References

1. this regional knowledge base in its operating assumptions, recognizing that the credibility of decision-support tools in African applications depends on visible engagement with regionally generated scholarship rather than reliance on externally imported templates. The seven sources engaged in this section thus combine to articulate an architecture that is both methodologically rigorous and contextually adaptable, structured to absorb continuing empirical refinement and capable of supporting recyclate-sourcing decisions across the full range of consumer-goods packaging applications encompassed by the scope of the present analysis. The four-gate sequencing thus emerges not as an arbitrary procedural ordering but as a logically structured progression in which the analytically least demanding screens precede the most demanding, enabling early elimination of unsuitable options and concentration of evaluative effort on candidates capable of clearing the preceding gates. This sequencing logic produces both efficiency gains in the decision process and clearer audit trails when subsequent governance review is required.
2. 9. Implementation Pathways, Trade-offs, and Strategic Outlook The implementation of the integrated decision framework articulated above must reckon with the structural realities of the contexts in which recyclate-containing consumer-goods packaging is produced, distributed, and consumed. The COVID-19 pandemic generated a particularly instructive natural experiment in this regard, as the disruption of solidwaste-management systems in developing countries during the lockdown period highlighted how thin the resilience margins of recovery infrastructure can be (Nzediegwu & Chang, 2020). For the framework, the implication is that International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation www. allmultidisciplinaryjournal. com 1003 implementation pathways must include explicit provisions for resilience under exogenous shocks, recognizing that recyclate availability and quality can shift abruptly in response to disruptions in collection logistics, sorting-facility operation, or downstream demand. Resilience indicators, therefore, deserve a place within the source-qualification gate, alongside the more conventional pedigree and certification metrics. The pandemic also catalysed broader reconfigurations of service-delivery infrastructures, including the rapid expansion of digital health platforms in post-COVID healthcare systems, with associated lessons regarding the velocity at which technology-mediated supply-chain transformations can occur when underlying institutional incentives align (Omotayo & Kuponiyi, 2020). The transferable lesson for recyclate sourcing is that digital traceability infrastructure, including blockchain-based chainof-custody systems and remote-audit platforms, can be deployed at scale within compressed timeframes when regulatory and commercial incentives jointly support the transition. The framework's source-qualification gate is structured to accommodate accelerated adoption of digital infrastructure, with indicator definitions that accommodate progressively richer data streams as upstream digitalization matures. Infrastructure design parallels from adjacent domains further illuminate the implementation pathway. Engineering design optimization for grounding systems in medium-voltage distribution networks in emerging power markets has demonstrated that infrastructure investments calibrated specifically for emerging-market conditions can outperform externally imported templates in both cost and performance (Adeniji, Shittu & Opara, 2020). For recyclate-management infrastructure, the analogous insight is that purpose-built collection, sorting, and decontamination systems calibrated for the institutional and infrastructural realities of emerging markets can outperform replicated European templates and should be prioritized in implementation pathways for African and similar contexts. The framework's implementation guidance, therefore, favours locally adapted infrastructure investment over wholesale technology transfer, recognizing that the marginal cost of incremental adaptation is typically lower than the cost of subsequent reconfiguration. The barriers and success factors for sustainable solid-wastemanagement adoption in Nigeria have been the subject of structured empirical research that identifies the institutional determinants of progress beyond simple infrastructural investment levels (Ezeah & Roberts, 2012). The findings, broadly applicable to the West African context, identify policy coherence, enforcement capacity, public participation, and economic incentives as the principal levers for transforming waste-management performance. The framework integrates these levers into its implementation guidance, recognizing that the technical sophistication of recyclate-sourcing decisions cannot compensate for institutional weakness in the source jurisdiction. Brand owners and regulators applying the framework in such contexts must therefore invest concurrently in institutional capacity-building rather than presume that the technical decision can be insulated from the surrounding governance environment. The empirical literature on solid-waste generation in developing-country urban contexts provides the quantitative grounding for realistic implementation planning. Comparative evaluation of solid-waste generation, categorization, and disposal options in Nigeria, situated in the broader developing-country context, has produced reference data on per-capita generation, compositional shares, and disposal-route allocations that establish the baseline against which intervention scenarios can be evaluated (Babayemi & Dauda, 2009). For brand owners and regulators considering recyclate sourcing in such jurisdictions, this baseline is essential to calibrating realistic flow expectations and avoiding over-commitment to recyclate-share targets that exceed the available high-quality feedstock pool. The role of the informal sector in plastic-waste recovery merits explicit articulation within any realistic implementation pathway. Comparative analysis of emerging trends in informal-sector recycling across developing and transition countries has documented the social, economic, and operational complexity of informal waste-recovery networks, including the interaction between informal collection systems and formal recycling enterprises (Ezeah, Fazakerley & Roberts, 2013). The framework treats informalsector engagement as a normal element of source qualification rather than as an exception to be eliminated, with appropriate provisions for the integration of informal recyclers into formal chemical-safety verification regimes through capacity-building, certification, and market-access mechanisms. Strategic outlook considerations impose a longer time horizon on implementation planning than the immediate compliance cycle. The trajectory of consumergoods packaging chemistry over the next decade is likely to be shaped by a combination of substance-by-substance regulatory action, design-for-circularity standards, and technology-driven changes in feedstock options, including the emergence of bio-based and chemically-recycled polymer streams. The decision framework anticipates these trajectories through its regulatory-horizon-scanning gate, but its strategic value depends on the willingness of brand owners and regulators to invest in monitoring capacity that goes beyond current-snapshot compliance. The trade-offs articulated by the framework do not resolve to single dominant solutions, and this is a feature rather than a limitation: the genuine reconciliation between chemical safety, greenhouse-gas performance, and regulatory risk is contingent on context-specific judgments about acceptable trade-off thresholds, and the framework's contribution is to render those judgments explicit and traceable rather than to adjudicate them prescriptively. Looking forward, the convergence of advanced recycling technologies, digital traceability infrastructure, and harmonizing regulatory expectations is likely to compress the operational ambiguity that currently characterizes recyclatesourcing decisions. The strategic outlook is therefore one of progressive narrowing of the trade-off space rather than its abolition, with implementation pathways calibrated to the realistic pace at which infrastructural and regulatory conditions evolve. For African and other emerging-market jurisdictions, the trajectory may diverge from European templates in ways that warrant locally adapted implementation pathways, drawing on regional research capacity and indigenous knowledge of waste-management dynamics rather than imported templates whose embedded assumptions may not survive transposition. The framework's strategic value will be measured by its capacity to absorb such divergence without losing its integrative analytical core, and by the willingness of brand owners, regulators, and International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation www. allmultidisciplinaryjournal. com 1004 recyclers to invest in the deliberative governance processes through which the framework's trade-off calls are documented, reviewed, and iteratively refined over successive planning cycles.
3. 10. Conclusion The reconciliation of chemical safety with circular-economy ambitions in consumer-goods packaging emerges from this analysis as a structurally complex but tractable governance challenge whose resolution depends on the disciplined integration of compositional verification, lifecycle environmental accounting, and forward-looking regulatory assessment. The four-gate decision architecture proposed here translates the dispersed empirical and regulatory knowledge documented in earlier sections into a sequential, indicator-based procedure that brand owners, converters, recyclers, and regulators can implement at scale across heterogeneous market geographies. Its principal contribution is the explicit treatment of the trade-offs among chemicalsafety obligations, lifecycle greenhouse-gas performance, and cross-jurisdictional regulatory exposure as simultaneously binding constraints rather than serially negotiable considerations, and its insistence on horizonscanning capacity as a continuous obligation rather than a one-time compliance check. Several structural insights merit emphasis. First, the chemical-safety profile of post-consumer recyclate streams cannot be inferred from polymer identity alone but must be empirically characterized against the additive history of the upstream packaging mix. Second, the lifecycle environmental performance of recyclate substitution is conditional on system design rather than intrinsic to recycling as such, with collection efficiency, energy mix, and downstream-market quality each exerting first-order influence on realized greenhouse-gas savings. Third, regulatory risk extends beyond present-moment compliance and demands ongoing monitoring of substance-list updates, restriction trajectories, and cross-jurisdictional harmonization initiatives. Fourth, the institutional realities of African and other emerging-market recyclate supply chains require adaptive implementation pathways that engage the informal sector, address infrastructural deficits, and leverage regionally generated scholarship rather than presuming European institutional templates. The framework offers a structured navigational tool through which the inherent complexity of post-consumer recyclate use in consumer-goods packaging can be made tractable for practitioners and policy-makers operating across diverse contexts. Its sustained relevance will depend on iterative refinement against accumulating empirical evidence and on its absorption into regulatory and corporate governance routines that span mature and emerging-market jurisdictions alike. References
4. 1. Adam I, Walker TR, Bezerra JC, Clayton A. Policies to reduce single-use plastic marine pollution in West Africa. Mar Policy. 2020;116:103928. doi:10.1016/j. marpol.2020.103928
5. 2. Adamah M, Mangelinck-Noël N, Kan-Dapaah K, Ottah DG, Salifu A, Dozie-Nwachukwu SO, et al. A maiden edition of the AUSTECH 2015 International Conference Book of Abstracts. Abuja: African University of Science and Technology; 2016. Available from: http://repository. aust. edu. ng/xmlui/handle/123456789/3 30
6. 3. Adeniji IO, Shittu H, Opara IS. Grounding system design optimization for medium-voltage distribution networks in emerging power markets. IRE J. 2020;3(11):19.
7. 4. Adeniji OI. Design and construction of a temperature monitoring device with security features [dissertation]. Ile-Ife: Obafemi Awolowo University; 2019.
8. 5. Adeniran AE, Nubi AT, Adelopo AO. Solid waste generation and characterization in the University of Lagos for sustainable waste management. Waste Manag. 2017;67:3-10. doi:10.1016/j. wasman.2017.05.002
9. 6. Adeojo OO, Osinibi OM. Assessing the intersections between renewable energy, sustainable development, and the challenges of environmental justice in Nigeria. Interdiscip Environ Rev. 2016;17(2):149-66. doi:10.1504/IER.2016.076184
10. 7. Adeyi AA, Babalola BA. Bisphenol-A (BPA) in foods commonly consumed in Southwest Nigeria and its human health risk. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):17458. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-53790-2
11. 8. Al-Salem SM, Lettieri P, Baeyens J. The valorization of plastic solid waste (PSW) by primary to quaternary routes: from re-use to energy and chemicals. Prog Energy Combust Sci. 2010;36(1):103 -29. doi:10.1016/j. pecs.2009.09.001
12. 9. Babayemi JO, Dauda KT. Evaluation of solid waste generation, categories, and disposal options in developing countries: a case study of Nigeria. J Appl Sci Environ Manag. 2009;13(3):83 -8. doi:10.4314/jasem. v13i3.55370
13. 10. Babayemi JO, Nnorom IC, Osibanjo O, Weber R. Ensuring sustainability in plastics use in Africa: consumption, waste generation, and projections. Environ Sci Eur. 2019;31(1):1-20. doi:10.1186/s12302-019-0254-5
14. 11. Babayemi JO, Sindiku O, Osibanjo O, Weber R. Substance flow analysis of polybrominated diphenyl ethers in plastic from EEE/WEEE in Nigeria in the frame of the Stockholm Convention as a basis for policy advice. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2015;22(19):14502-14. doi:10.1007/s11356-014-3228-6
15. 12. Bishop G, Styles D, Lens PNL. Recycling of European plastic is a pathway for plastic debris in the ocean. Environ Int. 2020;142:105893. doi:10.1016/j. envint.2020.105893
16. 13. Brooks AL, Wang S, Jambeck JR. The Chinese import ban and its impact on the global plastic waste trade. Sci Adv. 2018;4(6): eaat0131. doi:10.1126/sciadv. aat0131
17. 14. Brouwer MT, Thoden van Velzen EU, Augustinus A, Soethoudt H, De Meester S, Ragaert K. Predictive model for the Dutch post-consumer plastic packaging recycling system and implications for the circular economy. Waste Manag. 2018;71:62 -85. doi:10.1016/j. wasman.2017.10.034
18. 15. Civancik-Uslu D, Puig R, Hauschild M, Fullana-iPalmer P. Life cycle assessment of carrier bags and development of a litter indicator. Sci Total Environ. 2019;685:621-30. doi:10.1016/j. scitotenv.2019.05.372
19. 16. da Costa JP, Rocha-Santos T, Duarte AC. The environmental impacts of plastics and microplastics use, waste, and pollution: EU and national measures. Brussels: European Parliament, Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs; 2020. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation www. allmultidisciplinaryjournal. com 1005
20. 17. Eriksen MK, Christiansen JD, Daugaard AE, Astrup TF. Closing the loop for PET, PE, and PP waste from households: influence of material properties and product design for plastic recycling. Waste Manag. 2019;96:75-85. doi:10.1016/j. wasman.2019.07.005
21. 18. Eriksen MK, Pivnenko K, Olsson ME, Astrup TF. Contamination in plastic recycling: influence of metals on the quality of reprocessed plastic. Waste Manag. 2018;79:595-606. doi:10.1016/j. wasman.2018.08.007
22. 19. Ezeah C, Fazakerley JA, Roberts CL. Emerging trends in informal sector recycling in developing and transition countries. Waste Manag. 2013;33(11):2509-19. doi:10.1016/j. wasman.2013.06.020
23. 20. Ezeah C, Roberts CL. Analysis of barriers and success factors affecting the adoption of sustainable management of municipal solid waste in Nigeria. J Environ Manage. 2012;103:9-14. doi:10.1016/j. jenvman.2012.02.027
24. 21. Ezeudu OB, Ezeudu TS. Implementation of circular economy principles in industrial solid waste management: case studies from a developing economy (Nigeria). Recycling. 2019;4(4):42. doi:10.3390/recycling4040042
25. 22. Faraca G, Astrup T. Plastic waste from recycling centres: characterisation and evaluation of plastic recyclability. Waste Manag. 2019;95:388 -98. doi:10.1016/j. wasman.2019.06.038
26. 23. Frempong D, Ifenatuora GP, Ofori SD. AI-powered chatbots for education delivery in remote and underserved regions. Int J Front Multidiscip Res. 2020;1(1):156-72. doi:10.54660/IJFMR.2020.1.1.156-172
27. 24. Galloway TS, Lewis C. Marine microplastics spell big problems for future generations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113(9):2331-3. doi:10.1073/pnas.1600715113
28. 25. Garcia JM, Robertson ML. The future of plastics recycling. Science. 2017;358(6365):870 -2. doi:10.1126/science. aaq0324
29. 26. Geissdoerfer M, Savaget P, Bocken NMP, Hultink EJ. The circular economy – a new sustainability paradigm? J Clean Prod. 2017;143:757 -68. doi:10.1016/j. jclepro.2016.12.048
30. 27. Geueke B, Groh K, Muncke J. Food packaging in the circular economy: overview of chemical safety aspects for commonly used materials. J Clean Prod. 2018;193:491-505. doi:10.1016/j. jclepro.2018.05.005
31. 28. Geyer R, Jambeck JR, Law KL. Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Sci Adv. 2017;3(7): e1700782. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1700782
32. 29. Groh KJ, Backhaus T, Carney-Almroth B, Geueke B, Inostroza PA, Lennquist A, et al. Overview of known plastic packaging-associated chemicals and their hazards. Sci Total Environ. 2019;651(Pt 2):3253-68. doi:10.1016/j. scitotenv.2018.10.015
33. 30. Hahladakis JN, Iacovidou E. Closing the loop on plastic packaging materials: what is quality and how does it affect their circularity? Sci Total Environ. 2018;630:1394-400. doi:10.1016/j. scitotenv.2018.02.330
34. 31. Hahladakis JN, Velis CA, Weber R, Iacovidou E, Purnell P. An overview of chemical additives present in plastics: migration, release, fate, and environmental impact during their use, disposal, and recycling. J Hazard Mater. 2018;344:179-99. doi:10.1016/j. jhazmat.2017.10.014
35. 32. Hansen SF, Carlsen L, Tickner JA. Chemicals regulation and precaution: does REACH really incorporate the precautionary principle? Environ Sci Policy. 2007;10(5):395-404. doi:10.1016/j. envsci.2007.01.001
36. 33. Heller MC, Mazor MH, Keoleian GA. Plastics in the US: toward a material flow characterization of production, markets, and end of life. Environ Res Lett. 2020;15(9):094034. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab9e1e
37. 34. Hopewell J, Dvorak R, Kosior E. Plastics recycling: challenges and opportunities. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009;364(1526):2115 -26. doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0311
38. 35. Iacovidou E, Velenturf APM, Purnell P. Quality of resources: a typology for supporting transitions towards resource efficiency using the single-use plastic bottle as an example. Sci Total Environ. 2019;647:441-8. doi:10.1016/j. scitotenv.2018.07.344
39. 36. Iyare PU, Ouki SK, Bond T. Microplastics removal in wastewater treatment plants: a critical review. Environ Sci Water Res Technol. 2020;6(10):2664 -75. doi:10.1039/D0EW00397B
40. 37. Jambeck J, Hardesty BD, Brooks AL, Friend T, Teleki K, Fabres J, et al. Challenges and emerging solutions to the land-based plastic waste issue in Africa. Mar Policy. 2018;96:256-63. doi:10.1016/j. marpol.2017.10.041
41. 38. Korhonen J, Honkasalo A, Seppälä J. Circular economy: the concept and its limitations. Ecol Econ. 2018;143:37-46. doi:10.1016/j. ecolecon.2017.06.041
42. 39. Lazarevic D, Aoustin E, Buclet N, Brandt N. Plastic waste management in the context of a European recycling society: comparing results and uncertainties in a life cycle perspective. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2010;55(2):246-59. doi:10.1016/j. resconrec.2010.09.014
43. 40. Lazarevic D, Valve H. Narrating expectations for the circular economy: towards a common and contested European transition. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2017;31:60-9. doi:10.1016/j. erss.2017.05.006
44. 41. Lithner D, Larsson Å, Dave G. Environmental and health hazard ranking and assessment of plastic polymers and chemicals based on chemical composition. Sci Total Environ. 2011;409(18):3309 -24. doi:10.1016/j. scitotenv.2011.04.038
45. 42. Mhatre P, Panchal R, Singh A, Bibyan S. A systematic literature review on the circular economy initiatives in the European Union. Sustain Prod Consum. 2021;26:187-202. doi:10.1016/j. spc.2020.09.008
46. 43. Niero M, Hauschild MZ. Closing the loop for packaging: finding a framework to operationalize circular economy strategies. Procedia CIRP. 2017;61:685 -90. doi:10.1016/j. procir.2016.11.209
47. 44. Nzeadibe TC. Solid waste reforms and informal recycling in Enugu urban area, Nigeria. Habitat Int. 2009;33(1):93-9. doi:10.1016/j. habitatint.2008.05.006
48. 45. Nzediegwu C, Chang SX. Improper solid waste management increases the potential for COVID-19 spread in developing countries. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2020;161:104947. doi:10.1016/j. resconrec.2020.104947
49. 46. Ogwueleka TC. Municipal solid waste characteristics and management in Nigeria. Iran J Environ Health Sci Eng. 2009;6(3):173-80.
50. 47. Olukanni DO, Pius-Imue FB, Joseph SO. Public perception of solid waste management practices in Nigeria: Ogun State experience. Recycling. 2020;5(2):8. doi:10.3390/recycling5020008 International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation www. allmultidisciplinaryjournal. com 1006
51. 48. Omotayo OO, Kuponiyi AB. Telehealth expansion in post-COVID healthcare systems: challenges and opportunities. ICONIC Res Eng J. 2020;3(10):496-513.
52. 49. Oshoba TO, Aifuwa SE, Ogbuefi E, Olatunde-Thorpe J. Portfolio optimization with multi-objective evolutionary algorithms: balancing risk, return, and sustainability metrics. Int J Multidiscip Res Growth Eval. 2020;1(3):163-70. doi:10.54660/IJMRGE.2020.1.3.163-170
53. 50. Pereira de Pacheco EBAV, Ronchetti LM, Masanet E. An overview of plastic recycling in Rio de Janeiro. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2012;60:140 -6. doi:10.1016/j. resconrec.2011.12.010
54. 51. Pinheiro MAP, Seles BMRP, De Camargo Fiorini P, Jugend D, Lopes de Sousa Jabbour AB, da Silva HMR, et al. The role of new product development in underpinning the circular economy: a systematic review and integrative framework. Manag Decis. 2019;57(4):840-62. doi:10.1108/MD-07-2018-0782
55. 52. Pivnenko K, Eriksen MK, Martín-Fernández JA, Eriksson E, Astrup TF. Recycling of plastic waste: presence of phthalates in plastics from households and industry. Waste Manag. 2016;54:44 -52. doi:10.1016/j. wasman.2016.05.014
56. 53. Ragaert K, Delva L, Van Geem K. Mechanical and chemical recycling of solid plastic waste. Waste Manag. 2017;69:24-58. doi:10.1016/j. wasman.2017.07.044
57. 54. Rahimi A, García JM. Chemical recycling of waste plastics for new materials production. Nat Rev Chem. 2017;1(6):0046. doi:10.1038/s41570-017-0046
58. 55. Rajmohan KVS, Ramya C, Viswanathan MR, Varjani S. Plastic pollutants: effective waste management for pollution control and abatement. Curr Opin Environ Sci Health. 2019;12:72 -84. doi:10.1016/j. coesh.2019.08.006
59. 56. Schyns ZOG, Shaver MP. Mechanical recycling of packaging plastics: a review. Macromol Rapid Commun. 2021;42(3):2000415. doi:10.1002/marc.202000415
60. 57. Shittu H, Opara IS, Elumilade RA, Liadi KO, Adeniji IO. Hydrogen as a secondary energy carrier: modeling its integration in national grids. IRE J. 2019;3(1):628-43.
61. 58. Sindiku O, Babayemi JO, Osibanjo O, Schlummer M, Schluep M, Watson A, et al. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers listed as Stockholm Convention POPs, other brominated flame retardants, and heavy metals in ewaste polymers in Nigeria. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2015;22(19):14489-501. doi:10.1007/s11356-014-3266-59. Singh J, Ordoñez I. Resource recovery from postconsumer waste: important lessons for the upcoming circular economy. J Clean Prod. 2016;134:342-53. doi:10.1016/j. jclepro.2015.12.020
62. 60. Singh N, Hui D, Singh R, Ahuja IPS, Feo L, Fraternali F. Recycling of plastic solid waste: a state-of-the-art review and future applications. Compos Part B Eng. 2017;115:409-22. doi:10.1016/j. compositesb.2016.09.013
63. 61. Steensgaard IM, Syberg K, Rist S, Hartmann NB, Boldrin A, Hansen SF. From macro- to microplastics – analysis of EU regulation along the life cycle of plastic bags. Environ Pollut. 2017;224:289 -99. doi:10.1016/j. envpol.2017.02.007
64. 62. Tencati A, Pogutz S, Moda B, Brambilla M, Cacia C. Prevention policies addressing packaging and packaging waste: some emerging trends. Waste Manag. 2016;56:35-45. doi:10.1016/j. wasman.2016.06.025
65. 63. Velis CA. Global recycling markets – plastic waste: a story for one player – China. Vienna: International Solid Waste Association; 2014.
66. 64. Vollmer I, Jenks MJF, Roelands MCP, White RJ, van Harmelen T, de Wild P, et al. Beyond mechanical recycling: giving new life to plastic waste. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2020;59(36):15402 -23. doi:10.1002/anie.201915651
67. 65. Wagner S, Schlummer M. Legacy additives in a circular economy of plastics: current dilemma, policy analysis, and emerging countermeasures. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2020;158:104800. doi:10.1016/j. resconrec.2020.104800
68. 66. Walker TR, Xanthos D. A call for Canada to move toward zero plastic waste by reducing and recycling single-use plastics. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2018;133:99-100. doi:10.1016/j. resconrec.2018.02.014
69. 67. Welle F. Twenty years of PET bottle-to-bottle recycling — an overview. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2011;55(11):865-75. doi:10.1016/j. resconrec.2011.04.009
70. 68. World Bank. What a Waste 2.0: a global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2018. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1329-0