Waste pickers’ perception of occupational hazards and well-being in a Nigerian megacity

International Journal of Environmental Studies Pub Date : 2023-07-04 DOI:10.1080/00207233.2022.2055344

O. T. Dada, G. B. Faniran, D. Ojo, A. O. Taiwo

引用次数: 5

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study examined occupational risks associated with waste picking and pickers well-being in Lagos, Nigeria. A convenience sampling technique was employed to select 152 landfill-waste pickers, and the respondent-driven sampling technique was used to select 53 street-waste pickers. We discovered that waste pickers were exposed to occupational health risks such as body pain, tiredness, twisted ankles, chest pain, and eye soreness. Non-use of personal protective equipment contributed to waste pickers’ susceptibility to occupational health risks. Most waste pickers were dissatisfied with their well-being connected to the unhealthy conditions in which they work, the extreme poverty they live in, and the stigmatisation they experience. The study concludes that waste pickers’ well-being is critical for effective solid waste management; hence, they should be considered adequately in policy design and implementation programs/strategies.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

尼日利亚特大城市拾荒者对职业危害和幸福感的认知

摘要本研究调查了尼日利亚拉各斯与拾荒者健康相关的职业风险。采用方便抽样技术选择了152名垃圾填埋场拾荒者，采用受访者驱动抽样技术选择53名街头拾荒者。我们发现拾荒者暴露在职业健康风险中，如身体疼痛、疲劳、扭伤脚踝、胸痛和眼睛酸痛。不使用个人防护设备导致拾荒者容易受到职业健康风险的影响。大多数拾荒者对他们的幸福感感到不满，这与他们工作的不健康条件、他们生活的极端贫困以及他们所经历的污名化有关。该研究得出结论，拾荒者的幸福感对于有效的固体废物管理至关重要；因此，在政策设计和实施方案/战略中应充分考虑这些因素。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

International Journal of Environmental Studies Social Sciences-Geography, Planning and Development

CiteScore

3.30

自引率

0.00%

发文量

121

期刊介绍： For more than 45 years, the International Journal of Environmental Studies has been pre-eminent in its field. The environment is understood to comprise the natural and the man-made, and their interactions; including such matters as pollution, health effects, analytical methods, political approaches, social impacts etc. Papers favouring an interdisciplinary approach are preferred, because the evidence of more than 45 years appears to be that many intellectual tools and many causes and effects are at issue in any environmental problem - and its solution. This does not mean that a single focus or a narrow view is unwelcome; provided always that the evidence is indicated and the method is robust. Pragmatic decision-making and applicable policies are subjects of interest, together with the problems in establishing facts about dynamic systems where long periods of observation and precise measurement may be difficult to secure. In other words, a systems or holistic approach to the environment and a scientific analysis are complementary, and the distinction between ’hard’ and ’soft’ science is bridged in most of the papers published. These may be on any item in the agenda of environmental science: land, water, food, conservation, population, risk analysis, energy, economics of ecological and non-ecological approaches, social advocacy of arguments for change, legal measures, implications of urbanism, energy choices, waste disposal, recycling, transport systems and other issues of mass society. There is concern also for marginal areas, under-developed societies, minorities, species loss; and indeed no element of the subject of environmental studies, seen in an international and interactive mode, is excluded.