Next Article in Journal
Pilot Protection Based on Zero-Sequence Current Resistance-Capacitance Component for Large-Scale Inverter-Interfaced Power Stations
Next Article in Special Issue
Life Cycle Assessment of Selected Single-Use Plastic Products towards Evidence-Based Policy Recommendations in Sri Lanka
Previous Article in Journal
Vertical Transportation System Power Usage: Behavioural Case Study of Regulated Buildings in Bangkok
Previous Article in Special Issue
GIS and Remote Sensing-Based Approach for Monitoring and Assessment of Plastic Leakage and Pollution Reduction in the Lower Mekong River Basin
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 20
10.3390/su142013265
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Role of Citizen Scientists in Environmental Plastic Litter Research—A Systematic Review

by
Cristina L. Popa
,
Simona I. Dontu
*,
Dan Savastru
and
Elfrida M. Carstea
*
National Institute of Research and Development for Optoelectronics (INOE 2000), 409 Atomistilor Street, P.O. Box MG 5, 077125 Magurele, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(20), 13265; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013265
Submission received: 6 September 2022 / Revised: 11 October 2022 / Accepted: 12 October 2022 / Published: 15 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plastic Pollution Inventories and Impact Assessments for Science-Based Policy)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In recent years, citizen science has proven to be an effective means of monitoring plastic litter, bring potential benefits to professional researchers and authorities, and create awareness on plastic pollution at a society level. This paper aims to review the advances of employing the citizen science approach for plastic litter evaluation and explore the research contributions of these initiatives and their impact at the society and environmental levels. A systematic search was undertaken using the main scientific paper databases and back-referencing from reviewed papers over a period of 10 years. Out of 221 papers found, only 94 papers that discussed plastic litter/waste and citizen science remained in the analysis. Geographically, 66% of the studies were concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere (mostly in USA). The majority were related to clean-up activities that analysed litter density, types, and potential sources. The results showed that citizens can provide data over large geographical regions and can be essential to researchers and authorities in implementing litter management policies. Citizen science programs are effective in creating awareness and increasing education regarding plastic litter pollution and impact. However, it is not clear if they can enhance behavioural changes after participation in field survey programs.

1. Introduction

Plastic has brought many benefits to society since its mass production in 1950, due to its low cost, high durability, low density and high versatility [1,2]. Considering its widespread use and production, it can be argued that we live in a Plastic Age [2]. However, the potential impact of plastic on the environment and human health has only been realized in the past few decades. Most of the plastic products used daily by people are considered single use and disposable [2]. The poor degradability and large usability of plastic has amounted to immense quantities of waste being released into the environment, and plastic waste represents 12% of all municipal solid waste [3]. It is estimated that by 2060, up to 265 million tonnes of plastic waste per year will be produced [4]. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated plastic pollution due to the increasing use of disposable personal protective equipment and other single use plastics [5]. The management of plastic waste pollution requires an inclusive approach that brings together citizens and authorities, which targets both personal behavioural and social institutional changes, particularly the increased use of plastic during and after the COVID-19 pandemic [6]. Moreover, the pandemic restrictions have highlighted the need to involve citizens in plastic pollution research [7]. In addition, the global concern for plastic waste, popularized by the media, academia and politicians, presents a unique opportunity for environmental engagement beyond the plastic pollution issue [8].
Recently, citizen science has been used as an effective means of engaging the public in plastic litter research while creating awareness and helping to promote pro-environmental attitudes [7,9,10]. Citizen science is the involvement of the general public in the research process from conception to data collection, interpretation and reporting, either by themselves or together with professional researchers. Citizen science has an open definition, which allows for diverse activities and levels of involvement from both experts and non-experts [11]. These programs can provide data at high temporal and spatial scales at a fraction of the costs needed by professional monitoring. Moreover, public involvement, particularly in environmental science programs, can have a positive social and environmental impact by helping citizens to reconnect with nature, create social bonds, increase awareness, advance knowledge, change behaviours and advocate for political change [9]. Based on these advantages, several initiatives at regional or global scales have been developed in the past decades, for example Zooniverse, EarthWatch, Spotteron, etc. [12]. The global issue of plastic pollution attracted many volunteers in citizen science programs. Citizens were involved in collecting macro- and microplastics in water [1] and on coastlines [13], coral reefs [14], mangroves [15] or fish gastrointestinal tracts [16]. They also analysed household waste and recycling practices [10,17]. Previous reviews have evaluated the potential of citizen science for the study of plastic in the environment [2,7,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. Among these reviews, only Zettler et al. [18], Ammendolia and Walker [7], Bosker et al. [21] and Syberg et al. [22] provided an in-depth analysis of citizen science initiatives. However, the review of Zettler et al. [18] focused only on the citizen science approach in marine plastic litter research, while Bosker et al. [21] focused on microplastic detection. The review of Ammendolia and Walker [7] discussed the potential of plastic pollution monitoring using citizen science only in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, Syberg et al. [22] explored only the risk perception and role of stakeholders in citizen science initiatives. However, several recent studies have been published on citizen science monitoring of plastic litter in rivers [1,25,26,27,28,29,30,31] and streets [32] and on evaluating household waste [10,17,33,34,35,36]. In addition, recent research has been undertaken on citizen science in relation to public practices and perceptions towards plastic waste separation and recycling [33,37,38,39] or littering [40,41,42,43]. Thus, this short review aims to provide an overview of the advances of employing the citizen science approach for plastic litter research. It will explore the research contributions of these initiatives and the impact at society and environmental levels. Finally, it will identify research gaps and priorities for engaging the public.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sources and Strategy

A systematic search was undertaken using the main scientific paper databases and back-referencing from reviewed papers. The following databases were used in the study: Science Direct, SpringerLink, Wiley Online Library, Taylor & Francis and Google Scholar. The articles were searched only by the following keywords: “plastic waste” or “plastic litter” with “citizen science”. Original peer-reviewed research articles, review papers and chapters published in English in the past ten years (January 2013—July 2022) were considered for analysis. Items were initially assessed based on title, keywords and abstract and were reviewed only if they contained relevant information on plastic litter (waste) and/or citizen science. A total of 221 papers were found. Duplicates were excluded from the analysis (N = 39). Selected studies were then scrutinized based on the methods section to include both terms plastic litter (waste) and citizen science, and the remaining articles were included in this review (Figure 1). Papers that merely mentioned the citizen science approach or public involvement, but did not include any active participation of citizens were not considered in the analysis. Similarly, studies that analysed only the level of citizens’ concerns towards plastic waste were not included in this review. Only 94 papers remained in the analysis, out of which 82 were original research papers, 10 were review papers and 2 were book chapters. Original research papers were further classified into three categories: studies involving only questionnaires, studies involving only social media and studies involving questionnaires and/or field surveys (Supplementary Materials Table S1). NVivo (NVivo vers. 1.6, QSR International, Burlington MA, USA) was used in order to identify main keywords and connections between elements. This review was performed in accordance to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.

2.2. Bias and Certainty

This study ignores articles that were published in journals and reports in other native languages. Similarly, since studies were searched only in the main databases, we potentially excluded articles posted on smaller databases. Moreover, we considered only the initiatives that were included in research papers, despite the fact that there are several initiatives on plastic litter clean-up with large numbers of volunteers, such as an initiative from Denmark that gathered 150,000 volunteer children that collected 156 tons of litter including plastic, and the International Coastal Cleanup, which has involved over 11 million volunteers for more than 30 years in plastic litter collection [18,44]. Finally, this review excludes papers on this topic that were published prior to 2013. However, this approach allowed for the analysis of only recent citizen science activities and discoveries from a reasonably sized database.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Literature Reviewed

Over half of the selected studies for this review were published during the COVID-19 pandemic (Figure 1). The number of papers published on plastic litter and citizen science increased towards 2018 and doubled in 2019 before slowly increasing after that year. The slight plateau between 2019 and 2022 was determined by the COVID-19 pandemic, when less activities on this topic were potentially undertaken. The database for 2022 is incomplete, as many papers are yet to be published.
Studies are geographically skewed, as 66% of the studies were made in the Northern Hemisphere (Figure 2). Low income and developing countries have less access to funding for such activities, and more likely direct their funds towards building capacities or on increasing the levels of innovation [45,46]. Haarr et al. [46] discuss a potential bias from journals, which are less likely to publish papers coming from low income countries. The highest number of papers were published by research groups from USA and Chile; however, several papers from Chile are based on the same program “Cientificos de la Basura”.
Out of the selected original research papers, 26% describe studies dealing with gathering data from citizens using interviews and questionnaires, 56% involved only field surveys, 16% focused on both approaches (interviews/questionnaires and field experiments) and 2.4% focused on studies that gathered data from social media (Supplementary Materials Table S1). The interview/questionnaire studies collected data, in almost equal measure, on public behaviour towards plastic litter (29%), separation/recycling (29%), littering (24%) and waste management (18%). Most of the field survey studies focused on beach (56%) and marine litter (16%). Few studies focused on river water and river bank litter, street litter or household plastic waste. Only one study analysed plastic from fish gastrointestinal tract samples sent by citizens. Litter along beach areas is more likely to be seen and managed for touristic reasons. It is also more likely to be researched due to the high accumulation of plastic litter in the marine environment and because it is more likely to attract volunteers for surveys and clean-up. Media plays a big role in raising awareness among the general public [47].
Over half of the studies analysed general anthropogenic litter, where plastic was also present (60%), and only 40% focused specifically on plastic, including macro and microplastic. Only 15% of the studies involved school children, potentially due to health and safety issues in collecting data on anthropogenic litter. So far, the authorities were involved in only 3 studies where questionnaires and interviews were conducted. Only half of the studies mentioned the number of participants. Out of these studies, 56% involved less than 500 participants and 17% involved over 5000 volunteers. Large groups of volunteers require more human and financial resources to manage. The volunteer pool size depends on the type of project, and not all are suited for large groups.

3.2. Impact on Plastic Litter Surveys

NVivo analysis (Figure 3) revealed that professional researchers have involved the public in three main areas of research: litter distribution (density and types), litter recycling and litter management practices. All of the studies reported that plastic was dominant among litter types, especially in the form of large fragments (Supplementary Materials Table S1). Among plastic items, packaging and bottles were the most frequent. Density of litter was reported differently across studies and environments. Litter items were reported in some studies as number of items in relation to a unit of surface area (m2, km2), media volume (m3), unit of time (min, s, h) or per person, depending on the location of the litter (floating, in sediment, in water or on the banks). Standard protocols are needed for specific types of projects to ensure that results are comparable across studies. In order to define these standard protocols, more studies are needed to determine the optimal methods of data collection.
Studies on litter density and types usually included the largest numbers of participants and covered vast geographical areas. For example, Forrest et al. [26] reported a 550 km stretch survey along the Ottawa River by citizen scientists, who collected and filtered samples for microplastic analysis. Van der Velde et al. [48] implemented a national research program to monitor the entire coastline of Australia using citizen scientists. Moreover, Kiessling et al. [28] successfully classified litter along river banks in Germany, across the entire country. On a larger scale, Turner et al. [49] used volunteers to study washed up inkjet cartridges on the coastlines of the North Atlantic Ocean from a ship container spillage. Participants in all of these studies were not only capable of determining litter density and types, but were also able to infer the source of the litter [49,50,51,52,53,54,55]. Citizen science data helped to identify plastic hotspots at scales relevant to authorities’ intervention [56,57]. The involvement of citizen scientists was particularly useful during the COVID-19 pandemic, when a considerable increase of general plastic litter was recorded [36]. Amuah et al. [102] found that the use of face masks led to increased plastic littering, specifically in urban environments from poor areas, where poor waste management and high traffic were more probable.
Studies on litter density and types can help researchers and authorities design and implement improved litter management strategies. The citizen science project of Honorato-Zimmer et al. [58] showed differences in litter density between the beaches of Chile and Germany, which may help identify the best strategies in litter reduction. These studies may also serve as a tool to verify if implemented strategies actually function. For example, Davies et al. [59] found that specific litter types, such as fishing/boating items, balloons and straws, were reduced in quantity from the beginning to the end of the survey, which coincided with local government waste mitigation measures. Moreover, based on citizen science data, Haarr et al. [52] observed a decrease in the quantity of beach litter through-out a 7-year clean-up program and attributed this change to increased public awareness and managerial decisions for preventive and mitigative measures. According to them, citizen science programs can provide information on what litter types are most suitable for monitoring in different regions. On the contrary, Harris et al [60] found that, using citizen science, the implementation of extended producer responsibility policy did not reduce or prevent plastic litter in British Columbia, Canada. However, it was not known if that was caused by an overall increase of generated plastic waste across the region.
Most of the studies on litter density were part of a clean-up program, and according to Nelms et al. [43], volunteers might have lacked the necessary motivation to undertake research activities. Some volunteers only wanted to clean the areas and were not interested in understanding the types of plastic litter [43]. In a series of interviews on citizen science programs on plastic litter, Nelms et al. [43] found other issues such as: complexity of data, lack of data quality, size of beaches and number of participants, need for standardization, need for coordination with other organizations, and not knowing what scientific evidence to provide to policy makers. In a survey on river microplastic pollution, Forrest et al. [26] identified several other problems linked to involving citizens. Participants collected samples from areas close to their residence and overlooked points of interest for researchers, such as stormwater or wastewater treatment outlet pipes. In addition, citizens did not target specific events, such as high rainfall or high snowmelt days [26]. Achieving temporal consistency was also an issue. To counteract these issues, Hidalgo-Ruz and Thiel [61] recommended showing appreciation for the time involved by researchers and citizens by using modern technology (smartphones apps, geo-referenced photos) to allow ample time for recruitment and training and implement supervision by scientists. The use of more non-traditional methods may make programs more attractive to volunteers. For example, in the Picture Pile campaign, citizens classified images taken from an Unmanned Aircraft System of the Crete coastline [62]. The data was used as input for a machine learning model to identify marine litter. Moreover, volunteers need rigorous training regarding litter reporting and classification, as their observation and perception on litter may be altered based on social and environmental factors. In some areas, residents seem to ignore litter despite it being visible, as long as they are not confronted with litter-related issues such as odour or flies [63]. Thus, according to Kerber and Kramm [63], citizens are less likely to observe certain types of plastic litter (straws or polystyrene boxes) if it is not perceived as a direct health threat. De Veer et al. [25] found that this is more prevalent in the urban environments, where, due to a multitude of stimulants, citizens pay less attention to litter. De Veer et al. [25] named the phenomenon as “litter blindness”.
The phenomenon of “litter blindness” also makes citizens unaware of the potential risks caused by plastic and other litter in the environment. People in rural areas burn plastic waste in their backyards because they lack proper means for disposing of plastic waste [17,34]. Chen et al. [37] showed that, through questionnaires, most of the participants did not recognize recycling symbols. Thus, despite having a positive attitude towards recycling, most of the respondents lacked basic knowledge on this topic. Moreover, Zikali et al. [35] warned that people tend to misjudge the quantity of waste they generate and how much is reused or recycled. People’s perception on how and what plastic could be recycled is also important. Huge gaps were determined between what is expected, reported and actually recycled [103]. Most of the plastic items sent for recycling are rejected at the plant, mainly due to improper selective collection [103]. Lopez-Aguilar et al., [103] suggested changing the design of the packaging to include only plastic materials that are easy to recycle and are less likely to be rejected by recycling plants. However, this should be made by taking into account the citizens’ perceptions on ease of use and recycling of specific plastic packaging. In addition, emphasis should be placed by various stakeholders on educating the public about the risks of plastic litter.
Increased awareness regarding plastic litter was observed mostly in relation to the marine environment. Abreo et al. [64] used social media to identify cases of marine litter’s impact on wildlife. They observed an increased number of reports on Facebook, throughout the years, about the negative impact of marine litter on wildlife. Using Twitter posts by citizens around the globe, Otero et al. [65] found that highly populated and highly digitized countries, such as USA, Canada or Japan, have high interest in marine plastic pollution.

3.3. Impact on Environmental and Social Change

NVivo analysis revealed that some of the core themes of citizen science projects were related to environmental education and awareness towards attitude and behavioural change (Figure 3). Hands-on experience was considered critical to stimulate behavioural change in citizens and empower them to contribute to solutions in preserving the environment [66]. Locritani et al. [67] found that the level of awareness and concern towards plastic littering and pollution increased among high school students after participating in citizen science activities. After seeing the high amount of macro- and microplastic litter, the students reported that they would adopt mitigation and preventive actions to reduce the level of plastic litter in the environment [67]. Moreover, during the campaign “eXXpedition Great Lakes”, where citizens engaged in microplastic pollution monitoring, participants said that they learned something new about microplastics and that they would stop buying products with microbeads or using plastic bottles. Citizens wanted to receive some guidelines of what to do in the future to reduce their impact on the environment and to become part of the solution [66]. In addition, Pierini et al. [10] found that citizens were more willing to sort waste after participating in a citizen science project, while the study of Barrows et al. [1] revealed that most of the volunteers took steps in addressing plastic pollution in their communities. Therefore, encouraging education and raising awareness through citizen science are essential steps in driving change. Particularly, in underdeveloped and developing countries, there is a lack of social awareness, campaigns and programs regarding plastic litter [104,105].
However, it is not clear if participation in citizen science projects alone is sufficient to promote behavioural change. For example, Wichmann et al. [68] found that participation in a citizen science project did not stimulate the involvement of school children despite enhancing their perception on the negative environmental issues caused by plastic pollution. In another study [69], students perceived that plastic pollution was the most important environmental issue compared to climate change and biodiversity loss. However, no significant changes were seen in students’ risk perception, self-efficacy, empowerment and pro-environmental reported actions after participation in the action [69]. The students displayed high enthusiasm and positive attitudes towards the environment prior to the survey, which reflected in a narrow prospect for improvement and might have explained the low difference between pre- and post-survey data [69]. The citizens that changed their behaviour fit into a particular category of citizens. These had strong environmental attitudes and were involved in other conservation or research efforts prior to participating in a citizen science program [106]. They were also more motivated to participate in the programs. These citizens invoked mostly changes in lifestyle (reduced consumption, recycling or picking up litter), while some also stated that they contacted political decision makers [106]. In addition, according to Chase and Levine [106], citizen science programs play a vital role in reinforcing the pro-environmental attitude through exposure to like-minded individuals. However, ways should be identified to engage with the least educated and vulnerable groups in citizen science projects. Eastman et al. [40] found that those with the least education were three times more likely to report themselves as frequent litterers compared to those with university educations. Environmental education coupled with increased governmental trust may lead to changes in attitudes in these communities. Nevertheless, vulnerable communities are less likely to volunteer for citizen science programs as they potentially juggle multiple jobs, have less leisure time, less opportunities and less access to resources [107]. Some countries also have a top-down approach to legislation and management on plastic litter and recycling [41], and thus completely exclude public involvement in decision making [107].
Despite seeing little progress in promoting behavioural change, citizen science activities may slowly induce a cultural shift at the societal level. Participants from Caribbean Columbia pointed out that litter pollution relates to the culture of people and suggested cleaning days to help recover ecosystems [15]. Thus, clean-up programs combined with citizen science activities can promote both environmental awareness and litter reduction. In addition, these activities help participants reconnect with nature. Experience in nature and a sense of belonging to a place were seen as important factors in developing a pro-environmental attitude [42,105,108]. In other studies, citizens recommended infrastructure changes and a stronger involvement from authorities to promote pro-environmental attitudes in people [2,33,40,47,109,110]. Creating alternatives for consumers and improving political measures were considered to be important strategies for behavioural change [110]. Other measures recommended by citizens included: fining litterers, installing more trash cans, use of custom designs for trash cans to appeal to the public, and constant cleaning [70]. If public perception towards plastic litter management is taken into account, citizens will be more willing to support policies and measures to prevent and mitigate plastic pollution.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

This paper provided a short review of the papers published between 2013 and 2022 on citizen science involvement in plastic litter research. It identified the main trends and contributions of public participation. An increased number of studies was observed in the recent years; however, most of them were concentrated in specific countries, such as USA or Chile. Similarly, most studies were related to clean-up activities that analysed litter density, types and potential sources. Various units of measure were used to report litter density (items per unit surface area, unit time or person). Results showed that citizens can provide data over large geographical regions. Moreover, citizen science programs are effective in creating awareness and in increasing education regarding plastic litter pollution and impact. However, it is not clear if they can enhance behavioural change in citizens after participation in field survey programs. The following recommendations and areas that require further investigation have been identified:
  • More studies are needed on the use of the citizen science approaches for plastic litter research in rivers, lakes, streets and households.
  • Standard reporting of litter density is needed to allow comparison between studies.
  • Authorities should be involved in citizen science programs and participate alongside volunteers to help stakeholder groups exchange views and ideas. The authorities should work together with the public to provide effective litter management and prevent ecological risks. Active involvement from both parties would also enhance education efforts on how to recycle plastic and on the environmental issues caused by plastic littering.
  • Guidelines should be given post-program to volunteers so that they can be part of the solution in mitigating plastic pollution.
  • Volunteers should be requested after participation to spread the information regarding citizen science programs and the impact of plastic litter to at least one person in their entourage. This would further promote awareness and behavioural change.
  • Despite little evidence of impact on behavioural change, researchers should persevere in developing citizen science programs. Small steps in behavioural change can lead to cultural shifts.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su142013265/s1, Table S1: Studies involving plastic waste/litter and citizen science.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.M.C., C.L.P. and S.I.D.; methodology, E.M.C.; investigation, C.L.P.; data curation, E.M.C.; writing—original draft preparation, E.M.C. and C.L.P.; writing—review and editing, C.L.P., S.I.D., E.M.C. and S.I.D.; supervision, E.M.C.; funding acquisition, D.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors acknowledge the support of the Romanian Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digitalization, through Program 1—Development of the national research-development system, Subprogram 1.2—Institutional performance—Projects to finance the excellent RDI, Contract no. 18PFE/30.12.2021, CNCS—UEFISCDI, project number PN-III-P1-1.1-TE-2019-0789, within PNCDI III, and by the Core Program OPTRONICA PN 19-18.01.01 (ctr.18N/2019) and project number 152/2016, SMIS 108109.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Barrows, A.P.W.; Christiansen, K.S.; Bode, E.T.; Hoellein, T.J. A Watershed-Scale, Citizen Science Approach to Quantifying Microplastic Concentration in a Mixed Land-Use River. Water Res. 2018, 147, 382–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Napper, I.E.; Thompson, R.C. Plastic Debris in the Marine Environment: History and Future Challenges. Glob. Chall. 2020, 4, 1900081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Moharir, R.V.; Kumar, S. Challenges Associated with Plastic Waste Disposal and Allied Microbial Routes for Its Effective Degradation: A Comprehensive Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lebreton, L.; Andrady, A. Future Scenarios of Global Plastic Waste Generation and Disposal. Palgrave Commun. 2019, 5, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Alfonso, M.B.; Arias, A.H.; Menéndez, M.C.; Ronda, A.C.; Harte, A.; Piccolo, M.C.; Marcovecchio, J.E. Assessing Threats, Regulations, and Strategies to Abate Plastic Pollution in LAC Beaches during COVID-19 Pandemic. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2021, 208, 105613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Vanapalli, K.R.; Sharma, H.B.; Ranjan, V.P.; Samal, B.; Bhattacharya, J.; Dubey, B.K.; Goel, S. Challenges and Strategies for Effective Plastic Waste Management during and Post COVID-19 Pandemic. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 750, 141514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. 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, 149957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Stanton, T.; Johnson, M.; Nathanail, P.; MacNaughtan, W.; Gomes, R.L. Freshwater and Airborne Textile Fibre Populations Are Dominated by ‘Natural’, Not Microplastic, Fibres. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 666, 377–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. van Noordwijk, T.C.G.E.; Bishop, I.; Staunton-Lamb, S.; Oldfield, A.; Loiselle, S.; Geoghegan, H.; Ceccaroni, L. Creating Positive Environmental Impact Through Citizen Science. In The Science of Citizen Science; Vohland, K., Land-Zandstra, A., Ceccaroni, L., Lemmens, R., Perelló, J., Ponti, M., Samson, R., Wagenknecht, K., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland; Berlin, Germany, 2021; pp. 373–395. ISBN 978-3-030-58278-4. [Google Scholar]
  10. Pierini, V.I.; Mazzeo, N.; Cazenave, M.; Semmartin, M. Waste Generation and Pro-Environmental Behaviors at Household Level: A Citizen Science Study in Buenos Aires (Argentina). Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 170, 105560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Haklay, M.M.; Dörler, D.; Heigl, F.; Manzoni, M.; Hecker, S.; Vohland, K. What is Citizen Science? The Challenges of Definition. In The Science of Citizen Science; Vohland, K., Land-Zandstra, A., Ceccaroni, L., Lemmens, R., Perelló, J., Ponti, M., Samson, R., Wagenknecht, K., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland; Berlin, Germany, 2021; pp. 13–33. ISBN 978-3-030-58278-4. [Google Scholar]
  12. Vohland, K.; Ceccaroni, L.; Perello, J.; Samson, R.; Land-Zandstra, A.M.; Lemmens, R.; Ponti, M.; Wagenknecht, K. The Science of Citizen Science; Vohland, K., Ceccaroni, L., Perello, J., Samson, R., Land-Zandstra, A.M., Lemmens, R., Ponti, M., Wagenknecht, K., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland; Berlin, Germany, 2021; pp. 1–520. ISBN 978-3-030-58277-7. [Google Scholar]
  13. Ambrose, K.K.; Box, C.; Boxall, J.; Brooks, A.; Eriksen, M.; Fabres, J.; Fylakis, G.; Walker, T.R. Spatial Trends and Drivers of Marine Debris Accumulation on Shorelines in South Eleuthera, The Bahamas Using Citizen Science. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 142, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Bauer-Civiello, A.; Loder, J.; Hamann, M. Using Citizen Science Data to Assess the Difference in Marine Debris Loads on Reefs in Queensland, Australia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 135, 458–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Garcés-Ordóñez, O.; Saldarriaga-Vélez, J.F.; Espinosa-Díaz, L.F. Marine Litter Pollution in Mangrove Forests from Providencia and Santa Catalina Islands, after Hurricane IOTA Path in the Colombian Caribbean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 168, 112471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Liboiron, M.; Liboiron, F.; Wells, E.; Richárd, N.; Zahara, A.; Mather, C.; Bradshaw, H.; Murichi, J. Low Plastic Ingestion Rate in Atlantic Cod (Gadus Morhua) from Newfoundland Destined for Human Consumption Collected through Citizen Science Methods. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 113, 428–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Nxumalo, S.M.; Mabaso, S.D.; Mamba, S.F.; Singwane, S.S. Plastic Waste Management Practices in the Rural Areas of Eswatini. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open 2020, 2, 100066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zettler, E.R.; Takada, H.; Monteleone, B.; Mallos, N.; Eriksen, M.; Amaral-Zettler, L.A. Incorporating Citizen Science to Study Plastics in the Environment. Anal. Methods 2017, 9, 1392–1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ayeleru, O.O.; Dlova, S.; Akinribide, O.J.; Ntuli, F.; Kupolati, W.K.; Marina, P.F.; Blencowe, A.; Olubambi, P.A. Challenges of Plastic Waste Generation and Management in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Review. Waste Manag. 2020, 110, 24–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Belontz, S.L.; Corcoran, P.L.; Davis, H.; Hill, K.A.; Jazvac, K.; Robertson, K.; Wood, K. Embracing an Interdisciplinary Approach to Plastics Pollution Awareness and Action. Ambio 2019, 48, 855–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Bosker, T.; Behrens, P.; Vijver, M.G. Determining Global Distribution of Microplastics by Combining Citizen Science and In-Depth Case Studies. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2017, 13, 536–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Syberg, K.; Hansen, S.F.; Christensen, T.B.; Khan, F.R. Risk Perception of Plastic Pollution: Importance of Stakeholder Involvement and Citizen Science. In Handbook of Environmental Chemistry; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; Volume 58, pp. 203–221. [Google Scholar]
  23. Campbell, J.; Bowser, A.; Fraisl, D. Citizen Science and Data Integration for Understanding Marine Litter. In Proceedings of the Data for Good Exchange Conference, New York, NY, USA, 15 September 2019; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hidalgo-Ruz, V.; Thiel, M. The Contribution of Citizen Scientists to the Monitoring of Marine Litter. In Marine Anthropogenic Litter; Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., Klages, M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland; Berlin, Germany, 2015; pp. 429–447. ISBN 978-3-319-16510-3. [Google Scholar]
  25. De Veer, D.; Drouin, A.; Fischer, J.; González, C.; Holtmann, G.; Honorato-Zimmer, D.; Leyton, A.; Núñez, P.; Sepúlveda, J.M.; Vásquez, N.; et al. How Do Schoolchildren Perceive Litter? Overlooked in Urban but Not in Natural Environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 2022, 81, 101781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Forrest, S.A.; Holman, L.; Murphy, M.; Vermaire, J.C. Citizen Science Sampling Programs as a Technique for Monitoring Microplastic Pollution: Results, Lessons Learned and Recommendations for Working with Volunteers for Monitoring Plastic Pollution in Freshwater Ecosystems. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2019, 191, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Honorato-Zimmer, D.; Kiessling, T.; Gatta-Rosemary, M.; Campodónico, C.K.; Núñez-Farías, P.; Rech, S.; Thiel, M. Mountain Streams Flushing Litter to the Sea—Andean Rivers as Conduits for Plastic Pollution. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 291, 118166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kiessling, T.; Knickmeier, K.; Kruse, K.; Brennecke, D.; Nauendorf, A.; Thiel, M. Plastic Pirates Sample Litter at Rivers in Germany—Riverside Litter and Litter Sources Estimated by Schoolchildren. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 245, 545–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kiessling, T.; Knickmeier, K.; Kruse, K.; Gatta-Rosemary, M.; Nauendorf, A.; Brennecke, D.; Thiel, L.; Wichels, A.; Parchmann, I.; Körtzinger, A.; et al. Schoolchildren Discover Hotspots of Floating Plastic Litter in Rivers Using a Large-Scale Collaborative Approach. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 789, 147849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rech, S.; Macaya-Caquilpán, V.; Pantoja, J.F.; Rivadeneira, M.M.; Campodónico, C.K.; Thiel, M. Sampling of Riverine Litter with Citizen Scientists—Findings and Recommendations. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2015, 187, 335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Schöneich-Argent, R.I.; Freund, H. Trashing Our Own “Backyard”—Investigating Dispersal and Accumulation of Floating Litter from Coastal, Riverine, and Offshore Sources in the German Bight Using a Citizen Science-Based Wooden Drifter Recapture Approach. Mar. Environ. Res. 2020, 162, 105115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Lynch, S. OpenLitterMap.Com—Open Data on Plastic Pollution with Blockchain Rewards (Littercoin). Open Geospat. Data Softw. Stand. 2018, 3, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Kala, K.; Bolia, N.B. Analysis of Citizen’s Perception towards Segregation and Composting. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 10763–10786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kanhai, G.; Agyei-Mensah, S.; Mudu, P. Population Awareness and Attitudes toward Waste-Related Health Risks in Accra, Ghana. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2021, 31, 670–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Zikali, N.M.; Chingoto, R.M.; Utete, B.; Kunedzimwe, F. Household Solid Waste Handling Practices and Recycling Value for Integrated Solid Waste Management in a Developing City in Zimbabwe. Sci. Afr. 2022, 16, e01150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Requena-Sanchez, N.; Carbonel-Ramos, D.; Moonsammy, S.; Klaus, R.; Punil, L.S.; Ng, K.T.W. Virtual Methodology for Household Waste Characterization During The Pandemic in An Urban District of Peru: Citizen Science for Waste Management. Environ. Manag. 2022, 69, 1078–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chen, H.; Yang, Y.; Jiang, W.; Song, M.; Wang, Y.; Xiang, T. Source Separation of Municipal Solid Waste: The Effects of Different Separation Methods and Citizens’ Inclination—Case Study of Changsha, China. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2017, 67, 182–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Wu, W.N.; Liu, L.Y.; Brough, C. No Time for Composting: Subjective Time Pressure as a Barrier to Citizen Engagement in Curbside Composting. Waste Manag. 2019, 91, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Wu, C.Y.; Hu, M.C.; Ni, F.C. Supporting a Circular Economy: Insights from Taiwan’s Plastic Waste Sector and Lessons for Developing Countries. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 26, 228–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Eastman, L.B.; Núñez, P.; Crettier, B.; Thiel, M. Identification of Self-Reported User Behavior, Education Level, and Preferences to Reduce Littering on Beaches—A Survey from the SE Pacific. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2013, 78, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Frantzi, S.; Brouwer, R.; Watkins, E.; van Beukering, P.; Cunha, M.C.; Dijkstra, H.; Duijndam, S.; Jaziri, H.; Okoli, I.C.; Pantzar, M.; et al. Adoption and Diffusion of Marine Litter Clean-up Technologies across European Seas: Legal, Institutional and Financial Drivers and Barriers. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 170, 112611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kiessling, T.; Salas, S.; Mutafoglu, K.; Thiel, M. Who Cares about Dirty Beaches? Evaluating Environmental Awareness and Action on Coastal Litter in Chile. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2017, 137, 82–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nelms, S.E.; Easman, E.; Anderson, N.; Berg, M.; Coates, S.; Crosby, A.; Eisfeld-Pierantonio, S.; Eyles, L.; Flux, T.; Gilford, E.; et al. The Role of Citizen Science in Addressing Plastic Pollution: Challenges and Opportunities. Environ. Sci. Policy 2022, 128, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sonne, C.; Alstrup, A.K.O. Using Citizen Science to Speed up Plastic Collection and Mapping of Urban Noise: Lessons Learned from Denmark. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 149, 110591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Acharya, K.P.; Pathak, S. Applied Research in Low-Income Countries: Why and How? Front. Res. Metr. Anal. 2019, 4, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Haarr, M.L.; Falk-Andersson, J.; Fabres, J. Global Marine Litter Research 2015–2020: Geographical and Methodological Trends. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 820, 153162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Olsen, J.; Nogueira, L.A.; Normann, A.K.; Vangelsten, B.V.; Bay-Larsen, I. Marine Litter: Institutionalization of Attitudes and Practices among Fishers in Northern Norway. Mar. Policy 2020, 121, 104211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. van der Velde, T.; Milton, D.A.; Lawson, T.J.; Wilcox, C.; Lansdell, M.; Davis, G.; Perkins, G.; Hardesty, B.D. Comparison of Marine Debris Data Collected by Researchers and Citizen Scientists: Is Citizen Science Data Worth the Effort? Biol. Conserv. 2017, 208, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Turner, A.; Williams, T.; Pitchford, T. Transport, Weathering and Pollution of Plastic from Container Losses at Sea: Observations from a Spillage of Inkjet Cartridges in the North Atlantic Ocean. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 284, 117131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Falk-Andersson, J.; Berkhout, B.W.; Abate, T.G. Citizen Science for Better Management: Lessons Learned from Three Norwegian Beach Litter Data Sets. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 138, 364–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chen, H.; Wang, S.; Guo, H.; Lin, H.; Zhang, Y. A Nationwide Assessment of Litter on China’s Beaches Using Citizen Science Data. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 258, 113756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Haarr, M.L.; Pantalos, M.; Hartviksen, M.K.; Gressetvold, M. Citizen Science Data Indicate a Reduction in Beach Litter in the Lofoten Archipelago in the Norwegian Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 153, 111000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Vlachogianni, T.; Skocir, M.; Constantin, P.; Labbe, C.; Orthodoxou, D.; Pesmatzoglou, I.; Scannella, D.; Spika, M.; Zissimopoulos, V.; Scoullos, M. Plastic Pollution on the Mediterranean Coastline: Generating Fit-for-Purpose Data to Support Decision-Making via a Participatory-Science Initiative. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 711, 135058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Chiu, C.C.; Liao, C.P.; Kuo, T.C.; Huang, H.W. Using Citizen Science to Investigate the Spatial-Temporal Distribution of Floating Marine Litter in the Waters around Taiwan. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 157, 111301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Tunnell, J.W.; Dunning, K.H.; Scheef, L.P.; Swanson, K.M. Measuring Plastic Pellet (Nurdle) Abundance on Shorelines throughout the Gulf of Mexico Using Citizen Scientists: Establishing a Platform for Policy-Relevant Research. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 151, 110794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gacutan, J.; Johnston, E.L.; Tait, H.; Smith, W.; Clark, G.F. Continental Patterns in Marine Debris Revealed by a Decade of Citizen Science. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 807, 150742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Nel, H.A.; Smith, G.H.S.; Harmer, R.; Sykes, R.; Schneidewind, U.; Lynch, I.; Krause, S. Citizen Science Reveals Microplastic Hotspots within Tidal Estuaries and the Remote Scilly Islands, United Kingdom. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 161, 111776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Honorato-Zimmer, D.; Kruse, K.; Knickmeier, K.; Weinmann, A.; Hinojosa, I.A.; Thiel, M. Inter-Hemispherical Shoreline Surveys of Anthropogenic Marine Debris—A Binational Citizen Science Project with Schoolchildren. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 138, 464–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Davies, L.; Kemp, A.; O’Loughlin, C.; Korczynskyj, D. Is Conscientious Beachcombing the Key to ‘Unlock’ Marine Plastic Pollution Trends through Citizen Science? A Case Study from Cockburn Sound, Western Australia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2022, 177, 113519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Harris, L.; Liboiron, M.; Charron, L.; Mather, C. Using Citizen Science to Evaluate Extended Producer Responsibility Policy to Reduce Marine Plastic Debris Shows No Reduction in Pollution Levels. Mar. Policy 2020, 123, 104319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hidalgo-Ruz, V.; Thiel, M. Distribution and Abundance of Small Plastic Debris on Beaches in the SE Pacific (Chile): A Study Supported by a Citizen Science Project. Mar. Environ. Res. 2013, 87, 12–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Fraisl, D.; See, L.; Sturn, T.; MacFeely, S.; Bowser, A.; Campbell, J.; Moorthy, I.; Danylo, O.; McCallum, I.; Fritz, S. Demonstrating the Potential of Picture Pile as a Citizen Science Tool for SDG Monitoring. Environ. Sci. Policy 2022, 128, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kerber, H.; Kramm, J. From Laissez-Faire to Action? Exploring Perceptions of Plastic Pollution and Impetus for Action. Insights from Phu Quoc Island. Mar. Policy 2022, 137, 104924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Abreo, N.A.S.; Thompson, K.F.; Arabejo, G.F.P.; Superio, M.D.A. Social Media as a Novel Source of Data on the Impact of Marine Litter on Megafauna: The Philippines as a Case Study. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 140, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Otero, P.; Gago, J.; Quintas, P. Twitter Data Analysis to Assess the Interest of Citizens on the Impact of Marine Plastic Pollution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 170, 112620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Pate, J.A.; McKinnon, E.E. A Citizen Engagement Approach to Water Advocacy: Experiences from “EXXpedition Great Lakes”. Marit. Aff. 2016, 12, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Locritani, M.; Merlino, S.; Abbate, M. Assessing the Citizen Science Approach as Tool to Increase Awareness on the Marine Litter Problem. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 140, 320–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Wichmann, C.-S.; Fischer, D.; Geiger, S.M.; Honorato-Zimmer, D.; Knickmeier, K.; Kruse, K.; Sundermann, A.; Thiel, M. Promoting Pro-Environmental Behavior through Citizen Science? A Case Study with Chilean Schoolchildren on Marine Plastic Pollution. Mar. Policy 2022, 141, 105035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Oturai, N.G.; Pahl, S.; Syberg, K. How Can We Test Plastic Pollution Perceptions and Behavior? A Feasibility Study with Danish Children Participating in “the Mass Experiment”. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 806, 150914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Portman, M.E.; Pasternak, G.; Yotam, Y.; Nusbaum, R.; Behar, D. Beachgoer Participation in Prevention of Marine Litter: Using Design for Behavior Change. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 144, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Jomehpour, M.; Behzad, M. An Investigation on Shaping Local Waste Management Services Based on Public Participation: A Case Study of Amol, Mazandaran Province, Iran. Environ. Dev. 2020, 35, 100519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kolcava, D.; Scholderer, J.; Bernauer, T. Do Citizens Provide Political Rewards to Firms Engaging in Voluntary Environmental Action? J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. McNicholas, G.; Cotton, M. Stakeholder Perceptions of Marine Plastic Waste Management in the United Kingdom. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 163, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Pajunen, N.; Rintala, L.; Aromaa, J.; Heiskanen, K. Recycling – the Importance of Understanding the Complexity of the Issue. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 2016, 9, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Power, S. Enjoying Your Beach and Cleaning It Too: A Grounded Theory Ethnography of Enviro-Leisure Activism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2022, 30, 1438–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Rambonnet, L.; Vink, S.C.; Land-Zandstra, A.M.; Bosker, T. Making Citizen Science Count: Best Practices and Challenges of Citizen Science Projects on Plastics in Aquatic Environments. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 145, 271–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Van Rensburg, M.L.; Nkomo, S.L.; Dube, T. The ‘Plastic Waste Era’; Social Perceptions towards Single-Use Plastic Consumption and Impacts on the Marine Environment in Durban, South Africa. Appl. Geogr. 2020, 114, 102132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Bergmann, M.; Lutz, B.; Tekman, M.B.; Gutow, L. Citizen Scientists Reveal: Marine Litter Pollutes Arctic Beaches and Affects Wild Life. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 125, 535–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  79. Carbery, M.; MacFarlane, G.R.; O’Connor, W.; Afrose, S.; Taylor, H.; Palanisami, T. Baseline Analysis of Metal(Loid)s on Microplastics Collected from the Australian Shoreline Using Citizen Science. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 152, 110914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Consoli, P.; Scotti, G.; Romeo, T.; Fossi, M.C.; Esposito, V.; D’Alessandro, M.; Battaglia, P.; Galgani, F.; Figurella, F.; Pragnell-Raasch, H.; et al. Characterization of Seafloor Litter on Mediterranean Shallow Coastal Waters: Evidence from Dive Against Debris®, a Citizen Science Monitoring Approach. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 150, 110763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Eastman, L.; Hidalgo-Ruz, V.; Macaya, V.; Nuñez, P.; Thiel, M. The Potential for Young Citizen Scientist Projects: A Case Study of Chilean Schoolchildren Collecting Data on Marine Litter. Rev. De Gestão Costeira Integr. 2014, 14, 569–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ershova, A.; Makeeva, I.; Malgina, E.; Sobolev, N.; Smolokurov, A. Combining Citizen and Conventional Science for Microplastics Monitoring in the White Sea Basin (Russian Arctic). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 173, 112955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. France, R.L. First Landscape-Scale Survey of the Background Level of COVID-19 Face Mask Litter: Exploring the Potential for Citizen Science Data Collection during a ‘Pollution Pilgrimage’ of Walking a 250-Km Roadside Transect. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 816, 151569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Freitas, T.B.N.; Leite, T.S.; de Ramos, B.; di Cosmo, A.; Proietti, M.C. In an Octopus’s Garden in the Shade: Underwater Image Analysis of Litter Use by Benthic Octopuses. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2022, 175, 113339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Le, D.Q.; Takada, H.; Yamashita, R.; Mizukawa, K.; Hosoda, J.; Tuyet, D.A. Temporal and Spatial Changes in Persistent Organic Pollutants in Vietnamese Coastal Waters Detected from Plastic Resin Pellets. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 109, 320–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Lévesque, D.; Cattaneo, A.; Deschamps, G.; Hudon, C. In the Eye of the Beholder: Assessing the Water Quality of Shoreline Parks around the Island of Montreal through Citizen Science. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 579, 978–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Loizidou, X.I.; Loizides, M.I.; Orthodoxou, D.L. Persistent Marine Litter: Small Plastics and Cigarette Butts Remain on Beaches after Organized Beach Cleanups. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Nelms, S.E.; Coombes, C.; Foster, L.C.; Galloway, T.S.; Godley, B.J.; Lindeque, P.K.; Witt, M.J. Marine Anthropogenic Litter on British Beaches: A 10-Year Nationwide Assessment Using Citizen Science Data. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 579, 1399–1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  89. Nelms, S.E.; Eyles, L.; Godley, B.J.; Richardson, P.B.; Selley, H.; Solandt, J.L.; Witt, M.J. Investigating the Distribution and Regional Occurrence of Anthropogenic Litter in English Marine Protected Areas Using 25 Years of Citizen-Science Beach Clean Data. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 263, 114365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Nguyen, T.-T.T.; Ha, N.-H.; Bui, T.-K.L.; Nguyen, K.L.; Tran, D.-P.T.; Nguyen, H.Q.; El-Arini, A.; Schuyler, Q.; Nguyen, T.T. Baseline Marine Litter Surveys along Vietnam Coasts Using Citizen Science Approach. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Pasternak, G.; Ribic, C.A.; Spanier, E.; Ariel, A.; Mayzel, B.; Ohayon, S.; Zviely, D. Nearshore Survey and Cleanup of Benthic Marine Debris Using Citizen Science Divers along the Mediterranean Coast of Israel. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2019, 175, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Ribeiro, V.V.; Pinto, M.A.S.; Mesquita, R.K.B.; Moreira, L.B.; Costa, M.F.; Castro, Í.B. Marine Litter on a Highly Urbanized Beach at Southeast Brazil: A Contribution to the Development of Litter Monitoring Programs. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 163, 111978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Schernewski, G.; Balciunas, A.; Gräwe, D.; Gräwe, U.; Klesse, K.; Schulz, M.; Wesnigk, S.; Fleet, D.; Haseler, M.; Möllman, N.; et al. Beach Macro-Litter Monitoring on Southern Baltic Beaches: Results, Experiences and Recommendations. J. Coast. Conserv. 2018, 22, 5–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Schneider, F.; Lin, H.T.; Hu, C.S.; Hsu, C.H.; Yen, N. Volume-Based Assessment of Coastal Litter Reveals a Significant Underestimation of Marine Litter from Ocean-Based Activities in East Asia. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2022, 51, 102214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Stanton, T.; Chico, G.; Carr, E.; Cook, S.; Gomes, R.L.; Heard, E.; Law, A.; Wilson, H.L.; Johnson, M. Planet Patrolling: A Citizen Science Brand Audit of Anthropogenic Litter in the Context of National Legislation and International Policy. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 436, 129118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Syberg, K.; Palmqvist, A.; Khan, F.R.; Strand, J.; Vollertsen, J.; Clausen, L.P.W.; Feld, L.; Hartmann, N.B.; Oturai, N.; Møller, S.; et al. A Nationwide Assessment of Plastic Pollution in the Danish Realm Using Citizen Science. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 17773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Vincent, A.; Drag, N.; Lyandres, O.; Neville, S.; Hoellein, T. Citizen Science Datasets Reveal Drivers of Spatial and Temporal Variation for Anthropogenic Litter on Great Lakes Beaches. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 577, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Walther, B.A.; Kunz, A.; Hu, C.S. Type and Quantity of Coastal Debris Pollution in Taiwan: A 12-Year Nationwide Assessment Using Citizen Science Data. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 135, 862–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Zorzo, P.; Buceta, J.L.; Corredor, L.; López-Samaniego, I.; López-Samaniego, E. An Approach to the Integration of Beach Litter Data from Official Monitoring Programmes and Citizen Science. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 173, 112902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Yen, N.; Hu, C.S.; Chiu, C.C.; Walther, B.A. Quantity and Type of Coastal Debris Pollution in Taiwan: A Rapid Assessment with Trained Citizen Scientists Using a Visual Estimation Method. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 822, 153584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Yeo, B.G.; Takada, H.; Taylor, H.; Ito, M.; Hosoda, J.; Allinson, M.; Connell, S.; Greaves, L.; McGrath, J. POPs Monitoring in Australia and New Zealand Using Plastic Resin Pellets, and International Pellet Watch as a Tool for Education and Raising Public Awareness on Plastic Debris and POPs. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 101, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Amuah, E.E.Y.; Agyemang, E.P.; Dankwa, P.; Fei-Baffoe, B.; Kazapoe, R.W.; Douti, N.B. Are Used Face Masks Handled as Infectious Waste? Novel Pollution Driven by the COVID-19 Pandemic. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Adv. 2022, 13, 200062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Lopez-Aguilar, J.F.; Sevigné-Itoiz, E.; Maspoch, M.L.; Peña, J. A Realistic Material Flow Analysis for End-of-Life Plastic Packaging Management in Spain: Data Gaps and Suggestions for Improvements towards Effective Recyclability. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 31, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Nyakuma, B.B.; Ivase, T.J.P. Emerging Trends in Sustainable Treatment and Valorisation Technologies for Plastic Wastes in Nigeria: A Concise Review. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2021, 40, e13660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Parker, L. Environmentalism and Education for Sustainability in Indonesia. Indones. Malay World 2018, 46, 235–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Chase, S.K.; Levine, A. Citizen Science: Exploring the Potential of Natural Resource Monitoring Programs to Influence Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors. Conserv. Lett. 2018, 11, e12382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Cârstea, E.M.; Popa, C.L.; Donțu, S.I. Citizen Science for the Danube River—Knowledge Transfer, Challenges and Perspectives. In The Lower Danube River: Hydro-Environmental Issues and Sustainability; Negm, A., Zaharia, L., Toroimac, G.-I., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland; Berlin, Germany, 2022; pp. 527–554. [Google Scholar]
  108. Chawla, L. Life Paths into Effective Environmental Action. J. Environ. Educ. 1999, 31, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Irawan; Elia, A. Benius Interactive Effects of Citizen Trust and Cultural Values on Pro-Environmental Behaviors: A Time-Lag Study from Indonesia. Heliyon 2022, 8, e09139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Steinhorst, J.; Beyerl, K. First Reduce and Reuse, Then Recycle! Enabling Consumers to Tackle the Plastic Crisis—Qualitative Expert Interviews in Germany. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 313, 127782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 13265 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart with the approach for paper research and selection, and the distribution of papers published between January 2013 and July 2022.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart with the approach for paper research and selection, and the distribution of papers published between January 2013 and July 2022.
Sustainability 14 13265 g001
Sustainability 14 13265 g002 550
Figure 2. Number of studies per location around the globe regarding the involvement of citizens in plastic litter research between 2013 and (July) 2022 [1,10,13,14,15,16,17,21,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101]. Grey coloured locations are where no studies were recorded. A number of 5 studies were undertaken at a global scale.
Figure 2. Number of studies per location around the globe regarding the involvement of citizens in plastic litter research between 2013 and (July) 2022 [1,10,13,14,15,16,17,21,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101]. Grey coloured locations are where no studies were recorded. A number of 5 studies were undertaken at a global scale.
Sustainability 14 13265 g002
Sustainability 14 13265 g003 550
Figure 3. Main keywords for studies involving field surveys and questionnaires (top word cloud), and for studies discussing environmental and social impact (bottom word cloud). Analysis was made with NVivo.
Figure 3. Main keywords for studies involving field surveys and questionnaires (top word cloud), and for studies discussing environmental and social impact (bottom word cloud). Analysis was made with NVivo.
Sustainability 14 13265 g003
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Popa, C.L.; Dontu, S.I.; Savastru, D.; Carstea, E.M. Role of Citizen Scientists in Environmental Plastic Litter Research—A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13265. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013265

AMA Style

Popa CL, Dontu SI, Savastru D, Carstea EM. Role of Citizen Scientists in Environmental Plastic Litter Research—A Systematic Review. Sustainability. 2022; 14(20):13265. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013265

Chicago/Turabian Style

Popa, Cristina L., Simona I. Dontu, Dan Savastru, and Elfrida M. Carstea. 2022. "Role of Citizen Scientists in Environmental Plastic Litter Research—A Systematic Review" Sustainability 14, no. 20: 13265. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013265

APA Style

Popa, C. L., Dontu, S. I., Savastru, D., & Carstea, E. M. (2022). Role of Citizen Scientists in Environmental Plastic Litter Research—A Systematic Review. Sustainability, 14(20), 13265. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013265

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop