Journal of Cleaner Production 253 (2020) 119844

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

For a new plastics economy in agriculture: Policy reflections on the EU

strategy from a local perspective
Pasquale Pazienza*, 1, Caterina De Lucia 1
University of Foggia, Department of Economics, L.go Papa Giovanni Paolo II n 1, 71121, Foggia, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Plastic production and consumption around the world have seen a rapid increase since the end of World
Received 13 December 2018 War II, with an expected peak in the next 20 years. Agriculture is among the causes of this due to its
Received in revised form intensive farming practices and the use of various plastic materials. This produces both advantages (e.g.
20 December 2019
yield increase, early harvest, reduced use of chemicals) and disadvantages. The disadvantages are
Accepted 21 December 2019
particularly related to a plastic waste management problem, from which the contamination of terrestrial,
Available online 2 January 2020
marine and air environments with severe consequences on food security and human health also derive.
^ as de
Handling editor: Cecilia Maria Villas Bo With the 2018 European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy, the European Commission (EC)
Almeida identifies a set of actions to reduce plastic pollution in the decades ahead. For the actual implementation
of this strategic vision, however, innovative investment and appropriate policy tools need to be identi-
Keywords: fied. This paper attempts to understand the acceptability of some ad-hoc policy tools among farmers by
Circular economy investigating their attitudes towards the application of subsidies, tax-credits and pay-back (this latter
Extended producer responsibility under an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme) to abate agricultural plastic pollution with the
European strategy on plastic
aim of making this sector cleaner and more oriented to the implementation of the sustainability prin-
Farmers' attitudes
ciples. While referring to the territory of the province of Foggia in southern Italy as a case study, we
Multinomial logistic regression model
New plastics economy analyse the preferences expressed by 1,783 farmers by using a multinomial logistic regression. Key re-
Subsidy sults suggest that large agricultural farms would favour the adoption of tax-credits. In contrast, small
Tax-credit farms would consider more favourable the introduction of a pay-back tool to incentivize their contri-
bution to plastic pollution abatement. The significance of the obtained results is twofold. First, farm size
is a key element towards a differentiation of policy tools to adopt for plastic waste management in
agriculture. Second, the differentiation of the above policy tools according to the farm dimension would
lead to a cost-effectiveness management of agricultural plastic waste.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction in the future.

Plastic is an oil-derived material. World production has greatly
increased since the early 1950's to nowadays moving from 1.5
million metric tons in 1950 to 335 million metric tons in 2017
(www.statista.com; PlasticsEurope, 2017). This figure is expected to
be doubled over the next twenty years (World Economic Forum
et al., 2016; WWF International, 2019). As Lebreton and Andrady
(2019) argue, the expected increasing trend of plastic waste is
due to an increase of plastic usage by the growing global population
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: pasquale.pazienza@unifg.it (P. Pazienza), caterina.delucia@
unifg.it (C. De Lucia).
1
Both authors contributed equally to this work.
In the same period, although at a slower pace, even the Euro-
pean production has shown an increase from 0.34 to 64.4 million
metric tons (Figure A1). As for another aspect, based on estimates
by Geyer et al. (2017), the global percentage of plastic discarded is
still too high (about 55% in 2015) (Figure A2).
Being a light and innovatory material, it has replaced many
others (e.g. metal, glass, wood) for the realisation of a variety of
innovative products such as, for example, those used in the auto-
motive and aircraft industries (allowing fuel saving and reduction
of CO2 emissions), food packaging (contributing to food safety and
food waste reduction), medical innovation (generating a positive
impact on human health with the production of bio-compatible
plastics). Despite all these positive aspects, nowadays plastic rep-
resents a major public concern calling for the identification of ur-
gent solutions. The way it is produced, consumed and disposed of

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119844
0959-6526/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 P. Pazienza, C. De Lucia / Journal of Cleaner Production 253 (2020) 119844
still fails to capture the socio-economic and environmental benefits
of a circular approach.
The reorganisation and the improvement of the functioning of
the value chain in the plastic sector is now generally claimed. It can
occur through innovative investment in the direction of the circular
economy concept and an enforced cooperation among all key sec-
toral players (producers, retailers, consumers and recyclers). Payne
et al. (2019) recognise the relevance of a circular approach to plastic
waste reduction by emphasising various end-of-life alternatives
already available with the use of bioplastics. Iles and Martin (2013)
emphasise the contribution of industries through adequate green
business models which incorporate the dynamic capabilities of
various societal agents to look ahead and efficiently and effectively
develop bioplastics to markets. Russo et al. (2019) highlight the
importance of social acceptance of new bioplastic products to
replace plastic polluting ones. The authors underline that the public
is often ill-informed or not informed at all about the availability and
marketability of these new products. Therefore, relevant actions are
still needed from governments as well as markets to spread
knowledge from producers to final consumers and convert the
economy to new and sustainable ways of production and
consumption.
Of course, to these ends, the role of legislation is central and
cannot be left out of consideration, since the organisation of an
appropriate legal framework (composed of innovative norms at
national and local levels) can speed up the capacity to implement
adequate actions.
In December 2015, the European Commission (EC) adopted its
‘Action Plan for a circular economy’, which recognises plastics
among the main priorities to be tackled. Building upon this, the
preparation of a strategy for challenging plastics in their whole life-
cycle and value-chain became the main commitment at the EU
level.
In January 2018, the EC approved the Communication
COM(2018)28 containing ‘The European strategy for plastics in a
circular economy’, which aims at preserving the environment and
citizens from plastic pollution. It indicates how businesses can
reorganise the supply chain of various products from design to
production, use and recycling. Under this strategy, adopted by the
European Parliament with the Resolution of 13th September 2018,
all plastic packaging in the EU will be recyclable by 2030, single-use
plastics will be reduced and the use of micro-plastics restricted.2
Within this argumentation framework, although agriculture is
not a major producer of plastic waste, it is still recognised as a
sector capable of giving a significant contribution to reduce plastic
leakages in the environment on the consideration that e as will be
said later e current intensive and semi-intensive agriculture
extensively recur to a wide variety of plastic materials. As can be
observed in Figure A3, the highest percentage of plastic waste in
Europe is generated by the packaging industry (59%) while only a
minor contribution comes from agriculture (5%). Nonetheless, the
agricultural sector seems to be moving towards green solutions to
tackle the plastic waste problem. Recycling activities are currently
under investigation as a contribution from the agricultural sector to
plastic waste reduction. With regard to this, Briassoulis et al. (2012)
provide two considerations. On the one hand, they argue that
chemical material and other dirty particles mainly contained in
mulching films can obstruct recycling activities. On the other hand,
2
By pursuing these aims, the strategy also helps with the implementation of the
EC strategy for an energy-efficient and low-carbon European economy and con-
tributes to reaching the Sustainable Development Goals fixed in the 2030 Sus-
tainable Development Agenda of the United Nations and the Paris agreement on
climate change both set in 2015.
the authors point out that energy recovery processes deriving from
recycling activities of agricultural plastic waste can have a great
potential in the near future in the EU as well as at an international
level. Similarly, other than recycling activities, bioplastic produc-
tion from agriculture residues is also subject to farmers and mar-
ket's attention. For example, Mostafa et al. (2018) report an efficient
method to produce cellulose acetate bioplastics which can have
wide application in the medical and food sector. In particular, the
authors employ a cellulose acetate obtained from flax fibers and
cotton linters, which, through an adequate acetylation process can
be transformed into bioplastic so that it can be proved comparable,
in terms of its resistance, with traditional polyethylene and poly-
prolylene products. Picuno et al. (2020) also add a relevant
contribution to the international debate by arguing that, through
advanced recycling technologies such as decontamination pro-
cesses and re-processing of agrochemical plastic package waste,
hazardous materials can possibly be removed from plastic waste in
agriculture and the obtained recycled material can be re-used as
tunnel or greenhouse covers.
At EU level, for the best implementation of the European
strategy (and, particularly, to reduce the production of plastic waste
from single-use items and over-packing while promoting pack-
aging reuse) the Joint Research Centres (JRCs) network of the EC is
carrying out a research based on behavioural sciences to identify
the fundamentals for an EU legislative initiative on the use of
plastics. The possibility of introducing fiscal measures and organ-
ising, at national level, schemes of Extended Producer Re-
sponsibility (EPR) to reduce plastic littering and boost recycling is
also being explored (COM (2008)28). Filho et al. (2019) refer to EPR
schemes as an ad-hoc policy instrument that can significantly help
Europe to reach an efficient waste management to minimise the
impact of plastic waste. These schemes consider a producer's re-
sponsibility extended to the final phase of consumption activities
including recycling, take-back and final disposal of waste material
(OECD, 2014). Currently, only 8 countries in the EU adopt the EPR
for plastic waste management in the agricultural sector (Filho et al.,
2019). Apart from this, however, the literature is still examining
other methods, such as those related to the definition of new
standards for the biodegradation of plastic films, although specific
soil and eco-system requirements are still needed to achieve full
compostability (Brodhagen et al., 2017). Specifically, the work by
Brodhagen et al. (2017) although considers laboratory tests to test
current international standards of biodegradable material such as
the ASTM D6400 (ASTM International, 2012), it also recognises that
laboratory tests do not take into account in-situ events such as the
weathering of mulch or other types of soils and their associated
biotic characteristics. Therefore, Brodhagen et al. (2017) recognise
the great limitation of using command and control policy tools to
reduce plastic waste in agriculture, given that ‘periodic revision’ is
needed ‘as scientific knowledge expands’. Updated standards should
incorporate new knowledge on rates of accumulation and environ-
mental repercussions of plastic residues in food production systems.
Crucial to these revisions will be reliable data collected periodically on
the extent to which agricultural soils are mulched […] on a global
scale.’ (Brodhagen et al., 2017, pp.83). The above inefficiencies
arising from command and control mechanisms in the manage-
ment of plastic waste reduction or, in general environmental
pollution, find support by classical microeconomic insights (see for
example Perman et al., 2011; Harris and Roach, 2018).
Other policy ideas more oriented to the implementation of
market-based tools (i.e. taxes, subsidies and fees, and EPR schemes)
are also under consideration particularly in northern European
countries such as Finland, Norway and Sweden (Hennlock et al.,
2014). The empirical evidence already in place in these countries
shows that the use of economic tools have promoted the recycling
 P. Pazienza, C. De Lucia / Journal of Cleaner Production 253 (2020) 119844
initiatives of plastic waste in a more useful way and increased the
rate of successful results. Furthermore, De Corato and Cancellera
(2019) argue that the use of economic incentives mixed with the
adoption of advanced technology in the production processes can
help the reduction of plastic waste in agriculture and the creation of
spill-over effects on the entire supply chain.
Given the drawbacks highlighted in Brodhagen et al. (2017)
mentioned above and the lack of a harmonised system of policy
tools for plastic waste management in the whole EU, our analysis
focuses on an approach more oriented towards the analysis by
Hennlock et al. (2014). The present work proposes an investigation
framework aimed at answering the following research questions:
a) is there an adequate economic policy tool to manage efficiently
and effectively plastic waste in agriculture? b) what is the degree of
acceptability of these policy tools among farmers? c) what are the
socio-economic implications to favour one economic policy strat-
egy instead of another?
Our work originally contributes to respond to the questions
above by developing some reflections aimed at the identification of
which economic tools adequately help the organisation of a plastic
economy in agriculture. To the best of our knowledge, no prior
quantitative investigations have been conducted to examine
farmers' attitudes towards some specific tools capable to incen-
tivize farmers' commitment to collect and correctly dispose of
plastic wastes from their activities. Therefore, our investigation,
justified by the insights of Hennlock et al. (2014), focuses on
farmers’ attitudes towards the acceptability of some ad-hoc eco-
nomic instruments (i.e. the introduction of a pay-back mechanism
in an EPR scheme and subsidies, these latter also considered in the
form of tax-credit), through which the encouragement of the
adoption of virtuous behaviours from farmers and the abatement of
agricultural plastic pollution can be realised. This is done in relation
to the study area represented by the largest agricultural plain in the
South of Italy, namely the provincial district of Foggia, where we
have carried out a survey analysis while considering a sample of
local farmers. More specifically, we have inferred on their prefer-
ences to capture their attitudes for the above-mentioned policy
tools.
The paper has the following structure. Section two illustrates
the recent literature on the advantages and disadvantages of agri-
cultural plastic waste and focuses on the economic instruments
through which a management based on the circular economy can
be encouraged and affirmed. Section three reports on the empirical
analysis with a description of the case study and the empirical
model. Section four illustrates the obtained results and presents a
discussion supported by the current scientific debate. Lastly, sec-
tion five concludes the work.
2. Agricultural plastics: pros, cons and some economic tools
for their management
Plastic materials were first introduced in agricultural practices
between the late 1940's and the very early 1950's when farmers in
the U.S.A. and Japan started to use cellophane first and Poly-vinyl
chloride (PVC) later for greenhouse covering (Scarascia et al.,
2012). Since then, the use of plastics for agricultural purposes has
increasingly expanded over time due to the significant increase of
protected agriculture. At the level of the EU-28, the amount of
plastics consumed in the agricultural sector is estimated at about
1,74 million metric tons (3.4%). Italy contributes 14% to the EU
plastic converter demand and ranks second among the EU coun-
tries (PlasticsEurope, 2018).
As shown in the table below (Table 1), the use of plastic in
agriculture refers to a wide range of materials and applications such
as plastic films used for tunnels and greenhouses, nets for crop
3
protection and shading, soil mulching, solarization films, films for
silage, plastic reservoir and irrigation systems, nets for harvesting
and post-harvesting operations, containers for packaging like sacks,
boxes, pesticides bottles, pots, string and ropes, etc. (Vox et al.,
2010; Scarascia et al., 2012; Picuno, 2014).
A number of scientific and technical reports highlight how a
more efficient use of farm-land, yield increase, early harvest,
reduced use of chemicals (i.e. pesticides and herbicides), higher
quality of products, more effective and efficient land irrigation and
water conservation are among the main benefits deriving from the
use of plastic materials in agriculture (De Montenegro et al., 2013;
Patel and Tandel, 2017; Ma et al., 2018).
Steinmetz et al. (2016), for example, discuss the benefits of
plastic mulching in agriculture and argue that these can be
particularly referred to an increase of the yield, of the quality of
products and of the efficiency in water use and consumption. The
authors also recognise that the use of plastic mulching is harmful
for soil degradation. In addition, they observe that the bio-chemical
process of this material is not fully understood, and this may cause
economic disadvantages for the market such as revenues distortion
and plastic waste disposal inefficiencies particularly in the long-
run.
Additional benefits from the use of plastics in agriculture are
observed in the context of a safer commercialisation of agro-food
products, which implies transport and packaging operations
(Scarascia et al., 2012). Notwithstanding these benefits, the use of
plastic materials in agriculture poses a serious problem for plastic
waste management which e if left out of appropriate consider-
ations and actions e entails the contamination of air and terrestrial
environments from which, in turn, plastics marine pollution
heavily depends on.3 In other words, terrestrial plastic pollution
particularly represents a problem of contamination in aquatic
systems too. Gionfra (2018) argues that 80% of plastics found in
marine environments derives from activities of production, con-
sumption and disposal of plastics on land.
Agriculture generates plastic waste all year round, although the
collection of specific types of plastics strictly depends on the sea-
sonality of the crops. For example, mulching films are generally
collected from May to September at the end of the seasonal crops
cycle. Greenhouse covering films are collected in August and
September, when new installations replace the old ones (Scarascia
et al., 2012). Moreover, it must be considered that agricultural
plastic materials are almost always contaminated by various im-
purities (e.g. soil and agrochemical particles) as a result of their use
during the cultivation phase.
Astner et al. (2019) point out the absence of appropriate models
of management for micro- and nano-plastics in agriculture. The
lack of studies is due to adverse natural phenomena which make
the disposal of plastic waste difficult, particularly when the soil
weathering process takes place. This process, in fact, aggravates the
dispersal of micro-plastic in agricultural soils and prevents the
formation of chemical developments to keep plastics cross-linked.
Apart from this specific aspect, three disposal methods such as
landfill, physical recycling and pyrolysis are of concern for re-
searchers of plastic waste from agriculture. Several countries still
find landfill an economically viable option to dispose of plastic
waste (Zhao et al., 2007). Physical recycling is also used to separate
3
It is worth noting that, compared to other economic sectors, the Italian “agri-
culture, forestry and fishing” sector shows the widest negative balance between the
external costs it generates (estimated as equal to 10,970 Mln. V) and the benefit
represented by the amount of money paid for compensation through environ-
mental taxes (750 Ml V). In other words, the latter does not pay off e except for a
very minimal quota e the external costs generated by the activities practised within
the sector (Malocchi, 2017).
4 P. Pazienza, C. De Lucia / Journal of Cleaner Production 253 (2020) 119844
Table 1
Main plastics use and application in agriculture.
Protected cultivation films:

greenhouses and tunnels;

low tunnels;

mulching;

nursery films;

direct covering;

coverying vineyards/orchards.
Piping, irrigation/drainage:

water resrvoir;

channel lining;

irrigation tapes and pipes;

drainage pipes;

microirrigation;

drippers.
Source: Scarascia et al. (2012): 16.
and reuse plastic material (Aznar et al., 2006; Zhao et al., 2018) and
pyrolysis options are nowadays widely investigated to obtain
feedstock and other liquid fuels (Al-Salem et al., 2017). Despite
these plastic waste disposal methods, impurities are still present in
soils and these may cause soil fertility or yield productivity to
worsen.
That said, the urgency of dealing with the problem of plastic
waste in agriculture emerges along with the need to identify
appropriate ways of managing it. Selenghe (2018) argues that end-
of-life options are partially considered by current economic sys-
tems although these are limited to mechanical and chemical
recycling processes, composting, energy recovery and landfill
disposal.
All this opens a window on the need to reflect on which type of
policy tools can help to pursue an agricultural plastic waste man-
agement within a circular economy framework. In this work, we
particularly focus on the following two economic tools: a simple
pay-back mechanism considered within an ERP scheme and a fiscal
measure represented by the introduction of a subsidy. As will be
said later, this work considers the latter in a twofold aspect. On the
one hand, it refers to the use of a subsidy tout court. On the other
hand, it refers to the adoption of a tax-credit tool.
The EPR is one of the policy mechanisms emphasised by the EU
waste framework Directive (Directive, 2008/98/EC) to achieve the
objective of reducing waste production and management perfor-
mance. Over the years, the implementation of this policy strategy in
the EU covers a variety of products such as batteries, end-of-life
vehicles, packaging, oils, graphic paper and waste electrical and
electronic equipment (WEEE) (European Commission, 2014).
Several scholars argue that this policy has been a major contribu-
tion to shift waste management towards recycling attitudes
allowing the reduction of waste from end-of-life products (Fischer,
2011; Rentizelas et al., 2018). Furthermore, in several European
countries, producers are required to create a non-profit producer
responsibility organization (PRO) to organize and manage waste
collection and recycling (Lifset and Lindhqvist, 2008; European
Commission, 2014). Main works concerning with EPR have deep-
ened the understanding of this policy mechanism for the man-
agement of specific waste such as end-of-life vehicles (Gerrard and
Kandlikar, 2007; Santini et al., 2011; Xiang and Ming, 2011), WEEE
(Wang et al., 2017; Bahers and Kim, 2018) packaging (Pires et al.,
2015; Rubio et al., 2019), and tyres (Milanez and Bührs, 2009;
Banguera et al., 2018). As for plastic waste in the agricultural sector,
only eight countries in Europe have implemented national regu-
lations on EPR schemes to meet the requirements of a circular
economy (APE Europe, www.plastiques-agricoles.com).
But how do the economics of EPR work in practice? At the base
of the EPR, there is the concept that producers assume the financial
and/or organisational responsibility for collecting or taking back
Nets: Packaging:

anti-hail;
fertilisers sacks;

anti-bird;
agro-chemical cans/bottles;

wind-breaking;
containers;

shading;
tanks for liquid storage;

nets for olives/nuts harvesting.
crates.
Other:

silage films;

fumigation films;

bale twines;

bale wraps;

nursery pots;

strings and ropes.
waste products with the aim of addressing them to recycling. This
policy approach was introduced by the EU Waste Framework
Directive, which sets the principles for its implementation (COM
(2015) 595). In theory, EPR is an individual obligation, but in
practice producers very often exert it collectively through PROs, as
already mentioned.
The EC also highlights the variety of both EPR and PROs schemes
used in the EU member States and recognises that there is not one
single model emerging as the best performer and/or the most cost-
effective (European Commission, 2014).
In relation to subsidies, as already said, these are fiscal measures
that we examine from a double viewpoint. First, we consider a tout
court form of subsidy meant as a tool which is put into practice
through a monetary allowance granted by a public authority. Sec-
ond, we refer to a tax-credit mechanism that is the possibility of
reducing the amount a farmer owes each year to the state authority.
These two instruments are very similar as they are used to incen-
tivize behaviour addressed to achieve results of public interest and
exert the same impact on the state budget. Nevertheless, they are
different not only in their labelling, but particularly because their
operational functioning is diverse, as referred to by traditional
micro-economic literature. Tetenberg and Lewis (2018) highlight
how the use of traditional economic instruments of fiscal policy (i.e.
taxes and subsidies) can be implemented at different stages of the
supply chain to reduce pollution. This approach finds its theoretical
root in a pioneering work by Pigou (1920), who argued that a public
authority can remove the gap between the benefit arising from a
production process and the social cost of pollution it generates by
imposing appropriate taxes. This ‘pigouvian’ tax modifies the
market mechanism and induce the reduction of the polluting ac-
tivity at the social optimum level, that is the point where the
market outcome internalises certain levels of externalities.
Based on the above considerations, the present study proposes
an analysis framework where farmers are considered as recipients
of some forms of economic incentives which induce them to as-
sume more responsible behaviours in their plastic waste manage-
ment. According to our view, this should be considered as a sine qua
non condition to operatively implement the principles of a circular
economy in the agricultural activity. Therefore, our work analyses
farmers’ attitudes to opt for one of the above-mentioned policy
tools (i.e. pay-back under an EPR system, tax-credit reclaim and
subsidy) with the aim of contributing to the development of an
operational scheme to achieve the abatement of agricultural plastic
pollution and make the agricultural sector more sustainable.
3. Material and methods
This section illustrates the case study built for our investigation.
After providing a geo-location or the territory of the Foggia
 P. Pazienza, C. De Lucia / Journal of Cleaner Production 253 (2020) 119844 5

province, the main economic information particularly related to its

agricultural sector are provided. The section also shows the
descriptive statistics of the survey and the theoretical overview of
the model.

3.1. Case study

Our study focuses on the territory of the province of Foggia

which is in the northern area of the Puglia region (in southern
Italy). Fig. 1 shows its geo-location within the Italian map.
The province of Foggia is endowed with 565,735 ha of agricul-
tural land (corresponding to about 16% of agricultural land in the
whole of southern Italy), of which 565,535 ha are specifically
devoted to production. With a total production of about 3,200,000
tonnes per year, it represents about 18% of the whole agricultural
yield in southern Italy (http://dati.istat.it/). The value added by the
local agricultural sector is equal to about 825 million, this repre-
senting the highest percentage (28%) of the total regional figure.4 In
2016, the agricultural sector records 25,132 active firms, which is
about 39% of the total in the whole province of Foggia (Chamber of
Commerce of Foggia, 2016). Fig. 2 helps to appreciate the strong
agricultural characterisation of the provincial territory.

3.2. Survey design and early statistics reporting

Our analysis is based on the use of a set of information gathered

through a pilot questionnaire (Figure A4) structured into four sec- Fig. 1. Location map of the province of Foggia.
tions already used for a previous study (De Lucia and Pazienza, Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid¼15546898.
2019). In contrast to what was previously done, we do not here
consider the third section of the questionnaire as it contains in-
analysis design); the economic variables represented by the farm
formation which goes beyond the scope of our present analysis.
size (in ha.) and employment; a series of psychometric questions
Therefore, we do not report any descriptive statistics about its in-
developed on a Likert scale to assess the farmers’ awareness on
formation in Figure A4.5 The focus of this study is, in fact, that of
issues such as bioplastics, biodegradability, compostability,
investigating the role played by economic variables on farmers’
Renewable Energy Sources (RES) and plastic waste.
attitudes towards the choice of policy tools for the management of
More specifically, Table A1 reports on descriptive statistics of the
their plastic waste.
preferences expressed by the farmers for the proposed policy sce-
The first section of the questionnaire is designed to elicit the
narios. It can be observed how 19% of the sample favours the
economic aspects of the farmers interviewed. The second section
introduction of subsidies, 46% prefers tax-credits and 35% chooses
detects farmers' awareness on the issue of plastics. The fourth
the adoption of a pay-back mechanism within an EPR scheme.
section retrieves information on the farmers’ preferences about the
Regarding the economic variables used in our study, Table A2 il-
proposed policy scenarios for plastic waste management and
lustrates the size characteristics of the farms in our sample: 31% are
pollution abatement (i.e. EPR, tax credit and subsidy).
small; 35% medium and 16% large. As for employment, most of the
To compute the sample size of this study, we consider the
sample includes farms counting 6e10 employees (40%), followed
standard statistics of a known population (¼25,132 according to the
by the range 1e5 employees (22%) and 11e15 employees (18%).
figures provided by the Chamber of Commerce of Foggia, 2016) and
Finally, Table A3 shows the descriptive statistics on the environ-
the unknown standard deviation (Weiss and Weiss, 2012). By
mental awareness among respondents. The sample shows two
considering a 95% Confidence Level, a standard level of precision
classes of respondents for each single issue proposed. About the
p ¼ 0.5, the required minimum sample size is equal to 378
plastics waste problem, those who are extremely aware represent
observations.
31% of the sample and those who are somewhat aware correspond
By recurring to the use of social media and the help of farmers’
to 28%. As for biodegradability, those who are moderately aware
associations, the questionnaire was submitted between June and
correspond to 27% and those who are somewhat aware 26%. In
October 2018 to a total sample of 2,450 farmers. As a result of the
relation to the issue of compostability, once again, 33% of the
above considerations, this sample size can be considered repre-
sample declares to be somewhat aware of it and 27% feels moder-
sentative of the entire population of farmers in the province of
ately aware. For the RES, most of the sample (41%) refers its full
Foggia. It is worth noting that 1,783 responses were returned, thus
awareness. Lastly, 91% of the sample agrees that plastics is among
obtaining a response rate of about 73%.
the major agricultural pollutants.
Tables A1-A3 in the Appendix illustrate the descriptive statistics
of the variables subject of our observation: the three policy sce-
narios under consideration (i.e. the dependent variable in our
3.3. Methodology of the inferential analysis

4
The stochastic analysis conducted in this work is based on the
Geowebstarter database - Institute G. Tagliacarne http://www.geowebstarter.
tagliacarne.it/.
use of a multinomial logistic regression model. In his pioneering
5
The interested reader can contact the corresponding author for a full version of work, McFadden (1974) introduced the multinomial logistic
the questionnaire. regression to model unordered continuous or categorical
6 P. Pazienza, C. De Lucia / Journal of Cleaner Production 253 (2020) 119844
Fig. 2. Sectoral distribution of active firms in the province of Foggia in 2016.
Source: Chamber of Commerce of Foggia (2016).
dependent variables. Therefore, these types of variables are
measured on a nominal scale. Despite the logistic regression model,
in which the dependent variable assumes a binary choice (i.e. 0/1 or
absence/presence of a certain feature), the multinomial logistic
regression model can have three or more choices. In this case, one
category is taken as reference category. The present work considers
policy options such as subsidies, tax-credits and pay-back (EPR) as
the categories of the dependent variable with this latter taken as
our reference category.
Suppose yi is the dependent variable with three categories for
individual farmer i, and the probability of being in category c
(c ¼ ‘1’[Subsidies], c ¼ ‘2’[Tax-credits], and c ¼ ‘3’[Pay-back(EPR)],
can be denoted by pci ¼ Prðyi ¼ cÞ with the chosen reference cate-
gory p0i (Table A4). Then, for a simple model with, for example, one
independent variable xi, a multinomial logistic regression model
would take the form (Magnac, 2005; Murata et al., 2015):
pci
ðcÞ ðcÞ
log ¼ b0 þ b1 xi c ¼ 1; 2; 3
p0i
In this model, the same independent variable appears in each of
ðcÞ
the c categories, and a separate intercept b0 , and slope parameter
b1 , are estimated for each regression. The parameter bðcÞ
ðcÞ
1 repre-
sents the additive effect of a one-unit increase in the independent
variable, x, on the log-odds of being in category c, rather than the
reference category. Therefore, it is generally meaningful to inter-
ðcÞ
pret exp b1 as multiplicative effect of a one-unit increase in x on
the odds of being in category c, rather than the reference category.
Alternatively, the effect of an independent variable, x can be
interpreted by using predicted probabilities pci for different values
of x, such that (Murata et al., 2015):

 ð1Þ ð1Þ 
exp b0 þ b1 xi
p1i ¼ PrðYi ¼ 1 : SubsidiesÞ ¼
 ð1Þ ð1Þ 
1 þ exp b0 þ b1 xi


exp b0ð2Þ þ b1ð2Þ xi
p2i ¼ PrðYi ¼ 2 : Tax  creditsÞ ¼
 ð2Þ ð2Þ 
1 þ exp b0 þ b1 xi
Then, the probability of being, for example, in the reference cate-
gory c ¼ ‘3’, which for our case is [pay-back(EPR)], is computed by
subtraction such that:
h
p0i ¼ p3i ¼ Pr½Yi ¼ 3 : Pay  backðEPRÞ ¼ 1  p1i ¼ PrðYi ¼ 1
i h
: SubsidiesÞ  p2i ¼ PrðYi ¼ 2
i
: Tax  creditsÞ : (4)
4. Results
Table A5 shows the estimated results of the model presenting
the best fit. It turns out that the estimated probability to choose the
preferred policy option is affected by economic variables only. In
particular, in comparison to the base case (i.e. Pay-back(EPR)), the
farmers’ preference for a tax-credit policy option would be more
likely. This choice would be likely to increase the preference of tax-
credit policy for medium size farmers. The estimated coefficient is
statistically significant at 99% C. I. Similar results would be obtained
(1) for farmers employing a range between 11 and 15 employees.
Contrarily, the predictors associated to the small-medium size of
the farm and the employment level (6e10 workers) would be less
likely to affect a tax-credit policy compared to the base case.
Furthermore, diagnostic tests in Table A6 suggests that the model
satisfies the IIA assumption.
Based on the estimated results of the multinomial logistic
regression model, we next present the analysis of margins, that is,
the predicted probability of a given policy scenario.
4.1. Analysis of margins
Table 2 shows the estimated predicted probabilities.
Subsidies. It can be noted that the probability of choosing sub-
sidies would decrease by about 28% with farmers employing be-
(2) tween 16 and 30 workers compared to farmers employing a smaller
number of workers.
Tax-credits. We can observe how compared to a small farm (i.e.
 up to 15 ha) it would be more likely that the larger the farm
(3) dimension, the higher the probability (more than 80%) to favour
tax-credits.
Pay back (EPR). Compared to a small farm (i.e. up to 15 ha) a
medium-small farm would increase the probability to favour a pay-
back mechanism for plastic collection management by about 41%.
Contrarily, an increase of one-unit scale of the farm dimension
 P. Pazienza, C. De Lucia / Journal of Cleaner Production 253 (2020) 119844
Table 2
Predicted probability estimatesa.
Policies Margin - Delta method
Subsidies 28.3% employment ¼ 16e30
Tax-credits þ22.4% ha ¼ 16e30
þ73.3% ha ¼ 31e50
þ83.5% ha ¼ 51e100
Pay-back (EPR) þ41.4% ha ¼ 16e30
9.4% ha ¼ 31e50
19.6% ha ¼ 51e100
a
Estimated marginal coefficients are all statistically significant at 99% C.I
level. The base case for computing marginal variations is the lowest category
of the independent variable.
would be more likely to decrease the probability to favour this type
of policy scenario.
5. Discussion
To discuss our results in light of the current literature, we start
by highlighting that the dimension of farms represents the main
feature explaining the farmers’ attitude towards the use of our
considered policy options for the management of agricultural
plastic wastes. Specifically, small-medium agricultural farms would
favour the introduction of a pay-back (EPR) mechanism; large
farms would instead prefer to opt for the adoption of a tax-credit
tool.
We can particularly explain this latter by referring to some
specific features of the levy tax system in the Italian agriculture. As
can be generally hypothesised, but also observed in reality, more
sophisticated legal forms are adopted as the farm size increases.
The passage from sole proprietorship to partnership and corpora-
tion implies the respect of more stringent accounting rules and,
overall, a net increase of the tax burden (Cristofaro, 2005; Di Majo,
2012). As a result, it is reasonable to argue that large-size farmers
would find it advantageous to accept the introduction of a tax
reclaim mechanism while small and medium farmers would not.
Similar considerations can be drawn from the experience of other
EU countries where many fiscal exemptions exist for small-medium
farmers, as observed by van der Veen et al. (2007).
It is worth highlighting how the introduction of a tax-credit
mechanism e like other tax subsidies e may show limitations
represented by some distortionary effects particularly in the
medium-long run (Nechyba, 2011). First, it unavoidably involves
the “picking winners” effect: due to the difficulty of subsidising the
whole possible set of environmentally positive alternatives to
detrimental activities, this may produce a prejudice to other
beneficial alternatives. Second, a tax-credit is a cost reducing tool
and may indirectly induce to increase the polluting activity (OECD,
2010). By following conventional wisdom, however, we should
overtake these two aspects and highlight how the implementation
of such a tool would be desirable to spur environmentally positive
behaviour.
Our results also show that the pay-back (EPR) tool, instead,
would be more likely to be adopted by small-medium agricultural
farms as has already been pointed out. This leads us to highlight an
interesting aspect such that the implementation of this economic
tool can be considered in light of a wider perspective. We argue that
plastic materials as well as other products are generally used in a
value chain of the circular economy to create other products (e.g.
recycling) or services. To do so, adequate sustainable business
models should be implemented in agriculture to understand
exhaustively how the plastic system in this sector works and which
socio-economic potentials can be gained in the near changing
future in terms of plastic waste reduction (Karlsson et al., 2017;
Marcis et al., 2019). Schaltegger et al. (2016) and Lüdeke-Freund
7
et al. (2018) suggest that adequate sustainable business models,
when properly designed, aim at creating, delivering and capturing
economic values as well as contributing to sustainability issues.
Henry et al. (2019) argue how start-ups, which generally are small-
medium size enterprises, would have an increased capacity,
compared to incumbent firms, to adopt sustainable business
models given their high degree of flexibility, adaptability and re-
sponsibility to environmental concerns (European Commission,
2018). The same authors also distinguish, among other things,
waste-based and nature-based start-ups which are currently keen
to adopt sustainable business models. Waste-based start-ups, for
example, which operate upstream of the value chain would actively
interact with their suppliers. On this aspect, the European
Commission (2019) defines ‘product-as-a-service’ or ‘pay-per-use’
schemes, those start-ups or entrepreneurs who employ “business
models with extra services in order to improve the possibilities for the
user, or where the product in itself is transformed into a complete
service. Product-service system design (value proposition) influences
the interaction with the end user, which determines the economic and
environmental impact of the system during and after the use phase.
[…] Within the context of plastics […], for example, […] the rubber and
nylon threads can be recycled, through a take-back system […].”
(pp.90). Thus, the implementation and adoption of pay-back (EPR)
schemes considered as innovative policy tools would also embed,
according to the theoretical insight of the socio-institutional
change (Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2013; Geels, 2005), positive
modifications of the relationships with all other agents in the value
chain of the circular economy.
6. Conclusions
In this study we have attempted to understand the acceptability
of some scenarios of public policy interventions among farmers by
investigating their attitudes towards the application of subsidies,
tax credit and pay-back (this latter under an EPR scheme) to
improve the management of plastic waste in agriculture. This was
done to support a discussion aimed at identifying the policy tools
which can best contribute to the successful implementation of the
EU strategy on plastics and the latest EC communication (COM
(2008) 28). Using a multinomial logistic regression model, we
have inferred on data retrieved from a survey returned by 1,783
farmers in the province of Foggia (in southern Italy), which is a
territory traditionally devoted to agricultural activities.
The obtained results point towards the importance of farm-size
as the main feature determining the farmers’ most favoured policy
option to manage their plastic waste. In particular, small and me-
dium sized farms would be likely to favour the introduction of a
pay-back EPR scheme; large farms would prefer to opt for the
adoption of a tax-credit tool. With specific regard to the second,
although some other work focusing on the EU countries highlights
that tools of fiscal exemptions are more favoured by small and
medium farmers (i.e. van der Veen et al., 2007), it is worth high-
lighting that the introduction of a tax credit mechanism e like other
tax subsidies e may show limitations represented by some dis-
tortionary effects particularly in the medium and long run
(Nechyba, 2011). First, it unavoidably involves the “picking win-
ners” effect: due to the difficulty of subsidising the whole possible
set of environmentally positive alternatives to detrimental activ-
ities, this may produce a prejudice to other beneficial alternatives.
Second, tax credit is a cost reducing tool and may indirectly in-
crease the polluting activity (OECD, 2010). By following conven-
tional wisdom, however, we should overlook these two aspects and
highlight how the implementation of such a tool would be desir-
able to spur environmentally positive behaviour.
For other aspects, our result shows that awareness about the
8 P. Pazienza, C. De Lucia / Journal of Cleaner Production 253 (2020) 119844

plastic pollution problem would not seem to be statistically sig-
nificant in affecting farmers’ attitude towards any of the policy
options proposed.
To the best of our knowledge no work is available which can
help us to develop a comparative discussion of our findings.
However, a discussion aimed at the identification of an adequate
policy tool in agriculture is essential for the effective imple-
mentation of the European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular
Economy. This is particularly true if we consider the existence of
various uncertainties due to the lack of harmonisation of policy
options across EU member states. These uncertainties may slow
down the rate at which developments of the EU Strategy can
progress. In our view, given the current early stage of the EU
strategy implementation, a useful approach to reduce these un-
certainties would be to deepen the understanding of the relation-
ship between the policy options available and farms’ features. In
this respect, this study provides a relevant contribution in that it
sets the seeds for reflections based on farmer behaviour on various
policy scenarios for plastic waste management in the agricultural
sector and attempts to contribute to a further debate on advances of
current EU regulation on plastics. Further empirical investigations
could contribute to analyse the substitution effects across policy
options, the dynamics of farmer behaviour and the exploration of
the different EPR schemes.
6.1. Contribution
and timely management of the survey and the achievement of a
high-response rate from farmers. This limitation may negatively
affect the quality of information gathered in terms of, for example,
lack of knowledge on crop type and other socio-demographic in-
formation as well as other types of farmers’ attitudes towards
different policy tools. Secondly, the work did not consider an in-
depth analysis of EPR schemes. While this was beyond the scope
of the paper, our investigation aimed at building a pilot project to
assess potential farmer attitude to implement traditional economic
instruments to the new EU policy approach of plastic pollution
abatement. The above limitations, however, can be seen in a posi-
tive perspective to inspire future research such as, for example, that
orientated towards a comparative analysis of the various existing
mechanisms of EPR in relation to the specific needs of the agri-
cultural sector.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Plastic waste in agriculture has been receiving increasing Acknowledgements

attention by the current scientific debate. Despite this, several gaps
still remain for the identification of adequate policy tools in agri- We kindly acknowledge two anonymous referees for their
culture in light of an effective implementation of the European invaluable comments which helped us to improve the manuscript.
Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy. This is particularly true if Any remaining errors are the sole responsibility of the authors.
we consider the existence of various uncertainties due to the lack of
harmonisation of policy options across EU member states. The
Appendix A. Supplementary data
present work contributes to the current debate by examining the
farmers’ attitudes towards the adoption of policy tools for plastic
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
waste reduction in the agricultural sector.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119844.
The use of a behavioural study supports the theoretical insight
inspired by the pioneering work of Penrose (1959) who points out
Appendix
the importance of a strategic vision for an effective and efficient
management of a firm (in our case, the farm). These two concepts are
based on the perceptions that the agent (i.e. the farmer or entre-
Table A1
preneur) reserves to the surrounding environment in which he/she Descriptive statistics. N ¼ 1,783.
operates and is conditioned by the available resources (including the
Dependent variable: ‘Policy strategy Freq % Cumulative
abilities of the policy maker) to achieve new opportunities com-
to reduce plastic waste in agriculture’
bined with his/her productive possibility frontier (Grant, 1991;
Wernerfelt, 1984). Furthermore, the present study also supports the Subsidies 344 19.29 19.29
Tax-credits 813 45.60 64.89
neoclassical theory of market distortions (Mankiw et al., 2009;
Pay-back (EPR) 626 35.11 100
Slemrod, 1989) due to the lack of an efficient management of public
goods such as environmental and natural resources and the pres-
ence of externalities (i.e. plastic waste) which cannot be offset by the
assimilative capacity of the eco-system. Table A2
Therefore, our main reason for investigating plastic waste Descriptive statistics. Economic variables. N ¼ 1,783.
management through a behavioural study is that, at present, there Explanatory variable Freq % Cumulative
is still a lack of an adequate EU regulatory framework, seen as a
Ha
resource for the farm, which defines how member states should Up to 15 561 31.46 31.46
meet the requirements of a circular economy. A bottom-up 16e30 624 35.00 66.46
approach, as in that of the present study, is then relevant to help 31e50 308 17.27 83.74
the policy practitioner to set the above policy mechanisms in view 51e100 225 12.62 96.35
>100 65 3.65 100.00
of contributing to the wellbeing of present and future generations.
Employment
Up to 5 390 21.87 21.87
6.2. Limitations and further perspectives of the work 6e10 715 40.10 61.97
11e15 325 18.23 80.20
It is worth mentioning some limitations of this work. Firstly, the 16e20 206 11.55 91.76
>20 147 8.24 100.00
survey questions were kept to a minimum to ensure an adequate
 P. Pazienza, C. De Lucia / Journal of Cleaner Production 253 (2020) 119844 9

Table A3 Table A5
Descriptive statistics: Environmental awareness variables. N ¼ 1,783. Multinomial logistic regression estimates. N ¼ 1,783.

Explanatory variable Freq % Cumulative ‘Policy strategy to reduce plastic waste in Coef. Std. Err.
agriculture’
Awareness of bioplastic
Not at all aware 79 4.43 4.43 Subsidies
Slightly aware 259 14.53 18.96 Ha
Somewhat aware 508 28.49 47.45 16e30 38.71 2378.90
Moderately aware 381 21.37 68.82 31e50 38.06 2764.53
Extremely aware 556 31.18 100.00 51e100 23.56 7555.58
Awareness of biodegradability >100 35.54 10607.2
Not at all aware 82 4.60 4.60 Employment
Slightly aware 326 18.28 22.88 6e10 22.18 991.69
Somewhat aware 467 26.19 49.07 11e15 1.78 2890.67
Moderately aware 474 26.58 75.66 16e20 15.38 6784.88
Extremely aware 434 24.34 100.00 >20 13.87 8477.56
Awareness of compostability Cons 20.59 991.69
Not at all aware 90 5.05 5.05
Slightly aware 298 16.71 21.76 Tax-credits
Somewhat aware 581 32.59 54.35 Ha
Moderately aware 488 27.37 81.72 16e30 1.64 *** .19
Extremely aware 326 18.28 100.00 31e50 1.68*** .37
Awareness of RES 51e100 16.08 1861.24
Not at all aware 56 3.14 3.14 >100 4.12 5164.26
Slightly aware 208 11.67 14.81 Employment
Somewhat aware 272 15.26 30.06 6e10 -.74* .42
Moderately aware 722 40.49 70.56 11e15 .81** .40
Extremely aware 525 29.44 100.00 16e20 16.08 2245.60
Do you agree that plastic pollutes? >20 17.38 2848.78
Agree 1,626 91.19 91.19 cons 15.90 .44
Disagree 157 8.81 100.00 Pay-back (EPR) (base category)

Number of obs ¼ 1,783.

LR chi2(16) ¼ 2,572.69.
Prob > chi2 ¼ 0.000.
Table A4
*** statistically significant 99% C.I level; ** statistically significant at 95% C.I. level; *
Summary of notations.
statistically significant at 90% C.I. level.
Decision variables and Description and assumptions
parameters

yi Dependent variable e Categorical Policy option

Table A6
chosen by farmer i
Small-Hsiao tests of IIA assumption. N ¼ 1,783.
c Category of the dependent variable
Pr Probability Policies lnL(full) LnL(omit) Chi2 df P > Chi2
pci Probability of choosing a category of the dependent
variable by farmer i Subsidies 260.635 258.450 4.371 9 0.885
Tax-credits 32.224 31.732 0.984 5 0.964
p0i Probability of reference category e baseline case
Pay-back (EPR) 28.182 28.172 0.020 9 1.000
bðcÞ
0
Intercept of the cth category regression
H0: Odds are independent of other alternatives.
bðcÞ
1
Slope parameter of the cth category regression
xi Independent variable
10 P. Pazienza, C. De Lucia / Journal of Cleaner Production 253 (2020) 119844

Fig. A1. Global and EU plastic production 1950e2017 (in mln. metric tons).
Source: statista.com.

Fig. A2. Global plastic waste by disposal method 1980e2015 (in % - estimated).
Source: Adapted from Geyer et al. (2017).

Fig. A3. EU plastic waste generation (2015).

Source: PlasticsEurope (2017), cited in COM(2018)28 final.
 P. Pazienza, C. De Lucia / Journal of Cleaner Production 253 (2020) 119844
Fig. A4. Questionnaire (Sections 1, 2 and 4).
References
Al-Salem, S.M., Antelava, A., Constantinou, A., Manos, G., Dutta, A., 2017. A review on
thermal and catalytic pyrolysis of plastic solid waste (PSW). J. Environ. Manag.
197, 177e198.
ASTM International, 2012. Designation: D6400-19. Standard Specification for La-
beling of Plastics Designed to Be Aerobically Composted in Municipal or In-
dustrial Facilities. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. https://www.
houstontx.gov/council/committees/rna/20190613/standard-specs-labeling.pdf.
Available at:
Astner, A.F., Hayes, D.G., O'Neill, H., Evans, B.R., Pingali, S.V., Urban, V.S., Young, T.M.,
2019. Mechanical formation of micro- and nano-plastic materials for environ-
mental studies in agricultural ecosystems. Sci. Total Environ. 685, 1097e1106.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.241.
Aznar, M., Caballero, M., Sancho, J., France s, E., 2006. Plastic waste elimination by
co-gasification with coal and biomass in fluidized bed with air in pilot plant.
Fuel Process. Technol. 87, 409e420.
Bahers, J., Kim, J., 2018. Regional approach of waste electrical and electronic
equipment (WEEE) management in France. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 129, 45e55.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.10.016.

squez, O.C.,
Banguera, L.A., Sepulveda, J.M., Ternero, R., Vargas, M., Va 2018. Reverse
logistics network design under extended producer responsibility: the case of
out-of-use tires in the Gran Santiago city of Chile. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 205,
193e200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.09.006.
Briassoulis, D., Hiskakis, M., Babou, E., Antiohos, S.K., Papadic, C., 2012. Experimental
investigation of the quality characteristics of agricultural plastic wastes
regarding their recycling and energy recovery potential. Waste Manag. 23 (6),
1075e1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.01.018.
Brodhagen, Marion, Goldberger, J.R., Hayes, D.G., Inglis, D.A., Marsh, T.L., Miles, C.,
2017. Policy considerations for limiting unintended residual plastic in agricul-
tural soils. Environ. Sci. Policy 69, 81e84. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.envsci.2016.12.014.
Chamber of Commerce of Foggia, 2016. Rapporto economico. CCIAA, Foggia, Italy.
Available at: https://www.fg.camcom.gov.it/sites/default/files/upload/la_
camera/osservatori_economici/rapporto_economico_2016.pdf.
Cristofaro, A., 2005. Le distorsioni della politica fiscale nel settore agricolo. Agrir-
egionieuropa 3. Available at: https://agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/it/content/
article/31/3/le-distorsioni-della-politica-fiscale-nel-settore-agricolo.
De Corato, U., Cancellera, F.A., 2019. Measures, technologies, and incentives for
cleaning the minimally processed fruits and vegetables supply chain in the
Italian food industry. J. Clean. Prod. 237, 117735. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2019.117735.
11
De Lucia, C., Pazienza, P., 2019. Market-based tools for a plastic waste reduction
policy in agriculture: a case study in the south of Italy. J. Environ. Manag. 250
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109468 (in press).
De Montenegro, A.A., Pedroso de Lima, J.M., de Brito Abrantes, J.R.C., dos
Santos, T.E.M., 2013. Impact of mulching on soil and water conservation in
semiarid catchment: simulated rainfall in the field and in the laboratory. Bod-
enkultur 64 (3e4), 79e85. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1652.5125.
Di Majo, A., 2012. Il prelievo tributario sui redditi delle imprese Agricole italiane. QA
- Rivista dell’Associazione Rossi-Doria. 3, 135e142. https://doi.org/10.3280/
QU2012-003006.
European Commission, 2014. Development of guidance on extended producer re-
sponsibility (EPR) document information. Publication office of the EC, bruxelles,
Belgium. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/target_
review/Guidance%20on%20EPR%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf.
European Commission, 2018. Annual report on European SMEs 2017/2018. Available
at: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/
a435b6ed-e888-11e8-b690-01aa75ed71a1.
European Commission, 2019. A Circular Economy for Plastics e Insights from
Research and Innovation to Inform Policy and Funding Decisions. Directorate I -
Climate Action and Resource Efficiency. Publication Office of the EC. Direc-
torate-General for Research and Innovation, Bruxelles, Belgium. Available at:
https://www.hbm4eu.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2019_RI_Report_A-
circular-economy-for-plastics.pdf.
€ ga, M., Voronova, V., 2019.
Filho, W.L., Saari, U., Fedoruk, M., Iital, A., Moora, H., Klo
An overview of the problems posed by plastic products and the role of extended
producer responsibility in Europe. J. Clean. Prod. 214, 550e558. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.256.
Fischer, C., 2011. The development and achievements of EU waste policy. J. Mater.
Cycles Waste Manag. 13 (1), 2e9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-010-0311-z.
Fuenfschilling, L., Truffer, B., 2013. The structuration of socio-technical regimes e
conceptual foundations from institutional theory. Res. Policy 43 (4), 772e791.
Geels, F.W., 2005. Technological Transitions and System Innovations; A Co-
evolutionary and Socio-Technical Analysis. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Gerrard, J., Kandlikar, M., 2007. Is European end-of-life vehicle legislation living up
to expectations? Assessing the impact of the ELV Directive on ‘green’ innovation
and vehicle recovery. J. Clean. Prod. 15, 17e27. DOI: 0.1016/
j.jclepro.2005.06.004.
Geyer, R., Jambeck, J.R., Law, K.L., 2017. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever
made. Sci. Adv. 3 (7), 1e6. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782.
Gionfra, S., 2018. Plastic Pollution in Soil. Institute for European Environmental
Policy. Available at: https://ieep.eu/uploads/articles/attachments/3a12ecc3-
7d09-4e41-b67c-b8350b5ae619/Plastic%20pollution%20in%20soil.pdf?
v¼63695425214.
Grant, R.M., 1991. The resources-based theory of competitive advantage: implica-
tions for strategy formulation. Calif. Manag. Rev. 33 (3), 3e23.
12 P. Pazienza, C. De Lucia / Journal of Cleaner Production 253 (2020) 119844
Harris, J.M., Roach, B., 2018. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, fourth
ed. Routledge, New York.
Hennlock, M., zu Castell-Rüdenhausen, M., Wahlstro € m, M., Kjær, B., Milios, L.,
Vea, E., Watson, D., Hanssen, O.J., Fråne, A., Stenmarck, A., Tekie, H., 2014.
Economic Policy Instruments for Plastic WastedA Review with Nordic Per-
spectives. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. Available at: https://www.
norden.org/en/publication/economic-policy-instruments-plastic-waste.
Henry, M., Bauwens, T., Hekkert, M., Kirchherr, J., 2019. A typology of circular start-
ups e an analysis of 128 circular business models. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118528 (in press).
Iles, A., Martin, A.N., 2013. Expanding bioplastics production: sustainable business
innovation in the chemical industry. J. Clean. Prod. 45, 38e49. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.008.
Karlsson, N.P.E., Halila, F., Mattsson, M., Hoveskog, M., 2017. Success factors for
agricultural biogas production in Sweden: a case study of business model
innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 2925e2934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle-
pro.2016.10.178. Part 4.
Lebreton, L., Andrady, A., 2019. Future scenarios of global plastic waste generation
and disposal. Palgrave Commun 5. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0212-7.
Article 6.
Lifset, R., Lindhqvist, T., 2008. Producer responsibility at a turning Point. J. Ind. Ecol.
12 (2), 144e147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00028x.
Lüdeke-Freund, F., Carroux, S., Joyce, A., Massa, L., Breuer, H., 2018. The sustainable
business model pattern taxonomyd45 patterns to support sustainability-
oriented business model innovation. Sustainable Production and Consump-
tion 15, 145e162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2018.06.004.
Ma, D., Chen, L., Qu, H., Wang, Y., Misselbrook, T., Jiang, R., 2018. Impacts of plastic
film mulching on crop yields, soil water, nitrate, and organic carbon in North-
western China: a meta-analysis. Agric. Water Manag. 202, 166e173. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2018.02.001.
Magnac, T., 2005. Logit models of individual choices. Available at: https://pdfs.
semanticscholar.org/e1ef/33e534dae5c9c5a8b526eca2f76082311034.pdf.
Malocchi, R., 2017. Chi inquina paga? I danni sanitari e ambientali delle attivita’
economiche in Italia: quanto costa l’inquinamento alla collettivita’ (e chi lo
paga). Available at: https://www.senato.it/application/xmanager/projects/
leg18/attachments/documento/files/000/028/682/Focus_Chi_inquina_paga.pdf.
Mankiw, N.G., Weinzierl, M.C., Yagan, D., 2009. Optimal taxation in theory and
practice. J. Econ. Perspect. 23 (4), 147e174. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.23.4.147.
Marcis, J., de Lima, E.P., da Costa, S.E.G., 2019. Model for assessing sustainability
performance of agricultural cooperatives. J. Clean. Prod. 234, 933e948. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.170.
McFadden, D., 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In:
Zarembka, P. (Ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, New York, USA.
Milanez, B., Bührs, T., 2009. Extended producer responsibility in Brazil: the case of
tyre waste. J. Clean. Prod. 17, 608e615. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2008.10.004.
Mostafa, N.A., Farag, A.A., Abo-dief, H.M., Tayeb, A.M., 2018. Production of biode-
gradable plastic from agricultural wastes. Arab. J. Chem. 11 (4), 546e553.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2015.04.008.
Murata, A., Fujii, Y., Naitoh, K., 2015. Multinomial logistic regression model for
predicting driver's drowsiness using behavioral measures. Procedia Manuf 3,
2426e2433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.502.
Nechyba, T., 2011. Microeconomics: an Intuitive Approach with Calculus, first ed.
Cengage Learning, Boston, MA, USA.
OECD, 2010. Taxation, Innovation and the Environment. OECD Publishing, Paris,
France. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264087637-en. Available at: https://read.
oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/taxation-innovation-and-the-environment_
9789264087637-en#page1.
OECD, 2014. The state of play on extended producer responsibility (EPR): oppor-
tunities and challenges OECD. Paris (2014). https://www.oecd.org/
environment/waste/Global%20Forum%20Tokyo%20Issues%20Paper%2030-5-
2014.pdf. Available at:
Patel, A., Tandel, Y., 2017. Use of plastics in horticulture production. Ind. Farm. 4 (III),
108e112.
Payne, J., McKeown, P., Jones, M.D., 2019. A circular economy approach to plastic
waste. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 165, 170e181.
Penrose, E.T., 1959. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Perman, R., Ma, Y., Common, M., Maddison, D., Mcgilvray, J., 2011. Natural Resources
and Environmental Management. Pearson, Harlow.
Picuno, P., 2014. Innovative material and improved technical design for a sustain-
able exploitation of agricultural plastic film. Polym. Plast. Technol. Eng. 53 (10),
1000e1011. https://doi.org/10.1080/03602559.2014.886056.
Picuno, C., Alassali, A., Sundermann, M., Godosi, Z., Picuno, P., Kuchta, K., 2020.
Decontamination and recycling of agrochemical plastic packaging waste.
J. Hazard Mater. 381 (5), 120965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.120965.
Pigou, A.C., 1920. The Economics of Welfare. Macmillan, London, UK.
Pires, A., Martinho, G., Ribeiro, R., Mota, M., Teixeira, L., 2015. Extended producer
responsibility: a differential fee model for promoting sustainable packaging.
J. Clean. Prod. 108, 343e353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.084.
PlasticsEurope, 2017. Plastics - the facts 2017, PlasticsEurope pbl., bruxelles,
Belgium. Available at: https://www.plasticseurope.org/it/resources/
publications.
PlasticsEurope, 2018. Plastics - the facts 2018, PlasticsEurope pbl., bruxelles,
Belgium. Available at: https://www.plasticseurope.org/it/resources/
publications.
Rentizelas, A., Shpakova, A., Masek, O., 2018. Designing an optimised supply
network for sustainable conversion of waste agricultural plastics into higher
value products. J. Clean. Prod. 189 (10), 683e700. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2018.04.104.
Rubio, S., Rodrigues Pereira Ramos, T., Rodrigues Leitao, M.M., Barbosa-Povoa, A.P.,
2019. Effectiveness of extended producer responsibility policies implementa-
tion: The case of Portuguese and Spanish packaging waste systems. J. Clean.
Prod. 210, 217e230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.299.
Russo, I., Confente, I., Scarpi, D., Hazen, B.T., 2019. From trash to treasure. The impact
of consumer perception of bio-waste products in closed-loop supply chains.
J. Clean. Prod. 218, 966e974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.044.
Santini, A., Morselli, L., Passarini, F., Vassura, I., Di Carlo, S., Bonino, F., 2011. End-of-
life vehicles management: Italian material and energy recovery efficiency.
Waste Manag. 31, 489e494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.09.015.
Scarascia, G., Sica, C., Russo, G., 2012. Plastic materials in European agriculture:
actual use and perspectives. J. Agric. Eng. 42 (3), 15e28. https://doi.org/10.4081/
jae.2011.3.15.
Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F., Hansen, E.G., 2016. Business models for sus-
tainability: a Co-evolutionary analysis of sustainable entrepreneurship, inno-
vation, and transformation. Organ. Environ. 29, 264e289. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1086026616633272.
Selenghe, R., 2018. Resource or waste? A perspective of plastics degradation in soil
with a focus on end-of-life options. Heliyon 4 (12). https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.heliyon.2018.e00941 e00941.
Slemrod, J., 1989. Optimal taxation and optimal tax systems. NBER Working Paper
No. 3038. Available at: https://www.nber.org/papers/w3038.
Steinmetz, Z., Wollmann, C., Schaefer, M., Buchmann, C., David, J., Tro €ger, J.,
Mun ~ oz, K., Fro
€r, O., Schaumann, G.E., 2016. Plastic mulching in agriculture.
Trading short-term agronomic benefits for long-term soil degradation? Sci.
Total Environ. 550, 690e705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.01.153.
Tietenberg, T., Lewis, L., 2018. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics,
eleventh ed. Routledge, London, UK.
van der Veen, H., van der Meulen, H., van Bommel, K., Doorneweert, B., 2007.
Exploring agricultural taxation in Europe. Report of the agricultural economics
reseaarch Institute (LEI), projectcode 30816, The Hauge, Netherlands. Available
at: http://edepot.wur.nl/23200.
Vox, G., Teitel, M., Pardossi, A., Minuto, A., Tinivella, F., Schettini, E., 2010. Sustain-
able greenhouse systems. In: Salazar, A., Rios, I. (Eds.), Sustainable Agriculture:
Technology, Planning and Management. Nova Science Publishers Inc., New
York, USA.
Wang, H., Gu, Y., Li, L., Liu, T., Wu, Y., Zuo, T., 2017. Operating models and devel-
opment trends in the extended producer responsibility system for waste
electrical and electronic equipment. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127, 159e167.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.002.
Weiss, N.A., Weiss, C.A., 2012. Introductory Statistics, ninth ed. Pearson Education,
London.
Wernerfelt, B., 1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 5 (2),
171e180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207.
World Economic Forum, MacArthur Foundation, McKinsey and Company, 2016. The
new plastics economy d rethinking the future of plastics. Available at: https://
www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/
EllenMacArthurFoundation_TheNewPlasticsEconomy_Pages.pdf.
WWF International, 2019. Solving plastic pollution through accountability. Avail-
able at: https://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/plastic_update_
last_03_25.pdf.
Xiang, W., Ming, C., 2011. Implementing extended producer responsibility: vehicle
remanufacturing in China. J. Clean. Prod. 19 (6e7), 680e686. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.11.016.
Zhao, Y., Song, L., Huang, R., Song, L., Li, X., 2007. Recycling of aged refuse from a
closed landfill. Waste Manag. Res. 25, 130e138.
Zhao, X., Zhan, L., Xie, B., Gao, B., 2018. Products derived from waste plastics (PC,
HIPS, ABS, PP and PA6) via hydrothermal treatment: characterization and po-
tential applications. Chemosphere 207, 742e752. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.chemosphere.2018.05.156.
Sitography
APE Europe. European regulation e national collecting schemes (NCS). http://www.
plastiques-agricoles.com/ape-europe-missions/agricultural-plastics-european-
regulation/.
COM(2008) 28 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri¼COM%
3A2018%3A28%3AFIN.
COM(2015) 595 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/IT/TXT/?uri¼CELEX%
3A52015PC0595.
GEOWEBSTARTER DataBase of the istituto G. Tagliacarne http://www.
geowebstarter.tagliacarne.it.
ISTAT Banca dati sull'Agricoltura http://dati.istat.it/Index.aspx?QueryId¼706#.
STATISTA. Global No.1 Business data platform. www.statista.com.