1149

THE OREOON EZPERIENCK--POUR YEARS IhTER

Judie Neilson+Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Portland, Oregon 97207, U.S.A.

*Present name and address: Judie Hansen, 1502 S. County Road 525M,Danville, IN 46122.

The fifth annual Oregon coastwide cleanup, held 10 October1988, attracted 2,200 volunteers who collected 14.2 tons ofdebris. Similar fall cleanups vere held in 22 coastal states ofthe United States, Costa Rica, and Puerto Rico. This paperreviews personal observations about the effectiveness ofvolunteer beach cleanups and discusses the evolution of datagathering, media coverage of the marine debris problem, changesin attitudes, and advancement in plastic recycling.

am pleased to be here to share my knowledge on my favorite subject--"floatable trash." I became interested in this subject just 5 years ago.At the time, it was a challenge to find information on the subject at all.Let me tell you how I became involved.

In 1984, the May-June issue of the Alaska Fish and Came Department'smagazine was delivered to my office by mistake. Flipping through it, I wasdrawn to an article by free-lance vriter Tom Paul. Entitled The plague ofplastics," it discussed the proliferation of plastic debris in the naturalenvironment and the resulting ingestion and entanglement by fish andwildlife.

At the time, I had worked at the Oregon Department of Fish andWildlife for 10 years and been an active birdvatcher for 25 years I knewbirds got entangled in monofilament fishing line and six-pack beveragerings, but I didn't know they had an appetite for polystyrene foam andsmall bits of plastic.

In talking to birdwatchers, scientists, and friends, I realized othersvere also unaware of the problem. Since 1984 was the "Year of the Oceanand ve Oregonians love our coast, I had the idea to organize a cleanup ofplastic debris on our 563 km {350 mi! of coast to see what we could find.

Jn R, $, Shoenta and a. L. Godfrey editors!, Proceedings of the Second intarnationa]Confarence on iiatine Dabria, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii. U.S. Dep. Coeaar, ~ aoAA rash.paso. RlFs, HGAA-Ta-Mes-svFsc-154. 1990.

1150

1 put together a small working group; we divided our coast into 14zones and found people villing to serve as zone captains." The captainswere biologists from the Department of Fish and Qildlife and Local resi-dents of the coastal communities. Zone captains coordinate refreshmentsfor celebration parties, assign volunteers to specific stret'ches of beach,arrange for the pickup of the collected debris, and work with the newsmedi.a.

Me spread the word of that first cleanup and invited the public to thecoast to see hov much marine debris ve could collect cm the 24L km �50 mi!of accessible beach.

Saturday, 13 October, vas .a very cold, wet, dark, blustery day. To myamazement, 2,100 volunteers shoved up and collected 26.3 tons of debris inJust 3 h. They filled out questionnaires documenting the quantity of fish-ing gear, six-pack yokes, polystyrene foam, plastic bags and bottles, rope,and strapping bands. Ve recorded the event on video film end produced a12-min film entitled "Get the Drift.'

lord of the cleanup spread quickly, and that November I vas invited toreport' the results at the Vorkshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine Debrisin Honolulu, Hawaii. Those attending were government scientists and con-cerned citizens from around the world working on marine mamsal entanglementproblems. I felt like an imposter with my citizen involvement projectresults, but the scientists welcomed me vith open arms. They came up to meafterwards and thanked me for documenting the volume of trash in a largegiven area. Many had vented to do beach surveys for years but were unableto spend time and money on that kind of research.

h number of recoemendations came out of the workshop, and one was thatbeach cleanups are a valid way to document the amount and sources of aarlnedebris. As a result, I was asked to organize and report on the findings ofcleanups along the west coast and New England states in 1985.

I prepared the "Nuts and Bolts Guide to Organizing a Beach Cleanup theEasy May.' A Dear Coastal Colleague" letter vas mailed to over 200 organ-izations and government entities listed in the National Vlldlife FederationConservation Directory. They were asked to take an active part in organiz-ing a cleanup in the study area states. Firm commitments vere receivedfrom eight states.

State coordinators were mailed a copy of the Nuts and Bolts Guide as e'starter kit" but vere encouraged to use special creativity to organize thecleanups. Some interesting logos, posters, and mottos resulted: Lend ahand in the sand, Don't be a litter boat, Be a beach buddy," andDebris-a-thon,' to name a few. The main focus of the national cleanup was

to determine the amount of derelict fishing gear, both sport and commer-cial, vhich makes its vay to the coastal beaches, and to help educate thepublic.

Following the cleanups, I compiled the results in a report to the U,S.National Marine Fisheries Service.

1151

The coastal cleanup program has grown by leaps and bounds. In 1986,we had 14 states participating. In 1987, there were 19 states. DuringSeptember and October of 1988, all 22 coastal states, 7 inland states, andCosta Rica and Puerto Rico participated. All of the cleanups were heldduring Coastveeks, produced by a citizens' network of groups, agencies, sndindividuals who focus attention on that special. place where water meets theland, During, the period of Coastweeks, agencies and organizations incoastal states have beach walks, bird identification seminars, beach clean-ups, and various activities to call attention to coastal issues. Fiveyears ago it was simply Coastweek, but to accommodate the many states par-ticipating, with different weather and tide patterns, the annual campaignnow stretches from the middle of September to the middle of October.

So after five cleanups, what are my thoughts about this whole business?I feel the number one value of beach cleanups is raising public avareness,Almost to a person the volunteers remark, "I never realized how much stuffvas out there until I had to spend time leaning over to pick it up." Andit sticks with them when they go back home, One friend told me that afterworking on a beach cleanup he couldn't enjoy playing, golf because he keptseeing all the polystyrene cups in the ponds on the golf course. In areaswhere beach cleanups have occurred, government agencies responsible formonitoring trash containers indicate an increase in the amount of plasticdebzis which is disposed of properly.

Each year, ouz data gathering gets e little more sophisticated. Asyou might imagine, turning loose thousands of volunteers for 3 h with no"fozm-filling-out training" doesn't result in precise accounting ofspecific materials or number of pieces. Sut it does give an index of thetype of debris and the probable source. The first 4 years we had a verygeneral, short questionnaire, It gave us bulk figures, because volunteersvould vrite "some," many," lots," "a few,' under number of pieces. In1988, we vorked with the Center for Marine Conservation and used the ques-tionnaire and guide which was used by approximately 43.000 volunteersnationally. The new questionnaire is more complex and specific. Prior tothe cleanups, there vas virtually no documentation on the amount or sourceof marine debris. So ve have come a long, way!

Ouz volunteers show up to work, are given a large collection bag,questionnaire, reminders about beach safety, and turned loose. Three hourslater they come back laden with trash, enthusiasm, and stories of the weirdthings they found. Ve treat them to a free lunch to give them anopportunity to share their stories.

In years past, all of the debris from Oregon's cleanup went directlyinto landfills, thanks to the generosity of the Oregon Sanitary ServiceInstitute. This year ve introduced a "beach buddy" system. We askedvolunteers to vork in pairs and separate the plastic from other debris andplace it in a special bag. After the cleanup, all the plastic andpolystyrene foam vas picked up by Environmental Pacific Corporation, takento Portland, and analyzed to see how much of it could be recycled. Meinvited the press to watch us rip open the sacks, not knowing for sure whatwe would find. Much to my relief, all of it vas plastic and moat vas

LLS2

recyclable. On the minus side, I think we asked too much of the volunteers.It is not possible for one person to carzy two sacks, a clipboard, writingtools, and also to pick up debris. So the system still needs refinement.

Many of our volunteers have participated in all five cleanups, and weare beginning to see more groups who charter buses for the trip from inlandcities to the coast. Private industries sponsor employee trips, schoolsuse the cleanup as an official school function, snd civic groups organizecarpooling and their own potluck picnics on the cleanup day.

Going after marine debris as litter' on the beaches does not have thesame public appeal as focusing on the issue of entanglement and ingestionby fish and wildlife. ,That focus has attracted the. media.and gotten newpeople interested and involved. I am sure everyone in this room knows therisk in getting people stirred up and emotionally involved. All of asudden, the statistics you gather are used in very creative ways to prove apoint on all sides of the marine debris and plastic recycling issues.

One of my earlier recommendations was to get a media blitz in thepopular pzess, not just in obscure technical or professional journals. Iam pleased to report there is hardly e week goes by that I don' t run acrossa marine debris article i.n a cosnerclal fishing industry magazine, conser-vation organization newsletter, or the newspaper. The state naturalresource agency magazines and Sea Grant publications have also done anexcellent job to further document the problem through feature articlescomplete with color photographs of injured wildlife.

I hope this trend continues. There should be repeated articles innewspapers, not just in the outdoor section but in business and science.Even the special newspaper supplements available to tourists along thecoast should have articles on marine debzis. The amount of trash onbeaches has an adverse economic impact for coastal communities and statescompeting for tourism dollars. That fact was brought home to us in 1988with the hospital waste showing up on Hew York and New Jersey beaches.

The publications which have not picked up on the severity of marinedebris are those targeted for the sport fishing and recreational boatingpublic. Secause of the way licenses and permits are issued, recreationistshave been missed by traditional Federal agency notices. Ve have found alarger percentage of balt containers and recreational gear during ourcleanup since cosmerciaL vessel owners are better informed. For instance,I don't think the recreational fleet knows about the adoption of Annex V tothe International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships MARPOL!.

A major value of the cleanups is networking with people in coastalstates working on marine debris, The networking provides a vehicle tocommunicate findings and the status of state and Federal legislation;compare how the cleanups are organized; and share artwork, slogans andcampaign strategies, what works with the media, and how to get donatedmaterials or funding. Having the cleanups clustered during I month in thefall gives everyone higher visibility with the public and news media.

1153

Now that we have the new questionnaire, we can get a better handle onhow to identify items that cause the majority of entanglement or ingestionproblems and focus our efforts on their source.

One of tbe most exciting, things to come along is the pilot projectconducted by the Port of Newport here in Oregon. They set up a recycling,program for commercial fishermen and other marine users to separate theirtrash at the dock. They gave the wood to senior citizens and sold thescrap paper, glass, and metal, and only a small portion was left over forthe landfill. The net fragments were recycled by tourists wanting decora-tions for their patios or local citizens needing supports for their vege-tables or backstops for their softball fields. That 1-year program gainedsupport and energy from a small commercial fishing coeevnity which hasradiated enthusiasm and interest to the entire Pacific Rim fishing industry.Its coordinator, Fran Recht, has a new grant to implement simi.lar projectsin Alaska, California, Oregon, and Washington this year and continue educa-tional programs with the commercial fishing industry and port officials. Aslong as ocean users continue to dump trash overboard, beach cleanups have atransitory value in ridding, the beaches of debris. The Newport project hasdirectly reduced the amount of debris on Oregon's central coast.

The adoption of Annex V to NARPOL has provided strong incentives forimproved port faci.lities and less dumping at sea. I suspect it will fosteraccelerated plastic recycling programs.

In Oregon we have good news. On 8 October 1988, we attracted 2 ' ZOOvolunteers. But they were only able to collect 14,2 tons compared to the26.3 tons in 1984. Kach year we have seen a steady decline in the amountcollected, and there are several contributing factors. Our weather hasbeen mild each fall with no major storms depositing, new trash before thecleanup. Luck of the currents, no doubt Also, the Oregon State ParksDepartment has held a Company's Coming cleanup in the spring, for the past3 years, so we didn't have an entire year's accumulation. As a generalrule, beach users are carrying out their own trash and debris they seewashed on shore, and on Oregon's central coast, adjacent to the Port ofNewport pilot project, there was simply less debris available. Theincreased public awareness through the cleanups has made a big, differencein Oregon.

As an extension to the regularly scheduled cleanups, we launched an"adopt-a-beach" program patterned after the State of Texas, inviting,Oregonians to choose a section of the Oregon coast they want to adopt,All we ask is that they clean it three times a year and tell us what theyfind.

I am really pleased to visit with you and share my enthusiam about howone person's idea can make e change. Since being involved in cleaningbeaches, I am better informed about entanglement and ingestion by wildlife ~environmental monitoring using citizen volunteers, how plastic i.s made andrecycled, and best of all how valuable trash can be

Thank you.

1154

THE TEXAS ADOPT-A-BEACH PROGRAM: APUBLIC/PRIVATE APP%3LCH TO CLEAN BEACHES

Angels D. FariasTexas General Iand Office

1700 N. Congress AvenueAustin, Texas 78701, U.S.A.

The Texas Adopt-A-Beach Program, founded im 1986 by TexasLand Commissioner Garry Nauro, is made up of private citizensvho volunteer to clean Texas beeches three times a year, and ismanaged by the Texas General Land Office. The prograa vas con-ceived both as a short-term solution to the problem of trash onTexas beaches and as a aeans of advancing long-term, permanentsolutions to the problea of marine debris: the ratification ofAnnex V of NARPOL, the International Convention for the Preven-tion of Pollution from Ships, and the iapleaentation of effec-tive enforcement measures.

The Adopt-A-Beach Prograa organizes two coastvide beachcleanups s year. The success of these cleanups--nearly 25,000volunteers have removed 1,000 tons of garbage from Texasbeaches--has enabled the program to shift its emphasis to publiceducation about the tremendous econoaic and environmental damagecaused by ocean dumping of garbage. Children are the focus ofeducational proJects that include a coloring book and puppetshow featuring the program's mascot, Lucky the Dolphi.n, and thedevelopaent of a marine debris curriculum for public schools .The prograa has also produced videotaped public serviceannouncements for statevide broadcast and has sponsored specialavareness events in conJunction vith cleanups.

Data collected by volunteers during cleanups vere instru-mental in building support in Congress for Senate ratificationof the international RLRPOL Annex V and implementation legisla-tion for the annex in the United States, Annex V prohibits theduaping of plastics in the ocean and sets strict limits on dump-ing of other solid vastes overboard. The volunteer-collecteddata are also being used in support of asking the Gulf of Mexicoa special area under the annex Dumping of any kind is prohib-ited in special area waters.

In H. S. Sboaura a& H. L. Godfrey editors!. Proceedings of rbc Sec~ IntcrnarionaIConference on Xarine Debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, Hawaii, Q S Dcp Cosmcr, HOAA Tc<b.Hcso. NHFs, NOAA-TN-HHFs-svFSc-154. 1990.

1155

IMTROMCT ION

Texas Land Commissioner Carry Mauro founded the Texas Adopt-A-BeachProgram in 1986 after taking part in a coastwide beach cleanup organized bythe Center for Environmental Education now the Center for Marine Conserva-tion!. In the course of this 3-h event, 2,700 volunteers collected 124tons of trash from 196 km �22 mi! of beach. It was clear that this volumeof trash could not be attributed t'o beach littering alone; the quantity «ndthe nature of the debris indicated that most of it had washed ashore intides of waterborne refuse.

Astonished at the quanti.ty of trash on Texas beaches, and recognizingthe heavy environmental and economic penalties of thi.s pollution, Commis-sioner Mauro decided to investigate the problem and determine what role theGeneral Land Office could play in solving it. He began by forming an in-house task force to study the sources of beach debris, to research existinglegal and institutional remedies, and to map out an action plan.

Both a 1985 Texas Coastal and Marine Council report and the Center forEnvironmental Education's report on the 1986 beach cleanup concluded thatsome 75 to 90% of the trash on Texas beaches originates offshore, abouttwo-thirds of it dumped from ships. Refuse discarded. in the Gulf of Mexicois not washed out to sea. What fails to sink is held in gulf waters byloop currents until oblique alongshore currents carry it to shore. For thisreason, the beach cleaning efforts of cities and counties along t' he Texascoast have provided only temporary relief, end at great cost: the State' scoastal communities spend about $14 million each year on the endless taskof cleaning their beaches.

The Texas Approach

Two needs were ismediately apparent: the need to raise public aware-ness of the magnitude of the beach garbage problem in Texas, and the needfor a broad-based, unified approach to its solution, concentrating on thesources of beach debris.

An obvious ob]ective was to work for U.S ratification of Annex V toMARPOL 73/78 to prohibit ocean dumping of plastic and restrict the dis-charge of other types of solid waste at sea. The severity of t' he beachpollution problem in Texas led to a second: to persuade the InternationalMaritime Organization to designate the Wider Caribbean Region the Gulf ofMexico and the Caribbean Sea! as a special area where virtually all dumpingwould be banned. But the General Land Office began with state-level actionthat would yield positive results more quickly,

As manager of the state's surface and mineral interests in about 1.62million ha � million acres! of submerged land on the Texas gulf coast, theGeneral Land Office issues leases, easements, and permits for a variety ofactivities. The agency's first step was to adopt emergency rules prohibit-ing the dumping of solid waste from offshore platforms and seismic vesselsoperating in Texas waters under state permits. These vere later followedby no-dumping rules and parallel contract provisions! for marinas, wharves,piers, fishing cabins, and all other structures on state-owned coastal land.

1156

Next, to draw public attention to the amount of trash and garbageaccumulating, on Texas beaches, to augment existing beach cleanup efforts,and to involve citizens in the crusade against marine debris, the GeneralLand Office instituted the Texas Adopt-A-Beach Program.

%e program vas modeled after tbe Adopt-A-Nighvay Program organized bythe Texas Department of Highways and Public Transportation. The Adopt-A-Highway Program has proven highly successful both as a cleanup program andas a public awareness campaign to discourage roadside littering. It wasfelt that the adoption format, already familiar to Texans, would vorkequally veil for the state's beaches. The Highway Department's slogan,Don't Ness with Texas," vas expanded to Don't Hess With Texas Beaches"

for the beach cleanup campaign..:.

Response to the Program

The Adopt-A-Beach Program won immediate enthusiastic support in Texas.Adopters were secured. far all 172 easily accessible Texas beach milesvithin the first year of the program, and even some segments accessibleonly by boat or four-vheel-drive vehicle found sponsors. Host adoptinggroups have renewed their adoption agreements annually. Businesses,philanthropic foundations, entertainers, advertisers, and private citizenshave made generous contributions of funding� supplies, services, andpromotional assistance.

Since the program's first coastvide cleanup in April 1987, nearly25,000 volunteers have removed more than 1,000 tons of trash from Texasbeaches. An analysis of data collected during coastwide cleanups, preparedby the then! Center for Emrironmental gducation, vas presented to the U.S.Congress and to the International Maritime Organization as evidence docu-menting the need for U.S. ratification of HARPOL Annex V, the passage ofnational enforcement legislation, and designation of the Wider CaribbeanRegion as a special area under the annex.

The spirit of the Adopt-A-Beach Program has spread beyond state bound-aries and beyond U.S. borders. The Texas program has been emulated byother coastal states, and it is nov spreading to Central America. InSeptember 1988, Texas, Louisiana, Hississippi, Alabama, and Florida ]oine.dforces in a "Take Pride Gulfvide" beach cleanup sponsored by the U.S .Hinerals Management Service. A symbolic beach adoption agreement enteredinto by the students of Flour Bluff zuni.or High School near Corpus Christi,Texas, and the children of Costa Rica in the spring of 1988 immediately ledto the establishment of a national Costa Rican beach cleanup program.

PINCltkM S?RUC?URK AND OPKRA?ION

The Adopt-A-Beach Program takes its direction from State Government,but it is operated at the county level by an all-volunteer work force andis dependent upon private funding and in-kind donations of supplies andservices.

An Adopt-A-Beach Task Force appointed by Cosmissioner Hauro developedguidelines for the program and oversees its operations. This advisory

11S7

body, whose members now number about 55, represents a broad range ofcoastal interests: Federal, state, and local government; oil, gas, andchemical production; tourism; shipping; agriculture; waste disposal andrecycling; scientific research; and conservation. The task force meetsperiodically in full session for program review and planning. Threesubcossaittees--Finance, Education, and Legislation--hold independentmeetings.

The General Land Office, as administrator of the Adopt-A-Beachprogram, coordinates sll program activities with the assistance of theAdopt-A-Beach task force, It oversees beach adoptions, promotes theprogram state~ide, solicits funding, organizes two annual coastwidecleanups, and develops educational materials and. programs. The agency alsomaintains a toll-free number for in-stste inqui.ries about the program andpublishes a quarterly newsletter, the Texas Beach Bulletin,

The Texas Conservation Foundation, a state agency empowered to manageand expend donated funds, is financial trustee for the Adopt-A-BeachProgram. It manages a special fund established to receive tax-deductiblecontributions for the support of prograa activities. Monies from the fundare used for:

~ the purchase and shipment of cleanup supplies, including trashbags, data cards, and pencils;

~ the purchase and installation of beach signs marking adopted beachsegments and crediting adopting groups;

a printing and mailing of the program's newsletter, certificates,posters, brochures, and other promotional and educationalmaterials;

~ operation of the program's toll-free telephone line; and

~ promotional events to publicize the program and to recruit sponsorsand cleanup volunteers.

A network of volunteer county coordinators provides grassroots leader-ship for the program. They recruit and register adopting groups, handlelocal cleanup logistics, and promote the program within their communities.This structure is not only practical, but also capitalizes on cosmunitypride--a powerful force in sustaining the program's momentum.

To Join the program, groups sign an adoption agreement that c~itsthem to cleaning, a designated beach segment usually 1.6 km l, mi!! threetimes within a 1-year period, participating in the program's two coastwidecleanups and conducting a third cleanup independently. The agreement alsoreleases the Adopt-A-Beach program from liability for any in]ury incurredduring a beach cleanup. Each adopting group receives an adoption certif-icate, and the group's name is listed on a si~ installed at the accessroad nearest its adopted beach seyaent.

1158

Groups now enrolled in the program include civic clubs, sportingclubs, chambers af commerce, large corporations, small businesses,conservation organizations, public schools, colleges, Scout troops, stateagencies, cities, property owners' associations, and families.

The program's two annual coastwids cleanups are cosponsored bynonprofit organizations. The 'Great Texas Beach Trash-Off," held in Aprilof each year, is cosponsored by Keep Texas Beauti.ful, Inc. The "TexasCoastal Cleanup," hald in September during Coastweeks, is cosponsored bythe Center for Marine Conservation. Participants in these cleanups includeindependent volunteers as well as affiliates of the Adopt-A-Seach Program.Local coordinators distribute trash bags, data cards, and pencils to allcleanup volunteers.

The data cards provide spaces for the tabulation of items within sevenbroad categories plastic, glass, Styrofoam, metal, paper, wood, andrubber!, for the notation of labels that might indicate the sources ofitems collected, for recording, the number of trash bags filled, and forreporting slghtlngs of stranded or entangled animals.

PROGRAM PROMOTION

The Adopt-A-Beach Program employs a variety of means to publicize theadoption program, advertise coastwide cleanups, and recruit volunteers andsponsors. The program carries its promotional efforts statewide to remindnoncoastal Taxans that they are residents of 4 coastal state, that theybenefit from the coastal area both directly and indirectly, and that theyshould share the responsibility for protection of coastal waters andbeaches.

Recruitment

When the program was first organired, the General Land Officerecruited county coordinstors through telephone calls, letters, andpersonal visits to community leaders and known environmentslists along thecoast. The same procedures were used by the General Land Office Adopt-A-Beacb staff and county coordinators to enlist adopters. Lists of prospec-tive adopters were coarpiled from target groups such as garden clubs, 4-Hclubs. local. branches of oil and gas companies, and waste disposalcompanies.

Early recruitment wss greatly facilitated by television and newspapercoverage of press conferences preceding the program's first coastwlde beachcleanup in the spring of 1987 and by establishment of the program's toll-free telephone number �-800-85-M!. Now that the program is wellknown, it has become less necessary to engage in aggressive recruitment ofparticipants. New county coordinators, new adopting groups, and sponsorsoften initiate contact with the program.

Solicitation of Financial and Xu-And Support

All public information materials produced by the Adopt-A-Beach Programemphasize that the program is dependent upon private donations for its

1159

operation and that such donations are tsx-deductible, The program solicitscontributions of money, supplies, or services through direct appeals tocompanies that have a reputation for supporting environmental causes orthat are likely to appreciate the benefits of association with an environ-mental improvement program. It has also sought grants from foundationsknown to support conservation efforts.

Financial donations to the Adopt-A-Beach Program have included a 3-year grant of $50,000 fram the Moody Foundation of Galveston, a $5,000grant from the Fondren Foundation of Houston, and a contribution of $10,500from Browning-Ferris Industries, a vaste disposal company. Other contribu-tions have come from oil and gas companies, lav firms, and numerous privateindividuals.

In-kind donations to the program have included bumper stickers, trashbags, celebrity promotions, refreshments for cleanup participants, andpickup of filled trash bags after beach cleanups. The Mobil Corporationdonated 100,000 garbage bags valued at $13,000 to the program in 1988, andMaryland Club Foods donated 9,700 bags for the 1989 Great Texas BeachTrash-Off. One of the first in-kind donations to the program was 15,000"Don't Mess With Texas Beaches" bumper stickers, provided by a beerdistributor.

In 1988, 23 outdoor advertising companies donated space along majorroutes to the coast for 300 billboards displaying the "Don't Ness WithTexas Beaches" slogan and the program's toll-free number. Most of thebillboards were printed with money from the Adopt-A-Beach fund and postedby companies that donated the advertising space, but some companies paintedbillboards free-of-charge.

Media Coverage

The Texas Adopt-A-Beach Program hss benefited from both local andnational media attention. After the April 1987 coastv'ide cleanup, articlesappeared in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, and both Time andNewsweek magazines featured articles about the status of beaches in Americaas front-cover stories. In August 1987, Commissioner Nauro discussed theproblem of beach trash in Texas as a guest on the ABC television newsprogram Good Morning, America.

Press coverage of program activities is invaluable in advertising theprogram, mustering volunteers for coastvide cleanups, and publicizingcleanup results. Press releases are issued to newspapers, radio stations,and television stations in advance of cleanups «nd as soon as statistics onthe number of volunteers participating snd the tons of trash collected areavailable afterward.

The adoption of a mascot, an Atlantic bottlenase dolphin named 4acky,enlivened the Adopt-A-Beach Program's promotional campaign and gave theprogram a symbol with appeal for children. Lucky, a performer at. Sea-AramaNarineworld in Galveston, Texas, is an especially appropriate mascot forthe program because he was a victim of marine debris, barely surviving

1160

entanglement in an abandoned fishing net. He vas given his fitting name bythe veterinarians of the Marine Maial Stranding Network who nursed himback to health.

Public service announcements are produced for radio and televisionbroadcast before every coastwide beach cleanup. The program's firstvideotaped public service announcement featured Lucky and Texas rockmusician Joe "King" Carrasco. The second video, featuring actor RandyQuaid, vas produced to advertise the 1989 Creat Texas Beach Trash-Off. Athird was produced to publicize the NARPOL Annex V regulations. All publicservice announcements are distributed statewide.

Printed Materials

The program produces brochures and posters to advertise coastwidecleanups. These are sent to county coordinators, adopting groups, coastalchambers of commerce, public libraries' hotels and motels, and otherbusinesses for distribution. Cleanup brochures list the names and tele-phone numbers of county coordinators, the locations of designated beachcheck-in points for volunteers, and the names of hotels and motels offeringdiscounts to cleanup workers.

The quarterly Texas Beach Bulletin, vith a current circulation ofabout. 3,300, suamerizes Adopt-h-Beach Program activities, announces cleanupdates, reports results of coastvide cleaxnxps, and acknowledges donations tothe program. It serves as an educational as veil as a promotional tool,containing articles about national and international efforts to combatmarine debris. The newsletter is sent to Adopt-A-Beach Program partici-pants and supporters and is included in the information packet mailed toanyone who calls or mites to inquire about the program.

PUBLIC EDVCATION

|Iith the beach cleanup program veil established in all coastalcounties, the Adopt-A-Beach Program is concentrating on public educationproJects, including educational materials and programs for children, anawareness drive targeting recreational boaters, and a campaign to promoterecycling. An important element of sll these efforts is publicizing therequirements and expected results of NARPOL Annex V.

Outreach to Children

Children are the primary target of educational efforts. In the suerof 1988, the Adopt-A-Beach Program introduced an educational program forpreschool and primary-grade children. Its coisponents are a slide show, apuppet show, and a "Don't Ness Mith Texas Beaches coloring book.

The slide show contrasts clean and littered beaches, shovs how trashreaches the beach and how it can harm birds and marine animals, and tellsthe story of Lucky the Dolphin. In the puppet show, called "Joey Saves theDay, a boy fishing from a boat rescues Lucky and his friend Clipper theCrab from the Trash Monster. In the ll-page coloring book, lucky points

1161

out the hazards of beach litter and floating trash and urges children tohelp keep beaches clean. Simple lyrics for a series of beach cleanup songsset to familiar tunes are printed in the back of the book.

The educational program has been presented to an estimated 4,000children at day-care centers, public libraries, museums, mnd elementaryschools in Austin and coastal cities and has proven very effective ininteresting children in the cause of beach protection. Because the puppetshow has been so veil received by teachers, librarians, and children, it isbeing videotaped for distribution throughout the state. Coloring bookshave been given to all children attending the program, and at least 20,000more have been distributed by mail. Five hundred Spanish-language versionsof the coloring book were sent to children in Costa Rica.

The Adopt-A-Beach Program is nov vorking on a formal marine debriscurriculum for kindergartens and elementary schools. It will includelessons about the nature and importance of marine and coastal resources;the damage caused by marine debris, particularly plastics; and recycling asa solution to the problem of solid waste in tbe environment.

The program staff is preparing a curriculum outline in consultationwith the Education Subcommittee of the Adopt-A-Beach Task Force. To ensurethat the curriculum meets state requirements for public school use, thestaff is also coordinating development of tbe project with the Texas Educa-tion Agency. It is anticipated that the actual writing of the curriculumwill be contracted to an educational consultant.

Promoting Awareness Among Recreational Boaters

The Adopt-A-Beach Program is working with the Boating, Trades Associa-tion of Texas and the Marina Association of Texas to make boaters aware ofthe need for their cooperation in the battle against marine debris. Theprogram's first public service video was directed at recreational fishermenand boaters, urging, them not to discard trash overboard. The BoatingTrades Association and the Marina Association have distributed Stow It--Don't Throw It" bumper stickers that include the Adopt-A-Beach Program andCenter for Environmental Education logos.

Racycling Campaign

The Adopt-A-Beach Program is broadening its mission by promoting,recycling as a practical means to reduce solid ~sate in the environment andalleviate tbe burden on landfills. The focus of the recycling campaign isplastic, which makes up some 60% of the trash collected in coastwide beachcleanups,

General Land Office staff helped draft container-coding legislationfor introduction in the 1989 session of tbe Texas Legislature. Informationabout the proposed law, which would require coding, of plastic containers byresin type to facilitate recycling, has been published in the program'snewsletter.

1162

In conjunction with the April 1988 coastvida cleanup, the Society forthe Plastics Industry sponsored a plastics recycling demonstration forcleanup volunteers at South Padre Island. In September 1988, Shell OilCompany sponsored a "Trash Bash" for volunteers vho brought glass, paper,aluminum, and plastic to Sea-Arama Harineworld in Galveston for pickup byrecycling companies.

To further encourage beach cleanup volunteers to become recyclers, andto take advantage of the opportunity to recycle large amounts of beachdebris, participants in the 1989 Great Texas Beach Trash-Off vere asked toseparate the trash they picked up from the beach, putting recyclablematerials into orange bags, and nonrecyclable trash into white bags. KeepTexas Beautiful, Inc., cosponsor of the-cleanup, made arrangements forcollection of the recyclable trash by local companies.

In conjunction with the 1 April 1989 Great Texas Beach Trash-Off, theTexas Arts Counci,l and Business Volunteers for the Arts/Houston joined theAdopt-A-Beach Program in sponsoring a juried beach trash sculpture contestin Galveston. The contest was conceived as a means of publicizing thesources and types of debris found on Texas beaches, drawing attentionto the program's cleanup and recycling campaigns, and adding the artscommunity to interests endorsing the beach cleanup program.

A brochure containing contest guMelines and an entry form wasdistributed to members of the Texas Arts Council and to artists on amailing list supplied by the Texas Commission for the Arts. Posters adver-tising the contest, called "Trash for Art's Sake, vere sent to art museumsand galleries. Cash pri.zes were awarded to the top three vinners, andother contestants received honorable nenti.on. Ten prize-winning entriesvill tour art museums throughout the state before being donated to coastalauseums for permanent display.

FUTURE OF TEE PROGRAM

Special Area Designation

Data collected by Texas volunteers in future beach cleanups willpermit evaluation of the effectiveness of MARPOL Annex V regulations inreducing the amount of plastic and other floating debris reaching Texasshores, The data vill also support the Texas Adopt-A-Beach Program'songoing effort to secure special area designation for the Wider CaribbeanRegion under the annex.

The Adopt-A-Beach Program will continue to encourage the establishmentof parallel beach cleanup programs throughout the Caribbean region. Thesuccess of the Costa Rican beach cleanup program has inspired both Panamaand Honduras to establish similar programs, and it is hoped that othercountries will foll.ov suit. The demonstration of widespread, seriousconcern about marine debris in the Vidar Caribbean should benefit the causeof special area designation.

1163

Continuing Educational and Awareness Projects

The program vill continua to stress the importance of recycling as asolution to the solid waste problem and vill work to promote the expansionof recycling efforts throughout the state. The Adopt-A-Beach staff iscooperating with the Bryan and College Station, Texas, independent schooldistrict in a program that will combine classroom education with an activerecycling prospect for public scbool students next year.

An expanded a~areness campaign vill be undertaken to educaterecreational boaters about the hazards of marine debris, to inform themabout MARPOL Annex V regulations, and to encourage all marines on the Texascoast to provide garbage reception facilities like those the General LandOffice nov requires for marinas on state-owned land. The Adopt-A-BeachProgram will supply boaters with garbage bags and award certificates ofappreciation to volunteers who pledge to participate in an aquatic versionof the beach cleanup program.

Research and Planning

The Adopt-A-Beach Program is helping Texas ports prepare to contendwith the plastic refuse that vill be off-loaded by ships in accordance withHARPOL Annex V regulations. The program is helping, the ports locateresearchers, waste management companies, and recycling companies that cansupply needed planning assistance, equipment, and services.

The Adopt-A-Beach Program is also represented on the Marine DebrisTechnical Subcommittee of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Gulfof Mexico Program, assisting with data collection, data analysis, andexploration of methods to alleviate both marine and beach debris throughoutthe gulf region.

Addressing Md-Based Sources of Beach Debris

The reduction--and, it is hoped, eventual elimination--of marinedebris in the Gul,f of Mexico will not entirely solve the problem of solidwaste pollution of Texas beaches. Though offshore sources are to be blamedfor most of the trash fouling the state's shoreline and nearshore waters,land-based sources make a substantial contribution. For this reason, theutility of the Adopt-A-Beach Program vill not soon be diminished.

Land-based sources--onshore dumping, river-transported trash, andpersistent littering--vill be the target of future Adopt-A-Beach Programavareness efforts. Data collected by beach cleanup volunteers can provideestimates of the amount of beach trash attributable to these sources andcan help to identify chief offenders.

COHCLUSIOI

The rapid success of the Adopt-A-Beach Program in establishing astrong alliance between government and the private sector in the crusadeagainst marine debris, in stirring citizen activism both within and beyond

1164

Texas, and in becoming a catalyst for the statewide expansion of solidwaste control efforts exceeded 1986 expectations. The program's influencecan be largely attributed to tfming: it was inaugurated at a time whenhaericans had at last begun to realize that pollution of coastal waters andshorelines had reached a critical stage.

But it cannot be assumed that no one among the volunteers who ralliedto the cry "Don't Mess arith Texas Beaches" would have been wflling toparticipate in a coastal cleanup effort years earlier. In fact, manyprogram volunteers were already participants in, or supporters of. otherconservation efforts. Those who were not may just have been waiting fordirection.

The hdopt-h-Beach Program provided that direction. It has succeededbecause ft offers an easy avenue for citizen participation. enablingcitizens from all walks of life to make an important contribution to thecoastal cleanup effort. Those who cannot provide hands-on assistance atthe beach can support the program by donating money, supplies, or services,Those wbo can offer neither physical nor financial support for programactivities can be of equal help by simply spreading the word--by helping toheighten public awareness of the environmental and economic costs of marinedebris The program's design has facilitated development of the broad baseof informed support essential to genuine progress against so widespread andcomplex a problem,

1165

MARIHE DHBRIS DEMONSTRATION AHD KDUCATIOH PROJRGTAT SQVALLCUH HARBOR, BELLIHGHAX, WASHIHGTON, U-S.A.

Jim Humpbreys* and Patti Hullin~Mashington Sea Grant Program

Bellingham, Masbington 98225, V.S.A.

+Present address: Bornstein Seafoods, P.O. Box 188, Bellingham, MA 98227.eePresent address: 4408 Y Road, Bellingham, MA 98226.

Washington Sea Grant's North Puget Sound Office inBellingbam, Mashington, began a demonstration and educationproject about marine debris in January 1988. The objectives ofthis project. were;

1. to develop a demonstration project to collect andrecycle vessel-generated wastes fr'om commercial andrecreational vessels at Squalicum Harbor, Bellingham,Masbington; and

2. to develop an educational program to teach commercialfishermen and boaters about marine debris through avariety of extension education techniques .

Squalicum Harbor provides moorage for about 1,750 boats, ofwhich 1,050 are recreational and 700 are commercial. The coemer-cial fishing fleet is composed mostly of gillnetters �.6-10.B mlong! and purse seiners �5.3-18.4 m long! that fish in PugetSound and Alaska. The recreational fleet has about equal numbersof sail and powerboats, and 75-100 boats are used ms live-aboardhomes.

The demonstration project was coordinated with the Port ofBellingham, which owns and manages Squalicum Harbor The func-tion of Mashington Sea Grant staff in this project was to act astechnical advisors to the port staff. They surveyed the boaters,analyzed waste collection facilities and alternatives, andoffered suggestions on improvements that could be accomplished ina cost-effective and realistic manner. The educational programfocused on using traditional extension education techniques. Aposter and three publications on marine debris were developed.These materials were important components of the extension educa-tion portion of this project. Because of the time it bas takento implement the changes proposed in the demonstration project,no measurements of their effects have yet been made

In R. R. Shoeota and H. L. Codfrey editors!, Proceedinp of the Second InternationalConference on Marine Debris. 2-7 April l989, Honolulu, Havaii. U.s. Dep. Comeer., NoAA Tech.Nemo . HHF$, NQAA- TM- HFIFs - sMFsc- 154 . l 990,

1166

INTRODUCTION

For years, people aboard boats and in coastal areas threw theirgarbage into the water. Items such as tin cans, faod waste, cardboard, andcatton fishing gear and lines quickly sank. These materials generallydegraded and caused relatively few problems in the marine environment.Also, as a rule marines had dumpsters or litter barrels near the docks forgarbage disposal, but no specialized waste collection systems.

Today, however, much of the material that is thrown overboard or lostin Puget Sound and in the oceans is made of plastic. Plastics are veryuseful aboard vessels because they are lightweight, strong, and do notdegrade when wet. However, these same qualities can cause problems whenplastics are dispased of in the marine environment. Studies from manyparts of the world have shown that serious problems result when wildlifeencounters plastic marine debris Shomura and Yoshida 1985; Center forEnvironmental Education l987; Alaska Sea Grant 1988; Alversan and June1988!.

As more U.S. and worldwide attention focused on plastic marine debris,Annex V of the MARPOL Convention was ratified internationally in 1987, andto implement that convention in the United States, Congress passed theMarine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act MPPRCA! in 1987. TheMPPRCA, which became effective an 31 December 1988, prohibits the dumpingof plastics at sea and regulates the dumping of other wastes at sea U.S.Department of Transportation 1988!. With the implementation of MPPRCA,heaters and fishermen now must return boat wastes to port, and ports andmarinas must have facilities to accept those wastes.

Within Puget Sound, the volume and sources of marine plastic debrisand the problems it causes are not well known. Because of Washington'sextensive recreational and commercial fishing fleets, one would expect tofind debris common to those vessels and activities. Some negative impactsof derelict fishing gear within Puget Sound have been observed High 1985!,but the extent of the problem is unknown.

Despite a lack of specific data about the extent of the marine debrisproblem within the Puget Sound region, it was felt that marine plasticdebris was causing problems in the area. Also, as a result of MPPRCA,boaters were prohibited from disposing of their wastes into Puget Sound,and marinas were mandated to have facilities to accept boat garbage. Ingeneral, however, few boaters, fishermen, or marina operators were familiarwith the MPPRCA and its provisions. The Squalicum Harbor project wasdeveloped with two primary goals:

1. to develop a pilot project to collect and recycle vessel-generated wastes from commercial and recreational vessels atSqualicum Harbor, and

2. to develop an educational program to teach commercialfishermen and boaters in the Puget Sound region about marineplastic debris and its proper disposal.

1167

The Port of Newport PON!, Oregon, had developed a pilot, marine debriscollection and education project that was fairly successful. With grantfunding from the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, the Newportproject was able to develop a successful waste collection system that wasused by the commercial fishing fleet for nets, rope, wood, metal, and othermaterials Recht 1988!.

The Squalicum Harbor project hoped to build on the experiences of theNewport project. However, four major differences between the projects wereevident. First, the PON project was organized as a staff project of thePON. The Squalicum Harbor project was being developed by people outsidethe Port of Bellingham staff. Second, the PON project provided funding forfacilities and maintenance staff, whereas the Squalicum Harbor project didnot. For the project to be successful in the long run, it had to workwithin the operational budget of Squalicum Harbor,! Third, the types ofdebris at the harbors were different. In each harbor, the debris reflectedthe boats that use the marinas: Newport has more trawlers, and Squalicumhas more purse seiners, gillnetters, and recreational boats, Fourth, thephysical layouts of the harbors are different: Newport has separate marinasfar the commercial and recreational fleets, whereas Squalicum Harbor hasthese fleets within the same marina.

METHODS

Squalicum Harbor is located some 144.8 km 90 mi! north of Seattle onBellingham Bay. It provides moorage for about 1,750 boats, of which 1,050are recreational and 700 are commercial. The commercial fishing fleet iscomposed mostly of gillnetters �.6-10.8 m long! and purse seiners �5.3-18.4 m long! that fish in Puget Sound and Alaska. The recreational fleethas about equal numbers of sail and powerboats, and 75-100 boats are usedas live-aboard homes. Squalicum Harbor has three water entrances and nineramps to the docks.

Existing waste-handing and collection facilities and procedures wereanalyzed using: 1! a personal informal interview survey of boaters andfishermen who use the harbor; 2! discussions with Squalicum Harbor staff,3! a visual survey of the waste-handling facilities; and 4! contacts withwaste collection companies, recycling companies, and community agencies.

Educational materials were developed and written by Washington SeaGrant WSG! staff working on the marine debris project. Original planscalled for writing one extension education publication for each of fourdifferent audiences: Squalicum Harbor boaters and fishermen, commercialfishermen, recreational boaters, and marina operators. Additionally aposter, a slide show, and a display area were to be developed.

DISCUSSION

Squalicum Harbor Analysis and Proposal

Twenty-seven fishermen and boaters from Squalicum Harbor wereinterviewed during spring 1987. Tabulation of the respondents' answers

1168

showed that 788 thought Bellingham had a marine debris problem, 528 hadexperienced problems such as fouled propellers or clogged water intakescaused by plastic debris, 74% indicated that the existing waste facilitiesat Squalicum Harbor were adequate, and 678 expressed a willingness to sortsome of their wastes for a recycling program. Respondents also indicatedthat management of an oil recycling facility maintained for boaters' useneeded improvement.

Squalicum Harbor provided one 4.58 m � yd ! dumpster at the top ofeach float ramp, additional dumpsters in the area where commercialfishermen work on their gear, and a 15.29 m �0 yd ! dumpster near thedock used for provisioning vessels.

The visual survey of dumpster contents and interviews with SqualicumHarbor staff showed that the composition of the garbage varied with theseason and the type of harbor use near that dumpster. For example, thepercentage, by volume, of cardboard boxes ranged from 5 to 1008, with amean of 52%.

Squalicum Harbor had a contract with the local garbage disposalcompany to empty the dumpster at the harbor. Seasonal fluctuations inquantity and composition of garbage were reflected in different pickupschedules for different dujapsters Table 1!. Rates varied with thefrequency of pickup, the size of the dumpster, and whether the garbage wentto landfill or to incineration Table 2!. The cost of garbage service atSqualicum Harbor rose dramatically from 1983 to 1987 Table 3!. Thisincrease was caused by marina growth, boater population growth, andincreases in garbage pickup rates over the time period.

On analysis, Squalicum Harbor's waste-handling facilities were judgedto be adequate. Increased volumes of waste materials generated because ofheightened awareness of the facilities could be easily accommodated byincreasing the frequency of dumpster pickup. Any attendant cost increasescould be minimized by developing a collection and recycling system forcardboard and aluminum. As in the PON project, a significant volume of thewastes in dumpsters at Squalicum Harbor was cardboard.

With this analysis completed, a proposal was written and presented tothe Squalicum Harbor staff in August 1988, This proposal provided adetailed plan to improve the waste-handling system at Squalicum Harbor,The major elements of the plan were to maintain all existing dumpsters inthe harbor; provide collection boxes or cleared space for netting,cardboard, scrap metal, wood, and aluminum; organize free pickup ofmaterials by local recycling companies; and advertise the program throughsigns, pamphlets, news articles, presentations, displays, and word ofmouth.

Figure 1 locates the proposed waste collection facilities at SqualicumHarbor. These facilities would:

~ Provide a central location at the harbor for recycling scrapmetal, wood, and netting. This would be a cleared space withsigns indicating where to stack different materials.

1169

Table 1.--Frequency of dumpster pickup at Squalicum Harbor.

Frequency of pickupSize of containerSeason

trash compactor!

trash compactor!

Table 2.--Monthly rates for hauling and disposal oftrash from Squalicum Harbor.

Frequency of pi.ckup

1 per week 2 per week 3 per weekDumpster size

403.03279.47

'321.60

149.27'130.75'107.20

276.15'205.11

214.40

Additional charges for hauling and disposal fee .

Table 3.--Total costs of garbageservice in Squalicum Harbor.

CostYear

a Provide collection boxes for sorting and recycling ofcardboard at five of the nine dumpsters at the harbor,dumpsters used primarily by the commercial fishing fleet.Used wooden fish totes were donated by local seafoodcompanies for collection boxes. Removing the cardboard wasexpected to reduce the rate at which the dumpsters filled upand thus reduce garbage costs.

Winter Oct. -Nay!WinterWinterSummerSummerSummer

4.58 m � yd !15.29 m �0 yd !15.29 m �0 yd !

trash compactor!

4.58 m15.29 N15.29 IR

4.58 m

15.29 m15.29 15

198319841985198619871988

� yd!�0 yd !�0 yd !� yd!�0 yd !�0 yd !

$18,794$22,394$30,456$34,492$41,758$50 F 000 estimated!

1 per week1 per month1 per month3 per weekOn-call basisOn-call basis

1170

~ Bets

* Waste Oil

~ Plastks aad ltaat Garbage

g Cardlwsrd

Pumpaut FacilitiesAla<aiaasa

Scrap hlctal, Scrap Woad

Figure 1.--Proposed seaste collection facilities at Squalicuta Harbor.

13.71

~ Provide three aluminum recycling facilities at the harboradjacent to the dumpsters used by the recreational boatingfleet. Aluminum is a high value recyclable item, and theserecycling revenues could he]p offset the cost of wastedisposal.

The proposed facilities could be used by boaters and fishermen wi.th aminimum of sorting. As a result, use of the facilities was expected to beheavy.

In addition, only materials that had ready markets vere included inthe recycli.ng program. At no charge to the port, companies in the Selling-hara area vould pick up one-or more of the materials being collected. Thisvas expected to help reduce maintenance needs.

recycling program for tvo reasons: l!local companies would not pick it up atof the veight of glass, specializedto handle it.

Glass was excluded from theglass has a lov market value andSqual icum Harbor, and 2! becauseequipment would have been needed

The Newport project found that blue color-coding of their recyclingfacilities ves very useful, and the Squalicum Harbor project also color-coded the recycling facilities blue. Nany fishermen and boaters travelfrequently from port to port on the U.S. vest coast and Alaska, and WSGsuggests that for ease of recognition blue be adopted as the color forrecycling facilities in all ports.

Educational Program

The educational portion of the program vas multifaceted and involvedworking with the Washington State Task Force on Narine Plastic Debris.This task force had representatives from some 40 different governmental,environmental, industrial, educational, and community groups vho workedtogether to develop a Washi.ngton State Harine Plastic Debris Action Plan Washington State Department of Natural Resources 1988!, As task forceparti.cipants, WSG staff developed a logo for statevide marine debriscleanup Fig. 2!. This logo and the slogan "Get a Grip on Harine Debris"are being used throughout Washington State.

The educational portion of the Squalicum Harbor project also includeddeveloping and printing a marine debris poster; writing pamphlets directedat Squalicum Harbor boaters, coesiercial fishermen, and recreationalboaters; providing presentations to various cosssunity and school K-12!groups on marine debris; developing a liaison with Western WashingtonUniversity's plastics technology program; and being available to the mediaon marine debris-related matters, Using these educational materials, WSGreached a total of 585 people at vorkshops and other meetings, anddistributed more that. 2 ' 50G posters and pamphlets.

RESULTS AID GDNCurSIaHS

The analysis and proposal conducted by WSG staff were provided to theSqualicum Harbor staff much the vay a consultant vould provide information,

1172

Figure 2. --Mashington State marine debris logo.

However, the Squalicum Harbor staff had to make the actual changes. Sixmonths after receiving the recommendations, they were just beginning toimplement the physical changes. The first' cardboard collection boxes wereinstalled in early March 1989, and they were issaediately used by theboaters and fishermen. The installation of the other facilities wereexpected to occur shortly thereafter.

Me can only theorize about why implementing the proposal took so long..First, the Squalicum Harbor staff appeared to be already working at theirmaximum level. When a staff is already working at or near capacity, a newproject is difficult to start. Second, in spite of the analysis andproposal, the staff appeared reluctant to implement the project for fear ofgenerating more maintenance work for themselves. Third, this project may

ll73

have been viewed with some resentment because i.t was promoted by peopleoutside of the Squalicum Harbor staff,

Because of the time it took to have physical changes made at SqualicumHarbor, no measuremants have yet been made on the effects of the changes.This project points out the difficulty of setting up a demonstrationproject as an "outsider," and should caution others to expect to go sLowlyin similar projects.

REFERENCES

Alaska Sea Grant.1988. Oceans of plastic. Report. on a workshop on fisheries-

generated marine debris and derelict fishing gear. Alaska SeaGrant Rep. 88-7, 68 p.

Alverson, D. L., and J . A. June editors!,1988. Proceedings of the North Pacific Rim Fisherman's Conference on

Marine Debris, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, 13-L6 October 1987. Unpub-lished report by Natural Resources Consultants, 4055 21st AvenueW., Seattle, WA 98199 ' 460 p.

Center for Environmental Education.l987. Plastics in the ocean: Nore than a litter problem. Center for

Environmental Education, Mash., D.C., 128 p.

High, W. L.l985. Some consequences of lost fishing gear. Zn R. S. Shomura and

H. 0. Yoshida editors!, Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fateand Impact of Marine Debris, 26-29 November 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii,p. 430-437, U.S. Dep. Gammer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS, NOAA-TN-NNFS-SWFC-54.

Recht, F.1988. Dealing with Annex V. A reference guide for ports, U.S. Dep.

Commer., NOAA Tech. Nemo. NNFS-F/%R-23 ' 132 p.

Shomura, R. S., and H. 0. Yoshida editors!.1985, Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine

Debris, 26-29 November 1984, Honolulu, Hawaii. U.S. Dep. Commer.,NOAA Tech. Memo, NNFS, NOAA-TN-NMFS-SWFC-54, 580 p.

U.S. Department of Transportation.1988. Advance notices of proposed rulemaking: Regulations

implementing the pollution prevention requirements of Annex V ofNARPOL 73/78. Federal Register, June 24, 1988, p. 23884-23895.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources.l988. Marine plastic debris action plan for Washington State. Wash.

State Dep. Natur. Resour., Olympia, Wash., 45 p.

1174

NARINE DEBRIS: NORTH CAROLXNA'S SOUJTIQNS THROUGH EDUCATION

Sarah FrMayUniversity of North Carolina Sea Grant College Program

Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, U.S.A.

North Carolina began its campaign against marine litter inJune 1987, The success of the program has been due largely toan emphasis on interagency cooperation and on. education of thepublic. Five cooperating state agencies have been the Univer-sity of North Carolina Sea Grant Program, end North CarolinaDivision of Coastal Nanagement, Divi.sion of Parks and Recree-tion, 4-H, and Office of Narine Affairs. Sducational activitieshave included slide programs given by a Sea Grant marine educa-tion specialist to power squadrons, fishing clubs, schoolgroups, and service clubs, and ongoing exhibits and talks onmarine debris by the state's three coastal aquariums. Theprogram has also stressed youth-oriented activities relating tomarine debri.s.

INTRODUCTION

North Carolina has nearly 560 km �50 mi! of coastline and 931,500 ha�.3 million acres! of estuaries, bays, and sounds. Without question, thebeaches and coastal waters are vital to the aesthetics and the economy ofthe state.

But litter and plastics could change thi.s.

That i.s why North Carolina began its marine litter program in June1987. Now, 21 months later, the state can show evidence of change and thepromise of regulations and educational programs that ultimately will helpsolve litter problems at the coast.

METHOD AND DISCUSSION

On one Saturday in September 1987 and another in September 1988, thestate marine debris program held Beach Sweep, a 1-day coastwide cleanup.Over 4,500 volunteers came to the coast and picked up more than 54 metrictons of trash. The volunteer participation, the amount of litter collected,and the extensive media exposure for Beach Sweep were the result of educa-ti.onal efforts by program coordinators and volunteers.

Ln R. S, Shoaure and H. L Godfrey editors!, Froceedinss of rbe Second InternationalConference on Karine Debris, 2-7 april 1989, Honolulu, Hnuaii. U.S. Dep. Ceemar., %AA Iecb.

HHFS, Hohh-I9f-HOOFS-SSFSC-194. 1990.

1175

Znteragency Cooperation

North Carolina patterned Beach Sweep after similar cleanups in otherstates, but organizer Lundie Spence, Sea Grant's marine educationspecialist, took a different approach. Like the director of a play, Spencepulled in talent from many of the state agencies to play different roles inBeach Sweep and the marine debris program.

The 1987 Beach Sweep organization committee was composed mainly ofrepresentatives from four state government agencies They vere Sea Grant,the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, Division of Parks andRecreation, and Office of Marine Affairs, which oversees the state 's threecoastal aquariums. In 1988, North Carolina 4-H Clubs joined the committee.

Full cooperation and contributions of time, money, and services fromeach agency helped spread the word to thousands of North Carolina citizens.

For example, Sea Grant's Spence kept state government leaders informedof activities concerning marine debris. She sent information on marinedebris and Beach Sweep through a Sea Grant newsletter to 2,000 NorthCarolina teachers, and she gave slide programs to power squadrons, fishingclubs, school groups, and service clubs,

Sea Grant's communications staff handled all of the major publicityfor Beach Sweep. This included issuing press releases, writing featuresand newsletter articles, compiling press kits, and scheduling radio andtelevision interviews.

The Division of Coastal Management took on other tasks. As thestate's coastal regulatory agency, this division was able to work closelywith the governor's offi,ce, legislators, the state's Coastal ResourcesCommission, and the Marine Science Council to garner support.

Parks and Recreation contributed manpower at the coast for thecleanups and helped vith fund-raising and contributions of garbage bags andpencils for tallying data.

The three North Carolina aquariums offered staff that served asregional coordinators for Beach Sweep. Each aquarium provided specialexhibits and programs on marine debris to tourists and other interestedvisitors.

As the state's marine debris program grows, an increasing number ofstate government agencies, private nonprofit groups, corporations, smallbusinesses, and volunteers are participating.

Targeting groups of all kinds with coastal and environmental interestsprovides not only a rich pool of talent and services, but also an unlimitedresource for ideas.

In this case, the more the merrier.

1176

This year, Beach SweeP and the North Carolina marine debris Programst i] I operate with no ma] or corporate funding. The shoes tring budget hasgotten a bit fatter, but the shoestrings are not yet long enough to helpaccoggplish all of the goals. Therefore, interagency cooperation is even

f~rtant to help carry out a comprehensive educational prograa.

Public Education

Emphasis on Youth

special emphasis in North Carolina has been placed on creating,awareness for the state's youth. Within the school system, the state' smarine debris program coordinators have worked with science, environmental,and gifted-and-talented classes. In this area, copies of the marine debrisslide and talk program from the Center for Marine Conservation have beenmade available to the schools.

Teachers have found out about other reference materials through aspecial newsletter from Sea Grant. In response children from the fourthto twelfth grades have written See Grant for information. This exercisegives younger children the experience of writing for and receivinginformation an their own. Taking, this action is one more step towardincreasing awareness by personal involvement.

The North Carolina aquariums, the state maritime history museum, andthe parks and recreation system have offered special youth programs onmarine debris. Typically, leaders give a short talk or slide show onmarine pollution and then take the group out on the beach to collect trash.hfter 30 to 40 min, they stop and discuss their findings and reactions .

This program has been modified to assist Boy Scout troops at thecoast in earning a badge relating, to environmental awareness. One troopexpanded the idea during Beach Sweep end separated its trash for recycling.

~other excellent idea for increasing youth awareness has been ape~nent display on marine debris erected at the North Carolina MaritimeHistory Museum. One panel of the display is Just for children, On it arephotos of volunteers during Beach Sweep, an award-winning, 4-H postercon«ming plastics, and a pad and pen for comments. Pages and pages ofideas and comments have told museum educator Patricia Hay that children' seyes are open to the problems at the coast.

probably the most far-reaching involvement originated with the state4 H Cl'ub This national youth organization has programs in each of North«rolina's 100 counties. Within this structure, Beach Sweep was promotedthrough newsletters and electronic mail as a good community service projectfor its members.

lemented a ««ewfo o h 9 to ll, and 12 and older. As scsuch co nte t th s gave the young p'oplraised $255 for cash prizes in each catego y

1177

Most importantly, 4-H and Sea Grant helped devise five activities foryouths concerning plastics and litter. They are currently being used by4-8 Clubs and school teachers throughout the state. But since they are new,4-H education specialists are still conducting tests on the usability andviability of these activiries as a curriculum

The five projects include:

l. Living labels. This icebreaker invites students to becomeaware of types of plastic items around them. Studentseither act out the i.tern they have chosen or give 10 wordsdescribing it. Other class members try to guess the item.

2. Why do we use plastics2 By listing different kinds ofplastics we use daily and discussing them, young peoplegain a better idea of how much plastic is used and why.

4. Can we ma'ke plastics disappear? By comparing degradableand nondegradable six-pack rings, youths

a. understand the meanings of photodegradable andbiodegradable,

b . learn that most plastics are not degradable, and

c. learn that plasticlike materi.als can be madedegradable.

5. Turning trash around. By simulating paper and plasticsrecycling, youths gain a better understanding of theprocess of and need for recycling in our society.

Other

The Beach Sweep effort has helped make many of North Carolina'scitizens aware of marine pollution. Each volunteer that attended thecleanup has seen firsthand what litter can do to our beaches and how he orshe can help keep them clean, The social, environmental, and economicimpact of cleaner beaches is affecting the behavior of touri.sts. Andpollution has become a political issue because people are concerned.

Since our cleanup began, certain public beaches have been kept cleaneryear-round. Municipalities added more trash cans to beach access areas,and some of them added to their cleanup crews, Also, North Carolina iscurrently considering, legislation on degradable six-pack rings,

3. How strong is a six-pack ring2 Youthssix-pack rings and correlate this withthe environment. The objective is forlittle chance an animal or fish has of

entanglement.

test the strength oftheir durability inthem to realize howfreeing itself after

1178

Public education has not stopped with Beach Sweep, however. Each ofthe involved agencies hss initiated programs concerning marine debris.

CONCLUSION

Mith these proJects and our other efforts, North Carolina has beguni.ta fight against marine pollution. By working together and focusingenergiea on the state's youth, much has bean done.

For the past 2 years, North Carolina Sea Grant has been part of anational Saa Crant marine debris network. Each of the nation's 30 coastalstates has contributed toward educating commercial fishermen, teachers,boaters, and the public about pollution and its affects.

Until the problem is conquered, however, much remains to beaccomplished.

1179

DESIGNING EPPBCTIVE EDVCLTIONAL FRlDCRkNS:THE ATTITUDINAL BASIS OP MARINE LITTERING

Shirley LaskaDepartment of Sociology

University of New OrleansLakefront, New Orleans, Louisiana 70148, U.S.A.

~ IThe worldwide concern with marine and coastal debris has

sparked recommendations for various abatement interventi.ons.Popular among them have been educational programs. Effective-ness of educational interventions directed toward changingenvironmental attitudes and behavior has, however. been foundwanting, according to some recent assessments. It is arguedthat problems with educational abatement programs may stem fromthe lack of appreciation and lack of application of socialscience knowledge about the basi.s of environmental beliefs,attitudes, values, and human behavior which affect the environ-ment.

Marine debris abatement efforts can be enhanced by basingthem on soci.al science knowledge in three relevant areas: 1!paradigms and the nature of environmental attitude formation; 2!the nature and constraints of the desired nonlittering behavior;and 3! research on attitude and behavior change, includingrecycling and land litter abatement. Each of these topics isreviewed, with recommendations about i.ts application to marinedebris abatement.

INTRODUCTION

At the conference on the topic of fisheries-generated marine debrisand derelict fishing, gear held approximately 1 year ago in Portland,Oregon, educational programs were assessed by one participant as the mostpopular marine debris abatement approach. He stated that they are"politically attractive, do not cast much and meet other favorablecriteria." However, the author also noted that such programs often haveonly modest effectiveness and lack permanence Alaska Sea Grant Program1988, p. 7!.

The thesis of this paper i.s that one of the reasons for the limitationof these educational programs is the failure to understand fully the humanand soci.al causes of the problem. It is proposed that this shortcoming, isdue to the limi.ted participation by social scientists in addressing the

Zn R. S. Shosoro and m. L. Codfrey editors!, proceedings of the Second internationalConference on Harine Debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, }Lavaii, 13.S. Dep, Cossser., mOAA Tech.Keao. HliFS. HGAA-IH-NKFS-SQFSC-154, 1990.

1180

problem. Physical scientists have assessed the extent and nature of theimpact of marine debris. From this data base has evolved a determinationthat a "problem exi.sts. Rut the defi.nition of the problem has remainedtoo strongly physical because it lacks the additional perspective ofenvironmental issues provided by the social scientist.

An example of this lack of appreciation of the social component of themarine debris problem is seen in the recomeendations made by the inter-agency Task Force on Persistent Marine Debri.s formed by the White HouseDomestic Policy Council. The task force recommended that l! the marinedebris! problem be quantified, 2! the sources be determined, and 3! ways befound to reduce plastic debris from all sources.

The phrasing of the document suggests that the "source" of the problemis merely a physical l.ocation or use or particular economic activity seem-ingly devoid of human imput. Review of this and other documents similarlyphrased revealed that there was a missing step in these recommendations,Simply put, the missing step is to ask, "Why do litter and debris exist inthe marine and coastal environmentsV

The goal of adding, this question is to refocus the problem-solving torecognise that human behavior is the cause of the litter and debris and notjust a "source." If the human nature of the problem is not addressed inthe problem-solving efforts, educational interventions cannot be effectivebut appear as an afterthought because something must be done." Et iscontended that answers to the question of why debris exists must be deter-mined «nd understood before and if ways I are to] be found to reduceplastic debris from all sources."

SOCEAI. SCEZNm FZMDXSCS REXXVAIT To e~e DEIRXS ABATEMENT

With the goal of addressing this issue of the human cause of marinedebrief' three relevant social science topi.cs will be briefly examined. Thethree topics are:

1. paradigms and the nature of environmental attitudeformation,

2. the nature and constraints of the desired nonlitteringbehavior in the marine environment, and

3. research on attitude and behavior change including recyclingand land litter abatement.

Each of these topics is reviewed with recommendations about its applicationto marine debris abatement,

The Hature of Environmental Attitode Formation

Societal Paradigm

Members of a society share a common world view embodied in beliefs,attitudes, and values. This world view, frequently referred to as a

1181

paradigm, emanates from the eiperiences of the members of the society andis functional to the society in that it supports the saciety's efforts tosurvive. While the paradiya does not necessarily answer important ques-tions, it tells us where to look for answers Babbie 1989!. It alsobecomes the basis for choosing problems that can be assumed to have solu-tions Kuhn 1970!. When the existing paradigm no longer serves the membersof society, it changes as the established agreed-upon paradigm is modifiedin favor of a new one s!.

Within each society, subgroups share paradigms useful for supportingtheir experiences and position in society. For example, different scien-tific disciplines have different paradigms as do other occupational groups.In order to understand the basis of behavior of members of a society, it isimportant to appreciate both the general world view of the larger societyand those views of the subgroups about which you have specific interest.Both the general and the subgroup will be discussed below

The paradigm coaaaon to the American society has been characterized asthe "dominant Western world view" Dunlap and Van Liere 1984!, the "techno-cratic paradigm Drengson 1980!, or the "human exemptionalist paradigm Catton and Dunlap 1980!. This paradigm sees the relationship betweenhumans and the environment as one in which humans utilize the environmentfor their betterment, even at the expense of the environment. Based on theJudeo-Christian heritage, this paradigm assumes a human superiority overother or'ganisms bequeathed to humans by their special relationship withGod. Contained in this perspective of superiority is the belief that anyproblems which befall the environment during its exploitation can beremedied by humans through technology. A society which holds thi.s paradigmbelieves that it is exempt from conformity to the natural ecologi.cal lawsbecause of its ability to overcome any environmental problems.

The American extension of this paradigm divides the environment intoparts which are privately owned for the gain of the owner and parts whichare publicly, or commonly, owned Hardin 1968!. The commons' is sharedfor the betterment of all members of the society. However, as Hardin �968!notes, such a common betterment for all becomes impossible once the ratio ofthe population to the environment surpasses its "carrying capacity." Atthat point the cammon good suffers as the individual benefits from use ofthe commons.

Industrial pollution and littering behavior represent the use of thecommon for the betterment of individuals and their economic interests.Belief in the right of individuals to so use the commons for their interestis an important belief contained in the American paradigm. Throwing some-thing "away" means simply putting it into the coaaaons when it no longerserves the person's needs.

The strength of this tenet within the western paradigm is evident whenwe consider the 'absurdity" of the idea that all pollution, every singlebit, should be totally banned from the co+sons. To paraphrase, whatgeneral societal support would there be far the total prohibition ofenvironmental degradation in all cosaaonly shared environments--air, water,

1182

and public lands7 The economic interests would argue that such a positionwould cause mass bankruptcies, Average citizens would also resist such aben when they came to realize how it would affect the consumer-arientedlifestyle which has also evolved from the paradigm.

Discarding refuse into the ocean becomes en obvious extension of thisparadigm. A series of studies done by sociologists Dunlap and Van Liere�978, 1984! sought to determine to what extent such a degrading orienta-tion toward the environment was linked to subscription to the westernparadigm. In other words, does a person's belief in the dominant westernparadigm affect his or her attitudes and behavior! toward the environment'PVen Liere end Dunlap �980! broke the paradigm down into eight dimensions:

~ support for laissez-faire government,~ support for the status quo,~ support for private property rights,~ faith in science and technology,~ support for individual rights,~ support for ecanamic grawth,~ faith in material abundance, and~ faith in future prosperity.

Three af these dimensions of the dominant western paradigm wereassociated negatively with the environmental attitudes scales they alsodeveloped. The greeter the support for the following, the less thesupport for the environment:

~ support far private property,~ suppart for economic grawth, ande faith in material abundance.

We may, thus, propose from these research findings that individualswho subscribe clasely to the dominant western paradigm--particularlysupport for private property, economic growth, and belief in materialabundance--will more likely not hold proenvironmental attitudes. If suchpraenviranment attitudes are not held, it is more likely that litteringbehavior, such as that which results in marine debris, will be exhibited.

An alternative paradigm is evolving as the current paradigm becomesless functional. The paradigm which would reduce the stress on theenvironment is called the "new environmental paradigm" Cetton and Dunlap1980! or the "person-planetary" paradigm Drengson 1980!. This paradigmaccepts the fact that humans are subject to the same ecological laws asother organisms, and when humans degrade the enviranment, they are notalways able to repair it with technology.

A "paradigm shift" Kuhn 1970! by the majority of the populace mayoccur more rapidly than might be anticipated given the escalating environ-mental problems. Recent political deliberations in southern Californiawere directed at reducing eir pollution conditions that are no longeracceptable. The proposal included restricting each family to owning onecar and requiring that the family members work near where they live. A

1183

recent proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency directed towardreducing, acid rain indicated that the solution could come with a requireddropping of interior household temperature during the winter. awhile thedominant western paradiys still prevails' the fact that "responsible, main-stream" public officials were making these proposals suggests that theparadigm is shifting,.

Educational interventions directed toward antilittering in the marineenvironment can benefit from an awareness of the target population'sparadigm. If it is determined that they subscribe to the traditionalparadiys, efforts toward modifying their world view should be included inthe communication along with the message directed toward the specificchange in littering behavior. If on the other hand, they are shiftingtheir paradigm, then the communication csn benefit from tapping" this neworientation in the message.

Subgroup Paradigms

5esides the general societal orientation toward the environment, sub-groups of the population have been found to vary in their attitudes towardthe environment depending, on their relationship to it. Awareness of thesesubdifferences can also benefit educational interventions directed attarget populations.

For example, Louisiana has both the most active offshore oil extrac-tion activities in the United States and some of the most prolific spawninggrounds for fish and shellfish in the United States. Thus, coastal usersinclude large groups of fishermen snd offshore oil rig employees. Shouldwe expect to find these groups different in their attitudes toward marinelittering or the same7 Popular opinion might argue that the oil rigemployees would be likely to have less concern for the environment thanfishermen whose livelihood depends on a healthy environment.

Research findings, however, suggest the contrary. Rural residentshave been found to be less proenvironment than urban residents because theywork in agricultural and mining activities which approach the environmentin a more utilitarian, exploitative fashion Lowe and Pinhey 1982!. It isthus likely that the fishermen and oil workers vill be more similar thandifferent in their' environmental attitudes. Louisiana fishermen have areputation for considerable littering, as do oil rig employees. They alsohave strongly resisted steps taken by the Federal Government to protect theenvironment, such as the requirement that they use turtle excluder devices TED's! while shrimping to protect the Kemp's ridley sea turtles.

The exploitative orientation toward the environment of some jobs maynot be the only influence which engenders human exemptionalist attitudes inthose whose livelihood depends on the environment. Companies for whichsuch individuals work may themselves have company "cultures" reflectingsimilar orientations. It may be more cost-effective to use the commons forrefuse, and this belief is learned as employees learn what is expected ofthem on the job. Personal worker economic motivation to perform well onthe job compounds their own inclinations to litter.

1184

Other individual characteristics have been found to affect attitudesand behavior toward the environment. Small town residents appear to alsobe less proenvironment. Van Liere and Dunlap �980! explain this observa-tion with the "progrowth" orientation of small towns. Urban residentshave, to the contrary, been found to be more proenvironment. Environmentaldeprivation theory is used to explain this finding: Urban residents experi-ence higher levels of pollution and environmental degradation and can thus«ake a comparison between the existence and nonexistence of pollution.which results in developing, a proenvironment orientation Dillman andChristenson 1972!. In addition, urban residents are more likely to appre-ciate a 'social solution" to environmental problems because they experiencecontrol over their built environment Lowe and Pinhey 1982!. Thus, theyare willing to accept the existence of a problem because they perceive itas solvable. Take for example the predominance of urbanites in the groupswho are involved in the annual beach cleanups.

In addition to geographic location, education, race, sex Sigeiman andYanarella 1986!, social class Buttel and Flinn 1978!, and age Hamilton1985! have been found to predict attitudes toward the environment. Incomehas not been found so strongly associated Constantini and Hanf 1972;Sigeiman and Yanarella 1986!. Van Liere and Dunlap �980, p 190!, insummarizing the findings from numerous studies of social characteristics,indicate that the association between income and environmental concern isquite ambiguous and fail[sj to support the hypothesized positive associa-

tion. Thi.s ambiguity may be due to changes which are taking place in theway in which the less affluent view environmental problems. awhile theyvalue the jobs that come from industry, whi,ch often pollutes, they arebecoming more aware that the pollution from such activity often is dis-carded closer to their communities than to those of the more affluent Bullard and Mright 1986!.

Similar changes may also be occurring, in some of the relationshipsfound in the subgroups reviewed above. Phile fishermen may not have tradi-tionally been inclined to be concerned with the environment, the depletionof the resource such as the threat to the Gulf of Mexico redfish populationmay also begin to change their orientation to the environment as well.

It is important that the educational interventions being developed toreduce beach and marine debris are oriented toward the expected attitudeswhich various target groups might hold toward the environment, and thatsupport be given to maintain current information on the attitudes whichcoastal users hold so that the intervention is relevant to the orientation.

Characteristics of Honlitteriag Behavior

In addition to appreciating the orientation which coastal users havetoward the environment, it is important to understand the nature of thebehavior which the educational program attempts to change--i.e., marinelittering--and the meaning given to that behavior by those who do it.Conversely, it is also important to recognize the characteristics of thedesi.red behavior--nonli.ttering--which make conformity to it more difficultthan other environment-oriented behaviors.

1185

Complexity of Desired Behavior

Nonlittering behavior in the marine and coastal setting contains botha "don't do" and a "do" component, making its successful implementationsomewhat complex. It is desired that individuals not discard that which isno longer of value to them into the commons--i.e., into the water or along,the beach. Then, it is desired that individuals maintain the item in theirpersonal space--in their pocket, on the boat, on the oil rig, with campingand fishing gear--until they are able to discard it in an appropriaterefuse-collecting device or area such as a trash barrel, dumpster, junkyard, or landfill.

Inconvenience

Nonlittering behavior in the marine and coastal setting is an incon-venience to the individual because the appropriate refuse-collecting deviceis frequently not in the immediate vicinity. It may be at the beachentrance, at a nearby gas station, at home, or, for larger items, at aspecial location requiring an even longer trip. The inconvenience isdefined by the length of time the individual may have to maintain the itemwhich no longer has utility within his or her personal domain--oftenextended if out at sea--and by the fact that it is occupying part of a verylimited space--fishing boat, oil rig, freighter, camper.

Limitations of Social Control

Littering, in the marine and coastal setting is frequently done whenthere are no other people around to observe the behavior. Or. if othersare present, they are experiencing the same need--to discard. no longeruseful items taking up precious space. Or, the observers are strangers orat such a distance that the I.itterer can maintain his or her anonymitywhile violating the norms. This means that the behavior can frequently notbe controlled by the knowledge that someone else is observing, them doingsomething contrary to the norm, a manner in which much desired behavior isencouraged.

An anecdote demonstrates norm-control dynamics and the way a litterercan attempt to avoid them. Last summer on a Florida beach, I watched awell-coiffured, expensively dressed beachcomber with cigar in one hand anda soft drink can in the other stop on a crowded beach to dig a small holein the sand with his toes. He deposited the empty soft drink can in thehole, covered it over, and waIked on. This behavior suggested to me thathe knew littering was against the norm. If, however. he could hide theobject, he would be able to avoid the possible scorn of the onlookers orrationalize that he had not littered because the object was no longervisible--one of the most commonly mentioned qualities of litter being thatit is an eyesore.

Impact Not Obvious

The effect which the littering behavior is having on the environmentis not seen or appreciated by the litterer because the discarded itemfrequently disappears under water or sand. Even when it does not disappear,

1186

ocean are so vast that the ratio of litter to commons isdifficult to appreciate the significance of one Styrofoamoil rig, into a vast ocean. Or even a piece of fishing,from an ocean-going vessel.

the beach and theminiscule. It iscup tossed off angear or the waste

Implications for behavior Change

It is argued that awareness of these particular qualities of marineand coastal littering and nonl.ittering behavior can contribute to thedevelopment of more effective educational interventions directed towardcurbing such littering behavior.

First, awareness that there is a lack of a clear antilitter norm inthe marine environment and a lack of critical observers to enforce whatevernorm there is should reduce emphasis on norm conformity in educationalprograms.

Second, it would be expected that educational campaigns which presentgraphic evidence of the impact of littering on wildlife--such as the onesrecently developed--would improve antilittering behavior. They would helpthe individual become aware of the impact on the environment of even onesmall discarded item, albeit seemingly insignificant and invisible when thelittering act is committed.

Third, educational campaigns should be implemented in conjunction withstrong efforts to provide very convenient locations for disposal of marinerefuse.

Examples of the linking of education and convenient refuse disposalare available in the recycling efforts of some communities. One successfulpilot community recycling program in Louisiana has stackable containers forcurbside pickup clearly marked for glass, aluminum, and paper. The effortto conform is thus quite minimal.

Similarly, studies should be conducted to determine the most convenientrefuse disposal configuration at beaches, boat launches, marines, andharbors. Some disposal services might best be reached from the water sothat refuse does not have to be carried onto land by hand. Also, li.tterbag dispensers could be placed at convenient locations near boat launchesand docks to encour'age convenient on-boat refuse storage. arith such accom-modating refuse disposal facilities in place. beach or dockside anti.lit'tersigns would be encouraging a more feasible behavior. Once the marine useris practiced in such nonlittering behavior, the behavior will seem morenatural" and such attention to convenient refuse disposal vill not be soimportant. This would be s case of learning to cope with natural hazards this hazard being, to marine life! through participation. as proposed bySorensen and Nileti �987!.

An example of such facilitating assistance has been tried with successat several Louisiana fishing rodeos. When registering for the rodeo, eachentrant was given s trash bag� with a request that it be used and returnedto the registration desk at the end of the day. Those entrants who returnedtheir bags filled with the day's refuse qualified for a special drawing for

1187

several significant prizes. The bags were donated, as were the prizes, inreturn for public recognition that the companies had performed the publicservice. While the prize component of the activity may not be conducive tocontinuing the behavior after the fishing rodeo see below!, it might nothave a negative effect if the bag contained a recommendation to always takealong, a trash bag and if trash bags were conveniently dispensed at docks andlaunch sites on a regular basis.

Research on Attitude and Behavior Change IncludingRecycling and ~d Litter Abatement

The third social science topic of relevance for improving educationalprograms directed toward marine debris abatement is the research on atti-tude and behavior change. Research has been conducted on the content ofsuccessful persuasion communication in general and on pe~suasion directedtoward specific attitude and behavior changes. These include self-helpbehaviors related to health, safety, crime and natural hazards protection see Meinstein 1987 for a useful review!, and energy conservation, recycl-ing, and litter abatement on land. A review of theories useful for atti-tude and behavior change with regard to solid vaste demonstrates theutility of this literature.

There is little systematic theory concerning the social psychologicalvariables which influence littering Reich and Robertson 1979!. However,several theories have been found to be useful in changing littering atti-tudes and behavior. These include reactance theory Nazis 1975!; cognitivedissonance theory Weigel and Weigel 1978; Shipee et al. 1980; Cook andBerrenberg 1981! or balance theory Winham 1972!; saliency theory Cook andBerrenberg 1981!; and Bem's self-perception theory Arbuthnot et al. 1976-77; Pedersen 1979; Pardini and Katzev 1984!. Each of these theoriesexplains behavior based on an assessment which people make about themselvesor those around them.

Reactance theory asserts that when a person believes himself free toengage in a given behavior and his freedom is eliminated or threatened withelimination, the individual experiences psychological reactance" Nazis1975!. When this occurs, the planned intervention results in behavioropposite to what is desired. An example is the TED which has been sostrongly resisted by shrimpers in the Gulf of ltexico. While preventing allresistance to the TED's would have been impossible, a greater appreciationof the likelihood of reactance might have engendered different approachesby the environmentalists. Likewise, by knowing what coastal users believethey are free to do in the coastal environment, litter abatement interven-tions can be developed which will be less likely to cause such reactance.

Dissonance theory also has potential utility. It proposes that dis-sonance may occur for individuals among various values and beliefs whichthey hold and observations which they make. When this occurs, a persontries to reduce the dissonance. A person might interpret the observationsuch that it supports values and beliefs already held. Such dissonance mayexist for the marine and coastal user with regard to littering. By deter-mining whether it does, educational programs can be developed encouragingcertain attitude and behavior change to assist coastal users in reducingtheir dissonance.

1188

Saliency theory applied to conservation behavior impl [les] that thesalience of proconservation attitudes will be enhanced primarily through orin anticipation of associations with others" who share proconservationattitudes Cook and Berrenberg 1981, p, 82!. Mhen such persuasions areimplemented, the presence of those holding nonlittering attitudes would belikely to increase saliency. Their presence can also be felt by presentingtheir proconservation statements in their absence or by asking, residents tomake public commitments to proconservation behavior. Beach cleanups are anexample of a way to enhance the saliency of nonlittering behavior. Indi-viduals aake a public commitment to proenviroxssent behavior in the presenceof other like-minded individuals.

Likewise, Bem's theory of self-perception can be applied to changingmarine littering behavior. Bea proposes that behavior change occurs aftera person changes his or her self-image to one capable of the new behavior Arbuthnot et al. 1976-77!. This self-image change can be assisted byeducational programs that require small behavior change commitaents tostart the process of self-image change. Arbuthnot et al.'s successfulexperiment required minor recycling commitments which then led to awillingness to undertake more extensive recycling,. Refuse disposal such asrecycling at marines and harbors could be approached in such an incrementalway. Based on this theory, educational programs which encourage refusedi.sposal by giving prizes would not be expected to work over the long runbecause individuals do not have to change their self-image. The motivationto dispose correctly reaains external to them, i.e., a prize given by some-one else.

CONCLUSION

It vill not be easy to integrate even the few concepts and theoriespresented in this paper in addressing the marine debris problem. It willbe even more difficult to determine and apply the appropriate theories whensocial science research on relevant topics is aore thoroughly reviewed.However, motivation to address the existing, research and to respond to itcan be found in recognizing the difficulty of success with educationalprograms in light of resistance from the existing, human exemptionalistparadiga. Human behavior is the result of very complex social psycholog-ical processes influenced by the structure of the society in which theperson lives and his or her position within that. society. To have a modicumof lasting success in behavior change, "one needs all the help one can get."It vill require a cooperative effort of both physical and social scientiststo provide the knowledge base needed by those working, directly with themarine debris problem to address its solution in a timely and successfulfashion.

Alaska Sea Grant program.1988. Oceans of plastic. Report on a workshop on fisheries-

generated marine debris and derelict fishing gear. Alaska SeaGrant Rep. 88-7, 68 p.

1189

Arbuthnot, J., R. Tedeschi, N. Wayner, J. Turner, S. Kressel, and R. Rush.1976-77. The induction of sustained recycling behavior through foot-

in- the-door technique. J. Environ. Sys. 6: 355-368.

Babb ie, E.1989. The practice of social research. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.

Sullard, R. D., and S. H. Wright.1986. The politics of pollution: Implications for the black

community. Phylon 47: 71- 78.

Buttel, F. H., and M. L. Flinn.1978. The politics of environmental concern. Environ. Behav. 10:

17-36.

Catton, W. R., Jr., and R. Dunlap.1980. A new ecological paradigm for post-exuberant sociology. Am.

Behav. Scientist 24:15-47,

Constantini, E. ~ and K. Hanf.1972. Environmental concern at Lake Tahoe: A study of elite

perceptions, backgrounds, and attitudes. Environ. Behav. 4:209-241.

Cook, S. W., and J. L. Berrenberg.1981. Approaches to encouraging conservation behavior: A review and

conceptual framework. J. Social Issues 37:73-107.

Di.limen, D. A., and J. A. Christenson.1972. The public value for pollution control. Ln W. R. Burch, Jr.,

H. H. Creek, Jr., and L. Taylor editors!, Social. behavior, naturalresources and t: he environment, p. 237-256. Harper & Row, N.Y.

Drengson, A. R.1980. Shifting paradigms: From the technocratic to the person-

planetary. Environ. Ethics 2:221-240.

Dunlap, R E., and K. D. Van Liere.1978 The new environmental paradigm. J. Environ. Ed. 9:10-19.

1984. Commi.tment to the dominant social paradigm and concern forenvironmental quality. Soc. Sci. Quart. 65:1013-1028.

Hamilton, L. C.1985. Who cares about water pollutionf Opinions in a small-town

crisis. Sociological Inquiry 55:170-181.

Hardin, G.1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162.1243-1248

Kuhn, T.1970. The structure of scientific revolution. Univ. Chicago Press,

Chicago.

1190

Love, G. D. ~ and T. K. Pinhey.1962. Rural-urban differences in support for envt.ronmental

protection, Rural Sociology 47:114-128.

Mazis, M. B.

1975. Antipollution measures and psychological reactance theory: Afield experiment. J. Pere. Soc. Psychol. 31:654-660.

Pardini, A. U., and R. D. Katzev.1984. The effect of strength of commitment on newspaper recycling,

J. Environ, Sys. 13:245-256.

Pedersen, D. M.

1979. Changing beliefs concerning the causes of pollution. J . Soc.Psychol. 107:295-296.

Reich, J. W., and J . L. Robertson.1979. Reactance and norm appeal in anti-littering messages. J .

Appl. Soc. Psychol. 9:91-101.

Shipee, G., J . Burroughs, and S . Wakefield.1980. Dissonance theory revisited: Perception of environmental

hazards in residential areas . Environ. Behav. 12:33-51.

Sigelman, L., and E. J. Yansrella.1986. Public information on public issues: A multivariate analysis.

Soc. Sci. Quart. 67:401-410.

Sorensen, J. N. ~ and D. S. Mileti.1987. Programs that encourage the adoption of precautions against

natural hazards: Review and evaluation. In N. D. Weinstein editor!, Taking care: Understanding and encouraging self-protective behavior, p. 208-230. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

Van Liere, K. D., and R. E. Dunlap.1960. The social bases of environmental concern: A review of

hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. Public OpinionQuart. 44:181-197.

Weigel, R. H., and. J. Weigel.1978. Environmental concern: The development of a measure. Environ.

Behav. 10:3-17.

Weinsteln, N. D.1987. Studying self-protective behavior. In N. D. Weinstein

editor!, Taking care: Understanding and encouraging self-protective behavior, p. 1-10. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

Winham, G,l.972. Attitudes on pollution and growth in Hamilton or "There's an

awful lot of talk these days about ecology. Can. J. Polit.5;389-401.