Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Improving waste systems in the global south to tackle international environmental impacts

Nature Sustainability volume 8, pages 936–946 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The infrastructure available to a nation for the management of its solid waste not only affects its population and environment, it plays a role in addressing global challenges of greenhouse gas emissions and ocean plastics. Several approaches attempt to address this purpose, but their adoption is dependent on available resources. While nations in the global south struggle with waste collection and rely heavily on open dumping, those in the global north invest in more advanced technologies to divert materials from disposal to recovery. To address cross-border waste concerns, a more in-depth understanding of the cost–benefit relationship of different strategies is required. Here we show that investment in advancing the waste infrastructure of the global south achieves a higher mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and marine plastics than further upgrades in the global north. Basic collection is the essential step to reducing marine plastics, and a transition from open dumps and burning to controlled landfills does more to reduce methane and black carbon emissions than upgrading existing systems to advanced technologies. Our results demonstrate how targeted expenditures towards basic infrastructure components in those areas with the least investment are a more efficient use of global resources for mitigating climate change and reducing marine plastics.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: The state of the world’s solid WM system defined in terms of four levels, where levels 1 and 4 are associated with the best and worst practices, respectively.
Fig. 2: Average GHG emissions footprint for each of the four levels under four sensitivity analysis scenarios.
Fig. 3: The current environmental footprint per Mg of waste generated and the prospective environmental benefits per US$ when improving from a lower to a higher level, along with the WM total costs for each level.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data used to produce the results of our analysis are available in the Supplementary Information and Supplementary Data A–E, which provide data on waste disposition and composition flows, WM cost, GHG emissions footprints and emission factors, plastic marine debris footprints and the impacts of cost, GHG emissions and plastic marine debris when improving WM classification levels.

References

  1. Kaza, S., Yao, L. C., Bhada-Tata, P. & Van Woerden, F. What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050 (World Bank, 2018).

  2. Hoy, Z. X., Woon, K. S., Chin, W. C., Van Fan, Y. & Yoo, S. J. Curbing global solid waste emissions toward net-zero warming futures. Science 382, 797–800 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Borrelle, S. B. et al. Predicted growth in plastic waste exceeds efforts to mitigate plastic pollution. Science 369, 1515–1518 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bogner, J. et al. in Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Metz, B. et al.) Ch. 10 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

  5. Zero Waste to Zero Emissions (GAIA, accessed 8 April 2024); https://www.no-burn.org/zerowaste-zero-emissions/

  6. Powell, J. T., Townsend, T. G. & Zimmerman, J. B. Estimates of solid waste disposal rates and reduction targets for landfill gas emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 162–165 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cusworth, D. H. et al. Quantifying methane emissions from United States landfills. Science 383, 1499–1504 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Jambeck, J. R. et al. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science 347, 768–771 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kaandorp, M. L. A., Lobelle, D., Kehl, C., Dijkstra, H. A. & van Sebille, E. Global mass of buoyant marine plastics dominated by large long-lived debris. Nat. Geosci. 16, 689–694 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Lebreton, L. & Andrady, A. Future scenarios of global plastic waste generation and disposal. Palgrave Commun. 5, 6 (2019).

  11. Zhang, Y. et al. Plastic waste discharge to the global ocean constrained by seawater observations. Nat. Commun. 14, 1372 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Forging a Path Beyond Borders: The Global South UNCTAD/OSG/2018/1 (UNCTAD, 2018); https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/osg2018d1_en.pdf

  13. Meijer, L. J. J., van Emmerik, T., van der Ent, R., Schmidt, C. & Lebreton, L. More than 1000 rivers account for 80% of global riverine plastic emissions into the ocean. Sci. Adv. 7, eaaz5803 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gómez-Sanabria, A., Kiesewetter, G., Klimont, Z., Schoepp, W. & Haberl, H. Potential for future reductions of global GHG and air pollutants from circular waste management systems. Nat. Commun. 13, 106 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Duren, R. M. et al. California’s methane super-emitters. Nature 575, 180–184 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Anshassi, M., Laux, S. J. & Townsend, T. G. Approaches to integrate sustainable materials management into waste management planning and policy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 148, 55–66 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tumu, K., Vorst, K. & Curtzwiler, G. Global plastic waste recycling and extended producer responsibility laws. J. Environ. Manag. 348, 119242 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Anshassi, M. & Townsend, T. G. The hidden economic and environmental costs of eliminating kerb-side recycling. Nat. Sustain. 6, 919–928 (2023).

  19. Andreasi Bassi, S., Tonini, D., Ekvall, T. & Astrup, T. F. A life cycle assessment framework for large-scale changes in material circularity. Waste Manag. 135, 360–371 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Nicolli, F. & Mazzanti, M. Landfill diversion in a decentralized setting: a dynamic assessment of landfill taxes. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 81, 17–23 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Diversion of Waste From Landfill in Europe (EEA, 2024); www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/diversion-of-waste-from-landfill

  22. Bridging the Gap in Solid Waste Management Governance Requirements for Results (World Bank, 2021).

  23. Roy, D. & Tarafdar, A. in Circular Economy in Municipal Solid Waste Landfilling: Biomining & Leachate Treatment (eds Pathak, P. & Palani, S. G.) 1–23 (Springer International, 2022).

  24. Xu, T. et al. Evolving patterns and drivers of waste plastic trade in key global economies. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 206, 107606 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Houssini, K., Li, J. & Tan, Q. Complexities of the global plastics supply chain revealed in a trade-linked material flow analysis. Commun. Earth Environ. 6, 257 (2025).

  26. Thanos Bourtsalas, A. C., Yepes, I. M. & Tian, Y. U.S. plastic waste exports: a state-by-state analysis pre- and post-China import ban. J. Environ. Manag. 344, 118604 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Navarre, N., Mogollón, J. M., Tukker, A. & Barbarossa, V. Recycled plastic packaging from the Dutch food sector pollutes Asian oceans. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 185, 106508 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bishop, G., Styles, D. & Lens, P. N. L. Recycling of European plastic is a pathway for plastic debris in the ocean. Environ. Int. 142, 105893 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Cook, E., Silva de Souza Lima Cano, N. & Velis, C. A. Informal recycling sector contribution to plastic pollution mitigation: a systematic scoping review and quantitative analysis of prevalence and productivity. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 206, 107588 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Velis, C. Waste pickers in global south: informal recycling sector in a circular economy era. Waste Manag. Res. 35, 329–331 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Labra Cataldo, N., Gallego-Schmid, A. & McLachlan, C. Waste pickers in the global south: understanding the key features that underpin the dominance of informality. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 21, 2478697 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  32. On Waste and Repealing Certain Directives. Waste Directive 2008/98/EC (European Commission, 2008).

  33. Hoogmartens, R., Eyckmans, J. & Van Passel, S. Landfill taxes and enhanced waste management: combining valuable practices with respect to future waste streams. Waste Manag. 55, 345–354 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gómez-Maldonado, A., Ospina-Espita, L. C., Rodríguez-Lesmes, P. & Rodríguez-Rodriguez, M. A. Barriers and opportunities for waste pickers within solid waste management policy in Colombia. Waste Manag. 163, 1–11 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Nogueira Zon, J. L., Jacobsen Leopoldino, C., Yamane, L. H. & Ribeiro Siman, R. Waste pickers organizations and municipal selective waste collection: sustainability indicators. Waste Manag. 118, 219–231 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Schmidt, C., Krauth, T. & Wagner, S. Export of plastic debris by rivers into the sea. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 12246–12253 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Lebreton, L. C. M. et al. River plastic emissions to the world’s oceans. Nat. Commun. 8, 15611 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Cottom, J. W., Cook, E. & Velis, C. A. A local-to-global emissions inventory of macroplastic pollution. Nature 633, 101–108 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Levis, J. W., Barlaz, M. A., DeCarolis, J. F. & Ranjithan, S. R. A generalized multistage optimization modeling framework for life cycle assessment-based integrated solid waste management. Environ. Model. Softw. 50, 51–65 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Krause, M. J. Intergovernmental panel on climate change’s landfill methane protocol: reviewing 20 years of application. Waste Manag. Res. 36, 827–840 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC, 2006).

  42. Anshassi, M., Smallwood, T. & Townsend, T. G. Life cycle GHG emissions of MSW landfilling versus incineration: expected outcomes based on US landfill gas collection regulations. Waste Manag. 142, 44–54 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Chancel, L. Global carbon inequality over 1990–2019. Nat. Sustain. 5, 931–938 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Emissions Gap Report 2024: No More Hot Air…Please! (UNEP, 2024); www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2024

  45. Damgaard, A., Riber, C., Fruergaard, T., Hulgaard, T. & Christensen, T. H. Life-cycle-assessment of the historical development of air pollution control and energy recovery in waste incineration. Waste Manag. 30, 1244–1250 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Pfadt-Trilling, A. R., Volk, T. A. & Fortier, M.-O. P. Climate change impacts of electricity generated at a waste-to-energy facility. Environ. Sci. Technol. 55, 1436–1445 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Astrup, T. F., Tonini, D., Turconi, R. & Boldrin, A. Life cycle assessment of thermal waste-to-energy technologies: review and recommendations. Waste Manag. 37, 104–115 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Anshassi, M. & Townsend, T. G. Reviewing the underlying assumptions in waste LCA models to identify impacts on waste management decision making. J. Clean. Prod. 313, 127913 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Paulillo, A., Sebastiani, A., Lettieri, P. & Materazzi, M. Decarbonising waste-to-energy: a life cycle assessment study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 209, 107812 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Water Pollution by Plastics and Microplastics: A Review of Technical Solutions From Source To Sea (UNEP, 2020).

  51. Lau, W. W. Y. et al. Evaluating scenarios toward zero plastic pollution. Science 369, 1455–1461 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Pottinger, A. S. et al. Pathways to reduce global plastic waste mismanagement and greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Science 386, 1168–1173 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Waste Management and the Circular Economy in Selected OECD Countries: Evidence from Environmental Performance Reviews (OECD, 2019).

  54. Lebanon Emergency Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Project Solid Waste and Environmental Management Project Performance Assessment Report (World Bank, 2007).

  55. Transitioning to a Circular Economy: An Evaluation of the World Bank Group’s Support for Municipal Solid Waste Management (2010–20) (World Bank, 2022).

  56. Action Plan for Circular Economy: National Plan for Prevention and Management of Waste 2020–2032 (Ministry of Environment of Denmark, 2021).

  57. Kotchen, M. J., Rising, J. A. & Wagner, G. The costs of ‘costless’ climate mitigation. Science 382, 1001–1003 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Improvement of Solid Waste Management to Support Regional and Metropolitan Cities Project for Indonesia (World Bank, 2020).

  59. Matheson, T. Disposal is Not Free: Fiscal Instruments to Internalize the Environmental Costs of Solid Waste (IMF, 2019).

  60. End Plastic Pollution: Towards an International Legally Binding Instrument UNEP/EA.5/Res.14 (UNEP, 2022).

  61. Waste Wise Cities Tool: Step by Step Guide to Assess a City’s Municipal Solid Waste Management Performance through SDG Indicator 11.6.1 Monitoring (UN Habitat, 2021).

  62. Whiteman, A., Webster, M. & Wilson, D. C. The nine development bands: a conceptual framework and global theory for waste and development. Waste Manag. Res. 39, 1218–1236 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Hiraishi, T., Nyenzi, B. & Miguez, J. D. IPCC Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Ch. 5 (IPCC, 2019).

  64. Sardarmehni, M., Anchieta, P. H. C. & Levis, J. W. Solid waste optimization life-cycle framework in Python (SwolfPy). J. Ind. Ecol. 26, 748–762 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. SWM-GHG Calculator—Life Cycle Assessment Approach (IFEU, accessed 8 April 2024); https://www.ifeu.de/en/project/klimarechner-abfallwirtschaft-2023

  66. Solid Waste Emissions Estimation Tool (SWEET) (US EPA, accessed 8 April 2024); www.ccacoalition.org/resources/solid-waste-emissions-estimation-tool-sweet

  67. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Inclusive Recycling (WIEGO, accessed 10 April 2025); www.wiego.org/advocacy-worker-education-resources/ghg/

  68. Global Waste Management Outlook 2024: Beyond an Age of Waste—Turning Rubbish into a Resource (UNEP, 2024).

  69. D-Waste (Waste Atlas, accessed 25 October 2023); www.atlas.d-waste.com/

  70. Hoornweg, D. & Bhada-Tata, P. What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management (World Bank, 2012); http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/302341468126264791

  71. UNSD Environmental Indicators (UNSD, accessed 26 October 2023); https://unstats.un.org/unsd/envstats/qindicators

  72. Population, Total—United States (World Bank, accessed 25 October 2023); https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=US

  73. Population Databases (UN, accessed 25 October 2023); https:// databank.worldbank.org/source/population-estimates-andprojections

  74. Global Waste Management Outlook (UNEP, 2015).

  75. Transparency and Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions (UNFCCC, accessed 28 October 2023); https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/transparency-and-reporting/greenhouse-gas-data/information-on-data-sources

  76. Mai, L. et al. Global riverine plastic outflows. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54, 10049–10056 (2020).

  77. Weiss, L. et al. The missing ocean plastic sink: gone with the rivers. Science 373, 107–111 (2021).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by the Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management in Gainesville, Florida, USA. We appreciate the access to the life-cycle assessment models SWOLF provided by North Carolina State University. The authors are responsible for the content of the paper and the findings do not represent the views of the funding agencies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Engineering, Florida Polytechnic University, Lakeland, FL, USA

    Malak Anshassi

  2. Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Timothy G. Townsend

Authors
  1. Malak Anshassi
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timothy G. Townsend
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.A. performed the research and analysed the data. T.G.T. conceived the idea and designed the study. Both authors wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Malak Anshassi.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Sustainability thanks Amy Brooks, Ed Cook and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

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

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 2020 breakdown contributions of each WM level, income level, and region to total population.

2020 breakdown contributions of each WM level, income level, and region to total population (7.76 billion people), waste generated (2.09 billion Mg), waste collected (1.69 billion Mg), open dump landfilled (663.3 million Mg), controlled landfilled (231.6 million Mg), sanitary landfilled (434.0 million Mg), open air burned (216.7 million Mg), MSW incinerated (216.6 million Mg), composted (83.9 million Mg), recycled (250.1 million Mg), MSW mismanaged (973.8 million Mg), waste-based GHG emissions (955.5 billion kgCO2eq.), and plastic marine debris (4.42 million Mg). The contributions of each a) waste management level; b) income level; and c) region.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Global waste management flows for 2020.

Flow of the 2.09 billion Mg of generated waste by each a) region and b) income level.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Average greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions footprint for each waste management level on a) a totals basis and b) per person basis.

Values for 3B were determined by taking the total emissions footprint and dividing by the total population of each level (for example, population of all level 1 countries).

Extended Data Fig. 4 Modeled waste-based GHG emissions footprint in units of kgCO2eq./ Mg waste generated for each country under a) current waste management levels and b) improved waste management levels.

More detailed information on the approaches used to estimate conditions for a and b are provided in the Supplementary Methods and Extended Data C.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Modeled plastic emissions into the marine environment in units of kg plastic/ Mg waste generated for each country under a) current waste management levels and b) improved waste management levels.

More detailed information on the approaches used to estimate conditions for a and b are provided in the Supplementary Methods and Extended Data D.

Extended Data Table 1 Sensitivity analysis results as percent difference when varying waste composition by component under four scenarios
Full size table
Extended Data Table 2 The potential range of GHG and marine debris reductions per additional dollar spent when moving from a lower to a higher level
Full size table

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods, Figs. 1 and 2 and Tables 1–28.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Data A

Spreadsheet including WM statistics.

Supplementary Data B

Spreadsheet including WM cost.

Supplementary Data C

Spreadsheet including WM GHG modelling.

Supplementary Data D

Spreadsheet including WM-based plastic marine footprints.

Supplementary Data E

Spreadsheet including WM impacts to improvement.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anshassi, M., Townsend, T.G. Improving waste systems in the global south to tackle international environmental impacts. Nat Sustain 8, 936–946 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-025-01607-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-025-01607-8

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene