Single-use plastic bags remain a critical contributor to plastic pollution, with ecological impacts ranging from terrestrial litter to marine ecosystem degradation. In response, governments worldwide have introduced financial disincentives, regulatory restrictions, and educational campaigns to curb their consumption. However, the relative effectiveness and sustainability of these interventions remain contested. This systematic review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted in the Web of Science Core Collection using the Boolean string (“levies” OR “charge”) AND (“single-use plastic” OR “plastic bag”), yielding 2445 records. After applying filters for publication year (2007–2025), article type, and English language, 10,496 records were screened. A total of 136 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, 16 met the inclusion criteria. Findings revealed that economic instruments, particularly levies and charges, consistently produced the most substantial reductions in plastic bag consumption. Regulatory and campaign-based approaches improved awareness but lacked durability unless coupled with financial disincentives. Educational and social-norm interventions reinforced pro-environmental behaviours, amplifying compliance and long-term sustainability when integrated with levies. Overall, multi-layered strategies combining economic, regulatory, and cultural levers were the most effective. Economic instruments are necessary but not sufficient on their own. Integrated approaches by pairing charges with enforcement, education, and social-norm reinforcement to offer the greatest potential to reduce plastic bag use and align with global sustainability goals.

1.         Khalifa Z. Consumer knowledge, attitudes and behaviors towards the use of plastic bags in the Kingdom of BAHRAIN[J]. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting Finance and Management Sciences. 2023; 13(2): 962-975. doi: 10.6007/IJARAFMS/v13-i2/18068

2.         Asmuni S, Hussin NB, Khalili JM, et al. Public participation and effectiveness of the no plastic bag day program in Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015; 168: 328-340. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.238

3.         Pranada T, Nur AR, Nur MA, et al. Emergency reduction of plastic contents using ecocapsitbag and private school student literation increasion treatments in damage education (Indonesian). Ibriez Jurnal Kependidikan Dasar Islam Berbasis Sains. 2023; 8(1): 1-14. doi: 10.21154/ibriez.v8i1.296

4.         Convery F, McDonnell S, Ferreira S. The most popular tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish plastic bags levy. Environmental & Resource Economics. 2007 Jul 26;38(1):1–11. doi: 10.1007/s10640-006-9059-2

5.         Poortinga W, Whitmarsh L, Suffolk C. The introduction of a single-use carrier bag charge in Wales: Attitude change and behavioural spillover effects. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2013; 36: 240–247. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.09.001

6.         Thomas GO, Sautkina E, Poortinga W, et al. The English Plastic Bag Charge Changed Behavior and Increased Support for Other Charges to Reduce Plastic Waste. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019; 10: 266. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00266

7.         Muralidharan S, Sheehan K. “Tax” and “fee” message frames as inhibitors of plastic bag usage among shoppers: A social marketing application of the theory of planned behaviour. Social Marketing Quarterly. 2016; 22: 200–217.

8.         Dikgang J, Leiman A, Visser M. Elasticity of demand, price and time: lessons from South Africa’s plastic-bag levy. Applied Economics. 2012; 44(26): 3339–3342. doi: 10.1080/00036846.2011.572859

9.         Madigele PK, Mogomotsi GEJ. Polluter pays or polluter enriching the retailers: The case of plastic bag levy failure in Botswana. Ethiopian Journal of Environmental Studies and Management. 2017; 10(4):472-481.

10.     Chandra G. Non-monetary intervention to discourage consumption of single-use plastic bags. Behavioural Public Policy. 2023; 7(1): 143–156.

11.     Schultz PW. Secret Agents of Influence: Leveraging Social Norms for Good. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2022; 31(5): 443–450. doi: 10.1177/09637214221109572

12.     Han H, Lee MJ, Kim W. Promoting towel reuse behaviour in guests: A water conservation management and environmental policy in the hotel industry. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2018; 27(8): 1302–1312. doi: 10.1002/bse.2179

13.     Jacobson RP, Mortensen CR, Cialdini RB. Bodies obliged and unbound: Differentiated response tendencies for injunctive and descriptive social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2011; 100(3): 433–448.

14.     Reno RR, Cialdini RB, Kallgren CA. The transsituational influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1993; 64(1): 104–112. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.64.1.104

15.     Göckeritz S, Schultz PW, Rendón T, et al. Descriptive normative beliefs and conservation behavior: The moderating roles of personal involvement and injunctive normative beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2009; 40(3): 514–523. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.643

16.     Turaga RMR, Howarth RB, Borsuk ME. Pro‐environmental behavior: rational choice meets moral motivation. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010; 1185(1): 211–224. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05163.x

17.     Maestre-Andrés S, Drews S, van den Bergh J. Perceived fairness and public acceptability of carbon pricing: a review of the literature. Climate Policy. 2019; 19(9): 1186–1204. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2019.1639490

18.     Wang X, Feng S, Tang T. Acceptability toward Policy Mix: Impact of Low-Carbon Travel Intention, Fairness, and Effectiveness. Sustainability. 2023; 15(20): 15070. doi: 10.3390/su152015070

19.     Bos C, Lans IVD, Van Rijnsoever F, Van Trijp H. Consumer Acceptance of Population-Level Intervention Strategies for Healthy Food Choices: The Role of Perceived Effectiveness and Perceived Fairness. Nutrients. 2015; 7(9): 7842–7862. doi: 10.3390/nu7095370

20.     Grelle S, Hofmann W. When and Why Do People Accept Public-Policy Interventions? An Integrative Public-Policy-Acceptance Framework. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2023; 19(1): 258–279. doi: 10.1177/17456916231180580

21.     Maestre-Andrés S, Drews S, Savin I, van den Bergh J. Carbon tax acceptability with information provision and mixed revenue uses. Nature Communications. 2021; 12(1): 7017. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-27380-8

22.     Li Y, Wei L, Zeng X, Zhu J. Mindfulness in ethical consumption: the mediating roles of connectedness to nature and self-control. International Marketing Review. 2021; 38(4): 756–779. doi: 10.1108/IMR-01-2019-0023

23.     Li B, Yang J, Sun W. Can Expanding Cultural Consumption Improve Urban Air Quality? An Analysis Based on China’s Cultural Consumption Pilot Policy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 20(1): 642. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20010642

24.     Homonoff TA. Can Small Incentives Have Large Effects? The Impact of Taxes versus Bonuses on Disposable Bag Use. Am Econ J Econ Policy. 2018; 10(4): 177–210. doi: 10.1257/pol.20150261

25.     Jakovcevic, Steg L, Mazzeo N, et al. Charges for plastic bags: Motivational and behavioral effects. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2014; 40: 372–380. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.09.004

26.     Zen IS, Ahamad R, Omar W. No plastic bag campaign day in Malaysia and the policy implication. Environment Development and Sustainability. 2013; 15(5): 1259–1269. doi: 10.1007/s10668-013-9437-1

27.     Schnurr REJ, Alboiu V, Chaudhary M, et al. Reducing marine pollution from single-use plastics (SUPs): A review. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018; 137: 157–171. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.10.001

28.     Adeyanju GC, Augustine TM, Volkmann S, et al. Effectiveness of intervention on behaviour change against use of non-biodegradable plastic bags: a systematic review. Discover Sustainability. 2021; 2(1): 13. doi: 10.1007/s43621-021-00015-0

29.     Senturk G, Dumludag D. The relationship between consumption of single-use plastic bags, environmental awareness, and socio-demographic factors. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management. 2022; 24(4): 1494–1507. doi: 10.1007/s10163-022-01407-8

30.     Muralidharan S, Sheehan K. The Role of Guilt in Influencing Sustainable Pro-Environmental Behaviors among Shoppers. Journal of Advertising Research. 2018; 58(3): 349–362. doi: 10.2501/JAR-2017-029

31.     Kim J, Kitkuakul S, Alden DL. The Impact of Social Norms on Consumer Willingness to Choose Green Packaging for an Extra Charge in the United States and South Korea. Journal of International Consumer Marketing. 2024; 36(5): 463–484. doi: 10.1080/08961530.2024.2303583

32.     Dikgang J, Visser M. Behavioural response to plastic bag legislation in Botswana. South African Journal of Economics. 2012; 80(1): 123–133. doi: 10.1111/j.1813-6982.2011.01289.x

33.     Mohamed Noor MF Bin, Matthew NK, Puan CL. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for an Increase Fee in Biodegradable Plastic Bag Use in Bandar Baru Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia. Sage Open. 2024; 14(2). doi: 10.1177/21582440241244668

34.     Hasan D. Indonesia: Paid Plastic Bag Policy: Its Concept and Relevance to Pollution-Levy Principles. Environmental Policy and Law. 2021; 50(4–5): 415–422. doi: 10.3233/EPL-200244

35.     Nyathi B, Togo CA. Overview of Legal and Policy Framework Approaches for Plastic Bag Waste Management in African Countries. Journal of Environmental and Public Health. 2020; 2020: 8892773. doi: 10.1155/2020/8892773