The Practices of At-Source Segregation of Household Solid Waste by the Youths in Nepal

Khanal, Ashish; Giri, Suja; Mainali, Prasuj

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/5044295

Journal of Environmental and Public Health

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results and Discussion Conclusion Data Availability Disclosure Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2023 | Article ID 5044295 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/5044295

The Practices of At-Source Segregation of Household Solid Waste by the Youths in Nepal

Ashish Khanal,¹Suja Giri,²and Prasuj Mainali³

Academic Editor: Issam A. Al-Khatib

Received26 Sept 2022

Revised16 Jan 2023

Accepted28 Jan 2023

Published03 Feb 2023

Abstract

Source segregation, the first important step for effective solid waste management, is practised by a handful of organizations in limited areas in Nepal. The inadequacy of source segregation and ineffective collection system in Nepal have led to maximum waste reaching the landfill site. Though several researchers have studied the role of stakeholders and the importance of youths in the waste management sector, there is a paucity of studies on the role of youths, particularly in waste segregation in Nepal. In this regard, this study was conducted to understand the at-source household waste segregation practices by youths in Nepal. The study adopted the snowball sampling technique. A structured survey questionnaire which included information on the sociodemographic status of the respondents, placement of bins, segregation practices, and satisfaction with the waste collection provider was used to elicit information from 522 youths. It was found that almost half (49.2%) of the respondents had installed two dustbins in their kitchen with 80.3% of respondents claiming to practice source segregation in their houses. The majority (75.1%) of participants were ready to pay more for improved solid waste management in their area. Also, 75.8% of respondents declared that everyone is responsible for solid waste management with fewer than 14.8% and 9.4%, stating that waste management should be the responsibility of the government and waste management service provider, respectively. The gender and source segregation was statistically significant with a value of 0.007 (<0.05). However, the likelihood ratio significance showed no association between the level of education and the practice of source segregation. Hence, the source segregation practice of household solid waste was found to be satisfactory among the youths of Nepal. Thus, there should be a proper monitoring mechanism to ensure that household waste gets collected in a segregated form causing less burden on landfills.

1. Introduction

Global waste generation has increased from 635 million tons in 1965 to 1999 million tons in 2015 and is forecasted to reach 3539 million tons by 2050 [1]. Asia has seen a notable increase in solid waste generation due to rapid urbanization, industrialization, and economic growth since 2000 [2]. Around one-fourth of global solid waste is generated in the Asian region which is predicted to be about one-third by 2050 [3]. Unfortunately, there is no proper system of source segregation, collection, and disposal in Asian countries [4]. Apart from that, rapid population growth and urbanization have also caused an increase in the generation of household solid waste [5, 6]. Lack of skilled manpower, irregular waste collection services, inadequate equipment used for waste collection, inadequate legal provisions, and resource constraints are factors responsible for inefficient solid waste management in all developing countries [7]. Nepal, a South Asian country, is facing greater challenges with solid waste management caused due to rapid urbanization [8, 9].

The history of solid waste management in Nepal goes back to 1919 after the establishment of Safai Adda in Kathmandu [10, 11]. Though the government started waste management from their level around 100 years ago in Nepal, it is important to understand that the local authorities are not solely responsible for solid waste management [12]. Waste management is a public issue and involves the predefined role of every stakeholder. Baseline data of solid waste management in Nepal [4] show a daily waste generation of 1435 tons per day with an average per capita household waste generation rate of 170 gm/capita/day. Organic waste comprises of 66% followed by plastic (12%) and paper (9%). Another study conducted by the Central Bureau of Statistics in 2021 [13] found that the municipal waste generation in Nepal has reached 1653 tons per day with organic waste comprising of 54%. It shows that there is a high potential for recyclable extraction from the waste stream [14]. However, the waste recovery rate of Nepal is very low causing the maximum waste to reach the landfill site [15]. After the new constitution was established in 2015, Nepal has formed hundreds of new municipalities; several of which do not have formal waste management systems [16]. A huge budget is allocated every year for solid waste management in Nepal, yet the major portion of the budget is spent on street sweeping [17] giving less priority to recyclable extraction and environmentally friendly disposal of waste.

The solid waste management national policy of Nepal in 1996 had emphasized on the minimization of waste by integrating the private sector. The solid waste management act 2011 of Nepal has also focused on source segregation of waste and encouraged households to reduce, reuse, and recycle waste. It shows that the private sector is active in solid waste management in Nepal for a very long period of time. The private sector has been providing household waste collection services by charging monthly fees. Thus, it is necessary to find the experience of youth regarding the waste management service provided in their area. The willingness to pay for the solid waste management service is very much important for private sector participation in the waste management system [18]. Once the waste is segregated at the source, recyclables can be easily extracted and occupational hazards during waste separation can also be reduced [19].

Youths are important stakeholders and respond to environmental threats with better civic engagement and personal responsibility [20]. Most of the researchers agree that source segregation is very important for a better recycling system [21–24]. Waste recovery and reuse can, also, provide economic benefits to the people [25]. In this case, the role of youth is very important in creating a cultural shift towards sustainability and environmental justice [26]. Researchers from Singapore [27], Kenya [28], Egypt [29], Iran [30], Indonesia [31], India [32], and Uganda [33] have focused on the major role of youths in waste management. However, an in-depth study with a focus on source segregation has been lacking in the studies. The involvement and participation of all stakeholders are key factors for sustainable waste management [34]. Also, the role of youths (households), one of the major stakeholders of waste management, needs to be identified. Thus, this study was intended to know the source segregation practices of the youths of Nepal.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Population and Sample

The study was conducted on a larger youth population of Nepal where the exact current population was unknown. The last census was conducted in Nepal in 2011 [35] which categorized youths aged between 16 and 40 years old accounting for 40% of the total population (26,494,504). Based on the population projection by the Central Bureau of Statistics [36], the population of Nepal in 2021 was 30,526,143 with a youth population of 12,210,457.

Based on the population, the sample size was calculated by using the following equation [37]:where z stands for 95% confidence level (1.96), N stands for total population size, is the estimated population proportion, d stands for the margin of error, and n is the sample size.

As the sample size in a social survey depends on the preferred margin of error and confidence level [38], the number of respondents was 522 calculated at a 95% confidence level with a 4.3% margin of error. The sample size obtained from the mentioned equation aligns with the sample size of the table for an infinite population (>100,000) with a precision of ±5% [39]. Krejcie and Morgan [40] also confirm that the sample size of 384 is sufficient for any population of 1,000,000 or above. Hence, the sample size of 522 was enough to conduct the study among the youths of Nepal.

2.2. Data Collection and Analysis

The survey questionnaire was prepared on a Google form and distributed via Facebook. Facebook was purposively chosen to collect the data as it is the most popular social media in Nepal [41]. Online surveys using social media have been widely used during crises and disasters [42]. Researchers used social media to collect data for surveys and to perform analysis [43]. A snowball technique, the most commonly used technique in social science [44], was used where the respondents were asked to share it with other youths in their circle. The Google form was accessible for three weeks. The survey questionnaire included information on sociodemographic status, placement of bins, segregation practices, and satisfaction with the waste collection provider. The data collected through the online survey were automatically added to an excel sheet by the Google form. The obtained excel sheet was exported to Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for further analysis. The descriptive statistics including mean and frequency were calculated along with the relation and strength between the variables.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Demographic Details

Out of 522 respondents, 56.5% were female and 43.5% were male. Most (96.4%) of the youths were below 29 years old with only 3.6% of respondents between the age group of 30–40 years. The majority (70.3%) of respondents had passed the bachelor level of education followed by graduation (15.5%). The least (0.4%) respondents declared that they had passed the lower secondary level. Tables 1–3 show that most (66.5%) of the youth had no income.

3.2. Source Segregation Practice

Almost half (49.2%) of respondents had installed two dustbins in their kitchens. Also, 35.2% of respondents claimed that they had a single bin system in their kitchen with 4.8% having no bin placed inside the kitchen. 80.3% of respondents claimed that they have been practising source segregation in their houses. A study has found that the source segregation behaviour of households has drastically changed after installing the sorting equipment in the households [45]. The current study shows that the majority of Nepalese households have installed separate dustbins for separate storage of waste, and it would be comparatively easier if asked for the people to contain the source segregation of waste in their household. A question was asked whether if they would segregate the waste if asked by the waste management service provider, and the majority (94.4%) of respondents shared a positive answer. Similarly, another question was asked so as to know if the incentives would lead to better source segregation, 40.8% said that they would start segregating waste if provided with any form of incentives. Research studies conducted in Ghana [46] also found that monetary incentives act as the motivating factor for the source segregation of household solid waste. It shows that though people are concerned about the environment, they also look for financial incentives for better motivation [47]. The option could be using a lesser waste collection service fee for those households who segregate the waste and provide the waste in a segregated form to the waste management service providers. The differential user fee with leverage to the household that segregates the waste has also been shared in a study conducted in India [48]. Apart from the monetary incentives, the gender, income, attitude, type of service provider, and locality of households also affect the source segregation behaviour of the households [46].

3.3. Satisfaction with Waste Collection System

About 53.0% of respondents were happy with the waste management service provider in their area. The reasons for unhappiness were asked using multiple-response questions. Out of the 248 respondents, 85.5% were unhappy with the irregularities in waste collection in their area followed by the high service fees (15.7%) and bad behaviour (13.7%) from the waste collectors. Most of the waste management service providers in Nepal transfer the collected waste directly to the landfill site. There is frequent obstruction of access to the landfill which made it difficult for waste management service providers to transfer the waste to the landfill site [9]. There are several issues including financial, technical, physical, and communication obstacles which obstructs to achieve integrated SWM [49]. In such cases, the waste collection companies do not want to collect waste from the households. However, the majority (75.1%) of participants were ready to pay more for improved solid waste management in their area. It shows that when the waste management services are regular, people are, also, willing to pay more for the services rendered.

For example, in a study conducted among households in Nigeria found that people were happy to pay the waste management fee if the service was provided regularly [18]. Another study conducted among 1560 households in Ghana also found that 53.7% of the households were willing to make an additional payment for improved services [50]. A household survey conducted in Gorkha, Nepal found that the majority (67%) of people were ready to segregate the waste if the government enforces the law [51].

Female respondents (59.4%) were more active in the source segregation of household solid waste compared to males. The gender source segregation was statistically significant with a p value of 0.007 (<0.05). Furthermore, the phi (φ) value was calculated to evaluate the strength which resulted in a weak negative association (−0.12) between gender and source segregation. The finding is similar to a survey conducted on household solid waste segregation at a source in Kazakhstan which found females to be more active in waste sorting behaviour [52]. Another study conducted in Colombia also concluded that females are more active than males in terms of at-source waste segregation [53]. Women are more engaged in household chores in Nepal and more likely to deal with the daily generated household waste. Studies have found that women are likely to recycle more than men and play an important role in solid waste management at the household level [54].

When a cross tab of source segregation with education was derived, the majority (70.9%) of bachelor-level respondents were practising source segregation at their house. The expected value count for education with source segregation less than 5 was found to be 41.7% which violated our assumption (required < 20%). The likelihood ratio significance value was calculated as 0.634 which was more than 0.05 (5% confidence level). A study among the youths of Nepal found that there is no gender difference in gaining knowledge about good environmental practices [55]. Although the education of an individual helps to encourage the at-source segregation of waste [30, 56], this study did not find any association between the level of education and the practice of at-source segregation among the youths of Nepal.

4. Conclusion

The source segregation practice of household solid waste was found to be satisfactory among the youths of Nepal. However, the youths are not satisfied with the waste management service provided in their area. Though the majority of youths have been practising source segregation at their houses, the waste collector service provider has been collecting waste in the mixed form. The majority of youths are ready to pay more for improved waste management services. The influence of gender on source segregation was found to be statistically significant while the likelihood ratio significance showed no association between the level of education and the practice of source segregation. As there is high enthusiasm among youth regarding the source segregation of household waste, there is an urgent need for a proper monitoring mechanism from the government to ensure that the household waste gets collected in a segregated form to reduce the volume transported to the landfills.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Disclosure

A preprint of this paper has previously been published [57].

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the respondents who participated in this study.

References

D. M. C. Chen, B. L. Bodirsky, T. Krueger, A. Mishra, and A. Popp, “The world’s growing municipal solid waste: trends and impacts,” Environmental Research Letters, vol. 15, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. A. Karim and J. T. Wetterhan, “A comparative study of solid waste management in the United States, Europe and Asia,” Annals of Civil and Environmental Engineering, vol. 4, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Pariatamby, M. Tanaka, A. Islam et al., “Municipal solid waste management in asia and the pacific islands,” South Asia Economic Journal, vol. 201, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
Adb, in Solid Waste Management in Nepal: Current Status and Policy Recommendations, Asian Development Bank (ADB), Mandaluyong, Philippines, 2013, https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/30366/solid-waste-management-nepal.pdf.
S. P. Gundupalli, S. Hait, and A. Thakur, “A review on automated sorting of source-separated municipal solid waste for recycling,” Waste Management, vol. 60, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Elena, K. Konstantinos, and G. Giorgos, “Integrated management of construction and demolition waste as key factor of urban circular economy,” Journal of Sustainability and Environmental Management, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 197–209, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. A. Al-Khatib, S. Kontogianni, H. Abu Nabaa, N. Alshami, M. I. Al-Sari’, and M. I. Al Sari, “Public perception of hazardousness caused by current trends of municipal solid waste management,” Waste Management, vol. 36, pp. 323–330, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Khanal, A. Sondhi, and S. Giri, “Use of personal protective equipment among waste workers of Sisdol landfill site of Nepal,” International Journal of Occupational Safety and Health, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 158–164, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Giri, “Integrated solid waste management: a case study of a hotel in Kathmandu, Nepal,” EPRA International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (IJMR), vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 264–268, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Anderzen and V. Blees, “Solid waste management in the city of Kathmandu, Nepal,” 2004, https://knowwaste.net/Documents/a_Report1.pdf.
View at: Google Scholar
M. B. Dangi, E. Dangi, and J. J. Boland, “Foreign aid in waste management: a case of Kathmandu, Nepal,” Habitat International, vol. 49, pp. 393–402, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Yaccob, M. H. Ibrahim, and Z. M. Nasir, “Solid waste management in Malaysia: the perspectives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and youths on consumers’ commitment,” in Environmental Sustainability and Education for Waste Management, pp. 27–41, Springer, Singapore, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Cbs, “Waste management baseline survey of Nepal 2020,” 2021, https://cbs.gov.np/wp-content/upLoads/2021/04/Waste-Management-Baseline-Survey-of-Nepal-2020.pdf.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Khanal, “Survey on usage of single use plastic bags in Nepal,” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 1057, no. 1, Article ID 012008, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. M. A. Bundhoo, “Solid waste management in least developed countries: current status and challenges faced,” Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1867–1877, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Haque Mukhopadhyay, M. Nepal, and M. R. Shammin, Climate Change and Community Resilience, Springer, Singapore, 2021.
A. Khanal, “Livelihood status of itinerant waste buyers in Kathmandu,” Applied Ecology and Environmental Sciences, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 537–540, 2021a.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Longe, O. Longe, and E. Ukpebor, “People’s perception on household solid waste management in Ojo Local Government Area in Nigeria,” Iranian Journal of Environmental Health Science & Engineering, vol. 6, no. 3, 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
N. S. Gupta, V. Deepthi, M. Kunnath, P. S. Rejeth, T. S. Badsha, and B. C. Nikhil, “Automatic waste segregation,” in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Control Systems, pp. 1688–1692, ICICCS, NY, USA, September 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. de Leeuw, P. Valois, I. Ajzen, and P. Schmidt, “Using the theory of planned behavior to identify key beliefs underlying pro-environmental behavior in high-school students: implications for educational interventions,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 42, pp. 128–138, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Perrin and J. Barton, “Issues associated with transforming household attitudes and opinions into materials recovery: a review of two kerbside recycling schemes,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 61–74, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Martin, I. D. Williams, and M. Clark, “Social, cultural and structural influences on household waste recycling: a case study,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 357–395, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Chu, W. Wang, B. Wang, and J. Zhuang, “Research on factors influencing municipal household solid waste separate collection: bayesian belief networks,” Sustainability, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 152, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Khanal and S. Giri, “Possibility of community based solid waste management project in chuchepati, Kathmandu,” Journal of Basic and Applied Engineering Research, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 6–8, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. C. Rao, M. Otoo, and M. A. Hanjra, “Resource recovery and reuse as an incentive for a more viable sanitation service chain,” Water Alternatives, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 493–512, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
G. Hickman and M. Riemer, “A theory of engagement for fostering collective action in youth leading environmental change,” Ecopsychology, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 167–173, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Chib, H. J. Chiew, C. Kumar, L. G. Choon, and K. Ale, “[minus]plastic: influencing pro‐environmental attitudes among Singaporean youth,” Environmental Education Research, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 679–696, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Thieme, “Youth, waste and work in Mathare: whose business and whose politics?” Environment and Urbanization, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 333–352, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Winegar, “Taking out the trash: youth clean up Egypt after Mubarak,” 2011, https://www.scholars.northwestern.edu/en/publications/taking-out-the-trash-youth-clean-up-egypt-after-mubarak.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Heidari, M. Kolahi, N. Behravesh et al., “Youth and sustainable waste management: a SEM approach and extended theory of planned behavior,” Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 2041–2053, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Waris, A. Rashid, and I. R. Rahim, “The study of urban waste management through the role of youth as an effort to protect Sinjai area, South Sulawesi Province, Indonesia,” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 486, no. 1, Article ID 012141, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. D. Shetty, “Youth engagement for E-waste management by urban local bodies in India,” Urban Mining and Sustainable Waste Management, Springer, Singapore, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Ssemugabo, S. Nalinya, G. B. Lubega, R. Ndejjo, and D. Musoke, “Health risks in our environment: urban slum youth’ perspectives using photovoice in kampala, Uganda,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 248, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Joseph, “Stakeholder participation for sustainable waste management,” Habitat International, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 863–871, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Cbs, “National population and housing census 2011,” Tech. Rep., Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission Secretariat, Central Bu Reau of Statistics, Kathmandu, Nepal, 2012, National Report.
View at: Google Scholar
Cbs, “Population projection 2011–2031,” 2014, https://cbs.gov.np/wp-content/upLoads/2018/12/PopulationProjection2011-2031.pdf.
View at: Google Scholar
H. Arkin and R. R. Colton, “Tables for statisticians,” in Tables for Statisticians, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. A. Dillman, “Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method,” in Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, Wiley, New York, NY, USA, 2007.
View at: Google Scholar
G. D. Israel, Determining Sample Size 1 the Level of Precision, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 1992.
R. V. Krejcie and D. W. Morgan, “Determining sample size for research activities,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 607–610, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. N. Thakur, “Social Media: opportunity or threat to public health in context of Nepal,” Health Prospect, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 7–9, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. R. Spence, K. A. Lachlan, and A. M. Rainear, “Social media and crisis research: data collection and directions,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 54, pp. 667–672, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Mirabeau, M. Mignerat, and C. Grange, “The utility of using social media networks for data collection in survey research,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, Milan, Italy, December 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Q. Patton, “Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: a personal,” Qualitative Social Work, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 261–283, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Bernstad, “Household food waste separation behavior and the importance of convenience,” Waste Management, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1317–1323, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Alhassan, P. A. Kwakwa, and E. Owusu-Sekyere, “Households’ source separation behaviour and solid waste disposal options in Ghana’s Millennium City,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 259, Article ID 110055, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Vining and A. Ebreo, “What makes a recycler?” Environment and Behavior, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 55–73, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Wadehra and A. Mishra, “Encouraging urban households to segregate the waste they generate: insights from a field experiment in Delhi, India,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 134, pp. 239–247, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. O. Al-Batnij, I. A. Al-Khatib, and S. Kontogianni, “Assessment of current municipal solid waste management in jenin district, Palestine,” in Handbook of Environmental Materials Management, C. Hussain, Ed., Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. S. Boateng, P. Agyei-Baffour, D. Boateng, G. N. K. Rockson, K. A. Mensah, and A. K. Edusei, “Household willingness-to-pay for improved solid waste management services in four major metropolitan cities in Ghana,” Journal of Environmental and Public Health, vol. 2019, Article ID 5468381, 9 pages, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Maskey, “Determinants of household waste segregation in Gorkha municipality, Nepal,” Journal of Sustainable Development, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 1, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Sarbassov, T. Sagalova, O. Tursunov, C. Venetis, S. Xenarios, and V. Inglezakis, “Survey on household solid waste sorting at source in developing economies: a case study of Nur-Sultan City in Kazakhstan,” Sustainability, vol. 11, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Padilla and J. C. Trujillo, “Waste disposal and households’ heterogeneity. Identifying factors shaping attitudes towards source-separated recycling in Bogotá, Colombia,” Waste Management, vol. 74, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Buckingham, D. Reeves, and A. Batchelor, “Wasting women: the environmental justice of including women in municipal waste management,” Local Environment, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 427–444, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Khanal, “Sustainable living in schools: a study of vajra academy, lalitpur,” Current World Environment, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 472–476, 2021b.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. F. Sidique, S. V. Joshi, and F. Lupi, “Factors influencing the rate of recycling: an analysis of Minnesota counties,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 242–249, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Khanal, S. Giri, and P. Mainali, Practices of Source Segregation of Household Solid Waste by Youths of Nepal, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2022.

Copyright

Copyright © 2023 Ashish Khanal et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

1861

Downloads

715

Citations