Solid waste management practices and its key factors among households in resource-limited settings, Northwest Ethiopia

Abstract

Background:

Proper handling of solid waste plays a vital role in protecting both the environment and public health. Despite this, inadequate waste handling remains a major challenge in many developing nations, including Ethiopia, threatening ecological balance and community health.

Objective:

This study aimed to identify key factors influencing solid waste management practices among households in resource-limited settings in Northwest Ethiopia in 2024.

Design and methods:

A cross-sectional study was carried out at the community level, involving 558 households in Debre Markos town selected using a multi-stage sampling technique. Data entry was performed using EpiData, and statistical analysis was conducted with SPSS Version 26. To determine factors associated with effective solid waste management practices, both bivariate and multivariate analyses were applied, considering odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals and a significance level set at p < 0.05.

Result:

A total of 378 (67.7%) households exhibited improper solid waste management practices. Households with higher education levels were significantly more likely to manage waste properly (AOR = 3.43; 95% CI: 1.15–7.85), as were those with higher income levels (AOR = 2.78; 95% CI: 1.53–6.42). A positive attitude toward waste management was also associated with better practices (AOR = 2.41; 95% CI: 1.13–5.77), along with participation in cleanup campaigns (AOR = 1.45; 95% CI: 1.12–3.79). Moreover, households willing to pay for waste management services were significantly more likely to engage in proper waste management (AOR = 7.28; 95% CI: 2.84–13.85).

Conclusions:

This study revealed that the majority of households (67.7%) practiced poor solid waste management. Key factors influencing these practices include education level, income, attitudes, family size, participation in cleanup campaigns, and willingness to pay for services. Based on the study’s findings, the authors recommend that the town administration implement training programs to raise awareness about the consequences of poor solid waste management. Promoting positive attitudes, encouraging participation in cleanup activities, and considering financial incentives are crucial for improving solid waste management practices.

Introduction

Solid waste management (SWM) in urban areas is a complex and multifaceted process that involves the collection, transportation, recycling, resource recovery, and final disposal of solid waste. ¹ Municipal solid waste (MSW) is generated from a variety of sources, including households and institutions such as schools, hospitals, slaughterhouses, and public toilets. The diverse nature of these waste streams presents significant challenges for urban waste management systems, requiring coordinated efforts, adequate infrastructure, and effective policies to ensure environmental sustainability and public health protection.^1,2 Municipal waste management in developing countries is hindered by rapid urbanization and population growth, prompting governments to allocate substantial resources to address the escalating challenges. ³ Solid waste management (SWM) in urban area is a complex activity that involves the collection, transportation, recycling, resource recovery, and disposal of solid waste generated in an urban area. ⁴

Waste management systems in most developing-country cities are under stress, with poorly managed or uncontrolled dump sites. Inadequate collection services pose risks to both human health and the environment. ⁵ Rapid population growth and urbanization across the African continent have increased waste generation alarmingly, straining existing management systems and pushing nations to adopt sustainable solutions.^6,7 However, the technology, financial capacity, cultural practices, and community which are required to manage solid waste properly are not adequately available. ⁸

Solid waste is a growing global environmental and public health problem, driven by rapid urbanization, population growth, and changing consumption patterns. ⁹ According to the World Health Organization (WHO), poorly managed solid waste contributes to the spread of infectious diseases, environmental pollution, and climate change. ¹⁰ The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that over 292 million tons of municipal solid waste were generated in the United States in 2018 alone, with only about 32% recycled or composted. ¹¹ In Ethiopia, the Ministry of Urban Development and Construction estimates that urban centers generate over 3 million tons of solid waste annually, yet a significant portion remains uncollected or is disposed of in open spaces and water bodies, causing serious health and environmental problems.^12,13 Rapid urbanization, population growth, and economic development have substantially increased municipal solid waste generation. In urban centers like Addis Ababa, the amount of waste produced is estimated to range from 0.5 to 0.8 kg per person daily, generating thousands of tons daily. ¹⁴ Improper solid waste management remains a significant challenge in Ethiopia, particularly in urban areas. Research conducted in Addis Ababa revealed that 71.4% of households disposed of waste improperly, primarily in open spaces or unauthorized sites. ¹² Another study in Assela found that 76.3% of households lacked proper waste management practices, leading to environmental pollution and health risks. ¹ These findings underscore the widespread nature of the problem across different regions of the country, highlighting the need for more effective waste management strategies and public awareness campaigns.^1,12,15

Ethiopia’s Solid Waste Management Proclamation No. 513/2007 provides the legal basis for proper waste handling, promoting reduction, reuse, recycling, and safe disposal. It mandates urban administrations to manage waste sustainably and requires individuals and organizations to follow environmental standards and obtain permits, aiming to protect health and the environment. ¹⁶ In Debre Birhan, however, the majority of the population (75%) disposes of waste illegally in public places, rivers, ditches. This illegal waste disposal is due to inadequate solid waste collection coverage, with only 25% of the generated waste being collected. ¹⁷ Additionally, there are no public solid waste storage containers or roadside dustbins. Households often dispose of solid waste in open spaces. ¹⁸

Household solid waste in Ethiopia is not properly managed at the source, posing significant risks to the local environment. Improper waste management contributes to air, water, and soil pollution, and these disposal practices often lead to flooding in towns, especially during the rainy seasons.^19,20 Debre Markos, a town with many health facilities, industries, and small businesses, generates large amounts of solid waste. ²¹ Although the municipality is responsible for waste management, the lack of communal containers results in roadside dumping. No study has examined the extent of the problem or its causes in this area. This study aims to assess household solid waste management practices and identify the factors affecting them in Debre Markos town, Northwest Ethiopia.

Materials and methods

Study area and period

The study was conducted in Debre Markos Town, East Gojjam Zone, Amhara Regional State, a resource-limited setting in Northwest Ethiopia, from February 15 to March 15, 2024. Debre Markos town is located 300 km from Addis Ababa and 265 km from Bahir Dar. Debre Markos has a total area of 65.85 km² and a population of 107,684 as of 2020/2021. The key economic activities in the town include manufacturing, trade, and services. The population is unequally distributed across Debre Markos’ town ²² (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Map of the study area.

Study design

A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted to assess key factors influencing solid waste management (SWM) practices in resource-limited settings among households in Northwest Ethiopia. This study design was chosen because it enables the collection of data at a single point in time, allowing for the identification of prevalent waste management behaviors and the various socio-economic, environmental, and infrastructural factors associated with them.

Source population

The source population for this study comprised all households residing in Debre Markos Town, located in the East Gojjam Zone of the Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia. These households represent a diverse mix of socio-economic backgrounds and living conditions, providing a comprehensive framework for examining variations in solid waste management practices across different segments of the urban population. This wide base allows for a representative assessment of the community’s waste handling behaviors and the environmental and public health challenges associated with them.

Study population

The study populations were all households from selected kebele of Debre Markos town, and the study unit was household. A total of 563 sample households were selected, and household sample size determination was calculated using a scientific statistical method of single population proportion formula to assess the household (HH) solid waste management practice and associated factors in Debre Markos town.

Inclusion criteria

Households that had resided in the selected urban areas of Debre Markos town for at least 6 months, had an eligible respondent available and willing to participate, and provided informed consent were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria

Households were excluded if they were temporarily closed, had no eligible respondent available after two revisits, involved respondents who were critically ill or unable to communicate during data collection, or were non-residential buildings such as commercial centers, offices, or schools.

Sampling procedure

A multi-stage sampling technique was used to select sample households. The first stage involved classifying the 20 kebeles of the town into four strata for stratification purposes. Next, one kebele was randomly selected from each strata, as it was believed that kebeles within the same strata share similar characteristics in terms of proximity to the town center and availability of infrastructure. In the next stage, the proportion of households was calculated for each selected kebele. Finally, the respondent of the households were selected using systematic random sampling to provide responses on household solid waste management practices.

Data collection methods and tools

For this investigation, information was gathered from the selected households through a face-to-face interview utilizing structured and standardized questionnaires that included both open-ended and closed-ended questions. The questionnaire was adapted from many sources and tweaked to fit the study area.^1,23,24 The questionnaire was translated into local languages and then back into English to check for any language inconsistencies. Before the actual data collection, a pretest was conducted, and the questionnaire was revised based on the gaps identified during the pretest. The pretest was carried out on 5% of households outside the sampling area. During the pretest, the validity and reliability of individual questions in the questionnaire were assessed. The survey covered socioeconomic and demographic factors, as well as the current state of home solid waste management. Some questions and their anticipated responses were rephrased to ensure accurate and truthful responses. Data collection was performed by trained Research Assistants, who were Environmental Health students from Debre Markos University, from all selected households. Respondents were assessed using nine practice-related checklists to evaluate household attitudes toward solid waste management (SWM). Households scoring ≤6 points (≤66.7%) were classified as having poor SWM practices, while those scoring >6 (>77.8%) were classified as having good SWM practices. ²⁴

Data quality assurance

The data quality was assured through careful design and pretesting of the tools and proper training of the data collectors and supervisors. Data quality was ensured through the appropriate orientation of data collectors and continued supervision by the investigator during the process of data collection. In addition, regular checkups were made daily to ensure the completeness and consistency of the data. Questionnaires set in English were translated and administered in Amharic, the local language in the study area, to provide clarity. Trained data collectors administered the questionnaire.

Statistical analysis

Data were first checked manually for completeness, then coded and entered into SPSS version 26 for statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics, including frequencies and percentages, were used to summarize socio-demographic characteristics and key variables related to solid waste management (SWM) practices. To identify factors associated with SWM practices, binary logistic regression was initially performed. Variables with a p-value less than 0.25 in the bivariate analysis were included in the multivariate logistic regression model to assess their independent effects after controlling for potential confounders. The strength of association was measured using adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant in the multivariate analysis.

Multivariable logistic regression

Variables with a 95% confidence interval and a p-value < 0.20 during the bivariate analysis were included in the multivariable logistic regression, which was conducted while controlling for confounders. Adjusted odds ratios with a 95% confidence interval were calculated, and the results were presented using statements, graphs, and tables.

Result

Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of respondents

A total of 558 households participated in the study, yielding a high response rate of 99.1%. Of the respondents, 378 (67.8%) were female. The mean age was 34.9 years (SD ± 9.74), and the majority, 533 (95.5%), were within the 15–64 age group. In terms of educational status, 166 (29.7%) had completed secondary school. Married individuals accounted for the majority of respondents (446; 79.9%), followed by single participants (74; 13.3%). The average household size was 4.7 persons (range: 1–9), with 333 (59.7%) of households having more than three members.

Regarding residency, 155 (27.8%) of the respondents had lived in Debre Markos town for more than 11 years. Concerning housing ownership, 258 (46.2%) resided in privately owned homes, while the rest lived in rental accommodations, either from private landlords or public (kebele) housing. In terms of monthly income, the majority, 216 (38.6%), reported earning less than 18.5 USD, highlighting the economic constraints prevalent among the study population (Table 1).

Table 1.

Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of respondents.

Variables	Alternatives	Frequency	Percent
Sex	Male	180	32.2
	Female	378	67.8
Age (in a year)	15–24	12	2.2
	25–34	171	30.6
	35–44	189	33.9
	45–54	109	19.5
	55–64	52	9.3
	>64	25	4.65
Marital status	Single	74	13.3
	Married	446	79.9
	Widowed	18	3.2
	Divorced	20	3.6
Educational level	Unable to read and write	69	12.4
	Able to read and write	68	12.2
	Primary (1–8)	95	17.0
	Secondary (9–12)	166	29.7
	Diploma	74	13.3
	Degree and above	86	15.4
Residence duration in the town (in a year)	<2	52	9.3
	2–5	63	11.3
	5–8	152	27.2
	8–11	136	24.4
	>11	155	27.8
Family size	≤4	333	59.7
	>4	225	40.3
Average monthly income (in US dollars)	≤18.5	216	38.6
	18.6–37.1	64	11.5
	37.2–55.6	98	17.6
	55.7–74.1	86	15.4
	74.2–92.5	35	6.3
	>92.6	59	10.6

Socio-cultural related factors

A total of 148 (26.5%) households resided less than 100 m from the main road, while only 34 (6.1%) lived more than 500 m away. Regarding attitudes toward solid waste management (SWM), 235 (42.1%) had a positive attitude, whereas 323 (57.9%) had a negative attitude. Concerning responsibility for SWM, 262 (46.9%) believed it rests solely with the municipality, 24 (4.3%) viewed it as the responsibility of households, and 272 (48.8%) stated it is a shared responsibility. In evaluating municipal performance, 282 (50.5%) rated it as poor, 202 (36.2%) as fair, and 74 (13.3%) as good. Additionally, 341 (61.1%) of respondents had received information on SWM. A significant majority (529; 94.8%) were willing to pay for solid waste collection services, while 29 (5.2%) were no (Table 2).

Table 2.

Socio-cultural related factors of respondents.

Variables	Alternatives	Frequency	Percent
Distance of HHs from the main road	<100 m	148	26.5
	100–200 m	109	19.5
	200–300 m	144	25.8
	300–400 m	35	6.3
	400–500 m	88	15.8
	>500 m	34	6.1
HHs attitude status toward SWM practice	Good	235	42.1
	Poor	323	57.9
The responsible body for SWM	Municipality	262	46.9
	Household	24	4.3
	HH and municipality	272	48.8
Evaluation on the effort of a municipality in SWM	Poor	282	50.5
	Fair	202	36.2
	Good	74	13.3
Information about SWM	Yes	341	61.1
	No	217	38.9
Willingness to pay for solid waste collectors	Yes	529	94.8
	No	29	5.2

Attitude of respondents towards solid waste management

According to the data, out of 558 respondents, 53.2% of the respondents stated that solid waste is not useful, while 46.8% considered it to have some value. The vast majority, 93.4%, recognized the importance of solid waste management (SWM). However, only 40.5% of respondents expressed concern about the disposal of household solid waste, while 59.5% were not concerned. In terms of willingness to support SWM services, 89.1% of respondents indicated that they were willing to pay for solid waste collection services.

When asked about awareness of regulations, only 35.7% knew about the existence of rules and regulations related to SWM, whereas 64.3% were unaware. Moreover, 58.8% of respondents acknowledged that their solid waste generation is influenced by their consumption patterns. Additionally, 79.9% of participants agreed that poor solid waste management contributes to environmental and health problems (Table 3).

Table 3.

Solid waste management attitude assessment question and responses.

Solid waste attitude items	Yes	No
Do you think solid waste is useful?	46.8%	53.2%
Do you agree with the importance of SWM?	93.4%	6.6%
Do you think your SW generation is affected by or related to your consumption pattern?	58.8%	41.2%
Are you concerned about the disposal of HH SW?	40.5%	59.5%
Are you willing to pay for the SW collection service?	89.1%	10.9%
Do you know that there are rules and regulations related to SWM?	35.7%	64.3%
Do you think that poor SWM causes environmental and health problems?	79.9%	20.1%

The current status of household solid waste management practice

The overall solid waste management practice among households in Debre Markos town was 32.3%. Nearly all respondents (99.1%) reported temporarily storing solid waste at home. However, only 31.8% practiced waste segregation, and 41.6% reported reusing waste, indicating limited application of basic waste reduction strategies.

Utilization of formal disposal services was also low; only 36.2% of households used the Municipal Solid Waste Management Service, while the remaining 63.8% relied on alternative disposal methods. Participation in community cleanup campaigns was reported by just 33.5% of respondents, and 54.1% had received health education related to SWM. Furthermore, only 23.3% of households separated waste for resale or material recovery. Lastly, 36.5% of respondents’ stored waste until collectors arrived, while the majority (63.5%) did not adopt this practice (Table 4).

Table 4.

Solid waste management practice-related questionnaires and responses.

Solid waste practice-related questions	Yes	No
Do you have temporary solid waste storage at your home?	99.1%	0.9%
Do you segregate waste at your home?	31.8%	68.2%
Do you practice solid waste re-use at your home?	41.6%	58.4%
Do you use Municipal Solid Waste Management Service (MSSE) to dispose-off your solid waste?	36.2%	63.8%
Do you have participated in a cleanup campaign in your kebele?	33.5%	66.5%
Do you have participated in health education-related solid waste management?	54.1%	45.9%
Do you separate solid waste which is sold or changed to materials?	23.3%	76.7%
Do you store solid waste generated from your house until solid waste collectors come to your home?	36.5%	63.5%

The majority of respondents (67.6%) used sacks for waste storage. In comparison, 14.4% used jerry cans, 11.3% used plastic bags, 4.3% used locally made baskets, and 2.4% relied on other related storage materials (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Household temporary solid waste storage materials.

Factors associated with solid waste management practice: Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression

To reduce the number of variables, p-values less than 0.2 during the bivariate analysis were included in the multivariate logistic regression analysis to evaluate the relative effect of confounding variables. According to the current findings, households with a family size of four or fewer were nearly twice as likely to practice good solid waste management compared to those with a larger family size (AOR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.26–4.37). Respondents aged 30 or younger were also more likely to engage in good SWM practices than those older than 30, with a significant adjusted odds ratio of 0.57 (95% CI: 0.41–0.96), indicating a protective association.

Educational status was also a significant factor: illiterate respondents were over three times more likely to exhibit poor solid waste management practices compared to literate respondents (AOR = 3.43, 95% CI: 1.15–7.85). Monthly income was another strong predictor; households earning less than or equal to 3000 birr were nearly three times more likely to practice poor SWM than those earning more than 3000 birr (AOR = 2.78, 95% CI: 1.53–6.42). Attitudinal factors showed significant associations as well. Respondents with a poor attitude toward SWM were more than twice as likely to have poor SWM practices compared to those with a good attitude (AOR = 2.41, 95% CI: 1.13–5.77). Moreover, individuals who did not participate in cleanup campaigns were significantly more likely to exhibit poor SWM practices (AOR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.12–3.79).

Lastly, willingness to pay for waste collection services was a strong predictor of better SWM practice. Those unwilling to pay were over seven times more likely to have poor SWM practices compared to those willing to pay (AOR = 7.28, 95% CI: 2.84–13.85; Table 5).

Table 5.

Bivariate and multivariate analysis of associated factors with household solid waste management practice in Debre Markos town, Ethiopia, 2024.

Variables	SWM practice			AOR (95% CI)
	Poor (%)	Good (%)	COR (95% CI)	p-Value
Age of HH respondent
≤30	76 (13.6)	74 (13.3)	0.36 (0.32–0.98)	0.57 (0.41–0.96)
>30	302 (54.1)	106 (19)	1	1
Educational level
Literate	346 (62.0)	143 (25.6)	1	1
Illiterate	32 (5.7)	37 (6.7)	2.80 (1.34–5.97)	3.43 (1.15–7.85)*
Monthly income
≤3000 birr	260 (46.6)	118 (21.1)	1.16 (0.51–0.98)	2.78 (1.53–6.42)**
>3000 birr	118 (21.1)	62 (11.2)	1	1
Family size
≤4	231 (41.7)	102 (17.9)	1.20 (1.10–3.83)	1.97 (1.26–4.37)**
>4	147 (26.9)	78 (13.5)	1	1
Attitude on SWM
Good	173 (31.0)	62 (11.2)	1	1
Poor	205 (36.7)	118 (21.1)	1.61 (1.17–5.32)	2.41 (1.13–5.77)**
Cleanup campaign participation
Yes	119 (21.3)	68 (12.2)	1	1
No	259 (46.4)	112 (20.1)	0.75 (0.23–0.98)	1.45 (1.12–3.79)**
Information/lesson
Yes	233 (41.7)	108 (19.4)	1	1
No	145 (25.9)	72 (13.0)	1.07 (0.69–2.35)	1.42 (0.56–3.78)
Willingness to pay
Yes	370 (66.3)	159 (28.5)	1	1
No	8 (1.4)	21 (3.8)	6.11 (2.55–12.78)	7.28 (2.84–13.85)**

AOR: adjusted odd ratio; COR: crude odd ratio; CI: confidence interval.

^*Significant at p ≤ 0.05. **Significant at p ≤ 0.001.

Discussion

The magnitude of poor solid waste management practices in this study was 67.7%, closely aligning with the findings of a study conducted in Debre Berhan Town, Ethiopia (67.4%), ¹⁸ Woldia (69%), ²³ and Nigeria (66.3%). ²⁵ However, the findings of this study are significantly lower than those of studies conducted in Asella town, Ethiopia (82.8%), ¹ Fiche Town, Ethiopia (78.4%), ²⁶ Gelemso town, Ethiopia (80%), ²⁷ and Uganda (58.7%). ²⁴ The discrepancy may be attributed to socio-demographic factors, research context, development level of the study area, residents’ awareness, inadequate waste management infrastructure, or inconsistent policy enforcement. ²⁸

This study found a strong association between educational status and improper solid waste management practices. Illiterate respondents were 3.4 times more likely to engage in poor waste management compared to those who are literate, consistent with findings from Dire Dawa City, Ethiopia, ²⁹ Gessa Town, Ethiopia, ³⁰ and Woldia Town, Ethiopia. ²³ This implies that education improves awareness of the environmental and health impacts of solid waste, and promotes practices like recycling, reusing, and resource recovery. These circular economy approaches can help address solid waste challenges and support sustainable development and public health. ³¹

This study found that a poor attitude toward solid waste management was linked to improper practices. Households with poor attitudes were twice as likely to manage waste improperly, consistent with findings from Gondar City, Ethiopia, ³² Debre Berhan Town, Ethiopia, ¹⁸ Addis Ababa City, Ethiopia, ³³ and Northern Thailand. ³⁴ A positive attitude toward proper solid waste management presents an opportunity to reduce environmental impacts and create jobs through micro-enterprise waste collection, composting, and recycling activities. ²⁷

Household family size was significantly associated with poor solid waste management practices. Households with four or fewer members were nearly twice as likely to manage waste improperly compared to larger households, consistent with findings from a study in Kebridehar City, Ethiopia, ³⁵ Dire Dawa, Ethiopia, ²⁹ Bangladesh, ³⁶ and middle and upper income households in 20 MSAs across the country. ³⁷ This suggests that larger household’s members may better share solid waste management tasks, reducing improper practices. However, this finding contrasts with a study from Gondar City, Ethiopia. ³²

The present study revealed that households with a monthly income of less than 55.6 US dollars are 2.8 times more likely to practice poor waste management compared to households with a monthly income of 55.6 US dollars or more. The findings of this study are consistent with those of studies conducted in Woldia town, ²³ Kebridehar city, ³⁵ and Bangladesh ³⁶ ; however, the finding of this study is contradicted by a study conducted in Addis Ababa city, Ethiopia. ³³ The positive association between poor solid waste management and lower household income may stem from low-income households purchasing cheaper, short-lasting products, increasing waste production. Additionally, they lack the resources to pay for municipal waste management services, contributing to poor waste management practices (Supplemental Annex 1).

Increased economic development, rapid population growth, and improved living standards have led to more complex and abundant solid waste. ³⁸ However, people remain passive recipients of municipal services, often failing to recognize their role in waste management and unwilling to pay for services or participate in clean-up campaigns. ³⁹ In the present study, participation in cleanup campaigns and willingness to pay were associated with poor solid waste management. According to the logistic regression analysis households that did not participate in the cleanup campaign were 1.45 times more likely to practice poor solid waste management than those that participated in the campaign. This finding is similar to a study conducted in Debre Berhan Town, Ethiopia, ¹⁸ Ambo town, Ethiopia. ⁴⁰ Households unwilling to pay for solid waste management are approximately 4.82 times more likely to practice poor solid waste management compared to those willing to pay. This finding is lower than results from studies conducted in other parts of Ethiopia ⁴¹ and Nigeria. ⁴² This might be due to differences in study setting. However, this study result was in line with a study done in Bahir Dar city, Ethiopia, ⁴³ but higher than studies done in Tanzania, ⁴⁴ South east Nigeria, ⁴⁵ and Nepal. ⁴⁶ The possible reason might be due to difference in study areas, period, design and demography.

Limitation of the study

This study on solid waste management in the study area has several limitations, including potential bias from self-reported data, seasonal variations, and the use of a cross-sectional design, which restricts the ability to establish causality and limits the generalizability of the findings.

Conclusion

This study revealed that 67.7% of households in the study area practice poor solid waste management, influenced by factors such as education level, income, attitude, family size, participation in cleanup campaigns, and willingness to pay for services. These findings underscore the need for targeted awareness programs, community engagement, and affordable, incentive-based waste services. To address these issues, local authorities should adopt integrated waste management strategies that prioritize public education, promote participation through local partnerships, and tailor services to the community’s socio-economic context.