Coastal scenery and litter impacts at Alicante

Journal of Coastal Conservation https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-018-0651-8

Coastal scenery and litter impacts at Alicante (SE Spain): management issues F. Asensio-Montesinos 1 & G. Anfuso 1

&

H. Corbí 2

Received: 27 June 2018 / Revised: 16 August 2018 / Accepted: 16 August 2018 # Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Abstract Coastal scenery value was evaluated at 56 locations along the 244 km long coast of Alicante (western Mediterranean) according to the methodology of Ergin et al. Area 36(4):367–386, (2004) based on the evaluation of 26 physical and anthropogenic parameters. Selected areas covered remote (10), rural (9), village (15) and urban (22) bathing areas. The scenery Decision Value parameter (D), allowed to classify the investigated sites into 5 classes, from Class I (extremely attractive/natural sites) to Class V (very unattractive/urbanized sites): 2 sites belonged to Class I, 6 to Class II, 14 to Class III, 20 to Class IVand 14 to Class V. Litter presence was assessed at the same sites using the EA/NALG (2000) methodology, which allowed to classify each site in four grades: A: very good (40 sites); B: good (14); C: fair (1) and D: poor (1). In urban sites litter was composed by small items related to land-based sources and beach use while litter in natural sites was related to marine-based sources, essentially fishing. The sector analysis methodology highlighted as most sites (33 out of 56) showed contradictory characteristics for litter/scenic grades/beach awards presence. To improve scenic value, different actions have to be carried out according to the site typology. At many urban sites, actuations should be focused to the removing or reducing of beach utilities and unnecessary infrastructures. At rural and remote areas, is mandatory to carry out specific litter management plans to reduce litter presence. Keywords Litter . Beach management . Coastal landscape . Mediterranean . Costa Blanca

Introduction The coastal environment constitutes the world’s population most important attraction and its rapid occupation in past decades has caused a series of negative effects. The uses converging in this narrow strip of territory have led to the development of several conflicts, to progressive environmental degradation and, along with it, the loss of quality and inviting landscape (Kay and Alder 1999). The process of coastal occupation along with associated anthropogenic changes is a reality in Spain, especially along the Spanish Mediterranean coast, which is considered to be the worst conserved in the country (Arenas Granados 2010), * G. Anfuso [email protected] 1

Departamento de Ciencias de la Tierra, Facultad de Ciencias del Mar y Ambientales, Universidad de Cádiz, Polígono Río San Pedro s/n 11510, Puerto Real, Cádiz, Spain

2

Departamento de Ciencias de la Tierra y Medio Ambiente, Universidad de Alicante, Apdo. Correos 99, San Vicente del Raspeig, 03080 Alicante, Spain

because: i) almost a third of the coast shows serious environmental degradation and more than half of the beaches need restoration actions; ii) 70 % of the dunes are destroyed or very deteriorated and 60% of transitional environments (e.g. coastal lagoons) require some action and iii) 40% of the coast is urbanized, 16% is totally artificial and 57% of all beaches are located in urbanized environments. Coastal zone habitats have a great biological diversity and have an important protection function against natural hazards. Coastal population develops a broad array of economic and environmental activities and different kinds of tourist services (Clark 1996), which are attractive to different tourist typologies. So, this has led to the question: What are the users’ preferences on beach choice? Some authors such as Morgan et al. (1995), McKenna et al. (2011) and Williams et al. (2012) have shown through numerous surveys that beach choice is based on different parameters. The most important are the ‘Big Five’, which include safety, presence of litter, water quality, facilities and scenery (Williams and Micallef 2009). Such preferences have not a clear order (Ergin et al. 2006), but ranges according to the country, national and cultural background, age, gender, education and training, etc. The order is

F. Asensio-Montesinos et al.

also a function as to whether the beach in question is in a resort, urban, village, rural or remote area. Marine litter (or marine debris), which has an increasing concern in society, is considered as Bany persistent manufactured or processed solid material which is discarded, disposed of, or abandoned in the marine and coastal environment^ (UNEP 2009, 13). Marine litter constitutes a threat to marine species and ecosystems (Fossi et al. 2017) and also negatively impact humans and the economic health of coastal communities (Sheavly and Register 2007; Werner et al. 2016). General litter and especially the presence of potentially hazardous items, have negative effects on beach tourism (Morgan et al. 1995). As a result, there is a loss of tourist days and damage to leisure/tourism related activities, one of the most important and lucrative industries in the world (Klein et al. 2004; WTO 2016). In some municipalities, the presence of more than 15 litter items/m2 (or 30 items per linear metre) may reduce local tourism income by 39%, representing losses of up to US$ 8.5 million per year (Krelling et al. 2017). Alicante province has become a paradigmatic example for the development of mass tourism that began approximately in the 1960s. Many of existing coastal villages have opted for tourism (i.e. provision of services) as their main economic source, together with real estate promotion and construction (Huete 2005) with beaches being a major player in this market (Houston 2013). Authors such as Dodds and Kelman (2008) considered the Mediterranean’s coast a Bsun, sea and sand^ (3S) market. This paper studies the relationships among three of the most influential factors of coastal attraction: beach cleanliness (by the Litter Grade methodology, EA/NALG 2000), facilities (including existing beach awards) and the landscape (by means of the Coastal Scenic Assessment Method, Ergin et al. 2004, Rangel-Buitrago 2018). Determination of surface litter characteristics, abundance and associated beach grading, have been investigated in past decade according to different methodologies, e.g. Cheshire et al. (2009), OSPAR (2009), UNEP (2009), EA/NALG (2000) and NOAA (2012). Evaluation of scenery has been carried out for decades (Steers 1944; Fines 1968; Appleton 1975; Penning-Rowsell 1982) and has reached great importance in the last years thanks to tourism. These methodologies have been used for different types of beaches following the classification of Williams and Micallef (2009), and are easy to apply anywhere in the world. The generated database is a valuable management tool for the conservation and improvement of coastal areas and this methodology has successfully applied along the Andalusia coast (Spain), at Azores Islands (Portugal) and the Caribbean coast of Colombia (Micallef et al. 2011; Quintela et al. 2012; Williams et al. 2016a; Rangel-Buitrago et al. 2017).

Methods Study area The studied area is located in the southeast coast of Spain (Fig. 1), known to tourists as the BCosta Blanca^. Specifically, an amount of 56 sites, located in 19 coastal municipalities of Alicante Province, have been characterized. Many morphological elements of the coast stands out among the most unique aspects of the geological heritage of Alicante, where it is possible to observe a cliff coast in the north and low, sandy beaches, dunes and coastal lagoons in the south. There are also karst formations, representative outcrops related to the possible desiccation of the Mediterranean during the Messinian period, and tectonic and Triassic diapiric structures (Estévez et al. 2004). Along the microtidal coast of Alicante, there are just over 170 catalogued beaches. In general, sandy beaches prevail along the southern (from Alicante to Pilar de la Horadada) and the northern areas (Dénia), López et al. (2017), Fig. 1. In contrast, beaches with gravel and pebbles are essentially located in the central area of the province, where the Prebetic mountains range ends, giving rise to cliffs that can reach 300 m in height, and rocky shores are essentially observed at Torrevieja, Santa Pola and Alicante (Fig. 1). Data were collected during the weekends of May and June 2017. Diverse methodologies were used such as coastal scenic evaluation (Ergin et al. 2004), determination of surface beach litter abundance (EA/NALG 2000), beach typology (Williams and Micallef 2009) and sector analysis (Williams et al. 2016a; Rangel-Buitrago et al. 2017). In addition, the BBlue Flag^ award distribution in 2017 was taken into account in the sector analysis as an indicator of beach facilities and the cleanliness of each site. The Blue Flag is considered a symbol of quality recognized by tourists but different views exist on this point, e.g. Nelson et al. (2000) and McKenna et al. (2011) but, actually, is the most common beach award in Spain.

Coastal scenic assessment Data collection was made through visual estimations in each one of the 56 sites with the help of a checklist (Ergin et al. 2004; Rangel-Buitrago 2018), Table 1. Eighteen physical parameters, e.g. cliffs, beaches, rocky shores, dunes, valleys, relief shape, geomorphologic features, vegetation remains, etc. and eight anthropogenic parameters, i.e. noise disturbance, presence of beach litter and evidence of sewage, built environment, types of access, skyline and anthropic structures were evaluated. The 26 parameters were obtained as a result of numerous surveys (> 500) to beach users in the UK, Turkey, Malta and Croatia, asking what was important for coastal

Coastal scenery and litter impacts at Alicante (SE Spain): management issues Fig. 1 Location map. Detailed information according to site numbering is indicated in Table 1

scenic quality. Each parameter is rated on a scale from 1 to 5, being 1 absence or poor quality and 5 excellent quality. In order to reduce evaluator’s uncertainty and subjectivity, fuzzy logic was used. Further, each parameter has a different weight, i.e. no all parameters are worth the same. Final coastal scenery classification is obtained according to the BD^ Evaluation Index that establishes 5 categories ranging from Class I (excellent quality) to Class V (poor quality, Ergin et al. 2004). Each class is distinguished by having a specific range of values and the sites are grouped according to their physical and anthropogenic characteristics: Class I: Extremely attractive natural sites with very high scenic values and null or very low anthropic activities that do not affect the natural beauty of the site (D ≥ 0.85). Class II: Attractive natural or semi-natural sites with high scenic values and very acceptable anthropic activities (0.65 ≤ D < 0.85). Class III: Sites with little scenic interest. In some cases these sites are very attractive but with obvious anthropic activities (0.40 ≤ D < 0.65).

Class IV: Unattractive urban sites with low scenic values (0 ≤ D < 0.40). Class V: Very unattractive urban sites with intensive development and low scenic values (D < 0).

Litter grade At the 56 coastal sites the EA/NALG (2000) technique was applied (Table 2). The chosen assessment parameters are sewage-related litter and debris, potentially harmful litter items, gross litter, general litter, accumulations of litter, oil pollution and the occurrence of faeces. These parameters are assessed over a standard sampling unit on the beach, which consists of a 100-m transect parallel to the coastline. The final grading is simply the worst grade for any of the above considered parameters. For example, if a beach is graded BA^ for all parameters except Gross Litter, which is BB^, the overall Grade assigned to the beach is BB^.

Access type

Skyline Utilities****

23

24

25 26

Height (H) Slope Features* Type Width (W) Colour Slope Extent Roughness

No buffer zone/heavy traffic Very unattractive >3

Heavy Industry

None

Intolerable Continuous accumulations Sewage evidence

Open on one side Muddy brown/grey Bare (50 cm high)

Absent < 45° Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Absent Not visible Macro (>4 m) None

3

No buffer zone/light traffic

Heavy tourism and/or urban

Tolerable Full strand line

Open on two sides Milky blue/green/opaque Scrub/garigue (marran/gorse, bramble, etc.) Full strand line

Sensitively designed high/low 2

Light tourism and/or urban and/or sensitive

Hedgerow/terracing/monoculture

Same evidence (1–3 items)

Single accumulation

Single accumulation

Green/grey/blue Wetlands/meadow

30 m ≤ H < 60 m 60° - 75° 2 Cobble/Boulder 5 m ≤ W < 25 m Dark tan 5°-10° 5–10 m Deeply pitted and/or irregular Fore-dune ( 100 m Dark 20 m Smooth Several River/limestone gorge Mountainous Micro (3

5

*Cliff Special Features: indentation, banding, folding, screes, irregular profile; **Coastal Landscape Features: Peninsulas, rock ridges, irregular headlands, arches, windows, caves, waterfalls, deltas, lagoons, islands, stacks, estuaries, reefs, fauna, embayment, tombola, etc.; ***Built Environment: Caravans will come under Tourism, Grading 2: Large intensive caravan site, Grading 3: Light, but still intensive caravan sites, Grading 4: Sensitively designed caravan sites.; ****Utilities: Power lines, pipelines, street lamps, groins, seawalls, revetments

Built environment***

22

19 20

Sewage discharge evidence Non_built environment

Human parameters Noise disturbance Litter

18

21

Vegetation debris

15 16 17

Rocky shore

Beach face

Cliff

Dunes Valley Skyline landform Tides Coastal landscape features** Vistas Water colour & clarity Natural vegetation cover

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1

Rating

Coastal scenic evaluation checklist. physical and human parameters (Ergin et al. 2004)

No: Physical parameters

Table 1


Coastal scenery and litter impacts at Alicante (SE Spain): management issues Table 2 Litter categories and grading scheme (EA/NALG 2000) 1 2 3 4

Category

Type

A (very good)

B (good)

C (fair)

D (poor)

Sewage Related Debris

Generala Cotton Buds (>50 cm)b ( 1 cm)c Broken Glass

0

1–5

6–14

15+

0–9 0 0–49

10–49 1–5 50–499

50–99 6–14 500–999

100+ 15+ 1000+

Gross Litter General Litter Harmful Litter

5 6

Accumulations Oil

7

Feces

a

Otherd Number

0

1–5

6–24

25+

0

1–4

5–9

10+

0 Absent

1–4 Trace

5–9 Nuisance

10+ Objectionable

0

1–5

6–24

25+

General Sewage Debris: Sanitary towels, tampons, contraceptives, nappies, toilet paper, etc.

b

Gross Litter: Car parts, trolleys, broken umbrellas, fishing buoys, jerry cans, etc.

c

General Litter: Plastic bottles, cans, bottle caps, pieces of plastic or paper, food packaging, etc.

d

Harmful Litter: Sharps (hooks, wires), medical waste, fishing threads, etc.

Beach typology

Sector analysis

Each beach was classified into one of the five categories belonging to the Bathing Area Registration and Evaluation (BARE) system (Williams and Micallef 2009). Resort areas were not observed, for this reason the sites are classified into four categories:

Coastal scenic evaluation, litter grading, beach typology and beach awards were integrated through sector analysis. A dynamic table was used for each beach type, with scenic classes in five rows (I-V) and litter grades in four columns (A-D). Using the percentile technique (Langford 2006), the table was divided into three sectors. The upper left quadrant (green sector) is comprised of four cells and represents beaches with good litter grades and scenic classes. The lower right quadrant (red sector), which also has four cells, describes sites having low litter grades and poor scenic classes. Along the other two corners and middle cells (yellow sector) are located sites with contradictory results, e.g. good litter grades and low scenic classes or vice versa. This technique (Williams et al. 2016a; Rangel-Buitrago et al. 2017) has been slightly modified, adding a row and a column with beach award presence/absence. This allows to integrate the obtained results in a general table or in different tables according to beach typology.

&

&

&

&

Remote: these may be defined by the difficulty of the access (largely by boat or on foot - a walk of 300 m or more). They can be adjacent to either village or rural areas but not urban areas. They are not supported by public transport and have very limited temporary summer housing (Williams and Micallef 2009). Rural: located outside the urban/village environment and not readily accessible by public transport having virtually no facilities - perhaps a small shop, car park and toilets. Housing is limited in number (generally 0–10 but may be more depending on the size of the coastal stretch) and usually of a temporary nature, but no permanent community focal centre exists (schools, shops, cafes, among others) (Williams and Micallef 2009). Village: located outside the central urban environment, have a small and permanent population reflecting an organized but small-scale service structure, such as, a school (s), religious centre (s), shop (s) and public/private transport (Williams and Micallef 2009). Urban: serves large populations with well-established public services such as school (s), bank (s), and post offices, among others. Within this typology are clearly demarcated central business districts with commercial activities, e.g. fishing harbours. Urban beaches are located within or adjacent to urban areas (Williams and Micallef 2009).

Results Most significant characteristics of each site are presented in Table 3. Beaches are very heterogeneous and range from Class I to Class V (Figs. 2, 3 and 4a). The same happens with the litter grade, ranging from grade A to D, but in very different proportions (Fig. 4b). Blue Flag appears in all beach types, especially in village and urban areas and, in reference with coastal scenery, it is mostly observed in sites of low scenic value (1 in Class I; 0 in Class II; 6 in Class III; 7 in Class IV and 10 in Class V) (Table 3; Fig. 5).

Site

Las Higuericas Mil Palmeras Cabo Roig La Estaca

Playa del Cura Torrelamata Ortigues

Babilònia Els Tossals El Pinet

Tabarca Faroleta Platja Gran Gran Playa

Calas del Cuartel Carabassí

Arenales del Sol Saladar Agua Amarga San Gabriel Postiguet

Serragrossa Albufereta Almadraba Cala dels Jueus Cala Cantalars

Cala Palmera Cap de l’Horta Playa San Juan Riu Sec Morro Blanc

Carritxar

El Xarco Bon-Nou El Torres

N° map

1 2 3 4

5 6 7

8 9 10

11 12 13 14

15 16

17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30 31

32

33 34 35

La Vila Joiosa La Vila Joiosa La Vila Joiosa

La Vila Joiosa

Alacant Alacant Alacant Campello Campello

Alacant Alacant Alacant Alacant Alacant

Elx Alacant Alacant Alacant Alacant

Santa Pola Elx

Alacant Alacant Alacant Santa Pola

Guardamar del Segura Guardamar del Segura Elx

Torrevieja Torrevieja Guardamar del Segura

Pilar de la Horadada Pilar de la Horadada Orihuela Orihuela

Location

38°29′27.48^N/0°16′46.24Ô 38°29′44.70^N/0°15′47.76Ô 38°30′53.65^N/0°11′53.55Ô

38°28′56.34^N/0°18′7.10Ô

38°21′8.88^N/0°24′38.57Ô 38°21′10.35^N/0°24′10.68Ô 38°22′32.40^N/0°24′32.49Ô 38°24′59.09^N/0°23′26.63Ô 38°26′52.25^N/0°21′49.86Ô

38°21′25.55^N/0°27′22.66Ô 38°21′46.69^N/0°26′40.20Ô 38°21′33.88^N/0°26′4.61Ô 38°21′17.61^N/0°25′37.05Ô 38°21′12.86^N/0°25′12.01Ô

38°15′28.65^N/0°31′1.14Ô 38°16′54.76^N/0°31′11.97Ô 38°18′20.52^N/0°31′2.09Ô 38°19′41.73^N/0°30′30.22Ô 38°20′44.78^N/0°28′35.91Ô

38°12′35.32^N/0°30′27.80Ô 38°14′13.42^N/0°30′50.77Ô

38° 9′56.66^N/0°28′44.18Ô 38° 9′47.43^N/0°28′22.31Ô 38° 9′48.16^N/0°27′59.12Ô 38°11′29.12^N/0°34′4.76Ô

38° 5′22.57^N/0°38′46.75Ô 38° 7′9.76^N/0°38′27.19Ô 38° 9′29.17^N/0°37′26.98Ô

37°58′36.49^N/0°40′9.70Ô 38° 1′39.15^N/0°39′8.20Ô 38° 2′53.71^N/0°39′5.47Ô

37°51′9.57^N/0°45′45.19Ô 37°52′53.29^N/0°45′12.91Ô 37°54′48.86^N/0°43′44.97Ô 37°55′45.62^N/0°43′14.23Ô

Geographical coordinates

Rural Rural Village

Remote

Rural Remote Urban Village Village

Urban Urban Urban Village Rural

Urban Urban Rural Urban Urban

Rural Remote

Village Remote Remote Urban

Urban Remote Rural

Urban Urban Remote

Village Urban Urban Urban

Beach type

V V IV IV III

−0.3 −0.21 0.16 0.2 0.43

0.76 0.42 0.54

0.73

II III III

II

IV III V IV IV

V V V V V

−0.15 −0.19 −0.05 −0.61 −0.36

0.38 0.45 −0.07 0.32 0.19

II III

IV III II V

0.68 0.56

0.02 0.5 0.68 −0.45

IV III III

V IV III

−0.25 0.06 0.5 0.18 0.43 0.57

IV IV V V

Scenic class

0.29 0.09 −0.24 −0.06

D value

A A B

A

B A A A A

A A A B B

B B C B B

A A

B B A A

A D A

A A A

A A A B

Litter grade

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X X X X

Blue flag (X)

Table 3 Beach categorization. Location and main characteristics of investigated sites: Map number (Fig. 1), site name, location, coordinates, beach type, BD^ value, Class, Litter grade and beach awards (Blue Flag in 2017)


Site

Cala Finestrat Llevant Racó de L’Albir Cap Negret

L’Olla Racó del Corb

Morelló Cala de la Fossa

Cala Fustera

L’Ampolla El Portet

Cala del Moraig Granadella

Ambolo L’Arenal Les Rotes

Marineta Cassiana Les Marines Els Molins

Almadrava Les Deveses

N° map

36 37 38 39

40 41

42 43

44

45 46

47 48

49 50 51

52 53 54

55 56

Table 3 (continued)

Dénia Dénia

Dénia Dénia Dénia

Xàbia Xàbia Dénia

Poble Nou de Benitatxell Xàbia

Teulada - Moraira Teulada - Moraira

Benissa

Calp Calp

Altea Calp

Finestrat Benidorm Alfàs del Pi Altea

Location

38°52′2.13^N/0° 0′14.12″E 38°52′36.53^N/0° 1′26.21Ô

38°50′6.01^N/0° 7′18.31″E 38°51′21.28^N/0° 4′49.05″E 38°51′49.08^N/0° 1′28.00″E

38°43′49.11^N/0°13′4.47″E 38°46′21.78^N/0°11′25.61″E 38°49′32.05^N/0° 9′19.84″E

38°42′36.04^N/0°10′0.06″E 38°43′46.52^N/0°11′48.57″E

38°39′52.82^N/0° 5′16.87″E 38°41′13.72^N/0° 7′50.40″E 38°41′14.89^N/0° 8′47.15″E

38°38′27.59^N/0° 3′45.49″E 38°38′28.32^N/0° 4′23.48″E

38°37′9.58^N/0° 1′36.01Ô 38°37′56.24^N/0° 0′35.41″E

38°31′27.67^N/0°10′2.02Ô 38°32′5.86^N/0° 7′0.67Ô 38°34′26.34^N/0° 3′51.70Ô 38°36′20.30^N/0° 2′24.02Ô

Geographical coordinates

Village Village

Village Urban Village

Remote Urban Rural

Remote Rural

Village Village Village

Urban Urban

Village Remote

Urban Urban Urban Village

Beach type

0.26 0.23

0.16 0.21 0.14

0.88 0 0.62

0.93 0.48

0.49 0.44 0.45

0.27 0.06

IV IV

IV IV IV

I IV III

I III

III III III

IV IV

IV II

V V IV II

−0.11 −0.09 0.3 0.68 0.3 0.68

Scenic class

D value

A A

A A A

A A A

A A

A A A

B A

A B

A A B A

Litter grade

X X

X

X X

X X X

X

X X X

Blue flag (X)

Coastal scenery and litter impacts at Alicante (SE Spain): management issues


Fig. 2 a) Scenic evaluation rating histograms, b) Scenic histograms of weighted averages, c) Membership degree curves and d) Beach typology for BCala d’Ambolo^ (Remote, Class I, Litter grade A), BCala El Xarco^

(Rural, Class II, Litter grade A), BPlatja Les Ortigues^ (Remote, Class III, Litter grade A), BCala dels Jueus^ (Village, Class IV, Litter grade B) and BPlatja San Gabriel^ (Urban, Class V, Litter grade B)

Remote areas

yellow sector because they have good litter grades (A and B) and middle and low scenic classes (III and IV, Fig. 5). One site is in the red sector (Class V, Litter grade C). Regarding the Blue Flag, only two have been found (both on Class III sites and Litter grade A, Fig. 5).

A total of ten sites are located in remote areas, where the natural characteristics predominate over the anthropogenic. In this case, five sites are localized in the green sector (good litter grades and scenic classes) and five are localized in the yellow sector where scenic classes III with different litter grades (A, B and D) can be observed. Only two sites have Blue Flag (Class I and III respectively and both with Litter grade A, Fig. 5).

Rural areas Nine sites are located in rural areas of which only two are in the green sector (Class II, Litter grade A); another six are in the

Village areas Very different results are observed. Fifteen sites are in village areas of which only one is in the green sector where the results are as expected (e.g. site Class II with Litter grade A). The rest are located in the yellow sector so results are contradictory, in this case good litter grades and low scenic classes. From these types of areas the number of beach awards slightly increases


Fig. 3 Scenic classification of studied beaches

with five Blue Flag in Class III and IV sites, all of them showing Litter grade A (Fig. 5).

Discussion Sites characteristics and distribution

Urban areas A total of twenty-two sites are located in urban areas, all of them with a low scenic class (IVor V). None are located in the red sector, so they are beaches with good litter grades (A or B). In urban areas the number of Blue Flag awards is significantly higher than in the rest of areas. A total of fifteen sites have beach awards, ten with Litter grade A and five with Litter grade B and five with class IV and ten with class V scenery scores (Fig. 5). The most attractive sites on the coast of Alicante have steep high cliffs such as BCala del Moraig^ (site 47, Table 3) or BAmbolo^ (site 49, Fig. 2, Table 3). Other attractive sites (Class II) are composed by cliff, beach and rocky shore as is the case of BCalas del Cuartel^ (site 15, Table 3) or BEl Xarco^ (site 33, Fig. 2, Table 3). The coverage of natural vegetation and coastal special features (e.g. caves, islands, etc.) are the physical parameters that have the most weight in the scenic evaluation (parameters 14 and 17, Table 1). Less attractive sites (Class IV and V) have a low score of anthropogenic parameters because the massive constructions close to the coastline, i.e. the lack of buffer zones, the presence of infrastructures and litter (Fig. 6) and/or sewage discharge evidences (Fig. 7). These anthropogenic changes in the coast affect natural environment and have heavy implications in scenic quality (e.g. disappearance of dune systems, emplacement of utilities, etc.).

Scenic classification of the evaluated sites mainly depends on the coastal geomorphology, the vegetation cover and the degree of human occupation and related socioeconomic activities. This relation has been observed in different countries such as UK, Turkey, Colombia and Cuba (Williams et al. 2007; Ergin et al. 2010; Rangel-Buitrago et al. 2013; Anfuso et al. 2014). In general, Class I and II sites (n = 8) are located in places of difficult access distinguished by the presence of high and steep cliffs. Geological characteristics and relief favour formation of cliff and coastal landscape features, valleys and mountainous skyline landforms that increase the scenic value (Table 1). Generally, turquoise and clear marine water is observed due to various chemical, physical and biological factors (e.g. water composition, absence of suspended sediments, type of seabed, etc.). Class III sites (n = 14) are randomly distributed and, therefore, can be found in sites with different degrees of urbanization. Concerning natural parameters, sites belonging to this class present very few coastal landscape features, litter and defence structures and tourist facilities not in harmony with the natural environment (parameters 14, 20 and 26, Table 1). The sites belonging to Classes IV and V are very numerous (n = 34, 61% of total) and reflect the high degree of coastal occupation in Alicante. Their low classification corresponds to a progressive decrease in both natural and human ratings (Fig. 2). These sites present low scores at all


Litter sources and composition

Fig. 4 a) Coastal Scenery (Ergin et al. 2004) and b) Litter grade (EA/ NALG 2000) by type of beach along the study area

human parameters with associated problems such as litter presence, sewage, noise disturbance, absence of buffer zone and utilities (Table 1). In addition, the continuous construction of human settlements close to the coastline during the last decades has negatively affected human parameters as BBuilt environment^ and BSkyline^, high buildings, ostentatious dwellings, breakwaters and port structures being the most significant examples. This reveals important changes in coastal landscape and its surroundings that can be demonstrated by comparing recent and historical aerial photographs (Fig. 8). In order to improve coastal scenery, further deterioration should be avoided by limiting the construction of new houses and other unnecessary infrastructures. The aesthetic improvement of very urbanized sites is difficult to achieve but not impossible. A specific example is BEl Pinet^ where utilities could be easily removed or reduced/relocated (parameter 26, Table 1) and illegal summer houses (parameter 23, Table 1) located in the public domain (nowadays very affected by erosion processes) could be demolished. The scenic assessment value would change from Class III (D = 0.57) to Class II (D = 0.69).

The Mediterranean has been described as one of the most affected and polluted areas by marine litter worldwide (Jambeck et al. 2015; Fossi et al. 2017). Observations made during the last decades and data from several scientific studies; suggest categorizing marine litter according to its source, i.e. to divide it into land- and marine-based litter (UNEP 2009). In the Mediterranean, PNUE/PAM/MEDPOL (2009) reported that most of the marine litter comes from land-based rather than marine-based sources (Galgani et al. 2013). The former group comes from shoreline and recreational activities, strong smoking beachgoers attitudes and dumping (e.g. cigarette butts, unrecognizable plastic pieces, bottle caps, and others, Munari et al. 2016). The majority of marinebased sources are merchant shipping, ferries and cruise liners, fishing vessels, military fleets and research vessels, pleasure craft, offshore oil, gas platforms, drilling rigs and aquaculture installations. Litter dispersion and deposition are strongly influenced by ocean currents, tidal cycles, regional-scale topography, including sea-bed topography and wind (Jelil and Jain 2014). In this study, observations realized with the EA/ ENALG (2000) methodology revealed that the first group of litter (i.e. land-based sources) is common in village and urban sites. The second group of litter (i.e. marine-based sources) is principally found in remote and rural sites where human influence is lower. Regarding the composition of marine litter at Alicante’s coast, plastic is the most abundant litter item, as observed at beaches and seas of the world (Jambeck et al. 2015). It is difficult to compare litter abundance studies because they are often based on different methodologies and carried out at coastal areas with different population densities, oceanographic and morphological conditions, among others (Anfuso et al. 2015). In some studies conducted in the Mediterranean Sea, the litter amount is alarming, usually more than 80% items found are plastic (Pasquini et al. 2016; Poeta et al. 2016; Arcangeli et al. 2017; EA 2017; Maziane et al. 2018), this shows that human beings have a serious problem with the production, consumption and management of this type of material. Observations along the study area confirmed that cigarette butts are quite common especially in urban beaches all around the world (Maziane et al. 2018) and constitute one of the most abundant item, as also recorded by Williams et al. (2016b), EA (2017) and Nachite et al. (2018) in the Western Mediterranean. Most litter found in the 56 beaches comes from land-based sources categorized as general litter (30% of the total amount of litter in the coast of Italy. In general, along the studied area, good litter grades have been obtained (EA/NALG 2000), Table 2; forty sites had Litter grade A (very good), fourteen B grade (good), one C grade (regular) and one D grade (poor) (Table 3, Figs. 4b and 5). Even so, for management purposes it is more suitable to consider the grades as follows: A (good), B (regular), C (poor) and D (very poor), in order to emphasize the management in sites from grade B. There is a considerable difference in Litter grade B sites: those located in remote and rural areas had little general litter and pertain to this grade because they contained one to five items of gross litter (Fig. 6c and d). In contrast, the Litter grade B sites located in village and urban areas pertain to this grade due to the number of items in general litter (50–499 items). The worst litter grade results were obtained in remote and rural areas because waste management is inadequate or absent. This was also observed in Gran Canaria (Canary Islands) where environmental quality levels are lower in natural beaches respect to urban beaches (Peña-Alonso et al. 2018). On the other hand, Blue Flag award distribution in Spain is strictly related to tourist activities, and the number of Blue Flag beaches increased in the 2007–2012 period (Mir-Gual et al. 2015). In Alicante, during the last five years, the number of Blue Flag beaches showed a small increase with 58 sites in 2013, 60 in 2014, 59 in 2015, 62 in 2016 and 64 in 2017. In 2017, the 64 Blue Flag beaches plus 14 ports allowed Alicante

to be the province with the most Blue Flags in Spain (elplural.com 2017). The large number of Blue Flag sites with A grade (n = 19) suggest that cleanup efforts are greater on those sites. Blue Flag was also found in grade B sites (n = 5) (Table 3, Fig. 5); this indicating a lack of adequate management because, according to the Blue Flag Program criteria, Bthe beach must be clean^ (FEE 2018, 14). For this reason, it is not surprising that Blue Flag awards are strictly focused on services, without considering environmental features of the beaches (Mir-Gual et al. 2015). Government, local and tourism authorities, and the media are seemingly convinced that beach awards attract visitors, and thus have a positive economic influence. According to McKenna et al. (2011), in Europe many technical and financial efforts are carried out to achieve and maintain beach awards despite their importance for beach choice is not clear. For example in UK, beach awards are not a decisive factor in the choice of beach users. Scenery, travel distance or other criterions such as safety, water quality, facilities or litter are more important than the beach award itself (Nelson et al. 2000).

Coastal management Correct coastal management plans should include beach users’ priorities and preference as long as they do not have negative repercussions in the natural environment, for this is


Fig. 7 Sewage discharge evidences in Alicante coast (2017). Base map: Number of houses per municipality in Alicante province. Modified from the National Statistics Office (Instituto Nacional de Estadística 2017)

important to base coastal managers’ decisions on evidences and results of scientific investigations. Natural characteristics greatly determine the scenic quality of any coastal area and managers can do almost nothing to improve them, hence efforts must be focused on the improvement of human parameters (Rangel-Buitrago et al. 2013; Williams et al. 2016a). Proactive actions can focus on the elimination of litter and evidences of wastewaters, by relating them to an origin and, consequently, taking the necessary measures (i.e. establish a wastewater treatment for houses that do not have administrative sanctions for causing damage to the environment and public health, etc.). More attention should be paid to wastewater treatment especially at the summer period when the population greatly increases. Further measures can be devoted to reduce unnecessary coastal defence structures and increase beach width through adequate nourishment works, only a change on native sand colour may cause environmental damage and beach users discomfort, Pranzini et al. (2016). For example, the 500 m long channeling

jetty at the Segura River mouth (SE Alicante), which gives rise to a wide beach (25–75 m) on the northern side of the structure, is one of the main causes of massive coastal erosion recorded in downdrift (southern) areas. The lack of Segura River sediment supplies together with other anthropogenic actions has resulted in the loss of >3.2 million m3 of sand since the 1950s (55,200 m3 per year, Pagán et al. 2017). In natural areas, efforts should focus on maintaining, protecting and promoting their beauty and characteristics through the creation of protected areas and the maintenance of current limitations and regulations to coastal urbanization, which along the investigated area constitutes an accelerated and poor-planned process in the medium and long term (Huete 2005). Procedures should also regulate the flow of tourists (Mooser et al. 2018), often disproportionate during summer months in areas with high ecological and scenic values (e.g. at Nueva Tabarca Island). At present, problems caused by litter are becoming more evident in marine and coastal habitats. This is reflected by

F. Asensio-Montesinos et al. Fig. 8 An example of coastal occupation at Teulada-Moraira area (NE Alicante province). a) American Flight Series B (1956), b) Flight PNOA 2016

their impacts on human health and safety, aesthetic and economic issues, wildlife entanglement and ingestion, alien species introduction (Sheavly and Register 2007) or natural trophic transfer of microplastic with implications for the food health (Farrell and Nelson 2013). Solving the problems of marine litter is not easy and requires the maximum possible collaboration to treat the causes of the problem - it is not sufficient to apply clean-up measures at few beaches. In addition, mechanical seaweed raking from beaches has negative environmental consequences for coastal ecosystems and its biodiversity (Gilburn 2012), the collection of Posidonia oceanica accumulations being an example along the Mediterranean coast. Initiatives are imperative to change human behaviour concerning waste material production and discharge. Programs must be implemented to educate peoples on the negative impacts of marine debris especially on natural coastal environments and to promote rational use of goods and recycling activities. Since most marine litter comes from land-based sources (Galgani et al. 2013), measures should be focused on the retention and extraction of waste material before it arrives to the sea, for example, along the river banks or at river mouths (Fig. 9a). There are certain types of hazardous materials that require a specific treatment, for example those that are thrown or lost directly into the sea. This is the case of monofilament fishing lines observed at BAgua Amarga^ and BCala Palmera^, two sites very frequented by fishermen. The presence of this

material, which has negative effects on many marine organisms, is presently increasing in the marine environment due to their facility of entanglement on the sea floor (Fig. 9b). As an example, Yoshikawa and Asoh (2004) observed important association between fishing lines entanglement and coral damage and death. For proper treatment of this type of waste, PVC recycling containers can be easily installed in ports and at sites frequented by fishermen (Fig. 9c). To compensate the competent authorities’ lack of attention and poor litter management, at several coastal sites (EA 2017) some NGOs promoted beach users’ environmental awareness and carried out manually cleanup operations, which are more in tune with the natural environment than mechanical cleaning. Such actuations are repeatedly carried out at BCala Palmera^, BEls Tossals^ and BEl Pinet^.

Conclusions The landscape is an element of great importance in the quality of people’s life in any part of the world. The application of techniques that allow its evaluation, as the one used in this study, is of paramount importance for its conservation and improvement. Important information was also obtained by the used litter evaluation technique: it is simple, fast and accurate and generates a database on litter characteristics and distribution, very useful to coastal managers.

Coastal scenery and litter impacts at Alicante (SE Spain): management issues Fig. 9 a) Removal of waste from land-based sources. Image source: KQED QUEST - (CC BYNC 2.0), b) Monofilament fishing line with hook tangled up in the nearshore at BCala Palmera^, c) Monofilament Fishing line Recycling Bin. Image source: NOAA. https://marinedebrisblog. wordpress.com

Human impacts and settlements have generally had a negative effect on several natural and human scenic parameters. Dunes, vistas, built environment, access type, skyline and utilities are some examples. The increase in beach width benefits coastal scenery, but on the other hand, if it is not done correctly, it has negative repercussions for the natural environment. Along the coast of Alicante, many controversial nourishment works have been carried out in past years. The government used significant amounts of public money to increase beach width at unfavourable places instead of treating the problem at its source, e.g. related to the retention of sediments in reservoirs, accumulations of sediments updrift of coastal structures, etc. Tourism affluence in remote and rural beaches is low in comparison to village and urban beaches and cleaning operations are mostly concentrated on them and focused to tourism purposes more than environmental issues. Is important to highlight the necessity of increasing and improving cooperation between governmental institutions and scientific institutes/universities in a long-term prospective to: i) elaborate specific litter management plans especially for remote and rural areas; ii) identification and reduction of wastewaters inputs; iii) properly regulate tourist flows in

crowded natural areas; iv) reduce illegal coastal occupations by demolishing abandoned/disused constructions and v) promote dune restoration. Acknowledgements This research was partially supported by the project GRE14-05 (University of Alicante). This work is a contribution to the Andalusia PAI Research Group RNM-328 and to the RED PROPLAYAS network.

References Anfuso G, Williams AT, Cabrera Hernández JA, Pranzini E (2014) Coastal scenic assessment and tourism management in western Cuba. Tour Manag 42:307–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman. 2013.12.001 Anfuso G, Lynch K, Williams AT, Perales JA, Pereira da Silva C, Nogueira Mendes R, Maanan M, Pretti C, Pranzini E, Winter C, Verdejo E, Ferreira M, Veiga J (2015) Comments on marine litter in oceans, seas and beaches: characteristics and impacts. Ann Mar Biol Res 2(1):1008 Appleton J (1975) Landscape evaluation: the theoretical vacuum. Trans Inst Br Geogr (66):120–123. https://doi.org/10.2307/621625 Arcangeli A, Campana I, Angeletti D, Atzori F, Azzolin M, Carosso L, Di Miccoli V, Giacoletti A, Gregorietti M, Luperini C, Paraboschi M, Pellegrino G, Ramazio M, Sarà G, Crosti R (2017) Amount,

F. Asensio-Montesinos et al. composition, and spatial distribution of floating macro litter along fixed trans-border transects in the Mediterranean basin. Mar Pollut Bull 129:10–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.10.028 Arenas Granados PJ (2010) Gestión del litoral y política pública en España. In: Barragán Muñoz JM (coord.). Manejo Costero Integrado y Política Pública en Iberoamérica: Un diagnóstico. Necesidad de cambio, Red IBERMAR (CYTED), Cádiz, pp 353– 380 Cheshire AC, Adler E, Barbiere J, Cohen Y, Evans S, Jarayabhand S, Jeftic L, Jung RT, Kinsey S, Kusui ET, Lavine I, Manyara P, Oosterbaan L, Pereira MA, Sheavly S, Tkalin A, Varadarajan S, Wenneker B, Westphalen G (2009) UNEP/IOC Guidelines on Survey and Monitoring of Marine Litter. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies, Brussels Clark JR (1996) Coastal zone management handbook. CRC Press/Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton 694 pp Dodds R, Kelman I (2008) How climate change is considered in sustainable tourism policies: a case of the Mediterranean islands of Malta and Mallorca. Tour Rev Int 12(1):57–70. https://doi.org/10.3727/ 154427208785899920 EA (Ecologistas en Acción) (2017) Basuras en playas: tendencias e influencias en la acumulación de residuos en zonas costeras a través de experiencias en ciencia ciudadana. Área de Medio Marino de Ecologistas en Acción, 27 pp. https://www. ecologistasenaccion.org/article35098.html. Accessed Feb 2018 EA/NALG (2000) Assessment of aesthetic quality of coastal and bathing beaches. Monitoring protocol and classification scheme. Environment Agency and The National Aquatic Litter Group, London Elplural.com (2017) El listado completo de las playas con bandera azul en España. El plural. https://www.elplural.com/sociedad/2017/05/16/ el-listado-completo-de-las-playas-con-bandera-azul-en-espana. Accessed Jan 2018 Ergin A, Karaesmen E, Micallef A, Williams AT (2004) A new methodology for evaluating coastal scenery: fuzzy logic systems. Area 36(4):367–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0004-0894.2004.00238.x Ergin A, Williams AT, Micallef A (2006) Coastal scenery: appreciation and evaluation. J Coast Res 22(4):958–964. https://doi.org/10.2112/ 04-0351.1 Ergin A, Özölçer İH, y Şahin F (2010) Evaluating coastal scenery using fuzzy logic: application at selected sites in Western Black Sea coastal region of Turkey. Ocean Eng, 37(7), pp 583–591. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2010.02.003 Estévez A, Vera JA, Alfaro P, Andreu JM, Tent-Manclus JE, Yébenes A (2004) Geología de la provincia de Alicante. Enseñanza de las Ciencias de la Tierra 12(1):2–15 ISSN 1132-9157 Farrell P, Nelson K (2013) Trophic level transfer of microplastic: Mytilus edulis (L.) to Carcinus maenas (L.). Environ Pollut 177:1–3. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.01.046 FEE (Foundation for Environmental Education) (2018) Blue Flag Beach Criteria and Explanatory Notes 2018. http://www.blueflag.global/ criteria/. Accessed Feb 2018 Fines KD (1968) Landscape evaluation: a research project in East Sussex. Reg Stud 2:41–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/09595236800185041 Fossi MC, Pedà C, Compa M, Tsangaris C, Alomar C, Claro F, Ioakeimidis C, Galgani F, Hema T, Deudero S, Romeo T, Battaglia P, Andaloro F, Caliani I, Casini S, Panti C, Baini M (2017) Bioindicators for monitoring marine litter ingestion and its impacts on Mediterranean biodiversity. Environ Pollut 237:18– 1040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.11.019 Galgani F, Hanke G, Werner S, De Vrees L (2013) Marine litter within the European marine strategy framework directive. ICES J Mar Sci 70(6):1055–1064. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fst122 Gilburn AS (2012) Mechanical grooming and beach award status are associated with low strandline biodiversity in Scotland. Estuar

Coast Shelf Sci 107:81–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2012.05. 004 Houston JR (2013) The economic value of beaches: a 2013 update. Shore Beach 81(1):3–10 Huete R (2005) Factores de atracción de Alicante como destino residencial: el punto de vista de los residentes europeos. In: Mazón T, Aledo A (Eds) Turismo residencial y cambio social. Nuevas perspectivas teóricas y empíricas. Aguaclara, Alicante, pp 375– 390. ISBN: 84-8018-264-4 Instituto Nacional de Estadistica. (Spanish Statistical Office) (2017) http://www.ine.es/. Accessed Feb 2018 Jambeck JR, Geyer R, Wilcox C, Siegler TR, Perryman M, Andrady A, Narayan R, Law KL (2015) Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347(6223):768–771. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1260352 Jelil SN, Jain N (2014) A rapid assessment of beach litter in Mumbai beaches. Technical Report: Reef Watch Marine Conservation: 25 pp. https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.1.4760.3449 Kay R, Alder J (1999) Coastal planning and management. E & FN SPON, New York 375 pp. ISBN 0-419-24340-2 Klein YL, Osleeb JP, Viola MR (2004) Tourism-generated earnings in the coastal zone: a regional analysis. J Coast Res 20(4):1080–1088. https://doi.org/10.2112/003-0018.1 Krelling AP, Williams AT, Turra A (2017) Differences in perception and reaction of tourist groups to beach marine debris that can influence a loss of tourism revenue in coastal areas. Mar Policy 85:87–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.08.021 Langford E (2006) Quartiles in elementary statistics. J Stat Educ 14(3):1– 27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2006.11910589 López I, Aragonés L, Villacampa Y, Bañón L, Palazón A (2017) Alicante coastal management for sustainable development. Int J Sustain Dev Plan 12(4):694–703. https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP-V12-N4-694-703 Maziane F, Nachite D, Anfuso G (2018) Artificial polymer materials debris characteristics along the Moroccan Mediterranean coast. Mar Pollut Bull 128:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017. 12.067 McKenna J, Williams AT, Cooper JAG (2011) Blue Flag or red herring: do beach awards encourage the public to visit beaches? Tour Manag 32(3):576–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.05.005 Micallef A, Williams AT, Gallego Fernandez JB (2011) Bathing area quality and landscape evaluation on the Mediterranean coast of Andalucia, Spain. J Coast Res 61:87–95 ISSN 0749-0208 Mir-Gual M, Pons GX, Martín-Prieto JA, Rodríguez-Perea A (2015) A critical view of the blue Flag beaches in Spain using environmental variables. Ocean Coast Manag 105:106–115. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.01.003 Mooser A, Anfuso G, Mestanza C, Williams AT (2018) Management implications for the most attractive scenic sites along the Andalusia Coast (SW Spain). Sustainability 10:1328. https://doi. org/10.3390/su10051328 Morgan R, Bursalioglu B, Hapoglu-Balas L, Jones TC, Ozhan E, Williams AT (1995) Beach user opinions and beach ratings: a pilot study on the Turkish Aegean Coast. In: Ozhan E (ed) Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Mediterranean Coastal Environment. MedCoast 95. 1995; pp 373–383 Munari C, Corbau C, Simeoni U, Mistri M (2016) Marine litter on Mediterranean shores: analysis of composition, spatial distribution and sources in north-western Adriatic beaches. Waste Manag 49: 483–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.12.010 Nachite D, Maziane F, Anfuso G, Macias A (2018) Beach litter characteristics along the Moroccan Mediterranean coast: Implications for coastal zone management. In: Botero C, Cervantes O, Finkl, C (eds) Beach Management Tools - Concepts, Methodologies and Case Studies. Coastal Research Library, vol 24. Springer, Cham, p 858. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58304-4_40

Coastal scenery and litter impacts at Alicante (SE Spain): management issues Nelson C, Morgan R, Williams AT, Wood J (2000) Beach awards and management. Ocean Coast Manag 43(1):87–98 NOAA Marine Debris Shoreline Survey Field Guide (2012) Sarah Opfer, Courtney Arthur, and Sherry Lippiatt, Rockville, pp 19 OSPAR (2009) Marine litter in the north-East Atlantic region: assessment and priorities for response. OSPAR, London Pagán JI, López I, Aragonés L, Garcia-Barba J (2017) The effects of the anthropic actions on the sandy beaches of Guardamar del Segura, Spain. Sci Total Environ 601:1364–1377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scitotenv.2017.05.272 Palazón A, Aragonés L, López I (2016) Evaluation of coastal management: study case in the province of Alicante, Spain. Sci Total Environ 572:1184–1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016. 08.032 Pasquini G, Ronchi F, Strafella P, Scarcella G, Fortibuoni T (2016) Seabed litter composition, distribution and sources in the Northern and Central Adriatic Sea (Mediterranean). Waste Manag 58:41–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.08.038 Peña-Alonso C, Ariza E, Hernández-Calvento L, Pérez-Chacón E (2018) Exploring multi-dimensional recreational quality of beach socioecological systems in the Canary Islands (Spain). Tour Manag 64: 303–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.09.008 Penning-Rowsell EC (1982) A public preference evaluation of landscape quality. Reg Stud 16(2):97–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09595238200185091 PNUE/PAM/MEDPOL (2009) Results of the assessment of the status of marine litter in the Mediterranean, Meeting of MED POL Focal Points No. 334, 91 pp Poeta G, Battisti C, Bazzichetto M, Acosta ATR (2016) The cotton buds beach: marine litter assessment along the Tyrrhenian coast of Central Italy following the marine strategy framework directive criteria. Mar Pollut Bull 113(1–2):266–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul. 2016.09.035 Pranzini E, Anfuso G, Botero CM, Cabrera A, Campos YA, Martinez GC, Williams AT (2016) Sand colour at Cuba and its influence on beach nourishment and management. Ocean Coast Manag 126:51– 60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.03.013 Quintela A, Silva CP, Calado H, Williams AT (2012) The relation of litter with bathing areas typologies, number of users and scenic value. The case study of São Miguel (Azores). J Coast Conserv 16(4):575–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-012-0197-0 Rangel-Buitrago N (2018) Coastal Scenery. Evaluation and Management. Cham, Switzerland. Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78878-4

Rangel-Buitrago N, Correa ID, Anfuso G, Ergin A, Williams AT (2013) Assessing and managing scenery of the Caribbean coast of Colombia. Tour Manag 35:41–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tourman.2012.05.008 Rangel-Buitrago N, Williams AT, Anfuso G, Arias M, Gracia CA (2017) Magnitudes, sources, and management of beach litter along the Atlantico department coastline, Caribbean coast of Colombia. Ocean Coast Manag 138:142–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ocecoaman.2017.01.021 Sheavly SB, Register KM (2007) Marine debris & plastics: environmental concerns, sources, impacts and solutions. J Polym Environ 15(4): 301–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-007-0074-3 Steers JA (1944) Coastal preservation and planning. Geogr J 104(1/2):7– 18. https://doi.org/10.2307/1790025 UNEP (2009) Marine Litter: A Global Challenge. UNEP, Nairobi 232 pp UNWTO (World Tourism Organization) (2016) UNWTO tourism highlights. World Tourism Organization, Madrid, pp 15 Werner S, Budziak A, van Franeker J, Galgani F, Hanke G, Maes T, Matiddi M, Nilsson P, Oosterbaan L, Priestland E, Thompson R, Veiga J, Vlachogianni T (2016) Harm caused by Marine Litter. MSFD GES TG Marine Litter - Thematic Report; JRC Technical report; EUR 28317 EN. https://doi.org/10.2788/690366 Williams AT, Micallef A (2009) Beach management. Principles and practice. Earthscan, London 480 pp. ISBN: 978-1-84407-435-8 Williams AT, Sellers V, Phillips MR (2007) An Assessment of UK Heritage Coasts in South Wales: J A Steers revisited. J Coast Res, SI 50 (Proceedings of the 9th International Coastal Symposium), pp 453–458. Gold Coast, Australia, ISBN 0749.0208 Williams AT, Micallef A, Anfuso G, Gallego-Fernández JB (2012) Andalusia, Spain: an assessment of coastal scenery. Landsc Res 37(3):327–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2011.590586 Williams AT, Rangel-Buitrago NG, Anfuso G, Cervantes O, Botero CM (2016a) Litter impacts on scenery and tourism on the Colombian North Caribbean coast. Tour Manag 55:209–224. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.tourman.2016.02.008 Williams AT, Randerson P, Di Giacomo C, Anfuso G, Macias A, Perales JA (2016b) Distribution of beach litter along the coastline of Cádiz, Spain. Mar Pollut Bull 107(1):77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. marpolbul.2016.04.015 Yoshikawa T, Asoh K (2004) Entanglement of monofilament fishing lines and coral death. Biol Conserv 117(5):557–560. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.biocon.2003.09.025