Cross-sectional survey reveals significant demographic divides in environmental knowledge and actions concerning microplastic pollution in Taiwan, suggesting targeted policy needs.
Public engagement is critical for mitigating environmental threats such as microplastic pollution, yet societal responses are often uneven and socially stratified. This study used a cross-sectional, population-based telephone survey to investigate the demographic determinants of public engagement with microplastic pollution in Taiwan, revealing a significant social divide in microplastic-related environmental knowledge, awareness of microplastic pollution and support for mitigation, and behaviors (KAB). Drawing on a nationwide telephone survey of 1,069 adults and using logistic regression, our findings map the key dimensions of this divide. Notably, a sharp knowledge-action gap emerged among younger adults (18–29), who exhibited lower odds of higher awareness of microplastic pollution and support for mitigation [odds ratio (OR) = 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.17–0.51] and microplastic-reducing behaviors (OR = 0.37, 95% CI, 0.22–0.64). Socioeconomic status was a powerful predictor; higher education was linked to greater engagement across all KAB domains, while higher incomes (≥NT$110 000) correlated with higher awareness and stronger support for mitigation (OR = 1.85, 95% CI, 1.08–3.18) and behaviors (OR = 1.82, 95% CI, 1.06–3.11). Furthermore, a persistent gender gap was evident, with men showing lower odds of higher awareness of microplastic pollution and support for mitigation (OR = 0.72, 95% CI, 0.56–0.93) and behaviors (OR = 0.55, 95% CI, 0.42–0.70) than women. These deep-seated demographic gaps challenge the efficacy of one-size-fits-all environmental governance. By identifying the specific populations that are less engaged, this study provides a crucial evidence base for designing the equitable and targeted policy interventions needed to address the escalating threat of microplastic pollution.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chuang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: