DOI: 10.1111/jiec.

13248

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Role of protected area in reducing marine and plastic litter

A case study from India’s first Marine Protected Area and comparison with
Non-Protected Areas

Anju Baroth Sonalika Mamgain Kuppusamy Sivakumar

Prachi Sachchidanand Hatkar Sameeha Pathan

Wildlife Institute of India, Chandrabani,

Dehradun, India Abstract
This research is the first to assess marine litter and plastic pollution in India’s first
Correspondence
Anju Baroth, Wildlife Institute of India, marine protected area (MPA), the Gulf of Kachchh Marine Protected Area (GOKMPA).
Chandrabani, Dehradun 248001, India.
We compare it to two non-protected areas, that is, Okha Beach and Beyt Dwarka,
Email: barothanju@[Link]
known for their high industrial and tourist activity, respectively. Standing-stock sur-
Editor Managing Review: Ian Vázquez-Rowe veys were used to collect primary litter data, while questionnaire surveys were used to
learn about people’s perception and attitude towards the plastic pollution problem in
the study area. We found that plastic was the most common component of the litter at
all the sites and that it was primarily of terrestrial origin. Compared to non-protected
sites, GOKMPA had the lowest litter density but the highest proportion of plastic lit-
ter. Single-use plastic bottles were the most counted items at all the sites, regardless of
the conservation status of the sites. The majority of people (locals, visitors, and fishers)
around these sites expressed concern about waste but were hesitant to take respon-
sibility and discourage or prevent littering. We noted that designating coastal territo-
ries as protected areas helps in reducing plastic pollution while also conserving habitat
and biodiversity. However, this could change rapidly due to either mishandling of litter
within MPAs or neighboring non-PAs, and also because plastics pose an actual toxicity
risk when present even at minimal concentrations in the environment. We recommend
combining preventive, mitigating, and curative measures in areas where risk hotspots
for plastic litter are identified, and such sites must be constantly monitored. Long-term
solutions could include transitioning from a linear to a circular economy, which would
involve goals for reducing plastic waste and instituting more sustainable production
and consumption patterns.

KEYWORDS
Gulf of Kachchh, marine litter, marine protected area, non-protected area, plastic pollution, indus-
trial ecology

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Industrial Ecology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Society for Industrial Ecology.

2080 [Link]/journal/jiec Journal of Industrial Ecology 2022;26:2080–2091.

 15309290, 2022, 6, Downloaded from [Link] by University Of Waterloo Dana Porter Library, Wiley Online Library on [18/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions ([Link] on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
BAROTH ET AL . 2081

1 INTRODUCTION

Since its advent, plastic has remained the most versatile product in the world, with its consumption rising steadily. Global plastic manufacturing
has primarily outpaced every other industrial sector (Geyer et al., 2017), and within the plastic industry, single-use plastic (including packaging) has
remained the dominant type, replacing more durable polymers (UNEP, 2018). Plastic has indisputable advantages because the items manufactured
from it are light, robust, and durable, and they can also be molded into a variety of shapes and sizes. While plastics are prized for their utility, the
inadequacy of managing their littered state poses an alarming threat to the environment. Because of its durability and low density, it is no surprise
that plastic can persist in the environment for years, and in some cases, travel thousands of kilometers as it is easily dispersed by water and wind
(Ryan et al., 2009). Consequently, plastics being branded as “ubiquitous pollutants” can only be termed as valid—this being testified by their presence
in the world’s most remote areas (Barnes et al., 2009). Reports suggest that global annual plastic emissions could exceed 53 million metric tonnes
per year by 2030 if governments throughout the world stick to their aggressive growth targets. Further, about 19–23 million metric tonnes of
plastic have already entered the oceans and territorial waters, manifesting itself as a serious global problem for the marine ecosystem (Borrelle
et al., 2020).
Mismanaged plastics reach the coastal and marine ecosystems either directly or indirectly through land-based or sea-based sources, with land-
based sources reporting a rough 80% contribution to all marine debris and sea-based sources accounting for the remaining 20% (Jambeck et al.,
2015). Construction, packaging, household goods, and coastal tourism, along with food and drink packaging, are the harvest that defines plastic
debris resulting from land-based sources (UNEP, 2016). Inputs from the land may come directly from the shoreline, rivers, or drainage pipelines.
Sea-based debris originates from commercial fishing vessels, recreational boats, cruise ships, and tourists visiting coastal areas (Galgani et al., 2015).
Fishers also generate marine debris through unrecovered nets, ropes, trawl floats, and other fishing-related gear or via ship-generated trash. The
type and amount of debris found in the marine environment depend on ocean current patterns, tidal cycles, seabed topography, and wind (Galgani
et al., 2013). Storm-related events like cyclones and floods can also carry marine debris from and to the oceans (Sheavly & Register, 2007). When
plastic enters the ocean, under different environmental conditions it breaks down into smaller fragments of 5 mm or less, known as microplastics
(GESAMP, 2016). Research suggests that plastic debris may cause damage to marine life through suffocation and chaffing (Gregory, 2009) and
choking; toxicological effects may arise due to ingestion of toxic residues leached from polymers (Alexiadou et al., 2019; Tanaka et al., 2013) and
other ecological effects such as entanglement (Duncan et al., 2017; Nelms et al., 2019) and adverse impacts on the health and welfare of humans
may also result (Beaumont et al., 2019).
One of the ways to protect marine ecosystems is by declaring them as protected areas. A marine protected area (MPA) is defined as a specific
expanse of the sea managed by legal or other effective means. It is distinctively committed to the safeguarding and upkeep of biodiversity and
other (natural and cultural) resources (Dudley, 2008). Increasingly, several countries are setting up MPAs to conserve these fragile ecosystems
from threats of pollution, overexploitation, conflicting utilization of resources, the damage inflicted upon the habitats, climate change, and several
other outcomes attributed to unsustainable anthropogenic development. Large-scale MPAs governing coastal and marine areas that connect to
and are inclusive of seamounts and the deep sea are bound by the responsibility to protect these ecosystems in their entirety. Regardless of the
marine region’s defense level, a substantial number of marine species have suffered as a result of the dramatic surge in plastic pollution over the
previous five decades (Lusher et al., 2015). For instance, approximately two-thirds of all the seabirds, 50% of all marine mammalian creatures, and
a reported 7 species of sea turtles have ingested or become entangled in marine litter and are threatened with extinction. Over 400 species of
fish and invertebrates native to marine ecosystems have been found entangled in plastic if they have not been found victims of postconsumption
plastic. Furthermore, 17% of the near-threatened, vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered species on the IUCN Red List that ingest or
are entangled in marine litter face the risk of extinction (Gall & Thompson, 2015; Ryan, 2018). Bearing with the proclamation that MPAs intend to
protect biodiversity, we realize that they are permanently threatened by the influx of marine and plastic litter on their coasts. Furthermore, the
existence of sensitive marine features may indicate that MPAs are more vulnerable to the effects of plastic trash than non-protected areas (Nelms
et al., 2020).
India has 133 MPAs, accounting for 4.6% of the combined 170,807.2 square kilometers of coastal and marine territory (Sivakumar, 2020). These
serve as a means to conserve biodiversity and people’s well-being by managing natural marine resources. In addition, through diverse habitats,
these MPAs also act as supporting service providers. While the development of a policy and regulatory framework has represented a step forward
in terms of ecological and economic relevance, threats to the Indian coastal and marine ecosystems are nonetheless extant due to multiple issues,
including marine litter (Sivakumar, 2013; Thakur, 2019). However, no information is available in scientific databases on the subject of marine litter
and microplastic pollution from Indian MPAs.
To protect the marine ecosystem from the lingering threat of plastic and debris pollution, understanding the quantity, dispersion, and compo-
sition of litter along both protected and non-protected coastlines is critical. This will aid in developing effective mitigation measures and policies
to protect the marine environment from debris. Primary surveys for marine litter effectively gather such information (Schulz et al., 2015; Watts
et al., 2017). This paper investigates the abundance, density, form, category, and sources of marine and plastic litter in India’s first MPA, the Gulf
of Kachchh Marine Protected Area (GOKMPA), which is an inlet of the Arabian Sea off India’s west coast. We conceived this study as the first step
 15309290, 2022, 6, Downloaded from [Link] by University Of Waterloo Dana Porter Library, Wiley Online Library on [18/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions ([Link] on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2082 BAROTH ET AL .

toward further understanding and addressing the plastic waste problem in this highly protected area and providing a comparative perspective of
the problem beyond the protected area. The GOKMPA supports a considerable diversity of threatened species of flora and fauna. Its sustenance is
already under immense pressure due to the existence of chemicals, cement industries, oil and petroleum refineries, ship breaking, and salt industries
in its vicinity (Biswas, 2009). It also faces the challenge of marine debris generated within its boundaries or floating in from elsewhere to varying
degrees. However, scientific databases are lacking information on pollution in MPAs (including GOKMPA), particularly marine debris, and the total
number of publications on the subject is rather sparse. No MPA in India has been taken up earlier for marine debris studies. With GOKMPA being
the first MPA in India and given the global trend of increasing plastic debris in MPAs, it is critical to assess this issue in Indian MPAs. The study is the
first to systematically quantify the extent of plastic pollution and sources of marine debris in India’s MPAs and we selected GOKMPA for the same.
The findings of this study should be used as a starting point for future research and decision-making to reduce future plastic pollution and safeguard
the integrity of the protected area. We aim to answer the following research questions in this study:

1. Check the status of plastic pollution in GOKMPA.

2. Present a comparative scenario of plastic pollution in this protected versus surrounding non-protected marine ecosystems.
3. Identify the potential sources of marine debris into GOKMPA and non-PA.
4. Ascertain the role of tourists, human settlements, and commercial establishments in plastic pollution in and around GOKMPA.
5. Make appropriate recommendations to stakeholders and policymakers for the prevention and control of plastic pollution.

1.1 Study area

Biogeographically, the Gulf of Kachchh Marine National Park and Sanctuary (referred to as the Gulf of Kachchh Marine Protected Area [hereafter
GOKMPA]) is categorized under the West Coast (8A) Biotic Province. The Gulf of Kachchh (lat. 22◦ to 23◦ N and long. 68◦ to 70◦ 30′E) lies between
the Kachchh and Saurashtra peninsulas in the western state of Gujarat, India. From Okha to the inner Gulf, the Gulf of Kachchh (GoK) is 170 km
long and 75 km wide at its entrance, with a water spread area of roughly 7300 km2 and a volume of 220,000 million m3 (Gupta, 2002). The tidal
amplitude fluctuating in GoK ranges from 3 to 8 meters in the north and 3 to 5 meters in the south (Sengupta & Deshmukhe, 2000). Most parts
of the intertidal areas have been declared as Marine National Park (162.89 km2 ) and Marine Sanctuary (457.92 km2 ) in the southern GoK (Kumar
et al., 2017). Areas mentioned under National Park, Sanctuary, Reserve Forests, and unclassified Forests are scattered and do not have a specific
boundary. Thirty-seven islands are covered under the National Park area, while five islands are covered in the sanctuary and the intertidal zone
from Navlakhi to Okha. Geographically, aerial, submerged islands, and reefs make the insular system of the Gulf. The selected study area is a unique
marine ecosystem of conservation significance and comprises various habitats that include sandy beaches, rocky coasts, reefs, mangrove forests,
mudflats, seagrass beds, and a wide intertidal area.

2 METHODS

The islands of GOKMPA are quite remote and difficult to access. It is assumed that due to the nonaccessibility of the islands, the locally littered
plastic pollution may be minimal. However, the transfer and redistribution due to wind, tidal currents, and other climatic conditions cannot be
ignored. Three islands (Figure 1) were selected for this study. Only one island, named Bhaidar Island (BH) within the GOKMPA, could be easily
accessed by boat with the help of a research team and was hence selected for the survey. Two locations were chosen outside the MPA based on the
criterion that they were close to the PA and had a heavy industrial and human footprint. The sites selected outside the MPA were Okha Beach (OB
hereafter), an industrial hub, and Beyt Dwarka (BD), a historical religious city with heavy tourist footfall. OB remains open to the public throughout
the year. The details of survey locations and selection criteria are presented in Table 1. The study was carried out from January to March 2020, and
the survey was replicated every fortnight. The findings presented are based on an average of the results from the number of sites and transects
selected at each island site.
Standing-stock surveys were undertaken based on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) field guide (Opfer et al.,
2012), since the study aimed to gather information on the volume and forms of debris on the shoreline. The selection of sampling/survey stations at
each of these sites was made, taking into account the following criteria:

∙ The sites must be at least 100 meters long to survey a fixed 100-meter stretch.
∙ A low-to-moderate slope and direct access to the sea are required.
∙ At the same sampling site, two to three segments of a 100-meter stretch were observed.
 15309290, 2022, 6, Downloaded from [Link] by University Of Waterloo Dana Porter Library, Wiley Online Library on [18/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions ([Link] on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
BAROTH ET AL . 2083

FIGURE 1 Map depicting study area and sampling locations

TA B L E 1 Survey sites, sampling locations, and selection criteria

Sites, Sampling Locations & Selection Criteria

Bhaidar
Sampling (BH) Okha Beach (OB) Beyt Dwarka (BD)
Locations MPA site Non-PA Site Selection Criteria Non-PA Site Selection Criteria
SL1 – Vyomani Mata Temple Nearest and most Padma Tirth Beach Isolated
visited
*
SL2 – Khodiyar Mata Temple Less visited, far off Invincible NGO Campsite Famous for beach camping
SL3 – – Hanuman Dandi Beach Easily accessible, Tourist site

*Preventing overestimation and sampling bias based on the criteria of distance and visitors.

We could not record seasonal and temporal trends due to a nationwide lockdown in India starting at the end of March 2020 owing to the
COVID-19 pandemic.

2.1 Standing-stock survey

A standing-stock survey gives information on the quantity and type of debris present on the shoreline. During standing-stock surveys, debris within
the random transects selected at the shoreline site is counted. It is a rapid assessment of the total debris load and calculates the density of debris
present (number of items per unit area). Following the steps from the guideline (Opfer et al., 2012), firstly, a 100-meter shoreline was sketched and
further divided into 20 segments of 5 meters each; these sections (left to right) were numbered from 1 to 20. Each 5-meter transect runs from the
water’s edge to the backshore (Figure S1). Four numbers were selected from the Random Number Table (Table S1). The corresponding number in
the table (1−20) was one of the four transects surveyed. This exercise was done four times to choose four random transects, and 20 m of the 100 m
shoreline site was analyzed (i.e., 20% of the area was covered). The readings were taken by walking perpendicular to the survey area to ensure that
 15309290, 2022, 6, Downloaded from [Link] by University Of Waterloo Dana Porter Library, Wiley Online Library on [18/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions ([Link] on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2084 BAROTH ET AL .

the entire shoreline site, or transect, was covered. The distance between walking (perpendicular) lines was approximately 1 meter. Debris items
measuring over 2.5 cm were recorded in the Debris Density Data Sheet, and more oversized debris items bigger than 1 foot were recorded in the
large debris field (column) of the datasheet.
BH (within GOKMPA) is a mangrove island with a thin sandy coastline of approximately 2.61 km stretching from the northeast to the southwest-
ern rim of the island’s shore, above the high tide mark. In the northeast stretch, four transects were laid.
BD (non-PA) is an island situated 3 km off the coast of Okha, Gujarat, and can only be accessed by ferry boats. The total length of the island on the
longer axis is approximately 13 km. The width varies from 300 m to 1800 m. The northern parts of the island are uninhabited, and dense vegetation
was observed there. The eastern part of the island has a sandy coastline of 3.04 km. A total of 12 transects were laid in three sections on BD island.
In the second non-PA OB, the total area available for carrying out the survey was about 1.36 km, and a total of 8 transects were laid out on this
island in two sections.

2.2 Data interpretation

2.2.1 Composition

Datasheets were kept in accordance with NOAA guidelines to record survey findings (Tables S2–S4) in 46 types of debris, which were classified into
7 categories: plastics, metals, glass, rubber, imported timber, clothing, and unclassified products (Opfer et al., 2012). A few changes were made to
the list to accommodate the Indian background. This list was further updated based on local plastic items sold and used in India, such as tobacco
sachets (locally known as Gutka or Pan masala wrappers). The state of the litter, that is, intact, shredded, or fragmented, was recorded at the same
time as the survey. All of the items were classified solely based on visual observation.

2.2.2 Analysis

Quantitative data were analyzed with the help of MS Excel and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS Statistics v.26) software. A descrip-
tive analysis was conducted to obtain the mean, standard error, standard deviation, density, and detection frequency. Plastic debris density was
calculated using the formula:

D = N∕A (1)

where D is the density of plastic debris per square meter, N denotes the number of debris recorded in a transect, and A is the total transect area in
square meters.

Total area (A) = W × L (2)

W = the width (in meters) of the shoreline section measured during sampling and L = length of shoreline sampled (in meters).
Detection frequency was calculated as the relative abundance of debris among the transects selected in different sampling locations as follows:

No. of specific debris in total transects

Detection frequency (DF) = (3)
Total no. of transects

2.2.3 Questionnaire and informal interviews

Informal interviews were conducted with locals, enthusiastic tourists, and members of the fishing community. These interviews aimed to understand
people’s perceptions and attitudes towards the plastic problem and the role of the community in addressing this issue. These interviews aided in
better assessing the ground reality and elucidating the significant causes of plastic pollution in the study area. The questionnaire included both
open-ended and closed-ended questions. The first section of the questionnaire focused on the individual’s demographic variables, such as gender,
age, occupation, and nationality. It included a generalized set of questions for the targeted public and questions tailored to tourists and visitors,
which we designed for this study with the local and regional narrative in mind. During the fieldwork, 41 participants were interviewed, including
20 locals, 15 tourists, and 6 fishers. Each participant type was interviewed only once.
 15309290, 2022, 6, Downloaded from [Link] by University Of Waterloo Dana Porter Library, Wiley Online Library on [18/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions ([Link] on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
BAROTH ET AL . 2085

F I G U R E 2 (a) Marine debris categorization for the selected study sites. (b) Percent contribution of plastic toward marine debris. The
underlying data for this figure can be found in Supporting Information S1

F I G U R E 3 Marine debris categorization for the selected study sites. The underlying data for this figure can be found in Supporting
Information S1

3 RESULTS

3.1 Composition

As shown in Figure 2, the non-PAs recorded more debris as compared to the MPA. The highest debris count was found in BD (non-PA), with
854 items, followed by OB (non-PA), with 397 items, and the lowest debris count was found in BH (MPA), with 88 items. The debris collected at
the three sites was classified into seven types: plastic, rubber, metal, glass, processed lumber, and clothing. Plastic debris was the most abundant
type found across all sites.
It is worth noting that, while the MPA site had the least amount of marine debris of all the sites, it had the highest percentage of plastic items
(Figure 2b).
Plastic debris is subjected to various environmental influences, including ultraviolet radiation, wind, waves, and seawater, resulting in cracking,
surface erosion, abrasion, and fragmentation. Therefore, marine debris found in the study area was mainly in three forms: intact, shredded, and
fragmented. The majority of debris (all categories, including plastics) was intact, followed by shredded and fragmented (Figure 3).
 15309290, 2022, 6, Downloaded from [Link] by University Of Waterloo Dana Porter Library, Wiley Online Library on [18/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions ([Link] on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2086 BAROTH ET AL .

F I G U R E 4 Spider chart showing comparison of plastic debris categories on percent basis. The underlying data for this figure can be found in
Supporting Information S1

TA B L E 2 Debris density comparison (per m2 )

Site Plastic Metal Glass Rubber Processed Lumber Clothing

BH (PA) 0.06 0.001 0.002 – – –
BD (Non-PA) 0.475 0.013 0.013 0.073 0.006 0.01
OB (Non-PA) 0.341 0.007 0.011 0.023 0.016 0.023

The plastic debris was further categorized into different types to determine its origin (Figure 4). Surprisingly, BH (MPA) recorded the highest
percentage of single plastic items (plastic bottles, 33%) among all the plastic items when compared to BD (17%) and OB (6%), both non-PA sites.
In contrast, the percentage of plastic bags (13%) was consistent across all sites. Plastic/rope net pieces were found to be nearly equal, at around
12%. Thermocol was discovered to be evenly distributed at around 9%. Plastic cups (BD, 9; OB, 10%) were only found in non-PAs. Polyurethane
foam fragments were more prevalent in BD, accounting for 8% of the total, compared to 7% in OB and 5% in BH. Despite being uninhabited, BH had
the highest percentage of food wrappers (7%) compared to the others (4%). Also, only BH had some buoys or floats (6%). In addition to these, pan
masala wrappers (OB, 9%; BD, 6%), personal care products (BD, 5%; BH, 4%; OB, 3%), and straws (BD, 5%; OB, 4%; BH 25%) were also recorded.

3.2 Descriptive analysis

3.2.1 Detection frequency

Descriptive analysis (Tables S2–S4) revealed 100% detection frequency (DF) for plastic at all the transects from MPA (BH) as well as non-PA sites
(OB and BD). No rubber, processed lumber, or clothing items were found at the MPA site, hence recorded 0% DF. The non-PA study sites—OB
and BD—had the highest DF (100%) for plastic and the lowest for processed lumber (50% and 25%, respectively). A comparative account of the
detection frequency for the marine debris recorded at all the sites is shown in Figure 5.

3.2.2 Debris density comparison

When compared to the MPA, the non-PAs had the highest debris density (Table 2). BD had the highest plastic density (0.4754/m2 ), followed by
OB (0.3415/m2 ). As a religious destination, BD sees a lot of discarded plastic due to temple offerings that contain a specific type of plastic waste.
 15309290, 2022, 6, Downloaded from [Link] by University Of Waterloo Dana Porter Library, Wiley Online Library on [18/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions ([Link] on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
BAROTH ET AL . 2087

F I G U R E 5 Detection frequency (DF) of marine debris on a comparative basis. The underlying data for this figure can be found in Supporting
Information S1

F I G U R E 6 Top-most plastic items found on the surveyed shorelines of the MPA and non-PAs. The underlying data for this figure can be found
in Supporting Information S1

Furthermore, visitors consume packaged snacks, discarded wrappers, and use disposable plasticware, contributing to the increased density at this
site.
The MPA site—BH—had the lowest density of all three types of debris (Table 2); since the island is uninhabited and several miles away from any
town or factory, it is fair to assume that all litter on this island is generated elsewhere. Despite its remote location, BH island has become a resting
place for plastic debris, demonstrating that humans’ obsession with plastic has far-reaching consequences.

3.2.3 Plastic items with the highest count (PA vs. non-PA)

The most abundant plastic item recorded at the MPA and non-PA sites was determined by analyzing items from highest to lowest count
(Figure 6). The top two counted items at both MPA and non-PA sites were single-use plastic bottles and plastic ropes/fishing net pieces. MPA sites
also recorded buoys/floats that were absent at the non-PA sites. Similarly, pan masala wrappers (a packaging material for flavored tobacco/betel
nut sachets common in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) were found in substantially high quantities at non-PA sites but were completely absent at
the MPA site. Disposable plastic cups were also absent from the MPA. The absence of both pan masala wrappers and disposable plastic cups at MPA
indicates that these items are expected to be recorded at labor/tourist-intensive sites, given that mostly the lower middle class and labor class use
the pan masala as a substitute for smoking and heavily use these tobacco sachets.
 15309290, 2022, 6, Downloaded from [Link] by University Of Waterloo Dana Porter Library, Wiley Online Library on [18/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions ([Link] on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2088 BAROTH ET AL .

F I G U R E 7 Sources of marine debris recorded on the MPA and non-PA. The underlying data for this figure can be found in Supporting
Information S1

Similarly, disposable plastic cups are used at roadside tea stalls (popular tea joints) in most towns and industrial hubs in India. Because of the
lower cost and lack of washing hassle for tea stall owners, this inexpensive and disposable choice is common. However, these items eventually end
up on the roadside or coastline due to improper collection and disposal options.

3.3 Sources

The first step in determining the sources of plastic debris is to identify the industries where these items were previously used. Following the example
of the OSPAR Pilot Project 2007, the potential indicator items for various industries were developed in this study (Veiga et al., 2016). Figure 7
depicts the significant sources of marine debris in the study area. The shoreline and recreational activities generate 66% of marine debris in PA
(indirectly) and 72% in non-PA. Plastic bottles, plastic bags, rubber flip-flops, straws, plastic utensils, plastic cups, plastic bottle/container caps, pan
masala wrappers, food wrappers, and personal care products could be indicators of this source. Such items may be introduced by users who discard
them on the coast or flush them, assisting with passage to marine and coastal ecosystems via wastewater outlets and other such means. Fishing
activities account for 24% and 19% of marine debris in MPAs and non-PAs, respectively. Indicator items include prawn nets, fishing nets, thermocol
fish boxes, fishing line, and trawl floats. Fishers create marine debris when fishing gear is not recovered or when ship-generated trash is discarded.
The residual percentage (MPA, 10%; Non-PA, 9%) is from shipping activities. The debris associated with this source includes the items produced
by any vessel, such as commercial fishing vessels or cruise vessels. Container ships caught in rough seas may occasionally lose the contents of their
containers, which eventually hit the shoreline and become part of the debris. Diesel bottles, jerry cans, bulbs, and gloves/footware dropped or lost
from the ship are among the indicators.

3.4 Questionnaire survey results

According to the poll (Table S5), 88% of people were concerned about plastic pollution. However, only 46% were aware of the amount of plastic
waste generated in the country, and about half of the respondents were ignorant about the effects of plastic pollution on marine life. Around 75%
had witnessed tourists or locals littering the area, while 85% agreed that they did not react when they saw someone littering around the place. Only
about 46% of people showed a willingness to clean the litter around them. The majority of respondents cited a lack of trash cans in the region as a
major issue. More than 85% of the people voted to ban plastic bags, and almost 50% favored carrying their bags for shopping.
Interviews with the fishermen revealed that fishing is the only livelihood option for this community. Plastic litter items such as plastic cups and
plastic bags were always found in their catch along with the marine species. Surprisingly, the amount of plastic caught often exceeded the number
of fish caught in the nets. They also confirmed several bycatch incidents involving endangered species such as green sea turtles and whale sharks.
 15309290, 2022, 6, Downloaded from [Link] by University Of Waterloo Dana Porter Library, Wiley Online Library on [18/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions ([Link] on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
BAROTH ET AL . 2089

4 DISCUSSION

The results confirm that plastics are the most significant component of marine debris in this study. The results also show that most of the debris
could have originated from land-based sources (recreational activities). However, it is difficult to assess the exact geographical, sectoral, and tem-
poral origin of the marine debris as it is composed of various items that can originate from several different activities. For instance, tourists may leave
plastic bottles on beaches or ship-crew may throw them from aboard. Additionally, improper disposal on land may wash plastic bottles into the sea
due to stormy water overflows. Therefore, the OSPAR indicator item list only provides a preliminary indication of which sources are involved (Veiga
et al., 2016). Our study validates the proposition that the levels of plastic pollution exposure in MPAs are just as high as in non-protected sites. In the
case of the protected area study site (BH), a majority of items that were found on the shore (plastic bottles, 33%; plastic bags, 13%; food wrappers,
7%; bottle/container caps, 5%; and personal care products, 5%) are related to the shoreline and recreational activities. Therefore, it is hypothesized
that a portion of the debris counted in the protected area (BH) during the survey could have been transported by wind, waves, and high tides to BH
from adjacent shoreline areas that had not been cleaned, given that it is an uninhabited island. We observed the highest amounts of plastic debris
on the backshore. The further back we walked from the water’s edge, the more debris we [Link] bottles (BD, 115; OB, 20; and BH, 27) had
the highest count, followed by plastic net pieces and plastic bags in all three sites.
The non-PA sites of Okha Beach and Beyt Dwarka are famous for their temples and pir dargahs (shrines of Muslim saints). Every year, hundreds of
people visit this place of worship. They start their pilgrimage from Dwarka, from where they reach Okha by road and finally Beyt Dwarka by boats
and ferries, leaving a lot of disposable plastic waste during the journey. Beyt Dwarka island comprises sandy beaches and reefs in the eastern part.
Many tourists visit these beaches, where they leave behind materials such as food wrappers, water bottles, straws, disposable cups, and utensils
that might become marine debris. Other items include sanitary and personal hygiene and care products that have been improperly discarded. Such
items may be introduced by users who throw them on the beach or flush them, exposing them to the marine and coastal environment via wastewater
outlets and systems. They can also be caused by a lack of waste management on the coast or at sea.
Commercial settlements like temples, shops selling temple offerings, and small eating joints in non-PAs also contribute to plastic pollution as
all the items are packed in plastic bags and given to the pilgrims. Temple offerings, often acknowledged as being sacred, are not thrown into the
dustbins. Most of the waste from religious places is discharged directly into the water bodies without first being segregated into blue (wet and
biodegradable waste) and green (plastic wrappers and non-biodegradable waste).

5 CONCLUSION

Our results confirm that despite a policy and regulatory framework, plastic pollution continues to endanger India’s coastal and marine ecosystems,
similar to other MPAs worldwide. The responsibility for preserving the integrity of these island sites should not be limited to the government or
protected area staff but should extend to the general public, which includes residents, tourists, and fishers. The plastic debris recorded at the study
site is mostly of terrestrial origin (and some marine origin from fishing activities), so a significant portion of the protection steps have to commence
on land. Rivers and canals connected to the sea are the entry points for the debris. The best solution would be to fix the problem at both the stage
of production and disposal. Sewage ducts and canals that open to large streams should have some barrier to prevent the plastics from entering the
sea.
A combination of preventive, mitigation, and curative control is essential to protect the coastline from marine debris, especially plastic. Preven-
tive control would include education, penalties, and bans. To address plastic waste, we must address the most potent root of the problem: Educating
the community. People need to be educated about the negative impacts of plastic on marine life and human health. Education programs for coastal
communities could be initiated at local schools or community centers to educate people on the subject effectively.
Mitigation measures may include replacing plastic nets with biodegradable nets, buy-back programs, and discouraging the use of single-use plas-
tic items such as bottles and bags. The cost of net replacement can be absorbed by the government while ensuring sufficient subsidies to fishers
to invest in such materials to save this pristine and unique habitat. The Republic of Korea’s “Waste Fishing Gear Buy-back project,” which has been
in operation since 2003, intending to collect fishing-related marine debris in exchange for economic incentives (Morishige, 2010), can be easily
replicated and adopted in GoK. Presuming appropriate financing and implementation of this model, it could serve as a great solution. Educating the
fisherman to retrieve the entangled nets from the ecosystem without causing any damage could be of great advantage.
Curative measures could include beach clean-ups and the reuse of discarded plastic items for recreational or other purposes. Because much
marine debris returns to the beach, regular beach clean-ups for non-protected sites can be organized. A popular proposal based on the questionnaire
survey is to place enough trash cans on Beyt Dwarka island and Okha Beach. It is necessary to encourage fishers and the public to take part in the
monitoring and collection of marine debris.
Finally, stricter implementation of existing laws around plastic is essential. The Government of India notified the Plastic Waste Management
(Amendment) Rules in 2018, making EPR, or Extended Producer Responsibility, a critical element. Its fundamental intention was to make the
 15309290, 2022, 6, Downloaded from [Link] by University Of Waterloo Dana Porter Library, Wiley Online Library on [18/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions ([Link] on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2090 BAROTH ET AL .

polluter pay, thereby requiring the manufacturer to install a system to collect their waste within 6 months of passing the original rule in 2016.
However, plastic waste management in the country is grim, and implementation has been poor. Another critical policy proposition seeks to put
a monetary value on plastic carry bags should consumers require them, keeping in mind that the minimum price tag may be ascertained by the
municipal authorities. However, as various state governments set their procedures for enforcing these standards, enforcement is spotty. Despite
the steps that India has taken to regulate plastic production and waste management, further strict enforcement in states will help to reduce plastic
pollution in the marine environment. The country has decided to put a complete ban on single-use plastics effective from July 1, 2022. However,
clear guidelines on enforcement, alternatives to plastics, and waste segregation across the country are still unclear, and that may be detrimental to
the greater success of the ban.
Scientific research, such as this study and the studies on the fate and effects of marine litter, can be used to support measures to address the
problem, which can be tailored to the local situation. It is critical to identify high-risk hotspots for plastic litter and monitor the measures targeted
primarily at these hotspots. Based on the trends from this study, the government can come up with policies aimed at extending solutions to moving to
a circular economy, which involves targets for waste reduction and more sustainable production and consumption patterns. Promoting plastic solid
waste-management strategies such as recycling, reuse, or upcycling, extended producer responsibility, and redesigning products could be encour-
aged. Additionally, recycling options can be made to vary in accordance with the quality of waste (Huysman et al., 2017), and optimization of waste
streams using performance indicators may be deemed a viable option (e.g., insufficiency in quality may entail energy recovery using incineration).
Our study provides baseline data on the status of plastic pollution in India’s first MPA and its comparison with non-protected sites. It confirms
that plastic pollution exists in protected areas. However, the island has benefited from the protection, as evidenced by the lower number of items
and density of debris on the protected island compared to the non-protected islands. As a result, it is undeniable that designating coastal areas as
protected areas aids in the reduction of plastic waste while also conserving habitat and biodiversity. However, the assumption that MPAs will be
protected from plastic pollution is only temporary since this notion could change due to waste mismanagement in both MPAs as well as surrounding
non-PAs.
This is the first study from an MPA of India. It is based on a one-time survey (due to the nationwide lockdown owing to the COVID-19 pandemic),
and the results presented reflect a synoptic image. The study could not capture the seasonal variations that could exist. Therefore, we believe that
plastic pollution in these areas is much larger than what is captured in this study. A comprehensive and long-term study is recommended to provide
a complete and realistic picture of plastic pollution and seasonal variations in its load. Studies, including the current research, will help stakeholders
and policymakers formulate appropriate strategies for managing and conserving marine habitats.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We acknowledge the support of the Director and the Dean, Wildlife Institute of India. We thank Mr. Amir Lone, GIS/IT Specialist, ENVIS-RP, WII for
compiling the GIS maps and Mr. Siddhant Baroth, PES University, Bangalore, for language editing and review.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Data available on request from the authors – The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon
reasonable request.

ORCID
Anju Baroth [Link]
Kuppusamy Sivakumar [Link]

REFERENCES
Alexiadou, P., Foskolos, I., & Frantzis, A. (2019). Ingestion of macroplastics by odontocetes of the Greek Seas, Eastern Mediterranean: Often deadly! Marine
Pollution Bulletin, 146, 67–75. [Link]
Barnes, D. K. A., Galgani, F., Thompson, R. C., & Barlaz, M. (2009). Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1526), 1985–1998. [Link]
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. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 142, 189–195. [Link]
Biswas, N. (2009). The Gulf of Kutch Marine National Park and Sanctuary: A case study (pp. 1–39). International Collective in Support of Fishworkers.
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., Possingham,
H. P., de Frond, H., Gerber, L. R., Polidoro, B., Tahir, A., Bernard, M., Mallos, N., Barnes, M., & Rochman, C. M. (2020). Predicted growth in plastic waste
exceeds efforts to mitigate plastic pollution. Science, 369(6510), 1515. [Link]
Dudley, N. (2008). Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 21, Gland Switzerland:
[Link], [Link]
 15309290, 2022, 6, Downloaded from [Link] by University Of Waterloo Dana Porter Library, Wiley Online Library on [18/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions ([Link] on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
BAROTH ET AL . 2091

Duncan, E. M., Botterell, Z., Broderick, A. C., Galloway, T. S., Lindeque, P. K., Nuno, A., & Godley, B. J. (2017). A global review of marine turtle entanglement in
anthropogenic debris: A baseline for further action. Endangered Species Research, 34, 431–448. [Link]
Galgani, F., Hanke, G., & Maes, T. (2015). Global distribution, composition and abundance of marine litter. In M. Bergmann, L. Gutow, & M. Klages (Eds.), Marine
anthropogenic litter (pp. 29–56). Springer International Publishing. [Link]
Galgani, F., Hanke, G., Werner, S., & De Vrees, L. (2013). Marine litter within the European marine strategy framework directive. ICES Journal of Marine Science,
70(6), 1055–1064.
Gall, S. C., & Thompson, R. C. (2015). The impact of debris on marine life. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 92(1-2), 170–179.
GESAMP. (2016). Sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the marine environment: Part two of a global assessment. In P. J. Kershaw, & C. M. Rochman
(Eds.), IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection. Rep.
Stud. GESAMP No. 93, 220 p.
Geyer, R., Jambeck, J. R., & Law, K. L. (2017). Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science Advances, 3(7), e1700782. [Link]
sciadv.1700782
Gregory, M. R. (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: Biological Sciences, 364(1526), 2013–2025. [Link]
Gupta, G. V. M. (2002). Geographical Information System for Gulf of Kachchh. Developed by Department of Ocean Development, Integrated Coastal and
Marine Area Management (ICMAM), Project Directorate, Chennai. [Link]
Huysman, S., De Schaepmeester, J., Ragaert, K., Dewulf, J. O., & De Meester, S. (2017). Performance indicators for a circular economy: A case study on post-
industrial plastic waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 120, [Link]
Jambeck, J. R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T. R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., Narayan, R., & Law, K. L. (2015). Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean,
Science, 347(6223), 768–771. [Link]
Kumar, M., Magotra, R., Parikh, J., & Rajawat, A. S. (2017). Changing landscape of Marine National Park and Sanctuary, Gulf of Kachchh: Ecological assessment
of mangroves and coral reefs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences India Section A—Physical Sciences, 87(4), 889–900. [Link]
s40010-017-0457-3
Lusher, A. L., Tirelli, V., O’connor, I., & Officer, R. (2015). Microplastics in Arctic polar waters: The first reported values of particles in surface and sub-surface
samples. Scientific Reports, 5, 14947. [Link]
Mira Veiga, J., Fleet, D., Kinsey, S., Nilsson, P., Vlachogianni, T., Werner, S., Galgani, F., Thompson, R. C., Dagevos, J., Gago, J., Sobral, P., & Cronin, R. (2016).
Identifying sources of marine litter. MSFD GES TG Marine Litter Thematic Report; JRC Technical Report; EUR 28309. [Link]
Morishige, C. (Ed.). (2010). Marine debris prevention projects and activities in the Republic of Korea and United States: A compilation of project summary reports.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS-OR&R-36.
Nelms, S. E., Barnett, J., Brownlow, A., Davison, N. J., Deaville, R., Galloway, T. S., Lindeque, P. K., Santillo, D., & Godley, B. J. (2019). Microplastics in marine
mammals stranded around the British coast: Ubiquitous but transitory? Science Reports, 9, 1075. [Link]
Nelms, S. E., Eyles, L., Godley, B. J., Richardson, P. B., Selley, H., Solandt, J.-L., & Witt, M. J. (2020). Investigating the distribution and regional occurrence of
anthropogenic litter in English marine protected areas using 25 years of citizen-science beach clean data. Environmental Pollution, 263, 114365. https:
//[Link]/10.1016/[Link].2020.114365
Opfer, S., Arthur, C., & Lippiatt, S. (2012). NOAA marine debris shoreline survey field guide. NOAA Marine Debris Program.
Ryan, P. G. (2018). Entanglement of birds in plastics and other synthetic materials. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 135, 159–164.
Ryan, P. G., Moore, C. J., Van Franeker, J. A., & 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), 1999–2012. [Link]
Schulz, M., Clemens, T., Förster, H., Harder, T., Fleet, D., Gaus, S., Grave, C., Flegel, I., Schrey, E., & Hartwig, E. (2015). Statistical analyses of the results of 25
years of beach litter surveys on the south-eastern North Sea coast. Marine Environment Research, 109, 21–27. [Link]
04.007
Sengupta, R., & Deshmukhe, G. (2000). The Gulf of Kachchh (Kutch) and threats to its critical habitats. Journal of Indian Ocean Studies, 7(2&3), 201–221.
Sheavly, S. B., & Register, K. M. (2007). Marine debris and plastics: Environmental concerns, sources, impacts and solutions. Journal of Polymers and the Envi-
ronment, 15(4), 301–305. [Link]
Sivakumar, K. (2013). Coastal and marine biodiversity protected areas in India: Challenges and way forward. In Ecology and conservation of tropical marine
faunal communities (pp. 463–476). Springer. [Link]
Tanaka, K., Takada, H., Yamashita, R., Mizukawa, K., Fukuwaka, M.-A., & Watanuki, Y. (2013). Accumulation of plastic-derived chemicals in tissues of seabirds
ingesting marine plastics. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 69, [Link]
Thakur, J. (2019). Wildlife hit as plastic finds way into parks, reserves. Hindustan Times, Kolkata Edition. [Link]
colleges-open-students-stay-away/[Link]
UNEP. (2016). Marine plastic debris: Global lessons and research to inspire action. UNEP.
UNEP. (2018). Single-use plastics: A roadmap for sustainability. UNEP.
Watts, A. J. R., Porter, A., Hembrow, N., Sharpe, J., Galloway, T. S., & Lewis, C. (2017). Through the sands of time: Beach litter trends from nine cleaned North
Cornish beaches. Environmental Pollution, 228, 416–424. [Link]

SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of the article at the publisher’s website.

How to cite this article: Baroth, A., Mamgain, S., Sivakumar, K., Hatkar, P. S., & Pathan, S. (2022). Role of protected area in reducing marine
and plastic litter: A case study from India’s first Marine Protected Area and comparison with Non-Protected Areas. Journal of Industrial
Ecology, 26, 2080–2091. [Link]