Unraveling the Plastic Puzzle:

Unraveling the Plastic Puzzle:

Barriers, Initiatives, & Opportunities for a Low Plastic Transformation

Dana S. Sharp

Master's Thesis

Development, Environment, & Cultural Change 60 Credits

Centre for Development & the Environment Humanities Faculty

June 2nd, 2020

Unraveling the Plastic Puzzle:

Barriers, Initiatives, & Opportunities for a Low Plastic Transformation

Dana S. Sharp

Master's Thesis in Development, Environment, & Cultural Change Centre for Development & the Environment

UNIVERSITY OF OSLO

June 2nd, 2020

© Dana S. Sharp 2020

Unraveling the Plastic Puzzle:

Barriers, Initiatives, & Opportunities for a Low Plastic Transformation

http://www.duo.uio.no/

Print: Reprosentralen, Universitetet i Oslo

For Christie

Abstract

From clothing to computers, toothbrushes, automobiles, and everything in between;

plastic (synthetic polymers) dominates daily practices. Despite plastic's many useful applications it also harms; clogging waterways, choking wildlife, releasing toxins, and relying on fossil fuels. Hiding in the air, dust, soil, and water; no place on Earth remains immune to plastic's spread.

Although the issue of plastic pollution and consumption is now widely known, there is limited guidance on how to approach such an enormous task. Aiming to add to the

conversation, surveys conducted from participants in a 30 day plastic-free challenge seek to uncover plastic's hidden interconnections and barriers to going plastic-free. Secondly, qualitative interviews with Oslo-based businesses, researchers, organizations, and municipal employees explore current initiatives aiming to reduce plastic pollution and/or consumption.

From there, the patterns of aliveness and three spheres of transformation frameworks provide lenses to reveal plastic's role in contemporary society, and how transformation dynamics create opportunities for future change.

Looking at the findings, the three spheres of transformation framework illuminates how existing beliefs, systems, policies, and technologies currently form barriers to reducing plastic. Analyzing these elements and how actions within personal, political, and practical spheres constantly interact, evolve, and shape outcomes within the other spheres, therefore, offers insights into how to target and improve future plastic-related initiatives.

Moreover, the patterns of aliveness theory takes an integrated approach emphasizing the importance of diversity, collaboration, creativity, and flexibility to address contemporary challenges. Adopting this kind of more holistic perspective, many current Oslo-based projects are promoting larger change to address plastic consumption and pollution by engaging

diverse actors, dialoguing, spreading awareness, innovating, and joining forces to drive change across all three transformation spheres.

Overall, this study suggests future actions, whether against plastic or other socio- ecological challenges, can contribute to wider systemic change by taking holistic approaches and collaborating to initiate and carry out complementary efforts. Together, consumers, businesses, civil society organizations, and the government can forward a low plastic transformation.

Key words: barriers, consumption, harm, holistic, initiatives, Oslo, patterns of aliveness, plastic, pollution, three spheres of transformation, transition

Acknowledgments

This thesis would not have been possible were it not for the brave No Plastic November participants and my incredible informants who took time out of their busy schedules to meet with me. Thank you for sharing your work, words of inspiration, and reminding me that people do care and are striving to reduce plastic consumption and pollution.

I am eternally grateful for my mom Christie's endless support, love, and faith in me—

knowing I am making you proud means I have already earned the highest mark. Special thanks to my friend Yassine Krifa who has endured countless complaints about my thesis, studies, Norway, and life in general. You have been my voice of reason; sucking out the negativity, providing comfort, and leaving me smiling. Monaldo, you are truly the best!

To my dear friends, Clara Reich and Elena Slominski, thank you for always checking in on me, and your unwavering support and encouragement during times I felt lost or fed-up with my thesis. Also, special thanks to the amazing Nora Engeseth for helping with

Norwegian translations. I am sincerely grateful for 'granny pack' movie nights, my dad, Diane, my Ficus Ginseng plant named "Scruffy", my SUM classmates, Bjølsenparken, Brekkedammen park, Nordmarka, all of the beautiful flowers and birds in Nordre Gravlund near Sagene, walks along the Akerselva, evening strolls with Samuele, late night doodle sessions, and for the revitalizing power of Norwegian nature which has kept me going the past two years.

No acknowledgment section would be complete without thanking my supervisor, Chris Butters, who navigated my stubborn ways and dealt with many lousy first drafts; your feedback has been much appreciated! Also, many thanks to Helene at Bydel Sagene who helped spread the No Plastic November campaign and made the post-challenge celebration possible. Finally, thank you to Google Translate, without which I would not have been able to read many documents, and most importantly; thank you to my trusty laptop who has

remained reliable these past eight years and worked overtime to help me write this thesis!

As I have found inspiration from those contributing to this thesis, I hope what follows can likewise inspire and create potential to jumpstart real transformations to make plastic a thing of the past.

Tusen Takk,

Common Acronyms

CIEL Center for International Environmental Law ECC Empower Clean City

ECHA The European Union's European Chemicals Agency EEA European Economic Area

EPR Extended Producer Responsibility

EU European Union

ISO International Organization for Standardization LCA Life Cycle Assessment

Mt Metric Tons

NGO Non-governmental Organization

NIVA Norwegian Institute for Water Research

NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology

OCED Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PBL Private Kindergartens National Association

POPs Persistent Organic Pollutants REG Renovation and Recycling Agency SDGs Sustainable Development Goals

SINTEF The Foundation for Industrial and Technical Research SUM UiO's Centre for Development and Environment UiO University of Oslo

UN United Nations

VAT Value-added Tax WWF World Wildlife Fund

Plastic Acronyms

BPA bisphenol A DDC-CO dechlorane plus MCCPs chlorinated paraffins

PAHs poly aromatic hydrocarbons PBDEs polybrominated diphenyl ethers PBS polybutylene succinate

PE polyethylene

PET polyethylene terephthalate PHA polyhydroxyalkanoate PLA poly(lactic acid)

PP polypropylene

PVC polyvinyl chloride SBR styrene butadiene rubber

SVOCs semivolatile organic compounds VOCs volatile organic compounds

List of Norwegian Translations

Anskaffelsesloven The Public Procurement Act

Barnehager Nursery

Bymiljøetaten City of Oslo's Urban Environmental Agency

Dugnad Voluntary work

Europeisk Miljøhovedstad European Green Capital Frukt og grønt Fruit and vegetables shop Fylkeskommunes Regional municipalities Handelens Miljøfond Trade Environmental Fund

Havressurslova The Marine Resources Act

Hold Norge Rent Keep Norway Clean

Kroners Norwegian currency (NOK)

Miljøagentene Eco-agents

Naturmangfoldloven The Nature Diversity Act

Naturvernforbundet Norwegian Society for the Conservation of Nature Naturvernstudentene Conservation students

Natur og Ungdom Nature and Youth

Norge Norway

Norges Idrettsforbund Norwegian Sports Association

Norsk Institutt for Vannforskning Norwegian Institute for Water Research

Oslofjord Oslo Fjord

Oslofjorden Friluftsråd Oslo Fjord Outdoor Council

Oslo kommune The Municipality of Oslo

Pant Norwegian bottle deposit system

Plast Plastic

Plast og Giftfrie Barnehager Plastic and Non-toxic Nurseries Plast Piratene Plastic Pirates

Renovasjons- og gjenvinningsetaten Renovation and Recycling Agency Sagene samfunnshus Sagene's community center

Serveringsloven The Serving Act

Universell utforming Universal design

Østfoldforskning Østfold Research

Table of Contents

Abstract

Acknowledgments

Acronyms

List of Norwegian Translations

List of Figures X

Section 1: The Problem With Plastic

Chapter 1: Living in a Plastic World

1.1 Welcome to the Plastic Age 1

1.2 How Plastic Came to Be: A History of Plastic 1

1.3 Plastic Additive or Toxin? 3

1.4 Perpetual Plastic Pollution 4

1.5 Environmental Action in Oslo 6

1.6 Transformations for a Low Plastic Future 7

1.6.1 Research Questions 7

1.6.2 Thesis Structure 8

Chapter 2: Methods

2.1 Researcher Positioning 9

2.2 Interviewing Agents on the Plastic Front 10

2.2.1 The Quality of Qualitative Methods 10

2.2.2 Recruiting Interviewees 11

2.2.3 Establishing Informant Credibility 12

2.2.4 The Interviews 13

2.3 Surviving 30 Days Plastic-Free 15

2.3.1 Quantitative Methods 15

2.3.2 30 Days Without Plastic 15

2.3.3 Recruiting Participants 15

2.3.4 Tackling the Challenge 16

2.4 Adopting Multiple Methodologies 17

2.4.1 Mixing Things Up 17

2.4.2 Reasons for Mixing Methods 18

2.5 Sources, Methodological Challenges, & Considerations 19

2.5.1 Literature Review 19

2.5.2 Language Barriers 20

2.5.3 Embarrassing Encounters 20

2.5.4 Ethical Considerations 21

2.5.5 Organization & Place Names 21

2.5.6 Feasibility 21

Chapter 3: Theory

3.1 The Three Spheres of Transformation 22

3.1.1 Three Considerations for Transformation 22

3.1.2 The Practical Sphere 23

3.1.3 The Political Sphere 24

3.1.4 The Personal Sphere 25

3.1.5 Employing Practical, Political, & Personal 26 Transformative Strategies

3.2 Patterns of Aliveness Theory 26

3.2.1 Tapping into Aliveness to Launch Holistic Transformations 27

3.2.2 Principle 1. Intentional Generativity 28

3.2.3 Principle 2. Permeable Containment 28

3.2.4 Principle 3. Emerging Novelty 30

3.2.5 Principle 4. Contextual Interconnectedness 30 3.2.6 Principle 5. Mutually Enhancing Wholeness 31 3.2.7 Principle 6. Proprioceptive Consciousness 32

3.2.8 Applying Aliveness for Transformations 33

3.3 Two Transformational Frameworks in a Pod 34

Section 2: Barriers to Reducing Plastic

Chapter 4: 30 Days of Consumer Difficulties

4.1 Hiding in Plain Sight 35

4.2 30 Days of Awareness Building 35

4.3 Calculating Outcomes 36

4.4 Zeroing in on the Main Difficulties 37

4.4.1 Animal-Based Products 38

4.4.2 Produce 39

4.4.3 Hygiene Products 40

4.5 Challenge Takeaways 41

Chapter 5: Personal Sphere Barriers

5.1 Shifting Old Mentalities 43

5.2 Navigating Negative, Nature-free Realities 45

Chapter 6: Political Sphere Barriers

6.1 A Tax Break for 'Takeout' 47

6.2 Tumultuous Turf 47

6.3 Promoting Plastic Play Areas 50

Chapter 7: Practical Sphere Barriers

7.1 Oslo's Waste Management Technology 52

7.2 Bioplastic 54

7.3 Biodegradable & Compostable Plastics 55

7.4 Packaging the Food Waste Myth 58

7.5 LCA Limitations 60

Section 3: Oslo-based Projects & Initiatives

Chapter 8: Civil Society for Plastic Change

8.1 Bellona 63

8.2 CleanSounds 65

8.3 Guerrilla Plastic Movement 67

8.4 Handelens Miljøfond 69

8.5 Miljøagentene 71

8.6 Naturvernforbundet 72

8.7 Plast Piratene 75

8.8 Team Rubicon Norge 77

8.9 Wecycle 78

8.10 World Wildlife Fund Norge 80

Chapter 9: Local Businesses Against Plastic Pollution

9.1 Clean Sea Solutions 82

9.2 Empower Clean City 84

9.3 GreenBoats 86

9.4 Mad Goats Paddling 87

Chapter 10: Becoming a Plastic-Smart Municipality

10.1 Oslo Kommune 89

Chapter 11: Making Waves for Aquatic Well-being

11.1 Norsk Institutt for Vannforskning 92

Section 4: Facilitating Low Plastic Transformations

Chapter 12: The Role of Government

Chapter 13: The Role of Businesses

Chapter 14: The Role of Civil Society Organizations

Chapter 15: The Role of Consumers

Chapter 16: Tackling Plastic Together

Chapter 17: Piecing Together the Plastic Puzzle

17.1 Responding to Problematic Plastic 122

17.1.1 Revealing Barriers 122

17.1.2 Efforts Against Plastic 124

17.1.3 Initiating Transformation 125

17.2 Towards a Low Plastic Future 126

17.2.1 Contributing to Future Outcomes 126

17.2.2 Limitations & Future Research 127

17.2.3 Researcher Reflections 128

17.3 Solving the Great Plastic Puzzle 129

17.3.1 Picking Up the Pieces 129

17.3.2 Putting the Pieces Together 130

Glossary

Bibliography

Appendix

I. Photos 155

i. Map of Oslo Districts 155

ii. Looking for a Plastic Snack, Oslo 156

iii. Voldsløkka Sports Complex, Oslo 156

iv. Bioplastic Cap 158

v. No Plastic November End of Challenge Celebration 158

II. Theory Charts 160

i. The Three Spheres of Transformation 160

ii. The Patterns of Aliveness 161

III. Original Pre-Challenge Survey Results 162

IV. Adjusted Pre-Challenge Survey Results 164

V. Post-Challenge Survey Results 166

VI. Sample Interview Guide 169

List of Figures

Figure 1: List of Informants

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.

– Albert Einstein

Chapter 1: Living in a Plastic World

1.1 Welcome to the Plastic Age

The year is 1969, and half a billion viewers from around the globe are tuning in to witness history. At 02:56 UTC on July 20th, Neil Armstrong climbed down the Eagle's ladder; becoming the first person to set foot on the moon (NASA, 2019). Accompanying his famous words "that's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind" (NASA, 2019), was another famous material. Now more wide-known than the Apollo 11 mission, plastic made its lunar debut that same day with Armstrong and fellow astronaut Buzz Aldrin planting a plastic nylon flag on the moon's surface (Amaral-Zettler, 2020; NASA, 2019). In a moment, plastic became out of this world. Meanwhile back on Earth, the following decades saw plastic growing and flowing around the globe.

Take a look around. Chances are there are at least ten pieces of plastic around you right now. From clothing to wall paint, cell phones, computers, vitamin capsules, yogurt containers, cheese wrappings, blankets, toothbrushes, floss, pens, cups, receipts, combs, curtains, carpet, fire alarms, airplane windows, toys, limb replacements....the list goes on and on. Without plastic, internet cables would not be able to run underground or underwater, (Davis, 2015 citing Starosielski, 2015), and contemporary automobiles would be much heavier (Maxwell et al., 1994). A symbol of modernity promising a bright, shiny, colorful future of "sealed, perfected, clean, smooth abundance" (Davis, 2015, p.350), plastic has taken the planet by storm; shaping the objects and practices of today. Yet, what exactly is plastic, and where does it come from?

1.2 How Plastic Came to Be: A History of Plastic

Taking its name from the Greek plastikos, meaning capable of being shaped or molded; plastic arises from "synthetic or semi-synthetic materials known as polymers, which are macromolecules of high molar mass and repeating structure" (Amato, 2013, p.812;

Merriam-Webster, n.d.). Treating polymers with various additives is what allows plastic to become heat resistant, brittle, flexible, strong, transparent, etc (Hahladakis et al., 2018). The earliest plastics were derived from natural polymers like cellulose nitrate, and John Wesley Hyatt's 1869 invention using camphor and nitrocellulose to replace horn, ivory, and other natural materials (Amaral-Zettler, 2020; Science History Institute, n.d.). Shellac, chewing

gum, and chemically modified rubber were also amongst the earliest semi-synthetic plastic items (Amato, 2013).

Leo Baekeland's 1907 invention of Bakelite ushered in a new era of entirely synthetic plastics with no naturally occurring molecules (Amaral-Zettler, 2020; Davis, 2015; Science History Institute, n.d.; Thompson et al., 2009). Then in 1912, polyvinyl acetate and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) were made (Amaral-Zettler, 2020; Amato, 2013). Over the years the list of synthetic plastics continued to grow, with nylon's invention in the 1930s, then Velcro, Teflon, Kevlar, and Plexiglas (Amaral-Zettler, 2020; Amato, 2013). Regardless of being made from synthetic or natural polymers, all plastic is manmade.

WWII significantly boosted plastic production to conserve natural resources while creating strong, lightweight, and durable goods; leading styrofoam, acrylic, nylon, and polyethylene to replace glass, paper, natural textiles, and wood (Davis, 2015; Freinkel, 2011;

Science History Institute, n.d.). While plastic rapidly grew to aid wartime efforts, Meikle (1995) argues its expanse primarily arose from the pursuit of profit, rather than developing new technologies. In this respect, plastic came to replace existing objects, making them more affordable and readily accessible to growing middle-class consumption (Davis, 2015; Meikle, 1995). This explains why it was not until the 1950s that large-scale plastic production began (Geyer et al., 2017). Hence, the cheap, disposable post-war plastics led to the 'throwaway living' mindset which persists today (Amaral-Zettler, 2020, p.140).

With the first modern plastic grocery bags arriving in 1965, and the onset of plastic packaging, a new era of mass consumption began; injecting plastic shrink wrap, containers, and other cheap plastics into retail practices (Song, 2017; Westermann, 2013). Reaching the 1970s, "plastics became the most widely used materials in the world"; contributing to the emergence of a global market (Amaral-Zettler, 2020, p.140 citing Harrison & Hester, 2019).

Geyer et al. (2017) estimate 8.3 billion metric tons (Mt) of brand new plastics have been made from when plastic was first created up until 2017; only 9% of which has been recycled and 12% incinerated. Still, plastic growth continues to soar with projections stating

approximately 1,323 million Mt being produced annually by 2050; consuming roughly 20%

of global oil production and emitting over 2.75 billion Mt of CO2 (Bauman, 2019; CIEL, 2019). Although plastic provides many uses and benefits, the material has and continues to color history in less pleasant ways.

1.3 Plastic Additive or Toxin?

Traditional semi or fully synthetic plastic is fossil fuel-based. During the 1920s, coal tar powered plastics production before switching to other petrochemicals like natural gas and petroleum, which make present-day plastics while simultaneously contributing to climate change (Amato, 2013; Muthu et al., 2011). In 2018, 359 million Mt of plastic was produced globally, consuming 4-8% of annual global oil production (Bauman, 2019; PlasticsEurope, 2019). Additionally, CIEL (2019, p.2) estimated producing and incinerating plastic would emit over "850 million metric tons of greenhouse gases" in 2019 alone. Apart from

manufacturer emissions, as a commodity in the global market; transport, retail infrastructure, and the disposal of plastic contributes additional emissions (CIEL, 2019).

Emissions aside, plastic poses other risks to humans, wildlife, and ecosystems alike.

To make plastic, several chemicals known as plastic additives, are mixed with organic polymers (González-Mariño, 2019). Additives such as antioxidants, heat stabilizers, colorants, UV stabilizers, and flame retardants can account for 80% of the plastic material (González-Mariño, 2019). Today there are countless additives, including the plasticizing phthalates and epoxies which increase product flexibility (Liboiron, 2013). However,

"additives are not chemically bonded to the polymer" creating the potential to leach out and cause harm (González-Mariño, 2019). A study of numerous plastic products by Yang et al.

(2011) found endocrine-disrupting chemicals escaped regardless of product type, retail source, or resin makeup. Similarly, Bignardi et al. (2015), found bisphenol A (BPA) leaches out of aging food containers, and parabens from cosmetic products can be absorbed directly into the skin increasing risk of breast cancer (Crinnion, 2010). These findings are significant because many plastic additives are environmental toxins which accumulate in the body and environment (Bellona, n.d.b; Wright & Kelly, 2017). Moreover, manufacturers are not required to disclose every product additive (Vedeld, 2014); exposing production workers, recyclers, consumers, wildlife, and the environment to harmful substances.

In 2015, 8.4 million Mt of plasticizers were used in global production (Hermabessiere et al., 2017 citing ECPI, 2016); representing a small portion of toxins used in production that year. Furthermore, research already shows all humans in Canada, the U.S., and Greenland contain flame retardants, BPA, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), phthalates, and numerous other chemicals from plastic (Liboiron, 2013 citing Bushnik et al., 2010, CDCP, 2009). Shaped like hormones, plasticizers are endocrine disruptors which can bind to complementary cell receptors within the body; influencing gene expression, protein, and

tissue production (Liboiron, 2013). That being said, some plasticizers can cause infertility, cancer, early puberty, neurological disorders, diabetes, obesity, reduced development, etc (Andra & Makris, 2012; Liboiron, 2013 citing Grun & Blumberg, 2007, Halden, 2010;

Thompson et al., 2009).

The negative health effects of plastic go beyond humans. Bivalves, like blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) and other small filter feeders are important "bio-indicators" for

environmental pollutants like metals, chemicals, and plastic, because every day they filter many liters of water to feed and breathe; absorbing nearly everything passing through them (Bottollier-Depois, 2019). That being said, research shows exposing blue mussels to polyethylene microplastic affects metabolism, structural development, the immune system, detoxification processes, and weakens byssal threads which let mussels attach to rocks and survive the waves (Green et al., 2018). Lab tests also show plastic reduces food intake,

changes gene regulation, and hinders growth in numerous aquatic species (Bråte et al., 2015).

In general, when plastic enters the environment its chemical composition changes (Ogata et al., 2009). For instance, a piece containing many additives will leach chemicals into nature and eventually become more "clean" (Bejgarn et al., 2015; Hartmann et al., 2017). The reverse is also true, meaning a plastic piece can absorb chemicals and become a toxic cocktail to wildlife (Hahladakis et al., 2018; Ogata et al., 2009). Microplastic participles also

concentrate on persistent organic pollutants (POPs), which are fat-soluble and come to rest in the fatty tissues of fish; opening the possibility for toxins to be absorbed and transferred up the food chain (Bråte et al., 2015). Similarly, Hahladakis et al. (2018) have found additives in plastic packaging tend to migrate into fattier foods. That being said, plastic has been found in beer, salt, sugar, honey, bottled water, and other processed foods (Wright & Kelly, 2017).

Furthermore, research by Hernandez et al. (2019, p.1) shows a single plastic tea bag "releases 11.6 billion microplastics and 3.1 billion nanoplastics into a single cup" of tea. Additionally, thousands of plastic pieces annually pass through humans from water, air, and other foods, though the health consequences are not yet known (Cox et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2018).

1.4 Perpetual Plastic Pollution

Even without having to contend with toxin exposure, plastic poses a direct threat to many other species. Virtually every piece of plastic ever made still exists today (Geyer et al., 2017). Most plastic faces photo-degradation from the sun's rays, breaking plastic into smaller particles releasing "more toxic petro polymers" over a period of fifty-plus years (Song, 2017

citing Synthia & Kabir, 2015, p.185, UNEP 2014). In water, photo-degradation occurs more slowly and spreads particles farther (Song, 2017). Additionally, marine microbes help to break down marine plastic debris, albeit simultaneously hindering the abiotic photo- degradation process by blocking the sun's rays from hitting the material (Schlundt et al., 2020). Like the microbes, invasive species and harmful pathogens can also hitch a ride on plastic debris circumnavigating the world's oceans (Amaral-Zettler, 2020).

Plastic's longevity has created a disposal nightmare. Whether seen or not; plastic is everywhere. In the air, in water, in soil, in humans and animals. Plastic has voyaged far and wide; reaching remote peaks of the Pyrenees and Rocky mountains, the deepest depths of the Mariana Trench, the uninhabited Henderson Island, and frigid glaciers of Antarctica (See Allen et al., 2019; Chiba et al., 2018; Lavers & Bond, 2017; Munari et al., 2017; Walton, 2019). According to Davis (2015, p.350), at present "nowhere on Earth can be considered free of plastic".

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is the Earth's largest aquatic plastic

conglomeration, currently covering roughly 1.6 million square kilometers, and containing over 79,000 Mt of plastic (Lebreton et al., 2018). However, this is just a small portion of marine plastic pollution. Researchers estimate there are between fifteen to fifty-one trillion plastic particles weighing upwards of 236,000 Mt floating on the ocean's surface (Van Sebille et al., 2015). All the same, this represents a meager 1% of plastic in the ocean, with 99%

traveling beneath the waves or coming to rest on the seafloor (CIEL, 2019; Van Sebille et al., 2015). Even still, four to twelve million Mt of plastic went from land to the sea in 2010, and the equivalent of one garbage truck full of plastic enters the sea every minute (Geyer et al., 2017; Pennington, 2016). Most plastic debris entering the ocean flows in from ten main rivers; eight in Asia and two in Africa (Gray, 2018; Laffoley et al., 2019 citing Schmidt et al., 2017), and once in the water the plastic moves around the globe.

Today there are more pieces of microplastic in the ocean than stars in our galaxy, and by 2050 marine plastic will outnumber fish (UN News, 2017). On sea or land, many species mistake plastic for food; frequently causing death or injury (Song, 2017). In the North Sea, 95% of seahorses have ingested microplastics, and by 2050 the same will be true for 99% of Earth's seabirds (Bråte et al., 2015; UN News, 2017). Due to the volume of plastic, its role in the global system, and environmental impact, Laffoley et al. (2019) consider addressing marine plastic pollution to be one of the eight most urgent actions necessary to restore the ocean's health.

1.5 Environmental Action in Oslo

Resting in southeastern Norway, Oslo is surrounded by fjord and forests (See Appendix I). As the Norwegian capital and most populous city with 681,071 inhabitants in the municipality, and 1,019,513 people in the greater metropolitan area as of 2019 (Statistics Norway, 2019a, 2019b), Oslo's practices have important sociological and ecological impacts.

Along with the people, the municipality also holds the most diverse plant and animal species in Norway (Oslo Europeisk Miljøhovedstad, 2019a).

Although, microplastics are virtually non-existent in Norwegian drinking water (Furuberg, 2018), the same can not be said for its waterways and wildlife. A study of Oslo's Akerselva river found 13-60% of fish contain microplastic particles, however, the percentage of contaminated fish varied greatly by site (Garmo et al., 2018). Additionally, a recent report shows 80% of Oslofjord's bivalve species contain plastic pieces, and various marine species in the fjord contain BPA, chlorinated paraffins (MCCPs), dechlorane plus (DDC-CO), and other plastic additives (Bråte et al., 2020, p.5; Green et al., 2019). Given the fjord connects to the sea, plastic from Oslo can transverse the currents and eventually wind up in the ocean. To address this, the municipality has come up with a plan to reduce the amount of waste entering the fjord (See Bymiljøetaten, 2019a).

These new goals for addressing plastic correspond with Oslo's history of launching ambitious city-driven environmental plans. The 1998 Oslo Environment: Ecology Program kicked off this transition, leading to future strategies for sustainable development, energy use, waste disposal fees, electric vehicle infrastructure, smart lighting, and plans to reopen some 354 kilometers of rivers and streams previously piped off to divert polluted water and facilitate Oslo's development (C40 Cities, 2012, 2014; Oslo Kommune, 2003, 2018b).

Similarly, 2015's Green Shift set into motion processes to transform Oslo into a sustainable, renewable-driven hub (Hofstad & Torfing, 2017 citing City of Oslo, 2015). On that streak, the municipality is also working to cut CO2 emissions, facilitate a circular economy through waste management practices, and was the 2019 European Green Capital (Hofstad & Torfing, 2017; Oslo Europeisk Miljøhovedstad, 2019a; Oslo Kommune, 2018a). The green capital designation saw Oslo hosting events actively engaging residents, challenging industry to adopt sustainable practices, funding local initiatives making a difference, showcasing solutions, and ultimately being a role model to cities around the world (Oslo Europeisk Miljøhovedstad, 2019a).

Despite aiming to be a green leader, Oslo still has issues to work on. Each day two tons of rubbish falls on to city streets, with cigarette butts, snuff, plastic pieces, and snack wrappers leading the way (Hold Norge Rent, 2020). Even while writing this section, a commotion of seagulls drew me to the window, only to see the gulls fighting over a plastic bag (See Appendix I). Similarly, cleanups by Oslofjorden Friluftsråd (Oslo Fjord Outdoor Council) frequently find snuff pouches, plastic building materials, plastic film, and objects passing through the local sewage plant (Sundt et al., 2014, p.59). That being said, in 2014 an estimated 460 Mt of macroplastics, including q-tips, tampons, and sanitary wipes, were flushed into nature from wastewater treatment plants around Norway (Sundt et al., 2014). As the biggest city, the largest portion of this waste, therefore, went into Oslofjord; washing ashore local beaches or continuing out to sea.

Fortunately, Oslo has the funding and political will to make waves against plastic pollution. Additionally, there is a variety of local businesses, environmental groups, and people currently engaging in different activities to address plastic; offering insight into current low plastic barriers and potentials to jumpstart future change.

1.6 Transformations for a Low Plastic Future

1.6.1 Research Questions

Plastic is arguably the most important invention of modern times. Yet, despite its many useful applications in healthcare, the military, home, classroom, gym, office, theatre, etc; plastic also causes harm. Toxins go from product to air, soil, water, and the body, and its lifespan leads to rubbish piling high.

In fewer than 200 years the material has come to dominate the Earth. Although it may currently be impossible to recover every nanoplastic particle drifting around the planet, much can be done to clean up existing plastic pollution and reduce its future impact. Nevertheless, even with the issue of plastic pollution and consumption widely known, there is limited guidance on how to approach such an enormous task. Some research discusses how

implementing policies, bans, and taxes can facilitate plastic reductions (See Convery et al., 2007; Homonoff, 2013; Martinho et al., 2017; Xanthos & Walker, 2017). However, studies about barriers to going plastic-free, initiatives addressing plastic in Oslo, and literature on plastic-related transformations is largely missing.

1). How do barriers to reducing plastic manifest within personal, political, and practical transformation spheres, and how can

embracing the patterns of aliveness help in overcoming these barriers?

2). How are Oslo-based researchers, civil society organizations, businesses, and municipal employees currently engaging to reduce plastic consumption and/or pollution?

3). How can government, businesses, civil society organizations, and consumers each contribute to facilitating a low plastic transformation?

To fill in these gaps, this thesis uses the patterns of aliveness theory, three spheres of transformation framework, survey data from 30 day plastic-free challenge participants, and qualitative interviews with Oslo-based organizations, researchers, businesses, and municipal workers to explore the questions:

1.6.2 Thesis Structure

To enhance clarity, this thesis has been structured into four distinct sections. The first one, The Problem With Plastic, covers this introduction along with Chapters 2 and 3; laying the foundations for why plastic is worth reducing, and providing an overview of

methodological approach, considerations, and theoretical frameworks through which the results are analyzed. Encompassing Chapters 4 to 7, the second section, Barriers to Reducing Plastic, takes aim at the first research question by dedicating separate chapters to discuss barriers within each of the three transformation spheres. The third section, Oslo-based Projects & Initiatives, uses Chapters 8 to 11 to explore the second research question by giving an overview of plastic-related projects in Oslo. Finally, the fourth section, Facilitating Low Plastic Transformations, covers Chapters 12 to 17; addressing the last question, and providing a summary of the research findings, concluding remarks, and a call for further investigation.

Chapter 2: Methods

Rooted in different ontological and epistemological perspectives, qualitative and quantitative methods lay the research foundations for gathering and analyzing data. Each discipline offers various techniques and provides different explanations and types of data.

This chapter, therefore, informs of methodological considerations and strategies employed throughout this research. Furthermore, it discusses potential researcher bias, justifies using mixed methods, and touches upon the study's methodological shortcomings.

2.1 Researcher Positioning

Laying the Research Foundations

There are many ways of seeing the world which influence how research is conducted, analyzed, and interpreted (O'Leary, 2017). Thus, before going any further it is important to lay the research foundations for this thesis, so the reader can have a clear overview to assess potential bias in the following chapters.

Currently, I reside in the postmodern or post-positivist camp. This view accepts diverse, complex, chaotic, and unknown aspects; postulating research findings are not definitive, but represent varied versions of the world because each researcher unfolds a story differently (O'Leary, 2017; Seal, 2018). Rather than striving for valid results, post-positivists find authenticity from reflexivity and rigor (O'Leary, 2017). Reflexivity occurs when the researcher provides ample information about personal values, background, worldviews, and preconceptions prior, and throughout the study's duration; allowing the reader to judge how the researcher's values may have influenced the results (Seale, 2018).

Right from the gate, choosing a topic automatically introduces some bias because the researcher opts to study something they find interesting or care about (Seale, 2018). My choosing to study plastic is no exception. Growing up amongst the forests of Seattle, Washington in the United States, I spent my childhood outside hiking, playing sports, planting trees, collecting litter, and cultivating a love for nature. After moving to the deserts of New Mexico during middle school, I began partaking in science expos at school. Several months after starting this thesis, I remembered three of my early science fair projects from 7th, 8th, and 9th grade also dealt with plastic. The first project involved testing plastic bags from local grocery stores, along with paper, and biodegradable plastic bags in a mock

landfill, to see what happened to them over several months. The following year, I performed a similar test this time leaving the bags exposed to the elements. The final project, saw me testing and comparing the water quality of several bottled water brands with tap water from sites around town. With the title "Lose the Bottle!" one can guess what the findings must have been.

Playing lots of sports and disliking New Mexico's hard tap water, I went through at least one plastic bottle a day. However, following my research I bought a reusable filter bottle which I still use today some ten years later. Since then, my awareness of plastic, other

cultures, and environmental issues has grown; shaping my actions along the way. I have a bachelor's in International Studies with a focus on Culture and Arts, a minor in Sustainability Studies, and have spent time volunteering with refugees and living abroad in Finland, South Korea, and now Norway. I also have experience working in a grocery store deli and as a personal shopper for online grocery pickup; exposing me to plastic and food waste alike.

Hence, I carry cultural tolerance, and knowledge of diverse perspectives, lifestyles, food, and retail systems.

Furthermore, as someone who has gone from frequently painting with acrylics and choosing plastic over paper due to durability and texture, to now mostly living zero waste; I can understand motivations for purchasing plastic and the struggles of avoiding it. Likewise, because of my practical experience going plastic-free, I am aware of many plastic

alternatives. Although I avoid plastic whenever possible and consider myself anti-plastic, it is worth noting I still possess a wardrobe containing 90% plastic. Nevertheless, to cast

researcher bias aside, this thesis references the opinions and experiences of my informants rather than myself.

2.2 Interviewing Agents on the Plastic Front

2.2.1 The Quality of Qualitative Methods

Qualitative methods primarily link to interpretivism and postmodernist notions of truth (Seale, 2018). Unlike quantitative studies collecting larger data sets to make

generalizations, qualitative studies follow smaller units of people (Walter, 2013). These smaller groups allow the researcher to go in-depth to understand concepts not easily measured (Rasmussen et al., 2006). Thus, this approach is more subjective; allowing the researcher to view and interpret social conditions through the lenses of those being studied (Walter, 2013). Using interviews, observations, and focus groups, the researcher works to

create meaning by uncovering how people attach attitudes, perceptions, and knowledge to social phenomena, experiences, and behavior (Walter, 2013). Employing ethnographies, grounded theory, thematic coding, and historical research along with visual, discourse, narrative, interpretative, and phenomenological analysis are all common characteristics of qualitative studies (Seale, 2018). Additionally, these types of methods link with

constructivism, explanatory research, and inductive logic moving from empirical observation to a law or theory (Teddlie & Tashakkori 2009).

Thesis wise, qualitative methods were used in the form of semi-structured interviews, short-answer responses to a digital survey, and through written prompts and discussions during a meeting with participants who took part in the research. However, the bulk of data came from interviews with local organizations, businesses, researchers, and municipal employees working to clean up plastic pollution and/or reduce plastic consumption in Oslo.

2.2.2 Recruiting Interviewees

Interviews were used to develop a comprehensive overview of different plastic-related projects happening throughout Oslo, and to uncover diverse perspectives regarding plastic pollution and consumption. To collect this information, I set about contacting people working in a variety of sectors, including business, non-profits, government, and the arts. After

searching online and compiling a list of local projects, leaders, and businesses working to address plastic, I sent out emails to prospective interviewees. I also attended

Naturvernforbundet's plastic seminar in Hønefoss and several European Green Capital plastic presentations in Oslo; introducing me to more potential contacts. Likewise, during the Our Ocean Conference in October, I even held an impromptu interview outside Oslo S.

Fortunately, some email recipients were eager to participate, and early interviews quickly snowballed into additional informants due to interviewees mentioning other groups, asking whether I had talked to so-and-so, making recommendations, and even giving out contact information to follow-up on. All in all, I sent interview requests to over forty-five groups and received responses from twenty-five. Out of those responding to my request, I held eighteen interviews. I also visited a local organic shop to speak with the owner; bringing the total interview count to twenty when the impromptu one is also tallied.

2.2.3 Establishing Informant Credibility

The interview informants are not your average Joe, but people who see, deal with, and are "in-the-know" when it comes to plastic consumption and pollution. Using various

strategies, they work to spread awareness, change policies, help companies and consumers use less plastic, and inspire people to care about plastic and its environmental impact. To highlight the diverse opinions of those engaging in plastic-related actions, I met with people from many disciplines.

Of my informants, one is a marine biologist who has been working at the Norsk Institutt for Vannforskning (Norwegian Institute for Water Research) for nine years; studying plastic in Oslofjord and, thereby, offering credible insight into local plastic pollution and its effects on marine life. I also talked with two Oslo municipality workers from Renovasjons- og gjenvinningsetaten (Renovation and Recycling Agency) with backgrounds in chemistry and sustainable manufacturing, and one informant from Bymiljøetaten (Urban Environmental Agency) who has a degree in engineering and studied plastic in the aquaculture industry. That being said, each is knowledgeable about plastic's material makeup and lifecycle along with Oslo's bureaucracy, waste system, and plans to keep plastic out of the fjord.

The majority of interviews came from civil society organizations collaborating across private, political, and public sectors to tackle plastic pollution and consumption from various angles. To learn about what local organizations are doing regarding plastic, I spoke with two informants from Naturvernforbundet (Norwegian Society for the Conservation of Nature), including a former athlete and local politician in Lørenskog, and one with knowledge of plastic toxins and Norwegian nurseries. I also met with the founder of an underwater robotics company specializing in sampling marine plastic pollution, who is now working for Norway's division of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF Norge), a materials expert from Bellona, and an employee from Miljøagentene (Eco-agents) possessing a background in development and experience working with kids. Another informant is a former national Green Party politician and the CEO of Handelens Miljøfond (Trade Environmental Fund); bringing experience from politics, and insight from current non-profit collaboration with businesses.

Moreover, I met with the CEO of Wecycle who has a degree in environmental

science, and a boat captain from Plast Piratene (Plastic Pirates) who has spent many years on Norwegian waters and is in tune with local maritime laws and fishing practices. To gain additional diverse perspectives, I interviewed an artist from the Guerrilla Plastic Movement, a musician who founded CleanSounds, and a military veteran from Team Rubicon Norge who

carries experience from the battlefield over to humanitarian and environmental aid. Despite coming from different backgrounds and organizations, each informant mentioned above works directly with the topic of plastic, engages in educating about plastic's harms, and collaborates with numerous actors to drive change.

Chapters 8 to 11 offer a look at the plastic-related projects my informants are working on. That being said, many of the interviewees from civil society organizations and the

municipality partner with larger companies to address plastic. Thus, after struggling to get through to several Norwegian producers, I decided to use interview accounts, reports from extended producer responsibility schemes, and other studies to briefly touch upon the "big"

business view of plastic. However, for a local business perspective, I did talk to smaller companies engaging in campaigns to reduce plastic in Oslo. One informant owns a local organic health foods store and previously took a 30 day plastic-free challenge; offering insight into plastic for packaging and transporting goods, along with the difficulties smaller businesses face trying to receive plastic-free products. I also talked to a mechanical engineer who founded Empower Clean City (ECC), and the co-founder of Clean Sea Solutions who is a sailor, former sea search and rescue manager, and entrepreneur with boat design

knowledge, and lots of experience on the sea. The only two native English speaking

informants were the founders of Mad Goats Paddling and GreenBoats. I did not know it at the time but both owners are related and frequently collaborate.

As mentioned above, qualitative interviews are subjective, meaning the opinions of my informants do not necessarily represent the whole of their organization. All the same, each interviewee does have some degree of credibility due to experience and knowledge from working to address plastic. Likewise, the informants are overall more aware of plastic

materials, harms, the role plastic plays in contemporary society, and how removing it can impact the larger system. They are also knowledgeable about local structures, littering, Oslo's waste management, and other projects taking place; providing insight into what practices are not working, potential solutions, and opportunities for change.

2.2.4 The Interviews

Figure 1 shows the list of informants, interview type, and category of each

organization. From there, interviewees were alphabetically assigned informant numbers to represent them in future sections. Of face to face interviews, one was impromptu at a festival, eight were performed in local cafés, nine in my informant's workplace, and one at the

University of Oslo's (UiO) Centre for Development and Environment (SUM). Apart from the impromptu interview, meetings were prepared for in advance with interview guides tailored to each organization. Meetings ran thirty minutes to just over an hour; averaging forty-five minutes. Appendix VI provides a basic interview guide of consistently asked questions.

Common themes touched upon the organization's work to address plastic, collaborative partnerships, and the interviewee's opinion of what more needs to be done to tackle plastic pollution and consumption. Additionally, brief notes were taken during interviews for all but two which were not audio-recorded and had more comprehensive notes.

Figure 1: List of Informants

Category Organization Informant # Interview Type

Civil Society Organizations

Bellona 1 Face to face

CleanSounds 2 Face to face

Guerrilla Plastic Movement 3 Face to face

Handelens Miljøfond 4 Face to face

Miljøagentene 5 Face to face

Naturvernforbundet A 6 Face to face

Naturvernforbundet B 7 Face to face

Plast Piratene 8 Phone interview

Team Rubicon Norge 9 Face to face

Wecycle 10 Face to face

WWF Norge 11 Face to face

Businesses

Organic Shop* 12 Face to face

Clean Sea Solutions 13 Face to face

Empower Clean City (ECC)

14 Face to face

GreenBoats 15 Face to face

Mad Goats Paddling 16 Face to face

The Municipality of Oslo

Bymiljøetaten 17 Face to face

Renovasjons- og gjenvinningsetaten (REG)

A

18 Face to face

Renovasjons- og gjenvinningsetaten (REG)

B

19 Face to face

Research Norsk Institutt for Vannforskning (NIVA)

20 Face to face

* Note: As requested, Informant 12's organization name has been made anonymous.

2.3 Surviving 30 Days Plastic-Free

2.3.1 Quantitative Methods

Quantitative traditions are born from the positivist epistemological view of applying scientific methods and objectivity to social research (Seale, 2018; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Thus, quantitative methods employ structured interviews, surveys, and questionnaires, to gather, evaluate, and demonstrate relations between numerical information and concepts (Walter, 2013). Though the majority of research for this thesis derives from qualitative interviews, quantitative strategies were employed to collect and analyze data regarding consumers' plastic-free experiences. The following sections, therefore, explain the quantitative strategies chosen and the reasons for mixing methods.

2.3.2 30 Days Without Plastic

Without customers to buy them, many plastic items would cease to exist on store shelves. Nevertheless, current systems make trying to live without plastic nearly impossible.

To offer a consumer perspective towards plastic and uncover barriers to going plastic-free;

volunteers attempted to go 30 days without using or acquiring any new plastic products. In this case, new plastic products does not refer to virgin plastic, but rather any products one did not have prior to the 30 days. This decision thus made the challenge more convenient,

affordable, and doable for participants. Although the point of the challenge was to avoid plastic, the main goals were actually to 1. build awareness to the amount of plastic

interwoven in everyday habits, 2. uncover the barriers hindering a plastic-free transition, and 3. inspire creative thinking and problem-solving to create accessible alternatives.

2.3.3 Recruiting Participants

Rather than having individuals participate in the 30 day challenge at different times, I launched a No Plastic November campaign to mobilize people to spend November without acquiring plastic. Of course, participants could take part in the challenge at other time periods. The only requirement was to do the challenge consecutively for 30 days. To spread the word about No Plastic November, I created a Facebook page and event, and made posters which were hung in strategic locations around Oslo at the end of October. Posters went up in several buildings at UiO's Blindern campus, SUM, in Bjølsen student village outside a Meny store, and inside the Nobel Peace Center Museum gift shop, Kulturhuset, Deichman's library

near Arne Garborgs Plass, Sentralen, the Lush at Karl Johans Gate, and Sagene samfunnshus (Sagene's community center). Posters were also placed in several organic shops including Ekte Vare, Den Gode Jord, Røtter St. Hanshaugen, and Møleren Sylvia.

I also turned to Naturvernstudentene (conservation students) at UiO, emailed SUM researchers, and contacted the Oslo School of Environmental Humanities to recruit

participants. Similarly, a city employee at Sagene samfunnshus sent the call for participants to Sagene's green fund recipients, and an employee at Naturvernforbundet suggested some Facebook groups to share the campaign in. During interviews, the campaign was also shared with informants when they asked about my research.

Originally, I was just recruiting people in Oslo to participate, but decided to open the campaign to people around the world by sharing it in other plastic-free, anti-consumerist, eco-minded Facebook groups. Given, my interests extend beyond researching change to actually creating it; I felt the online No Plastic November page satisfied both objectives.

Thus, the page could aid participants during the challenge and continue existing afterward.

The desire to initiate change also partly explains why I chose to offer a 30 day challenge, instead of only interviewing or surveying consumers to hear their opinions. Through action research, people actually reduce plastic use, whilst becoming aware of the plastic which often remains hidden in habits; expanding opportunities for direct impact.

Since plastic is tricky to avoid, I purposely shared the call for participants in places where environmentally conscious people would likely see it and signup. This strategy served two purposes. The first being recruitment feasibility, since many "normal" people may not see plastic as a problem and/or be uninterested in participating. On the contrary, those engaging in eco-friendly practices or possessing environmental values are more likely to adopt other green practices. Furthermore, by having participants who are more aware and often presently working to reduce plastic consumption tackle the challenge; difficulties endured shine light on the toughest plastic barriers. Needless to say, the sample collected is not representative of Oslo's standard population.

2.3.4 Tackling the Challenge

30 day challenge participants were asked to complete two surveys and fill out a reflection journal during the month-long period. A select few responding to a Facebook post also got reusable produce bags donated by the Oslo European Green Capital office to make shopping without plastic easier. Before the 30 days, participants took a pre-challenge survey

consisting of fourteen multiple-choice questions; covering basic demographics, perceptions towards plastic, current usage, and motivations for reducing plastic (See Appendix III & IV).

A total of ninety-four people completed the initial survey; fifty-two in Oslo and forty-two elsewhere. Besides gathering information about participants, the pre-survey acted like an enrollment mechanism; allowing participants to receive the official challenge letter, consent form, and a reflection journal to record any frustrations, breakthroughs, or accidental plastic usage throughout the 30 days. The reflection journal was mainly to help participants track personal progress and gain awareness of what plastic items they primarily use, and was not required to be turned it. However, six people did choose to voluntarily submit their journals at the end of the challenge.

After the 30 days, participants were asked to take a post-challenge survey consisting of eighteen questions (See Appendix V). Eleven short answer responses took more of a qualitative approach to explore challenge frustrations, successes, surprises, things learned, and the roles participants' feel various actors should play in tackling plastic. Meanwhile, seven multiple-choice questions sought general, easy-to-quantify responses not requiring significant explanation. For instance, "did you participate with anyone else?" followed by a list of possible collaborators makes choosing a response relatively straightforward. However, there is more to be said about the impacts of participating alongside others, giving rise to a follow-up short answer question. In essence, the short answer responses served as mini interview questions; allowing participants to elaborate and share personal stories, opinions, feelings, and experiences from the 30 days.

In the end, forty-two people completed the post-challenge survey; twenty-nine in Oslo and thirteen elsewhere. Additionally, in early December there was a voluntary post-challenge get together in Sagene for participants to enjoy a free vegetarian dinner courtesy of Sagene samfunnshus, connect with other participants, share experiences, and show off some of the plastic accidentally consumed during November. There was also a plastic-fact quiz and several plastic-related prompts for guests to voice their thoughts on. In total, sixteen participants joined the dinner; rounding off the first edition of No Plastic November.

2.4 Adopting Multiple Methodologies

2.4.1 Mixing Things Up

Employing qualitative and quantitative strategies within the same research project has garnered its share of applause and critique over the years. For a long time, there has been a

''quantitative-qualitative debate'' over which method is superior (Walter, 2013). Yet, who is to decide using numbers over pictures and words makes something more accurate (Rasmussen et al., 2006). Still, some critics argue using both methods are incompatible since they are situated in different ontological and epistemological views (Bryman, 2012). However, as Kuenkel sees it regarding the patterns of aliveness; "life is a process, not a defined (and measurable) state" (2017b, p.85). In other words, quantitative methods may be applicable to some questions, however, for evolving processes a numerical measurement only offers a snapshot of the phenomenon at a given time. Hence, qualitative methods would be more applicable to step in, explain, and seek to understand the process as it unfolds. Both methods offer valuable insight, so the best method(s) rests on determining which strategies contribute most to answering a specific research question.

In recent years using qualitative and quantitative practices within a single study has increasingly become acceptable for overcoming the biases and shortcomings of each tradition (O'Leary, 2017). Moreover, multiple methods allow for a wider range of research goals; to develop a holistic understanding similar to combining "many pieces of a complex puzzle into a coherent whole" (Morgan, 2014 citing Jick, 1979, p.608). Thus, the technique offers the freedom to explore different views and adds "complementary strengths" to the research (O'Leary, 2017; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009 citing Johnson & Turner, 2003, p.299).

2.4.2 Reasons for Mixing Methods

When it comes to employing mixed methods, I side more with the operational perspective taking a “qualitative approach with the acceptance of quantitative” (O’Leary, 2017, pp.167-168). This implies relying primarily on qualitative data, whilst employing some quantitative techniques such as administering a small survey, examining data sets from other studies, and/or coding and quantifying interview data to use during analysis (O’Leary, 2017).

Thus, the bulk of data for this thesis is qualitative; coming from survey participants' short answer responses and the twenty interviews with local organizations. However, the two 30 day challenge surveys do offer some quantitative data from the multiple-choice questions.

Additionally, during a content analysis of the survey's short answer responses, common themes were tallied and quantified to make the findings easier to present. In this regard, rather than reducing the data to percentages, the numbers serve as a starting point to explore the findings in-depth.

Besides mixing methods to gather and process my data, I used it through triangulation to corroborate findings by cross-checking interviewee claims with other reports, articles, and informants (O’Leary, 2017; Seale, 2018). For instance, the figure; two tons of rubbish gets dumped onto Oslo's streets every day kept reoccurring amongst informants. Having several unrelated interviewees mention the statistic made it more reliable and I also found a report by Hold Norge Rent to further back up the claim (See Hold Norge Rent, 2020).

Triangulation adds a rich layer of meaning to social processes (Walter, 2013).

However, proponents argue there is no guarantee findings will match due to different methods and researcher interpretations (Seale, 2018 citing Blaikie, 1991, Seal, 1991). While true that subjectivities are not necessarily replicable, I do not think these claims should prevent against trying to triangulate data. Instead, I agree with Seale (2018) that triangulation should aid in reexamining data and exploring other domains; not trying to create a definitive account of truth. Thus, the main purpose of using the technique in my research is to double- check what one source has said. If multiple reliable sources confirm the same idea or fact, more credibility can be given.

2.5 Sources, Methodological Challenges, & Considerations

2.5.1 Literature Review

A variety of literature ranging from natural and social science reports to policy documents, theoretical and philosophical works, and project-specific sources pertaining to local organizations contributed to this thesis. Scientific reports detail the making and disposal of plastic, its toxins, health implications, and the scale and impact of plastic pollution as discussed in Chapter 1. Meanwhile, social science publications offer insight into motivations for plastic use, habit formation, and using art, music, place-based learning, etc., to facilitate sustainable transformations and connect people to nature. Similarly, theoretical and

philosophical literature pertaining to social practice theory, deep ecology, the Santiago Theory of Cognition, the patterns of aliveness, and three spheres of transformation; discuss well-being, human-nature relationships, and how practices, culture, values, awareness, and sociocultural context play into consumption and other socio-ecological issues.

Much literature also relates directly to Oslo and the projects taking place there, including waste management reports and municipal strategies for tackling plastic pollution.

Likewise, project-specific resources ranging from news articles to local reports, and organization websites; provide coverage of current plastic-related initiatives, and details

about each of the organization's profiled in Section 3. Moreover, a review of Norwegian legislation and European Union directives contributes to exploring how political decisions influence local efforts against plastic.

Overall, approximately 250 resources are referenced throughout this thesis to add depth, triangulate, and contribute to the conversation about plastic and stewarding change.

2.5.2 Language Barriers

Seale (2018) discusses, how the researcher's ethnicity, sex, age, native language, or other defining characteristics can influence how an interview goes. As a native English speaker with minimal Norwegian skills, language posed several research-related challenges.

All but two informants were non-native English speakers, often provoking an apologetic interviewee who claimed to have bad English. The informant from Handelens Miljøfond even arrived not expecting the interview to be in English having had their secretary book the appointment and not communicate this beforehand. That being said, the language barrier likely made some participants shyer or unable to articulate what they wanted to. On several occasions informants even resorted to using a translator app to describe things, however, there was not always an English equivalent.

Apart from the interviews, language also posed secondary source challenges because many national laws, environmental policies, and documents pertaining to recycling, plastic procurement, and cleanups are only available in Norwegian. Reading the documents was not too bad because Google Translate offered decent translations and a Norwegian friend helped clarify anything I did not understand. However, the main difficulty was trying to locate policies and articles I knew existed but did not know the Norwegian name of.

2.5.3 Embarrassing Encounters

Most interviews went fairly well, however, I am a bit shy and awkward so it took courage to locate participants I had never seen before. During one meeting at Kulturhuset, I arrived a bit early having only a name and no face to go by. After making my rounds through the building and not seeing anyone who looked as though they were also waiting for

someone, I went back to the main entrance where a person who arrived just before me was still standing visibly waiting. I asked if they were so-and-so and they replied "yes". After going inside, sitting down at a table, and taking out my interview materials; things felt a bit amiss. I asked their name once more to confirm I had the right person, and this time noticed a

subtle pronunciation difference. To put things into perspective, imagine going to see Matt, but accidentally meeting Nat. As it turned out, my true informant was two tables away and had witnessed the entire encounter. Fortunately, the confusion just made for a humorous icebreaker and did not impact the real interview too much.

2.5.4 Ethical Considerations

Before interviews, informants were shown and explained a project consent form. All informants gave permission to discuss their occupation and use job titles. However, to protect identity, no informant names are ever mentioned and all personal pronouns have been made gender-neutral (i.e. they said, instead of he/she said). Moreover, the owner of a small organic health foods store asked that their business remain anonymous; giving rise to Informant 12's

"Organic Shop" pseudonym. Additionally, in Chapter 12 there is a small section where informants have been completely anonymized to protect their identity and organization.

2.5.5 Organization & Place Names

To preserve some degree of authenticity, Norwegian place and organization names have been kept in their original language throughout this thesis. Page V provides a list of the most relevant Norwegian translations, and there are also translations in-text where names first appear. Likewise, Appendix I shows a map of Oslo and its various neighborhoods.

2.5.6 Feasibility

There are many actors in and out of Oslo working to address plastic pollution and consumption. Thus, the organizations and projects presented in this thesis are not exhaustive, but offer a glimpse into some of the many ongoing initiatives. Moreover, given the limited page allowance; the personal, political, and practical sphere barriers hindering a low plastic transition are not absolute (See Chapters 5 to 7). Rather, the topics discussed arise from common themes which came up in interviews and surveys and, therefore, represent only a few of many barriers.

In terms of feasibility, mixing methods made it possible for me to obtain a wide variety of information in a shorter period. That being said, time constraints did limit the number of interviews and led to surveys for the 30 day challenge participants as opposed to focus groups. Nevertheless, I was able to collect and process all the data I needed.