Group of people in a garbage sorting plant next to bags of plastic bottles and a truck with waste paper. Photo by Emma Photography / Pexels.
Politics of trash: How waste management can build trust in cities
Poor solid waste management doesn’t just have environmental costs – it can also erode citizens’ trust in their government’s ability to provide public services. Lessons from a new Cities that Work synthesis paper – including matching technology to context, integrating informal actors, and sequencing financing and enforcement – can help policymakers manage urban waste and strengthen municipal legitimacy.
Poor solid waste management doesn’t just have environmental costs – it can also erode citizens’ trust in their government’s ability to provide public services. Lessons from a new Cities that Work synthesis paper – including matching technology to context, integrating informal actors, and sequencing financing and enforcement – can help policymakers manage urban waste and strengthen municipal legitimacy.
In most cities, citizens don’t need a report card to know whether local government is working – they look at the streets. Overflowing bins, blocked drains, or mounds of burning plastic are a regular reminder of municipal failure. Conversely, a cleaner city signals that a government is competent, responsive, and worth supporting.
When rubbish becomes political
In developing-country cities, solid waste management is more than just a technical challenge. It consumes around 20% of municipal budgets, making it one of the largest recurring expenditures. It is also highly visible; unlike slow permit approvals, uncollected rubbish piles up in front of people’s homes and businesses.
Globally, waste volumes are projected to increase by 70% over the next three decades, driven by rapid urbanisation and rising incomes. As waste composition shifts from organics to plastics and chemicals, the costs and health risks associated with inadequate disposal increase. Against this backdrop, policymakers face not only logistical questions but also political ones: who provides these services, who pays for them, and who gets left out?
Neglecting waste has environmental and economic costs
Poor waste management has cascading consequences. Open dumping and burning release toxins linked to millions of premature deaths each year. In Kampala, uncollected waste has clogged drains and worsened flooding, often more severely than underinvestment in storm infrastructure. At the same time, landfills generate copious amounts of methane, a greenhouse gas 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
Beyond the apparent environmental costs, research has found that cleaner air boosts worker productivity by reducing absenteeism, and flood prevention safeguards both homes and businesses. Managing waste well can therefore yield economic dividends that far exceed its immediate costs.
To achieve this, our new synthesis paper highlights some critical lessons.
1. Fit technology to location and context
There is no universal blueprint for adopting waste management technology. What matters is aligning storage, collection, and disposal with the realities of each neighbourhood.
For instance, household bins may be suitable for planned, accessible areas, but they can increase routing costs in dense informal settlements. Transfer stations can reduce long-haul distances and lower fleet costs, while a mix of large trucks and smaller carts ensures service reaches narrow streets. Additionally, communal storage points, if well-situated, can reduce dumping – evidence from Mekelle, Ethiopia, shows that a 1% increase in the distance to waste containers raised the probability of roadside dumping by 0.5%.
The wrong choice is not just inefficient – it can drive households back to informal dumping or burning their waste. Cities that move too quickly to complex, high-cost systems, without first demonstrating competence, risk undermining the trust they intend to build.
2. Balance service providers – and don’t exclude informal groups
Who should provide services – public authorities, private firms, or community groups? Each one has its own strengths and limitations. Public systems are suited to capital-intensive functions such as trunk collection and landfills. Private companies and public-private partnerships can bring efficiency and investment, but may cut corners or underserve poorer areas if contracts and monitoring are weak.
Informal waste pickers already provide last-mile coverage and low-cost recycling in many cities. Excluding them not only undermines livelihoods but also wastes a valuable service – in Accra and Addis Ababa, integrating waste pickers into collection routes has improved both efficiency and social equity. Yet doing so requires overcoming stigma and building regulatory frameworks that recognise their contribution.
3. Enforcement won’t work without visible services
Most cities rely on fines to deter dumping, littering, or burning. But enforcement is rarely consistent, and even where it exists, it does little to change long-term behaviour.
Instead, compliance improves when citizens believe that the system is fair and reliable. In Kabul, placing public wastebins not only improved cleanliness but also strengthened municipal legitimacy, making residents more willing to pay fees and follow rules.
The lesson is simple: people comply when services are predictable and visible. Pairing enforcement with awareness campaigns, community outreach, and reliable collection schedules creates a sense of reciprocity that helps shift social norms over time until proper disposal becomes the default, not the exception.
4. Financing requires political sequencing
Waste management will not be sustainable without secure funding. Cities have four main levers through which to finance this:
- Household charges (flat fees or usage-based)
- Non-household levies, particularly on businesses
- Gate fees at disposal sites
- Allocations from existing taxes
In low-capacity contexts, simple flat rates are easier to administer. Complex ‘pay-as-you-throw’ systems risk incentivising illegal dumping unless billing and enforcement mechanisms are robust.
Crucially, fees must be visibly linked to service improvements. Citizens will be more willing to pay when they see results. This makes sequencing vital: start with basic, affordable fees and immediate improvements, then gradually expand coverage and cost recovery.
5. Looking ahead: Waste as a test of municipal credibility
Waste management is not glamorous. But it is a daily test of governance, one that residents notice immediately. Done well, it can improve health, productivity, and climate resilience. Done poorly, it clogs drains, pollutes the air, and erodes trust.
Ultimately, the politics of trash is the politics of trust. A clean city is not just a healthier or more liveable one – it is also a more legitimate one.
Throughout UN-Habitat's Urban October, IGC will be showcasing some of the solutions for sustainable growth in cities - including the Cities that Work flagship synthesis paper on policy options for improved solid waste management.