Home

Exhibitors

Sponsors

Conference Evaluation

How would you rate this conference?
(10 is highest)

How did you hear about this conference?

Evaluation Comments

What did you find most interesting/informative about the conference?

• Contact with other scientists working in the same subject which I would never have the opportunity to make unless I had come.
• The toxicology and oceanographic information—the “hard science”.
• Wow, where do I begin? All of it!
• The need for a collaborative effort with plastic industry; importance of education (especially at an early age); question of how to get inland areas more concerned about the amount of trash (plastics) that ends up in the ocean/coast.
• Variety of approaches to the problem.
• Good diversity of speakers and topics.
• Andrady’s research on plastics becoming a food source for zoo plankton; both outstanding keynote speeches, information on city plans for meeting trash TMDLs.
• The inter-relatedness of all of the topics/media. Really applicable to P2, stormwater, recycling, health, sustainability.
• McDonough’s speech—terrific.
• Keynote address.
• William McDonough’s presentation.
• Great keynote speakers. Great displays. Nice variety of speakers.
• Great keynote on 2nd day. Good speaker diversity. Well-organized workshop Friday.
• Dolphins on the boat!
• William McDonough.
• The opportunity to hear from government, industry, and environmentalists.
• The best thing about the conference was the variety of speakers!
• The perspectives of a wide range of organizations and sectors, as well as the exhibitors’ displays.
• William McDonough’s keynote address; Richard Thompson’s talk; Anthony Andrady’s talk.
• The people start to pay attention in this big plastic contamination problem.
• McDonough speech; advice on doing outreach programs.
• People.
• Cradle to cradle.
• I loved William McDonough’s keynote—very intelligent and engaging. I thought it was smart to start with general plastics overviews, then overviewing compostable/degradable plastic, not just a dialogue. I liked hearing what local jurisdictions had done, as well as some of the regulatory efforts/advice.
• William McDonough’s presentation—ties into Bridgett Thompson’s call for “big ideas”.
• Some of the research on animal impacts, movement of trash, structural controls.
• Keynote address.
• A lot of speakers, diversity of topics, bringing together stormwater/waste management (and scientists studying impacts) to look at specific constituent basics.
• Loved Mr. McDonough. Enjoyed the international participants!!
• General issue surrounding degraded plastics and pellets in marine environment; keynote speaker on 9/08—he was amazing, very inspiring.
• William McDonough was outstanding—great message and great delivery.
• Emerging data on marine pollution; big picture thinking à William McDonough
• Mr. McDonough’s speech was great, and the public outreach session on Wednesday.
• Broad range of perspectives/representation from variety of agencies. Keynote speaker on Thursday.
• All the information presented by plastic industry reps and plastic engineers/researchers were really interesting and informative. McDonough’s keynote address was outstanding.
• Keynotes were informative/inspiring; displays were great; some very good speakers and presentations.
• Single focus, displays, networking, location—some good practical applications from speakers.
• Industry, environmentalists, government, other agencies working together finally.
• I particularly enjoyed listing to Bill McDonough speak.
• The whole concept was very new to me.
• I was actually wide-awake and very interested for the two days of the conference. I can’t offer a more flattering review than this!
• The networking opportunities, learning what research/action is happening.
• International efforts in managing plastic debris; general facts and local efforts, and to find them so strong and proliferated.
• William McDonough and Stephen Groner.
• Speakers were exceptional. William McDonough was fabulous.
• William McDonough.
• The how-to on education of the public, and structural control methods.
• Pretty much everything—I’m new to the subject, so I had a lot to absorb. Probably most interesting, though, was how serious a problem runoff is and how much is already happening around the issue.
• William McDonough’s presentation! The diversity of attendees made the conference very informative and inspiring, and I think that formula is essential to this process.

What do you think could make this conference better next time?

• More questions/dialogue time; poster sessions.
• I think there are manufacturers who are suing post-consumer resins 3-7. Since there appears to be a consensus that plastic production will continue to T!, presenting some of the uses for these plastic debris materials would help educate attendees to options for re-manufacturing with these materials.
• Some papers/presentations seemed repetitive. It would have been interesting to hear from someone from Germany or Europe. The Brazilian woman was interesting to broaden the scope from Southern California.
• Maybe panels with fewer people – not enough time to cram everyone in!
• Better A/V systems ensure presentations are working before each presenter speaks; to send in advance a “draft” conference agenda; include in the folder a notepad; better regulate room temperature.
• A poster session with evening mixer; end of day wrap up; more international contributors.
• Condense/combine topics to reduce number of speakers and/or speaking time (especially since a few people gave several presentations—condense into one). This way, everyone can attend all presentations instead of choosing, since they were all so interesting.
• On time.
• It was perfect.
• Mix of contributors was excellent (industry, research, legislature, etc.). Would be good to have summary presentation on problems and plastic debris from selected contributors given to some of the keynote speakers such as William McDonough/ mayor, who were not here for the whole meeting.
• Afternoon/evening social events to allow for more networking and vendor contact “mixer”.
• More short breaks.
• Either provide additional time for speakers, or preview their presentations for time and content.
• More discussion of the health effects of plastics—bisphenol-A, phthalates, and other endocrine disruptors—long term effects on health/environment—precautionary principle.
• More speakers like William McDonough, who looks at the problem holistically and presents solutions, and is an actual practitioner.
• Fewer topics.
• I think that longer breaks/more time per presentation would alleviate the “rushed” atmosphere. No one likes to be cut off mid presentation!
• More time for networking; invite product and packaging design folks.
• Less concurrent sessions.
• More industry.
• More question time.
• Focus on fewer topics, allow for dialogue with speakers.
• A speaker session on compostable plastic, because it’s new and a bit controversial still. The dialogue was nice, but I felt we needed additional back up behind it.
• Only two days next time.
• There really needs to be more discussion of alternatives/research and development of plastics that DO biodegrade. And economics, incentives, cost/benefit analysis should really be a major component.
• Incorporating more academia in audience and speakers, incorporating industry in audience and speakers.
• Would like to see more emphasis in presentations on program implementation on “lessons learned”. Also, maybe mix speakers on source reduction/education/debris capture in a single session, talk about a topic holistically—like, how do all these elements/components come together and achieve success in plastic debris.
• Fewer speakers—spread out to 3 full days; more time; review presentations in advance for time reasons.
• Better regulate AC—rooms got very cold at times; larger exhibitor area with more exhibitors, invite more diverse groups such as solid waste services, plastics manufacturers, soy/corn starch polymer manufacturers; not have so many speakers and so much focus on L.A.—would be nice to hear from diverse speakers from different areas with different issues (SF Bay Area, Delta, inland communities).
• Fewer speakers/topics. Got repetitive after a while—too many people addressed the same issues.
• More specific science to answer questions like compostable/biodegradable additives that are unhealthy.
• More time for McDonough and more time for questions and answers with such an industry leader. More Q&A time for other panels as well.
• More industry presence to give power to the collaboration and to hear what they are/are not currently doing. Ensure recycling in the hotel.
• Maps of area/public transportation identified to/around site; increased publicity to parkland rangers/maintenance folks/environmental education staff to participate in conference.
• Be careful about concurrent sessions: try to juxtapose different sessions rather than run similar themed sessions at the same time.
• More time for questions after presentations. Don’t ask people to make last minute presentations!!!
• Agenda was very ambitious—some presentations were rushed. Allow more time for some flexibility with schedule.
• Panelists should compare topics so as not to be extremely repetitive.
• It was a little long by the end of the second day of lectures.
• I can’t think of much right now.
• More discussion/question time in each session. Also, many sessions seemed to overlap information, it would be nice to somehow streamline. Also, Q&A time with keynotes.
• Better time management.
• Next conference on solutions.
• More information from industry on alternative methods of packaging/bottling instead of plastic.
• Don’t try to cram too much into too little time.
• More data on tried and true methods that work, and actual costs of the various techniques.
• More time for dialogue among the attendees would be really interesting—for people to share their knowledge and experiences. But I’m sure people will come away with many new contacts.
• Make sure presenters coordinate better the topics covered. Some wasted time repeating info already covered!
• I believe the conference was well organized, but I would suggest getting a broader range of speakers to get a big picture perspective from all angles.
• The conference was very well organized. The scope was broad—far more so than other marine debris workshops I have attended. The presence/presentations of industry representatives were of considerable value.

Would you attend another conference on this topic? If so, what additional topics should be included in this agenda?

• Yes!
• Profile plastic manufacturers who presently use/need post-consumer resins to manufacture products.
• Yes!
• Yes—more on successful efforts. Hopefully, there are more. Successes are encouraging, give people a place to start.
• Yes, invite representatives from different industries with plastics such as car, boating and AG industries to understand how they are dealing with plastics, impacts and reduction. Also, invite DOW Chemical to learn about their perspective about plastics.
• Yes. Marine mammal and fishery impacts of marine debris.
• Yes.
• Yes.
• Yes—more info on sea life effects.
• Need socioeconomic input.
• Yes. Plastic bottle release is potentially unsafe. Industry recommends disposable bottles as “one time use” or else risk PVC + chemicals leaching into contents. Plastic bottles degrade with temperature extremes, etc. Best to promote re-use of safe materials.
• Yes—I think knowing how plastics are recycled would be good—what do they make? Most of us recycle, but I think more of the public would if they knew where it all goes and how they benefit.
• Yes.
• Yes. Discussion of future trends in plastic manufacturing.
• Need more industry representatives.
• Yes—not sure what I’d add. This was very well done.
• Not necessarily—need producers’ responsibility and behavior change. This will make them change the way they make packaging and force consumers to make different/better choices. Clear that we cannot continue things the way they are if we want to protect the planet.
• Include other potential plastic debris docks and toxicity.
• Yes—updates on programs we heard about today.
• Yes! Perhaps a discussion of what people learned this year (05) NEXT YEAR to see what participants took away with them, and the programs they implemented.
• Yes—maybe focus on the ecological impacts more in-depth, as well as TMDL discussions and current projects/success stories.
• Yes—especially a conference on the East Coast, perhaps the Chesapeake Bay or the Great Lakes!
• Yes!
• Yes—alternative material instead of plastic material.
• Yes—toxicity of POP pollutants.
• Yes—probably, depends on timing.
• Yes.
• Yes. Bring in companies who use plastic—Coke, P&G, car guys, computer, S/W Packaging, etc.
• Yes, I would attend another conference. I am curious about the ramifications of international actions on plastic, such as plastic bag fees; banning of disposable plastic ware; exploring the option of “refillables” for beverage containers; research on invasive species which have “rafted” on plastic; lower income countries facing problems/how some of them are handling the problem; extended chemical analysis/affects of chemicals in plastics. I know what phthalates are and why they’re bad, but some don’t.
• Maybe—need to see more research results, international case studies, success stories, more reps from non-California.
• Yes—economics, future technology, pending legislation.
• Yes—research in the field. I didn’t attend public outreach—need more on enforcement, behavior changes.
• Yes, discussions on behavior change to stop source of pollution.
• Absolutely. Alternatives to plastics, looking at how programs can inform consumer choices at point of sale vs. disposal behaviors. Also, talking about different kinds of plastics.
• Absolutely.
• What structural controls and treatment controls actually work; urban runoff issues for non-coastal communities from SF Bay and other areas; effective illegal dumping and litter abatement programs; resources that are already developed and available to municipalities—education related.
• Yes.
• Yes, but not annually. Would recommend others to come.
• Yes. More emphasis on emerging solutions. More plastics industry participation and representation.
• Yes.
• Yes! Great. More info on actual industry collaborations, more info from plastics industry on what they can/cannot recycle and why.
• This conference was very comprehensive! More international collaborations/representatives. More grassroots organizations focusing on educational outreach, especially from inner city. Otherwise, great!
• Session on known/potential health impacts of plastics on marine organizations, ecosystems, people.
• Yes. Issues related to how recycled plastics are reused—by whom, processes, etc.
• Maybe—hopefully by next time, we’ll be implementing some solutions and evaluating how well they’re working.
• Lessons learned; follow-up from previous meetings’ presentations/discussions.
• Yes, probably so.
• Yes—worked smoothly.
• I would definitely attend the next! We should invite representatives from companies making biodegradable, compostable single-use food items and packaging materials as both exhibitors and possibly presenters.
• I will certainly attend another conference. Additional topics might include more info on legislative actions/attempts.
• Yes.
• Yes.
• YES.
• Yes. Production of better products that are not single use disposable. Reinstitution of glass bottled milk, water, Coke, etc.!
• Yes.
• Most definitely. More on the coordination of community and neighborhood events.
• Yes. I’d like more info on the potential big-picture solutions that were touched on: the whole idea of product and packaging design, closing the loop, etc. Also on structural changes that could facilitate this.
• Yes.
• Yes, I would attend this type of conference. It would be helpful to get more case studies being presented.
• Yes. In some ways, hearing of new analytical work (also monitoring studies that reveal/suggest changes in accumulation rates), whether better or worse.
• Yes.
• Yes.
• This one was well done.

Do you have any additional comments or suggestions you would like to share?

• I would suggest that the speakers themselves could choose the sessions in which they will present, or that the chair of the session get in touch in advance to arrange this.
• Thank you for providing a wide variety of highly qualified speakers. Please start a bit earlier so if the schedule became delayed speakers would not have to rush so fast through their materials.
• I came as an interested citizen, not affiliated to any organization. I really enjoyed the conference. Very high caliber people.
• Food was great—incorporating lunches into conference is a great idea. (Maybe it’s done all the time, I just don’t attend many conferences.)
• Next time, and to save water, don’t put water pitchers on each table. Better a water dispenser. Very good—facility, food, etc. Thanks for putting this conference together!
• As a presenter, I would have liked more time for the paper to be contributed. The plenary speakers were really good and well chosen. The contribution of international speakers was valuable. 
• Need more public education.
• Need an activity to capture the attention of the media during its meeting.
• CWEA requires continuing education and contact hours to maintain certain certification (Environmental Compliance Inspection). Perhaps contact CWEA regarding conference to reach additional attendees. Inspectors are on the “street” daily and would benefit from info.
• Why the CD if all the presentations will be available on the web? Producer responsibility!
• Perhaps better coordination of speakers with PowerPoint presentations—by day two, I began to experience trash slide catatonia—many, many PowerPoints repeated the same info.
• Thank you for the mugs!
• Well done—good participation, good presenters for the most part. I wonder why there was no on from Oregon or Washington? Cousteau and McDonough were terrific.
• No one used pens/pads.
• Speakers were very well selected—most highly interesting. On the video—this is puzzling! Who is to be the audience for this? It is too detailed and focuses too much on the resin pellet industry problem (to say nothing of too long and boring!) for use within the general public.
• Sorting out presentations pre-speaking. Many “glitches” occurred pre-start.
• More dialogue and sharing of ideas with brainstorming of ideas to pursue. Establish 2-3 goals coming out of the conference to give us all something to focus on. Establish an identity for the grays. Thank you very much for putting on such a great conference.
• I wished the first day’s lunch had a more definitive vegetarian option. I liked including industry, though I was disappointed I didn’t get to hear more of what they’re coming to the table with. I thought it was good to choose a late-in-the-week, September conference date in/near a largish airport with many nearby hotel options with varying price ranges; I liked the conference cost varying with position (industry/academic/nonprofit). Also, maybe leave a small space to write comments on individual sessions (on some, the speaker was good, but I’d heard the talk and knew the subject too well to hold interest; or, some topics weren’t related to areas I feel connected to [TMDLs]; hence, I thought almost all the speakers were good for the conference, but they just weren’t what I was looking for personally). Incorporating breaks intentionally was nice, too. Thank you overall—great conference!!!
• It was great to get different levels of government, NGOs, industry, academics all together. Well-run conference!
• Too many of the talks covered similar material, some very redundant. Too many presentations by state agencies. No real opportunity to work in groups to come up with the big ideas Bridget Thompson asked us for in the beginning.
• The organization of the sessions needs major improvement. Need longer breaks between sessions in AM & PM, 30 minutes minimum. You had 10 minutes for a break. Impossible when you have exhibitors, and not fair to exhibitors. Poor time management on Wednesday. Need to keep speakers to allocated time, leave five minutes for Q&A, and end session with enough time to switch speakers/panels, or go to exhibits. Wednesday afternoon Peninsula session, 1:30 with Neiter—you really didn’t have someone who knew how to work off files and have all the files open and ready to go, versus opening before speaker and wasting time. Poor or no introduction for some of the speakers. Four speakers and 15 minutes each is way too little time. Too rushed, not fair to speakers and audience. Must have transition period between sessions, and need consistent announcements when session ends, direct people to break, ask new speakers to attend. One question: how many conferences have the organizers done? Second day: You probably don’t need the welcoming remarks as it took time away from the EXCELLENT keynote speaker. Lunch—ran too late, delaying afternoon starts. Again, you need 30-minute AM/PM breaks and 15-minute consecutive sessions. People need time  to speak with speakers and colleagues, etc. More time for questions.
• Excellent food. Wonderful array of healthy breakfast, lunch, and snacks. I liked those presentations that focused on addressing trash, along with other pollution issues, to cut down costs and reduce multiple areas of pollution. Public hands are very limited while pollution keeps growing. Allow for longer breaks or lunches to network and speak with exhibitors. Loved the coffee mug giveaway for conference attendees.
• Great job.
• Excellent topic, more needs to be done. Would be nice to see more local, state, and industry participation. More discussion of producer responsibility in panels, best practices, new industry success stories.
• Great job.
• William McDonough, Anthony Andrady, Stephanie Barger—great speakers, great range (science, nonprofit, conceptual). Thank you for not using bottled water. Please ensure conference participants know where to recycle in the hotel.
• PowerPoint presentations aid people with sight impairments. Have questions in reservation packet asking participants if they need accommodations for disabilities. Great coordination!
• Great that there were zero plastic water bottles anywhere during the conference!!
• Don’t pick moderators that talk so much that the audience doesn’t have time for questions. Great job with food, coffee, etc. Great conference workers and good choice of keynote speakers!
• Great work putting this together!
• Provide comment/question sheets in each session to assure all ideas are captured, not just those from people who manage to pose questions. Note takers may filter/corrupt such information, so written comments/questions should be encouraged. Answers should be made available (online?) to all attendees.
• Staff helpful. Coffee mugs great. Boat trip great opportunity.
• Seems to be relatively well organized—could do a better job of limiting speakers time, but generally did a good job of getting conference back on track—much appreciated.
• The organizers were very helpful.
• I was surprised and thoroughly impressed with the speakers and presentations and how international the event was.
• Dinner was overpriced.
• Wonderful conference.
• I am so glad you’ve got the “plastic” ball rolling. Thank you…this was a great event!
• This was a great mix of people—presenters and attendees—everybody involved in the issue and its potential solutions. It was inspirational to see all the different approaches, all the energy being devoted to the issue, and how much everyone cares.
• Workshops very informative.
• No problems encountered. There is need for the message to be spread beyond the specialist group.
• Scheduling a full day workshop on a Friday in L.A. causes some transportation issues for some people.
• Side note—great food and snacks. I’m vegetarian, and was pleased with the selections (rare!). Overall, an excellent conference, very useful. THANK YOU!!!
• Great conference organizers! Well-planned, smoothly run, flexible, friendly.

Video Comments

• I think there could be good selected applications for biodegradable plastics; however they would be just a few—for example, grocery bags and foam food one-time use packaging. Other than that, I think it is a very confusing issue for consumers and is not a viable way to change the way we make things. Less packaging and producer responsibility is the way to go. They may find out in the market that bio-plastics are more cost effective.
• Inject a few humorous segments—e.g., Santa Monica’s video “Urban Runoff—The Movie” or Seattle’s “Water You Doing”; minimize talking to head people from agencies—you will lose the student audience with too much of them.