The responses to plastic debris on Dutch North Sea
beaches: an interdisciplinary case study in
Beverwijk, Velsen and Bloemendaal
How appropriate are societal responses to the plastic problem in and
around IJmuiden?
Reus, E. (2016, November). The beach of Bloemendaal.
Name: Major: Student number:
Blue Bakker Human Geography 10609032
Bernou Boven Earth Sciences 10511199
Eline Reus Earth Sciences 10539093
Ranes Rioza Earth Sciences 10675655
Supervisor: dr. A.J. Gilbert
Tutor: J.V. Rothuizen
Date: 27 November 2016
Index
Abstract Introduction Background information Origin Dangers Decomposition MethodsPlastic collection and identification Interviews with Officials
Interviews with locals
Plastic in the research area Results of the beach survey Local awareness
Variation in Origins Reflection on environment Measures & Attitude
Official measures Local’s attitudes Awareness Responsibility
Conclusion: appropriate responses Discussion
References Appendix A
Appendix B: A list of contacted and interviewed agencies. Appendix C: Topics discussed in interviews with officials.
Abstract
Plastic debris on beaches is considered a world-covering problem (Moret-Ferguson et al., 2010). To understand and describe the environmental impact and moreover discourage continuing the problem on Dutch beaches, an interdisciplinary approach to discuss solutions and attitudes is made in this research. This interdisciplinary approach is based on the collection of empirical data from the populated area around IJmuiden. Sampled plastic from three different beaches, measures of policy makers and the opinions from of civilians, collected by interviews support the findings of this research.
To obtain an indication about the plastic abundance in the research area, plastic was sampled on three different beaches; Bloemendaal aan Zee, IJmuiden aan Zee, and Wijk aan Zee belonging to respectively the municipalities of Bloemendaal, Velsen and Beverwijk. For an assessment about political measures interviews with officials were executed with governmental agencies, municipalities and related NGO’s of the entire North Sea coast of the Dutch mainland, from Den Helder to Sluis. In the populated area’s that belonged to the locations of the beach surveys interviews with the local population were executed, to obtain local attitudes.
Contrary to previous beach surveys on the Dutch west coast, conducted by Stichting de Noordzee (Boonstra et al., 2016), the data of this research suggests that the major part of the collected plastics has its origin on land. A part of the interviewed civilians support this finding, suggesting that beachgoers leave plastic debris in large abundances on the beach, and a variety in policies in the questioned municipalities is not improving the situation.
As a consequent of this research, it becomes clear that maintaining waste management is a complex system with a large amount of different stakeholders. The societal response in the research area allows improvement, since currently the appropriateness of the measures and attitudes is considered modest. Triggering a self-regulating society is the recommendation that is supported by this research.
Introduction
Presumably more than 5 trillion plastic particles are circulating through the world’s seas and oceans (Eriksen et al., 2014). Marine environments are influenced and can be damaged by debris contamination. Densely populated coastlines, inaccessible deep sea areas as well as pristine shores, including Dutch North Sea shores, have already been contaminated (Thompson et al., 2009b). The dangers of plastic debris comprise multiple dimensions. Entanglement in fishing gear and ingestion of plastics are dangers for marine fauna (Cadée, 2002), while plastic pollution might even have a negative influence on human health (Thompson, et al., 2009b). Marine plastic debris is therefore increasingly recognized as a global problem (Morét-Ferguson et al., 2010).
The North Sea is one of the busiest seas in the world, while it also is known to have a unique ecosystem that provides a habitat for an abundance of fish species, large mammals such as seals and dolphins (International EMECS Center, 2003) and a multitude of seabirds (Ecomare, n.d.). The often conflicting interaction between human activities and nature in the area makes it an illustrative case in which to analyse societal responses to the plastic problem.
This study concerns plastic debris on the Dutch North Sea coast, with special interest to three beaches, municipalities and populated areas surrounding IJmuiden: Beverwijk, Velsen and Bloemendaal (maps 1 & 3). This research area was chosen because IJmuiden is situated next to a channel output and has a pier that affects sea currents. In addition, seasonal beach tourism and beach events in this area are characteristics for average beaches in the Netherlands.
The aim of this research is to provide insights on the plastic problem in the research area and the way it is dealt with by local communities and governmental organisations. This leads to the following research question: How appropriate are societal responses to the plastic problem in and
around IJmuiden? The multidimensional nature of this question and the complexity of the problem call for an interdisciplinary research approach.
To obtain data about the conflicting interactions and answer the research question, three separate fieldwork measures were executed. i. Plastic was sampled in order to find the source of plastic debris on beaches in the research area. ii. All coastal municipalities and additional relevant agencies (NGO’s) in the Netherlands were interviewed to obtain knowledge about the methods they use to mitigate plastic debris. iii. Responses of locals to the plastic problem were studied by conducting multiple interviews in the populated areas. This combination of methods is essential, since different sources and approaches of the plastic problem can be discussed in detail in this manner.
Some background information about the plastic problem is provided to start with, in which problems and dangers of plastic pollution are defined. Secondly, the used methods for each discipline are explained. Thereafter, results of the research are presented and evaluated. The findings are mostly based on data collected during the fieldwork and will mainly include details about the distribution of sources of plastic and findings about attitudes and measures regarding plastic debris. Altogether, this culminates in a comprehensive conclusion answering the research question and giving possible solutions to the problem.
Background Information: A plastic problem?
Origin
Marine debris originates from a variety of debris producing activities. To start with, a distinction between land-based and sea-based sources of waste is made. 45% of the waste comes from the sea, while 13% comes from land. The other 42% is also land or sea based, although not recognizable as specifically one of them (Boonstra, van Hest & Hougee, 2016, p. 8). Land-based sources contribute severely to pollution due to the fact that sources are extremely widespread since waterways, the wind and rain water transport waste to the sea. Examples of land-based sources of debris are rivers transporting waste from landfills, sewer overflows and industry (OSPAR Commission, 2007). The amount of waste coming from land is dependent on population density and the quality of waste management systems, amongst other factors (Jambeck, et al., 2015).
Fishery, shipping, offshore oil and gas platforms, and aquaculture installations are marine or sea-based sources of debris (OSPAR Commission, 2007). It is expected that around 30% of the marine waste in the North Sea originates from fishing industries (OSPAR Commission, 2007, p. 13).
Dangers
Although plastic is clearly not desirable on the beach in general, not every piece of plastic debris will cause the same hazard for the shore environment. There are different types of plastic that all have their own characteristics, with differences in densities, shapes, sizes and compositions. For example, there is a difference between macro and micro plastics (Barnes et al., 2009). This study focuses on macro plastics as those are visible for civilians and it is possible to deduce the source out of it.
Morét-Ferguson et al. (2010) analysed an amount of plastics present in between sand particles in order to explore the characteristics of plastic waste. Densities of plastics were used as a first identifier after determining the form of the plastic, i.e. fragments or sheets. Using this method, the authors identified types of plastic such as polypropylene, nylon 6 and polystyrene, which all have different properties. They furthermore discovered that almost all the types of plastic had a lower density than the seawater had in the area, which meant they were buoyant while in the sea. The common buoyancy of plastic causes a dispersion over long distances in the sea (Derraik, 2002). The floatability of plastic, causing a fast distribution – meaning the problem spreads quickly over long distances – is not the only problem. Some types of plastic are dangerous for wildlife due to the fact that they cause entanglement and ingestion. Furthermore, there is an increasing amount of evidence that plastics influence public health negatively as well. This is because of different chemical additives
found in plastics. Those additives, plasticizers, can be flame retardants, antioxidants or antimicrobials (Thompson, et al., 2009b), and plastics get the properties of these plasticizers. One can imagine that the nature of these plasticizers makes some plastics difficult to remove by natural incidents such as fire, oxygenation or microbial decomposition.
Plastic particles may even disrupt the endocrine system of mammals by releasing phthalates, since they have the potential to transfer chemicals to wildlife and humans (Thompson et al., 2009a). Harmful substances in plastic are dangerous when plastics degrade and release contaminants by for example direct sunlight. When the substances arrive in nature by leaching out of the plastic debris, they have the opportunity to for example spread within a soil, the sea or even in living animals (Morét-Ferguson et al., 2010). Unfortunately, little more is known about the differences in degradation of plastics, which makes further research on plastic degradation and its hazard needed.
Decomposition
Although plastic is not easily decomposed, it will definitely degrade eventually, albeit only after 10 to 600 years (Time it takes... environment, n.d.). Plastic degradation is an even more lingering process when it occurs in the ocean. This is due to a less intense UV radiation and low temperatures (Ryan et al., 2009). Physical processes, such as sea currents, waves and the tide in combination with exposure to wind and UV radiation start to cause a faster degradation once plastic washes ashore (Corcoran et al., 2008). Once plastic degrades, micro particles of plastic will stay in nature for years (Cooper & Corcoran, 2010).
Research during ‘Expeditie Noordzee’ pointed out that microplastics were present in 88% of surface water samples the researchers took in the North Sea. They consider further research necessary, since they wonder whether plastics already penetrated the food chain of the North Sea (Stichting de Noordzee, 2016). To make it worse, the current use of plastics is not sustainable, which means it is used much more than necessary (Thompson et al., 2009a), which emphasizes the need of awareness of people mentioned earlier.
Altogether, there has to be dealt with this widespread problem. Contamination by the degradation of plastic causes plastic to spread widely in soil, water and animals by different influences such as sunlight, wind and temperature. Also food chains may cause spread of plastic waste substances. This means that plastics invade nature and in order to maintain this problem fully it is important to tackle it.
Methods
As is discussed in the introduction many of the findings in this report are based on fieldwork that is done for this project. The fieldwork is as already said executed around the pier of IJmuiden. Initially we decided to execute the fieldwork only in IJmuiden, however the pier of IJmuiden may have an influence on the amount of plastic debris. In the North Sea there is chiefly a south-western sea current, which implies the pier obstructs the plastic to flow more Northern, where Wijk aan Zee is located. Bloemendaal is chosen as a neutral location, whereas IJmuiden and Wijk aan Zee are expected to show the highest variations in results. This area in which ecological and human geographical fieldwork is executed is shown on map 1. Furthermore, interviews have been conducted with official instances, those were also executed in other parts of the Netherlands. This happened in order to be able to form a complete picture of the plastic debris situation on Dutch North Sea beaches. Those techniques are combined to get a picture of the influence and response of the social and governmental system on the ecological system.
Map 1: The sampling area, from north to south the locations Wijk aan Zee, IJmuiden and Bloemendaal aan Zee and the municipalities Beverwijk, Velsen and Bloemendaal.
Plastic collection and identification
Scientists and environmentalists developed different methods to estimate plastic amounts in the oceans. The easiest applicable method is a beach survey. Standardized methods for beach surveys are developed by the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and the countries of the Oslo Paris agreement (OSPAR). Their methods prescribe comprehensive beach selections and a sampling frequency that covers at least every season (Cheshire et al., 2009; OSPAR commission, 2010).
Alternative beach survey methods were developed by scientist in the need of more specialized survey methods, focused on their specific research question. Although there are differences in these methods the principles are similar with the standardized methods: A comprehensive or thorough beach selection, a sampling unit for smaller items, a sampling unit for larger items and a frequency that covers the seasons. (Cheshire et al., 2009; OSPAR commission, 2010; Williams & Tudor, 2001; Jayasiri et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2013; Dixon & Dixon, 1981).
Out of the principles of these existing survey methods, a suitable method to assess the plastic accumulation on the concerned beaches in this research was developed.
A survey method of Dixon & Dixon (1981) with 5 meter wide sampling units, repeated for 3 times every 50 meters was executed by Williams & Tudor (2001). They claim that this method covers 66% of the litter categories they investigated. Since this method demands a significant lower amount of effort this became the width of our sampling units. Although the 5-meter-wide transects were repeated every 50 meters, the 50 meter gaps were still covered by a large item sampling unit of 1 km wide. The 50 meter gaps were recommended by UNEP and OSPAR and the large item sampling unit was in the three methods of Dixon & Dixon (1981), UNEP and OSPAR also 1km. In figure M1 the locations of the sampling areas are marked in purple. At every location, three transects of 5 meter wide and one of 1 km wide are executed.
Due to the limited time it is impossible to repeat the sampling every three months in this study. Estimating the amounts of plastic on the North Sea becomes therefore impossible. Nevertheless, two sampling sessions were conducted, the first one after normal high tide and the second one after spring tide and two days of strong southwestern wind 7bft, to cover seasonal variations as best as possible. What is to be determined using this approach is whether land or sea based debris dominates in the research area.
The identification of the collected plastics can be done using different methods as well. Williams & Tudor (2001) claim that the method of Dixon & Dixon is covering 66% of the categories they used. It should be noted that these categories are very basic and not only concerning plastics. Counting lists and a photo guide for identification was provided by OSPAR commission (2010). This method of identification is comprehensive but easy to execute with the help of the photo guide. Combined with the objective to identify the origin and the dangers of the units found on the beach, we decided to categorize the plastics in the categories presented in appendix A. The categories found in this research are divided over 6 source categories (Table 1), of which we can say whether it is a land based, sea based or unknown source.
Table 1: Categories of plastic based on 6 sources.
Interviews with officials
Waste management differs per municipality (Gradus et al., 2014) and whose responsibility it is to maintain clean shores is not completely clear. Some municipalities pay for waste collection on beaches while some leave it to NGOs and their volunteers. The Dutch national government seems to only work through legislation, which seems to be the most favourable option to reduce plastic litter from entering the environment. Further actions need to be undertaken by Dutch policymakers to enhance reuse and recycling in order to reduce the plastic waste accumulation in the environment (Chappin et al., 2005). An example of this is prohibiting stores to give out plastic bags for free. Since the first of January 2016, retailers are required by Dutch law to charge money for those plastic bags (Regelingen beheer verpakkingen, 2015).
To form a clear picture of the situation, a list of all possible actors was made. These were not randomly picked out, but were chosen because of their geographical location bordering the North Sea. Along the Dutch North Sea shore there are multiple governmental agencies involved. This includes 21 of municipalities that are responsible for the cleanliness of their territory, five water that boards responsible for waterways within their designated area, three provinces, Rijkswaterstaat, who is responsible for the seas, and KIMO (Kommunes Internasjonales Miljorganisasjon, or International Municipal Environmental Organization in English), which is an environmental and safety-oriented organization for coastal municipalities in the Netherlands and Belgium and is involved with fishery and harbours. Other Multiple NGOs were contacted as well in order to find out what position these agencies hold. These NGOs are Stichting De Noordzee, Greenpeace, and Stichting Schoon Zeeland. For a complete list of contacted agencies see Appendix B.
The aim of the interviews with officials was to establish a clear view of each governmental agency’s responsibilities and actions. This is necessary in order to be able to form a veracious image of the
current situation. Questions that have be asked include: “What is [stakeholder]’s role in the process of waste collection on Dutch shores?”. Municipalities were asked what is conducted in the field of waste collections. Topics that were part of the interview are included in Appendix C.
The research focuses specifically on Wijk aan Zee, Ijmuiden and Bloemendaal, in the municipalities of Beverwijk, Velsen and Bloemendaal respectively.
Table 2: This is an overview of measures by the municipalities that this report focuses on. Source: Author.
Interviews with locals
In order to gauge knowledge, values and attitudes of the public regarding beached plastic, semi-structured interviews were done among locals in the relevant coastal towns of Beverwijk, IJmuiden and Bloemendaal. The researchers sampled passers-by in the most crowded shopping streets in town over a period of two days in total. Because it was rather quiet during data collection, we were able to ask every pedestrian passing by our base in the longitudinal middle of the street to participate in the research, leading to a combined usable sample of n=43.
Although the location and technique of inviting every pedestrian to participate did create a relatively random and generalizable sample, there are unavoidable biases in the data. People in shopping areas during working hours can be argued to be less likely to work professionally, as illustrated by the bias towards an older demographic (mean age: 53, compare to national mean of 42 (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2016)) in the dataset, and a near absence of school children. There is also a light, probably insignificant bias towards women in the dataset (60%). Non-response in the data (58%) is characterised by motives regarding (work-related) lack of time and (age-related) health reasons.
Besides providing personal information regarding age, sex and place of residence, respondents were asked five questions, upon which they were invited to elaborate. Firstly, respondents were asked whether they thought there is a problem regarding plastic in the North Sea and on its beaches, what is problematic about it and how they had been informed on the subject. This served to illustrate a general attitude towards beached plastics, besides measuring the state of information distribution. Where they believed the plastic originates from was the second subject, aimed to further inquire into plastic-specific and systemic knowledge. Thirdly, respondents were asked who they feel is responsible for the plastic problem and the fight against it. This was included to gain insight in ethics and attitudes of environmental responsibility. The next subject concerned their knowledge about measures against beached plastic, mostly to understand awareness regarding the complexity of the problem and efforts to reduce it. Finally, they were asked whether they had ever participated in environmental activism in its broadest sense, and what their motives in favour of or against it are. Besides the statistical value of this subject, people were through this welcomed to express insecurities or distrust regarding environmental action.
Plastic in the research area
Results of the beach survey
The two sampling sessions on the three beaches yielded in a significant amount of plastic debris (photograph 1-3).
Photograph 1: Bloemendaal Photograph 2: IJmuiden Photograph 3: Wijk aan Zee
All the quantities in these results are expressed in numbers of individual particles that are transported as one entity in the environmental system. The only exception are the counted “tangled nets, cord, ropes and strings”. One entity of tangled nets, cord, ropes and strings is counted as one particle.
Contrary to our expectations, the first sampling session yielded the highest quantities of plastic debris in IJmuiden and Wijk aan Zee, whereas in Bloemendaal aan Zee it yielded the lowest quantities (Figure 1).
Figure 1: The amounts of collected plastic particles per origin category and location, Bloemendaal aan Zee (B 1, 2), IJmuiden (IJ 1, 2), Wijk aan Zee (W 1, 2). Source: Author.
The quantities of collected plastic particles were highly different between the beaches. The distribution among the categories of origin shows more similarities (figure 2, 3). In IJmuiden and Wijk aan Zee almost half of the plastics had a land-based origin, only one third of the plastics had their origin at sea. Whereas in Bloemendaal aan Zee more sea based particles were found than land based particles. On all the sites, for approximately 25% of the collected particles it was not possible to identify the origin of the plastics due to severe degradation.
During the second sampling session a lower amount of particles was collected in IJmuiden and Wijk aan Zee, whereas in Bloemendaal aan Zee more particles were collected (figure 3). Furthermore a different variation in distribution among the origins was detected. In IJmuiden no particles from the category catering were collected, nevertheless 49% of the particles was land based. In Wijk aan Zee the particles that originated from the land occupied an even larger part, 54%. Similar to the first sampling session, in Bloemendaal aan Zee more plastic debris came from sea than from land (respectively 39% and 37%). In Wijk aan Zee and Bloemendaal again for approximately 25% of the particles the origin could not be determined. In IJmuiden this partition decreased significantly to only 10%.
Figure 2: ratios of the particles origin (sampling session 1)
Figure 3: ratios of the particles origin (sampling session 2)
Variation in Origins
As the results of the interviews indicate there are different factors that alter the input of plastic on the sampled beaches. Three factors: presence of buildings on the beach, the size of the beach and the distance to the nearest seaport, mentioned in the standardized beach survey methods of UNEP and OSPAR, could affect the amounts of collected particles (Cheshire et al., 2009; OSPAR commission, 2010). In Wijk aan Zee and IJmuiden, beach clubs or catering companies were present and furthermore the beaches stretched respectively over 150 and 300 meters from the dunes to the sea, whereas in Bloemendaal aan Zee catering companies were absent and the beach was only 80 meters orthogonal to the coastline. This can be a reason why the results of Bloemendaal aan Zee
show a lower amount of land based plastics. All the three sampling beaches are located within a range of 10 kilometres of the seaport of IJmuiden. The seaport will definitely have inputs in the amounts of debris on all the
beaches. However in this study it is impossible to determine how much of the sea based debris originated from the seaport.
The beach on the Dutch west coast is part of a dynamic ecosystem where sand is transported from the beach into the dunes (Roels, 2016). The transport of sand also occurs between Bloemendaal aan Zee and IJmuiden, were it erodes the beach away from Bloemendaal aan Zee and deposits the sediments south of the Pier in IJmuiden, visualized in map 2 (Roels, 2016; Waterman, 2007). This geographical process and altered geographical position of the beach, exposes the beach of IJmuiden aan Zee to increased marine inputs, which also involves plastics.
Map 2: The forming of the beach as a result of the southern pier in IJmuiden (Waterman, 2007)
Reflection on environmental observations
Although this collection of primary data was conducted on a small scale, it evidently differs from previous researches. The amount of land-based plastic is higher in our research area than the expectation based on Boonstra et al.’s (2016) indication. The amounts of plastic particles that have been collected during the beach surveys indicate a significant problem of plastic pollution and accumulation on the beaches of interest. This might imply that the influence of beachgoers, especially in frequently visited areas, is now larger than the influence of sea-based activities. This calls for the need to examine the official measures taken to mitigate the plastic problem, as they may not be focused on the (source of the) problem appropriately.
Official measures
To gain insight in litter on the beach, Stichting De Noordzee systematically monitors four Dutch North Sea beaches. Data is saved in a database and analysed with software for statistics and the analysis of data (Boonstra, et al., 2016). The Dutch foundation Stichting De Noordzee sees the importance of tackling this problem by source. Improving waste management of ships and harbours and seeking for possibilities of replacing plastics with alternative materials are two of their key points, they also try to increase the awareness of people. Furthermore, they clean beaches in order to prevent land-based plastics to end up in sea (Stichting de Noordzee, 2016). With approaches such as ‘improvement of the collection of waste in harbours’, ‘stop the launching of balloons’, ‘tackling polluters through more rigorous maintaining’ and ‘maintaining and expanding deposit at half-litre PET bottles and caps’ (Boonstra, et al., 2016, p. 11) the problem could be tackled.
Naturally governmental authorities also take some measurements and in this research those are investigated. A GIS-map has been made, displaying the 21 municipalities along the Dutch North Sea coast. Different shades of green have been used to show the differences in the amount of measures taken by municipalities concerning the assurance of beach cleanliness. The lightest shade of green being 3, darkest green being 8.
Map 3: A map of the research area with an overview of measures by municipalities with North Sea beaches. Source: Author.
Table 3: This is an overview of measures by municipalities with North Sea beaches. An explanation of the measures can be found in Appendix C. Source: Author.
KIMO coordinates the Green Deal Fishery for clean beaches and the Green Deal Clean Beaches, as is assigned by the Ministries of Infrastructure & Environment and Economic Affairs. KIMO is active on multiple fronts: lobbying, research as well as education are important key tasks that are carried out. KIMO also encourages the collaboration of fishermen, harbours, waste processing companies and government in order to achieve a cleaner sea where waste is collected by fishermen and processed in a sustainable way (KIMO Nederland – België, 2016a).
Measures that have been taken are handing out special waste collection bags to fishermen, to ensure waste present on fishing boats will not end up in the marine environment, and the placement of collection bins in harbours for these bags. A pilot was conducted in IJmuiden, which had positive results. The programme is going to be expanded to other harbours to increase waste collection in harbours, as has been decided on 28 November 2016 (KIMO Nederland – België, 2016b).
A measure against the plastic problem that has received a lot of media attention relatively, is that of beach cleanups. While also at times done by independent groups of individuals, most volunteer-based cleanups are organised by NGOs in collaboration with regional governments. As can be seen in Table 3 under Official Measures, multiple measures are taken into account.
One of the measures is ‘Municipality supports volunteer waste collection initiatives by providing materials’. This means that initiatives such as Bokalis Beach Clean Up, TrashUre Hunt, NL Doet, MyBeach CleanUp Challenge, and Doe Mee Verlos De Zee, among others, receive municipal support organising and financing it and often municipalities provide necessities such as prods and trash bags.
Reflection on political observations
Several agencies were contacted and interviewed in order to create a complete overview of measures taken. With all received responses it is clear that multiple measures are taken by multiple agencies to ensure the reduction of washed up waste on Dutch North Sea beaches continues. Not all contacted agencies have been able to reply. No answer was received from the municipality of Schouwen-Duiveland and the NGO Greenpeace.
Locals’ attitudes
Awareness
Interviewed locals seemed aware of the origin of plastic in varying degrees. About half of respondents indicated debris ends up on beaches both by negligent beachgoers and from sea. Debris from sea was widely understood to be mostly from fishermen and cargo ships, and only a handful of respondents mentioned the global, transboundary nature of oceanic plastic pollution. The majority of locals indicated that beachgoers’ consumption is a greater source of beached plastic than the sea. Although these findings are in line with the assumption that most people have environmental concern in its broadest sense (Séguin et al., 1998), knowledge about plastic debris is limited among the local community. Many people only mentioned a single origin, again mostly naming beachgoers. A fifth of respondents did not even acknowledge a problem regarding plastic on the beach, either commenting they did not know, or refusing to call it a problem altogether.
Based on our primary data, there seems to be a weak negative correlation between age and knowledge among the locals, as also revealed by Jones and Dunlap (1992). This may be related to the fact that the plastic problem is a relatively new phenomenon, as several elderly respondents pointed out. Some of the youngest respondents (±15 years old) furthermore mentioned they had been educated on the subject in school, whereas older respondents knew about the issue from the media besides personal experience.
The reasons why locals consider plastic pollution in sea and on beaches problematic are largely of a principal kind. Although a part of the respondents mentioned the danger plastics can have for birds and fish, more so discussed that it demonstrates the lack of respect people have for nature. This went generally without clarification, suggesting that both nature and respect have intrinsic importance. For others, plastic pollution leads to a degradation of the ‘beach experience’ for its recreational users. It mostly reduces the aesthetic quality of beaches and occasionally causes physical danger for beachgoers. A relatively small section of respondents furthermore discussed the immorality of passing on a persistent waste problem to future generations.
Responsibility
When asked who should be responsible for the plastic problem, the majority of respondents in coastal communities adhered to the ‘polluter pays’ principle: “People leave their rubbish on the beach themselves, a cleaning crew should not be necessary”. And alternatively: “If fishermen did not dispose of their waste on sea, there would be no problem! They should pay taxes each time they use a harbour”. Others reasoned in a possibly more pragmatic fashion that the municipality has the means (funds for crews, bins and Beach Cleaners) and therefore the obligation to keep the beaches clean. Pavilion owners and higher government levels were rarely heard.
Our interviews with local communities revealed that most people are only partially aware of official measures against plastic pollution and the extent of formal responsibility. About a third of respondents did not know whether or how the beach was cleaned, while a similar fraction expressed with uncertainty that “the government must be responsible, mustn’t it?”. While some thought the government did more than it does (providing bins in Beverwijk and IJmuiden, for example), a majority gave it little acknowledgement. There seems to be a link between this disdain for governmental action and subtle desperation among those who do believe there is a problem
concerning plastic, but are pessimistic regarding its solution. This might be related to external inefficacy (Lubell, 2002): a lack of confidence that adequate effort outside oneself (such as in politics) is put into achieving a goal, leading to feelings of powerlessness. Several locals suggested the plastic problem ought to be higher on the national political agenda, even though they admitted to being behind on following politics themselves.
Environmental activism
About half of the interviewed locals mentioned that beaches are cleaned (mostly) through beach cleanups, which many respondents recognised are executed by volunteers. Locals generally came across as positive towards volunteer-driven beach cleanups. In many cases they accredited the events to annual projects by primary schools rather than collaborations between volunteer groups and the government. This could be linked to their general inclination towards contempt for the government as described in the previous paragraph.
Only two respondents acknowledged they participated in beach cleanups themselves. They had made the decision because they “wanted to contribute to a cause [they] care[d] about”, as one responded described. This cannot be used as evidence to test Lubell’s (2002) expectation that people who feel threatened by environmental problems are more likely to display environmentally responsible behaviour, however, as it is both insufficient and inadequate data for that particular hypothesis. The respondents did have in common that neither had participated in more than three cleanups, or had helped to organise any. They differed in age 25 years, contesting the expectation that environmental activists are more likely to be in a younger demographic (Jones & Dunlap, 1992). Besides recycling their own waste and picking up ‘striking’ pieces of rubbish on the beach while on their way to the bin, no other respondents confirmed they had participated in any environmental activism. When asked why they had not, respondents answered variously. The most heard argument involved a principle related to that of ‘polluter pays’: “It is not my waste so why would I help cleaning up? Others should do it themselves”. Two respondents even explicitly called this a personal principle. Another argument that was brought forth was that environmental activism such as beach cleanups “is too much. I don’t like the fanaticism in that”. This phenomenon has been argued by Bickford and Reynolds (2002) to be the result of radicalisation in the media: a disdain for both the word ‘activism’ and what it encompasses has been spreading. Other arguments against environmental activism were of a less hostile nature. Many people reported to be too busy to help, on the beach too little, or too old to participate.
Reflection on communal responses
Decreased aesthetic value of the beach and a lacking respect for nature are the most problematic aspects of the plastic problem as reported by respondents. These limited interpretations combined with a rather ambiguous attitude towards responsibility regarding the problem seem to be key obstacles to environmental activism. Although cleaning up after oneself on the beach keeps the extent of the problem stable, the most appropriate communal response to mitigating plastic contamination is through beach cleanups, which are attended only by a small minority. Contrastingly, public awareness regarding the plastic problem has been increasing mainly among younger locals as a result of education. This seems to be attributable to appropriate initiatives by KIMO and NGOs providing guest lectures in school.
Conclusion
Appropriateness of responses
In this final chapter we will attempt to capture the essence of our research by answering the research question (‘how appropriate are societal responses to the problem of beached plastic debris in and around IJmuiden?’), and expand upon it by offering suggestions to improve the problem.
Integration of our primary data, gathered through various disciplinary methods, has proven crucial in constructing analyses of the responses to plastic debris, multidimensional by nature as they are. Moreover, the ‘appropriateness’ of responses inquired into through the central research question is defined by integration of tactics in those multiple dimensions. All appropriate responses, we have found, have been shaped through deliberation and cooperation of the public and the government, or any organisational forms in between. Another conclusion could not have conceivably been come to about an arena as illustratively complex as the beach; an intersection where the physical and the social, the formal and recreational converge.
Our primary data indicates that beached plastic debris in the research area originates mostly from land-based sources. Variation of debris on the spatially nearby beaches in the research area is explained by a web of mechanisms ranging from sea currents to disputes of responsibility. A lack of pavilion owners and eroding sea currents are the likely cause of the relative cleanliness of Bloemendaal aan Zee. Subsequent sedimentation and an abundance of restaurants probably lead land-based debris to be the dominant source of plastic in IJmuiden aan Zee. Wijk aan Zee, on the other hand is not affected by sea currents as strongly, and is despite its stricter regulations as polluted as IJmuiden aan Zee. The difference that seems to distinguish the former from the other sites is the general sense of responsibility of its inhabitants. The government is to a larger degree regarded as responsible for cleaning plastic debris off beaches rather than the polluters themselves (whether that be beachgoers or fishermen), as was the general attitude in the other areas.
Due to the predominant land-based origin of plastic debris in the research area, a central assumption is that legislation aimed at beachgoers and coastal commerce lags behind that of measures regarding the marine industry. Marine territories falls under national jurisdiction, so executive bodies such as the coastguard and legislation regarding seaports are not designed on lower governmental levels. Anecdotal evidence of several respondents suggests that surveillance of waste disposal at sea by the shipping industry is insufficiently strict, which leads some to defy rules regarding waste in favour of their own efficiency. Integration of national and municipal measures is impressively done through KIMO, through which local measures, educational and research projects are supported and loosely coordinated. It also reinforces the goal of a clean North Sea in European politics through lobbying, which has the potential to decrease sea-based plastics on a level close to the source.
Land-based debris mostly is targeted on the municipal level. While the use of beach cleaners or cleaning crews is costly, manually removing waste from the beach is presently among the most effective methods to prevent land-based waste accumulation. The alternatives to these tactics, volunteer based beach cleanups, are as effective when done frequently, with the added value of community building and raising general awareness for the plastic problem. Nearly all municipalities wisely support such cleanups financially, but fail to provide simple waste disposal facilities, let alone employ regular cleaning crews. Areas of consumption seem to be more polluted than others, but pavilion owners are not only officially not responsible for keeping their grounds clean on some beaches, they also do not seem to be inspected sufficiently to make the legislation effective.
While many of the official measures against plastic debris are appropriate in design, they lack proper execution. This is especially true for measures aimed at land-based plastic debris, which do not suffice in preventing waste from accumulating. The appropriateness of public responses has been similarly modest: while most people shruggingly limit their response to properly disposing of their own litter, only a small minority participates actively in beach cleanups.
Recommendations
One recommendation we have for measures on the national level is to provide bonuses for marine professionals that regularly bring in their own and collected waste from sea (which could be paid for by fines of wrongdoers). Through a more integrated approach, a company’s record of bringing in debris could be included in existing labels for sustainable fisheries (e.g. MSC certificate), so that the plastic problem is fought actively as well as made more visible for the public eye.
On the local level it seems that besides stricter inspection and possibly larger budgets, a social campaign could improve the amount of land-based debris. Shifting the dominant public perception of plastic waste from ecologically dangerous and aesthetically unpleasing to carrying human hazards could make it a cause more people earnestly care about and feel responsible for. The ultimate goal would be to trigger a shift in social norms that leads people to positively criticise each other’s ‘bad’ behaviour, as has happened through a campaign such as “Bob, daar kun je mee thuiskomen” against drunk driving (Gijbels, 2006).
While there seems to be a positive trend that fights beached plastic debris in both official and social realms, the environmental fact is that its accumulation increases. With this research we have attempted to integrate several of the main dimensions regarding the problem, but with a focus on the local and the seemingly tangible. Our hope is that responses to environmental problems will follow the trend of (interdisciplinary) integration as much as the academic world has, and that this will improve the many cases of complex, yet not always wicked problems.
References
Barnes, D. K., Galgani, F., Thompson, R. C., & Barlaz, M. (2009). Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philisophical Transactions of the Royan Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1526), 1985-1998.
Bickford, D. M., & Reynolds, N. (2002). Activism and service-learning: Reframing volunteerism as acts of dissent. Pedagogy, 2(2), 229-252.
Blue Flag (date unknown). Our Programme. Retrieved on 26 November 2016, from: http://www.blueflag.global/our-programme/
Boonstra, M., van Hest, F., Hougee, M., 2016. Resultaten van 12 jaar onderzoek naar afval op de Nederlandse stranden. Stichting De Noordzee, Utrecht.
Cadée, G. C. (2002). Seabirds and floating plastic debris. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 44(11), 1294-1295.
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2016). Bevolking; kerncijfers. Retrieved on 25 November 2016, from:
http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=37296ned&D1=8-24,55&D2=0,10,20,30,4 0,50,(l-1)-l&VW=T
Chappin, M. M. H., Hekkert, M. P., & van Duin, R. (2005). Decomposition analysis of Dutch beverage packaging waste: An analysis of material efficient innovations. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 43(2): 209-229
Cheshire, A., Adler, E., Barbière, J., Cohen, Y., Evans, S., Jarayabhand, S., ... & Lavine, I. (2009). UNEP/IOC Guidelines on survey and monitoring of marine litter.
Cooper, D. A., & Corcoran, P. L. (2010). Effects of mechanical and chemical processes on the
degradation of plastic beach debris on the island of Kauai, Hawaii. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60(5),
650-654.
Corcoran, P. L., Biesinger, M. C., & Grifi, M. (2009). Plastics and beaches: A degrading relationship. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 58(1), 80-84.
Derraik, J. G. (2002). The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. Marine pollution bulletin, 44(9), 842-852.
Dixon, T. R., & Dixon, T. J. (1981). Marine litter surveillance. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 12(9),
289-295.
Ecomare (n.d.) Zeevogels. Retrieved from
http://www.ecomare.nl/ecomare-encyclopedie/organismen/dieren/dierengemeenschappen/zeefau na/zeevogels/
Eriksen, M., Lebreton, L. C., Carson, H. S., Thiel, M., Moore, C. J., Borerro, J. C., ... & Reisser, J. (2014). Plastic pollution in the world's oceans: more than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea. PloS one,9(12), e111913.
Gijbels, K. (2006). Sociale marketing van verkeersveiligheid. Econometrische
effectiviteitsanalyse van de BOB-campagne (unpublished master’s thesis). Universiteit Hasselt, Belgium.
Gradus, R., Dijkgraaf, E., & Wassenaar, M. (2014). Understanding mixed forms of refuse collection, privatization, and its reverse in the Netherlands. International Public Management Journal, 17(3): 328-343.
Green Deals (2014). GD172 – Schone Stranden. Retrieved on 25 November 2016, from: http://www.greendeals.nl/gd172-schone-stranden/
International EMECS Center (2003) Environmental Guidebook on the Enclosed Coastal Seas of the World. Japan.
Jambeck, J. R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T. R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., ... & Law, K. L. (2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science, 347(6223), 768-771.
Jayasiri, H. B., Purushothaman, C. S., & Vennila, A. (2013). Quantitative analysis of plastic debris on recreational beaches in Mumbai, India. Marine pollution bulletin, 77(1), 107-112.
Jones, R. E., & Dunlap, R. E. (1992). The social bases of environmental concern: Have they changed over time? 1. Rural Sociology, 57(1), 28-47.
KIMO Nederland – België (2016a). Activiteiten. Retrieved on 9 December 2016, from: http://www.kimonederlandbelgie.org/wat-doen-wij/activiteiten/
KIMO Nederland – België (2016b). Green Deal Visserij voor een Schone Zee en Fishing for Litter. Retrieved on 11 December 2016, from:
http://www.kimonederlandbelgie.org/green-deal-visserij-voor-een-schone-zee-en-fishing-for-litter/ KIMO Nederland - Belgium (date unknown). Doelstellingen van de organisatie. Retrieved on 15 November 2016, from: http://www.kimonederlandbelgie.org/wat-doen-wij/doelstellingen/
Klemchuk, P. P. (1990). Degradable plastics: a critical review. Polymer Degradation and Stability, 27(2), 183-202.
Lee, J., Hong, S., Song, Y. K., Hong, S. H., Jang, Y. C., Jang, M., ... & Shim, W. J. (2013). Relationships among the abundances of plastic debris in different size classes on beaches in South Korea. Marine pollution bulletin, 77(1), 349-354.
Lozano, R., & Mouat, J. (2009). OSPAR Marine Litter in the North-East Atlantic Region. OSPAR Commission.
Lubell, M. (2002). Environmental activism as collective action. Environment and Behavior, 34(4), 431-454.
Morét-Ferguson, S., Law, K. L., Proskurowski, G., Murphy, E. K., Peacock, E. E., & Reddy, C. M. (2010). The size, mass, and composition of plastic debris in the western North Atlantic
Ocean. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60(10), 1873-1878.
OSPAR Commission. (2007). OSPAR Pilot Project on Monitoring Marine Beach Litter–Monitoring of marine litter in the OSPAR region. OSPAR Publication, (386).
OSPAR Commission. (2010). Guideline for monitoring marine litter on the beaches in the OSPAR maritime area.
Quality Coast (date unknown). The Organization. Retrieved on 25 November 2016, from: http://www.qualitycoast.info/?page_id=110
Regeling beheer verpakkingen (2015, 18 December). Retrieved on 29 September 2016, from http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0037392/2016-01-01
Rillig, M. C. (2012). Microplastic in terrestrial ecosystems and the soil?.Environmental science & technology, 46(12), 6453-6454.
Roels, I. (2016, 8 december). Dynamic Dune Management [Conservation Biology] Ryan, P. G., Moore, C. J., van Franeker, J. A., & Moloney, C. L. (2009). Monitoring the abundance of plastic debris in the marine environment. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 364(1526), 1999-2012.
Séguin, C., Pelletier, L. G., & Hunsley, J. (1998). Toward a model of environmental activism. Environment and Behavior, 30(5), 628-652.
Stichting de Noordzee (2016) Een Plasticvrije Noordzeekust. Retrieved from http://www.noordzee.nl/een-plasticvrije-noordzeekust/
Time it takes for garbage to decompose in the environment (n.d.). U.S. National Park Service; Mote Marine Lab, Sarasota, FL. Retrieved from
http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wmb/coastal/trash/documents/marine_debris.pdf Thompson, R. C., Olsen, Y., Mitchell, R. P., Davis, A., Rowland, S. J., John, A. W., ... & Russell, A. E. (2004). Lost at sea: where is all the plastic?. Science,304(5672), 838-838.
Thompson, R. C., Moore, C. J., Vom Saal, F. S., & Swan, S. H. (2009a). Plastics, the
environment and human health: current consensus and future trends. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1526), 2153-2166.
Thompson, R. C., Swan, S. H., Moore, C. J., & Vom Saal, F. S. (2009b). Our plastic
age. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1526), 1973-1976. Waterman, R. (2007). Duurzame kust ontwikkeling, from
http://stive51.home.xs4all.nl/deltalinks/PlanWaterman.pdf
Williams, A. T., & Tudor, D. T. (2001). Temporal trends in litter dynamics at a pebble pocket beach. Journal of coastal research, 137-145.
Appendix A
4/6-PACK YOKES BAGS (E.G. SHOPPING) BUCKETS
CAPS/LIDS CAR PARTS
CIGARETTE LIGHTERS
CLEANER (BOTTLES, CONTAINERS AND DRUMS) CLOTHING
COMBS/HAIR BRUSHES
COSMETICS (BOTTLES & CONTAINERS E.G. SUN LOTION, SHAMPOO, SHOWER GEL, DEODORANT)
CRAB/LOBSTER POTS CRATES
CRISP/SWEET PACKETS AND LOLLY STICKS CUPS
CUTLERY/TRAYS/STRAWS
DRINKS (BOTTLES, CONTAINERS AND DRUMS) ENGINE OIL CONTAINERS AND DRUMS <50 CM ENGINE OIL CONTAINERS AND DRUMS > 50 CM FERTILISER/ANIMAL FEED BAGS
FIBRE GLASS FISH BOXES
FISHING LINE (ANGLING) FLOATS/BUOYS
FOAM SPONGE
FOOD CONTAINERS INCL. FAST FOOD CONTAINERS GLOVES (INDUSTRIAL/PROFESSIONAL GLOVES) GLOVES (TYPICAL WASHING UP GLOVES) HARD HATS
INDUSTRIAL PACKAGING, PLASTIC SHEETING INJECTION GUN CONTAINERS
JERRY CANS (SQUARE PLASTIC CONTAINERS WITH HANDLE) LIGHT STICKS (TUBES WITH mUID)
LOBSTER AND FISH TAGS MESH VEGETABLE BAGS
NETS AND PIECES OF NET < 50 CM NETS AND PIECES OF NET > 50 CM OCTOPUS POTS
OTHER PLASTIC/POLYSTYRENE ITEMS (PLEASE SPECIFY IN OTHER ITEM BOX*)
OYSTER NETS OR MUSSEL BAGS INCLUDING PLASTIC STOPPERS OYSTER TRAYS (ROUND FROM OYSTER CULTURES)
PENS
PLASTIC BAG ENDS
PLASTIC SHEETING FROM MUSSEL CULTURE PLASTIC/POLYSTYRENE PIECES > 50 CM PLASTIC/POLYSTYRENE PIECES 0 - 2,5 CM PLASTIC/POLYSTYRENE PIECES 2,5 CM > < 50 CM ROPE (DIAMETER MORE THAN 1 CM)
SHOES/SANDALS SHOTGUN CARTRIDGES
SMALL PLASTIC BAGS, E.G., FREEZER BAGS STRAPPING BANDS
STRING AND CORD (DIAMETER LESS THAN 1 CM) TANGLED NETS/CORD/ROPE AND STRING TOYS & PARTY POPPERS
Appendix B: A list of contacted and interviewed agencies.
- Municipalities o Den Helder o Schagen o Bergen o Castricum o Heemskerk o Beverwijk o Velsen o Bloemendaal o Zandvoort o Noordwijk o Katwijk o Wassenaar o Den Haag o Westland o Rotterdam o Westvoorne o Goeree-Overflakkee o Schouwen-Duiveland o Noord-Beveland o Veere o Sluis - Water boards o HHR Hollands Noorderkwartier o HHR van Rijnland o HHR van Delflando Waterschap Hollandse Delta o Waterschap Scheldestromen - Provinces:
o Noord-Holland (North Holland) o Zuid-Holland (South Holland) o Zeeland
- Rijkswaterstaat
- KIMO Nederlang – België - Noordzeeloket
- NGOs:
o Stichting De Noordzee o Greenpeace
Appendix C: Topics discussed in interviews with officials.
- Pavilion owners are responsible for ensuring the leased ground is clean. This is sometimes included in the rental agreement;
- A Beach Cleaner is used
- A paid cleaning crew for waste collection by hand; - Waste bins are present;
- Municipality supports volunteer waste collection initiatives by providing materials;
- Part of the ‘Green Deals’ GD172 Clean Beaches. Most Dutch coastal municipalities and other organisations have been united in Green Deal GD172: Clean Beaches. The aim of this Green Deal is to gradually influence beachgoer’s waste behaviour in order to ensure there is a lot less waste on Dutch North Sea beaches in 2020 (Green Deals, 2014);
- Part of ‘Quality Coast’. This is a certification programme for sustainable tourist destinations, aiming towards a network of communities that share similar sustainable development values (Quality Coast, d. u.);
- Part of ‘Blue Flag’. This is a certification programme for beaches, using high standards regarding safety, sustainable environment and education (Blue Flag, d. u.);
- Part of KIMO The Netherlands – Belgium. This is an organisation that aims to unite coastal municipalities in order to achieve common interests in sustainable development regarding fishery, nature, recreation and tourism, and transport and harbours (KIMO Netherlands - Belgium, d. u.);
- Other. This includes policies surrounding the treatment of washed up seals and porpoises (both dead and alive), pilots with behaviour modification to encourage people to clean up after themselves, and other initiatives to reduce washed up litter.
