Media coverage, attention cycles and the governance of plastics pollution

Fluctuations in media and public attention create major challenges for the governance of environmental problems but detailed investigations of how issue-attention cycles affect environmental governance processes remain limited. This article addresses this gap using a literature analysis to examine the effects of issue-attention cycles on policy responses to plastics pollution. It explores trends and features of media coverage of plastics, their influence on public pressure for action, linkages between shifts in attention and measures to govern plastics at the international, national, sub-national and corporate levels, and options to utilise issue-attention cycles to support greater action on plastics. The review indicates that heightened media coverage has encouraged greater public engagement with plastics overall but that elements of media reporting raise questions about the coherence and longevity of public pressure for change. Links between attention peaks and increased policy activity also remain unclear, though some policy-makers have used peaks to inject momentum into policy processes and initiate longer-term reforms that buffer policy against declining interest. Alongside these techniques, new framings emphasising the economic, social and health impacts of plastics may assist in extending concern and pressure for action. The article concludes by arguing the need to deepen understandings of the properties of attention cycles for different environmental problems and their implications for governance efforts.


| INTRODUCTION
Mounting public concern about plastics pollution in recent years has been driven at least partly by heightened media coverage of the issue since 2017. Although the adverse effects of plastics had been documented by researchers and in the media for many years, David Attenborough's narration of the effects of discarded plastics on marine wildlife in the BBC's Blue Planet II series appeared to mark a watershed in media, public and political attention to plastics pollution (Males & van Aelst, 2020).
While this crystallisation of concern offers some hope of progress against an accumulating global problem, Downs (1972) argued that public attention rarely remains focused on individual issues for long periods, even those that pose a serious threat. Instead, issues tend to follow a systematic issue-attention cycle of rising and falling awareness (also Howlett, 1997;Rose et al., 2017;Soroka, 1999). This cycle begins with a pre-problem phase, when an issue has not yet captured the public imagination, although experts and interest groups may already be researching it. There then follows an alarmed discovery phase, where an event or other factors trigger heightened media coverage and the public begins clamouring for solutions. This is commonly followed by a realisation of the costs of significant progressoften related to financial, technological or lifestyle constraints-that dampens enthusiasm for radical solutions. The fourth stage, declining public interest, occurs as other issues start to captivate audiences before, in the post-problem stage, the issue enters "a twilight realm of lesser attention or spasmodic recurrences of interest" (Downs, 1972: 40).
However, continued media attention is likely to be crucial in maintaining pressure for action (Vince & Hardesty, 2018).
Despite this, detailed investigations of how issue-attention cycles influence the governance of environmental issues remain sparse (McDonald, 2009;Schäfer et al., 2014). Most studies instead focus on charting changes in attention or the strength of links between the public salience of issues and policy activity (Howlett, 1997;Peters & Hogwood, 1985;Soroka, 1999). Although some studies suggest that issue-attention cycles only partly capture why issues experience bursts of policy development (Holt & Barkemeyer, 2012;Howlett, 1997;Soroka, 1999), they often centre on whether issueattention cycles can predict policy activity when they may have greater value as a heuristic lens for exploring how shifts in attention affect the dynamics of environmental governance. Equally, there remains limited research on how attention cycles vary for different environmental problems despite the potential significance of these variations for how each issue is governed.
The aim of this article is to address these gaps by investigating the implications of the issue-attention cycle for the governance of plastics pollution. The article is based on a thematic review of literature relevant to understanding the effects of issue-attention on the governance of plastics, but also draws on, and provides lessons for, other environmental problems. Three main themes are discussed. The first considers trends in media reporting of plastics and its effects on public engagement. The second examines links between issueattention cycles and measures to govern plastics at the international, national, sub-national and corporate levels. The third reflects on options to manage issue-attention cycles in ways that support greater action on plastics pollution, before conclusions are offered.

| RESEARCH STRATEGY
The research consisted of a thematic literature review examining a range of issues relevant to understanding the effects of issueattention cycles on the governance of plastics pollution. The literature search focused on analysis of media coverage and governance initiatives in the academic literature (e.g., Anderson et al., 2016;Borg et al., 2020;Dauvergne, 2018aDauvergne, , 2018bKeller & Wyles, 2021;Loges & Jakobi, 2020)  A sequential enquiry was used to investigate each research theme identified below. The primary search terms "plastics," "plastic pollution," "plastic waste," "ocean plastic" and "ocean litter" were used to capture the various terminologies used in articles to discuss plastics pollution (Males and van Aelst, 2020). Thematic word searches (identified below) were then tailored to the individual issues investigated: 1. Quantitative and qualitative characterisation of media coverage of plastics, examining trends in media and public attention to plastics (Males & van Aelst, 2020). Search terms used for this characterisation were: "media," "news," "television," newspaper," and "social media" (appended to "coverage" and "reporting") to identify articles examining coverage in different types of outlet. Qualitative differences in coverage between outlets were then derived from characteristics identified in articles reviewed, for example, print news (Keller & Wyles, 2021), social media (Abreo et al., 2019), broadcast (Jennings, Allen, & Vu Phuong, 2021;Jennings, Suzuki, & Hubbard, 2021), online news (Eagle et al., 2018), and those comparing media forms (Zhang & Skoric, 2018). This phase identified broad peaks and troughs in coverage of plastics but provided only limited insight on the nature of coverage or public responses to media reporting of plastics.
2. To profile how public engagement with plastics has been affected by issue-attention cycles, further searches were conducted for literature on public attitudes to plastics and studies examining links between media coverage and public opinions. The same media terms were used alongside terms identifying articles on public engagement and policy, "public attitudes/awareness/understanding/opinion/perception". The searches were performed in conjunction with the plastics terms identified above but also revealed significant literature on public attitudes to reporting of climate change, which provided additional insights on: fluctuations in media coverage; journalistic norms and the nature of reporting during peaks of coverage; contrasts in between traditional and social media; and the influence of media reporting on public engagement and policy agendas.
3. The third phase examined literature on governance regimes for plastics pollution to inform consideration of the effects of peaks and troughs in media and public attention on the governance of plastics. Search terms used included "policy," "political," and "gov- Waste Directive in 1994 (Bailey, 1999). Scientific research on plastics also stretches back several decades, with early works including Kenyon and Kridler's (1969) study of plastics ingestion by Layson Albatrosses, Carpenter & Smith's (1972) analysis of plastics in the Sargasso Sea, and Thompson et al.'s (2004) (Table 1). i Public attention continued to grow after the series, while a modest decline occurred in media attention.
While these studies indicate the movement of plastics through the alarmed discovery and early "declining-coverage" stages of the awareness and concern about plastics during 2017 and 2018, particularly food packaging. However, challenges remain for media reporting of the complexities of how plastics are produced and used (Collignon et al., 2014;Napper et al., 2015;Rillig, 2012;Taffel, 2016), affect ecological systems and human health (Barnes, 2002;Gall & Thompson, 2015;Galloway, 2015;Geyer et al., 2016;Horton et al., 2017;Mendenhall, 2018;Rist et al., 2018;Smith et al., 2018), and are governed at the international, national and sub-national levels (Dauvergne, 2018a(Dauvergne, , 2018bHorton et al., 2017). Oversimplification may lead to poor audience comprehension, while excessive detail may cause dejection and disengagement, and both may lead to people basing opinions on inaccurate understandings (Moser, 2010). Other research suggests that detailed knowledge of environmental problems may be unnecessary to mobilise public pressure for policy. Bord et al. (2000) report that the most reliable predictor of public support for climate policy is general understanding of its causes rather than detailed subject knowledge. Males and van Aelst (2020) similarly suggest that many outlets used Blue Planet II to spotlight the issue rather than to explore the technical and scientific dimensions of plastics pollution. Boykoff and Boykoff (2007) argue that how audiences interpret environmental information is also affected by the journalistic norms media outlets use to select and shape media content (Eagle et al., 2018;Johns & Jacquet, 2018). Personalisation is based on the premise that news value stems from human interest, individual claim-makers and personal sufferings, and discourages systematic analysis of the power relations, economic forces and social processes affecting environmental problems (Boykoff & Boykoff, 2007). Dramatisation similarly encourages the reporting of crises and conflict while muting complex scientific and political information that does not contribute to an immediate sense of excitement or controversy, while novelty privileges saleable drama over chronic and previously discussed problems. Finally, balanced reporting occurs where media outlets give both sides roughly equal attention in contentious debates, regardless of the balance of opinion and evidence (Boykoff & Boykoff, 2007).
Elements of these reporting norms are identified in Keller and Wyles' (2021) analysis of articles on plastics published in four online UK newspapers. The articles covered a variety of topics but indicated a greater emphasis on explaining current issues associated with marine plastics compared with actionable measures or producer responsibility. Reporting also tended to be events-focused, with journalists often anchoring stories to other coverage of marine plastics, such as Netflix's Our Planet documentary in April 2019, or supermarket initiatives to reduce single-use plastics. While such approaches personalised and brought novelty and distinctiveness to reports, many articles targeted one form of plastic at a time to capitalise on recognisable concerns and make them accessible to a broader readership (Keller & Wyles, 2021). Analysis by Völker et al. (2019) comparing scientific and media reporting of plastics similarly suggested that while 67% of scientific publications framed microplastics risks as hypothetical or uncertain, 93% of media articles implied that these risks were highly probable.
The creation of simple narratives about plastics raises a number of issues about the effects of high points in issue-attention cycles on public engagement. Keller and Wyles (2021) argue that simple storylines can raise awareness of plastic products, alter behaviour, and increase pressure to reduce plastics and improve waste management.
Conversely, spotlighting a few companies, (often non-human) victims, and a limited range of recognisable products (plastic bottles, singleuse bags and straws) can detract attention from other products and overarching issues (Loges & Jakobi, 2020;Ritchie & McElduff, L., 2020;Villarrubia-G omez et al., 2018). Focusing on controversies that over-extrapolate scientific findings (Rist et al., 2018) can equally lead to fragmentary knowledge slanted towards judgements promoted in the media and increase the chances of maladaptive responses focused on marginal issues and symptoms rather than causes (Eagle et al., 2018;Jacquet et al., 2015). Some industry groups have argued that media reports on the health effects of plastics give misleading impressions of risks (British Plastics Federation, 2018). Stafford and Jones (2019) further argue that media suggestions that plastics pollution can be solved by quick fixes, such as marine clean-ups, biodegradable plastics and minor lifestyle changes, distracts from debate on deeper changes in behaviour and economic systems to address overconsumption.
Although television news, documentaries and newspapers have been important catalysts for the alarmed discovery and ongoing concern about plastics pollution, social media has become a primary news source for many individuals (Brandtzaeg et al., 2016). Among other things, the reach of social media has conveyed ideas about plastics to previously less-engaged audiences, improving environmental information efficacy and stimulating debate through interactive tools like Tweets, shares, and comments (Jennings, Suzuki, & Hubbard, 2021).
Many social media advocacy campaigns additionally offer greater opinions and advice than traditional media on behaviour change, community initiatives, and political activism, including campaigns shaming litter producers and calling for new regulations (Loges & Jakobi, 2020;Ritchie & McElduff, 2020;Zhang & Skoric, 2018). Further social media activities noted include providing vivid imagery and citizen-science While this raises doubts about social media's capacity to promote political or behavioural activism, one of its major contributions has been in magnifying and prolonging debates initiated by traditional media (Li, 2020;Walther et al., 2021). However, social media coverage has shown a greater tendency to elicit negative emotions, misperceptions and division in debates on plastics (Li, 2020). Trends searches for environmental topics since the Covid crisis. Environmental problems tend to remain higher on public agendas where they are visible, severe, or affect large or influential sections of the population, and where belief persists in the possibility of solutions (Downs, 1972). Images of the effects of plastic debris (even in areas remote from audiences) have prolonged concern, while plastic bag charges and bans on microbeads and plastic straws have demonstrated the potential for action. However, regular reminders and new ways of framing the problem are likely to be needed to counter audience fatigue with existing frames (Pralle, 2009;Thøgersen, 2006).

| PLASTICS GOVERNANCE AND THE ISSUE-ATTENTION CYCLE
The Political attention to plastics thus appears to have been loosely connected to media attention, but the analysis also highlights that significant time lags can occur between increased coverage and policy responses. For example, the UK plastic packaging tax due to take effect from April 2022 originated from a call for evidence in November 2017 on using the tax system to tackle single-use plastic. Draft legislation was subsequently published in 2020 for a tax of £200 per tonne on plastic packaging with less than 30% recycled content for businesses manufacturing or importing 10 tonnes or more of plastic packaging (UK Government, 2020).
Kenya's ban on single-use plastic bags, which came into effect in 2018, similarly reveals that media attention had some impact in driving new regulation. In this case, previously successful business resistance to action on plastics was overcome by pressure from activist groups and international environmental agencies, and the impact of the social media hashtag #banplasticsKE, which was changed to Although not unique to plastics, local campaigns to foster engagement and local governance responses highlights the potential to generate "mini" attention cycles for local problems that reflect the geographical dimensions of plastics pollution (Kolandai-Matchett & Armoudian, 2020). Local regulations targeting individual issues nevertheless fall short of comprehensive governance (Viera et al., 2020) and may be further constrained by legal and financial restrictions on local governments (Banerjee & Sarkhel, 2020). Vince and Hardesty (2017) consequently stress the need for policy approaches that integrate international, national and local governance actors, scientific exper-  (Zen et al., 2013). Richards and Zen (2016) argue that media scrutiny can also persuade companies to adopt deeper commitments to social responsibility, but that corporate poli- that it would join other retailers in withdrawing free single-use plastics bags. Coles then decided to continue offering free thicker plastic bags to "help customers adjust" but announced just 24 hours later that it was introducing a 15-cent charge on bags following a backlash on social media platforms (Borg et al., 2020).
Although media coverage can play an important role in creating social norms and consumer pressure for companies to reduce plastics (Borg et al., 2020;Ma et al., 2020), other studies highlight the chal-  Mendenhall, 2018). Media coverage of these individual streams and poster-child issues (Keller & Wyles, 2021) can create multiple pressure points for regulation as part of an assemblage of attention cycles (contrasting with Downs' more monolithic account) but be less effective in encouraging comprehensive action (Gattringer, 2018). The evidence nevertheless suggests that the capacity for media coverage to amplify concerns has encouraged greater policy impetus (Walther et al., 2021). The next section now explores ways features of the plastics issue-attention cycle might be utilised to promote the continued growth of plastics regulation (Holt & Barkemeyer, 2012). that was already attracting concern. Such ingredients are not easily replicated, though Cook et al. (2014) argue that techniques like horizon scanning and scenario planning can help in detecting emerging threats and provide a starting point for planning publicity campaigns.

| WORKING WITH AND MANAGING THE PLASTICS ISSUE-ATTENTION CYCLE
High-profile scientific reports can also sometimes generate publicity and challenge perceptions of environmental problems. The Stern Review on The Economics of Climate Change (Stern, 2006)  Features of plastics pollution may themselves also help in reviving attention. The visibility of plastics in everyday life makes the issue more relatable, though its embeddedness can also have a concealing effect, while beaches blighted by plastics, although physically remote from many audiences, can hold strong symbolic meanings (Jefferson et al., 2014;Keller & Wyles, 2021). The propensity for issues that have gone through previous issue-attention cycles to maintain some level of concern may also help in rekindling interest. This might be attempted, for example, by revisiting issues that captured sympathy during earlier cycles, highlighting new threats if previous ones fail to ignite concern, and demonstrating that previous responses have proven inadequate (Downs, 1972).
Recognising that attempts to activate new phases of attention may suffer multiple setbacks, a core priority in responding to new peaks is to set clear goals on what can be achieved within limited timeframes and at different points in the cycle. For example greater scope may exist to pursue radical approaches earlier in cycles when appetites for change are higher, whereas defending gains and preparing for future cycles may become priorities later on. Singling out highprofile concerns for early action may also help to generate momentum and show that action is achievable even if initial reductions in plastics pollution are marginal (Dauvergne, 2018b). Responding effectively also depends on identifying appropriate ways to frame issues and policy responses. Developing coherent frames for a multifaceted problem like plastics is again challenging but choosing options may be aided by appreciating that existing frames often lose their impetus if they are repeated constantly (Pralle, 2009). Images of wildlife and beaches affected by plastics remain essential to communicating plastics pollution but can fall victim to compassion fatigue, particularly among audiences for whom they have lower salience (Markowitz et al., 2013).
Stressing the economic and social co-benefits of circular economy approaches to plastics or the health benefits of reducing plastics may provide alternative ways of maintaining belief that solutions exist (Antão Barboza et al., 2018;Axelsson & van Sebille, 2017;Galloway, 2015;Morrissey, 2019). From an activist perspective, Rose (2017) stresses the need for diverse framings that capture the full range of ecological and human problems caused by plastics, including links between plastics waste and justice and the climate effects of degrading plastics (Stoett & Vince, 2019). Rose (2017) also emphasises a need to sharpen public enthusiasm for action by framing plastics as an inherently dangerous pollutant, rather than as irritating but harmless litter that can be remedied through clean-up campaigns. Rist et al. (2018) Much of the recent concern about plastics has converged around items such as single-use bottles and coffee cups that might provide leverage for continued engagement, while concern has grown about disposable face masks and other PPP (Leal Filho et al., 2021). Working to embed plastics into current and emerging framings-in particular post-Covid "build back better" narratives-may also help to renew impetus for action as the pandemic eases.  (Behuria, 2021;Dauvergne, 2018a

| CONCLUSION
Plastics pollution has risen rapidly up the ladder of public concerns in recent years, driven at least in part by heightened media coverage of the issue. While this growth in concern provides some hope Increased media coverage since 2017 has prompted a major increase in public engagement with plastics pollution and appears to have generated pressure for policy responses that has endured during the attention cycle's realisation of costs and declining interest phases (Males & van Aelst, 2020). However, elements of the ways the media has reported on plastics-through human-interest, dramatised and fragmented stories rather than systematic analysis of its economic and political causes-raises questions about the coherence and longevity of public pressure for policy change (Keller & Wyles, 2021).
Important contrasts also emerged between the role of traditional media as a principal catalyst for the alarmed discovery of plastics and social media as an amplifier of concerns, and as an advocate, debating chamber and disseminator of opinions and solutions (Walther et al., 2021).
Although some links were identified between media/public attention and policy activity, these were generally limited and public attention has been, at most, a contributory factor to policy development.
However, the analysis also revealed how politicians have invoked public sentiment to inject momentum into policy processes and have initiated longer-term policy processes during attention peaks to help insulate policy development against the declining interest and twilight stages of the cycle. Greater understanding of how issue-attention cycles operate also provides useful insights on options to advance plastics regulation. Engineering new alarmed discovery phases remains challenging but some traction may be gained by horizon scanning for emerging threats, revisiting issues that resonated with audiences during previous cycles, and commissioning high-profile reports to invigorate public and policy debate. At the same time, new framings emphasising the economic, social and health benefits of reducing plastics and promoting circular economy approaches to waste may be needed to counteract audience fatigue (Morrissey, 2019). Targeting publicity and policy towards individual types of plastics may again help to maintain attention, though the merits of incremental approaches need to be balanced against the need for comprehensive action to stem the flow of plastics into marine and terrestrial environments.
These possibilities for utilising elements of the issue-attention cycle to aid plastics governance should not be interpreted as implying that attention cycles are easily manageable. Events, media coverage and public attention are rarely amenable to deliberate steering (Shove & Walker, 2007) and caution is needed in how insights on plastics are extrapolated to other environmental problems that have different properties, levels of visibility, geographies and contours of media, public and policy attention. General principles may be derived about using alternative framings and initiating long-term policy processes but must be accompanied by detailed understanding of the causal factors affecting the dynamics of issue-and policy-attention for individual problems, jurisdictions and audiences.
Inconsistency in public attention to environmental problems represents a serious, but underexplored, challenge for environmental governance. By examining the plastics issue-attention cycle, this article has sought both to advance understanding and encourage further research on this relationship. Future lines of enquiry include how issue-attention cycles vary between issues and places. Downs (1972) described the cycle as a suite of general peaks and troughs; in reality, complex problems like plastics and climate change experience multiple differentiated spikes in attention, often focused on different facets of the problem. Case study research in high, middle and low-income countries would also clarify how economic, social and political distinctions influence public debate and policy initiatives, while further work on coverage by traditional and social media, the effects of different framings, and the capacity for attention cycles to trigger long-term policy processes would deepen understanding of the attention-policy relationship. When and how far plastics will fade from the limelight is difficult to foretell but further investigation of how attention cycles affect the governance of plastics and other major environmental problems is essential for avoiding the repeat of past mistakes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author thanks the editor and anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and supportive input into the development of this article. ii Only wastes listed in Annex I of the protocol (e.g. dredged material, fish waste, vessels and platforms) can be dumped at sea in accordance with permits issued by contracting state parties.

ORCID
iii The pact involves around 120 manufacturers, retailers and plastics reprocessors. Targets for 2025 include: eliminating problematic or unnecessary single-use plastic packaging through redesign, innovation or re-use; 100% reusable, recyclable or compostable packaging; recycling or composting of 70% of plastic packaging; and 30% average recycled content across all plastic packaging (Which? 2021).