Page - 215 - in Freshwater Microplastics - Emerging Environmental Contaminants?

of the CS development within the field of plastic pollutionmonitoring. Firstly, it serves as an example of how new (mobile) technology enables a systematic gathering of CS-collected data, in accordance with [4] drivers to expansion of CS. Secondly, it illustrates how collaboration between scientist, citizens, and NGOs results in efficient, high-quality data collection andmonitoring programs. The quality of data is exactly one of the aspects that have been highlighted as a potential problemwithCS-drivendata collections [49]. It is therefore important to validate data collectedunderCSbeachcleanupprograms, if theyare subsequently used inmonitoringprograms.Lavers et al. [55] found that detectionofbeach litter varied from60 to 100%across various types of plastic. The authors further found variation among different observers, depending on observer experience and bio- logicalmaterial present on thebeach that couldbe confusedwith plastic [55].The authors found that the color of the plastic debriswas an important parameter,with blue fragmentshaving thehighestdetectionprobability,whilewhite fragmentshad the lowest. In2005“InternationalPelletWatch” (IPW)was launchedbyProf.Takada from TokyoUniversity [56]. The aimof the programwas to collectmonitoring data on POPs adhered to plastic pellets. The program (which can be characterized as a voluntary citizen science program) has participants in more than 50 countries [56]. Yeo et al. [57] describe how the implementation of the IPW program in Australia andNewZealand has been used to collect data. The authors found that the science communication part of the IPWprogramwas so effective that it could beused togenerate awarenessof bothplastic debris andPOPs.These two typesof pollution are interconnected to someextent, sincePOPs tend to adsorb strongly to plastic debris,makingplastic debris a potential vector for environmental transport of POPs [58] (also discussed by [59, 60]). Since plastic pollution is often visible (especially for meso- and macroplastic), the environmental risk is more readily perceived than risk fromhazardous chemicals such as POPs. The visibility gener- ates a higher awareness of the problem than for less visible problems, leading to significant involvement in CS projects, and possibly policy measures as those described above for Rwanda. Furthermore it can also be used to increase the awareness and improve the risk perception or other less visible, but equally problematic, environmental problems, such as the contaminationofPOPs [57]. Due to theexpandingdataavailable frombeachcleanupprograms, scientistsare nowusingthesedata toevaluate theecological importanceofplasticdebris.Wilcox et al. [61] used expert elicitation to score impact from different types of plastic marine debris. In order to do so, those authors conducted the threat assessment by focusing on themost common types of litter found along the world’s coastlines, basedondatagatheredduring threedecadesof internationalcoastal cleanupefforts [61]. The authors argued that the approach opened opportunities both for policy- based and consumer-driven changes in plastics, by focusing effort on the plastic debriswith thehighestdemonstrable impactonecologically important taxaserving as indicators ofmarine ecosystemhealth [61]. RiskPerceptionofPlastic Pollution: Importance ofStakeholder Involvement. . . 215