimize plastic usage. Some universities have also carried out special environmental education, introducing the impact of plastics on the environment, recycling methods and measures to reduce pollution, and introducing specific measures to reduce plastic consumption. For example, Hainan University and Hainan Normal organized philanthropic initiatives focused on recycling mineral water bottles while concurrently advocating for implementing policies to restrict and prohibit plastic usage through lectures, WeChat notifications, and other communication channels. Similarly, Sichuan Agricultural University has actively promoted the implementation of environmentally friendly plastic bags within their campus dining facilities. However, it is noteworthy that no Chinese university has publicly declared any concrete plans to reduce plastic product consumption.
Some international institutions have developed comprehensive strategies and action plans to reduce plastic consumption, employing diverse mechanisms [40,41,42,43]. British universities are at the forefront of this endeavor. UC Berkeley has implemented a stringent plastic-free policy based on its zero-waste campus, committing to eliminate all unnecessary single-use plastics by 2030 while actively seeking sustainable alternatives. The University of Manchester has committed to eradicating “avoidable single-use plastics” by 2022 through various measures, such as promoting reusable cups during university meals, implementing charges for single-use cups, and adopting natural and biodegradable food packaging.
In general, two distinct mechanisms are employed to mitigate plastic waste at its source: one revolves around environmental education and measures that have been extensively implemented in universities across various countries, with their effectiveness in an individual’s adherence to established standards. The other category encompasses market-based measures and policies that promote the judicious use of plastics. Both mechanisms aim to promote immaterialization, which refers to reducing plastic usage. The former mechanism focuses on enhancing awareness and increasing student engagement, while the latter emphasizes creating an environment conducive to reducing plastic consumption.

4.2.2. “Plastic Reduction” Program of Xi’an Shiyou University

The plastic management at Xi’an Shiyou University is generally unspecific and locally managed, as the university has not yet developed a comprehensive roadmap for reducing plastic. The reduction of plastic on campus primarily relies on consumption guidance, waste segregation, and recycling of plastic bottles. While taking food from the university canteen is not prohibited, a transparent fee system for plastic bags and containers has been implemented. Compared to other universities that prioritize taking action on plastic reduction, Xi’an Shiyou University’s mechanism for reducing plastic is relatively simple and has limited coverage. Therefore, the institution must innovate green campus management by integrating plastic-reduction measures, establishing a suitable “zero plastic” objective, and transitioning from a generalized and localized approach to precise and systematic management of campus-sourced plastics.
Based on the plastic material flow characteristics of Xi’an Shiyou University and referring to the advanced experience of plastic reduction in international universities, a series of systematic plastic-reduction measures can be formulated and implemented (Table 1). Firstly, the canteen plays a pivotal role in implementing measures to prohibit the use and replacement of plastic tableware. This encompasses prohibiting the utilization of plastic cups and packaging boxes, promoting cup and takeaway lunch box recycling, and substituting conventional plastic bags with bio-based alternatives. According to the questionnaire survey results and employing the aforementioned plastic material flow analysis method, calculations are conducted based on Formulas (1)–(5). These initiatives are anticipated to result in a 90% reduction in students’ plastic consumption within the university cafeteria. The quality of restaurant services can be further enhanced to reinforce students’ ecological behavior in relation to catering consumption, encompassing their dining schedule, occasions, choice of restaurants, and menu selections. This will also augment the role of campus catering services as a viable alternative to off-campus options. Reinforced by the takeaway food industry’s concerted efforts to mitigate plastic packaging, it is anticipated that a substantial 30% reduction will occur at the university. Additionally, it is advisable to provide guidance and motivation to students to encourage them to adopt friendly consumption practices. These may include making online purchases based on genuine needs and placing orders accordingly, bringing reusable shopping bags for offline shopping, minimizing snack consumption, etc., and fostering a culture of responsible consumption and waste reduction.
The reduction potential for plastic waste in students’ offline and online shopping is estimated to be 10% and 5%, respectively. Furthermore, it is crucial to enhance ecological civilization education and strengthen the establishment of supervision, management, and evaluation mechanisms, including developing evaluation procedures. This will allow universities and students to monitor their progress in establishing a strong foundation for implementing the aforementioned measures.
The aforementioned measures can facilitate students’ adoption of green consumption practices, enhance their awareness, attitudes, and actions toward reducing plastic usage, stimulate their personal commitment to reducing plastic usage, and foster a spontaneous and conscious effort among students to reduce plastics without incurring significant additional costs for campus-related activities.

4.3. Benefit Evaluation of the Implementation of “Plastic Reduction” Program

Upon achieving the reduction targets for all measures, the overall potential for reduction amounts to 45% (Table 1). Currently, the per capita consumption of plastic in the lives of students at Xi’an Shiyou University is 30.03 g/d. If the plastic reduction is 45%, the per capita plastic reduction is 13.51 g/d. Considering an annual university duration of 300 days, each student can effectively reduce their plastic consumption by an average of 4.05 kg per year, leading to savings of approximately 6.8 kg of crude oil raw materials, reduced energy consumption by 7.3 kgce, decreased emissions by 7.3 kg CO2, and mitigated waste incineration by 4.05 kg (Figure 5). The direct social value contribution of these four environmental benefits totals CNY 46, indicating a significant economic impact. On average, a reduction of 1kg in plastic consumption leads to direct social benefits worth CNY 11, thereby fostering energy conservation and promoting environmental protection (Figure 5).
If a 2-ton garbage truck is used for cleaning, the university can fill 17 garbage trucks with plastic waste for a year. Under such efforts to reduce plastic, Xi’an Shiyou University can save 134 tce of fossil energy, reduce 183 tons of carbon dioxide, and reduce 32 tons of materials bound for waste incineration just in the field of student life each year, resulting in direct benefits of about CNY 370,100 (Table 2).

5. Conclusions and Discussion

5.1. Discussion

(1)
The material flow analysis technology was used to build a plastic flow assessment framework in colleges and universities. Taking Xi’an Shiyou University in Western China as an example, the characteristics of plastic material flow in students’ lives and consumption were evaluated. The research findings indicate that the average daily plastic consumption among university students is 30.03 g, with a corresponding level of plastic waste generation. Compared to the available data from domestic and international educational institutions, the quantity of plastic waste generated by students at this university remains relatively lower;
(2)
Through a series of measures aimed at reducing plastic consumption, Xi’an Shiyou University has successfully achieved a 45% reduction potential in plastic usage within the realm of student life, resulting in an average individual decrease of 4.4 kg per year. If all colleges and universities nationwide, encompassing a student population of over 37 million—slightly surpassing the total population of first-tier cities—were to adopt a per capita plastic reduction target of 4.4 kg by 2023, it would result in an annual reduction in plastic usage of 162,000 tons. This significant reduction would save approximately 610,000 tce (tonnes of coal equivalent) worth of fossil energy, mitigating carbon dioxide emissions by around 830,000 tons and decreasing incineration-related disposal of plastic waste by roughly 150,000 tons annually. The direct economic benefit of these efforts is estimated to be around CNY 1.8 billion;
(3)
The primary focus of this paper is on the plastic substance generated in students’ daily lives, with the exclusion of flow in production behaviors such as construction and university activities. Future research will delve into the plastic material flow within universities’ production behaviors, reducing plastic usage.

5.2. Targeted Strategies for Reducing Plastic Use in Universities

(1)
In collaboration with the University Publicity Department and the University Youth League Committee, we will utilize the university’s public service advertising system and WeChat public account to compose informative texts and disseminate information regarding the project’s impact and the reduction of single-use plastics. Our objective is to enhance students’ comprehension of the irreversible environmental damage caused by disposable products, aiming to minimize or eliminate their usage and ultimately identify alternative avenues for such products. We will facilitate signature collection campaigns to encourage them to document their endeavors towards reducing the usage of single-use packaging and submit their findings, thereby promoting self-assessment while mitigating plastic consumption. Additionally, diverse environmental education initiatives encompassing waste sorting games and garbage-picking competitions will be orchestrated for all students, fostering an emotional connection with ecological concerns within our institution and cultivating environmentally friendly behavior;
(2)
Offer prompt feedback and incentives to facilitate the adoption of plastic-reduction consumption behavior. The more positive students’ attitudes are toward plastic consumption behavior, the more effective and intentional their engagement in such behaviors becomes [44,45]. Motivation is derived from feedback. Therefore, educational institutions can implement environmental subsidies and other economic measures to provide feedback and incentivize students’ adoption of plastic reduction consumption behavior. For example, implementing measures such as increasing the price of waste plastics for recycling or providing incentives for those who use environmentally friendly shopping bags can be considered. In certain cases, negative consumption habits could also be discouraged by the imposition of fines and criticism as deterrents. However, it is important to note that incentives primarily yield short-term effects; behavioral changes tend to diminish once the incentive ceases. Hence, long-term feedback mechanisms and appropriate incentive measures are essential for continuously enhancing students’ positive attitudes and psychology to ensure the sustained implementation of plastic reduction consumption behavior.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft, G.H.; Writing—review & editing, T.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Education and teaching reform research project of Xi’an Shiyou University (JGQZ202309).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Yang, Q.; Nan, H.; Zhao, L. Carbon sequestration potential and environmental impacts of utilizing crop residues for biochar implementation in China. J. Xinyang Norm. Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2021, 34, 237–241. [Google Scholar]
  2. Nielsen, T.; Hasselbalch, J.; Holmberg, K.; Stripple, J. Politics and the plastic crisis: A review throughout the plastic life cycle. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Energy Environ. 2020, 9, e360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Aghdam, F.B.; Alamdari, Z.D.; Nadrian, H.; Jafarabadi, M.A.; Dehghanzadeh, R. Personal, social, and environmental factors associated with the behavior of plastic bag use among urban residents: A study with socioecological approach. Int. J. Prev. Med. 2019, 10, 160. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  4. Hahladakis, J.; Velis, C.; Weber, R.; Iacovidou, E.; Purnell, P. An overview of chemical additives present in plastics: Migration, release, fate and environmental impact during their use, disposal and recycling. J. Hazard. Mater. 2018, 344, 179–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Warhurst, M. Plastics makers welcome latest study of plastics production, use, fate. Food Packag. Bull. Bull. Regalatory Advis. 2017, 26, 10. [Google Scholar]
  6. Shah, S.; Matkawala, F.; Garg, S.; Nighojkar, S.; Kumar, A. Emerging trend of bio-plastics and its Impact on society. Biotechnol. J. Int. 2020, 24, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Macintosh, A.; Simpson, A.; Neeman, T.; Dickson, K. Plastic bag bans: Lessons from the australian capital territory. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 154, 104638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gall, S.; Thompson, R. The impact of debris on marine life. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 92, 170–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lau, W.; Shiran, Y.; Bailey, R. Evaluating scenarios toward zero plastic pollution. Science 2020, 369, 1455–1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yan, X.; Shi, W. Study on eco-environmental effects of urban green space based on membership function value method. J. Xinyang Norm. Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2022, 35, 412–416. [Google Scholar]
  11. Li, F.; Liu, J.; Liu, W.; Liao, S. Spatiotemporal dynamics analysis of carbon emissions from nighttime light data in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei counties. J. Xinyang Norm. Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2021, 34, 230–236. [Google Scholar]
  12. Meng, X.; Tan, X.; Wang, Y.; Wen, Z. Investigation on decision-making mechanism of residents’ household solid waste classification and recycling behaviors. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 140, 224–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Li, Y. An empirical analysis of the impact of rail transit construction on urban consumption. J. Xinyang Norm. Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2022, 35, 432–437. [Google Scholar]
  14. Jia, Y.; Cheng, S.; Shi, R. Decision-making behavior of rural residents’ domestic waste classification in Northwestern of China-analysis based on environmental responsibility and pollution perception. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 326, 129374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Goduraa, S.; Aggarwalb, A.; Kumard, R.; Bhatiac, P. Factors influencing household level municipal solid waste practices in urban areas of North and South India: A cross-sectional study. Waste Manag. 2012, 32, 1728–1730. [Google Scholar]
  16. Sanga, K.; Ying, D.; Huan, L. Factors influencing household’s solid waste classification management: The case of Hangzhou. Int. J. Innov. Educ. Res. 2020, 8, 498–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhang, D.; Huang, G.; Yin, X.; Gong, G. Residents’ waste separation behaviors at the source: Using SEM with the theory of planned behavior in Guangzhou, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 9475–9491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chen, F.; Chen, H.; Wu, M.; Li, S.; Long, R. Research on the driving mechanism of waste separation behavior: Based on qualitative analysis of Chinese urban residents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ghani, W.; Rusli, I.; Biak, D.; Idris, A. An application of the theory of planned behaviour to study the influencing factors of participation in source separation of food waste. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 1276–1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fan, B.; Yang, W.; Shen, X. A comparison study of ‘motivation–intention–behavior’ model on household solid waste sorting in China and Singapore. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 211, 442–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bharath, M.; Natesan, U.; Ayyamperumal, R.; Kalam, N.; Srinivasalu, S. Microplastics as an emerging threat to the freshwater ecosystems of Veeranam lake in south India: A multidimensional approach Chemosphere. Chemosphere 2021, 264, 128502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. O’Brien, J.; Thondhlana, G. Plastic bag use in South Africa: Perceptions, practices and potential intervention strategies. Waste Manag. 2019, 84, 320–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Li, E.; Lin, Y.; He, P.; Wang, S. Study on input-output in the PKU campus based on material flow analysis. Environ. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 39, 64–70. [Google Scholar]
  24. Geyer, R.; Jambeck, L. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci. Adv. 2017, 3, 1700782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Luan, X.; Liu, W.; Cui, Z.; Liu, Y. Plastic resources metabolism in China based on material flow analysis. Resour. Sci. 2020, 42, 372–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Millette, S.; Williams, E.; Hull, C. Materials flow analysis in support of circulareconomy development: Plastics in Trinidad and Tobago. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 150, 104436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Karaylan, S.; Ylmaz, Z.; Uysal, N.; Naneci, S. Prospective evaluation of circular economy practices within plastic packaging value chain through optimization of life cycle impacts and circularity. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 173, 105691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Faraca, G.; Astrup, T. Plastic waste from recycling centres: Characterisation andevaluation ofplastic recyclability. Waste Manag. 2019, 95, 388–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Xing, Y.; Wang, W.; Peng, X.; Liu, Y. Solid waste reduction during waste plastic recycling using substance flow analysis method. Environ. Pollut. Control. 2013, 35, 100–105. [Google Scholar]
  30. Bai, M.; Zhu, L.; An, L.; Peng, G.; Li, D. Estimation and prediction of plastic waste annual input into the sea from China. Acta Oceanol. Sin. 2018, 37, 26–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jiang, X.; Jiang, J.; Chen, D.; Zhou, W.; Zhu, B. Dynamic material flow analysis of Chinese passenger car plastics. China Environ. Sci. 2020, 40, 4106–4114. [Google Scholar]
  32. Zhang, J.; Yang, S. Investigation and countermeasure analysis of college students’ “mobile phone control”. J. Southwest Univ. Natl. 2019, 1, 143–151. [Google Scholar]
  33. Wang, X.; Zheng, X.; Wang, B. Experimenton domestic waste sorting collection of university students’ activity areaand benefit analysis. Value Eng. 2013, 32, 3–4. [Google Scholar]
  34. Wang, R.; Sun, C.; Cheng, J.; Qi, R. Impact of ecological civilization education in universities on the students’ waste classification behavior-evidences from 152 universities in China. J. Arid. Land Resour. Environ. 2020, 34, 21–27. [Google Scholar]
  35. Zhang, K.; Zheng, K.; Wu, X. Investigationon classified collection and resource utilization of domestic waste in colleges and universities taking Pukou campus of Nanjing agricultural university as an example. Environ. Dev. 2020, 3, 214–215. [Google Scholar]
  36. Zhao, H.; Xu, Y.; Hong, W. Smart evaluation of green campus sustainability considering energy utilization. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhou, S.; Tan, M.; Wang, X. Comprehensive effectiveness evaluation based on entropy weight method for energy utilization schemes of smart parks. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Automation (EEA2016), Hong Kong, China, 24–26 June 2016. [Google Scholar]
  38. He, H. Effects of environmental policy on consumption: Lessons from the Chinese plastic bag regulation. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2012, 17, 407–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zhou, Y. Four ways of ecological civilization education in colleges and universities in the new era. J. Dali Univ. 2019, 4, 84–89. [Google Scholar]
  40. Abakumov, E.; Beresten, S. Green campus as a part of environmental management of St. petersburg state university. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Shboul, B.; Lenny Koh, S.; Veneti, C.; Alexandra, I.; Zinca, A.H.; Pourkasha, M. Evaluating sustainable development practices in a zero-carbon university campus: A pre and post-COVID-19 pandemic recovery study. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 896, 165178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zulfa, V.; Nugraheni, P.; Mashabi, N.; Faesal, M. Smart evaluation of green campus sustainability at universitas Negeri Jakarta. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Mosul, Iraq, 10–11 January 2023; p. 1239. [Google Scholar]
  43. Ragazzi, M.; Ghidini, F. Environmental sustainability of universities: Critical analysis of a green ranking. Energy Procedia 2017, 119, 111–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Dai, S.; Chen, K.; Jin, R. The effect of message framing and language intensity on green consumption behavior willingness. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 24, 2432–2452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Li, X.; Zhao, X. An empirical analysis on the impact of air pollution on green transportation consumption. J. Xinyang Norm. Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2022, 35, 591–596. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 15 16807 g001
Figure 1. Source of plastic waste–emission of plastic waste–grave of plastic waste (SEG) evaluation framework.
Figure 1. Source of plastic waste–emission of plastic waste–grave of plastic waste (SEG) evaluation framework.
Sustainability 15 16807 g001
Sustainability 15 16807 g002
Figure 2. Plastic material flow on campus (daily average). (a) The distribution of plastic consumption across various consumer behaviors; (b) Illustrates the distribution of plastic consumption across different locations.
Figure 2. Plastic material flow on campus (daily average). (a) The distribution of plastic consumption across various consumer behaviors; (b) Illustrates the distribution of plastic consumption across different locations.
Sustainability 15 16807 g002
Sustainability 15 16807 g003
Figure 3. Comparison of plastic material flow between colleges and universities. Notes: Data for the other three universities were compiled from previous studies [25,33,34,35].
Figure 3. Comparison of plastic material flow between colleges and universities. Notes: Data for the other three universities were compiled from previous studies [25,33,34,35].
Sustainability 15 16807 g003
Sustainability 15 16807 g004
Figure 4. Plastic waste emissions on weekdays.
Figure 4. Plastic waste emissions on weekdays.
Sustainability 15 16807 g004
Sustainability 15 16807 g005
Figure 5. Plastic reduction potential and benefits in student life.
Figure 5. Plastic reduction potential and benefits in student life.
Sustainability 15 16807 g005
Table 1. Plastic-reduction measures and potential on campus.
Table 1. Plastic-reduction measures and potential on campus.
SourcesValues per Student (g/d)Plastic-Reduction MeasuresRelative Plastic-Reduction Potential (%)
Cafeteria12.6Prohibition and alternative mechanisms;
Use of recycled meal boxes/beverage cups		90
Food delivery8.8Reduction in plastic packaging;
On-campus dining alternatives		30
Online shopping4.13
Offline shopping2.6Bring a shopping bag;
Reduction of snack consumption		10
Express delivery1.9Reduction of unnecessary purchases;
Purchase together		5
Total30.03 45
Table 2. Direct benefits of 45% plastic reduction.
Table 2. Direct benefits of 45% plastic reduction.
IndicatorsReduction AmountUnit PriceAmount of Value
Raw materials56 t5000 CNY/t280,000 CNY
Energy consumption60 tce800 CNY/tce48,000 CNY
Carbon reduction183 tCO260 CNY/tCO210,100 CNY
Plastic waste32 t1000 CNY/t32,000 CNY
Overall benefits-10,888 CNY/t370,100 CNY
Notes: Price of combined benefits = amount of value/amount of plastic reduction.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

He, G.; Yu, T. RETRACTED: Evaluating the Benefits and Potential of “Plastic Reduction”: A Case Study of College Students in Western China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16807. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416807

AMA Style

He G, Yu T. RETRACTED: Evaluating the Benefits and Potential of “Plastic Reduction”: A Case Study of College Students in Western China. Sustainability. 2023; 15(24):16807. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416807

Chicago/Turabian Style

He, Guoqiang, and Tao Yu. 2023. "RETRACTED: Evaluating the Benefits and Potential of “Plastic Reduction”: A Case Study of College Students in Western China" Sustainability 15, no. 24: 16807. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416807

APA Style

He, G., & Yu, T. (2023). RETRACTED: Evaluating the Benefits and Potential of “Plastic Reduction”: A Case Study of College Students in Western China. Sustainability, 15(24), 16807. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416807

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop