Waste To Energy in Developing Countries-A Rapid Review Opportunities, Challenges, and Policies in Selected Countries of Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia Towards Sustainability (2022)

sustainability
Review
Waste to Energy in Developing Countries—A Rapid Review:
Opportunities, Challenges, and Policies in Selected Countries
of Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia towards Sustainability
Imran Khan 1,2,3, * , Shahariar Chowdhury 1,4 and Kuaanan Techato 1,4, *
1 Faculty of Environmental Management, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai 90110, Songkhla, Thailand;
mdshahariar.c@psu.ac.th
2 Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Jashore University of Science and Technology,
Jashore 7408, Bangladesh
3 Energy Research Laboratory, Jashore University of Science and Technology, Jashore 7408, Bangladesh
4 Environmental Assessment and Technology for Hazardous Waste Management Research Center,
Faculty of Environmental Management, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai 90110, Songkhla, Thailand
* Correspondence: i.khan@just.edu.bd (I.K.); kuaanan.t@psu.ac.th (K.T.)
Abstract: Daily per capita waste generation will increase by 40% and 19%, for developing and
developed countries by 2050, respectively. The World Bank estimates that total waste generation
is going to triple in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and double in South Asia (SA) by 2050. This article
conducts a rapid review and aims to demonstrate the current waste management scenario and the
potential of waste to energy generation in the developing world, focusing on SSA and SA. Although
many review articles related to waste to energy (WtE) in developing countries are available in the
literature, a rapid review particularly focusing on countries in SSA and SA is rarely seen. An analysis

of different WtE generation technologies, and current waste management practices in developing
Citation: Khan, I.; Chowdhury, S.;
Techato, K. Waste to Energy in
countries in SSA and SA are also presented. The analysis shows that about three-fourths of waste is
Developing Countries—A Rapid openly dumped in developing countries of SSA and SA. In terms of waste composition, on average,
Review: Opportunities, Challenges, about 48.70% and 51.16% of waste generated in developing economies of SSA and SA are organic.
and Policies in Selected Countries of Opportunities to convert this waste into energy for developing countries are highlighted, with a case
Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia study of Bangladesh, a country in SA. Major challenges regarding the waste to energy (WtE) projects
towards Sustainability. Sustainability in the developing world are found to be the composition of waste, absence of waste separation
2022, 14, 3740. https://doi.org/ scheme at source, ineffective waste collection method, lack of suitable WtE generation technology
10.3390/su14073740 in place, lack of financial support and policies related to a WtE project, and absence of coordination
Academic Editors: Farooq Sher and between different governmental institutions.
Luis Jesús Belmonte-Ureña
Keywords: waste management; waste to energy; energy recovery; recycling; sustainable development
Received: 12 February 2022
Accepted: 18 March 2022
Published: 22 March 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral 1. Introduction

with regard to jurisdictional claims in
The global waste crisis is an effect of untreated, unsafe disposal and inefficient
published maps and institutional affil-
waste collection. Population growth and urbanization are the two most crucial factors
iations.
behind waste generation. Global average waste generation varies between 0.11 and
4.54 kg/person/d [1]. Waste management operation is both complex and costly. On aver-
age, waste management requires about 19, 11, and 4% of total annual municipal budgets
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
for low-, middle-, and high-income countries [1].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Waste generation and management are directly related to the UN’s sustainable devel-
This article is an open access article opment goals (https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 10 March 2021)), notably, goals 12
distributed under the terms and and 13. For instance, waste is responsible for air pollution and has severe health impacts, if
conditions of the Creative Commons it is not treated through proper technology. In the developing world, most of it is either
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// dumped in an open place or burned. Consequently, both of these methods of waste treat-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ ment pollute the air and raise health issues. In addition, methane and CO2 emissions from
4.0/). open dumpsites are responsible for adverse climate change.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3740. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073740 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 3740 2 of 27
One of the sub-goals of SDG-12 is, by 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through
prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse. This could be connected to SDG-7: Ensure access to
affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all. That is, by 2030, increase substantially
the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix. Waste could be one of the potential
renewable sources of energy if appropriately treated. Nowadays, waste to energy (WtE) is
one of the promising technologies that has been well employed in the developed world.
However, a very limited application can be seen in developing countries.
Waste can be treated in many different ways, such as controlled landfills and mass
burning. Waste to energy conversion is one of the latest forms of waste treatment, offering
a number of benefits [2]. It can generate electricity using different technologies, such
as incineration, anaerobic digestion [3]. WtE generation helps to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions [4]. New WtE plants create new employment opportunities [5]. It offers a more
efficient waste management system [6] and contributes to sustainable development [7].
However, these options are mostly utilized in the developed world, such as in Italy, Ger-
many, Finland, France, and Japan [8,9]. The most polluted cities in the world are mainly in
developing countries, where waste is mostly untreated and results in air pollution [10,11].
How and what portions of wastes are treated in these developing countries and how it
could be treated in the future towards sustainable development are rarely addressed in the
literature, and this study attempts to close this gap.
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from different sectors, including electricity gen-
eration, is a vital factor that hampers sustainable development. Even renewable energy,
such as hydroelectricity, is not free from emissions [12]. It is well known that the electricity
generation from fossil fuels is a major contributor to global GHG emissions and are higher
than emissions from renewable sources. For example, the carbon intensities of gas- and
oil-fired power plants in Bangladesh with efficiencies of about 22% and 16% were found
to be 930 and 1752 gCO2 -e/kWh [13]. Only about 180 gCO2 -e/kWh carbon intensity was
found for the electricity generation system of New Zealand [14], as its electricity system
is dominated by renewable generation, including hydro (57%), geothermal (17%), and
wind (6%) [15]. Due to continuous urbanization, waste has become a challenge not only
for developed countries [16], but for the developing economies that need to transform
waste into opportunities, which in turn will help achieve future sustainable development.
Untreated wastes are the major sources of GHG emissions. WtE could be a potential tech-
nology to reduce these GHG emissions [17]. A study in Korea found that ‘in 2012, GHG
reduction by waste-to-energy was 16,061 tCO2eq /yr; it is predicted to be 33,477 tCO2eq /yr
in 20210 [4]. WtE technologies are not free from emissions [18]. Emission ranges vary from
one technology to another: anaerobic digestion was found to be more environmentally
friendly than incineration, gasification, and pyrolysis [19].
There are three different types of WtE conversion processes: thermochemical, bio-
chemical, and chemical. All these WtE generation processes are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Different WtE generation technologies (Data Source: [9,20,21]).
Conversion Process Technologies Process Feedstock Residues Outputs

Mixed waste,
Mass burn Bottom ash, fly ash, Heat and
Incineration refuse-derived
at temperature > 1000 ◦ C metals, air pollutants electricity (energy)
Thermo-chemical
fuels (RDF)
Conventional temperature Hydrogen, methane,
Bottom ash,
Gasification 750 ◦ C; for plasma arc Mixed waste, RDF syngas → electricity
air pollutants
4000–12,000 ◦ C (energy)
At temperature between
Sorted waste Char, pyrolysis oil,
300–800 ◦ C with high
Pyrolysis (e.g., plastics), Air pollutants gases, aerosols, syngas
pressure and in the
organic waste → electricity (energy)
absence of oxygen
In the absence of oxygen:
Dark fermentation-
treated with bacteria in
Organic waste with Liquid residues, Ethanol, hydrogen,
Fermentation the absence of light;
high sugar content wastewater, digestate biodiesel → energy
photo fermentation-
treated with bacteria in
the presence of light
Bio-chemical
Wastewater, liquid
Treated by residues, digestate,
Organic waste, Methane → electricity
Anaerobic Digestion micro-organisms in the non-compostable
green waste (energy)
absence of oxygen materials
(e.g., metal, plastics)
Landfill with Natural decomposition Organic waste, Methane → electricity
Compost
gas capture of waste green waste (energy)
The catalytic reaction of
Microbial fuel cell micro-organisms Organic waste CO2 , water Electricity (energy)
with bacteria
A chemical reaction
Chemical
between an acid and

Waste oil (e.g., waste Ethanol,
Esterification alcohol in the presence of Water
coconut oil) biodiesel → energy
an acid catalyst to
create ester
Note: (→) indicates the final output.
The objective of this study is to conduct a rapid review and identify opportunities
and challenges related to WtE generation in developing countries, particularly focusing on
selected countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and South Asia (SA) by investigating the
type of waste generated, its contents, and treatment procedures. A case study of Bangladesh
is presented to obtain a detailed insight into a WtE generation project in a developing
country in SA. Generalized policy implications are indicated for these developing countries.
The rest of the article is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the method and
materials used for this study. Section 3 reviews the literature related to WtE in developing
economies. Section 4 presents the analysis and results. Section 5 discusses the opportunities
and challenges associated with WtE generation for developing countries. This section
explains the steps that need to be followed in developing WtE policymaking for develop-
ing economies. This section also indicates related policy implications. The final section
concludes the article.
2. Materials and Methods

A rapid review method was employed for this study along with a quantitative data
analysis. “In rapid reviews, a wide variety of methods can be used to speed up the process
of literature search and evaluation, while at the same time maintaining the principles of
methodological quality and transparent reporting” [22]. In an earlier study, Grant and
Booth (2009) defined it as an “assessment of what is already known about a policy or
practice issue, by using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing
research” [23]. Therefore, the form of evidence synthesis method by which a decision can
be made within a short time frame compared to standard systematic reviews is known as
a rapid review method. Due to its useful characteristics, many recent studies in various
research fields used this review method in the literature, see for example, [24–26]. This
review is best-suited for-
• An emerging research topic

• An update of previously conducted reviews
• An analysis of critical topics within a short time frame
• An assessment of ‘what is already known’ regarding a policy or practice through some
systematic review methods
The characteristics of the rapid review method are illustrated in Figure 1. Although the
rapid review method was beneficial for this study, it also has some limitations: reducing the
review time may introduce biases, the search is not comprehensive, and interpretation of the
findings might be limited. For instance, Grant and Booth (2009) reported that “limiting the
time taken to search may result in publication bias, limiting appraisal or quality assessment
may place a disproportionate emphasis on poorer quality research, while a lack of attention
to synthesis may overlook inconsistencies or contradictions” [23]. One of the ways to
eliminate these biases is to document the methodology properly and explicitly declare
its limitations.
Figure 1. Characteristics of rapid review method (Sources: [22,23,26–32]).
Secondary data were used for this analysis. Secondary data could be collected from
an authentic source, the advantage being that these data have already been tested, fil-
tered, and are ready to use. For this analysis, the World Bank’s ‘What a Waste Global
Database’ was used [33]. This database, which was released in September 2018 and is
publicly accessible, covers more than 330 cities’ waste generation, collection, disposal, and
composition statistics.
Secondary data were used for this analysis for the following reasons. It is a reliable
source of data covering the world’s waste statistics. It is easier and faster to access than
primary data, and this type of secondary research provides information to countries about
the effectiveness of further primary research in this area. In evaluating the selected dataset,
the standard criteria/questions were followed/addressed [34]. The purpose of the primary
study (i.e., data collection) was to aggregate data on solid waste management under the
global project ‘What a Waste’. The data reported are predominantly between 2011 and 2017.
For details about the dataset used, see ‘a note on data’ in [35].
According to World Bank, estimates of 2015 gross national income (GNI) per capita,
27 lower-income countries (GNI = USD 1025 or less) were selected in SSA. Twelve of
these countries’ waste composition data were not available and thus excluded, leaving
15 countries selected. The eight developing countries were selected from the SA region.
The main reason for selecting these countries for this analysis is that total waste generation
by 2050 is going to increase about three and two times compared to the figures for 2016 in
SSA and SA, due to economic growth [35]. A comparative short- and long-term projection
is illustrated in Figure 2, showing that the projected waste generation will be dominated
by these two regions in both the short- and long-term. The short-term growth would be
54.60% and 39.52% for the SSA and SA regions, whereas the long-term growth would be
196% and 98% for SSA and SA. For detailed insight, a waste to energy generation project
in Jashore, Bangladesh was considered as a case study. For this initial pilot project, the
data were collected predominantly from a recent waste to energy feasibility study [36],
a newspaper report [37], and a TV report available on YouTube (https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=zxtn3gy3-1U (accessed on 25 June 2020)).
Figure 2. Short and long-term regional waste generation projection (Data source: [35]). On the x-axis
and y-axis, the waste generation growth (in %) for 2016–2050 and 2016–2030 are plotted, respectively.
Following the rapid review method, only the sciencedirect.com database was used for
the literature search, and the timeframe was selected to be from January 2016 to the end
of February 2022. Although the articles published between 2016 and February 2022 were
considered for the literature survey, a few other earlier publications were also considered,
as they are very closely related to the discussed topic. Published research and review
articles were only considered for this study. Initially, the keyword ‘waste to energy’ was
used to search the related literature. It resulted in thousands of articles. Thus, more specific
keywords were used for the search such as, ‘energy recovery in developing countries’,
‘waste to bioenergy in developing countries’, ‘waste to energy in developing countries’ and
‘waste to energy in developing economies’. The words ‘developing countries/economies’
were kept in all searches. Primary screening resulted in 171 articles from many different
journals. Further screening considering the developing nations only resulted in 67 articles.
The search process is illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Searching method used for this study.
3. Literature Review
The average waste generation rates for different small island developing states in
the Caribbean, Pacific, Atlantic, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean, and South China were
about 1.29 kg/capita/d, whereas, for the OECD countries, the rate was found to be
1.35 kg/capita/d [38]. Waste compositions were dominated by organics (44%) and re-
cyclables (43%) for the developing states and OECD countries, respectively [38]. A recent
study found that mass-burn incineration is the best option, followed by ‘hybrid mechanical-
biological treated anaerobic digestion and refuse-derived fuel incineration’ in the Pacific
small island developing states (PSIDS) [39]. Although their finding indicates that incinera-
tion is the most suitable option in these countries, the waste composition was dominated by
organic components, which are more suitable for anaerobic digestion [40]. This contrasts
with the situation in India, where biodegradable waste is about 50% of the total generated
waste, and AD was found to be most suitable compared to incineration, gasification, and
landfill with gas recovery [41].
An investigation involving a system approach was conducted for developing coun-
tries [42]. This review revealed that complexity exists in the solid waste management
systems in the developing world due to ‘urbanization, inequality, and economic growth;
cultural and socio-economic aspects; policy, governance, and institutional issues; and inter-
national influences’ [42]. For example, there is a good bioenergy potential from inedible
agri-food loss and waste in Nigeria (which is about 1,816.8 ± 117.3 PJ, sufficient to meet
20300 s bioenergy national targets) [43], but Nigerians show poor attitudes and unfavorable
traditions towards waste management [44]. Similarly, in Indonesia, about 49,810 MW
renewable energy could be derived from plants and waste (i.e., biomass) [45].
There is limited use of WtE plants, in particular, thermal plants in some developing
countries, such as China [17], India [46], and Thailand [47], who do not follow the waste
management hierarchy of reduction, reuse, and recycling. It was also found that a com-
bination of conventional and unconventional technologies is suitable for WtE generation
in China to achieve a circular economy [48]. The WtE uptake is found to be unsuccess-
ful in developing countries, for example, in India and Nigeria for a number of reasons,
such as ‘poor source segregation’ [43,46]. Many other challenges, such as proper policy-
making, need to be faced for successful WtE plants in developing countries [49]. Some
well-identified challenges are lack of (i) regulation and technical standard, (ii) a suitable
business model, (iii) technical localization and development, (iv) fly ash treatment and
management, and (v) skilled labor [50]. In a recent review, Goli et al. (2021) found that “the
higher capital investments and operation costs, lack of viable flue gas treatment techniques
for furans/dioxins, availability of a conventional source of energy at cheaper costs, and
demand for constituents of combustible fractions from infrastructure development for
manufacturing of construction materials make these technologies unsuitable for reaching
sustainable development goals in developing countries” [51]. ‘Lack of knowledge and expe-
rience under specific local conditions’ is another crucial barrier in implementing WtE plants
in developing economies [52]. However, a recent study found that WtE has great potential
in the Greater Bay Area in China using two waste treatment methods, namely landfills
with the gas collection and incineration [53]. The authors estimated that about 31,346 and
77,748 GWh of electricity could be produced from the waste by 2030 and 2060, respectively.
Although organic components dominate developing countries’ wastes, the selection
of WtE technology varies from one city to another. For instance, out of the total waste,
the organic components were found to be 38.6%, 70.8%, and 67% in Delhi (India), Jakarta
(Indonesia), and Karachi (Pakistan), respectively [54]. The authors found that new hybrid
technology, favorable feed-in tariffs, and waste collection fees could underpin WtE plants
in Delhi and Karachi. However, due to higher operational costs, this is challenging in
Jakarta. A techno-economic analysis revealed that a hybrid system containing anaerobic
digestion and gasification technologies are suitable for WtE generation in South Africa [55].
In Brazil, a low-cost product-service-system solution was proposed for the treatment of the
organic waste and found that it is “potentially viable to be implemented in the Brazilian
municipalities with lower population density, larger territorial area and per capita (GDP)
equal to or higher than that of Porto Amazonas” [56]. In terms of economic assessment,
Agaton et al. (2020) found that incineration is one of the most profitable WtE plants in the
Philippines, followed by gasification and pyrolysis [57]. Another recent study in Brazil
employed the ‘process flow diagram’ and ‘waste aware benchmark indicators’ and found
that clear laws, regular public campaigns, and fee methodology would be helpful for urban
household solid waste management [58].
About 20% to 50% of municipalities’ budgets in developing countries is spent man-
aging and disposing of wastes. Waste management in most of these countries is still at
a premature stage [59]. A new hybrid approach combining the binomial tree analysis and
decoupled net present value (DNPV) was proposed in [60]. The proposed method was
applied to Iran and the authors claimed that the approach is one of the robust methods that
is able to assess the WtE project risks through sound practices for developing countries.
Many other studies in the literature considered WtE production in developing countries,
such as lignocellulosic biomass to second-generation ethanol [61], and a list of these studies
is shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Waste to energy production in different developing countries.
Product
Developing Countries Waste Source References
(Technology Used)
Defective coffee beans; Rice husk, Orange
Hydrochar (Hydrothermal carbonization);
Brazil pear peel, Ponkan mandarin peel, Tahiti
Briquettes (Briquetting);
lemon peel; Coffee waste and pinewood
Rice husk, Sugar cane bagasse, Coffee
Colombia husk; Primary sludge Coal boiler Pellets (Pelletizing)
ashes Wood waste of pulp/paper mill
Rose-oil processing waste, Pine bark,
Turkey Pellets (Pelletizing)
Coal powder
Iran Bagasse Pellets (Pelletizing)
Egypt Olive mill waste Methane (Anaerobic digestion)
Ghana Sewage sludge (SS), Faecal sludge (FS) Biochar (Pyrolysis)
Uganda Coffee husks, Rice husks Briquettes (Pyrolysis and Compression), [62–91]
Burkina Faso Cashew press cakes Briquettes (Slow pyrolysis and Briquetting)
Zimbabwe Municipal solid waste Electrical energy (Thermochemical)
Thailand “Madan” wood + coconut shell Briquettes (Charcoal kiln and Briquetting)
Hydrochar (Microwave pre-treatment, Anaerobic digestion,
Pre-treated yard waste; Macrophyte; Yard
India Hydrothermal carbonization); Pelletized hydrochar
waste, Food waste, Landfill leachate
(Hydrothermal carbonization, Hydraulic hand pellets press)
Hydrochar (Hydrothermal carbonization); Bioethanol
Bangladesh Banana stalk, Wild date palm
(Batch fermentation)
Oil palm trunk, Oil palm solid waste, Bio-coal (Pyrolysis), Torrefied solid (Torrefaction), Biochar (Slow
Malaysia
Spent coffee ground, Palm kernel shell pyrolysis), Biochar (Microwave vacuum pyrolysis)
Indonesia Cashew nutshell waste Briquettes (Pyrolysis, Briquetting)
Sewage sludge and phenolic wastewater, Hydrochar (Hydrothermal, Microwave-assisted
China
Cornstalk, Food waste, Sweet potato waste hydrothermal carbonization, Hydrothermal carbonization)
It is evident from the literature that most of the previous studies focused on the waste
to energy generation option as a potential waste management scheme in the developing
world other than the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Although many
review articles related to WtE in developing countries are available in the literature, such
as [92], a review particularly focusing on countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia is
rarely seen. Closer to the present study, Abdallah et al. (2019) investigated the WtE potential
in selected developing countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, in
which the authors found that about 103,000 GWh energy could be produced from waste
per annum and this generation would be able to reduce about 6.5% of the carbon footprint
annually in the region [52]. In another study, an overview of solid waste management in the
MENA region was presented [93]. In contrast, our study focused on selected countries in
Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, and thus justifies the novelty of the work. In addition,
waste generation is going to triple (174 to 516 Mt/yr) and double (334 to 661 Mt/yr) in
2050 compared to waste generated in 2016, respectively in these selected countries in
the regions [1]. This study also provides detailed insight into a successful WtE plant in
a developing country, Bangladesh, and highlights the opportunities, challenges, and future
policy requirements for WtE plants in developing country context.
4. Analysis and Results

Figure 4 shows that waste composition in the SSA developing countries (lower-income
countries) is dominated by organic components, implying proper selection of waste man-
agement schemes in these countries. The proportion of recyclable components of waste,
such as glass and metal, is very low in these countries. Although the majority of waste in the
developing world is organic, its treatment procedures vary between countries. Exploring
the reasons for different treatment procedures in different developing countries is beyond
the scope of this work.
Figure 4. Waste composition in selected developing countries (i.e., Lower Income Countries (LIC)) in
SSA. ‘Other’ includes wood, garden, leather, and rubber. (Data Source: [33]).
Figure 5 depicts that average values for organic waste content for developed and
developing countries are about 32% and 50%. There exists a positive relation between
waste generation and the income level of a country. Daily per capita waste generation
will increase by 40% and 19% for developing and developed countries by 2050. Among
these developing regions, SSA and SA are fast-growing. The projection shows that 516 and
661 Mt of waste per year will be generated in SSA and SA in 2050.
Figure 5. Box and whisker plot showing waste composition for (A) developed countries (higher
income) in different regions of the world and (B) developing countries (lower and lower middle
income) in SSA and SA. Within each box, the horizontal line and crosses are the median and average
value for that waste content, and the lower (and upper) edges of the box are the 25th (75th) percentile.
Whiskers represent the upper and lower ranges, and the round dots represent outliers. ‘Other’
includes wood, garden, leather, and rubber. (Data source: [33]).
If Figure 4 is compared with Figure 5B, the waste is dominated by organic components.
In developing countries, on average, 30% of waste content is in the ‘other’ category, that
is, mixed wood, garden, leather, and rubber. For developed countries, the average value
is 22%.
Most developed countries have this ‘other’ type of waste content of about 30% (see
75th percentile of ‘other’ in Figure 5A), whereas the majority of developing countries have
this content of about 51% (see 75th percentile of ‘other’ in Figure 5B). The main reason for
this waste content variation is that in the developed world, wastes are separated at source
(e.g., at residences), which is not the case for developing countries.
For the developed countries the average proportions of paper and plastic are 21%
and 12%, respectively; in developing countries, the figure for paper content is more than
two times less than that for developed countries (9%), and it is 8% for plastic. The per-
centages of the remaining two waste components glass and metal are below 10% for both
developed and developing countries.
Globally, the open dumping waste treatment practice represents about 31% of waste
and is dominated by developing countries [1]. Of which, about 93% of waste is openly
dumped in the developing world, whereas only 2% of waste is dumped in developed
countries [1]. For the selected developing countries, the existing waste treatment practices
are depicted in Table 3. Most developing countries practice open dumping for waste
management except Bhutan, which uses controlled landfills as its main waste treatment
strategy. For many developing countries, the waste treatment method is not well known.
For instance, 94.75% and 84% of wastes were found unaccounted for in Bangladesh and
Zimbabwe. Most of these countries do not use commercially available technologies, such
as anaerobic digestion or incineration, to treat their wastes. In terms of ‘landfill unspecified’
waste treatment, Pakistan (40%), Nepal (37%), and Burkina Faso (17%) practice this method.
The majority of the developing countries listed in Table 3 also recycle to some extent. Only
Benin was found to recycle about 25% of its waste. Despite the open dumping method used
by Uganda, the country also practices a ‘sanitary landfill-gas system’ for 7% of total waste.
Table 3. Waste treatment practice in selected developing countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and South
Asia. (Data Source: [33]).
Sanitary Landfill-Gas System (%)
Anaerobic Digestion (%)
Landfill Unspecified (%)

Controlled Landfill (%)
Unaccounted (%)
Open Dump (%)
Incineration (%)
Recycling (%)
Compost (%)
Other (%)
Country
Ethiopia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 57
Uganda 0 0 6 0 0 0 7 87 0 0
Mozambique 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 99 0 0
Guinea 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 95
Benin 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 75
Niger 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 64 12 20
Togo 0 0 2 1.8 0 0 0 96.2 0 0
Zimbabwe 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 84
Burkina Faso 0 0 12 0 0 17 0 59 0 12
Senegal 0 0 0 0 5.1 0 0 43.8 4.7 46.4
Bangladesh 0 0 0 5.25 0 0 0 0 0 94.75
Bhutan 0 0 0.86 1.39 97.75 0 0 0 0 0
India 0 0 5 18 0 0 0 77 0 0
Maldives 0 6 0 7 0 0 0 63 * 24 0
Sri Lanka 0 0 12 5 0 0 0 83 0 0
Nepal 0 0 0 2.87 0 37 0 0 0 60.13
Pakistan 0 0 8 2 0 40 0 50 0 0
Note: Data were not available for Burundi, Chad, Comoros, The Gambia, Mali, and Afghanistan. * Waste
treatment/dump in water ways/marine.
If Table 3 is compared with Figures 4 and 5B, it can be seen that due to the mixed
type of waste, most developing countries practice open dumping for waste management,
because source separation of waste in developing countries is rare.
The WtE generation process involves many different costs for different types of plants.
Among four different processes—incineration, co-processing, anaerobic digestion, and
landfill gas—all costs are higher for incineration than others. For comparison purposes,
costs for different WtE generation technologies are presented in Table 4. Please note
that the cost for different technologies presented in the Table 4 might vary based on the
resource’s availability, waste processing, and other taxes imposed by local governments in
every country.
Table 4. Cost comparison between WtE generation technologies (Data source: [94]).
Initial Investment Capital Cost Per O&M Cost Per Ton Total Cost Per Ton Cost Per Ton Waste Capacity
Technology
Cost (Million EUR) Ton (EUR) (EUR) (EUR) Input (EUR) (t/yr)
Incineration 30–75 22–55 20–35 42–90 40–80 150,000
Co-processing 5–25 10–25 10–20 20–45 19–40 50,000
Biogas (Anaerobic
12–20 12–19 10–15 22–34 14–18 50,000–150,000
Digestion)
Landfill Gas 5.3–6 0.8–1.4 0.3–0.8 6–7 0.8–1.7 390,000–850,000
Alternative
680–120 35–45 30–40 65–85 63–80 200,000
Technologies
Note: Each technology was considered with 20 years of operation and a 6% annual interest rate except landfill gas,
for which the years of operation was 21 and the annual interest rate was 12%.
Table 4 shows that the total cost per ton of waste processing is lower for the landfill gas
method than other available technology, but this technique is not environmentally friendly.
The next lowest cost is for biogas production through AD. Although AD is a suitable
technology for wastes dominated by organic components in developing countries [19], the
first waste to energy plant that was installed in Ethiopia in 2018 was an incinerator [95]. In
contrast, Bangladesh began the first waste to energy plant in Jashore based on AD technol-
ogy [37]. Although this was a good start in WtE generation for the country, there are several
challenges that need to be overcome through proper policymaking. To provide a detailed
insight into the WtE project in Bangladesh, this project is presented as a case study.
5. Discussion and Policy Implications

Food and green waste in developing countries varies between 53% and 57%. There is
an inverse relationship between the increase of organic waste and the country’s economic
development. In the developing world, only 20% of waste generated could be recycled. In
contrast, about 51% of waste could be recycled in the developed world. Waste generation
and collection for treatment vary significantly in developed versus developing countries.
Waste collection rates of upper middle income to high-income countries vary between 82%
and 96%. In developing countries, this rate varies between 39% to 51% [1]. Waste collection
and the disposal or recycling process also depend on the per capita GDP of the country.
It was found that a proportional relationship exists between per capita GDP and waste
collection and disposal standards. For instance, if per capita GDP is less than EUR 2,000,
the waste collection is very limited, and the disposal method is open dumping. In contrast,
when per capita GDP is greater than EUR 10,000, the waste collection rate is very good,
and the wastes are separated at the sources and latest WtE generation technologies, such as
incineration, pyrolysis, AD is used. These are illustrated in Figure 6.
In South Asia (SA), about three-fourths of waste is openly dumped; of which, about
44% is collected through a door-to-door system and about 57% of waste is characterized as
organic waste containing food and other green waste [1]. Similarly, in Sub-Saharan Africa
(SSA), about 69% of waste is openly dumped. About 40% of the generated waste is organic
and the overall waste collection rate is about 44% [1].
In terms of waste composition for the selected countries in the SSA, it contains 35 to
87.50% organic waste in their total waste except for Burkina Faso, Mali, and Senegal. On
average the organic component is about 48.70%. On the other hand, the organic component
of the total waste in the countries in SA varies between 24% and 80.58%, and the average is
about 51.16%. Only Maldives has an organic waste component of 24%.
In Ethiopia, the first waste to energy power plant, an incinerator, was established in
2018, the first in SSA [95]. However, it was also reported that the incinerator, as WtE gener-
ation technology, is not suitable for Ethiopia, as well as Africa because it is an expensive
and inefficient technology; as it burns waste it emits NOX , mercury, dioxins, and other
pollutants, it undermines the sustainable zero waste practice, it threatens jobs and harms
environmental justice [96]. It was also recommended that current waste streams must be
investigated to identify a suitable waste management scheme.
Figure 6. Relation between GDP, waste collection, and disposal standard. Source: Authors and [97].
The present analysis suggests that the domination of organic waste in the total waste
of developing countries in SSA and SA is suitable for the anaerobic digestion (AD), and it
could be an effective solution towards WtE generation as reported in [19]. However, proper
guidelines must be followed for the WtE plant establishment [98].
Based on the analysis conducted, considering geographical location, waste composi-
tion, collection methods, and recycling, WtE generation offers several opportunities along
with some challenges in the developing world. These are illustrated through a case study
in the following section.
5.1. Waste to Energy Generation: The Case of Jashore, Bangladesh

Jashore is the main city of Jashore district in the Khulna division and is located in
the south-western part of Bangladesh. The area of Jashore district is about 2607 sq. km.,
of which, the territory of Jashore city and Paurashava are 28.56 and 14.71 sq. km, respec-
tively [99]. The annual average temperature of Jashore varies between 11 ◦ C and 37 ◦ C
with an average annual rainfall of about 1,537 mm. Average humidity is about 78% [36].
According to a recent feasibility study on waste to energy conversion in six municipali-
ties in Bangladesh including Jashore, it was reported that the average waste generation rate
in Jashore in 2020 would be 0.27 kg per capita. Average daily and annual waste production
in the same year would be 60 t/d and 22,078 t/yr, respectively. If a collection rate of 75% is
considered, daily and average annual waste treatment should be 45 t/d and 16,558 t/yr [36].
The same study also investigated waste composition in five other cities, and the average
was considered to be Bangladesh’s waste composition for this study. For both Jashore and
Bangladesh (the average of six cities), the waste composition is illustrated in Figure 7. It
can be seen that the organic component of waste not only dominates the waste in Jashore
city but across the country.
Figure 7. Waste composition (in %) of (A) Jashore city and (B) Bangladesh (average of six cities)
(Data source: [36]).
Similar to other developing countries, the dominant portion of waste generated

in Bangladesh is organic waste, with a range between 68% and 81% [100]. Wastes in
Bangladesh contain about 60%, 26%, and 18% of water, combustible components, and ash,
respectively [19]. Waste could be used for direct combustion without any auxiliary fuel if it
contains at least less than 50% water, 25% or more combustible components, and less than
60% ash [101]. Thus, wastes in Bangladesh are not suitable for combustion as they contain
more than 50% water due to the dominance of organic waste. A solution to this problem
is anaerobic digestion to treat wastes with high water content, and this was found to be
sustainable for developing economies [19].
Considering the waste characteristics of Jashore, a pilot project titled Integrated Land-
fill and Resource Recovery Center (IL&RRC) was designed by the waste concern consultants
in 2016. It was financed by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), German Development
Bank, and Swedish Development Co-operation Agency. The IL&RRC started operating in
November 2019. The IL&RRC is able to recycle waste into biogas, electricity, and fertilizer,
and is the first of its kind in Bangladesh.
In IL&RRC, organic waste materials, such as fruit and vegetable peels, are recycled into
fertilizer, and this process takes 28 days. This organic waste material sorting is completed
with a mechanized sorting unit with the capacity of a half-ton per hour. A box system
with forced aeration and a mechanical dryer are used for the composting process, with
a capacity of 20 t/d [102]. The remaining waste portion is used for anaerobic digestion and
biogas is produced. The four biogas plants have the capacity of about 18 t/d. This biogas
is then used to produce electricity. The waste components, which are not decomposable,
and leachate go to controlled landfill areas. The production capacity of the plant is listed in
Table 5.
Table 5. Integrated Landfill and Resource Recovery Center’s (Jashore) maximum and present pro-
duction capacity (Data source: [37] & TV report (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxtn3gy3-1U
(accessed on 22 April 2020))).
Maximum
Product Type (Unit) Present Production Capacity
Production Capacity
Fertilizer (t/d) 4 1–1.5 *
Biogas (m3 ) 720 450
Electricity (KW) 550–600 200
* Present waste input is about 20 t/d.
At present, the 200 KW electricity generated is being used to run the IL&RRC. If more
waste could be ensured, the electricity generation would be increased to its maximum rated
capacity and this additional electricity could be supplied to the national grid. Although the
IL&RRC is operating well, there is a lack of national and local policies related to waste to
energy generation. The major policies and laws that are related to waste management in
Bangladesh are listed in Table 6.
Table 6. Waste management-related policies and acts in Bangladesh (adapted from [103]).
Year Policies/Acts Comments

1995 Bangladesh Environmental Conservation Act Recommends standards for disposal of different types of waste.
Recommends the municipalities for privatization of services as
1998 Urban Management Policy Statement well as giving priority to facilities for slum dwellers, including
provisions of water supply, sanitation, and solid waste disposal.
According to this policy, the government shall take measures
National Policy for Water Supply
1998 for recycling waste as much as possible and use organic waste
and Sanitation
materials for compost and biogas production.
According to this policy, the government will promote the use
1999 National Agriculture Policy of compost/organic fertilizer amongst the farmers to improve
soil productivity and food security.
This policy is recommended the use of environmental
2005 National Industrial Policy management systems and cleaner production practices
amongst industries.
Under this act, compost has been promoted and a standard of
2006 Fertilizer Act
compost has been set by the government.
Clean development mechanism (CDM) and recycling have been
2006 National Urban Policy
emphasized in this policy.
This policy is promoting the production of biogas and other
2008 National Renewable Energy Policy green energy from waste and providing incentives, such as
CDM, to promote green energy projects.
Table 6 shows that there is no specific policy for waste to energy generation in the coun-
try. This finding is in line with a recent study, where the authors investigated all the avail-
able waste management-related policies, acts, and regulations of Bangladesh and found
that the present waste management policy does not have any WtE recovery targets [100].
The challenges that are facing the implementation of the national 3R (reduce, reuse,
recycle) strategy for waste management in Bangladesh are also applicable for WtE
generation projects [104,105]:
• New policies need to be issued to attract private investors in the waste to energy sector.
• It is essential to ensure inter-ministerial coordination to facilitate WtE initiatives and
public-private partnerships.
• Lack of local, technically skilled manpower to establish WtE generation projects.
• Lack of financial resources with respect to WtE generation projects.
• Awareness of people and the capacity of government and the private sector needs to
be improved for WtE projects.
• Enhancement of research, development and capacity building are essential.
• Source segregation of waste is very low or unsatisfactory in Bangladesh. Thus, this
needs to be implemented.
• Inefficient waste collection method.
5.2. WtE Generation and Sustainability

In terms of sustainable development, the WtE generation option provides several
positive and negative impacts, listed in Table 7. Although there are some negative impacts
of WtE generation plants, positive impacts dominate towards sustainable development.
Table 7. Impacts of WtE generation on sustainability in the developing world compared to open
dumping and landfill without gas recovery (authors’ analysis).
Sustainability Dimensions Positive Impacts Negative Impacts Dominant Impact Type

Public health improvement
Odor reduction
Increased noise and dust due to
Social Reduction of waste Positive
waste transportation vehicles
Local renewable energy generation
Benefits to the local community
Local economy development
Local land value might
Economic New job creation Positive
be increased
Avoidance of disposal cost
Reduced air pollution
Reduced odor pollution
Environmental Less use of fossil fuels Emissions from WtE plants Positive
Renewable energy generation
Use of by-products as fertilizer
WtE generation offers many social, economic, and environmental advantages. How-
ever, to ensure all of these benefits proper technology selection is a precondition. Thus, any
WtE plant planning at a particular location needs a pre-assessment study.
5.3. WtE Generation Challenges

From the analysis, literature survey, and the case study considered, it is evident that to
implement a WtE generation plant in any city of the developing world, some challenges
need to be faced.
• The first challenge is the composition of waste, which is dominated by organic com-
ponents [106]. The waste generated in developing countries, such as in India, are
very distinct compared to those in the developed world due to their compositional
characteristics (high moisture content and low calorific value) and has an immediate
impact on the efficiency of power generation [107,108].
• Generated waste separation at source is a major challenge for developing countries [46].
The same finding was also reported for Bangladesh [104,105], and India [108]. This
is due to the absence of a well-organized waste management system. For example,
a 6 MW capacity WtE plant in Lucknow, India based on biomethanation failed due to
the absence of waste separation at the source [109].
• Effective waste collection method is another challenge for WtE generation, as no such
method exists in most cities in the developing world [105], such as in Nigeria [44].
Most cities use the conventional waste management system: ‘we dump—they collect’
is the general practice in residences, due to lack of a proper strategy and policy [103].
Insufficient collection of waste was also found to be a major challenge in India [108].
• Negative experiences from previously implemented waste management projects [49].
• Lack of suitable WtE generation technology and skilled manpower to establish and
operate a WtE generation plant [50]. One of the major challenges is that a technology
that is found to be efficient and effective for the developed world might not be suitable
for developing countries [110]. “Cleaner and efficient technologies are found to be
comparatively more expensive than dirty and cheap technologies” [103], thus, difficult
for the developing economies to be adopted.
• Insufficient financial support to implement and operate WtE generation projects.
Most city corporations or municipalities in developing countries have fewer financial
and human resources to deal with waste management, such as in India [108] and
Bangladesh [103]. In India, 5 WtE plants faced operational problems due to insufficient
financial as well as logistic support planning [109].
• Lack of coordination between different sectors of the government, that is, the ab-
sence of institutional capacity building. Research shows that institutionalized failure,
along with ineffective urban policies and regulations, are the main factors for waste
mismanagement in developing countries, such as South Africa [111] and India [108].
• Lack of private sector participation in WtE generation projects. Insufficient or no
incentives for private sector involvement [105]. It was found that coordination between
different ministries and the private sector could be beneficial [100].
• Absence of local as well as national energy policy, and rules and regulations concerning
WtE generation. For instance, to address the potential negative environmental impacts
that might arise from building and operating WtE generation plants, no regulatory
framework exists in Nigeria [44]. It was found that the lack of political will and proper
knowledge are hampering the adoption of positive changes towards effective waste
management and related policy development [111].
5.4. WtE Policy Development Steps

For sustainable waste management and energy generation, policy development needs
to focus on different levels of the waste management system. Considering its negative
environmental and public health impacts, the disposal of waste must be controlled. This
is important as ‘environmental protection is still relatively low on the public and political
agenda in many developing countries’ [112]. One such solution is recycling and energy
recovery from waste, but this requires appropriate technological solutions.
Effective waste management should include reuse and waste minimization, for which
integrated policy is essential. This must ensure two features: sustainable waste management
and renewable energy generation from the waste. Such policy should also include the
prevention of waste, such as polyethylene grocery bags, as it is a direct threat to the
environment and is difficult to manage. To implement this policy, the authority should set
targets with proper time frames. If all these steps can be implemented, a sustainable waste
management system can be assured with maximum energy recovery. All these steps are
illustrated in Figure 8.
Steps (2) and (3) in Figure 8 are crucial for waste to energy generation in developing
countries. Therefore, actions related to these steps should be the highest priority for the
country’s government to consider first, when planning for a WtE plant.
Considering all the aspects discussed, a successful WtE generation project must fol-
low a step-by-step procedure for effective implementation. These steps are illustrated in
Figure 9.
Figure 8. Waste hierarchy and waste management policy development phases towards sustainability
along with energy generation.
Figure 9. Waste to energy generation policy development steps for developing countries.
Assessment of the composition of generated wastes is the first step. Organic ma-
terials, such as kitchen wastes, predominate in developing countries. In contrast, inor-
ganic components, such as plastics and paper, form the major proportion of wastes in the
developed world.
How wastes will be collected for the WtE generation plant needs to be answered
for its smooth operation. In developing economies, organic and inorganic wastes are not
separated at source, and this needs to be ensured for any WtE plant’s use of raw materials.
It is also necessary to confirm systematic waste collection for the smooth operation of the
WtE plant and arrange waste or residue transportation.
The next step is to select the appropriate technology for the WtE generation plant,
including the calorific value of the generated wastes (for thermal plant), the quantity of
wastes required daily, and the efficiency of operation of the plant.
Financial resources, such as investment costs and operation and maintenance costs,
must be arranged in advance for proper implementation and smooth running of the
plant. Additionally, training for the staff must be arranged to develop their skills for the
establishment, operation, and maintenance of the plant.
For successful implementation of a WtE generation plant, this option must be included
in the local as well as the national energy policy. Furthermore, the government should
promote WtE generation options by providing incentives to the organization or institutions
who are interested in establishing the plants.
5.5. Policy Implications

This analysis found that most SA countries (except Pakistan) have their own laws
governing solid waste management (SWM). They also have public-private partnership
(PPP) rules and regulations related to solid waste management (SWM). Each of these
countries has its own national agency to enforce SWM laws and regulations. Although these
countries have law enforcement agencies and regulations, the waste treatment processes
are not environmentally friendly, as most practice open dumping (see Table 3).
On the other hand, out of 15 countries in the SSA region, 11 have national SWM
laws. Only four countries have law enforcement agencies for SWM. Six countries have PPP
rules in relation to SWM. None of these countries considered waste as a source of energy
until 2018.
In contrast to the Ethiopian incineration WtE plant [95], Bangladesh developed its
first AD-based waste to energy plant in Jashore, which began operating in 2019. Before
the establishment of the plant, a feasibility study was conducted to check local waste
types, suitable technologies, and other necessary parameters. The plant still faces several
challenges, such as waste separation, fees for waste collection, and local and national policy
development for its smooth operation. A recent study thoroughly investigated all the
available waste management related acts, policies, rules, and regulations of Bangladesh
and found that ‘none of these acts, regulation, or policy do not address any specific target
of achieving waste disposal, composting, energy recovery, Clean Development Projects
(CDM) projects’ [100].
Considering the analysis presented in this study, several policy implications could be
drawn for any WtE generation plant for developing countries in SSA and SA.
• Although there is the potential of WtE generation in Bangladesh, the power system
master plan [113] of Bangladesh did not consider this option extensively [7]. Other
developing countries, such as Thailand, included waste as a potential source of energy
in its national energy policy and development plan, which is estimated to be 4,390 MW
in capacity [114]. Of this capacity, 160 MW would be generated from different wastes
and the rest would be from biomass (3,630 MW) and biogas (600 MW). A national
energy policy should include a WtE generation option in the renewable generation
category to emphasize its maximum practice [115]. Thus, related rules, regulations,
and technical standards with respect to the country’s economic conditions must be
established [50]. A detailed legislative framework might be helpful for this.
• Municipalities must include waste management targets in their city plan, and these
should consider WtE generation strategies and action plans. As a part of the action
plans, municipalities should ensure local financing options for the smooth operation
of the WtE plants and possible future expansion. This will ensure a decentralized
operation of the WtE plants and underpin to avoid complete dependency on the
national government’s budget [57].
• The use of WtE technologies has positive impacts on society, economy, and environ-
ment. Despite these positive impacts, it would be impossible for most developing
countries in SSA and SA to adopt the WtE technologies within a short period because
of the capital cost needed for the establishment of the project [116]. A long-term plan
should be initiated for this purpose and the local authority, as well as the government,
should ensure funding for the WtE plant for its complete establishment and smooth
operation. Technical skills of local government need to be strengthened to implement
more similar projects in the future.
• The private investors in most of the SSA and SA countries might be hesitant to invest
in any new type of project, such as WtE, due to the non-market financial risk and
other related uncertainties. The government should take the initiative in involving
private investors in WtE generation projects [117]. Diversification of financing mech-
anisms could be an option for the success of a WtE plant establishment. Different
well-established business models might be used for this purpose, such as build-operate-
transfer or public-private partnership [50]. However, the business model adopted
must follow transparent and corruption-free operation. It was found that lack of
transparency and corruption were the two crucial reasons for the failure of a WtE
incinerator PPP project in China [49]. The government did not disclose the complete
financial and environmental reports and pollutant emission data on a regular ba-
sis to the public, and this created a transparency problem of the project. In terms
of corruption, a strict tendering process was not followed for the WtE plant; thus,
the project was implemented by non-professionals. This might be possible through
bribery or illegal forms of solicitation and a common scenario in the developing world,
including China [49].
• A feasibility study for the WtE generation plant must be conducted to identify the most
suitable technology for waste type, local needs, the environment, and sustainability.
For example, a study in Nigeria evaluated WtE generation potential in 12 cities and
found that a combination of anaerobic digestion and incineration has the highest poten-
tial to generate electricity from waste [44]. Considering waste type and sustainability
of WtE generation technologies, another study found that anaerobic digestion is most
suitable in developing economies, such as Bangladesh [19]. These two examples clarify
how WtE generation technology might vary from one country/region to another. For
a country, city, or region-specific area, a feasibility study should be conducted before
the WtE project implementation.
• Before the implementation of any new WtE plant, it is vital to assess the continuous
flow of feedstock for uninterrupted operation. This is because, for a small city with
a population of about 300,000, it is difficult to gain economic benefits from a WtE plant.
For instance, it was reported that a WtE plant in China with a capacity of less than
300 t/d is unable to receive reasonable economic benefits [50]. ‘The amount of wastes
available for energy recovery is an important factor directly affecting the energy and
environmental benefits of waste utilization’ [118]. For any developing country in SSA
or SA, it is recommended to assess the regular waste generation rate and economic
feasibility of the proposed WtE plant.
• In the local context, a holistic cost-benefit analysis needs to be conducted for any
proposed WtE plant [119].
• WtE generation planning must take into account future changes in waste composi-
tion, as the plant’s future operation will be dependent on waste feedstock, as waste
composition and distribution vary from one location to another due to demographic,
economic, and industrial factors [120]. Lu et al., (2017) found that due to the ‘particular
elemental compositions of Chinese MSW, the WtE plants in China are substandard
with respect to emissions [121]. A new waste recycling policy development might
have an impact on the waste feedstock of the plant.
• Several failures of WtE projects in developing countries were found due to the lack
of proper infrastructure, pollution control, regular maintenance, and logistical plan-
ning [109,122]. The local municipality should develop proper monitoring, mainte-
nance, and regulatory plans for the plant.
• In light of international emission standards [49,98] for WtE plants, national emission
standards need to be set before implementation [50]. One study showed that ‘an
inadequate dioxin-control strategy due to less stringent standards, along with poor
monitoring practices’ was a crucial reason for the unsuccessful WtE incinerator project
in Huizhou, China [49]. How these emissions may change in the future also need
to be considered. An emissions monitoring authority along with proper rules and
regulations must be established.
• An environmental and social impact assessment must be conducted for any new WtE
plants, as this type of plant might impose more threats to the local environment than
a typical power plant. A study in China found that most of the incinerators are substan-
dard regarding emissions and one of the reasons for this was found to be insufficient
funds for compliance with the national and international emission standards [121].
The emission standard can be assured if a proper environmental impact assessment
is conducted before the plant is implemented, considering all possible impacts. Lack
of guidelines to conduct an environmental impact assessment with respect to WtE
projects is another common scenario in the developing world [98]. A social impact
assessment of any project does not receive sufficient attention compared to economic
impacts in developing countries [123]. In India, the expansion of a WtE plant (16 MW
to 40 MW) in Delhi faced public protest as the residents were concerned about health
hazards, such as respiratory diseases due to the toxic emission [124]. Improper social
impact assessment before the implementation of the project might be responsible for
this. Governments of the countries in SSA and SA should take necessary steps to
conduct proper social as well as environmental impact assessments of any proposed
WtE plant.
• Country-specific enablers and barriers related to WtE plant establishment need to be
identified as South Africa did for their WtE industry [125]. This will underpin firm
policymaking towards sustainable WtE generation projects.
6. Conclusions
A rapid review along with an analysis was conducted, focusing on waste quality and
composition in the developing world, and opportunities and challenges were identified.
It was found that waste in developing countries is dominated by organic components.
A majority of developing countries in SSA and SA use the open dumping method for
waste management.
For most developing countries including all regions, the organic portion of waste
varies between 35% and 67% with an average of 50%. Whereas, on average, about 48.70%
and 51.16% of waste generated in developing economies of SSA and SA are organic. For
developed countries, this range was found to be 23–43% with an average of 32%. This waste
composition also underpins the decision to select a proper WtE generation technology. The
domination of organic components in the total waste of SSA and SA countries indicates that
anaerobic digestion could be a potential solution for WtE generation towards a sustainable
waste management system. The next dominating component in the waste composition
was the ‘other’ category, including wood, green waste, leather, and rubber. In developing
countries, the ‘other’ range varies between 10% and 51% with an average of 29%, whereas
this figure was 12–30% with an average of 22% for the developed world, where waste is
separated at source.
Lack of proper policy and regulations are hindering the progress of WtE technology
adoption in SSA and SA countries. Lack of financial support and insufficient technically
skilled personnel were found to be the two crucial challenges for WtE technology devel-
opment in the developing world. If these issues can be solved for these countries the
waste would become a resource rather than a risk. The findings from this study could be
helpful for the policymakers, researchers, and technical personnel in the field of electricity
generation and sustainable development to get an insight into waste management practices
and WtE generation opportunities in developing countries.
Although this rapid review along with the analysis sheds light on WtE generation
opportunities and challenges in the developing countries, the analysis did not cover all de-
veloping countries predominantly due to data limitations, and further research is indicated.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization: I.K.; methodology: I.K.; validation: I.K.; formal analysis:
I.K.; investigation: I.K.; resources: I.K. and S.C.; data curation: I.K.; writing—original draft preparation:
I.K.; writing—review and editing: I.K., S.C., and K.T.; visualization: I.K., S.C., and K.T.; project
administration and funding acquisition: K.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by Prince of Songkla University and the Ministry of Higher
Education, Science, Research and Innovation, Thailand, under the Reinventing University Project
(Grant Number REV64008).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data that supports the findings of this study are available within
the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. World Bank. What a Waste 2.0: Trends in Solid Waste Management. 2019. Available online: http://datatopics.worldbank.org/
what-a-waste/trends_in_solid_waste_management.html (accessed on 15 April 2019).
2. Fetanat, A.; Mofid, H.; Mehrannia, M.; Shafipour, G. Informing energy justice based decision-making framework for waste-to-
energy technologies selection in sustainable waste management: A case of Iran. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 228, 1377–1390. [CrossRef]
3. Dalmo, F.C.; Simão, N.M.; De Lima, H.Q.; Jimenez, A.C.M.; Nebra, S.; Martins, G.; Palacios-Bereche, R.; De Santana, P.H.M.
Energy recovery overview of municipal solid waste in São Paulo State, Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 212, 461–474. [CrossRef]
4. Yi, S.; Jang, Y.C.; An, A.K. Potential for energy recovery and greenhouse gas reduction through waste-to-energy technologies.
J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 176, 503–511. [CrossRef]
5. Rehan, M.; Nizami, A.-S.; Asam, Z.-U.-Z.; Ouda, O.K.; Gardy, J.; Raza, G.; Naqvi, M.; Ismail, I.M. Waste to Energy: A Case Study
of Madinah City. Energy Procedia 2017, 142, 688–693. [CrossRef]
6. Jeswani, H.K.; Azapagic, A. Assessing the environmental sustainability of energy recovery from municipal solid waste in the UK.
Waste Manag. 2016, 50, 346–363. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Khan, I. Power generation expansion plan and sustainability in a developing country: A multi-criteria decision analysis. J. Clean.
Prod. 2019, 220, 707–720. [CrossRef]
8. Dong, J.; Tang, Y.; Nzihou, A.; Chi, Y.; Weiss-Hortala, E.; Ni, M. Life cycle assessment of pyrolysis, gasification and incineration
waste-to-energy technologies: Theoretical analysis and case study of commercial plants. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 626, 744–753.
[CrossRef]
9. Dong, J.; Tang, Y.; Nzihou, A.; Chi, Y.; Weiss-Hortala, E.; Ni, M.; Zhou, Z. Comparison of waste-to-energy technologies of
gasification and incineration using life cycle assessment: Case studies in Finland, France and China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,
203, 287–300. [CrossRef]
10. IQAir. 2019 World Air Quality Report. 2019. Available online: https://www.iqair.com/world-most-polluted-cities/world-air-
quality-report-2019-en.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2020).
11. Danish, M.S.S.; Senjyu, T.; Zaheb, H.; Sabory, N.R.; Ibrahimi, A.M.; Matayoshi, H. A novel transdisciplinary paradigm for
municipal solid waste to energy. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 233, 880–892. [CrossRef]
12. Kumar, A.; Yang, T.; Sharma, M.P. Greenhouse gas measurement from Chinese freshwater bodies: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019,
233, 368–378. [CrossRef]
13. Khan, I. Importance of GHG emissions assessment in the electricity grid expansion towards a low-carbon future: A time-varying
carbon intensity approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 196, 1587–1599. [CrossRef]
14. Khan, I. Temporal carbon intensity analysis: Renewable versus fossil fuel dominated electricity systems. Energy Sources Part A
Recover. Util. Environ. Eff. 2019, 41, 309–323. [CrossRef]
15. Khan, I.; Jack, M.W.; Stephenson, J. Analysis of greenhouse gas emissions in electricity systems using time-varying carbon
intensity. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 184, 1091–1101. [CrossRef]
16. Tsai, W.T. Analysis of the sustainability of reusing industrial wastes as energy source in the industrial sector of Taiwan. J. Clean.
Prod. 2010, 18, 1440–1445. [CrossRef]
17. Wang, Y.; Yan, Y.; Chen, G.; Zuo, J.; Yan, B.; Yin, P. Effectiveness of waste-to-energy approaches in China: From the perspective of
greenhouse gas emission reduction. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 163, 99–105. [CrossRef]
18. Chen, Y.C. Evaluating greenhouse gas emissions and energy recovery from municipal and industrial solid waste using waste-to-
energy technology. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 192, 262–269. [CrossRef]
19. Khan, I.; Kabir, Z. Waste-to-energy generation technologies and the developing economies: A multi-criteria analysis for sustain-
ability assessment. Renew. Energy 2020, 150, 320–333. [CrossRef]
20. State of Victoria. Turning Waste into Energy. 2017. Available online: https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/hdp.au.prod.
app.vic-engage.files/9415/0897/9363/Turning_waste_into_energy_-_Final.pdf (accessed on 26 April 2020).
21. WEC. World Energy Resources Waste to Energy | 2016. 2016. Available online: https://www.worldenergy.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/03/WEResources_Waste_to_Energy_2016.pdf (accessed on 11 May 2020).
22. Nordhausen, T.; Hirt, J. Rapid reviews: A critical perspective. Z. Evid. Fortbild. Qual. Gesundh. Wes. 2020, 158–159, 22–27.
[CrossRef]
23. Grant, M.J.; Booth, A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info. Libr. J.
2009, 26, 91–108. [CrossRef]
24. Sharma, G.D.; Tiwari, A.K.; Jain, M.; Yadav, A.; Srivastava, M. COVID-19 and environmental concerns: A rapid review. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 148, 111239. [CrossRef]
25. Meis-Harris, J.; Klemm, C.; Kaufman, S.; Curtis, J.; Borg, K.; Bragge, P. What is the role of eco-labels for a circular economy?
A rapid review of the literature. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 306, 127134. [CrossRef]
26. Haby, M.M.; Chapman, E.; Clark, R.; Barreto, J.; Reveiz, L.; Lavis, J.N. What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the
research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: A rapid review. Health Res. Policy Syst.
2016, 14, 83. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Dobbins, M. Rapid Review Guidebook: Steps for Conducting a Rapid Review. 2017. Available online: https://www.nccmt.ca/
uploads/media/media/0001/01/a816af720e4d587e13da6bb307df8c907a5dff9a.pdf (accessed on 25 February 2022).
28. Tricco, A.C.; Antony, J.; Zarin, W.; Strifler, L.; Ghassemi, M.; Ivory, J.; Perrier, L.; Hutton, B.; Moher, D.; Straus, S.E. A scoping
review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015, 13, 16. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Hamel, C.; Michaud, A.; Thuku, M.; Affengruber, L.; Skidmore, B.; Nussbaumer-Streit, B.; Stevens, A.; Garritty, C. Few evaluative
studies exist examining rapid review methodology across stages of conduct: A systematic scoping review. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2020,
126, 131–140. [CrossRef]
30. Arevalo-Rodriguez, I.; Moreno-Nunez, P.; Nussbaumer-Streit, B.; Steingart, K.R.; Peña, L.D.M.G.; Buitrago-Garcia, D.;
Kaunelis, D.; Emparanza, J.I.; Alonso-Coello, P.; Tricco, A.C.; et al. Rapid reviews of medical tests used many similar methods to
systematic reviews but key items were rarely reported: A scoping review. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2019, 116, 98–105. [CrossRef]
31. Marshall, I.J.; Marshall, R.; Wallace, B.C.; Brassey, J.; Thomas, J. Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews:
A meta-epidemiological study. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2019, 109, 30–41. [CrossRef]
32. Tricco, A.C.; Zarin, W.; Antony, J.; Hutton, B.; Moher, D.; Sherifali, D.; Straus, S.E. An international survey and modified Delphi
approach revealed numerous rapid review methods. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2016, 70, 61–67. [CrossRef]
33. World Bank. What a Waste Global Database. 2018. Available online: https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/what-waste-
global-database (accessed on 15 April 2019).
34. Johnston, M.P. Secondary Data Analysis: A Method of which the Time Has Come. Qual. Quant. Methods Libr. 2014, 3, 619–626.
Available online: http://www.qqml-journal.net/index.php/qqml/article/view/169 (accessed on 22 May 2021).
35. Kaza, S.; Yao, L.; Bhada-Tata, P.; van Woerden, F. What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050; World
Bank Publications: Washington, WA, USA, 2018.
36. SREDA. Feasibility Study on Waste to Energy Conversion in Six Municipalities in Bangladesh; UNDP: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2018;
Available online: http://www.bd.undp.org/content/bangladesh/en/home/library/environment_energy/waste-to-energy.html
(accessed on 25 June 2019).
37. Zaman, T. Jessore a Role Model for Waste Recycling; Dhaka Tribune: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2019.
38. Mohee, R.; Mauthoor, S.; Bundhoo, Z.M.A.; Somaroo, G.; Soobhany, N.; Gunasee, S. Current status of solid waste management in
small island developing states: A review. Waste Manag. 2015, 43, 539–549. [CrossRef]
39. Joseph, L.P.; Prasad, R. Assessing the sustainable municipal solid waste (MSW) to electricity generation potentials in selected
Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS). J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 248, 119222. [CrossRef]
40. Khan, I. Waste to biogas through anaerobic digestion: Hydrogen production potential in the developing world—A case of
Bangladesh. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2020, 45, 15951–15962. [CrossRef]
41. Yap, H.Y.; Nixon, J.D. A multi-criteria analysis of options for energy recovery from municipal solid waste in India and the UK.
Waste Manag. 2015, 46, 265–277. [CrossRef]
42. Marshall, R.E.; Farahbakhsh, K. Systems approaches to integrated solid waste management in developing countries. Waste Manag.
2013, 33, 988–1003. [CrossRef]
43. Afolabi, O.O.D.; Leonard, S.A.; Osei, E.N.; Blay, K.B. Country-level assessment of agrifood waste and enabling environment for
sustainable utilisation for bioenergy in Nigeria. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 294, 112929. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Ayodele, T.R.; Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O.; Alao, M.A. Life cycle assessment of waste-to-energy (WtE) technologies for electricity
generation using municipal solid waste in Nigeria. Appl. Energy 2017, 201, 200–218. [CrossRef]
45. Yana, S.; Nizar, M.; Irhamni; Mulyati, D. Biomass waste as a renewable energy in developing bio-based economies in Indonesia:
A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 160, 112268. [CrossRef]
46. Nixon, J.D.; Dey, P.K.; Ghosh, S.K. Energy recovery from waste in India: An evidence-based analysis. Sustain. Energy Technol.
Assessments 2017, 21, 23–32. [CrossRef]
47. Srisaeng, N.; Tippayawong, N.; Tippayawong, K.Y. Energetic and Economic Feasibility of RDF to Energy Plant for a Local Thai
Municipality. Energy Procedia 2017, 110, 115–120. [CrossRef]
48. Kumar, S.; Sarsaiya, S.; Kumar, V.; Chaturvedi, P. Processing of municipal solid waste resources for a circular economy in China:
An overview. Fuel 2022, 317, 123478. [CrossRef]
49. Wan, Z.; Chen, J.; Craig, B. Lessons learned from Huizhou, China’s unsuccessful waste-to-energy incinerator project: Assessment
and policy recommendations. Util. Policy 2015, 33, 63–68. [CrossRef]
50. Yan, M.; Agamuthu, P.; Waluyo, J. Challenges for Sustainable Development of Waste to Energy in Developing Countries.
Waste Manag. Res. 2020, 38, 229–231. [CrossRef]
51. Goli, V.S.N.S.; Singh, D.N.; Baser, T. A critical review on thermal treatment technologies of combustible fractions from mechanical
biological treatment plants. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 105643. [CrossRef]
52. Abdallah, M.; Shanableh, A.; Arab, M.; Shabib, A.; Adghim, M.; El-Sherbiny, R. Waste to energy potential in middle income
countries of MENA region based on multi-scenario analysis for Kafr El-Sheikh Governorate, Egypt. J. Environ. Manag. 2019,
232, 58–65. [CrossRef]
53. Zhou, Z.; Zhang, L. Sustainable waste management and waste to energy: Valuation of energy potential of MSW in the Greater
Bay Area of China. Energy Policy 2022, 163, 112857. [CrossRef]
54. Siddiqi, A.; Haraguchi, M.; Narayanamurti, V. Urban waste to energy recovery assessment simulations for developing countries.
World Dev. 2020, 131, 104949. [CrossRef]
55. Mabalane, P.N.; Oboirien, B.O.; Sadiku, E.R.; Masukume, M. A Techno-economic Analysis of Anaerobic Digestion and Gasification
Hybrid System: Energy Recovery from Municipal Solid Waste in South Africa. Waste Biomass Valorization 2021, 12, 1167–1184.
[CrossRef]
56. De Carvalho, J.P.A.; Ribeiro, N.P.; Franco, C.D.; Catapan, A.; Borsato, M. A product-service-system proposal for municipalities
in developing countries with tight budget to convert the organic waste in energy to eliminate dumps. Waste Manag. 2020,
106, 99–109. [CrossRef]
57. Agaton, C.B.; Guno, C.S.; Villanueva, R.O.; Villanueva, R.O. Economic analysis of waste-to-energy investment in the Philippines:
A real options approach. Appl. Energy 2020, 275, 115265. [CrossRef]
58. Azevedo, B.D.; Scavarda, L.F.; Caiado, R.G.G.; Fuss, M. Improving urban household solid waste management in developing
countries based on the German experience. Waste Manag. 2021, 120, 772–783. [CrossRef]
59. Aleluia, J.; Ferrão, P. Characterization of urban waste management practices in developing Asian countries: A new analytical
framework based on waste characteristics and urban dimension. Waste Manag. 2016, 58, 415–429. [CrossRef]
60. Shimbar, A.; Ebrahimi, S.B. The application of DNPV to unlock foreign direct investment in waste-to-energy in developing
countries. Energy 2017, 132, 186–193. [CrossRef]
61. Patel, A.; Shah, A.R. Integrated lignocellulosic biorefinery: Gateway for production of second generation ethanol and value
added products. J. Bioresour. Bioprod. 2021, 6, 108–128. [CrossRef]
62. Rather, M.A.; Khan, N.S.; Gupta, R. Hydrothermal carbonization of macrophyte Potamogeton lucens for solid biofuel production:
Production of solid biofuel from macrophyte Potamogeton lucens. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2017, 20, 168–174. [CrossRef]
63. Sukiran, M.A.; Abnisa, F.; Daud, W.M.A.W.; Bakar, N.A.; Loh, S.K. A review of torrefaction of oil palm solid wastes for biofuel
production. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 149, 101–120. [CrossRef]
64. Wang, T.; Zhai, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Gan, X.; Zheng, L.; Peng, C.; Wang, B.; Li, C.; Zeng, G. Evaluation of the clean characteristics
and combustion behavior of hydrochar derived from food waste towards solid biofuel production. Bioresour. Technol. 2018,
266, 275–283. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65. Chen, X.; Ma, X.; Peng, X.; Lin, Y.; Yao, Z. Conversion of sweet potato waste to solid fuel via hydrothermal carbonization. Bioresour.
Technol. 2018, 249, 900–907. [CrossRef]
66. Lubwama, M.; Yiga, V.A. Characteristics of briquettes developed from rice and coffee husks for domestic cooking applications in
Uganda. Renew. Energy 2018, 118, 43–55. [CrossRef]
67. Sawadogo, M.; Tanoh, S.T.; Sidibé, S.; Kpai, N.; Tankoano, I. Cleaner production in Burkina Faso: Case study of fuel briquettes
made from cashew industry waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 195, 1047–1056. [CrossRef]
68. Swaraz, A.M.; Satter, M.A.; Rahman, M.M.; Asad, M.A.; Khan, I.; Amin, M.Z. Bioethanol production potential in Bangladesh
from wild date palm (Phoenix sylvestris Roxb.): An experimental proof. Ind. Crops Prod. 2019, 139, 111507. [CrossRef]
69. Kongprasert, N.; Wangphanich, P.; Jutilarptavorn, A. Charcoal briquettes from Madan wood waste as an alternative energy in
Thailand. Procedia Manuf. 2019, 30, 128–135. [CrossRef]
70. Islam, M.A.; Akber, M.A.; Limon, S.H.; Akbor, M.A.; Islam, M.A. Characterization of solid biofuel produced from banana stalk
via hydrothermal carbonization. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2019, 9, 651–658. [CrossRef]
71. Kang, K.; Nanda, S.; Sun, G.; Qiu, L.; Gu, Y.; Zhang, T.; Zhu, M.; Sun, R. Microwave-assisted hydrothermal carbonization of
corn stalk for solid biofuel production: Optimization of process parameters and characterization of hydrochar. Energy 2019,
186, 115795. [CrossRef]
72. Martinez, C.L.M.; Sermyagina, E.; Carneiro, A.D.O.; Vakkilainen, E.; Cardoso, M. Production and characterization of coffee-pine
wood residue briquettes as an alternative fuel for local firing systems in Brazil. Biomass Bioenergy 2019, 123, 70–77. [CrossRef]
73. Marrugo, G.; Valdés, C.F.; Gómez, C.; Chejne, F. Pelletizing of Colombian agro-industrial biomasses with crude glycerol.
Renew. Energy 2019, 134, 558–568. [CrossRef]
74. Ifa, L.; Yani, S.; Nurjannah, N.; Darnengsih, D.; Rusnaenah, A.; Mel, M.; Mahfud, M.; Kusuma, H.S. Techno-economic analysis of
bio-briquette from cashew nut shell waste. Heliyon 2020, 6, e05009. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
75. Atay, O.A.; Ekinci, K. Characterization of pellets made from rose oil processing solid wastes/coal powder/pine bark.
Renew. Energy 2020, 149, 933–939. [CrossRef]
76. Nuagah, M.B.; Boakye, P.; Oduro-Kwarteng, S.; Sokama-Neuyam, Y.A. Valorization of faecal and sewage sludge via pyrolysis for
application as crop organic fertilizer. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2020, 151, 104903. [CrossRef]
77. Magnago, R.F.; Costa, S.C.; Ezirio, M.J.D.A.; Saciloto, V.D.G.; Parma, G.O.C.; Gasparotto, E.S.; Gonçalves, A.C.; Tutida, A.Y.;
Barcelos, R.L. Briquettes of citrus peel and rice husk. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 123820. [CrossRef]
78. Sharma, H.B.; Sarmah, A.K.; Dubey, B. Hydrothermal carbonization of renewable waste biomass for solid biofuel production:
A discussion on process mechanism, the influence of process parameters, environmental performance and fuel properties of
hydrochar. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 123, 109761. [CrossRef]
79. Mahari, W.A.W.; Nam, W.L.; Sonne, C.; Peng, W.; Phang, X.Y.; Liew, R.K.; Yek, P.N.Y.; Lee, X.Y.; Wen, O.W.; Show, P.L.; et al.
Applying microwave vacuum pyrolysis to design moisture retention and pH neutralizing palm kernel shell biochar for mushroom
production. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 312, 123572. [CrossRef]
80. Wang, L.; Chang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Yang, F.; Li, Y.; Yang, X.; Dong, S. Hydrothermal co-carbonization of sewage sludge and high
concentration phenolic wastewater for production of solid biofuel with increased calorific value. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 255, 120317.
[CrossRef]
81. Sharma, H.B.; Dubey, B.K. Co-hydrothermal carbonization of food waste with yard waste for solid biofuel production: Hydrochar
characterization and its pelletization. Waste Manag. 2020, 118, 521–533. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
82. Valdés, C.F.; Marrugo, G.P.; Chejne, F.; Marin-Jaramillo, A.; Franco-Ocampo, J.; Norena-Marin, L. Co-gasification and co-
combustion of industrial solid waste mixtures and their implications on environmental emissions, as an alternative management.
Waste Manag. 2020, 101, 54–65. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
83. Nudri, N.A.; Bachmann, R.T.; Ghani, W.A.W.A.K.; Sum, D.N.K.; Azni, A.A. Characterization of oil palm trunk biocoal and its
suitability for solid fuel applications. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2020, 10, 45–55. [CrossRef]
84. Santana, M.S.; Alves, R.P.; Borges, W.M.d.; Francisquini, E.; Guerreiro, M.C. Hydrochar production from defective coffee beans by
hydrothermal carbonization. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 300, 122653. [CrossRef]
85. Sharma, H.B.; Panigrahi, S.; Sarmah, A.K.; Dubey, B.K. Downstream augmentation of hydrothermal carbonization with anaerobic
digestion for integrated biogas and hydrochar production from the organic fraction of municipal solid waste: A circular economy
concept. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 706, 135907. [CrossRef]
86. Venna, S.; Sharma, H.B.; Reddy, P.H.P.; Chowdhury, S.; Dubey, B.K. Landfill leachate as an alternative moisture source for
hydrothermal carbonization of municipal solid wastes to solid biofuels. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 320, 124410. [CrossRef]
87. Afra, E.; Abyaz, A.; Saraeyan, A. The production of bagasse biofuel briquettes and the evaluation of natural binders (LNFC, NFC,
and lignin) effects on their technical parameters. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123543. [CrossRef]
88. Angulo-Mosquera, L.S.; Alvarado-Alvarado, A.A.; Rivas-Arrieta, M.J.; Cattaneo, C.R.; Rene, E.R.; García-Depraect, O. Production
of solid biofuels from organic waste in developing countries: A review from sustainability and economic feasibility perspectives.
Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 795, 148816. [CrossRef]
89. Lee, X.J.; Ong, H.C.; Gao, W.; Ok, Y.S.; Chen, W.-H.; Goh, B.H.H.; Chong, C.T. Solid biofuel production from spent coffee ground
wastes: Process optimisation, characterisation and kinetic studies. Fuel 2021, 292, 120309. [CrossRef]
90. Aboelfetoh, M.; Hassanein, A.; Ragab, M.; El-Kassas, M.; Marzouk, E.R. Olive Mill Waste-Based Anaerobic Digestion as a Source
of Local Renewable Energy and Nutrients. Sustain. 2022, 14, 1402. [CrossRef]
91. Makarichi, L.; Kan, R.; Jutidamrongphan, W.; Techato, K.A. Suitability of municipal solid waste in African cities for thermo-
chemical waste-to-energy conversion: The case of Harare Metropolitan City, Zimbabwe. Waste Manag. Res. 2019, 37, 83–94.
[CrossRef]
92. Khan, A.H.; López-Maldonado, E.A.; Khan, N.A.; Villarreal-Gómez, L.J.; Munshi, F.M.; Alsabhan, A.H.; Perveen, K. Current solid
waste management strategies and energy recovery in developing countries—State of art review. Chemosphere 2022, 291, 133088.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
93. Hemidat, S.; Achouri, O.; El Fels, L.; Elagroudy, S.; Hafidi, M.; Chaouki, B.; Ahmed, M.; Hodgkinson, I.; Guo, J. Solid Waste
Management in the Context of a Circular Economy in the MENA Region. Sustain. 2022, 14, 480. [CrossRef]
94. Oelz, B. Waste to Energy options in developing countries: The GIZ perspective. In Proceedings of the Experts Meeting ADB-GIZ,
Frankfurt, Germany, 28 September 2016; pp. 1–28. Available online: https://events.development.asia/system/files/materials/20
16/09/201609-waste-energy-options-developing-countries-giz-perspective.pdf (accessed on 5 August 2019).
95. Abdur, R.A.S. Ethiopia Opens Africa’s First Waste-To-Energy Facility; Africanews: Lyon, France, 2018.
96. GAIA. Waste-To-Energy Has No Place in Africa; Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2018. Available
online: https://www.no-burn.org/wp-content/uploads/Ethiopia_factsheet_layout_SEP-7-2018.pdf (accessed on 23 April 2020).
97. IEA Bioenergy. Waste to Energy Summary and Conclusions from the IEA Bioenergy ExCo71 Workshop; IEA Bioenergy: Cape Town,
South Africa, 2013. Available online: https://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ExCo71-Waste-to-Energy-
Summary-and-Conclusions-28.03.14.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2022).
98. Kabir, Z.; Khan, I. Environmental impact assessment of waste to energy projects in developing countries: General guidelines in
the context of Bangladesh. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2020, 37, 100619. [CrossRef]
99. BBS. Population & Housing Census 2011—Zila Report: Jessore, No. October; Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2015.
100. Shams, S.; Sahu, J.N.; Rahman, S.M.S.; Ahsan, A. Sustainable waste management policy in Bangladesh for reduction of greenhouse
gases. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 33, 18–26. [CrossRef]
101. Azapagic, A.; Perdan, S. Sustainable Development in Practice: Case Studies for Engineers and Scientists, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011.
102. Waste Concern. Operation of Integrated Landfill and Resource Recovery Center (IL&RRC) Starts in Jessore, Bangladesh; Waste Concern:
Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2019. Available online: http://wasteconcern.org/operation-of-integrated-landfill-and-resource-recovery-
center-ilrrc-starts-in-jessore-bangladesh/ (accessed on 21 April 2020).
103. DoE. National 3R Strategy For Waste Management; Ministry of Environment and Forests: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2010.
Available online: http://www.doe.gov.bd/site/publications/322bf6c9-e23e-401f-864a-73efb078cd29/National-3R-Strategy-
for-Waste-Management (accessed on 24 April 2020.).
104. Government of Bangladesh. Progress and Achievements towards Implementation of the Ha Noi 3R Declaration—Sustainable 3R
Goals for Asia and the Pacific (2013–2023): Country report—Bangladesh. In Proceedings of the Ninth Regional 3R Forum in Asia
and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand, 4–6 March 2019; p. 55. Available online: https://www.ccacoalition.org/en/event/ninth-
regional-3r-forum-asia-and-pacific (accessed on 17 April 2020).
105. Abu, H.M.M.S. Implications of 3R Policies and Programmes Toward Resilience of Dhaka City. In Proceedings of the 7th Regional
3R Forum in Asia-Pacific, Adelaide, Australia, 2–4 November 2016; p. 31. Available online: https://www.uncrd.or.jp/content/
documents/4288Presentation-Sinha-PS-7.pdf (accessed on 25 April 2020).
106. Ikhlayel, M. Development of management systems for sustainable municipal solid waste in developing countries: A systematic
life cycle thinking approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 180, 571–586. [CrossRef]
107. Koundal, A. Waste-to-Energy: Why a Rs 10,000 Crore Industry Is Facing Issues; ET Energy World: Delhi, India, 2019.
108. Sayigh, A. Renewable Energy in the Service of Mankind Vol I; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2015; Volume 1.
109. Kalyani, K.A.; Pandey, K.K. Waste to energy status in India: A short review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 31, 113–120.
[CrossRef]
110. UNDP. Project Design Document (PDD) for a Waste to Energy (WTE) NAMA in The Republic of Moldova. 2016. Available online:
http://www.undp.org/content/dam/LECB/docs/pubs-namas/NAMA_PDD_WTE_Moldova_en.pdf (accessed on 10 September 2020).
111. Kubanza, N.S.; Simatele, M.D. Sustainable solid waste management in developing countries: A study of institutional strengthening
for solid waste management in Johannesburg, South Africa. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2020, 63, 2. [CrossRef]
112. Wilson, D.C. Development drivers for waste management. Waste Manag. Res. 2007, 25, 3. [CrossRef]
113. PSMP. Power System Master Plan—2016. Dhaka. 2016. Available online: http://powerdivision.portal.gov.bd/sites/default/
files/files/powerdivision.portal.gov.bd/page/4f81bf4d_1180_4c53_b27c_8fa0eb11e2c1/%28E%29_FR_PSMP2016_Summary_
revised.pdf (accessed on 21 February 2020).
114. Boonpa, S.; Sharp, A. Waste-to-energy policy in Thailand. Energy Sources Part B Econ. Plan. Policy 2017, 12, 5. [CrossRef]
115. McCauley, D. Sustainable Development in Energy Policy: A Governance Assessment of Environmental Stakeholder Inclusion in
Waste-to-Energy. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 23, 273–284. [CrossRef]
116. Tan, S.T.; Ho, W.S.; Hashim, H.; Lee, C.T.; Taib, M.R.; Ho, C.S. Energy, economic and environmental (3E) analysis of waste-to-
energy (WTE) strategies for municipal solid waste (MSW) management in Malaysia. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 102, 111–120.
[CrossRef]
117. Mutz, D.; Hengevoss, D.; Hugi, C.; Gross, T. Waste-to-Energy Options in Municipal Solid Waste Management-A Guide for Decision
Makers in Developing and Emerging Countries; GIZ: Bonn, Germany, 2017. [CrossRef]
118. Wang, H.; Wang, X.; Song, J.; Wang, S.; Liu, X. Uncovering regional energy and environmental benefits of urban waste utilization:
A physical input-output analysis for a city case. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 189, 922–932. [CrossRef]
119. Haraguchi, M.; Siddiqi, A.; Narayanamurti, V. Stochastic cost-benefit analysis of urban waste-to-energy systems. J. Clean. Prod.
2019, 224, 751–765. [CrossRef]
120. Wafi, T.; Othman, A.B.; Besbes, M. Qualitative and quantitative characterization of municipal solid waste and the unexploited
potential of green energy in Tunisia. Bioresour. Bioprocess. 2019, 6, 39. [CrossRef]
121. Lu, J.W.; Zhang, S.; Hai, J.; Lei, M. Status and perspectives of municipal solid waste incineration in China: A comparison with
developed regions. Waste Manag. 2017, 69, 170–186. [CrossRef]
122. Kumar, A.; Samadder, S.R. A review on technological options of waste to energy for effective management of municipal solid
waste. Waste Manag. 2017, 69, 407–422. [CrossRef]
123. Khan, I. Critiquing social impact assessments: Ornamentation or reality in the Bangladeshi electricity infrastructure sector?
Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 60, 101339. [CrossRef]
124. The Hindu. Protest March against “Hazardous” Okhla Plant; The Hindu: Delhi, India, 2019.
125. Amsterdam, H.; Thopil, G.A. Enablers towards establishing and growing South Africa’s waste to electricity industry. Waste
Manag. 2017, 68, 774–785. [CrossRef]

Waste To Energy in Developing Countries-A Rapid Review Opportunities, Challenges, and Policies in Selected Countries of Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia Towards Sustainability (2022)

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Waste To Energy in Developing Countries-A Rapid Review Opportunities, Challenges, and Policies in Selected Countries of Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia Towards Sustainability (2022)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral 1. Introduction

Sustainability 2022, 14, 3740. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073740 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Table 1. Different WtE generation technologies (Data Source: [9,20,21]).

Conversion Process Technologies Process Feedstock Residues Outputs

between an acid and

2. Materials and Methods

• An emerging research topic

Figure 1. Characteristics of rapid review method (Sources: [22,23,26–32]).

Figure 3. Searching method used for this study.

4. Analysis and Results

Landfill Unspecified (%)

5. Discussion and Policy Implications

5.1. Waste to Energy Generation: The Case of Jashore, Bangladesh

Similar to other developing countries, the dominant portion of waste generated

Year Policies/Acts Comments

5.2. WtE Generation and Sustainability

Sustainability Dimensions Positive Impacts Negative Impacts Dominant Impact Type

5.3. WtE Generation Challenges

5.4. WtE Policy Development Steps

5.5. Policy Implications

You might also like