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).

The impact of plastic pollution on oceans is at least $8 bn per year Natural capital cost of marine plastic pollution by consumer product sector

. . i r

J

i >< i >< i ><

i ><

i

i ><

Automobiles

14

Furniture Consumer electronics

15

44

65

Medical and pharma- ceutical products

Tobacco Athletic goods

86

Durable household goods

94

166

Restaurants

Toys

214

Clothing and accessories

282

333

Footwear

334

Personal care products

345

734

Retail

Non-durable household goods

902

Food

Soft drinks and ice

3 135 Million dollars

1 370

Source: UNEP,Valuing Plastic, 2014

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.

Marine Litter Vital Graphics

19