Skip to main content
NCBI home page
ACS AuthorChoice logoLink to ACS AuthorChoice
. 2023 Aug 28;57(36):13304–13312. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.3c01885

Cleaning Up without Messing Up: Maximizing the Benefits of Plastic Clean-Up Technologies through New Regulatory Approaches

Jannike Falk-Andersson †,*, Idun Rognerud †, Hannah De Frond ‡,§, Giulia Leone ∥,⊥,#,□, Rachel Karasik ■, Zoie Diana ○,●, Hanna Dijkstra △, Justine Ammendolia ▲,⬡, Marcus Eriksen ⬢, Ria Utz ¶,◆, Tony R Walker ▲, Kathinka Fürst †
PMCID: PMC10501118  PMID: 37638638

Abstract

graphic file with name es3c01885_0004.jpg

As the global plastics crisis grows, numerous technologies have been invented and implemented to recover plastic pollution from the environment. Although laudable, unregulated clean-up technologies may be inefficient and have unintended negative consequences on ecosystems, for example, through bycatch or removal of organic matter important for ecosystem functions. Despite these concerns, plastic clean-up technologies can play an important role in reducing litter in the environment. As the United Nations Environment Assembly is moving toward an international, legally binding treaty to address plastic pollution by 2024, the implementation of plastic clean-up technologies should be regulated to secure their net benefits and avoid unintended damages. Regulation can require environmental impact assessments and life cycle analysis to be conducted predeployment on a case-by-case basis to determine their effectiveness and impact and secure environmentally sound management. During operations catch-efficiency and bycatch of nonlitter items, as well as waste management of recovered litter, should be documented. Data collection for monitoring, research, and outreach to mitigate plastic pollution is recommended as added value of implementation of clean-up technologies.

Keywords: plastic pollution, litter, clean-up technology, bycatch, externalities, regulations, added value, plastics treaty

Short abstract

As clean-up technologies might have unintended negative consequences, we suggest how such technologies can be regulated under the plastics treaty to secure their net benefit.

1. Introduction

Plastic pollution is one of the greatest environmental challenges facing the world today, threatening human and environmental health.1 Initiatives from local to global levels have been launched to address the issue, including the current United Nations negotiations toward a global plastics treaty.2−4 Although upstream actions (e.g., reduction, substitution, and new product designs and business models) are identified as the most cost-efficient solutions to reducing and preventing plastic pollution,1,4−6 a combination of management strategies across the entire plastic lifecycle is required for reducing current and future plastic pollution impacts.7−10 These include downstream solutions, such as the collection of plastics in the environment. Globally, manual clean-up activities that engage the public and the deployment of emerging technologies expressly designed to address legacy plastic pollution have been implemented in an effort to mitigate the plastics crisis downstream.11−13 These combined efforts have contributed to plastic pollution reductions in the environment, direct benefits to ecosystems and communities (Arabi et al., 2020), and additional cobenefits, such as public awareness and the generation of data to inform policy (e.g., Haarr, Pantalos,14 EU,15 Wyles, Pahl,16 Falk-Andersson, Berkhout,17 Canada18).

Plastic remediation technologies have been utilized globally, ranging from community-based initiatives to national programs. These technologies can be grouped into two categories: (1) prevention technologies and (2) clean-up technologies.13 Plastic prevention technologies are designed to remove plastic and other anthropogenic waste before entering the environment and include filtration systems in wastewater treatment plants and laundry filtration technologies.13,19,20 Plastic clean-up technologies have been developed and deployed to remove plastic already present in the environment. The majority of the clean-up technologies cataloged in The Plastic Pollution Prevention and Collection Technology Inventory13 as well as in the plastic clean-up and prevention overview20 are deployed in aquatic environments. Other environments where plastic clean-up technologies can be employed include sand and soil. Aquatic plastic clean-up technologies include river booms and nets, receptacles, and watercrafts that can be deployed in built, urban, or natural environments.13,21 Examples include The Ocean Cleanup,22 Mr. Trash Wheel,23 and Seabin.24 Within plastic clean-up technologies, a variety of designs have been developed to adapt to different environments and contexts19,20 ranging from passive to active technologies (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Graphical depictions of categories of plastic clean-up technologies, as classified in Schmaltz, Melvin,13 demonstrating the diversity of plastic clean-up technologies that currently exist. These are deployed in various environments, use unique methods, and target different kinds of plastic pollution (all figures are original and developed by authors of this article).

Manual clean-ups have been conducted around the world by paid formal and informal waste collectors as well as volunteers.25 However, there may be circumstances where a plastic clean-up technology is more appropriate to increase efficiency, as clean-up technologies can enable access to hard-to-reach litter and mitigate unsafe working conditions. At the same time, clean-up technologies may have unintended consequences and may not always be cost-efficient. Consequently, concerns are raised regarding the cost-efficiency and environmental impact of these clean-up technologies10,24,26−28 Concerns are likewise raised that clean-ups distract the public and decision makers from upstream source-reduction strategies,27 misrepresenting that plastic pollution can be mitigated solely through downstream approaches. These concerns justify the use of regulatory instruments to oversee the use of clean-up technologies. However, the plastics policy landscape currently lacks explicit guidance or oversight over clean-up technology implementation.

The United Nations Environment Assembly resolution to end plastic pollution specifically refers to the need for the intergovernmental negotiating committee to consider measures to reduce plastic pollution already present in the environment.29 The future international instrument may therefore include provisions encouraging countries to include clean-up activities in their national action plans and other implementation measures. Given the current lack of guidance in the international policy landscape, the treaty provisions must be designed to ensure uptake of clean-up technologies does not result in adverse outcomes and instead maximizes positive impacts.

Given the expansion of innovative and novel plastic remediation technologies (to date, over 100 technologies have been recorded20) and the diversity of technology types and potential trade-offs, we saw a need to share knowledge and insights to better understand the role of plastic clean-up technologies in combating plastic pollution. In June 2022, a two-session webinar series was organized that brought together diverse stakeholders (i.e., entrepreneurs, nongovernmental organizations, and researchers) in fruitful discussions on the role and contribution of plastic clean-up technologies in reducing plastic pollution. Webinar panelists coalesced around two key messages: (1) regulation of plastic clean-up technologies is needed to ensure a net benefit for the environment and affected communities, and (2) responsible implementation of plastic clean-up technologies can result in cobenefits to society.

We argue that to maximize cobenefits and mitigate potential negative consequences, the role of plastic clean-up technologies in reducing plastic pollution should be given careful attention in the upcoming international treaty. Here, we elaborate on the key insights from the webinar and clarify the role of plastic clean-up technologies in the solutions landscape to reduce plastic pollution with specific reference to the global plastic treaty currently being negotiated.2,4,30 We argue that the treaty should include language and guidance on ensuring clean-ups of existing plastics in an environmentally sound manner (ESM). Elements under the guidelines include predeployment feasibility studies, such as environmental impact assessments (EIA), and/or life cycle analysis (LCA). During deployment, monitoring and reporting of bycatch and litter collected should be conducted to document cost-effectiveness and environmental impact and enable transparency regarding waste management and final fate of collected litter to secure ESM. Additionally, data collection on amounts and sources for monitoring, research, education, and outreach would provide added value (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Suggested elements for evaluation of clean-up technologies to secure environmentally sound management and added value. To secure environmentally sound management, EIAs and LCAs should be conducted predeployment, while during deployment the catch-efficiency, bycatch rates, and waste management should be documented. During deployment, collection of data for monitoring and research, as well as implementation of outreach projects, would provide added value of implementing the clean-up technology.

2. Securing Environmentally Sound Management

In international environmental law, the ESM is commonly used to signify that measures will need safeguards to prevent negative environmental externalities. Two examples are the Basel Convention and the Minamata Convention. However, there is no single agreed upon definition of what ESM entails.31 Rather, ESM is understood as a “broad policy concept that is implemented in various ways by different countries, organizations and stakeholders”.32 In the context of the Basel Convention, ESM implementation is guided by technical guidelines, toolkits, and frameworks.33 The Framework for ESM of wastes, adopted at COP11 of the Basel Convention, identified the following elements as needed to be considered: regulatory matters, facility-related matters, waste-related matters, resource and process efficiency, environmental protection, occupational safety and health, organizational matters, transparency, and innovation, research and development.34 Such an integrated ESM approach may also be relevant for clean-up technologies. In the next sections, we identify the challenges and opportunities that such technologies represent and the evaluations and documentation that should be conducted predeployment and during deployment.

2.1. Predeployment Evaluations

Although the removal of plastics from the environment using clean-up technologies has ecological benefits, negative environmental impacts and implementation costs should also be considered. Depending on the scale and target plastic size, clean-up technologies may impact multiple levels of biological organization, from microbiomes to individual organisms and sessile or floating habitats.24,26,27,35,36 For example, deployment of technology and personnel to clean up nurdles on the coast of Sri Lanka was found to cause increased coastal erosion.37 Additionally, some studies have reported a high occurrence of organic matter (e.g., algae, seaweed) when sampling plastics collected from clean-up technologies.24,38,39 Organic matter has important ecosystem functions. For example, floating mats of Saragassum spp. macroalgae are classified as essential fish habitats in the marine environment,40 and organic matter is crucial for sustaining ecosystems within and downstream of rivers.41−43 Thus, implementing plastic clean-up technologies may pose negative ecological risks. Ecological harm may be reduced through technological innovation (e.g., bycatch reduction analogy from fisheries as described in Falk-Andersson, Larsen Haarr26) or implementing the technology where and when the plastic load is high,44 the risk of harming ecosystems is low, and the benefit of preventing plastics from reaching vulnerable ecosystems is high.26,45

The socioeconomic context in which clean-up technologies will be implemented is also key. Without formal regulatory mechanisms, the deployment of technologies can harm communities already disproportionately burdened by the plastics crisis. For example, the clean-up technology Sweepy Hydro was donated to the Sri Lankan government after the containership X-Press Pearl released 1,680 tonnes of plastic nurdles.37 This was an imperfect solution that further burdened the community affected by the spill, as the nurdles extended into the substrate, while the Sweepy Hydros could be used only at the surface. The devices were also vulnerable to clogging with wet sand, which made them ineffective in coastal environments. Finally, as Sri Lanka is facing an economic downturn and fiscal crisis, both spare parts and fuel for the machines are in short supply. Ultimately, manual cleaning turned out to be more cost-efficient in this case.46

While plastic can generate value within the waste stream, recovery of plastic litter is generally associated with extra waste disposal cost,6 which must be carried by those initiating clean-ups. However, this responsibility is not always clear and is also a potential issue for litter collected at high seas outside of national jurisdiction. Waste disposal costs include sorting, cleaning, transportation, and processing, with any positive revenue from recovered litter being dependent on a number of factors, including the market for the recycled products.47 Separation of collected plastics from organic matter may be time-consuming if the ratio of plastics to organics collected is low.24 Correct sorting of the recovered litter may require specific expertise as its composition may be highly complex.47 Recycling facilities may not be available locally, with transportation for recycling adding environmental and economic costs and a risk of plastics becoming mismanaged in import countries.47,48 At present, the quality of recovered ocean plastics is often too low to be accepted for recycling,19,46 and recycled ocean plastics have been found to score lower on a range of functional material tests49 and environmental indicators in life cycle assessments (LCA).50 Both the socio-economic context and the recovered plastic’s quality influence the feasibility and cost-efficiency of using clean-up technology, as well as the destiny of recovered plastics in waste management.

Before deployment we recommend that guidelines for ESM clean-ups include feasibility studies (EIAs and LCA) to evaluate the cost-efficiency of the technologies, the maintenance and management of technologies over time, availability of infrastructure for waste management, and the environmental impact of deployment of the technology. Such assessments should evaluate different clean-up methods against each other, including manual clean-ups, in different contexts to ensure that the best solutions are chosen according to the local context. This would secure the optimal use of society’s resources in reducing plastic pollution and avoid unintended negative consequences.

Development projects that may have positive and negative environmental impacts are often subject to EIA regulations in many jurisdictions.51 When conducted properly, EIAs require science-based evidence to help inform decision-making on major projects to reduce, mitigate, and disclose negative environmental impacts. Although some companies have conducted EIAs of their technologies,52 there are no standardized national or international regulatory requirements guiding EIAs for plastic clean-up technologies. To successfully conduct an EIA on plastic clean-up technologies, the parameters that influence the chances of biota, organic matter, or plastic being collected must be determined, and impacts on the local ecosystems assessed. The latter should include identification of vulnerable species in time and space that can conflict with clean-ups, for example through negative impacts on breeding or nesting. All these factors will depend on the location, time, and type of technology deployed26,35,53 and how recovered plastic is managed after collection. While plastic clean-up technologies are most often deployed in aquatic environments, EIAs and other biophysical assessment tools should consider and compare the impact or benefit of the deployment of these technologies in various environments on site specific or case by case basis, as appropriate. For example, well-understood EIAs typically propose scenarios that include alternatives or no action at all. In the case of clean-up technologies, various devices may perform better than others in some scenarios, and in other cases, not deploying the device or technology at all may be considered the best option.

LCAs of the technology deployed will permit better cost-benefit analyses and help determine the best mitigation strategy for a particular environmental compartment, litter density, and socio-economic capacity. Both floating litter and seafloor clean-ups have extremely expensive capital costs that increase with depth and the upscaling needed to significantly reduce legacy plastics,27,28 and as plastic density decreases the cost/benefit may change quickly.26 An LCA should include an economic assessment, including capital costs, operating costs (e.g., fuel, repair, maintenance), staff requirements, and installation and extraction costs. The technical and financial capacity to apply and maintain clean-up technologies should also be evaluated. Furthermore, the LCA should include a risk assessment that also evaluates impacts from malfunction of the technology, such as fuel spills, fire risk, and shipping and navigation hazards from lost equipment. While considerations of EIA, LCA, and risk assessment have been proposed here, there is no one single biophysical assessment tool that is recommended. Instead, clean-up technologies should be assessed holistically and on a site-specific basis. For example, if accurate predictions can be made for a technology that has not been deployed yet, then an EIA approach would be well suited. However, if a technology has already been deployed but the incidence of mortalities, injuries, or entanglement of species are assessed against other criteria such as population stability and species conservation status, then the risk of deploying the technology may be considered unacceptable based on biodiversity considerations.

2.2. Assessments during Deployment

2.2.1. Catch-Efficiency and Bycatch

Studies have shown that the cost-efficiency of clean-up technologies depends on the type of environment, spatiotemporal litter density, and accessibility. In open oceans and on the ocean floor, cost-efficiency of clean-up technologies is low, while in some rivers and coastal areas with litter hotspots, cost-efficiency may be higher.10,26,27 Although recent studies are aiming to unravel the effectiveness of certain clean-up technologies,54,55 a lack of data on spatiotemporal litter density as well as capital and maintenance costs limits the ability to clearly evaluate their cost-efficiency.26,56 For example, the estimated investment, operational and management costs are 1.24–1.55 USD/kg plastics for Seabins and 22.5–30.1 USD/kg plastics for booms.6 But this assumes that plastics represent 80–90% of the catches. The cost of cleaning up 25 tons of litter manually at an isolated island of the Seychelles archipelago was about 8.83 USD/kg plastics.57 This cost is expected to be substantially lower in or closer to urban areas. To help markedly reduce plastics already in the environment, implementation of clean-up technologies often needs to be scaled up. Parker-Jurd, Smith24 calculated that 500 Seabins were needed to keep a marina of 25,000 m2 clean, while Hohn, Acevedo-Trejos10 found that even 200 oceanic clean-up devices from The Ocean Cleanup would only have a modest impact on floating ocean plastics globally given the current plastic production trajectory. With upscaling of deployment, the risk to the ecosystems described above also increases.

Studies have attempted to standardize catch per unit effort (CPUE) across different plastic clean-up technologies, but a lack of data limits these efforts (e.g., Falk-Andersson, Larsen Haarr26). Furthermore, bycatch is generally not documented.26 As an example, The International Trash Trap Network has developed a protocol for collection of data that can be used to estimate litter capture rates (weight/day or hour) and document the occurrence of bycatch. However, documentation of flow rates, specific water body information, and the type of bycatch is not mandatory.58 Nationally and regionally established litter monitoring protocols do not accommodate for recording catch-rates and bycatch of nonlitter items.26

Harmonization efforts to standardize calculation of catch rates and bycatch need to be strengthened to allow for CPUE comparisons across technologies and with manual cleaning. Such data would support feasibility studies prior to deployment of clean-up technologies as well as during implementation and could also feed into environmental monitoring schemes under the treaty. Harmonization should include standardization of data collection across the multiple clean-up technologies applied, as they differ considerably in their mechanisms for plastic pollution capture, which affects the representativity of items caught.13,24,35 It is important that selectivity (e.g., size range of plastic debris captured) is documented and that data collection methods and reporting metrics are harmonized.53,59,60 Counts data are generally used in plastics monitoring and would be relevant in this context too. Most clean-up technologies targeting macroplastics are unlikely to capture the very large items that account for the large differences in identifying the main sources of litter when using counts as compared to weights.61,62 However, for technologies that also capture smaller plastics, both counts and weight data should be recorded as this affects our understanding of the amounts of litter recovered.24 Weight data may also be relevant for comparing catch rates of litter and nontarget biota, as plant material may be difficult to count.

Technical guidelines should be developed to define bycatch limits. Bycatch of biota may be inevitable, and in fisheries management, bycatch limits are commonly used for regulating the severity of this type of impact.63 Similar regulations may be applied regarding how and when to implement plastic clean-up technologies. For instance, governments could define times when clean-up technologies should not be used due to higher risks of bycatch (e.g., during seasonal spawning or fish migrations). There should also be requirements to design technologies to minimize bycatch. For example, fishing gear has been developed to minimize bycatch rates through the implementation of sorting grids and turtle exclusion devices, which take advantage of the behavioral differences among species.64−66 Just as in the fisheries sector, bycatch regulations are not enforceable without monitoring and reporting of catch and discard rates.67 There is a need to record and report bycatch items and rates, particularly for vulnerable species,26 as a part of clean-up technology reporting requirements. As in fisheries, compliance in terms of reporting data correctly could be a challenge. Independent observers are used in fisheries, and in recent years the use of remote electronic monitoring has also been explored.68 Such measures can also be implemented in documenting litter caught by clean-up technologies.

2.2.2. Waste Management

While large amounts of litter have been recovered from the marine environment, there is very little documentation of their destiny.69 Circular economy solutions that allow for recovered litter to re-enter the economy should be strived for and may even represent economic opportunities and thereby a cobenefit. Waste collection represents an important livelihood for marginalized communities in low- and middle-income countries,70 and collected plastics can be a source of income through repurposing,57 energy sources,71 or replacement of bitumen in road constructions.72 However, the environmental, social, and economic viability of these solutions needs to be carefully assessed and will depend on the country or location of deployment, as there will be differences in factors such as access to customers, favorable regulatory conditions, and waste management infrastructure.19,73 Today there are limited economically and environmentally sustainable end-of-life solutions for recovered plastics.19,50 Recovered litter represents a diverse mix of materials, with plastics dominating, that is difficult to separate, clean, and recycle.69,74 Utilizing waste in energy recovery is an option, as incineration and pyrolysis can use degraded and mixed plastics as feedstock. However, these processes come with economic and environmental challenges, including a contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions and release of atmospheric pollutants in jurisdictions where appropriate incineration facilities are lacking.75−77 Relying on such solutions could also lead to a technological lock-in, which does not address the many problems created upstream in the plastics life cycle. In many cases, landfilling may be the best or only option, but this requires that the landfills have high environmental standards to avoid the leakage of chemicals and litter into the environment. To secure the economic viability of these interventions, planning and development of the clean-up technology in parallel with development of business models are recommended.78

2.2.3. Ensuring Cobenefits

2.2.3.1. Monitoring and Research

Clean-up initiatives have generated valuable data documenting pollution levels, identifying sources, informing research, guiding upstream mitigation efforts, and monitoring the impact of policies.26,59,79 Technologies for knowledge collection, such as mobile applications (i.e., apps) for documentation of amounts and types of litter (e.g., DebrisTracker,80 CleanSwell81) have allowed for cost-efficient data collection through citizen science. Apps and protocols for litter quantification and identification applied by national monitoring programs (e.g., Fleet, Vlachogianni,82 Ospar,83 Vighi84), could also be used to document plastic captured using clean-up technologies. The University of Toronto Trash Team, for example, uses data on common items collected via Seabins installed along the Toronto Harbourfront to inform local pollution prevention projects,85 and data on items collected by MrTrashWheel are available on their Web site.86

The development and application of harmonized protocols would facilitate the use of the data from clean-up technology deployment in monitoring and policy advice. The protocols applied should be harmonized with global monitoring efforts (e.g., UNEP,62 Vighi,84 COBSEA87). To reduce the cost of data collection, simplified protocols, such as citizen science protocols, could be suitable for this purpose. Such proposed guidelines can counteract challenges related to securing the quality of citizen-science data.88,89 High resolution of some source categories may be needed to secure data that is important for policy interventions.90 For example, in the European Union, specific single-use plastic items documented to be abundant on European shorelines have become policy targets.15

2.2.3.2. Outreach

Technological solutions have cross-sector enthusiasm and support and can contribute positively to reducing plastic pollution. Several cobenefits of manual clean-ups have been documented that could also apply to clean-up technologies. These include individual and community empowerment, exemplified by community bonding over a shared issue, and individual engagement to change behavior and identify solutions.28,91 Groups engaging in clean-ups can become more connected to their culture and community as members work together to protect their local environment and become motivated for advocacy to drive change on a larger scale,91 benefits known as “knowledge building”, “culture building”, and “movement building”.92

It is important that such cobenefits are maintained to the extent possible with clean-up technology implementation. A study by Maeda, Brščić93 found that while observing a human picking up litter made people less inclined to litter, this was not seen when people saw a robot doing the same. Discarding of more litter to the environment due to the perception that the technologies will remove it has also been identified as a risk.20 However, some clean-up technologies are designed to engage communities positively. For example, Mr. Trash Wheel in Baltimore Harbor has googly eyes and a social media personality, making it a friendly and beloved character rising to a local celebrity. The aim of this initiative is to build a sense of community pride and engagement around plastics clean-up and environmental stewardship, inspiring people to keep the environment free of plastic.86,94 How clean-ups, including employment of clean-up technologies, affect littering behavior is not well studied as indicated by the review of Chaudhary, Polonsky.95 Successful public outreach requires resources and logistics to secure participation, high-quality information and engagement materials, the health and safety of participants, and proper waste management for litter recovered (e.g., for clean-up guidelines, see e.g. Marfo,96 OC97). To encourage critical thinking, these events should also include reflections regarding solutions to the plastic pollution problem, the role of clean-up technologies, their potential negative impacts, if they are appropriate in all contexts, and the scale of the issue in comparison to the scale of plastic collected.

3. The Path Forward

The benefits and potential risks of applying clean-up technologies, as well as associated policy recommendations, are summarized in Table 1. Further guidelines and regulations are essential to ensure the beneficial use of plastic clean-up technologies and to minimize potential negative effects. Stakeholders that should be involved in the design, implementation, and monitoring of plastic clean-up technologies range from start-ups, entrepreneurs, device manufacturers, and distributors, to civil society, local governments, port authorities, and NGOs. We recommend development and implementation of EIA and LCAs, and standards for recording catch- and bycatch rates. Despite challenges posed, plastic clean-up technologies can provide important added value in terms of data collection and outreach to implement preventive efforts. Because of the role of these technologies to combat plastic pollution, these considerations should be included in the plastics treaty to secure their net benefit to the environment and society.

Table 1. Summary of Benefits and Risks Associated with Implementation of Clean-Up Technologies, as well as Policy Recommendations.

Benefits of clean-up technologies Risks of clean-up technologies Policy recommendations
Removal of plastics and litter Bycatch affecting ecosystems negatively Predeployment evaluation of interaction with ecosystem components in time and space
    Documentation of bycatch
    Harmonization of bycatch calculations
    Bycatch limits
    Design requirements to limit bycatch
    Restrictions in time and space to limit bycatch
Removal of plastics and litter Inappropriate technology for ecological, social, and economic setting Holistic predeployment evaluation of site-specific ecological, social, and economic factors
Removal of plastics and litter Malfunctioning of technology Predeployment evaluation of risks related to malfunctioning and losses of technology
Removal of plastics and litter Low cost-efficiency Predeployment evaluation
    Documentation of catch-efficiency
    Harmonization of catch-efficiency calculations
Recovered litter enters the waste management system High costs of disposal Predeployment evaluation of waste management opportunities
  Low recycling potential  
  Immature technology for recycling and waste-to energy Documentation of destiny of recovered litter
  Lack of waste management facilities  
  High transportation costs  
Higher environmental awareness Clean-up technology seen as solution resulting in more littering and less focus on upstream solutions Outreach programs of high quality focusing on real solutions that encourage critical thinking
Data on pollution levels and sources Improper reporting and poor data quality Harmonization of data collection protocols
  Poor quality of citizen-science data Develop citizen science projects based on best practice recommendations
    Independent observers
    Protocols allow for identification of policy relevant items
Economic opportunities related to recovered plastics No opportunities to safely pursue repurposing and recycling options Predeployment evaluation of economic opportunities and potential social, ecological, and economic risks
    Development of business models
Open in a new tab

Acknowledgments

We thank the Norwegian Research Council for funding the project Asian Scientific Alliance for Plastic Pollution (ASAP) and value network management under the MARINFORSK program (project number 302575). This work is endorsed by the International Knowledge Hub Against Plastic Pollution (ikhapp.org). The contributions of J.F-A., K.F., and I.R. were supported by ASAP. G.L. was supported by the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO), as a PhD grant strategic basic research, application number 1S13522N. H.D.’s work was funded under the EU project CLAIM (Cleaning Litter by developing and Applying Innovative Methods in European seas) H2020 Grant agreement ID: 774586. The contribution of J.A. was supported by the National Science and Engineering Research Council via the Alexander Graham Bell Canada Graduate Scholarship-Doctoral (CGS D), award number #557769-2021. Z.D. was supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number T32ES021432. (The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.) The contribution of T.R.W. was funded by National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Discovery Grant RGPIN-2018-04119. We also thank all the webinar participants, including the authors of this paper as well as Adam Lindquist, Carl Höjman, Eivind Bastesen, and Jean-David Lantagne. We would like to thank Jeremy Ashton (Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment, & Sustainability), Braden Phillips-Welborn (Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment, & Sustainability), and Hans Adam (Norwegian Institute for Water Research) for their help in running and promoting the webinar. We would like to thank all of the webinar attendees for their time, attention, and thoughtful questions.

Glossary

Abbreviations

LCA

life cycle assessment

EIA

environmental impact assessment

ESM

environmentally sound management

CPUE

catch per unit effort

NGO

nongovernmental organization

Biography

graphic file with name es3c01885_0007.jpg

Jannike Falk-Andersson is a senior scientist at the Norwegian Institute for Water Research. She has a background in marine management and is an interdisciplinary researcher on the topic of marine macroplastics and litter. Her work has included monitoring of macrolitter, sustainability indicators for sustainable circular economy solutions to waste management, evaluation- and identification of measures to reduce plastic pollution, stakeholder involvement and cost-benefit of implementation of clean-up technologies. Falk-Andersson is the first author and co-author of numerous publications and reports on macroplastics and litter. She has contributed to conferences, university courses, and workshops on this topic, and is leading several research projects on plastic pollution.

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

References

  1. From Pollution to Solution. A Global Assessment of Marine Litter and Plastic Pollution; UNEP: Nairobi, 2021; p 150.
  2. Simon N.; et al. A binding global agreement to address the life cycle of plastics. Science 2021, 373 (6550), 43–47. 10.1126/science.abi9010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Borrelle S. B.; et al. Why we need an international agreement on marine plastic pollution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2017, 114 (38), 9994–9997. 10.1073/pnas.1714450114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bergmann M.; et al. A global plastic treaty must cap production. Science 2022, 376 (6592), 469–470. 10.1126/science.abq0082. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Marine Litter Vital Graphics; United Nations Environment Programme and GRID-Arendal: Nairobi and Arendal, 2016; p 57. [Google Scholar]
  6. Nikiema J.; Asiedu Z. A review of the cost and effectiveness of solutions to address plastic pollution. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2022, 29 (17), 24547–24573. 10.1007/s11356-021-18038-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Borrelle S. B.; et al. Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts to mitigate plastic pollution. Science 2020, 369 (6510), 1515–1518. 10.1126/science.aba3656. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Lau W. W. Y.; et al. Evaluating scenarios toward zero plastic pollution. Science 2020, 369 (6510), 1455–1461. 10.1126/science.aba9475. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Rochman C. M. Strategies for reducing ocean plastic debris should be diverse and guided by science. Environmental Research Letters 2016, 11 (4), 041001 10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/041001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Hohn S.; et al. The long-term legacy of plastic mass production. Science of The Total Environment 2020, 746, 141115 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Ambrose K. K.; et al. Spatial trends and drivers of marine debris accumulation on shorelines in South Eleuthera, The Bahamas using citizen science. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 142, 145–154. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.03.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Ammendolia J.; Walker T. R. Citizen science: A way forward in tackling the plastic pollution crisis during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Science of The Total Environment 2022, 805, 149957 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149957. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Schmaltz E.; et al. Plastic pollution solutions: emerging technologies to prevent and collect marine plastic pollution. Environ. Int. 2020, 144, 106067 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106067. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Haarr M. L.; et al. Citizen science data indicate a reduction in beach litter in the Lofoten archipelago in the Norwegian Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 153, 111000 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. DIRECTIVE (EU) 2019/904 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment; EU, 2019; p 19.
  16. Wyles K. J.; et al. Can Beach Cleans Do More Than Clean-Up Litter? Comparing Beach Cleans to Other Coastal Activities. Environment and Behavior 2017, 49 (5), 509–535. 10.1177/0013916516649412. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Falk-Andersson J.; Berkhout B. W.; Abate T. G. Citizen Science for Better Management: Lessons Learned from Three Norwegian Beach Litter Data Sets. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 138, 364–375. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.11.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Single-Use Plastic Prohibition Regulations, Minister of Justice, Government of Canada, 2022.
  19. Dijkstra H.; van Beukering P.; Brouwer R. In the business of dirty oceans: Overview of startups and entrepreneurs managing marine plastic. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 162, 111880 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111880. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Leone G.; et al. A comprehensive assessment of plastic remediation technologies. Environ. Int. 2023, 173, 107854 10.1016/j.envint.2023.107854. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Helinski O. K.; Poor C. J.; Wolfand J. M. Ridding our rivers of plastic: A framework for plastic pollution capture device selection. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 165, 112095 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112095. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Slat B.; et al. How the oceans can clean themselves. A feasibility study. Ocean Cleanup: Netherlands 2014, 535. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lindquist A. Baltimore’s Mr. Trash Wheel. J. Ocean Technol. 2016, 11 (2), 28–35. [Google Scholar]
  24. Parker-Jurd F. N. F.; et al. Evaluating the performance of the ‘Seabin’ - A fixed point mechanical litter removal device for sheltered waters. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2022, 184, 114199 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Vince J.; Hardesty B. D. Governance Solutions to the Tragedy of the Commons That Marine Plastics Have Become. Frontiers in Marine Science 2018, 5, 214. 10.3389/fmars.2018.00214. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Falk-Andersson J.; Larsen Haarr M.; Havas V. Basic principles for development and implementation of plastic clean-up technologies: What can we learn from fisheries management?. Science of The Total Environment 2020, 745, 141117 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Litter clean-ups will not solve the marine plastics crisis. The ecological, technical, and economic constraints of seabed clean-ups; OCEANA, 2022.
  28. Cordier M.; Uehara T. How much innovation is needed to protect the ocean from plastic contamination?. Science of The Total Environment 2019, 670, 789–799. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.258. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. UNEA Resolution 5/14 entitled “End Plastic Pollution: Towards an International Legally Binding Instrument”; UNEP: Dakar, Senegal, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  30. Walker T. R. Calling for a decision to launch negotiations on a new global agreement on plastic pollution at UNEA5.2. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2022, 176, 113447 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.113447. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. van der Marel E. R. Trading Plastic Waste in a Global Economy: Soundly Regulated by the Basel Convention?. Journal of Environmental Law 2022, 34 (3), 477–497. 10.1093/jel/eqac017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Draft Updated Technical Guidelines for the Identification and Environmentally Sound Management (ESM) of Plastic Wastes and for Their Disposal (version of June 2021); UNEP, 2021; http://www.basel.int/Implementation/Plasticwaste/Technicalguidelines/Draftoftechnicalguidelines(versionJun2021)/tabid/8881/Default.aspx.
  33. Technical Guidelines for the Identification and Environmentally Sound Management (ESM) of Plastic Wastes and for Their Disposal; Basel Convention, 2022; http://www.basel.int/Implementation/Plasticwaste/Technicalguidelines/Overview/tabid/7992/Default.aspx.
  34. Follow-up to the Indonesian-Swiss Country-led Initiative to Improve the Effectiveness of the Basel Convention; Basel Convention, UNEP, 2013; http://www.basel.int/Portals/4/Basel%20Convention/docs/meetings/ewg_1/refDocs/CLI%20decision%20BC%2011_1.pdf.
  35. Leone G.; et al. Integrating Bayesian Belief Networks in a toolbox for decision support on plastic clean-up technologies in rivers and estuaries. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 296, 118721 10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118721. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Domanski A.; Laverty A. L. Ecosystem-Service Scaling Techniques to Evaluate the Benefits of Marine Debris Removal. Environ. Manage 2022, 70 (1), 64–78. 10.1007/s00267-022-01636-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. X-Press Pearl Maritime Disaster: Sri Lanka - Report of the UN Environmental Advisory Mission; United Nations Environment Programme, & United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2021; https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/36608.
  38. van Emmerik T.; et al. Riverine plastic emission from Jakarta into the ocean. Environmental Research Letters 2019, 14 (8), 084033 10.1088/1748-9326/ab30e8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Nordås H. K.Policy Brief on Trade in Marine Debris Collection Services; Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, 2022; https://www.apec.org/publications/2022/11/policy-brief-on-trade-in-marine-debris-collection-services; p 30.
  40. Wells R. J. D.; Rooker J. R. Spatial and temporal patterns of habitat use by fishes associated with Sargassum mats in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin of Marine Science 2004, 74 (1), 81–99. [Google Scholar]
  41. Thorp J. H.; Delong M. D. The Riverine Productivity Model: An Heuristic View of Carbon Sources and Organic Processing in Large River Ecosystems. Oikos 1994, 70 (2), 305–308. 10.2307/3545642. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Yeakley J. A., et al. Ecosystem Services of Streams and Rivers, in River Science; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2016; p 335–352; 10.1002/9781118643525.ch17. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Vörösmarty C. J.; Lé vêque C.; Revenga C.. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, Fresh Water Ecosystem Services, 2005; pp 165–207.
  44. Sherman P.; van Sebille E. Modeling marine surface microplastic transport to assess optimal removal locations. Environmental Research Letters 2016, 11 (1), 014006. 10.1088/1748-9326/11/1/014006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Gacutan J.; et al. Mapping marine debris risk using expert elicitation, empirical data, and spatial modelling. Environmental Science & Policy 2022, 138, 44–55. 10.1016/j.envsci.2022.09.017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Baker S.; Campbell M.; Tanakasempipat P.. Inside Big Plastic’s Faltering $1.5 Billion Global Cleanup Effort; Bloomberg, 2022: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2022-exxon-mobil-plastic-waste-cleanup-greenwashing/?leadSource=uverify%20wall. [Google Scholar]
  47. van Giezen A.; Wiegmans B. Spoilt - Ocean Cleanup: Alternative logistics chains to accommodate plastic waste recycling: An economic evaluation. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 2020, 5, 100115 10.1016/j.trip.2020.100115. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Havas V.; Falk-Andersson J.; Deshpande P. Small circles: The role of physical distance in plastics recycling. Science of The Total Environment 2022, 831, 154913 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154913. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Ronkay F.; et al. Plastic waste from marine environment: Demonstration of possible routes for recycling by different manufacturing technologies. Waste Manag 2021, 119, 101–110. 10.1016/j.wasman.2020.09.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Fang Q.; Despeisse M.; Chen X. Environmental Impact Assessment of Boatbuilding Process with Ocean Plastic. Procedia CIRP 2020, 90, 274–279. 10.1016/j.procir.2020.01.080. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. MacKinnon A. J.; Duinker P. N.; Walker T. R.. The Application of Science in Environmental Impact Assessment, 1st ed.; Routledge, 2018, p 142. 10.4324/9781351173445. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. The Ocean Cleanup Environmental Impact Assessment. SCA Ocean Sciences 2018, 127. [Google Scholar]
  53. Haarr M. L.; Falk-Andersson J.; Fabres J. Global marine litter research 2015–2020: Geographical and methodological trends. Science of The Total Environment 2022, 820, 153162 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153162. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Blettler M. C. M.; et al. The challenge of reducing macroplastic pollution: Testing the effectiveness of a river boom under real environmental conditions. Science of The Total Environment 2023, 870, 161941 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161941. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Murphy E. L.; et al. A decision framework for estimating the cost of marine plastic pollution interventions. Conservation Biology 2022, 36 (2), e13827 10.1111/cobi.13827. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Brouwer R.; et al. Assessing the performance of marine plastics cleanup technologies in Europe and North America. Ocean & Coastal Management 2023, 238, 106555 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106555. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Burt A. J.; et al. The costs of removing the unsanctioned import of marine plastic litter to small island states. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10 (1), 14458. 10.1038/s41598-020-71444-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. ITTN. International Trash Trap Network . https://oceanconservancy.org/trash-free-seas/international-coastal-cleanup/trash-trap-network/ (accessed 2022-12-22).
  59. Ryan P., et al. GESAMP 2019 Guidelines for the Monitoring & Assessment of Plastic Litter in the Ocean Reports & Studies 99; Kershaw P. J.; Turra A.; Galgani F.; GESAMP, 2019.
  60. Maximenko N.; et al. Toward the Integrated Marine Debris Observing System. Frontiers in Marine Science 2019, 6 (447), 1–25. 10.3389/fmars.2019.00447.36817748 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Cheshire A.; et al. UNEP/IOC Guidelines on Survey and Monitoring of Marine Litter. IOC Technical Series 2009, 120. [Google Scholar]
  62. Understanding the State of the Ocean: A Global Manual on Measuring SDG 14.1.1, SDG 14.2.1 and SDG 14.5.1; UNEP, 2021; p 97.
  63. Campbell L.; Cornwell M. Human dimensions of bycatch reduction technology: current assumptions and directions for future research. Endangered Species Research 2008, 5, 325–344. 10.3354/esr00172. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Bayse S. M.; He P. Technical conservation measures in New England small-mesh trawl fisheries: Current status and future prospects. Ocean & Coastal Management 2017, 135, 93–102. 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.11.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Hines K. L.; Rulifson R. A.; Murray J. D. Performance of Low-Profile Skimmer Trawls in the Inshore Shrimp Fishery of North Carolina. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 1999, 19 (2), 569–580. . [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Kvalsvik K.; et al. Size selection of large catches: using sorting grid in pelagic mackerel trawl. Fisheries Research 2002, 59 (1), 129–148. 10.1016/S0165-7836(01)00408-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Suuronen P.; Gilman E. L. Monitoring and managing fisheries discards: New technologies and approaches. Marine Policy 2020, 116, 103554 10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103554. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Ewell C.; et al. An evaluation of Regional Fisheries Management Organization at-sea compliance monitoring and observer programs. Marine Policy 2020, 115, 103842 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103842. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Schneider F.; et al. Collected marine litter — A growing waste challenge. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 128, 162–174. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.01.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Kaza S., et al. What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050., in Urban Development; World Bank, 2018; https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/30317. [Google Scholar]
  71. Iñiguez M. E.; Conesa J. A.; Fullana A. Marine debris occurrence and treatment: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2016, 64, 394–402. 10.1016/j.rser.2016.06.031. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. Williams-Wynn M. D.; Naidoo P. A review of the treatment options for marine plastic waste in South Africa. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 161, 111785 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111785. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Dijkstra H.; van Beukering P.; Brouwer R. Marine plastic entrepreneurship; Exploring drivers, barriers and value creation in the blue economy. Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship 2022, 1 (3), 100018 10.1016/j.stae.2022.100018. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Madricardo F.; Ghezzo M.; Nesto N.; Mc Kiver W. J.; Faussone G. C.; Fiorin R.; Riccato F.; Mackelworth P. C.; Basta J.; De Pascalis F.; Kruss A.; Petrizzo A.; Moschino V. How to Deal With Seafloor Marine Litter: An Overview of the State-of-the-Art and Future Perspectives. Frontiers in Marine Science 2020, 7, 1–16. 10.3389/fmars.2020.505134.32802822 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  75. Watt E.; et al. Ocean plastics: environmental implications and potential routes for mitigation – a perspective. RSC Adv. 2021, 11 (35), 21447–21462. 10.1039/D1RA00353D. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Nevrlý V.; et al. Offshore Conceptual Plastic Waste Collection and Treatment Towards Clean Ocean. Waste and Biomass Valorization 2021, 12 (12), 6523–6541. 10.1007/s12649-021-01474-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. Belden E. R.; et al. Thermodynamic feasibility of shipboard conversion of marine plastics to blue diesel for self-powered ocean cleanup. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2021, 118 (46), e2107250118 10.1073/pnas.2107250118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Winterstetter A.; et al. A Review of Technological Solutions to Prevent or Reduce Marine Plastic Litter in Developing Countries. Sustainability 2021, 13 (9), 4894. 10.3390/su13094894. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  79. Nelms S. E. Marine anthropogenic litter on British beaches: A 10-year nationwide assessment using citizen science data. Science of The Total Environment 2017, 579, 1399. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Marine Debris Tracker: Home. https://debristracker.org/ (accessed 2023-02-28).
  81. CleanSwell. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.oceanconservancy.cleanswell&hl=en_US&gl=US (accessed 2023-07-26).
  82. Fleet D.; Vlachogianni T.; Hanke G.. A Joint List of Litter Categories for Marine Macrolitter Monitoring; Publications Office of the European Union:: Luxembourg, 2021. 10.2760/127473. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  83. Guideline for Monitoring Marine Litter on the Beaches in the OSPAR Maritime Area, OSPAR Commission : United Kingdom, 2010; p 84. [Google Scholar]
  84. Vighi M.; Ruiz-Orejón L.; Hanke F.. Monitoring of Floating Marine Macro Litter–State of the Art and Literature Overview. In JRC Technical Report, European Union: Luxemburg, 2022; p 63. 10.2760/78914. [DOI]
  85. UofTTrashTeam. https://uofttrashteam.ca/ (accessed 2023-02-28).
  86. MrTrashWheel: Home. https://www.mrtrashwheel.com (accessed 2023-02-28).
  87. Regional Guidance on Harmonized National Marine Litter Monitoring Programmes. Monitoring Efforts and Recommendations for National Marine Litter Monitoring Programmes; , COBSEA, United Nations Environment Programme: Bangkok, 2022; p 47. [Google Scholar]
  88. van der Velde T.; et al. Comparison of marine debris data collected by researchers and citizen scientists: Is citizen science data worth the effort?. role of citizen science in biological conservation 2017, 208, 127–138. 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.025. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  89. Rambonnet L.; et al. Making citizen science count: Best practices and challenges of citizen science projects on plastics in aquatic environments. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 145, 271–277. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.05.056. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Falk-Andersson J. Beach litter deep dives- A method for improved understanding of sources of and behaviour behind littering. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 167, 112346 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112346. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Jorgensen B.; Krasny M.; Baztan J. Volunteer beach cleanups: civic environmental stewardship combating global plastic pollution. Sustainability Science 2021, 16 (1), 153–167. 10.1007/s11625-020-00841-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  92. Krasny E. M.Grassroots to Global; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  93. Maeda R.; Brščić D.; Kanda T.. Influencing Moral Behavior Through Mere Observation of Robot Work: Video-based Survey on Littering Behavior. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction; Association for Computing Machinery: Boulder, CO, USA, 2021; pp 83–91. 10.1145/3434073.3444680. [DOI]
  94. Mr. Trash Wheel Cleans Baltimore’s Inner Harbor and Educates Citizens. https://news.wef.org/mr-trash-wheel-cleans-baltimores-inner-harbor-and-educates-citizens/ (accessed 2023-08-28).
  95. Chaudhary A. H.; Polonsky M. J.; McClaren N. Littering behaviour: A systematic review. International Journal of Consumer Studies 2021, 45 (4), 478–510. 10.1111/ijcs.12638. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  96. Marine litter - the purpose of and challenges associated with clean-up activities, 2022. https://www.marfo.no/en/artikkel/om-veilederen/ (accessed 2023-01-25).
  97. Start A Cleanup. https://oceanconservancy.org/trash-free-seas/international-coastal-cleanup/start-a-cleanup/ (accessed 2023-01-25).

Articles from Environmental Science & Technology are provided here courtesy of American Chemical Society

RESOURCES