Resources, Conservation & Recycling 168 (2021) 105455

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Full length article

Effective policy mix for plastic waste mitigation in India using

System Dynamics
M. Dhanshyam a, Samir K. Srivastava b, *
a
Anusandhan, Indian Institute of Management, Prabandh Nagar, IIM, Road, Lucknow, India, 226 013
b
Operations Management, Indian Institute of Management, , Room No. 134, Chintan (Faculty) Block, Prabandh Nagar, IIM Road, Lucknow, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Mitigation of plastic waste is a serious concern for policymakers. The present waste management system in India
Waste management is grossly ineffective, with a significant proportion of mismanaged plastic waste. This paper identifies the
Plastic waste effective policy mix to mitigate the plastic waste problem in India using system dynamics modelling. It simulates
System dynamics Modeling
four major policy interventions - charging disposal fee, provision of recycling subsidies, provision of kerbside
plastic ban
recycling facilities and a new intervention - imposing a plastic ban - and studies their relative impacts on the
Policy mix
accumulated plastic waste stock under different implementation scenarios and combinations. The findings
suggest that while composite combinations of policies offer more effective policy mix than individual policy
interventions, a suitable choice of policy mix along with its timing and extent is crucial. Phased implementation
of policies has a better impact than the constant rollout of equivalent magnitude. A phased composite mix of the
provision of kerbside recycling facilities with either charging disposal fee or provision of recycling subsidies is
the most effective policy mix, followed by the phased mix of charging disposal fee and provision of recycling
subsidy. The plastic ban has a detrimental impact in the absence of proper enforcement mechanisms and sub­
stitutes. The paper presents a reliable roadmap to policymakers for the rollout of the effective policy mix. It
contributes to theory-building by providing few novel insights about different policy mix and suggests new
research directions.

1. Introduction Plastics in various forms contribute to a significant proportion of the

total waste generated in the ecosystem. The estimated mismanaged
Plastic pollution is undisputedly a critical environmental concern plastic waste ranges from a low of two per cent in the US to a high of 89
worldwide. Plastics, a basket of a wide range of hundreds of organic per cent in developing economies such as Myanmar (Jambeck et al.,
materials, have gained popularity and extensive applications due to 2015). Mitigation of plastic waste pollution and its effects poses severe
their durability, malleability, affordability, and relatively easier tech­ challenges to policymakers.
nology (PlasticsEurope, 2016). Plastic adoption has increased over India, an emerging Asian economy, is one of the important producers
200-fold since 1950 (Ritchie and Roser, 2018), with an annual growth and consumers of various kinds of plastic. The scenario of waste man­
rate of around 8.4 per cent. However, the very long decay time due to agement in India is grossly ineffective with very negligible source
their low biodegradability results in accumulation in landfills or the segregation, little recovery and a significant proportion of waste ending
natural environment (Geyer et al., 2017). It creates significant negative up in dump yards and haphazard littering (DownToEarth, 2019). India
environmental externalities such as contamination of freshwater and generated around 1.64 per cent of the total global plastic waste and had
terrestrial habitats, as well as the formation of debris in oceans (Jam­ a mismanaged plastic waste share of 85 per cent in 2010 (Jambeck et al.,
beck et al., 2015; Walker and Xanthos, 2018). The lack of comparable 2015). Of around 9.64 million tons of plastic waste India generates
and equally affordable alternatives, and the harmful chemicals and annually, 40 per cent goes uncollected and completely unmanaged
pollution resulting from attempts to transform, incinerate or landfill (BusinessLine, 2019). Plastics comprised a significant 6.92 per cent of
plastic waste pose severe challenges in controlling it (Aryan et al., 2019). the total municipal solid waste (MSW) collected in 2018 (CPCB, 2018)1.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: fpm19017@iiml.ac.in (M. Dhanshyam), samir@iiml.ac.in (S.K. Srivastava).
1
Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), India.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105455
Received 19 July 2020; Received in revised form 26 January 2021; Accepted 26 January 2021
Available online 3 February 2021
0921-3449/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M. Dhanshyam and S.K. Srivastava Resources, Conservation & Recycling 168 (2021) 105455

The plastic waste processing capacity of India is a meagre 15 per cent of The rest of the paper is structured as follows. The next section syn­
the waste generated (The Economic Times, 2019). Being a land-scarce thesises the relevant literature. Section 3 introduces the methodology,
country with high population density, the capacities of dump yards while section 4 builds the detailed SD model and discusses the variables,
and landfill sites are inadequate (DownToEarth, 2019). The flagship model relationships, parameters, data sources, and model testing. Sec­
Swachh Bharat mission of the government has pitched in some initia­ tion 5 describes the simulation results, followed by detailed discussion
tives, but most of the measures, being short-term oriented and localised, and analysis. Section 6 concludes with policy implications and future
are far from adequate. Some of the policy combinations and the research scope.
assessment system could even be counter-productive. As such, proper
alternative policy interventions, and appropriate combinations thereof, 2. Literature review
followed with diligent implementation, are imperative for sustainable
plastic waste management. This research draws from the two main streams of literature – waste
Extant literature on waste management and control suggests a wide management policies and strategies, and the application of system dy­
range of policies for mitigation of various categories of waste. While namics to identify effective policies.
some of these such as disposal fee, recycling subsidies (Dinan, 1993) and
kerbside collection and recycling facilities (Kinnaman and Fullerton, 2.1. Waste management policies
2000) are applicable for a wide range of waste materials including
plastic waste, recently introduced policies such as a selective plastic ban Waste of any kind imposes significant externalities on the environ­
are targeted specifically at the control of plastic waste. Moreover, the ment if not controlled for (Plourde, 1972; Wertz, 1976). Extant literature
literature predominantly focuses on the analysis of an individual policy on waste management policies suggests unit disposal fee (Kinnaman and
or relative comparison of multiple policies. While such analysis is Fullerton, 1995), recycling (or reuse) subsidies (Gradus et al., 2017),
essential, policymakers cannot rely on individual policies but require virgin material taxes (Dinan, 1993), kerbside recycling facilities (Kin­
suitable policy combinations (Palmer and Walls, 1997; Hao et al., 2019). naman and Fullerton, 2000), investment tax credits on investment in
Few papers stress on the importance of the combination of policies and recovery facilities (Palmer and Walls, 1997), emission trading schemes
analyse the implications of different policy mix. Even there, the analysis (Bing et al., 2015), waste-to-energy (WTE) incentivisation, and multiple
is limited to a maximum of two policies. The prime units of analysis are variants of these policies (Abbott et al., 2017, 2011; Hao et al., 2019;
the waste quantity and cost (economic and environmental) versus ben­ Palmer and Walls, 1997; Ulli-Beer et al., 2007), for mitigation of various
efits. They have majorly concentrated on the developed world and categories of waste. Dace et al. (2014) suggest packaging tax as an in­
western countries, with little focus on developing economies. The strument to tackle plastic packaging waste. Recent literature focuses on
analysis of policy mix specific to plastic waste is also limited. Most an­ the selective plastic ban as a potential solution to tackle the problem of
alyses on waste management policies are either empirical based on past plastic waste. Some developed countries have implemented a ban on
data, or generic based on analytical results. They generate different single-use plastics with mixed success rates (Walker and Xanthos, 2018).
meaningful perspectives but suffer the drawback of prescriptive Rivers et al. (2017) found that a levy on disposable bags acts as an
perspective due to the linearity assumptions and static, short-term na­ effective nudge for frequent users. In contrast, Taylor (2019) discusses
ture of recommendations. This paper addresses some of these short­ the leakage effects of regulation on disposable carryout plastic bags,
comings using a long-term oriented system dynamics approach, which while Bharadwaj et al. (2019) discuss the ineffectiveness of the ban on
enables us to assess the effectiveness of different potential policy mix plastic bags in Nepal.
from a holistic perspective.
System Dynamics (SD) modelling approach, introduced by Forrester 2.2. System dynamics and application in waste management
in 1960s, is a powerful tool to understand the existing behaviours of
systems, and to visualise the interdependencies among different actors System Dynamics (SD) modelling is a prevalent approach in studies
and variables in complex systems (Sterman, 2010). SD serves as a de­ focusing on economic, social, environmental and managerial systems of
cision support system to analyse the policy implications using a holistic great complexity (Hao et al., 2019). It is useful for considering dynamic
approach to wicked problems (Mingers and White, 2010) such as waste interdependencies among different actors and variables in complex
management and climate change. Literature has demonstrated remark­ systems (Sterman, 2010). SD serves as a decision support system to
able success using SD for analysing different types of waste management analyse the policy implications using a holistic approach to wicked
problems from varied perspectives (Hao et al., 2019; Tseng et al., 2019; problems (Mingers and White, 2010) such as waste management and
Yuan and Wang, 2014), but its application for analysis of plastic waste climate change.
has been limited. Table A.1 (Appendix A) highlights the positioning of Literature has demonstrated remarkable success using SD for ana­
this paper by summarising the relevant literature. lysing different types of waste management problems from varied per­
This paper demonstrates the interdependencies and collective im­ spectives. Ulli-Beer et al. (2007) used SD model to analyse the pricing of
pacts of potential policy mix on the plastic waste stock in India for over waste disposal for multiple variants of disposal fee. Yuan and Wang
15 years. It uses four major policies – charging disposal fee, provision of (2014) determined the waste disposal fee for construction waste in
recycling subsidies, provision of kerbside recycling facilities and plastic China using SD. Dace et al. (2014) adapted SD to analyse the effec­
ban - and identifies the most effective policy combinations to minimise tiveness of different policy instruments for increased material efficiency
the waste stock. It studies the relative effectiveness of policy mix by and recovery rate. Sinha et al. (2016) deployed SD model to identify
generating scenarios for the simultaneous combination of multiple ways to tackle closed loop challenge of e-waste. Hao et al. (2019)
policies and also deliberates on the timing and the magnitude of inter­ developed an SD model for the economic performance of construction
vention through phased implementation scenarios. It is among the first waste reduction. Tseng et al. (2019) analysed the costs of waste and
attempts to study the impact of the plastic ban as a policy instrument in greenhouse gas emission from food waste using SD approach. Li et al.
detail. It provides a flexible framework to test for more policy in­ (2020) designed a game-based SD model to analyse the effect of the
terventions using suitable factors for potential endogenisation. It con­ deposit-refund scheme on electric vehicle battery recycling in China.
tributes to theory-building by verifying the relative impacts of different The application of SD approach in the context of plastic waste has,
policy impacts, and by providing new insights about potential combi­ however, been limited.
nations. For the policymakers, it provides a visual decision-support
system, which enables them to choose the most relevant policies from
a long-term perspective.

2
M. Dhanshyam and S.K. Srivastava Resources, Conservation & Recycling 168 (2021) 105455

3. Methodology 4. The model

This method proposed in this study is in line with the principle of 4.1. Causal loop diagram
system dynamics, proposed by Jay Forrester in the 1960s to deal with
large-scale systems of high complexities. SD model comprises a pictorial Fig. 1 depicts the causal loop diagram (CLD) of the SD model for the
depiction of different factors contributing to the problem and their im­ plastic waste generation and mitigation problem. The causal relation­
pacts through a causal loop diagram. The visual representation of cause- ships are denoted using arrows originating at the cause variable and
effect relationships allows reliable identification of the root causes of terminating at the effect variable. A positive sign (+) indicates that an
problems. Further, the stock-and-flow diagram enables separation of increase in the cause variable leads to an increase in the effect variable,
stocks from flows and permits us to analyse the behaviour of the accu­ whereas the negative (-) sign indicates vice-versa. The causal relation­
mulated plastic waste stock, instead of the waste generated during ships result in the formation of positive or negative feedback loops,
discrete periods. Compared to the other static simulation methods, whose net polarity depends on the number of negative links in the
system dynamics enables visual demonstration of long-term impacts of feedback loops. Positive feedback loops reinforce and result in geometric
different policy mix on a continuous time scale, which allows for the growth of effect, whereas negative feedback loops balance the overall
incorporation of dynamic variations of parameters. This helps in effect. Positive feedback loops result when there are even number of
addressing not only the “what” and “how much”, but also the “when” negative links in the loop, and vice-versa.
aspect of policy interventions. In comparison to the analytical methods Waste generation of any type, including plastic waste, is majorly
which rely on the linearity and simplified relationships to obtain closed- attributable to rapidly increasing consumption (Smith, 1972). Population
form solutions and tractable interpretations, SD incorporates the non- growth increases the aggregate consumption of goods and services to meet
linearities of the parameters into decision-making, which makes the the associated needs. The economic growth of nations, indicated by the
analysis more realistic, adaptable and reliable for specific scenarios. growth in real GDP (Gross Domestic Product), increases the per-capita real
These advantages make SD a superior tool for economic, social and income of the citizens, which further accelerates the increase of aggregate
management problem-solving and policymaking. consumption due to higher affordability and disposable incomes. The
The cause-and-effect relationships have been developed using the increased GDP creates more job opportunities, making citizens’ time more
understanding derived from extant literature and discussion with few valuable, thus increasing demand for fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG)
stakeholders and experts. The relationships have been quantified using and disposable products. In recent years, the growing internet penetration
theoretical concepts from the literature and using relevant parameters and the increasing affordability of smart gadgets owing to faster techno­
and coefficients estimated empirically from the secondary data sources logical advance and increasing income have rapidly advanced e-commerce
and earlier empirical studies. The model is tested by comparing with adoption. These factors further accelerate aggregate consumption. The
actual data and appropriate behavioural, structural and sensitivity tests. growing demand for ready-to-eats, FMCG disposable products, e-com­
The accumulated plastic waste stock has been estimated for a period of merce shipments and consumption of other goods necessitates the
204 months in the for various scenarios comprising absence and pres­ requirement of more packaging materials, most of which are plastics of
ence of various policy interventions and multiple policy mix. Effective different types. The packaging is a significant contributor of global plastic
policy mix have been identified using long-term comparative analysis of waste (Luijsterburg and Goosens, 2014). The generated plastic waste gets
the dynamic simulation results. accumulated as “plastic waste stock”, which the individuals get rid of

Fig. 1. Causal loop diagram for plastic waste generation, accumulation and externalities

3
M. Dhanshyam and S.K. Srivastava Resources, Conservation & Recycling 168 (2021) 105455

through different methods. In the absence of proper waste handling prac­

tices, the waste gets disposed of through littering and other practices, Plastic waste accumulation rate = Legal Disposal Rate
which creates a clutter of plastic waste (Smith, 1972). It results in exter­ + Illegal Disposal Rate (2)
nalities in the form of pollution and ecological damage. The limited land,
when needs to accommodate the growing population, creates more space Plastic waste mitigation rate = Recycling and Reuse Rate
constraint for inhabitation and waste disposal, resulting in the creation of +Productive Utilisation Rate
more slums and clutter that deteriorate the hygienic conditions, further
+ WTE conversion Rate + Incineration Rate
contaminating water sources. The pollution of water bodies reflects as
(3)
increased demand for packaged drinking water, typically packaged in
plastic water bottles and containers, which further contribute to plastic The stock - plastic waste stock - is the difference between the two flows
packaging waste, thus creating vicious positive feedback loops of plastic - accumulation rate (inflow) and the mitigation rate (outflow) - inte­
waste stock accumulation, as indicated by the net polarity of the loops R1 grated over time, as
and R2. The waste accumulates over time, and if not controlled, impose
high negative externalities on society (Plourde, 1972) and are a potential Plastic Waste Stock = Initial Stock
source of environmental catastrophe. + Integral (Inflow rate − Outflow rate)(dtime) (4)

In order to ensure that the plastic waste stock could be mitigated

4.2. Stock-and-flow diagram and simulation model relationships
even when there is no effective generation of plastic waste (due to policy
interventions), and to account for the plastic waste stock which is in
Fig. 2 represents the stock-and-flow representation of the system
active use at a given point of time, which can potentially be subjected to
dynamics model for both waste generation and mitigation using relevant
any of the above possible treatments, a quantity termed as the “active
policy interventions. The GDP and population of India are simulated
stock” has been modelled as a very small proportion of the accumulated
using the respective compounded monthly growth rates (CMGR), which
stock at that point in time (a constant proportion, 0.01, chosen through
are exogenously computed using five-year CAGR for the period 2013-17.
discussion with a couple of experts). The actual rates of contributors
The Real Income per capita is the ratio of real GDP to the total popu­
(contributing rates) to the accumulation rate and the mitigation rate
lation. Internet penetration is simulated using the CMGR of the internet
have been modelled as the product of corresponding factors with the
base, which is the fraction of the population with internet access. The
sum of the plastic waste generation rate and the active stock in the
variable e-commerce represents the total revenue through e-commerce
system, as:
channels in product-based industries and is taken as representative of
the overall business activities for the model (assumption). Aggregate Contributing Rates = (Corresponding factors)
Consumption in INR/month is a direct function of the real income per
∗ (Plastic Waste Gen. Rate + Active Stock) (5)
capita. The relationships between real income per capita and the de­
mand for packaged drinking water, the impact of internet penetration on While literature discusses many policies to control and mitigate waste,
e-commerce demand, the impact of the increase in real income per each policy interventions differ in their cost efficiencies (Bohm et al.,
capita on the e-commerce, and real income per capita and aggregate 2010). The incentive structure offered by each policy affects at least one of
consumption have been estimated through appropriate regression the contributors of either flow. Four major policy interventions have been
techniques, using corresponding data from 2013-17, and the corre­ modelled (endogenously) here – charging a unit disposal fee (INR/Ton),
sponding partial slope coefficients have been incorporated as the provision of a unit recycling subsidy (INR/Ton), investment in the provision
respective sensitivity coefficients. of kerbside recycling facilities (≥ 0), and imposing a plastic ban [0,1]. A
The quantitative effect of different causes of waste generation is Pigouvian system of disposal fee (DF, hereafter) provides a mechanism for
modelled using respective sensitivity coefficients and factors, which pricing / taxing the waste disposal activities on per unit basis. Taxes on
represent the unit change in the effect variable per unit change in the waste generation can alter the behaviour of polluters by decreasing waste
cause variable, as generation rate and increasing recycling rate if the taxes are imposed at a
sufficiently higher level (Carattini et al., 2018; Sigman, 1996). The intro­
Effect = Constant ± (Corresponding sensitivity factor or coefficient)
duction of user fees, however, makes illegal disposal more attractive in real
∗ (Cause) (1) terms (Choe and Fraser, 1999; Usui, 2008). Waste generation by in­
dividuals decreases with the increase of frequency of collection, as well as
Here, the (±) denotes that the effect variable would vary as per the
the reduction of the distance of the collection facilities from the in­
direction of relationships, represented by corresponding link polarities.
dividuals’ locations (Wertz, 1976). Kerbside facilities avert illegal disposal
The actual relationships have been derived using statistical analysis of
(Sotamenou et al., 2019), increase recycling and reduce waste generation
the available data. The estimation procedure and the summary of
by improving convenience through the provision of accessible infrastruc­
regression results have been shown in Appendix C (supplementary file).
ture at less distance from the source points and increased frequency of
The generated plastic waste could either be disposed of legally (as
collection, thus acting as desirable strategies for waste control (Caplan
landfills, for instance), disposed of illegally (littering, for instance),
et al., 2002; Heller & Vatn, 2017; Kinnaman and Fullerton, 1995). The
utilised for construction or other productive purposes (road construc­
extent of kerbside recycling has been modelled as a quantity that represents
tion, for instance), recycled (or reused), or transformed into other forms
the accessibility of the recycling facilities to the public. It is a direct func­
through waste-to-energy conversion, incineration, or other techniques.
tion of the frequency of collection and an inverse function of the distance of
Disposal, either legal or illegal, results in accumulation of the waste
facilities from the source. The sensitivity to the extent of kerbside facilities
stock, while recycling, productive utilisation, or transformation (WTE or
is expressed as a kerbside factor. A recycling subsidy encourages recycling,
incineration) result in the reduction of waste stock. The quantities of
but it also encourages consumption due to a lower effective price (Sigman,
waste in each of these categories have been represented as rates, which
1996), and thus increases waste generation, providing a partly perverse
represent the respective quantities per month.
incentive structure. The effects of the policies on the legal disposal, illegal
The plastic waste accumulation rate (Ton/month) and the plastic waste
disposal, recycling and consumption have been modelled using corre­
mitigation rate (Ton/month) are the sums of relevant contributing rates
sponding factors and sensitivity coefficients, as in the relationships in Eq.
(Ton/month), as
(1) and Eq. (5).
Plastic ban is an extreme type of command-and-control policy mea­
sure, attempting to control the menace of plastic waste by selective or

4
M. Dhanshyam and S.K. Srivastava Resources, Conservation & Recycling 168 (2021) 105455

Fig. 2. Stock-and-flow model for plastic waste generation and mitigation

blanket ban on the production, consumption, and disposal of plastic plastic waste stock are modelled, and the level of plastic waste stock is
products. While it tends to reduce the collected waste (i.e., legal disposal simulated monthly, with and without policy interventions. This paper
of plastic waste), in the absence of proper alternatives and strict moni­ uses data from secondary sources such as extant literature and different
toring and enforcement mechanisms, it acts to increase illegal produc­ databases and reports. The data on macro-economic parameters are
tion and illegal disposal (Bharadwaj et al., 2019), resulting in less from the online databases - the Ministry of Statistics and Programme
significant benefit in terms of waste reduction. The illegal production Implementation (MSPI)2, MarketLine3, EPWRF India Time Series4, Our
has been modelled using illegal production factor, which is a function of
affordability and availability of alternatives to plastic, as well as the
potential for newer business models to absorb the existing resources. It
has been assumed as exogenously determined. 2
[dataset] Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MSPI).
Three other waste control strategies in the form of waste-to-energy Year-wise Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from 2004-05 to 2017-18. https://d
(WTE) conversion, productive utilisation, and legal incineration have ata.gov.in/resources/year-wise-gross-domestic-product-gdp-2004-05-2017-18-
also been incorporated, however, assumed exogenous to the model due ministry-statistics-and-programme. (accessed 11 November 2019).
3
to their lower adoption and impact till present. Proper policy in­ MarketLine Industry Profile. Packaged Water in India. September 2018.
https://advantage.marketline.com/Analysis/ViewasPDF/india-packaged-wa
terventions in the form of subsidisation of WTE projects and incentives
ter-69006. (accessed 12 December 2019).
to innovation for alternatives to plastic could improve their effectiveness 4
[dataset] Economic and Political Weekly Research Foundation. India Time
as policy instruments. Series – National Account Statistics. PFCE-Total., Per Capita Income, Product
and Final Consumption., http://www.epwrfits.in/NAS_Series.aspx. (accessed
12 December 2019).
4.3. Model data

In order to have a system-wide perspective, all the categories of the

plastics have been aggregated under a common head ‘plastic’ in order to
keep the model simple and tractable. Different determinants of the

5
M. Dhanshyam and S.K. Srivastava Resources, Conservation & Recycling 168 (2021) 105455

World in Data5, UNIDO6 and IBEF7. The data on waste generation, or reused, incinerated, transformed into energy, or utilised for produc­
global and country-level plastic waste stock, plastic waste generation tive purposes (a proportion of legally disposed of waste), respectively.
rate, and packaging are from online reports of Our World in Data, The actual rates of contributors to the accumulation rate and the miti­
Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), India and MSPI. Wherever gation rate have been modelled as the product of corresponding factors
required, the data from the global scenario or western countries were with the sum of the plastic waste generation rate and the active stock in
suitably adapted to the Indian scenario. VENSIM PLE software was used the system. The kerbside factor, a factor indicating the increase in recy­
for the system dynamics modelling and simulation. The simulation cling of the waste with the increase in the kerbside facilities, has been
model is available as a supplementary data file. calibrated considering an approximate base figure for the country. The
The model was simulated to estimate the monthly plastic waste stock detailed procedures adopted for the estimation of different parameters,
for 204 months with December 2012 as the base month (i.e., month 0), sensitivity coefficients and factors are elaborated in Appendix C.2.
and December 2029 as the final month (204th month). The choice of this For estimation of the corresponding sensitivity coefficients for the
period provides the flexibility to test the predictions of the simulation disposal fee and the recycling subsidy, the seminal empirical works of
model (comparison with the original data for a period of five years, i.e., Kinnaman and Fullerton (2000) and Palmer et al. (1997) have been
2013 to 2017) and then estimate the future impact of different policies used, with the suitable adaptation of the respective percentage estimates
for a long enough period (2020 to 2029). All annual data have been using the compounded inflation factors and the PPP (Purchasing Power
converted into monthly data by simple average (ignoring the seasonality Parity) conversion factors to make them relevant to the Indian scenario.
and other effects) to keep the model tractable. All monetary units have These works also provide the feasible ranges for disposal fees and
been converted to the INR (Indian National Rupee), the plastic waste recycling subsidy, which have been used for policy simulation scenarios.
related quantities to Ton (i.e., metric tons), and the population units in The obtained ranges are comparable with the relevant empirical results
estimated numbers. from other countries (Yuan and Wang, 2014). Considering the
complexity introduced by hundreds of varieties of plastics and different
quality parameters thereof, the plastic ban is modelled on a scale of [0,
4.4. Parameter estimation 1], where 0 represents no ban, and 1 represents a blanket ban. The
infinite intermediate combinations represent the selective implementa­
The parameter values and the relationships between different vari­ tion of the ban. This way of modelling plastic ban provides reasonable
ables and the effects of different policy interventions have been esti­ and illustrative insights on the effect of the ban. While the plastic ban
mated using suitable statistical techniques and empirical results from would cease the production, disposal, and consumption of the plastics
the extant literature. Equations (1) to (5) represent the general forms of through legal channels, if it is implemented in a sudden manner, the lack
relationships. Jambeck et al. (2015) estimated India to generate about of feasible and affordable alternatives in the short run induces resistance
1.64 per cent of the total global plastic generation in 2010, which has from the consumers and the industry, thereby increasing high chances of
been used to estimate India’s plastic waste generation rate and total illegal production and disposal of plastics (Bharadwaj et al., 2019;
accumulated stock (Geyer et al., 2017) for all future periods. The plastic Taylor, 2019). This possibility of illegal production of plastics has been
waste generation rate is the sum of plastic waste generation due to modelled as the illegal production factor, assumed exogenous to the
plastic packaging waste and the plastic waste generated due to the total model. It could be made endogenous by introducing the effects of the
aggregate consumption, which is representative of the total production development of alternatives and innovative technologies to substitute
of goods and services in the economy. The relationship between the plastics. Considering the absence of alternatives equivalent in terms of
monetary value of plastic waste generated and the plastic waste gener­ affordability, durability, and the other application-specific characteris­
ation has been established through OLS regression, followed by proper tics of plastics, the illegal production factor has been assumed fixed as
calibration of the sensitivity coefficient. 0.8. The simulation, however, demonstrates how a reduction in this
The tentative ranges of the respective factors were identified using factor (which indicates the introduction of alternatives) impacts the
the literature, the databases, and the reports in order to obtain the base policy intervention. The details of individual data sources, estimation
estimates of the factors in the absence of any policy interventions. Due to procedure, numerical estimates of the parameters and the relationships
the high variability in the estimated figures across databases and liter­ are available in Appendix C (supplementary file).
ature, these sources have been used to arrive at tentative ranges, which
were then fine-tuned by calibration with respect to the actual estimates 4.5. Model validation and testing
of the plastic waste stock. The calibration procedure involved first a
coarse calibration with the actual simulated values of the causal pa­ For validation of the simulation results, the output of the simulation
rameters, followed by a fine calibration to limit the Mean absolute model is compared with the actual historical estimates of the variable
percentage error (MAPE) of the predicted values within 2 per cent of the data. The comparison with the actual data has been made for five years
actual data. from 2013-2017, and the precision of the simulated values with the
The base parameters, namely the disposal factor, illegal disposal actual data (near-zero policy intervention) has been verified using Mean
factor, recycling factor, incineration factor, WTE factor, and the uti­ Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE). The lower estimates of MAPE (<2%
lisation factor have been modelled to indicate the proportion of the of actual), illustrated in Fig. B.1 of Appendix B validate that the pre­
waste generated that is legally disposed of, illegally disposed of, recycled diction of the model is in line with the real-world observations.
The sensitivity of the model to extreme interventions was assessed
through the extreme conditions test, using extreme values for all policy
5
[dataset] Plastic Pollution: Our World In Data, 2018. Plastic Waste Gener­ interventions simultaneously within their feasible ranges. For the lower-
ation, 2010., Cumulative Global Plastic Production., Global Plastic Production. extreme (LE) case, all other controls were set to zero, while for the
https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution. (accessed 20 November 2019). higher-extreme (HE) case, they were set to their respective highest
6
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), 2017. In­
values as per their ranges. The plastic waste stock accumulates and in­
clusive and Sustainable Industrial Development Working Paper Series. WP 15/
creases exponentially in the lower-extreme condition (Fig. 3). In the
2017. National Report on E-Commerce Development in India. https://www.
unido.org/sites/default/files/2017-10/WP_15_2017_.pdf. (accessed 19 higher-extreme condition, it still increases, but at a lower rate. A plau­
November 2019). sible reason for the increase in the waste stock in the higher-extreme
7
India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF). E-Commerce Report July 2017. http case is due to the interaction of different policy interventions, each of
s://www.ibef.org/download/Ecommerce-July-2017.pdf. (accessed 19 them acting them in different directions.
November 2019). The sensitivity test for select combinations reveals that higher

6
M. Dhanshyam and S.K. Srivastava Resources, Conservation & Recycling 168 (2021) 105455

of plastics.

5.2. Phased implementation of composite policy mix

Six composite policy mix scenarios are derived from the schedules in
Table 1, considering two policies at a time. For instance, the graph with
legend Phased DF-RS mix in Fig. 5 illustrate the combined effect of
simultaneous implementation (i.e., composite policy mix) of disposal fee
and recycling subsidy as per the designed monthly schedules of the
respective policies in Table 1.
Fig. 5 demonstrates that three of the feasible combinations with the
plastic ban - the PB-DF combination, the PB-RS combination, and PB-KR
combination - provide completely perverse incentives with the current
fixed value of illegal production factor. The other composite mix – the
DF-RS combination, the KR-RS combination, and the DF-KR combina­
Fig. 3. Plastic waste stock when subject to extreme policy conditions tion - reduce the stock in the long run, though at different rates.

extreme combination of the plastic ban (PB, hereafter) with kerbside 5.3. Discussion
recycling (KR, hereafter) and disposal fee (DF, hereafter) increase the
plastic waste stock. In comparison, the higher extreme combination of The exposure to extreme conditions demonstrates the relative im­
DF and RS maintains the stock without letting it increase further. In the pacts of different policy interventions. Its comparison with the impact of
presence of extremely high disposal fee or recycling subsidy along with individual policies illustrated in Fig. 4 suggests that while individual
high availability of kerbside recycling facilities, the plastic waste stock policies are partially effective, the achievement of the long-term goal of
gradually reduces to zero, and then maintains near-zero level by miti­ complete mitigation of plastic waste is much easier and faster when
gating the waste generated thereon. The extreme conditions test justifies multiple policies are implemented in tandem using composite policy
the robustness of the model. mix, as asserted in Dinan (1993), Palmer and Walls (1997) and Hao
Other relevant tests – structure assessment, behaviour assessment, et al. (2019). The results of extreme conditions test and impacts of
and dimensional consistency - were conducted to test the structural and composite policy mix demonstrate that not all policy effects are effective
behavioural reproducibility of the model and ascertain the reliability simultaneously, as some of them tend to cancel the positive effect of the
and usefulness of the simulation model8. others. As such, deciding “which policy to introduce”, “in what magni­
tude”, and “when” is the prime challenge for policymakers. In practice,
5. Results and analysis better reduction of plastic waste stock could be achieved by phase-wise
implementation of policy mix, as posited in Fig. 4.
The results of extreme conditions test drive initial insights on the Kerbside recycling facilities have the greatest potential to mitigate
interaction of different policies when they are implemented at once. In plastic waste as posited by Andreoni et al. (2015) and Kinnaman and
practice, policy intervention consumes high cost, time and effort, mak­ Fullerton (2000). However, the provision of kerbside recycling facilities
ing it infeasible to implement them at a single shot owing to the fiscal involves high investment in setting up processes, physical facilities,
constraints and the potential resistance from the public. Thus, it is transportation facilities, and operation and maintenance of the same.
desirable to implement policies in a phased manner, enabling the actors Hence, they can only be increased gradually in a phased and restrictive
to adjust, adapt, and evolve to the changing conditions and make manner. Either the DF or RS, when combined with the availability of
necessary corrections wherever required. Accordingly, detailed month- kerbside recycling facilities dramatically reduce the plastic waste stock
wise rollout schedules for phased implementation of different policies within a shorter period. A DF induces recycling behaviour in the in­
were designed as in Table 1. For instance, the phased implementation dividuals as its indirect effect, in an attempt to reduce the financial costs
scenario of disposal fee indicates that a DF of INR 1000/Ton would be of disposal. However, the increase may not be significant in case it re­
introduced at the end of the 84th month of simulation (i.e., December quires extra effort on the part of individuals to recycle the same, thus
2019), it shall be increased in steps of INR 1000/Ton at the end of years tempting them to follow a lesser effort path – illegal disposal, which
2021, 2022, 2024, and 2029. Similar schedules for other policy in­ increases the waste accumulation rate. KRs reduce these opportunity
terventions have also been developed for impact assessment. Scenarios costs of recycling through the provision of accessible infrastructure,
for different policy mix are combinations of these schedules, duly thereby increasing the frequency of collection. The monetary benefits of
simulated on time scale using lookup functions of VENSIM. recycling aid this behaviour further, reducing the amount of waste that
goes into illegal disposal. Their combination jointly acts as a supply-side
restriction and demand-side facilitation. The resultant impact is to in­
5.1. Phased implementation of individual policies crease the mitigation rate and reduce the accumulation rate, rapidly
reducing the accumulated stock.
Fig. 4 graphically illustrates the relative impacts of the phased An RS monetises the process of recycling, inducing individuals to
implementation of individual policies. The profound effect of the phased recycle more quantity. KR facilitates their collection, reducing the op­
increase in kerbside recycling facilities on waste control posits its portunity costs of recycling, and increases the financial benefits in the
importance in waste mitigation. A phased DF or a phased RS have a form of the scrap value of the material. Thus, the mix offers double
decreasing effect on the plastic waste accumulation rate in the long run, monetisation benefits while smoothening the process, and acts as an
whereas the constant rollout of the equivalent amounts from the year excellent combination to increase the mitigation rate, even while the
2020 have a lesser impact. A phased plastic ban in the present condition, accumulation rate is relatively constant. However, as RS induces more
on the other hand, tends to be counter-productive by increasing the waste generation, the net accumulation rate also rises. Hence, the
plastic waste stock due to an increase in illegal production and disposal impact of this combination is relatively slower than that of the KR and
DF.
DF and RS both reduce the growth rate of the plastic waste stock, but
8
Refer Table B.1 in Appendix B. the reduction rate with RS is much less compared to DF (Appendix D in

7
M. Dhanshyam and S.K. Srivastava Resources, Conservation & Recycling 168 (2021) 105455

Table 1
Schedule for phased implementation of policies
Plastic Ban - (Step function) Kerbside Facilities - (piecewise linear function) Disposal Fee - (Step Function) Recycling Subsidy - (Step Function)
Month Year Scale Month Year Extent Month Year Fee (INR/Ton) Month Year Subsidy (INR/Ton)

0 2012 0 0 2012 0.5 0 2012 0 0 2012 0

12 2013 0.02 84 2019 0.5 84 2019 1000 84 2019 10000
72 2018 0.1 108 2021 0.8 108 2021 2000 108 2021 20000
84 2019 0.2 120 2022 1.1 120 2022 3000 120 2022 30000
96 2020 0.5 144 2024 1.5 144 2024 5000 144 2024 50000
120 2022 0.7 204 2029 1.8 204 2029 5000 204 2029 50000
144 2024 0.9
204 2029 0.9

Fig. 4. Plastic waste stock with the phased implementation of individual policies

Supplementary files), rendering RS a less effective policy than DF,

similar to Palmer et al. (1997). These findings have crucial policy im­
plications. First, the effectiveness of RS as a stand-alone waste control
policy is questionable. While an important reason for less effectiveness
of RS could be the incentive for higher consumption, subsequently
generating more waste (Palmer and Walls, 1997), an indirect explana­
tion of the difference in relative impacts of DF and RS comes from the
loss aversion concept of behavioural economics and the prospect theory,
which asserts that individuals respond differently in loss-making and
gain-making scenarios, even if the loss and gain are of the same
magnitude (Tversky and Kahneman, 1991). As taxes induce losses, they
tend to be more effective instruments than subsidy, which is a perceived
gain in the income of the individuals. Second, as recycling subsidy in­
volves payments by the government, it has several fiscal implications.
Hence, a well-planned and phased rollout is beneficial both in terms of
effective waste control, as well as relatively less financial strain due to
Fig. 5. Plastic waste stock with the phased implementation of different com­
deferment of higher subsidies to the later periods.
posite policy mix
Though DF and RS policies are less effective individually, their policy

8
M. Dhanshyam and S.K. Srivastava Resources, Conservation & Recycling 168 (2021) 105455

mix is highly effective. The DF disincentivises individuals to dispose of 6. Conclusions

waste through legal collection channels and encourages recycling
through the negative reinforcement mechanism imposed by costs of The objective of this paper was to develop a holistic approach to
disposal, but suffers from increased probability of illegal disposal, which analyse the problem of plastic waste and identify effective policy mix for
can be checked by incentivising recycling. RS encourages recycling waste mitigation in India. For this purpose, system dynamics method­
through positive reinforcement by monetisation of waste. The indirect ology, which provides a long-term perspective, taking into account
perverse incentive of RS of increasing the generation of waste for want of policy interdependencies, was adopted. The model simulated the plastic
monetary benefits can be overcome by the restraining impact induced by waste stock in India over 15 years, without and with different policy
the DF. So, the two policies complement each other by cancelling their interventions. The relationships for various causes of plastic waste
respective limitations and become effective in tackling the problem. This generation, waste accumulation, methods of waste mitigation, and the
effect is similar to that offered by deposit-refund schemes and upstream effects of various policy interventions were established using empirical
combination tax/subsidy (Palmer and Walls, 1997). analysis from secondary data sources. The simulation model was tested
Interestingly, the impact of the plastic ban is counter-intuitive, un­ and results were validated using standard testing and validation
like the observations for other policies. Fig. 4(d) shows that any scale of procedures.
plastic ban results in more plastic waste stock than the no-ban condition. The level of plastic waste stock was simulated with three popular
The stock in case of a phased plastic ban tends to increase more than policy interventions – disposal fee, recycling subsidies, and provision of
when there is a constant 10 per cent rollout of the policy. This is due to kerbside recycling facilities – along with a new intervention, plastic ban,
the diversion of plastic production and collection from legal to illegal under different scenarios of constant-versus-phased rollout and indi­
channels, increasing illegal disposal, which is challenging to mitigate vidual policy-versus-composite policy mix combinations. The findings
through recycling or any other mitigation strategies. Plastic ban per­ suggest that phased rollout of policies is more effective than the constant
forms worse when it is combined with either of the three policies. This is rollout of equivalent magnitude, and composite policy mix provide more
because the plastic ban is a coercive type of command-and-control in­ effective waste mitigation than individual policy rollouts. While
strument, which on its own, reduces the legal disposal rate in favour of designing a suitable policy mix, it is crucial to choose the right policy
increased illegal production and illegal disposal rate. When clubbed combinations, as some combinations could be counter-productive. The
with a DF, which has both of the effects in the same direction, the illegal timing and the magnitude of the rollout are critical determinants of the
disposal rate is reinforced. The findings for a composite mix of PB and effectiveness of a policy mix. Provision of kerbside recycling facilities is
KR contrasts the findings of Andreoni et al. (2015) in the context of the the most effective policy mix, followed by the disposal fee, whereas a
European Union, where the better enforcement mechanisms prevent plastic ban has perverse effects unless alternatives and enforcement
illegal use, in case of restrictions. In the Indian context, however, due to mechanisms are in place. Among composite policy mix, a suitable
less effective regulatory and enforcement mechanisms, illegal use has a combination of disposal fee and recycling subsidy is an effective
dominating effect. When PB is clubbed with increased KR, the effect is mechanism, but much more effective is the combination of either of
insignificant, as the plastic ban also reduces the quantity of plastic which these with kerbside recycling, which neutralises and reduces the nega­
would be available for recycling, thus negating the very purpose of KR’s tive impacts of these policies, when implemented individually. The
existence. The effect is further detrimental when combined with RS. As policymakers may design the optimal mix of policies in accordance with
the plastic ban restricts the generation of plastic, RS reduces this effect these findings.
by incentivising generation through illegal means, thereby leading to The contributions of this paper are holistic and have useful impli­
increased accumulation rates. Thus, PB offers a perverse incentive cations for multiple stakeholders. This paper validates most of the
structure, especially if its side effects are not controlled for by devel­ theoretical propositions concerning the effectiveness of different waste
oping alternative material to substitute plastics at an affordable price, management policies and provides novel insights into the simultaneous
development of alternative technologies to utilise the illegally disposed impacts of different policy combinations. It contributes to theory-
of plastic, as well as development of monitoring and enforcement building in the domain of waste management by identifying the
mechanisms to detect and punish illegal disposal or littering (Bharadwaj important determinants, interrelationships between different variables,
et al., 2019), compositely represented by the illegal production factor in counter-effects of different policies, and potential capabilities of
the model. Joint simulation of the reduction of the illegal production different policies to mitigate the problem. The dynamic simulation
factor and the phased implementation of a plastic ban shows that model acts as a decision-support system for the policymakers by hinting
imposing a plastic ban can be a slightly effective instrument only when the potential ranges for optimum policy mix and providing a roadmap
rolled out in tandem with or after ensuring the availability of alternative for the implementation of the different policy mix to address the prob­
materials and enforcing mechanisms (Appendix E in Supplementary lem in a better manner. The analysis in the Indian context is readily
files). extendable to other developing countries and the principles and re­
In summary, while the composite policy mix are more effective than lationships used are generalisable to other types of waste as well. The
an individual policy, prudent selection of the combinations, their tim­ literature synthesis and the simulation insights serve as a ready refer­
ings and magnitude are equally important. Phased rollout of in­ ence for various stakeholders as well as aspiring researchers in the
terventions mitigates the plastic waste problem more effectively. The domain.
findings strengthen the importance of kerbside recycling as an important Like other academic works, this paper has a few limitations, each of
policy intervention, as in Andreoni et al. (2015) and Sotamenou et al. which is a potential research scope. For tractability, this paper limits the
(2019). Its impact could be increased further by clubbing it with a analysis of policy mix to four types of policies. It assumes several policies
disposal fee or a recycling subsidy. They demonstrate the such as alternative productive utilisation, waste-to-energy incentivisa­
counter-productive effects of unplanned and sudden plastic ban and tion and reduction of illegal production as exogenous, using appropriate
assert that it may at most act to maintain the existing stock, that too, factors. Future research might attempt to endogenise them through
with proper enforcement mechanisms and suitable alternatives in place. reasonable estimations. The estimation accuracy of the model suffers
It explains why the recent selective plastic bans introduced by a few due to lack of reliable data and the wide variability of data on plastic
Indian states (CPCB, 2019) have not been able to curb the use of plastics waste quantity from different sources. As such, the analysis is relative,
(ETPrime, 2018). illustrative and prescriptive, which could be made more accurate by
using primary data collection in specific municipalities. The parameters
have been estimated based on empirical evidence from western econo­
mies, incorporating suitable correction factors. This is due to the lack of

9
M. Dhanshyam and S.K. Srivastava Resources, Conservation & Recycling 168 (2021) 105455

suitable empirical work in the Indian context. Future studies might Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 2019. Annual report for the year 2018–19 on
implementation of plastic waste management rules. https://cpcb.nic.in/uploads/pla
empirically test the findings. The paper ignores costs of implementation
sticwaste/Annual_Report_2018-19_PWM.pdf (accessed 23 November 2019).
of the different policy mix, which is an important input for decision- Choe, C., Fraser, I., 1999. An economic analysis of household waste management.
making. Future research might focus on finding relative efficiency and J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 38, 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1998.1079.
develop efficiency-effectiveness frontiers. The paper assumes that all Dace, E., Bazbauers, G., Berzina, A., Davidsen, P.I., 2014. System dynamics model for
analysing effects of eco-design policy on packaging waste management system.
policies, once conceived, can be implemented readily with full partici­ Resour. Conservat. Recycl. 87, 175-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pation by the individuals. Future research could focus on endogenisation resconrec.2014.04.004.
of the local characteristics of the human capital and the business envi­ Dinan, T.M., 1993. Economic efficiency effects of alternative policies for reducing waste
disposal. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 25, 242–256 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/
ronment to design more holistic and comprehensive policy mix. 10.1006/jeem.1993.1046.
DownToEarth, 2019. India’s Challenges in Waste Management. https://www.downtoea
rth.org.in/blog/waste/india-s-challenges-in-waste-management-56753 (accessed 4
CRediT Author Statement June 2020).
ETPrime, 2018. The Fault in our plastic bans. https://prime.economictimes.indiatimes.
Dhanshyam M.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Inves­ com/news/64819027/environment/the-fault-in-our-plastic-bans (accessed 10
November 2019).
tigation, Validation, Formal Analysis, Resources, Data Curation, Writing Geyer, R., Jambeck, J.R., Law, K.L., 2017. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever
– Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing, Visualization. made. Sci. Adv. 3, 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782.
Samir K Srivastava: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Gradus, R.H.J.M., Nillesen, P.H.L., Dijkgraaf, E., van Koppen, R.J., 2017. A Cost-
effectiveness analysis for incineration or recycling of dutch household plastic waste.
Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing, Project Administration.
Ecol. Econ. 135, 22–28 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2016.12.021.
Hao, J., Yuan, H., Liu, J., Chin, C.S., Lu, W., 2019. A model for assessing the economic
Declaration of Competing Interest performance of construction waste reduction. J. Clean. Prod. 232, 427–440. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.348.
Heller, M.H., Vatn, A., 2017. The divisive and disruptive effect of a weight-based waste
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial fee. Ecol. Econ. 131, 275–285 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence ecolecon.2016.09.002.
Jambeck, J.R., Ji, Q., Zhang, Y.-G., Liu, D., Grossnickle, D.M., Luo, Z.-X., 2015. Plastic
the work reported in this paper. waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347, 764–768. https://doi.org/
10.1126/science.1260879.
Kinnaman, T.C., Fullerton, D., 1995. How a fee per-unit garbage affects aggregate
Acknowledgements recycling in a model with heterogeneous households. Public Economics and the
Environment in an Imperfect World. Springer, pp. 135–159.
This paper has gained greatly from the highly intellectual feedback Kinnaman, T.C., Fullerton, D., 2000. Garbage and recycling with endogenous local
policy. J. Urban Econ. 48, 419–442. https://doi.org/10.1006/juec.2000.2174.
given by the five anonymous reviewers and the Editor (Dr Keisuke
Li, X., Mu, D., Du, J., Cao, J., Zhao, F., 2020. Game-based system dynamics simulation of
Nansai) during the four revisions. Their pertinent and valuable sugges­ deposit-refund scheme for electric vehicle battery recycling in China. Resour.
tions led to significant improvements in the quality of this paper. We are Conservat. Recycl. 157, 104788 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104788.
Luijsterburg, B., Goossens, H., 2014. Assessment of plastic packaging waste: Material
sincerely grateful to them!
origin, methods, properties. Resour. Conservat. Recycl. 85, 88–97. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.10.010.
Supplementary materials Mingers, J., White, L., 2010. A review of the recent contribution of systems thinking to
operational research and management science. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 207, 1147–1161.
Palmer, K., Sigman, H., Walls, M., 1997. The cost of reducing municipal solid waste.
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in Journal of Environ, Econ. Manag. 33, 128–150. https://doi.org/10.1006/
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105455. jeem.1997.0986.
Palmer, K., Walls, M., 1997. Optimal policies for solid waste disposal taxes, subsidies,
and standards. J. Public Econ. 65, 193–205.
References PlasticsEurope, 2016. Plastics—the facts 2016. An analysis of European plastics
production, demand and waste data. Plastics Europe. https://www.plasticseurope.
org/application/files/4315/1310/4805/plastic-the-fact-2016.pdf (accessed 18
Abbott, A., Nandeibam, S., O’Shea, L., 2011. Explaining the variation in household
November 2019).
recycling rates across the UK. Ecol. Econ. 70, 2214–2223 https://doi.org/https://
Plourde, C.G., 1972. A model of waste accumulation and disposal. Canad. J. Econ. 5,
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.06.028.
119–125.
Abbott, A., Nandeibam, S., O’Shea, L., 2017. The Displacement Effect of Convenience:
Ritchie, H., Roser, M., 2018 Plastic Pollution. Published online at OurWorldInData.org.
The Case of Recycling. Ecol. Econ. 136, 159–168 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/
Retrieved from: ’https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution’ [Online Resource]
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.01.020.
https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution. (accessed 15 November 2019).
Andreoni, V., Saveyn, H.G.M., Eder, P., 2015. Polyethylene recycling: Waste policy
Rivers, N., Shenstone-Harris, S., Young, N., 2017. Using nudges to reduce waste? The
scenario analysis for the EU-27. J. Environ. Manag. 158, 103–110 https://doi.org/
case of Toronto’s plastic bag levy. J. Environ. Manag. 188, 153–162. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.04.036.
10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.12.009.
Aryan, Y., Yadav, P., Samadder, S.R., 2019. Life Cycle Assessment of the existing and
Smith, V.L., 1972. Dynamics of waste accumulation: disposal versus recycling. Q. J.
proposed plastic waste management options in India: a case study. J. Clean. Prod.
Econ. 86 (4), 600–616. https://doi.org/10.2307/1882044.
211, 1268–1283 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.236.
Sinha, R., Laurenti, R., Singh, J., Malmstrom, M.E., Frostell, B., 2016. Identifying ways of
Bharadwaj, B., Baland, J.M., Nepal, M., 2019. What makes a ban on plastic bags
closing the metal flow loop in the global mobile phone product system: A system
effective? The case of Nepal. Environ. Dev. Econ. 1–20 https://doi.org/10.1017/
dynamics modeling approach. Resour. Conservat. Recycl. 113, 65-76. https://doi.
S1355770X19000329.
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.05.010.
Bing, X., Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J., Chaabane, A., van der Vorst, J., 2015. Global reverse
Sigman, H., 1996. The effects of hazardous waste taxes on waste generation and disposal.
supply chain redesign for household plastic waste under the emission trading
J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 30, 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1996.0014.
scheme. J. Clean. Prod. 103, 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.019.
Sotamenou, J., de Jaeger, S., Rousseau, S., 2019. Drivers of legal and illegal solid waste
Bohm, R.A., Folz, D.H., Kinnaman, T.C., Podolsky, M.J., 2010. The costs of municipal
disposal in the Global South - The case of households in Yaoundà (Cameroon).
waste and recycling programs. Resour. Conservat. Recycl. 54, 864–871. https://doi.
J. Environ. Manag. 240, 321–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.03.098.
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.01.005.
Sterman, J., 2010. Business dynamics. Irwin/McGraw-Hill c2000.
BusinessLine, 2019. 46 mn Tonnes of Plastic Waste Annually. India Generates 9. https://
Taylor, R.L.C., 2019. Bag leakage: The effect of disposable carryout bag regulations on
www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/science/india-generates-946-mn-tonnes-of-
unregulated bags. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 93, 254–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
plastic-waste-annually/article29299108.ece (accessed 18 November 2019).
jeem.2019.01.001.
Caplan, A.J., Grijalva, T.C., Jakus, P.M., 2002. Waste not or want not? A contingent
The Economic Times, 2019. Just How Bad is India’s Plastic Problem? https://economic
ranking analysis of curbside waste disposal options. Ecol. Econ. 43, 185–197 https://
times.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/how-india-is-drowning-in-plastic
doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00210-0.
/articleshow/69706090.cms?from=mdr (accessed 18 November 2019).
Carattini, S., Baranzini, A., Lalive, R., 2018. Is taxing waste a waste of time? Evidence
Tseng, C.H., Hsu, Y.C., Chen, Y.C., 2019. System dynamics modeling of waste
from a supreme court decision. Ecol. Econ. 148, 131–151 https://doi.org/https://
management, greenhouse gas emissions, and environmental costs from convenience
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.02.001.
stores. J. Clean. Prod. 239, 118006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118006.
Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 2018. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) study of
Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., 1991. Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent
plastics packaging products. https://cpcb.nic.in/uploads/plasticwaste/LCA_Re
model. Q. J. Econ. 106, 1039–1061.
port_15.05.2018.pdf (accessed 18 November 2019).

10
M. Dhanshyam and S.K. Srivastava Resources, Conservation & Recycling 168 (2021) 105455

Ulli-Beer, S., Andersen, D.F., Richardson, G.P., 2007. Financing a competitive recycling Walker, T.R., Xanthos, D., 2018. A call for Canada to move toward zero plastic waste by
initiative in Switzerland. Ecol. Econ. 62, 727–739 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/ reducing and recycling single-use plastics. Resour. Conservat. Recycl. 133, 99–100.
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.09.017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.02.014.
Usui, T., 2008. Estimating the effect of unit-based pricing in the presence of sample Wertz, K.L., 1976. Economic factors influencing households’ production of refuse.
selection bias under Japanese Recycling Law. Ecol. Econ. 66, 282–288 https://doi. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2 (76), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-0696.
org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.09.002. Yuan, H., Wang, J., 2014. A system dynamics model for determining the waste disposal
charging fee in construction. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 237, 988–996. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ejor.2014.02.034.

11