Awareness of Citizens for the Single-Use Plastics: Comparison between a High-Income and an Upper-Middle-Income Economy of the Easter Mediterranean Region, Greece and Lebanon

Abstract

Plastics have become an integral part of daily human life for the last 50 years because, due to their durability, low cost and ease of construction, they have replaced many other materials. However, the same characteristics that make plastics particularly desirable are also what make them ubiquitous in the environment, especially as much of the plastic is designed to be discarded almost immediately after use. This study investigates the opinion and behavior concerning the current use of plastics, their end-of-life (recycling) scenario, and the potential for their replacement with more sustainable and biodegradable materials in Greece and Lebanon. The survey was conducted during April and May 2021 in the main cities of the two countries. The data were collected using a structured questionnaire. The questionnaires were analyzed, using simple descriptive statistics, chi-square test and PCA analysis. The results show that even if the respondents of both countries stated significant awareness of environmental issues, they often use single-use plastics. Furthermore, the respondents (in both Greece and Lebanon) say that it would be fair to pay more for products in a package made of biodegradable materials. Finally, the statistical analysis of the results shows that in both Greece and Lebanon, there is a small increase in the use of reusable products during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to before the pandemic.

1. Introduction

Plastics are versatile materials that have transformed the food security, healthcare, and built environment industries. “Plastic” is an umbrella term that encompasses a wide range of materials made of semi-synthetic or synthetic organic compounds that have specific common properties. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) defines plastics as “polymeric materials that may contain other substances to improve performance and/or reduce costs” [1]. These synthetic or semi-synthetic organic polymers are durable, strong, lightweight, and inexpensive materials [2] that vary in their barrier properties towards water, oxygen and other molecules, and they are therefore particularly useful as food and beverage packaging material [3]. It is also a thermal and electrical insulator, can be combined with other materials (e.g., metal), and also printed [3].

The main advantages of plastics include the ease in the form that they can take through a suitable process and their properties after a special configuration (e.g., transparent material) [3]. In fact, the main feature of these materials is reflected in their etymology: the word plastic originates from the Greek words “plastikos” meaning “capable of being shaped”, and “plastos”, meaning “moulded” [4]. Furthermore, due to their ease of manufacture, low cost, impermeability, and their resistance to chemicals, temperature and light, plastics are used in a wide range of products and have replaced many other materials, such as wood, paper, stone, leather, metal, glass and ceramic [5].

Plastics have become an integral part of everyday human life over the last 50 years [6]. Plastics are used to produce products (“plastic products”) or to produce parts for larger products (“products containing plastics”) [7]. However, the same characteristics that render plastics highly desirable are also those that render them ubiquitous in the environment, especially as a large fraction of plastics is designed to be discarded almost immediately following their use [4]. The current worldwide collection processes and management policies of plastic waste are far from perfect because an average of 9 million tons of plastic end up, each year, in the oceans [8,9]. As a result, the durability of plastic, which makes it an attractive material, becomes a problem.

In the last decades, the production of plastics has increased significantly, causing a big problem in the whole world regarding the discarded end-of-life plastics which are accumulated as debris in landfills and in natural habitats worldwide and by the management methods related to constantly growing resources of plastics [10]. “End of life” does not equate to “end of impact”. In fact, because plastic materials persist and pollute long after their intended use, it has become clear that there is no such thing as “end of life” for plastics. Depending on how plastic is handled, it may pose a significant threat to the environment and to the climate when it reaches the waste phase of its life cycle [11]. The accumulation of plastic waste that occurs continuously, if it is not balanced with proper processing, will cause a serious pollution because it can contaminate the soil, water, and other elements of life [6].

On the other hand, in the last years, the problem of recycled plastics was attempted to be solved by several methods (such as mechanical recycling or chemical recycling) leading to products ready to be used in the most economic, ecological and rational way [12,13]. However, only a fraction of plastic waste is recycled, a process that is expensive owing to the inherent separate collection, transportation, processing, and re-manufacture. Finally, while incineration of plastic is often euphemistically dubbed “energy recovery”, the truth is that, when plastic is burned, it emits greenhouse gases, mainly CO₂, while plastics also often contain additives such as Cl, which are hazardous when released into the environment during incineration [14].

Most plastics do not degrade; instead, they slowly fragment into smaller particles through abiotic and/or biotic ways of degradation [15]. Plastics can be broken down into macroplastics (>25 mm), mesoplastics (5–25 mm), microplastics (<0.1–5 mm) and nanoplastics (<0.1 mm) [16]. These particles, whether in the form of larger or smaller plastics, have profound detrimental consequences for ecosystems, biota, and the environment, but also for the economy (e.g., collection) and human health [4].

The sources of plastics entering the environment are extremely varied. For example, laundering clothing that contains synthetic materials, such as acrylic, fleece and polyester, exfoliants and toothpaste contributes to the entry of microplastics and nanoplastics in wastewater streams, while the degradation of tires and paint, such as that used for road marking and house exteriors, is responsible for 10% of the microplastic pollution that entering the environment [17,18]. Moreover, some sources of nanoplastics include beauty and hygiene products, specifically those with exfoliating properties, abrasive cleaning supplies, air-blasting mechanisms, and plastic powders used to make larger plastics [19,20].

In Greece, the plastics industry is an important manufacturing activity, specializing in specific parts of the plastics and products market (intermediate and final) and with a remarkable export activity [3]. The activities of the domestic sector include the supply and manufacture of raw materials, the manufacture of machinery, the production of a wide range of plastic products (from bags and bottles to pipes and car parts) and recycling [3]. However, regarding recycling plastic waste, the picture for the country is disappointing. Problems in recording the data do not allow safe conclusions to be drawn. However, some indicators show a significant lag of the country [3]. In particular, Greece is in the second lowest position in the EU after Cyprus, in terms of per capita volume of plastic waste recycling, at 4 kg per person in 2016, compared to 16 kg per person on average in the EU [3].

On the other hand, plastic pollution is a particular problem in Lebanon due to its high dependence on imported products, the nature of its distributed economy, the large plastic manufacturing industry in the country and various macro and micro-economic factors that make recycling of plastics nonviable [21]. In fact, Lebanon is estimated to have the second highest percentage of tap water contaminated with plastic fibers in the world after the United States, with a contamination rate of 93.8% [21]. In terms of recycling, about 11% of waste is composted and about 8% is recycled [22]. Recycling networks are created through a system of waste pickers and materials traders operating to recover materials before they are collected from points of generation or storage, and after disposal in a waste disposal facility [22].

The use of questionnaires in surveys is an effective way to discover the opinion and habits of citizens. They are frequently used in several environmental issues, such as climate change [23,24], energy use [25,26], water or waste management [27,28,29], or other environmental issues [30,31,32]. Even if there are several studies in the literature related to plastics, such as advantages/disadvantages of plastics, environmental impacts from the use of plastics and management of plastics at the end of life [33,34], few papers deal with the opinion of citizens about the use of single-use plastics [35,36].

This paper aims to investigate the attitude of the respondents regarding the current use of plastics, their end-of-life (recycling) scenario, and the potential for their replacement with more sustainable and biodegradable materials in Greece and Lebanon. The study of the above is necessary because the use of plastics, although widespread, has negative effects on human health and the environment, and plastics’ replacement with more sustainable materials is considered imperative worldwide. In addition, the attitude and behavior of citizens towards various environmental issues varies. Insights of sociology, psychology, literature, philosophy, and even theology could shed new light on our understanding of environmental issues, which would subsequently change our attitude and behavior [37]. Finally, provided that culture is a set of subjective values, mentalities and ideas, it needs a basic cultural value centered on the environment to reshape human behaviors [38].

The two countries present important similarities but also essential differences, which make them an ideal case study for comparison. Both countries belong to the Eastern Mediterranean and have a quite comparable population (10,691,204 inhabitants in Greece and 6,769,000 inhabitants in Lebanon). Their history has many similarities since the antiquity. Both countries are also experiencing severe economic difficulties. However, Greece has a more stable political system, while in Lebanon, the civil war of 1975–1990 still has adverse consequences. In addition, the country belongs to different continents (Europe and Asia). However, the most significant difference is that Greece is a high-income economy according to the World Bank classification [39], while Lebanon belongs to the upper-middle-income class [40]. From this perspective, the current situation in Lebanon has a high probability of being similar to the case of Greece in the near future. Thus, useful lessons can be taken comparing the situation in these two countries. Lebanon can take a profit from the Greek experience, and Greece can assess the progress made in the matter.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Questionnaire

The data were collected using a structured questionnaire addressed to the residents of Greece and Lebanon. The questionnaire consists of the following sections. The first section includes questions to determine participants’ awareness of environmental protection. The second section includes questions to determine participants’ concerns on plastics, while the third section includes questions on waste disposal bins and collective actions. The fourth section examines the use of plastics products, while the fifth section examines consumer attitudes towards single-use plastics, and the sixth section examines consumer attitudes towards reusable products. The seventh section examines the use of biodegradable packaging, and the eighth section examines the prices and tax policy of biodegradable materials. The ninth section examines the influence of surrounding environment in terms of waste pollution. Consumer behavior before and during the COVID-19 pandemic was then examined in relation to the use of some products. Finally, the last part of the questionnaire records the sociodemographic data of the respondents.

As suggested in the literature, a pilot questionnaire was tested prior to the main research on a small group of twenty random respondents to evaluate and optimize the content of the final questionnaire [41].

2.2. Sample and Collection Method

The sampling strategy is the following: the questionnaires were collected using both face-to-face and telephone interviews with a ratio of about 50/50 in both countries. The latter mode of collection was imposed from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Only adults (over 18 years old) participated in the study. Simple random sampling was used as sampling method and the questionnaires were collected in different cities, different parts of each city at different times of the day and different days of the week. In total, 608 questionnaires were collected in Greece and 476 in Lebanon.

The sample size, in case of finite population, has been calculated using the following equation [42]:

$$n=\frac{z^2\ast p\ast \left(1-p\right)\ast N}{M{E}^2\ast \left(N-1\right)+z^2\ast p\ast \left(1-p\right)}$$

(1)

where

• n is the sample size
• ME is the desired margin of error (for desired reliability, the acceptable maximum error is 0.05, with an associated 95% confidence interval),
• N is the population size (adult population: 8,926,161 inhabitants in Greece and 4,431,867 inhabitants in Lebanon),
• p is the preliminary estimate of the proportion in the population (as the value of p was not known, the maximum value of 0.50 was assumed),
• z is the two-tailed value of the standardized normal deviate associated with desired level of confidence (for 95% confidence interval the value of z was equal to 1.96).

The application of a desired margin of error of 5% gives a total number of 384 questionnaires in both Greece and Lebanon. In total, 608 questionnaires were collected in Greece and 476 in Lebanon. The desired margin of error of this sample was only 3.97% in the case of Greek sample and 4.52% in the case of the Lebanese one.

2.3. Analysis of the Results

The data collected from the questionnaire were evaluated statistically using SPSS. The participants’ responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequency analysis, percentages, mean and standard deviation). Next, a chi-square (χ2) test was used to reveal statistically significant correlations between the answers and the sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents. A statistically significant correlation is considered if p < 0.05.

Furthermore, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was applied for a deeper analysis. PCA is used to reduce the initial variables into a smaller number of uncorrelated linear combinations. The Cronbach’s alpha test was used to assess the internal consistency of the variables consisting each component. Good internal consistency is indicated when values are higher than 0.7 [43].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Representativeness of the Sample

Table A1. Sociodemographic and socioeconomic profile of the respondents.

Variables	Value	Greece % (Sample)	Greece % (Census 2011)	Lebanon % (Sample)	Lebanon % (Census 2020)
Gender	Male	41.8	48.2	47.6	50.3
	Female	58.2	51.8	52.4	49.7
Age group	18–29	22.5	18.4	31.3	26.0
	30–39	20.9	19.5	22.5	19.8
	40–49	21.3	18.2	20.6	19.9
	50–59	15.2	15.9	14.3	16.8
	60–69	9.2	12.2	6.7	9.6
	>70	10.9	15.8	4.6	7.9
Marital status	Married	52.2	50.2	38.5	40.2
	Unmarried	42.1	39.1	59.1	55.0
	Divorced	3.7	3.1	1.2	0.8
	Widowed	2.0	7.6	1.2	4.0
Number of children	0	44.5	34.1	25.5	20.2
	1	15.2	14.4	19.0	16.2
	2	31.3	35.5	28.0	22.5
	>3	9.0	16.0	27.5	41.1
Education	Up to high school	57.5	64.1	53.9	67.8
	Post high school	5.4	7.8	19.0	17.0
	Higher education	28.6	22.3	21.1	15.2
	Master Diploma/PhD	8.5	5.8	6.0	-
Professional status	Employee	74.4	65.1	42.9	43.0
	Unemployed	4.7	6.9	9.5	6.6
	Student	9.2	6.5	29,5	25.0
	Retired	7.0	14.1	4,8	7.8
	Household	4.7	7.4	13,3	17.6
Family income,	0–10,000	38.1		65.0
Euros	10,001–20,000	32.7		16.5
	20,001–40,000	24.2		12.8
	40,001–60,000	5.0		2.5
	>60,000	0.0		0.0

(Appendix A) shows the frequency distribution of the sociodemographic and socioeconomic data of the respondents and the official data of the Hellenic Statistical Authority as recorded in the last census (2011) for Greece and the official data as recorded in Central Administration of Statistics for Lebanon [44,45].

The results show that the sample consists of 41.8% males and 58.2% females in Greece and 47.6% males and 52.4% females in Lebanon. In addition, the majority of respondents in Greece are married (52.2%), while the majority of respondents in Lebanon are unmarried (59.1%). Both in Greece and Lebanon, the majority of respondents have children (55.5% in Greece and 74.5% in Lebanon), while 31.3% of the respondents in Greece and 28% in Lebanon have two children.

Furthermore, in Greece, the 57.5% of respondents have completed up to high school, while 28.6% have higher education and 8.5% MSc/PhD. Similarly, in Lebanon, the 53.9% of respondents have completed up to high school, 21.1% have higher education and 6.0% MSc/PhD. Regarding professional status, 74.4% of respondents are employees in Greece and 42.9% in Lebanon. The annual total family income corresponds to 0–10,000 € for the 38.1% of respondents and 10,001–20,000 € for 32.7% of respondents in Greece and 0–10,000 € for the 65% of respondents in Lebanon. Finally, our sample represented the adult Greek population in every level: gender, age distribution, marital status, number of children, education and professional status.

3.2. Descriptive Analysis and Effect of Sociodemographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics on the Answers Provided

This section analyzes the attitude and behavior of citizens towards the single-use plastic waste and plastic packaging waste in Greece and Lebanon. The findings of the structured questionnaire are clarified in the following subsections. All responses are recorded in a scale from 1 to 5. The average values and the standard deviation shown here take into account these values. Furthermore, a Chi-square test is performed to determine the existence of relationships between the participants’ responses and their sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

3.2.1. Awareness on Environmental Protection

The first general question explores the importance of environmental protection of the citizens of both countries (

Table 1. Questionnaire responses, with respect to the significance of environmental protection.

How Important is Environmental Protection?
Response	Greece	Lebanon
Not at all (%)	0.00	0.00
Not Very (%)	0.30	1.10
Neutral (%)	1.60	2.10
Important (%)	10.90	20.20
Very Important (%)	87.20	76.60
Mean	4.85	4.72
Std. Deviation	0.426	0.557

). It is clear that almost all respondents underline the significance of environmental protection as an important aspect (98.10% and 96.80%, as the sum of important and very important, in Greece and Lebanon, respectively).

However, regarding Greece, there is a correlation between this opinion and marital status and area of residence (

Table A2. The impact of the sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

Sociodemographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics		Label	No (%)	Yes (%)	Pearson Chi-Square	p Value
How important is environmental protection?
Greece	Marital Status	Unmarried	4.0	96.0	4.274	0.039
		Married	0.6	99.4
Greece	Aria of residence	Athens	0	100.0	6.454	0.011
		The rest of Greece	3.6	96.4

, Appendix A). Married people and respondents living in Athens, which is the capital of Greece, seem to consider environmental protection more important than the unmarried respondents and those living outside of the Greek capital, while there is no corresponding correlation in the case of Lebanon.

Moreover, this questionnaire searches for the perception of citizens with respect to the most influential environmental concerns (the three most significant environmental issues). The overall trend is depicted in Figure 1. The most popular responses have shown a considerable discrepancy for both examined countries. Accordingly, the Greek respondents pointed out (a) the climate change (60.90%), (b) the decline or extinction of species and habitats and of natural ecosystems (41.80%) and (c) the air pollution (35.90%) as the most dominant problems.

Climate change is chosen as an important environmental issue more by people without than with children (

Table A3. The impact of the sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

Sociodemographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics		Label	Yes (%)	No (%)	Pearson Chi-Square	p Value
Agricultural pollution (use of pesticides, fertilizers, etc.) and soil degradation
Greece	Age	Younger	7.5	92.5	5.672	0.017
		Older	16.6	83.4
Greece	Marital Status	Unmarried	7.2	92.8	4.907	0.027
		Married	15.7	84.3
Greece	Children	No children	7.2	92.8	8.725	0.003
		With children	18.5	81.5
Air pollution
Greece	Aria of residence	Athens	30.9	69.1	5.484	0.019
		The rest of Greece	44.5	55.5
Lebanon	Education	Lower	91.3	8.7	9.347	0.002
		Higher	55.7	44.3
Decline or Extinction of species and habitats, and of natural ecosystems
Greece	Aria of residence	Athens	46.3	53.7	5.131	0.024
		The rest of Greece	32.7	67.3
Climate change
Greece	Children	No children	65.9	34.1	3.889	0.049
		With children	54.6	45.4

, Appendix A). Furthermore, younger respondents (<40 years old), unmarried and the respondents without children believe less that agricultural pollution (use of pesticides, fertilizers, etc.) and soil degradation are one of the most influential environmental concerns. Regarding air pollution, people living in Athens choose less this environmental issue as important, while decline or extinction of species and habitats, and of natural ecosystems, are not chosen by people who live outside Athens.

On the other hand, the Lebanese sample has reported (a) the air pollution (66.00%), (b) the waste production (42.60%) and (c) the pollution of rivers, lakes, and ground water (39.40%) as the most significant problems. More specifically, environmental pollution is chosen more by respondents with lower education (up to higher school) (Table A3, Appendix A).

3.2.2. Basic Concerns on Plastics

At a first stage, it is essential to divulge the overall knowledge and understanding of citizens on both countries, with a special focus on fundamental aspects referring to plastics (

Table 2. Tracing the overall knowledge and understanding about plastics.

Response	Not at All (%)	Not Very (%)	Neutral (%)	Fairly (%)	Very Well (%)	Mean (%)	Std. Dev.
	Do you know what is the meaning of microplastics?
Greece	11.20	12.80	28.00	25.00	23.00	3.36	1.274
Lebanon	33.00	14.90	20.20	19.10	12.80	2.64	1.436
	Do you know what is the meaning of bioplastics?
Greece	15.50	17.10	29.30	20.40	17.80	3.08	1.305
Lebanon	22.30	23.40	26.60	20.20	7.40	2.67	1.239
	Do you really believe that single-use plastics (e.g., plastic bags, single-use straws and plastic packaging) show a significant impact on the environment?
Greece	0.00	2.00	10.20	30.90	56.90	4.43	0.754
Lebanon	1.10	4.30	10.60	27.70	56.40	4.34	0.911
	Do you consider plastic pollution to be one of the 3 biggest environmental problems in your country?
Greece	2.60	8.60	14.80	38.80	35.20	3.95	1.039
Lebanon	1.10	6.40	7.40	40.40	44.70	4.21	0.914
	Do you know if there is legislation to ban single-use plastics in your country?
Greece	11.80	13.20	23.40	26.00	25.70	3.40	1.317
Lebanon	35.10	17.00	27.70	10.60	9.60	2.43	1.324

and

Table 3. Tracing the overall knowledge and understanding about the environmental impacts of plastics.

Response	Strongly Disagree (%)	Disagree (%)	Neither Agree nor Disagree (%)	Agree (%)	Strongly Agree (%)	Mean (%)	Std. Dev.
	Do you think that all types of plastics can be recycled?
Greece	27.30	18.40	17.10	28.00	9.20	2.73	1.364
Lebanon	9.60	16.00	19.10	38.30	17.00	3.37	1.218
	Do you think that all bioplastics are biodegradable?
Greece	12.20	15.80	45.40	22.00	4.60	2.91	1.022
Lebanon	2.10	5.30	52.10	31.90	8.50	3.39	0.806
	Do you think that single-use plastics should be completely eliminated?
Greece	2.70	7.70	6.70	32.00	50.80	4.21	1.044
Lebanon	3.60	8.30	21.40	27.40	39.30	3.90	1.126

).

As can be seen in Table 2, the Greek sample exhibits a better awareness of basic meanings of microplastics and bioplastics, compared to the Lebanese sample (48% is the sum of fair and very well in Greece against 31.9% in Lebanon for microplastics; the corresponding values are 38.2% and 27.6% for bioplastics). However, a significant part of the sample does not know what is the microplastics (24.0% in Greece and 47.9% in Lebanon) and the bioplastics (32.6% in Greece and 45.7% in Lebanon). Concerning microplastics and bioplastics, people with higher education (after higher school) in Greece and people with high income (>10.000 €) in Lebanon are more informed about this issue (

Table A4. The impact of the sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

Sociodemographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics		Label	No (%)	Yes (%)	Pearson Chi-Square	p Value
Do you know what is the meaning of microplastics?
Greece	Education	Lower	64.7	35.3	6.459	0.011
		Higher	47.2	52.8
Lebanon	Income	Lower	63.5	36.5	23.457	0.000
		Higher	7.1	92.9
Do you know what is the meaning of bioplastics?
Greece	Education	Lower	73.5	26.5	5.578	0.018
		Higher	57.6	42.4
Lebanon	Income	Lower	53.8	46.2	4.698	0.030
		Higher	28.6	71.4
Do you really believe that single-use plastics (e.g., plastic bags. single-use straws and plastic packaging) show a significant impact on the environment?
Greece	Gender	Female	7.5	92.5	8.255	0.004
		Male	18.5	81.5
Greece	Professional status	Employee	14.5	85.5	4.510	0.034
		Unemployed	5.3	94.7
Do you consider plastic pollution to be one of the 3 biggest environmental problems in your country?
Greece	Gender	Female	18.5	81.5	11.907	0.001
		Male	36.3	63.7
Greece	Education	Lower	16.2	83.8	4.365	0.037
		Higher	28.8	71.2
Lebanon	Gender	Female	5.0	95.0	7.484	0.006
		Male	27.3	72.7
Do you know if there is legislation to ban single-use plastics in your country?
Greece	Age	Younger	54.8	45.2	5.612	0.018
		Older	41.1	58.9
Greece	Education	Lower	61.8	38.2	6.881	0.009
		Higher	43.7	56.3
Greece	Professional status	Employee	41.6	58.4	13,230	0.000
		Unemployed	65.8	34.2
Greece	Aria of residence	Athens	42.3	57.7	4.075	0.044
		The rest of Greece	54.5	45.5
Greece	Income	Lower	59.8	40.2	12.087	0.001
		Higher	38.5	61.5

).

In the third question, the great majority of about 85% of the citizens of both countries believe that the single-use plastics have a significant impact on the environment (Table 2). In Greece, women and unemployed citizens embrace this opinion more than men and people with a job (Table A4, Appendix A). In addition, quite the same percentage of the sample (74.0% in Greece and 85.1% in Lebanon) considers plastic pollution to be one of the three biggest environmental problems in its country (Table 2). In both Greece and Lebanon, women are more in favor of this opinion, as are those with lower education in Greece (Table A4, Appendix A).

Finally, the results show that the Lebanese sample is not sufficiently aware of the existence of a national legislation framework to ban single-use plastics (20.2% against 51.7% in Greece) (Table 2). Older people, people with higher education (university), employees, people who live in Athens and people with higher income (>10.000 €) claim to know more about plastic legislation (Table A4, Appendix A). The above absence of knowledge should be used from policy makers to elucidate the grey zones of national actions.

In a similar way, the outcomes in Table 3 illustrate the opinion of citizens in matters related to the recyclability of plastics. It is clear that there is an intense confusion about the possibility of recycle plastics, as the 37.2% of Greek and the 55.3% of the Lebanese respondents declare that all plastics can be recycled. In addition, the 26.6% of the Greek and the 39.4% of the Lebanese respondents believe that all bioplastics are biodegradable. This confusion is more evident for the Lebanese sample.

People with lower education (up to high school) in Greece and people with high income (>10,000 €) in Lebanon believe more in the possibility of recycling plastics, while people with lower education (up to high school) and people with lower income (<10,000 €) in Greece consider more than the others that all bioplastics are biodegradable (

Table A5. The impact of the sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

Sociodemographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics		Label	No (%)	Yes (%)	Pearson Chi-Square	p Value
Do you think that all types of plastics can be recycled?
Greece	Education	Lower	32.4	67.6	6.734	0.009
		Higher	50.2	49.8
Lebanon	Income	Lower	55.8	44.2	6.962	0.008
		Higher	25.0	75.0
Do you think that all bioplastics are biodegradable?
Greece	Education	Lower	17.6	82.4	4.379	0.036
		Higher	30.6	69.4
Greece	Income	Lower	20.6	79.4	4.464	0.035
		Higher	32.2	67.8
Do you think that single-use plastics should be completely eliminated?
Greece	Gender	Female	12.1	87.9	7.380	0.007
		Male	24.2	75.8
Greece	Professional status	Employee	20.8	79.2	8.058	0.005
		Unemployed	6.6	93.4
Greece	Aria of residence	Athens	13.7	86.3	3.854	0.050
		The rest of Greece	22.7	77.3
Lebanon	Gender	Female	22.5	77.5	4.033	0.045
		Male	43.2	56.8
Lebanon	Education	Lower	60.9	39.1	10.807	0.001
		Higher	23.0	77.0

, Appendix A). In both countries, the majority of the respondents (82.8% in Greece and 66.7% in Lebanon) agree with the abolition of single-use plastics. Female, unemployed and people who live in Athens, Greece and female and people with higher education (after high school) in Lebanon agree more than others with the abolition of single-use plastics (Table A5, Appendix A).

3.2.3. Main Issues Related with Waste Disposal Bins and Collective Actions

This section directs us towards the access to waste disposal bins, within a separate waste collection policy (

Table 4. Concerns as regards access to waste disposal bins (separate collection).

Is There a Bin for Separate Collection of Waste near Your Home, Easily Accessible?
Response	Greece	Lebanon
Yes (%)	72.70	42.60
No (%)	25.00	46.80
I Don’t Know (%)	2.30	10.60
Mean (%)	1.30	1.68
Std. Deviation	0.505	0.659
If You Have Access to Separate Collection Bins, How Often Do You Dispose Your Solid Household Waste in the Appropriate Bin?
Response	Greece	Lebanon
Never (%)	9.20	6.40
Rarely (%)	8.20	2.10
Sometimes (%)	13.50	24.50
Very Often (%)	22.00	29.80
Always (%)	47.00	37.20
Mean (%)	3.89	3.89
Std. Deviation	1.326	1.131

). Almost three out of four (72.7%) of the Greek respondents can have easy access to a bin for separate collection of waste near home. However, less than the half (42.6%) of Lebanese respondents can have this access. Moreover, from the respondents having an easy access, only about two thirds of the people put the garbage in these separate bins (69% and 67% in Greece and Lebanon, respectively). These results show the poor waste management situation in Lebanon; however, the situation even in Greece must be ameliorated. Moreover, in both countries, the environmental habits of the people, as recorded from the uses of separate bins, can be much ameliorated.

Moreover, this section collects information about individual and collective actions with respect to the reduction in plastic waste (

Table 5. Concerns regarding individual or collective actions with respect to plastic waste.

Do You Think That Individual or Collective Action Can Bring Better Results in Reducing the Amount of Plastic Waste?
Response	Greece	Lebanon
Never (%)	1.7	3.6
Rarely (%)	3.4	1.2
Sometimes (%)	36.7	28.6
Very Often (%)	22.2	22.6
Always (%)	36.0	44.0
Mean (%)	3.88	4.02
Std. Deviation	1.001	1.053

). Overall, the response of both analyzed samples shows a similar behavior; the 58.2% of the Greek and the 66.6% of the Lebanese respondents believe that these actions can bring better results in reducing the amount of plastic waste. However, the feedback by the Lebanese sample appears to be more encouraging on the matter of such kind of actions.

3.2.4. Use of Plastic Products

In the present section, special focus is given to the use of plastic products in Greece and Lebanon. In this context, the respondents were asked to indicate to what extent they use plastic straws, shopping bags, cups of coffee and bottles of water in their everyday lives (

Table 6. Use of Plastic Products by Consumers.

Response	Never (%)	Rare (%)	Occasionally (%)	Often (%)	Always (%)	Mean (%)	Std. Dev.
	To what extent do you use plastic straws?
Greece	20.20	9.10	34.30	17.80	18.50	3.05	1.350
Lebanon	27.40	6.00	33.30	13.10	19.20	2.93	1.454
	To what extent do you use plastic shopping bags?
Greece	18.20	16.20	46.10	13.80	5.70	2.73	1.089
Lebanon	11.90	10.70	40.50	20.20	16.70	3.19	1.197
	To what extent do you use plastic cups of coffee (takeaway)?
Greece	16.50	4.70	36.00	21.90	20.90	3.26	1.304
Lebanon	25.00	7.10	25.00	16.70	26.20	3.12	1.516
	To what extent do you use plastic water bottles?
Greece	9.80	9.10	40.40	21.50	19.20	3.31	1.171
Lebanon	3.60	16.70	28.60	25.00	26.20	3.54	1.156

). Table 6 show that a significant portion of citizens use single-use plastics: 36.80% and 33.20% for Greece and Lebanon, respectively (sum of Often and Always), for plastic straws, while the corresponding values are 18.50% and 36.90% for plastic bags, 42.90% and 42.90% for plastic coffee cups and 40.70% and 51.20% for plastic water bottles, respectively.

What is encouraging is that a significant part of the sample declared that they do not use, or occasionally use, plastic products. These values are 29.30% and 33.60% for Greece and Lebanon, respectively (sum of Never and Rare), for plastic straws, 54.20% and 23.60% for plastic bags, 21.20% and 32.10% for plastic coffee cups and 18.90% and 20.30% for plastic water bottles, respectively. Male and those living outside Athens, Greece tend to use plastic straws, plastic cups of coffee (takeaway) and plastic water bottles more often than women and those living in Athens (

Table A6. The impact of the sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

Sociodemographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics		Label	No (%)	Yes (%)	Pearson Chi-Square	p Value
To what extent do you use plastic straws?
Greece	Gender	Female	74.6	25.4	21.392	0.000
		Male	48.4	51.6
Greece	Aria of residence	Athens	68.0	32.0	5.943	0.015
		The rest of Greece	53.6	46.4
Lebanon	Marital Status	Unmarried	74.1	25.9	4.216	0.040
		Married	51.7	48.3
Lebanon	Children	No children	74.5	25.5	4.450	0.035
		With children	51.7	48.3
To what extent do you use plastic cups of coffee (takeaway)?
Greece	Gender	Female	35.8	64.2	5.630	0.018
		Male	32.3	67.7
Greece	Aria of residence	Athens	61.1	38.9	4.608	0.032
		The rest of Greece	48.2	51.8
To what extent do you use plastic water bottles?
Greece	Gender	Female	63.0	37.0	19.587	0.000
		Male	49.2	50.8
Greece	Aria of residence	Athens	69.9	30.1	10.734	0.001
		The rest of Greece	44.4	55.6
Lebanon	Education	Lower	30.4	69.6	4.280	0.039
		Higher	55.7	44.3

, Appendix A). On the contrary, married and people with children in Lebanon tend to use plastic straws more often, while people with lower education (up to high school) use plastic water bottles more often than the others (Table A6, Appendix A).

Based on the survey responses for both target groups, someone can notice that the usage of plastics is, in general, higher in Lebanon compared to Greece, indicating that the turning point of the curve consumption of plastic versus GDP/capita is achieved in the case of Greece.

These results indicate that there is enough space to further restrict plastic pollution, and this can be attained by adopting a constructive policy capable of adjusting the perception of consumers.

3.2.5. Decrease of Single-Use Products

The response of both samples in Greece and Lebanon on the possible ways to decrease the single-use plastics is shown in

Table 7. Concerns regarding the usage of single-use products.

Which of the Following Reasons Might Discourage You from Using Single-Use Products?
Responses (%)	Greece				Lebanon
	Yes	No	Mean	S.D.	Yes	No	Mean	S.D.
They burden the environment	86.20	13.80	1.14	0.346	48.80	51.20	1.51	0.503
They are not durable in their use	17.80	82.20	1.82	0.384	50.00	50.00	1.50	0.503
An environmental tax has been imposed on their use	21.50	78.50	1.78	0.412	14.30	85.70	1.86	0.352
I do not find them easily available in the local market	8.40	91.60	1.92	0.278	38.10	61.90	1.62	0.489
Waste of money	29.00	71.00	1.71	0.454	29.80	70.20	1.70	0.460
Production of a large volume of waste	74.10	25.90	1.26	0.439	52.40	47.60	1.48	0.502

. The severe impact on the environment of these plastics is stressed by the Greek citizens (Yes 86.20% and No 13.80%), while this reason is not very strong in the case of Lebanese opinion (Yes 48.80% and No 51.20%). In both Greece and Lebanon, females are more in favor of this opinion than males; also, those living in Athens, Greece are more in favor than those lining outside the capital (

Table A7. The impact of the sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

Sociodemographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics		Label	Yes (%)	No (%)	Pearson Chi-Square	p Value
They burden the environment
Greece	Gender	Female	90.8	9.2	7.229	0.000
		Male	79.8	20.2
Greece	Aria of residence	Athens	89.7	10.3	4.434	0.035
		The rest of Greece	80.9	19.1
Lebanon	Gender	Female	60.0	40.0	3.827	0.050
		Male	38.6	61.4
An environmental tax has been imposed on their use
Greece	Professional status	Employee	24.4	75.6	4.254	0.039
		Unemployed	13.2	86.8
I do not find them easily available in the local market
Greece	Marital Status	Unmarried	29.6	70.4	3.936	0.047
		Married	51.7	48.3
Greece	Children	No children	4.2	95.8	8.838	0.003
		With children	13.8	86.2
Lebanon	Marital Status	Unmarried	4.0	96.0	5.464	0.019
		Married	11.6	88.4
Lebanon	Children	No children	29.1	70.9	5.477	0.019
		With children	55.2	44.8
Waste of money
Lebanon	Gender	Female	17.5	82.5	5.492	0.019
		Male	40.9	59.1
Lebanon	Professional status	Employee	41.7	58.3	4.271	0.039
		Unemployed	20.8	79.2
Production of a large volume of waste
Greece	Gender	Female	81.5	18.5	11.907	0.001
		Male	63.7	36.3

, Appendix A).

Durability issues are not considered by Greek citizens (Yes of only 17.80%), while the belief of the Lebanese citizens is unclear due to a perfect balance between the Yes and No responses. An imposed environmental tax or the waste of money are not very strong arguments to affect the behavior of both countries’ citizens (No: 78.5% and 71.00% in Greece and 86.7% and 70.20% in Lebanon, respectively) (Table 7). However, employees in Greece are not discouraged from using single-use products because of the imposed environmental tax, while employees and females, in the case of Lebanon, do not believe that single-use products are waste of money (Table A7, Appendix A).

The production of a large volume of waste is quite evident in the Greek response (Yes: 74.10%), but not so evident in the case of the Lebanese reply (Yes: 52.4%) (Table 7). Females in Greece are more discouraged than males from using single-use products because of the large volume of waste (Table A7, Appendix A).

Finally, it is not a significant reason for the respondents that they do not find single-use products easily available in the local market, especially for Greeks (No: 91.6% in Greece and 61.9% in Lebanon) (Table 7). In both Greece and Lebanon, unmarried and people without children do not consider this reason important (Table A7, Appendix A).

3.2.6. Use of Reusable Products

From a different perspective, based on the feedback of both target groups in Greece and Lebanon,

Table 8. Concerns regarding the usage of reusable products.

Which of the Following Reasons Might Discourage You from Using Reusable Products?
Responses (%)	Greece				Lebanon
	Yes	No	Mean	S.D.	Yes	No	Mean	S.D.
They cost more	33.30	66.70	1.67	0.472	50.00	50.00	1.50	0.503
I do not find them easily available in the local market	32.30	67.70	1.68	0.468	56.00	44.00	1.44	0.499
For reasons of hygiene in general	36.70	63.30	1.63	0.483	33.30	66.70	1.67	0.474
For reasons of hygiene during COVID-19 pandemic	24.60	75.40	1.75	0.431	34.50	65.50	1.65	0.478
They need washing	22.90	77.10	1.77	0.421	23.80	76.20	1.76	0.428
Some ingredients spoil the taste	23.20	76.80	1.77	0.423	21.40	78.60	1.79	0.413
The feeling created by some materials is not familiar	28.30	71.70	1.72	0.451	15.50	84.50	1.85	0.364

shows the possible reasons that might discourage the citizens from using reusable products.

The higher cost is a not a significant argument for the Greek sample (Yes 33.30% and No 66.70%), but it hinders half of the Lebanese sample (Yes 50.00% and No 50.00%). Moreover, consumers in Greece do not encounter significant difficulties to track reusable products in their local market (Yes 32.30% and No 67.70%), while in Lebanon the opposite condition is true (Yes 56.00% and No 44.00%) (Table 8). However, people with higher income (>10.000 €) in Lebanon do not consider this reason important (

Table A8. The impact of the sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

Sociodemographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics		Label	Yes (%)	No (%)	Pearson Chi-Square	p Value
I do not find them easily available in the local market
Lebanon	Income	Lower	48.1	51.9	4.033	0.045
		Higher	71.4	28.6
They need washing
Greece	Gender	Female	17.9	82.1	5.813	0.016
		Male	29.8	70.2
Some ingredients spoil the taste
Lebanon	Age	Younger	29.2	70.8	3.983	0.046
		Older	11.1	88.9
The feeling created by some materials is not familiar
Greece	Aria of residence	Athens	22.9	77.1	7.740	0.005
		The rest of Greece	38.2	61.8

, Appendix A).

Discouragement caused by general reasons of hygiene is not very high and depicts an almost identical trend for both analyzed samples (63.30% No in Greece against 66.70% in Lebanon) (Table 8). This tendency is also similar on the issue of hygiene concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic, with somehow higher percentage of the Greek sample (75.40% No in Greece against 65.50% in Lebanon) (Table 8). Apart from the above picture, additional possible concerns related to the necessity for washing reusable products (77.10% No in Greece against 76.20% in Lebanon) (Table 8), especially for females in Greece (Table A8, Appendix A), the presence of some ingredients that might spoil the taste (76.80% No in Greece against 78.60% in Lebanon) (Table 8), especially for older people (>40 years old) in Lebanon (Table A8, Appendix A), and unfamiliarity feeling created by some materials (71.70% No in Greece against 84.50% in Lebanon) (Table 8), especially for people living in Athens, Greece (Table A8, Appendix A), would not discourage most of the people from implementing reusable products.

3.2.7. Use of Biodegradable Packaging

In general, the usage of biodegradable packaging is well known as a rational way to diminish the environmental impact. In light of this, the responses in

Table 9. Influence of adopting a biodegradable packaging.

Response	Not at All (%)	Not Very (%)	Neutral (%)	Fairly (%)	Very Much (%)	Mean (%)	Std. Dev.
	To what extent is your selection affected by whether coffee takeaway packaging is biodegradable?
Greece	22.20	16.20	22.20	24.90	14.50	2.93	1.371
Lebanon	31.00	16.70	20.20	21.40	10.70	2.64	1.394
	To what extent is your selection affected by whether food takeaway packaging is biodegradable?
Greece	20.20	17.20	26.60	23.60	12.50	2.91	1.308
Lebanon	26.20	19.00	22.60	17.90	14.30	2.75	1.396
	To what extent is your selection affected by whether water packaging is biodegradable?
Greece	19.50	17.50	25.90	21.50	15.50	2.96	1.340
Lebanon	23.80	15.50	23.80	23.80	13.10	2.87	1.369
	To what extent is your selection affected by whether fruits-vegetables packaging is biodegradable?
Greece	19.50	17.20	19.90	26.60	16.80	3.04	1.377
Lebanon	25.00	15.50	29.80	21.40	8.30	2.73	1.283
	To what extent is your selection affected by whether other foods packaging is biodegradable?
Greece	17.80	15.80	32.00	22.60	11.80	2.95	1.254
Lebanon	22.60	17.90	31.00	20.20	8.30	2.74	1.253
	To what extent is your selection affected by whether clothing items packaging is biodegradable?
Greece	27.90	19.90	29.00	16.20	7.10	2.55	1.249
Lebanon	28.60	20.20	27.40	15.50	8.30	2.55	1.284
	To what extent is your selection affected by whether games-toys packaging is biodegradable?
Greece	26.30	21.50	30.60	10.40	11.10	2.59	1.284
Lebanon	31.00	21.40	25.00	15.50	7.10	2.46	1.275
	To what extent is your selection affected by whether other packaging is biodegradable?
Greece	24.60	21.50	32.00	13.10	8.80	2.60	1.235
Lebanon	34.50	11.90	33.30	15.50	4.80	2.44	1.245

aim to interpret, from a quantitative point of view, the preference of citizens for biodegradable packaging.

From the survey, it arose that for a large part of the Greek and Lebanese sample, from one third to half of the respondents (sum of Not at all and Not Very), the preference on products with a biodegradable packaging is very low. This condition is revealed for all analyzed products packaging (coffee takeaway, food take way, water, fruits/vegetables, other foods, clothing items and games/toys) (Table 9). In other words, the biodegradable packaging is not a strong argument for a significant part of the citizens. This trend is more evident for the Lebanese case, rather than the Greek one. However, females in Greece, when choosing products packaging, are more affected than males by whether the packaging is biodegradable (

Table A9. The impact of the sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

Sociodemographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics		Label	No (%)	Yes (%)	Pearson Chi-Square	p Value
To what extent is your selection affected by whether coffee takeaway packaging is biodegradable?
Greece	Gender	Female	54.9	45.1	5.624	0.018
		Male	68.5	31.5
Lebanon	Gender	Female	32.5	67.5	6.998	0.008
		Male	61.4	38.6
To what extent is your selection affected by whether food takeaway packaging is biodegradable?
Greece	Gender	Female	27.7	72.3	16.411	0.000
		Male	50.8	49.2
Lebanon	Income	Lower	57.7	42.3	7.825	0.005
		Higher	25.0	75.0
To what extent is your selection affected by whether water packaging is biodegradable?
Greece	Gender	Female	54.3	45.7	13.227	0.000
		Male	75.0	25.0
Greece	Aria of residence	Athens	57.7	42.3	5.034	0.025
		The rest of Greece	70.9	29.1
To what extent is your selection affected by whether fruits-vegetables packaging is biodegradable?
Greece	Gender	Female	47.4	52.6	14.172	0.000
		Male	69.4	30.6
Greece	Age	Younger	50.7	49.3	4.042	0.044
		Older	62.3	37.7
Greece	Children	No children	51.5	48.5	3.990	0.046
		With children	63.1	36.9
Greece	Professional status	Employee	60.2	39.8	4.595	0.032
		Unemployed	46.1	53.9
Greece	Aria of residence	Athens	51.4	48.6	4.088	0.043
		The rest of Greece	63.6	36.4
To what extent is your selection affected by whether other foods packaging is biodegradable?
Greece	Gender	Female	58.4	41.6	9.726	0.002
		Male	75.8	24.2
Greece	Income	Lower	57.0	43.0	5.986	0.014
		Higher	71.3	28.7
Lebanon	Age	Younger	31.3	68.8	3.957	0.047
		Older	52.8	47.2
To what extent is your selection affected by whether clothing items packaging is biodegradable?
Greece	Gender	Female	40.5	59.5	8.969	0.003
		Male	58.1	41.9
Greece	Marital Status	Unmarried	39.2	60.8	6.415	0.011
		Married	54.1	45.9
Lebanon	Income	Lower	59.6	40.4	5.495	0.019
		Higher	32.1	67.9
To what extent is your selection affected by whether games-toys packaging is biodegradable?
Greece	Gender	Female	41.0	59.0	7.613	0.006
		Male	57.3	42.7

, Appendix A).

Furthermore, people living in Athens are more affected by whether the water packaging is biodegradable, while younger, people without children, unemployed and people living in Athens are affected more by whether fruits/vegetables packaging is biodegradable (Table A9, Appendix A). In addition, in Greece, people with lower income (<10.000 €) are affected by whether other foods packaging is biodegradable, while unmarried people are more affected by whether clothing items packaging is biodegradable (Table A9, Appendix A).

Finally, in case of Lebanon, females are more affected than males by whether coffee takeaway packaging is biodegradable, younger people are more affected by whether other foods packaging is biodegradable, while people with higher income (>10.000) are affected more by whether food takeaway packaging and clothing items packaging is biodegradable (Table A9, Appendix A).

Overall, the outcomes of this investigation underline the need for high intensity actions tackling the preservation of the environment. The feedback of respondents can be used as a guidance to ameliorate our tactics and strategy in a national and global level.

3.2.8. Price and TaxPolicy of Biodegradable Materials

Table 10. Issues related to the price of products and the tax policy.

Are You Willing to Pay More for a Product in a Package Made of Biodegradable Materials than Plastic?
Response	Greece	Lebanon
Not at All (%)	4.70	9.50
Not Very (%)	9.80	8.30
Neutral (%)	33.00	26.20
Fairly (%)	36.00	39.30
Very Much (%)	16.50	16.70
Mean (%)	3.50	3.45
Std. Deviation	1.030	1.155
Please Note the Rate of Increase of the Price that You Would Accept?
Response (%)	Greece	Lebanon
1%	8.80	6.70
2%	18.40	24.00
5%	32.50	33.30
10%	24.70	29.30
20%	12.00	5.30
50%	3.50	1.30
Mean	3.23	3.07
Std. Deviation	1.239	1.070
Do You Agree That There Should Be a Reduced Tax on Items with Packaging Made from Biodegradable Materials Compared to Plastic?
Response	Greece	Lebanon
Not at All (%)	2.40	0.00
Not Very (%)	1.30	3.60
Neutral (%)	7.70	19.00
Fairly (%)	23.90	28.60
Very Much (%)	64.60	48.80
Mean (%)	4.47	4.23
Std. Deviation	0.878	0.883

demonstrates the main findings related to the price of products in a package made of biodegradable materials, as well as the necessity of a shifted policy in terms of reduced taxes. The outcomes of this survey illustrate a similar response for both studied samples. Slightly more than half of the respondents declared that they would fairly accept to pay more for products in a package made of biodegradable materials (Greece 52.50%, (sum of Fairly and Very much) and Lebanon 56.00%). Females in Greece and people with higher income (>10.000 €) in Lebanon are more in favor of paying more for products in a package made of biodegradable materials (

Table A10. The impact of the sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

Sociodemographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics		Label	No (%)	Yes (%)	Pearson Chi-Square	p Value
Are you willing to pay more for a product in a package made of biodegradable materials than plastic?
Greece	Gender	Female	41.0	59.0	6.879	0.009
		Male	56.5	43.5
Lebanon	Income	Lower	53.8	46.2	4.698	0.030
		Higher	28.6	71.4
Do you agree that there should be a reduced tax on items with packaging made from biodegradable materials compared to plastic?
Greece	Income	Lower	15.9	84.1	4.922	0.027
		Higher	7.5	92.5

, Appendix A).

Moreover, a price increase up to 5% for consumers seems to stress the optimal case about the one third of the sample, while another third would accept 10% and more. Thus, a price increase beyond a certain level for consumers unveils an undesirable scenario. Lastly, a demand to attenuate taxes on items with packaging made from biodegradable materials compared to plastic is clearly pointed out (Greece 88.50%, (sum of Fairly and Very much) and Lebanon 77.40%) (

Table 11. The consequence of waste in public spaces on consumers habits.

When You Are Going to Use a Public Space (Beach, Square, etc.), Your Choice Is Affected by the Presence of Plastic or Other Rubbish in It?
Response	Greece	Lebanon
Never (%)	2.70	4.80
Rarely (%)	8.10	4.80
Sometimes (%)	16.20	20.20
Very Often (%)	30.70	21.40
Always (%)	42.20	48.80
Mean (%)	4.02	4.05
Std. Deviation	1.075	1.150

). People with lower income (<10.000 €) in Greece want more than people with higher income to reduce taxes on items with packaging made from biodegradable materials compared to plastic (Table A10, Appendix A).

3.2.9. Influence of Surrounding Environment in Terms of Waste Pollution

This survey also revealed that the presence of plastic waste in public places can sharply affect the decision of the citizens for the use of these places (Table 11). The majority claimed that the presence of plastic or other rubbish in a public space (beach, square, etc.) affects their choice to use this place, as the 72.90% of the Greek respondents and the 70.20% of the Lebanese ones (sum of Very Often and Always).

Older people in Greece and people with higher income (>10.000 €) in Lebanon are the most affected (

Table A11. The impact of the sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

Sociodemographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics		Label	No (%)	Yes (%)	Pearson Chi-Square	p Value
When you are going to use a public space (beach, square, etc.), your choice is affected by the presence of plastic or other rubbish in it?
Greece	Age	Younger	33.1	66.9	5.321	0.021
		Older	21.2	78.8
Lebanon	Income	Lower	40.4	59.6	7.630	0.006
		Higher	10.7	89.3

, Appendix A). This perception is expected because such activities (i.e., walking, playing, swimming) are supported by the experience of beautiful and clean landscapes.

3.2.10. Behaviour of Citizens before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic

As it is broadly known, the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound effect on all aspects of our lives. In this regard, it is necessary to assess the impact of this pandemic. For the aims of this effort, results reported in

Table 12. Tracing the general trend of consumers’ behaviour before and during COVID-19.

Response	Never (%)	Rarely (%)	Often (%)	Very Often (%)	Always (%)	Mean (%)	Std. Dev.
	To what extent do you use metal straws?
Greece Before COVID-19	58.60	19.50	7.70	11.40	2.70	1.80	1.153
Greece During COVID-19	58.60	18.50	8.40	7.70	6.70	1.86	1.253
Lebanon Before COVID-19	56.00	29.80	11.90	1.20	1.20	1.62	0.835
Lebanon During COVID-19	58.30	32.10	6.00	2.40	1.20	1.56	0.812
	To what extent do you use biodegradable straws?
Greece Before COVID-19	38.00	33.70	16.80	9.80	1.70	2.03	1.046
Greece During COVID-19	41.40	28.60	15.80	10.40	3.70	2.06	1.150
Lebanon Before COVID-19	42.90	38.10	14.30	1.20	3.60	1.85	0.963
Lebanon During COVID-19	50.00	31.00	11.90	1.20	6.00	1.82	1.088
	To what extent you do not use straws?
Greece Before COVID-19	23.60	31.00	19.20	17.80	8.40	2.57	1.259
Greece During COVID-19	26.90	27.30	20.90	13.80	11.10	2.55	1.317
Lebanon Before COVID-19	21.40	22.60	31.00	17.90	7.10	2.67	1.206
Lebanon During COVID-19	34.50	21.40	22.60	9.50	11.90	2.43	1.365
	To what extent do you use cloth shopping bags?
Greece Before COVID-19	14.10	22.90	20.50	23.20	19.20	3.10	1.338
Greece During COVID-19	12.80	23.20	17.20	23.60	23.20	3.21	1.368
Lebanon Before COVID-19	42.90	25.00	14.30	13.10	4.80	2.12	1.236
Lebanon During COVID-19	44.00	21.40	23.80	6.00	4.80	2.06	1.165
	To what extent do you transfer shopping to reusable bags?
Greece Before COVID-19	11.80	19.50	23.90	27.90	16.80	3.19	1.261
Greece During COVID-19	11.40	21.20	19.50	26.30	21.50	3.25	1.318
Lebanon Before COVID-19	46.40	22.60	14.30	10.70	6.00	2.07	1.259
Lebanon During COVID-19	48.80	16.70	17.90	9.50	7.10	2.10	1.304
	To what extent do you bring your own takeaway coffee cup?
Greece Before COVID-19	45.50	23.90	16.80	7.70	6.10	2.05	1.217
Greece During COVID-19	50.80	16.20	16.20	9.10	7.70	2.07	1.316
Lebanon Before COVID-19	61.90	15.50	10.70	4.80	7.10	1.80	1.240
Lebanon During COVID-19	51.20	14.30	13.10	7.10	14.3	2.19	1.485
	To what extent do you use your own water bottle?
Greece Before COVID-19	21.50	23.20	19.50	14.10	21.50	2.91	1.448
Greece During COVID-19	24.60	17.20	19.20	16.50	22.60	2.95	1.492
Lebanon Before COVID-19	20.20	15.50	23.80	17.90	22.60	3.07	1.438
Lebanon During COVID-19	17.90	11.90	25.00	14.30	31.00	3.29	1.469
	To what extent do you prefer to buy bulk products instead of packaged ones?
Greece Before COVID-19	15.20	28.30	33.30	17.50	5.70	2.70	1.100
Greece During COVID-19	19.20	31.00	24.90	19.20	5.70	2.61	1.163
Lebanon Before COVID-19	25.00	26.20	33.30	6.00	9.50	2.49	1.207
Lebanon During COVID-19	32.10	21.40	31.00	4.80	10.70	2.40	1.281
	To what extent do you choose environmentally friendly packaging materials for gifts?
Greece Before COVID-19	20.50	31.00	25.60	16.50	6.40	2.57	1.172
Greece During COVID-19	21.50	29.30	24.20	16.50	8.40	2.61	1.228
Lebanon Before COVID-19	35.70	31.00	16.70	11.90	4.80	2.19	1.187
Lebanon During COVID-19	38.10	27.40	16.70	9.50	8.30	2.23	1.283

exhibit the general trend of citizens’ behavior before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The issues explored concern the usage of several common products, such as straws, bags, caps and bottles.

Some key findings are as follows:

• In general, the use of biodegradable straws shows a slight increase.
• The overall trend of use of cloth shopping bags also shows a slight increase.
• The usage of reusable shopping bags also shows a slight increase.
• The adoption of takeaway coffee cups and water bottles exposes a small rise.
• All these changes are slightly higher in Greece than in Lebanon.

Females in Greece used and continue to use metal straws, biodegradable straws, cloth shopping bags, their own takeaway coffee cup and their own water bottle more than males, while females choose environmentally friendly packaging materials for gifts, both before and during COVID-19 pandemic (

Table A12. The impact of the sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

Sociodemographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics		Label	No (%)	Yes (%)	Pearson Chi-Square	p Value
To what extent do you use metal straws? (before COVID-19)
Greece	Gender	Female	71.7	28.3	10.047	0.002
		Male	87.1	12.9
Greece	Age	Younger	71.2	28.8	7.955	0.005
		Older	84.8	15.2
Greece	Children	No children	73.1	26.9	5.715	0.017
		With children	84.6	15.4
To what extent do you use biodegradable straws? (before COVID-19)
Greece	Gender	Female	64.7	35.3	9.945	0.002
		Male	81.5	18.5
Lebanon	Income	Lower	86.5	13.5	3.970	0.046
		Higher	67.9	32.1
To what extent you do not use straws? (before COVID-19)
Lebanon	Income	Lower	51.9	48.1	7.635	0.006
		Higher	28.6	71.4
To what extent do you use cloth shopping bags? (before COVID-19)
Greece	Gender	Female	50.9	49.1	4.033	0.045
		Male	66.9	33.1
Lebanon	Income	Lower	84.6	15.4	19.839	0.000
		Higher	35.7	64.3
To what extent do you bring your own takeaway coffee cup? (before COVID-19)
Greece	Gender	Female	64.7	35.3	4.162	0.041
		Male	75.8	24.2
Greece	Professional status	Employee	66.1	33.9	4.417	0.036
		Unemployed	78.9	21.1
To what extent do you use your own water bottle? (before COVID-19)
Greece	Gender	Female	34.7	65.3	17.091	0.000
		Male	58.9	41.1
Greece	Aria of residence	Athens	40.0	60.0	5.069	0.024
		The rest of Greece	53.6	46.4
Lebanon	Gender	Female	42.5	57.5	9.186	0.002
		Male	75.0	25.0
To what extent do you prefer to buy bulk products instead of packaged ones? (before COVID-19)
Greece	Income	Lower	34.6	65.4	4.662	0.031
		Higher	47.7	52.3
To what extent do you choose environmentally friendly packaging materials for gifts? (before COVID-19)
Greece	Gender	Female	43.4	56.6	11.053	0.001
		Male	62.9	37.1

and

Table A13. The impact of the sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

Sociodemographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics		Label	No (%)	Yes (%)	Pearson Chi-Square	p Value
To what extent do you use metal straws? (during COVID-19)
Greece	Gender	Female	69.9	30.1	12.040	0.001
		Male	87.1	12.9
Greece	Age	Younger	69.2	30.8	10.220	0.001
		Older	84.8	15.2
Greece	Marital Status	Unmarried	70.4	29.6	5.496	0.019
		Married	82.0	18.0
Greece	Children	No children	70.1	29.9	10.725	0.001
		With children	86.2	13.8
To what extent do you use biodegradable straws? (during COVID-19)
Greece	Gender	Female	64.2	35.8	6.807	0.009
		Male	78.2	21.8
To what extent do you use cloth shopping bags? (during COVID-19)
Greece	Gender	Female	45.1	54.9	10.951	0.001
		Male	64.5	35.5
To what extent do you bring your own takeaway coffee cup? (during COVID-19)
Greece	Gender	Female	60.7	39.3	7.462	0.006
		Male	75.8	24.2
Lebanon	Marital Status	Unmarried	74.1	25.9	4.216	0.040
		Married	51.7	48.3
Lebanon	Education	Lower	47.8	52.2	4.365	0.037
		Higher	72.1	27.9
To what extent do you use your own water bottle? (during COVID-19)
Greece	Gender	Female	31.2	68.8	18.917	0.000
		Male	56.5	43.5
To what extent do you choose environmentally friendly packaging materials for gifts? (during COVID-19)
Greece	Gender	Female	43.4	56.6	9.299	0.002
		Male	61.3	38.7
Greece	Age	Younger	57.5	42.5	5.146	0.023
		Older	44.4	55.6
Greece	Professional status	Employee	47.5	52.5	3.833	0.050
		Unemployed	60.5	39.5
Lebanon	Professional status	Employee	52.5	47.5	5.688	0.017
		Unemployed	77.3	22.7

, Appendix A).

Furthermore, younger people and people without children in Greece used and continue to use metal straws, both before and during COVID-19 pandemic, while unmarried people used more metal straws during the COVID-19 pandemic (Table A12 and Table A13, Appendix A). In addition, before the COVID-19 pandemic, people with higher income in Lebanon (>10.000 €) used more cloth shopping bags, biodegradable straws or used to not use straws, while during the COVID-19 pandemic, they did not seem to continue these practices (Table A12 and Table A13, Appendix A).

On the contrary, married and people with lower income (<10.000 €) in Lebanon were more likely to bring their own takeaway coffee cup during COVID-19 pandemic, while employees chose environmentally friendly packaging materials for gifts, such as employees and older people in the case of Greece (Table A13, Appendix A). Finally, employees in Greece were more likely to use their own takeaway coffee cup before the COVID-19 pandemic, and people with lower income (<10.000 €) preferred more to buy bulk products instead of packaged ones, while people living in Athens used their own water bottle more than females in Lebanon (Table A12, Appendix A).

These results show that, for every one of the habits examined here concerning the use of plastics, the impact of COVID-19 has not yet substantially altered people’s behaviors. It becomes clear that because the citizens’ habits did not change very significantly after such a major event, the policy efforts to modify these habits must be considerably strong, and this must be taken into consideration from the policy makers.

3.3. Comparison between Greece and Lebanon

This section compares the demographic profiles and attitudes of citizens regarding the use of plastics between Greece and Lebanon (

Table 13. Chi-squared between Greece and Lebanon.

Variables	Levels	Greece Percentage	Lebanon Percentage	Pearson Chi-Square	p-Value
Age	Younger	49.16	71.43	13.077	0.000
	Older	50.84	28.57
Marital status	Unmarried	42.09	64.29	12.954	0.000
	Married	57.91	35.71
Professional status	Employee	74.41	42.86	29.696	0.000
	Unemployed	25.59	57.14
Income	Lower	38.08	65.00	18.313	0.000
	Higher	61.92	35.00
Do you consider the Frequent droughts and/or floods more significant?	Yes	13.16	3.19	7.401	0.007
	No	86.84	96.81
Do you consider the Agricultural pollution (use of pesticides, fertilizers, etc.) and soil degradation more significant?	Yes	12.17	32.98	21.944	0.000
	No	87.83	67.02
Do you consider the Waste production more significant?	Yes	0.33	42.55	138.534	0.000
	No	99.67	57.45
Do you consider the Noise pollution more significant?	Yes	1.97	10.64	13.970	0.000
	No	98.03	89.36
Do you consider the Air pollution more significant?	Yes	35.86	65.96	26.550	0.000
	No	64.14	34.04
Do you consider the Pollution of rivers, lakes, and ground water more significant?	Yes	28.29	39.36	4.122	0.042
	No	71.71	60.64
Do you consider the Decline or Extinction of species and habitats, and of natural ecosystems more significant?	Yes	41.78	17.02	19.113	0.000
	No	58.22	82.98
Do you consider the Climate change more significant?	Yes	60.86	37.23	16.205	0.000
	No	39.14	62.77
Do you know what is the meaning of microplastics?	Yes	48.03	31.91	7.556	0.006
	No	51.97	68.09
Do you know if there is legislation to ban single-use plastics in your country?	Yes	51.64	20.21	28.758	0.000
	No	48.36	79.79
Do you think that all types of plastics can be recycled?	Yes	37.17	55.32	9.743	0.002
	No	62.83	44.68
Do you think that all bioplastics are biodegradable?	Yes	26.64	40.43	6.506	0.011
	No	73.36	59.57
Do you consider plastic pollution to be one of the three biggest environmental problems in your country?	Yes	74.01	85.11	4.934	0.026
	No	25.99	14.89
Is there a bin for separate collection of waste near your home, easily accessible?	Yes	72.70	42.55	28.902	0.000
	No	27.30	57.45
Do you think that single-use plastics should be completely eliminated?	Yes	82.83	66.67	10.406	0.001
	No	17.17	33.33
Which of the following reasons might discourage you from using single-use products (They burden the environment)?	Yes	86.20	48.81	53.252	0.000
	No	13.80	51.19
Which of the following reasons might discourage you from using single-use products (They are not durable in their use)?	Yes	17.85	50.00	36.171	0.000
	No	82.15	50.00
Which of the following reasons might discourage you from using single-use products (I do not find them easily available in the local market)?	Yes	8.42	38.10	45.332	0.000
	No	91.58	61.90
Which of the following reasons might discourage you from using single-use products (Production of a large volume of waste)?	Yes	74.07	52.38	14.482	0.000
	No	25.93	47.62
Which of the following reasons might discourage you from using reusable product (They cost more)?	Yes	33.33	50.00	7.802	0.005
	No	66.67	50.00
Which of the following reasons might discourage you from using reusable product (I do not find them easily available in the local market)?	Yes	32.32	55.95	15.594	0.000
	No	67.68	44.05
Which of the following reasons might discourage you from using reusable product (The feeling created by some materials (eg for straws or forks) is not familiar)?	Yes	28.28	15.48	5.659	0.017
	No	71.72	84.52
Do you agree that there should be a reduced tax on items with packaging made from biodegradable materials compared to plastic?	Yes	88.55	77.38	6.824	0.009
	No	11.45	22.62
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following moves? [Use cloth shopping bags]	Yes	62.96	32.14	25.564	0.000
	No	37.04	67.86
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following moves? [Transfer shopping to reusable bags]	Yes	44.78	16.67	21.842	0.000
	No	55.22	83.33
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following moves? [Choose environmentally friendly packaging materials for gifts]	Yes	48.48	33.33	6.070	0.014
	No	51.52	66.67
During the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following actions? [Use metal straws]	Yes	22.90	9.52	7.332	0.007
	No	77.10	90.49
During the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following actions? [Use biodegradable straws]	Yes	29.97	19.05	3.910	0.048
	No	70.03	80.95
During the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following actions? [Use cloth shopping bags]	Yes	63.97	34.52	23.235	0.000
	No	36.03	65.48
During the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following actions? [Transfer shopping to reusable bags]	Yes	64.34	34.52	29.408	0.000
	No	32.66	65.48
During the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following actions? [Choose environmentally friendly packaging materials for gifts]	Yes	49.16	34.52	5.647	0.017
	No	50.84	65.48
When you choose one of the following products/goods, to what extent is your selection affected by whether its packaging is biodegradable? [Fruits/vegetables]	Yes	43.43	29.76	5.083	0.024
	No	56.57	70.24
For the products listed below, please indicate what you usually use: [Plastic shopping bags]	Yes	65.66	77.38	4.153	0.042
	No	34.34	22.62

). The statistically significant results are examined here. In terms of demographics, the results show a significant difference in age, marital status, professional status and income. The Lebanese participants were comparatively younger than the Greek and unmarried participants. Moreover, most of the Greek participants were employees and had a higher income compared to the Lebanese.

By comparison, the Lebanese participants consider environmental problems such as climate change, the frequent droughts and/or floods, the decline or extinction of species and habitats and of natural ecosystems to be less important problems than the Greek participants consider them to be. On the contrary, Greek citizens consider environmental problems such as agricultural pollution (use of pesticides, fertilizers, etc.) and soil degradation, waste production, noise pollution, air pollution and the pollution of rivers, lakes, and ground water to be less important problems than the Lebanese citizens consider them to be.

Furtherore, Greeks know more than Lebanese what microplastics mean, and there is legislation to ban single-use plastics in their country. On the contrary, the Lebanese believe more than the Greeks that all types of plastics can be recycled and that all bioplastics are biodegradable. Moreover, although the Lebanese believe, more than the Greeks, that plastic pollution is one of the three biggest environmental problems in their country, the Greeks are the ones who believe most that single-use plastics should be completely eliminated, and for them there is a bin for separate collection near their home which is easily accessible. However, the Greeks believe more that there should be a reduced tax on items with packaging made from biodegradable materials compared to those made from plastic.

Comparatively, Greeks are more discouraged than Lebanese about the use of single-use products because single-use products burden the environment and produce a large volume of waste. Lebanese, on the other hand, are more discouraged because single-use products are not durable and because they are not easily available in the local market. Regarding reusable products, Greeks are more discouraged from using them because the feeling created by certain materials (e.g., straws or forks) is not familiar, while Lebanese are more discouraged from using them because they cost more and are not easily available in the local market.

In addition, Lebanese use more plastic bags than Greeks for shopping, while Greeks, when choosing fruits and vegetables, are influenced by whether the packaging is biodegradable. Finally, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, Greeks were more likely than Lebanese to use cloth shopping bags, transfer shopping to reusable bags, and choose environmentally friendly packaging materials for gifts, while during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Greeks were more likely than the Lebanese to use metal and biodegradable straws.

3.4. Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

3.4.1. PCA—Greece

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was performed to reduce the initial variables to a smaller number of (unrelated) linear combinations, in the case of Greece (

Table 14. Extracted components of the PCA—Greece.

PCs	Name of Component	Eigenvalues	Variance Explained (%)	Cumulative (%)	Mean	Std. Dev.
PC1	Biodegradable packaging	8.116	19.027	19.297	2.65	0.844
PC2	Use of reusable products before and during the COVID-19	3.895	12.010	31.307	3.09	0.898
PC3	Use of bulk products/environmentally friendly packaging materials before and during the COVID-19	2.304	9.433	40.740	3.19	1.058
PC4	Use of cloth/reusable shopping bags before and during the COVID-19	2.114	8.679	49.420	2.27	0.997
PC5	Use of single-use products	1.675	7.617	57.036	2.62	0.933
PC6	Do not use single-use straws before and during the COVID-19	1.457	6.525	63.561	2.81	1.092
PC7	Use of biodegradable straws before and during the COVID-19	1.346	6.133	69.694	2.56	1.216

). In total, seven factors were exported (PC1, PC2, PC3, PC4, PC5, PC6 and PC7), having an eigenvalue greater than one, representing 69.7% of the original data variability. The KMO criterion (0.77) and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p < 0.005), which were used to measure the adequacy of questions and the sampling, were satisfactory. Therefore, the test results show that there is a statistically significant correlation between the variables and the data are suitable for factor analysis. This section also presents the descriptive analysis (mean values and standard deviation) of the seven PCs (Table 14). All responses are recorded on a scale of 1 to 5. Finally,

Table A14. Coefficients of PCA—Greece.

Variables	Component Score Coefficient
	PC1	PC2	PC3	PC4	PC5	PC6	PC7	Cronbach’s Alfa
When you choose one of the following products/goods, to what extent is your selection affected by whether its packaging is biodegradable? [Coffee takeaway]	0.139	0.064	−0.038	−0.041	0.057	0.078	−0.008	0.940
When you choose one of the following products/goods, to what extent is your selection affected by whether its packaging is biodegradable? [Food takeaway]	0.156	0.025	−0.049	−0.043	0.020	0.07	0.007
When you choose one of the following products/goods, to what extent is your selection affected by whether its packaging is biodegradable? [Water]	0.134	−0.014	−0.020	0.028	−0.036	−0.040	−0.042
When you choose one of the following products/goods, to what extent is your selection affected by whether its packaging is biodegradable? [Fruits-vegetables]	0.155	−0.039	0.001	−0.035	−0.039	0.022	−0.013
When you choose one of the following products/goods, to what extent is your selection affected by whether its packaging is biodegradable? [Other foods]	0.163	−0.032	−0.006	−0.045	−0.035	−0.012	0.006
When you choose one of the following products/goods, to what extent is your selection affected by whether its packaging is biodegradable? [Clothing items]	0.163	−0.033	−0.027	0.010	0.035	−0.001	−0.025
When you choose one of the following products/goods, to what extent is your selection affected by whether its packaging is biodegradable? [Games—Toys]	0.156	−0.042	−0.019	0.024	0.034	−0.046	−0.015
When you choose one of the following products/goods, to what extent is your selection affected by whether its packaging is biodegradable? [Other…]	0.168	−0.043	0.011	−0.022	0.029	0.011	−0.034
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following moves? [Use metal straws]	−0.005	0.289	−0.081	−0.055	0.102	−0.017	−0.016	0.805
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following moves? [Bring your own takeaway coffee cup]	−0.025	0.251	−0.005	−0.07	0.020	−0.014	−0.016
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following moves? [Use your own water bottle]	−0.030	0.134	0.086	0.017	−0.060	−0.035	−0.042
During the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following actions? [Use metal straws]	−0.014	0.291	−0.088	−0.063	0.076	0.001	−0.005
During the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following actions? [Bring your own takeaway coffee cup]	−0.032	0.250	−0.027	−0.041	0.015	−0.032	−0.034
During the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following actions? [Use your own water bottle]	−0.023	0.121	0.105	0.017	−0.058	−0.023	−0.073
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following moves? [You prefer to buy bulk products instead of packaged ones]	−0.033	0.023	0.356	−0.100	0.054	0.018	−0.106	0.812
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following moves? [Choose environmentally friendly packaging materials for gifts]	0.007	−0.088	0.276	0.018	0.027	−0.07	0.070
During the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following actions? [You prefer to buy bulk products instead of packaged ones]	−0.029	−0.036	0.358	−0.103	0.035	0.041	−0.050
During the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following actions? [Choose environmentally friendly packaging materials for gifts]	0.008	−0.102	0.244	0.033	−0.033	−0.088	0.107
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following moves? [Use cloth shopping bags]	−0.019	0.074	0.004	0.200	0.028	0.084	−0.084	0.813
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following moves? [Transfer shopping to reusable bags]	−0.010	−0.082	−0.065	0.421	0.068	−0.046	−0.010
During the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following actions? [Use cloth shopping bags]	−0.022	0.089	0.003	0.191	0.035	0.082	−0.085
During the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following actions? [Transfer shopping to reusable bags]	−0.017	−0.071	−0.075	0.417	0.039	−0.055	−0.01
For the products listed below, please indicate what you usually use: [Straws]	−0.030	0.060	0.050	0.047	0.313	−0.073	−0.015	0.705
For the products listed below, please indicate what you usually use: [Plastic shopping bags]	0.023	0.033	0.075	−0.151	0.229	0.03	−0.032
For the products listed below, please indicate what you usually use: [Plastic cups of coffee (takeaway)]	0.022	0.071	0.046	0.054	0.447	0.084	−0.058
For the products listed below, please indicate what you usually use: [Water bottles]	0.020	0.037	−0.037	0.067	0.380	0.111	0.004
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following moves? [Do not use straws]	0.012	−0.015	−0.025	−0.029	0.057	0.497	0.027	0.878
During the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following actions? [Do not use straws]	0.010	−0.039	−0.011	−0.027	0.049	0.491	0.052
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following moves? [Use biodegradable straws]	−0.022	−0.018	−0.043	−0.044	−0.007	0.026	0.527	0.887
During the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following actions? [Use biodegradable straws]	−0.027	−0.041	−0.028	−0.038	−0.024	0.040	0.535

(Appendix A) shows the weighting coefficients of the PCs, as well as the value of index Cronbach’s alpha calculated by the reliability analysis for each factor.

The first of these seven components (PC1) represents the choice of biodegradable packaging (Table A14, Appendix A). Specifically, in the case of the first factor loaded, the eight positive items are related to the choice of biodegradable packaging in the case of coffee takeaway, food takeaway, water, fruits/vegetables, other foods, clothing items, games/toys and other products. All the positive items related to the second components (PC2) refer to the use of some reusable products before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The third component (PC3) represents the use of bulk products/environmentally friendly packaging materials before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, while the fourth component (PC4) refers to the use of cloth/reusable shopping bags before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The fifth component (PC5) represents the use of single-use products (straw, plastic shopping bags, plastic cups of coffee (takeaway) and water bottles), while the PC6 consists of two positive factors that represent the use of single-use straws before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, the PC7 represents the use of biodegradable straws before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (Table A14, Appendix A).

From the results of the descriptive analysis of the PCs, it seems that the respondents in Greece are slightly affected by whether the packaging is biodegradable when they buy products or goods (Table 14). Futhermore, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, they made moderate use of reusable products, while they bought moderate bulk products and gifts with environmentally friendly packaging materials. In addition, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, respondents made slight use of slightly cloth/reusable bags, while they made moderate use of biodegradable straws and single-use straws. Finally, respondents tend to use moderate single-use products (Table 14).

3.4.2. PCA—Lebanon

As in the case of Greece, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was performed to reduce the initial variables to a smaller number of (unrelated) linear combinations, in the case of Lebanon (

Table 15. Extracted components of the PCA—Lebanon.

PCs	Name of Component	Eigenvalues	Variance Explained (%)	Cumulative (%)	Mean	Std. Dev.
PC1	Use of reusable products before and during the COVID-19	7.555	16.204	16.204	2.65	1.234
PC2	Biodegradable packaging	2.892	16.171	32.375	1.71	0.772
PC3	Use of nonplastic straws before and during the COVID-19	2.519	11.316	43.691	2.86	0.990
PC4	Awareness of microplastics/bioplastics	2.024	7.910	51.602	2.16	0.904
PC5	Use of personal water bottle without straws before and during the COVID-19	1.587	7.834	59.436	2.69	1.101
PC6	Use of plastic products	1.447	7.318	66.754	3.08	1.091

). In total, six factors were exported (PC1, PC2, PC3, PC4, PC5 and PC6), having an eigenvalue greater than one, representing 66.8% of the original data variability. The KMO criterion (0.70) and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p < 0.005), which were used to measure the adequacy of questions and the sampling, were satisfactory. Therefore, the test results show that there is a statistically significant correlation between the variables, and the data are suitable for factor analysis. This section also presents the descriptive analysis (mean values and standard deviation) of the seven PCs (Table 15). All responses are recorded on a scale of 1 to 5. Finally,

Table A15. Coefficients of PCA—Lebanon.

Variables	Component Score Coefficient
	PC1	PC2	PC3	PC4	PC5	PC6	Cronbach’s Alfa
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following moves? [Use cloth shopping bags]	0.186	−0.005	−0.047	−0.006	−0.061	−0.010	0.870
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following moves? [Transfer shopping to reusable bags]	0.157	−0.030	−0.019	0.156	−0.109	−0.053
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following moves? [Bring your own takeaway coffee cup]	0.160	−0.023	−0.039	0.121	−0.089	0.103
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following moves? [You prefer to buy bulk products instead of packaged ones]	0.250	−0.068	−0.078	−0.023	−0.050	0.084
During the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following actions? [Use cloth shopping bags]	0.133	−0.031	0.086	−0.080	0.040	−0.072
During the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following actions? [Transfer shopping to reusable bags]	0.190	−0.062	0.011	0.043	0.015	0.021
During the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following actions? [You prefer to buy bulk products instead of packaged ones]	0.237	−0.068	−0.021	−0.153	0.003	−0.017
During the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following actions? [Choose environmentally friendly packaging materials for gifts]	0.128	0.014	−0.007	−0.070	0.063	0.045
When you choose one of the following products/goods, to what extent is your selection affected by whether its packaging is biodegradable? [Coffee takeaway]	−0.005	0.289	−0.081	−0.055	0.102	−0.017	0.910
When you choose one of the following products/goods, to what extent is your selection affected by whether its packaging is biodegradable? [Food takeaway]	−0.025	0.251	−0.005	−0.070	0.020	−0.014
When you choose one of the following products/goods, to what extent is your selection affected by whether its packaging is biodegradable? [Water]	−0.030	0.134	0.086	0.017	−0.060	−0.035
When you choose one of the following products/goods, to what extent is your selection affected by whether its packaging is biodegradable? [Fruits-vegetables]	−0.014	0.291	−0.088	−0.063	0.076	0.001
When you choose one of the following products/goods, to what extent is your selection affected by whether its packaging is biodegradable? [Other foods]	−0.032	0.250	−0.027	−0.041	0.015	−0.032
When you choose one of the following products/goods, to what extent is your selection affected by whether its packaging is biodegradable? [Other…]	−0.023	0.121	0.105	0.017	−0.058	−0.023
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following moves? [Use metal straws]	−0.103	0.003	0.310	0.020	0.011	0.019	0.848
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following moves? [Use biodegradable straws]	−0.038	−0.004	0.278	−0.117	0.032	−0.034
During the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following actions? [Use metal straws]	−0.016	−0.045	0.305	−0.015	0.013	0.025
During the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following actions? [Use biodegradable straws]	0.029	−0.057	0.259	0.005	0.024	0.001
Do you know what is the meaning of microplastics?	0.018	−0.021	−0.059	0.422	−0.051	0.084	0.818
Do you know what is the meaning of bioplastics?	−0.051	0.020	0.005	0.362	−0.015	−0.046
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following moves? [Do not use straws]	−0.091	−0.057	−0.023	0.267	0.265	−0.003	0.693
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following moves? [Use your own water bottle]	−0.060	0.056	−0.009	−0.086	0.336	−0.048
During the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following actions? [Do not use straws]	−0.062	−0.086	0.062	0.096	0.433	0.049
During the COVID-19 pandemic, to what extent did you make the following actions? [Use your own water bottle]	0.027	−0.049	−0.013	−0.093	0.372	0.019
For the products listed below, please indicate what you usually use: [Straws]	0.059	−0.045	0.069	−0.050	−0.035	0.375	0.681
For the products listed below, please indicate what you usually use: [Plastic shopping bags]	0.069	−0.009	−0.106	0.142	0.021	0.444
For the products listed below, please indicate what you usually use: [Plastic cups of coffee (takeaway)]	−0.047	0.014	0.041	0.004	0.031	0.384

(Appendix A) shows the weighting coefficients of the PCs, as well as the value of index Cronbach’s alfa calculated by the reliability analysis for each factor.

The first of these six components (PC1) represents the use of reusable products before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (Table A15, Appendix A). The PC2 consists of six positive factors regarding biodegradable packaging in the case of coffee takeaway, food takeaway, water, fruits/vegetables, other foods and other products. All the positive items related to the third components (PC3) refer to the use of nonplastics products (metal and biodegradable straws). The PC4 consists of two positive factors that represent the awareness of microplastics and bioplastics, while PC5 consists of four positive factors that represent the use of a personal water bottle without straws, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, the PC6 represents the use of plastic products (straws, plastic shopping bags and plastic cups of coffee (takeaway)) (Table A15, Appendix A).

From the results of the descriptive analysis of the PCs, it seems that the respondents in Lebanon made moderate use of reusable products before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (Table 15). Furthermore, both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, respondents made moderate use of nonplastic straws and use of personal water bottle without straws. In addition, the respondents are slightly affected by whether the packaging is biodegradable when they buy products or goods and know lttle about microplastics and bioplastics. Finally, respondents tend to make moderate use of plastic products (Table 15).

4. Discussion

The statistical analysis of the results indicates that, in Greece, the participants’ awareness regarding the microplastics and bioplastics is significantly associated with the level of education, while in Lebanon it is significantly associated with the income. These results are in line with the outcome of other research studies regarding the association between the social status and the environmental awareness [46,47]. In addition, in their study on the attitudes towards plastics and bioplastics in Europe, Leal Filho et al. [48] found that the level of education is strongly associated with the awareness on the concept of bioplastics. Thus, an increase in education level and information is one of the main policy axes to increase more the environmental awareness of the citizens of the two countries.

Although the participants of both countries stated significant awareness of environmental issues, they often use single-use plastics, such as straws, plastic shopping bags, takeaway cups, and single-use water bottles. According to Heidbreder et al. [49], although the awareness of the environmental impacts of plastics is high, the perceived advantages of plastic as well as consumer habits and situational factors keep people from acting accordingly. The analysis of the responses of Greek participants shows that this behavior is associated with gender and area of residence, while for the Lebanese participants it is associated with education, marital status and the number of children depending on the product. Moreover, in this case, better information about the impacts on the environment of the use of these items can increase the environmental awareness of the citizens of the two countries.

The survey also investigated the degree to which the participants are affected by the provision of biodegradable packaging when they are up to purchase coffee (takeaway), food (takeaway), water, fruits/vegetables, clothes, games/toys, etc. The analysis of the responses of the Greek participants showed that there is a significant correlation of gender with the aforementioned products, while for the Lebanese there is a correlation mainly regarding income with food takeaway packaging and clothing items packaging. Again, the best policy measure can be to increase the information level of the citizens.

However, it is remarkable that more than the half of the respondents (both in Greece and Lebanon) declared that they would fairly accept to pay more for products in a package made of biodegradable materials. According to a previous study in the UK [50], the selection of biobased products was influenced by the “green self-identity, attitude towards biobased products, age and past purchase experience”. It is clear that the majority of the citizens of the two countries do not believe that the citizens must pay again for the protection of the environment. This is in line with previous results showing the mistrust of citizens to central governments about environmental issues [31]. Moreover, as citizens of the two countries are severely affected from the recent economic crisis, they are quite skeptical about an increase in prices, even for environmental issues.

Finally, the statistical analysis of the results shows that in both Greece and Lebanon, there is a slight increase in the use by respondents of biodegradable straws, cloth shopping bags, reusable shopping bags and the adoption of takeaway coffee cups and water bottles during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to before the pandemic, while all these changes are slightly higher in Greece than in Lebanon. This statement indicates that the pandemic may have a positive impact on the environmental awareness of people, as already found in another study [51].

Generally, the comparison of the two countries shows that the environmental awareness of the Greek citizens is somehow higher than that of Lebanon; the higher education and economic situation of Greeks compared to the Lebanese may be one of the main reasons. This indicates that Lebanon can generally follow the Greek paradigm to increase the environmental awareness of its citizens; however, better environmental information is necessary in both countries.

5. Limitations of the Study—Suggestions for Future Work

The researchers of this study made every effort to overcome any difficulties and obstacles so that the results of the research are as valid and reliable as possible. However, this study has some limitations that should be faced in a future work. The present study was performed during the COVID-19 pandemic. For this reason, a part of the interviews was conducted by telephone, and there was no direct contact of the researcher with the respective participant. Only one method of collection should be preferable in a future work. Furthermore, only two countries participated in the survey; a country with an even higher-income economy (such as Italy, France or Germany) should also be used in order to make a wider comparison of the results. In addition, because citizens’ opinions are dynamic and change over time, the study could be repeated in the future to explore possible changes in citizens’ opinions on relevant issues. Another suggestion is also to divide the sample into two equal samples; the first one should have an introductory informative text explaining the various parameters under consideration. This process will allow the assessment of the impact of informing participants about the use of plastics.

6. Conclusions

Plastics have become an essential component of products and packaging for the last 50 years because of their properties and mainly because of their plasticity and because they are durable, low cost and ease to manufacture, replacing many other materials. However, though they offer numerous uses, they are considered a significant threat to the environment and the climate when they reach the waste phase of its life cycle because they can contaminate soil, water and other elements of life.

The current use of plastics, their end-of-life (recycling) scenario, and the potential for their replacement with more sustainable and biodegradable materials in Greece and Lebanon was studied in this research in order understand the environmental behavior of the citizens of one high-income and one upper-middle-income economy and the way they act in relation with the plastics use.

The results show that, even if the respondents of both countries stated significant awareness of environmental issues, they often use single-use plastics, such as straws, plastic shopping bags, takeaway cups, and single-use water bottles. This is mainly due to the fact that they are easily available, do not need washing and are cheap. This is reinforced by the fact that reusable products are more expensive than plastics, are not easily available in the local markets and require washing, leading to the easy solution of choosing single-use plastics.

On the other hand, similar products made from environmentally friendly materials or ecological materials are not widely known. They are usually not easily available in the local markets, they are not durable, they are more expensive, while users often avoid them because they are not familiar with them. Informing the citizens about the benefits of using environmentally friendly products would contribute positively to their awareness and the reduction in the use of plastics.

The usage of plastics is, in general, higher in Lebanon than in Greece. Furthermore, in both Greece and Lebanon, there is a small increase in the use of reusable products during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to before the pandemic, while the respondents (in both Greece and Lebanon) say that it would be fair to pay more for products in a package made of biodegradable materials. The increase in the use of reusable products during the COVID-19 pandemic is expected because, for reasons of hygiene, the use of individual products was preferred by consumers.

This work confirms that the environmental awareness of the citizens of a country increase with the general education and economic level of the country. Moreover, there is a mistrust of the increase in prices for environmental purposes. Assessing the progress of Greece in the use of single-use plastics as a country with a high-income economy, it seems that in recent years, slow steps have been taken to eliminate single-use plastics and replace them with more environmentally friendly products. Lebanon, on the other hand, as a country with an upper-middle-income economy, seems to be lagging behind in eliminating the use of single-use plastics and replacing them with more environmentally friendly products.

Finally, according to the results of this study, there is enough space to further reduce plastic pollution, and this can be achieved by informing and raising public awareness so that they can adopt more environmentally friendly products and practices.