Evaluation methods for positive environmental impacts

   Ø  Impact on local wildlife, observed changes

·         No records of changes exist, only increasing pollution noticed but no direct difference due to the cleaning of beaches

·         “The plastic pollution is increasing at Svalbard. We see more and more animals affected. However, we are not able to document any ecological impact of the collection of plastics on the beaches at Svalbard.” Geir Wing Gabrielsen, Adjunct Professor in Ecotoxicology at the University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), by Mail 2016-05-09

   Ø  Differences in the amount of plastics found in the stomachs of Fulmars as indicator species on Svalbard and comparable habitats elsewhere that are not cleaned

·         As can be seen in the table below, the beach cleaning apparently does not reflect itself in plastic ingestion rates from Svalbard and elsewhere in the Arctic.

Table 4: Plastic ingestion by Northern fulmars Fulmarus glacialis, modified from Trevail et al, 2015, p. 13

Location	Years	Incidence of plastic ingestion	References
Svalbard, Europe. 78.3˚N, 16.1˚E	1982-1984	29%	Mehlum and Gjertz 1984; Gjertz et al. 1985; Lydersen et al. 1985
	2013	87.5%	Trevail et al. 2015
Bear Island, Svalbard, Europe 74˚24’N, 19˚0E	1983	82%	Van Franeker 1985
Jan Mayen, Europe, 71˚0’N, 9˚0’W	1983	79%	Van Franeker 1985
East Canadian Arctic. 67-74˚N, 62-90˚W	2002 - 2008	Latest: 84%	Mallory et al. 2006; Mallory 2008; Provencher et al. 2009

   Ø  Effects of awareness raising actions on (littering) behaviour

·         “Marine wildlife tours can provide a range of education and conservation benefits for visitors, including emotional (i.e., affective) responses and learning (i.e., cognition).” (Zeppel, 2008).

·         “Encounters on wildlife tours motivate visitors to respect marine life, foster environmentally responsible attitudes and behaviours, and benefit marine conservation” (Zeppel & Muloin, 2008).

   Ø  Amount / percentage / kilometres of beach or coastline cleaned (in contrast to the space occupied by the landfilling then)

·         2314 km of coastline for the four main islands (though only part of that is beaches) vs. about 12 km of beachline have been cleaned à % of beaches of the coastline

Strengh and weaknesses of the methods

o   Impact on local wildlife, observed changes

§  To observe the benefit on local wildlife is a biocentric measure that cannot be quantified but only assumed which certainly is a weakness. However, observation efforts could be reinforced and documented in a centralised manner in order to establish quantifiable records for the future. Entanglements of individuals could be counted and the number corrected with a parameter for the general increase in the amount of marine debris for the purpose of quantifying impacts on wildlife by the clean-up of beaches. 

o   Differences in the amount of plastics found in the stomachs of Fulmars

§  As for the method before, this is a biocentric measure which would complement the entanglement records with records of ingestion if the observed amounts of plastics in birds´ stomachs would be documented with increased efforts as described above. At the current status, this method cannot be used quantitative but could be strengthened by improved documentation. 

o   Effects of awareness raising actions on littering behaviour

§  Even though the positive effects of ecotourism or the like are recognised, they cannot be quantified which is a weakness here. Nevertheless, the societal effects of the project are captured in this anthropocentric measure. It is not only the people themselves who went on that excursion but also their nearest friends and family who probably changed their behaviour due to awareness transmitted to them by the participants. Assuming that every participant imparts his or her knowledge to four other people, then that one clean-up trip would have influenced the attitude of 565 people.

o   Amount of beach / coastline cleaned

§  This is an easily quantifiable measure which is neither biocentric nor anthropocentric but in between. Its flaw is that even though it gives a distinct figure, this number does have a low informative value. As already mentioned for a method above, the significance here could be enhanced as well by better documentation. The amount of coastline where debris is washed ashore would need to be estimated from geographic maps, that is beaches and other shallow parts of the shoreline. Then, a more realistic number of kilometres of coastline which are polluted and a percentage of that which are cleaned could be given.