AccScience Publishing / AJWEP / Online First / DOI: 10.36922/AJWEP025330258
Submit to AJWEP
Cite this article
14
Download
127
Views
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
Forthcoming Issue
Current Issue
View All
News and Announcements
View All
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

Risk, efficacy, and the moderating role of policy effectiveness in microplastic reduction intentions

Mihyeon Yu1 ,  Yungwook Kim2 ,  Hyemi Lee3 ,  Yoomi Kim4*
Show Less
1 Department of Public Administration, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
2 Division of Communication and Media, Center of Strategic Solutions for Environmental Blindspots in the Interest of Society, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
3 Department of Consumer Studies, Center of Strategic Solutions for Environmental Blindspots in the Interest of Society, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
4 Department of Public Administration, Center of Strategic Solutions for Environmental Blindspots in the Interest of Society, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
AJWEP, 025330258 https://doi.org/10.36922/AJWEP025330258
Received: 17 August 2025 | Revised: 30 September 2025 | Accepted: 9 October 2025 | Published online: 3 November 2025
© 2025 by the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ )
Download PDF
XML
Cite
Abstract

Microplastics pose serious threats to both the environment and human health. Although governments have introduced various policies and promoted international cooperation to address this issue, the effectiveness of these efforts is closely linked to the importance of individuals’ engagement, which is shaped by their perceptions. However, limited research has examined how such perceptions interact with perceived policy effectiveness in shaping pro-environmental behavioral intentions. To address this gap, this study aims to examine how risk perceptions (perceived severity and perceived vulnerability) and efficacy beliefs (self-efficacy and response efficacy) influence behavioral intentions to reduce microplastic emissions within the framework of protection motivation theory, and whether perceived policy effectiveness moderates these relationships. We conducted a nationwide survey of South Korean adults and analyzed the data using hierarchical regression to test the proposed hypotheses. The results revealed that both risk perception and efficacy had significant positive effects on behavioral intentions, with response efficacy emerging as the strongest predictor, followed by perceived severity, self-efficacy, and perceived vulnerability. Perceived policy effectiveness did not directly affect behavioral intentions but moderated the relationship between self-efficacy and behavioral intentions. The moderation effect indicated that higher perceived policy effectiveness attenuated the positive relationship between self-efficacy and pro-environmental behavioral intentions, suggesting a potential motivation crowding-out effect. These findings highlight the importance of integrating psychological factors and perceptions of policy effectiveness into policy design. They offer valuable insights for environmental campaigns, communication strategies, and governance efforts aimed at promoting sustainable behaviors to mitigate microplastic emissions.

Graphical abstract
Keywords
Microplastic emissions
Pro-environmental intentions
Protection motivation theory
Risk perception
Efficacy
Policy effectiveness
Funding
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea grant funded by the Korean government (Ministry of Science and ICT) (No. RS-2023-00217228).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
  1. UNEP. Annual Report; 2024. Available from: https:// wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/47082/ unep-annual-report-2024.pdf [Last accessed on 2025 Aug 12].

 

  1. Prata JC, Da Costa JP, Lopes I, Duarte AC, Rocha- Santos T. Environmental exposure to microplastics: An overview on possible human health effects. Sci Total Environ. 2020;702:134455. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134455

 

  1. Mathew RT. Plastic contamination in aquatic ecosystems: A fisheries perspective. Asian J Water Environ Pollut. 2024;21(3):1-7. doi: 10.3233/AJW240028

 

  1. Yadav H, Sethulekshmi S, Shriwastav A. Estimation of microplastic exposure via the composite sampling of drinking water, respirable air, and cooked food from Mumbai, India. Environ Res. 2022;214:113735. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.113735

 

  1. Leslie HA, Van Velzen MJ, Brandsma SH, Vethaak AD, Garcia-Vallejo JJ, Lamoree MH. Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood. Environ Int. 2022;163:107199. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107199

 

  1. Roslan NS, Lee YY, Ibrahim YS, et al. Detection of microplastics in human tissues and organs: A scoping review. J Glob Health. 2024;14:04179. doi: 10.7189/jogh.14.04179

 

  1. Son A, Hea JE, Lee JY, et al. Environmental blindspots: Identification and mitigation using technologies, education, and policies. J Korean Soc Environ Eng. 2024;46(5):231-262. doi: 10.4491/KSEE.2024.46.5.231

 

  1. UNEP. Proceedings of the United Nations Environment Assembly at its Resumed Fifth Session. United Naions Environment Programme. Available from: https:// wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/39828/ proceedings%20of%20the%20united%20nations%20 environment%20assembly%20at%20its%20resumed%20 fifth%20session.%20english.pdf?sequence=1&isallowed=y [Last accessed on 2024 Oct 08].

 

  1. Lee S. Current Status and Implications of Plastic Regulations in the International Community. KIEP World Economy Focus; 2022. p. 1-14, 2635-5981. Available from: https://www.kiep.go.kr/gallery.es?mid =a10102030000&bid=0004&list_no=10063&act=view [Last accessed on 2025 May 20].

 

  1. Proposal for a Special Act on the Reduction and Management of Microplastics. National Assembly of Korea. Bill Information. Available from: https://likms. assembly.go.kr/bill/bi/billdetailpage.do?billid=prc_ o2m4u0v8t2t2s1t6r2r3n0l9m5k0l0 [Last accessed on 2025 Sep 26].

 

  1. Notice of Promulgation and Enforcement of the Partial Amendment to the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on the Reduction of Disposable Product Use. Seoul OpenGov. Available from: https://opengov. seoul.go.kr/sanction/33508006 [Last accessed on 2025 Sep 28].

 

  1. Gwak K, Kim YW. The influence of message framing on pro-environmental behavioral intentions for plastic reduction: The mediating effect of negative emotions and the moderating effects of generativity and learned helplessness. Korean J Broadcast Telecommun Stud. 2025;39(1):55-96.

 

  1. Hocherman T, Trop T, Ghermandi A. Time lags in environmental governance: A critical review. Ambio. 2025;1-18. doi: 10.1007/s13280-025-02211-y

 

  1. Park H, Roh S, Kim E. Factors influencing on the pro-environmental behavior - from the viewpoint of TRA. J Local Govern Stud. 2007;19(2):97-119.

 

  1. Azadi Y, Yazdanpanah M, Mahmoudi H. Understanding smallholder farmers’ adaptation behaviors through climate change beliefs, risk perception, trust, and psychological distance: Evidence from wheat growers in Iran. J Environ Manage. 2019;250:109456. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109456

 

  1. Kim C, Sohn D, Nam M. Analysis of influencing factors of climate crisis behavior for elementary, middle, and high school students in gyeonggi-do: Focusing on the mediating effect of climate crisis risk perception and ecological citizenship. Korean J Educ Res. 2021;59(4):215-242. doi: 10.30916/KERA.59.4.215

 

  1. Oh S, Sunjin Y. The mediating effect of affective response between climate crisis risk perception and responding behavioral intention. The mediating effect of affective response between climate crisis risk perception and responding behavioral intention. J Environ Policy Adm. 2022;30(4):53-97. doi: 10.15301/jepa.2022.30.4.53

 

  1. Jungsun A, Yeojung K. Koreans’ climate change beliefs, risk perception, and climate action: Focusing on the effects of the communication channel type. J Soc Sci. 2022;48(2):85-116. doi: 10.15820/khjss.2022.48.2.005

 

  1. Maartensson H, Loi NM. Exploring the relationships between risk perception, behavioural willingness, and constructive hope in pro-environmental behaviour. Environ Educ Res. 2022;28(4):600-613. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2021.2015295

 

  1. Ryu J, Cho C. Current status of microplastics and impact on human health. Korean Ind Chem News. 2019;22(2):1-12.

 

  1. Bak J, Kang H, Choi Y. Microplastics in the marine environment and their impacts on human health jia bak, hyun bon kang and yun-sik choi. J Life Sci. 2021;31(4):442-451. doi: 10.5352/JLS.2021.31.4.442

 

  1. Choi Y. Recent research trends in induction of cellular senescence by microplastics. J Life Sci. 2024;34(8):594-607. doi: 10.5352/JLS.2024.34.8.594

 

  1. Ivar Do Sul JA, Costa MF. The present and future of microplastic pollution in the marine environment. Environ Pollut. 2014;185:352-364. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.10.036

 

  1. Zhang X, Hu N, Yu Z, et al. Research tendency of microplastics and nanoplastics based on bibliometric analysis and perspective of the influence of human health. Environ Res Commun. 2022;4(9):095004. doi: 10.1088/2515-7620/ac8bc8

 

  1. Cho S, Cho W, Kim S, Chung J, Kim H. Identification of microplastics in sea salts by raman microscopy and FT-IR microscopy. Anal Sci Technol. 2019;32(6):243-251. doi: 10.5806/AST.2019.32.6.243

 

  1. Rogers RW. Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation. In: Social Psychology: A Source Book. United States: Guilford; 1983. p. 153-176.

 

  1. Stern PC. New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues. 2000;56(3):407-424. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00175

 

  1. Minton AP, Rose RL. The effects of environmental concern on environmentally friendly consumer behavior: An exploratory study. J Bus Res. 1997;40(1):37-48. doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(96)00209-3

 

  1. Park K, Ryu I, Song C. Effect of environmental awareness on environmentally friendly consumption behavior: Focused on mediated effect of attitude toward the environment. Korean J Policy Anal Eval. 2012;22(3):141-163. doi: 10.23036/kapae.2012.22.3.006

 

  1. Ku Y, Ahn J, Noh G. A study on the factors affecting behavioral intentions to reduce particulate matter emission the integration of theory of planned behavior and norm activation model. Korean J Commun Stud. 2020;64(3):47-76. doi: 10.20879/kjjcs.2020.64.3.002

 

  1. Lee J, Kang T, Cho I. A study for promoting environmentally friendly behaviors based on self- and collective-efficacy. Legis Policy Stud. 2018;10(2):401-428. doi: 10.22809/nars.2018.10.2.016

 

  1. Kim M, Moon S. Predicting pro-environmental behavior: A cross-national analysis. Korean Public Adm Rev. 2014;48(3):257-293.

 

  1. Maloney MP, Ward MP. Ecology: Let’s hear from the people: An objective scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. Am Psychol. 1973;28(7):583-586. doi: 10.1037/h0034936

 

  1. Pooley JA, O’Connor M. Environmental education and attitudes: Emotions and beliefs are what is needed. Environ Behav. 2000;32(5):711-723. doi: 10.1177/0013916500325007

 

  1. Ajzen I, Madden TJ. Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1986;22(5):453-474.doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(86)90045-4

 

  1. De Groot J, Steg L. General beliefs and the theory of planned behavior: The role of environmental concerns in the TPB. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2007;37(8):1817-1836. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00239.x

 

  1. Emekci S. Green consumption behaviours of consumers within the scope of TPB. J Consum Market. 2019;36(3):410-417. doi: 10.1108/JCM-05-2018-2694

 

  1. Alzubaidi H, Slade EL, Dwivedi YK. Examining antecedents of consumers’ pro-environmental behaviours: TPB extended with materialism and innovativeness. J Bus Res. 2021;122:685-699. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.017

 

  1. Lee H. Domestic research trends on environmental behavior based on environmental behavior theory (TPB, NAM, and VBN). Korean J Environ Educ. 2021;34(1):81-99. doi: 10.17965/kjee.2021.34.1.81

 

  1. Yun S, Kim T. Study on the pro-environmental behavior intention of customers visiting green coffee shops using the extended planning behavior theory and norm activation model. Korean J Hosp Tour. 2020;29(2):21-39. doi: 10.24992/KJHT.2020.02.29.02.21

 

  1. Shen X, Chen B, Leibrecht M, Du H. The moderating effect of perceived policy effectiveness in residents’ waste classification intentions: A study of Bengbu, China. Sustainability. 2022;14(2):801. doi: 10.3390/su14020801

 

  1. Schwartz SH. Normative influences on altruism. In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Netherlands: Elsevier; 1977. p. 221-279.

 

  1. Steg L, Dreijerink L, Abrahamse W. Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: A test of VBN theory. J Environ Psychol. 2005;25(4):415-425. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.003

 

  1. Koelmans AA, Besseling E, Foekema E, et al. Risks of plastic debris: Unravelling fact, opinion, perception, and belief. Environ Sci Technol. 2017;51:11513-11519. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.7b02219

 

  1. Catarino AI, Kramm J, Völker C, Henry TB, Everaert G. Risk posed by microplastics: Scientific evidence and public perception. Curr Opin Green Sustain Chem. 2021;29:100467. doi: 10.1016/j.cogsc.2021.100467

 

  1. Kim S, Jeong S, Hwang Y. Predictors of pro-environmental behaviors of American and Korean students: The application of the theory of reasoned action and protection motivation theory. Sci Commun. 2013;35(2):168-188. doi: 10.1177/1075547012441692

 

  1. Rogers RW. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change1. J Psychol. 1975;91(1):93-114. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803

 

  1. Park C, Lee S. A study of the user privacy protection behavior in online environment: Based on protection motivation theory. J Int Comput Serv. 2014;15(2):59-71. doi: 10.7472/jksii.2014.15.2.59

 

  1. O’Connor RE, Bard RJ, Fisher A. Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Anal. 1999;19(3):461-471. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00421.x

 

  1. Wachinger G, Renn O, Begg C, Kuhlicke C. The risk perception paradox--implications for governance and communication of natural hazards. Risk Anal. 2013;33(6):1049-1065. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01942.x

 

  1. Zhu W, Yao N, Guo Q, Wang F. Public risk perception and willingness to mitigate climate change: City smog as an example. Environ Geochem Health. 2020;42:881-893. doi: 10.1007/s10653-019-00355-x

 

  1. Norman P, Boer H, Seydel ER, Mullan B. Protection motivation theory. In: Predicting and Changing Health Behaviour: Research and Practice with Social Cognition Models. Oxford: Academic Publisher; 2015. p. 70-106.

 

  1. Semenza JC, Hall DE, Wilson DJ, Bontempo BD, Sailor DJ, George LA. Public perception of climate change voluntary mitigation and barriers to behavior change. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(5):479-487. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.08.020

 

  1. Shahul Hamid F, Bhatti MS, Anuar N, Anuar N, Mohan P, Periathamby A. Worldwide distribution and abundance of microplastic: How dire is the situation? Waste Manage Res. 2018;36(10):873-897. doi: 10.1177/0734242X18785730

 

  1. Zhang K, Hamidian AH, Tubić A, et al. Understanding plastic degradation and microplastic formation in the environment: A review. Environ Pollut. 2021;274:116554. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2021.116554

 

  1. Tian W, Song P, Zhang H, et al. Microplastic materials in the environment: Problem and strategical solutions. Prog Mater Sci. 2023;132:101035. doi: 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2022.101035

 

  1. Osman AI, Hosny M, Eltaweil AS, et al. Microplastic sources, formation, toxicity and remediation: A review. Environ Chem Lett. 2023;21(4):2129-2169. doi: 10.1007/s10311-023-01593-3

 

  1. Rainear AM, Christensen JL. Protection motivation theory as an explanatory framework for proenvironmental behavioral intentions. Commun Res Rep. 2017;34(3):239-248. doi: 10.1080/08824096.2017.1286472

 

  1. Shafiei A, Maleksaeidi H. Pro-environmental behavior of university students: Application of protection motivation theory. Glob Ecol Conserv. 2020;22:e00908. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e00908

 

  1. Yum J, Kang S. Public Attitudes Towards the Environment: 2023 Survey; 2023. Available from: https://library.kei. re.kr/pyxis-api/1/digital-files/92cfff3c-8d12-4f6a-9afd-ea0f7d809f53 [Last accessed on 2024 Sep 23].

 

  1. Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Vol. 1986. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1986. p. 2.

 

  1. Milfont TL. The interplay between knowledge, perceived efficacy, and concern about global warming and climate change: A one-year longitudinal study. Risk Anal. 2012;32(6):1003-1020. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01800.x

 

  1. Kim Y, Park D, Min H. The impact of psychological distance on risk-mitigative behaviors toward climate change among Koreans a focus on the mediating effects of risk perception and the moderating effects of efficacy. Adv Res. 2018;(118):127-170. doi: 10.16914/ar.2018.118.127

 

  1. Lauren N, Fielding KS, Smith L, Louis WR. You did, so you can and you will: Self-efficacy as a mediator of spillover from easy to more difficult pro-environmental behaviour. J Environ Psychol. 2016;48:191-199. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.10.004

 

  1. Yoong SW, Bojei J, Osman S, Hashim NH. Perceived self-efficacy and its role in fostering pro-environmental attitude and behaviours. Asian J Bus Account. 2018;11(2):151-186. doi: 10.22452/ajba.vol11no2.5

 

  1. Van Valkengoed AM, Perlaviciute G, Steg L. From believing in climate change to adapting to climate change: The role of risk perception and efficacy beliefs. Risk Anal. 2024;44(3):553-565. doi: 10.1111/risa.14193

 

  1. Prentice-Dunn S, Mcmath BF, Cramer RJ. Protection motivation theory and stages of change in sun protective behavior. J Health Psychol. 2009;14(2):297-305. doi: 10.1177/1359105308100214

 

  1. Kim S, Kim Y. The effects of cultural bias on climate change policy compliance and support mediating effects of risk perception, emotion, and efficacy. Korean J Commun Stud. 2019;63(4):230-274. doi: 10.20879/kjjcs.2019.63.4.006

 

  1. Goddard RD, Hoy WK, Hoy AW. Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educ Res. 2004;33(3):3-13. doi: 10.3102/0013189X033003003

 

  1. GL, Babutsidze Z, Chai A, Reser JP. The role of climate change risk perception, response efficacy, and psychological adaptation in pro-environmental behavior: A two nation study. J Environ Psychol. 2020;68:101410. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101410

 

  1. Kim M, Jang A. Exploratory study on pro-environmental awareness and behaviors of MZ generation the role of social media and pro-environmental campaigns. Adv Res. 2022;134:88-131. doi: 10.16914/ar.2022.134.88

 

  1. Wan C, Shen GQ, Yu A. The role of perceived effectiveness of policy measures in predicting recycling behaviour in Hong Kong. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2014;83:141-151. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.12.009

 

  1. Dechezleprêtre A, Fabre A, Kruse T, Planterose B, Sanchez Chico A, Stantcheva S. Fighting climate change: International attitudes toward climate policies. Am Econ Rev. 2025;115(4):1258-1300. doi: 10.1257/aer.20230501

 

  1. Fu L, Zhang Y, Bai Y. Pro-environmental awareness and behaviors on campus: Evidence from Tianjin, China. Eurasia J Math Sci Technol Educ. 2017;14(1):427-445. doi: 10.12973/ejmste/77953

 

  1. Liao C, Zhao D, Zhang S, Chen L. Determinants and the moderating effect of perceived policy effectiveness on residents’ separation intention for rural household solid waste. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(4):726. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15040726

 

  1. Pakmehr S, Yazdanpanah M, Baradaran M. How collective efficacy makes a difference in responses to water shortage due to climate change in Southwest Iran. Land Use Policy. 2020;99:104798. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104798

 

  1. West SG, Finch JF, Curran PJ. Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In: Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications. London: SAGE Publications; 1995. p. 56-75.

 

  1. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51(6):1173-1182. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

 

  1. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. London: Routledge; 2013.

 

  1. Wan C, Shen GQ, Yu A. The moderating effect of perceived policy effectiveness on recycling intention. J Environ Psychol. 2014;37:55-60. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.11.006

 

  1. Fu L, Sun Z, Zha L, et al. Environmental awareness and pro-environmental behavior within China’s road freight transportation industry: Moderating role of perceived policy effectiveness. J Clean Prod. 2020;252:119796. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119796

 

  1. Environment GF. Microplastics in Danube Region Drinking Water. European Commission. Available from: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/microdrink/ removing/microplastics-drinking-water-2025-03-10_en [Last accessed on 2025 Aug 11].

 

  1. Andor MA, Goette L, Price MK, Schulze-Tilling A, Tomberg L. Real-Time Feedback and Social Comparison Reports Impact Resource Use and Welfare: Evidence From a Field Experiment; 2025. Available from: https:// www.crctr224.de/research/discussion/papers/archive/ dp651 [Last accessed on 2025 Aug 04].

 

  1. Spence A, Poortinga W, Pidgeon N. The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Anal. 2012;32(6):957-972. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01695.x

 

  1. Providing Benefits of KRW 400 or More for Using Personal Cups at Cafés (Discount + Seoul Pay Points). Seoul Metropolitan Government. Available from: https:// news.seoul.go.kr/env/archives/563308 [Last accessed on 2025 Sep 28].

 

  1. Graafland J, Bovenberg L. Government regulation, business leaders’ motivations and environmental performance of SMEs. J Environ Plan Manage. 2020;63(8):1335-1355. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2019.1663159

 

  1. Kim B, Kim S, Yeom S, Jung SP. Environmental pollution by the fast fashion: Current status and prospects. J Korean Soc Environ Eng. 2023;45(11):506-518. doi: 10.4491/KSEE.2023.45.11.506
Share
Back to top
Asian Journal of Water, Environment and Pollution, Electronic ISSN: 1875-8568 Print ISSN: 0972-9860, Published by AccScience Publishing
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here
Accept