How does shoreline litter density compare between Switzerland, England, Portugal Denmark and Belgium ? Analysis of 210 beach litter surveys from six countries.

1. Found on the beach: Lac Léman 2015 - 2016
A comparison of marine
and freshwater litter
densities
(beach-litter-density)ln

2. Table of contents
Introduction
Situation map
Beach litter survey results for Lac Léman
Density and composition
Transport methods
Results from other organisations and student groups
Density distribution OSPAR and Lac Léman
Density and composition OSPAR and Lac Léman
Discussion and Conclusion
Limitations and recomendations
Links to references and supporting documents
• OSPAR: Oslo - Paris convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-
East Atlantic. The convention has been signed and ratified by Switzerland.
• MLW: Marine Litter Watch combines citizen engagement and modern technology to help
tackle marine litter.
• MSFD: Marine Strategy Framework Directive aims to achieve Good Environmental Status
(GES) of the EU’s marine waters by 2020 and to protect the resource base upon which ma-
rine-related economic and social activities depend.
• Beach litter survey: a uniform way of monitoring shoreline litter. Litter is removed from
the shoreline, categorized according to a standardized list and counted. The length and loca-
tion of the shoreline are noted.
• Standard unit: one meter of shoreline.
• Density: pieces of trash per meter of shoreline
• pcs/m: pieces of trash per meter of shoreline
• hammerdirt: The association that started the MCBP series of projects
• MCBP: Montreux Clean Beach Project, a series of hammerdirt projects that removes, identi-
fies and quantifies aquatic pollutants.
• Lac Léman: Lake Geneva
• Log-normal: A probability distribution of a random variable whose logarithm is normally
distributed.
Useful acronyms and definitions:
Marine litter starts upstream,
that’s where it needs to end.
hammerdirt 2017
For a description of the
method, analysis of the survey
results for Lac Léman and
the bibliography. Please see
annexb.
Includes:
• History of MCBP
• Other Organizations
• Legal frame work
• Method
• Detailed map
• In depth analysis
• Regression results
• Works cited
Opens separate document

3. Purpose: identify and quantify
the visible pollutants present
on the shores of Lac Léman and
compare those results to exist-
ing data sets from other regions
in europe.
Objective: advance the concept
of “shoreline litter density” as
a metric or module in the ap-
preciation of Swiss lakes and to
identify key opportunities for
anti-litter campaigns and infra-
structure improvements.
Conflict of interest: hammerdirt
has received no financial assis-
tance from any agency, institu-
tion or individual for this project.
Shoreline litter density on Lac Léman: A litter density comparison between
the shores of Lac Léman and the coasts of France, Denmark, England, Portugal and
Belgium.
Authors:
Erismann, Roger
Erismann, Shannon
info@hammerdirt.ch
October 2016: Sorting beach litter debris from St Sulpice with students from the EPFL
Beach litter surveys were conducted at various lo-
cations on Lac Léman , Switzerland from November 2015 to
November 2016. The hammerdirt association used the Marine
Litter Watch (MLW) classification system to categorize over
30’000 items identified in 89 beach litter surveys from 17 loca-
tions.
Only surveys with a minimum shoreline length of 5 meters and
situated directly on the lake-shore were kept for analysis. The
resulting eighty samples and 27’790 pieces of trash were con-
verted to units of “pieces of trash per meter” (pcs/m). The total
density and density of key items for each location on the lake-
shore was calculated and compared. Similarities were noted in
the relative proportions of certain key items at all locations.
The total density and densities of the most common items were
regressed against Rhone discharge rates, precipitation rates
and days-between-surveys. Statistically significant results were
found for total density, Q-tips and plastic-construction-material
when the 72hour Rhone discharge rate was considered.(annex
b has the full analysis)
OSPAR and MLW are the most well known marine debris da-
tabases in Europe. Designed as a tool to measure the load of
marine debris in coastal environments both programs are mon-
itored by intergovernmental organizations and are based on
simple protocols. MCBP2 was based on theses two programs.
Sorted by location and density, the results from Lac Léman
were compared to MLW results for 2016 and 130 OSPAR sur-
veys from France, England, Denmark, Portugal and Belgium.
The regions and countries were chosen at random. Similarities
between the three sample groups were noted in both the distri-
bution of total density and percent composition of key items.
Two case studies are presented that propose the use of
beach-litter survey data to define the problem on a local level
and identify the root cause of changes in beach-litter density.
Usage: Anybody who wants to
know more about aquatic-litter
and how they can help stop it.
“Marine litter (marine debris) is any persistent, manufactured or processed
solid material discarded, disposed of, abandoned or lost in the marine and
coastal environment. This also includes such items entering the marine envi-
ronment via rivers, sewage outlets, storm water outlets or winds.”
OSPAR guidelines 2010
“The greatest sources of marine litter are land-based activities,
including waste from dumping sites near the coast or up-
stream along river-banks…”
United Nations Environmental Program

4. © swisstopo
www.geo.admin.ch est un portail d'accès aux informations géolocalisées, données et services qui sont mis à disposition par l'administration fédérale
Responsabilité: Malgré la grande attention qu’elles portent à la justesse des informations diffusées sur ce site, les autorités fédérales ne peuvent endosser aucune responsabilité quant à la fidélité, à l’exactitude, à
l’actualité, à la fiabilité et à l’intégralité de ces informations. Droits d'auteur: autorités de la Confédération suisse. http://www.disclaimer.admin.ch/informations_juridiques.html
6km420
Echelle 1: 300,000
Imprimé le 10.10.2016 19:46
https://s.geo.admin.ch/6edb0e8211
1
2
3
4
5 6
78
910
11
12
13
14
15
Beach litter surveys Lac Léman
Nov 2015 - Nov 2016
Boiron
• # of surveys: 1
• # of pieces: 402
• Average density: 3.27
• # of MLW categories: 32
• Length: 123m
Thonon-les-Bains
• # of surveys: 1
• # of pieces: 194
• Average density: 4.04
• # of MLW categories: 34
• Length: 48
Villa Barton
• # of surveys: 9
• Total number of pieces: 1’231
• Average density: 9.77
• #of MLW categories: 51
• Length: 14m
Jardin Botanique
• # of surveys: 3
• # of pieces: 1’659
• Average density: 8.64
• # of MLW categories: 53
• Length 64m
Versoix
• # of surveys: 1
• # of pieces: 1’490
• Average density: 10.41
• Length: 143m
1 2 3 4
15 Baye de Montreux droite
• # of surveys: 15
• # of pieces: 5’077
• Average density: 5.45
• Density max: 14.49
• Density min: 1.56
• # of MLW categories: 64
• Length: 61
Baye de Clarens
• # of surveys:13
• Total number of pieces: 2’968
• Average density: 3.31
• Density max: 8.41
• Density min: 0.68
• # of MLW categories: 67
• Length: 69m
Baye de Montreux gauche
• # of surveys: 11
• # of pieces: 3’098
• Average density: 4.62
• Density max: 8.38
• Density min: 1.23
• # of MLW categories: 67
• Length: 61
Pierrier sud
• # of surveys: 1
• Total number of pieces: 633
• Average density: 39.56
• # of MLW categories: 28
• Length: 16
Pierrier
• # of surveys: 3
• # of pieces: 2’697
• Average density: 17.63
• Density max: 26.78
• Density min: 11.31
• # of MLW categories: 60
• Length: 51
Veveyse
• # of surveys: 13
• # of pieces: 2’345
• Average density: 3.40
• Density max: 5.8
• Denisty min: 0.98
• # of MLW categories: 67
• Length: 53m
Maladaire
• # of surveys: 2
• #of pieces: 1’437
• Average density: 11.975
• Density max : 12.21
• Density min: 11.73
• # of MLW categories: 46
• Length: 60
Bain des Dames
• # of surveys: 1
• # of pieces: 594
• Average density: 34.94
• # of MLW categories: 33
• Length: 17m
Oyonne
• # of surveys: 1
• # of pieces: 717
• Average density: 22.41
• # of MLW categories: 44
• Length: 32m
Port, La Tour-de-Peilz
• # of surveys: 1
• # of pieces: 570
• Average density: 33.52
• # of MLW categories: 26
• Length: 17
Arabie
• # of surveys: 3
• # of pieces: 3’154
• Average density: 26.28
• # of MLW categories: 55
• Length: 40m
St. Gingolph
• # of surveys: 1
• # of pieces: 1’159
• Average density: 41.39
• # of MLW categories: 58
• Length : 28
Vidy
• # of surveys: 1
• # of pieces: 55
• Average density: 6.88
• # of MLW categories: 16
• Length: 8m
St Sulpice
• # of surveys: 2
• # of pieces: 2’ 721
• Average density: 21.3
• # of MLW categories: 35
• Length: 72
5 6 7 8
1313
12
12
11
9
10
12
10
14
Survey Locations
The majority of the beach
litter surveys come from
the Vevey-Montreux area,
home to the hammerdirt
association. The Baye
de Clarens, the Baye de
Montreux and the Veveyse
were surveyed 52 times
during MCBP2.
Geographically the region
of Vevey-Montreux has
multiple pressures in re-
gard to aquatic litter:
• The mouth of the
Rhone is only 6km away
• The Stockalper and Eau
Froide canals empty
into the lake
• Three rivers that cross
urban and semi-urban
landscapes
• Densely populated
The locations outside of
the Vevey-Montreux area
were chosen based on
availability or by request
from other groups, like St
Sulpice or St Gingolph.

5. 21%: Expanded polystyrene
20.7%: Cigarette butts
12.4%: Plastic fragments
6.1%: Snack wrappers
4.5%: Cotton swabs
Plastic sheeting and films: 4.3%
2.7%: Broken glass
Plastic caps from drinks: 2.1%
1.80%: Paper fragments
Waste from construction: 1.8%
1.5%: Shotgun cartridges
Metal bottle caps: 1.5%
1.1%: Pieces of metal < 50cm
Plastic rings from bottle caps: 1.3%
1.4%: Plastic lids - type unknown:
14.7%: Everything else
Drinking straws - drink stirrers : 1.1%
Chart 1 displays the 16 MLW
categories that are equal to 1%
or more of the total number of
objects found during MCBP2.
16 categories
=
85% of total
Expanded polystyrene and ciga-
rette butts are present in almost
equal values, together these two
objects represent 42% of the
litter on the shoreline.
Chart 1: Percent composition of Lac Léman beach litter by
MLW categories. All items that are equal to or greater than
1% of the total quantity. n = 27’790 items collected
Like the ocean, the debris on the shoreline of the lake
is mostly plastic. Chart 1 displays the percentage
composition of all the objects found during MCBP2,
objects that were greater than or equal to 1% of the total
(27’790) were singled out.
Table 1 summarizes the material composition of the
debris removed from the Lac Léman shoreline and the
current MLW results for 2016. Although 88% of the total
is plastic, there are many varieties of plastic included in
that group, ranging from candy wrappers to shotgun
shells (see chart 1).
There are 16 MLW categories that comprise 85% of the
total debris found on the lake-shore (chart 1). The most
common categories identified during the MCBP2 surveys
are also among the most common items in the 2016
results from Marine Litter Watch
Chart two compares the percent composition of ten key
items in the MLW results and the MCBP2 results. The
same items occupy a greater percentage of the total in
the MCBP2 results. (chart 2)
Table 1: Material composition of
beach litter surveys Lac Léman /
Marine Litter Watch.
LacLéman
MLW
Plastic 88.1% 91.3%
Metal 4.3% 3.6%
Glass 2.9% 2.0%
Paper 2.9% 0.1%
Rubber 0.7% 0.3%
Wood 0.5% 0.5%
Cloth tex-
tile
0.2% 2.6%
Parafin 0.1% N/A
MCBP2
Beach litter
survey results
Beach litter
composition
Expanded polystyrene
Cigarette butts
Plastic Fragments
Snack Wrappers
Cotton swabs
Broken glass
Plastic caps from drinks
Shotgun cartridge
Pieces of metal < 50cm
Drinking straws and stirrers
Everything else 20%
0%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Lac Léman:
MCBP2 beach
litter survey
results.
Marine Litter
Watch: beach
litter survey
results 2016.
Chart 2: Beach litter composition:
MCBP2 and MLW 2016 results.
88% plastic

6. St.Gingolph
PierrierSud
BaindesDames
LePort,LaTour-de-Peilz
Arabie
Oyonne
Pierrier
Maladaire
VillaBarton
JardinBotanique
Vidy
Montreuxdroite
Montreuxgauche
Thonon
Veveyse
BayedeClarens
Boiron
Density and
Composition
MCBP2
Piecesoftrashpermeterofshoreline,LacLémanNov2015-Sep2016-n=80
Expanded polystyrene
Cigarette butts
Plastic Fragments
Snack Wrappers
Cotton swabs
Plastic sheeting and films
Broken glass
Plastic caps from drinks
Paper fragments
Construction waste
Shotgun cartridge
Metal bottle caps
Platic lids - type unknown
Plastic rings from caps
Pieces of metal < 50cm
Drinking straws and stirrers
Everything else
Weighted average of density:
8.44 pcs/m
Density range :
0.68 - 50.1 pcs/m
Density distribution :
• 70% of density values between
2.18 - 13.48 pcs/m
• Log-normal distribution where
μ= 1.689, σ = 0.912
Chart 3: average density of beach litter and top 16
items by location in descending order of density.
n=80 surveys and 17 locations
Expanded polystyrene Cigarette butts
Plastic Fragments Snack Wrappers
Cotton swabs
Plastic sheeting and films Broken glass
Plastic caps from drinks
Paper fragments
Construction waste
Shotgun cartridge Metal bottle caps
Platic lids - type unknown
Plastic rings from caps
Pieces of metal < 50cm
Drinking straws and stirrers
47%
Likely transported to the
location by wind, rain or lake
currents : Expanded polystyrene Cigarette butts
Plastic Fragments Snack Wrappers
Cotton swabs
Plastic sheeting and films Broken glass
Plastic caps from drinks
Paper fragments
Construction waste
Shotgun cartridge Metal bottle caps
Platic lids - type unknown
Plastic rings from caps
Pieces of metal < 50cm
Drinking straws and stirrers
35%
Likeley left by visitors:
20%
60%
80%
100%
40%
Chart 4: percent composition of beach litter at each location, Lac Léman 2015-2016
The average density and composition of the
beach litter for all locations is presented in
chart 3. Using chart 1 as a model, the same
filter was applied to the results for each
location. Even at smaller density values the
relationship of the key items to total density
remains within a certain range.
Chart 4 compares the percent composition
of objects between all survey locations.
Although the densities of individual items
varies per location, the category “everything
else” stays within a fairly small range.
0510152025303540
St.Gingolph
PierrierSud
BaindesDames
LePort,LaTour-de-Peilz
Arabie
Oyonne
Pierrier
Maladaire
VillaBarton
JardinBotanique
Vidy
Montreuxdroite
Montreuxgauche
Thonon
Veveyse
BayedeClarens
Boiron
0%

7. 191 pieces or 0.01% of total.
Bio filters
Bio filters are used in the
water treatment process. They
arrived in two waves first from
the Rhone in 2012 (round
type) and then from St Prex
in 2013 (square type). Iden-
tified in 41 out of 80 surveys,
the Oyonne is the only loca-
tion where no Bio filters were
identified.
Read the full report from the
local chapter of Surfrider Foun-
dation.
Plastic-pellets / GPI
Found at all locations, dark
blue is the common color.
Plastic resin pellets are the
raw material for the fabrica-
tion of plastic articles. Pellets
range from barrel shaped to
disc shaped and measure 2 to
5mm.
Identified as a transport me-
dium of toxic chemicals in the
marine environment by In-
ternational Pellet Watch. GPI
accumulate chemicals such as
PCB, DDT and Nonylphenol.
http://www.pelletwatch.org/
1260 pieces or 4.5% of total.
Cotton swabs
Cotton-swabs are found at all
locations, the maximum is 6.75
pcs/m (Pierrier Sud). Cotton
swabs are a global problem and
are found on beaches all over
Europe.
Water treatment plants are not
designed for this type of ma-
terial, thus cotton swabs are
released into the environment
on a regular basis.
1’214 pieces or 4.34% of total.
Plastic film is found through-
out the lake in various states
of decomposition. The most
common type found is a heavy
gauge plastic similar to the
sheeting used to protect objects
out of doors from the elements.
5’876 pieces or 20.9% of total.
The most common item found
on the lake-shore. Used in the
construction, manufacturing and
packaging industries, EP quickly
fragments into pieces 1-2mm in
diameter.
433 pieces or 1.5% of total.
Shotgun wadding is found on
the beach all over the globe,
Plastic sheeting and films Shotgun shellsExpanded polystyrene (Ep)
0
15
20
25 35
40
45
50
55
Boiron
JardinBotanique
StGingolph
StSulpice
Arabie
Thonnon
BayedeClarens
VillaBarton
Maladaire
BayedeClarens
Veveyse
Montreuxgauche
Montreuxdroite
Pierrier
AnthysurLeman
BaindesDames
Allaman
Oyonne
Versoix
10
5
30
Vidy
LePort,LaTour
Litter survey results from other organizations
Chart 5: Maximum density per location Lac Léman - comparison of MCBP2 results
with results from other associations and student groups in the region.
Sol à Tous
Surfrider Lac Léman
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale
International School of Geneva
November 2015 - November 2016
n=87, unts = pieces/meter of shoreline.
There are two other associations that do
beach-litter surveys on the lake : Surfrider
Léman and Sol à tous. They do not share
the data with other organizations, however
the total pieces collected per survey are
posted on social media.
Students from the “Solid Waste Engineering” class
at the EPFL and elementary school students from
the international school of Geneva, assisted by
hammerdirt staff, completed beach litter surveys in
St. Sulpice and Versoix. (Annex B for details)
Chart five puts the results from these surveys in
relation to the results from MCBP2
Rhone
discharge
rate
=
m
3 /sec
Density of trash
on
the
beach
Num
ber of Q-tips on
the
beach
Transport methods A large portion of
beach-litter is transported
to the location where it is
found.
The Rhone and tributar-
ies are the main water
sources for the lake and
increases in the discharge
rate of the Rhone corre-
sponds with trash density
increases in the Montreux
region. See Annex B.
Pieces per meter of shoreline
MCBP2
Items in Lac Léman that are found along European shores

8. Beach litter survey results
from other countries
Distribution of density values :
OSPAR and MCBP2
Like the MCBP2, OSPAR data is collected under
similar conditions and by similar groups of people:
volunteers actively engaged in monitoring shore-
line litter and following a protocol.
2015 marine litter survey results from the United
Kingdom, France, Belgium, Denmark and Portugal
were compared to the results from the MCBP2.
Chosen randomly, the OSPAR 100m survey results
from those five countries represent 130 surveys
from 38 different locations. The greatest concen-
tration of surveys comes from the United Kingdom
and Portugal.
The summary data for the two sample sets can be
found in table two.
MCBP was modified from the OSPAR proto-
col in three very specific ways:
1. Objects are categorized according to
MLW categories
The MLW categorization system is more de-
tailed than OSPAR, for example in the MLW
system plastic lids are separated into three
categories instead of one for OSPAR. This
does not effect the total number of pieces
per length of shoreline and permits a more
thorough analysis of root causes and origin
of beach litter debris.
2. The minimum shoreline value is 5m
The recommended minimum shoreline
value in OSPAR is 100m of sandy or grav-
el beaches. On Lac Léman there are few
beaches that are 100m or greater, in order
to increase the amount of surveys and va-
riety of locations the minimum length was
adjusted to the topography of the region.
MCBP2 OSPAR
27’790 # of pieces 74’155
80 # of surveys 132
17 # of locations 38
8.44
Density weighted
average (location) 6.89
8.46
Density non
weighted average 6.03
50.10 Maximum density 89.31
0.68 Minimum density 0.02
17.5 90th percentile 15.81 -5 -3 -1 1 3 5
OSPAR : µ=
0.833,σ=1.494
MCBP2:µ=1.689,σ=0.91
Frequencyofresults
FrequencyofresultsFrequencyofresults
ln(density)
Chart 8: probability density function
of ln(density) OSPAR/MCBP2
OSPAR surveys n=130, lac Léman surveys n=80
Table 2:
Key figures MCBP2/OSPAR
The MCBP2 data can be down-
loaded from here.
The OSPAR data can be down-
loaded from here:
For a complete list of survey loca-
tions and dates see annex a
3. The standard unit is one meter of shoreline
For OSPAR surveys the standard unit is 100m of
shoreline because the minimum length is 100m.
The variety of shoreline lengths in MCBP2 requires a
smaller standard unit (to incorporate surveys of less
than 100m).
Converting OSPAR densities from values per 100m
to 1m is straight forward and allows a direct com-
parison of the distribution of values from MCBP2.
The histgrams of both distributions are positively
skewed, chart 6 and 7.
The distribution of beach-litter density values is
log-normal for both sample sets (MCBP2 and
OSPAR). This property is typical for many types of
data, including environmental data.
Once the natural logarithm of the density values for
both sample sets is taken and the Probability Den-
sity Function (PDF) is graphed, chart 8, the relation-
ship between the two sample sets is more evident.
The Z-test of sample means, greater than 5, con-
firms the difference between the OSPAR samples
and the MCBP2 samples. This result holds true
wether the natural log is used or the the geomtric
mean.
(0.68,8.58]
(48.08,55.98]
(32.28,40.18]
(40.18,48.08]
(24.38,32.28]
(16.48,24.38]
(8.58,16.48]
0
20
40
60
100
120
80
[0.02,7.92]
(86.92,94.82]
(79.02,86.92]
(71.12,79.02]
(63.22,71.12]
(55.32,63.22]
0
40
60
100
120
80
(7.92,15.82]
(15.82,23.72]
(23.72,31.62]
(31.62,39.52]
(39.52,47.42]
(47.42,55.32]
20
Chart 6:
Histogram of
density values
MCBP2, n=80
Density : pieces/meter
Density : pieces/meter
Chart 7:
Histogram of
density values
OSPAR, n=130
μ*= 5.42
σ*= 2.49
μ*= 2.3
σ*= 4.45

9. Discussion: The data presented is a comparison of samples taken by volunteers in six
countries in Europe. The volunteers were all trained, either as part of the OSPAR program or as
a member of the hammerdirt association. The notable difference between the sample sets is the
absence of commercial fishing gear and other nautical equipment in the Lac Léman surveys, these
items are identified regularly in the OSPAR and MLW surveys.
The density distributions are both positively skewed and log-normal. This type of
distribution is common with data that has a minimum value of zero (no negative densities), low
average values and large variance. The histograms of both the OSPAR and MCBP2 sample sets
display these characteristics. The distribution of values from the MCBP2 are within the range of
the OSPAR data both in total density and density of key components.
The results from other groups on the lake following the OSPAR protocol produce values that are
within the distribution of the MCBP2 results (and by default within the OSPAR distribution). When
using the hammerdirt protocol elementary school and university students also reported values that
are within the distribution of MCBP2 results.
The composition of Lac Léman trash can be characterized by the relative proportions of 16
key items. The key items from Lac Léman have a greater proportion of total density than the same
items from the MLW or OSPAR surveys.
According to the report published by the EPFL in 2014 there is a higher
density of suspended micro-plastics in the lake when compared to the ocean. These particles
likely come from the fragmentation of larger objects primarily expanded polystyrene (Styrofoam)
and plastic wrapping. The findings from MCBP2 confirm both the elevated total density and the
proportion of expanded polystyrene, fragmented plastic and wrappers to total density.
Conclusion: The density and composition of litter along the shores of Lake Geneva is
similar to the litter found in marine environments of Western Europe. The presence of the same
items at different locations and in similar proportions (relative to total density) indicate a common
origin for many of the key items found along the lake.
The density of suspended anthropogenic debris in Lac Léman resembles that of the ocean: areas
that are severely affected by debris accumulation and areas that are less affected. However, there
are no unaffected regions.
The shift to the right of the probability density function of ln(density) for the MCBP2 results (chart
8) and the greater concentration of key items when compared to the marine environment (chart 2
and 9) indicate that there is a higher probability of having an elevated density value on Lac Léman
as opposed to the OSPAR sample group. The Z-test of sample means, greater than 5, suggestst
that the null hypothesis can be rejected (h0
: The distribution of beach-litter density values is less
on Lac Léman) and that the density of shoreline trash on Lac Léman is elevated when compared to
the OSPAR sample group.
The results from St Sulpice, Allaman and Anthy-sur-Léman (beach-litter-survey results from
non-affilitaed organisations) suggest that the density in the Haut-Lac maybe lower than other
regions. The initiative by Surfrider Léman and Sol à tous is welcome, the density values from those
surveys are an independent voice to our data, hopefully they will continue.
Chart 9: average densities per location in descending order.
Comparing 16 of the most densely polluted OSPAR beaches from the sample group to 16
locations from Lac Léman*.
OSPAR, n= 66 surveys and 16 locations; MCBP2, n= 80 surveys and 16 locations
50
40
30
20
10
0
Polhawn
SkagenStrand
StGingolph
Pierriersud
Baindesdames
Port,Tour-de-Peilz
Arabie
CrammonBeach
SandBay
Pierrier
JubileeBeach
Amoeiras
Maladaire
Lunderstonbay
VillaBarton
KilkeelNorth
JardinBotanique
FontedeTelha
MonteVelho
Vidy
LeBrayeSlip
OssodaBaleia
Felixstowe
Koubou
Rottingdean
BayedeMontreux
RobinHoodsBay
ThonnonlesBains
Veveyse
BayedeClarens
Boiron
Oyonne
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* * **
*
Polystyrene and plastic pieces
Cigarette butts
Cotton swabs
Plastic sheeting and films
Plastic caps all types
Shotgun cartridge
Everything else
Lac Léman
*
PiecesoftrashpermeterofshorelineDensity and composition:
OSPAR and MCBP2
The OSPAR sample set was sorted by average
density per location in descending order. The
top sixteen locations were compared to the
average density per location of MCBP2 sam-
ples.
The comparison includes the converted values
for the key items from chart 1 and 2 common
to both MLW and OSPAR surveys. Chart 9 sum-
marizes the results.
Like the MLW comparison, the beach litter com-
position of OSPAR and MCBP2 are similar. In the
MCBP2 results the proportion of density attribut-
ed to key items is greater than the OSPAR results.
See annex a for the list of locations and densities,
how items were classified and how densities were
converted.
“The plastics (microplastics) mainly come from the fragmentation of bigger objects,
packaging is a good part, but we also find an important quantity of foam, probably
from construction activities.” Florian Faure, Dr. Felippe de
Alencastro, Ecole Polytechnique
Féderale Lausanne - 2014

10. Limitations of this study: The data collection is repetitive and requires a certain
amount of physical effort, the categorization of objects is tedious, subjective and could be de-
scribed as “déplaisante” or “unpleasant”. Litter collection happens along the lake therefore weath-
er and seasonal changes may influence collection and sorting for example; the shore may be snow
covered or waves may limit site exposure. Logistically it is not feasible to keep samples, limiting the
opportunities to do recounts to evaluate categorization variances between volunteers.
Improving this study: The study would benefit from a greater diversity in locations and
more regular surveys (once a week or once month). A real university partnership either in data vi-
sualization/modeling or data analysis would allow for more and varied interpretations of the data.
Partnerships with civil or mechanical engineering groups could help evolve the surveys in a di-
rection that supports product development (filtration techniques, urban hydrology, storm water
catchment)
Next steps for hammerdirt: Continue to monitor and conduct surveys, over time the
combined data will open up the possibility of time series analysis. Other projects that compliment
the MCBP series:
1. Development of density map of beach litter on Lac Léman
2. Construction of DIY water monitor
3. Plan MCBP3
Recommendations :
There are several action plans in existence for marine environments. Initially education and out-
reach should be focused on educating groups and organizations with a direct stake in the health
of the lake.
1. Develop a common data set for the region with a standardized protocol. Encourage groups
with a shared interest to participate, for example rowing clubs, fishing clubs or elementary
schools, scout troops or lifeguard groups. Invite the industrial and commercial sectors to partic-
ipate.
2. Integrate the beach-litter data into environmental assessments by including beach-litter-densi-
ty in the system of “Appreciation and analysis of Swiss lakes” and the “National Survey of Swiss
Waterways”. The presence of solid waste was noted in the last published survey of Swiss wa-
terways. Adding a module to the appreciation system based on observations from previous
studies is a reasonable response.
3. Treat this as a regional or national problem. The effects and solutions are multiplicative ( like
the standard deviation and the geometric mean of log-normal distributions), the changes or
efforts of one commune would be difficult to measure. Solutions need to be implemented on
the scale of the water shed, not communal or cantonal boundaries.
4. Develop a preventive communication strategy that targets the objects found in the lake.
5. Create a common funding scheme or partnership so communities in the basin have access to
resources necessary to prevent aquatic litter.
6. Facilitate and simplify the marking of storm-water drains throughout the basin. Use simple
measures like stencils and non toxic paint combined with art designed by students in the re-
gion. These activities go along way to raising awareness and encouraging participation.
7. Enforce existing littering and pollution laws. Fines and penalties of individuals and industries
may fund clean up efforts and deter flagrant pollution tendencies.

11. This is a hammerdirt publication
Somebody needs to do this
Links to annexes and references
Annexes
Annex a : Converting data for this report, list of all beach litter surveys used in the
report
Annex b: Methods, background, Swiss law and aquatic litter, full analysis, regres-
sion results and references
Case Studies
Chez Mme. Michelet: One resident tries to reason with local and state officials
about the systematic pollution of her lakeside property. A case study based on
correspondences and an evaluation of beach litter composition.
The Jazz Effect: How much does the Montreux Jazz festival contribute to beach
litter density and what does the city of Montreux do to prevent it.
Data
All the data used for this report
hammerdirt association 2017 all rights reserved