Marine Litter Vital Graphics

19 / 60

19 Marine Litter Vital Graphics
IMPACTS
jobs and livelihoods. In the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation region, marine litter is estimated to cost
the tourism sector around 622 million dollars per year
(McIlgorm et al., 2011).
Alongside the economic costs, there are social
costs. These include reduced opportunities for
recreational activities, health risks to coastal visitors
(cuts from sharp items on the beach or in the
water), and loss of the physical and psychological
benefits of access to coastal environments (such as a
reduction in tension and stress due to experiencing
nature and/or physical activity). In areas with poor
waste management the costs can be unfairly borne
by coastal communities or remote regions, such as
Small Island Developing States, that are especially
affected by the concentrated accumulation of litter
drifting on ocean currents.
As previously mentioned, there is evidence that
harmful microorganisms and pathogens can colonize
the surface of marine debris (Caruso 2015). Plastics
found in rivers have been observed to act as vectors
in the spread of pathogens and algal bloom species
(McCormick et al., 2014). Keswani et al. (2016) recently
reviewed the literature on microbial associations with
marine plastic debris and concluded that they may
increase human exposure to pathogens at swimming
beaches, but more research is necessary to determine
the potential for disease transmission.
An area that deserves further consideration is the
psychological impact related to the perception of
the risks and impacts of marine plastic debris and
microplastics. Particular attention needs to be paid
to the perceived health risks to consumers from
the accumulation of microplastics and associated
chemicals in seafood, including possible gender
differences in chemical uptake. The risk posed
by macro debris to large, emblematic marine
fauna (whales, seals, turtles and seabirds) has
implications for animal rights. In addition, the ethical
implications of polluting natural habitats that have
high biodiversity and aesthetic value also need
to be considered. The final impact of this is two-
fold: (1) the impacts on psychological well-being
even if none of the previously mentioned services
(recreational or therapeutic) are affected; and (2)
potential behaviour change (i.e. reduction in fish
consumption and/or consumer attitude towards
plastic intensive products) even if there are no
existing measured economic or ecological impacts
(UNEP, 2016a).
Wyles et al. (2015) conducted an experiment where they
asked volunteers to rate photographs of a beach – with
or without litter, and with different types of litter. They
found that the presence of litter on the beach made it
less attractive to the research participants, who rated the
photos according to how they made them feel and the
likelihood that they would choose to spend time in such
a place. The research participants preferred the clean
beaches to the littered ones and expressed negative
feelings towards the photos with litter. The debris in the
photos was either “fishing litter” – ropes, nets etc. from
the fishing industry, or “public litter” – items that could
have been left by visitors to the beach. Participants
reported that both kinds of litter made the landscape
less attractive, but the “public” litter even more so.