Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Brown john dissertation

219 views

Published on

"knowledge and practice are fundamental components whenever viewed in public health perspective" The study encompassed such components to elucidate the existence of health and environment management practices in the "demography setting" of Nyamagana, Mwanza City.

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Brown john dissertation

  1. 1. i ASSESSMENT OF DOMESTIC SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AT HOUSEHOLD LEVEL NYAMAGANA MUNICIPALITY IN MWANZA CITY, NORTHERN TANZANIA John Brown (BSc. BIO) A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF PUBLIC HEALTH (MPH) OF THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH AND ALLIED SCIENCES 2015
  2. 2. i Certification 13-10-28 10-13-2015 i
  3. 3. ii Declaration I, John Brown, do hereby declare to the Senate of CUHAS that this dissertation is my original work and that the work presented herein has not been presented to any other university for similar or any other degree award. Signature…………………………. Date.….../...…./2015 This dissertation is a copyright material protected under the Berne Convention, the Copyright Act of 1999 and other international and national enactments, in that behalf, on intellectual property. It may not be reproduced by any means, in full or in part, except for short extracts in fair dealing; for research or private study, critical scholarly review or discourse with an acknowledgement, without written permission of the School of Postgraduate Studies, on behalf of both the author and Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences – Tanzania.
  4. 4. iii Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my beloved family and supporters Albert Brown, Rose Brown, Billy Brown, Mary Brown, Hilda Brown, Jane Brown, Joel Brown and my fiancé Shania Mushi for their unending prayer, encouragement and financial support for the whole period of this study.
  5. 5. iv Acknowledgements I give thanks to the Almighty God for His love, wisdom and knowledge that has enabled me to successfully complete this research task. My heartfelt appreciation goes to my supervisors Dr Laura J. McLeod, Dr. Richard E. Scott, Mr. Daniel J. Makerere and Elias C. Nyanza for their professional guidance, timely response, constant constructive comments and their tireless motivation and moral support to accomplish this study, which would have been hard to accomplish without their assistance. I am also very grateful to Madam Shibide who helped me during data analysis. Very special thanks to Mary Enns who helped me tirelessly in polishing my research proposal and assistance in writing process. I acknowledge the City Council Director of Mwanza City for granting permission to conduct the study among households of Nyamagana Municipality. Also, I extend thanks to Razao Noémio who worked as research assistant in this study. I am greatly indebted to my family for financial support and encouragement. Many thanks are also extended to the members of School of Public Health and 2014/2015 Masters of Public Health students for their loving heart in different aspects. I pray to the almighty God to bless them all abundantly.
  6. 6. v Contents Pg. No Certification................................................................................................................................ i Declaration................................................................................................................................. ii Dedication................................................................................................................................. iii Acknowledgements................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ..............................................................................................................................x List of Figures........................................................................................................................... xi List of Plates ............................................................................................................................. xi List of Appendices ................................................................................................................... xii List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................................................... xiii Operational Definitions ............................................................................................................xiv ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................xvi CHAPTER ONE.........................................................................................................................1 1.0. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................1 1.1. Background Information...................................................................................................1 1.2. Problem Statement............................................................................................................3 1.3. Study Rationale ................................................................................................................4 1.4. Research Question............................................................................................................5 1.5. Research Objectives .........................................................................................................5 1.5.1. Broad Objective.............................................................................................................5
  7. 7. vi 1.5.2. Specific Objectives........................................................................................................5 1.6. Research Variables ...........................................................................................................6 1.6.1. Independent variables ....................................................................................................6 1.6.2. Dependent variables.......................................................................................................6 CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................................................7 2.0. LITERATURE REVIEW.....................................................................................................7 2.1. Solid Waste ......................................................................................................................7 2.1.1. Human Waste ................................................................................................................7 2.1.2. Sullage ..........................................................................................................................7 2.1.3. Municipal Waste............................................................................................................7 2.1.4. Hazardous Waste...........................................................................................................8 2.1.5. Mwanza Waste Collection and Management..................................................................9 2.1.6. Community Based Approach (CBA) to Household SWM ..............................................9 2.1.7. The Environmental (Solid Waste Management) Standard Regulations, 2002 ...............10 2.1.8. Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) Approach..............................................10 2.1.9. Household Willingness to pay......................................................................................11 2.1.10. Household Decision to waste disposal........................................................................12 2.1.11. Solid waste transportation..........................................................................................12 2.1.12. Solid waste final disposal...........................................................................................13 2.1.13. Environmental problems associated with solid waste .................................................13
  8. 8. vii 2.1.14. Household perception on effectiveness of SWM ........................................................14 2.1.15. Determinants of effective household SWM................................................................15 2.1.16. Municipal SW collection, transportation and disposal in Tanzania .............................16 2.2. Conceptual Framework...................................................................................................17 CHAPTER THREE...................................................................................................................19 3.0 METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................................19 3.1. Study setting...................................................................................................................19 3.1.1. Study area Demography ..........................................................................................19 3.1.2. Economic activities and the current WM system in Mwanza City............................19 3.2. Study design...................................................................................................................20 3.3 Study population .............................................................................................................20 3.4. Eligibility Criteria...........................................................................................................20 3.5. Sample Size and Sampling Procedures............................................................................21 3.5.1 Sample Size Estimation ................................................................................................21 3.5.2. Sampling procedures ...................................................................................................22 3.6. Data Collection Techniques............................................................................................22 3.7. Data analysis ..................................................................................................................23 3.8. Quality Assurance and Quality Control...........................................................................23 3.9. Ethical considerations.....................................................................................................24 3.10. Study Limitations .........................................................................................................25
  9. 9. viii 3.11. Data Dissemination and Knowledge translation ............................................................25 CHAPTER FOUR.....................................................................................................................27 4.0. RESULTS..........................................................................................................................27 4.1 Socio-demographic characteristics of Household members in Nyamagana Municipality..27 4.2. Period of residence in Mwanza city of the household heads ............................................30 4.3. Domestic SW generation collection and disposal............................................................30 4.4. Domestic SW generation and handling at household level ..............................................31 4.5. Knowledge of the existing Mwanza City recommendations and barriers to SWM practices 34 4.7. Willingness to pay for waste collection services in Nyamagana Households ...................38 4.7. Observation practice of SW disposal in households ........................................................40 CHAPTER FIVE ......................................................................................................................42 5.0. DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................42 5.1. Socio-demographics status of households in the Nyamagana Municipality .....................42 5.2. The knowledge of Nyamagana residents toward disposal of household SW ....................42 5.3. Common existing SW managing practice at household levels/Observed Situation of Household SWM in Nyamagana Municipality.......................................................................44 5.3.1. Attitude toward Willingness to Pay..........................................................................45 5.4. Household challenges to standard SWM practice in Nyamagana Municipality................46 CHAPTER SIX.........................................................................................................................48 6.0. CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................48
  10. 10. ix 6.1. Conclusions....................................................................................................................48 6.2. Recommendations ..........................................................................................................48 6.2.1. Recommendation for interventions ..............................................................................49 6.2.2. Recommendation for Further Research ........................................................................50 REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................51 APPENDICES ..........................................................................................................................58
  11. 11. x List of Tables Table 1. Table of socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents ....................................29 Table 2. Possession of waste collection bin, type and presence of dug hole in the compound.....30 Table 3. Weekly production of domestic SW and disposal of the waste bin/bag ........................31 Table 4. Type(s) of refuse container used in daily practices.......................................................31 Table 5. Responses regarding disposal sites for waste ...............................................................33 Table 6. Knowledge on SWM as per the existing recommendations of Mwanza city .................34 Table 7. Knowledge of waste services.......................................................................................35 Table 8. Socio-demographic variables versus knowledge and practice of WM...........................35 Table 9. Association of good SWM practices with demographic characteristics ........................37 Table 10. Challenges in WM among households in Nyamagana Municipality ...........................38 Table 11. Willingness to pay for waste collection service at home.............................................39 Table 12. Preferred amount to pay for waste collection services by households per collection over the Municipal fee for waste collection in households.................................................................39 Table 13. Observation checklist elucidating possession and real practice from households’ in waste management..............................................................................................................................40
  12. 12. xi List of Figures Figure 1: A conceptual framework on Household waste management practices, risk and benefit outcomes...................................................................................................................................18 List of Plates Plate 1-4. Popular types (plastic bins) and methods (bins and dug holes) of domestic SW disposal used by households in Nyamagana Municipality .......................................................................32 Plate 5-7. Observation of poor evidence practices of waste management from households……...41
  13. 13. xii List of Appendices Appendix I: Timeline on Research ............................................................................................58 Appendix II: Consent Form (English Version) ..........................................................................59 Appendix III: Consent Form (Swahili Version) .........................................................................61 Appendix IV: Questionnaire (English Version) .........................................................................63 Appendix V: Questionnaire (Swahili Version)...........................................................................69 Appendix VI: Observation Checklist (English Version).............................................................76 Appendix VII: Observation Checklist (Swahili Version) ...........................................................77 Appendix VIII: Environmental Solid Waste Management Act...................................................78 Appendix IX: Research Clearance Certificate............................................................................84 Appendix X: Letter of Approval for research from MCC...........................................................85
  14. 14. xiii List of Abbreviations and Acronyms BDT Bangladesh Taka CBA Community Based Approach CBOs Community Based Organizations CUHAS Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences ISWM Integrated Solid Waste Management MCC Mwanza City Council MSW Municipal Solid Waste MSWM Municipal Solid Waste Management NMC Nyamagana Municipal Council OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development PSO Private Sector Operator SW Solid Waste SWM Solid Waste Management SWMT Solid Waste Management in Tanzania TZS Tanzania Shilling URT United Republic of Tanzania WM Waste Management WTP Willingness To Pay
  15. 15. xiv Operational Definitions A municipality: an administrative division composed of a defined territory and population. Disposal site: any place/area on land on which a waste disposal facility is physically located and is the final discharge point. Environment: means physical surroundings and everything that affects an organism during its lifetime. This includes the natural environment (such as water, soil, and air) plus the built environment (like roads, buildings, machines, playing fields). Hazardous waste: waste that is dangerous or potentially harmful to our health or the environment. Household waste: a type of solid waste; specifically waste produced within the surroundings of a dwelling / house, including but not limited to; cold ashes, sweepings, dust, food scraps or waste food, food containers, food wrappers, or any other solid waste arising or resulting from domestic housekeeping operations. Human waste: waste that is excreted by the human body, e.g., faeces, sweat and urine, but also includes waste from sanitary facilities. Leachate: a liquid that, in the course of passing through matter, extracts soluble or suspended solids creating a mix of toxic and nontoxic material (e.g., rainwater passing through waste in the landfill environment) that may pose a threat to local surface and ground-water supplies. Municipal solid waste (MSW): domestic and non-domestic solid waste such as commercial, industrial and institutional wastes, street sweepings, and construction debris etc. Skip: a container owned by the MCC and made available to residents for their use as part of the council’s solid waste collection system.
  16. 16. xv Solid waste management (SWM): the application of techniques that will ensure the orderly execution of the functions of collection, transport, processing, treatment and final disposal of solid waste. Solid waste (SW): "regular" garbage or trash from industrial sources, residential homes, restaurants, retail centers, and general wastes from human activities. Sullage: waste water from household sinks, showers, and baths, but not liquid waste from sanitary activities Waste Stream: processes that waste travels through from production/generation to final disposal
  17. 17. xvi ABSTRACT Background: The enormous amounts of unmanaged solid wastes continue to be a public health problem throughout the world. Current the world’s cities generate about 1.3 billion tons of solid waste per year, and this volume is expected to increase to 2.2 billion tons by 2025. The lower income countries are expected to generate from 0.7 to 1.8 kg per capita per day. The inability of households in the growing Municipality of Nyamagana to handle and dispose of the increasing amount of waste generated in their homes is a growing problem which easily exposes people to hazards, like environmental pollution and general health concerns. This study assesses domestic solid waste management practices at the household level. The overall objectives are to know if common practices at individual households meet the standards of solid waste management in this respective area, and to examine and analyze the influence of demographics and socio-economic factors on solid waste management at the household level. Methods: This was a cross sectional study with a total population of 120 householders interviewed in Nyamagana Municipality using questionnaires and observation checklist. Data analysis was performed using STATA V11.0 after entry and cleaning in EpiData V.3.1. Pearson Chi- Square (χ2 ) and p-value of less than 0.05 was used to measure association at 95% CI. Results: the results showed only 6.7% had knowledge on Waste Management regulations of the waste management, 78.3% of householders had moderate understanding on the management of domestic waste recommendations and 18% of respondents had no knowledge of the existence of Municipal solid waste services. Level of education attained by the head of household had association in this study (p =0.04), with relation to practice of better methods of waste disposal. Also income of householders had significance in knowledge (p<0.001) and practice (p=0.04) of handling waste. Majority 71.7% of Nyamagana residents know health dangers related to poor
  18. 18. xvii waste management and 80% of the households practiced illegal waste dumping as observed in the fields. Conclusions: The residents of Nyamagana Municipality need health education, a regular supply of refuse collection facilities, emphasis on Mwanza city council’s waste management bylaw and designated dump sites in their wards. These will encourage strict adherence to proper and appropriate waste management practices among them. Keywords: Waste Management, Knowledge, Practices, Nyamagana Municipality, Solid Waste
  19. 19. 1 CHAPTER ONE 1.0. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background Information The enormous amount of unmanaged solid wastes (SW) continues to be a nuisance and a public health problem throughout the world. Currently, the world cities are generating about 1.3 billion tons of solid waste per year [1]. This volume is expected to increase to 2.2 billion tonnes by 2025 [1]. Lower income countries are expected to double the amount of waste generated in the next twenty years by an estimate of 1.8 kg per capita per day [2]. If SW is not safely collected, separated, isolated, reused, recycled, or properly disposed of it can be hazardous, even toxic, and can cause nuisance and serious health problems [3]. A World Bank report indicates that the problem is more serious in urban areas as compared to rural areas and the problem is greater in developing countries [2]. Waste management (WM) is complex because of the mass quantities of residuals produced by modern society, but also because of differences in the composition of the waste compared to the past [4, 5]. In urban settings WM is costly and requires long-term solutions, of which most African nations cannot afford the cost. This is a crucial problem due to its direct link with protection of public health, safety and the environment. In developing countries the problem is becoming an issue even in rural settings [6, 7]. In sub-Saharan Africa alone in each year, 62 million tonnes are produced with an average per capita waste generation of 1.1 kg per day [2]. In Dar es Salaam city, Tanzania, an estimated 42,000 tonnes of SW were produced per day in 2011 [6]. A substantial proportion of SW produced is poorly disposed of, creating possible risks for environmental as well as public health [9].
  20. 20. 2 Households and socio-economic centres (e.g. markets) are where most SW is produced, and create management challenges for many urban areas in the world. [23, 24]. Solid waste management (SWM) is both civic and growing rural problem. The risk of affecting humans through contaminated crops, animals, or food products is ever increasing. When SW management is not considered important by a community, public health is undermined and deterioration of environmental value begins [9]. From generation to disposal of SW, Tanzania has difficulties in monitoring and evaluating the SWM sector. This has contributed to the failure of proper waste disposal (from households, industry, commercial points, institutions, hospitals etc.), and poor separation, transportation, and final disposal at land sites in the country [10]. Mwanza City Council (MCC) has a Department of Health within which the Environmental Act, Public Health Act, waste collection and disposal sections are hosted. The departmental focus is to ensure City cleanliness in public gatherings (e.g. open-gardens, picnic areas, stadiums, conference rooms), households, markets, industries, and construction areas by emphasizing adherence to the City bylaws. The standard City Council’s waste management bylaws apply to all municipalities in Mwanza [11]. Despite the fact that Mwanza city has joined the Sustainable Cities Programme for Environmental Management, solid wastes are still poorly managed in the city both at households, markets, and disposal sites [12, 13]. The available Environmental Management Act 2014 (supplement No. 39, subsidiary legislation; environmental by-laws) and the Public Health Act of Tanzania placed a stronger emphasis on the participation of authorities and the public in WM. However, there is still an unmanageable increase in generation of waste at households (residential), dumping sites, and
  21. 21. 3 issues with transportation to final disposal sites [14]. Improper waste management has health risks. For example, plugged drains after a rain storm can cause increased flooding of drainage systems during the rainy season, with a resulting risk of malaria. Stagnant water supports breeding sites for malaria carrying mosquitoes, leading to diarrhea infections, unpleasant odors and epidemics [8]. 1.2. Problem Statement Urbanization with inadequate waste management practices, specifically, mostly disposal of waste on the road, waste dumping in drains-that cause clogging, littering waste around house and uncontrolled dump sites together with ever increase in types of waste produced, worsens the problems of low cleanliness and health levels around the African countries when it comes to waste management [4,5]. Increased urbanization and industrialization means larger volumes of solid wastes generation. Many of which are domestic, industrial and electronic in nature posing waste management challenges to towns and cities in Africa [4, 14]. Studies conducted both outside and inside Africa have worked to address many factors (types of wastes, characterization, recycling, and quantification of solid and semi-solid waste), and have identified and tested knowledge, attitude, and practices of solid waste management at all levels. Waste management is now not only an urban concern but also a growing concern in rural communities. It needs long-term solutions. Most African nations are striving to resolve the issue, but there are other problems which have a linkage with public health, safety, and the environment [6, 7]. Weaknesses in waste management approaches and techniques in the Mwanza region may be attributed to several factors. These include high population growth rates, untimed waste collection, people’s consumption behavior of food and other products, low adherence to available residential waste management procedures and practice, incomplete waste collection by collectors when
  22. 22. 4 performing their duties, and improper disposal-site management. These contribute to increased waste generation, poor management, and risk of health and environmental problems [15]. Furthermore, in relation to other public sectors it has been observed that the waste management sector has often received little attention from the governments [7]. A fair amount of scholarly work has been done on MSW collection and management in Tanzania. Most of these studies attempted to explain the quantity of waste generated, the knowledge and attitude of people to SWM, and waste recycling. There are hardly any studies to understand how households handle their domestic solid wastes in Mwanza city at the household level, and adherence to the standard regulations set by the Municipality. As a result, residential waste management practices and adherence to the established standards on waste management is not known. This study therefore seeks to address the gap between knowledge of the recommended standards and practices, and to understand how the community implements the recommended standards / bylaws of the MCC on solid waste management at the residential level. 1.3. Study Rationale Findings from this study will help the local government authority, the Ministry of Environment, and Natural Resources management to develop a holistic approach to solid waste management. Recommendations from the study will help address the many health and environmental issues arising from the currently ineffective residential SWM system. Performance data is not available, even though MCC inspects SWM practices in open areas, markets, roads, and sometimes collection points performed by private and municipal workers. In particular, findings are not well documented for household practices compared to other areas of
  23. 23. 5 the city where SW can be generated. Monitoring and the evaluation functions are still not reliable or effective [16]. Gathering data on SWM practices at households will likewise provide information to help authorities design and incorporate additional plans for sustainable SWM and implementation. Also the findings of this study will provide useful information for those working towards Tanzania achieving the Millennium Development Goal number 7 by ensuring environmental sustainability through improving environmental sanitation in residential premises. 1.4. Research Question 1. What are the practices of domestic solid waste management at the household level in Nyamagana Municipality, Mwanza? 1.5. Research Objectives 1.5.1. Broad Objective To assess household SWM practices and identify barriers to compliance with the bylaws in Nyamagana Municipality 1.5.2. Specific Objectives 1. To determine the knowledge and attitudes of Nyamagana residents toward disposal of household SW 2. To observe existing SWM practice at the household level for comparison to reported practice 3. To determine the household challenges to standard SWM practice in Nyamagana Municipality.
  24. 24. 6 1.6. Research Variables 1.6.1. Independent variables Age, sex, socio-economic status, marital status, occupation, education levels, distance to dumpsite, length of residence, Mwanza city council waste management bylaws, waste collecting equipment, type and nature of domestic SW produced, municipal and private waste collectors, . 1.6.2. Dependent variables Use of waste collection equipment, frequency of domestic SW collected daily, amount of SW generated at the household, use of municipal waste payable services, waste separation, and treatment of SW (recycling, composting and burning).
  25. 25. 7 CHAPTER TWO 2.0. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Solid Waste The nature and quantity of waste generation is basically dependant on the nature of activity, environment and even the economic status of individuals in the community. SW can be classified in respect of original use (e.g., packaging waste), material (e.g., glass, paper, or plastics), physical properties (e.g., combustible or biodegradable), origin (e.g., domestic, commercial, industrial or agricultural), and safety characteristics (e.g., hazardous or radioactive). Human and animal excreta are often classified as semi-solid waste [17]. 2.1.1. Human Waste Human wastes include waste that is excreted by the human body, and is often known as body by- products of digestion such as faeces and urine. Human waste is considered a bio-waste as it is a good vector for both viral and bacterial diseases and becomes hazardous when it gets into sources of drinking water [18]. 2.1.2. Sullage Wastewater from kitchens, bathrooms and laundries make sullage. It can contain disease-causing organisms, particularly from soiled clothing [18]. But its main health hazard occurs when it collects in poorly drained places and causes pools of organically polluted water that may serve as breeding places for mosquitoes. 2.1.3. Municipal Waste As described by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) [19] municipal waste is a combination of waste from households, office buildings, institutions and small
  26. 26. 8 businesses, yards and gardens, street sweepings, litter, and market refuse that is collected and treated by the municipalities. Municipal solid waste includes materials commonly called trash or garbage produced from human daily activities, and that originate from areas such as households (e.g., milk cartons, plastic wrap, food), city streets, and offices (e.g., newspapers, plastic bags, deteriorated furniture) [9, 5]. This category of waste generally refers to common household waste, as well as office and retail wastes, but excludes industrial, human and animal excreta, hazardous (medical), and construction wastes. 2.1.4. Hazardous Waste Hazardous waste encompasses materials that pose substantial threats to public health or the environment (e.g. products labelled: flammable, ignitable, warning, caution, poisonous, toxic, corrosive, reactive, or explosive). They could be solid or gaseous. These wastes should be considered hazardous because of their ability to cause long-term risk to health or the environment [20]. According to EPA, the concentration and the physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics of hazardous waste significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or incapacitating reversible illnesses; or pose a potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed. Hospital biomedical waste is one category of hazardous waste, which is generated during the diagnosis, treatment or immunization of human beings or animals or in testing of biological specimens [21, 22].
  27. 27. 9 2.1.5. Mwanza Waste Collection and Management In 2000 the MCC Waste Management committee (after identifying the increase in waste generation was a problem) decided to set a broad goal that read; Mwanza City should become a “Clean and attractive City through an efficient and effective system of managing solid waste”. The objectives for ensuring Mwanza became clean and attractive were (i) to enact and enforce a waste management Bylaw that governed waste management service delivery beginning at households and extending to industry, (ii) to increase the amount of solid waste collected and disposed of, and (iii) to increase community awareness of appropriate SWM. 2.1.6. Community Based Approach (CBA) to Household SWM The Community Based Approach involves primary collectors/first level collectors who are not household members. It may involve paid door-to-door collectors (scavengers) or community based organization (CBOs). This is the approach the MCC use, incorporating it into the SWM bylaws and accepting it as one way to manage waste at generation premises [25]. In the CBA approach householders have a duty to store their waste in plastic bags or other available materials, sorted according to their nature (e.g., food waste, cold fire ash, plastic and broken-glass waste), and to make that available to the door-to-door/primary/first level collectors. The CBA collectors are required to appropriately collect this solid waste from the households and dispose of it at the city’s transfer station. They get paid monthly by householders according to a fee set by the Municipality which equals TZS. 2000 (assuming the Municipality has built a transfer station near to the primary collection area). The Municipality is then responsible to collect and transfer wastes from transfer stations to the final disposal (landfill) sites [25, 26]. One challenge of this approach can be seen where households fail to pay for collectors due to personal reasons and financial difficulty.
  28. 28. 10 2.1.7. The Environmental (Solid Waste Management) Standard Regulations, 2002. The MCC and all its Municipalities perform SWM under the Environmental Management Act (Cap. 191) RE 2002 made under section 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119,120,121,122, and 230 of 2014. These Regulations are cited as the Environmental (Solid Waste Management) Regulations, and apply to all matters pertaining to SWM [50]. The regulation states that every person living in Tanzania shall have a stake and a duty to safeguard the environment from the adverse effects of SW and to inform the relevant authority of any activity or phenomenon resulting from SW that is likely to adversely affect public health or the environment. In part IV of the SWM regulations it explains that every occupier of a house, business, industry or any activity generating SW should minimize the waste at its source. Options are suggested: 1. different types or kinds of SW are separated at the source, or 2. different types or kinds of SW are collected into waste storage receptacles (equipment of specified standards, types, sizes, shapes that are easy to carry or move, and that comply with and other specifications as the case may be). Approved receptacles include: standard metal dustbins, plastic standard dustbins, plastic bags, paper bags, standard litter bins, standard containers or skips and any other recommended receptacles ideal for the locality. An occupier who fails to comply commits an offence [50]. 2.1.8. Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) Approach Integrated Waste Management (ISWM) is an approach to waste management that is most compatible with environmentally sustainable development and is one of the most recommended approaches, using various collection, transport and treatment options [17]. It refers to the complementary use of a variety of practices to safely and effectively handle MSW [27]. ISWM
  29. 29. 11 consider the 3Rs - Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. The most favorable is reduction, which suggests using less to begin with, and then reusing more, leading to saving material production, resource cost, and energy [27]. 2.1.9. Household Willingness to pay Willingness to pay (WTP) is an attributing factor toward SWM in households. A situation of payable services for waste management in was explained in a study done in Bangladesh, that about 49 % of households were willing to use a fee based waste collection system, paying BDT. 60/month for collection of their wastes (approximately TZS. 1000). The study explained income was a determinant that had positive association to paying for waste collection services. The average WTP sum was BDT. 57/month (also about TZS. 1000). Study of residents’ WTP is essential to understand a community’s attitude towards paying for waste services which can be both municipally and privately served and more likely influenced by demographic characteristic like levels of income and education toward paying for services that can be offered by municipal councils or private operators [28]. Another study done in Kampala City, Uganda on determinants of willingness to pay for SWM used the dichotomous choice contingent valuation method, The study found that age of the household head was negatively associated with willingness to pay for SWM. Other variables like household size, education and marital status were not significantly associated with the WTP for improved SWM, and the study suggested that there was only a small chance of success if SW collection service charges were introduced. The study suggested a better way was for the government to concentrate first on awareness campaigns about the consequences of waste mishandling, and then the benefits of payment for proper waste management, before building up to a plan for SWM [29].
  30. 30. 12 2.1.10. Household Decision to waste disposal Waste disposal is connected to how people decide to do with their waste with respect availability of facilities. A study in Makelle, Ethiopia determined factors that influence household waste disposal decision making. Results showed that the presence of waste facilities significantly affects waste disposal choice. Inadequate of waste containers and longer distances to these containers increased the probability of waste dumping in open areas and roadsides relative to the use of communal containers. Insufficient financial resources limited the safe disposal of waste in well- equipped collection points and sanitary landfills [30]. 2.1.11. Solid waste transportation Proper SW manageable techniques requires any country to have access to well monitored transportation of waste from generation to final disposal site. Waste transportation problem is not seemingly found in African countries alone, a study in Mymensingh Municipal area, Dhaka on SWM practice explained that among the waste management issues in the study area, a major issue was lack of sufficient, available, and reliable transport vehicles for waste management. Other issues also existed: lack of knowledge about SWM, lack of adequate budget for waste management, and an absence of solid waste treatment plants. Although the Municipality provided 7 garbage trucks, 140 driving vans, 1 beam lifter, 18 pushcarts, 1 chain bulldozer, and 2 pickup cars it was concluded these were inadequate to meet the desired waste management needs of people in Dhaka [31]. Other issues have been identified in Kolkata, India, Iran and in Kenya. Collectively they suggested that waste collection, transfer and transport problems in SWM are the result of improper bin collection systems, poor scheduling, poor communication on collection-transport schedules,
  31. 31. 13 insufficient infrastructure, miserable roads, and a lack of vehicles for waste collection and transfer to disposal dumpsites or landfills [32, 33, 34]. 2.1.12. Solid waste final disposal A study in more than thirty urban areas in 22 developing countries including Dar es Salaam, Tanzania showed that most disposal sites in the studied cities in developing world countries were open dumps with no leachate treatment. Distances to the official disposal sites from the city centres ranged from 3 to 50 km. The studied cities also faced the problem of illegal disposal of waste in rivers, oceans, lakes, drainage channels, open space, and roadsides. Waste management was positive and successful where the municipal leaders or decision makers were interested in environmental and solid waste management issues. Finally, the study found that supply of equipment and improved infrastructure are necessary for an efficient system [35]. 2.1.13. Environmental problems associated with solid waste Inappropriate solid waste disposal is a major threat to the environment of developing countries since most of the solid waste generated in developing countries ends up directly in open dumps that are uncontrolled and become overloaded [36]. Atmospheric pollution by SW from landfill emissions, and leachate pollution of waters, decreases the aesthetic value of an area, and is associated with environmental problems [37]. Methane released into the atmosphere through anaerobic degradation of waste material in open dumps is a significant contribution to greenhouse gases (GHG) that is 20 times more potent than CO2 in trapping the Sun’s heat [23]. Also, the quality of potable water is degraded by leachate flow together with methane gas entering water sources. According to two studies [23, 36], on the global
  32. 32. 14 scale about 8-11% of anthropogenic GHGs are from garbage dumps and landfills, and are an emerging environmental concern of MSWM [38]. Waste such as plastic SW, can undergo breakdown process into plastic debris which can be either land-based ( 8%) or ocean-based (e.g., from sewage, tourism, fishing, and waste from ships and boats – flotsam and jetsam). The land-based sources include trash that comes from wind or water flow that flushes trash from streets, sidewalks, gutters, sewer overflows, solid waste disposal sites and landfills, and can eventually end up in rivers, oceans, or lakes. For example data from Sesini [39] shows the North Pacific Ocean, with a surface area 8,095,000km2 , has a particle density of 25,000 pieces/km2 , and 20,240 tons of plastic, which pose a critical health and environmental concern. They can lead to entanglement of marine fauna, plastic ingestion, transport of species to non-native waters, beach pollution, and concentration and transport of toxic chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) compounds [40]. 2.1.14. Household perception on effectiveness of SWM People’s perception significantly have a role on SWM despite having facilities in a community. A studied in Ojo, Nigeria explained peoples’ perception toward household SWM. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to assess practices and public perception on the effectiveness of SWM. Socio-economic profile (income and education of respondents) had a significant positive association with peoples’ perception of SWM services. Those with high or moderate income perceived waste as a problem that needed to be dealt with by the public. Only 13% of the respondents had no formal education, and the remaining 87% with some education perceived SWM as a necessary action in the community because of its health and environmental impacts. No association of gender (being male or female) influenced perception or attitude to waste management [41].
  33. 33. 15 The study further went to explained that in Ojo poor access to private waste collectors was being addressed as a means to encourage people to dispose of their household waste properly, and not on streets, the surrounding neighborhood, or unplanned dumps. The study concluded that inadequate service organization and untimely waste collection posed concerns in this particular area, and suggested several ways to tackle the problems. First, raise governmental emphasis and use of modern waste management strategies (i.e., reduce, re-use, recycle), at every level of government (i.e., from regional to local). Second, building awareness and re-educating householders on waste sorting and minimization, including training and orientating household waste generators to help in the success of SWM [41]. 2.1.15. Determinants of effective household SWM Effective participatory is a key element to improve in SWM that requires a coalition of individual, public and private partnership approach. It basically begins from households and primarily depending on their demographics. A study conducted in Ambo, Ethiopia on determinants of effective household SWM practices examined the demographic, socio-cultural, and institutional factors that determine the effectiveness of SWM practice at the household level, and the service delivery performance of private solid waste collectors. The study suggested feasible solutions in order to improve local household SWM practices. A multi-stage sampling technique was used to recruit 200 households for interviews and focus group discussions. The descriptive findings reflected that plastic, paper, and ashes comprised most household generated waste [42]. The study found an association between household earning and waste production. Despite householders possessing temporary storage points in their home, waste was not stored separately and disposing of waste in unauthorized sites by Ambo residents was commonly practiced. The inferential statistical analysis showed that household level of education, location (distance from
  34. 34. 16 main roads or town center), sex, willingness to pay for waste services, awareness of solid waste management and access to private waste collectors’ services were key determinants of effective household SWM. Furthermore, analysis explained that manpower, budget, and waste collection facilities (adequate vehicles, reliable containers, waste gown and gloves) are major determining factors of effective SWM at the household level [42]. 2.1.16. Municipal SW collection, transportation and disposal in Tanzania The history of Solid Waste Management in Tanzania (SWMT) started in Dar-es-salaam when the city engaged in the Sustainable Cities Sanitation Program in 1992 [43]. From then on, the SW management program was adopted by other municipal authorities. In Mwanza; specifically in Nyamagana Municipality, the program was officially activated in 1998 after Mwanza city engaged in the Sustainable Cities Program [44]. However, after this initiative Mwanza’s engagement decreased continually from 1998 due to less funding and budgeting for WM by the city, resulting in people’s participation level also dropping. It was not until 2000, when a newly enacted City Council bylaw to enforce waste management was introduced, that the situation improved again. Introducing the participation of PSO as a solution to waste collection and disposal helped [11]. Inadequacy of SW collection in most municipalities in growing cities and regions in Tanzania was due to possessing less-efficient collection techniques that, in turn, resulted in incomplete collection of all generated waste. This evidently results in more dumpsites, and abandoned garbage being deposited in the city streets areas and in open-residential areas. These become breeding sites for disease carrying organisms like houseflies and mosquitoes [7]. A study in Deir el Balah, Gaza Strip explained that a MSWM system requires collection from the source and transportation to operational points [45]. Once there, the waste is either turned into
  35. 35. 17 useful substances like 'refuse-fuel’, recycled, disposed of, or used to generate electrical energy by burning. The problem with solid waste collection and transportation is its high operational cost. The findings suggested that major grounds for failure are long distances to main roads, poor design of the routes or infrastructure, and scattered location of collection points [45]. Furthermore a study done in Ilala Municipality, Dar es Salaam to understand MSWM system showed that Ilala had faced similar problems comparable to those encountered in Middle East; lack of a strategic plan for waste collection at center locations, and expensive vehicle routes and vehicle maintenance that caused cost over-runs of government budgets [46]. 2.2. Conceptual Framework Figure. 1 present a frame on household WM practices, risk and benefit outcomes based on the above literature review. The conceptual framework was designed to lead to guidance for developing study variables, preparation of research tools (questionnaires and observation checklist), and expected analysis. As it has been explained above, SW are generated from different sources such as from industries, institutions, health centers, commercial operations, households, and the like. However, this particular study focused on the flow of SWM generated from households. The middle circle (Figure. 1) indicates current poor practice (left hand side), and potential solutions and mechanisms by which to ensure the benefits (right hand side). Where proper household SWM is performed (outer circle, right hand side) then public and environmental health are protected, when proper household SWM is disregarded, then negative outcomes ensue (outer circle, left hand side) [28, 31, 42].
  36. 36. 18 Figure 1: A conceptual framework on Household waste management practices, risk and benefit outcomes. Most of the attributes have been adopted from different authors [28, 31, 42]. Determinants: Socio-economic context of households
  37. 37. 19 CHAPTER THREE 3.0 METHODOLOGY 3.1. Study setting Nyamagana Municipal Council (NMC) is one of seven districts of the Mwanza region. In Mwanza City it is one of two Municipal Councils, the other being Ilemela Municipal council. Nyamagana, which is located on the southern shores of Lake Victoria in Northwest Tanzania, covers an area of 1,337 km2 of which 900 km2 (68%) is water. The Municipality is warded into Pamba, Isamilo, Nyamagana, Mkuyuni, Butimba, Igogo, Mirongo and Mbugani which are urban based wards. Mkolani, Buhongwa, and Igoma are in rural based wards. The Municipality is currently expanding fast, it is older of the two present municipalities in Mwanza with larger number of residents, and the nature of waste generated demand keen attention by the Municipal council 3.1.1. Study area Demography The Sukuma tribe is the main ethnic group in the Mwanza region and NMC. There are some migrants from other regions of Tanzania, as other tribes and sub-tribes from bordering regions move in and settle, mostly for economic and occupational motives like trading, industry, agriculture, day-working, and petty business. According to a 2012 census, the population of NMC was 363,452 [47]. 3.1.2. Economic activities and the current WM system in Mwanza City Residents rely mostly on commercial activities, artisanal fishing, small scale farming and employment in public and private sectors. Industrio-agricultural activities pre-dominate with greater than 100 small to large scale manufacturing and processing industries.
  38. 38. 20 Most of the generated city waste from homes, institutions, schools, markets, food canteens, and other municipal wastes are collected at the ward collections points by the municipality workers and waste PSO along the roads. The waste is then dumped at Buhongwa dumpsite on the outskirts of the city, a non-fenced and open landfill for which the City Council has plans to transform into a modern sanitary landfill [48]. 3.2. Study design This was a cross sectional study using a questionnaire (completed in face-to-face interviews), and an observation checklist to evaluate solid waste handling and disposal by households in Nyamagana Municipality (completed by the field researchers). 3.3 Study population The target area of the research was Nyamagana Municipality. The study population was home residents, as the study concentrated on the solid waste management at households. 3.4. Eligibility Criteria Inclusion criteria: i. Member of the household who is responsible for disposing of household waste ii. Provided informed consent to participate. Exclusion criteria: i. All non-Nyamagana residents who, by chance, were found in sampled households in this study. ii. Non-residential buildings (offices, schools, business points, health centres) iii. Anyone who was too ill to participate
  39. 39. 21 iv. All workers, private and municipal who were responsible for collecting waste at homes 3.5. Sample Size and Sampling Procedures 3.5.1 Sample Size Estimation The number of households drawn from each street/slum was determined based on the size of the ward in Nyamagana. The sample size for the number of households in the study was determined using the following formula [49]. PQZNd PQNZn 22 2 )1(   Where:- n = sample size of housing units P = Housing unit (residential houses) Q = Non-residential houses (offices, schools, etc.) = 1-P N = Total number of housing (living homes) Z = Standardized normal variable and its value that corresponds to 95 % confidence interval=1.96 d = Allowable marginal error (+/-0.05) From the current data on municipal survey, [48], there are about 48,000 housing (N): from these about 92% (P) are households and 8% (Q) are non-residential.
  40. 40. 22 n = 48,000(1.96)2 × (0.92) (0.08) = 112.8 (0.05)2 (47, 999) + (1.96)2 (0.92) (0.08) From this formula, N = 113 is the minimum sample size for dependable results. To ensure an adequate sample, an addition of 120 homes was made after an assumed attrition of 6%. 3.5.2. Sampling procedures The study was done using a multi stage sampling technique as follows: First stage: The 12 wards in Nyamagana served as the sampling frame from which 6 wards were selected in Nyamagana Municipality based on the presence of high number of population using simple random sampling procedure. The 6 selected wards were namely; Mkolani, Mbugai, Isamilo, Buhongwa, Igoma and Nyegezi. Second stage: 4 residential streets were selected from each ward using a simple random sampling technique which provided a total of 24 streets. Third stage: By a simple random sampling, employing random number table; the first household in each residential street was selected and the households were subsequently followed alternatively until all the households were exhausted. 3.6. Data Collection Techniques The data were collected from 120 households, through the use of two different tools with help from a research assistant. A structured questionnaire survey, using open- and closed-ended questions, and an observation checklist were used by research assistants to collect socio- demographic and waste management data from the respondents. An observation checklist was prepared to describe the existing facilities in the neighbourhood such as the presence refuse bins, illegal dumps, illegal burning of waste and waste management
  41. 41. 23 strategies in place like presence and use of compost pit outside were observed. The observation gathered information on what exactly was happening as far as SWM is concerned at Nyamagana Municipality, i.e. it did not rely on reported data. The digital camera was used to take photographs of the existing setting in the field, especially in the housing near collection points, dumpsites, streets skips and refuse bins. 3.7. Data analysis Quantitative data, collected from households through the structured questionnaire were analyzed by using computer software STATA V.11 after entry and cleaning in EpiData V.3.1. Descriptive statistics (percentage, frequency, mean and standard deviation as a central tendency and measure of dispersion) were used to describe basic features of the data. Socio-economic status of the household was assessed by using Social Economic Wealth Quintile (SEWQ) which were scored for most affluent, less affluent, poor and poorer whereby the highest quintile was used considered for the most affluent and lowest quintile represent the poorer [56]. Standard descriptive analyses were carried out using means and standard deviations for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables, and inferential statistics were used to assess the relationships between the respondents’ waste handling practices at their households and socio-economic characteristics using chi-square (x2 ). A 95% CI and p-value of less than 0.05 have been used to test statistical significance. 3.8. Quality Assurance and Quality Control i. The questionnaire used were pre-tested in three randomly selected wards in Ilemela Municipality households before being used in the actual research study to check for error, clarity, and reviewed by the researcher.
  42. 42. 24 ii. To avoid confusion among study respondents, the questionnaires were translated into simple, understandable Swahili language (common language of communication) and later back translated into English again to ensure appropriate translation. iii. The research assistant was recruited prior to the commencement of the actual study and received basic training on how to administer the questionnaires. Training also included SW observation and camera documenting. iv. Ensuring the accuracy of data entry by double entry. In the double-entry procedure, data from field for each day were entered into the database twice and then compared to determine whether there were any discrepancies. 3.9. Ethical considerations Ethical clearance was sought from the joint CUHAS/BMC ethics and review committee, for approval before starting the research. Permission to conduct the research was also sought from the relevant Mwanza City Council Authority and the City Director who provided permission for research to take place in the area. A written informed consent (written in Swahili – the primary language of the majority of the population in Tanzania) explained to participants the purpose of the study, the right to either participate or decline and to withdraw at any time, and measures taken to protect confidentiality prior to collecting data. For participants who could not read, the study was clearly explained to them and asked to thumb print to indicate acceptance as part of the consent process. An impartial witness was present during the informed consent process to ensure the participant was not coerced and had autonomy in the decision making process to engage as a respondent. Informed consent was sought when beginning the questionnaire. All participants were informed
  43. 43. 25 that they could withdraw from the study at any time. Coding was used for the respondents. This code was used in place of their name on the corresponding questionnaire. The key that links the number code to a household was kept locked by the researcher, and destroyed after final acceptance of the thesis. 3.10. Study Limitations  Generalisability. This study focused on only households in urban areas of the MCC, and therefore are not generalizable to practices in rural or more affluent areas.  Participation bias. People who do a good job managing their waste may have been more likely to agree to participate, and people with more education and income may have been more interested in participating.  Administrative misperception. Some household members might have misperceived the study as an administrative inspection with legal ramifications and punishment. This possibility was minimized by the explanatory approach taken to convince potential participants that the study was not administrative.  Observation bias. Participants may have changed their household waste disposal behaviour when being watched. 3.11. Data Dissemination and Knowledge translation The findings of this study will be presented to the Directorate of Postgraduate Studies of the Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences (CUHAS), School of Public Health. The findings of this study will also be printed, replicated and submitted to the CUHAS library after being review and approval by the School of Public Health. The Mwanza City Council authority, department of Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources will receive an executive summary
  44. 44. 26 of the key points and recommended actions in order to disseminate the study insight quickly. In addition the study will be submitted for publication through an online peer reviewed health journal.
  45. 45. 27 CHAPTER FOUR 4.0. RESULTS 4.1 Socio-demographic characteristics of Household members in Nyamagana Municipality A total of 120 questionnaires were administered and ascertained the SWM practices in place. Six wards were selected from Nyamagana City Council both in city center streets and peripheral to the city center. Respondents were from six wards; Isamilo (12.5%, n=15), Mbugani (12.5%, n =15), Nyegezi (16.6%, n =20), Mkolani (25%, n = 30), Igoma (16.6%, n=20) and Buhongwa (16.6%, n=20). All household members approached agreed to participate in the study; the socio- demographic data of the respondents included age, marital status, education levels, tribe, household size, ownership of housing, occupation and length of residence in Nyamagana Municipality. Most respondents were within the age range 18-25 years (35.8%), minimum and maximum ages were 18 years and 64 years respectively. The proportion of males and females most responsible for SWM was 32.5% and 67.5% respectively. Forty eight (40%) of the respondents completed primary school, forty one (34.2%) studied secondary education, nine (7.5%) had vocational training, and twelve (10%) had higher education (e.g., college or university). Ten respondents (8.3%) had no formal education. Household socio-economic status (SES) was measured using Social Economic Wealth Quintile (SEWQ) based on ownership of properties such as, radio, bicycle, television, livestock, or motor bicycle; access and affordability of services such as solar power, electricity circuited house, main source of drinking water, source of cooking energy; and also on type of roofing and flooring of the house. Individuals who possessed livestock, motor bicycle, television, access to electricity, access to tap water, cement flooring and iron-sheet roofing scored 2 marks for each item and service, while those who owned radio, bicycle, use public tap water, firewood cooking energy, roofing
  46. 46. 28 made out thatch scored 1 mark in checking the household wealth quintile. A total score check of more than 13 were considered most affluent, between 9-12 were considered to be less affluent, 4- 8 poor and 0 –3 were considered poorer. Majority of respondents’ households had poor income (n=49, 40.8%) and less affluent status (n=34, 28.3%) and only 16 (13.3%) were in the most affluent category.
  47. 47. 29 Table 1. Table of socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents Variable Frequency (n=120) Percentage (%) Age in years <25 43 35.8 25-29 26 21.7 30-34 15 12.5 35-39 15 12.5 40+ 21 17.5 Gender Male 39 32.5 female 81 67.5 Marital Status Single 39 32.5 Married/Cohabiting 75 62.5 Divorced/widowed 6 5 Education Level No formal education 10 8.3 Primary education 48 40 Secondary education 41 34.2 Vocation training 9 7.5 University 12 10 Household size (in numbers) 1-3 42 35 4-6 40 33.3 7+ 38 31.7 Occupation of householder House wife 27 22.5 Crop cultivation and livestock keeping 8 6.7 Business+ entrepreneurship 46 38.3 Artisanal fishing 30 25 Government job 9 7.5 Tribes Sukuma 45 37.5 Nyamwezi 8 6.7 Jita 12 10 Haya 12 10 Others(Zinza and Chagga) 43 35.8 House ownership Independent house 51 42.5 Rent house 69 57.5 Socio-economic status (based on asset ownership) Most affluent 16 13.3 Less affluent 34 28.3 Poor 49 40.8 poorer 21 17.5 Family size <3 42 35 4-6 40 33.3 7> 38 31.7
  48. 48. 30 4.2. Period of residence in Mwanza city of the household heads Of the 120 respondents, 15 (12.5%) had less than 1 year of residence in Mwanza City, although most (58; 48.3%) had lived in Nyamagana Municipality of Mwanza City for more than 10 years. Those with 2-5 years (n = 25) or 5-10 years (n = 22) of residence represented 20.8% and 18.3%, respectively. 4.3. Domestic SW generation collection and disposal Most of the household heads (n=87, 72.5%) responded that they have a waste collection bin in their homes, only 33 (27.5%) responded that they did not have a waste collection or refuse bin in their homes. Of those who responded that they possessed a waste collection bin for domestic waste disposal, the main type owned were plastic buckets (43.3%); sacks and paper boxes as alternatives to use in domestic waste disposal represented 29.2% and 27.5% respectively and 65 had a dug hole and 55 did not. The most common types of SW produced by households were food wastes and vegetable and fruits peels (88.3%) while other wastes were scarcely produced as mentioned by households. Table 2. Possession of waste collection bin, type and presence of dug hole in the compound Collection bin Freq (n= 120) % Possession of waste collection bin at home Yes 87 72.5 No 33 27.5 Type(s) Plastic bucket 52 43.3 Plastic Sacks 35 29.2 Paper boxes 33 27.5 Waste thrown in a dug hole on the property Yes 65 54.2 No 55 45.8 Most common type of domestic SW discarded Food waste and Vegetable and fruit peel 106 88.3 Nylon and polythene 4 3.3 Ashes 2 1.7 Broken bottles and metals 3 2.5 Paper and rags 3 2.5 Rubber materials 2 1.7
  49. 49. 31 4.4. Domestic SW generation and handling at household level Majority of the respondents produced less than a bin of domestic SW (n=45, 37.5%), 33 (27.5%) of the respondents produced two bins of waste and 26 (21.7%) were those who produced greater than two bins in a week. Fifty one of the respondents responded mother’s as the person who emptied waste bucket relative to those who said fathers, children and housemaid (9.2%, 6.7%, and 11.7% respectively). Other respondents mentioned anyone (30%) could empty the waste bin. Table 3. Weekly production of domestic SW and disposal of the waste bin/bag Weekly produce of Domestic SW Freq (n=120) % < a bin (bucket) 45 37.5 One bin 16 13.3 Two bins 33 27.5 Others (>two bins) 26 21.7 Person who empty waste Father 11 9.2 Mother 51 42.5 Children 8 6.7 Housemaid 14 11.7 Anyone 36 30 Daily practices on domestic SW disposal (Table 4) show majority use plastic buckets (38.3%) compared to other types (boxes, metal drum) on daily basis. Also a big number of respondents use polythene bags for daily disposal of domestic SW (29.2%) and only very few use baskets and metal drum, 2.5% and 1.7% respectively. Table 4. Type(s) of refuse container used in daily practices Type Freq (n=120) % Nylon and polythene bags 35 29.2 boxes 2 1.7 baskets 3 2.5 Plastic bins 46 38.3 Metal drum 2 1.7 Others (wrecked trolley, abandoned sink) 32 26.7
  50. 50. 32 Plate 1-4. Popular types (plastic bins) and methods (bins and dug holes) of domestic SW disposal used by households in Nyamagana Municipality (Source: Field physical observation 2015)
  51. 51. 33 Table 5. Responses regarding disposal sites for waste Practices Freq (n=120) % Waste disposal in public pit Do throw waste in public pit 27 22.5 Do not throw waste in public pit 93 77.5 Throw waste on road, drain system, gutters Do throw 7 5.8 Do not throw 113 94.2 Taking waste bin to the public dump Yes 37 30.8 No 83 69.2 Waste collector/picker from house to disposal site Yes 31 25.8 No 89 74.2 Dumping of immediate domestic SW Pit within compound/open dumping 45 37.5 Neighborhood compound dug hole 13 9.5 Compound bin 33 27.5 Throw on roads 7 5.8 Anywhere 22 21.5 Knowledge Does private sector organisation collect SW in your area Yes 18 15 No 72 60 Not sure 30 25 Presence of Waste collection service offered by the Municipality Yes 40 33.3 No 80 66.7 Is PSO better than the Municipal authorities Yes 3 2.5 No 27 22.5 Not sure 90 75 Presence of any open dumpsite around home Yes 29 24.2 No 91 75.8 Separation of domestic SW by category of waste Yes 39 32.5 No 81 67.5 Awareness of health risks related to poor management of waste Aware 86 71.7 Unaware 34 28.3
  52. 52. 34 Waste separation was done by only 39 respondents (32.5%), whereby these households performed separation of waste by setting apart combustible and non-combustible material, and recyclable materials such as glass, metal cans, newspapers, boxes etc. into a separate container from biodegradable waste. Of the 86 who were aware of risks, 61 listed possible health dangers such as: airborne disease, bilharzia, epidemic diseases, tetanus, wounds and injury from broken glass and metals, skin disease, UTI, Cholera, diarrhea, flu and chest infection. 4.5. Knowledge of the existing Mwanza City recommendations and barriers to SWM practices The table 6 below shows the proportion of respondents from households who had good knowledge, moderate, and no/low knowledge of the recommended bylaws. Only 8 (6.7%) knew of the existence of the city’s bylaw, knew the bylaw operates under environmental management act, knew the penalty fee for irresponsible waste management and mentioned one of the bylaw section that are stated in the Mwanza City by laws on WM. Majority of respondents (n=94, 78.3%) had moderate understanding of the management of domestic waste recommendations. They only knew the existence of Municipal set bylaw “about wastes” but could not know if poor management of domestic SW can be penalized. Eighteen (15%) respondents had no knowledge of the existence of MSW bylaw, penalty fee and could not mention any section of the by-law. Table 6. Knowledge on SWM as per the existing recommendations of Mwanza city Freq(n=120) % know bylaw (legislation) + know penalty Good knowledge 8 6.7 Moderate |knowledge 94 78.3 No knowledge 18 15
  53. 53. 35 Table 7. Knowledge of waste services Freq (n=120) % waste/dump site close to your home + waste collection service offered by the Municipality Well informed of the services 11 9.2 Partial knowledge 47 39.2 Doesn’t know 62 52 Total 120 100 Table 7 above show the majority of people are not aware of the presence of the dump site and waste collection services that exist in their ward. Table 8. Socio-demographic variables versus knowledge and practice of WM. Knowledge Practice Age (years) Good Moderate No χ2 p-value Good Moderate Poor χ2 p-value n n <25 3 38 6 8 37 2 25> 5 56 12 0.3 0.8 10 55 8 1.79 0.41 Level of education No formal education - 6 4 - 8 2 Primary education 5 37 6 8.8 0.19 6 40 2 9.8 0.04 Secondary education 2 32 7 8 27 6 Post-secondary education 1 19 1 4 17 - Occupation House wife 2 21 4 3 20 4 Farmer 0 8 0 5 3 0 Business and entrepreneurship 4 34 10 5.2 0.74 9 33 6 13.1 0.11 Government job 1 7 1 - 9 - Others 1 24 3 3 25 - Family size <3 56 30 6 56 30 7 4-6 2 34 4 8.5 0.07 7 31 2 5.2 0.03 7> 6 30 8 6 31 1 Economic Status Most affluent - 13 3 1 15 - Less affluent 5 16 13 31.3 <0.001 4 26 4 12.4 0.04 poor 3 45 1 13 32 4 poorer - 20 1 - 19 2
  54. 54. 36 Table 8 above shows the effect of age, education, occupation and family size in knowledge and practice of waste management. The Pearson chi-square (χ2 ) tests were used to compare dependent variables with a set of independent variables. The knowledge and practice of respondents were compared with age, education level, occupation and family size of respondents. Most variables had no significant correlation but only education, economic status and family size of respondent’s had significance in WM practice alone and not knowledge. The present study also shows that, good practices of solid waste management had strong association with education levels (primary and post-secondary) p=0.0051 and 0.0031 respectively, family size: small and large p=0.0018 and p=0.0016 respectively, awareness of the WM bylaws (No knowledge) at p <0.0001, social economic status (p <0.0001), while occupation had no association with good practices (Table.9).
  55. 55. 37 Table 9. Association of good SWM practices with demographic characteristics Characteristic Good WM practices Odds p-value OR 95 % CI** p-value** Education level No formal education - - - - - Primary education 6 2.1 3.67 1.62 ̶ 19.2 0.0051 Secondary 8 0.55 - - - Post-secondary 4 3.62 0.001 5.57 1.52 ̶ 19.11 0.0031 Family size <3 56 2.67 0.029 0.62 0.32 ̶ 2.60 0.0018 4-6 7 1.32 - - - 7> 6 5.6 1.68 0.64 ̶ 4.42 0.0016 Awareness on the bylaws Good 8 0.50 0.000 - - - Moderate 94 2.59 - - . No Knowledge 18 17.58 0.15 0.07 ̶ 0.30 <0.0001 Economic status Most affluent 1 0.43 0.001 - - - Less affluent 4 2.59 0.11 0.05 ̶ 0.24 0.0761 poor 13 11.2 0.36 0.18 ̶ 0.73 <0.0001 poorer - - Occupation Housewife 3 0.13 0.2016 0.05 0.04 ̶ 0.41 0.5153 farmer 3 0.6 0.12 0.06 ̶ 0.24 Business and entrepreneurship 9 0.3 - - - Government job - - - - - - Others(fishermen) 3 0.12 0.04 ̶ 0.39 0.5011 **Adjusted estimates
  56. 56. 38 4.6. Challenges encountered by household in proper management of their waste Almost a third of respondents responded said that they face challenges in managing their domestic SW. Those who faced challenges mentioned (Table 10) the ones they personally face in their areas and neighborhood. Table 10. Challenges in WM among households in Nyamagana Municipality List of challenges mentioned Unpleasant decomposing waste odor/air pollution Carrying waste to dumpsite Delay waste collection services/waste pilling at home Random throw of waste by neighbors/waste scattering by road hawkers Stray animals (dogs, chicken, cats) dismantle waste Collection system not good/no waste collectors Environmental pollution/waste thrown into trenches No dumpsite 4.7. Willingness to pay for waste collection services in Nyamagana Households The table below (Table 11) show total willingness to pay for waste collection services in Nyamagana, All individuals were ready to pay for waste collection services in Nyamagana, and most were ready to pay individuals than any other services that can be offered in the community, followed by Private Sector Organisation (PSO) and few were ready to pay the Municipal authorities to provide services to waste management in their neighborhood
  57. 57. 39 The table below show respondents willingness to pay by age group with their preferences of who to pay. Table 11. Willingness to pay for waste collection service at home (n) % of respondents willing to pay for waste collection at households Age Municipality PSO (8) 34.8 (2) 8.7 (3) 13 (3) 13 (7) 30 Individual CBOs Others (2) 66.7 - - - (1) 33.3 <25 (8) 44 (17) 35.4 (3) 18.6 25-29 (4) 22 (15) 31.3 (3) 18.8 30-34 (1) 5.6 (5) 10.4 (3) 18.8 35-39 (3)16.7 (6) 12.5 (2) 12.5 40+ (2) 11 (5) 10.4 (5) 31.3 μ 3.6 4.6 9.6 3.2 0.6 SD+/- 2.7 2.4 5.9 1.1 0.9 * μ=mean Table 12. Preferred amount to pay for waste collection services by households per collection over the Municipal fee for waste collection in households Amount in TZS/= Frequency (n=29) % 100-500 11 37.9 600-1000 9 31 1100-1500 - - 1600-2000 7 24.1 2100-2500 2 6.9 Total 29 100 Of those respondents who recognized (n=29) waste collection as a payable service as they have been paying the Municipal and some other private sectors an amount of TZS. 2000-3000/= per month for services, most were willing to pay only the lower amounts of TZS. 100-1000/= per
  58. 58. 40 collection to receive a home collection service. Fewer (9; 31%) were ready to pay larger sums TZS. 1600-2500/= for these services. 4.7. Observation practice of SW disposal in households Most of the respondents (n=88, 80%) practiced illegal dumping despite reporting they have dustbins in their property or take waste to the dumpsites, and many households practiced indiscriminate burning of SW (n=62, 56.4%) in their property and beside the street roads. Table 13. Observation checklist elucidating possession and real practice from households’ in waste management Observation Freq (n=110) % Composite pit in backyard and Yes 29 26.4 No 81 73.6 Illegal dumping Yes 88 80 No 22 20 Waste bin with a lid Yes 55 50 No 55 50 Evidence of indiscriminate burning of SW Yes 62 56.4 No 48 43.6
  59. 59. 41 Plate 5-7. Observation of poor evidence practices of waste management from households (Source, Field Observation 2015)
  60. 60. 42 CHAPTER FIVE 5.0. DISCUSSION 5.1. Socio-demographics status of households in the Nyamagana Municipality The preponderance of female respondents (67.5%) in this study reflects the higher level of interest and responsibility for waste management showed by the female gender as reported in a qualitative study of preference for household tasks including WM [51]. This study also revealed that a fairly large number of the respondents had primary school education 48 (40%), those with secondary education were 35 (29.2%) and just 10 (8.3%) had no formal education, an indication of a low level of educational status. This is comparable to the work done [52] on household knowledge of SW segregation in Urban Kampala which showed that only 30.5% had attained primary education. Consequently, the assumption that low attained education can cause poor WM knowledge was not the case in this study, those with primary, secondary and post- secondary education were more homogenous in their levels of knowledge on how to manage with respect to the regulations of Mwanza City bylaw of waste management. This could be explained that level of education attained by the head of household have no effect in this study (p =0.19) on the impacts with respect to knowledge of SWM at household level. 5.2. The knowledge of Nyamagana residents toward disposal of household SW Furthermore the findings of this study does not line to the findings in Nigeria [53] that showed high level of knowledge 254 (90%) of WM could be explained by the generally high educational status of respondents [54] that was stated significantly associated (p=0.04). Majority of respondents with primary education were found at home and consisted mostly of women (67.5%),
  61. 61. 43 this can define that women take care of most chores related to home, emptying the garbage bin and ensuring waste is collected or dealt with other methods of WM. Family size had an association and was significant in how SW is managed by households. Households with large number of members and those with few members had no difference in knowledge (p=0.07) regarding waste management. The significant was on practice (p=0.03,); in relation to family size, an increase in number of occupants means members can divide chores dealing with how they separate, and dispose of the waste to keep their property clean. Also good practices was significantly associated with number of house members for small and larger families (OR=0.62, p=0.0018 and OR=1.68 p=0.0016) respectively. The findings of this study does not go in line with the results found in Ethiopia [42] where there was no significant relationship between amount of SW generated and effective management at household level with respect to family size. Post-secondary educated respondents are significantly more likely than those with no and primary education to practice better methods of waste dispose (p= 0.04, OR=5.57) in their houses. This study is compared to the study done by Adogu [54] where it showed educated respondents were significantly more likely than the less educated to dispose of waste through composting and incineration and the less educated were more likely to dispose of refuse by illegal open dumping, burning and burying. The study also found that the economic status of household is associated with knowledge (p=<0.0001) and practice (p= 0.04,) of WM management in Nyamagana Municipality. Those who are well off can have access to and pay for services and have equipment necessary for waste disposal available in their homes and are therefore able to manage their waste to meet the standards per Mwanza city bylaws on WM. Whereby the poorer (p=<0.0001, OR=0.36) cannot practice
  62. 62. 44 better management of SW due to lack of resources, services and poor habitation. The findings are compared to a study in Ethiopia [42] that households earning higher monthly income disposed of their wastes in a legal way than lower income earner households, however in that study researcher ascertained that higher income earner had ability to pay for private waste collectors at higher costs than the lower income group although this was not a significant correlation in this present study. 5.3. Common existing SW managing practice at household levels/Observed Situation of Household SWM in Nyamagana Municipality The selected sample household heads were also asked whether they had waste collection material (temporary storage) at home, 87 (72.5%) respondents replied as having temporary storage. With regard to the kind of storage they used, 52 (43.3%) of the respondents said they used plastic buckets/bins for disposing their domestic SW. Despite the respondents’ reporting having the waste bins, observation data show only half of the observed households (n=55, 5%) had waste bins with a lid and used them. The most popular methods of immediate waste disposal known and practiced by the respondents were open dumping (37.5%) followed by using dust bin (27.5%) while the least used method was throwing waste on roads (5.8%). Also observation from field showed most household practice illegal dumping of waste (n=88, 88%); this could be explained by behaviors and habits of most slum area dwellers, unplanned areas and lack of waste storage equipment. Open dumping remains the simplest and the most commonly preferred method for disposing MSW in most low to middle income communities in Tanzania, and nearly, only 40% of generated waste end up in official designated landfills while the rest are littered on roads, open spaces and disposed in trenches [54]. Well engineered facilities like Sanitary landfills (with liners, leachate, gas collection and collection/ treatment systems) are now used by high income countries to ensure the protection of
  63. 63. 45 human health and the environment [54]; however this is not the case in most parts of Tanzania where people can initiate a dumpsite that is not legally set by the City or Municipal authorities, and usually occur as open dumps from pre-existing hole (created from sand burrowing activities, valleys or water erode land or even on a blocked road) into which waste could be deposited [54]. In Mwanza, some of these open pits are located near residential housing and house members use them and therefore represent a threat to human health like provide harbourage for diseases causing organisms, bacteria, insects, and rodents and destroy the environment. Similarly a study done in South Africa found that out of the 5 million tons of waste produced daily, only 5% is disposed of in proper sites, which means that most of the waste in that country is deposited in environmentally unsafe sites [55]. A large number of the household respondents had awareness of WM health dangers due to improper disposal of domestic waste. This aligns with the study carried out in Nigeria which showed that respondents in the university area of Ogbomso had awareness of poor waste management health risks, as 82.0% agreed that waste disposal into drains, roads and around the surroundings is unhealthy and can be disastrous to health [53]. 5.3.1. Attitude toward Willingness to Pay The data on table 9 above clearly shows most or all household members were willing to pay for the improvements of SWM at household level which is in line with a study done in Ethiopia [42], where 98.4% in that study were ready to improve waste collection services at homes by voluntary paying for waste collection and dumping service. Gender, education levels and age of the household head had no correlation with the willingness to pay for SWM in that study. Similarly findings on determinants of willingness to pay for improved household SWM in Kampala City found age having a negative association to willingness to pay. This study also found majority of
  64. 64. 46 household heads are ready to pay “individual workers” who roam around homes and “Private Sectors” (Table 11) if the service is provided regularly and pay is per collection, compared to municipal or any other workers [29]. The reported practices disagreed with what was observed in households. Most people who said they have waste collection equipment did not really have, or if available it was not monitored well and left the surroundings contaminated (bad odor, attracted vector insects, spills) and not valuable for other use. Illegal dumping and indiscriminate burning of waste were practices by most people, n=88 and n=62 respectively. This shows that proper WM is not practiced as reported by the households. Respondents’ fear that this research was from municipal inspection could have led people providing wrong information regarding what they usually practice, despite explanations by the researchers. 5.4. Household challenges to standard SWM practice in Nyamagana Municipality Tanzania is one of the developing countries in which residences are constructed without formal structures, houses specifically in slum areas, and this has presented challenges to waste collection by the municipalities and private waste service providers [7]. Physical challenges such as inadequate infrastructure including roads, sanitary facilities (skips, waste receptacles, waste carrying trucks, bulldozers, designated ward collection points) and drains have made the situation detrimental. The growth of residences in Nyamagana has mostly been in slums, thus contributing to the challenges of household WM, yet the designated waste receptacles and dumpsites do not expand as fast to meet the needs of people around the areas. At the household level where there is daily waste generation, the behavioral practice and attitude of household are accustomed to improper disposal of waste. Another challenging issue is Municipalities have not paid attention to waste
  65. 65. 47 management compared to other problems in the country, for example education and health. Likewise there has been no major public outcry about the problem though people are living in areas surrounded with waste.
  66. 66. 48 CHAPTER SIX 6.0. CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1. Conclusions The study considered the waste management practices among households in Nyamagana Municipality. It looked at the socio demographics of respondents, and their knowledge and practices (both surveyed and observed) towards waste management. The study found that knowledge (including the regulations of 2002 Environmental Act and penalty fee) and practice on SWM had no significant association with gender, age, and occupation compared to other study settings. Also income levels, education, family size and socio-economic status of respondents were significantly associated with good practices. Majority of the residents in the 6 wards that were studied understood that there were health risks if domestic waste is not properly managed, yet there was evidence from direct field observation that despite the fact they knew the risks, their houses’ environments were unclean and exposed them to health dangers and poor environmental conditions. Moreover most householders are not aware of the boundary of their practice and those which are to be done by the municipality. The lack of clear association between some socio-demographic versus knowledge and practice in this study can be due to the homogeneity of the population as it sampled only the slums of Nyamagana in Mwanza city. 6.2. Recommendations Proper waste disposal management is essential to sustain healthy living conditions in any environment. Households in Nyamagana should strictly adherence to appropriate WM practices (use recommended dustbins, dispose waste in designated areas, apply SW treatment techniques which involves separation, reuse and avoid indiscriminating burning of waste that will help
  67. 67. 49 insulate the inhabitants from detrimental and hazardous environmental conditions and improve the living standard of people. In order to achieve SWMT function effectively, proper SWM strategies are essential. Yet at this time proper strategies of SWMT (including source reduction, separation, compositing, waste minimization, waste re-use, waste burning and sanitary land filling) have not been successfully employed by most wards surveyed in this study in Nyamagana Municipality., of which should be introduced and practiced from major source who are households. To improve this situation, several recommendations can be made: 6.2.1. Recommendation for interventions 1. Education The Government of Tanzania, through state ministries of Health and Environment and MCC, could facilitate education of the population, especially on environmental management behavior, with an emphasis on waste handling practices and the WM regulations of 2002. Public health education of households could include specific information on the effect and health dangers of poor WM practices, both to human wellbeing and the environment. Options available include: Options available include: leveraging available technology (radio, televisions, newspapers), providing public seminars, and informing environmental health projects. In addition, incorporating health oriented practices as a subject in the primary and secondary school educational curriculum would improve the knowledge of WM practice among the community.
  68. 68. 50 2. Waste Management Practices The Government, together with the MCC, could improve WM practices and population health and safety by ensuring waste collection services are easily available and accessible for every household in the community. This would include providing means of waste collection (wheel barrow, serviced trucks, collection bags, bulldozers) from collection points and skips to the final dumpsite. This would help to reduce the common practices of open dumping, road and drain dumping by individuals that causes environmental pollution of neighborhoods. The waste management authority of the MCC should also encourage Private Sector Participation (PSP). This would provide firm services and fixed affordable costs for collection and transfer of household waste to nearby dump sites. Alternatively, or in addition, a progressive Mwanza city health and environmental department might consider designing and implementing a process to identify and register individuals by Wards to provide waste collection services to homes. 6.2.2. Recommendation for Further Research Further research should be done to determine health promotion strategies which can be useful to sensitize the community in hygienic and appropriate waste management system to support the municipal effort in Nyamagana, Mwanza. The result of this proposed study will hopefully add to proper engagement techniques of household to have a clean and healthy Nyamagana.
  69. 69. 51 REFERENCES 1. Cointreau SJ. Environmental Management of Urban Solid Wastes in Developing Countries: A Project Guide (Urban Development Technical Paper, No 5). World Bank, Washington D.C. 1982. 2. Hoornweg D, Bhada-Tata P. What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management. World Bank, Washington, DC. 2012. 3. Conant J, Fadem P. A community guide to environmental health. Hesperian Foundation, Berkeley, California, USA. 2008. 4. Achankeng E. Globalization, urbanization and municipal solid waste management in Africa. In Proceedings of the African Studies Association of Australasia and the Pacific 26th Annual Conference. October 2003. 5. Mwanza B, Phiri A. Design of a waste management model using integrated solid waste management: A case of Bulawayo City Council. International Journal of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, 2013;5(2):111-118 6. Breeze R. Municipal solid waste management in Dar es Salaam; Draft baseline analysis. World Bank, Oct 2012. 7. Mungure JM. Governance and Community Participation in Municipal Solid Waste Management, Case of Arusha and Dar es Salaam Tanzania (Doctoral dissertation, Aalborg University). 2008. 8. Momoh JJ, Oladebeye DH. Assessment of awareness, attitude and willingness of people to participate in household solid waste recycling programme in Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria. Journal of Applied Sciences in Environmental Sanitation, 2010;5(1):93-105.
  70. 70. 52 9. Medina M. Globalization, development, and municipal solid waste management in third world cities., 2002. Tijuana, Mexico: El Colegio de la Forntera Norte,199. 10. Fiehn H, Ball J & Novella P. Integrated waste management. Background Research paper produced for the South Africa Environment Outlook Report Pretoria: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, 2005. 11. Faty P, Mwanga J, Shimoda M. Tanzania Osaka Alumni (TOA): Best Practices Handbook, 2012. Regional administration and Local Government. Prime Minister’s office. 12. Johannessen L M, Boyer G & Mundial B. Observations of solid waste landfills in developing countries: Africa, Asia and Latin America, 1999. In Banco Mundial Working paper series (Vol. 3). 13. Kironde J L & Yhdego M. The governance of waste management in urban Tanzania: towards a community based approach. Resources, conservation and recycling, 1997 21(4), 213-226. 14. Okot-Okumu J. Solid Waste Management in African Cities – East Africa. Chapter 1. In: Waste Management - An Integrated Vision. Eds. Luis Fernand, Marmolejo Rebellon. InTech, Rijeka, Croatia. October 2012. 15. Bandya T. Role of Nyamagana Municipal Council in Solid Waste Management, 2012. Department of Natural Resources Management. University Dodoma. 16. The united republic of Tanzania National Audit Office. A performance audit on the management of solid waste in big cities and regions of Tanzania, 2009. Arusha, Dar es Salaam, Mbeya and Mwanza.
  71. 71. 53 17. White PR, Franke M, Hindle P. Integrated Solid Waste Management: A Life Cycle Inventory. Blackie Academic & Professional, Glasgow. 1995. 18. Wisner B, Adams J. Environmental health in emergencies and disasters: a practical guide. World health organization. 2002. Chapter 8: Sanitation, pp127-147. 19. OECD. Factbook: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics.2011-2012 20. Yhdego M, Vidal RV, Overgaard CM. Planning of disposal sites in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania—A decision support system approach. Waste management & research, 1992;10(2):141-152. 21. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Introduction to hazardous waste identification, solid waste and emergency response, 2005. (5305W) EPA530-K-05-012. 22. Pariatamby A, Tanaka M. Municipal Solid Waste Management in Asia and the Pacific Islands. Springer Singapore. 2014. 23. Cointreau S. Declaration of principles for sustainable and integrated solid waste management. World Bank, Washington, DC. 2001. 24. Bolaane B, Ali M. Sampling Household Waste at Source: Lessons Learnt in Gaborone, 2004. Waste Management and Research pp142-148. 25. De Kleine A, Streifel S, Ju Kim E, Riordan M, Savescu C. Community based pilot project on solid waste management in Khulna City: general project description. Washington DC, World Bank. Washington, DC: World Bank. 2000. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2000/08/1764499/community-based-pilot- project-solid-waste-management-khulna-city-general-project-description
  72. 72. 54 26. Rahman M., Salequzzaman M., Bahar M., Uddin N., Islam A., & Al Hrun, A. Y. People’s perception of the existing solid waste management of Khulna City Corporation (KCC) Area, 2005: A case study of participatory management. In Proc. National Workshop for REGA and CDM Awareness & Motivation under the ADB PREGA Project, Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies, Khulna Rahman 27. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management In The United States: 2002. EPA530-R-99-021. 28. Bhattarai R. Household behavior on solid waste management: A case of Kathmandu Metropolitan City. In Proceedings of 2nd World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists, Monterey, 2002. University of California, California (Vol. 23). 29. Niringiye, A. Determinants of willingness to pay for solid waste management in Kampala city. Current Research Journal of Economic Theory, 2010.,2(3), 119-122. 30. Tadesse T, Ruijs A & Hagos F. Household waste disposal in Mekelle city, Northern Ethiopia. Waste Management, 2008. 28(10), 2003-2012. 31. Mian M M, Paul, A K, Alam M. D, Rasheduzzaman M & Saifullah A S M. Solid Waste Management Practice in Mymensingh Municipal Area, Bangladesh. 2013; Journal of Environmental Science and Natural Resources, 5(2), 193-198. 32. Hazra T, Goel S. Solid waste management in Kolkata, India: Practices and challenges. 2009, Journal of Waste Management 29, 470–478. 33. Moghadam MRA, Mokhtarani N, Mokhtarani B. Municipal solid waste management in Rasht City. 2009; Iran Journal of Waste Management 29, 485–489.

×