Türkiye’de Plastik Poşetlerin Ücretlendirilmesi Uygulamasına Yönelik Tüketici Tepkilerinin Belirlenmesi

Amaç – Tüketim davranışlarının doğa üzerindeki doğrudan ve dolaylı yıkıcı etkileri, tüketim davranışlarının daha az zararlı bir hale dönüştürülmesini gerekli kılmaktadır. Bu noktada hükümetler çeşitli politika araçları ile tüketici davranışlarını şekillendirecek müdahalelerde bulunmaktadır. Hafif plastik poşetlerin kullanım miktarının azaltılması amacı ile birçok ülkede uygulanan ve ülkemizde de 1 Ocak 2019 itibari ile başlayacak olan “plastik poşetlerin ücretlendirilmesi” uygulaması da bu müdahalelerden biridir. Uygulamanın amacına ulaşabilmesi için toplumun hem davranışsal hem de tutumsal desteğinin sağlanması önemlidir. Bu araştırmanın amacı, tüketicilerin plastik poşetlerin ücretlendirilmesine yönelik tepkilerinin belirlenmesi ve uygulamaya yönelik tutumsal direnç oluşmasına sebep olması muhtemel faktörlerin ortaya çıkarılmasıdır. Yöntem – Amacı gereği keşifsel bir özellik taşıyan araştırmada veri farklı özelliklere sahip 20 tüketici ile yapılan derinlemesine mülakatlar ile toplanmıştır. Bulgular – Bulgular, uygulamanın davranış değişikliği yaratma potansiyelinin yüksek olduğunu ancak tutumsal desteği zayıflatan bazı kaygıların ön plana çıktığını göstermiştir. Tartışma – Uygulamanın davranışsal desteğin yanında tutumsal olarak da desteklenmesi ve hedefine en etkin şekilde ulaşabilmesi için alınması gereken önlemler üzerinde durulmuştur.

Exploring The Consumer Responses to Plastic Bag Fee in Turkey

Purpose – Direct and indirect destructive impacts of consumption patterns signal a need for an urgent change of unsustainable consumer behaviors. At this point, governments use some political intervention to courage behavioral change. One example is the plastic bag fee that is used in some countries to reduce the usage of lightweight plastic bags and that will be valid in 2019 in Turkey as well. Behavioral and attitudinal public support is a crucial factor for the efficiency of the intervention. In this context, the purpose of this research is to explore the consumers’ initial responses to plastic bag fee as a policy intervention and factors that fuel the attitudinal resistance to it. Design/methodology/approach – The research is exploratory in its nature and built on the bases of in-depth interviews held with 20 consumers with different demographic characteristics. Findings – Results showed that the intervention has a high potential for reducing plastic bag usage. However, consumers have some concerns which hinder their attitudinal support for the intervention. Discussion – Actions needed for enabling attitudinal support and maximum efficiency of the intervention are discussed.

PDF

___

ASCEE (2008). Policy ınstruments to promote sustainable consumption: Aproject co-funded by the European Commission within the sixth framework programme (2002-2006), Brussels/ Heidelberg/ Oslo, May 20, 2008
Berglund, C., and Matti, S. (2006). Citizen and consumer: The dual role of individuals in environmental policy, Environmental Politics, 15(4), 550–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010600785176
BİANET, (2016). Belediyelerin naylon poşet mücadelesi ne durumda? (22 Eylül 2016) http://bianet.org/bianet/toplum/178925-belediyelerin-naylon-poset-mucadelesi-nedurumda? bia_source=rss 26.07.2018 (Erişim tarihi: 14 Aralık 2018)
BİK, 2017, Basın İlan Kurumu, http://www.bik.gov.tr/bakanlik-acikladi-2019da-ucretli-olacak/ (Erişim tarihi: 14 Aralık 2018)
Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A. ve Whitwell, G. J. (2010). Why ethical consumers don’t walk their talk: Towards a framework for understanding the gap between the ethical purchase ıntentions and actual buying behaviour of ethically minded consumers, Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 139-158.
Clapp, J., and Swanston, L. (2009). Doing away with plastic shopping bags: International patterns of norm emergence and policy implementation, Environmental Politics, 18(3), 315–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010902823717
CNN, 2016 “Adalar’da naylon alışveriş poşet kullanımı yasaklandı “ (8.02.2016 Perşembe 18:20) https://www.cnnturk.com/ekonomi/adalarda-naylon-alisveris-poset-kullanimi-yasaklandi (Erişim tarihi: 14 Aralık 2018)
Convery, F., McDonnell, S., and Ferreira, S. (2007). The most popular tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish plastic bags levy, Environmental and Resource Economics, 38(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-006- 9059-2
D’Astous, A., and Legendre, A. (2009). Understanding consumers’ ethical justifications: A scale for appraising consumers’ reasons for not behaving ethically, Journal of Business Ethics, 87(2), 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9883-0
Elliott, E., Seldon, B. J., and Regens, J. L. (1997). Political and economic determinants of individuals’ support for environmental spending, Journal of Environmental Management, 51(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1996.0129
EuroCommerce Report (2004). The Use of LCAs on plastic bags in an IPP context Brussels, https://circabc.europa.eu/webdav/CircaBC/env/ipp_regmeeting/Library/documents_distribution/euro commerce/EuroCommerce_LCA%20in%20an%20IPP%20context%20FINAL%20September%202004.pd f, (Erişim tarihi: 19 Temmuz 2018)
Gifford, R. (2008). Psychology’s essential role in alleviating the impacts of climate change, Canadian Psychology, 49(4), 273–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013234
Gifford, R. (2011). The dragons of ınaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation, American Psychologist, 66(4), 290-302.
Gifford, R. (2014). Environmental Psychology: Principles and Practice (5th ed.) Colville, WA: Optimal Books.
Hatfield, J., and Job, R. F. S. (2001). Optimism bias about environmental degradation: The role of the range of impact of precautions, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2000.0190
Jackson, T. and Michaelis, L. (2003). Policies for Sustainable Consumption: A report to the Sustainable Development Commission, http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php@id=138.html (Erişim tarihi: 19 Temmuz 2018)
Jackson, T. (2005). The Matter of Habit. Motivating Sustainable Consumption a Review of Evidence on Consumer Behaviour and Behavioural Change, (January), 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1260/0958305043026573
Jakovcevic, A., Steg, L., Mazzeo, N., Caballero, R., Franco, P. , Putrino, N., and Favara J. (2014). Charges for plastic bags: Motivational and behavioral effects, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 372-380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.09.004
Kallbekken, S., and Sæælen, H. (2011). Public acceptance for environmental taxes: Self-interest, environmental and distributional concerns, Energy Policy, 39(5), 2966–2973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.006
Kløckner, Christian. (2015). The Psychology of Pro-Environmental Communication: Going beyond standard information strategies. Palgrave Macmillan, USA
Lam, S. P. (2015). Predicting support of climate policies by using a protection motivation model, Climate Policy, 15(3), 321–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2014.916599
Lewis, H., Verghese, K., and Fitzpatrick, L. (2010). Evaluating the sustainability impacts of packaging: the plastic carry bag dilemma. Packaging Technology and Science, 23, 145-160
Lorek, S., Giljum, S., and Bruckner, M. (2008). Sustainable Consumption Policies Effectiveness Evaluation (SCOPE2) Inventory and assessment of policy instruments. http://www.old.seri.at/documentupload/d1b_scope2_wp1pdf.pdf (Erişim tarihi: 14 Aralık 2018)
Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., and Whitmarsh, L. (2007). Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications, Global Environmental Change, 17(3–4), 445– 459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.01.004
Meadows, D. H., Meadows D. L., Randers, J., and Behrens, W.W. 1972. The Limits to Growth. New York: Universe Books
Musa, H. M., Hayes, C., Bradley, M. J., Clayson, A., and Gillibrand, G. (2013). Measures aimed at reducing plastic carrier bag use: A consumer behaviour focused study, Natural Environment, 1(1), 17–23. doi:10.12966/ne.06.02.2013.
Martinho, G., Balaia, N., and Pires, A. (2017). The Portuguese plastic carrier bag tax: The effects on consumers’ behavior, Waste Management, 61, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.01.023 NTV, 2015 “Kartal Belediyesi naylon poşeti yasakladı” (19.11.2015 - 11:23) https://www.ntv.com.tr/turkiye/kartal-belediyesi-naylon-posetiyasakladi, DIi3EszlPUKQ6ctzHwbN5g (Erişim tarihi: 14 Aralık 2018)
Pelletier, L. G., Dion, S., Tuson, K., and Green-Demers, I. (1999). Why do people fail to adopt environmental protective behaviors? Toward a taxonomy of environmental amotivation, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(12), 2481–2504. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00122.x
Rhodes, E., Axsen, J., and Jaccard, M. (2014). Does effective climate policy require well-informed citizen support? Global Environmental Change, 29, 92–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.09.001
Rienstra, S., Rietveld, P., and Verhoef, E. (1999). The social support for policy measures in passenger transport, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 4(3), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(99)00005-X
Romer, J. R. (2010). The Evolution of San Francisco ’ s Plastic-Bag Ban, Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal, 1(2), 438–466.
Schade, J., and Schlag, B. (2003). Acceptability of urban transport pricing strategies,Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 6(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2016.10.013
Sezer , K. (2008). Karışık kentsel atık kompost tesisi ünitelerinde atık profilinin incelenmesi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Steg, L& Gifford, R. (2005). Sustainable transportation and quality of life. Journal of Transport Geography, 13: 59–69
Taylor, R., and Villas-Boas, S. (2014). Supermarket Carryout Bag Policies and Bag Usage : Bans Versus Fees, 1–49. Working paper: https://are.berkeley.edu/~sberto/Taylor_VillasBoas_BagBansVersusBagFees.pdf Erişim tarihi: 14 Aralık 2018)
T.C. Sağlık BakanlığI (2017) Temel Sağlık Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü “Alışveriş Poşetleri” konulu 14.07.2011 tarih ve 23374 sayılı genelgesi file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/iller-ve-belediyelerdergisi. pdf (Erişim tarihi: 14 Aralık 2018)
Tukker, A. (2015). Priorities for sustainable consumption policies, Reisch L. A., and Thøgersen J. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Sustainable Consumption. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Tyler, T. R., Orwin, R. and Schurer, L. (1982). Defensive denial and high cost prosocial behavior, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 3 (4), 267-281
Vlek, C. A. J. (1996). Collective risk generation and risk management: The unexploited potential of the social dilemma paradigm. Liebrand, W. B. G. and Messick, D. M. (Eds.), Frontiers in Social Dilemma Research ,11–38, Berlin: Springer
Vlek, C., and Steg, L. (2007). Human behavior and environmental sustainability: Problems, driving forces, and research topics. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 1-19
Wan, C., Shen, G. Q., and Choi, S. (2017). A review on political factors influencing public support for urban environmental policy. Environmental Science and Policy, 75(May), 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.05.005
WCED- World Comission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press
Young, W., Hwang, K., McDonald, S., and Oates, C. J. (2010). Sustainable consumption: Green consumer behaviour when purchasing products, Sustainable Development, 18(1), 20-31.