https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7380-696X
Figures
Abstract
Consumption of products packaged in plastics is growing in Sub-Saharan African cities, whose populations often lack solid waste management (SWM) services. The informal sector often fills gaps in plastic waste collection and recovery that are not met by formal SWM. To reduce plastic waste mismanagement and its associated health risks, SWM systems are needed that separate plastic waste for reuse or recycling. However, little is known about the contributions and challenges facing the mixed formal-informal enterprises in such cities’ SWM chains. This multi-country qualitative study therefore aimed to contrast the specific challenges of plastic waste collectors with those facing general waste collectors. Eleven focus group discussions (FGDs), 6–12 participants per FGD (n = 87 in total), were held with plastic main collectors and sub-collectors (4 FGDs), and general waste collectors (2 FGDs)in Greater Accra, Ghana, and waste sub-collectors (2FGDs), waste intermediaries (2FGDs) and apex plastic traders (1FGD) in Kisumu, Kenya, differentiating business types and plastic from mixed waste enterprises. Barriers, enablers, and solutions were identified through thematic coding and analysis of transcripts. We find differing SWM trajectories in Accra versus Kisumu. Domestic waste separation remains low in Kisumu, whilst Accra’s SWM system evolved from flexible to rigid plastic separation. Mixed and plastic waste collectors reported shared challenges, such as lack of crushing or transport equipment, harassment, greater hazardous faecal matter in waste streams, and lack of societal recognition. Additionally, specialist plastic waste workers in Greater Accra reported business-specific challenges, notably price volatility from seasonally variable plastic waste generation and from bulk international waste plastic imports, alongside theft of separated plastics. Accra’s informal plastic waste sub-collectors were mostly elderly women who reported occupational health challenges from bending and lifting waste. Our findings highlight the need for context-sensitive plastic SWM programmes, including fair bargaining and price regulation measures, occupational health programmes and safer diaper SWM.
Citation: Hornuvo R, Boafor EE, Okotto L-G, Okotto-Okotto J, Dzodzomenyo M, Asamoah M, et al. (2026) Challenges and opportunities for plastic versus mixed waste enterprises in Greater Accra and Kisumu: A qualitative study. PLoS One 21(6): e0350670. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0350670
Editor: Alison Parker, Cranfield University, UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
Received: May 14, 2025; Accepted: May 15, 2026; Published: June 8, 2026
Copyright: © 2026 Hornuvo et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: Anonymised transcripts of focus group discussions from this study are available for research purposes through the UK Data Service: Omom, C. Okotto-Okotto, J. Wright, J. Okotto, L. (2024). Experiences and Challenges of Plastic Waste Collectors in Kenya; A Qualitative Study Among Informal Waste Collectors in Kisumu City, Kenya, 2023. [Data Collection]. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Service. 10.5255/UKDA-SN-856990 Hornuvo, R., Boafor E., Asamoah, M., Amoah, J., Myers-Hansen, G., Amponsah, M., Wright, J. Dzodzomenyo, M., Umar, F. (2023). Increasing Recycling of Water Sachet Plastic Among Ghana’s Off-Grid Urban Populations: A Qualitative Study Among Informal Waste Collectors in Greater Accra, Ghana, 2022. [Data Collection]. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Service. 10.5255/UKDA-SN-856766.
Funding: The work was undertaken through the ‘Expanding safe water and waste management service access to off-grid populations in Africa’ project, funded through UKRI Collective award via the Global Challenges Research Fund (ref: ES/T008121/1), with additional internal funding from University of Southampton. The support of the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) is gratefully acknowledged. There was no additional external funding received for this study. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: MD is academic representative on Ghana’s National Technical Working Group on Sanitation, which informs solid waste management policy. The other authors declare no competing interests.
Introduction
By 2050, global waste generation will increase by a projected 70% if prompt action is not taken [1]. Of total municipal solid waste (MSW) generated globally in 2022, 82% was collected and 55% managed in controlled facilities [2]. Waste generation is driven by rapid urbanization, industrialization, and population growth [3]. As urbanization increases, the world’s cities are struggling to cope with mounting MSW. Urban Africa produced 124 million tonnes of waste in 2015, anticipated to reach 368 million tonnes by 2040 [4]. However, in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), average municipal collection rates were 44% in 2016, with 69% of waste openly dumped [1]. Plastics constitute a significant and persistent component of MSW that poses substantial environmental challenges worldwide. An estimated 4.8 to 12.7 million tonnes of plastic enter the oceans annually, equivalent to a truckload per minute [5].
When single-use plastic products are discarded without appropriate management, micro-plastics are ultimately produced [6], increasing human exposure both directly and through their bioaccumulation in living organisms [7]. Open waste dumping also increases local flood risk by clogging drains, whilst burning degrades air quality [8]. Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target 11.6 seeks to “reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities”, particularly by increasing the proportion of MSW collected and managed in controlled facilities (indicator 11.6.1).
In low and middle-income countries (LMICs), solid waste management (SWM) is characterized by unorganized waste separation, low collection efficiency, inefficient transportation, low recycling and inappropriate landfill [9], with ineffective, fragmented SWM frameworks. Mismanaged solid waste, including plastics, therefore accumulates in the environment, especially in off-grid areas. In cities lacking comprehensive municipal recycling systems, informal waste collectors reclaim recyclables (including plastics) and input raw materials into the formal recycling chain [10], thereby reducing air pollution and water contamination in low-income areas [11,12]. Informal waste collectors close a significant waste collection gap in urban areas by providing services to populations that would otherwise be unserved by formal waste collection systems [13]. Such solid waste picking and collection also provides livelihood opportunities [14]. Reasons for becoming informal waste pickers include poverty, lack of formal job opportunities, social inequality, and socio-economic constraints such as lack of parental care for youths [15,16]. Waste pickers often include women, children and the elderly [1,11]. Although informal waste pickers are integral to SWM systems, their disadvantaged status excludes them from formal labour markets [17]. Despite the significant contribution of informal solid waste collectors, their role in SWM is still not acknowledged in formal sector management frameworks. Authorities often either ban or ignore informal waste pickers when designing SWM policies and programs [18]. Informal waste collectors often lack formal recognition and thus lack access rights to waste collection and disposal infrastructure or business support, undermining the effectiveness of their waste collection, transportation and disposal operations [19].
Most existing LMIC-based studies focus on municipal SWM systems [14]. Fewer studies focus on the entrepreneurial synergies underpinning informal waste collector involvement in the LMIC SWM chain due to lack of documentation, record-keeping or sampling frames for informal waste enterprises [14]. Furthermore, there is little evidence concerning informal waste sector adaptation to the growing plastic component within MSW in LMIC cities. Some studies suggest that informal collector engagement can accelerate recovery of recyclables [20,21], whilst others highlight how waste separation initiatives marginalise informal collectors [22].
This study therefore aims to assess the differing motivations for entering the waste sector, perceived challenges, and proposed solutions, comparing specialised plastic waste workers versus those working in the general (mixed) waste sector. In doing so, it compares waste worker experiences in two African cities (Accra, Ghana and Kisumu, Kenya) with similar formal-informal SWM chains, but contrasting policy regimes and differing plastic business specialisation levels.
Materials and methods
Study design overview
The study followed a convergent parallel mixed methods design [23], comprising a cross-sectional waste collector questionnaire survey in Greater Accra only, and focus group discussions (FGDs), conducted in both Greater Accra and Kisumu. This paper presents the qualitative study component.
Study sites
Fieldwork took place in urban Greater Accra region (Fig 1a), Ghana’s administrative capital with a population of approximately 5.0 million in 2021 [24]. From 1994 to 2014, the region’s daily MSW generation increased three-fold to 0.70 kg/household [25], equivalent to 7,000 tonnes/day in total. Waste collection services covered 68% of Greater Accra’s urban households in 2021 [26]. Formal waste collection service coverage in Accra has declined, with informal collection coverage growing [27]. Urban Ghana has an extensive sachet water industry [28], selling water in 500mL plastic bags and generating associated waste. According to World Economic Forum, Ghana produces 840,000 tonnes of plastic waste annually, however, only 9.5% is collected for recycling [29]. There are no established formal systems for plastic waste collection or separation, but sachet manufactures have been active in a voluntary extended producer responsibility initiative, the Plastic Waste Management Project [30]. Ghana raises excise duty on semi-finished and raw plastics but has not enforced a single-use plastics ban, despite introducing a partial carrier bag ban in 2015 [31]. Slum mapping identified 78 slum communities within the city in 2000, though their distribution has subsequently changed [32].
Reprinted from https://www.geoboundaries.org/ under a CC BY license, with permission from Geoboundaries, original copyright 2026).
Fieldwork also took place in Kisumu city (Fig 1b), Kenya’s third largest city with a population over 500,000 in 2019 [34]. Over 60% of its population live in densely populated informal settlements, lacking adequate electricity, water, sanitation and waste collection [35]. Kisumu generates approximately 400 tonnes/day of MSW. Estimates vary, but only 20%−45% of its MSW is recycled, reused or processed to yield economic or ecological benefit [36], well below the National Environment Management Authority’s 80% target (NEMA) [37]. The remaining 55%−80% enters the environment or accumulates in municipal or illegal dump sites [38]. Of total collected MSW, 65% is organic and 27% recyclable, so MSW collection and handling poses a significant challenge for Kisumu [36]. With limited municipal service coverage, informal waste-pickers are the backbone of Kisumu’s MSW system, but represent a marginalized and impoverished segment of society [39]. In contrast to Ghana, Kenya banned some single-use plastics in 2017, particularly carrier bags [40].
Initial mapping of SWM chains to inform sampling
Both cities’ SWM systems were mapped (Figs 2 and 3) in consultation with representatives of the Kisumu Waste Actors Network (KIWAN), a formal and informal enterprise network, and the Plastic Waste Management Project and Plastic Waste Collectors’ Association (PWCA) in Greater Accra. This mapping then informed context-sensitive FGD sampling strategies.
Both cities’ SWM systems comprise both formal and informal enterprises (Figs 2 and 3). Small-scale informal enterprises are usually involved in initial waste collection, whilst large-scale formal enterprises typically handle aggregated and processed waste. Plastic reuse is more widespread in Kisumu, whilst recycling is more common in Greater Accra. This reflects widespread consumption of sachet water (water sold in 500mL plastic bags) in Accra [28], generating flexible plastic waste unsuitable for reuse. In contrast to Accra, Kisumu does not generate sufficient plastic waste to support its own recyclers or manufacturers, so its plastic waste is shipped to Nairobi. In Accra, household and business plastic waste separation is common at source because of plastic’s resale value, but not in Kisumu. Consequently, plastic waste specialisation in Accra extends to the point-of-generation, unlike in Kisumu. Accra’s mixed SWM enterprises are more formalised than those handling separated plastics. A corporate provider, ZoomLion, dominates Accra’s mixed waste, providing large-scale waste solutions and managing transfer stations. It is a member of a formal sector association, the Environmental Service Providers’ Association (ESPA). Informal waste workers in both cities also have representative organisations such as the Kisumu Waste Pickers Welfare Association (KIWAPWA). Its membership was approximately 250 in 2024 [41], but inherent difficulties quantifying the scale of informal waste collection make estimating percentage association membership challenging. There are at least seven recycling companies in Greater Accra, compared to one in Kisumu, with much recovered waste material from Kisumu shipped elsewhere.
This contextual understanding then informed FGD recruitment. In Accra (Fig 3), recruitment targeted:
- A. Plastics sub-collectors: informal entrepreneurs collecting plastic waste from public spaces, shops, households, and dumpsites, selling plastics to main collectors.
- B. Plastics main collectors: often formal enterprises buying plastic waste from sub-collectors, sometimes separating plastics themselves, and aggregating plastics for sale to recyclers.
- C. General waste collectors: informal small-scale entrepreneurs (termed “aboboya” after their tricycles) charging households or businesses for collecting mixed waste, incurring disposal costs at municipal or ZoomLion dumpsites thereafter. These enterprises occasionally separate valuable waste.
In Kisumu (Fig 2), FGD recruitment contrasted apex plastic traders with less specialised businesses closer to the point-of-generation:
- A. Waste sub-collectors: Informal entrepreneurs picking valorised waste (e.g., PET, metals, glass bottles) from public places, shops, and households, aggregating and selling waste to main collectors.
- B. Waste intermediaries: More formalised enterprises that buy various waste types from sub-collectors, aggregate and/or crush the waste, then transport and sell processed waste to apex traders
- C. Apex plastic traders: Formal businesses who buy aggregated, processed plastic waste from intermediaries, selling it to recycling plants in Nairobi.
In both cities, the study excluded dumpsite scavengers and managers, plastics reusers, and recyclers.
Sample size and participant selection
Planned sample size for Greater Accra was 60 participants. This comprised 24 main collectors, 24 sub-collectors and 12 general waste collectors. Eligible waste collectors operated in Enumeration Areas (EAs) meeting one or more UN-Habitat slum criteria [42]. Most households in eligible EAs lived in over-crowded or non-durable housing, lacked improved sanitation, water sources, or secure tenure. Participants operated in nine of 14 metropolitan authorities (Fig 1a) encompassing 18 such randomly selected EAs. General collectors were randomly sampled from registration records for each selected metropolitan authority, provided by authorities’ environmental health teams. Plastic main collectors were randomly sampled from PWCA registration records, created by PWCA district groups. Referral sampling was used to select sub-collectors: each participating main collector was asked to identify at least one sub-collector from whom they purchased plastics. Only waste collectors aged 18 years or older were eligible to participate.
In Kisumu, planned sample size was 30–60 participants, comprising 6–12 participants in two FGDs each for sub-collectors and intermediaries, and one apex trader FGD. Participants were initially randomly sampled from a KIWAN membership list, with subsequent top-up sampling via referral from selected intermediaries and through field reconnaissance at waste disposal/transfer sites. Very few apex traders operate in Kisumu, so a small group meeting was held with the only two apex traders recruited. Otherwise, 13 waste-pickers and 12 intermediaries were recruited, giving 27 participants in total. Eligible participants were adults serving slums in Kisumu.
Data collection
In Greater Accra, six FGDs were organised with two groups each of 6–12 plastic main collectors, plastic waste sub-collectors and general waste collectors. The FGD topic guide explored business establishment and history, SWM operations, and enablers/barriers. The guide was pre-tested among informal waste collectors at a waste transfer site.
PWCA leaders facilitated introductions to their membership. Participants were recruited and invited via phone to a church hall near a recycling plant and PWCA headquarters for informed written consenting. Eight trained qualitative researchers, comprising four females and four males with 2–15 years’ field experience, conducted the FGDs. Authors E.E.B., R.H., J.O., J.A., A.A and G.A.M hold master’s degrees in public health or health-related fields; M.A., R.T.A., E.N.A., and G.S. hold bachelor’s degrees in information technology or health-related fields. Two FGDs were conducted concurrently in English, but sometimes in Ga, Twi, and Ewe where necessary. E.E.B., R.H., E.N.A., G.A.M., and A.A. facilitated discussions, R.H., E.E.B. and G.S. took notes alongside audio-recording, whilst J.O., R.T.A., E.N.A., and J.A. supported logistics. M.A. supervised all FGDs, which last approximately two hours and occurred from 26th September to 5th October 2022.
In Kisumu, the Accra topic guide was pre-tested with waste pickers not selected for the main study. Four FGDs were organised with two groups each of waste pickers and intermediaries, and a small group discussion with two of Kisumu’s apex traders. Participants were recruited via phone and invited to meetings at a conveniently located community hall and vocational training centre for informed written consenting. Fieldwork took place from 2nd-3rd October 2023, with discussions lasting 58–104 minutes. C.O first invited participants to set ground rules, then facilitated discussions. Discussions were predominantly in English, but sometimes in Kiswahili or Luo, depending on participant preference. A.L.O, H.A.A, and B.B.C took notes to supplement audio-recordings. The Kisumu qualitative research team have between 3–15years of qualitative field experience. D.A facilitated logistics, with J.O.O and L.O observing each session.
Qualitative data management, processing and analysis
All audio-recorded FGDs were transcribed verbatim, translated into English if required, and complemented with field notes. Thematic analysis employed both deductive and inductive processes [43]. R.H and E.E.B thematically encoded Accra transcripts using NVivo version 12 [44], with deductive codes representing specific business operations or life cycle stages. Each coder identified themes independently, then met to agree final thematic encoding. Findings were presented to Accra participants via telephone for member-checking. Following transcription and initial thematic coding, selected participants from each waste-collector sub-group were contacted, through the telephone numbers they initially provided during the consenting process, and the key findings/ themes were shared with them for accuracy, but there were no participant requests for changes. In Kisumu, C.O transcribed interviews, with RH thematically coding transcripts, but without member checking. L.O and J.O reviewed transcripts against audio recordings. Major themes differentiated opportunities, solutions and challenges, with emerging sub-themes identified inductively. Themes were compared between FGDs, with the most engaging extracts selected to illustrate key themes.
Ethical approval
The study was approved by the Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences Ethical Review Committee, University of Southampton, UK (reference: 55755; approval date 19th August 2020), the Jaramogi Odinga Oginga University of Science and Technology Ethical Review Committee (reference: ERC/23/6/20–4, approval date: 17th August 2020) and the Institutional Review Board of the Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research, University of Ghana (Ref: 003/20–21; approval date: 2nd September 2020).
All study participants provided written informed consent prior to the data collection. Participants were provided with the participant information documents, which was also explained to them in their preferred local languages (Twi, Ewe and Ga for Accra participants, Kiswahili or Luo for Kisumu participants). All study participants were informed about the aim and benefits of the study, as well as their rights as participants. All consenting participants signed (or placed a thumbprint) on an informed consent form before participating in the study. They were assured of confidentiality and that all the information they have provided will be reported with complete anonymity.
Results
Participant characteristics
In Greater Accra, participating plastic main collectors were the most educated group, predominantly men, and younger than general collectors,(Table 1). Plastic sub-collectors were older, largely women, and typically the least educated participants. General waste collectors were all men and generally older.
Relative to Accra, in Kisumu, whilst the gender balance was similar, participants were younger (mostly <40 years old) with more formal education. Most had completed high school, college or university education (Table 2). The two apex traders had university or college education.
Business entry motivations for plastic versus general waste collectors
For almost all FGDs (Table 3), greater economic opportunity, relative to formal employment or other informal livelihoods, was the main driver for entering the waste sector. For example, an Accra general collector noted:
“I have worked for 10 years. I trained as an (name of occupation), but I could not get a job. Someone gave me a tricycle to help me collect waste. Initially, I wanted to load foodstuff at [name of market] with the tricycle but then he convinced me to do waste collection. I realized that the business is very profitable because I could buy food and still get some money after I had bought fuel. (R5B, Male, General waste collector, Accra)
Across all groups, many participants were motivated by their operations’ environmental and sanitation benefits:
“I collect the sachet ‘rubbers’ [i.e., plastic packaging] because when the wind blows it and it rains, it makes the environment dirty. So, I collect them to make the environment clean.” (R5A, Female, Plastic sub-collector, Accra)
All groups reported receiving some external support from government, NGOs, or corporate social responsibility programmes. For sub-collectors, support comprised occupational health education, but donors sometimes provided other groups with vehicles.
Almost all groups highlighted emerging markets for a wider range of plastics, alongside Accra’s established markets for water sachet and PET waste:
“When I started there was a rubber known as “Panyin di Panyin” that we were collecting before sachet water was introduced into the system…then the PET bottle. Even though there was collection of broken plastic chairs and bowls, they were not common… but now they are rampant” (R10B, Male, Plastic main collector, Accra)
Plastic main collectors attributed the growing range of valorised plastics to greater crusher/pelletiser availability at waste transfer/recycling stations.
General collectors also noted opportunities from more plastics in the domestic mixed waste stream, reflecting changing urban lifestyles:
“Initially, you hardly noticed sachet rubbers and PET bottles but now they are a lot. Even the organic waste has reduced now. Maybe it’s because there are lots of companies producing plastics” (R6A, Male, General waste collector, Accra)
Group-specific themes.
Plastic sub-collectors noted lower start-up costs and security risks, relative to other informal livelihood options:
“The reason why I collect the sachet rubbers is that I used to sell [name of commodity] …and I was robbed of all my money. But I have no other means to get money to start over, so someone told me that, if I pick the sachet rubbers, he will buy them, so I got involved. I have been picking the rubbers since 2016 and it has helped me to get money and support my family.” (R7A, Male, Plastic sub-collector, Accra)
Some plastic main collectors also cited flexible working hours as a business entry motivator:
“I am not working for anybody. I go to work when I choose to. Secondly, I can work for five hours and rest at any time, I can sell the plastic at any time and get my profit. Because it is my own business, I can make time to go for lectures too because am a student” (R6A, Male, Plastic main collector, Accra)
Challenges for plastic versus general waste collectors by business operation
Table 4 summarises themes concerning challenges for waste collection business for Accra and Kisumu respectively. Common themes recurring across different business types are presented initially, followed by business-specific challenges.
Generic, shared challenges.
Most groups faced lack of respect:
“…people despise us because of the work we do, they feel this is dirty work and think we are mad people” (R2B, Male, Waste intermediary, Kisumu)
Many groups described harassment from authorities during waste transportation and drop-off:
“… the police if they stop you and you have your license and every other document, they will still charge you 300 Ghana cedis (approx. US$20.5). If you refuse to pay, they will threaten to send you to court even though they will not proceed to court. So, as we are helping the nation to collect the waste, the police are stopping us to extort monies from us …” (R3A, Female, Plastic main collector, Accra)
Several general waste collectors believed that municipal regulations prohibiting collectors’ tricycles on Accra’s highways exacerbated harassment. However, both Kisumu’s sub-collectors and Accra’s general collectors recognised their associations’ roles in addressing harassment:
“As long as you are a member of the KIWAN they will always come through if you have a problem. For example, if the NEMA guys arrest you they will always call them and work things out. But the KIWAN association also require that we all have our own licenses but before you get one, they will cover you until when you finally get yours” (R2B, Female, Waste intermediary, Kisumu)
Kisumu’s female collectors were particularly subject to gender-based intimidation and stigmatisation:
“When I first ventured into this, as a woman I faced a lot of challenges. Dealing with male clients is a challenge because of frequent intimidation from men and their spouses. Also, handling our male small pickers who work under us is a challenge because sometimes they come to work drunk and even insult you. There are times they steal our clients’ stuff and you are forced to pay... Some men insist that you go inside their houses to collect the money, and some women even think you are having an affair with their husbands” (R4B, Female, Waste sub-collector, Kisumu)
Business entry challenges.
Reported business start-up challenges varied by waste enterprise type. Kisumu collectors and Accra’s plastic main collectors highlighted complex, costly business registration processes:
“The process is not easy because it requires registration with different bodies which is really hectic like NEMA, and I think NEMA is the biggest challenge. They take long before they approve your business and there are so many evaluation processes. Then there is the county environment department which you must also register with. They must assess if the waste collection point or yard is a health hazard to the population in the surrounding area. So, I think the process is not easy, complicated and capital intensive” (R3A, Female, Waste sub-collector, Kisumu)
Accra’s plastic sub-collectors described how their informal status and lack of collective representation impaired their ability to collectively bargain or mobilise support, relative to plastic main collectors. Kisumu’s intermediaries reportedly also lacked start-up capital.
Waste collection challenges.
All groups highlighted increased competition as their main waste collection challenge. For Accra’s plastic sub-collectors, competitors comprised new market entrants attracted by greater plastic valorisation:
“Nowadays even at dawn, you will find people calling their children to go out and start collecting the waste..…There are many people in the business now and it has made it seem like the business is going down. So now I don’t get as much as I used to. People now even collect with children when their children are even supposed to be in school” (R11A, Female, Plastic sub-collector, Accra)
In contrast, both cities’ general waste collectors were concerned that unregistered collectors illegally dumping mixed waste, undercut their prices:
“…We also have others collecting waste at very low prices therefore hindering business; some collectors agree to collect at as low as 20KSh (US$0.15) while I collect maybe at 50KSh (US$0.39), yet they end up dumping the collected at illegal sites; yet I take waste I have collected all the way to Kasese dump site. They feel that we are expensive, therefore look for the cheaper version. That is why you find that there is a lot of illegal dumping and they get more business with it” (R4A, Male, Waste sub-collector, Kisumu)
Both cities’ groups reported occupational health risks during waste collection from hazardous sharp objects but increasingly also faecal contamination risks from absorbent hygiene products in waste streams:
“...When you pick up plastics from them, you can sometimes find diapers, used sanitary pads, faeces wrapped in black polythene, sputum etc. They also place the rubber close to their toilets for you to pick up.” (R12A, Male, Plastic main collector, Accra)
Accra’s plastic sub-collectors, mostly elderly women (Table 1), were concerned about treatment costs for musculo-skeletal injuries from picking and carrying waste:
“For me, the bending and picking all the time can be injurious to the body...Because no matter how much you can sell it for, if you develop a waist problem, the hospital and treatment will erode all your profits and it wouldn’t even be enough for the full treatment” (R2A, Female, Plastic sub-collector, Accra)
Kisumu’s sub-collectors reported spending excessive time separating household waste, given how few households practiced waste separation. They additionally attributed problems with payment delays and defaulting to lack of societal recognition:
“… customers don’t want to pay and do not value the waste collections business. People still believe it is the city council work, therefore don’t see the need for paying” (R6A, Male, Waste Intermediary, Kisumu)
Waste processing, storage and transportation challenges.
For Accra’s plastic main collectors and general collectors, the main transport-related challenge was fuel price volatility. Many plastic main collectors and general collectors lacked funds for crushing equipment, exacerbating injury risks when handling waste. A particular challenge for Accra’s plastic sub-collectors and Kisumu’s waste intermediaries was insecure plastic waste storage and unpredictable waste collection schedules, heightening risk of collected plastics theft.
Onward waste disposal challenges.
All participants were concerned about price negotiation. Accra’s main collectors reported an inability to collectively negotiate plastic prices given monopolistic pricing by recycling companies:
“…there isn’t any government-owned plastic recycling company. Most of the recycling companies that exist are foreigners… And so they have monopoly in the system and arbitrarily determine the prices they will pay for the plastics we collect. If they refuse to pay more for your plastics, there are not many alternatives, so we are forced to accept those low prices” (R11B, Male, Plastic main collector, Accra)
Low prices at recycling plants reportedly cascaded through waste chains to sub-collectors. Kisumu’s apex plastic traders faced competition from Ugandan and Nakuru-based waste brokers from outside the city, who undercut the local plastic waste purchase price. Accra’s general waste collectors similarly reported how recent increases in mixed waste fees at dump sites had affected their profit margins.
Seasonal volatility additionally affected Accra’s plastic SWM chain. In the dry season, higher water sachet consumption increased sachet plastic waste generation, reducing plastic waste prices. This caused delivery vehicle queues at recycling facilities, delaying processing and payments by recyclers:
“… In this time of the season (rainy season), you receive payments instantly. Some other times you get the money in the evening after going through a lengthy process. On days where there are lots of rubbers to be processed during the dry season, you may go two to three days or even a week due to load there. In this time of the season (rainy season), there’s a shortage in rubbers, hence there is high demand and quick payment.” (R5B, Male, Plastic main collector, Accra)
Conversely, in the cooler wet season, sachet water production dropped in response to lower consumer demand, thereby reducing sachet plastic waste generation and availability for some main collectors. Some main collectors reported how flooding affected recycling plants in the wet season, with plant closures and subsequent clean-up disrupting plastic waste sales. Meanwhile, general collectors also described greater disposal costs for heavier, water-logged mixed waste during the rainy season, given weight-based pricing.
Plastic main collectors reported how large plastic waste shipments from neighbouring countries depressed prices at recycling plants:
“…one of the key challenges is the infiltration of foreigners from Burkina Faso and Niger. When these foreigners bring in their plastics, it causes the sellout price to drop for us. Secondly, because they have large loads of plastics, the respect and recognition that is due to us by the recycling company is not given to us. They come with large articulator trucks (40-footer trucks). Once they start coming in our business goes down.” (R10A, Male, Plastic main collector, Accra)
General waste collectors also encountered year-round delays in offloading waste at the few privately operated disposal sites, sometimes even sleeping overnight in dumpsite queues.
Support requested by waste collectors
Many respondents from different FGDs (Table 5) identified waste worker respect promotion as generating multiple, holistic benefits:
“We need to fight the attitude of the community by sensitization of community so that they value waste and waste collectors, change attitudes towards waste and let waste be everybody’s responsibility. It is not a one-person business, it is all of us” (R6A, Male, Waste Intermediary, Kisumu)
Mixed waste collectors requested measures to tackle unregistered collectors illegally dumping waste, particularly government initiatives to:
“…deal with illegal dumping, and government and relevant bodies concerned with matters of waste to recognize registered waste actors who do the right thing. Also motivate small waste pickers who most of the time practice illegal dumping so that they can also do things the right way. That way they will also rise to the corporate world and get licenses” (R4A, Male, Waste sub-collector, Kisumu)
Plastic waste sub-collectors often requested personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves, boots and picking tools to mitigate the occupational health risks of carrying and bending. Many plastic main collectors particularly valued transport provision or support (e.g., relaxation of highway restrictions; fuel subsidies), as it enabled them to increase their coverage areas and customer base.
Plastic main collectors often also requested state-supported plastic recycling companies and general waste collectors state-supported dump sites as measures to address monopolistic pricing. Accra’s main collectors highlighted the need for protection from volatility in recycled plastic prices and greater regulation of recyclers to counter unscrupulous price bargaining:
“Government must step into the affairs of this business and help us so that these recycling companies…do not cheat us. The government should get involved and regulate our activities because we don’t have an advocate who seeks our welfare. Just imagine sending your plastics that you have bought with money from sub-collectors to go and sell and it is being weighed, and you’re prevented from observing figures on the scale…If you want to protest and try to see what is happening, they somehow intentionally reduce your price” (R9B, Male, Plastic main collector, Accra)
Discussion
Few studies have examined how formal-informal SWM chains in LMICs are evolving to handle separated plastic waste. Our study highlights how specialist plastic waste enterprises face distinct challenges not faced by mixed waste enterprises, in part reflecting workforce socio-demographics. Firstly, relative to mixed waste collectors, Greater Accra’s specialist plastic enterprises are more affected by volatility in plastic waste generation and prices. Plastic SWM chains are susceptible to international price fluctuations for recycled plastics. For example, in the Covid-19 pandemic, lower oil prices reduced virgin plastic prices, thereby depressing international recycled plastic prices [45]. Ecuadorian plastic waste-pickers similarly reported price volatility as their greatest challenge [46]. However, our study highlights how local factors within Accra further exacerbate recovered plastic price volatility. One local driver of price volatility is seasonal variation in water sachet consumption and thus sachet plastic waste generation by Accra’s extensive sachet water industry. Accra’s recyclers are known to increasingly use imported plastics [47]. We also find periodic bulk importation of waste plastics into Accra from neighbouring countries increases throughput at recycling plants, but sporadically depresses prices for local waste collectors. Accra’s status as a regional plastic recycling hub thus creates price volatility for local plastic waste businesses.
A further challenge specific to plastic waste collectors is secure storage of segregated plastic waste. Informal waste collectors face well-documented difficulties in storing and processing collected waste given over-crowding, lack of space and formal planning in slums [10]. However, insecurity in slums, coupled with the value of aggregated plastic waste, further exacerbates this working space issue for informal plastics collectors, making them vulnerable to waste theft. Whilst other studies have reported African waste collectors being susceptible to theft of personal positions when working in crime-prone neighbourhoods [48] and noted equipment theft (particularly of waste bins) [49], theft of valuable separated waste has seldom previously been reported. Conversely, mixed waste collectors are subject to price undercutting by competitors who illegally dump mixed waste. In contrast, given its value, there is no financial incentive to dump plastic waste.
Furthermore, our study shows that Greater Accra’s SWM workforce is socio-demographically differentiated. Informal plastic waste sub-collectors are mostly older women, sometimes accompanied by children. This conforms with the well-established U-shaped demographic curve of informal sector participation [50], where the elderly and youth predominate. Consequently, these elderly plastic sub-collectors fear occupational health risks, particularly musculo-skeletal injuries from picking and carrying waste. Kisumu’s FGD participants were well educated and generally younger than those in Greater Accra. Many of Kisumu’s current waste enterprises emerged from youth groups [39], so the city’s youthful waste collector profile likely reflects these origins. The comparatively high educational attainment among Kisumu’s waste collectors may reflect rapid expansion of Kenya’s higher education system [51] in the early 2000s and subsequent rise in graduate unemployment [52]. It suggests that Kisumu’s informal waste sector is less susceptible to some commonly cited barriers to formalisation, namely informal workers’ lack of education and skills [53].
All FGDs in both cities reported shared challenges widely reported elsewhere. Notably, participants highlighted lack of societal recognition for their work (Table 4) despite its environmental contribution, echoing many other waste-picker studies [11]. Similarly, harassment by authorities, reported by most FGDs, has been widely reported by informal waste sector workers across SSA and Latin America [54]. Confirming trends in plastic imports to Africa [55], both cities’ FGD participants highlighted increasing plastics in MSW composition. Participants also reported increasingly encountering hazardous products within the waste stream, reflecting informal waste-picker concerns over occupational health in many other cities [11]. FGDs reported growing faecal contamination risks from absorbent hygiene products (particularly disposable diapers), confirming recent studies reporting increased diaper waste in urban SSA [56,57].
Participant motivations for entering the waste sector were broadly consistent between both cities (Table 3), aligning with studies elsewhere. For example, Ecuadorian informal plastic waste-pickers cited flexible working and income generation potential within the sector as key drivers for their livelihood choices [46]. Kisumu participants highlighted need for public awareness-raising concerning waste separation, whereas Greater Accra participants had no such concerns given the practice was already widespread (Table 5). Instead, Accra participants described how plastics recycled expanded from sachet packaging initially to subsequently include more varied plastics. Contrary to most countries where rigid plastics are recycled more than flexible plastics [58], plastic SWM in Accra thus initially focussed on flexible sachet packaging, triggered by the need to handle the waste stream from Ghana’s extensive sachet water industry [28]. Thus, SWM transitions in LMIC cities towards incorporating plastics may follow different trajectories to high income countries.
In Accra, plastic waste sub-collectors articulated their need for a representative association, similar to associations representing general waste collectors, the ESPA and the PWCA representing plastics main collectors. FGD participants foresaw benefits from such an association’s ability to mediate disputes with authorities (Table 5). Kisumu participants similarly highlighted KIWAN’s value as an association. Literature supports these participant-led priorities: many initiatives to support informal waste collectors entail partnerships with waste collector associations and such associations are considered critical to informal collectors gaining recognition [10].
Our findings support proposals to integrate waste pickers as partners in SWM systems to build just, inclusive, and liveable cities [59]. Despite policy and programmatic efforts at informal sector SWM integration in several SSA cities including in Kenya [14], other SSA nations, including Ghana, are yet to develop such policies. Our findings suggest that formalisation initiatives should support fairer price negotiation and reduce price volatility for informal plastic waste-pickers. For example, a Nairobi-based initiative established a local network of recycling company agents, who bought plastics directly from waste-pickers, by-passing intermediate traders [20]. Alongside savings from purchasing directly from pickers, establishing trust through shared meals with waste-pickers increased waste quality, enabling agents to buy waste for a fixed, year-round flat fee. However, context-sensitive programmatic formulation is critical: although policy-based formalisation and integration of waste-pickers can potentially improve waste-picker livelihoods, such policies vary by LMIC and sometimes fail to provide these benefits [11].
Our findings also identify group-specific forms of support for informal collectors that could be targeted through extended producer responsibility programmes. These include secure storage facilities for segregated waste, crushing equipment, and transportation for plastic main collectors. Although Accra’s plastic sub-collectors proposed free PPE provision to address musculo-skeletal injury and contamination risks from hazardous waste, some studies have found that impoverished waste-pickers sell these items to supplement their income [20], undermining PPE’s intended benefits. Thus, careful PPE programmatic design is needed to deliver intended benefits, with consideration of other occupational health measures such as medical check-ups, daycare for workers’ children, or awareness-raising initiatives.
Our study’s limitations include partial sampling of SWM chain actors, creating an incomplete perspective on related challenges. We did not sample dumpsite scavengers or representatives of large end-of-chain formal businesses, such as waste transfer station or recycling plant managers. Child waste pickers were excluded from our study because of informed consenting difficulties. Whilst we avoided the purposive or convenience non-representative sampling strategies commonly used when studying informal SWM chains [46,60], our sampling frame was reliant on membership registers of waste collector associations and Accra’s municipal authorities. These registers are likely to omit small-scale, more informal and part-time waste sector workers. Ambiguity in our enterprise type definitions for planning FGD recruitment may also have affected group composition and thereby dynamics.
Our findings indicate a need for further evaluation studies assessing the effectiveness of programmes to protect waste sub-collector occupational health and assessing measures to protect their livelihoods from price fluctuations or unfair bargaining practices. Furthermore, reported volatility in plastic waste flows and prices suggests that the many cross-sectional studies quantifying these properties of informal SWM chains [46,60,61] risk mis-representing material flows and waste values. We therefore recommend either longitudinal studies of SWM systems, mixed methods studies to capture temporal variability, or, at minimum, explicit consideration of seasonal and fluctuating economic conditions’ impact on cross-sectional study findings concerning waste prices and material flows. Our participants described recent expansion in the range of material types they recovered. This highlights a need to evaluate strategies that incentivise and accelerate informal sector recovery of even more material types. These strategies include waste valorisation, recycle material quality (by encouraging door-to-door collection over dumpsite scavenging and separating hazardous waste components), and minimising waste pickers’ search/collection effort (e.g., using ICT) [21].
Conclusion
As African formal-informal SWM chains evolve to handle plastic waste, our study identifies several challenges specific to plastic waste enterprises. Firstly, particularly in Greater Accra, plastic waste enterprises struggle with greater price volatility, with plastic waste prices affected by bulk plastic waste shipments arriving from neighbouring countries, seasonally variable plastic waste generation (particularly from sachet water), and international oil price variations. Secondly, mixed waste collectors in both cities are subject to price under-cutting from unregistered collectors who dump waste illegally, thereby avoiding disposal fees. In contrast, plastic collectors are inherently less vulnerable to such competition, given the value of plastics. Finally, plastics collectors have greater need for secure waste storage than mixed waste collectors, given separated plastics’ value. Furthermore, waste worker demographics interact with urban socio-economic conditions to create context-specific challenges. Greater Accra’s plastic sub-collectors are mostly older women, who are thus at risk of musculo-skeletal occupational health conditions when picking and collecting waste. Meanwhile, many of Kisumu’s female waste collectors reported gender-aggravated stigmatisation and discrimination.
Our study also confirms well-established shared priorities for informal waste collectors, including the need for greater societal recognition, alongside forming and strengthening waste collector associations. Our participants also highlight increased hazardous faecal matter (e.g., disposable diapers, defecation in bags) within the waste stream as a growing occupational health risk. Collectively, these findings and FGD participants themselves highlight priorities to support informal waste collectors, notably fair bargaining mechanisms, collector association support, safer diaper SWM systems, and occupational health programmes.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to all stakeholders, including leadership and collectors within the waste management sectors in Kisumu, Kenya and Greater Accra, Ghana who devoted their time to share their experiences with us for the study. We also wish to thank all field staff for their tremendous work during data collection, and our project steering committees in Greater Accra and Kisumu for their feedback on our findings. We are particularly grateful to Caro Omom for facilitation and transcribing of FGDs in Kisumu.
References
- 1.
Kaza S, Yao L, Bhada-Tata P, Van Woerden F. What a waste 2.0: a global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050. Washington (DC); 2018.
- 2.
United Nations. 11 Sustainable cities and communities: sustainable development goals extended report 2022. New York; 2023.
- 3. Tong YD, Huynh TDX, Khong TD. Understanding the role of informal sector for sustainable development of municipal solid waste management system: a case study in Vietnam. Waste Manag. 2021;124:118–27. pmid:33611156
- 4.
UNEP. Africa waste management outlook. Nairobi, Kenya; 2018.
- 5. Jambeck JR, Geyer R, Wilcox C, Siegler TR, Perryman M, Andrady A, et al. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science. 2015;347(6223):768–71.
- 6. Steinmetz Z, Wollmann C, Schaefer M, Buchmann C, David J, Tröger J. Plastic mulching in agriculture. Trading short-term agronomic benefits for long-term soil degradation? Sci Total Environ. 2016;550:690–705.
- 7. Conkle JL, Báez Del Valle CD, Turner JW. Are we underestimating microplastic contamination in aquatic environments? Environ Manag. 2018;61(1):1–8.
- 8. Lebreton L, Andrady A. Future scenarios of global plastic waste generation and disposal. Palgrave Commun. 2019;5(1):6.
- 9. Rafey A, Siddiqui FZ. A review of plastic waste management in India – challenges and opportunities. Int J Environ Anal Chem. 2021;103(16):3971–87.
- 10. Dias SM. Waste pickers and cities. Environ Urban. 2016;28(2):375–90.
- 11. Morais J, Corder G, Golev A, Lawson L, Ali S. Global review of human waste-picking and its contribution to poverty alleviation and a circular economy. Environ Res Lett. 2022;17(6):063002.
- 12. Paul JG, Arce-Jaque J, Ravena N, Villamor SP. Integration of the informal sector into municipal solid waste management in the Philippines--what does it need? Waste Manag. 2012;32(11):2018–28. pmid:22770806
- 13. Boampong O, Britwum A, Akorsu A. Informal operators in waste management in Accra, Ghana: From neglect to recognition? Oguaa J Soc Sci. 2020;9(1):25–36.
- 14. Oduro-Appiah K, Scheinberg A, Afful A, de Vries N. The contribution of participatory engagement strategies to reliable data gathering and inclusive policies in developing countries: Municipal solid waste management data in the Greater Accra Metropolitan Area of Ghana. Afr J Sci Technol Innov Dev. 2020;13(6):735–46.
- 15. 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. pmid:22605019
- 16.
Escudero V, Asenjo A, Liepmann H, Pignatti C, Tabasso D. What works: promoting pathways to decent work. Geneva; 2019.
- 17. Coletto D, Bisschop L. Waste pickers in the informal economy of the Global South: included or excluded? IJSSP. 2017;37(5/6):280–94.
- 18. Moreno-Sánchez RDP, Maldonado JH. Surviving from garbage: the role of informal waste-pickers in a dynamic model of solid-waste management in developing countries. Envir Dev Econ. 2006;11(3):371–91.
- 19. Mensah H, Julian Nalumu D. Transforming waste-picking landscape in Ghana: from survival to sustainable enterprise. Local Environ. 2023;29(2):206–23.
- 20. Gall M, Wiener M, Chagas de Oliveira C, Lang RW, Hansen EG. Building a circular plastics economy with informal waste pickers: recyclate quality, business model, and societal impacts. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2020;156:104685.
- 21. Velis CA, Hardesty BD, Cottom JW, Wilcox C. Enabling the informal recycling sector to prevent plastic pollution and deliver an inclusive circular economy. Environ Sci Policy. 2022;138:20–5.
- 22. van Leeuwen J, Surya IRF. Network power and exclusion of informal waste pickers when plastic flows change: a case study of community waste banks in Klaten Municipality in Indonesia. Mar Policy. 2024;167:106285.
- 23.
Cresswell JW, Clark VLP. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. London: Sage Publications; 2017.
- 24.
Ghana Statistical Services. Ghana 2021 population and housing census: population of regions and districts. Accra; 2021.
- 25. Miezah K, Obiri-Danso K, Kádár Z, Fei-Baffoe B, Mensah MY. Municipal solid waste characterization and quantification as a measure towards effective waste management in Ghana. Waste Manag. 2015;46:15–27. pmid:26421480
- 26.
Ghana Statistical Service. Ghana 2021 Population and Housing Census General Report Vol. 3M: Water and Sanitation. Accra; 2022.
- 27. Oduro-Appiah K, Scheinberg A, Mensah A, Afful A, Boadu HK, de Vries N. Assessment of the municipal solid waste management system in Accra, Ghana: a “Wasteaware” benchmark indicator approach. Waste Manag Res. 2017;35(11):1149–58. pmid:28931348
- 28. Stoler J. From curiosity to commodity: a review of the evolution of sachet drinking water in West Africa. WIREs Water. 2017;4(3):e1206.
- 29.
World Economic Forum. Data benefits Ghana’s fight against plastic pollution Cologny. Switzerland: World Economic Forum; 2023 [cited 2025 Aug 19]. Available from: https://www.weforum.org/impact/data-benefits-ghana-fight-against-plastic-pollution/
- 30.
Plastic Revolution Foundation. Developing extended producer responsibility for packaging in Ghana: a brief introduction and status report. Oslo; 2021.
- 31. Adam I, Walker TR, Bezerra JC, Clayton A. Policies to reduce single-use plastic marine pollution in West Africa. Mar Policy. 2020;116:103928.
- 32.
Engstrom R, Sandborn A, Qin Y, Burgdorfer J, Stow D, Weeks J, et al., editors. Mapping slums using spatial features in Accra, Ghana. 2015 Joint Urban Remote Sensing Event (JURSE); 2015.
- 33. Runfola D, Anderson A, Baier H, Crittenden M, Dowker E, Fuhrig S, et al. geoBoundaries: a global database of political administrative boundaries. PLoS One. 2020;15(4):e0231866. pmid:32330167
- 34.
Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. 2019 Population and Housing Census Vol. IV: distribution of population by socio-economic characteristics. Nairobi; 2019.
- 35. Sibanda LK, Obange N, Awuor FO. Challenges of solid waste management in Kisumu, Kenya. Urban Forum. 2017;28(4):387–402.
- 36.
Oloko M, Capuano Mascarenhas L, Ness B, Otiende F. Solid waste management: recommendations for Kisumu, Kenya. Lararegatan, Sweden; 2019 Contract No.: 1.
- 37.
NEMA. The national solid waste management strategy. Nairobi, Kenya; 2015.
- 38. Munala G, Moirongo BO. The need for integrated solid waste management in Kisumu, Kenya. J Agric Sci Technol. 2011;13(1):65–78.
- 39. Gutberlet J, Kain JH, Nyakinya B, Oloko M, Zapata P, Zapata Campos MJ. Bridging weak links of solid waste management in informal settlements. J Environ Dev. 2016;26(1):106–31.
- 40. Behuria P. Ban the (plastic) bag? Explaining variation in the implementation of plastic bag bans in Rwanda, Kenya and Uganda. Environ Plann C: Politics Space. 2021;39(8):1791–808.
- 41.
Oduor D. Kisumu Waste Pickers Welfare Association (KIWAPWA): advocating for Change. Nairobi: Muungano Alliance; 2024 [cited 2025 Aug 19]. Available from: https://www.muungano.net/browseblogs/2024/8/6/7378f4wh26m72ar7sz9r6i36zhcjgm
- 42.
UN-Habitat. Slum almanac 2015-16 tracking improvement in the lives of slum dwellers. Nairobi: UN-Habitat; 2016.
- 43. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.
- 44.
Lumivero. NVivo. 12 ed. Denver: Lumivero; 2017.
- 45. Selmi R, Hammoudeh S, Kasmaoui K, Sousa RM, Errami Y. The dual shocks of the COVID-19 and the oil price collapse: a spark or a setback for the circular economy? Energy Econ. 2022;109:105913.
- 46. Hidalgo-Crespo J, Amaya-Rivas JL, Ribeiro I, Soto M, Riel A, Zwolinski P. Informal waste pickers in guayaquil: recycling rates, environmental benefits, main barriers, and troubles. Heliyon. 2023;9(9):e19775. pmid:37809813
- 47.
Babson S, Mantey P. Plastic waste recycling in Ghana: understanding the sources and value chain. In: Biney I, Boateng J, Nixon P, editors. Sustainable community development in Ghana. London: Routledge; 2024. p. 182–203.
- 48. Mbiba B. Urban solid waste characteristics and household appetite for separation at source in Eastern and Southern Africa. Habitat Int. 2014;43:152–62.
- 49. Schenck CJ, Blaauw PF, Viljoen JM, Swart EC. Exploring the potential health risks faced by waste pickers on landfills in South Africa: a socio-ecological perspective. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(11):2059. pmid:31212657
- 50. Ulyssea G. Informality: causes and consequences for development. Annu Rev Econ. 2020;12(1):525–46.
- 51. Sifuna DN. Some reflections on the expansion and quality of higher education in public universities in Kenya. Res Post-Compuls Educ. 2010;15(4):415–25.
- 52. Vundi BN. Youth unemployment among graduates of tertiary institutions in Kenya. AfriTVET. 2019;4(1):84–93.
- 53. La Porta R, Shleifer A. Informality and development. J Econ Perspect. 2014;28(3):109–26.
- 54. Ogando AC, Roever S, Rogan M. Gender and informal livelihoods: coping strategies and perceptions of waste pickers in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. Int J Sociol Soc Policy. 2017;37(7–8):435–51.
- 55. Babayemi JO, Nnorom IC, Osibanjo O, Weber R. Ensuring sustainability in plastics use in Africa: consumption, waste generation, and projections. Environ Sci Eur. 2019;31(1):60.
- 56. Thomas-Possee MLH, Shaw PJ, Bain RES, Hill AG, Okotto-Okotto J, Okotto LG, et al. Disposable diaper consumption in sub-Saharan Africa: estimating the risks of associated unsafe waste. PLOS Sustain Transform. 2024;3(4):e0000106.
- 57. White HL, Mwapasa T, Mphasa M, Kalonde PK, Feasey N, Oliver DM, et al. Open defaecation by proxy: tackling the increase of disposable diapers in waste piles in informal settlements. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2023;250:114171. pmid:37094389
- 58. Hopewell J, Dvorak R, Kosior E. Plastics recycling: challenges and opportunities. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009;364(1526):2115–26. pmid:19528059
- 59.
Dias B, Santana I, Alves B. Public policies and initiatives for waste minimization and recycling in Brazil. In: Waste management policies and practices in BRICS nations. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2021. p. 270–8.
- 60. Mwanza BG, Mbohwa C, Telukdarie A, Medoh C. Value addition to plastic solid wastes: informal waste collectors’ perspective. Procedia Manuf. 2019;33:391–7.
- 61. Kumar A, Samadder SR, Kumar N, Singh C. Estimation of the generation rate of different types of plastic wastes and possible revenue recovery from informal recycling. Waste Manag. 2018;79:781–90. pmid:30343811