beach litter report_jelil

A RAPID ASSESSMENT OF BEACH LITTER IN MUMBAI BEACHES

August, 2014

PROJECT RESEARCHER:

Shah Nawaz Jelil

PROJECT SUPERVISOR:

Nayantara Jain,

Executive Director,

Reef Watch Marine Conservation

FIELD ASSISTANTS:

Bhavesh Solanki & Jayesh Rathod

IMPLEMENTED BY:

Technical Report: ReefWatch Marine Conservation: 25 pp

A Rapid Assessment of Beach Litter in Mumbai Beaches

REPORT

Submitted by

Shah Nawaz Jelil

Submitted to

14 C Bungalow, Boran Road, Opposite Elco Market, Bandra (W), Mumbai- 400050,

India

Suggested citation: Jelil, S.N. & Jain, N. (2014): A Rapid Assessment of Beach Litter in

Mumbai Beaches: Technical Report: Reef Watch Marine Conservation: 25pp


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

I would like to acknowledge the untiring efforts of Nayantara Jain, Executive Director of

ReefWatch Marine Conservation, without whose initiative the study would not have been

possible.

I thank Mr. N. Vasudevan, Chief Conservator of Forests (Mangrove Cell), Maharashtra for

permitting us to carry out the beach surveys.

Special thanks to the field assistants Bhavesh Solanki and Jayesh Rathod without whom the

field work would have not been possible.

I also thank all the office staff of Lacadives, Sumer, Arnav, Nigel, Lochinvar, Anant and

Rahul for creating a pleasant working environment.

I thank Mr. Prahlad Kakkar and Mrs. Mitali Kakkar for their help and guidance during the

study period. I thank Madhu, Prashant and Ram Chandra (dearly called as RC) for all the

help during the study and helping me out in the office in every way they could.

Last but not the least, I thank, from the bottom of my heart, everybody who made my stay

comfortable and fun. I thank Abheshek, my roommate during my stay, Daya, who cleaned

the house and my room every day. I do remember the dogs, Kanchi, Kali and Diana who

were, indeed, great companions during my stay in Mumbai.


CONTENTS: PAGE NO.

Chapter I General Introduction 1–9

1.0. Marine Litter: An Overview 1

1.1.1. Definition 1–2

1.1.2. Sources of Litter 2–3

1.1.3. Threats to Marine Life due to Marine Litter (Global) 3–4

1.2. India and Marine Litter 5–6

1.2.1. Mumbai 6

1.2.2. Waste generation and Management 6–7

1.2.3. Water quality of Mumbai 7

1.2.3.1. At sea fronts and beaches 7–8

1.2.3.2. West Coast 8

1.2.3.3. Thane, Malad, Marve and Mahim creeks 8

1.3. Why study Marine Litter? 9

1.4. Objectives of the Atudy 9

Chapter II: Study Area 10–12

2.0. Study Area 10

2.1. Description of Study Area 10

2.2. Map of the Study Area 11

2.3. Climate 12

2.3.1. Monsoon 12

2.3.2. Summer 12

2.3.3. Winter 12

Chapter III: Methods of Study 13–15

3.0. Study Design 13


3.1. Field Methods 14

3.2. Analytical Methods 14

3.2.1. Data Analysis 14–15

3.2.2. Weight of litter types 15

Chapter IV: Results 16–20

Chapter V: Discussions 21

References 22–24

Appendix 1 25


List of tables Pg. no.

Table 1: Sample sites and GPS locations 13

Table 2: Average density and weight of litter 17

Table 3: Site wise weight (kg) of all litter types 19

List of figures Pg. no.

Fig1: Study Area map 11

Fig 2: Mean density of litter 18

Fig 3: Mean weight of litter 18

Fig 4: Weights (%) of all litter types 20


1

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

1.0. Marine Litter: An Overview:

“Whatever we do, the ocean will survive in one way or another. What is more

problematic is whether we shall preserve it in a state that ensures humanity’s

survival and well-being”

- Federico Mayor, Director General, UNESCO

1.1.1. Definition: “Marine litter is any persistent, manufactured or processed solid

material discarded, disposed of or abandoned in the marine and coastal environment.

Marine litter consists of items that have been made or used by people and deliberately

discarded or unintentionally lost into the sea and on beaches, including such materials

transported into the marine environment from land by rivers, drainage or sewage

systems or winds. For example, marine litter consists of plastics, wood, metals, glass,

rubber, clothing or paper, etc. This definition does not include semi-solids remains of

for example mineral and vegetable oils, paraffin and chemicals that sometimes litter

sea and shores” (European Commission/JRC/Ifremer/ICES 2010).

Marine litter is found in all the oceans of the world, not only in densely populated

regions, but also in remote places far from obvious sources and human activities.

Marine litter is a complex issue with significant implications for the marine and coastal

environment and human activities all over the world. The problems it causes are both

cultural and multi-sectoral, rooted in poor solid waste management practices, extensive

use of marine resources, lack of infrastructure, indiscriminate human activities and

behaviours, and an inadequate understanding on the part of the public of the potential

consequences of their action. At present, the major perceived threats to marine

biodiversity include the effects of climate change, ocean acidification, invasive species,

overfishing and other extractive activities, pollution and marine debris, habitat

degradation, fragmentation and loss, human population explosion, tourism, and the

impact of a wide range of human activities in the coastal zone (Gray, 1997). The

presence of marine debris in this list highlights its importance as a factor considered to

contribute towards biodiversity loss. Man-made items of debris are now found in


2

marine habitats throughout the world, from poles to the equator, from shorelines and

estuaries to remote areas of the high seas beyond national jurisdictions and from the

surface to the ocean floor (Thompson et al. 2009). This debris is harmful to organisms

and to human health (Gregory, 2009), can assist increased transport of organic and

inorganic contaminants (Holmes et al. 2012), presents hazards to shipping, and is

aesthetically detrimental (Mouat et al. 2010). In addition to having consequences for

biodiversity and potential indirect effects on ecosystem goods and services, marine

debris has direct negative economic impacts on recipient countries, particularly those

which are, in effect, coastal countries including developing countries and countries

with economics in transition (Kershaw et al. 2011). The slow decomposition rate of

marine debris within the marine environment has overall resulted in a litter sink with a

net accumulation. Oceanic currents transport buoyant litter items across territorial

boundaries, accumulating around oceanic eddies and sheltered coastlines and because

the sources of litter diffuse, the resulting impacts and removal responsibility currently

lie outside the control of anyone agency or body. The majority consists of synthetic

materials such as plastic, and is often highly persistent in the marine environment.

Some of the major sources of marine debris are well described, and include sewage and

run-off related debris, materials from recreational/beach users and materials lost or

disposed of at sea from fishing activities or shipping. Debris originating from the land

is either transported by storm water, via drains and rivers toward the sea, or is blown

into the sea from the land (Ryan et al. 2009). Extreme weather events such as

hurricanes, extreme floods and rain are important pointed sources of marine debris.

1.1.2. Sources of litter: Human behaviours and actions-accidental or intentional-are

the sources of marine litter. The majority of sea and ocean-based sources of marine

litter come from merchant shipping, ferries and cruise liners; fishing vessels; military

fleets and research vessels; pleasure craft; offshore oil and gas platforms and drilling

rigs and aquaculture installations. Marine litter dispersion and deposition are strongly

influenced by ocean currents, tidal cycles, regional-scale topography, including

sea-bed topography and wind.

Land based sources of marine litter originate from coastal or inland areas including

beaches, piers, harbours, marinas, docks and riverbanks. Municipal landfills located on


3

the coast, water bodies such as rivers, lakes and ponds that are used as illegal dump

sites, riverine transport of waste from landfills and other inland sources, discharges of

untreated municipal sewage and storm water, industrial facilities, medical waste, and

coastal tourism involving recreational visitors and beach-goers, are the primary

sources of land-based marine litter. Natural storm-related events such as hurricanes,

tsunamis, tornadoes and floods can all create large amounts of materials that are

washed from coastal areas that can end in the marine environment. High winds, large

waves and storm surges produced by these natural events cause land-based items to be

introduced into the marine environment (NOAA, 2008).

1.1.3. Threats to Marine Life due to Marine Litter (Global):

Marine litter is a serious global environmental problem for the oceans and regional

seas. The environmental impact of marine litter is multidimensional. It can cause

serious environmental problem with the possible transfer of toxic chemical substances

to the marine habitats. The Ocean has become a global repository for much of the

waste we generate. Marine debris includes timber, glass, metal and plastic from many

different sources. Recently, the accumulation and possible impacts of microplastic

particles in the ocean have been recognized as an emerging environmental issue.

Despite international efforts to stem the flow of plastic debris, it continues to

accumulate and impact the marine environment. Environmental damage due to plastic

and other marine debris can be defined as mortality or sub-lethal effects on biodiversity

through physical damage by ingestion; entanglement in ghost nets (fishing nets lost or

left in the ocean) and other debris; chemical contamination by ingestion; and alteration

of community structure, including the importation of alien species (Galgani et al. 2010).

Exposure of plastic debris to the variety of physical, chemical and biological processes

in ocean results in fragmentation and size reduction. In general, potential chemical

effects are likely to increase with a reduction of size of plastic particles while physical

effects, such as the entanglement of dolphins and other animals in drift plastic, increase

with the size and complexity of the debris. Accumulation of marine litter in the ocean

is a growing problem worldwide. Particularly plastic, the most utilized and persistent

material, arises as the primary contaminant in the marine environment (Ryan et al,

2009; Derraik, 2002). Since the beginning of its widespread usage in 1950’s plastic has


4

turned into a widespread environmental problem (Barnes et al, 2009). Marine debris,

and in particular the accumulation of plastic debris, has been identified as a global

problem alongside other key issues of our time including climate change, ocean

acidification and loss of biodiversity (Sutherland et al. 2010). The majority of reported

encounters by individual marine organisms were with plastic litter. In terms of litter

type or use, rope and netting account for 57% of encounters followed by fragments

(11%), packaging (10%), other fishing related (8%) and micro-particles (6%)(CBD,

2012). Accounting for around one tenth of the entire litter in the world’s oceans derelict

or discarded fishing gear ranks as an especially problematic marine litter. There

estimated 640,000 tons of fishing gear lost, abandoned or discarded annually may

continue to fish for years and even decades, a process referred to a ‘ghost’ fishing

(Cheshire et al. 2009). The marine ecosystem has been facing impacts due to

anthropogenic activities ever since urbanisation started.

Marine water quality plays an important part in the conservation of marine resources as

it contributes to the stability of marine ecosystem. Pollution from land based sources as

well as from sea can pose threats to these invaluable resources. More than 260 species

are already known to be affected by marine debris through entanglement or ingestion.

Ingestion by birds, turtles, fish and marine mammals is well documented and can be

fatal. A wide range of plastic types are involved and the species affected range from

entanglement of cetaceans in rope and netting, suffocation of birds and turtles by

plastic film ingestion of microscopic fragments of plastic by fish and invertebrates

(Gregory, 2009). Small particles are of concern because they may be ingested by a

wide range of organisms and could have adverse physical effects, for example by

disrupting feeding and digestion (Barnes et al. 2009; GESAMP, 2010). Of the 120

marine mammals species listed on the IUCN Red List 54% are known to have been

entangled in or have ingested plastic debris; 34 out of 34 green turtles and 14 of 35

seabirds found along the southern Brazilian seacoast, had ingested debris, with plastic

being the main ingested material. In addition to ingestion and entanglement, beach

debris that had washed up from River Asi, an international river passing through

Lebanon, Syria and Turkey, has been shown to adversely affect the ability of green

turtle hatchlings to reach the sea on the Samandag coast in Turkey (Ozdilek et al. 2006).

Evidence of harmful effects of plastic on wildlife is mostly restricted to observations


5

on individual specimens that have become entangled in or have ingested plastic debris.

There is as yet little evidence of effects on assemblages of species although concerns

have been raised about potential consequences for ecosystem-wide impacts and

ecosystem goods and services.

1.2. India and Marine Litter:

The Indian peninsula, hemmed in by the Indian Ocean, Arabian Sea and the Bay of

Bengal, boasts of a magnificent marine ecosystem. A combination of

geo-morphological and climatic factors and the nutrients supplied by the rivers along

the coast makes it exceptionally productive and biologically rich. The marine

environment, which includes adjacent coastal areas, supports productive and

protective habitats such as mangroves, coral reefs and sand dunes. The marine

environment is facing a number of pressures, arising out of needs of people, and the

multiple uses that coastal and marine environment. In the absence of good

management, these pressures might result in severe stress. India has a long coastline of

more than 7500 km. Its marine resources are spread over the Indian Ocean, Arabian

Sea ad Bay of Bengal. The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the country has an area

of 2.02 million sq km comprising 0.86 million sq km on the west coast, 0.56 million sq

km on the east coast and 0.6 million sq km around the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

Major industrial cities and towns of the country such as Mumbai, Surat, Kochi,

Chennai, Visakhapatnam and Kolkata are situated on or near the coastline.

Demographic pressure in the urban cities and towns as well as an increase in the rural

population and rapid industrialization, have resulted in the production of enormous

amounts of waste materials. These wastes reach the marine environment either directly

or indirectly through rivers, creeks and bays, posing threat to ecosystems and India’s

coastal resources. Estimates indicate that Mumbai city discharges around 2200

(million litres per day) MLD of waste into the coastal waters. Similar is the case with

some of the major cities such as Chennai, Kolkata and Visakhapatnam and the

industrial areas of Gujarat, Pondicherry and Orissa, where the coastal and estuaries

waters remain in degraded condition.

The status of marine debris in India varies from place to place. The Indian coastline has

13 major ports and 181 minor to intermediate ports, of which 139 are operational and


6

are under the jurisdiction of the respective State governments. These areas are sources

of marine debris due to quantities of solid wastes handled in these ports. India’s major

shipyards are located in Kolkata, Visakhapatnam, Kochi, Goa and Mumbai, with the

world’s largest ship-breaking yard located in Gujarat. Ship-breaking yards are

operational in India and are a source of marine litter and other pollutants. Ship breaking

operations are carried out over a distance of about 10 km on the beaches of Alang in

Gujarat-one of the largest and busiest ship-breaking yards in the world. These activities

generate peeled-off paint chips, iron scrap and other types of non-degradable solid

waste, which can enter the marine environment as marine debris. Tourism activities

have also been associated with marine debris production in key areas of the Indian

coast. The trash in and on the water, on the seabed, and along the shoreline-has been

growing concern as the widespread use of plastics and other non-biodegradable wastes

has led to an increase in persistent debris in the coastal and marine areas of India. The

December 26, 2004 tsunami which devastated the Indian coastline from Andaman &

Nicobar Islands to Tamil Nadu and Andhra coast in the east and Kerala coast in the

west has left behind huge quantum of solid wastes of different kinds along the coast.

The notable endangered species, which is of concern, is Dugong. The habitats of

Dugongs in Gulf of Mannar particularly the sea-grass ecosystem are fast diminishing

due to human intervention (MoEF, 2002).

1.2.1. Mumbai: Mumbai is one of the largest metros in India with an estimated

population of 1.6 to 1.8 million. It has a coastal stretch of 603 sq.km. Geographically,

the city of Mumbai can be divided into three sections, namely, the island city, the

western suburbs and the eastern suburbs. There are also known for administrative

purposes as Division I, Division II and Division III, respectively. The total population

of the city amounts to nearly 13 million that is increasing on a daily basis. Such a huge

habitat obviously generates a huge amount of waste of many kinds the management of

which is a massive task for the local administration. There are three main dumping

grounds namely, Deonar (132 hectares), Kanjurmarg (143 hectares), Mulund (25

hectares).

1.2.2. Waste Generation & Management: Mumbai waste generation has been on a


7

constant increase, from 3200 tonnes per day in 1981 to 5355 tonnes per day in 1991

(CPCB, 2000). The increase in numbers also indicate that the growth rate in Municipal

Solid Waste (MSW) in our urban centres have outpaced the population growth in

recent years. Mumbai now generates an astounding 10809 tonnes of waste every single

day (source: BMC website showing waste generation for individual wards). Very few

of the policy documents examine waste as part of a cycle of

production-consumption-recovery, or perceive waste through a prism of sustainability.

Waste management is still a non-cyclic system of collection and disposal, either in

dumping grounds or local incinerations and open burnings, consequently creating

considerable health and environmental hazards. The Municipal Corporation has been

working with a centralized system where the everyday collection and transportation

incurs considerable expenditure in form of transportation, the contracts from handling

the waste and also the additional carbon emissions from vehicles that are transporting

every king of waste (non-segregated) and indiscriminately dumping it in the dumping

grounds. Out of the 3 active dumping grounds, the biggest of them all, Deonar

dumping ground has been ordered by the High Court to shut down systematically. All

these issues suggest the acute need for sustainable solution in the waste management of

the city, which at present is an expensive way to destroy Mumbai’s ecology and the

health of the thousands living and working next to the dumping grounds.

The Municipal Solid Waste Rules, 2000 framed by the Government of India (GoI)

makes it mandatory for the storage of garbage at the source and its synchronized

collection at the doorstep. The MCGM has already declared the segregation and

storage of garbage at source mandatory. But on the ground, the waste is being

continually dumped in the landfills without any forethought. This is only leading to

escalating budgets, increasing pollution due to transportation, health issues for

residents around the landfills and hazardous conditions for the workers engaged in

segregation at dumping locations.

1.2.3. Water quality of Mumbai:

Spatio-temporal study revealed that there is a dire need of suggestive measures to

mitigate coastal and creeks water pollution and improvement in water quality (Kamble

et al. 2010).


8

1.2.3.1 At Seafronts and beaches: pH values of coastal water ranges between 7-8

satisfying the SW II standards indicating neither pollution threat for biological life nor

eye-skin irritation problems during contact water sports (Vijay et al. 2013). Turbidity

was observed to be in the range of 8-95 NTU. The highest turbidity was observed in

Gorai following Manori, Girgaon and Marve beaches having values 95, 75, 65 and 55

NTU. DO (dissolved oxygen) was more than 4 mg/L except Mahim where it was

practically zero because of heavy sewage/ wastewater discharge in Mithi River which

opens near Mahim beach and carries huge load of organic waste. Marginal low DO was

observed at Colaba, Manori and Marve beaches (Kamble et al. 2010).

1.2.3.2. West Coast: pH is within the prescribed limit of standards. The SW II

standard for turbidity of 30 NTU exceeded only in limited samples in the impact zone

of Marve creek during high tide. The discharge of outfalls at Worli and Bandra gets

adequately diluted resulting in turbidity of 10 to 30 NTU. DO was more than 4 mg/L

(SW II standard) in the coastal waters during low and high tides indicating favourable

conditions of aquatic life. The concentration of DO increases with the distance from

the shoreline (Kamble et al. 2010). Though BOD values were satisfying SW II

standard at majority of locations, the impact of sewage discharges was observed upto 3

km seaward distance. Due to non-point discharges in the west coast and discharges

from ocean outfalls, Kamble et al. (2010) observed that the bacteriological quality

showed non-compliance of SW II standards at all locations in west coast and creeks.

1.2.3.3. Thane, Malad, Marve and Mahim Creeks: pH values were within the range

of SW II standards. The turbidity was observed in the range of 10-150 NTU. Marginal

increase in the turbidity at Malad creek during low tide was observed (Kamble et al.

2010). The highest turbidity was found at upper stretch of Thane creek with 150 NTU

during high tide. The condition of Malad creek is alarming as no DO was observed in

the creek during low tide. At Mahim and Marve creeks, the alarming condition was

also observed as DO was in the range of 0 to 2 mg/L during low tide. During high tide,

the condition was slightly better as marginal increase in DO than prescribed SW II

standards. The condition of Thane creek is also not good as about 85% DO samples


9

were below prescribed limit during low and high tides indicating unfavourable

conditions for commercial fishing. The BOD was observed higher than prescribed SW

II standards in Marve, Malad and Mahim creeks and in upper stretch of Thane creek

during low tide (Kamble et al. 2010). Marginal increase in BOD values compared to

SW II standards were observed at Marve and Malad creek during high tide. All the

creeks were heavily vulnerable in terms of bacterial pollution.

1.3. Why study marine litter?

The problems and threats caused directly or indirectly by marine litter are extensive,

including environmental, social and economic impacts. Marine litter has a substantial

impact upon the economy. While determining economic service of an ecosystem or

ecosystem service is a relatively new science, it is clear that marine and coastal litter

can impact and deteriorate a range of natural functions that provide on-going social and

economic benefits.

Marine litter originates from different sources, circulates through pathways and

accumulates in litter sinks. The sources of marine litter are both from land and sea

based activities. A number of studies have looked at the differing proportions of litter

from each of these and their results estimate that at the global scale the greatest

proportion is from land based sources. Data on marine litter can aid in the

quantification of these different factors and the transformations that occur through the

process (Fanshawe & Everard, 2002). “Evaluating this life cycle of marine litter is an

essential part of any remediation and prevention technique and is fundamental prior to

implementation, to allow for the identification and quantification of response variables

and a review of the effectiveness of any management interventions” (Cheshire et al.

2009). Surveys of litter on the coastline are a primary tool for monitoring the load of

litter in the marine environment and have been used world-wide to quantify and

describe marine litter pollution. They can be used to measure the effectiveness of

management or mitigation measures, the sources and activities leading to litter

pollution and threats to marine biota and ecosystems (Cheshire et al, 2009).

1.4. Objectives of the study: The study aimed at investigating the quantity and

composition of beach litter and its types in the beaches of Mumbai.


10

CHAPTER II: STUDY AREA

2.0. Study Area: Mumbai is the capital of Maharashtra state located at the west coast

of India. The study area lies between 18°52´ to 19°20´ N latitude and 72°48´ to

73°05´ E longitude (Vijay et al. 2013). Mumbai is an island city, the Arabian Sea,

Thane creek and the Vasai creek surround the island of Mumbai. Mumbai is the

commercial capital and the richest city, in India (MMRDA, 2008). The total area of

Mumbai is 603.4 sq. Km., with 370 sq.km. coming under the Brihanmumbai

Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the rest belonging to the Mumbai Port Trust,

Defense, Atomic Energy Commission and Borivali National Park. Due to the deep

natural harbour, Mumbai contributes up to 70% of maritime trade in India. The

population density is estimated to be about 22,000 persons per sq.km.

The coastline of Mumbai has numerous creeks and estuaries. Some rich estuarine

pockets still contain mangrove forests and the rest of the coast has sand and rock

beaches. Major freshwater streams divide the city into four watersheds. The four

major watershed boundaries of Mumbai play an important role in the flow of the

various freshwater streams and major drainage areas. The mangrove forests in each

watershed are dependent on these freshwater inflows and sediment load

transportation. The watersheds containing the Administrative zones play an important

role in draining the precipitation and surface flows from the upland development to

the sea. The coastal ecology of each watershed is different due to the difference in the

development of each area.

2.1. Description of the study area:

Mumbai harbour is a natural harbour situated on the west coast of India. It is

semi-enclosed basin which opens into the Arabian Sea at its southwesterly side. On

the upstream, it is connected by Thane-Creek, which receives waste from heavily

industrialized Thane-Belapur belt. In addition the Mumbai metropolis waste, which is

discharged through various points also influences the harbour environment

(Govindan, 2000). The study was conducted in 10 different beaches of Mumbai, they

were namely; Juhu, Versova, Girgaon, Prahadevi, Aksa, Erangal, Marve, Uttan Virgin

and Gorai and Chimbai.


11

2.2. Map of study area

Fig 1: Showing sampled sites (Source: NatGeo Mapmaker Interactive)


12

2.3. Climate: Mumbai experiences a maritime climate that features three main

seasons, monsoon, summer and winter.

2.3.1. Monsoon: From June till September, Mumbai goes through monsoon season.

The season is responsible for the deposition of more than Munbai’s total yearly

population; around 1800 mm. June is marked by thunderstorms and often windy

conditions as the monsoon establishes itself over Mumbai. The average high stands

around 28°C while the low fluctuates between mid-teens.

2.3.2. Summer: During summer, Mumbai weather becomes somewhat intolerable

with high temperatures and humidity. October is the hottest month of the year with

more than 33°C. However, as the season progresses the temperature continues to drop

gradually as November sees not more than 20.5C of average low. The season receives

infrequent rainfall.

2.3.3. Winter: From December till early March, Mumbai weather remains enjoyable

enough. January is considered as the coolest month of the year with mean daily

minimum 16.4C and mean daily maximum being 28.6C. The season witnesses a great

level of sunshine.


13

CHAPTER III: METHODS OF STUDY

3.0. Study Design: A rapid assessment of beach litter was undertaken in the months of

July and August, 2014. We sampled a total of 10 beaches along the western coast of

Mumbai City; each beach was sampled twice over the study period. The team of

surveyors formed skirmish lines parallel to the coast separated every 5 meters. Upon

completion of collection, the litter was sorted, counted and weighed according to

different categories. The litter were collected and dumped on the nearest dustbins

afterwards. Large immovable objects (abandoned cars, large nets, baulks of timber, etc.)

that cannot be moved by the team were be recorded on additional datasheet, with

information collected on the nature and location for every large item. This information

was submitted along with the other datasheets to ensure that any large item is included

only once in analysis.

10 beaches on the western side of Mumbai were surveyed as sample sites. These

beaches were surveyed twice during the field study period.

Table 1. Showing different sample study sites, site names and geographical

positions

Sample

Site

Site Name Coordinate of the survey sites

1 Erangal (E) 19.162818, 72.782928

2 Aksa (A) 19.174878, 72.794644

3 Gorai (G) 19.242637, 72.780696

4 Marve (M) 19.198154, 72.796549

5 Girgaon (Gi) 18.954252, 72.812728

6 Prabhadevi (P) 19.019853, 72.827793

7 Juhu (J) 19.099973, 72.825157

8 Versova (V) 19.131196, 72.812282

9 Chimbai (C) 19.056452, 72.823468

10 Uttan (U) 19.268985, 72.783588


14

3.1. Field Methods: The beach litter was assessed using the Fixed breadth line transect.

In this method, transect lines of variable length are followed, the breadth remaining

fixed or constant. The field team followed transect lines with fixed breadth (1 m) in all

the beaches and counted, sorted into different categories (such as plastic bags, paper

bags, glass bottles, fishing nets, ropes, etc.) and collected the litter found in the transect

line. For convenience of analysis of the collected data, the length of the transect lines

were also kept fixed (200 m). The number of transects per beach was also kept fixed i.e.

5, for statistical analysis convenience. Each transect was 5 m apart from each other. In

each transect, after the litter were sorted, they were put in separate bin bags. The

weight of all the bags were measured using a hand-held weighing scale. All these

information was recorded in a field datasheet for further statistical analysis.

At each location, additional data were collected relating to the nature of the beach

environment including nearest river or creek (name, distance, direction and whether or

not it inputs directly to the beach), main beach usage (i.e. recreational-swimming,

fishing), what type of access the beach has (vehicular, pedestrian and/or boat only),

regularity of beach cleanup and if there are any factories or sewage treatment plants or

slums present in the beach. All surveys were done during low tide hours. The back of

the beach was described in terms of the dominant features, be it dunes, vegetation or

built structures (rock walls, road path, fence, etc.). Any other noteworthy information

was recorded like information on any entangled fauna encountered during the survey

(details of the organism, nature of entrapment, live or dead), data on land based

activities that may result in litter such as festivals, etc., conditions at the time of the

survey that might affect the litter collection (e. g. cold, hot, rain, high winds) through

impacting on staff performance. The datasheet for collecting the beach data is attached

as Annexure I.

3.2. Analytical Methods

3.2.1. Data Analysis: The following formula was used to calculate the density of

litter on each transect.

D = no. of litter recorded (n)/Area of the transect (A)

For every sample site, the following formula was used to calculate the average

density


15

D1 = (n1/A1+ n2/A2+ n3/A3+………………………nn/An)/N

where N= total number of transects

Using SPSS 16, we statistically tested whether there is any significant difference in

the weight and density of marine litter among the sampled sites with the help of

ANOVA. Comparison between each individual sample was done using Post Hoc test

to see if there are any significant differences between the sampled sites.

3.2.3. Weight of litter types: The weight of all the litter types in all the sites were

calculated. The average weight of the litter types in both the surveys in all sites were

calculated and the results were presented in a pie chart.


16

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS

Based on the field survey, Chimbai beach situated in the western suburbs of Mumbai

was the most littered beach. Both density and weight of litter was maximum in

Chimbai compared to other beaches (Table 1). In all the beaches plastic was the

major type of litter followed by food wrappers, glass bottles and fishing nets.

Beaches in Madh Island were cleaner than beaches in westem suburbs of Mumbai.

Gorai and Uttan beaches were the cleanest and the least littered beaches.

One way ANOVA was carried out (One way weight by beach) to see if there were

any significant differences in weights between the sampled sites. To be accurate, we

performed Post Hoc test. The results revealed that there was significant difference in

weight between Chimbai and all other beaches (P = 0.05). Also, there was significant

difference in weight between Versova and all beaches except Marve, Prabhadevi and

Juhu. We observed that Chimbai and Versova were comparatively much more littered

than other beaches and hence there was a differences in weight. Hence, the weight of

litter in Chimbai and Versova was much more than any other beaches.

Again, One Way ANOVA was carried out (One way density by beach) to see if there

were significant differences in mean density of litter in between the sampled sites.

After carrying out Post Hoc test, we found that there was a significant difference

between Chimbai and all other beaches, whereas all other beaches (except Chimbai)

were almost similar in beach litter density.

The statistical analysis proves that Chimbai was the most littered beach. It was

highest in litter density and litter weight among all the beaches. Chimbai was

followed by Versova as the most littered beach.


17

Table 2: Showing the average densities and weights of litter of all the 10 beaches

surveyed twice

Sl. no. Beach

name

Survey no. Average

density of

litter (D)

*Mean density

= D1+D2/2

Weight

of litter

(kg)

Mean

weight

(kg)

1

Erangal 1 0.345 0.384 13 10.45

2 0.423 7.9

2 Aksa 1 0.312 0.3065 7.8 7.65

2 0.301 7.5

3 Marve 1 5.45 3.017 40.4 38.3

2 0.584 36.2

4 Uttan 1 0.294 0.281 18.1 17.3

2 0.268 16.5

5 Gorai 1 0.146 0.728 9 13.05

2 1.31 17.1

6 Girgaon 1 0.467 0.388 28.9 18

2 0.309 7.1

7 Prabhadevi 1 1.976 1.198 72.2 41.9

2 0.42 11.6

8 Juhu 1 1.455 0.92 24.7 19.7

2 0.385 14.7

9 Versova 1 2.012 2.468 62.6 54.15

2 2.924 45.7

10 Chimbai 1 28.199 21.73 234.3 226.75

2 15.261 219.2

* Mean Density= D1 (average density of litter in the first survey) + D2 (average density of

litter in the second survey) / 2


18

Erangal

Aksa

Marve

Uttan

Gorai

Girgaon

Prabhadevi

Juhu

Versova

Chimbai

Fig 2: Showing the mean density of litter in the sampled sites

Erangal

Aksa

Marve

Uttan

Gorai

Girgaon

Prabhadevi

Juhu

Versova

Chimbai

Fig 3: Showing the mean weight of litter in the sampled sites

The average weights of the different litter types in the two surveys carried out in all

the sampled sites were calculated (Table 3). Plastic bags were the most common litter

type and the heaviest with a total of 126.38 kg (30%), followed by clothing, the

weight of which was found to be 69.85 kg (Table 3, Fig 4).


19

Table 3: Showing site wise weight (kg) of all the litter types

Plastic

bags

Paper

bags

Cups,

plates,

forks,

knives

Cigar

ettes

Food

wrapp

ers

Bevera

ge

bottles

Clothi

ng

Rope

s

Can

s

Fishin

g nets

Toys Tyre Batt

eries

Vehicle

parts

Glass Others

Gorai 5.35 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.85 0.25 2.25 0.35 0 0.35 0.25 0 0 0 2.25 0.5

Erangal 2.75 0.7 0.1 0 1.75 0.5 1.5 0.25 0 0.25 0.85 0 0 0 1.5 0.75

Aksa 2 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.25 1.25 0.1 0.2

5

0.25 0 0.2

5

0 0 1.5 0.5

Marve 11.5 4.5 0.25 0.25 2 0.5 1.25 0.35 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.7

5

0 0.25 12 0.5

Girgaon 7.5 1.5 0.15 0.1 2.5 0.25 3.25 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.2

5

0 0 0.5 0.25

Prabha

devi

9.5 8 3.75 0.15 3 3.5 7.5 1 0.2

5

0.5 0 0.2

5

0 0 1.25 0.25

Uttan 5.75 0.5 0.1 0 1.5 0.1 4.75 0.25 0 0.75 0 0.2

5

0 0 3 0.35

Juhu 12 0 0.1 0 3 0 3.25 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.25

Versova 14.75 7 4.5 0.1 8 2.75 9.85 0.85 0.7

5

2 0.1 1 0 0 1.5 1

Chimbai 55.25 44.5 19.5 0.2 18.5 17.25 35 1.1 14 1.5 2.75 3.2

5

0.1 0 8.25 4.1

Σ 126.3

5

67.7 28.65 0.95 41.7 25.35 69.85 4.5 15.

85

5.45 6.45 5.7

5

0.1 0.25 32.2

5

8.45


20

Pl Pa Cups Ci

Wr Bo Cl Ro

Ca F. Nets Toys Tyre

Batt Ve Gl O

Fig 4: Showing the percentage of weights of litter types found in the study


21

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION

To determine the impacts of litter in the marine environment, it is necessary to

consider its behaviour and identify the types of litter known to be present in the

beaches and sea as well as the quantities in which they occur. While measuring litter

at any point in the marine environment, it is important to establish whether the litter

is being measured at a true sink or at an intermediate point in a pathway. The present

study aimed to measure litter in a pathway rather than a sink as the surveys were

carried out only twice per beach.

The results of the survey showed that beaches in proper Mumbai contained much

more litter than beaches in the outskirts of Mumbai such as beaches in Madh Island.

Plastic was the major type of litter in all the beaches, and the most common (30% of

the total litter). Food wrappers, glass bottles and fishing nets were also some of the

major types of litter found in the beaches. Secluded beaches like Uttan and Gorai

were cleaner and consisted of much less plastic and glass litter but the number of

abandoned fishing nets was a major concern. Most of the plastics result from

breakdown of large plastic containers, eroded by natural events that seem to be

stronger on beach environments (Corcoran et al., 2009). Highly abundant on coast

lines, meso and microplastics whose composition and relatively large surface area

make them prone to adhering waterborne organic pollutants are considered

bioavailable to organisms throughout the food web, causing significant concern

(Andrady, 2011; Cole et al., 2011).

ReefWatch Marine Conservation has been aware of this problem from its inception. It

has been active in this aspect as activities like beach cleanups are taken up almost

regularly. ReefWatch involves Bollywood celebrities in the cleanups for public

support. This scientific study for estimation and classification of beach litter is the

first to be implemented by the organization. This was a rapid assessment of beach

litter and the study was conducted only in the monsoon season. Further long term

studies taken up, studying the beach litter accumulating all year round would yield

much more relevant data helping in better management of waste. Hence helping in

conservation of the fragile coastal ecosystem.


22

REFERENCES:

1. Andrady, A. L. (2011): Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine

Pollution Bulletin 62, 1596–1605.

2. Barnes, D. K. A., Galgani, F., Thompson, R. C. and Barlaz, M. (2009):

Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 1985-1998.

3. Cheshire, A. C., Adler, E., Barbière, J., Cohen, Y., Evans, S., Jarayabhand, S.,

Jeftic, L., Jung, R. T., Kinsey, S., Kusui, E. T., Lavine, I., Manyara, P.,

Oosterbaan, L., Pereira, M. A., Sheavly, S., Tkalin, A., Varadarajan, S., Wenneker,

B., Westphalen, G. (2009): UNEP/IOC Guidelines on Survey and Monitoring of

Marine Litter, UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies, No. 186; IOC

Technical Series No. 83, xii 120 pp.

4. Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., Galloway, T. S. (2011): Microplastics as

contaminants in the marine environment: a review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62,

2588–2597.

5. Corcoran, P. L., Biesinger, M. C., Grifi, M. (2009): Plastics and beaches: a

degrading relationship. Marine Pollution Bulletin 58, 80–84.

6. Derraik, J. G. B. (2002): The Pollution of the Marine Environment by Plastic

Debris: A Review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44, 842-852.

7. Fanshawe, T. And Everard, M. (2002): The Impacts of Marine Litter, Marine

Pollution Monitoring management Group, Report of the Marine Litter Task Team

(MaLiTT).

8. Galgani, F., Fleet, D., van Franeker, J., Katsanevakis, S., Maes, T., Mouat, J.,

Oosterbaan, L., Poitou, I., Hanke, G., Thompson, R., Amato, E., Birkun, A. And

Janssen, C. (2010): Marine Strategy Framework Directive Task Team 10 Report

Marine Litter. JRC (EC Joint Research Centre) Scientific and Technical Reports.

9. GESAMP (2010); Proceedings of the GESAMP International Workshop on

plastic particles as vector in transporting persistent, bio-accumulating and toxic

substances in the oceans. In GESAMP Reports and Studies (ed. T. Bowmer and P.

J. Kershaw): MO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP.

10. GESAMP (1993): Impact of Oil and Related Chemicals and Wastes on the


23

Marine Environment, GESAMP Report and Studies No. 50. London: IMO. p. Iii.

11. Gray, J. (1997): Marine biodiversity: patterns, threats and conservation needs.

Biodiversity and Conservation, 6, 153-175.

12. Gregory, M. (2009): Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine

settings – entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and

alien invasions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364,

2013-2026.

13. Holmes, L., Turner, A. and Thompson, R. (2012): Adsorption of trace metals to

plastic resin pellets in the marine environment. Environmental Pollution 160,

42-48.

14. Kamble, S. R., Vijay, R. And Sohony, R. A. (2010): Water Quality Assessment of

Creeks and Coast in Mumbai, India: A Spatial and Temporal Analysis: 11th ESRI

India User Conference 2010.

15. Kershaw, P., Katsuhiko, S., Lee, S., Leemseth, J. and Woodring, D. (2011):

Plastic debris in the ocean. In UNEP year book: emerging issues in our

environment. Nairobi: UNEP.

16. MoEF (2002): National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan-India. Ministry of

Environment and Forests, Govt. of India, New Delhi, 538 pp.

17. Mouat, T., Lopez-Lozano, R. and Bateson, H. (2010): Economic impacts of

Marine litter, pp. 117: KIMO (Kommunenes Internasjonale Miljǿorganisasjon).

18. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2008): 2008 Interagency

Report on Marine Debris Sources, Impacts, Strategies & Recommendations.

Silver Spring, MD: NOAA. 62 pp.

19. Ozdilek, H. G., Yalchin-Ozdilek, S., Ozaner, F. S. and Sonmez, B. (2006): Impact

of accumulated beach litter on Chelonia mydas L. 1758 (green turtle) hatchlings

of the Samandag coast, Hatay, Turkey. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 15,

95-103.

20. Pendse, S. S. (2012): Solid Waste Management in India-A Case Study in

Mumbai: Online International Interdisciplinary Research Journal (Bi-Monthly),

ISSN 2249-9598, Vol-II, Issue-IV

21. Potts, T. and Hastings E. (2011): Marine Litter Issues, Impacts and Actions:

Marine Scotland


24

22. Ryan, P. G., Moore, C. J., van Franeker, J. A. and Moloney, C. L. (2009):

Monitoring the abundance of plastic debris in the marine environment.

Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society B 364, 1999-2012.

23. Thompson, R., Moore, C., vom Saal, F. and Swan, S. (2009): Plastics, the

environment and human health: current consensus and future trends.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364, 2153-2166.

24. UNEP (2006): Marine and coastal ecosystems and human well-being. A

synthesis report based on the findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

UNEP. 76pp.

25. Vijay, R., Khobragade, P., Kamble, S. R., Sohony, R. A.and Kumar, R. (2013):

Geospatial Assessment of Water Quality in Creeks and Coast of Mumbai in India.

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 4, Issue 12,

December 2013. ISSN 2229-5.


25

Annexure I: Datasheet for beach litter data collection

beach litter report_jelil

Documents