Impact statements

This perspective highlights a critical gap in plastic pollution research: the insufficient engagement with research philosophy. It advocates for more academic discussion within the research community concerning the conceptualization of pristine nature. The article critiques the dominance of physical sciences in the field and proposes Critical Physical Geography as one of several promising paths toward genuinely interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary plastic pollution research. Such integration is essential for enhancing the policy relevance. This contribution underscores the urgent need for greater incorporation of social science to effectively address the plastic pollution crisis. Furthermore, it calls on researchers to critically examine their epistemological assumptions and conceptualizations of nature, urging increased reflexivity, transparency and explicitness in the articulation of knowledge claims.

The development of plastic pollution research and the lack of common ground

The field of microplastic research got its heritage in marine biology, starting with the article “Lost at Sea: Where is all the plastic?” by Richard Thompson in 2004 (Thompson et al., Reference Thompson, Olsen, Mitchell, Davis, Rowland, John, McGonigle and Russell2004). Earlier on, research about marine litter in general, and plastic litter specifically, got its research foundation already in the 1960s (Ryan, Reference Ryan, Bergmann, Gutow and Klages2015). The studies on macroplastic from the 1960s until the mid-1980s were nearly solely about amounts and sources, whereby entanglement (plastic attached to animals), ingestion (eaten) and policy-related research are represented in the literature from this point on and toward the present (Ryan, Reference Ryan, Bergmann, Gutow and Klages2015; Thompson et al., Reference Thompson, Courtene-Jones, Boucher, Pahl, Raubenheimer and Koelmans2024). The research focus has developed. Ryan (Reference Ryan, Bergmann, Gutow and Klages2015) analyzed publications on plastic pollution until 2013, where themes like microplastics and chemicals in plastic got their boost in terms of the number of publications after 2005. After Ryan’s publication in 2015, there has been a substantial increase in focus on the need for health-related research (Thompson et al., Reference Thompson, Courtene-Jones, Boucher, Pahl, Raubenheimer and Koelmans2024), and in general, the research focus has broadened.

The field of plastic pollution research and its historical development throughout the last four decades is a story about a rapidly growing field, with an ever-increasing number of annual publications connected to these pollutants. At the same time, it is a story about a fragmented field of research, with a lack of common methodological practices, a lack of SI units, a lack of common ground when it comes to research philosophy and epistemology, as well as discussions about the ontology underlying the research published. The research, in terms of the number of publications and their themes, is skewed and does not sufficiently encompass social, educational, economic and legal perspectives. This is natural given the heritage of this research, but it is now time for change: Looking into the last four MICRO-conferences, biannually gathering researchers globally around plastic pollution research, gives a picture of this issue. After analyzing 1,799 abstracts, looking for the appearance of words and inductively categorizing these into themes, around 10% of all words appearing five times or more during minimum one conference were qualitatively classified as related to “Human dimensions” or “Policy & Governance” (Groeneveld et al., in prep). The same trend is highlighted by Thompson et al. (Reference Thompson, Courtene-Jones, Boucher, Pahl, Raubenheimer and Koelmans2024), as well as in a big and recent bibliometric analysis by Yang et al. (Reference Yang, Hu and Tan2025) analyzing 7,899 articles.

A great variety of different fields of science and their research philosophy is the foundation for what is now the foreground for global plastic pollution policy development. It is a strength, but these heterogeneous fields of research have their distinct (or vague) research traditions, and these traditions are often invisible in the research brought further to policymaking processes. It can be argued that the lack of open discussions about research traditions and knowledge claims within these traditions is limiting the power of the research toward policymakers: for example, during the attempt for the development of a Legally Binding Global Plastic Treaty (UN, 2024), as well as toward local administrative levels. This perspective proposes perspectives for reflection and inspiration toward the reader’s next research project about plastic pollution. Discussions about “what is clean enough?,” is “pristine nature” an end goal?” – and the big question – “what is nature?,” are touched upon and asked to be considered in future plastic pollution research.

Toward an end goal?

A question to raise is, “What does plastic pollution research build on when it comes to the understanding of the nature of science, as well as its methods, implications and audience?” As the amount of research on plastic pollution is developing and emerging, we are missing the social sciences to further develop our field of science together with the physical scientists – looking at plastic from an interrelated nature–human perspective. There are numerous physical science articles that are now presenting how plastic is interrupting or changing nature (e.g., Villarrubia-Gómez et al., Reference Villarrubia-Gómez, Cornell and Fabres2018; Bastesen et al., Reference Bastesen, Haave, Andersen, Velle, Bødtker and Krafft2021; Cyvin et al., Reference Cyvin, Ervik, Kveberg and Hellevik2021; Thompson et al., Reference Thompson, Courtene-Jones, Boucher, Pahl, Raubenheimer and Koelmans2024). However, based on personal experiences from some of the biggest conferences on plastic pollution throughout the last years (MICRO2018, Arctic Plastic Symposium 2023, MICRO2024), there still seems to be a main focus on concentrations, fate and effect, rather than research together with social sciences, behavioral change scientists, societal stakeholders and scientific discussions about where to go further, what to research, why, as well as the scientific discussion about our very foundation – the epistemological and ontological perspectives. It is important to highlight that these conferences specifically asked for both social and natural science perspectives in their calls for contributions.

We can neither define plastic pollution as the one big environmental threat, nor solely look toward political development in terms of capital-P Politics as described by King and Tadaki, Reference King, Tadaki, Lave, Biermann and Lane2018 to “save us” from ourselves. Capital P politics is about moving out of our research communities and taking action on the societal or political level, or forming public opinion, arguing for specific political decisions based on what is happening inside the “black box” of science (King and Tadaki Reference King, Tadaki, Lave, Biermann and Lane2018). At the political scene, we must acknowledge that there are also other global and pressing issues, as well as plastic pollution – for example, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) process on biodiversity and ecosystem services and the global depletion of natural areas and biodiversity (IPBES, 2019), climate change, as well as economy, trade and geopolitical issues that are influencing the development of the global treaties, and priorities among them. Politics with capital P also has its counterpart in the small-p politics, involving all our value-based choices about whom to interact with, how to do so and how to conduct our research (King and Tadaki, Reference King, Tadaki, Lave, Biermann and Lane2018). This can also be seen as politics of science, of which we are all a part, forming the science and, therefore, in the long run, also forming the Capital P politics.

To be able to work toward strong policies and both small and big P politics, we should look at the issue from a constructivist and cultural-relativist perspective as much as from a natural science perspective, including reflecting on our small-p political judgments and choices as researchers. This means looking at reality and knowledge in terms of who and why we construct this knowledge, rather than thinking about knowledge solely as something we as humans are interpreting, whereby the objective truth is out there. This could also bring us closer to the policymakers on both local, national and regional levels around the world.

To be able to get good policies, we must acknowledge that the context of our lives and roles is developing our view of the world, and so is also our research informing policy. The problem of plastic pollution is interconnected with societal development, economy and consumption, as well as our diverging views around the world about the severity of the problem (personal experience from attending the UN INC-4 and INC-5 processes) and how it should be prioritized compared to other global issues. If we do forget this, we will end up with a belief that enough, or more knowledge about presence, amounts and toxicity threshold values is sufficient for behavioral change and policy change: it is not (Horton et al., Reference Horton, Henderson, Bowyer, Courtene-Jones, Garrard, Kulsum, McKay, Manikarachchige, Sreekumar and Stanton2025). Working towards, or “[…] reaching an end-goal of enough knowledge is not feasible when tackling wicked sustainability problems.” (Oinonen et al., Reference Oinonen, Seppälä and Paloniemi2024, p. 502). Horton et al. (Reference Horton, Henderson, Bowyer, Courtene-Jones, Garrard, Kulsum, McKay, Manikarachchige, Sreekumar and Stanton2025) argues that plastic pollution is a social problem, not “solely an environmental issue.” They are arguing for how socio-oceanography can be used as a framework and possible “community” for multidisciplinary (and I would argue transdisciplinary) approaches against insufficient and damaging power relations between researchers and communities. Max Liboiron (Reference Liboiron2021) have written the book “Pollution is Colonialism,” thoroughly theorizing and discussing, among others, power relations, colonialism, indigenous approaches to knowledge, morality and land use in the frame of pollution and overproduction of material goods. Due to the format of this perspective, I am not dwelling more into these specific publications, but they are important examples of social science perspectives on plastic pollution, and there are, of course, many more examples. I’m therefore not arguing that there is a total lack of these perspectives within the plastic pollution research community, but there is a substantial lack of fully integrated trans- and interdisciplinary approaches in the total number of publications. Especially notable is the lack of explicit descriptions of researchers’ knowledge claims.

I’m here arguing that one of the issues to be able to gain this momentum where we manage to work more together, looking at the whole of the problem, where natural, economics and social sciences are co-creating knowledge and proposes actions, is differences in our view of the world, as well as our knowledge claims (Lave et al., Reference Lave, Biermann, Lane, Lave, Biermann and Lane2018) and lack of discussion about these differences. Pluralism is hereby a keyword to follow up on for interested readers. To work effectively as a group, we therefore need to understand each other’s language, as well as our epistemic and ontological views of reality and of our research about it. A discussion about epistemic and ontological foundations for plastic pollution research is, to a high degree, absent from current and previous literature. Searching for “intitle:plastic intitle:epistemology” or “intitle:plastic intitle:ontology” at Google Scholar (October 9 2025) can, to some degree, underline this. No articles are found to be of relevance where plastic pollution research is discussed together with epistemology or ontology. Also, “intitle:plastic” pollution “epistemology” gives few hits, with little relevance. This is not saying there are no articles touching upon the issue, and there might be a lack of indexation using these words, but it might say something about the magnitude of explicit discussions (or lack of it).

The discrepancy described between the need for cooperation on one side and the complexity of the issue on the other, as well as the “analytical reductionism” within current literature on the third side is highlighted by Gattringer (Reference Gattringer2018, p. 225). Based on experiences from discussions and conferences (among others, the Globally relevant MICRO2018, SETAC North America 2019 and MICRO2024), the discrepancy described is still present within our research community. We need to prioritize talking to each other across disciplines and cooperate with the public and administrative organs, as well as policymakers. This could create an integrated approach, as a triangle, and thereby democratically anchored research-policy interfaces.

The value of (pristine?) nature

“What is clean enough, and for whom?” asked a local authority employee during a workshop. I answered – we need it as clean as possible. He answered: “That is not something that makes my superior politicians grant money.” Do we, as a research society, strive toward a plastic-free society? How? Why, and what is clean enough?

Is it an idea or a possibility to go back to a pre-plastic reality without human influence, not modified by humans? It seems naive when we also acknowledge the severity of the problem. Humans have not only modified certain geographical areas but whole continents and ecosystems throughout their history on Earth. At the same time, there are several examples in recent literature, describing remote islands (Lavers and Bond, Reference Lavers and Bond2017) or the Arctic (McGlade et al., Reference McGlade, Samy Fahim, Green, Landrigan, Andrady and Costa2021) as originally pristine before plastic pollution “came.” Descriptions of an urge toward policymakers to act, bringing, for example, the river Ganges back to a state of “pristine” (Mariya et al., Reference Mariya, Kumar, Masood and Kumar2019) related to modern waste and pollution issues in the region, are also to be found. It seems to be partly forgotten that humans have altered and polluted nature since they started to burn wood (Tabassum-Abbasi et al., Reference Tabassum-Abbasi, Abbasi, Abbasi, Baxtiyarovich, Nandan and Mondal2023). It does not make the problem less serious, but it is important to reflect on what we see as the endpoint of reduced plastic pollution, or if we should work toward endpoints at all, or rather toward the process. Krieger (Reference Krieger1973, p. 1) writes in a philosophical manner, “We will have to realize that the way in which we experience nature is conditioned by our society.” We probably diverge in our view on “What is clean enough?” as we also diverge in our view of what is nature because our individual experiences of nature are diverging, conditioned in our society, culture and contemporary time of living. This must be discussed to be able to move forward together, both as a research community and in communication with stakeholders and policymakers. “Pristine” is here brought up as an example of a possible hidden end goal among researchers from various research traditions – an end goal that might be counterproductive. Comparable discussions are taken in other fields of research, for example, the discussion about what nature and wilderness are within the geography discipline (see, e.g., “Nature,” by Noel Castree, Reference Castree2005) and a discussion about how the same landscape can be seen and valued in different ways (Meinig, Reference Meinig and Meinig1979). These perspectives and meta-discussions are, to a high degree, lacking in relation to plastic pollution research.

We do have a lot of knowledge about the physical presence of plastic in the environment, but the argument about what to do with it, and where to prioritize mitigation and adaptation measures, ultimately boils down to “What is the value of nature?.” This is a question with different answers based on who to ask. The question is also easily connected to questions about whether different types of nature have different value, and for whom, when and why? Daily et al. (Reference Daily, Söderqvist, Aniyar, Arrow, Dasgupta, Ehrlich, Folke, Jansson, Jansson, Kautsky, Levin, Lubchenco, Mäler, Simpson, Starrett, Tilman and Walker2000) describe how nature can be valued economically, often seen as an asset. Nature can also be viewed to have intrinsic value, where nature should be kept for the sake of nature itself. A third view is an instrumental value of nature, whereby nature should be kept as an instrument for humans. Relational values of nature are also proposed as important; values related to relations between nature and actors in nature (such as humans) (Piccolo, Reference Piccolo2017). A combination of all three is also proposed. Piccolo (Reference Piccolo2017) highlights the need for a worldview based on intrinsic value, linked to “the good” (phrasing used by Piccolo, Reference Piccolo2017) in nature, to be able to move forward in protecting and restoring nature. At the other end is Castree (Reference Castree2004) arguing that nature, in an ontological way, does not exist at all: it is all about what the author places in the category “nature” that matters as nature. I will not go further into this, but these different worldviews are present, as well as the blurry line in between, and are inherently interfering with our view on what to research, what not to research and how to deal with plastic as a pollutant. Our views on this should be brought up in the daylight as part of our research.

We might benefit by looking to other fields of research to find common ground and be inspired to ask new questions, bringing our field of research further, where CPG has emerged as a field within geography serving as a bridge between social and physical geography. To be able to get one step closer to real interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research about plastic pollution, asking new and societal as well as policy-relevant questions, we can be inspired by CPG. Socio-oceanography is a similar approach.

CPG in plastic pollution research

Looking to the field of Physical Geography, it is argued that more knowledge or more articles about the physical science does not lead to more or stronger policies alone (Lane, Reference Lane2017). We need to incorporate how we are interpreting and understanding knowledge, as well as how it can and should be applied, to be able to apply it in society. This means walking out of our traditionally merit-based systems of academia, thinking about knowledge as a collaborative effort, rather than an individual effort of investigating and publishing. The use of Physical Geography as a means for comparison is deliberate, as the core of physical Geography, such as plastic pollution research, is built on and dependent on other fields of research. Physical geography is the borderline between geology, biology and social sciences, and thereby shares many of the traits of plastic pollution research when it comes to its variety of fields involved.

CPG is within the field of climate and atmospheric science, described as being an agent that “[…] provides a basis for collaborative analysis of the changing material conditions of air, atmosphere, and climate, […]” (Colucci et al., Reference Colucci, Vecellio and Allen2023, p. 226). Colucci et al. (Reference Colucci, Vecellio and Allen2023) further discuss how people are influencing nature and thereby explain how nature cannot be studied without emphasizing humans. On the other side, nature is influencing people and societies, and thereby humans cannot be studied without emphasizing nature and nature changes (Colucci et al., Reference Colucci, Vecellio and Allen2023). CPG is bringing research about nature (landscapes in their physical form), social dynamics, as well as politics together (Lave et al., Reference Lave, Biermann and Lane2018) to be able to tackle the human-introduced issues of the Anthropocene in a holistic way. CPG is aspiring to break down the borders between disciplines in Geography and can be a framework and inspiration for those of us working with plastic pollution research – toward more integrated research between disciplines. The forementioned socio-oceanography (Popova et al., Reference Popova, Aksenov, Amoudry, Becker, Bricheno, Brown, Clare, Evans, Evans, Fowell, Jevrejeva, Jacobs, Jones, Hibbert, O’Hara, McKinley, Payo-Payo, Pearce and Taylor2023; Horton et al., Reference Horton, Henderson, Bowyer, Courtene-Jones, Garrard, Kulsum, McKay, Manikarachchige, Sreekumar and Stanton2025) is proposing a similar approach, and these readings are encouraged. There are also multiple other approaches toward this needed collaborative effort across disciplines, and I’m encouraging discussions about which directions our field of research should take from now on.

Lave et al. (Reference Lave, Wilson, Barron, Biermann, Carey, Duvall, Johnson, Lane, McClintock, Munroe, Pain, Proctor, Rhoads, Robertson, Rossi, Sayre, Simon, Tadaki and Van Dyke2014) argue that landscape and landscape changes are a result of unequal power relations and historical events and social systems. The focus on landscapes can here easily be replaced with plastic-polluted nature, and still be valid. This emerging field of science argues that there is time to move away from a divide between social and physical science (Lave et al., Reference Lave, Biermann, Lane, Lave, Biermann and Lane2018). To be able to break down the divide between physical and social geography science, we do need to understand each other’s epistemological background and mindset. The same can be said about plastic pollution research and its great variety of disciplines from which it has emerged.

Working within a CPG framework from the physical science perspective means looking at “(1) how knowledge is constructed in Physical Geography, through the myriad ways in which we frame what it is we wish to research and how we actually go about researching it and (2) the historical origins of the particular ways we have come to conceptualize the subject of physical geographical enquiry (see Sherman Reference Sherman, Thorn and Rhoads1996)” (Lave et al., Reference Lave, Biermann and Lane2018). Translated to the field of plastic pollution research, I argue that the CPG framework can bring perspectives enabling us to (1) facilitate how and why we research plastic pollution, and (2) inspire us to examine the historical origin of the conceptualization of “plastic pollution,” leading to research on, as well as the enquiry of its research questions and their origin and motivation.

Lave et al. (Reference Lave, Biermann, Lane, Lave, Biermann and Lane2018, p. 6) describe how a CPG approach might influence research questions, and exemplify with desertification: “What are the material impacts of anti-desertification environmental policies on the people and landscapes of francophone North Africa?”; soil science, “How are studies of urban soils shaped by particular intellectual commitments of soil scientists (e.g., soil classification systems with little capacity to engage the range of human impacts)?”; and “What impacts do they have on human health and well-being?” (p.5).

I will be using one of my own research articles as an example of how CPG approaches could have widened the scope of my research. In Cyvin et al. (Reference Cyvin, Ervik, Kveberg and Hellevik2021), we asked how much, which types, as well as estimations of degradation of plastic in soil at a specific island complex at the coast of Norway. We also discussed implications for beach cleanups. Looking at Lave et al. (Reference Lave, Biermann and Lane2018) for inspiration and self-criticism, our questions could have included how the coastal community is affected by the pollution, and how the plastic is possibly changing the landscape (Bastesen et al., Reference Bastesen, Haave, Andersen, Velle, Bødtker and Krafft2021). We could have asked how the beach cleanups in the area are affecting the people and the landscape, and we could have asked how it is changing human or animal (feedstock) health and/or well-being (Lave et al., Reference Lave, Biermann and Lane2018). Some of these questions necessitate an interdisciplinary approach, as the answers cannot be researched or answered by a biologist, an economist or a geographer alone. The add-on research questions would have facilitated real interdisciplinarity.

In another article I coauthored, we investigated the potential for microplastic accumulation in earthworms (Oweniia) from the Norwegian Continental Shelf (Knutsen et al., Reference Knutsen, Cyvin, Totland, Lilleeng, Wade and Castro2020). We could have followed up with one more article, looking into the role of the nearby oil installations, their power relations with the state of Norway and how the oil sector is mitigating their plastic emissions (or not). We did not.

Credibility in science is dependent on the questions we are asking and choosing not to ask, as certain problem statements are taken forward while others are left behind. We need to acknowledge this and discuss why certain problems or questions are left out. This is leading us to the question: Where do the problem statements come from in plastic pollution research, and who asks which questions and for whom to read about it? This is connected to our epistemological background and knowledge claims, as well as the culture of research – a culture that needs a certain amount of self-criticism to emerge healthily.

Final reflections

An open discussion within the research community when it comes to the philosophy of research and science in relation to our research and knowledge claims would bring research about plastic pollution forward. It could guide future research in terms of priorities and focus, as well as give a more common understanding of, for example, what “pristine” is, and how it should be understood upon its counterpart “polluted,” as well as how the value of nature is touched – or not touched upon – within plastic pollution research.

The scope of this perspective article has been to provoke, and hopefully engage, researchers working with plastic pollution to also discuss their background and their epistemological and ontological standpoint, or provoke the readers to position themselves and explicitly discuss their philosophical point of departure within their research groups and/or in their publications. Most researchers working with plastic pollution are motivated by an improved environment for nature, humans and society. If we are to accomplish this, do we all have to ask societal questions? Plastic is created by humans living within culture and society. Hopefully, the future reduction in production and pollution is also to be implemented by humans. Working toward plastic pollution reduction is there for a combined nature, legal, technological and societal effort. Starting with questions like “What is pristine?” and “What is nature?” therefore might seem counterproductive, but aligning, or at least being transparent about our views of the world as well, is essential for successful cooperation. Rangel-Buitrago et al. (Reference Rangel-Buitrago, Ben-Haddad, Nicoll, Galgani and Neal2024) is presenting a good starting point for mutual understanding of plastic-related nomenclature, but mutual use of, for example, the term pyroplastic for burned plastic is not touching upon the need for usability, nor the value or societal value of various research on these pyroplastics. These reflections must gain closer attention within our research community.

I hereby hope for a new academic discussion to emerge, where the discussions about what nature is, seen through the goggles of plastic researchers, are discussed. What is pristine – as well as the overarching question – what should we research, why, for whom and not to forget why we are leaving out some questions and not others. It is hoped that some of the perspectives mentioned here can be a starting point for bridging some of the current gaps of highly needed cooperation. CPG, as well as socio-oceanography approaches, can be fields for reflection upon our own research, and the reader is encouraged to familiarize themselves with the basics of CPG (advising to start with chapter 1 in The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Physical Geography from 2019, edited by Lave et al., Reference Lave, Biermann and Lane2018). I do hope to see publications emerging from this perspective article, criticizing it or bringing these borderline philosophical discussions up on the table, and/or hopefully bringing the discussion further, toward a cleaner (or pristine?….) environment.