4.6 Article

Toward Sustainable Environmental Management of Healthcare Waste: A Holistic Perspective

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 13, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su13095280

关键词

sustainability; healthcare waste management; Saudi Arabia; social responsibility; assessment method; policy analysis

资金

  1. Research Center for Humanity, Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University [HRGP-1-19-05]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The management of healthcare waste poses challenges for governments, especially in developing countries like Saudi Arabia. The study found that Saudi government hospitals dispose of significant amounts of paper, plastic, food, glass, and metal in landfills each year, without recycling. Challenges identified included the lack of a legal framework, waste training, coordination among stakeholders, and social responsibility.
The management of healthcare waste requires a sustained and holistic approach involving a range of parties. This is challenging for governments, especially in developing countries, where waste management systems have limited capacities for addressing the issue. Using Saudi Arabia as a case study, this paper followed a multi-method approach, including policy analysis, observation, semi-structured interviews, and a focus group, to explore the country's healthcare waste management system. The study estimated that Saudi government hospitals across the country, every year, throw away in landfills paper (27,000 tons), plastic (15,000 tons), food (10,000 tons), glass (8000 tons), and metal (7000 tons). Regrettably, all these tons of materials end up in landfills without any form of recycling. A number of challenges were identified, reflecting mainly the lack of a legal framework, waste training, coordination among stakeholders, and social responsibility. This study generated new knowledge about waste management systems by exploring how their performance is shaped by the processes occurring at the policy, organization, and individual levels.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据