research paper on solid waste management

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

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

Ismaila rimi abubakar.

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

Khandoker M. Maniruzzaman

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

Umar Lawal Dano

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

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

Tareq I. Alrawaf

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

Associated Data

No data were reported in this review article.

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

1. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Materials and Methods

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

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

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

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

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. solid waste management practices in the global south.

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

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

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

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

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

• (a)  Weak and Inadequate SWM System

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

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

• (b)  Irregular Waste Collection and Handling

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

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

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

• (c)  Landfilling and Open Dumping

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

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

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

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

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

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

• (d)  Open Burning and Incineration

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

• (e)  Composting

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

4. Implications and Recommendations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Conclusions

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

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

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

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

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

Funding Statement

This research received no external funding.

Author Contributions

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

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

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

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

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 05 January 2022

Household solid waste management practices and perceptions among residents in the East Coast of Malaysia

• Widad Fadhullah   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4652-0661 1 , 2 ,
• Nor Iffah Najwa Imran 1 ,
• Sharifah Norkhadijah Syed Ismail 3 ,
• Mohd Hafiidz Jaafar 2 &
• Hasmah Abdullah 1 , 4  

BMC Public Health volume  22 , Article number:  1 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

193k Accesses

114 Citations

10 Altmetric

Metrics details

Poor waste disposal practices hamper the progress towards an integrated solid waste management in households. Knowledge of current practices and perception of household solid waste management is necessary for accurate decision making in the move towards a more sustainable approach. This study investigates the household waste practices and perceptions about waste management in Panji, one of the sub-districts in Kota Bharu, Kelantan, Malaysia.

A stratified random sampling technique using a cross-sectional survey questionnaire was used to collect data. A total of 338 households were interviewed in the survey and data were analyzed using SPSS. Chi-square goodness of fit test was used to determine the relationships between categorical variables, whereas Chi-square bivariate correlation test was performed to observe the correlation between the perceptions of waste segregation with socio-demographic background of the respondents. The correlation between perception of respondents with the locality, house type and waste type were also conducted. Principal component analysis was used to identify grouping of variables and to establish which factors were interrelated in any given construct.

The results of the study revealed that 74.3 % of households disposed of food debris as waste and 18.3% disposed of plastic materials as waste. The study also showed that 50.3% of the households segregate their waste while 49.7% did not. About 95.9% of the respondents were aware that improper waste management leads to disease; such as diarrhea and malaria. There were associations between locality, age and house type with waste segregation practices among respondents (Chi-square test, p<0.05). Associations were also found between locality with the perception of improper waste management which lead to disease (Chi-square test, p<0.05). Principal Component Analysis showed that 17.94% of the variance has high positive loading (positive relationship) with age, marital status and, type of house.

This study highlights the importance to design waste separation programs that suit the needs of targeted population as a boost towards sustainable solid waste management practices.

Peer Review reports

Solid waste management (SWM) in the majority of developing countries including Malaysia is dominated by open dumping due to lower capital, operational and maintenance cost in comparison with another disposal method [ 47 ]. This non-sanitary and non-engineered approach are without appropriate liners, gas collection and leachate collection and treatment, thereby exposing the surrounding environment with multiple air, water and soil pollution issues [ 15 , 23 ]. The effects of the ineffective management of household solid waste on public health (Fig. 1 ) can be separated into physical, biological, non-communicable diseases, psychosocial and ergonomics health risks [ 6 , 51 , 77 ]. Contaminated soil, air and water provide breeding ground to biological vectors such as flies, rodents and insects pests. Many diseases are sequentially caused by these biological vectors, such as diarrhoea, dysentery, gastrointestinal problems, worm infection, food poisoning, dengue fever, cholera, leptospirosis and bacterial infection; irritation of the skin, nose and eyes; as well as respiratory symptoms [ 25 , 41 , 42 , 52 ]. Exposure to gases generated by landfill waste such as methane, carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide can produce inflammation and bronchoconstriction and can affect the immune cell. Hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride released from the waste if deposited in the respiratory system, may cause cough, chest tightness and breathlessness [ 21 ].

Effect of ineffective household solid waste management on public health

Another category of health effects that can be closely related to household solid waste management is non-communicable diseases. Some studies estimated that the pollutions from the dumpsite might cause cancers (e.g. liver, pancreas, kidney, larynx) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma [ 8 , 31 , 51 ]. Other health effects under this category worth mentioning are birth defects, preterm babies, congenital disorders and Down’s syndrome [ 51 , 52 ]. Apart from physical and biological effects, inefficient household waste management can lead to psychosocial effects such as disturbing odour, unsightly waste, and thinking, cognitive and stress-related problems [ 6 , 51 , 52 , 74 , 77 ]. Ergonomics is the final category of related health effects that is worth mentioning specifically for the working community of household waste management (Fig. 1 ). The risk of ergonomic issues is related to body posture, repetitive movement and excessive force movement [ 6 ].

Majority of the solid waste generated in Malaysia composed of organic waste with high moisture content [ 43 ], hence, the handling and waste separation at source is the most critical step in waste management [ 62 ]. The increasing amount of waste generated annually is also intensified by lack of land for disposing waste, questioning the sustainability of the current municipal solid waste (MSW) practices of using landfills [ 46 ]. Nevertheless, the lack of success in public participation to manage the solid waste is primarily rooted by the NIMBY (not in my backyard) attitude and the public perception that solid waste is a local municipal problem is highly prevalent among Malaysians [ 3 ]. Thus, most of the existing waste segregation practices by waste-pickers are mostly done in the informal sector as means of livelihood for the poor and additional source of income. On the other hand, this practice causes serious health problems, aggravating the socio-economic situation [ 10 ].

In Kelantan, the common practice of waste disposal in rural and remote areas is by burying and burning of waste (Kamaruddin et al. 2016) while in urban or semi-urban areas, stationary waste storage containers are provided mainly at the sides of the main road. Kota Bharu Municipal Council (KBMC) is the local authority responsible in providing stationary waste storage container at collection site of waste within Kota Bharu district, collecting the solid waste approximately 3 times a week by compactor vehicles and transporting waste to the dumpsite located in Beris Lalang, Bachok [ 27 ]. However, the flaws of SWM in Kelantan lies primarily in inadequate bin and waste collection provided by local authorities, KBMC mainly constrained by financial issues (Rahim et al 2012). House to house waste collection is also hard to be implemented owing to narrow lanes and alleys which are mostly inaccessible [ 61 ] due to the development practice and geographical area in the state. Therefore, the locals’ resort to burying and burning their wastes within their house compound which has always been the practice since decades ago.

Household waste is one of the primary sources of MSW comprising of food wastes, paper, plastic, rags, metal and glasses from residential areas. Household waste is among the solid wastes managed by KBMC in Kota Bharu covering 15 sub-districts including Panji. Panji has the highest population compared to the other sub-district; therefore, assessment of household SWM among the residents is important to address their awareness and practices for planning an effective form of SWM. Some of the key factors influencing the effectiveness of SWM is by considering the size of the family, their income [ 67 ], level of education [ 19 ] and the location of household [ 1 ]. This factor is also supported by Shigeru [ 66 ] that the characteristics of households determine their recycling behavior and that sociodemographic conditions vary across municipalities. Socio-economic status and housing characteristics also affect the amount of municipal waste and how they manage it [ 20 ]. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the characteristics and needs of various households in designing a suitable waste management program.

Efficient SWM system is now a global concern which requires a sustainable SWM primarily in the developing countries. This study is another effort in gearing towards sustainable waste management practices in Malaysia which is also in line with the United Nation Sustainable Development Goals encompassing SDG3 Good Health and Wellbeing and SDG 12 Responsible Consumption and Production. So far, limited studies were reported in the East Coast of Malaysia, particularly in Kelantan on waste management practices at the household level [ 61 ] which is highly required to improve the current practices including finding the prospect of whether proper at source-sorting in households is feasible to be implemented. This study provides a case study in Panji, Kota Bharu concerning the current household characteristics and awareness of managing household solid waste in Kelantan. The findings are crucial for the waste authorities in the process of designing and providing an effective and specific action plan in the area.

Figure 2 shows the percentage of households by garbage collection facilities and median monthly household income (MYR) for the districts in Kelantan. Kota Bharu is the district with the highest median monthly household gross income and percentage of garbage collection facilities. Apart from Lojing, which is located in the highlands, Bachok, Tumpat and Pasir Puteh are the districts with the lowest percentage of garbage collection facilities within 100m of the households. Meanwhile, Bachok (34.9%), Pasir Mas (36.6%), and Pasir Puteh (38%) households are without garbage collection facilities. The figure described the problem with household solid waste management in Kelantan. The major issues contributing to the problem are due to insufficient financial resources, lack of human labor, and transportation [ 61 ]. In one of the rural area in Kelantan, it was found that the solid waste management is considered inefficient due to a lack of knowledge in proper waste handling and the importance of segregating waste properly as proper waste handling start at home (Abas et al. 2020).

Percentage of households by garbage collection facilities and median monthly household income (MYR) for the districts in Kelantan

Household SWM is not a new issue, thus, published studies were found using survey and questionnaires and fieldwork studies. Waste characterization process was carried out by Kamaruddin et al. (2016) in 4 landfills in Kelantan. Nevertheless, they did not cover household waste knowledge, attitude and practices. Abdullah et al. [ 1 ] surveyed the household’s awareness on privatization of solid waste management and their satisfaction of the services offered but did not cover the health implications. Saat et al. [ 61 ] surveyed the practices and attitude on household waste management with a small sample size of less than 30 which limits its applicability to other region. Our study aimed to improve these previous studies by covering a wider sample size from the largest sub-district in Kelantan, Malaysia. The objective of this study is to assess the household SWM practices and perceptions among the residents of Panji vicinity in Kota Bharu district, Kelantan. Specifically, the objectives are to assess household SWM practices and perceptions in the Panji sub-district, to determine the association between socio-demographic characteristics or other factors and practices in SWM at the household level and to determine the association between socio-demographic characteristics or other factors and perceptions in SWM at household level.

This study was conducted in Panji, Kota Bharu district, Kelantan, Malaysia (Fig. 3 ), located at the east cost of Peninsular Malaysia and has the highest population among the 15 sub-districts of Kota Bharu, the capital state of Kelantan. A total of 338 respondents were recruited in this study. The population of interest in this study involved residents in Kota Bharu district and considered only residents who have attained 18 years old and above. Sample unit is residents living in Kota Bharu district of more than a year and aged more than 18 years. The target population comprised all the households in Kota Bharu District (491,237); however, it is impossible to conduct a study with such a large number within a limited time period and inadequate financial budget. Therefore, a multi- stage random sampling technique was used in selecting the appropriate sample in order to evaluate the objectives of this study and to ensure that households in the districts had the same possibility of being included in the study (Dlamini et al., 2017). Initially, one district of Kelantan state (Kota Bharu) was selected out of 10 total districts. In the second stage, one sub-district of Kota Bharu District (Panji) was selected out of 15 total sub-districts. Eventually, 338 households were randomly selected as sample size. Convenient sampling was also used to select respondents due to time constraint and response obtained from target population. The localities involved were Kampung Tapang, Kampung Chempaka, Kampung Belukar, Kampung Panji, Taman Sri Iman, Taman Desa Kujid and Taman Bendahara.

Location of the study area in Panji, Kota Bharu district, Kelantan, Malaysia (Source:ArcGis Software version 10.2; source of shape file: Department of Drainage and Irrigation, obtained with consent)

Data collection

A survey was conducted from January to May 2018. The questionnaire was translated from English to Malay language and the translation was done back to back and validated by experts in environmental science and public health field. A pilot test was conducted with a small sample size of ~30 to determine the suitability of the items in the questionnaire and the time taken by respondents to complete the questionnaires (Dlamini et al. 2017). Respondents were interviewed based on a questionnaire adopted and modified from Asante et al. [ 9 ]. The questionnaire involved two phases; the first one was to determine the socio-demographic of the respondents, including gender, age, types of housing, religion, educational level, occupation and the number of occupants in the household. Part two was an assessment to determine the status of household management of solid waste. The questionnaire included both open and closed questions (Dlamini et al. 2017). The closed questions were designed for ease of answering by the respondents with the aim of collecting the maximum appropriate responses, whereas the open questions are intended to encourage respondents to provide further elaboration on certain questions. The reliability of Cronbach’s alpha test of this questionnaire was found to be acceptable (α=0.71). Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Ethic Committee of Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM/JEPeM/17100560).

Data analysis

Data were analyzed using IBM Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 24.0. Descriptive analyses were used to report the frequency and percentage of socio-demographic patterns, method of household waste disposal and perceptions of household toward waste management. Chi-square goodness of fit test was used to determine the relationships between categorical variables, which allow us to test whether the observed proportions for a categorical variable differ from the hypothesized proportions [ 24 ]. The null hypothesis of the Chi-Square test is that no relationship exists on the categorical variables in the population; they are independent. Chi-square bivariate correlation test was performed to observe the correlation between the perceptions of waste segregation with socio-demographic background of the respondents [ 29 ]. The correlation between perception of respondents with the locality, house type and waste type were also conducted. Principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted to identify grouping of variables and to establish which factors were interrelated in any given construct, where a set of highly inter-correlated measured variables were grouped into distinct factors [ 24 ]. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkim (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity was performed to evaluate the data's suitability for exploratory factor analysis [ 69 ].

Socio-demographic Characteristics and Respondents Background in Panji sub-district

We first report descriptive statistics for all variables before discussing results from correlation analysis of socio-demographic factors and respondent’s background with household solid waste management (SWM) practices and perceptions. We then present the Principal Component Analysis (PCA). Table 1 represents the socio-demographic background and characteristics of the respondents in this study. Most of the respondents are from Kg. Belukar (N=125, 37%), followed by Kg. Panji (N=61, 18%), the rest are from Kg. Tapang (N=33), Kg. Chempaka, Taman Desa Kujid, Taman Sri Iman (N=30, respectively) and from Taman Bendahara (N=29). Majority of the respondents are female (N=182, 53.8%) and age between 35 to 49 years old (N=91, 26.9%). Most of the respondents have completed secondary education (N=194, 57.4%) and 31.1% have completed their degree or diploma (N=105). Majority of the respondents are married (75.7%), Muslim (97%) and earned between MYR 1000 to 2000 per month. About 32% of the respondents are self-employed and lived in a bungalow house type (30.5%). Most of the household consist of 4 to 6 occupants (53.6%). Majority of them cook at home (91.4%) on daily basis (68.6%). The Chi-square test shows that there is a significant difference among all categorical variables except for gender (χ 2 = 2.000, p = 0.157).

Proportion of Household Solid Waste Disposed by respondents in Panji Sub-District

Figure 4 represents the type of waste disposed of by respondents in the study. More than half (74.38%) of the waste disposed by household is food debris, followed by plastic waste (19.01%) and bottles (5.79%) while the rest accounts for 0.83%.

Types of waste disposed by household in Panji district

Household SWM practices and perceptions among respondents in Panji sub-district

Table 2 shows the household waste management practices and perceptions among respondents in Panji district. In terms of the household SWM practices, about 170 of the respondents (50.3%) segregate their waste at home while the remaining 168 respondents (49.7%) did not practice waste segregation at home. There is no significant difference between those who segregate waste at home and those who don’t (χ 2 =0.12, p=0.91). As shown in Fig. 1 and Table 2 , the major type of waste disposed by respondents are food (N=251, 74.3%). A significant difference was found among the different type of waste disposed (χ 2 =656.56, p<0.001). Out of the 338 respondents interviewed, 75.4% of the respondent themselves normally carries their household waste to the allocated bin or waste collection point provided by the local authority. Majority of the respondents (323 respondents) agree that the waste disposal site provided by the local authorities were appropriate (95.6%) relative to 15 respondents who disagree (4.4%). A significant difference was found between those who responded that appropriate waste disposal site was provided and those who do not (χ2=280.66, p<0.001).

Most of them also have the perception that proper waste management is important (99.7%). More than half (62.4%) of the respondent agrees that it is their responsibility to clean the waste in their residential area while 24.3% suggested that it is the responsibility of the district council. Another 3.3% suggested it is the responsibility of the community members followed by private waste operators (1.5%). The majority (95.9%) of the respondents suggested poor waste management can contribute to disease occurrence, whereas 2.7% suggested it does not cause diseases and another 1.5% were unsure if it causes any diseases.

In terms of the household SWM perceptions, 40.8% of the respondents have responded that other diseases than diarrhea, malaria and typhoid are related to improper waste management. This is followed by diarrhea (30.5%) and malaria (21.9%). Majority of the participants responded that they have awareness on proper waste management (92.9%) and 81.4% responded that cleanliness is the main factor which motivates them to dispose the waste properly. The chi-square test shows that all variables under respondents’ perception differ significantly from the hypothesized values (Table 2 ).

Relationship between socio-demographic characteristics, respondent’s background and household SWM practices (waste segregation practices)

Chi square analysis was performed to find out what factors contribute to waste segregation practices among the respondents (Table 3 ). Results indicate that waste segregation practice was correlated with the locality (χ 2 = 43.35, p<0.001). For instance, out of 29 respondents in Taman Bendahara, all of them segregate their waste (100%). This trend was also observed for Taman Desa Kujid where most of the respondents segregate their waste (22 out of 30, 73.3%). In contrast, most of respondents from the village, did not segregate their waste. For example, out of 125 total number of respondents in Kg Belukar, 53 of them segregates their waste (42.4%) while 72 of them did not (57.6%).

A significant correlation was found between waste segregation practice and age (χ 2 =11.62, p<0.001). Based on the age range of the total number of respondents, respondents at the age of 50-65 years old are those who segregated more than the rest (N=43) and those at the age of 35-49 are those who did not segregate their waste the most (N=52 in Table 3 ). The type of house was significantly correlated with waste segregation practice (χ 2 =12.73, p=0.03). The respondents who live in bungalow houses are those who segregate the most (N=58). Those who live in semi-detached houses also have more respondents (N=24) segregating their waste than those who did not (N=13). Meanwhile those who live in other type of houses, terrace, village and others have more respondents who did not segregate their waste (Table 3 ). Other variables, gender, education level, marital status, monthly income, occupation, the number of persons per household and the practice of cooking at home did not show any significant correlation with waste segregation practice (p>0.05, Table 3 ).

Relationship between respondent’s background and household SWM practices (the type of waste disposed) from the household in Panji sub-district

The chi-square test was also conducted to determine the relationship between socio-demographic characteristics, respondent’s background and the type of waste disposed. There is a significant correlation between locality with the waste type disposed in Panji district (Table 4 ). All localities showed that food waste was the major type of waste being disposed of from the households. A significant correlation was also found between respondents living in different house types with type of waste disposed. Most of the respondents who live in bungalows (N = 81) and other type of house (N = 78) disposed of food as the main waste from their households. Other characteristics were not significantly correlated with type of waste.

Correlation between respondents’ background (locality and/ or house type) and the perception in household SWM (appropriate site of household waste disposal provided by the local council and improper waste management contribute to disease occurrence)

Correlation analysis was also performed to determine what factors contribute towards the perception of household SWM in Panji district. No significant correlation was found between different locality with the appropriate waste disposal site provided (p = 0.152) as most of the locality has an appropriate disposal site (Table 5 ). There was also no significant relationship between type of house with appropriate disposal site provided by the local council (p=0.131). On the other hand, significant correlation was found between locality and the respondent’s perceptions on improper waste management which contribute to disease occurrence (p=0.042). Out of all localities, majority of the respondents from Kg Belukar has the perception that improper waste management contributes to disease occurrence (Table 5 ).

Principal component analysis (PCA)

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is a dimension-reduction tool that can be used to reduce a large set of variables to a small set that still contains most of the information in the original large set [ 24 ]. It converts a set of observations of possibly correlated variables (entities each of which takes on various numerical values) into a set of values of linearly uncorrelated variables called principal components [ 37 ]. This transformation is defined in such a way that the first principal component has the largest possible variance (that is, accounts for as much of the variability in the data as possible), and each succeeding component in turn has the highest variance possible under the constraint that it is orthogonal to the preceding components.

PCA in this study was performed to determine the variables that influence or related to waste segregation behavior among respondents. Table 6 highlight the PCA analysis to illustrate the component factors that influence waste segregation behavior among respondents in this study. Only 13 significant variables were highlighted in the table with the factor loading of more than 0.5. Only factor loadings value >0.5 are considered for selection and interpretation due to having significant factor loadings influence the acceptable KMO value that represent a significant correlation for the PCA model in the study. The PCA generates four principal components that represent 48.26% of the total variance in the variables dataset and produced an acceptable KMO value of 0.603 (more than 0.5). Bartlett’s test of sphericity showed that PCA could be applied to the data at the p< 0.001 level. This approved that the data met the requirements for factor analysis [ 24 , 69 ].

The component matrix produced in PCA showed that PC1 represents 17.94% of the variance with high positive loading (positive relationship) on age, marital status and, type of house (Table 6 ). This pattern indicates that age, married and type of house were the group that segregates their waste the most. This group of community can be proposed as the target to actively participate in waste management practices within the district. In contrast, locality and education have negative loading or negative relationship with the segregation activity. As a result, policy makers should increase educational activities on proper household waste practices and management related issues to minimize both the environmental and health impacts of household waste practices among the population.

PC2 represents 10.93% of the variance with high loadings on cooking at home and cooking frequency. This pattern implies that those who cook at home and frequently cook were among the most respondents who practice waste segregation. However, no consequences can be drawn about individual factors as these may have the opposite relationship to the observed factor in other components. Similar trend was observed for PC3 whereby 9.96% of the data variance has high loading on the perception of the respondents towards waste management. High loading was observed on perception that improper waste management contributes to disease occurrence and the cleanliness is the main element that motivates them to segregate. PC3 has high negative loading with monthly income. This result suggests that respondents with low income are those who segregate more.

Meanwhile, PC4 represents 9.42% of the data variance. Variables that have high positive loadings were the respondents who brought the waste to the communal bin themselves, indicating that this group of respondents are those who segregate more. High positive loading was also found on the perception that residents are among those responsible for cleaning the residential area. The number of persons living in a household has negative loading in PC4, indicating that the higher the number of people lives in the household, the lesser chances of them to segregate the waste.

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

a 4 components extracted.

b Only cases for which Practice of waste segregation = Yes are used in the analysis phase.

This study explores the behavioral perspective in view that the way people manage waste is associated with their attitude and perception. Individual perception is governed by their background and present situation, shaped by values, moods, socials circumstances and individual expectation (Kaoje et al 2017). The results of this study are discussed from three aspects: (1) characterization of household solid waste management practices and perceptions among respondents (2) correlation between socioeconomic and respondent’s background with waste segregation practices and (3) correlation between socioeconomic and respondent’s background with household waste management perceptions. One of the primary intentions of acquiring the respondent’s characteristics was to understand the correlation between level of involvement in household SWM practices and the characteristics of the respondents.

Food waste was found as the major type of waste disposed by the communities in Panji sub-district (Fig. 1 and Table 2 ). Food waste has high moisture content and causes smell, which subsequently attracts disease vectors, such as flies, mosquitoes and cockroaches, and the proliferation of rodents, such as rats and mice, which pose threats to public health [ 68 , 75 ]. Majority of the respondents were found to cook at home (N=309, 91.4%) and cook on a daily basis (N=232, 68.6%; Table 1 ) which suggests that composting should be incorporated as one of the main approaches for proper waste management practices in the community. Individual compost bin should be provided in each household coupled with adequate training on simple compost technique can be organized within the locality as a stage by stage process. Alternatively, community scale composting can be proposed to focus solely on food waste management which is currently a growing practice among Malaysians [ 38 , 56 ]. This approach is gaining attention because of their lower energy footprint, ease of operation, need for lesser resources, lower operation and maintenance costs which have higher chances of public acceptance [ 32 ]. Food waste is organic waste which can decomposed and degraded into organic matter [ 33 ], which in turn can be used by the public to fertilize their garden soil. Most importantly, the training should emphasize on the practicality and feasible option of composting which is otherwise seen as a time-consuming and burdensome process [ 33 ].

Composting is beneficial to the environment by reducing greenhouse gases emissions and improvement of soil quality when applied to land. Furthermore, it is also in line with the circular economy concept by closing the loop of the system [ 14 ]. On the other hand, there are issues pertaining to its quality such as the nutrient and trace metal content. So, sorting the waste at source play a crucial role in minimising these impurities and collection systems play a fundamental role in removing some pollutants from wastes, especially organic fraction of municipal solid wastes, and improving compost quality [ 13 ]. One way to overcome this is by accommodating the waste collection and composting facilities with easy and convenient measurement of these contents which may be accessible by the community. Community composting programs should incorporate not only the step-by-step procedure of how to do composting but at the same time introducing easy to use kit or techniques applicable to the public and community such as test strip to measure the nutrients and trace metal [ 11 ]. In addition, by adding composting accelerators, the nutritional quality of the compost can be overcome. This factor can be done by developing a manual for public use.

The case of local composting at homes reduces transportation and collection cost by decreasing the amount of domestic waste carried to centralized composting facilities [ 76 ]. At the same time, household waste contains impurities and are widely distributed which hinders the efficiency of centralized composting facilities in disposing them. Centralized composting facilities in Asia suffer from low compost quality and poor sales [ 32 ]. As a result, community composting system at a smaller scale is more convenient within this region.

Composting is linked to diseases such as Aspergillosis, Legionnaire’s disease, histoplasmosis, paronychia and tetanus. In the case of Aspergillosis and Legionnaire’s disease, it may cause higher potential risk in large scale composting facilities compared to the smaller scale composting at home due to massive handling and agitating process in the former [ 26 , 59 ]. Histoplasmosis have been associated with chicken manure used in composting, however it is not able to survive in a well-done composting process [ 39 ]. Therefore, disease spread can be minimised by having local composting at homes and community composting system at a smaller scale than centralized composting facility. The most important thing in minimising disease spread would be the practise of wearing gloves and face mask during this composting activity.

In this study, there was not much difference between the respondents who separated their waste and who did not (Table 2 ), which implies there is room for increasing the practice of waste segregation. Waste segregation practice is lacking in developing countries, most prominently in Asia ( [ 15 , 48 ]; Vassanadumrongdee and Kittipongvises 2018) and African continents (Dlamini et al. 2017; Yoada et al. 2014). Since respondents lack adequate knowledge on the critical importance of waste separation at source in general, the volume of municipal solid waste dumped in landfill sites are progressively increasing, thus jeopardizing the remaining landfill space at a faster rate than initially planned. Therefore, to alleviate this environmental problem in the developing countries in general and in Panji sub-districts, specifically, more focused and sustained public awareness programs, integrated with an enabling infrastructure, are required to change residents’ perceptions toward improved waste separation at source rates [ 49 ]. Additionally, the outcome of the waste segregation activities should be similarly emphasized and how waste minimization in the first instance, and waste segregation at source, will benefit and enhance the standard of living or life quality of households ([ 44 ]; Yoada et al. 2014 [ 49 ];).

The perceptions of the respondents towards waste management were generally good. About 99.7% reported that waste management is important, 62.4% report that it is the responsibility of them to manage waste (Table 2 ). Resident’s participation in waste management activities is one of the ways in maximizing the capture of source-segregated materials which can be facilitated by providing an associated infrastructure [ 58 ]. Nevertheless, there are still some respondents who felt that waste management is not their responsibility, but instead lies mainly on the district council, which highlights the general perception of some Malaysians that waste is a local municipal issue [ 46 ]. About 95.9% of the respondents were aware that improper waste management leads to sicknesses or diseases, which implies that most of the households were aware of the health implication of waste. The management of MSW in developing Asian countries is driven by a public health perspective: the collection and disposal of waste in order to avoid the spread of disease vectors from uncollected waste [ 5 ]. The perception of the remaining 2.7% that waste management does not cause disease and 1.5% who were unsure need to be changed by targeting this group as a follow up program focusing on waste management and health issues. The respondents also have adequate level of awareness and knowledge about proper waste management (92.9%). This high level of awareness is because of several reasons for properly disposing of waste, including cleanliness as the major factor (81.4%), followed by fear of illnesses (12.4%), and odor (6.2%).

Most of the respondents thought that improper waste management could lead to diarrhea and malaria (Table 2 ). Diarrhea and waste management is associated with environmental factors such as waste disposal mechanism. House-to-house waste collection has been shown to decrease the incidence of malaria compared to other waste collection method [ 7 ]. Hence, this implies the possibility of malaria incidence in areas which burn their waste and areas which are inaccessible by any waste collection. Other diseases could be related to typhoid, dysentery, cholera, respiratory infections and injury [ 42 ]. Proper waste management can lead to improvement in the quality of the environment and public health while, mismanagement of waste can be implicated with water, soil and air pollutions [ 1 ], breeding of mosquitos, which in turn, causes disease [ 15 , 68 ]. Although knowledge and awareness are acceptable among the respondents, this perception did not inculcate into waste segregation practices. In order to bridge the gap between awareness and behavior change, it is necessary for individuals to understand the importance of their role in how to do it and why it is important to do so [ 34 ]. More focused, detailed and continuous awareness and knowledge should be emphasized on this aspect specifically in the topics of environmental cleanliness, drainage systems, the recycling process in theory and practice, and a proper way to dispose of wastes [ 61 ].

Our findings have reported that socio-demographic factors (age, marital status) and respondents’ background (locality and house types) have influenced the household waste practices and perceptions in Panji sub-district (Tables 3 , 4 , 5 and 6 ). Age is associated with the maturity of the person which plays a significant factor in impacting their level of awareness on environmental health and sanitation ([ 12 , 17 ]; Meneses and [ 40 , 45 ]). The result of our study is consistent with the findings by Fan et al. [ 22 ] that older individuals prefer to engage more in waste sorting activities than young people in Singapore.

On the other hand, the number of children in the household may be a significant factor that influence waste separation. This for instance has been mentioned in Xu et al., (2017), where the intention of middle-aged adults towards behaving a more eco-friendly system was affected by critical social reference groups around them, such as the interaction with family or the motivation, especially children, and/or the consideration of the health situation of the whole family.

However, in other studies such as in Ittiravivongs [ 28 ] and Vassanadumrongdee & Kittipongvises (2018), socio-demographic variables became insignificant factors that influenced waste segregation participation. Knussen et al., [ 36 ] & White & Hyde [ 73 ] also indicate that the strongest variable influence participation in waste segregation program was past behaviour on regular source separation at home or recycling habit. Having waste separation in the office also could have positive influence on source separation intention, which is consistent with the study of Saphores et al. [ 64 ].

Considering number of children in the analysis is beyond the scope of this paper. Our result indicates that there is no significant difference in the waste segregation practice by the number of occupants in the household (χ 2 = 2.36, p = 0.31). For instance, the results show 54.2% of household with more than 6 occupants practice waste segregation, as compared to those who are not at 45.8%. This would suggest that the number of children in the house could be less influence on the waste segregation practice or vice versa. Future study may consider number of children in the family as one of the variables to be tested to confirm the hypothesis.

It was interesting to note that the types of housing in the case study were found to contribute heavily to the practices and perceptions of household waste management. Respondents who lived in bungalows (30.5%) and other type of houses than semi-detached, terrace and village (28.4%) are most likely to segregate their waste. Bungalows are associated with high income areas in Malaysia [ 53 ], which could be related to waste collection services are provided from these areas and possibly these households subscribe to this service. Potentially, these types of houses also have more space to be allocated for waste sorting than the other type of houses.

Other socio-demographic characteristics such as gender, education level and monthly income did not influence the practices and perceptions of the respondents. There were no significant associations between gender and waste segregation practices (χ 2 =0.596, p=0.440). Our finding is contrasting to the study by Ehrampoush and Moghadam [ 18 ] which reported that gender is likely to have an influence on the perceptions of household SWM. This view is supported by Mukherji et al. [ 48 ] who found that women, because of traditional gender roles associated with their household activities, have a closer engagement with waste management at household level.

The level of education has been reported as an important factor that could influence people’s perception of household waste management [ 40 ]. In this study, most of the respondents received their education until secondary school (57.4%), followed by diploma or degree (31.1%) but this did not influence their household SWM practices and perception (χ 2 =6.188, p=0.19), in particular waste segregation practice (Table 3 ). The poor average income of respondents is considered a very important variable that could influence people’s perception and attitudes negatively on solid waste management system (Parfitt et al. 1994 [ 40 ];). But, this is not the case in our study as economic consideration appears not to play a major role in the respondent’s perception as well as attitude to solid waste management practices (χ 2 =4.55, p=0.47).

The outcome from the PCA analysis showed that age, marital status and type of housing are the factors which contributed the most to waste segregation practices at home. Our finding agrees with the study by Vassanadumrongdee and Kittipongvises (2018) which found that age and family with children have a positive influence on respondent's source separation. Age was also a determinant factor in waste management practices in other studies [ 2 , 15 ]. With aging and married respondents, this could be highly related to the increasing sense of responsibility towards the environment and the importance of increasing the quality of life among household members. Types of housing could be related to either waste collection services were provided in these areas or that limited number of households subscribe to their service. Other studies in the literature have reported on the positive relationship between residence types and waste separation practices ([ 15 ]; Vassanadumrongdee and Kittipongvises 2018).

The high loadings on cooking at home and cooking frequency towards waste segregation practices indicate that these groups of respondents can be chosen for further interventions in terms of adopting proper waste management practices such as small-scale composting, recycling and waste minimization practices. The lifestyle of the respondents plays a significant role in the daily waste disposal practices in households (Yoada et al. 2014 [ 15 ];). The link between improper waste management practice and disease occurrence was also reported in studies in Ghana (Yoada et al. 2014 [ 2 ];). Their studies also reported that cleanliness was the main factor which motivates them to segregate the waste which is concurrent with the findings in this study.

Education is negatively related to waste segregation activity (Table 6 ), indicating that people with lower education are more willing to segregate their waste as compared to those with higher education. The likely reasons could be related to different lifestyle and time constraint to allocate purposely for waste sorting activities [ 15 ]. People with higher education level may be spending most of their time at the workplace, and not at home. However, more educational campaign should be promoted by emphasizing on the benefits of waste segregation activities. Sufficient knowledge, such as clear instructions provided in a communication and collection campaign, can increase the probability of waste separation behavior (Vassanadumrongdee and Kittipongvises S 2018).

The higher number of occupants living in the household is associated with a less likely chance of segregating the waste (Table 6 ). The result of our study is consistent with the study by Addo et al. [ 2 ] which reported that household sizes of 4 to 6 and above 7 were less likely to engage in the practice of waste management as compared to household size below 4 people. This is probably due to the household size tends to reduce the quantity of household waste and the practice of waste management. In contrast, studies by Osbjer et al. [ 54 ], indicate that waste management practice is associated with a higher number of people in the households, which could possibly be due to the need to handle waste generated by larger populations within the household.

One of the objectives of this study was to determine variables that influence waste segregation behavior among respondents. The PCA was adapted for this objective rather than correlation analysis for several reason. The correlation coefficient assumes a linear association where any linear transformation of variables will not affect the correlation. However, variables X and Y may also have a non-linear association, which could still yield a low correlation coefficient [ 30 ]. In addition, the correlation coefficient cannot be interpreted as causal.

It is possible that there is a causal effect of one variable on the other, but there may also be other possible explanations that the correlation coefficient does not take into account. Since several variables may influence respondent’s behavior on waste segregation activity at one time, the correlation coefficient analysis may not adequate to identify the significant variables and the connectivity between them accurately. Therefore, PCA was used to help us understand the connection between these variables as it can identify the correlation among the features efficiently.

There are thousands of features in the dataset that possible to highlight some trend or the influence of one factor to another. There are challenges to visualize the algorithm on all features efficiently especially when the performance of the algorithm may reduce with the bigger dataset. The PCA improve the algorithm performance by getting rid of correlated variables which don't contribute to the model and the analysis of the algorithms reduces significantly with less number of features. The Principal Components are also independent of one another. There is no correlation among them. It also reduces overfitting by reducing the number of features where it mainly occurs when there are too many variables in the dataset.

The scenario of the covid-19 pandemic contributes to a significant challenge in managing household waste management globally and specifically in developing countries. Waste management in the pandemic scenario requires consideration in SARS-CoV-2 transmission through MSW handling that includes survival time of the virus on the surfaces: population density and socioeconomic conditions [ 35 ]. In general, waste management phases (waste packing and delivering by the users; waste withdrawal; waste transport; and waste treatment) exposed the community and workers to direct contact with contaminated objects and surfaces; as well as contact with airborne droplets at a distance that may lead to the covid-19 [ 16 ]. Due to these reasons, waste management practices are designed to respond to the pandemic through changes in the collection system, allocation of treatment options, safety measure and priority separation, and functionality of circular economy strategies [ 72 ].

As a developing country, it is predicted that the effect of covid-19 on the waste management practices are more crucial due to the increase in disposable personal protective equipment at the household level and changes in eating habits, as a consequence of lifestyle disruptions and psychological stress due to lockdowns [ 4 , 55 ]. Developing countries have a higher risk of waste and wastewater contamination, leading to significant public health issues [ 71 ]. Inefficient waste management practices such as insecure landfills, lack of technical knowledge, scientific and economic resources, and lack of waste emergency policies produce severe consequences to the community and workers [ 63 , 65 , 71 ].

In order to improve the level of household solid waste management in the study area and Malaysia in general, it is important to empower the key drivers. The key drivers can be categorized as institutional-administrative, technological, economical, and social drivers [ 70 ]. A strong policy that implements direct regulation and enforcement; provide economic incentives or disincentives; and inform, interact and engage with the community are required [ 60 ].

Household solid waste management technologies that are being practised globally are landfilling, incineration, pyrolysis, Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF), gasification, and anaerobic digestion [ 57 ]. As a developing country that focuses on solid waste management through landfilling, it is important to put extra attention on: i. decentralization of household solid waste management; ii. segregation at the source; iii. hygienic and safe handling; iv. flammable landfilll gasses handling; v. soil salinity from compost application; vi. Sustainable landfill management; vii. alternative markets for energy products; and viii. Implementation of the “pay as you throw” system [ 50 ].

Practical Implications, Study Limitations and Future Perspectives

This study highlights that waste segregation practice among respondents are still low and food waste are mixed with other household waste. This study provides as a baseline data in the region where less study was emphasized.

Quantitative and qualitative approach were used in this study by adopting descriptive and statistical analysis to improve the significance of the issue. Despite the significance of some aspects of this study, further studies should be done to incorporate children and teenagers as the participants and a more detailed questionnaire incorporating detailed health implications. Apart from that, a cross-sectional survey using random sampling technique was used to assess the household SWM practices and perceptions among the residents. This study is also limited to only Panji sub-districts which requires a wider region to generalize the findings of the study. The survey questionnaires depend on self-reporting manner, which may be subject to bias. Further study is recommended to engage observation at houses or at the waste collecting points to complement the survey. Moreover, the association between household socio-economic factors and health implications were limited. Future study should address this factor for a more focused and sustained public awareness programs.

Conclusions

The study found that the waste segregation practice among respondents can be considered as low, where the number of respondents who segregate their waste was equivalent to those who did not, which implies there is room for improvement. The main component of solid waste generated at home was largely food debris that has the potential to be composted and plastics that can be recycled, which were mainly disposed without separation. The local solid waste management authority should focus on utilizing this organic waste through a larger scale and wider involvement of the locals in composting program. The growth of small-scale community-based waste composting can act as a potential start up venue in accelerating this program, without the necessity of extensive investment by the local authority. The authority in the study area has provided appropriate waste disposal sites, but there are also some that were disposed in inappropriate sites. Majority of the respondents were also aware that improper waste management can lead to diseases. Age, marital status and, type of house was found to be the group that segregate their waste the most, indicating that respondents which fall under this category can be the target for further intervention programs. This study suggests the local authorities to design waste separation programs that suit the needs of targeted population, to ensure high participation rate among the community. Marketing and campaigns should emphasize the positive perception and attitude towards waste separation at home and also negative perception of non-participants. This study may provide authorities in Malaysia with baseline information to set the future implementations of waste segregation activities in households. This study also suggests focusing on inculcating community involvement in doing waste separation at source, waste reduction and recycling as a habit and way of life. The local authority may facilitate this activity by providing bins to segregate wastes, establishing waste banks and recycling facilities at a wider scale than the scattered existing ones. Both a top-down and bottom-up approach should work hand in-hand to realize the sustainable solid waste management as a success.

Nevertheless, acknowledging the limitations of the current study, a more detailed and thorough study should incorporate a wider region, in-depth association of waste separation programs and health implications. Combining survey questionnaire with statistical analysis act as a stepping stone to expand the study by engaging the community in actual waste separation activities. This can be done by initiating a collaboration between the local authority, the leader in a community and the residents itself as a pilot study. In addition, the findings of this study will serve as baseline evidence and pave the way for other researchers and policymakers to conduct more rigorous studies on this arena.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the supplementary material section.

Abbreviations

Statistical Package for Social Science

Solid Waste Management

municipal solid waste

not in my backyard

Kota Bharu Municipal Council

Sustainable Development Goals

Malaysian Ringgit

Principal component analysis

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkim

Refuse Derived Fuel

Abdullah Z, Salleh MS, Ismail KNIK. Survey of Household Solid Waste Management and Waste Minimization in Malaysia: Awareness, Issues and Practices. International Journal of Environmental & Agriculture Research (IJOEAR). 2017;3(12):38–48.

Google Scholar  

Addo HO, Dun-Dery EJ, Afoakwa E, Elizabeth A, Ellen A, Rebecca M. Correlates of domestic waste management and related health outcomes in Sunyani, Ghana: a protocol towards enhancing policy. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):615. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4537-8 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Agamuthu P, Fauziah SH. Challenges and issues in moving towards sustainable landfilling in a transitory country-Malaysia. Waste Manag Res. 2011;29:13–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X10383080 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Aldaco R, Hoehn D, Laso J, Margallo M, Ruiz-Salmón J, Cristobal J, et al. Food waste management during the COVID-19 outbreak: a holistic climate, economic and nutritional approach. Sci Total Environ. 2020;742:140524.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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;58:415–29.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Aminuddin MSH, Rahman HA. Health risk survey for domestic waste management agency workers: Case study on Kota Bharu Municipal Council (MPKB), Kelantan. Malaysia Int J Environ Sci Dev. 2015;6(8):629.

Amoatey PK, Winter J, Kaemph C (2008) Solid Waste Disposal and the Incidences of Malaria: Any Correlation? Proceedings of the Second IASTED Africa Conference September 8-10, 2008 Gaborone, Botswana Water Resource Management (AfricaWRM 2008).

Ancona C, Badaloni C, Mataloni F, Bolignano A, Bucci S, Cesaroni G, et al. Mortality and morbidity in a population exposed to multiple sources of air pollution: A retrospective cohort study using air dispersion models. Environ Res. 2015;137:467–74.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Asante KP, Kinney P, Zandoh C, Vliet EV, Nettey E, Abokyi L, et al. Childhood Respiratory Morbidity and Cooking Practices Among Households in a Predominantly Rural Area of Ghana. Afr J Infect Dis. 2016;10(2):102–10.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Aweng ER, Fatt CC. Survey of Potential Health Risk of Rubbish Collectors from the Garbage Dump Sites in Kelantan, Malaysia. Asian J Appl Sci (ISSN: 2321 – 0893). 2014;2(1):36–44.

Ayilara MS, Olanrewaju OS, Babalola OO, Odeyemi O. Waste Management through Composting. Challenges Potent Sustain. 2020;12, 4456:10.3390/su12114456.

Bradley CJ, Waliczek TM, Zajicek JM. Relationship between environmental knowledge and environmental attitude of high school students. J Environ Educ. 1999;30(3):17–21.

Cesaro A, Belgiorno V, Guida M. Compost from organic solid waste: quality assessment and European regulations for its sustainable use. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2015;94:72e79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.11.003 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Chen T, Zhang S, Yuan Z. Adoption of solid organic waste composting products: A critical review. J Clean Prod. 2020;272:122712.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Choon SW, Tan SH, Chong LL. The perception of households about solid waste management issues in Malaysia. Environ Dev Sustain. 2017;19:1685–700.

Di Maria F, Beccaloni E, Bonadonna L, Cini C, Confalonieri E, La Rosa G, et al. Minimization of spreading of SARS-CoV-2 via household waste produced by subjects affected by COVID-19 or in quarantine. Sci Total Environ. 2020;743:140803.

Eagles PFJ, Demare R. Factors influencing children’s environmental attitudes. J Env Education. 1999;30(4):33–7.

Ehrampoush MH, Mogahadam MB. Survey of knowledge, attitude and practice of Yazd University of Medical Sciences students about solid wastes disposal and recycling. Iranian J Env Health Sci Eng. 2005;2(2):26–30.

Ekere W, Mugisha J, Drake L. Factors influencing waste separation and utilization among households in the Lake Victoria crescent. Uganda Waste Manag. 2009;29(12):3047–51.

Emery AD, Griffiths AJ, Williams KP. An in-depth study of the effects of socio-economic conditions on household waste recycling practices. Waste Manag Res. 2003;21(3):180–90.

EPQS (Expert Pannel on Air quality standards) (2009) Adendum to Guidelines for Halogens and Hydrogen Halides in Ambient Air. London; The stationary office.

Fan B, Yang W, Shen X. A comparison study of ‘motivation–intention–behavior’ model on household solid waste sorting in China and Singapore. J Clean Prod. 2019;211:442–54.

Fauziah SH, Agamuthu P. Trends in sustainable landfilling in Malaysia, a developing country. Waste Manag Res. 2012:1–8.

Field A (2009) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. 3rd Edition, Sage Publications Ltd., London.

Gutberlet J, Uddin SMN. Household waste and health risks affecting waste pickers and the environment in low-and middle-income countries. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2017;23(4):299–310.

Huss A, Derks LAN, Heederik DJJ, Wouters IM (2020) Green waste compost as potential reservoirs of Legionella in the Netherlands. Clin Microbiol Infection 26 (2020) 1259.e1e1259.e3.

Idris A, Inanc B, Hassan M. Overview of waste disposal and landfills/dumps in Asian countries. J Mat Cycl Waste Manag. 2004;6(2):104–10.

Ittiravivongs A (2011). Factors Influence Household Solid Waste Recycling Behaviour In Thailand: An Integrated Perspective. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment. Volume 167, Pages 12. Paper 10.2495/ST110391.

Ismail SNS, Zainal Abidin E, Hashim Z, Rasdi I, How V, Praveena SM, et al. Disaster Debris Management during the 2014-2015 Malaysia Flood Incident. Mal J Med Health Sci. 2018;14(SP2):112–9.

Janse RJ, Hoekstra T, Jager KJ, Zoccali C, Tripepi G, Dekker FW, et al. Conducting correlation analysis: important limitations and pitfalls. Clin Kidney J. 2021;1–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/ckj/sfab085 .

Jarup L, Briggs D, de Hoogh C, Morris S, Hurt C, Lewin A, et al. (2002) Cancer risks in populations living near landfill sites in Great Britain. Br J Cancer. 2002;86:1732–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600311 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Joshi P, Visvanathan C. Sustainable management practices of food waste in Asia: Technological and policy drivers. J Environ Manag. 2019;247:538–50.

Karim Ghani WAWA, Rusli IF, Biak DRA, Idris A. An application of the theory of planned behaviour to study the influencing factors of participation in source separation of food waste. Waste Manag. 2013;33:1276–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.09.019 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kirakozian A. Selective Sorting of Waste: A study of Individual Behaviours. GREDEG WP No. 2014:2013–49.

Kulkarni BN, Anantharama V. Repercussions of COVID-19 pandemic on municipal solid waste management: Challenges and opportunities. Sci Total Environ. 2020;743:140693.

Knussen C, Yule F, MacKenzie J, Wells M. An analysis of intentions to recycle household waste: the roles of past behaviour, perceived habit, and perceived lack of facilities. J Environ Psychol. 2004;24:237e46.

Li L, Ararel E, Jeuland M. The drivers of household drinking water choices in Singapore: Evidence from multivariable regression analysis of perceptions and household characteristics. Sci Total Environ. 2019;671:1116–24.

Lim WJ, Chin NL, Yusof AY, Yahya A, Tee TP. Food waste handling in Malaysia and comparison with other Asian countries. Int Food Res J. 2016;23(Suppl):S1–6.

Londoño LFG, Leoń LCP, Ochoa JGM, Rodriguez AZ, Jaramillo CAP, Ruiz JMA, Taylor ML, Arteaga MA, Alzate MdPJ (2019) Capacity of Histoplasma capsulatum to Survive the Composting Process. Appl Environ Soil Sci. Volume 2019, Article ID 5038153, 9 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5038153 .

Longe EO, Longe OO, Ukpebor EF. People’s Perception On Household Solid Waste Management in Ojo Local Government Area in Nigeria. Iran J Environ Health Sci Eng. 2009;6(3):201–8.

Maheshwari R, Gupta S, Das K (2015) Impact of Landfill Waste on Health: An Overview. IOSR Journal of Environmental Science, Toxicol Food Technol 1(4): 17-23. e-ISSN: 2319-2402, p- ISSN: 2319-2399.

Mamady K. Factors Influencing Attitude, Safety Behavior, and Knowledge regarding Household Waste Management in Guinea: A Cross-Sectional Study. J Environ Public Health. 2016:1–9.

Manaf LA, MAA S, NIM Z. Municipal solid waste management in Malaysia: Practices and challenges. Waste Manag. 2009;29:2902–6.

Matter A, Dietschi M, Zurbrügg C. Improving the informal recycling sector through segregation of waste in the Household- The case of Dhaka Bangladesh. Habitat International. 2013;38:150–6.

Meneses G.D, Palacio AB (2005) Recycling behavior: A multidimensional approach. Environ Behav 37: 837–860.

Moh YCA, Manaf L. Solid waste management transformation and future challenges of source separation and recycling practice in Malaysia. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2017;116:1–14.

Moh YC, Manaf LA. Overview of household solid waste recycling policy status and challenges in Malaysia. Resourc, Convers Recycl. 2014;82:50–61.

Mukherji SB, Sekiyama M, Mino T, Chaturvedi B. Resident Knowledge and Willingness to Engage in Waste Management in Delhi. India Sustain. 2016;8:1065. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8101065 .

Mwanza BP, Mbohwa C, Telukdarie A. Levers Influencing Sustainable Waste Recovery at Household Level: A Review. Procedia Manufact. 2018;21:615–22.

Nanda S, Berruti F. Municipal solid waste management and landfilling technologies: a review. Environ Chem Lett. 2021;19(2):1433–56.

Ncube F, Ncube EJ, Voyi K. A systematic critical review of epidemiological studies on public health concerns of municipal solid waste handling. Perspect Public Health. 2017;137(2):102–8.

Norsa’adah B, Salinah O, Naing NN, Sarimah A. Community health survey of residents living near a solid waste open dumpsite in Sabak, Kelantan, Malaysia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(1):311.

PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Omran AL, Mahmood A, Abdul Aziz H, Robinson GM. Investigating Households Attitude Toward Recycling of Solid Waste in Malaysia: A Case Study. Int J Environ Res. 2009;3(2):275–88.

Osbjer K, Boqvist S, Sokerya S, Kannarath C, San S, Davun H, et al. Household practices related to disease transmission between animals and humans in rural Cambodia. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(476):1–10.

Oyedotun TDT, Kasim OF, Famewo A, Oyedotun TD, Moonsammy S, Ally N, et al. Municipal waste management in the era of COVID-19: perceptions, practices, and potentials for research in developing countries. Res Glob. 2020;2:100033.

Petaling Jaya Municipal Council (MBPJ) (2010) Composting closing the loop at home. A household home composting program in Petaling Jaya Municipal Council. http://www.ecoideal.com.my/danidaurban/swmc/download/SWMC_CI_Composting%20at%20MBPJ.pdf .

Potdar A, Singh A, Unnnikrishnan S, Naik N, Naik M, Nimkar I. Innovation in solid waste management through Clean Development Mechanism in India and other countries. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2016;101:160–9.

Rispo A, Williams ID, Shaw PJ. Source Segregation and food waste prevention activities in high density households in a deprived urban area. Waste Manag. 2015;44:15–27.

Roca-Barcelo A, Douglas P, Fechta D, Sterrantino AF, Williams B, Blangiardo M, et al. Hansell AL (2020) Risk of respiratory hospital admission associated with modelled concentrations of Aspergillus fumigatus from composting facilities in England. Environ Res. 2020;183:108949.

Rodić L, Wilson DC. Resolving governance issues to achieve priority sustainable development goals related to solid waste management in developing countries. Sustainability. 2017;9(3):404.

Saat NZM, Hanawi SA, Subhi N, Zulfakar SS, Wahab MIA. Practice and attitude on household waste management in Tumpat and Kuala Krai, Kelantan. Res J Social Sci. 2018;11(1):14–7. https://doi.org/10.22587/rjss.2018.11.1.3 .

Samah MAA, Manaf LA, Ahsan A, Sulaiman WNA, Agamuthu P, D'Silva JL. Household Solid Waste Composition in Balakong City, Malaysia: Trend and Management. Pol J Environ Stud. 2013;22(6):1807–16.

Sarkodie SA, Owusu PA. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on waste management. Environ Dev Sustain. 2021;23(5):7951–60.

Saphores JDM, Ogunseitan OA, Shapiro AA. Willingness to engage in a proenvironmental behavior: an analysis of e-waste recycling based on a national survey of U.S. households. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2012;60:49e63.

Sharma HB, Vanapalli KR, Cheela VRS, Ranjan VP, Jaglan AK, Dubey B, et al. Challenges, opportunities, and innovations for effective solid waste management during and post COVID-19 pandemic. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2020;162:105052.

Shigeru M. Waste separation at home: Are Japanese municipal curbside recycling policies efficient? Resour Conserv Recycl. 2011;55(3):325–34.

Sujauddin M, Huda SMS, Hoque AR. Household solid waste characteristics and management in Chittagong. Bangladesh Waste management. 2008;28(9):1688–95.

Suleman Y, Darko ET, Agyemang-Duah W. Solid Waste Disposal and Community Health Implications in Ghana: Evidence from Sawaba, Asokore Mampong Municipal Assembly. J Civil Environ Eng. 2015;202. https://doi.org/10.4172/2165-784X.1000202 .

Tekler ZD, Low R, Chung SY, Low JSC, Blessing L. A Waste Management Behavioural Framework of Singapore’s Food Manufacturing Industry using Factor Analysis. Procedia CIRP. 2019;80:578–83.

Tot B, Srđević B, Vujić B, Russo MAT, Vujić G. Evaluation of key driver categories influencing sustainable waste management development with the analytic hierarchy process (AHP): Serbia example. Waste Manag Res. 2016;34(8):740–7.

Tripathi A, Tyagi VK, Vivekanand V, Bose P, Suthar S. Challenges, opportunities and progress in solid waste management during COVID-19 pandemic. Case Stud Chem Environ Eng. 2020;2:100060.

Van Fan Y, Jiang P, Hemzal M, Klemeš JJ. An update of COVID-19 influence on waste management. Sci Total Environ. 2021;754:142014.

White KM, Hyde MK. The role of self-perceptions in the prediction of household recycling behavior in Australia. Environ Behav. 2012;44:785e99.

Yang H, Ma M, Thompson JR, Flower RJ. Waste management, informal recycling, environmental pollution and public health. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2018;72(3):237–43.

Yatim SRM, Arshad MA. Household Solid Waste Characteristics and Management in Low Cost Apartment in Petaling Jaya. Selangor Health Environ J. 2010;1(2):58–63.

Zhou X, Yang J, Xu S, Wang J, Zhou Q, Li Y, et al. Rapid in-situ composting of household food waste. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2020;141:259–66.

Ziraba AK, Haregu TN, Mberu B. A review and framework for understanding the potential impact of poor solid waste management on health in developing countries. Arch Public Heal. 2016;74(1):1–11.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to everybody who completed the questionnaires and to Miss Aisyah Ariff, Miss Zetty Hiddayah binti Zuharizam and Mr Wan Izulfikri bin Wan Mohd Roslan for assisting in data collection.

This study was financially supported by Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia (Postdoctoral Fellowship SLAB) and Universiti Sains Malaysia. None of the funders were involved in the design of the study, in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in the writing of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Environmental and Occupational Health Program, School of Health Sciences, Health Campus, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 16150, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia

Widad Fadhullah, Nor Iffah Najwa Imran & Hasmah Abdullah

School of Industrial Technology, Universiti Sains Malaysia, USM, 11800, Penang, Malaysia

Widad Fadhullah & Mohd Hafiidz Jaafar

Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

Sharifah Norkhadijah Syed Ismail

Biomedicine Program, School of Health Sciences, Health Campus, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 16150, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia

Hasmah Abdullah

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

WF contributed in conceptualization and writing the manuscript. NINI collected the data, contributed to the literature review and execute the project. SNSI contributed in the formal analysis, methodology, data curation and the tables and figures. MHJ contributed to editing of the manuscript. HA contributed in supervision, project administration and planning. All authors have read and approved the final version of this manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Widad Fadhullah .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Ethic Committee of Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM/JEPeM/17100560). Written informed consent was obtained from each participants, after the participants received adequate information from the research about the aim and procedure of the study. All the data obtained from the subjects was kept confidential for research purpose only.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Authors report that there is no competing interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1., additional file 2., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Fadhullah, W., Imran, N.I.N., Ismail, S.N.S. et al. Household solid waste management practices and perceptions among residents in the East Coast of Malaysia. BMC Public Health 22 , 1 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12274-7

Download citation

Received : 10 November 2020

Accepted : 22 November 2021

Published : 05 January 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12274-7

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Households’ Practices and Perception
• Waste Segregation and Separation
• Principal Component Analysis
• Public Health
• Solid Waste

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Solid waste management practices and challenges in Besisahar municipality, Nepal

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Chemistry, Tribhuvan University, Tri-Chandra Campus, Kathmandu, Nepal.
• 2 Department of Economics, School of Law, Kathmandu University, Dhulikhel, Nepal.
• PMID: 38512823
• PMCID: PMC10956786
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292758

This study is a comprehensive assessment of the waste management system in Besisahar municipality. Information and some data have been collected from the municipality of Besisahar, followed by interviews with municipal officials responsible for waste management, stakeholders, waste workers, and residents. A total of 230 households, 20 schools, 10 government and private offices, 10 financial institutions, 60 commercial hotels, restaurants, and shops, and 20 medical shops and healthcare institutions, were selected in this study by random sampling. An extensive field study was conducted within all municipal wards and at dump sites. The results indicated that 42.14% of solid waste was collected through door-to-door collection services, 5.87% was mismanaged in open public places, 11.21% was used as compost manure, and the rest was discarded on riverbanks, dug up, and burned. A large component of the characterization of household waste consisted of organic waste (68.03%), followed by paper/paper products (8.13%), agricultural waste (5.5%), plastic (5.21%), construction (3.81%), textile (2.72%), metals (0.54%), glass (1.01%), rubber (0.10%), electronic (0.05%), pharmaceutical (0.1%) and others (4.78%) in the Besishahar municipality. Solid waste generation was found to be at 197.604 g/capita/day, as revealed by cluster sampling in 230 households. Around 4.285 tons-solid waste/day were generated in urban areas, while 16.13 tons-solid waste/day was estimated for the whole municipality. An important correlation between the parameters of solid waste was found by statistical analysis. Currently, solid waste is dumped on riverbanks, open fields, and springs, creating environmental and health hazards. The findings of this study will be useful to Besisahar municipality and its stakeholders in forming policies that facilitate waste management practices in this region and promote sustainable waste management systems.

Copyright: © 2024 Aryal, Adhikary. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

• Environment
• Refuse Disposal* / methods
• Solid Waste
• Waste Management* / methods

Grants and funding