Municipal solid waste management systems in Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality: a comparative analysis across diverse income groups

1 Introduction

Municipal solid waste management requires coordinated collection, sorting, transport, treatment, disposal, financing, infrastructure, and stakeholder participation. These requirements are especially difficult to meet in rapidly urbanising settings, where inadequate services can harm public health and contaminate land, water, and air (Zhang et al., 2024). Waste generation and composition are also shaped by urbanisation, income, consumption, and local economic conditions (UNEP and ISWA, 2024). Low-income settlements are particularly vulnerable because households have limited capacity to pay for services, while municipalities face constrained budgets and infrastructure. Consequently, service design must account for spatial and socio-economic differences rather than apply a uniform model across all communities (Zhang et al., 2024). Waste prevention, reuse, recycling, and resource recovery can reduce disposal volumes and create economic value. Waste-to-energy pathways can recover energy from suitable waste streams, while recycling and material reuse can support new products, enterprises, and employment (Hoang et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2024). These practices move waste management away from linear disposal and toward circular resource use (Yang et al., 2022).

A circular economy keeps materials in use for longer through recovery, reuse, repair, recycling, composting, and appropriate treatment. Its success depends on enabling institutions, viable markets, public participation, and reliable services (Rweyendela and Kombe, 2021). In Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality, these conditions connect waste management directly to opportunities for local economic development (Mngomezulu et al., 2024).

Although several studies have examined municipal solid waste management in South Africa, limited empirical research has compared waste-generation patterns, disposal practices, public awareness, and management challenges across informal, suburban, and urban settings within Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality. Evidence also remains limited on how socio-economic and spatial characteristics influence household waste-management behaviour and perceptions. This study addresses this gap by comparing waste-management practices and challenges in Walmer Township, Summerstrand, and Gqeberha Central.

The next section reviews waste composition, waste-management practices, circular-economy principles, and the policy and governance context. This is followed by the Sustainable Solid Waste Management framework and the methodology, including the study areas, respondents, research design, and analytical procedures. The results then compare waste generation, collection and disposal, system challenges, policy awareness, and perceptions across income and residential contexts. The final sections discuss the findings, present practical recommendations, and conclude the article.

2 Literature review

2.1 Circular economy: definition and components

A circular economy is a regenerative system that prevents waste and pollution by design, keeps products and materials in use at their highest practicable value, and returns biological nutrients safely to natural systems. In municipal solid waste management, this shifts priority from collection and landfill disposal to prevention, reuse, repair, source separation, recycling, composting, remanufacturing, and market development. The approach is therefore broader than recycling: it links product design, household behaviour, municipal services, producer responsibility, recovery enterprises, and demand for secondary materials (Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF), 2020; UNEP and ISWA, 2024).

The five components form a closed resource loop. Prevention and redesign reduce material demand; reuse and repair extend product life; collection and sorting preserve material quality; recycling and composting recover technical and biological resources; and remanufacturing and market development return recovered value to production. Residual disposal remains necessary only for materials that cannot be safely recovered.

Sustainable solid waste management (SSWM) and the circular economy (CE) are related but not interchangeable. SSWM is the broader municipal service and governance objective: it integrates public health, environmental protection, social inclusion, affordability, collection, transport, treatment, recovery, and safe residual disposal. CE is a resource-retention strategy within that broader system, prioritising prevention, reuse, repair, recycling, composting, and secondary-material markets. Thus, a municipal system may improve collection and safe disposal and become more sustainable without yet being circular; conversely, CE initiatives cannot be sustained without reliable and equitable SSWM services.

2.2 Waste composition and characterisation

Waste characterisation and composition analysis provide essential information about the physical, chemical, and biological properties of waste streams. This evidence supports the design of collection, treatment, recycling, recovery, and disposal systems (Zhang et al., 2024). Physical characterisation identifies fractions such as organic waste, paper, plastics, metals, glass, textiles, garden waste, hazardous waste, and e-waste. Physicochemical analysis considers moisture content, calorific value, ash, fixed carbon, volatile matter, and elemental composition, while biological characterisation assesses organic matter and pathogens relevant to composting, anaerobic digestion, and public-health protection. Characterisation commonly combines sorting, sampling, laboratory testing, and statistical analysis. The resulting evidence helps waste managers compare sources, quantify variation, select appropriate technologies, improve resource recovery, and reduce environmental and health risks.

Municipal waste composition varies according to socio-economic conditions, consumption patterns, service provision, and development levels. Developing regions generally have a high organic fraction, while higher-income settings tend to generate more recyclable packaging materials (UNEP and ISWA, 2024; Zhang et al., 2024). These differences influence the suitability and financial viability of treatment and recovery options and demonstrate the need for locally appropriate systems.

Recent evidence from developing regions confirms that the proportion of organic material, plastics, paper, glass, and metals determines whether composting, recycling, anaerobic digestion, or other recovery options are technically and economically appropriate (Hoang et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2024). Local characterisation is therefore necessary before treatment technologies are selected.

Within Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality, domestic waste contains substantial recyclable and organic fractions, creating opportunities for recycling, composting, and circular-economy interventions. Local research identifies paper, plastics, metals, glass, organics, e-waste, hazardous waste, construction waste, and residual materials as important categories (Adeniran et al., 2023). Waste characterisation provides the evidence needed to select appropriate treatment technologies, improve recovery, assess waste-to-energy potential, and plan sustainable municipal services. Physical fractions and physicochemical parameters should therefore be assessed together rather than treated as separate planning concerns.

2.3 Policy and governance context

South Africa has a comparatively comprehensive legal and strategic framework for waste management. The National Environmental Management: Waste Act 59 of 2008 establishes the waste hierarchy, assigns municipal planning and service responsibilities, and requires integrated waste management plans. The National Waste Management Strategy 2020 prioritises waste prevention, landfill diversion, effective services, compliance, circular-economy activity, and job creation. Extended Producer Responsibility regulations, implemented from 2021 and subsequently amended, shift post-consumer responsibility for paper and packaging, electrical and electronic equipment, and lighting products toward producers (DFFE, 2020; Republic of South Africa, 2021, 2023, 2024). At municipal level, the NMBM Environmental Sustainability Policy requires the Municipality to maintain and review its Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP), implement its objectives, and prevent and minimise waste (Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (NMBM), 2021b).

These instruments are broadly sufficient in scope, but the evidence indicates that implementation, monitoring, financing, and public communication remain insufficient. The publicly available NMBM IWMP covers 2016–2020 and therefore requires a current, measurable implementation plan (Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (NMBM), 2016). In 2023/24, only 84% of known informal settlements received integrated weekly waste handling, 25 settlements remained unserved, and waste diversion fell from 1,463 tonnes in 2022/23 to 463 tonnes in 2023/24 (Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (NMBM), 2025). The present survey also found that 68.2% of respondents were unaware of existing waste-management systems or policies. Moreover, incomplete weighbridge records prevented a consistent landfill-disposal series. Thus, the principal governance problem is not an absence of policy instruments, but the gap between policy commitments and funded, monitored, equitable implementation (Figure 1).

3 Sustainable solid waste management system framework

The conceptual framework adopted in this study is based on Mngomezulu et al. (2024), who identified four determinants of sustainable municipal solid waste management and local economic development in Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality. As shown in Figure 2, these dimensions are linked to an operational cycle of waste minimisation, source separation, collection, transportation, recycling, recovery, treatment, safe disposal, and monitoring. They are discussed in descending order of eigenvalue and variance explained.

The values reported in Figure 2 were calculated from 26 five-point Likert-scale items using principal component analysis in SPSS. Factorability was confirmed by a Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin value of 0.936, a significant Bartlett’s test [χ²(325) = 5,866.196, p < 0.001], and communalities above 0.30. Components with eigenvalues greater than 1 were retained. Each eigenvalue is the sum of the squared loadings for its component, while the percentage of variance explained was calculated as (component eigenvalue ÷ 26 items) × 100. This produced Governance (13.437; 51.680%), Social Behaviour (2.144; 8.246%), Economic Feasibility (1.969; 7.572%), and Education/Knowledge (1.154; 4.440%). Cronbach’s alpha assessed internal consistency (0.933, 0.769, 0.930, and 0.887, respectively), and composite factor scores were calculated as the mean of the items loading primarily on each retained component (Mngomezulu et al., 2024).

Governance was the dominant dimension (eigenvalue = 13.437; variance explained = 51.68%; α = 0.933), encompassing regulation, enforcement, funding, incentives, recovery assessment, and institutional reliability. Social Behaviour followed (eigenvalue = 2.144; α = 0.769), covering household practices, participation, fees, and willingness to pay. Economic Feasibility (eigenvalue = 1.969; α = 0.930) captured markets, profitability, infrastructure, technology, personnel, and enterprise participation. Education and Knowledge (eigenvalue = 1.154; α = 0.887) addressed policy awareness, environmental literacy, sanitation, and knowledge of collection and recovery methods. The framework proposes that governance and knowledge enable participation and operational reliability, while economic feasibility connects recovered resources to viable products, enterprises, employment, and municipal savings. Monitoring closes the cycle by tracking waste quantities, service performance, recovery, costs, and public participation.

4 Methodology

The methodology combined comparative case evidence with quantitative survey analysis and contextual information from open-ended responses and field observations. The study examined waste practices and their potential contribution to local economic development in Walmer Township, Summerstrand, and Gqeberha Central (CBD) within Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality (NMBM). These areas were purposively selected from two municipal clusters to represent informal residential, suburban, and mixed residential-commercial contexts. Their locations within NMBM are shown in Figure 3.

4.1 Respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics

Respondents were distributed across Walmer (n = 88), Summerstrand (n = 82), and Central (n = 85). Women constituted 54.5% of the sample and men 42.4%. Most respondents held Matric/TVET (45.9%) or university qualifications (31.4%), while 56.5% reported a household income below R3,500 per month. These characteristics provide the socio-economic context for the area comparisons illustrated in Figure 4.

4.2 Research design

The study adopted a cross-sectional, survey-based comparative case-study design covering Walmer-E Township, Summerstrand, and Gqeberha Central. Area selection was purposive and criterion-based: Walmer-E represented an informal/low-income township context; Summerstrand represented a relatively high-income, formally serviced suburb; and Central represented a dense, mixed-income residential-commercial environment. Together, the three areas enabled comparison across contrasting settlement form, income profile, service infrastructure, and waste-management pressure within the same metropolitan authority. The household stage followed a multistage cluster framework. The selected areas served as clusters, after which households were recruited using the available residential sampling routes and simple-random selection where a usable frame was available, supplemented by purposive and expert-informed access where settlement form or access constraints prevented complete enumeration. Of 303 targeted households, 255 completed questionnaires, producing an 84% response rate: Walmer (n = 88), Summerstrand (n = 82), and Central (n = 85). The near-balanced allocation was intended to support cross-area comparison rather than to reproduce each area’s population share. Consequently, the sample is analytically informative but is not a probability-weighted representation of all households in NMBM. Findings are generalisable to the sampled households and transferable to comparable metropolitan contexts, but population prevalence estimates should not be inferred for the entire municipality.

The questionnaire contained closed-ended frequency, categorical, and five-point Likert items, together with optional open-ended prompts. Field observations and open-ended responses were used to interpret service and environmental context; they were not subjected to a formal coding protocol and are therefore not presented as an independent qualitative strand. The study is accordingly described as survey-based rather than mixed-methods. SPSS Version 21 was used for data screening, frequencies, percentages, means, standard deviations, chi-square tests of independence, principal component analysis, and Cronbach’s alpha. Cross-area differences in selected waste-frequency distributions were tested with Pearson’s chi-square and reported with Cramér’s V. Perception-factor means were compared using Welch’s one-way ANOVA because group variances and sample sizes differed, followed by Games–Howell pairwise comparisons. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05; η² is reported as an effect-size estimate. Categories with sparse expected frequencies were interpreted descriptively rather than used to support inferential claims.

5 Results

This section presents the results from 255 completed household questionnaires (an 84% response rate) across Walmer-E, Summerstrand, and Gqeberha Central. Valid responses are reported where they vary by item. The results cover respondent characteristics, waste generation, collection and disposal, system challenges, awareness, and perceived influences on sustainable MSWM.

5.1 Five-year municipal waste-quantity evidence

Table 1 consolidates the most recent five-financial-year evidence available in official NMBM records. The indicators are not fully comparable because the municipality changed reporting measures and experienced weighbridge and audit gaps. The table therefore reports the figures as published and does not interpolate missing values. This limitation is itself significant: reliable annual tonnage and diversion data are essential for infrastructure planning, policy evaluation, and circular-economy investment.

Table 1. Official NMBM waste-quantity evidence, 2019/20–2023/24.

Compiled from Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (NMBM) (2019, 2021a, 2023, 2025). t, tonnes.

5.2 Waste generation patterns by area of residence

Figure 5 illustrates how waste-generation patterns differed sharply across the three residential areas. Central and Summerstrand were characterised by frequent organic waste, while Central displayed exceptionally frequent plastic generation. Walmer’s responses were concentrated in monthly generation for several durable and recyclable streams, including plastics, old clothes, glass, and cans. In contrast, specialised streams such as oil, hazardous waste, e-waste, garden waste, and construction waste were commonly reported as never generated, especially in Summerstrand and Central.

Table 2 summarises the main contrasts; the full area-by-frequency distributions remain available from the underlying questionnaire dataset. Pearson chi-square tests confirmed that the cross-area distributions were not attributable to sampling variation for the four common streams that met the expected-frequency criterion (Table 3). Effect sizes were large: plastics, glass, cans/metals, and nappies/wipes all recorded Cramér’s V above 0.56. Sparse cells prevented reliable asymptotic tests for several specialised streams; those variables are therefore retained as descriptive findings only.

Table 2. Dominant waste-generation frequency by area.

Table 3. Chi-square tests of waste-frequency distribution by area.

5.3 Waste-collection systems

5.3.1 Household waste storage and disposal systems

Walmer and Summerstrand relied mainly on Household Solid Waste Collection Trucks (HSWCTs) for routine waste. In Walmer, HSWCT use ranged from 40 respondents for glass to 45 for food waste, while 17 respondents used black waste containers for the temporary storage of food, plastic, paper, and sanitary waste. Summerstrand recorded slightly higher HSWCT use, ranging from 51 respondents for glass to 54 for food waste.

Specialised waste was generally managed outside formal municipal systems. In Walmer, alternative methods were reported for hazardous waste (38 respondents), batteries (61), electronic waste (63), garden waste (58) and construction waste (58). A similar pattern occurred in Summerstrand for hazardous waste (38), batteries (61), electronic waste (63), garden waste (58) and construction waste (58). In addition, alternative methods were used for sanitary waste (68 respondents).

In Gqeberha Central, routine household waste was primarily managed through communal collection points, with between 40 and 50 respondents using this system. Glass and metal cans were managed through a combination of communal and other collection facilities. Alternative disposal methods were particularly common for old clothes (68 respondents), garden waste (58) and construction waste (58).

Municipal collection systems generally accommodated routine household waste, but hazardous, electronic, garden, and construction waste were predominantly managed through alternative methods. This finding indicates a need for dedicated collection points, improved recycling services, and greater public awareness of the safe disposal of specialised waste.

5.3.2 Waste-collection frequency and collection following service failures

Figure 6 shows that waste collection was predominantly weekly (177 respondents; 69.4%), followed by daily (56; 22.0%) and fortnightly (19; 7.5%); only 3 respondents (1.2%) reported that waste was never collected. Figure 6 also presents the time taken for service to resume after a missed collection. Collection resumed within a week for 83 respondents (32.5%), within a fortnight for 79 (31.0%), and within a day for 55 (21.6%).

5.4 Challenges affecting waste-management systems

Perceptions of waste-management challenges varied substantially across the three areas, as shown in Figure 7. Gqeberha Central recorded the highest levels of concern, followed by Walmer, while Summerstrand generally reported the lowest mean scores.

In Walmer, the principal challenges were clogged drains (M = 4.43), dust and litter (M = 4.28) and diminished tourism (M = 4.14). Air pollution (M = 3.88) and the presence of recycling companies (M = 3.81) were also important. Conversely, topography (M = 2.27), hydrogeological pollution (M = 2.32) and site geology (M = 2.33) were regarded as less significant.

Summerstrand reported comparatively moderate challenges. Greenhouse gas emissions received the highest mean score (M = 2.73), followed by landfill demand (M = 2.66) and surface-water pollution (M = 2.63). Clogged drains (M = 1.84), high waste-generation rates (M = 1.66) and diminished tourism (M = 1.45) were perceived as relatively minor concerns.

Gqeberha Central experienced the most severe challenges. The leading concerns were diminished tourism (M = 4.62), clogged drains (M = 4.46), dust and litter (M = 4.31), inadequate awareness programmes (M = 4.28), and cultural and traditional practices (M = 4.27). Household waste separation and stakeholder behaviour each recorded a mean of 4.21, while poor waste-management processes and transportation routes each recorded 4.16. Equipment availability (M = 4.14), transportation mode (M = 4.08), and the presence of recycling companies (M = 4.04) were also significant concerns.

The greatest differences concerned diminished tourism, with mean scores of 4.62 in Central, 4.14 in Walmer and 1.45 in Summerstrand. Clogged drains recorded means of 4.46, 4.43 and 1.84, respectively, while dust and litter recorded 4.31, 4.28 and 2.21. These results indicate that waste-management challenges were most severe in the densely populated and commercially active Central area, considerable in Walmer and less pronounced in Summerstrand.

5.5 Awareness of solid waste-management systems and policies

Awareness of current waste-management systems was low: 174 respondents (68.2%) were unaware, 77 (30.2%) were aware, and 4 responses (1.6%) were missing.

More than two-thirds of respondents were unaware of existing waste-management systems, suggesting limited information dissemination or inadequate communication between waste-management authorities and communities. The 30.2% awareness level indicates a substantial knowledge gap regarding available services, programmes, and operating procedures.

5.6 Perceptions of SWMS factors across different income groups

Table 4 shows clear differences in perceptions of sustainable solid waste management factors across Walmer, Summerstrand, and Gqeberha Central. Central recorded the highest mean factor scores, Summerstrand the lowest, and Walmer generally occupied an intermediate position.

Table 4. Perceptions of SWMS factors across different income groups.

5.6.1 Governance factors affecting MSWM

Governance-related factors exhibited considerable variation across the three study areas. Respondents from Gqeberha Central reported the highest mean score (M = 3.979; SD = 0.656), indicating strong agreement regarding the importance of government regulations, law enforcement, funding, incentive schemes, and waste management planning. Walmer recorded a moderate mean score (M = 2.970; SD = 1.644), suggesting a more balanced perception of governance effectiveness. Conversely, Summerstrand recorded the lowest mean score (M = 1.509; SD = 1.211), indicating relatively weaker perceptions regarding the influence of governance factors on waste management. The lower standard deviation in Central suggests greater consensus among respondents, while the higher variability in Walmer indicates more diverse opinions.

5.6.2 Social-behaviour factors

The largest differences between areas were observed for social behaviour factors. Gqeberha Central recorded a high mean score (M = 3.867; SD = 0.861), suggesting that residents strongly recognised the importance of behavioural factors such as willingness to pay waste collection fees, waste generation patterns, and community participation. In contrast, Walmer (M = 1.061; SD = 1.881) and Summerstrand (M = 0.683; SD = 1.382) reported substantially lower mean scores. These findings suggest that behavioural considerations are perceived as more critical in the densely populated urban core than in the residential suburbs.

5.6.3 Economic-feasibility factors affecting MSWM

Economic feasibility factors were also rated highest in Gqeberha Central (M = 4.044; SD = 0.577), indicating strong recognition of the importance of recycling markets, technological capacity, trained personnel, long-term strategies, and private-sector participation in supporting sustainable waste management. Walmer recorded a moderate mean score (M = 3.143; SD = 1.594), while Summerstrand recorded the lowest score (M = 1.396; SD = 1.177). The relatively high mean score in Central suggests that respondents perceive economic viability as a key requirement for successful waste management and resource recovery initiatives.

5.6.4 Education and knowledge factors

Education and knowledge factors followed a similar pattern. Gqeberha Central achieved the highest mean score (M = 3.885; SD = 0.657), indicating strong agreement regarding the importance of environmental awareness, knowledge of waste management methods, and understanding of health and sanitation issues. Walmer also recorded a relatively high score (M = 3.370; SD = 1.749), suggesting that respondents recognised the value of education and awareness in improving waste management practices. Summerstrand reported a substantially lower mean score (M = 1.568; SD = 1.407), indicating weaker perceptions regarding the influence of educational and knowledge-related factors.

5.6.5 Comparative interpretation

All four perception factors varied significantly across the three areas (Table 5). Welch’s ANOVA identified large effects for Governance (η² = 0.397), Social Behaviour (η² = 0.494), Economic Feasibility (η² = 0.455), and Education/Knowledge (η² = 0.347). Central recorded the highest mean on every factor, Summerstrand the lowest, and Walmer an intermediate position. Games–Howell comparisons showed significant differences between all pairs for Governance and Economic Feasibility (all p < 0.001). For Education/Knowledge, all pairs differed, including Walmer versus Central (p = 0.030), while the other comparisons were p < 0.001. For Social Behaviour, Central differed from both Walmer and Summerstrand (p < 0.001), but Walmer and Summerstrand did not differ significantly (p = 0.294). The evidence therefore supports cross-area differences, but not the claim that every pair differs on every construct. Because eta-squared can be upwardly biased in unequal-variance designs, these values should be interpreted as approximate indicators of effect magnitude alongside Welch’s ANOVA and the Games-Howell comparisons.

Table 5. Findings-to-circular-economy intervention matrix.

6 Discussion

The discussion integrates the comparative household findings with recent MSWM and circular-economy literature and the study’s sustainable MSWM framework. It focuses on municipal quantity data, area-specific waste patterns, collection performance, system challenges, public awareness, and the governance and economic conditions required for recovery-led local development.

6.1 Five-year municipal waste-quantity evidence

The five-year municipal evidence demonstrates that waste quantity is not only an operational indicator but also a governance requirement. However, the published figures cannot be read as a continuous trend because their scope and measurement basis change across the reporting period. The 2019/20 figure of 571,482 t was a planning estimate for the Arlington and Koedoeskloof landfill sites, whereas the 2020/21 figure of 285,652 t was reported as waste received at licensed landfills. The absence of a comparable figure for 2021/22, followed by a seven-month total of 191,670 t for July 2022 to January 2023, prevents defensible year-on-year comparison. The apparent decline should therefore not be interpreted as evidence that NMBM generated or disposed of less waste; it primarily reflects changes in coverage, estimation, and data availability (Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (NMBM), 2019, 2021a, 2023).

The reporting gaps also expose weaknesses in the municipality’s waste-information infrastructure. No landfill audit was undertaken for the period associated with the 2021/22 gap, while incomplete weighbridge functionality and a backlog in manual records restricted the 2022/23 disposal total to seven months (Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (NMBM), 2023). These limitations weaken the municipality’s ability to forecast landfill capacity, plan collection fleets and transfer infrastructure, calculate unit costs, identify seasonal changes, and evaluate whether waste-minimisation interventions are effective. They also reinforce the study’s finding that governance is the dominant dimension of sustainable MSWM: reliable measurement, auditing, and institutional accountability are prerequisites for evidence-based service delivery rather than merely administrative reporting functions.

The diversion evidence is particularly concerning from a circular-economy and local-economic-development perspective. Reported diversion decreased from 1,463 t in 2022/23 to 463 t in 2023/24, a reduction of 68.4% (Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (NMBM), 2023, 2025). Although the lack of a comparable total-landfill denominator means that a diversion rate cannot be calculated, the reported decline indicates either a substantial contraction in recovery activity or a deterioration in recording. Both interpretations require attention. Lower recovery would mean that potentially valuable organic material, plastics, paper, glass, and metals are being lost to disposal, thereby limiting feedstock for recyclers, composting initiatives, small enterprises, and jobs. Weak recording would similarly make it difficult to recognise informal and private-sector contributions or to demonstrate the economic value created by diversion.

6.2 Waste generation patterns by area of residence

The results reveal clear differences in waste generation patterns among the three residential areas. Central and Summerstrand residents generate organic and plastic waste more frequently, often on a daily basis, reflecting higher levels of routine household consumption. Walmer residents, by contrast, tend to generate many waste categories on a monthly basis, suggesting different consumption and disposal patterns. Across all areas, hazardous waste, e-waste, garden waste, and construction waste were relatively uncommon, indicating that municipal waste management efforts should prioritize the collection, recycling, and treatment of organic, plastic, glass, and metal wastes, which constitute the most frequently generated waste streams.

The waste categories observed in this study are consistent with recent municipal waste typologies and local composition evidence (Adeniran et al., 2023; UNEP and ISWA, 2024; Zhang et al., 2024).

The cross-area pattern is also consistent with South African municipal evidence. In Johannesburg, Kadyamadare and Samson (2024) found that class, local meanings of waste, and relationships with reclaimers shaped distinct separation-at-source practices between lower- and higher-income neighbourhoods. In the Hantam Municipality, Viljoen et al. (2021) linked limited infrastructure and municipal capacity to household disposal challenges and emphasised locally appropriate separation systems. Raphela et al. (2024) similarly reported gaps in public knowledge and significant health and environmental concerns in uMgungundlovu District. Together, these studies reinforce the present finding that uniform municipal programmes are unlikely to produce uniform behaviour across unequal residential contexts.

6.3 Waste-collection systems

6.3.1 Household waste-storage and disposal systems

The results suggest that municipal collection systems effectively manage conventional household waste across the three study areas. However, important gaps remain in the management of hazardous, electronic, garden, and construction waste. The frequent use of alternative disposal methods for these streams highlights the need for dedicated collection facilities, recycling programmes, and public-awareness campaigns. Differences between Walmer, Summerstrand, and Gqeberha Central further indicate that services should be tailored to each area’s socio-spatial characteristics. Central relied more strongly on formal municipal and kerbside collection for routine waste, whereas bulky and reusable materials were mainly managed through alternative channels. Although collection failures were generally addressed within one to two weeks, some households experienced prolonged interruptions.

Waste-collection services were largely reliable, with weekly collection being the dominant schedule. Nevertheless, delayed removal following missed collections can cause waste accumulation, illegal dumping, litter, unpleasant odours, and public-health risks. Municipal authorities should therefore improve operational efficiency, strengthen monitoring, and implement rapid-response mechanisms to maintain service continuity and environmental cleanliness.

The observed reliance on municipal trucks for routine waste, alongside alternative routes for specialised waste, is consistent with evidence that household practices reflect the collection options available locally (Fadhullah et al., 2022). Where collection fails, accumulated waste can encourage littering and indiscriminate dumping (Niyobuhungiro and Schenck, 2022).

6.3.2 Waste-collection frequency and collection following service failures

The findings suggest that weekly waste collection constitutes the primary municipal waste management practice and that most households have access to relatively regular waste collection services. The small percentage reporting no collection may indicate isolated service delivery challenges or areas with limited access to formal waste management services.

Collection frequency depends on municipal capacity, local demand, and service arrangements. Regular schedules may nevertheless be insufficient where growing household volumes exceed collection capacity (Zhang et al., 2024). The present results similarly show variation in collection and in recovery after service failure.

6.4 Challenges of waste management systems

The findings indicate that Gqeberha Central experiences the most severe perceived solid waste management challenges, followed by Walmer, while Summerstrand reports comparatively fewer concerns. The results suggest that urban density, commercial activities, and higher waste generation rates contribute significantly to waste management challenges in Central. Walmer faces substantial environmental and service-related challenges, particularly regarding littering and drainage blockages, whereas Summerstrand appears to benefit from more effective waste management practices and infrastructure. These differences highlight the need for area-specific waste management interventions, with greater emphasis on improving waste collection efficiency, recycling infrastructure, stakeholder participation, and public awareness programmes in Walmer and Gqeberha Central.

The environmental, operational, social, and institutional challenges identified in Walmer and Central are consistent with research linking inadequate services to litter, pollution, and blocked drainage systems (Zhang et al., 2024; Niyobuhungiro and Schenck, 2022).

Stakeholder behaviour, weak processes, and limited recycling infrastructure were also important barriers. Effective systems depend on coordinated institutions and community participation, while household separation is strongly shaped by social context and service design (Rweyendela and Kombe, 2021; Kadyamadare and Samson, 2024).

Respondents’ concerns about air, water, and land pollution reflect the documented environmental and public-health consequences of poorly managed waste and landfill dependence (Raphela et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2024).

Collectively, the findings show that municipal waste-management challenges are interconnected: pollution, infrastructure constraints, stakeholder behaviour, limited awareness, operational inefficiency, and landfill pressure reinforce one another. An integrated response should combine effective governance, public participation, education, recycling, and resource recovery (UNEP and ISWA, 2024; Zhang et al., 2024).

6.5 Awareness of solid waste-management systems

The high level of unawareness may negatively influence public participation in waste reduction, recycling initiatives, waste separation practices, and compliance with waste management regulations. Furthermore, insufficient awareness can contribute to improper waste disposal behaviours, reduced utilisation of available waste management facilities, and limited community involvement in environmental sustainability initiatives.

Public awareness can determine whether households separate waste, participate in recycling, and use formal disposal routes (Fadhullah et al., 2022). Indiscriminate dumping is also associated with poverty, urbanisation, service limitations, and low awareness (Niyobuhungiro and Schenck, 2022). The low awareness recorded in this study may therefore help explain some reported practices.

The results suggest a need for strengthened public education and awareness campaigns to improve residents’ understanding of current waste management systems. Enhancing communication strategies, community outreach programmes, and environmental education initiatives could increase public participation and contribute to more effective and sustainable waste management practices.

6.6 Perceptions of SWMS across different income groups

The findings indicate that perceptions of sustainable solid waste management (SSWM) factors differ significantly according to area of residence. Respondents from Gqeberha Central exhibited the strongest recognition of the importance of governance, social behaviour, economic feasibility, and education and knowledge factors in promoting sustainable waste management and economic development. Walmer respondents demonstrated moderate levels of agreement, while Summerstrand residents generally reported lower levels of recognition. These variations suggest that communities experiencing more visible waste management challenges are more likely to appreciate the importance of institutional, behavioural, economic, and educational interventions required to improve waste management outcomes.

The stronger support observed in Gqeberha Central is consistent with evidence that increasing urban waste volumes place pressure on municipal systems and heighten the importance of effective institutions (Rweyendela and Kombe, 2021).

The findings also support recent literature on behavioural influences. Household separation and recycling participation differ across communities and respond to local norms, opportunities, relationships with reclaimers, and service arrangements (Fadhullah et al., 2022; Kadyamadare and Samson, 2024). Direct exposure to waste problems may therefore increase recognition of the importance of community participation.

Economic feasibility depends on effective organisations, infrastructure, trained personnel, safe technologies, reliable funding, and viable recovery markets. These conditions enable circular practices to move from policy aspirations to sustainable services and enterprises (Gedam et al., 2021; Mngomezulu et al., 2024).

Environmental education and accessible information are prerequisites for effective separation, recycling, and responsible disposal. The higher level of agreement in Central therefore indicates recognition that knowledge must be translated into practical household behaviour (Fadhullah et al., 2022; Kadyamadare and Samson, 2024).

The comparatively moderate responses recorded in Walmer may reflect the area’s intermediate position between the highly urbanised environment of Gqeberha Central and the relatively well-serviced residential environment of Summerstrand. Walmer residents acknowledge the importance of governance, behavioural, economic, and educational factors, but the lower intensity of waste management challenges compared to the CBD may reduce the perceived urgency of these interventions. Conversely, the lower levels of agreement observed in Summerstrand may be attributable to more efficient service delivery, lower population density, and fewer visible waste management problems, resulting in reduced awareness of the broader factors that influence sustainable waste management.

Perceptions of sustainable waste-management factors are strongly influenced by local environmental and socio-economic conditions. Areas facing greater pressure place more emphasis on governance, participation, economic opportunity, and education. Interventions should therefore be context-specific and prioritise institutional capacity, recovery markets, stakeholder participation, and environmental education where challenges are greatest.

7 Limitations

This study has several limitations. The three case areas were selected using explicit criteria, but the sample was not probability-weighted to represent all households in Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality; population prevalence should therefore not be inferred. The cross-sectional design captures conditions at one point in time and cannot establish causal relationships or changes over time. The household findings rely mainly on self-reported survey responses and may be affected by recall or response bias. Open-ended responses and field observations were used only for contextual interpretation and were not subjected to a formal qualitative coding protocol. Finally, eta-squared may overstate effect magnitude under unequal variances, so the reported values are interpreted together with Welch’s ANOVA and Games-Howell results. Future research should use probability-weighted municipal samples, longitudinal data, verified waste measurements, and formally analysed qualitative evidence.

8 Conclusion

This study investigated the contribution of municipal solid waste management (MSWM) to local economic development in Walmer Township, Summerstrand, and Gqeberha Central within the Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality. The findings demonstrate that municipal solid waste management extends beyond environmental protection and sanitation and has significant implications for economic development, resource recovery, employment creation, and the advancement of circular economy principles.

The study revealed notable differences in waste generation patterns across the three case study areas. Organic waste, plastics, glass, and metal wastes were identified as the most commonly generated waste streams, while hazardous waste, e-waste, garden waste, and construction waste were generated less frequently. These findings suggest that waste management interventions should prioritise the recovery and recycling of high-volume waste streams to maximise environmental and economic benefits.

The findings further showed that municipal waste collection systems generally provide reliable services for conventional household waste. However, substantial gaps remain in the collection and management of hazardous waste, electronic waste, garden waste, and construction waste. The continued reliance on alternative disposal methods for these waste streams indicates deficiencies in specialised waste management infrastructure and service provision.

The study identified several challenges affecting the effectiveness of municipal solid waste management, including littering, clogged drainage systems, inadequate recycling infrastructure, poor waste management processes, stakeholder behaviour, limited public awareness, environmental pollution, and increasing pressure on landfill facilities. These challenges were most pronounced in Gqeberha Central, followed by Walmer, while Summerstrand reported comparatively fewer concerns. The findings confirm that waste management challenges are multidimensional and require integrated interventions that address environmental, social, institutional, and economic factors.

A significant finding of the study was the low level of public awareness regarding existing waste management systems and policies. More than two-thirds of respondents indicated that they were unaware of municipal waste management systems, highlighting a substantial information gap that may negatively affect participation in recycling, waste separation, and other sustainable waste management initiatives.

The factor analysis revealed that governance, economic feasibility, social behaviour, and education and knowledge are the primary determinants of sustainable solid waste management and local economic development. Governance emerged as the most influential factor, followed by social behaviour, economic feasibility, and education. The findings emphasise that effective regulations, law enforcement, funding mechanisms, incentive schemes, public participation, market development, technological support, and environmental education are essential for achieving sustainable waste management outcomes.

Inferential testing strengthens this conclusion. The distributions of common waste streams differed significantly by area with large Cramér’s V values, and Welch’s ANOVA showed significant, large cross-area effects for all four sustainable waste-management factors. However, the non-significant Walmer–Summerstrand contrast for Social Behaviour demonstrates that area differences are construct-specific and should not be overstated.

9 Recommendations

The CE response should be differentiated by local waste streams and barriers rather than applied as a uniform city-wide package. Table 5 maps the principal empirical signals to interventions and measurable indicators.

Based on the comparative findings, the following measures are recommended for NMBM and its partners:

• Adopt a current IWMP with annual ward-level targets for collection coverage, landfill diversion, illegal-dumping response times, infrastructure, budgets, responsible officials, and public reporting.
• Repair and calibrate landfill weighbridges, digitise daily tonnage records, publish comparable annual generation, disposal, and diversion data, and independently audit the figures.
• Pilot two-stream separation of dry recyclables and residual waste in all three study areas, add organics collection or community composting where feasible, and provide dedicated drop-off arrangements for e-waste, batteries, hazardous waste, garden waste, and construction waste.
• Extend weekly collection to all informal settlements, improve vehicle access and communal collection points, and intensify drain, litter, and illegal-dumping interventions in Gqeberha Central and Walmer.
• Respond to the 68.2% policy-awareness gap through multilingual campaigns, schools, ward committees, clear service calendars, complaint channels, and feedback reports showing actions taken.
• Develop circular local markets and livelihoods. Use municipal procurement, EPR partnerships, cooperatives, buy-back centres, training, protective equipment, and transparent contracts to integrate reclaimers and local enterprises into recycling, composting, repair, and materials recovery.
• Combine education with proportionate enforcement of dumping and separation rules, monitor contractor and municipal performance, and review progress quarterly against service equity, public-health, environmental, and economic-development indicators.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. Generative AI was used to support language editing and improve the clarity and readability of the manuscript. It was also used to assist in generating some of the figures. The authors reviewed and verified all AI-assisted content and take full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of the final manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Wenting Ma, Suzhou University of Science and Technology, China

Reviewed by: Abdulkarim Rashed, Freelance, Bahrain

Winda Nur Cahyo, Islamic University of Indonesia, Indonesia