Waste plastic today is a global threat. The rapid increase in global production and use has led to increasing quantities of plastics in industrial and municipal waste streams. While in industrialized countries plastic waste is taken up by a waste management system and at least partly recycled, in low-income countries adequate infrastructure to collect and treat waste adequately is often not in place. This paper analyzes how plastic waste is handled in Vietnam, a country with a fast-growing industry and growing consumption. The recycling of plastic waste typically takes place in an informal context. To demonstrate this in more detail, two rural settlements—so-called craft villages—are taken as case studies. Technologies and processes for plastic recycling are described and related risks for human health and the environment are shown, as well as the potential for the improvement of this situation.

One of the largest issues facing countries, particularly emerging nations with high population, production, and consumption growth, is an inadequate waste management system (WMS). This paper analyzes the development of the waste management systems of nine capital cities in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region by using a recently developed approach, the Waste Management System–Development Stage Concept. This concept comprises five development stages and various components, including Collection and Transport, Waste Disposal, Energy Recovery, Waste Recycling, and Waste Prevention and Reuse. The findings indicate that in terms of waste collection, waste disposal, and energy recovery, Singapore is at a higher development stage (Stage 5) and is more advanced than other ASEAN cities. For most of the components, Bangkok, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, and Manila fall into stages 2 to 4, whereas the early development stages 1 to 3 are present in Bandar Seri Begawan, Hanoi, Phnom Penh, and Vientiane. The results will be used to determine the next steps in developing the WMSs, including the introduction of separate collection for recycling or the installation of a waste-to-energy plant. The environmental impact of each measure will be later assessed using the LCA approach, and the most effective measures shall be identified in future studies.

Waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) is expected to reach 82 million metric tons by 2030, with a global average of 7.8 kg/cap/year. In 2022, the amount of WEEE generated in Laos was 3.6 kg/cap/year, with no formal collection or treatment facilities in place. An examination of WEEE management and repair practices in the capital of Laos, Vientiane, was conducted, involving a review of the relevant literature and data gathered from interviews and online surveys of a total of 82 families, 17 junkshops, and 16 repair shops. Additionally, the environmental impact of smartphone repair activities was determined by utilizing data from existing life cycle assessment studies. The findings highlight the challenges of WEEE management, including infrastructure deficit and policy gaps. The informal sector plays a significant role in WEEE collection and dismantling. Manual dismantling takes place in junkshops prior to exportation to Vietnam, Thailand, and China. Reuse and repair are common practices and are present in both formal and informal contexts. Smartphone repair is a prevalent service alongside cooling and freezing equipment repair. The primary obstacles of repair are linked to the quality and availability of spare parts, the absence of repair guidelines and technical expertise, complicated designs, and consumer awareness. Notwithstanding the challenges associated with repairs, this case study demonstrates the environmental benefits of smartphone repair, achieving a reduction of 44% in GHG emissions compared to the conventional replacement over a 7-year observation period. Recommendations are proposed to enhance WEEE management systems and advance the repair movement.

Hydropower plants have been making both direct and indirect impacts on the environment and society on many levels in Laos as they require people who live in downstream and upstream areas to relocate to new resettlement sites. A sanitation planning process for resettlement sites in Laos is evaluated by an evaluating tool which has been developed according to three international sanitation planning guidelines, namely Community-Led Urban Environmental Sanitation Planning (CLUES), the Sanitation Safety Planning methodology by the WHO, and Sanitation 21. Four resettlement sites were selected, based on their differences in terms of project developers, scales, consultancy companies, and the number of people impacted. All four cases had positive performances in their project preparation and the implementation phases which showed a strong institutional arrangement and high engagement by the stakeholders. However, the technical planning phase was overlooked and given a low priority, the boundary of the systems was roughly defined, and there was no clear support to develop a treatment system for the reuse of wastewater, and no health risk assessment. We propose six concise sanitation planning steps and resource-oriented sanitation for resettlement sites which aim to support project developers' decision-making and planning for sanitation systems in resettlement sites.

Plastic packaging waste is an escalating environmental concern for Laos. The lack of an adequate waste management system and reliable data pose significant challenges for making informed decisions about future waste management and understanding the associated environmental impacts. This study addresses the data gap by estimating plastic packaging flows using United Nations international trade data (UN Comtrade) and a scenario-based emission model to further evaluate the environmental implications of alternative plastic packaging waste management pathways in Laos. Four case scenarios are modelled: S1 Business as Usual, S2 Ban on Open Burning and Open Dumping, S3 National Plastic Action Plan 2030, and S4 Mandatory Extended Producer Responsibility. The results show that S4 delivers the most favourable environmental performance by reducing emissions associated with a high recycling rate that replaces virgin plastic production, accounting for up to 63% lower emissions compared to S1. However, even under the most ambitious scenario S4, over 60% of waste is still landfilled, indicating that moving beyond end-of-pipe waste management is necessary. The findings highlight the need for an integrated policy package, in which mandatory extended producer responsibility acts as an enabling mechanism, alongside demand reduction, eco-design, targeted investment, and circular economy strategies, to reduce mismanaged plastic packaging waste and support long-term sustainability.

This study assesses the environmental implications of reusing used electrical and electronic equipment (UEEE) in Slovenia. Reuse operations at four centres Ponovne Uporabe were analysed by integrating material flow analysis with a simplified life cycle assessment approach. Four scenarios were evaluated: S1 (optimistic reuse), S2 (conservative reuse), S3 (no reuse), and S4 (full reuse), each varying in allocation of materials to reuse, recycling, and incineration, as well as in the assumed reuse effectiveness. The results show that S4 (full reuse) achieved the highest emissions reduction of 7.87 kg CO₂-eq per kg of material input, highlighting the substantial environmental benefits of reuse over recycling. Optimistic reuse (S1), which assumes full substitution, also yields significant environmental benefits of 7.82 kg CO₂-eq per kg of material input. In contrast, S3 (the no-reuse scenario), in which materials are diverted mainly to recycling, results in an emission reduction of 5.2 kg CO₂-eq per kg of material input. S2 (conservative reuse), applying a conservative reuse factor, shows the lowest emission avoided at 4.1 kg CO₂-eq per kg of material input. Although based in Slovenia, this study offers transferable insights for countries aiming to scale reuse systems. The results highlight that maximizing environmental benefits within the circular economy model requires system supports, including design for reuse, durability, reparability, effective preparation for reuse operations, supportive policy frameworks and adequate financial and infrastructural capacity.