Science has provided more than enough evidence to develop a collective and global approach to tackle the spread of plastic pollution. This is the conclusion of an international team of researchers, including environmental psychologist Sabine Pahl from the University of Vienna. According to the researchers, the upcoming United Nations negotiations on a global plastic pollution treaty in South Korea in November 2024 offer a “tangible and historic opportunity” for joint international action. The recent Science review highlights the urgency of a global agreement to curb plastic pollution.
The article was written on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the first study on microplastics, which was also published in the journal Science and coined the term ‘microplastics’ to describe the microscopically small plastic fragments in our oceans. Both papers were led by the ‘Godfather of Microplastic’, Richard Thompson, head of the International Marine Litter Research Unit at the University of Plymouth. Five international experts from the UK, Switzerland, Australia, the Netherlands and Austria also contributed to the work.
Environmental psychologist Sabine Pahl from the University of Vienna brought the social and psychological dimension of plastic pollution to the review.
We spoke to her about the paper:
ECH Editorial Team: What do you think are the most important findings from 20 years of microplastics research?
Sabine Pahl: After the initial discovery of microplastics in oceans and coastal environments, we now know that it is everywhere. Everywhere scientists have looked for microplastics they have found it, whether in other parts of the natural world, like in the soil, in the air, or in food and beverages. So the extent of the pollution is much clearer, with fairly good estimates of quantities and pathways. The other thing we’ve learned is that microplastics are complex, in terms of the shapes that have been found, from spheres to filaments, and finally a huge range of different plastic types and mixtures with different chemicals. Our understanding is now much more sophisticated than in the early days when Richard and his students began to describe microplastic particles.
ECH Editorial Team: When people think of microplastics research, they first think of the natural sciences – but that’s not enough: to what extent is the social and behavioural sciences’ input to the topic important? And, how did you get into this topic as a psychologist?
Sabine Pahl: I first met Richard around 2010. He was doing his inaugural lecture when he was promoted to Professor, and I was fascinated by the topic of plastic pollution in general and microplastics specifically. At the end of his lecture I asked him, “Have you ever thought about the role of human behaviour in this?“ And he said he hadn’t but was really interested. That was the start of a wonderful collaboration. Plastic is in principle a fantastic material with so many uses and applications, it is cheap and convenient for both producers and consumers. But this is part of the problem. So we asked ourselves, what preferences and decisions contribute to making plastic a problem, and how can we raise awareness and change behaviours along the lifecycle of plastics. Psychology is the science of human thought and behaviour, that’s the link. But of course, many other social sciences and humanities fields can also make important contributions!
ECH Editorial Team: You write in the study that “microplastic pollution is the result of human choices and actions, and understanding these social dynamics is key to designing effective solutions”. But, as you say, human behaviour is very dependent on the cultural and social context – are there any findings regarding the handling of microplastics that apply to all people worldwide? Or do we need to act differently at a national level?
Sabine Pahl: That’s a slightly tricky question because there isn’t actually that much data yet at the global level; most research to date has indeed been conducted in the Global North. But in our own research, for example, led by Joel Sumeldan in the Philippines, we saw that people worry about plastic pollution in general. This is perhaps for somewhat different reasons, because plastic pollution threatens livelihoods, for example regarding fishing and collecting shellfish in the coastal communities we talked with in our study. But those communities told us they saw even worse developments for wildfish and contamination from sewage. It is crucial to listen to people and understand their situation, not just come in with preformed ideas – as I have seen people from the Global North do- but really work together and empower local communities to co-create solutions.
ECH Editorial Team: In your review, you note that “Human health, and food risks related to microplastics are particularly sensitive topics in society – such concerns trigger public demand for action”. If there is a great willingness and approval among people to avoid microplastics why is so little happening at a political level?
Sabine Pahl: This is not really my area of expertise but actually I think quite a lot is happening, there’s the Zero Pollution Action Plan and the Circular Economy Action Plan by the European Commission. And there is increasing consensus that we need to look at upstream measures and the system in the whole, rather than just deal with pollution as an “end-of-pipe” problem. And with the discussion turning increasingly to microplastics and human health, I think we have another strong driver for change.
ECH Editorial Team: You and the other authors of the study have decided to make a very clear statement – namely that it is now time to act at a global political level – are the scientists getting fed up with the lack of action?
Sabine Pahl: When UN member states decided that they would work together on the so-called “plastics treaty” in 2022 there was great enthusiasm in many different quarters. But now we see some headwind, not all countries are fully on board, the negotiations appear to be difficult. So, we thought it would be a good signal to state very clearly that, from a scientific perspective, looking back on 20 years of research, we have enough evidence indeed to take action.
ECH Editorial Team: From the perspective of the social and behavioural sciences, what are the changes that those responsible could make at a political level? And what should happen at an individual level? What works well, and what doesn’t?
Sabine Pahl: I think what works well is if we start trialling measures at a smaller scale and evaluate this carefully, because it helps iron out any unexpected side effects, for example, where people don’t understand what they have to do now and what the new rules mean. Communicating well with everyone beforehand and throughout any new intervention helps smooth the process.
ECH Editorial Team: How do you rate Austria’s efforts to develop an action plan against microplastics? Are the measures far-reaching enough or do you place more hope in the UN treaty negotiations at the end of November in South Korea?
Sabine Pahl: Austria already established a national action plan on microplastics in 2022, way ahead of many countries. The action plan includes a range of measures and works in partnership with many stakeholders in Austria and internationally. This is impressive and, with Austria also being one of 66 countries that are part of the “High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution”, sends all the right signals and helps industry and society to prepare for change.
ECH Editorial Team: You recently were at the international microplastics congress on Lanzarote – what were the most important topics for you there from a social and behavioural science perspective?
Sabine Pahl: The key thing I took away from this conference is that the research has really grown beyond the marine environment. For example, it includes economic assessment of the costs of action and inaction to help us decide on measures, and work is underway assessing and modelling exposure, which will allow us to understand human health risks much better in the next few years. Having said that, there is also an ongoing debate whether risk- or hazard-based approaches should be used to protect human health. This relates to the discussion whether we actually need risk assessments for all the individual substances or types of plastic. This approach is sometimes referred to critically as “paralysis by analysis”, because it would take so long and take a lot of resources. Scientists can only determine risk if they have good data on exposure, because a hazard becomes a risk only at a certain level of exposure. A hazard-based approach says if we know something has potential for harm, we don’t really need extensive risk assessment. Instead we should start looking for alternatives straightaway. A reasonable approach might be to have a few key examples where we conduct a full risk assessment,but also apply the precautionary principle and consider the potential for harm to avoid long delays.
ECH Editorial Team: To what extent do you see the international and interdisciplinary collaboration on this study as exemplary for future climate and environmental research, which the ECH also stands for?
Sabine Pahl: To my mind, this is exactly what we’re aiming for in the ECH, bringing together people from different disciplines, to develop collaborations, new perspectives and ask new research questions, initially within the University of Vienna. We’re building on the excellent track record of the ECH members and providing opportunities such as funding for visiting international chairs and seed funding to support innovative research on environment and climate topics.
ECH Editorial Team: Thank you for the interview.
Interview by Nora Gau, Editor in Chief of ECH
Sabine Pahl is Professor of Urban and Environmental Psychology and Co-Director of the Environment and Climate Research Hub at the University of Vienna. She investigates perceptions and behaviour change, particularly in the area of protecting marine environments, marine litter and microplastics. Her work also examines restorative effects of natural environments including the use of natural environments in healthcare.
