Marine Pollution Bulletin 186 (2023) 114394

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Pollution Bulletin

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpolbul

Abundance and sources of plastic debris on beaches in a plastic hotspot,

Nha Trang, Viet Nam
Mikkel Fruergaard a, *, Simon N. Laursen a, Marianne N. Larsen a, Nicole R. Posth a,
Kasper B. Niebe a, Abeline Bentzon-Tarp a, Sidsel K. Svenningsen a, Laura I. Acevedo N. a,
Bao-Son Trinh b, Phuong Thao Tran-Thi c, Hai Doan-Nhu d, Lam Nguyen-Ngoc d,
Thorbjørn J. Andersen a
a
Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management (IGN), University of Copenhagen, Øster Voldgade 10, DK-1350 Copenhagen K, Denmark
b
Institute for Environment and Resources, National University of Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam
c
Management Board of Cham Island MPA, Nguyen Hue 03, Hoi An, Quang Nam, Viet Nam
d
Department of Marine Plankton, Institute of Oceanography (Viet Nam Academy of Science and Technology, VAST), Cau Da 01, Nha Trang 650000, Viet Nam

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Viet Nam is challenged by extensive marine plastic pollution, however, remediation efforts are hampered by
Macroplastic pollution undefined sources to the coastal environment. This study surveyed the abundance, type, and source of beached
Fishing and aquaculture sectors plastic litter at seven beaches along the coast of Nha Trang, Viet Nam. A total of 4754 beached plastic litter items
Coastal and marine environment
(>2 cm) yielded a mean abundance of 19.8 ± 19.5 items m− 2 corresponding to 116 ± 226 g DW m− 2. Our results
Viet Nam
demonstrate that plastic litter related to fishing and aquaculture constituted at least 62 % of the total by weight
and 38 % by number, showing that these two sectors are responsible for a significant part of the plastic pollution
along the coast. Hence, we argue that improved management of the fishing and aquaculture sectors could
substantially reduce marine plastic pollution along Viet Nam's coast.

1. Introduction and Andrady, 2019; Borrelle et al., 2020).

Plastic pollution is a ubiquitous global problem (Wilcox et al., 2015;
Gall and Thompson, 2015; MacLeod et al., 2021) and can be found in
almost all rivers, beaches and seas around the world (see https://litte
rbase.awi.de/litter, Tekman et al., 2019). Among all anthropogenic
litter, plastic items are the most common, and often contribute >85 % of
the total in litter surveys (UNEP, 2021). Plastic is considered one of the
most prominent threats to freshwater and marine ecosystems (Galloway
et al., 2017; UNEP, 2021) and also negatively impacts the fishing,
shipping and tourism industries (McIlgorm et al., 2011; Beaumont et al.,
2019), with the economic costs (e.g. coastline cleaning efforts, impacts
on tourism, aquaculture and fisheries) adding up to US$ 6 to 10 billion
globally in 2018 alone (UNEP, 2021). It is estimated that 60 % of all the
plastics ever made has been discarded in landfills or in the natural
environment (Geyer et al., 2017). As a result, plastic accumulation on
coastlines (Lavers and Bond, 2017) and the ocean surface (Lebreton
et al., 2018) is rapidly increasing and annual plastic emissions to aquatic
ecosystems is expected to rise vastly in the coming decades (Lebreton
Plastic in the marine environment can originate from several sources
including activities at sea or along the coast (e.g., fisheries, aquaculture,
tourism) or from far inland (e.g. inadequate management of waste from
households, industries and agriculture) (Thiel et al., 2013). Studies on
the origin and fate of plastic litter suggest that land-based sources are the
largest contributors, from which plastic enters the marine environment
either via river transport (Jambeck et al., 2015; Lebreton et al., 2017;
Schmidt et al., 2017; Meijer et al., 2021) or directly from the coastal
zone (Li et al., 2016). However, this figure has been questioned as ocean-
based sources (e.g. from fisheries and aquaculture) of marine litter have
been shown to contribute significantly to the pollution in some areas
(Edyvane et al., 2004; Jang et al., 2014: Hong et al., 2014; Bergmann
et al., 2017; Falk-Andersson et al., 2019; Strand et al., 2021). Knowledge
of sources, specifically to hotspot areas, is vital when designing adequate
mitigation strategies to reduce plastic leakage into marine ecosystems
(Jang et al., 2014; Ryan, 2020).
While plastic litter can be found in all aquatic environments, the
highest concentrations are often found on beaches (Morales-Caselles

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mif@ign.ku.dk (M. Fruergaard).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114394
Received 6 July 2022; Received in revised form 15 November 2022; Accepted 18 November 2022
Available online 7 December 2022
0025-326X/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M. Fruergaard et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 186 (2023) 114394

et al., 2021; Haarr et al., 2022). Beaches are transitional ecosystems that
link the marine and terrestrial environment in the littoral zone and
plastic pollution significantly threatens their ecological function
(Galloway et al., 2017; Beaumont et al., 2019) as well as their value for
socio-cultural and recreational activities (McIlgorm et al., 2008).
Beached plastic litter may also interact directly with marine wildlife
(entanglements, ingestion) (Santos et al., 2015; Clukey et al., 2018) and
plastic litter can be transported back into coastal waters by wind, waves
and currents, where it may affect a wide range of marine biota. More­
over, beached plastic litter is subject to fragmentation (mechanical and
bio-degradation, and UV-photooxidation) because of exposure to air,
natural sunlight and wave actions. These smaller fragments (e.g. micro-
and nanoplastic) can interact with organisms across trophic levels
(Wang et al., 2021).
Numerous studies have investigated the abundance of plastic litter in
the coastal and marine environment (see https://litterbase.awi.de/litte
r), but data from low- and middle-income countries are lacking
despite the prevalence of plastic debris along many of their coasts (Haarr
et al., 2022). According to Meijer et al. (2021), Viet Nam is ranked 8th
among the top 20 countries discharging plastic debris into the world's
oceans, with an annual plastic emission of 2.8 × 104 MT y− 1. Viet Nam
has recently committed itself to an ambitious target of ocean plastic
litter management and reduction (VASI, 2020; Walker et al., 2021) and
aims at being a regional leader in Southeast Asia in minimizing marine
plastic waste (VASI, 2020). Despite this, only a few studies on the status
of beached plastic litter in Viet Nam have been published status to date.
Therefore, in the present study, beached macroplastic (>2 cm) was
surveyed at the beaches along, in, and around the coast of Nha Trang.
The specific objectives of the study were (1) to determine the abundance
and (2) establish the sources of beached plastic litter along the coast of
Nha Trang, Vietnam. The study serves as a starting point for future
comparison of beached plastic litter along the coast of Viet Nam in
general and Nha Trang in particular.
2. Methods
2.1. Study area
The city of Nha Trang is situated on the south central coast of Viet
Nam facing Nha Trang Bay in the South China Sea (Fig. 1) and has a
population of about 500,000 inhabitants (Börger et al., 2021). However,
the population increases seasonally, with the total number of visitors
reaching >4.5 million in 2016 (Pham-Do and Pham, 2020). The beaches
in and around Nha Trang support major economical, socio-cultural and
recreational activities that are the foundation for a thriving tourism
industry. The beaches also serve an important ecological function for the

a 80°E 100°E 120°E

c 109°10'E 109°15'E 109°20'E

40°N

Nha Phu Estaury

China
1
Cat Loi
India
20°N
12°20'N
2
Thai-
land
Viet Nam

0°

Nha Trang Bay

Cai River
b 105°E 110°E
12°15'N
3
Nha Trang
Viet Nam
4
10°N 5

Bien Dong
(South China Sea) 12°10'N
6

15°N

Nha Trang 7

12°5'N Cam Hai Dong

20°N

200 km 5 km

Fig. 1. Overview map of the study sites (a) showing the location of Viet Nam in Southeast Asia, (b) the location of the city of Nha Trang at the seaboard of the South
China Sea and(c) illustrating the location of seven study sites along the coast of Nha Trang.

2
M. Fruergaard et al.
country as Nha Trang Bay is an appointed Marine Protected Area since
2001 (Pham-Do and Pham, 2020). The Marine Protected area of Nha
Trang was established to achieve long-term conservation of the bay
along with its associated ecosystem services and cultural values (Pham,
2020). The Nha Trang region also has intense, but weakly controlled
fishing and aquaculture activities (Khuu et al., 2021), and it is one of the
main ports for Vietnamese offshore vessels fishing the South China Sea
(Duy et al., 2012). The intense use of the beaches and surrounding sea
have resulted in major contamination of the area. The rivers in the study
area (Cai River in the city centre and Dinh River in northern Nha Phu
Bay, Fig. 1) are believed to contribute significantly to local marine litter
contamination, with an estimated annual plastic emission to the ocean
Site 1
Site 3
Site 5
Site 7
Fig. 2. Photographs from the study sites. Note that at site 2, plastic was sampled at the natural rocky beach situated immediately next to the revetment shown in
the photograph.
3
Marine Pollution Bulletin 186 (2023) 114394
of 137 and 121 t from the Cai and Dinh Rivers, respectively (Meijer et al.,
2021).
The studied coastal area extends approximately 40 km from Cat Loi
(Fig. 1, site 1) in the north to Cam Hai Dong (Fig. 1, site 7) in the south
and encompasses seven beaches in and around the city of Nha Trang.
The surveyed beaches varied in terms of i) beach sediment texture (sand
to cobble) and ii) usage of the beach and the surrounding area (Fig. 2 and
Table 1). Four sites were located in rural areas with few or no houses
(site 1, 2, 6 and 7) and three of the sites were located in residential areas
with either formal (site 4) or informal housing (site 3 and 5). Areas with
informal housing often had limited solid waste management, such as
waste collection.
Site 2
Site 4
Site 6
M. Fruergaard et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 186 (2023) 114394

Table 1 Table 2
Characteristics of the study sites. Classification of plastic type.
Study Location Sediment Transect Transects Area Polymer Example
site (decimal texture area investigated description
PET Food and drink packaging
degrees (m− 2) (n)
Plastic bottles
lat/lon)
HDPE Grocery bags
1 12.36058 Sand and 8.3–12 2 Rural area; Juice containers
109.19575 Cobble few houses Shampoo bottles
2 12.33093 Rocks 9.8–12.8 3 Rural area; Cosmetics containers
109.20908 few houses Cleaning products
3 12.26098 Sand 10.5–12.8 3 Residential LDPE Bags
109.19612 area; Wire and cable coverings
informal Coatings for paper milk cartons and cigarette packs
housing PP Chip bags
4 12.21676 Sand 16.5 4 Residential Straws
109.20823 area PS Cutlery
5 12.21293 Sand 6.8 2 Residential PS-E Foam (foot containers and thermal containers)
109.21261 area; sandals
informal PVC Toys
housing on Candy sticks
the beach Lighters
6 12.158371 Cobble 13.5–23.3 3 Rural area; Pens and markers
109.21201 no houses Medicine blister packs
7 12.11161 Sand 31.5–43.5 3 Rural area
109.19461 Abbreviations: PP: polypropylene, PS: polystyrene, PET: polyethylene tere­
phthalate, PVC: polyvinyl chloride, HDPE: high density polyethylene, LDPE: low
density polyethylene, PS-E: polystyrene – expandable. The classification scheme
2.2. Sampling campaign and data processing is a modified version of the one originally proposed by van Emmerik et al.
(2018).
Beached plastic litter surveys were conducted during a two-week
field campaign in April 2019. All selected beaches were i) exposed to aquaculture, Table 3. This method has been successfully applied in a
the open sea, ii) accessible to surveyors, iii) accessible for ease of plastic number of studies (e.g. Thiel et al., 2013). Only plastic items clearly
litter removal and iv) not subject to any apparent litter collection having their origin in fisheries and aquaculture activities (such as fishing
activities. lines and nets, floats, buoys, ropes among others) were ascribed to this
At each of the surveyed beaches, two to four cross-beach transects category. While ropes could have had multiple usages associated with
were established starting from the shoreline and extending to the first both the fishing/aquaculture industry and households we assigned ropes
landward barrier (e.g. cliff, seawall, or bush vegetation, cf. Lippiatt to the category of fishing/aquaculture. This decision is based on expe­
et al., 2013). After visual inspection of the beaches, the first transect was riences from beach clean-ups that have shown a majority of collected
established in a representative location in terms of litter on the beach. ropes are cuts-offs from repairs of fishing nets (Falk-Andersson et al.,
Additional transects were established 100 m in an up- or down-beach 2019). All other plastic items were ascribed to household activities
direction from the first transect. At study sites 1 and 5, only two tran­ including plastic bags, food wrappers, drinking bottles, and lighters
sects were surveyed due to the short total length of the beaches and their among others (Table 3). In cases where the sampled plastic PET bottles
limited accessibility. All transects were 1 m wide, with lengths varying were attached to fishing lines and ropes, these items were classified as
from 8 to 44 m (Table 1). having their origin in fishing and aquaculture.
Plastic items larger than two centimetres (on its longest axis, cf. For each of the 20 transects, plastic litter density, PLD, was calculated
Lebreton et al., 2019) were collected in the transects. Only items as both items per square meter and weight per square meter with the
exposed on the beach surface were collected and no attempt was made to equation:
exhume buried items unless they protruded through the beach surface.
PLD = n/(w*l),
The minimum size limit of 2 cm was chosen for practical reasons and to
ensure the inclusion of caps, lids and cigarette butts. Very large plastic where PLD is the density of plastic litter items per square meter (m− 2) or
items, such as fishing nets, tubes, etc. that could not be collected and weight of plastic litter per square meter (m− 2), n is the number or weight
transported to the laboratory were only counted and not weighed. Items of plastic litter items recorded, and w and l are the width and length of
like diapers, syringes and plastics bags containing human waste were
not sampled for health safety reasons.
Table 3
In the laboratory, the collected plastic items were counted, weighed,
Classification of plastic source.
measured and sorted into different categories based on their functional
Household Fishing & aquaculture
origin, plastic type and plastic source. In order to obtain the dry weight
(DW) of the wet plastic, all plastic items collected from site seven were Plastic bags Ropes
washed with freshwater to remove sand, shells, biofilm and other litter, Food wrappers Fishing nets
PS-E-containers for takeaway Fishery strings
and air-dried for 24 h to remove moisture. The difference in wet and dry Drinking bottles Thermal containers (PS-E)
weight (loss of 23 wt% (wt%)) was then used to correct the plastic litter Toys Fishing lines
collected from the remaining sites. Functional grouping based on origin Shoes Fishing lures
(e.g. plastic bags, cups and food wrappers) was done according to the Flip flops Hooks
Clothing items Floats
NOAA Technical Memorandum (Lippiatt et al., 2013). Plastic type (e.g.
Plastic bags for liquids Buoys
PP, PET, HDPE) was determined by scanning each item for any indica­ Pens
tion of plastic type. If an item had no clear printing of its plastic type, a Lighters
modified version of the method proposed by van Emmerik et al. (2018) Tape
was applied (Table 2). The plastic source was determined by dividing the Building materials
Tubes
plastic items into two categories; i) household and ii) fishing/
Sandbags

4
M. Fruergaard et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 186 (2023) 114394

the transect, respectively (Lippiatt et al., 2013). Table 5

To enable comparison with other beaches, worldwide beach clean­ Mean abundance of plastic litter collected from the study sites.
liness was assessed through the Clean Coast Index (CCI) proposed by Site Number of Mean abundance CCIa
Alkalay et al. (2007) and was calculated as: transects
2
CCI = PLD *K, #n Item m− g DW Value Explanation
m− 2

where K is a constant set to 20. According to the CCI, beaches can be Site 2 12.2 ± 8.5 256 ± 243 Extremely
categorised from “clean” to “extremely dirty” (Table 4). CCI is normally 1 164 dirty
Site 3 20.0 ± 50 ± 30 399 Extremely
expressed as the total litter sampled (both plastic and other litters),
2 21.8 dirty
however in this study only plastic litter was considered. Site 3 39.6 ± 107 ± 48 791 Extremely
3 20.4 dirty
3. Results Site 4 5.2 ± 0.9 5±5 103 Extremely
4 dirty
Site 2 38.4 ± 33 ± 8 767 Extremely
A total of 4754 plastic items, weighing 27 kg, were collected at the 5 15.6 dirty
seven beaches, yielding a mean beached plastic litter abundance of 19.8 Site 3 30 ± 8 410 ± 594 Extremely
± 19.5 items m− 2 and 116 ± 226 g DW m− 2. Substantial spatial vari­ 6 430 dirty
ability in plastic abundance was observed between the beaches, both in Site 3 2.0 ± 0.9 11 ± 2 39 Extremely
7 dirty
terms of number of items and weight (Table 5). The highest plastic item
abundance was observed at site 3 and 5, both located near informal a
CCI: Clean Coast Index. See supplementary Table S1 and S2 for the beached
housing areas, with an abundance of 39.6 ± 20.4 and 38.4 ± 15.6 items plastic abundance at all transects.
m− 2, respectively. Conversely, the lowest abundance was observed at
site 4 and 7, both located close to tourist beaches, with a mean abun­ (22.5 %) and bags (12.6 %). Unidentified plastic items accounted for 0.7
dance of 5.2 ± 0.9 and 2.0 ± 0.9 items m− 2, respectively. % both by number and weight in total. See supplementary Table S3 and
According to the Clean Coast Index (CCI), all surveyed beaches in S4 for data on number of items and mean weight of all sampled plastic
this study were classified as extremely dirty, with CCI scores between 39 items and types, respectively. In Fig. 5, the size distribution of sampled
and 791 (Table 5). The highest abundance of plastic in weight per square plastic litter is presented in terms of number of items and weight.
meters was determined at Site 6, a rural exposed beach located in the More than half of the sampled plastic litter was within the size range
southern part of the study area, with a mean abundance of 410 ± 430 g of macroplastic (61 % and 60 % by number and weight, respectively).
DW m− 2. The lowest abundance was observed at site 4 (5 ± 5 g DW m− 2) Mesoplastic accounted for 35.1 % by number and 14.1 % by weight,
at a beach in a residential area. Large variations in plastic litter abun­ whereas megaplastic constituted 3.9 % by number, but 26 % in terms of
dance (both when quantified as items per square meter and weight per weight. The mean length of all beached plastic litter sampled was 14 ±
square meter) was observed between transects conducted on the same 30.7 cm (range 2–1500 cm). In Fig. 6, the size and plastic source dis­
beach (large SD in Table 5). See supplementary Tables S1–S2 for the tribution of sampled plastic litter by (a) number and (b) weight is
beached plastic litter abundance for individual transects. presented.
Of all the collected plastic litter, food containers were the most Size fractionation revealed that plastic litter related to fisheries and
abundant (35.8 %) in terms of item number, followed by PS thermal aquaculture was responsible for a substantial portion of plastic pollution
boxes (29.6 %), and plastic bags (11.1 %) (Fig. 3, left). Conversely, ropes in Nha Trang (38 % and 62 % in terms of numbers of items and weight,
(34.9 %) were the most abundant item in terms of weight, followed by respectively, Fig. 6). Macroplastic was the most abundant plastic litter
fishing nets (15.6 %) and food containers (12.9 %) (Fig. 3, right). The size for household and fishing- and aquaculture-related plastic litter, in
weight of the sampled food containers (1701 items) and thermal boxes terms of both number of items and weight. Megaplastic litter related to
(1406 items) were low in general (2.0 ± 1.4 and 2.2 ± 1.6 g DW fishing and aquaculture (2.9 % by number and 24.4 % by weight,
respectively), compared to the sampled ropes (292 items) and fishing respectively) was markedly higher than household related items (0.9 %
nets (110 items) with mean weights of 34.4 ± 65 and 36 ± 67 g DW, by number and 1.6 % by weight, respectively), likely explained by the
respectively. occurrence of a few, but particularly heavy and long items, such as the
In Fig. 4, the distribution of plastic type is presented by number and fishing nets (110 items with an average length of 76.9 ± 152.9 cm and
weight. weight of 36 ± 67 g DW) and fishing ropes (292 items with an average
PS-E was the most abundant plastic type (61.9 %) by number of length of 46.1 ± 46.4 cm and average weight of 32.4 ± 65 g DW). It
items, followed by LDPE (18.2 %), and PP (12.6 %). Conversely, LDPE should be noted that the estimated total weight of the megaplastic litter
was the most abundant type (63.7 %), in terms of weight, followed by is a conservative estimate because large litter items, such as fishing nets
PS-E (23.1 %), and PVC (6.0 %). The weight of the sampled LDPE items were not weighed but counted. Unidentified plastic items accounted for
(866 items) were generally high (20.1 ± 47.4 g DW), compared to the 1.1 % by number and 2.8 % by weight in total. Plastic litter item
sampled PP (599 items) and PS-E (2978 items) with mean weights of 1.7 composition revealed large variations when assessed as number of items
± 2.9 and 2.1 ± 1.3 g DW, respectively. Plastic items made from PS-E and weight (Fig. 7).
consisted mainly of food containers (55.4 %) and PS thermal boxes In regard to household-related plastic litter, food containers, bags
(42.5 %) in terms of number of items, whereas in terms of weight plastic and cups/lids/straws/bowls/cutlery accounted for 98 % and 96 % of the
items made from LDPE consisted mainly of ropes (54.1 %), fishing nets total plastic litter by number and weight, respectively. Food containers
were the most abundant plastic litter in terms of both number of items
(63.7 %) and weight (44.9 %), followed by bags (19.8 % and 30.6 %)
Table 4
and cups/lids/straws/bowls/cutlery (14.4 % and 20.6 %). Concerning
Classification of beaches according to the Clean Coast Index (CCI).
fishing and aquaculture-related plastic litter, PS thermal boxes, ropes
Quality Index Definition
and fishing nets were the most abundant plastic litter, accounting for 99
Very clean 0–2 No litter is seen % by both number and weight. PS thermal boxes accounted for the
Clean 2–5 No litter is seen over a large area majority of plastic litter items (78.3 %), followed by ropes (16.2 %) and
Moderate 5–10 A few pieces of litter can be detected
fishing nets (4.6 %). Conversely, ropes were the most abundant plastic
Dirty 10–20 A lot of litter on the shore
Extremely dirty 20+ Most of the shore is covered with litter litter in terms of weight (57 %), followed by fishing nets (23.6 %) and PS

5
M. Fruergaard et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 186 (2023) 114394

Food containers 35.8 12.9

PS thermal boxes 29.6 11.3
Bags 11.1 8.8
Cup/lid/straw/bowl/cutlery 8.1 5.9
Ropes 6.1 34.9
Fishing nets 2.3 14.6
Bottles 0.5 1.3
Other 6.5 10.3

40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40
by number (%) by weight (%)

Fig. 3. Plastic item distribution (%) by number (left) and by weight (right) of sampled plastic litter.

PVC 4.2 6.0

PS 1.0 0.2
LDPE 18.2 63.7
PET 1.1 1.9
HDPE 0.3 0.5
PP 12.6 3.8
PS-E 61.9 23.1
Unidentified 0.7 0.7

80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80
by number (%) by weight (%)

Fig. 4. Plastic type distribution (%) by number (left) and weight (right) of sampled plastic litter.

thermal boxes (18 %).

70
by number 4. Discussion
by weight
60 4.1. Nha Trang as a global hotspot for beached plastic litter

Plastic litter was abundant on all surveyed beaches, which all classify
50 as extremely dirty with CCI scores between 39 and 781. A standard
method for recording the abundance of beached plastic litter globally is,
however, still lacking (Serra-Gonçalves et al., 2019; Haarr et al., 2022),
Fraction (%)

40 which makes it challenging to compare the present data with published

beached plastic litter abundances (e.g. item sizes targeted, sampling
protocols, quantification units). Therefore, only studies that used similar
30 sampling protocols for the abundance of beached plastic litter were
compared to the results collected here (Fig. 8).
The mean abundance of beached plastic litter items found on the Nha
20 Trang beaches was higher than levels found at other beaches worldwide,
emphasizing that the coast of Nha Trang is situated in a global hotspot
for plastic pollution. For example, the abundance of Bintan Coastal area
10 in Indonesia was 4.1 ± 2.3 items m− 2 (Syakti et al., 2019) and 3.8 ± 8.5
items m− 2 (Jang et al., 2018) and 2.8 ± 3.9 items m− 2 (Chen et al.,
2020) for the coastline of Sri Lanka and China, respectively. In general,
0 the mean plastic abundance of 19.8 ± 19.5 items m− 2 found for the Nha
Meso Macro Mega Trang Bay study area are two orders of magnitude larger than the global
mean of beached litter abundance (1 item m− 2, Galgani et al., 2015).
Fig. 5. Plastic size distribution (%) by number and by weight of sampled plastic Marine debris does encompass more than just plastic, but the present
litter. Mesoplastic 2–5 cm, macroplastic 5–50 cm and megaplastic > 50 cm.
study focused solely on plastic litter, which is the most common litter
item and often contributes >85 % of the total in litter surveys (UNEP
2021). The mean plastic litter abundance by weight m− 2 was 116 ± 226
g m− 1 [range 1–1828 g m− 1, item > 2 cm] in the present study. Mean
plastic litter abundance by weight m− 2 reported in a few other studies
were 150 ± 461 g m− 1 [range 1–2484 g m− 1, item > 2.5 cm] from the
coastline of Sri Lanka (Jang et al., 2018); 68.5 ± 71.4 g m− 1 [item > 2.5

6
M. Fruergaard et al.
60 a - by number
Household
50
Fishing and aquaculture
Unidentified
40
Fraction (%)
30
20
10
0
Meso Macro Mega
Fig. 6. Plastic size and source distribution by (a) number and by (b) weight of sampled plastic litter. Mesoplastic 2–5 cm, Macroplastic 5–50 cm and Megaplastic >
50 cm.
cm] from the coastline of China (Chen et al., 2020); 48.8 ± 59.8 g m− 1
[range 0.3–188 g m− 1, item > 1 cm] on the main Hawaiian beaches
(Brignac et al., 2019).
The high plastic litter abundance, both in terms of number and
weight that was observed in the present study possibly represents longer
periods of accumulation with only sporadic or no beach cleaning efforts.
For reference, a tourist beach in the city centre of Nha Trang
(12◦ 14′ 01.3”N 109◦ 11′ 54.6′′ E), which is regularly cleaned, was also
sampled for plastic and yielded only a plastic litter abundance of 0.2
items m− 2 and 0.4 g DW m− 2 This suggests that plastic litter at the
investigated beaches (Table 1) had taken substantial time (months to
years) to accumulate. A constraint of the present study is that data
collection was limited to a one-time survey of few sites conducted over a
two week field campaign in April 2019. It is known that plastic litter
abundance can vary with ocean currents (Lebreton et al., 2019), tides
(Bernardini et al., 2020), prevailing winds (Browne et al., 2010) and
monsoon cycles (Jayasiri et al., 2013), and such confounding factors
need to be studied in more detail (Jang et al., 2018) to fully understand
the dynamics of plastic litter in the region. Surprisingly, no significant
differences in plastic abundance or CCI were observed between resi­
dential and rural beaches. This is surprising but suggests that more
comprehensive studies, including long-term and large-scale monitoring,
are highly warranted to fully understand the beached plastic pollution
along the coast of Nha Trang.
4.2. Plastic sources
Identifying the source of marine plastic litter is vital to design
adequate mitigation strategies to reduce plastic leakage into marine
ecosystems (Jang et al., 2014; Ryan, 2020). As the composition and
source of plastic litter differs from region to region, mitigation strategies
must reflect this. In the present study, beached plastic litter related to
fishing and aquaculture activities constituted 38 % of the total by
number and 62 % of the total by weight. The difference in number and
weight, can be partly explained by the occurrence of a few, but partic­
ularly heavy and long items, such as fishing nets and fishing ropes.
Plastic stemming from fishing and aquaculture activities constitute an
increasingly large proportion of the heavier individual plastic litter
items. For example, fishing nets were responsible for 98 % of plastic
litter items heavier than 200 g. However, these are lower-end estimates
only including items positively identified and attributed to these activ­
ities and excluding large mega-plastic items that could not be weighed.
In the study, specific types of litter was explicitly linked to a single
source (household or fishing/aquaculture). For example, we classified
straws and bags as household-related litter. However, if these items were
Marine Pollution Bulletin 186 (2023) 114394
b - by weight
Total Meso Macro Mega Total
in fact dumped from a fishing vessel and transported to the beach by
ocean currents, they would have been classified incorrectly as origi­
nating from households. Therefore, the actual share of plastic origi­
nating from the fishing and aquaculture sector is possibly higher and
makes these sectors responsible for a substantial portion of the plastic
pollution in the Nha Trang coastal region. The share of fishing and
aquaculture-related plastic found in this study is significantly larger
than the global share that is estimated to 22 % (by number, cf. Irene and
Anna, 2022). It is not clear what causes this difference. One possible
explanation is that the coast of Nha Trang is home to a large fishing fleet
and intensive shrimp farming, which likely generates considerable
mismanaged plastic waste. The fishing and aquaculture sectors have
grown rapidly since the mid-1990s in the region and are now considered
two of the most important industries (Pham-Do and Pham, 2020).
Fishing is also the primary source of livelihood for most residents, and
aquaculture (e.g. shrimp farms in the Nha Phu Bay) accounts for
approximately 30 % of household income in the Nha Trang region
(Pham-Do and Pham, 2020).
That fishing and aquaculture related litter contributes a substantial
part of the total litter is in agreement with several other studies under­
taken at beaches (Edyvane et al., 2004; Jang et al., 2014: Hong et al.,
2014; Bergmann et al., 2017; Falk-Andersson et al., 2019; Strand et al.,
2021), the sea surface (Lebreton et al., 2018; Luna-Jorquera et al., 2019;
Irene and Anna, 2022), and the sea floor (Zhang et al., 2020). Yet, other
studies find that the main source of marine litter is land-based (e.g.
Silva-Cavalcanti et al., 2009; Thiel et al., 2013; Garcés-Ordóñez et al.,
2020). Mitigation strategies should reflect the composition and source of
plastic litter in a given region. The uncertainty relating to quantification
of plastic pollution generated from maritime activities warrants further
studies. The large share of plastic litter originating from fishing- and
aquaculture-related activities in Nha Trang, with PS thermal boxes, rope
and fishing nets accounting for 99 % by both number and weight (Figs. 3
and 7), suggests efforts to reduce marine plastic pollution should target
these industries specifically.
4.3. Monitoring plastic pollution by number and by weight
Most studies on plastic and anthropogenic litter pollution in the
environment report the abundance in number of items, but weight is an
equally important unit when monitoring plastic pollution (Pham et al.,
2014); particularly considering attempts to understand sources of plastic
litter in a region and to balance the global plastic budget (Ryan et al.,
2020; Smith and Turrell, 2021). In this study, a large variability in
plastic litter abundance was observed when estimates were based on the
number of items or on their weight. For example, fishing nets and -ropes
7
M. Fruergaard et al. Marine Pollution Bulletin 186 (2023) 114394

Household Fishing and aquaculture

100

Composition (%) 80

60

40

20

0
by by by by
number weight number weight

Food containers PS thermal boxes

Cups/lids/straws/
Bags
bowls/cutlery
Ropes Fishing nets

Bottles
Fig. 7. Plastic litter item composition by number and weight for household and fisheries and aquaculture-related plastic litter.

Rios et al. (2018) Islands (Azores)

Lee et al. (2013) Geoje Island (South Korea)
Chen et al. (2020) Coastline (China)
Jang et al. (2018) Coastline (Sri Lanka)
Syakti et al. (2019) Bintan Island (Indonesia)
Rangel-Buitrago et al. (2021) Caribbean Coast (Colombia)
Syakti et al. (2017) Cilacap Coast (Indonesia)
Brignac et al. (2019) Island Beaches (Hawai)
This study Nha Trang (Vietnam)

0 20 40 60 80
Beached plastic abundance (items m-2)

Fig. 8. Comparison of the abundance of beached plastics relative to that in other coastal areas worldwide. Black dots denote the mean plastic abundance (items m− 2),
error bars ± one SD and floating bars the minimum and maximum abundance. References: Brignac et al. (2019), Syakti et al. (2017), Rangel-Buitrago et al. (2021),
Syakti et al. (2019), Jang et al. (2018), Chen et al. (2020), Lee et al. (2013) and Ríos et al. (2018). See Table S5 for details of the compared studies (e.g. concerned
particle size, minimum and maximum abundance).

8
M. Fruergaard et al.
were high in terms of weight, but low in terms of numbers. Conversely,
food containers were low in weight, but high in numbers. Moreover,
litter related to fishing and aquaculture activities constituted at least 62
% by weight and 38 % by number. Similarly, Smith and Turrell (2021)
found that using weight as the measure gives a different picture of the
importance of litter arising from fishing (6 % by number and 41 % by
weight) compared to numbers of items. If solely number of items are
reported some litter categories may be overestimated (fragmentation
into smaller pieces). Reporting weights alone, however, can cause
overestimating of some categories (e.g. single and particularly large and
heavy fishing nets). These results emphasize the need to report both
numbers and weights to fully understand the abundance and source of
plastic litter in a region.
5. Conclusion
The abundance, distribution and source of macro plastic litter was
investigated at seven beaches in and around Nha Trang, Viet Nam. The
surveyed beaches yielded a mean plastic litter abundance of 19.8 ± 19.5
items m− 2 (116 ± 226 g dry weight (DW) m− 2). Compared to published
data on beached plastic litter, the Nha Trang beaches are among the
most polluted worldwide, supporting the notion of Viet Nam as a hotspot
for marine plastic pollution. A majority of the plastic litter originated
from fishing and aquaculture activities. These two sectors were
responsible for 62 % by number and 46 % by weight of the total
collected plastic, but the actually share is likely higher. In order to
reduce plastic pollution along the coast of Nha Trang these sectors must
be targeted specifically in remediation plans.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
M.F. S.N.L and T.J.A. wrote the manuscript with input from all co-
authors.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
This study was carried out as a part of a MSc field- and method course
in geography and geology at the Department of Geosciences and Natural
Resource Management, University Copenhagen. We thank all teachers
and students involved in the course for fruitful discussions of the data
and we acknowledge the logistic support provided by our hosts at the
Institute of Oceanography (VAST) during the course. Two anonymous
reviewers are thanked for providing constructive comments that
improved the final version of the paper. Financial support was granted
by VILLUM FONDEN (grant no. 17668, MicroPlastDynamics and grant
no. 15397, Cycling in the Plastisphere: the biogeochemical fate of ma­
rine microplastics) and by Geocenter Denmark (grant no. 3-2018,
PlasticHotspot and grant no. 2-2020, TRACE).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114394.
9
Marine Pollution Bulletin 186 (2023) 114394
References
Alkalay, R., Pasternak, G., Zask, A., 2007. Clean-coast index - a new approach for beach
cleanliness assessment. Ocean Coast. Manag. 50 (5–6), 352–362. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2006.10.002.
Beaumont, N.J., Aanesen, M., Austen, M.C., Börger, T., Clark, J.R., Cole, M., Hooper, T.,
Lindeque, P.K., Pascoe, C., Wyles, K.J., 2019. Global ecological, social and economic
impacts of marine plastic. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 142, 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.marpolbul.2019.03.022.
Bergmann, M., Lutz, B., Tekman, M.B., Gutow, L., 2017. Citizen scientists reveal: marine
litter pollutes Arctic beaches and affects wild life. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 125 (1–2),
535–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.09.055.
Bernardini, G., McConville, A.J., Castillo, A.C., 2020. Macro-plastic pollution in the tidal
Thames: an analysis of composition and trends for the optimization of data
collection. Mar. Policy 119, 104064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpol.2020.104064.
Börger, T., Ngoc, Q.T.K., Kuhfuss, L., Hien, T.T., Hanley, N., Campbell, D., 2021.
Preferences for coastal and marine conservation in Vietnam: accounting for
differences in individual choice set formation. Ecol. Econ. 180, 106885 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106885.
Borrelle, S.B., Ringma, J., Law, K.L., Monnahan, C.C., Lebreton, L., McGivern, A.,
Rochman, C.M., 2020. Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts to mitigate
plastic pollution. Science 369 (6510), 1515–1518. https://doi.org/10.1126/
scienceaba3656.
Brignac, K.C., Jung, M.R., King, C., Royer, S.J., Blickley, L., Lamson, M.R., Potemra, J.T.,
Lynch, J.M., 2019. Marine debris polymers on main Hawaiian island beaches, sea
surface, and seafloor. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53 (21), 12218–12226. https://doi.org/
10.1021/acs.est.9b03561.
Browne, M.A., Galloway, T.S., Thompson, R.C., 2010. Spatial patterns of plastic debris
along estuarine shorelines. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (9), 3404–3409. https://doi.
org/10.1021/es903784e.
Chen, H., Wang, S., Guo, H., Lin, H., Zhang, Y., 2020. A nationwide assessment of litter
on China's beaches using citizen science data. Environ. Pollut. 258, 113756 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113756.
Clukey, K.E., Lepczyk, C.A., Balazs, G.H., Work, T.M., Li, Q.X., Bachman, M.J., et al.,
2018. Persistent organic pollutants in fat of three species of Pacific pelagic longline
caught sea turtles: accumulation in relation to ingested plastic marine debris. Sci.
Total Environ. 610–611, 402–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2017.07.242.
Duy, N.N., Flaaten, O., Anh, N.T.K., Ngoc, Q.T.K., 2012. Open-access fishing rent and
efficiency - the case of gillnet vessels in Nha Trang, Vietnam. Fish. Res. 127, 98–108.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2012.04.008.
Edyvane, K.S., Dalgetty, A., Hone, P.W., Higham, J.S., Wace, N.M., 2004. Long-term
marine litter monitoring in the remote Great Australian Bight, South Australia. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 48 (11–12), 1060–1075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2003.12.012.
van Emmerik, T., Kieu-Le, T.-C., Loozen, M., van Oeveren, K., Strady, E., Bui, X.-T.,
Egger, M., Gasperi, J., Lebreton, L., Nguyen, P.-D., Schwarz, A., Slat, B., Tassin, B.,
2018. A methodology to characterize riverine macroplastic emission into the ocean.
Frontiers in marine. Science 5 (372). https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00372.
Falk-Andersson, J., Berkhout, B.W., Abate, T.G., 2019. Citizen science for better
management: lessons learned from three Norwegian beach litter data sets. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 138, 364–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.11.021.
Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Maes, T., 2015. Global distribution, composition and abundance
of marine litter. In: Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer, Cham, pp. 29–56.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3.
Gall, S.C., Thompson, R.C., 2015. The impact of debris on marine life. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
92 (1–2), 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.041.
Galloway, T.S., Cole, M., Lewis, C., 2017. Interactions of microplastic debris throughout
the marine ecosystem. Nat, Ecol. Evol. 1 (5), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-
017-0116.
Garcés-Ordóñez, O., Espinosa, L.F., Cardoso, R.P., Cardozo, B.B.I., Dos Anjos, R.M., 2020.
Plastic litter pollution along sandy beaches in the Caribbean and Pacific coast of
Colombia. Environ. Pollut. 267, 115495 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2020.115495.
Geyer, R., Jambeck, J.R., Law, K.L., 2017. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever
made. Sci. Adv. 3 (7), e1700782 https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782.
Haarr, M.L., Falk-Andersson, J., Fabres, J., 2022. Global marine litter research
2015–2020: geographical and methodological trends. Sci. Total Environ. 153162
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153162.
Hong, S., Lee, J., Kang, D., Choi, H.W., Ko, S.H., 2014. Quantities, composition, and
sources of beach debris in Korea from the results of nationwide monitoring. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 84 (1–2), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.05.051.
Irene, R., Anna, R., 2022. Modelling the distribution of fishing-related floating marine
litter within the Bay of Biscay and its marine protected areas. Environ. Pollut. 292,
118216 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118216.
Jambeck, J.R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T.R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A.,
Narayan, R., Law, K.L., 2015. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science
347 (6223), 768–771. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352.
Jang, Y.C., Lee, J., Hong, S., Lee, J.S., Shim, W.J., Song, Y.K., 2014. Sources of plastic
marine debris on beaches of Korea: more from the ocean than the land. Ocean Sci. J.
49 (2), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12601-014-0015-8.
Jang, Y.C., Ranatunga, R.R.M.K.P., Mok, J.Y., Kim, K.S., Hong, S.Y., Choi, Y.R.,
Gunasekara, A.J.M., 2018. Composition and abundance of marine litter stranded on
the beaches of Sri Lanka: results from the first island-wide survey. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
128, 126–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.01.018.
M. Fruergaard et al.
Jayasiri, H.B., Purushothaman, C.S., Vennila, A., 2013. Plastic litter accumulation on
high-water strandline of urban beaches in Mumbai, India. Environ. Monit. Assess.
185 (9), 7709–7719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-013-3129-z.
Khuu, D.T., Jones, P.J., Ekins, P., 2021. Governance analysis of Nha Trang Bay and Cu
Lao Cham marine protected areas, Vietnam. Marine Policy 127, 104330. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104330.
Lavers, J.L., Bond, A.L., 2017. Exceptional and rapid accumulation of anthropogenic
debris on one of the world's most remote and pristine islands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
114 (23), 6052–6055. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1619818114.
Lebreton, L., Andrady, A., 2019. Future scenarios of global plastic waste generation and
disposal. Palgrave Commun. 5 (1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-
0212-7.
Lebreton, L., Van Der Zwet, J., Damsteeg, J.W., Slat, B., Andrady, A., Reisser, J., 2017.
River plastic emissions to the world's oceans. Nat. Commun. 8 (1), 1–10. https://doi.
org/10.1038/ncomms15611.
Lebreton, L., Slat, B., Ferrari, F., Sainte-Rose, B., Aitken, J., Marthouse, R., et al., 2018.
Evidence that the great Pacific garbage patch is rapidly accumulating plastic. Sci.
Rep. 8, 4666. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-22939-w.
Lebreton, L., Egger, M., Slat, B., 2019. A global mass budget for positively buoyant
macroplastic debris in the ocean. Sci. Rep. 9 (1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-019-49413-5.
Lee, J., Hong, S., Song, Y.K., Hong, S.H., Jang, Y.C., Jang, M., Heo, N.W., Han, G.M.,
Lee, M.J., Kang, D., Shim, W.J., 2013. Relationships among the abundances of plastic
litter in different size classes on beaches in South Korea. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 77 (1–2),
349–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.08.013.
Li, W.C., Tse, H.F., Fok, L., 2016. Plastic waste in the marine environment: a review of
sources, occurrence and effects. Science of The Total Environment 566, 333–349.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.084.
Lippiatt, S., Opfer, S., Arthur, C., 2013. Marine Litter Monitoring and Assessment:
Recommendations for Monitoring Litter Trends in the Marine Environment.
Luna-Jorquera, G., Thiel, M., Portflitt-Toro, M., Dewitte, B., 2019. Marine protected
areas invaded by floating anthropogenic litter: an example from the South Pacific.
Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshwat. Ecosyst. 29, 245–259. https://doi.org/10.1002/
aqc.3095.
MacLeod, M., Arp, H.P.H., Tekman, M.B., Jahnke, A., 2021. The global threat from
plastic pollution. Science 373 (6550), 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.
abg5433.
McIlgorm, A., Campbell, H.F., Rule, M.J., 2008. Understanding the economic benefits
and costs of controlling marine debris in the APEC region (MRC 02/2007). In:
A Report to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Marine Resource Conservation
Working Group by the National Marine Science Centre (University of New England
and Southern Cross University), Coffs Harbour, NSW, Australia, December.
McIlgorm, A., Campbell, H.F., Rule, M.J., 2011. The economic cost and control of marine
debris damage in the Asia-Pacific region. Ocean Coast. Manag. 54 (9), 643–651.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2011.05.007.
Meijer, L.J., van Emmerik, T., van der Ent, R., Schmidt, C., Lebreton, L., 2021. More than
1000 rivers account for 80% of global riverine plastic emissions into the ocean.
Science. Advances 7 (18), eaaz5803. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz5803.
Morales-Caselles, C., Viejo, J., Martí, E., González-Fernández, D., Pragnell-Raasch, H.,
González-Gordillo, J.I., Montero, E., Arroyo, G.M., Hanke, G., Salvo, V.S.,
Basurko, O.C., Mallos, N., Lebreton, L., Echevarría, F., van Emmerik, T., Duarte, C.
M., Gálvez, J.A., van Sebille, E., Galgani, F., García, C.M., Ross, P.S., Bartual, A.,
Ioakeimidis, C., Markalain, G., Isobe, A., Cózar, A., 2021. An inshore–offshore
sorting system revealed from global classification of ocean litter. Nat. Sustain. 4 (6),
484–493. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00720-8.
Pham, T.T.T., 2020. Tourism in marine protected areas: can it be considered as an
alternative livelihood for local communities? Mar. Policy 115, 103891. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103891.
Pham, C.K., Ramirez-Llodra, E., Alt, C.H.S., Amaro, T., Bergmann, M., Canals, M.,
Company, J.B., Davies, J., Duineveld, G., Galgani, F., Howell, K.L., Huvenne, V.A.I.,
Isidro, E., Jones, D.O.B., Lastras, G., Morato, T., Gomes-Pereira, J.N., Purser, A.,
Stewart, H., Tojeira, I., Tubau, X., Van Rooij, D., Tyler, P.A., 2014. Marine litter
distribution and density in European seas, from the shelves to deep basins. PLoS One
9 (4), e95839. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095839.
Pham-Do, K.H., Pham, T.T.T., 2020. Tourism in marine protected areas: a view from Nha
Trang Bay, Vietnam. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 33, 100623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tmp.2019.100623.
10
Marine Pollution Bulletin 186 (2023) 114394
Rangel-Buitrago, N., Mendoza, A.V., Mantilla-Barbosa, E., Arroyo-Olarte, H., Arana, V.
A., Trilleras, J., Gracia, C.A., Neal, W.J., Williams, A.T., 2021. Plastic pollution on
the Colombian central Caribbean beaches. Marine Pollution Bulletin 162, 111837.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111837.
Ríos, N., Frias, J.P., Rodríguez, Y., Carriço, R., Garcia, S.M., Juliano, M., Pham, C.K.,
2018. Spatio-temporal variability of beached macro-litter on remote islands of the
North Atlantic. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 133, 304–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2018.05.038.
Ryan, P.G., 2020. Land or sea? What bottles tell us about the origins of beach litter in
Kenya. Waste Manag. 116, 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.07.044.
Ryan, P.G., Weideman, E.A., Perold, V., Moloney, C.L., 2020. Toward balancing the
budget: surface macro-plastics dominate the mass of particulate pollution stranded
on beaches. Front. Mar. Sci. 929 https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.575395.
Santos, R.G., Andrades, R., Boldrini, M.A., Martins, A.S., 2015. Debris ingestion by
juvenile marine turtles: an underestimated problem. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 93 (1–2),
37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Schmidt, C., Krauth, T., Wagner, S., 2017. Export of plastic debris by rivers into the sea.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 51 (21), 12246–12253. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
est.7b02368.
Serra-Gonçalves, C., Lavers, J.L., Bond, A.L., 2019. Global review of beach debris
monitoring and future recommendations. Environmental science & technology 53
(21), 12158–12167. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b01424.
Silva-Cavalcanti, J.S., Barbosa de Araujo, M.C., Ferreira da Costa, M., 2009. Plastic litter
on an urban beach—a case study in Brazil. Waste Manag. Res. 27 (1), 93–97. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0734242X08088705.
Smith, L., Turrell, W.R., 2021. Monitoring plastic beach litter by number or by weight:
the implications of fragmentation. Front. Mar. Sci. 1359 https://doi.org/10.3389/
fmars.2021.702570.
Strand, K.O., Huserbråten, M., Dagestad, K.-F., Mauritzen, C., Grøsvik, B.E., Nogueira, L.
A., Melsom, A., Röhrs, J., 2021. Potential sources of marine plastic from survey
beaches in the Arctic and Northeast Atlantic. Sci. Total Environ. 790, 148009
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148009.
Syakti, A.D., Bouhroum, R., Hidayati, N.V., Koenawan, C.J., Boulkamh, A., Sulistyo, I.,
Lebarillier, S., Akhlus, S., Doumenq, P., Wong-Wah-Chung, P., 2017. Beach macro-
litter monitoring and floating microplastic in a coastal area of Indonesia. Mar. Pollut.
Bull. 122 (1–2), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.06.046.
Syakti, A.D., Jacob, M., Birrien, T., Suhana, M.P., Aziz, M.Y., Salim, A., Doumenq, P.,
Louarn, G., 2019. Daily apportionment of stranded plastic debris in the Bintan
Coastal area, Indonesia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 149, 110609 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2019.110609.
Tekman, M.B., Peter, C., Gutow, L., Bergmann, M., 2019. litterbase. org: An Online Portal
for Marine Litter and Microplastics and their Impacts on Marine Life. Website: htt
ps://litterbase.awi.de/litter.
Thiel, M., Hinojosa, I.A., Miranda, L., Pantoja, J.F., Rivadeneira, M.M., Vásquez, N.,
2013. Anthropogenic marine debris in the coastal environment: a multi-year
comparison between coastal waters and local shores. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 71 (1–2),
307–316.
United Nations Environment Programme, 2021. From Pollution to Solution: A Global
Assessment of Marine Litter and Plastic Pollution. Nairobi.
VASI (Vietnam Administration of Seas and Islands), 2020. National Action Plan for
Management of Marine Plastic Litter by 2030. Hanoi, Vietnam. https://www.vn.un
dp.org/content/vietnam/en/home/library/environment_climate/national-action
-plan-for-management-of-marine-plastic-litter-by-.html.
Walker, T.R., McGuinty, E., Hickman, D., 2021. Marine litter database development
using international best practices: a case study in Vietnam. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 173,
112948 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112948.
Wang, F., Wu, H., Wu, W., Wang, L., Liu, J., An, L., Xu, Q., 2021. Microplastic
characteristics in organisms of different trophic levels from Liaohe Estuary, China.
Science of The Total Environment 789, 148027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2021.148027.
Wilcox, C., Van Sebille, E., Hardesty, B.D., 2015. Threat of plastic pollution to seabirds is
global, pervasive, and increasing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112 (38), 11899–11904.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.150210811.
Zhang, F., Yao, C., Xu, J., Zhu, L., Peng, G., Li, D., 2020. Composition, spatial distribution
and sources of plastic litter on the East China Sea floor. Sci. Total Environ. 742,
140525 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140525.