The Triple Burden of Coal Burning: Assessing its Effect on Animal Welfare, the Environment, and Human Health in Benadir Region, Somalia from a One Health Perspective

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5019149/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

The Triple Burden of Coal Burning: Assessing its Effect on Animal Welfare, the Environment, and Human Health in Benadir Region, Somalia from a One Health Perspective

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5019149/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Using coal as an energy source has significant implications for animal welfare, environment, and human health. The burning of coal has been associated with a triple burden that affects animal welfare, the environment, and human health. This study evaluates the specific effects of coal burning in Somalia using a one-health approach. The one-health approach recognizes the interconnectedness of these three domains and emphasizes the need for collaborative efforts to address the challenges posed by coal burning, highlighting the importance of adopting a holistic approach to mitigate associated risks. This study used a descriptive design. Quantitative data collection methods were also used in this study. Under a descriptive research design, the researcher used more of a survey that included self-administered questionnaires for respondents to ensure complete coverage of the study area and the study problem on the triple burden of coal burning, assessing its effect on animal welfare, the environment, and human health in Somalia from a single health perspective. The study sample consisted of 384 respondents. This study used structured questionnaires to capture quantitative data from residents of Deynile, Kahda, Karaan, Yaqshiid, Hiliwaa, and Dharkenley in the Benadir Region, Somalia. Microsoft Excel was used for analysis. Descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages) were used to summarize the data. Qualitative data were analyzed as they emerged from the study. The analyzed data were then presented as tables for easy interpretation. This study concluded that coal burning negatively affects the environment. In addition, the study concluded that coal burning affected animal welfare in Somalia and that the majority experienced health issues caused by coal burning. Furthermore, the study concluded that one health approach aimed to safeguard human and animal health sustainably. Overall, this study concluded that coal burning negatively affected animal welfare, the environment, and human health in Somalia from a single health perspective.

Infectious Diseases

Coal Burning

Animal Welfare

Environment

Human Health

One Health Perspective

The use of coal as an energy source has significant implications for animal welfare, the environment, and human health (Chakraborty, Chakraborty & Mukherjee (2017). The burning of coal has been associated with a triple burden impacting animal welfare, the environment, and human health (Finkelman, Wolfe & Hendryx, 2021). The study focuses on evaluating the specific effects of coal burning in Somalia through a one-health approach. The one health approach recognizes the interconnectedness of these three domains and emphasizes the need for collaborative efforts to address the challenges posed by coal burning highlighting the importance of adopting a holistic approach to mitigate the associated risks (Prüss-Üstün et al. 2019)

Coal burning releases a variety of pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter (Ukaogo et al., 2020). These emissions have severe consequences for animals near coal-fired power plants or coal-burning activities. Livestock such as cows, sheep, and goats experience respiratory issues, decreased productivity, and increased vulnerability to infections due to exposure to these pollutants (Warsame & Sarkodie, 2022). Additionally, wildlife populations may be adversely affected, with detrimental effects on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (Cohen, Brauer & Burnett, 2020). A One Health approach recognizes the importance of mitigating the impact of coal burning on animal welfare to maintain healthy ecosystems and protect both domestic and wild animal populations.

Coal burning contributes significantly to environmental degradation. Greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, released during coal combustion are major contributors to climate change. Somalia faces the consequences of climate change, including droughts, floods, and desertification (World Health Organization, 2019). These environmental changes affect agricultural productivity, water availability, and overall ecosystem resilience. In considering the environmental impact of coal burning from a One Health perspective, efforts are made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote sustainable energy alternatives to safeguard the environment and mitigate climate change (Dunmade et al., 2019).

Coal burning emits a range of harmful pollutants that pose significant risks to human health (Wang et al., 2020). Particulate matter from coal combustion, especially fine particles known as PM2.5, penetrate deep into the respiratory system, leading to respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and lung cancer. Other pollutants like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides contribute to air pollution, which is linked to cardiovascular diseases, adverse birth outcomes, and premature death. The release of heavy metals, such as mercury, during coal combustion further exacerbates health risks, particularly neurological disorders (Yu et al., 2019). A One Health perspective underscores the need to address these human health consequences and implement measures to reduce coal-related pollution, improve air quality, and promote clean energy alternatives for the well-being of the population (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2020).

Coal was not a widely used energy source in Somalia due to the country's limited natural resources and the dominance of other energy sources, such as biomass, diesel generators, and imported electricity. Coal burning is specifically done in selected districts in the Benadir region (Warsame et al., 2023). The primary sources of energy in Somalia are traditional biomass (like wood and charcoal) and imported fuel for electricity generation (Diiso et al., 2022). The triple burden of coal burning in Somalia has detrimental effects on animal welfare, the environment, and human health (Abdi, 2022). Through a One Health perspective, it becomes evident that comprehensive strategies are required to address these interconnected challenges. Mitigating the impact of coal burning on animal welfare, transitioning to sustainable energy sources, and reducing pollution to safeguard human health and the environment are essential (Warsame & Sarkodie, 2022). Policymakers, scientists, and communities must collaborate and implement multidisciplinary approaches that align with the principles of One Health.

Statement of the Problem

The burning of coal poses a triple burden on animal welfare, the environment, and human health in Somalia. The paper aimed to assess the specific effects of coal burning in Somalia from a One Health perspective, highlighting the interconnectedness of these three dimensions. The study will understand the problem and identify potential solutions by addressing the following key questions,

How does coal burning impact animal welfare in Somalia?

What are the environmental consequences of coal burning in Somalia?

What are the health risks associated with coal burning for the population of Somalia?

How can a One Health approach help in mitigating the triple burden of coal burning in Somalia?

What strategies and interventions can be implemented to reduce the adverse effects of coal burning on animal welfare, the environment, and human health in Somalia?

Purpose of the Study

The study aimed at assessing the effects of coal burning on animal welfare, the environment, and human health in Somalia from one health perspective.

The study adopted a descriptive research design. Quantitative methods of data collection were used. Under descriptive research design, the researcher used more of a survey which included self-administered questionnaires for respondents to ensure complete coverage of the study area and the study problem on the triple burden of coal burning: assessing its effect on animal welfare, the environment, and human health in Somalia from a one health perspective. The study sample was 384 respondents. The study used structured questionnaires to capture the quantitative data from residents selected districts in the Benadir region as the study area including Deynile, Kahda, Karaan, Yaaqshiid, Hiliwaa, and Dharkenley. Microsoft Excel was used for analysis. Descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages) were used to summarize the data. Qualitative data was analyzed as they emerged from the study. The analyzed data was then presented in the form of tables for easy interpretation.

The results are presented on the triple effects of coal burning on animal welfare, the environment, and human health in the Benadir region, Somalia from one health perspective.

Demographic Data

The study sought to establish the background of the respondents. The results presented included gender, age, education level, marital status as well as place of residence. this was aimed at establishing the eligibility of the respondents to participate in the study. See Table 1.

Table 1

Demographic Data
	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Gender
Male	211	55%
Female	173	45%
Age
18–24 years	96	25%
25–31 years	77	20%
32–38 years	123	32%
39–45 years	88	23%
Education level
Illiterate	153	40%
Primary	91	24%
Secondary	88	23%
University	52	13%
Marital status
Single	98	26%
Married	197	51%
Divorcee	89	23%
Place of Residence
Deynile	111	29%
Kahda	41	11%
Karaan	77	20%
Yaaqshiid	93	24%
Hiliwaa	34	9%
Dharkenley	28	7%
Environment

On the effects of coal burning on the environment, the majority 365(95%) of the respondents had seen coal burning and 209(54%) believed that coal burning did not affect the environment, animal welfare, and human health. In addition, 203(53%) held that their homes were not near coal burning areas and 1187(49%) indicated that coal burning was harmful to nature. Further, 309(80%) of the respondents held that coal burning led to droughts; 194(51%) indicated that they did not know that coal burning caused air pollution and 223(58%) held that coal-burning sites increased every year. See Table 2.

Table 2

Environment
Statement	Frequency (Yes)	Frequency (No)
Did you ever see coal burning?	365(95%)	19(5%)
Do you think coal burning affects the environment, animal welfare, and human health?	175(46%)	209(54%)
Is your home near a coal-burning area?	181(47%)	203(53%)
Is coal burning harmful to nature?	187(49%)	197(51%)
Does coal burn lead to droughts?	309(80%)	75(20%)
Do you know coal burning causes air pollution?	190(49%)	194(51%)
Did you think coal-burning sites increase every year?	223(58%)	161(42%)

The study further sought to establish how coal burning impacted the environment in your community. The majority 281(73%) of the respondents indicated that coal burning led to deforestation; 329(86%) held that coal burning did not lead to erosion while 336(87%) indicated that coal burning did not lead to loss of biodiversity. In addition, the study sought to establish the steps that had been taken in the community to address the environmental impact of coal burning where the majority 328(85%) of the respondents held that no steps had been taken in the communities to address the environmental impact of coal burning. Additionally, 341(89%) were aware of campaigns against coal-burning. Moreover, 376(89%) of the respondents held that there were no regulations on coal use and 379(99%) indicated that there was no promotion of alternative fuels. Also, the study sought to establish how willing the people in the communities switch to alternative fuels. Further, the study sought to determine how prevalent was the use of coal for cooking and heating in your community. The majority 352(92%) of the respondents held that the use of coal for cooking and heating in the community was very prevalent. The majority 287(74.7%) of the respondents indicated that the people were not very willing. See Table 3.

Table 3

Impact on Environment
Statement	Frequency (%)
Statement	Yes	No
How does coal burn impact the environment in your community?
A. Deforestation	281(73%)	103(27%)
B. Erosion	55(14%)	329(86%)
C. Loss of biodiversity	48(13%)	336(87%)
What steps have been taken in your community to address the environmental impact of coal burning?
A. None	328(85%)	56(15%)
B. Awareness campaigns	43(11%)	341(89%)
C. Regulation of coal use	8(2%)	376(89%)
D. Promotion of alternative fuels	5(1%)	379(99%)
How prevalent is the use of coal for cooking and heating in your community?
A. Very prevalent	352(92%)	32(8%)
B. Somewhat prevalent	25(7%)	359(93%)
C. Not very prevalent	5(1%)	379(99%)
D. Not at all prevalent	5(1%)	379(99%)
How willing do you think people in your community would be to switch to alternative fuels?
A. Very willing	5(1%)	379(99%)
B. Somewhat willing	14(3.6%)	370(96.3%)
C. Not very willing	287(74.7%)	97(25.2%)
D. Not at all willing	78(20.3%)	306(79.6%)
Animal Welfare

The study aimed to establish the effects of coal burning effects of animals. The majority 276(72%) of the respondents indicated that coal burning did not affect animal welfare in Somalia. Also, the study established that 301(78%) of the respondents held that coal-burning sites did not destroy the natural habitats of animals. See Table 4.

Table 4

Animal Welfare
Statement	Frequency (Yes)	Frequency (No)
Do you think coal burning affects animal welfare?	108(28%)	276(72%)
Do you think coal-burning sites destroy the natural habitats of animals?	83(22%)	301(78%)

The study further sought to establish the clinical symptoms observed in animals living in coal-burning sites. The majority 313(82%) of the respondents held that Pneumonia was a clinical symptom observed in animals living in coal burning; 319(83%) difficulty in breathing; 379(99%) indicated loss of wool was one of the clinical symptoms. In addition, the study sought to establish the types of animals most affected by coal burning in Somalia. A majority,195(51%) indicated livestock (e.g., camel, cattle, sheep, goats) was affected by coal burning; 354(92.1%) indicated no wildlife was affected; 350(91%) indicated domestic pets (e.g., dogs, cats) as most affected by coal-burning in Somalia. Additionally, the study sought to determine how aware were the people in the community of the negative impacts of coal burning on animal welfare. The majority 361(94%) of the respondents were not very aware; 201(52%) were not at all aware. Moreover, the study aimed to establish the importance of considering the impact of coal burning on animal welfare when addressing human health issues. The majority 375(98%) were not very important; 193(51%) were not at all important. See Table 5.

Table 5

**Impact on Animal Welfare**
Statement	Frequency (%)
Statement	Yes	No
What clinical symptoms are observed in animals living in coal-burning sites?
A. Pneumonia	71 (18.4%)	313(82%)
B. Difficulty in breathing	65 (16.9%)	319(83%)
C. loss of wool	5 (1%)	379(99%)
What types of animals are most affected by coal burning in your area?
A. Livestock (e.g., camel, cattle, sheep, goats)	195(51%)	189(49%)
B. Wildlife (e.g., birds, rodents, reptiles)	30(8%)	354(92%)
C. Domestic pets (e.g., dogs, cats)	34(9%)	350(91%)
How aware are people in your community of the negative impacts of coal burning on animal welfare?
A. Very aware	23(5.9%)	361(94%)
B. Somewhat aware	35(9%)	349(91%)
C. Not at all aware	201(52%)	183(48%)
How important is it to consider the impact of coal burning on animal welfare when addressing human health issues?
A. Very important	9(2%)	375(98%)
B. Somewhat important	21(5%)	363(95%)
C. Not at all important	193(51%)	191(49%)

Human Health

The study in addition, asked the respondents if they knew anyone in their household who experienced any health issues caused by coal burning. The majority 283(74%) of the respondents indicated that they or someone in their household experienced health issues caused by coal burning. On whether the urban coal burning affected the sleeping habits. The majority 353(92%) of the respondents indicate that urban coal burning affected the sleeping habits of the people. See Table 6.

Table 6

Human Health
Statement	Frequency (Yes)	Frequency (No)
Have you or anyone in your household experienced any health issues that you believe were caused by coal burning?	283(74%)	101(26%)
Does urban coal burning affect your sleeping habits?	353(92%)	31(8%)

Further, the study sought to establish how coal burning impacted the health of humans in the community. The majority 305(79%) had respiratory issues; 377(98%) indicated there were cardiovascular effects; 315(82%) had no eye and nose irritation and 381(99%) witnessed no death caused by coal burning in the community. Also, the study sought to determine the resources available in the community for treating health issues related to coal burning. The majority 367(96%) of the respondents indicated that resources were available in the community for treating health issues related to coal burning whereas 312(81%) indicated Traditional healers were available in the community for treating health issues related to coal burning although 329(86%) held that there were Local clinics or hospitals available in the community for treating health issues related to coal-burning. Moreover, the study aimed to establish how aware the community was of the negative impacts of coal burning on human health. The majority 371(97%) of the respondents were not very aware while 196(51%) were not at all aware of the negative impacts of coal burning on human health in the community. See Table 7.

See Table 7.

Statement	Frequency (%)
Statement	Yes	No
How does coal burn impact the health of humans in your community?
Respiratory issues	305(79%)	79(21%)
Cardiovascular effects	7(2%)	377(98%)
Eye and nose irritation	69(18%)	315(82%)
Death	3(1%)	381(99%)
What resources are available in your community for treating health issues related to coal burning?
None	17(4%)	367(96%)
Local clinics or hospitals	55(14%)	329(86%)
Traditional healers	312(81%)	72(19%)
How aware are people in your community of the negative impacts of coal burning on human health?
Very aware	13(3%)	371(97%)
Somewhat aware	21(5%)	363(95%)
Not at all aware	188(49%)	196(51%)

One Health Approach

The study sought to establish whether the respondents had ever heard of the one health approach. The majority of 357 (93%) of the respondents indicated that they had not heard of one health approach. See Table 8. One health approach is a holistic and interdisciplinary strategy that recognizes the interconnection between human health, animal health, and the environment. It emphasizes the collaborative efforts of various sectors, including human medicine, veterinary medicine, environmental science, and public health, to address global health challenges effectively. The approach acknowledges that the health of humans, animals, and ecosystems are intricately linked and that comprehensive solutions are required to improve overall health outcomes. The One Health approach highlights the impact of environmental factors on health. Environmental degradation, climate change, and habitat loss disrupt ecosystems and lead to increased disease transmission, as well as other health risks. In considering the ecological context and addressing environmental issues, the One Health approach aimed to safeguard human and animal health sustainably.

Table 8

One Health Approach
Statement	Frequency (Yes)	Frequency (No)
Have you ever heard of the One Health approach?	27(7%)	357(93%)

Awareness of One Health Approach

The study sought to determine the awareness of people in the community on one health approach. The majority 370(96%) of the respondents held that they were not very aware while 327(85%) were not aware at all. In addition, the study sought to how the one health approach could be used to address the triple burden of coal burning in Somalia. The majority 380(99%) indicated that the triple burden of coal burning in Somalia could not be addressed through one health approach by considering the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health. Further, 377(98%) indicated that promoting collaboration between different sectors (e.g., health, environment, agriculture) could not be addressed. Also, the study established that 378(98%) held that the triple burden of coal burning could not be addressed by developing interdisciplinary research and interventions. Additionally, 364(95%) indicated that they didn’t know how to address the triple burden of coal burning by use of one health approach. See Table 9.

Table 9

Awareness of One Health Approach
Statement	Frequency (%)
Statement	Yes	No
How aware are people in your community of the One Health approach?
Very aware	14(4%)	370(96%)
Somewhat aware	18(5%)	366(95%)
Not at all aware	327(85%)	57(15%)
How do you think the One Health approach can be used to address the triple burden of coal burning in Somalia?
By considering the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health	4(1%)	380(99%)
By promoting collaboration between different sectors (e.g., health, environment, agriculture)	7(2%)	377(98%)
By developing interdisciplinary research and interventions	6(2%)	378(98%)
All of the above	3(1%)	381(99%)
I don’t know	364(95%)	20(5%)

Prevention and Control of Coal Burning

Finally, the study sought to determine the problems associated with coal burning in Somalia. The majority 352(92%) of the respondents indicated that there was no environmental degradation; 377(98%) indicated a loss of livelihoods was not a problem associated with coal burning in Somalia. In addition, the majority 222(58%) indicated Dust problems were associated with coal burning in Somalia while 261(68%) of the respondents indicated Deforestation was not associated with coal burning in Somalia.

In addition, the study sought to determine the most pressing issue related to coal burning in Somalia. The majority 360(94%) indicated that Animal welfare was not a pressing issue related to coal burning in Somalia and 308(80%) held that environmental impact was the most pressing issue related to coal burning while 332(86%) indicated that human health was not a pressing issue related to coal burning in Somalia.

Further, the majority 269(70%) of the respondents indicated that the government should have done more to address the triple burden of coal burning in Somalia. In addition, the majority 305(79%) held that the government and community collaboration reduced the triple burden of coal burning in Somalia. Moreover, the majority 380(99%) agreed that the government failed to stop coal burning in Somalia while 287(75%) of the respondents suggested that the Somali government ban coal burning. See Table 10.

Table 10

Prevention and Control of Coal Burning
Statement	Frequency (%)
Statement	Yes	No
What are the problems associated with coal burning in Somalia?
Environmental degradation	32(8%)	352(92%)
Loss of livelihoods	7(2%)	377(98%)
Dust problems	222(58%)	162(42%)
Deforestation	123(32%)	261(68%)
In your opinion, what is the most pressing issue related to coal burning in Somalia?
Animal welfare	24(6%)	360(94%)
Environmental impact	308(80%)	76(20%)
Human health	52(14%)	332(86%)
Do you believe the government should do more to address the triple burden of coal burning in Somalia?	269(70%)	115(30%)
Did the government and community collaboration reduce the triple burden of coal burning in Somalia?	305(79%)	79(21%)
Do you agree that the government failed to stop coal burning?	380(99%)	4(1%)
Do you suggest that the Somali government ban coal burning?	97(25%)	287(75%)

The study found that coal burning negatively affected animal welfare in Somalia. The results agree with Montague et al. (2018) that Mountaintop coal mining negatively impacted human health and animal welfare. Also, agrees with Kovalcik et al., (2019) that coal-fired power plants negatively affect the bird populations in the United States. In addition, the findings agree with Duffy et al. (2017) that coal ash contamination negatively and significantly affected the amphibians in the United States. Teixeira et al. (2016) that mercury exposure had negative health effects on marine mammals in coal-burning regions in Uruguay. Moreover, the findings agree with Thorne et al. (2018) that the health effects of coal dust exposure on livestock in mining regions were adverse and widespread in England.

The study found that coal burning negatively affected the environment in Somalia. The results agree with Zhang et al. (2012) that air pollution causes health damage especially respiratory diseases in China. In addition, agrees with Guttikunda and Jawahar (2014) that atmospheric emissions and pollution from the coal-fired thermal power plants negatively affected the environment in India. Additionally, the results agree with Schreiber et al. (2012) that coal-fired power plant emissions added chemical characteristics of rainwater which affected the environment in the Lusatian region in Germany. Further, the findings agree with Yan et al. (2020) that mercury emissions from a coal-fired power plant negatively impacted the surrounding soil and vegetation.

The study found that coal burning negatively affected Human Health in Somalia. The findings agree with Pope et al. (2002) that Lung cancer and cardiopulmonary mortality were in individuals with long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. Further, the findings agree with Dockery et al. (2013) that air pollution and mortality were closely associated in six cities in the United States of America. Additionally, Chen et al. (2013) that sustained exposure to air pollution impacts the life expectancy from China's Huai River Policy. Moreover, the findings agree with Laden et al. (2006) that reduction in fine particulate air pollution and mortality: Extended follow-up of the Harvard Six Cities study. Finally, the findings agree with Lepeule (2012) that Chronic exposure to fine particles led to increased mortality rates in the Harvard follow-up Six Cities study from 1974 to 2009.

The study concludes that coal burning was rampant in Somalia and the practice affected the environment, animal welfare, and human health. In addition, the study concludes that homes were not near coal-burning areas and that coal burning was harmful to nature. Further, the study concludes that coal burning led to droughts and that coal-burning sites increased every year. The study further concludes that coal burning led to deforestation; that coal burning did not lead to erosion and that coal burning did not lead to loss of biodiversity. In addition, the study concludes that no steps had been taken in the communities to address the environmental impact of coal burning.

The study concludes that pneumonia was not observed in animals living in coal-burning areas; those animals had trouble breathing and that loss of wool was one of the clinical symptoms of coal-burning effects. In addition, the study concludes that indicated Livestock (e.g., camel, cattle, sheep, goats) and domestic pets (e.g., dogs, cats) were affected by coal burning in Somalia. Additionally, the study sought to determine how aware were the people in the community of the negative impacts of coal burning on animal welfare. Moreover, the study concludes that it was not important to consider the impact of coal burning on animal welfare when addressing human health issues.

In addition, the study concludes that the triple burden of coal burning in Somalia could not be addressed through one health approach by considering the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health. Further, the study concludes that promoting collaboration between different sectors (e.g., health, environment, agriculture) could not be addressed. In addition, the study concludes that animal welfare was not a pressing issue related to coal burning in Somalia; that environmental impact was the most pressing issue related to coal burning, and that human health was not a pressing issue related to coal burning in Somalia. Finally, the study concludes that the government should have done more to address the triple burden of coal burning in Somalia. Finally, the study concludes that the government and community collaboration reduced the triple burden of coal burning in Somalia.

Somalia should prioritize the phasing out of coal burning and shift towards cleaner and renewable energy sources. Investing in solar, wind, and hydroelectric power provides sustainable alternatives to coal-based energy generation. A comprehensive energy policy should be developed to support this transition, including incentives for renewable energy investments and stricter regulations on coal usage.

Establishing a robust air quality monitoring system is crucial to assess the impact of coal burning on human health and the environment. The government should collaborate with international organizations and experts to develop and implement monitoring stations across major cities and industrial areas. Based on the monitoring data, appropriate control measures should be enforced to reduce emissions and mitigate harmful pollutants from coal burning.

To address the negative impacts of coal mining on animal welfare and the environment, Somalia should adopt sustainable land use practices and prioritize biodiversity conservation. Strict regulations should be implemented to protect sensitive ecosystems and wildlife habitats from destructive mining activities. Additionally, reforestation and afforestation efforts help restore ecosystems and provide natural carbon sinks to combat climate change.

Raising awareness about the triple burden of coal burning and the interconnectedness of human health, animal welfare, and the environment is vital. The government, along with NGOs and educational institutions, should launch public awareness campaigns and educational programs to inform the population about the risks associated with coal burning and the benefits of adopting a One Health approach. Empowering communities with knowledge drives support for policy changes and sustainable practices.

7.0 Ethics and Consent: the ethical review committee approved our study protocol and procedures (Reference number SNU ERC-36). Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Abdi SM (2022) Effects of Charcoal Production on Environment in the Lower Shebelle Region, Somalia (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi)
Abdi SM (2022) Effects of Charcoal Production on Environment in the Lower Shebelle Region, Somalia (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi)
Chakraborty K, Chakraborty D, Mukherjee A (2017) Effects of coal mining activities on the environment. Environ Geochem Health 39(3):621–645. 10.1007/s10653-016-9852-y
Cohen AJ, Brauer M, Burnett R (2020) Estimates and 25-year trends of the global burden of disease attributable to ambient air pollution: an analysis of data from the Global Burden of Diseases Study. Lancet 389(10082):1907–2020. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30505-6
Diiso AA, Garas MM, Adan AA, Nur RA (2022) Monitoring and Evaluation of Air Quality: A Case Study of Mogadishu, Somalia. Int J Res Innov Appl Sci
Duffy DC, Garee SC, Buckler DR (2017) Assessing the effects of coal ash contamination on amphibians in the United States. Environ Pollut 230:389–399. 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.06.100
Dunmade I, Madushele N, Adedeji PA, Akinlabi ET (2019) A streamlined life cycle assessment of a coal-fired power plant: the South African case study. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:18484–18492
Finkelman RB, Wolfe A, Hendryx MS (2021) The future environmental and health impacts of coal. Energy Geoscience 2(2):99–112
Gibbs EPJ (2014) The evolution of One Health: A decade of progress and challenges for the future. Vet Rec 174(4):85–91. 10.1136/vr.102396
Guttikunda SK, Jawahar P (2014) Atmospheric emissions and pollution from the coal-fired thermal power plants in India. Atmos Environ 92:449–460. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.04.057
Jacobson MZ, Delucchi MA (2009) A plan to power 100 percent of the planet with renewables. Sci Am 301(5):58–65
Kovalcik AC, Carlson M, Tucker M (2019) The effects of coal-fired power plants on bird populations. United States Condor 121(3):1–14. 10.1093/condor/duz020
Montague TL, Evans MV, Wolf AT (2018) Mountaintop coal mining and the impacts on human health and animal welfare. Environ Sci Technol 52(15):8350–8359. 10.1021/acs.est.8b01556
Prüss-Üstün A, Wolf J, Corvalán C, Bos R, Neira M (2019) Preventing Disease through Healthy Environments: A Global Assessment of the Burden of Disease from Environmental Risks. World Health Organization; 2016. ISBN: 9789241565196
Schreiber A, Matthies M, Zetzsch C (2012) Impact of coal-fired power plant emissions on the chemical characteristics of rainwater in the Lusatian region in Germany. Atmos Res 113:67–77. 10.1016/j.atmosres.2012.04.017
Teixeira MC, Pessanha LM, Malm O (2016) Mercury exposure and health effects on marine mammals in coal burning regions. Environ Res 146:51–58. 10.1016/j.envres.2015.12.019
Thorne PS, Steinwandel KC, Christensen BC (2018) Health effects of coal dust exposure on livestock in mining regions. J Occup Environ Hyg 15(1):22–32. 10.1080/15459624.2017.1396015
Ukaogo PO, Ewuzie U, Onwuka CV (2020) Environmental pollution: causes, effects, and the remedies. Microorganisms for sustainable environment and health. Elsevier, pp 419–429
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2020) Health and environmental effects of particulate matter (PM). Accessed June 2023. https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-environmental-effects-particulate-matter-pm
Wang N, Sun X, Zhao Q, Yang Y, Wang P (2020) Leachability and adverse effects of coal fly ash: A review. J Hazard Mater 396:122725
Warsame AA, Sarkodie SA (2022) Asymmetric impact of energy utilization and economic development on environmental degradation in Somalia. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29(16):23361–23373
Warsame AA, Abdi AH, Amir AY, Azman-Saini WNW (2023) Towards sustainable environment in Somalia: The role of conflicts, urbanization, and globalization on environmental degradation and emissions. J Clean Prod 406:136856
World Health Organization (2019) Ambient air pollution: Health impacts. Accessed June 2023. https://www.who.int/airpollution/ambient/health-impacts/en/
Yan C, Nie Y, Liu Y, Xu Z, Guo S, Yang Q, Zeng X (2020) Effects of mercury emissions from a coal-fired power plant on the surrounding soil and vegetation. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27(21):26020–26030. 10.1007/s11356-020-09028-w
Yu H, Wang C, Pang L, Cui Y, Chen D (2019) Inhibiting effect of coal fly ash on minimum ignition temperature of coal dust clouds. J Loss Prev Process Ind 61:24–29
Zhang Q, He K, Huo H (2012) Health damages from air pollution in China. Environ Sci Technol 46(13):7592–7599. 10.1021/es204436v
Zinsstag J, Schelling E, Waltner-Toews D, Tanner M (2019) From one medicine to one health and systemic approaches to health and well-being. Prev Vet Med 101(3–4):148–156. 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.07.003

The authors declare no competing interests.

Photos.docx

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The Triple Burden of Coal Burning: Assessing its Effect on Animal Welfare, the Environment, and Human Health in Benadir Region, Somalia from a One Health Perspective

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Materials and Methods

3.0 Results and Findings

4.0 Discussion of the Findings

5.0 Conclusions

6.0 Recommendations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1