Estimating the Global Inflow and Stock of Plastic Marine Debris Using Material Flow Analysis: a Preliminary Approach
Abstract
We estimated the global inflow and stock of plastic marine debris. In South Korea, we estimated that the annual inflow of plastic marine debris (72,956 tons) was about 1.4% of annual plastics consumption (5.2 million tons) in 2012. By applying this 1.4% ratio to global plastics production from 1950 to 2013, we estimated that 4.2 million tons of plastic debris entered the ocean in 2013 and that there is a stock of 86 million tons of plastic marine debris as of the end of 2013, assuming zero outflow. In addition, with a logistic model, if 4% of petroleum is turned into plastics, the final stock of plastic marine debris shall be 199 million tons at the end. As the inflow and the stock are different units of measurement, better indicators to assess the effectiveness of inflow-reducing policies are needed. And, as the pollution from plastic marine debris is almost irreversible, countermeasures to prevent it should be valued more, and stronger preventive measures should be taken under the precautionary principle. As this is a preliminary study based on limited information, further research is needed to clarify the tendency of inflow and stock of plastic marine debris.
초록
전세계 플라스틱 해양쓰레기의 유입량과 현존량을 추정하였다. 한국에서 플라스틱 해양쓰레기의 연간 유입량(72,956 톤)은 플라스틱의 연간 소비량(5.2백만톤)의 1.4%로 추정되었다. 유출량이 0이라는 가정과 함께, 이 1.4% 유입률을 1950년부터 2013년까지 전세계 플라스틱 생산량에 적용함으로써, 2013년 전세계 연간 플라스틱 해양쓰레기 유입량은 4.2백만톤이며, 2013년말 현재 플라스틱 해양쓰레기 현존량은 86백만톤으로 추정되었다. 또한 로지스틱 모델에 따라, 석유생산량의 4%가 플라스틱으로 생산될 때 플라스틱 해양쓰레기의 최종 현존량은 199백만톤이 될 것으로 추정되었다. 유입량과 현존량은 전혀 다른 측정단위이기 때문에, 유입 저감 정책의 효과성을 평가할 수 있는 개선된 지표가 필요하다. 또한, 플라스틱 해양쓰레기 오염은 거의 회복불가능하기 때문에, 이를 예방하는 대책의 가치는 훨씬 더 높게 평가되어야 하며, 사전주의의 원칙에 따라 더 강력한 예방 대책이 시행되어야 한다. 본 연구는 제한적인 정보에 근거한 예비 연구에 해당하므로 플라스틱 해양쓰레기의 유입량과 현존량의 경향을 규명하기 위한 추가 연구가 필요하다.
Keywords:
Plastic marine debris, Inflow, Stock, Material flow analysis, Policy indicators키워드:
플라스틱 해양쓰레기, 유입량, 현존량, 물질흐름분석, 정책 지표1. Introduction
How much plastic marine debris is there in the ocean? How much is entering the ocean every year? These questions are increasingly important (UNGA [2005]; Ryan et al. [2009]) as scientific evidence mounts that marine debris, and plastic marine debris in particular, is harmful to both human health and marine ecology (Rochman et al. [2013]). For example, it is estimated that plastic marine debris costs approximately US$13 billion per year in environmental damage to marine ecosystems (UNEP [2014]). A problem can be managed only when it is adequately understood, and information on the amount of plastic marine debris is a vital step toward finding a solution (UNEP [2014]).
Previous efforts to answer these questions can be divided into two groups: those addressing the ‘inflow,’ and those addressing the ‘stock’ of marine debris. A ‘flow’ is measured for a certain period of time, while a ‘stock’ is measured at a specific moment in time. Regarding inflow, NAS [1975] estimated that 6,360,000 tons of marine debris enters the ocean every year from ocean-based activities, while Cantin et al. [1990] estimated that 337,306 tons enter US waters. Kataoka et al. [2013] estimated that at least 2,115 m3 of grass flows into Tokyo Bay, Japan annually via rivers. Jang et al. [2014A] estimated that 91,195 tons of marine debris enters the ocean from activities on land and at sea. The highest estimates suggest inflow as high as 7 billion tons per year (GBRMPA [2006]), though these may be overestimates (Cheshire et al.[2009]).
Likewise, several recent studies have examined the stock of marine debris. Cozar et al. [2014] estimated that the global stock of plastic debris in surface waters of the open ocean ranges from 6,600 to 35,200 tons, based on samples collected from 442 sites in 2010. Similarly, Eriksen [2014] estimated that there are 269,000 tons of plastic in global ocean surface waters based on 26 expeditions over 6 years. Jang et al. [2014A] estimated that 152,241 tons of marine debris could be found on the coast, sea floor, sea surface, and water column of the South Korean sea.
However, these studies provide only a very limited picture of global pollution from plastic marine debris. The NAS [1975] estimate is outdated and limited to debris from activities on the ocean, only 0.7% of which is plastic (Lebreton et al. [2012]); instead, the estimate includes other materials such as metals, and even organics such as food waste. The estimate from Cantin et al. [1990] is also limited to debris from activities in US waters. Most of the debris described by Kataoka et al. [2013] is grass, not anthropogenic in origin. Likewise, the findings of Jang et al. [2014A] are limited to South Korean waters, and the two remaining estimates of debris stock (Cozar et al. [2014]; Eriksen et al. [2014]) are limited to surface debris, not including debris on the coast or sea floor.
Here, we estimate the global inflow and stock of plastic marine debris based on rates of plastic consumption. First, we estimate the inflow ratio (plastic marine debris inflow / plastic consumption) from plastic material flow analysis in South Korea. Material flow analysis is a method of analyzing the amount of materials in a certain system, and is proper for polluting materials (OECD [2008]). Second, we apply this inflow ratio to data on the global production of plastic (1950-2013) to estimate the global inflow and stock of plastic marine debris. Third, we speculate on the inflow and stock of plastic marine debris after 2013, under the assumption that a constant proportion of petroleum is made into plastics. Finally, we discuss conceptual differences between plastic marine debris inflow and stock.
2. Methods
2.1 Inflow ratio of plastic marine debris
We defined the inflow ratio of plastic marine debris as follows:
| (1) |
Here, we applied the inflow ratio for South Korea globally. The annual plastic marine debris inflow for South Korea was derived from Jang et al. [2014A], which is a national-level synthesis of previous studies.
Annual plastic consumption in South Korea was estimated by a material flow analysis (OECD [2008]) of plastics. Material flow analysis (MFA) is a systematic assessment of the flows and stocks of materials within a system defined in space and time (Brunner [2004]). In this case, various data on plastics production and consumption in South Korea were used. Under South Korean law, any large business that manufactures or imports plastic products (excluding packaging materials) for domestic consumption must pay a tax for the waste. Moreover, any business that manufactures or imports plastic packaging materials must recycle a certain proportion (about 80%) (Act on the Promotion of Saving and Recycling of Resources [2014]) under Extended Producers Responsibility regulations (OECD [2001]). Thus, the government collects various data related to plastics consumption.
To simplify the calculation, we assumed that the lifetime of all plastic products is less than one year. That is, the amounts of plastic production, consumption, and waste in a given year were assumed to be the same, although some products are in use for longer periods. For example, the percentage of packaging material in the usage of plastic is 37% in the United Kingdom (Hopewell et al. [2009]) and 39% in the Europe (Plastics Europe [2013]). However, even when the lifetime of products are longer than one year, it does not affect the final discharge amount of debris, as there shall be only time gap.
For the material flow analysis, the study site was defined as the territory and sea of South Korea, and the time as the calendar year 2013, except where 2013 data were not available, in which case 2012 data were used.
2.2 Global inflow and stock of plastic marine debris(1950-2013)
Next, the inflow ratio was applied to data on global plastic production estimated by Plastics Europe (2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014) to estimate the global inflow and stock of plastic marine debris from 1950 to 2013. For this purpose, we assumed that plastic marine debris outflow, such as beach cleanup efforts or plastic biodegradation, does not occur. That is, although there are in fact some outflows, we assumed there were none for simplicity, an assumption we address below. We also assumed that the inflow ratio is the same irrespective of nation or year. Under these assumptions, the accumulation of inflow from 1950 to a certain year becomes the stock at the end of that year (Eq. 2). We discuss the reliability of these assumptions in the discussion section below.
| (2) |
2.3 Speculating on the plastic marine debris level after 2013
We speculatively estimated the potential level of plastic marine debris after 2013, assuming that the ratio of plastic marine debris inflow to plastic production, and the ratio of plastic production to petroleum production, are both constant over time. About 4% of total petroleum is made into plastics (Hopewell et al. [2009]; British Plastics Federation [2012]), and a further 4% is used for this production (Thompson et al. [2011]). Although plastics can be produced from other sources such as coal and gas, we analyzed plastics made from petroleum only, and used speculative petroleum production data from Gallagher [2011].
If 4% of petroleum is made into plastics, and the same proportion of plastics becomes marine debris each year, then the plastic marine debris will follow the same pattern as petroleum production—a logistic curve (Hubbert [1956]). The well-known logistic function (Verhulst [1838]) is given by Eq. (3):
| (3) |
where S(y) is the stock of plastic marine debris in tons as a function of time (year); K is the final stock of plastic marine debris (carrying capacity); S0 is the initial stock; r is the growth rate, which is the same as that for petroleum production; and y is the year (time).
As we assumed that plastic marine debris follows the same pattern as petroleum production, r is the same as for petroleum, and K is calculated as a portion (4% × inflow ratio) of the final cumulative petroleum production.
As a special feature of the logistic curve, maximum inflow occurs when the stock is half of the final stock, K (Gallagher[2011]). Thus, the inflow curve is shaped like a bell or peak, of which the center is the maximum.
3. Results
3.1 Inflow ratio of plastic marine debris into the ocean
To determine the inflow ratio of plastic marine debris into the ocean, we conducted a material flow analysis of plastics and plastic marine debris (Fig. 1). In 2012, 13,355,000 tons (‘B’ in Fig. 1) of plastic pellets (a precursor to most plastic products) were produced in South Korea; 7,487,000 tons (‘D’) were exported, an additional 465,000 tons (‘E’) were imported, and 5,868,000 tons (‘C’) were used to produce 6,333,000 tons (‘F’) of plastic products (Korea Plastic Manufacturing Cooperatives, 2014). In 2013, 5,176,358 tons (‘J’) of plastic products were consumed, comprising 4,036,358 tons (‘G’) of products manufactured domestically and 1,140,000 tons (‘I’) imported (Korea Packaging Recycling Cooperative, 2014; Korea Ministry of Environment, 2014). After consumption, 4,500,351 tons (‘K’) were treated at waste plants (Korea Environment Corporation, 2012).
Material flow analysis of plastics and plastic marine debris in South Korea in 2013. (Drawn by this research based on data from Korea Plastic Manufacturing Cooperatives (2014), Korea Packaging Recycling Cooperative (2014), Korea Ministry of Environment (2014), Korea Environment Corporation (2012), and Jang et al. (2014A)).
The annual inflow of marine debris in 2012 was estimated at 72,956 tons (‘R’ in Fig. 1). This was calculated by multiplying the total annual inflow (91,195 tons in South Korea; Jang et al. [2014A]) by the 80% ratio of plastics in marine debris (Derraik [2002]), and is the sum of the inflows from activities in the sea (‘M’ = 58,370 tons × 80% = 46,696) and on land (‘N’ = 32,825 tons × 80% = 26,260). Thus, the plastic marine debris inflow ratio is approximately 1.4% (72,956 / 5,176,358 = 1.4%) (Table 1).
Plastic marine debris inflow ratio for South Korea (2013)
3.2 Global inflow and stock of plastic marine debris
To estimate the stock of plastic marine debris, we applied the 1.4% ratio (Table 1) to data on global plastic production provided by Plastics Europe (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014). However, as only general production trends in plastic production are publically available in these documents, we obtained specific data for each year via personal communication with Plastics Europe. Though plastics were produced before 1950, this was dismissed for simplification. Annual plastics production information is attached as an appendix below.
Using these data, we calculated the global plastic marine debris stock at the end of 2013 as 86 million tons and the plastic marine debris inflow for the single year 2013 as 4.2 million tons (Fig. 2). As the stock is the accumulation of the inflow, the stock is around 20 times larger than the yearly inflow as of 2013.
Plastic marine debris inflow and stock worldwide, under the assumption that 1.4% of plastic production enters the ocean. As the stock is the accumulation of the inflow, the stock is around 20-fold larger than the yearly inflow as of 2013.
3.3 Speculation on plastic marine debris levels after 2013
According to Gallagher [2011], the total accumulated production (carrying capacity) of petroleum will ultimately be 2.24 trillion barrels, and peak oil occurred in 2009. Next, we apply the 4% ratio of petroleum turned into plastics and the 1.4% ratio of plastic marine debris inflow. As 1 barrel equals 0.1589 tons, the final total plastic marine debris stock (K in the Eq. 3) will be about 199 million tons (= 2.24 trillion barrels × 0.1589 × 0.04 × 0.014), and the maximum inflow of plastic marine debris will be 2.9 million tons (30.2 billion tons × 0.1589 × 0.04 × 0.014) in 2009 (Fig. 3). As the maximum inflow occurs when the stock is half of K, the stock in 2009 is 99 million tons (half of 199 m tons). Although these estimates of petroleum production may change if new petroleum resources are found, this figure gives a glimpse into the potential plastic marine debris volume of the future.
Speculation on plastic marine debris stock and inflow after 1950 with the assumption that 4% of petroleum is turned into plastics and that 1.4% of plastics become marine debris.
The speculative estimate of plastic marine debris inflow and stock based on petroleum production (Fig. 3) differs from the estimate based on plastic production (Fig. 2). For example, for the year 2009, the inflow is similar but not the same (3.5 million tons ≠ 2.9 million tons), and the stock is likewise (70 million tons ≠ 99 million tons). Such differences are brought about by different input factors, such as growth rates, initial stock, and carrying capacity. In particular, for the speculative estimate after 2013, we assumed that only petroleum, and no other material, was used to make plastics.
4. Discussion
4.1 Review of assumptions
In this study, we assumed that the inflow ratio (annual plastic marine debris inflow per unit of plastic consumption) was the same for all countries and years from 1950 to 2013. But the inflow ratio can change. For example, Liu et al. [2013] found that strong recycling policies regarding plastic bags and bottles decreased these types of debris on beaches in Taiwan vs. the USA. We can generally assume that the inflow ratio will decrease as waste management improves. Although we assumed that the inflow ratio was the same for all countries and years, further studies are needed to determine the inflow ratios for specific countries and years.
We further assumed that plastic is not degraded in the ocean. The final stage of degradation is called mineralization, wherein carbon in polymers is converted into CO2 (and ultimately incorporated into biomass), and there are some polymer types, such as aliphatic polyesters, that progress to this stage (Andrady [2011]). There are several methods of measuring polymer degradation, including molecular weight loss (Shah et al. [2008]). For example, Kim et al. [2006] found that polybutylene succinate (PBS) lost about 13% of its molecular weight while high-density polyethylene (HDPE) lost almost nothing when they were kept on experimental compost soil for 80 days. Thus, our assumption of no plastic degradation is not always true.
Although plastics might degrade in the marine environment, we can assume that this occurs very slowly. For example, Lambert et al. [2013] found that many nano-sized plastic particles are produced when the molecular weight of the plastic is lost. That is, more harmful pollutants are made when the original plastics are seemingly degraded, if they are not completely mineralized. And, as sunlight and oxygen, important factors in degradation, are limited in the marine environment, degradation is likely much slower in the ocean than on land (Andrady [2011]).
The degradation speed of plastics is unknown, especially in the ocean. If we suppose that plastics degrade in 600 years, for example, then the stock of plastic marine debris will lose 1/600 of its weight each year. In this case, the plastic marine debris stock in the year 2013 would be calculated as follows:
Plastic marine debris stock in the year 2013 (with 600 years of degradation)
= Σ Inflow of plastic marine debris each year × (1 - (2013 - year) / 600)) = 84 million tons
Here, 84 million tons is about 98% of the 86 million tons we originally estimated. Thus, the assumption of no biodegradation does not significantly affect the result.
We also assumed that plastic marine debris collection is zero. Although a certain amount of plastic debris is collected around the world, the amount is insufficient to significantly influence the result. For example, only 570 tons of debris was removed for the 10 years from 1997 to 2006 in the USA (NOAA [2008]). Globally, 52,617 tons of debris was removed by millions of participants in the International Coastal Cleanup campaigns in the 21 years from 1986 to 2006 (NOAA [2008]).
For the speculative estimate after 2013, we used the peak oil estimate from Gallagher [2011]. Although there are fierce debates on the extent of petroleum reserves and the timing of peak oil (Chapman [2014]), this is not the focus of our study. Regardless of the extent of petroleum resources, it appears certain that the stock of plastic marine debris will hardly decline even if the production of plastics decreases in the future.
4.2 Comparison with previous estimates
In this study, the inflow ratio (annual plastic marine debris inflow / annual plastic consumption) was estimated at 1.4% (72,956 ton / 5,176,358 tons = 1.4%) in South Korea and then extrapolated worldwide. However, both debris inflow and plastic consumption may be underestimated. For example, to estimate marine debris inflow, we used data from the Han River in 2000 (Incheon City [2001]) as the inflow from land sources. That study used a 5-cm mesh net to collect debris from the river and, consequently, debris smaller than 5 cm, such as micro-beads (Fendall and Sewell [2009]), is not included in the inflow estimate. Plastic consumption was also underestimated because small businesses are not taxed for waste and are exempted from reporting the manufacture or importation of plastic (Korea Ministry of the Environment [2014]). Thus, it is unclear whether 1.4% is an over- or under-estimate.
Thompson [2006] suggested that upto 10% of plastics enter the ocean (Cole et al. [2011]). If 1.4% changes to 10%, then the inflow in 2013 would be 30 million tons and the stock at the end of 2013 615 million tons, based on our estimates (see Appendix). As there is no scientific basis on the 10% assumption of Thompson [2006], it is unclear if 10% is relatively large or small. Again, more work must be done to estimate the inflow ratio. In this respect, a recent attempt to estimate plastic debris inflow from the land on a per-country basis (Jambeck et al. [2015]) is highly valuable. The estimate of plastic marine debris inflow from the land in 2010 in South Korea (33,747 tons) by Jambeck et al. [2015] is not much different from our own estimate (26,260 tons). However, because debris inflow from activities in the ocean can exceed that from activities on land in some countries (Jang et al. [2014B]), it is important to also consider debris inflow from activities in the ocean.
Our estimate of plastic marine debris inflow from activities in the ocean is much smaller than that of NAS [1975], which estimated it at 6,360,000 tons in 1975. This is markedly larger than our estimates of 560,000 tons of inflow in 1975 and 4.2 million tons in 2013 (see Appendix). Such a difference can be explained in part by the fact that the NAS [1975] estimate occurred before MARPOL 73/78 (IMO [1997]) which prohibited pollution from ships, including plastics and other materials such as metal (cargo boxes) and food waste. Notably, 88% (5,600,000 / 6,360,000 tons) of the garbage from NAS [1975] was lost cargo from merchant shipping, and such losses have been dramatically reduced with the development of shipping technology. Moreover, only 0.7% (44,520 tons) of the 6,360,000 tons of NAS [1975] was plastic (Lebreton et al. [2012]).
The two previous estimates of stock, 6,600-35,200 tons (Cozar et al. [2014]) and 269,000 tons (Eriksen [2014]), are much smaller than our estimate of 86 million tons. This difference can be explained in part by the fact that a large portion of plastic marine debris accumulates on the sea bottom. For example, Jang et al. [2014A] estimated that 90% of marine debris stock (152,241 tons) is on the sea floor, 8% on the beaches, and only 2% in the water column and on the sea surface in South Korean waters. If we take 2% of our 86,219,000-ton stock estimate, we obtain 1,724,380 tons as an estimate of plastic marine debris on the sea surface and in the water column. This is still larger than 269,000 tons; however, the estimates of Eriksen [2014] and Cozar et al. [2014] consider only plastic marine debris on the surface and would presumably be higher if they included debris in the water column.
Regarding plastic marine debris on the sea floor, we must remember that formerly floating debris can eventually become submerged. Although some plastics are lighter than water, these light plastics can gain weight and accumulate on the sea floor for various reasons, such as plankton fouling (Andrady [2011]). Likely because of this, there are reports of plastic marine debris on the sea floor as deep as 1000 m (Debrot et al. [2014]; Eryasa et al. [2014]; and Galgani et al., [2000]). Furthermore, fishing nets and ropes made of polypropylene and polyethylene (Jang et al. [2014B]) are the main components of marine debris collected from the sea bottom in South Korea (MLTM [2009]). Again, Cozar et al. [2014] and Eriksen [2014] considered only the water surface, and did not consider plastic marine debris in the water column.
4.3 The value of preventive measures against irreversible pollution and adequate indicators
If biodegradation of plastic debris in the ocean is close to zero, we might say that pollution from plastic marine debris is irreversible, much as the discharge of non-degradable pesticides is irreversible (Arrow and Fisher [1974]). If a certain type of pollution is irreversible, countermeasures to prevent it should be valued more, and stronger preventive measures should be taken under the Precautionary Principle (Gollier et al. [2000]). Moreover, when pollution is irreversible, reducing the stock is almost infinitely costly. Thus, we must develop more policies to reduce the inflow of plastic marine debris into the ocean.
However, the effectiveness of policies to reduce the inflow of plastic marine debris should be measurable and evidencebased (Sanderson[2002]). If certain policies are more effective in reducing plastic debris inflow, they should be more supported financially. To that end, the conceptual difference between inflow and stock should be clarified when developing policy indicators. In other words, we need to understand that current flow-reducing policy has very little effect on the marine debris stock. According to our estimate, for example, there is a stock of 86 million tons of plastic marine debris as of the end of 2013, yet only 4.2 million tons entered the ocean in 2013. Thus, even if marine debris inflow were completely eliminated in 2014, the stock at the end of 2014 would still be 86 million tons. Clearly, the effectiveness of policies to reduce inflow can hardly be measured by indicators based on marine debris stock.
As the effects of policy intervention differ according to the type of policy instrument used, the indicators should also differ (Table 2). For reducing debris inflow, the main policy indicator should be the amount of debris entering the ocean in a given period. For example, we might ask fishermen how much litter they produced during the past year. For reducing debris stock, the policy indicator should be the amount of debris found in the ocean. For example, we might measure the amount of marine debris on beaches at a certain point in time. The various types of policy strategies to cope with marine debris are listed on ‘The Honolulu Strategy: A Global Framework for Prevention and Management of Marine Debris’ (NOAA and UNEP [2011]. Unfortunately, there are few studies on the inflow of plastic marine debris, while many studies focus on the abundance—the stock—of marine debris in the ocean (Ryan et al. [2009]; Cheshire et al. [2009]; Cole et al. [2011]).
Examples of policy instruments and indicators for reducing marine debris flow and stock
4.4 Future studies needed
Our study has many limitations. Many of the parameters used generally in this study are derived from the specific case of South Korea. Thus, more research is needed. First, plastic consumption should be investigated in more detail for specific countries. UNEP [2014] also emphasized that any problems ‘can be managed when measured.’ However, while UNEP [2014] is calling for participation from the business sector in measuring plastics, government should play the central role in this regard, as government policy impacts the management of plastic consumption and pollution. Material flow analysis will be a useful approach, of which Mutha et al. [2006] present a good example from India.
Second, estimating plastic marine debris inflow at the national level is vital but challenging. Jang et al. [2014A] reviewed several previous studies for this purpose in South Korea. These included (1) measuring debris inflow from rivers by capturing debris with nets across the Han River (Incheon City [2001]); (2) measuring debris inflow from rivers during a flood event (Geoje City [2013]); (3) measuring lost fishing gear and general garbage produced by ships via interviews with fishermen (MLTM [2009]); and (4) measuring lost aquaculture buoys via interviews with fishermen. These data were combined with governmental statistics to estimate the marine debris inflow. Though the accuracy of these types of measurement may be questioned, they appear to be the best of the methods currently available; clearly, better methods are needed. In particular, dumping, which determines debris inflow, is a human activity, and might be measured using social scientific methods.
Third, when estimating the stock of plastic marine debris, debris travel must be considered. For example, debris on beaches moves between the beach and sea many times each day (Kako et al. [2010]). Thus, care should be taken when estimating debris stock on beaches based on observations on beaches alone, because a beach is part of the sea. Estimating the stock on the sea surface might have the same challenges. As floating plastic debris moves through the water column via the process of plankton fouling (Andrady [2011]) and the water surface is part of the ocean, we should be careful when interpreting the abundance of floating plastic debris. Monitoring the abundance of plastic debris on the sea floor is also limited by technology and financial cost as huge sample sizes are required to overcome the very large spatial heterogeneity in plastic litter (Ryan et al. [2009]).
5. Conclusion
In this study, we estimated global plastic marine debris inflow and stock by applying material flow analysis of plastic marine debris in South Korea to global plastic production. We estimated that there is 86 million tons of plastic marine debris stock as of the end of 2013, 20-fold greater than the annual inflow (4.2 million tons for 2013). Thus, even if we reduce further inflow to zero, the stock will still be considered. Consequently, the effectiveness of inflow-reducing policies cannot be measured using indicators showing changes in the stock. As pollution from plastic marine debris is irreversible, the value of reducing debris inflow is much greater than for reversible pollution. Therefore, we must develop more methods of reducing inflow. As policies are more supported if their effectiveness is clear, better indicators are needed to show changes in inflow. To this end, we must pay careful attention to the conceptual difference between inflow and stock.
Acknowledgments
We thank Dr. Yan van Franeker at the IMARES Institute for Marine Resources and Ecosystem Studies for sharing information on annual plastic production obtained from Plastics Europe, and Plastics Europe for making their data available. W.J.S was supported by a research project titled “Environmental Risk Assessment of Microplastics in the Marine Environment” from the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries.
References
- Act on the Promotion of Saving and Recycling of Resources, (2014), Law Registration Number 12319, revised on January 21, 2014, Ministry of Environment.
-
Andrady, A.L., (2011), Microplastics in the marine environment, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(8), p1596-1605.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.05.030]
-
Arrow, K.J., and Fisher, A.C., (1974), Environmental preservation, uncertainty, and irreversibility, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 88(2), p312-319.
[https://doi.org/10.2307/1883074]
- British Plastics Federation, (2012), Recycling and Sustainability, See http://www.bpf.co.uk/Sustainability/Plastics_and_Sustainability.aspx.
- Brunner, P.H., and Rechberger, H., (2004), Practical handbook of material flow analysis, New York, Lewis Publishers, p318.
- Cantin, J., Eyraud, J., and Fenton, C., (1990), Quantitative estimates of garbage generation and disposal in the US maritime sectors before and after MARPOL Annex V, In R.S. Shomura, M.L. Godfrey (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris , 1, p119-181, US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.
-
Chapman, I., (2014), The end of Peak Oil? Why this topic is still relevant despite recent denials, Energy Policy, 64, p93-101.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.010]
- Cheshire, A.C., Adler, E., Barbiere, J., Cohen, Y., Evans, S., Jarayabhand, S., Jeftic, L., Jung, R. T., Kinsey, S., Kusui, T.E., Lavine, I., Manyara, P., Oosterbaan, L., Pereira, M.A., Sheavly, S., Tkalin, A., Varadarajan, S., Wenneker, B., and Westphalen, G., (2009), UNEP/IOC Operational Guidelines on Survey and Monitoring of Marine Litter, UNEP Regional Seas Report No. 186. IOC Technical Series No. 83, p120.
-
Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., Galloway, T.S., (2011), Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: a review, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(12), p2588-2597.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.09.025]
-
Cózar, A., Echevarria, F., Gonzalez-Gordillo, J.I., Irigoien, X., Ubeda, B., Hernandez-Leon, S., and Duarte, C.M., (2014), Plastic debris in the open ocean, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(28), p10239-10244.
[https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314705111]
-
Debrot, A.O., Vinke, E., van der Wende, G., Hylkema, A., and Reed, J.K., (2014), Deepwater marine litter densities and composition from submersible video-transects around the ABC-islands, Dutch Caribbean, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 88(1), p361-365.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.08.016]
- Eriksen, M., (2014), Patterns of microplastic distribution in the global ocean and inland environments, Abstract of PICES 2014, p272.
-
Eryaşar, A.R., Özbilgin, H., Gucu, A.C., and Sakınan, S., (2014), Marine debris in bottom trawl catches and their effects on the selectivity grids in the north eastern Mediterranean, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 81(1), p80-84.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.02.017]
-
Fendall, L.S., and Sewell, M.A., (2009), Contributing to marine pollution by washing your face: Microplastics in facial cleansers, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 58(8), p1225-1228.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.04.025]
-
Galgani, F., Leaute, J.P., Moguedet, P., Souplet, A., Verin, Y., Carpentier, A., Goraguer, H., Latrouite, D., Andral, B., Cadiou, Y., Mahe, J.C., Poulard, J.C., and Nerisson, P., (2000), Litter on the sea floor along European coasts, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40(6), p516-527.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(99)00234-9]
-
Gallagher, B., (2011), Peak oil analyzed with a logistic function and idealized Hubbert curve, Energy Policy, 39(2), p790-802.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.10.053]
- GBRMPA (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority), (2006), Litter, Fact Sheet No.17.
- Geoje City, (2013), A Survey on the Marine Debris Inflow from the Nak Dong River in 2011 and Countermeasures, Surveyed by Our Sea of East Asia Network, p168, (in Korean).
-
Gollier, C., Jullien, B., and Treich, N., (2000), Scientific progress and irreversibility: an economic interpretation of the ‘Precautionary Principle’, Journal of Public Economics, 75(2), p229-253.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(99)00052-3]
-
Hopewell, J., Dvorak, R., and Kosior, E., (2009), Plastics recycling: challenges and opportunities, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1526), p2115-2126.
[https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0311]
- Hubbert, M.K., (1956), Nuclear energy and the fossil fuels, Presented at the Spring Meeting of the American Petroleum Institute, San Antonio, Texas, March, p40.
- IMO (International Maritime Organization), (1997), MARPOL 73/ 78 Consolidated Edition, Articles, Protocols, Annexes, Unified Interpretations of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto, International Maritime Organization (IMO), London, UK.
- Incheon City, (2001), Survey of Marine Debris of Incheon City, Surveyed by Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute, Inha University, Korea Marine Engineering Inc., and UST Inc, p251, (in Korean).
-
Jambeck, J.R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T.R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., Narayan, R., and Law, K.L., (2015), Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean, Science, 347(6223), p768-771.
[https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352]
-
Jang, Y.C., Lee, J., Hong, S., Mok, J.Y., Kim, K.S., Lee, Y.J., Choi, H.W., Kang, H., and Lee, S., (2014A), Estimation of the annual flow and stock of marine debris in South Korea for management purposes, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 86(1), p505-511.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.06.021]
-
Jang, Y.C., Lee, J., Hong, S., Lee, J.S., Shim, W.J., Song, Y.K., (2014B), Sources of plastic marine debris on beaches of Korea: More from the ocean than the land, Ocean Science Journal, 49(2), p151-162.
[https://doi.org/10.1007/s12601-014-0015-8]
-
Kako, S.I., Isobe, A., Magome, S., (2010), Sequential monitoring of beach litter using webcams, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60(5), p775-779.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.03.009]
-
Kataoka, T., Hinata, H., Nihei, Y., (2013), Numerical estimation of inflow flux of floating natural macro-debris into Tokyo Bay, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 134, p69-79.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2013.09.005]
-
Kim, H.S., Kim, H.J., Lee, J.W., Choi, I.G., (2006), Biodegradability of bio-flour filled biodegradable poly (butylene succinate) bio-composites in natural and compost soil, Polymer Degradation and Stability, 91(5), p1117-1127.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2005.07.002]
- Korea Environment Corporation, (2012), Waste Recycle Report for the year 2011, p46, (in Korean).
- Korea Ministry of Environment, (2014), Statistics of plastic manufacturing and import for the waste charge, Personal communication in November 2014.
- Korea Packaging Recycling Cooperative, (2014), Statistics of manufacturing and import of packaging materials, Personal communication in November 2014.
- Korea Plastic Manufacturing Cooperatives, (2014), Statistics of manufacturing, import, and export of plastics in 2012, http://www.kfpic.or.kr/.
-
Lambert, S., Sinclair, C.J., Bradley, E.L., and Boxall, A., (2013), Effects of environmental conditions on latex degradation in aquatic systems, Science of the Total Environment, 447, p225-234.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.12.067]
-
Lebreton, L.M., Greer, S.D., Borrero, J.C., (2012), Numerical modeling of floating debris in the world’s oceans, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64(3), p653-661.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.10.027]
-
Liu, T.K., Wang, M.W., Chen, P., (2013), Influence of waste management policy on the characteristics of beach litter in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 72(1), p99-106.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.04.015]
- MLTM (Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs), (2009), Survey of Marine Debris Distribution and Status on Major Inshore Fishing Grounds (VI), Survey conducted by KORDI (Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute), KFPA (Korea Fisheries Infrastructure Promotion Association), and Korea Ocean Engineering Inc, p202, (in Korean).
-
Mutha, N.H., Patel, M., and Premnath, V., (2006), Plastics materials flow analysis for India, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 47(3), p222-244.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.09.003]
- NAS (National Academy of Sciences), (1975), Marine Litter, In: Assessing Potential Ocean Pollutants. A report on the study of assessing potential ocean pollutants to the Ocean Affairs Board, Commission of the Natural Resources, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, p465.
- NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), (2008), NOAA Marine Debris Program Interagency Report on Marine Debris Sources, Impacts, Strategies & Recommendations, Silver Spring, MD, p62.
- NOAA(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and UNEP(United Nations Environmental Program), (2011), The Honolulu Strategy: A Global Framework for Prevention and Management of Marine Debris, p50.
- OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development), (2001), Extended producer responsibility: A guidance manual for governments, p161.
- OECD, (2008), Measuring Material Flows and Resource Productivity, Volume I: the OECD Guide, OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), Danvers, USA, p162.
- Plastics Europe, (2011), Plastics - the Facts 2011: An analysis of European plastics production, demand and recovery for 2010, p31.
- Plastics Europe, (2012), Plastics - the Facts 2012: An analysis of European plastics production, demand and waste data for 2011, p36.
- Plastics Europe, (2013), Plastics - the Facts 2013: An analysis of European latest plastics production, demand and waste data, p37.
- Plastics Europe, (2014), Plastics - the Facts 2014: An analysis of European plastics production, demand and waste data, p31.
-
Rochman, C.M., Browne, M.A., Halpern, B.S., Hentschel, B.T., Hoh, E., Karapanagioti, H.K., Rios-Mendoza, L.M., Takada, H., Teh, S., and Thompson, R.C., (2013), Policy: Classify plastic waste as hazardous, Nature, 494(7436), p169-171.
[https://doi.org/10.1038/494169a]
-
Ryan, P.G., Moore, C.J., Van Franeker, J.A., and Moloney, C.L., (2009), Monitoring the abundance of plastic debris in the marine environment, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1526), p1999-2012.
[https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0207]
-
Sanderson, I., (2002), Evaluation, policy learning and evidencebased policy making, Public Administration, 80(1), p1-22.
[https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00292]
-
Shah, A.A., Hasan, F., Hameed, A., and Ahmed, S., (2008), Biological degradation of plastics: a comprehensive review, Biotechnology advances, 26(3), p246-265.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2007.12.005]
- Thompson, R.C., (2006), Plastic debris in the marine environment: consequences and solutions, In: Krause, J.C., Nordheim, H., and Brager, S. (Eds.), Marine Nature Conservation in Europe, Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Stralsund, Germany, p107-115.
-
Thompson, R.C., Swan, S.H., Moore, C.J., and Vom Saal, F.S., (2009), Our plastic age, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1526), p1973-1976.
[https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0054]
- Thompson, R.C., La Belle, B.E., Bouwman, H., and Neretin, L., (2011), Marine Debris: Defining a Global Environmental Challenge, GEF Council Meeting, May 24-26, 2011, Washington, D.C, p28.
- UNEP (United Nations Environmental Program), (2014), Valuing Plastics: The Business Case for Measuring, Managing and Disclosing Plastic Use in the Consumer Goods Industry, p115.
- UNGA (United Nations General Assembly), (2005), Oceans and the law of the sea, Resolution A/60/L.22. Sixtieth session, Agenda item 75(a) 17 November 2005.
- Verhulst, P.F., (1838), Note on the law population continues in its growth, Journal of Mathematical and Physical Mapping, 10, p113-121.