Awino, F Et Al 2023

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management — Volume 20, Number 1—pp.
9–35
Received: 18 August 2022 | Revised: 8 March 2023 | Accepted: 4 April 2023 9
Critical Review
Solid waste management in the context of the waste hierarchy

and circular economy frameworks: An international critical review
Florence Barbara Awino1 and Sabine E. Apitz 2,3
1
Institute for Applied Ecology, University of Canberra, Bruce, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
2
SEA Environmental Decisions, Hertfordshire, UK
3
IEAM Editor‐in‐Chief
Abstract
Growing populations and consumption drive the challenges of solid waste management (SWM); globalization of transport,
food production, and trade, including waste trading, distributes risks worldwide. Using waste hierarchy (WH; reduce, reuse,
and recycle) and circular economy (CE) concepts, we updated a conceptual waste framework used by international organ-
izations to evaluate SWM practices. We identified the key steps and the important factors, as well as stakeholders, which are
essential features for effective SWM. Within this updated conceptual framework, we qualitatively evaluated global SWM
strategies and practices, identifying opportunities, barriers, and best practices. We find that, although a few exceptional
countries exhibit zero‐waste compliance, most fare poorly, as exhibited by the high waste generation, incineration, and
disposal (open dumping, landfilling) volumes. In the Global North, SWM strategies and practices rely heavily on tech-
nologies, economic tools, regulatory frameworks, education, and social engagement to raise stakeholder awareness and
enhance inclusion and participation; in the Global South, however, many governments take sole legal responsibility for SWM,
seeking to eliminate waste as a public “nuisance.” Separation and recycling in the Global South are implemented mainly by
“informal” economies in which subsistence needs drive recyclable material retrieval. Imported, regionally inappropriate
tools, economic constraints, weak policies and governance, waste trading, noninclusive stakeholder participation, data
limitations, and limited public awareness continue to pose major waste and environmental management challenges across
nations. In the context of the framework, we conclude that best practices from around the world can be used to guide
decision‐making, globally. Despite variations in drivers and needs across regions, nations in both the Global North and South
need to improve WH and CE compliance, and enhance stakeholder partnership, awareness, and participation throughout
the SWM process. Partnerships between the Global North and South could better manage traded wastes, reduce adverse
impacts, and enhance global environmental sustainability and equity, supporting UN Sustainable Development Goals. Integr
Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:9–35. © 2023 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management pub-
lished by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).
KEYWORDS: Adopted technologies; Global North and South; Strategies and best practices; Waste hierarchy and circular
economy; Waste trading
INTRODUCTION regulations, governance, and institutional issues (corruption,

Humans generate waste while extracting ecosystem goods lack of political will, political interference), and social exclusion
and services from their land, waterways, and cities. With the (lack of cooperation from citizens), exacerbate these chal-
population growing apace, growth‐dependent capitalism lenges (Amugsi et al., 2022; Khan et al., 2021; Okot‐
drives ever‐greater consumption, waste production, and its Okumu, 2012; Sarptaş & Erdin, 2015; Wilson et al., 2013).
management challenges (disposal, inclusive). Poor waste dis- According to Chen et al. (2020), “the most current and com-
posal methods and other factors, including urbanization, in- prehensive MSW data sets are the ‘What a Waste reports,’
dustrialization, limited resources, cultural and socioeconomic with an updated book version published in 2018 (Kaza
disparities, poor institutional enforcement of policies and et al., 2018).” An extract from these documents indicates that
global waste generation has increased from 1.3 (2010) to 2.0
(2016) billion tons and is expected to increase to 2.2 (2025;
Address correspondence to florencebarbara@gmail.com Hoornweg & Bhada‐Tata, 2012), 2.59 (2030), and 3.4–3.8
Published 11 April 2023 on wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ieam. (2050) billion tons (Kaza et al., 2018). In 2016, high‐income
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons countries generated 0.683 billion tons compared with 0.655,
Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in
0.586, and 0.093 billion tons produced by lower‐middle‐,
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
upper‐middle‐, and low‐income nations, respectively (Kaza
Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024:9–35 DOI: 10.1002/ieam.4774 © 2023 The Authors
15513793, 2024, 1, Downloaded from https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ieam.4774 by Cochrane Peru, Wiley Online Library on [17/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
10 Integr Environ Assess Manag 20, 2024—AWINO and APITZ
et al., 2018). In the same year, the USA and China each (Kawai & Tasaki, 2016; Schübeler et al., 1996). Without
generated 0.28–0.29 and 0.24 (rural) to 0.32 (urban) billion proper waste handling, negative socioeconomic, environ-
tons, respectively (Awasthi et al., 2022; Kaza et al., 2018). mental, and associated health challenges are observed at
Although poorer regions and nations generate less waste than local, national, and international scales (Beatriz
richer ones (Table 1), there has been a remarkable increase in et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2020; Dris et al., 2015). Past and
waste generation trends across all countries, and this is pro- present waste disposal practices are linked to harmful or-
jected to continue to do so in the coming years (Hoornweg & ganic (synthetic industrial chemicals, microplastics, phar-
Bhada‐Tata, 2012; Hoornweg et al., 2015; Kaza et al., 2018). maceutical and personal care products; Benson
Increasing waste volumes exert pressure on the environ- et al., 2021) and inorganic (metals from electronic and
ment, global population, and their respective governments, other wastes) chemicals in the air, surface water, ground-
prompting countries to devise solid waste management water (Verma et al., 2016), sediments, compost (Judy
(SWM) strategies (regulations) and practices needed to et al., 2019), soils (Hanfman, 2012; Stegmann, 2017;
reduce environmental impacts (e.g., nuisance, toxicity, Watson, 2013), and the food chain (Awino et al., 2020;
gaseous emissions) and health risks (Cisternas et al., 2022; Cabidoche & Lesueur‐Jannoyer, 2012). Figure 1 provides
Guerrero et al., 2013; Hoang et al., 2022; Zaman & an example of some generic pathways by which leachate
Lehmann, 2011; Zhang et al., 2022). Despite this, more than from imported and locally made consumer products in an
100 million of the 1.3 billion tons of waste generated open municipal mixed waste dumping sites can move to
globally continue to be dumped illegally in unregulated various environmental compartments and thus pose risk
areas worldwide (Ejaz et al., 2010; Šedová, 2016; Tisserant to human health and the environment (after Awino
et al., 2017). Untreated sewage and unsorted and/or mixed et al., 2020).
waste streams from the Global North and South are Some waste‐associated chemicals are toxic to the envi-
dumped into freshwater, offshore, uncontrolled landfills, or ronment and humans, even at trace concentrations (e.g.,
dumpsites (Barboza et al., 2019; Benson et al., 2021; Hafeez et al., 2016). These chemicals can initiate ecotoxicity,
Saha, 2013). More than 2 billion people do not have proper neurogenicity, and carcinogenicity, resulting in growth de-
waste collection services or lack waste management systems fects, reduced fertility, obesity, thyroid effects, and brain
(Rodić & Wilson, 2017), whereas 3 billion dump or burn disorders in humans (Khan & Cao, 2011; Mahmood
waste without any form of control, causing a global waste et al., 2014; Olujimi et al., 2010). The World Health Or-
crisis (Kabera et al., 2019; Wilson, 2015; Wilson et al., 2015). ganization (WHO) report of 2010 presented an annual esti-
More than 3 million potentially contaminated sites exist mate of 600 million foodborne illnesses and 420 000 deaths
globally (Kuppusamy et al., 2017; Naidu et al., 2008), with (Havelaar et al., 2015), whereas, in 2015, it ascribed the
2095 active open dumps in Turkey alone, 6000 in Slovakia death of more than 2 million people including children to
(Šedová, 2016), and countless others, worldwide (Kaza harmful food and water microbial and chemical con-
et al., 2018). taminants (World Health Organization, 2015a, 2015b), some
Every SWM stage, including planning, collection, of which were from poorly managed waste streams. In
storage, transportation, separation, and treatment (e.g., comparison to the Global North, the Global South is re-
recycling, incineration, composting), can generate risks ported to be subject to the most air, food‐, and waste‐borne
TABLE 1 Annual waste generation rates (in billions of tons/years and kg/day per capita) across economic development groups; historical
and projected values
Waste generation across years Waste volumes 1997 2010 2016 2025 2030 2050
a c a b,c b,c
Global Billion tons/year 0.5 1.3 (2012) 2.0 2.2 2.6 3.4b,c
kg/day/capita 1.2b,c 0.7b,c
High‐income Billion tons/year 0.6b,c 0.7b,c 0.7c 0.8c 0.9c
kg/day/capita 2.13b,c 1.58b,c 2.05b 1.71b 1.87b
Upper middle‐income Billion tons/year 0.25b,c 0.59b,c 0.36c 0.84c 1.01c
kg/day/capita 1.16b,c 0.69b,c 1.59a 0.83a 0.99a
Lower middle‐income Billion tons/year 0.38b,c 0.66b,c 0.96c 0.83c 1.24c
Low‐income Billion tons/year 0.08b,c 0.10b,c 0.22c 0.15c 0.29c
Note: Data are from diverse sources, so may not be directly comparable.
Sources: aKaza et al. (2018), bKawai and Tasaki (2016), cHoornweg and Bhada‐Tata (2012).
Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024:9–35 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ieam © 2023 The Authors

ACTOR'S AWARENESS FOR SYSTEMS SUSTAINABILITY—Integr Environ Assess Manag 20, 2024 11
FIGURE 1 Examples of potential pathways by which chemicals (e.g., microplastics, pharmaceuticals, personal care products, industrial, inorganic) can
move from unregulated open municipal waste dumpsites to various environmental compartments, and thus threaten the environment, human health, and
safety (after Awino et al., 2020)
disease burdens (Havelaar et al., 2015; Saha, 2013; Wilson as nine or more Rs (e.g., see Figure 3A), focusing on ap-
et al., 2013). Likewise, food bans, reduced food availability, proaches to minimizing waste, energy, and resource use
export market closures, and costly solutions to address such (Coenen et al., 2020; Reike et al., 2018). Figure 2 illustrates a
environmental and health threats affect economies and WH framing, focusing on SWM strategies. The most im-
livelihoods (Abagale et al., 2012; Rahman et al., 2014; pactful WH strategies, which reduce or avoid waste, result
Šedová, 2016). from changes in production (rethink) or consumption (re-
duce, refuse). Once the waste is generated, WH strategies
Waste hierarchy and circular economy frameworks
are prioritized from left to right. Separated waste can remain
Over the years, easily available and affordable waste a resource through reuse, recycling (which requires added
disposal practices have included open dumping, open energy and sometimes materials), or recovery, which gen-
burning, landfilling, stockpiling, dumping into oceans and erates organic matter or energy. In the absence of these
other water bodies (Nicholls et al., 2021), and, more re- options, waste is either disposed of in a sanitary landfill or a
cently, waste trading (the international trade and/or export controlled dump (which controls much of the emissions or
of waste between the rich [urban] and poor [rural] regions or leachate) or is openly dumped or burned, with no contain-
countries for further treatment, disposal, or recycling; Bea- ment or control.
triz et al., 2014). Uncontrolled open disposal began as early In the 1970s, a comparable concept, the circular economy
as 10 000 BC (Sarptaş & Erdin, 2015; Wilson et al., 2013), (CE), was first developed to support 3R waste reduction
with ocean dumping, stockpiling, and landfilling at approx- (Khaw‐ngern et al., 2021); this concept was developed
imately 500 BC (Kiddee et al., 2013; Lamb et al., 2014). further in the 1990s, to support eco‐efficiency and reduce
Given the consequences, the European sanitary revolution, the life cycle impacts of production. From approximately
150 years of slow advancement, led to the adoption of 2010, it evolved further to address value retention in re-
sustainable development approaches (Zaman & Leh- source depletion (Reike et al., 2018). Therefore, CE framing
mann, 2011) including a waste hierarchy (WH) concept that relates and feeds into the WH from waste reduction to
prioritizes waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and recovery secondary resource reuse. Four CE strategies can affect WH
over controlled and/or unregulated disposal (Ma & strategies, including resource efficiency during production,
Hipel, 2016; Zaman, 2015). The current 3R (reduce, reuse, eco‐innovation to refine consumer products, consumption
and recycle) concept was adapted and refined into as many change, and upcycling and/or remining of waste materials
FIGURE 2 Waste hierarchy (WH) framework, addressing waste management practices before and after waste generation and separation. The order of
preference for generated wastes moves from left to right
back into the production cycle. Although the two framings introducing some missing but essential concepts (“what,”
(WH, CE) have similar language, CE focuses on resource use “who,” and “how” questions) that were needed to guide the
and value retention (Figure 3), and WH focuses on waste waste management improvements (Wilson et al., 2013). These
reduction and fate. Waste hierarchy and CE framings are correspond to waste system elements (what: waste generation
interlinked levels of an SWM system, with WH (in Figure 2) as and handling), stakeholders (who: national and local govern-
a dynamic rather than a static framing. For example, waste ment, service users, public and private service providers and
applied as a resource in the WH eventually reaches the end enablers, formal and informal waste users, and non-
of its life cycle and is downcycled (see Figure 4). Conversely, governmental organizations [NGOs]), and influential factors
waste materials can be remined (retrieval of materials after (how: political, institutional, social, economic, technical, fi-
the landfilling phase, either by informal and uncontrolled nancial, and environmental; Wilson et al., 2013).
“scavenging” or by more formal and controlled “mining” Researchers have used this framework to generate
processes) or upcycled (moved up the WH before disposal). guidelines, measure system performance, assess factors
responsible for SWM system successes and failures, and
Framing and advancing SWM in the Global South:
provide solutions to waste issues in the Global South
Background
(Kabera et al., 2019). Guerrero et al. (2013) identified the key
Waste and its emissions are transported through air, water, stakeholders and their roles played in the waste manage-
and land, and do not respect continental boundaries (Gil- ment process, and influential factors that would improve on
derbloom et al., 2017; Torre et al., 2021). Globalized or cause the systems' failure. Marshall and Farahbakhsh
economies have enhanced the migration of contaminants (2013) raised concerns over the health and environmental
and impacts across countries; trade, tourism, and SWM implications associated with the current system approaches
practices not optimized for regional conditions have (technological transfers) for integrated sustainable waste
exacerbated these issues. Recognizing that environmental management (ISWM) in the Global South. Both researchers
issues across the Global North and South are linked, global stated that several factors driving the development of suc-
stakeholders and experts sought alternative waste manage- cessful policies and practices for ISWM in the Global North
ment approaches to address the identified waste crisis. A 35‐ created challenges when applied directly (without region‐
member collaborative working group on urban management specific modifications) in the Global South. Therefore, they
was established to identify challenges and design new strat- recommended the development of new approaches that fit
egies (Wallis et al., 2010), and a conceptual framework for local waste management contexts (needs and conditions) in
SWM in low‐ and middle‐income countries was developed. the Global South. Wilson (2007) analyzed systems across
The Dutch institute NGO‐WASTE refined the framework by countries and concluded that holistic approaches and

13
FIGURE 3 (A) Circular economy (CE) “value retention” options of Reike et al. (2018). (B) CE strategies for optimizing resource use, from raw material inputs to
© 2023 The Authors

ACTOR'S AWARENESS FOR SYSTEMS SUSTAINABILITY—Integr Environ Assess Manag 20, 2024
DOI: 10.1002/ieam.4774
Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024:9–35
waste and reuse
FIGURE 4 A modified conceptual waste framework for the solid waste management (SWM) process, with waste hierarchy (WH) and circular economy
(CE) concepts, and the inclusion of key steps, stakeholders, and influential factors required for success (adapted from Marshall & Farahbakhsh, 2013;
Schübeler et al., 1996; Wilson et al., 2013)
integrated methodologies could address influential factors countries of the Global South have continued to dispose of
and their linkages in the entire waste system. He recom- waste in open spaces and exclude relevant actors (informal
mended locally appropriate waste systems with country‐ sector), attributing it to limited resources and infrastructure
specific conditions to address complex local challenges in (Ezeah et al., 2013; Oteng‐Ababio et al., 2013; Rodic
many Global South countries. Wilson et al. (2013) used an et al., 2010); (5) despite the absence of proper chemical risk
ISWM framework focusing on physical components of waste assessment frameworks in many Global South countries,
systems, governance aspects, and proactive policies to as- there is waste trading between the North and South,
sess when, where, and how such an approach could improve whereas the South also adopts strategies and technologies
waste management in the Global South. He further em- from the Global North, which often do not match their local
phasized the need for systems that involve stakeholders in needs and conditions (Marshall & Farahbakhsh, 2013;
decision‐making, are affordable, and are suitable for local Wilson, 2007); (6) across the world, a lack of stakeholder
needs and conditions. awareness of waste hazards (risks) and benefits (oppor-
Several key insights and lessons can be drawn from this tunities) limits inclusion and participation of relevant partic-
literature. (1) Despite interrelated waste challenges, the ipants (Wilson et al., 2013). Although some progress had
management concepts in the Global North and South have, been achieved, significant challenges remained. Therefore,
for a long time, been treated segmentally and based pre- this article seeks to build on the previous framings and
dominantly on funding, policy implementation, and mon- findings, aiming to identify barriers to and opportunities for
itoring practices; (2) at different times, SWM systems in success and broadly applicable best practices, as well as
different countries have evolved slowly following similar reviewing current global practices in light of the updated
stages including initiation, development, refinement, in- conceptual framework.
tegration, and linkages; (3) waste management systems
exhibit several flaws, including increased generation vol- RESEARCH APPROACH
umes, incineration, landfill and open dump rates, un- Several peer‐reviewed articles about SWM in countries
regulated waste trading, and increased exposure risks of the Global North and Global South have been published.
(Kabera et al., 2019; Omwoma et al., 2017); (4) no country However, most publications focus more on factors that
fully complies with sustainable WH concepts and CE cause urban waste management challenges in the Global
frameworks; for example, countries of the Global North have South, whereas few assess similar challenges in Global
failed at waste reduction and market creation for recycling North countries or provide a systematic comparison be-
as well as on the large use of incineration practice, whereas tween the two economic development groups. Despite

recent improvements, efficient, effective, sustainable, and for waste collection, storage, transfer, and separation, as
affordable systems fitting local needs and conditions and well as regional and municipal capacity to successfully
improved stakeholder awareness and involvement are separate and process waste and to deliver a range of
needed to improve solid waste and resource management. complicated services and mandatory products (Ahmed &
To identify, understand, and address this waste crisis across Ali, 2004; Wilson et al., 2013). The feasibility, cost, efficacy,
the Global North and South countries, this review focuses on and human and environmental risks and benefits of the
approaches that use common waste management practices SWM system depend on all these factors. Therefore, we
and strategies; embrace broader stakeholder inclusion, coor- modified the SWM frameworks (Schübeler et al., 1996;
dination, and partnership in decision‐making; and promote Wilson et al., 2013) by integrating the current WH and CE
awareness of the risks and benefits of waste management concepts and adding missing but relevant aspects, such as
practices (Guerrero et al., 2013; Wilson et al., 2013). the informal sector (economy), which is critical to waste
Waste management is a slowly evolving field, emerging at management in the Global South. Figure 4 illustrates
varying phases across countries globally. In the Global this updated conceptual waste framework (adapted from
North, SWM evolved from open (land, ocean) dumping to Marshall & Farahbakhsh, 2013; Schübeler et al., 1996;
European sanitary revolution, to 3Rs, and now, the CE (be- Wilson et al., 2013) and clarifies that successful SWM im-
yond 3Rs), whereas in the Global South, decades have plementation requires extensive stakeholder involvement
passed for the same advancement to take place. Although and integrated planning and infrastructure.
the current effort in the Global North is to phase out land- Circular economy strategies and WH framings are used to
fills, an acquisition of a modern landfill in the Global South is evaluate various systems' effectiveness and sustainability
considered an achieved, sustainable SWM step in the waste across countries (see Figure 4). Our objective is to frame and
process (Wilson et al., 2013). With limited developments in review SWM strategies and practices in the Global North
waste management research and practice as well as fewer and South with the aim to identify drivers for system suc-
publications, across some countries and regions, old but cesses (opportunities) and failures (barriers), as well as best
relevant studies are still applicable, and will form part of this practices and effective management interventions existing
review. Therefore, secondary data (peer‐reviewed articles, in other nations, and may be more generally applicable
gray literature, and special reports) from 1993 to 2019 were globally. In this paper, the updated framing emphasizes the
systematically reviewed (although more recent literature on importance of joint actions in support of system equitability,
key issues was analyzed during synthesis). Journal articles affordability, feasibility, efficiency, effectiveness, and sus-
were identified using six keywords (Global North and South, tainability, thereby seeking to contribute to improved waste
SWM, strategies and practices, open dumping, WH, CE, management in the Global North and South.
waste trading, adopted technologies, waste barriers, waste
opportunities) in Scopus, Science Direct, Web of Science, RESEARCH FINDINGS
Sci‐finder, Google Scholar, SAGE journals, ResearchGate,
Influential factors for sustainable SWM systems
Springer link databases, and the Google search engine.
Gray literature and special reports from the WHO, United Stakeholders play different roles in the implementation of
Nations Environment Programme, UN‐Habitat, and World influential factors. The success or failure of any SWM system
Bank were also reviewed. One hundred and fifty‐one peer‐ depends on stakeholder awareness, inclusion, and partic-
reviewed articles and 25 gray literature documents from ipation (commitment) and how this influences the in-
82 Global South and 50 Global North countries across the corporation of influential (enabling) factors. In the context of
six continents were retrieved and systematically reviewed for the framing illustrated in Figure 4, this review outlines how
quantitative and qualitative data; additionally 56 references the presence or absence of influential factors can affect the
(2020–2023) on the recent status of key issues were operations of SWM systems internationally. A sustainable
analyzed and synthesized. SWM system requires appropriate technical solutions, ad-
To guide the review process, we built on the previous equate and strong organizational capacity, and stakeholder
framings, findings, and recommendations while putting cooperation and partnerships, with integrated treatment
ISWM within more recent WH and CE concepts (avoiding, methods to manage waste across the WH (Rodić &
refusing, sharing, leasing, reusing, repairing, refurbishing, Wilson, 2017; Shekdar, 2009). Such a system must in-
remanufacturing, redesigning, and recycling). We argue that corporate good governance, sound institutions, proactive
the major influential factors of the SWM systems (physical policies, economic affordability, environmental efficiency,
waste system components, sustainability aspects, and social acceptability, and public participation, where citizens
stakeholder inclusion and participation) are linked and that can communicate and take part in planning, monitoring, and
their joint implementation will inform better decisions and other decision‐making processes (Gue et al., 2022;
improve sustainable strategies and practices. Shekdar, 2009). Systems must be market oriented, with
Waste reduction requires CE thinking at every step of the flexibility for continued improvement, and tailored to com-
chain (i.e., from cradle to grave), but feasibility, resources, munity needs on a case‐by‐case basis (Batista et al., 2021;
and approaches differ internationally. Effective WH im- Giourka et al., 2020; Shekdar, 2009). Sustainable systems
plementation requires regionally appropriate infrastructure must also initiate collective actions, promote transparent
decisions, and provide free access to information (Tremblay et al., 2014). These countries have implemented mandatory
& Gutberlet, 2010). The system must further empower the recycling and composting equally for both residents and
capacities of public and private stakeholders, incorporate businesses (Song et al., 2015) and banned the sale of plastic
appropriate local community perspectives and needs, and water bottles (Kaza et al., 2018).
encourage networking at local, regional, and national levels. In the Global South, many countries are creating SWM‐
Influencing factors (e.g., technical, sociocultural, political, supporting policies and frameworks. For example, China
environmental, financial, economic, legal, and institutional) and Colombia (Kiddee et al., 2013), India and South Africa
must also be interlinked and implemented in unison (Kaza et al., 2018; Widmer et al., 2005), Brazil (Beatriz
(Figure 4; Zaman & Lehmann, 2011). et al., 2014; Wilson et al., 2013), and Turkey (Aydin, 2017;
Sarptaş & Erdin, 2015) have extended producer responsi-
Governance, policy, and regulation. Ideally, governments bility, guaranteed fixed budgets, and regulated waste
strongly enforce SWM service provisions and/or regulations management guidelines. In Uganda and Botswana (Ga-
in communities, regardless of the public ability to accept or borone), the decentralization or privatization policy man-
afford waste fees (Ahmed & Ali, 2004; Rodić & dates urban councils to make by‐laws and engage private
Wilson, 2017). Clean cities or communities exhibit good sectors through contracts (Bolaane & Isaac, 2015; Okot‐
SWM frameworks and governance (Wilson et al., 2013). Okumu & Nyenje, 2011). In Rwanda, the public–private
Good governance should be participatory, consensus‐ partnerships align with strong proactive policies, gover-
oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective, nance, and zero tolerance for corruption (Kabera
efficient, equitable, and inclusive while supporting and re- et al., 2019). Rwanda also enforces a national plastic bag
specting the rule of law and human rights (Gbemudu & ban using border patrol guards to prevent illegal imports,
Ajabor, 2019). Such governments also serve stakeholders ir- with penalties, including fines, jail time, and public shaming
respective of race, gender, economic status, religion, or po- (Kabera et al., 2019). In Côte d'Ivoire (Abidjan), the army
litical ideologies, and encourage dialogues on public issues polices waste disposal and disciplines stakeholders who
(Leal Filho et al., 2019; Sachs, 2012). In such systems, trans- litter the environment (Obeng‐Odoom, 2018). Morocco
parent public information flow exists, and free participation adopted a strategy for sustainable development, making
and collaboration are encouraged, especially during decision‐ environmental sustainability a national priority (Kaza
making (Pereira et al., 2017; Puppim de Oliveira et al., 2013). et al., 2018). Mozambique developed a 12‐year national
To some extent, several nations and municipalities have strategy that provides guidance ranging from landfill con-
implemented such systems in support of SWM. For ex- struction to the organization of waste pickers. This guidance
ample, some Global North countries have legal and regu- outlines the roles of all stakeholders, including central
latory strategies that promote sustainable SWM practices governments, municipalities, businesses, waste pickers,
(Batista et al., 2021; Schübeler et al., 1996; Shekdar, 2009). residents, and NGOs (Kaza et al., 2018). In Kenya, a National
Several European countries have increased their information Solid Waste Management Strategy was formed in 2014 as a
accessibility, awareness, active community engagement and response to citizen complaints about poor SWM; it outlines
participation, and industrial initiatives by investing in waste collective action and mechanisms to manage waste sys-
education, research, physical infrastructure, and litter pre- tematically (Amugsi et al., 2022; Kabera et al., 2019).
vention campaigns (Kaza et al., 2018; Mamady, 2016; Many countries, however, face SWM policy and gover-
Wilson et al., 2013). Sweden, Japan, Switzerland, Canada, nance challenges (Fernando, 2019; Serge Kubanza &
the UK, the Netherlands, and Germany promote extended Simatele, 2020; Wilson et al., 2013). Inadequate institutional
producer responsibilities (Kaza et al., 2018; Kiddee and technical capacity, limited infrastructure and structures
et al., 2013; Stegmann, 2017); Australia, the UK for waste reduction, weak enforcement, and under-
(Watson, 2013), Ireland, Norway, and Italy promote landfill developed regulatory frameworks pose challenges to the
levies and material bans to reduce landfill volumes (Guer- regulation, monitoring, and/or delivery of waste services
rero et al., 2013; Ma & Hipel, 2016; Moloney & (Kaza et al., 2018; Okot‐Okumu & Nyenje, 2011; Tsai
Doolan, 2016). Furthermore, Australia (e.g., Adelaide, Can- et al., 2020). Public policy research institutions and waste‐
berra), Denmark, the UK, New Zealand, and the USA (e.g., specific academic programs, free information flow, judiciary
Del Norte county and San Francisco, both in California) autonomy, and system audits are limited or nonexistent in
apply container deposit schemes as zero‐waste policies some Global South countries. Striking the right balance
(Kaza et al., 2018; Zaman, 2015). This is coupled with the between policy, governance, and institutional mechanisms
pay‐as‐you‐throw (polluter pays) policy, commonly used in is another challenge. For example, power struggles within
Italy (Messina & Tomasi, 2020), Singapore (Bai & Su- multiparty political systems of central and local governance
tanto, 2002; Zhang, Keat, et al., 2010), Sweden, Austria, in some countries (e.g., Slovakia, Greece, and Haiti) have
Germany, and the Netherlands (Moloney & Doolan, 2016; affected SWM structure, function, and decision‐making
Watson, 2013). In the USA, San Francisco also applies robust processes (Bosdogianni, 2007; Bras et al., 2009; Šedová,
public policy, implemented by determined political leader- 2016). The lack of democratic structures and competent
ship, strong public–private partnerships, resident education, representation of local authorities push leaders to make
and financial incentives for waste reduction (Lee decisions based on their parties' interests for fear of being

voted out of office (Aydin, 2017; Oteng‐Ababio et al., 2013; In some Kenyan, Tanzanian, and Ugandan communities, the
Sarptaş & Erdin, 2015). elite users are willing to pay for waste management services
Sustainable SWM systems require citizen‐focused lead- (Okot‐Okumu & Nyenje, 2011).
ership and well‐laid‐out legal and regulatory structures to The inability of some central governments to provide
avoid predicaments resulting from changes in governance sufficient financial support (Guerrero et al., 2013) results in
or disagreements between political parties, or between inadequate and irregular income sources, limiting SWM
central and local governments, possibly leading to aban- sustainability (Wilson et al., 2013). Many countries in the
doned waste projects. In countries experiencing social and Global South depend on donor grants and loans to
political insurgency and civil unrest, policymakers and establish SWM projects and obtain technologies (Rodic
planners may consider SWM a low priority and limit et al., 2010; Wilson et al., 2013). Such costly technologies and
budgets and other resources (Shekdar, 2009; Zaman & the inability or reluctance of users to pay for services create
Lehmann, 2011). Rampant or unchecked corruption retards unsustainable systems, undermining project success and
economic growth, distorts political systems, weakens ad- triggering recurring waste challenges (Okot‐Okumu, 2012;
ministration, and undermines public interest and welfare Saha, 2013; Siyat, 2012). This explains the different waste
(Amugsi et al., 2022; Okot‐Okumu & Nyenje, 2011; service coverage in countries of the Global North (100%) and
Romano et al., 2021). A stable and effective governance Global South (40%–80%; Moloney & Doolan, 2016).
is required for sustainable SMW decision‐making, im- Effective consultation with service users, providers, and
plementation, delivery, and enforcement. Proactive poli- other enablers from the inception phase results in appro-
cies and good governance are needed to enforce national priate requirements and cost–benefit analysis for system
laws. For example, countries should implement standard components (Okot‐Okumu & Nyenje, 2011). Using con-
six color‐coded collection containers and/or bins for waste sultation, Brazil, Nepal, Malaysia, Zambia, China, and Tan-
separation to reduce mixed waste generation and landfill zania have effectively engaged local stakeholders in
volumes as well as risks. Effective governance and mon- managing their waste streams (Beatriz et al., 2014;
itoring capacity are required to hold waste generators and Hoornweg & Bhada‐Tata, 2012; Zhang, Tan, et al., 2010),
handlers accountable. sometimes without donor funding. Nepal has well‐
functioning waste systems, and charges no fees on house-
Finance and economics (local, national, and global). Effec- hold service despite not receiving external funding (Wilson
tive and sustainable SWM systems offer acceptable and et al., 2013).
affordable services to all stakeholders (Abagale To solve local or national waste problems in the Global
et al., 2012; Rodić & Wilson, 2017). But a system's sus- North, many countries have designed country‐ or region‐
tainability also depends on stakeholder willingness to re- specific SWM economic decision support models and as-
spond to issues and funding ability (Ezeah et al., 2013; sessment tools (Bachmann et al., 2022; Pires et al., 2011).
Omwoma et al., 2017). This ability of stakeholders to pay is These bespoke systems apply analytical tools, including
determined by their economic status, which also influ- life cycle impact assessment, material flow analysis
ences waste collection service fees, frequency, nature of and/or accounting, cost–benefit analysis, life cycle costing,
collection, and disposal sites (Ma & Hipel, 2016). In the environmental impact assessment, strategic environmental
Global North, waste service users are generally more assessment, environmental management system, and envi-
willing and able to pay collection fees than their counter- ronmental auditing (Kiddee et al., 2013). These tools,
parts in the Global South (Almazán‐Casali et al., 2019; applied in a region‐specific manner, have complicated at-
Okot‐Okumu & Nyenje, 2011). For compliance, some tempts to integrate, synthesize, or analyze waste ap-
governments have devised approaches, such as tagging proaches (Omwoma et al., 2017; Triguero et al., 2016).
charges to rent fees, property taxes, product fees, utility Further, these systems focus principally on environmental
bills (Matheson, 2022; Schübeler et al., 1996; Welivita and economic impacts but lack indicators of social drivers in
et al., 2015), or waste quantity as well as providing gov- SWM frameworks (Marshall & Farahbakhsh, 2013; Rodic
ernment allocations or incentives for the separation of et al., 2010). They seek to address a long‐term “green
recyclables. In China (Kunming), collection fees are re- agenda” (reducing human impacts on ecosystems and their
covered from central government allocations; in Zambia natural resources, i.e., ecological sustainability), rather than
(Lusaka) from the franchise fees, and in Brazil (Belo Hori- the “brown agenda” (immediate environmental impacts of
zonte) from municipal property taxes (Wilson et al., 2013). rapid urbanization, especially in the low‐income urban set-
Governments in China and India also charge low waste tlements; Shrestha, 2019).
collection fees with no penalty for nonpayers (Wilson The application of economic instruments designed for
et al., 2013). In Brazil (Belo), the government pays 100% of the Global North by the Global South (Okot‐Okumu, 2012;
the waste collection fees and incorporates that cost into Wilson et al., 2013) has proven incompatible with the local
utility bills. In Tanzania (Moshi) and Nepal, poor urban needs and conditions, hindering local innovation in recipient
households are not charged (Wilson et al., 2013). In Rwanda countries (Guerrero et al., 2013; Oteng‐Ababio et al., 2013).
(Kigali), fees to households depend on income, with the This, coupled with pressure to serve donor interests and ob-
poorest communities getting free service (Kabera et al., 2019). jectives, may affect the SWM decision‐making process,
causing increased impacts in the Global South (Marshall & Sociocultural factors. Public and personal perceptions,
Farahbakhsh, 2013; Omwoma et al., 2017). attitudes, and behaviors are the basis for informed SWM
decisions (Hope & Jones, 2014; Massoud et al., 2021;
Technical and institutional requirements. Adequate tech- Sarptaş & Erdin, 2015). These determine SWM success or
nical structures and well‐trained human resources are the failure, influencing choices on waste separation, recycling,
backbone of technological development, regulation, policy willingness to pay, facility locations, local management
implementation, and system component monitoring and structures, and disposal practices (Debrah et al., 2021;
supervision (Niu, 2017; Reymond et al., 2016; Zakaria Oguntoyinbo, 2012). Despite many countries fairly in-
et al., 2021). Limited finances can inhibit a nation's ability corporating social awareness campaigns into SWM systems,
to purchase analytical facilities and generate research their technological complexity limits the inclusion and par-
data for decision‐making, creating SWM challenges (Ma & ticipation of waste users in decision‐making (Rodic
Hipel, 2016; Oguntoyinbo, 2012; Šedová, 2016). To build et al., 2010). In Australia, insufficient community awareness
expertise aimed at addressing local waste problems and and incomplete or lacking waste data were reported to af-
citizens' needs, many countries have incorporated training fect the consistency of artificial intelligence (AI) applications
and research into their curricula (Guerrero et al., 2013; in waste management (Andeobu et al., 2022; Bernardo
Wilson et al., 2013). In some countries, however, the cur- et al., 2023).
riculum at lower education levels is limited to basic knowl- To implement WH‐ and CE‐compliant SWM strategies,
edge of sanitation and hygiene rather than SWM principles, stakeholder behavioral change and awareness campaigns
practices, benefits, and hazards (Guerrero et al., 2013; are required (Marshall & Farahbakhsh, 2013; Massoud
Ndejjo et al., 2019). Environmental education campaigns et al., 2021). Awareness campaigns facilitate and are influ-
can also be limited, noninclusive, or fail to support aware- enced by stakeholder behavior and acceptance of public
ness of waste hazards and benefits (Hafeez et al., 2016; and environmental policy (Bai & Sutanto, 2002; Fauziah
Kouame et al., 2014; Kumwenda et al., 2014). At institutions et al., 2009; Mbongui‐Kialo, 2022; Morone & Imbert, 2020).
of higher learning, potential future waste professionals are Continuous public education also creates strong environ-
offered more theoretical than practical skills and knowledge mental awareness in stakeholders (Debrah et al., 2021;
(Ndejjo et al., 2019). This limits the graduates' technical Ezeah et al., 2013). Consequently, regulations and strong
capacities and expertise for employability and performance social pressure from interested friends, families, and com-
in SWM processes and systems (Ejaz et al., 2010; Kabera munity initiatives for donations influence household waste
et al., 2019). This also impairs the capacity to develop na- separation compliance (Almazán‐Casali et al., 2019; Czaj-
tional strategies to mainstream environmental policies for kowski et al., 2017; Sidique et al., 2010). Similarly, the in-
sustainable SWM (Oguntoyinbo, 2012; Okot‐Okumu, 2012). fluence of institutional, organizational, and public norms is
observed in Japan (Yokohama), where waste and cleaning
Infrastructure requirements. Adequate roads, good waste are valued, resulting in large numbers of volunteers and less
handling vehicles, and appropriate technologies are pre- removal expenditure, whereas in Singapore, open waste
requisites for a sustainable SWM process (Fatimah disposal (littering) is rampant, as the public shuns cleaning
et al., 2020). Many Global North countries have advanced (Ong & Sovacool, 2012). In Taiwan, popular musical gar-
facilities to support automated waste separation, collection bage trucks improved community involvement in waste
at curbside points, and at treatment and disposal grounds separation and increased the recycling rate to 55% (Kaza
(Munir et al., 2021). Well‐equipped landfill technology, well‐ et al., 2018), highlighting music as an alternative engage-
constructed roads, material and energy recovery facilities, ment strategy. However, in China (Hangzhou, Zhejiang
and mechanical and biological treatment systems reduce Province), a waste management survey found that “eco-
impacts and risks (Kumar & Ankaram, 2019). A lack of pro- nomic inducement was more effective than social mobi-
active policies, weak governance frameworks, and in- lization in promoting waste separation” (Xu et al., 2018).
adequate budget allocations can limit sustainable urban Thus, improved social understanding of SWM requirements
planning, including the purchase of waste handling facilities and regulations, as well as economic incentives, would en-
(Beatriz et al., 2014; Guerrero et al., 2013; Serge Kubanza & courage stakeholder participation in the design, planning,
Simatele, 2020). Small remittances from central govern- and implementation decision‐making (Sidique et al., 2010;
ments and unreliable donor loans may also force munici- Xu et al., 2018).
palities to fund operations and maintenance using the In some developing countries, waste is regarded as a
limited taxes from municipal land or equipment sales public nuisance and a shameful social problem (Hemidat
(Okot‐Okumu & Nyenje, 2011; Oteng‐Ababio et al., 2013). et al., 2022; Mamady, 2016; Okot‐Okumu, 2012; Salvia
Deficiencies in infrastructure and equipment may affect et al., 2021). Consequently, its management is left to local or
waste separation, collection, transport, treatment, and dis- central governments, with assistance from public health
posal (Fernando, 2019; Vaccari et al., 2013). More reliable agencies (Marshall & Farahbakhsh, 2013), and the urban
funding, locally focused innovation, and improved stake- poor (Triguero et al., 2016). Due to survival needs, informal
holder awareness and involvement would reduce such waste pickers, disposal site reminers, and recyclers (mostly
obstacles. women, youth, and children) have created a system to

manage waste for economic subsistence, thus exposing Technology transfer. In the Global North, sustainable SWM
them to health risks (Ezeah et al., 2013; Obeng‐ processes (Iyamu et al., 2020; Shekdar, 2009) are partially
Odoom, 2018; Oguntoyinbo, 2012). Societal perception, supported through continual design of waste technologies
religious and cultural values, public attitude, and lack of to suit local needs and conditions (Marshall & Far-
knowledge of hazards and benefits have also stigmatized ahbakhsh, 2013; Wilson et al., 2013). Sustainable manu-
waste workers in the eyes of the public (Kaza et al., 2018; Ma facturing allows the production of goods with fewer
& Hipel, 2016; Obeng‐Odoom, 2018) and have limited environmental and health risks (Javaid et al., 2022;
service‐user (citizen) participation in the SWM processes, Zaman, 2015). In cleaner production, industries apply WH
leading to unregulated open disposal (Ong & Sova- and CE principles, aiming to use less raw material and
cool, 2012) and associated environmental and health risks. A generate less waste in production (Ion & Gheorghe, 2014;
lack of formal and informal stakeholder integration, incorrect Zhang et al., 2021). In the Global South, however, there
institutional information, poor structures (Aparcana, 2017; exists an innovation gap caused by weaker political and cul-
Okot‐Okumu & Nyenje, 2011; Tong et al., 2021), and limited tural drivers of green innovation and limited data for decision‐
recycling programs also hinder the development of sus- making and development of standards (Cai & Li, 2018;
tainable SWM systems in many Global South regions Shekdar, 2009; Widmer et al., 2005). Subsequently, this pro-
(Egun, 2017). vides an opportunity for the Global North to market its new,
advanced, and expensive technologies, spare parts, and
Environmental issues. A well‐designed SWM strategy regulatory models and tools (Omwoma et al., 2017), which
may provide environmental and public health benefits, in- may not be optimal for the Global South, given differing local
cluding reduced resource depletion and environmental risks needs, conditions, and waste compositions. For example,
(Andeobu et al., 2022; Zaman & Lehmann, 2011). Thus, importing an inorganic waste truck to handle primarily organic
most resource‐constrained societies will not waste material wastes will create management complexities and failures
but will find value in end‐of‐life products via repair, reuse, or (Okot‐Okumu & Nyenje, 2011; Schübeler et al., 1996).
composting (Zaman, 2015). However, as the population Further, donors generally fund the acquisition and building
grows, waste can accumulate in streets and other environ- of waste infrastructure in recipient countries but rarely its
mental compartments, making pollution and acute public operation and maintenance. This, coupled with limited local
health risks a driving force for waste collection (Ejaz technical expertise to handle, operate, and maintain such
et al., 2010; Wilson et al., 2013). This was the basis for waste systems, and the need to import or hire costly spare parts and
policy development in industrialized countries around the expatriates from donor countries, imposes economic burdens,
1970s (Borowy, 2019; Sidique et al., 2010), with pollution rendering these technologies cost‐ineffective, redundant, and
control measures applied from waste collection to disposal unsustainable (Bras et al., 2009; Okot‐Okumu, 2012; Rodic
to reduce impacts (Bai & Sutanto, 2002; Rajmohan et al., 2010). Weak institutions and limited financial capacity to
et al., 2019). Since then, the Global North has designed operate and maintain SWM projects and systems after donor
costly technologies and policies aimed at minimizing waste departure also lead to failure (Blenkharn, 2006; Da Silva et al.,
disposal quantities (Andeobu et al., 2022). Increasingly, due 2005; Guerrero et al., 2013).
to concerns over natural resources depletion (Marshall & Failure to devise appropriate SWM strategies to work
Farahbakhsh, 2013), material and resource management has across periods and the two development economies has
taken precedence, driving a growing emphasis on CE con- also made it difficult to predict the amount and composition
cepts, recycling, waste‐to‐energy, and zero‐waste strategies of near‐future wastes (Daskalopoulos et al., 1998;
(Negrete‐Cardoso et al., 2022; Rezvani Ghomi et al., 2021). Zaman, 2014). This, coupled with the global pressure to
There is a need to balance the competing drivers of handle the green agenda, at the expense of the brown
economic and environmental development systems, where agenda (Shrestha, 2019), frustrates SWM efforts in the
limited resources exist (Wilson, 2007). When governments Global South via imbalances in funding opportunities and
give low priority to environmental protection, the results affordability within regions, as the global issues take prec-
include inadequate handling of pollution control systems edence over local environmental concerns.
and limited stakeholder awareness and participation in the
waste‐reducing components (i.e., reduce, reuse, recycle, Stakeholder inclusion. Figure 4 illustrates key stakeholders in
recover) of the WH (Ma & Hipel, 2016; Sidique et al., 2010) SWM systems and processes (Ezeah et al., 2013). A successful
and vast quantities of uncontrolled waste (Manaf, 2009; and sustainable SWM system has active stakeholders in the
Schübeler et al., 1996; Vinti & Vaccari, 2022). Then, a ma- entire process including planning, design, and other decision‐
terial's economic value may drive informal waste separation making activities (Okot‐Okumu & Nyenje, 2011; Schübeler
and recycling programs (Gall et al., 2020; Wilson et et al., 1996). Whereas stakeholders, including formal and in-
al., 2013). Although there is a push to phase out un- formal waste service providers, enablers, and users, exist
regulated disposal areas, such efforts will need support and across countries, the extent to which they are included in
evidence from technological innovation, environmental decision‐making varies (Fuss et al., 2018; Yukalang
monitoring, and risk assessment (Omwoma et al., 2017; et al., 2018). In some countries, there exists limited engage-
Šedová, 2016; Zaman, 2014). ment between the public sector and service users (citizens),
which may hinder behavioral change and reduce SWM pro- communities (Okot‐Okumu, 2012; Okot‐Okumu &
ductivity and effectiveness (O'Connor et al., 2019). Most in- Nyenje, 2011; Oteng‐Ababio et al., 2013) as well as collec-
formal service providers are also rarely integrated within the tion, recycling, and disposal (Ezeah et al., 2013; Ma &
formal SWM system structures (Matter et al., 2015). Because Hipel, 2016). For example, in Bangladesh (Dhaka) and India
urban councils may not have legal mandates to supervise or (Delhi), the local NGOs work with urban authorities to sup-
enforce regulations on such activities, the informal stake- plement existing informal economies (Ezeah et al., 2013; Ma
holders often render unauthorized, unplanned, unsupervised, & Hipel, 2016; Wilson et al., 2013). In India (Madras), the
and sometimes legally unrecognized waste services NGO EXNORA created a waste collection program, where
(Hoornweg & Bhada‐Tata, 2012; Oteng‐Ababio et al., 2013). low‐income residents pay small fees to receive the service
Several countries, however, have involved the informal (Aparcana, 2017; Ezeah et al., 2013). In Brazil, a community
economy through active politics, stakeholder platforms, and organization (COOPAMARE) collects and sells approx-
unions (Hoornweg & Bhada‐Tata, 2012; Oguntoyinbo, 2012). imately 100 tons of recyclable materials monthly (Ezeah
In Malaysia, Nepal, and Tanzania, long‐term plans were es- et al., 2013; Gutberlet, 2021). In South Africa, CBOs, co-
tablished for community inclusion within the SWM systems operatives, and associations are established or supported
(Okot‐Okumu & Nyenje, 2011). In Malaysia, a direct, active, by NGOs to engage in recycling projects as livelihood op-
and strong social link between waste service users and man- portunities (Ezeah et al., 2013). In Mali (Bamako), Brazil
agers was established to assess the performance of private (Belo, Horizonte), India (Bengaluru), and the Philippines
service providers (Guerrero et al., 2013). In Nepal, munici- (Quezon City), waste users formed platforms for communi-
palities formed stakeholder committees, headed by local cation and consultation during strategic planning, siting of
personnel, to regularly monitor and contribute to the man- facilities, and in the organization of day‐to‐day waste serv-
agement of local landfills (Wilson et al., 2006; Wilson ices; they have also created platforms to institutionalize in-
et al., 2013). In 2000, Tanzania (via the Moshi community) clusivity in the formal SWM systems (Beatriz et al., 2014;
initiated a decentralization policy and formed a stakeholder Ezeah et al., 2013; Widmer et al., 2005; Wilson et al., 2013).
platform that enhanced engagement and participation in the In Ghana (Kumasi, Tema, and Accra), several informal
planning and operation of SWM services (Khamis, 2016). stakeholders were incorporated into plastic picking, collec-
Egypt (Cairo) achieved a 40%–50% waste separation and tion, sorting, and selling, forming a model recycling practice
collection rate after the privatization of the SWM system and (Obeng‐Odoom, 2014; Oteng‐Ababio et al., 2017). In
the formation of an 80% informal economy group (Zabaleen) Zambia (Lusaka), more than 30% waste collection coverage
to collect, recycle, and treat waste (Ezeah et al., 2013; Jaligot is provided by the informal economy (Aparcana, 2017; Ma &
et al., 2016). Upon the registration and incorporation of its Hipel, 2016); in Uganda, the urban councils have contracted
informal economy into the national SWM structure, Brazil es- the private sector in waste collection and disposal services
tablished a plastic and aluminum recycling plant and became (Okot‐Okumu & Nyenje, 2011). More notably, the involve-
a global producer of aluminum cans (Beatriz et al., 2014; ment of all stakeholders in the planning and implementation
Ezeah et al., 2013). In China, 3.3–5.6 million people are in- of SWM processes makes the systems more sustainable and
formal recyclers (Yang et al., 2018). In China (Beijing) and responsive to local conditions, needs, and expectations.
Vietnam (Ho Chi Minh City), more than 200 000 and 16 000 Stakeholder engagement and inclusion during design and
registered active waste pickers exist, respectively (Kaza implementation also encourages behavioral changes and
et al., 2018). In Nigeria (Lagos), scrap dealers were formally supports the reduction in environmental and health risks
recognized, and they can operate legally (Egun, 2017; (O'Connor et al., 2019). The integration of the informal
Oguntoyinbo, 2012). Major cities in India (Pune) and Latin economy into formal SWM structures through registered
America have registered, licensed, and integrated informal associations, cooperatives, or private partnerships (com-
waste collectors into cooperatives, granting them access to munity environmental groups and properly licensed micro-
waste in selected areas (Oguntoyinbo, 2012). In Peru, the enterprises) empowers access to data, funds, and technical
municipal authorities integrated informal waste pickers into and management skills, as well as supporting enforcement
the formal systems (Marello & Helwege, 2018); in and reducing operational conflicts (Matter et al., 2015).
Argentina (Buenos Aires), these groups are registered and Thus, using the local and nationwide public education
allowed to remove recyclable materials from the community strategies (e.g., media, trade unions, and corporate organ-
curbside bins (Kaza et al., 2018). At the Baruni disposal facility izations) supports WH compliance and enhances stake-
(Papua New Guinea), informal waste services are registered holder awareness and participation (Debrah et al., 2021).
and formalized; however, at a disposal site in Vanuatu (Port
Waste management practices
Vila), the waste pickers must be registered to have access to
waste collection (Kaza et al., 2018). Ideally, sustainable SWM approaches follow WH concepts
On the contrary, compared with similar services offered (Figure 2; Kaza et al., 2018). Countries aiming at achieving
by the urban councils in many countries, the formal private either less or even zero waste (Hoornweg & Bhada‐Tata,
sectors (i.e., NGOs and community‐based organizations 2012) have implemented WH practices, including 100%
[CBOs]) have served more than half the poor urban pop- recycling and/or 100% recovery (Zaman & Lehmann, 2011),
ulation and greatly improved waste awareness across significantly reducing landfill deposition (Shekdar, 2009;

Zink & Geyer, 2019). Countries treating “waste” materials as (Triguero et al., 2016; Zaman, 2015; Zaman & Leh-
resources (Zaman, 2015) have adopted CE systems and pro- mann, 2011). Generally, higher economic status comes with
moted behavioral changes to rethink, avoid, reduce, reuse, greater disposable income and consumption, and higher
recycle, repair, recover and/or redesign, and remanufacture waste generation (Abagale et al., 2012; Roy & Tarafdar, 2022).
(Ghisellini & Ulgiati, 2020; Kaza et al., 2018; Zaman, 2014). Therefore, average waste generation per capita in the Global
Despite that, not all SWM policies, strategies, and practices North is greater than in the Global South (Table 1) and affirms
developed in the Global North are easily implementable in that, in both, more production as well as waste separation and
the Global South. Thus, there are higher recycling and rela- recycling challenges are expected in the coming years (Kaza
tively lower dumping rates in the developed world than the et al., 2018; Kawai & Tasaki, 2016). Despite this, the relative
developing world (Figure 5). However, many countries in the increase in waste generation (volumes) is projected to be
Global North still generate vast quantities of waste and de- greater in the Global South, especially if WH principles and
pend on waste practices located at the lower tiers of the WH, CE concepts for sustainable SWM strategies and practices are
including incineration, landfilling, and open dumping (Roy & not adhered to (Hoornweg & Bhada‐Tata, 2012). Although the
Tarafdar, 2022). Although SWM WH practices in the Global Global North has tried to reduce waste generation through
North and South are comparable (Figure 2), their environ- enhanced WH compliance and increased technologies for
mental and human health impacts depend on both local ap- recycling (Ezeah et al., 2013), unmanaged industrialization in
proaches, infrastructure, and larger drivers such as CE aspects the Global South continues to cause rural–urban migration,
and global trade issues (Talang & Sirivithayapakorn, 2021). population increase, slum development, and increased waste
Regardless of an increasing focus on CE concepts, SWM generation (Kawai & Tasaki, 2016; Saha, 2013). Enhancing
challenges remain across countries. Solid waste management knowledge of waste risks and benefits (Rebehy et al., 2017),
approaches should be selected based on waste form, com- new technologies, user willingness to pay for waste services,
position, quantity, and local needs and conditions (Marshall & public habits (Ong & Sovacool, 2012) and engagement
Farahbakhsh, 2013). (O'Connor et al., 2019), gender perspective (Oztekin et al.,
2017), peer influence, increased coverage, regulations on
Waste generation and separation. Globally, waste gen- collection and landfill fees, and landfill material bans
eration is influenced by composition (Wilson et al., 2013), could reduce waste generation (Guerrero et al., 2013; Wilson
industrialization, urbanization, population size, education et al., 2013).
level, public habits, and intention (Zaikova et al., 2022), During separation, waste is divided into reusable, re-
household attitudes, age groups, local climate, consumption, cyclable, compostable, and incinerable materials, reducing
behavior, and culture (Moh, 2017), land size, household lo- collection, treatment, or disposal volumes (Abagale
cation (rural/urban), economic status, and monthly income et al., 2012; Oguntoyinbo, 2012). This practice promotes
FIGURE 5 Average implementation rates (%) of different waste management practices across some developed and developing countries (2016; Source: Kaza
et al., 2018)
zero‐waste strategies because it reduces leachate‐forming in the waste management process (Fernández‐Aracil
materials to landfills, and minimizes landfill taxes, banned et al., 2018; Okot‐Okumu & Nyenje, 2011; Zaman & Leh-
materials and green house gases (GHG) emissions mann, 2011). It is necessary to determine waste composition
(Egun, 2017; Moloney & Doolan, 2016). Waste separation to provide appropriate transport, collection technologies,
information helps city planners and policymakers to devise and storage bins or containers (Jaunich et al., 2016; Wilson
future SWM strategies, including choosing treatment, op- et al., 2013), including primary and secondary vehicles and
eration, and maintenance technologies (Fauziah et al., 2009; equipment, household and neighborhood containers, and
Wilson et al., 2013). In many Global North countries, waste trained workers with safety equipment (Schübeler
separation is a formal and mandatory practice, done man- et al., 1996; Zbib & Wøhlk, 2019). Waste bins should have
ually in households and at curbside centers, and automated standard shapes and three to six appropriate color codes
with mechanical and biological treatment systems at mate- (lid type, insert slot) for segregation (Das & Biswas, 2016;
rial recovery facilities (Bergeron, 2016; Ezeah et al., 2013; Kaza et al., 2018; Keramitsoglou & Tsagarakis, 2018; Soni &
Shekdar, 2009). To promote household and community Kandasamy, 2018) and be located at major collection cen-
waste separation practice, regulations and social influence ters such as community curbside collection points, recycling
were applied to change personal attitudes and public centers, and final disposal sites (Abagale et al., 2012;
perspectives from a throw‐away society to a more environ- Hoornweg & Bhada‐Tata, 2012). To support efficient oper-
mentally friendly society (Bai & Sutanto, 2002; Zaman & ations and minimize transport distances and costs, transfer
Lehmann, 2011). stations must facilitate the local community setting (Ma &
Despite SWM improvements, many countries in both the Hipel, 2016; Sidique et al.,2010). In vehicle selection,
Global North and South are still noncompliant with WH the cost‐analysis should consider transfer ease, haul
principles and CE concepts (Rodic et al., 2010; Zaman, 2015), volume, operational costs, and maintenance requirements
with persistently high waste generation, incineration, landfill, (Okot‐Okumu & Nyenje, 2011; Zbib & Wøhlk, 2019).
and open dump disposal volumes (Guerrero et al., 2013; In the Global North, waste collection services are often
Hoornweg & Bhada‐Tata, 2012; Kawai & Tasaki, 2016; Wilson government regulated and centrally controlled (Bai &
et al., 2013). In the Global South, the informal economy, often Sutanto, 2002; Kaza et al., 2018). This has supported timely
not included in the formal SWM systems, are the key active budget allocation, intermediary waste processes, mecha-
players in waste separation practice (Okot‐Okumu & nization, and reduced handling challenges during collection,
Nyenje, 2011). Without legal mandate and guidelines, en- storage, transfer, and disposal (Hoornweg & Bhada‐
forcement by government authorities on this group is im- Tata, 2012; Wilson et al., 2006). In building sustainable SWM
possible (Beatriz et al., 2014; Diaz, 2011; Liyala, 2011). systems, collaborative interaction among stakeholders must
Financial constraints may also hinder waste separation; thus, inspire confidence, build trust, and improve accountability
available government services concentrate only on removing and transparency (Ezeah et al., 2013; Okot‐Okumu &
waste nuisance from the public domain (Egun, 2017; Ogun- Nyenje, 2011). Waste collection fees are charged after dia-
toyinbo, 2012). Waste separation rates are also influenced by logue with service users—with calculations based on costs
manual strategies at collection and transit points, waste type incurred and allocated as either a property tax or a levy
and status, climate, distance, and frequency of bin collection (Kaza et al., 2018; Ma & Hipel, 2016). For privately con-
(Okot‐Okumu, 2012; Oteng‐Ababio et al., 2013). Despite tracted and licensed service providers, municipalities and/or
contributions from the informal economy, the quality of re- responsible departments decide on collection fees, desig-
cyclable materials, low demand (Wilson et al., 2013) and en- nate collection areas, and monitor service levels (Bai &
forcement, limited international collaborations and markets, Sutanto, 2002). This reduces corruption and political influ-
and price fluctuations in local and global markets have frus- ence, and improves collection coverage, efficiency, and
trated efforts to increase separation and recycling (Gunar- service provision levels (Gumisiriza & Kugonza, 2020; Ma &
athne et al., 2019; Okot‐Okumu & Nyenje, 2011). Monitoring Hipel, 2016; Romano et al., 2021).
individual waste generation volumes and separation practices In Singapore, waste collection was privatized, 350 con-
in high‐rise apartments that use single communal collection tractors were licensed, the road network was improved, and
skips is also challenging (Xiao & Siu, 2018). This, in addition to a fleet of large‐capacity trucks and site‐appropriate waste
adopted technologies (e.g., waste trucks) designed for cooler collection systems were introduced (Bai & Sutanto, 2002). In
climates (e.g., to compact inorganic wastes; Schübeler high‐income and socialist countries (e.g., China), citizens
et al., 1996), creates more separation and management have 100% waste collection coverage, and receive services
challenges for Global South countries, with high organic waste irrespective of their social status (Bai & Sutanto, 2002; Chu
content (Gourmelon, 2015; Ma & Hipel, 2016; Thompson et al., 2019; Kaza et al., 2018). In Australia (Canberra),
et al., 2009). Such obstacles increase waste generation and household garbage and curbside collection bins, weekly
management costs, posing greater risks for many countries in collection calendars, recycling, and online waste apps such
the Global South (Ejaz et al., 2010; World Bank, 2012). as Australian Capital Territory (ACT) sustainable schools
program were introduced (ACT Government, 2023). How-
Waste collection, storage, and transfer. Disparate local ever, not all municipalities or states, even in the Global
conditions make waste collection an expensive component North, have effective SWM systems (Bernardo et al., 2023).

For instance, in Queensland and some rural Australian locations (Ejaz et al., 2010; Oguntoyinbo, 2012; Saha, 2013),
states, SWM systems are inadequate (Salim et al., 2023), whereas private companies operate in high‐income house-
whereas on the outskirts of the national capital city, Can- holds, offering door‐to‐door waste collection services
berra, only two to three color‐coded bins are provided. (Abagale et al., 2012; Ezeah et al., 2013; Okot‐Okumu &
Such communities exhibit mixed and contaminated waste Nyenje, 2011). In China, municipal governments support
(Bernardo et al., 2023), creating obstacles during separation door‐to‐door waste collection services in high‐rise apart-
as well as increasing landfill and incineration volumes, en- ments (Ezeah et al., 2013), and rudimentary services in poor
vironmental impacts, and health risks (Zaman, 2015; Zaman suburbs (Ma & Hipel, 2016; Oguntoyinbo, 2012). In Shanghai
& Lehmann, 2011). (China), the provision of waste collection services is based on
In the Global South, many municipalities have limited local culture and habits, and is thus provided three times
service coverage due to their inability to purchase appropriate daily (Ma & Hipel, 2016). In India (Delhi) and Brazil (Belo), the
equipment (technology systems) and infrastructure (facilities) informal economy cooperatives and NGOs provide primary
(Ejaz et al., 2010; Guerrero et al., 2013; Moh, 2017). This also waste collection services and ensure access to better quality
impairs the management of waste, which is predominantly materials for recycling (Ezeah et al., 2013; Gutberlet, 2021;
80% organic (Hoornweg & Bhada‐Tata, 2012; Okot‐Okumu & Wilson et al., 2013). In China (Kunming), India (Bengaluru),
Nyenje, 2011), thus increasing its impacts and risks (Moloney Nicaragua (Managua), Zambia (Lusaka), Brazil (Belo, Hori-
& Doolan, 2016; Wilson et al., 2013). The adoption of costly zonte), and the Philippines (Quezon), fees are kept low, and
and unsustainable treatment technologies (Saha, 2013; 100% waste collection coverage is provided, including in
Schübeler et al., 1996); inaccessible roads; inadequate tech- slum areas (Wilson et al., 2013; Wilson et al., 2015). Vietnam,
nical, managerial, and organizational capacities (Moh, 2017); Egypt, and China (Kunming) have small transfer stations
and longer distances to disposal points have also affected the spread across cities, with automated primary collection
efficiency, affordability, and sustainability of waste collection technology and compaction lorries for secondary collection
systems (Oguntoyinbo, 2012; Omran et al., 2018; Wilson et (Wilson et al., 2013). Thus, residents sort recyclable items into
al., 2013). Limited storage facilities and uncovered collection specific containers or outside garbage bins, which are sub-
and transportation vehicles also cause waste mixing (Ayan- sequently transported by truck or business entities to transfer
toyinbo & Adepoju, 2018; Jaunich et al., 2016; Zaman, 2015). stations (Okot‐Okumu & Nyenje, 2011; Zhang, Keat, et al.,
Similarly, technological breakdowns, unavailable spare parts, 2010; Zhang, Tan, et al., 2010). In Turkey, containers and
and nonfunctional vehicle fleets also waste time and increase community bin systems, as well as compaction vehicles, are
illegal dumping (Wilson et al., 2013). used in waste collection, and this has increased service cov-
Exclusion of relevant stakeholders during initial system erage in most municipalities (Bai & Sutanto, 2002). Mali
design (Rodic et al., 2010) affects performance and sus- (Bamako), Zambia (Lusaka), Kenya (Nairobi), and Tanzania
tainability (Ma & Hipel, 2016; Rebehy et al., 2017) as well as (Dar es Salaam) have created community‐based micro‐ and
information flow, regulation of waste collection fees, service small‐enterprises to provide primary waste collection services
delivery, and coverage, because user needs and time pref- (Wilson et al., 2013). Rwanda (Kigali) and Ghana (Kumasi)
erences are not always met (Ezeah et al., 2013; Okot‐Okumu introduced a fee‐based collection system after privatizing
& Nyenje, 2011). In some nations in the Global South, in- their waste collection systems (Kabera et al., 2019; Oteng‐
cluding East African countries, limited user inclusion has Ababio et al., 2013). Mozambique (Maputo) uses extensive
affected service fee payments, leading to 30%–60% collec- donor funding, whereas Rwanda (Kigali) uses local resources;
tion coverage (Kabera et al., 2019) and less than 50% however, their waste collection coverage rates stand at 88%
of the population served (Ejaz et al., 2010; Hoornweg & and 82%, respectively (Kabera et al., 2019).
Bhada‐Tata, 2012). In India, Ethiopia (Addis Ababa), and Public awareness and involvement can also enhance SWM
Nicaragua (Managua), waste collection challenges were systems (Bom et al., 2017; Ma & Hipel, 2016). For example,
attributed to the fragmentation of solid waste service provider in Malaysia, contractors are supervised through govern-
functions, limited central coordination, poor governance, and ment, public, and environmental media campaigns (Ezeah
financial resource deficiency (Marshall & Farahbakhsh, 2013; et al., 2013; Fauziah et al., 2009; Guerrero et al., 2013). In
Silva‐Martínez et al., 2020). In Uganda, Tanzania (Moshi), and Tanzania (Moshi), the cultural value attached to cleanliness
Mauritius (Curepipe), poor urban communities cannot afford has supported street sanitation (Khamis, 2016; Wilson et
to pay waste collection fees and have resorted to low‐cost al., 2013); zero tolerance for corruption in Rwanda (Kigali)
informal economy, backyard burning, and open disposal in has resulted in 88% waste collection coverage and im-
nondesignated areas (Ejaz et al., 2010; Okot‐Okumu & proved city sanitation (Kabera et al., 2019).
Nyenje, 2011; Oteng‐Ababio et al., 2013).
Despite these challenges, municipal authorities in some Collection, storage, and transfer across borders: Waste
Global South countries have partnered with privately trading. Many countries in the Global North and some
licensed contractors to offer waste collection services (Bo- in the Global South (e.g., China) practice waste trading,
laane & Isaac, 2015; Ezeah et al., 2013; Oguntoyinbo, 2012). the international (or cross‐regional) transfer of waste for
In India and Pakistan, urban council authorities operate further treatment, disposal, recycling, or technical aid
around fixed communal bins, according to set schedules and (Liu et al., 2018; Zaman, 2014). This practice is part of the
“collection, storage and transfer” step in Figure 2, where managers, and the scarce data on proper disposal further
waste, generated in one area is transferred, treated, re- increase environmental impacts and health risks in some
cycled, or disposed of in another area (Hanfman, 2012; urban communities (Aydin, 2017). Kenya, however, has de-
Vidal, 2013). Waste trading can help a constituency meet veloped formal guidelines for the informal SWM economy
local waste regulations and targets, preserve local areas for (Blaser & Schluep, 2012; Wasswa & Schluep, 2008), and
other purposes, or save money by avoiding landfill taxes, Rwanda has very strong proactive municipal SWM policies
recycling charges, or landfill material bans, such as those for (Kabera et al., 2019).
electronics (Lamb et al., 2014; Sidique et al., 2010; Steg- Neoliberal economic theory argues that there is sound
mann, 2017). Internationally, Europe, Australia, Japan, and economic logic in dumping (toxic) waste in the Global South
the USA trade their electronic waste (e‐waste) products in countries as part of development policy, and as a logical
Latin America and China (Ezeah et al., 2013; Ongondo outcome of market forces (Courard‐Hauri & Lauer, 2012).
et al., 2011; Patil & Ramakrishna, 2020). The USA, European Such trade has recently focused on opportunities for recip-
countries, Russia, Japan, Italy, and China export waste to ients to extract resources from waste as recyclable compo-
West and East Africa (Cotta, 2020; Kiddee et al., 2013; nents and used goods to create income‐generating
Widmer et al., 2005). However, once transferred, the waste opportunities, possibly reducing the environmental burdens
generators no longer have control over and are not affected (Cotta, 2020). This notion was supported by Obeng‐Odoom
by further management practices. For example, in Australia, (2014), who reported that the neoliberal system encourages
ABC's 4 Corners program reported on the transportation of and supports corporate recycling because of low cost and
mixed waste from New South Wales and its illegal disposal employment opportunities to the poor. However, circum-
in Southeast Queensland (Lasker et al., 2017). Similarly, stances including financial difficulties, environmental in-
before China's 2018 recyclables ban, Australia exported adequacies, and challenging relations with authorities pose
4 million tons of recyclable materials, of which 1.3 million risks. When the receiving countries do not have the re-
tons went to China (Bernardo et al., 2023; Lasker sources to manage traded wastes safely, their processing
et al., 2017; Downes & Dominish, 2018). However, to pro- and disposal contribute to environmental and health risks
tect the Chinese environment and public health, China's that affect populations across the Global North and South
2018 waste import ban set restrictions on maximum con- (Zaman, 2014). Shamim et al. (2015), Rucevska et al. (2015),
tamination thresholds and limited the number of imports Arya and Kumar (2020), Cotta (2020), and Walters and
permits for 24 contaminant solid waste streams. Fuentes Loureiro (2020) reported that exports of used
Considering the post‐trading life cycle of plastics, these electronic equipment and recyclable plastic materials ex-
products may end up in open dumps, oceans (Nicholls acerbate the environmental burdens in the Global South,
et al., 2021; Vince & Hardesty, 2017), or buried as plastic while also exporting new environmental risks and social
waste, contributing to the global plastic volume: 10%–20% burdens, leading to calls for justice and the adoption
in landfills and 22%–43% in oceans (Beatriz et al., 2014; of new international measures.
Gourmelon, 2015). Waste, including vast volumes of plastics Previously, plastic wastes were largely outside the scope of
and electronics, are diverted to other countries, increasing the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary
pressure on the already stressed infrastructure in the “lower‐ Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal
income countries, awash in the trash of wealthy nations” (Choksi, 2001; Widmer et al., 2005). However, in 2019 the
(GAIA, 2019; Vince & Hardesty, 2017). Obeng‐Odoom treaty was amended to explicitly bring most plastic waste
(2013) states that the plastic waste pandemic is closely re- within the category of wastes controlled as “hazardous
lated to the general sanitation crisis in most cities, with vast waste,” or “waste requiring special consideration”
literature pointing to the negative environmental and social (Khan, 2020). However, implementation and enforcement will
problems from their poor management. He further empha- remain challenging due to transnational, legal, regulatory,
sizes that some plastic containers, when exposed to heat, and economic disparities, unless financial and environmental
produce dioxin, a highly poisonous, cancer‐causing chem- responsibility for plastic waste is placed within the product
ical, and yet others are nonbiodegradable, and stay for supply chain (Khan, 2020). The EU has a growing focus on
years in the environment. circularity in its Circular Economy Action Plan, but Kettunen
Many countries in the Global North have policies and et al. (2019) has observed that an increased framing in which
frameworks on toxic products and material disposal, but recyclable waste becomes a traded good has led to the
those in the Global South lack, for instance, e‐waste phenomenon of “waste dumping.” Thus, they recommend a
management frameworks and disposal guidelines (Bai & range of national, regional, and international standards and
Sutanto, 2002; Ejaz et al., 2010; Shittu et al., 2021). The policies to ensure that European green objectives do not
continued import of new and used poor‐quality consumer merely export impacts elsewhere. There is compelling evi-
products to the Global South results from the countries' dence that the waste trade can be driven by the avoidance of
inadequate policies and weak enforcement (Nnorom & environmental regulation. Kellenberg (2012) evaluated bi-
Osibanjo, 2008; Ongondo et al., 2011). A lack of clear lateral waste trade data and an index of environmental
management mechanisms for large stockpiles of hazardous stringency for 92 countries and concluded that waste imports
e‐waste, the limited number of formal e‐waste recyclers and increase for a country whose environmental regulations

deteriorate vis‐á‐vis its trading partner, and that differences in (Nairobi), have recycling rates in the range of 20%–50%
environmental standards can play an important role in inter- (Kabera et al., 2019; Wilson et al., 2013; Wilson et al., 2006).
national waste trade flows. To address such challenges, Brazil incorporated the in-
Waste trafficking, the illegal export and/or illicit disposal formal economy into the formal waste structure, provided
of e‐waste, plastics, and hazardous substances, generates technologies for the recovery process, regulated recycling
an estimated USD 10–12 billion annually (FATF, 2021). prices, provided incentives, and considered green procure-
Coming from North America and Western Europe, waste is ment for environmentally sustainable consumption (Beatriz
trafficked primarily to sub‐Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, et al., 2014). In 2013, China created a recycling ministry with
and Central and South America, with criminal syndicates resource management as an economic activity, transitioned its
playing a significant role. This waste has a negative value at economy from communist to market‐based, and opened its
its destination, causing economic, social, and environmental borders to international trade (Ezeah et al., 2013; Guerrero
impacts (FATF, 2021). Clearly, waste trading, legal and il- et al., 2013). In 2018, the Chinese government placed a
legal, will continue for some time. Meanwhile, past and ban on international waste trading to reduce the number of
current impacts and risks from poor SWM strategies and contaminated materials entering the country, to promote
practices should be urgently tackled to equitably protect the more local recycling, to protect the environment, and to
environment and associated human health consequences establish links between the circular use of resources and
(Bras et al., 2009; Hanfman, 2012; Stegmann, 2017). materials in industrial production and everyday life.
SWM challenges in many countries partially result from the
Recycling. Recycling converts used material into new prod- lack of stakeholder awareness, inclusion and participation
ucts, reduces landfill volumes, and lowers consumption of (Singh et al., 2022). In the Global South, public education
fresh raw materials, energy use, GHG emissions, and risks campaigns often emphasize environmental eductaion rather
(Saha, 2013; Sidique et al., 2010). Recyclable materials in- than material recovery, and recycling is not government‐
clude glass, paper, metals, tires, plastics, textiles, electronics, regulated but market‐driven, focusing on private sector
aluminum (e.g., cell phones, computers), and concrete ag- interests (Egun, 2017; Oguntoyinbo, 2012). Limited tech-
gregates from demolition sites (Ezeah et al., 2013; Guerrero nologies and inadequate training affect technical skills,
et al., 2013). The formal adoption of best practices and zero‐ whereas scarce government incentives, lack of access to re-
waste policies by some nations in the Global North such as cycling depots, unreliable markets for recycled products, and
Sweden, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands (Rotterdam), material price fluctuations demotivate and limit stakeholder
Singapore, the USA (San Francisco, California), Canada participation (Lederer et al., 2017; Moloney & Doolan, 2016).
(Vancouver), and Australia (Adelaide) have resulted in a rel- Coupled with the limited inclusion of informal economy,
atively high recycling rates and almost zero landfill deposition including recyclers, within the formal SWM structures
(Halfman, 2009; Marshall & Farahbakhsh, 2013; Wilson (Beatriz et al., 2014), limited technologies and inadequate
et al., 2013; Zaman, 2015). Many such countries have training creates a hinderance to technical skills, while scarce
invested in recyclable material collection services and government incentives (Ndejjo et al., 2019) and access
high‐technology sorting and processing facilities (Ezeah resources (loans) from the government (Ezeah et al., 2013).
et al., 2013). On a nationwide basis, the Singaporean waste Worldwide, equipment and infrastructure inefficiency,
reduction department developed, promoted, and explicitly unregulated waste collection and separation methods, and
implemented a free waste audit program (Zhang, Keat, et al., unstable recyclable material supply hinder waste quality,
2010) and worked closely with the business community on quantity, and recycling rates (Aydin, 2017; Guerrero
customer material, product packaging, and green labeling et al., 2013; Sarptaş & Erdin, 2015). Consequently, the local
schemes to minimize waste (Bai & Sutanto, 2002). In the and global market requirements for recyclable quality and
Global South, Egypt (Cairo) stands out with a recycling rate of quantity may not be met (Bergeron, 2016; Egun, 2017;
approximately 80% (Hemidat et al., 2022). Oguntoyinbo, 2012).
Many Global North countries still report low recycling,
and high landfill disposal rates (Zaman & Lehmann, 2011), Recovery: Composting. For high organic waste, com-
which, if not handled effectively can result in greater risks posting reduces landfill and dumpsite volumes. In 2010, the
(Bergeron, 2016; Sidique et al., 2010). In 2010, the re- composting rates for some Global North nations were
spective landfilling and recycling rates in these Global North Austria (45%), Italy (33%), Portugal (8%), Switzerland (18%),
countries were Australia (70%, 30%; Smith et al., 2012), Sweden (10%), the USA (8%), UK (7%), and Norway (14%;
Israel (90%, 10%), New Zealand (85%, 15%), Ireland (66%, Hoornweg & Bhada‐Tata, 2012). Sweden and Australia
34%), the USA (54%, 34%), and Greece (92%, 8%; (Adelaide) have automated material recovery facilities and
Hoornweg & Bhada‐Tata, 2012; Showers & Chewning, mechanical and biological treatment systems used to extract
1994). Although Australia recycles 30%–52% of its general the organic waste value (Hoornweg & Bhada‐Tata, 2012).
waste and 60%–70% of the newsprint, it still sends 70% of its Still, many Global North countries exhibit low composting
total waste to landfills (Moloney & Doolan, 2016; Smith rates and mixed waste streams, attributed to the large
et al., 2012). Many Global South nations, including China, proportion of inorganic material and inadequate color‐
Pakistan, Malaysia (Moh, 2017), the Philippines, and Kenya coded bins for waste separation (Zaman, 2018).
In the Global South, many nations generate 60%–80% In many Global South countries, incineration was initially
organic waste composition, resulting from fresh fruit, veg- introduced during colonial days to treat hospital waste
etable, and other food content (Ahmadifar et al., 2016; (Okot‐Okumu & Nyenje, 2011). Given their age, most in-
Okot‐Okumu & Nyenje, 2011). Nevertheless, composting cinerators lack stack monitoring and pollution control sys-
practice is still underutilized because of limited expertise tems, and, thus, their emissions pose ecological and human
and awareness of the benefits, as well as inadequate mar- health risks (Bras et al., 2009; Oteng‐Ababio et al., 2013).
kets, resulting in mixed waste generation, poor quality The high inert and organic materials and enormous moisture
compost (Ding et al., 2021; Khan et al., 2022; Okot‐Okumu content from the generated waste limit the efficacy of in-
& Nyenje, 2011), and other risks (Cestonaro et al., 2022). cineration as a waste reduction strategy (Ahmadifar
Yesaya et al. (2021), reported that in Malawi, green waste is et al., 2016; Moloney & Doolan, 2016). However, some
contaminated with plastics, and it takes 1 h and 50 min of nations have initiated strategies to deal with the associated
active labor time to sort and produce a 165 L (0.065 m3) bag challenges. In the Philippines, incineration was banned via
of compost; thus, capital and operating costs render the the Clean Air Act 1999, but cement industries applying this
practice cost‐ineffective and unsustainable. practice are monitored under the Ecological Solid Waste
Still, some small communities, well‐to‐do homes, and farms Management Act 2000 (Sapuay, 2016). Bangladesh (2002)
in the Global South have benefited from composting, gen- and India (Maharashtra) banned the manufacture, sale, and
erating animal feed, agricultural manure, and domestic bi- use of plastic bags whose treatment (via incineration: con-
ogas (Wilson et al., 2013). In Mali, resource and nutrient value trolled burning, with chimneys to extra toxic gases) and
is recovered, either as raw material or as partly decomposed disposal (via burning: most cases has been in open areas)
waste and sold to grain and vegetable farmers (Wilson would have contaminated the air (Chowdhury et al., 2021;
et al., 2013). A decade ago, under EU Carbon‐Development Marshall & Farahbakhsh, 2013; Wilson et al., 2013). How-
Mechanisms funding, Uganda, China (Kunming), and Brazil ever, Chowdhury et al. (2021) points out that, despite the
(Belo) built composting pilot projects to evaluate the capacity ban, plastic bags are still widely used in Bangladesh be-
of individual countries to generate compost (Wilson cause of limited enforcement, created by the disconnect in
et al., 2013). However, the current composting rates are 3% knowledge and capacity to understand the associated en-
for China (Ding et al., 2021; Khan et al., 2022), 5% for Brazil vironmental and public health crisis. Thus, the feasibility and
(Liikanen et al., 2018), and restricted use class RU‐1 (low sustainability of waste management processes, including
fertilizing capacity and poor quality) reported for Uganda incineration, depend on stakeholder awareness of risks and
(Kabasiita et al., 2022). This aligns with the notion that fewer benefits, local infrastructure, good governance, and avail-
implementations of Global Environment Facility and World able resources.
Bank financed low‐carbon projects including in waste man-
agement and climate mitigation action in the Global South Recovery: Waste mining. In many places, the informal
nations are influenced by limited stakeholder awareness and sector, including vulnerable children, youth, and women,
inclusion (Lederer et al., 2017), lower institutional capacity have resorted to waste mining to extract and recover salable
(Adenle et al., 2017), and key policy instruments (Kameyama or reusable materials, driving demand for scrap metal and
et al., 2016); therefore, it is necessary to involve key actors in other waste mineral resources (Obeng‐Odoom, 2018).
the entire process design and establish strategies at regional Mining metals from society's waste reduces the need for the
and national levels. import of primary resources, offsets waste disposal costs,
conserves space in landfills, and limits the spread of po-
Recovery: Incineration. Incineration is a thermal waste re- tentially harmful metals into the environment, thus sup-
duction and recovery practice at the lower tier of the WH porting a sustainable society (Smith et al., 2015). In the USA,
(Zaman, 2015). Incineration reduces landfill‐banned mate- gold, silver, platinum, copper, lead, zinc, indium, tellurium,
rials, waste volumes, and disposal taxes; however, it also rare earth elements, and other precious and industrial
generates GHG and requires landfills to dispose of toxic and metals have been mined from biosolids or sewage sludge
caustic fly/bottom ash (Aracil et al., 2017; Rigamonti, 2004). (Smith et al., 2015). Other aspects, concerns, and strategies
In Sweden, incineration produces electricity, steam, and heat regarding the informal sector have been discussed under
to warm houses during winter (Karlsson et al., 2018), thus the section on recycling.
saving on energy costs (Zaman & Lehmann, 2011). Norway,
Italy, Ireland, and the UK send more than 800 000 tons/year of Disposal: Open dumping and landfilling. Disposal, ranging
waste to Sweden (i.e., waste trading), for incineration to re- from open dumping (on land or in water) to landfilling, is
duce landfill volumes and avoid disposal taxes (Steg- among the most applied (Kaza et al., 2018; Saumel
mann, 2017; Watson, 2013). Due to limited space, Singapore, et al., 2012) but least preferred of environmental SWM
an island, incinerates its waste to generate electricity, uses strategies (Zaman, 2014, 2015; Zaman & Lehmann, 2011).
pollution control systems to recover metal scraps (Bai & Su- Worldwide, open dumping has been practiced for centuries;
tanto, 2002; Zhang, Keat, et al., 2010), and aims to use however, it is currently more common in the Global South
source‐separated food waste and brown water as potential (Chowdhury et al., 2021; Wilson & Velis, 2015). The practice
future waste‐to‐energy options (Tong et al., 2018). occurs around wastelands, valleys, wetlands, and near or on

water bodies (Halfman, 2009; Okot‐Okumu, 2012). Disposal postclosure strategies and private sector involvement in
on land is done in open dumps (i.e., without proper liners, SWM processes, the USA and Greece are reducing landfill
fences, leachate and gas collection systems, and soil covers) use and illegal dumping (Wilson et al., 2013). Australia, with
and in controlled dumps with differing extents of legal and a 70% disposal rate, uses phytocapping technology for
physical control (Guerrero et al., 2013; Manaf, 2009). These landfill remediation, a practice that involves placing a barrier
practices can result in contaminated sites, environmental to reduce GHG emissions and water percolation (Moloney &
impacts (Šedová, 2016; Wilson et al., 2013), and health risks Doolan, 2016; Smith et al., 2012). According to Bai and
to the public and municipal waste workers including scav- Sutanto (2002) and Balakrishnan (2016), Singapore uses
engers, who informally remine dump waste (Ferronato & landfills to treat incinerated bottom waste and replants
Torretta, 2019; Hanfman, 2012; Lamb et al., 2014). mangrove trees to capture GHGs (methane, carbon dioxide)
As with incineration, open burning is a thermal waste re- and treat leachate before disposal.
duction strategy often practiced on open dumps and applied Despite the health hazards from open dumps and land-
commonly because of its low cost and land space require- fills, these practices remain the only low‐cost waste treat-
ments (Okot‐Okumu & Nyenje, 2011). However, in the ab- ment options in much of the world. In the Global South,
sence of pollution control devices, open burning contributes some nations are either phasing out or are struggling to
to severe air pollution (Wilson et al., 2013) generating GHGs, upgrade open dumps to controlled dumps or sanitary
hexachlorobenzene, dioxins, carbon monoxide, particulate landfills with leachate and gas control systems (Beatriz
matter, volatile organic compounds, and ash (Abagale et al., 2014; Okot‐Okumu & Nyenje, 2011). The acquisition
et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2017). Open burning oxidizes of a modern landfill is acknowledged as an advancement in
metals from electronic wastes, generating ash with a mixture SWM strategies (Oguntoyinbo, 2012; Sarptaş &
of chemicals. Ash can be collected and buried in landfills but, Erdin, 2015). For example, in Morocco, landfill deposition
where resources are limited, the material is often disposed of rates have increased from 10% in 2008 to 80% in 2018 (Kaza
in open areas, posing ecological and human health risks. et al., 2018) and, of all the East African municipalities,
Illegal and uncontrolled dumping, often known as only Kampala (Uganda) owns an engineered disposal site
“fly‐tipping,” still occurs internationally, often driven by (Kabera et al., 2019). In comparison, Zambia (Lusaka), Kenya
criminal syndicates (FATF, 2021), but also by a desire to (Nairobi), Nicaragua (Managua), and India (Dhaka) have
avoid tipping fees or merely because of laziness constructed engineered landfills and use mixed traditional
(Smith, 2020). An extreme example is the “Triangle of and modern waste approaches in waste collection and
Death” in Italy (Sicily) where cancer, child mortality, and birth regulation of informal activities (Wilson et al., 2013).
defects were linked to illegal waste dumping practices (Tri- Increasing public awareness, inclusion, and participation
assi et al., 2015). In England, the local authorities dealt with have supported collective action in other nations. A strong
more than 1 million fly‐tipping incidents in the 2018–2019 protest from the citizens of Mumbai and Delhi (India) led to
fiscal year, an increase of 8% over the previous year, with the closure of existing open dumpsites (Wilson et al., 2013);
nearly two‐thirds from household waste (Smith, 2020). Fly‐ in Brazil, unregulated dumping sites and landfills were de-
tipping in 2015 is estimated to have cost England approx- activated (Beatriz et al., 2014). In Slovakia, the Trash Out
imately £209 million, about a third of the waste crime costs project allows the public to report and provide information
for that year (HMG, 2018). to authorities on the location and status of illegal dumps
A similar but more expensive waste disposal practice is through mobile apps (Šedová, 2016). For Nepal, the country
landfilling. Although at the bottom of the WH (Figure 2), used a participatory approach to construct and operate a
landfilling is extensively applied in both the Global North and modern landfill, without foreign aid (Wilson et al., 2013).
South. Landfilling rates continue to be high; for example, in Still, much of the Global South faces a range of issues, many
Australia (70%; Smith et al., 2012), Israel (90%), New Zealand of them country‐ or region‐specific, which makes achieving
(85%), Ireland (66%), the USA (54%; Mukherjee et al., 2020), sustainable SWM challenging. Therefore, waste crimes are
and Greece (92%; Hoornweg & Bhada‐Tata, 2012; Showers & an international challenge, whether the waste is dumped
Chewning, 1994). Although some landfills have liners, leak locally or traded across borders.
detection, leachate and gas collection and treatment systems
(Abagale et al., 2012), many do not; the types, age, and CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
design of landfills determine the extent of leachate leaks and The implementation of WH concepts in SWM can be ob-
GHG emissions and the nature of impacts and risks. served to some extent in most Global North countries, with
Landfill management and control efforts include reducing many Global South nations predominantly applying the reuse
or phasing out landfills or open dumps. Landfill use in the concept and other aspects of the WH to varying extents.
UK has dropped from 80% in 2001 to 43% in 2013; the Some countries have successfully achieved zero waste, zero
number of formal and active landfill sites fell from 1700 in landfilling, and other sustainable SWM strategies; these can,
2002 to 725 in 2012 (Watson, 2013). Italy reduced landfill with the appropriate policy, funding, infrastructure, and
use from 72% in 2000 to 48% in 2010, active landfills, from stakeholder awareness, be applicable globally. On a global
657 to 401, and increased recycling rates from 12% in 2001 scale, however, both Global North and South im-
to 23% in 2010 (Rigamonti, 2004; Watson, 2013). Through plementation of the WH leaves much to be desired, given
several global and region‐specific SWM challenges. Ever‐ composition, and environmental monitoring to evaluate the
increasing waste generation; legal and illegal open dumping, impacts and risks and support technological innovation,
stockpiling, and waste trading; controlled and “backyard” planning, and management at grass root levels. Where re-
incineration; and still‐significant landfill disposal remain gions depend on donors to fund their SWM systems, there
common practices in both the Global North and South. The should be a focus on locally appropriate (rather than simply
resulting environmental and health impacts are indicators of exported) tools, frameworks, expertise, and equipment, and
globally unsustainable production, consumption, and SWM a commitment to ensuring stable funding for longer term
practices (Hoornweg & Bhada‐Tata, 2012; Kaza et al., 2018). monitoring, operations, maintenance, and adaptation.
Sustainable SWM depends on complex and expensive Even where WH principles are applied, SWM will continue
technologies, economic tools, regulatory frameworks (taxes, to challenge all regions, driving resource depletion and in-
fines, incentives), social awareness and pressure, and increasing waste generation unless CE concepts are integrated.
clusion and participation of all relevant stakeholders (actors). Thus far, waste separation programs in many Global South
Globally, disparities can be attributed to differences in fi- nations, generally involving informal stakeholder partic-
nancial and institutional resources for waste treatment and ipation, have focused on the economic benefits of retrieved
disposal methods, economic status, social habits, and de- recyclable materials, often at the cost of environmental and
grees of stakeholder awareness of waste risks and benefits, human health. Problems are exacerbated when Global North
inclusion, and participation. Public engagement and suc- countries, seeking to reduce costs or meet their own policy
cessful implementation of SWM require a focus on local and CE objectives, trade poorly or incorrectly classified
needs and conditions, waste education, research, and on‐ wastes to countries less able to control impacts during re-
the‐job training. Where education is primarily theoretical cycling. Unsustainable strategies and practices from the
and sanitation‐based, regions may lack the local technical Global North, including waste trading, continue to contribute
capacity to maintain, monitor, and manage sustainable to waste impacts and risks in the Global South.
SWM systems. Where government regulations, guidelines, Industries involved in product design and reuse should be
and enforcement are weak or lacking, or proactive policies provided with incentives and infrastructure, whereas pro-
(e.g., the political will to fund) are limited, SWM processes ducer responsibility laws should be enacted and enforced to
suffer. Political interference, lack of democratic structures ensure that there are consequences (e.g., fines or taxes) for
and long‐term commitments, corruption, inadequate ac- bad practices. There is a need for global initiatives to ad-
countability, and poor transparency all create barriers to dress consumer products, to understand chemical safety
informed decision‐making in support of effective SWM, issues throughout life cycles, to develop adequate legal
environmental protection, and pollution control systems. frameworks (including chemical waste management and risk
Enforcement of zero‐waste concepts across all countries is assessment frameworks) for medical, industrial, and e‐waste
needed to reduce generated waste, incineration and landfill in the Global South, regardless of where it is produced,
volumes, environmental impacts, and health risks. Re- consumed, or disposed. Extended producer responsibility
cyclable waste drop‐off and buy‐back centers are required. tools should be applied to ensure product stewardship and
These must provide adequate, standardized storage and protection of the environment.
collection facilities to reduce mixed waste streams and Waste impacts and risks are global and cross‐border; col-
promote separation practices and individual generation laborative actions between the Global North and South are
monitoring. To support this, a strong domestic market for urgently needed to combat the past and present SWM
recyclable materials is required. challenges and to achieve sustainable solutions that equitably
Environmental protection and public health policies should address both the green and brown agenda across nations.
be science‐based; this requires investment in monitoring, re-
search, and innovation that is region‐specific and appropriate, AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION
affordable, and relevant to local needs. Comprehensive and Florence Barbara Awino: Conceptualization; data cura-
reliable global contaminant research, monitoring, and data tion; formal analysis; investigation; methodology; visual-
are also needed. Increased monitoring of chemical exposure ization; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing.
from past and current waste contaminated sites (e.g., Awino Sabine E. Apitz: Conceptualization; formal analysis; visual-
et al., 2020) should be supported. ization; writing—review and editing.
Examples of effective strategies and practices, as
well as manuals and guidance, should be developed to ACKNOWLEDGMENT
strengthen implementation capacities internationally. Florence Barbara Awino appreciates Professor Bill Maher
Countries and regions should be supported in designing and Dr. Jasmyn Lynch from the Institute for Applied Ecology,
and implementing low‐cost SWM strategies and tech- University of Canberra, for their general support in guiding
nologies, appropriate to local needs and conditions, which the initial conceptualization of this article. The authors ap-
are easy to operate and maintain, seeking to optimize preciate Dr. John Toll, Windward Environmental LLC, for his
practices, frequency, and coverage. initial editorial support and guidance. This project was sup-
Sustainable systems require adequate and equitable an- ported by Schlumberger Faculty for the Future Scholarships
alytical facilities, reliable data on waste generation and (2015–2019). Nevertheless, they did not influence the study

design, data collection, analysis, data interpretation, writing, Ayantoyinbo, B. B., & Adepoju, O. O. (2018). Analysis of solid waste man-
and/or the decision to submit this article to the journal. Open agement logistics and its attendant challenges in Lagos metropolis.
Journal of Logistics, 2(2), 11.
access publishing facilitated by University of Canberra, as
Aydin, N. (2017). Review of municipal solid waste management in Turkey with
part of the Wiley ‐ University of Canberra agreement via the a particular focus on recycling of plastics. Energy Procedia, 113, 111–115.
Council of Australian University Librarians. Bachmann, N., Tripathi, S., Brunner, M., & Jodlbauer, H. (2022). The con-
tribution of data‐driven technologies in achieving the sustainable devel-
DISCLAIMER opment goals. Sustain, 14(5), 2497.
Bai, R., & Sutanto, M. (2002). The practice and challenges of solid waste
The peer review for this article was managed by the Edi-
management in Singapore. Waste Management, 22, 557–567.
torial Board without the involvement of Sabine E. Apitz. Balakrishnan, V. (2016). Sustainable Singapore: Taking the long‐term view. In
E. Quah (Ed.), Singapore 2065: Leading insights on economy and envi-
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT ronment from 50 Singapore icons and beyond (pp. 23–28). World Sci-
Data, associated metadata, and calculation tools are entific. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814663380_0004
Barboza, L. G. A., Cózar, A., Gimenez, B. C., Barros, T. L., Kershaw, P. J., &
available from corresponding author Florence Barbara
Guilhermino, L. (2019). Macroplastics pollution in the marine environment.
Awino (florencebarbara@gmail.com). In World seas: An environmental evaluation (Vol. 3, 2nd ed., pp. 305–328).
Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805052-1.00019-X
ORCID Batista, M., Caiado, R. G. G., Quelhas, O. L. G., Lima, G. B. A., Leal Filho, W.,
Florence Barbara Awino http://orcid.org/0000-0002- & Yparraguirre, I. T. R. (2021). A framework for sustainable and integrated
8103-9673 municipal solid waste management: Barriers and critical factors to de-
veloping countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 312, 127516.
Sabine E. Apitz http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4847-5000
Beatriz, A., Jabbour, L. D. S., José, C., Jabbour, C., Sarkis, J., & Govindan, K.
(2014). Brazil's new national policy on solid waste: Challenges and op-
REFERENCES portunities. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 16, 7.
Abagale, K. F., Mensah, A., & Osei, R. A. (2012). Urban solid waste sorting in a Benson, N. U., Bassey, D. E., & Palanisami, T. (2021). COVID pollution: Impact
growing city of Ghana. International Journal of Environmental Sustain- of COVID‐19 pandemic on global plastic waste footprint. Heliyon, 7(2),
ability, 1(4), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.24102/ijes.v1i4.83 e06343.
ACT Government. (2023). Sustainable school program. https://www. Bergeron, F. C. (2016). Multi‐method assessment of household waste man-
climatechoices.act.gov.au/policy-programs/sustainable-schools-program agement in Geneva regarding sorting and recycling. Resources, Con-
Adenle, A. A., Manning, D. T., & Arbiol, J. (2017). Mitigating climate change servation and Recycling, 115, 50–62.
in Africa: Barriers to financing low‐carbon development. World Devel- Bernardo, M., Forehead, H., De Carvalho Vallin, I., & Gonçalves‐Dias, S. L.
opment, 100, 123–132. (2023). Management of household plastic waste in Wollongong, Australia:
Ahmadifar, M., Sartaj, M., & Abdallah, M. (2016). Investigating the perform- The role of selective waste collection systems, Sustainability, 15(2), 1726.
ance of aerobic, semi‐aerobic, and anaerobic bioreactor landfills for MSW Blaser, F., & Schluep, M. (2012). Economic feasibility of e‐waste treatment in
management in developing countries. Journal of Material Cycles and Tanzania. Report for United Nations Industrial Development Organization
Waste Management, 18, 703–714. (UNIDO). https://open.unido.org/api/documents/4784290/download/
Ahmed, S. A., & Ali, M. (2004). Partnerships for solid waste management in Economic%20Feasibility%20of%20e-Waste%20Treatment%20in%
Global South: Linking theories to realities. Habitat International, 28, 20Tanzania
467–479. Blenkharn, J. I. (2006). Medical wastes management in the south of Brazil.
Almazán‐Casali, S., Alfaro, J. F., & Sikra, S. (2019). Exploring household Waste Management, 26, 315–317.
willingness to participate in solid waste collection services in Liberia. Bolaane, B., & Isaac, E. (2015). Privatization of solid waste collection services:
Habitat International, 84, 57–64. Lessons from Gaborone. Waste Management, 40, 14–21.
Amugsi, D. A., Muindi, K., & Mberu, B. U. (2022). Implementation of solid Bom, U. B., Belbase, S., & Bibriven Lila, R. (2017). Public perceptions and
waste management policies in Kenya: Challenges and opportunities. practices of solid waste recycling in the city of Laramie in Wyoming, USA.
Cities & Health, 6(3), 528–535. Recycling, 2(3), 11.
Andeobu, L., Wibowo, S., & Grandhi, S. (2022). Artificial intelligence ap- Borowy, I. (2019). Before UNEP: Who was in charge of the global environ-
plications for sustainable solid waste management practices in Aus- ment? The struggle for institutional responsibility 1968‐72. Journal of
tralia: A systematic review. Science of the Total Environment, 834, Global History, 14, 87–106.
155389. Bosdogianni, A. (2007). Municipal solid waste management in Greece—
Aparcana, S. (2017). Approaches to formalization of the informal waste sector Legislation—Implementation problems. Proceedings Sardinia. http://
into municipal solid waste management systems in low‐and middle‐ www.web-resol.org/textos/062.pdf
income countries: Review of barriers and success factors. Waste Man- Bras, A., Berdier, C., Emmanuel, E., & Zimmerman, M. (2009). Problems and
agement, 61, 593–607. current practices of solid waste management in Port‐au‐Prince (Haiti).
Aracil, C., Haro, P., Giuntoli, J., & Ollero, P. (2017). Proving the climate Waste Management, 29, 2907–2909.
benefit in the production of biofuels from municipal solid waste refuse in Cabidoche, Y., & Lesueur‐Jannoyer, M. (2012). Contamination of harvested
Europe. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 2887–2900. organs in root crops grown on chlordecone‐polluted soils. Pedosphere,
Arya, S., & Kumar, S. (2020). E‐waste in India at a glance: Current trends, 22, 562–571.
regulations, challenges and management strategies. Journal of Cleaner Cai, W., & Li, G. (2018). The drivers of eco‐innovation and its impact on per-
Production, 271, 122707. formance: Evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176,
Awasthi, S. K., Sarsaiya, S., Kumar, V., Chaturvedi, P., Sindhu, R., Binod, P., 110–118.
Zhang, Z., Pandey, A., & Awasthi, M. K. (2022). Processing of municipal Cestonaro, T., de Vasconcelos Barros, R. T., & de Matos, A. T. (2022).
solid waste resources for a circular economy in China: An overview. Fuel, Municipal composting facility: Is it possible to produce a compost that
317, 123478. complies with legislation over time? Environmental Technology &
Awino, F. B., Maher, W. A., Krikowa, F., & Lynch, A. J. J. (2020). Occurrence of Innovation, 26, 102342.
trace metals in food crops grown on the Mbale dumpsite, Uganda, and Chen, D. M. C., Bodirsky, B. L., Krueger, T., Mishra, A., & Popp, A. (2020). The
human health risks. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Manage- world's growing municipal solid waste: Trends and impacts. Environ-
ment, 16(3), 362–377. mental Research Letters, 15(7), 074021.
Choksi, S. (2001). The Basel Convention on the control of transboundary Fatimah, Y. A., Govindan, K., Murniningsih, R., & Setiawan, A. (2020). Industry
movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal: 1999 protocol on 4.0 based sustainable circular economy approach for smart waste man-
liability and compensation. Ecology Law Quarterly, 28, 509. agement system to achieve sustainable development goals: A case study
Chowdhury, G. W., Koldewey, H. J., Duncan, E., Napper, I. E., Niloy, M. N. H., of Indonesia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 269, 122263.
Nelms, S. E., Sarker, S., Bhola, S., & Nishat, B. (2021). Plastic pollution in Fauziah, S., Khairunnisa, A., Siti Zubaidah, B., & Agamuthu, P. (2009). Public
aquatic systems in Bangladesh: A review of current knowledge. Science of perception on Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Bill 2007
the Total Environment, 761, 143285. towards sustainable waste management in Malaysia. http://eprints.um.
Chu, Z., Wang, W., Zhou, A., & Huang, W. C. (2019). Charging for municipal edu.my/10996/1/Public_Perception_on_Solid_Waste.pdf
solid waste disposal in Beijing. Waste Management, 94, 85–94. Fernández‐Aracil, P., Ortuño‐Padilla, A., & Melgarejo‐Moreno, J. (2018).
Cisternas, L. A., Ordóñez, J. I., Jeldres, R. I., & Serna‐Guerrero, R. (2022). Factors related to municipal costs of waste collection service in Spain.
Toward the implementation of circular economy strategies: An overview Journal of Cleaner Production, 175, 553–560.
of the current situation in mineral processing. Mineral Processing and Fernando, R. L. S. (2019). Solid waste management of local governments in
Extractive Metallurgy Review, 43(6), 775–797. the Western Province of Sri Lanka: An implementation analysis. Waste
Coenen, T. B. J., Haanstra, W., Jan Braaksma, A. J. J., & Santos, J. (2020). Management, 84, 194–203.
CEIMA: A framework for identifying critical interfaces between the Ferronato, N., & Torretta, V. (2019). Waste mismanagement in developing
Circular Economy and stakeholders in the lifecycle of infrastructure assets. countries: A review of global issues. International Journal of Environ-
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 155, 104552. mental Research and Public Health, 16(6), 1060.
Cotta, B. (2020). What goes around, comes around? Access and allocation Fuss, M., Barros, R. T. V., & Poganietz, W. R. (2018). Designing a framework
problems in Global North–South waste trade. International Environmental for municipal solid waste management towards sustainability in emerging
Agreements, 20, 255–269. economy countries: An application to a case study in Belo Horizonte
Courard‐Hauri, D., & Lauer, S. (2012). Taking “All Men Are Created Equal” (Brazil). Journal of Cleaner Production, 178, 655–664.
seriously: Toward a metric for the intergroup comparison of utility func- Gall, M., Wiener, M., de Oliveira, C. C., Lang, R. W., & Hansen, E. G. (2020).
tions through life values. Journal of Benefit–Cost Analysis, 3(3), 1–30. Building a circular plastics economy with informal waste pickers: Recyclate
Czajkowski, M., Hanley, N., & Nyborg, K. (2017). Social norms, morals, and self‐ quality, business model, and societal impacts. Resources, Conservation
interest as determinants of pro‐environment behaviours: The case of and Recycling, 156, 104685.
household recycling. Environmental and Resource Economics, 66, 647–670. Gbemudu, C., & Ajabor, I. (2019). The politics of good governance and rule of
Da Silva, C. E., Hoppe, A. E., Ravanello, M. M., & Mello, N. (2005). Medical law. International Journal of Innovative Social Science & Humanities Re-
wastes management in the south of Brazil. Waste management, 25(6), search, 7(2), 35–39.
600–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2004.03.002 Ghisellini, P., & Ulgiati, S. (2020). Circular economy transition in Italy.
Das, S. K., & Biswas, R. (2016). Awareness and practice of biomedical waste Achievements, perspectives, and constraints. Journal of Cleaner Pro-
management among healthcare providers in a Tertiary Care Hospital of duction, 243, 118360.
West Bengal, India. International Journal of Medicine and Public Health, 6 Gilderbloom, J. I. H., Squires, G. D., Riggs, W., & Čapek, S. (2017). Think
(1), 19–25. globally, act locally: Neighbourhood pollution and the future of the earth.
Daskalopoulos, E., Badr, O., & Probert, S. (1998). Municipal solid waste: A Local Environment, 22(7), 894–899.
prediction methodology for the generation rate and composition in the Giourka, P., Apostolopoulos, V., Angelakoglou, K., Kourtzanidis, K.,
European Union countries and the USA. Resources, Conservation and Nikolopoulos, N., Sougkakis, V., Fuligni, F., Barberis, S., Verbeek, K.,
Recycling, 24, 155–166. Costa, J. M., & Formiga, J. (2020). The nexus between market needs and
Debrah, J. K., Vidal, D. G., & Dinis, M. A. P. (2021). Raising awareness on solid value attributes of smart city solutions towards energy transition. An
waste management through formal education for sustainability: A de- empirical evidence of two European Union (EU) smart cities, Evora and
veloping countries evidence review. Recycling, 6(1), 6. Alkmaar. Smart Cities, 3(3), 604–641.
Diaz, L. (2011). Solid waste management in global south: Status, perspectives Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA). (2019). Discarded. Com-
and capacity building. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/ munities on the frontlines of the global plastic crisis (45 pp.). Global
documents/ldiaz.pdf Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives.
Ding, Y., Zhao, J., Liu, J. W., Zhou, J., Cheng, L., Zhao, J., Shao, Z., Iris, Ç., Gourmelon, G. (2015). Global plastic production rises, recycling lags (Vol. 22,
Pan, B., Li, X., & Hu, Z. T. (2021). A review of China's municipal solid waste pp. 91–95). Vital Signs. Worldwatch Institute, Washington.
(MSW) and comparison with international regions: Management and Gue, I. H. V., Lopez, N. S. A., Chiu, A. S., Ubando, A. T., & Tan, R. R. (2022).
technologies in treatment and resource utilization. Journal of Cleaner Predicting waste management system performance from city and country
Production, 293, 126144. attributes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 366, 132951.
Downes, J., & Dominish, E. (2018). China's recycling ‘ban’ throws Australia Guerrero, L. A., Maas, G., & Hogland, W. (2013). Solid waste management
into a very messy waste crisis. The Conversation. Accessed February 3, challenges for cities in Global South. Waste Management, 33, 220–232.
2019. https://theconversation.com/chinas-recycling-ban-throws-australia- Gumisiriza, P., & Kugonza, S. (2020). Corruption and solid waste management
into-a-very-messy-waste-crisis-95522 in Mbarara municipality Uganda. Journal of Environmental and Public
Dris, R., Gasperi, J., Rocher, V., Saad, M., Renault, N., & Tassin, B. (2015). Health, 2020, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4754780
Microplastic contamination in an urban area: A case study in Greater Gunarathne, A., Tennakoon, T., & Weragoda, J. (2019). Challenges and op-
Paris. Environmental Chemistry, 12(5), 592–599. portunities for the recycling industry in developing countries: The case of Sri
Egun, N. K. (2017). Assessment on the level of recycling and waste man- Lanka. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 21, 181–190.
agement in delta state, Nigeria. International Journal of Human Ecology, Gutberlet, J. (2021). Grassroots waste picker organizations addressing the UN
28(2), 77–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/09709274.2009.11906221 sustainable development goals. World Development, 138, 105195.
Ejaz, N., Akhtar, N., Hashmi, H., & Naeem, U. A. (2010). Environmental im- Hafeez, S., Mahmood, A., Syed, J. H., Li, J., Ali, U., Malik, R. N., & Zhang, G.
pacts of improper solid waste management in Global South: A case study (2016). Waste dumping sites as a potential source of POPs and associated
of Rawalpindi city. The Sustainable World, 142, 379–388. health risks in perspective of current waste management practices in
Ezeah, C., Fazakerley, J. A., & Roberts, C. L. (2013). Emerging trends in Lahore city, Pakistan. Science of the Total Environment, 562, 953–961.
informal sector recycling in developing and transition countries. Waste Halfman, J. D. (2009). Landfills: Where does our trash go? Retrieved October
Management, 33, 2509–2519. 7, 2015, from: http://people.hws.edu/halfman/data/publicinterestarticles/
FATF. (2021). Money laundering from environmental crimes. https://www.fatf- landfills.pdf
gafi.org/publications/methodsandtrends/documents/money-laundering- Hanfman, E. (2012). A comprehensive assessment of illegal waste dumping.
environmental-crime.html Water Health Educator. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0315/ce4ba940ec

4d63e5685ad9a0d1ab75058867.pdf?_ga=2.263959051.627122171.15458 Kellenberg, D. (2012). Trading wastes. Journal of Environmental Economics and

19660-511786311.1541773323 Management, 64(1), 68–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2012.02.003
Havelaar, A. H., Kirk, M. D., Torgerson, P. R., Gibb, H. J., Hald, T., Lake, R. J., Keramitsoglou, K. M., & Tsagarakis, K. P. (2018). Public participation in
Bellinger, D. C., de Silva, N. R., Gargouri, N., Speybroeck, N., Cawthorne, designing the recycling bins to encourage recycling. Sustainability,
A., Mathers, C., Stein, C., Angulo, F. J., Devleesschauwer, B., & World 10(4), 1240.
Health Organization Foodborne Disease Burden Epidemiology Reference Kettunen, M., Gionfra, S., & Monteville, M. (2019). EU circular economy and
Group. (2015). World Health Organization global estimates and regional trade: Improving policy coherence for sustainable development (p. 53).
comparisons of the burden of foodborne disease in 2010. PLoS Medicine, IEEP Brussels.
12(12), e1001923. Khamis, A. A. (2016). Effectiveness of solid waste management systems in
Hemidat, S., Achouri, O., El Fels, L., Elagroudy, S., Hafidi, M., Chaouki, B., local government authorities in Tanzania: The case of Moshi municipal
Ahmed, M., Hodgkinson, I., & Guo, J. (2022). Solid waste management in council, Mzumbe. Mzumbe University.
the context of a circular economy in the MENA region. Sustainability, Khan, A. H., López‐Maldonado, E. A., Khan, N. A., Villarreal‐Gómez, L. J.,
14(1), 480. Munshi, F. M., Alsabhan, A. H., & Perveen, K. (2021). Current solid waste
Her Majesty's Government (HMG). (2018). Independent review into serious management strategies and energy recovery in developing countries—
and organised crime in the waste sector (32 pp). State of art review. Chemosphere, 291, 133088.
Hoang, A. T., Varbanov, P. S., Nižetić, S., Sirohi, R., Pandey, A., Luque, R., & Khan, S. (2020). Clearly hazardous, obscurely regulated: Lessons from the
Ng, K. H. (2022). Perspective review on municipal solid waste‐to‐energy Basel Convention on Waste Trade. AJIL Unbound, 114, 200–205.
route: Characteristics, management strategy, and role in circular Khan, S., Anjum, R., Raza, S. T., Bazai, N. A., & Ihtisham, M. (2022). Tech-
economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 359, 131897. nologies for municipal solid waste management: Status, challenges, and
Hoornweg, D., & Bhada‐Tata, P. (2012). What a waste: A global review of future perspectives. Chemosphere, 288, 132403.
solid waste management (Urban Development Series Knowledge Papers Khan, S., & Cao, Q. (2011). Human health risk due to consumption of vege-
No. 15, pp. 1–98). http://hdl.handle.net/10986/17388 tables contaminated with carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
Hoornweg, D., Bhada‐Tata, P., & Kennedy, C. (2015). Peak waste: When is it Journal of Soils and Sediments, 12, 178–184.
likely to occur? Journal of Industrial Ecology, 19(1), 117–128. Khaw‐ngern, K., Peuchthonglang, P., Klomkul, L., & Khaw‐ngern, C. (2021).
Hope, A. L. B., & Jones, C. R. (2014). The impact of religious faith on attitudes The 9Rs strategies for the circular economy 3.0. Psychology and Educa-
to environmental issues and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) tech- tion Journal, 58, 1440–1446.
nologies: A mixed methods study. Technology in Society, 38, 48–59. Kiddee, P., Naidu, R., & Wong, M. H. (2013). Electronic waste management
Ion, I., & Gheorghe, F. F. (2014). The innovator role of technologies in waste approaches: An overview. Waste Management, 33, 1237–1250.
management towards the sustainable development. Procedia Economics Kouame, P. K., Dongo, K., Nguyen‐Viet, H., Zurbrugg, C., Luthi, C.,
and Finance, 8, 420–428. Hattendorf, J., Utzinger, J., Biemi, J., & Bonfoh, B. (2014). Ecohealth
Iyamu, H. O., Anda, M., & Ho, G. (2020). A review of municipal solid waste approach to urban waste management: Exposure to environmental
management in the BRIC and high‐income countries: A thematic frame- pollutants and health risks in Yamoussoukro, Côte d'Ivoire. International
work for low‐income countries. Habitat International, 95, 102097. Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11, 10292–
Jaligot, R., Wilson, D. C., Cheeseman, C. R., Shaker, B., & Stretz, J. (2016). 10309.
Applying value chain analysis to informal sector recycling: A case study of Kumar, S., & Ankaram, S. (2019). Waste‐to‐energy model/tool presentation. In
the Zabaleen. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 114, 80–91. C. Larroche, M. A. Sanroman, G. Du, & A. Pandey (Eds.), Current devel-
Jaunich, M. K., Levis, J. W., DeCarolis, J. F., Gaston, E. V., Barlaz, M. A., opments in biotechnology and bioengineering (pp. 239–258). Elsevier.
Bartelt‐Hunt, S. L., Jones, E. G., Hauser, L., & Jaikumar, R. (2016). Char- Kumwenda, S., Samanyika, Y., Chingaipe, E., Mamba, K., Lungu, K.,
acterization of municipal solid waste collection operations. Resources, Mwendera, C., & Kalulu, K. (2014). The emerging environmental health
Conservation and Recycling, 114, 92–102. risks and challenges for tomorrow: Prospects for Malawi. International
Javaid, M., Haleem, A., Singh, R. P., Khan, S., & Suman, R. (2022). Sustain- Journal of Research for Applied and Natural Science, 1(1), 21–26.
ability 4.0 and its applications in the field of manufacturing. Internet of Kuppusamy, S., Venkateswarlu, K., Megharaj, M., Mayilswami, S., & Lee, Y. B.
Things and Cyber‐Physical Systems, 2, 82–90. (2017). Risk‐based remediation of polluted sites: A critical perspective.
Judy, J. D., Williams, M., Gregg, A., Oliver, D., Kumar, A., Kookana, R., & Chemosphere, 186, 607–615.
Kirby, J. K. (2019). Microplastics in municipal mixed‐waste organic out- Lamb, D. T., Venkatraman, K., Bolan, N., Ashwath, N., Choppala, G., & Naidu,
puts induce minimal short to long‐term toxicity in key terrestrial biota. R. (2014). Phytocapping: An alternative technology for the sustainable
Environmental Pollution, 252, 522–531. management of landfill sites. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science
Kabasiita, J. K., Opolot, E., & Malinga, G. M. (2022). Quality and fertility and Technology, 44, 561–637.
assessments of municipal solid waste compost produced from cleaner Lasker, P., Goloubeva, J., & Birtles, B. (2017). China's ban on foreign waste
development mechanism compost projects: A case study from Uganda. leaves Australian recycling industry eyeing opportunities. ABC News.
Agriculture, 12(5), 582. Retrieved December 18, 2017, from: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-
Kabera, T., Wilson, D. C., & Nishimwe, H. (2019). Benchmarking performance 12-10/china-ban-on-foreign-rubbish-leaves-recycling-industry-in-a-mess/
of solid waste management and recycling systems in East Africa: Com- 9243184
paring Kigali Rwanda with other major cities. Waste Management and Leal Filho, W., Tripathi, S. K., Andrade Guerra, J. B. S. O. D., Giné‐Garriga, R.,
Research, 37, 58–72. Orlovic Lovren, V., & Willats, J. (2019). Using the sustainable develop-
Kameyama, Y., Morita, K., & Kubota, I. (2016). Finance for achieving low‐ ment goals towards a better understanding of sustainability challenges.
carbon development in Asia: The past, present, and prospects for the International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology,
future. Journal of Cleaner Production, 128, 201–208. 26(2), 179–190.
Karlsson, J., Brunzell, L., & Venkatesh, G. (2018). Material‐flow analysis, Lederer, J., Ogwang, F., & Karungi, J. (2017). Knowledge identification and
energy analysis, and partial environmental‐LCA of a district‐heating creation among local stakeholders in CDM waste composting projects:
combined heat and power plant in Sweden. Energy, 144, 31–40. A case study from Uganda. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 122,
Kawai, K., & Tasaki, T. (2016). Revisiting estimates of municipal solid waste 339–352.
generation per capita and their reliability. Journal of Material Cycles and Lee, J. H., Hancock, M. G., & Hu, M. C. (2014). Towards an effective frame-
Waste Management, 18(1), 1–13. work for building smart cities: Lessons from Seoul and San Francisco.
Kaza, S., Yao, L., Bhada‐Tata, P., & Van Woerden, F. (2018). What a waste 2.0: Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 89, 80–99.
A global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050. World Bank Liikanen, M., Havukainen, J., Viana, E., & Horttanainen, M. (2018). Steps to-
Publications. 2049. wards more environmentally sustainable municipal solid waste
management—A life cycle assessment study of São Paulo, Brazil. Journal Negrete‐Cardoso, M., Rosano‐Ortega, G., Álvarez‐Aros, E. L., Tavera‐Cortés,
of Cleaner Production, 196, 150–162. M. E., Vega‐Lebrún, C. A., & Sánchez‐Ruíz, F. J. (2022). Circular economy
Liu, Z., Adams, M., & Walker, T. R. (2018). Are exports of recyclables from strategy and waste management: A bibliometric analysis in its con-
developed to developing countries waste pollution transfer or part of the tribution to sustainable development, toward a post‐COVID‐19 era. En-
global circular economy? Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 136, vironmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(41), 61729–61746.
22–23. Nicholls, R. J., Beaven, R. P., Stringfellow, A., Monfort, D., Le Cozannet, G.,
Liyala, C. M. (2011). Modernising solid waste management at municipal Wahl, T., Gebert, J., Wadey, M., Arns, A., Spencer, K. L., & Reinhart, D.
level: Institutional arrangements in urban centres of East Africa. Wa- (2021). Coastal landfills and rising sea levels: A challenge for the 21st
geningen Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.3920/978-90-8686- century. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, 710342.
745-5 Niu, G. (2017). Data‐driven technology for engineering systems health man-
Ma, J., & Hipel, K. W. (2016). Exploring social dimensions of municipal solid agement (Vol. 10, pp. 978–981). Springer.
waste management around the globe—A systematic literature review. Nnorom, I. C., & Osibanjo, O. (2008). Overview of electronic waste (e‐waste)
Waste Management, 56, 3–12. management practices and legislations, and their developing applica-
Mahmood, A., Malik, R. N., Li, J., & Zhang, G. (2014). Human health risk tions in the Global South. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 52,
assessment and dietary intake of organochlorine pesticides through air, 843–858.
soil, and food crops (wheat and rice) along two tributaries of river Chenab, Obeng‐Odoom, F. (2013). Do African cities have markets for plastics
Pakistan. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 71, 17–25. or plastics for markets? Review of African Political Economy, 40(137),
Mamady, K. (2016). Factors Influencing attitude, safety behavior, and 466–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/03056244.2013.817087
knowledge regarding household waste management in Guinea: A cross‐ Obeng‐Odoom, F. (2014). Green neoliberalism: Recycling and sustainable
sectional study. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 2016, 1–9. urban development in Sekondi‐Takoradi. Habitat International, 41,
Manaf, L. (2009). Municipal solid waste management in Malaysia: Practices 129–134.
and challenges. Waste Management, 29(11), 2902–296. Obeng‐Odoom, F. (2018). Enclosing the urban commons: Crises for the
Marello, M., & Helwege, A. (2018). Solid waste management and social in- commons and commoners. Sustainable Cities and Society, 40, 648–656.
clusion of wastepickers: Opportunities and challenges. Latin American O'Connor, D., Müller‐Grabherr, D., & Hou, D. (2019). Strengthening social‐
Perspectives, 45(1), 108–129. environmental management at contaminated sites to bolster Green and
Marshall, R. E., & Farahbakhsh, K. (2013). Systems approaches to integrated Sustainable Remediation via a survey. Chemosphere, 225, 295–303.
solid waste management in developing countries. Waste Management, Oguntoyinbo, O. O. (2012). Informal waste management system in Nigeria
33(4), 988–1003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.12.023 and barriers to an inclusive modern waste management system: A review.
Massoud, M., Lameh, G., Bardus, M., & Alameddine, I. (2021). Determinants Public Health, 126, 441–447.
of waste management practices and willingness to pay for improving Okot‐Okumu, J. (2012). Solid waste management in African Cities ‐ East
waste services in a low‐middle income country. Environmental Manage- Africa. In L. F. Marmolejo Rebellon (Ed.), Waste Management (pp. Ch. 1).
ment, 68(2), 198–209. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/50241
Matheson, T. (2022). Disposal is not free: Fiscal instruments to internalize the Okot‐Okumu, J., & Nyenje, R. (2011). Municipal solid waste management
environmental costs of solid waste. International Tax and Public Finance, under decentralization in Uganda. Habitat International, 35, 537–543.
29(4), 1047–1073. Olujimi, O., Fatoki, O., Odendaal, J., & Okonkwo, J. (2010). Endocrine dis-
Matter, A., Ahsan, M., Marbach, M., & Zurbrügg, C. (2015). Impacts of policy rupting chemicals (phenol and phthalates) in the South African environ-
and market incentives for solid waste recycling in Dhaka, Bangladesh. ment: A need for more monitoring. Water SA, 36, 671–682.
Waste Management, 39, 321–328. Omran, A., Altawati, M., & Davis, G. (2018). Identifying municipal solid waste
Mbongui‐Kialo, S. (2022). The influence of stakeholders in the process of management opportunities in Al‐Bayda City, Libya. Environment Devel-
accepting or rejecting social innovations. Journal of General Manage- opment and Sustainability, 20, 1597–1613.
ment, 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-64083-3.00012-9 Omwoma, S., Lalah, J. O., Kueppers, S., Wang, Y., Lenoir, D., & Schramm,
Messina, G., & Tomasi, A. (2020, November 13). Wasted in waste? The K.‐W. (2017). Technological tools for sustainable development in Global
benefits of switching from taxes to Pay‐as‐you‐throw fees: The Italian case South: The example of Africa, a review. Sustainable Chemistry and
(Bank of Italy Occasional Paper No. 584). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn. Pharmacy, 6, 67–81.
3746199 Ong, I. B. L., & Sovacool, B. K. (2012). A comparative study of littering and
Moh, Y. (2017). Solid waste management transformation and future chal- waste in Singapore and Japan. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
lenges of source separation and recycling practice in Malaysia. Resources, 61, 35–42.
Conservation and Recycling, 116, 1–14. Ongondo, F. O., Williams, I. D., & Cherrett, T. J. (2011). How are WEEE
Moloney, B., & Doolan, M. (2016). A comparison of obstacles in emerging doing? A global review of the management of electrical and electronic
and developed nation dry waste recovery. Procedia CIRP, 40, 347–352. wastes. Waste Management, 31, 714–730.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.061 Oteng‐Ababio, M., Arguello, J. E. M., & Gabbay, O. (2013). Solid waste
Morone, P., & Imbert, E. (2020). Food waste and social acceptance of a management in African cities: Sorting the facts from the fads in Accra,
circular bioeconomy: The role of stakeholders. Current Opinion in Green Ghana. Habitat International, 39, 96–104.
and Sustainable Chemistry, 23, 55–60. Oteng‐Ababio, M., Owusu‐Sekyere, E., & Amoah, S. T. (2017). Thinking
Mukherjee, C., Denney, J., Mbonimpa, E. G., Slagley, J., & Bhowmik, R. globally, acting locally: Formalizing informal solid waste management
(2020). A review on municipal solid waste‐to‐energy trends in the USA. practices in Ghana. Journal of Developing Societies, 33(1), 75–98.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 119, 109512. Oztekin, C., Teksöz, G., Pamuk, S., Sahin, E., & Kilic, D. S. (2017). Gender
Munir, M. T., Mohaddespour, A., Nasr, A. T., & Carter, S. (2021). Municipal perspective on the factors predicting recycling behavior: Implications from
solid waste‐to‐energy processing for a circular economy in New Zealand. the theory of planned behavior. Waste Management, 62, 290–302.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 145, 111080. Patil, R. A., & Ramakrishna, S. (2020). A comprehensive analysis of e‐waste
Naidu, R., Pollard, S. J. T., Bolan, N. S., Owens, G., & Pruszinski, A. W. (2008). legislation worldwide. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27,
Chapter 4 Bioavailability: The underlying basis for risk‐based land man- 14412–14431.
agement. Developments in Soil Science, 32, 53–72. Pereira, G. V., Macadar, M. A., Luciano, E. M., & Testa, M. G. (2017). Deliv-
Ndejjo, R., Atusingwize, E., Oporia, F., Ssemugabo, C., Musoke, D., ering public value through open government data initiatives in a Smart
Ssemwanga, D. K., Halage, A. A., Isunju, J. B., Kansiime, W., Mubeezi, R., City context. Information Systems Frontiers, 19(2), 213–229.
Mugambe, R. K., Mbaha, E. P., Luyima, P., & Ssempebwa, J. C. (2019). Pires, A., Martinho, G., & Chang, N. B. (2011). Solid waste management in
History, evolution, and future of environmental health in Uganda. European countries: A review of systems analysis techniques. Journal of
Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health, 74(1–2), 66–75. Environmental Management, 92, 1033–1050.

Puppim de Oliveira, J. A., Doll, C. N. H., Balaban, O., Jiang, P., Dreyfus, M., concentrations in vegetable crops from plantings within inner city neigh-
Suwa, A., Moreno‐Peñaranda, R., & Dirgahayani, P. (2013). Green bourhoods in Berlin, Germany. Environmental Pollution, 165, 124–132.
economy and governance in cities: Assessing good governance in key Schübeler, P., Christen, J., & Wehrle, K. (1996). Conceptual framework for
urban economic processes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 58, 138–152. municipal solid waste management in low‐income countries. SKAT (Swiss
Rahman, M. A., Rahman, M. M., Reichman, S. M., Lim, R. P., & Naidu, R. Center for Development Cooperation). http://documents.worldbank.org/
(2014). Heavy metals in Australian grown and imported rice and vegeta- curated/en/829601468315304079/pdf/400960Municpal1te0framework01
bles on sale in Australia: Health hazard. Ecotoxicology and PUBLIC.pdf
Environmental Safety, 100, 53–60. Šedová, B. (2016). On causes of illegal waste dumping in Slovakia. Journal of
Rajmohan, K. V. S., Ramya, C., Viswanathan, M. R., & Varjani, S. (2019). Plastic Environmental Planning and Management, 59(7), 1277–1303.
pollutants: Effective waste management for pollution control and abate- Serge Kubanza, N., & Simatele, M. D. (2020). Sustainable solid waste man-
ment. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, 12, 72–84. agement in developing countries: A study of institutional strengthening
Rebehy, P. C. P. W., Costa, A. L., Campello, C. A., de Freitas Espinoza, D., & for solid waste management in Johannesburg, South Africa. Journal of
Neto, M. J. (2017). Innovative social business of selective waste collection Environmental Planning and Management, 63(2), 175–188.
in Brazil: Cleaner production and poverty reduction. Journal of Cleaner Shamim, A., Mursheda, A., & Rafiq, I. (2015). E‐waste trading impact on public
Production, 154, 462–473. health and ecosystem services in Global South. International Journal of
Reike, D., Vermeulen, W. J. V., & Witjes, S. (2018). The circular economy: New Waste Resources, 5(4), 1–18.
or refurbished as CE 3.0?—Exploring controversies in the conceptualization Shekdar, A. V. (2009). Sustainable solid waste management: An integrated
of the circular economy through a focus on history and resource value approach for Asian countries. Waste Management, 29, 1438–1448.
retention options. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 135, 246–264. Shittu, O. S., Williams, I. D., & Shaw, P. J. (2021). Global E‐waste manage-
Reymond, P., Renggli, S., & Lüthi, C. (2016). Towards sustainable sanitation ment: Can WEEE make a difference? A review of e‐waste trends, legis-
in an urbanising world. In M. Ergen (Ed.), Sustainable urbanization lation, contemporary issues, and future challenges. Waste Management,
(pp. 115–134). InTech. 120, 549–563.
Rezvani Ghomi, E., Khosravi, F., Tahavori, M. A., & Ramakrishna, S. (2021). Showers, P., & Chewning, R. (1994). Where does the garbage go? Harper
Circular economy: A comparison between the case of Singapore and Collins Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230535.n41
France. Materials Circular Economy, 3, 1–12. Shrestha, P. (2019). Mainstreaming the “Brown” agenda. Sustainability,
Rigamonti, L. (2004). Municipal solid waste management in Italy. DIIAR ‐ 11, 6660.
Environmental Section ‐ Politecnico of Milan. Sidique, S. F., Joshi, S. V., & Lupi, F. (2010). Factors influencing the rate of
Rodic, L., Scheinberg, A., & Wilson, D. C. (2010). Comparing solid recycling: An analysis of Minnesota counties. Resources, Conservation
waste management in the world's cities. ISWA World Congress. Urban and Recycling, 54, 242–249.
Development and Sustainability ‐ A Major Challenge for Waste Silva‐Martínez, R. D., Sanches‐Pereira, A., Ortiz, W., Galindo, M. F. G., &
Management in the 21st Century, Hamburg, Germany, 15–18 November Coelho, S. T. (2020). The state‐of‐the‐art of organic waste to energy
2010 (Vol 30). Accessed April 29, 2023. http://www.iswa.org/uploads/tx_ in Latin America and the Caribbean: Challenges and opportunities.
iswaknowledgebase/Rodic.pdf Renewable Energy, 156, 509–525.
Rodić, L., & Wilson, D. C. (2017). Resolving governance issues to achieve Singh, E., Kumar, A., Mishra, R., & Kumar, S. (2022). Solid waste management
priority sustainable development goals related to solid waste manage- during COVID‐19 pandemic: Recovery techniques and responses.
ment in developing countries. Sustainability, 9(3), 404. Chemosphere, 288, 132451.
Romano, G., Masserini, L., & Lombardi, G. V. (2021). Environmental per- Siyat, O. I. (2012). Factors influencing solid waste management in Garissa
formance of waste management: Impacts of corruption and public mal- municipality. University of Nairobi.
administration in Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 288, 125521. Smith, K., O'Farrell, K., & Brindley, F. (2012). Waste and recycling in Australia
Roy, D., & Tarafdar, A. (2022). Solid waste management and landfill in high‐ 2011. Hyder for Department of Environment Water Heritage and the Arts.
income countries. In Circular economy in municipal solid waste landfilling: https://www.environment.gov.au/protection/waste-resource-recovery/
Biomining & leachate treatment: Sustainable solid waste management: publications/waste-and-recycling-australia-2011
Waste to wealth (pp. 1–23). Springer International Publishing. Smith, L. (2020, April 28). Fly‐tipping—the illegal dumping of waste (UK
Rucevska, I., Nelleman, C., Isarin, N., Yang, W., Liu, N., Yu, K., & Devia, L. Parliament Briefing Paper Number CBP05672, 25 pp.), London, UK.
(2015). Waste crime–Waste risks: Gaps in meeting the global waste Smith, K. S., Plumlee G. S., & Hageman P. L. (2015). Mining for metals in
challenge: A UNEP rapid response assessment. society's waste. The Conversation. Accessed April 19, 2022. https://
Sachs, J. D. (2012). From millennium development goals to sustainable theconversation.com/mining-for-metals-in-societys-waste-43766
development goals. The Lancet, 379(9832), 2206–2211. Song, Q., Li, J., & Zeng, X. (2015). Minimizing the increasing solid waste
Saha, A. K. (2013). Environmental aspects of solid waste management: A case through zero waste strategy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 104,
study of Pabna city in Bangladesh. International Journal of Advanced 199–210.
Scientific Engineering and Technological Research, 2, 1–8. Soni, G., & Kandasamy, S. (2018). Smart garbage bin systems—A compre-
Salim, H., Jackson, M., Stewart, R. A., & Beal, C. D. (2023). Drivers‐Pressures‐ hensive survey. In Smart secure systems—IoT and analytics perspective:
State‐Impact‐Response of solid waste management in remote commun- Second International Conference on Intelligent Information Technologies.
ities: A systematic and critical review. Cleaner Waste Systems, 4, 100078. December ICIIT 2017, Chennai, India, December. 20–22, 2017, Pro-
Salvia, G., Zimmermann, N., Willan, C., Hale, J., Gitau, H., Muindi, K., ceedings 2 (pp. 194–206). Springer.
Gichana, E., & Davies, M. (2021). The wicked problem of waste man- Stegmann, R. (2017). Global pollution…. Time to act. Elsevier. https://doi.org/
agement: An attention‐based analysis of stakeholder behaviours. Journal 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.05.044
of Cleaner Production, 326, 129200. Talang, R. P. N., & Sirivithayapakorn, S. (2021). Environmental and financial
Sapuay, G. P. (2016). Resource recovery through RDF: Current trends in solid assessments of open burning, open dumping and integrated municipal
waste management in the Philippines. Procedia Environmental Sciences, solid waste disposal schemes among different income groups. Journal of
35, 464–473. Cleaner Production, 312, 127761.
Sarptaş, H., & Erdin, E. (2015). Municipal solid waste management in Turkey: Thompson, R. C., Moore, C. J., Vom Saal, F. S., & Swan, S. H. (2009). Plastics,
Status, challenges and future strategies. https://www.researchgate.net/ the environment, and human health: Current consensus and future trends.
publication/276161694_Municipal_Solid_Waste_Management_in_ Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society of London, Biological
Turkey_Status_Challenges_and_Future_Strategies Sciences, 364, 2153–2166.
Saumel, I., Kotsyuk, I., Holscher, M., Lenkereit, C., Weber, F., & Kowarik, I. Tisserant, A., Pauliuk, S., Merciai, S., Schmidt, J., Fry, J., Wood, R., & Tukker,
(2012). How healthy is urban horticulture in high traffic areas? Trace metal A. (2017). Solid waste and the circular economy: A global analysis of
waste treatment and waste footprints. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), Wilson, D. (2015). Global waste management outlook: Summary for decision‐
628–640. makers. United Nations Environment Programme.
Tong, H., Yao, Z., Lim, J. W., Mao, L., Zhang, J., Ge, T. S., Peng, Y. H., Wang, Wilson, D. C. (2007). Development drivers for waste management. Waste
C. H., & Tong, Y. W. (2018). Harvest green energy through energy re- Management and Research, 25(3), 198–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/
covery from waste: A technology review and an assessment of Singapore. 0734242X07079149
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 98, 163–178. Wilson, D. C., Rodic, L., Cowing, M. J., Velis, C. A., Whiteman, A. D.,
Tong, Y. D., Huynh, T. D. X., & Khong, T. D. (2021). Understanding the role of Scheinberg, A., Vilches, R., Masterson, D., Stretz, J., & Oelz, B. (2015).
informal sector for sustainable development of municipal solid waste “Wasteaware” benchmark indicators for integrated sustainable waste
management system: A case study in Vietnam. Waste Management, 124, management in cities. Waste Management, 35, 329–342.
118–127. Wilson, D. C., & Velis, C. A. (2015). Waste management—Still a global
Torre, D. L., Liuzzi, D., & Marsiglio, S. (2021). Transboundary pollution challenge in the 21st century: An evidence‐based call for action. Waste
externalities: Think globally, act locally? Journal of Mathematical Management and Research, 33(12), 1049–1051.
Economics, 96, 102511. Wilson, D. C., Velis, C., & Cheeseman, C. (2006). Role of informal sector
Tremblay, C., & Gutberlet, J. (2010). Empowerment through participation: recycling in waste management in developing countries. Habitat in-
Assessing the voices of leaders from recycling cooperatives in São Paulo, ternational, 30(4), 797–808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2005.
Brazil. Journal of Community Development, 47(2), 282–302. 09.005
Triassi, M., Alfano, R., Illario, M., Nardone, A., Caporale, O., & Montuori, P. Wilson, D. C., Velis, C. A., & Rodic, L. (2013). Integrated sustainable waste
(2015). Environmental pollution from illegal waste disposal and health ef- management in developing countries. In Proceedings of the Institution of
fects: A review on the “Triangle of Death”. International Journal of Envi- Civil Engineers-Waste and Resource Management, 166(2), 52–68. https://
ronmental Research and Public Health, 12, 1216–1236. doi.org/10.1680/warm.12.00005
Triguero, A., Álvarez‐Aledo, C., & Cuerva, M. (2016). Factors influencing World Bank. (2012). World development indicators 2012. World Bank Pub-
willingness to accept different waste management policies: Empirical lications. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-8985-0
evidence from the European Union. Journal of Cleaner Production, 138, Xiao, J. X., & Siu, K. W. M. (2018). Challenges in food waste recycling in high‐
38–46. rise buildings and public design for sustainability: A case in Hong Kong.
Tsai, F. M., Bui, T. D., Tseng, M. L., Wu, K. J., & Chiu, A. S. (2020). A per- Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 131, 172–180.
formance assessment approach for integrated solid waste management Xu, L., Ling, M., & Wu, Y. (2018). Economic incentive and social influence to
using a sustainable balanced scorecard approach. Journal of Cleaner overcome household waste separation dilemma: A field intervention
Production, 251, 119740. study. Waste Management, 77, 522–531.
Vaccari, M., Di Bella, V., Vitali, F., & Collivignarelli, C. (2013). From mixed to Yang, H., Ma, M., Thompson, J. R., & Flower, R. J. (2018). Waste manage-
separate collection of solid waste: Benefits for the town of Zavidovici ment, informal recycling, environmental pollution, and public health.
(Bosnia and Herzegovina). Waste Management, 33, 277–286. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 72(3), 237–243.
Verma, R. L., Borongan, G., & Memon, M. (2016). Municipal solid waste Yesaya, M., Mpanang'ombe, W., & Tilley, E. (2021). The cost of plastics in
management in Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam, current practices and future compost. Frontiers in Sustainability, 2, 753413. https://doi.org/10.3389/
recommendation. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 35, 127–139. frsus.2021.753413
Vidal, J. (2013). Toxic E‐waste dumped in global south, says United Nations, Yukalang, N., Clarke, B., & Ross, K. (2018). Solid waste management solutions
The Guardian, 14. for a rapidly urbanizing area in Thailand: Recommendations based on
Vince, J., & Hardesty, B. D. (2017). Plastic pollution challenges in marine and stakeholder input. International Journal of Environmental Research and
coastal environments: From local to global governance. Restoration Public Health, 15(7), 1302.
Ecology, 25(1), 123–128. Zaikova, A., Deviatkin, I., Havukainen, J., Horttanainen, M., Astrup, T. F.,
Vinti, G., & Vaccari, M. (2022). Solid waste management in rural communities Saunila, M., & Happonen, A. (2022). Factors influencing household
of developing countries: An overview of challenges and opportunities. waste separation behavior: Cases of Russia and Finland. Recycling,
Clean Technologies, 4(4), 1138–1151. 7(4), 52.
Wallis, A. M., Kelly, A. R., & Graymore, M. L. M. (2010). Assessing sustain- Zakaria, S. A. S., Aziz, H. A., Dajani, J. S., Warner, D., & Hung, Y. T. (2021).
ability: A technical fix or a means of social learning? International Journal Solid waste systems planning. In L. K. Wang, M. H. S. Wang, & Y. T. Hung,
of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 17, 67–75. (Eds.), Solid waste engineering and management. Handbook of envi-
Walters, R., & Fuentes Loureiro, M. A. (2020). Waste crime and the global ronmental engineering, 23. Springer.
transference of hazardous substances: A southern green perspective. Zaman, A., & Lehmann, S. (2011). Challenges and opportunities in trans-
Critical Criminology, 28(3), 463–480. forming a city into a “Zero Waste City”. Challenges, 2(4), 73–93. https://
Wasswa, J., & Schluep, M. (2008). e‐Waste assessment in Uganda: A situa- doi.org/10.3390/challe2040073
tional analysis of e‐waste management and generation with special em- Zaman, A. U. (2014). Identification of key assessment indicators of the zero
phasis on personal computers. https://www.unido.org/sites/default/files/ waste management systems. Ecological Indicators, 36, 682–693.
2008-10/E_Waste_Study_0.pdf Zaman, A. U. (2015). A comprehensive review of the development of zero
Watson, D. (2013). Municipal waste management in the United Kingdom. waste management: Lessons learned and guidelines. Journal of Cleaner
ETC/SCP EEA. Production, 91, 12–25.
Welivita, I., Wattage, P., & Gunawardena, P. (2015). Review of household Zaman, A. U. (2018). The new 100% recyclable packaging target. Retrieved
solid waste charges for developing countries—A focus on quantity‐based February 4, 2019, from: https://theconversation.com/the-new-100-
charge methods. Waste Management, 46, 637–645. recyclable-packaging-target-is-no-use-if-our-waste-isnt-actually-recycled-
World Health Organization (WHO). (2015a). Food safety: What you should 95857
know. Regional Office for South‐East Asia, World Health Organization. Zbib, H., & Wøhlk, S. (2019). A comparison of the transport requirements of
https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/160165 different curbside waste collection systems in Denmark. Waste Manage-
World Health Organization (WHO). (2015b). WHO estimates of the global ment, 87, 21–32.
burden of foodborne diseases: Foodborne disease burden epidemiology Zhang, D., Keat, T. S., & Gersberg, R. M. (2010a). A comparison of municipal
reference group. 2007–2015. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/ solid waste management in Berlin and Singapore. Waste Management,
10665/199350/9789241565165_eng.pdf?sequence=1 30, 921–933.
Widmer, R., Oswald‐Krapf, H., Sinha‐Khetriwal, D., Schnellmann, M., & Böni, Zhang, D. Q., Tan, S. K., & Gersberg, R. M. (2010b). Municipal solid waste
H. (2005). Global perspectives on e‐waste. Environmental Impact management in China: Status, problems, and challenges. Journal of En-
Assessment Review, 25, 436–458. vironmental Management, 91, 1623–1633.

Zhang, H., Veltri, A., Calvo‐Amodio, J., & Haapala, K. R. (2021). Making the Zhang, Z., Malik, M. Z., Khan, A., Ali, N., Malik, S., & Bilal, M. (2022). Envi-
business case for sustainable manufacturing in small and medium‐sized ronmental impacts of hazardous waste, and management strategies to
manufacturing enterprises: A systems decision‐making approach. Journal reconcile circular economy and eco‐sustainability. Science of the Total
of Cleaner Production, 287, 125038. Environment, 807, 150856.
Zhang, M., Buekens, A., & Li, X. (2017). Open burning as a source of dioxins. Zink, T., & Geyer, R. (2019). Material recycling and the myth of landfill di-
Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 47(8), 543–620. version. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(3), 541–548.

Awino, F Et Al 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Awino, F Et Al 2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Awino, F Et Al 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management — Volume 20, Number 1—pp.

Solid waste management in the context of the waste hierarchy

INTRODUCTION regulations, governance, and institutional issues (corruption,

kg/day/capita 1.2b,c 0.7b,c

High‐income Billion tons/year 0.6b,c 0.7b,c 0.7c 0.8c 0.9c

kg/day/capita 2.13b,c 1.58b,c 2.05b 1.71b 1.87b

Upper middle‐income Billion tons/year 0.25b,c 0.59b,c 0.36c 0.84c 1.01c

kg/day/capita 1.16b,c 0.69b,c 1.59a 0.83a 0.99a

Lower middle‐income Billion tons/year 0.38b,c 0.66b,c 0.96c 0.83c 1.24c

kg/day/capita 0.78b,c 0.53b,c 1.26a 0.63a 0.79a

Low‐income Billion tons/year 0.08b,c 0.10b,c 0.22c 0.15c 0.29c

kg/day/capita 0.6b,c 0.4b,c 0.86a 0.43a 0.56a

Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024:9–35 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ieam © 2023 The Authors

Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024:9–35 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ieam © 2023 The Authors

© 2023 The Authors

Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024:9–35 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ieam © 2023 The Authors

Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024:9–35 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ieam © 2023 The Authors

Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024:9–35 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ieam © 2023 The Authors

Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024:9–35 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ieam © 2023 The Authors

Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024:9–35 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ieam © 2023 The Authors

Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024:9–35 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ieam © 2023 The Authors

Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024:9–35 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ieam © 2023 The Authors

Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024:9–35 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ieam © 2023 The Authors

Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024:9–35 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ieam © 2023 The Authors

4d63e5685ad9a0d1ab75058867.pdf?_ga=2.263959051.627122171.15458 Kellenberg, D. (2012). Trading wastes. Journal of Environmental Economics and

Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024:9–35 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ieam © 2023 The Authors

Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024:9–35 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ieam © 2023 The Authors

You might also like