Perception of environmental risks associated with scavenging activities: Echoes from around landfills in Nigerian Megacity

Perception of Environmental Risks Associated with Scavenging Activities: Echoes from Around Landfills in Nigerian Megacity

Gbemiga Bolade Faniran¹*, Olanrewaju Timothy Dada², and Adewunmi Samson Adedayo¹

¹Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria

²Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye, Nigeria

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90300033

Received: 14 February 2025; Accepted: 22 February 2025; Published: 27 March 2025

ABSTRACT

This study examines the perceptions of residents living near the Olusosun and Solus II landfills in Lagos, Nigeria, where daily scavenging activities pose environmental and health risks. Utilizing a systematic sampling method, 161 respondents within a 900-meter radius of the landfills were surveyed, achieving a 90.7% response rate. The findings indicate that socio-economic attributes significantly influence residents’ concerns about scavenging activities. The perception of risks, including pollution, crime, and hazardous conditions, was consistent across different zones despite variations in age and educational status. Respondents expressed high concern regarding the unsanitary nature of scavenging activities, linking them to increased crime and environmental degradation. Spatial analysis revealed that residents’ proximity to the landfills did not significantly affect their perceived risk severity (F = 0.450; p = .642). However, the level of concern decreased with increased distance from the landfills. Socio-economic factors, including income and length of residence, were key determinants of risk perception. Notably, factors such as rootedness of place, sense of community, and place identity influenced residents’ decisions to remain in the area despite known hazards. Emotional bonds and economic dependencies contributed to a reluctance to relocate. The study underscores the need for policy interventions that incorporate bottom-up approaches, engaging both residents and scavengers in decision-making processes. This research highlights the complex interplay between socio-economic, cultural, and environmental factors in shaping risk perception, providing insights for regulatory frameworks to manage urban landfills and mitigate associated risks.

Keywords: landfills, environmental hazard, environmental risk, risk perception, scavenging

INTRODUCTION 

In Nigeria, solid waste management (SWM) is constitutionally the local government’s responsibility (Federal Government of Nigeria, 1999). This arm of government has however, been confronted with several challenges, making it ineffective in discharging this responsibility. Another tier of government – the state, stepped in, to complement the local governments’ effort in achieving the goal of solid waste management in many Nigerian cities. State governments have intervened by setting up bodies that have similar outlook, especially in Southwestern Nigeria. Among these are, Lagos Waste Management Authority (LAWMA), Ibadan Solid Waste Management Authority (ISWMA), Ogun Waste Management Authority (OGWAMA) and Ondo State Waste Management Authority (OSWMA). Despite these agencies’ efforts, the SWM system is characterised by inefficient and inadequate facilities and equipment (Afon, Dada & Faniran, 2016). The scenario necessitated the emergence of informal sector initiatives in SWM (Afon, 2007). Indeed, the existence of LAWMA for example has not deterred actors in the informal sector from active participation in SWM, neither has it reduced their activities in landfills. These actors include waste pickers, who daily scavenge for materials in landfill.

Despite the burgeoning literature on scavenging activities, scant attention has been paid to the risks associated with residing close to waste dump sites or landfills where scavenging activities occur. Previous researches focused mainly on scavengers’ socio-economic position in landfills (Chvatal 2010; Samson 2010a; Theron 2010), and perception of occupational hazards and well-being (Dada et al. 2022; Nyathi, Olowoyo & Oludare 2018). Schenck and Blaauw (2010) affirmed that scavengers were prone to infectious diseases due to exposure to hazardous substances like faeces, contaminated needles, toxic paper, and heavy metals from batteries, bottles, and chemical waste containers. Rushton (2003) established an increased risk of musculoskeletal problems and work-related respiratory, gastrointestinal and skin issues in scavengers. Exposure to microbes and dust during scavenging has a cumulative effect, as other health problems may emerge in the long term (Kuijer, 2006). Children are also not spared from environmental health effects of scavenging (Taiwo et al. 2022). There is meagre usage rates of personal protective equipment (gloves, protective shoe, nose cover and uniform) by scavengers (Gunn & Ostos, 1992); hence, they are susceptible to injuries by the handling of needles, broken glass, metal, and suffer dog and rat bites among others (Ahsan et al., 2014; Medina, 2000; Theron, 2010; Jerie, 2016).

In most developing countries, including Nigeria, landfills pose environmental risks to nearby residents through the emission of gases such as methane and the consequential atmospheric pollution (Mbiba, 2014; Dada, 2020) at different scale. When waste decomposes or rot in landfill, it creates methane gas, and exposure can lead to asthma, cancer, chronic coughs, and other respiratory diseases (Jerie, 2016; Mathema, Shadung, Chris, 2017; Kumar et al. 2017). The landfills also contain chemicals that may have adverse effects on the environment, and pose different scale of threats to human health. These threats, according to Zeiss and Atwater (1987), have physical (environmental change), social (stigmatisation of residents), political (unfairness to nearby homes) and economic (depreciation in the value of properties) impacts on nearby residents. As established by Dada (2020) proximity to the dumpsite does not all time equate to level of exposure; what is more risky is the continuous exposure to pollutants from the landfill. This is similar to the position of Durmusoglu, Taspinar, and Karademir (2010) who had earlier asserted that risks associated with landfills are contingent on the contaminants’ concentration and the extent of exposure and not necessarily proximity to landfills. In the context of a developing country like Nigeria, it is presumed therefore, that the more risk people perceive, the less likely they are to live in proximity of a landfill and the more likely they are to adopt health-protective behaviours. In essence, we also hypothesized following Jenkins et al. (2024) that, two residents or groups will not express same opinion about risk of residing close to landfills at the same.

The variation in residents’ perception of risks associated with residing around landfills and by extension scavengers’ and scavenging activities has not been adequately reported in literature. In this study therefore, we examined the perceptions of residents around two commissioned landfills sites (Olusosun and Solus II) in Nigerian Megacity – Lagos. Also, in this study, we relate perception to the distance of residents’ houses to the landfills under study, explicitly focusing on buildings within one-kilometre radius of the identified landfill sites. This study will help bridge the gap in the nascent literature of environmental risk perception. The findings will help develop an appropriate regulatory framework for controlling developments within and around landfills, which are fast becoming haven of scavengers and scavenging activities in many Nigerian cities. To this end, this paper is divided into four parts. After this introductory section, the theoretical underpinning of the study is presented. In the third section, the study area and methodology are discussed, while the fourth section is devoted to the presentation of the study’s findings. In the final section, conclusion and policy implications of the findings are presented.

Environmental risk perception of residents around landfills: Theoretical perspectives

Perception of risk about catastrophes is complex, and most often difficult to investigate (Williams et al. 1999). It is more problematic, especially when people have already experienced a catastrophe and still live near the area where it occurred. Risk perception changes according to the situation that people face and to individual characteristics. Risk perception is a consequence of projecting value, representations, and meaning of certain events, practices, and objects in any similar circumstance (Le Breton 1995). Usually, decision making about risks depends on systematic biases and how accessible and inclusive information is. However, the individual reaction will vary depending on the individual’s perception of danger. A risk does not have the same effect and is not perceived as the same by all people. Notwithstanding, when risk is perceived, people usually engage in different forms of preventive behaviour. There is yet a shared understanding of what prompts people to engage in preventive behaviours to withstand environmental risks, even in high-risk conditions. Simply enlightening people most times may not be adequate to motivate them to change their usual behaviour (Schultz, 2011), as is evident, people do not always respond to risks rationally. Coupled with analytical processes, people are likely to yield to emotional drivers (Slovic et al. 2004) when responding to risk. These considerations raise essential questions that focus on residents’ measures to prevent or lessen the risks associated with residing around landfills, where scavenging occurs, despite knowing the risks.

The Health Belief Model (HBM) is adopted herein to explain how decisions to cope with risk are made. According to Dada (2020), HBM ascertains two things successfully: the desire of residents to get well or avoid sickness (value), and residents’ belief that their action could prevent them from getting sick (expectancy). HBM maintains that people consider the severity of the threat, their susceptibility, and the possible benefits of protective actions before deciding whether to take a risk or not (Dada, Odufuwa et al. 2020; Dada, Fasina et al. 2020). HBM consists of concepts like perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, perceived benefits, and perceived barriers, cues to action and self-efficacy (Maiman & Becker 1974; Champion & Skinner 2008). Residents implement adaptive or preventive risk-coping measures if they perceive themselves as susceptible to illness (perceived susceptibility) and understand that the illness might be severe (perceived severity). Engaging in healthy behaviours might be beneficial (perceived benefit) and that the benefits of such actions will exceed the cost (perceived barriers). While cues to action construct of HBM is about the stimulus needed to trigger a decision-making process of accepting a recommended health action, self-efficacy is about residents’ belief in their ability to respond to a situation actively and carry out behaviour essential in producing a particular performance attainment. Nonetheless, when people cannot react in risky situations, they become more pessimistic about coping abilities (van der Velde, HooyKaas, & van der Joop, 1992). As such, pessimism becomes likely, especially when people have had prior experience with such risky situations (Helweg-Larsen, 1999).

Another theory that has similarities to the HBM is the protection motivation theory (PMT). The PMT ascertains that, it is more likely that residents will protect themselves when they sense impending negative consequences and nurse the desire to avoid them. Overall, PMT brings to bear connection between risk perception and injuries and incidents. This theory best describes reasons people will take protective action when there is motivation and, simultaneously, the agency to do so. For instance, Sheeran et al. (2013) discovered a combined positive effect of enhanced risk appraisal elements (such as risk perception and perceived severity) regarding changing intentions and behaviour. Going by PMT, risk perception can primarily be attributed to a direct prior experience. As was acknowledged by Frondel et al. (2017), a direct previous experience of a hazard is a regular predictor of future risk perception. The impulse to change is detecting a signal that deviates from the norm, which becomes uncomfortable to elicit a response. Moser and Ekstrom (2010) opined that people do not perceive such signs simultaneously. As such, change only becomes a risk when it poses a threat to something of value (Jaeger et al., 2013). PMT has it that the motivation to protect oneself requires adequate risk perception and the tools and skills to act preventively. Those more likely to take risks tend to be less risk-aware and do not even have the self-efficacy to protect themselves. Understanding the underlying reasons behind people responding to changes in the way they do will guarantee a better assessment of the values driving risk-coping decisions. It will help to demystify desirable adaptative measures across populations.

With explanation provided on these two underpinning theories, it is imperative to note that peoples’ perception of risk is localized. Impliedly, the social context and physical place where the people experiencing the risk live are critical in determining their perception (Bickerstaff & Walker, 2001). How risk is perceived influences people’s judgment of the situation and coping measures influenced by culture, demographic characteristics, and socio-economic status (Harrington and Elliott 2015; Guo and Li 2016; Dada, Odufuwa et al. 2020; Dada, Fasina et al., 2020). In other words, risk perception is shaped by locale, cultural and demographic makeup of those experiencing the threat. As a result, risk perception influences precautionary behaviour and protective actions in risk reduction and hazard preparedness.

Lagos: Nigerian Megacity and the waste landfills

The research work reported in this paper took place in one of world’s fastest-growing megacity – Lagos (UN-Habitat, 2014). Lagos is a coastal city, situated in Southwestern geopolitical zone of Nigeria. It was the capital of the country until 1991, when the Federal Capital Territory was finally moved to Abuja. Lagos is the most densely inhabited city in the West African sub-Saharan region, with 8,000 persons per kilometer and a growth rate between 6 and 8 percent (Ministry of Economic Planning and Budget, 2022 and 2024), as against the country’s 6,800 persons per square kilometer and a growth rate of 2.59% (UN-Habitata, 2023). Its location along the coastline led to its steady and continual growth, both demographically and spatially. The rapid and explosive population growth is driven by its political roles and a thriving economy, most within the service sector. By 2002, the state attained a megacity status with a population far exceeding the 10 million mark and a continuously growing boundary extending beyond its jurisdiction into neighbouring Ogun State (UN-Habitat, 2004; 2016). Lagos population was estimated to be 22 million and projected to 32 million by 2052, at a 3.65% growth rate (Ministry of Economic Planning and Budget, 2022). Lagos is the second-most populous megacity in Africa, after Cairo (Egypt) (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA), 2015). The enormous population in Lagos portends several implications for solid waste management; with consequential rising per capita waste generation trend, but limited capacity for management (Ahsan et al., 2014; Van Niekerk & Weghmann, 2019; World Bank, 2019), evident in the inefficient collection, transportation and disposal sub-system.

The unprecedented complex and nuanced dimension of landfills-related hazards and risk, and the activities of scavengers around the landfills is another implication, raising the question of – at what price do people live around the landfills? There are four “legal” landfills within the Lagos Metropolis. These are: Olusosun in Ojota, Solous in Egbeda, Gbagada in Kosofe, and Agbado-Oke in Abule-Egba. The landfills located in Olusosun and Solous are fully operated while the Agbado-Oke and Gbagada sites have been closed due to flooding (LAWMA, 2012). Initially, both operating landfills were on the outskirts of Lagos Metropolis, currently they are entirely within the built-up urban space due to increase in land use development, consequent upon population increase and city growth. The two operating sites are both un-sanitary; having no protective bottom layer that prevent leachate plumes. The Olusosun landfill is situated on a 42-hectare piece of land and commenced operations in 1992 with an estimated lifespan of 35 years (Olorunfemi, 2020). About 40% (2,400 metric tonnes) of Lagos’s city’s waste are brought to the landfill every day. Notably, hundreds of scanty “make-shift homes” are built by scavengers for accommodation at Olusosun. There are three sections in the the landfill located in Solus, namely Solus I, Solus II and Solus III (Aderemi & Falade, 2012). Several attempts have been made by the Lagos State Government to decommission landfills in Solus, as it is filled up and are within residential neighbourhoods. The Solus dumpsite is also occupied by about 350 to 400 scavengers.

METHODOLOGY

Data for the study were obtained from residents around the two identified landfill sites in Lagos, through mixed method involving questionnaire administration using systematic sampling technique and interviews. To ensure that the study’s reach was appropriate and reflect spatial dimension of respondents’ perception, residents within 900-meter radius of the two landfills were selected for survey. Buildings within 900-meter radius were stratified into three, in the radius of settlements situated within 1-300 meters, 301-600 meters and 601-900 meters respectively. This range was carefully chosen based on the assumption that residents domiciled within this radius are presumed to feel the impacts of the scavengers’ actions more than residents at a farther distance.

The use of a Geographic Information System (GIS) marking device revealed that there were 1120 and 491 residential buildings within the selected 900m radius around Olusosun and Solus sites respectively. The first building where a respondent was surveyed was randomly selected. The subsequent unit of the investigation was every tenth (10th) building. In each residential building, a household or an adult in the absence of the former was selected for questionnaire administration. A total of 161 respondents were selected for the questionnaire administration. However, questionnaire was retrieved from 99 and 47 households around Olusosun and Solus II landfill sites, respectively (Figure 1). In other words, the responses of 146 residents are reported in this study. This represented 90.7% response rate. Information collected from respondents were analysed using frequency distribution and scaling technique with rated index. Mean (weighted average) was used to determine the Perceived Risk Index (PRI) of scavengers’ activities. To arrive at the PRI, respondents rated their perception of the safety index with each of the identified attributes of concern on a five-point Likert scale. Key informant interviews were also conducted to establish factors that motivate residents to continue to stay around landfill in Lagos, despite known and attendant risks and hazards.

Figure 1: Questionnaire administered and retrieved

Ethical

This study is part of extensive research examining informal solid waste in Lagos, Nigeria. This study included questionnaire administration and personal observation. The randomly selected respondents permitted the survey and consented to participate. The probability and magnitude of preference are not more significant than that encountered in daily lives of the majority of the study population from which respondents were selected. The study is non-therapeutic research, and no methodological or ethical flaws were anticipated.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Four essential socio-economic traits of residents were considered: age, income, level of education, and length of living in the vicinity. These traits are alluded by Fabiyi (2013) to be important because perception and responses to environmental issues can be best explained based on the socio-economic attributes of the study population. The ages of respondents were grouped into three as presented in Table 1: the youth (18-30 years), the young adult (31-55 years) and the adults (above 56 years). This followed the grouping of Afon et al. (2016). The summary of age groupings revealed that 48.0% of the respondents surveyed were young adults. Respondents’ mean age was directly proportional to the distance of building from the dumpsites, with 28.7, 30.8 and 40.6 years recorded in the stratum with a radius of 1-300, 301-600 and 601-900 meters, respectively. This assertion is confirmed by the analysis of variance computed (F= 9.199 and p = 0.000) at a 0.05 level of confidence. Since age is a critical predictor of perception (Zelezny et al. 2000), this finding suggests that, residents’ perception of risk associated with scavengers’ activities are likely to vary irrespective of distance to landfill. Information on the respondents’ educational status showed that the proportion of household heads without formal education declined as distance increased from the dumpsites to respondents’ buildings. This assertion is confirmed by the chi-square result (χ² = 27.441 and p = 0.000). In other words, if it is true that literacy will influence how residents perceive or respond to environmental issues, perception of scavengers’ activities is expected to vary according to educational status of the respondents.

Table 1: Residents’ Socio-Economic Attributes by Stratum

Note: ₦ represents Naira (Nigeria currency). ₦1,560 is equivalent of $1.

For ease of analysis, four income groups using the Lagos State Civil Service Income Grade Level were identified. The first group comprised respondents earning below the old national minimum wage of N18, 000; the low-income groups were respondents in the Grade Level 01 to 06; the middle-income earners were those in Grade Level 07 to 12, while the high-income earners were respondents in Grade Level 13 to 17. We confirmed in this study that, while low-income earners were predominant in the first stratum (1-300 meters), high-income earners dominated stratum lying within 601-900 meters. Further analysis showed that there was also significant difference in the income of respondents (F=8.789; p=0.000) around the dumpsites in Lagos. The analysis of the responses on length of residence by the residents was grouped into three: short (less than ten years), average (10-30 years), and long (above 30 years) stay. The proportion of respondents that had resided in the area for less than 10years were dominant, with 76.8% within 1-300 meters, 61.3% within 301-600 meters and 52.2% within 601-900 meters.

Perceived Risk Index

Respondents expressed their concerns about scavengers’ activities based on experience and overt and covert observations in the study area. Respondents’ concerns were rated on a five scale accordingly; not concerned, lowly concerned, just concerned, averagely concerned and highly concerned. In the study area, 38.4% of the respondents were highly concerned that, scavengers’ activities negatively affect them. The respondents who expressed average, just and low concerned were 36.3%, 11.6% and 13.7% respectively, in the study area. This showed that none of the respondent was not concerned about scavengers’ activities as they were affected negatively. Further breakdown of the responses on scavengers’ activities across the different stratum showed that majority (55.4%) of respondents within the radius of 0-300 meters stratum of the landfills were highly concerned about scavengers’ activities. Similarly, a more significant proportion of the respondents living in stratum between 301-600 (36.4%) and 601-900 (45.7%) meters to the landfills respectively, were averagely concerned about the scavengers’ activities. These findings indicated that as distance increased from the landfill, the proportion of respondents who were highly concerned about scavengers’ activities was decreasing. Among others, this implied that, as the socio-economic attributes of respondents varied across the identified strata, the concern about scavengers’ activities also differed significantly. In essence, it is established in this study that, socio-economics attributes of respondents are significant drivers of concerns for scavengers’ activities, and by extension perception of scavengers’ activities in Lagos, Nigeria. Similar results were reported by Afon et al. (2016) in Ibadan, Nigeria.

Table 2: Respondents expressed concerned about scavengers’ activities

 As shown in Tables 3, respondents rating showed that, scavengers’ activities were generally dirty and highly dangerous. Likewise, scavengers engage in different nefarious activities in areas where they operate. Among these were robbery, burglary, vandalism and juvenile delinquencies. As presented in Table 3, associated risk with the highest index across the three identified strata was that “activities are generally dirty”. This is so, considering the nature of scavenging activity, involving waste picking. On the other hand, the associated risk with the lowest PRI was scavengers’ engagement in car snatching. Not minding the differences in PRI of the different associated risks, further analysis using one-way analysis of variance showed that there was no significant difference in how residents’ perceived risk severity in different strata (F = 0.450; p=.642). In essence, irrespective of the differences in the respondents’ socio-economic attributes and concerned about scavengers’ activities, there was no difference in how respondents perceived the severity of risk associated with scavengers’ activities in the study area.

Table 3: Perceive risk associated with the scavenger’s activities in the study area

Where mean of RAI _r300 was 3.1, RAI _r301-600 was 3.5, and RAI _r601-900 was 3.4

Dmn is deviation about the mean    *statistically significant difference at p < 0.05

Factors influencing resident’s decision not to relocate

The residents were asked about their duration in proximity to the landfills and the reasons for their continuous residence around the landfills despite associated hazards and risks. The responses depict a strong and multifaceted emotional bond categorised as rootedness of place; involving closeness to place of work, ownership of property, and place of birth among others. They also depict a type of spatial anchoring, often reinforced by temporality, memories, intergenerational transmission and heritage. They reflect the respondents desire to maintain closeness to their attachment object, despite the hazards and risks associated with living around places where scavengers’ activities were predominant. These also exhibited a strong “sense of community” related to respondents’ connections to local social networks and interactions, place identity. For example, few of the responses during interview session are presented:

“I am attached to this area because of my job. I own the property in which I live. Indeed, I was born here, so where do you expect me to relocate? If I were to relocate, I would lose my venture, investment, and contact with several families’ members and friends”. 

“I have been close to the landfill for all my life. I’ve lived close to the landfill for 45 years since I was born. My family have been living in the neighbourhood for many years. My grandfather died and was buried here. I stayed here, because this land is my inheritance and birthright. I must tell you that my father was born here too, so was all his children and we built our house here”.

“This community is closely-knit, we help each other. In this community, we know each other and there are ways we attend to each other’s needs, when something happens. A number of good friends of mine live in this community. If I were to move, I would lose contact with several friends because we’ve known each other for several years”.

“I have similar values to other people in this community. There is an unexplainable bond in this community. Living here gives me a sense of pride. We call this place our “abete”. The freedom one gets by living here, can never be experienced elsewhere. I would say that it is the best community to live and it provides me with essential memories. I’ve lived in other communities, before coming here, I am yet to find any place as good as this community”.

From the preceding responses, it is thus established that rootedness of place, sense of community and place identity significantly act as predictors or intervening factors that influence the residents’ decisions to stay in areas where environmental risks predominate. Consequently, a firmly rooted individual will most likely develop affective meaning and positive feelings about living in proximity of the landfills, minimise the dangers and risks, and accept those risks that cannot be minimise, usually in exchange for other benefits accruable by living there. As evident from these responses, many of the respondents have no future intention of relocating. This resistance to relocation results in misunderstanding of risks and affective connections and economic dependence, consequently, perceptual bias. Gifford (2014;) opined that “being attached to a place is like wearing rose-coloured glasses, and its flaws and dangers become less apparent”.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Data from residents around the commissioned landfills in Lagos State show that socio-economic attributes influence their understanding of scavengers’ activities. As the distance from the landfills increased, we established that the level of residents’ concern of scavenging activities reduces. Regardless of location, respondents were of the view that, scavengers’ actions were generally dirty and highly hazardous. Our study further established that factors such as rootedness of place, sense of community and place identity influenced residents’ decisions to stay around the landfills, despite the health cost and adverse environmental outcomes. The study has presented important theoretical and practical implications, but it also does have some caveats. Such caveats do not restrict or reduce the research’s significance but offer further inquiry into landfills related risks. Although we gave our best to make the sampling most random, one caveat is that the results may not be generalisable enough because we only sampled residents’ domicile within two landfills. Besides, there could also be information bias as residents may not be truthful in responding during the data collection because of fear of any potential repercussion from LAWMA. Also, the associated risks might have been underestimated because of recall prejudice resulting from optimism bias. Likewise, self-reported nature of the questionnaire might have also resulted in a social desirability bias where some residents might have over-reported the risk associated with living around the landfills Despite these limitations, this study still provides a systematic and comprehensive investigation of risk related to the scavenger’s activities as an incentive for developing appropriate regulatory framework for controlling developments within and around landfills in Nigeria and other climes with similar socio-economic milieu.

The study recommends a need to engage with the landfills’ scavengers and itinerant scavengers on the street to hear their voices, concerns and insecurities to enhance the relationships between them and the communities where they operate. There is need for future studies to understand the subtle and complex relationship between residents and scavengers. Future research should therefore explore human health and safety risks associated with scavenging activities in developing countries like Nigeria. A better understanding will influence legislation and public policies for better regulation. Based on the preceding discourse, a range of supporting policies should be put in place to increase scavengers’ sustainable performance and reduce their activities’ negative externalities on residents and the society. More importantly, policymakers must embrace the paradigm shift from a top-down approach to a bottom-up approach when locating landfill. A bottom-up approach is such that when landfill planning and location are to be done, consideration will be done with, and not for, the people in such a way that all residents are involved. One advantage is that this generates a sense of fulfilment, as residents know they were part of a process that brought about the landfill’s siting. Notably, Olusosun and Solus II landfill have exhausted their lateral land space and exceeded their lifespan, hence, the they should be completely shut down and new landfills established. The new one should be situated far from residential neighbourhoods with a buffer or green area of at least 2km and outside environmentally sensitive areas, such as flood plains and wetlands.

REFERENCES

1. Aderemi, A. O. & Falade, T. C. (2012). Environmental and Health Concerns Associated with the Open Dumping of Municipal Solid Waste: A Lagos, Nigeria Experience. American Journal of Environmental Engineering, 2 (6): 160-165.
2. Afon, A. O. (2007). Informal sector initiative in the primary sub-system of Urban Solid Waste Management in Lagos, Nigeria. Habitat International, 31(2), 193-204.
3. Afon, A. O., & Okewole, A. (2007). Estimating the quantity of solid waste generation in Oyo, Nigeria. Waste Management & Research, 25(4), 371.
4. Afon, A. O., Dada, O. T. & Faniran, G. B. (2016). Socio-Economic Attributes of Residents as Drivers of Adaptation to Climate Change Effects in a Nigerian Traditional Urban Center. Archives of Current Research International, 3(3): 1-15
5. Ahsan, A., Alamgir, M. El-Sergany, M. M., Shams, S., Rowshon, M. K., & Daud, N. N. N. (2014). Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste Management System in a Developing Country. Chiness Journal of Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/561935
6. Ajibade I., McBean G., & Bezner‐Kerr R.(2013). Urban flooding in Lagos, Nigeria: patterns of vulnerability and resilience among women. Glob Environ Change, 23, (6), 1714– 1725.
7. Bickerstaff, K., & Walker, G. (2001). Public understandings of air pollution: The ‘localisation’ of environmental risk. Global Environmental Change, 11(2), 133- 145.
8. Breakwell, G. M. (2007). The psychology of risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Champion, V. L., & Skinner C. S. (2008). “The Health Belief Model.” In Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research and Practice, edited by K. Glanz, B. Rimer, and K. Viswanath, 45–65. San Francisco, CA: Joosey-Bass.
10. Chvatal, J. (2010). A study of waste management policy implications for landfill waste salvagers in the Western Cape. University of Cape Town.
11. Cointreau, S. (2006). Occupational and Environmental Health Issues of Solid Waste Management: Special emphasis on middle and low-income countries. World Bank, Washington, DC.
12. Dada O. T. (2018). Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Climate Change Effects on Residents’ Ill Health in selected Nigerian Metropolises. PhD Research Thesis at the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife. Nigeria.
13. Dada O.T., Ojo D.B., Popoola A.S., Adebara T.M., & Oladele B. G. (2021). Variability of sense of place in Nigerian coastal communities. Geographical Research. [Online First] https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12470
14. Dada, O. T. (2020). Environmental and health hazards of residents domiciled around Africa’s largest landfill, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, [Online First] DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2020.1835621.
15. Dada, O. T., Faniran, G. B., Ojo, D. B. and Taiwo, A. (2022). Waste Pickers’ Perception of Occupational Hazards and Well-being in a Nigerian Megacity. International Journal of Environmental Studies, doi: 1080/00207233.           2022.2055344).
16. Dada, O.T., Fasina, S.O., Agbabiaka, H.I., Salisu, U.O., Ogunseye, N.O. & Olawale O.A. (2020). Occupational Hazard and Risk among Commercial Motorcyclist in Peri-Urban City of Lagos, Nigeria. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics [Online First]. http://doi.org/10.1080/ 10803548.2020.1785168.
17. Dada, O.T., Odufuwa B.O., Badiora A.I., Agbabiaka, H.I., Ogunseye, N.O. & Omoniyi, S.S. (2020). Environmental Hazard and Health Risks Associated with Landfill in Ibadan, Nigeria. Environmental Hazards, 20(2): 146-162.
18. Dano, U. L., Balogun, A., Abubakar, I. R. & Aina Y. A (2020). “Transformative Urban Governance: Confronting Urbanisation Challenges with Geospatial Technologies in Lagos Metropolitan Area.” Geo Journal. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-019-10009-1.
19. Durmusoglu, E., F. Taspinar, & A. Karademir (2010). “Health Risk Assessment of BTEX Emissions in the Landfill Environment.” Journal of Hazardous Materials, 176 (1–3): 870–877.
20. Fabiyi, O.O. (2013). Indigenous Knowledge System and Local Adaptation Strategies to Flooding in Coastal Rural Communities of Nigeria. Journal of Indigenous Social Development 2(1).
21. Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999). The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.  Abuja: The Federal Government Press.
22. Frondel, M., Simora, M. & Sommer, S. (2017). Risk perception of climate change: empirical evidence for Germany. Econ. 137, 173–183.
23. Gunn, S. E. & Ostos, Z. (1992). Dilemmas in Tackling Child Labour: The Case of Scavenger Children in the Philippines. International Labour Review, 131(6), 629-46.
24. Guo, Y. & Li, Y. (2016). Getting ready for mega-disasters: the role of past experience in changing disaster consciousness. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal. 25(4): 492–505.
25. Harrington, D., & Elliott, S. (2015). Understanding emerging environmental health risks: A framework for responding to the unknown. Canadian Geographer, 59(3), 283-296. doi:10.1111/cag.12198.
26. Helweg-Larsen, M. (1999). (The lack of) optimistic biases in response to the Northridge earthquake: The role of personal experience. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21, 119-129.
27. Jaeger, C.C., Webler, T., Rosa, E.A. & Renn, O. (2013). Risk, Uncertainty and Rational Action. Routledge.
28. Jenkins, S. C., Lachlan, R. F., & Osman, M. (2024). An integrative framework for mapping the psychological landscape of risk perception. Scientific Report 14: 10989 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-59189-y
29. Jerie, S. (2016). Occupational risks associated with solid waste management in the informal sector of Gweru, Zimbabwe. Environ. Public Health.
30. Kuijer, W. (2006). Measuring disability in patients with chronic low back pain: the usefulness of different instruments. s.n.
31. Kumar, S.; Smith, S.R.; Fowler, G.; Velis, C.; Kumar, S.J.; Arya, S.; Rena Kumar, R., & Cheeseman, C. (2017). Challenges and opportunities associated with waste management in India. Soc. Open Sci., 4, 160764.
32. Landau, S. F., & Fridman, D. (1993). The seasonality of violent crime: The case of robbery and homicide in Israel. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 30, 163-191 (2011): Accessed in January 2021 on the website: http://www.lawma.gov.ng
33. Langenhoven, B., & Dyssel, M. (2007). The recycling industry and subsistence waste collectors: a case study of Mitchells Plain. Urban Forum, 18(1), 114-132.
34. Lagos Waste Management Authority (LAWMA) (2012). Website Accessed February 20, 2015, at http://www.lawma.gov.ng
35. Lujala, P., Lein, H. & Rød, J. K. (2015). Climate change, natural hazards, and risk perception: the role of proximity and personal experience. Local Environ. 20 (4), 489–
36. Maiman, L. A., & M. H. Becker. (1974). “The Health Belief Model: Origins and Correlates in Psychological Theory.” Health Education Monographs 2 (4): 336–353.
37. Mathema, M., Shadung, J. M., & Chris, L. (2017). A Review of the Working Conditions and Health Status of Waste Pickers at Some Landfill Sites in the City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality, South Africa. Appl. Sci. Res., 8, 90–97.
38. Mbiba, B. (2014). Urban solid waste characteristics and household appetite for separation at source in Eastern and Southern Africa, Habitat International, 43, 52-162.
39. Medina, M. (2000). Scavenger cooperatives in Asia and Latin America. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 31, 51–69.
40. Ministry of Economic Planning and Budget (2022). Lagos State Development Plan 2022-2052: Africa’s Model Mega City Full Version.
41. Moser, S. C. & Ekstrom, J. A. (2010). A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107 (51), 22026–22031.
42. Nyathi, S., Olowoyo, J. O., & Oludare, A. (2018). Perception of scavengers and occupational health hazards associated with scavenging from a waste dumpsite in Pretoria, South Africa Hindawi Journal of Environmental and Public Health, Volume 2018, Article ID 9458156, 7 pageshttps://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9458156
43. Ogwueleka, T. C. (2009). Municipal solid waste characteristics and management in Nigeria. Iran Journal of Environmental Health Science Engineering. 6(3), 173-180
44. Ojeda-Benitez, S., Armijo-de-Vega, C., & Ramirez-Barreto, E. (2002). Formal and informal recovery of recyclables in Mexicali, Mexico: handling alternatives. Resource, Conservation and Recycling 34, 273–288.
45. Olorunfemi, F. B. (2020). Landfill development and current practices in Lagos metropolis, Nigeria. African Journal of Geography and Regional Planning, 7, 4: 001-008.
46. Omololu, F. O. & Akinmayowa, S. L. (2013). Population growth and waste management in metropolitan Lagos. The Nigerian Journal of Sociology and Anthropology, 11, 83-100.
47. P.M. News Nigeria (2010). P.M. News Nigeria: Olusosun Landfill to become a recreational park.
48. Risc-Kit. (2016). Multi-Criteria Analysis Guide. Accessed in January 2021 on the website: http://www.risckit.eu
49. Samson, M. (2010a). Reclaiming livelihoods: the role of reclaimers in municipal waste. Accessed in January 2021 on the website: managementsystems.http://www.groundwork.org.za/Publications/Reclaiming%20Livelih oods.pdf.
50. Samson, M. (2010b). Reclaiming reusable and recyclable materials in Africa: a critical review of English language literature. Accessed in January 2021 on the website: http://www.inclusivecities.org/research/RR6_Samson.pdf.
51. Schenck, C. J., & Blaauw, P. F. (2010). Living on what others throw away: a preliminary exploration into the socio-economic circumstances of people collecting and selling recyclable waste. Paper presented at a feedback session on interesting research conducted in the inner-city and Sunnyside, Pretoria as part of UNISA’s The Bright Site Project – 12 November 2010, UNISA Pretoria.
52. Schultz, P. W. (2011). Conservation means behaviour. Conservation Biology, 25, 1080-1083.
53. Sheeran, P., Gollwitzer, P.M., & Bargh, J.A. (2013). Nonconscious processes and health. Health Psychology, 32(5), 460-473.
54. Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal. 24 (2), 311–322.
55. Taiwo, A. O., Dada, O. T., Ayoola, A. S. and Faniran, G. B. (2022). Socio-Economic, Health and Environmental Aspects of Child Waste Picking Activity at Africa’s Largest Dumpsite. American Journal of Environmental Sciences, 18 (3), 69-80.
56. The Nation (2010). The Nation: Ugly side of Olusosun scavengers. Accessed in January 2021 on the website: http://thenationonlineng.net/ web2/articles/49807/1/Ugly-side-of-theOlusosun-scavengers/Page1.html.
57. Theron, J. (2010). Options for organising waste pickers in South Africa. Accessed in January 2021 on the website: http://www.wiego.org/ publications/Organizing_Waste_Pickers_S_Africa.pdf.
58. UN-DESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs). (2015). World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision. Key Findings and Advance Tables. Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP.241. New York, NY: U.N.
59. UN-Habitat. (2014). The State of African Cities 2014: Re-Imagining Sustainable Urban Transitions. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Human Settlements Programme.
60. Van der Velde, F. K., HooyKaas, C., & van der Joop, P. (1992). Risk perception and behaviour: Pessimism, realism, and optimism about aids-related health behaviour. Psychology & Health, 6, 23e38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870449208402018.
61. Van Niekerk, S. & Weghmann, V. (2019). Municipal Solid Waste Management Services in Africa. Working Paper, Public Services International.
62. Walling, E. A., Warren, E; Warsley, B., & Wilhelm, E. (2004). Municipal Solid waste management in developing countries: Nigeria, a case study. Retrieved from http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/saw44/NTRES331%2004 (accessed 11.08.2020).
63. Weinstein, N. D. (1984). Why it won’t happen to me: Perceptions of risk factors and susceptibility. Health Psychology, 3, 431e457. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0278-6133.3.5.431.
64. World Bank (2019). “What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050.” World Bank. http://datatopics .worldbank.org/ whatwaste/trends_in_solid_waste_management.html
65. Yassi, A. & Kjellstom, T. (1998). Environmental health hazards. In: Stellman, J.M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety 1, International Labour Organisation, Geneva
66. Zeiss, C., & J. Atwater. (1987). “Waste Facilities in Residential Communities: Impacts and Acceptance.” Journal of Urban Planning and Development 113 (1): 19–34. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(1987)113:1(19).
67. Zelezny, L. C; Chua, P. P. & Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating on Gender differences in Environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 443-457.