Living with Waste: Major Sources of Worries and Concerns about Landfills in Lagos Metropolis, Nigeria
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is widespread public perception that landfills represent unacceptable risks to human health and environment. However, while there is an extensive literature on the impact of landfills in the developed countries, only few exist in African countries. Furthermore, few empirical studies have attempted to ascertain the individual and community level impacts around existing facilities. This is one part of a twin paper that addresses the individual and community level impacts around landfills in Lagos metropolis. While this paper examines the major sources of worries and concerns about landfills in Lagos metropolis, the second paper examines the coping mechanisms in response to impacts experienced among residents living in close proximity to the landfills. A structured questionnaire was the main instrument used in the collection of data for the study. The sample size consists of 930 heads of households in the two locations used for the study (488 in Olushosun and 442 in Abule-Egba). It focused on the nature of geographical variations and intensities of the impacts with distance from the sites. The outcome of the study shows that landfills within Lagos metropolis are uncontrolled and do not conform to international standards of landfill operations. The results reveal that the NIMBY syndrome clearly manifests in that respondents consistently placed high premium on negative externalities of landfills. Specifically, odour, smoke (from burning of wastes), noise, flies and rodents, aesthetics and water pollution were the most frequently mentioned environmental problems, while psychological disturbance, nausea, and diarrhoea were the most frequently mentioned health problems.Keywords: Landfills; Environment; Risk; Perception; Lagos.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it