Next Article in Journal
Investigation of Mono-Crystalline Photovoltaic Active Cooling Thermal System for Hot Climate of Pakistan
Previous Article in Journal
Smart Waste Management and Classification Systems Using Cutting Edge Approach
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Bibliometric Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste Management Research: Global and South African Trends

Department of Geography, Environmental Management and Energy Studies, Auckland Park Kingsway Campus, University of Johannesburg, P.O. Box 524, Auckland Park, Johannesburg 2006, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(16), 10229; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610229
Submission received: 22 June 2022 / Revised: 12 August 2022 / Accepted: 14 August 2022 / Published: 17 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Topic Solid Waste Management)

Abstract

:
Municipal solid waste management has become one of the most important environmental management issues around the world. In this study, a bibliometric analysis of the literature related to municipal solid waste management from a global and South African perspective was performed using the software, VOSviewer. Relevant scientific literature was sourced from the Scopus database. Results showed that, globally, articles based on this topic started during the 1968–1969 period, whereas in South Africa such articles only appeared in 1996. The keyword analysis showed that most studies were related to waste-to-energy technologies, waste treatment, and other management aspects. Globally, emerging keywords representing new research areas were COVID 19-related waste streams, life-cycle assessments, and the role of municipal solid waste management in the circular economy. In contrast, South Africa’s prominent keywords were municipal solid waste, developing country, landfills, waste treatment, waste-to-energy technologies, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and others. Based on these results, and possible solutions to reduce the amounts of MSW generation rates, recommendations are made to bring South African research on par with international trends.

1. Introduction

Globally, the generation of municipal solid waste (MSW) is on the rise as a result of rapid population growth, increased economic development and industrialiasation, urbanization, and growing consumerism in society [1,2,3,4,5]. The total MSW generated in Central Asia and Europe amounted to 392 million tons in 2016, and this amount is projected to increase to 440 million tons in 2030, thus representing an increase of approximately 11% [6]. North America generated about 289 million tons of MSW in 2016, and this is expected to increase by 21% in 2030. However, these amounts are relatively lesser in some of the developing regions. For example, the Sub-Saharan African (SSA) region produced only 174 million tons of MSW in 2016, with a projected growth of 269 million tons in 2030 [6].
MSW has a complex composition and usually emanates from households and commercial enterprises. MSW comprises different types of paper, bottles, plastics, as well as garden wastes, discarded foods, furniture, clothes, appliances, and even batteries [2,4,7,8,9]. To reduce the adverse and harmful nature of this waste stream, it is imperative to manage it effectively from its origin to the point of its final disposal or treatment or recycling. MSW is an intricate procedure and involves many steps, such as waste collection transport routes, temporary storage points, waste treatment, disposal, as well as energy recovery strategies, and recycling, the prime purpose being to enhance environmental protection, public health, and the need to comply with local government regulatory requirements [1,10,11]. Effective solid waste management is also one of the issues that are relevant in reaching the targets for the Sustainable Development Goal 11 of the United Nations, which involves working towards the attainment of sustainable cities and communities [12]. Similarly, Sustainable Development Goal 12 seeks to ensure that member countries will substantially reduce their waste generation rates through prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse of wastes [12].
In many of the developed countries, both national and local governments have succeeded in implementing effective measures to attain the goals of municipal solid waste management (MSWM), apart from a growing impetus towards waste minimization by means of treatment, recovery, and recycling. In Sweden and Denmark, major strides towards waste treatment and recycling have been achieved. Over 1.6 million tons of solid waste was landfilled in Sweden in 1975, whereas in 2012 this amount reduced to 32,000 tons, which is a significant decline that is traceable to effective legislation and regulation, enforcement of the polluter-must pay principle, waste separation at source by citizens, increased environmental awareness, economic incentives, and advanced technical and technological skills [13]. Moreover, of the 4.4 million tons of MSW generated in 2012, 51% was transformed into heat and electricity through combustion. In Denmark, 53% of the total waste generated is incinerated, 24% is recycled, and 18% is composted for the same reasons as in other Nordic countries [13]. Although Denmark has a very limited area, it is the greenest country as they are limiting land filling to 4% of the incoming MSW [14]. Implementation of environmental education, laws, and taxes have led to a reduction in landfilling and an increase in MSW recycling and energy recovery in Sweden [15]. Moreover, about 80% of the waste in Norway sent for incineration was used for energy recovery [16].
By great contrast, MSW is beset with many implementation challenges, institutional barriers, and the lack of finances and skills in developing countries. Reuse, recycling, and recovery policy in SSA has been slow, and land filling in dump sites remains a dominant way of disposing waste, especially in large urban centers due to poorly planned urbanization, and limited infrastructure [17]. Inevitably, urban areas in SSA are experiencing ineffective waste management because of generally poor municipal services. In addition, there is lack of MSWM and only 60% of the population receives collection services [17,18], thereby rendering the indiscriminate or illegal dumping of waste in the streets and open spaces in countries such as Nigeria and Malawi almost unavoidable [17].
Despite being a developing country, South Africa is one of the biggest producers of MSW in the world [2,17]. In 2012, South Africa generated approximately 108 million tons of waste, of which about 10% was recycled [17]. Therefore, low waste minimization is still a major challenge to be circumvented across many cities in the country. Effective waste management is constrained by several factors, such as rapid urbanization and the increasing influx of migrants into the major metropolitan areas [19], limited landfill space, discrepancies in the quality of MSWM between rural and urban areas as well as between townships, peri-urban areas and high-income residential settlements, lack of a skilled workforce, and poor implementation challenges [18].
In the light of the aforementioned literature findings, it can be seen that a literature analysis of the topic of MSWM requires increased prioritization and understanding, not only in the whole world, but also in South Africa where there are many implementation pitfalls, as well as limited institutional capacity and financial resources to deal with this problem. Because of this, it is essential to keep track of the geographical distribution of MSWM knowledge generation and research trends. One way to resolve this task is by conducting a bibliometric analysis of the existing knowledge on MSWM globally and in South Africa. Bibliometric analysis is a very useful tool to quantify such trends and distributions. However, it must be mentioned that the technique is not new and has been used since the 1970s, although it has gained more popularity in the present times [20]. The availability of various databases such as scopus, dimensions, and web of science have made bibliometric analysis relatively doable, and therefore it is not surprising to witness an increased proliferation of research into the mapping and analyses of knowledge landscapes and research priorities. Moreover, there is an increase in bibliometric analyses across many sectors such as the circular economy, energy supply and conservation research, construction, and the environment [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31]. In this paper, a bibliometric analysis was employed on selected keywords with the objective of determining trends, patterns, and gaps in the knowledge about MSWM.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection

The bibliometric analysis in the present study was derived from data in the scopus database. The MSWM keyword was used to extract data from this database. The search was done by considering article titles, abstracts, and keywords. However, some filters were applied to only include articles in English and from the Environmental Sciences discipline. However, no filter was applied on the year of publication, thus enabling a longitudinal trajectory in the study of this topic. In addition, only articles (including articles in press) were included. This process was repeated in a second search, but this time the search was limited to South Africa.

2.2. Data Processsing

The data were then exported in the comma-separated values (CSV) format and further cleaned to remove duplicate entries, irrelevant articles, or articles with incomplete references. Subsequently, it was then viewed by VOSviewer as described by Sarquah [20].

2.3. Data Analysis

The number of articles, authors with the most publications, countries that are leading in scientific production, and the co-occurrence of keywords were amongst some of the parameters that were analysed using VOSviewer. The VOSviewer software is known for its high-quality visualization characteristics and end-user-friendliness. It also provides homogenous mapping and clustering of data (Figure 1) [32].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Municipal Solid Waste Management in the World

Based on the results obtained from the literature search and analyses, 7374 articles linked to MSWM were generated from the scopus database. Globally, in the following years—1968, 1969, and 1974—only one paper was published annually, respectively (Figure 2). However, from the year 1981 onwards, the number of published papers increased exponentially (Figure 2). This trend may be attributed to the rapidly growing importance of MSWM challenges that are facing many countries. Some European countries had to deal with challenges such as limited landfill space and the threat of environmental pollution on water bodies, climate change risks, and public health concerns [8]. Landfilling was no longer regarded as a viable strategy to deal with increasing volumes of MSW; therefore, alternative solutions had to be investigated, including waste minimization in the form of charging landfill fees, economic incentives, waste treatment, reuse, recovery, and recycling [14]. In a way, such a change in the direction of waste management was leading to the introduction of a circular economy (CE). According to Pires and Martinho [33], a CE includes reuse, refurbishment, and remanufacturing, or reducing, reusing and recycling of waste materials [34]. In North America, working towards a CE has prioritized waste reduction over the traditional waste disposal by landfilling [35]. Similarly, there is also great impetus for the creation of the CE in countries such as China and Japan [11]. In some countries, the carbon footprint is used as a tool for evaluating the CE [36]. The recycling of mixed paper, plastics, and organic wastes in the industrial production of materials can reduce CO2 emissions that are negatively implicated in global warming [37]. The analysis of academic articles on resource retention options showed some variations in the CE operationalization principle [38].
The individual performance of countries is shown in Figure 3. Nearly 137 out of 195 countries have contributed to the body of knowledge focused on MSWM. Notably, some of the countries within this 137 are developing countries such as Ghana, Malawi, Namibia, Rwanda, and Senegal, although they were contributing only one article each. However, countries in the developed regions have contributed the most in the existing body of MSWM knowledge (Figure 3).
In total, 201 countries have contributed to the existing research on MSWM. However, only 113 countries had a minimum of at least two research outputs (Figure 4). Countries with the greatest number of contributions are the USA (1004), China (976), Italy (593), Spain (434), UK (366), Canada (359), and Germany (266). Other articles came from developing countries such as India (592), Iran (179), Thailand (131), Nigeria (72), South Africa (61), and Indonesia (44) (Figure 5). Some of the countries with the least number of publications were North Korea and Congo with three and two documents, respectively (Figure 4).
Based on the results, a high number of documents per country does not necessarily mean high citations (Table 1). In this study, only seven out of the fifteen countries with most documents had higher citations. For instance, the USA had 1004 publications with approximately 35,206 citations. Similarly, China’s 976 documents attracted 29,062 citations. Italy’s 593 documents had 20,200 citations, meanwhile India’s 592 articles had 13,196 citations. By contrast, Spain, UK, Germany, France, Sweden, Iran, and Australia had relatively lesser publications but more citations (Table 1).
The size of the circle or the circumference of the spheres in Figure 4 is dependent on the number of the occurrence of certain keywords [39]. In Cluster I, Italy has the biggest circle. In Cluster II, Japan has the biggest circle. The biggest circle in Cluster III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and XI belong to Brazil, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, Iran, China, India, Israel, and the USA, respectively. Saudi Arabia and Malaysia had the biggest circles in Cluster XII and XIII (Figure 4).
In terms of research linkages or collaborations with other countries, the USA and the United Kingdom (UK) had most linkages with 64 and 63 other countries, respectively. They were followed by China (59), Germany (55), India (50), Italy (47), France (42), Spain (39), Canada (37), and Japan (36). The 64 links observed for the USA were between countries such as France, UK, Japan, Netherlands, Germany, India, Turkey, Canada, and South Africa. Interestingly, among these countries, the UK had the highest links (63) (Figure 5). Linkages were observed between USA, Australia, China, and India. Notably, some links were also found between Bangladesh and Thailand. Spain was linked to countries such as Argentina, Poland, Czech Republic, Portugal, and Mexico (Figure 4).
Furthermore, Bangladesh, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, and Malaysia collaborated on COVID-19-related personal protective equipment (PPE) waste research [40]. They have suggested incineration to reduce the increase in PPE wastes. Researchers from Canada, North Korea, and the USA investigated the potential of converting cardboard waste into lactic acid. Thus, cardboard waste can be an important source for producing lactic acid and has associated economic benefits based on technoeconomic analysis [41]. Since cardboard forms part of MSW, this study is of particular interest because waste conversion practices and resource recovery are very important for a sustainable bioeconomy.
Researchers from Sri Lanka and India developed a user interface tool that uses Google Earth to establish spatial information relevant for the siting of alternative dumping sites [42]. The Chinese–North Korean collaboration has created a model for urban biowaste management. The model performed optimally, and important policy recommendations were suggested [43]. Poorly planned urbanization is linked to illegal solid waste disposal and water pollution. This promoted a rapid impact assessment matrix for urban water shed management by researchers from Brazil and Canada [44]. Their results showed that by using rapid impact assessment matrix, the negative impacts on urban water streams as a result of urbanization can be reduced. The Japanese–Thailand collaboration has investigated the effects of compost bin design, design preference, waste collection performance, and their data clearly showed that appropriate bin design increased the effectiveness of waste recovery rates [45].
A total of 32,726 keywords were generated during the literature review. The threshold used was a minimum of five occurrences per keyword; the most dominant keyword was “MSW” which appeared 5842 times, followed by “waste management” and “solid waste management” which occurred 4199 and 2634 times, respectively (Figure 5).
The keyword analysis revealed three distinct Clusters. The three keywords mentioned above fall under Cluster I (Figure 5). In Cluster I, MSWM is closely linked to efforts towards the achievement of sustainable development goals. Some important research on MSW in Cluster I focused on life cycle assessment (LCA) of MSW [46], promotion of MSW recycling in the developing countries [47], and the contribution of MSW towards greenhouse gas emissions [48]. Some of the key findings from such studies were that a balance between landfill and incineration was the optimal waste management option [46].
Cluster II keywords were largely made up of words such as “chemical elements”, “incineration”, and “pollution abatement”. In Cluster II, the transformation of hazardous elements in ash from waste incineration plants was investigated [49], and using integrated strategies for MSWM may lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 [48].
Cluster III was largely occupied by “anaerobiosis”, “anerobic digestion”, “bioreactors”, and the “management of sewages” (Figure 5). Some of the key research in Cluster III involved the environmental impact assessment of the organic fraction from MSW treatment by anaerobic digestion [50]. Anaerobic digestion transforms organic matter to biogas and sludge under anaerobiosis. The process is effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and the resultant biogas can be used as a renewable energy source. Moreover, the resulting digestate can also be used as fertilizer to improve soil quality [50]. In Cluster III, “pollutant removal” and “wastewater treatment” were closely linked. The elimination of toxic chemicals from wastewater is one of the strategies to help reduce the environmental impacts of such waste materials [51]. Leachate contamination of water also poses a significant public health risk [52].
The Clusters also show the different research streams under MSWM (Figure 5). Some of the research streams involved refuse-derived-fuel (RDF). RDF appeared 38 times and some research looked at policy options for sustainable RDF production [53]. RDF production is regarded as a substitute for using fossil fuels along with its associated environmental benefits [53]. Computer modelling and machine learning appeared 28 and 19 times, respectively. Another research strand involved developing multi-city models for MSW generation predictions by Lu et al. [54] and Zhang et al. [55]. The results by Zhang et al. [55] showed that population and GDP are two of the most important indicators in MSW prediction. Similarly, key factors influencing MSW generation are annual precipitation, population density, and mean annual temperature [54]. This is because precipitation increases the moisture content of MSW, thus increasing the total weight. In addition, high precipitation and temperature also influences human behavior, hence the consumption of goods and services. High precipitation may also contribute to increased crop production, thereby leading to more organic waste generation, whereas high population numbers are linked to more waste items being produced per person.
The occurrence of keywords from the year 2002 to 2022 is shown in Figure 6. There are few emerging topics, and they are shown by the yellow color (Figure 6). Some of the newly emerging research involved COVID-19-related wastes, CE, and attendant constraints. In fact, COVID19 research appeared 47 times and it examined the health-care waste associated with the COVID-19 pandemic [56]. Some of the key research led to the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 RNA in MSW leachate [57]. Detecting the COVID-19 viral RNA in MSW leachate is useful when there is no adequate treatment system and sanitation infrastructure [57]. The general key finding in some of the COVID-19 studies was that health care waste and its management increased during the pandemic [56].
Words that appeared many times during the year 2015 (shown in light green) included China and waste disposal (Figure 6). The reason why the word China had high incidence could be attributed to the increased research conducted in that country since 2015 to the present. Important research topics included the following ones: (1) sustainable waste management and waste-to-energy projects [58]; (2) changing city-level greenhouse gas emissions from MSW treatment and driving factors [59]; (3) comprehensive emission inventory of hazardous air pollutants from MSW incineration [60]; and (4) how can waste management contribute toward the development of a greenhouse gas sink [61]. Other researchers examined the identification of suitable, future waste disposal sites using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and geographic information systems (GISs) [62,63], and a quantitative analysis of MSW disposal charges in China [64].

3.2. Municipal Solid Waste Management in South Africa

Generally, in South Africa, the articles published annually during the 1996–2021 period have never exceeded ten (Figure 7). Although the highest number of articles (8) were published in 2020, only one article was published in the following years, 1996, 1997, and 2004, respectively (Figure 7). From then, the number of articles increased, but dropped dramatically in 2008 probably due to the after-effects of the global financial crisis, which could have affected research funding and research priorities in a negative manner. Therefore, in 2008, only one paper was published compared to two from the previous year. Later, there was an increase in articles as from the year 2010 to 2013 and during the 2015–2019 period, largely due to the increasing attention being paid to MSWM and how it is constrained by limited resources and illegal dumping of waste in South Africa [17]. For the current year (2022), no paper has been published yet (Figure 7).
It has been reported that South Africa is behind developed countries when it comes to waste management research [17,18]. Moreover, some of the policies and legislation in South Africa were derived from Europe and that is why there are so many implementation pitfalls because the geographical contexts are different. Nevertheless, the South African government has committed itself to an increase in expenditure on waste management from 0.5% to 1.5% of the GDP in order to create conditions conducive to the growth of the CE. However, the question of how the CE will be implemented effectively in a developing country with so many policy failures remains unanswered [18].
A total of 54 institutions have contributed to the existing body of knowledge of MSWM in South Africa, of which some of them are shown in Table 2. The University of KwaZulu-Natal contributed the most articles, followed by the University of the Witwatersrand and the University of Johannesburg in descending order (Table 2). On the other hand, other institutions contributed relatively fewer publications (Table 2).
In the SADC region, South Africa was central in terms of research collaborations as it exhibited seven research links with other countries in the world (Figure 8). All the other countries had one link or collaboration, except for Ethiopia and the UK which had two links. This is because the search was limited to South Africa. Based on Figure 8, there were a total of five different Clusters. In Cluster I, the most important countries are Canada, China, and South Africa. The UK and Ethiopia are featuring prominently in Cluster II. In Cluster III, IV and V, Australia, Botswana, and France came out to be the most important countries (Figure 8). Although a total of seven countries have collaborated with South Africa, the biggest collaborator is the UK. Researchers from both countries modeled greenhouse gas emissions from MSW disposal across Africa [65], assessed air quality management in South Africa [66], and evaluated leachate recirculation with cellulase addition to enhance waste biostabilisation and landfill gas production [67].
Although most countries that collaborated with South Africa had nearly an equal number of research outputs, the citations varied greatly. Australia and Botswana had three documents each with 63 and 54 citations, respectively. China, France, Ethiopia, and Canada had two documents with 51, 22, 21, and 18 citations, respectively. In addition, the UK and South Africa had 60 and 6 articles, respectively, with 995 and 118 citations, respectively (Table 3).
The network visualization in Figure 9 shows three main Clusters associated with MSWM. MSWM is closely associated with landfill sites (Figure 9). The aforementioned words are found in Cluster I. The word “MSWM” appeared 45 times, followed by “waste disposal” and “solid waste management” which occurred 44 and 26 times, respectively. Furthermore, the words leachate treatment, leaching, and sewage also appeared in Cluster I. The effect of cellulase to enhance waste biostabilisation and landfill gas production has been investigated. Cellulase augmentation to leachate was found to be economically viable [67]. The use of organic wastes for the denitrification of landfill leachate showed the suitability of organic MSW to sustain denitrification, thus offering a low-cost method for alternative landfill treatment [68]. Determining pollutant concentrations after long-term leaching showed that water flow needs to be taken into account in order to improve leachate quality and quantity [69].
Cluster II is characterized by studies on the greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide (CO2), and other gas emissions. The ways in which greenhouse gases are accounted and reported in the waste sector in South Africa were studied and different accounting methodologies were identified [70]. Greenhouse gas emissions from the management of MSW in the eThekwini Municipality were investigated by Friedrich and Trois [71]. The results showed that MSW recycling can help to prevent the emission of approximately 113,275 tons CO2 by replacing virgin materials with recycled materials. Furthermore, the modelling of greenhouse gas emissions from MSW disposal has indicated that such releases will increase in Africa and will further contribute to climate change [65].
Cluster III is characterized by research themes covering the Gauteng province, despite the literature being open to the whole of South Africa. Key studies have focused on sustainable solid waste management in developing countries with emphasis on Johannesburg [17]. For example, two research areas which received attention included: waste-to-energy recovery in Johannesburg [72], and spatial and temporal variations in the microbiological pollution occurring in the Vaal River of South Africa [73]. Other findings indicated that landfill airspace in Johannesburg will be depleted by the year 2023 [72]. The least commonly appearing key words were “urban area” and “sewage”, which featured 25 and 20 times each. The articles on sewage management do not seem to be emerging topics because some of the topics were published as early as 2010 and 2017 [74,75].
Based on Figure 10, there are no new emerging topics since the year 2020, and this is deduced from the absence of keywords in yellow. However, some words which had a high incidence around the year 2015 included “MSW” and “developing country” (Figure 10). The studies on those keywords included: co-operatives as a development mechanism to support job creation and sustainable waste management in South Africa [76], sustainable solid waste management in developing countries, and studies of the institutional factors involved in the management of solid wastes in Johannesburg [17], status of MSWM policy implementation in developing countries [77], sustainability of composting as an alternative waste management option for developing countries [78], and the characterization, recovery, and recycling potential of solid waste amongst some of the local universities [79]. The results showed that co-operatives may play an important role in the formalization of the informal waste sector in the developing countries. However, the informal waste sector remains fragmented and still faces numerous challenges. The sector is currently operating through verbal contracts, thus leading to the emergence of opportunistic and unsustainable enterprises [76]. The research conducted has also shown that ineffective MSWM emanates from institutional failures to implement and enforce existing policies and regulations [17]. Similarly, other researchers such as Mmereki et al. [77] have reported inadequacies in the implementation of policy related to MSWM and weak institutional support in Botswana. The study by Snyman and Vorster [78] indicated that most of the MSW generated in Pretoria is being landfilled, thus identifying the application of unsustainable waste management methods. By contrast, composting the organic fraction of MSW would save airspace and reduce the MSW by nearly 43%, thereby increasing the lifespan of existing landfills.
Lastly, another important research area entailed the composition of MSW, which is dependent on where the waste is coming from, thereby raising the potential for informing local waste management systems so that effective waste recovery is achieved [79,80]. At the University of Venda in the Limpopo province, it was found that the proportion of compostable wastes relative to other waste types was greatest in the student residences and kitchen facilities (40.6% and 40.5%), respectively [79]. This reveals an untapped potential for recycling such wastes at this university; an opportunity that can help in reducing the volume of prevailing waste streams. Furthermore, Nell et al. [81] have examined the composition of wastes from illegal dumpsites in a rural town in the Northern Cape province. Their study found 17 different waste fractions, of which some of their weight comprised garden waste (4%); glass (13%); recyclable plastics (15%); paper and cardboard (13%); and e-wastes and other household hazardous wastes (1%). In light of these results, it is imperative that municipal planning to minimize illegal dumping must take the needs and perceptions of local communities into consideration regarding their infrastructure problems [81].

3.3. Possible Solutions to Reduce MSW

As MSW generation continues to increase at an alarming rate globally, the environmental pollution caused by this waste stream has become a growing public health concern. There is, therefore, an urgent need to improve municipal waste management practices and the implementation of associated policies [82]. Existing literature shows that there are many ways to reduce MSW generation rates, and in this section, waste-to-energy generation and household waste segregation are put into perspective for reducing the management burden of MSW.
The utilisation of waste for the generation of energy may contribute towards their reduction and possible elimination. Waste-to-energy (WTE) generation refers to a waste treatment process that produces heat and energy from various waste sources, including MSW [83]. The process can be conducted by means of thermochemical processes such as incineration, pyrolysis, and gasification, or biological processes which entail biomethanation as well as composting [84]. The effective utilization of these technologies is contingent upon several factors, including the specific attributes of the waste feedstock, access to funding opportunities, and environmental aspects [85]. Across the globe, more than 1700 WTE plants have been established and the bulk of them are located in Asia Pacific (62%) and Europe (33%), while North America has few of them (4.5%) [85]. In South Africa, various WTE plants have been started in some of the metropolitan municipalities in provinces such as KwaZulu-Natal, Western Cape, and Gauteng [86]. For instance, in the Gauteng province, several landfill gas projects were commissioned in 2016 for enhancing both environmental and public health benefits. Despite their implementation challenges, especially the high operational costs, their potential energy output was estimated to be 8000 MWh yr−1. When connected to the national electricity grid, such energy generation is expected to provide electricity to nearly 25,000 middle-income households [87]. There is, therefore, a need for appropriate policy adaptation in South Africa to curb existing challenges as the country has the highest theoretical potential of energy generation from MSW [88].
Another effective solution to reduce waste generation at the municipal level is by encouraging waste reuse and recycling. In Denmark, between the years 1993 and 2018, the recovery of municipal wastes has risen from 80% to 99% while composting increased from 9% to 17% [89]. On the other hand, landfilling declined from 20% to 1% [89]. These remarkable achievements can be ascribed to many years of investing resources, infrastructure, and intervention strategies into their waste management sector, thus providing useful lessons for other countries to learn. In addition, the recycling processes are not achievable without the participation of citizens in the segregation of wastes at home. Therefore, it is imperative to provide communities with relevant information, feedback, and incentives so that they can participate meaningfully in waste reclamation and recycling [90]. In Singapore, it was found that household knowledge of what wastes are recyclable played a very important role in their waste minimization strategy [91]. Similarly, in South Africa, residents in urban areas are constrained to participate effectively in household waste segregation largely because of inadequate space, lack of time and recycling knowledge, and inconvenient recycling facilities [92]. Hence, one of the recommendations suggested for increased household waste sorting in Johannesburg (South Africa) is to simplify household waste separation so that it is convenient to residents across all age groups [93].
Lastly, since food waste is one of the biggest contributors of MSW and constitutes more than 50% of this waste stream, it is important to treat it accordingly. Therefore, to curb the increase in household kitchen waste, source separation followed by treatment is recommended [82]. Furthermore, anaerobic digestion can be applied, thus reducing its environmental impact by over 51% [93]. Fei et al. [82] also suggested the use of food waste disposers (FWDs) since they can result in significant waste reduction. Designing on-site biochemical food waste treatment plants was identified as another waste reduction option, provided there are large amounts of food wastes to be brought to such treatment plants. Furthermore, food waste can be reused as animal food and a source of compost to support agricultural activities [94].

3.4. Summary of the Literature Trends

Table 4 indicates a comparative overview between MSWM at a global level and at a South African level. Based on the search criteria followed in the present research, research publications on MSWM amongst different countries or at a global stage started in 1968 with only one publication. During the 1970–1973 period, no article was published. However, as from 1974, some work was being published. In 1979, 17 articles were published and from then, the number of papers increased exponentially and reached a high of 626 articles in 2021. This rapid increase may be ascribed to the growing attention being given to MSWM challenges globally. On the other hand, in South Africa, publications only started relatively late as one publication was published in 1996 and such papers never exceeded eight in any given year. Moreover, the 17 articles published globally in 1979 surpassed the total number of articles published in South Africa between 1996 and 2022. Similar to the global trends, there was a period in South Africa when no articles were published (1999–2003), although they resumed in 2004. In South Africa, the highest number of articles published in 2020 was seven. A total of 159 authors worldwide have contributed about 7374 scientific articles with a focus on MSWM, whereas in South Africa 145 authors have contributed 60 scientific documents.
The emerging keywords at the world perspective during the 2020s were COVID-19 waste research and CE, electronic waste, research based on China, waste disposal facilities, organic wastes, sewage waste treatment, and associated health issues. In South Africa, MSWM research in terms of the circular economy and COVID-19 challenges is lacking. By contrast, the most prominent keywords for MSWM research in South Africa are urban area, developing country, MSW, methane emissions, and landfills. Documents relating to electronic waste in South Africa were lacking amongst the 60 papers mentioned in Table 4.
Globally, there was a total of 37,276 keywords related to MSWM research. Some of the most dominant keywords that occurred more than 1000 times in descending order were MSWM, waste management, solid waste management, waste disposal, refuse disposal, solid waste (solid wastes), landfills, incineration, recycling, waste treatment, and waste incineration (Table 5). The least occurring keywords that appeared less than ten times included waste reuse, sustainability indicators, MSW generation rates, radiation waste, waste collectors, and food waste disposers.
In South Africa, there was a total of 1194 keywords related to MSW research. Except for waste incineration and gas emissions, the words were almost identical. Some of the most dominant keywords in South Africa that occurred more than ten times were MSW, waste management, waste disposal, refuse, solid waste (solid wastes), landfill, recycling, waste treatment, and gas emissions (Table 6). The examination of the 60 articles in South Africa showed that studies on waste incineration or incineration are missing. In contrast, the least occurring keywords did not exactly match up to the global trend. The words that appeared the least were: waste-to-energy technologies, bioenergy, biological water treatment, sustainable development goals, leachate recycling, waste companies, anaerobiosis, and food waste disposers.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

This paper conducted a bibliometric analysis of the available scientific literature on MSWM at a global level and from a South African perspective. With such analyses, it was possible to determine existing patterns and trends in the research about MSWM while revealing similarities and dissimilarities at a global stage and within a South African context. Based on the results generated, the following conclusions and recommendations are summarized.
Although the MSWM research started as early as 1968 from a global perspective, in South Africa such research focus only started in 1996. This discrepancy shows that MSWM research at an international level is ahead of South African contributions. The pattern is partly driven by differences in situational contexts, whereby MSWM issues were given much attention quite early in the developed countries largely because of the inherent environmental and health risks associated with MSW landfilling. For example, in the USA, the MSWM research around 1968 was pre-occupied with the challenges presented by unrestrained municipal waste generation and the extent to which landfilling was constrained by a lack of new spaces, especially in the urban areas, and the potential for environmental pollution [108]. At that time, the incineration of municipal waste was seen as a viable solution to reduce the volume of waste generated in the urban areas but with rising health concerns due to gaseous emissions [108]. The same MSWM issues involving emissions received research attention in South Africa, but this occurred much later during the 1996–2004 period. At that time, much research effort went into the understanding of the different chemical pollutants that were in gaseous emissions and the leachate produced by waste decomposition [104,109,110].
At an international level, the total number of research outputs, keywords relevant to MSWM, and the number of collaborations were relatively more for developed countries than is the case in South Africa. Globally, the research clusters consisted of keywords such as WTE technologies, sustainable development, circular economy (CE), and life-cycle assessment (LCA). On the other hand, the research clusters in South Africa consisted of MSW, landfills, waste treatment, WTE research, microbiological pollution, waste management cooperatives, and greenhouse gas emissions. These discrepancies in MSWM research indicate differences in research priorities and capabilities. This shows that more resources should be allocated to South African MSWM research so that it can be on par with international trends, especially in comparison with developed countries. Therefore, more research prioritization and funding are recommended in South Africa for the following research topics:
  • Role of MSWM in meeting sustainable development goals;
  • Life-cycle assessment of MSW;
  • Implementing integrated strategies for MSWM;
  • Computer modelling, GIS, and location of disposal sites;
  • Impacts of COVID-19-related waste streams;
  • Role of MSWM in the CE.
Furthermore, given the limited international collaborations that South Africa has with other countries, there is a need to initiate and reinforce existing research linkages with other countries, thus involving a greater sharing of resources, capabilities, and experiences than is currently the case. Similarly, to stay current with the latest MSWM research, trends require further literature re-assessments from time to time to document new trends and identify research gaps.

5. Limitations of Study

The current study focused on peer review articles and book chapters that have been included in the Scopus database. It is possible that some important literature from conference papers and technical papers may have been missed. This has also been reported by other authors that conducted bibliometric analysis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.N. and I.T.R.; methodology, V.N. and I.T.R.; validation, V.N. and I.T.R.; formal analysis, V.N. and I.T.R.; investigation, V.N. and I.T.R.; data curation, V.N. and I.T.R.; writing—original draft preparation, V.N. and I.T.R.; writing—review and editing, V.N. and I.T.R.; visualization, V.N. and I.T.R.; funding acquisition, I.T.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data for bibliometric analysis was obtained from the Scopus database.

Acknowledgments

The University of Johannesburg is gratefully acknowledged for the infrastructure and resources provided in the publication of this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Minghua, Z.; Xiumin, F.; Rovetta, A.; Qichang, H.; Vicentini, F.; Bingkai, L.; Giusti, A.; Yi, L. Municipal solid waste management in Pudong New Area, China. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 1227–1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Gupta, N.; Yadav, K.K.; Kumar, V. A review on current status of municipal solid waste management in India. J. Environ Sci. 2015, 37, 206–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Maphosa, V.; Maphosa, M. E-waste management in Sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic literature review. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2020, 7, 1814503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Nanda, S.; Berruti, F. Municipal solid waste management and landfilling technologies: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2021, 19, 1433–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kormaňáková, M.; Remešová, M.; Vančová, T. Food waste in municipal mixed waste produced at household level: Empirical evidence from the Czech Republic. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2021, 23, 1348–1364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. World Bank. What a Waste 2.0. A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. 2022. Available online: https://datatopics.worldbank.org/what-a-waste/trends_in_solid_waste_management.html (accessed on 6 June 2022).
  7. Rajkumar, J.; Ahmed, S. Status and challenges of municipal solid waste management in India: A review. Cogent Environ. Sci. 2016, 2, 1139434. [Google Scholar]
  8. Vergara, S.E.; Tchobanoglous, G. Municipal Solid Waste and the Environment: A Global Perspective. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2012, 37, 277–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dlamini, B.R.; Rampedi, I.T.; Ifegbesan, A.P. Community resident’s opinions and perceptions on the effectiveness of waste management and recycling potential in the Umkhanyakude and Zululand District Municipalities in the KwaZulu-Natal Province of South Africa. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bosman, C.; Alberts, R.; Roos, C. Waste. In Environmental Management in South Africa: Excerpts from the Third Edition; Strydom, H., King, N., Retief, F., Eds.; Juta: Cape Town, South Africa, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  11. Tsai, F.M.; Bui, T.; Tseng, M.; Lim, M.K.; Hu, J. Municipal solid waste management in a circular economy: A data-driven bibliometric analysis. J. Clean Prod. 2020, 275, 124132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. UN. Do You Know All 17 SDGs? 2015. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 6 June 2022).
  13. Taherzadeh, M.J.; Rajendran, K. Factors affecting development of waste management. In Waste Management and Sustainable Consumption: Reflections on Consumer Waste; Routledge: London, UK, 2014; pp. 67–87. [Google Scholar]
  14. Iyamu, H.O.; Anda, M.; Ho, G. A review of municipal solid waste management in the BRIC and high-income countries: A thematic framework for low-income countries. Habitat Int. 2020, 95, 102097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bolton, K.; Rousta, K. Solid waste management toward zero landfill: A Swedish Model. In Sustainable Resource Recovery and Zero Waste Approaches; Taherzadeh, M.J., Bolton, K., Wong, J., Pandey, A., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 53–63. [Google Scholar]
  16. Rudra, S.; Tesfagaber, Y.K. Future district heating plant integrated with municipal solid waste (MSW) gasification for hydrogen production. Energy 2019, 180, 881–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kubanza, S.N.; Simatele, M.D. Sustainable solid waste management in developing countries: A study of institutional strengthening for solid waste management in Johannesburg, South Africa. J. Environ. Plan Manag. 2020, 63, 175–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Godfrey, L.; Oelofse, S. Historical Review of Waste Management and Recycling in South Africa. Resources 2017, 6, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Olukanni, D.O.; Akinyinka, O.O.; Ede, A.N.; Akinwumi, I.I.; Ajanaku, K.O. Appraisal of Municipal Solid Waste Management, Its Effect and Resource Potential in a Semi-Urban City: A Case Study. J. S. Afr. Bus. Res. 2014, 2014, 705695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sarquah, K.; Narra, S.; Beck, G.; Awafo, E.A.; Antwi, E. Bibliometric analysis; characteristics and trends of refuse derived fuel research. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Alemán-Nava, G.S.; Casiano-Flores, V.H.; Cárdenas-Chávez, D.L.; Díaz-Chavez, R.; Scarlat, N.; Mahlknecht, J.; Dallemand, J.-F.; Parra, R. Renewable Energy Research Progress in Mexico: A Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 32, 140–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mao, G.; Zou, H.; Chen, G.; Du, H.; Zuo, J. Past, Current and Future of Biomass Energy Research: A Bibliometric Analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 52, 1823–1833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhou, W.; Kou, A.; Chen, J.; Ding, B. A Retrospective Analysis with Bibliometric of Energy Security. Energy Rep. 2018, 4, 724–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Obregón, L.; Orozco, C.; Camargo, J.; Duarte, J.; Valencia, G. Research Trend on Nuclear Energy from 2008 to 2018: A Bibliometric Analysis. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2019, 9, 542–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ferrari, G.; Pezzuolo, A.; Nizami, A.-S.; Marinello, F. Bibliometric Analysis of Trends in Biomass for Bioenergy Research. Energies 2020, 13, 3714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mao, G.; Hu, H.; Liu, X.; Crittenden, J.; Huang, N. A Bibliometric Analysis of Industrial Wastewater Treatments from 1998 to 2019. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 275, 115785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Adedayo, H.B.; Adio, S.A.; Oboirien, B.O. Energy Research in Nigeria: A Bibliometric Analysis Energy Research in Nigeria: A Bibliometric Analysis. Energy Strateg. Rev. 2021, 34, 100629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Borrelli, P.; Alewell, C.; Alvarez, P.; Anache, J.A.A.; Baartman, J.; Ballabio, C.; Bezak, N.; Biddoccu, M.; Cerda, A.; Chalise, D.; et al. Soil erosion modelling: A global review and statistical analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 780, 146494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Bezak, N.; Mikoš, M.; Borrelli, P.; Alewell, C.; Alvarez, P.; Anache, J.A.A.; Baartman, J.; Ballabio, C.; Biddoccu, M.; Cerdà, A.; et al. Soil Erosion Modelling: A Bibliometric Analysis. Environ. Res. 2021, 197, 111087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Cabeza, L.F.; Jim, L.; Norouzi, M.; Chàfer, M.; Boer, D. Circular Economy in the Building and Construction Sector: A Scientific Evolution Analysis. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 44, 102704. [Google Scholar]
  31. Sganzerla, W.G.; Ampese, L.C.; Mussatto, S.I.; Lyngby, K. A Bibliometric Analysis on Potential Uses of Brewer’s Spent Grains in a Biorefinery for the Circular Economy Transition of the Beer Industry. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 2021, 15, 1965–1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Concari, A.; Kok, G.; Martens, P. Recycling behaviour: Mapping knowledge domain through bibliometrics and text mining. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 303, 114160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pires, A.; Martinho, G. Waste hierarchy index for circular economy in waste management. Waste Manag. 2019, 95, 298–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jiao, W.; Boons, F. Toward a research agenda for policy intervention and facilitation to enhance industrial symbiosis based on a comprehensive literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 67, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Van Ewijk, S.; Stegemann, J.A. Limitations of the waste hierarchy for achieving absolute reductions in material throughput. J. Clean Prod. 2016, 132, 122–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Fang, K.; Dong, L.; Ren, J.; Zhang, Q.; Han, L.; Fu, H. Carbon footprints of urban transition: Tracking circular economy promotions in Guiyang, China. Ecol. Model. 2017, 365, 30–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Geng, Y.; Tsuyoshi, F.; Chen, X. Evaluation of innovative municipal solid waste management through urban symbiosis: A case study of Kawasaki. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 993–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Reike, D.; Vermeulen, W.J.; Witjes, S. The circular economy: New or refurbished as CE 3.0?—Exploring controversies in the conceptualization of the circular economy through a focus on history and resource value retention options. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 135, 246–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Morales-Parragué, M.; Araya-Castillo, L.; Molina-Luque, F.; Moraga-Flores, H. Scientometric Analysis of research on corporate social responsibility. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Abedin, M.J.; Khandaker, M.U.; Uddin, M.R.; Karim, M.R.; Uddin Ahamad, M.S.; Islam, M.A.; Arif, A.M.; Minhaz Hossain, S.M.; Sulieman, A.; Idris, A.M. Amassing the Covid-19 driven PPE wastes in the dwelling environment of Chittagong Metropolis and associated implications. Chemosphere 2022, 297, 134022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Kim, K.H.; Jin, X.; Ji, A.; Aui, A.; Mba-Wright, M.; Yoo, C.J.; Choi, J.W.; Ha, J.M.; Kim, C.S.; Yoo, C.G.; et al. Catalytic conversion of waste corrugated cardboard into lactic acid using lanthanide triflates. Waste Manag. 2022, 1, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Bhattacharya, S.; Ghosh, S.; Bhattacharya, S. Analytical hierarchy process tool in Google Earth Engine platform: A case study of a tropical landfill site suitability. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2022, 194, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Fei, F.; Wen, Z.; Ri, S. Urban biowaste integrated management based on synergy mechanism and multi-objective optimization: A case study in Suzhou, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 823, 153691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rodrigues, M.V.C.; Guimarães, D.V.; Galvão, R.B.; Patrick, E.; Fernandes, F. Urban watershed management prioritization using the rapid impact assessment matrix (RIAM-UWMAP), GIS and field survey. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2022, 94, 106759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Leeabai, N.; Areeprasert, C.; Siripaiboona, C.; Khaobang, C.; Congsomjit, D.; Takahashi, F. The effects of compost bin design on design preference, waste collection performance, and waste segregation behaviors for public participation. Waste Manag. 2022, 143, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Liu, M.; Tan, Z.; Fan, X.; Chang, Y.; Wang, L.; Yin, X. Application of life cycle assessment for municipal solid waste management options in Hohhot, People’s Republic of China. Waste Manag. Res. 2021, 39, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Valenzuela-Levi, N.; Araya-Córdova, P.J.; Dávila, S.; Vásquez, Ó.C. Promoting adoption of recycling by municipalities in developing countries: Increasing or redistributing existing resources? J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2021, 164, 105173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Devadoss, P.S.M.; Agamuthu, P.; Mehran, S.B.; Santha, C.; Fauziah, S.H. Implications of municipal solid waste management on greenhouse gas emissions in Malaysia and the way forward. Waste Manag. 2021, 1, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Ali, M.U.; Liu, Y.; Yousaf, B.; Wong, M.H.; Li, P.; Liu, G.; Wang, R.; Wei, Y.; Lu, M. Morphochemical investigation on the enrichment and transformation of hazardous elements in ash from waste incineration plants. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 828, 154490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Thuppahige, R.T.W.; Babel, S. Environmental impact assessment of organic fraction of municipal solid waste treatment by anaerobic digestion in Sri Lanka. Waste Manag. Res. 2022, 40, 236–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Sun, X.; Mao, M.; Lu, K.; Hu, Q.; Liu, W.; Lin, Z. One-step removal of high-concentration arsenic from wastewater to form Johnbaumite using arsenic-bearing gypsum. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 424, 127585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Siddiqi, S.A.; Al-Mamun, A.; Baawain, M.S.; Sana, A. A critical review of the recently developed laboratory-scale municipal solid waste landfill leachate treatment technologies. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2022, 52, 102011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chaves, G.L.D.; Siman, R.R.; Chang, N.B. Policy analysis for sustainable refuse-derived fuel production in Espírito Santo, Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 294, 126344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lu, W.; Huo, W.; Gulina, H.; Pan, C. Development of machine learning multi-city model for municipal solid waste generation prediction. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2022, 16, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zhang, C.; Dong, H.; Geng, Y.; Liang, H.; Liu, X. Machine learning based prediction for China’s municipal solid waste under the shared socioeconomic pathways. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 312, 114918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Yang, L.; Yu, X.; Wu, X.; Wang, J.; Yan, X.; Jiang, S.; Chen, Z. Emergency response to the explosive growth of health care wastes during COVID-19 pandemic in Wuhan, China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 164, 105074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Mondelli, G.; Silva, E.R.; Claro, I.C.M.; Augusto, M.R.; Duran, A.F.A.; Cabral, A.D.; Camillo, L.M.B.; dos Santos Oliveira, L.H.; de Freitas Bueno, R. First case of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection in municipal solid waste leachate from Brazil. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 824, 15392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kang, Y.; Yang, Q.; Wang, L.; Chen, Y.; Lin, G.; Huang, J.; Yang, H.; Chen, H. China’s changing city-level greenhouse gas emissions from municipal solid waste treatment and driving factors. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 180, 106168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Fu, Z.; Lin, S.; Tian, H.; Hao, Y.; Wu, B.; Liu, S.; Luo, L.; Bai, X.; Guo, Z.; Lv, Y. A comprehensive emission inventory of hazardous air pollutants from municipal solid waste incineration in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 826, 154212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Liao, N.; Bolyard, S.C.; Lü, F.; Yang, N.; Zhang, H.; Shao, L.; He, P. Can waste management system be a Greenhouse Gas sink? Perspective from Shanghai, China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 180, 106170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Guo, H.; Hobbs, B.F.; Lasater, M.E.; Parker, C.L.; Winch, P.J. System dynamics-based evaluation of interventions to promote appropriate waste disposal behaviors in low-income urban areas: A Baltimore case study. Waste Manag. 2016, 56, 547–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Yıldırım, Ü.; Güler, C. Identification of suitable future municipal solid waste disposal sites for the Metropolitan Mersin (SE Turkey) using AHP and GIS techniques. Environ. Earth Sci. 2016, 75, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wu, J.; Zhang, W.; Xu, J.; Che, Y. A quantitative analysis of municipal solid waste disposal charges in China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2015, 187, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Couth, R.; Trois, C.; Vaughan-Jones, S. Modelling of greenhouse gas emissions from municipal solid waste disposal in Africa. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 2011, 5, 1443–1453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Naiker, Y.; Diab, R.D.; Zunckel, M.; Hayes, E.T. Introduction of local Air Quality Management in South Africa: Overview and challenges. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 17, 62–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sohoo, I.; Ritzkowski, M.; Kuchta, K. Influence of moisture content and leachate recirculation on oxygen consumption and waste stabilization in post aeration phase of landfill operation. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 773, 145584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Plüg, B.D.; Cibati, A.; Trois, C. The use of organic wastes at different degrees of maturity as carbon sources for denitrification of landfill leachate. Waste Manag. 2015, 46, 373–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Rosqvist, N.H.; Dollar, L.H.; Fourie, A.B. Preferential flow in municipal solid waste and implications for long-term leachate quality: Valuation of laboratory-scale experiments. Waste Manag. Res. 2005, 23, 367–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Friedrich, E.; Trois, C. Greenhouse gases accounting and reporting for waste management—A South African perspective. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 2347–2353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Friedrich, E.; Trois, C. Current and future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the management of municipal solid waste in the eThekwini Municipality—South Africa. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 4071–4083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Dlamini, S.; Mulala, M.D.; Kubanza, S.N. Municipal solid waste management in South Africa: From waste to energy recovery through waste-to-energy technologies in Johannesburg. Local Environ. 2019, 3, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Chidamba, L.; Cilliers, E.; Bezuidenhout, C.C. Spatial and temporal variations in pollution indicator bacteria in the lower vaal river, South Africa. Water Environ. Res. 2016, 88, 2142–2149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Awomeso, J.A.; Taiwo, A.M.; Gbadebo, A.M.; Arimoro, A.A. Waste disposal and pollution management in urban areas: A workable remedy for the environment in developing countries. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 2010, 6, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Oberholster, P.J.; Botha, A.M.; Hill, L.; Strydom, W.F. River catchment responses to anthropogenic acidification in relationship with sewage effluent: An ecotoxicology screening application. Chemosphere 2017, 189, 407–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Godfrey, L.; Muswema, A.; Strydom, W.; Mamafa, T.; Mapako, M. Co-operatives as a development mechanism to support job creation and sustainable waste management in South Africa. Sustain. Sci. 2017, 12, 799–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Mmereki, D.; Velempini, K.; Mosime-Serero, L. Status of municipal solid waste management policy implementation in developing countries: Insights from Botswana. J. Solid Waste Technol. Manag. 2021, 47, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Snyman, J.; Vorster, K. Sustainability of composting as an alternative waste management option for developing countries: A case study of the City of Tshwane. Waste Manag. Res. 2011, 29, 1222–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Owojori, O.; Edokpayi, J.N.; Mulaudzi, R.; Odiyo, J.O. Characterisation, recovery and recycling potential of solid waste in a university of a developing economy. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Blight, G.E.; Fourie, A.B.; Shamrock, J.; Mbande, C.; Morris, J.W.F. The effect of waste composition on leachate and gas quality: A study in South Africa. Waste Manag. Res. 1999, 17, 124–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Nell, C.; Schenck, C.; Blaauw, D.; Grobler, L.; Viljoen, K. A three-pronged approach to waste composition determination. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 303, 114203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Fei, F.; Kosajan, V.; Shen, N.; Luo, J. Promoting the source separation of household kitchen waste based on comprehensive evaluation and economic feasibility. J. Clean Prod. 2022, 342, 130970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Song, J.; Feng, R.; Yue, C.; Shao, Y.; Han, J.; Xing, J.; Yang, W. Reinforced urban waste management for resource, energy and environmental benefits: China’s regional potentials. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 178, 196083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Tozlu, A.; Özahi, E.; Abuşoğlu, A. Waste to energy technologies for municipal solid waste management in Gaziantep. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2016, 54, 809–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Malav, L.C.; Yadav, K.K.; Gupta, N.; Kumar, S.; Sharma, G.K.; Krishnan, S.; Rezania, S.; Kamyab, H.; Pham, Q.B.; Yadav, S.; et al. A review on municipal solid waste as a renewable source for waste-to-energy project in India: Current practices, challenges, and future opportunities. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 277, 123227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Mbazima, S.J.; Masekameni, M.D.; Mmereki, D. Waste-to-energy in a developing country: The state of landfill gas to energy in the Republic of South Africa. Energy Explor. Exploit. 2022, 40, 1287–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Franks, L.; Euston-Brown, M.; Ferry, A.; Giljova, S. Municipal Landfill Gas to Electricity: City of Johannesburg Project: Municipal Landfill Gas to Electricity Grid-Tied Project. 2015. Available online: https://www.cityenergy.org.za/uploads/resource_359.pdf (accessed on 12 July 2022).
  88. Adeleke, O.; Akinlabi, S.A.; Jen, T.C.; Dunmande, I. Sustainable utilization of energy from waste: A review of potentials and challenges of Waste-to-energy in South Africa. Int. J. Green Energy 2021, 18, 1550–1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Magazzino, C.; Mele, M.; Schneider, N.; Sarkodie, S.A. Waste generation, wealth and GHG emissions from the waste sector: Is Denmark on the path towards circular economy? Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 755, 142510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Varotto, A.; Spagnolli, A. Psychological strategies to promote household recycling. A systematic review with meta-analysis of validated field interventions. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 51, 168–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Ong, C.; Fearnley, L.; Chia, S.B. The diversity of divestment in Singapore: Junk commodities, charity gifts, and recycling bins. Environ. Plan. E Nat. Space 2021, 4, 603–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Strydom, W.F. Barriers to household waste recycling: Empirical evidence from South Africa. Recycling 2018, 3, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Schoeman, D.C.; Rampedi, I.T. Drivers of Household Recycling Behavior in the City of Johannesburg, South Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Bourtsalas, A.C.; Themelis, N.J. Materials and energy recovery at six European MBT plants. Waste Manag. 2022, 141, 79–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Franco, E.F.; Padrón Iglesia, W.; Pérez Teruel, K. Household Solid Waste Management in the Dominican Republic: Case of the Municipality of Puñal, Santiago. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Ngamsang, T.; Yuttitham, M. Vulnerability assessment of areas allocated for municipal solid waste disposal systems: A case study of sanitary landfill and incineration. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 27239–27258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Khan, H.U.; Husain, T.; Khan, S.M. Solid Waste Management Practices in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. Environ. Manag. 1987, 11, 729–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Kurker, C. Reducing emissions from refuse disposal. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 1969, 19, 2–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Pérez-Martínez, S.; Giro-Paloma, J.; Maldonado-Alameda, A.; Formosa, J.; Queralt, I.; Chimenos, J.M. Characterisation and partition of valuable metals from WEEE in weathered municipal solid waste incineration bottom ash, with a view to recovering. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 218, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Chowdhury, R.B.; Wijayasundara, M. Phosphorus circular economy of disposable baby nappy waste: Quantification, assess-ment of recycling technologies and plan for sustainability. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 799, 149339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Chew, Z.T.; Hoy, Z.X.; Woon, K.S.; Liew, P.Y. Integrating greenhouse gas reduction and waste policy targets to identify optimal waste treatment configurations via Carbon Emission Pinch Analysis. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2022, 160, 661–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Couth, R.; Trois, C. Carbon emissions reduction strategies in Africa from improved waste management: A review. Waste. Manag. 2010, 30, 2336–2346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Govender, T.; Barnes, J.M.; Pieper, C.H. Impact of densification by means of informal shacks in the backyards of low-cost houses on the environment and service delivery in Cape Town, South Africa. Environ. Health Insights 2011, 5, 23–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Watson-Craik, I.A.; Senior, E. Studies on the co-disposal of o-cresol with municipal refuse. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 1996, 65, 72–80. [Google Scholar]
  105. Frank, R.R.; Davies, S.; Wagland, S.T.; Villa, R.; Trois, C.; Coulon, F. Evaluating leachate recirculation with cellulase addition to enhance waste biostabilisation and landfill gas production. Waste Manag. 2016, 55, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Ayeleru, O.O.; Okonta, F.N.; Ntuli, F. Cost benefit analysis of a municipal solid waste recycling facility in Soweto, South Africa. Waste. Manag. 2021, 134, 263–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Couth, R.; Trois, C. Implementing separate waste collection and mechanical biological waste treatment in South Africa: A comparison with Austria and England. Waste. Manag. 2011, 30, 1457–1463. [Google Scholar]
  108. Bump, R.L. The use of electrostatic precipitators on municipal incinerators. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 1968, 18, 803–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Watson-Craik, I.A.; Jones, L.R. Selected approaches for the investigation of microbial interactions in landfill sites. In Microbiology of Landfill Sites; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020; pp. 31–65. [Google Scholar]
  110. Fourie, A.B.; Morris, J.W.F. Measured gas emissions from four landfills in South Africa and some implications for landfill design and methane recovery in semi-arid climates. Waste. Manag. Res. 2004, 22, 440–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Summary of research methodology.
Figure 1. Summary of research methodology.
Sustainability 14 10229 g001
Figure 2. Growth of articles over a 54-year period.
Figure 2. Growth of articles over a 54-year period.
Sustainability 14 10229 g002
Figure 3. Top fourteen countries with the most scientific publications on MSWM.
Figure 3. Top fourteen countries with the most scientific publications on MSWM.
Sustainability 14 10229 g003
Figure 4. Co-authorship network based on countries. Criteria of at least two papers per country was used and out of 201 countries, only 113 met the threshold. A total of 110 connections are shown.
Figure 4. Co-authorship network based on countries. Criteria of at least two papers per country was used and out of 201 countries, only 113 met the threshold. A total of 110 connections are shown.
Sustainability 14 10229 g004
Figure 5. Co-occurrence of keywords. Keywords that appear a minimum of five times are shown. Out of 32,726 keywords, 5429 words met the threshold.
Figure 5. Co-occurrence of keywords. Keywords that appear a minimum of five times are shown. Out of 32,726 keywords, 5429 words met the threshold.
Sustainability 14 10229 g005
Figure 6. Period analysis of keywords incidence over the years.
Figure 6. Period analysis of keywords incidence over the years.
Sustainability 14 10229 g006
Figure 7. Growth of articles over the years.
Figure 7. Growth of articles over the years.
Sustainability 14 10229 g007
Figure 8. Co-authorship network based on countries.
Figure 8. Co-authorship network based on countries.
Sustainability 14 10229 g008
Figure 9. Co-occurrence of keywords in South Africa.
Figure 9. Co-occurrence of keywords in South Africa.
Sustainability 14 10229 g009
Figure 10. Period analysis of keywords incidence over the years.
Figure 10. Period analysis of keywords incidence over the years.
Sustainability 14 10229 g010
Table 1. Top fifteen countries with the most scientific articles and citations.
Table 1. Top fifteen countries with the most scientific articles and citations.
CountryArticlesCitations
United States100435,206
China97629,062
Italy59320,200
India59213,196
Spain43417,323
Japan37312,059
United Kingdom36613,321
Canada35910,043
Germany26610,183
Brazil2314262
France1946941
Sweden1828617
Iran1794688
Australia1755395
Table 2. Institutional contributions towards the publication of scientific articles in South Africa.
Table 2. Institutional contributions towards the publication of scientific articles in South Africa.
InstitutionNumber of Articles
University of KwaZulu-Natal19
University of the Witwatersrand13
University of Johannesburg10
University of Cape Town6
The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research5
Stellenbosch University3
Walter Sisulu University3
North-West University3
University of Venda3
Tshwane University of Technology2
University of the Witwatersrand Faculty of Health Sciences2
Environmentek1
Green House1
uMoya-NILU Consulting1
Table 3. Countries that collaborated with South Africa.
Table 3. Countries that collaborated with South Africa.
CountryArticlesCitations
South Africa60995
United Kingdom6118
Australia363
Botswana354
Ethiopia221
Canada218
China251
France222
Table 4. A comparison of trends in MSWM research in the world versus South Africa.
Table 4. A comparison of trends in MSWM research in the world versus South Africa.
Municipal Solid Waste Management TrendsWorldSA
Total number of articles737460
Authors159145
Affiliations16861
Highest number of publications by author8311
Least number of documents by author81
Highest number of papers since publications started in a given year6267
Keywords37,2761194
Emerging topics in the 2020s30
Table 5. Most frequent keywords in the world and authors.
Table 5. Most frequent keywords in the world and authors.
KeywordsExamples of Literature Sources
Municipal solid waste management[2,4,11,14,16,37,46,48,54,59]
Waste management[13,33,58,61]
Solid waste management[15,95]
Waste disposal[62,63,64,96]
Refuse disposal[97,98]
Solid waste (solid wastes)[59,96]
Land fill (landfill)[68,96]
Incineration[56,60,96,99]
Recycling[100]
Waste treatment[59,101]
Waste incineration[56,99]
Table 6. Most frequent keywords in South Africa and authors.
Table 6. Most frequent keywords in South Africa and authors.
KeywordAuthors
Municipal solid waste[65,71,72,77]
Waste management[71,76,78,102]
Solid waste (solid wastes)[17]
Waste disposal[74,103]
Refuse[104]
Land fill (landfill)[67,87,96,105]
Recycling[79,106]
Waste treatment[102,107]
Greenhouse gas emissions[69]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ndou, V.; Rampedi, I.T. Bibliometric Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste Management Research: Global and South African Trends. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10229. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610229

AMA Style

Ndou V, Rampedi IT. Bibliometric Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste Management Research: Global and South African Trends. Sustainability. 2022; 14(16):10229. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610229

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ndou, Vhuthu, and Isaac Tebogo Rampedi. 2022. "Bibliometric Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste Management Research: Global and South African Trends" Sustainability 14, no. 16: 10229. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610229

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop