Towards Microplastic Reduction Within Institutions.

Globally, universities, institutions, and companies are aiming to reduce the use of single-use plastics as plastic litter, and plastic degradation generates secondary microplastics, all of which cause negative impacts on the environment. In this study the authors conducted a questionnaire-based survey to assess the willingness and motivation of stakeholders within academic settings to change daily habits to minimize plastic and microplastic pollution. The questionnaire, which was answered by 276 individuals with affiliation to the American Farm School or collaborating academic institutions, but primarily the American Farm School, was used to draw conclusions. Results showed that most stakeholders are ready to adapt to eliminate the use of single-use plastic within their institution and showed a high level of willingness to participate in cleaning campaigns. It is crucial to combine any new measures or policies with the proper education around why these measures are being enforced, so as to raise awareness and receptivity to those that are not familiar with microplastics and microplastic pollution.

Introduction

Mass production of plastics began 80 years ago, which has led to microplastic contamination of the marine environment, which is a growing problem (Cole et al., 2011). Especially during the last years, concerns about the effects of microplastic pollution from household dust, food and drinking water on human health have become widespread (Catarino et al., 2021; Teuten et al., 2009; Campanale et al., 2020). Chemical identification and mass-based quantification of microplastics are used to monitor the extent of pollution and measure the feasibility and efficacy of methods taken to prevent plastic contamination; however, challenges arise from the large scale of pollution and miniscule scale of the pollutant (Ivleva 2021).

The management and control of microplastics pollution is very challenging due to the large extent to which plastics are used in humans’ daily life, the multiple sources of plastic pollution, and because microplastics belong to a diverse pollutant group (Fältström & Anderberg, 2020). On a national level, various governments have established legislation focusing on reducing plastic litter, and, specifically, on mitigating marine pollution (Costa et al., 2020). The EU is trying to restrict added microplastic particles to consumer and professional products, which can significantly reduce the quantity of microplastics emitted into the environment. On a local level, the reduction of plastic bags used in supermarkets by charging a set price on each bag is a promising strategy, but policy tools are only part of the solution. In the long-term, continuous education and increasing public awareness on microplastics may be the ideal approach to modify consumer behavior (Kershaw et al., 2011). Regulations by policymakers should be precise and accurate and should include contextual incentives to replace certain microplastics, which can also stimulate innovation of new and environmentally friendly materials (Mitrano & Wohlleben, 2020). Nevertheless, local knowledge and long-term monitoring strategies are critical to measure effective local solutions for microplastic pollution reduction (Rochman et al., 2021).

According to the EU, the restriction of microplastic in addition to cosmetics, detergents, and fertilizers will prevent 500,000 t of microplastics from entering the environment over 20 years (ECHA n.d. ). As for microplastics that are formed from the degradation of plastics, a policy and regulations framework that incorporate all stakeholders may improve plastic and microplastic management (Deme et al., 2022). Bioplastics which are derived by renewable biomass can meet the specifications of the market in a more environmentally friendly and sustainable way (Calero et al., 2021). Biodegradable plastics should degrade to CO2 and water without harmful byproducts (Karan et al., 2019). Improved reuse, recycle, and recovery of plastic as well as the development of clean-up and bioremediation technologies could play a crucial role in microplastic pollution mitigation (Wu & Yang, & C. S. Criddle, 2016). End-users’ awareness should be raised on the proper disposal of plastics, bioplastics, and appropriate solid waste management options (Calabrò & Grosso, 2018). Local governments together with the help from industry and universities should redesign the use and disposal techniques of plastics so as to reduce the microplastic waste from household products and materials used in industrial settings or for infrastructure (Onyena et al., 2022). One of the key questions for microplastics mitigation is “who is going to pay for the microplastic reduction?”. In a recent study, US population showed willingness to pay an annual household tax for MPs pollution reduction through policy initiatives, and it was found that the median willingness to pay (WTP) for a new microplastic tax was between $0.30 and $0.55 per percent of microplastic pollution decrease (Wang & Moon, 2021). Moreover, the study revealed that exposing respondents to differing information regarding the severity of the microplastic problem increases their WTP.

Globally, universities, institutions, and companies are aiming to reduce the use of single-use plastics due to the fact that plastic litter and plastic degradation cause negative impacts on the environment. Recent publications releasing research conducted on university students on the issue of microplastics revealed that most students from the Czech Republic have a partial knowledge of the topic (Janoušková et al., 2020), while students in Germany associated microplastics with negative consequences (Raab & Bogner, 2021). However, a Chinese study on public awareness in Shanghai revealed that the majority of the respondents were unfamiliar with microplastic pollution (Deng et al., 2020).

One of the leading universities that is trying to eliminate single-use plastics and thus reduce microplastic creation is the university of Manchester (n.d.). Focusing on catering, labs, and stationery, its plan is a regional initiative along with other universities of the area, and its strategy involves research and policy measures. Similar plans and strategies are being adopted at various UK universities, e.g., University of Birmingham (n.d.) and University College London with its Plast-Free UCL campaign (n.d.).

Towards this direction, the American Farm School (AFS) and Perrotis College are planning to mitigate microplastic pollution and are considering viable methods to achieve this. Eliminating microplastic pollution within an institution can be done by identifying sources and implementing zero-waste strategies. Though leakage of properly disposed plastics will occur, collecting and properly disposing of the existing pollutants are crucial in stopping secondary microplastics from being generated (Eriksen et al., 2018). Considering the miniscule size of microplastics in relation to the size of the campus and the difficulty in collecting and properly managing microplastics already in the environment, initiatives will be targeted towards eliminating future microplastic pollution from occurring. To this end, plastic use must be reduced and plastic disposal must be properly conducted to mitigate the microplastics that are generated from the degradation of plastics that were improperly disposed of Prata, et al. (2019).

A questionnaire was created to assess the willingness of staff to make changes in their daily habits that involve the reduction of plastics and particularly single-use plastics and, further, to be involved in school campaigns towards elimination of plastic use on campus. The responses to the questionnaire will be analyzed to find the optimal strategy to achieve microplastic pollution reduction within the institution.

Materials and Methods

Questionnaire Development

This study investigates the willingness of academic institution members (i.e., students, professors, staff) to mitigate microplastic pollution within their institution.

The questionnaire targeted individuals with affiliation to the (AFS) or academic institutions which collaborate with the AFS. To this end, based on the knowledge of the authors, no previous study related to the status of microplastic issues in Greek universities/institutions exists. Therefore, a survey was the research tool chosen to collect data to analyze the willingness of institution members to reduce microplastics.

The questionnaire aimed to gauge the level of willingness of each individual to commit to engagement, and what the best form of engagement is. The following spectrum to assess engagement levels was considered: no interest in tackling the issue, participating in a clean-up event that was planned by others (minimal one-off engagement), reducing plastic pollution from activities in their personal life (by eliminating plastic use, avoiding accidental littering, using public transportation, utilizing reusable containers), accepting a fee for others to manage/deal with the issue (paying to off-source the problem), being part of a team that educates others, and organizing events to mitigate plastics pollution (maximum level of engagement). To this end, the questionnaire was split in two interconnected parts. The first part included specific questions regarding the use of various microplastic mitigation strategies. The second part of the questionnaire contained an open-ended question asking the individuals to give their personal proposal/opinion on a strategy to tackle microplastics. The questionnaire form can be found in Appendix (Table 1).

Table 1

Questionnaire form

Questionnaire
Microplastics generally refer to plastic particles with a diameter of less than 5 mm. They are created from the degradation and mishandling of the plastic we use, and are additionally released from cosmetic products, synthetic clothing, fishing nets, tire erosion and others. Microplastics have been found in abundance in fish and other animals in our food chain. Several studies are being conducted to determine the effects microplastic consumption has on human health. This study is being conducted to assess individuals’ willingness to change their daily habits to reduce microplastic pollution
Introduction/Demographics:
Please indicate your Gender, Age, Education, Annual Income, Profession
PART A: As faculty/employee/student/individual are you:
1) Familiar with the term microplastic?
2) Willing to get involved in campus/organization clean-up efforts and properly dispose of the plastics already polluting the local environment?
3) Willing to accept the introduction of a 20 cents charge on all drinks sold in single use plastic containers in our Campus Cafeteria? These profits will go towards local sustainability and community projects
4) Willing to bring your own container or bag to fill up products and pay by weight/amount with a cheaper price (Cafeteria/Campus Store)?
5) Willing to encourage plastic-free actions from our events? (e.g. no plastic bottles, balloons, plastic decorations etc.)
6) Prepared to avoid accidental littering? (By not overloading an already full bin and holding your rubbish to put in an emptier bin)
7) Open to avoiding plastic containers/packaging (water bottles, Tupperware, soft drinks) in your daily life?
8) Willing to buy special filters for your washing machine and dryer in order to minimize microplastic pollution from your clothes?
9) Willing to use public transport instead of own vehicle? (in addition to reducing pollution, tire erosion creates microplastics)
10) Eager to get involved in a team action group which encourages staff and students to make small changes in their daily routine, including reducing plastic use?
11) a) Would you decrease meat and fish consumption for environmental reasons? (e.g. the meat/dairy industries produce many GHGs)
11) b) Would you decrease meat and fish consumption out of fear of microplastic contamination? (e.g. microplastics have been found in large quantities in many fish species)
PART B: Write any idea/proposal that you have regarding microplastic reduction at your institution

Sampling, Data Acquisition, and Limitations

The questionnaire responses were gathered with the aim of drawing conclusions on institution member receptivity on plastic mitigation at AFS. To this end, a sample pool of 276 individual answers were analyzed. Although small in number, the people who answered are related with AFS and its collaborating institutions. That is why the sample size can be considered adequate, and it allowed general conclusions to be made on the topic Appendix (Tables 2 and 3).

Table 2

Questionnaire demographics

Demographics
Gender	Female	Male	Other
	55.4%	43.8%	0.7%
Age	18–30	31–45	46–59	60 +
	41.3%	36.6%	19.2%	2.9%
Education	High School	Vocational Inst	BSc, BA	MSc, MA	PhD
	8%	8.7%	48.2%	27.5%	7.6%
Annual Income	< 10,000	10,001–20,000	20,001–30,000	30,001–40,000	> 40,000
	45.7%	37.3%	11.2%	1.8%	4%
Profession	Unemployed	Part-time job	Full-time job	Student	Retired
	4%	9.8%	62%	23.2%	1.1%

Table 3

Questionnaire answers with corresponding figures

Question 1	A lot	Enough	Somewhat	Little	Nothing
(Fig. 1)	3.3%	23.9%	38.8%	27.5%	6.5%
Question 2	Definitely	Most probably	Somewhat	Little	No
(Fig. 2A)	60.5%	31.5%	4.3%	2.2%	1.4%
Question 3	Definitely	Most probably	Somewhat	Little	No
(Fig. 3A)	39.5%	35.5%	12.7%	5.1%	7.2%
Question 4	Definitely	Most probably	Somewhat	Little	No
(Fig. 3B)	56.9%	33%	4.7%	3.6%	1.8%
Question 5	Definitely	Most probably	Somewhat	Little	No
(Fig. 2B)	45.3%	41.7%	10.1%	1.1%	1.8%
Question 6	Definitely	Most probably	Somewhat	Little	No
(Fig. 4A)	62.3%	27.9%	6.9%	2.2%	0.7%
Question 7	Definitely	Most probably	Somewhat	Little	No
(Fig. 4B)	39.5%	43.5%	9.8%	5.4%	1.8%
Question 8	Definitely	Most probably	Somewhat	Little	No
(Fig. 5A)	25.4%	43.1%	20.7%	8%	2.9%
Question 9	Definitely	Most probably	Somewhat	Little	No
(Fig. 5B)	18.5%	14.5%	25.4%	19.2%	22.5%
Question 10	Definitely	Most probably	Somewhat	Little	No
(Fig. 6)	37.3%	39.5%	14.5%	5.1%	3.6%
Question 11A	Definitely	Most probably	Somewhat	Little	No
(Fig. 7A)	13.8%	31.9%	23.6%	17%	13.8%
Question 11B	Definitely	Most probably	Somewhat	Little	No
(Fig. 7B)	15.2%	35.5%	24.3%	15.2%	9.8%

Results

Questionnaire Results

Two-thirds of the respondents answered that they know somewhat or more about microplastics. The remaining one-third have heard little to nothing about them (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

The breakdown of how familiar the respondents are with the term microplastic

The majority of the respondents want to get involved in campus clean-up efforts and properly dispose of the plastics already polluting the local environment indicating a minimum level of engagement (Fig. 2A). The same goes for their willingness to encourage plastic-free action from their events (e.g., no plastic bottles, balloons, plastic decoration) showing a slightly higher level of engagement (Fig. 2B). Though a similar number of individuals (87% vs 92%) are at the least “most probably” interested in both actions, less are definitely interested in a higher level of engagement. Ten percent are not quite sure about the plastic-free action and 3% are prepared to keep it as it is.

Fig. 2

Willingness of the respondents to (A) get involved in campus/organization clean-up efforts and properly dispose of the plastics already polluting the local environment and (B) encourage plastic-free actions from events (e.g., no plastic bottles, balloons, plastic decorations, etc.)

Surprisingly, 39.5% of the respondents are definitely willing to accept an introduction of a 20 cents charge on all drinks sold in single-use plastic containers in the campus cafeteria with the profits going towards local sustainability and community projects. Seventy-five percent are at minimum most likely to agree to this charge, while 12.7% are somewhat agreeing with this action and 12.3% would disagree with this policy (Fig. 3A). The vast majority of the respondents are willing to bring their own container or bag to fill up products from the campus store and pay by weight/amount with a cheaper price (Fig. 3B). Around 5% are not willing to do so.

Fig. 3

Willingness of the respondents to (A) accept the introduction of a 20 cents charge on all drinks sold in single-use plastic containers in our campus cafeteria, of which the profits would go towards local sustainability and community projects and (B) bring their own container or bag to fill up products and pay by weight/amount with a cheaper price in the cafeteria/campus store

Around 90% of the individuals replied that they are prepared to avoid accidental littering (by not overloading an already full bin and holding their rubbish to put in an emptier bin) (Fig. 4A). Less than 10% are not willing to avoid accidental littering. When it comes to avoiding plastic containers and packaging in their daily life, 39.5% answered definitely, 43.5% answered most probably, 9.8% answered somewhat, 5.4% answered little, and 1.8% gave a negative response (Fig. 4B).

Fig. 4

Willingness of the respondents to (A) avoid accidental littering (by not overloading an already full bin and holding their rubbish to put in an emptier bin) and (B) avoid plastic containers/packaging (water bottles, Tupperware, soft drinks) in their daily life

Of the sample pool that answered the questionnaire, 25.4% are definitely willing to buy special filters for their washing machine and dryer in order to minimize microplastic pollution from their clothes. 43.1% are most probably going to do so, while 20.7% are not so determined, and the remaining 11% are not willing to buy the special filters (Fig. 5A). The use of public transport instead of own vehicle (to mitigate microplastics creation from tire erosion) was not an agreeable option for most individuals. Only 18.5% answered definitely, 14.5% answered most probably, and all the others are somewhat, little, or not at all willing to do so (Fig. 5B).

Fig. 5

Willingness of the respondents to (A) buy special filters for their washing machine and dryer in order to minimize microplastic pollution from their clothes and (B) use public transport instead of their own vehicle

Based on Fig. 6, at least 2/3 of the institution members would be expected to get involved with a group that arranges team actions to encourage staff and students to make small changes in their daily routine to reduce plastic use, which indicates the maximum level of engagement.

Fig. 6

Eagerness of the respondents to get involved in a team action group which encourages staff and students to make small changes in their daily routine, including reducing plastic use

Finally, individuals were asked if they would decrease their meat and fish consumption for environmental reasons and if they would decrease their meat and fish consumption out of fear of microplastic contamination. For the environmental reasons 13.8% answered yes and the same percentage answered no (Fig. 7A). For the same question but for microplastic contamination risk, 15.2% answered that they will definitely decrease their meat and fish and 9.8% answered no. 31.9% of the respondents most probably will decrease their meat consumption for environmental reasons and 35.5% they would decrease it out of fear of microplastic contamination.

Fig. 7

Willingness of the respondents to (A) decrease their meat and fish consumption for environmental reasons and (B) decrease their meat and fish consumption out of fear of microplastic contamination

Finally, in the Part B of the questionnaire, individuals were asked to give their proposal regarding microplastic reduction at their institution. From the collected answers, most of them seem to promote the ban of single-use plastics and the implementation of a “bring your own reusable cup” policy. Some of the respondents stated that they need motivation for that action (i.e., institution should provide them with free thermos/cup), while others seem satisfied by not changing single-plastic use but instead stick with “recycling as much as possible”.

Discussion

Institutions are making efforts and pledges to eliminate their negative environmental impact by reducing their carbon footprint, increasing their use of recycled materials, restricting their waste that goes to landfill, or reducing their plastic use. Academic institutions such as the University of Leeds are making efforts to reduce their single-use plastic consumption (n.d.). Non-academic institutions, such as Google Corp, have pledged to have all their product packaging be plastic-free and recyclable by 2025, and will have 50% of their hardware made using recycled plastic or renewable materials (Holbrook, 2020).

However, plastic pollution is still pervasive, and the transition to more sustainable, renewable and environmentally friendly options is slow (Phelan et al., 2022).

The questionnaire was answered by 276 people with ties to academic institutions in northern Greece, and particularly with Perrotis College and the American Farm School to assess the willingness of institution members to change daily habits to mitigate plastic and subsequently secondary microplastic pollution. This would be done by reducing, and eventually eliminating plastic use. The results of the questionnaire undoubtedly show that a 66% majority have at minimum heard about microplastics, and a similar number are willing to take action to minimize their microplastic footprint. At a glance, the figures indicate that the respondents are willing or would show mild hesitancy to accept several measures from their institutions to reduce microplastic contamination, by reducing their plastic use.

From this preliminary assessment, it is evident that the AFS and Perrotis College will likely not suffer much resistance from the institution members if they were to initiate a “plastic-free campus” campaign as 2/3 of the questionnaire responses were in favor of plastic reduction measures, with some responses have the support of 85–90% of responses. This type of plastic-free campaign already exists in similar academic institutions, such as the University of Birmingham, UCL, and the University of Manchester (n.d., n.d., n.d.). UCL focuses on eliminating avoidable single-use plastics in some core areas that are plagued by high usage of single-use plastics: catering, construction, laboratories, offices, events, and logistics. Their efforts involve tracking plastic use, raising awareness on the issue, replacing single-use plastics with reusable containers, replacing plastic packaging with cardboard alternatives, and properly recycling plastics that cannot yet be avoided.

The only outlier to the 2/3 of respondents being in favor of plastic mitigation was to the question “Are you willing to use public transport instead of your own vehicle? (in addition to pollution tire erosion creates microplastics)”. The responses are shown in Fig. 5B, which depicts the 40% of respondents that are not willing to take public transit, while only 33% are willing to, with the remainder holding no strong leaning in either direction. While this shows a clear leaning against taking public transportation, the authors’ belief is that this response is skewed due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the fear of exposure to the virus in a public and potentially crowded enclosed space. The respondents’ willingness to mitigate plastic pollution is clear from the other questions, and based on that data, the expectation would be for most respondents to be willing to take public transport. Their lack of willingness to take public transport instead of a private vehicle may not be because they do not want to reduce microplastic creation from transportation but rather because this is not a viable option for them while the current health concerns arising from being infected with Covid-19 grossly outweigh the possible health implications of microplastics in the long term. A further study on the likelihood of taking means of public transportation must be conducted when the personal and public health concerns are not so prevalent. However, while the pandemic lasts, it is clear that the AFS and Perrotis College should not utilize means of mass transportation as a method to reduce microplastic pollution.

The results depicted in Fig. 7 demonstrate that the negative response on whether the individual would decrease meat and fish consumption for environmental reasons wavered, when the same meat and fish were potentially contaminated with microplastics. This variance most likely arises from the quantifiable nature of being directly affected. The emission of greenhouse gasses arising from a single person’s consumption of meat is a minor yet quantifiable contributing factor to the climate crisis. However, it is impossible to estimate the exact effect the climate crisis will have on an individual, despite the increased likelihood of extreme weather events occurring. In comparison, the literature on health implications arising from the consumption of microplastics is quickly expanding, and an individual will certainly feel apprehension towards consuming meat or fish that has been contaminated by plastic, as they will directly ingest the plastics that contaminate that meat or fish product. This is seen in the drop of meat consumption by 4% between Fig. 7A and B.

The trend across all age groups is similar, as seen in Fig. 8. This shows that individuals of all ages are concerned about the environmental and health implications of microplastics in our environment, with 60% of each age group actively concerned. Moreover, 215 of the respondents are younger individuals, aged 18–45 (80% of sample), while 61 respondents are aged 46 and over (20% of sample). When comparing questionnaire responses by age, this trend is repeated, showing that all age groups are willing and interested in tackling the microplastics issue. However, since the majority of the population within an academic institution consists of students, those aged 18–45 will make up the main part of any group activity, which is to be expected.

Fig. 8

A breakdown of how willing respondents are to avoiding plastic containers/packaging (water bottles, Tupperware, soft drinks) in their daily life based on their age

Measures or policies that will be enforced in any academic institution should surely focus on the entire demographic of the stakeholders, but should keep in mind that the main body of those spearheading any actions will predominantly be under 45 years old (Fig. 8).

It is important to note that the sample pool used for this study does not reflect the demographic of an entire city or population, but that of academic institutions. Of the respondents, only 8% stopped their education after their secondary education, which shows a 92% tertiary education level, or higher. The likelihood of public receptivity to microplastic mitigation be this high outside of academic institutions in Northern Greece, or other areas in Greece is unknown. Individuals should choose products without primary microplastics, and since microplastics are invisible, a reliable transmission of solid knowledge is needed for objective societal awareness and their environmental health risks (Garcia–Vazquez et al., 2021).

A final point worth noting is that of personal observations, which contradict the data collected in this study. Figure 4A shows the responses to the question “Are you prepared to avoid accidental littering? (by not overloading an already full bin and holding your rubbish to put in an emptier bin)”. Ninety percent of the respondents are “definitely” and “most probably” prepared to avoid accidental littering. This is unrealistically high as it is all too frequent a phenomenon to see a rubbish bin overloaded and spilling to the ground around it. Considering the possibility that individuals may act differently than how they indicate they would in a survey adds a limitation to the validity of the findings discussed here. This limitation should be acknowledged, but not seen as a barrier to attempting an action or policy towards microplastic pollution elimination within an institution.

Conclusions

Various strategies can be implemented within institutions to mitigate plastic and microplastic pollution. These strategies should be implemented because of the highly likely impacts that microplastics have on the environment and human health (Prata et al., 2020). Some strategies that are employed by other institutions are mentioned above and seeing that 2/3 of the institution members at Perrotis College and the AFS that responded to the survey are willing to take action for microplastic mitigation; the AFS and Perrotis College will find support in its stakeholders to reduce plastic use on campus.

From the responses to the questionnaire, the institution can expect that if they were to begin a plastic-free campus campaign, a clear majority of institution members would:

get involved in campus/organization clean-up efforts and properly dispose of the plastics already polluting the local environment,

encourage plastic-free actions from events (e.g., no plastic bottles, balloons, plastic decorations etc.),

accept the introduction of a 20 cents charge on all drinks sold in single-use plastic containers in the campus cafeteria where the proceeds would be expected to go towards local sustainability and community projects,

bring their own container or bag to fill up products and pay by weight/amount with a cheaper price at the cafeteria/campus store,

avoid accidental littering by not overloading an already full bin and holding their rubbish to put in an emptier bin,

avoid plastic containers/packaging (water bottles, Tupperware, soft drinks) in their daily life,

buy special filters for their washing machine and dryer in order to minimize microplastic pollution from their clothes,

get involved in a team action group which encourages staff and students to make small changes in their daily routine, including reducing plastic use.

Considering the receptivity of institution members to the above measures, the administration at the AFS and Perrotis College can begin their campus plastic-free campaign by implementing some of the above methods. It is crucial to combine any new measures or policies with the proper education around why these measures are being made, so as to inform those that are not aware of microplastics and microplastic pollution—the 35% of respondents—of the situation, and to hopefully increase receptivity across all institution members. There is likely an overlap between having heard nothing or little about microplastics (35%) and to be unwilling to take action on mitigating microplastics (on average 1/3 of respondents).

The main efforts of the institution to mitigate microplastics should be focused on reducing plastic use, so as to avoid the generation of secondary microplastics.

This questionnaire showed that the stakeholders’ hesitancy that typically characterizes a plastic-free campaign, will be of minimal consequence in this academic institution. Furthermore, the willingness of institution members to participate with any level of engagement is consistently “most probable” or “definite.” The percentage of respondents definitely willing to participate in lower levels of engagement is higher than those definitely willing to participate in higher levels of engagement (as would be expected); however, between 60 and 90% of respondents think of these microplastic mitigation measures positively; though to varying degrees. Considering the high number of academic institutions in the UK that have established plastic-free campaigns and the high receptivity in this academic institution, it is likely that other academic institutions will have similar levels of involvement. This shows good reason to attempt to create an action or policy towards eliminating microplastic pollution in academic institutions.