This study investigates plastic food packaging (PFP) recycling symbols in Vietnam through field surveys, questionnaires and statistical and machine-learning models. Results show that 68.2% of shoppers correctly identified the recycling symbol, whereas 87.2% confused waste disposal symbols with recyclability. Age correlated positively with accuracy (p < 0.01), but gender had no effect. Waste separators performed worse, likely due to misconceptions (p > 0.05). XGBoost model achieved the best prediction accuracy (MacroF1 = 77.6%, kappa = 0.33), followed by Random Forest (MacroF1 = 76.0%, kappa = 0.29). Shopping frequency, perceived importance of recycling and willingness to support recyclable products were stronger predictors than demographics. Analysis of PFP revealed that 66.7% was recyclable and 33.3% non-recyclable, with polyethylene terephthalate (46.5%) and polypropylene (40.1%) being the dominant recyclable types. Findings highlight the need for standardized labelling, mono-material designs and predictive modelling to enhance consumer awareness and improve recycling efficiency.
AgrestiA (2006) An introduction to categorical data analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
2.
Andreasi BassiSBoldrinAFaracaG, et al. (2020) Extended producer responsibility: How to unlock the environmental and economic potential of plastic packaging waste?Resources, Conservation and Recycling162: 105030.
3.
AprileMCFiorilloD (2019) Intrinsic incentives in household waste recycling: The case of Italy in the year 1998. Journal of Cleaner Production227: 98–110.
4.
BestHKneipT (2019) Assessing the causal effect of curbside collection on recycling behavior in a non-randomized experiment with self-reported outcome. Environmental and Resource Economics72: 1203–1223.
5.
BooneLPréatNNhuTT, et al. (2023) Environmental performance of plastic food packaging: Life cycle assessment extended with costs on marine ecosystem services. Science of The Total Environment894: 164781.
6.
BreimanL (2001) Random Forests. Machine Learning45: 5–32.
7.
ChenTGuestrinC (2016) XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, California, USA. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery, pp.785–794.
8.
CohenJ (1960) A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement20: 37–46.
9.
D’SouzaCTaghianMLambP, et al. (2007) Green decisions: demographics and consumer understanding of environmental labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies31: 371–376.
10.
De MarchiEPigliafreddoSBanterleA, et al. (2020) Plastic packaging goes sustainable: An analysis of consumer preferences for plastic water bottles. Environmental Science and Policy114: 305–311.
11.
DiggleAWalkerTR (2020) Implementation of harmonized Extended Producer Responsibility strategies to incentivize recovery of single-use plastic packaging waste in Canada. Waste Management110: 20–23.
12.
Dilkes-HoffmanLSPrattSLaycockB, et al. (2019) Public attitudes towards plastics. Resources, Conservation and Recycling147: 227–235.
13.
Fogt JacobsenLPedersenSThøgersenJ (2022) Drivers of and barriers to consumers’ plastic packaging waste avoidance and recycling – A systematic literature review. Waste Management141: 63–78.
14.
GoveRFaytongJ (2012) Machine learning and event-based software testing: classifiers for identifying infeasible GUI event sequences. Advances in Computers86: 109–135.
15.
Government of Vietnam (2022) Decree No. 08/2022/ND-CP detailing the implementation of the Law on Environmental Protection. Government of Vietnam.
16.
GowdaTYWeiqiuYLignosC, et al. (2021) Macro-average: rare types are important too. In: Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pp.1138–1157.
HerbesCMielingerEKrauterV, et al. (2024) Company views of consumers regarding sustainable packaging. Sustainable Production and Consumption52: 136–150.
19.
HosmerDWLemeshowSSturdivantRX (2013) Applied logistic regression. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
HuJMiaoLHanJ, et al. (2024) Waste separation behavior with a new plastic category for the plastic resource circulation: Survey in Kansai, Japan. Journal of Environmental Management349: 119370.
22.
ISO (2016) ISO 14021:2016 – Environmental labels and declarations – Self-declared environmental claims (Type II environmental labelling). Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
23.
KlaimanKOrtegaDLGarnacheC (2016) Consumer preferences and demand for packaging material and recyclability. Resources, Conservation and Recycling115: 1–8.
24.
KostSRheinbachOSchaebenH (2021) Using logistic regression model selection towards interpretable machine learning in mineral prospectivity modeling. Geochemistry81: 125826.
25.
LangleyJTurnerNYoxallA (2011) Attributes of packaging and influences on waste. Packaging Technology and Science24: 161–175.
26.
LatkinCADaytonLYiG, et al. (2022) The (mis)understanding of the symbol associated with recycling on plastic containers in the US: A brief report. Sustainability14: 9636.
27.
MielingerEWeinrichR (2023) A review on consumer sorting behaviour: Spotlight on food and Fast Moving Consumer Goods plastic packaging. Environmental Development47: 100890.
28.
MielingerEWeinrichR (2024) Insights into plastic food packaging waste sorting behaviour: A focus group study among consumers in Germany. Waste Management178: 362–370.
29.
MONRE (2019) National State of the Environment Report 2019 – Domestic Solid Waste Management. Hanoi, Vietnam: Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.
30.
MONRE (2023) Decision No. 3257/QĐ-BTNMT/2023 – Issuance of Vietnam eco-label criteria for environmentally friendly plastic packaging. Hanoi, Vietnam: MONRE.
31.
NematBRazzaghiMBoltonK, et al. (2022) Design affordance of plastic food packaging for consumer sorting behavior. Resources, Conservation and Recycling177: 105949.
32.
NguyenHTT (2024) Antecedents of young consumers’ behavioral intention toward plastic waste minimization in Vietnam. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management26: 3089–3101.
33.
NguyenXCDaoDCNguyenTT, et al. (2022a) Generation patterns and consumer behavior of single-use plastic towards plastic-free university campuses. Chemosphere291: 133059.
34.
NguyenXCNguyenTPLamVS, et al. (2024) Estimating ammonium changes in pilot and full-scale constructed wetlands using kinetic model, linear regression, and machine learning. Science of The Total Environment907: 168142.
35.
NguyenXCNguyenTTHLeQV, et al. (2022b) Developing a new approach for design support of subsurface constructed wetland using machine learning algorithms. Journal of Environmental Management301: 113868.
36.
OrsetCBarretNLemaireA (2017) How consumers of plastic water bottles are responding to environmental policies?Waste Management61: 13–27.
37.
PellegriniLMaltoniDGraffietiG, et al. (2023) A weakly supervised approach for recycling code recognition. Expert Systems with Applications215: 119282.
38.
PiresAMartinhoGRibeiroR, et al. (2015) Extended producer responsibility: a differential fee model for promoting sustainable packaging. Journal of Cleaner Production108: 343–353.
39.
Plastic Europe (2013) Plastics – The Facts 2013: An analysis of European latest plastics production, demand and waste data. Plastic Europe.
RheinSSchmidM (2020) Consumers’ awareness of plastic packaging: More than just environmental concerns. Resources, Conservation and Recycling162: 105063.
42.
Roche CerasiISánchezFVGallardoI, et al. (2021) Household plastic waste habits and attitudes: A pilot study in the city of Valencia. Waste Management and Research39: 679–689.
43.
RochesterJBoldenA (2015) Bisphenol S and F: A systematic review and comparison of the hormonal activity of bisphenol A substitutes. Environmental Health Perspectives123: 643–650.
TranVCMLePCQuyenHH (2024) A study on plastic waste generation and disposal habits in riverside and coastal households towards the promotions of reducing plastic leakage into the ocean in Da Nang City, Vietnam. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management26: 3034–3046.
46.
WalkerTRMcGuintyECharleboisS, et al. (2021) Single-use plastic packaging in the Canadian food industry: consumer behavior and perceptions. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications8: 80.
47.
WB (2021) Market study for Vietnam: Plastics circularity opportunities and barriers (Marine Plastics Series, East Asia and Pacific Region). Washington, DC: World Bank. Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10986/36313 (accessed 27 February 2025).
YamaguchiKTakeuchiK (2016) Consumer preferences for reduced packaging under economic instruments and recycling policy. Waste Management48: 540–547.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
