solid waste management in pakistan research papers

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

Environmental Sustainability Impacts of Solid Waste Management Practices in the Global South

Ismaila rimi abubakar.

1 College of Architecture and Planning, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 31441, Saudi Arabia

Khandoker M. Maniruzzaman

2 Department of Urban and Regional Planning, College of Architecture and Planning, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 31441, Saudi Arabia

Umar Lawal Dano

Faez s. alshihri, maher s. alshammari, sayed mohammed s. ahmed, wadee ahmed ghanem al-gehlani.

3 Department of Architecture, College of Architecture and Planning, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 32141, Saudi Arabia

Tareq I. Alrawaf

4 Department of Landscape Architecture, College of Architecture and Planning, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 31441, Saudi Arabia

Associated Data

No data were reported in this review article.

Solid waste management (SWM) is one of the key responsibilities of city administrators and one of the effective proxies for good governance. Effective SWM mitigates adverse health and environmental impacts, conserves resources, and improves the livability of cities. However, unsustainable SWM practices, exacerbated by rapid urbanization and financial and institutional limitations, negatively impact public health and environmental sustainability. This review article assesses the human and environmental health impacts of SWM practices in the Global South cities that are the future of global urbanization. The study employs desktop research methodology based on in-depth analysis of secondary data and literature, including official documents and published articles. It finds that the commonplace SWM practices include mixing household and commercial garbage with hazardous waste during storage and handling. While waste storage is largely in old or poorly managed facilities such as storage containers, the transportation system is often deficient and informal. The disposal methods are predominantly via uncontrolled dumping, open-air incinerators, and landfills. The negative impacts of such practices include air and water pollution, land degradation, emissions of methane and hazardous leachate, and climate change. These impacts impose significant environmental and public health costs on residents with marginalized social groups mostly affected. The paper concludes with recommendations for mitigating the public and environmental health risks associated with the existing SWM practices in the Global South.

1. Introduction

Solid waste management (SWM) continues to dominate as a major societal and governance challenge, especially in urban areas overwhelmed by the high rate of population growth and garbage generation. The role of SWM in achieving sustainable development is emphasized in several international development agendas, charters, and visions. For example, sustainable SWM can help meet several United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), such as ensuring clean water and sanitation (SDG6), creating sustainable cities and inclusive communities (SDG11), mitigating climate change (SDG13), protecting life on land (SDG15), and demonstrating sustainable consumption and production patterns (SDG12) ( https://sdgs.un.org/goals , accessed on 26 September 2022). It also fosters a circular urban economy that promotes reductions in the consumption of finite resources, materials reuse and recycling for waste elimination, pollution reduction, cost saving, and green growth

However, coupled with economic growth, improved lifestyle, and consumerism, cities across the globe will continue to face an overwhelming challenge of SWM as the world population is expected to rise to 8 billion by 2025 and to 9.3 billion by 2050, out of which around 70% will be living in urban areas [ 1 , 2 ]. In developing countries, most cities collect only 50–80% of generated waste after spending 20–50% of their budgets, of which 80–95% are spent on collecting and transporting waste [ 3 , 4 ]. Moreover, many low-income countries collect as low as 10% of the garbage generated in suburban areas, which contributes to public health and environmental risks, including higher incidents of diarrhea and acute respiratory infections among people, particularly children, living near garbage dumps [ 5 ]. Obstacles to effective municipal SWM include lack of awareness, technologies, finances, and good governance [ 6 , 7 , 8 ].

Removing garbage from homes and businesses without greater attention to what was then carried out with it has also been the priority of municipal SWM in several cities of developing countries [ 9 ]. In most developing countries, garbage collected from households is disposed of in landfills or dumpsites, the majority of which are projected to reach their capacities within a decade. The unsustainable approach of dumping or burning waste in an open space, usually near poor communities on the city edge, or throwing garbage into water bodies was an acceptable garbage disposal strategy. Similarly, several cities still use old-generation or poorly managed facilities and informal uncontrolled dumping or open-air waste burning. Often, these practices affect marginalized social groups near the disposal sites [ 10 ]. Moreover, this approach poses several sustainability problems, including resource depletion, environmental pollution, and public health problems, such as the spread of communicable diseases.

However, ever since the advent of the environmental movement in the 1960s, there has been a far-reaching appreciation of environmental and public health risks of unsustainable SWM practices. In the 1970s and onward, SWM was a technical issue to be resolved using technology; hence, the emphasis and investments were placed on garbage collection equipment [ 5 ]. Although modern technology can significantly reduce emissions of hazardous substances, by the 1990s, that viewpoint changed when municipalities become unable to evacuate and dispose of garbage effectively without the active involvement of service users and other stakeholders [ 5 ]. The inability of the public sector in the global South to deliver sufficient improvement of SWM, coupled with the pressure from the financial institutions and other donor agencies, led to privatization policies at the end of the decade. However, as privatization failed to provide municipal SWM services to the poor and marginalized communities, the current global thinking on addressing municipal SWM problems is changing.

A more sustainable waste management approach prioritizes practices such as reduced production, waste classifications, reuse, recycling, and energy recovery over the common practices of landfilling, open dumps, and open incineration [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. This approach, which is still at an early stage but getting increased attention in the Global South, is more inclusive and environment-friendly and has less negative impact on human health and the environment than the common practices [ 14 , 15 , 16 ]. As such, there is a need to assess SWM practices in the Global South and their impacts on environmental and human health because 90% of the expected growth in the urban population by 2050 is expected to happen here. So far, there are a few studies on the impacts of SWM practices on human health and the environment in the global regions.

Therefore, this review article addresses this knowledge gap by assessing the negative impacts of the dominant SWM practices on human and environmental health. Section 2 presents the research methodology. Section 3 reviews the major SWM practices in the Global South and assesses the environmental and public health implications of SWM practices in the Global South cities. While Section 4 discusses the implications of the findings and proffers recommendations that could help authorities to deal with SWM challenges and mitigate public and environmental health risks associated with unsustainable SWM practices, Section 5 concludes the paper.

2. Materials and Methods

The present paper utilizes a desktop research method of collecting and analyzing relevant data from the existing literature, as utilized in some previous studies [ 17 , 18 ]. The method consists of three iterative stages shown in Figure 1 : (a) scoping, (b) collecting relevant literature, and (c) data analysis. Firstly, the scoping stage involves defining and understanding the research problem under investigation and setting the study scope and boundary. The scope of the paper is to explore human and environmental impacts of SWM practices toward policy and practical recommendations for a more sustainable SWM system, with the Global South as the study boundary. This stage also helped identify relevant keywords to search for during the literature review in the second stage.

The flow chart of the research method (Source: [ 18 ] (p. 4)).

The second stage involved identifying and collecting relevant literature from online sources. The researchers utilized Google Scholar and Scopus databases to identify peer-reviewed academic works (peer-reviewed articles, conference proceedings, and books) as well as the gray literature. The literature that satisfied the following three inclusion criteria was identified and downloaded: (1) It is related to the study’s objective; (2) it is in the English language; and (3) it was published within the last twenty years, although some old documents about established concepts and approaches were also accessed. The downloaded gray literature includes newspaper articles, statistics, technical reports, and website contents from international development organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations, and the World Bank.

In the last stage, the authors organized, analyzed, and synthesized the data collected from the literature. The downloaded works were organized according to the similarity of topics, even though some fit in more than one category. Then, each document was thoroughly examined, and themes concerned with SWM practices and their human and environmental impacts were collated, synthesized, and harmonized. Finally, the themes were summarized in Table A1 , Table A2 and Table A3 (see Appendix A ) and discussed. Implications and recommendations of the findings are then highlighted.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. solid waste management practices in the global south.

Global municipal solid waste (MSW) generation rose from 1.3 billion tons in 2012 to 2.1 billion tons (0.74 kg/capita/day) as of 2016, which by 2050 is expected to increase by 70% to reach a total of 3.40 billion tons or 1.42 kg/capita/day [ 19 ]. The per capita MSW generation varies among regions and countries. In the EU (European Union), it ranges from 0.3–1.4 kg/capita/day [ 20 ], and in some African cities, the average is 0.78 kg/capita/day [ 21 ]. In Asia, urban areas generate about 760,000 tons of MSW per day, which is expected to increase to 1.8 million tons per day or 26% of the world’s total by 2025, despite the continent housing 53% of the world’s population [ 22 , 23 ]. In China, the total MSW generation was around 212 million tons (0.98 kg/capita/day) in 2006, out of which 91.4%, 6.4%, and 2.2% were disposed of via landfilling, incineration, and composting [ 24 ]. In 2010, only 660 Chinese cities produced about 190 million tons of MSW, accounting for 29% of the world’s total, while the total amount of solid waste in China could reach at least 480 million tons in 2030 [ 25 ]. In China, industrial waste (more than one billion tons) was five times the amount of MSW generated in 2002, which is expected to generate approximately twice as much MSW as the USA, while India will overtake the USA in MSW generation by 2030 [ 26 ].

In Malaysia, while the average rate of MSW generation was about 0.5–0.8 kg/person/day, Kuala Lumpur’s daily per capita generation rate was 1.62 kg in 2008 [ 27 ], which is expected to reach 2.23 kg in 2024 [ 28 ]. About 64% of Malaysia’s waste consists of household and office waste, 25% industrial waste, 8% commercial waste, and 3% construction waste [ 29 ]. In Sri Lanka, the assessed mean waste generation in 1999 was 6500 tons/day or 0.89 kg/cap/day, which is estimated to reach 1.0 kg/cap/day by 2025 [ 30 ]. With a 1.2% population growth rate, the total MSW generation in 2009 was approximately 7250 tons/day [ 31 ]. In Ghana, the solid waste generation rate was 0.47 kg/person/day, or about 12,710 tons per annum, consisting of biodegradable waste (0.318), non-biodegradable (0.096), and inert and miscellaneous waste (0.055) kg/person/day, respectively [ 32 ].

Moreover, global SWM costs are anticipated to increase to about $375.5 billion in 2025, with more than four-fold increases in lower- to middle-income countries and five-fold increases in low-income countries [ 33 ]. Globally, garbage collection, transportation, and disposal pose a major cost component in SWM systems [ 19 ]. Inadequate funding militates against the optimization of MSW disposal services. Table 1 compares the everyday SWM practices in low-, middle- and high-income countries according to major waste management steps. The literature indicates that waste generation rates and practices depend on the culture, socioeconomic status, population density, and level of commercial and industrial activities of a city or region.

Common MSW management practices by country’s level of economic development (adapted from [ 34 ]).

3.2. Environmental and Public Health Impacts of SWM Practices in the Global South

• (a)  Weak and Inadequate SWM System

Many problems in the cities of the global South are often associated with a weak or inadequate SWM system, which leads to severe direct and indirect environmental and public health issues at every stage of waste collection, handling, treatment, and disposal [ 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ]. Inadequate and weak SWM results in indiscriminate dumping of waste on the streets, open spaces, and water bodies. Such practices were observed in, for example, Pakistan [ 35 , 36 ], India [ 37 ], Nepal [ 38 ], Peru [ 39 ], Guatemala [ 40 ], Brazil [ 41 ], Kenya [ 42 ], Rwanda [ 43 ], South Africa [ 44 , 45 ], Nigeria [ 46 ], Zimbabwe [ 47 ], etc.

The problems associated with such practices are GHG emissions [ 37 , 48 ], leachates [ 40 , 44 , 49 ], the spread of diseases such as malaria and dengue [ 36 ], odor [ 35 , 38 , 50 , 51 ], blocking of drains and sewers and subsequent flooding [ 52 ], suffocation of animals in plastic bags [ 52 ], and indiscriminate littering [ 38 , 39 , 53 ].

• (b)  Irregular Waste Collection and Handling

Uncollected and untreated waste has socioeconomic and environmental costs extending beyond city boundaries. Environmental sustainability impacts of this practice include methane (CH 4 ) emissions, foul odor, air pollution, land and water contamination, and the breeding of rodents, insects, and flies that transmit diseases to humans. Decomposition of biodegradable waste under anaerobic conditions contributes to about 18% and 2.9% of global methane and GHG emissions, respectively [ 54 ], with the global warming effect of about 25 times higher than carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions [ 55 ]. Methane also causes fires and explosions [ 56 ]. Emissions from SWM in developing countries are increasing due to rapid economic growth and improved living standards [ 57 ].

Irregular waste collection also contributes to marine pollution. In 2010, 192 coastal countries generated 275 million metric tons of plastic waste out of which up to 12.7 million metric tons (4.4%) entered ocean ecosystems [ 58 ]. Moreover, plastic waste collects and stagnates water, proving a mosquito breeding habitat and raising the risks of dengue, malaria, and West Nile fever [ 56 ]. In addition, uncollected waste creates serious safety, health, and environmental consequences such as promoting urban violence and supporting breeding and feeding grounds for flies, mosquitoes, rodents, dogs, and cats, which carry diseases to nearby homesteads [ 4 , 19 , 59 , 60 ].

In the global South, scavengers often throw the remaining unwanted garbage on the street. Waste collectors are rarely protected from direct contact and injury, thereby facing serious health threats. Because garbage trucks are often derelict and uncovered, exhaust fumes and dust stemming from waste collection and transportation contribute to environmental pollution and widespread health problems [ 61 ]. In India’s megacities, for example, irregular MSW management is one of the major problems affecting air and marine quality [ 62 ]. Thus, irregular waste collection and handling contribute to public health hazards and environmental degradation [ 63 ].

• (c)  Landfilling and Open Dumping

Most municipal solid waste in the Global South goes into unsanitary landfills or open dumps. Even during the economic downturn during the COVID-19 pandemic, the amount of waste heading to landfill sites in Brazil, for example, increased due to lower recycling rates [ 64 ]. In Johor, Malaysia, landfilling destroys natural habitats and depletes the flora and fauna [ 65 ]. Moreover, landfilling with untreated, unsorted waste led to severe public health issues in South America [ 66 ]. Based on a study on 30 Brazilian cities, Urban and Nakada [ 64 ] report that 35% of medical waste was not properly treated before disposal, which poses a threat to public health, including the spread of COVID-19. Landfills and open dumps are also associated with high emissions of methane (CH 4 ), a major GHG [ 67 , 68 ]. Landfills and wastewater release 17% of the global methane emission [ 25 ]. About 29 metric tons of methane are emitted annually from landfills globally, accounting for about 8% of estimated global emissions, with 1.3 metric tons released from landfills in Africa [ 7 ]. The rate of landfill gas production steadily rises while MSW accumulates in the landfill emissions. Released methane and ammonia gases can cause health hazards such as respiratory diseases [ 37 , 69 , 70 , 71 ]. Since methane is highly combustible, it can cause fire and explosion hazards [ 72 ].

Open dumping sites with organic waste create the environment for the breeding of disease-carrying vectors, including rodents, flies, and mosquitoes [ 40 , 45 , 51 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 ]. Associated vector-borne diseases include zika virus, dengue, and malaria fever [ 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 ]. In addition, there are risks of water-borne illnesses such as leptospirosis, intestinal worms, diarrhea, and hepatitis A [ 80 , 81 ].

Odors from landfill sites, and their physical appearance, affect the lives of nearby residents by threatening their health and undermining their livelihoods, lowering their property values [ 37 , 38 , 68 , 82 , 83 , 84 ]. Moreover, the emission of ammonia (NH 3 ) from landfill sites can damage species’ composition and plant leaves [ 85 ]. In addition, the pollutants from landfill sites damage soil quality [ 73 , 84 ]. Landfill sites also generate dust and are sources of noise pollution [ 86 ].

Air and water pollution are intense in the hot and rainy seasons due to the emission of offensive odor, disease-carrying leachates, and runoff. Considerable amounts of methane and CO 2 from landfill sites produce adverse health effects such as skin, eyes, nose, and respiratory diseases [ 69 , 87 , 88 ]. The emission of ammonia can lead to similar problems and even blindness [ 85 , 89 ]. Other toxic gaseous pollutants from landfill sites include Sulphur oxides [ 89 ]. While less than 20% of methane is recovered from landfills in China, Western nations recover up to 60% [ 90 ].

Several studies report leachate from landfill sites contaminating water sources used for drinking and other household applications, which pose significant risks to public health [ 36 , 43 , 53 , 72 , 75 , 83 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 ]. For example, Hong et al. [ 95 ] estimated that, in 2006, the amount of leachates escaping from landfill sites in Pudong (China) was 160–180 m 3 per day. On the other hand, a properly engineered facility for waste disposal can protect public health, preserve important environmental resources, prevent clogging of drainages, and prevent the migration of leachates to contaminate ground and surface water, farmlands, animals, and air from which they enter the human body [ 61 , 96 ]. Moreover, heat in summer can speed up the rate of bacterial action on biodegradable organic material and produce a pungent odor [ 60 , 97 , 98 ]. In China, for example, leachates were not treated in 47% of landfills [ 99 ].

Co-mingled disposal of industrial and medical waste alongside municipal waste endangers people with chemical and radioactive hazards, Hepatitis B and C, tetanus, human immune deficiency, HIV infections, and other related diseases [ 59 , 60 , 100 ]. Moreover, indiscriminate disposal of solid waste can cause infectious diseases such as gastrointestinal, dermatological, respiratory, and genetic diseases, chest pains, diarrhea, cholera, psychological disorders, skin, eyes, and nose irritations, and allergies [ 10 , 36 , 60 , 61 ].

• (d)  Open Burning and Incineration

Open burning of MSW is a main cause of smog and respiratory diseases, including nose, throat, chest infections and inflammation, breathing difficulty, anemia, low immunity, allergies, and asthma. Similar health effects were reported from Nepal [ 101 ], India [ 87 ], Mexico, [ 69 ], Pakistan [ 52 , 73 , 84 ], Indonesia [ 88 ], Liberia [ 50 ], and Chile [ 102 ]. In Mumbai, for example, open incineration emits about 22,000 tons of pollutants annually [ 56 ]. Mongkolchaiarunya [ 103 ] reported air pollution and odors from burning waste in Thailand. In addition, plastic waste incineration produces hydrochloric acid and dioxins in quantities that are detrimental to human health and may cause allergies, hemoglobin deficiency, and cancer [ 95 , 104 ]. In addition, smoke from open incineration and dumpsites is a significant contributor to air pollution even for persons staying far from dumpsites.

• (e)  Composting

Composting is a biological method of waste disposal that entails the decomposing or breaking down of organic wastes into simpler forms by naturally occurring microorganisms, such as bacteria and fungi. However, despite its advantage of reducing organic waste by at least half and using compost in agriculture, the composting method has much higher CO 2 emissions than other disposal approaches. In Korea, for example, composting has the highest environmental impact than incineration and anaerobic digestion methods [ 105 ]. The authors found that the environmental impact of composting was found to be 2.4 times higher than that of incineration [ 105 ]. Some reviews linked composting with several health issues, including congested nose, sore throat and dry cough, bronchial asthma, allergic rhinitis, and extrinsic allergic alveolitis [ 36 , 106 ].

4. Implications and Recommendations

As discussed in the section above, there are many negative impacts of unsustainable SWM practices on the people and the environment. Although all waste treatment methods have their respective negative impacts, some have fewer debilitating impacts on people and the environment than others. The following is the summary of key implications of such unsustainable SWM practices.

• Uncollected organic waste from bins, containers and open dumps harbors rodents, insects, and reptiles that transmit diseases to humans. It also produces odor due to the decomposition of organic wastes, especially in the summer, and leachates that migrate and contaminate receiving underground and surface waters.
• Open dumps and non-engineered landfills release methane from decomposing biodegradable waste under anaerobiotic conditions. Methane is a key contributor to global warming, and it can cause fires and explosions.
• Non-biodegradable waste, such as discarded tires, plastics, bottles, and tins, pollutes the ground and collects water, thus creating breeding grounds for mosquitoes and increasing the risk of diseases such as malaria, dengue, and West Nile fever.
• Open burning of MSW emits pollutants into the atmosphere thereby increasing the incidences of nose and throat infections and inflammation, inhalation difficulties, bacterial infections, anemia, reduced immunity, allergies, and asthma.
• Uncontrolled incineration causes smog and releases fine particles, which are a major cause of respiratory disease. It also contributes to urban air pollution and GHG emissions significantly.
• Incineration and landfilling are associated with reproductive defects in women, developmental defects in children, cancer, hepatitis C, psychosocial impacts, poisoning, biomarkers, injuries, and mortality.

Therefore, measures toward more sustainable SWM that can mitigate such impacts must be worked out and followed. The growing complexity, costs, and coordination of SWM require multi-stakeholder involvement at each process stage [ 7 ]. Earmarking resources, providing technical assistance, good governance, and collaboration, and protecting environmental and human health are SWM critical success factors [ 47 , 79 ]. As such, local governments, the private sector, donor agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the residents, and informal garbage collectors and scavengers have their respective roles to play collaboratively in effective and sustainable SWM [ 40 , 103 , 107 , 108 ]. The following are key practical recommendations for mitigating the negative impacts of unsustainable SWM practices enumerated above.

First, cities should plan and implement an integrated SWM approach that emphasizes improving the operation of municipalities to manage all stages of SWM sustainably: generation, separation, transportation, transfer/sorting, treatment, and disposal [ 36 , 46 , 71 , 77 , 86 ]. The success of this approach requires the involvement of all stakeholders listed above [ 109 ] while recognizing the environmental, financial, legal, institutional, and technical aspects appropriate to each local setting [ 77 , 86 ]. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) can likewise aid in selecting the method and preparing the waste management plan [ 88 , 110 ]. Thus, the SWM approach should be carefully selected to spare residents from negative health and environmental impacts [ 36 , 39 , 83 , 98 , 111 ].

Second, local governments should strictly enforce environmental regulations and better monitor civic responsibilities for sustainable waste storage, collection, and disposal, as well as health hazards of poor SWM, reflected in garbage littering observable throughout most cities of the Global South [ 64 , 84 ]. In addition, violations of waste regulations should be punished to discourage unsustainable behaviors [ 112 ]. Moreover, local governments must ensure that waste collection services have adequate geographical coverage, including poor and minority communities [ 113 ]. Local governments should also devise better SWM policies focusing on waste reduction, reuse, and recycling to achieve a circular economy and sustainable development [ 114 , 115 ].

Third, effective SWM requires promoting positive public attitudes toward sustainable waste management [ 97 , 116 , 117 , 118 ]. Therefore, public awareness campaigns through print, electronic, and social media are required to encourage people to desist from littering and follow proper waste dropping and sorting practices [ 36 , 64 , 77 , 79 , 80 , 82 , 91 , 92 , 119 ]. There is also the need for a particular focus on providing sorting bins and public awareness about waste sorting at the source, which can streamline and optimize subsequent SWM processes and mitigate their negative impacts [ 35 , 45 , 46 , 64 , 69 , 89 , 93 ]. Similarly, non-governmental and community-based organizations can help promote waste reduction, separation, and sorting at the source, and material reuse/recycling [ 103 , 120 , 121 , 122 ]. In Vietnam, for example, Tsai et al. [ 123 ] found that coordination among stakeholders and appropriate legal and policy frameworks are crucial in achieving sustainable SWM.

Fourth, there is the need to use environmentally friendly technologies or upgrade existing facilities. Some researchers prefer incineration over other methods, particularly for non-recyclable waste [ 44 , 65 ]. For example, Xin et al. [ 124 ] found that incineration, recycling, and composting resulted in a 70.82% reduction in GHG emissions from solid waste in Beijing. In Tehran city, Iran, Maghmoumi et al. [ 125 ] revealed that the best scenario for reducing GHG emissions is incinerating 50% of the waste, landfilling 30%, and recycling 20%. For organic waste, several studies indicate a preference for composting [ 45 , 51 , 75 ] and biogas generation [ 15 , 42 , 68 ]. Although some researchers have advocated a complete ban on landfilling [ 13 , 42 ], it should be controlled with improved techniques for leak detection and leachate and biogas collection [ 126 , 127 ]. Many researchers also suggested an integrated biological and mechanical treatment (BMT) of solid waste [ 66 , 74 , 95 , 119 ]. In Kenya, the waste-to-biogas scheme and ban on landfill and open burning initiatives are estimated to reduce the emissions of over 1.1 million tons of GHG and PM2.5 emissions from the waste by more than 30% by 2035 [ 42 ]. An appropriately designed waste disposal facility helps protect vital environmental resources, including flora, fauna, surface and underground water, air, and soil [ 128 , 129 ].

Fifth, extraction and reuse of materials, energy, and nutrients are essential to effective SWM, which provides livelihoods for many people, improves their health, and protects the environment [ 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 ]. For example, recycling 24% of MSW in Thailand lessened negative health, social, environmental, and economic impacts from landfill sites [ 89 ]. Waste pickers play a key role in waste circularity and should be integrated into the SWM system [ 65 , 89 , 101 , 137 ], even to the extent of taking part in decision-making [ 138 ]. In addition, workers involved in waste collection should be better trained and equipped to handle hazardous waste [ 87 , 128 ]. Moreover, green consumption, using bioplastics, can help reduce the negative impacts of solid waste on the environment [ 139 ].

Lastly, for effective SWM, local authorities should comprehensively address SWM challenges, such as lack of strategic SWM plans, inefficient waste collection/segregation and recycling, insufficient budgets, shortage of qualified waste management professionals, and weak governance, and then form a financial regulatory framework in an integrated manner [ 140 , 141 , 142 ]. Effective SWM system also depends on other factors such as the waste generation rate, population density, economic status, level of commercial activity, culture, and city/region [ 37 , 143 ]. A sustainable SWM strives to protect public health and the environment [ 144 , 145 ].

5. Conclusions

As global solid waste generation rates increase faster than urbanization, coupled with inadequate SWM systems, local governments and urban residents often resort to unsustainable SWM practices. These practices include mixing household and commercial garbage with hazardous waste during storage and handling, storing garbage in old or poorly managed facilities, deficient transportation practices, open-air incinerators, informal/uncontrolled dumping, and non-engineered landfills. The implications of such practices include air and water pollution, land degradation, climate change, and methane and hazardous leachate emissions. In addition, these impacts impose significant environmental and public health costs on residents with marginalized social groups affected mostly.

Inadequate SWM is associated with poor public health, and it is one of the major problems affecting environmental quality and cities’ sustainable development. Effective community involvement in the SWM requires promoting positive public attitudes. Public awareness campaigns through print, electronic, and social media are required to encourage people to desist from littering and follow proper waste-dropping practices. Improper SWM also resulted in water pollution and unhealthy air in cities. Future research is needed to investigate how the peculiarity of each Global South country can influence selecting the SWM approach, elements, aspects, technology, and legal/institutional frameworks appropriate to each locality.

Reviewed literature on the impacts of SWM practices in Asia (compiled by authors).

Reviewed literature on the impacts of SWM practices in South America (compiled by authors).

Reviewed literature on the impacts of SWM practices in Africa (compiled by authors).

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.R.A. and K.M.M.; methodology, I.R.A., K.M.M. and U.L.D.; validation, I.R.A., K.M.M. and U.L.D.; formal analysis, I.R.A. and K.M.M.; investigation, I.R.A., K.M.M., U.L.D., F.S.A., M.S.A., S.M.S.A. and W.A.G.A.-G.; resources, I.R.A., K.M.M., U.L.D., F.S.A., M.S.A., S.M.S.A., W.A.G.A.-G. and T.I.A.; data curation, U.L.D., F.S.A., M.S.A., S.M.S.A. and W.A.G.A.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, I.R.A., K.M.M., U.L.D., F.S.A., M.S.A., S.M.S.A. and W.A.G.A.-G.; writing—review and editing, I.R.A., K.M.M. and U.L.D.; supervision, F.S.A. and T.I.A.; project administration, I.R.A.; funding acquisition, I.R.A., K.M.M., U.L.D., F.S.A., M.S.A., S.M.S.A., W.A.G.A.-G. and T.I.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest in conducting this study.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Air Pollution
• Architecture
• Bioengineering
• Boundary Elements
• Computational Methods for Engineering
• Damage & Fracture Mechanics
• Design & Nature
• Earthquake Engineering
• Electrical Engineering & Electromagnetics
• Environmental Engineering
• Environmental Health
• Fluid Mechanics
• Heat Transfer
• Historical Interest
• Information Systems
• Marine & Offshore Engineering
• Materials & Manufacturing
• Mathematics & Statistics
• Risk and Security
• Structural Engineering
• Sustainable Development
• Transport Engineering
• Urban Development
• Water Resources
• International Journals
• International Journal of Computational Methods and Experimental Measurements
• International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics
• International Journal of Ecodynamics
• International Journal of Energy Production and Management
• International Journal of Environmental Impacts
• International Journal of Heritage Architecture
• International Journal of Safety and Security Engineering
• International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning
• International Journal of Transport Development and Integration
• Transactions of the Wessex Institute
• WIT Transactions on Engineering Sciences
• WIT Transactions on The Built Environment
• WIT Transactions on Information and Communication Technologies

WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment

• WIT Transactions on Modelling and Simulation
• WIT Transactions on Biomedicine and Health
• WIT Transactions on State-of-the-art in Science and Engineering
• About WIT Press
• About the Wessex Institute
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Obituary - Professor Carlos A Brebbia
• Privacy Policy
• Returns Policy
• WIT Transactions
• WIT Transactions Editorial Board
• Publish with WIT Press
• Submit a Conference Paper

Waste Management and the Environment IV

Impacts Of Solid Waste Management In Pakistan: A Case Study Of Rawalpindi City

Related conference

Sustainable City 2022

10-12 October 2022

Rome, Italy

Related Book

Edited By: M. ZAMORANO, University of Granada, Spain, C.A. Brebbia, Wessex Institute of Technology, UK, A.G. KUNGOLOS, University of Thessaly, Greece, V. POPOV, Wessex Institute of Technology, UK and H. ITOH, Un

Transaction

10.2495/WM080701

H. Nisar1, N. Ejaz1, Z. Naushad2 & Z. Ali1

Improper solid waste management is causing negative impacts in Pakistan. To investigate the causes Rawalpindi city was selected as a case study. The situation is becoming very complex in the city due to industrialization, urbanization and improved living standards of urban areas, as these things are the cause of drastic increase in the quantity and complexity of generated waste. From this research, it is revealed that we have two major problems due to poor solid waste management, i.e. communicable diseases and unhygienic environment. Because of high growth rate, high waste generation rate, lack of efficient management and legislation, existing solid waste management systems in the city are not working properly. The main reasons for the failure of municipal solid waste management systems are unplanned annexation of the city, extreme weather conditions, lack of public awareness/community involvement, improper resources including improper equipment and lack of funds. Failure of the municipal solid waste management system has serious environmental impacts like infectious diseases, land and air pollution, blockage of drains and water pollution in natural streams. Keywords: solid waste, Rawalpindi city, environmental Impacts, land pollution. 1 Introduction Solid waste management includes all activities that seek to minimize the health, environmental and aesthetic impacts of solid wastes. Presently we are facing the problems in collection, transportation and disposal of domestic solid waste in Pakistan irrespective of the size of the city, therefore the environmental and sanitary conditions are becoming very complex and people are helpless to live with unsanitary and unhygienic conditions. Solid waste management problems

solid waste, Rawalpindi city, environmental Impacts, land pollution.

Other papers in this volume

Environmental Use Of HCFA: Oil Soil Clean Up

Ultrasound Assisted Removal Of Estrogen Hormones

Development Of Process Envelopes For Cement-based Stabilisation/solidification Of Metal Treatment Filtercakes

Two-phase Pyrolysis Modelling Of Wooden Waste

Kinetic And Modeling Of Radiolytic Decomposition Of Antibiotics

Waste Management In The Built Environment On The Basis Of Decentralization And Integration Strategies: The ‘urban Metabolism’

Small Decentralised Thermal Power Stations For Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF)

Keep me updated

WIT Press, Ashurst Lodge, Ashurst, Southampton SO40 7AA, UK. Registered in England as a limited company No. 4741634

Copyright 2024 WIT Press All Rights Reserved - Prices are Subject to Change - Returns Policy - Privacy Policy - Site Map

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• PubMed/Medline
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Environmental sustainability impacts of solid waste management practices in the global south.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 3. results and discussion, 3.1. solid waste management practices in the global south, 3.2. environmental and public health impacts of swm practices in the global south, 4. implications and recommendations.

• Uncollected organic waste from bins, containers and open dumps harbors rodents, insects, and reptiles that transmit diseases to humans. It also produces odor due to the decomposition of organic wastes, especially in the summer, and leachates that migrate and contaminate receiving underground and surface waters.
• Open dumps and non-engineered landfills release methane from decomposing biodegradable waste under anaerobiotic conditions. Methane is a key contributor to global warming, and it can cause fires and explosions.
• Non-biodegradable waste, such as discarded tires, plastics, bottles, and tins, pollutes the ground and collects water, thus creating breeding grounds for mosquitoes and increasing the risk of diseases such as malaria, dengue, and West Nile fever.
• Open burning of MSW emits pollutants into the atmosphere thereby increasing the incidences of nose and throat infections and inflammation, inhalation difficulties, bacterial infections, anemia, reduced immunity, allergies, and asthma.
• Uncontrolled incineration causes smog and releases fine particles, which are a major cause of respiratory disease. It also contributes to urban air pollution and GHG emissions significantly.
• Incineration and landfilling are associated with reproductive defects in women, developmental defects in children, cancer, hepatitis C, psychosocial impacts, poisoning, biomarkers, injuries, and mortality.

5. Conclusions

Author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2013. Available online: http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/home/E (accessed on 14 December 2021).
• OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). OECD Environmental Indicators. Development, Measurement and Use ; OECD Environment Directorate: Paris, France, 2003; Available online: http://www.oecd.org/env/ (accessed on 14 December 2021).
• Guerrero, L.A.; Maas, G.; Hogland, W. Solid waste management challenges for cities in developing countries. Waste Manag. 2013 , 33 , 220–232. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• World Bank. Solid Waste Management. 2018. Available online: http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/urbandevelopment/brief/solid-waste-management (accessed on 9 November 2021).
• UN-Habitat. Solid Waste Management in The World’s Cities: Water and Sanitation in the World’s Cities 2010, United Nations Human Settlements Programme ; Earthscan: London, UK, 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hettiarachchi, H.; Meegoda, J.; Ryu, S. Organic Waste Buyback as a Viable Method to Enhance Sustainable Municipal Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018 , 15 , 2483. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Scarlat, N.; Motola, V.; Dallemand, J.F.; Monforti-Ferrario, F.; Mofor, L. Evaluation of energy potential of municipal solid waste from African urban areas. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015 , 50 , 1269–1286. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abubakar, I.R. Household response to inadequate sewerage and garbage collection services in Abuja, Nigeria. J. Environ. Public Health 2017 , 2017 , 5314840. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• UN-Habitat. Planning Sustainable Cities. Global Report on Human Settlements, Abridged Edition, United Nations Human Settlements Programme ; Earthscan: London, UK, 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Abul, S. Environmental and health impact of solid waste disposal at Mangwaneni dumpsite in Manzini: Swaziland. J. Sustain. Dev. Afr. 2010 , 12 , 64–78. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang, Q.; Fu, L.; Liu, X.; Cheng, M. Evaluating the Efficiency of Municipal Solid Waste Management in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018 , 15 , 2448. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Abdul-Aziz, H.M.; Isa, O.; Kadir, N.; Nordin, W.; Daud, W.; Alsebaei, A.; Abu-Rizaiza, A. Study of Baseline Data Regarding Solid Waste Management in the Holy City of Makkah during Hajj ; Unpunished Report; The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques Institute of the Hajj Research: Medina, Saudi Arabia, 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kabera, T.; Nishimwe, H. Systems Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste Management and Recycling System in East Africa: Benchmarking Performance in Kigali City, Rwanda ; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Abubakar, I.R.; Aina, Y.A. Achieving sustainable cities in Saudi Arabia: Juggling the competing urbanization challenges. In Population Growth and Rapid Urbanization in the Developing World ; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2016; pp. 234–255. [ Google Scholar ]
• Khan, M.S.M.; Kaneesamkandi, Z. Biodegradable waste to biogas: Renewable energy option for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Innov. Appl. Stud. 2013 , 4 , 101–113. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zafar, S. Solid Waste Management in Saudi Arabia. EcoMENA. 2015. Available online: http://www.ecomena.org/tag/dammam/ (accessed on 24 February 2021).
• Balogun, A.L.; Adebisi, N.; Abubakar, I.R.; Dano, U.L.; Tella, A. Digitalization for transformative urbanization, climate change adaptation, and sustainable farming in Africa: Trend, opportunities, and challenges. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 2022 , 19 , 17–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gazzeh, K.; Abubakar, I.R.; Hammad, E. Impacts of COVID-19 Pandemic on the Global Flows of People and Goods: Implications on the Dynamics of Urban Systems. Land 2022 , 11 , 429. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Addo, I.B.; Adei, D.; Acheampong, E.O. Solid Waste Management and Its Health Implications on the Dwellers of Kumasi Metropolis, Ghana. Curr. Res. J. Soc. Sci. 2015 , 7 , 81–93. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• OECD. OECD Key Environmental Indicators 2008 ; OECD Environment Directorate: Paris, France, 2008; Available online: http://www.oecd.org/env/ (accessed on 9 November 2021).
• Ojok, J.; Koech, M.K.; Tole, M.; OkotOkumu, J. Rate and quantities of household solid waste generated in Kampala City, Uganda. Sci. J. Environ. Eng. Res. 2013 , 2013 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• World Bank. New Country Classifications. 2013. Available online: http://data.worldbank.org/news/new-country-classifications (accessed on 24 October 2021).
• World Bank. Urban Solid Waste Management. 2014. Available online: http://go.worldbank.org/UJVJUSM6O0 (accessed on 24 October 2021).
• Zhang, D.Q.; Tan, S.K.; Gersberg, R.M. Municipal solid waste management in China: Status, problems and challenges. J. Environ. Manag. 2010 , 91 , 1623–1633. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hoornweg, D.; Giannelli, N. Managing Municipal Solid Waste in Latin America and the Caribbean: Integrating the Private Sector, Harnessing Incentives ; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• East Asia and Pacific Urban Development Sector Unit (EASUR). Waste Management in China: Issues and Recommendations ; Urban Development Working Papers. Working Paper No. 9, EASUR; East Asia Infrastructure Department: Singpore; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Manaf, L.A.; Samah, M.A.A.; Zukki, N.I.M. Municipal solid waste management in Malaysia: Practices and challenges. Waste Manag. 2009 , 29 , 2902–2906. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Saeed, M.O.; Hassan, M.N.; Mujeebu, M.A. Assessment of municipal solid waste generation and recyclable materials potential in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Waste Manag. 2009 , 29 , 2209–2213. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• EA-Sustainable Waste Management Cycle (EA-SWMC). EU-Perak Solid Waste Management Plan (EU-PSWMP), August 2009. Available online: www.apo-tokyo.org/publications/files/ind-22-swm.pdf (accessed on 14 December 2021).
• Menikpura, S.N.M.; Gheewala, S.H.; Bonnet, S. Sustainability assessment of municipal solid waste management in Sri Lanka: Problems and prospects. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2012 , 14 , 181–192. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vidanaarachchi, C.K.; Yuen, S.T.; Pilapitiya, S. Municipal solid waste management in the Southern Province of Sri Lanka: Problems, issues and challenges. Waste Manag. 2006 , 26 , 920–930. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miezah, K.; Obiri-Danso, K.; Kádár, Z.; Fei-Baffoe, B.; Mensah, M.Y. Municipal solid waste characterization and quantification as a measure towards effective waste management in Ghana. Waste Manag. 2015 , 46 , 15–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Hoornweg, D.; Bhada-Tata, P. What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management. Urban Development Series ; Knowledge Papers No. 15; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Giusti, L. A review of waste management practices and their impact on human health. Waste Manag. 2009 , 29 , 2227–2239. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Batool, S.A.; Chuadhry, M.N. The impact of municipal solid waste treatment methods on greenhouse gas emissions in Lahore, Pakistan. Waste Manag. 2009 , 29 , 63–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Akmal, T.; Jamil, F. Health impact of Solid Waste Management Practices on Household: The case of Metropolitans of Islamabad-Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Heliyon 2021 , 7 , e07327. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ramachandra, T.V.; Bharath, H.A.; Kulkarni, G.; Han, S.S. Municipal solid waste: Generation, composition and GHG emissions in Bangalore, India. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018 , 82 , 1122–1136. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pokhrel, D.; Viraraghavan, T. Municipal solid waste management in Nepal: Practices and challenges. Waste Manag. 2005 , 25 , 555–562. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McAllister, J. Factors Influencing Solid-Waste Management in the Developing World. All Graduate Plan B and Other Reports. 528. 2015. Available online: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/gradreports/528 (accessed on 9 November 2021).
• Yousif, D.F.; Scott, S. Governing solid waste management in Mazatenango, Guatemala: Problems and prospects. Int. Dev. Plan. Rev. 2007 , 29 , 433. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• de Morais Lima, P.; Paulo, P.L. Solid-waste management in the rural area of Brazil: A case study in Quilombola communities. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2018 , 20 , 1583–1593f. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dianati, K.; Schäfer, L.; Milner, J.; Gómez-Sanabria, A.; Gitau, H.; Hale, J.; Langmaack, H.; Kiesewetter, G.; Muindi, K.; Mberu, B.; et al. A system dynamics-based scenario analysis of residential solid waste management in Kisumu, Kenya. Sci. Total Environ. 2021 , 777 , 146200. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kadama, F.R.K. Business process re-engineering: A solution for solid waste management in the North West province of South Africa. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2014 , 9 , 106–118. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Dlamini, S.; Simatele, M.D.; Serge Kubanza, N. Municipal solid waste management in South Africa: From waste to energy recovery through waste-to-energy technologies in Johannesburg. Local Environ. 2019 , 24 , 249–257. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Owojori, O.; Edokpayi, J.N.; Mulaudzi, R.; Odiyo, J.O. Characterisation, recovery and recycling potential of solid waste in a university of a developing economy. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 5111. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Imam, A.; Mohammed, B.; Wilson, D.C.; Cheeseman, C.R. Solid waste management in Abuja, Nigeria. Waste Manag. 2008 , 28 , 468–472. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mapira, J. Challenges of Solid Waste Disposal and Management in the City of Masvingo, Zimbabwe. J. Soc. Dev. Afr. 2011 , 26 , 67–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Friedrich, E.; Trois, C. Current and future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the management of municipal solid waste in the eThekwini Municipality—South Africa. J. Clean. Prod. 2016 , 112 , 4071–4083. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Serge Kubanza, N.; Simatele, M.D. Sustainable solid waste management in developing countries: A study of institutional strengthening for solid waste management in Johannesburg, South Africa. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2020 , 63 , 175–188. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Almazán-Casali, S.; Alfaro, J.F.; Sikra, S. Exploring household willingness to participate in solid waste collection services in Liberia. Habitat Int. 2019 , 84 , 57–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Parrot, L.; Sotamenou, J.; Dia, B.K. Municipal solid waste management in Africa: Strategies and livelihoods in Yaoundé, Cameroon. Waste Manag. 2009 , 29 , 986–995. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ejaz, N.; Akhtar, N.; Hashmi, H.; Naeem, U.A. Environmental impacts of improper solid waste management in developing countries: A case study of Rawalpindi city. Sustain. World 2010 , 142 , 379–387. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clarke, S.F.; Nawaz, W.; Skelhorn, C.; Amato, A. Towards a more sustainable waste management in Qatar: Retrofitting mindsets and changing behaviours. Qscience Connect. 2017 , 2017 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Climate Change Mitigation 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. 2014. Available online: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/ (accessed on 7 September 2021).
• Aleluia, J.; Ferrão, P. Characterization of urban waste management practices in developing Asian countries: A new analytical framework based on waste characteristics and urban dimension. Waste Manag. 2016 , 58 , 415–429. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Kumar, S.; Smith, S.R.; Fowler, G.; Velis, C.; Kumar, S.J.; Arya, S.; Cheeseman, C. Challenges and opportunities associated with waste management in India. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2017 , 4 , 160764. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Cao, S.; Xu, D.; Liu, S. A Study of the Relationships between the Characteristics of the Village Population Structure and Rural Residential Solid Waste Collection Services: Evidence from China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018 , 15 , 2352. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
• Jambeck, J.R.; Geyer, R.; Wilcox, C.; Siegler, T.R.; Perryman, M.; Andrady, A.; Law, K.L. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 2015 , 347 , 768–771. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Karshima, S.N. Public Health Implications of Poor Municipal Waste Management in Nigeria. Vom. J. Vet. Sci. 2016 , 11 , 142–148. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sankoh, F.P.; Yan, X.; Tran, Q. Environmental and health impact of solid waste disposal in developing cities: A case study of granville brook dumpsite, Freetown, Sierra Leone. J. Environ. Prot. 2013 , 4 , 665. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Alam, P.; Ahmade, K. Impact of solid waste on health and the environment. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Green Econ. 2013 , 2 , 165–168. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sharholy, M.; Ahmad, K.; Mahmood, G.; Trivedi, R.C. Municipal solid waste management in Indian cities—A review. Waste Manag. 2008 , 28 , 459–467. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Vij, D. Urbanization and solid waste management in India: Present practices and future challenges. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012 , 37 , 437–447. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Urban, R.C.; Nakada, L.Y.K. COVID-19 pandemic: Solid waste and environmental impacts in Brazil. Sci. Total Environ. 2021 , 755 , 142471. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abba, A.H.; Noor, Z.Z.; Yusuf, R.O.; Din, M.F.M.; Hassan, M.A.A. Assessing environmental impacts of municipal solid waste of Johor by analytical hierarchy process. Resources Conserv. Recycl. 2013 , 73 , 188–196. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bezama, A.; Aguayo, P.; Konrad, O.; Navia, R.; Lorber, K.E. Investigations on mechanical biological treatment of waste in South America: Towards more sustainable MSW management strategies. Waste Manag. 2007 , 27 , 228–237. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Margallo, M.; Ziegler-Rodriguez, K.; Vázquez-Rowe, I.; Aldaco, R.; Irabien, Á.; Kahhat, R. Enhancing waste management strategies in Latin America under a holistic environmental assessment perspective: A review for policy support. Sci. Total Environ. 2019 , 689 , 1255–1275. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Phillips, J.; Mondal, M.K. Determining the sustainability of options for municipal solid waste disposal in Varanasi, India. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2014 , 10 , 11–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aldana-Espitia, N.C.; Botello-Álvarez, J.E.; Rivas-García, P.; Cerino-Córdova, F.J.; Bravo-Sánchez, M.G.; Abel-Seabra, J.E.; Estrada-Baltazar, A. Environmental impact mitigation during the solid waste management in an industrialized city in Mexico: An approach of life cycle assessment. Rev. Mex. Ing. Química 2017 , 16 , 563–580. [ Google Scholar ]
• Azevedo, B.D.; Scavarda, L.F.; Caiado, R.G.G. Urban solid waste management in developing countries from the sustainable supply chain management perspective: A case study of Brazil’s largest slum. J. Clean. Prod. 2019 , 233 , 1377–1386. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Morero, B.; Montagna, A.F.; Campanella, E.A.; Cafaro, D.C. Optimal process design for integrated municipal waste management with energy recovery in Argentina. Renew. Energy 2020 , 146 , 2626–2636. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bräutigam, K.R.; Gonzalez, T.; Szanto, M.; Seifert, H.; Vogdt, J. Municipal solid waste management in Santiago de Chile: Challenges and perspectives towards sustainability. In Risk Habitat Megacity ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 279–301. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nisar, H.; Ejaz, N.; Naushad, Z.; Ali, Z. Impacts of solid waste management in Pakistan: A case study of Rawalpindi city. Wit Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2008 , 109 , 685–691. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoang, N.H.; Fogarassy, C. Sustainability evaluation of municipal solid waste management system for Hanoi (Vietnam)—Why to choose the ‘Waste-to-Energy’ concept. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 1085. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Gavilanes-Terán, I.; Paredes, C.; Pérez-Espinosa, A.; Ángeles Bustamante, M.; Gálvez-Sola, L.; Jara-Samaniego, J. Opportunities and challenges of organic waste management from the agroindustrial sector in South America: Chimborazo province case Study. Communic. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2015 , 46 (Suppl. 1), 137–156. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Coelho, L.M.G.; Lange, L.C. Applying life cycle assessment to support environmentally sustainable waste management strategies in Brazil. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018 , 128 , 438–450. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pereira, T.D.S.; Fernandino, G. Evaluation of solid waste management sustainability of a coastal municipality from northeastern Brazil. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2019 , 179 , 104839. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Olay-Romero, E.; Turcott-Cervantes, D.E.; del Consuelo Hernández-Berriel, M.; de Cortázar, A.L.G.; Cuartas-Hernández, M.; de la Rosa-Gómez, I. Technical indicators to improve municipal solid waste management in developing countries: A case in Mexico. Waste Manag. 2020 , 107 , 201–210. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Muiruri, J.; Wahome, R.; Karatu, K. Assessment of methods practiced in the disposal of solid waste in Eastleigh Nairobi County, Kenya. AIMS Environ. Sci. 2020 , 7 , 434–448. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Penteado, C.S.G.; de Castro, M.A.S. COVID-19 effects on municipal solid waste management: What can effectively be done in the Brazilian scenario? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021 , 164 , 105152. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Silva, W.D.O.; Morais, D.C. Transitioning to a circular economy in developing countries: A collaborative approach for sharing responsibilities in solid waste management of a Brazilian craft brewery. J. Clean. Prod. 2021 , 319 , 128703. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Islam, F.S. Solid waste management system in Dhaka City of Bangladesh. J. Mod. Sci. Technol. 2016 , 4 , 192–209. [ Google Scholar ]
• Suthar, S.; Sajwan, A. Rapid impact assessment matrix (RIAM) analysis as decision tool to select new site for municipal solid waste disposal: A case study of Dehradun city, India. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2014 , 13 , 12–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Usman, M.; Yasin, H.; Nasir, D.A.; Mehmood, W. A case study of groundwater contamination due to open dumping of municipal solid waste in Faisalabad, Pakistan. Earth Sci. Pak. 2017 , 1 , 15–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fang, J.J.; Yang, N.; Cen, D.Y.; Shao, L.M.; He, P.J. Odor compounds from different sources of landfill: Characterization and source identification. Waste Manag. 2012 , 32 , 1401–1410. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Al Ansari, M.S. Municipal solid waste management systems in the Kingdom of Bahrain. Int. J. Water Resour. Environ. Eng. 2012 , 4 , 50–161. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ray, M.R.; Roychoudhury, S.; Mukherjee, G.; Roy, S.; Lahiri, T. Respiratory and general health impairments of workers employed in a municipal solid waste disposal at an open landfill site in Delhi. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2005 , 208 , 255–262. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gunamantha, M. Life cycle assessment of municipal solid waste treatment to energy options: Case study of Kartamantul region, Yogyakarta. Renew. Energy 2012 , 41 , 277–284. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Menikpura, S.N.M.; Gheewala, S.H.; Bonnet, S.; Chiemchaisri, C. Evaluation of the effect of recycling on sustainability of municipal solid waste management in Thailand. Waste Biomass Valorization 2013 , 4 , 237–257. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Raninger, B. Management and utilization of municipal and agricultural bioorganic waste in Europe and China. In Workshop in School of Civil Environmental Engineering ; Nanyang Technological University: Singapore, 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zarate, M.A.; Slotnick, J.; Ramos, M. Capacity building in rural Guatemala by implementing a solid waste management program. Waste Manag. 2008 , 28 , 2542–2551. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nahman, A.; Godfrey, L. Economic instruments for solid waste management in South Africa: Opportunities and constraints. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2010 , 54 , 521–531. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dangi, M.B.; Urynowicz, M.A.; Belbase, S. Characterization, generation, and management of household solid waste in Tulsipur, Nepal. Habitat Int. 2013 , 40 , 65–72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Boadi, K.O.; Kuitunen, M. Environmental and health impacts of household solid waste handling and disposal practices in third world cities: The case of the Accra Metropolitan Area, Ghana. J. Environ. Health 2005 , 68 , 32–36. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Hong, R.J.; Wang, G.F.; Guo, R.Z.; Cheng, X.; Liu, Q.; Zhang, P.J.; Qian, G.R. Life cycle assessment of BMT-based integrated municipal solid waste management: Case study in Pudong, China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2006 , 49 , 129–146. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Henry, R.K.; Yongsheng, Z.; Jun, D. Municipal solid waste management challenges in developing countries–Kenyan case study. Waste Manag. 2006 , 26 , 92–100. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Almulhim, A.I.; Abubakar, I.R. Understanding Public Environmental Awareness and Attitudes toward Circular Economy Transition in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 10157. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• De, S.; Debnath, B. Prevalence of health hazards associated with solid waste disposal—A case study of kolkata, India. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2016 , 35 , 201–208. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhuang, Y.; Wu, S.W.; Wang, Y.L.; Wu, W.X.; Chen, Y.X. Source separation of household waste: A case study in China. Waste Manag. 2008 , 28 , 2022–2030. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• World Bank. Waste Management in China: Issues and Recommendations. East Asia Infrastructure Development ; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Das, B.; Bhave, P.V.; Sapkota, A.; Byanju, R.M. Estimating emissions from open burning of municipal solid waste in municipalities of Nepal. Waste Manag. 2018 , 79 , 481–490. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pérez, L.E.; Ziegler-Rodríguez, K.; Pérez, A.T.E.; Vásquez, Ó.C.; Vázquez-Rowe, I. Closing the gap in the municipal solid waste management between metropolitan and regional cities from developing countries: A life cycle assessment approach. Waste Manag. 2021 , 124 , 314–324. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Mongkolnchaiarunya, J. Promoting a community-based solid-waste management initiative in local government: Yala municipality, Thailand. Habitat Int. 2005 , 29 , 27–40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brahimi, T.; Kumar, C.R.J.; Mohamed, A.; Alyamani, N. Sustainable Waste Management through waste to energy Technologies in saudi Arabia: Opportunities and Environmental Impacts. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 26–28 November 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Seo, S.; Aramaki, T.; Hwang, Y.; Hanaki, K. Environmental impact of solid waste treatment methods in Korea. J. Environ. Eng. 2004 , 130 , 81–89. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saffron, L.; Giusti, L.; Pheby, D. The human health impact of waste management practices: A review of the literature and an evaluation of the evidence. Manag. Environ. Quality Int. J. 2003 , 14 , 191–213. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Rodic-Wiersma, L.; Bethancourt, J. Rehabilitation of the Waste Dumpsite in Guatemala City ; ISWA World Solid Waste Congress: Florence, Italy, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Adeleke, O.; Akinlabi, S.; Jen, T.-C.; Dunmade, I. Towards sustainability in municipal solid waste management in South Africa: A survey of challenges and prospects. Trans. R. Soc. S. Afr. 2021 , 76 , 53–66. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Teshome, Z.T.; Ayele, Z.T.; Abib, M.I. Assessment of solid waste management practices in Kebridehar city Somali regional state, Ethiopia. Heliyon 2022 , 8 , e10451. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Harrison, K.W.; Dumas, R.D.; Solano, E.; Barlaz, M.A.; Brill, E.D., Jr.; Ranjithan, S.R. Decision support tool for life-cycle-based solid waste management. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2001 , 15 , 44–58. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vazquez, Y.V.; Barragán, F.; Castillo, L.A.; Barbosa, S.E. Analysis of the relationship between the amount and type of MSW and population socioeconomic level: Bahía Blanca case study, Argentina. Heliyon 2020 , 6 , e04343. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Olukanni, D.O.; Pius-Imue, F.B.; Joseph, S.O. Public perception of solid waste management practices in Nigeria: Ogun State experience. Recycling 2020 , 5 , 8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Senekane, M.F.; Makhene, A.; Oelofse, S. A Critical Analysis of Indigenous Systems and Practices of Solid Waste Management in Rural Communities: The Case of Maseru in Lesotho. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 11654. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Muheirwe, F.; Kombe, W.; Kihila, J.M. The paradox of solid waste management: A regulatory discourse from Sub-Saharan Africa. Habitat Int. 2022 , 119 , 102491. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chien, C.F.; Aviso, K.; Tseng, M.L.; Fujii, M.; Lim, M.K. Solid waste management in emerging economies: Opportunities and challenges for reuse and recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023 , 188 , 106635. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Negrete-Cardoso, M.; Rosano-Ortega, G.; Álvarez-Aros, E.L.; Tavera-Cortés, M.E.; Vega-Lebrún, C.A.; Sánchez-Ruíz, F.J. Circular economy strategy and waste management: A bibliometric analysis in its contribution to sustainable development, toward a post-COVID-19 era. Environ. Sci. Poll. Res. 2022 , 29 , 61729–61746. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Ossama, L.; Manaf, L.B.A.; Sharaai, A.H.B.; Mohamad, S.S.B. A Review of Municipal solid waste Management Practices in Saudi Arabia. J. Waste Manag. Dispos. 2020 , 3 , 209. [ Google Scholar ]
• Burneo, D.; Cansino, J.M.; Yñiguez, R. Environmental and socioeconomic impacts of urban waste recycling as part of circular economy. The case of Cuenca (Ecuador). Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 3406. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Filimonau, V.; Tochukwu, C.O. Exploring managerial approaches to mitigating solid waste in hotels of Lagos, Nigeria. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 270 , 122410. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ayeleru, O.O.; Okonta, F.N.; Ntuli, F. Cost benefit analysis of a municipal solid waste recycling facility in Soweto, South Africa. Waste Manag. 2021 , 134 , 263–269. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chakrabarti, S.; Majumder, A.; Chakrabarti, S. Public-community participation in household waste management in India: An operational approach. Habitat Int. 2008 , 33 , 125–130. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Joseph, K. Stakeholder participation for sustainable waste management. Habitat Int. 2006 , 30 , 863–871. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tsai, F.M.; Bui, T.D.; Tseng, M.L.; Lim, M.K.; Tan, R.R. Sustainable solid-waste management in Vietnam’s coastal and marine tourism cities: A hierarchical-level approach. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021 , 168 , 105266. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xin, C.; Zhang, T.; Tsai, S.B.; Zhai, Y.M.; Wang, J. An empirical study on greenhouse gas emission calculations under different municipal solid waste management strategies. Appl. Sci. 2020 , 10 , 1673. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maghmoumi, A.; Marashi, F.; Houshfar, E. Environmental and economic assessment of sustainable municipal solid waste management strategies in Iran. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020 , 59 , 102161. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Deus, R.M.; Mele, F.D.; Bezerra, B.S.; Battistelle, R.A.G. A municipal solid waste indicator for environmental impact: Assessment and identification of best management practices. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 , 242 , 118433. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kurbatova, A.; Abu-Qdais, H.A. Using multi-criteria decision analysis to select waste to energy technology for a mega city: The case of Moscow. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 9828. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Elsheekh, K.M.; Kamel, R.R.; Elsherif, D.M.; Shalaby, A.M. Achieving sustainable development goals from the perspective of solid waste management plans. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2021 , 68 , 9. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sharma, H.B.; Vanapalli, K.R.; Samal, B.; Cheela, V.S.; Dubey, B.K.; Bhattacharya, J. Circular economy approach in solid waste management system to achieve UN-SDGs: Solutions for post-COVID recovery. Sci. Total Environ. 2021 , 800 , 149605. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Couth, R.; Trois, C.; Vaughan-Jones, S. Modelling of greenhouse gas emissions from municipal solid waste disposal in Africa. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2011 , 5 , 1443–1453. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Juárez-Hernández, S. Energy, environmental, resource recovery, and economic dimensions of municipal solid waste management paths in Mexico City. Waste Manag. 2021 , 136 , 321–336. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zaman, A.U. Identification of key assessment indicators of the zero waste management systems. Ecol. Indic. 2014 , 36 , 682–693. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ansari, A.A. Indigenous approach in organic solid waste management in Guyana (South America). Curr. Adv. Agric. Sci. (Int. J.) 2009 , 1 , 46–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ouda, O.K.; Cekirge, H.M. Potential environmental values of waste-to-energy facilities in Saudi Arabia. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2014 , 39 , 7525–7533. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Buenrostro, O.; Bocco, G. Solid waste management in municipalities in Mexico: Goals and perspectives. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2003 , 39 , 251–263. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Akbar, N.; Abubakar, I.R.; Shah, A.A.; Al-Madani, W. Ecological Embeddedness in the Maya Built Environment: Inspiration for Contemporary Cities. Land 2021 , 10 , 1360. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Villalba, L. Recent evolution of the informal recycling sector in Argentina within the ‘popular economy’: Measuring its impact through a case study in Tandil (Buenos Aires). Waste Manag. Res. 2020 , 38 , 1037–1046. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Navarrete-Hernández, P.; Navarrete-Hernández, N. Unleashing waste-pickers’ potential: Supporting recycling cooperatives in Santiago de Chile. World Dev. 2018 , 101 , 293–310. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Leal Filho, W.; Barbir, J.; Abubakar, I.R.; Paço, A.; Stasiskiene, Z.; Hornbogen, M.; Christin Fendt, M.T.; Voronova, V.; Klõga, M. Consumer attitudes and concerns with bioplastics use: An international study. PLoS ONE 2022 , 17 , e0266918. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moh, Y. Solid waste management transformation and future challenges of source separation and recycling practice in Malaysia. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017 , 116 , 1–14. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Leal Filho, W.; Dedeoglu, C.; Dinis, M.A.P.; Salvia, A.L.; Barbir, J.; Voronova, V.; Abubakar, I.R.; Iital, A.; Pachel, K.; Huthoff, F.; et al. Riverine Plastic Pollution in Asia: Results from a Bibliometric Assessment. Land 2022 , 11 , 1117. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wernstedt, K.; Kihila, J.M.; Kaseva, M. Biases and environmental risks in urban Africa: Household solid waste decisionmaking. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2020 , 63 , 1946–1964. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kabera, T.; Wilson, D.C.; Nishimwe, H. Benchmarking performance of solid waste management and recycling systems in East Africa: Comparing Kigali Rwanda with other major cities. Waste Manag. Res. 2019 , 37 , 58–72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Goorah, S.S.D.; Esmyot, M.L.I.; Boojhawon, R. The health impact of nonhazardous solid waste disposal in a community: The case of the Mare Chicose landfill in Mauritius. J. Environ. Health 2009 , 72 , 48–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Ziraba, A.K.; Haregu, T.N.; Mberu, B. A review and framework for understanding the potential impact of poor solid waste management on health in developing countries. Arch. Public Health 2016 , 74 , 55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Abubakar, I.R.; Maniruzzaman, K.M.; Dano, U.L.; AlShihri, F.S.; AlShammari, M.S.; Ahmed, S.M.S.; Al-Gehlani, W.A.G.; Alrawaf, T.I. Environmental Sustainability Impacts of Solid Waste Management Practices in the Global South. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 12717. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912717

Abubakar IR, Maniruzzaman KM, Dano UL, AlShihri FS, AlShammari MS, Ahmed SMS, Al-Gehlani WAG, Alrawaf TI. Environmental Sustainability Impacts of Solid Waste Management Practices in the Global South. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health . 2022; 19(19):12717. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912717

Abubakar, Ismaila Rimi, Khandoker M. Maniruzzaman, Umar Lawal Dano, Faez S. AlShihri, Maher S. AlShammari, Sayed Mohammed S. Ahmed, Wadee Ahmed Ghanem Al-Gehlani, and Tareq I. Alrawaf. 2022. "Environmental Sustainability Impacts of Solid Waste Management Practices in the Global South" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 19: 12717. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912717

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Issues with solid waste management in South Asian countries: A situational analysis of Pakistan

2012, Journal of Environmental and Occupational Science

Related Papers

ayem dwi lestari

Tanzila Akmal

Improper solid waste management is causing negative impacts in Pakistan. To investigate the causes Rawalpindi city was selected as a case study. The situation is becoming very complex in the city due to industrialization, urbanization and improved living standards of urban areas, as these things are the cause of drastic increase in the quantity and complexity of generated waste. From this research, it is revealed that we have two major problems due to poor solid waste management, i.e. communicable diseases and unhygienic environment. Because of high growth rate, high waste generation rate, lack of efficient management and legislation, existing solid waste management systems in the city are not working properly. The main reasons for the failure of municipal solid waste management systems are unplanned annexation of the city, extreme weather conditions, lack of public awareness/community involvement, improper resources including improper equipment and lack of funds. Failure of the municipal solid waste management system has serious environmental impacts like infectious diseases, land and air pollution, blockage of drains and water pollution in natural streams.

International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research

aroj bashir

The management of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is a major problem in developing countries. Pakistan is also facing the problem of MSW management. The MSW consists of the wastes generated daily by the residential, commercial, and institutional sources. The insufficient collection and improper disposal of MSW can pollute land, air and water and may pose threat to human health and environment.. The management of MSW in eight cities of Pakistan was studied. The characterization of MSW of these cities has been discussed. Furthermore, existing pattern of collection, handling, transportation, treatment and disposal of MSW was evaluated for these cities. . The study was finally concluded with fruitful suggestions that will beneficial to encourage researcher and competitive authority to work toward further betterment and contribute to make Pakistan clean.

This chapter covers different aspects of solid waste management (SWM) in Pakistan. Being a developing country, Pakistan is facing serious environmental issue as a result of improper and limited SWM practices. The current status of waste generation is far high than waste management operation working in the country. Detailed information has been provided on account of waste generation per capita, waste composition and types, current status of waste management practices, policy and legislations on solid waste management. Furthermore, particular challenges in local setups for achieving waste management goals have been highlighted. There is urgent need to look into the various options to deal with proper management of solid waste in the country. In this regard, various projects by governmental and private sector have been initiated. Particularly, projects related to waste to energy (WTE) have been planned and operational in certain parts of the country.

Muhammad Ahtisham

In Pakistan, environmental degradation and consequent human health deterioration has rapidly accelerated in the past decade due to solid waste mismanagement. As the situation worsens with time, establishment of proper waste management practices is urgently needed especially in semi urban and rural areas of Pakistan. This study uses a concept of Waste Bank, which involves a transfer station for collection of sorted waste fractions and its delivery to the targeted market such as recycling industries, biogas plants, composting facilities etc. The management efficiency and effectiveness of Waste Bank depend strongly on the proficient sorting and collection of solid waste fractions at household level. However, the social attitude towards such a solution in semi urban/rural areas of Pakistan demands certain prerequisites to make it workable. Considering these factors the objectives of this study are to: [A] Obtain reliable data about quantity and characteristics of generated waste to defi...

This study analyses the waste generation in Rawalpindi city. It consists of public survey, discussions with city staff involved in waste handling and management, determination of waste composition by segregation of 132 samples from four different sites of city, assessment of documents and field observation. For the study, stratified systematic random sampling techniques were adopted. Monitoring and supervision was not regular, 42.6% of solid waste is disposed off in open dumps without any further treatment or inspection and 24.1% of solid waste is burnt, and remaining solid waste is carried to sanitary landfill. Average solid waste generation is 1.87 kg/households/day and per capita waste generation rate is 0.32kg the daily. Recycling and composition of solid waste was found only 18% of the overall waste generation in city. Involvement of public, private sector, NGOs and use of technology to achieve any meaningful efficient municipal solid waste management (MSW) are also explored.

International Journal of Economic and Environment Geology

Dr. Moiz Khan , Hajra Mahmood

Karachi is the largest metropolitan city of Pakistan with a population of 207,774,520 (Statistics, 2017). Ironically, a megacity of a developing state has its drawbacks and discrepancies in solid waste mechanism being one of them. Karachi has always been the center of businesses and government offices since independence, first as capital of Pakistan and later as a provincial capital. This study evaluates the importance of solid waste management for an urban city such as Karachi, and the steps which have been taken by the successive governments to fulfill the demands of this growing megapolis since independence. In this study, models of solid waste management adopted by different cities will be analyzed and a suitable model for Karachi will be proposed. Needless to say, Karachi has the potential to become an eco-friendly city by adopting the public private partnership. In short, the civil society's role is of paramount importance.

Mashal Kaynat

Muhammad Mohsin , Annatoria Chinyama

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately. Abstract: Safe and secure disposal of solid waste is now becoming a major issue for most of developing countries with accelerating urbanization and increasing pressure of populations. A study was conducted in Bahawalpur City; Pakistan. The main objective of the study was to investigate the sources and impacts of solid waste management practices on the surrounding environment and public health. This was achieved by specifically identifying the sources and types of solid waste in the city by identifying the different solid waste management practices and their impacts on the environment and human health. Data about solid waste generation, collection, disposal and their impacts on human health and environment was collected in Model Town C using a structured questionnaire from 80 randomly sampled respondents as well as by field observations. Secondary data from institutional records was also collected. Statistical analysis in the form of descriptive statistics and chi-square test were applied to the data. It was found that the environment in study area was highly polluted with open dumping of solid waste in open spaces and vacant plots. Households contributed the most solid waste generation and open dumping. The solid waste generated at household level consisted of organic waste, plastics and polythene bags. Institutionally, Tehsil Municipal Administration (TMA) and later Bahawalpur Waste Management Company (BWMC) were found to be responsible for solid waste management in the city but the overall situation is not satisfactory. The impacts of poor solid waste management practices were found to be: land degradation, creation of breeding grounds for disease carrying vectors such as mosquitoes, rats, rodents, decrease in land values; and different severe diseases. Furthermore, it was found by statistical analysis, that there was a significant relationship between the poor solid waste management practices and environmental and health problems faced by the community.

International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)

IJRASET Publication

Considering the geo-ecological sensitivity, the Himalayan urban centres are seriously struggling to design useful and economical municipal solid waste (MSW) management systems. The Srinagar is the first metropolis and fastest growing city of Western Himalayas and here the management of MSW is a big challenge for local authorities. The aim of this study was to study the overall scenario of MSW in the city. A comprehensive survey was conducted and data were also collected from local municipal department. The results suggested that in most of cases MSW is being dumped openly along roadsides and open spots in the city. Open dumps are responsible for so many negative environmental impacts in the study area. The paper presents the current status of municipal solid waste generation and disposal practices, and different sort of environmental problems arising out of it. Major problems identified include land and water pollution, inadequate technical know-how, shortage of sweepers and collection bins, non-availability of sanitary landfill, uncontrolled disposal of solid waste by people, lack of public awareness, etc. a comprehensive survey of the whole city revealed that biodegradable/ compostable food waste was the major constituent of municipal solid waste (MSW) stream followed by inert material and recyclable materials including polythene, plastic, cardboard and paper. Most of the solid waste generated was found to remain unattended and only 40-45% was being collected that too irregularly by municipal workers and unscientifically disposed off at a dumping ground located in the buffer zone of Anchar Lake, around 8 km north of Srinagar city. Irregular and selective waste collection was the major force behind disposal of solid waste in water bodies, roadsides and open spaces by the people. The study reveals that due to lack of funding and unscientific management the existing solid waste management system is not working successfully in the city. Due to shortage of storage bins, collection efficiency is very low which has severely damaged the environmental condition and also induces to stray dog population phenomenally. The acute absence of waste segregation at the source all types of materials are being disposed along with municipal solid waste which make waste handling very risky especially dumping and disposal points. The lack of governance and inadequate infrastructures for waste collection, transportation and management are the major constrains in designing a suitable MSW management plan for the city. Apart to that unplanned urban settlement and encroachments are also responsible for poor waste collection and disposal system.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Waste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA

Maryam Masood

International Journal of Learning and Development

Syed Areeb Kazmi

Adila Shafqat , Sajid Noor

Usman Ashraf

The Sustainable World

Md. Marufuzzaman

Shweta Purwar

Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol

Vaibhav srivastava

Muniyandi Balasubramanian

International Journal of Innovative Research in Engineering & Management (IJIREM)

IJIREM JOURNAL

… on Sustainable Landfill Management

Prabha Karmacharya

International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences

zarmast khan

sohail ayub

IJERA Journal

Journal of Urban and Landscape Planning

Debjani Roy

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Open access
• Published: 26 August 2024

Solid health care waste management practice in Ethiopia, a convergent mixed method study

• Yeshanew Ayele Tiruneh 1 ,
• L. M. Modiba 2 &
• S. M. Zuma 2  

BMC Health Services Research volume  24 , Article number:  985 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

66 Accesses

Metrics details

Introduction

Healthcare waste is any waste generated by healthcare facilities that is considered potentially hazardous to health. Solid healthcare waste is categorized into infectious and non-infectious wastes. Infectious waste is material suspected of containing pathogens and potentially causing disease. Non-infectious waste includes wastes that have not been in contact with infectious agents, hazardous chemicals, or radioactive substances, similar to household waste, i.e. plastic, papers and leftover foods.

This study aimed to investigate solid healthcare waste management practices and develop guidelines to improve solid healthcare waste management practices in Ethiopia. The setting was all health facilities found in Hossaena town.

A mixed-method study design was used. For the qualitative phase of this study, eight FGDs were conducted from 4 government health facilities, one FGD from each private health facility (which is 37 in number), and forty-five FGDs were conducted. Four FGDs were executed with cleaners; another four were only health care providers because using homogeneous groups promotes discussion. The remaining 37 FGDs in private health facilities were mixed from health professionals and cleaners because of the number of workers in the private facilities. For the quantitative phase, all health facilities and health facility workers who have direct contact with healthcare waste management practice participated in this study. Both qualitative and quantitative study participants were taken from the health facilities found in Hossaena town.

Seventeen (3.1%) health facility workers have hand washing facilities. Three hundred ninety-two (72.6%) of the participants agree on the availability of one or more personal protective equipment (PPE) in the facility ‘‘ the reason for the absence of some of the PPEs, like boots and goggles, and the shortage of disposable gloves owes to cost inflation from time to time and sometimes absent from the market’’ . The observational finding shows that colour-coded waste bins are available in 23 (9.6%) rooms. 90% of the sharp containers were reusable, and 100% of the waste storage bins were plastic buckets that were easily cleanable. In 40 (97.56%) health facilities, infectious wastes were collected daily from the waste generation areas to the final disposal points. Two hundred seventy-one (50.2%) of the respondents were satisfied or agreed that satisfactory procedures are available in case of an accident. Only 220 (40.8%) respondents were vaccinated for the Hepatitis B virus.

Hand washing facilities, personal protective equipment and preventive vaccinations are not readily available for health workers. Solid waste segregation practices are poor and showed that solid waste management practices (SWMP) are below the acceptable level.

Peer Review reports

Healthcare waste (HCW) encompasses all types of waste generated while providing health-related services, spanning activities such as diagnosis, immunization, treatment, and research. It constitutes a diverse array of materials, each presenting potential hazards to health and the environment. Within the realm of HCW, one finds secretions and excretions from humans, cultures, and waste containing a stock of infectious agents. Discarded plastic materials contaminated with blood or other bodily fluids, pathological wastes, and discarded medical equipment are classified as healthcare waste. Sharps, including needles, scalpels, and other waste materials generated during any healthcare service provision, are also considered potentially hazardous to health [ 1 ].

Healthcare waste in solid form (HCW) is commonly divided into two primary groups: infectious and non-infectious. The existence of pathogens in concentrations identifies infectious waste or amounts significant enough to induce diseases in vulnerable hosts [ 1 ] If healthcare facility waste is free from any combination with infectious agents, nearly 85% is categorized as non-hazardous waste, exhibiting characteristics similar to conventional solid waste found in households [ 2 ]. World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that appropriate colour-coded waste receptacles be available in all medical and other waste-producing areas [ 3 ].

Solid waste produced in the course of healthcare activities carries a higher potential for infection and injury than any other type of waste. Improper disposal of sharps waste increases the risk of disease transmission among health facility workers and general populations [ 1 ]. Inadequate and inappropriate handling of healthcare waste may have serious public health consequences and a significant environmental impact. The World Health Organization (2014) guidelines also include the following guidance for hand washing and the use of alcohol-based hand rubs: Wash hands before starting work, before entering an operating theatre, before eating, after touching contaminated objects, after using a toilet, and in all cases where hands are visibly soiled [ 4 ].

Among the infectious waste category, sharps waste is the most hazardous waste because of its ability to puncture the skin and cause infection [ 3 ]. Accidents or occurrences, such as near misses, spills, container damage, improper waste segregation, and incidents involving sharps, must be reported promptly to the waste management officer or an assigned representative [ 5 ].

Africa is facing a growing waste management crisis. While the volumes of waste generated in Africa are relatively small compared to developed regions, the mismanagement of waste in Africa already impacts human and environmental health. Infectious waste management has always remained a neglected public health problem in developing countries, resulting in a high burden of environmental pollution affecting the general masses. In Ethiopia, there is no updated separate regulation specific to healthcare waste management in the country to enforce the proper management of solid HCW [ 6 ].

In Ethiopia, like other developing countries, healthcare waste segregation practice was not given attention and did not meet the minimum HCWM standards, and it is still not jumped from paper. Previous study reveals that healthcare waste generation rates are significantly higher than the World Health Organization threshold, which ranges from 29.5–53.12% [ 7 , 8 ]. In Meneilk II Hospital, the proportion of infectious waste was 53.73%, and in the southern and northern parts of Ethiopia, it was 34.3 and 53%, respectively. Generally, this figure shows a value 3 to 4 times greater than the threshold value recommended by the World Health Organization [ 7 ].

Except for sharp wastes, segregation practice was poor, and all solid wastes were collected without respecting the colour-coded waste disposal system [ 9 ]. The median waste generation rate was found to vary from 0.361- 0.669 kg/patient/day, comprising 58.69% non-hazardous and 41.31% hazardous wastes. The amount of waste generated increased as the number of patients flow increased. Public hospitals generated a high proportion of total healthcare waste (59.22%) in comparison with private hospitals (40.48) [ 10 ]. The primary SHCW treatment and disposal mechanism was incineration, open burning, burring into unprotected pits and open dumping on municipal dumping sites as well as in the hospital backyard. Carelessness, negligence of the health workers, patients and cleaners, and poor commitment of the facility leaders were among the major causes of poor HCWM practice in Ethiopia [ 9 ]. This study aimed to investigate solid healthcare waste management practices and develop guidelines to improve solid healthcare waste management practices in Ethiopia.

The setting for this study was all health facilities found in Hossaena town, which is situated 232 kms from the capital city of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, and 165 kms from the regional municipality of Hawasa. The health facilities found in the town were one university hospital, one private surgical centre, three government health centres, 17 medium clinics, and 19 small clinics were available in the city and; health facility workers who have direct contact with generating and disposal of HCW and those who are responsible as a manager of health facilities found in Hossaena town are the study settings. All health facilities except drug stores and health facility workers who have direct contact with healthcare waste generation participated in this study.

A mixed-method study design was used. For the quantitative part of this study, all healthcare workers who have direct contact with healthcare waste management practice participated in this study, and one focus group discussion from each health facility was used. Both of the study participants were taken from the same population. All health facility workers who have a role in healthcare waste management practice were included in the quantitative part of this study. The qualitative data collection phase used open-ended interviews, focus group discussions, and visual material analysis like posters and written materials. All FGDs were conducted by the principal investigator, one moderator, and one note-taker, and it took 50 to 75 min. 4–6 participants participated in each FGD.

According to Elizabeth (2018: 5), cited by Creswell and Plano (2007: 147), the mixed method is one of the research designs with philosophical assumptions as well as methods of inquiry. As a method, it focuses on collecting, analyzing, and mixing both quantitative and qualitative data in a single study. As a methodology, it involves philosophical assumptions guiding the direction of the collection and analysis and combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in many phases of the research project. The central premise is that using qualitative and quantitative approaches together provides a better understanding of the research problems than either approach alone.

The critical assumption of the concurrent mixed methods approach in this study is that quantitative and qualitative data provide different types of information, often detailed views of participants’ solid waste management practice qualitatively and scores on instruments quantitatively, and together, they yield results that should be the same. In this approach, the researcher collected quantitative and qualitative data almost simultaneously and analyzed them separately to cross-validate or compare whether the findings were similar or different between the qualitative and quantitative information. Concurrent approaches to the data collection process are less time-consuming than other types of mixed methods studies because both data collection processes are conducted on time and at the same visit to the field [ 11 ].

Data collection

The data collection involves collecting both quantitative and qualitative data simultaneously. The quantitative phase of this study assessed three components. Health care waste segregation practice, the availability of waste segregation equipment for HCW segregation, temporary storage facilities, transportation for final disposal, and disposal facilities data were collected using a structured questionnaire and observation of HCW generation. Recycling or re-using practice, waste treatment, the availability of the HCWM committee, and training data were collected.

Qualitative data collection

The qualitative phase of the data collection for this study was employed by using focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews about SHCWMP. Two focus group discussions (FGD) from each health facility were conducted in the government health facilities, one at the administrative level and one at the technical worker level, and one FGD was conducted for all private health facilities because of the number of available health facility workers. Each focus group has 4–6 individuals.

In this study, the qualitative and the quantitative data provide different information, and it is suitable for this study to compare and contrast the findings of the two results to obtain the best understanding of this research problem.

Quantitative data collection

The quantitative data were entered into Epi data version 3.1 to minimize the data entry mistakes and exported to the statistical package for social science SPSS window version 27.0 for analysis. A numeric value was assigned to each response in a database, cleaning the data, recoding, establishing a codebook, and visually inspecting the trends to check whether the data were typically distributed.

Data analysis

Data were analyzed quantitatively by using relevant statistical tools, such as SPSS. Descriptive statistics and the Pearson correlation test were used for the bivariate associations and analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare the HCW generation rate between private and government health facilities and between clinics, health centres and hospitals in the town. Normality tests were performed to determine whether the sample data were drawn from a normally distributed population.

The Shapiro–Wilk normality tests were used to calculate a test statistic based on the sample data and compare it to critical values. The Shapiro–Wilk test is a statistical test used to assess whether a given sample comes from a normally distributed population. The P value greater than the significance level of 0.05 fails to reject the null hypothesis. It concludes that there is not enough evidence to suggest that the data does not follow the normal distribution. Visual inspection of a histogram, Q-Q plot, and P-P plot (probability-probability plot) was assessed.

Bivariate (correlation) analysis assessed the relationships between independent and dependent variables. Then, multiple linear regression analysis was used to establish the simple correlation matrices between different variables for investigating the strength relationships of the study variables in the analysis. In most variables, percentages and means were used to report the findings with a 95% confidence interval. Open-ended responses and focused group findings were undertaken by quantifying and coding the data to provide a thematic narrative explanation.

Appropriate and scientific care was taken to maintain the data quality before, during, and after data collection by preparing the proper data collection tools, pretesting the data collection tools, providing training for data collectors, and proper data entry practice. Data were cleaned on a daily basis during data collection practice, during data entry, and before analysis of its completeness and consistency.

Data analysis in a concurrent design consists of three phases. First, analyze the quantitative database in terms of statistical results. Second, analyze the qualitative database by coding the data and collapsing the codes into broad themes. Third comes the mixed-method data analysis. This is the analysis that consists of integrating the two databases. This integration consists of merging the results from both the qualitative and the quantitative findings.

Descriptive analysis was conducted to describe and summarise the data obtained from the samples used for this study. Reliability statistics for constructs, means and modes of each item, frequencies and percentage distributions, chi-square test of association, and correlations (Spearman rho) were used to portray the respondents’ responses.

All patient care-providing health facilities were included in this study, and the generation rate of healthcare waste and composition assessed the practice of segregation, collection, transportation, and disposal system was observed quantitatively using adopted and adapted structured questionnaires. To ensure representativeness, various levels of health facilities like hospitals, health centres, medium clinics, small clinics and surgical centres were considered from the town. All levels of health facilities are diagnosing, providing first aid services and treating patients accordingly.

The hospital and surgical centre found in the town provide advanced surgical service, inpatient service and food for the patients that other health facilities do not. The HCW generation rate was proportional to the number of patients who visited the health facilities and the type of service provided. The highest number of patients who visited the health facilities was in NEMMCSH; the service provided was diverse, and the waste generation rate was higher than that of other health facilities. About 272, 18, 15, 17, and 20 average patients visited the health facilities daily in NEMMCSH: government health centres, medium clinics, small clinics, and surgical centres. Paper and cardboard (141.65 kg), leftover food (81.71 kg), and contaminated gloves (42.96 kg) are the leading HCWs generated per day.

A total of 556 individual respondents from sampled health facilities were interviewed to complete the questionnaire. The total number of filled questionnaires was 540 (97.1) from individuals representing these 41 health facilities.

The principal investigator observed the availability of handwashing facilities near SHCW generation sites. 17(3.1%) of health facility workers had hand washing facilities near the health care waste generation and disposal site. Furthermore,10 (3.87%), 2 (2.1%), 2 (2.53%), 2 (2.1%), 1 (6.6%) of health facility workers had the facility of hand washing near the health care waste generation site in Nigist Eleni Mohamed Memorial Comprehensive Specialized Hospital (NEMMCSH), government health centres, medium clinics, small clinics, and surgical centre respectively. This finding was nearly the same as the study findings conducted in Myanmar; the availability of hand washing facilities near the solid health care waste generation was absent in all service areas [ 12 ]. The observational result was convergent with the response of facility workers’ response regarding the availabilities of hand washing facilities near to the solid health care waste generation sites.

The observational result was concurrent with the response of facility workers regarding the availability of hand-washing facilities near the solid health care waste generation sites.

The availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) was checked in this study. Three hundred ninety-two (72.6%) of the respondents agree on the facility’s availability of one or more personal protective equipment (PPE). The availability of PPEs in different levels of health facilities shows 392 (72.6%), 212 (82.2%), 56 (58.9%), 52 (65.8%), 60 (65.2%), 12 (75%) health facility workers in NEMMCSH, government health centres, medium clinics, small clinics, and surgical centres respectively agree to the presence of personal protective equipment in their department. The analysis further shows that the availability of masks for healthcare workers was above the mean in NEMMCSH and surgical centres.

Focus group participants indicated that health facilities did not volunteer to supply Personal protective equipment (PPEs) for the cleaning staff.

“We cannot purchase PPE by ourselves because of the salary paid for the cleaning staff.”

Cost inflation and the high cost of purchasing PPEs like gloves and boots are complained about by all (41) health facility owners.

“the reason for the absence of some of the PPEs like boots, goggles, and shortage of disposable gloves are owing to cost inflation from time to time and sometimes absent from the market is the reason why we do not supply PPE to our workers.”

Using essential personal protective equipment (PPEs) based on the risk (if the risk is a splash of blood or body fluid, use a mask and goggles; if the risk is on foot, use appropriate shoes) is recommended by the World Health Organization [ 13 ]. The mean availability of gloves in health facilities was 343 (63.5% (95% CI: 59.3–67.4). Private health institutions are better at providing gloves for their workers, 67.1%, 72.8%, and 62.5% in medium clinics, small clinics, and surgical centres, respectively, which is above the mean.

Research participants agree that.

‘‘ there is a shortage of gloves to give service in Nigist Eleni Mohamed Memorial Comprehensive Specialized Hospital (NEMMCSH) and government health centres .’’

Masks are the most available personal protective equipment for health facility workers compared to others. 65.4%, 55.6%, and 38% of the staff are available with gloves, plastic aprons and boots, respectively.

The mean availability of masks, heavy-duty gloves, boots, and aprons was 71.1%, 65.4%, 38%, and 44.4% in the study health facilities. Health facility workers were asked about the availability of different personal protective equipment, and 38% of the respondents agreed with the presence of boots in the facility. Still, the qualitative observational findings of this study show that all health facility workers have no shoes or footwear during solid health care waste management practice.

SHCW segregation practice was checked by observing the availability of SHCW collection bins in each patient care room. Only 4 (1.7%) of the room’s SHCW bins are collected segregated (non-infectious wastes segregated in black bins and infectious wastes segregated in yellow bins) based on the World Health Organization standard. Colour-coded waste bins, black for non-infectious and yellow for infectious wastes, were available in 23 (9.6%) rooms. 90% of the sharp containers were reusable, and 100% of the waste storage bins were plastic buckets that were easily cleanable. Only 6.7% of the waste bins were pedal operated and adequately covered, and the rest were fully opened, or a tiny hole was prepared on the container’s cover. All of the healthcare waste disposal bins in each health facility and at all service areas were away from the arm’s reach distance of the waste generation places, and this is contrary to World Health Organization SHCWM guidelines [ 13 ]. The observation result reveals that the reason for the above result was that medication trolleys were not used during medication or while healthcare providers provided any health services to patients.

Most medical wastes are incinerated. Burning solid and regulated medical waste generated by health care creates many problems. Medical waste incinerators emit toxic air pollutants and ash residues that are the primary source of environmental dioxins. Public concerns about incinerator emissions and the creation of federal regulations for medical waste incinerators are causing many healthcare facilities to rethink their choices in medical waste treatment. Health Care Without Harm [ 14 ], states that non-incineration treatment technologies are a growing and developing field. The U.S. National Academy of Science 2000 argued that the emission of pollutants during incineration is a potential risk to human health, and living or working near an incineration facility can have social, economic, and psychological effects [ 15 ].

The incineration of solid healthcare waste technology has been accepted and adopted as an effective method in Ethiopia. Incineration of healthcare waste can produce secondary waste and pollutants if the treatment facilities are not appropriately constructed, designed, and operated. It can be one of the significant sources of toxic substances, such as polychlorinated dibenzo-dioxins/dibenzofurans (PCDD/ PCDF), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), hexachlorobenzenes and polychlorinated biphenyls, and dioxins and furans that are known as hazardous pollutants. These pollutants may have undesirable environmental impacts on human and animal health, such as liver failure and cancer [ 15 , 16 ].

All government health facilities (4 in number) used incineration to dispose of solid waste. 88.4% and 100% of the wastes are incinerated in WUNEMMCSH and government health centres. This finding contradicts the study findings in the United States of America and Malaysia, in which 49–60% and 59–60 were incinerated, respectively, and the rest were treated using other technologies [ 15 , 16 ].

World Health Organization (2014:45) highlighted those critical elements of the appropriate operation of incinerators include effective waste reduction and waste segregation, placing incinerators away from populated areas, satisfactory engineered design, construction following appropriate dimensional plans, proper operation, periodic maintenance, and staff training and management are mandatory.

Solid waste collection times should be fixed and appropriate to the quantity of waste produced in each area of the health care facility. General waste should not be collected simultaneously or in the same trolley as infectious or hazardous wastes. The collection should be done daily for most wastes, with collection timed to match the pattern of waste generation during the day [ 13 ].

SHCW segregation practices were observed for 240 rooms in 41 health facilities that provide health services in the town. In government health centres, medium clinics, small clinics, and surgical centres, SHCW segregation practice was not based on the World Health Organization standard. All types of solid waste were collected in a single container near the generation area, and there were no colour-coded SHCW storage dust bins. Still, in NEMMCSH, in most of the service areas, colour-coded waste bins are available, and the segregation practice was not based on the standard. Only 3 (10%) of the dust bins collected the appropriate wastes according to the World Health Organization standard, and the rest were mixed with infectious and non-infectious SHCW.

Table 1 below shows health facility managers were asked about healthcare waste segregation practices, and 9 (22%) of the facility leaders responded that there is an appropriate solid healthcare waste segregation practice in their health facilities. Still, during observation, only 4 (1.7%) of the rooms in two (4.87%) of the facilities, SHCW bins collected the segregated wastes (non-infectious wastes segregated at the black bin and infectious wastes segregated at yellow bin) based on the world health organization standard. The findings of this study show there is a poor segregation practice, and all kinds of solid wastes are collected together.

In 40 (97.56%) health facilities, infectious wastes were collected daily from the waste generation areas to the final disposal points. During observation in one of the study health facilities, infectious wastes were not collected daily and left for days. Utility gloves, boots, and aprons are not available for cleaning staff to collect and transport solid healthcare wastes in all study health facilities. 29.26% of the facilities’ cleaning staff have a face mask, and 36.5% of the facilities remove waste bins from the service area when 3/4 full, and the rest were not removed or replaced with new ones. There is a separate container only in 2 health facilities for infectious and non-infectious waste segregation practice, and the rest were segregated and collected using single and non-colour coded containers.

At all of the facilities in the study area, SHCW was transported from the service areas to the disposal site were transported manually by carrying the collection container and there is no trolley for transportation. This finding was contrary to the study findings conducted in India, which show segregated waste from the generation site was being transported through the chute to the carts placed at various points on the hospital premises by skilled sanitary workers [ 17 ].

Only 2 out of 41 health facilities have temporary solid waste storage points at the facility. One of the temporary storage places was clean, and the other needed to be properly cleaned and unsightly. Two (100%) of the temporary storage areas are not fenced and have no restriction to an authorized person. Temporary storage areas are available only in two health facilities that are away from the service provision areas.

Observational findings revealed that pre-treatment of SHCW before disposal was not practised at all study health facilities. 95% of the facilities have no water supply for hand washing during and after solid healthcare waste generation, collection, and disposal.

The United States Agency estimated sharp injuries from medical wastes to health professionals and sanitary service personnel for toxic substances and disease registry. Most of the injuries are caused during the recapping of hypodermic needles before disposal into sharps containers [ 13 ]. Nearly half of the respondents, 245 (51.5%), are recapping needles after providing an injection to the patient. Recapping was more practised in NEMMCSH and surgical centres, which is 57.5% and 57.5%, respectively. In government health centres, medium clinics, and surgical centres, the recapping of used needles was practised below the mean, which is 47.9%, 48, and 43.8%, respectively. This finding was reasonable compared to the study findings of Doylo et al. [ 18 ] in western Ethiopia, where 91% of the health workers are recapping needles after injection [ 18 ]. The research finding shows that there is no significant association P-value of 0.82 between the training and recapping of needles after injection.

Focus group participants ’ response for appropriate SHCWMP regarding patients ’ and visitors ’ lack of knowledge on SHCW segregation practice

“The personal responsibilities of patients and visitors on solid HCW disposal should be explained to help appropriate safe waste management practice and maintain good hygiene .” “Providing waste management training and creating awareness are the two aspects of improving SHCW segregation practice.” “Training upgrades and creates awareness on hygiene for all workers.”

Sharp waste collection practices were observed in 240 rooms in the study health facilities, and 9.2% of the rooms used disposable sharp containers.

Sixty per cent (60%), 13.3%, 8.24%, and 15.71% of the sharps containers in NEMMCSH, government health centres, medium clinics, and small clinics, respectively, were using disposable sharps containers; sharps were disposed together with the sharps container, and surgical centre was using reusable sharp collection container. All disposable sharps containers in medium and small clinics used non-puncture-resistant or simple packaging carton boxes. 60% and 13.3% of the disposable sharps containers in NEMMCSH and the government health centre use purposefully manufactured disposable safety boxes.

Needle sticks injury reporting and occurrence

A total of 70 injuries were reported to the health facility manager in the last one year, and 44 of the injuries were reported by health professionals. The rest of the injuries were reported by supportive staff. These injuries were reported from 35 health facilities, and the remaining six health facilities did not report any cases of injury related to work; see Tables 2 and 3 below.

Accidents or incidents, including near misses, spillages, damaged containers, inappropriate segregation, and any incidents involving sharps, should be reported to the waste-management officer. Accidental contamination must be notified using a standard-format document. The cause of the accident or incident should be investigated by the waste-management officer (in case of waste) or another responsible officer, who should also take action to prevent a recurrence [ 13 ]. Two hundred seventy-one (50.2% (CI: 45.7–54.6) of the respondents agree that satisfactory procedures are available in case of an accident, while the remaining 269 (49.8%( CI: 45.4–54.3) of respondents do not agree on the availability of satisfactory procedures in case of an accident, see Table  4 below. The availability of satisfactory procedures in case of an accident is above the mean in medium clinics, which is 60.8%. 132(24.4%) of the staff are pricked by needle stick injury while providing health services. Nearly half of the respondents, 269 (49.8%), who have been exposed to needle stick injury do not get satisfactory procedures after being pricked by a needle, and those who have not been stung by a needle stick injury for the last year. 204 (37.8%) disagree with the presence of satisfactory procedures in the case of a needle stick injury. In NEMMCSH, 30.2% of the research participants were pricked by needle stick injury within one year of period, and 48.8% of those who were stung by needle stick injuries did not agree upon the presence of satisfactory procedures in case of needle stick injuries in the study hospital. 17.9% and 49.5%, 24.1% and 60.8%, 7.6% and 50% of the respondents are pricked by needle sticks, and they disagree on the availability of satisfactory procedures in case of accidents, respectively, in government health centres, medium clinics, small clinics, and surgical centre respectively.

One hundred seventy-seven (32.7% (CI:29.1–37) respondents were exposed to needle stick injury while working in the current health facilities. One hundred three (58.1%) and 26 (32.9%) needle stick injuries were reported from WUNEMMCSH and medium clinics, which is above the mean. One hundred thirty-two(24.7% (95%CI:20.7–28.1) of the respondents are exposed to needle stick injury within one year of the period. Seventy-eight(30.2%), 17 (17.9%), 19 (24.1%), 15 (16.3%), 3 (18.8%) of the staff are injured by needle sticks from NEMMCSH, government health centres, medium clinics, small clinics, and surgical centre staffs respectively within one year of service.

The mean availabilities of satisfactory procedures in case of accidents were 321 (59.4% (CI:55.4–63.7). Out of this, 13.7% of the staff is injured by needle sticks within one year before the survey. Except in NEMMCSH, the mean availabilities of satisfactory procedures were above the mean, which is 50%, 60%, 77.2%, 66.3%, and 81.3% in NEMMCSH, government health centres, medium clinics, small clinics, and surgical centres respectively.

Table 5 below shows that Hepatitis B, COVID-19, and tetanus toxoid vaccinations are the responses of the research participants to an open-ended question on which vaccine they took. The finding shows that 220 (40.8%) of the respondents were vaccinated to prevent themselves from health facility-acquired infection. One hundred fifty-six (70.9%) of the respondents are vaccinated to avoid themselves from Hep B infection. Fifty-nine (26%0.8) of the respondents were vaccinated to protect themselves from two diseases that are Hep B and COVID-19.

Appropriate health care waste management practice was assessed by using 12 questions: availability of colour-coded waste bins, foot-operated dust bins, elbow or foot-operated hand washing basin, personal protective equipment, training, role and responsibility of the worker, the presence of satisfactory procedures in case of an accident, incinerator, vaccination, guideline, onsite treatment, and the availability of poster. The mean of appropriate healthcare waste management practice was 55.58%. The mean of solid health care waste management practice based on the level of health facilities was summed and divided into 12 variables to get each health facility’s level of waste management practice. 64.9%, 45.58%, 49%, 46.9%, and 51.8% are the mean appropriate health care waste management practices in NEMMCSH, government health centres, medium clinics, small clinics, and surgical centres, respectively. In NEMMCSH, the practice of solid healthcare waste management shows above the mean, and the rest was below the mean of solid healthcare waste management practice.

Healthcare waste treatment and disposal practice

Solid waste treatment before disposal was not practised at all study health facilities. There is an incineration practice at all of the study health facilities, and the World Health Organization 2014 recommended three types of incineration practice for solid health care waste management: dual-chamber starved-air incinerators, multiple chamber incinerators, and rotary kilns incinerators. Single-chamber, drum, and brick incinerators do not meet the best available technique requirements of the Stockholm Convention guidelines [ 13 ]. The findings of this study show that none of the incinerators found in the study health facilities meet the minimum standards of solid healthcare waste incineration practice, and they need an air inlet to facilitate combustion. Eleven (26.82%) of the health facilities have an ash pit to dispose of burned SHCW; the majority, 30 (73.17%), dispose of the incinerated ash and burned needles in the municipal waste disposal site. In one out of 11 health facilities with an ash pit, one of the incinerators was built on the ash pit, and the incinerated ashes were disposed of in the ash pit directly. Pre-treatment of SHCW before disposal was not practised at all health facilities; see Table  6 below.

All government health facilities use incineration to dispose of solid waste. 88.4% and 100% of the solid wastes are incinerated in WUNEMMCS Hospital and government health centres, respectively. This finding was not similar to the other studies because other technologies like autoclave microwave and incineration were used for 59–60% of the waste [ 15 ]. Forty-one (100%) of the study facilities were using incinerators, and only 5 (12.19%) of the incinerators were constructed by using brick and more or less promising than others for incinerating the generated solid wastes without considering the emitting gases into the atmosphere and the residue chemicals and minerals in the ashes.

Research participants’ understanding of the environmental friendliness of health care waste management practice was assessed, and the result shows that more than half, 312(57%) of the research participants do not agree on the environmental friendliness of the waste disposal practices in the health facilities. The most disagreement regarding environmental friendliness was observed in NEMMCSH; 100 (38.8%) of the participants only agreed the practice was environmentally friendly of the service. Forty-four (46.3%), 37 (46.8%), 40 (43.5%), and 7 (43.8%) of the participants agree on the environmental friendliness of healthcare waste management practice in government health centres, medium clinics, small clinics, and surgical centres, respectively.

One hundred twenty-five (48.4%) and 39(42.4%) staff are trained in solid health care waste management practice in NEMMCSH and small clinic staff, respectively; this result shows above the mean. Twenty-seven (28.4%), 30 (38%), and 4 (25%) of the staff are trained in health care waste management practice in Government health centres, medium clinics, and surgical centres, respectively. The training has been significantly associated with needle stick injury, and the more trained staff are, the less exposed to needle stick injury. One hundred ninety-six (36.4%) of the participants answered yes to the question about the availability of trainers in the institution. 43.8% of the NEMMCSH staff agreed on the availability of trainers on solid health care waste management, which is above the mean, and 26.3%, 31.6%, 31.5%, and 25% for the government health centres, medium clinics, small clinics, and surgical centre respectively, which is below the mean.

Trained health professionals are more compliant with SHCWM standards, and the self-reported study findings of this study show that 41.7% (95%CI:37.7–46) of the research participants are trained in health care waste management practice. This finding was higher compared to the study findings of Sahiledengle in 2019 in the southeast of Ethiopia, shows 13.0% of healthcare workers received training related to HCWM in the past one year preceding the study period and significantly lower when compared to the study findings in Egypt which is 71% of the study participants were trained on SHCWM [ 8 , 19 , 20 ].

Three out of four government health facility leaders, 17 (45.94%) of private health facility leaders/owners of the clinic and 141 FGD participants complain about the absence of some PPEs like boots and aprons to protect themselves from infectious agents.

‘ ‘Masks, disposable gloves, and changing gowns are a critical shortage at all health facilities.’’

Cleaners in private health facilities are more exposed to infectious agents because of the absence of personal protective equipment. Except for the cleaning staff working in the private surgical centre, all cleaning staff 40 (97.56) of the health facilities complain about the absence of changing gowns and the fact that there are no boots in the facilities.

Cost inflation and the high cost of purchasing PPEs like gloves and boots are complained by all of (41) the health facility owners and the reason for the absence of some of the PPEs like boots, goggles, and shortage of disposable gloves. Sometimes, absence from the market is the reason why we do not supply PPE to our workers.

Thirty-four (82.92%) of the facility leaders are forwarded, and there is a high expense and even unavailability of some of the PPEs, which are the reasons for not providing PPEs for the workers.

‘‘Medical equipment and consumables importers and whole sellers are selective for importing health supplies, and because of a small number of importers in the country and specifically, in the locality, we can’t get materials used for health care waste management practice even disposable gloves. ’’

One of the facility leaders from a private clinic forwarded that before the advent of COVID-19 -19) personal protective equipment was more or less chip-and-get without difficulty. Still, after the advent of the first Japanese COVID-19 patient in Ethiopia, people outside the health facilities collect PPEs like gloves and masks and storing privately in their homes.

‘‘PPEs were getting expensive and unavailable in the market. Incinerator construction materials cost inflation, and the ownership of the facility building are other problems for private health facilities to construct standard incinerators.’’

For all of the focus group discussion participants except in NEMMCSH and two private health facilities, covered and foot-operated dust bins were absent or in a critical shortage compared to the needed ones.

‘‘ Waste bins are open and not colour-coded. The practice attracts flies and other insects. Empty waste bins are replaced without cleaning and disinfecting by using chlorine solution.’’ “HCW containers are not colour-coded, but we are trying to label infectious and non-infectious in Amharic languages.”

Another issue raised during focus group discussions is incineration is not the final disposal method. It needs additional disposal sites, lacks technology, is costly to construct a brick incinerator, lacks knowledge for health facility workers, shortage of man powers /cleaners, absence of environmental health professionals in health centres and all private clinics, and continues exposure to the staff for needle stick injury, foully smell, human scavengers, unsightly, fire hazard, and lack of water supply in the town are the major teams that FGD participants raise and forwarded the above issue as a problem to improve SHCWMP.

Focus group participants, during the discussion, raised issues that could be more comfortable managing SHCWs properly in their institution. Two of the 37 private health facilities are working in their own compound, and the remaining 35 are rented; because of this, they have difficulty constructing incinerators and ash removal pits and are not confident about investing in SHCWM systems. Staff negligence and involuntary abiding by the rules of the facilities were raised by four of the government health facilities, and it was difficult to punish those who violated the healthcare waste management rules because the health facility leaders were not giving appropriate attention to the problem.

Focus group participants forwarded recommendations on which interventions can improve the management of SHCW, and recommendations are summarised as follows:

“PPE should be available in quality and quantity for all health facility workers who have direct contact with SHCW.” “Scientific-based waste management technologies should be availed for health facilities.” “Continuous induction HCW management training should be provided to the workers. Law enforcement should be strengthened.” “Communal HCW management sites should be availed, especially for private health facilities.” “HCWM committee should be strengthened.” “Non-infectious wastes should be collected communally and transported to the municipal SHCW disposal places.” “Leaders should be knowledgeable on the SHCWM system and supervise the practice continuously.” “Patient and client should be oriented daily about HCW segregation practice.” “Regulatory bodies should supervise the health facilities before commencing and periodically between services .”

The above are the themes that FGD participants discussed and forwarded for the future improvements of SHAWMP in the study areas.

Lack of water supply in the town

Other issues raised during FGDs were health facilities’ lack of water supply. World Health Organization (2014: 89) highlights that water supply for the appropriate waste management system should be mandatory at any time in all health service delivery points.

Thirty-nine (95.12%) of the health facilities complain about the absence of water supply to improve HCW management practices and infection prevention and control practices in the facilities.

“We get water once per week, and most of the time, the water is available at night, and if we are not fetching as scheduled, we can’t get water the whole week”.

In this research, only those who have direct contact have participated in this study, and 434 (80.4%) of the respondents agree they have roles and responsibilities for appropriate solid health care waste management practice. The rest, 19.6%, do not agree with their commitment to manage health care wastes properly, even though they are responsible. Health facility workers in NEMMCSH and medium clinics know their responsibilities better than others, and their results show above the mean. 84.5%, 74.5%, 81%, 73.9% and 75% in NEMMCSH, Government health centres, medium clinics, small clinics, and surgical centres, respectively.

Establishing a policy and a legal framework, training personnel, and raising public awareness are essential elements of successful healthcare waste management. A policy can be viewed as a blueprint that drives decision-making at a political level and should mobilize government effort and resources to create the conditions to make changes in healthcare facilities. Three hundred and seventy-four (69.3%) of the respondents agree with the presence of any solid healthcare waste management policy in Ethiopia. The more knowledge above the mean (72.9%) on the presence of the policy is reported from NEMMCSH.

Self-reported level of knowledge on what to do in case of an accident revealed that 438 (81.1% CI: 77.6–84.3%) of the respondents knew what to do in case of an accident. Government health centre staff and medium clinic staff’s knowledge about what to do in case of an accident was above the mean (88.4% and 82.3%), respectively, and the rest were below the mean. The action performed after an occupational accident revealed that 56 (35.7%) of the respondents did nothing after any exposure to an accident. Out of 56 respondents who have done nothing after exposure, 47 (83.92%) of the respondents answered yes to their knowledge about what to do in case of an accident. Out of 157 respondents who have been exposed to occupational accidents, only 59 (37.6%) of the respondents performed the appropriate measures, 18 (11.5%), 9 (5.7%), 26 (16.6%), 6 (3.8%) of the respondents are taking prophylaxis, linked to the incident officer, consult the available doctors near to the department, and test the status of the patient (source of infection) respectively and the rest were not performing the scientific measures, that is only practising one of the following practices washing the affected part, squeezing the affected part to remove blood, cleaning the affected part with alcohol.

Health facility workers’ understanding of solid health care waste management practices was assessed by asking whether the current SHCWM practice needs improvement. Four hundred forty-nine (83.1%) health facility workers are unsatisfied with the current solid waste management practice at the different health facility levels, and they recommend changing it to a scientific one. 82.6%, 87.4%, 89.9%, 75%, and 81.3% of the respondents are uncomfortable or need to improve solid health care waste management practices in NEMMCSH, government health centres, medium clinics, small clinics, and surgical centres, respectively.

Lack of safety box, lack of colour-coded waste bins, lack of training, and no problems are the responses to the question problems encountered in managing SHCWMP. Two Hundred and Fifty (46.92%) and 232 (42.96%) of the respondents recommend the availability of safety boxes and training, respectively.

Four or 9.8% of the facilities have infection prevention and control (IPC) teams in the study health facilities. This finding differed from the study in Pakistan, where thirty per cent (30%) of the study hospitals had HCWM or infection control teams [ 21 ]. This study’s findings were similar to those conducted in Pakistan by Khan et al. [ 21 ], which confirmed that the teams were almost absent at the secondary and primary healthcare levels [ 20 ].

The availability of health care waste management policy report reveals that 69.3% (95% CI: 65.4–73) of the staff are aware of the presence of solid health care waste management policy in the institution. Availability of health care waste management policy was 188 (72.9%), 66 (69.5%), 53 (677.1%), 57 (62%), 10 (62.5%) in NEMMCSH, Government health centres, medium clinics, small clinics, and surgical centre respectively. Healthcare waste management policy availability was above the mean in NEMMCSH and government health centres; see Table  6 below.

Open-ended responses on the SHCWM practice of health facility workers were collected using the prepared interview guide, and the responses were analyzed using thematic analysis. All the answered questions were tallied on the paper and exported to Excel software for thematic analysis.

The study participants recommend.

“appropriate segregation practice at the point of generation” "health facility must avail all the necessary supplies that used for SHCWMP, punishment for those violating the rule of SHCWMP",

“waste management technologies should be included in solid waste management guidelines, and enforcement should be strengthened.”

The availability of written national or adopted/adapted SHCWM policies was observed at all study health facilities. Twenty eight (11.66%) of the rooms have either a poster or a written document of the national policy document. However, all staff working in the observed rooms have yet to see the inside content of the policy. The presence of the policy alone cannot bring change to SHCWMP. This finding shows that the presence of policy in the institution was reasonable compared to the study findings in Menelik II hospital in Addis Ababa, showing that HCWM regulations and any applicable facility-based policy and strategy were not found [ 22 ]. The findings of this study were less compared to the study findings in Pakistan; 41% of the health facilities had the policy document or internal rules for the HCWM [ 21 ].

Focus group participants have forwarded recommendations on which interventions can improve the management of SHCW, and recommendations are summarised as follows.

‘‘Supplies should be available in quality and quantity for all health facility workers with direct contact with SHCW. Scientific-based waste management technologies should be available for health facilities. Continues and induction health care waste management training should be provided to the workers. Law enforcement should be strengthened. Community healthcare waste management sites should be available, especially for private health facilities. HCWM committee should be strengthened. Non-infectious wastes should be collected communally and transported to the municipal SHCW disposal places. Leaders should be knowledgeable about the SHCWM system and supervise the practice continuously. Patients and clients should be oriented daily about health care waste segregation practices. Regulatory bodies should supervise the health facilities before commencing and periodically in between the service are the themes those FGD participants discussed and forward for the future improvements of SHCWMP in the study areas.’’

The availability of PPEs in different levels of health facilities shows 392 (72.6%), 212 (82.2%), 56 (58.9%), 52 (65.8%), 60 (65.2%), 12 (75%) health facility workers in NEMMCSH, government health centres, medium clinics, small clinics, and surgical centres respectively agree to the presence of personal protective equipment in their department. The availability of PPEs in this study was nearly two-fold when compared to the study findings in Myanmar, where 37.6% of the staff have PPEs [ 12 ].

The mean availability of masks, heavy-duty gloves, boots, and aprons was 71.1%, 65.4%, 38%, and 44.4% in the study health facilities. This finding shows masks are less available in the study health facilities compared to other studies. The availability of utility gloves, boots, and plastic aprons is good in this study compared to the study conducted by Banstola, D in Pokhara Sub-Metropolitan City [ 23 ].

The findings of this study show there is a poor segregation practice, and all kinds of solid wastes were collected together. This finding was similar to the study findings conducted in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, by Debere et al. [ 24 ] and contrary to the study findings conducted in Nepal and India, which shows 50% and 65–75% of the surveyed health facilities were practising proper waste segregation systems at the point of generation without mixing general wastes with hazardous wastes respectively [ 9 , 17 ].

Ninety percent of private health facilities collect and transport SHCW generated in every service area and transport it to the disposal place by the collection container (no separate container to collect and transport the waste to the final disposal site). This finding was similar to the study findings of Debre Markos’s town [ 25 ]. At all of the facilities in the study area, SHCW was transported from the service areas to the disposal site manually by carrying the collection container, and there was no trolley for transportation. This finding was contrary to the study findings conducted in India, which show segregated waste from the generation site was being transported through the chute to the carts placed at various points on the hospital premises by skilled sanitary workers [ 17 ].

Observational findings revealed that pre-treatment of SHCW before disposal was not practised at all study health facilities. This study was contrary to the findings of Pullishery et al. [ 26 ], conducted in Mangalore, India, which depicted pre-treatment of the waste in 46% of the hospitals [ 26 ]. 95% of the facilities have no water supply for handwashing during and after solid healthcare waste generation, collection, and disposal. This finding was contrary to the study findings in Pakistan hospitals, which show all health facilities have an adequate water supply near the health care waste management sites [ 27 ].

Questionnaire data collection tools show that 129 (23.8%) of the staff needle stick injuries have occurred on health facility workers within one year of the period before the data collection. This finding was slightly smaller than the study findings of Deress et al. [ 25 ] in Debre Markos town, North East Ethiopia, where 30.9% of the workers had been exposed to needle stick injury one year prior to the study [ 25 ]. Reported and registered needle stick injuries in health facilities are less reported, and only 70 (54.2%) of the injuries are reported to the health facilities. This finding shows an underestimation of the risk and the problem, which was supported by the study conducted in Menilik II hospitals in Addis Ababa [ 22 ]. 50%, 33.4%, 48%, 52%, and 62.5% of needle stick injuries were not reported in NEMMCSH, Government health centres, medium clinics, small clinics, and surgical centres, respectively, to the health facility manager.

Nearly 1/3 (177 or 32.7%) of the staff are exposed to needle stick injuries. Needle stick injuries in health facilities are less reported, and only 73 (41.24%) of the injuries are reported to the health facilities within 12 months of the data collection. This finding is slightly higher than the study finding of Deress et al. [ 25 ] in Debere Markos, Ethiopia, in which 23.3% of the study participants had encountered needle stick/sharps injuries preceding 12 months of the data collection period [ 25 ].

Seventy-three injuries were reported to the health facility manager in the last one year, 44 of the injuries were reported by health professionals, and the rest were reported by supportive staff. These injuries were reported from 35(85.3%) health facilities; the remaining six have no report. These study findings were better than the findings of Khan et al. [ 21 ], in which one-third of the facilities had a reporting system for an incident, and almost the same percentage of the facilities had post-exposure procedures in both public and private sectors [ 21 ].

Within one year of the study period, 129 (23.88%) needle stick injuries occurred. However, needle stick injuries in health facilities are less reported, and only 70 (39.5%) of the injuries are reported to the health facilities. These findings were reasonable compared to the study findings of the southwest region of Cameroon, in which 50.9% (110/216) of all participants had at least one occupational exposure [ 28 , 29 ]. This result report shows a very high exposure to needle stick injury compared to the study findings in Brazil, which shows 6.1% of the research participants were injured [ 27 ].

The finding shows that 220 (40.8%) of the respondents were vaccinated to prevent themselves from health facility-acquired infection. One Hundred Fifty-six (70.9%) of the respondents are vaccinated in order to avoid themselves from Hep B infection. Fifty-nine (26%0.8) of the respondents were vaccinated to protect themselves from two diseases that are Hep B and COVID-19. This finding was nearly the same as the study findings of Deress et al. [ 7 ],in Ethiopia, 30.7% were vaccinated, and very low compared to the study findings of Qadir et al. [ 30 ] in Pakistan and Saha & Bhattacharjya India which is 66.67% and 66.17% respectively [ 25 , 30 , 31 ].

The incineration of solid healthcare waste technology has been accepted and adopted as an effective method in Ethiopia. These pollutants may have undesirable environmental impacts on human and animal health, such as liver failure and cancer [ 15 , 16 ]. All government health facilities use incineration to dispose of solid waste. 88.4% and 100% of the wastes are incinerated in WUNEMMCSH and government health centres, respectively. This finding contradicts the study findings in the United States of America and Malaysia, which are 49–60% and 59–60 are incinerated, respectively, and the rest are treated using other technologies [ 15 , 16 ].

All study health facilities used a brick or barrel type of incinerator. The incinerators found in the study health facilities need to meet the minimum standards of solid health care waste incineration practice. These findings were similar to the study findings of Nepal and Pakistan [ 32 ]. The health care waste treatment system in health facilities was found to be very unsystematic and unscientific, which cannot guarantee that there is no risk to the environment and public health, as well as safety for personnel involved in health care waste treatment. Most incinerators are not properly operated and maintained, resulting in poor performance.

All government health facilities use incineration to dispose of solid waste. All the generated sharp wastes are incinerated using brick or barrel incinerators, as shown in Fig.  1 above. This finding was consistent with the findings of Veilla and Samwel [ 33 ], who depicted that sharp waste generation is the same as sharps waste incinerated [ 33 ]. All brick incinerators were constructed without appropriate air inlets to facilitate combustion except in NEMMCSH, which is built at a 4-m height. These findings were similar to the findings of Tadese and Kumie at Addis Ababa [ 34 ].

Barrel and brick incinerators used in private clinic

Strengths and limitations

This is a mixed-method study; both qualitative and quantitative study design, data collection and analysis techniques were used to understand the problem better. The setting for this study was one town, which is found in the southern part of the country. It only represents some of the country’s health facilities, and it is difficult to generalize the findings to other hospitals and health centres. Another limitation of this study was that private drug stores and private pharmacies were not incorporated.

Conclusions

In the study, health facilities’ foot-operated solid waste dust bins are not available for healthcare workers and patients to dispose of the generated wastes. Health facility managers in government and private health institutions should pay more attention to the availability of colour-coded dust bins. Most containers are opened, and insects and rodents can access them anytime. Some of them are even closed (not foot-operated), leading to contamination of hands when trying to open them.

Healthcare waste management training is mandatory for appropriate healthcare waste disposal. Healthcare-associated exposure should be appropriately managed, and infection prevention and control training should be provided to all staff working in the health facilities.

Availability of data and materials

The authors declare that data for this work are available upon request to the first author.

Chartier, Y et al. Safe management of wastes from health-care activities. 2nd ed. WHO; 2014.

Tesfahun E, et al. Developing models for the prediction of hospital healthcare waste generation rate. Waste Manag Res. 2014;34(1):75–80.

Manzoor J, Sharma M. Impact of Biomedical Waste on Environment and Human Health. Environmental Claims Journal. 2019;31(4):311–34.

Article   Google Scholar  

Yves C, Jorge E, Ute P, Annette P, et al. Safe management of wastes from health-care activities. WHO 2nd ed. 2014.

OSHA. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Guidelines for Healthcare Waste Management. 2023.

Godfrey L, Ahmed M, et al. Solid waste management in Africa: governance failure or development opportunity?. Intech open. 2019.

Deress T, Jemal M, Girma M, Adane K. Knowledge, attitude, and practice of waste handlers about medical waste management in Debre Markos town healthcare facilities, northwest Ethiopia. BMC Res Notes. 2019;12(1):146.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Sahiledengle B. Self-reported healthcare waste segregation practice and its correlate among healthcare workers in hospitals of Southeast Ethiopia. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):591.

Debalkie D, Kume A. Healthcare Waste Management: The Current Issue in Menellik II Referral Hospital, Ethiopia. Curr World Environ. 2017;12(1):42–52.

Debere MK, Gelaye KA, Alamdo AG, Trifa ZM. Assessment of the health care waste generation rates and its management system in hospitals of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2011. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(28).

Creswell JW. Research design qualitative, quantitative, & mixed method approach. 4th ed. SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2014.

Win EM, Saw YM, Oo KL, Than TM, Cho SM, Kariya T, et al. Healthcare waste management at primary health centres in Mon State, Myanmar: the comparisons between hospital and non-hospital type primary health centres. Nagoya J Med Sci. 2019;81(1):81–91.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

WHO. Safe management of wastes from health-care activities. 2nd ed. editor Chartier, Y et al. 2014. 

Richard B, Ben A, Kristian S. Health care without harm climate-smart health care series green paper number one. 2019.

Khadem Ghasemi M, Mohd YR. Advantages and Disadvantages of Healthcare Waste Treatment and Disposal Alternatives: Malaysian Scenario. Pol J Environ Stud. 2016;25(1):17–25.

Mohseni-Bandpei A, Majlesi M, Rafiee M, Nojavan S, Nowrouz P, Zolfagharpour H. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) formation during the fast pyrolysis of hazardous health-care waste. Chemosphere. 2019;227:277–88.

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Pandey A, Ahuja S, Madan M, Asthana AK. Bio-Medical Waste Managment in a Tertiary Care Hospital: An Overview. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(11):DC01-DC3.

Doylo T, Alemayehu T, Baraki N. Knowledge and Practice of Health Workers about Healthcare Waste Management in Public Health Facilities in Eastern Ethiopia. J Community Health. 2019;44(2):284–91.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hosny G, Samir S, Sharkawy R. An intervention significantly improve medical waste handling and management: A consequence of raising knowledge and practical skills of health care workers. Int J Health Sci.2018;12(4).

Khan EA, Sabeeh SM, Chaudhry MA, Yaqoob A, Kumar R. et al. Health care waste management in Pakistan: A situational analisis and way forward. Pak J Public Health. 2016;6(3).

Khan BA, Cheng L, Khan AA, Ahmed H. Healthcare waste management in Asian developing countries: A mini review. Waste Manag Res. 2019;37(9):863–75.

Debalkie D, Kumie A. Healthcare Waste Management: The Current Issue in Menellik II Referral Hospital. Ethiopia Current World Environment. 2017;12(1):42–52.

Banstola D, Banstola R, Nepal D, Baral P. Management of hospital solid wastes: A study in Pokhara sub metropolitan city. J Institute Med. 2017;31(1):68–74.

Debere MK, Gelaye KA, Alamdo AG, Trifa, ZM. Assessment of the HCW generation rates and its management system in hospitals of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. BMC Public Health. 2014;13(28):1–9.

Deress T, Hassen F, Adane K, Tsegaye A. Assessment of Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice about Biomedical Waste Management and Associated Factors among the Healthcare Professionals at Debre Markos Town Healthcare Facilities. Northwest Ethiopia J Environ Public Health. 2018;2018:7672981.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Pullishery F, Panchmal GS, Siddique S, Abraham A. Awareness, knowledge, and practices on bio-medical waste management among health care professionals in Mangalore- A cross sectional study. Integr Med. 2016;3(1):29–35.

Google Scholar  

Ream PS, Tipple AF, Salgado TA, Souza AC, Souza SM, Galdino-Junior H, et al. Hospital housekeepers: Victims of ineffective hospital waste management. Arch Environ Occup Health. 2016;71(5):273–80.

Ngwa CH, Ngoh EA, Cumber SN. Assessment of the knowledge, attitude and practice of health care workers in Fako division on post exposure prophylaxis to blood borne viruses: a hospital based cross-sectional study. Pan Afr Med J. 2018;31.

Health care waste managemnt in pakistan. a situation analysis and way forward. Pakistan Journal of Public Health. 2016;6(3):35–45.

Qadir DM, Murad DR, Faraz DN. Hospital Waste Management; Tertiary Care Hospitals. The Professional Medical Journal. 2016;23(07):802–6.

Saha A, Bhattacharjya H. Health-Care Waste Management in Public Sector of Tripura, North-East India: An Observational Study. Indian J Community Med. 2019;44(4):368–72.

Pullishery F, Panchmal G, Siddique S, Abraham A. Awareness, knowledge, and practices on bio-medical waste management among health care professionals in Mangalore- A cross sectional study. Integr Med. 2016;3(1):29–35.

Veilla EM, Samwel VM. Assessment of sharps waste management practices in a referral hospital. Afr J Environ Sci Technol. 2016;10(3):86–95.

Tadesse ML, Kumie A. Healthcare waste generation and management practice in government health centers of Addis Ababa. Ethiopia BMC Public Health. 2014;14:1221.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the health facility leaders and ethical committees of the hospitals for their permission. The authors acknowledge the cooperation of the health facility workers who participated in this study.

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Wachemo University College of Medicine and public health, Hossana, Ethiopia

Yeshanew Ayele Tiruneh

Department of Public Health, University of South Africa, College of Human Science, Pretoria, South Africa

L. M. Modiba & S. M. Zuma

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Dr. Yeshanew Ayele Tiruneh is a researcher of this study; the principal investigator does all the proposal preparation, methodology, data collection, result and discussion, and manuscript writing. Professor LM Modiba and Dr. SM Zuma are supervisors for this study. They participated in the topic selection and modification to the final manuscript preparation by commenting on and correcting the study. Finally, the three authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to submit the manuscript for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yeshanew Ayele Tiruneh .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Tiruneh, Y.A., Modiba, L.M. & Zuma, S.M. Solid health care waste management practice in Ethiopia, a convergent mixed method study. BMC Health Serv Res 24 , 985 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11444-8

Download citation

Received : 05 March 2023

Accepted : 14 August 2024

Published : 26 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11444-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Health care waste
• Waste management
• Private health facilities

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• DOI: 10.1002/isd2.12345
• Corpus ID: 272170839

Effect of the ICT‐enabled reclaimer system on the informal waste recycling system in Cape Town, South Africa: The Regenize model

• Vincent Siwawa
• Published in Electronic Journal of… 13 August 2024
• Environmental Science

37 References

Exploring the multi-level perspective in municipal solid waste management transition, towards circular economy and local economic development in ghana: insights from the coconut waste value chain, leveraging blockchain concepts as watermarkers of plastics for sustainable waste management in progressing circular economy., the influence mechanism of household waste separation behavior among college students in the post covid-19 pandemic period, blockchain technology for governance of plastic waste management: where are we, quantifying economic activity in the informal recycling sector in south africa, a smart municipal waste management system based on deep-learning and internet of things., blockchain for waste management in smart cities: a survey, closing the gap in the municipal solid waste management between metropolitan and regional cities from developing countries: a life cycle assessment approach., buyback centres in cape town: the key integration point between formal and informal sectors in the waste economy of the western cape, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers