近年来,国内外众多学者从不同角度运用不同方法探究城市生活垃圾产生量的影响因素,但鲜见对生活垃圾处置方式的影响因素进行分析研究.本文以世界银行2018年颁布的《what a waste 2.0》中140个国家数据为基础,删掉数据年份较久远以及缺少...近年来,国内外众多学者从不同角度运用不同方法探究城市生活垃圾产生量的影响因素,但鲜见对生活垃圾处置方式的影响因素进行分析研究.本文以世界银行2018年颁布的《what a waste 2.0》中140个国家数据为基础,删掉数据年份较久远以及缺少GDP数据的6个国家,根据欧盟统计局、各国政府环保部门和统计部门网站以及相关年度报告,对所有国家数据逐一排查进行核实,并修正了40余国家生活垃圾处置数据,以134个国家在地理、经济和社会层面的5项指标为研究基础,选用相关性分析和logistic回归分析等研究方法,探究5种生活垃圾处置方式和影响因素之间的规律.主要结论如下:①生活垃圾开放式倾倒、填埋处置与人均国土面积无显著相关性;人均GDP达到2万美元以上的国家,基本实现"零倾倒",填埋占比也随人均GDP增长逐渐下降;城市化水平与是否采用开放式倾倒呈显著负相关;②人均GDP在2万美元以下或城市化水平在40%以下的国家,基本为"零焚烧";在不考虑"零焚烧"国家的情形下,焚烧处置主要集中在人均国土面积0~3 hm^2的国家;人均GDP和受教育程度的高低是各国是否采用焚烧的主要影响因素;③资源化利用水平与人均国土面积呈负相关,而与人均GDP、城市化水平、受教育程度和废物法律法规体系呈正相关,其中法律法规对其影响力较小;人均GDP达到2万美元以上的国家,资源化利用率基本超过40%;受教育程度同样是影响各国是否采用资源化利用的主要因素;④其它处置方式与五项影响指标均呈现负相关;城市化水平为是否存在其它处置方式的决定因素,城市化水平达到80%以上时,其占比基本为0.展开更多
Background: Handling of medicines is a day-to-day activity by patients and many health care providers. However, multiple studies have brought to light inappropriate disposal methods for expired and unused medication (...Background: Handling of medicines is a day-to-day activity by patients and many health care providers. However, multiple studies have brought to light inappropriate disposal methods for expired and unused medication (EUM). Improper disposal of expired and unused medicines is hazardous both to humans and the environment. Objective: This sought to measure patients’ knowledge, attitude, and practices on disposal methods of EUM. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out among 384 patients at three outpatient pharmacies at the University Teaching Hospitals (UTHs). The structured questionnaire was used to collect data and STAT version 15.1 was used to analyse the data. Results: 384 respondents participated in this study and, at some point, had EUM. In this study, 356 (92.7%) of the participants reported that they had never heard of a drug take-back system. Most of the participants 285 (74.2%) and 239 (62.2%) kept and donated their unused medicine, respectively. Additionally, 244 (63.5%), 212 (55.2%), and 176 (44.8%) of the participants disposed of expired medicines in the bin or garbage, flushed them in toilets or sinks, or burned them, respectively. Occupation was significantly associated with unsafe disposal of unused medicine [P-value = 0.019]. Conclusion and Relevance: Knowledge of safe disposal methods for EUM was good amongst most participants. However, used unsafe disposal methods. The majority of the participants exhibited positive attitude concerning safe disposal methods. This study highlights the need for drug-take-back program creation in Zambia.展开更多
文摘近年来,国内外众多学者从不同角度运用不同方法探究城市生活垃圾产生量的影响因素,但鲜见对生活垃圾处置方式的影响因素进行分析研究.本文以世界银行2018年颁布的《what a waste 2.0》中140个国家数据为基础,删掉数据年份较久远以及缺少GDP数据的6个国家,根据欧盟统计局、各国政府环保部门和统计部门网站以及相关年度报告,对所有国家数据逐一排查进行核实,并修正了40余国家生活垃圾处置数据,以134个国家在地理、经济和社会层面的5项指标为研究基础,选用相关性分析和logistic回归分析等研究方法,探究5种生活垃圾处置方式和影响因素之间的规律.主要结论如下:①生活垃圾开放式倾倒、填埋处置与人均国土面积无显著相关性;人均GDP达到2万美元以上的国家,基本实现"零倾倒",填埋占比也随人均GDP增长逐渐下降;城市化水平与是否采用开放式倾倒呈显著负相关;②人均GDP在2万美元以下或城市化水平在40%以下的国家,基本为"零焚烧";在不考虑"零焚烧"国家的情形下,焚烧处置主要集中在人均国土面积0~3 hm^2的国家;人均GDP和受教育程度的高低是各国是否采用焚烧的主要影响因素;③资源化利用水平与人均国土面积呈负相关,而与人均GDP、城市化水平、受教育程度和废物法律法规体系呈正相关,其中法律法规对其影响力较小;人均GDP达到2万美元以上的国家,资源化利用率基本超过40%;受教育程度同样是影响各国是否采用资源化利用的主要因素;④其它处置方式与五项影响指标均呈现负相关;城市化水平为是否存在其它处置方式的决定因素,城市化水平达到80%以上时,其占比基本为0.
文摘Background: Handling of medicines is a day-to-day activity by patients and many health care providers. However, multiple studies have brought to light inappropriate disposal methods for expired and unused medication (EUM). Improper disposal of expired and unused medicines is hazardous both to humans and the environment. Objective: This sought to measure patients’ knowledge, attitude, and practices on disposal methods of EUM. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out among 384 patients at three outpatient pharmacies at the University Teaching Hospitals (UTHs). The structured questionnaire was used to collect data and STAT version 15.1 was used to analyse the data. Results: 384 respondents participated in this study and, at some point, had EUM. In this study, 356 (92.7%) of the participants reported that they had never heard of a drug take-back system. Most of the participants 285 (74.2%) and 239 (62.2%) kept and donated their unused medicine, respectively. Additionally, 244 (63.5%), 212 (55.2%), and 176 (44.8%) of the participants disposed of expired medicines in the bin or garbage, flushed them in toilets or sinks, or burned them, respectively. Occupation was significantly associated with unsafe disposal of unused medicine [P-value = 0.019]. Conclusion and Relevance: Knowledge of safe disposal methods for EUM was good amongst most participants. However, used unsafe disposal methods. The majority of the participants exhibited positive attitude concerning safe disposal methods. This study highlights the need for drug-take-back program creation in Zambia.
