Authors: Antwi Joseph Barimah, Henry Ofosu Addo, James Dumba, Kyeremeh Eugene Nana Kwame, Lartey Alexander Atteh, Kyere-Mensah Juliana
Categories: Article, Ghana, Household waste, Recycling, Solid waste management, Public health risks, Environmental sciences, Environmental social sciences
Source: Scientific Reports
Authors: Antwi Joseph Barimah, Henry Ofosu Addo, James Dumba, Kyeremeh Eugene Nana Kwame, Lartey Alexander Atteh, Kyere-Mensah Juliana
Poor solid waste management remains a major environmental and public health concern in low- and middle-income countries, including Ghana. Solid waste includes non-hazardous materials like plastics, organic waste, and recyclables, as well as hazardous substances that can cause environmental and health risks if not properly disposed of. This study examined household waste disposal practices, management challenges, and environmental impacts in three communities within the Ahafo Region, Ghana. A descriptive cross-sectional survey was conducted with 384 participants selected through cluster sampling from Yamfo, Susuanso, and Tanoso. Data were collected using structured questionnaires and analysed with STATA version 14 to generate descriptive statistics and regression models. The findings indicated that burning (44%) and using public bins (30%) were the primary methods of waste disposal, while 9% resorted to open dumping. Waste segregation was uncommon, with 76% of participants reporting no separation of plastics or organic matter. Regression analysis revealed that irregular collection (OR = 11.25, 95% CI 60–27.47) and poor enforcement of regulations (OR = 1586, 95% CI 247–10,194.51) significantly increased the risk of clogged drains. Blocked drains and flooding (28.5%) and land pollution (28.1%) were the most frequently reported environmental issues. Inadequate collection services, poor supervisory oversight, and limited recycling infrastructure perpetuate unsafe waste disposal practices in the Ahafo Region. These findings underscore the need for immediate, community-driven waste management interventions in developing countries to safeguard public health and the environment.
Solid waste management is one of the most pressing environmental and public health challenges in rapidly urbanising low- and middle-income countries^1^. The rapid growth of urban populations, changing consumption patterns, and limited institutional capacity have led to increased volumes of solid waste that often overwhelm existing collection and disposal systems^2,3^.
Solid waste refers to discarded materials from domestic, commercial, and industrial sources that are no longer considered valid by their owners^4^. These wastes include household refuse, institutional garbage, street sweepings, and construction debris^5^. According to Amasuomo and Baird^6^, these primarily arise from human and animal activities and may consist of non-hazardous materials, such as plastics, organic waste, and recyclables, as well as hazardous components, posing significant environmental and public health challenges when improperly disposed of^7^. Globally, over 2 billion metric tonnes of waste are generated annually, with estimates predicting a rise to 2.59 billion metric tonnes by 2030, driven by factors such as urban growth, shifting consumption habits, and dependence on traditional landfilling methods^8–10^. This increase in non-biodegradable waste, particularly in urban areas, has heightened concerns around plastic pollution and greenhouse gas emissions^11,12^. Experts emphasise the importance of implementing effective waste management strategies that incorporate policy frameworks, technological solutions, and skilled human resources to promote sustainable urban environments^13,14^. However, many municipalities in developing countries struggle due to the high costs of waste management, which often consume 20–50% of municipal budgets^15^. Inadequate practices contribute to biodiversity loss, climate change, and widespread health risks^16,17^.
In Ghana, over 5 million metric tonnes of waste are generated annually (Ghana Audit Service, 2024). However, only about 10% is collected and properly disposed of, leaving the rest to accumulate on streets, in drainage systems, and at unauthorised landfills^18^. While major cities such as Accra and Kumasi face significant challenges, rural areas are also affected. Communities in these regions often experience environmental degradation, overflowing refuse sites, and health risks like cholera, malaria, and typhoid^19,20^. The Ahafo Region illustrates these issues, as rapid urbanisation and population growth have outpaced waste management infrastructure^21^. Specifically, in Yamfo, Tanoso, and Susuanso, inefficient collection systems have led to serious sanitation problems and environmental pollution^22^. This situation underscores the urgency of the current study, which investigated solid waste disposal practices and related challenges in these three communities.
Although Ghana’s National Solid Waste Management Strategy provides a framework for enhancing public health and environmental protection, its implementation faces challenges such as low community participation, inadequate disposal infrastructure, and funding shortages, particularly in rural or less urbanised areas^23,24^. Without effective logistics and community engagement, such policies struggle to achieve meaningful results^25^. Encouragingly, research shows that waste separation and recycling programmes, when combined with public education, can significantly improve waste management outcomes^26,27^. However, the Ahafo Region remains under-studied, especially regarding local complexities and potential areas for improvement^21^. The Tano North Municipality of the Ahafo Region is a rapidly growing area with diverse communities and increasing population density. Yet little is known about the household-level waste disposal behaviours, the role of local authorities in managing solid waste, and the associated environmental impacts in this municipality. Anecdotal evidence suggests that indiscriminate dumping, irregular collection, and burning of waste are common, but systematic data are lacking to inform policy and interventions. Reliable data on effective waste management practices and their attendant environmental and health effects would enable local authorities in the Tano North Municipality to design effective interventions.
This study, therefore, seeks to fill this gap by assessing household solid waste management practices, identifying the challenges faced by communities and local authorities, and evaluating the environmental impacts of these practices in three selected communities of the Tano North Municipality, Ahafo Region, Ghana.
The Tano North Municipality is one of the six districts in the newly created Ahafo Region. It was separated from Tano District in 2004, with Duayaw-Nkwanta as its administrative centre. The district borders Offinso North District to the northeast and Ahafo Ano North District to the south, both of which are located within the Ashanti Region. To the east, it borders Tano South, and to the west, it neighbours Sunyani Municipality and Asutifi District of the Brong-Ahafo Region. The estimated population of Tano North Municipality, according to the 2021 population census, is 93,608, accounting for 17% of the total population of the Ahafo Region. Males constitute 49.5 per cent, while females make up 50.5 per cent Fig. 1.Fig. 1Tano North District map.
A community-based cross-sectional study was carried out among 384 participants from three randomly selected communities (Yamfo, Susuanso, Tanoso) in the Ahafo Region, Ghana. The design was appropriate as it enabled researchers to collect data at a single point in time to describe the existing waste disposal practices in the selected communities and their associated environmental impacts.
The study recruited participants from households in the three selected communities (Yamfo, Susuanso, and Tanoso) who were 18 years or older and of sound mind.
The study involved individuals from the selected households, primarily focusing on those aged 18 or older who were in good physical and mental health. Only adults capable of giving informed consent were chosen as respondents. Participants who had resided in the selected communities for at least 6 months, ensuring they were familiar with local waste management practices, were included in the study**.**
The study excluded individuals under 18 years of age. Residents who had lived in the study area for less than 6 months were excluded because they might not have experienced much of the waste management practices in the area. Individuals who declined to participate or did not give consent for data collection were also excluded.
A 95% confidence interval was employed to determine the sample size, with a 5% margin of error. The sample size was calculated using the Cochran (1977) formula.\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ n = \frac{{z^{2} pq}}{{e^{2} }}
where n = sample size, z = constant, p = proportion of respondents with the outcome variable of interest. using assumed p of 50% = 0.5, q = (1-p), and e = margin of error. With a 95% Confidence Interval, z = 1.96 according to the statistical table. Substituting the values into the equation, we \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$ {\text{n}} = \frac{{(1.96)^{2} x\left( {0.5} \right)x\left( {1 - 0.5} \right)}}{{\left( {0.05} \right)^{2} }} $$\end{document} n = 384.16, Approximately, n = 384. Therefore, the sample size, n = 384. ## Sampling technique This study employed a multi-stage sampling method. The Ahafo Region was divided into clusters, and three communities (Yamfo, Susuanso, and Tanoso) were randomly selected (Table 1). The simple random sampling technique was then used to select households within each community. One eligible adult was interviewed in each household until the required sample size of 384 was reached.Table 1Estimated population of Tano North communities and cluster size determination**.**SNClusterPopulationCluster sample size (using simple random method)1Duayaw Nkwanta21,2441282Yamfo**14,404****128**3Tanoso**7763****128**4Bomaa86421285Terchire60501286Adrobaa41061287Susuanso**3671****128**8Afrisipa20501289Susuanho188412810Subompan154712811Asukese152512812Nsuapem136512813Mankranho128312814Mesukrom124112815Kwafo Krom118912816Yaw Bafo117812817Buokrukruwa112812818Bredi98612819Koforidua97812820Ahyiayem966128Total83,200Total: 384Source: Field work 2025. Significant values are in bold. Table 1 above provides a detailed breakdown of respondents selected from the three communities of interest (ie. Yamfo, Susuanso, and Tanoso). ## Instrument for data collection A questionnaire was used to collect quantitative data for this study. The questionnaire was designed in line with the specific objectives of the study. Section A analysed the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents, including age, sex, religion, occupation, and other relevant details. Section B identified the current solid waste management practices adopted by households and local authorities in the selected communities. The section examined the challenges faced by communities and authorities in managing solid waste effectively. Section D assessed the environmental and health impacts of improper waste disposal in these communities. Participants then received the structured questionnaires to fill in. Before collecting data, researchers obtained ethical approval and community consent. The instrument was pretested at Techimantia, another suburb of the Ahafo region, which shares similar characteristics with the study areas. The pretesting was done using 10% of the sample. This is supported by Connelly^28^, who states that the sample for a pilot study should be 10% of the projected main sample size. The pretesting enhanced the validity and reliability of the instrument. Cronbach’s alpha was used to test the inter-item reliability of the questions. A Cronbach alpha of 0.789 was seen in the items, indicating moderate reliability among constructs. Items consisted of both Likert scale questions and multiple-choice questions. Likert scale questions were scored from 1 to 5 (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree), whereas multiple choice questions were coded as 1 for correct answers and 0 for incorrect answers. ## Data analysis Completed questionnaires were verified for accuracy, coded, and entered into Microsoft Excel, then exported and analysed using STATA version 14. Descriptive statistics such as frequencies, percentages, and charts were used to summarise socio-demographic characteristics and waste management practices. Associations between independent variables (waste disposal practices and management challenges) and dependent variables (environmental problems) were examined using multivariable logistic regression. The dependent variables (environmental problems) were analysed separately and included four specific environmental clogged drains and flooding, water pollution, air pollution, and land pollution. Hence, separate regression models were run for each outcome rather than combining into a single index. Independent variables were initially assessed in bivariate analyses, and those with a p-value less than or equal to 0.20 were used in the multivariable models. All models were adjusted for potential confounders, including age, gender, education, and occupation. Model adequacy was assessed using Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test and pseudo R^2^ values. Results were reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and a *p *value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. ## Results According to Table 2, the largest age group among the 384 participants surveyed was those between 18 and 30 years old, accounting for 39.6% of the respondents. Regarding gender, most participants were female (61.5%). In terms of education, most had only a primary school education (30.9%). Concerning occupation, the largest group were students (29.4%), followed by farmers (25.7%).Table 2Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents.CharacteristicsFrequency (n = 384)Percentage (%)Age 18–3015239.6 31–4513936.2 46–608020.8 Above 60133.4Gender Male14838.5 Female23661.5Educational Level No formal education7018.3 Primary education11930.9 Secondary education10326.9 Tertiary education9224Occupation Unemployed6115.8 Student11329.4 Farmer9925.8 Trader7419.3 Civil servant246.3 Other133.4Source: Community survey, 2025. From Table 3 above, the most common method of disposing of household waste was burning, with 44.3% of respondents reporting this practice. About 30% used public waste bins, while 16.9% disposed of their waste in open spaces. A small group, comprising 7.7%, paid for waste collection services, and only 1.1% used alternative methods. Regarding the frequency of waste collection in the community, 36.3% said it occurs daily. However, 28.3% mentioned that waste collection was irregular. When asked who is mainly responsible for managing waste, 56% said it falls on households. About the presence of waste collection points, 37.1% agreed that these are available in their communities. Regarding waste separation, 41.4% strongly disagreed that the separated waste into plastic, organic, and paper. The main reasons for not separating waste were a lack of perceived benefit, with 32.6% stating they do not see the need for it.Table 3Current solid waste management practices adopted by households and local authorities.Waste management practicesFrequency (n = 384)PercentageHow do you usually dispose of your household waste Dump in open spaces6516.9 Burn the waste17044.3 Use public waste bins11530 Pay for collection services307.7 Other41.1How often is waste collected in your community Daily13936.3 Weekly11229.1 Monthly246.3 Irregularly10928.3Who is primarily responsible for waste management in your community Households21556 Local authorities11931.1 Private companies369.4 Other133.4There are designated waste collection points in my community Strongly disagree6617.1 Disagree8722.6 Neutral8020.9 Agree14237.1 Strongly agree92.3I practice waste separation (plastic, organic, paper, etc.) Strongly disagree15941.4 Disagree13334.6 Neutral4110.6 Agree4511.7 Strongly agree71.7What prevents you from separating your waste I do not know how to separate waste5012.9 There are no separate bins provided9324.3 I find it inconvenient10226.6 I do not see the benefit12532.6 Other143.7Source: Community survey, 2025. From Table 4 above, household waste disposal increases the likelihood of lacking waste bins by 1.1 times (OR = 1.13, *p* = 0.398, CI = [0.84, 1.53]). Community waste collection decreases the likelihood of lacking waste bins by 0.7 times, (OR = 0.62, *p* = 0.015, CI = [0.62, 0.95]). The waste management body decreases the likelihood of lacking waste bins by 0.9 times (OR = 0.81, *p* = 0.606, CI = [0.66, 1.27]). Waste collection points increase the likelihood of lacking waste bins by 1.1 times (OR = 1.08, *p* = 0.446, CI = [0.87, 1.36]).Table 4Predicting challenges faced by the communities and authorities from the current soiled waste management practice.DependentIndependentOdd ratioStd. Errz*P* >|Z|[95% conf. interval]Lack of wasteHousehold waste disposal1.1371480.17274510.850.3980.8443264–1.531524Community waste collection0.77037050.0823553− 2.440.0150.6247456–0.9499398Waste management body0.91932370.1500254− 0.520.6060.6676671–1.265834Waste collection point1.0895080.12244450.760.4460.8741134–1.357978Waste seperation0.89048020.1087805− 0.950.3420.7008773–1.131375Reason of waste seperation1.0291460.11694570.250.80.823667–1.285885Cons3.6034272.110032.190.0291.143627–11.35395Irregular collection of wasteHousehold waste disposal1.2018040.17911731.230.2170.8973671–1.609522Community waste collection0.68228930.0697235-3.740.00.5584495–0.8335914Waste management body0.93463460.1494968− 0.420.6730.6831095–1.278773Waste collection point0.78264180.0867885− 2.210.0270.6297553–0.9726449Waste seperation0.891230.1062782− 0.970.3340.7054803–1.125887Reason of waste seperation1.1023270.12380220.870.3860.884529–1.373753ConsCons6.4934943.8047473.190.0012.059359–20.47504Poor enforcement of regulationHousehold waste disposal0.66934890.1391992− 1.930.0540.4452817–1.006167Community waste collection0.34636430.047704− 7.70.00.2644228–0.4536984Waste management body2.5927640.64069843.860.01.597432–4.20827Waste collection point0.49445790.0763731− 4.560.00.3653039–0.6692746Waste seperation1.5777740.26821982.680.0071.130685–2.201649Reason of waste seperation1.1666440.18322220.980.3260.8575445–1.587158ConsCons39.0543532.195714.450.07.761652–196.51Limited recycling optionsHousehold waste disposal1.1281830.1699360.80.4230.8397785–1.515634Community waste collection0.54668380.0580173− 5.690.00.4440191–0.6730862Waste management body1.0309280.16850950.190.8520.7483343–1.420237Waste collection point0.98922940.1065514− 0.10.920.8009636–1.221747Waste seperation1.2609810.15501781.890.0590.9909844–1.60454Reason of waste seperation0.74049610.0834013− 2.670.0080.5938173–0.9234059ConsCons5.7566823.378212.980.0031.822465–18.18383 Regarding poor enforcement of regulations, community waste collection decreases by 0.3 times (OR = 0.34, *p* = 0.000, CI = [0.26, 0.45]). The presence of a waste management body increases the likelihood of poor enforcement of regulations by 2.6 times, while holding other waste management practices constant, and this is also statistically significant (OR = 2.59, *p* = 0.000, CI = [1.59, 4.20]). Overall, Community waste collection is the only practice consistently linked to better outcomes, both in terms of access to waste bins and enforcement of regulations. The presence of a waste management body, though seemingly positive, may actually indicate problems with enforcement or governance. Figure 2 shows that most people are dissatisfied with the waste management system. Nearly half of the respondents, 48.6%, reported being very dissatisfied, while another 26.6% said they were dissatisfied. Only 16% felt neutral, neither agreeing nor disagreeing about the system’s quality. A small portion, just 7.1%, were satisfied, and an even smaller 1.7% stated they were very satisfied.Fig. 2Satisfaction with the waste management system in the communities. *Source*: Community survey, 2025. Table 5 above presents the results of the separate multivariable logistic regression models predicting each environmental problem from the identified waste management challenges. Four distinct models were estimated, with the dependent variables being clogged drains and flooding, water pollution, air pollution, and land pollution.Table 5Predicting environmental problems from challenges faced by communities and authorities.DependentIndependentOdd ratioStd. Errz*P *>|Z|[95% conf. interval]Clogged drains and floodingLack of waste bins0.13758920.0842843− 3.240.0010.0414148–0.4571017Irregular collection of waste11.245855.1250685.310.04.603356–27.47326Poor enforcement of regulation1586.8541505.9977.770.0247.0063–10,194.51ConsCons0.00488180.0041029− 6.330.00.0009401–0.0253499Water pollutionLack of waste bins4.5121291.4351664.740.02.41903–8.416313Irregular collection of waste0.91651890.2491437− 0.320.7480.5379642–1.561455Poor enforcement of regulation1.8371950.53542892.090.0371.037726–3.25258ConsCons0.11752890.0412492− 6.10.00.0590743–0.2338251Air pollutionLack of waste bins0.81790460.2059356− 0.80.4250.4993251–1.339744Irregular collection of waste2.314480.56908613.410.0011.429418–3.74755Poor enforcement of regulation0.49454460.1279867− 2.720.0070.2977947–0.8212852ConsCons1.4292330.39914281.280.2010.8267756–2.470692Land pollutionLack of waste bins2.7658970.73230813.840.01.646149–4.647324Irregular collection of waste2.691180.69385393.840.01.62361–4.46071Poor enforcement of regulation4.5263181.199495.70.02.692611–7.608806ConsCons0.14427380.0436487− 6.40.00.0797379–0.2610421 According to Table 5, lack of waste bins reduces the likelihood of clogged drains and flooding in the community by 0.1 times (OR = 0.14, *p* = 0.001, CI = [0.04, 0.45]). Irregular waste collection increases the likelihood of clogged drains and flooding by 11.2 times (OR = 11.25, *p* = 0.000, CI = [4.60, 27.47]). Poor enforcement of regulations raises the likelihood by 1586.9 times, assuming other challenges are unchanged, and this is statistically significant (OR = 1586.85, *p* = 0.000, CI = [247.0, 10,194.51]). Regarding water pollution, the lack of waste bins increases the risk by 4.5 times (OR = 4.51, *p* = 0.000, CI = [2.41, 8.42]). Irregular waste collection increases the likelihood of air pollution by 2.6 times (OR = 2.69, *p* = 0.000, CI = [1.62, 4.46]). Poor enforcement of regulations elevates the likelihood of air pollution by 4.5 times (OR = 4.52, *p* = 0.000, CI = [2.69, 7.60]). On land pollution, the absence of waste bins increases its risk by 2.7 times (OR = 2.76, *p* = 0.000, CI = [1.65, 4.65]). Irregular waste collection raises land pollution by 2.6 times, (OR = 2.69, *p* = 0.000, CI = [1.62, 4.46]). Poor enforcement of regulations increases the likelihood of land pollution by 4.5 times (OR = 4.52, *p* = 0.000, CI = [2.69, 7.60]). Overall, Irregular waste collection and poor enforcement of rules are the biggest problems, leading to flooding, and water, air, and land pollution. Lack of waste bins also contributes to water and land pollution. Strong enforcement and regular waste collection are critical to keeping the environment clean and safe. According to Table 6, clogged drains and flooding are the most common environmental issues caused by improper waste disposal, affecting 28.5% of the participants surveyed. Land pollution is also a significant concern, reported by 28.1% of respondents. Air pollution was identified in 26.7% of cases, likely due to the frequent burning of waste, which releases harmful smoke and toxins into the air. Lastly, water pollution was reported by 16.7%, indicating that some waste is entering water bodies, potentially contaminating drinking water and harming aquatic life.Table 6Environmental problems experienced by communities due to waste disposal issues.Environmental problemPercentage (100%)Water pollution16.70Air pollution26.70Clogged drains and flooding28.50Land pollution28.10Total100.00 According to Table 7, all four issues—lack of bins, irregular collection, weak enforcement, and limited recycling—significantly contribute to environmental problems, particularly clogged drains, land pollution, and air pollution. Addressing these challenges could help mitigate the negative environmental impacts resulting from inadequate waste management.Table 7Relation between challenges faced in waste management and environmental problems.Challenges faced in waste managementEnvironmental problemsWater pollutionAir pollutionClogged drains and floodingLand pollutionTotalLack of waste bins110138155178251Irregular collection84141178160228Poor enforcement of regulation96127219174239Limited recycling options7194132200196Total124198231222384Source: Community survey, 2025. ## Discussion This study provides a comprehensive assessment of household solid waste management practices and their associated environmental impacts in three communities of the Tano North Municipality, Ahafo Region, Ghana. The findings pinpoint critical gaps in waste management systems, including over-reliance on burning, inadequate waste separation, irregular collection schedules, and insufficient enforcement of regulations, all of which are strongly associated with environmental hazards such as clogged drains, land pollution, and air pollution. ## Socio-demographic characteristics and their influence on waste management practices The socio-demographic characteristics of respondents—particularly age, education, occupation, and length of residence—shaped their waste management behaviours. The predominance of females in the study suggests that household waste management remains largely gendered, consistent with studies in Accra and Kumasi that identify women as the primary managers of domestic waste^29^. The finding that a majority of respondents had at least a basic education indicates potentially greater awareness of environmental cleanliness; however, this did not necessarily translate into proper waste-disposal practices. This paradox has also been observed in previous studies in Nigeria and Kenya^30,31^, where educational attainment did not guarantee environmentally sound waste management, mainly due to infrastructural and systemic constraints. The predominance of self-employed individuals and traders among respondents further underscores the informal character of the local economy, which affects the types and amounts of waste produced^32^. The relatively high number of long-term residents suggests that most participants have observed the municipality’s development in waste management, yet ongoing challenges imply that current efforts remain ineffective. ## Household waste generation, storage, and disposal practices The study showed that most households produce mixed solid waste, mainly organic and plastic elements, which they frequently store in open containers or sacks before disposal. This aligns with reports from similar semi-urban municipalities in Ghana, where a lack of proper waste bins, irregular collection schedules, and limited disposal sites causes residents to keep waste in unhygienic conditions^32^. Open dumping and burning continue to be the most common disposal methods—both known to have adverse environmental and health effects. Open dumping frequently causes water contamination, boosts the spread of vector-borne diseases, and damages land, while burning releases toxic emissions like dioxins and furans that lead to respiratory illnesses and climate change^33,34^. The heavy dependence on these unsafe practices underscores infrastructural shortcomings and weak enforcement of municipal sanitation laws. Furthermore, the absence of formal waste segregation at the source limits recycling and composting opportunities, a challenge also seen in Kumasi and Sunyani^35,36^. ## Waste disposal behaviours and systemic gaps The findings revealed that burning is the most common method for disposing of household waste in these communities, with 44.3% of respondents confirming this practice. This significant reliance on burning shows patterns similar to those reported in other parts of Ghana and sub-Saharan Africa, where limited infrastructure and low institutional capacity compel many households to resort to open burning as a default. This result aligns with similar studies conducted in Ghana and Ethiopia^37–39^. While 36.3% reported that their waste is collected daily, most respondents viewed waste management mainly as the responsibility of individual households rather than local authorities or private companies. The prevalent practice of burning waste significantly affects air quality, environmental safety, and public health. ## Institutional and infrastructural support for waste management The study revealed significant shortcomings in municipal waste collection and disposal infrastructure. Many respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the irregularity of waste collection services and inadequate coverage, especially in peripheral communities. The lack of accessible collection points, combined with limited logistics such as waste trucks and skips, hampers community participation in proper waste disposal. This situation is not unique to Tano North but mirrors the national waste management crisis in Ghana, where only about 30% of urban solid waste is properly collected and disposed of^40,41^. Institutional weaknesses—especially poor coordination between the municipal assembly and private waste contractors—further worsen the problem. Effective waste governance needs a clear policy framework, transparency in waste contracting, and sufficient funding mechanisms. Fifty-six per cent of respondents (56%) perceived waste management as mainly a household responsibility, while only 31.1% identified local authorities as responsible. This perception likely reflects the inadequate visibility and effectiveness of municipal waste services. Only a few people recognised the existence of waste collection points, and waste separation practices were notably lacking. The main reasons for not separating waste included a lack of perceived benefits, inconvenience, and the absence of suitable bins^42^. This finding is not surprising, given the lack of separate bins and limited public awareness, both of which were identified as key barriers. However, the lack of segregation has broader implications for circular economy initiatives and sustainable development in Ghana, where plastic waste pollution is an increasing crisis. Studies from South Africa and Rwanda show that community-level separation and recycling programmes, when properly incentivised, can significantly reduce environmental pollution while creating economic opportunities^43^. Ghana could benefit from similar policy innovations tailored to rural and peri-urban areas. Key challenges to effective solid waste management included insufficient waste bins and weak enforcement of regulations. Few respondents identified limited recycling options as a significant issue, echoing similar findings from a previous study on technical constraints in Mzuzu city’s waste system^44^. Overall dissatisfaction with the waste management system was common, with nearly half expressing discontent and only a few showing satisfaction—a trend also observed in the Techiman municipality, as highlighted in an earlier study^45^. ## Environmental and health implications of current waste practices The findings emphasise the direct connection between waste management practices and environmental health outcomes in the Tano North Municipality. Respondents believed that indiscriminate dumping and burning contribute to air and water pollution, the breeding of disease vectors, and overall environmental degradation. These perceptions align with empirical evidence that links poor sanitation to higher rates of malaria, typhoid, and cholera in similar settings^46,47^. Environmental contamination from poorly managed solid waste also endangers agricultural productivity and water resources—crucial livelihoods in semi-urban Ghana^48^. The pollution of streams and surface water bodies by leachate and waste runoff, as reported by some respondents, aligns with findings from other studies that show waste leachate seeping into groundwater sources^49^. This has implications for sustainable development and public health, emphasising the urgency of integrated waste and environmental health planning. The environmental impact of poor waste management, as documented in this study, was significant. The effects reported—particularly blocked drains, land contamination, and air pollution—underline the urgent need for comprehensive waste management systems supported by vigorous enforcement. A previous study identified common outcomes of improper waste disposal, which were also observed here, including blocked drains and pollution of land, air, and water^50^. Health effects were also when asked whether their households had experienced illnesses such as cholera or ringworm due to poor waste-handling practices, 42% of respondents confirmed they had, supporting findings from an earlier study linking waste mismanagement to disease spread^51^. Water pollution, although reported by a smaller proportion (16.7%), was still significantly associated with a lack of waste bins (OR = 4.51, 95% CI 2.41–8.42, *p* < 0.001). This suggests that indiscriminate dumping may directly contaminate surface and groundwater sources, posing risks for diarrhoeal diseases and other waterborne infections. These results reinforce the concept of “waste–water–health” interlinkages in rapidly growing municipalities. These findings collectively emphasise the importance of enhancing infrastructure, strengthening regulatory enforcement, and increasing community education to support sustainable waste management in the affected communities. ## Implications of the study for policy and practice Proper solid waste management is a vital yet often neglected element in protecting environmental safety and public health, especially in developing countries. This study highlights the urgent need for investments in regular waste collection services, the provision of household and community waste bins, and public awareness campaigns on waste separation. Strengthening regulatory enforcement is essential, as poor governance was identified as the key predictor of environmental risks. Policymakers should also consider innovative financing models, such as public–private partnerships, to expand waste services and encourage recycling initiatives. Locally tailored interventions, like community-based monitoring and waste-to-energy projects, could further improve sustainability. ## Strengths and limitations This research adds to the limited empirical evidence on waste management in Ghana’s semi-urban areas by combining household-level practices with statistical analysis of environmental impacts. Its strengths include the use of probability sampling, an appropriate sample size, and rigorous analysis with regression techniques. However, some limitations must be acknowledged. Data were self-reported, which may introduce recall bias. Furthermore, causality cannot be established between waste practices and environmental outcomes, as this study employed a cross-sectional design. Despite these limitations, the study provides valuable insights into the socio-environmental dynamics of waste disposal in Ghanaian communities. ## Conclusion This study revealed that waste management practices in the Tano North Municipality remain largely inadequate, despite moderate awareness of their environmental and health implications. It also showed that solid waste management is mainly driven by household actions, especially open burning, with limited use of public bins and very low waste separation rates. The study highlights that unsafe household waste disposal, poor collection services, and weak enforcement of regulations continue to pose significant environmental risks in Ghana’s semi-urban communities—standard practices like open dumping and burning cause land pollution, blocked drains, and poor air quality. Weak enforcement is the primary driver of environmental problems, exposing governance gaps that undermine existing waste management systems. To address these challenges, the Municipal Assembly should prioritise providing adequate waste-collection infrastructure, strengthen enforcement of sanitation by-laws, and promote community-based waste-management initiatives. Public education must be ongoing, practical, and linked to incentives that encourage segregation, recycling, and safe disposal. Stronger collaboration between local authorities, private waste companies, and community groups is essential for sustainable management. Integrating waste management into broader environmental health and urban planning policies will enhance resilience, safeguard public health, and support the achievement of relevant Sustainable Development Goals.