Circular economy of shopping bags in emerging markets: A demographic comparative analysis of propensity to reuse plastic bags versus cotton bags and paper bags

Abstract

This study seeks to profile the shoppers’ propensity to reuse shopping bags and the type of shopping bags they reuse on the basis of demographics. The study used an observation method to record the consumers’ shopping habits and a short questionnaire to record the participants’ demographics. A binary regression analysis and a multinomial regression analysis were used to analyse data. The results indicated that the mature aged, women, and low income shoppers were more likely to practice reuse of plastic shopping bags than their respective counterparts. There were no statistically significant differences in the likelihood of young aged shoppers compared to mature aged shoppers and low income shoppers compared to high income shoppers using cotton bags than plastic bags. There were also no statistically significant differences in the likelihood of young aged shoppers compared to mature aged shoppers and male shoppers compared to female shoppers using paper bags than plastic bags. However, the results indicated a statically significant result in how males compared to females differed in their using of cotton bags than plastic bags and a statistically significant result in how low income shoppers compared to high income shoppers differed in their use of paper bags than plastic bags.

Keywords:

• circular economy
• plastic paper bags
• reuse
• low income shoppers
• high income shoppers
• cotton bags

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

The study was focused on sustainable reuse of three types of shopping bags that is, plastic, cotton and paper shopping bags. Consumer choices on the type of shopping bags were observed, taking note of the age, gender and level of income of the participants. The research findings were that mature or older consumers, women and low income earners reused shopping bags unlike the younger consumers, males and high income earners. Plastic bags were more popular, followed by cotton bags and the least used were paper bags. Women preferred cotton bags and high income earners preferred paper bags. Going forward, it was recommended that policy makers must enforce separate waste plastic collection points to enable recycling and proper disposal of the much used plastic bags when they reach their end of life. Retailers could produce advertisements capturing the desired shopping bag to gain consumers’ attention.

1. Introduction

The circular economy has been embraced as an imperative strategy for sustainable development (World Economic Forum, 2020). The circular economy includes activities inter alia: planning, production, procurement, resource allocation, reprocessing and reusing of output with the objective of optimising ecosystem functionality and improving human well-being (Murray et al., 2017). The reuse of shopping bags perfectly fits in Murray et al.’s (2017) definition, since the reuse of shopping bags prolongs the functional life of such bags, reduce waste disposal and pollution, as well as sustain raw materials used to produce shopping bags.

However, the concept of circularity has been researched in the western context (see, McDowall et al., 2017; Völker et al., 2020) and also in China (see, Winans et al., 2017). Unfortunately, researchers’ radar has largely excluded the African context, with its unique African institutional context and cultures (Jaravaza & Saruchera, 2021). This study was based on shopping bag reuse choices of consumers in Zimbabwe, a typical Sub-Saharan emerging market.

In response to the valid critique of the circular economy by Corvellec et al., 2022) on “unclear implementability”, this study sought to provide a practical understanding of individual consumers’ demographic profiles with regards to their choices to reuse either plastic, cotton or paper shopping bags. Corvellec et al. (2022) argued that circular consumption (in this case reuse of shopping bags) places consumers on the front when it comes to their choices. Hence, the study aimed to precipitate consumer-based reuse studies in emerging markets, more specifically in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The Zimbabwean streets have come synonymous with litter. In fact, litter has become a common feature in most of the streets in Zimbabwe. Most of the litter has been claimed to originate from shopping bags ((Adane & Muleta, 2011; Tehrani et al., 2020). Shopping bags serve the role of protection, communication, containment and convenience (Dopico-Parada et al., 2021) and are an integral part of brand identity for retail outlets (Singh & Cooper, 2017a). The accumulation of litter attributed to the indiscriminate disposal of shopping bags has lead the Environmental Management Agency (EMA) to craft some public intervention policies to reduce litter (Chitotombe, 2014). The major strategies that the agency came up with were aligned to reducing, recycling and reusing concepts (Jurgilevich et al., 2016).

The option of reducing the use of plastic shopping bags is limited to those who do their shopping using cars and other primitive modes of transport like wheelbarrows and tri-cycles that have spacious carriers. Those shoppers can simply push a trolley from the till point to a supermarket’s parking bay. However, very few people own or use cars in Zimbabwe since cars are an expensive asset to the generality of the population. Therefore, this leaves recycling and reusing as the most viable options of promoting the circular economy. Recycling serves the purpose of returning resources as secondary raw materials back into the economy’s cycle for production of new packaging material (Madara et al., 2016; Zink & Geyer, 2017). However, recycling leads to down cycling due to loss of quality compared to the use of virgin material. Moreover, in Zimbabwe, there are limited facilities for recycling plastic papers, although the government of Zimbabwe (GOZ) and the Harare City Council (HCC) are in the process of setting up a waste-to-energy recycling plant at the Pomona dumpsite. This leaves reusing shopping bags as the contemporary viable option for reducing litter in the streets. Reuse strategy applies to all the types of shopping bags in the market. The common shopping bags in use for grocery shopping are made up of either cotton, paper or plastic material (Singh & Cooper, 2017a). These shopping bags vary in terms of their properties such as durability, strength, cost and environmental impact.

Cotton shopping bags are produced using renewable and biodegradable resources (Cho, 2020). The durability of cotton materials makes cotton shopping bags reusable on multiple times. The production of material used in manufacturing shopping bags starts from harvested cotton balls which are ginned, spunned, and threaded into fabric. The fabric is then chemically washed, bleached, dyed and printed and then manufactured into shopping bags (Bell & Cave, 2011). In terms of resource utilization, cotton has been found to have the worst impact on the environment than other types of shopping bags. Cotton utilizes large swathe of land, large volumes of water and huge quantities of fertilizers and pesticides. Moreover, there is huge energy consumption of energy that takes place in the processing and transporting of cotton since by nature cotton is heavy and bulky (Cho, 2020).

Paper bags were the first carrier bags to be used for shopping but were later overtaken by plastic carrier bags (Cho, 2020). Paper shopping bags are made from trees, which are a renewable resource and biodegradable (Bell & Cave, 2011). The production process of paper shopping bags involves cutting down trees into logs whose bark is removed before they are subjected to high heat and then mixed with limestone and sulphuric acid to make pulp (Cho, 2020). The pulp is then bleached and processed into paper, which manufacturers would use to make paper shopping bags. In terms of environmental friendliness, the production of paper contributes a lot to air and water pollution (Cho, 2020). Although paper is recyclable, its recycling requires the use of additional toxic chemicals for the purposes of removing ink and turning the paper back into pulp (Cho, 2020). The production of paper bags has been found to consume more water and cause atmospheric acidification than the production of plastic bags. Moreover, paper is heavy and bulky making its transportation highly energy consuming (Cho, 2020). Paper bags, at the end of their life cycle, are disposed through landfills, incineration, mechanical recycling and compositing.

Plastic bags were invented in the 1960s and introduced for shopping in the 1970s. The most common types of plastic bags are made using high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and low-density polyethylene plastic (LDPE; Cho, 2020). The raw materials used in making plastic bags are natural gas and petroleum byproducts, which are finite resources. The raw materials are processed through polymerization to create polyethylene resin, which is then put through high heat to create thin films. The thin films are then used by manufacturers to make shopping bags. Plastic shopping bags can be reused twice or thrice before they find their way to the landfills (Bell & Cave, 2011). Compared to other types of shopping bags, the manufacturing process of plastic bags uses less fuel and water, emits less greenhouse gases and acid rains and has less quantities of solid waste (Cho, 2020). Thus, plastic materials have gained prominence in use for shopping bags due to their low cost of production and desirable properties such as convenience, light weight and waterproof (Muposhi et al., 2021).

In order to encourage the reuse of shopping bags, the GOZ imposed taxes and levies on shopping bags (Chitotombe, 2014). This served to dissuade the shoppers from practicing single use of shopping bags. Thus, this study focuses on the reusing of plastic packaging material. The study sought to determine how selected demographic factors influence reuse of shopping bags. This demographic profiling is necessary for designing appropriate promotional campaigns for reducing litter in the streets and the amount of litter that finds its way to the landfills. The rest of the study is organized as follows: literature review related to the relationship between various demographic variables and the reusing strategy, the methodology adopted in collecting and analysing data, the presentations of the results and the discussion of the results. The study will be concluded with pointing out the conclusions reached and the limitations of the study that are accompanied by suggested future research agenda.

1.1. Reuse of shopping bags

Most economies in frontier markets use a linear model, which assumes the abundance of resources that can sustain unlimited packaging waste disposal (Kazulyte & Kruopiene, 2018). The linear model is characterized by the “take-produce-consume-discard” practice (Jurgilevich et al., 2016; Zink & Geyer, 2017). The linear economy is associated with a lot of social, environmental and economic externalities, which have led to the adoption of the circular economy (Gopalakrishnan et al., 2021). The circular economy is associated with the reuse of packaging material (Jurgilevich et al., 2016; Zink & Geyer, 2017). Cyclic use of packaging materials involve the reuse of shopping bags as part of social marketing efforts of encouraging the practice of sustainable consumption (Ekasari, 2020). Sustainable consumption involves the environmentally friendly acquisition, use and disposal of domestic goods. One of sustainable consumption practices is the reuse of shopping bags (Singh & Cooper, 2017a). The concept of reuse of shopping bags takes two forms. The first reuse involves finding a new use of a product as a way of extending its useful life (Nguyen et al., 2020), such as using shopping bags as wrapping material for household waste and waste bin liners (Cho, 2020). The second method of reuse involves continuous use of the shopping bags for their original purpose repeatedly until they are no longer useful (Zink & Geyer, 2017). The reuse of shopping bags is influenced by several factors such the cost of shopping bags, shoppers’ propensity to forget to bring from home their used shopping bags on their next shopping trip and poor image of being seen reusing the shopping bags (Cho, 2020). These factors vary depending on demographic variables such as age, gender and income.

Age as a sociodemographic variable influences the shopping behaviour of grocery customers (Mortimer & Clarke, 2011). Shopping behaviours vary as one ages (Goodwin & Mcelwee, 2011). Young people are not expected to reuse shopping bags simply because they are rarely involved in planned shopping. Planned shopping requires one to gather all what is required for shopping before the expedition. Moreover, there is a stigma associated with being seen reusing the shopping bag. Usually young people would feel as presenting a poor image when seen by peers reusing the shopping bags. However, mature shopper are usually family people who does shopping not only for themselves but also for the whole family. Therefore, they embark on planned shopping. It is through planned shopping that mature shoppers carry with them shopping bags for reuse. It is therefore prudent to anticipate that

H1a: Mature aged shoppers are more likely to reuse shopping bags than young aged shoppers

Grocery shopping behaviour varies depending on the gender of the shoppers (Mortimer & Clarke, 2011). These differences are rooted in sex-role theory. Women are the ones who normally do the grocery shopping for the whole family (Mortimer & Clarke, 2011). They usually plan their shopping before leaving the house. Because their shopping expeditions requires a lot of packaging women are more likely to carry with them the shopping bags in order to avoid incurring an extra cost in purchasing shopping bags. This contrasts with men who usually delegate the bulk of shopping to women and stereotypically relegate themselves to shopping of few a top-up grocery items (Mortimer & Clarke, 2011). In such shopping expeditions, men may not remember to carry with them their once used shopping bags for reuse. Moreover, the cost of buying single-use shopping bags may not be a deterrent to men than to women since traditionally women are comparatively disadvantaged in terms of income earning. Previous studies have indicated that men are generally comfortable with paying more for grocery items than women (Mortimer & Clarke, 2011). Therefore,

H1b: Women are more likely to reuse shopping bags then man

Income has been found to influence shopping behaviours (Van Kenhove & De Wulf, 2011). Since shopping bags are no longer given for free in retail outlets (Chitotombe, 2014); those with low income are likely to reuse the shopping bags which they are already in possession of. On the other hand, the cost of shopping bags is insignificant to the shoppers who are in the high income bracket. These type of customers are likely not to reuse shopping bags, preferring for the single use shopping bags. Based on arguments raised above, it is prudent to suggest that;

H1c: Low income shoppers are more likely to reuse their shopping bags than high income earners

1.2. Types of shopping bags

Shopping involves carrying the items bought using various carrier bags. The most common carrier bags for grocery shopping are cotton, paper and plastic (Bell & Cave, 2011; Madara et al., 2016). These shopping bags have been categorised as reusable and disposable, although of late, this categorization has become blurred. Amongst the segment of consumers that reuse the shopping bags, it is expected that some variations may exist in terms of the type of shopping bags versus the demographic of the shoppers. Amongst the different types of shopping bags, those made of plastic are the most common. It has become a common practice to compare any other type of shopping bags to plastic shopping bags (Cho, 2020).

Plastic shopping bags are light weight, flexible and waterproof when compared to cotton shopping bags (Madara et al., 2016). At the end of their life cycle, plastic bags are disposed of through landfill, incarnation and mechanical recycling (Singh & Cooper, 2017a). This light-weight property of plastic bags makes them convenient for young people to place them in their pockets without any bulging on their dressing. This makes it convenient for the young aged shoppers to reuse plastic shopping bags than cotton shopping bags. However, due to the light weight of plastic shopping bags, they can easily get blown away and increase litter (Bell & Cave, 2011). It is due to the amount of litter that has been attributed to plastic shopping bags that cotton and paper shopping bags were suggested as alternatives. Mature people are usually involved in bulk shopping since most of them are family person. They are therefore likely to require the type of shopping bag that is durable. This makes cotton shopping bags more suitable than plastic shopping bags. It is therefore anticipated that;

H2a: Compared to young aged shoppers, mature shoppers are more likely to reuse cotton bags than plastic bags

Cotton paper bags are strong and durable, making them more suitable for reuse than plastic shopping bags (Muthu, 2015). Since women generally conduct shopping for the whole family, they tend to buy in bulk (Mortimer & Clarke, 2011). Bulk shopping needs durable packaging material in order to avoid spillage of the purchased items. This contrasts with men who usually make small purchases of few items for immediate consumption (Mortimer & Clarke, 2011), which does not require a very durable shopping bag. Thus, it is expected that;

H2b: Compared to men, women are more likely to reuse cotton bags than plastic bags

Shopping bags in Zimbabwe and the world over are no longer given at the till points for free (Chitotombe, 2014)). The high cost of shopping bags was came as a way of discouraging shoppers from treating shopping in bags as a single use commodities and thereby encouraging their reuse (Muposhi et al., 2021). Thus, because of this increased cost of shopping bags, low income earners are likely to resort to reusing. However, compared to cotton shopping bags plastic shopping bags are cheaper (Muthu, 2015). It is therefore expected that low income earners are likely to reuse plastic bags, while their high income counterparts reuse cotton shopping bags. It is therefore predicted that;

H2c: Compared to high income shoppers, low income shoppers are more likely to reuse cotton bags than plastic bags

Paper shopping bags are less durable and can easily tear when they get wet (Bell & Cave, 2011). They are therefore suitable for use by very careful shoppers (Cho, 2020). Since young aged people rarely careful than mature aged shoppers they less likely to reuse paper shopping bags than the mature aged shoppers. Mature aged shoppers are usually family people who have mustered the art of handling delicate things like babies and would not struggle to handle less durable filled paper bags. It is therefore anticipated that;

H3a: Compared to young age shoppers, mature shoppers are likely to reuse paper bags than plastic bags

Women are inherently careful and tender (Mussida & Patimo, 2021). They are known to handle tender and fragile items ranging from children to glass and enamelware in their domestic kitchens. This trait makes them possess an ability to reuse paper shopping bags which are inherently less durable. On the other hand men are bit rough (Su et al., 2009) to the extent that that can’t repeatedly handle paper shopping bags. Therefore it is anticipated that;

H3b: Compared to women, men shoppers are less likely to reuse paper bags than plastic bags

Paper shopping bags are a bit expensive than plastic paper bags (Bell & Cave, 2011). Due to this cost issue, low-income earners are less likely to reuse paper shopping bags. High-income earners might find the reuse of paper shopping bags more convenient than plastic paper bags considering that paper is less expensive to dispose than plastic. It is therefore anticipated that;

H3c: Compared to high-income earners, low-income earners are less likely to reuse paper bags than plastic bags

2. Methodology

2.1. Population and sampling

The population of this study was grocery retail customers in Bindura town. Bindura is a provincial capital of one of the ten administrative provinces in Zimbabwe. It has a population of 90,000 residents of whom 40,000 are adults. In the town of Bindura, there are two national chain grocery retail outlets that have a combined market share of almost 80% of the customers in the town. The total clientele base of the restaurant industry could not be established leading to the absence of a sampling frame. The absence of a sampling frame necessitated the use of convenience sampling method (Struwig & Stead, 2013). Convenience sampling made the data collection process shorter and less expensive (Saunders et al., 2018).

2.2. Data collection instrument and data collection procedures

The data collection was done in two phases. The first phase was observation by researchers. The data were collected at shopping malls and markets. The observed parameters were the reuse of shopping bags and the type of shopping bags reused. The researchers were seated outside a major supermarket that is frequented by most of the residents in the town and would record whether the customer had bought a shopping bag or had reused the one he had brought for shopping. The researchers also recorded the type of the shopping bags used by the customers. The shopping bags were made either of cotton, paper or plastic.

On the second phase, the researchers would then intercept the observed shoppers as they leave the retail outlet and request for the demographic information from consenting respondents. The respondents were asked to indicate their age, gender and income. Therefore, for each participant, there would be information on the type of shopping bags reused or bought and then the researchers would intercept the consumer when leaving the retail outlet to complete demographic information.

3. Results

3.1. Participants

The participants in this study were of the demographic profiles presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics

			N	Marginal Percentage
Reuse	Carrier bags	Cotton	196	21.9%
		Paper	166	18.5%
		Plastic	534	59.6%
	Age	Mature	435	48.5%
		Young	461	51.5%
	Gender	Female	493	55.0%
		Male	403	45.0%
	Income	High	383	42.7%
		Low	513	57.3%
	Valid		896	100.0%
	Total		896	63.0%
Single use			524	27.0%
Total			1420	100.0%

The age of the respondents comprised of the youth (48.5%) and the mature shoppers (51.5%). Most of the respondents were females (55%) and were in the low income bracket (57.3%). Reuse was found to popular amongst the shoppers as represented by 63% of the surveyed respondents, while single-use shopping bags were represented by 27%. Amongst the surveyed respondents, the most type of reused shopping bag was plastic represented by 59.6%, followed by cotton shopping bags (21.9%) and then lastly paper shopping bags (18.5%).

3.2. Hypotheses testing

A binary logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the effects of age, gender and income on the likelihood that the shoppers will reuse the shopping bags. The results are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Variables in the equation

		B	S.E.	Wald	Df	Sig.	Exp(B)	95% CI for EXP(B)
								Lower	Upper
Age		.096	.111	.753	1	.385	1.101	.886	1.367
Gender		−.410	.111	13.705	1	.000	.664	.534	.825
Income		.001	.112	.000	1	.991	1.001	.804	1.247
Constant		.693	.116	35.402	1	.000	1.999

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: age, gender, and income.

The binary logistic model was statistically significant when compared to the null model, X²(6) = 32.850, p < .001, with the Nagelkerke R² coefficient of 14.5 indicating that the model explained 14.5% of the variance in the reuse of shopping bags and correctly classified 63% of the cases. Age and income were not significantly related to reuse of shopping bags, p = .385, OR = 1.01, 95% CI [.886, 1.367], and p = .991, OR = 1.001, 95%, CI [.804, 1.247] respectively. However, gender was significantly related to reuse of shopping bags, p < .001, OR = .664, 95%, CI [.534, .825]. This indicates that women were .6 times more likely than man to reuse shopping bags.

After determining the statistical significance of the selected predictors of reusing shopping bags, a multinomial regression analysis was conducted to determine the likelihood of shoppers using either cotton, paper or plastic shopping bags. The model fitness was assessed using the Chi-square statistic. The Chi-square statistic value indicated that there is a significant relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variable, X²(1) = 344.344, p > 0.001. More precisely, it implies that at least one regression slope is significantly different from zero. Using the Nagelkerke, the model explained 4.9% of the variation in the dependent variable. This suggested that the model was underspecified and would improve if more predictor variables were to be included in the model.

The likelihood ratio test (see, Table 3) indicated that gender and income contribute significantly to the final model, X²(2) = 23.944, p < .001, and X²(2) = 14.910, p = .001, respectively. However, age did not significantly contribute to the final model, X²(2) = 1.015, p = .602.

Table 3. Results of hypotheses testing

Effect	Model Fitting Criteria	Likelihood Ratio Tests
	−2 Log Likelihood of Reduced Model	Chi-Square	Df	Sig.
Intercept	99.104^a	.000	0	.
Age	100.119	1.015	2	.602
Gender	123.048	23.944	2	.000
Income	114.014	14.910	2	.001

There were no statistically significant differences in the likelihood of young-aged shoppers compared to mature aged shoppers and low-income shoppers compared to high income shoppers in using cotton bags than plastic bags, B = −.156, p = .360, and B = .287, p = .102 respectively (see Table 4). Thus, H2a and H2c were not supported. However, the results indicated a statistically significant result in how males compared to females differed in their using of cotton bags than plastic bags, B = .827, p < .001, OR = 2,286 [1.633, 3.199]. Therefore, H2b was supported. This implies that females are 2.29 times likely over males to use cotton shopping bags than plastic bags.

Table 4. Parameter estimates

Carrier Bags		B	Std. Error	Wald	Df	Sig.	Exp(B)	95% Confidence Interval for Exp(B)
								Lower Bound	Upper Bound
Cotton	Intercept	−1.511	.187	65.303	1	.000
	Age	−.156	.170	.838	1	.360	.856	.613	1.194
	Gender	.827	.171	23.242	1	.000	2.286	1.633	3.199
	Income	.287	.176	2.676	1	.102	1.333	.945	1.881
Paper	Intercept	−.898	.174	26.715	1	.000
	Age	−.113	.179	.401	1	.527	.893	.629	1.268
	Gender	.148	.181	.672	1	.412	1.160	.814	1.653
	Income	−.529	.179	8.709	1	.003	.589	.415	.837

a. The reference category is: Plastic.

There were no statistically significant differences in the likelihood of young-aged shoppers compared to mature-aged shoppers and male shoppers compared to female shoppers using paper bags than plastic bags, B = −.113, p = .527, and B = .148, p = .412 respectively. Thus, H3a and H3b were not supported. However, the results indicated a statistically significant result in how low-income shoppers compared to high-income shoppers differed in their using of paper bags than plastic bags, B = .179, p = .003, OR = .589 [.415, .837]. Therefore, H3c was supported. This implies that high-income shoppers are 0.59 times more likely than low-income shoppers to use paper shopping bags over plastic bags.

4. Discussion

Most of the shoppers observed were reusing shopping bags. This is likely to be attributed to the cost of shopping bags due to the shopping bag fees and taxes imposed by the regulatory authority, which in this context is EMA. Previously, shopping bags were issued free of charge to the customers. Since the advent of fees charged on shopping bags, it seems many customers were dissuaded from treating shopping bags in a linear fashion of single-use. However, it seems the reuse of shopping bags did very little to reduce the amount of litter in the streets. Just like recycling, reusing cannot be done indefinitely. This suggests that reusing shopping bags alone has little impact in reducing litter in the street (Cho, 2020). This may be due to the fact that this strategy only delays the inevitable. Eventually, after reuse, the shopping bags will have to be disposed of, and sustainable methods of disposal must be used (Wandosell et al., 2021).

The shopping bags that proved to be common amongst the shoppers were plastic, followed by cotton and then paper. The popularity of plastic shopping bags is attributed to their properties that makes them superior over the other type shopping bags (Singh & Cooper, 2017a). Plastic shopping bags are light in weight, malleable, waterproof and flexible (Kazulyte & Kruopiene, 2018). The use of plastic also cuts across all the demographic divide. However, plastic bags need to be reused at least three in order to compensate for the amount of energy and carbon used in their manufacturing (Cho, 2020).

The second most popular type of shopping bags are made up of cotton. Cotton bags are most suitable for grocery items that are bulky and voluminous due to their strength and durability (Cho, 2020). Cotton carrier bags are convenient for reusable purposes, although they are susceptible to bacterial contamination (Summers, 2012). At the end of their lifecycle, cotton carrier bags can find their way to the landfill and incineration but cannot be recycled (Muthu, 2015). Furthermore, cotton bags need to be used 131 times in order to attain a low carbon footprint per use that matches plastic bags (Summers, 2012).

Lastly, the paper bags were the least preferred despite the fact that they were the first to appear in the shopping bags market. Their lack of popularity may be attributed to the fact that they are only suitable for light weight grocery items (Cho, 2020) and can be easily affected by moisture (Kazulyte & Kruopiene, 2018). They also tear easily, making them unsuitable for handling delicate grocery items like eggs.

There was no significant gender differences in terms of reuse of shopping bags, regardless of whether the shopping bag was cotton, paper or plastic. This is the prevailing trend where gender differences in many social aspects have become blurred. In most cases, the only enduring differences between males and females have been relegated to biological issues (Mussida & Patimo, 2021). When it comes to the sample of respondents that reuse shopping bags, the likelihood of shoppers choosing cotton shopping bags over plastic bags did not vary depending on age. It seems both young and mature aged shoppers equally have the propensity to choose plastic bags over cotton bags. The reasons why plastic is a favourite for shoppers such as light weight, less cost, malleability and waterproof seems to apply to both the young and mature-aged shoppers (Singh & Cooper, 2017a).

There was no significant differences between the youth and the mature aged and between males and females in terms of reuse preferences of paper bags over plastic bags. This may be attributed to the fact that the properties of paper shopping bags functionally affect all age groups and across gender divide. Women have shown a greater preference of cotton bag than plastic bags more than men. This is most likely emanate from the fact that women are socialized to bear the responsibility of caring for the whole family (Mussida & Patimo, 2020). Based on the recent statistics that gives an average family size of 4 (Zimstat, 2022), it means most women in Zimbabwe do shopping that caters for an average of 4 family members. Moreover, most women are now gainfully employed so they can no longer make small and frequent shopping excursions. Thus, whenever they do shopping, they do so in bulk. Bulk shopping requires strong carrier bags because some of the household grocery items like flour and sugar are heavy (Muthu, 2015). Thus, cotton carrier bags which are inherently durable and strong are a natural choice for shopping women than plastic bags. There was no significant differences based of income in terms of reuse of shopping bags regardless of whether the shopping bag was cotton, paper or plastic. However, there were significant differences between low-income earners and high-income earners in terms of reuse of shopping bags. High income earners preferred to use paper bags than plastic bags.

4.1. Conclusions and policy implications

This study revealed that in general, the citizens of Zimbabwe are greatly reusing the shopping bags as they are progressively abandoning the single-use practice. However, with those higher proportions of reusing the amount of litter in the streets remains exceedingly higher. This suggests that shopping bags are not the only contributor of litter in the streets. There are many sources of litter from packaging materials of various grocery items that are likely to account for most of the litter in the streets. Therefore, policy makers must formulate a broad spectrum of policy interventions that covers all the sources of litter in the streets.

The reuse of shopping bags have found traction in Zimbabwe, but eventually after some reuse, those shopping bags must still get disposed of in an environmentally friendly way. Therefore, reuse of shopping bags may positively impact the environment through minimizing water and energy use, but eventually at the end of their life cycle, they still need to be disposed. This may account for the exponential increase in street litter, despite the wide acceptance of the reuse practice. Therefore, policy makers must turn their attention to safe litter disposal methods and setting up of recycling facilities. The other method that the residents use to eliminate litter in streets of the residential area is unsanctioned incineration. Such illegal incineration practices have an adverse effects of increasing the release of toxic substances such as lead, mercury and acid gases (Cho, 2020).

Plastic shopping bags were noted to be the most popular, followed by cotton bags and lastly paper shopping bags. Most plastic bags are not biodegradable, and their reuse duration is shorter than cotton bags. It is recommended that policy makers must enact regulations or laws to compel businesses to have separate plastic waste collection points so that they can be recycled. Recycling would reduce improper disposal of plastic bags and other plastic wastes.

Governments can also subsidise the cost of alternative bags, that is, cotton shopping bags and paper shopping bags, which have less environmental disadvantages as compared to plastics. The major consumers of plastic shopping bags are low income earners. It is expected that these low income earners are price sensitive and can be swayed to accept cotton or paper shopping bags if they are cheaper and readily available.

Businesses, especially retailers trading groceries, may also formulate effective advertisements of groceries, which are in a popular shopping bag depending on the empirically noted preferences of their target demographic group. An upmarket grocery retailer can promote their services showing goods in paper shopping bags, which are preferred by high-income earners. A retailer in a low income market may produce advertisements showing plastic shopping bags to attract the attention of low income households. A business that targets women can use cotton shopping bags to get their attention.

Lastly, regulatory authorities may avoid just focusing on restricting the use of plastic shopping bags in particular, without offering alternative bags. They can embark on massive promotional campaigns, encouraging the use of cotton bags and paper bags, which are largely biodegradable.

4.2. Limitation and future research agenda

The fact that the implementation of the policies that encouraged residents to reuse their shopping bags did not reduce the amount of litter in the streets suggests that future researches must do a forensic analysis of litter in the streets and try to pinpoint the actual source of that litter. Furthermore, the study was limited to the reuse of shopping bags for their original purpose. However, previous studies indicated that some residents reuse shopping bags for secondary purposes. Therefore, future studies should also investigate secondary uses of shopping bags.

Disclosure statement

All authors did not have any conflict of interest

Additional information

Funding

The authors did not receive any funding for this study

Notes on contributors

Divaries Cosmas Jaravaza

Divaries Cosmas Jaravaza, Ms Sarah Nyengerai and Dr Paul Mukucha are lecturers at Bindura University of Science Education working on several projects on circular economy (taking a business perspective) and green marketing. The studies are done in subsistence markets in Sub-Saharan Africa and the authors can forge collaborations with researchers in other countries for cross cultural studies in transformative consumer research as well as in entrepreneurship, supply chain management, branding and indigenous knowledge systems.