marine environment research paper

Marine Environmental Research

About the journal.

Marine Environmental Research publishes original research papers on chemical, physical, and biological interactions in the oceans and coastal waters . The journal serves as a forum for new information on biology, chemistry, and toxicology and syntheses that advance understanding of marine …

View full aims & scope

Article publishing charge for open access

Compare APC with another journal

Editor-in-chief, dr. j. blasco, phd.

Spanish Scientific Research Council, Madrid, Spain

Latest published

Articles in press, most downloaded, most popular, more from marine environmental research, announcements, diversity & inclusion statement – marine environmental research, special issues and article collections, boyhood in 21st century educative contexts, rethinking educational practices and responsibilities in the light of digitalisation, neoliberalism, education inequity and improvement, motivation of higher education faculty: theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions, partner journals.

The Marine Environmental Research is a companion title of the Marine Environmental Research is an open access, peer-reviewed journal which draws contributions from a wide community of international and interdisciplinary researchers …

Related journals

Educational Research...

Educational Research Review

Learning and Instruc...

Learning and Instruction

Teaching and Teacher...

Teaching and Teacher Education

International Journa...

Learning, Culture an...

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction

Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Marine Environmental Research

Subject Area and Category

• Aquatic Science
• Oceanography
• Medicine (miscellaneous)

Elsevier B.V.

Publication type

01411136, 18790291

Information

How to publish in this journal

The set of journals have been ranked according to their SJR and divided into four equal groups, four quartiles. Q1 (green) comprises the quarter of the journals with the highest values, Q2 (yellow) the second highest values, Q3 (orange) the third highest values and Q4 (red) the lowest values.

The SJR is a size-independent prestige indicator that ranks journals by their 'average prestige per article'. It is based on the idea that 'all citations are not created equal'. SJR is a measure of scientific influence of journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals where such citations come from It measures the scientific influence of the average article in a journal, it expresses how central to the global scientific discussion an average article of the journal is.

Evolution of the number of published documents. All types of documents are considered, including citable and non citable documents.

This indicator counts the number of citations received by documents from a journal and divides them by the total number of documents published in that journal. The chart shows the evolution of the average number of times documents published in a journal in the past two, three and four years have been cited in the current year. The two years line is equivalent to journal impact factor ™ (Thomson Reuters) metric.

Evolution of the total number of citations and journal's self-citations received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. Journal Self-citation is defined as the number of citation from a journal citing article to articles published by the same journal.

Evolution of the number of total citation per document and external citation per document (i.e. journal self-citations removed) received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. External citations are calculated by subtracting the number of self-citations from the total number of citations received by the journal’s documents.

International Collaboration accounts for the articles that have been produced by researchers from several countries. The chart shows the ratio of a journal's documents signed by researchers from more than one country; that is including more than one country address.

Not every article in a journal is considered primary research and therefore "citable", this chart shows the ratio of a journal's articles including substantial research (research articles, conference papers and reviews) in three year windows vs. those documents other than research articles, reviews and conference papers.

Ratio of a journal's items, grouped in three years windows, that have been cited at least once vs. those not cited during the following year.

Evolution of the percentage of female authors.

Evolution of the number of documents cited by public policy documents according to Overton database.

Evoution of the number of documents related to Sustainable Development Goals defined by United Nations. Available from 2018 onwards.

Leave a comment

Name * Required

Email (will not be published) * Required

* Required Cancel

The users of Scimago Journal & Country Rank have the possibility to dialogue through comments linked to a specific journal. The purpose is to have a forum in which general doubts about the processes of publication in the journal, experiences and other issues derived from the publication of papers are resolved. For topics on particular articles, maintain the dialogue through the usual channels with your editor.

Follow us on @ScimagoJR Scimago Lab , Copyright 2007-2024. Data Source: Scopus®

Cookie settings

Cookie Policy

Legal Notice

Privacy Policy

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals

Ocean sciences articles from across Nature Portfolio

Ocean sciences span the physics, chemistry, and biology of marine systems. The field encompasses ocean circulation, energy dissipation, marine biology, ecology, biogeochemical cycles, water mass formation and movement, ocean temperature and salinity, and marine carbon and carbonate chemistry.

Related Subjects

• Marine biology
• Marine chemistry
• Physical oceanography

Latest Research and Reviews

Forecasting ocean wave-induced seismic noise

• Andrea Bertoldi
• Stéphane Gaffet
• David A. Smith

Winter arctic sea ice volume decline: uncertainties reduced using passive microwave-based sea ice thickness

• Clement Soriot
• Martin Vancoppenolle
• Frédéric Frappart

Changing circulations challenge the sustainability of cold water mass and associated ecosystem under climate change

• Peiran Yang
• Bingrong Sun

Predictability and prediction skill of summertime East/Japan Sea surface temperature events

• Youngji Joh
• Hyung-Gyu Lim

Leveraging deep learning and computer vision technologies to enhance management of coastal fisheries in the Pacific region

• George Shedrawi
• Franck Magron
• Neil L. Andrew

Antarctic krill sequester similar amounts of carbon to key coastal blue carbon habitats

Antarctic krill are important facilitators of carbon sequestration, transferring as much carbon to the deep ocean through their faeces as is stored in seagrass beds and mangrove forests.

• E. L. Cavan

News and Comment

Exploring the hadal zone with lab-on-chip sensors

Leah Brinch-Iversen explains how lab-on-chip sensors can be used to monitor the deep ocean.

• Leah Brinch-Iversen

Autonomous underwater gliders to observe the ocean

Estel Font explains how underwater robotic gliders can be used to monitor the changing ocean.

Ground-based radar interferometry measures strain in sea ice

Emily Fedders explains how Gamma Portable Radar Interferometery can be used to estimate strain in sea ice.

• Emily R. Fedders

How I stoked my passion for oceanography in Chile’s waters

Geophysicist Natalia Cisternas embarked on a 37-day voyage to document microbes in a low-oxygen region of the Pacific Ocean.

• Nikki Forrester

The problem with dolomite

The formation of dolomite eluded mineralogists for years. Jennifer Roberts explains why ‘the dolomite problem’ matters, and how it may now be closer to resolution.

• Jennifer A. Roberts

Deepest-ever samples of rock from Earth’s mantle unveiled

Kilometre-long rock cores leave scientists wanting to know more — just when an international exploration effort is coming to an end.

• Davide Castelvecchi

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Press Release

Study in nature: protecting the ocean delivers a comprehensive solution for climate, fishing and biodiversity.

Southern Line Islands

Photograph by Southern Line Islands

Groundbreaking global study is the first to map ocean areas that, if strongly protected, would help solve climate, food and biodiversity crises

London, UK (17 March 2021) —A new study published in the prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal Nature today offers a combined solution to several of humanity’s most pressing challenges. It is the most comprehensive assessment to date of where strict ocean protection can contribute to a more abundant supply of healthy seafood and provide a cheap, natural solution to address climate change—in addition to protecting embattled species and habitats.

An international team of 26 authors identified specific areas that, if protected, would safeguard over 80% of the habitats for endangered marine species, and increase fishing catches by more than eight million metric tons. The study is also the first to quantify the potential release of carbon dioxide into the ocean from trawling, a widespread fishing practice—and finds that trawling is pumping hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the ocean every year, a volume of emissions similar to those of aviation.

“Ocean life has been declining worldwide because of overfishing, habitat destruction and climate change. Yet only 7% of the ocean is currently under some kind of protection,” said Dr. Enric Sala, explorer in residence at the National Geographic Society and lead author of the study, Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate .

“In this study, we’ve pioneered a new way to identify the places that—if strongly protected—will boost food production and safeguard marine life, all while reducing carbon emissions,” Dr. Sala said. “It’s clear that humanity and the economy will benefit from a healthier ocean. And we can realize those benefits quickly if countries work together to protect at least 30% of the ocean by 2030.”

To identify the priority areas, the authors—leading marine biologists, climate experts, and economists—analyzed the world’s unprotected ocean waters based on the degree to which they are threatened by human activities that can be reduced by marine protected areas (for example, overfishing and habitat destruction). They then developed an algorithm to identify those areas where protections would deliver the greatest benefits across the three complementary goals of biodiversity protection, seafood production and climate mitigation. They mapped these locations to create a practical “blueprint” that governments can use as they implement their commitments to protect nature.

The study does not provide a single map for ocean conservation, but it offers a first-in-kind framework for countries to decide which areas to protect depending on their national priorities. However, the analysis shows that 30% is the minimum amount of ocean that the world must protect in order to provide multiple benefits to humanity.

“There is no single best solution to save marine life and obtain these other benefits. The solution depends on what society—or a given country—cares about, and our study provides a new way to integrate these preferences and find effective conservation strategies,” said Dr. Juan S. Mayorga, a report co-author and a marine data scientist with the Environmental Market Solutions Lab at UC Santa Barbara and Pristine Seas at National Geographic Society.

The study comes ahead of the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, which is expected to take place in Kunming, China in 2021. The meeting will bring together representatives of 190 countries to finalize an agreement to end the world’s biodiversity crisis. The goal of protecting 30% of the planet’s land and ocean by 2030 (the “30x30” target) is expected to be a pillar of the treaty. The study follows commitments by the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, the European Commission and others to achieve this target on national and global scales.

Safeguarding Biodiversity

The report identifies highly diverse marine areas in which species and ecosystems face the greatest threats from human activities. Establishing marine protected areas (MPAs) with strict protection in those places would safeguard more than 80% of the ranges of endangered species, up from a current coverage of less than 2%.

The authors found that the priority locations are distributed throughout the ocean, with the vast majority of them contained within the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zones of coastal nations.

The additional protection targets are located in the high seas—those waters governed by international law. These include the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (a massive underwater mountain range), the Mascarene Plateau in the Indian Ocean, the Nazca Ridge off the west coast of South America and the Southwest Indian Ridge, between Africa and Antarctica.

"Perhaps the most impressive and encouraging result is the enormous gain we can obtain for biodiversity conservation—if we carefully chose the location of strictly protected marine areas,” said Dr. David Mouillot, a report co-author and a professor at the Université de Montpellier in France. “One notable priority for conservation is Antarctica, which currently has little protection, but is projected to host many vulnerable species in a near future due to climate change."

Shoring up the Fishing Industry

The study finds that smartly placed marine protected areas (MPAs) that ban fishing would actually boost the production of fish—at a time when supplies of wild-caught fish are dwindling and demand is rising. In doing so, the study refutes a long-held view that ocean protection harms fisheries and opens up new opportunities to revive the industry just as it is suffering from a recession due to overfishing and the impacts of global warming.

“Some argue that closing areas to fishing hurts fishing interests. But the worst enemy of successful fisheries is overfishing—not protected areas,” Dr. Sala said.

The study finds that protecting the right places could increase the catch of seafood by over 8 million metric tons relative to business as usual.

“It’s simple: When overfishing and other damaging activities cease, marine life bounces back,” said Dr. Reniel Cabral, a report co-author and assistant researcher with the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management and Marine Science Institute at UC Santa Barbara. “After protections are put in place, the diversity and abundance of marine life increase over time, with measurable recovery occurring in as little as three years. Target species and large predators come back, and entire ecosystems are restored within MPAs. With time, the ocean can heal itself and again provide services to humankind.”

Soaking up Carbon

The study is the first to calculate the climate impacts of bottom trawling, a damaging fishing method used worldwide that drags heavy nets across the ocean floor. It finds that the amount of carbon dioxide released into the ocean from this practice is larger than most countries’ annual carbon emissions, and similar to annual carbon dioxide emissions from global aviation.

“The ocean floor is the world’s largest carbon storehouse. If we’re to succeed in stopping global warming, we must leave the carbon-rich seabed undisturbed. Yet every day, we are trawling the seafloor, depleting its biodiversity and mobilizing millennia-old carbon and thus exacerbating climate change. Our findings about the climate impacts of bottom trawling will make the activities on the ocean’s seabed hard to ignore in climate plans going forward,” said Dr. Trisha Atwood of Utah State University, a co-author of the paper.

The study finds that countries with the highest potential to contribute to climate change mitigation via protection of carbon stocks are those with large national waters and large industrial bottom trawl fisheries. It calculates that eliminating 90% of the present risk of carbon disturbance due to bottom trawling would require protecting only about 4% of the ocean , mostly within national waters.

Closing a Gap

The study’s range of findings helps to close a gap in our knowledge about the impacts of ocean conservation, which to date had been understudied relative to land-based conservation.

“The ocean covers 70% of the earth—yet, until now, its importance for solving the challenges of our time has been overlooked,” said Dr. Boris Worm, a study co-author and Killam Research Professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia. “Smart ocean protection will help to provide cheap natural climate solutions, make seafood more abundant and safeguard imperiled marine species—all at the same time. The benefits are clear. If we want to solve the three most pressing challenges of our century—biodiversity loss, climate change and food shortages —we must protect our ocean.”

Additional Quotes from Supporters and Report Co-Authors

Zac Goldsmith, British Minister for Pacific and the Environment, UK

Kristen Rechberger, Founder & CEO, Dynamic Planet

Dr. William Chueng, Canada Research Chair and Professor, The University of British Columbia, Principal Investigator, Changing Ocean Research Unit, The University of British Columbia

Dr. Jennifer McGowan, Global Science, The Nature Conservancy & Center for Biodiversity and Global Change, Yale University

Dr. Alan Friedlander, Chief Scientist, Pristine Seas, National Geographic Society at the Hawai'i Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawai'i

Dr. Ben Halpern, Director of the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS), UCSB

Dr. Whitney Goodell, Marine Ecologist, Pristine Seas, National Geographic Society

Dr. Lance Morgan, President and CEO, Marine Conservation Institute

Dr. Darcy Bradley, Co-Director of the Ocean and Fisheries Program at the Environmental Market Solutions Lab, UCSB

The study, Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate , answers the question of which places in the ocean should we protect for nature and people. The authors developed a novel framework to produce a global map of places that, if protected from fishing and other damaging activities, will produce multiple benefits to people: safeguarding marine life, boosting seafood production and reducing carbon emissions. Twenty-six scientists and economists contributed to the study.

Study’s Topline Facts

• Ocean life has been declining worldwide because of overfishing, habitat destruction and climate change. Yet only 7% of the ocean is currently under some kind of protection.
• A smart plan of ocean protection will contribute to more abundant seafood and provide a cheap, natural solution to help solve climate change, alongside economic benefits.
• Humanity and the economy would benefit from a healthier ocean. Quicker benefits occur when countries work together to protect at least 30% of the ocean.
• Substantial increases in ocean protection could achieve triple benefits, not only protecting biodiversity, but also boosting fisheries’ productivity and securing marine carbon stocks.

Study’s Topline Findings

• The study is the first to calculate that the practice of bottom trawling the ocean floor is responsible for one gigaton of carbon emissions on average annually. This is equivalent to all emissions from aviation worldwide. It is, furthermore, greater than the annual emissions of all countries except China, the U.S., India, Russia and Japan.
• The study reveals that protecting strategic ocean areas could produce an additional 8 million tons of seafood.
• The study reveals that protecting more of the ocean--as long as the protected areas are strategically located--would reap significant benefits for climate, food and biodiversity.

Priority Areas for Triple Wins

• If society were to value marine biodiversity and food provisioning equally, and established marine protected areas based on these two priorities, the best conservation strategy would protect 45% of the ocean, delivering 71% of the possible biodiversity benefits, 92% of the food provisioning benefits and 29% of the carbon benefits.
• If no value were assigned to biodiversity, protecting 29% of the ocean would secure 8.3 million tons of extra seafood and 27% of carbon benefits. It would also still secure 35% of biodiversity benefits.
• Global-scale prioritization helps focus attention and resources on places that yield the largest possible benefits.
• A globally coordinated expansion of marine protected areas (MPAs) could achieve 90% of the maximum possible biodiversity benefit with less than half as much area as a protection strategy based solely on national priorities.
• EEZs are areas of the global ocean within 200 nautical miles off the coast of maritime countries that claim sole rights to the resources found within them. ( Source )

Priority Areas for Climate

• Eliminating 90% of the present risk of carbon disturbance due to bottom trawling would require protecting 3.6% of the ocean, mostly within EEZs.
• Priority areas for carbon are where important carbon stocks coincide with high anthropogenic threats, including Europe’s Atlantic coastal areas and productive upwelling areas.

Countries with the highest potential to contribute to climate change mitigation via protection of carbon stocks are those with large EEZs and large industrial bottom trawl fisheries.

Priority Areas for Biodiversity

• Through protection of specific areas, the average protection of endangered species could be increased from 1.5% to 82% and critically endangered species from 1.1% to and 87%.
• the Antarctic Peninsula
• the Mid-Atlantic Ridge
• the Mascarene Plateau
• the Nazca Ridge
• the Southwest Indian Ridge
• Despite climate change, about 80% of today’s priority areas for biodiversity will still be essential in 2050. In the future, however, some cooler waters will be more important protection priorities, whereas warmer waters will likely be too stressed by climate change to shelter as much biodiversity as they currently do. Specifically, some temperate regions and parts of the Arctic would rank as higher priorities for biodiversity conservation by 2050, whereas large areas in the high seas between the tropics and areas in the Southern Hemisphere would decrease in priority.

Priority Areas for Food Provision

• If we only cared about increasing the supply of seafood, strategically placed MPAs covering 28% of the ocean could increase food provisioning by 8.3 million metric tons.

The Campaign for Nature works with scientists, Indigenous Peoples, and a growing coalition of over 100 conservation organizations around the world who are calling on policymakers to commit to clear and ambitious targets to be agreed upon at the 15th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Kunming, China in 2021 to protect at least 30% of the planet by 2030 and working with Indigenous leaders to ensure full respect for Indigenous rights.

Media Contact

The National Geographic Society is a global nonprofit organization that uses the power of science, exploration, education and storytelling to illuminate and protect the wonder of our world. Since 1888, National Geographic has pushed the boundaries of exploration, investing in bold people and transformative ideas, providing more than 15,000 grants for work across all seven continents, reaching 3 million students each year through education offerings, and engaging audiences around the globe through signature experiences, stories and content.

To learn more, visit www.nationalgeographic.org or follow us on Instagram , LinkedIn, and Facebook .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.6(8); 2020 Aug

Plastic pollution in the marine environment

Plastic pollution is recognized as a severe anthropogenic issue in the coastal and marine ecosystems across the world. Unprecedented and continuous accumulation of growing plastic contaminants into any respective aquatic ecosystem by the anthropogenic sources causes direct and/or indirect interruption to ecosystem structure, functions, and consequently, services and values. Land-based and sea-based sources are the primary sources of these contaminants in various modes that enter the ocean. In this review paper, we focused on highlighting different aspects related to plastic pollution in coastal and marine environments. Plastic pollutants are distributed in the ecosystems in different forms, with different size variations as megaplastic, macroplastic, mesoplastic, and microplastic. Microplastics in primary and secondary forms reveal a widespread distribution in the water, sediment, and biota of the marine and coastal habitats. The microplastic level of different coastal and marine ecosystems nearly ranged from 0.001-140 particles/m 3 in water and 0.2-8766 particles/m 3 in sediments at different aquatic environments over the world. The microplastic accumulation rate of coastal and marine organisms varied at 0.1-15,033 counts. Accordingly, plastic pollution creates several kinds of negative consequences combined with ecological and socio-economic effects. Entanglement, toxicological effects via ingestion of plastics, suffocation, starvation, dispersal, and rafting of organisms, provision of new habitats, and introduction of invasive species are significant ecological effects with growing threats to biodiversity and trophic relationships. Degradation (changes in the ecosystem state) and modifications of marine systems are associated with loss of ecosystem services and values. Consequently, this emerging contaminant affects the socio-economic aspects through negative impacts on tourism, fishery, shipping, and human health. Preventing accumulation sources of plastic pollutants, 3Rs (Reduce-Recycle-Reuse), awareness & capacity building, and producer/manufacturer responsibility are practical approaches toward addressing the issue of plastic pollution. Existing and adopted policies, legislations, regulations, and initiatives at global, regional, and national level play a vital role in reducing plastic debris in the marine and coastal zones. Development of proposals/solutions on key research gaps can open a novel pathway to address this environmental issue in an effective scientific manner. In conclusion, this paper demonstrates the current status of plastic pollution in the marine ecosystem to make aware people of a plastic-free, healthy blue ocean in the near future.

Aquatic ecology; Ecological health; Ecological restoration; Marine biology; Environmental analysis; Environmental assessment; Environmental hazard; Environmental health; Hydrology; Oceanography; Pollution; Microplastics; Plastic sources; Environmental management; Producer responsibility.

1. Introduction

Marine and coastal environment acts as a highly productive zone that consist different kinds of subsystems, such as coral reefs and seagrasses. It is a complex environment with rich biodiversity ranging from various primitive (horseshoe crab) to the advanced organisms (dolphins). The marine environment is the vast body of water that covers 71 percent of the earth's coverage. However, the global ocean system divides into five major oceans and many seas based on historical, cultural, geographical, scientific characteristics, and size variations. Five ocean basins, i.e., Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, Arctic, and the Antarctic, are the most known marine systems invaded by humans. The Southern Pole (Antarctic) ocean basin was recognized as the fifth ocean basin by the International Hydrographic Organization. All ocean basins act as ecologically and economically important systems for the betterment of humans. Freshwater lotic systems connect with oceans and seas, creating unique, transitional ecosystems like lagoons and estuaries ( Reddy et al., 2018 ). The continental shelf of the marine environment is the mixing place of seawater and freshwater; therefore, this area creates a unique coastal ecosystem.

Marine and coastal ecosystems provide different priceless services and values for human wellbeing and other kinds of vertebrate and invertebrate organisms. Provisioning (the domain of food, fiber, wood, water, pharmaceutical components, oil, mineral sources), regulating (carbon sequestration, maintain water quality, climate regulation), supporting (photosynthesis, nutrient cycling, nursery and breeding grounds, oxygen production), and cultural (spiritual and cultural importance, recreation and tourism) services gained from oceans and coastal ecosystems are ecologically and socio-economically imperative. Due to the massive contribution by services of the aforesaid ecosystems on the human wellbeing component, this paper will mainly focus on emerging anthropogenic threats on the marine environment as an initial step to concern conservation and sustainable management of the aquatic environment.

Aquatic ecosystems are inter-connected with the terrestrial environment; therefore, changes in one system have impacts on another. For decades, different factors, including anthropogenic activities, have stressed the coastal and marine ecosystems ( Adams, 2005 ; Richmond, 2015 ). These stresses include pollution and the physical destruction of the environment. Debris or litter accumulation is one of the human-created severe threats on marine and coastal systems due to unsustainable development and construction activities. Compared with other categories of debris such as glass, cloth, paper, food waste, metal, rubber, medical/personal hygiene-related items, smoking/firework items, and wood ( Nualphan, 2013 ; Rosevelt et al., 2013 ), plastic litter is persistent in the ocean basins due to unique characteristics of plastics (e.g., the potential of ready transportation by water current and wind due to long shelf-life). Plastic debris with counts of five trillion, weighing more than 260,000 tones, is floating over the world's ocean surface as a result of improper waste disposal ( Eriksen et al., 2014 ). Currently, plastic pollution has become a serious concern over almost all parts of ocean basins irrespective of developed or underdeveloped regions in the world ( Figure 1 ).

Overview of the global crisis of plastic pollution in the ocean. (Note; The world map is free and permitted from Cosmographics Ltd 2020 ).

The accumulated plastics in the ocean basins can be broadly classified into four levels based on their sizes: megaplastics, macroplastics, mesoplastics, and microplastics. Microplastics are found in commonly manufactured, commercial products such as personal care and cosmetic products or microplastic particles produce from in-situ environmental degradation and subsequent fragmentation of larger size plastics by physical, chemical, and biological processes ( Browne et al., 2010 ; Wang et al., 2018 ). Microplastics are mostly abundant in marine and coastal systems, while synthetic pollutants chemically interact with organic pollutants and metals ( Guo and Wang, 2019a ). The density of microplastics also affects the distribution of microplastics in the water column. Polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene (PE) float in water due to low density of plastics, while polystyrene (PS), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyamide (PA), and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) with higher density do not float in water, but deposit by inclination through the water column ( Guo and Wang, 2019a ). Accordingly, microplastic pollutants are widely distributed in every sub-zone/layer (pelagic and benthic) of coastal and marine systems. Salinity is one of the key factors affecting on chemical degradation of plastic. Hence, coastal and marine systems, which range at approximately 0.5–35°/00 (ppt: parts per thousand) of salinity, are highly susceptible to the formation of microplastics. Accordingly, scientific evidence of the distribution and persistence of microplastic pollutants must focus on ocean basins and coastal ecosystems to identify the nature of the emerging issue.

Plastic pollutants are abundantly accumulating in these zones with adverse effects on ecological aspects, including biodiversity, economic activities, and human health ( Galgani et al., 2010 ; Wang et al., 2018 ). Microplastics are ingested by different kinds of marine organisms ( Cole et al., 2013 ; Leslie et al., 2017 ). Evidence on microplastics in the aquatic environment ( Cozar et al., 2014 ; Martin et al., 2017 ) signifies the alarm on environmental issues by plastic pollution. They mark the importance of an integrated approach with international, regional, and national efforts as mitigatory strategies to improve plastic waste management by reducing the load of plastic garbage patches in the world ocean basins. Monitoring and dissemination of scientific information on distribution, contamination levels, sources, and possible effects by plastic pollution are required to identify management priorities and implementation of mitigation measures accordingly. Stakeholders should especially be aware of the current situation of the problem, degree of severity and harmfulness of the problem, novel trends, and present scenario and scientific approaches for strategies of prevention or reduction of plastic waste accumulation ( Law, 2017 ). Thus, scientific reviewing of plastic pollution in the ocean basin and coastal zones are essential to derive a clear overall picture. The systematic study of the sources, pathways, transformation modes, adverse effects, and sinks of plastics in the marine environment has been conducted only during the last decade ( Browne et al., 2015 ; Law, 2017 ). This study aims to address the above gap by comprehensively reviewing reliable scientific data on all aspects of plastic pollution in the marine and coastal habitats to give insight into protecting the world ocean basins and coastal zones. Hence, this review paper focuses on (I) seeking the sources of plastic pollution, (II) identifying the current status of the effects of plastic debris accumulation with a clear picture over the world ocean basins and coasts, (III) present an overview of the current situation and recommendations of initiatives on controlling plastic pollution at international, regional, and national levels, rules & regulations and legislation, possible management measures for the awareness of stakeholders such as politicians, decision-makers, researchers, scientists, environmental authorities, the general public, and industries, and improving the capacity building of stakeholders toward the plastic waste management.

2. Plastic accumulation sources

Plastic wastes are accumulated in the aquatic ecosystems directly and indirectly by different kinds of sources. Land and ocean-based sources are critical sources of plastic pollution in coastal and marine ecosystems through in-situ and ex-situ pathways. Major land-based plastic pollution sources are freshwater input, residential & domestic activities, tourism, and other economic actions, including harbor operations. Over 75% of marine plastic litter items are accumulated from land-based sources ( Andrady, 2011 ). Coastal zone is a highly residential, urbanized, and industrialized area. Thus, most local communities are aggregated in coastal zones. Accordingly, residential and industrialized activities are highly focused on this transitional zone. Air blasting and cosmetics used by coastal residents could directly discharge into the coastal zone. In some cases, these plastic containers are released into the wastewater treatment systems or drainage systems. Browne et al. (2007) revealed that a significant amount of plastic debris release or escape even from the treatment systems. After that, such plastic debris accumulates into the natural freshwater ecosystems such as river and streams or subject to leachate into the groundwater and finally end up in the ocean. However, lotic freshwater ecosystems with directional, fast flow rates mainly lead to the accumulation of plastic debris in coastal areas. For example, the plastic waste from two freshwater ecosystems is accumulated into the ocean system around California, and approximately two billion plastic fragments release into the sea during three days’ time ( Moore, 2008 ). Primary sources of the microplastics accumulation into the Goiana Estuary, South America, are harmed river basins ( Lima et al., 2014 ). Furthermore, Thushari et al. (2017b) identified domestic wastes and coastal residential activities significantly contribute to debris accumulation in the coastal environment by in-situ waste accumulating method. Based on the records, tourism and recreational activities have also acted as one of the major sources of marine and coastal plastic accumulation into the ocean and coastal ecosystems. Thushari et al. (2017b) revealed that >60% of beach debris from selected beaches on the eastern coast of Thailand originates from tourism and recreation-related activities. Plastic debris in beaches carries into the ocean as microplastic fragments and secondary plastics ( Cole et al., 2011 ). In the urban beach of the northeast of Brazil, plastic pellets and fragments have been reported as contaminants. The main source of those fragments was the breaking down of larger size plastic debris accumulated on the beach, while the major sources of plastic pellets were from the operational activities of nearby port facilities ( Costa et al., 2010 ). Another potential cause of plastic pollutants is persistent fishing fleet, based on the literature records ( Ivar do Sula et al., 2013 ).

The plastic accumulation rate in the ocean also enhances from land-based sources with prevailing extreme climatic conditions such as storms, hurricanes, and flooding ( Thompson et al., 2005 ). Microplastic debris density in water collected from California was six times higher compared to the normal situation due to prevailing storm conditions ( Moore et al., 2002 ). As per Thushari et al. (2017b) , the coastal debris level was lower in the wet season compared to the dry season in some beaches (e.g., Angsila) along the eastern coast of Thailand, due to dragging of coastal debris into the offshore or deep-sea region by strong monsoon during the rainy season. On the southern Californian coast, the average debris density level was approximately 18 times higher during a storm compared to the normal situation ( Lattin et al., 2004 ). In the western coastal water of Sri Lanka, an island in the Indian Ocean, the mean density of total plastic was recorded as 140.34±13.99 No.m −3 by number of items (count), during August–November 2017 (end of south-west monsoon), mainly by the sources of tourism and fishing activities ( Athawuda et al., 2018 ).

Plastic debris from the beach enters the ocean through coastal water currents. Sometimes, monofilament and nylon fishing nets are disposed of at harbor operations in the shore area and float over the ocean surface. Floated nylon debris drifts over the ocean at different locations by the effect of ocean currents ( Cole et al., 2011 ).

Offshore activities such as commercial fishery, navigation actions, waste disposal, and shellfish/fish culture are key ocean-based sources that contribute to plastic debris accumulation into the marine and coastal zones. Offshore fishing and aquaculture-related operations have been identified as a significant source of plastic pollution into the ocean basins and coastal ecosystems by the number of literature records. Damaged fishing nets and abandoned, lost, or discarded fishing nets (ALDFG) can enter the offshore by fishers during fishing operations.

Maritime and navigation activities are also another source of plastic accumulation in the offshore area of the sea. Marine vessels, intentionally or unintentionally, dump plastic litters into the ocean, with an accumulation rate of approximately 6.5 million tons per year into the deep sea by early 1990 ( Derraik, 2002 ). Thushari et al. (2017b) noted that shipping-related debris levels on the eastern coast of Thailand are significantly lower since that area is not close to the international maritime transportation route. Accidental disposal of plastic litter items during transportation through a terrestrial environment or ocean can cause the flowing of plastics into the sea directly or indirectly. Especially, improper use of plastic packaging materials causes the accumulation of plastic litter into the aquatic environment and the ocean systems ( Cole et al., 2011 ). Synthetic polymers have also been recorded in sub-surface plankton samples around Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago in the Equatorial Atlantic Ocean with an increase in average plastic densities. Plastic materials can be transported over vast distances by ocean currents ( Ivar do Sula et al., 2013 ). A study conducted by Pruter (1987) revealed that plastic pellet densities are 18/km 2 and 3500/km 2 in New Zealand coast (1970) and Sargasso Sea (1980), respectively.

Plastic can be categorized as megaplastic (>1 m), macroplastic (<1 m), mesoplastic (<2.5 cm), and microplastic (<5 mm) (defined size varies according to different literature records) according to size variations ( Wang et al., 2018 ). Another scientific literature categorizes plastic litter according to the different length ranges, as megaplastics (>100 mm), macroplastics (20–100 mm), mesoplastics (5–20 mm), and microplastics (<5 mm) ( Barnes et al., 2009 ). Mesoplastic is an intermediate size range between visible macroplastic and minute microscopic plastics. Larger size plastics visualized by the naked eye is called as macroplastics or megaplastics. A considerable portion of litter by land-based sources is accumulated in the oceans, and >65% of waste is composed of non-degradable macroplastics.

Plastics can enter the marine ecosystems as primary and secondary plastics. The larger plastic fragments sometimes directly release as megaplastic and/or macroplastic debris and convert into microplastics within the environment. Primary microplastics are the plastic debris manufactured with a microscopic size range, whereas secondary plastics are formed after exposing larger plastic debris for different forces and break down into tiny plastic debris. A fraction of the above light weight larger plastics floats on the sea surface, while the remaining portion with high density sinks into the benthic environment of the ocean due to higher molecular weight. Macroplastics are highly susceptible to degrade into micro size plastics by subjecting to different processes such as degradation (changes the state of plastic); photo-degradation, mechanical degradation, and hydrolysis. Biodegradability of plastics is also essential to understand their fate and destination in the respective environment ( Hartmann et al., 2019 ) and identify size variations of plastic pollutants accordingly after subjecting to degradation. Hence, we identified importance of scientific investigation on the aforesaid hot topic. Microplastic debris is known as plastic litter, observable only using a microscope ( Table 1 ).

Table 1

Microplastic size definitions according to the previous literature records.

As per Table 1 , microplastic is defined in several ways by scientists using size variations of debris. Microplastics can be further divided into two types as primary microplastic and secondary microplastic . Primary microplastics are the plastic types with a micro-size range and used for a specific purpose or a product. Primary microplastics are mainly used in manufacturing cosmetics (cleansers, shower gel), medicines, and air blasting medium ( Gregory, 1996 ; Zitko and Hanlon, 1991 ; Patel et al., 2009 ). Microscopic size Polyethylene and Polystyrene particles were observed in cosmetic products ( Gregory, 1996 ). Air-blasting technology also uses blasting of microplastic fragments such as Polyester in different devices such as engines, machines, and vessel/ship hulls ( Browne et al., 2007 ; Gregory, 1996 ). Manufacturing the above products using primary microplastics have rapidly increased during the very recent decades. Secondary microplastics are defined as the plastic debris resulting after the breakdown of macroplastic in the terrestrial environment and ocean ( Thompson et al., 2004 ). In the open environment, macroplastic fragments expose to chemical, biological, physical, and mechanical processes and change the typical properties of plastics such as structure and integrity. As a result, large plastics degrade into minute plastic fragments in the environment ( Andrady, 2011 ; Barnes et al., 2009 ). Fundamental forces leading to degradation of macroplastics are ultra-violet (UV) radiation (Photo-degradation) and wave abrasion physically ( Andrady, 2011 ). During photo-degradation of plastics, sunlight with UV rays subject to degrade large plastics through oxidation of polymer plastic and breakdown of structural integrity. In the beach ecosystem, macroplastic fragments directly expose to the sunlight, and the degradation rate is higher with the presence of more Oxygen ( Andrady, 2011 ; Barnes et al., 2009 ). The plastic fragments with reduced structural integrity are further exposed to the physical and mechanical forces such as wave turbulence and abrasion ( Barnes et al., 2009 ). Finally, macroplastics rapidly convert into minute particles during the degradation process. This process continues until plastics become microscopic in size, and microplastic fragments further cleavage into nano-plastic particles in some cases ( Fendall and Sewell, 2009 ). Oxidative characteristics in the atmosphere and hydrolytic properties of seawater (salinity) profoundly affect the degradation rate of plastics ( Webb et al., 2013 ), and a saline environment with prevailing lower temperature reduces the photo-degradation rate of plastics ( Cole et al., 2011 ).

On the other hand, biodegradable plastic acts as a type of microplastic ( Cole et al., 2011 ). Biodegradable plastics increase the degradation rate in composting bins under optimum conditions such as proper ventilation, humidity, and higher temperature ( Moore, 2008 ; Ryan et al., 2009 ; Thompson et al., 2004 ). A cooler environment without decomposing microbes (the biological process by microorganisms) reduced the degradation rate and caused the accumulation of biodegradable plastics in the ocean ( O'Brine and Thompson, 2010 ). The demersal environment is contaminated with microplastic pollution in Spanish coastal waters ( Bellas et al., 2016 ), and the presence of microplastics in the estuarine ecosystem was confirmed by the study of Abbasi (2018) . According to that study, Musa Estuary, Persian Gulf, was affected by microplastic accumulation and recorded ingestion of highly abundant microplastic particles by both pelagic and demersal fish. The presence of high-density microplastics in demersal biota is associated with the occurrence of plastic debris in the benthic environment, which is the final destination of plastic contaminants by sinking in the marine and coastal environment ( Neves et al., 2015 ; Bellas et al., 2016 ; Jabeen et al., 2017 ). Microplastics in estuaries are subjected to change due to the dynamic conditions by different environmental factors such as wind, tide, residence time, the geographical location of the ecosystem, and the level of anthropogenic activities within the systems ( Peters and Bratton, 2016 ). According to Lima et al. (2014) , vertical salinity gradient causes changes of the distribution of microplastics in coastal ecosystems, including estuaries. Recently, microplastic has been detected even in the traditional salt producing ponds in Indonesia ( Tahir et al., 2018 ).

3. Effects of plastic accumulation

The effects of plastic debris on marine life are within the diverse range and reported in several literature records. The degree of impact by plastic pollution on biodiversity is severe in particular marine systems, and it has been identified as one of the top threats on biota ( Gray, 1997 ). Debris accumulation and potential threats and emerging risks on biota by marine debris, including plastics, is a global concern, and plastic waste has a collective effect on the ecological level and economic aspects.

3.1. Ecological effects of plastic contamination in respective ecosystems

Entanglement and ingestion are some of the critical issues associated with macroplastic fragments. According to the records of Gall and Thompson (2015) , >13,000 individuals representing 208 species and >30,000 individuals belonging to 243 species have encountered issues related to ingestion and entanglement by macroplastic fragments, respectively. Entanglement cases were mainly recorded between the individual organisms and fishing nets or plastic rope in fishing gears. Ingestion is highly associated with individual organisms and plastic fragments ( Gall and Thompson, 2015 ) ( Figure 2 ). However, the entanglement effect is comparatively higher than the ingestion by biota in coastal and marine systems. Entanglement and ingestion of macroplastic debris can be lethal or sub-lethal. As the direct results of entanglement or ingestion, coastal and marine biotic organisms die or get injured lethally. Sub-lethal effects cause reducing capturing and swallowing food particles, impairing reproduction ability, loss of sensitivity, the inability to escape from predators, loss of mobility, decreased growth, and body condition. Comparatively, sea turtles, marine mammals, and all types of sea birds are at higher risk of entanglement and ingestion by plastic pollution. Green sea turtle, Hawksbill turtle, Fulmar, Seals, Sea Lions, Puffin, Albatross, Right whale, and Greater shearwater are recorded species negatively affected by the above consequence ( Gall and Thompson, 2015 ). Fishing hooks are also highly ingestible plastic debris types in birds ( Hong et al., 2013 ). Hong et al. (2013) noted that Black-tailed gull ingested a hook and entangled in the fishing line by the attachment of head, neck, and wings, thus, failed in moving or foraging. They have also observed >0.1g of plastic content in the gastrointestinal tract of nearly half of the northern Fulmar population. In Norwegian ocean, Nephrops norvegicus, a commercially valuable lobster species, had recorded plastic filaments in 83% of individuals of the population ( Murray and Cowie, 2011 ). As documented ( Gall and Thompson, 2015 ), species categorized as critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable, and near-threatened under IUCN red list were negatively affected by the threats mentioned above by plastic litter accumulation. According to the records of Chiappone et al. (2002) , 49% of hook and line and lobster traps were responsible for tissue damage, injuries, and death of sessile organisms in Florida Key. Findings of Chiappone et al. (2005) revealed the effect of debris from fishing hooks, and the line increased by 84% with negative impacts on poriferans and coelenterates, causing sub-lethal and lethal consequences.

Effects of Plastics on coastal and marine biota: a) Plastics ingestion by a blueshark: Priona ceglauca of Carlos Canales-Cerro ( Thiel et al., 2018 ; photo authorship: Dr. Carlos Canales-Cerro), b) Attachment on plastic debris by Goose Barnacle, Lepas anserifera (photo authorship: J.D.M. Senevirathna), c) Partial cover of macroplastic pollutants on Rock Oyster: Saccostrea forskalii colony (photo authorship: J.D.M. Senevirathna), d) Entanglement of nestling in a synthetic plastic string (photo authorship: Townsend and Barker, 2014 ).

Microplastic accumulation also causes complicated consequences on individual organisms and ecosystems. The density of microplastic is increasing in all oceans worldwide ( Thompson et al., 2009 ). Microplastic debris is possible in accumulating in biotic components, seawater, sediments, and coastline ( Athawuda et al., 2018 ; Thushari et al., 2017a ; Zarfl et al., 2011 ) (Tables  2 and ​ and3, 3 , Figures  2 and ​ and3). 3 ). Lightweight, low-density plastics float in the water, and high-dense particles sink into the benthic system's bottom sediments. There are literature records on contamination of microplastic particles in sub-tidal and inter-tidal ecosystems and marine and coastal surface water ( Athawuda et al., 2018 ; Ng and Obbard, 2006 ; Collignon et al., 2012 ; Browne et al., 2011 ). The size of microplastic fragments is similar to the size of feeding matter, such as planktons and suspended particles ( Wright et al., 2013 ). This characteristic feature allows invertebrates to ingest these synthetic microparticles ( Figure 2 ). The benthic organisms and suspension feeders also feed on microplastics from bottom sediments and contaminated water (Tables  2 and ​ and3). 3 ). According to Moore (2008) , non-selective feeders collect and ingest all the particles within a similar size range of items without sorting through filter-feeding and/or deposit feeding ( Browne et al., 2007 ). Ingestion of microplastic by invertebrates depends on several factors such as feeding mechanism, type, shape, and quantity of plastic matter. Ward and Shumway (2004) reported that polystyrene microparticles are highly susceptible to ingesting by filter-feeding bivalves (Figures  2 and ​ and3), 3 ), and Browne et al. (2008) recorded the translocation of polystyrene particles between the size ranges of 3–10 mm from the digestive system into the circulatory system of Mytilus edulis . Plastic particles with >80 μm deposit in epithelial cells of digestive tubules in the gastrointestinal tract causing adverse effects such as inflammatory issues on invertebrates ( Von Moos et al., 2012 ).

Table 2

Microplastic accumulation rate of water and sediments in different coastal and marine ecosystems in the world.

Table 3

Microplastic ingestion level of different coastal and marine biota of the coastal and marine ecosystems in the world.

Images of scanning electron-microscopic polystyrene (PS) (a, b) and polyamide nylon (PA) (c, d), found in the ingested microplastic samples of Rock Oyster: Saccostrea forskalii , Striped Barnacle: Balanus Amphitrite , and Periwinkle: Littoraria sp. along eastern coasts of Thailand (photo authorship: Thushari et al., 2017a ).

Various literature records are available on the accumulation of microplastic in invertebrate groups and vertebrates found on the coastal and marine environment ( Table 3 ). The microscopic size of microplastic fragments is characterized by a higher surface area: volume ratio and increasing the potential of transporting contaminants and accumulate in biota ( STAP, 2011 ).

Toxic chemicals such as Bisphenol-A (BPA), monomers, flame retardants, oligomers, metal ions, and antibiotics are incorporated with plastics, and these chemical substances can accumulate in the marine organisms that ingested plastics unintentionally ( Lithner et al., 2011 ). Fish, mollusks, and mammals have potentially toxic effects by flame retardants and phthalates incorporated in plastics ( Teuten et al., 2009 ; Oehlmann et al., 2009 ). Based on experimental conditions, BPA and phthalate in plastic causes significant impacts on reproduction, genetic mutations, and growth of organisms ( Oehlmann et al., 2009 ). Similarly, natural populations cause substantial negative consequences due to the presence of above toxic substances in their diet or surrounding environment. On the other hand, plastic materials can absorb persistent toxic chemical substances with bio-accumulation potential. Such kinds of major toxic substances are Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), which are highly resistant to biodegradation. POPs include DDT like Organochlorine pesticides, by-products of many industrial processes such as dioxins, i.e., Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins (PCDD) and Dibenzo Furans (PCDF), and industrial chemicals like Poly-Chlorinated Biphenyls (PCB). Absorbance efficiency of persistent chemicals into plastic materials is significantly higher compared to surrounding seawater ( Teuten et al., 2009 ; Rios et al., 2010 ; Hirai et al., 2011 ). Contaminated plastic debris with this kind of chemicals has high potential in causing the transportation of persistent chemicals into the marine organisms via feeding. Literature also records the high potential of interacting antibiotics and metal ions with plastics. Both microplastics and Sulfamethoxazole (SMX) are ubiquitous pollutants in aquatic ecosystems; the reaction of these two contaminants with each other is recorded in the respective environment. As a result, the adsorption of SMX into microplastics reached equilibrium within 16 hours. Sulfamethazine (SMT) has the adsorption capacity into six types of microplastics: polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyamide (PA), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polystyrene (PS), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). However, the adsorption rate of SMX and SMT into microplastics gradually decreased with different environmental variables like pH and salinity ( Guo et al., 2019b , 2019c ). These kinds of persistent antibiotics can cause adverse environmental impacts due to biological activity and antibacterial characters ( Dlugosz et al., 2015 ). The presence of antibiotic drugs makes changes in the population of microbes by proliferating antibiotic-resistant bacteria (ARB) in the natural aquatic environment. This would cause hazardous health threats to humans and other aquatic faunal communities ( Baran et al., 2011 ; Hoa et al., 2011 ).

The microplastic also has an affinity with metal compounds and possible in causing eco-toxicological effects. The adsorption capacity of Sr 2+ on to three types of microplastics, i.e., polyethylene (PE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), has been detected according to literature records. The total adsorption rate of Sr 2+ into microplastics is regulated by the external mass transfer step ( Guo and Wang, 2019d ). Accumulated non-biodegradable metal ions in the ecosystems cause toxic effects in plants and animals even at lower levels, and heavy metals produce adverse health effects on humans ( Ntihuga, 2006 ).

According to Cole et al. (2013) , toxic chemical compounds can accumulate in the organisms in higher trophic levels by ingestion of seafood contaminated with plastics and persistent materials, heavy metals, and pharmaceutical compounds. Accordingly, these chemical substances can enter humans through food webs, creating health issues.

Marine litter, including plastics, is useful as a habitat for aquatic organisms. Those artificial, hard substrates act as a new surface for assemblage and colonization of coastal and marine organisms ( Figure 2 ). Invertebrate species including bivalves, crustaceans, echinoderms, gastropods, bryozoans, coelenterates, insects, sponges, and polychaetes, seagrasses, and seaweeds are the major taxa using the substrate of litter/debris as habitats ( Gall and Thompson, 2015 ) ( Figure 2 ). Abandoned fishing gears, ALDF, and their parts are used as substrates for colonization of mobile and sessile organisms ( Good et al., 2010 ; Ayaz et al., 2006 ). Plastic debris provides functional habitats for different microorganisms ( Zettler et al., 2013 ). Vibrio bacteria have preferably grown on plastic debris in the oceanic system ( GEF, 2012 ), and marine plastic waste has also been used as new habitat by observed 47 associated marine species in the Maltese Islands ( Pace et al., 2007 ). Dispersion via plastic debris is another ecological effect caused by macro- and megaplastics. Plastic debris acts as floating objects and provides a stable substrate for rafting and transportation of mobile and sessile organisms. This effect acts as a mode of introducing invasive species into a new ecosystem. Ecosystem composition, structure, and equilibrium are totally modified due to competition for resources (e.g., Food, Habitat, and Space) between native and non-native species in such systems. Plastic debris acting as rafting agents are plastic fragments, fishing gear parts, nets, ropes, fishing materials, packaging materials, and microplastic matter ( Gall and Thompson, 2015 ). Crustaceans and Annelids are the frequently observed mobile organisms rafting via litter ( Goldstein et al., 2014 ). According to Goldstein et al. (2014) , a diverse group of plastic rafting organisms was recorded from the western and eastern pacific oceanic regions during the 2009–2012 period, while 134 species belonging to 14 phyla were attached to the substrate of plastic buoys originated from aquaculture operations along the south-eastern Pacific region in Chile during 2001–2005 ( Astudillo et al., 2009 ). The floating capacity of the plastic buoys is higher and allows transporting a long distance from the place of origin over the water surface. Austrominius modestus, an exotic barnacle species attached to plastic debris, was observed in Shetland Island, United Kingdom ( Barnes and Milner, 2015 ). In the North Pacific region, various taxonomic groups attached to the floating litter were recorded during 2009–2012, and 87% of total attached debris was hard plastic fragments, as referenced in Goldstein et al. (2014) . Barnes and Milner (2015) revealed that assessing the effects of the accidental introduction of organisms by marine debris is difficult.

Assemblage or ecosystem-level effect was recorded as another consequence of plastic pollution. The degree of severity for the ecosystem level by plastic debris depends on several factors: area covered by plastic debris, type and nature of plastic debris, level of sensitivity of the respective ecosystem, and associated organisms. Based on the literature records, plastic debris accumulation modifies the habitats in the marine environment. Further, benthic, submerged ecosystems such as seagrass and coral reefs in the marine environment degrade by deposition of macro and mega plastic debris on the seafloor ( Thevenon et al., 2014 ). Degraded benthic ecosystems reduce the species richness and composition in the marine environment. Derelict fishing gears are mostly affecting debris type causing assemblage-level impacts ( GEF, 2012 ). In Oman, 69% of coral sites were negatively affected by abandoned fishing gears, or ALDF, including gill nets, and more than 20 genera of corals were adversely affected by decreasing the coral biodiversity ( Al-Jufaili et al., 1999 ). Carson et al. (2011) revealed that microplastic fragments are responsible for changing porosity and heat transferring capacity of sediments. Thus, the physical characteristics of benthic habitats will be altered accordingly, and this would make the survival of benthos difficult without optimum conditions. Plastic debris over the surface of seawater reduces the light penetration capacity and Dissolved Oxygen (DO) level in habitats; accordingly, changes of physicochemical water quality parameters affect primary productivity and tropic relationship in water negatively. Biodiversity gradually declines because of the absence of optimum conditions in the habitats and niches, since food availability and DO level are considered as the main factors (habitat factors) affecting biodiversity. Also, the presence of plastic debris on the respective niches negatively affects the behavioral changes of coastal and marine organisms ( Thevenon et al., 2014 ). Foraging capacity of the intertidal mollusk, Nassarius pullus, reduces rapidly with the presence of plastic debris ( Aloy et al., 2011 ).

3.2. Socio-economic effects by plastic pollution in respective ecosystems

Plastic pollution causes different socio-economic impacts on various aspects, such as commercial fishery, tourism, shipping, and human health, and negatively affects the national economy of the respective country by allocating an extra budget for waste removal. An overload of plastic contaminants in the ocean basins and coastal zones directly influence the commercial fishery, aquaculture, and tourism. In Scotland, debris removal, including plastic litter such as fishing gears and PVC pipes, causes loss of fishing time and extra expense for cleaning ( Ten et al., 2009 ). Ghost trapping fishing (accidental fish catch by discarded/abandoned and lost fishing gear: ALDF) was identified as one of the adverse effects on the commercial fishery sector ( Al-Masroori et al., 2004 ). Ghost fishing significantly reduces fish stocks which play a major role in commercial and recreational fishing ( Anderson and Alford, 2013 ). According to the literature records ( Al-Masroori et al., 2004 ), the expenses are approximately US$ 145 and 168 due to ghost fishing for three months and six months, respectively. Cost-benefit analysis has identified the effect of ghost fishing in Puget Sound, USA ( Gilardi et al., 2010 ), and accordingly, the cost for commercial crab fishery by ghost fishing is nearly US$ 19,656. In Indonesia, severe changes on fishing grounds were recorded by litter accumulation, and fishing gear types were identified as the main component of marine litter. Further, debris accumulation caused negative impacts on the artisanal fishery sector in Indonesia ( Nash, 1992 ). As per UNEP (2009) , an annual loss of US$ 250 million was due to the loss of the lobster fishery sector by the presence of ghost fishing gears.

Marine plastic debris can also act as a key contributor to the distribution of non-native, invasive species. CIESM (2014) has identified algae growth and the proliferation of plastic debris. The overgrowth of these algae has the potential to cause harmful algae blooms and, accordingly, depletion of ecosystem health with economic loss by fishery and tourism-related activities. Further, it induces the depletion of sensitive, submerged ecosystems such as coral reefs, destroy breeding and nursery grounds of seafood sources, and result in a substantial loss of commercial fishery catch ( GEF, 2012 ).

Moreover, microplastic pollution has a severe negative effect on the fishery sector. Organisms representing lower trophic levels are possible to ingest microplastic with food particles ( Wright et al., 2013 ). These contaminants pass to the other organisms through food webs and may accumulate toxic chemicals in higher trophic levels, including fish ( Wright et al., 2013 ), with adverse effects on capture fishery and aquaculture sector. Contaminated fishery sources have low demand, and thus, create an economic loss. If plastic pollution affects negatively on marine biodiversity, seafood safety, and availability, it will create a severe economic impact at the global level, especially in developing countries or islands where marine and coastal fishery resources are a major food source. As an example, food fish contributes, or exceeds, approximately 50% of total animal protein intake in some small islands or developing states: e.g., Bangladesh, Cambodia, Ghana, Indonesia, Sierra Leone, and Sri Lanka. The depletion of fishery resources by plastic pollution directly affects the economy of such countries described above and causes socio-economic crisis and health issues consequently ( Nerland et al., 2014 ; McKinley and Johnston, 2010 ; Johnston and Roberts, 2009 ; FAO, 2016 ).

Plastic pollution in beaches and marine environment triggers a negative effect on aesthetic value, natural beauty, and health of ecosystems ( Figure 4 ). As a result, the lowered aesthetic and recreational value in coastal shore areas and marine systems lead to a significant reduction in the total number of tourists ( Figure 4 ). On the other hand, the health of ecosystems and the possibility of involvement in most recreational activities in marine and coastal zones are proportionate. For example, offshore ocean basin and sensitive coastal ecosystems (e.g., healthy coral reef ecosystems) are associated with tourism-related activities such as coral watching, snorkeling, whale watching, turtle watching, sport fishing, and scuba diving. Death of a coral cover by plastic debris implies the loss of such kind of tourism activities and reducing the number of tourists visiting a specific region ( GEF, 2012 ). The ciliated pathogen, which acts as the causative agent of skeletal eroding band disease in corals, was identified in floating plastic in the western pacific region ( Goldstein et al., 2014 ). Accordingly, infected corals are gradually depleting and severely affect the alteration of ecosystem structure and compositions. Therefore, degraded coral systems may cause to reduce the number of tourists due to loss of aesthetic value and attraction in a certain region. Tourism is related to different parties gaining benefits via direct and/or indirect manner. As an example, a reduced number of tourists causes loss of job opportunities for local communities who depend on tourism-related activities in the respective area. Accordingly, a substantial economic loss directly interconnects with the negative effects of the social aspect. Tourism-oriented islands such as Hawaii and Maldives are economically threatened by declining the annual income through tourism due to this kind of anthropogenic factors ( Thevenon et al., 2014 ).

Negative effects of plastic pollution on coastal and marine vicinity (photo authorship: J.D.M. Senevirathna).

Plastic debris can cause direct and indirect health effects on humans through the ingestion of contaminated seafood sources, and the accumulation of poisonous, persistent chemical substances in the human body. Scuba divers have severe health risks in trapping and entangling discarded fishing nets during diving ( GEF, 2012 ). There is a high risk of loss of lives by accidents due to the accumulation of mega-size marine plastic debris in the ocean ( GEF, 2012 ). Further, polluted coastal and marine zones are associated with negative health issues on tourists and coastal residents. Polluted seawater with plastic debris has adverse impacts on tourists in recreational activities. There are also records of severe injuries by sharp cuts from plastic debris in the shore area and marine zones. Overload of plastic debris in recreational beaches and ocean systems can raise health issues such as lower blood pressure and reduce mental fitness (e.g., stress, anger, tension) in humans ( GESAMP, 2015 ). Adverse health effects can reduce the country's productivity and working efficiency with negative impacts on social and economic aspects of the affected area. In India, environmental problems, including pollution, causes serious ecological effects on the coastal ecosystems, and consequently, have a direct effect on the socio-economic status of coastal communities ( Lakshmi and Rajagopalan, 2000 ).

As the fouling of plastic debris in ships creates disturbances of operational activities, it requires cleaning of ship hulls for proper functioning. APEC (2009) recorded that the annual cost of damage from debris, including plastic litter on shipping, is US$ 279 million. In summary, both ecological and socio-economic impacts of plastic pollution are inter-related.

4. Initiatives on plastic pollution control and prevention

Several kinds of strategies have been identified to address the issue of plastic pollution. Institutional level involvement is such kind of key strategy used in treating the current topic. Global, regional, and national level institutions are essential in controlling and preventing the accumulation of plastic debris in the marine and coastal environments.

4.1. Global-scale initiatives

The United Nations (UN) General Assembly on oceans and the Law of the Sea are examples of such global initiatives that are useful for addressing this issue. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides an international legal framework for controlling plastic contamination. Article 207 and 211 emphasize marine pollution, including plastic debris accumulation with a particular focus on the reduction, control, and prevention of plastic litter. Further, states are provisioning for controlling, reducing, and preventing pollution from different sources like land-based and sea-based sources. UN General Assembly has also delivered essential declarations to make the marine environment cleaner. That includes resolution on making partnership for awareness between the general public and private sector regarding the effects of plastic pollution on ecological, social, and economic aspects and the explicit integration for addressing the issues arising from contamination by plastic debris as aligning with a national strategic framework ( Hirai et al., 2011 ; Cole et al., 2013 ).

Further, the same resolution states that ( Chiappone et al. (2002) ) international, national, and regional organizations [e.g., International Maritime Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), and sub-regional fisheries management organizations] must involve with finding solutions for preventing the accumulation of lost or abandoned fishing gears/ALDF. Plastic contamination is detected as one of the serious environmental issues ( UNEP, 2011 ). The conference of the United Nations Convention on Sustainable Development (Rio +20) raised the necessity of plastic pollution control in the ocean basins, including marine zones. It further highlighted (163) the implementation of the framework of the International Maritime Organization (IMO). It states to conduct different initiatives by identifying suitable priorities for the management of marine pollution using scientific data or evidence by 2025. This kind of scientific literature review will act as reference data for prioritizing and implementing management activities accordingly at a global level.

On the other hand, the International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution (MARPOL) focusing on activities of ships is the legislator's body useful in acquiring the above objective. That convention addresses following key areas which are directly and indirectly related to the plastic pollution control and prevention in the sea: management of garbage including plastic litter, prohibiting dumping and discarding of plastic litter into the sea with the involvement of member states, and responsibilities related to abandoned, lost, or otherwise discarded fishing gears (ALDF) by minimizing the waste (including plastic debris, especially wastes/litter from fishing gears) received from capture fishery sector.

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (Article no. 70) states reducing the effects of plastic pollution on coastal and marine biodiversity using strategies (e.g., Strategic Environmental Assessments: SEAs and Environmental Impact Assessments: EIAs) to prevent marine pollution. Subsidiary party on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) acts as the Scientific Advisory body of CBD. Following decisions were made at the 16 th meeting of SBSTTA for controlling pollution including plastic accumulation in marine and coastal zones on 2012: (i) monitoring and documentation on effects of debris on biodiversity and ecosystems, (ii) scientific research and feasible studies on management and controlling of plastic and other kinds of debris, (iii) regional level capacity building programs focusing on methods and approaches of preventing and controlling issues related to plastics and different kinds of litter accumulation.

Convention of Migratory Species (CMS) has also come to power with the implementation of following actions: (i) seeking for marine debris hotspots all over the world, (ii) assessing the effects of plastic and other kinds of litter on coastal and marine biodiversity, (iii) identification of methods and mechanism of controlling marine debris accumulating sources at the regional level, (iv) implementing an action plan to mitigate the pollution by debris deposition in the marine environment at the national level. The scientific council further recommended assessing the impacts on migratory species by marine debris, seeking emerging issues related to community awareness on marine debris accumulation, and identify best management practices on waste control for maritime ships and vessels. Although plastic pollution and waste management are interrelated components, international, legal constitution, or agreement focusing on entirely waste management has not been developed ( Thevenon et al., 2014 ).

However, several kinds of international initiatives focus on waste management, indirectly, or as a part of pollution control and prevention. UNEP council (25/8) has decided to apply a practical approach to waste management. They have addressed the national framework design under the theme of “shift from an end-of-pipe approach in waste management to an integrated waste management approach” ( UNEP, 2011 ). Mitigation of issues on marine plastic debris accumulation and plastic pollution are associated with waste management practices; thus, an internationally accepted, integrated waste management program has been recommended to address the above issue ( UNEP, 2011 ). Basel Convention is one of the most critical international legislation focused on hazardous waste and disposal. Solid plastic fragments are considered as hazardous waste with severe risks on human health ( UNEP, 2005 ). In 2008, the Basel convention implemented the Bali declaration on the theme of “Waste Management for Human Health and Livelihoods.” This declaration works for waste management. Since hazardous waste is composed of plastic debris, plastic pollution control is linked with the Basel convention. Global Partnership on Waste Management (GPWM) of UNEP opened a path for working collaboratively with the international and non-government parties for waste management that are considered as an alternative for plastic pollution control in the marine environment in 2010. Following actions were planned for implementation with a special focus on mitigation of waste accumulation and plastic pollution by GPWM: identification of related issues, suggest appropriate solutions to overcome the above-identified issues, disseminate the findings, develop the international support and involvement, awareness, political support, develop facilities, and capacity to trap wastes.

Honolulu Strategy acts as another global international framework and an initiative for working toward preventing and management of debris, including plastic wastes with the collaborative cooperation of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and UNEP. This initiative guides monitoring and mitigation of litter, including plastic debris. During 2012, the European Commission and 64 government bodies collectively agreed with the Manila declaration that addresses the accomplishment of the Global Program of UNEP's for the management of debris sources from land-based activities. Members of the Manila declaration also collectively agreed to formulate relevant national-level policies in controlling pollution, including marine debris accumulation, which harms marine ecosystems. Also, partners to the Manila declaration adopted in the implementation of the Global Partnership on Marine Litter (GPML) under the guidance of the Honolulu Strategy. It further included reducing pollution from ocean-based sources with following goals: (i) limiting contamination levels and possible effects from ocean-based sources responsible for the accumulation of debris including plastics into aquatic systems, (ii) reducing levels and impacts of marine debris including plastics on coasts, aquatic habitats, and biodiversity, and (iii) limitation of accumulation levels and effects of debris from solid wastes and land-based litter into the aquatic ecosystems.

4.2. Regional-scale initiatives

At the regional level, Regional Seas Program of UNEP proposed relevant activities for 13 regional seas: Mediterranean sea, Baltic sea, Black sea, Caspian sea, East Asian seas, Red sea, Eastern African sea, South Asian sea, Wider Caribbean sea, Northeast Atlantic sea, Gulf of Aden sea, Northwest Pacific sea, and Southeast Pacific sea. Coastal cleanup programs have been completed as a global project in all the above regions. European Union's Marine Strategy Framework Directive, MSFD, established in 2008, focuses on minimizing the amount of marine debris at a regional level. The directive aims at sustainable utilization of resources in the ecosystem while conserving ecosystems through the Ecosystem-Based Approach (EBA). This task is a collaborative effort of all European countries. Members are required to monitor marine zones and identify achievable targets by 2020. It further included the operational program for ensuring the targets are achieved. South Korea conducted a long-term project to address the issue of marine debris: an in-depth survey and monitoring, identification, prevention, elimination, treatment, and recycling of marine waste for ten years ( GEF, 2012 ). At the regional level, a discarded fishing gear collection project was implemented in Hawaii and South African Coasts through NOAA/MDP. Moreover, scientific studies are recommended to identify the distribution pattern of plastic pollutants in South America's estuarine ecosystems for effective management plans ( Chen, 2015 ; Costa and Barletta, 2015 , 2016 ). Barletta et al. (2019) also recommended the conservation plans for estuaries in South America focusing on annual variations of ecoline, retention recycling cycles, flush of environmental indicators, and effects on trophic webs over whole coverage of gradients of estuary ecosystems to overcome the emerging issues associated with pollution. Restoration of tidal and river forcing is recommended as the most appropriate decision for ecosystem rehabilitation by improving the quality of the estuarine environment in South America at the regional level ( Storm et al., 2005 ; Slater, 2016 ).

4.3. National-level initiatives

Most of the national level legislation addresses the issue of solid waste management and waste production while reducing plastic pollution in marine and coastal ecosystems. In the US, Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act and Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act are key legislative pieces important in mitigation of plastic pollution at the national level. In South Korea, the Practical Integrated System of Marine debris was established to prevent marine debris accumulation from 1999-2009, for ten years. Scotland developed a Scottish marine litter strategy in 2013. In Sri Lanka, national-level regulations on polythene and other types of plastic management were introduced in 2017. This legislation made following efforts under the National Environmental Act No. 47 of 1980 with the 19 th amendment: (i) prohibition of manufacturing polythene products of 20 microns or below, food wrappers (lunch sheets), any bag with high density (grocery bags) and food containers, plates, cups, spoons from expanded Polystyrene (2034/33-35 and 38), (ii) prohibition of the burning of combustible and rejected matters including plastic (2034/36), and (iii) banning the use of polythene products as decorative items (2034/37) ( CEA, 2017 ).

Marine Pollution Prevention Act No. 35 of 2008 is another national regulation to control, prevent, and manage pollution in the marine environment in Sri Lanka. Marine Environment Protection Authority (MEPA) is the apex party established by the government of Sri Lanka under the above act. MEPA is responsible for finding solutions and remedies for overcoming pollution-related issues in the marine zones of Sri Lanka. With the growth of oceanic pollution by plastics, invasive species, oil spills, ballast water, and maritime traffic in the coastal and marine environments, MEPA has modernized the Policy Strategies and National Action Plan for marine protection in Sri Lanka with the support of IUCN, to suit current scenario during August 2017–January 2018. This Policy Strategies and National Action Plan focus on addressing the issue of plastic pollution in marine water in Sri Lanka as one of grave concern ( IUCN, 2018 ). The capacity-building project was accomplished to manage the marine debris under four key activities: education and awareness, research and scientific study, creating facilities, and policy formulation ( IUCN, 2018 ). Short-life plastic bags are a serious concern among all forms of plastics; thus different control and preventive measures (e.g., the prohibition of polythene bags usage, applying charges, levy, and taxes) have been used by several countries: Switzerland, China, Italy, Rwanda, South Africa, Kenya, Congo, Hong Kong, Bangladesh, Mexico, some states in the USA, several states in India, Australia, Ireland, Denmark, South Korea, Romania, Japan, state of Sao Paolo in Brazil, and New Zealand, at a national level ( European Commission, 2013 ). Implementation of effective national-level initiatives by prioritizing site-specific management needs is recommended toward the plastic-free environment by the current study. Also, the approach on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) (Please refer to the section of “ EPR towards producer responsibility” for more details) includes a scheme of plastic container deposition in Asia, Europe, Australia, US, and Canada as a national-level plastic pollution control measure.

4.4. Eco-friendly concepts for controlling plastic pollutio; Reuse, Recycle, and Reduction (3Rs) of plastic

The 3Rs of plastic wastes are a major environmentally friendly concept toward plastic-free ecosystems. Different strategies have been introduced as aligning with this 3Rs concept. Reducing plastic and packaging material usage is one of the key alternatives under the EPR (Please refer to the section of “ EPR towards producer responsibility” for more details). Actions of stakeholders related to plastic production and usage can play a vital role in reducing and reusing plastics. These actions can be either individual or collective activities toward reducing plastic accumulation in the ocean. Product manufacturers and sellers are recommended to follow a sustainable environmental management program with the production and selling. Eco-labeled products allow consumers to distinguish environmentally friendly, non-polluting products for making sustainable decisions during the purchasing of items or goods. Over 25 programs are conducted under the Global Eco-Labeling Network (GEN) toward the plastic-free environment. Ten countries use 43 types of greener packaging labels ( GEN, 2019 ) by signifying the effort in reducing plastic pollution at the national level. Also, New Zealand has awarded eco-labels for plastic products having recycling potential. The environmentally friendly and pollution-free packaging materials and products can be sustained through green procurement. Accordingly, improvement of recycling capacity and minimum packaging is required on green procurement. Biodegradable plastic packaging materials are also possible options for selected plastic products ( Mudgal et al., 2012 ) to control plastic debris accumulation.

On the other hand, positive incentives (financial or physical) are useful in promoting the collection and recycling process of plastics. If these initiatives are encouraged further at the national, regional, and global levels, it will provide more economic benefits to the society as an additional advantage, while preventing the accumulation of plastics in marine and coastal ecosystems.

4.5. EPR towards a plastic-free environment

EPR concept addresses the responsibility towards a greener and cleaner environment even after completion of the production chain. The manufacturers of plastic products and packaging items or material can be encouraged to collect packaging (e.g., food and beverage containers) and recycle plastic through funding and operational activities toward the EPR. Currently, developed countries (Japan, Europe, and Canada) use EPR programs, while the developing nations still do not practice this approach on a large scale. However, this approach is one of the best practices for minimizing the plastic accumulation rate in the environment. This paper recommends establishing a sound strategic mechanism focusing on the EPR concept, mainly for developing countries at the national level. Responsibilities for collecting, recycling, reusing, and managing plastic debris are usually held by stakeholder groups such as producers, importers, suppliers, and brand owners. EPR programs can focus on residential areas and public places such as markets, city plaza, pedestrian areas, municipal parks, and city squares, which experience higher accumulation of plastic debris, including packaging matter ( British Columbia Recycling Regulation Amendment, 2011 ). Segregated litter bins and recyclable plastic collecting centers must be established in a sustainable manner (toward EPR) to prevent plastic waste disposal.

4.6. Collaborative approach for plastic-free zones: engagement with business companies

One of the most crucial strategies for controlling plastic pollution is the engagement with private companies and business associations related to plastic products and packaging items. As stakeholder parties, these internationally recognized companies and associations can play a vital role in the management of plastic litter by working with government agencies collaboratively. In the USA, the American Chemistry Council had conducted awareness programs on reuse and recycle plastic bottles. Plastic Europe is one such internationally recognized association, and they conduct series of programs (e.g., campaign for “zero plastic in landfills” program on plastic pellet treatment at the production line) focusing on prevention and management of marine litter accumulation ( European Commission, 2013 ). Since there is a lack of more information, this study recommends the establishment of powerful Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) with collective engagement between the government agencies and private-sector for large-scale scientific research projects toward controlling the plastic pollution and waste management in a country level.

4.7. Economic instruments

Ordinances and fees are kinds of instruments or tools to prevent usage of plastic items and containers. Banning and penalties are other options for plastic pollution control, which acts as an enforceable mitigation measure. Some countries designed policies or legislation to ban the use and import of plastic items, including bags, at the national level (please refer to the section of “ National level initiatives ” for more details). Prohibition of improperly discarding and removal of plastic wastes is another strategy for preventing the accumulation of plastics. Most EPR projects have already introduced a penalty system for producers for violation of rules and regulations related to waste management and improper disposal. The user fee payment system can be introduced to manage plastic wastes based on the concept of charging/fine for consuming plastic items. The introduction of the secondary market for recycled materials is another alternative to reduce the plastic level in the environment. Plastic producers have the responsibility to recycle plastic products and packaging items (EPR) ( UNEP, 2018 ). As a result, they can financially invest in feasible studies, research, and developments to identify innovative alternatives as secondary materials. Sustainable Materials Management (SMS) is another initiative for pollution control toward a cleaner environment ( UNEP, 2018 ). Japan is one of the developed countries following the SMS using the legal framework since 1997.

4.8. Awareness and capacity building campaigns

Changing attitudes toward conservation and sustainable management of the environment is one of the potent tools in enhancing the quality of marine and coastal ecosystems. Improving the public awareness on litter generation, removal, and effects on marine and coastal environment is such kind of strategy for creating new attitudes among local communities. Blue Flag is such an international program conducted in Europe to reduce marine and coastal debris accumulation ( Blue Flag, 2019 ). According to the guidelines of this program, facilitating the segregation of recyclable plastic matter and positioning the disposal bins and containers are compulsory actions. Information related to this issue (e.g., effects from the accumulation of marine debris, marine debris accumulating sources, different approaches on mitigating overload of plastic debris, and the role of a local community toward this issue) can be publicized via social media, local media, distributing printed materials, and displaying in public areas. Beach cleaning and waste removal campaigns are also conducted with the participation of stakeholders as a step of awareness and capacity building of the local community on this emerging issue. However, the success and effectiveness of this kind of cleaning and debris removal programs depend on the involvement of the local community. As a basement for the future, this paper recommends incorporating environmental education into the syllabus of schools and making all possible efforts to adapt the mindset and attitudes of children on protecting the environment, starting from the nursery and/or primary school stage, because the primary level of children is the most effective stage to make changes in the ideas and attributes toward conservation of the environment.

4.9. Scientific investigations and monitoring

Scientific studies and researches are other approaches to address the issue of plastic pollution in a systematic mechanism. Still, knowledge gaps remain in some aspects (e.g., transport, sources, fate, impacts, and solutions of plastic in the environment) related to plastic pollution. Scientific knowledge and evidence of all aspects of plastic pollution would provide clear overall snapshot and guidance to stakeholders (e.g., local community, policymakers, politicians, consumers, and manufacturers) for implementing most suitable behavioral, technological, and policy solutions to address the issue of marine plastics effectively ( IUCN, 2020 ). Continuous research and scientific studies with frequent monitoring is a significant approach in the management of plastic pollution. Feasible studies on innovations would help to identify the related technology, alternative materials, or products to replace plastics. Authors recommend comprehensive scientific studies, regular monitoring of ecosystems, and innovations with the support of governments, private sectors, NGOs, and international organizations to efficiently address plastic pollution.

5. Conclusion

The marine and coastal ecosystems are complex and dynamic ecosystems that provide ecological and commercial values with services by ensuring human wellbeing. Currently, all oceans and many coastal zones are adversely affected by different kinds of natural and anthropogenic activities. Industrialization and urbanization are recognized as major factors for human-induced pollution, including plastic debris accumulation in the marine and coastal habitats. Estuaries are one of the major coastal ecosystems affected by plastic pollution. Currently, plastic pollution is caused by primary and secondary sources with a terrestrial or ocean-based origin. Megaplastic, macroplastic, mesoplastic, and microplastic (in primary and secondary forms) are major plastic pollutants that can be classified based on size variations. Megaplastic, macroplastic, and mesoplastic are bulk plastic debris, while primary and secondary microplastics are minute (microscopically observed) pollutants with the size range of 1–6 mm or <1 mm. Larger debris are also subjected to the formation of microplastics through physical, chemical, and biological processes. Mainly, estuarine ecosystems in some countries (e.g., several countries of the South American and Asian region) are negatively affected by the distribution of microplastics in sediment and water column.

Plastic pollution causes various ecological impacts at the individual, assemblage, and ecosystem levels. Since the size of microplastics is similar to the food particles which are consumed by most marine and coastal organisms in lower trophic levels, these micro-contaminants are highly susceptible to accumulation in such biota through ingestion with harmful impacts. Microplastic would also concentrate on humans and other organisms representing higher trophic levels through food chains and webs. Plastic pollutants interact with other toxic chemical compounds such as POPs, antibiotics, and heavy metal ions, and gradually produce the eco-toxicological effects. Accumulation of plastic debris causes not only negative ecological consequences to the ecosystem but also threatening to the socio-economic aspects of human life in various ways. However, the ecological and socio-economic impacts of plastic pollution are interconnected.

The necessity of mitigation and managing plastic pollution in marine and coastal environments at global, regional, and national scales is widely recognized. Recently, various international organizations and non-profit social groups actively work together with the kind mind of saving the ocean from plastic pollution in different countries and regions. Regional level mechanisms have already recommended evaluating the estuarine contamination by focusing on plastic pollution for the brackish water ecosystems in some countries such as South America. At the national level, some governments have declared legislations to control the plastic pollution issue by prohibiting the usage of plastic products and enhancing reuse and recycling of plastics with novel technologies at regional and national levels. Implementation of environmental governance with pollution control was recommended after thoroughly considering biological and ecological settings of respective ecosystems in countries like South America. However, initiatives on plastic pollution controlling and prevention need to be further improved at aforesaid levels. Therefore, the current study recommends selected productive approaches to address this issue with sound attention from different stakeholders. Reuse, Recycle, and Reduction (3Rs) of plastic pollutants, encouraging the collection of re-usable plastic debris, EPR towards manufacturer accountability, eco-friendly programs through Public-Private Partnerships, awareness and capacity building campaigns focusing on the cleaner environment, scientific studies on nature and severity of this emerging environmental issue, and innovations are suggested as ultimate, effective solutions for reducing and controlling the plastic pollution in these valuable aquatic ecosystems.

Finally, this review paper reveals the overall scenario of global marine and coastal plastic pollution under different aspects. This secondary data would be further useful as baseline information for the site-specific plastic pollution control and management programs. Human acts are one component of the biosphere; thus, our responsibility is to provide the maximum contribution for zero plastic, cleaner, and the greener environment as an eco-friendly living-being.

Declarations

Author contribution statement.

All authors listed have significantly contributed to the development and the writing of this article.

Funding statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to acknowledge Uva Wellasse University for all supports.

• Abbasi S. Microplastics in different tissues of fish and prawn from the Musa Estuary, Persian Gulf. J. Chemosphere. 2018; 205 :80–87. http://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/11614 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Adams S.M. Assessing cause and effect of multiple stressors on marine systems. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2005; 51 :8–12. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X04004667 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Jufaili S., Al-Jabri M., Al-Baluchi A., Baldwin R., Wilson S., West F., Matthews A. Human impacts on coral reefs in the sultanate of Oman. Estuar. Coast Shelf Sci. 1999; 49 :65–74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272771499800109 [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Masroori H., Al-Oufi H., McIlwain J., McLean E. Catches of lost fish traps (ghostfishing) from fishing grounds near Muscat, Sultanate of Oman. Fish.Res. 2004; 69 :407–414. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783604001444 [ Google Scholar ]
• Aloy A., Vallejo B., Juinio-Meñez M. Increased plastic litter cover affects the foraging activity of the sandy intertidal gastropod Nassariuspullus. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011; 62 :1772–1779. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21680006 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson J.A., Alford A.B. Ghost fishing activity in derelict blue crab traps in Louisiana. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013; 79 :261–267. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24360333 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Andrady A.L. Microplastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011; 62 :1596–1605. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X11003055 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• APEC . APEC Marine Resources Conservation Working Group; Singapore: 2009. Understanding the Economic Benefits of Costs of Controlling Marine Debris in the APEC Region. http://publications.apec.org/Publications/2009/04/Understanding-the-Economic-Benefits-and-Costs-of-Controlling-Marine-Debris-In-the-APEC-Region [ Google Scholar ]
• Astudillo J.C., Bravo M., Dumont C.P., Thiel M. Detached aquaculture buoys in the SE Pacific: potential dispersal vehicles for associated organisms. Aquat. Biol. 2009; 5 :219–231. http://www.bedim.cl/publications/AstudilloetalAQUABIOL2009.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Athapaththu A.M.A.I.K., Athawuda A.M.G.A.D., Dias P.C.B., Abeygunawardana A.P., Senevirathna J.D.M., Thushari G.G.N., Liyanage N.P.P., Jayamanne S.C. Proceedings of International Research Conference of Uva Wellassa University. 2019. Assessment of suspended plastic levels in surface water of southern coastal belt in Sri Lanka. [ Google Scholar ]
• Athawuda A.M.G.A.D., Jayasiri H.B., Jayamanne S.C., Weerakoon W.R.W.M.A.P., Thushari G.G.N., Guruge K.P.G.K.P. National Aquatic Resources Research and Development Agency (NARA) International Scientific Sessions. Vol. 65. 2018. Plastic litter enumeration and characterization in coastal water, off Colombo, Sri Lanka; p. 35. http://www.erepository.nara.ac.lk/handle/1/837 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ayaz A., Acarli D., Altinagac U., Ozekinci U., Kara A., Ozen O. Ghost fishing by monofilament and multifilament gillnets in Izmir Bay, Turkey. Fish. Res. 2006; 79 :267–271. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783606001391?via%3Dihub [ Google Scholar ]
• Baran W, Adamek E, Ziemiańska J, Sobczak A. Effects of the presence of sulfonamides in the environment and their influence on human health. J. Hazard Mater. 2011; 196 :1–15. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barletta M., Lima A.R.A., Costa M.F. Distribution, sources and consequences of nutrients, persistent organic pollutants, metals and microplastics in South American estuaries. Sci. Total Environ. 2019; 651 :1199–1218. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnes D.K.A., Galgani F., Thompson R.C., Barlaz M. Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philos. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 2009; 364 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19528051 1985–1998. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnes D.K.A., Milner P. Drifting plastic and its consequences for sessile organism dispersal in the Atlantic Ocean. Mar. Biol. 2015; 146 :815–825. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00227-004-1474-8 [ Google Scholar ]
• Bellas J., Martinez-Armental J., Martinez-Camara A., Beseda V., Martinez-Gómez C. Ingestion of microplastics by demersal fish from the Spanish Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016; 109 :55–60. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bergmann M., Wirzberger V., Krumpen T., Lorenz C., Primpke S., Tekman M.B., Gerdts G. High quantities of microplastic in arctic deep-sea sediments from the HAUSGARTEN observatory. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017; 51 :11000–11010. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.7b03331 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bessa F., Barría P., Neto J.M., Frias J.P.G.L., Otero V., Sobral P., Marques J.C. Occurrence of microplastics in commercial fish from a natural estuarine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018; 128 :575–584. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blue Flag. 2019. https://www.blueflag.global/
• Boerger C., Lattin G., Moore S.L., Moore C.J. Plastic ingestion by planktivorous fishes in the north pacific central gyre. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2010; 60 (12):2275–2278. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X10003814 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• British Columbia recycling regulation amendment. May 2011. http://productstewardship.net/legislation/british-columbia/british-columbia-2004-recycling-regulation
• Browne M.A., Crump P., Niven S.J., Teuten E., Tonkin A., Galloway T.S., Thompson R.C. Accumulation of microplastic on shorelines worldwide: sources and sinks. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011; 45 :9175–9179. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21894925 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Browne M.A., Dissanayake A., Galloway T.S., Lowe D.M., Thompson R.C. Ingested microscopic plastic translocates to the circulatory system of the mussel, Mytilus edulis (L.) Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008; 42 :5026–5031. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18678044 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Browne M.A., Galloway T., Thompson R. Microplastic – an emerging contaminant of potential concern? Integrated Environ. Assess. Manag. 2007; 3 :559–561. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18046805 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Browne M.A., Galloway T.S., Thompson R.C. Spatial patterns of plastic debris along estuarine shorelines. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010; 44 :3404–3409. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Browne M.A., Underwood A.J., Chapman M.G., Williams R., Thompson R.C., van Franeker J.A. Linking effects of anthropogenic debris to ecological impacts. Proc. R. Soc. B. 2015; 282 :20142929. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carvalho D.G., Baptista Neto J.A. Microplastic pollution of the beaches of guanabara bay, Southeast Brazil. Ocean Coast Manag. 2016; 128 :10–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen C.L. Regulation and management of marine litter. In: Bergmann M., Gutow L., Klages M., editors. Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer International Publishing; Cham: 2015. pp. 395–428. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheung P.K., Hung P.L., Fok L. River microplastic contamination and dynamics upon a rainfall event in Hong Kong, China. Environ. Process. 2019; 6 :253–264. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40710-018-0345-0 [ Google Scholar ]
• Chiappone M., White A., Swanson D.W., Miller S.L. Occurrence and biological impacts of fishing gear and other marine debris in the Florida Keys. Mar. Poll. Bull. 2002; 44 (7):597–604. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chiappone M., Dienes H., Swanson D.W., Miller S.L. Impacts of lost fishing gear on coral reef sessile invertebrates in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Biol. Conserv. 2005; 121 :221–230. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632070400196X?via%3Dihub [ Google Scholar ]
• Carson H., Colbert S., Kaylor M., McDermid K. Small plastic debris changes water movement and heat transfer through beach sediments. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011; 62 :1708–1713. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X11003079 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• CEA . 2017. Central Environmental Authority - Sri Lanka. http://www.cea.lk/web/en/acts-regulations (Accessed: 08/06/2019) [ Google Scholar ]
• CIESM . In: Marine Litter in the Mediterranean and Black Seas. CIESM Workshop Monograph N° 46. Briand F., editor. CIESM Publisher; Monaco: 2014. p. 180. http://www.ciesm.org/online/monographs/Tirana.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Claessens M., De Meester S., Landuyt L.V., Clerck K.D., Janssen C.R. Occurrence and distribution of microplastics in marine sediments along the Belgian coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011; 62 (10):2199–2204. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21802098 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole M., Lindeque P., Fileman E., Halsband C., Goodhead R., Moger J., Galloway T.S. Microplastic ingestion by zooplankton. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013; 47 :6646–6655. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23692270 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole M., Lindeque P., Halsband C., Galloway T.S. Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011; 62 :2588–2597. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22001295 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole M., Webb H., Lindeque P.K., Fileman E.S., Halsband C., Galloway T.S. Isolation of microplastics in biota-rich sea water samples and marine organisms. Sci. Rep. 2014; 4 :4528. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep04528 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Collignon A., Hecq J.H., Galgani F., Voisin P., Collard F., Goffart A. Neustonic microplastic and zooplankton in the North western Mediterranean sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2012; 64 :861–864. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X12000343 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa M.F., Barletta M. Microplastics in coastal and marine environments of the western tropical and sub-tropical Atlantic Ocean. Environ. Sci.: Proces. Impacts. 2015; 17 :1868–1879. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa M.F., Barletta M. Special challenges in the conservation of fishes and aquatic environments of South America. J. Fish. Biol. 2016; 89 :4–11. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Costa M.F., Ivar do Sul J.A., Silva-Cavalcanti J.S. On the importance of size of plastic fragments and pellets on the strandline: a snapshot of a Brazilian beach. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2010; 168 :299–304. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cozar A., Echevarria F., Gonzalez-Gordillo J.I. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America Gland. Vol. 111. IUCN; Switzerland: 2014. Plastic debris in the open ocean: the characterization of marine plastics and their environmental impacts, situation analysis report; pp. 10239–10244. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dantas D.V., Barletta M., Costa M.F. The seasonal and spatial patterns of ingestion of polyfilament nylon fragments by estuarine drums (Sciaenidae) Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2012; 19 :600–606. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-011-0579-0 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Derraik J.G.B. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2002; 44 :842–852. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X02002205 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Devriese L.I., van der Meulen M.D., Maes T., Bekaert K., Paul-Pont I., Frere L., Robbens J., Vethaak A.D. Microplastic contamination in brownshrimp (Crangon crangon, Linnaeus 1758) from coastal waters of the southern North seaand channel area. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015; 98 :179–187. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26456303 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dlugosz M., Zmudzki P., Kwiecien A., Szczubialka K., Krzek J., Nowakowska M. Photo catalytic degradation of sulfamethaxazole in aqueous solution using a floating TiO 2 -expanded perlite photocatalyst. J. Hazard Mater. 2015; 298 :146–153. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Doyle M., Watson W., Bowlin N., Sheavly S. Plastic particles in coastal pelagic ecosystems of the Northeast Pacific ocean. Mar. Environ. Res. 2011; 71 :41–52. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21093039 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eriksen M., Lebreton L.C.M., Carson H.S. Plastic pollution in the world’s oceans: more than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing over 250,000 tons afloat at sea. PloS One. 2014; 9 (12) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• European Commission . European Commission; 2013. Draft Impact Assessment for a Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Amending Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and Packaging Waste to Reduce the Consumption of Lightweight Plastic Carrier Bags. https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2013/EN/1-2013-761-EN-F1-1.Pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• FAO, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department . Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Rome: 2016. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farrell P., Nelson K. Trophiclevel transfer ofmicroplastic: Mytilusedulis (L.) to Carcinusmaenas (L.) Environ. Pollut. 2013; 177 :1–3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23434827 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fendall L.S., Sewell M.A. Contributing to marine pollution by washing your face: microplastics in facial cleansers. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2009; 58 :1225–1228. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19481226 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galgani F., Fleet D., Franeker J.V., Katsanevakis S., Maes T., Mouat J., Oosterbaan L., Poitou I., Hanke G., Thompson R., Amato E., Birkun A., Janssen C. Taskgroup 10 report; 2010. marine litter. In: Zampoukas N., editor. Marine Strategy Framework Directive. JRC, IFREMER and ICES. 2010. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/pdf/9-Task-Group-10.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Gall S.C., Thompson R.C. The impact of debris on marine life. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015; 92 :1–2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25680883 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• GEF . 2012. Impactsof Marine Debris on Biodiversity: Current Status and Potential Solutions, Montreal, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel — Technical Series 2012, No. 67: 61. https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-67-en.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
• GEN . 2019. Global Ecolabelling Network (GEN) https://globalecolabelling.net/ (Accessedin 20/10/2019) [ Google Scholar ]
• GESAMP . Sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the marine environment: a global assessment. In: Kershaw P.J., editor. (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection) 2015. http://www.gesamp.org/publications/microplastics-in-the-marine-environment-part-2 Rep.Stud. GESAMP, 90. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilardi K., Carlson-Bremer D., June J., Antonelis K., Broadhurst G., Cowan T. Marine species mortality in derelict fishing nets in PugetSound, WA, and the cost/benefits of derelictnet removal. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2010; 690 :376–382. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20031176 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaucia P.O., Maria C.T.M., Cassiana C.M., Theodore B.H., Renato S.C. Microplastic contamination in surface waters in guanabara bay, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019; 139 :157–162. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X18308932?via%3Dihub [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldstein M.C., Carson H.S., Eriksen M. Relationship of diversity and habitat area in North Pacific plastic-associated rafting communities. Mar. Biol. 2014; 161 :1441–1453. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00227-014-2432-8 [ Google Scholar ]
• Goldstein M.C., Goodwin D.S. Gooseneck barnacles (Lepas spp.) ingestmicro-plastic debris in the north pacific subtropical gyre. Peer J. 2013; 1 :e184. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24167779 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Good T.P., June J.A., Etnier M.A., Broadhurst G. Derelict fishing nets in Puget Sound and the Northwest Straits: patterns and threats to marine fauna. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2010; 60 :39–50. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X09003713 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graca B., Szewc K., Zakrzewska D., Dołęga A., Szczerbowska-Boruchowska M. Sources and fate of microplastics in marine and beach sediments of the Southern Baltic Sea—a preliminary study. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017; 24 (8) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-017-8419-5 7650–7661. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gray J. Marine biodiversity: patterns, threats and conservation needs. Biodivers. Conserv. 1997; 6 :153–175. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018335901847 [ Google Scholar ]
• Gregory M.R. Plastic ‘scrubbers’ inhandcleansers: a further (andminor) source for marine pollution identified. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1996; 32 :867–871. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X96000471 [ Google Scholar ]
• Guo X., Wang J.L. The chemical behaviors of microplastics in marine environment: a review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019; 142 :1–14. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guo X., Liu Y., Wang J.L. Sorption of sulfamethazine onto different types of microplastics: a combined experimental and molecular dynamics simulation study. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019; 145 :547–554. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guo X., Chen C., Wang J.L. Sorption of sulfamethoxazole onto six types of microplastics. Chemosphere. 2019; 228 :300–308. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guo X., Wang J.L. The phenomenological mass transfer kinetics model for Sr 2+ sorption onto spheroids primary microplastics. Environ. Pollut. 2019; 250 :737–745. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hall N.M., Berry K.L.E., Rintoul L., Hoogenboom M.O. Microplastic ingestion by scleractinian corals. Mar. Biol. 2015; 162 :725–732. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00227-015-2619-7 [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartmann N.B., Huffer T., Thompson R.C., Hassellov M., Verschoor A., Daugaard A.E., Rist S., Karlsson T., Brennholt N., Cole M., Herrling M.T., Hess M.C., Ivleva N.P., Lusher A.L., Wagner M. Are we speaking the same language? Recommendations for a definition and categorization framework for plastic debris. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019; 53 :4678–4679. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hirai H., Takada H., Ogata Y., Yamashita R., Mizukawa K., Saha M., Kwan C., Moore C., Gray H., Laursen D., Zettler E., Farrington J., Reddy C., Peacock E., Ward M. Organic micropollutants in marine plastics debris from the open ocean and remote and urban beaches. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011; 62 :1683–1692. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X1100316X [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoa P.T.P., Managaki S., Nakada N., Takada H., Shimizu A., Anh D.H., Viet P.H., Suzuki S. Antibiotic contamination and occurrence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in aquatic environments of northern Vietnam. Sci. Total Environ. 2011; 409 (15):2894–2901. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hong S., Jongm Y.L., Yong C.J., Young J.K., Hee J.K., Donguk H., Sang H.H., Daeseok K., Won J.S. Impacts of marine debris on wild animals in the coastal area of Korea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013; 66 :117–124. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23199729 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hossaina M.S., Shajjadur M.R., Mohammad N.U., Sharifuzzaman S.M., Sayedur R.C., Subrata S., Shah M.N.C. Vol. 238. 2019. Microplastic contamination in Penaeid shrimp from the northern bay of bengal; p. 124688. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31524623 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• IUCN . 2018. International union for conservation of nature. https://www.iucn.org/asia/countries/sri-lanka/development-policy-strategies-and-national-action-plan-marine-protection-sri-lanka Available from: [verified: 08/06/2018] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• IUCN International union for conservation of nature. 2020. https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/marine-plastics Available from: [ PubMed ]
• Ivar do Sula J.A., Costa M.F., Barletta M., Cysneiros F.J.A. Pelagic microplastics around anarchipelago of the Equatorial Atlantic. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013; 75 (1–2):305–309. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jabeen K., Su L., Li J., Yang D., Tong C., Mu J., Shi H. Microplastics and mesoplastics in fish from coastal and fresh waters of China. Environ. Pollut. 2017; 221 :141–149. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnston E.L., Roberts D.A. Review Contaminants reduce the richness and evenness of marine communities: a review and meta-analysis. Environ. Pollut. 2009; 157 (6):1745–1752. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lakshmi A., Rajagopalan R. Socio-economic implications of coastal zone degradation and their mitigation: a case study from coastal villages in India. Ocean Coast Manag. 2000; 43 (8–9):749–762. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lattin G.L., Moore C.J., Zellers A.F., Moore S.L., Weisberg S.B. A comparison of neustonic plastic and zooplankton at different depths near the southern California shore. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2004; 49 :291–294. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X04000402 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Law K.L. Plastics in the marine environment. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 2017; 9 :205–229. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Law K., Morét-Ferguson S., Maximenko N., Proskurowski G., Peacock E., Hafner J., Reddy C. Plastic accumulation in the north atlantic subtropical gyre. Science. 2010; 329 :1185–1188. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20724586 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leslie H.A., Brandsma S.H., van Velzen M.J.M., Vethaak A.D. Microplastics enroute: field measurements in the Dutch river delta and Amsterdam canals, wastewater treatment plants, North Seasediments and biota. Environ. Int. 2017; 101 :133–142. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28143645 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lima A.R.A., Barletta M., Costa M.F., Ramos J.A.A., Dantas D.V., Melo P.A.M.C., Justino A.K.S., Ferreira G.V.B. Changes in the composition of ichthyoplankton assemblage and plastic debris in mangrove creeks relative to moon phases. J. Fish. Biol. 2016; 89 :619–640. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lima A.R.A., Costa M.F., Barletta M. Distribution patterns of microplastics withinthe plankton of a tropical estuary. Environ. Res. 2014; 132 :146–155. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lithner D., Larsson A., Dave G. Environmental and health hazard ranking and assessment of plasticpolymers based on chemicalcomposition. Sci. Total Environ. 2011; 409 :3309–3324. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21663944 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lusher A., McHugh M., Thompson R. Occurrence of microplastics in the gastrointestinal tract of pelagic and demersal fish from the English Channel. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013; 67 :94–99. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23273934 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin J., Lusher A., Thompson R.C., Morley A. The deposition and accumulation of microplastics in marine sediments and bottom water from the Irish continental shelf. Sci. Rep. 2017; 7 :10772. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-11079-2 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McKinley A., Johnston E.L. Impacts of contaminant sources on marine fish abundance and species richness: a review and meta-analysis of evidence from the field. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2010; 420 :175–191. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore C.J. Synthetic polymers in the marine environment: a rapidly increasing, long-termthreat. Environ. Res. 2008; 108 :131–139. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393510800159X [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore C.J., Lattin G.L., Zellers A.F. The Plastic Debris Rivers to Sea Conference, September. Redondo Beach, California, USA. 2005. 2005. Density of plastic particles found in zooplankton trawls from coastal waters of California to the north pacific central gyre (2004) http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.565.1613 [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore C.J., Moore S.L., Leecaster M.K., Weisberg S.B. A comparison of plastic and plankton in the north pacific central gyre. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2001; 42 (12):1297–1300. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X0100114X [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore C.J., Moore S.L., Weisberg S.B., Lattin G.L., Zellers A.F. A comparison of neustonic plastic and zooplankton abundance in southern California’s coastal waters. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2002; 44 :1035–1038. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X02001509 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mudgal S., Muehmel K., Hoa E., Gremont M., Labouze E. DG Environment – European Commission; 2012. Final Report - Options to Improve the Biodegradable Requirements in the Packaging Directive. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/packaging/pdf/options_to_improve_biodegradability_in_ppwd_2012.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Murray F., Cowie P.R. Plastic contamination in the decapod crustacean Nephrops norvegicus (Linnaeus, 1758) Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011; 62 :6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X11001755?via=3Dihub 1207–1217. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nash A. Impacts of marine debris on subsistence fishermen an exploratory study. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1992; 24 :150–156. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0025326X9290243Y [ Google Scholar ]
• Nerland I.L., Halsband C., Allan I., Thomas K.V. Norwegian Institute for Water Research; 2014. Microplastics in marine Environments: Occurrence, Distribution and Effects. Kristians and. [ Google Scholar ]
• Neves D., Sobral P., Ferreira J.L., Pereira T. Ingestion of microplastics by commercial fish off the Portuguese coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015; 101 :119–126. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ng K.L., Obbard J.P. Prevalence of microplastics in Singapore's coastal marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2006; 52 :761–767. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X05005357 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ntihuga J.N. 2006. Biosensor to Detect Heavy Metals in Waste Water in Proceedings from the International Conference on Advances in Engineering and Technology. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nualphan . Chulalongkorn University; Thailand: 2013. Types and Sources of Marine Debris in BangSaen Beach. Chonburi Province, Master Thesis. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Brine T., Thompson R.C. Degradation of plastic carrier bags in the marine environment. Mar. Poll. Bull. 2010; 60 (12):2279–2283. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oehlmann J., Schulte-Oehlmann U., Kloas W., Jagnytsch O., Lutz I., Kusk K., Wollenberger L., Santos E., Paull G., Van Look K., Tyler C. A critical analysis of the biological impacts of plasticizers on wildlife. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2009; 364 :2047–2062. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19528055 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pace R., Dimech M., Camilleri M. Rapport Commission International pour l’ exploration scientifique de la MerMediterranee. Vol. 38. 2007. Litter as a source of habitat islands on deep water muddy bottoms; p. 567. https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/21502 [ Google Scholar ]
• Patel M.M., Goyal B.R., Bhadada S.V., Bhatt J.S., Amin A.F. Getting into the brain: approaches to enhance brain drug delivery. CNS Drugs. 2009; 23 :35–58. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19062774 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pazos R.S., Bauer D.E., Gomez N. Microplastics integrating the coastal planktonic community in the inner zone of Río de la Plata estuary (South America) Environ. Pollut. 2018; 243 :134–142. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters C.A., Bratton S.P. Urbanization is a major influence on microplastic ingestion by sunfish in the Brazos River Basin, Central Texas, USA. Environ. Pollut. 2016; 210 :380–387. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Possatto F.E., Barletta M., Costa M.F., Ivar do Sul J.A., Dantas D.V. Plastic debris ingestion by marine catfish: an unexpected fisheries impact. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011; 62 :1098–1102. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Praboda, M.W.K., Wijethunga, H.N.S., Silva, A.P.R., Gayathry, D. L., Abeygunawardana, A.P., Senevirathna, J.D.M., Thushari, G.G.N., 2020a. Screening of Plastic Pollution Effects in Madu-ganga Estuarine Ecosystem in Southern Province, Sri Lanka: An Approach toward the Coastal Zone Management, Proceedings of International Research Conference - IRCUWU2020.
• Praboda, M.W.K., Egodauyana, K.P.U.T., Wijethunga, H.N.S., Abeygunawardana, A.P., Senevirathna, J.D.M., Thushari, G.G.N., 2020b, Occurrence of Microplastics in Gut and Muscles of Commerson's Anchovy in Madu-Ganga Estuary of Southern Province, Sri Lanka. Proceedings of International Research Conference - IRCUWU2020.
• Pruter A.T. Sources, quantities and distribution of persistent plastics in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1987; 18 :305–310. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X87800164 [ Google Scholar ]
• Reddy M.T., Natarajan S., Venkateswaran K., Someswara R.P., Neelam S., Nilamani D. Classification, characterization and comparison of aquatic ecosystems in the landscape of adilabad district, Telangana,DeccanRegion, India. OALib J. 2018; 5 :e4459. https://www.scirp.org/html/83843_83843.htm [ Google Scholar ]
• Richmond R. Coral reefs: present problems and future concerns resulting from anthropogenic disturbance. Integr. Comp. Biol. 2015; 33 (6):524–536. https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/33/6/524/2107143 [ Google Scholar ]
• Rios L., Jones P., Moore C., Narayan U. Quantitation of persistent organic pollutants adsorbed on plastic debris from the Northern Pacific Gyre’s “easterngarbagepatch” J. Environ. Monit. 2010; 12 :2226–2236. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2010/EM/C0EM00239A"∖l"!divAbstract. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosevelt C., Los Huertos M., Garza C., Nevins H.M. Marine debris in central California: quantifying type and abundance of beach litter in Monterey Bay, CA. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2013; 71 :299–306. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan P.G., Moore C.J., van Franeker J.A., Moloney C.L. Monitoring the abundance of plastic debris in the marine environment. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2009; 364 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19528052 1999–2012. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slater F.M. Ecotones, ecoclines and eco-perturbations: the aquatic flora and fauna of the S'Albufera Natural Park, Majorca, a contribution and review. Mediterr. J. Biosci. 2016; 1 :120–127. [ Google Scholar ]
• STAP . A STAP Information Document. Global Environment Facility; Washington, DC: 2011. Marine debris as a global environmental problem: introducing a solutions-based frame work focused on plastic; p. 40. http://www.stapgef.org/sites/default/files/stap/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Marine-Debris.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Storm C., van der Velden J.A., Kuijpers J.W.M. From nature conservation towards restoration of estuarine dynamics in the heavily modified Rhine-Meuse estuary, The Netherlands. Arch. Hydrobiol. 2005; 155 :305–318. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tahir A., Taba P., Samawi M.F., Werorilangi S. Microplastics in water, sediment and salts from traditional salt producing ponds. Global J. Environ. Sci. Manage. 2018; 5 (4):431–440. https://www.gjesm.net/article_36408.html [ Google Scholar ]
• Ten B.P., Lutchman I., Bassi S., Speck S., Sheavly S., Register K., Woolaway C. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP); Brussels: 2009. Guidelines on the Use of Market-Based Instruments to Address the Problem of Marine Litter. https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/2435 [ Google Scholar ]
• Teuten E., Saquing J., Knappe D., Barlaz M., Jonsson S., Bjorn A., Rowland S., Thompson R., Galloway T., Yamashita R., Ochi D., Watanuki Y., Moore C., Viet P., Tana T., Prudente M., Boonyatumanond R., Zakaria M., Akkhavong K., Ogata Y., Hirai H., Iwasa S., Mizukawa K., Hagino Y., Imamura A., Saha M., Takada S. Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2009; 364 :2027–2045. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19528054 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• The world map 2020. https://www.cosmographics.co.uk/Educational-Resources/Free-Outline-Map-Of-The-World.html
• Thevenon F., Carroll C., Sousa J. 2014. Plastic Debris in the Ocean: the Characterization of Marine Plastics and Their Environmental Impacts, Situation Analysis Report. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/44966 Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thiel M., Luna-Jorquera G., Álvarez-Varas R., Gallardo C., Hinojosa I.A., Luna N., Miranda-Urbina D., Morales N., Ory N., Pacheco A.S., Portflitt-Toro M., Zavalaga C. Impacts of marine plastic pollution from continental coasts to subtropical gyres—fish, seabirds, and other vertebrates in the SE pacific. Front. Mar. Sci. 2018; 5 :238. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson R., Moore C., Andrady A., Gregory M., Takada H., Weisberg S. New directions in plastic debris. Science. 2005; 310 :1117. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/310/5751/1117b [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson R., Moore C., vomSaal F., Swan S. Plastics, the environment and human health: current consensus and future trends. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2009; 364 :2153–2166. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2873021/ [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson R.C., Olsen Y., Mitchell R.P., Davis A., Rowland S.J., John A.W.G., McGonigle D., Russell A.E. Lost at sea: where is all the plastic? Science. 2004; 304 :5672–5838. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/304/5672/838 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thushari G.G.N., Senevirathna J.D.M., Yakupitiyage A., Chavanich S. Effects of microplastics on sessile invertebrates in the eastern coast of Thailand: an approach to coastal zone conservation. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017; 124 :349–355. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28760587 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thushari G.G.N., Suchana C., Amararatne Y. Coastal debris analysis in beaches of Chonburi Province, eastern of Thailand as implications for coastal conservation. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017; 116 :121–129. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X16310608 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Townsend A.K., Barker C.M. Plastic and the nest entanglement of urban and agricultural crows. PloS One. 2014; 9 (1) [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• UNEP . Vol. 47. UNEP: United Nations EnvironmentProgramme; Kenya: 2005. http://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/8348 (Marine Litter an Analytical Overview). [ Google Scholar ]
• UNEP . UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme; Nairobi: 2009. Marine Litter: A Global challenge; p. 232. http://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/7787 [ Google Scholar ]
• UNEP . United Nations Environment Programme; UNEP: 2011. Towards a Green Economy: Part II Waste, Investing in Energy and Resources Efficiency; p. 632. http://all62.jp/ecoacademy/images/15/green_economy_report.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• UNEP . Vol. 104. UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme; 2018. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/25496/singleUsePlastic_sustainability.pdf (SINGLE-USE PLASTICS: A Roadmap for Sustainability). [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Cauwenberghe L., Claessens M., Vandegehuchte M.B., Janssen C.R. Microplastics are takenupbymussels ( Mytilusedulis ) andlugworms (Arenicola marina) living in natural habitats. Environ. Pollut. 2015; 199 :10–17. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25617854 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vendel A.L., Bessa F., Alves V.E.N., Amorim A.L.A., Patrício J., Palma A.R.T. Wide-spread microplastic ingestion by fish assemblages in tropical estuaries subjected to anthropogenic pressures. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017; 117 :448–455. https://europepmc.org/article/med/28214011 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Von Moos N., Burkhardt-Holm P., Koehler A. Uptake and effects of microplastics on cells and tissues of the blue mussel Mytilus edulis L. after experimental exposure. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012; 46 :11327–11335. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22963286 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner J., Wang Z.M., Ghosal S., Rochman C., Gasseld M., Walla S. Novelmethod for the extract ion and identification of microplastics in ocean trawl and fish gut matrices. Anal. Methods. 2017; 9 :1479–1490. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/ay/c6ay02396g [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang J., Zheng L., Li J. A critical review on the sources and instruments of marine microplastics and prospects on the relevant management in China. Waste Manag. Res. 2018; 36 (10):898–911. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward J.E., Shumway S.E. Separating the grain from the chaff: particles election insuspension- and deposit-feeding bivalves. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2004; 300 :83–130. https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/separating-the-grain-from-the-chaff-particle-selection-in-suspension-0Zkp0JuEZ6 [ Google Scholar ]
• Webb H.K., Arnott J., Crawford R.J., Ivanova E.P. Plastic degradation and its environmental implications with special reference to poly (ethyleneterephtalate) Polymers. 2013; 5 :1–18. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/5/1/1 [ Google Scholar ]
• Wessel C.C., Lockridge G.R., Battiste D., Cebrian J. Abundance and characteristics of microplastics in beach sediments: insights into microplastic accumulation in northern Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016; 109 :178–183. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wijethunga H.N.S., Athawuda A.M.G.A.D., Dias P.C.B., Abeygunawardana A.P., Senevirathna J.D.M., Thushari G.G.N., Liyanage N.P.P., Jayamanne S.C. Proceedings of International Research Conference of Uva Wellassa University. 2019. Screening the Effects of Microplastics on Selected Invertebrates along Southern Coastal belt in Sri Lanka: A Preliminary Approach to Coastal Pollution Control. [ Google Scholar ]
• Woodall L.C., Sanchez-Vidal A., Canals M., Paterson G.L.J., Rachel C., Victoria S., Antonio C., Rogers A.D., Narayanaswamy B.E., Thompson R.C. The deep sea is a major sink for microplastic debris. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2014; 1 :140317. https://scinapse.io/papers/2011923115 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wright S.L., Thompson R.C., Galloway T.S. The physical impact of micro-plastics on marine organisms: a review. Environ. Pollut. 2013; 178 :483–492. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749113001140 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zarfl C., Fleet D., Fries E., Galgani F., Gerdts G., Hanke G., Matthies M. Microplastics in oceans. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2011; 62 :1589–1591. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21440270 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zettler E.R., Mincer T.J., Amaral-Zettler L.A. Life in the “Plastisphere”: microbial communities on plastic marine debris. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013; 47 :7137–7146. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23745679 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zitko V., Hanlon M. Another source of pollution by plastics: skin cleansers with plastics crubbers. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 1991; 22 :41–42. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0025326X9190444W?via%3Dihub [ Google Scholar ]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Does marine environmental research meet the challenges of marine pollution induced by the COVID-19 pandemic? Comparison analysis before and during the pandemic based on bibliometrics

Affiliations.

• 1 School of Economics and Management, China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao 266580, People's Republic of China; Institute of Carbon Neutrality Economics and Energy Management, School of Economics and Management, Xinjiang University, Urumqi, Xinjiang 830046, People's Republic of China; Institute for Energy Economics and Policy, China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao 266580, People's Republic of China. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 2 School of Economics and Management, China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao 266580, People's Republic of China; Institute for Energy Economics and Policy, China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao 266580, People's Republic of China.
• 3 School of Economics and Management, China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao 266580, People's Republic of China; Institute of Carbon Neutrality Economics and Energy Management, School of Economics and Management, Xinjiang University, Urumqi, Xinjiang 830046, People's Republic of China; Institute for Energy Economics and Policy, China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao 266580, People's Republic of China. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 4 Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.
• PMID: 36057155
• PMCID: PMC9376348
• DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114046

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has brought enormous challenges to the global marine environment. Various responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have led to increased marine pollution. Has the COVID-19 pandemic affected marine pollution research? This work comprehensively reviewed marine pollution publications in the Web of Science database before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results show that the COVID-19 outbreak has influenced the marine pollution research by: (i) increasing the number of publications; (ii) reshaping different countries' roles in marine pollution research; (iii) altering the hotspots of marine pollution research. The ranking of countries with high productivity in the marine pollution research field changed, and developed economies are the dominant players both before and after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in this field. Other high-productivity countries, with the exception of China, have higher international cooperation rates in marine pollution research than those before the pandemic. Microplastic pollution has been the biggest challenge of marine pollution and has been aexplored in greater depth during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, the mining results of marine pollution publications show the mitigation of plastic pollution in the marine environment remains the main content requires future research. Finally, this paper puts forward corresponding suggestions for the reference of researchers and practitioners to improve the global ability to respond to the challenges posed by the pandemic to the marine environment.

Keywords: International cooperation; Microplastic; Ocean pollution; Pandemic; Scientific research; Visual analysis.

Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Graphical abstract

Workflow of the system analysis.

Annual number and annual growth…

Annual number and annual growth of publications in marine pollution research (2010−2021).

Geographical distribution of marine pollution…

Geographical distribution of marine pollution publications, (a) Annual number of publications (2010–2019); (b)…

The international cooperation rates during…

The international cooperation rates during 2010–2019, 2015–2019 and 2020–2021.

The cooperation graph of 10…

The cooperation graph of 10 highly productive countries during 2010–2019, 2015–2019 and 2020–2021.

Keyword clustering network graph during…

Keyword clustering network graph during 2018–2019 (left) and 2020–2021 (right).

Similar articles

• The COVID-19 pandemic reshapes the plastic pollution research - A comparative analysis of plastic pollution research before and during the pandemic. Wang Q, Zhang M, Li R. Wang Q, et al. Environ Res. 2022 May 15;208:112634. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.112634. Epub 2021 Dec 29. Environ Res. 2022. PMID: 34973197 Free PMC article.
• Effects of COVID-19 on coastal and marine environments: Aggravated microplastic pollution, improved air quality, and future perspective. Han Y, Gu X, Lin C, He M, Wang Y. Han Y, et al. Chemosphere. 2024 May;355:141900. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.141900. Epub 2024 Apr 3. Chemosphere. 2024. PMID: 38579953 Review.
• Current patterns and trends of microplastic pollution in the marine environment: A bibliometric analysis. Mishra M, Sudarsan D, Santos CAG, da Silva RM, Beja SK, Paul S, Bhanja P, Sethy M. Mishra M, et al. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2024 Mar;31(15):22925-22944. doi: 10.1007/s11356-024-32511-x. Epub 2024 Feb 28. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2024. PMID: 38416357
• Plastic pollution induced by the COVID-19: Environmental challenges and outlook. Wang Q, Zhang C, Li R. Wang Q, et al. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2023 Mar;30(14):40405-40426. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-24901-w. Epub 2023 Jan 7. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2023. PMID: 36609754 Free PMC article.
• The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on air pollution: a global research framework, challenges, and future perspectives. Mehmood K, Mushtaq S, Bao Y, Saifullah, Bibi S, Yaseen M, Khan MA, Abrar MM, Ulhassan Z, Fahad S, Petropoulos GP. Mehmood K, et al. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2022 Jul;29(35):52618-52634. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-19484-5. Epub 2022 Mar 9. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2022. PMID: 35262893 Free PMC article. Review.
• Evidence from China's shipping sector on the impact of fiscal measures in enabling a low-carbon economic transition. Wu W, Zhao M, Ji Z, Haroon M. Wu W, et al. Heliyon. 2024 Apr 24;10(9):e30147. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30147. eCollection 2024 May 15. Heliyon. 2024. PMID: 38756613 Free PMC article.
• Assessing energy consumption and economic growth interrelations in Asia-Pacific: A multivariate approach with panel FMOLS and bootstrap Granger causality tests. Xinjian Z. Xinjian Z. Heliyon. 2024 Apr 25;10(9):e30146. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30146. eCollection 2024 May 15. Heliyon. 2024. PMID: 38726151 Free PMC article.
• Akhbarizadeh R., Dobaradaran S., Nabipour I., Tangestani M., Abedi D., Javanfekr F., Jeddi F., Zendehboodi A. Abandoned COVID-19 personal protective equipment along the Bushehr shores, the Persian Gulf: an emerging source of secondary microplastics in coastlines. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021;168 - PMC - PubMed
• Alimba C.G., Faggio C. Microplastics in the marine environment: current trends in environmental pollution and mechanisms of toxicological profile. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2019;68:61–74. - PubMed
• Ammendolia J., Walker T.R. Citizen science: a way forward in tackling the plastic pollution crisis during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Sci. Total Environ. 2022;805 - PMC - PubMed
• Archambault E., Vignola-Gagne E., Cote G., Lariviere V., Gingras Y. Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: the limits of existing databases. Scientometrics. 2006;68:329–342.
• Ardusso M., Forero-López A.D., Buzzi N.S., Spetter C.V., Fernández-Severini M.D. COVID-19 pandemic repercussions on plastic and antiviral polymeric textile causing pollution on beaches and coasts of South America. Sci. Total Environ. 2021;763 - PMC - PubMed
• Search in MeSH

Related information

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

• Elsevier Science
• Europe PubMed Central
• PubMed Central
• MedlinePlus Health Information
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Global trends and prospects of community participation in marine protected areas: a bibliometric analysis.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. source of data, 2.2. data analysis, 3.1. temporal and spatial distribution of literature releases, 3.2. publication characteristics, 3.3. visualization analysis of research hotspots and theme evolution.

4. Discussion

4.1. research method application.

4.2. Key Lessons from Community Participation Cases

4.3. the effect of community participation in mpas, 4.4. future research prospects, 5. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest, abbreviations.

• Harker, A.L.; Stojanovic, T.A.; Majalia, A.M.; Jackson, C.; Baya, S.; Tsiganyiu, K.D. Relationships between Livelihoods, Well-Being, and Marine Protected Areas: Evidence from a Community Survey, Watamu Marine National Park and Reserve, Kenya. Coast. Manag. 2022 , 50 , 490–513. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abdurrahim, A.Y.; Adhuri, D.S.; Ross, H.; Phelan, A. Community champions of ecosystem services: The role of local agency in protecting Indonesian coral reefs. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2022 , 10 , 868218. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Boncheva, A.I.; Hernandez-Morales, P. Impacts of Climate Change in the El Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve (REBIVI): Challenges for Coastal Communities and the Conservation of Biodiversity. Diversity 2022 , 14 , 786. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vella, P.; Bowen, R.E.; Frankic, A. An evolving protocol to identify key stakeholder-influenced indicators of coastal change: The case of Marine Protected Areas. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2009 , 66 , 203–213. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Palomo, L.E.; Hernández-Flores, A. Application of the Ostrom framework in the analysis of a social-ecological system with multiple resources in a marine protected area. PeerJ 2019 , 7 , e7374. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Osuka, K.; Rosendo, S.; Riddell, M.; Huet, J.; Daide, M.; Chauque, E.; Samoilys, M. Applying a Social-Ecological Systems Approach to Understanding Local Marine Management Trajectories in Northern Mozambique. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 3904. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Elliott, G.; Mitchell, B.; Wiltshire, B.; Manan, I.A.; Wismer, S. Community participation in marine protected area management: Wakatobi National Park, Sulawesi, Indonesia. Coast. Manag. 2001 , 29 , 295–316. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marques, A.S.; Ramos, T.B.; Caeiro, S.; Costa, M.H. Adaptive-participative sustainability indicators in marine protected are-as: Design and communication. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2013 , 72 , 36–45. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Day, J.C. Effective Public Participation is Fundamental for Marine Conservation-Lessons from a Large-Scale MPA. Coast. Manag. 2017 , 45 , 470–486. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO). Public Participation in Government Decision-Making: Better Practice Guide. 23. 2015. Available online: https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/report/public-participation-government-decision-making-better-practice-guide (accessed on 12 July 2024).
• Tissot, B.N.; Walsh, W.J.; Hixon, M.A. Hawaiian Islands Marine Ecosystem Case Study: Ecosystem- and Community-Based Management in Hawaii. Coast Manag. 2009 , 37 , 255–273. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Horvat, K.P.; Gasperic, P.; Leban, K.; Ticar, J.; Smrekar, A. Participatory Approach to Wetland Governance: The Case of The Memorandum of Understanding of the Secovlje Salina Nature Park. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 9920. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Granek, E.F.; Brown, M.A. Co-management approach to marine conservation in Moheli, Comoros Islands. Conserv. Biol. 2005 , 19 , 1724–1732. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Oliveira, J.G.C.; Campos-Silva, J.V.; Ladle, R.J.; Batista, V.D. Linking social organization, attitudes, and stakeholder empowerment in MPA governance. Mar. Policy 2021 , 130 , 104543. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rosendo, S.; Brown, K.; Joubert, A.; Jiddawi, N.; Mechisso, M. A clash of values and approaches: A case study of marine protected area planning in Mozambique. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2011 , 54 , 55–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Espectato, L.N.; Monteclaro, H.M.; Arceo, H.O.; Catedrilla, L.C.; Baylon, C.C. Community perceptions on the role of inter-local government units alliance in coastal resource management: The case of Banate Bay alliance in Iloilo, Philippines. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2022 , 219 , 106059. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Begossi, A.; May, P.H.; Lopes, P.F.; Oliveira, L.E.C.; da Vinha, V.; Silvano, R.A.M. Compensation for environmental services from artisanal fisheries in SE Brazil: Policy and technical strategies. Ecol. Econ. 2011 , 71 , 25–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Trimble, M.; de Araujo, L.G.; Seixas, C.S. One party does not tango! Fishers’ non-participation as a barrier to co-management in Paraty, Brazil. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2014 , 92 , 9–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peer, N.; Muhl, E.K.; Janna, J.; Brown, M.; Zukulu, S.; Mbatha, P. Community and Marine Conservation in South Africa: Are We Still Missing the Mark? Front. Mar. Sci. 2022 , 9 , 884442. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Turicchia, E.; Cerrano, C.; Ghetta, M.; Abbiati, M.; Ponti, M. MedSens index: The bridge between marine citizen science and coastal management. Ecol. Indic. 2021 , 122 , 107296. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cheung, S.Y.; Leung, Y.F.; Larson, L.R. Citizen science as a tool for enhancing recreation research in protected areas: Applications and opportunities. J. Environ. Manag. 2022 , 305 , 114353. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Joly, C.A. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Biota Neotrop. 2022 , 22 , e2022e001. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fajardo, P.; Beauchesne, D.; Carbajal-López, A.; Daigle, R.M.; Fierro-Arcos, L.D.; Goldsmit, J.; Zajderman, S.; Valdez-Hernández, J.I.; Maigua, M.Y.T.; Christofoletti, R.A. Aichi Target 18 beyond 2020: Mainstreaming Traditional Biodiversity Knowledge in the conservation and sustainable use of marine and coastal ecosystems. PeerJ 2021 , 9 , e9616. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Weeks, R.; Jupiter, S.D. Adaptive Comanagement of a Marine Protected Area Network in Fiji. Conserv. Biol. 2013 , 27 , 1234–1244. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Olaya-Restrepo, J.; Schiavetti, A.; Barbeitos, M.S. A multilayered network analysis of social participation in the management of Marine Protected Areas in Brazil. Mar. Policy 2022 , 146 , 105329. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tranter, S.N.; Estradivari; Ahmadia, G.N.; Andradi-Brown, D.A.; Muenzel, D.; Agung, F.; Amkieltiela; Ford, A.K.; Habibi, A.; Handayani, C.N.; et al. The inclusion of fisheries and tourism in marine protected areas to support conservation in Indonesia. Mar. Policy 2022 , 146 , 105301. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rahman, M.K.; Masud, M.M.; Akhtar, R.; Hossain, M.M. Impact of community participation on sustainable development of marine protected areas: Assessment of ecotourism development. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2021 , 24 , 33–43. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Freitas, R.R.; Costa, R.C.; Alvite, C.M.D.; Balensiefer, D.C.; de Barros, C.R.D.B.; Prado, J.H. Challenges for fishers’ engagement in Marine Protected Areas: Lessons from Right Whale Environmental Protection Area, Southern Brazil. Mar. Policy 2022 , 143 , 105135. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Funk, L.; Wilson, A.M.W.; Gough, C.; Brayne, K.; Djerryh, N.R. Perceptions of access and benefits from community-based aquaculture through Photovoice: A case study within a locally managed marine area in Madagascar. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2022 , 222 , 106046. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Masud, M.M.; Shahabudin, S.M.; Baskaran, A.; Akhtar, R. Co-management approach to sustainable management of marine protected areas: The case of Malaysia. Mar. Policy 2022 , 138 , 105010. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Diggon, S.; Butler, C.; Heidt, A.; Bones, J.; Jones, R.; Outhet, C. The Marine Plan Partnership: Indigenous community-based marine spatial planning. Mar. Policy 2021 , 132 , 103510. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rice, W.S.; Sowman, M.R.; Bavinck, M. Informing a conservation policy-praxis disjuncture: A ‘commons’ perspective to tackling coastal-marine community-conserved area implementation in South Africa. Biol. Conserv. 2021 , 261 , 109296. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kleitou, P.; Rees, S.; Cecconi, F.; Kletou, D.; Savva, I.; Cai, L.L.; Hall-Spencer, J.M. Regular monitoring and targeted removals can control lionfish in Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2021 , 31 , 2870–2882. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miller, A.E.; Davenport, A.; Chen, S.; Hart, C.; Gary, D.; Fitzpatrick, B.; Muflihati; Kartikawati; Sudaryanti; Sagita, N. Using a participatory impact assessment framework to evaluate a community-led mangrove and fisheries conservation approach in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. People Nat. 2020 , 2 , 1061–1074. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Katikiro, R.E.; Macusi, E.D.; Deepananda, K.H.M.A. Challenges facing local communities in Tanzania in realising locally-managed marine areas. Mar. Policy 2015 , 51 , 220–229. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Smallhorn-West, P.; Cohen, P.J.; Phillips, M.; Jupiter, S.D.; Govan, H.; Pressey, R.L. Linking small-scale fisheries co-management to UN Sustainable Development Goals. Conserv. Biol. 2022 , 36 , 6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• von der Porten, S.; Ota, Y.; Cisneros-Montemayor, A.; Pictou, S. The Role of Indigenous Resurgence in Marine Conservation. Coast. Manag. 2019 , 47 , 527–547. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ban, N.C.; Frid, A. Indigenous peoples’ rights and marine protected areas. Mar. Policy 2018 , 87 , 180–185. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jiang, L.; Yang, T.; Yu, J. Global trends and prospects of blue carbon sinks: A bibliometric analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022 , 29 , 65924–65939. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, J.; Weng, G.; Pan, Y.; Li, C.; Wang, N. A scientometric review of tourism carrying capacity research: Cooperation, hotspots, and prospect. J. Clean. Prod. 2021 , 325 , 129278. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lu, Z.; Li, W.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, S. Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research on Ecological Networks in Nature Conservation from 1990 to 2020. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 4925. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Picone, F.; Buonocore, E.; Chemello, R.; Russo, G.F.; Franzese, P.P. Exploring the development of scientific research on Marine Protected Areas: From conservation to global ocean sustainability. Ecol. Inf. 2021 , 61 , 101200. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thiault, L.; Collin, A.; Chlous, F.; Gelcich, S.; Claudet, J. Combining participatory and socioeconomic approaches to map fishing effort in small-scale fisheries. PLoS ONE 2017 , 12 , e0176862. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Twichell, J.; Pollnac, R.; Christie, P. Lessons from Philippines MPA Management: Social Ecological Interactions, Participation, and MPA Performance. Environ. Manag. 2018 , 61 , 916–927. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lopes, R.; Videira, N. A Collaborative Approach for Scoping Ecosystem Services with Stakeholders: The Case of Arrabida Natural Park. Environ. Manag. 2016 , 58 , 323–342. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amjad, A.; Siddiqui, P.J.A.; Ahmad, N.; Amir, S.A.; Masroor, R.; Shafique, S.; Burhan, Z.U.N. Ecology of Fish Communities in Coral Habitats Along the Coast of Pakistan: Potential Threats and Conservation Strategies. Pak. J. Zool. 2021 , 53 , 1341–1351. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Camargo, C.; Maldonado, J.H.; Alvarado, E.; Moreno-Sánchez, R.; Mendoza, S.; Manrique, N.; Mogollón, A.; Osorio, J.D.; Grajales, A.; Sánchez, J.A. Community involvement in management for maintaining coral reef resilience and biodiversity in southern Caribbean marine protected areas. Biodivers. Conserv. 2009 , 18 , 935–956. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Harvey, B.J.; Nash, K.L.; Blanchard, J.L.; Edwards, D.P. Ecosystem-based management of coral reefs under climate change. Ecol. Evol. 2018 , 8 , 6354–6368. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• D’agata, S.; Darling, E.S.; Gurney, G.G.; McClanahan, T.R.; Muthiga, N.A.; Rabearisoa, A.; Maina, J.M. Multiscale determinants of social adaptive capacity in small-scale fishing communities. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020 , 198 , 56–66. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wever, L.; Glaser, M.; Gorris, P.; Ferrol-Schulte, D. Decentralization and participation in integrated coastal management: Policy lessons from Brazil and Indonesia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2012 , 66 , 63–72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Quintana, A.C.E.; Giron-Nava, A.; Urmy, S.; Cramer, A.N.; Dominguez-Sanchez, S.; Dyck, S.R.; Aburto-Oropeza, O.; Basurto, X.; Weaver, A.H. Positive Social-Ecological Feedbacks in Community-Based Conservation. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021 , 8 , 652318. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ferse, S.C.A.; Costa, M.M.; Manez, K.S.; Adhuri, D.S.; Glaser, M. Allies, not aliens: Increasing the role of local communities in marine protected area implementation. Environ. Conserv. 2010 , 37 , 23–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Camacho, R.A.; Steneck, R.S. Creating a TURF from the bottom-up: Antigua’s community-based coral reef no-take reserve. Bull. Mar. Sci. 2017 , 93 , 217–232. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marriott, S.E.; Cox, C.; Amolo, R.C.; Apistar, D.; Mancao, R.H.; de Mutsert, K. Implications of Community-Based Management of Marine Reserves in the Philippines for Reef Fish Communities and Biodiversity. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021 , 8 , 731675. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Villasenor-Derbez, J.C.; Amador-Castro, I.G.; Hernandez-Velasco, A.; Torre, J.; Fulton, S. Two Decades of Community-Based Marine Conservation Provide the Foundations for Future Action. Front. Mar. Sci. 2022 , 9 , 893104. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ban, N.C.; Picard, C.R.; Vincent, A.C.J. Comparing and Integrating Community-Based and Science-Based Approaches to Prioritizing Marine Areas for Protection. Conserv. Biol. 2009 , 23 , 899–910. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alexander, S.M.; Epstein, G.; Bodin, O.; Armitage, D.; Campbell, D. Participation in planning and social networks increase social monitoring in community-based conservation. Conserv. Lett. 2018 , 11 , e12562. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Quintana, A.; Basurto, X.; Van Dyck, S.R.; Weaver, A.H. Political making of more-than-fishers through their involvement in ecological monitoring of protected areas. Biodivers. Conserv. 2020 , 29 , 3899–3923. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Russ, G.R.; Alcala, A.C. Management histories of Sumilon and Apo Marine Reserves, Philippines, and their influence on national marine resource policy. Coral Reefs 1999 , 18 , 307–319. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aswani, S.; Albert, S.; Sabetian, A.; Furusawa, T. Customary management as precautionary and adaptive principles for protecting coral reefs in Oceania. Coral Reefs 2007 , 26 , 1009–1021. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cinner, J.; Huchery, C. A Comparison of Social Outcomes Associated with Different Fisheries Co-Management Institutions. Conserv. Lett. 2014 , 7 , 224–232. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thaman, B.; Icely, J.D.; Fragoso, B.D.D.; Veitayaki, J. A comparison of rural community perceptions and involvement in conservation between the Fiji Islands and Southwestern Portugal. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2016 , 133 , 45–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hogg, K.; Noguera-Mendez, P.; Semitiel-Garcia, M.; Gray, T.; Young, S. Controversies over stakeholder participation in marine protected area (MPA) management: A case study of the Cabo de Palos-Islas Hormigas MPA. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2017 , 144 , 120–128. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• DiBattista, J.D.; West, K.M.; Hay, A.C.; Hughes, J.M.; Fowler, A.M.; McGrouther, M.A. Community-based citizen science projects can support the distributional monitoring of fishes. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2021 , 31 , 3580–3593. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Albasri, H.; Sammut, J. A Comparison of Vulnerability Risks and Conservation Perceptions between Mariculture, Fishery and Ecotourism Livelihood Groups in a Multi-Use MPA in Indonesia. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 12897. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lim, V.C.; Justine, E.V.; Yusof, K.; Ariffin, W.N.S.W.M.; Goh, H.C.; Fadzil, K.S. Eliciting local knowledge of ecosystem services using participatory mapping and Photovoice: A case study of Tun Mustapha Park, Malaysia. PLoS ONE 2021 , 16 , e0253740. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• White, A.T.; Vogt, H.P. Philippine coral reefs under threat: Lessons learned after 25 years of community-based reef conservation. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2000 , 40 , 537–550. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Levine, A.S.; Richmond, L.S. Examining Enabling Conditions for Community-Based Fisheries Comanagement: Comparing Efforts in Hawai’i and American Samoa. Ecol. Soc. 2014 , 19 , 24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Uychiaoco, A.J.; Arceo, H.O.; Green, S.J.; De la Cruz, M.T.; Gaite, P.A.; Aliño, P.M. Monitoring and evaluation of reef protected areas by local fishers in the Philippines: Tightening the adaptive management cycle. Biodivers. Conserv. 2005 , 14 , 2775–2794. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Syamsi, M.N.; Lee, J. A Longitudinal Study of the Local Community Perspective on Ecotourism Development in Lombok, Indonesia. Water 2021 , 13 , 2398. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Micheli, F.; Niccolini, F. Achieving Success under Pressure in the Conservation of Intensely Used Coastal Areas. Ecol. Soc. 2013 , 18 , 19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schmidt, R.; Le Corre, N.; Hughes, M.; Peuziat, I. The view from the inside: Institutional dimensions of public communication of two coastal and marine protected area networks in France. Coast Manag. 2020 , 48 , 210–231. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pollnac, R.; Seara, T. Factors Influencing Success of Marine Protected Areas in the Visayas, Philippines as Related to Increasing Protected Area Coverage. Environ. Manag. 2011 , 47 , 584–592. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Masud, M.M.; Aldakhil, A.M.; Nassani, A.A.; Azam, M.N. Community-based ecotourism management for sustainable development of marine protected areas in Malaysia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2016 , 136 , 104–112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pajaro, M.G.; Mulrennan, M.E.; Alder, J.; Vincent, A.C.J. Developing MPA Effectiveness Indicators: Comparison within and Across Stakeholder Groups and Communities. Coast. Manag. 2010 , 38 , 122–143. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Giglio, V.J.; Moura, R.L.; Gibran, F.Z.; Rossi, L.C.; Banzato, B.M.; Corsso, J.T.; Pereira-Filho, G.H.; Motta, F.S. Do managers and stakeholders have congruent perceptions on marine protected area management effectiveness? Ocean Coast. Manag. 2019 , 179 , 104865. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Casagrande, A.; Salvatore, R.; Rover, O.J.; Chiodo, E.; Fantini, A. Artisanal mollusc fisheries co-management in Brazil and Italy: Institutional innovations to address environmental crisis. J. Environ. Manag. 2021 , 291 , 112671. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• MacDougall, C.; Fudge, E. Planning and recruiting the sample for focus groups and in-depth interviews. Qual. Health Res. 2001 , 11 , 117–126. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fereday, J.; Muir-Cochrane, E. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2006 , 5 , 1–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kiger, M.E.; Varpio, L. Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Med. Teach. 2020 , 42 , 846–854. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Arslan, O.; Er, I.D. A SWOT analysis for successful bridge team organization and safer marine operations. Process Saf. Prog. 2007 , 27 , 21–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gao, C.Y.; Peng, D.H. Consolidating SWOT analysis with nonhomogeneous uncertain preference information. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2011 , 24 , 796–808. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Perea-Munoz, J.M.; Miles, A.; Bayle-Sempere, J.T. Sharing goals by timely communication improves fishermen’s satisfaction with marine protected areas: A case study in the Mediterranean. Ambio 2022 , 51 , 1520–1534. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, X.L.; Heringstad, B.; Gianola, D. Bayesian structural equation models for inferring relationships between phenotypes: A review of methodology, identifiability, and applications. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 2010 , 127 , 3–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hoshino, E.; van Putten, E.I.; Girsang, W.; Resosudarmo, B.P.; Yamazaki, S. Fishers’ Perceived Objectives of Community-Based Coastal Resource Management in the Kei Islands, Indonesia. Front. Mar. Sci. 2017 , 4 , 141. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Islam, G.M.N.; Tai, S.Y.; Kusairi, M.N.; Ahmad, S.; Aswani, F.M.N.; Senan, M.K.A.M.; Ahmad, A. Community perspectives of governance for effective management of marine protected areas in Malaysia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2017 , 135 , 34–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Venables, W.N.; Dichmont, C.M. GLMs, GAMs and GLMMs: An overview of theory for applications in fisheries research. Fish. Res. 2004 , 70 , 319–337. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guisan, A.; Edwards, T.C.; Hastie, T. Generalized linear and generalized additive models in studies of species distributions: Setting the scene. Ecol. Model 2002 , 157 , 89–100. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vencálek, O.; Hron, K.; Filzmoser, P. A comparison of generalised linear models and compositional models for ordered categorical data. Stat. Model 2020 , 20 , 249–273. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rodriguez-Martinez, R.E. Community involvement in marine protected areas: The case of Puerto Morelos reef, Mexico. J. Environ. Manag. 2008 , 88 , 1151–1160. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wendt, D.E.; Starr, R.M. Collaborative Research: An Effective Way to Collect Data for Stock Assessments and Evaluate Marine Protected Areas in California. Mar. Coast. Fish. 2009 , 1 , 315–324. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gilman, E. Guidelines for coastal and marine site-planning and examples of planning and management intervention tools. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2002 , 45 , 377–404. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Friedlander, A.M. Marine conservation in Oceania: Past, present, and future. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018 , 135 , 139–149. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Loury, E.K.; Ainsley, S.M. Identifying Indicators to Evaluate Community-Managed Freshwater Protected Areas in the Lower Mekong Basin: A Review of Marine and Freshwater Examples. Water 2021 , 12 , 3530. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schemmel, E.; Friedlander, A.M.; Andrade, P.; Keakealani, K.; Castro, L.M.; Wiggins, C.; Wilcox, B.A.; Yasutake, Y.; Kittinger, J.N. The codevelopment of coastal fisheries monitoring methods to support local management. Ecol. Soc. 2016 , 21 , 34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Casimiro, D.; Ventura, M.A.; Botelho, A.Z.; Guerreiro, J. Ecotourism in Marine Protected Areas as a tool to valuate natural capital and enhance good marine governance: A review. Front. Mar. Sci. 2023 , 9 , 1002677. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Game, E.T.; Lipsett-Moore, G.; Hamilton, R.; Peterson, N.; Kereseka, J.; Atu, W.; Watts, M.; Possingham, H.P. Informed opportunism for conservation planning in the Solomon Islands. Conserv. Lett. 2011 , 4 , 38–46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marzo, D.; Cavallini, I.; Scaccia, L.; Guidetti, P.; Di Franco, A.; Calò, A.; Niccolini, F. Drivers of Small-Scale Fishers’ Acceptability across Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas at Different Stages of Establishment. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 9138. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• King, C.; Adhuri, D.S.; Clifton, J. Marine reserves and resilience in the era of COVID-19. Mar. Policy 2023 , 141 , 105093. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Refulio-Coronado, S.; Lacasse, K.; Dalton, T.; Humphries, A.; Basu, S.; Uchida, H.; Uchida, E. Coastal and Marine Socio-Ecological Systems: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021 , 8 , 1–17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, V.Y.; Lu, D.J.; Han, Y.S. Hybrid Intelligence for Marine Biodiversity: Integrating Citizen Science with AI for Enhanced Intertidal Conservation Efforts at Cape Santiago, Taiwan. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 454. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Jiang, X.; Liu, F.; Yu, J.; Zhang, K.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, Q. Global Trends and Prospects of Community Participation in Marine Protected Areas: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 7772. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177772

Jiang X, Liu F, Yu J, Zhang K, Zhang Z, Wang Q. Global Trends and Prospects of Community Participation in Marine Protected Areas: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability . 2024; 16(17):7772. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177772

Jiang, Xun, Fangming Liu, Jing Yu, Kuncheng Zhang, Zhaohui Zhang, and Quanbin Wang. 2024. "Global Trends and Prospects of Community Participation in Marine Protected Areas: A Bibliometric Analysis" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7772. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177772

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals