Resources
Gulf of Maine Library Collection
Characterization and Mitigation of Marine
Debris
in the Gulf of Maine
A report prepared for
the the U.S. Gulf of Maine Association under contract no. GM 97-13 by
Porter Hoagland
and Hauke
L. Kite-Powell
Woods Hole Research Consortium
168 Alden Street, Duxbury MA 02332-3836
October 1997
Overview: Marine debris — trash in and on the water, on the seabed,
and along the shoreline — has been of growing concern as the widespread
use of plastics has led to an increase in persistent debris in the environment.
This report summarizes what is known about the presence and effects of
marine debris in the Gulf of Maine, and examines alternative approaches
to dealing with marine debris.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
This report
examines data on the temporal and spatial distribution of marine debris
in the Gulf of Maine and the effectiveness of policy responses. It consists
of two main parts: (1) the development of a historical "baseline"
for marine debris distributions in the Gulf of Maine and (2) a review
of existing debris reduction and prevention policies in the Gulf and elsewhere.
The purpose of the report is to provide guidance for future efforts to
address the problems of marine debris in the Gulf of Maine.
Some 80 to 85
percent of marine debris collected in beach cleanups appears to be from
shore-based sources. Commercial fishermen account for half of ocean-based
debris. More than half of all marine debris is plastic; metal, glass,
and paper make up most of the rest. No significant trends appear in the
volume of most debris types in the Gulf of Maine from 1988 to the present.
The data are sketchy, but nearshore debris volume appears to be perhaps
five times greater in New Hampshire, northern Massachusetts, and parts
of Nova Scotia than in Maine and southern Massachusetts.
We reviewed
a limited literature on the benefits of reducing marine debris. The true
social cost of marine debris is not known, but it seems likely that the
largest component of this cost is the reduced aesthetic value of fouled
shorelines. Data on the benefits of cleanups are extremely limited, but
suggest a willingness-to-pay for clean shoreline along the Gulf of Maine
on the order of $14/foot/year.
We identify
a diverse array of policy approaches to the problem of marine debris.
These include: (1) disposal standards (prohibitions on littering); (2)
disposal facilities; (3) tax/subsidy programs; (4) moral suasion; (5)
education programs; (6) beach cleanups; (7) research. Absent solid data
on the costs and benefits of cleanups, we find it difficult to select
the best policy approach or combination of approaches. The most effective
policies appear to involve some combination of all approaches, with the
implementation of incentive-based approaches under the right conditions
(bottle bills). Notably, deposit/refund policies for beverage containers
appear to have reduced associated marine debris in Maine and Massachusetts
(but not necessarily in Nova Scotia). Beach cleanups appear to be one
of the most effective ways to address nearshore marine debris. Certain
practices, such as overcapitalization of the fishing industry, are likely
to lead to excessive amounts of certain classes of marine debris. Reductions
in fishing effort will help reduce this source of debris.
Recommendations
for future efforts include:
- in general, continuing to combine a range of policy approaches, emphasizing
economic incentives;
- targeting onshore recreationists and commercial fishers with deposit/refund
on beverage containers (New Hampshire) and possibly fishing gear (all
states and provinces);
- improving cleanup procedures by selecting optimal cleanup times, extending
cleanups beyond beach areas, and reducing the debris recording burden
on cleanup volunteers through implementation of sampling procedures;
and
- supporting research to improve understanding of the marine debris
problem, including water column and seabed sampling in ecologically
sensitive areas, more detailed analysis of optimal approaches to beach
visitor litter control, and the economics of deposit/refund programs
for fishing gear.
1. Introduction
This report
examines the temporal and spatial distribution of marine debris in the
Gulf of Maine and the effectiveness of policy responses. It consists of
two main parts: (1) the development of a historical "baseline"
for marine debris distributions in the Gulf of Maine from published and
"gray literature" data and (2) a review of existing debris reduction
and prevention policies in the Gulf and elsewhere. The purpose of the
report is to provide guidance for future efforts to address the problems
of marine debris in the Gulf of Maine.
Marine debris
has been recognized as a problem for decades, but data on its geographic
distribution and aesthetic and environmental impacts remain scarce. Over
the past ten years, limited data, mainly from surveys associated with
beach cleanups, have become available. According to reports issued by
the Center for Marine Conservation
(CMC) and others, in the United States, plastic packaging and fragments
make up the bulk of marine debris located on beaches and in harbors. Some
80 percent of marine debris is estimated to enter the water from shore-based
activities; the remainder comes from ships and boats (CMC,
various). Recreationists, primarily on shore, are likely the largest
source of marine debris in U.S. waters (CMC, various).
Additional marine debris enters the oceans via sewer overflow and street
runoff. Table 1, from a recent study conducted by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), lists the types and sources
of marine debris (EPA 1994).
Table 1: Types
and Sources of Aquatic Debris (EPA 1994)
Source |
Examples of Debris Released |
Storm-water discharges |
Street litter, medical-related items (e.g. syringes),
resin pellets |
Combined sewer overflows |
Street litter, sewage (e.g. condoms, tampons, applicators)
and medical-related (e.g. syringes) items, resin pellets |
Beachgoers |
Food-related items (e.g. beverage yokes, bags),
trash* |
Recreational boaters and fishermen |
Trash*, fishing line and nets, traps, floats and
lures, buoys, rope, bait boxes, strapping bands, light sticks, salt
bags, beverage yokes |
Commercial fishermen |
Trash*, fishing line and nets, traps, floats and
lures, buoys, rope, bait boxes, strapping bands, light sticks, salt
bags |
Cruiseliners |
Galley wastes, trash* |
Merchant and military vessels |
Galley wastes (garbage*), plastic bags and sheeting,
trash* |
Solid waste disposal and landfills |
Assorted household trash* and garbage* |
Offshore mineral exploration |
Operational wastes (e.g. plastic sheeting, wooden
pallets, hard hats, 55-gal. drums), trash* and garbage* |
Plastics industry |
Resin pellets (raw material from which plastic products
are molded) |
Illegal waste-disposal |
Medical waste, trach from solid waste handlers |
* According to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary
(1988), the terms trash and garbage are defined as follows: trash is something
worth little or nothing (as junk, rubbish), or something in a crumbled
or broken condition or mass; garbage is food wastes, unwanted or worthless
material, or trash.
Data on
the effects of marine debris are sketchy, but rope (entanglement) and
plastic fragments and pellets (ingestion) appear to pose the greatest
threat to wildlife, while sewage, medical debris, and broken bottles/cans
appear to pose the greatest threat to human health. Reduced recreational
use of fouled shore areas is perhaps the most significant economic impact
of marine debris.
Based on a review
of existing literature and discussions with organizers of beach cleanup
and other marine debris activities in Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts,
we have developed a profile of marine debris in the
Gulf of Maine in the past decade and assembled a review
of the advantages, disadvantages, and effectiveness of policies for
the control of marine debris. A summary and recommendations
conclude our report.
2. Marine Debris in the Gulf of Maine
2.1. Sources of Data
Marine debris—usually
defined as man-made solid objects introduced into the marine environment—is
present on the surface, in the water column, on the seafloor, and along
the shoreline. No useful data exist on the prevalence or distribution
of floating debris in the Gulf of Maine, and only very limited data are
available on seafloor debris for a few nearshore sites cleaned by divers
in recent years as part of the annual beach cleanups. The only useful
data on marine debris distributions in the Gulf of Maine describes debris
found along the shore during annual beach cleanups. These data are recorded
by cleanup volunteers and maintained by the Center
for Marine Conservation (CMC). They provide "snapshot" views
of debris along some 430 miles of coast (primarily beaches used for recreation)
in Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, as well as smaller sections
of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, back to 1988. A detailed, ongoing survey
program of limited sites in Nova Scotia (Topping
1997) and other parts of Canada began to provide data in 1995.
As reported
by CMC in its annual Coastal Cleanup
Results publication (CMC, various years), since 1990
these data are reported only as state aggregates and not for individual
sections of coastline. Through contacts with state and local cleanup coordinators,
we were able to obtain limited amounts of more detailed data at the local
level from the same cleanups.
While the CMC
data are the only useful source of time-series on marine debris in the
Gulf of Maine, and provide some insights, it is important to recognize
the limitations of these data. The cleanups from which they are taken
take place once a year. Many of the same beaches are cleaned at other
times as well, in some cases weekly during the summer season; and no records
are kept from these cleanups. Thus, the CMC
data do not represent an "annual accumulation." In addition,
the amount and nature of debris found on a cleanup day depends in part
on weather events; for example, a storm just prior to cleanup may wash
light debris out to sea and deposit heavier items on the shore. These
factors should be kept in mind when interpreting the data presented in
the following section.
2.2. Debris Types, Distributions, and Trends
Plastics account
for between 50 and 60 percent of marine debris found in all three U.S.
states and the two Canadian provinces (see Topping
1997; Topping et al. 1994a) bordering
the Gulf of Maine (ignoring data on the volume of cigarette butts); metals,
glass, and paper make up most of the remainder in roughly equal parts.
Ocean-based sources account for 15 to 20 percent of debris collected in
the three U.S. states, according to CMC
data. (CMC classifies debris as ocean-based if it can be traced clearly
to a marine source, e.g. commercial fishing gear, marine operational and
galley wastes.) About half of the ocean-based debris along the U.S. coast
of the Gulf of Maine—around five percent of marine debris in Massachusetts
and from five to ten percent in Maine and New Hampshire—can be traced
to commercial fishing vessels. The percentage is somewhat greater for
Canadian parts of the Gulf (Topping, p.c., 1997).
Recreational fishing accounts for around one percent of marine debris
in all three states. These proportions are fairly consistent from 1988
to the present and show no significant trend over time. They are consistent
with Crampton's (1989) estimate that commercial
fishing and recreational boating together account for about 80 percent
of garbage generated by and disposed of from vessels in U.S. waters.
Limited information
is available about the distribution of debris along the coast of the Gulf
of Maine. In Figure 1, we show data by county for
Maine (1996) and by region for Massachusetts (1990), along with overall
data for New Hampshire (1995) and Nova Scotia (1996).
Figure 1: Density of marine debris
(average lbs of debris per mile cleaned) along the Gulf of Maine coast,
based on beach cleanup data from CMC
and the Clean
Nova Scotia Foundation. Data for Nova Scotia (estimated) and Maine
are from 1996, for New Hampshire from 1995, and Massachachusetts from
1990.
The overall density
of marine debris collected along the shores of the Gulf of Maine from
1988 to 1995 is shown in Figure 2. There is no significant
trend in the time series for any of the three states. Debris densities
in the northern parts of Massachusetts (North Shore, Metro Boston, and
South Shore; see Figure 1) are closer to those found
in New Hampshire. Densities in Maine and in southern parts of Massachusetts
are also comparable, and lower.
Figure
2: Weight of marine debris per mile cleaned, based on CMC
data.
Figures 3,
4, and 5 display time series of
the density of particular debris types for each state. No major trends
are evident, although it may be that glass and plastic piece debris has
declined slightly in Maine and Massachusetts. (Cigarette butts were added
to cleanup records around 1990.)
Figure
3: Marine debris density in Maine, based on CMC
data.
Figure
4: Marine debris density in New Hampshire, based on CMC
data.
Figure
5: Marine debris density in Massachusetts, based on CMC
data.
It appears from
the CMC data that the density and
composition of marine debris in the Gulf of Maine has not changed in significant
ways since 1988. Anecdotal reports from some beach cleanup participants
suggest that debris volumes may have declined slightly in recent years,
but no significant trends appear in the statewide data.
One type of
debris of particular interest is beverage containers, which have been
the target of specific litter reduction and recycling
policies. Figure 6 shows trends in the density
of bottles and associated goods found in beach cleanups around the Gulf
of Maine. In 1995, volunteers found about 30 bottles/mile in Maine, 280
bottles/mile in New Hampshire, and 60 bottles/mile in Massachusetts. Massachusetts
and Maine appear to have achieved modest reductions in bottle debris over
time; New Hampshire has not. These data are compatible roughly with the
adoption of bottle deposit/refund laws. (Nova Scotia and New Brunswick
also have beverage container refund systems in place.)
Figure
6: Index of bottles and associated items in marine debris, based on
CMC data.
2.3. Sources and Pathways
As noted, onshore
sources contribute 80 to 85 percent of marine debris collected in beach
cleanups. The most significant offshore source is the commercial fishing
industry, which accounts for about half of all ocean-based debris.
Little is known
about specific pathways of marine debris in the Gulf of Maine. Some floating
ocean-based debris may be carried by prevailing currents counterclockwise
around the Gulf (for example, debris traced to Canadian sources has been
found along the coast of Maine), and onshore winds and waves carry ocean-based
debris toward the coast throughout the Gulf. However, most marine debris
in the coastal zone is of local, on-shore origin. This is confirmed by
an ongoing study of marine debris at national seashores (including Cape
Cod National Seashore), conducted for the U.S. National Park Service,
in which Cole et al. (1992) found that the observed
distribution of marine debris is influenced by proximity to and location
downcurrent from urban and fishing centers, ports, shipping lanes, and
military installations.
Historically,
solid debris and other pollution entered the Gulf of Maine via Boston
Harbor sewage discharges. This input of debris to the Gulf has declined
in importance with improvements to the greater Boston area sewage treatment
system. A new primary treatment facility was brought on line by the Massachusetts
Water Resources Authority (MWRA) in January 1995. By 1999, secondary
treatment, and an outfall tunnel that will discharge treated sewage 9.5
miles into Massachusetts Bay, will be operational (the present outfalls
are located around the entrance to Boston Harbor). Other MWRA initiatives
include projects to reduce combined sewage overflows, which will further
cut back the amount of debris entering the harbor from urban runoff (MWRA
1995).
3. Policy Approaches to the Reduction of Marine
Debris
A number of
policy approaches have been identified and implemented to aid in controlling
and reducing the problem of marine debris. As in many areas of pollution
control, it is unlikely that any one approach can be effective if implemented
in isolation. One reason for this may be the diversity in the sources,
types, and fates of marine debris (Table 1). In most
cases, all of the policy approaches described below are implemented simultaneously.
A conceptual
model for attacking the problem of marine debris is presented in a recent
study by the Committee on Shipborne Wastes (CSW), an ad hoc committee
organized under the auspices of the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences to examine approaches to the problems of marine
debris originating from ships. This approach, known as a "hazard
evolution model" (Table 2), has been borrowed
from the emerging literature on ecological risk assessment [note
1]. The model presents a sequence of events, from the expression of
consumer tastes through the satisfaction of demands, the release of pollutants,
and subsequent exposures and consequences. An important feature of the
conceptual model is that it is possible to identify points in the sequence
at which intervention may take place to reduce adverse environmental or
aesthetic consequences. We have adapted and modified the model to present
hazard evolution (top row), points of intervention (middle row), and policy
approaches (bottom row) as they relate specifically to the problem of
marine debris. We refer back to this conceptual model in the discussion
of policy approaches below.
Table 2: Hazard
Evolution Model
Hazard Evolution |
Consumer Tastes |
Production Decisions (Choice of Technology) |
Consumption: Use of Product and Packaging
|
Littering: Illicit Disposal; Loss |
Environmental Exposure |
Ecological, Aesthetic Impacts |
Intervention |
Alter Tastes |
Alter Production Decision |
Alter Consumption Rates or Patterns |
Limit Littering, Disposal, Losses |
Limit Exposure |
Mitigate Impacts |
Policy Approach (Examples) |
Education; Moral Suasion; Signage |
Virgin Materials Tax |
Bottle and Can Deposits |
Receptacle Placement; Prohibitions and Fines; Bottle
and Can Refunds; Labelling; Signage |
Beach Cleanups; Beach Adoptions |
Beach Cleanups; Stranding Programs; Research on
Scale of Problem |
In the Gulf of
Maine, most coastal resource managers and environmental advocates start
with the twin goals that all marine debris should be cleaned up and that
all littering and disposal of marine debris should be stopped. As laudatory
and idealistic as such goals are, it is unlikely that they will ever be
achieved. Further, because the economic costs are much too steep for a
complete cleanup of all marine debris in the Gulf of Maine, these goals
may not make sense. For example, imagine the futility of trying to clean
up all of the cigarette butts flicked into the Gulf of Maine and its watershed
[note 2]. Imagine the futility of trying to stop
the flicking of cigarette butts! Instead, it may be more rational to think
of an acceptable or "optimal" level of marine debris.
From the perspective
of economic efficiency, very little research has been conducted to determine
the optimal level of marine debris pollution. Ideally, to determine this
level, we need to know two important classes of information. First, we
need to have an idea of the environmental and aesthetic effects of marine
debris pollution. As marine debris is cleaned up, the reductions in these
effects are properly accounted for as the benefits of cleaning up—or
of not littering in the first place. Second, we need to have an idea of
either the costs of cleaning up marine debris or the costs of preventing
littering [note 3].
Littering and
disposal of debris is widely regarded as affecting the environment, but
little data exists to substantiate this understanding. Impacts on marine
species include entanglement in nets, other plastics, and monofilament
line, ingestion of plastics, and ghost fishing (CSW 1995).
Impacts occur because of the combination of the human disposal of debris,
the concentration of debris by oceanographic phenomena (currents, winds)
in critical habitats, and the natural attraction of certain species to
debris (Laist 1987). Data on marine mammal strandings
are collected in the United States portion of the Gulf of Maine (Figure
7), but these data are reports from a voluntary network, and so they
are likely to underestimate strandings. In general, necropsies are not
conducted on all strandings, most notably they are usually not conducted
on stranded seals. For those strandings that are necropsied, it is quite
difficult to tell whether or not any plastics discovered in gut contents
contributed in some way to the death of the animal. In 1996, marine debris
was not given as a reason for any of the necropsied strandings (Gerrior,
p.c., 1997).
Figure
7: Reported marine mammal strandings in 1996 along the U.S. coastline
in the Gulf of Maine by species. For comparison purposes, units are a
log of a multiple of the number of strandings per mile of coastline for
each of the three states: log [(strandings/mile) x 10e4]. The length of
the bars can be interpreted as differences in orders of magnitude of the
number of strandings per mile of coastline. Note that the reasons for
most of the the strandings are unknown. Data source: Gerrior (p.c.,
1997).
Nothwithstanding
this general understanding, the evidence of ecological impacts has been
collected only sporadically and is primarily anecdotal (Table
3) (Laist 1997b). The entanglement threat
to the viability of a stock from marine debris has been documented only
in the case of the northern fur seal in Alaska (CSW 1995).
Carr (1988) and others (Carr
et al. 1992; Cooper et al. 1988) have studied
ghost gillnets in the Gulf of Maine and nearby waters, finding little
evidence of adverse effects. Marine plastics have been found in the stomach
contents of dead sea turtles, seabirds, marine mammals, and fish, but
it is not clear in all cases that these plastics are a cause of mortality.
Even if entanglement or ingestion causes mortality, the scale of the problem
may be hidden by widespread species migrations or through predation or
sinking (Laist, p.c., 1997a). In part because
of the paucity of the data and in part because the impacts occur in noncommercial
stocks, there have been no economic studies conducted to estimate the
damage associated with these effects.
Table 3: The
number and percentage of species worldwide with records of marine debris
entanglement and ingestion by species group. Source: MMC (1997).
Species Group |
Total No. of Species Worldwide |
Entanglement Records, No. (%) |
Ingestion Records, No. (%) |
One or Both Types of Records, No. (%) |
Sea Turtles |
7 |
6 (86%) |
6 (86%) |
6 (86%) |
Seabirds |
312 |
51 (16%) |
111 (36%) |
138 (44%) |
Sphenisciformes (Penguins) |
16 |
6 (38%) |
1 (6%) |
6 (38%) |
Podicipediformes (Grebes) |
19 |
2 (10%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (10%) |
Procellariiformes (Albatrosses, Petrels, and
Shearwaters) |
99 |
10 (10%) |
62 (63%) |
63 (64%) |
Pelicaniformes (Pelicans, Boobies, Gannets, Cormorants,
Frigatebirds, and Tropicbirds) |
51 |
11 (22%) |
8 (16%) |
17 (33%) |
Charadriiformes (Shorebirds, Skuas, Gulls, Terns,
and Auks) |
122 |
22 (18%) |
40 (33%) |
50 (41%) |
Other Birds |
- |
5 |
0 |
5 |
Marine Mammals |
115 |
32 (28%) |
26 (23%) |
49 (43%) |
Mysticeti (Baleen Whales) |
10 |
6 (60%) |
2 (20%) |
6 (60%) |
Odontoceti (Toothed Whales) |
65 |
5 (8%) |
21 (32%) |
22 (34%) |
Otariidae (Fur Seals and Sea Lions) |
14 |
11 (79%) |
1 (7%) |
11 (79%) |
Phocidae (True Seals) |
19 |
8 (42%) |
1 (5%) |
8 (42%) |
Sirenia (Manatees and Dugongs) |
4 |
1 (25%) |
1 (25%) |
1 (25%) |
Mustellidae (Sea Otter) |
1 |
1 (100%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (100%) |
Fish |
- |
34 |
33 |
60 |
Crustaceans |
- |
8 |
0 |
8 |
Squid |
- |
0 |
1 |
1 |
Species Total |
- |
136 |
177 |
267 |
Aesthetic impacts
in harbors, beaches, wetlands and other coastal and marine areas impose
economic costs as well. Because of the high rate of use of these areas,
particularly at beaches, the aesthetic impacts may be larger in an economic
sense than ecological impacts [note 4]. Certainly
the problem of beach and harbor debris is much more in the public eye
than the problem of ocean and seabed debris. Here too, studies of economic
damages associated with marine debris are limited. Holdnak (1992)
finds that overall satisfaction with boating on the inland bays of Delaware
declined with encounters of larger amounts of marine debris. Smith et
al. (1997) find that people are willing to pay
higher amounts for cleanup programs that address more serious marine debris
problems.
Using hedonic
pricing techniques [note 5], Wilman (1984)
examined the potential external costs of oil pollution on Cape Cod from
the development of offshore oil and gas on Georges Bank. In applying the
technique, Wilman employed an observation of the presence of marine debris
on nearby beaches as a proxy for the potential costs of oil pollution.
Wilman found that the presence of marine debris negatively affected the
price only of rented vacation homes, lowering the monthly rental price
by approximately $193.00 [note 6]. The largest costs
(up to $384.00) occurred for large vacation homes with amenities near
urban centers and beaches. Wilman's estimate could be used to produce
an estimate of a portion of the economic costs (or alternatively of willingness
to pay to avoid these costs) associated with the aesthetic impacts of
marine debris if (1) we have data on the coastal distribution of rented
vacation homes in the Gulf of Maine and (2) we assume that the preferences
of renters in other locations in the Gulf of Maine are similar to those
on Cape Cod.
Zhang (1995)
is the only analyst, of whom we are aware, who has attempted to value
the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of individuals for the control of marine
debris. Using a direct survey (contingent valuation) method, Zhang questioned
both users and nonusers of beaches and estuarine reserves in North Carolina
and New Jersey. The results of Zhang's study are summarized in Figure
8, which compares estimates for different "payment vehicles"
(an increase in annual income tax payments versus an increase in beach
user fees) of the average annual WTP per person for the cleanup of marine
debris. Note that the estimates for cleanup of beaches are more than double
the estimates for the cleanup of estuarine reserves. This difference is
a significant result, because it suggests that coastal resource use or
the possibility of use is an important consideration to individuals when
they consider how much they are willing to pay for debris cleanups. Zhang
also found little difference between payment vehicles, although he discovered
that a higher percentage of those paying a beach user fee voted in favor
of a beach cleanup program than those paying income taxes.
Figure 8: Estimated average annual
willingness-to-pay (WTP) per person (users and nonusers) for the cleanup
of marine debris from beaches and estuarine reserves in North Carolina
and New Jersey. Respondents to contingent valuation surveys were requested
to state their WTP in terms of an increase in their annual income tax
or the payment of a user fee. The "fee & tax" is an estimate
made by pooling the two groups. The data displayed are the average plus
or minus one standard deviation. Source: Zhang (1995).
Because of some
difficulties in implementing a random sampling design, Zhang was reluctant
to calculate aggregate estimates of population WTP for cleanups. However,
he could not reject the two hypotheses that (1) valuations for cleanups
in North Carolina and New Jersey were identical and (2) valuations for
users and nonusers were identical. Both findings suggest that "benefit
transfers" of his results to other jurisdictions might be feasible.
We can employ
Zhang's estimate to get a very rough estimate of the value of the
cleanup of marine debris in the U.S. portion of the Gulf of Maine. There
are approximately 5128 total miles of U.S. shoreline in the Gulf of Maine
(including all of Massachusetts' shoreline). Roughly 9 percent (440 miles)
of the total is beach. We calculate a weighted WTP of $68 by multiplying
the proportion of beach shoreline times the average annual WTP for beach
cleanups and adding this to the proportion of nonbeach shoreline times
the average annual WTP for reserve cleanups (using the "income tax"
numbers). Multiplying the weighted WTP by the total coastal county populations
(ignoring tourists) in all three states gives us an estimate of total
WTP for beach cleanups of $392 million. Dividing total WTP by total shoreline
gives us an estimate of a total WTP of approximately $14 (plus/minus about
$7) per foot of shoreline for the cleanup of marine debris in the Gulf
of Maine. This number is an admittedly crude estimate of the benefits
of cleaning up marine debris from the shoreline.
We emphasize
that this calculation glosses over many important issues related to the
process of benefits transfer, the heterogeneity of coastal resources (e.g.,
industrialized shoreline is unlikely to be valued as high as estuarine
reserve shoreline, if it is valued at all), and the selection of an accounting
frame, among others. Zhang (1995) cautioned against
the use of his estimates in such a manner (e.g., to calculate population
averages), arguing that they should be considered merely "preliminary
and directional." Nevertheless, we believe that the calculation gives
us a reasonable order of magnitude estimate that might be compared with
cleanup costs (per foot) to determine, from an economic standpoint, whether
or not stretches of shoreline should be cleaned up.
Absent reliable
economic data on either the costs or the benefits of cleaning up (or preventing)
marine debris pollution in specific locations, it is difficult to say
anything profound about the effectiveness of policy approaches to the
problem (cf. Bernstein 1993; Quayle
1991; Bohm and Russell 1985). (This problem
is compounded when we must consider combinations of policy approaches.)
However, we can make some general statements about the advantages, disadvantages,
and political feasibility (distributional effects) of the diverse array
of approaches. These aspects are summarized in Table 4.
Each policy approach is described in greater detail below.
Table 4: Policy
Instruments for Control of Marine Debris
Policy Instrument |
Gulf of Maine Example(s) |
Advantage(s) |
Disadvantage(s) |
Political Feasibility |
Disposal Standards |
Federal, state, local prohibitions on littering
and solid waste disposal |
Encourages reduction of littering and disposal of
harmful materials into the marine environment; maypromote technological
solutions |
Economically inefficient "command and control"
approach; high costs of monitoring and enforcement; resulting low
compliance implies ineffectiveness; "cigarette butt problem" |
Widely accepted policy solution; compliance costs
borne by litterers; high costs of enforcement imply compliance costs
are low |
Provision of Disposal Facilities |
Local sanitary landfills; regional incineration
plants (SEMASS); placement of dumpsters at marinas (Portland, Rockland
Harbors); trash cans at public beaches (ME, NH, MA) |
Provides "opportunity" for disposal; cost
to users is small |
Cost to the public can be substantial in the case
of landfills and incinerators; available coastal property for landfills
is becoming scarce; problems of receptacle overflow and redeposition
of trash by wildlife; discourages recycling and alternative uses |
Disposal and management costs borne primarily by
the public; siting decisions may be opposed by neighbors due to localized
externalities |
Tax/Subsidy System |
State bottle bills: Maine ($0.05); Massachusetts
($0.05); Nova Scotia; New Brunswick |
Potential for economic efficiency; promotes cleanup
and recycling; minimal government administration |
Administrative costs can be significant |
Administrative costs usually borne by the private
sector, implying political opposition |
Moral Suasion |
"Do not litter" notices on packaging |
Increases awareness of problem; promotes onshore
disposal; firms seen as environmentally responsible; some potential
for product differentiation ("green labelling") |
Consumers may not pay attention to message; not
truly a green label unless the manufacturer is seen to be a participant
in pollution reduction |
Public benefits at low cost; manufacturers benefit
from perception of environmental responsibility |
Education Programs |
State, provincial coastal zone management efforts;
brochures; local harbor efforts |
Creates awareness of the problem; promotes compliance
with laws and regulations |
Some sectors of the public ignore educational programs;
effects may be lagged |
Public bears the immediate costs of the programs;
education is widely perceived as providing benefits to society in
the longrun |
Beach Cleanups |
Annual fall "Coastweek" cleanup; weekly
public beach cleanups in all three states; New Hampshire "Beach
Buddy" program |
Cleans up beach; promotes awareness of problems
of marine debris; provides opportunity for those who are among the
most aggrieved to rectify the problem; volunteers benefit from public
service; data collection may allow evaluation of other policies |
Wetlands, salt marshes, rocky coasts usually ignored;
marine environment ignored; cleanup occurs after period of
highest beach use; data collection perceived as onerous |
No public opposition; popular among environmental
community |
Beach Adoption |
New Hampshire state program |
Cleans up beach in spring and fall; participants
benefit from public service and publicity |
Same as above |
Same as above |
Research |
CMC data
collection; Massachusetts DMF surveys in mid-1980s |
Provides information on the nature and scale of
the problem |
Costs of conducting research |
Some user groups may be opposed to research if the
potential exists of identificaton as a significant polluter |
3.1. Disposal Standards
This approach
is very common, occurring in all jurisdictions in the Gulf of Maine and
at all levels of government. In general, the disposal of plastic marine
debris is prohibited in the Gulf of Maine. The disposal of other debris
is prohibited near the coast and permitted further offshore. The U.S.
federal Marine Plastics Pollution Research and Control Act (MPPRCA) of
1987 [P.L. 100-220] implements Annex V of the international MARPOL 73/78
convention in the United States. While Canada is not a signatory to Annex
V, the Canadian Shipping Act regulates the discharge of garbage from ships
in Canadian waters and contains standards that exceed the provisions of
MARPOL Annex V. Table 5, from the Center
for Marine Conservation (CMC) depicts the marine jurisdictions and
the relevant rules. Table 6, reprinted from EPA (1994),
presents a summary description of the relevant international and federal
regulatory framework in the Gulf of Maine.
Table 5: Summary
of garbage discharge regulations under the International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (1973-1978) and the U.S. Act to
Prevent Pollution from Ships, as Amended. Source: CMC.
Type of Garbage |
Discharge Prohibitions for All Vessels Outside
Special Areas |
Discharge Prohibitions Inside Special Areas for
Offshore Platforms |
...and Associated Vessels |
Plastics, including synthetic ropes and fishing
nets and plastic bags |
Disposal prohibited |
Disposal prohibited |
Disposal prohibited |
Dunnage, lining, and packing materials that float |
Disposal prohibited less than 25 n.mi. from nearest
land |
Disposal prohibited |
Disposal prohibited |
Paper, rags, glass, metal bottles, crockery, and
similar refuse |
Disposal prohibited less than 12 n.mi. from nearest
land |
Disposal prohibited |
Disposal prohibited |
Paper, rags, glass, etc. comminuted or ground |
Disposal prohibited less than 3 n.mi. from nearest
land |
Disposal prohibited |
Disposal prohibited |
Food waste not comminuted or ground |
Disposal prohibited less than 12 n.mi. from nearest
land |
Disposal prohibited less than 12 n.mi. from nearest
land |
Disposal prohibited |
Food waste comminuted or ground |
Disposal prohibited less than 3 n.mi. from nearest
land |
Disposal prohibited less than 12 n.mi. from nearest
land |
Disposal prohibited less than 12 n.mi. from nearest
land |
Mixed refuse types |
Apply most stringent disposal restriction |
Apply most stringent disposal restriction |
Apply most stringent disposal restriction |
Notes: (1) Under the Act To Prevent Pollution
from Ships, discharge limitations in the United States apply within all
navigable waters, including rivers, lakes, and other inland waters. (2)
Special Areas listed in Annex V are the Mediterranean, Baltic, Red, Black,
and North Seas; the Persian Gulf/Gulf of Oman; the Wider Caribbean Region;
and the Antarctic Ocean. However, at the end of 1995 only the North Sea,
the Baltic Sea, and the Antarctic Ocean Special Areas were actually in
effect because nations bordering the other listed areas had not yet affirmed
to the International Maritime Organization
that adequate port reception facilities were in place. (3) Offshore platforms
and associated vessels include all fixed or floating platforms engaged
in exploitation or exploration of seabed mineral resources and all vessels
alongside or within 500 m of such platforms. (4) Comminuted or ground
garbage must be able to pass through a 25-mm (1-inch) mesh screen. (5)
For the Special Area in the Wider Caribbean Region only, disposal is prohibited
within 3 rather than 12 n.mi. from the nearest land.
Table 6:
U.S. Regulatory Framework (Source: EPA 1994).
Many international, Federal, State, and local authorities
exist that address the release and presence of man-made debris in the
aquatic environment. These laws and international agreements address the
debris problem in several ways, including prohibiting the disposal of
wastes from vessels, preventing harm to endangered and threatened species,
establishing environmental planning and policy, and minimizing the production
of wastes that could become persistent aquatic debris. There has been
a wealth of legislation introduced at the State and local levels to address
solid-waste management and recycling. Individual state laws are not described
in this table.
International Convention on the Prevention of
Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, London, 1972
[London Convention (LDC)] (26 UST 2403) |
Prohibits dumping plastics and other persistent
synthetic material into the oceans, which may float or remain in suspension
so as to materially interfere with uses of the ocean. Excludes wastes
disposed during normal vessel operations, which instead are regulated
by MARPOL Annex V. |
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act (MPRSA) of 1972 (Ocean Dumping Act), amended in 1988 [Ocean Dumping
Ban Act (ODBA)L (33 USC 1401 et seq.) |
Prohibits the transport of material for the purpose
of ocean dumping unless authorized by permit. Implements the London
Convention. Prohibits the ocean disposal of sewage sludge and industrial
wastes, and ocean disposal of potentially infectious medical wastes.
|
Protocol of 1978 Relating to the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973-1978 (MARPOL
73/78) (17 ILM 546, 1978) |
Applies to ship-generated wastes. Annex V restricts
the at-sea disposal of garbage, and prohibits the at-sea disposal
of plastic materials. Requires adequate port waste-reception facilities.
Entered into force in the United States on December 31, 1988, but
Canada is not a party. |
Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) of
1982 (33 USC 1901 et seq.) |
Regulates disposal of wastes, including oil or other
hazardous substances, generated during normal operation of vessels.
Implements MARPOL 73/78 legislation, and was amended in 1987 by MPPRCA
to implement MARPOL Annex V specifically. |
Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control
Act (MPPRCA) of 1987 (PL 100-220) |
Implements MARPOL Annex V by amending APPS. Calls
for federal agency Reports to Congress on methods to reduce plastic
pollution and effects of plastics on the aquatic environment. Requires
Coast Guard regulation of overboard disposal of plastics and other
garbage under MARPOL Annex V. Calls for Citizen Pollution Patrols
joint responsibility of NOAA, Coast Guard, and EPA) and public outreach
and citizen awards for reported violations. Requires adequate port
waste-reception facilities, and vessels 26 ft. in length or greater
to display placards, and vessels 40 ft. in length or greater to provide
waste management plans. Subtitle B requires EPA to study methods for
reducing plastic pollution and requires the Department of Commerce
to determine the effects of plastics on the aquatic environment. |
Washington Declaration on Protection of the Marine
Environment from Land-Based Activities (1996) (26 EP&L 37 et seq.)
|
A nonbinding international declaration that calls
on nations to reduce land-based sources of pollution, including littering.
Objectives include: the reduction of litter reaching the marine and
coastal environments and the establishment of facilities for the disposal
of litter in coastal environments. Encourages international, regional,
and national-level activities including: (1) the implementation of
regulatory measures or economic instruments to reduce solid waste
generation; (2) local management and planning to avoid siting waste
dumps near coastlines or waterways; (3) formulation and implementation
of awareness and education campaigns; (4) participation in an international
clearinghouse and exchange of information; among other things. |
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) of
1972, as amended [Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC 1251, 1262, 1311 et
seq.) |
Establishes permitting and pollution control requirements
for point source [including publicly owned treatment works (POTW),
combined sewer overflows (CSO), and storm drains] for discharges into
waters of the U.S. and the oceans. Establishes the NPDES permit program
to control such discharges. |
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 (16
USC 1361 et seq.) |
Places a moratorium on the taking and importing
of aquatic mammals and aquatic mammal products from U.S. waters for
any purpose other than scientific research or public display. Establishes
the Marine Mammal Commission (MMC), which recommends protection and
conservation policies on marine manuals for federal agencies. |
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended
(16 USC 1531 et seq.) |
Intended to conserve endangered and threatened species
and protect the ecosystems in which they live. It calls for all necessary
measures to improve condition of species so they can be delisted,
and to support international treaties for the protection of wildlife
and habitat. Among other things, it requires the listing of threatened
and endangered species, designation of critical habitat of listed
species, development of recovery plans, and provides for enforcement
actions. |
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
(RCRA) (42 USC 6901 et seq.) |
Amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to better address
the disposal of municipal and industrial wastes. Includes provisions
to regulate the disposal of hazardous wastes by establishing a "cradle
to grave" program. The goals set by RCRA are to: protect human
health and the environment; reduce waste and conserve energy and natural
resources; and reduce or eliminate the generation of hazardous waste
as expeditiously as possible. |
Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988 (Subtitle
J of RCRA; 42 USC 6992 et seq.) |
Regulates generators and handlers of wastes and
requires standards for separating, labeling, packaging, and tracking
of certain types of medical wastes. EPA established a demonstration
project in several states for the purpose of tracking medical wastes
from generation through disposal. |
The U.S. Public Vessel Medical Waste And-Dumping
Act of 1988 (PL 100-699 Sections 3101-3105) |
Requires that all public vessels have a management
plan for medical wastes on board ship and prohibits the disposal of
these wastes at sea except during national emergencies. |
An Act to Study, Control, and Reduce the Pollution
of Aquatic Environments from Plastic Materials and For Other Purposes
of 1987 (Degradable Plastic Ring Carrier Law) (P.L. 100-556) |
Directs EPA to develop regulations that require
plastic ring carriers to be made of degradable materials. Many states
have already enacted similar laws. |
Driftnet Impact Monitoring, Assessment, and Control
Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-220, Title IV) |
Requires the study and creation of a driftnet marking,
registry, and identification system. Directs the Secretary of Commerce
to collect information on the numbers of U.S. marine resources killed,
retrieved, discarded, or lost by foreign driftnet fishing vessels
operating beyond the EEZ of any nation, to evaluate alternative driftnet
materials that hasten decomposition of the netting, and evaluate the
feasibility of a driftnet bounty system. |
Shore Protection Act (SPA) of 1988 (PL 100-688,
Sections 4001-4204) |
Establishes a permitting scheme for vessels transporting
municipal and commercial waste. Requires waste handlers to minimize
the release of municipal or commercial wastes during onloading or
offloading to vessels, or during vessel transport. |
State
and local standards may be more restrictive than the MPPRCA rules, and
they may apply to land-based sources that have the potential to move into
the marine environment. For example, Table 7 compares
the basic provisions of international, U.S. federal, state and local by-laws
(using Plymouth, Massachusetts as an example) relating to littering on
land and in the ocean.
Table 7:
Hierarchy of Marine Litter Control Laws in the United States
Level of Government |
Jurisdiction |
Relevant Law |
Policy Statement |
Civil Penalty |
Fine |
International |
IMO |
MARPOL 73/78, Annex V |
- the disposal into the sea of all plastics, including
but not limited to synthetic ropes, synthetic fishing nets and
plastic garbage bags, is prohibited;
- the disposal into the sea of the following garbage
shall be made as far as practicable from the nearest land but
in any case is prohibited if the distance from the nearest land
is less than: (I) 25 nautical miles for dunnage, lining and packing
materials which will float; (ii) 12 nautical miles for food wastes
and all other garbage including paper products, rags, glass, metal,
bottles, crockery and similar refuse;
- disposal into the sea of garbage . . . may be
permitted when it has passed through a comminuter or grinder and
made as far as proacticable from the nearest land but in any case
is prohibited if the distance from the nearest land is less than
3 nautical miles. . .
|
Left up to state-party |
Left up to state-party |
National |
United States |
MPPRCA, 33 U.S.C ( 1802 et seq. (1996) |
It is unlawful to act in violation of the MARPOL
Protocol, Annex IV to the Antarctic protocol, this Act, or the regulations
issued thereunder. . . |
Class D Felony |
Up to $25,000 fine per day for a violation of the
Act; up to $5,000 fine for each false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement
or representation |
State |
Maine |
Maine Litter Control Act [Ch. 80, 17 MRSA §2262
et seq.] |
No person may throw, drop, deposit, discard, dump
or otherwise dispose of any litter in any manner or amount: . . .
In any fresh water lake, river, stream, tidal or coastal water or
on ice over water. |
Civil violation subject to "forfeitures";
if on watercraft, both operator and litterer are in violation |
<15 lbs or 27 cu.ft.: $100-500; <500 lbs or
100 cu.ft.: $200-1000;>500 lbs or 100 cu.ft. for a commercial purpose:
special penalties |
|
New Hampshire |
- Litter Control Law [NHRSA, Ch. 163-B]
- Rules of the Road [NHRSA, Ch. 265:102]; Fish
and Game [NHRSA, Ch. 214:18-a]
|
- It shall be unlawful for any person or persons
to dump, deposit, throw or leave, or to cause to permit the dumping,
depositing, throwing or leaving of litter on any public or private
property in this state, or in or on ice or in any waters in this
state . . .
- No person shall put or place or caused to be
put or placed, in or upon any . . . public bathing place or the
approaches thereto, or onto the ice over any public water, streams
or watercourse or the approaches thereto or land bordering the
same in any city or town any bottles, glass, crockery, cans, scrap
metal, junk, paper, garbage, old automobile or parts thereof,
or refuse of any nature whatsoever or any noxious thing.
|
Misdemeanor or must pick up all litter deposited
by anyone at relevant location |
Loss of fishing or hunting license for the current
year; Suspension of license for any motor vehicle, boat, airplane
or other conveyance for up to 7 days |
|
Massachusetts |
- Crimes Against Public Health [270 MRSA ( 16]
- Agriculture and Conservation [131 MRSA ( 44]
|
- Whoever places, throws, deposits, discharges,
or causes to be placed, thrown, deposited or discharged, any trash,
bottles or cans, refuse, rubbish, garbage, debris, scrap, waste,
or any other material of any kind . . .on any . . . public land,
or in or upon coatal or inland waters . . . or within twenty yards
of any such water, or on property of another, shall be punished
- A person while engaged in hunting, fishing or
trapping shall not deposit or cause to be deposited garbage, paper,
refuse, bottles, cans, rubbish or trash of any kind or nature
on any public or private property without permission of the owner,
tenant or lessee of such property.
|
|
Up to $3,000 for the first offense, up to $10,000
for each subsequent offense; court may require removal of litter;
car may be impounded, drivers license may be suspended for up to 30
days |
Local |
Plymouth, Massachusetts |
- Plymouth Town Bylaws, Art. 8Plymouth Beaches
- Plymouth Town Bylaws, Art. 26Harbor Bylaws
|
- All persons on any public beach, except owners
and occupants of cottages located in Plymouth must deposit garbage
and rubbish in barrels which shall be provided along the beach.
. . .
- Glass containers of any kind are prohibited
from all public beaches.
- Untreated sewage, rubbish, debris, garbage or
dead fish shall not be discharged into Plymouth Harbor.
- Rules for the [harbor] ramp and adjacent parking
area shall be as follows: . . . No littering. . .
|
|
$100 fine for deposit of rubbish on beaches; $50
fine for discharge into harbor |
Disposal
standards (prohibitions) encourage the reduction of littering and disposal
if properly enforced. However, monitoring and enforcement of pollution
control laws is notoriously difficult (costly) at sea, thus the effect
of such prohibitions is difficult to determine. Where enforcement is known
to be slack, the incentives for compliance are therefore weak, and we
might expect that the relevant policy is not as effective as it might
otherwise be.
One study
has examined the impact of a ban on the littering of plastics on the beaches
and roads of Suffolk County, New York (Ross and Swanson
1994-95). The relevant law banned the use of all plastic grocery bags,
polystyrene and polyvinyl chloride food packaging. Ross and Swanson sampled
several beaches in 1993, comparing the volume of plastics with data from
a beach cleanup in 1991. The authors conclude that although the law could
change the composition of litter, it would have no impact on the volume
of litter on the beaches. Several possible reasons for this result include
the facts that (1) the plastic component of the waste stream may have
increased (although the authors did not have enough evidence of this);
(2) the banned plastic was only a small component of the waste stream;
(3) surrounding communities, including New York City, were a significant
source of debris to Suffolk County; and (4) the samples were taken at
different times of the year, rendering them potentially incomparable.
Even
if prohibitions on the disposal of debris into the marine environment
are not likely to be effective for reasons of low compliance, costly enforcement,
or other reasons, they serve the important purpose of providing a rationale
for the other policy approaches. For example, it is more difficult to
press the case that littering should be reduced if it is not explicitly
prohibited.
Prohibitions
on littering and illicit disposal often are combined with fines in an
attempt to increase compliance. Notably, as shown in Table
7, fines may be imposed at all levels of government. It appears from
the table that fines tend to be higher at the higher levels of government.
For example, the disposal of plastics in the territorial sea off the coast
of Plymouth, Massachusetts will result in a $25,000 per day fine under
the provisions of the federal MPPRCA, up to $3,000 for each offense under
the Massachusetts public health statutes, and $50 under the bylaws of
the Town of Plymouth. One reason for this gradient in fines may relate
to the probability of enforcement. For example, if the probability of
enforcement is lower for higher levels of government, then the expected
fine will be lower as well. Prohibitions and associated fines are sometimes
posted in high use areas to increase the effectiveness of this approach.
3.2. Disposal Facilities
This
approach is very common, occurring in all of the jurisdictions in the
Gulf of Maine. In particular, the control of marine debris can be considered
to be a subset of solid waste disposal policy. Marine debris is a type
of solid waste, and the purpose of a solid waste policy is to minimize
environmental and aesthetic impacts by concentrating it at one location
or by converting it into an innocuous form, say, through incineration.
A cost-effective
means of collecting solid waste is by locating collection facilities at
locations close to activities that produce waste. The strategic location
of receptacles reduces the costs of moving the waste from its original
source, the litterers, to a landfill or treatment facility. Perhaps more
importantly, costs are reduced for those who must dispose of debris. Hence
we see the hypothesis put forth in many jurisdictions that the placement
of dumpsters, trash, barrels, waste oil buckets and other receptacles
will result in decreases in littering and illicit disposal activities
(e.g., Niskanen 1993; Cheetham
and Dorsky 1992). In a study of solid waste disposal and recycling
in the Finger Lakes region of New York State, Reschovsky and Stone (1994)
found that providing a convenient means for households to recycle, such
as curbside recycling bins, was the most effective means for encouraging
widespread recycling. We have found no studies that support this hypothesis
in the specific case of marine debris, although there is plenty of circumstantial
evidence. A Canadian study (Topping et al. 1994b)
found that commercial fishermen are more likely to return waste to port,
rather than dispose of it at sea, when waste collection facilities (along
with education, see below) are provided in port.
Disposal
facilities for solid waste generated aboard commercial and recreational
vessels is largely a private responsibility; the major port authorities
around the Gulf (Boston, Portsmouth, Portland) do not provide solid waste
facilities themselves, though some offer waste oil and sewage disposal
facilities. Some private terminals in these ports provide solid waste
disposal; in other cases, vessels may contract to have waste removed.
Similarly, not all small-craft ports along the Canadian Gulf of Maine
have waste disposal facilities (see AIL 1990; Cheetham
and Dorsky 1992; Niskanen 1993).
One problem
that has been found to be associated with the placement of receptacles
at beach locations is the movement of debris out of the receptacles. This
can happen if the receptacle is not appropriate to the volume of the debris
or if birds or animals move the debris out of the receptacle. This problem
seems to be easily solved by using larger receptacles with lids or increasing
the frequency of collection.
Another
issue concerns decisions about siting collection facilities. This issue
appears to be most serious when discussing major land use decisions, such
as the siting of landfills, but it may also arise when siting dumpsters
on wharves or trash barrels in locations near private beaches. Solutions
may involve bringing all stakeholders to the table to agree upon a compromise
location. Under the MPPRCA, waste reception facilities are required at
ports, shipping terminals, commercial fishing piers, and marinas. However,
CSW (1995) notes that there has been no improvement
in garbage management facilities since the inception of the Act because
of the lack of technical standards to determine the adequacy of the facilities.
Furthermore, there is no federal requirement for the many small piers
and boat launch ramps to have reception facilities. The situation is similar
in Canada, where small craft ports are being shifted from national to
local municipal control; not all of the more than 200 such harbors along
the Canadian Gulf of Maine coast have solid waste disposal facilities
(Topping, p.c., 1997).
3.3. Tax/Subsidy Programs
Several
"economic incentive" programs have been proposed to solve problems
of littering, but few of these have been implemented to help control marine
debris. The most important such programs include the deposit-refund "bottle
bills" implemented successfully in Maine, Massachusetts, New Brunswick,
and Nova Scotia. (Other tax or subsidy programs may be effective at reducing
marine debris even though they are not directed at the disposal issue.
For example, recent proposed federal tax increases on cigarette sales
are likely to reduce consumption of cigarettes, thereby lowering the number
of cigarette butts illicitly disposed. We will not address these policies
here, but we should keep in mind that they may have an important effect
on the marine debris problem in the Gulf of Maine.)
Most
jurisdictions impose "lump sum" taxes or charges upon households
to cover the disposal of solid waste. It has long been recognized that
lump sum payments do not provide the right incentives for reducing the
total volume of solid waste or for encouraging recycling to take place.
The fundamental problem is that households are charged only for the right
to throw trash away—not on the basis of how much they throw away. These
policies may result in the classic problems of the filling up of sanitary
landfills at too rapid a pace, excessive public expenditures for garbage
pickup and disposal, and the unnecessary disposal of potentially recyclable
materials. Nevertheless, such policies may alleviate problems of littering
and illicit disposal precisely because they provide an opportunity for
disposal.
One potential
solution that has been implemented in certain jurisdictions is the use
of "quantity- (or unit-) based pricing." Quantity-based pricing
solves the fundamental problem described above by charging households
for how much solid waste they dispose. As a result, this approach increases
incentives for reducing the volume of solid waste disposed and for recycling.
An unfortunate side-effect is that incentives for illicit disposal, including
littering, also are increased. However, in a study that surveyed 21 U.S.
cities that implemented quantity-based pricing for the disposal of solid
waste, Miranda et al. (1994) found that most
cities reported no noticeable increase in littering or illegal dumping.
Some cities did report increases in the burning of trash.
Another
potential solution is to tax the "virgin material" content of
plastics, paper products, or packing materials (Miedema
1983). Such a tax would reduce the incentives of manufacturing firms
to use virgin materials in their production activities. Further, such
a policy can be expected to increase the demand for recycled materials,
thereby raising the prices paid for recyclables, and lower the volume
of solid waste disposal. This approach represents an intervention at an
earlier stage in the conceptual model of Table 2 than
the quantity-based pricing approach.
Some
analysts have suggested that the indirect subsidization of the production
of virgin materials exacerbates the problem of waste disposal. Miedema
(1983: 22) describes this subsidization as "the
market's failure to incorporate eventual disposal and collection costs"
[note 7]. However, other inefficiencies, such as
those associated with natural resource exploitation, have the same kind
of effect. An example from the Gulf of Maine is illustrative. To the extent
that commercial and recreational fishing for groundfish, lobster, or other
species has been "open access," economically inefficient levels
of fishing effort have been exerted on the stocks. We might expect higher
levels of lost or illicitly disposed of fishing gear associated with excessive
levels of effort. A tax on fishing effort (akin to a virgin materials
tax—although the fish are not specifically a "material" incorporated
into an end product), would act to reduce fishing effort, thereby reducing
the likelihood of gear losses and disposals.
Dinan
(1993) takes issue with the economic efficiency
of both the quantity-based pricing and virgin materials taxes. As noted
above, quantity-based pricing has the undesirable feature of increasing
the incentives for littering and illicit disposal. Virgin materials taxes
are efficient only if recycled materials are used to displace virgin materials
in the original products. However, this policy does not increase the demand
for the use of recycled materials in alternative products. Dinan's solution
is the implementation of a combined tax/subsidy policy in which a tax
on the production of an item is set equal to the cost of its future disposal
and a subsidy on the recycling of the item is set equal to the current
costs of disposal. When commonly recycled goods (newspapers and containers)
are recycled, the tax and the subsidy balance out. Items that are not
recycled face the disposal charge in the form of the tax.
Dinan's
conclusion that a tax/subsidy system is economically optimal is supported
by research by other analysts (Palmer and Walls 1994;
Fullerton and Kinnaman 1993; Dobbs
1991). The success of "bottle bills" or deposit/refund systems
in many jurisdictionsincluding those in the Gulf of Maineare
empirical proof of the effectiveness of the tax/subsidy approach (Figure
7). Drawbacks to this approach include the potential for significant
administrative costs. Indeed, Dinan (1993) suggests
that the approach should be limited to selected items in the waste stream,
such as those that have a limited number of producers or importers, those
that are easy to identify, or those that have a limited number of individuals
or firms that qualify for the subsidy.
Lee et
al. (1988) show that a fine on littering actually
dilutes the effectiveness of a deposit/refund approach. This is the case
when the size of the depositand therefore of the refundis
limited for some reason, such as fairness to producers or consumers. The
combination of a deposit/refund and a fine on littering actually reduces
the frequency of littering but increases the amount of litter relative
to the implementation of a tax/subsidy system in isolation. This seemingly
counterintuitive result occurs because there is a lowered incentive to
recycle as the refund is lowered. This conclusion suggests that littering
fines might usefully be abandoned for those items in the waste stream
that are subject to deposit/refund systems.
In the
Gulf of Maine, fishing gear that has been lost or disposed of would appear
to be an excellent candidate for a tax/subsidy system [note
8]. The perception of significant impacts from ghost fishing gear,
even if not yet demonstrated empirically, makes this problem a high priority.
Research conducted at the Stevens
Institute of Technology (Xanthos and Dagli 1995;
PPI 1989) has demonstrated the technological feasibility
of recycling and reprocessing nylon or polyethylene nets by melting and
extruding [note 9]. However, Xanthos and Dagli (1995)
conclude that the economics of recycling high density polyethylene (HDPE)
nets are marginal at best. Recycling of nylon netting is potentially economically
feasible. Volumes of both materials from fishing uses are low and cannot
support the construction and operation of a dedicated recycling facility.
The price of HDPE is much lower than the costs of recycling it through
existing facilities. There is some evidence of an overseas market in Asia
for secondary material shipped from the west coast. An attempt to organize
a local procedure for the recycling of fishing gear by the Center
for Coastal Studies in Provincetown, Massachusetts has been postponed
for the time being (DeConti, p.c., 1997).
In 1995,
NMFS listed the development of "port reception programs" for
recycling old fishing gear in the Gulf of Maine as a priority item in
its Marine Entanglement research program. This program was not funded
during 1996 and 1997. In accordance with the Lee et al. (1988)
result, implementation of such a program should be accompanied by a review
and possible elimination of the MPPRCA fines on the disposal of fishing
gear.
3.4. Moral Suasion
This
type of policy approach is neither a command-and-control nor an incentive-based
approach. Instead it involves sending a message to potential litterers
with the expectation that his or her behavior will be changed as a result
of the content of the message (Bohm and Russell 1985).
The expectation is that individuals will "do the right thing"
when reminded of the need for proper disposal. The most common forms of
moral suasion include notices on cans, bottles, bags and other packaging
such as "please do not litter" or "please recycle."
The effectiveness
of a policy of moral suasion in reducing litter has not been demonstrated
conclusively. If consumers take the time to read labels, then we can expect
that public awareness of littering and disposal problems will increase.
Ross and Swanson (1994-95) note that research conducted
by the organization Keep America Beautiful
has revealed that people tend to litter for three main reasons: (1) they
feel no sense of ownership of property; (2) they expect someone to clean
up after them; and (3) other people litter in the same location. To the
extent that moral suasion acts to encourage a sense of ownership in a
coastal or marine environment and sends the message that no one is going
to clean up after litterers, then it may contribute to a reduction in
littering activity.
Another
important aspect of the moral suasion approach is that it may be employed
by private manufacturing firms on the labels of their products. As such,
an admonishment not to litter sends a signal that these firms are environmentally
responsible. Moral suasion in this sense is analogous to a "green
label" in differentiating the product from other related, but presumably
less environmentally friendly, products. (However, unless firms are actively
involved in recycling or cleaning up litter, the label is not truly "green".)
As such, these manufacturers benefit from applying the label to their
products. If consumers respond to the message of the labels, then the
public benefits too from reductions in littering.
Signage
is also a form of moral suasion. Signs are usually posted to let users
know about the relevant laws and policies, and they may be made more effective
by including information about the size of any relevant fines or other
penalties. Given the difficulties with enforcing prohibitions on littering
or disposal of debris, signs might be thought of more usefully as a type
of moral suasion than as a publication of standards and fees.
3.5. Education
Education
is often described as one of the most effective policies that can be implemented
to control marine debris inputs. Faris and Hart (1995)
stress the importance of education programs to increase "awareness"
about the problem of marine debris. With increased awareness, we expect
to find reductions in littering and disposal activities.
Most
jurisdictions in the Gulf of Maine have some mechanism for educating the
public about the problem of marine debris. Examples include federal and
state laws, local littering bylaws, signage, placement of trash barrels,
promotion of beach cleanups, among others [note 10].
Even with such mechanisms, Niskanen (1993) notes,
in the case of Rockland Harbor, Maine, that many users still are aware
of neither the relevant laws nor the reasons for such policies. Further,
when users are aware of marine debris laws, many are unaware of the alternatives
for proper disposal of debris, especially the location of disposal sites.
Although
there seems to be a consensus that educational programs are a critical
component in a marine debris reduction strategy, few studies have been
conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of educational programs. One study,
conducted to evaluate the role of education in increasing awareness of
commercial fishermen and recreational boaters about marine debris problems,
had very mixed results (O'Hara and Wallace 1990).
In general, educational programs increased the awareness of federal policies
prohibiting the disposal at sea of vessel generated garbage. However,
the investigators were unable to measure any change in at-sea disposal
activities. One reason for this result was a bias in survey responses
away from those who dispose of plastics at sea.
Cheetham
and Dorsky (1992) identify a public education
campaign as one of the key components of a strategy to reduce marine debris
in Portland, Maine. Broadly speaking, the following types of activities
are described in the literature as contributing to the effectiveness of
an educational program:
- elementary school programs: educational experts believe that
environmental attitudes are shaped most strongly at an early age; therefore
programs to educate elementary school students are expected to be the
most effective in reducing the marine debris problem over the long run;
- media contact: establishing and maintaining contact with the
press and the media by providing them with facts, news stories, study
results, and pictures (O'Hara and Wallace 1990);
drawing the attention of the media to cleanup events (Cheetham
and Dorsky 1992);
- leadership persuasion: presentations to persuade leaders of
user groups are seen as more effective than presentations to inform
individuals in the user groups (O'Hara and Wallace
1990); presentations to executives of firms involved in the tourist
industry and of firms whose products are easily disposed in the marine
environment are also important (Cheetham and Dorsky
1992);
- beach cleanups: the results of data collected during beach
cleanups is thought to be effective in making the case before government
policymakers for increased attention to the problem of marine debris
(Faris and Hart 1995);
- green labelling: private companies (Morton Salt, R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco) may perceive benefits from advertising or labelling their products
with admonishments not to contribute to marine debris; in some cases,
making private firms aware of the potential for the disposal of their
products in the marine environment is an important step (Faris
and Hart 1995);
- educational materials: educational materials (brochures, flyers,
pamphlets, stickers) may be included in certification programs for users,
such as for scuba divers, lifeguards, or for boater registration and
commercial vessel operator licensing (Faris and Hart
1995; EPA 1994);
- pledge programs: users may "pledge" not to litter
or dispose of plastics and to collect debris that they encounter; pledges
are sometimes associated with discounts at marine suppliers or lotteries
(Faris and Hart 1995);
- signage: this category includes "do not litter" signs;
posters at commercial docks, marinas, along waterfronts, and at public
beaches; decals on trash barrels, dumpsters, and used oil buckets; and
storm drain stenciling; often the posting of littering fines is perceived
as more effective than a general admonishment (Faris
and Hart 1995; Niskanen 1993; Cheetham
and Dorsky 1992).
3.6. Beach Cleanups
This
approach is widely employed in the Gulf of Maine and has been very successful.
Annual beach cleanups are organized nationally by the Center
for Marine Conservation (CMC) in Hampton, Virginia. Cleanups are coordinated
at the state level by officials at state coastal zone management offices.
Local cleanup coordinators are responsible for specific beaches. CMC
requests that cleanup teams of two individuals each be organized to bag
debris and to fill out forms that characterize the amount and type of
debris. These forms are sent to the state coordinators. In some cases
(Maine and New Hampshire), preliminary data results are collected. The
forms are forwarded to CMC in Washington,
where the data are compiled and published in reports that describe the
distribution and nature of marine debris at the state level.
Beach
cleanups are undeniably one of the most effective approaches to the problem
of marine debris. Their most important feature is that they enlist the
efforts of individuals who are among those that feel the strongest about
the problem of debris. Indeed, although there clearly are costs associated
with cleaning up litter, these individuals are likely to benefit personally
from participating in the cleanup. Taking advantage of scale economies.
the costs of data collection and organization are borne by CMC
and the state and local coordinators.
New Hampshire
has established a "beach adoption" program through which individuals
or institutions can gain promotional benefits if they agree to clean up
a beach at least twice a year. Many of the public beaches in all three
states have programs for the weekly cleaning of beaches.
Beach
cleanups are not the ultimate solution to the problem of marine debris,
however. Cleanups are focused primarily on beaches, not in the ecologically
more sensitive wetlands and harbors, or on rocky shores. By historic accident,
most annual cleanups are held in the fall, not at other times of the year
when aesthetic and ecological benefits of cleanups may be maximized. The
collection of data on the types and amounts of debris, while useful from
a research standpoint, was cited as overly onerous by several sources
(e.g. counting numbers of cigarette butts).
Some
potential recommendations to improve cleanup strategies include:
- holding cleanups in early spring to maximize aesthetic and
ecological benefits (some high impact areas might be cleaned in the
fall as well);
- enlarging the cleanups to include wetlands and estuarine shorelines
as well as beaches;
- adopting a "sampling strategy" to data collection
such that only a few cleanup teams on beaches (or teams on only a few
beaches) are required to collect detailed data (see Ribic
and Ganio 1996);
- estimating (instead of counting) numbers of small, high quantity
debris items, such as cigarette butts.
3.7. Research
Conducting
research to gain a better understanding of the nature and scale of the
marine debris problems in specific localities is an important component
of an overall approach. There is no research that attempts to get at the
identity of the sources of marine debris in the Gulf of Maine. Other than
data on beach cleanups, very little research has been done to understand
the distribution of marine debris. There is no research on the distribution
of debris in the marine environment or on the seabed. Barr (p.c.,
1997) reports that no marine debris was identified on recent video
surveys of the seabed at Stellwagen Bank, although the purposes of the
surveys were to map bottom structure, not to identify debris. Environmental
impacts of marine debris have been reported in the region, but the evidence
is anecdotal at best.
Several
areas of research can contribute to a better understanding of the problem
and how best to address the problem. We suggest some here:
- A random sampling of the water column and seabed in ecologically
sensitive areas, such as marine mammal migration routes and feeding
grounds, in marine sanctuaries, coastal estuaries, and other areas.
- A search of the literature on animal strandings to establish
the relationship (if one exists) between gut contents and strandings.
- Analysis of CMC beach
cleanup data vis-a-vis the content of local and state littering statutes,
the placement of signage and receptacles, and the extent of enforcement
(e.g., per capita littering violations). These measures could be collected
on the beach cleanup data sheets.
- Analysis of the costs and benefits of a recycling program for
lost or abandoned fishing gear.
4. Summary and Recommendations
We have
examined data on the temporal and spatial distribution of marine debris
in the Gulf of Maine and the effectiveness of policy responses. We have
worked toward two main goals: (1) the development of a historical "baseline"
for marine debris distributions in the Gulf of Maine and (2) a review
of existing debris reduction and prevention policies in the Gulf and elsewhere.
Some
80 to 85 percent of marine debris collected in beach cleanups appears
to be from shore-based sources. Commercial fishers account for half of
ocean-based debris. More than half of all marine debris is plastic; metal,
glass, and paper make up most of the rest. No significant trends appear
in the volume of most debris types in the Gulf of Maine from 1988 to the
present. The data are sketchy, but nearshore debris volume appears to
be perhaps five times greater in New Hampshire, northern Massachusetts,
and parts of Nova Scotia than in Maine and southern Massachusetts.
Lack
of data makes it difficult to establish the success or failure of particular
approaches to marine debris. Deposit/refund policies for beverage containers
appear to have reduced associated marine debris in Maine and Massachusetts.
Beach cleanups appear to be an effective way to address nearshore marine
debris. The social cost of marine debris is not known, but it seems likely
that the largest component of this cost is reduced aesthetic value of
fouled shorelines. Data on the benefits of cleanups are extremely limited,
but suggest a willingness-to-pay for clean shoreline along the Gulf of
Maine on the order of $14/foot/year, plus/minus about $7/foot/year.
Recommendations
for future efforts include the following:
- In general, continue to combine a range of policy approaches,
emphasizing economic incentives.
- Target onshore recreationists and commercial fishers with deposit/refund
on beverage containers (New Hampshire) and possibly fishing gear (all
states and provinces).
- Improve cleanup procedures by
- holding cleanups in early spring to maximize aesthetic and
ecological benefits (some high impact areas might be cleaned in the
fall as well);
- enlarging the cleanups to include wetlands and estuarine
shorelines as well as beaches;
- adopting a "sampling strategy" to data collection
such that only a few cleanup teams on beaches (or teams on only a
few beaches) are required to collect detailed data; and
- estimating (instead of counting) numbers of small, high quantity
debris items, such as cigarette butts.
- Support research to improve understanding of the marine debris
problem, including:
- a random sampling of the water column and seabed in ecologically
sensitive areas, such as marine mammal migration routes and feeding
grounds, in marine sanctuaries, coastal estuaries, and other areas;
- a search of the literature on animal strandings to establish
the relationship (if one exists) between gut contents and strandings;
- analysis of CMC beach
cleanup data vis-a-vis the content of local and state littering statues,
the placement of signage and receptacles, and the extent of enforcement
(e.g., per capita littering violations); and
- analysis of the costs and benefits of a recycling program
for lost or abandoned fishing gear.
References
Acres International Limited (AIL). 1990. Inventory
of reception facilities for marine wastes in Canada, phase II. Report
prepared for the Canadian
Coast Guard, Department of Fisheries and Oceans. February.
Barr, B. 1997. Personal communcation. Plymouth,
Massachusetts: Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sactuary Office.
Bernstein, J.D. 1993. Alternative approaches
to pollution control and waste management: regulatory and economic instruments.
Prepared for the joint UNDP/UNCHS/World Bank—Urban Management Programme.
Washington: The World Bank.
Bohm, P. and C.S. Russell. 1985. Comparative
analysis of alternative policy instruments. In A.V. Kneese and J.L. Sweeney,
eds., Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics, Vol. I. New York:
Elsevier Science publishers, pp. 395-460.
Carr, H.A. 1997. Personal communication.
Pocassett, Mass.: Division of Marine Fisheries, Commonwealth of Massachusetts
(6 August).
Carr, H.A. 1988. Long term assessment of
a derelict gillnet found in the Gulf of Maine. Proceedings of MTS Oceans
88, pp. 984-986. IEEE.
Carr, H.A., A.J. Blott, and P.G. Caruso.
1992. A study of shost fillnets in the inshore waters of southern New
England. Proceedings of MTS Oceans 92.
Center for Marine Conservation (CMC). Various
years. Coastal Cleanup Results. Hampton, Va.: Center
for Marine Conservation.
Cheetham, K. and D. Dorsky. 1992. A strategy
to reduce marine debris in Portland, Maine. A report developed by the
Portland Marine Debris Task Force. Boston, Ma.: Gulf of Maine Council
on the Marine Environment.
Cole, C.A., W.P. Gregg, D.V. Richards and
D.A. Manski. 1992. Annual report of national park marine debris monitoing
program. Denver, Colo.: Natural Resources publication Office, National
Park Service (July).
Committee on Shipborne Wastes (CSW). 1995.
Clean Ships, Clean Ports, Clean Oceans: Controlling Garbage and Plastic
Wastes at Sea. Washington: National Academy Press.
Cooper, R.A., H.A. Carr, and A.H. Hulbert.
1988. Manned submersible and ROV assessment of ghost gillnets on Jeffries
and Stellwagen Banks, Gulf of Maine. NOAA Undersea Research Program Research
Report 88-4. Washington: NOAA.
Crampton, C. 1989. The Coast Guard's
Annex V Compliance Report: a case study. Proceedings of the Second International
Conference on Marine Debris, Honolulu, April 1989.
DeConti, R. 1997. Personal communication.
Yarmouth, Mass.: Consultant to the Center for Coastal Studies (5 August).
Dinan, T. 1993. Economic efficiency effects
of alternative policies for reducing waste disposal. Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management 25: 242-256.
Dobbs, I.A. 1991. Litter and waste management:
disposal taxes versus user charges. Canadian Journal of Economics 24(1):
221-227.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994.
Status of efforts to control aquatic debris. EPA-842-K-94-002. Washington:
Office of Water (August).
Faris, J. and K. Hart. 1995. Seas of debris:
a summary of the Third International Conference on Marine Debris. UNC-SG-95-01.
NC: North Carolina Sea Grant College Program.
Fullerton, D. and T.C. Kinnaman. 1993.
Garbage, recycling, and illicit burning or dumping. National Bureau of
Economic Research Pap. No. 4374. Pittsburgh and Charlottesville: Carnegie
Mellon University and University of Virginia (May).
Gerrior, P. 1997. Personal communication.
Woods Hole, Mass.: New England Region Right Whale Network, Northeast Fisheries
Science Center, NMFS (5 August).
Holdnak, A. 1992. The impacts of marine
debris, weather conditions, and unexpected events on recreational boater
satisfaction on the Delaware Inland Bays (boating). Ph.D. dissertation.
College Station, Penn.: The Pennsylvania State University.
Kasperson, R.E. and K.D. Pijawka. 1985.
Societal response to hazards and major hazard events: comparing natural
and technological hazards. Public Administration Review 45: 7-18.
Laist, D.W. 1997a. Personal communication.
Bethesda, Md.: Marine Mammal Commission (29 July).
Laist, D.W. 1997b. Impacts of marine
debris: entanglement of marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive
list of species with entanglement and ingestion records. In J.M. Coe and
D.B. Rogers, eds., Marine Debris: Sources, Impacts, and Solutions. New
York: Springer-Verlag New Yok, Inc., 99-139.
Laist, D.W. 1987. Overview of the biological
effects of lost and discarded plastic debris in the marine environment.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 18(6B): 319-326.
Lee, D.R., P.E. Graves and R.L. Sexton. 1988.
On mandatory deposits, fines, and the control of litter. Natural Resources
Journal 28(Fall): 837-847.
Marine Mammal Commission (MMC). 1997. Annual
Report. Bethesda, Maryland.
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA).
1995. The state of Boston Harbor 1994: connecting the harbor to its watersheds.
Technical Report No. 95-12. Boston.
Miedema, A.K. 1983. Fundamental economic
comparisons of solid waste policy options. Resources and Energy 5: 21-43.
Miranda, M.L., J.W. Everett, D. Blume
and B.A. Roy. 1994. Market-based incentives and residential municipal
solid waste. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 13(4): 681-698.
Niskanen, D. 1993. Proactive pollution
prevention plan for Rockland Harbor. Report developed by the Rockland
Harbor Debris Council. Boston, Ma.: Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine
Environment.
O'Hara, K. and B. Wallace. 1990. Development
and evaluation of education techniques to eliminate at-sea disposal of
plastics. Washington and Alexandria: Center for Marine Conservation and
Kearney/Centaur Division, A.T. Kearney, Inc. (April).
Palmer, K. and M. Walls. 1994. Materials
use and solid waste disposal: an evaluation of policies. RFF Discussion
Pap. No. 95-02. Washington: Resources for the Future (October).
Polymer Processing Institute (PPI). 1989.
Investigation of recycling/reprocessing with marine plastics—a cost effective
method of dealing with plastic debris with emphasis on fishing gear. Mimeo.
Hoboken, N.J.: Stevens Institute of Technology.
Quayle, D.V. 1992. Plastics in the marine
environment: problems and solutions. Chemistry and Ecology 6: 69-78.
Reschovsky, J.D. and S.E. Stone. 1994.
Market incentives to encourage household waste recycling: paying for what
you throw away. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 13(1): 120-139.
Ribic, C.A. and L.M. Ganio. 1996. Power
analysis for beach surveys of marine debris. Marine Pollution Bulletin
32(7):554-57.
Ross, S.S. and R.L. Swanson. 1994-95. The
impact of the Suffolk County, New York, plastics ban on beach and roadside
litter. Journal of Environmental Systems 23(4): 337-351.
Smith, V.K., X. Zhang and R.B. Palmquist.
1997. Marine debris, beach quality, and non-market values. Environmental
and Resource Economics 10: 223-247.
Topping, P. 1997. Personal communication.
Ottawa: Marine Environment Division, Environment Canada (September).
Topping, P. 1997. Environment Canada's
Marine Debris Program: a progress report. Working paper. Ottawa: Marine
Environment Division, Environment Canada.
Topping, P., A. Eade, and P. Eaton.
1994a. Marine plastic debris research in Canada. Paper presented at the
Third International Conference on Marine Debris, Miami, Florida, May 1994.
Ottawa: Marine Environment Division, Environment Canada.
Topping, P., D. Morantz, and G. Lang.
1994b. Waste disposal practices of fishing vessels off Canada's east cost.
Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Marine Debris,
Miami, Florida, May 1994. Ottawa: Marine Environment Division, Environment
Canada.
Wilman, E.A. 1984. External costs of coastal
beach pollution: an hedonic approach. Washington: Resources for the Future,
pp. 100-104.
Xanthos, M. and S.S. Dagli. 1995. Recycling
of plastic fishing nets in the USA: a feasibility study. Polymer Recycling
1(3): 167-173.
Zhang, X. 1996. Integrating resource types,
access conditions and preference differences into models for use and nonuse
values: the case of marine debris control. Ph.D. dissertation. Chapel
Hill, N.C.: North Carolina State University.
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1: Types and Sources of Aquatic Debris
Table 2: Hazard Evolution Model
Table 3: Entanglement of Marine Species Worldwide
Table 4: Policy Instruments for Control of Marine
Debris
Table 5: Garbage Discharge Regulations under MARPOL
Table 6: U.S. Regulatory Framework
Table 7: Hierarchy of Marine Litter Control Laws
Figure 1: Density of Marine Debris Along the Gulf
of Maine Coast
Figure 2: Weight of Marine Debris per Mile Cleaned
Figure 3: Marine Debris Density in Maine
Figure 4: Marine Debris Density in New Hampshire
Figure 5: Marine Debris Density in Massachusetts
Figure 6: Bottles and Associated Items in Marine Debris
Figure 7: Marine Mammal Strandings Along the Gulf
of Maine
Figure 8: Willingness-to-pay for Cleanup of Marine
Debris
Acknowledgments
Three
state beach cleanup coordinators were of great help to us in gathering
data and discussing preliminary findings: Paul Dest (Maine), Cynthia Lay
(New Hampshire), and Anne Donovan (Massachusetts). Seba Sheavley of the
Center for Marine Conservation
provided access to beach cleanup data. Information, discussion, and useful
comments were also provided by: David Baird (Atlantic
Coastal Action Program, New Brunswick), Brad Barr (Stellwagen
Bank National Marine Sanctuary), Andrew Cameron (Nova
Scotia Dept. of Fisheries and Aquaculture), Arnie Carr (Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries), Russ DeConti (Consultant to the Center
for Coastal Studies), Paul Dion (Nova
Scotia Lifeguard Service), Judy Engalichev (NH
Office of Travel and Tourism Development), Pat Gerrior (Northeast
Fisheries Science Center), Debbie Hadden (Massport,
Boston), David Laist (Marine Mammal Commission), Tom Matson (NH
Dept. of Resources and Economic Development), Scott McMillan (Clean
Nova Scotia Foundation), Ollie Pierce, Roger Trof (Port of Portsmouth),
Allard van Veen (Pitch-In Canada),
and Professor Marino Xanthos (Polymer
Processing Institute). Susan Snow-Cotter (Mass.
Coastal Zone Management), Paul Topping (Environment
Canada), and Stephen Barrett (Mass.
Coastal Zone Management) reviewed a draft of the report and gave us
helpful comments. We are grateful to the Gulf
of Maine Council on the Marine Environment and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency for the funding that made this work possible. Thanks
also to Raphael Herz for helpful comments on the html version of this
report.
Notes
Note 1: The conceptual model is borrowed from
work done on societal responses to major hazard events. See Kasperson
and Pijawka (1985).
Note 2: We don't employ this example flippantly.
Coastal zone managers interviewed in all three Gulf of Maine states identified
the flicking of cigarette butts as one of the most flagrant violations
of marine debris control policies.
Note 3: As strange as it may sound, littering
occurs because someone who litters perceives individual "net benefits"
from littering.
Note 4: Some may argue that such a statement
is irresponsible, because we do not yet know the size of the economic
damages associated with the ecological effects of marine debris. Yet even
Laist (1987: 324) states that "In the absence
of reliable data on the number of animals killed by plastic debris, it
is difficult to determine the importance of this effect relative to other
mortality factors (e.g., natural, commercial fishing, other pollutants,
etc.)."
Note 5: Hedonic pricing is a method that can
be used to factor out the value of different components of a "multiattribute
commodity," such as a house. For example, the quality of the surrounding
environment is believed to be one component of the value of a house.
Note 6: The presence of debris on nearby beaches
had no significant effect on the price of Cape Cod cottages and apartments,
guesthouses and inns, hotels and motels, or Martha's Vineyard accomodations.
Note 7: Dinan (1993)
disagrees with this point, arguing that the market failure is the result
only of lump sum pricing of disposal.
Note 8: Laist (1997a)
suspects that most of the ghost fishing gear in the Gulf of Maine has
been lost, not disposed of illicitly.
Note 9: PPI (1989) found
that polypropylene ropes were difficult to reprocess and that asphaltic
or alkyd coating on nylon increased the difficulty of reprocessing.
Note 10: Beach cleanups are described as
having two components: cleanup and education. Clearly the cleanup component
is effective; it is not known how effective the educational component
is in reducing the volume of waste. Participants in beach cleanups are
typically fairly knowledgeable already about the problem of marine debris.
|