1. Introduction
Municipal solid waste (MSW) has emerged as a significant environmental concern due to global population growth, economic development, and urbanization trends [1]. The generation of MSW has been consistently increasing over the years; the global MSW generation ranges from approximately 2.3 to 3.1 billion tons, with an average of 2.7 billion tons in 2019. It has projected to further escalate to approximately 2.87 to 4.5 billion tones by the year 2050 [2]. Globally, 37% of waste goes to landfills, 33% is openly dumped, 19% undergoes recycling, and 11% is incinerated. High-income countries use controlled landfills, while 93% of waste in low-income countries is openly dumped. Upper-middle-income countries lead in landfilling (54%), with high-income countries prioritizing recycling (35%) and incineration (22%) [3]. The lower capacity of MSW management, characterized by improper disposal in urban centers or open dumps, results from inadequate infrastructure, planning, funding, expertise, and public awareness. The lack of capacity leads to an increase in various environmental and health-related issues [4,5,6]. Despite its potential risks, MSW is now recognized as a valuable renewable resource with the ability to be converted into energy, materials, fuels, and higher-value byproducts [7,8]. However, low-income countries have lagged high/upper-middle-income countries in waste management practices. For instance, in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), predominant practices for managing MSW still involve open dumping and landfilling, while incineration plants are commonly employed in developed nations [9]. The dominant technologies for resource recovery and mitigating issues in ASEAN countries involve mixed levels of technology. Except for Singapore and Malaysia, which have modern facilities, other countries rely more on landfill and basic recycling. Japan, on the other hand, is a global leader in advanced waste treatment technology, featuring sophisticated recycling facilities, incineration plants with energy recovery, and anaerobic digestion [10,11]. This highlights the importance of efficient MSW utilization and minimizing its harmful impacts. The implementation of a systematic waste management strategy, along with advanced technologies for treatment and resource utilization is crucial for ASEAN regions.
Among the ASEAN countries, Laos produces the lowest quantity of MSW, primarily due to its smaller population size. In contrast, Indonesia ranks first in waste generation, followed by Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Cambodia, Myanmar, and Brunei Darussalam, respectively [9]. The amount of solid waste in Laos has been steadily increasing each year. As per the World Bank, the estimated quantity of solid waste was approximately 910,000 tons/year in 2020. Projections indicate that this figure is expected to rise to 1.4 million tons by 2035, taking into account the water content within the waste [12]. The four major cities in the country, including the capital Vientiane (VT), Luang Prabang, Kaysone Phomvihane, and Champassak Cities, contribute to the high amount of MSW generated nationwide (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, 2020). The generation of MSW varies among cities within provinces, mainly due to differences in urbanization levels. Additionally, the composition and characteristics of MSW are complex, reflecting regional habits and needs [13]. Nationwide, the primary methods used for MSW treatment in Laos are mostly treatment and disposal through landfilling, open dumping, and illegal dumpsites [14].
In response to the complex challenge of the increasing MSW generation, Laos has made efforts in both MSW management and technology application. Several legislations and regulations have been implemented such as the “Environmental Protection Law No. 29/MA/2012” [15] and “Decree on Waste Management from Health Care Facilities (Ministry of Health, 2004)” [16]. Recently, there have been improvements in the application of sanitary landfill, resource utilization, and incinerator technology for healthcare waste for MSW treatment in some major cities in Laos [13,17]. These advancements reflect efforts to enhance waste management practices and promote the utilization of resources in an efficient and sustainable manner. Compared to developed countries like Japan with the extensive experience in waste management, the enactment of laws such as the Public Cleaning Act (1954), Waste Management Act (1970), Revision of the Waste Management Act (1976), and related legislations [18], shows that Laos’ waste management framework is less established. In Japan, over 80% of waste is incinerated through waste-to-energy (WtE) processes, with a total of 1188 waste incineration plants [19,20]. However, in ASEAN regions such as Singapore, exemplary waste management practices, including strong promotion of integrated solid waste management systems via waste minimization and recycling, or the 3Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle), and advanced WtE incineration technologies, are implemented to reduce waste volume by 90% and minimize the need for landfill space [21]. These practices could serve as a model for other countries, similar to Japan. By 2025, it is projected that the total volume of waste produced in the ASEAN region will increase by approximately 150% compared to the levels recorded in 1995. This surge is attributed to rapid urban growth, increased consumption, and the rising complexity of waste streams, notably electronic and plastic waste. Additionally, cities face challenges in effectively regulating recycling, segregation, and safe disposal methods. Poorly managed waste, especially when illegally dumped in waterways or incinerated, poses significant risks to local environments and public health [22]. While numerous studies have explored MSW management in developed regions, there is a paucity of research focusing on developing countries like Laos. This study addresses the gap by proving a comparative analysis with the ASEAN-Japan regions, highlighting specific challenges and potential technological advancements for Laos. This paper aims to conduct a review of MSW management in Laos, focusing on aspects such as waste generation, environmental impacts, management practices, and treatment technologies. The major urban centers in Laos, particularly VT, are considered representative for comparative analysis with ASEAN-Japan regions.
2. Literature Framework
This work employed a mixed-methods approach, utilizing both qualitative and quantitative methods. The research involved a literature review using multiple academic and non-academic databases. These databases include Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for peer-reviewed articles, as well as documents released on Google and government and institutional repositories for grey literature. Specific search strings with logical operators were used in Scopus and Web of Science. For instance, the search string used was: “municipal solid waste management” AND (“Laos” OR “ASEAN” OR “ASEAN” OR “Japan”) AND (“environmental impact” OR “technology adoption”). The inclusion criteria for review encompassed publications from 2000 to 2024, focused on MSW management within Laos, ASEAN, or Japan, and written in English. The exclusion criteria included studies not proving empirical data, articles focused solely on unrelated environmental issues, and not written in English. Additionally, semi-structured field interviews (landfill site) were conducted in Laos, and quantitative data such as gross domestic product (GDP) and population figures were incorporated for comparative analysis, as depicted in Figure 1. Statistical differences among countries in waste generation, composition, population, and GDP were collected and evaluated by using Excel (Microsoft® for Microsoft 360 MSO, Version 2312 Build 16.0.17126.20132, Japan), developed by Microsoft Corporation, USA.
Data were collected, analyzed, and discussed regarding MSW generation, composition, and management practices, drawing on individual perspectives and expertise in this field. The study scrutinizes influential factors such as population, GDP, MSW distribution, characteristics, and available treatment infrastructure. Furthermore, it systematically assesses emerging technologies for MSW resource utilization, including WtE and waste-to-material (WtM) strategies. The paper will identify shortcomings in Laos’ current MSW management system and provide insights for developing an optimal system that integrates waste management, transportation, and treatment facilities. The findings on MSW management in Laos, nine ASEAN countries, and Japan may offer guidance on addressing waste management challenges in other nations, thereby contributing to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030.
3. The Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Situation in Laos
3.1. MSW Situation
In recent years, the amount of waste in Laos has been increasing in tandem with economic growth. This increase in waste is believed to be accompanied by changes in waste quality, particularly an increase in plastic waste. These changes in waste composition can be attributed to shifts in people’s lifestyles as well as an increase in tourist activities [23,24]. Laos comprises 17 provinces and one major capital city, Vientiane. The total population of the nation was approximately 7.338 million in 2021, with tourism reaching about 886,447 visitors in 2020 [25]. Based on demographic statistics and MSW generation per capita, the total waste generated by the population is estimated to be approximately 1.7 million tons per year [26]. This figure does not include waste generated by tourism. However, accurately identifying the amount of waste generation is challenging due to significant variations in waste production across different areas, particularly between big cities and rural areas [27,28,29]. In Laos, the composition of MSW, especially in the four major cities, comprises various components. Estimates suggest that the total waste composition in the cities consists of approximately 69% organic waste, 7% paper, 11% plastic, 4% glass, 1.5% metal, 1% textiles, and 6.75% other waste [30].
3.2. Policies and Regulations for MSW Management
The Environmental Protection Law, initially introduced in 1999 and subsequently revised in 2013, serves as a robust safeguard for the environment, resources, and public health, while promoting sustainable development. It sets rules for efficient resource use, pollution reduction, and strict compliance with construction standards to minimize nuisances like smoke, dust, noise, and waste [15]. The law categorized waste into general and toxic/hazardous types, requiring proper disposal through recycling, reuse, or elimination in designated areas. In tandem with legislative efforts, the governmental apparatus has orchestrated the formulation of the 8th National Socio-Economic Development Plan (NSEDP), constituting a strategic compass steering national progress. Of pertinence to waste management, the 8th NSEDP delineates overarching objectives, outcomes, and outputs geared towards nurturing ecologically sustainable rural expansion. A pivotal facet of this plan involves the institutionalization of a waste management system geared at reduction and control, encompassing toxic and hazardous substances, harmonized with the propagation of the 3Rs (reduce, reuse, and recycle) principles across provinces and VT [31]. Concurrently, to concretize the directives emanating from the 10th Party Congress and the 8th NSEDP, the government has promulgated the National Green Growth Strategy, charting a course until 2030. This strategic framework is built upon a tripartite foundation encompassing the economic, social, and environmental pillars. Of note, among its aspects is the establishment of quantifiable indices relevant to solid waste management, including the mean production of refuse per capita (Kg/capita/year), aiming for a reduction from 210 kg/capita/year to 180 kg/capita/year within the timeline of 2025–2030. Correspondingly, there is a targeted increase in the percentage of waste subjected to proper methods of reutilization or disposal, ranging from 65% to 80%, as projected [32].
In recent years, increased attention has been directed towards MSW management, particularly in urban areas of the nation. Notably, VT’s waste collection service exhibited a contracted household rate of 27% for all households and 37% within the service area in 2020, a significant rise from the 2013 rate of 20.5%, with a target of 40% by 2020 [16]. Although the planned increase in waste collection rates has not been fully achieved, these figures reflect the authorities’ commitment to enhancing waste management. The “Vision and Sustainable Solid Waste Management Strategy 2030” established by the Vientiane City Office for Management and Service (VCOMS) outlines specific targets. These include intermediate goals of a 70% waste collection rate between 2021 and 2025 and eventual full coverage at 100% by 2026–2030 [33]. Following the example set by a major urban center such as VT, other significant cities including Savannakhet, Luang Prabang, and Pakse have also embarked on the development of their own vision and strategy for MSW management, accompanied by specific regulations.
3.3. MSW Characteristics, Composition, Separation, and Collection
The Environmental Protection Law classifies waste into two main types: general waste and toxic/hazardous waste [15]. However, when developing guidelines for managing MSW, there are typically four primary classifications, with each type being collected separately and placed into designated collection containers (Table 1). Despite the development of these guidelines, the actual implementation often does not align with the guidelines due to inadequate classification and collection systems. For instance, in Vientiane, the MSW is collected by private companies operating under the supervision and contract of VCOMS. This waste management process involves a two-way approach: waste is transported from the municipality to either a landfill or a transfer station before reaching the landfill [34]. On the other hand, in Luang Prabang City, multiple waste collection services are provided by private companies in collaboration with the Urban Service Office of Luang Prabang City (USO). The collected waste from the municipality is then transferred to a landfill for disposal and recycling purposes [35].
The establishment of MSW systems is significantly influenced by the difference in waste characteristics and composition across various spatial attributes. MSW characteristics are primarily dominated by organic waste compositions, such as kitchen and garden wastes, which constitute approximately 60% of the total waste, alongside plastic, paper, glass, metal, textiles, and other wastes [37]. Moreover, it is important to note that waste composition percentages vary both spatially and temporally. In VT, as displayed in Figure 2A, the major components of MSW are organic waste, which covers 67% of the total, followed by plastic waste [33]. In secondary cities like Kaysone Phomvihane (Figure 2B), Luang Prabang (Figure 2C), and Pakse (Figure 2D), organic waste is also the highest proportion compared to other waste types [38,39].
3.4. Environmental Impact and Treatment Technologies
Given the complex challenges of increasing MSW generation and waste composition, Laos is making efforts in technological development for treatment and resource utilization as the volume of waste disposed has increased. The waste transported to landfills in the four cities amounted to about 265 tons/day in 2008 and, between 2019 and 2021, rose to approximately 557.1 tons/day [39], marking a twofold increase. It is worth noting that the waste disposed of in municipal landfills in Laos includes both commercial and domestic waste originating from municipal or designated areas, presented in solid or semi-solid forms. This excludes hazardous industrial waste but includes treated biomedical waste. These wastes are classified into accepted and non-accepted waste within municipal landfills [13]. When considering residual MSW not covered by disposal contracts, two alternatives arise: on-site recycling and self-disposal. However, accurate data on the volume of waste to be managed, particularly self-disposal, remains lacking. Predominantly, self-disposal methods such as open burning, open dumping, and discharge into rivers are prevalent in both urban and rural areas. In VT, the MSW amounted to 1004 tons/day in 2019, with only half of the waste being properly disposed of, as shown in Figure 3 [16]. The survey conducted in six cities identified approximately 60 hotspots of illegal dumpsites near rivers and 88 dumpsites inland. The total plastic waste flow was found to be approximately 151 tons/year in the survey [14]. Plastic debris, including occasional small waste fragments, hooks, and soap, were observed in fish at Luang Prabang’s morning market. Fishers noted that net entanglement was the primary impact of this debris. Currently, there is no research on the influence of plastic pollution on Mekong migratory species [40]. Additionally, various research studies conducted downstream of Laos in the Mekong River have identified microplastics, including polypropylene, polyethylene, polystyrene, polyamide, and others, contaminating the river. These studies have highlighted local pollution that may affect the ecosystem [41,42,43]. On the other hand, the open burning of MSW has been a common practice, especially for household waste. According to a random survey conducted in VT by the World Bank, 32% of the total sample mentioned that waste was generally burned in their homes for those who do not have waste collection services [44]. In this context, it is one of the factors contributing to environmental and human health risks, with outdoor PM2.5 ambient air pollution accounting for 27% of these effects [45].
MSW management technologies encompasses various practices in developing countries. The most common methods include landfilling, recycling, composting, and incineration. However, the actual implementation of these practices in each country depend on their respective policies and economic growth trajectories [9,46]. Laos is among the countries that have adopted waste management technologies, although these systems are not yet comprehensive. Starting from 1992, the management of MSW received financial support from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). The focus was on collection, transportation, and disposal at the landfill site in VT, overseen by the VUDAA [47]. Over the past decade, there has been a prominent trend of involvement from development partners. Organizations such as the JICA, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the World Bank, the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI), and the European Union (EU) have played a major role in encouraging waste management initiatives [16]. This support involves conducting preliminary data surveys, formulating policies and legislation, building human capacity, and providing financial assistance for constructing treatment facilities such as landfills, recycling centers, composting facilities, and incinerators. However, it is worth noting that waste incineration still primarily focuses on healthcare waste incinerators.
4. The Municipal Waste Situation in ASEAN-Japan Regions
4.1. ASEAN Regions
4.1.1. Situation and MSW Management
The volume of MSW in the ASEAN region has emerged as a significant concern due to an increasing trend driven by factors such as rapid urbanization, industrialization, population expansion, and enhanced living standards. The main contributors to MSW are households, including waste generated by offices, hotels, shops, schools, institutions, and municipal services [9]. In 2025, it is projected that the total urban waste generation in ASEAN nations will reach 529,430 tons/day, with generation rates ranging from 0.45 to 1.1 kg/capita/day [46]. Each country has different characteristics, volumes, and treatment methods for waste management. As shown in Figure 4, the management of waste varies depending on policy and economic income, leading to different situations in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries.
High-income countries: Despite having a smaller population compared to other ASEAN countries, Brunei has seen a significant increase in waste generation. The management of MSW primarily involves disposal in landfills, with a small portion used for composting and the remainder disposed of using conventional techniques [48,49]. To address environmental concerns and improve waste management practices, the government has enacted the Environmental Protection and Management Order 2016 (EPMO) and the Hazardous Waste Order 2013 (HWO), which regulate waste management activities and mandate waste segregation at the source [48,50]. A developed ASEAN country like Singapore has witnessed a substantial increase in MSW, propelled by rapid population expansion and economic advancement [51]. Non-segregated waste undergoes collection and is then transported to waste-to-energy facilities for incineration, significantly reducing the solid waste volume [52,53,54]. The fundamental regulatory framework overseeing SWM in Singapore is governed by the Environmental Public Health Act 1987 (EPHA), which underwent a revision in 2002, encompassing provisions concerning household solid waste recycling [55,56].
Middle-income countries: In Malaysia, the MSW includes household solid waste, commercial and institutional waste, and industrial waste. Currently, landfilling is the most common method of waste disposal in the country. Incineration is the second most widely used method, followed by material recovery facilities [57,58]. The National Strategic Plan for solid waste management was established in 2006 to develop a comprehensive MSW management system and promote waste minimization through the principles of the 3Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle) [59,60]. The Solid Waste Management and Public Cleaning Act 672 was enacted in 2007, with enforcement implemented in six states in Malaysia, focusing on collection, disposal of controlled solid waste, and public cleaning [61,62]. In Thailand, the MSW has been increasing annually, particularly in Bangkok [63,64]. However, waste collection, transportation services, and sanitary facilities remain limited, leading to illegal waste dumping and open burning [65]. The country has implemented policies, legislation, and specific regulations on solid waste management, such as the National Economic and Social Development Plan (2017–2021) and the National Waste Management Master Plan 2016–2021 [66]. Vietnam generates a substantial amount of solid waste annually, with this amount increasing each year. A significant portion of the MSW is recycled at treatment plants [67,68]. The government has updated the Law on Environmental Protection and issued Decree No. 08/2022/ND-CP [69], aimed at strengthening the legal framework for waste management. This provides guidance for the development of specific regulations, guidelines, and strategies for comprehensive MSW management [70]. Indonesia, with one of the highest populations among ASEAN nations, faces significant waste management challenges. The recycling rate relies primarily on informal waste sorting, with a substantial portion of waste disposed of in landfills, while the remaining portion was either illegally dumped or openly burnt [71]. Despite long-standing efforts to address the waste issue through national policies and legislation, such as the Law on Solid Waste Management (UU No. 18/2008) and the Law on Environmental Protection and Management (UU No. 32/2009) [72], based on these legislations, the government has been developing specific policies and regulations to tackle waste pollution issues [73]. In the Philippines, a substantial amount of MSW is produced daily, with a significant portion remaining uncollected [74]. The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act No. 9003 was enacted in 2000 to enhance waste management systems, mandating enforcement for segregation at the source, segregated transportation, storage, transfer, processing, treatment, disposal, and the prevention of activities that could harm the environment [75,76].
Low-income countries: Waste management in Cambodia primarily involves treatment and disposal by landfill, with small portions recycled, incinerated, and composted [77]. The government has developed and enacted sub-decree No. 36/1999 on Solid Waste Management [78] and a specific Sub-decree No. 113/2015 on Municipal Solid Waste Management [79]. In urban areas of Myanmar, a significant amount of MSW is generated daily, with an estimated portion of inorganic waste being recycled. Only Yangon and Mandalay exhibit high rates of waste collection [80,81]. The situation regarding MSW management in Myanmar mirrors that of other developing countries, focusing primarily on waste collection, disposal, and recycling. The Environmental Conservation Law No. 9/2021 [82], along with rules and regulations, has been developed. However, enforcement remains weak and the implementation of 3Rs activities is limited [83,84].
4.1.2. MSW Characteristics, Composition, Separation, and Collection
The global MSW classification system varies significantly, contingent upon the underlying framework and prerequisites for effective waste management [85]. In ASEAN countries, MSW primarily emanates from households, commercial activities, and similar sources such as offices, hotels, shops, markets, schools, institutions, and municipal services [46]. As depicted in Table 2, the waste in those countries shows differences in composition, generation rate, and treatment methods.
The waste composition in nine ASEAN nations shows organic waste ranging from 10.5% to 77%, which is higher than other compositions, followed by plastic ranging from 10% to 24%. However, this waste is still underutilized, with most being disposed of in landfills, incinerators, or through uncontrolled means. Additionally, there are a lower number of collection services for waste treatment and disposal, as well as for recycling.
4.1.3. Environmental Impact and Treatment Technologies
The complex challenge of increasing MSW generation and the high composition of organic and plastic wastes, commonly managed in developing countries through improper methods such as landfilling, open burning, and illegal dumping [102,103,104], exacerbates environmental concerns. Waste materials from MSW contain complex chemical components that can release substances and pathogens into the environment upon decomposition, leading to pollution [105,106]. The release of pollutants from waste into the environment occurs through air, soil, and water, resulting in significant environmental and health impacts, as shown in Table 3 [107,108]. ASEAN nations rank among the top 10 countries globally in plastic waste emission into the ocean, including the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Vietnam, and Thailand, respectively [109,110]. Researchers have been developing technologies to address these issues and simultaneously recover waste materials for environmentally friendly utilization [111,112,113]. However, despite the availability of innovative treatment, disposal, and recovery technologies, considerations of residual waste from operations, such as fly ash and bottom ash, must still be addressed. Proper management of these residuals is crucial, as they can have adverse effects on the environment and public health, necessitating high operational and maintenance costs in the process [114,115,116].
Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia serve as exemplary models for waste material recovery through WtE initiatives, a trend gaining momentum across ASEAN nations. For example, Singapore boasts four WtE plants (the Tuas, Senoko, Tuas South, and Keppel Seghers Tuas plants) alongside one landfill (Semakau), collectively generating approximately 256.8 MW of power [118,119]. Embracing the principles of the 3 Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle), Singapore minimizes solid waste, with the remaining waste directed to WtE plants, reducing waste volume by around 90% in landfill [21,120]. In Malaysia, landfilling remains a common method for MSW management, with 141 operational landfills, of which only 21 are sanitary landfills. Additionally, there are approximately 11 biogas plants with a total installed capacity of around 25.47 MW [57,121]. Incineration serves as the second most utilized method, particularly for healthcare waste. The WtE plant in Kajang is a notable facility converting MSW into refuse-derived fuel (RDF) for electricity generation at a rate of 8 MW per day. Furthermore, there are four small-scale incinerators, with Langkawi island standing out for its ability to generate electricity from MSW, producing 1 MW from 100 tons of MSW per day [122]. In Thailand, while landfilling remains the primary disposal method, emerging technologies such as semi-aerobic methods (like the Fukuoka landfill method) and incineration plants are gaining traction. For instance, the Phuket incineration plant has a capacity of 2.5 MW [123,124]. Moreover, mechanical biological treatment (MBT) is employed to enhance the MSW properties for its utilization as RDF, with several full-scale MBT facilities currently operational [125,126]. In Indonesia, MSW treatment primarily involves landfill disposal, burning, and recycling [127]. WtE plants utilizing incinerator technology with RDF have emerged as the most suitable option, demonstrating positive economic indicators. The government has strategically planned to develop 12 WtE projects with a combined capacity of 234 MW [128,129]. Similarly, the Philippines and Vietnam have been active in pursuing waste management solutions. In Vietnam, several WtE plants are operational, notably the Can Tho plant with a generating capacity of 7.5 MW, the Soc Son plant with a capacity of 15 MW, and three high-tech WtE projects with a total capacity of 29 MW [130]. In the Philippines, approximately 13 WtE plants are registered with the Philippine Department of Energy (DOE), ranging from 100 kW to 12 MW in capacity. These plants utilize various technologies including anaerobic digestion/bio-methanation, landfill methane recovery, gasification, RDF production, and direct combustion [96,131].
Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar still lack efficient WtE recovery technology and comprehensive policies, programs, and plans for MSW management. The predominant method of MSW disposal in these countries is landfilling or open dumping, with limited source segregation focused only on plastic, metal, and paper waste for recycling [9]. Brunei currently lags behind other ASEAN nations in terms of MSW recovery for WtE purposes. However, plans are underway to construct a waste incineration plant capable of processing up to 100 tons of waste/day to generate electricity [132]. In Cambodia, the final MSW treatment or disposal methods are similar to those in neighboring countries, primarily involving landfilling and small-scale incinerators without energy recovery. Nevertheless, the government is actively encouraging private sector investment in WtE to harness electricity from waste [77,133]. Similarly, Myanmar predominantly relies on open dumping or uncontrolled landfilling as the primary method of waste disposal, covering approximately 83% of MSW disposal. Other methods, including recycling, anaerobic digestion, and incineration, contribute to a smaller percentage [95]. One notable incineration plant with a capacity of 60 tons of waste/day has been established for WtE purposes in Yangon, with a power generation capacity of about 760 kW [134].
4.2. Japan
4.2.1. Situation and MSW Management
Japan is undoubtedly a global leader in MSW management, boasting a comprehensive system characterized by meticulous planning and sustainable practices across waste disposal, treatment, and material recovery. According to the Ministry of Environment, waste generation in Japan in 2023 amounted to 40,950 million tons, marking a 1.7% decrease from 41,670 million tons in 2020 [135,136]. The waste management flow in Japan primarily involves intermediate treatment, accounting for approximately 94.4% of waste, with 4.6% directly recycled, and around 1.0% undergoing direct final disposal. The country’s commitment to proper waste treatment and the promotion of recycling is underscored by laws, as shown in Figure 5, which collectively form a comprehensive framework for managing waste, promoting recycling, and ensuring the sustainable use of resources.
These laws collectively aim to manage waste products in a manner that prioritizes safety and environmental sustainability. In Japan, waste management operates at three levels: the central government formulates policies and standards, prefectures oversee plans and facilities, and municipalities implement strategies and guide waste reduction efforts [142]. Efforts to reduce the consumption of natural resources and minimize waste are facilitated through the promotion of the 3Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle) policies and sustainable development initiatives. The endeavor to establish a sound material-cycle society is emphasized through the Basic Act for Establishing a Sound Material-Cycle Society, enacted in 2000 and enforced in April 2001 (2001.4) [143,144]. To effectively promote the 3Rs and achieve synergistic outcomes, five key implementation strategies are considered necessary: increasing awareness, fostering partnerships among relevant bodies, facilitating information sharing, conducting technological research and development, and providing incentives [145]. These approaches collectively contribute to Japan’s commitment to waste reduction and sustainable resource management.
4.2.2. MSW Characteristics, Composition, Separation, and Collection
Waste in Japan is classified into two main types, industrial waste and municipal waste, as defined by the Waste Management Act [18]. The MSW category mainly consists of waste, raw sewage, and specially controlled municipal waste sourced from households and businesses. Specially controlled waste is further categorized based on hazardous properties, such as those containing PCB, dust, or infectious materials [85,146]. According to a 2019 survey on MSW, the waste generation rate is 0.90 kg/person/day, with the waste composition in the country consisting of 48% paper and cloth, 24% plastics, synthetic resins, rubber, and leather, 10% wood, bamboo, and straw, 12% kitchen waste, 3% non-combustible material, and 3% other [18,147]. This waste composition makes it suitable for introduction into incineration facilities for WtE implementation, as the low percentage of kitchen waste results in a lower moisture content and higher heating potential [148,149].
Municipal waste separation methods in Japan vary depending on the disposal systems implemented by cities, towns, and villages. These systems often involve designated plastic bags and specific rules set by local municipalities for waste separation and disposal [150,151]. The primary categories for separating regular MSW typically include combustible waste, non-combustible waste, recyclable waste, oversized waste, and hazardous waste [152]. For instance, in Hiroshima City, household waste is divided into eight categories, including combustible waste, PET bottles, recycling plastics, non-combustible waste, recyclable waste, hazardous waste, and oversized waste [153]. MSW generation sources are broadly categorized into residential waste from individual homes and commercial waste from larger establishments such as offices, hotels, and schools. Residential waste is typically collected by municipalities, organizations, and private companies, while commercial waste is managed by authorized waste collection companies [154].
4.2.3. Environmental Impact and Treatment Technologies
During the period from 1945 to the 1950s, Japan primarily disposed of waste by dumping it into rivers, oceans, or open lots, leading to public health issues such as fly and mosquito infestations and the spread of infectious diseases [155,156]. In the 1950s, the Japanese government began focusing on addressing social conditions by implementing policy responses and applying technologies to manage the increasing waste and resolve waste-related problems. Efforts included improved waste collection and disposal methods, along with the promotion of technological solutions such as incineration. Despite the crucial role played by incineration technology, issues arose with air pollution due to emissions of dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from burning plastics in both domestic and industrial waste [157,158,159]. Furthermore, incineration posed risks associated with heavy metal leaching from fly ash and bottom ash, exceeding Japanese risk levels, particularly for metals like Pb, Cr, Cd, and Se [160]. Additionally, the discharge of plastic waste into rivers and seas has become a critical issue and challenge for Japan’s marine environment. Research by Kataoka et al. [161] demonstrated the presence of microplastics in Japanese river environments, with plastics breaking down into small fragments before entering the ocean. The identified sources of microplastic pollution include both point sources, such as wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), and non-point sources. WWTPs are significant contributors to ecological risks in rivers, creating pollution hotspots downstream by releasing high numbers of microplastics and toxic polymers [162,163]. Japan has experienced challenges regarding the environmental impact of waste. However, ASEAN regions face a higher number of issues compared to Japan, including the impact of waste on air, water, and soil pollution, as shown in Table 4.
Due to Japan’s limited land area and scarcity of landfill space, waste undergoes intermediary treatments such as incineration before being carefully deposited in sanitary landfills; this represents the primary waste management method in the country [164]. MSW incineration technology has been utilized since the 1960s in Japan, with 1243 incineration facilities operating by 2009. These facilities boast high-level environmental conservation technology, including pollution prevention measures and high-efficiency power generation capacities [165]. Although the number of plants has decreased to about 1028, power generation facilities have increased to encompass 38.5% of all plants, with a total power generating capacity of 2149 million kilowatts. Concurrently, the amount of available sanitary landfill space has also decreased, with a remaining capacity of 98.45 million m3 in 2022 compared to 99.84 million m3 in 2020 [135]. To optimize waste incineration plants, integrating the MBT system is a significant option. This system allows for the utilization of food waste and sewage sludge from waste incineration plants, sewage treatment plants, and industrial facilities, mixing them to produce methane gas for energy while simultaneously reducing CO2 emissions [166,167].
Table 4Previous issues and treatment technologies on MSW in ASEAN-Japan nations.
| Country | Environmental Concern (Published) | Treatment and Disposal | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Japan |
|
| [18,168,169,170] |
| Singapore |
|
| [171,172,173] |
| Brunei |
|
| [9,171,174] |
| Cambodia |
|
| [77,171,175,176,177] |
| Indonesia |
|
| [110,171,177,178,179,180] |
| Laos |
|
| [9,171,177,181,182,183] |
| Malaysia |
|
| [184,185,186,187] |
| Myanmar |
|
| [95,171,188,189] |
| Philippine |
|
| [75,109,171,177,190,191] |
| Thailand |
|
| [171,192,193,194] |
| Vietnam |
|
| [67,171,177,195,196] |
5. Laos’ Municipal Solid Waste Analysis Based on Vientiane
This section presents a comparative analysis of MSW management between VT, a representative municipality in Laos, and international regions of ASEAN-Japan. The comparison focuses on solid waste generation and composition, environmental and health impacts, treatment technology, and resource recovery. The objectives are: (1) to highlight differences and similarities and (2) to establish effective MSW management practices in VT by identifying good practices and recommended perspectives from international experiences.
5.1. Comparison of MSW Generation Based on Population and Gross Domestic Product
From 2010 to 2020, in VT, economic and population growth have influenced the quantity of MSW generated. The waste generation rate of 0.75 kg/capita/day has led to an increase in waste production in the Vientiane municipality. Based on waste disposal data in landfills, the amount rose from 86,023 tons in 2012 to 143,891 tons in 2020, marking a 67.3% increase and an average annual growth rate of approximately 6.7%. More than half of the solid waste generated in the city has been disposed of by residents themselves, primarily because the MSW collection service covers less than 40% of the city [33].
The population in VT had reached 948,477 by 2020, excluding the number of tourists. This figure is projected to increase to more than 1 million by 2023, representing a 5.43% increase over the last three years. The growth rate of the GDP also rose compared to the previous year, reaching 4.42% in 2022 [25]. Vientiane has projected MSW generation to increase from 1,115 tons/day in 2023 to 1,512 tons/day in 2030, marking a 35.6% increase [33]. When comparing the rates of increase, the results suggest that MSW generation is slightly closely related to population and GDP growth. The quantity of waste generated in VT has increased annually, paralleling population growth, even though the GDP has declined in the last two years (Figure 6A). In contrast, developed countries in ASEAN like Singapore, as shown in Figure 6B, experience fluctuations in MSW in line with the GDP trends, with slight decreases in some waste compositions. In upper-middle-income countries like Thailand and Malaysia, the MSW increases year by year in parallel with population growth, even though the GDP fluctuates (Figure 6C,D). Similarly, the lower-middle-income country of Vietnam shows a similar trend, as seen in Figure 6E. The population and GDP mostly experience continuous growth in ASEAN nations due to rapid urbanization, leading to a parallel increase in waste generation, although in some countries, GDP has fluctuated [197], exhibiting differences in the characteristics of the MSW, population, and GDP relationship [33,79,198,199,200,201]. However, it is not only GDP and population factors that influence waste increase or decrease but also policies in waste management and tourism development [202,203].
Japan has shown a year-by-year decrease in MSW, as shown in Figure 6F. The trend is attributed to the development of comprehensive systems such as waste reduction initiatives, stringent regulations, advanced recycling systems, waste separation programs, public awareness and education, innovative technologies, and circular economy practices [18].
Other countries in ASEAN exhibit a trend of increasing MSW generation parallel to population and GDP growth, similar to other developing countries in the region. Although some countries, like Brunei, lack updated information on waste generation, recent research indicates an increase from 0.18 million tons in 2005 to 0.21 million tons in 2014, with a generation rate of 1.4 kg/capita/day [87]. However, the government has a strategy to reduce this to 1 kg/capita/day by 2035, focusing on waste separation and WtE technology options [204]. In Cambodia, MSW generation data show an increase of approximately 24.16% from 2010 to 2020 [77]. Indonesia has projected a waste increase of approximately 6.41% from 2019 to 2025 [205], while Myanmar predicts a total waste increase of about 61.54% from 2018 to 2025 [206]. The Philippines has experienced a trend of increasing waste generation at a rate of about 33.90% from 2010 to 2020 [207].
5.2. Comparison of MSW Composition
Due to rapid growth in their populations and economic activity, cities have become primary destinations for migration and habitation, resulting in heightened consumption, including food, lifestyle choices, travel, and increasing material needs. These factors contribute to a rise in MSW generation. This increase has, in turn, impacted the composition and characteristics of MSW, which now exhibits notable differences compared to earlier patterns. In ASEAN-Japan nations, the proportion of kitchen or organic waste averages about 46.09%, with households being the main sources. Specifically, the percentages are as follows: Myanmar 77%, Thailand 64%, Laos approximately 55.81% (four cities), Cambodia 55%, Vietnam 55%, the Philippines 52%, Indonesia 43.78%, Brunei 36%, Malaysia 36%, and Singapore 10.5%. Japan, as a developed country with extensive experience in waste management, has a lower amount of kitchen/organic waste at approximately 22%, which includes kitchen waste as well as wood, bamboo, and straw [18].
In the case of VT, Laos, the waste composition shows that organic waste covers 67% of total waste generation, followed by plastic at 12.1%, paper/cardboard at 8.8%, glass at 3.3%, and others, as shown in Figure 2A. At landfill, the waste composition reveals that organic waste comprises approximately 56%, plastic 27%, paper/cardboard 6%, textiles 3%, glass 2%, and other waste 6% [33]. This highlights that most waste generation is disposed of in unsanitary landfills, with a low rate of recycling or waste recovery compared to developed countries in the ASEAN and Japan nations (e.g., Singapore and Japan). In Singapore, MSW management involves collecting waste from homes and businesses, with non-segregated waste being transferred to WtE plants for incineration and recovery to generate electricity [51]. According to the National Environment Agency (NEA) in 2022, food waste generation is approximately 813,000 tons, with a recycling rate of about 18%. To encourage food waste reduction, the NEA has developed specific strategies and a guidebook on food waste management [208]. Japan has comprehensive systems for dealing with MSW, with only 9.3% of waste being disposed of in landfills, including direct disposal of 1.0% and final disposal after intermediate treatment of 8.3% [18]. The intermediate treatment includes incineration, composting, and MBT, with these methods significantly contributing to reducing municipal waste in Japan [209,210].
5.3. Comparison of Environmental Impact and Treatment Technologies
Landfilling is a prevalent method for managing MSW; however, landfill leakage into the environment is a crucial concern due to intricate composition and elevated pollutant levels. This issue has emerged as a significant global eco-environmental problem [108,211,212]. Particularly in developing countries, landfills have higher concentrations of chemical pollutants in ground and surface waters, and soil environments due to heavy metals [191,213]. Additionally, the microplastics from waste contribute to environmental contamination [214,215]. The open dumping and burning of waste is a major environmental issue in ASEAN regions, notably in lower-middle-income economies such as Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Myanmar. For example, MSW landfill in Indonesia have released micro-mesoplastics into the aquatic environment through landfill leachate [216], while particulate matter (PM) from these landfill has impacted the health of workers. Additionally, open waste burning is linked to an increased risk of chronic diseases [179,217]. Similar issues exist in the Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Myanmar, where final disposal causes toxic chemical contamination in leachate, impacting ecological health [176,218,219,220]. Air pollution (e.g., CO2, CH4) also contributes to the environmental impact [221,222]. In upper-middle-income economies like Malaysia and Thailand, improper waste management leads to the presence of toxic chemicals in the environment, which could affect human health [223,224]. High-income economies like Singapore have assessed incineration as leading to air pollution and contributing to climate change, acidification, and ecotoxicity, harming both human health and the environment. Due to national policies limiting landfilling to only 10% of the total disposed waste, landfill gases and leachate generate minimal environmental damage [225,226]. The limited research on the MSW impact assessment in Brunei Darussalam generally identifies solid waste disposal as a cause of pollution to the air, water, and environment [227,228]. Japan has a lengthy history of environmental impact caused by the disposal of solid waste into rivers and oceans, resulting in public health problems such as infestations of flies and mosquitoes and the transmission of infectious diseases [18]. However, Japan currently serves as a model for global best practices in waste management. In Laos, there is limited specific research on pollutant issues from MSW, but a few studies have been conducted. For instance, toxic heavy metals have contaminated soil, plants, and groundwater near landfill sites [182]. Improper MSW management has led to the prevalence of microplastic polymers, which have contaminated urban surface water [181]. Additionally, toxic metals have been found in some fish species from landfill ponds/wetlands that are commonly consumed by local people living near these areas [229]. Currently, there is still a lack of attention and enforcement regarding specific plastic waste management, resulting in plastic waste being disposed of in waterways and main rivers in Laos [12]. These issues highlight that Laos still lags behind upper-middle-income and high-income economies in ASEAN and Japan.
In the ASEAN regions, landfilling remains the primary method for managing MSW, except in Singapore, as shown in Figure 7. There is a growing trend towards WtE solutions as an alternative to direct waste disposal, employing various techniques and technologies. Singapore is a leader in ASEAN countries in waste treatment technologies, advancing towards a circular economy (CE). The CE strategy implemented in 2019 aims to reduce consumption by increasing reuse and recycling and adopting the 10R strategy to achieve zero waste (reducing landfill usage by 30%) by 2030 [230]. The nation aims to improve the recycling rate to 70% by 2030, driven by two priorities: waste minimization and recycling. This effort includes utilizing WtE plants to efficiently reduce waste volume and generate electricity [231]. The Tuas Nexus plant is a state-of-the-art facility integrating various waste treatment processes with a capacity of 5800 tons/day for WtE, 250 tons/day for materials recovery facility (MRF), 400 tons/day for a food waste treatment facility, and 800 tons/day for a sludge incineration facility [232]. Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Myanmar have also adopted technologies to transition towards a CE within their own countries. While this signifies progress, there are still issues such as public perception, public–private partnerships, financial constraints, and climate factors [95,118,233,234,235,236,237]. Meanwhile, Cambodia, Brunei, and the Philippines continue to rely on conventional methods, utilizing sanitary landfilling and dumping. Although there are small-scale pilot WtE facilities, there have yet to be a commercial WtE plants producing electricity in these countries [77,118,131]. Japan embarked on the adoption of a CE as early as 1870 and implemented recycling legislation in 1991 [238]. The country has 1028 WtE facilities, representing a decrease of 2.7% from 1056 in 2020 but with highly improved advanced environmental conservation measures. The total power generating capacity stands at 2,149,000 kilowatts, marking a 3.3% increase from 2,079,000 kilowatts in 2020 [135]. In recent years, Japan has significantly improved waste management, achieving a 20% increase in recycling rates alongside a corresponding decrease in incinerator numbers. Embracing circular design principles has propelled the development of WtE and heat-recovery technologies. Consequently, the government prioritizes three key objectives: reducing incinerators, increasing recycling rates, and lowering total costs [239]. In contrast, Laos continues to rely on conventional methods such as landfilling and open dumping; currently, there is no WtE plant [16,118].
5.4. Trend and Perspectives
The integrated solid waste management (ISWM) systems must leverage state-of-the-art technological advancements and advanced methods to maximize resource utilization and minimize environmental and health impacts. Methodological concepts in MSW management, including operation, treatment, disposal, and resource utilization, as presented in various sections, are increasingly being adopted by developing countries, inspired by practices in developed nations like Japan and Singapore. Particularly, the development of technologies for WtE conversion and the transition towards a CE will be significant trends in Laos in the coming years. Semi-landfill could be employed to generate biogas and biomaterials, contributing to environmental protection. Additionally, the utilization of waste materials can be effectively implemented across the entire country. Incineration plants are likely to become the mainstream application for waste management. However, a major challenge will be efficiently converting MSW into energy/fuel, given the diverse characteristics of waste. Addressing the high moisture content of MSW in Laos is a crucial factor for enhancing WtE efficiency.
To control MSW generation and mitigate environmental issues, the government should regulate and enforce nationwide implementation of MSW classification and collection, drawing lessons from developed countries. This includes adopting advanced technologies for waste material recovery through WtE practices, such as incineration plants and the utilization of sanitary landfill gas. Furthermore, the legal and regulatory framework for waste management in Laos must be clearly defined, with individual articles integrated into national policy and strategy. The implementation of the 3Rs strategy (reduce, reuse, and recycle) should be intensified for greater efficiency. Additionally, a carefully crafted policy should enhance prevention, reuse, and recycling, while simultaneously promoting WtE and WtM conversion for the waste produced.
6. Conclusions
The MSW in VT, along with nine ASEAN nations and Japan, has been analyzed in terms of background information, characteristics, environmental issues, and technologies for treatment and disposal. The findings indicate a continuous rise in MSW generation in nine ASEAN nations (excluding Singapore), with VT’s total annual generation increasing from 0.21 Mt in 2012 to 0.37 Mt in 2021. In contrast, developed countries like Japan and Singapore have experienced a decreasing trend in MSW generation, declining from 45.23 Mt in 2012 to 40.95 Mt in 2021 in Japan and from 7.27 Mt in 2012 to 6.94 Mt in 2021 in Singapore. The composition of MSW is complex, with organic waste comprising the majority of components, ranging from approximately 36% to 77%, except in Japan and Singapore. Lower-middle-income ASEAN countries generally exhibit low rates of domestic waste recycling and waste recovery. Common practices include the use of unsanitary landfills and open dumping methods for MSW management, leading to environmental issues such as soil, water, and air pollution and resulting in bioaccumulation and adverse effects on human health. Developed countries like Japan and Singapore have implemented comprehensive waste management systems, incorporating advanced technologies for WtE practices, such as incineration plant and sanitary landfill gas utilization. Additionally, specific laws, acts, regulations, and policies provide guidance for enforcement and support on MSW management. In conclusion, Laos faces limitations in MSW management, particularly in waste recovery and WtE practices, which are key factors in ISWM and contribute to environmental and economic sustainability. To enhance MSW management in Laos, the following measures are essential: (1) Developing a waste management act that includes waste segregation, recycling strategies, and extended producer responsibility (EPR) policies is crucial. (2) Technological advancements such as MBT facilities for waste separation, WtE plants for energy generation, and upgraded landfills are vital for sustainability. (3) Capacity building through training programs for municipal staff and public awareness campaigns on waste segregation and recycling foster community support. These measures will significantly improve Laos’s MSW management, reduce environmental impacts, and enhance public health, contributing directly to the SDGs, particularly in advancing sustainable cities and communities.
Conceptualization, V.N. and T.D.X.; Methodology, V.N. and T.D.X.; Software, V.N. and D.V.P.; Writing—original draft preparation, V.N.; Writing—review and editing, V.N., D.V.P., T.T.N.M. and T.D.X.; Supervision, T.D.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.
The authors express their gratitude for the Japanese Grant Aid for Human Resource Development Scholarship (JDS) to provide Vongdala Noudeng a scholarship. Additionally, special thanks are extended to Nguyen Van Quan and La Hoang Anh for their partial support in terms of suggestions regarding the preparation of the manuscript.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 4. Municipal solid waste management flows (million tons) in nine ASEAN countries.
![View Image - Figure 5. Legal framework for waste management and recycling in Japan [137,138,139,140,141].](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/10/1zxeZ?_a=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%2BgIBWYIDA1dlYooDHENJRDoyMDI1MDcxMjIzMjk1ODMzNjo5NTY3NTg%3D&_s=jU8qjJdPh8crf1PI5s2D4V57C3I%3D "View Image - Figure 5. Legal framework for waste management and recycling in Japan [137,138,139,140,141].")
Enlarge this image.Figure 5. Legal framework for waste management and recycling in Japan [137,138,139,140,141].
Enlarge this image.Figure 6. The relationship between MSW generation and influencing factors such as population and GDP in VT (A), Singapore (B), Thailand (C), Malaysia (D), Vietnam (E), and Japan (F), respectively.
Enlarge this image.Figure 7. Hierarchy in MSW management between developing and developed countries.
Types of MSW classified generally in waste management guidelines [
| Types | MSW Components | Collecting Container |
|---|---|---|
| Compostable waste | Food waste, leftovers, vegetable scraps, plant leaves, fruit remnants, animal skeletal remains, etc. | Green |
| Recyclable | Paper, glass, metals, plastics, textiles, etc. | Yellow |
| General waste | Waste with characteristics that make it unsuitable for recycling due to its toughness and high costs that outweigh its recycling value. For instance, small plastic bags, foam, etc. | Blue |
| Hazardous waste | Industrial waste: containers containing chemicals, residual waste from processes, etc. | Red |
The MSW characteristics and management practices of nine ASEAN nations.
| Country | Composition | Generation Rate | Recycling | Collection | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brunei | Food waste 36% | 1.4 kg/capita/day | 11.3% (plastic, paper, aluminum) | 70% goes directly to landfills by private companies through door-to-door. | [ |
| Cambodia | Food waste 55% | 0.78 | 4% recycled, 2% composted | About 86% of MSW in cities. | [ |
| Indonesia | Food waste 42.38% | 0.8 | 7% through composting | About 69% goes directly to open landfill. | [ |
| Malaysia | Food waste 36% | 1.17 | 31.5% recycled | 82.5% disposed of in landfill. | [ |
| Myanmar | Organic waste 77% | 0.44–0.53 | Recycled: 5% in cities and only 2% in the country. | 80% in major cities and around 45% in the country. | [ |
| Philippines | Biodegradable waste 52% | 0.69 | 5% recycled | 40–80% collected nationwide. | [ |
| Singapore | Food/organic waste 10.5% | 3.8 | 19% is recycled, the remaining is burned to generate electricity. | >90% collected nationwide, about 50% of waste is collected by private enterprises. | [ |
| Thailand | Organic waste 64% | 1.05 | 16% recycled before collection, 16% recycled before disposal. | 78% collected. | [ |
| Vietnam | Food/organic waste 55% | 0.84 | Approximately 11% is recycled in nationwide. | The nationwide average is approximately 75%. | [ |
Impact of municipal waste on pollution and health [
| Pollution Type | Sources from MSW | Health Impacts |
|---|---|---|
| Water pollution | Leachate from landfills, improper disposal of chemicals, sewage overflow | Gastrointestinal diseases, skin infections |
| Soil pollution | Improper disposal of hazardous waste, landfill leakage, use of untreated sludge as fertilizer | Cancer, neurological disorders, reproductive issues |
| Air pollution | Incineration of waste, decomposition of organic waste releasing methane, open burning of trash | Respiratory issues, cardiovascular diseases, asthma |
| Biological pollution | Organic waste attracting pests, accumulation of waste leading to bacterial growth | Infectious diseases (e.g., cholera, malaria), allergic reactions |
References
1. Ding, Y.; Zhao, J.; Liu, J.W.; Zhou, J.; Cheng, L.; Zhao, J.; Shao, Z.; Iris, Ç.; Pan, B.; Li, X. et al. A review of China’s municipal solid waste (MSW) and comparison with international regions: Management and technologies in treatment and resource utilization. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 293, 126144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126144]
2. Maalouf, A.; Mavropoulos, A. Re-assessing global municipal solid waste generation. Waste Manag. Res.; 2023; 41, pp. 936-947. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734242X221074116] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35075952]
3. Kaza, S.; Yao, L.; Bhada-Tata, P.; Van Woerden, F. What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050; World Bank Publications: Chicago, IL, USA, 2018.
4. Srivastava, V.; Ismail, S.A.; Singh, P.; Singh, R.P. Urban solid waste management in the developing world with emphasis on India: Challenges and opportunities. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol.; 2015; 14, pp. 317-337. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11157-014-9352-4]
5. Mor, S.; Ravindra, K. Municipal solid waste landfills in lower-and middle-income countries: Environmental impacts, challenges and sustainable management practices. Process Saf. Environ. Prot.; 2023; 174, pp. 510-530. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2023.04.014]
6. Taweesan, A.; Koottatep, T.; Polprasert, C. Effective measures for municipal solid waste management for cities in some Asian Countries. Expo. Health; 2017; 9, pp. 125-133. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12403-016-0227-5]
7. Peltola, T.; Aarikka-Stenroos, L.; Viana, E.; Mäkinen, S. Value capture in business ecosystems for municipal solid waste management: Comparison between two local environments. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 137, pp. 1270-1279. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.168]
8. Li, R.; Gong, M.; Biney, B.W.; Chen, K.; Xia, W.; Liu, H.; Guo, A. Three-stage pretreatment of food waste to improve fuel characteristics and incineration performance with recovery of process by-products. Fuel; 2022; 330, 125655. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.125655]
9. Jain, A. Waste Management in ASEAN Countries: Summary Report; UNEP: Bangkok, Thailand, 2017; Available online: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/waste-management-asean-countries-summary-report (accessed on 11 October 2023).
10. Wahyudi, J.; Novitasari, M.R. Generating renewable energy from municipal waste sector: A comparative stydy between Japan and Indonesia. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Dev.; 2018; 9, pp. 380-384. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18178/ijesd.2018.9.12.1133]
11. Aleluia, J.; Ferrão, P. Assessing the costs of municipal solid waste treatment technologies in developing Asian countries. Waste Manag.; 2017; 69, pp. 592-608. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.08.047]
12. World Bank. Get Clean and Green-Solid and Plastic Waste Managment in Lao PDR. 2022; Available online: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099100002182296296/pdf/P17101101230c40bc096bf0a757bd16eb65.pdf (accessed on 11 October 2023).
13. Naofumi, S.; Phengkhamla, P.; Phimmasane, S.; Ryoichi, O. Current Condition and Issues of Municipal Solid Waste Managment in Vientiane Capital, Luangprabang District and Xayaboury District in Lao PDR. ResearchGate 2019. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330511146 (accessed on 11 October 2023).
14. World Bank. Supporting Lao PDR in Development of Plastic Action Plan, Plastic Diagnostics. 2021; Available online: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099325012222117960/pdf/P1710110e452f40410a9d9022146421516b.pdf (accessed on 11 October 2023).
15. Lao, P.D.R. Environmental Protection Law, 2013 Ed., 2013. Available online: https://policy.asiapacificenergy.org/node/476 (accessed on 12 October 2023).
16. JICA. Data Collection Survey on Waste Management Sector in The Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Final Report. 2021; Available online: https://openjicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/12345914.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2023).
17. MPWT. Lao PDR: Fourth Greater Mekong Subregion Corridor Towns Development Project. Available online: https://www.adb.org/projects/50099-003/main (accessed on 12 October 2023).
18. JICA. Japan’s Experiences on Waste Management. 2022; Available online: https://www.jica.go.jp/activities/issues/env_manage/ve9qi8000000gfy4-att/waste_managemen_en.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2023).
19. Hirofumi, S. Potential of Precious and Hazardous Metal Recovery from Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Bottom Ash. 2019; Available online: https://www-cycle.nies.go.jp/eng/column/page/202210_01.html (accessed on 15 October 2023).
20. Chen, Y. Preliminary Study on Waste Incineration and Electricity Conversion in Macau. E3S Web. Conf.; 2023; 369, 02013. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202336902013]
21. NEA and Singapore. Solid Waste Management Infrastructure. 2022; Available online: http://www.nea.gov.sg/energy-waste/waste-management/solid-waste-management-infrastructure (accessed on 18 October 2023).
22. ASEAN. ASEAN Sustainable Urbanisation Report, Sustainable Cities towards 2025 and beyond. 2022; Available online: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2022/12/asean_sustainable_urbanisation_report_final_dec_2022.pdf (accessed on 18 October 2023).
23. Chuenwong, K.; Wangjiraniran, W.; Pongthanaisawan, J.; Sumitsawan, S.; Suppamit, T. Municipal solid waste management for reaching net-zero emissions in ASEAN tourism twin cities: A case study of Nan and Luang Prabang. Heliyon; 2022; 8, 10285. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10295] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36072260]
24. Puluhulawa, F.; Puluhulawa, M.R. Plastic waste: Environmental legal issues and policy law enforcement for environmental sustainability. E3S Web. Conf.; 2021; 259, 5. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202125903006]
25. MPI. Lao Statistics Bureau 2021. Available online: https://www.lsb.gov.la/en/home/ (accessed on 18 October 2023).
26. Kawai, K.; Tasaki, T. Revisiting estimates of municipal solid waste generation per capita and their reliability. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag.; 2016; 18, pp. 1-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10163-015-0355-1]
27. Al-Dailami, A.; Ahmad, I.; Kamyab, H.; Abdullah, N.; Koji, I.; Ashokkumar, V.; Zabara, B. Sustainable solid waste management in Yemen: Environmental, social aspects, and challenges. Biomass Convers. Bior.; 2022; 12, pp. 1-27. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-02871-w]
28. Khamkeo, T.; Pholchan, M. Community Based Soild Waste Management Beung Kiat Ngong Ramsar Site in Lao PDR. Maejo University. 2021; Available online: http://ir.mju.ac.th/dspace/bitstream/123456789/753/1/6204301004.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2023).
29. Popli, K.; Park, C.; Han, S.M.; Kim, S. Prediction of solid waste generation rates in urban region of Laos using socio-demographic and economic parameters with a multi linear regression approach. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 3038. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13063038]
30. Curea, C. Sustainable Societies and Municipal Solid Waste Management in Southeast Asia. Sustainable Asia: Supporting the Transition to Sustainable Consumption and Production in Asian Developing Countries; World Scientific: Singapore, 2017; pp. 391-415. Available online: https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/sites/default/files/15._sustainable_societies_in_south_east_asia.pdf (accessed on 25 October 2023).
31. MPI. The 8th National Socio-Economic Development Plan (NSEDP), the 10 Year Socio-Economic Development Strategy (2016–2025). 2016; Available online: https://www.undp.org/laopdr/publications/8th-five-year-national-socio-economic-development-plan-2016%E2%80%932020 (accessed on 25 October 2023).
32. National Green Growth Strategyof the Lao PDR till 2030. Available online: https://policy.asiapacificenergy.org/node/4472 (accessed on 25 October 2023).
33. GGGI. The Sustainable Solid Waste Management Strategy and Action Plan for Vientiane 2021–2030. 2022; Available online: https://gggi.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/SWM_Strategy_ENG.pdf (accessed on 25 October 2023).
34. GGGI. Solid Waste Management in Vientiane, Lao P.D.R. 2018; Available online: https://gggi.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Solid-Waste-Management-in-Vientiane-Lao-P.D.R_Publication-3.pdf (accessed on 27 October 2023).
35. Vacha, Y. Luang Prabang City, the World Heritage Site of Lao PDR. 2021; Available online: https://www.jasca2021.jp/1st/pdf/WS5/Luang_Prabang.pdf (accessed on 27 October 2023).
36. MONRE. Solid Waste Management Guidelines. 2024; Available online: https://online.anyflip.com/nywhp/agsl/ (accessed on 3 March 2024).
37. IGES. A Guide for Improving Municipal Solid Waste Management and Promoting Urban Organic Waste Utilization in Lao PDR. 2012; Available online: https://www.iges.or.jp/en/publication_documents/pub/discussionpaper/en/3110/Attachment3_Guideline-UOWM-Lao-Eng.pdf (accessed on 29 October 2023).
38. ADB. Pakse Urban Environmental Improvement Project, Updated Technical Report on Pakse Solid Waste Management. 2012; Available online: https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/linked-documents/43316-012-lao-oth-05.pdf (accessed on 29 October 2023).
39. CDIA. CDIA Lao Livable Cities Project Preparation Study, Final Report. 2021; Available online: https://cdia.asia/2020/06/28/cdia-conducts-waste-characterization-study-to-inform-investment-planning-in-lao-pdr/ (accessed on 29 October 2023).
40. MRC. The Status and Trends of Riverine Plastic Pollution in the Lower Mekong River Basin. 2022; Available online: https://www.giz.de/en/downloads_els/Plastic%20Report%202022.pdf (accessed on 29 October 2023).
41. Kieu-Le, T.C.; Thuong, Q.T.; Tran, Q.V.; Strady, E. Baseline concentration of microplastics in surface water and sediment of the northern branches of the Mekong River Delta, Vietnam. Mar. Pollut. Bull.; 2023; 187, 114605. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.114605]
42. Haberstroh, C.J.; Arias, M.E.; Yin, Z.; Sok, T.; Wang, M.C. Plastic transport in a complex confluence of the Mekong River in Cambodia. Environ. Res. Lett.; 2021; 16, 095009. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2198]
43. van Emmerik, T.H.; Schreyers, L.J.; Mellink, Y.A.; Sok, T.; Arias, M.E. Large variation in Mekong river plastic transport between wet and dry season. Front. Environ. Sci.; 2023; 11, 539. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1173946]
44. World Bank. Behavioral Insights to Reduce Open Waste Burning in Lao PDR. 2022; Available online: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099150010052223589/pdf/P171011058e1450e609aa100403499a1da1.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2023).
45. Sánchez-Triana, E. Environmental Challenges for Green Growth and Poverty Reduction: A Country Environmental Analysis for the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. 2021; Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10986/36266 (accessed on 2 November 2023).
46. Ngoc, U.N.; Schnitzer, H. Sustainable solutions for solid waste management in Southeast Asian countries. Waste Manag.; 2009; 29, pp. 1982-1995. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2008.08.031]
47. Khanal, B.R.; Souksavath, B. Environmental Management Measures and Current Practices in Solid Waste Management: A Case Study from Vientiane, Lao People’s Democratic Republic. J. GMS Dev. Stud.; 2005; 2, pp. 69-89.
48. Lee, S.H.; Cunningham, A.; Gharif, R.; Koh, D.; Lai, L.; Petra, D.H.; Yussof, S.R. Brunei Darussalam: Country report on children’s environmental health. Rev. Environ. Health; 2020; 35, pp. 15-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2019-0081] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31934879]
49. Sulaiman, N.S.; Rahim, S.M.; Jopry, N.U.; Roslan, A.; Mohamad, A.S.; Irwandy, H.A.A.; Hashim, N. Conversion of Kitchen Food Waste to Halal Organic Fertilizers. J. Wastes Biomass Manag.; 2023; 5, pp. 8-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.26480/jwbm.01.2023.08.14]
50. Ahmad, N.; Qarriddah, N.; Syafiqah Adilah, S. Brunei: Moving Forward: Brunei’s Sustainable Measures for a Successful Environmental Development; ALSA: Asturias, Spain, 2015; 104.Available online: https://asianjournaloflegalstudies.wordpress.com/2016/08/31/ (accessed on 2 November 2023).
51. NEA. Waste Management Infrastructure. 2023; Available online: https://www.nea.gov.sg/our-services/waste-management/waste-management-infrastructure/solid-waste-management-infrastructure (accessed on 8 November 2023).
52. Xue, W.; Cao, K.; Li, W. Municipal solid waste collection optimization in Singapore. Appl. Geogr.; 2015; 62, pp. 182-190. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.04.002]
53. Zhou, J.; Li, L.; Wang, Q.; Van Fan, Y.; Liu, X.; Klemeš, J.J.; Wang, X.; Tong, Y.W.; Jiang, P. Household waste management in Singapore and Shanghai: Experiences, challenges and opportunities from the perspective of emerging megacities. Waste Manag.; 2022; 144, pp. 221-232. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2022.03.029] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35397419]
54. Zhang, D.; Keat, T.S.; Gersberg, R.M. A comparison of municipal solid waste management in Berlin and Singapore. Waste Manag.; 2009; 30, pp. 921-933. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.11.017] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20022478]
55. NUS. Environmental Public Health Act (Chapter 95). 2023; Available online: https://inetapps.nus.edu.sg/osh/portal/general_safety/legal_pdf/EPH_Act.pdf (accessed on 8 November 2023).
56. Dahalan, W.S.A.W.; Khan, I.N.G.; Nopiah, Z.M. Household Solid Waste Recycling: A Comparison Between Malaysia and Singapore from the Legal Perspective. Soc. Sci.; 2016; 11, pp. 5803-5809. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3923/sscience.2016.5803.5809]
57. Ng, K.S. Towards Sustainable Municipal Solid Waste Management in Malaysia; University of Oxford: Oxford, UK, Brunel University London: Uxbridge, UK, 2023; Available online: https://eng.ox.ac.uk/media/12832/towards-sustainable-municipal-solid-waste-management-in-malaysia.pdf (accessed on 5 November 2023).
58. Shakil, N.S.M.; Azhar, N.A.Z.M.; Othman, N. Solid Waste Management in Malaysia: An overview. Inf. Manag. Bus. Rev.; 2023; 15, pp. 86-93. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22610/imbr.v15i1(I)SI.3410]
59. Abas, M.A.; Wee, S.T. The issues of policy implementation on solid waste management in Malaysia. Int. J. Manag. Soc. Sci.; 2014; 2, pp. 12-17.
60. Zainu, Z.A.; Songip, A.R. Policies, challenges and strategies for municipal waste management in Malaysia. J. Sci. Technol. Innov. Policy; 2017; 3, pp. 10-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.11113/jostip.v3n1.18]
61. Cheng, K.M.; Tan, J.Y.; Wong, S.Y.; Koo, A.C.; Amir Sharji, E. A review of future household waste management for sustainable environment in Malaysian cities. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 6517. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14116517]
62. Bello, A.S.; Al-Ghouti, M.A.; Abu-Dieyeh, M.H. Sustainable and long-term management of municipal solid waste: A review. Bioresour. Technol. Rep.; 2022; 18, 101067. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb.2022.101067]
63. Sukma, P.; Srinok, K.; Papong, S.; Supakata, N. Chula model for sustainable municipal solid waste management in university canteens. Heliyon; 2022; 8, 10975. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10975]
64. Yukalang, N.; Clarke, B.; Ross, K. Solid waste management solutions for a rapidly urbanizing area in Thailand: Recommendations based on stakeholder input. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2018; 15, 1302. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071302] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29933621]
65. Pudcha, T.; Phongphiphat, A.; Wangyao, K.; Towprayoon, S. Forecasting Municipal Solid Waste Generation in Thailand with Grey Modelling. Environ. Nat. Resour. J.; 2023; 21, pp. 35-46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.32526/ennrj/21/202200104]
66. Wichai-Utcha, N.; Chavalparit, O. 3Rs Policy and plastic waste management in Thailand. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag.; 2019; 21, pp. 10-22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0781-y]
67. Tsai, F.M.; Bui, T.D.; Tseng, M.L.; Wu, K.J. A causal municipal solid waste management model for sustainable cities in Vietnam under uncertainty: A comparison. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.; 2020; 154, 104599. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104599]
68. Grafakos, S.; Kang, J.; Senshaw, D. Unlocking Potential for Large-Scale Waste Treatment Plants with a Focus on Energy Recovery and Modular Project Design; GGGI: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2022.
69. The Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Decree No. 80/2022/ND-CP on the elaboration of several articles of the Law on Environmental Protection. Hanoi, 2022. Available online: https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/vie212268.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2023).
70. Balanay, R.M. Towards Reinforcing the Waste Separation at Source for Vietnam’s Waste Management: Insights from the Nudge Theory. Environ. Chall.; 2022; 10, 100660. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2022.100660]
71. Kurniawan, T.A.; Meidiana, C.; Othman, M.H.D.; Goh, H.H.; Chew, K.W. Strengthening waste recycling industry in Malang (Indonesia): Lessons from waste management in the era of Industry 4.0. J. Clean. Prod.; 2023; 382, 135296. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135296]
72. Indonesia, S.W. National Plastic Waste Reduction Strategic Actions for Indonesia. 2020; Available online: https://www.unep.org/ietc/resources/policy-and-strategy/national-plastic-waste-reduction-strategic-actions-indonesia (accessed on 3 November 2023).
73. Bagastyo, A.Y.; Anggrainy, A.D.; Liang, M.S.M.W.H. Assessment of attitude and participation level among the households and local merchants toward single-use plastic waste management: A case study in Balikpapan Municipality, Indonesia. Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng.; 2023; 7, 100361. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2023.100361]
74. De Ungria, S.T.; Fernandez, L.T.T.; Sabado, S.E.F.; Santos, J.P.E.; Sararaña, A.R.B.; VinceCruz-Abeledo, C.C. How is fish market waste managed in the Philippines?. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2023; 30, pp. 49512-49522. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25882-0]
75. Castillo, A.L.; Otoma, S. Status of solid waste management in the Philippines. Jpn. Soc. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag.; 2013; 75, 677. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14912/jsmcwm.24.0_677]
76. Dimaculangan, E. Current construction and demolition waste management strategies for Philippine construction sector–A systematic literature review. J. Sustain. Constr. Mater. Technol.; 2023; 8, pp. 47-56. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47481/jscmt.1252591]
77. Pheakdey, D.V.; Quan, N.V.; Khanh, T.D.; Xuan, T.D. Challenges and priorities of municipal solid waste management in Cambodia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2022; 19, 8458. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148458] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35886307]
78. Government. Sub-Decree on Solid Waste Management. 1999; Available online: https://cdc.gov.kh/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Sub-Degree-36-on-Solid-Waste-Management_990427.pdf (accessed on 3 November 2023).
79. Spoann, V.; Fujiwara, T.; Seng, B.; Lay, C.; Yim, M. Assessment of public–private partnership in municipal solid waste management in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 1228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11051228]
80. IGES. An Inside Look at Municipal Waste Management in Myanmar. 2020; Available online: https://www.iges.or.jp/en/pub/digging-through-municipal-waste-management-myanmar/en (accessed on 5 November 2023).
81. World Bank. Myanmar—Country Environmental Analysis: A Road towards Sustainability, Peace, and Prosperity: Synthesis Report. 2019; Available online: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/464661560176989512/pdf/Synthesis-Report.pdf (accessed on 6 November 2023).
82. Climate Change Laws of the World. The Environmental Conservation Law. 2012; Available online: https://climate-laws.org/document/law-no-9-2012-the-environmental-conservation-law_9812 (accessed on 6 November 2023).
83. Yee, M.K.Z.; Ros, B.; Cole, J. Overview of Solid Waste Management in Myanmar. Briefing Note Regional Fellowship Program, Parliamentary Institute of Cambodia. 2019; Available online: https://pcasia.org/pic/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/20191014_Overview-of-Solid-Waste-Management-in-Myanmar.pdf (accessed on 8 November 2023).
84. Myaing, M.T. Laws Relating to Environmental Conservation in Myanmar. Population, Development, and the Environment: Challenges to Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in the Asia Pacific; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 297-315. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2101-6_17]
85. Wen, X.; Luo, Q.; Hu, H.; Wang, N.; Chen, Y.; Jin, J.; Fang, W. Comparison research on waste classification between China and the EU, Japan, and the USA. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag.; 2014; 16, pp. 321-334. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10163-013-0190-1]
86. Pg Aliuddin, D.A.N.B.; Reza, M.S.; Abdalla, A.M.; Azad, A.K. Future perspective of house hold waste management in Brunei: A comparison with successful Swedish system. AIP Conf.; 2023; 2643, 030030. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/5.0110934]
87. Shams, S.; Juani, R.; Guo, Z. Integrated and sustainable solid waste management for Brunei Darussalam. Proceedings of the 5th Brunei International Conference on Engineering and Technology (BICET 2014); Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei, 1–3 November 2014; pp. 1-6. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1049/cp.2014.1066]
88. NCSD/MoE. First Biennial Update Report of the Kingdom of Cambodia to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2020; Available online: https://unfccc.int/documents/232019 (accessed on 10 November 2023).
89. Pheakdey, D.V.; Van Quan, N.; Xuan, T.D. Potential greenhouse gas emissions and reduction from municipal solid waste management in Phnom Penh municipality. Greenhouse. Gas. Sci. Technol.; 2023; 13, pp. 620-633. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ghg.2231]
90. Maskun, M.; Kamaruddin, H.; Pattitingi, F.; Assidiq, H.; Bachril, S.N.; Al Mukarramah, N.H. Plastic Waste Management in Indonesia: Current Legal Approaches and Future Perspectives. Hasanuddin Law. Rev.; 2023; 9, pp. 106-125. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.20956/halrev.v9i1.3683]
91. Andriani, D.; Atmaja, T.D. The potentials of landfill gas production: A review on municipal solid waste management in Indonesia. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag.; 2019; 21, pp. 1572-1586. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10163-019-00895-5]
92. SWCorp. National Recycling Rate Now at 31.52 Pct. 2021; Available online: https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2021/12/753941/swcorp-national-recycling-rate-now-3152-pct (accessed on 10 November 2023).
93. Premakumara, D.; Hengesbaugh, M.; Hlaing, O.M.T. Quick Study on Waste Management in Myanmar: Current Situation and Key Challenges; IGES: Tokyo, Japan, 2016; Available online: https://www.iges.or.jp/en/pub/quick-study-waste-management-myanmar-current/en (accessed on 10 November 2023).
94. Mo, M.; Chinda, T.; Papong, S. Life cycle assessment-based optimal economic for sustainable municipal solid waste management system in Yangon City, Myanmar. 2021. Thammasat University. Available online: http://ethesisarchive.library.tu.ac.th/thesis/2021/TU_2021_6222040450_14878_17188.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2023).
95. Tun, M.M.; Juchelková, D.; Raclavská, H.; Sassmanová, V. Utilization of biodegradable wastes as a clean energy source in the developing countries: A case study in Myanmar. Energies; 2018; 11, 3183. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en11113183]
96. Zhao, Y. Municipal Solid Waste Management and Waste to Energy Possibilities in the Philippines. 2017; Available online: https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe201705316960 (accessed on 11 November 2023).
97. Hoa, D.P.; Khanh, N.H. Applying the Circular Economy Model to Urban Waste Management in Singapore and Experiences for Vietnam. Proceedings of the International Conference on Emerging Challenges: Business Transformation and Circular Economy (ICECH 2021); Hanoi, Vietnam, 5–6 November 2021; Volume 196, pp. 257-277. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.211119.026]
98. Thushari, I.; Vicheanteab, J.; Janjaroen, D. Material flow analysis and life cycle assessment of solid waste management in urban green areas, Thailand. Sustain. Environ. Res.; 2020; 30, 21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42834-020-00057-5]
99. Pollution Control Department, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of Thailand. Action Plan on Plastic Waste Management Phase II (2023–2027). Available online: https://www.pcd.go.th/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/pcdnew-2023-06-15_08-07-42_392659.pdf (accessed on 13 May 2024).
100. Phuong, N.T.L.; Yabar, H.; Mizunoya, T. Characterization and analysis of household solid waste composition to identify the optimal waste management method: A case study in Hanoi city, Vietnam. Earth; 2021; 2, pp. 1046-1058. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/earth2040062]
101. Dang Anh Thu, M.A. General Overview of Solid Waste Management in Vietnam. 2016; Available online: https://www.env.go.jp/recycle/circul/venous_industry/pdf/env/h27/11_2.pdf (accessed on 13 November 2023).
102. Gupta, N.; Yadav, K.K.; Kumar, V. A review on current status of municipal solid waste management in India. J. Environ. Sci.; 2015; 37, pp. 206-217. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2015.01.034]
103. De Souza Marotta Alfaia, R.G.; Costa, A.M.; Campos, J.C. Municipal solid waste in Brazil: A review. Waste Manag. Res.; 2017; 35, pp. 1195-1209. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734242X17735375] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29090660]
104. Ferronato, N.; Torretta, V. Waste mismanagement in developing countries: A review of global issues. Int. J. Eeviron. Res. Public Health; 2019; 16, 1060. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16061060] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30909625]
105. Chireshe, A.; Shabani, T.; Shabani, T. Safety and health risks associated with illegal municipal solid waste disposal in urban Zimbabwe. “A case of Masvingo City”. Saf. Extre Environ.; 2023; 5, pp. 243-252. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42797-023-00080-w]
106. Yaashikaa, P.R.; Kumar, P.S.; Nhung, T.C.; Hemavathy, R.V.; Jawahar, M.J.; Neshaanthini, J.P.; Rangasamy, G. A review on landfill system for municipal solid wastes: Insight into leachate, gas emissions, environmental and economic analysis. Chemosphere; 2022; 309, 136627. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.136627]
107. Pujara, Y.; Pathak, P.; Sharma, A.; Govani, J. Review on Indian Municipal Solid Waste Management practices for reduction of environmental impacts to achieve sustainable development goals. J. Environ. Manag.; 2019; 248, 109238. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.07.009] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31319199]
108. Siddiqua, A.; Hahladakis, J.N.; Al-Attiya, W.A.K. An overview of the environmental pollution and health effects associated with waste landfilling and open dumping. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2022; 29, pp. 58514-58536. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21578-z]
109. Meijer, L.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.; 2021; 7, 5803. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz5803]
110. Mai, L.; Sun, X.; Zeng, E.Y. Country-specific riverine contributions to marine plastic pollution. Sci. Total Environ.; 2023; 874, 162552. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162552] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36870495]
111. Ghumra, D.P.; Rathi, O.; Mule, T.A.; Khadye, V.S.; Chavan, A.; Barba, F.C.; Thorat, B.N. Technologies for valorization of municipal solid wastes. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefining; 2022; 16, pp. 877-890. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bbb.2340]
112. Nanda, S.; Berruti, F. Municipal solid waste management and landfilling technologies: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett.; 2021; 19, pp. 1433-1456. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-01100-y]
113. Kumar, A.; Samadder, S.R. A review on technological options of waste to energy for effective management of municipal solid waste. Waste Manag.; 2017; 69, pp. 407-422. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.08.046] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28886975]
114. Bosmans, A.; Vanderreydt, I.; Geysen, D.; Helsen, L. The crucial role of Waste-to-Energy technologies in enhanced landfill mining: A technology review. J. Clean. Prod.; 2013; 55, pp. 10-23. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.032]
115. Reig, M.; Vecino, X.; Valderrama, C.; Sirés, I.; Cortina, J.L. Waste-to-energy bottom ash management: Copper recovery by electrowinning. Sep. Purif. Technol.; 2023; 311, 123256. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2023.123256]
116. Patra, S.; Whaung, S.T.; Kwan, W.L. Analysis of heavy metals in Incineration Bottom Ash in Singapore and potential impact of pre-sorting on ash quality. Energy Procedia; 2017; 143, pp. 454-459. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.12.710]
117. Hoang, A.T.; Varbanov, P.S.; Nižetić, S.; Sirohi, R.; Pandey, A.; Luque, R.; Ng, K.H. Perspective review on Municipal Solid Waste-to-energy route: Characteristics, management strategy, and role in circular economy. J. Clean. Prod.; 2022; 359, 131897. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131897]
118. Tun, M.M.; Palacky, P.; Juchelkova, D.; Síťař, V. Renewable waste-to-energy in southeast Asia: Status, challenges, opportunities, and selection of waste-to-energy technologies. Appl. Sci.; 2020; 10, 7312. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app10207312]
119. NEA and Singapore. Refuse Disposal Facility. 2022; Available online: https://www.nea.gov.sg/our-services/waste-management/waste-management-infrastructure/refuse-disposal-facility (accessed on 18 November 2023).
120. Hui, N.X.; Wen, K.S.; Islam, M.S. Islam, Out of Sight, Out of Mind: The Invisible Society of Waste in Singapore. Nat. Cult.; 2023; 18, pp. 302-324. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3167/nc.2023.180304]
121. Yong, Z.J.; Bashir, M.J.; Ng, C.A.; Sethupathi, S.; Lim, J.W.; Show, P.L. Sustainable Waste-to-Energy Development in Malaysia: Appraisal of Environmental, Financial, and Public Issues Related with Energy Recovery from Municipal Solid Waste. Green Technologies; MDPI AG: Basel, Switzerland, 2020; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/books978-3-03936-520-3]
122. Tang, Y.Y.; Tang, K.H.D.; Maharjan, A.K.; Aziz, A.A.; Bunrith, S. Malaysia moving towards a sustainability municipal waste management. Ind. Domest. Waste Manag.; 2021; 1, pp. 26-40. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.53623/idwm.v1i1.51]
123. Fukuoka. Guide to Introducing the Fukuoka Method, Semi-Aerobic Landfill Method for Final Waste Disposal Site. 2020; Available online: https://www.pref.fukuoka.lg.jp/uploaded/life/640985_61334511_misc.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2023).
124. Menikpura, S.N.M.; Sang-Arun, J.; Bengtsson, M. Bengtsson, Assessment of environmental and economic performance of Waste-to-Energy facilities in Thai cities. Renew. Energy; 2016; 86, pp. 576-584. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2015.08.054]
125. Sutthasil, N.; Chiemchaisri, C.; Chiemchaisri, W.; Ishigaki, T.; Gheewala, S.H. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of emerging municipal solid waste management options: A case study in Thailand. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag.; 2023; 25, pp. 662-673. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10163-022-01584-6]
126. Menikpura, S.N.M.; Janya, S.A.; Bengtsson, M. Mechanical biological treatment as a solution for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from landfills in Thailand. Proceedings of the ISWA World Solid, Waste Congress; Florence, Italy, 17–19 September 2012; pp. 17-19.
127. Damayanti, P.; Moersidik, S.S.; Haryanto, J.T. Waste to energy in Sunter, Jakarta, Indonesia: Plans and challenges. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.; 2021; 940, 012033. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/940/1/012033]
128. Prihandoko, D.; Purnomo, C.W.; Widyaputra, P.K.; Nasirudin, N. Application of Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) Plant in Piyungan Landfill Municipal Solid Waste Management. ASEAN J. Chem. Eng.; 2022; 22, pp. 296-305. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22146/ajche.75560]
129. Harris, J. Waste to Energy in Indonesia: Opportunities and Challenges. 2020; Available online: https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/analysis/waste-to-energy-indonesia-opportunities-challenges (accessed on 20 November 2023).
130. CRE’Vietnam. Waste-to-Energy Trends in the World and Vietnam. 2022; 3.Available online: https://crevietnam.com/waste-to-energy-trends-in-the-world-and-vietnam/ (accessed on 21 November 2023).
131. Anonas, S.D.S.; Eugenio, F.D.T.; Flores, B.H.F.; Balite, P.H.M.; Tomacruz, J.G.T.; Limjuco, L.A.; Ocon, J.D. From Waste to Renewable Energy: A Policy Review on Waste-to-Energy in the Philippines. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 12963. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su151712963]
132. Thestar. Brunei Plans to Build Waste-to-Electricity Incinerator Plant. 2023; Available online: https://www.thestar.com.my/aseanplus/aseanplus-news/2023/03/20/brunei-plans-to-build-waste-to-electricity-incinerator-plant (accessed on 21 November 2023).
133. GGGI. KH09 Waste to Energy in Phnom Penh. 2019; Available online: https://gggi.org/project/project-reference-profiles-cambodia-kh09-green-growth-government-waste-to-energy-in-phnom-penh/ (accessed on 21 November 2023).
134. JFE. Opening Ceremony for Myanmar’s First Waste to Energy Plant. 2017; Available online: https://www.jfe-eng.co.jp/en/news/2017/20170410.html (accessed on 22 November 2023).
135. Ministry of Environment, Japan. Municipal Solid Waste Generation and Disposal in FY2021. 2023; Available online: https://www.env.go.jp/en/press/press_01276.html (accessed on 22 November 2023).
136. Honma, S.; Hu, J.L. Cost efficiency of recycling and waste disposal in Japan. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 284, 125274. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125274]
137. Ministry of Environment, Japan. Waste Management and Publish Cleaning Law. 1970; Available online: https://www.env.go.jp/en/recycle/basel_conv/files/Waste_Management_and_Public_Cleansing.pdf (accessed on 23 November 2023).
138. Cabinet. Act on the Promotion of Effective Utilization of Resources. 1991; Available online: https://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/hourei/data/peur_2.pdf (accessed on 23 November 2023).
139. Ministry of Environment, Japan. The Containers and Packaging Recycling Law. 1995; Available online: https://www.jcpra.or.jp/Portals/0/resource/association/pamph/pdf/law2003_eng.pdf (accessed on 23 November 2023).
140. Ministry of Environment, Japan. The Home Appliance Recycling Law. 2001; Available online: https://www.env.go.jp/content/900452888.pdf (accessed on 23 November 2023).
141. Ministry of Environment, Japan. Laws: Waste and Recycling. 2023; Available online: https://www.env.go.jp/en/laws/recycle/index.html (accessed on 23 November 2023).
142. Global Environment Centre Osaka, Japan. Laws and Support Systems for Promoting Waste Recycling in Japan. 2012; Available online: https://gec.jp/gec/en/Publications/LawSupportSystems.pdf (accessed on 23 November 2023).
143. Takiguchi, H.; Takemoto, K. Japanese 3R policies based on material flow analysis. J. Ind. Ecol.; 2008; 12, pp. 792-798. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00093.x]
144. Yoshida, H.; Shimamura, K.; Aizawa, H. 3R strategies for the establishment of an international sound material-cycle society. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag.; 2007; 9, pp. 101-111. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10163-007-0177-x]
145. Ministry of Environment, Japan. Japan’s Experience in Promotion of the 3Rs for the Establishment of a Sound Material-Cycle Society. 2005; Available online: https://www.env.go.jp/recycle/3r/en/approach/02.pdf (accessed on 25 November 2023).
146. Miyazaki, M.; Une, H. Infectious waste management in Japan: A revised regulation and a management process in medical institutions. Waste Manag.; 2005; 25, pp. 616-621. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2005.01.003]
147. Ministry of Environment, Japan. Municipal Solid Waste Generation and Disposal in FY2020. 2022; Available online: https://www.env.go.jp/en/headline/2595.html (accessed on 25 November 2023).
148. He, J.; Hong, Y.; Kong, L.; Dan, Z.; Lv, X.; Chen, G.; Chen, D. Spatial distribution and management of the energy potential of municipal solid waste incineration: A case study of Lhasa, China. J. Environ. Manag.; 2022; 322, 116094. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116094]
149. Zhou, Z.; Zhang, L. Sustainable waste management and waste to energy: Valuation of energy potential of MSW in the Greater Bay Area of China. Energy Policy.; 2022; 163, 112857. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112857]
150. TsuCity. Waste Sorting Guidebook. 2017; Available online: https://www.info.city.tsu.mie.jp/www/contents/1459404515387/simple/eigo.pdf (accessed on 27 November 2023).
151. Sasebo. Waste Separation and Sorting Tables. 2023; Available online: https://www.city.sasebo.lg.jp/languages/english/documents/r05-e-west.pdf (accessed on 27 November 2023).
152. Yamaya, S. Municipal Waste Policy in Japan. 2015; Available online: http://www2.toyo.ac.jp/~yamaya/municipal%20waste%20policy%20in%20Japan.pdf (accessed on 27 November 2023).
153. Hiroshima. Household Waste Disposal Guidelines. 2022; Available online: https://www.city.hiroshima.lg.jp/site/english/250520.html (accessed on 27 November 2023).
154. Chifari, R.; Piano, S.L.; Matsumoto, S.; Tasaki, T. Does recyclable separation reduce the cost of municipal waste management in Japan?. Waste Manag.; 2017; 60, pp. 32-41. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.01.015] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28119039]
155. Ministry of Environment, Japan. History and Current State of Waste Management in Japan. 2014; Available online: https://www.env.go.jp/content/900453392.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2023).
156. Siniawer, E.M. Waste: Consuming Postwar Japan; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2018.
157. Hara, K.; Yabar, H. Historical evolution and development of waste management and recycling systems—Analysis of Japan’s experiences. J. Environ. Stud. Sci.; 2012; 2, pp. 296-307. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0094-8]
158. Yoshida, H.; Takahashi, K.; Takeda, N.; Sakai, S.I. Japan’s waste management policies for dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag.; 2009; 11, pp. 229-243. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10163-008-0235-z]
159. Yoshida, F. The Economics of Waste and Pollution Management in Japan. 2013; Available online: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-4-431-67032-2 (accessed on 30 November 2023).
160. Shim, Y.S.; Rhee, S.W.; Lee, W.K. Comparison of leaching characteristics of heavy metals from bottom and fly ashes in Korea and Japan. Waste Manag.; 2005; 25, pp. 473-480. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2005.03.002] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15925757]
161. Kataoka, T.; Nihei, Y.; Kudou, K.; Hinata, H. Assessment of the sources and inflow processes of microplastics in the river environments of Japan. Environ. Pollut.; 2019; 244, pp. 958-965. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.111]
162. Kabir, A.E.; Sekine, M. Wastewater treatment plants elevating microplastic abundances, ecological risks, and loads in Japanese rivers: A source-to-sink perspective. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2023; 30, pp. 96499-96514. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-29278-y]
163. Murphy, F.; Ewins, C.; Carbonnier, F.; Quinn, B. Wastewater treatment works (WwTW) as a source of microplastics in the aquatic environment. Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2016; 50, pp. 5800-5808. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b05416]
164. Japan-Product. Solid Waste Management and Recycling Technology of Japan. 2015; Available online: https://japan-product.com/waste-management-recycling-technology-japan/ (accessed on 3 December 2023).
165. Ministry of Environment, Japan. Solid Waste Management and Recycling Technology of Japan (Toward a Sustainable Society Toward a Sustainable Society). 2012; Available online: https://www.env.go.jp/content/900453393.pdf (accessed on 3 December 2023).
166. Ogawa, A.; Ono, S.; Onoda, H. Environmental and economic evaluation of mechanical biological treatment system for municipal waste considering the political framework in ichihara city. Appl. Sci.; 2021; 11, 10296. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app112110296]
167. Ogawa, A.; Pandyaswargo, A.H.; Yoshidome, D.; Onoda, H. Environmental and economic evaluation of a mechanical biological treatment system for a small and medium-sized waste treatment facility considering the karatsu smart disaster-resilience base construction project. Int. J. Autom. Technol.; 2020; 14, pp. 984-998. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.20965/ijat.2020.p0984]
168. Ogawa, A.; Pandyaswargo, A.H.; Tsubouchi, R.; Onoda, H. Demonstration of a contactless waste collection system: A Japanese case study. IET Smart Cities; 2023; 5, pp. 303-316. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1049/smc2.12065]
169. Wei, Y.; Shimaoka, T.; Saffarzadeh, A.; Takahashi, F. Mineralogical characterization of municipal solid waste incineration bottom ash with an emphasis on heavy metal-bearing phases. J. Hazard. Mater.; 2011; 187, pp. 534-543. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.01.070]
170. Tabata, T.; Wakabayashi, Y.; Tsai, P.; Saeki, T. Environmental and economic evaluation of pre-disaster plans for disaster waste management: Case study of Minami-Ise, Japan. Waste Manag.; 2017; 61, pp. 386-396. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.12.020] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28027813]
171. Ng, C.H.; Mistoh, M.A.; Teo, S.H.; Galassi, A.; Ibrahim, A.; Sipaut, C.S.; Janaun, J. Plastic waste and microplastic issues in Southeast Asia. Front. Environ. Sci.; 2023; 11, 427. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1142071]
172. Luo, H.; Cheng, Y.; He, D.; Yang, E.H. Review of leaching behavior of municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) ash. Sci. Total Environ.; 2019; 668, pp. 90-103. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.004]
173. Rezvani Ghomi, E.; Khosravi, F.; Tahavori, M.A.; Ramakrishna, S. Circular economy: A comparison between the case of Singapore and France. Mater. Circ. Econ.; 2021; 3, pp. 1-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42824-020-00016-w]
174. Rahman, M.M.; Nizam, F.S.; Yusof, I.M.; Asli, R.A. Environmental impact of construction waste. AIP Conf. Proc.; 2023; 2643, 030018. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/5.0111220]
175. Pheakdey, D.V.; Quan, N.V.; Xuan, T.D. Economic and Environmental Benefits of Energy Recovery from Municipal Solid Waste in Phnom Penh Municipality, Cambodia. Energies; 2023; 16, 3234. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en16073234]
176. Xaypanya, P.; Takemura, J.; Chiemchaisri, C.; Seingheng, H.; Tanchuling, M.A.N. Characterization of landfill leachates and sediments in major cities of indochina peninsular countries—Heavy metal partitioning in municipal solid waste leachate. Environments; 2018; 5, 65. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/environments5060065]
177. Tun, T.Z.; Kunisue, T.; Tanabe, S.; Prudente, M.; Subramanian, A.; Sudaryanto, A.; Nakata, H. Microplastics in dumping site soils from six Asian countries as a source of plastic additives. Sci. Total Environ.; 2022; 806, 150912. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150912] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34666090]
178. Triyono, B.; Prawisudha, P.; Pasek, A.D.; Mardiyati, M. Study on utilization of Indonesian non-recycled municipal solid waste as renewable solid fuel. in AIP Conference Proceedings. AIP Conf. Proc.; 2018; 1984, 020004. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.5046588]
179. Abidin, A.U.; Maziya, F.B.; Susetyo, S.H.; Yoneda, M.; Matsui, Y. Exposure particulate matter (PM2. 5) and health risk assessment on informal workers in landfill site, Indonesia. Environ. Chall.; 2023; 13, 100795. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2023.100795]
180. Sulistyowati, L.; Nurhasanah, N.; Riani, E.; Cordova, M.R. Heavy metals concentration in the sediment of the aquatic environment caused by the leachate discharge from a landfill. Glob. J. Environ. Sci. Manag.; 2023; 9, pp. 323-336. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22034/gjesm.2023.02.11]
181. Noudeng, V.; Van Quan, N.; Xuan, T.D.; Vathanamixay, C.; Souvanna, P. Risk Assessment of Microplastics Dispersion and Accumulation in Urban Canals to the Water Environment in Vientiane Capital, Laos. Water Air Soil. Pollut.; 2023; 234, 575. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11270-023-06587-z]
182. Vongdala, N.; Tran, H.D.; Xuan, T.D.; Teschke, R.; Khanh, T.D. Heavy Metal Accumulation in Water, Soil, and Plants of Municipal Solid Waste Landfill in Vientiane, Laos. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2019; 16, 22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16010022] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30577663]
183. Babel, S.; Vilaysouk, X. Greenhouse gas emissions from municipal solid waste management in Vientiane, Lao PDR. Waste Manag. Res.; 2016; 34, pp. 30-37. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734242X15615425] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26608899]
184. Chua, H.S.; Bashir, M.J.K.; Tan, K.T.; Chua, H.S. A sustainable pyrolysis technology for the treatment of municipal solid waste in Malaysia. AIP Conf. Proc.; 2019; 2124, 020016. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.5117076]
185. Abd Ghafar, S.W. Food Waste in Malaysia: Trends, Current Practices and Key Challenges. 2017; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326197665_Food_Waste_in_Malaysia_Trends_Current_Practices_and_Key_Challenges (accessed on 10 December 2023).
186. Fauziah, S.H.; Rizman-Idid, M.; Cheah, W.; Loh, K.H.; Sharma, S.; NoorMaiza, M.R.; George, M. Marine debris in Malaysia: A review on the pollution intensity and mitigating measures. Mar. Pollut. Bull.; 2021; 167, 112258. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112258] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33839567]
187. Kamaruddin, M.A.; Yusoff, M.S.; Rui, L.M.; Isa, A.M.; Zawawi, M.H.; Alrozi, R. An overview of municipal solid waste management and landfill leachate treatment: Malaysia and Asian perspectives. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2017; 24, pp. 26988-27020. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0303-9]
188. Tun, M.M.; Juchelkova, D. Assessment of solid waste generation and greenhouse gas emission potential in Yangon city, Myanmar. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag.; 2018; 20, pp. 1397-1408. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10163-017-0697-y]
189. Premakumara, D.G.J. Waste Management in Myanmar: Current Status, Key Challenges and Recommendations for National and City Waste Management Strategies. 2017; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331332872 (accessed on 11 December 2023).
190. Premakumara, D.G.J.; Menikpura, S.N.M.; Singh, R.K.; Hengesbaugh, M.; Magalang, A.A.; Ildefonso, E.T.; Silva, L.C. Reduction of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs) from municipal solid waste management (MSWM) in the Philippines: Rapid review and assessment. Waste Manag.; 2018; 80, pp. 397-405. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.09.036]
191. Wang, S.; Han, Z.; Wang, J.; He, X.; Zhou, Z.; Hu, X. Environmental risk assessment and factors influencing heavy metal concentrations in the soil of municipal solid waste landfills. Waste Manag.; 2022; 139, pp. 330-340. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.11.036] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35007953]
192. Pongpunpurt, P.; Muensitthiroj, P.; Pinitjitsamut, P.; Chuenchum, P.; Painmanakul, P.; Chawaloesphonsiya, N.; Poyai, T. Studying waste separation behaviors and environmental impacts toward sustainable solid waste management: A case study of bang chalong housing, samut prakan, Thailand. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 5040. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14095040]
193. Saengchut, P.; Viriya, H.; Kongritti, N. Source Apportionment of Microplastics in Environment from Sanitary Landfill-A Case Study of Muangpak Municipality Landfill, Thailand. J. Ecol. Eng.; 2024; 25, 175410. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12911/22998993/175410] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38530358]
194. Muttamara, S.; Leong, S.T. Environmental monitoring and impact assessment of a solid waste disposal site. Environ. Monit. Assess.; 1997; 48, pp. 1-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1005744601984]
195. Thanh, N.P.; Matsui, Y. Assessment of potential impacts of municipal solid waste treatment alternatives by using life cycle approach: A case study in Vietnam. Environ. Monit. Assess.; 2013; 185, pp. 7993-8004. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-013-3149-8] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23475528]
196. Linh, H.N.; Komiya, T.; Nakayama, H.; Shimaoka, T. Current state of solid waste landfill management and heavy rain impacts on leachate: Case study in Vietnam. J. Jpn. Soc. Civ. Eng.; 2020; 76, pp. 287-298. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2208/jscejer.76.7_III_287] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36755251]
197. Globe, Japan. ASEAN Counts on Blue Economy to Help Members Upgrade Income Status. 2023; Available online: https://jakartaglobe.id/business/asean-counts-on-blue-economy-to-help-members-upgrade-income-status. (accessed on 15 December 2023).
198. International Monetary Fund. GDP per Capita, Current Prices. 2023; Available online: https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPDPC@WEO/THA/MYS/SGP/PHL/IDN/BRN (accessed on 15 December 2023).
199. NEA. Waste Statistics and Overall Recycling. 2023; Available online: https://www.nea.gov.sg/our-services/waste-management/waste-statistics-and-overall-recycling (accessed on 15 December 2023).
200. Fazeli, A.; Bakhtvar, F.; Jahanshaloo, L.; Sidik, N.A.C.; Bayat, A.E. Malaysia’s stand on municipal solid waste conversion to energy: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2016; 58, pp. 1007-1016. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.270]
201. Le, P.G.; Le, H.A.; Dinh, X.T.; Nguyen, K.L.P. Development of Sustainability Assessment Criteria in Selection of Municipal Solid Waste Treatment Technology in Developing Countries: A Case of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 7917. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15107917]
202. Estay-Ossandon, C.; Mena-Nieto, A. Modelling the driving forces of the municipal solid waste generation in touristic islands. A case study of the Balearic Islands (2000–2030). Waste Manag.; 2018; 75, pp. 70-81. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.12.029]
203. Sharma, R.; Kumar, A. Determinants of quantification of tourism waste in the hilly terrain of Himalayas: A spatial approach. Waste Manag.; 2023; 166, pp. 46-57. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2023.04.039] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37148781]
204. Titah, P. Brunei Darussalam National Climate Change Policy. 2020; Available online: http://www.mod.gov.bn/Shared%20Documents/BCCS/Brunei%20National%20Climate%20Change%20Policy.pdf (accessed on 16 December 2023).
205. Wang, Y.; Karasik, R.; Virdin, J. Indonesia, UNEP Law and Environment Assistance Platform. 2021; Available online: https://leap.unep.org/en/countries/id/case-studies/indonesia (accessed on 17 December 2023).
206. Tun, M.M.; Juchelková, D. Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions: An alternative approach to waste management for reducing the environmental impacts in Myanmar. Environ. Eng. Res.; 2019; 24, pp. 618-629. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4491/eer.2018.364]
207. DENR. National Solid Waste Management Status Report 2008–2018. 2018; Available online: https://emb.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/National-Solid-Waste-Management-Status-Report-2008-2018.pdf (accessed on 18 December 2023).
208. NEA. 3R Programmes and Resources. 2023; Available online: https://www.nea.gov.sg/our-services/waste-management/3r-programmes-and-resources/food-waste-management (accessed on 18 December 2023).
209. Kojima, M.; Michida, E. International Trade in Recyclable and Hazardous Waste in Asia; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2013; 30.
210. Inanc, B.; Inoue, Y.; Yamada, M. Substainable Landfilling and Mechanical Biological Treatment of MSW: A Japanese View. Proc. Int. Symp. MBT.; 2005; 131, Available online: http://www.wasteconsult.net/files/downloads/2005-11%20Inanc-MBT2005__SR.pdf (accessed on 14 June 2024).
211. Qian, Y.; Hu, P.; Lang-Yona, N.; Xu, M.; Guo, C.; Gu, J.D. Global landfill leachate characteristics: Occurrences and abundances of environmental contaminants and the microbiome. J. Hazard. Mater.; 2024; 461, 132446. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.132446] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37729713]
212. Mandpe, A.; Bhattacharya, A.; Gedam, V.V.; Paliya, S.; Hussain, A.; Kumar, S. A life cycle analysis-based comprehensive study on municipal solid waste management: A case study of Central India. Environ. Dev. Sustain.; 2023; pp. 1-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03548-8]
213. Ma, S.; Zhou, C.; Pan, J.; Yang, G.; Sun, C.; Liu, Y.; Zhao, Z. Leachate from municipal solid waste landfills in a global perspective: Characteristics, influential factors and environmental risks. J. Clean. Prod.; 2022; 333, 130234. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130234]
214. Kumar, V.; Sharma, N.; Umesh, M.; Chakraborty, P.; Kaur, K.; Duhan, L.; Maitra, S.S. Micropollutants characteristics, fate, and sustainable removal technologies for landfill leachate: A technical perspective. J. Water Process Eng.; 2023; 53, 103649. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2023.103649]
215. Kwarciak-Kozłowska, A. Microplastics in Landfill Leachate: Flow and Transport. Microplastics in the Ecosphere: Air, Water, Soil, and Food; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2023; pp. 177-187. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119879534.ch11]
216. Cordova, M.R.; Riani, E. Micro-and mesoplastics release from the Indonesian municipal solid waste landfill leachate to the aquatic environment: Case study in Galuga Landfill Area, Indonesia. Mar. Pollut. Bull.; 2021; 163, 111986. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.111986]
217. Ramadan, B.S.; Rosmalina, R.T.; Khair, H.; Rachman, I.; Matsumoto, T. Potential Risks of Open Waste Burning at the Household Level: A Case Study of Semarang, Indonesia. Aerosol Air Qual. Res.; 2023; 23, 220412. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.220412]
218. Hiponia, R.J.; Ubas, R.G.; Mahilum, C.; Amores, V.; Jucalla, R.A.; Andico, M.J.; Teodoro, F. Characterization and toxicological evaluation of leachate from Bacolod city sanitary landfill using tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus): A preliminary study. E3S Web. Conf.; 2021; 240, 01007. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202124001007]
219. Nhien, H.T.H.; Giao, N.T. Assessment of pollution levels and ecological potential risk of the soil influenced by landfilling in a Vietnamese Mekong Delta province. Sci. Total Environ.; 2022; 845, 157263. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157263] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35835197]
220. Khin, J.J.; Lwin, A.A.; Thu, M.K.; Naing, K. Some metal contents in sea water and sediment sample around chaung tha area in Ayeyarwady region, Myanmar. J. Mayanmar Acad. Arts Sci.; 2018; 16, pp. 15-29.
221. Wiedinmyer, C.; Yokelson, R.J.; Gullett, B.K. Global emissions of trace gases, particulate matter, and hazardous air pollutants from open burning of domestic waste. Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2014; 48, pp. 9523-9530. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es502250z] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25019173]
222. Salami, L.; Popoola, L.T. A Comprehensive Review of Atmospheric Air Pollutants Assessment Around Landfill Sites. Air Soil. Water Res.; 2023; 16, 11786221221145379. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/11786221221145379]
223. Aendo, P.; Netvichian, R.; Thiendedsakul, P.; Khaodhiar, S.; Tulayakul, P. Carcinogenic risk of Pb, Cd, Ni, and Cr and critical ecological risk of Cd and Cu in soil and groundwater around the municipal solid waste open dump in central Thailand. J. Environ. Public Health; 2022; 2022, 3062215. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/3062215]
224. Ismanto, A.; Hadibarata, T.; Widada, S.; Indrayanti, E.; Ismunarti, D.H.; Safinatunnajah, N.; Alkahtani, J. Groundwater contamination status in Malaysia: Level of heavy metal, source, health impact, and remediation technologies. Bioprocess. Biosyst. Eng.; 2023; 46, pp. 467-482. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00449-022-02826-5]
225. Tan, R.B.; Khoo, H.H. Impact assessment of waste management options in Singapore. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc.; 2006; 56, pp. 244-254. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2006.10464463]
226. Qin, J.; Zhang, Y.; Heberlein, S.; Lisak, G.; Yi, Y. Characterization and comparison of gasification and incineration fly ashes generated from municipal solid waste in Singapore. Waste Manag.; 2022; 146, pp. 44-52. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2022.04.041]
227. Dotse, S.Q.; Dagar, L.; Petra, M.I.; De Silva, L.C. Evaluation of national emissions inventories of anthropogenic air pollutants for Brunei Darussalam. Atmos. Environ.; 2016; 133, pp. 81-92. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.03.024]
228. Ahmad, A. Islamic attitudes towards environmental problems and practices: A case study of the muslim community in brunei darussalam. Worldviews Glob. Relig. Cult. Ecol.; 2015; 19, pp. 209-225. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15685357-01903001]
229. Noudeng, V.; Pheakdey, D.V.; Xuan, T.D. Toxic heavy metals in a landfill environment (Vientiane, Laos): Fish species and associated health risk assessment. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol.; 2024; 108, 104460. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2024.104460]
230. Franco-García, M.L.; Carpio-Aguilar, J.C.; Bressers, H. Towards Zero Waste, Circular Economy Boost: Waste to Resources. Towards Zero Waste; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 1-8. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92931-6_1]
231. NCCS. Waste and Water, Combatting Waste Emissions. 2024; Available online: https://www.nccs.gov.sg/singapores-climate-action/mitigation-efforts/wasteandwater/ (accessed on 23 December 2023).
232. NEA. Tuas Nexus—Singapore’s First Integrated Water and Solid Waste Treatment Facility Begins Construction. 2020; Available online: https://www.nea.gov.sg/media/news/news/index/tuas-nexus-singapore-s-first-integrated-water-and-solid-waste-treatment-facility-begins-construction (accessed on 25 December 2023).
233. Jacob, P.; Kashyap, P.; Visvanathan, C. Overview of municipal solid waste—Waste-to-energy in Thailand. Proceedings of the International Brainstorming on Waste to Energy in India; Mumbai, India, 12 September 2013; 25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3328.2081]
234. Tan, S.T.; Ho, W.S.; Hashim, H.; Lee, C.T.; Taib, M.R.; Ho, C.S. Energy, economic and environmental (3E) analysis of waste-to-energy (WTE) strategies for municipal solid waste (MSW) management in Malaysia. Energy Convers. Manag.; 2015; 102, pp. 111-120. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2015.02.010]
235. Aja, O.C.; Al-Kayiem, H.H. Review of municipal solid waste management options in Malaysia, with an emphasis on sustainable waste-to-energy options. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag.; 2014; 16, pp. 693-710. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10163-013-0220-z]
236. Hoang, N.H.; Fogarassy, C. Sustainability evaluation of municipal solid waste management system for Hanoi (Vietnam)—Why to choose the ‘Waste-to-Energy’concept. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 1085. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12031085]
237. Romianingsih, N.P.W. Waste to energy in Indonesia: Opportunities and challenges. J. Sustain. Soc. Eco-Welf.; 2023; 1, pp. 60-69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.61511/jssew.v1i1.2023.180]
238. Ghisellini, P.; Cialani, C.; Ulgiati, S. A review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 114, pp. 11-32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007]
239. Herrador, M.; de Jong, W.; Nasu, K.; Granrath, L. Circular economy and zero-carbon strategies between Japan and South Korea: A comparative study. Sci. Total Environ.; 2022; 820, 153274. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153274]
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Pheakdey, Dek Vimean 2
; Tran Thi Ngoc Minh 3 ; Tran, Dang Xuan 4
1 Transdisciplinary Science and Engineering Program, Graduate School of Advanced Science and Engineering, Hiroshima University, 1-5-1 Kagamiyama, Hiroshima 739-8529, Japan; Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Dongnasok-Nong Beuk Road, P.O. Box 7864, Vientiane 0117, Laos
2 Transdisciplinary Science and Engineering Program, Graduate School of Advanced Science and Engineering, Hiroshima University, 1-5-1 Kagamiyama, Hiroshima 739-8529, Japan; Department of Hazardous Substances Management, Ministry of Environment, Phnom Penh 120101, Cambodia
3 Victory Christian Academy, 810 Buena Vista Way, Chula Vista, CA 91910, USA
4 Transdisciplinary Science and Engineering Program, Graduate School of Advanced Science and Engineering, Hiroshima University, 1-5-1 Kagamiyama, Hiroshima 739-8529, Japan; Center for the Planetary Health and Innovation Science (PHIS), The IDEC Institute, Hiroshima University, 1-5-1 Kagamiyama, Hiroshima 739-8529, Japan