Experiencing climate change: Flood impact and behavioural engagement in Filipinos
Author(s)/Editor(s): Dr Anne Gene Broomhall, A/Prof Suzanne Cosh, Dr Belinda Flannery, Professor Susan C. Wilson and Dist. Professor Kim Usher, Professor Maria Lourdes Q. Baybay and Dr Rachel Laureano
Publication year: 2026
Publication type: Policy Brief
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As climate change intensifies flooding, people’s experiences of its impact may influence their willingness to act. Alongside recent corruption scandals that have hindered effective flood control projects, addressing behavioural factors, particularly promoting rubbish segregation practices is essential. Responsible rubbish disposal helps prevent plastic waste from blocking waterways and can reduce flooding, with a focus on personal culpability. This policy brief incorporates the results of a study surveying 280 Filipino adults about their views on climate change and comparisons between local waste disposal in the Philippines and Australia’s segregation practices. The aim was to examine how social comparisons – comparing one’s situation to that of others to gain perspective – drive climate change mitigation behaviour. Contrary to expectations, people who experienced more climate-related events showed stronger climate mitigation behaviours, regardless of how much they felt affected by floods, especially when told to evaluate their waste practices and compare them with those in more developed countries like Australia. However, when presented with an anti-littering sign warning that illegal dumping could lead to prosecution (as is done in Australia), experiencing negative climate events might influence how strongly people feel impacted by floods, which could then prompt more climate mitigation behaviours.
Recommended strategies include using anti-littering signs linking rubbish disposal to flood risks, promoting alternatives to plastic packaging and phasing out environmentally-harmful plastics. Emphasising collaboration over criticism may be more effective in instigating action. Additionally, engaging affluent Filipinos in climate mitigation is important, as they seem to be less concerned about such impacts.
The State of Plastic Pollution in the Philippines
The Philippines is facing a crisis in plastic pollution due to illegal rubbish disposal; thus various anti-littering initiatives and ordinances have been implemented to address this issue (Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 2025). However, despite these efforts, plastic pollution remains prevalent in the country (Aruta, 2023). The Philippines is one of the top contributors to global plastic pollution as indiscriminate rubbish disposal is pervasive (Villeza, 2023). Consequently, impacted plastic materials along waterways cause significant flooding and environmental degradation (Gonzales& Sta. Ana, 2002). This is compounded by increasing extreme weather events due to climate change, resulting in greater rainfall and increasing flooding risks (Ogunbode et al., 2022).
A major environmental challenge in the Philippines is the widespread consumption of single-use plastics (Paler et al., 2019), particularly non-biodegradable sachets due to the “tingi” economy, where daily necessities (e.g., shampoo) are bought in small portions due to affordability (Aruta et al., 2023). This results in approximately 62 million sachets disposed of daily, in addition to other plastic materials (Liamzon et al., 2020). Most of these plastics are non-recyclable and worsen flooding by clogging waterways (Akenji et al., 2020) due to unabated littering on top of the absence of promised 5,500 government flood mitigation infrastructures (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 2025).
Individual behaviour regarding rubbish disposal has been identified as a significant factor in the country’s rubbish crisis (Baltazar & Seki, 2017), despite the presence of multiple anti-littering regulations in the Philippines. Notably, the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) Regulation No. 96-009 imposes penalties for littering, ranging from 5 days to a year of imprisonment or fines between PHP 100 (approx. AUD 2.79) and PHP 2000 (approx. AUD 55.85). Presidential Decree No. 825 reinforces individual responsibility for correct rubbish disposal, whilst municipal ordinances set penalties ranging from PHP 500 (approx. AUD 13.94) to PHP 1500 (approx. AUD 41.85) or 3-7 days imprisonment for violations (e.g., Eastern Samar). Comparable to more developed countries, the Philippines is not lacking laws deterring illegal rubbish disposal. However, compliance has always been a problem (Puna, 2023). Thus, behavioural change is important to reduce littering, focusing on factors that individuals can control.
Experience of Climate Change, Perceived Flood Impact and their Contribution to Climate Change Behavioural Engagement
The Philippines, located along the typhoon belt, faces around 20 typhoons annually, making it vulnerable to storm surges and flooding (Asian Disaster Reduction Centre, 2025). Climate change, driven by human activities, is intensifying extreme weather events such as typhoons (Aruta, 2025). Filipinos are severely impacted, with typhoons resulting in flooding that destroys properties and interrupts economic activities (Bollettino et al., 2020). Elevated water levels disrupt traffic, making commuting to work or school difficult (Abad et al., 2020). For many Filipinos, flooding causes financial strain due to insufficient savings to support recovery efforts with a quarter of the population living below the poverty threshold (Ballesteros, 2010).
Climate change behavioural engagement involves actions to reverse environmental degradation (Clayton & Karazsia, 2020), such as segregating and recycling plastic materials and reducing carbon emissions (GAIA, 2019). Personal experience with climate change effects exacerbate perceived flooding impact (Berquist et al., 2019), but may instigate pro-environmental behaviours (Mathers-Jones & Todd, 2023). It was observed that constituents who are aware of the impacts of plastic pollution are more likely to engage in rubbish segregation and advocate for pro-environmental behaviours (Rapada et al., 2023).
Using Social Comparisons to Instigate Behavioural Change
Interestingly, a climate change study on 32 countries found that Filipinos showed greater inclination for pro-environmental behaviour than their Australian counterparts (Ogunbode et al., 2022), albeit improper waste disposal practices are widespread in the Philippines. Thus, an important research goal is to connect flooding from improper waste disposal to climate mitigation actions.
Examining factors that influence litter trends in more developed countries could assist in developing effective policy solutions to the Filipino plastic pollution crisis. For example, compared to the Philippines, whilst litter can be present in areas related to human transitory use (e.g., highways), Australian land areas with high aesthetic or cultural value (e.g., beaches, residential neighbourhoods) tend to have lower litter content (Schuyler et al., 2022). These differences may be attributed to generally disciplined waste disposal practices amongst Australians and respect for their iconic and valued places, underpinned by effective education and policy (Department of Environment, Science and Innovation; Queensland Government). In the Philippines, however, although there are policies requiring waste segregation, poor enforcement often results in clogged waterways, causing many Filipinos to view their rubbish disposal practices as less effective (Bernardo, 2008). Indeed, less than 61% of surveyed respondents indicated that they frequently segregate their rubbish (Cervantes, 2023). Thus, some Filipinos may desire that methods of rubbish segregation in the Philippines could reflect developed countries’ practices (Antonio, 2023).
Known as ‘social comparison’, individuals evaluate their circumstances by comparing themselves to a higher standard to gauge their progress (Festinger, 1954). Markman and McMullen (2003) proposed the Reflection and Evaluation Model which stipulates that such comparison influences behaviours by envisioning that their current state could have been better. If the current situation is evaluated against an imagined environmentally-conscious comparison standard, individuals are likely to experience negative emotions due to the ‘contrast effect’ (e.g., Coricelli & Rustichini, 2010).
Polluted waterways suggest a deviation from environmentally-conscious standards, thus raising concerns and a necessity for remedial actions. To prompt evaluation, a message stating, “Just like in more developed countries, people should have been more disciplined by throwing their rubbish into their proper bins” was shown to Filipinos beneath an image of a segregated rubbish disposal system followed in Australia to contrast the waste disposal practices between Australia and the Philippines. Recognising the disciplined nature of citizens in developed countries like Australia, many Filipinos may realise the poor state of their current rubbish disposal and thus change their behaviour.
Conversely, when individuals perceive that their current situation is similar or a reflection of the comparison standard, they are less likely to feel negative emotions due to perceived equity, highlighting an assimilation effect (Markman & McMullen, 2003). In the reflection condition, a message stating, “The Philippines has an anti-littering law that is almost similar to developed countries” was displayed under an Australian anti-littering sign, drawing attention to the existence of similar anti-littering laws in both Australia and the Philippines, underscoring points of similarity.
Outcomes/ Results of the Current Research
The current study examined whether the adverse experience of climate change is associated with increased perception of flood impact, which in turn is related to greater behavioural engagement. It also examines whether this mediational relationship will be observed depending on the message shown to participants. Two-hundred eighty adult Filipinos aged 18 to 83 and mostly Philippine residents (95%) were recruited through social media to complete a survey during cyclones “Kristine”, “Leon” and “Pepito” in the last quarter of 2024. (See Table 1 and 2 in the Appendix for demographics) They completed the following measures: The Climate Change Scale), The Perceived Severity and Vulnerability to Flooding Measures (Kurata et al., 2022) and The Counterfactual Thinking for Negative Events Scale for blame attributions (Rye et al., 2008). These measures were administered after they were randomly shown one of the two previously described messages. ), The Perceived Severity and Vulnerability to Flooding Measures (Kurata et al., 2022) and The Counterfactual Thinking for Negative Events Scale for blame attributions (Rye et al., 2008). These measures were administered after they were randomly shown one of the two previously described messages.
Evaluation Condition
In this group, it was hypothesised that perceived flood impact would facilitate behavioural engagement in response to adverse experiences of climate change. The rationale was that exposure to a message about the Philippines’ improper waste disposal (in contrast to Australian practices) and emphasising the associated flood risks could motivate climate-mitigating behaviours. However, contrary to expectations, adverse climate change experiences may still prompt behavioural engagement irrespective of Filipinos’ perceptions of flood impact. Within the context of blame attribution, assigning responsibility to others for the state of the environment was associated with increased behavioural engagement, contrary to the view that blame-shifting reduces personal responsibility. Furthermore, the likelihood of individuals participating in climate mitigation activities appears to increase with age and decrease with higher income levels.
Reflection Condition
Interestingly, the expected relationships were observed in the reflection condition, which is that adverse climate change experiences correspond to higher perceived flood impact, which in turn is linked to greater engagement of climate mitigation behaviours. When factoring in blame attributions, people tended to be more behaviourally engaged in climate mitigation activities if they did not blame others for the polluted environment and as their age increased.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Comparisons Against Developed Countries May Not Address the Philippines’ Rubbish Crisis
Our findings suggest that evaluating the Philippines’ rubbish segregation practices against Australia’s does not necessarily prompt Filipinos to view flood impact as an additional reason to engage in climate mitigation. Instead, perceived flood impact may encourage Filipinos to adopt mitigation measures when they see parallels between their own experiences and those of Australia such as seeing anti-littering signages. Illegal rubbish disposal is also a problem in Australia, with signs warning against littering and prosecution similar to the Philippines. This indicates that promoting compliance with anti-littering laws is a universal strategy aimed at raising awareness of these regulations’ roles in reducing flooding, thus mitigating the consequences of climate change. In the Philippine context, anti-littering signage may be more effective when it reminds Filipinos of the potential flooding consequences of non-compliance, rather than emphasising a lack of environmental concern or drawing unfavourable comparisons with waste management practices in more developed countries.
Mitigating Climate Impacts is a Shared Responsibility
Presenting information with an emphasis on shared responsibility tends to motivate individuals to act in environmentally friendly ways. This is especially true for anti-littering campaigns that compare local waste practices to those of more developed countries; by promoting collaboration, these efforts can encourage improved rubbish disposal habits.
Older individuals are more likely to participate in climate mitigation, while wealthier people tend to be less involved as they are less affected financially by disasters. Unfortunately, economically disadvantaged groups are disproportionately affected by climate change impacts, such as flooding, and as frequent users of plastic packaging, they also contribute to more plastic pollution (Aruta, 2023). Accordingly, the business sector should fund initiatives that enable designers and manufacturers to create sustainable packaging solutions and enhance packaging contents for greater recyclability, whilst high-income consumers can encourage buying products with recyclable packaging and practice segregation, influencing their social networks to do the same (Nielsen et al., 2021). In addition, non-government organizations should focus on fostering climate-conscious habits in the youth, such as rubbish segregation and awareness of single-use plastic packaging.
THE ROLE OF AUSTRALIA IN HELPING FILIPINOS MANAGE THEIR RUBBISH CRISIS
Similar to the Philippines, Australia also faces rubbish management challenges and socio-economic status has also been associated with litter rates, where higher levels of litter were found in economically and socially disadvantaged areas (Schuyler et al., 2020). However, Australians typically show their commitment to maintain a clean environment by disposing of rubbish in designated places; they also report littered locations or individuals caught littering to government authorities (Department of Environment, Science and Innovation; Queensland Government). Unlike the situation in the Philippines, rubbish is not permitted to accumulate along waterways in Australia.
International comparisons alone may not resolve plastic pollution in the Philippines. Whilst disposal practices in the Philippines face criticism, several structural challenges impede the adoption of Australian-style waste management practices. Anti-littering laws exist, but limited bin provision restricts effective rubbish segregation at the barangay level, leading collectors to mix rubbish. Public bins are often stolen for scrap metal due to systemic poverty (Huss, 2007). Regarding population density, Metro Manila alone (i.e., 14 million; Manila Standard Business, 2025) has over half of the population of Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2024). Such over-population in the Philippines puts significant strain on its waste management infrastructure, contributing greatly to environmental degradation (Aruta, 2023). Thus, we must account for varying factors when examining the Philippines’ rubbish issues from an Australian perspective.
Opportunities exist to expand cooperation between Australia and the Philippines in the environmental sector. Australia has implemented measures aimed at reducing plastic materials, such as enacting legislation to limit plastic waste, expanding recycling capacity, researching new recycling methods and alternatives to single-use plastics, and providing community education to improve recycling practices in the country (Department of Environment, Science and Innovation; Queensland Government). These efforts have contributed to a decrease in plastic waste littering. Australia could offer guidance on designing anti-littering signs that explain how improper rubbish disposal leads to flood hazards and clarify the consequences of non-compliance (e.g., prosecution), share approaches for eliminating environmentally-harmful plastic materials and help develop biodegradable alternatives to packaging. In addition, Australia could offer financial support, but careful and transparent management of the funds is required to achieve these endeavours. Thus, these recommendations have been determined to be pertinent to Australia’s support initiatives.
Enforcing Environmental Responsibility for Manufacturers
Corporate responsibilities may include producing daily essentials for retail in biodegradable packaging or providing refillable containers as alternatives to sachets, allowing consumers to purchase small quantities of liquid products from local “sari-sari” stores. This will support the effective implementation of the Extended Producer Responsibility Act (EPRA), the National Plan of Action for the Prevention, Reduction, and Management of Marine Litter (NPOA-ML), and the National Plastic Action Partnership (NPAP) in the Philippines, particularly supporting the ban on single-use plastics. This is also relevant to Australia.
Encouraging “Clean-up” Movements
Organise “clean-up days” that underscore the Filipino concept of “bayanihan” (i.e., cooperation as members of a community), whilst highlighting that individual efforts in proper waste segregation exemplify pro-environmental behaviour beneficial for flood mitigation. Integrate these initiatives into Good Moral and Right Conduct (GMRC) and Values Education curricula within basic education to underscore that proper segregation is related to the anti-littering law. In the Australian context, an analysis of waste abatement strategies indicated that larger reductions of environmental waste were more strongly linked to awareness-raising campaigns (such as ‘Don’t be a Tosser’ and ‘Clean up Australia’) versus state-enacted policies (Willis et al., 2018).
Address the source of the plastic pollution problem
Australia can assist the Philippines in working with manufacturers and industry leaders to quickly phase out environmentally harmful plastic packaging products, particularly polymers that are difficult to compost, expanded polystyrene (EPS) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) materials, and find alternative sustainable packaging (Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment; Australian Government). Support may also include suggestions to improve the recyclability of takeaway packaging or increased use of recyclable materials like bamboo-based options.
Scholarly Knowledge Contributions
Researchers can devise behavioural strategies promoting environmental stewardship, such as targeted messages on product labels to encourage recycling and reduce littering. Whilst container deposit schemes can be helpful in implementing recycling, they may threaten informal waste collectors’ income if implemented nationwide. Local governments could address this by organising a task force to collaborate with these collectors on clean-up efforts.
Conclusion
The Philippines faces persistent criticism for poor waste management, with widespread littering. Whilst flooding linked to climate change might be expected to motivate stronger mitigation behaviours, particularly when compared unfavourably to Australia’s waste practices, findings suggest otherwise. Greater exposure to climate impacts was linked to higher mitigation actions regardless of perceived flood risk, especially when messages emphasised Australia’s superior waste segregation. This indicates that flood experience alone does not drive climate action. Addressing the waste crisis may require culturally-sensitive behavioural strategies and anti-littering messages connecting improper disposal to flooding, rather than simply advocating Australian-style practices.
We extend our appreciation to Nica Dioses for taking the photos depicting plastic pollution threats, and to Joyce Edu for editing them for de-identification purposes. Our gratitude also goes to Ma. Teresa Cristi-Pagala for providing the feature image, and to Atty. Arnel Abeleda for answering our queries about Philippine environmental laws.
