Marine Pollution Bulletin 196 (2023) 115625

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Pollution Bulletin

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

Assessment of beach macrolitter using unmanned aerial systems: A study

along the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast
Radoslava Bekova *, Bogdan Prodanov
Institute of Oceanology – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria

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

Keywords: Over the years, the Black Sea has been impacted by the issue of marine litter, which poses ecological and health
Marine litter threats. A mid-term monitoring program initiated in 2018 assessed the abundance, density, and composition of
Beach macrolitter beach litter (BL) on 40 frequently visited beaches. From 2018 to 2022, there was a significant increase in average
Monitoring
abundance, rising by 261 %. Artificial polymer materials accounted for the majority (84 %) of the litter. Land-
Unmanned aerial systems
Bulgarian Black Sea Coast
based sources dominated 77 % of the litter. The Clean Coast Index (CCI) categorized the beaches as “moderate”
with an average value of 8.9 for the period between 2018 and 2022. However, the years 2021 and 2022, during
the COVID-19 epidemic, were identified as the “dirtiest period” with 11 beaches classified as “extremely dirty”
due to high domestic tourist pressure. The study demonstrates a successful combination of standard in situ visual
assessment supported by unmanned aerial systems for beach litter surveys.

1. Introduction
1.1. World theme “marine litter”
The beaches are globally widespread and significant from geological,
biological, and ecological perspectives (Luijendijk et al., 2018; Bird,
2021; Masselink et al., 2011). Anthropogenic marine litter (ML) poses a
recognized threat to marine wildlife according to Directive 2008/56/EC
of the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and the
United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14 (Directive 2008/56/
EC; UN RES/70/1, 2015). The United Nations has recently taken action
by signing the first global resolution to combat plastic pollution, aiming
to establish a legally binding treaty by 2024 (UNEP, 2022).
Over the course of the last few decades, there has been an increase in
the accumulation of ML, particularly plastic debris, in the various
environmental compartments (beaches, islands, surface and sub-surface
water, and the food web) that are located between the north pole and the
south pole (Monteiro et al., 2018; Galgani et al., 2013b, 2015; Galgani,
2015). Although ML is composed of plastic, glass/ceramic, metal, wood/
paper, textiles, and rubber (Galgani et al., 2013a), plastic is the most
prevalent type of litter found in marine environments, accounting for
60–80 % of all litter (Barboza et al., 2019). Anthropogenic debris has
emerged as a major pollutant in marine, coastal, and terrestrial envi­
ronments due to the fact that it poses a risk to the survival of species and
has the potential to negatively impact human health (Panti et al., 2019;
Wright et al., 2013). The most significant dangers to human health, as
well as the most serious implications for environmental and ecological
health, are posed by anthropogenic ML (Filho et al., 2019). Entangle­
ment (Gregory, 2009; Thiel et al., 2018), ingestion (Savoca et al., 2021),
bioaccumulation of persistent organic and inorganic pollutants (Teuten
et al., 2009; Ranjani et al., 2022), and transfer of non-native species
through hitchhiking are some of the negative effects that microplastic
pollution has on the marine environment (Al-Khayat et al., 2021). In
addition to negatively impacting marine biodiversity, ML has a detri­
mental effect on the economies of coastal countries (McIlgorm et al.,
2011; Brouwer et al., 2017; Beaumont et al., 2019). The majority of the
anthropogenic microplastics that make their way into the oceans come
from land-based sources, accounting for almost 80 % of the total (Gal­
gani et al., 2013a). Borrelle et al. (2020) calculated that between 19 and
23MT of waste plastic was produced all over the world in 2016 and that
this waste eventually made its way into aquatic ecosystems.
Concerns about the environment on a worldwide scale have been
raised in response to the accumulation of anthropogenic litter in marine
environments. Consequently, in the past few decades, there has been a
meteoric rise in the number of surveillance programs operating all over
the world with the express purpose of determining the quantities of litter
found on oceans and coasts (e.g., Maes et al., 2019). Due to the multiple
anthropogenic pressures (recreational activities, fisheries, urbanization)

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: radoslavabekova@gmail.com (R. Bekova).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115625
Received 10 July 2023; Received in revised form 2 October 2023; Accepted 3 October 2023
Available online 7 October 2023
0025-326X/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
R. Bekova and B. Prodanov
and environmental factors (wind, waves, tides) that may contribute to
their contamination, beach-dune ecosystems are important compart­
ments to monitor in the context of ML or beach litter (BL). However,
most of the strategies suggested for collecting stranded ML litter in
coastal areas only apply to the subaerial beach (e.g., OSPAR, 2010;
Galgani et al., 2013a; GESAMP, 2019). Marine Beach Litter is a global
strategy that provides actual information on the ML problem with plastic
pollution in the world's oceans and coasts (Rangel-Buitrago et al., 2018,
2021; Cesarano et al., 2023; Mugilarasan et al., 2023; Zielinski et al.,
2022; Bhuyan et al., 2021; Diem et al., 2023).
1.2. Marine litter in the Black Sea
In terms of the marine environment of the Black Sea, also land-based
waste is considered to be the most significant danger, as it is responsible
for >70 % of all marine pollution (World Bank, 2020). In addition to
nutrient runoff, eutrophication, wastewater discharges, heavy metals
accumulation, and other environmental issues, ML is regarded as a
crucial and complicated environmental concern in the Black Sea basin
(BSC, 2019; World Bank, 2020). This enclosed sea is very susceptible to
environmental degradation due to the extremely slow replenishment of
water, limited vertical intermixing, and dynamic surface circulation.
Furthermore, ML pollution is a comparatively new issue in this sea,
which is also very vulnerable to environmental degradation. Therefore,
the countries surrounding the Black Sea have undertaken a plethora of
surveys over the past few years in order to get a better understanding of
the magnitude of the problem and devise strategies to cut down on the
amount of ML entering the basin, e.g., “Identification of Hotspots of
Marine Litter Pollution in the Bulgarian Black Sea Coastal Area”,
ANEMONE project “Assessing the vulnerability of the Black Sea marine
ecosystem to human pressures” (ANEMONE, 2021; Paiu et al., 2020;
Panayotova et al., 2020), “Marine litter, eutrophication and noise
assessment tools – (MARLEN)”, “Raising Public Awareness and
Reducing Marine Litter for Protection of the Black Sea Ecosystem –
(LitOUTer)”.
Numerous studies have been carried out by the countries surround­
ing the Black Sea over the course of the past decade (after 2013) in order
to gain a better understanding of the scale of the problem and formulate
plans to cut down on the amount of ML entering the basin. Within a
significant number of study sites along the coastlines of Romania (Paiu
et al., 2017; Muresan et al., 2017), Bulgaria (Simeonova et al., 2017,
2020; Brouwer et al., 2017; Bobchev, 2018; Simeonova and Chuturkova,
2019; Panayotova et al., 2020; Chuturkova and Simeonova, 2021;
Bekova, 2023; Prodanov and Bekova, 2023), Georgia (Machitadze et al.,
2020), and Turkey (Topçu et al., 2013; Terzi and Seyhan, 2017; Şahin
et al., 2018; Terzi et al., 2020; Gülenç et al., 2020; Aytan et al., 2020;
Öztekin et al., 2020; Bat et al., 2022; Erüz et al., 2023) were discovered
to have worrying amounts of anthropogenic litter. The floating and
seafloor ML, river flow as major sources of ML (BSC, 2007; Öztekin and
Bat, 2017; Ioakeimidis et al., 2014; Lechner et al., 2014; Suaria et al.,
2015; Moncheva et al., 2016; Slobodnik et al., 2018; Stanev and Ricker,
2019; Aytan et al., 2020; Raykov et al., 2020; Slabakova et al., 2020;
Berov and Klayn, 2020; Doncheva et al., 2020; Terzi et al., 2020;
Miladinova et al., 2020; Panayotova et al., 2021; UIAMES, 2021; Erüz
et al., 2022; González-Fernández et al., 2022; Pogojeva et al., 2023), in
biota (Tonay et al., 2020; Aytan et al., 2021, 2022; Terzi et al., 2021;
Mihova et al., 2023), as well in archaeological context (Prahov et al.,
2021) were reported in Black Sea area. Finally, Georgieva et al. (2023)
reported worrisome data about the ubiquitous distribution of micro-
plastic pollution along the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast. All these studies
indicate the need in order to evaluate the distribution of micro-, meso-,
and macrolitter in the Black Sea and their potential risk for humans and
coastal ecosystems.
Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), also known as drones or UAVs,
offer a new sustainable opportunity for studying litter dynamics and can
provide valuable data for developing coastal litter models over time
2
Marine Pollution Bulletin 196 (2023) 115625
(Gonçalves et al., 2022). Using UAS, a survey strategy has been
employed to map and detect the abundance and distribution of macro­
litter items on sandy beaches, utilizing manual image screening and
machine learning techniques (Andriolo et al., 2020a, 2020b, 2021a,
2021b, 2022; Andriolo and Gonçalves, 2022; Bao et al., 2018; Deidun
et al., 2018; Escobar-Sánchez et al., 2021; Fallati et al., 2019; Gonçalves
et al., 2020a, 2020b, 2020c; Lo et al., 2020; Kako et al., 2020; Martin
et al., 2018; Merlino et al., 2021; Papakonstantinou et al., 2021). This
method is efficient in terms of time and cost while improving the ac­
curacy of coastal macrolitter pollution measurements using drones with
RTK mode. Andriolo et al. (2020a, 2020b, 2021a, 2021b) proposed a
drone-based framework for non-intrusive macrolitter mapping,
combining UAS orthophotos with a mobile application in coastal dune
environments.
1.3. Aim of study
The main objective of this study is to show the results of a large-scale
assessment of the distribution of beach macrolitter along the Bulgarian
Black Sea Coast for the period 2018–2022. The analysis of the BL
abundance and density was based on visual assessment and manual
sampling, while mapping and analysis of the spatial distribution of litter
have been aided by UAS surveys. The research aims to increase aware­
ness about the pollution of the Bulgarian beaches but also to provide
additional data on the litter categories, classified according to the
Master List at Guidance of MSFD Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter
(Galgani et al., 2013a). The results are presented using a Clean Coast
Index, providing an evaluation of cleanliness over both the past year and
the previous five years. The research marks the beginning of a
comprehensive long-term annual monitoring of macrolitter pollution on
40 beaches along the Bulgarian Coast.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Monitored beaches
In the period 2018–2022, the Institute of Oceanology at the
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (IO-BAS) has done a comprehensive
research initiative focusing on 40 beaches that attract a substantial
number of visitors (Fig. 1). It is worth noting that out of these beach
systems, only ten ones are currently included in the monitoring pro­
grams mandated by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)
implemented by the Ministry of Environment and Water (BLKBG-D10-
Marine litter, 2016). Thorough planning of assessment areas was un­
dertaken based on missions for BL mapping. The selection of sampling
units for assessment was guided by specific criteria that ensure the
validity and representativeness of our results. First and foremost, we
sought beaches that were unaffected by concession activities in their
vicinity. This criterion is crucial to avoid potential confounding factors
that may arise from commercial operations.
Additionally, we considered beaches with minimal anthropogenic
activities, such as regular cleaning and rake-up, as these activities can
impact the accumulation and distribution of macrolitter on the beach.
According to the abovementioned criteria, there were selected 40 sam­
pling units for UAS mapping and manual collecting, each with a mini­
mum length of 100 m along the water edge. The width of the sampling
units was defined as the distance between the water edge and the back of
the beach (base of dunes, cliff, vegetation line, or human artefacts). The
total area of monitored beaches was assessed at 105,965 m2, embracing
4450 m along the coastline, which is equal to 0.9 % of the current length
of the Bulgarian shoreline of 518.7 km (Prodanov et al., 2023a, 2023b) –
Fig. 1.
R. Bekova and B. Prodanov Marine Pollution Bulletin 196 (2023) 115625

Fig. 1. List of monitored beaches for macrolitter pollution along the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast in 2018–2022.

2.2. Field research area. It is carried out at the beginning before the litter collection for
visual assessment. To collect high-resolution aerial images of the beach
2.2.1. UAS and orthophoto realisation surface during the spring and autumn seasons from 2018 to 2022
The first step of monitoring was the UAS survey in each assessment (Fig. 2A), a multirotor quadcopter DJI Phantom 4 RTK (DJI-P4RTK) was

3
R. Bekova and B. Prodanov
Fig. 2. Timeline (A) and methodology (B) of beach litter monitoring along Bulgarian coast.
employed. This particular drone was equipped with a 20-megapixel
camera, enabling the capture of detailed imagery. The data collection
process followed established methodologies and standard procedures
outlined in previous studies (Gonçalves et al., 2020a, 2022).
The DJI-P4RTK quadcopter had a multi-frequency onboard GNSS
receiver, providing reliable centimetre-level positioning accuracy. In
order to ensure precise georeferencing of the collected aerial images, a
minimum of five ground control points (GCP) were collected within
each sampling unit (Prodanov et al., 2020). For this purpose, the Hi-
Target V90 GNSS RTK System was used (Fig. 2B).
During the flight missions, the quadcopter operated at an altitude of
20 m, and the camera was set perpendicular to the flight direction. The
drone captured images with a resolution of 4000 × 3000 pixels while
ensuring an overlapping rate of 90 % in the front and side directions.
Each assessment area, comprising a maximum of two flight missions,
required approximately 20 min to complete. Additionally, to support the
classification of litter during manual image screening, if necessary,
4
Marine Pollution Bulletin 196 (2023) 115625
oblique images were taken from a height of 5 m above the dune surface,
allowing for the acquisition of high-resolution imagery.
In the post-processing, Agisoft Metashape (v1.5.3-v1.7.2) was
employed as the Structure for Motion Multi-View Stereo (SfM-MVS)
processing software. This software facilitated the generation of the
Digital Surface Model (DSM) and the raster RGB orthophotomosaic
(OM), utilizing only the RGB bands (Fig. 2B). The final image, achieved
through low-altitude flight settings, possessed a very high GSD between
0.3 and 0.5 cm/px (Fig. 2B).
2.2.2. Manual collecting, visual census and classification
In the second step, a primary monitoring approach of manual col­
lecting and visual census of identified BL in size >2.5 cm was applied. A
crucial aspect of the monitoring process involved ensuring the quality
and accuracy of BL identification through observers. The objective was
to achieve full coverage of visual census and classification at least once
within each area of litter monitoring during the five years through the
R. Bekova and B. Prodanov
campaigns (Fig. 1). Visual assessments and classification were con­
ducted by a minimum of three observers from the IO-BAS, following the
different surveyors in the opposite direction approach (Fig. 2B). The
macrolitter classification was performed according to the Marine Litter
(ML) categories listed in Galgani et al. (2013a), ensuring consistency in
the classification and characterization of the identified litter. The litter
was categorized into classes at Level 1 - Materials from the MSFD:
Artificial polymer materials, Rubber, Cloth/textile, Paper/Cardboard, Pro­
cessed/worked wood, Metal, Glass/Ceramics, Unidentified (Galgani et al.,
2013a) – Fig. 3.
In order to analyse the potential correlation between current litter
sources and historical data for BL of Chuturkova and Simeonova (2021)
and litter on dunes (Prodanov and Bekova, 2023), a bottom-up strategy
was employed (Veiga et al., 2016). This approach involved attributing
the identified litter types to their respective possible sources. The
methodology used for this attribution process was the attribution-by-
litter type method, which was consistent with the approach outlined
by Veiga et al. (2016). The sources include public litter, fishing litter,
sewage-related debris, shipping litter, fly-tipped litter, medical litter and non-
sourced litter.
2.3. Abundance, density and clean coast index
The abundance and density of beach litter were investigated in the
assessment area based on in-situ manual collecting and visual
census. A visual representation of BL density in the assessment areas can
be found in Table 1. The BL densities in the assessment areas were
calculated using Formula (1):
[ ]
DSU,Year,Season =
Total number of macrolitter items
, (1)
Total area of sampling unit m2
The analyzed beaches' cleanliness was investigated using the Clean
Coast Index (CCI) developed by Alkalay et al. (2007). This index serves
as a comprehensive measure, encompassing both the abundance and
density of macrolitter pollution. By employing the CCI, beaches can be
evaluated into five different categories, ranging from “very clean” to
“extremely dirty”. The calculation of these classes is based on the
application of Formula (2):
Fig. 3. Marine litter categories in Master List at Guidance of MSFD Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter (Galgani et al., 2013a).
5
Marine Pollution Bulletin 196 (2023) 115625
Total number of macrolitter (items)
CCISU,Year,Season = ×K (2)
Total area of sampling unit (m2 )
where K is a coefficient and equals 20, the sampling unit width
(perpendicular to the shoreline line), defined as the distance between
the water edge and the back of the beach (base of dunes, cliff, vegetation
line, or human artefacts), was estimated, as shown in Fig. 2B.
2.4. Manual image screening and litter map
In order to analyse the spatial distribution and dynamics of macro­
litter in each assessment area, Beach Litter Map and Density Litter Map
were produced ( Fig. 4). The Maps were generated by identified litter
from the MS procedure. Similar to Gonçalves et al. (2020b), each
orthophotomosaic was tiled with a 4 m square grid to make the MS
regular and organized. The operators were instructed to (i) visually
screen the images, (ii) identify the litter items, (iii) classify the litter
items (if the image quality allows correct recognition of the item) ac­
cording to Galgani et al. (2013a), (iv) add a placemark at the approxi­
mate centre of the items' shape in the GIS environment, and (v) create
shapefiles for each assessment area. The results obtained from the
different types of maps provided insights into identifying BL hotspots,
also known as fly-tipped areas. Furthermore, these findings may facili­
tate future investigations to establish a correlation between litter density
on beaches and dunes.
3. Results
The implementation of a comprehensive, long-term monitoring
program for beaches in 2018, based on manual collecting and visual
census supported by UAS, has yielded invaluable data regarding the
abundance, density, composition, sources and spatial distribution of BL
along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast.
3.1. Abundance and density of beach litter
The analysis has revealed a clear and consistent long-term trend
indicating an increase in the two key parameters: litter abundance,
R. Bekova and B. Prodanov
Table 1
Density and CaCI classes, according to Alkalay et al. (2007).
DENSITY
Values Visual description
0 - 0.1 items/m2 no litter is seen
0.1 - 0.25 no litter is seen over a
items/m2 large area
0.25 - 0.5 a few pieces of litter can
items/m2 be detected
0.5 – 1 a lot of waste on the
items/m2 shore
most of the shore is
More than 1
covered with plastic
items/m2
debris
a
Density and CCI: Blue - "Very clean", Green - "Clean", Yellow - "Moderate", Orange - "Dirty", Red - "Extremely dirty"
which refers to the total number of litter items, and the density of
macrolitter, measured as items per square meter. These trends are
illustrated in Fig. 5. The maximum abundance was recorded during the
2021 monitoring campaign when the visual census identified approxi­
mately 240,000 items across the 40 sampling units.
Of particular significance is the examination of litter density. Since
the study spanned a period of five years and was conducted in the same
designated assessment areas, it provides reliable insights into the dy­
namics of litter density and distribution. The analysis revealed that the
majority of the assessed beaches fell into three classes: “a lot of waste on
the shore” (30 %), “a few pieces of litter can be detected” (30 %), and “no
litter is seen over a large area” (30 %), according to density description of
Alkalay et al. (2007). The average litter density across all assessment
areas on beaches was estimated to be 0.44 ± 0.04 items/m2, corre­
sponding to the classification of “a few pieces of litter can be detected”.
High mid-term variations were recorded during the evaluation
period, with the average number of items per sampling unit ranging
from 518 in 2018 to 2009 in 2022 (increasing 261 %) and the average
density fluctuating between 0.21 ± 0.02 items/m2 in 2018 to 0.73 ±
0.04 items/m2 in 2021 (increasing 255 %). The study of the Density
Maps for each area during the five years provided for the first time
generalized statistical data on the distribution and dynamics of waste
according to the topographical and hydrodynamic features of the bea­
ches in Bulgaria (Figs. 6, 7).
3.2. Litter composition
The identified beach litter (BL) was categorized based on the Master
List of Categories of Litter Items - Level 1 developed by the MSFD
Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter (Fig. 8; Appendices 1, 2, 3).
Artificial polymer materials accounted for the highest percentage
(83.99 %) of the total litter along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast. This
indicates a persistent and prevalent issue with plastic pollution in the
region. Despite efforts to address this problem, there have been limited
variations in the amount of plastic polymer litter over the past five years,
highlighting the need for more effective strategies and interventions to
reduce plastic waste. During our research, an interesting trend was
observed regarding the amount of Paper/Cardboard waste along the
Bulgarian Black Sea coast. Over time, there has been a gradual increase
in the proportion of Paper/Cardboard waste, assessed as 6 % of the total
waste found on the coast. Metal and Glass/ceramics were found to be
relatively rare, constituting a small proportion (2.7 % and 2.7 %,
respectively) of the total litter. These types of waste are often concen­
trated in specific hotspots rather than being distributed uniformly along
the coast. On the other hand, processed/worked wood, rubber, and
cloth/textile were the least commonly found types of litter throughout
6
Marine Pollution Bulletin 196 (2023) 115625
CLEAN COAST INDEX
Values Cleanliness
Very clean
0–2
(no litter is seen)
Clean
2-5 (no litter is seen over a large
area)
Moderate
5 – 10 (a few pieces of litter can be
detected)
Dirty
10 – 20
(a lot of waste on the shore)
Extremely dirty
20+ (most of the shore is covered
with plastic debris)
the monitoring period, with percentages of 1.7 %, 1.2 %, and 1.1 %,
respectively.
3.3. Sources of litter
Understanding the increasing human pressure on sandy habitats is
crucial when examining beaches in the context of litter pollution. BL was
categorized into two main classes: Land-based sources (77.4 %) and Sea-
based sources (22.6 % of total litter amount) to gain a comprehensive
understanding. It is worth noting that SS is predominantly presented by
Fishing and Shipping sources. Sea-based sources contribute a significant
amount of macrolitter (23 %) found on the beaches, consisting mainly of
smaller objects such as fishing nets and cords. These lightweight items,
aided by strong winds, are effectively transported to the high beach
berm, reaching a high from 2 to 3.5 m. This indicates that even relatively
small masses can be transported over considerable distances and
significantly impact the accumulation of litter on backshore in front of
dunes or cliffs. Analyzing the aggregated data from 2018 to 2022, as
presented in Fig. 8, the sources were classified according to Veiga et al.
(2016). Public litter emerges as the primary contributor to BL, accounting
for a substantial 61.3 % of the total number of recorded items during
that period. This highlights the significance of public activities and be­
haviours in contributing to beach litter accumulation.
Further examination of the data demonstrates the contributions of
other sources to the overall BL composition. Fly-tipped litter remains
substantial at 8.1 %, indicating the persistence of illegal dumping
practices that impact the beach environment. Fishing litter, comprising
items related to fishing activities, accounts for 5.1 % of the total amount,
highlighting the influence of the fishing industry on beach litter. Ship­
ping litter, originating from maritime activities, contributes 4.1 % to the
composition of BL, underscoring the role of shipping-related debris.
Sewage and Sanitary waste constitute a smaller fraction at 2.7 %, rep­
resenting the impact of improper waste disposal in coastal areas. Inter­
estingly, the estimated proportion of Non-source anthropogenic litter,
which refers to litter with no identifiable origin, is relatively low at 5.7
%.
3.4. Clean Coast Index
The Coast Clean Index (CCI) is a valuable tool that allows us to assess
and visualize the cleanliness of beaches worldwide. It provides an op­
portunity to compare cleanliness results over time, across seasons, and
between different countries. In this particular research, we were able to
gather comprehensive data for the entire coast, including the impact of
force majeure circumstances like travel restrictions during the COVID-
19 pandemic, which indirectly subjected the beaches to maximum
R. Bekova and B. Prodanov
Fig. 4. Example of MS procedure and results from beach litter mapping of Shkorpilovtsi Beach in September 2021. A) Beach Litter Map, B) Density Map.
tourism and human pressure. The data collected over the past five years
shows that the majority of beaches fell under the “clean” and “moderate”
categories at the start of the monitoring program in 2018 (Table 3). The
CCI values remained almost identical in 2019, with a significant increase
in the number of “dirty” beaches. The cleanliness of Bulgarian beaches
from 2018 to 2022 was generally classified as “moderate” with a CCI
value of 8.9 (Fig. 7, Appendix 4). However, in 2020 and 2021, there was
a massive influx of tourists due to the COVID-19 epidemic and the
introduction of strict travel restrictions globally, including in Europe.
This resulted in an increase in the number of “Dirty” (15 beaches) and
“Extremely Dirty” (11 beaches). According to our research framework,
Bulgarian beaches can be divided into three groups: northern (Cape
Sivriburun - Cape Galata), central (Cape Galata – Cape Foros), and
southern (Cape Foros - Rezovo).
3.4.1. The northern group of beaches
The group of beaches mentioned stretches from Durankulak to
7
Marine Pollution Bulletin 196 (2023) 115625
Asparuhovo Beach in Varna (Fig. 9). It can be divided into two distinct
subgroups based on their exposure to waves and proximity to major
resort centres. In the northernmost section, which includes Durankulak,
Krapets, and Shabla, we find what we will refer to as the “Clean”
Dobrudzha Beaches. Up until 2022, these beaches were consistently
rated as “clean” or “very clean.” Despite the well-developed tourism in
this region, the beaches have never reached their full capacity, resulting
in less waste accumulation. Another contributing factor to their clean­
liness is the beach's gentle slope, which allows waves to reach up to
20–25 m inland, often carrying away debris. Additionally, the well-
developed dunes located behind the beaches act as a barrier, trapping
wind-blown debris.
North of Cape Kaliakra, there is Bolata Beach, nestled within a small
bay and protected by an old hydrotechnical structure. The beach and
dunes occupy a limited area and are surrounded by cliffs, which restricts
the movement of waste beyond the beach boundaries. Due to the sig­
nificant number of tourists visiting this small beach area, a considerable
R. Bekova and B. Prodanov Marine Pollution Bulletin 196 (2023) 115625

Fig. 5. Mid-term variation of macrolitter in the period 2018–2022 with data from manual collecting and visual census; А) average abundance per assessment area
(items); B) averages densities (items/m2); C) Statistical data about the distribution of macrolitter along the Bulgarian Coast.

Fig. 7. Dynamics and spatial distribution of beach litter density by elevation

Fig. 6. Percentage distribution of macrolitter by elevation during 2018–2022, during 2018–2022, based on MS screening of UAS orthophotomosaic.
based on MS screening of UAS orthophotomosaic.

8
R. Bekova and B. Prodanov Marine Pollution Bulletin 196 (2023) 115625

Fig. 8. Average results from classification (Galgani et al., 2013a) and sources (Veiga et al., 2016) of beach litter, based on the visual census in the period 2018–2022
along the Bulgarian coast.

Fig. 9. A) CCI categorisation of Bulgarian Black Sea beaches in 2018–2022; B) List of CCI of study beaches in 2018–2022.

9
R. Bekova and B. Prodanov Marine Pollution Bulletin 196 (2023) 115625

amount of waste has been left behind. In the medium term, Bolata Beach
ranks highest in terms of the Clean Coast Index (CCIav.18–22:20.56),
indicating a significant need for clean-up efforts.
3.4.2. The central group of clean beaches
The group of beaches referred to includes the stretch from (9) Pasha
Dere to (15) Kara Dere (Fig. 9). Similar to the clean beaches in Dobrudja,
these beaches are east-exposed and extremely exposed to waves (Val­
chev et al., 2014). This wave exposure leads to the inundation of the
shore by high waves that can reach up to 15–20 m inland along the
beach. Analysis of the Litter Density Maps reveals that there is a sig­
nificant amount of litter covering both the low berm and areas up to 3 m
above sea level during high tide. The exposed coasts are also subjected to
strong winds, which effectively transport debris into the expansive rear
dune systems. In 2022, all the beaches along the central coast were
classified as “clean” to “very clean”.
3.4.3. The southern group of beaches
This group includes the largest number of surveyed beaches between
(16) Slanchev Bryag and (40) Silistar. The central coast of Bulgaria has a
complex geomorphological pattern (Popov and Mishev, 1974; Peychev,
2004) consisting of different types of beaches and dune complexes
(Peychev and Peev, 2006; Prodanov et al., 2023a). This region is also
exposed to waves (Valchev et al., 2014), affecting waste transportation
and deposition. Burgas, Pomorie, and Nessebar cities, along with the
high influx of tourists during the summer, exert continuous anthropo­
genic pressure on the coastal system. As a result, all beaches between
(16) Slanchev Bryag and (20) Burgas Port Wall, except for (19) Pomorie
Sand Spit, are classified as “dirty” and “moderate” in terms of cleanli­
ness. Despite weak CCI reduction trends, in 2022, these beaches were
still categorized as “dirty”.
The Medni Rid – Strandzha section embraces the coast south of
Burgas. This coast is characterized by popular tourist destinations such
as Chernomorets, Sozopol, Primorsko, Kiten, and Tsarevo. These areas
are surrounded by wide beach-dune systems and attract thousands of
tourists daily during the summer season. The majority of beaches in this
region are classified as “moderate” or “dirty.” The beach in Kavatsite
(near Sozopol) was even categorized as “Extremely Dirty.” On the other
hand, the cleanest beaches can be found at Arkutino, Ropotamo, and
Lipite. These three beaches were intentionally chosen in protected areas
under the Habitats Directive, where tourist flow is minimal. We aimed to
investigate the deposition of litter from sea-based sources in these areas.
They found a low amount of waste, mostly originating from fishing-
related activities, and the sampling units also recorded the lowest per­
centage of plastic waste (76 %).
Overall, the CCI provided valuable insights into Bulgarian beaches'
cleanliness status, enabling the identification of areas of concern and
formulating targeted recommendations to ensure the long-term clean­
liness and sustainability of the coastal environment.
4. Discussion
4.1. Visual census, UAS data and manual image screening
sampling with visual assessment and (ii) manual image screening. An
important characteristic of the manual screening approach lies in its
inherent subjectivity (Gonçalves et al., 2020b). This uncertainty arises
from the fact that the identification of litter items can exhibit variations
among different operators, as well as discrepancies in the interpretation
of object attributes such as shape, size, and even colour. The derivation
of information regarding the composition of these objects becomes
feasible once the operator has successfully identified the type of item in
question. It is essential, however, to acknowledge that the experienced
operator possessed a level of understanding of the types of items
commonly found along the Bulgarian beaches or dunes (Bekova, 2023;
Prodanov and Bekova, 2023) and had actively participated in the field
manual collecting and visual census.
In the realisation of UAS mapping, the beaches were flown from the
lowest possible height, between 15 and 20 m, the goal of which was to
achieve a sustainable resolution of the final orthophotomosaics GSD
0.3–0.5 cm/px (Andriolo et al., 2023). An analysis of acquired data from
five-yeah monitoring shows the MS procedure from very high-resolution
orthophotomosaic proved highly effective, marking 96.5 % of the beach
litter items initially pinpointed during a visual census in assessment
areas from 2018 to 2022. It is worth noting that the MS procedure was
complemented by low-altitude video imaging at 5 m above every beach
surface with an oblique camera, which an operator used for better
classification of items. The recognition of BL from the video increased
the final score by an additional 4 %. In our study, this successful
recognition varies between 82 % and 92 %, with an average value of 87
% of the total number of identified items from the visual census in
assessment areas from 2018 to 2022 (Table 2; Fig. 10). These results are
in line with a study of Gonçalves et al. (2020b), which achieved a higher
percentage of object identification at 98 %, but a slightly lower object
recognition rate at 85 %.
The experience gained during the current assessment, along with the
positive results, will help us optimize the litter monitoring process and
reduce the costs associated with a visual assessment team in the future.
We believe that the advancement of cameras of drones and the high
accuracy in the RTK regime will significantly enhance the resolution and
reliability of the data obtained in UAS-based mapping. This improve­
ment will minimize the need for visual observations. Additionally, it is
worth noting that the UAS approach offers advantages in terms of speed
and cost. In the challenging conditions of the Bulgarian coast, using
drones can map up to 5 areas per day from two researchers. In contrast,
manual sampling and visual assessment activities can survey a
maximum of 3 sites per day from 4 researchers. While subject to its own
set of limitations and potential subjectivity, this approach currently
represents the most effective means available for our research oppor­
tunity for non-intrusive, non-impacted litter mapping on the beaches or
dunes.
4.2. Sources, litter amount and plastics
Determining the sources of beach litter is essential for preventing and
reducing littering in marine environments. Previous studies have

The analyses of abundance and densities, as well as the evaluation of Table 2

Comparison between the results from visual census and MS procedure on
cleanliness (CCI) of beaches along the Bulgarian coast, were based on
orthophotos.
data from the standard in situ visual census and manual collection.
However, additional data from the UAS survey was only used to survey Monitoring 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Mean,
campaign [%]
the dynamics of BL and identify litter hotspots. In this sense, for the first
time, the UAS approach gave us a chance to survey different aspects of Visual census 22,421 36,214 65,503 76,271 32,871 –
[items]
the percentage distribution of macrolitter, dynamics and spatial distri­
MS ident. 20,851 34,403 62,883 73,983 32,214 –
bution of beach litter density by elevation during 2018–2022 based on [items]
MS screening of orthophotomosaic (Figs. 6, 7). MS ident. [%] 93 % 95 % 96 % 97 % 98 % 95.8 %
The intricacies and particularities associated with mapping beach MS recog. 18,385 30,057 55,677 66,356 30,570 –
litter necessitate a thorough examination of the accuracy and uncer­ [items]
MS recog. [%] 82 % 83 % 85 % 91 % 94 % 87 %
tainty of data derived from two distinct methodologies: (i) manual

10
R. Bekova and B. Prodanov
Fig. 10. Comparison between the results from visual census and MS procedure on orthophotos.
categorized litter sources into two main groups: land-based and sea-
based point and diffuse sources (UNEP, 2009; Mehlhart and Blepp,
2012; Sherrington and Darrah, 2014). The majority of marine litter,
approximately 80 %, originates from land-based sources, while the
remaining 20 % comes from sea-based sources (Trouwborst, 2011).
Land-based litter is primarily attributed to activities such as tourism,
industrial and manufacturing facilities, poor waste management, natu­
ral storm events, and river transport (UNEP, 2005; Allsopp et al., 2006;
Eunomia, 2016). Consumer-related litter constitutes a significant
portion, accounting for about 59 % of the detected litter (Winton et al.,
2020). Land-based plastic, ranging from 58 % to 99 % of the total
amount, surpasses ocean-based plastic in Scotland (Turrell, 2020).
Rivers are predicted to be responsible for transporting over 90 % of
mismanaged plastic waste (Lebreton and Andrady, 2019). For instance,
a case study conducted along the southeastern Turkish Black Sea coast
revealed that approximately 75 % of total marine litter originated from
land-based sources, with river transportation being the major contrib­
utor with 21.96 % (Terzi et al., 2020).
The research adopted a relatively simple and comprehensible
approach to classifying marine litter sources based on the categories and
types of items found on beaches (Veiga et al., 2016). Analyzing the
available data on beach waste in the Black Sea region, we observe a
significant dominance of land-based sources, accounting for 62 %
(Aytan et al., 2020) and 74.1 % (Bat et al., 2022). The Bulgarian beaches
align with this general trend, with slight variations in the ratios between
land and sea-based sources over the past five years, where land-based
litter prevails at 77.4 %. However, the difference becomes even more
pronounced when considering the dunes, with land-based sources
contributing to 95.2 % and sea-based sources contributing to 4.8 %
(Prodanov and Bekova, 2023). Our data indicate that the majority of
marine litter (70 %) originates from land-based sources, which aligns
with the results obtained for the Turkish southeastern Black Sea coast
(75 %) (Terzi et al., 2020), suggesting a global tendency. These findings
raise concerns about the management of not only concession beaches
but also beaches that are not regularly maintained.
The Black Sea, being a semi-enclosed sea, exhibits distinct patterns of
waste transport influenced by climatic conditions during different sea­
sons. Topçu et al. (2013) identified two major sources of foreign litter for
the southwestern Black Sea coast: (i) litter from land-based sources in
neighbouring countries transported by river currents and (ii) marine-
originated litter resulting from international ship traffic in the Black
Sea. Litter from neighbouring countries is primarily driven by currents.
Additionally, factors such as waste management strategy, river
11
Marine Pollution Bulletin 196 (2023) 115625
discharge, climatological events, population density, and the local
community's lifestyle affect the amount and distribution of litter, as
exemplified by the Sinop coast (Bat et al., 2022).
Recreational activities and tourism on beaches have been recognized
as another significant source of marine litter (Munari et al., 2016;
Simeonova et al., 2017; Ribeiro et al., 2021). Various drivers, including
tourism, urbanization, ports, shipping, and commercial and recreational
fishing, contribute to this issue (Simeonova et al., 2017, 2020; Simeo­
nova and Chuturkova, 2019, 2020). Chuturkova and Simeonova (2021)
have identified the most common sources of waste and characteristic
drivers on Bulgarian beaches. According to their findings, the most
prevalent source is Public litter (48 %) from “Coastal/beach tourism”.
With the expansion of the monitoring network, numerous beaches,
particularly those near tourist resort centres, have been investigated. As
of November 2022, “Public litter” accounts for 61.3 % of the total
amount of beach litter. These litter items mainly consist of Drink bottles
≤ 0.5 l, Cigarette butts and filters, Plastic pieces > 50 cm and Plastic
pieces 2.5 cm > <50 cm, Cigarette packets, Paper fragments, Cups, food
trays, food wrappers, drink containers, Glass or ceramic fragments in
size > 2.5 cm.
The presence of “Fly-tipped sources of litter” zones was detected in
over 75 % of the examined beaches, and together with “Medical sour­
ces,” their distribution has significantly increased compared to previous
studies (Chuturkova and Simeonova, 2021). This increase can be
attributed to a combination of factors such as low beach protection
culture, poor management, and the higher tourist pressure experienced
during the COVID-19 epidemic. Insufficient dumping waste infrastruc­
ture in coastal tourism areas and the lack of beach maintenance outside
concession activities contribute to the abundance of identifiable waste.
Over the past five years, the data collected has enabled us to
comprehensively analyse and compare with other Black Sea countries,
such as neighbouring Romania and Turkey. The density of litter along
Bulgarian beaches, with an average of 0.44 items/m2, falls within the
middle range when compared to surrounding countries: Romania - 0.95
items/m2, Turkey - 2.81 items/m2 and Ukraine - 0.22 items/m2 (Paiu
et al., 2020). This distribution along Bulgarian Black Sea beaches can be
explained by the considerable number of beaches (over 60 %) with a
litter density below 0.5 items/m2. Similar to the litter sources, coastal
tourism plays a significant role as a driving factor.
Plastic litter dominates the beaches of the Black Sea region (Ap­
pendix 5). The excessively high levels, exceeding 90 % in certain areas
(Bat et al., 2022; Öztekin et al., 2020; Aytan et al., 2020; Topçu et al.,
2013; Atabay et al., 2020; Simeonova et al., 2017, 2020; Simeonova and
R. Bekova and B. Prodanov
Chuturkova, 2019, 2020; Stoica et al., 2020; Toneva et al., 2019; Pan­
ayotova et al., 2020; Kalinov et al., 2021; Chuturkova and Simeonova,
2021; Bekova, 2023; Prodanov and Bekova, 2023), pose great concern
for the ecosystem. In general, the distribution of plastic waste (ac­
counting for 83.99 % of the litter amount) along the Black Sea coast
(Fig. 8) falls between the high values observed on the Turkish coast
(92.3–94.4 %) and the lower values along the Romanian coast (65–86
%) (Stoica et al., 2020). Between 2017 and 2019, relatively lower values
of plastic distribution were reported, ranging from 54.3 % to 70.4 % of
the total waste (Simeonova et al., 2020). However, a worrying trend can
be observed, with the present study and other studies by Panayotova
et al. (2020), Bekova (2023), and Prodanov and Bekova (2023) doc­
umenting a consistent increase in plastic waste, ranging between 80 %
and 83 %. Along the Bulgarian coast, plastic waste varies between 68.3
% and 93 %, with the highest concentrations (C ≥ 90 % of total litter
items) observed on large beaches frequently visited by tourists, such as
Bolata, Slanchev bryag, Nessebar – South, and Kavatsite. Additionally,
plastics have been transported in significant quantities to the dunes by
tourists or strong winds, resulting in litter concentrations exceeding 90
% in many areas (Prodanov and Bekova, 2023).
4.3. Clean Coast Index of Bulgarian Black Sea beaches
The available data on litter pollution on Bulgarian beaches is limited,
with only a few published studies (Simeonova et al., 2017, 2020;
Simeonova and Chuturkova, 2019, 2020; Toneva et al., 2019; Pan­
ayotova et al., 2020; Kalinov et al., 2021; Chuturkova and Simeonova,
2021; Bekova, 2023) and dune litter pollution was initially assessed for
the first time after 2018 (Prodanov and Bekova, 2023). However, by
examining studies dating back to 2015, valuable information can be
obtained regarding the composition, density, and CCI. Recent studies by
Slabakova et al. (2020), Panayotova et al. (2020), and Bekova (2023),
along with Prodanov and Bekova (2023), have helped piece together the
puzzle of litter distribution along the Bulgarian coast.
To assess litter deposition on beaches, we analyzed variations in the
CCI from 2015 to the most recent surveys conducted in autumn/spring
2022 (Fig. 9). The studies by Simeonova et al. (2020) and Kalinov et al.
(2021) focused on ten beaches continuously monitored by the Marine
Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) program between 2015 and
2019, with five of them still being surveyed under the IO-BAS research
program. Based on the spatio-temporal analysis of the Coast Clean Index
from 2015 to 2022, it is evident that certain beaches show a sustained
trend of increasing litter amounts and deterioration of cleanliness status
over the long term, except for beaches near Varna, Burgas, and smaller
tourist centres, which have consistently been classified as “moderate”,
“clean” or “very clean” (Simeonova et al., 2020; Panayotova et al., 2020;
Kalinov et al., 2021; Bekova, 2023).
Unfortunately, not all Bulgarian beaches have managed to maintain
their high cleanliness standards. In 2020, a concerning development
occurred, with 13 beaches categorized as “dirty” and 7 beaches deemed
“extremely dirty” (Table 3). The pollution trend continued in 2021, with
15 “dirty beaches” documented and 11 beaches classified as “extremely
dirty” marking the peak of beach pollution (Table 3).
The comprehensive data analysis has raised several questions within
the country that require further investigation. Specifically, it is
Table 3
Spatial-temporal distribution of beaches according to the Clean Coast Index.
CCI Number of studied beaches
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Very clean 8 3 2 2 13
Clean 17 16 3 1 18
Moderate 12 13 15 11 9 unaffected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Bulgaria introduced a short
Dirty 2 8 13 15 – lockdown in early March 2020, which coincided with the winter season
Extremely dirty 7 11
– – –
12
Marine Pollution Bulletin 196 (2023) 115625
necessary to investigate why certain beaches on the Black Sea coast of
Bulgaria experience higher litter amounts compared to others. Addi­
tionally, assessing whether there is a correlation between the worsening
Coast Clean Index and the travel restrictions imposed due to the COVID-
19 pandemic is important.
While acknowledging that our study may present a negative view of
some of our beaches, the concerning data from our research deserves
attention. The calculation of the 5-year CCI timeframe has highlighted
the following areas of concern: (6) Bolata - 20.6, (16) Slanchev bryag -
20.3, (17) Nessebar - 20.3, and (24) Kavatsite - 20.2. Although
“extremely dirty” beaches account for only 5 %, it is particularly prob­
lematic that 11 beaches are classified as “dirty”, especially around major
Bulgarian resorts. The problem of waste has reached significant pro­
portions, with plastic waste exceeding 85 % in some areas and sur­
passing 90 % at Sunny Beach and Nessebar.
Beaches that “trap” large amounts of seasonal tourism-related litter
are privileged to undergo detailed cleaning before the start of each
summer season. Specialized sand excavation and purification techniques
are typically employed in Bulgaria for this purpose, but non-concession
beaches do not have this opportunity. The cleanliness of beaches in
Bulgaria relies solely on the goodwill of the community and sporadic
campaigns by residents. The waste problem is significant, and not all
beaches receive proper cleaning.
Responsible authorities must seriously consider implementing reg­
ular measures beyond beach cleaning (at least once a year) and focus on
preventive actions such as increasing the number of waste disposal
containers. This will prevent the transformation of beach areas into fly-
tipping zones. Such areas have been observed in all “dirty” and
“extremely dirty” beaches, containing plastic bottles, caps, glass bottles,
and often construction waste. We recommend that the Ministry of
Environment and Water and their regional structures establish mobile
cleaning teams for beaches and dunes. Seasonal cleanings will prevent
the relocation and transport of marine debris from the beach to the
dunes. The most crucial task is to interrupt the path from waste
decomposition, especially plastic pollution, to its ingestion by animal
species and its impact on humans.
4.4. The COVID-19 indirect impact on Bulgarian Beaches
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on plastic pollution in coastal
and marine environments has been a subject of study in various parts of
the world. For example, in neighbouring Greece, Kouvara et al. (2022)
examined the impact of the ended COVID-19 pandemic on plastic
pollution in the coastal/marine environment. The presence of personal
protective equipment (PPE) such as face masks, gloves, and wet wipes
significantly increased during the pandemic, contributing to plastic
pollution. Face masks constituted the majority of PPE items found in the
marine environment. COVID-19-related items accounted for a small
percentage of the total litter, while wet wipes showed higher densities
compared to the pre-pandemic period. Similar results of the negative
impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on coastal environments have been
documented in a wide range of studies worldwide (e.g., Segal et al.,
2022; Hayati et al., 2022; Ormaza-Gonzaìlez et al., 2021; Okuku et al.,
2021), especially the role of PPE associated with the epidemic
(Chowdhury et al., 2021; Benson et al., 2021; De-la-Torre and Aragaw,
2021; Akhbarizadeh et al., 2021; Haddad et al., 2021; De-la-Torre et al.,
2021). From another point of view, Souza Filho et al. (2023) reported a
decreasing abundance of beach litter. During the COVID-19 Pandemic,
beach closures and reduced public traffic led to a significant reduction of
up to 83 % in litter on the surveyed beaches, mostly related to recrea­
tional activities. But what was the situation during the COVID-19
epidemic on the Bulgarian beaches?
First, the five-year timeline for monitoring beach litter remained
and the beginning of spring when vacationers and campers were not
R. Bekova and B. Prodanov
expected due to low temperatures.
Second, in an effort to regulate international travel, Europe imposed
restrictions during the summer seasons of 2020 and 2021. Consequently,
the beaches in Bulgaria indirectly experienced the impact of the
pandemic. The imposition of travel restrictions resulted in an immediate
increase in domestic tourist activity on Bulgarian beaches. As a result,
there was a notable 125.8 % increase in litter abundance in 2020–2022
(Figs. 5, 11).
The final map of the Coastal Clean Index (CCI) clearly outlines a
significant increase in the macrolitter amount, particularly single-use
plastic packaging, plastic bottles, and discarded face masks. The index
values revealed an increase in 38 out of the 40 areas of litter monitoring.
In addition to the findings mentioned earlier, it is worth noting that the
period 2020–2022 presented a new challenge for coastal ecosystems: the
availability of face masks. With the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic,
face masks became an essential protective measure. However, unfortu­
nately, their improper disposal resulted in an increased depositional on
beaches (Fig. 9). This observation shed light on the weaknesses in waste
management infrastructures and the need for improved systems to deal
with the disposal of these pandemic-related items.
The end of the epidemic also coincided with the end of the 5-year
research cycle and we are delighted to announce that our most recent
survey, conducted in 2022, indicated a gradual yet consistent decrease
in both litter abundance and density compared to the baseline before the
COVID-19 epidemic (Fig. 5).
5. Conclusions
Over the past five years, our team has actively monitored beach litter
in Bulgaria to gain a better understanding of the process of beach
pollution. This study focuses on the mid-term evaluation of a five-year
Fig. 11. The temporal variation of CCI values in extremely dirty beaches along Bulgarian coast.
13
Marine Pollution Bulletin 196 (2023) 115625
litter monitoring program, analyzing various aspects, trends, and out­
comes. The research builds upon the MSFD monitoring program and
assesses the sources, abundance, density, and composition of larger-
sized macrolitter (size > 2.5 cm) between 2018 and 2022 at 40 beaches.
The methodological approach includes visual census, manual col­
lecting, high-resolution UAS mapping and manual image screening to
map beach litter effectively. In the analysis phase, a visual census and
classification of litter items according to the Master List of Categories of
Litter Items (Galgani et al., 2013a, 2013b) and MS procedure to identify
hotspot zones within survived areas. In total, the manual screening
procedure successfully identified 96.5 %, and at the same time, 87.3 %
were successfully classified. For the first time, the UAS approach gave us
a chance to survey different aspects of the percentage distribution of
macrolitter by elevation, dynamics and spatial distribution of beach
litter density by elevation during 2018–2022, based on MS screening of
orthophotomosaic.
The study revealed that the most common type of macrolitter found
on beaches during the five-year monitoring period was “Artificial
polymer materials” accounting for 84 % of the total number of items.
This was followed by Paper/Cardboard (6.1 %), Glass/ceramics (2.7 %),
Metal (2.7 %), Processed/worked wood (1.7 %), Rubber (1.2 %), Cloth/
textile (1.1 %), and Unidentified (0.5 %).
Significant variations were observed during the mid-term evaluation
period. The average number of items per sampling unit displayed a
substantial range, starting at 594 items in 2018 and reaching 2139 items
in 2022, representing an increase of approximately 260 %. Similarly, the
average density of items per square meter fluctuated, rising from 0.22
items/m2 in 2018 to 0.78 items/m2 in 2022, indicating a growth of
around 254.6 %. These findings highlight the dynamic nature of the
evaluated parameters over the given time frame and emphasize the
importance of considering temporal and spatial dynamics when
R. Bekova and B. Prodanov
assessing the distribution of beach litter. The study also examined the
human impact and sources of litter on sandy beach habitats. The beach
litter was classified into two main categories: Land-based sources
accounted for 77.4 %, while Sea-based sources made up 22.6 % of the
total litter. Specifically, Public litter was identified as the primary
contributor, representing 61.3 % of the recorded items. Medical waste
emerged as the second most significant source, contributing 13 %,
indicating a shift compared to previous data where fly-tipped litter
accounted for 5.2 %. Fly-tipped litter remained a significant issue at 8.1
%, highlighting persistent illegal dumping practices. Fishing litter (5.1
%), shipping litter (4.1 %), sewage and sanitary waste (2.7 %), and non-
source anthropogenic litter (5.7 %) were also identified as contributors.
These findings underscore the need to address public behaviours,
improve waste management practices post-COVID-19 epidemic, tackle
fly-tipped litter, and implement targeted interventions to mitigate beach
litter pollution from fishing and shipping activities.
The Clean Coast Index (CCI) was used to assess the cleanliness of
Bulgarian beaches, resulting in an average value of 8.9 for 2018–2022.
This categorizes the beaches as “moderately” polluted. The study
revealed significant variations in litter amount, with the year 2022
standing out as the “dirtiest period” with 11 “extremely dirty” beaches.
Deterioration of beach cleanliness was observed across all beaches, but
certain sampling units experienced unprecedented pollution of beach
litter. Despite cleaning campaigns conducted after the summer tourist
season, persistent issues were identified at Bolata, Slanchev Bryag,
Nessebar - South, and Kavatsite beaches. Recent studies have also
indicated a significant amount of beach litter being transported onto
fragile dunes, further straining these coastal ecosystems and high­
lighting the importance of waste prevention measures.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Radoslava Bekova and Bogdan Prodanov: Conceptualization,
Appendix 1. Top ten beach litter per category in the period 2018–2022 along Bulgarian Black Sea Coast in 2018–2022
14
Marine Pollution Bulletin 196 (2023) 115625
Methodology, Software Radoslava Bekova: Data curation, Writing-
Original draft preparation. Radoslava Bekova and Bogdan Proda­
nov: Visualization, Investigation. Radoslava Bekova: Supervision.
Radoslava Bekova and Bogdan Prodanov: Software, Validation.:
Radoslava Bekova and Bogdan Prodanov: Writing-Reviewing and
Editing
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.
Acknowledgment
During the 5-year monitoring, the UAS mapping was technically
supported by the following scientific projects: Burgas Bay - “Multidisci­
plinary study of Burgas Bay – MidBay (Composition of a detailed digital
model of the seabed with analysis of modern geomorphological condi­
tions and archaeological forecasting modeling)” funded by the Bulgarian
National Science Fund, Contract N◦ КП-06-Н34-7/2019; Northern Coast
- “The influence of climate change and increasing anthropogenic pressure on
ichthyofauna in brackish (transitional) waters along the Bulgarian Black Sea
coast” funded by the Bulgarian National Science Fund, Contract N◦
КП-06-М41/2/27.11.2020.
The public activities and cleaning campaigns are supported by
“Raising Public Awareness, mapping, and reducing anthropogenic litter for
the protection of the Bulgarian Black Sea beaches and dunes”, part of the
scientific research program of the DER Touristik Foundation, Germany.
R. Bekova and B. Prodanov Marine Pollution Bulletin 196 (2023) 115625

Appendix 2. Percentage distribution of beach litter along the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast in 2018–2022

15
R. Bekova and B. Prodanov Marine Pollution Bulletin 196 (2023) 115625

Appendix 3. Composition of beach litter along the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast in 2018–2022

Area of litter monitoring Artificial polymer Rubber Cloth/ Paper/ Processed/worked Metal Glass/ Unidentified
materials textile cardboard wood ceramics

[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]

1 Durankulak - North 81.40 1.61 1.31 5.41 2.41 2.41 4.31 1.11
2 Durankulak - South 91.06 0.08 0.30 2.88 1.63 2.33 1.73 0.00
3 Krapets - North 87.22 0.50 0.45 4.50 1.75 3.05 2.45 0.05
4 Shabla - North 86.00 1.04 1.14 5.54 1.64 2.74 1.14 0.74
5 Shabla - South 89.30 0.63 0.53 6.63 0.73 0.53 1.53 0.13
6 Bolata 91.00 0.94 1.14 1.74 1.44 1.74 1.24 0.74
7 Kranevo - Albena 82.00 1.49 1.29 10.29 0.59 1.89 1.69 0.79
8 Asparuhovo (Varna) 89.00 0.86 0.71 5.36 0.51 1.51 1.71 0.31
9 Pasha Dere 81.00 1.49 1.29 8.29 2.59 2.59 2.29 0.49
10 Kamchiya (Mouth) 78.00 1.04 1.14 9.44 2.44 3.04 4.14 0.74
11 Kamchiya - South (Novo Oryahovo 77.00 1.02 0.86 11.20 2.16 3.46 3.86 0.46
Beach)
12 Shkorpilovtsi 86.00 0.71 0.59 6.67 1.89 2.39 1.59 0.19
(continued on next page)

16
R. Bekova and B. Prodanov Marine Pollution Bulletin 196 (2023) 115625

(continued )
Area of litter monitoring Artificial polymer Rubber Cloth/ Paper/ Processed/worked Metal Glass/ Unidentified
materials textile cardboard wood ceramics

[%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%] [%]

13 Shkorpilovtsi - South 86.77 0.21 0.29 6.19 0.67 2.59 3.19 0.11
14 Kara Dere - North (Byala) 73.00 2.97 2.67 9.87 2.17 4.97 3.87 0.47
15 Kara Dere - South (Byala) 72.50 3.20 1.50 12.50 2.80 3.10 3.30 1.10
16 Slanchev bryag 93.00 0.66 0.16 2.86 0.66 1.76 0.46 0.46
17 Nessebar - South 91.00 1.06 0.71 1.37 1.55 1.81 2.31 0.16
18 Aheloy 86.00 0.77 0.57 3.87 1.87 3.17 3.57 0.17
19 Pomorie Sand Spit 68.30 1.12 3.20 11.30 3.40 6.20 4.77 1.71
20 Burgas Port Wall 88.73 0.71 1.91 3.91 0.91 0.91 2.71 0.19
21 Vromos 83.41 1.02 1.70 4.20 2.20 3.50 3.90 0.10
22 Campsite Gradina 84.50 1.64 0.96 5.96 1.16 2.16 2.68 0.96
23 Harmanite 82.90 1.20 0.91 4.31 2.31 3.61 4.12 0.61
24 Kavatsite 93.00 0.66 0.16 2.86 0.66 1.76 0.46 0.46
25 Alepu 81.00 1.49 1.09 4.59 2.59 3.89 4.49 0.89
26 Arkutino 85.60 1.04 0.24 6.64 1.94 2.44 1.84 0.24
27 Ropotamo 77.10 2.54 0.94 11.74 2.14 2.44 2.64 0.44
28 Primorsko (Stamopolu) 83.30 1.66 1.96 6.06 1.26 2.26 2.46 1.06
29 Primorsko (Mladost MMC) 83.90 1.21 1.16 4.76 2.16 3.46 2.86 0.46
30 Atliman 88.80 0.40 0.30 5.90 1.10 2.10 1.30 0.10
31 Dyavolska Mouth 87.50 0.66 1.76 5.46 0.66 1.66 1.86 0.46
32 Koral 86.27 0.89 1.29 4.19 1.89 2.89 2.59 0.01
33 Oazis 86.70 1.06 0.94 5.92 0.84 1.84 2.04 0.64
34 Arapya 83.90 1.21 1.01 4.31 2.31 3.61 3.01 0.61
35 Nestinarka 82.30 1.26 1.56 5.06 2.46 3.76 3.16 0.46
36 Ahtopol 84.10 1.04 1.04 4.14 2.14 3.44 3.84 0.24
37 Veleka Mouth 87.60 1.21 1.15 5.45 0.65 1.65 1.85 0.45
38 Butamyata 81.20 1.32 1.61 4.51 2.51 3.81 4.21 0.81
39 Lipite 72.00 3.27 1.57 12.57 2.87 3.17 3.37 1.17
40 Silistar 86.30 1.01 0.61 4.71 1.71 1.71 3.61 0.31
Average, [%] 83.99 1.20 1.09 6.08 1.73 2.68 2.70 0.52

Appendix 4. Monitoring data of abundance, densities, and Clean Coast Index in 2018–2022 at Bulgarian Black Sea beaches

17
R. Bekova and B. Prodanov Marine Pollution Bulletin 196 (2023) 115625

CCI: Blue - "Very clean", Green - "Clean", Yellow - "Moderate", Orange - "Dirty", Red - "Extremely dirty"

Appendix 5. Data about the distribution of beach litter along the Black Sea Coast

Black Sea Region Abundance Plastic CCI References

− 2 − 2
Items⋅m g⋅m % Values

Southern BLS-Türkiye (Sinop) 0.29–7.67–2.33 ± 2.52 0.5–46.2 84.58–98.27 – Bat et al., 2022
Southern BLS-Türkiye (Sinop/ 1.51 ± 0.58 31.9 ± 10.7 94.25 – Öztekin et al., 2020
Sarıkum)
SE BLS-Türkiye (Trabzon) 0.09–3.24 3.90–32.65 79.69 – Terzi et al., 2020
SE BLS-Türkiye (Rize-Sarayköy) 2.10 ± 1.38 21.11 ± 11.35 92 – Aytan et al., 2020
SW BLS-Türkiye (Istanbul) 0.88 ± 0.95 – 91.4 – Topçu et al., 2013
SE BLS-Türkiye (Sinop, Samsun, Rize, 0.16 ± 0.02 3.25 85 – Terzi and Seyhan, 2017
Trabzon)
SE BLS-Türkiye (Kocaeli-Kandıra) 0.292 0.043 91 – Atabay et al., 2020
Western BLS - Bulgaria 0.0587 ± 0.005–0.1343 ± – 90 – Simeonova et al., 2017
0.008
Western BLS - Bulgaria 0.23–0.59 – 60.2–4.9 – Simeonova et al., 2020
Eastern BLS - Georgia 0.07–1.12 – 61.1–100 – Machitadze et al., 2020
NW BLS - Romania – – >50 – Muresan et al., 2017
(continued on next page)

18
R. Bekova and B. Prodanov Marine Pollution Bulletin 196 (2023) 115625

(continued )
Black Sea Region Abundance Plastic CCI References
2 2
Items⋅m− g⋅m− % Values

NE BLS - Romania – – 80.6 – Paiu et al., 2017

Black Sea 0.95-Romania – >78 – Paiu et al., 2020
0.57-Bulgaria
2.81-Türkiye
0.22-Ukraine
Black Sea 0.105–0.113 – 65–86 – Stoica et al., 2020
Romania Romania
0.329–2.039 92.28–94.36
Türkiye Türkiye
Western Black Sea 2017: 0.15–3.45; – 54.3 %–70.4 % 2017: Clean – very Simeonova et al., 2020
(Bulgarian beaches) 2018: 0.06–1.68; dirty;
2019: 0.08–1.3 2018: Very clean –
very dirty;
2019: Very clean - very
dirty
Western Black Sea (Varna Coast – Autumn (3608 items, 0.41 Spring (19.6 kg, 0.002 86–87 % 2019: Spring - Panayotova et al., 2020
Asparuhovo, 2019) items/m2); kg/m2); “moderate”;
Autumn (1461 items, 0.17 Autumn (4.2 kg, 0.001 Autumn - “clean”
items/m2). kg/m2)
Western Black Sea 2018: 0.02–0.57; – 68.3–93 % 2018: 0.39–11.3; Bekova and Prodanov 2023
(Bulgarian beaches) 2019: 0.03–0.9; Average: 83.99 2019: 0.63–18.08; (present study)
Durankulak to Silistar 2020: 0.06–1.54; % 2020: 1.18–30.85;
2021: 0.07–1.85; 2021: 1.42–37.01;
2022: 0.03–0.86; 2022: 0.69–17.17;
Average: 0.44 Average: 8.9/moderate
Western Black Sea 2018: 0.07–0.15; – 77–86.77 % 2018: 1.47–3.09; Bekova, 2023
(Kamchiya-Shkorpilovtsi Coast) 2019: 0.12–0.25; Average: 81.94 2019: 2.36–4.95;
2020: 0.22–0.46; % 2020: 4.42–9.28;
2021: 0.27–0.56; 2021: 5.3–11.14;
2022: 0.06–0.1; 2022: 1.18–1.99;
Average: 0.24 Average: 4.77/clean
Western Black Sea 2018: 0.03–1.01; – 69–92 % 2018: 0.06–20.31; Prodanov and Bekova, 2023
(Bulgarian dunes) 2019: 0.03–1.13; Average: 83.41 2019: 0.65–22.62;
Durankulak to Silistar 2020: 0.04–1.55; % 2020: 0.81–31.13;
2021: 0.06–2.01; 2021: 1.3–40.28;
2022: 0.03–1.79; 2022: 0.7–35.74;
Average: 0.54 Average: 10.89/
moderate

References Andriolo, U., Gonçalves, G., Sobral, P., Bessa, F., 2021b. Spatial and size distribution of
macro-litter on coastal dunes from drone images: a case study on the Atlantic coast.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 169, 112490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112490.
Akhbarizadeh, R., Dobaradaran, S., Nabipour, I., Tangestani, M., Abedi, D., Javanfekr, F.,
Andriolo, U., Vighi, M., Borrell, A., Gonçalves, G., 2022. Beached and floating litter
Jeddi, F., Zendehboodi, A., 2021. Abandoned Covid-19 personal protective
surveys by unmanned aerial vehicles: operational analogies and differences. Remote
equipment along the Bushehr shores, the Persian Gulf: an emerging source of
Sens. (Basel) 14 (6), 1336. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14061336.
secondary microplastics in coastlines. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 168, 112386. https://doi.
Andriolo, U., Topouzelis, K., Van Emmerik, T.H., Papakonstantinou, A., Monteiro, J.G.,
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112386.
Isobe, A., Hidaka, M., Kako, S., Kataoka, T., Gonçalves, G., 2023. Drones for litter
Alkalay, R., Pasternak, G., Zask, A., 2007. Clean-coast index - a new approach for beach
monitoring on coasts and rivers: suitable flight altitude and image resolution. Mar.
cleanliness assessment. Ocean Coast. Manag. 50 (5–6), 352–362. https://doi.org/
Pollut. Bull. 195, 115521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115521.
10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2006.10.002.
ANEMONE, 2021. In: Gheorghe, A.-M. (Ed.), ANEMONE Deliverable 4.2, Marine Litter
Al-Khayat, J., Veerasingam, S., Aboobacker, V., Vethamony, P., 2021. Hitchhiking of
Status on Black Sea shore through Citizen Science. CD Press (37 pp., ISBN 978-606-
encrusting organisms on floating marine debris along the west coast of Qatar,
528-561-3).
Arabian/Persian Gulf. Sci. Total Environ. 776, 145985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Atabay, H., Tan, I., Konya, M., Kaman, G., Evcen, A., Çağlayan, H., Eker, E., Beken, Ç.,
scitotenv.2021.145985.
2020. Integrated marine pollution monitoring program: marine litter studies in the
Allsopp, M., Walters, A., Santillo, D., Johnston, P., 2006. Plastic debris in the world’s
Black Sea coasts of Turkey. In: Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.), Marine
oceans. Greenpeace Int. 44. https://www.greenpeace.to/greenpeace/wp-content/up
Litter in the Black Sea, 56. Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV),
loads/2011/05/plastic_ocean_report.pdf.
pp. 94–102.
Andriolo, U., Gonçalves, G., 2022. Is coastal erosion a source of marine litter pollution?
Aytan, Ü., Sahin, F., Karacan, F., 2020. Beach litter on Saraykoy Beach (SE Black Sea):
Evidence of coastal dunes being a reservoir of plastics. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 174,
density, composition, possible sources and associated organisms. Turk. J. Fish.
113307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.113307.
Aquat. Sci. 20 (2), 137–145.
Andriolo, U., Gonçalves, G., Bessa, F., Sobral, P., 2020a. Mapping marine litter on coastal
Aytan, U., Esensoy, F., Senturk, Y., Arifoğlu, E., Karaoğlu, K., Ceylan, Y., Valente, A.,
dunes with unmanned aerial systems: a showcase on the Atlantic Coast. Sci. Total
2021. Plastic occurrence in commercial fish species of the Black Sea. Turk. J. Fish.
Environ. 736, 139632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139632.
Aquat. Sci. 22 (7) https://doi.org/10.4194/TRJFAS20504. TRJFAS20504.
Andriolo, U., Gonçalves, G., Sobral, P., Fontán-Bouzas, Á., Bessa, F., 2020b. Beach-dune
Aytan, U., Esensoy, F., Senturk, Y., 2022. Microplastic ingestion and egestion by
morphodynamics and marine macro-litter abundance: an integrated approach with
copepods in the Black Sea. Sci. Total Environ. 806, 150921. https://doi.org/
unmanned aerial system. Sci. Total Environ. 749, 141474. https://doi.org/10.1016/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150921.
j.scitotenv.2020.141474.
Bao, Z., Sha, J., Li, X., Hanchiso, T., Shifaw, E., 2018. Monitoring of beach litter by
Andriolo, U., Gonçalves, G., Rangel-Buitrago, N., Paterni, M., Bessa, F., Gonçalves, L.M.,
automatic interpretation of unmanned aerial vehicle images using the segmentation
Sobral, P., Bini, M., Duarte, D., Fontán-Bouzas, Á., Gonçalves, D., Kataoka, T.,
threshold method. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 137, 388–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Luppichini, M., Pinto, L., Topouzelis, K., Vélez-Mendoza, A., Merlino, S., 2021a.
marpolbul.2018.08.009.
Drones for litter mapping: an inter-operator concordance test in marking beached
Barboza, L., Cozar, A., Gimenez, B., Barros, T., Kershaw, P., Guilhermino, L.,
items on aerial images. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 169, 112542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Sheppard, C., 2019. Macroplastics pollution in the marine environment. In: World
marpolbul.2021.112542.
Seas: An Environmental Evaluation, 2nd edn. Academic Press, Cambridge, M.A,
pp. 305–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805052-1.00019-X.

19
R. Bekova and B. Prodanov
Bat, L., Öztekin, A., Öztürk, D., Gürbüzer, P., Özsandıkçı, U., Eyüboğlu, B., Öztekin, H.,
2022. Beach litter contamination of the Turkish middle Black Sea coasts: spatial and
temporal variation, composition, and possible sources. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 185,
114248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114248.
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.
Bekova, R., 2023. Assessing Marine Litter at Kamchiya-Shkorpilovtsi Beach: A
Comprehensive Analysis of Abundance, Density, and Composition (Proceedings of
the 23rd International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoCongrence SGEM 2023 (In
press)).
Benson, N.U., Fred-Ahmadu, O.H., Bassey, D.E., Atayero, A.A., 2021. COVID-19
pandemic and emerging plastic-based personal protective equipment waste pollution
and management in Africa. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 9 (3), 105222. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jece.2021.105222.
Berov, D., Klayn, S., 2020. Microplastics and floating litter pollution in Bulgarian Black
Sea coastal waters. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 156, 111225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2020.111225.
Bhuyan, M.S., Venkatramanan, S., Selvam, S., Szabo, S., Hossain, M.M., Rashed-Un-
Nabi, M., Paramasivam, C.R., Jonathan, M.P., Islam, M.S., 2021. Plastics in marine
ecosystem: a review of their sources and pollution conduits. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 41,
101539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2020.101539.
Bird, E., 2021. Coastal Geomorphology: An Introduction (Second Edition). John Wiley &
Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester (411 pp.).
BLKBG-D10-Marine litter, 2016. Monitoring program for Descriptor 10 - Marine litter,
Monitoring programs under Art. 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.
https://www.bsbd.org/msfd/2016/BLKBG-D10_Marine%20Litter_revised.pdf.
Bobchev, N., 2018. Concentration, Seasonal Variation and Composition of Marine Litter
at the Coast of the Black Sea: A Case Study of the Ropotamo Beach in the Natural
Reserve of Ropotamo (MS Thesis). Geographischen Institut der Rheinisch-
Westfälischen Technischen Hochschule Aachen, p. 62. https://doi.org/10.13140/
RG.2.2.17315.35362.
Borrelle, S.B., Ringma, J., Law, K.L., Monnahan, C.C., Lebreton, L., McGivern, A.,
Murphy, E., Jambeck, J., Leonard, G.H., Hilleary, M.A., Eriksen, M., 2020. Predicted
growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts to mitigate plastic pollution. Science 369
(6510), 1515–1518. https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aba3656.
Brouwer, R., Hadzhiyska, D., Ioakeimidis, C., Ouderdorp, H., 2017. The social costs of
marine litter along European coasts. Ocean Coast. Manag. 138, 38–49. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.01.011.
BSC, 2007. Marine Litter in the Black Sea Region: A Review of the Problem Black Sea
Commission Publications 2007-1, Istanbul, Turkey, 2007. JRC108181. http://www.
blacksea-commission.org/Downloads/Marine_Litter_Report_final.pdf.
BSC, 2019. State of the Environment of the Black Sea (2009-2014/5). Publications of the
Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution (BSC), Istanbul,
Turkey, 811 p. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0025-326X(21)01153-X/rf202111030
423290456.
Cesarano, C., Aulicino, G., Cerrano, C., Ponti, M., Puce, S., 2023. Marine beach litter
monitoring strategies along Mediterranean coasts. A methodological review. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 186, 114401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114401.
Chowdhury, H., Chowdhury, T., Sait, S.M., 2021. Estimating marine plastic pollution
from COVID-19 face masks in coastal regions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 168, 112419.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112419.
Chuturkova, R., Simeonova, A., 2021. Sources of marine litter along the Bulgarian Black
Sea coast: identification, scoring and contribution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 173, 113119.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.113119.
Deidun, A., Gauci, A., Lagorio, S., Galgani, F., 2018. Optimising beached litter
monitoring protocols through aerial imagery. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 131, 212–217.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.04.033.
De-la-Torre, G., Aragaw, T., 2021. What we need to know about PPE associated with the
COVID-19 pandemic in the marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 163, 111879.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111879.
De-la-Torre, G., Rakib, M., Pizarro-Ortega, C., Dioses-Salinas, D., 2021. Occurrence of
personal protective equipment (PPE) associated with the COVID-19 pandemic along
the coast of Lima, Peru. Sci. Total Environ. 774, 145774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2021.145774.
Diem, A., Tesfaldet, Y., Hocherman, T., Hoon, V., Zijlemans, K., 2023. Marine litter in the
Red Sea: status and policy implications. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 187, 114495. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114495.
Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008
establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental
policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-con
tent/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32008L0056.
Doncheva, V., Stefanova, K., Mihova, S., Popov, D., 2020. Microplastic pollution of
Pomorie Lake, Bulgarian Black Sea Coast, Proc. of Fifteenth internatinal conference
on marine sciences and technologies. Oceanology 2, 34–40 (ISSN 1314 - 0957).
Erüz, C., Terzi, Y., Öztürk, R.Ç., Karakoç, F.T., Özşeker, K., Şahin, A., Ismail, N.P., 2022.
Spatial pattern and characteristics of the benthic marine litter in the southern Black
Sea shelf. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 175 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpolbul.2022.113322.
Erüz, C., Terzi, Y., Ismail, N.P., Özşeker, K., Başkan, N., Karakoç, F.T., 2023. From source
to sink: a comparative study of streamside and beach litter in the Black Sea. Waste
Manag. 161, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2023.02.025.
Escobar-Sánchez, G., Haseler, M., Oppelt, N., Schernewski, G., 2021. Efficiency of aerial
drones for macrolitter monitoring on Baltic Sea beaches. Front. Environ. Sci. 8,
560237. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2020.560237.
20
Marine Pollution Bulletin 196 (2023) 115625
Eunomia, 2016. Plastics in the Marine Environment. Eunomia Research & Consulting
Ltd.. https://www.eunomia.co.uk/reports-tools/plastics-in-the-marine-enviro
nment/
Fallati, L., Polidori, A., Salvatore, C., Saponari, L., Savini, A., Galli, P., 2019.
Anthropogenic marine debris assessment with unmanned aerial vehicle imagery and
deep learning: a case study along the beaches of the Republic of Maldives. Sci. Total
Environ. 693, 133581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133581.
Filho, W.L., Havea, P.H., Balogun, A.-L., Boenecke, J., Maharaj, A.A., Ha’apio, M.,
Hemstock, S.L., 2019. Plastic debris on Pacific Islands: ecological and health
implications. Sci. Total Environ. 670, 181–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2019.03.181.
Galgani, F., 2015. Marine litter, future prospects for research. Front. Mar. Sci. 2 https://
doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2015.00087.
Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Galgani, F., Werner, S., Oosterbaan, L., Nilsson, P., Fleet, D.,
Kinsey, S., Thompson, R., Palatinus, A., Van Franeker, J., Vlachogianni, T., 2013a.
Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in European Seas: A Guidance Document
Within the Common Implementation Strategy for the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive, p. 124. https://mcc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/201702074014.pdf.
Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Werner, S.D.V.L., De Vrees, L., 2013b. Marine litter within the
European Marine Strategy Framework Directive. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 70, 1055–1064.
https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fst122.
Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Maes, T., 2015. Global distribution, composition and abundance
of marine litter. Mar. Anthropogenic Litter 29–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-16510-3_2.
Georgieva, S., Peteva, Z., Stancheva, M., 2023. Evaluation of abundance of microplastics
in the Bulgarian coastal waters. In: Chankova, S., Danova, K., Beltcheva, M.,
Radeva, G., Petrova, V., Vassilev, K. (Eds.), Actual Problems of Ecology, BioRisk, 20,
p. 59. https://doi.org/10.3897/biorisk.20.97555.
GESAMP, 2019. Guidelines for the Monitoring and Assessment of Plastic Litter in the
Ocean by Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental
Protection. Gesamp (doi:ISSN: 1020-4873).
Gonçalves, G., Andriolo, U., Pinto, L., Bessa, F., 2020a. Mapping marine litter using UAS
on a beach-dune system: a multidisciplinary approach. Sci. Total Environ. 706,
135742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135742.
Gonçalves, G., Andriolo, U., Pinto, L., Duarte, D., 2020b. Mapping marine litter with
unmanned aerial systems: a showcase comparison among manual image screening
and machine learning techniques. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 155, 111158. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111158.
Gonçalves, G., Andriolo, U., Gonçalves, L., Sobral, P., Bessa, F., 2020c. Quantifying
marine macro litter abundance on a sandy beach using unmanned aerial systems and
object-oriented machine learning methods. Remote Sens. (Basel) 12 (16), 2599.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12162599a.
Gonçalves, G., Andriolo, U., Gonçalves, L., Sobral, P., Bessa, F., 2022. Beach litter survey
by drones: mini-review and discussion of a potential standardization. Environ.
Pollut. 120370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120370.
González-Fernández, D., Hanke, G., Pogojeva, M., Machitadze, N., Kotelnikova, Y.,
Tretiak, I., Savenko, O., Bilashvili, K., Gelashvili, N., Fedorov, A., Kulagin, D.,
Terentiev, A., Slobodnik, J., 2022. Floating marine macro litter in the Black Sea:
toward baselines for large scale assessment. Environ. Pollut. 309, 119816. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119816.
Gregory, M.R., 2009. Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine
settings—entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien
invasions. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., B 364, 2013–2025. https://doi.org/10.1098/
rstb.2008.0265.
Gülenç, Z., Konaklı, D., Öztürk, I., 2020. Raising awareness about marine litter through
beach cleanup activities along the Turkish coasts of the Black Sea. In: Marine Litter
Monitoring on the Black Sea Beaches in 2019: the ANEMONE Project Experience.
Marine Litter in the Black Sea, 56. Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV)
Publication, pp. 74–81 (ISBN:978-975-8825-48-6).
Haddad, M.B., De-la-Torre, G.E., Abelouah, M.R., Hajji, S., Alla, A.A., 2021. Personal
protective equipment (PPE) pollution associated with the COVID-19 pandemic along
the coastline of Agadir, Morocco. Sci. Total Environ. 798, 149282. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149282.
Hayati, R., Ghasemi, A., Hassani, G., Norozi, D., Mohammadi, H., Alinejad, N.,
Shahkarami, N., 2022. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on coastal environment:
positive or negative? A 1-year study on litter in Caspian coasts. Arab. J. Geosci. 15
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-022-10886-w.
Ioakeimidis, C., Zeri, C., Kaberi, H., Galatchi, M., Antoniadis, K., Streftaris, N.,
Galgani, F., Papathanassiou, E., Papatheodorou, G., 2014. A comparative study of
marine litter on the seafloor of coastal areas in the Eastern Mediterranean and Black
Seas. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 89, 296–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2014.09.044.
Kako, S., Morita, S., Taneda, T., 2020. Estimation of plastic marine debris volumes on
beaches using unmanned aerial vehicles and image processing based on deep
learning. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 155, 111127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2020.111127.
Kalinov, K., Tsvetkov, M., Toneva, D., Simeonova, A., Stankova, A., Nikolov, S., 2021.
Final Report “Identification of hot spots of Marine Litter Pollution in the Bulgarian
Black Sea Coastal Area”, 69 pp. https://redmarlitter.eu/wp-content/uploads/202
1/08/OP1_Report_EN_No_Sig.pdf.
Kouvara, K., Papatheodorou, G., Kosmopoulou, A., Giovos, I., Charitou, A., Filippides, A.,
Kaberi, H., Kalaitzi, L., Kyrkitsos, F., Koundouri, P., Triantafyllou, C., Gletsos, M.,
Fakiris, E., Geraga, M., 2022. COVID-19-related litter pollution on Greek beaches
and nearshore shallow water environments. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 185, 114250. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114250.
R. Bekova and B. Prodanov
Lebreton, L., Andrady, A., 2019. Future scenarios of global plastic waste generation and
disposal. Palgrave Commun. 5 https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0212-7.
Lechner, A., Keckeis, H., Lumesberger-Loisl, F., Zens, B., Krusch, R., Tritthart, M.,
Glas, M., Schludermann, E., 2014. The Danube so colourful: a potpourri of plastic
litter outnumbers fish larvae in Europe’s second largest river. Environ. Pollut. 188,
177–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.02.006.
Lo, H.-S., Wong, L.-C., Kwok, S.-H., Lee, Y.-K., Po, B.H.-K., Wong, C.-Y., Tam, N.F.-Y.,
Cheung, S.-G., 2020. Field test of beach litter assessment by commercial aerial drone.
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 151, 110823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110823.
Luijendijk, A., Hagenaars, G., Ranasinghe, R., Baart, F., Donchyts, G., Aarninkhof, S.,
2018. The state of the world’s beaches. Sci. Rep. 8 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-
018-24630-6.
Machitadze, N., Bilashvili, K., Gvakharia, V., Gelashvili, N., Kuzanova, I., Trapaidze, V.,
2020. Analysis of the monitoring of the beach litter in the Georgia. In: Aytan, U.,
Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.), Marine Litter in the Black Sea, 56, pp. 37–48.
Istanbul, Turkey, Publication. (ISBN:978-975-8825-48-6).
Maes, T., Perry, J., Alliji, K., Clarke, C., Birchenough, S.N.R., 2019. Shades of grey:
marine litter research developments in Europe. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 146, 274–281.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.06.019.
Martin, C., Parkes, S., Zhang, Q., Zhang, X., McCabe, M.F., Duarte, C.M., 2018. Use of
unmanned aerial vehicles for efficient beach litter monitoring. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 131,
662–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.04.045.
Masselink, G., Hughes, M., Knight, J., 2011. Introduction to Coastal Processes and
Geomorphology, Second edition. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9780203785461. 432 pp.
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, 643–651. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2011.05.007.
Mehlhart, G., Blepp, M., 2012. Study of land-sourced litter (LSL) in the marine
enviroment. https://pieweb.plasteurope.com/members/pdf/p224380b.PDF.
Merlino, S., Paterni, M., Locritani, M., Andriolo, U., Gonçalves, G., Massetti, L., 2021.
Citizen science for marine litter detection and classification on unmanned aerial
vehicle images. Water 13, 3349. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13233349.
Mihova, S., Doncheva, V., Stefanova, K., Stefanova, E., Popov, D., Panayotova, M., 2023.
Plastic Ingestion by Phocoena Phocoena and Tursiops Truncatus from the Black Sea,
in: Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems. Springer International Publishing, Cham,
pp. 295–307.
Miladinova, S., Macias, D., Stips, A., Garcia-Gorriz, E., 2020. Identifying distribution and
accumulation patterns of floating marine debris in the Black Sea. Mar. Pollut. Bull.
153, 110964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.110964.
Moncheva, S., Stefanova, K., Krastev, A., Apostolov, A., Bat, L., Sezgin, M., Sahin, F.,
Timofte, F., 2016. Marine litter quantification in the Black Sea: a pilot assessment.
Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 16, 213–218. https://doi.org/10.4194/1303-2712-v16_1_
22.
Monteiro, R.C.P., Ivar do Sul, J.A., Costa, M.F., 2018. Plastic pollution in islands of the
Atlantic Ocean. Environ. Pollut. 238, 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2018.01.096.
Mugilarasan, M., Karthik, R., Robin, R.S., Subbareddy, B., Hariharan, G., Anandavelu, I.,
Jinoj, T.P.S., Purvaja, R., Ramesh, R., 2023. Anthropogenic marine litter: an
approach to environmental quality for India’s southeastern Arabian Sea coast. Sci.
Total Environ. 866, 161363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.161363.
Munari, C., Corbau, C., Simeoni, U., Mistri, M., 2016. Marine litter on Mediterranean
shores: analysis of composition, spatial distribution and sources in north-western
Adriatic beaches. Waste Manag. 49, 483–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2015.12.010.
Muresan, M., Begun, T., Voicaru, C., Vasile, D., Teacă, A., 2017. Beach litter occurrence
in sandy littoral: case study–the romanian black sea coast. Geo-Eco-Marina 23,
205–213. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1689203.
Okuku, E., Kiteresi, L., Owato, G., Otieno, K., Mwalugha, C., Mbuche, M., Gwada, B.,
Nelson, A., Chepkemboi, P., Achieng, Q., Wanjeri, V., Ndwiga, J., Mulupi, L.,
Omire, J., 2021. The impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on marine litter pollution along
the Kenyan Coast: a synthesis after 100 days following the first reported case in
Kenya. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 162, 111840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2020.111840.
Ormaza-Gonzaìlez, F.I., Castro-Rodas, D., Statham, P.J., 2021. COVID-19 impacts on
beaches and coastal water pollution at selected sites in Ecuador, and management
proposals post-pandemic. Front. Mar. Sci. 8 https://doi.org/10.3389/
fmars.2021.669374.
OSPAR, 2010. Guideline for Monitoring Marine Litter on the Beaches in the OSPAR
Maritime Area. OSPAR Commission, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.2560
7/OBP-968.
Öztekin, A., Bat, L., 2017. Seafloor litter in the Sinop İnceburun Coast in the Southern
Black Sea. Int. J. Environ. Geoinformatics 4 (3), 173–181. https://doi.org/
10.30897/ijegeo.348763.
Öztekin, A., Bat, L., Baki, O., 2020. Beach litter pollution in Sinop Sarikum Lagoon Coast
of the Southern Black Sea. Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 20 (3), 197–205. https://doi.
org/10.4194/1303-2712-v20_3_04.
Paiu, A., Mirea-Cândea, M., Paiu, R., Gheorghe, A., 2017. Composition and spatial
distribution of marine litter along the Romanian Black Sea Coast. Rev. Cercetări Mar.
Rev. Recherches Mar. Mar. Res. J. 47 (1), 232–239. https://doi.org/10.55268/
CM.2017.47.232.
Paiu, А., Mirea, М., Gheorghe, А., Ionașcu, S., Paiu, M., Timofte, C., Panayotova, M.,
Bekova, R., Todorova, V., Stefanova, K., Gumus, M., Mihova, S., Öztürk, A.,
Gülenç, Z., Yuriy, D., Vishnyakova, K., 2020. Marine litter monitoring on the Black
Sea beaches in 2019: the ANEMONE project experience. In: Marine Litter in the
21
Marine Pollution Bulletin 196 (2023) 115625
Black Sea, 56. Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication, pp. 23–36
(ISBN:978-975-8825-48-6).
Panayotova, M., Bekova, R., Stefanova, K., Todorova, V., Slabakova, V., Prodanov, B.,
Mihova, S., 2020. Seasonal composition and density of marine litter on Asparuhovo
Beach, Varna, Bulgaria. Ecol. Balkanica 2020 (3), 85–94. http://web.uni-plovdiv.
bg/mollov/EB/2020_SE3/085-094_eb.20SE312.pdf.
Panayotova, M., Bekova, R., Prodanov, B., 2021. Density and distribution of marine litter
on the seafloor in the Bulgarian Black Sea area. Int. Multidiscip. Sci. GeoConference:
SGEM 21 (3.1), 543–550. https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2021/3.1/s15.87.
Panti, C., Baini, M., Lusher, A., Hernandez-Milan, G., Bravo Rebolledo, E.L., Unger, B.,
Syberg, K., Simmonds, M.P., Fossi, M.C., 2019. Marine litter: one of the major threats
for marine mammals. Outcomes from the European Cetacean Society workshop.
Environ. Pollut. 247, 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.01.029.
Papakonstantinou, A., Batsaris, M., Spondylidis, S., Topouzelis, K., 2021. A citizen
science unmanned aerial system data acquisition protocol and deep learning
techniques for the automatic detection and mapping of marine litter concentrations
in the coastal zone. Drones 5, 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones5010006.
Peychev, V., 2004. Morphodynamic and Lithodynamic Processes in the Coastal Zone
(Slavena, Varna, 232 pp (in Bulgarian)).
Peychev, V., Peev, Pr, 2006. Evolution of the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast After the Early
Holocene (Slavena, Varna, 123 pp (in Bulgarian)).
Pogojeva, M., Korshenko, E., Osadchiev, A., 2023. Riverine litter flux to the northeastern
part of the Black Sea. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 11 (1), 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/
jmse11010105.
Popov, Vl, Mishev, K., 1974. Geomorphology of the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast and Shelf.
Academic Press of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia (253 pp. (in Bulgarian)).
Prahov, N., Prodanov, B., Dimitrov, K., Velkovsky, K., 2021. The negative impact of
human activities on underwater cultural heritage: case studies from the Bulgarian
Black Sea Littoral. In: Proceedings of 21st International Multidisciplinary Scientific
GeoConference SGEM 2021, 21, pp. 743–751. https://doi.org/10.5593/sgem2021/
2.1/s11.89, 2.1.
Prodanov, B., Bekova, Р., 2023. Initial assessment of anthropogenic macrolitter on dunes
along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast using visual census and unmanned aerial
systems. In: Stafanova, K., Moncheva, S., Düzgüneş, E., Dimitrov, L. (Eds.), Black Sea
Ecosystem in the Spotlight, Nature Conservation (In press).
Prodanov, B., Kotsev, I., Lambev, T., Bekova, R., 2020. Unmanned aerial vehicles for
surveying the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast. Comptes rendus de l’Academie Bulgarie des
Sciences 73 (5), 666–672. https://doi.org/10.7546/CRABS.2020.05.09.
Prodanov, B., Dimitrov, L., Kotsev, I., Bekova, R., Lambev, T., 2023a. Spatial distribution
of sand dunes along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast: inventory, UAS mapping, and
new discoveries. In: Stafanova, K., Moncheva, S., Düzgüneş, E., Dimitrov, L. (Eds.),
Black Sea Ecosystem in the Spotlight, Nature Conservation (In press).
Prodanov, B., Dimitrov, L., Kotsev, I., Bekova, R., Lambev, T., 2023b. Loss of natural
seabed and benthic habitats along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast as a consequence of
infrastructure development. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International
Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoCongrence SGEM 2023 (In press).
Rangel-Buitrago, N., Castro-Barros, J.D., Adriana Gracia, C., Villadiego, J.D.V.,
Williams, A.T., 2018. Litter impacts on beach/dune systems along the Atlantico
Department, the Caribbean Coastline of Colombia. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 137, 35–44.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.10.009.
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. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 162, 111837. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.111837.
Ranjani, M., Veerasingam, S., Venkatachalapathy, R., Jinoj, T.P.S., Guganathan, L.,
Mugilarasan, M., Vethamony, P., 2022. Seasonal variation, polymer hazard risk and
controlling factors of microplastics in beach sediments along the southeast coast of
India. Environ. Pollut. 305, 119315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2022.119315.
Raykov, V., Zlateva, I., Ivanova, P., Dimitrov, D., Golumbeanu, M., 2020. Stratified
seafloor marine litter assessment. Bulgarian Black Sea waters case. J. Environ. Prot.
Ecol. 21, 463.
Ribeiro, V.V., Pinto, M.A.S., Mesquita, R.K.B., Moreira, L.B., Costa, M.F., Castro, Í.B.,
2021. Marine litter on a highly urbanized beach at Southeast Brazil: a contribution to
the development of litter monitoring programs. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 163, 111978.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.111978.
Şahin, F., Karacan, F., Aytan, Ü., 2018. Plastic pollution on Rize Saraykoy beach in the
southeastern Black Sea. Aquat. Res. 1 (3), 127–135.
Savoca, M.S., McInturf, A.G., Hazen, E.L., 2021. Plastic ingestion by marine fish is
widespread and increasing. Glob. Chang. Biol. 27, 2188–2199. https://doi.org/
10.1111/gcb.15533.
Segal, Y., Gertner, Y., Sisma-Ventura, G., Zurel, D., Herut, B., 2022. The state of beach
litter pollution during the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study of the Israeli coasts.
Coast. Manag. 50, 372–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2022.2078177.
Sherrington, C., Darrah, C., 2014. Feasibility Study – Litter Pathways to the Aquatic
Environment. Eunomia research and consulting for Clean Europe Netwo. https://cle
aneuropenetwork.eu/pdf/2014-Eunomia-Feasibility%20Study.pdf.
Simeonova, A., Chuturkova, R., 2019. Marine litter accumulation along the bulgarian
Black Sea coast: categories and predominance. Waste Manag. 84, 182–193. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.11.000.
Simeonova, A., Chuturkova, R., 2020. Macroplastic distribution (single-use plastics and
some fishing gear) from the northern to the southern Bulgarian Black Sea coast. Reg.
Stud. Mar. Sci. 37C, 101329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2020.101329.
Simeonova, A., Chuturkova, R., Yaneva, V., 2017. Seasonal dynamics of marine litter
along the bulgarian Black Sea coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 119, 110–118. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.03.035.
R. Bekova and B. Prodanov
Simeonova, A., Chuturkova, R., Toneva, D., Tsvetkov, M., 2020. Plastic pollution along
the Bulgarian Black Sea coast: current status and trends. In: Marine Litter in Black
Sea, 56. Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication, pp. 1–22.
Slabakova, V., Zlateva, I., Slavova, K., 2020. Initial Assessment of Composition,
Abundance, Spatial Distribution and Hotspots Identification of Floating Macro-Litter
in the Bulgarian Black Sea Waters. Proceeding of 1st international conference on
environmental protection and disaster risks, pp. 537–547. https://www.ceeol.com/
search/book-detail?id=921171.
Slobodnik, J., Alexandrov, B., Komorin, V., Mikaelyan, A., Guchmanidze, A.,
Arabidze, A., Korshenko, A., 2018. VII. Descriptor 10: Part I - Marine litter. In:
National Pilot Monitoring Studies and Joint Open Sea Surveys in Georgia, Russian
Federation and Ukraine, 2017. Final Report on EU/UNDP Project “Improving
Environmental Monitoring in the Black Sea–Phase II (EMBLAS-II)”, p. 573.
Souza Filho, J.R., Chagas, A.A.S., Silva, I.R., Guimarães, J.K., Sakanaka, T.E.,
Fernandino, G., 2023. Litter reduction during beach closure in the context of the
COVID-19 pandemic: quantifying the impact of users on beach litter generation.
Sustainability 15, 2009. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032009.
Stanev, E.V., Ricker, M., 2019. The fate of marine litter in semi-enclosed seas: a case
study of the Black Sea. Front. Mar. Sci. 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fmars.2019.00660.
Stoica, E., Atabay, H., Bat, L., Ciuca, A., Creanga, S., Marin, D., Öztekin, A., Tanase, M.,
Tolun, L., 2020. Marine litter occurrence in the river-influenced Black Sea coast,
2020. In: Aytan, Ü., Pogojeva, M., Simeonova, A. (Eds.), Marine Litter in the Black
Sea, 56. Turkish Marine Research Foundation (TUDAV) Publication No: 56, Istanbul,
Turkey, pp. 49–63. https://www.researchgate.
net/profile/Ulgen-Aytan/publication/345370013_Marine_Litter_in_th
e_Black_Sea/links/602bb9244585158939a999e0/Marine-Litter-in-the-Black-Sea.
pdf#page=69.
Suaria, G., Melinte-Dobrinescu, M.C., Ion, G., Aliani, S., 2015. First observations on the
abundance and composition of floating debris in the North-western Black Sea. Mar.
Environ. Res. 107, 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2015.03.011.
Terzi, Y., Seyhan, K., 2017. Seasonal and spatial variations of marine litter on the south-
eastern Black Sea coast. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 120 (1–2), 154–158. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.04.041.
Terzi, Y., Erüz, C., Özşeker, K., 2020. Marine litter composition and sources on coasts of
south-eastern Black Sea: a long-term case study. Waste Manag. 105, 139–147.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.01.032.
Terzi, Y., Gedik, K., Eryaşar, A.R., Öztürk, R.Ç., Şahin, A., Yılmaz, F., 2021. Microplastic
contamination and characteristics spatially vary in the southern Black Sea beach
sediment and sea surface water. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 174, 113228. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.113228.
Teuten, E., Saquing, J., Knappe, D., Barlaz, M., Jonsson, S., Bjorn, A., Rowland, S.,
Thompson, R., Galloway, T., Yamashita, R., Ochi, D., Watanuki, Y., Moore, C.,
Viet, P., Tana, T., Prudente, M., Boonyatumanond, R., Zakaria, M., Akkhavong, K.,
Ogata, Y., Hirai, H., Iwasa, S., Mizukawa, K., Hagino, Y., Imamura, A., Saha, M.,
Takada, H., 2009. Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the
environment and to wildlife. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 364, 2027–2045.
Thiel, M., Luna-Jorquera, G., Álvarez-Varas, R., Gallardo, C., Hinojosa, I.A., Luna, N.,
Miranda-Urbina, D., Morales, N., Ory, N., Pacheco, A.S., Portflitt-Toro, M.,
Zavalaga, C., 2018. Impacts of marine plastic pollution from continental coasts to
subtropical gyres—fish, seabirds, and other vertebrates in the SE Pacific. Front. Mar.
Sci. 5 https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00238.
22
Marine Pollution Bulletin 196 (2023) 115625
Tonay, A., Gül, B., Dede, A., Öztürk, A., 2020. Cetaceans and marine litter in the Black
Sea. In: Marine Litter in the Black Sea, 56. Turkish Marine Research Foundation
(TUDAV) Publication, pp. 236–246 (ISBN:978-975-8825-48-6).
Toneva, D., Stankova, T., Dimova, D., Ralcheva, D., 2019. Research on marine beach
litter at Burgas Bay Region during autumn 2019. Sustainable 2019 (3), 18–22.
Topçu, E.N., Tonay, A.M., Dede, A., Öztürk, A.A., Öztürk, B., 2013. Origin and
abundance of marine litter along sandy beaches of the Turkish Western Black Sea
Coast. Mar. Environ. Res. 85, 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marenvres.2012.12.006.
Trouwborst, A., 2011. Managing marine litter: exploring the evolving role of
international and European law in confronting a persistent environmental problem.
Utrecht J. Int. Eur. Law 27, 4. https://doi.org/10.5334/ujiel.an.
Turrell, W., 2020. Estimating a regional budget of marine plastic litter in order to advise
on marine management measures. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 150, 110725. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2019.110725.
UIAMES, 2021. Updated Initial Assessment of the Marine Environmental Status acc. to
Art. 8, Art. 9 and Art.10 of MSFD 2008/56/EC. https://www.bsbd.org/Marine_en
v/Second%20assessment_Report_IO-BAS_v1.pdf.
UN RES/70/1, 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development A/RES/70/1. United Nations General Assembly, 25 September 2015,
New York. In: United Nations, 70, pp. 1–35.
UNEP, 2009. Marine litter: a global challenge. UNEP, Nairobi. https://www.vliz.be/imis
docs/publications/ocrd/151908.pdf.
UNEP Regional Seas Programme, 2005. Mediterranean action plan, secretariat of the
basel convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes,
their disposal, UNEP/GPA coordination office, and intergovernmental
oceanographic commission. In: Marine Litter: An Analytical Overview.
UNEP/EA.5/Res.14, 2022. Resolution adopted by the United Nations Environment
Assembly on 2 March 2022 5/14. End plastic pollution: towards an international
legally binding instrument. UNEP/EA.5/Res.14, 2 March 2022, Nairobi. In: United
Nations Environment Assembly of the United Nations Environment Programme, 5,
pp. 1–5. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/39640/K22007
33%20-%20UNEP-EA-5-RES-14%20-%20ADVANCE.pdf?sequence=1.
Valchev, N., Andreeva, N., Prodanov, B., 2014. Study on wave exposure of Bulgarian
Black Sea coast. In: Proc. 12th Int. Conference on Marine Science and Technology
“Black Sea”, Varna, 2014, pp. 175–182 (ISSN 1314-0957).
Veiga, J., Fleet, D., Kinsey, S., Nilsson, P., Vlachogianni, T., Werner, S., Galgani, F.,
Thompson, R., Dagevos, J., Gago, J., Sobral, P., 2016. Identifying sources of marine
litter. In: MSFD GES TG Marine Litter Thematic Report; JRC Technical Report. EUR
28309. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2788/018068.
Winton, D.J., Anderson, L.G., Rocliffe, S., Loiselle, S., 2020. Macroplastic pollution in
freshwater environments: focusing public and policy action. Sci. Total Environ. 704,
135242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135242.
World Bank, 2020. Bulgaria: Toward Blue Economy Development. World Bank,
Washington, DC. © World Bank. License: CC BY 3.0 IGO. https://openknowledge.
worldbank.org/handle/10986/34934.
Wright, S.L., Thompson, R.C., Galloway, T.S., 2013. The physical impacts of
microplastics on marine organisms: a review. Environ. Pollut. 178, 483–492. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.02.031.
Zielinski, S., Anfuso, G., Botero, C.M., Milanes, C.B., 2022. Beach litter assessment:
critical issues and the path forward. Sustainability 14, 11994. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su141911994.