case study for waste management

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

JavaScript appears to be disabled on this computer. Please click here to see any active alerts .

• Waste Case Studies
• In 2008, the US Postal Service Western Areas conservation efforts saved the region $44 million. These savings were achieved by reusing and redistributing equipment and materials within the postal system, as well as diverting 35,000 tons of waste from the landfill.
• Detailed institution trash recycling,
• vermiculture or worm farming, and
• food waste composting.

Additional Case Studies

• Waste Case Study: New Composting Program Boosts Waste Diversion (pdf) (391.8 KB, February 2014, EPA-905-F-14-009) The U.S. Navy’s Naval Station Great Lakes, near Waukegan, Illinois, increased its amount of materials recycled by an astounding 114 percent by initiating a campaign to add a composting component, reuse construction and demolition debris, and increase the number of collection bins available throughout the installation.
• Waste Case Study: Waste Diversion through Cold Composting (pdf) (293.5 KB, February 2014, EPA-905-F-14-009 ) The Captain James A. Lovell Federal Health Care Center (Departments of Veterans Affairs and Navy) in North Chicago, Illinois, prevented 320 tons of lawn waste from going into a landfill through “cold composting.”
• Waste Case Study: Enhanced Recycling Increases Waste Diversion (pdf) (386.9 KB, February 2014, EPA-905-F-14-001) The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Chicago Field Office diverted waste from landfills by revitalizing its recycling program. This work resulted in a recycling rate of 38 percent.
• Federal Green Challenge (FGC) Home
• Highlighted Success Stories
• Learn about Other Federal Agency Experiences
• Electronics Case Studies
• Energy Case Studies
• Transportation Case Studies
• Water Case Studies
• 2021 Awards
• 2020 Awards
• 2019 Awards
• 2018 Awards
• 2017 Awards
• 2016 Awards
• 2015 Awards
• 2014 Awards
• 2013 Awards

Sustainable Waste Management In Indore: A Case Study

Indore, a fast-growing city in India, has emerged as a model for sustainable waste management practices. Over the past few years, Indore has consistently ranked as the cleanest city in India, thanks to the efficient waste management system put in place by the municipal corporation. 

This case study explores the background, challenges faced, solutions implemented, and key learnings from Indore’s successful waste management system.

Indore, with a population of over 3.2 million people, generates around 1,100 metric tons of waste daily. Prior to 2016, the city struggled with waste management, leading to unhygienic conditions, increased pollution, and negative impacts on public health. 

However, the launch of the Swachh Bharat (Clean India) campaign in 2014 led the Indore Municipal Corporation (IMC) to undertake a comprehensive transformation of its waste management system. This involved an overhaul of existing infrastructure, policies, and community engagement initiatives to create a more efficient and environmentally friendly waste management system.

Challenges faced:

Lack of waste segregation at the source:  

Indore faced issues with mixed waste, which hindered the recycling and disposal process. Unsegregated waste resulted in inefficient waste collection and processing, causing further strain on the waste management system.

Inefficient waste collection and transportation system: 

With limited resources and vehicles, the city’s waste collection and transportation system could not keep up with the growing population and waste generation.

Open dumping and burning of waste: The absence of adequate waste processing facilities led to the practice of open dumping and burning of waste, which contributed to air and land pollution.

Inadequate public awareness and participation: 

Citizens were not fully aware of the importance of waste segregation, recycling, and proper disposal, resulting in low participation rates and disregard for waste management rules.

Limited infrastructure for waste processing and disposal: 

The city’s waste processing and disposal infrastructure was unable to cope with the increasing waste generation, leading to unmanaged landfills and environmental degradation.

Solutions implemented:

Segregation at the source: 

The IMC implemented a mandatory waste segregation policy, requiring households to separate waste into wet (biodegradable) and dry (recyclable) categories. This allowed for more efficient waste collection and processing, as well as increased recycling rates.

Door-to-door waste collection: 

A fleet of over 600 GPS-enabled vehicles were deployed to collect segregated waste daily from all households and commercial establishments. This ensured timely and efficient waste collection, preventing littering and illegal dumping.

Waste processing and disposal: The city established a state-of-the-art waste processing facility capable of handling 1,000 metric tons of waste daily, including a 15 MW waste-to-energy plant and a 200 TPD (tons per day) composting plant. These facilities enabled the city to process and dispose of waste more effectively, reducing the environmental impact of waste disposal.

Public awareness and participation: 

The IMC launched numerous awareness campaigns, involving local celebrities, schools, and religious institutions, to educate the public on the importance of waste segregation and cleanliness. This resulted in increased community involvement and support for the waste management program.

Strict monitoring and enforcement: 

Regular inspections, fines, and incentives were introduced to ensure compliance with waste management rules. This helped maintain the cleanliness of the city and encouraged citizens to adhere to waste segregation and disposal guidelines.

Results achieved:

Waste segregation: 

Over 90% of households in Indore now segregate their waste, significantly improving the efficiency of waste collection and processing, and reducing the burden on landfills.

Waste processing: 

The city’s waste processing facility successfully manages 1,000 metric tons of waste daily, with a 95% waste recovery rate. This has led to a substantial reduction in landfill usage and has minimized the environmental impact of waste disposal.

Cleanliness: 

Indore has consistently ranked as the cleanest city in India in the annual Swachh Survekshan survey since 2017. This highlights the success of the city’s waste management system and the active participation of its residents in maintaining cleanliness.

Health and environment: 

Cases of vector-borne diseases have dropped by 60% since the implementation of the waste management system, and air quality has improved due to reduced open burning of waste. This has led to a healthier environment and improved overall quality of life for Indore’s residents.

Key learnings:

Political will and administrative commitment are crucial for the successful implementation of waste management systems. Indore’s transformation was made possible by strong leadership and a dedicated municipal corporation committed to addressing the city’s waste management challenges.

Public awareness and participation play a significant role in ensuring the success of waste management initiatives. By actively involving the community and raising awareness about the importance of waste segregation and proper disposal, Indore was able to achieve a high level of public participation and support.

Strict monitoring and enforcement mechanisms help ensure compliance with waste management rules and regulations. Indore’s approach to enforcing waste segregation and disposal guidelines, combined with regular inspections and penalties, proved to be effective in maintaining the city’s cleanliness.

Investing in modern waste processing infrastructure can significantly improve the efficiency of waste management systems and reduce environmental impact. Indore’s investment in a state-of-the-art waste processing facility allowed the city to process and dispose of waste more effectively, leading to a substantial reduction in landfill usage and associated environmental issues.

Indore’s transformation into a clean, sustainable city serves as an inspiring example for other urban centers in India and around the world. 

By adopting a comprehensive, integrated approach to waste management, Indore has successfully addressed its waste management challenges and set a benchmark for sustainable urban living. 

The city’s experience provides valuable insights and lessons for other municipalities looking to improve their waste management systems and promote environmental sustainability.

Community Empowerment, Sustainable Cities, and Transformative Economies pp 243–259 Cite as

Decentralised Urban Waste Management: A Case Study of Solid Waste Management in Two Indian Cities - Thiruvananthapuram and Bengaluru

• Namitha Madhukumar 3  
• First Online: 12 January 2022

992 Accesses

India generates 62 million tons of waste every year, of which 60% gets collected and only 15% processed. With the huge spike in urban population and shrinking spaces, it is imperative for an efficient waste management system. Unscientific waste disposal augments the emission of Greenhouse Gases like methane (6% in India). Waste to Energy plant is not viable in India due to the high concentration of organic content and inadequate segregation. Under such a situation, a Centralised treatment facility will not only culminate in irrevocable environmental and health hazards but further aggravate prevailing socio-political injustice in the country. The best possible alternative to this systemic hurdle is Decentralised Waste Management. This paper looks at two urban cities, Thiruvananthapuram and Bengaluru, where the former follows a decentralised waste management system and the latter centralised. The Waste Management system in Thiruvananthapuram city champions concepts of circular economy adopted by developed countries, which contest the unsustainable linear model. The city’s strategies adopted under Decentralised Waste Management are a catalyst towards achieving ‘ no burn city ’, an initiative against incineration and greenhouse gas emissions. The case studies of Bengaluru and Thiruvananthapuram city highlight the impact of systemic changes through progressive interventions towards the eradication of structural disparities. It analyses different aspects, the labour, the public, the governance and the environment in the context of waste management. The paper delves further into the question of welfare and beneficiary from state’s point of view. Through the system of Decentralised Waste Management, the paper advocates the importance of devolution of power and dissolution of responsibilities for a sustainable environment and an empowered and equitable society.

• Waste management
• Decentralisation
• Circular economy
• Sustainable development

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

About 90% of Pourakarmikas are women and belong to Scheduled Caste.

Kavitha Shankar vs BBMP and ors (ESG, 1995 ).

The name of the organization and individuals are not revealed to maintain the anonymity clause ensured during interviews.

The 2020 order for case WP 24739/2021 indicated building permission to 9188 application between 1st January 2019 to 31st January 2020.

Ahlheim, M., Becker, M., Trastl, H., & Losada, Y. A. (2019). Wasted! Resource recovery and waste management in Cuba. International Journal of Cuban Studies , 147–173.

Google Scholar  

Annepu, R. K. (2012). Sustainable solid waste management in India . http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Sustainable%20Solid

Arya, U. R. (2017, August 12). The Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/your-garbage-your-responsibility-saysthiruvananthapuram/articleshow/60023376.cms.Narain . Accessed 31 March 2021.

Badlock, J., Mitton, L., Manning, N., & Vickerstaff, S. (2012). Social Policy . Oxford University Press.

Bauman, Z. (2013). Wasted lives: Modernity and its outcasts . John Wiley & Sons.

Baviskar, A., & Gidwani, V. (2019). The lives of waste and pollution. Economic and Political Weekly , 33–35.

BBMP. (2020). Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike .. https://bbmp.gov.in/departmentwebsites/swm/index.html . Accessed 31 March 2021.

Bhalerao, S. (2019, March 26). Fire breaks out at Mumbai’s Deonar dumping ground, as temperature soars . Hindusthan Times. https://www.hindustantimes.com/mumbai-news/firebreaks-out-in-mumbai-s-deonar-dumping-ground-as-temperatures-soar/story-eca6OWCIbpm9VUYoK82c4I.html . Accessed 30 August 2019.

Bhat, P. (2019). What garbage burning does to Bengaluru: Asthma and heart attacks on the rise . https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/what-garbage-burning-does-bengaluru-asthma-and-heart-attacks-rise-88739 . Posted on 21 September 2018. Accessed on 14 September 2019.

Bhuiyan, S. H. (2010). A crisis in governance: Urban soild waste management in Bangladesh. Habitat International , 125–133.

Bjerkli, C. L. (2013). Government on the ground: A study of solid waste management in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research , 1273–1287.

D’Souza, R., & Nagendra, H. (2011). Changes in public commons as a consequence of urbanisation: The Agara Lake in Bangalore, India. Environment Management , 840–850.

Darokar, S. (2018). Manual scavengers: A blind spot in urban development discourse .

Das, S., Lee, S. H., Kumar, P., Kim, K. H., Lee, S. S., & Bhattacharya, S. S. (2019). Solid waste management: Scope and challenges of sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production , 658–678.

Doron, A., & Jeffery, R. (2018). Waste of a nation: Garbage and growth in India. In I. A. Doron & R. Jeffery (Eds.), Growth and garbage (p. 43). Harvard University Press.

Environment Protection Agency. (2020, October). Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-10/documents/master_swmg_10-20-20_0.pdf

Environment and Support Group. (2018). Bangalore’s toxic legacy Intensifie . Environment and Support Group.

Environment Support Group India (Bengaluru). (1995). https://esgindia.org/new/pils/swm-pils/esgsinitiatives-onsocially-just-and-ecologically-progressive-management-ofmunicipal-solid-waste-including-pils/ . Accessed 30 April 2020.

Eriksen, T. H., & Schober, E. (2017). Waste and the superfluous: An introduction. Social Anthropology, 25 (3), 282–287.

Article   Google Scholar  

Fathima, I. (2020, February 22). New Indian Express . https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/bengaluru/2020/feb/22/irregular-waste-collection-leaves-residents-in-a-fix-2106860.html . Accessed 27 April 2020.

Frosch, R. A., & Gallopoulos, N. E. (1989). Strategies for manufacturing. Scientific American, 261 (3), 144–153. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24987406 . Accessed 18 January 2021

Ghosh, A. (2020, August 13). The Print . https://theprint.in/india/indiaspopulation-to-cross-152-crore-in-next-16-years-more-people-will-be-of-working-age/481018/ . Accessed 31 March 2021.

Grindle, M. S. (2010). Good governance: The inflation of an idea (HKS faculty research working paper series, RWP10–023, John F). Harvard University.

Gupta, S. K. (2012). Integrating the informal sector for improved waste management. Private Sector and Development, 15 , 12–17.

Hoornweg, D., & Tata, P. B. (2012, March). What a waste: A global review of solid waste management . Retrieved from World Bank Group: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/17388

Hui, Y., Li’ao, W., Fenwei, S., & Gang, H. (2006). Urban solid waste management in Chongquing: Challenges and opportunities. Waste Management , 1052–1062.

Isaac, T., & Harilal, K. N. (1997). Planning for empowerment: People’s campaign for decentralised planning in Kerala. Economic and Political Weekly , 53–58.

Isaac, T., & Tharakan, M. (1995). Kerala: Towards a New Agenda. Economic and Political Weekly 1993–2004 .

Korhonen, J., Nuur, C., Feldmann, A., & Birkie, S. E. (2018). Circular economy as an essentially contested concept. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175 , 544–552.

Korner, I., Sanchez, S. I., & Corrales, A. Y. (2008). Proposal for the integration of decentralised composting of the organic fraction of municipal soild waste into the waste management system of Cuba. Waste Management , 64–72.

Massoud, M. A., Mokbel, M., Alawieh, S., & Yassin, N. (2019). Towards improved governance for sustainable solid waste managemnt in Lebanon: Centralised vs decentralised approaches. Waste Management & Research , 686–697.

Metin, E., Erozturk, A., & Neyim, C. (2003). Solid waste management practices and review of recovery and recycling operations in Turkey. Waste Management , 425–432.

Narayana, T. (2009). Municipal solid waste management in India: From waste disposal to recovery of resources? Waste Management , 1163–1166.

Nilsson, M., Eklund, M., & Tyskeng, S. (2009). Environmental integration and policy implementation: Competing governance modes in waste management decision making. Environment and Planning , 1–18.

National Commission on Population. (2019, November). Reports. Retrieved from Ministry of Health and Wefare. https://nhm.gov.in/New_Updates_2018/Report_Population_Projection_2019.pdf

National Green Tribunal. (2021, February 2). Karnataka State Pollution Control Board . https://kspcb.karnataka.gov.in/sites/default/files/inlinefiles/2.2.21%20BBMP%20limit%20NGT%20SLC%20meeting%20proceedings.pdf . Accessed 25 March 2021.

Naveen, B. P., & Sivapullaiah, P. V. (2020). Solid waste management: Current scenario and challenges in Bengaluru. In Sustainable sewage sludge management and resource efficiency . IntechOpen.

Nzeadibe, T. C. (2009). Solid waste reforms and informal recycling in Enugu urban area, Nigeria. Habitat International , 93–99.

Ostrom, E. (2008). Institutions and the environment. Economic Affairs, 28 (3), 24–31.

Owolabi, S. A., Mmereki, D., Baldwin, A., & Li, B. (2016). A comparative analysis of solid waste management in developed, developing and lesser developed countries. Environmental Technology Reviews , 120–141.

Praveen, R. S. (2020, February 17). Waste to energy plants not necessary (p. 2). The Hindu.

Pujara, Y., Pathak, P., Sharma, A., & Govani, J. (2019). Review on Indian municipal solid waste management practices for reduction of environmental impacts to acheieve suitable development goals. Journal of Environmental Management , 1–12.

Ramachandra, T. V., & Aithal, B. H. (2016). Bengaluru’s reality: Towards unlivable status with unplanned urban trajectory. Current Science, 110 (12), 2207–2208.

Ramachandra, T. V., & Bachamada, S. (2007). Environmental audit of municipal solid waste management. International Journal for Environmental Technology and Management , 369–391.

Ramachandra, T. V., Bharath, H. A., Kulkarni, G., & Han, S. S. (2018). Municipal solid waste: Generation, composition and GHG emission in Bengalore, India. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , 1122–1136.

Ramani, C. V. (2018). Pourakarmikas still wait for service regularisation . The Hindu.

Sambhyal, S. S. (2016). Solid waste management in Indian cities . Centre for science and environment.

Sambyal, S. S. (2016). Swachh Bharat Mission—Performance in figures . https://www.downtoearth.org.in/feature/two-years-of-swachhbharat- mission-55883 . Posted on 1 October 2016. Accessed on 29 April 2020.

Sambyal, Swati singh. (LinkedIn). https://www.LinkenIn.com/posts/swatisambhyal_thiruvananthapuramzerowaste-zerowaste-activity-6635471247696322560-EJLL . Accessed on 12 April 2020.

Shaban, A., Kourtit, K., & Nijkamp, P. (2020). India’s urban system: Sustainability and imbalanced growth of cities. Sustainability , 1–20.

Sharma, M. (2018, May 12). Bangalore Mirror . Retrieved January 5, 2021, from https://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/bangalore/cover-story/ec-data-reveals-citys-exponential-growth-there-are-now-over-1-25-crore-of-us-bengalureans/articleshow/64129198.cms

Singh, S. (2015). Cities- the 21st century India. In S. Singh (Ed.), Decentralised solid waste Management in India: A perspective on technological options (pp. 289–302). Bookwell Publishers.

Swaminathan, M. (2018). How can India’s waste problem see a systemic change. Economic and Political Weekly Engage . https://www.epw.in/engage/article/institutional-framework-implementingsolid-waste-management-india-macro-analysis . Accessed 28 August 2019.

The Hindu. (2020, December 3). https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/state-to-get-waste-to-energy-plant-in-2022/article33234145.ece#:~:text=State%20to%20get%20waste%2Dto%2Denergy%20plant%20in%202022,-Staff%20Reporter&text=Yediyurappa%20on%20Wednesday%20laid%20the,WtE%20plant%2 . Accessed 20 March 2021.

Tiwari, D. (2021, January 2). Deccan Herald . https://www.deccanherald.com/specials/point-blank/fixing-bengalurus-waste-management-issues-beyond-activism-934212.html . Accessed 20 March 2021.

TMC (Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation). (2019). Status of solid and liquid waste management . Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation.

US Census Bureau. (2021, January 18). United States Census Bureau . https://www.census.gov/popclock/print.php?component=counter . Accessed 31 March 2021.

Vujic, G., Roof, A. G., Stanisavljevic, N., & Ragossnig, A. (2015). Municipal solid waste developement phases: Evidence from EU27. Waste Management & Research , 1112–1120.

Wilson, D. C., Rogero, A. C., Modak, P., Velis, C., Rodic, L., Soos, R.,... Iyer, M. (2015). Global Waste Management Outlook. Retrieved from United Nations Environment Programme: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-waste-management-outlook

Zhang, D. Q., Tan, S. K., & Gersberg, R. M. (2010). Municipal soild waste management in China: Status,problems and challenges. Journal of Environmental Management, 1623–1633.

Zurbrugg, C., Drescher, S., Patel, A., & Sharatchandra, H. C. (2004). Decentralised composting of urban waste- An overview of community and private initiatives in India. Waste Management , 655–662.

Zurbrugg, C., Drescher, S., Rytz, I., Sinha, A. M., & Enayetullah, I. (2005). Decentralised composting in Bangladesh, a win-win situation for all stakeholders. Resources, Conservation and Recycling , 281–292.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Programme Coordinator (Research), Thanal, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India

Namitha Madhukumar

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

College of Business, Law and Governance, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia

Taha Chaiechi

James Cook University, Singapore, Singapore

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Madhukumar, N. (2022). Decentralised Urban Waste Management: A Case Study of Solid Waste Management in Two Indian Cities - Thiruvananthapuram and Bengaluru. In: Chaiechi, T., Wood, J. (eds) Community Empowerment, Sustainable Cities, and Transformative Economies. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5260-8_14

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5260-8_14

Published : 12 January 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-16-5259-2

Online ISBN : 978-981-16-5260-8

eBook Packages : Economics and Finance Economics and Finance (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Government agencies communicate via .gov.sg websites (e.g. go.gov.sg/open) . Trusted website s

Look for a lock ( ) or https:// as an added precaution. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Waste Management

Our Fundamentals

Constraints And Challenges

Resource Innovation

Thinking Long-Term

Civic Ownership

Adapting to Changes

Urban Planning

Creating a Sustainable Economy

Engaging the Community

Preserving a Unique National Identity

Case Studies

Placemaking

Green and Blue Spaces

Public Transport Network

According to the National Environmental Agency (NEA), about 5.88 million tonnes of solid waste was generated in 2020 – the equivalent of 32,000 Jumbo Jets.

Paper and cardboard were disposed of the most and made up almost 20 per cent of total waste generated, followed by ferrous metal and plastics.

Singapore has invested in some of the world’s most advanced waste management systems. At present, there are four Waste-to-Energy (WTE) plants with a fifth plant in Tuas slated to be operational in 2021, and one off-shore disposal site at Semakau Landfill.

The process of incineration at WTE plants reduces waste by up to 90 per cent and saves landfill space. Heat is also recovered to produce steam that propels turbine-generators to generate electricity, providing up to 3 per cent of the country’s power needs.

The incineration ash and other non-incinerable waste are then transported to the Tuas Marine Transfer Station (TMTS). From there, they are barged to Semakau Landfill for final disposal.

Much consideration has been put into managing Singapore’s waste due to its limited land space for landfills or dumping grounds. At the same time, Singapore is grappling with the parallel challenge of sustainability – how do we reduce the amount of waste we generate?

Timeline: A Look at Waste Management Over the Years

WTE Incineration: A Bold First Step

Singapore took a bold step in the 70s and invested in Waste-to-Energy (WTE) Incineration. Faced with a shortage of space for landfilling in the 70s, Singapore took a bold step to invest in technology only available in Europe and Japan. S$100 million was set aside to build the first WTE Incineration plant in Asia outside of Japan.

Then-Director General of Environmental Public Health, Daniel Wang, was put in charge of constructing the plant, located at Ulu Pandan and spoke of the responsibility of and pressure on his team to ensure that the money was well-spent.

However, he credits the political leaders then for having “really clear foresight as to the need for [an incineration plant]”. Apart from reducing waste to just one-tenth of its volume, the WTE plant also generated energy and scrap iron for sale from its ash residue.

o read the whole brochure, see: Souvenir brochure to commemorate the official opening of the Ulu Pandan refuse incineration plant

Indeed, we have come a long way since that first step.

“During my NS days, I had the privilege to visit Lorong Halus landfill as we were instructed to get rid of some used furniture from our camp at Paya Lebar Air Base. As we were entering the landfill, the first thing that caught my attention was the smell. It was really bad. Due to the smell, every one of us on the tonner ‘suddenly’ became very efficient. We took more than an hour to load all the things onto the tonner to be thrown at Lorong Halus but we managed to clear everything from the tonner in 20 minutes when we were there. During the entire saga, every one of us held our breath for as long as we can. While we were there, I noticed an old uncle standing in the middle of the landfill directing traffic, telling the driver where they should unload their trash. It struck me that he doesn’t mind the smell at all. Having the chance to visit the Semakau landfill two years ago makes me realise that we have come a long way in terms of our solid waste management.

Today at Semakau, there is no smell as the solid waste are all incinerated and their volume has been greatly reduced to allow us to make use of the island for many more years to come. Without the advancement of our technology and processes, this would be a different story.”

Ng Yew Teck (Singapore Memory Project)

The Way Forward: Becoming a Zero Waste Nation, Together

The Semakau Landfill is expected to handle Singapore’s waste disposal needs for another two decades or so. But Singapore is not resting on its laurels. Instead, it is looking at ways to improve its waste management infrastructure and also urge its people to reduce and recycle, to extend the landfill’s capacity as far as possible into the future.

As Singapore’s waste output is projected to increase, it is working towards becoming a Zero Waste Nation through the reduction of consumption, as well as the reusing and recycling of materials to reduce waste generation at its source. As part of the Singapore Green Plan 2030, it aims to increase its recycling rate to 70% by 2030 and concurrently reduce the amount of waste sent to Semakau by 30%.

Singapore will continue to upgrade its infrastructure to remain at the forefront of waste management. The Integrated Waste Management Facility (IWMF) is expected to be completed by 2028 and will utilise new technologies to maximise both energy and resource recovery from solid waste. Both water reclamation and waste management have been identified to share common processes and have many beneficial synergies. The IWMF will be co-located with the Tuas Water Reclamation Plant (TWRP) and both facilities are designed to be self-sustaining. This state-of-the-art facility will spearhead Singapore’s drive towards sustainability in the future and is poised to be as groundbreaking as the Ulu Pandan WTE Incineration Plant in the 1970s.

Apart from upgrading infrastructure, education has been stepped up to change attitudes and behaviours towards reducing, reusing and recycling.

To effectively promote a zero-waste lifestyle, MSE and the NEA work closely with schools, businesses, community groups, NGOs, and civil society groups to rally the ground and raise awareness on waste issues through their networks.

Many of these initiatives complement the efforts of the government. For instance, the charity organisation Zero Waste SG started as a website in 2008 and has since run several initiatives, such as a recycling campaign and a BYO (Bring Your Own) initiative – where it rallied over 1,000 businesses to encourage Singaporeans to bring their reusable bags, bottles or containers.

In light of success brought about by ground-up initiatives, the Towards Zero Waste Grant was set up in 2019 to fund ground-up projects that drive waste reduction and recycling or encourage households to recycle more and recycle right. In 2019 alone, close to 2,000 activities were organized in support of the Zero Waste initiative.

There are also efforts by the government to draw greater attention and consideration towards waste generation and reduction. The mandatory reporting of waste data and Environmental Public Health Act (EPHA) was amended in 2014 to enact the reporting of waste data by businesses and commercial entities such as hotels and shopping malls and also requires them to propose waste reductions plans. Furthermore, in 2019, the Resource Sustainability Act was enacted to legislate new measures to address waste streams such as the on-site food waste treatment systems in large commercial and industrial premises.

Challenges Ahead

There are still barriers in Singapore’s drive towards zero waste. For instance, Singaporeans are still generally unaware when it comes to recycling. This lack of knowledge contributes to a lowered domestic recycling rate and more commonly, leads to the contamination of recycled goods. The NEA states that 40 per cent of recycling placed in blue bins gets contaminated by non-recyclables such as food waste and hence, cannot be recycled.

As part of this framework, legislative action has been taken in the form of the 2019 Resource Sustainability Act which addresses priority waste streams, such as food and e-waste. The requirements relating to food waste are:

However, the preferred way to manage food waste is to avoid wasting food at the onset.

NEA launched a Food Waste Reduction (FWR) outreach programme in November 2015 to encourage the adoption of smarter shopping, storage and preparation habits that help consumers save money while reducing food wastage.

In addition, NEA and the Singapore Food Agency (SFA) have worked with the food industry to publish food waste minimisation guidebooks for food retail establishments, supermarkets and food manufacturing establishments to reduce food waste across the supply chain.

E-waste is also being targeted as it contains small amounts of heavy metals and other substances of concern (e.g., in printed circuit boards). The wide variety of e-waste also makes it hard to generalise material content. For instance, the material composition of a mobile phone is very different from that of an electric kettle. Hence, the management of e-waste is effort-consuming and costly.

Management of e-waste starts upstream and at the very beginning during the manufacturing stages. Singapore has several restrictions on hazardous substances for electrical and electronic equipment. For instance, the local sale of batteries exceeding a stipulated mercury content is not allowed. This way, used batteries can be safely discarded along with normal household waste at our WTE incineration plants.

At this point, e-waste recycling has been largely voluntary, with the NEA working closely with industry partners and the community. While voluntary e-waste recycling measures have yielded encouraging results, the NEA recognises the limitations of a voluntary approach and in turn, the need for a regulated system in the long run. At the moment, studies are underway to develop feasible systems for the collection and recycling of e-waste.

Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.

We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.

Brief introduction to this section that descibes Open Access especially from an IntechOpen perspective

Want to get in touch? Contact our London head office or media team here

Our team is growing all the time, so we’re always on the lookout for smart people who want to help us reshape the world of scientific publishing.

Home > Books > Solid Waste Management - Recent Advances, New Trends and Applications

An Investigation of Waste Management Practice in a South African Township: A Case Study of Ekuphumleni Township, Ndlambe Municipality

Submitted: 31 July 2022 Reviewed: 06 August 2022 Published: 03 November 2022

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.107271

Cite this chapter

There are two ways to cite this chapter:

From the Edited Volume

Solid Waste Management - Recent Advances, New Trends and Applications

Pengzhong Li

To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India: CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. www.cbspd.com | [email protected]

Chapter metrics overview

145 Chapter Downloads

Impact of this chapter

Total Chapter Downloads on intechopen.com

Total Chapter Views on intechopen.com

Solid waste is a global challenge that is more pronounced in developing countries such as South Africa, where its management is a major concern. The government has recently made a concerted effort to engage the public in sustainable waste management practices to resolve the crisis occasioned by the challenge. This chapter investigates waste management practices in the South African Township of Ekuphumleni and relied on a sample of 353 households to obtain some primary data with a questionnaire on the subject matter. The data collected was analyzed using “R,” and the results were presented using charts, tables, and figures. Data collected revealed that waste paper, cans, used plastics, and bottles were major waste components generated by the respondents and these wastes were generally stored unseparated domestically in plastic bags and home garbage can. Furthermore, the respondent indicated that the municipality does a door-to-door collection of their waste and they were unwilling to pay for waste collection services. While the waste management practice is in tandem with the municipal system, the study recommends that the respondents must be educated on circularity, which will ensure reducing, reusing, recycling, and recovering waste and further aid economic empowerment.

• waste management
• South African
• waste separation
• waste storage

Author Information

Ayo adeniran *.

• Nelson Mandela University, Gqeberha, South Africa

Lorato Motsatsi

• Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Pretoria, South Africa

Sijekula Mbanga

Emma ayesu-koranteng, winston shakantu.

*Address all correspondence to: [email protected]

1. Introduction

Waste continues to be generated because of human activities, and as the increase in the human population stimulates urbanisation, it is becoming an issue of global concern [ 1 ]. Waste refers to all pieces of objects and items such as garden waste, packing items, vegetables, metals and old paint containers, among others, that owners have no more use for and they aim to discard [ 2 , 3 ]. The concern for such items stems from the continuous contamination of the atmosphere, soil and water, which endlessly impacts public health and global degradation [ 4 ].

It is important to note that the increasing solid waste generation places additional strain on the already overburdened waste management systems, and if waste is not properly managed, it may cause societal problems with the “Not-In-My-Backyard” mindset anticipated to emerge and prevail [ 5 ]. Besides, poorly managed solid wastes can have catastrophic environmental implications, such as becoming a breeding ground for disease-spreading vectors, production of leachates which contaminates groundwater, production of methane gas with its subsequent effects on global warming and climate change and increased fire outbreak, to mention a few [ 6 ].

Waste management is simply the collection, transportation, processing, or disposal of waste materials [ 7 ]. Chand [ 8 ] further described waste management as a procedure to mitigate the waste impact on the environment, health, or aesthetics. However, the poor handling of the procedure in urban and rural areas has been a major problem for human health and existence [ 9 ].

As a result of the global impact of waste, at least 12 of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by the 193 UN Member States in September 2015 [ 10 ], have a direct association with solid waste management. Furthermore, according to the Global Waste Management Outlook (GWMO), the cross-cutting nature of solid waste management (SWM) and its impact on 12 SDGs emphasise its importance and political priority [ 11 ].

Despite the SDG’s focus, waste and its management practices remain a major global challenge [ 12 ]. Low-income countries’ main waste procedures and disposal mechanisms are open dumping and open burning [ 13 ]. For example, open littering [ 14 ], open dump [ 15 ], illegal dump sites [ 16 ], and incineration [ 17 ], among others, are some of the waste management practices still in practice in developing countries.

While no study as to the practice of waste management in Ekuphumleni Township, Ndlambe Municipality has been conducted, this chapter seeks to present the findings of the current practice and make recommendations towards addressing and raising the level of awareness and knowledge of sustainable solid waste management practices in the low-income neighbourhood of emerging nations.

The subsequent sections present the literature works, the methodology employed, findings and recommendations and conclusions of the study.

2. Waste management practices

Waste is unwanted, useless, and discarded material generated daily by human activities [ 18 ]. The E.U. Waste Directive defines waste as any object or substance the owner throws away, implying that it is useless [ 19 ]. However, several schools of thought, such as Steenmans and Malcolm [ 20 ], Thomas [ 21 ], and Hannon and Zaman [ 22 ], have argued against this definition as the value of waste is deemed to be subjective as what is waste to a consumer is a resource to another.

As a result, Wiprächtiger [ 23 ] argues that there is no such element as final waste because its definition will always depend on the degree of its perceived usefulness to its holder. It is then safe to align with van Ewijk [ 24 ] that the definition of waste is always contextual and can depend on the prevailing state of technology, the environment, and political ideology.

According to the Basel Convention, waste is categorised into two main typologies: hazardous and non-hazardous [ 25 ]. While hazardous waste is regulated at the national level, regulating the non-hazardous is within the purview of the regional and or municipal government [ 26 ]. The Basel convention documented hazardous wastes as radioactive, industrial, electronic and medical waste, among others, while the non-hazardous are municipal and non-hazardous industrial waste [ 27 ].

Mngomezulu [ 14 ] and Adeniran [ 15 ] identified the typology of municipal waste to include cans, and other metals, paper, bottles, plastics, food remains, old appliances, glass and construction demolition waste, among others.

Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata [ 6 ] further identified the types of waste and their sources to be: glass (broken glassware and bottles, coloured glass and light bulbs, among others); metal (foil, cans, tins, appliances and railings, among others); organic (garden/yard waste, food scraps and wood process residues, among others); paper (newspaper, cardboard, paper scraps and boxes, among others); plastic (packaging, containers, bags and lids, among others); and other (leather, textiles, rubber, multi-laminates and other inert materials).

The growth in waste is alarming in metropolitan areas, and this is due to population movements towards these centres [ 28 ]. Waste growth tends to rise proportionately with urbanisation, rising income levels, and population expansion [ 12 , 29 ]. While the global population keeps growing, its changing demographics are quickly evolving, and such areas are witnessing unprecedented levels of urbanisation, with the majority of this growth occurring in small and medium-sized cities in low-income countries [ 30 ]. Amaral [ 31 ] indicates that the unprecedented population growth has several environmental consequences, including increased urbanisation and municipal solid waste generation, which is expected to reach 3.4 billion tonnes annually by 2050. This waste growth is unfortunately not being matched with appropriate management practices [ 32 ].

Waste management is collecting, storing, treating, and disposing of waste materials in a manner that is safe for humans, vegetation, living creatures, ecosystems, and the environment [ 33 ].

As practiced in most emerging countries, households dispose of all forms of waste together [ 34 ], and the municipal trucks collect them [ 35 ] and when and if not collected, the practice of illegal dumping, littering and open burning of waste is practiced [ 36 ].

In South Africa, AWARD [ 37 ] indicated that over 90% of the collected waste is disposed of into landfills.

The literature highlighted three types of landfills: the open dump, the semi-controlled landfill, and the sanitary landfill [ 38 ]. Despite the attendant challenges posed by the open dump practices, it is still the most used method by urban centres in the developing world [ 12 ].

Waste collection and landfill activities have significantly contributed to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change [ 39 ]. However, these poor waste management practices have fallen excessively on the poverty-stricken neighbourhoods with little or no influence on the waste products being illegally dumped near them [ 40 ].

A waste management system includes appropriate separation and decommissioning, logistics, storage, worker training and disposal facilities [ 41 ].

Adeniran [ 42 ] posited that numerous policies had been positioned to tackle waste and pollution in Sub-Saharan Africa. However, [ 43 ] argues that it is unclear if these policies are actioned as there is little or no progress towards achieving their aims and obligations. In addition, UNEP [ 44 ] indicated that the inability of many African governments to enforce waste and environmental regulations had fostered an environment of impunity, thus affecting the performance of waste management. According to David [ 45 ], the resultant effect is that industry participants are incapable of keeping up with the increasing waste streams and the timely development of strategies and policies to manage them effectively.

Despite their limited capacity for planning, limited resources, operational monitoring, and contract management, local governments are frequently in charge of an effective waste management system, and these limiting factors make sustainable waste management difficult [ 46 ].

Globally, various waste handling and disposal systems are in place; however, the major difference between the systems of advanced and emerging economies is waste separation at the collection point [ 47 ], which facilitates waste recycling and reuse, recognised as the most beneficial waste management system.

Mir [ 48 ] aver that the population must accept a waste management system to be effective, and [ 49 ] underscores the importance of ensuring a higher standard of living for future generations, simply defined as sustainability. Hence a solid waste management system must be socially acceptable, economically viable, and environmentally efficient to be sustainable [ 50 ].

Affordability denotes that all sectors of society accept the cost of maintaining a clean environment, whereas societal acceptance denotes that the inhabitants agree to the service offered if it meets their needs [ 51 ]. Meanwhile, the waste management system must be environmentally friendly by implementing an environmental conservation strategy, structure, and policy.

Simatele [ 52 ] documented that South Africa, like other developing countries, has implemented waste management policies, but their application proved inconsistent. Dlamini et al. indicated that these policies cover a set of efforts to tackle enhancements for environmental and public health quality. Nonetheless, despite the legal importance and quality, the law’s enactment per se does not guarantee improvements in solid waste management [ 53 ].

South Africa has 13 pieces of legislation on waste management [ 54 ]; the most recent is the National Environmental Management: Waste Amendment Act, 2014 (Act 26 of 2014). The thrust of this legislation is “to protect health and the environment by providing reasonable measures for the prevention of pollution and ecological degradation and for securing ecologically sustainable development”.

3. Methodology

The data for this paper were collected between 20th and 24th September 2020 between the hours of 10 h00 and 20 h00 to ensure that respondents who had gone to work were given the opportunity as they are expected to have returned by the evening at the latest. The time frame was chosen because residents are expected to have completed their household chores by 10 h00; those who had left home in the morning would have returned for dinner by the late evening. During the collection period, data were collected on various aspects, including household waste management and disposal practices; thus, this study focuses on the waste management practices of Ekuphumleni households. Ekuphumleni township is adjacent to the Kenton on Sea within the Ndlambe Municipality in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. The township is located approximately 130 km from Port Elizabeth on the Port Alfred-East London corridor.

The estimated population of the township was about 1800 households and using a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error, 317 households were targeted, but we succeeded in reaching a sample of 353 households using convenience sampling to gather primary data from the willing and available representatives of all households during the fieldwork.

Within the COVID-19 protocol, this study utilised a Likert scale-like questionnaire; because of its simplicity in composition, the Likert Scale was the preferred scaling system for applicable statements/questions as it also allows for the use of hidden perceptions and is expected to yield a high accuracy of measurement [ 55 ]. The questionnaire covered a wide range of topics and offered information for developing a local economic strategy as the data collection tool. The data collection was managed by the researchers, who also participated in the data collection, assisted by a team of well-trained field workers. There had been several meetings and consultations between all stakeholders regarding the green village project to be developed within the community prior to administering the questionnaire. Ward Councillors, Community Representatives, and Municipality Officials attended these meetings and expressed their support for conducting the study in the area. After approval, potential participants were approached, informed consent was obtained from them, all the participants were assured of anonymity and confidentiality, and their participation was entirely voluntary.

The data collected was analysed using SPSS, and the adopted decision rule was adapted from [ 56 ] and presented in Table 1 .

Decision rule.

Adapted from Sarrafzadeh [ 56 ].

4. Findings

4.1 demography.

Demographic data allows us to determine whether there are differences in the answers provided by the respondents based on personal characteristics, and it also assists us in determining if there are gaps in our data, allowing us to ensure that it reflects the subject in question [ 57 ].

4.1.1 The population of households by gender

The data collected on the gender makeup of each household is presented in Figure 1 , and it shows that the 353 participating households have a female population of 748 (57.2%) and a male population of 560 (42.8%). This implies that each household has an average of 3.70 people, i.e. the ratio of females to males is 2.12 to 1.58 per household).

Population of household by gender.

4.1.2 Household headship

The questionnaire did not specify how participants should perceive headship, and no question queried what made a household member the head. However, in most households, the person described as the head of the household was the oldest family member.

As shown in Figure 2 , except for one household with a coloured male respondent head, there are more black female-headed households than black male-headed households across all age groups. According to the frequency distribution in Figure 3 , the overall mean age of the household head was 46 years.

Age of household head.

Distribution of age of household head.

4.1.3 Education level

Using households that are 20 years and above, Table 2 shows that 410 respondents representing 93.0% of the household members either did not attend school, had incomplete or complete primary and incomplete and complete secondary school while 17 Nr (3.9%) have certificate and 10 Nr (2.3%) hold diplomas. It is also interesting to note that the 4 Nr (0.9%) with a bachelor’s degree are all female. Again, these figures apply to household members (20 years and above) whose highest education qualification was reported.

Household members’ highest educational qualification.

4.1.4 Household average monthly income

As revealed in Tables 3 , 244 households (69.1%) live on an average monthly income of less than R6000, while another 46 households (13%) earn no income. 6.2% earn an average monthly income of between R6000 and above R20000, meaning they are in the mid to high-income strata.

Household average monthly income.

4.2 Waste management practices in Ekuphumleni township

4.2.1 types of waste generated and frequency.

Taking a cue from Table 1 , as seen from Table 4 , waste paper, cans, used plastics, and bottles rank first, second, third and fourth with mean scores of 3.13, 3.00, 2.95, and 2.92, indicating that the respondents sometimes generate these materials as waste. On the other hand, food remains, old clothing, old appliances, human waste, hazardous waste and oil are rarely generated as their mean scores ranged between 1.45 and 2.44; decision rule from Table 1 , the respondents never generate other types of waste with a mean score of 0.32. With a composite mean of 2.09, there is a sign that waste is rarely generated in the township.

Types of waste generated and frequency.

Key: A = Always; O = Often; S = Sometimes; R = Rarely; N = Never; U = Unspecified; MS = Mean Score; and R* = Ranking.

4.2.2 Waste storage material and frequency

Plastic bags with a mean score of 3.45 is often used as storage material by the respondents, as shown in Table 5 , and it ranks first. Home garbage cans (MS, 2.11) and cardboard boxes (MS 1.68), ranking second and third respectively, are often used, while municipal plastic drums (MS 1.43), biodegradable sacks (MS 1.20), nearby municipal dumpster (MS 0.92) and into unused open plots (MS 0.75) are never used. With a composite mean of 1.65, there is an indication of general apathy towards storing waste in materials.

Waste storage material and frequency.

4.2.3 Waste separation

Table 6 reveals that 323 respondents representing 91.5%, indicated that they do not separate their wastes, while 19 Nr (5.4%) stated that they do and 11 Nr (3.1%) were not specific. The respondents who indicated that they separate the waste, however, stated that they separate them into components of bottles, glasses, plastics, cans, boxes, cardboard and papers.

Waste separation.

4.2.4 Waste disposal system and frequency

Table 7 shows that the disposal of waste into the Municipal waste truck with a mean score of 4.26 is often used as the means of waste disposal, while community bins (MS 1.82) are rarely used, and others such as recycling facilities, empty plots, landfill sites, abandoned houses and others are generally never used as their mean score is between 0.54 and 0.82. Besides, the composite mean of the waste disposal location stands at 1.58.

Domestic waste disposal system and frequency.

When further asked about the frequency of the collection, as revealed in Table 8 , the respondents indicated that the municipality is the main waste collector with 344 Nr (97.5%) indicating such while 5Nr (1.4%) indicated other and 4 Nr (1.1%) was unspecified.

Waste collector.

4.2.5 Waste collection point and frequency of collection

From the mean score ranking as presented in Table 9 , door-to-door collection (MS 2.91) ranked the first in waste collection types, followed by community waste collection point (MS 1.95), while the collection of waste anywhere it is dumped (MS 0.70) and others (MS 0.20) ranks third and fourth respectively.

Waste collection point and frequency of collection.

Key: D = Daily; W = Weekly; F = Fortnightly; M = Monthly; N = Never; U = Unspecified; MS = Mean Score; and R* = Ranking.

4.2.6 Pay for waste removal

As shown in Table 10 , the number of respondents who indicated that they do not pay for waste removal is 333 (94.3%), and 9 (2.5%) respondents did not specify. Of the number that said that they do pay for waste removal, 5 Nr (1.4%) indicated that the government helps them, and 6 Nr (1.7%) stated that they receive no help from the government.

Pay for waste removal.

5. Discussion of findings

From the findings, it can be generally inferred that the respondents practice effective waste management in line with the provision of the local municipality and the municipality also fulfils its responsibility of waste collection.

To underscore the representativeness of the study, the findings show that both genders of females and males participated in the study, although the data stated that there were more women than men, and this is supported by Knoema [ 58 ], who indicated that there are more women than men in South Africa, with a ratio of 97 men to 100 women. Also, this finding is supported by data from UNDP [ 59 ] on South Africa, which states that 51.5 per cent are female, and 48.5 per cent are male. Furthermore, Arcgis [ 60 ] stated that the average South African household size in 2019 was 3.3 people, whereas the study revealed an average of 3.70 persons per household, a size within the same range, reiterating the validity of the findings. Literature has, however, indicated that the generation of waste which in turn dictates the waste management practice, is affected not only by the number of people but also by other factors like population structure or way of living and female to male ratio [ 61 ].

The survey identified that female household headship was in the majority, and literature indicates that female headship has been on the rise in South Africa, as recorded by the 10-yearly census data on female headship and income [ 62 ]. This assertion of [ 62 ] gives credence to the finding of this study. Furthermore, Posel [ 63 ] observed that the average age of South African heads of households was between 44 and 51 years and the average age of the participants from Ekuphumleni township was 46.32 years. While Anbazu [ 64 ] indicate that household heads influence the choice of waste management practice, Uma [ 65 ] further observed that many female-headed households utilise informal refuse disposal systems rather than male-headed households.

Using household members that are 20 years and above, the study observed that 12.5% of the respondents indicated that they have no schooling, but the finding of the waste practice showed that they have a good practice in consonance with Chikowore [ 66 ]. This finding is also supported by the observation of Mngomezulu [ 14 ] that the level of education has no association with waste management practices, but environmental education and a lack of information do.

The study observed that over 60% of the respondents are earning below R4000, putting them in the low-income strata of society. There is much scientific literature on the association of socioeconomic indices such as income with solid waste generation, but there are inconsistencies in the other literature findings. For example, Khan [ 67 ] stated that income significantly influences solid waste generation and management. Porpino [ 68 ] concluded that low-income households generate more waste, while Omolayo [ 69 ] concluded that higher-income households generate more waste than lower-income ones. Machate [ 70 ] observed that the causative factor is income, and that waste generation increases as income increases. Namlis [ 71 ] posited that the association was dependent on the development stage of a country and hypothesised that as income rises in emerging nations, so would solid waste generation; however, as income increases in advanced economies, waste generation significantly reduced. From the preceding, as expected, the waste generation in this community depended on other influencing factors asides from income.

Waste paper, cans, used plastics, and bottles were the major waste components generated in the township, and these wastes are recyclable. According to Chen [ 72 ], estimating the waste types generated and their management method can be useful for predicting future waste management trends. Nineteen case study of municipal solid waste in developing countries, as documented by Troschinetz [ 73 ], produces by average recyclable content of 55%. Such organic content includes food waste, paper and paper materials, human waste, bio-degradable plastic, and landscape and pruning waste, among others [ 9 ]. The data collected aligns with the literature on the typology of waste generated in developing countries and can be used to predict future trends and waste management systems.

Plastic bags and home garbage cans are indicated to be mostly used by the respondents as domestic storage materials, and according to the documentation of Yoada [ 74 ], the two most common storage items for domestic solid waste in Accra, Ghana, were plastic bins, baskets polythene bags, paper boxes and old buckets. Gumbi [ 75 ] also indicated that residents’ major types of containers to dispose of waste collected by the municipality ranged from plastic bags to metal bins and plastic bins. The findings of this study show that plastic bag is the popular waste storage material in the township and aligns with other works of literature.

With over 90% indicating that they do not separate their waste, this finding aligns with the general apathy towards waste separation in developing countries where waste separation is uncommon, as observed by Ferronato [ 12 ]. According to Babaei [ 76 ], while initiatives to strengthen solid waste management in emerging economies have primarily focused on cost-effective practices such as separation, source reduction and recycling, their implementations have experienced social opposition because of low awareness and willingness to participate. Matete [ 77 ] also indicates that separation at source, among other things, is not yet accorded a top priority in line with regulatory and legal requirements in South Africa. Hence, it can be inferred that the respondent does not practice waste separation as part of their waste disposal practice.

The municipal waste truck always collects the waste from the respondents weekly from door-to-door as indicated by the respondents. According to the South African legislative provision, the municipality is responsible for solid waste management [ 78 ]. This agrees with literature from developed or emerging economies, such as Indonesia [ 79 ], Ghana [ 80 ], Colombia [ 81 ], Turkey [ 82 ], South Africa [ 52 ], USA [ 83 ] and the United Kingdom [ 84 ] among others where the municipal truck is the main collector of waste, but the difference is the frequency and efficiency. The finding of this study, where residents indicated that municipal truck comes to remove their wastes, confirms what the literature indicates.

However, Statistics South Africa [ 85 ] observed a lack of SWM services in South Africa, with only 66% of the population receiving waste collection services from municipalities or private companies through municipal contracts. With this background, Hlahla [ 86 ] indicated that South Africa has a variety of waste collection systems designed to accommodate the unique conditions of a peri-urban community, one of which is door-to-door collection by municipal truck, which is the collection practice in Ekuphumleni.

With over 94% of the respondents stating that they were not willing to pay for waste management services, the study aligns with Omolayo [ 87 ], who observed that socioeconomic factors such as income level affect households’ willingness to pay for waste management in South Africa. Therefore, the respondents’ household income level could be inferred to be why the respondents are unwilling to pay for such services.

6. Conclusion and recommendations

The United Nations’2030 target continues to prioritise environmental sustainability. As a result, various levels of government in South Africa have implemented various waste disposal avenues for the populace, but there have been reported inefficiency of these program(s) in many parts of the nation. As a result, we investigated waste management practices in the South African township of Ekuphumleni using primary data.

The descriptive statistics findings show an average of 3.70 people (the ratio of females to males is 2.12 to 1.58) per household, and the average household head age of 46 years was recorded. In addition, about 87% of the household heads had formal education and over 60% with a monthly income estimated at below ZAR4000/USD200. The findings further identified that most of the waste generated by the township is recyclable, and that the main disposal method is storing the waste at the household level with some form of plastic material, which is collected weekly at their doors by the municipal truck. Many households perceive littering and the dumping of refuse anywhere as an environmental problem that requires drastic measures for its control or eradication.

Recycling has a mean score of 0.82, indicating the need for sensitisation programmes and incentives to increase household participation in recycling waste products.

Almost none of the respondents pay for waste, which can be attributed to some or all the socioeconomic factors, particularly household income.

The study’s findings imply that the waste management practices of the residents of Ekuphumleni township do not fully align with the sustainable waste management practices of reducing, reusing, recycling and recovering, although a high volume of their waste is recyclable. The waste collected by the municipal trucks end up in landfills, thus contributing to greenhouse gas emission and pollution of the groundwater system.

Therefore, this study concludes that there is a need for sustainable waste management practices in the township. This is achievable by raising awareness and educating the residents on the need for sustainable waste management practices of reducing, reusing, recycling and recovering towards a circular economy. Towards this, the South African government must intensify its efforts on poverty alleviation interventions to improve the socioeconomic status of households and environmental sensitisation programmes through adequate citizen education to facilitate the achievement of zero waste.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the efforts and hard work of the field survey teams who assisted with data collection under the very trying COVID-19 conditions. The cooperation and kind assistance of the Ndlambe Municipal Officials and the residents of Ekuphumleni and Dr. Kabundu for assistance with the statistical analysis. The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and Department of Science and Technology (DST) in South Africa funded the research as part of the Ecosun Village Demonstration Project.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

• 1. Karri RR, Ravindran G, Dehghani MH. Wastewater—Sources, toxicity, and their consequences to human health. In: Soft Computing Techniques in Solid Waste and Wastewater Management. Amsterdam, Netherland: Elsevier; 2021. pp. 3-33
• 2. Adeniran AA, Adewole AA, Olofa SA. Impact of solid waste management on ado Ekiti property values. Civil and Environmental Research. 2014; 6 (9):29-35
• 3. Al-Taai SH. Solid waste: A study of its concept, management methods, and environmental impacts. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2022; 1002 (1):012007
• 4. Ajibade FO, Adelodun B, Lasisi KH, Fadare OO, Ajibade TF, Nwogwu NA, et al. Environmental pollution and their socioeconomic impacts. In: Ajay K, Vipin KS, Pardeep S, Virendra KM, editors. Microbe-Mediated Remediation of Environmental Contaminants. 1st ed. Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing; 2021. pp. 321-354
• 5. Sharafi M, Atashkar S, Massahi T. Assessing the quantity of solid waste produced in Kermanshah School of Public Health: Challenges and suggestions. International Journal of Health and Life Sciences. 2021; 7 (2):1-6
• 6. Hoornweg D, Bhada-Tata P. What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management. Washington, USA: World Bank; 2012
• 7. Demirbas A. Waste management, waste resource facilities and waste conversion processes. Energy Conversion and Management. 2011; 52 (2):1280-1287
• 8. Chand S, Shastry CS, Hiremath S, Joel JJ, Bhat CK, Mateti UV. Water, sanitation, hygiene and biomedical waste disposal in the healthcare system: A review. Biomedicine. 2020; 40 (1):14-19
• 9. Abdel-Shafy HI, Mansour MS. Solid waste issue: Sources, composition, disposal, recycling, and valorisation. Egyptian Journal of Petroleum. 2018; 27 (4):1275-1290
• 10. U.N. Sustainable Development Goals [Internet]. Available from: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ [Accessed: May 25, 2022]
• 11. Wilson DC, Rodic L, Modak P, Soos R, Carpintero A, Velis K, et al. Global waste management outlook. UNEP. 2015
• 12. Ferronato N, Torretta V. Waste mismanagement in developing countries: A review of global issues. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16 (6):1060
• 13. Ferronato N, Torretta V, Ragazzi M, Rada EC. Waste mismanagement in developing countries: A case study of environmental contamination. UPB. Scientific Bulletin. 2017; 79 (2):185-196
• 14. Mngomezulu SK, Mbanga S, Adeniran AA, Soyez K. Factors influencing solid waste management practices in joe Slovo township, Nelson Mandela Bay. Journal of Public Administration. 2020; 55 (3):400-411
• 15. Adeniran AA, Shakantu W. The health and environmental impact of plastic waste disposal in south African townships: A review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19 (2):779
• 16. Guerrero LA, Maas G, Hogland W. Solid waste management challenges for cities in developing countries. Waste Management. 2013; 33 (1):220-232
• 17. Giusti L. A review of waste management practices and their impact on human health. Waste Management. 2009; 29 (8):2227-2239
• 18. Okwesili J, Iroko C. Urban solid waste management and environmental sustainability in Abakaliki urban. Nigeria. European Scientific Journal. 2016; 12 (23):155-183
• 19. Campos-Alba CM, Garrido-Rodríguez JC, Plata-Díaz AM, Pérez-López G. The selective collection of municipal solid waste and other factors determining cost efficiency. An analysis of service provision by spanish municipalities. Waste Management. 2021; 134 :11-20
• 20. Steenmans K, Malcolm R. Transitioning towards circular systems: Property rights in waste. Journal of Property, Planning and Environmental Law. 2020; 12 (3):219-234. DOI: 10.1108/JPPEL-03-2020-0018
• 21. Thomas S. Waste, marginal property practices and the circular economy. Journal of Property, Planning and Environmental Law. 2020; 12 (3):203-218. DOI: 10.1108/JPPEL-02-2020-0012
• 22. Hannon J, Zaman AU. Exploring the phenomenon of zero waste and future cities. Urban Science. 2018; 2 (3):90
• 23. Wiprächtiger M, Rapp M, Hellweg S, Shinde R, Haupt M. Turning trash into treasure: An approach to the environmental assessment of waste prevention and its application to clothing and furniture in Switzerland. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 2022; 2022 (26):1-17. DOI: 10.1111/jiec.13275
• 24. van Ewijk S, Stegemann JA. Recognising waste use potential to achieve a circular economy. Waste Management. 2020; 105 :1-7
• 25. Awasthi AK, Li J, Koh L, Ogunseitan OA. Circular economy and electronic waste. Nature Electronics. 2019; 2 (3):86-89
• 26. Inglezakis VJ, Moustakas K. Household hazardous waste management: A review. Journal of Environmental Management. 2015; 150 :310-321
• 27. Raubenheimer K, McIlgorm A. Can the Basel and Stockholm conventions provide a global framework to reduce the impact of marine plastic litter? Marine Policy. 2018; 96 :285-290
• 28. Oladunjoye MA, Adeniran MA. Towards efficient Management of Solid Wastes: An overview of dumpsites in Ibadan Metropolis, southwestern Nigeria. The Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management. 2021; 47 (2):271-284
• 29. Flores CAR, da Cunha AC, Cunha HFA. Solid waste generation indicators, per capita, in Amazonian countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2022; 29 (22):33138-33151
• 30. Sun L, Chen J, Li Q, Huang D. Dramatic uneven urbanisation of large cities throughout the world in recent decades. Nature Communications. 2020; 11 (1):1-9
• 31. Amaral C, Pedro MI, Ferreira DC, Marques RC. Performance and its determinants in the Portuguese municipal solid waste utilities. Waste Management. 2022; 139 :70-84
• 32. Oteng-Ababio M. E-waste: An emerging challenge to solid waste management in Ghana. International Development Planning Review. 2010; 32 (2):191-206
• 33. Khan S, Anjum R, Raza ST, Bazai NA, Ihtisham M. Technologies for municipal solid waste management: Current status, challenges, and future perspectives. Chemosphere. 2022; 288 :132403
• 34. Xu L, Ling M, Wu Y. Economic incentive and social influence to overcome household waste separation dilemma: A field intervention study. Waste Management. 2018; 77 :522-531
• 35. Jaunich MK, Levis JW, DeCarolis JF, Gaston EV, Barlaz MA, Bartelt-Hunt SL, et al. Characterisation of municipal solid waste collection operations. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2016; 114 :92-102
• 36. Idowu IA, Atherton W, Hashim K, Kot P, Alkhaddar R, Alo BI, et al. An analyses of the status of landfill classification systems in developing countries: Sub Saharan Africa landfill experiences. Waste Management. 2019; 87 :761-771
• 37. Association for Water and Rural Development [AWARD]. South Africa Is Drowning in Its Own Waste-Are Our Regulators Taking This Crisis Seriously? [Internet]. Available from: http://award.org.za/index.php/2019/02/01/south-africa-is-drowning-inits-own-waste-are-our-regulators-taking-this-crisis-seriously/#:~{}:text=South%20Africans%20generate%20roughly%2054,90%25%20is%20landfilled%20or%20dumped [Accessed: May 5, 2022]
• 38. Muhammad LJ, Badi I, Haruna AA, Mohammed IA. Selecting the best municipal solid waste management techniques in Nigeria using multi-criteria decision-making techniques. Reports in Mechanical Engineering. 2021; 2 (1):180-189
• 39. Maria C, Góis J, Leitão A. Challenges and perspectives of greenhouse gases emissions from municipal solid waste management in Angola. Energy Reports. 2020; 6 :364-369
• 40. Adusei-Gyamfi J, Boateng KS, Sulemana A, Hogarh JN. Post COVID-19 recovery: Challenges and opportunities for solid waste management in Africa. Environmental. Challenges. 2022; 6 (2022):1-9
• 41. Röhlig KJ. Waste management policy and strategy. Nuclear Waste. 2022; 4 (2022):1-12
• 42. Adeniran AA, Shakantu W. The role of virtual reality in planning for municipal solid waste management. Sustainability Handbook. 2021:130
• 43. Godfrey L, Ahmed MT, Gebremedhin KG, Katima JH, Oelofse S, Osibanjo O, et al. Solid Waste Management in Africa: Governance Failure or Development Opportunity? Regional Development in Africa2019. p. 235
• 44. United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP]. Enforcement of Environmental Law: Good Practices from Africa, Central Asia, ASEAN Countries and China [Internet]. Available from: http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/9968/enforcement-environmentallaws.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y [Accessed: March 21, 2022]
• 45. David VE, John Y, Hussain S. Rethinking sustainability: A review of Liberia’s municipal solid waste management systems, status, and challenges. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management. 2020; 22 (5):1299-1317
• 46. Azage M. Healthcare waste management practices among healthcare workers in healthcare facilities of Gondar town. Northwest Ethiopia. Health Science Journal. 2013; 7 (3):0-0
• 47. Ndum AE. Bottom-up Approach to Sustainable Solid Waste Management in African Countries (Doctoral Dissertation). Universitätsbibliothek der BTU Cottbus; 2013
• 48. Mir IS, Cheema PPS, Singh SP. Implementation analysis of solid waste management in Ludhiana city of Punjab. Environmental Challenges. 2021; 2 :100023
• 49. Stern N, Valero A. Innovation, growth and the transition to net-zero emissions. Research Policy. 2021; 50 (9):104293
• 50. Farooq A, Haputta P, Silalertruksa T, Gheewala SH. A framework for the selection of suitable waste to energy technologies for a sustainable municipal solid waste management system. Frontiers in Sustainability. 2021; 2 :681690
• 51. Wilson DC, Rodic L, Scheinberg A, Velis CA, Alabaster G. Comparative analysis of solid waste management in 20 cities. Waste Management & Research. 2012; 30 (3):237-254
• 52. Simatele DM, Dlamini S, Kubanza NS. From informality to formality: Perspectives on the challenges of integrating solid waste management into the urban development and planning policy in Johannesburg, South Africa. Habitat International. 2017; 63 :122-130
• 53. Muheirwe F, Kombe W, Kihila JM. The paradox of solid waste management: A regulatory discourse from sub-Saharan Africa. Habitat International. 2022; 119 :102491
• 54. South African Waste Information Centre [SAWIC]. Waste Policy and Legislature, 2015 [Internet]. Available from: http://www.sawic.org.za/?menu=13 [Accessed: May 6, 2022]
• 55. Pimentel JL, Pimentel JL. Some biases in Likert scaling usage and its correction. International Journal of Science: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR). 2019; 45 (1):183-191
• 56. Sarrafzadeh M, Martin B, Hazeri A. Knowledge management and its potential applicability for libraries. Library Management. 2010; 31 (3):198-212. DOI: 10.1108/01435121011027363
• 57. Fink A. How to Conduct Surveys: A Step-by-Step Guide. Los Angeles, USA: Sage Publications; 2015
• 58. Knoema. South Africa Male to female ratio, 1950-2018. [Internet]. Available from: https://knoema.com/atlas/South-Africa/topics/Demographics/Population/Male-to-female-ratio [Accessed: February 9, 2022]
• 59. United Nations Development Programme [UNDP]. Human Development Indices and Indicators 2018 Statistical Update [Internet]. Available from: https://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2018_human_development_statistical_update.pdf [Accessed: February 9, 2022]
• 60. Arcgis. Average Household Size in South Africa [Internet] 2022. Available from: https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=582208ececa2424ab6e387d9cdcf01e3#:~:text=Description- [Accessed: February 9, 2022]
• 61. Talalaj IA, Walery M. The effect of gender and age structure on municipal waste generation in Poland. Waste Management. 2015; 40 :3-8
• 62. Sambo, N. and Kennedy, P. Womxn in Big Data South Africa: Female-Headed Households in South Africa [Internet]. Available from: https://www.womeninbigdata.org/womxn-in-big-data-south-africa-female-headed-households-in-south-africa/ [Accessed: July 22, 2022]
• 63. Posel DR. Who are the heads of household, what do they do, and is the concept of headship useful? An analysis of headship in South Africa. Development Southern Africa. 2001; 18 (5):651-670
• 64. Anbazu JK, Ocloo KA, Oduro-Ofori E. Determinants of the choice of disposal methods among residents in urban areas in southern Ghana. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association. 2022:just-accepted
• 65. Uma KE, Nwaka ID, Nwogu MU, Obidike PC. What are the triggers of household decision-making on waste disposal choices? A gender-differentiated analysis. Heliyon. 2020; 6 (12):e05588
• 66. Chikowore N. Factors influencing household waste management practices in Zimbabwe. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management. 2021; 23 (1):386-393
• 67. Khan D, Kumar A, Samadder SR. Impact of socioeconomic status on municipal solid waste generation rate. Waste Management. 2016; 49 :15-25
• 68. Porpino G, Parente J, Wansink B. Food waste paradox: Antecedents of food disposal in low-income households. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 2015; 39 (6):619-629
• 69. Omolayo Y, Feingold BJ, Neff RA, Romeiko XX. Life cycle assessment of food loss and waste in the food supply chain. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2021; 164 :105119
• 70. Machate M. Reflections on the influence of family demographics on food waste generation among the city of Tshwane households, Republic of South Africa. In: Saleh H, editor. Strategies of Sustainable Solid Waste Management. London: IntechOpen; 2021
• 71. Namlis KG, Komilis D. Influence of four socioeconomic indices and the impact of economic crisis on solid waste generation in Europe. Waste Management. 2019; 89 :190-200
• 72. Chen DMC, Bodirsky BL, Krueger T, Mishra A, Popp A. The world’s growing municipal solid waste: Trends and impacts. Environmental Research Letters. 2020; 15 (7):074021
• 73. Troschinetz AM, Mihelcic JR. Sustainable recycling of municipal solid waste in developing countries. Waste Management. 2009; 29 (2):915-923
• 74. Yoada RM, Chirawurah D, Adongo PB. 2014. Domestic waste disposal practice and perceptions of private sector waste management in urban Accra. BMC Public Health. 2014; 14 (1):1-10
• 75. Gumbi SE. Current Waste Management and Minimisation Patterns and Practices: An Exploratory Study on the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality in South Africa (Doctoral Dissertation). Johannesburg: University of South Africa; 2015
• 76. Babaei AA, Alavi N, Goudarzi G, Teymouri P, Ahmadi K, Rafiee M. Household recycling knowledge, attitudes and practices towards solid waste management. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2015; 102 :94-100
• 77. Matete N, Trois C. Towards zero waste in emerging countries–A south African experience. Waste Management. 2008; 28 (8):1480-1492
• 78. De Villiers NF, Van As HJ, Botha JC. The enforceability of the by-laws of district municipalities on local municipalities: The case of solid waste disposal. Stellenbosch Law Review. 2020; 31 (2):315-343
• 79. Chaerul M, Mulananda AM. Minimisation of municipal solid waste transportation route in West Jakarta using Tabu search method. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2018; 148 (1):012026
• 80. Sulemana A, Donkor EA, Oduro-Kwarteng S. Efficiency of municipal solid waste collection systems in Ghana. The Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management. 2020; 46 (1):58-65
• 81. Ortiz-Rodriguez OO, Rivera-Alarcon HU, Villamizar-Gallardo RA. Evaluation of municipal solid waste by means of life cycle assessment: Case study in the South-Western region of the Department of Norte De Santander. Colombia. Environmental Engineering & Management Journal (EEMJ). 2018; 17 (3):611-619
• 82. Korkut NE, Yaman C, Küçükağa Y, Jaunich MK, Demir İ. Greenhouse gas contribution of municipal solid waste collection: A case study in the city of Istanbul, Turkey. Waste Management & Research. 2018; 36 (2):131-139
• 83. Mahmood I, Zubairi JA. Efficient waste transportation and recycling: Enabling technologies for smart cities using the internet of things. IEEE Electrification Magazine. 2019; 7 (3):33-43
• 84. Bala A, Raugei M, Teixeira CA, Fernández A, Pan-Montojo F, Fullana-i-Palmer P. Assessing the environmental performance of municipal solid waste collection: A new predictive LCA model. Sustainability. 2021; 13 (11):5810
• 85. Statistics South Africa. Census 2016: Community Profiles [Internet]. 2016. Available from: http://interactive.statssa.gov.za/superweb/login.do [Accessed: July 22, 2022]
• 86. Hlahla S, Goebel A, Hill TR. Green economy: A strategy to alleviate urban poverty and safeguard the environment? KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Urban Forum. 2016; 27 (1):113-127. DOI: 10.1007/s12132-015-9263-7
• 87. Omotayo AO, Abeeb BO, Adebola SD, Adebayo IO, Kehinde OA. What drives households’ payment for waste disposal and recycling behaviours? Empirical evidence from South Africa’s general household survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17 (19):7188

© 2022 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Continue reading from the same book

Solid waste management.

Edited by Pengzhong Li

Published: 20 December 2023

By Parin Somani

197 downloads

By Atinuke Chineme, Marwa Shumo, Getachew Assefa, Ire...

112 downloads

By Lorenzo De Carlo, Giorgio Cassiani, Rita Deiana, G...

63 downloads

Search the site

Links to social media channels

IGF Case Study: Mine Waste Management

Case Studies from Ghana and Canada

Mining typically involves moving and processing large amounts of materials to extract the target commodity. This excess material is known as mine waste. These case studies show how governments in Ghana, Africa, and the Province of British Columbia, Canada, are showing leadership in mine waste governance.

Mining typically involves moving and processing large amounts of materials to extract the target commodity. This excess material is known as mine waste. For many operations, the scale of this waste can be significant; in addition, some mine waste can have mineralization that may be reactive or that could be released from the rock when it is mined, crushed, exposed, and dispersed into the air and water, to the detriment of the receiving environment. As such, mining companies often spend significant amounts of time and resources on managing these wastes effectively, including through waste rock piles, tailings management facilities, spent heap leach facilities, and overburden. Given the potentially significant or even catastrophic environmental and social impacts that poorly managed mine waste can have on operations, communities, and ecosystems, governments play a central role in ensuring that these by-products of the mining sector are effectively and safely managed.

The governments of Ghana, Africa, and the Province of British Columbia (BC), Canada, both show leadership in this area. Mining is an important industry in both economies, and the two jurisdictions show that countries can adopt best practices for mine waste governance irrespective of the size of their economy or their history of large-scale mining. Jurisdictions with long histories of mining—like BC—can provide lessons on how to avoid the pitfalls associated with the long-term legacies of poorly managed mine waste. Ghana, a country with a relatively shorter history of large-scale mining, also has lessons on managing waste materials to share. The case studies review how legal frameworks pertaining to mine waste management are working, show how they align with leading international practice, and explore how the governments of both Ghana and BC are identifying and responding to mine waste management risks.

Brief details

You might also be interested in, women and the mine of the future.

Uncovering the gender-disaggregated employment profile for large-scale mining, focusing on women and their occupations in 12 countries.

April 10, 2023

Financial Benefit-Sharing Issues for Critical Minerals: Challenges and opportunities for producing countries

Exploring nuances in the key features of critical minerals and the new challenges and opportunities they present to fiscal regulation.

March 22, 2024

IGF Case Study: Leveraging Technologies for Gender Equality in Mining Communities

How can sharing technological infrastructure support gender equality and serve the broad betterment of mining communities?

February 2, 2024

IGF Mining Policy Framework

A compendium of best practices for governments to manage the full range of issues in the mining sector.

December 11, 2023

THE EFFECT OF APPLYING LEAN SIX SIGMA (LSS) ON WAREHOUSE WASTE LEVEL A CASE STUDY ON I.V.L DHUNSERI POLYESTER COMPANY S.A.E

• Dr. Emad Elwy Habib October University for Modern Sciences and Arts (MSA), Egypt
• Amr Gouda Hassanein Arab Academy for Science, Technology and Maritime Transport, Egypt

Lean six sigma (LSS) has been widely acknowledged throughout the last decade in the Industrial affaires. The research is conducted to understand the LSS application effect on the waste level reduction in the PET (Polyethylene Terephthalate) industry. The purpose of the study that will be used is to understand the effectiveness of Lean Six Sigma (LSS). The research paper encompasses both descriptive and empirical approaches. The application of this research only took into consideration the PET (Polyethylene Terephthalate) industry. Surveying dataset was the main source of the primary data in addition to the secondary data which was collected and obtained from I.V.L Dhunseri Polyester Company S.A.E as well. The data set consisted of 366 observations of time series data points for waste levels. The methodology used was exploratory factor analysis to reduce dimensions followed by the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), structural equation modelling (SEM) and time series analysis combined with dummy ARIMA model. The descriptive analysis was via pie charts and computing the mean and standard deviation for Likert scaled statements. Also, for deeper insights the pareto analysis was used. It was noticed that there are problems that arise during the supply chain processes. One among the most reported problems are the unnecessary costs and the defects presence due to wastes and pushes a greater motive for companies like I.V.L Dhunseri Polyester Company S.A.E to consider LSS. The research realizes that there is a drastic increment throughout the efficiency and profit effectiveness. Due to large sample size the T paired test shall be used. In general, the waste level was different from before and after application of LSS. It was also found that, all the statements were reliable and valid when confirmatory factor analysis was applied. After modelling, a significant relationship between the application of LSS five processes and the level of waste reduction were found. A dummy ARIMA (1,1,2) was a good fit for data. The application of LSS was found out to have a significant negative effect on the waste level.

Information

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

Make a Submission

Journal of Supply Chain Management: Research and Practice Assumption University, Ram Khamhaeng Rd., Soi 24, Hua Mak, Bangkok 10240, Thailand.