Introduction

The worldwide generation of municipal solid waste (MSW) is projected to escalate from the current estimate of 2.7 billion tons to approximately 4.5 billion tons by 2050.1. This increase in waste generation is attributed to factors such as population growth, elevated standards of living, increasing income levels and rising material consumption in an increasingly urbanized world.2 Unfortunately, at least one-third of the waste generated currently is not sustainably managed, particularly in the developing countries.3 Weak institutional frameworks, financial and technological constraints and a general disregard for municipal solid waste management are the factors that underlie unsustainable waste management practices such as open dumping and burning in these countries.4,5 Open burning, uncontrolled dumping of waste and improper leachate management from discarded waste result in significant environmental contamination and public health sequelae.6 Malodor, greenhouse gas emissions ground and surface water pollution are significant environmental consequences of such practices.4 Unregulated open disposal of plastic waste heightens the risk due to eventual degradation and entry into the water bodies.7,8

Improper waste disposal, leading to adverse environmental consequences such as soil, water, and air pollution, has a significant impact on the health of populations residing in close proximity to the poorly managed waste facilities.9 A wide range of health effects due to exposure to hazardous landfill waste have been reported including respiratory symptoms, irritation of skin, nose and eyes and birth defects etc.10 Malodorous conditions near such facilities are found to affect the psychological well-being of nearby residents.11 Marginalized communities, including the migrant population, caste, racial minorities, and individuals from lower socioeconomic classes, are most likely to bear the adverse impacts of inadequate waste management practices.12,13 Socially disadvantaged communities have been found to be historically living in malodorous conditions, particularly in the caste-influenced social structure of India.14 Globally, several studies suggest that this disproportionate disparity is primarily linked to the siting of waste management facilities in areas where people with little or no power and capacity to resist such installations reside.15–19 Public protests and demonstrations against poorly managed waste treatment facilities, such as landfills and dump yards are reported from across the world.6,20,21

Responsible disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes is considered an essential public health imperative to ensure sustainable human settlements.22 However, most developing countries persist with poorly managed landfills, dump yards and informal sector waste scavenging despite the adverse environmental and public health consequences of waste mismanagement.23 Such poorly regulated and unsustainable waste management methods and facilities lead to the disruptions of local ecosystems, negative public health outcomes and adverse socioeconomic impacts on the adjacent communities.24

Risk and Risk Perception

Risk refers to potentially negative experiences as a consequence of something that is generally feared or disliked and what is perceived as a risk is influenced by several social and cultural factors.25,26 Risk perception is a subjective assessment of risk which is rich and complex but is one that is colored with objective reality as well.25,27 A scientific evaluation of risk through toxicological characterizations and quantification of the extent of exposure in the proximate communities are challenging as emissions from polluting facilities are multifaceted and dynamic.28,29 Moreover, the risk estimates and opinions often differ among stakeholders and the resultant controversies lead to confusion and uncertainty among the public, leading to trust erosion and triggering public outrage and opposition.30 Risk perception becomes a useful tool in such situations as it can give insights on the perceived health hazards and health impacts.31 Risk perception can help inform risk management and communication strategies for the communities living in close proximity to waste management facilities.31,32

Brahmapuram Dump Yard

In the present study, we looked at the Brahmapuram dump yard located in the coastal city of Kochi, in Ernakulam district of the state of Kerala, India. Operational since 2007, its intended transformation into a scientific waste treatment plant has not come to fruition, leading to its use as a dump yard by the city corporation and nearby municipalities.33 Shortly after its inception, an independent fact-finding committee had identified numerous environmental violations and in 2016, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) found it illegal due to its leachate discharge into the adjacent Kadambrayar River.34 Fire incidents are reported frequently from the dump yard35–37 and the latest incident in 2023 resulted in a week-long blaze, the smoke from which had enveloped the entire neighboring city.38 The close proximity of the dump yard to the adjacent river (Figure 1), and reports of residents vacating the surrounding areas due to unbearable malodor and environmental pollution39 have led to its listing as an environmental and public health hazard in the Global Atlas for Environmental Justice.40 The site has witnessed persistent local protests, widespread public dissent and legal disputes due to the issues related to waste mismanagement. Nevertheless, residents continue to live within 2 kilometers of the dump yard, a proximity classified as hazardous exposure by the WHO.9 This study aimed to assess the risk perceptions of the residents residing in close proximity to the dump yard and understand the various socio-demographic and geospatial factors associated with their perceptions.

Figure 1 Sample area selected for the study.

Materials and Methods

The present study was conducted as a cross-sectional survey among residents living near Brahmapuram dump yard from 18th March 2022 to 14th May 2022. The study was carried out within a radius of four kilometers from the borders of the dump yard, which included areas under the jurisdiction of four different local self-governments. Distance from the borders (within two kilometers and beyond two kilometers) of the dump yard and direction (east or west) with respect to the dump yard were the two criteria for selection of the four sample areas (Figure 1). This was done to account for geospatial variability during the sampling process. QGIS Desktop 3.22.0 was used to visualize and select the sample areas for the study. The study excluded the industrial zones situated directly north and south of the dump yard due to the absence of residential buildings in those areas.

A structured interview schedule was used for collecting the necessary information from the participants. The questions in the interview schedule were adapted from surveys on risk perception conducted in Italy and Japan.41,42 It consisted of questions related to socio-demographic details of the participants, their perceptions regarding the dump yard and its effect on the environment, their perception of malodor from the dump yard, its strength and frequency and their perception regarding likelihood of developing health problems. The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Trivandrum (SCT/IEC/1823/JANUARY/2022). Data were collected via face-to-face interviews using the KoboToolbox application and the analysis for the study was done using R software version 4.2.2.43 R packages used for analysis were “tidyverse”44 for data wrangling, “gtsummary”45 for regression analysis, “rempsyc”46 for making summary tables, “psych”47 was used for conducting principal component analysis.

Statistical Analysis

The study looked at 2 analyses

a) Association of socio-demographic variables such as sex and educational level and geospatial variables, distance and direction with perception regarding dump yard proximity, perceived strength and frequency of malodor.

b) Risk perception score with socio-demographic variables such as sex and educational level and geospatial variables, distance and direction and perception regarding dump yard proximity, perceived strength and frequency of malodor.

For a) variables which were found to be statistically significant in the bivariate analysis using chi-square test were further analyzed in a logistic regression model. For b) variables which were independently found to be statistically significant in the one-way ANOVA were included in a linear regression model for further analysis.

Risk Perception Score

The structured interview schedule had multiple variables that were designed to capture the risk perceptions of the participants regarding the environmental and health risks of the dump yard. The responses to these questions were scored on a scale of 1–4 as shown in Table 1. Principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was performed on this set of variables to combine these correlated variables into a singular outcome variable, the risk perception score which can quantify the risk perception for each participant. The risk perception score was calculated for each participant by multiplying the score for each variable with the PCA loading and then adding them up. Since the dump yard was a sensitive issue among the local residents, some individuals had declined to answer certain questions and were omitted from the computation of the risk perception score.

Table 1 Principal Component Analysis of Perceptions About the Impact of the Dump Yard on Environment and Health

Results

Among the 302 participants who took part in the study, 52.3% were male and 47.7% females. Half of them lived within 2 kilometers from the borders of the dump yard and most of the participants lived to the east of the dump yard. The mean age of the participants was 47.2 years with a standard deviation of 14.3. The socio-economic classification of the participants was determined using the modified Kuppuswamy scale.48 The scale uses educational qualifications, occupation and the monthly income of the head of the family to categorize the participants. More than two-fifths of the participants 44.2% were categorized as “Upper Lower” socio-economic class as per the Kuppuswamy scale. The socio-demographic characteristics of the study participants are given in Table 2.

Table 2 Sociodemographic Characteristics

Perceptions About the Dump Yard

A large proportion of the participants (282 (93.4%) reported that they experienced malodor from the dump yard. Almost one-third of the participants perceived this malodor to be very strong (36 (11.9%)). More than two-thirds (85 (28.1%)) perceived that the proximity of the dump yard to their residence was unfair (Table 3).

Table 3 Perception About Dump Yard

Perception Related to Proximity of Residence to the Dump Yard

A logistic regression model was used to observe the association between geospatial and socio-demographic factors and perception regarding the proximity of residence to the dump yard. Responses of those who did answer certain questions were omitted from the multivariate model. According to the model, those residing to the east were more likely to perceive the proximity of their residence to the dump yard as unfair compared to those living to the west 10.4 (95% CI 4.42, 27.9; p<0.001). Additionally, those who had school or lower level of education had high odds of perceiving the dump yard proximity as unfair (Table 4).

Table 4 Multivariate Logistic Regression - Perception Regarding Proximity of Residence to Dump Yard

Perception Regarding Strength of Malodor from the Dump Yard

A multiple logistic regression was done with geospatial factors as the independent variable and perceived strength of malodor as the dependent variable. Those who reported that the malodor was “very strong” or “fairly strong” were grouped into the “strong” category and the rest were categorized as “mild/negligible” for fitting the logistic regression model. The responses of those who did not respond were not considered in the model. The geospatial factors were significantly associated with the perceived strength of malodor in the model (Table 5).

Table 5 Multivariate Logistic Regression - Perceived Strength of Malodor from Dump Yard

Perception Regarding Frequency of Malodor from the Dump Yard

When perceived frequency of malodor was taken as the dependent variable for multiple logistic regression, those who responded “daily” or “almost daily” were categorized as “Daily/Weekly” and the rest were grouped into “Monthly/ Less than monthly/ Seasonal”. In the multivariate model, those living to the east had higher odds of perceiving the malodor more frequently 2.33 (95% CI 1.17, 4.72; p=0.017). Moreover, those who lived within two kilometers from the dump yard also had higher odds of perceiving frequent malodor 3.08 (95% CI 1.63, 5.96; p<0.001) (Table 6).

Table 6 Multivariate Logistic Regression - Perceived Frequency of Malodor from Dump Yard

Risk Perception Regarding the Impact of the Dump Yard on Environment and Health

Principle component analysis (PCA) of variables related to participants’ perceptions about the adjacent river, the environment and likelihood of diseases was done (Table 1) to create a synthetic risk perception score variable, that reflects the risk perception of the participants regarding the dump yard. The score ranged from 4.94 to 19.76 with a mean of 13.08 and standard deviation of 4.18.

This risk perception score was used to compute a regression model to investigate the association between risk perception and the geospatial factors of distance and direction. Due to the sensitive nature of the topic, not all participants answered all questions regarding the dump yard. Therefore, the number of participants whose responses could be included in the PCA was reduced. As a result, among the total 302, the risk perception score could be calculated only for 177 participants whose characteristics were analyzed in the multivariate regression model. The model indicated that living to the east (2.7 (95% CI 1.1, 4.2; p<0.001)) and living within two kilometers from the dump yard (2.3 (95% CI 0.96, 3.7; p<0.001)) were associated with a statistically significant increase in the risk perception score (Table 7).

Table 7 Multivariate Linear Regression - Risk Perception Score

Discussion

The study aimed to understand the risk perception of people living around the poorly managed Brahmapuram dump yard that has been in operation for over 16 years and has accumulated huge quantities of legacy waste. The objective was also to examine the potential associations between sociodemographic and geospatial factors and the risk perceptions of the people. The perception of risk is a complex measure shaped by participants’ experiences living in proximity to the dump yard and is a topic which remains largely unexplored in India. The current study has used Principal Component Analysis (PCA), a dimensionality reduction technique, to quantify risk perception and compute a composite risk perception score that has been used in the statistical analysis.

In risk perception studies proximity to a hazard is generally assessed in terms of distance.49–52 These studies have reported consistently that those who live at shorter distances from the hazardous sites tend to have higher levels of risk perception. This study also found that the risk perception was significantly high among those who lived within 2 kilometers of the dump yard. In addition, the geospatial location in terms of the direction in which the residences were located with respect to the dump yard also influenced their risk perception. Similar findings have emerged from studies among people residing near waste treatment facilities including landfills, dump yards and waste incinerators, despite differences in measurement methods used.51,53 Several studies have indicated that residing in close proximity to hazardous sites generates heightened risk perception among the adjacent populations, frequently leading to public outrage and dissent. Higher risk perception of people living in proximity to hazardous sites like nuclear energy plants, petrochemical industries and similar hazards have been reported from across diverse settings.49,50,52,54

Malodor has been reported as one of the primary concerns of people around landfills and other waste management facilities.55–58 Malodor has been found to influence the health risk perception of proximate communities.59 Studies have found their perception of the malodor to be associated with attitude towards the malodor source.60,61 Previous studies indicate that people living in close proximity to waste management facilities and having a longer duration of residence are more likely to report concerns related to malodor.56,62

In the current study, the majority of the respondents reported malodor as a negative impact of the dump yard. Those who lived less than 2 kilometers from the dump yard and to the east had higher odds of reporting more frequent experiences of malodor. The occurrence of sea breeze during the day, blowing to the east may explain why those who live in that direction perceived malodor more frequently. Conversely, the nocturnal land breeze that carries the malodor towards the west coincides with the time when most residents are likely to stay indoors, resulting in a lesser perception of malodor among those in the west. These findings align with prior studies that have found that meteorological factors such as wind speed, intensity, direction and factors like temperature, humidity and rainfall influenced the magnitude of malodor from waste facilities.56,63,64

In the current study, females reported significantly lower risk perception than the males. This finding contrasts with prior studies that have noted gender differences in risk perception, where females were found to have higher risk perception, especially to involuntary risks.58,65 Risk perception is recognized as a subjective judgement influenced by variations in social, cultural, political and psychological factors and the observed differences could be attributed to these influences.66–68

Findings from studies among communities living near waste management facilities such as incinerators and landfills indicate that they perceive the proximity of the dump yard to their homes as unfair.20,69,70 These sentiments are thought to stem from factors like the fear of loss of land value and NIMBY (Not in My Back Yard) syndrome driven by personal concerns.71 The negative sentiments among them are thought to arise from the strong perception that the adverse consequences of the hazards are borne by the communities residing nearby, while the positive outcomes of such facilities benefit communities beyond the area of its installation. Local opposition, resentment and resistance from among residents near dump yards are thought to emerge from such perceptions of inequity; that the decision-making related to the siting of such facilities is led by external factors beyond their control, unilateral and hence unfair.72,73

Risk perception of the communities and their attitude towards the source of malodor also affect the perception of the malodor. The reception and management of waste originating from regions outside of waste facility locations have encountered resistance from the local communities in a prior study from Japan.42 Consistent with this, in the present study, over seventy percent of the respondents found the dump yard’s proximity to their homes unfair and those residing to the east expressed a higher likelihood of the dump yard’s proximity as unjust. The dump yard, in this study, receives waste from the areas under the local self-governments (LSG) outside the jurisdiction of the LSG in which the dump yard is located and is responsible for its operation.

Limitations of the Study

The study was conducted 15 years after the establishment of the dump yard, and people who had already relocated from its vicinity due to the issues related to the dump yard were not included, potentially resulting in a bias.The dump yard, being a politically sensitive local issue, made the participants reluctant to answer certain questions. Therefore, when the dimensionality reduction technique of principal component analysis was used to compute a synthetic risk perception variable, it had a smaller sample size. The dump yard is also located in proximity to industrial areas and therefore the risk perception could be influenced by other possible pollution sources in the vicinity resulting in “co-mingled” effects as noted by Zhang and Klenosky.74

Conclusion

The findings of the study highlight the enduring concerns of the residents regarding the Brahmapuram dump yard. Despite the fact that the dump yard has been in existence for more than fifteen years and marked by numerous protests and litigations, malodourous emissions continue to affect those residing in its proximity. The residents harbor a perception of unfairness regarding the dump yard’s proximity to their homes. Risk perception regarding the impact of the dump yard on their health and surrounding environment was associated with geospatial factors, specifically the distance and direction relative to the dump yard. While distance is generally used to indicate proximity to point environmental pollution sources, the study revealed that the direction in which the respondents resided with respect to the dump yard also influenced their risk perception. The present study contributes to the environmental health literature by emphasizing the importance of the geospatial determinants in shaping risk perception. The findings of the study indicate that the sole consideration of distance as an indicator of proximity to a hazardous site may overlook the mediating effect of direction in studies related to risk perception. People’s perceptions of risk are shaped by a variety of factors and must be carefully considered when the location of such waste management facilities is decided. Incorporating the risk perceptions of the nearby residents in the planning and operation of dump yards can help alleviate public dissent and opposition to such installations. The study findings emphasize the need for routine risk assessments to factor in the subjective views and social dimensions of people’s risk perceptions. The inclusion of geospatial and socio-demographic determinants in risk assessment and management has the potential to reduce perceived risks and public discontent surrounding waste management facilities.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their heartfelt gratitude to the participants who spent their valuable time talking about their lives to the principal investigator.

Disclosure

The author(s) report no conflicts of interest in this work. The study was a self-funded one and was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Trivandrum (SCT/IEC/1823/JANUARY/2022) on 2nd March 2022. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. The corresponding author will provide the dataset, and the R codes used for analysis of this current work upon reasonable request.

References

1. Maalouf A, Mavropoulos A. Re-assessing global municipal solid waste generation. Waste Manag Res. 2023;41(4):936–947. doi:10.1177/0734242X221074116

2. Abdel-Shafy HI, Mansour MSM. Solid waste issue: sources, composition, disposal, recycling, and valorization. Egypt J Pet. 2018;27(4):1275–1290. doi:10.1016/j.ejpe.2018.07.003

3. Kaza S, Yao LC, Bhada-Tata P, Van Woerden F. What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050. World Bank; 2018; doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1329-0

4. Ferronato N, Torretta V. Waste mismanagement in developing countries: a review of global issues. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(6):1060. doi:10.3390/ijerph16061060

5. Srivastava V, Ismail SA, Singh P, Singh R. Urban solid waste management in the developing world with emphasis on India: challenges and opportunities. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol. 2014. doi:10.1007/s11157-014-9352-4

6. Environment UN Global waste management outlook. UNEP - UN environment programme; 2017. Available from: http://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-waste-management-outlook. Accessed June28, 2022.

7. Jambeck JR, Geyer R, Wilcox C, et al. Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science. 2015;347(6223):768–771. doi:10.1126/science.1260352

8. Marine plastic pollution. IUCN; 2018. Available from: https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/marine-plastic-pollution. Accessed June28, 2022.

9. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe. Waste and human health: evidence and needs: WHO meeting Report 5–6; 2015. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/354227. Accessed June28, 2022.

10. Vrijheid M. Health effects of residence near hazardous waste landfill sites: a review of epidemiologic literature. Environ Health Perspect. 2000;108(Suppl 1):101–112. doi:10.1289/ehp.00108s1101

11. Horton RA, Wing S, Marshall SW, Brownley KA. Malodor as a trigger of stress and negative mood in neighbors of industrial hog operations. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(Suppl 3):S610. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.148924

12. Rajan R. Environmental Justice in India. Environ Justice. 2014;7:115–116. doi:10.1089/env.2014.7502

13. Environmental injustice and public health in India: towards a “decolonial intersectional environmental justice”. Framework | Economic and Political Weekly; 2023. Available from: https://www.epw.in/engage/article/environmental-injustice-and-public-health-india. Accessed October23, 2024.

14. Doron A. Stench and sensibilities: on living with waste, animals and microbes in India. Aust J Anthropol. 2021;32(S1):23–41. doi:10.1111/taja.12380

15. Jerrett M, Burnett RT, Kanaroglou P, et al. A GIS–environmental justice analysis of particulate air pollution in Hamilton, Canada. Environ Plan A. 2001;33(6):955–973. doi:10.1068/a33137

16. Laurian L. Environmental Injustice in France. Null. 2008;51(1):55–79. doi:10.1080/09640560701712267

17. Martuzzi M, Mitis F, Forastiere F. Inequalities, inequities, environmental justice in waste management and health. Eur J Public Health. 2010;20(1):21–26. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckp216

18. Norton JM, Wing S, Lipscomb HJ, Kaufman JS, Marshall SW, Race CAJ. Wealth, and solid waste facilities in North Carolina. Environ Health Perspect. 2007;115(9):1344–1350. doi:10.1289/ehp.10161

19. Sidabalok H. Residential Solid Waste Management in Semarang: The Question of Geographical Environmental Justice. PT Kanisius;2023.

20. Bena A, Gandini M, Crosetto L, et al. Perceived risk in the population living near the Turin incinerator: comparison between before and at three years of operation. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(17):9003. doi:10.3390/ijerph18179003

21. Hampson LC Residents’ Reappraisal of the Halton Regional Landfill Site: A Longitudinal Study of Psychosocial Impacts. thesis. 1997. https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/handle/11375/8117. Accessed June28, 2022.

22. Al-Khatib IA, Kontogianni S, Abu Nabaa H, Alshami N, Al-Sari’ MI. Public perception of hazardousness caused by current trends of municipal solid waste management. Waste Manag. 2015;36:323–330. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2014.10.026

23. Vinti G, Bauza V, Clasen T, et al. Municipal solid waste management and adverse health outcomes: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(8):4331. doi:10.3390/ijerph18084331

24. Ngamsang T, Yuttitham M. Vulnerability assessment of areas allocated for municipal solid waste disposal systems: a case study of sanitary landfill and incineration. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2019;26(26):27239–27258. doi:10.1007/s11356-019-05920-6

25. Klinke A, Renn O. A new approach to risk evaluation and management: risk-based, precaution-based, and discourse-based strategies. Risk Anal. 2002;22(6):1071–1094. doi:10.1111/1539-6924.00274

26. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science. 1987;236:280–285. doi:10.1126/science.3563507

27. Hadden SG. Public perception of hazardous waste1. Risk Anal. 1991;11(1):47–57. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1991.tb00568.x

28. Rushton L. Health hazards and waste management. Br Med Bull. 2003;68:183–197. doi:10.1093/bmb/ldg034

29. Ziraba AK, Haregu TN, Mberu B. A review and framework for understanding the potential impact of poor solid waste management on health in developing countries. Arch Public Health. 2016;74(1):55. doi:10.1186/s13690-016-0166-4

30. Porta D, Milani S, Lazzarino AI, Perucci CA, Forastiere F. Systematic review of epidemiological studies on health effects associated with management of solid waste. Environ Health. 2009;8:60. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-8-60

31. Shin M, Werner AK, Strosnider H, Hines LB, Balluz L, Yip FY. Public perceptions of environmental public health risks in the United States. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(6):1045. doi:10.3390/ijerph16061045

32. Michalsen A. Risk assessment and perception. Int J Inj Contr Saf Promot. 2003;10(4):201–204. doi:10.1076/icsp.10.4.201.16782

33. Media&PR C. Solid waste management in Kochi: no solution to the age-old problem? Centre for Public Policy Research (CPPR); 2020. Available from: https://www.cppr.in/articles/solid-waste-management-in-kochi-no-solution-to-The-age-old-problem. Accessed June29, 2022.

34. Brahmapuram dumping yard illegal, rules NGT South Bench. the new Indian express; 2016. Available from: https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2016/jun/01/Brahmapuram-dumping-yard-illegal-rules-NGT-South-Bench-935348.html. Accessed September6, 2023.

35. Brahmapuram fire brought under control. The Hindu; 2022. Available from: https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Kochi/brahmapuram-fire-brought-under-control/article65246686.ece. Accessed June29, 2022.

36. Fire breaks out again at Brahmapuram waste plant in Kochi, smoke chokes. The News Minute, 2020. Available from: https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/fire-breaks-out-again-brahmapuram-waste-plant-kochi-smoke-chokes-118461. Accessed June29, 2022.

37. Reporter S. Fire breaks out at Brahmapuram again. The Hindu; 2021. Available from: https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Kochi/fire-breaks-out-at-brahmapuram-again/article34001696.ece. Accessed June29, 2022.

38. Brahmapuram K. A dump fire that raises a stink. The Hindu. Available from: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/kochis-brahmapuram-A-dump-fire-that-raises-A-stink/article66638572.ece. 2023. Accessed July14, 2023.

39. A walk through the ghost village Brahmapuram, deserted thanks to Kochi’s garbage. The News Minute; 2016. Available from: https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/walk-through-ghost-village-brahmapuram-deserted-thanks-kochis-garbage-41040. Accessed August26, 2023.

40. EJOLT. Brahmapuram solid waste processing plant, Kerala, India | eJAtlas. environmental justice atlas. Available from: https://ejatlas.org/conflict/brahmapuram-solid-waste-processing-plant. Accessed July6, 2022.

41. Mudu P, Terracini B, Martuzzi M. Human Health in Areas with Industrial Contamination. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe; 2014. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/144490. Accessed December5, 2021.

42. Rahardyan B, Matsuto T, Kakuta Y, Tanaka N. Resident’s concerns and attitudes towards solid waste management facilities. Waste Manag. 2004;24(5):437–451. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2003.11.011

43. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing; 2022. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed December23, 2024.

44. Wickham H, RStudio. tidyverse: easily install and load the “Tidyverse”; 2023. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/tidyverse/index.html. Accessed August26, 2023.

45. Sjoberg DD, Larmarange J, Curry M, et al. gtsummary: presentation-ready data summary and analytic result Tables; 2023. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/gtsummary/index.html. Accessed August26, 2023.

46. Thériault RR. Convenience functions for psychology; 2024. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rempsyc/index.html. Accessed October24, 2024.

47. Revelle W. psych: procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research; 2023. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/psych/index.html. Accessed September11, 2023.

48. Saleem SM, Jan SS. Modified Kuppuswamy socioeconomic scale updated for the year 2021. IJFCM. 2021;8(1):1–3. doi:10.18231/j.ijfcm.2021.001

49. Lyons BA, Akin H, Stroud NJ. Proximity (Mis)perception: public awareness of nuclear, refinery, and fracking sites. Risk Anal. 2020;40(2):385–398. doi:10.1111/risa.13387

50. Signorino G. Proximity and risk perception. Comparing risk perception ‘profiles’ in two petrochemical areas of Sicily (Augusta and Milazzo). J Risk Res. 2012;15:1–21. doi:10.1080/13669877.2012.670129

51. Zhang L, Liabsuetrakul T. The effect of distance on risk perception towards waste incineration plants: a comparison between local residents living within 0–3 km versus 3–8 km in Dongguan, Southern China. Environ Res Commun. 2023;5(11):115011. doi:10.1088/2515-7620/ad0672

52. Zhang Y, Hwang SN, Lindell M. Hazard proximity or risk perception? Evaluating effects of natural and technological hazards on housing values. Environ Behav. 2010;42:597–624. doi:10.1177/0013916509334564

53. Subiza-Pérez M, Santa Marina L, Irizar A, et al. Who feels a greater environmental risk? Women, younger adults and pro-environmentally friendly people express higher concerns about a set of environmental exposures. Environ Res. 2020;181:108918. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2019.108918

54. Venables D, Pidgeon NF, Parkhill KA, Henwood KL, Simmons P. Living with nuclear power: sense of place, proximity, and risk perceptions in local host communities. J Environ Psychol. 2012;32(4):371–383. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.06.003

55. Heaney CD, Wing S, Campbell RL, et al. Relation between malodor, ambient hydrogen sulfide, and health in a community bordering a landfill. Environ Res. 2011;111(6):847–852. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2011.05.021

56. Njoku PO, Edokpayi JN, Odiyo JO. Health and environmental risks of residents living close to a landfill: a case study of thohoyandou landfill, Limpopo Province, South Africa. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(12). doi:10.3390/ijerph16122125

57. Palmiotto M, Fattore E, Paiano V, Celeste G, Colombo A, Davoli E. Influence of a municipal solid waste landfill in the surrounding environment: toxicological risk and odor nuisance effects. Environ Int. 2014;68:16–24. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2014.03.004

58. Salah MM, Al-Sari’ MI, Al-Khatib IA, Kontogianni S. Local residents’ perception of landfill impacts in Palestine: the case of Zahrat Al-Finjan landfill. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag. 2020;22(3):673–681. doi:10.1007/s10163-019-00959-6

59. Piccardo MT, Geretto M, Pulliero A, Izzotti A. Odor emissions: a public health concern for health risk perception. Environ Res. 2022;204:112121. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.112121

60. Hayes JE, Stevenson RJ, Stuetz RM. The impact of malodour on communities: a review of assessment techniques. Sci Total Environ. 2014;500-501:395–407. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.09.003

61. Je H, Rj S, Rm S. Survey of the effect of odour impact on communities. J Environ Manage. 2017;204(Pt 1). doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.09.016

62. De Feo G, De Gisi S, Williams ID. Public perception of odour and environmental pollution attributed to MSW treatment and disposal facilities: a case study. Waste Manag. 2013;33(4):974–987. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2012.12.016

63. Laister G Prediction, Management and Control of Odour from Landfill Sites. Thesis. 2002. Available from: https://researchspace.ukzn.ac.za/handle/10413/4874. Accessed July11, 2022.

64. Sakawi Z, Sharifah S, Mastura O, Jaafar M, Mahmud M. Community perception of odor pollution from the landfill. Res J Environ Earth Sci. 2011;3:142–145.

65. Brown GD, Largey A, McMullan C. The impact of gender on risk perception: implications for EU member states’ national risk assessment processes. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021;63:102452. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102452

66. Slovic P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal. 1999;19(4):689–701. doi:10.1023/a:1007041821623

67. Slovic P. Understanding perceived risk: 1978–2015. Environment. 2016;58(1):25–29. doi:10.1080/00139157.2016.1112169

68. Jeanne Krupp S. environmental hazards: assessing the risk to women. Fordham Envtl L Rev. 2000;12:111––139.

69. Akinjare OA, Ayedun CA, Oluwatobi AO, Iroham OC. Impact of sanitary landfills on urban residential property value in Lagos State, Nigeria. J Sust Develop. 2011;4(2):p48. doi:10.5539/jsd.v4n2p48

70. Reichert A, Small M, Mohanty S. The impact of landfills on residential property values. J Real Estate Res. 1992;7(3):297–314. doi:10.1080/10835547.1992.12090677

71. Johnson RJ, Scicchitano MJ. Don’t call me NIMBY: public attitudes toward solid waste facilities. Environ Behav. 2012;44(3):410–426. doi:10.1177/0013916511435354

72. Lima ML. On the influence of risk perception on mental health: living near an incinerator. J Environ Psychol. 2004;24(1):71–84. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00026-4

73. Lima ML. Predictors of attitudes towards the construction of a waste incinerator: two case studies1. J Appl Social Psychol. 2006;36(2):441–466. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00014.x

74. Zhang L, Klenosky DB. Residents’ perceptions and attitudes toward waste treatment facility sites and their possible conversion: a literature review. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2016;20:32–42. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2016.07.016