4.2 Article

Municipal services on tourist beaches:: Costs and benefits of solid waste collection

期刊

JOURNAL OF COASTAL RESEARCH
卷 22, 期 5, 页码 1070-1075

出版社

COASTAL EDUCATION & RESEARCH FOUNDATION
DOI: 10.2112/03-0069.1

关键词

solid wastes; coastal pollution; beach contamination; plastic solid wastes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tamandare, Pernambuco State, Brazil, has 9 kilometers of beaches that form three bays protected by coastal reefs. July 2001, these beaches were frequently covered by solid wastes, mainly plastics. Solid wastes carried by the Until wind and tides reached the native vegetation, where it remained imprisoned and accumulated in large amounts, making the beach aesthetically objectionable. The origin of the largest part of this solid waste was the local rivers. These rivers drain many municipalities but have their mouths next to Tamandare. Beach users and locals were equally responsible for the accumulated residue. From August 2001, the municipal administration started a beach cleaning service, aiming to minimize the negative aesthetic effects caused by the accumulation of solid wastes. Sampling of plastic items accumulated on the beach within four transects of 2500 square meters each was carried out for 4 months before the cleaning service began and resulted in a total of 9289 plastic items. The dry and rainy season accumulations were significantly different. After the start of the service, in the same sampling area, plastic items were 1712 in total. In this case, the seasons were no longer significantly different. There were aesthetic, sanitary, and environmental benefits from the cleaning services. However, those were just a palliative and inefficient to definitely solve the problem. Municipalities will have to implement solid waste collection at their municipal sources and provide adequate disposal to solve the problem at the beaches of Tamandare. Controlling the source of solid wastes from beach users through environmental education actions is also urgently needed.

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

4.2
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