literature review for waste management

Assessment methods for solid waste management: A literature review

Affiliations.

• 1 Vienna University of Technology, Institute for Water Quality, Resource and Waste Management, Vienna, Austria [email protected].
• 2 Vienna University of Technology, Institute for Water Quality, Resource and Waste Management, Vienna, Austria.
• PMID: 24895080
• DOI: 10.1177/0734242X14535653

Assessment methods are common tools to support decisions regarding waste management. The objective of this review article is to provide guidance for the selection of appropriate evaluation methods. For this purpose, frequently used assessment methods are reviewed, categorised, and summarised. In total, 151 studies have been considered in view of their goals, methodologies, systems investigated, and results regarding economic, environmental, and social issues. A goal shared by all studies is the support of stakeholders. Most studies are based on life cycle assessments, multi-criteria-decision-making, cost-benefit analysis, risk assessments, and benchmarking. Approximately 40% of the reviewed articles are life cycle assessment-based; and more than 50% apply scenario analysis to identify the best waste management options. Most studies focus on municipal solid waste and consider specific environmental loadings. Economic aspects are considered by approximately 50% of the studies, and only a small number evaluate social aspects. The choice of system elements and boundaries varies significantly among the studies; thus, assessment results are sometimes contradictory. Based on the results of this review, we recommend the following considerations when assessing waste management systems: (i) a mass balance approach based on a rigid input-output analysis of the entire system, (ii) a goal-oriented evaluation of the results of the mass balance, which takes into account the intended waste management objectives; and (iii) a transparent and reproducible presentation of the methodology, data, and results.

Keywords: Assessment methods; benchmarking; cost benefit analysis; life cycle assessment; mass balance; material flow analysis; multi criteria decision making; risk assessment; waste management.

© The Author(s) 2014.

Publication types

• Cost-Benefit Analysis
• Decision Making
• Decision Support Techniques
• Refuse Disposal / economics
• Refuse Disposal / methods*
• Risk Assessment
• Social Change

• Systematic review
• Open access
• Published: 26 December 2016

A review and framework for understanding the potential impact of poor solid waste management on health in developing countries

• Abdhalah K. Ziraba 1 ,
• Tilahun Nigatu Haregu 1 &
• Blessing Mberu 1  

Archives of Public Health volume  74 , Article number:  55 ( 2016 ) Cite this article

90k Accesses

131 Citations

32 Altmetric

Metrics details

The increase in solid waste generated per capita in Africa has not been accompanied by a commensurate growth in the capacity and funding to manage it. It is reported that less than 30% of urban waste in developing countries is collected and disposed appropriately. The implications of poorly managed waste on health are numerous and depend on the nature of the waste, individuals exposed, duration of exposure and availability of interventions for those exposed.

To present a framework for understanding the linkages between poor solid waste management, exposure and associated adverse health outcomes. The framework will aid understanding of the relationships, interlinkages and identification of the potential points for intervention.

Development of the framework was informed by a review of literature on solid waste management policies, practices and its impact on health in developing countries. A configurative synthesis of literature was applied to develop the framework. Several iterations of the framework were reviewed by experts in the field. Each linkage and outcomes are described in detail as outputs of this study.

The resulting framework identifies groups of people at a heightened risk of exposure and the potential health consequences. Using the iceberg metaphor, the framework illustrates the pathways and potential burden of ill-health related to solid waste that is hidden but rapidly unfolding with our inaction. The existing evidence on the linkage between poor solid waste management and adverse health outcomes calls to action by all stakeholders in understanding, prioritizing, and addressing the issue of solid waste in our midst to ensure that our environment and health are preserved.

A resulting framework developed in this study presents a clearer picture of the linkages between poor solid waste management and could guide research, policy and action.

Peer Review reports

Solid waste management is a growing challenge to many rapidly urbanizing areas in Africa. It is currently estimated that the rate of urban solid waste growth is faster than that of urbanization. Global estimates indicated that by 2002, 2.9 billion urban residents generated about 0.64 kg of waste per person per day and by 2012, this rose to 1.2 kg per person per day with a total urban population of 3 billion. Currently, it is projected that by 2025 there will be about 4.3 billion urban residents who on average will generate 1.42 kg of waste per day [ 1 ]. It is known that solid waste has effects on health and it is one of the major reasons why solid waste management is a top environmental and public health issue. However, while several causal linkages between exposure to waste and health outcomes for particular types of waste are well established, others remain unclear or not prioritized as public health issues. In cases where the causal linkages are known, the full extent of the burden of ill health attributable to exposure might not be known. Part of the challenge in establishing the causal linkages is the difficulty in unambiguously ascertaining the type, the dose and duration of exposure [ 2 ]. On the side of health outcomes, the challenge is the difficulty in ruling out other causes since other exposures in the environment might potentially cause the same outcomes [ 3 , 4 ]. Additionally, some clinical outcomes such as cancers and other forms of degenerative disorders take long to manifest after exposure and loss to follow up of exposed individuals is a common challenge [ 5 – 8 ].

Urbanization and solid waste generation

Solid waste generation and urbanization are intimately related and therefore it is important to briefly reflect on the urbanization phenomenon in the region. In 1950, about 30% of the world’s population lived in urban areas. It is currently estimated that by 2050, about 66% of the world’s population will be living in urban areas. Sub-Saharan Africa is urbanizing at a faster rate than any other part of the world. While Africa is still the least urbanized (40%), it is estimated that by 2050, about 56% of the population in Africa will be living in urban areas [ 9 ]. Going by the current trends, urbanization is a phenomenon that is rapidly growing and urban centers will remain the engines for economic growth and associated waste generation. Urban centers will also bear a substantial burden of ill-health in the coming decades attributable to poor waste management. While the per capita waste generation is highest in the developed world, these countries have better waste management practices that mitigate against potential adverse health impacts. In countries that are rapidly urbanizing and developing economically such as China and India, the ever increasing volumes of waste generated and weaker waste management practices poses serious health risks [ 1 ]. Human activities and their products are now recognized as the main cause of current global environmental and climatic changes that have direct effects on health and wellbeing [ 10 ]. Similarly, at a local municipal level, many human activities generate waste and these are major causes of environmental and health challenges including infectious diseases such malaria, cholera, dysentery, respiratory complications and injuries among others [ 11 – 16 ]. The growing urban population means more solid waste, and higher impact on environment and health. Increased solid waste results into increased demand on existing solid waste management services, which are in many African countries, the single largest budgetary item for local governments [ 1 ].

The urban growth in most of Africa has not been in synchrony with expansion of social amenities and economic opportunities, with many cities struggling to provide basic services such as shelter, water and maintaining a clean environment amidst an ever growing but largely poor urban population [ 17 – 19 ]. Urban centers have been considered places of opportunity, wealth, better education and health. Indeed, from the health perspective, urban populations have historically had overall better health indicators compared to rural populations and this became to be known as the urban health advantage. In the face of new urban challenges, the urban health advantage is waning [ 20 , 21 ].

The overarching objective of this paper is to develop and present a framework that aids understanding of (poor) solid waste management and its impact on health with a view to stimulate research, guide development of policies and implementation of appropriate interventions. More specifically, this study identifies and describes the main pathways through which poor SWM affects health; and sheds light on how the pathways can be exploited by different actors to reduce potential impact on health and wellbeing. The development of the framework was informed by a review of the literature contextualized in a developing country (level of socio-economic development and urbanization, health realities, and national and international responses to the challenges).

The review of the literature on the impact of poor solid waste management on health was the first major step in identifying, synthesizing, and integrating relevant evidence. The evidence was then used to create and critique a framework that summarizes and shows interlinkages and possible pathways through which exposure to solid waste may be detrimental to health. Both peer-reviewed and grey literature was searched. For the peer-reviewed and indexed literature, Pubmed online library was searched using a pre-determined search strategy. The following search word combinations: Solid/municipal waste; Solid/municipal waste management (generation, disposal); health impact/effects were used. Retrieved articles were reviewed for relevance. Similar search terms were used to search grey literature from Google Scholar. A configurative synthesis of the evidence was conducted to develop the framework and took it through a series of consultative reviews and expert informed revisions. The review summarized below starts with defining solid waste including classification, solid waste management practices, challenges and opportunities and lastly identifying the linkages/associations between solid waste and adverse health outcomes.

Literature review

Defining solid waste.

Solid waste may be defined as all discarded solid materials resulting from households, industrial, healthcare, constructional, agricultural, commercial, and institutional sources. Solid waste generated in a city is often referred to as municipal solid waste. In other literature and jurisdictions this category may exclude sewage, dissolved solids in water, and industrial waste [ 1 ]. For this paper, no exclusions were made for the reason that in most developing countries, most of the solid waste is not sorted at source, collection, transportation and disposal points [ 22 ]. Thus, municipal waste in the context of developing countries may include waste that would not ordinarily be considered municipal waste. Solid or municipal solid waste management refers to the planning, financing and implementation of programs for solid waste collection, transportation, treatment and final disposal in an environmentally and socially acceptable manner [ 23 ]. Failure to adhere to set standards at any of the various stages constitutes “poor solid waste management”.

Solid waste management practices

Solid waste management practices greatly vary across regions, countries and even within country [ 1 , 24 ]. Modern waste management approaches encourage reduced waste generation, re-use, recycling, composting, and safe disposal through landfills, however, these are often not practiced. In developing countries a large proportion of waste is not re-used. Waste sorting is also rare and therefore this makes it difficult to re-cycle or compost. As a result a large proportion of solid waste in developing countries is disposed of on open dump sites and many times burnt [ 1 , 2 , 24 – 26 ]. The variations in waste management practices are often a reflection of existence of laws and policies governing waste management and extent of their enforcement, available funding, composition and quantity of waste generated [ 1 ]. In many developing countries, solid waste management is the responsibility of both the municipal authorities and private providers [ 1 , 24 , 25 , 27 ]. Collection is often from source or temporary dumping ground, and final disposal is often at an open dumping site on the outskirts of the city. Dumping sites are often sprawling open grounds where truckloads deposit the waste. Dumped waste is often scavenged for usable articles, recyclable materials and many times burnt to reduce the bulk. Due to limited solid waste sorting at any stage, solid waste composition is complex and may contain industrial, medical, electronic, and human waste dumped on the same open grounds where all the other municipal waste is dumped [ 28 , 29 ].

Waste classification

Municipal solid waste is often categorized into two major groups: organic and inorganic. The organic municipal solid waste can further be divided into three categories: putrescible, fermentable, and non-fermentable. Putrescible wastes include products such as foodstuff that decompose fast. Fermentable wastes decompose rapidly, but without the unpleasant accompaniments of putrefaction while non-fermentable wastes tend to resist decomposition and, therefore, break down very slowly. Inorganic solid waste includes articles like metals, plastics, and other non-biodegradable materials. In terms of toxicity, some solid wastes are classified as hazardous including pesticides, medical waste, electrical waste, herbicides, fertilizers and paints and are recommended to be disposed of in special ways and not to be mixed with general municipal waste [ 24 ]. Solid waste in developing countries characteristically has a high content of organic matter compared to that in developed countries. For example, studies conducted in the region estimated that in Juba South Sudan, organic waste constituted about 31% of all waste by weight [ 30 ], 61% in Ghana [ 31 ] and 54% by weight in an Ethiopian town Jimma [ 32 ]. The high organic content has implications for waste management including recycling, but also a potential source of ill-health if mismanaged.

Solid waste and the wider development agenda

For health, environmental, and economic reasons, management of solid waste is and should be an important undertaking in any urban setting. There are wide variations in policies and practices in solid waste management between regions, countries, large and smaller cities and formal and informal areas within a city. While all urban centers face similar solid waste management challenges, the impact vary depending on how policies and practices are implemented. From the global development agenda perspective under the auspices of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), ensuring environmental sustainability (MDG 7), was identified as a key area. Review of progress on this MDG shows that an estimated 2.1 billion people gained access to improved sanitation between 1990 and 2015; elimination of ozone depleting substances; proportion of global population using open defecation halved since 1990; and proportion of urban population leaving in slums fell from 39.4 to 29.7% between 1990 and 2014 [ 33 ].

Going into the new global dispensation, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the relevance of the issue of protecting the environment and preserving health through proper solid waste management in cities has become even more pronounced. The SDG agenda advocates for reduced generation of waste, and increased reuse and recycling. It touches on SDG3 (health lives and promote well-being) ; SDG6 (water and sanitation) ; SDG11 (making cities inclusive, safe, resilient & sustainable) and SDG 13 (combating climate change and its impact) [ 34 ]. SDG 11, specifically has an indicator that relates to solid waste management: “ percentage of solid waste regularly collected and well managed ”. However, like other prior social development agendas, the challenge may be located in the operationalization and implementation. In many countries in the developing world, management of solid waste is not mainstreamed, poorly funded and has always fallen below expectation [ 1 , 35 , 36 ]. A review of evolution of policies, show that, Kenya for example, has made numerous efforts supported by policies, to manage solid waste in a sustainable way but in most cases implementation has been haphazard and fallen short [ 37 ]. The potential consequences of this failure to manage solid waste forms the heart of this paper as illustrated in the framework, with particular focus on the health impacts.

The conceptual framework

The interlinkage between poor solid waste management and adverse health outcomes may be overt and direct but may also be indirect and not obviously linkable to poor health outcomes of a population. This paper presents a framework to aid understanding the interlinkages between poor solid waste management and health, and gives the rationale for maintaining proper solid waste management as an investment in preventing ill-health and promoting wellbeing. The paper discusses various concepts related to solid waste management, and how these independently and jointly impact on urban health making reference to developing country contexts. The concepts discussed are not entirely new but are applied to a context of a developing country urban setting where the challenge of solid waste management is growing without commensurate interventions to manage it. Finally, a discussion and interrogation of the interlinkages and pathways between solid waste and the ill-health and how these can be exploited for implementation of cost effective interventions is provided.

The literature supporting the framework is summarized in two major categories: exposure to solid waste and the mechanism that bring about adverse health outcomes; and adverse health impacts. Under exposure, five categories of how individuals can be exposed are considered including: i) exposure to waste by waste generators; ii) exposure from handling waste among waste collectors; iii) pickers at dump sites; iv) living/working in neighborhoods of dumping sites and incinerators; and v) accumulation noxious substances such as heavy metals in the environment and subsequently in the food chain.

Exposure to solid waste

Exposure to solid waste may be obvious but may also be occult. Exposure to solid waste may take the form of bodily contact, penetrating injuries, inhalation, or ingestion. Exposure to solid waste is a function of how much solid waste is generated, how it is collected, transported, and the proportion disposed of safely [ 1 , 25 , 38 ]. It is estimated that in developing countries, waste generated per capita per day is about 0.65 kg compared to 2.2 kg in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. The African region contributes about 5% of solid waste generated globally, 44% by OECD and 12% by Latin America and the Caribbean [ 1 ]. Solid waste collection in low income countries is less than 50% compared to about 98% in high income countries and in most cases disposal is at open dumpsites or land fill with limited organized recycling [ 1 ]. At a higher level, risk of exposure to solid waste is influenced by presence or absence of good policies and allocation of financial resources to manage it. Categories of people exposed to solid waste range from those who generate the waste, those who collect waste it, such as the municipal workers, those who pick waste for a living and those living or working near disposal site such as landfills or dump sites and incinerators. The literature reviewed here assesses the exposure to solid waste, the knowledge of exposure, risk perception and mitigation practices among the various actors outlined above.

Exposure to solid waste among waste generators

Exposure to solid waste may occur right from the point where the waste is generated [ 39 ]. A good example is the medical waste. Medical personnel and hospital housekeeping staff are at higher risk of exposure to waste and infection from biological waste [ 39 , 40 ]. While medical waste requires stringent management, it is not uncommon to find medical waste being handled like household waste [ 36 ]. Sharp used medical equipment such as needles and scalpels are supposed to be disposed of in a safe “sharps “container but this is not always followed. Needle stick injuries from misplaced used needles are a common occurrence among health care providers [ 39 ]. Additionally, other than penetrating injuries or cuts, medical waste and contaminated surfaces may have contain highly infectious microbial agents such as ebola virus and hepatitis B & C virus which can be transmitted to exposed workers [ 41 , 42 ]. Other forms of exposure to waste by generators may include industrial workers who do not wear protective gear and are at risk of getting exposed to waste generated from their workplace such as toxic chemical waste.

Exposure to solid waste among collectors

Occupational exposure to solid waste is a constant risk waste handlers are faced with. Exposure can happen depending on the level of protective ware, knowledge of risk, standards and practices of waste sorting and equipment available to such workers [ 15 ]. In many of the developing countries, municipal waste (which is a mixed bag of waste) is handled by cheaply hired workers with limited protective gear and limited appreciation of the risk involved in handling solid waste [ 15 ]. Often they also have no legal protection and recourse in case of injury as their engagement terms are largely non-binding. Even where there are binding working relationships between the waste handler and employer such as the municipal councils, the challenge is that some of the effects of exposure may manifest long after the working relationship ceased to exist. The near absence of waste sorting and lack of protective wear put waste handlers at very high risk of exposure [ 36 , 43 ]. This is particularly important in developing countries where solid waste is often mixed with high risk waste such as medical waste especially from small facilities being disposed of as general municipal waste [ 36 ].

Living in neighborhoods of dumping and incinerator sites

In addition to enduring the nauseating and pungent smell and the unpleasant sight of rampant scavenging animals at dump sites, residents in the neighborhood of dumping sites have an ever-present risk of infection transmission through vectors and rodents that are abound at dump sites and inhalation of fumes from the burning waste [ 44 , 45 ]. The decomposing and festering solid waste attracts all manner of vectors including common houseflies that are very efficient in transmitting disease causing germs. Children living in such neighborhoods are exposed to a triple risk infectious diseases, injury and inhalation of dangerous fumes from the continuous burning of waste. However, due to the difficulties involved in quantifying the “dose” of exposure, the evidence linking residence near landfills and or dump sites and health outcomes remains weak [ 4 , 46 ].

Many poor urban residents do not get their water supply from the main municipal sources. Water from shallow unprotected wells are often contaminated by leachate from dumpsites. Still even those who draw water from the municipal sources may get it from illegal connections that are susceptible to breakage and contamination. Other common sources of water include protected or unprotected springs. In such circumstances, potentially the risk of water contamination from waste disposed of upstream is high. Improper human fecal matter and waste from abattoirs disposal is poor in many places and yet these are a rich source of disease-causing bacteria posing a serious health risk to individuals using such contaminated water [ 47 , 48 ]. On the other hand it is often the case that solid waste containing noxious chemicals at dump sites is burnt and this process may produce toxic fumes which cause respiratory complications and allergic reactions in some people.

Incineration is recommended for disposal of certain types of waste. However due to lack of appropriate equipment and fuel, incinerators are often not well run, for example not maintaining the right temperature, might result into releasing of noxious fumes in the environment [ 49 – 51 ]. It has been reported that living in the neighborhood of incinerators that are not well run and protected poses high respiratory disease risk [ 6 ]. Those operating the incinerators are also at risk of these health challenges as occupation hazards [ 8 ].

Exposure of solid waste to pickers and recyclers

In many African cities, solid waste dump sites are located on the outskirts of the city which are also home to a huge urban poor population often living in slums with no proper means of livelihood. Dumping sites are a source of economic livelihood to many who pick and retrieve articles that they consider valuable to them or the market for direct use or recycling [ 25 , 52 ]. Retrieved articles range from clothes, household utensils, food, ornaments and scrap metal and plastics among others. The process of picking waste exposes such people to many risks including infection, respiratory complications from fumes and injury from sharp objects [ 25 ]. Retrieved articles and food that find their way to the market puts a huge population at risk. In settings where women are the majority in the informal sectors, they are likely to also be over represented in the waste picking business. Similarly, get involved in waste picking and are likely to get disproportionately affected by injuries, respiratory complications and infections. Solid waste recycling has also been associated with health risk including physical injury, infections, and inhalation of particulate matter including bioaerosols [ 29 , 53 ].

Accumulation of noxious chemicals in environment including food chain and air

In most of the developing world, sorting of waste is hardly practiced. Waste that by law is supposed to be managed in a stringent manner finds its way on dumping sites for general waste. In a study involving assessment of management of medical waste in 5 hospitals, it was reported that there was no sorting of waste and yet 26.5% of the waste was categorized as hazard [ 36 ]. Industrial effluents often discharge into rivers while medical waste is often mixed with household waste as well as electronic waste. Petroleum products including paints laden with lead are discharged in open spaces or water channels. While some of the chemicals discharged might have short-term effects on animal and plant life, others are carried through the food chain where they accumulate and have deleterious effects much later. Heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and mercury are of particularly high public health importance yet no clear measures are enforced to control their disposal and help limit environmental contamination [ 54 – 56 ]. Poorly managed solid waste disposal systems such as in compositing, sewage treatment and poor constructed landfills can all lead to environmental contamination and consequent exposure to the general public [ 2 ].

Health impacts of exposure to solid waste

The impact of solid waste on health is varied and may depend on numerous factors including the nature of the waste, duration of exposure, the population exposed, and availability of prevention and mitigation interventions [ 13 , 15 , 44 ]. The impacts may range from mild psychological effects to severe morbidity, disability or death. The literature on health impacts of solid waste exposure remains weak and inconclusive in many cases due the difficulties encountered in accurately ascertaining exposure, controlling for confounders, accounting for duration of exposure and inability to follow up those exposed to ascertain outcomes that do not manifest in the short term [ 5 , 57 ]. This notwithstanding, the literature review presented here sheds light on several pieces of evidence linking solid waste exposure and self-reported outcomes but also those where ascertainment of exposure and health outcomes were empirically confirmed.

While certain health impacts might be immediate, obvious to discern and directly linkable to the solid waste exposure, others may be occult, longer term and difficult to attribute the effects to a particular type of waste [ 4 , 45 , 58 ]. This makes establishing the burden of disease attributable to solid waste and full epidemiologic spectrum of diseases emanating from the exposure a difficult undertaking often requiring large sample sizes and prolonged periods of follow-up [ 7 , 46 , 57 ]. Surveillance data are lacking due to the complexity involved in measuring exposure and outcomes but also the limeted programmatic focus and funding to this area. While estimating the exposure and the outcomes are difficult, available research allows us to conceptualize and draw linkages on how current solid waste exposures might be contributing to the observed ill-health at individual and population level. This may not only guide designing of more elaborate studies, but also guide policies and interventions.

Figure  1 , is a schematic conceptual representation of the linkages between exposure to the various types of solid waste, the pathways to negative outcomes and final impact on health. The representation here is only illustrative and not exhaustive. For ease of understanding, health impacts have been categorized into four:

A framework for understanding the linkages between poor solid waste management and adverse health outcomes

Infection transmission: This could be bacterial, viral and other disease causing organisms

Physical bodily injury: These may include cuts, drowning, blunt trauma, and chemical or radiation injury. This may range from immediate skin or inhalation burns, to longer terms effects.

Non-communicable diseases- long term exposure may lead to cellular damage and development of cancer while other might result in bodily organ injury and damage.

Emotional/psychological effects (strong smells, unsightly waste as human body parts)

One type of solid waste may lead to more than one health outcome directly or through an intermediate mechanism for example through vectors and other individual level predisposing factors.

Poorly managed medical waste, is a major source of infection for patients, health care workers, waste handlers and general public [ 14 , 59 , 60 ]. Where all medical waste is properly disposed of, the risk of infection to the general public is limited, but remains substantial to providers and their clients. While protocols on handling medical waste exist in many settings, their implementation varies from one place to another depending on how stringently prevention of infection protocols are implemented and observed. Indeed many health care personnel and medical waste handlers do not use personal protective gear [ 14 , 35 , 61 , 62 ].

A variety of pathogenic organisms are transmitted from biological specimen, contaminated medical waste and sharp medical objects such as hypodermic needles. Hepatitis B infection is a common infection often transmitted through skin cuts, mucous membranes, needles stick injures and contaminated surfaces [ 39 , 41 , 43 ]. Although it is recommended that all used and disposable sharp equipment should be discarded in a sharps containers, these are often not available resulting into many health personnel getting needle stick injuries. The risk of transmission of infection from medical waste is substantial including hepatitis B, ebola and Hepatitis C among others [ 40 , 59 ]. Other important pathogens that can be transmitted from medical waste include pathogenic bacteria such one that causes tuberculosis, anthrax, pneumonia, meningitis, and infections of the gastro-intestinal system. Evidence shows that workers who handle medical waste are at a higher risk of nosocomial infections [ 14 , 43 ].

Decomposing organic waste is a rich medium or culture for growth of numerous micro-organisms many of which are diseases causing if passed on to humans. Also there is always a risk of transmission through vectors such as houseflies but also through human contacts as is the case with waste handlers who do not use protective wear and waste pickers who most of the time use bare hands [ 12 , 13 , 63 ]. Additionally, articles retrieved from waste may be sold to unsuspecting public without undergoing thorough cleaning hence posing a risk of infection transmission.

Gastro-intestinal infections such as typhoid fever, polio virus infection, hepatitis E infection, and cholera are often transmitted through contaminated food or water [ 11 , 13 , 38 ]. Toilet ownership in Kenya, for example, is very low with 12% of all households not having any form of toilet [ 64 ]. Even those households with a toilet, many are not connected to the main sewer line. These result into fecal matter being disposed of in open spaces while other households do not have any form of toilet and thus dispose of fecal matter as general waste, popularly referred to as flying toilets or discharged into rivers [ 65 ]. Human fecal matter is a known source for pathogenic enteric parasites, typhoid fever infection, polio virus infection, hepatitis E infection, cholera and common gastroenteritis transmitted human contact, vectors or contaminated water [ 11 ]. Studies have revealed high levels of pathogenic parasites in dump site waste confirming the risk waste handlers and pickers are exposed to [ 63 ]. This challenge of proper feacal matter management is not limited to households but also institutions such as hospitals and schools. There are reports of cholera outbreaks emanating from fecal waste coming from a hospital [ 66 , 67 ].

In many developing countries, the practice of sorting waste at source is almost non-existent even for high risk waste such as sharps generated from medical facilities [ 32 , 68 ]. Presence of sharp objects in waste poses a high risk of injury to both those who generate the waste, the handlers and pickers [ 15 , 16 , 69 ]. Poorly disposed surgical blades, needles frequently injure medical workers, medical housekeepers and waste collectors of medical waste while sharp objects such broken glass injure domestic workers and waste handlers. Where waste is disposed of in open dump site accessible to pickers, the risk of injury from sharp objects is ever present [ 16 ].

Urban floods are common in many cities. While poor urban physical planning may be largely to blame for the increasing phenomenon of urban floods, partly the problem can be attributed to rampant blockage of drainage systems by solid waste [ 70 – 72 ]. Inappropriate disposal of waste, especially the non-biodegradable plastic paper bags results into these being swept downstream resulting into blockage of drainage systems. Floods not only destroy property, they have claimed lives both on roads and homes and damage sewerage systems leading to wide spread environmental contamination with human waste and associated risk of infection transmission [ 66 , 73 ]. Blocked drainage systems are also breeding sites for diseases transmitting vectors such as mosquitoes.

Injuries from chemicals can be in the forms of skin burns, inhalation burns, explosions and intoxication. Fumes from burning chemicals at dump sites or from incinerators may cause respiratory, allergic and other complications [ 3 , 15 ]. Pharmaceutical and industrial chemicals are often not disposed of appropriately and at times get back into the market. Obsolete pesticides, old batteries, among others contain chemicals that are dangerous to human life yet are often disposed of just like common litter [ 74 ]. Medical waste may also include substances that are cytotoxic and or carcinogenic. Improperly disposed substances and equipment may result is disastrous effects to the public as was the case with the caesium-137 irradiation accident from a disused radiotherapy unit in Goiania, Brazil [ 75 ].

Chronic diseases (From long term exposure to chemicals and infections)

While many international protocols and guidelines on disposal of hazardous chemicals exist, these are not strictly adhered to especially in this part of the world. Environmental contamination with chemicals from industries is common endangering both humans and wild life. It is a common practice for industries to discharge their waste into rivers. It is also a common practice to dispose e-waste on open dump site. These are often burnt to retrieve desired components and yet the fumes are hazardous [ 28 , 29 ]. The world is dependent on petroleum for energy and industrial applications. Disposal of petroleum waste is poor and yet has long lasting impact on humans and the eco-systems in general [ 76 ]. Medical and pharmaceutical chemical waste, often include antibiotics, vaccines, and radioactive substances. In Brazil, a disused and vandalized for scrap radiotherapy unit caused accidental and prolonged exposure to radiation from caesium-137 leaving many with severe health problems while others died [ 75 ]. Common industrial waste contain dangerous chemicals such as lead, arsenic and mercury among others [ 77 ]. These chemicals may affect health through direct contact while others are through accumulation in the food chain [ 54 ]. Genotoxic substances cause changes in the internal cell structure. This change may or may not result in cancerous change. However, is strong evidence linking exposure to noxious substances and development of different types of cancer including lung cancer, bladder cancer, skin cancer and reproductive tract cancers among others [ 5 , 78 , 79 ]. Similarly, radioactive substances and their radiation are known to cause cell damage and may result into different forms of cancer. Prolonged exposure and inhalation of noxious, irritant or volatile chemicals, may lead to the respiratory system becoming hyper-sensitized and this may result into chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [ 80 , 81 ].

Psychological/Emotional impacts

Residents living next to dumpsites are usually affected by stench, the sight of marauding scavenging animals and social stigma. In extreme cases, solid waste has been reported to contain human body parts or aborted fetuses which may be distressing and could affect the mental well-being of the residents and those involved in waste picking. Moreover, for those who live closer to the dumping sites, the nuisance of scavenging animals and birds may affect their emotional and psychological health [ 4 , 44 ]. Heavy metal poisoning has also be associated with mental disorders [ 58 , 82 ].

As developing countries continue to grow economically, so does urbanization and the challenge of solid waste management. Municipal solid waste is a recognized environmental and health challenge but also an economic resource on which thousands of individuals eke a living through picking, re-using and recycling. While the per capita generation of solid waste per day is lower in developing countries, this is rapidly increasing and this is happening when there is limited expansion in the capacity, innovation, and funding to handle the challenge [ 1 ]. Characteristically, in most countries in Africa, solid waste has a high organic content making it a fertile medium for pathogens to thrive [ 1 , 31 , 32 ]. Secondly, solid waste is rarely sorted making recycling difficult but also more hazardous to handle from point it is generated to final disposal. Furthermore, in general, less than half of all solid waste in low income countries is collected implying that a large fraction of waste is disposed of in unsafe ways posing health risks to the general public. Lastly, even the collected waste is inadequately handled. Open dumpsites are a common disposal method and this poses serious environmental contamination risks, but also act as sources of diseases vectors and pathogenic agents [ 44 , 47 , 56 ]. Due to poor handling and maintenance, even disposal methods that are deemed safe in other setting can be hazardous in poor countries. Poorly maintained and run incinerators pose a health risk not only to the operators but also to those living in the neighborhood due incomplete combustion and subsequent release of dioxins [ 50 ].

Given the high risks of exposure to solid waste, it expected that there is a corresponding high burden of adverse health effects and mortality attributable to solid waste. The framework clarifies many of the linkages, but definitely not exhaustive due to lack of knowledge of causal linkages while in other cases where the linkages are known, the burden of the impact is not clear to many including policy makers. However, in spite of these challenges, existing evidence on the need to appreciate the health risks associated with various types of solid waste is strong and can be a good basis for drawing more attention on improving solid waste management. There is compelling evidence to show that solid waste, especially medical waste and other biodegradable waste are potential sources of pathogenic organisms such as viruses, bacteria and fungi and as such need to be strictly managed. This has been demonstrated among handlers of medical waste, pickers of solid waste and those living in the neighborhood of dumping sites. Prevalence of Hepatitis B and C virus infection is much higher in groups exposed to waste compared to the general population [ 14 , 39 , 43 ].

Toxic substances such as heavy metals and other noxious gases that are known to cause degenerative changes in tissues are often found in higher concentrations from disposal sites or incinerators fumes [ 5 , 6 , 81 ]. These types of waste are increasing with socio-economic development and industrialization. While definitive causal linkages between these exposures and cancers, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other generative disorders may still remain elusive, there is enough reason to take action to reduce risk of exposure to solid waste [ 4 , 7 , 8 ]. In addition to the poor solid waste collection and disposal practices, mitigation against known risks are also limited [ 14 ]. Handlers of medical waste can benefit from consistent use of personal protective equipment, and vaccination against the certain infection such hepatitis B virus. These can be ensured through legislation enforcement, health education to all those involved in the solid waste management chain, and provision of vaccinations to those at risk and provision of treatment to those already affected.

Conclusions and recommendations

From the literature is clear that there is a strong linkage between poor solid waste management and adverse health outcomes. A broad spectrum of groups of individuals are at risk of ill-health emanating from poor solid waste management. As the volume of waste generated increases with urbanization and industrialization, so does the complexity and content of the waste. The effects of some of the noxious waste will only manifest several years after exposure. The existing policies are not encompassing enough and their implementation is far from addressing the challenge [ 27 , 83 ]. Interventions aimed at protecting workers including use of protective wear and the public are not fully implemented and this leaves many at-high-risk populations not protected [ 84 , 85 ].

Due to weak implementation, existing policies and interventions, surveillance is almost non-existent. Existing research is also limited particularly in assessing exposure risk and health outcomes. Recognizing the extent of the challenge, and acknowledging the limited resources, there is need to engage strategically at various levels to generate evidence that will help highlight the problem and also feed into advocacy plans for sensitization of the public, public health officials, employers and all those at heightened risk of ill-health from solid waste. This framework can be used as an advocacy tool to demand for sensitization at all levels including policy, researchers, employers, waste handlers and the general public. This is important because the effects are not limited to those handling, picking or living near disposal sites. It is a health challenge for the general public and requires a well-grounded approach to ensure that all waste is managed and disposed of in a safe manner. Based on the foregoing discussion, the following recommendations are proposed:

Waste management should be prioritized as a social service, with adequate budget lines. Important to note that allocating money to waste management will not translate into better results unless there is adequate sensitization, good fiduciary practices and accountability.

Engage several stakeholders in the management of waste to generate a sense of responsibility and interest from all stakeholders.

Individuals involved in waste management should always wear recommended protective gear. This is partly the responsibility of employers but employees also need to be sensitized on the need to adhere to safety precautions.

Public education on individual citizen’s role in ensuring that waste is appropriately managed. Simple actions such not littering on the road, can go a long way in ensuring a cleaner environment. Gradual introduction of more concrete actions such as waste sorting at point of generation will go a long way in improving solid waste management.

Moving from policy to comprehensive implementation plan drawing on success stories from other countries. A starting point is to characterize waste, adapt good waste management practices, and promote use of technology in activities such as energy generation from waste.

Waste is not useless! The culture of recycling should be encouraged. Recycling can help in reducing volume of waste, and reduce need for exploitation of raw materials. For example, the growing demand of plastics means more petroleum is needed which comes with a cost but also impact on the environment.

Abbreviations

Chronic obstructive disease

Millennium Development Goals

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

Sustainable Development Goals

United Nations Environmental Program

Hoornweg D, Bhada-Tata P. What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management. In: Urban development series, knowledge papers. Washington: World Bank; 2012.

Google Scholar  

Giusti L. A review of waste management practices and their impact on human health. Waste Manag. 2009;29(8):2227–39.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hu SW, Shy CM. Health effects of waste incineration: a review of epidemiologic studies. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2001;51(7):1100–9.

Vrijheid M. Health effects of residence near hazardous waste landfill sites: a review of epidemiologic literature. Environ Health Perspect. 2000;108 Suppl 1:101–12.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Antwi SO, et al. Exposure to environmental chemicals and heavy metals, and risk of pancreatic cancer. Cancer Causes Control. 2015;26(11):1583–91.

Franchini M, et al. Health effects of exposure to waste incinerator emissions: a review of epidemiological studies. Ann Ist Super Sanita. 2004;40(1):101–15.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Porta D, et al. Systematic review of epidemiological studies on health effects associated with management of solid waste. Environ Health. 2009;8:60.

Rushton L. Health hazards and waste management. Br Med Bull. 2003;68:183–97.

United Nations. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights. New York: United Nations; 2014.

Whitmee S, et al. Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: report of The Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission on planetary health. Lancet. 2015;386:1973–2028.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cabral JP. Water microbiology. Bacterial pathogens and water. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2010;7(10):3657–703.

Achudume AC, Olawale JT. Microbial pathogens of public health significance in waste dumps and common sites. J Environ Biol. 2007;28(1):151–4.

Boadi KO, Kuitunen M. Environmental and health impacts of household solid waste handling and disposal practices in third world cities: the case of the Accra Metropolitan Area, Ghana. J Environ Health. 2005;68(4):32–6.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Franka E, et al. Hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus in medical waste handlers in Tripoli, Libya. J Hosp Infect. 2009;72(3):258–61.

Abd El-Wahab EW, et al. Adverse health problems among municipality workers in alexandria (egypt). Int J Prev Med. 2014;5(5):545–56.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Rauf MU, et al. HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C in garbage scavengers of Karachi. J Pak Med Assoc. 2013;63(6):798–802.

UN-Habitat. Slums of the World: The face of urban poverty in the new millennium? 2003.

UN-Habitat. State of the World’s Cities 2010/2011 - Cities for All: Bridging the Urban Divide in State of the World’s Cities. Nairobi: UN-Habitat; 2010.

UN-Habitat. State of the World’s Cities 2012/2013 - Prosperity of Cities. Nairobi: UN-Habitat; 2012.

APHRC. Population and Health Dynamics in Nairobi’s Informal Settlements: Report of the Nairobi Cross-sectional Slums Survey (NCSS) 2012. Nairobi: African Population and Health Research Center; 2014.

Kimani-Murage EW, et al. Trends in childhood mortality in Kenya: the urban advantage has seemingly been wiped out. Health Place. 2014;29:95–103.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ikiara MM, Karanja AM, Davies TC. Collection, transportation and disposal of urban solid waste. In: Nairobi in Solid Waste Management and Recycling, GeoJournal Library. 2004. p. 61–91.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

United Nations. Glossary of Envirionmental Statistics. In: Studies in methods. New York: Department for Economics and Social Information ans Policy Analysis; 1997.

UNEP and CalRecovery Inc. Solid Waste Management. Tsurumi-ku: UNEP International Environmental Technology Centre (IETC) and California: CalRecovery, Inc., California, USA. 2005.

Oguntoyinbo OO. Informal waste management system in Nigeria and barriers to an inclusive modern waste management system: a review. Public Health. 2012;126(5):441–7.

UNEP. Guidelines for National Waste Management Strategies: Moving from challenges to opportunities. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme; 2013.

NEMA, The National Solid Waste Management Strategy. National Environment Management Authority. Nairobi: Kenya (NEMA); 2015.

Osibanjo O, Nnorom IC. The challenge of electronic waste (e-waste) management in developing countries. Waste Manag Res. 2007;25(6):489–501.

Needhidasan S, Samuel M, Chidambaram R. Electronic waste - an emerging threat to the environment of urban India. J Environ Health Sci Eng. 2014;12(1):36.

UNEP. Municipal Solid Waste Composition Analysis Study Juba, South Sudan. Juba: UNEP; 2013.

Miezah K, et al. Municipal solid waste characterization and quantification as a measure towards effective waste management in Ghana. Waste Manag. 2015;46:15–27.

Getahun T, et al. Municipal solid waste generation in growing urban areas in Africa: current practices and relation to socioeconomic factors in Jimma, Ethiopia. Environ Monit Assess. 2012;184(10):6337–45.

United Nations. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015. 2015. [cited 2015 02nd November]; Available from: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/news.shtml .

United Nations. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 2015. [cited 2015 02nd November]; Available from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs .

Haylamicheal ID, Desalegne SA. A review of legal framework applicable for the management of healthcare waste and current management practices in Ethiopia. Waste Manag Res. 2012;30(6):607–18.

Bassey BE, Benka-Coker MO, Aluyi HS. Characterization and management of solid medical wastes in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja Nigeria. Afr Health Sci. 2006;6(1):58–63.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Haregu TN, Mberu B, Ziraba AK. Evolution of Solid Waste Management Policy Landscape in Kenya: Analysis of evolvement of policy priorities and strategies. Nairobi: African Population and Health Research Center; 2016.

Boadi KO, Kuitunen M. Environment, wealth, inequality and the burden of disease in the Accra metropolitan area, Ghana. Int J Environ Health Res. 2005;15(3):193–206.

Ream PS. et al. Biological risk among hospital housekeepers. Arch Environ Occup Health. 2014;71(2):59–65.

Gumodoka B, et al. Occupational exposure to the risk of HIV infection among health care workers in Mwanza Region, United Republic of Tanzania. Bull World Health Organ. 1997;75(2):133–40.

Ziraba AK, et al. Sero-prevalence and risk factors for hepatitis B virus infection among health care workers in a tertiary hospital in Uganda. BMC Infect Dis. 2010;10:191.

Kilmarx PH, et al. Ebola virus disease in health care workers--Sierra Leone, 2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014;63(49):1168–71.

Rachiotis G, et al. Hepatitis B virus infection and waste collection: prevalence, risk factors, and infection pathway. Am J Ind Med. 2012;55(7):650–5.

Al-Delaimy WK, Larsen CW, Pezzoli K. Differences in health symptoms among residents living near illegal dump sites in Los Laureles Canyon, Tijuana, Mexico: a cross sectional survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11(9):9532–52.

Tovalin Ahumada H. Health status of the population in the vicinity of a waste recycling plant in Mexico. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 1998;3(1):15–20.

Linzalone N, Bianchi F. Studying risks of waste landfill sites on human health: updates and perspectives. Epidemiol Prev. 2005;29(1):51–3.

Adelowo OO, Akinlabi IA, Fagade OE. Environmental impact assessment of Attenda abattoir, Ogbomoso southwestern Nigeria on surface and groundwater quality using geo-electrical imaging and microbiological analysis. Environ Monit Assess. 2012;184(7):4565–74.

Nyenje PM, et al. Nutrient pollution in shallow aquifers underlying pit latrines and domestic solid waste dumps in urban slums. J Environ Manage. 2013;122:15–24.

Njagi NA, et al. Health-care waste incineration and related dangers to public health: case study of the two teaching and referral hospitals in Kenya. J Community Health. 2012;37(6):1168–71.

Shibamoto T, Yasuhara A, Katami T. Dioxin formation from waste incineration. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol. 2007;190:1–41.

Njoroge SM, et al. Effectiveness of incinerators in the management of medical wastes in hospitals within Eldoret municipality. East Afr J Public Health. 2011;8(3):196–8.

Afon A. A survey of operational characteristics, socioeconomic and health effects of scavenging activity in Lagos, Nigeria. Waste Manag Res. 2012;30(7):664–71.

Degen GH, et al. Ochratoxin a analyses of blood samples from workers at waste handling facilities. Mycotoxin Res. 2003;19(1):3–7.

Manay N, et al. Lead contamination in Uruguay: the “La Teja” neighborhood case. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol. 2008;195:93–115.

Nduka JK, et al. Metal contamination and infiltration into the soil at refuse dump sites in Awka, Nigeria. Arch Environ Occup Health. 2006;61(5):197–204.

Nduka JK, et al. Heavy metal contamination of foods by refuse dump sites in Awka, southeastern Nigeria. ScientificWorldJournal. 2008;8:941–8.

Rushton L, Elliott P. Evaluating evidence on environmental health risks. Br Med Bull. 2003;68:113–28.

Brinkel J, Khan MH, Kraemer A. A systematic review of arsenic exposure and its social and mental health effects with special reference to Bangladesh. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009;6(5):1609–19.

Dunn AC, et al. Nosocomial transmission of Ebola virus disease on pediatric and maternity wards: Bombali and Tonkolili, Sierra Leone, 2014. Am J Infect Control. 2016;44(3):269–272.

Salkin IF. Review of Health Impacts from Microbiological Hazards in Health-Care Wastes. Geneva: WHO; 2004.

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

Mashoto KO, et al. Estimated risk of HIV acquisition and practice for preventing occupational exposure: a study of healthcare workers at Tumbi and Dodoma Hospitals, Tanzania. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:369.

Adeyeba OA, Akinbo JA. Pathogenic intestinal parasites and bacterial agents in solid wastes. East Afr Med J. 2002;79(11):604–10.

Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS), ICF Macro. Kenya Demographic and Health Survey 2008–09. Calverton: KNBS and ICF Macro; 2010.

Tumwebaze IK, et al. Sanitation facilities in Kampala slums, Uganda: users’ satisfaction and determinant factors. Int J Environ Health Res. 2013;23(3):191–204.

Guevart E, et al. Factors contributing to endemic cholera in Douala, Cameroon. Med Trop. 2006;66(3):283–91.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Kone-Coulibaly A, et al. Risk factors associated with cholera in Harare City, Zimbabwe, 2008. East Afr J Public Health. 2010;7(4):311–7.

Cointreau S. Occupational and Environmental Health Issues of Solid Waste Management. In: Special Emphasis on Middle- and Lower-Income Countries. Washington: The World Bank Group; 2006.

Jayakrishnan T, Cherumanalil MJ, Bhaskar R. Occupational health problems of municipal solid waste management workers in India. Int J Env Health Eng. 2013;2:42.

Article   Google Scholar  

Amoako C. Emerging issues in urban flooding in African cities - The Case of Accra, Ghana. In: 35th AFSAAP Annual Conference Proceedings 2012. Monash University. 2012. https://www.academia.edu/10301087/Emerging_issues_in_urban_flooding_in_African_cities_-_The_Case_of_Accra_Ghana?auto=download .

Kruks-Wisner G. After the flood: crisis, voice and innovation in Maputo’s solid waste management sector. Cambridge, MA: In: Dept. of Urban Studies and Planning. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2006.

Lamond J, Bhattacharya N, Bloch R. The role of solid waste management as a response to urban flood risk in developing countries, a case study analysis. In: Proverbs D, et al. editor. Flood Recovery Innovation and Response. Bristol: WIT Press; 2012. p. 193–205.

Ramin B. Slums, climate change and human health in sub-Saharan Africa. Bull World Health Organ. 2009;87(12):886.

Nweke OC, Sanders 3rd WH. Modern environmental health hazards: a public health issue of increasing significance in Africa. Environ Health Perspect. 2009;117(6):863–70.

IAEA. The radiological accident in Goiânia. Viena: International Atomic Energy Agency; 1988.

Ssempebwa JC, Carpenter DO. The generation, use and disposal of waste crankcase oil in developing countries: a case for Kampala district, Uganda. J Hazard Mater. 2009;161(2–3):835–41.

UNEP. Environmental Pollution and Impacts on Public Health: Implications of the Dandora Municipal Dumping Site in Nairobi, Kenya. Nairobi: UNEP. 2007. Available from: http://www.unep.org/urban_environment/PDFs/DandoraWasteDump-ReportSummary.pdf .

Cumberbatch MG. Contemporary occupational carcinogen exposure and bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(9):1282–90.

Pukkala E, et al. Occupation and cancer - follow-up of 15 million people in five Nordic countries. Acta Oncol. 2009;48(5):646–790.

Toren K, Jarvholm B. Effect of occupational exposure to vapors, gases, dusts, and fumes on COPD mortality risk among Swedish construction workers: a longitudinal cohort study. Chest. 2014;145(5):992–7.

Ryu JY, et al. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and Vapors, Gases, Dusts, or Fumes (VGDF): A Meta-analysis. COPD. 2015;12(4):374–80.

Bouchard MF, et al. Blood lead levels and major depressive disorder, panic disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder in US young adults. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2009;66(12):1313–9.

Haregu TN, Ziraba AK, Mberu B. Integration of Solid Waste Management Policies in Kenya: Analysis of coherence, gaps and overlaps. Kenya: N African Population and Health Research Center; 2016.

Blenkharn JI, Odd C. Sharps injuries in healthcare waste handlers. Ann Occup Hyg. 2008;52(4):281–6.

Lavoie MC, Verbeek JH, Pahwa M. Devices for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries caused by needles in healthcare personnel. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;3:CD009740.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank DFID and ESRC for the generous funding through which our time for writing this article was covered. Thanks also go to members of the Urban Africa Risk Knowledge consortium whose insights have helped shape the research program under which this paper has been developed ( http://www.urbanark.org ).

Funding for the research is from DFID and ESRC under the Urban Africa Risk Knowledge research consortium. The funding body did not have a role in the design of the study, analysis, and interpretation of results.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Authors’ contributions

AKZ took lead in conceptualization of the research idea, literature review and wrote the first draft. TNH and BM contributed to the analysis of the literature and conceptual framework development and review. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

AKZ is a medical doctor and epidemiologist and leader of the Infectious Diseases and Environmental Health theme at the African Population and Health Research Center. AKZ works on urban health issues including HIV/AIDS, maternal, newborn and child health, environmental health and health systems strengthening. He holds a PhD from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

TNH is a post -doctoral fellow at the African Population and Health Research Center. He has a PhD in Public Health from Monash University, and a Masters of Public Health (MPH), from the Addis Ababa University. He currently works of non-communicable diseases and the nexus between non-communicable and infectious diseases.

BM is a sociologist and head of the Urbanization and Wellbeing research program at the African Population and Health Research Center. BM works on migration, urbanization, adolescent reproductive behavior and poverty in sub-Saharan Africa He holds a PhD in Sociology, Master of Arts degree in Sociology from Brown University and an MSc from the University of Ibadan.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Ethics approval and consent to participate, author information, authors and affiliations.

African Population and Health Research Center, P. O. Box 10787-00100, Nairobi, Kenya

Abdhalah K. Ziraba, Tilahun Nigatu Haregu & Blessing Mberu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdhalah K. Ziraba .

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Ziraba, A.K., Haregu, T.N. & Mberu, B. A review and framework for understanding the potential impact of poor solid waste management on health in developing countries. Arch Public Health 74 , 55 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-016-0166-4

Download citation

Received : 11 September 2016

Accepted : 16 November 2016

Published : 26 December 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-016-0166-4

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

• Solid waste
• Municipal waste
• Health impact
• Urbanization
• Hazardous waste
• Conceptual framework

Archives of Public Health

ISSN: 2049-3258

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

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

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

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Assessment methods for solid waste management: A literature review

2014, Waste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA

Assessment methods are common tools to support decisions regarding waste management. The objective of this review article is to provide guidance for the selection of appropriate evaluation methods. For this purpose, frequently used assessment methods are reviewed, categorised, and summarised. In total, 151 studies have been considered in view of their goals, methodologies, systems investigated, and results regarding economic, environmental, and social issues. A goal shared by all studies is the support of stakeholders. Most studies are based on life cycle assessments, multi-criteria-decision-making, cost-benefit analysis, risk assessments, and benchmarking. Approximately 40% of the reviewed articles are life cycle assessment-based; and more than 50% apply scenario analysis to identify the best waste management options. Most studies focus on municipal solid waste and consider specific environmental loadings. Economic aspects are considered by approximately 50% of the studies, and onl...

Related Papers

Chemical Engineering Journal

Maria Laura Mastellone

pooja yadav

Evaluating the environmental performance of municipal solid waste management options is a complex job. LCA is an analytical tool (software) for assessing the environmental acceptability of municipal solid waste management (MSWM) options. LCA is currently being used in several countries to evaluate different strategies for integrated solid waste management and to evaluate treatment options for waste fractions. According to the characteristics of solid wastes, and availability of disposal options, LCA helps in supporting the identification of opportunities for pollution prevention and reductions in resource consumption while taking the entire solid waste life cycle. The primary elements of solid waste management are generation, collection, transportation, treatment, and disposal. Different scenarios were developed and reported as alternatives to the current waste management systems. The most prominent is material recovery facility (MRF) and other methods involve source reduction, reuse, recycling, composting, incineration, energy recovery, on-site burial, open burning and bioremediation. The goal of this reviewis to determine the most environmentally friendly option of MSWM system with the help of LCA

Environment and Natural Resources Research

Luiz A Kulay , Michel Paes

Gerasimos Lyberatos

This study compares, from an environmental point of view, different alternative scenaria for the management of municipal solid waste generated in a city of 1.000.000 citizens. Three integrated solid waste management scenaria are developed. Each of these alternatives includes the recycling of part of the recyclable MSW at the source, the collection of MSW in bins, the gathering of MSW from bins, their transportation by trucks to the process disposal location, the mechanical separation of MSW, the main treatment and the disposal of the residues of the mechanical separation and the main process in a landfill. The main treatment method differs in each scenario. The anaerobic digestion of the biodegradable solid waste, the composting of the biodegradable solid waste and the incineration of volatile solids are accordingly examined. The purpose of this study is the selection out of the three scenaria the most environmentally friendly. To this aim, the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) method is us...

Waste Management

Susan Thorneloe , Subba Nishtala

hoang trung

Process Safety and Environmental Protection

Göran Finnveden

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

Albert Germain

Ola Eriksson , Tomas Ekvall

In assessments of waste management, life-cycle assessment (LCA) helps expanding the perspective beyond the waste management system itself. However, the applicability of LCA for waste management planning and policy-making is restricted by certain limitations, some of which are characteristics inherent to LCA methodology as such, and some of which are relevant specifically in the context of waste management. Several of them are relevant also for other types of systems analysis. We have identified and discuss such characteristics with regard to how they may restrict the applicability of LCA in the context of waste management. Efforts to improve LCA with regard to these aspects are also described. We also identify what other tools are available for investigating issues that cannot be adequately dealt with by traditional LCA models, and discuss whether LCA methodology should be expanded rather than complemented by other tools to increase its scope and applicability.

RELATED PAPERS

vipin raichand

Dea Ayu Putri

Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics

Antony Hill

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy

Anwar Ahmed

IEEE Transactions on Magnetics

Mario Chiampi

International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics

Mohamed Riyas

Issues in Accounting Education

paul thambar

Health Economics

Mark Perkins

die Deutsche Literatur

Takeshi Ebine

Biologia Plantarum

Mr Ashutosh Srivastava

jkjhygffg bhhnhfgf

Alberto Da Silva

Yasir Arafad

Charlotta Krispinsson

Journal of Clinical Medicine

piero montorsi

The Journal of Peasant Studies

Rachel Soper

Jose Felix Sanz Sanz

Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Movement and Computing

Christian Geiger

역삼op⋰dAlpφchA7쩜CφM⋱달포차

DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)

Stella Moreno-grau

European Journal of Neurology

Bruno Estañol

RELATED TOPICS

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

• Previous Article
• Next Article

Systematic literature review of deep learning models in solid waste management

[email protected]

[email protected]

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Reprints and Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Mohd Anjum , M. Sarosh Umar , Sana Shahab; Systematic literature review of deep learning models in solid waste management. AIP Conf. Proc. 31 October 2022; 2494 (1): 020008. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0106304

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

Solid waste management (SWM) has received significantly more attention in recent years, especially in developing countries for sustainable development. SWM system encompasses various interconnected processes which contain numerous complex operations. Recently, deep learning (DL) has attained momentum in providing alternative computational techniques to determine the solution of various SWM problems. In the last few years, researchers have focused on this domain; therefore, significant research has been published. The literature shows that no study evaluates the potential of DL to solve the various SWM problems. The study performs a systematic literature review which has complied 25 studies, published between 2019 and 2021 in.reputed journals and conferences. The selected research studies have implemented the various DL models and analysed the application of DL in different SWM areas, namely waste identification and segregation, real-time bin level detection, and prediction of waste generation. The study has defined the systematic review protocol that comprises various criteria and a quality assessment process to select the research studies for review. The review demonstrates the comprehensive analysis of different DL models and techniques implemented in SWM. It also highlights the application domains and compares the reported performance of selected studies. Based on the reviewed work, it can be concluded that DL exhibits the plausible performance to detect the different types of waste and bin level.

Sign in via your Institution

Citing articles via, publish with us - request a quote.

Sign up for alerts

• Online ISSN 1551-7616
• Print ISSN 0094-243X
• For Researchers
• For Librarians
• For Advertisers
• Our Publishing Partners  
• Physics Today
• Conference Proceedings
• Special Topics

pubs.aip.org

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use

Connect with AIP Publishing

This feature is available to subscribers only.

Sign In or Create an Account

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

Waste Mismanagement in Developing Countries: A Review of Global Issues

Environmental contamination due to solid waste mismanagement is a global issue. Open dumping and open burning are the main implemented waste treatment and final disposal systems, mainly visible in low-income countries. This paper reviews the main impacts due to waste mismanagement in developing countries, focusing on environmental contamination and social issues. The activity of the informal sector in developing cities was also reviewed, focusing on the main health risks due to waste scavenging. Results reported that the environmental impacts are pervasive worldwide: marine litter, air, soil and water contamination, and the direct interaction of waste pickers with hazardous waste are the most important issues. Many reviews were published in the scientific literature about specific waste streams, in order to quantify its effect on the environment. This narrative literature review assessed global issues due to different waste fractions showing how several sources of pollution are affecting the environment, population health, and sustainable development. The results and case studies presented can be of reference for scholars and stakeholders for quantifying the comprehensive impacts and for planning integrated solid waste collection and treatment systems, for improving sustainability at a global level.

1. Introduction

Solid waste (SW) mismanagement is a global issue in terms of environmental contamination, social inclusion, and economic sustainability [ 1 , 2 ], which requires integrated assessments and holistic approaches for its solution [ 3 ]. Attention should be paid in developing and transition countries, where the unsustainable management of SW is common [ 4 ]. Differences should be highlighted between developing big cities and rural areas, where management issues are different, specifically regarding the amount of waste generated and the SW management (SWM) facilities available [ 5 ]. However, both suffer negative economic legislatives, political, technical and operational limitations [ 6 ].

Uncontrolled disposal generates serious heavy metals pollution occurring in the water, soil, and plants [ 7 ], open burning is cause of CO, CO 2 , SO, NO, PM 10 and other pollutant emissions that affect the atmosphere [ 8 ], waste picking within open dump sites pose to serious health risk people working on these areas [ 9 ], release of SW in water bodies improve the marine litter globally, enhancing environmental contamination [ 10 ]. Therefore, SW mismanagement is cause of sever and various environmental and social impacts, which do not allow improvements in sustainable development.

Achieving both economic growth and sustainable development involves reduction plans of the global ecological footprint, changing the way of produce-consume-waste of goods and resources [ 11 ]. The material footprint of developing countries grew from 5 t inh −1 in 2000 to 9 t inh −1 in 2017, representing a significant growing in living standards, although its sustainable management is not still included in national regulations [ 12 ]. The principles of sustainable development were introduced within the sustainable development goals (SDGs), where 17 objectives were introduced for reducing poverty, improving social equality, decreasing environmental pollution and ameliorating city livability. In particular, the global waste management goals for improving sustainability at global level are: to ensure, by 2020, access for all to adequate, safe and affordable SW collection services; to stop uncontrolled dumping and open burning; to achieve sustainable and environmentally sound management of all wastes, particularly hazardous ones, by 2030 [ 13 ].

Many studies reported possible solutions for improving the SWM in developing countries, such as organic waste buyback programs, with compost or biogas production [ 14 ], implementation of waste-to-energy plans and technologies [ 15 ], waste-to-energy in parallel with recycling of glass, metals, and other inert [ 16 ], production of energy from biomass waste by making briquettes [ 17 ], involvement of the integration of waste pickers with legal incentives [ 18 ], among others. However, many barriers still remain for improving formal collection, treatment and final disposal [ 19 ]. Therefore, environmental contamination remains a big issue worldwide, while common solutions should be identified and implemented considering SWM patterns appropriate for each context.

Many reviews were published about SWM in developed and developing countries and about environmental contamination from waste. In particular, about char fuel production [ 20 ], management of waste electric and electronic equipment (WEEE) [ 21 ], food waste management [ 22 ] and treatment [ 23 ], recycling of used batteries [ 24 ], inclusion of the informal sector [ 25 ] and the risks that such activity pose for vulnerable informal workers [ 26 ], atmospheric pollution due to SWM [ 27 ], household hazardous waste management [ 28 ] and healthcare waste (HW) management [ 29 ], among others. The novelty of the narrative review presented in this article is its focus on the integrated assessment of these waste streams, analyzing the global issues affecting the environment and the public health, giving attention to the operational risk of the informal recycling sector. Concentration of contamination in water, air and soil are provided, as well as waste quantities and amounts dumped in developing cities or recycled by the informal sector. Results allow suggesting directions for future SWM improvements, considering its planning as an integrated system and providing examples of the consequences of its inadequate implementation.

The paper is divided in three main sections: the first analyzes the environmental impacts due to unsustainable management of municipal SW (MSW), WEEE and used batteries, waste tires, C&D waste and other hazardous and industrial wastes; the second is focused on the informal recycling, analyzing main risks due to waste picking and opportunities for its inclusion within the formal SWM system. The last section is a critical discussion of current and future challenges for improving environmental quality at global level, identifying the opportunities due to SWM selective collection and treatment systems. Finally, some suggestions are provided, according to the literature review.

This article reviews the open dumping and open burning of waste, main practices implemented for waste treatment and disposal in developing countries, involving many environmental and health impacts [ 30 , 31 , 32 ]. Such unsustainable practices include every waste fraction, such as MSW, HW, construction & demolition (C&D) waste, used tires, WEEE, used batteries, and industrial waste, each one spreading specific contaminant concentrations in soil, water and air environments. Waste pickers work within these sites for collecting recyclable materials that are sold in local markets. Though this informal practice allows decreasing the amounts of waste inflow into water bodies and open dumps [ 33 , 34 ], it is also a hazardous activity that improves health and occupational risks [ 35 , 36 ]. Therefore, concerning waste open burning and open dumping, the narrative review presented in this article explores environmental impacts due to unsustainable SWM, such as water, air and soil pollution, health and operation risks, global warming potential (GWP) and marine pollution. The theoretical framework of the review is schematically reported in Figure 1 .

Theoretical framework of the review: source of contamination due to SW mismanagement.

The scientific literature considered was collected from three main databases: Scopus, Web of Science and Science Direct. The keywords used for reviewing the literature were the ones that refer to the issues concerning solid waste management in developing countries, therefore combining the keywords “solid waste” and “developing countries” with: open burning, open dumping, informal recycling, health risk, environmental contamination, air-water-soil pollution, C&D, HW, WEEE, used batteries, industrial waste, marine litter. Only papers wrote in English were considered. The scientific articles were reviewed during the months of January and February 2019, analyzing only the literature from 2002 to 2019. Case studies and reviews were considered for the research, with particular focus on developing cities and contaminated area in Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa, Eastern Europe, Middle East, Asia and Oceania. Developed countries were considered only for specific case studies, such as fire of waste tires in final disposal sites and the comparison of same issues detectable worldwide, such as the marine litter in the Mediterranean Sea. Treatment technologies and collection systems were not assessed in terms of contribution of pollution and health risks.

3. Environmental and Social Issues due to SW Mismanagement

3.1. msw open dumping.

In developing countries, the management of SW is worsened by unsustainable practices that improve the environmental contamination and the spread of diseases. In particular, the open dumping in uncontrolled sites, open burning of waste fractions and the mismanagement of the leachate produced in final disposal sites, are the main issues detectable [ 37 ]. The situation is worsened in slum areas with additional problems of high-density population, traffic, air and water pollution. Uncontrolled disposal in open spaces near water bodies are issues widespread in these contexts, which corresponds to public health issues [ 38 ]. Concerning open air final disposal, the main environmental impacts detectable are:

• visual impacts,
• air contamination, odors and green-house gasses (GHG) emission,
• vectors of diseases,
• surface water and groundwater pollution.

These issues are visible worldwide. In Banjul (Gambia) the dump site is located in a densely populated area, visible to the residents [ 39 ]. It has a negative visible impact on inhabitants and tourists visiting the country. In particular, the smoke from burning debris is the biggest issue, which covers parts of the residential areas, affecting also the life quality of the population. Indeed, the citizens are affected by the smoke from burning debris and the smell of decomposing waste. The nuisances are worst during the rainy period as the area becomes infested with flies and insects. Run off from the dump site with contaminants dissolved inflow into water bodies, while the leachate contaminates the soil and groundwater. Moreover, environmental contamination is due to the high level of fecal and total coliform that polluted the wells located near the site. The households that live around the dump site use well water for various purposes, although with high level of coliforms attributed to the proximity to the dump site [ 39 ].

In Cambodia, in the capital city Phnom Penh, where the MSW management (MSWM) system lacks regulation, households commonly burned, buried, or dumped about 361,000 tons of MSW in 2008, and 635,000 tons in 2015 [ 40 ]. In Thailand, more than 60% of the SW final disposal was carried out by open dumping. In 2004 there were 425 disposal sites, of which 330 open dumps, the majority of disposal sites received around 25 tons of waste per day, while only the landfills of Bangkok received about 4500 tons per day [ 41 ]. In the West Bank Palestinian territory, in 2005 was estimated that the MSW generated was about 2728 t per day, while in 2001 there were 133 MSW dumpsites, open burning activities at 116 sites and burial at 13 sites; 64.9% of the population was aware of the environmental issues and impacts associated with open dumpsites, and 41.6% thought that they were suffering from the final disposal sites [ 42 ]. In Abuja, the capital city of Nigeria, more than 250,000 tons of waste were generated per year in 2010. There were four major disposal sites under its management, closed in 2005 due to odors, air pollution and burning wastes at the site. Moreover, percolation of leachate from the buried waste flowed to the surface, especially during rainy seasons [ 43 ]. In Maputo, administrative center of Mozambique, with about 1,200,000 inhabitants and where about 0.5 kg of waste per inhabitants are generate daily, the MSW is transported to the official dumpsite of the city, in operation since more than 40 years. The area is of about 17 ha, with heights that achieved 15 m; open fires and auto ignition of the waste are common issues, exacerbated by the more than 500 waste pickers collecting recyclables waste at the dumpsite [ 44 ]. Therefore, SWM issues are common worldwide, with environmental burdens and hazard for the population.

The landfill leachate generates in open dump sites contains concentration of organic carbons, ammonia, chloride, heavy metals [ 45 ], as well as high concentrations of fluoride, chloride, ammonium–nitrogen, biological oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) [ 46 ]. For instance, the MSW dumped at Mathkal dump site (Kolkata, India), is affecting the degradation of water quality in and around dumpsite area: Cd and Ni are detectable in leachate, improving groundwater contamination; the metals Pb, Cd, Cr and Ni are characterized as toxic for drinking water, and the concentration of these components increases near an unsanitary landfill and may lead to serious toxic risks. Indeed, It has been reported that the concentration of Cr, Cd, and Mn were higher in the groundwater due to leachate, affecting the life of the population and the quality of the environment [ 47 ].

In Chennai city, the capital of Tamil Nadu, India, where more than 3200 t d −1 of SW are generated, the leaching of heavy metals in the water imposes serious health risks to humans. Heavy metal concentration of the soil samples at various depths ranges from 3.78 mg kg −1 to 0.59 mg kg −1 at a depth of 2.5 to 5.5 m, with concentration higher in the top soil up to a depth of 5.5 m (sandy clay layer). Therefore, the concentrations of heavy metals decreased with increasing soil depth, demonstrating the influence of the dumping activities [ 48 ]. In Nonthaburi dumpsite, Thailand, the concentration of heavy metals was detected in boreholes and runoff. Within the runoff and the groundwater, the concentrations of chrome, cadmium, lead, nickel and mercury, are always 10 times above the limits introduced by the World Health Organization (WHO) for drinking water [ 49 ]. In Tiruchirappalli district, India, the MSW generation is about 400–600 tons per day and it is served by an open dumping site located 12 km from the city. The leachate shows that the range of COD range to 29,880–45,120 mg L −1 and the BOD 5 / COD ratio was less than 0.1. Based on the average concentration, the quantity of lead and cadmium were 5 and 11 times higher the soil contamination limits. The presence of heavy metals (Pb, Cu, Mn, and Cd) in soil sample, undetectable in the near areas, indicates that there was appreciable contamination of the soil by leachate migration [ 50 ].

In Table 1 pollutant concentrations in soil, runoff and groundwater in eight different case studies, compared with the limits imposed by international organizations for soil and water quality are reported. In the case studies reviewed, the analysis was implemented at a distance variable from 20 to 400 from the final disposal sites. Data about runoff and groundwater contamination were compared with drinking water limits since, in low-middle income areas, groundwater is the most use for drinking without adequate treatments. Results reported always a correlation between leachate and environmental contamination. Heavy metals are always the ones persistent within the samples, also 10 times more than the limits suggested by the WHO, with high concentrations of COD. So, open dumping poses surrounding population to serious health risks.

Contaminants’ concentration in soil, runoff and groundwater due to open dumping in eight case studies, compared with international standard of soil contamination limits and drinking water.

Note: Soil contamination limits [ 56 ], Drinking water limits [ 57 ], * water release after wastewater treatment.

Another environmental issue due to organic waste open dump is the GWP due to waste anaerobic degradation. Methane gas is a by-product of landfilling MSW; since MSW is mainly disposed of in open dump sites, the generated methane is released directly to the atmosphere. Experimental studies indicate that the anaerobic biodegradation of MSW organic waste generates about 200 Nm 3 of methane per dry tons of biomass [ 58 ]. Methane is one of the most important gas that improve the GWP, 25 times higher than CO 2 [ 59 ]. Therefore, open dumps and uncontrolled landfills are direct source of GHG.

As a comparison, GHG emissions from waste landfilling were estimated per type of final disposal site: open dump, conventional landfills with energy recovery, and landfills receiving low-organic-carbon waste. The results showed that about 1000 kg CO 2 -eq. t −1 are generated from an open dump, 300 kg CO 2 -eq. t −1 from a conventional landfilling of mixed waste and 70 kg CO 2 -eq. t −1 for low-organic-carbon waste landfills. If compared with the emissions due to provision of energy and materials to the landfill, estimated to 16 kg CO 2 -eq. t −1 , it can be stated that open dump cause a GWP at least 50 times higher than the total MSWM system [ 60 ]. In Beijing City, where more than 60% of the waste is disposed of in sanitary landfills, an environmental impacts assessment showed that CH 4 emission is the most dominant contributor to GWP, with the annual amount of 55,000 tons; the landfills contribute the most to the impact potentials mainly due to methane emissions [ 61 ]. In India, most of the SW are disposed of by landfilling in open dump sites, generating large quantities of CH 4 . At national level, It was estimated that the methane emission from MSW disposal varies from 263,020 t in year 1980 to 502,460 t in year 1999 [ 62 ], increasing rapidly during the years.

Therefore, the mitigation of pollution and GHG emission can be obtained through the recovery and conversion of organic component to energy or compost. The main role is played by policy interventions, which should act through the incorporation of the waste management hierarchy considering direct and indirect impacts that would reduce the global carbon footprint [ 63 ].

3.2. Marine Litter

Open dumping cause surface water pollution due to leachate mismanagement and material uncontrolled flows. A visible impact that is affecting the seas and the oceans globally is the marine littering, which is mainly caused by plastic waste [ 64 , 65 ]. Marine litter is defined as manufactured or SW entering the marine environment irrespective of the source. The range and scale of impacts from marine litter are diverse [ 66 ]:

• Environmental (ingestion, poisoning, blockage of filter, physical damage of reefs and mangroves, among others),
• Social (loss of visual amenity, loss of indigenous values, risks to health and safety),
• Economic (cost to tourism, cost to vessel operators, losses to fishery, costs for cleanup, animal rescue operations, recovery and disposal),
• Public safety (navigational hazards, hazards to swimmers and divers, cuts, abrasion and stick injuries, leaching of poisonous chemicals, explosive risk).

About 80% of marine litter generation is mainly caused by the mainland, by the rivers that inflow into the seas [ 67 ]. Therefore, open dumping can be considered as the first cause of pollution of the oceans. More hazardous is the generation of micro-plastics: Once in the ocean, most plastics tend to stay at or close to the surface where the photo-chemical, mechanical and biological processes degrade larger items into smaller, less than 5 mm, forming microplastics [ 68 ]. Potentially, microplastics are ingested when present in the marine environment and tend to float on the sea surface. There, they can be ingested passively or actively by a wide range of organisms [ 69 ]. A simple scheme has been provided by do Sul et al. [ 69 ], where the definition of direct or indirect ingestion of micro-plastic, which can affect human health, is clarified ( Figure 2 ).

Schematic analysis of the trophic chain of micro-plastic in the marine environment, for explaining plastic direct and indirect ingestion [ 69 ].

A study published in 2019 reported that, in the Mediterranean Sea, microplastics are 94.6% in number and 55% wt of all plastics whereas meso-plastics represented 5.3% in abundance and 45% in weight of all plastics. In this study, only 1 macro-plastic was sampled, which represented 0.1% in abundance of all plastics and weighed five times more than all the collected plastics together [ 70 ]. It means that the amounts of micro-plastic are increasing, improving the risk of direct and indirect intake within the trophic chain, achieving human feeding. Moreover, a study conducted in the Pacific Ocean, discovered plastics from the 1960s, which means that the marine littering and the pollution of the sea is 60 years old, improving the amount of microplastics detectable into the marine environment [ 71 ].

The implementation of sound waste management collection and disposal practices, involvement of manufacturers, and behavior change are key aspects of any solution. At an intermediate stage, innovation is needed around the litter generation points: upstream, redesigning goods for reducing generation quantities; and downstream, improving collection and treatment systems. Long-term technical solutions for recovering the existing used plastics in the world’s seas should also be implemented [ 37 ]. Finally, a specific focus on low-middle income countries should be considered, since they are the main source of pollution although the generation rates are the lowest.

3.3. MSW open Burning

Waste open dumping is not the only environmental burden due to waste mismanagement. The combustion of waste with any precaution generates also contaminants, improving health risks to the population [ 72 ]. Polychlorinated dibenzo- p -dioxins (PCDDs), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were detected in soils around dumping sites in The Philippines, India, Cambodia, and Vietnam [ 73 ]. Uncontrolled combustion, generation of methane gas, and low-temperature burning are major factors for the formation of dioxins in dumping sites. Considerable loading rates of PCDD/Fs in the dumping sites of these countries (200–4000 tons per day) were observed, ranging from 0.12–35 mg TEQ yr −1 [ 73 ].

Open dumping sites in Surabaya and Palembang, Indonesia, have concentrations of PCDD/Fs and dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls (DL-PCBs) in soil of about 61,000–310,000 fg TEQ g −1 (dry weight) and 6300–32,000 fg TEQ g −1 , respectively. Low levels of PCDD/Fs and DL-PCBs, ranging from 75 to 98 and 0.32 fg TEQ g −1 , respectively, were observed in soil for an open dumping site that included a top cover layer of soil. The difference in concentrations can be explained by the fact that open burning of waste is the source of PCDD/Fs and DL-PCBs. A sensitivity analysis implemented in this area found that the maximum emission factor could be 5,600,000 fg TEQ g −1 [ 74 ].

A controlled incineration that treated about 100,000 t of MSW per year, required for a city of about 350,000 inhabitants who generate about 0.8 kg MSW per day, generates about 40,000 fg TEQ m −3 [ 75 ], which is equal to 24 mg TEQ yr −1 , considering a production of 6000 m 3 of combustion gases per ton of waste burned. Therefore, open dumping can generate more quantities of dioxins per year than an incinerator, also with uncontrolled leachates, diseases vectors, odors and GHG, affecting the environment and population’s health.

In the Municipality of Huejutla, Mexico, approximately 24% of the total waste generated was burned by households, of which 90% in rural areas, where there was not an MSW collection system. This practice generates environmental contamination and contributes to the GWP by the production of black carbon (BC). It has estimated that about 8,882 tons of waste are burned per year, producing 1.97 kg BC t −1 , 11.9 kg PM 10 t −1 , and 9.8 PM 2.5 t −1 that contributed for 17.5 t BC y −1 (38,553 t CO 2 -eq per year), 105.7 t PM 10 y −1 and 87.0 t PM 2.5 y −1 , for a total of 313.7 kg CO 2 -eq y −1 per capita. The results showed that the CO 2 -eq from BC emitted by waste open burning was more than 15 times larger compared to CH 4 potentially released from the decomposition of equivalent amounts of combustible organic waste deposited at the dumpsite [ 76 ]. In another study, it was found that the majority of PM generated by waste open burning had smaller sizes (PM 1 ) compared to PM 2.5 and to PM 10 . In particular, the PM size were 0.35 µm, with about 63.0 µg m −3 generated, and 0.45 µm, with 67.8–87.7 µg m −3 . Therefore, 0.45 µm had the highest peak concentration among all the compounds. The study demonstrated that the smallest-sized particles (0.35 and 0.45 µm), which represents the most hazardous for the population health, constituted the greatest percentage of total PM emissions, founding that the concentration of ultrafine particles represent another source of hazard for population health [ 77 ]. The review of the scientific literature indicated that open burning should be avoided and replaced with appropriate and sustainable technologies for reducing environmental pollution and public concerns. Know-how is required, as well as financial support for improving waste recovery and final disposal at global level.

3.4. Health and Environmental Risks due to HW Mismanagement

SW is not only municipal. There are various fractions hazardous for the environment and the population health that are generally mismanaged in developing countries. One of these fractions are the HW [ 78 ]. The term HW includes all the waste generated within health-care facilities. In addition, it includes the same types of waste originating from minor and scattered sources, including waste produced during health care undertaken at home. Between 75% and 90% of HW is comparable to MSW, so “non-hazardous” or “general HW”. The remaining 10–25% of HW is hazardous and may pose a variety of environmental and health risks [ 79 ]. Details about HW fractions is reported in Table 2 .

Categories of HW as reported by the WHO [ 79 ].

Open dumping is the most common method of HW disposal in developing countries [ 80 , 81 , 82 ], although several authors suggest sterilizing the HW at the point of generation in order to eliminate infectious substance and improve safety management [ 83 ]. Open dumping is the lowest cost option for low income countries, although it is an uncontrolled and inadequate disposal, since the waste can be accessible to waste pickers and animals and the generation of pollutant is not monitored. In this way, HW transmits infectious pathogenic micro-organisms to the environment either via direct contact, through inhalation, ingestion, or indirect contact through the food chain. Burning is aimed to reduce the volume of waste and its infectious effect, however, uncontrolled burning activates are potential source of toxic emissions like PCDD/F, among other pollutants [ 84 ].

In the West Bank (Palestine), a study shows that 82.2% of HW is disposed of in (unsanitary) dump sites and only 17.9% of healthcare facilities dispose of their waste more than 7 times a week, the frequency recommended by the WHO. Therefore, the final disposal locations in the West Bank are uncontrolled final disposal sites, which are randomly distributed throughout the region, with poor precautions for transporting and colleting the HW [ 85 ]. In Ibadan, Nigeria, more than 60% of HW handlers did not discriminate between HW and MSW during collection and handling stages. Similarly, 66% dispose of HW with MSW at the final disposal site (open dumps). Incidences of contacting diseases are prevalent among waste handlers, compared to incidence of other hospital staff, with high incidences of viral blood infections, such hepatitis B and C. Within the open dump sites, technical and hygienic considerations are neglected or absent. For instance, several waste pickers were observed collecting HW for reselling materials considered recyclable, to pass-on to unsuspecting low-income patients. Moreover, leachate from waste disposal sites could be infiltrating and contaminating groundwater resources [ 86 ]. In Dhaka, Bangladesh, HW is collected by waste pickers who sort the waste through the bins searching for recyclables and reusable items (syringes, blades, knives, saline bags, plastic materials and metals). Scavenging activities were again observed sorting through the open dumping disposal sites, increasing the risk of diseases ( Figure 3 ). The study reported that both scavengers and recycling operators had any knowledge of the risks from HW exposure. Employers of recycling operators did not consider occupational health and safety training for their employees. The situation was still more worrying among the marginal groups of the society [ 87 ].

Informal HW scavenging in Dhaka, Bangladesh [ 87 ].

The lack of appropriate HW management systems and disposal facilities in Dhaka is largely due to inadequate economic resources and legislation. This leads to the persistence of inappropriate practices such as the discharge of chemical waste into the general sewerage system or dumping into near land. HW was found to have been dumped in MSW bins, and finally disposed of on general landfill sites, which may contaminate the ground water and improve operational risks. It was observed that, during the rainy season, leachate from dumps used for HW infiltrated into water that was being used for washing and for household purposes, as well as for agriculture [ 88 ].

Therefore, in low-income countries, HW management is an environmental and social issue that spread the risk of disease and pollution. Disposal strategies involve sorting HW at the healthcare facilities, and then transporting the infectious HW to safe disposal sites, where it is treated by incineration or other technologies and the residual product landfilled. Every treatment technology has drawbacks, with incineration creating atmospheric emissions, and other treatments not able to handle all types of waste. The best way to control the impact of HW is to train healthcare workers along with the implementation of standardized HW streams and disposal bin colors, which can ensure a selective collection of the waste, improving the efficiency of treatment and final disposal [ 89 ]. Good results were obtained in San Salvador (El Salvador), where an information campaign was implemented for the employee of tertiary hospitals. Before the activity, the employees disposed of common waste in containers for infectious waste, increasing the hospital’s financial and operational burden, while after the project the quantities were halved, demonstrating the good compliance of the operators and of the activities implemented [ 90 ].

3.5. Open Dumping and Burning of WEEE and Used Batteries

Global WEEE generation has reached approximately 41 million tons in 2014, increasing at a rate of 3–5% every year [ 91 ]. The production of WEEE was correlated with the GDP, while there is no significant correlation or trend with the population. If this waste is properly recycled, it could offer an opportunity for the recovery of copper, gold, silver, palladium and other metals with an estimated value of USD 48 billion. In particular, the concertation of metals in the WEEE is significantly higher than in the natural ores that these metals are mined from (for Au it is almost 130 times higher) [ 91 ]. WEEE are classified into six different types of waste [ 92 ]:

• Temperature exchange equipment: refrigerators, freezers, air-conditioner, heat pump,
• Screens and monitors: televisions, monitors, laptops, notebooks, tablets,
• Lamps: fluorescent lamps, high-intensity discharge lamps,
• Large equipment: washing machines, clothes dryers, electric stoves, large printing machines, copying machines, photovoltaic panels,
• Small equipment: vacuum cleaners, toasters, microwaves, ventilation equipment, calculators, radio, camera, toys, medical devices, small monitoring and control equipment,
• Small telecommunication equipment: mobile phones, GPS, telephones.

Developing countries are producing WEEE double than developed countries. It is also estimated that the developing and developed countries will discard 400–700 million obsolete computers by 2030. Moreover, developed countries are also exporting their WEEE to developing countries for dumping, causing serious environmental and social concerns. The majority of WEEE are being sent to Africa or Asia [ 93 ]; in Figure 4 are reported the estimated flows of the waste from high income to low income countries.

Estimation of the legal and illegal WEEE flow from high-income to low-income countries at global level [ 94 ].

WEEE is becoming a source of income for the industries and creates new jobs. However, in developing countries WEEE are mainly disposed of in open dump sites, burned without properly precautions and managed by illegal actors [ 95 , 96 ]. In India, Bangalore city generates 18,000 tons of WEEE per year, thousands of which are landed illegally every year [ 93 ]. In Lagos State, Nigeria, near an open dump site where WEEE and used batteries are disposed of with MSW, the heavy metal concentrations in well water and soil were investigated during the dry season [ 97 ]. Results reported that concentrations in wells were Pb 2.77 mg L −1 , Cd 0.035 mg L −1 , Zn 0.948 mg L −1 , Cr 0.520 mg L −1 and Ni 1.45 mg L −1 , while Ni concentrations in soils ranged from 35.45 mg kg −1 at a depth of 15–30 cm in the wet season to 85.43 mg kg −1 at a depth of 0–15 cm in the dry season. The elevated level of metals in the well water are correlated with the metal input from leachates resulting from the dumping of WEEE. In fact, significant levels of Pb and Ni were found in well and tap water at the residences, while the concentrations of heavy metals decreased when the sampling distances from the dumpsite increased [ 97 ]. Moreover, concentrations of lead, chrome and nickel are generally higher than the ones reviewed in studies conducted near MSW open dumps ( Table 1 ), suggesting that the presence of high amounts of WEEE is cause of heavy metal pollution of water bodies and soils.

In Tijuana (Mexico), a study analyzed the concentrations of Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb and Ni in the soil near an open dump site where end-of-life vehicle (ELV) and WEEE are disposed of, together with the activity of waste pickers who recover the precious metals [ 98 ]. The mean concentrations found were 1.4 mg kg −1 for Cd, 4.7 mg kg −1 for Cr, 304 mg kg −1 for Cu, 74 mg kg −1 for Pb and 6 mg kg −1 for Ni. The results of the geo-accumulation index values show that the site was very polluted with Cu and Pb. The correlation analysis shows a high connection between Pb and Cu, which would be explained if the main source of the polluting heavy metals was the result of electrical wire burning to recover copper. The other two components detected within the study were Cr and Ni, related to the corrosion of junk metal objects and automobile use [ 98 ]. Again, in this case study, it is evident that the presence of WEEE is responsible of heavy metal pollution of the soil and therefore of the groundwater used for house uses. Therefore, within Table 1 results of open dumps that also contains WEEE, used batteries and ELV were reported.

Together with WEEE mismanagement, used batteries should be also mentioned. For instance, in Iran, almost 10,000 tons of household batteries were imported, most of them have been discarded in MSW without any separation and sent to sanitary landfills [ 99 ]. In addition to environmental and human health risks associated with unsafe disposal of used batteries in MSW stream, their landfilling implies the depletion of valuable resources. It is expected that more than 9000 tons of used batteries have been dumped in municipal landfills of Iran in recent decades. The most concern regarding battery disposal in MSW is directed to the high percentage of mercury, cadmium, lithium, nickel, arsenic and other toxic and heavy metals [ 99 ].

The challenges facing the developing countries in WEEE and used batteries management include the absence of infrastructure for appropriate waste management, lack of legislation dealing specifically with these waste fractions, the absence of any framework for end-of-life product take-back or implementation of extended producer responsibility (EPR) [ 100 ]. Moreover, the growing rate of WEEE amount in developing countries is destined to increase in the next future [ 101 ]: A great amount (almost 50%) of current WEEE yearly generated by developed countries continues to be illegally transferred in developing countries, volumes that remains unknown; New electric and electronic products will substitute soon the current ones, influencing both collected volumes, type of recovered materials and recycling processes; Innovative materials composing WEEE, that are currently not correctly managed during their end-of-life (ending into landfills); some electronic parts in WEEE are not again correctly disassembled or recovered [ 101 ]. In summary, many challenging issues of WEEE and used batteries management can be detected in developing countries [ 102 ]:

• Quantity of WEEE generated is a major concern due to the lack of infrastructure,
• Inventory assessment of WEEE does not exist,
• Exportation of WEEE from developed countries to developing countries for recycling worsens its management,
• Absence of knowledge regarding the toxic nature of WEEE and used batteries,
• Portion or components of WEEE are often mixed with MSW and disposed of in open dump sites,
• Deficient knowledge of the impacts to human health and the environment,
• Legislation to regulate and control the import and disposal of the generated WEEE do not exist.

Environmentally sound management requires the establishment of collection, transportation, treatment, storage, recovery and disposal of WEEE. Regulatory authorities should have to provide these facilities and for the better performance there should be incentives. Communication campaigns should be oriented to the citizens, in order to improve and incentive the selecting collection of the waste, avoiding open dumping. Furthermore, incentives for municipalities that demonstrate the best results when participating in recycling initiatives should be adopting, in order to motivate the citizens in supporting local management policies and actions [ 103 ].

3.6. C&D Waste open Dumping

The term “C&D waste” is generally used to refer to the SW generated in the construction sector. More specifically, the term is defined as the waste generated from construction, demolition, excavation, site clearance, roadwork, and building renovation [ 104 ]. The main issue due to C&D waste is final disposal site landslides, which can affect the life of the population. For avoiding this impact, the volume of waste dumped in landfills should be reduced, imposing safe operating practices. In particular, 4Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle and recover) policies should be implemented, with hazardous or toxic materials that should be the primary targets [ 104 ]. As example, in 2015, a landslide in one of China’s most advanced cities, Shenzhen, killed 73 people and damaged 33 buildings, in the absence of heavy rainfall or earthquakes ( Figure 5 ). According to China’s Ministry of Land and Resources, the landslide was triggered by the collapse of an enormous pile of C&D waste [ 105 ].

C&D waste landfill landslide in Shenzhen, China [ 105 ].

In Thailand, in 2014 the average generation of C&D waste was approximately 4,200,596 tons, which were disposed of in open dump sites. Hazardous and potentially hazardous materials were found, such as:

• asbestos-based materials,
• lead-based materials,
• other materials used for construction (e.g., damp-proofing chemicals, adhesives),
• mercury-containing electrical equipment (e.g., fluorescence lamps, thermostats),
• chlorine fluoride carbides (e.g., air conditioners and refrigerators),
• corrosive, flammable and toxic materials.

Hazardous waste was not separated from non-hazardous waste for proper treatment and disposal. It means that an increasing of the construction sector also contributed to the increasing of environmental pollution [ 106 ]. It has been estimated that between 2002 and 2005, an average of 1.1 million tons of C&D waste was generated per year in Thailand [ 107 ]. This constitutes about 7.7% of the total amount of waste disposed in both landfills and open dumpsites annually during the same period. Therefore, the generation of C&D waste was affected by a relevant increase. Indeed, recently, the management of C&D waste took attention due to its rapidly increasing and unregulated dumping [ 108 ]. Waste generation at a construction site may result from lack of attention being paid to the size of the products used, lack of interest of contractors, lack of knowledge about construction during design activities, and poor materials handling. Generally, 50–80% of C&D waste is reusable or recyclable, so C&D mismanagement represents a loss of valuable economic resources [ 107 ].

In Hanoi, Vietnam, processing quantities of informal and formal C&D waste recyclers were revealed [ 109 ]. However, current practices lacked appropriate C&D waste classifications and control of waste flows by private companies due to little efficiency or cost saving strategies, low attention for adding value to concrete waste recycling and lack of government legislative and financial support for industry transformation. Illegal dumping occurs in the city boundary, also due to the lack of technology, capacity and economic resources. Many construction sites mix C&D waste such as cement, bricks, steel, and plastics, disallowing the classification and recycling of these fractions [ 109 ]. In Malaysia, in the first quarter of 2015, the construction industry contributed 15.1% of the country’s GDP and provided employments to about 10% (1.4 million) of the total workforce in Malaysia. Four key issues were addressed for developing an effective C&D waste management: the increasing amount of waste, environmental impacts, illegal dumping, and lack of national support. In Malaysia, the recycling framework for improving C&D waste management is built following a three-layer approach [ 110 ]: At the micro-level, reducing wastes at the source; at meso-level, ensuring that there is a continuous effort in managing wastes, transforming the procurement methods; Finally, at the macro-level, providing monitoring, and coordinating mechanisms to ensure the practice of effective C&D waste management [ 110 ].

Therefore, for developing countries with limited financial resources, C&D waste management initiatives and sustainable construction can be achieved through effective utilization of resources, material recovery, and an improved system for waste management. However, the first objective to be achieved is the implementation of strong regulatory initiatives for construction waste management [ 111 ]. These practices can reduce the issue of the open dumping, which is worsened by the mix with MSW and informal recycling that operates in these uncontrolled areas.

3.7. Diseases Exposure due to Used Tires open Dumping and Burning

Tires that are used, rejected or unwanted are classified as ‘waste tires’, as well as tires intended to be used for retreading or recycling. This type of waste is composed of steel, rubber and textiles, and the volume depend on the use of the tires. Three main issues should be addressed concerning waste tires:

• big volumes, which reduce the useful life of the sanitary landfill and improve the transportation costs,
• open air burning of these materials, which contaminate the environment improving population health risks,
• presence of disease vectors, such as insects or rodents, which live inside the holes and furrows of the tires.

In developing countries, limited data reliability on used tires availability and collection is common, as well as small activities of uncontrolled waste recovery, with cases of illegal dumping [ 112 ]. One of the most hazardous problems regards the spread of Dengue, which is currently one of the most important diseases in tropical areas. About 2.5 billion people live in areas of risk and many millions of cases occurring each year [ 113 ]. A study assessed the breeding mosquito larvae, identifying the dengue vectors distributed in Tamilnadu (India). Totally 118 water containers were inspected, among which 38 containers were recorded as positive for dengue vector. Among all type of containers analyzed, cement cistern, mud pot and used tires were positive for the mosquito larvae [ 113 ]. Therefore, the final disposal in open dump sites of waste tires should be avoided for reducing the spread of Dengue diseases in topical areas.

Another impact that affect the population health is the uncontrolled burning of waste tires. In Nepal, where the uncontrolled open-air burning of waste tires is practiced also during political agitation, a study was conducted to provide background information for assessing the environmental pollution due to tire fires [ 114 ]. The effect of the tire fires on air is a major concern, because they release potentially hazardous gases such as CO, SO 2 and NO 2 as well as polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). CO is formed whenever carbon or substances containing carbon are burned with an insufficient air supply. Tire fires, apart from intense heat, give off BC with CO emission. Results of the research reported that the emission levels of CO from different type of tires were 21–49 g kg −1 , SO 2 emission was found to be 102–820 g kg −1 , while NO 2 emission was 3–9 g kg −1 [ 114 ]. These emissions can be compared with wood combustion, in order to have an indication about the pollutants of major concerns due to tires burning. Emissions of pollutants from residential wood combustion sources in wood-burning stoves are NO x —NO 2 0.5 g kg −1 , SO x —SO 2 0.2 g kg −1 , CO 83–370 g kg −1 and PM 0.6–8.1 g kg −1 while in fireplaces are of NO x —NO 2 1.8 g kg −1 , SO x —SO 2 absent and CO 11–40 g kg −1 [ 115 ]. Therefore, it is evident that the generation of sulfur compounds generate more environmental concern in terms of quantity produced if compared with wood fire.

Open fire issues are also detectable in high-income countries, where waste tires landfills are still an issue. A large and uncontrolled fire of a tire landfill started in Toledo (Spain), and experimental analysis were implemented for measuring the potential impact at local and regional levels [ 116 ]. Outdoor and indoor measurements of different parameters were carried out at a near school, approximately 700 m downwind the burning tires. Among metals, ZnO and Co were 21 and 92 times higher than an area far from the open fire, reaching 933 µg m 2 , compared with 13 µg m 2 in the farther zone. Increases of SO 2 and PM 10 levels were also detected, with sulfate concentrations of 1371 µg m 2 , 11 times higher than the control zone [ 116 ]. A similar study was conducted in the Iowa city landfill, (United States), where the outdoor concentrations of pollutants generated from 18 day tire fire were assessed [ 117 ]. The study estimated maximum concentrations of tire fire PM 2.5 smoke at distances of 1, 5 and 10 km of 243, 55 and 26 mg m −3 , respectively. SO 2 , PM 2.5 , BC, and air toxic VOC had also high concentrations if compared with areas far from the fire. In another study, where tire smoke was investigated, BC, biphenyl, benzene, benzaldehyde, PM, and CO were highly ranked hazards [ 117 ].

These environmental issues due tire open dumping and open burning should be addressed in an integrated manner, in order to avoid these practices. One suggestion provided by various authors is to introduce the EPR, to ensure environmentally effective management of end-of-life waste, following 4Rs [ 118 ]. This regulation tool wants to prevent waste formation and promote source reduction. If this is not possible, waste should be reused, recycled, and then recovered for energy, while landfilling should be avoided. Accordingly, the tire EPR system should reduce the generation of tire waste, facilitate its reuse, promote recycling and other forms of material recovery and, finally, incentive the energy recovery, although LCA studies confirmed that the material recycling of tire waste provides greater environmental benefits than energy recovery [ 118 , 119 , 120 ].

3.8. Industrial Waste open Dumping

Finally, environmental contamination due to industrial waste mismanagement should be considered, since they are mostly hazardous. There are many different types of hazardous industrial waste, as well as source of contamination, such as mine tailings, fly ash, waste from the production of chemicals (e.g., phosphoric acid), residues from coal mining, acidic waste rock, carbide slag, among others [ 121 ].

In a tanneries area located in Ranipet (India), where chromate chemicals were manufactured, a large quantity of hazardous SW was stacked in open dump sites. This practice resulted in fast migration of the contamination to the groundwater, with levels of chromium up to 275 mg L −1 , 1000 times higher than the recommendations of the WHO for drinking water. The findings are of relevance for addressing the groundwater pollution due to indiscriminate disposal practices of hazardous waste [ 122 ]. A primary lead smelter operated in Santo Amaro City in Brazil, from 1960 to 1993, leaving approximately 500,000 tons of industrial waste containing 2–3% of lead and other toxic elements that contaminated the soil. The waste was deposited on the grounds belonging to the smelter, without any cover or precaution. In 2008 the average concentrations in soil were 1040 mg kg −1 for Pb, 2.73 mg kg −1 for Cd, 22 mg kg −1 for Ni, 295 mg kg −1 for Zn and 5.2 mg kg −1 for As, with a strong correlation among Cd, As and Zn. Therefore, the contamination due to heavy metals persists during 15 years, affecting the population surrounding the site, in particular the youngest [ 123 ]. In Dar es Salaam City (Tanzania), industrial waste (paints, pharmaceuticals, rubber, plastic, metal scraps, packaging materials, among others) are disposed with MSW within open dump sites. The dump of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes poses serious public health and environmental issues, since rainwater leach from the waste to the groundwater contaminating the surrounding areas [ 124 ]. Same issues regard the agriculture industries, with the production of waste related to pesticide containers and spry solutions. For example, in rural areas of Greece, farmers are used to dumping the empty containers on irrigation canals or in the field, sometimes burning or troughing them in others waste open dumps, generating river, soil and atmospheric contamination [ 125 ].

These results show that also industrial waste management is an underestimated issue and should be treated with appropriate methodologies and technologies. SW collection represent the first step, avoiding open dumping, after which a selective collection should be implemented in order to allow the recovery of valuable materials. Afterwards, incineration, chemical physical treatments, and appropriate final disposal should be implemented in function of the waste fraction generated, such as waste oils and solvents, batteries, emulsions and chemicals, sludges and refractory materials, among others [ 126 ].

4. Informal Recycling and Social Inclusion

Worldwide, there is a considerable presence of the informal sector in SWM, particularly in low-middle income cities where formal selective collection systems for recyclable materials are not still developed [ 127 ]. Informal activities tend to intensify in times of economic crises and where imported raw materials are quite expensive. However, its inclusion in formal SWM systems remain a problematic issue and considerable attention from NGOs and scholars is arising for solving such problem [ 37 ].

In Figure 6 is reported a simplified scheme that represent the selective collection chain of the informal sector [ 128 ]. The structure is of a specific case study in China, however, the structure is similar worldwide. The informal pickers collect the waste in open dump sites, bins, roads and households for segregating recyclable materials. These people can be organized or alone, with or without transportation means, and can be merchants or simply pickers. The waste is then sold to trading points that collect the waste and sell it again to formal or informal recyclers or directly to manufactures. This structure can be recognized in many case studies within the scientific literature.

Informal recycling chain in China, as schematically depicted by [ 128 ].

Many studies were implemented and published, in order to assess how the informal sector could be included in the formal management or recognized by the local population. For instance, in Ulaanbaatar (Mongolia), the informal sector operates in t informal neighborhoods. In these areas, illegal dumping is common, and some open fields became uncontrolled disposal sites, with waste pickers working and living near these areas. In 2004, the World Bank estimated that about 5000 to 7000 informal recyclers worked in Ulaanbaatar, and today this number could be higher due to the increase in city’s population. A study in the city revealed that most waste pickers have also higher education at a university, suggesting that the activity is due to many factors (e.g., lack of work). Informal waste pickers select recyclable materials and bring them by foot to secondary dealers for obtaining an income, who then sell larger quantities to the respective recycling industries [ 129 ].

In Blantyre (Malawi), MSW is disposed of in pits, along the road-side, or in the river. Waste pickers process and transform recyclable materials reducing the amount of waste disposed at dumpsites and decreasing the use of virgin materials needed for manufacturing. However, waste pickers are rarely recognized for their contribution. The two waste categories selected by the pickers are plastic and metals. No data are available for quantifying the number of waste pickers, however it was estimated that the maximum quantity of waste selected per day was about 20–30 kg d −1 [ 130 ]. In Harare, Zimbabwe, where the quantities of waste generated within the city are not known, the informal sector operates, mainly in open dump sites. Indeed, the waste collected by the formal collection is disposed of in dumpsites, where about 220 waste pickers worked. Waste pickers required a license to enter the dumpsite and had to wait for a worker’s signal before they could start recovering materials. It was estimated that the informal recycling sector recovered about 6–10% of waste deposited at the final disposal site (about 27–50 tons per day). Competition with others pickers was considered as the major challenge for the collectors, as well as workplace health and safety and discrimination among the population [ 131 ]. In Zavidovici (Bosnia Herzegovina), where solid waste is disposed of in open dumps, informal recycling represents the main income-generating activity for a group of ethnically discriminated households. These families contribute to the recovery of iron, copper, plastics and cardboard from MSW, reducing the waste inflow into the dump sites [ 132 ]. Finally, in Iloilo City (The Philippines), where some 170 tons of waste (about 50% of the total generated) are disposed of in an open dumpsite, approximately 300 households recover recyclable materials for selling them in local markets. A pilot project with international NGOs was implemented, in order to convert the organic waste into energy through briquette production. Results of the study show that the integration of the informal sector in the production of biomass briquettes can be a good option for implementing integrated plans for including informal recyclers, especially in areas where their activity is forbidden, as in The Philippines [ 133 ].

In Table 3 , seven case studies are compared in order to assess which are the number of pickers, their organization, its source of waste, the quantities and the fractions collected per day and the main issues detected by the studies. Results reported that waste pickers operate both in low income (Zimbabwe) and high-income countries (China). Mostly, informal sector collect waste from uncontrolled open dump sites and are not recognized or organized by the local municipalities. Waste pickers can collect from 14 to 60 kg of recyclable waste per day, which comprehend WEEE, MSW and HW.

Comparison of the waste pickers’ activity among seven different countries worldwide.

Note: (No.) number, (N.A.) not available.

Regarding the environment and the recovery of resources, the benefits are evident in many cities. In some places informal-sector service providers are responsible for a significant percentage of waste collection. In Cairo (Egypt), the informal recycling is implemented since the recyclable waste recovered are sold to the private companies, while the organic fractions are used for breeding pigs [ 137 ]; in Dhanbad Municipality (India), informal recyclers play an important role in the plastic waste management, collecting the recyclable plastic waste from landfills, rendering environmental and social benefits [ 138 ]; In Bogotá (Colombia), informal recyclers collect materials from waste, motivated by profits, due to the free-market enterprise for recycling [ 136 ]; in Nuevo Laredo (México), where migration has increased the population to over 250,000 inhabitants, unemployed informal recyclers recovered 20 kg of aluminum cans and cardboard per day, making in one day the minimum-wage of one week of a factory worker [ 139 ]. In all these international realities, the main factors that allows the activity of the informal sector is the presence of low-income communities, unemployment, lack of MSW collection and the free management of waste.

Therefore, the activity of the informal sector contributes directly to the recovery of the materials and the reduction of environmental contamination. This practice is in accordance with the circular economy (CE) principles. The objective of the CE is closing of material loops, to prevent waste from final disposal, and transforming the resulting residual streams into new secondary resources [ 140 ]. It proposes a system where 4Rs provide alternatives to the use of raw virgin materials, making sustainability more likely [ 141 ]. The CE typically includes economic processes such as “reverse logistics” or “take back” programs that recover wastes for beneficial reuse, avoiding final disposal costs, often reducing raw material costs and even generating incomes [ 142 ]. Therefore, the inclusion of the informal sector represents a key strategy for improving the CE concepts, improving social, environmental and economic sustainability [ 143 ].

The activities of the informal sector regard the degree of formalization, from unorganized individuals in dumpsites, to well organized cooperatives. Therefore, issues such as exploitation by middlemen, child labor and high occupational health risks need to be challenged for addressing sustainability [ 144 ]. Globally, SWM remains a negative economy, where individual citizens pay the cost, the financial viability of recycling is disputed, and the sector remains vulnerable to great price volatility. Most of the collection systems in developed countries are subsidized, and also result in substantial exports of recyclables in global secondary resources supply chains. Moreover, if taxes, health insurance, child schooling and training provisions, management costs and other typical costs are included within the informal waste sector, it is not clear if the sector come back to being unsustainable economically [ 144 ].

It is recognized that a door-to-door collection service of source-separated recyclables may be one of the best solutions for improving RR. Therefore, the informal sector has the opportunity to deliver important environmental benefits, becoming an active agent of behavior change. Moreover, its activity can reduce the waste inflow into water bodies, decreasing the amount of marine litter in the oceans. The inclusion of the informal recycling should be more investigated, assessing pros and cons of its activity in different realities worldwide [ 144 ].

5. Discussion

From the review, it is clear that there is a strong linkage between poor SWM and environmental/health issues. The rapid increase in population, economic growth, urbanization and industrialization improve the generation of SW at global level, boosting environmental contamination when such SW is not managed. Indeed, in many developing countries waste is scattered in urban centers or disposed of in open dump sites. The lack of infrastructure for collection, transportation, treatment and final disposal, management planning, financial resources, know-how and public attitude reduces the chances of improvement, as pointed out also by other authors [ 145 ]. In Table 4 the main source of contamination and health risks due to SW mismanagement for each waste stream are summed up.

Environmental and health risks due to waste open burning and open dumping for different waste streams.

Nevertheless, the generation of SW can be also considered a source of opportunities: generation of renewable energy, new employment, new economic advantages, private investments and improvement of population awareness about environmental issues. In developing countries, the informal sector plays the main role in recycling where plastic, glass, metal and paper have a developed market. Appropriate strategies should be introduced for supporting these activities, such as improved public awareness, enaction of specific laws and regulations and implementation of SWM infrastructures. For instance, a study conducted in Bogotá (Colombia), found that the main external requirements for including the activity of the informal sector regards the recognition of recyclers’ work, the formal alliances with the productive sector and the stabilization of the prices of recycling material [ 146 ]. Therefore, actions should be implemented both by private companies and local governments.

Support can be provided with the assistance of NGOs, private companies or international funds, for boosting the 4Rs, which included waste separation at the source involving residents, institutions, local governments and local companies. A good example was provided in Managua, Nicaragua, where over the last five years, several international cooperation projects have focused on the improvement of SWM systems creating multi-stakeholder platforms, designing and implementing joint activities for improving technical capacity and awareness, boosting the implementation of integrated and appropriated projects [ 147 ]. Therefore, some recommendations should be introduced for improving the SWM systems at global level, as also suggested by other authors [ 148 ]:

• Improve public education and awareness among citizens and waste pickers,
• Improve financial sustainability of the SWM systems,
• Involve several stakeholders for improving system resilience,
• Include safety precautions in the informal recycling sector,
• Implement studies for assessing waste composition and characteristics.

In developing countries, in agreement with the results of a LCA study, good environmental protection can be accomplished by recycling and composting, since high amounts of organic fraction MSW are associated with environmental impacts [ 102 ], while inclusion of the informal sector is suggested due to the low economic investment required and technological simplicity [ 149 ]. Such options are in agreement with the circular economy (CE) principle, an emerging topic that has attracted research interest. However, three components should be included in the definition of CE [ 150 ]: re-circulation of resources and energy, recovering value from waste; implementation of multi-level approach; assessing the innovation introduced within the society. These principles are mainly implemented in European countries and in China, while in low income countries these activities are still under development [ 151 ]. Furthermore, another study found that the main incentive for the development of SWM in municipalities was the economy; the environment and public health are only secondary drivers [ 152 ]. CE patterns specific for developing countries should be introduced, focusing on big cities, since financial sustainability, multi-level approaches, and energy recovery are options that to date are not affordable in these contexts. Therefore, the scientific literature and research should move to this direction, providing sustainable solutions for low-middle income countries and appropriate technologies for boosting the CE.

6. Conclusions

The article presented a narrative review about environmental contamination and social issues in developing countries due to SW mismanagement. Results show that the SWM system should be considered in an integrated manner in order to cope with the reduction of the environmental footprint and to improve the targets of the SDSs. Too many times, SWM is considered as a single stream disposed in open dump sites. However, the implementation of future management plans requires the application of ad hoc collection and treatment solutions for each waste flow produced in municipal areas: MSW (organic and inorganic), HW, C&D waste, WEEE and used batteries, industrial and hazardous waste and used tires. Stakeholders and governments should know that SWM is a complex system that involves environmental, social and economic issues, which should be evaluated holistically for improving the life cycle of waste, reducing water, soil and air contamination due to open burning and open dumping, practices widespread worldwide.

Inclusion of the informal sector can be considered a viable way for improving the recycling rate and reducing the waste inflow into final disposal sites in developing countries, due to low technological requirements and economic investments. However, further investigations and efforts should be implemented for understanding the most appropriate strategy for its involvement. In Latin America various pilot project were implemented by the organization of cooperatives including waste pickers that have provided good results. However, in some areas of Asia and Africa this practice is forbidden and represents an obstacle to a formal selective collection system. Therefore, specific patterns should be implemented for each context, exploiting the activities just in place introducing the CE principles, remembering that informal recycling cannot be the only system in action; improving waste collection and selective collection coverage of municipal areas, introducing awareness and information campaigns, implementing appropriate treatment systems with regulations and control agencies, improving final disposal sites and its management, enhancing financial sustainability of the systems and introducing future management plans are all practices required for improving the integrated SWM system of a country, region, municipality or rural area.

From this review it is clear that common projects should be introduced at a global level in order to reduce the environmental contamination and health issues due to waste open dumping and burning. Authorities and the actors involved in waste management should be aware of the global issues which are affecting sustainable development, providing such information to the population for spreading awareness and its inclusion in recycling and prevention activities, also available within the scientific literature and this review. It should be specified that waste mismanagement has impacts at three levels: municipal or local impacts, such as soil and groundwater pollution, spread of diseases due to animal vectors (mosquitos, rodents) and air contamination; regional impacts, due to pollution of waterbodies used for agriculture and household purposes; global impacts, such as global warming and marine littering. Therefore, a common front should be organized for reducing these impacts globally, for improving environmental conditions and sustainable development.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, investigation, data curation, writing—original draft preparation, and writing—review & editing, N.F.; Supervision, V.T.

This research was funded by The Rotary Foundation, grant number GG1758711 Scholarship provided by the Clubs Rotary Bassano del Grappa Castelli and Rotary Sopocachi La Paz.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Management of safety and health hazards associated with construction and demolition waste in Zimbabwe

• Open access
• Published: 24 May 2024
• Volume 2 , article number  56 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Steven Jerie 1 ,
• Takunda Shabani 1 &
• Tapiwa Shabani 1  

14 Accesses

Explore all metrics

The management of safety and health hazards associated with construction and demolition waste in Zimbabwe is a critical issue that requires comprehensive attention. Purpose: This review paper provides an in-depth analysis of the current state of safety and health hazards associated with construction and demolition waste management sector in Zimbabwe. Methods: Literature was searched from various databases for example African Journals Online, PubMed, Science Direct, Springer, Sage Publications, Google Scholar and Scopus. Key words such as construction and demolition waste, waste management, safety hazards, health hazards and risk assessment were used to retrieve data from different databases. Results: The paper finds that construction and demolition waste management is associated with physical, chemical, biological and ergonomic hazards. The review posits that there are existing regulatory frameworks and enforcement mechanisms related to safety and health in construction and demolition waste management in Zimbabwe for example Environmental Management Act [Chapter 20:27] and Urban Councils Act [Chapter 29:15]. Risk assessment and use of personal protective equipment were highlighted as strategies to manage safety and health hazards associated with construction and demolition waste in Zimbabwe. Proper handling, storage, transportation and disposal of construction and demolition waste reduce its impacts to the people and the environment. Challenges affecting Zimbabwe in managing safety and health hazards associated with construction and demolition waste include economic constraints, lack of awareness and education as well as limited recycling and waste treatment facilities. Conclusion: Overall, this paper aims to provide valuable insights for policymakers, industry professionals, researchers and other stakeholders to enhance safety and health standards in construction and demolition waste management practices in Zimbabwe.

Similar content being viewed by others

Analyze the Factors Affecting the Generation of Construction Waste in Vietnam and Propose Solutions

Waste Management: The Case of Construction and Demolition Waste in Port Elizabeth

Implementation status and recommendation of construction waste management policies and regulations in vietnam.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Construction and demolition (CDW) waste refers to the waste generated from construction, renovation and demolition activities [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. CDW waste often makes up 10–30% of the total waste disposed of at landfills in numerous cities globally [ 4 ]. This means that CDW serves as a significant contributor to urban solid waste. CDW includes materials such as concrete, wood, metals, bricks, plastics and other non-hazardous materials [ 5 , 6 , 7 ]. CDW is a significant environmental concern globally due to its large volume and potential impact on human health and the environment [ 8 , 9 ]. This indicates that CDW comprise the majority of the solid waste stream, posing a significant environmental threat to many countries. According to [ 10 ] and [ 11 ], the construction industry generates a significant amount of waste, with the CDW accounting for approximately 35% and 50% of municipal solid waste in developed and developing countries, respectively. The composition and management approaches of CDW vary between developing nations and developed countries [ 12 , 13 ]. The management of CDW is gaining increased focus in less developed countries [ 14 , 15 , 16 ]. Nevertheless, the majority of less developed nations do not have the necessary financial and technical capabilities to handle CDW. Shortage of finance means inadequate collection and storage, as well as illegal dumping of construction and demolition waste.

In Zimbabwe, CDW is a growing issue as the construction industry continues to expand [ 17 ]. Zimbabwe is experiencing rapid urbanization and infrastructure development in recent years, leading to an increase in construction and demolition activities. As a result of this, the generation of CDW has also increased significantly in Zimbabwe [ 18 , 19 ]. Construction and demolition waste in Zimbabwe is frequently disposed of without proper consideration, which encourages the illegal dumping of various types of waste [ 20 , 21 ]. This increases environmental impact and raises challenges to the public community. [ 22 ] and [ 23 ] opined that it is imperative to establish proficient and successful strategies to manage CDW to safeguard the environment and human health. However, stakeholders involved in CDW management have varying concerns and priorities, leading to challenges in waste management [ 24 , 25 , 26 ]. This concludes that coordination of all entities involved in the process is crucial for the success of waste management operations.

Construction and demolition industry in Zimbabwe is a significant contributor to the country’s economy, with a growing demand for buildings, infrastructure and other structures [ 27 , 28 ]. However, this industry also generates a substantial amount of waste, including materials such as concrete, bricks, wood and other debris. In Zimbabwe urban areas, the municipal solid waste collection includes CDW, constituting 30.6% to 39.6% of the total waste in suburbs such as Monomotapa and Shamrock respectively [ 29 ]. According to [ 2 ] it is worth noting that composition of construction and demolition waste varies depending on the specific location and type of construction project. In recent years, there has been a growing concern about the management and health impacts of construction and waste if not properly disposed of [ 15 , 30 ]. In Zimbabwe, renovation and construction activities produce various waste materials such as iron sheets, asbestos, builder’s rubble and broken bricks [ 17 ]. However, these materials are then gathered and managed by municipalities to ensure proper disposal and recycling, with the majority of it ending up in landfills or being dumped in open spaces. This has led to environmental and health problems, that include air, water pollution and the spread of diseases. In Zimbabwe, the government has implemented various policies and regulations aimed at promoting sustainable management of CDW [ 27 , 29 ]. Policies and regulations for waste management in Zimbabwe include Environmental Management Act [Chapter 20:27], Public Health Act [Chapter 15:09] and the Urban Council Act [Chapter 29:15].

Waste management policies and regulations in Zimbabwe require construction and demolition companies to submit waste management plans before starting work and the establishment of designated waste disposal sites [ 28 , 29 , 77 ]. Despite these efforts, hazards associated with CDW still exist in Zimbabwe. Nevertheless, a significant gap exists in terms of literature focusing on strategies which effectively address safety and health hazards associated with construction and demolition waste in Zimbabwe. Literature which exist in Zimbabwe regarding construction and demolition waste management put much attention on matters which include waste generation, reuse, recycle, reduce and waste disposal procedures, while putting little attention to safety and health hazards associated with construction and demolition waste in Zimbabwe. As a result, this study seeks to cover the gap by examining management of safety and health hazards (MSHH) associated with construction and demolition waste in Zimbabwe. The research questions of the review paper include:

What current measures are used to manage safety and health hazards associated with construction and demolition waste in Zimbabwe?

What are the main types of safety and health hazards faced during handling, transportation and disposal of waste produced during construction and demolition activities in Zimbabwe?

How do safety policies and regulations in Zimbabwe address the issue of safety and health hazards associated with construction and demolition waste?

What recommendations can be provided to manage safety and health hazards associated with construction and demolition waste inn Zimbabwe?

The hypotheses for the review paper include:

Hypotheses 1

Lack of adequate safety awareness training among employees result to increased risk of injuries and accidents related to management of construction and demolition waste in Zimbabwe.

Hypotheses 2

Poor compliance to safety policies due to poor enforcement of the laws result to increased safety and health hazards during handling activities of construction and demolition waste.

Hypotheses 3

Implementation of sufficient risk assessment procedures may reduce the manifestation of safety and health hazards associated with management of construction and demolition waste in Zimbabwe.

Through addressing exact problems faced by Zimbabwe concerning management of safety and health hazards associated with construction and demolition waste, this review paper provide vital insights that can actually result to improvement of safety practices, regulations as well as policies focusing on management of construction and demolition waste in Zimbabwe. The findings of the study help Zimbabwe to achieve a number of Sustainable Development Goals. By recognizing and addressing health risks in the construction and demolition waste management process, the study’s conclusions can help to achieve SDG 3 which focus on Good Health and Well-being. This will make the working environment safer for those employed in the sector. Through suggesting creative ways to manage waste in the construction industry and promoting more environmentally friendly practices, Zimbabwe can achieve Sustainable Development Goal 9 which put much attention on industry, innovation and infrastructure. The study’s results offer a way to achieve Sustainable Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities. This means the findings of this study are vital in promoting appropriate methods to manage waste in urban areas and this reduce risks which affect the well-being of people and increase urban sustainability.

2 Conceptual model for the study

A well-known paradigm for categorizing hazard controls in workplace safety and health is the Hierarchy of Controls according to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. Hierarchy of controls offers an organized method for determining and putting into practice the best countermeasures to reduce the risks connected to occupational hazards. There are five categories in the hierarchy of controls, which are elimination, substitution, engineering controls, administrative controls and personal protective equipment/clothe (PPE/C) and they are arranged according to order of their efficacy. As a result of this, this study applies the hierarchy of controls as the conceptual model in management of safety and health hazards associated with construction and demolition waste in Zimbabwe. The hierarchy of controls is shown in Fig.  1 .

Source: National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (2015)

Hierarchy of controls management.

Elimination is indicated at the top of the hierarchy of controls. Removal of the risk from the workplace physically means elimination NIOSH, 2015. Redesigning procedures to generate fewer debris or adopting alternative materials with lower risks are two ways that can assist elimination of hazards at the source when it comes to management of construction and demolition waste. Substitution follows elimination on the hierarchy of controls as indicated in Fig.  1 . Substitution means changing potentially harmful substances or methods with less risky ones [ 31 ]. For example, reducing hazards for waste workers can be achieved by replacing harmful construction and demolition materials with healthier alternatives.

Engineering controls Engineering controls entail creating structural barriers to keep employees away from dangers [ 32 ]. Examples include utilizing automated equipment to reduce the dangers associated with manual handling or establishing ventilation systems to regulate dust exposure during construction and demolition operations. Administrative controls: In order to reduce exposure to hazards, administrative controls focus on changes in working practices and policies [ 33 ]. In the context of management of safety and health hazards associated with construction and demolition waste, administrative controls may include implementation of proper safety training programs for employees on how to handle waste safely. Administrative members can establish clear safety protocols focusing on segregation of construction and demolition waste [ 34 ].

Personal Protective Equipment/Cothe (PPE/C) Personal Protective Equipment/Clothe is regarded as the last resort on the hierarchy of controls [ 31 ]. This means PPE/C is used to protect employees when other methods applied by the hierarchy of controls are not sufficient or feasible [ 35 ]. In the circumstance of managing safety and health hazards associated with construction and demolition waste, appropriate personal protective equipment/clothe, for example, gloves, respirators, overalls and hardhats should be given to workers basing on hazards identified within the workplace [ 36 ]. Features of the hierarchy of controls indicates that researchers may thoroughly evaluate risks, rank measures used to control risks and create a safe work environment for workers through applying the hierarchy of controls framework in the management of safety and health hazards associated with construction and demolition waste.

3 Study area

Zimbabwe is a landlocked country located in Southern Africa, bordered by Zambia to the north, Mozambique to the east, South Africa to the south and Botswana to the west [ 37 ]. Zimbabwe has diverse landscapes, with a mix of plateaus, highlands and low-lying areas. In Zimbabwe the high veld stretches from south west to north east and its altitude is 1 300 m because it’s a plateau. The other side is a low veld which is about 300–500 m in altitude. According to [ 38 ], the highlands in the east stretches for about 260 km from north (Nyanga) to south (Chipinge). The height of those highlands is above 2 000 m as shown by Mount Nyangani peak which is about 2592 m and is the highest [ 38 ], followed by Kweza located in the south which is 2437 m and Rukotso in the north is about 2405 m [ 38 ]. In Zimbabwe there is a Great Dyke, a massive geological for about 550 km long and 3 to 11 km wide [ 39 ]. Great Dyke is one of the largest platinum deposits in the world and has played a significant role in the country’s mining industry. The Great Dyke stretches from the north to the south through the center of Zimbabwe. Almost 66% of Zimbabwe consist crystalline rocks but granite is the most dominant hence, soils which originate from granite rocks covers 42% of the country [ 40 ]. According to [ 41 ], deep sands which originate from Kalahari deposits with high permeability dominates the other part of the country.

According to [ 37 ], Zimbabwe’s forest ecosystems consist of 45% of Mopane forest, 30% of Miombo forest and 25% of Baikiaena forest. The western part of the country is Baikiaea, the northern and eastern part is dominated by Miombo. The Save and Zambezi valleys are dominated by Mupane woodlands. According to [ 42 ], the miombo woodland is characterized by Julbernadia and Brachstegia trees and grass species such as Eragrostis. Ericaceous shrub land and montane grassland dominates the Eastern Highlands. As a result of this, Zimbabwe supports a wide variety of plant and animal life. The country is located between tropics and subtropics [ 43 , 44 ]. The climate of Zimbabwe is reflected by the topography and its seasonal, August to October is the dry season which is hot, November to March is the wet season which is hot and April to July is winter season which is cool and dry [ 45 , 46 ].

According to [ 47 ], Zimbabwe’s population is about 15.1 million. The population is divided into 7 289 558 males and 7 889 421 females hence, the sex ratio is 92 males and per 100 females. In Zimbabwe most of the people live in rural areas and they survive through subsistence farming. People in Zimbabwe grow different types of crops mhunga, rapoko, sorghum, maize, oil seeds and cash crops such as tobacco and cotton [ 48 ]. Due to the sporadic and insufficient precipitation in many regions of Zimbabwe, irrigation is a vital aspect for the prosperity of agricultural output in these areas. In Zimbabwe people are also involved in livestock rearing for example cattle and goats.

4 Methodology

The methodology used for literature search in the review paper involved a systematic approach to gather relevant information from various sources. Firstly, an extensive search was conducted on academic databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Science Direct and Web of Science using key words related to CDW management, safety hazards and health hazards. Additionally, relevant government reports, policy documents and guidelines were accessed from official websites such as the Ministry of Health and Child Care and the Environmental Management Agency in Zimbabwe. Grey literature including conference proceedings and technical reports were also considered. Furthermore, manual searching was performed by reviewing the reference lists of identified articles to find relevant studies. The inclusion criteria for selecting articles included relevance to the topic, abstract and availability of full text articles. The exclusion criteria involved studies not conducted, not specifically addressing safety and health hazards associated with CDW. The review compiled by the researchers relied on a comprehensive retrieval of English literature published until 2023 to enhance the validity and reliability of the data used, which includes a wide range of scholarly articles, books and other sources. This was done to provide a thorough understanding of the topic. During literature review 102 papers were identified. Analysis of the retrieved documents was done through reading topic, abstract, keywords. After that 43 papers were selected and critically appraised for their quality and relevance to the research question. The findings from these sources were then synthesized to provide a comprehensive overview of the management of safety and health hazards associated with CDW in Zimbabwe. The research methodology flow chart is shown in Fig.  2 .

Source: Authors

Research methodology flow chart.

5 Summary introduction of the findings

The study explores the important aspect of controlling health and safety risks associated with building and demolition waste in Zimbabwe. The research findings emphasize the need of putting in place efficient safety measures to safeguard employees, communities and the environment by highlighting the common hazards and difficulties associated with managing waste from construction and demolition industries. In order to mitigate these risks, the study proposes various strategies which include appropriate waste segregation, the use of personal protective equipment, worker training initiatives and regulatory enforcement. The study offers useful insights for policymakers, industry stakeholders and practitioners to improve safety standards and promote sustainable waste management practices in the construction sector by analyzing the current practices and regulations in Zimbabwe regarding construction and demolition waste management.

6 Findings and discussion

6.1 types of construction and demolition waste.

There are several types of CDW, including concrete, wood, metal, bricks, glass, plastics and asphalt [ 3 , 14 , 49 ]. Concrete is one of the most common types of CDW, generated from construction sites and it poses challenges due to its weight and volume [ 50 , 51 ]. This designates that concrete waste is a significant component of CDW. Concrete waste includes concrete blocks, slabs, beams and other concrete structures that are removed during demolition or renovation activities [ 1 , 26 ]. Additionally, wood waste is another major component of CDW, arising from demolition activities and construction processes [ 13 , 52 ]. According to [ 9 ] wood waste from construction and demolition activities includes boards, plywood, pallets and timber as well as other wooden materials. Wood waste is often generated from framing, formwork and packaging materials in construction and demolition companies [ 16 , 23 ]. Metals, such as steel and aluminum, are also prevalent in CDW due to their use in structural components and fixtures [ 24 , 53 ]. This clearly means categories of metal waste produced during construction and demolition activities includes structural steel, pipes, wiring, roofing materials and metal fixtures. [ 54 ] and [ 22 ] indicated that construction and demolition activities produce waste related to bricks, glass and plastics. Bricks, blocks, tiles and other masonry materials are common components of CDW [ 12 , 25 ]. Plastic waste in construction and demolition activities includes packaging materials, pipes, fittings, insulation and other plastic products used in building construction [ 10 , 55 ]. Glass materials removed from buildings are regarded as CDW [ 6 , 34 ]. This indicates that glass waste from construction and demolition activities includes windows, glass doors, partitions and other glass components removed from buildings. Categories of construction and demolition waste and their examples are shown in Table  1 .

6.2 Safety and health hazards associated with construction and demolition waste

Construction and demolition waste is associated with various safety and health hazards to people notably physical, chemical, biological and ergonomic hazards [ 2 , 30 ]. Physical hazards are prevalent in construction and demolition sites [ 6 , 35 ]. This suggests that falls, trips and slips are common accidents in construction and demolition industries that can result from uneven surfaces, cluttered work areas or inadequate safety measures. Physical hazards lead to severe injuries such as fractures or head trauma [ 10 , 22 ]. Construction and demolition waste is associated with falling objects which pose significant risks, especially when materials or debris are not properly secured or stored [ 24 , 54 ]. According to [ 16 ] and [ 23 ] construction and demolition workers should wear appropriate personal protective equipment like hard hats to minimize risk of head injuries from falling debris waste [ 9 ]. Opined that noise exposure is another physical hazard in construction and demolition environments. Construction and demolition machinery, power tools and other equipment used during construction and demolition works generate high levels of noise that can cause hearing loss or impairment if workers are not adequately protected [ 13 , 56 ]. As a result, employers should implement engineering controls like noise barriers or provide workers with hearing protection devices such as earplugs or earmuffs.

Construction and demolition works expose workers to vibration when they are operating vibrating tools or machinery for extended periods when dealing with brick waste which need to be destroyed [ 10 , 24 ]. Nevertheless, prolonged exposure to hand-arm vibration leads to conditions like hand-arm vibration syndrome, which affects blood vessels, nerves, muscles and joints in the hands and arms. In construction and demolition industries employees should be provided with anti-vibration gloves and regularly maintain equipment to vibration levels [ 1 , 26 ]. Additionally, dust is a common by-product of CDW [ 51 ]. This means that inhalation of dust particles is common among workers who deal with construction and demolition waste, however, this causes respiratory issues such as asthma, bronchitis or silicosis if it contains hazardous substances like crystalline silica. There is a need to protect workers from dust produced when dealing with construction and demolition waste through wetting down surfaces, through using local exhaust ventilation systems to reduce dust levels and through wearing respiratory protection [ 14 , 49 ]. Moreover, ergonomic hazards are prevalent in management of construction and demolition waste due to physical demands placed on workers’ bodies [ 13 , 17 ]. This specifies that management of construction and demolition waste is associated with manual handling of heavy objects which can lead to musculoskeletal disorders such as back injuries or strains. Cranes or forklifts ought to be vital mechanical aids in construction and demolition companies to reduce manual handling hazards among waste workers in construction and demolition industries [ 15 , 30 ]. Repetitive tasks performed during management of construction and demolition waste contribute to musculoskeletal disorders [ 29 , 33 ].

Hazardous materials are often present in CDW, posing significant risks to workers’ safety and health [ 6 , 34 ]. Asbestos is a well-known hazardous material commonly found in older buildings and inhalation of asbestos fibers can lead to serious diseases like lung cancer [ 5 , 57 ]. This means proper identification, handling and removal procedures should be followed when dealing with asbestos-containing materials. Lead-based paint is also regarded as hazardous material that may be encountered during construction and demolition works [ 16 , 23 ]. This clearly shows that in Construction and Demolition Company workers are exposed to lead which causes neurological damage as a result, strict containment and removal protocols should be followed to prevent lead exposure. Additionally, lead-based paint and lead pipes found in older buildings can contaminate the environment during demolition, posing a risk of lead poisoning particularly to children [ 58 , 59 ]. [ 60 ] and [ 61 ] indicated that exposure to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from paints, solvents and adhesives commonly found in CDW materials result in eye, nose and throat irritation as well as long term health effects such as liver and kidney damage. Moreover, improper disposal of CDW through leaching of hazardous chemical waste into the soil and groundwater [ 17 , 30 ]. This denotes that improper management of CDW can contribute to environmental pollution and ecosystem degradation.

In areas where moisture is present biological hazards can arise from CDW leading to respiratory infections and allergic reactions among workers exposed to mold spores [ 9 , 52 ]. This implies that inadequate handling and disposal of CDW can also lead to biological hazards from exposure to bacteria and other pathogens present in damp or decaying CDW. Biological hazards may be present in CDW, especially in older structures where mold, bacteria and other microorganisms can thrive [ 10 , 34 ]. In addition, workers involved in waste sorting or handling may come into contact with sharp objects or contaminated materials that can cause cuts or puncture wounds, potentially leading to infections [ 29 , 33 ].

6.3 National legislation and regulations related to construction and demolition waste management in Zimbabwe

6.3.1 environmental management act [chapter 20:27].

The regulatory framework for managing safety and health hazards in Zimbabwe is primarily governed by national legislation and regulations related to CDW management. The Environmental Management Act (Chapter 20:27) is the primary legislation that governs waste management in Zimbabwe. Under the Environmental Management Act, the Environmental Management Agency (EMA) is responsible for overseeing waste management activities including those related to CDW. This entails that the Environmental Management Agency has also developed guidelines and regulations specifically addressing CDW management. Guidelines developed by EMA for addressing CDW provide guidance on waste minimization, segregation, storage, transportation and disposal practices. The Environmental Management Agency outlines the responsibilities of different stakeholders involved in construction projects including developers, contractors and waste generators. In relation to the management of safety and health hazards associated with CDW, the Environmental Management Act establishes several key provisions. These provisions aim to ensure that construction and demolition activities are carried out in a manner that minimizes risks to human health and the environment. One of the primary objectives of the Act is to promote sustainable development by preventing or minimizing pollution and environmental degradation. Section 4 of the Act states that every person has a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent or minimize pollution, ecological degradation and damage to the environment. This provision applies to all activities including construction and demolition activities which have the potential to generate waste and pose safety and health hazards. Section 73 of the Act specifically addresses waste management. It requires any person who generates waste, including CDW to take all reasonable steps to prevent pollution or harm to human health and the environment. This includes implementing appropriate measures for the safe handling, storage, transportation, treatment and disposal of waste.

6.4 Environmental impact assessment policy

In Zimbabwe the Environmental Management Act (Chapter 20:27) lists all projects that require Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) including housing developments projects. Under Part XI of the institutional and legal provisions for environmental management in Zimbabwe, all development projects, particularly those with substantial adverse environmental effects, must undergo comprehensive EIA. This infers that the Environmental Impact Assessment regulations (Statutory Instrument 14 of 2007) require all development projects including construction and demolition projects to undergo an EIA to identify potential environmental impacts and propose mitigation measures. According to [ 62 ], the use of the Environmental Impact Assessment tool is important in the management of waste, specifically during treatment and discarding stages. Municipalities in Zimbabwe are advised to conduct the EIA process prior to selecting sites for waste disposal and building waste treatment plants. According to the Environmental Impact Assessment, the positioning waste landfill should follow the standards of the Environmental Management Act (Chapter 20:27) in order to protect residents from hazards associated with inappropriate disposal of waste. This denotes that the EIA supports the municipalities in implementation of preventive measures such as implementing proper disposal methods and recycling programs to mitigate the negative impacts of waste on the environment and public health.

6.4.1 Factories and workers act [Chapter 14:08]

The Factories and Works Act was passed in 1996 and it aims to tackle concerns regarding the safeguarding of workers and the prevention of accidents in various workplaces. The Factories and Works Act was implemented following OHS legislations like the Statutory Instrument 68 of 1990 which outlines specific requirements for employers to provide a safe and healthy work environment for employees. Employers are required by the Factories and Workers Act to provide employees with an adequate supply of personal protective equipment/clothing. This signifies that workers involved in dealing with CDW should be equipped with PPE/C to protect them from safety and health hazards. According to the Act workers should be trained about safety and health hazards associated with CDW. As a result, government agencies, contractors, developers and workers involved in construction and demolition projects should comply with Factories and Workers Act [Chapter 14:08] to protect workers from safety and health hazards associated with construction and demolition waste.

6.4.2 Hazardous substances and articles act [Chapter 15:17]

The Hazardous Substances and Articles Act [Chapter 15:17] is a legislation in Zimbabwe that regulates the management of hazardous substances and articles. While the Hazardous Substances and Articles Act does not specifically mention CDW, it provides a framework for managing safety and health hazards associated with such waste. The Act provides a system for classifying hazardous substances based on their properties and potential risks. This classification helps in identifying which materials in CDW may pose safety or health hazards. For example, asbestos is classified as a hazardous substance due to its carcinogenic properties. The Act requires individuals in activities related to hazardous substances to obtain licenses or registrations. Activities involved in hazardous substances include storage, transportation, handling or disposal of hazardous substances. Construction companies or waste management facilities dealing with construction and demolition waste may need to comply with these licensing requirements to ensure proper management of hazardous materials. The Hazardous Substances and Articles Act [Chapter 15:17] imposes a duty of care on persons who deal with hazardous substances or articles. This duty requires them to take all reasonable measures to prevent harm to human health and the environment. In the context of CDW, this duty requires contractors, builders and waste management operators to handle and dispose of hazardous materials safely. The Act requires proper labeling, packaging and storage to minimize the risk of accidents or exposure to hazardous materials during construction and demolition waste management. The Act also specifies methods and facilities approved for safe disposal or treatment of hazardous materials. As a result, CDW containing hazardous substances need to be disposed of in accordance with the Hazardous Substances and Articles Act to protect human health and environmental contamination.

6.4.3 The public health act [Chapter 15:09]

The Public Health Act [Chapter 15:09] of Zimbabwe outlines the regulations and guidelines for the management of safety and health hazards associated with CDW. The Act covers a wide range of topics related to public health, including the handling, storage, transportation and disposal of CDW. Under the Public Health Act, the responsible authorities for the management of CDW are the local authorities who are responsible for ensuring that all waste is disposed of in a safe and healthy manner. Local authorities are mandated by Sect. 83 of the Public Health Act to guarantee a clean environment within their jurisdiction for the purpose of safeguarding humanity. Nevertheless, private operators can collect CDW to prevent constant accumulation of waste at construction and demolition sites. The Act requires that all CDW be properly sorted, categorized and disposed of in accordance with the regulations set in the Act. According to the Act construction and demolition sites be inspected regularly to ensure compliance with the regulations of the Act. The responsible authorities are required to submit reports and records related to the management of CDW. In addition to the regulations set forth in the Act, there are also guidelines and standards for the management of CDW that must be followed. These guidelines and standards include the use of personal protective equipment, proper handling and storage of waste and the use of appropriate equipment and machinery for the disposal of waste. The Public Health Act provides for the establishment of a Health and Safety Committee, which is responsible for overseeing the management of safety and health hazards on construction and demolition sites. The Health and Safety Committee is composed of representatives from the employer, employees and the responsible authorities and responsible for ensuring that all safety and health regulations are being followed.

6.4.4 The urban councils act [Chapter 29:15]

The Act governs waste management in urban areas. The Act sets out the responsibilities of urban councils in ensuring the safe and healthy environment for their communities including the proper disposal of CDW. Under Sect. 14 of the Urban Council Act, urban councils are responsible for the collection, removal and disposal of refuse including CDW. The Urban Council Act requires urban councils to provide facilities for the storage and disposal of CDW and ensure that these facilities are properly maintained. Additionally, the Urban Council Act empowers urban councils to enter into agreements with other authorities, organisations or individuals for the purpose of managing CDW. This includes the establishment of joint ventures or partnerships to operate and maintain facilities for the disposal of CDW.

6.5 Risk assessment and management strategies in construction and demolition waste management

Construction and demolition waste management involves the identification, evaluation, implementation, monitoring and review of management strategies using risk assessment [ 13 , 51 ]. In Zimbabwe, like in many other countries, the risk assessment process is crucial to ensure the safety of workers, protect the environment and comply with regulations [ 63 , 64 ]. According to the [ 65 ] and [ 66 ] risk assessment helps to identify potential hazards, evaluate risks associated with different types of waste types, implement control measures to mitigate risks and continuously monitor and review risk management strategies.

The first step in risk assessment and management is to identify potential hazards in CDW management [ 30 , 67 ]. Hazards associated with CDW management include physical, chemical, biological, ergonomic and psychosocial risks [ 68 ]. To identify safety and health hazards associated with management of CDW, a thorough assessment of the CDW management process should be conducted [ 29 ]. However, risk assessment should consider all stages of waste management including waste collection, transportation and sorting, recycling, disposal and site remediation. Once potential hazards are identified the next step is to evaluate the risks associated with different types of CDW and activities performed during the management of waste [ 49 , 56 ]. This implies that evaluation involves assessing the likelihood and severity of potential incidents or accidents occurring and also considers the vulnerability of workers and the environment to risks associated with CDW. Different waste types pose varying levels of risk, for example, hazardous materials like asbestos or lead-based paint require special handling procedures due to their potential health effects [ 2 , 15 ]. In the management of CDW risk evaluation consider factors such as worker training and experience, availability of personal protective equipment and compliance with regulations related to CDW [ 52 , 54 ].

After evaluating risks associated with CDW, control measures should be implemented to mitigate those risks [ 69 ]. Measures implemented after evaluation of risks include engineering controls, administrative controls and personal protective equipment [ 31 , 32 , 70 ]. Administrative controls include providing proper waste management training, establishment of safe work practices and conducting regular inspections [ 33 , 34 ]. Personal protective equipment such as gloves, masks or safety goggles should be provided to workers dealing with CDW [ 17 , 35 ]. However, it is important to note that control measures should be tailored to specific waste types and activities associated with CDW. Once control measures are implemented it is crucial to continuously monitor and review risk management strategies [ 64 , 71 ]. As a result, monitoring and review of risk management helps to identify any new hazards that may arise during the waste management processes or any shortcomings in existing control measures used to manage CDW. Monitoring involves regular inspections of waste management sites [ 72 , 73 ]. By continuously monitoring and reviewing risk management strategies, improvements can be made over time to enhance safety and environmental protection in CDW.

6.6 Personal protective equipment/clothing (PPE/C) for construction and demolition waste management

Personal Protective Equipment/Clothe (PPE/C) refers to specialized clothing, equipment and accessories designed to protect workers from hazards in their work environment [ 74 , 75 ]. One of the primary reasons for using PPE/C in construction and demolition waste management is to protect workers from physical hazards [ 26 , 50 ]. Physical hazards include falling objects, sharp materials and debris that may cause injuries such as cuts, punctures or fractures [ 32 , 49 ]. This means PPE/C such as hard hats, safety goggles and steel-toed boots are essential in preventing head injuries, eye injuries and foot injuries. Additionally, gloves and other protective clothing can shield workers from contact with hazardous substances or chemicals commonly found in CDW [ 25 , 57 ]. Personal protective equipment/clothing plays a crucial role in ensuring the safety and well-being of workers in the CDW management industry [ 15 , 22 ].

Another critical aspect of PPE/C in management of CDW is respiratory protection [ 14 , 16 ]. Construction and demolition sites often generate dust, fumes and other airborne particles that can be harmful if inhaled [ 2 , 3 ]. This denotes that respiratory protective equipment such as masks or respirators are necessary to prevent respiratory diseases or conditions caused by exposure to hazardous CDW. Properly fitted masks or respirators filter out harmful particles and ensure that workers breathe clean air while performing their tasks related to construction and demolition activities [ 6 , 10 ]. This implies that PPE/C helps to protect workers from potential health risks associated with hazardous materials present in the CDW. Hazardous materials present in construction and demolition waste include asbestos, lead-based paint, silica dust and other harmful substances [ 9 , 57 ]. As a result, PPE/C acts as a shield by preventing direct contact or inhalation of hazardous substances and this reduces the risk of long-term health issues such as respiratory diseases or poisoning.

6.7 Construction and demolition waste segregation, handling and storage practices

Proper waste segregation, handling and storage practices are essential to minimize the risks associated with hazardous materials and promote sustainable waste management [ 2 , 10 ]. Waste segregation is the process of separating different types of waste materials based on their characteristics such as hazardousness, recyclability or biodegradability [ 17 , 62 ]. In the context of CDW management in Zimbabwe, effective waste segregation plays a crucial role in minimizing potential safety and health hazards [ 29 , 68 ]. This denotes that waste segregation allows proper disposal or recycling of different waste streams, reducing environmental pollution and promoting resource conservation. By segregating waste at the source, it becomes easier to manage and process different materials separately and this increases the efficiency of recycling and reduces the overall volume of waste sent to landfills. Segregating construction and demolition waste at the source allows for effective sorting and recovery of valuable materials like metals, wood, bricks and plastics [ 6 , 7 ]. This suggests that materials recovered during segregation of CDW can be recycled or reused in new construction projects and this reduces the demand for new resources. In addition, segregation of CDW is vital in identifying hazardous materials like asbestos or lead-based paints hence they can be handled separately to prevent contamination and health risks [ 8 , 9 , 16 ]. However, to implement effective CDW segregation practices in Zimbabwe it is important to establish clear guidelines and regulations that define the categories of waste materials and their appropriate segregation methods. Guidelines created regarding segregation of CDW should be communicated to all stakeholders involved in construction and demolition projects notably contractors, workers and waste management personnel [ 13 , 14 ].

Additionally, proper handling practices are essential to ensure the safe transportation and movement of CDW within a worksite or during its transfer to disposal facilities [ 2 , 23 ]. As a result, it is crucial in Zimbabwe to train workers involved in construction and demolition activities the safe handling of CDW to minimize safety and health risks associated with CDW. Safe handling techniques are crucial to protect workers’ health and prevent accidents and injuries during CDW management activities [ 22 , 26 ]. Nevertheless, it is important to note that different types of waste materials require specific handling procedures to minimize risks effectively. According to [ 49 ] and Ramos and [ 52 ] during construction and demolition activities recyclable materials such as metals, plastics and wood should be handled separately and stored in designated containers or bins to avoid injuries and ensure the quality of recyclable construction and demolition waste. Hazardous construction and demolition waste like asbestos and lead-based paints require special precautions during handling [ 1 , 34 ]. This clearly means trained professionals equipped with proper personal protective equipment should handle hazardous materials to avoid exposure. Asbestos-containing materials need to be wetted down to prevent the release of harmful fibers into the air [ 5 , 57 ]. [ 33 ] indicated that large debris such as concrete chunks or bricks need to be handled using appropriate lifting equipment like cranes or forklifts. This implies that the use of suitable equipment and machinery for lifting, moving or loading waste materials can significantly reduce the risk of accidents. Workers involved in manual handling of debris waste produced by construction and demolition industries should wear personal protective equipment such as gloves, safety boots and helmets to prevent injuries which affect their health [ 7 , 10 ]. Additionally, workers are trained about proper manual handling techniques to prevent strains, sprains and other musculoskeletal injuries associated with handling of construction and demolition waste [ 6 , 9 ]. This designates that workers should be taught correct lifting postures, avoiding overexertion and seeking assistance when handling heavy or bulky construction and demolition waste items.

Proper storage practices are crucial for maintaining a safe and organized construction site while minimizing the risk of accidents or environmental contamination [ 8 , 13 ]. In Zimbabwe, CDW should be stored in designated areas that are secure, well-maintained and easily accessible for waste collection or disposal [ 17 , 21 ]. Key considerations for effective waste storage practices include segregated storage areas, containment measures and signage and labeling [ 22 , 23 ]. Different types of waste materials should be stored separately to prevent cross-contamination and facilitate proper waste management [ 20 , 26 ]. However, this can be achieved by allocating specific storage areas for different waste streams, such as wood, concrete, metals or hazardous materials. To prevent the dispersion of dust, debris or hazardous waste produced by construction and demolition waste appropriate containment measures should be implemented [ 49 , 56 ]. Containment measures include covering waste piles with tarpaulins or using enclosed containers for hazardous materials [ 52 , 54 ]. Following the containment measures clear signage and labelling should be used to indicate the type of waste stored in each area [ 26 , 73 ]. This suggests that signage and labeling is vital since it helps workers to identify potential hazards associated with CDW and ensures that waste materials are handled correctly during disposal or recycling processes.

6.8 Transportation and disposal of construction and demolition waste

Transportation and disposal of CDW in Zimbabwe involve various practices, legal requirements and options for disposal [ 68 , 76 ]. This entails that it is essential to ensure safe loading and transportation of waste materials while adhering to the legal framework. Transportation of CDW involves the movement of materials from the construction or demolition site to a designated disposal facility [ 2 , 10 ]. In Zimbabwe, transportation of waste is often carried out using trucks and other heavy-duty vehicles [ 67 , 77 ]. However, it is essential to ensure that vehicles used to transport CDW are suitable for transporting waste, since improper transportation of waste can lead to spillage, accidents and environmental pollution [ 6 , 30 ]. This entails that proper transportation of CDW helps to prevent accidents, minimize environmental impacts and ensure safety of workers involved in construction and demolition waste. In construction and demolition industries managers should choose optimal transportation plans to transport CDW [ 14 , 16 ]. This advocates that an effective waste collection and transportation plan which significantly lowers expenses associated with waste collection and transportation is implemented by managers in industries.

Disposing of CDW is a significant environmental concern due to its large volume and potential for negative impacts on the environment [ 2 , 15 ]. This suggests that the disposal of CDW can lead to pollution, habitat destruction and resource depletion if not managed properly. Therefore, it is essential to employ effective waste management strategies to minimize the environmental impact of construction and demolition waste disposal. Disposal of solid waste including CDW in Zimbabwe involves various methods such as landfilling, recycling and reusing [ 20 , 21 ]. Land filling is a common method where the waste is deposited into designated landfills and it is common for disposing of CDW [ 17 ]. Properly designed and managed landfills can help to contain waste and prevent environmental contamination [ 62 , 77 ]. Nevertheless, the long term environmental impact of landfilling CDW should be carefully considered. According to [ 69 ] and [ 7 ] landfilling CDW material not only results in the wastage of resources, such as recyclable resources and land, but also leads to the pollution of groundwater and soil quality. This implies that landfilling should be used as a last resort after all other options such as recycling and reuse have been explored.

In recent years, there has been growing emphasis on recycling and reusing CDW to minimize environmental impact [ 6 , 34 ]. The study conducted by [ 78 ] compared three various methods (landfilling, incineration and recycling) and concluded that recycling and reuse is the most environmentally-friendly way to treat CDW, followed by incineration and then landfilling. This entails that one of the most effective ways to manage CDW is through recycling and reuse. Natural resources are limited, but recycling CDW can produce endless raw materials, making recycling the best choice for processing CDW [ 10 , 12 ]. Construction and demolition waste materials such as concrete, wood, metals and asphalt can often be recycled and used in new construction projects [ 2 , 8 ]. Diverting construction and demolition waste materials from landfilling to recycle and reuse helps to conserve natural resources and reduce the impact of CDW disposal [ 22 , 25 ]. However, implementing source separation at construction sites helps to segregate different types of waste for recycling or proper disposal. Source separation involves sorting materials at the point of generation, making it easier to recycle valuable resources and reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills [ 20 , 62 , 68 ]. Additionally, governments have started implementing regulations for environmental protection and promoting the use of recycling machines such as mobile or portable rock crushers to convert CDW into new-type aggregate [ 16 , 24 , 34 ].

Additionally, the cost of landfilling has risen due to the overall increase in urban land prices due to urbanization [ 55 , 73 ]. This means the increase in urbanization has led to a lack of urban land, reducing the availability of infrastructure land and constraining landfill space. As a result, incineration has become another option for the disposal of CDW, which is a viable solution for reducing the amount of waste sent to landfills and producing energy from waste materials [ 16 , 23 , 51 ]. This implies that some CDW can be processed through waste to energy facilities to generate electricity or heat. Incineration reduces the volume of construction and demolition waste sent to landfills while producing energy [ 13 , 77 ]. However, incineration of CDW not only produces harmful organic pollutants and toxic gases, for example, carbides, dioxins sulfides and nitrides, but also results in solid residues like combustion fly ash and slag [ 26 , 62 ]. Hence, it is crucial to follow regulations and guidelines for waste disposal to prevent environmental contamination and public health risks.

6.9 Challenges faced by Zimbabwe in managing construction and demolition waste

Zimbabwe faces several challenges in managing waste due to lack of proper infrastructure and facilities for waste management [ 17 , 19 ]. This implies that Zimbabwe has limited recycling and waste treatment facilities, leading to improper disposal of CDW. However, this results in environmental pollution and health hazards for the local communities and workers who deal with CDW [ 20 , 29 ]. Additionally, lack of awareness and education about sustainable waste management practices among developers and contractors involved in construction and demolition activities contributes to improper handling of CDW [ 2 , 16 ]. In developing countries there is a lack of stringent regulations and enforcement mechanisms for CDW management and Zimbabwe cannot be spared [ 19 , 21 , 79 ]. This denotes that existing waste management policies in Zimbabwe are not effectively enforced, leading to haphazard disposal practices by construction companies and individual builders. Lack of regulatory oversight exacerbates the environmental and health impacts of CDW [ 6 , 7 , 9 ].

Economic constraints pose a challenge to effective CDW management in Zimbabwe [ 13 ]. Economic constraints affect the availability of funds to use for proper management of CDW [ 8 , 78 ]. This clearly means limited financial resources hinder investment in modern waste management technologies and infrastructure, making it difficult to implement sustainable waste management practices. The cost of establishing recycling facilities and implementing proper disposal methods is prohibitive for many stakeholders in the construction and demolition industry [ 17 , 55 ]. There is a need for capacity building and skills development in the field of CDW management in Zimbabwe [ 15 ]. Lack of trained personnel and expertise in sustainable waste management techniques hinders the adoption of best practices in handling CDW in Zimbabwe [ 19 , 55 ]. This indicates that building the capacity of professionals in the construction and demolition industry is crucial for improving waste management processes and promoting environmentally friendly waste practices in Zimbabwe.

7 Conclusion and recommendations

The management of safety and health hazards associated with construction and demolition waste in Zimbabwe is a critical issue that requires immediate attention and comprehensive strategies. The review paper has highlighted various hazards such as exposure to harmful substances, physical hazards and the potential for accidents. It has also discussed the existing regulations and policies related to waste management in Zimbabwe, emphasizing the need for stricter enforcement and implementation. Many challenges are faced by Zimbabwe in addressing safety and health hazards associated with construction and demolition waste. There are many issues pertaining to health and safety risks that the construction and demolition sector in Zimbabwe must deal with. These issues include poor waste management techniques, inadequate worker training, inadequate enforcement of laws, and low awareness within stakeholders. It is evident that effective management strategies, including proper waste disposal, recycling and the implementation of stringent safety regulations, are essential for mitigating the risks posed by construction and demolition waste in Zimbabwe. As a result, enhancing safety and health standards in the construction industry of Zimbabwe can be achieved by encouraging a culture of safety consciousness within the industry, engaging with local communities to promote responsible waste disposal practices, conducting routine inspections and audits to ensure compliance with regulations, and offering rewards for best practices.

To effectively manage safety and health hazards associated with construction and demolition waste in Zimbabwe, it is recommended that comprehensive risk assessments be conducted at construction and demolition sites. This should include identifying potential hazards, evaluating risks and implementing control measures to mitigate these risks. Additionally, there should be a focus on promoting awareness and training programs for workers to ensure they understand the risks associated with construction and demolition waste and are equipped with the necessary skills to handle waste safely. Furthermore, there is a need for collaboration between government agencies, industry stakeholders and local communities to develop sustainable waste management practices that prioritize safety and health. Strengthening regulatory frameworks and enforcement mechanisms is also crucial to ensure compliance with safety standards and regulations. Lastly, investing in research and innovation for sustainable waste management technologies can significantly contribute to reducing hazards associated with construction and demolition waste.

Data availability

The data generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Sáez PV, Osmani M. A diagnosis of construction and demolition waste generation and recovery practice in the European Union. J Clean Prod. 2019;241:118400.

Article   Google Scholar  

Abofinije AJ. An assessment of construction and demolition waste management systems in the Nigerian construction industry. Johannesburg: University of Johannesburg (South Africa); 2020.

Google Scholar  

Villoria-Sáez P, Porras-Amores C, del Río Merino M. Estimation of construction and demolition waste. In: Advances in Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing; 2020. p. 13–30.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Akhtar A, Sarmah A K. Construction and demolition waste generation and properties of recycled aggregate concrete: A global perspective. J Clean Prod. 2018;186:262–281.

Manoharan E, Norazli Othman RM, Chelliapan S, Tobi SUM. A review of hazardous compounds present in construction waste materials. Environ Ecol Res. 2021;9(5):224–34.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Cook E, Velis CA, Black L. Construction and demolition waste management: a systematic scoping review of risks to occupational and public health. Front Sustain. 2022;3:924926.

Caro D, Lodato C, Damgaard A, Cristóbal J, Foster G, Flachenecker F, Tonini D. Environmental and socio-economic effects of construction and demolition waste recycling in the European Union. Sci Total Environ. 2023;908:168295.

Alsheyab MAT. Recycling of construction and demolition waste and its impact on climate change and sustainable development. Int J Environ Sci Technol. 2022;19(3):2129–38.

Papamichael I, Voukkali I, Loizia P, Zorpas AA. Construction and demolition waste framework of circular economy: a mini review. Waste Manag Res. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X231190804 .

Faruqi MHZ, Siddiqui FZ. A mini review of construction and demolition waste management in India. Waste Manage Res. 2020;38(7):708–16.

Najafpoor AA, Zarei A, Jamali-Behnam F, Vahedian-Shahroudi M, Zarei A. A study identifying causes of construction waste production and applying safety management on construction site. Iran J Health Sci. 2014. https://doi.org/10.18869/acadpub.jhs.2.3.49 .

Jin R, Yuan H, Chen Q. Science mapping approach to assisting the review of construction and demolition waste management research published between 2009 and 2018. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2019;140:175–88.

Rondinel-Oviedo DR. Construction and demolition waste management in developing countries: a diagnosis from 265 construction sites in the Lima Metropolitan Area. Int J Constr Manag. 2023;23(2):371–82.

Yuan H, Shen L. Trend of the research on construction and demolition waste management. Waste Manage. 2011;31(4):670–9.

Aboginije A, Aigbavboa C, Thwala W and Samuel S. Determining the impact of construction and demolition waste reduction practices on green building projects in Gauteng province, South Africa. In: Proceedings of International Engineering & Operations Management, Dubai, UAE, 2020;10–12.

Olofinnade OM, Manda I, Ede AN. Management of construction and demolition waste: barriers and strategies to achieving good waste practice for developing countries. IOP Conf Ser: Mater Sci Eng. 2021;1036(1):012045.

Shabani T, Jerie S. A review on the effectiveness of integrated management system in institutional solid waste management in Zimbabwe. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2023;30:1–17.

Mandevere B. An investigation into the effectiveness of household solid waste management strategies in Harare, Zimbabwe (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Africa). 2015.

Kwenda PR, Lagerwall G, Eker S, Van Ruijven B. A mini-review on the causes of poor household solid waste management in low-income developing countries: a case study of Urban Harare City, Zimbabwe. J Sol Waste Technol Manag. 2022;48(3):375–88.

Muchandiona A. Challenges and opportunities in solid waste management in Zimbabwe’s urban councils. 2013.

Mahamba C. Characterisation and management of non-formal solid waste management disposal sites in Harare, Zimbabwe. 2015.

Kim J. Construction and demolition waste management in Korea: recycled aggregate and its application. Clean Technol Environ Policy. 2021;23:2223–34.

Oluleye BI, Chan DW, Olawumi TO. Barriers to circular economy adoption and concomitant implementation strategies in building construction and demolition waste management: a PRISMA and interpretive structural modelling approach. Habitat Int. 2022;126:102615.

Ma M, Tam VW, Le KN, Li W. Challenges in current construction and demolition waste recycling: a China study. Waste Manage. 2020;118:610–25.

Kabirifar K, Mojtahedi M, Wang CC. A systematic review of construction and demolition waste management in Australia: current practices and challenges. Recycling. 2021;6(2):34.

Shooshtarian S, Caldera S, Maqsood T, Ryley T, Khalfan M. An investigation into challenges and opportunities in the Australian construction and demolition waste management system. Eng Constr Archit Manag. 2022;29(10):4313–30.

Masocha M. Informal waste harvesting in Victoria Falls town, Zimbabwe: socio-economic benefits. Habitat Int. 2006;30(4):838–48.

Madebwe V, Madebwe C. Demolition waste management in the aftermath of Zimbabwe’s operation restore order (Murambatsvina): the case of Gweru Zimbabwe. J Appl Sci Res. 2006;2(4):217–21.

Jerie S. Occupational risks associated with solid waste management in the informal sector of Gweru. Zimbabwe J Environ Publ Health. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/9024160 .

Al Hallaq KA, Hamad RJ, Tayeh BA, Nassar SS. Risk Analysis and Waste Management for Construction and Demolition Projects in the Gaza Strip. Jordan J Civil Eng, 2022;16(3)417–35.

Jerie S, Musasa T. Solid waste management and the Covid 19 pandemic lockdown in Zvishavane town, Zimbabwe. Ethiopian journal of environmental studies and management. 2022;15(3)323–34. https://ejesm.org/doi/v15i3.5 .

Singo J, Isunju JB, Moyo D, Steckling-Muschack N, Bose-O’Reilly S, Mamuse A. Hazards and control measures among artisanal and small-scale gold miners in Zimbabwe. Annals of Global Health. 2022;88(1):21. https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.3621 .

Blaisi NI. Construction and demolition waste management in Saudi Arabia: current practice and roadmap for sustainable management. J Clean Prod. 2019;221:167–75.

Chen J, Hua C, Liu C. Considerations for better construction and demolition waste management: identifying the decision behaviors of contractors and government departments through a game theory decision-making model. J Clean Prod. 2019;212:190–9.

Cesar 1 MZH, Kudzanayi G. (2018) Workplace Accidents And Diseases Affecting Informal Construction Workers In Ruvimbo And Rujeko Suburbs of Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe. 2018.

Belackova L, Verbeek J H, Hoving JL, van der Molen HF, Gagliardi D, Curti S, Scheepers PT. Personal protective equipment for preventing asbestos exposure in workers.  Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , 2024;(5)1465–858. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858 .

World Bank Report. World Bank Open Data. Retrieved May 2024. 2022. https://data.worldbank.org/ . Accessed 23 Mar 2024.

Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). National Survey of Biomass or wood fuel activities in Zimbabwe. Rome: FAO; 1990.

Schoenberg R, Nägler TF, Gnos E, Kramers JD, Kamber BS. The source of the Great Dyke, Zimbabwe, and its tectonic significance: evidence from Re-Os isotopes. J Geol. 2003;111(5):565–78.

Nyamapfene K. A geographical overview of the soils of Zimbabwe and their agricultural potential, Geographical Education Magazine (GEM), vol. 15. Harare: GAZ; 1992.

Nyamapfene KW. Soils of Zimbabwe. Harare: Nehanda Publishers; 1991.

Chirima A, Mundy P, Ncube N, Van Rooyen AF. Vegetation changes in the Miombo woodlands in Northwestern Zimbabwe: a case study of Nkayi district 1990 to 2017. London: InTech; 2018. p. 43–57.

Republic of Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe Third National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2016. https://unfcc.int/sites/default/files/reourc . Accessed 21 Mar 2024.

Bradley K, Ingham K. Zimbabwe. Encyclopedia Britannica. 2020. https://www.britannica.com/place/Zimbabwe . Accessed 18 Mar 2024.

Mugandani R, Wuta M, Makarau A, Chipindu B. Re-classification of Agro-ecological Regions of Zimbabwe inconformity with climate variability and change. Afr Crop Sci J. 2012;20(2):361–9.

RCRC (Red Cross Climate Centre). Climate Profiles of Countries in Southern Africa: Zimbabwe. The Hague: RCRC; 2021.

Zimstat. Census 2022 preliminary report. Harare: Zimstat; 2022.

Musiyiwa K, Leal Filho W, Harris D, Nyamangara J. Implications of climate variability and change for smallholder crop production in different areas of Zimbabwe. Res J Environ Earth Sci. 2014;6(8):394–401.

Wu H, Zuo J, Yuan H, Zillante G, Wang J. A review of performance assessment methods for construction and demolition waste management. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2019;150:104407.

Turkyilmaz A, Guney M, Karaca F, Bagdatkyzy Z, Sandybayeva A, Sirenova G. A comprehensive construction and demolition waste management model using PESTEL and 3R for construction companies operating in Central Asia. Sustainability. 2019;11(6):1593.

Shooshtarian S, Maqsood T, Wong PS, Yang RJ, Khalfan M. Review of waste strategy documents in Australia: analysis of strategies for construction and demolition waste. Int J Environ Technol Manage. 2020;23(1):1–21.

Ramos M, Martinho G. Influence of construction company size on the determining factors for construction and demolition waste management. Waste Manage. 2021;136:295–302.

Mbiba B. The mystery of recurrent housing demolitions in urban Zimbabwe. Int Plan Stud. 2022;27(4):320–35.

Kim SY, Nguyen MV, Luu VT. A performance evaluation framework for construction and demolition waste management: stakeholder perspectives. Eng Constr Archit Manag. 2020;27(10):3189–213.

Ferronato N, Torretta V. Waste mismanagement in developing countries: a review of global issues. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(6):1060.

Ratnasabapathy S, Perera S, Alashwal A. A review of smart technology usage in construction and demolition waste management. 2019. 45–5. https://doi.org/10.31705/WCS .

Mutetwa B, Moyo D, Brouwer D. Prediction of asbestos-related diseases (ARDs) and chrysotile asbestos exposure concentrations in asbestos-cement (AC) manufacturing factories in Zimbabwe. Int J Environ Res Publ Health. 2022;20(1):58.

Benfer EA, Coffey E, Gold AE, Hanna-Attisha M, Lanphear B, Li HY, Walz K. Health justice strategies to eradicate lead poisoning: an urgent call to action to safeguard future generations. Yale J Health Pol’y L Ethics. 2019;19:146.

Ankush, Lamba S, Ritambhara, Diwedi A, Kumar S, Singh V. Source and distribution of lead in soil and plant—a review. Lead toxicity: challenges and solution. Berlin: Springer; 2023. p. 3–16.

Book   Google Scholar  

Sameh R, Ismaeel WS, Othman F. Sustainable building renovation and indoor environmental quality. Management. 2021;574:583.

Jung C, Abdelaziz Mahmoud NS, Al Qassimi N, Elsamanoudy G. Preliminary study on the emission dynamics of TVOC and formaldehyde in homes with eco-friendly materials: beyond green building. Buildings. 2023;13(11):2847.

Shabani T, Jerie S. A review of the applicability of environmental management systems in waste management in the medical sector of Zimbabwe. Environ Monit Assess. 2023;195(6):789.

Shabani T, Jerie S, Shabani T. Overview of quality health safety and environmental management systems implementation in Zimbabwe. Saf Extrem Environ. 2023;6:1–13.

Shabani T, Jerie S, Shabani T. The effectiveness of total loss control approach in accident prevention in industries in Zimbabwe. Life Cycle Reliab Saf Eng. 2023;12:1–17.

World Health Organization. Strategic toolkit for assessing risks: a comprehensive toolkit for all-hazards health emergency risk assessment. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021.

Shabani T, Jerie S, Shabani T. A comprehensive review of safety audits: ensuring workplace safety and compliance in Zimbabwe. Safety and Reliability. 2024; 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09617353.2024.2343958 .

Chireshe A, Kowe P, Musasa T, Shabani T, Shabani T, Moyo SB. Assessment of ergonomic risks among refuse collectors in municipalities of Harare District, Zimbabwe. Saf Extrem Environ. 2023;5:1–12.

Tsiko RG, Togarepi S. A situational analysis of waste management in Harare Zimbabwe. J Am Sci. 2012;8(4):692–706.

Aslam MS, Huang B, Cui L. Review of construction and demolition waste management in China and USA. J Environ Manage. 2020;264:110445.

Shabani T, Jerie S, Shabani T. The impact of occupational safety and health programs on employee productivity and organisational performance in Zimbabwe. Saf Extrem Environ. 2023;5:1–12.

Sithole T, Mahlangu G, Salek S, Walker S. Evaluation of the regulatory review process in Zimbabwe: challenges and opportunities. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2021;55:474–89.

Scheutz C, Kjeldsen P. Guidelines for landfill gas emission monitoring using the tracer gas dispersion method. Waste Manage. 2019;85:351–60.

Filkin T, Sliusar N, Ritzkowski M, Huber-Humer M. Unmanned aerial vehicles for operational monitoring of landfills. Drones. 2021;5(4):125.

Sarfraz A, Sarfraz Z, Anwer A, Sarfraz M, Siddiq J. Availability, use, and satisfaction of personal protective equipment among healthcare workers: a cross-sectional assessment of low-and middle-income countries. J Occup Environ Med. 2020;62(11):e657–64.

Galanis P, Vraka I, Fragkou D, Bilali A, Kaitelidou D. Impact of personal protective equipment use on health care workers’ physical health during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Infect Control. 2021;49(10):1305–15.

Stafford WH. WtE best practices and perspectives in Africa. In: Municipal solid waste energy conversion in developing countries. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2020. p. 185–217.

Shabani T, Jerie S, Shabani T. Applicability of the life cycle assessment model in solid waste management in Zimbabwe. Circ Econ Sustain. 2023;3:1–21.

Marzouk M, Azab S. Environmental and economic impact assessment of construction and demolition waste disposal using system dynamics. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2014;82:41–9.

Masekesa LK. A human rights-based approach to implementing target 11.6 of sustainable development goal 11 in Zimbabwe. Afr Human Righ Law J. 2022;22(1):241–65.

Download references

Acknowledgements

All sources were acknowledged.

The authors have no affiliation with any organization with a direct or indirect financial interest in the subject matter discussed in the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Geography Environmental Sustainability and Resilience Building, Midlands State University, P. Bag 9055, Gweru, Zimbabwe

Steven Jerie, Takunda Shabani & Tapiwa Shabani

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Steven Jerie was responsible for coming up with the idea, however, Tapiwa Shabani and Takunda Shabani were involved in doing literature search and data analysis under the supervision of Steven Jerie. Tapiwa Shabani and Takunda Shabani developed the final draft and proof read the document and further adjustment were done by Steven Jerie.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tapiwa Shabani .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Approval was granted by Midlands State University to carry out the research as well as to publish under its name. All sources were properly cited to avoid plagiarism. All authors participated and agreed to participate up to final revision of the manuscript.

Consent for publication

Authors agreed to let the paper published when considered for publication.

Competing interests

This manuscript has not been submitted to, nor is under review at, another journal or other publishing venue.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 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/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Jerie, S., Shabani, T. & Shabani, T. Management of safety and health hazards associated with construction and demolition waste in Zimbabwe. Discov Environ 2 , 56 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44274-024-00088-4

Download citation

Received : 25 March 2024

Accepted : 21 May 2024

Published : 24 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s44274-024-00088-4

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

• Construction and demolition waste
• Waste management
• Safety hazards
• Health hazards
• Risk assessment
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research