A Community-Based Intervention Proposal for Municipal Solid Waste Management: Analyzing Willingness, Barriers and Spatial Strategies

Abstract

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) management programs can help to mitigate the triple planetary crises of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. However, their success largely depends on the public willingness to engage in the pro-environmental separation and delivery of MSW, particularly for difficult-to-manage items such as electronics, batteries and appliances, which often contain toxic materials. Most existing research tends to focus on infrastructure improvements or behavioral interventions, with little integration of psychosocial and contextual analyses to develop evidence-based strategies for increasing community participation in the sustainable management of MSW. To address this gap, we conducted a study combining quantitative data from surveys with qualitative and geospatial data obtained through social mapping sessions and information obtained from local waste collectors in five municipalities in Norte de Santander, Colombia—a region marked by high socioeconomic vulnerability. Our study presents a novel integration of psychosocial and geospatial data to inform MSW interventions in low-resource settings. We identified that the awareness of the consequences of poor MSW management, the awareness of environmental benefits of delivery and the subjective norm predicts the willingness to separate and deliver MSW. Nonetheless, various psychosocial and contextual barriers hinder these actions. Based on these insights, we propose a low-cost, community-tailored intervention to enhance the separation and delivery of difficult-to-manage MSW and foster civic engagement in similar socio-environmental contexts.

1. Introduction

More than two billion tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) are generated globally each year, and this number is expected to rise in the coming decades [1] in direct relation to factors such as population growth, economic expansion, modern consumption practices and lifestyles [1,2].

MSW management is therefore a social and governance challenge, especially in urban areas with high population growth rates [3]. MSW accumulation not only results in ecosystem pollution and biodiversity loss but also poses a significant risk to public health and community well-being [2].

Major challenges to implementing MSW management strategies are observed in countries in the Global South, where MSW recycling and reuse statistics fall far below those expected according to the Sustainable Development Goals [4]. Furthermore, these regions are expected to experience the greatest urban population growth in the coming decades [3], which will intensify pressure on MSW management systems. Additionally, there is a dual challenge of promoting economic development while also protecting the environment [4,5].

Colombia is a representative case of this group of countries, where approximately 12 million tons of MSW are generated annually. Although this amount is moderate compared to other more populated or higher-income countries, the recycling rate in Colombia is very low [6,7]; Currently, 96.67% of MSW is ultimately destined for landfills, of which approximately 40% will reach maximum capacity in less than three years [7]. In this sense, the implementation of pro-environmental MSW management strategies is an urgent need in Colombia.

Pro-environmental management strategies comprise reducing MSW generation, promoting its reuse and recycling, and ensuring final disposal processes that minimize negative impacts on public health and the environment. A circular economy aiming at minimizing waste generation and maximizing resource retention would address both the lack of efficient MSW management and the growing scarcity of resources [8].

However, the transition to a circular economy requires the active participation of citizens in the separation and delivery of MSW to management programs [4,5,6,7,8,9], especially in the case of difficult-to-manage MSW such as household appliances, batteries and electronic devices. Due to their physical, chemical, toxic, or volumetric characteristics, this type of MSW cannot be treated through conventional collection, transportation and final disposal systems, instead requiring specialized handling and treatment processes to enable resource recovery and avoid adverse impacts on public health, the environment or management infrastructure [9,10].

It is therefore essential to understand the factors that motivate or inhibit citizen participation in MSW management programs to design effective strategies. This is especially true for separating and delivering difficult-to-manage MSW, which may require greater effort from individuals. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews have identified key psychosocial factors and contextual conditions in people’s willingness to undertake MSW separation and delivery [4,9,10,11,12,13,14].

Regarding psychosocial factors, environmental knowledge, the awareness of benefits and the subjective norm have been shown to play a relevant role in people’s intention to contribute to MSW management programs [9,10].

Environmental knowledge refers to the cognitive factors related to understanding an environmental problem, including its consequences and the actions needed to address it. In particular, the awareness of the negative consequences of the problem has been shown to be associated with the intention to participate in MSW management programs [9,10,11]. The underlying logic is that before a person can act intentionally in response to a specific environmental problem, they must be aware of its existence. In this sense, environmental knowledge is considered a prerequisite for pro-environmental action.

The awareness of benefits relates to the reasons that motivate people to participate in MSW management programs. Although these benefits can take various forms, economic and environmental benefits tend to be the most studied. Economic benefits include tangible incentives, such as discounts, bonuses and monetary savings associated with the delivery of MSW, while environmental benefits are related to the reduction in pollution or ecosystem degradation. Previous research has found a positive association between the awareness of both types of benefits and the intention to engage in pro-environmental MSW management [9,10].

The subjective norm, defined as the perceived social pressure or support to engage in or avoid a behavior, is one of the most studied variables in this context. Several studies have shown that the subjective norm significantly influences the intention to engage in MSW management, suggesting that the adoption of these practices may be influenced by the extent to which individuals perceive that their social environment expects or supports them [9,10].

Against this background, we hypothesize that the awareness of the negative consequences of not separating and delivering MSW, the awareness of both the economic and environmental benefits of doing so, and the related subjective norm are predictors of the willingness of adopting these behaviors.

However, it is essential to analyze the context in which these practices are performed. Even if an individual is willing to separate and deliver their MSW, contextual barriers can hinder or prevent them from doing so [4,10,12,14,15,16].

Previous research has indicated that the ease of access to management programs and infrastructure availability determines an individual’s behaviors toward MSW [4,8,14,16]. For example, perceived convenience, understood as the ease with which an individual believes they can separate and deliver MSW, plays a crucial role in their decision to participate [9]. Individuals are less likely to engage in MSW delivery if it is perceived as a complicated process, whether due to the distance, time required or lack of access to collection points.

In this regard, it is necessary to understand how citizens perceive MSW management systems and what contextual barriers may be limiting their participation. Designing effective strategies to promote the separation and delivery of MSW must consider both the psychosocial factors that influence the intention to participate and the contextual conditions that facilitate or hinder an effective transition toward more sustainable MSW management models.

The Current Research

This study is part of the LLEBIPC project, which aims to increase the separation and delivery of difficult-to-manage MSW. We focused on specific types of MSW such as tires, household appliances, batteries, household insecticides, computers and peripherals, in the administrative region of Norte de Santander, Colombia. The acronym LLEBIPC comes from the initials of these types of MSW in Spanish.

In this study, we analyzed the community willingness to separate and deliver MSW, their awareness of the problem, the barriers that hinder its proper waste management and suggested strategies to promote pro-environmental practices related to MSW. We also conducted a geospatial and distance analysis to assess the community’s willingness to travel for waste delivery and to identify optimal locations for installing bins that facilitate MSW delivery. Based on these results, we developed an intervention proposal aimed at increasing the separation and delivery of MSW LLEBIPC through low-cost measures adapted to community dynamics in the five municipalities of the study.

2. Materials and Methods

We conducted our study using a concurrent mixed-method design, which enabled us to integrate qualitative, quantitative and geospatial data. We collected quantitative data through a questionnaire focused on variables related to the separation and delivery of MSW. For qualitative and geospatial data, we employed social mapping, a participatory technique that facilitates collaborative community map development. Additionally, we triangulated data from these social maps with information obtained from local waste collectors regarding the current locations of MSW bins for LLEBIPC waste in each municipality, as well as the residential locations of the study participants.

2.1. Participants

We collected the data between March and October 2023 in the municipalities of Cúcuta, Los Patios, Villa del Rosario, San Cayetano and El Zulia, located in the administrative region of Norte de Santander, Colombia. The first three municipalities are primarily urban areas, while the remaining two are predominantly rural.

We used a snowball sampling strategy to contact participants because the study region faces specific conditions of insecurity, displacement and social tensions stemming from the armed conflict in Colombia and its proximity to the border with Venezuela [17,18]. These conditions make it difficult to obtain a direct representative sample of the population.

As part of our recruitment strategy, we contacted trusted networks within the community to establish connections with educational institutions (both public and private), local businesses, environmental and community leaders, and public officials. Making initial contact through recognized stakeholders was crucial for building the trust necessary to encourage participation in the data collection sessions and to facilitate the open sharing of perceptions and experiences.

The initial sample included 359 residents. However, due to a lack of specificity in some reported locations—such as references to broad areas like municipalities, administrative regions, and neighborhoods, or places that could not be mapped—conducting a geospatial analysis became challenging. The final sample was thus reduced to 293 residents (66.55% women; M age = 33.42 years; SD age = 16.66).

Table 1. Sociodemographic characterization of the sample across municipalities.

Municipality	N. Sessions	Participants (Initial)	Participants (Final Included for Results)	% Participants Municipality	Average Age (SD)	Sex
Cúcuta	10	109	90	30.72	32.44 (13.82)	Woman	39
						Man	51
Los Patios	8	68	55	18.77	39.73 (20.45)	Woman	42
						Man	13
Villa del Rosario	7	85	77	26.28	37.88 (16.54)	Woman	62
						Man	15
San Cayetano	3	29	19	6.48	33.32 (16.09)	Woman	14
						Man	5
El Zulia	7	68	52	17.75	21.87 (10.17)	Woman	38
						Man	14
Total	35	359	293	100			293

shows the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample (for more information on the sample, see Section S1 in the Supplementary Materials).

2.2. Data Collection Process

Data collection took place during 35 sessions spread across the five municipalities, having obtained approval from the bioethics committee of Fundación Universitaria Konrad Lorenz. Before each session, participants were informed about the study’s objective, the confidentiality and anonymity policies for their responses and the data protection measures. To ensure their understanding and consent, they were asked to sign an informed consent form, and informed assent for minors, which also included authorization for audio recording and photography. This confirmed their voluntary participation in the study.

Once the informed consent form was signed, and in the case of minors, the informed assent, the participants completed a questionnaire that included items on sociodemographic characteristics and variables related to the separation and delivery of MSW. For MSW-related variables, 13 five-point Likert-type items were used (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree), which asked about the awareness of the negative consequences due to the lack of MSW separation and delivery, the awareness of the economic and environmental benefits of doing so, the subjective norm about these practices within their reference groups (family, neighbors and social organizations) and the willingness to separate and deliver MSW. The exact wording of the items can be found in Section S2 of the Supplementary Materials.

Subsequently, social mapping was used as a participatory technique to develop a community map. In this exercise, participants identified within their municipality the areas where they typically deposited unregulated MSW, and the areas they considered most suitable for the future installation of bins for MSW (see Section S3 in the Supplementary Materials for the protocol for applying the social mapping technique).

After completing the map construction, participants discussed and explained their maps, describing their usual MSW management practices and justifying their proposals for future bins placement. During this discussion participants shared their perceptions of the MSW problem in their municipalities, associated barriers, and suggestions for action. We recorded these participant interventions and automatically transcribed them using the Amberscript Global B.V software program (2024, Online), after which we edited and corrected them manually to adjust punctuation and syntax and to distinguish between participants and researchers (see Section S4 in the Supplementary Materials for the transcription protocol).

2.3. Data Analysis Process

Using the questionnaire data, we performed internal consistency analyses, descriptive analyses, and comparisons between municipalities and area types (urban vs. rural). In addition, we used the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) statistical technique to analyze the community willingness toward pro-environmental MSW separation and delivery. To check the model fit, we used the following reference values: 0.95 for CFI (Comparative Fit Index) and TLI (Tucker–Lewis Index), 0.06 for RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) and 0.08 for SRMR (Standardized Root Mean Square Residual) [19]. We estimated the model using version 0.6.18 of the Lavaan package in R.

Based on the transcripts of participants’ interventions during the map socialization, we conducted a content analysis using the ATLAS.ti (version 23) software program. We created and subsequently applied a coding system comprising four core analysis categories (perception of the problem, psychosocial barriers, infrastructure barriers and recommendations for improving MSW management). The coding protocol can be found in Section S5 of the Supplementary Materials.

Finally, we conducted a geospatial and distance analysis by triangulating data obtained from community maps, consultations with local collectors regarding areas with available bins for MSW LLEBIPC in each municipality at the time of data collection and the participants’ places of residence. To achieve this, we used ArcGIS Pro 3.2.2 software as a Geographic Information System (GIS) to create a map per municipality, identifying four types of locations: (1) unregulated areas where participants reported depositing MSW LLEBIPC (open dumps), (2) areas with available bins in each municipality (existing MSW bins), (3) areas suggested by participants as optimal for the installation of new MSW LLEBIPC bins (future MSW bins) and (4) participants’ residences (residential locations).

We calculated the distance in kilometers between the participants’ places of residence and the other locations represented on the maps created in ArcGIS, using the Haversine formula. This formula, used in spherical trigonometry [20], facilitates calculating the geodesic distance between two points based on their geographic coordinates.

$$d=2\cdot r\cdot \mathit{arcsin}\left(\sqrt{{\mathit{sin}}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\Delta \varphi }{2}}\right)+\mathit{cos}\left({\varphi }_1\right)\cdot \mathit{cos}\left({\varphi }_2\right)\cdot {\mathit{sin}}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\Delta \lambda }{2}}\right)}\right)$$

• Note: d is the distance between the points, r is the radius of the Earth (approximately 6371 km), Δϕ is the difference in latitude between the two points, ϕ₁ and ϕ₂ are the latitudes of the two points (in radians), and Δλ is the difference in longitude between the two points (in radians).

3. Results

3.1. Willingness to Separate and Pro-Environmental Delivery of MSW

To analyze the willingness to separate and deliver MSW pro-environmentally, we compared municipalities and their classification as predominantly urban or rural. Because the number of participants varied considerably across municipalities and land types, we used parametric, nonparametric and robust statistical tests to conduct comparisons as a means of verification. No statistically significant differences were identified in any of the variables analyzed (see Section S6 in the Supplementary Materials for a detailed presentation of these results).

The analyses are therefore presented for the total sample without distinction by municipality or type of territory (see

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of willingness for separation and pro-environmental disposal of MSW.

Municipalities	Awareness About the Negative Consequences		Awareness of Economic Benefits		Awareness of Environmental Benefits		Subjective Norm		Willingness
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Cúcuta	4.49	0.97	3.59	1.25	4.53	1	3.49	1.12	4.45	0.98
Los Patios	4.25	1	3.46	1.17	4.28	1.04	3.22	1.11	4.41	0.95
Villa del Rosario	4.4	1.04	3.34	1.36	4.41	1.10	3.34	1.05	4.35	1.06
San Cayetano	4.26	1.14	3.13	1.03	4.21	1.28	3.47	1.13	4.56	0.88
El Zulia	4.28	0.9	3.22	1.12	4.40	0.99	3.35	1.08	4.46	0.94
General	4.37	0.99	3.40	1.23	4.41	1.05	3.37	1.09	4.43	0.98

).

Participants reported a high awareness of the negative consequences associated with not separating and delivering MSW, both for the environment and for their own and their family’s health (M = 4.37, SD = 0.99; α = 0.89, ω = 0.89), as well as a high awareness of the environmental benefits from the separation and delivery of MSW (M = 4.41, SD = 1.05; α = 0.93).

In contrast, the awareness of the economic benefits of these practices was moderate (M = 3.40, SD = 1.23; α = 0.58), as was the subjective norm; that is, the perception of social support received from family members, neighbors and organizations to perform these practices (M = 3.37, SD = 1.09; α = 0.77, ω = 0.77). Finally, participants expressed a favorable willingness toward the separation and delivery of MSW, with high scores on usefulness, need and interest in these practices (M = 4.43, SD = 0.98; α = 0.93, ω = 0.93).

To analyze the predictive capacity of the variables related to the awareness of the negative consequences of not separating and delivering MSW, the awareness of the economic and environmental benefits of doing so, and the subjective norm regarding the willingness to engage in these practices, we estimated a model using the SEM technique. To calculate the model, we used the Weighted Least Squares Mean and Variance adjusted (WLSMV) estimator, recommended for variables measured on a five-point Likert scale.

Although the initial model showed goodness of fit (see

Table 3. SEM model willingness for separation and pro-environmental disposal of MSW.

Model	Estimator	df	χ2	CFI	TLI	RMSEA [CI 90%]	SRMR	AIC	BIC	R2
Model with four predictors	WLSMV	55	194.148	0.977	0.968	0.05 [0.04, 0.05]	0.05	-	-	0.859
Model with four predictors and restricted variance in item 1 of subjective norm	WLSMV	56	184.771	0.978	0.969	0.05 [0.04, 0.05]	0.05	-	-	0.859
Model with four predictors	MLR	55	135.964	0.968	0.955	0.07 [0.06, 0.09]	0.061	9167.531	9300.018	0.863
Model with three predictors and restricted variance in item 1 of subjective norm	WLSMV	39	113.466	0.986	0.981	0.04 [0.03, 0.05]	0.043	-	-	0.860
Model with three predictors	MLR	38	90.771	0.978	0.967	0.07 [0.05, 0.09]	0.056	7192.871	7295.916	0.862

Note. df = Degrees of freedom; χ² = Chi-square; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; RMSEA [90% CI] = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [90% confidence interval]; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual; AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion.

), we identified that one item in the subjective norm variable had a negative estimated variance and that the awareness of economic benefits was not a significant predictor of the willingness to separate and deliver MSW.

To address these issues, we recalculated the model in two ways: first, we restricted the variance of the subjective norm item to a positive range using the WLSMV estimator; second, we tested the model without variance restriction using the Maximum Likelihood Estimation with Robust Standard Errors (MLR) estimator. In both cases, the model maintained good goodness of fit. Furthermore, restricting the variance of the subjective norm item did not affect the model fit with the WLSMV estimator, and this item showed no problems when using the MLR estimator. However, the predictor of perceived economic benefits remained nonsignificant in both models.

We estimated an alternative model that included three predictors only, excluding the perceived economic benefits since this variable did not contribute significantly to explaining the willingness to separate and deliver MSW. This model (estimated with the WLSMV and MLR estimators), showed a better goodness of fit compared to the original model. Furthermore, when comparing the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) values (available with the MLR estimator only), the model with three predictors obtained lower values, suggesting a better relative fit. Figure 1 presents the results of the model with the WLSMV estimator and three predictors. For detailed results of the SEM analyses, see Section S7 in the Supplemental Material.

The results indicate that the awareness of the negative consequences of not separating and delivering MSW was the most influential predictor of the willingness to engage in these practices, followed by the awareness of environmental benefits and, to a lesser extent, the subjective norm. Furthermore, significant correlations were identified between these variables. The awareness of negative consequences had a strong, positive relationship with the awareness of environmental benefits, and a moderate, positive relationship with the subjective norm. Furthermore, the awareness of environmental benefits showed a moderate, positive relationship with the subjective norm.

Although the awareness of economic benefits was not a significant predictor in the SEM model, it showed a significant positive effect in bivariate analyses and in a simple linear regression model (β = 0.409, p < 0.001). However, in a multiple linear regression analysis, its effect disappeared (β = 0.002, p = 0.93) (see Section S8 in the Supplementary Materials). This result suggests that, although the awareness of economic benefits can increase the willingness to separate and deliver MSW in simple analyses, its influence is weaker compared to that of the environmental knowledge and social pressure variables when considered simultaneously.

3.2. Perception of the MSW Problem, Barriers, and Recommendations

The main results following the content analysis of the participants’ interventions during the community map socialization are presented below. This analysis allowed us to identify their perceptions of the MSW management problem, as well as the psychosocial and infrastructural barriers they believed were hindering pro-environmental MSW management in their municipalities. We also identified the participants’ recommendations for improving local MSW management (see

Table 4. Summary of the content analysis.

Category	Definition	Code	Frequency of Code
Problem perception	References to MSW and its management as a problematic issue with environmental and/or community-level consequences.	Environmental Pollution	12
		Public Health and Safety Risks	11
Psychosocial barriers	References of individual or social barriers to participation in MSW separation and delivery processes.	Lack of environmental literacy	19
		Apathy	12
		Resistance to Change	7
Contextual barriers	References to perceived inadequacies in resources, infrastructure, or systems that hinder the separation and delivery of MSW.	Insufficient public education and awareness campaigns on MSW management	21
		Insufficient MSW bins	15
		Failures in collection systems for MSW management	8
Suggestions for Enhancing Local MSW Management	References to strategies suggested by participants for local programs to effectively implement pro-environmental management of MSW.	Public education on MSW management	30
		Installation of MSW bins	22
		Awareness Campaigns	17
		Incorporating informal recyclers into MSW management programs	6
		Enhancing regulations and public policies	3

).

First, regarding their perception of the problem, participants reported that the lack of pro-environmental management of MSW in their municipalities affected both the environment and public health. Regarding the environment, they mentioned pollution as a significant problem, highlighting that “exposure to chemical and corrosive substances represents a danger” (Session 6, San Cayetano). In this context, they emphasized the importance of recognizing collective responsibility in the face of this situation, highlighting the need to take concrete action. In the words of the participants, “we must be aware that if we do not take care of our planet, we are the only ones who suffer. That is what is lacking here: awareness and a culture of the danger it poses to us and the planet” (Session 35, Villa del Rosario).

Regarding public health, participants stated that the lack of environmentally friendly MSW management can increase the risk of contracting diseases and suffering injuries resulting from contact with toxic products, fuel explosions or accidents. Among their concerns, they mentioned “vector-borne diseases” (Session 15, Los Patios).

Second, participants reported three psychosocial barriers they believed were hindering the pro-environmental management of MSW in their municipalities. The first was a lack of environmental literacy, reflected in the perception that “…people don’t know how to classify these elements or the danger they face…” (Session 2, Cúcuta). Similarly, knowledge and willingness were highlighted as key factors for motivation: “There must be commitment and knowledge of the entire waste issue” (Session 24, Los Patios).

The second psychosocial barrier reported was apathy, understood as a lack of interest or personal motivation to perform the separation and delivery of MSW. In this regard, the comments included the following: “even though they have a cleaning service, they do not use it, they prefer to accumulate everything…” (Session 21, Cúcuta), “unfortunately there is no awareness” (Session 15, Los Patios).

The third psychosocial barrier reported was resistance to change. Participants reported perceiving rejection or indifference among community members toward changes in MSW management habits, reflected in the accumulation of waste in homes, the lack of the proper use of collection services and the opposition of some community members to self-organize around pro-environmental management strategies. In the participants’ words, “The neighbors don’t agree. They don’t like the fact that there is a discipline and an agreement to… organize ourselves” (Session 30, Los Patios); “Because the community is reluctant to engage in certain activities… and even if they know it, they don’t change their behavior” (Session 15, Los Patios); “We old people don’t learn anymore; we’re stubborn” (Session 16, Cúcuta).

Third, participants reported three contextual barriers that they felt impeded the pro-environmental management of MSW in their municipalities. The first was the lack of public education and awareness campaigns on the pro-environmental management of MSW. In this regard, participants highlighted that their municipalities lacked structured programs, educational campaigns, community activities, or communication strategies (through traditional or digital media) to educate them about the importance of MSW and how to manage it to contribute to environmental sustainability. In the words of participants, “I think there is a lack of campaigns to raise awareness about recycling” (Session 11, Cúcuta); “…training… Because that’s what’s needed…” (Session 26, Cúcuta).

The second contextual barrier reported by participants (specifically an infrastructure-related one) was the lack of bins or their location in difficult-to-access areas. Participants mentioned that, in many cases, there was only one bin available, designated for the collection of all types of MSW without distinction, which discouraged separation at the source. They also mentioned that MSW bins were located in remote locations, which discouraged their delivery. In this regard, they stated: “If you go to the neighborhoods, there’s only one bin where all the waste goes” (Session 16, Cúcuta) and “Some people find it difficult or it’s too far away, so they don’t do it” (Session 10, Los Patios).

The third contextual barrier identified was the deficiencies in MSW management systems, attributed to a lack of coordination between stakeholders and inconsistencies in the collection process. Participants noted that, despite source separation, there were often no agreements or companies responsible for collecting the MSW separately. They also indicated that the initiatives they recalled had been intermittent and unsustainable over time, which led to demotivation in the community. In the words of participants, “You can pick it up at home, but when the garbage truck comes by, they turn it over and pile it up” (Session 10, Los Patios). They also highlighted the absence of specific routes for the collection of certain MSW, which caused accumulation and made proper disposal difficult: “They never create a separate route to collect specific materials” (Session 12, Cúcuta).

Finally, regarding recommendations for improving local MSW management, the participants identified five strategies that they proposed should be implemented in their municipalities. The first was to implement public education programs on MSW management. In this regard, participants highlighted the importance of accessible and dynamic pedagogical strategies, such as practical awareness-raising workshops or community talks, that allow citizens to understand the importance of separating and handing over MSW and the impact on the environment and public health of inadequate MSW disposal: “…the first thing we have to do is raise awareness… educate the community…” (Session 4, San Cayetano). Participants suggested that education could be addressed through incentive programs and participatory methods to achieve greater reach and citizen engagement. They also emphasized the need to implement educational programs aimed at children and young people, incorporating teaching about MSW management in schools and universities, to promote a social norm of environmental care from an early age: “If you teach children from elementary school that they have to separate garbage in recycling bins, this generates a culture” (Session 17, Los Patios).

The second strategy was to install new MSW bins at strategic locations to facilitate access. Participants mentioned that the current location of bins is limited and non-existent in some municipalities. They also highlighted the importance of ensuring that bins are suitable for different types of MSW and be properly marked and protected to avoid problems such as water accumulation, which can generate public health risks associated with the reproduction of disease vectors: “If not properly installed, it can be a risk factor” (Session 15, Los Patios). It was also proposed that bins be in key public locations such as schools, parks, and other urban facilities, as these are high-traffic areas: “The appropriate places… the school, the park, the mayor’s office…” (Session 7, El Zulia).

The third proposal was to conduct awareness campaigns to promote the separation and delivery of MSW. Participants emphasized that these campaigns should be dynamic and visual and have clear messages: “People don’t read, but they see the image” (Session 15, Los Patios). Additionally, they suggested using digital social media, digital marketing strategies and the support of influencers to capture the attention of the younger population: “The best way to reach a lot of people is through social media” (Session 24, Los Patios). Likewise, participants highlighted the importance of more traditional advertising strategies such as radio, billboards, brochures and posters with accessible information on how to separate MSW and the effects of improper disposal: “Distribute brochures with information on the topic, with activities to make learning fun” (Session 5, San Cayetano).

Fourth, it was suggested to incorporate informal recyclers into MSW management programs. Participants mentioned that these workers currently play a key role in MSW collection but face precarious conditions and a lack of recognition: “Recyclers are neither organized nor formalized” (Session 16, Cúcuta). Furthermore, they mentioned problems associated with trade informality, which poses a risk both to the environment and to the workers themselves: “waste pickers are not organized or formalized” (Session 31, Los Patios). People suggested that incorporating informal recyclers into MSW management programs would not only help improve the cleanliness of public spaces but could also represent a source of income for them, promoting their social and economic inclusion to dignify their work and improve MSW management.

The final strategy suggested by participants involved strengthening regulations and public policies to enhance MSW management and promote stronger social norms. Participants highlighted the lack of policies that guide the community and promote structured environmental education: “…a public policy is needed… to create awareness about environmental care and civic culture” (Session 31, Los Patios).

3.3. Geospatial and Distance Analysis for MSW Delivery

We obtained three key results from our geospatial and distance analysis (see Figure 2 and Figure 3), which examined the relationship between participants’ places of residence and three locations: (1) unregulated areas where participants reported depositing LLEBIPC MSW (open dumps), (2) areas with existing bins for LLEBIPC MSW in each municipality (existing MSW bins) and (3) areas suggested by participants as optimal for the future installation of LLEBIPC MSW bins (future MSW bins).

First, municipalities experienced a lack of bins for LLEBIPC MSW (except for Cúcuta). Three municipalities had only one area with bins available for depositing LLEBIPC MSW, and one municipality, Los Patios, had no designated area for this purpose.

Second, participants were unaware of the existing areas with bins for LLEBIPC MSW storage (primarily in Cúcuta, El Zulia and San Cayetano). They suggested installing new bins in areas where bins for these types of waste were already located.

Finally, when analyzing the differences in distances between participants’ places of residence and the other locations considered, we found statistically significant differences (see Figure 3). The distance between participants’ residences and the areas suggested for installing LLEBIPC MSW bins was significantly lower (Mtrimmed = 2.14, SD = 2.97) than the distance to areas where they usually deposited LLEBIPC MSW informally (Mtrimmed = 2.95, SD = 2.69), as well as to areas with existing bins for LLEBIPC MSW in each municipality (Mtrimmed = 3.12, SD = 3.54). However, no statistically significant differences were observed between the areas where participants usually deposited their LLEBIPC MSW informally and the areas with existing bins for these types of waste.

4. Intervention Proposal

Based on the results, we designed an intervention proposal to increase the separation and delivery of MSW LLEBIPC in the municipalities of Cúcuta, Los Patios, Villa del Rosario, San Cayetano and El Zulia in the administrative region of Norte de Santander, Colombia (see Figure 4).

This intervention proposal seeks to overcome contextual barriers and foster community participation and engagement in the pro-environmental management of MSW LLEBIPC through low-cost strategies, adapted to local dynamics and informed by scientific evidence [14,16,21,22,23]. Previous studies show that multi-component interventions, grounded in behavioral science principles, are more effective in promoting sustainable pro-environmental behavior change [11,13,14,24].

The design of the intervention proposal is based on the following theoretical frameworks widely used to promote behavior change: planned behavior theory [9,24,25], value–belief–norm theory [26], social learning theory [27,28], experiential learning theory [29,30] and narrative persuasive theory [31,32]. In addition, the intervention proposal incorporated strategies based on behavioral nudges to facilitate the separation and delivery of MSW LLEBIPC [33,34,35].

The intervention proposal is structured around four strategies. First, to reduce contextual barriers, new bins for the collection of MSW (lesser-type waste) will be installed in high-traffic, easily accessible public spaces. The location for installing the new bins will be defined in coordination with key stakeholders, prioritizing residents’ suggestions, ensuring compliance with public health regulations and seeking to optimize collection routes. Previous studies show that increasing the number of bins and their strategic spatial distribution often contribute to increasing the separation and delivery of MSW so they can be reused instead of being disposed in open spaces or drains, or being incinerated [4,14,15,16].

Second, a public education program will be implemented (to reduce psychosocial barriers) consisting of five sequential activities to raise awareness, train and provide feedback on the pro-environmental management of MSW LLEBIPC, encourage behavior change and promote community engagement [22]. There is evidence in the literature of educational interventions being effective in improving MSW management knowledge and practices [11,13,14].

Third, due to the limitations of providing the public education program to the entire community, its implementation will focus on strategic stakeholders, such as community leaders, educational communities and local government authorities. We seek to ensure that those who participate in the public education program also contribute to the dissemination of the acquired knowledge and practices in their communities [21].

Finally, to maximize the intervention’s impact, a multi-channel communication plan (direct, indirect and digital) will be implemented to raise awareness, train personnel and provide feedback on the pro-environmental separation and delivery of MSW LLEBIPC. Previous studies have provided evidence that exposure to advertising on pro-environmental MSW management contributes to increasing knowledge and awareness of consequences, social norms, attribution of responsibility, positive attitudes toward MSW separation and delivery, and ultimately pro-environmental MSW management behaviors [14,36,37].

We will develop the content of this plan from audiovisual material generated during the public education program activities, ensuring prior authorization from participants for its dissemination. This strategy seeks to strengthen community engagement and expand the reach of the intervention to different sectors of the population.

Through the direct communication channel, we will organize community debates and workshops for local leaders. These spaces will have a formative and participatory approach, facilitating the exchange of ideas, feedback, and resolution of concerns regarding the strategies implemented to increase the pro-environmental management of LLEBIPC MSW. The influence and social recognition of community leaders can foster a sense of shared responsibility, promoting a sustained commitment to the long-term pro-environmental management of MSW [21,24,38].

We will disseminate content through the indirect communication channel of municipal mass media (specifically radio, television and local newspapers). These more traditional media outlets remain relevant for effectively disseminating crucial information to diverse audiences, especially those without widespread internet access or a presence on digital social media [21].

We will also utilize digital communication to disseminate content via social media platforms such as Instagram and Facebook, newsletters, and a website created for the project, aiming to facilitate contact with key stakeholders, teach them how and where to separate and deliver MSW LLEBIPC, and present progress statistics. Digital media offer an interactive, sustainable and environmentally friendly advertising channel [25].

The intervention will be implemented in two phases. The first phase consists of a pilot implementation in one municipality to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed strategies. This phase includes close coordination with local stakeholders to install MSW LLEBIPC bins, launch the public education program and implement the communication plan. Feedback from participants and professionals involved in the implementation will be collected to guide necessary adjustments, alongside monitoring changes in community waste management behaviors —the quantity of MSW LLEBIPC collected and the reduction in previously reported informal dumping sites.

The second phase consists of scaling up the intervention to the four remaining municipalities. During this phase, all core components of the intervention—the bin installation, the educational program and the communication plan—will be replicated and adapted as needed. Monitoring efforts will continue, with a focus on changes in community waste management behaviors, as well as community perceptions regarding MSW LLEBIPC practices. This phased structure ensures a flexible, evidence-based and context-sensitive implementation.

To ensure long-term sustainability, the intervention’s promoters will collaborate with local stakeholders to foster a sense of ownership and institutional support. These partnerships will facilitate the ongoing monitoring of waste management behaviors and help integrate the program into local governance frameworks.

5. Discussion

Pro-environmental MSW management programs can help mitigate the triple planetary crisis (climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution). However, their successful operation largely depends on public willingness to perform the pro-environmental separation and delivery of MSW, especially when it comes to difficult-to-manage MSW such as household appliances, batteries and electronic devices. In this article, we present the results of a mixed study (with qualitative, quantitative and geospatial data) that aimed to analyze the community’s willingness to separate and deliver MSW, its perception of the problem and the barriers that hinder the proper management of MSW, and suggested strategies to promote pro-environmental practices related to difficult-to-manage MSW.

First, through a quantitative analysis, we found that the awareness of negative consequences, the awareness of environmental benefits, and the subjective norm are key predictors of the willingness to separate and deliver MSW pro-environmentally. These factors are interdependent, reinforcing one another, which underscores the need for integrated interventions that simultaneously address environmental knowledge, highlight the impacts of poor waste management and promote social support for pro-environmental waste behaviors [9,26,39].

Although the awareness of economic benefits predicted MSW separation in bivariate analyses, its effect disappeared in multivariate models, suggesting it plays a secondary or mediated role. This aligns with evidence showing that while financial incentives may trigger initial participation, their long-term impact is limited compared to environmental education or infrastructure improvements [13,14,40]. In low-resource settings (like the study area) reallocating funds toward education, infrastructure and behavior change may offer more sustainable outcomes [16].

Taken together, these results emphasize the need to design intervention strategies that prioritize strengthening environmental knowledge and social support, rather than economic incentives, to ensure the sustainability of MSW separation and delivery practices [14,21,26,29,39,40].

Second, through a qualitative content analysis, we identified that participants viewed MSW mismanagement in their municipalities as harmful to both the environment and public health. However, they also identified key barriers to pro-environmental practices, including low environmental literacy, apathy, resistance to change and a lack of public education and awareness campaigns on pro-environmental MSW separation and delivery. These findings underscore the need for interventions building environmental knowledge, self-efficacy and community engagement [22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41] and are consistent with [14] meta-analysis highlighting the effectiveness of educational strategies.

Participants reported two other contextual barriers (specifically, infrastructure-related barriers): poor MSW management systems and insufficient bins, both in terms of quantity and accessibility. The latter was corroborated through geospatial and distance analyses, highlighting the limited infrastructure available for storing difficult-to-manage MSW. Indeed, our results from geospatial and distance analyses identified community engagement as a key factor in planning more effective and sustainable MSW management infrastructure. These barriers hinder progress toward sustainable cities, in line with Sustainable Development Goal 11 [41].

Previous studies show that bin shortages, a lack of treatment plants and deficiencies in MSW collection routes are recurring challenges in contexts of socioeconomic vulnerability [4], as is the case in the municipalities where we collected data for this study. The strategic installation of bins could mitigate these problems, since their presence not only encourages the separation and delivery of MSW but can also compensate for the absence of nearby treatment infrastructure [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16]. However, their implementation must comply with public health regulations, such as the use of closed bins to avoid public health risks, and must be planned efficiently to optimize collection routes and minimize operating costs [4].

Finally, regarding recommendations for improving local MSW management, participants emphasized the importance of implementing public education programs, increasing the number and visibility of bins and conducting awareness campaigns to promote pro-environmental MSW management. These recommendations were considered in the design of the intervention proposal presented in this article, which was adapted to meet these local needs. Including community recommendations in the design of intervention proposals can contribute to MSW management solutions that are not only technically sound but also socially acceptable and sustainable [22].

Participants also proposed recommendations such as strengthening regulations and public policies surrounding MSW management, as well as incorporating informal recyclers into MSW management programs. While these recommendations were not incorporated into the intervention proposal presented in this article due to short-term feasibility constraints, their implementation is key in the medium and long term. Previous studies have shown that if an MSW management policy is perceived as effective, it is likely to increase people’s willingness to participate [9].

Colombia has an advanced regulatory framework and public policies for MSW management [42,43]. However, significant challenges remain regarding their implementation and national reach [43].

One example is the inclusion of informal recyclers in MSW management systems. In some regions, informal recyclers have successfully organized and taken collective action to defend their rights, obtaining recognition from the Colombian Constitutional Court as recycling service providers, with the right to remuneration—a globally exemplary case [42,43,44]. This recognition has contributed to improving their income and working conditions [1].

However, the implementation of these provisions continues to face barriers. On one hand, the formalization of recycling as an economic activity has generated competition between informal recyclers and private companies seeking to benefit from payments for the service [44]. On the other hand, the application of this measure has not been uniform throughout the country, as is the case in the administrative region of Norte de Santander, where we conducted this study.

In this context, it is crucial that municipal authorities design strategies for formalizing the recycling population, in compliance with constitutional provisions and leveraging the current regulatory framework [44]. Integrating these workers as key actors in MSW management would not only improve recycling rates and reduce reliance on landfills but would also foster sustainability and equity in urban environments [42]. Furthermore, the development of inclusive public policies is critical to ensure that these regulations are not only theoretically sound but also feasible and sustainable in specific local contexts [22].

Study Limitations and Future Directions

Despite the measures taken to achieve methodological rigor, there are some limitations of this study we cannot ignore. First, the sampling strategy used (snowball sampling) may have affected the representativeness of the sample. This strategy was selected due to the region’s particular sociopolitical context, characterized by public security issues, forced displacement and social tensions associated with the Colombian armed conflict, as well as its proximity to the border with Venezuela [17,18]. As a result, the sample composition may not accurately reflect the heterogeneity of the population, particularly among those groups with fewer connections to social organizations or community leaders. Future research could enhance this approach by incorporating alternative methods such as quota sampling or using mixed strategies that combine targeted recruitment through key stakeholders with open sampling techniques in public spaces or on digital platforms.

Second, although the combination of quantitative, qualitative and geospatial analyses facilitated a more comprehensive understanding of MSW management practices, the study’s cross-sectional design limited our ability to analyze temporal evolution or establish causal relationships between variables. The relationships proposed in the model on the willingness to separate and deliver MSW (calculated using the SEM technique) should be interpreted as predictive, not causal, associations. In this sense, future research could implement longitudinal or experimental designs to assess whether there are causal effects between the psychosocial factors analyzed and pro-environmental MSW management.

The third aspect to mention is the presence of the disposition–intention–behavior gap, widely documented in the literature on pro-environmental behavior [45,46]. While this study facilitated the exploration of dispositions toward MSW separation and delivery, future research should focus on analyzing actual environmental behavior, incorporating objective measurements or direct observation methods.

Finally, the study was conducted in only five municipalities in a single region. This limits the possibility of generalizing the results to other geographic and sociocultural contexts. However, the community engagement session protocols and the intervention proposal can be adapted for implementation in other territories, opening up the possibility of conducting comparative studies across different regions and broadening our understanding of socio-environmental factors that may be affecting the pro-environmental management of MSW.

6. Conclusions

By employing a mixed-method design that integrates quantitative, qualitative and geospatial data, this study provides evidence on the psychosocial, contextual and infrastructural factors influencing the willingness to engage in pro-environmental MSW management in Colombia, particularly in the administrative region of Norte de Santander, which borders Venezuela.

First, based on quantitative analyses, we identified that environmental awareness—both the perceived consequences of inaction and the benefits of pro-environmental behavior—along with perceived social support, are key interdependent predictors of the willingness to participate in MSW separation and delivery. This interdependence should be considered at both theoretical and practical levels. Future interventions could focus on enhancing environmental knowledge and social norms favorable to sustainable behaviors, as these factors seem to promote more sustainable long-term behavioral change.

Second, from a community perspective, we identified psychosocial and contextual barriers that limit citizen participation. These include low environmental literacy, apathy, resistance to change, and a lack of public education and awareness campaigns regarding pro-environmental MSW separation and delivery. These results emphasize the need to develop more comprehensive frameworks that consider personal, community and structural levels to analyze citizen engagement in pro-environmental behavior, and to highlight the role of stakeholders, such as local governments and MSW collection and treatment companies, in implementing measures to facilitate more efficient management and promote citizen engagement.

Finally, based on a geospatial and distance analysis, we confirmed the existence of infrastructure deficiencies that hinder the proper disposal of difficult-to-handle MSW, underscoring the importance of optimizing the location of bins and collection points. These findings show the potential of a geospatial analysis to enhance environmental behavior research.

In addition, we are making progress in developing a contextualized intervention proposal that integrates community needs and recommendations with the goal of increasing the separation and delivery of difficult-to-manage MSW.

Overall, this research integrates psychosocial and geospatial analyses to design evidence-based pro-environmental interventions, underscoring the importance of a multilevel approach to promote sustainable waste practices, particularly in regions facing social and infrastructural challenges.

Transparency and Openness

All Supplementary Materials, including anonymized quantitative and geospatial data, as well as R-scripts used for this article, are available on the Open Science Framework (link: https://osf.io/75kyc/?view_only=439142a21ad04b3a82986fa17dfb6627) accessed on 27 March 2025. The qualitative data can be requested from the corresponding author. This study was not preregistered online.