The Challenges Of Solid Waste Management In Urban Environment: A Case Study Of Kansanga Parish, Makindye East Division, Kampala City.

ABSTRACT

Solid waste (garbage) is increasingly becoming a big problem in many cities of the world and

Kansanga Parish in Makindye East Division- Kampala City is no exception. This report is from a

study that looks at the nature, practices, challenges, and possible solutions for garbage

management systems at community level in Kansanga Parish, Makindye East division. The study

places emphasis on domestic waste. This is because in Kansanga Parish this category generates

substantial amounts of solid wastes with considerable indiscipline.

The study has used mainly a case approach in which questionnaires and face to face interviews

were adopted to collect data. The findings suggest that in Kansanga Parish, poor communities

could generate income from waste disposal activities if certain measures are put in place.

Furthermore, within this division, 67% of the garbage is biodegradable, composed mainly of

food related wastes. Non degradable wastes constitute 33%, of which the main component was

polythene bags commonly known as buveera.

The findings showed that a good part of the communities is currently use illegal methods of

using disposal. This includes burning of and opens space dumping. Among the challenges facing

waste management is the inactivity of institutional framework to support and mobilize for

effective waste disposal. As a result there is little community effort to reduce on the problem. It

was also established that existing income opportunities from garbage are not fully utilized.

The different waste types will need diversified approaches; institutional capacity at community

level is still a maj or challenge, successful community waste management programmes will need

to entail income generation and sensitization of community should be given more attention. The

communities’ they suggested the following solutions: sensitization, community work, and

reviving envirom~ental committees. The study recommended the following: composting,

converting garbage to energy, sensitization, and building strong institutions at grassroots levels.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION i

APPROVAL

DEDICATION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS v

LIST OF TABLES X

LIST OF FIGURES xi

LIST OF ACRONYMS Xii

DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS xiii

ABSTRACT Xiv

CHAPTER ONE 1

INTRODUCTION 1

1.1. Background of the study 1

1.2. Problem statement 3

1.3 Objectives of the Study 3

1.3.1 General objective 3

1.3.2 Specific objectives of the study 3

1.4 Research questions 4

1.5 The scope of the study 4

1.6 Conceptual framework 5

1.7 The significance of the study 6

V

CHAPTER TWO .7

LITERATURE REVIEW 7

2.1 The types and nature of solid waste that are generated 7

2.2 The methods and facilities used in the collection and disposal of solid wastes 9

2.3 The key actors and their roles in management of solid waste 9

2.4 The challenges that key actors experience in solid waste management 10

2.4.1 Inadequate Coverage 11

2.4.2 Operational inefficiencies 11

2.4.3 Hazardous wastes 12

2.4.4 Human health risks Issues 12

2.4.5 Environmental issues 13

2.5 The community initiatives of overcoming/solution of challenges of solid waste

management 13

2.5.1 Waste Reduction 14

2.5.2 Integrated approach 15

2.5.3 Recycling 15

2.5.4 Composting 16

2.5.5 Dumping 17

2.5.6 Incineration 17

CHAPTER THREE 19

METHODOLOGY 19

3.1.Thestudyarea 19

vi

3.2. The study population.19

3.3 Research design 19

3.4 Sample size and Sampling procedures 20

3.5 Data collection instruments 21

3.5.] Questionnaire 21

3.5.2 Interview Schedules 21

3.5.3 Focus group Discussion 2]

3.5.4 Observation checklist 2]

3.6 Validity and Reliability of research instrument 22

3.6.1 Validity of instrument 22

3.6.2 Reliability of instrument 22

3.7 Data processing and analysis 22

3.7.] Qualitative data analysis 22

3.7.2Quantitative data analysis 23

3.8 Research limitations 23

CHAPTER FOUR 24

FiNDINGS, INTERPRETATIONS, ANALYSING AND PRESENTATION OF bATA 24

4.0 INTRODUCTION 24

4:1 Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents 24

4.].] Age distribution of the respondents 24

4.1.2. Gender ofrespondents 24

4.1.3 Number ofpeople per household 25

4.1.4 Settlement status of the respondents 26

VII

4.2 Solid waste characteristics and management system 26

4.2.1 Solid waste types generated 26

4.2.2 Methods used to store solid waste at household 28

4.2.3 Methods ofsolid waste disposal 29

4.2.4 Method and Approaches used to manage waste in Kansanga Parish 30

4.2.5 Availability ofcentral collection point 31

4.3 Key Actors in solid waste management 31

4.4 Challenges/problems faced in solid waste management 32

4.4.1 Delay in collection 33

4.4.2 Lack ofproper dumping sites 34

4.4.3 Pollution 34

4.4.5 Insi4jicientJiinds allocated to SWIVI 34

4.4.6 Very old and absolute facilities 35

4.4.7 Lack ofmanpower 35

4.5 Coping strategies used to minimize the challenges facing solid waste management 35

4,5.1 Carrying daily to Kansanga central collection point 36

4.5.2 Burning 37

4.5.3 Digging dumping pits and composting 37

4.5.4 Creating awareness through sensitization 37

4.5.5 Purchase offood with minimum waste 37

4.6 Policies in place to improve Solid Waste Management and their implications 37

4.6.1 Abolishing the use ofpolythene bags 38

4.6.2 Burning waste 38

VIII

4.6.3 Disposal on the skz~s on trucks.38

4.6.4 Fines and notices 38

4.6.5 Assigning specific days for general cleanliness example “keep Kansanga parish clean

day” 39

CHAPTER FIVE 40

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 40

5.0 TNTRODUCTION 40

5.1 Summaries of major findings 40

5.2 Conclusions 41

5.2.]. Types ofSolid Waste 4]

5.2.2 Common Methods Used and Practices 4]

5.2.3 Problems and Challenges 42

5.2.4 Community Solutions 42

5.3 Suggestions/recommendation made to improve on the solid waste management 43

REFERENCE 45

APPENDICES 49

APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE 49

APPENDIX 2: INTERVIEW GUIDE 55

APPENDIX 3: OBSERVATION CHECKLIST 57