Beach litter report_Jelil

A RAPID ASSESSMENT OF BEACH LITTER IN MUMBAI BEACHES
August, 2014
PROJECT RESEARCHER:
Shah Nawaz Jelil
PROJECT SUPERVISOR:
Nayantara Jain,
Executive Director,
Reef Watch Marine Conservation
FIELD ASSISTANTS:
Bhavesh Solanki & Jayesh Rathod
IMPLEMENTED BY:

Technical Report: ReefWatch Marine Conservation: 25 pp
A Rapid Assessment of Beach Litter in Mumbai Beaches
REPORT
Submitted by
Shah Nawaz Jelil
Submitted to
14 C Bungalow, Boran Road, Opposite Elco Market, Bandra (W), Mumbai- 400050,
India
Suggested citation: Jelil, S.N. & Jain, N. (2014): A Rapid Assessment of Beach Litter in
Mumbai Beaches: Technical Report: Reef Watch Marine Conservation: 25pp

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
I would like to acknowledge the untiring efforts of Nayantara Jain, Executive Director of
ReefWatch Marine Conservation, without whose initiative the study would not have been
possible.
I thank Mr. N. Vasudevan, Chief Conservator of Forests (Mangrove Cell), Maharashtra for
permitting us to carry out the beach surveys.
Special thanks to the field assistants Bhavesh Solanki and Jayesh Rathod without whom the
field work would have not been possible.
I also thank all the office staff of Lacadives, Sumer, Arnav, Nigel, Lochinvar, Anant and
Rahul for creating a pleasant working environment.
I thank Mr. Prahlad Kakkar and Mrs. Mitali Kakkar for their help and guidance during the
study period. I thank Madhu, Prashant and Ram Chandra (dearly called as RC) for all the
help during the study and helping me out in the office in every way they could.
Last but not the least, I thank, from the bottom of my heart, everybody who made my stay
comfortable and fun. I thank Abheshek, my roommate during my stay, Daya, who cleaned
the house and my room every day. I do remember the dogs, Kanchi, Kali and Diana who
were, indeed, great companions during my stay in Mumbai.

CONTENTS: PAGE NO.
Chapter I General Introduction 1–9
1.0. Marine Litter: An Overview 1
1.1.1. Definition 1–2
1.1.2. Sources of Litter 2–3
1.1.3. Threats to Marine Life due to Marine Litter (Global) 3–4
1.2. India and Marine Litter 5–6
1.2.1. Mumbai 6
1.2.2. Waste generation and Management 6–7
1.2.3. Water quality of Mumbai 7
1.2.3.1. At sea fronts and beaches 7–8
1.2.3.2. West Coast 8
1.2.3.3. Thane, Malad, Marve and Mahim creeks 8
1.3. Why study Marine Litter? 9
1.4. Objectives of the Atudy 9
Chapter II: Study Area 10–12
2.0. Study Area 10
2.1. Description of Study Area 10
2.2. Map of the Study Area 11
2.3. Climate 12
2.3.1. Monsoon 12
2.3.2. Summer 12
2.3.3. Winter 12
Chapter III: Methods of Study 13–15
3.0. Study Design 13

3.1. Field Methods 14
3.2. Analytical Methods 14
3.2.1. Data Analysis 14–15
3.2.2. Weight of litter types 15
Chapter IV: Results 16–20
Chapter V: Discussions 21
References 22–24
Appendix 1 25

List of tables Pg. no.
Table 1: Sample sites and GPS locations 13
Table 2: Average density and weight of litter 17
Table 3: Site wise weight (kg) of all litter types 19
List of figures Pg. no.
Fig1: Study Area map 11
Fig 2: Mean density of litter 18
Fig 3: Mean weight of litter 18
Fig 4: Weights (%) of all litter types 20

1
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
1.0. Marine Litter: An Overview:
“Whatever we do, the ocean will survive in one way or another. What is more
problematic is whether we shall preserve it in a state that ensures humanity’s
survival and well-being”
- Federico Mayor, Director General, UNESCO
1.1.1. Definition: “Marine litter is any persistent, manufactured or processed solid
material discarded, disposed of or abandoned in the marine and coastal environment.
Marine litter consists of items that have been made or used by people and deliberately
discarded or unintentionally lost into the sea and on beaches, including such materials
transported into the marine environment from land by rivers, drainage or sewage
systems or winds. For example, marine litter consists of plastics, wood, metals, glass,
rubber, clothing or paper, etc. This definition does not include semi-solids remains of
for example mineral and vegetable oils, paraffin and chemicals that sometimes litter
sea and shores” (European Commission/JRC/Ifremer/ICES 2010).
Marine litter is found in all the oceans of the world, not only in densely populated
regions, but also in remote places far from obvious sources and human activities.
Marine litter is a complex issue with significant implications for the marine and coastal
environment and human activities all over the world. The problems it causes are both
cultural and multi-sectoral, rooted in poor solid waste management practices, extensive
use of marine resources, lack of infrastructure, indiscriminate human activities and
behaviours, and an inadequate understanding on the part of the public of the potential
consequences of their action. At present, the major perceived threats to marine
biodiversity include the effects of climate change, ocean acidification, invasive species,
overfishing and other extractive activities, pollution and marine debris, habitat
degradation, fragmentation and loss, human population explosion, tourism, and the
impact of a wide range of human activities in the coastal zone (Gray, 1997). The
presence of marine debris in this list highlights its importance as a factor considered to
contribute towards biodiversity loss. Man-made items of debris are now found in

2
marine habitats throughout the world, from poles to the equator, from shorelines and
estuaries to remote areas of the high seas beyond national jurisdictions and from the
surface to the ocean floor (Thompson et al. 2009). This debris is harmful to organisms
and to human health (Gregory, 2009), can assist increased transport of organic and
inorganic contaminants (Holmes et al. 2012), presents hazards to shipping, and is
aesthetically detrimental (Mouat et al. 2010). In addition to having consequences for
biodiversity and potential indirect effects on ecosystem goods and services, marine
debris has direct negative economic impacts on recipient countries, particularly those
which are, in effect, coastal countries including developing countries and countries
with economics in transition (Kershaw et al. 2011). The slow decomposition rate of
marine debris within the marine environment has overall resulted in a litter sink with a
net accumulation. Oceanic currents transport buoyant litter items across territorial
boundaries, accumulating around oceanic eddies and sheltered coastlines and because
the sources of litter diffuse, the resulting impacts and removal responsibility currently
lie outside the control of anyone agency or body. The majority consists of synthetic
materials such as plastic, and is often highly persistent in the marine environment.
Some of the major sources of marine debris are well described, and include sewage and
run-off related debris, materials from recreational/beach users and materials lost or
disposed of at sea from fishing activities or shipping. Debris originating from the land
is either transported by storm water, via drains and rivers toward the sea, or is blown
into the sea from the land (Ryan et al. 2009). Extreme weather events such as
hurricanes, extreme floods and rain are important pointed sources of marine debris.
1.1.2. Sources of litter: Human behaviours and actions-accidental or intentional-are
the sources of marine litter. The majority of sea and ocean-based sources of marine
litter come from merchant shipping, ferries and cruise liners; fishing vessels; military
fleets and research vessels; pleasure craft; offshore oil and gas platforms and drilling
rigs and aquaculture installations. Marine litter dispersion and deposition are strongly
influenced by ocean currents, tidal cycles, regional-scale topography, including
sea-bed topography and wind.
Land based sources of marine litter originate from coastal or inland areas including
beaches, piers, harbours, marinas, docks and riverbanks. Municipal landfills located on

3
the coast, water bodies such as rivers, lakes and ponds that are used as illegal dump
sites, riverine transport of waste from landfills and other inland sources, discharges of
untreated municipal sewage and storm water, industrial facilities, medical waste, and
coastal tourism involving recreational visitors and beach-goers, are the primary
sources of land-based marine litter. Natural storm-related events such as hurricanes,
tsunamis, tornadoes and floods can all create large amounts of materials that are
washed from coastal areas that can end in the marine environment. High winds, large
waves and storm surges produced by these natural events cause land-based items to be
introduced into the marine environment (NOAA, 2008).
1.1.3. Threats to Marine Life due to Marine Litter (Global):
Marine litter is a serious global environmental problem for the oceans and regional
seas. The environmental impact of marine litter is multidimensional. It can cause
serious environmental problem with the possible transfer of toxic chemical substances
to the marine habitats. The Ocean has become a global repository for much of the
waste we generate. Marine debris includes timber, glass, metal and plastic from many
different sources. Recently, the accumulation and possible impacts of microplastic
particles in the ocean have been recognized as an emerging environmental issue.
Despite international efforts to stem the flow of plastic debris, it continues to
accumulate and impact the marine environment. Environmental damage due to plastic
and other marine debris can be defined as mortality or sub-lethal effects on biodiversity
through physical damage by ingestion; entanglement in ghost nets (fishing nets lost or
left in the ocean) and other debris; chemical contamination by ingestion; and alteration
of community structure, including the importation of alien species (Galgani et al. 2010).
Exposure of plastic debris to the variety of physical, chemical and biological processes
in ocean results in fragmentation and size reduction. In general, potential chemical
effects are likely to increase with a reduction of size of plastic particles while physical
effects, such as the entanglement of dolphins and other animals in drift plastic, increase
with the size and complexity of the debris. Accumulation of marine litter in the ocean
is a growing problem worldwide. Particularly plastic, the most utilized and persistent
material, arises as the primary contaminant in the marine environment (Ryan et al,
2009; Derraik, 2002). Since the beginning of its widespread usage in 1950’s plastic has

4
turned into a widespread environmental problem (Barnes et al, 2009). Marine debris,
and in particular the accumulation of plastic debris, has been identified as a global
problem alongside other key issues of our time including climate change, ocean
acidification and loss of biodiversity (Sutherland et al. 2010). The majority of reported
encounters by individual marine organisms were with plastic litter. In terms of litter
type or use, rope and netting account for 57% of encounters followed by fragments
(11%), packaging (10%), other fishing related (8%) and micro-particles (6%)(CBD,
2012). Accounting for around one tenth of the entire litter in the world’s oceans derelict
or discarded fishing gear ranks as an especially problematic marine litter. There
estimated 640,000 tons of fishing gear lost, abandoned or discarded annually may
continue to fish for years and even decades, a process referred to a ‘ghost’ fishing
(Cheshire et al. 2009). The marine ecosystem has been facing impacts due to
anthropogenic activities ever since urbanisation started.
Marine water quality plays an important part in the conservation of marine resources as
it contributes to the stability of marine ecosystem. Pollution from land based sources as
well as from sea can pose threats to these invaluable resources. More than 260 species
are already known to be affected by marine debris through entanglement or ingestion.
Ingestion by birds, turtles, fish and marine mammals is well documented and can be
fatal. A wide range of plastic types are involved and the species affected range from
entanglement of cetaceans in rope and netting, suffocation of birds and turtles by
plastic film ingestion of microscopic fragments of plastic by fish and invertebrates
(Gregory, 2009). Small particles are of concern because they may be ingested by a
wide range of organisms and could have adverse physical effects, for example by
disrupting feeding and digestion (Barnes et al. 2009; GESAMP, 2010). Of the 120
marine mammals species listed on the IUCN Red List 54% are known to have been
entangled in or have ingested plastic debris; 34 out of 34 green turtles and 14 of 35
seabirds found along the southern Brazilian seacoast, had ingested debris, with plastic
being the main ingested material. In addition to ingestion and entanglement, beach
debris that had washed up from River Asi, an international river passing through
Lebanon, Syria and Turkey, has been shown to adversely affect the ability of green
turtle hatchlings to reach the sea on the Samandag coast in Turkey (Ozdilek et al. 2006).
Evidence of harmful effects of plastic on wildlife is mostly restricted to observations

5
on individual specimens that have become entangled in or have ingested plastic debris.
There is as yet little evidence of effects on assemblages of species although concerns
have been raised about potential consequences for ecosystem-wide impacts and
ecosystem goods and services.
1.2. India and Marine Litter:
The Indian peninsula, hemmed in by the Indian Ocean, Arabian Sea and the Bay of
Bengal, boasts of a magnificent marine ecosystem. A combination of
geo-morphological and climatic factors and the nutrients supplied by the rivers along
the coast makes it exceptionally productive and biologically rich. The marine
environment, which includes adjacent coastal areas, supports productive and
protective habitats such as mangroves, coral reefs and sand dunes. The marine
environment is facing a number of pressures, arising out of needs of people, and the
multiple uses that coastal and marine environment. In the absence of good
management, these pressures might result in severe stress. India has a long coastline of
more than 7500 km. Its marine resources are spread over the Indian Ocean, Arabian
Sea ad Bay of Bengal. The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the country has an area
of 2.02 million sq km comprising 0.86 million sq km on the west coast, 0.56 million sq
km on the east coast and 0.6 million sq km around the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
Major industrial cities and towns of the country such as Mumbai, Surat, Kochi,
Chennai, Visakhapatnam and Kolkata are situated on or near the coastline.
Demographic pressure in the urban cities and towns as well as an increase in the rural
population and rapid industrialization, have resulted in the production of enormous
amounts of waste materials. These wastes reach the marine environment either directly
or indirectly through rivers, creeks and bays, posing threat to ecosystems and India’s
coastal resources. Estimates indicate that Mumbai city discharges around 2200
(million litres per day) MLD of waste into the coastal waters. Similar is the case with
some of the major cities such as Chennai, Kolkata and Visakhapatnam and the
industrial areas of Gujarat, Pondicherry and Orissa, where the coastal and estuaries
waters remain in degraded condition.
The status of marine debris in India varies from place to place. The Indian coastline has
13 major ports and 181 minor to intermediate ports, of which 139 are operational and

6
are under the jurisdiction of the respective State governments. These areas are sources
of marine debris due to quantities of solid wastes handled in these ports. India’s major
shipyards are located in Kolkata, Visakhapatnam, Kochi, Goa and Mumbai, with the
world’s largest ship-breaking yard located in Gujarat. Ship-breaking yards are
operational in India and are a source of marine litter and other pollutants. Ship breaking
operations are carried out over a distance of about 10 km on the beaches of Alang in
Gujarat-one of the largest and busiest ship-breaking yards in the world. These activities
generate peeled-off paint chips, iron scrap and other types of non-degradable solid
waste, which can enter the marine environment as marine debris. Tourism activities
have also been associated with marine debris production in key areas of the Indian
coast. The trash in and on the water, on the seabed, and along the shoreline-has been
growing concern as the widespread use of plastics and other non-biodegradable wastes
has led to an increase in persistent debris in the coastal and marine areas of India. The
December 26, 2004 tsunami which devastated the Indian coastline from Andaman &
Nicobar Islands to Tamil Nadu and Andhra coast in the east and Kerala coast in the
west has left behind huge quantum of solid wastes of different kinds along the coast.
The notable endangered species, which is of concern, is Dugong. The habitats of
Dugongs in Gulf of Mannar particularly the sea-grass ecosystem are fast diminishing
due to human intervention (MoEF, 2002).
1.2.1. Mumbai: Mumbai is one of the largest metros in India with an estimated
population of 1.6 to 1.8 million. It has a coastal stretch of 603 sq.km. Geographically,
the city of Mumbai can be divided into three sections, namely, the island city, the
western suburbs and the eastern suburbs. There are also known for administrative
purposes as Division I, Division II and Division III, respectively. The total population
of the city amounts to nearly 13 million that is increasing on a daily basis. Such a huge
habitat obviously generates a huge amount of waste of many kinds the management of
which is a massive task for the local administration. There are three main dumping
grounds namely, Deonar (132 hectares), Kanjurmarg (143 hectares), Mulund (25
hectares).
1.2.2. Waste Generation & Management: Mumbai waste generation has been on a

7
constant increase, from 3200 tonnes per day in 1981 to 5355 tonnes per day in 1991
(CPCB, 2000). The increase in numbers also indicate that the growth rate in Municipal
Solid Waste (MSW) in our urban centres have outpaced the population growth in
recent years. Mumbai now generates an astounding 10809 tonnes of waste every single
day (source: BMC website showing waste generation for individual wards). Very few
of the policy documents examine waste as part of a cycle of
production-consumption-recovery, or perceive waste through a prism of sustainability.
Waste management is still a non-cyclic system of collection and disposal, either in
dumping grounds or local incinerations and open burnings, consequently creating
considerable health and environmental hazards. The Municipal Corporation has been
working with a centralized system where the everyday collection and transportation
incurs considerable expenditure in form of transportation, the contracts from handling
the waste and also the additional carbon emissions from vehicles that are transporting
every king of waste (non-segregated) and indiscriminately dumping it in the dumping
grounds. Out of the 3 active dumping grounds, the biggest of them all, Deonar
dumping ground has been ordered by the High Court to shut down systematically. All
these issues suggest the acute need for sustainable solution in the waste management of
the city, which at present is an expensive way to destroy Mumbai’s ecology and the
health of the thousands living and working next to the dumping grounds.
The Municipal Solid Waste Rules, 2000 framed by the Government of India (GoI)
makes it mandatory for the storage of garbage at the source and its synchronized
collection at the doorstep. The MCGM has already declared the segregation and
storage of garbage at source mandatory. But on the ground, the waste is being
continually dumped in the landfills without any forethought. This is only leading to
escalating budgets, increasing pollution due to transportation, health issues for
residents around the landfills and hazardous conditions for the workers engaged in
segregation at dumping locations.
1.2.3. Water quality of Mumbai:
Spatio-temporal study revealed that there is a dire need of suggestive measures to
mitigate coastal and creeks water pollution and improvement in water quality (Kamble
et al. 2010).

8
1.2.3.1 At Seafronts and beaches: pH values of coastal water ranges between 7-8
satisfying the SW II standards indicating neither pollution threat for biological life nor
eye-skin irritation problems during contact water sports (Vijay et al. 2013). Turbidity
was observed to be in the range of 8-95 NTU. The highest turbidity was observed in
Gorai following Manori, Girgaon and Marve beaches having values 95, 75, 65 and 55
NTU. DO (dissolved oxygen) was more than 4 mg/L except Mahim where it was
practically zero because of heavy sewage/ wastewater discharge in Mithi River which
opens near Mahim beach and carries huge load of organic waste. Marginal low DO was
observed at Colaba, Manori and Marve beaches (Kamble et al. 2010).
1.2.3.2. West Coast: pH is within the prescribed limit of standards. The SW II
standard for turbidity of 30 NTU exceeded only in limited samples in the impact zone
of Marve creek during high tide. The discharge of outfalls at Worli and Bandra gets
adequately diluted resulting in turbidity of 10 to 30 NTU. DO was more than 4 mg/L
(SW II standard) in the coastal waters during low and high tides indicating favourable
conditions of aquatic life. The concentration of DO increases with the distance from
the shoreline (Kamble et al. 2010). Though BOD values were satisfying SW II
standard at majority of locations, the impact of sewage discharges was observed upto 3
km seaward distance. Due to non-point discharges in the west coast and discharges
from ocean outfalls, Kamble et al. (2010) observed that the bacteriological quality
showed non-compliance of SW II standards at all locations in west coast and creeks.
1.2.3.3. Thane, Malad, Marve and Mahim Creeks: pH values were within the range
of SW II standards. The turbidity was observed in the range of 10-150 NTU. Marginal
increase in the turbidity at Malad creek during low tide was observed (Kamble et al.
2010). The highest turbidity was found at upper stretch of Thane creek with 150 NTU
during high tide. The condition of Malad creek is alarming as no DO was observed in
the creek during low tide. At Mahim and Marve creeks, the alarming condition was
also observed as DO was in the range of 0 to 2 mg/L during low tide. During high tide,
the condition was slightly better as marginal increase in DO than prescribed SW II
standards. The condition of Thane creek is also not good as about 85% DO samples

9
were below prescribed limit during low and high tides indicating unfavourable
conditions for commercial fishing. The BOD was observed higher than prescribed SW
II standards in Marve, Malad and Mahim creeks and in upper stretch of Thane creek
during low tide (Kamble et al. 2010). Marginal increase in BOD values compared to
SW II standards were observed at Marve and Malad creek during high tide. All the
creeks were heavily vulnerable in terms of bacterial pollution.
1.3. Why study marine litter?
The problems and threats caused directly or indirectly by marine litter are extensive,
including environmental, social and economic impacts. Marine litter has a substantial
impact upon the economy. While determining economic service of an ecosystem or
ecosystem service is a relatively new science, it is clear that marine and coastal litter
can impact and deteriorate a range of natural functions that provide on-going social and
economic benefits.
Marine litter originates from different sources, circulates through pathways and
accumulates in litter sinks. The sources of marine litter are both from land and sea
based activities. A number of studies have looked at the differing proportions of litter
from each of these and their results estimate that at the global scale the greatest
proportion is from land based sources. Data on marine litter can aid in the
quantification of these different factors and the transformations that occur through the
process (Fanshawe & Everard, 2002). “Evaluating this life cycle of marine litter is an
essential part of any remediation and prevention technique and is fundamental prior to
implementation, to allow for the identification and quantification of response variables
and a review of the effectiveness of any management interventions” (Cheshire et al.
2009). Surveys of litter on the coastline are a primary tool for monitoring the load of
litter in the marine environment and have been used world-wide to quantify and
describe marine litter pollution. They can be used to measure the effectiveness of
management or mitigation measures, the sources and activities leading to litter
pollution and threats to marine biota and ecosystems (Cheshire et al, 2009).
1.4. Objectives of the study: The study aimed at investigating the quantity and
composition of beach litter and its types in the beaches of Mumbai.

10
CHAPTER II: STUDY AREA
2.0. Study Area: Mumbai is the capital of Maharashtra state located at the west coast
of India. The study area lies between 18°52´ to 19°20´ N latitude and 72°48´ to
73°05´ E longitude (Vijay et al. 2013). Mumbai is an island city, the Arabian Sea,
Thane creek and the Vasai creek surround the island of Mumbai. Mumbai is the
commercial capital and the richest city, in India (MMRDA, 2008). The total area of
Mumbai is 603.4 sq. Km., with 370 sq.km. coming under the Brihanmumbai
Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the rest belonging to the Mumbai Port Trust,
Defense, Atomic Energy Commission and Borivali National Park. Due to the deep
natural harbour, Mumbai contributes up to 70% of maritime trade in India. The
population density is estimated to be about 22,000 persons per sq.km.
The coastline of Mumbai has numerous creeks and estuaries. Some rich estuarine
pockets still contain mangrove forests and the rest of the coast has sand and rock
beaches. Major freshwater streams divide the city into four watersheds. The four
major watershed boundaries of Mumbai play an important role in the flow of the
various freshwater streams and major drainage areas. The mangrove forests in each
watershed are dependent on these freshwater inflows and sediment load
transportation. The watersheds containing the Administrative zones play an important
role in draining the precipitation and surface flows from the upland development to
the sea. The coastal ecology of each watershed is different due to the difference in the
development of each area.
2.1. Description of the study area:
Mumbai harbour is a natural harbour situated on the west coast of India. It is
semi-enclosed basin which opens into the Arabian Sea at its southwesterly side. On
the upstream, it is connected by Thane-Creek, which receives waste from heavily
industrialized Thane-Belapur belt. In addition the Mumbai metropolis waste, which is
discharged through various points also influences the harbour environment
(Govindan, 2000). The study was conducted in 10 different beaches of Mumbai, they
were namely; Juhu, Versova, Girgaon, Prahadevi, Aksa, Erangal, Marve, Uttan Virgin
and Gorai and Chimbai.

11
2.2. Map of study area
Fig 1: Showing sampled sites (Source: NatGeo Mapmaker Interactive)

12
2.3. Climate: Mumbai experiences a maritime climate that features three main
seasons, monsoon, summer and winter.
2.3.1. Monsoon: From June till September, Mumbai goes through monsoon season.
The season is responsible for the deposition of more than Munbai’s total yearly
population; around 1800 mm. June is marked by thunderstorms and often windy
conditions as the monsoon establishes itself over Mumbai. The average high stands
around 28°C while the low fluctuates between mid-teens.
2.3.2. Summer: During summer, Mumbai weather becomes somewhat intolerable
with high temperatures and humidity. October is the hottest month of the year with
more than 33°C. However, as the season progresses the temperature continues to drop
gradually as November sees not more than 20.5C of average low. The season receives
infrequent rainfall.
2.3.3. Winter: From December till early March, Mumbai weather remains enjoyable
enough. January is considered as the coolest month of the year with mean daily
minimum 16.4C and mean daily maximum being 28.6C. The season witnesses a great
level of sunshine.

13
CHAPTER III: METHODS OF STUDY
3.0. Study Design: A rapid assessment of beach litter was undertaken in the months of
July and August, 2014. We sampled a total of 10 beaches along the western coast of
Mumbai City; each beach was sampled twice over the study period. The team of
surveyors formed skirmish lines parallel to the coast separated every 5 meters. Upon
completion of collection, the litter was sorted, counted and weighed according to
different categories. The litter were collected and dumped on the nearest dustbins
afterwards. Large immovable objects (abandoned cars, large nets, baulks of timber, etc.)
that cannot be moved by the team were be recorded on additional datasheet, with
information collected on the nature and location for every large item. This information
was submitted along with the other datasheets to ensure that any large item is included
only once in analysis.
10 beaches on the western side of Mumbai were surveyed as sample sites. These
beaches were surveyed twice during the field study period.
Table 1. Showing different sample study sites, site names and geographical
positions
Sample
Site
Site Name Coordinate of the survey sites
1 Erangal (E) 19.162818, 72.782928
2 Aksa (A) 19.174878, 72.794644
3 Gorai (G) 19.242637, 72.780696
4 Marve (M) 19.198154, 72.796549
5 Girgaon (Gi) 18.954252, 72.812728
6 Prabhadevi (P) 19.019853, 72.827793
7 Juhu (J) 19.099973, 72.825157
8 Versova (V) 19.131196, 72.812282
9 Chimbai (C) 19.056452, 72.823468
10 Uttan (U) 19.268985, 72.783588

14
3.1. Field Methods: The beach litter was assessed using the Fixed breadth line transect.
In this method, transect lines of variable length are followed, the breadth remaining
fixed or constant. The field team followed transect lines with fixed breadth (1 m) in all
the beaches and counted, sorted into different categories (such as plastic bags, paper
bags, glass bottles, fishing nets, ropes, etc.) and collected the litter found in the transect
line. For convenience of analysis of the collected data, the length of the transect lines
were also kept fixed (200 m). The number of transects per beach was also kept fixed i.e.
5, for statistical analysis convenience. Each transect was 5 m apart from each other. In
each transect, after the litter were sorted, they were put in separate bin bags. The
weight of all the bags were measured using a hand-held weighing scale. All these
information was recorded in a field datasheet for further statistical analysis.
At each location, additional data were collected relating to the nature of the beach
environment including nearest river or creek (name, distance, direction and whether or
not it inputs directly to the beach), main beach usage (i.e. recreational-swimming,
fishing), what type of access the beach has (vehicular, pedestrian and/or boat only),
regularity of beach cleanup and if there are any factories or sewage treatment plants or
slums present in the beach. All surveys were done during low tide hours. The back of
the beach was described in terms of the dominant features, be it dunes, vegetation or
built structures (rock walls, road path, fence, etc.). Any other noteworthy information
was recorded like information on any entangled fauna encountered during the survey
(details of the organism, nature of entrapment, live or dead), data on land based
activities that may result in litter such as festivals, etc., conditions at the time of the
survey that might affect the litter collection (e. g. cold, hot, rain, high winds) through
impacting on staff performance. The datasheet for collecting the beach data is attached
as Annexure I.
3.2. Analytical Methods
3.2.1. Data Analysis: The following formula was used to calculate the density of
litter on each transect.
D = no. of litter recorded (n)/Area of the transect (A)
For every sample site, the following formula was used to calculate the average
density

15
D1 = (n1/A1+ n2/A2+ n3/A3+………………………nn/An)/N
where N= total number of transects
Using SPSS 16, we statistically tested whether there is any significant difference in
the weight and density of marine litter among the sampled sites with the help of
ANOVA. Comparison between each individual sample was done using Post Hoc test
to see if there are any significant differences between the sampled sites.
3.2.3. Weight of litter types: The weight of all the litter types in all the sites were
calculated. The average weight of the litter types in both the surveys in all sites were
calculated and the results were presented in a pie chart.

16
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS
Based on the field survey, Chimbai beach situated in the western suburbs of Mumbai
was the most littered beach. Both density and weight of litter was maximum in
Chimbai compared to other beaches (Table 1). In all the beaches plastic was the
major type of litter followed by food wrappers, glass bottles and fishing nets.
Beaches in Madh Island were cleaner than beaches in westem suburbs of Mumbai.
Gorai and Uttan beaches were the cleanest and the least littered beaches.
One way ANOVA was carried out (One way weight by beach) to see if there were
any significant differences in weights between the sampled sites. To be accurate, we
performed Post Hoc test. The results revealed that there was significant difference in
weight between Chimbai and all other beaches (P = 0.05). Also, there was significant
difference in weight between Versova and all beaches except Marve, Prabhadevi and
Juhu. We observed that Chimbai and Versova were comparatively much more littered
than other beaches and hence there was a differences in weight. Hence, the weight of
litter in Chimbai and Versova was much more than any other beaches.
Again, One Way ANOVA was carried out (One way density by beach) to see if there
were significant differences in mean density of litter in between the sampled sites.
After carrying out Post Hoc test, we found that there was a significant difference
between Chimbai and all other beaches, whereas all other beaches (except Chimbai)
were almost similar in beach litter density.
The statistical analysis proves that Chimbai was the most littered beach. It was
highest in litter density and litter weight among all the beaches. Chimbai was
followed by Versova as the most littered beach.

17
Table 2: Showing the average densities and weights of litter of all the 10 beaches
surveyed twice
Sl. no. Beach
name
Survey no. Average
density of
litter (D)
*Mean density
= D1+D2/2
Weight
of litter
(kg)
Mean
weight
(kg)
1 Erangal 1 0.345 0.384 13 10.45
2 0.423 7.9
2 Aksa 1 0.312 0.3065 7.8 7.65
2 0.301 7.5
3 Marve 1 5.45 3.017 40.4 38.3
2 0.584 36.2
4 Uttan 1 0.294 0.281 18.1 17.3
2 0.268 16.5
5 Gorai 1 0.146 0.728 9 13.05
2 1.31 17.1
6 Girgaon 1 0.467 0.388 28.9 18
2 0.309 7.1
7 Prabhadevi 1 1.976 1.198 72.2 41.9
2 0.42 11.6
8 Juhu 1 1.455 0.92 24.7 19.7
2 0.385 14.7
9 Versova 1 2.012 2.468 62.6 54.15
2 2.924 45.7
10 Chimbai 1 28.199 21.73 234.3 226.75
2 15.261 219.2
* Mean Density= D1 (average density of litter in the first survey) + D2 (average density of
litter in the second survey) / 2

18
Erangal
Aksa
Marve
Uttan
Gorai
Girgaon
Prabhadevi
Juhu
Versova
Chimbai
Fig 2: Showing the mean density of litter in the sampled sites
Erangal
Aksa
Marve
Uttan
Gorai
Girgaon
Prabhadevi
Juhu
Versova
Chimbai
Fig 3: Showing the mean weight of litter in the sampled sites
The average weights of the different litter types in the two surveys carried out in all
the sampled sites were calculated (Table 3). Plastic bags were the most common litter
type and the heaviest with a total of 126.38 kg (30%), followed by clothing, the
weight of which was found to be 69.85 kg (Table 3, Fig 4).

19
Table 3: Showing site wise weight (kg) of all the litter types
Plastic
bags
Paper
bags
Cups,
plates,
forks,
knives
Cigar
ettes
Food
wrapp
ers
Bevera
ge
bottles
Clothi
ng
Rope
s
Can
s
Fishin
g nets
Toys Tyre Batt
eries
Vehicle
parts
Glass Others
Gorai 5.35 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.85 0.25 2.25 0.35 0 0.35 0.25 0 0 0 2.25 0.5
Erangal 2.75 0.7 0.1 0 1.75 0.5 1.5 0.25 0 0.25 0.85 0 0 0 1.5 0.75
Aksa 2 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.25 1.25 0.1 0.2
5
0.25 0 0.2
5
0 0 1.5 0.5
Marve 11.5 4.5 0.25 0.25 2 0.5 1.25 0.35 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.7
5
0 0.25 12 0.5
Girgaon 7.5 1.5 0.15 0.1 2.5 0.25 3.25 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.2
5
0 0 0.5 0.25
Prabha
devi
9.5 8 3.75 0.15 3 3.5 7.5 1 0.2
5
0.5 0 0.2
5
0 0 1.25 0.25
Uttan 5.75 0.5 0.1 0 1.5 0.1 4.75 0.25 0 0.75 0 0.2
5
0 0 3 0.35
Juhu 12 0 0.1 0 3 0 3.25 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.25
Versova 14.75 7 4.5 0.1 8 2.75 9.85 0.85 0.7
5
2 0.1 1 0 0 1.5 1
Chimbai 55.25 44.5 19.5 0.2 18.5 17.25 35 1.1 14 1.5 2.75 3.2
5
0.1 0 8.25 4.1
Σ 126.3
5
67.7 28.65 0.95 41.7 25.35 69.85 4.5 15.
85
5.45 6.45 5.7
5
0.1 0.25 32.2
5
8.45

20
Pl Pa Cups Ci
Wr Bo Cl Ro
Ca F. Nets Toys Tyre
Batt Ve Gl O
Fig 4: Showing the percentage of weights of litter types found in the study

21
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION
To determine the impacts of litter in the marine environment, it is necessary to
consider its behaviour and identify the types of litter known to be present in the
beaches and sea as well as the quantities in which they occur. While measuring litter
at any point in the marine environment, it is important to establish whether the litter
is being measured at a true sink or at an intermediate point in a pathway. The present
study aimed to measure litter in a pathway rather than a sink as the surveys were
carried out only twice per beach.
The results of the survey showed that beaches in proper Mumbai contained much
more litter than beaches in the outskirts of Mumbai such as beaches in Madh Island.
Plastic was the major type of litter in all the beaches, and the most common (30% of
the total litter). Food wrappers, glass bottles and fishing nets were also some of the
major types of litter found in the beaches. Secluded beaches like Uttan and Gorai
were cleaner and consisted of much less plastic and glass litter but the number of
abandoned fishing nets was a major concern. Most of the plastics result from
breakdown of large plastic containers, eroded by natural events that seem to be
stronger on beach environments (Corcoran et al., 2009). Highly abundant on coast
lines, meso and microplastics whose composition and relatively large surface area
make them prone to adhering waterborne organic pollutants are considered
bioavailable to organisms throughout the food web, causing significant concern
(Andrady, 2011; Cole et al., 2011).
ReefWatch Marine Conservation has been aware of this problem from its inception. It
has been active in this aspect as activities like beach cleanups are taken up almost
regularly. ReefWatch involves Bollywood celebrities in the cleanups for public
support. This scientific study for estimation and classification of beach litter is the
first to be implemented by the organization. This was a rapid assessment of beach
litter and the study was conducted only in the monsoon season. Further long term
studies taken up, studying the beach litter accumulating all year round would yield
much more relevant data helping in better management of waste. Hence helping in
conservation of the fragile coastal ecosystem.

22
REFERENCES:
1. Andrady, A. L. (2011): Microplastics in the marine environment. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 62, 1596–1605.
2. Barnes, D. K. A., Galgani, F., Thompson, R. C. and Barlaz, M. (2009):
Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 1985-1998.
3. Cheshire, A. C., Adler, E., Barbière, J., Cohen, Y., Evans, S., Jarayabhand, S.,
Jeftic, L., Jung, R. T., Kinsey, S., Kusui, E. T., Lavine, I., Manyara, P.,
Oosterbaan, L., Pereira, M. A., Sheavly, S., Tkalin, A., Varadarajan, S., Wenneker,
B., Westphalen, G. (2009): UNEP/IOC Guidelines on Survey and Monitoring of
Marine Litter, UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies, No. 186; IOC
Technical Series No. 83, xii 120 pp.
4. Cole, M., Lindeque, P., Halsband, C., Galloway, T. S. (2011): Microplastics as
contaminants in the marine environment: a review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62,
2588–2597.
5. Corcoran, P. L., Biesinger, M. C., Grifi, M. (2009): Plastics and beaches: a
degrading relationship. Marine Pollution Bulletin 58, 80–84.
6. Derraik, J. G. B. (2002): The Pollution of the Marine Environment by Plastic
Debris: A Review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44, 842-852.
7. Fanshawe, T. And Everard, M. (2002): The Impacts of Marine Litter, Marine
Pollution Monitoring management Group, Report of the Marine Litter Task Team
(MaLiTT).
8. Galgani, F., Fleet, D., van Franeker, J., Katsanevakis, S., Maes, T., Mouat, J.,
Oosterbaan, L., Poitou, I., Hanke, G., Thompson, R., Amato, E., Birkun, A. And
Janssen, C. (2010): Marine Strategy Framework Directive Task Team 10 Report
Marine Litter. JRC (EC Joint Research Centre) Scientific and Technical Reports.
9. GESAMP (2010); Proceedings of the GESAMP International Workshop on
plastic particles as vector in transporting persistent, bio-accumulating and toxic
substances in the oceans. In GESAMP Reports and Studies (ed. T. Bowmer and P.
J. Kershaw): MO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP.
10. GESAMP (1993): Impact of Oil and Related Chemicals and Wastes on the

23
Marine Environment, GESAMP Report and Studies No. 50. London: IMO. p. Iii.
11. Gray, J. (1997): Marine biodiversity: patterns, threats and conservation needs.
Biodiversity and Conservation, 6, 153-175.
12. Gregory, M. (2009): Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine
settings – entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and
alien invasions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364,
2013-2026.
13. Holmes, L., Turner, A. and Thompson, R. (2012): Adsorption of trace metals to
plastic resin pellets in the marine environment. Environmental Pollution 160,
42-48.
14. Kamble, S. R., Vijay, R. And Sohony, R. A. (2010): Water Quality Assessment of
Creeks and Coast in Mumbai, India: A Spatial and Temporal Analysis: 11th
ESRI
India User Conference 2010.
15. Kershaw, P., Katsuhiko, S., Lee, S., Leemseth, J. and Woodring, D. (2011):
Plastic debris in the ocean. In UNEP year book: emerging issues in our
environment. Nairobi: UNEP.
16. MoEF (2002): National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan-India. Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Govt. of India, New Delhi, 538 pp.
17. Mouat, T., Lopez-Lozano, R. and Bateson, H. (2010): Economic impacts of
Marine litter, pp. 117: KIMO (Kommunenes Internasjonale Miljǿorganisasjon).
18. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2008): 2008 Interagency
Report on Marine Debris Sources, Impacts, Strategies & Recommendations.
Silver Spring, MD: NOAA. 62 pp.
19. Ozdilek, H. G., Yalchin-Ozdilek, S., Ozaner, F. S. and Sonmez, B. (2006): Impact
of accumulated beach litter on Chelonia mydas L. 1758 (green turtle) hatchlings
of the Samandag coast, Hatay, Turkey. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 15,
95-103.
20. Pendse, S. S. (2012): Solid Waste Management in India-A Case Study in
Mumbai: Online International Interdisciplinary Research Journal (Bi-Monthly),
ISSN 2249-9598, Vol-II, Issue-IV
21. Potts, T. and Hastings E. (2011): Marine Litter Issues, Impacts and Actions:
Marine Scotland

24
22. Ryan, P. G., Moore, C. J., van Franeker, J. A. and Moloney, C. L. (2009):
Monitoring the abundance of plastic debris in the marine environment.
Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society B 364, 1999-2012.
23. Thompson, R., Moore, C., vom Saal, F. and Swan, S. (2009): Plastics, the
environment and human health: current consensus and future trends.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364, 2153-2166.
24. UNEP (2006): Marine and coastal ecosystems and human well-being. A
synthesis report based on the findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
UNEP. 76pp.
25. Vijay, R., Khobragade, P., Kamble, S. R., Sohony, R. A.and Kumar, R. (2013):
Geospatial Assessment of Water Quality in Creeks and Coast of Mumbai in India.
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 4, Issue 12,
December 2013. ISSN 2229-5.

25
Annexure I: Datasheet for beach litter data collection

Beach litter report_Jelil

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to Beach litter report_Jelil

Similar to Beach litter report_Jelil (20)

Beach litter report_Jelil