Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 265

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Differences in perception and reaction of tourist groups to beach marine debris that can influence a loss of tourism revenue in coastal areas

Open access
Krelling, Allan Paul, Williams, Allan Thomas, Turra, Alexander·2017·Marine Policy

Abstract

Marine debris is the most conspicuous pollutant that makes beaches aesthetically unappealing to users. The perceptions and reactions of beach users to stranded litter were compared between second-home owners and users (SHOU) and non-recurrent tourists (T). A questionnaire was applied to obtain socio-economic characteristics; assessment of the overall beach quality and perception of beach litter pollution (perception); hypothetical scenarios of marine litter pollution and deterrence (reaction); and potential alternative destinations in the case of deterrence (economic effect). Questionnaires (n = 319) were applied at two Brazilian subtropical beaches, with different physiographical settings (Pontal do Sul, PS, estuarine beach; Ipanema, I, open-ocean beach). Beach users' groups differed regarding daily expenses (T > SHOU), period of permanence per trip (SHOU > T) and trip frequency (SHOU > T). The open-ocean beach (I) was rated the worst regarding overall beach quality. Marine debris generation was mainly attributed to local "beach users", in the open-ocean beach (I). "Marine" (or non-local) sources were four times more frequently cited in the estuarine beach (PS). Perception on actual litter pollution and litter deterrence scenarios, did not vary between beaches or groups. More than 85% of beachgoers would avoid a beach visit if a worst scenario (> 15items/m2) occurred and most users would choose a neighboring state beach destination. Stranded litter may potentially reduce local tourism income by 39.1%, representing losses of up to US$ 8.5 million per year. These figures are proxies to support the trade-off local authority's make between investments to prevent/remove beach litter and the potential reduction in income from a tourist destination change.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.08.021

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 36 references

Metadata

Authors
Krelling, A. P., Williams, A. T., & Turra, A.
Venue
Marine Policy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-11
Volume
85
Pages
87-99
ISSN
0308-597X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2753302284
Cited by
265
References
36
FWCI
7.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Differences in perception and reaction of tourist groups to beach marine debris that can influence a loss of tourism revenue in coastal areas. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.08.021
The paper
Krelling, A. P., Williams, A. T., & 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. Marine Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.08.021

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.