英検準1級の海洋保全・海洋ごみの長文【無料3題15問】｜海岸清掃・漁具・海草と全解説

英検準1級の海洋保全・海洋ごみの長文では、「集めたごみの重さ」「海に残る漁具」「写真に写った植生」を同じ成果の指標だと考えないことが重要です。慶英会が制作した独自英文3篇・内容一致15問・段落別日本語解説・重要語彙・根拠付き全解答で、自然・環境分野の読解を無料で練習できます。

日本英語検定協会による準1級の長文内容一致は7問です。このページは慶英会の独自長文3題・15問で、公式過去問ではありません。団体・地域・調査結果は架空の教材設定です。英検準1級公式出題形式も併せてご参照ください。

結論｜海洋分野で区別する4つの情報

• 回収量は作業人数・作業範囲・気象でも変わり、海の総ごみ量と同じではない
• 漁具の発見が直ちに特定の漁業者の責任を証明するわけではない
• 写真に植物が見えないことは、生息地の消滅の確定ではない
• 清掃・漁業・研究で働く人の安全と費用も環境対策の条件に含まれる

演習方法

各長文を初見で読んで5問ずつ答え、根拠の英文を探します。正答の後に日本語内容と解説で確かめ、不正解の選択肢にあるalways・every・provedなどの強すぎる表現を見直します。最後に各長文を英語60〜70語で要約してください。

独自長文1｜海岸清掃は海のごみ全体を減らしたか（約232語）

英文・第1段落

In the fictional coastal town of Seabrook, volunteers began collecting litter from three beaches. The organizers weighed the material after each event and recorded plastic packaging, fishing equipment, and other objects separately. When the total weight collected increased during the second month, some residents assumed that pollution was getting worse. Others interpreted the same result as evidence that the program was more successful. The researchers explained that neither conclusion necessarily followed: more volunteers or a different cleaning area could also affect the total.

英文・第2段落

The group introduced a standard route and asked each team to record the number of people and hours worked. It also noted weather and the timing of unusually high tides. A volunteer suggested comparing only the number of plastic bottles collected, but the scientists argued that one category could not describe the entire problem. Even a decrease on a cleaned beach would not show whether litter had been moved by currents to nearby areas. The team therefore worked with neighboring communities to compare observations.

英文・第3段落

After several months, the records helped identify places requiring more regular cleaning. However, the project did not claim that cleanup alone prevented new litter from entering the sea. The town planned to combine collection with clearer waste-disposal information and consultation with local businesses. Its objective was to evaluate sources of waste and long-term prevention, not simply celebrate the largest weight collected on a single day.

4択内容一致・独自5問

Q1. Why was collecting more litter not a clear sign of worsening pollution?

1. Pollution had already disappeared.
2. Changes in volunteer numbers or cleaning areas might affect the total.
3. No objects were weighed.
4. All volunteers worked identical hours.

Q2. What new information was recorded?

1. Only volunteer names.
2. The price of every plastic item.
3. Workers, hours, weather, and tides.
4. The age of all coastal residents.

Q3. Why might litter decreasing on one beach be misleading?

1. Ocean currents might move it to neighboring areas.
2. Every neighboring beach had been closed.
3. Volunteers stopped reporting.
4. Plastic could never float.

Q4. What did the town avoid claiming?

1. That the volunteers had collected some items.
2. That cleaning routes were introduced.
3. That volunteers could work in groups.
4. That cleanup alone would stop all new litter entering the sea.

Q5. Which goal guided the project?

1. Maximize the weight recorded on one day.
2. Understand sources and plan long-term prevention.
3. Stop working with businesses.
4. Count only plastic bottles.

段落別の日本語解説

第1段落：架空の沿岸都市Seabrookでは三つの浜辺の清掃を始め、プラスチック包装・漁具・その他のごみを区別して重量を測った。2か月目に回収重量が増えたことを汚染の悪化と読む人も、清掃の成功と読む人もいた。しかし参加者数や範囲によって重量は変わるため、一意の結論にはならない。

第2段落：同じ経路を清掃して人員・作業時間・天候・潮位を記録した。ペットボトルだけを調べても海ごみ全体は説明できず、一つの浜で減っても海流で別の浜に流れた可能性が残る。周辺の地域と観測を比較した。

第3段落：数か月後、重点的に清掃すべき場所が分かったが、清掃だけでごみの海への流入を防げるとは言わなかった。地域の事業者への協力とごみの発生源の調査を含めた長期対策を考えた。

重要語彙・表現

• marine litter：海洋ごみ
• disposal：廃棄・処分
• tide：潮の満ち引き
• current：海流

正解・本文根拠・全解説

Q1 正解B：Changes in volunteer numbers or cleaning areas might affect the total.。英文根拠：“more volunteers or a different cleaning area could also affect the total”。解説：採集条件による影響を区別。

Q2 正解C：Workers, hours, weather, and tides.。英文根拠：“record the number of people and hours … weather … tides”。解説：観測条件を揃えるための指標。

Q3 正解A：Ocean currents might move it to neighboring areas.。英文根拠：“moved by currents to nearby areas”。解説：一つの浜での減少が全体の減少と一致しない場合がある。

Q4 正解D：That cleanup alone would stop all new litter entering the sea.。英文根拠：“did not claim that cleanup alone prevented new litter”。解説：清掃の役割と予防を区別。

Q5 正解B：Understand sources and plan long-term prevention.。英文根拠：“evaluate sources of waste and long-term prevention”。解説：継続的な対策が結論。

英文要約の慶英会模範（64語）

A coastal town organized beach cleanups and recorded the weight and types of litter collected. An increase in material did not necessarily mean pollution had worsened, because volunteer effort and cleaning locations varied. Organizers standardized observations and compared nearby beaches. They concluded that cleanup data could guide priorities but would not prove that waste stopped entering the sea, so prevention and cooperation remained necessary.

独自長文2｜放置された漁具と漁師の回収作業（約227語）

英文・第1段落

In the fictional fishing port of Whitestone, crews occasionally lost nets and ropes during severe weather. Some equipment could remain in the water and create risks for boats or marine animals. A local association proposed a system for reporting lost gear and organizing safe recovery trips. Fishers supported the idea but worried that a rule requiring immediate retrieval might force small boats to travel during dangerous conditions. The association agreed that protecting people at sea must remain part of any environmental plan.

英文・第2段落

During a pilot, captains reported the approximate location, type, and time of each loss. Recovery teams combined these reports with information about currents and the depth of nearby waters. Some reports could not be verified immediately, and finding one piece of gear did not necessarily prove who had lost it. The association emphasized that reports were intended to improve recovery, not automatically assign blame. It offered an option to submit location details privately when public disclosure might create safety concerns.

英文・第3段落

After the trial, several items had been recovered, but some remained too difficult or risky to reach. The association explored whether stronger labeling, equipment checks, and cooperation with neighboring ports could reduce future losses. It also evaluated fuel use and staff time before expanding recovery trips. Officials described the project as a balance between reducing harm to marine environments and avoiding unnecessary danger for workers.

4択内容一致・独自5問

Q6. Why was immediate recovery not always required?

1. All gear could repair itself.
2. Weather made every boat larger.
3. It might put fishing crews in danger.
4. All fishers had stopped working.

Q7. What details did captains report?

1. The approximate location, type, and time of lost gear.
2. Every fish caught that year.
3. The price of all boats in the region.
4. A list of tourists.

Q8. Why did the association avoid blaming individuals automatically?

1. Everyone was known to be responsible.
2. Recovered gear did not necessarily identify who had lost it.
3. No gear was ever found.
4. Reports were guaranteed to be exact.

Q9. What did the pilot reveal?

1. Every item was safely recovered.
2. All recovery trips were free.
3. The program needed no staff.
4. Some items were too risky or difficult to retrieve.

Q10. What was the overall aim?

1. Maximize trips in all weather.
2. Eliminate every fishing port.
3. Protect marine life while managing worker safety and costs.
4. Publish every fisher’s private information.

段落別の日本語解説

第1段落：架空の漁港Whitestoneでは悪天候で網やロープが失われ、船や海の生物に危険を及ぼす場合があった。紛失した漁具を報告して回収する制度を提案したが、危険な天候でも直ちに回収を義務づけると小型船の安全に問題があるため、人命を優先することにした。

第2段落：試行では紛失場所の概略、漁具の種類、時刻を記録し、海流や水深と照合した。見つかった道具だけで紛失させた人を決めつけられるとは限らず、報告は回収のためであり自動的な責任追及ではない。必要に応じて位置情報を非公開で提出できるようにした。

第3段落：回収できた道具はあったが、危険で近寄れないものも残った。標識付け、点検、他港との協力で将来の紛失を減らせないか検討し、燃料と作業時間も評価した。環境保全と漁業従事者の安全を両立する方針である。

重要語彙・表現

• abandoned fishing gear：放置・紛失された漁具
• retrieval：回収
• current：海流
• assign blame：責任を負わせる

正解・本文根拠・全解説

Q6 正解C：It might put fishing crews in danger.。英文根拠：“travel during dangerous conditions”。解説：作業員の安全を守るため。

Q7 正解A：The approximate location, type, and time of lost gear.。英文根拠：“location, type, and time of each loss”。解説：捜索に必要な情報。

Q8 正解B：Recovered gear did not necessarily identify who had lost it.。英文根拠：“did not necessarily prove who had lost it”。解説：発見と責任の証明は別。

Q9 正解D：Some items were too risky or difficult to retrieve.。英文根拠：“some remained too difficult or risky to reach”。解説：回収に限界がある。

Q10 正解C：Protect marine life while managing worker safety and costs.。英文根拠：“balance … marine environments … danger for workers”。解説：安全と環境の両立。

英文要約の慶英会模範（63語）

A fishing association tested a system for reporting and recovering lost nets and ropes. Crews recorded locations and gear types, but recovery could be dangerous and reports did not automatically establish responsibility. Some items were retrieved, while others remained difficult to reach. The association considered labeling, inspections, and cooperation among ports, aiming to reduce marine harm without risking workers or ignoring operational costs.

独自長文3｜沿岸の藻場を測る市民参加型の調査（約213語）

英文・第1段落

A fictional marine research center invited local divers and boat owners to help map areas of underwater vegetation near a sheltered bay. Researchers hoped repeated observations would show which areas changed over time. Volunteers recorded locations, water clarity, and the presence of visible plants. Some participants interpreted fewer plants in a photograph as proof that the habitat had been permanently lost. Scientists cautioned that season, depth, and visibility might change how much vegetation a camera could capture.

英文・第2段落

The center provided instructions about recording the same places in similar ways. Teams were asked to note when strong waves or poor visibility prevented observation instead of reporting an apparent absence of plants. The project also relied on trained specialists to confirm unusual findings. Fishers welcomed the information because underwater vegetation could be relevant to local ecosystems, but some worried that public maps might lead visitors to sensitive sites. Organizers discussed ways to share useful results without revealing every exact location.

英文・第3段落

After comparing several seasons, the project identified areas for additional study but avoided announcing a complete recovery or collapse of the habitat. The team wanted to combine photographic records with other environmental measurements before recommending restrictions or restoration. The researchers concluded that citizen observations could extend coverage, provided that methods and uncertainty were recorded carefully.

4択内容一致・独自5問

Q11. What was a limitation of interpreting photographs?

1. All cameras showed identical views.
2. Weather and depth could affect what vegetation was visible.
3. No volunteers were involved.
4. Every photograph identified exact plant ages.

Q12. Why were teams asked to record poor observing conditions?

1. To hide their mistakes.
2. To prevent future research.
3. To distinguish lack of visibility from an absence of plants.
4. To discourage trained specialists.

Q13. What concern arose about public maps?

1. They might attract visitors to sensitive locations.
2. They could never be read.
3. They would automatically improve habitat.
4. They were required to show private addresses.

Q14. What did the first seasonal comparisons identify?

1. A guaranteed recovery of all plants.
2. Complete collapse of the ecosystem.
3. A permanent ban on fishing.
4. Areas requiring additional investigation.

Q15. What was the conclusion about citizen observations?

1. They can replace all scientific measurements.
2. They can expand coverage when methods and uncertainty are documented.
3. They should never involve specialists.
4. They prove habitat restoration immediately.

段落別の日本語解説

第1段落：架空の海洋研究センターでは湾の海底植物の分布を、市民のダイバーや船主と協力して調べた。撮影で植物が少なく見えても、季節・水深・水の透明度の違いがあるため、永久的に生息地が失われた証明にはならない。

第2段落：同じ場所を似た方法で観察する手順を設け、波や濁りで見られなかった日も記録した。通常と異なる結果は専門家が確認し、詳細な地図が保護すべき場所への人の集中を招かないよう公開範囲も検討した。

第3段落：複数季節の比較で追加調査に値する場所を特定したが、生息地が完全に回復または崩壊したと断定しなかった。他の環境測定と照合したうえで規制や回復活動を考えるという結論にした。

重要語彙・表現

• underwater vegetation：水中の植生
• water clarity：水の透明度
• visibility：視認性
• sensitive site：配慮が必要な場所

正解・本文根拠・全解説

Q11 正解B：Weather and depth could affect what vegetation was visible.。英文根拠：“season, depth, and visibility”。解説：見え方が条件で変わる。

Q12 正解C：To distinguish lack of visibility from an absence of plants.。英文根拠：“poor visibility prevented observation instead of … absence”。解説：非検出と不存在を区別。

Q13 正解A：They might attract visitors to sensitive locations.。英文根拠：“public maps might lead visitors to sensitive sites”。解説：公開の副作用への配慮。

Q14 正解D：Areas requiring additional investigation.。英文根拠：“areas for additional study”。解説：追加調査候補を得た。

Q15 正解B：They can expand coverage when methods and uncertainty are documented.。英文根拠：“extend coverage, provided that methods and uncertainty … recorded”。解説：方法と不確実性の記録が条件。

英文要約の慶英会模範（64語）

A research center invited volunteers to photograph underwater vegetation near a coastal bay. Scientists warned that seasonal changes, depth, and visibility could affect images, so fewer visible plants did not prove permanent habitat loss. Volunteers recorded observation conditions and worked with specialists to check unusual findings. The project identified sites for further study while protecting sensitive locations and avoiding claims of complete ecological recovery.

3長文の横断復習

海岸清掃ではごみの回収量と汚染の増減を区別します。漁具の報告制度では回収できた数だけでなく作業安全を確認します。水中の植生観測では、非検出と不存在を区別し、写真以外の測定結果も照合しましょう。

7日間の学習手順

1. 1日目：独自15問に初見で回答
2. 2日目：回収量と環境改善の因果関係を説明
3. 3日目：漁具回収の費用と安全条件を整理
4. 4日目：観測した植物と測定条件を区別
5. 5日目：重要語彙で例文をつくる
6. 6日目：長文3篇を英語60〜70語で要約
7. 7日目：英検公式過去問で類似する自然環境の英文を読む

よくある質問

専門的な海洋科学の知識がなくても解けますか？

本文の説明・測定の条件・判断の限界を読み取ることが重要です。知識だけから本文にない結論を足すことは避けてください。

ごみをたくさん回収すると海が必ずきれいになったことを証明しますか？

必ずしもそうではありません。参加人数・回収場所・潮流などを考慮する必要があり、回収量と流入量は別の指標です。

この15問の得点から合否を予想できますか？

慶英会の独自問題であり、公式の設問数やCSEスコアとは対応しません。公式過去問も活用してください。

関連する無料教材と慶英会の学習相談

野生動物・生物多様性の長文3題15問／食料・農業の長文3題15問／水資源・水不足の長文3題15問。

慶英会では英検準1級の環境分野も、英文の構造と本文根拠を理解してから要約や英作文へ進める個別指導を行います。最大1か月完全無料体験・学習相談はこちら。

参照した公式情報

日本英語検定協会・準1級の試験内容。参照日：2026年10月28日。英文・問題・和訳・解説は慶英会独自制作です。