The Potential Impact of Macro/Mesoplastic Pollution on Beach Recreation: Determining Economic Value Losses with Comparative Models

Abstract

Macro/mesoplastic (M/MP) pollution has become a critical stressor degrading beach quality, particularly in densely urbanized coastal settings. This study quantitatively assesses the impact of M/MP pollution on beach recreation demand and related local income. In metropolitan coastal areas such as Istanbul, increasing M/MP loads diminish perceived hygiene and aesthetic quality, alter visitor behavior, and generate measurable losses in cultural ecosystem services, including recreation and scenic value. Based on this hypothesis, (i) a multi-beach travel cost site-selection model (random utility, mixed logit) to incorporate M/MP density as an environmental quality attribute; and (ii) a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to estimate conditional willingness-to-pay (WTP) for enhanced beach cleanliness and hygiene, were applied. Changes in visitor welfare and reductions in regional expenditures were translated into local income effects using input–output multipliers. Results indicate that higher M/MP concentrations significantly reduce visit probability and per-capita spending. At Florya Beach, characterized by higher M/MP density (1.2 particles/m²), net welfare effects were negative (−0.80), whereas the lower-density Büyükçekmece Beach (0.58 particles/m²) exhibited a positive welfare change (+1.11). Visitors expressed a mean WTP of approximately 40 TL for improved cleanliness. To our knowledge, this is the first study in Turkey to evaluate M/MP-driven recreational losses using advanced econometric modeling. Overall, findings demonstrate that rising M/MP densities erode recreational demand and regional spending, while positive WTP signals that targeted policy interventions—such as increased cleaning frequency and upstream pollution reduction—may yield net welfare gains. Keywords: travel cost method, discrete choice experiment, micro/mesoplastic

Keywords

• travel cost method
• discrete choice experiment
• micro/mesoplastic

Makro/mesoplastik Kirliliğinin Plaj Rekreasyonuna Olası Etkisi: Karşılaştırmalı Modellerle Ekonomik Değer Kayıplarının Tespiti

Abstract

Makro/mezoplastik (M/MP) kirliliği, özellikle yoğun kentleşmiş kıyı bölgelerinde plaj kalitesini düşüren kritik bir stres faktörü haline gelmiştir. Bu çalışma, mikro/mesoplastik (M/MP) kirliliğinin plaj rekreasyon talebi ve yerel gelir üzerindeki etkisini nicel olarak tahmin etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. İstanbul gibi yoğun şehirleşme baskısı altındaki kıyılarda, artan M/MP yükünün hijyen/estetik algısını düşürerek, ziyaretçi davranışını değiştirdiği; dolayısıyla kültürel ekosistem hizmetlerinde (rekreasyon, manzara değeri) ölçülebilir kayıplara yol açtığı bilinmektedir. Bu hipotezden hareketle, (i) çoklu-plaj seyahat maliyeti site-seçim modeli (rasgele fayda, mixed logit) ile M/MP yoğunluğunu kalite özniteliği olarak değerlendirmek, (ii) DCE ile “temizlik/hijyen” için koşullu ödeme isteğini WTP tanımlamak üzerine yöntemler kullanılmıştır. Bu kapsamda, ziyaretçi refah değişimini ve bölgesel harcamadaki azalışı giriş-çıkış çarpanlarıyla yerel gelire eş değerlemek planlanmıştır. Bulgular, kıyı rekreasyon alanlarında deniz çöpünde ama özellikle M/MPdeki artışın, ziyaret günleri ve harcamaları oldukça azalttığını işaret etmekte hem ziyaretçi günlerini hem de bölgesel harcamayı istatistiksel olarak anlamlı verilerle düşürdüğünü göstermektedir. Florya Plajı’nda M/MP yoğunluğu (1,2 adet/m²) nedeniyle fayda azalırken (-0,8), daha düşük yoğunluğa sahip Büyükçekmece Plajı’nda (0,58 adet/m²) fayda pozitif değer (+1,11) almıştır. Ayrıca plaja gelen ziyaretçilerin plajın temizliği için ortalama 40 TL ödemeye razı olarak belirlenmiştir. Elde edilen veriler kapsamında, ekonometrik modellerle yorumlanan ilk çalışma olma özelliği taşıyan bu çalışma sonuçları, M/MP yoğunluğundaki artışın ziyaret olasılığını ve kişi-başı harcamayı düşürdüğü; “temizlik” için pozitif WTP’nin ise politika seçenekleri (temizlik sıklığı, kaynakta azaltım) altında net refah kazanımları sağlayabildiğini göstermektedir. Anahtar sözcükler: seyahat maliyeti yöntemi, ayrık seçim metodu, mikro/mesoplastik

Keywords

• seyahat maliyeti yöntemi
• ayrık seçim metodu
• mikro/mesoplastik

References

1. Akarsu, C., Sönmez, V. Z., Altay, M. C., Pehlivan, T., & Sivri, N. (2022). The spatial and temporal changes of beach litter on Istanbul (Turkey) beaches as measured by the clean-coast index. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 176,113407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.113407
2. Akduman, S., Demirbağ, M.A. & Sivri, N. (2020). Bibliometric Profile of Scientific Research on Bacteriological Water Quality Studies in Turkey (1999-2019). J. Anatolian Env. and Anim. Sciences, 5(3), 425-432 https://doi.org/10.35229/jaes.779012
3. Alarcon-Aguirre, G., Del Águila Romero, Y., Vela-Dafonseca, M., Zevallos Pollito, P. A., Rodriguez Achata, L., Ramos Enciso, D., ... & Garate-Quispe, J. (2024). Valuation of Ecosystem Services of Fluvial Beaches in the Southeastern Peruvian Amazon. Water (20734441), 16(23). DOI: 10.3390/w16233474
4. Angelo, H., dos Santos Ferreira, A., de Almeida, A. N., de Rezende Alvares, M., & dos Santos, J. A. (2025). Application of the Travel Cost Method to Estimate the Economic Value of Brasília National Park. Sustainability, 17(19), 8932. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17198932
5. Artell, J., Juutinen, A., Kostensalo, J., Lankia, T., Pouta, E., Ahtiainen, H., & Tolvanen, A. (2025). European water recreation values—A systematic review and meta-analysis of travel cost studies published between 2000–2021. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 50, 100899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2025.100899
6. Aydın, İ., Terzi, Y., Gündoğdu, S., Aytan, Ü., Öztürk, R.Ç., Atamanalp, M., Alak, G., Sivri, N., Akarsu, C., Atıcı, A.A., Güven, O., Bat, L., Kılıç, E.,Öztekin, A., Uçar, A., Sönmez, V.Z., Paslı, S., & Kıdeyş, A.E. (2023). Microplastic Pollution in Turkish Aquatic Ecosystems: Sources, Characteristics, Implications, and Mitigation Strategies. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 23(12), TRJFAS24773. http://doi.org/10.4194/TRJFAS24773
7. Ballance, A., Ryan, P. G., & Turpie, J. K. (2000). How much is a clean beach worth? The impact of litter on beach users in the Cape Peninsula, South Africa. South African Journal of Science, 96(5), 210–213.
8. Basmacı, A., Akarsu, C., Sivri, N. (2022) Heavy metals: bibliometric mapping, environmental risk assessment, policies and future needs, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 20, 5715–5732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-022-04544-7

9. Beltur, 2025. Plaj. https://beltur.istanbul/tr/beltur-plaj. Accessed Date: 25.09.2025
10. Bergmann, M., Gutow, L., & Klages, M. (Eds.). (2015). Marine anthropogenic litter. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16510-3
11. Bermúdez, J.R., Swarzenski, P.W. (2021). A microplastic size classification scheme aligned with universal plankton survey methods, MethodsX, 8, 101516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2021.101516
12. Birdir, S., Ünal, Ö., Birdir, K., & Williams, A. T. (2013). Willingness to pay as an economic instrument for coastal tourism management: Cases from Mersin, Turkey. Tourism Management, 36, 279-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.10.020
13. Blettler, M.C.M., Abrial, E., Khan, F.R., Sivri, N., Espinola, L.A. (2018). Freshwater plastic pollution: Recognizing research biases and identifying knowledge gaps, Water Research, 143, 416-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.06.015
14. Browne, M. A. (2010). Spatial patterns of plastic debris along estuarine shorelines. Environmental Science & Technology, 44(9), 3404–3410. https://doi.org/10.1021/es903784e
15. Chen, Q., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Assessing tourists’ preferences and willingness to pay for artificial beach park development and management: A choice experiment method. Sustainability, 15(3), 2547. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032547
16. Chernet, D., Sema, W., Gebeyehu, A., & Wogayehu, B. T. (2024). Willingness to pay for improved solid waste management and associated factors among households in Debre Berhan town, North Shoa Zone, Amhara, Ethiopia, 2022. Frontiers in Sustainability, 5, 1463777. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2024.1463777
17. Danso, G. K., Otoo, M., Linh, N. D., & Madurangi, G. (2017). Households’ willingness-to-pay for fish product attributes and implications for market feasibility of wastewater-based aquaculture businesses in Hanoi, Vietnam. Resources, 6(3), 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources6030030
18. Dodds, R., & Holmes, M. R. (2019). Beach tourists; what factors satisfy them and drive them to return. Ocean & coastal management, 168, 158-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.10.034
19. Drius M., Carranza M.L., Wagensommer R.P. (2025). Ecological and Cultural Ecosystem Services in Coastal Areas. Land, 14(8), 1673. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14081673 F. Witt, Moutinho (1995). Economics and forecasting—economic impact. Tourism marketing management handbook, 457.
20. Fosgerau, M. (2017). The valuation of travel time variability (Discussion Paper No. 2016-04). OECD/International Transport Forum. DOI:10.1787/9789282108093-3-en
21. Haab, T. (2018). What’s the value of a clean beach? Here’s how economists do the numbers. Trellis. https://trellis.net/article/whats-value-clean-beach-heres-how-economists-do-numbers/ Accessed Date: 25.09.2025
22. Hanemann, W. M. (1984). Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American journal of agricultural economics, 66(3), 332-341. https://doi.org/10.2307/1240800
23. Hanley, N., Mourato, S., & Wright, R. E. (2001). Choice modelling approaches: A superior alternative for environmental valuation? Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(3), 435–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6419.00145
24. Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2015). Applied choice analysis: A primer (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press, 601-705. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316136232
25. Hole, A. R. (2007). Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood. The Stata Journal, 7(3), 388-401.https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0700700306
26. Hynes, S., Hanley, N., & Scarpa, R. (2008). Effects on welfare measures of alternative means of accounting for preference heterogeneity in recreational demand models. American Journal ofAgriculturalEconomics,90(4),1011–1027. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2008.01148.x
27. Ilao, C. I. L., Casila, J. C. C., Kurniawan, T. A., Sampang, R. S., Panganiban, L. L. T., Patacsil, L. B., & Limbago, J. S. (2025). Assessment of microplastics and heavy metal contamination in surficial sediments of Pasig River, Philippines during wet season. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 270, 104527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2025.104527 Jang, Y. C., Hong, S., Lee, J., Lee, M. J., & Shim, W. J. (2014). Estimation of lost tourism revenue in Geoje Island from the 2011 marine debris pollution event in South Korea. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 81(1), 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.02.021
28. Kaya, G. (2022). Estimating Regional Aggregate Economic Value of Forest Recreation Services with Linked Travel Cost Model. Forests, 13(10), 1561. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13101561
29. Khedr, S., Rehdanz, K., Brouwer, R., van Beukering, P., Dijkstra, H., Duijndam, S., & Okoli, I. C. (2023). Public preferences for marine plastic litter management across Europe. Ecological Economics, 204, 107609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107609
30. Khodkar, G., & Özyurt, G., (2018) Plajlarda Taşıma Kapasitesinin Değerlendirilmesi: Sürdürülebilir Kullanım İçin Örnek Çalışma, Kuşadası Plajları, 9. Kıyı Mühendisliği Sempozyumu, 421-432.
31. Koç, E. (2015). Türkiye turizm sektörünün ikincil ekonomik etkilerinin çarpan ve girdi-çıktı analizi yöntemi ile incelenmesi (Master's thesis, Istanbul Sabahattin Zaim University (Turkey)).
32. Koppelman, F. S., & Bhat, C. (2006). A self-instructing course in mode choice modeling: Multinomial and nested logit models. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration.
33. Lee S., (2025). Travel Cost Method in Environmental Economics. Accessed Date: 25.09.2025 https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/ultimate-guide-travel-cost-method-environmental-economics?
34. Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. D. (2000). Stated choice methods: Analysis and applications. Cambridge University Press, 183-214. DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511753831.008
35. Marine Debris Program, (2025). The Economic Impacts of Marine Debris on Tourism-Dependent Communities. https://marinedebris.noaa.gov/research/economic-impacts-marine-debris-tourism-dependent-communities Accessed Date: 25.09.2025
36. McFadden, D., & Train, K. (2000). Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of applied Econometrics, 15(5), 447-470. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1255(200009/10)15:5<447::AID-JAE570>3.0.CO;2-1
37. McIlgorm, A., Campbell, H. F., & Rule, M. J. (2011). The economic cost and control of marine debris damage in the Asia-Pacific region. Ocean & Coastal Management, 54(9), 643–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2011.05.007
38. Mendes, D. S., Silva, D. N. N., Silva, M. G., Beasley, C. R., & Fernandes, M. E. B. (2024). Microplastic distribution and risk assessment in estuarine systems influenced by traditional villages and artisanal fishery activities. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 29044. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-80468-1
39. Metro İstanbul, (2025). Biletler ve Ücretler. https://www.metro.istanbul/SeferDurumlari/BiletUcretleri Accessed Date: 25.08.2025
40. Moreno-Gutiérrez, M., Hernández-Trejo, V., Valdivia-Alcalá, R., Juárez-Mancilla, J., Cruz-Chávez, P. R., & Jakes-Cota, U. (2024). Linking Tourist Willingness to Pay and Beach Management: A Travel Cost Analysis for Balandra Marine Park, Mexico. Tourism and Hospitality, 5(4), 922-941. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp5040053
41. Mutuku, J., Yanotti, M., Tinch, D., & MacDonald, D. H. (2022). Willingness to pay for cleaning up beach litter: A meta-analysis. Marine Poll Bul., 185, 114220 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114220
42. Okoffo, E. D., O’Brien, S., O’Brien, J. W., Tscharke, B. J. and Thomas, K. V. (2019). Wastewater treatment plants as a source of plastics in the environment: a review of occurrence, methods for identification, quantification and fate. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology, 5(11), pp. 1908–1931. DOI: 10.1039/C9EW00428A
43. Pásková, M., Štekerová, K., Zanker, M., Lasisi, T. T., & Zelenka, J. (2024). Water pollution generated by tourism: Review of system dynamics models. Heliyon, 10(1). 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23824
44. Schultz, P. W., Bator, R. J., Large, L. B., Bruni, C. M., & Tabanico, J. J. (2013). Littering in context: Personal and environmental predictors of littering behavior. Environment and Behavior, 45(1), 35–59. DOI: 10.1177/0013916511412179
45. Schuhmann, P. W., Bass, B. E., Casey, J. F., & Gill, D. A. (2016). Visitor preferences and willingness to pay for coastal attributes in Barbados. Ocean & Coastal Management, 134, 240-250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.09.020
46. Silva, C. D., Alves, F. L., & Rocha, R. (2007). The management of beach carrying capacity: The case of northern Portugal. Journal of Coastal Research, 50(sp1), 135-139. https://doi.org/10.2112/JCR-SI50-027.1
47. Sivri, N., & Çullu, F. A. (2020). Doğanın çözümü en zor denklemi: Denizlerdeki plastikler. MTA Doğal Kaynaklar ve Ekonomi Bülteni, 29, 15-21.
48. Sivri, N., Kiremitci, V. Z., Ozcan, H. K., & Cullu, A. F. (2017). The potential physical impacts of macro/microplastics on Istanbul coastal area. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 26(1), 208-215.
49. Smart, L. S., Vukomanovic, J., Sills, E. O., & Sanchez, G. (2021). Cultural ecosystem services caught in a ‘coastal squeeze’between sea level rise and urban expansion. Global Environmental Change, 66, 102209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102209
50. Sönmez, V.Z., Akarsu, C., Sivri, N., (2023). Impact of coastal wastewater treatment plants on microplastic pollution in surface seawater and ecological risk assessment, Environmental Pollution 318, 120922 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120922
51. Sumatra, E. J. (2025). Tourism preferences of Gen Z in the Philippines: A conjoint analysis of beach resort attributes in Samal Island. Indonesian Journal of Advanced Research, 4(4), 365-380. https://doi.org/10.55927/ijar.v4i4.14210
52. T.C. Çalışma ve Sosyal Güvenlik Bakanlığı. (2025). Asgari ücret. T.C. Çalışma ve Sosyal Güvenlik Bakanlığı. https://www.csgb.gov.tr/poco-pages/asgari-ucret/ Accessed Date: 25.09.2025
53. TCDD, (2025). Ücretlendirme ve Kart Kullanım Kuralları, Accessed Date: 25.08.2025 https://www.tcddtasimacilik.gov.tr/marmaray/tr/ucretlendirme
54. Train, K. E. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge university press.
55. TÜİK, (2024). Hanehalkı Tüketim Harcaması https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Hanehalki-Tuketim-Harcamasi-2024-53957 Accessed Date: 25.08.2025
56. Wagner, M., Scherer, C., Alvarez-Muñoz, D., Brennholt, N., Bourrain, X., Buchinger, S., ... & Reifferscheid, G. (2014). Microplastics in freshwater ecosystems: what we know and what we need to know. Environmental Sciences Europe, 26(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-014-0012-7
57. Ward, F. A., & Beal, D. (2000). Valuing nature with travel cost models: a manual. In Valuing Nature with Travel Cost Models. Edward Elgar Publishing.
58. Wubalem, A., Woldeamanuel, T., & Nigussie, Z. (2023). Economic valuation of Lake Tana: A recreational use value estimation through the travel cost method. Sustainability, 15(8), 6468. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086468
59. Xu, W., & Zhang, Z. (2022). Impact of Coastal Urbanization on Marine Pollution: Evidence from China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 19(17), 10718. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710718
60. Zhao, Y., Han, Z., Zhang, C., Wang, Y., Zhong, J., & Gao, M. (2024). Coastal cultural ecosystem services: A bridge between the natural ecosystem and social ecosystem for sustainable development. Land, 13(9), 1352. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13091352
61. URL1: https://destekhizmetleri.ibb.istanbul/haberler/ibb-plajlari-3-haziranda-sezona-merhaba-diyor/ Accessed Date: 25.08.2025
62. URL2: https://www.aau.edu/research-scholarship/featured-research-topics/economic-benefits-cleaning-our-beaches? Accessed Date: 25.08.2025