Risk, efficacy, and the moderating role of policy effectiveness in microplastic reduction intentions

Abstract

Microplastics pose serious threats to both the environment and human health. Although governments have introduced various policies and promoted international cooperation to address this issue, the effectiveness of these efforts is closely linked to the importance of individuals’ engagement, which is shaped by their perceptions. However, limited research has examined how such perceptions interact with perceived policy effectiveness in shaping pro-environmental behavioral intentions. To address this gap, this study aims to examine how risk perceptions (perceived severity and perceived vulnerability) and efficacy beliefs (self-efficacy and response efficacy) influence behavioral intentions to reduce microplastic emissions within the framework of protection motivation theory, and whether perceived policy effectiveness moderates these relationships. We conducted a nationwide survey of South Korean adults and analyzed the data using hierarchical regression to test the proposed hypotheses. The results revealed that both risk perception and efficacy had significant positive effects on behavioral intentions, with response efficacy emerging as the strongest predictor, followed by perceived severity, self-efficacy, and perceived vulnerability. Perceived policy effectiveness did not directly affect behavioral intentions but moderated the relationship between self-efficacy and behavioral intentions. The moderation effect indicated that higher perceived policy effectiveness attenuated the positive relationship between self-efficacy and pro-environmental behavioral intentions, suggesting a potential motivation crowding-out effect. These findings highlight the importance of integrating psychological factors and perceptions of policy effectiveness into policy design. They offer valuable insights for environmental campaigns, communication strategies, and governance efforts aimed at promoting sustainable behaviors to mitigate microplastic emissions.

Keywords

Microplastic emissions / Pro-environmental intentions / Protection motivation theory / Risk perception / Efficacy / Policy effectiveness

Funding

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korean government (Ministry of Science and ICT) (No. RS-2023-00217228).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

[1] UNEP. Annual Report; 2024. Available from: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/47082/unep-annual-report-2024.pdf [Last accessed on 2025 Aug 12].

[2] Prata, JC, Da Costa, JP, Lopes, I, Duarte, AC, Rocha- Santos, T. Environmental exposure to microplastics: An overview on possible human health effects. Sci Total Environ. 2020; 702:134455. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134455

[3] Mathew, RT. Plastic contamination in aquatic ecosystems: A fisheries perspective. Asian J Water Environ Pollut. 2024; 21(3):1-7. doi: 10.3233/AJW240028

[4] Yadav, H, Sethulekshmi, S, Shriwastav, A. Estimation of microplastic exposure via the composite sampling of drinking water, respirable air, and cooked food from Mumbai, India. Environ Res. 2022; 214:113735. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.113735

[5] Leslie, HA, Van Velzen, MJ, Brandsma, SH, Vethaak, AD, Garcia-Vallejo, JJ, Lamoree, MH. Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood. Environ Int. 2022; 163:107199. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107199

[6] Roslan, NS, Lee, YY, Ibrahim, YS, et al. Detection of microplastics in human tissues and organs: A scoping review. J Glob Health. 2024; 14:04179. doi: 10.7189/jogh.14.04179

[7] Son, A, Hea, JE, Lee, JY, et al. Environmental blindspots: Identification and mitigation using technologies, education, and policies. J Korean Soc Environ Eng. 2024; 46(5):231-262. doi: 10.4491/KSEE.2024.46.5.231

[8] UNEP. Proceedings of the United Nations Environment Assembly at its Resumed Fifth Session. United Naions Environment Programme. Available from: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/39828/proceedings%20of%20the%20united%20nations%20environment%20assembly%20at%20its%20resumed%20fifth%20session.%20english.pdf?sequence=1&isallowed=y [Last accessed on 2024 Oct 08].

[9] Lee, S. Current Status and Implications of Plastic Regulations in the International Community. KIEP World Economy Focus; 2022. p. 1-14, 2635-5981. Available from: https://www.kiep.go.kr/gallery.es?mid=a10102030000&bid=0004&list_no=10063&act=view [Last accessed on 2025 May 20].

[10] Proposal for a Special Act on the Reduction and Management of Microplastics. National Assembly of Korea. Bill Information. Available from: https://likms.assembly.go.kr/bill/bi/billdetailpage.do?billid=prc_o2m4u0v8t2t2s1t6r2r3n0l9m5k0l0 [Last accessed on 2025 Sep 26].

[11] Notice of Promulgation and Enforcement of the Partial Amendment to the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Reduction of Disposable Product Use. Seoul OpenGov. Available from: https://opengov.seoul.go.kr/sanction/33508006 [Last accessed on 2025 Sep 28].

[12] Gwak, K, Kim, YW. The influence of message framing on pro-environmental behavioral intentions for plastic reduction: The mediating effect of negative emotions and the moderating effects of generativity and learned helplessness. Korean J Broadcast Telecommun Stud. 2025; 39(1):55-96.

[13] Hocherman, T, Trop, T, Ghermandi, A. Time lags in environmental governance: A critical review. Ambio. 2025;1-18. doi: 10.1007/s13280-025-02211-y

[14] Park, H, Roh, S, Kim, E. Factors influencing on the pro-environmental behavior - from the viewpoint of TRA. J Local Govern Stud. 2007; 19(2):97-119.

[15] Azadi, Y, Yazdanpanah, M, Mahmoudi, H. Understanding smallholder farmers’ adaptation behaviors through climate change beliefs, risk perception, trust, and psychological distance: Evidence from wheat growers in Iran. J Environ Manage. 2019; 250:109456. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109456

[16] Kim, C, Sohn, D, Nam, M. Analysis of influencing factors of climate crisis behavior for elementary, middle, and high school students in gyeonggi-do: Focusing on the mediating effect of climate crisis risk perception and ecological citizenship. Korean J Educ Res. 2021; 59(4):215-242. doi: 10.30916/KERA.59.4.215

[17] Oh, S, Sunjin, Y. The mediating effect of affective response between climate crisis risk perception and responding behavioral intention. The mediating effect of affective response between climate crisis risk perception and responding behavioral intention. J Environ Policy Adm. 2022; 30(4):53-97. doi: 10.15301/jepa.2022.30.4.53

[18] Jungsun, A, Yeojung, K. Koreans’ climate change beliefs, risk perception, and climate action: Focusing on the effects of the communication channel type. J Soc Sci. 2022; 48(2):85-116. doi: 10.15820/khjss.2022.48.2.005

[19] Maartensson, H, Loi, NM. Exploring the relationships between risk perception, behavioural willingness, and constructive hope in pro-environmental behaviour. Environ Educ Res. 2022; 28(4):600-613. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2021.2015295

[20] Ryu, J, Cho, C. Current status of microplastics and impact on human health. Korean Ind Chem News. 2019; 22(2):1-12.

[21] Bak, J, Kang, H, Choi, Y. Microplastics in the marine environment and their impacts on human health jia bak, hyun bon kang and yun-sik choi. J Life Sci. 2021; 31(4):442-451. doi: 10.5352/JLS.2021.31.4.442

[22] Choi, Y. Recent research trends in induction of cellular senescence by microplastics. J Life Sci. 2024; 34(8):594-607. doi: 10.5352/JLS.2024.34.8.594

[23] Ivar Do Sul, JA, Costa, MF. The present and future of microplastic pollution in the marine environment. Environ Pollut. 2014; 185:352-364. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.10.036

[24] Zhang, X, Hu, N, Yu, Z, et al. Research tendency of microplastics and nanoplastics based on bibliometric analysis and perspective of the influence of human health. Environ Res Commun. 2022; 4(9):095004. doi: 10.1088/2515-7620/ac8bc8

[25] Cho, S, Cho, W, Kim, S, Chung, J, Kim, H. Identification of microplastics in sea salts by raman microscopy and FT-IR microscopy. Anal Sci Technol. 2019; 32(6):243-251. doi: 10.5806/AST.2019.32.6.243

[26] Rogers RW. Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change:A revised theory of protection motivation. In: Social Psychology: A Source Book. United States: Guilford; 1983. p. 153-176.

[27] Stern, PC. New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues. 2000; 56(3):407-424. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00175

[28] Minton, AP, Rose, RL. The effects of environmental concern on environmentally friendly consumer behavior: An exploratory study. J Bus Res. 1997; 40(1):37-48. doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(96)00209-3

[29] Park, K, Ryu, I, Song, C. Effect of environmental awareness on environmentally friendly consumption behavior: Focused on mediated effect of attitude toward the environment. Korean J Policy Anal Eval. 2012; 22(3):141-163. doi: 10.23036/kapae.2012.22.3.006

[30] Ku, Y, Ahn, J, Noh, G. A study on the factors affecting behavioral intentions to reduce particulate matter emission the integration of theory of planned behavior and norm activation model. Korean J Commun Stud. 2020; 64(3):47-76. doi: 10.20879/kjjcs.2020.64.3.002

[31] Lee, J, Kang, T, Cho, I. A study for promoting environmentally friendly behaviors based on self- and collective-efficacy. Legis Policy Stud. 2018; 10(2):401-428. doi: 10.22809/nars.2018.10.2.016

[32] Kim, M, Moon, S. Predicting pro-environmental behavior: A cross-national analysis. Korean Public Adm Rev. 2014; 48(3):257-293.

[33] Maloney, MP, Ward, MP. Ecology: Let’s hear from the people: An objective scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. Am Psychol. 1973; 28(7):583-586. doi: 10.1037/h0034936

[34] Pooley, JA, O’Connor, M. Environmental education and attitudes: Emotions and beliefs are what is needed. Environ Behav. 2000; 32(5):711-723. doi: 10.1177/0013916500325007

[35] Ajzen, I, Madden, TJ. Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1986; 22(5):453-474.doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(86)90045-4

[36] De Groot, J, Steg, L. General beliefs and the theory of planned behavior: The role of environmental concerns in the TPB. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2007; 37(8):1817-1836. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00239.x

[37] Emekci, S. Green consumption behaviours of consumers within the scope of TPB. J Consum Market. 2019; 36(3):410-417. doi: 10.1108/JCM-05-2018-2694

[38] Alzubaidi, H, Slade, EL, Dwivedi, YK. Examining antecedents of consumers’ pro-environmental behaviours: TPB extended with materialism and innovativeness. J Bus Res. 2021; 122:685-699. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.017

[39] Lee, H. Domestic research trends on environmental behavior based on environmental behavior theory (TPB, NAM, and VBN). Korean J Environ Educ. 2021; 34(1):81-99. doi: 10.17965/kjee.2021.34.1.81

[40] Yun, S, Kim, T. Study on the pro-environmental behavior intention of customers visiting green coffee shops using the extended planning behavior theory and norm activation model. Korean J Hosp Tour. 2020; 29(2):21-39. doi: 10.24992/KJHT.2020.02.29.02.21

[41] Shen, X, Chen, B, Leibrecht, M, Du, H. The moderating effect of perceived policy effectiveness in residents’ waste classification intentions: A study of Bengbu, China. Sustainability. 2022; 14(2):801. doi: 10.3390/su14020801

[42] Schwartz, SH.Normative influences on altruism. In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Netherlands: Elsevier; 1977. p. 221-279.

[43] Steg, L, Dreijerink, L, Abrahamse, W. Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: A test of VBN theory. J Environ Psychol. 2005; 25(4):415-425. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.003

[44] Koelmans, AA, Besseling, E, Foekema, E, et al. Risks of plastic debris: Unravelling fact, opinion, perception, and belief. Environ Sci Technol. 2017; 51:11513-11519. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.7b02219

[45] Catarino, AI, Kramm, J, Völker, C, Henry, TB, Everaert, G. Risk posed by microplastics: Scientific evidence and public perception. Curr Opin Green Sustain Chem. 2021; 29:100467. doi: 10.1016/j.cogsc.2021.100467

[46] Kim, S, Jeong, S, Hwang, Y. Predictors of pro-environmental behaviors of American and Korean students: The application of the theory of reasoned action and protection motivation theory. Sci Commun. 2013; 35(2):168-188. doi: 10.1177/1075547012441692

[47] Rogers, RW. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change1. J Psychol. 1975; 91(1):93-114. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803

[48] Park, C, Lee, S. A study of the user privacy protection behavior in online environment: Based on protection motivation theory. J Int Comput Serv. 2014; 15(2):59-71. doi: 10.7472/jksii.2014.15.2.59

[49] O’Connor, RE, Bard, RJ, Fisher, A. Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Anal. 1999; 19(3):461-471. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00421.x

[50] Wachinger, G, Renn, O, Begg, C, Kuhlicke, C. The risk perception paradox--implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Anal. 2013; 33(6):1049-1065. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01942.x

[51] Zhu, W, Yao, N, Guo, Q, Wang, F. Public risk perception and willingness to mitigate climate change: City smog as an example. Environ Geochem Health. 2020; 42:881-893. doi: 10.1007/s10653-019-00355-x

[52] Norman, P, Boer, H, Seydel, ER, Mullan, B.Protection motivation theory. In: Predicting and Changing Health Behaviour: Research and Practice with Social Cognition Models. Oxford: Academic Publisher; 2015. p. 70-106.

[53] Semenza, JC, Hall, DE, Wilson, DJ, Bontempo, BD, Sailor, DJ, George, LA. Public perception of climate change voluntary mitigation and barriers to behavior change. Am J Prev Med. 2008; 35(5):479-487. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.08.020

[54] Shahul Hamid, F, Bhatti, MS, Anuar, N, Anuar, N, Mohan, P, Periathamby, A. Worldwide distribution and abundance of microplastic: How dire is the situation? Waste Manage Res. 2018; 36(10):873-897. doi: 10.1177/0734242X18785730

[55] Zhang, K, Hamidian, AH, Tubić A, et al. Understanding plastic degradation and microplastic formation in the environment: A review. Environ Pollut. 2021; 274:116554. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2021.116554

[56] Tian, W, Song, P, Zhang, H, et al. Microplastic materials in the environment: Problem and strategical solutions. Prog Mater Sci. 2023; 132:101035. doi: 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2022.101035

[57] Osman, AI, Hosny, M, Eltaweil, AS, et al. Microplastic sources, formation, toxicity and remediation: A review. Environ Chem Lett. 2023; 21(4):2129-2169. doi: 10.1007/s10311-023-01593-3

[58] Rainear, AM, Christensen, JL. Protection motivation theory as an explanatory framework for proenvironmental behavioral intentions. Commun Res Rep. 2017; 34(3):239-248. doi: 10.1080/08824096.2017.1286472

[59] Shafiei, A, Maleksaeidi, H. Pro-environmental behavior of university students: Application of protection motivation theory. Glob Ecol Conserv. 2020; 22:e00908. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e00908

[60] Yum, J, Kang, S. Public Attitudes Towards the Environment: 2023 Survey; 2023. Available from: https://library.kei.re.kr/pyxis-api/1/digital-files/92cfff3c-8d12-4f6a-9afd-ea0f7d809f53 [Last accessed on 2024 Sep 23].

[61] Bandura, A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Vol. 1986. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1986. p. 2.

[62] Milfont, TL. The interplay between knowledge, perceived efficacy, and concern about global warming and climate change: A one-year longitudinal study. Risk Anal. 2012; 32(6):1003-1020. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01800.x

[63] Kim, Y, Park, D, Min, H. The impact of psychological distance on risk-mitigative behaviors toward climate change among Koreans a focus on the mediating effects of risk perception and the moderating effects of efficacy. Adv Res. 2018;(118):127-170. doi: 10.16914/ar.2018.118.127

[64] Lauren, N, Fielding, KS, Smith, L, Louis, WR. You did, so you can and you will: Self-efficacy as a mediator of spillover from easy to more difficult pro-environmental behaviour. J Environ Psychol. 2016; 48:191-199. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.10.004

[65] Yoong, SW, Bojei, J, Osman, S, Hashim, NH. Perceived self-efficacy and its role in fostering pro-environmental attitude and behaviours. Asian J Bus Account. 2018; 11(2):151-186. doi: 10.22452/ajba.vol11no2.5

[66] Van Valkengoed, AM, Perlaviciute, G, Steg, L. From believing in climate change to adapting to climate change: The role of risk perception and efficacy beliefs. Risk Anal. 2024; 44(3):553-565. doi: 10.1111/risa.14193

[67] Prentice-Dunn, S, Mcmath, BF, Cramer, RJ. Protection motivation theory and stages of change in sun protective behavior. J Health Psychol. 2009; 14(2):297-305. doi: 10.1177/1359105308100214

[68] Kim, S, Kim, Y. The effects of cultural bias on climate change policy compliance and support mediating effects of risk perception, emotion, and efficacy. Korean J Commun Stud. 2019; 63(4):230-274. doi: 10.20879/kjjcs.2019.63.4.006

[69] Goddard, RD, Hoy, WK, Hoy, AW. Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educ Res. 2004; 33(3):3-13. doi: 10.3102/0013189X033003003

[70] GL, Babutsidze Z, Chai A, Reser JP. The role of climate change risk perception, response efficacy, and psychological adaptation in pro-environmental behavior: A two nation study. J Environ Psychol. 2020; 68:101410. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101410

[71] Kim, M, Jang, A. Exploratory study on pro-environmental awareness and behaviors of MZ generation the role of social media and pro-environmental campaigns. Adv Res. 2022; 134:88-131. doi: 10.16914/ar.2022.134.88

[72] Wan, C, Shen, GQ, Yu, A. The role of perceived effectiveness of policy measures in predicting recycling behaviour in Hong Kong. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2014; 83:141-151. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.12.009

[73] Dechezleprêtre, A, Fabre, A, Kruse, T, Planterose, B, Sanchez Chico, A, Stantcheva, S. Fighting climate change: International attitudes toward climate policies. Am Econ Rev. 2025; 115(4):1258-1300. doi: 10.1257/aer.20230501

[74] Fu, L, Zhang, Y, Bai, Y. Pro-environmental awareness and behaviors on campus: Evidence from Tianjin, China. Eurasia J Math Sci Technol Educ. 2017; 14(1):427-445. doi: 10.12973/ejmste/77953

[75] Liao, C, Zhao, D, Zhang, S, Chen, L. Determinants and the moderating effect of perceived policy effectiveness on residents’ separation intention for rural household solid waste. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018; 15(4):726. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15040726

[76] Pakmehr, S, Yazdanpanah, M, Baradaran, M. How collective efficacy makes a difference in responses to water shortage due to climate change in Southwest Iran. Land Use Policy. 2020; 99:104798. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104798

[77] West, SG, Finch, JF, Curran, PJ. Structural equation models with nonnormal variables:Problems and remedies. In: Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications. London: SAGE Publications; 1995. p. 56-75.

[78] Baron, RM, Kenny, DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986; 51(6):1173-1182. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

[79] Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. London: Routledge; 2013.

[80] Wan, C, Shen, GQ, Yu, A. The moderating effect of perceived policy effectiveness on recycling intention. J Environ Psychol. 2014; 37:55-60. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.11.006

[81] Fu, L, Sun, Z, Zha, L, et al. Environmental awareness and pro-environmental behavior within China’s road freight transportation industry: Moderating role of perceived policy effectiveness. J Clean Prod. 2020; 252:119796. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119796

[82] Environment, GF. Microplastics in Danube Region Drinking Water. European Commission. Available from: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/microdrink/removing/microplastics-drinking-water-2025-03-10_en [Last accessed on 2025 Aug 11].

[83] Andor, MA, Goette, L, Price, MK, Schulze-Tilling, A, Tomberg, L. Real-Time Feedback and Social Comparison Reports Impact Resource Use and Welfare: Evidence From a Field Experiment; 2025. Available from: https://www.crctr224.de/research/discussion/papers/archive/dp651 [Last accessed on 2025 Aug 04].

[84] Spence, A, Poortinga, W, Pidgeon, N. The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Anal. 2012; 32(6):957-972. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01695.x

[85] Providing Benefits of KRW 400 or More for Using Personal Cups at Cafés (Discount + Seoul Pay Points). Seoul Metropolitan Government. Available from: https://news.seoul.go.kr/env/archives/563308 [Last accessed on 2025 Sep 28].

[86] Graafland, J, Bovenberg, L. Government regulation, business leaders’ motivations and environmental performance of SMEs. J Environ Plan Manage. 2020; 63(8):1335-1355. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2019.1663159

[87] Kim, B, Kim, S, Yeom, S, Jung, SP. Environmental pollution by the fast fashion: Current status and prospects. J Korean Soc Environ Eng. 2023; 45(11):506-518. doi: 10.4491/KSEE.2023.45.11.506