4.6 Article

Rapid-Survey Methodology to Assess Litter Volumes along Large River Systems-A Case Study of the Tamsui River in Taiwan

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 13, 期 16, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su13168765

关键词

marine litter; marine debris; rapid assessment; riverbank; citizen science; macroplastics; river; plastic pollution

资金

  1. Society of Wilderness (SOW)
  2. Taiwan Ocean Conservation Administration
  3. Ministry of Science and Technology Taiwan (R.O.C.) [MOST 108-2116-M-002-028-MY2]
  4. National Cheng Kung University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new citizen science bicycle survey was developed to assess riverine debris, covering 281.5 km of the Tamsui river system in Taiwan. The study revealed different litter densities at the river mouth and along the riverbanks further upstream, with derelict fishing gear and single-use plastics dominating different areas.
Riverbanks are an important source of plastic pollution. However, the current assessment methods for riverbank litter are based on a point-based sampling which is time consuming and limited in scope. To quickly assess hotspot areas and litter compositions in larger areas, this study developed a new citizen science bicycle survey for riverine debris. Covering 281.5 km of the Tamsui river system in Taiwan, the new methodology was tested at one of the most plastics polluted rivers in the world. The results revealed an average litter density of 15.3 m(3)/km at the river mouth and of 0.2 m(3)/km to 2.8 m(3)/km along the riverbanks further upstream. The coastline was mainly polluted by derelict fishing gear whereas single-use plastics and illegally dumped waste dominated the upstream areas. A correlation between litter and population density could not be identified, but it was noted that litter hotspots occur at cut banks and near mangrove vegetation. Overall, the new methodology proved suitable to collect large quantities of data for scientific purposes and to quickly detect litter accumulations prior to clean-up activities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据