4. Results and discussions

#### 4.1 Managerial framework for e-waste by policy administrators

Government's Regulation S.I.28 of 2009 stresses that part of the plans for ewaste management should comprise endorsing current guidelines and strategies for "solid waste (including e-waste) management" through the conduct of baseline surveys, instituting public health and environmental standards, and making sure there is a monitoring program that include early warning system [6, 10]. Therefore, the promotion of a supportive management strategies and plan of action for WEEE was confirmed by 25(71.43%) policy administrators to be an all-encompassing aspect of policy planning. Also, Table 5 revealed that 19(54.29%) administrators affirmed government's endorsement of regulations which enforces protection to the environs against indiscriminate disposal of e-waste. Furthermore, results showed that this strategy is supported with the development and implementation of strategic work plans for this special waste in assisting stakeholders—23(62.71%) of these respondents. Nonetheless, 8(22.86%) administrators affirmed that policy regulators (tiers of government) put in place dedicated and competent bodies to implement strategies for e-waste management, while nearly half of these officials—15(42.86%) argued that such a specialized section or unit for an exclusive management of ewaste do not exist in their establishments. Field observations showed that in few places where such relative departments exited, it was rooted under units such as "special waste unit" or "harmful waste division", and it barely gets adequate appropriations to combat these special wastes. Lastly, results revealed that the management strategies for operation were considered unsuitable by a total of 25 (71.43%) policy regulators (from combining 8(22.86%), 13(37.14%) and 4(11.45%) respondents).

### 4.2 Regulators opinion of end-users' participation in e-waste management activities

Public education and participation are necessary to support the plan of action for e-waste management. This is in order to achieve an efficient implementation process of management strategies. As depicted in Table 6, together 18(51.43%) policy regulators affirmed government engagement in the sensitization of interested parties. While more than half of them—19(54.29%) agreed that the populace is amply involved with the implementation process of control strategies. However, 24(68.57%) respondents admitted that end-users simply comply with the implemented strategies. Furthermore, these administrators also suggested that the common means for e-waste sensitization were executed with Radio jingles/programs—17(48.57%), Television announcement/documentaries 5(14.29%), Posters 5(14.29%), Handbills/flyers 5(14.29%), as well as (mobile advertisements, campaigns, road-shows, etc.) 3(08.57%) respondents.

#### 4.3 Disposal practices and patterns of e-waste by the end-users

Together Table 7 and Figure 3 underlined management strategies adopted and practiced for e-waste by the customers. This assessment discovered that the most common strategy adopted in the final disposal of WEEE by many homes and businesses is the direct disposal of e-waste along with other regular solid wastes—96 (70.07%) respondents. Additional measures embraced by the households included the reselling of disused EEE—32(23.36%), and stockpiling—21(15.33%). In few

cases, end-users were found to abandon their defective e-devices with technicians/ recyclers who at times refurbish or recovers valuable components—21(15.33%) end-users. In similarly manner, some consumers take apart components of simple devices and reclaim functional parts—25(18.25%). Also, end-users admitted donating certain disused devices to individuals, friends, religion centers, schools, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), etc.—19(13.89%). Besides, it was shown that

Q/N Policy instrument: Does your agency:

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88075

1 Provide e-waste management tenets in written codes

2 Prepare and develop working and management plans to stakeholders

3 Have adequate periodic documentation on ewaste quantity and budgeting to support management process

4 Establish a competent body to implement ewaste management strategies

5 Monitor the sources of e-waste into South Eastern Nigeria

6 Monitor and protect the environment against illegal e-waste dumping

7 Promote strategies/ policies/legislations/ acts/regulations for WEEE management

8 Promulgate edicts to enforce protection policies against illegal disposal of WEEE

9 Enact appropriate legislation on grading rules, waste minimization and so on to back e-waste management strategies

10 Are the strategies for implementation appropriate?

Total number of respondents = 35. Source: Field Survey, 2015.

Administrative framework for WEEE.

Table 5.

69

Political framework for WEEE

To very great extent

Wastes from Industrialized Nations: A Socio-economic Inquiry on E-waste Management…

To great extent

To small extent

N%N%N%N % N %

4 11.45 4 11.45 5 14.29 5 14.29 17 45.57

6 17.14 17 45.57 10 28.57 1 02.86 1 02.86

1 02.86 3 08.57 3 08.57 10 28.57 18 51.43

4 11.45 4 11.45 8 22.86 4 11.45 15 42.86

2 05.71 8 22.86 5 14.29 6 17.14 14 40.00

9 25.71 11 31.43 3 08.57 4 11.45 8 22.86

6 17.14 19 54.29 8 22.86 0 00.00 2 05.71

7 20.00 12 34.29 2 05.71 7 20.00 7 20.00

6 17.14 13 37.14 8 22.86 2 05.71 6 17.14

2 05.71 8 22.86 8 22.86 13 37.14 4 11.45

To very small extent

Not at all


Wastes from Industrialized Nations: A Socio-economic Inquiry on E-waste Management… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88075

#### Table 5.

4. Results and discussions

respondents).

activities

68

4.1 Managerial framework for e-waste by policy administrators

Assessment and Management of Radioactive and Electronic Wastes

Government's Regulation S.I.28 of 2009 stresses that part of the plans for ewaste management should comprise endorsing current guidelines and strategies for "solid waste (including e-waste) management" through the conduct of baseline surveys, instituting public health and environmental standards, and making sure there is a monitoring program that include early warning system [6, 10]. Therefore, the promotion of a supportive management strategies and plan of action for WEEE was confirmed by 25(71.43%) policy administrators to be an all-encompassing aspect of policy planning. Also, Table 5 revealed that 19(54.29%) administrators affirmed government's endorsement of regulations which enforces protection to the environs against indiscriminate disposal of e-waste. Furthermore, results showed that this strategy is supported with the development and implementation of strategic work plans for this special waste in assisting stakeholders—23(62.71%) of these respondents. Nonetheless, 8(22.86%) administrators affirmed that policy regulators (tiers of government) put in place dedicated and competent bodies to implement strategies for e-waste management, while nearly half of these officials—15(42.86%) argued that such a specialized section or unit for an exclusive management of ewaste do not exist in their establishments. Field observations showed that in few places where such relative departments exited, it was rooted under units such as "special waste unit" or "harmful waste division", and it barely gets adequate appropriations to combat these special wastes. Lastly, results revealed that the management strategies for operation were considered unsuitable by a total of 25 (71.43%) policy regulators (from combining 8(22.86%), 13(37.14%) and 4(11.45%)

4.2 Regulators opinion of end-users' participation in e-waste management

Public education and participation are necessary to support the plan of action for e-waste management. This is in order to achieve an efficient implementation process of management strategies. As depicted in Table 6, together 18(51.43%) policy regulators affirmed government engagement in the sensitization of interested parties. While more than half of them—19(54.29%) agreed that the populace is amply involved with the implementation process of control strategies. However, 24(68.57%) respondents admitted that end-users simply comply with the

implemented strategies. Furthermore, these administrators also suggested that the

Together Table 7 and Figure 3 underlined management strategies adopted and practiced for e-waste by the customers. This assessment discovered that the most common strategy adopted in the final disposal of WEEE by many homes and businesses is the direct disposal of e-waste along with other regular solid wastes—96 (70.07%) respondents. Additional measures embraced by the households included the reselling of disused EEE—32(23.36%), and stockpiling—21(15.33%). In few

common means for e-waste sensitization were executed with Radio jingles/programs—17(48.57%), Television announcement/documentaries 5(14.29%), Posters 5(14.29%), Handbills/flyers 5(14.29%), as well as (mobile advertisements, campaigns, road-shows, etc.) 3(08.57%) respondents.

4.3 Disposal practices and patterns of e-waste by the end-users

Administrative framework for WEEE.

cases, end-users were found to abandon their defective e-devices with technicians/ recyclers who at times refurbish or recovers valuable components—21(15.33%) end-users. In similarly manner, some consumers take apart components of simple devices and reclaim functional parts—25(18.25%). Also, end-users admitted donating certain disused devices to individuals, friends, religion centers, schools, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), etc.—19(13.89%). Besides, it was shown that


Q/N (Section D—Consumers/end-users questionnaire)

20 How do you discard your waste electronics devices?

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88075

27 Do you apply any specific classification/ stratification for e-waste before

e-Waste disposal practices and patterns by the consumers/end-users.

Disposal measures adopted by the end-users for WEEE generated.

disposal?

Total number (N) of respondents = 137.

Source: Field Survey, 2015.

Table 7.

Figure 3.

71

Policy instrument

Wastes from Industrialized Nations: A Socio-economic Inquiry on E-waste Management…

Question Option

21 At what state do you do this? Broken—Not repairable 100 72.99

28 How do you dispose used batteries? Disposed along with other waste 85 62.04

N %

19 13.89

11 08.03

2 01.46

21 15.33

Keep in store room 21 15.33 Resell the devices 32 23.36 Disposed with general waste 96 70.07 Give them to a recycler 21 15.33

Donate to family, friends, school, NGO, etc.

Return to the store where it was bought for a reduction on the price of a new device

Return to the seller on a buy-back arrangement

Disassemble to reuse some parts 25 18.25 Put it on the street 2 01.46 Give it to hawkers 1 00.73

Broken—repairable 4 02.92 Old or out dated (Obsolete) 33 24.09

Stratified and disposed alone 18 13.14

Disposed along with other classified hazardous waste

Yes 15 10.93 No 91 66.42 Not Sure 31 22.63

#### Table 6.

End-user participation in WEEE management activities.

whatsoever strategy choice(s) chosen by the consumer, the state of the E.o.L EEE or e-waste was definitely taken into account before disposal. 100(72.99%) end-users said that their e-devices which were damaged beyond repairs would certainly be thrown away. However, 4(02.92%) consumers agreed that they would rather throw away any disused EEE which could likely be repaired. An additional 33(24.09%) respondents proposed that E.o.L EEE or disused (obsolete) EEE would also be thrown into the waste stream (Figure 3). In addition to the aforementioned decisions, 91(66.42%) consumers established that they hardly apply any particular stratification measure for generated e-waste before the final disposal into waste streams. Specifically, 85(62.04%) end-users confirmed that their disused batteries are disposed along with other household waste.

### 4.4 Factors influencing the adoption of strategies for the disposal of e-waste by recycling firms

Starting with Table 8, several factors were admitted by the stakeholders as reasons for the choice of final disposal of generated e-waste. The survey considered some of these drives to include: obsolescence devices; damaged beyond parts; high cost of maintenance/replacement of components; unavailable spare-parts; as well as unwarranted e-devices. Additional reasons considered by the respondents included business growth, innovation within the firm, slow processing speed of e-devices, inadequate storage capacity of EEE, faults from power-surge, and fault resulting from lightning. Field survey results [10] showed that many recyclers/technicians throw away disused e-devices owing to outdated functionality—12(41.38%), and when these items are broken beyond repair—15(51.72%). One more noteworthy cause for this latter practice is the absence of replacement spare-parts—9(31.04%) respondents. On the other hand, e-waste traders were unlikely to dispose of faulty e-devices because of non-warranty (divestment)—9(31.04%); business expansion—9(31.04%); power-surge faults—10(34.48%); as well as damages occasioned by lightning—12(41.38%). These second factors are the obvious reasons for e-waste stockpiling in my places and locations surveyed.


Wastes from Industrialized Nations: A Socio-economic Inquiry on E-waste Management… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88075

Total number (N) of respondents = 137. Source: Field Survey, 2015.

#### Table 7.

whatsoever strategy choice(s) chosen by the consumer, the state of the E.o.L EEE or e-waste was definitely taken into account before disposal. 100(72.99%) end-users said that their e-devices which were damaged beyond repairs would certainly be thrown away. However, 4(02.92%) consumers agreed that they would rather throw away any disused EEE which could likely be repaired. An additional 33(24.09%) respondents proposed that E.o.L EEE or disused (obsolete) EEE would also be thrown into the waste stream (Figure 3). In addition to the aforementioned decisions, 91(66.42%) consumers established that they hardly apply any particular stratification measure for generated e-waste before the final disposal into waste streams. Specifically, 85(62.04%) end-users confirmed that their disused batteries

To very great extent

To great extent

To small extent

N% N%N % N%N%

7 20.00 11 31.43 2 05.71 2 05.71 13 37.14

2 05.71 9 25.71 14 40.00 5 14.29 5 14.29

0 00.00 2 05.71 9 25.71 15 42.86 9 25.71

To very small extent

Not at all

4.4 Factors influencing the adoption of strategies for the disposal of e-waste by

Starting with Table 8, several factors were admitted by the stakeholders as reasons for the choice of final disposal of generated e-waste. The survey considered some of these drives to include: obsolescence devices; damaged beyond parts; high cost of maintenance/replacement of components; unavailable spare-parts; as well as unwarranted e-devices. Additional reasons considered by the respondents included business growth, innovation within the firm, slow processing speed of e-devices, inadequate storage capacity of EEE, faults from power-surge, and fault resulting from lightning. Field survey results [10] showed that many recyclers/technicians throw away disused e-devices owing to outdated functionality—12(41.38%), and when these items are broken beyond repair—15(51.72%). One more noteworthy cause for this latter practice is the absence of replacement spare-parts—9(31.04%) respondents. On the other hand, e-waste traders were unlikely to dispose of faulty

e-devices because of non-warranty (divestment)—9(31.04%); business expansion—9(31.04%); power-surge faults—10(34.48%); as well as damages occasioned by lightning—12(41.38%). These second factors are the obvious reasons

for e-waste stockpiling in my places and locations surveyed.

are disposed along with other household waste.

Q/N Policy instrument: Does your agency:

Assessment and Management of Radioactive and Electronic Wastes

1 Educate the public on e-waste management scheme

2 Are all sectors of the populace adequately carried along during implementation of strategies?

3 Does all sectors always comply with the strategies employed?

End-user participation in WEEE management activities.

Public education and participation

recycling firms

70

Total number (N) of respondents = 35.

Source: Field Survey, 2015.

Table 6.

e-Waste disposal practices and patterns by the consumers/end-users.

#### Figure 3. Disposal measures adopted by the end-users for WEEE generated.


salvaged from disused laptops in the development of electricity detector used in homes. Likewise, some mobile phone businesses in major commercial towns in Southeastern Nigeria were engaged to recalling E.o.L mobile phones on behalf of the parent manufacturers. For instance, two sales outlets of a particular firm in Enugu metropolis accepted from their customers E.o.L mobile phones as trade-in for a new ones with an average of 70% price (of the new product) being committed by the customer. This is apparent under agreed conditions dictated by the fronting firm to the end-users. In contrast, it is important to mention that the assertion of using incinerators as a strategy in managing e-waste is far from reality in the study area. Observations from the study area revealed that stakeholders rather practiced surface burning of WEEE and this takes place in a number of locations (mostly in low-lying lands). This is clearly misjudged as incineration of e-waste. Despite the fact that both processes lead to combustion of the waste materials, surface burning occurs in lower temperatures of between 20°C and 300°C, and incineration involved higher temperatures ranges of up to 1000°C in an environmentally confined engineered plant that traps ashes and non-combustibles remnants [22]. Not a single stakeholders surveyed possesses or operates a confined incinerator for the aim of e-waste management. Also, 11(27.50%) respondents admitted that generated e-waste was management by landfilling. Yet again, observations on the field suggested otherwise. Similarly, landfills are well-engineered facilities designed, operated, carefully monitored, and located off town. They are closely cared for even after years of closure. It could be cleaned up when need be and pay for to insure adequate compliance with standard environmental laws. From global perspective, several landfills maintenances are intermittently managed by government's prescribed environmental authorities. Most of the surveyed policy regulators could not affirmed to have a well-engineered system of landfill and incinerator in place in Southeastern Nigeria. Also, where claims of landfilling practices took place in the surveyed area, it was another misrepresented for a long term low-land repossession by using collected wastes as a feedstock.

Wastes from Industrialized Nations: A Socio-economic Inquiry on E-waste Management…

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88075

4.6 The socioeconomic drivers on trends in the management of e-waste

waste recycling company—E-Terra in Nigeria.

73

Four factors were recognized and reflected as likely economic drivers which determined the disposal pattern of obsolete EEE (or e-waste) in Southeastern Nigeria. These included cheaper e-devices, access to EEE, crave over inferior devices, and the quest for superior EEE. Table 10 showed officials of the regulatory agencies in the surveyed area strongly affirming some of these key economic drives as access to e-waste—25(71.43%), as well as low-priced WEEE—16(45.71%). From this, a line can be drawn from several literatures which have shown clear suggestions buttressing the claims that Nigeria was undergoing rapid ICT revolution in recent years [13]. As a result to connect with the "digital divide", attempts were made by individuals and e-waste traders to import cheap and (sometimes) durable E.o.L edevices (or e-waste) from developed countries into Nigeria. Also, Table 10 showed that the upsurge in the demand by end-users and e-waste traders for UEEE (or ewaste) could be linked to its cheap pricing—141(79.66%); device durability—96 (54.24%); economic class of consumers—77(43.50%); EEE accessibility—82 (46.33%); as well as the quality of WEEE and its superiority to (some brand) new products. While the noting the factors influence the final disposal of e-waste, these respondents associated these to high cost of disposal—43(24.29%); inadequate storage space—38(21.47%); associated disposal fees—46(25.99%); quick obsolesce of UEEE—42(23.73%); and the inaccessibility to formal recycling plants/facilities, as well as enormous cost in setting up a formal recycling facility for e-waste disposal. Owing to such associated cost, there exists only one eco-friendly electronic

Total number (N) of respondents = 29. Source: Field Survey, 2015.

#### Table 8.

Factors considered in adopting strategies for final disposal of WEEE by recyclers and dealers.

#### 4.5 e-Waste management measures adopted by recycling firms

Table 9 suggests that the stakeholders involved in WEEE refurbishing and recycling applies one or more of the seven standard strategies in the management of generated e-waste. Many entrepreneurs and recyclers of WEEE in Southeastern Nigeria manage their E.o.L EEE and e-waste by adopting strategies like Reuse of ewaste—18(45%); Repair of disused devices—16(40%); and Incineration (burning)— 16(40%). In other occasions, technicians searched for and recycle peculiar components from disused e-device that are valuable and could serves as repair spare-parts for other faulty appliances. In such cases, e-waste is dismantled to retrieve these valuable components and reuse directly during repairs or indirectly in developing of new items. A computer technician confirmed the use of Light Emitting Diode


#### Table 9.

WEEE collection, handling and disposal methods by entrepreneurs and recyclers in South Eastern Nigeria.

Wastes from Industrialized Nations: A Socio-economic Inquiry on E-waste Management… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88075

salvaged from disused laptops in the development of electricity detector used in homes. Likewise, some mobile phone businesses in major commercial towns in Southeastern Nigeria were engaged to recalling E.o.L mobile phones on behalf of the parent manufacturers. For instance, two sales outlets of a particular firm in Enugu metropolis accepted from their customers E.o.L mobile phones as trade-in for a new ones with an average of 70% price (of the new product) being committed by the customer. This is apparent under agreed conditions dictated by the fronting firm to the end-users. In contrast, it is important to mention that the assertion of using incinerators as a strategy in managing e-waste is far from reality in the study area. Observations from the study area revealed that stakeholders rather practiced surface burning of WEEE and this takes place in a number of locations (mostly in low-lying lands). This is clearly misjudged as incineration of e-waste. Despite the fact that both processes lead to combustion of the waste materials, surface burning occurs in lower temperatures of between 20°C and 300°C, and incineration involved higher temperatures ranges of up to 1000°C in an environmentally confined engineered plant that traps ashes and non-combustibles remnants [22]. Not a single stakeholders surveyed possesses or operates a confined incinerator for the aim of e-waste management. Also, 11(27.50%) respondents admitted that generated e-waste was management by landfilling. Yet again, observations on the field suggested otherwise. Similarly, landfills are well-engineered facilities designed, operated, carefully monitored, and located off town. They are closely cared for even after years of closure. It could be cleaned up when need be and pay for to insure adequate compliance with standard environmental laws. From global perspective, several landfills maintenances are intermittently managed by government's prescribed environmental authorities. Most of the surveyed policy regulators could not affirmed to have a well-engineered system of landfill and incinerator in place in Southeastern Nigeria. Also, where claims of landfilling practices took place in the surveyed area, it was another misrepresented for a long term low-land repossession by using collected wastes as a feedstock.

#### 4.6 The socioeconomic drivers on trends in the management of e-waste

Four factors were recognized and reflected as likely economic drivers which determined the disposal pattern of obsolete EEE (or e-waste) in Southeastern Nigeria. These included cheaper e-devices, access to EEE, crave over inferior devices, and the quest for superior EEE. Table 10 showed officials of the regulatory agencies in the surveyed area strongly affirming some of these key economic drives as access to e-waste—25(71.43%), as well as low-priced WEEE—16(45.71%). From this, a line can be drawn from several literatures which have shown clear suggestions buttressing the claims that Nigeria was undergoing rapid ICT revolution in recent years [13]. As a result to connect with the "digital divide", attempts were made by individuals and e-waste traders to import cheap and (sometimes) durable E.o.L edevices (or e-waste) from developed countries into Nigeria. Also, Table 10 showed that the upsurge in the demand by end-users and e-waste traders for UEEE (or ewaste) could be linked to its cheap pricing—141(79.66%); device durability—96 (54.24%); economic class of consumers—77(43.50%); EEE accessibility—82 (46.33%); as well as the quality of WEEE and its superiority to (some brand) new products. While the noting the factors influence the final disposal of e-waste, these respondents associated these to high cost of disposal—43(24.29%); inadequate storage space—38(21.47%); associated disposal fees—46(25.99%); quick obsolesce of UEEE—42(23.73%); and the inaccessibility to formal recycling plants/facilities, as well as enormous cost in setting up a formal recycling facility for e-waste disposal. Owing to such associated cost, there exists only one eco-friendly electronic waste recycling company—E-Terra in Nigeria.

4.5 e-Waste management measures adopted by recycling firms

Factors considered in adopting strategies for final disposal of WEEE by recyclers and dealers.

Total number (N) of respondents = 29.

Total number (N) of respondents = 29.

Source: Field Survey, 2015.

Table 9.

72

Source: Field Survey, 2015.

Table 8.

S/N Factors Ranking

Assessment and Management of Radioactive and Electronic Wastes

1 Functional obsolescence 4 13.79 2 06.70 5 17.24 6 20.67 12 41.38 2 Damage beyond repair 2 06.70 2 06.70 4 13.79 6 20.67 15 51.72 3 Cost of maintenance 4 13.79 8 27.59 7 24.14 7 24.14 2 06.70 4 Repair components not available 3 10.35 0 00.00 6 20.67 4 13.79 9 31.04 5 Divestment 9 31.04 9 31.04 4 13.79 3 10.35 4 13.79 6 Expansion of business 9 31.04 9 31.04 3 10.35 5 17.24 3 10.35 7 Business innovation 6 20.67 8 27.59 7 24.14 5 17.24 3 10.35 8 Processing speed inadequate 8 27.59 3 10.35 11 37.93 5 17.24 2 06.70 9 Storage capacity inadequate 7 24.14 8 27.59 6 20.67 6 20.67 2 06.70 10 Power surge 8 27.59 10 34.48 6 20.67 3 10.35 2 06.70 11 Lightning 12 41.38 4 13.79 6 20.67 2 06.70 5 17.24

Insignificant \$ Most\_Significant 1 2 345 N% N % N%N% N%

Table 9 suggests that the stakeholders involved in WEEE refurbishing and recycling applies one or more of the seven standard strategies in the management of generated e-waste. Many entrepreneurs and recyclers of WEEE in Southeastern Nigeria manage their E.o.L EEE and e-waste by adopting strategies like Reuse of ewaste—18(45%); Repair of disused devices—16(40%); and Incineration (burning)— 16(40%). In other occasions, technicians searched for and recycle peculiar components from disused e-device that are valuable and could serves as repair spare-parts for other faulty appliances. In such cases, e-waste is dismantled to retrieve these valuable components and reuse directly during repairs or indirectly in developing of new items. A computer technician confirmed the use of Light Emitting Diode

Q/N (Section D) Policy instrument N % 1 Recycling of e-waste 13 32.50

WEEE collection, handling and disposal methods by entrepreneurs and recyclers in South Eastern Nigeria.

Reuse of e-waste 18 45.00 Recovery of e-devices 10 25.00

Landfill of waste 11 27.50 Incineration of waste 16 40.00

Source reduction of generated e-waste 5 12.50 Repair of E.o.L electrical/electronic equipment 16 40.00


were able to show that the absence of frontier technologies, essential and new equipment has hindered the operations and enthusiasm of e-waste managers. Furthermore, inadequate funding of e-waste schemes—14(40.00%) was acknowledged as a major factor influencing the ineffectiveness in the process of e-waste collection and disposal, as well as the choice adopted for final disposal measures. Collectively,

Wastes from Industrialized Nations: A Socio-economic Inquiry on E-waste Management…

21(60.00%) policy regulators agreed that the type of guideline framed and

of management plans for e-waste.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88075

5. Conclusion and policy recommendations

space for stockpiling, and total obsolesce of disused EEE.

(and government support) initiative for recycling of e-waste.

75

approved by the political system sometimes militates against the effective execution

To recapitulate, this paper discussed the transboundary movements of e-waste, the sustainability benchmarks for evaluating and adopting technologies, innovative recycling technologies, and market potential for e-waste recycling in Nigeria. With the aim of assessing the socioeconomic factors swaying e-waste generation and disposal, data collected were analyzed and discussed. The survey revealed that the structure for developing sustainable strategies frameworks and establishing resilient infrastructure for the effective management of e-waste are clearly lacking. Endusers of e-waste are in the habit of stockpiling and indiscriminately disposal of ewaste. Also, it was revealed that e-waste was not segregated from household waste before final disposing. Formal recycling of e-waste is yet to be domesticated in Southeastern Nigeria. The socioeconomic reasons for the rising volume of WEEE in the study area include its cheap pricing, quality and durability, economic status of the consumer, and easy access to disused e-waste. Some of the acknowledged factors hindering the sustainable disposal of e-waste includes unavailability of innovative technologies, high cost of setting up of recycling facilities, inadequate

A sustainable e-waste recycling scheme would not be economically worthwhile without suitable policies in place, adoption of frontier technologies and financial measures attached. First, the management strategies for WEEE should be focused on evolving tenets of operations, and frontiers in e-waste recycling that deploys innovative and sustainable technologies. This could be achieved by adopting sustainability benchmarks for evaluating and adopting new strategies and technologies for e-waste recycling; awareness creation in the value-chain for stakeholders; as well as exploring the market potentials for e-waste recycling. These would in turn improve social and economic benefits, including decent job creations. Lastly, this can be realized through promoting appropriate policies and deliberate producer-led

Table 10. Socio-economic drivers on trends in generation, collection and disposal of WEEE.

### 4.7 Factors swaying the planning and design for sustainable e-waste management systems

The laws and guidelines that support e-waste management schemes in Southeastern Nigeria were identified to be anchored on four strategic aspects and therefore considered for this study. These included establishment of state-of-the-art technologies and essential working equipment, capable and sufficient manpower, funding of WEEE schemes, as well as impediment in implementation of e-waste regulations. From Table 11, 18(51.43%) of the monitory and regulatory agencies


#### Table 11.

Factors influencing technical planning and design for WEEE management systems.

Wastes from Industrialized Nations: A Socio-economic Inquiry on E-waste Management… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88075

were able to show that the absence of frontier technologies, essential and new equipment has hindered the operations and enthusiasm of e-waste managers. Furthermore, inadequate funding of e-waste schemes—14(40.00%) was acknowledged as a major factor influencing the ineffectiveness in the process of e-waste collection and disposal, as well as the choice adopted for final disposal measures. Collectively, 21(60.00%) policy regulators agreed that the type of guideline framed and approved by the political system sometimes militates against the effective execution of management plans for e-waste.

### 5. Conclusion and policy recommendations

To recapitulate, this paper discussed the transboundary movements of e-waste, the sustainability benchmarks for evaluating and adopting technologies, innovative recycling technologies, and market potential for e-waste recycling in Nigeria. With the aim of assessing the socioeconomic factors swaying e-waste generation and disposal, data collected were analyzed and discussed. The survey revealed that the structure for developing sustainable strategies frameworks and establishing resilient infrastructure for the effective management of e-waste are clearly lacking. Endusers of e-waste are in the habit of stockpiling and indiscriminately disposal of ewaste. Also, it was revealed that e-waste was not segregated from household waste before final disposing. Formal recycling of e-waste is yet to be domesticated in Southeastern Nigeria. The socioeconomic reasons for the rising volume of WEEE in the study area include its cheap pricing, quality and durability, economic status of the consumer, and easy access to disused e-waste. Some of the acknowledged factors hindering the sustainable disposal of e-waste includes unavailability of innovative technologies, high cost of setting up of recycling facilities, inadequate space for stockpiling, and total obsolesce of disused EEE.

A sustainable e-waste recycling scheme would not be economically worthwhile without suitable policies in place, adoption of frontier technologies and financial measures attached. First, the management strategies for WEEE should be focused on evolving tenets of operations, and frontiers in e-waste recycling that deploys innovative and sustainable technologies. This could be achieved by adopting sustainability benchmarks for evaluating and adopting new strategies and technologies for e-waste recycling; awareness creation in the value-chain for stakeholders; as well as exploring the market potentials for e-waste recycling. These would in turn improve social and economic benefits, including decent job creations. Lastly, this can be realized through promoting appropriate policies and deliberate producer-led (and government support) initiative for recycling of e-waste.

4.7 Factors swaying the planning and design for sustainable e-waste

S/N Question Responses

Assessment and Management of Radioactive and Electronic Wastes

Cheap EEE

16 (45.71%)

141 (79.66%)

Cost of disposal

43 (24.29%)

Socio-economic drivers on trends in generation, collection and disposal of WEEE.

Availability of EEE

> Lack of storage space

Inferior EEE

25(71.43%) 13(37.14%) 5(14.39%)

Cost Durability Income Accessibility Others

Money exchanged for WEEE

96(54.24%) 77(43.50%) 82(46.33%) Quality(2),

38(21.47%) 46(25.99%) 42(23.73%) Availability of

implementation process of e-waste management strategies?

18(51.43%) 6(17.14%) 4(11.43%) 1(02.86%)

10(28.57%) 11(31.43%) 5(14.29%) 3(08.57%)

Agreed Disagreed Strongly

Disagreed

Superior EEE

Others

superiority, cheap

recycling facilities, cost of recycling (2)

Obsolesce Others

(Monitoring Agencies = 35)

(Endusers + Dealers = 177)

(Endusers + Dealers = 177)

3 What are the possible economic drivers for final disposal of WEEE

Total number (N) of respondents = 201.

Source: Field Survey, 2015.

Table 10.

2 What give rises to the attractiveness of used (Tokunbo) electrical electronic equipment in South Eastern Nigeria?

1 What are the economic drives that help to determine the disposal of used electrical/ electronic device?

The laws and guidelines that support e-waste management schemes in Southeastern Nigeria were identified to be anchored on four strategic aspects and therefore considered for this study. These included establishment of state-of-the-art technologies and essential working equipment, capable and sufficient manpower, funding of WEEE schemes, as well as impediment in implementation of e-waste regulations. From Table 11, 18(51.43%) of the monitory and regulatory agencies

S/N Question: Are there any particular difficulties in the

Strongly Agreed

2 Lack of adequate manpower (Personnel) 7(20.00%) 12(34.29%) 9(25.71%) 1(02.86%) 3 Inadequate finances 14(40.00%) 8(22.86%) 6(17.14%) 1(02.86%)

Factors influencing technical planning and design for WEEE management systems.

management systems

1 Lack of technologies /necessary equipment

4 Nature of guideline options formulated by the political system

Total number (N) of respondents = 35.

Source: Field Survey, 2015.

Table 11.

74

Assessment and Management of Radioactive and Electronic Wastes

References

[1] Ongondo Francis O, Williams Ian D. In: Kumar S, editor. Are WEEE in Control? Rethinking Strategies for Managing Waste Electrical and

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88075

Wastes from Industrialized Nations: A Socio-economic Inquiry on E-waste Management…

Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 50 Lagos—25th May, 2011. Lagos, Nigeria: The Federal Government Printer; 2011. FGP75/72011/400(OL47)

[7] Basel Convention. Where are WEEE in Africa? Findings from the Basel Convention. E-waste Africa

Programme. Secretariat of the Basel Convention (SBC). 2011. pp. 1-50. Available from: http://www.basel.int/

Consumption Fuels: Africa's e-Waste Imports, Says Report. The Environment. The Guardian, Monday, February 13, 2012. 2012. pp. 48-49. Available from: www.ngrguardiannews.com [Accessed:

[9] Okorhi OJ, Amadi-Echendu JE, Aderemi HO, Otejere J. Technology paradigm for e-waste management in South-Eastern Nigeria. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Management of Technology (IAMOT 2015) Holding at the Westin, Cape Town, South Africa; 2015. Retrieved

from: http://iamot2015.com/

2015proceedings/documents/P099.pdf

[10] Johnson OO. Assessment of waste electrical and electronic equipment management strategies in South Eastern Nigeria [Doctoral thesis]. Nigeria: Institute of Engineering, Technology, and Innovation Management, University

of Port Harcourt; 2015. pp. 1-180

[11] Eva P. Re-defining the concepts of waste and waste management: Evolving the theory of waste management [Academic Dissertation to be presented with the assent of the Faculty of Technology]. Oulu, Finland: University of Oulu; 2002. ISBN: 951-42-6821-0

[12] Pongrácz E, Phillips PS, Keiski RL.

management—Implications to waste

Evolving the theory of waste

[Accessed: January 04, 2013]

[8] The Guardian. Domestic

February 13, 2012]

Electronic Equipment. Integrated Waste Management—Volume II. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech; 2011. pp. 361-380. ISBN: 978-953-307-447-4. Retrieved from: http://www.intechopen.com/ books/integrated-wastemanagementvolume-ii/are-weee-in-controlrethinking-strategies-for-managingwaste-electrical-andelectronic-equipment

[2] BCCC-Nigeria & Empa. UNEP SBC e-Waste Africa Project: Building Local Capacity to Address the Flow of e-Wastes and Electrical and Electronic Products Destined for Reuse in Selected African Countries and Augment the Sustainable Management of Resources through the Recovery of Materials in e-

Components 1 and 2: Nigeria e-Waste Country Assessment; Ibadan/Nigeria and St. Gallen/Switzerland; 2011. Retrieved from: http://ewasteguide.info/ files/Ogungbuyi\_2012\_BCCC-Empa.pdf

[3] Ketai H, Li L, Wenying D. Research on recovery logistics network of waste electronic and electrical equipment in China in industrial electronics and applications. In: ICIEA 2008—3rd IEEE Conference on Industrial Electronics and Applications; 2008. pp. 1797-1802

[4] Osibanjo O, Nnorom IC. Electronic waste (e-waste): Material flows and management practises in Nigeria. Waste Management. 2008;28:1472-1479

[5] Goosey M. End-of-life electronics legislation—An industry perspective. Circuit World. 2004;30(2):41-45

[6] National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency, NESREA. The National Environmental

Regulations S.I. No. 23 of 2011, Federal

(Electrical/Electronic Sector)

77

Wastes. In: Contribution to
