Author
Listed:
- Fivita Stri
- Takuro Uehara
- Takahiro Tsuge
- Sitadhira Prima Citta
- Misuzu Asari
Abstract
Cigarette butts (CBs) are the world’s most littered item and significantly contribute to environmental pollution. A deposit-refund system (DRS) has been proposed to reduce CB littering, but its effective design remains underexplored. This study addressed this gap by investigating smokers’ perceptions and preferences in hypothetical DRS scenarios for CBs. We conducted a discrete choice experiment in Japan (n = 1,865) and Indonesia (n = 2,000). Respondents were divided into treatment and control groups, with the treatment group receiving information on CB environmental impact aligned with the WHO’s campaign. Our results revealed that a DRS for CBs was preferred to the status quo, with higher preferences in Indonesia (90.33%) than in Japan (63.92%). The information treatment further increased DRS preferences (Indonesia: 91.82%; Japan: 69.83%) and willingness to endure cost to support DRS operations. Cost simulations showed participation probabilities remained above 55% with a cost of up to 5% of a cigarette’s price in Japan, and above 80% with a cost of up to 10% in Indonesia. Our findings underscore the importance of environmental information in DRS adoption. Both countries preferred a producer-managed system to a government-managed one, highlighting an opportunity for tobacco producers to fulfill extended producer responsibility through a DRS. Furthermore, DRS design should be country-specific. Notably, Japanese respondents’ familiarity with heat-not-burn cigarettes influenced their preference for a tailored DRS to those products, whereas Indonesian respondents preferred a DRS for CBs. Japanese respondents also emphasized accessibility more than their Indonesian counterparts.
Suggested Citation
Fivita Stri & Takuro Uehara & Takahiro Tsuge & Sitadhira Prima Citta & Misuzu Asari, 2025.
"Designing a deposit-refund system for cigarette butts: What do smokers care about?,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(10), pages 1-25, October.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0335205
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0335205
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0335205. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.