4.7 Article

Estimation of packaged water consumption and associated plastic waste production from household budget surveys

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS
Volume 12, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa751f

Keywords

drinking-water; sachet water; packaged water; West Africa; solid waste; plastic

Funding

  1. UK Medical Research Council
  2. Department for International Development [MR/M008940/1]
  3. MRC [MR/M008940/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Medical Research Council [MR/M008940/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Packaged water consumption is growing in low- and middle-income countries, but the magnitude of this phenomenon and its environmental consequences remain unclear. This study aims to quantify both the volumes of packaged water consumed relative to household water requirements and associated plastic waste generated for three West African case study countries. Data from household expenditure surveys for Ghana, Nigeria and Liberia were used to estimate the volumes of packaged water consumed and thereby quantify plastic waste generated in households with and without solid waste disposal facilities. In Ghana, Nigeria and Liberia respectively, 11.3 (95% confidence interval: 10.3-12.4), 10.1 (7.5-12.5), and 0.38 (0.31-0.45) Ml day(-1) of sachet water were consumed. This generated over 28 000 tonnes yr(-1) of plastic waste, of which 20%, 63% and 57% was among households lacking formal waste disposal facilities in Ghana, Nigeria and Liberia respectively. Reported packaged water consumption provided sufficient water to meet daily household drinking-water requirements for 8.4%, less than 1% and 1.6% of households in Ghana, Nigeria and Liberia respectively. These findings quantify packaged water's contribution to household water needs in our study countries, particularly Ghana, but indicate significant subsequent environmental repercussions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available