3.1. Community’s Perceived Understanding of Indigenous Practices of SWM in the MKRC
For this section, the number of responses varied for each question as participants did not always answer all the questions. The first question (E1.1) with 463 responses asked whether waste is stored and the purpose of the storage. Six scenarios were provided for respondents to indicate their understanding on a Likert scale (
Figure 1). Out of these, 50.5% strongly agreed, 15.3% agreed, 3.2% were neutral, 22.7% disagreed, while 8.2% strongly disagreed. The range of responses indicated that storage practices differ among individual community members and depended on the type of waste that is stored. For instance, Liqo (maize stalk) is stored in large sacks, while other kitchen waste is stored in buckets until it is fed to dogs and pigs. The second question (E1.2 in
Figure 1) explored the storing of dry cow dung to use as fuel; responses were received from 464 participants. Over 95% of respondents (90.7% strongly agreed, 4.5% agreed) agreed that dry cow dung was stored to be used as fuel. The next question (E1.3,
Figure 1) tested if cow dung was used to run a generator and over 95% (15.1% disagreed, 83.8% strongly disagreed) of respondents disagreed with this statement. Testing if cow dung was used to provide lighting in their homes (E1.4,
Figure 1) revealed that 97.8% of respondents did not use cow dung for lighting purposes (19.4% disagreed, 78.7% strongly disagreed). Question E1.5
Figure 1) asked whether the MKRC communities store waste that was capable of decomposing through bacteria to use as garden manure. More than 86% (76.4% strongly agreed, 10.2% agreed) of the respondents agreed with statement, while 10.6% (0.6% disagreed, 10% strongly disagreed) did not agree with statement. The last question in this category asked. whether they stored waste capable of decomposing through bacteria to produce new items, 62.9% strongly agreed, 15.5% agreed, 8.6% were neutral, 5.8% disagreed, and 7.1% strongly disagreed. It is therefore quite clear that most community members stored waste for different purposes, but cow dung was mostly stored to be used as a direct fuel source.
E1.1 explored people’s perception of the impact of indigenous SWM on the environment. The analysis asserts that the majority agreed or strongly agreed that they understand waste must be stored properly in buckets, bags, and other containers before its disposal. It is concluded that buckets and bags used to store waste before disposal are ideal for containing waste. These containers store waste that is intended to be used in the future; participants claimed they protect the waste from rain which can cause contaminated runoff. From the minority of participants who disagreed or strongly disagreed, it can be interpreted that they had limited knowledge of the usefulness of waste and how it can contaminate the environment if not properly managed. E1.2 stated, “People in this community store dry cow dung to use as fuel”. Responses confirm participants were from typical rural areas where people engage in farming and raise domestic animals such as cows, horses, sheep, and goats. A majority depended on their herd of cattle for sources of fuel. The minority could be members of the communities without domestic animals. Most of those who used cow dung for fuel lacked knowledge of the health implications of the smoke generated when cow dung is burnt, indicating they are susceptible to respiratory diseases. E1.3 sought responses to: “People in this community use cow dung to run a generator”. This analysis asserted that the rural communities use cow dung as a valuable source for cooking and heating their homes only, and not for any other purposes. It also means that they rely more on traditional resources than modern resources. E1.4 concerns itself with “People in this community store dry cow dung to light up their houses”. This analysis suggests that raw cow dung was not an ideal source of renewable energy. Alternative approaches, such as training the communities to convert cow dung into electricity, can benefit the MKRC communities. E1.5 stated: “People in this community store waste that is capable of being decomposed by bacteria to use as garden manure”. Most participants agreed or strongly agreed. It is evident that most participants understood waste cannot be converted into manure without the biological activity of microorganisms such as bacteria. This means they can distinguish between the types of waste capable of decomposing and that such waste cannot be disposed of anywhere; it can contaminate the environment if not disposed of safely. E1.6 relates to: “People in this community store waste that is not capable of being decomposed by bacteria to produce new items”. The analysis suggested that most community members did not consider waste as something that is unwanted but as an item that can be reused or converted to make new items. Conversely, the analysis asserted that the minority of participants who disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement might be individualists who were conscious of the negative effects of rodent and cockroach infestations caused by the long-term storage of non-degradable waste. They would not like to have rodents and cockroaches in their homes as they transmit diseases to them and their families.
No measurements, such as the weighing of waste, were made in the study areas because of a lack of equipment. Percentages obtained from government of Lesotho documents [
5] are comparable to waste generated in the urban areas of Maseru and summarised in
Table 4. It is obvious from these documents that paper waste is predominant (43%) in the study areas, with a very low percentage of glass waste at 2%. It is not surprising, however, that kitchen waste is generated at 19%. This study contends that the cause may be that some of the community members do not have access to electricity and, therefore, may not have refrigerators to store their leftover foodstuffs. Plastics (20%), Paper (43%), Glass (2%), Kitchen leftovers (19%), garden refuse (4%), others 3%. Garden refuse is sometimes used to feed domestic animals such as pigs, goats, sheep, and cows; hence, there is 9% waste generation. Moreover, while it has become the norm that plastics are used as carrier bags for groceries, in the case of the study areas, plastic waste may be low because many households are not working and do not visit grocery stores on a regular basis. Another reason is that some households collect plastic to produce new items, such as plastic mats, handbags, and hats.
There is an understanding amongst the community members in the study areas that culture does not support the disposal of waste on the ground. This is evident from the responses of a majority who disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement. This analysis asserted that for some members of the community, culture may be disappearing, so it is reasonable to encourage communities not to ignore their cultural beliefs and waste management practices because cultural beliefs have an influence on present waste disposal methods. In addition, cultural beliefs may contribute positively to alleviating indiscriminate waste disposal problems. Not everyone lived in proximity to natural resources. This analysis asserted that there were natural resources in the MKRC ancestral territories, but these were somehow exploited. It is clear then that there is a need to enhance environmental sustainability through interdisciplinary and multidimensional approaches such as cultural constructs, Furthermore, MKRC communities were not bonding with their natural resources, or they had limited natural resources that were accessible to a certain portion of community members. This analysis concluded that it is important to illustrate effective systems and practices of SWM through human interconnectedness, the environment, and sustainable development. Most community members still followed the footsteps of their ancestors when it came to waste management. It shows that most community members understand their culture, thus they continue observing their rituals.
There were 464 respondents to the questions interrogating the culture and social systems in the study area. In response to the question if indigenous systems of managing solid waste in their area could be attributed to peoples’ cultural beliefs 62.5% agreed (32.3% strongly agreed, 30.2% agreed) while 24.6% disagreed (16.2% disagreed, 8.4% strongly disagreed) (D1.1 in
Figure 2). On question D1.2 asking whether indigenous systems of managing waste in their area could be attributed to people’s cultural values, 60% of respondents agreed (32.4% strongly agreed, 27.6% agreed) and 24.6% disagreed (16.2% disagreed, 8.4% strongly disagreed). Assessing whether it was out of place in their culture to dispose of waste on the ground (D1.3) 92.4% (17.0% disagreed, 75.4% strongly disagreed) disagreed with the statement (
Figure 2), clearly indicating that waste disposal on the ground is acceptable from a cultural perspective. When asked whether people live in proximity to natural resources and tend to employ a WM system that governs natural resource use (D1.4) 57.4% agreed (33.7% strongly agreed, 23.7% agreed) while 31.7% disagreed (7.8% disagreed, 23.9% strongly disagreed) and 10.9% responded neutral to this question. These results indicate a weak collectiveness that holds communities in the MKRC together in their cultural beliefs. This may have a negative impact on individual waste management practices. The analysis also suggests that cultural values in the study area are focused on personal values and have failed to consider value dimensions within a broader framework of the community. Consequently, there is no relationship between the values and behaviour of individual members of the MKRC communities, indicating that communities in the MKRC are driven by individualistic cultural values. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that individuals’ values may influence their level of interest in waste management and can affect the systems and practices of SWM in the study area. Participants were asked if they believed a natural environment could be successfully conserved using peoples’ cultural mores (D1.5,
Figure 2). The responses were 47% in agreement (25.2% strongly agreed, 21.8% agreed) 17.5% neutral, and 35.6% did not agree (15.3% disagreed, 20.3% strongly disagreed). This means MKRC communities were not bonding with their natural resources, or they had limited natural resources that were accessible to a certain portion of community members. This analysis concludes that it is important to illustrate effective systems and practices of SWM through human interconnectedness, the environment, and sustainable development. On the question of whether the indigenous systems of WM that people practice are based on people’s customs, rituals, and traditions (D1.6 in
Figure 2), 463 participants responded of which 88.5% agreed (55.5% strongly agreed, 33.0% agreed) and only 3.7% disagreed (2.6% disagreed, 1.1% strongly disagreed). Responses to this question indicated that most community members still followed the footsteps of their ancestors when it came to waste management. It shows that most community members understand their culture, thus they continue observing rituals.
Participants in the study areas indicated that they used waste items such as old tyres to make chairs (
Figure 3), plastic to make plastic hats, and animal skin to make Basotho blankets. There is consistency in these systems between the findings from the data collected and literature. McCombes [
21] referred to Namibia and stated that glass, paper, metal, plastic and electronic waste items were recycled. Communities in the study areas, similarly, collect recyclable waste items such as plastics, scrap metals, glass, and cardboard and sell them to recycling companies. The difference that this study identified is that communities in Namibia used technology to convert waste items, while communities in the study areas employed indigenous systems in some waste items to showcase their intellectual capabilities in craft.
3.4. Types of Solid Waste Generated in the MKRC
Amongst the three analysed constituencies, Rothe was found to be the only one that did not have evidence of stored corrugated iron sheets, tyres, cow-dung and garden waste and the questions are: What do they do with these types of waste that they have generated? Is there a common place where they dispose of these types of waste that was not observed by the researcher during data collection? The most common heavy metals linked with the types of waste generated were from the highest to lowest: Lead (Pb) was found to be associated with a few wastes generated, followed by cadmium (Cd) and then copper (Cu) and zinc (Zn) with equal levels of concentration. Chromium (Cr) was followed by arsenic (As). Barium (Ba) and nickel (Ni) have equal levels of concentration in solid waste, then magnesium (Mg). The last four heavy metals with equal levels of concentration were mercury (Hg), silver (Ag), iron (Fe) and cobalt (Co).
Table 5 lists the different types of waste generated in the MKRC.
Table 5 lists the types of solid waste generated in the rural areas of Matsieng, Koro-Koro and Rothe. The Matsieng and Koro-Koro constituencies have similar types of generated solid waste, while Rothe differs from them because it did not generate corrugated iron sheet, cow dung and garden waste.
We did not find literature that links corn stalk with any of the heavy metals mentioned in this article. Corrugated iron sheet contains Cu, As and Zn [
23]. Dorenfeld et al. [
24] stated that plastic contains Cd, Zn, lead (Pb) while Senekane [
20] showed that tin contains Pb, Zn, Cr, Ni, Cu, As and Cd. Aravind, Sharath, Reddy stated that Fly Ash contains Pb, Hg. Glass contains Pb, Cd, Cr and Ba [
25]. Oyen et al. [
26] stated that fabric contain Ba. Authors like [
27] postulated that tyres contain petroleum hydrocarbons (PHC), As, Pb, Cr, Ba. According to [
28], wood contains heavy metals such as Cd, Pb, Cu, Zn, Ni, Mn. Duda et al. [
29] stated that paper contains heavy metals such as Cd, Zn, Pb, Cu, Cr, Ni. Solid waste like steel contains Pb, Cd, Hg, Ag, As [
30]. Elmas and Cinar showed that cow dung contains Fe, Cu, Mn, Ni Zn, Cr, Pb, Co, Cd [
31], while Emgwa et al. [
32] stated that garden waste contains Pb, Cd, Cu, Zn. Singh et al. [
33] indicated that heavy metals present in leachates from both hazardous waste dumps and municipal solid waste landfills pose a serious threat to public health, because they can cause several physiological effects to human health. According to [
34] lead is a health hazard because if ingested through contaminated food or drinking water, it affects the soft tissues and skeletal bones. Older homes painted with lead-based paint are other major exposure pathways. Considering this, it is imperative that environmental health practitioners in Lesotho play a major role in educating rural communities about health hazards of heavy metals. Jaishankar et al. [
35] indicated that “due to their toxicity, non-biodegradability and persistency, heavy metals can exert adverse effects on the environment and other ecological receptors. Therefore, their removal from soil and aqueous environments has drawn tremendous attention. Various methods have been developed and used to decrease heavy metals concentrations in the ecosystems. These technologies can be categorized in physico-chemical processes such as ion exchange, reverse osmosis, membrane filtration, adsorption, precipitation, electrolytic removal, and biological processes involving activated sludge and phytoremediation”.
Waste containing these heavy metals can contaminate water sources if disposed of in the landfill site; hence, there is a need to avoid landfill disposal of solid waste. It is clear therefore, that water bodies could be contaminated by the metals found in leachate. It is concluded that in the rural areas like MKRC where most community members are unemployed, there is small amounts of waste biodegradable waste generated, the leaching behaviour may not be easy to determine. It was observed during data collection that the type of household waste that is generated in the MKRC is not disposed of into the environment, but it is used to feed animals such as pigs, dogs, and cows. Pigs and dogs are fed from kitchen food waste while cows are fed from garden waste. Papers/card box are used to make fire for cooking; plastics are reused to neat hats, mats, and handbags. This explains that non-biodegradable waste in the rural areas of MKRC is not disposed of but used for various purposes. The study’s findings reflected 12 themes related to ISPs of SWM, and these are discussed as follows:
Theme 1: Understanding ISPs of SWM—The findings show that, in general, people understand ISPs of SWM from cultural, norms and customs perspectives. People in their respective areas use various pathways to manage their waste including the implementation of a waste hierarchy (reusing and recycling) and local management systems and practices. This is consistent with what [
36] wrote in their publication; they postulated that indigenous communities around the globe use various pathways to manage their indigenous solid waste and gave the following examples: Territorial management practices and customary governance, contributing to nature conservation and restoration efforts with regional global implications, countering the drivers of unsustainable resource use, and resisting environmental injustices. This section concludes that ISPs of SWM differ based on culture and traditional beliefs, customs, values, and geographical location.
Theme 2: Recognising ISPs of SWM in addressing local environmental issues—the findings reveal that in the study areas, there were different opinions, potentially attributed to individual levels of education and lack of understanding and knowledge of the impact caused by improper handling and disposal of solid waste. Participants indicated that some community members recognise ISPs of SWM in addressing local environmental issues, while this is not the case for others. However, this is inconsistent with what [
37] found in Canada, and they postulate that waste disposal practices were similar among all community members. In support, [
38] proclaimed that the burning of waste (in particular plastics) has become dangerous to the environment and human wellbeing despite the guidance from authorities to engage in best practices of SWM.
Theme 3: Enhancing communal waste management—this study found that it is a common practice for many rural communities to engage in unsafe SWM practices. Common practices include digging holes in the backyards of homes, burning the waste, or disposing of waste in the streets. Participants indicated that each member of the community manages waste in the way most suitable for them unless the headmen instruct community members to engage in cleaning campaigns. Suitable methods include the collection of recyclable items such as bottles and aluminium cans, which are then sold to a recycling company at Ha Mantsebo in the outskirts of Maseru City. This is consistent with literature, where [
39] referred to Nanjing in China, indicating that SWM is enhanced through waste recycling. Chen et al. [
39] postulated that the informal waste pickers receive support from recycling companies and the government through the implementation of relevant laws, regulations, and policies. A noticeable difference between Nanjing and this study’s findings is that, in the study areas, the collection of recyclables is done informally without consideration of laws, regulations, and policies. Dururu et al. [
40] researched Northampton, Milton Keynes, and Luton in the East Midlands of England, and found that community members engaged in various activities to manage their waste. One example was SWM awareness campaigns. Moreover, unwanted clothes are not disposed of as waste but are given to the needy as donations. The literature is thus consistent with this study’s findings because the environment is kept clean from pollution by avoiding the illegal dumping of solid waste.
Theme 4: Preventing the breeding of mosquitoes and other health problems—the findings show that where there were no municipal solid waste collection services, people dispose of the waste anywhere they find a space to do so and, in many cases, this becomes a source of mosquitoes, which then transmit diseases. The participants claimed that decomposed waste is a source of mosquito breeding, which causes certain health problems in humans. This is consistent with previous studies conducted by [
41] who found that the spread of disease resulted from blocked waterways causing mosquitoes to breed in waste canals, and illegal dumpsites were posing a risk of spreading diseases. Kumar et al. [
10] confirmed this by indicating that the uncontrolled disposal of solid waste in stagnant water is a source of mosquitoes, which then transmit diseases to humans. The difference between the findings and literature is that in the study areas, participants engaged in illegal dumping because they did not have municipal waste collection services. The findings from the literature illustrate certain rural communities engage in illegal dumping because there are no municipal services or services are inconsistent, so when significant waste is generated, community members do not wait for waste collection but settle on illegal dumping practices.
Theme 5: Preventing bad smells from decomposed waste—a lack of municipal waste collection services results in bad smells emanating from decomposed waste. The participants confirmed there were no municipal solid waste removal services in their areas. A lack of municipal services accounts for unpleasant odours. This is consistent with what [
42] stated in his study conducted in Nigeria on indigenous systems of SWM. Yakabu [
42] found that indigenous solid waste practices are an eyesore and produce unpleasant odours. Authors [
6] and [
41] supported the statement by [
42] and postulate that waste dumps cause bad odours. Mihai and Taherzadeh [
43] similarly mentioned the odours caused by heaps of waste that is improperly managed, and this study confirms the same phenomenon.
Theme 6: Converting waste into useful items—various items are recycled to produce new products. In other parts of the world, cast-offs are donated to destitute communities. The participants in the study areas indicated that they used waste items such as old tyres to convert them into chairs, plastic into hats, and animal skins into Basotho blankets, among others. There is consistency in these systems between the findings and observations in literature. Dorenfeld et al. [
24] claimed in Namibia, glass, paper, metal, plastic, and electronic waste items were recycled. Communities in the study areas similarly collected recyclable waste items such as plastics, scrap metals, glass, and cardboard and sold these to recycling companies. The difference this study identified is that communities in Namibia used technology to use the waste items while communities in the study areas employed indigenous systems to showcase their intellectual crafting capabilities.
Theme 7: Managing kitchen waste—in some African countries like Egypt, communities feed kitchen waste to animals, such as pigs and dogs. In some European countries, like Sweden, kitchen waste is disposed of in drains. The participants mentioned that waste from the kitchen is used to feed domestic animals such as pigs and dogs. In support, Azmat [
44] indicated that Egyptians feed pigs on waste generated from their kitchen. However, in contrast, Azmat [
44] also reported that a small percentage (8%) of kitchen waste is disposed of in compost plants and the rest in open spaces. There are thus differences in the kitchen waste practices between study findings and literature. According to Dikole and Letswenyo, food waste in Botswana occupies a high percentage (of unspecified figures) of moisture, but it is unclear how communities in this country solve kitchen waste challenges [
45].
Theme 8: Translating useful ISPs into effective SWM—molora (ash) is mostly used for pest control in gardens and farms. In the study area, it is used for various purposes, including treating unknown diseases, as a symbol for death in the house, and others. To ensure sustainable vegetable production, waste items such as ash, bones, cans, and animal dung are added to what is referred to as “Lentloane”. This practice is employed in the study areas and by international organisations such as food and agricultural organisation’s UKaid and USAID. The participants reported that they had several ways in which they translated useful ISPs into effective SWM. The findings were based on both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection on uses of molora (Ash), and they are as follows: As one of the ingredients to manufacture traditional paint for their homes; to destroy mafokololi (caterpillars) in the gardens or fields; applied to windows to symbolise a death in the house; applied to the human body to treat unknown skin diseases; it is spread on the skin of newly slaughtered animals to prevent flies. The thotobolo (ash heap) is used to accommodate a copper pole with forks to prevent lightning strikes. There is consistency in the use of molora for home gardens and agricultural farms between this study’s findings and literature. Ramraj and Ramsingh [
46] explained that for Trinidad and Tobago Islands, close to South America, communities use wood ash to control pests in their home gardens. McCoid and Hainey [
47] referred to the United Kingdom and postulated that wood ash is used to control ticks in the home garden. In addition, Ndlovu and Sprickerhoff [
48] referred to Zimbabwe and Ghana and indicated that they use wood ash to protect maize from pest attacks by mixing maize kernels with wood ash. Bharathi et al. [
49] stated that in India, ash produced from the stem juice of
Musa paradisiaca Linn is valuable in healing wounds. The difference identified here is that this study’s participants explained ash is broadly used in treating diseases, while the literature confirmed the use of ash is specific to wound treatment. This study concludes that ash is an important resource for preventing and destroying garden and farm pests in certain countries across the globe. It is also a useful resource for treating unknown diseases.
Theme 9: The disappearance of the ISPs of SWM—considering that there are no municipal waste collection services in all geographical areas, ISPs of solid waste will never disappear. The findings showed that ISPs in the MKRC will never disappear if there are no municipal waste collection services. Besides, the ISPs of SWM are culturally accepted. This is consistent with literature [
12] on rural and remote first nations in Canada, where communities consistently dispose of their generated waste through burial methods and in open dumps because there are no municipal waste collection services in their areas. In Ghana, Kosoe et al. [
50] also found that community members supported indigenous methods of waste management because of their cultural beliefs. In addition, communities knew how to manage their waste properly using ISPs. However, officials responsible for waste management in Ghana did not support the indigenous methods but were in favour of new technologies of SWM. Moreover, private sectors were also supported over public sectors to take control and employ new technological methods of waste management in this country. One noticeably important factor is that culture plays a significant role in indigenous waste management. In addition, rural communities with no municipal services still value the beauty of their environment and health even though they have no choice but to engage in indiscriminate solid waste disposal methods.
Theme 10: Relevance of the ISPs of SWM for the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources—ISPs of SWM are relevant to conservation and the sustainable use of natural resources, but education on the topic at the grassroots level is flawed in schools. The findings showed that ISPs in the MKRC will never disappear if there are no municipal waste collection services. Besides, the ISPs of SWM are culturally accepted. This is consistent with literature [
12] on rural and remote first nations in Canada, where communities consistently dispose of their generated waste through burial methods and in open dumps because there are no municipal waste collection services in their areas. In Ghana, Kosoe et al. [
50] also found that community members supported indigenous methods of waste management because of their cultural beliefs. In addition, communities knew how to manage their waste properly using ISPs. However, officials responsible for waste management in Ghana did not support the indigenous methods but were in favour of new technologies of SWM. Moreover, private sectors were also supported over public sectors to take control and employ new technological methods of waste management in this country. One noticeably important factor is that culture plays a significant role in indigenous waste management. In addition, rural communities with no municipal services still value the beauty of their environment and health even though they have no choice but to engage in indiscriminate solid waste disposal methods.
Theme 11: Facilitation of cheap, effective, and sustainable community environmental cleanliness—clean-up campaigns are cheap and can be participated in by everyone, young and old, men and women, from any private or public sector. They can be organised and implemented at any time during the year. The report [
51] stated that “A clean and safe environment and healthy residents are the ultimate goals of environmental justice, smart growth, and equitable development”. It is not uncommon for rural communities on a global scale to face an array of challenges associated with clean and safe environments. In Lesotho, cleaning campaigns are focused on urban areas only and neglect the rural areas. This is confirmed by [
52] who referred to a cleaning campaign that was organised by the prime minister of Lesotho, Dr. Moeketsi Majoro. The cleaning campaign took place in Maseru City in September 2020. In addition to this, Kajane [
53] referred to a cleaning campaign in which the World Environmental Day was marked in Maseru City, where participants included Vodacom Lesotho, the United Nations Lesotho, British High Commission in Maseru, and the American International school; these organisations hosted a clean-up campaign in their respective jurisdictions. Furthermore, Ramatlapeng [
54] referred to a national cleaning campaign that took place in Maseru City on 25 November 2020. For this campaign, the MCC received donations of 100 refuse bins from the Central Bank of Lesotho. Participants emphasised that their headmen seldom organised cleaning campaigns. This is consistent with what is reported in the previous paragraph [
52,
53,
54]. The difference is that it is apparent there is an organized cleaning campaign that takes place each year in the capital city, Maseru, where participants and organisers are in high-ranking positions at the national level and government entities. This is not the case in the study areas where the headmen act as organisers and governments are non-partisans. In the study areas, cleaning campaigns only take place after unspecified periods. In addition, cleaning campaigns in the study areas are questionable because there is no documented evidence of what participants reported. Furthermore, cleaning campaigns that took place in Maseru City in 2020 and 2021, where the prime minister did not participate, are also dubious because there is no documented evidence like photos.
Supplementary File S3 is an illustration of an organised cleaning campaign in Maseru.
Theme 12: Exhibition of cultural beliefs and values through the practice of the indigenous systems of SWM—the participants expressed their understanding of ISPs of SWM across all age groups. The participants referred to cultural mores, traditions, and practices as important parameters throughout the waste management process in their respective areas. It is evident from the findings of this study that communities in the study areas listen to their authorities (headmen) when instructed to participate in a cleaning campaign in their respective areas. This study’s emphasis on cultural mores is consistent with what transpired in the literature, where studies mentioned ISPs of SWM. Panta [
55] referred to the importance of cultural mores and indicated that culture in developing countries is based on oral communication, where communities practically engage in SWM activities after receiving instructions from the authorities. This study finds it important for each community member to show a sense of socialisation and conform to the norms of their culture. Showing respect to their authorities’ instructions would mean that they understand they should share the rules and expectations of their culture and behave appropriately. Roberts et al. [
56] mentioned how rural communities manufacture manure/fertiliser for their crops and postulate that, based on their culture, communities in the western part of Nigeria left organic waste to decompose so that it could be used as manure to grow crops. Such wastes include food waste, animal faeces and dead plants. It is also concluded that it is crucial for communities to achieve a sense of belonging; thus, they will be safe and keep abreast of the standards in their respective areas. This study considers values to be a specific cultural standard, and this is where communities need to share collective values. Obasiohia [
57] similarly referred to Nigerians in rural areas who use their culture to manage solid waste. A noticeable difference in the findings and the existing literature is where Ngara [
58] referred to rural communities that live close to their natural resources and believe they can conserve their natural environment through their tradition, cultural mores, and practices. This study asserts that there is a weak collectiveness in the MKRC that holds communities to their cultural beliefs. Instead, communities focus on personal values, and this tends to isolate certain members of the communities from the group. As such, it is reasonable to confirm that there is a barrier in culture because the findings make it clear that individualist cultural values influence how systems and practices of SWM are conducted in the study areas.