Table of Contents page

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. iv

List of Figures.............................................................................................................................................. v
LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................. vi
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER ONE ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Objectives of the study............................................................................................................ 7
1.3.1 General Objective ...................................................................................................................... 7
1.3.2 Specific objectives ...................................................................................................................... 7
1.4 Research questions .................................................................................................................. 7
1.5 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................................ 7
1.6 Scope of the Study ................................................................................................................... 8
1.7 Limitations of the Study ......................................................................................................... 8
1.8 Organization of the Study ...................................................................................................... 9
Chapter Two .............................................................................................................................................. 10
2. Literature Review ................................................................................................................................. 10
2.1 Concept and Definition ......................................................................................................... 10
2.1.1 Concept of Solid Waste ............................................................................................................ 10
2.2 Review of Theoretical Literature ........................................................................................ 11
2.2.2 Quantity, Composition, and Characteristics of Municipal solid waste ............................... 11
2.2.3 Sources and types of municipal solid wastes.......................................................................... 12
2.2.4 Municipal solid waste and its Generation rate ...................................................................... 13
2.2.5 Storage of solid waste ............................................................................................................... 14
2.2.6 Functional elements of solid waste management program................................................... 16
2.2.7 Importance of a Sound Municipal Solid Waste Management ............................................. 20
2.2.8 Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management Approach ................................................ 21
2.3 Review of Empirical Studies ................................................................................................ 25
2.3.1 Municipal solid waste management in developing countries ............................................... 25

i|Page
 2.3.2 Solid Waste Storage Container and Municipal Solid Waste Management towards
Ethiopian and International Solid Waste Management Standards ………………..................... 27
2.3.3 Income and municipal solid waste management ................................................................... 28
2.3.4 Problems of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Ethiopia ............................................ 29
2.4 Conceptual Framework of the Study .................................................................................. 30
Chapter Three ........................................................................................................................................... 32
3. Research Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 32
3.1 Description of the Study Area ........................................................................................... 32
3.1.1 Location .................................................................................................................................... 32
3.1.2 Area, Topography, and Climate ............................................................................................. 34
3.1.3 Demographic Characteristics.................................................................................................. 34
3.2 Research Design ................................................................................................................. 35
3.3 Sample Size and Sampling Techniques ............................................................................ 35
3.4 Sources of Data ................................................................................................................... 37
3.5 Instruments of data collection........................................................................................... 37
3.5.1 Questionnaire ........................................................................................................................... 37
3.5.2 Interview ................................................................................................................................... 38
3.5.3 Observation .............................................................................................................................. 38
3.5.4 Document Analysis................................................................................................................... 38
3.6 Method of Data Analysis ................................................................................................... 39
CHAPTER FOUR..................................................................................................................................... 40
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................... 40
4.1 Socio-Economic and Demographic Characteristics of Sample Households ................. 40
4.2 Existing Status and Spatial Coverage of Municipal Solid Waste Management........... 43
4.2.1 Opinion and Awareness of households on solid waste with respect to Rules and
regulation, proclamation and standards ......................................................................................... 44
4.2.2 Households’ Perception concerning the Current Solid Waste Management Service ........ 49
4.3 Primary solid waste storage at household level ................................................................ 50
4.3.1 Solid Waste Reduction Practices at the household level....................................................... 53
4.4 Accessibility of Communal Solid Waste storage Containers, Collection and
Transportation Service in NSLSC............................................................................................. 55
4.5 Education and segregation of solid waste ......................................................................... 65
4.6 Distance of solid waste storage container (skip-point) and Health threat ..................... 68

ii | P a g e
 4.7 Factors Affecting Municipal Solid Waste Management Service in Nefas-Silk Lafto
Sub-city ........................................................................................................................................ 71
4.7.1 Lack institutional coordination............................................................................................... 72
4.7.2 Financial constraint ................................................................................................................. 72
4.7.3 Social Factors ........................................................................................................................... 73
4.7.4 Lack of public awareness and attitudes ................................................................................. 74
4.4.5 Lack of Adequate Rules and Regulation, Standards and Proclamation Implementation 74
CHAPTER FIVE ...................................................................................................................................... 76
5. CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATION .................................................................................... 76
5.1 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 76
5.2 RECOMMENDATION ..................................................................................................... 78
References ............................................................................................................................................... Vviii
Appendix 1 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Vii

iii | P a g e
List of Tables
Table 2.1. Assumed population and household composition for 2012………………………….29

Table 3.1: Total number of households and sample size of respondents for questionnaire ......... 36

Table 4.1: Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of respondents…………………...41

Table 4.2: Frequency distribution of level of priority of SWM service compared with other
municipal services….……………………………………………………………………44

Table 4.3: Number of households who pay fee for SWM service of government ....................... 45

Table 4.4: Number of households who had awareness or education about solid waste
management at the household level .............................................................................................. 46

Table 4.5: Number of households who knows the rules and regulations, proclamation and
standards of SWM in NSLSC ....................................................................................................... 47

Table 4.6: Respondents who know throwing waste in street or roadside or water bodies attract
punishment in the form of fine...................................................................................................... 48

Table 4.7: Actions that households preferred to take actions someone throwing waste
illegally…………………………………………………………………………………………..49

Table 4.8: Households perception to evaluate the state of solid waste service ............................ 50

Table. 4.9: Households who has been separated decomposing waste and non-decomposing
waste before disposing of …….………………………………………………………………… 53

Table 4.10: practice of integrated SWM among different average monthly income groups ...... 54

Table 4.11: Spatial coverage and distribution of containers and the number of MSE in
NSLSC………………………………………………………………………………………….. 56

Table 4.12: Availability of solid waste storage container............................................................. 57

Table 4.13: Households who have a say or participation in deciding the location/ placement of
the public container ..................................................................................................................... 588

Table: 4.14: Perception that households dispose of solid waste which generates daily ............... 59

iv | P a g e
Table 4.15: frequency distribution of households who found communal solid waste storage
container ........................................................................................................................................ 61

Table 4.16: Incidents that households have ever noticed in and/or around an overflowing a
container ........................................................................................................................................ 62

Table 4.17: perception that households were given the situation of solid waste in their
residential area .............................................................................................................................. 63

Table 4.18: The number that households served by private MSEs for SWM service .................. 64

Table 4.19: Households who has been satisfied by the service rendered by such private MSEs..65

Table 4.20a: Education and segregation of waste ......................................................................... 66

Table 4.20b: Education and segregation of waste ........................................................................ 66

Table 4.21: Measures of association of container distance and people who suffer from any
disease ........................................................................................................................................... 69

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 Waste hierarchies......................................................................................................... 22

Figure 3.1. Map of Nefas-Silk Lafto Sub-City .............................................................................. 33

Figure 4.1. Percent of type of materials that households use to store solid waste……………... 52

Figure 4.2: Illegal dumping of Solid waste nearby open spaces and rivers……………………..60

Figure 4.3: Partial view of segregated materials that were placed on the left side
decomposable and on the right side non-decomposable ............................................................... 68

Figure 4.4: Partial view of the distance between a container, and residential houses and
utilities........................................................................................................................................... 71

v|Page
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AACBPA: Addis Ababa City Beautification and Park Agency

AABFED: Addis Ababa Bureau of Finance and Economic Development

ACIPH: Addis Continental Institute of Public Health

CSA: Center of Statistical Agency

EPA: Environmental protection Act

GPS: Global Positioning System

Ha: Hectare
� : Kilometer Square
HEW: Health Extension Workers

HHs: House Holds

IGNIS: Income Generation &Climate Protection by Valorizing Municipal Solid Wastes in a

Sustainable Way in Emerging Mega-Cities

ISWM: Integrated Solid Waste Management

MSE: Micro and Small Enterprises

MSW: Municipal Solid Waste

MSWM: Municipal Solid Waste Management

NSLSC: Nefas Silk Lafto Sub-city

SHHs: Sample House Holds

SWM: Solid Waste Management

UNEP: United Nations Environmental Program

UN-Habitat: United Nation Habitat

WHO: World Health Organization

vi | P a g e
 Abstract

This thesis aimed at assessment of current municipal solid waste management practices and
problems with particular emphasis to storage practices and container location in Nefas-silk
lafto sub-city. Besides, the study had also specific objectives such as the existing status and
spatial coverage of municipal solid waste management, the solid waste storage practices at
household level and the locations of solid waste storage containers (skip points) in terms of
accessibility and health threat to the community of Nifas-silk lafto sub-city in line with
Ethiopian National Solid Waste Management Standards and other relevant international
standards. The researcher used mixing quantitative and qualitative methods, and to select the
target population systematic random sampling was employed. A total of 201 respondents were
used in the study. Consequently, to accomplish the objectives, both primary and secondary
data sources were used. The primary data were collected via questionnaires, interviews, and
field observations. Whereas the secondary data were extracted from different published and
unpublished materials. The findings of the study revealed that the current municipal solid
waste management service in the sub-city is provided below the required quality or has a poor
status in terms of usage of containers and its spatial coverage. According to the survey results,
lack of institutional coordination among urban planners, the place of skip points were highly
exposed to health threat, lack of standard household waste storage bins for the purpose of
segregation of waste for each type at household level, lack of awareness raising and
community participation priority for locating a skip point, and very weak enforcement of rules
and regulation, standards and proclamation are some of the problems that account for poor
municipal solid waste management service delivery in the sub-city. Finally, the study mainly
suggest that, such measures alleviate the problems of municipal solid waste management: by
creating driving motives into the community to use integrated sustainable solid waste
management strategies by promoting public-private partnership, and creating effective
institutional coordination with urban planner consultants in the area of municipal solid waste
management in general and skip point location in particular.

vii | P a g e
 CHAPTER ONE

1. INTRODUCTION
Solid waste is part of the day to day life of human beings all over the world. The term municipal
solid waste (MSW) is generally used to describe most of the non-hazardous solid waste from a
city, town or village that requires frequent collection and transport to a processing or disposal site.
It includes predominantly household waste (domestic waste) with sometimes the addition of
commercial wastes collected by a municipality within a given area (UNEP, 2009).

As Bernstein (2004) explained, Municipal Solid waste Management (MSWM) refers to the
collection, transfer, treatment, recycling, resource recovery, and disposal of solid waste generated
in urban areas. MSWM is a major responsibility of local governments and a complex service
involving appropriate organizational, technical, and managerial capacity and cooperation from
numerous stakeholders in both the private and public sectors.

Besides, waste management is a “value chain” which includes the collection, treatment, reuse, and
disposal and recycling of various waste streams that provide economic incentives that allow for
the private sector to be an effective partner in environmental management, given an enabling
the environment for private sector investment in waste management activities (UN-habitat, 2014).

In more affluent cities, the management of municipal solid waste is high. In fact, countrywide
average rates of waste generation in most industrialized countries lie between 0.8 and 1.4 kg per
person per day, and they manage it efficiently. Contrarily, in developing countries, the average
generation rate is more likely to be in the range of 0.3 to 0.5 kg per person per day, but the way to
handling and managing of solid waste has been low and still remains inadequate (Dong et al.,2005;
Open Wash, 2016).

However, managing Municipal Solid Wastes (MSW) is increasingly becoming a major challenge
in many cities of developing countries because of increment in population growth and rapid
urbanization. As a result of this, municipalities in a city, particularly in developing countries,
spend 20- 50% of their available budget on SWM and serve less than average inhabitants (Memon,
2010). On the other hand, developing countries face a difficult situation as local governments have
neither the funds for acquiring modern waste collection, treatment, and disposal equipment; nor

1|Page
the revenue from waste management activities to compensate for the expenditures. Hence, there is
a strong need for IMSWM plans that tackle the unsound management of waste while at the same
time increasing the revenue from waste management activities (UNEP, 2012). As a result, working
with low levels of infrastructure provision or services and little improvement brings adverse
effects, particularly in sanitation and road connectivity among cities and on environmental quality
and unattained protection of public health (UN-habitat, 2016).

In fact, good management of municipal solid waste is one of the most important ways of protecting
our health. Hence, it is important to properly handle solid wastes because poorly handled and
stored waste can be sources of a nuisance, flies, smells and other hazards (Open Wash, 2016).

According to Edwards (2010), similar to Developing countries, Ethiopia has faced a diverse effect
in handling Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM). Still, Ethiopia has been struggling to
deal with the problem of proper management of solid wastes. With the current rate of urbanization,
municipal solid waste collection, transportation and disposal have been a major problem of
municipalities in most of the Ethiopian cities. Collection of municipal solid waste in most of the
cities is a difficult situation and complex because the generation of residential, commercial and
industrial wastes is a diffused process that takes place in every house, every building and every
commercial and industrial facility as well as in the streets, parks and even in the vacant areas
available within the community. In addition to this hilly terrain of many cities, lack of manpower
and equipment and financial constraints are factors which aggravate the problem. Moreover, the
largest problems related to sustainable waste management at the community level throughout
Ethiopia continue to be a lack of promotion and education about waste reduction, recycling,
recovery, composting and energy generation. Consequently, per capita amount of waste generated
in Ethiopia is increasing with fast urbanization and needs more attention for MSWM in general.

In Addis Ababa, the waste production rate per person is about 0.45 kg/day. However, there is
seasonal variation in the per capita solid waste generation (Fikreyesus, 2011). In the city 1,220 ton
or 4052 solid waste is generated per day (CSA, 2012; cited in Wondimu, 2015). Accordingly,
from the total of wastes generated most (70%) of the waste comes from households, 9% from
commercial areas and 6% street sweeping, 5% from industrial waste and the remaining from
hotels, hospitals etc. Currently, 64.8% of the waste generated in the city takes organic solid waste,
while 21.3% is regarded as recyclable (IGNIS, 2012).

2|Page
In Addis Ababa, the current solid waste door to door collection rate and its system is showing high
improvement. Before decades ago, the city’s solid waste collection coverage indicated as a high
improvement and this collection coverage have been constantly increasing from 37 percent in 1982
to 60 percent in 1999 and 92 percent in 2011 (CSA, 2012; cited in Wondimu, 2015). This
improvement is occurring due to the high participation of Micro and Small Enterprises (MSE) who
are engaged in Door to door collection and private sectors who are engaged in the collection of
waste from different institutions and industries. In contrary, the remaining 8% is simply dumped
on open sites, drainage channels, rivers, and valleys as well as on the streets. Hence, after it is
stored in a solid waste storage container (skip-point), the total solid waste (4052 or 1220 tones)
is conveyed or transported to and disposed-off to single landfill, Repi dump site (ZTS, 2012; cited
in Wondimu, 2015).

As Getahun et al (2011) noted, some challenges are happening because less attention is given to
solid waste storage containers (skip point), which are mostly handled by uneducated and less
experienced people of Micro and Small Enterprises (MSE) who are engaged in door to door solid
waste collection. Consequently, these challenges were brought as the result of the impact of
education on the behavior of individuals and its association with employment, and income.
Therefore it needs awareness on environmental protection and related health threats.

In fact, the location distance between houses and container (skip point) turns out to be the primary
factor, which affects citizens’ waste disposal behavior (Felice, 2014). The remoteness and the
proximity of the skip point determine the municipal solid waste management that is it induces the
people to dispose and throw their household wastes in open space (Zia &Devadas, 2008). In
addition to this, as Wondimu (2015) investigated, in Addis Ababa, most of the skip points are
placed without consideration of the location distance between houses and skip points and these
skip points are not picked-up (emptied) regularly. Due to this reason, communities who are living
in the proximity of the skip point are being exposed to health threats.

Besides, the performance of solid waste handling is still very low and affects the environment and
the dwellers. That is why the researcher intended to observe the existing conditions. Therefore the
researcher tends to do a research on this critical issue. Hence, this study will critically assess the
current MSWM practices and related problems associated with household solid waste storage and

3|Page
locations of the solid waste storage container: skip point in terms of accessibility and health threat
to the community, in Nefas-silk lafto sub-city in line with Ethiopian National Solid Waste
Management Standard.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

This study which explores MSWM is justified with the following reasons that illustrate the
pervasiveness of the problem and the scant research undertakings in the area.

In many developing countries, many problems are being witnessed in the city at the primary solid
waste storage site. These problems are refuse containers are placed on public roads, every container
(skip-point) has been placed at a distance not greater than a predetermined standard, and low
coverage of Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM), and thus they are affecting the human
health, ecosystem. Accordingly, the distance between houses and solid waste storage container
(skip point) turns out to be the primary factor, which affects citizens’ waste disposal behavior. As
a result of this, when the average distance to the closest skip point is long, generally, most people
do not dump their waste in the skip point; therefore, people dispose of wastes in unauthorized
areas, such as rivers, ditches, and streets (Felice, 2014).

Similar to developing countries, Addis Ababa city has faced inefficient management of solid
wastes. However, municipal solid waste is collected through the door to door collection system
from households by Micro and Small enterprises (MSE) often twice a week efficiently, and this
waste is conveyed to a designated solid waste storage container (skip point). In contrary to this,
few generated solid waste in the city is left uncollected and dumped in unauthorized areas such as
fields, ditches, sewers, and streets (ZTS, 2012; cited in Wondimu, 2015). On the other hand, skip-
point is not emptied regularly due to an infrequent collection of containers (skip points) and lack
of planned transportation routes and schedules, and it causes environmental and public health
problems (Fikreyesus, 2011). Even though the solid waste service coverage shows some
improvement, there is a problem in primary solid waste storage, because the planned location of
skip points is not yet under consideration. Besides, in some cases, the proximity of skip point to
the residential houses does not exceed 5metres. However, this skip is located against the minimum
of Addis Ababa Urban Solid Waste Management and other international standards. Therefore, this
inappropriate and inconvenient location of skip point and infrequent collection of skip-point create

4|Page
not an only health threat to the dwellers of the community but also the quality and amenity of the
environment will be diminished. Even worse, some skip points are also located and placed at places
which are reserved for green space area (Wondimu, 2015).

Moreover, Regassa et al (2011) found the main inefficiencies: poor infrastructure is making most
of the city inaccessible, lack of planned transportation routes and schedules to transport solid
wastes, and poor waste reduction at the household level, reuse, and recycling programs.

On top of this, to render the efficient management of municipal solid wastes, the international
standard of solid waste storage container states that skip points should be located and available
within a radius of 250 meters, for a waste collector should not walk more than that and containers
shall be stored or maintained in such a manner as not to constitute a nuisance or health hazard
(National Environmental act., 2002; cited in Chandrappa and Das, 2012). Similarly, the Ministry
of Urban Development and Housing has developed Ethiopian National Urban Solid Waste
Management Standards (2014) for efficient management of solid waste. Therefore, the storage
containers should be located at pre-selected strategic locations to make them accessible for
vehicles, the public, and make containers visible. Therefore, this standard pointed that the
recommended distance between house and skip-point shall be more than 200 meters away and also
the recommended distance between any infrastructural utility and skip-point shall be 4meters
away. Moreover, the Addis Ababa City Government Code Enforcement Services Regulation
Reg.No. 54/2012 also incorporates code enforcement which aims to regulate the mismanagement
of solid waste. Accordingly, scattering or littering or mismanagement of waste around households,
dumping solid waste in unauthorized place and failure to handle properly the communal containers
are prohibited and the penalty is settled in terms of fine. Furthermore, different stakeholders are
involved, like IGNIS (Income Generation & Climate Protection by Valorizing Municipal Solid Wastes in a
Sustainable Way in Emerging Mega-Cities) project which stands for the aim of helping people to
generate income by recovering value from waste. This shows that high attention is paid to solid
waste management, which further improves urban solid waste management according to
predesigned plans. However, solid waste management in Addis Ababa city is poor in terms of
accessibility of location of skip point and primary solid waste storage in general.

5|Page
Accordingly, due to the problems of MSWM, the effectiveness of the service and the conducive
environment in the sub-city is not going in a sustainable manner. As a result, it needs high attention
and is so serious that it deserve studies. Some researchers have conducted a research on different
thematic areas regarding solid waste management in Addis Ababa. For instance, Fikreyesus (2011)
studied the Ethiopian solid waste and landfill, and he found that lack of proper location of
collection containers and lack of emptying containers to replace the full ones as major problems.
Similarly, Wondimu (2015) conducted a research which focused on sanitation in Addis Ababa:
challenges, and prospects, and he found that solid waste storage containers are placed without
considering convenient location between houses and skip points and the way it is located does not
meet urban plan requirements. Furthermore, Regassa et al (2011) studied on opportunities and
challenges of municipal solid waste management in Addis Ababa, and he discovered that solid
waste management at primary solid waste storage, especially at the household level, and separation
of solid waste by each type of composition has not been done. But, those researchers did not fully
address the primary solid waste storage neither skip-point location sites nor at the household level.
Because it has not been their objective in general and additionally they did not see the location and
accessibility of skip point in light of Ethiopian National Solid Waste Management Standard.

Therefore, the researcher is interested in filling this gap by studying the primary solid waste
storage, specifically location and accessibility of skip point and municipal solid waste management
practices and problems with particular emphasis to storage practice and container location. Thus,
this research work will investigate existing status and spatial coverage of Municipal Solid Waste
Management, analyze the solid waste storage practice at household level and analyze the locations
of solid waste storage container (skip point), in terms of accessibility and health threat to the
community in Nefas-silk lafto sub-city in line with Ethiopian National Solid Waste Management
Standard. In light of the above-mentioned points, an attempt will be made to assess the current
municipal solid waste management practices and related problems with particular emphasis to
solid waste storage practice and container location that are manifestations of the inadequacy of
MSWM service delivery at Nefas-silk lafto Sub-city.

6|Page
 1.3 Objectives of the study
1.3.1 General Objective
The general objective of this research is to assess the current municipal solid waste management
practices and related problems in Nefas-silk lafto sub-city by giving particular emphasis to storage
practice and containers location. Hence, the specific objectives of the research are as follows.
1.3.2 Specific objectives

In order to investigate the intended research in the area, the following specific objectives are set
out:
1. To examine the existing status and spatial coverage of Municipal Solid Waste Management
in Nefas-silk lafto sub-city;
2. To analyze the solid waste storage practices at household level in Nefas-silk lafto sub-city;
3. To analyze the locations of solid waste storage containers (skip point) in terms of
accessibility and health threat to the community in Nefas-silk sub-city in line with
Ethiopian National Solid Waste Management Standard and relevant international
standards;

1.4 Research questions

1. What are the current status and spatial coverage of municipal solid waste management in
the study area?
2. What are the Primary solid waste storage practices at household level in Nefas-silk lafto
sub-city?
3. How the location of solid waste storage containers affects Municipal Solid Waste
Management in terms of accessibility and health threat to the community?

1.5 Significance of the Study

This study is expected to be useful in three main points. First, the study will contribute to a better
theoretical understanding of the overall features of municipal solid waste and problems faced in
the process of municipal solid waste management on the whole population. Second, it may give
some guideline information to policy makers, public administrators, solid waste managers,
municipal leaders, researchers and environmental protection agencies who seek to improve

7|Page
existing solid waste management and to minimize related problems and also to see the practices in
the study area. The study may also b e important in putting baseline information to the next work
as a springboard for researchers who would like to conduct detailed and comprehensive studies
either in the city or another study area.

1.6 Scope of the Study

The scope of the study was delimited in two ways: conceptually and geographically. Accordingly,
this research was delimited to the assessment of municipal solid waste management practices and
problems, conceptually. On the other hand, it is also delimited, geographically, to Nefas-Silk Lafto
sub-city in general and was focus on the people who live in densely populated areas and when
more household solid wastes are generated.

In the research area, different municipal solid waste sources which are generated in the sub-city,
such as institutional, and commercial and other non-hazardous wastes were not studied. As the
researcher discussed above, this research is delimited to household waste management.
Accordingly, the researcher selected two woredas known as woreda 02 (around Mekanissa) and
woreda 11(around Hana Maryam) because these woredas are more densely populated areas.
Moreover, the researcher interviewed vividly one of official manager who said that “there is a
great problem to handle the municipal solid waste due to lack of convenient infrastructures in the
area and, especially around Hana Maryam, poor resettlement that is taking placed with difficult
situation”. Therefore, this study is concentrated on how the households are trying to manage their
solid wastes in the source, and what problems they are facing in doing so associated with the
location of skip-point.

1.7 Limitations of the Study

In this study, the researcher believes that it was difficult to make a comparison in the management
of solid waste in the study area because of the following reasons:

 Absence of studies recorded and documented data about SWM activities that has taken
place in the Sub-city

8|Page
 Some respondents were not able, to tell the truth, due to various reasons such as
misunderstanding the purpose of the study, lack of knowledge and experience, and
apathy
 Some respondents felt the unwillingness to respond to any questions, due to the current status
of our country of political conditions, so, they thought that the enumerators were served as a
security man.
 The researcher was not found the Higher officials who manage overall process of SWM.
 Since the study is conducted at selected woreda and at the sub-city level, the result may not be
used to generalize for all parts of the sub-city.

1.8 Organization of the Study

The study was divided into fives chapters. The first chapter deals with the introduction part
which include: background of the study, statement of the problem, objectives of the study, research
questions, significance of the study, the scope of the study, limitation of the study and organization
of the study.

The second chapter deals with the review of related literature this part would provides the main
points of the theoretical framework for the topic under study that encompasses conceptual
definitions of solid waste and municipal solid waste management, sources and types of solid
wastes, municipal solid waste and its generation rate, storage of solid waste, functional elements
of solid waste management program, importance of a sound municipal solid waste management,
integrated municipal solid waste management approach and review of empirical studies.

The third chapter focuses on research methodology which consists research design sources of data,
sampling procedure, and sample size, methods of data collection and methods of data
analysis. The fourth chapter provides; the presentation and analysis part of the study, results, and
discussion. Finally, the fifth chapter presents conclusions and recommendations.

9|Page
 Chapter Two

2. Literature Review
2.1 Concept and Definition
2.1.1 Concept of Solid Waste

According to Proc.No. (513/2007), “Solid Waste” means anything that is neither liquid nor gas
and is discarded as unwanted. Similarly, other literatures define solid waste, which are all the
wastes arising from human and animal activities that are normally solid and are discarded as
useless or unwanted by the person or organization that produces the waste (Open Wash, 2016). It
includes municipal garbage, industrial and commercial wastes, sewerage slug, waste of
agricultural and animal husbandry, demolition waste and mining residues. Moreover, other
researchers defined Solid wastes as things which are “any garbage, refuse, sludge, and other
discarded solid materials resulting from industrial, commercial, agricultural operations, and
community activities, but does not include dissolved materials” (United State Code of Federal
Regulations, 1995 cited in Abiyot, 2014).

As UNEP (2009) defined, Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is a waste type that includes
predominantly household waste (domestic waste) with sometimes the addition of commercial
wastes collected by a municipality within a given area. On the other hand, municipal solid wastes
are wastes that result from municipal services such as street sweeping, dead animals, market waste
and institutional wastes that are not hazardous (Jayarama, 2011).

Solid waste management, according to Tchobanoglous and Kreith (2002), is that the discipline
associated with the control of generation, storage, collection, transfer and transport, processing
and disposal of waste in a manner that is in accordance with the best principles of public health,
economics and that is also responsive to public attitudes. Similarly, Municipal Solid waste
Management (MSWM), as defined by Bernstein (2004), refers to the collection, transfer,
treatment, recycling, resource recovery, and disposal of solid waste generated in urban areas.

As part of the MSWM, the solid waste storage, skip point and containers literally have similar
functions, but those provide different meanings. Therefore, solid waste storage means that the

10 | P a g e
garbage and trash generated by a household and placed in prescribed containers before it is
collected for transfer to another step in the waste management chain.

Skip point is defined as a container owned by the municipality and made available to MSE and
residents for their use as part of the municipality’s solid waste collection system.

While, the container is also defined as any storage container supplied by a waste service provider
(hauler) for the purposes of garbage, recycling and organics collection. This container should be
standardized throughout the city as much as possible, and it is made from galvanized steel and
noncombustible materials.

MSWM is a major responsibility of local governments and a complex service involving

appropriate organizational, technical, and managerial capacity and cooperation from numerous
stakeholders in both the private and public sectors.
2.2 Review of Theoretical Literature

This topic provides the quantity, composition, and characteristics of municipal solid waste, sources
and types of municipal solid waste; the functional elements of municipal solid waste management,
the importance of sound municipal solid waste management, integrated municipal solid waste
management approach; and others which are relevant for the assessment of municipal solid waste
management with particular emphasis to storage and containers location are discussed in a wise
and scientific manner.

2.2.2 Quantity, Composition, and Characteristics of Municipal solid waste

Managing solid waste is one of the essential services which often fails due to rapid urbanization
along with changes in the waste quantity and composition. The quantity and composition of
municipal solid waste vary from country to country, making them difficult to adopt for waste
management system which may be successful at other places. In addition to this, the quantity of
municipal waste generated from the urban settlement is a function of human development index
which in turn depends on the life expectancy, gross domestic product, and education indices.
Besides, the quantity of solid waste depends on special occasions like a festival, sports events,
conferences, and elections. Basically, the quantity of municipal solid waste is invariably higher in
the developed nations compared to the developing nations (Chandrappa and Das, 2012).

11 | P a g e
In fact, urban solid wastes can be subdivided into two major components; Biodegradable and Non-
Biodegradable. The biodegradable component of urban solid waste constitutes an organic matter
that, under controlled conditions, can be turned into compost or organic fertilizer while the non-
biodegradable waste includes inorganic materials that cannot be decomposed and degraded.
Accordingly, the dominant types of biodegradable solid wastes are leftover food (kitchen and
marketplace), seed coats, grasses, garden wastes, animal wastes, ash, dust, leaves, a scrap of khat,
paper, wood scraps, bones, straw, dead animals, cardboard, cartons, and paper packaging
materials. Non-biodegradable waste includes plastic (bags or “festivals,” broken pieces of plastic
materials, plastic packaging materials, etc.), cables and electronic materials, a bit of ceramics,
glass, metal, a scrap of textile and cans (ACIPH, 2015).

Basically, the characteristics of solid wastes vary widely based on socio-economic, cultural and
climatic conditions. In line with this, solid wastes need to be characterized by sources, generation
rates, types of wastes produced, and composition in order to monitor and control prevailing waste
management systems while improving the existing system. On the other hand, the categories of
municipal solid waste include household garbage and rubbish, yard waste, commercial refuse,
institutional refuse, construction and demolition debris, street cleaning and maintenance refuse,
dead animals, bulky wastes, abandoned vehicles, and sanitation residues (Bernstein, 2004).

2.2.3 Sources and types of municipal solid wastes

With respect to sources from which solid waste emanates, Medina (2004) categorized municipal
solid waste as a household (residential) refuse, institutional wastes, street sweepings, commercial
areas waste, as well as construction and demolition debris. In developing countries, MSW
contains various amounts of industrial wastes from small scale industries. In these sources,
there are diverse types of solid wastes. According to Jayaraman (2011.P.4), municipal solid wastes
are generated from various sources and explained as follows:

Household wastes: It is referred to as residential refuse or domestic waste generated from Single-
family and multi-family, dwellings; low-, medium-, and high-density apartments, this category
comprises wastes that are the consequences of household activities. These include food
preparation, sweeping, cleaning, fuel burning, and gardening wastes. It also includes old clothing,
old furnishing, retired appliances, packaging and reading matter.

12 | P a g e
Commercial waste or refuse: this category consists of wastes from shops, offices, hotels, stores
offices, fuel service stations, warehouses, restaurants, and packaging materials, office supplies and
food wastes. In developing countries, markets may contribute to the major portion of these waste
categories refuse.

Institutional waste: this category includes wastes from schools, hospitals, clinics, and
government offices, police, barracks, religious buildings, military bases etc. It also comprises
hospital and clinical wastes that are potentially infectious and hazardous materials. Where the
institution involves residents, such as in camps, the wastes are similar to those of households.

Municipal services: this waste is generated from street wastes, landscaping and recreational
areas, which includes paper, cardboard, plastic, dirt, dust, leaves and other vegetable matters that
are collected from streets, walkways, alleys, parks and vacant plots.

Construction and demolition waste: this includes some quantities of the major components of
the construction materials such as cement, bricks, cement plaster, steel, rubble, stone, timber,
plastic and iron pipes are left out as waste during construction as well as demolition. Residential
solid wastes (sometimes called household waste) usually form the largest proportion of municipal
wastes (the combined solid wastes in an urban area).
2.2.4 Municipal solid waste and its Generation rate

According to Tchobanoglous and Kreith (2002), the generation of waste refers to a number of
materials and products in MSW as they enter the waste stream before any materials recovery,
composting, or combustion takes place.

This waste generation could be reduced if the local and national stakeholders (environmental and
civic bodies) follow the concept of managing solid waste strategy. This concept would stand to
convince waste producers, especially to gear up towards environmental concepts of resource
utilization with a focus on costs and benefits of product development, consumption, disposal, and
resource recycling. Managing solid waste strategy follows the cleaner production (CP) approach
whereby waste generation at the upstream is targeted for reduction rather than aggravating the
waste disposal. Since all responsible body take care of during the life cycle of a product, they have
a role to play properly in managing the waste generated. The MSWM framework should not

13 | P a g e
emphasize on this concept separately but has to coordinate it closely with the waste generators,
manufacturers, and the product middlemen until the consumer’s end (Jayarama, 2011).

Currently, the quantity of waste generated is steadily increasing all over the world, because of
rapid population growth, economic development, urbanization, and improved living condition in
cities and towns. However, in most developing countries like Ethiopia, the increasing of solid
waste generation results from rapid urbanization and population booming. This has outpaced
financial and manpower resource of municipalities to deal with provision and management of
service solid waste. In most cities of the developing world, in- appropriate handling and disposal
of municipal solid waste are the most visible cause of environmental degradation, in the form of
air pollution, soil contamination, surface and ground water pollution, etc (WHO, 1996, cited in
Abiyot, 2014).

As Jayarama (2011) found, MSW generation in the East Asian region has been increasing at a rate
of 3 to 7% per year as a result of population growth, changing consumption patterns, and the
expansion of trade and industry in urban centers. In addition to this, the average rate of MSW
generation in Asian cities ranges from 0.5 to 1.3 kg/capita/day, which is found to have a direct
correlation with the per capita income of the city. While, in industrialized cities where the per
capita income is high like the cities in Japan, the average rate of generation can be as high as 1.64
kg/capita/day. Furthermore, in African cities, the per capita waste generation rate is also in the
same range of 0.45 to 1.3 kg/capita/ day. The waste generation rate in developed countries varies
from 0.8 to 2.0 kg/capita/day. Similarly, in developing countries, the volume of waste generated
varies from day to day and season to season.

2.2.5 Storage of solid waste

As Khan and Ahsan (2002) noted, solid waste is initially stored within the household, but may at
some stage be transformed to a communal container prior to eventual collection and removal.
Accordingly, primary solid waste storage is carried out in two important things, within at
household level and at the community level.
2.2.5.1 Household storage

Household wastes are stored in bins by the affluent and in sacks, plastic bags, cut jerry cans,
cardboard boxes by the low-income households, and a large percentage of domestic waste storage

14 | P a g e
containers (e.g. sacks, polythene bags, and boxes) used by the poorer urban community are
dumped with the wastes. Ideally, household waste should be stored in a study container of
sufficient capacity which is easy to empty and clean and has a well-fitting lid. Accordingly,
galvanized steel and plastic bins can satisfy these criteria; however, they are not affordable in
most low-income countries. Therefore, the recommended container to segregate waste is of two
categories and store the segregated waste in two different containers: Biodegradable waste (Green
color storage) and this waste include: Kitchen waste including food waste of all kinds, cooked and
uncooked, including egg shells and bones, flower and fruit waste including juice peels and house-
plant waste, garden sweeping or yard waste consisting of green/dry leaves, sanitary wastes, green
waste from vegetable & fruit vendors/shops and waste from food & tea stalls/shops etc. Non-
biodegradable waste colored through (Blue storage) includes: all kinds of Paper and plastic,
cardboard and cartons, containers of all kinds excluding those containing hazardous material,
packaging of all kinds, glass of all kinds, metals of all kinds, rags and rubber, house sweeping
(dust etc.), ashes, foils, wrappings, pouches, sachets and tetra packs (rinsed), discarded electronic
items from offices, colonies viz. cassettes, computer diskettes, printer cartridges and electronic
parts and discarded clothing, furniture and equipment and etc. (Khan and Ahsan, 2002).

For better quality, household waste storage containers should be suitable for the door to door,
roadside or street corner collection which are appropriate to be the level of collection service is
highly efficient.
2.2.5.2 Communal Storage Container (skip-point)
The use of communal storage containers (skip-points) to which householders or MSE carry their
waste is widespread and seems likely to remain a common option for low-income communities.
These points can consist of street corners, several locations on densely populated streets, or at the
edge of neighborhoods or villages accessible to generators or primary collectors and collection
vehicles. One of the main advantages of communal skip-points is that they allow a household to
potentially have continual access to a disposal point. Conversely, if a communal skip-point
receives little attention, containers may overflow and cause problems such as odors and insects. In
some cases, residents near communal skip-points have started fires to minimize odors or insects.
This, in turn, increases the health impacts of improper solid waste management to an even larger
number of people as a result of the smoke from the fires. Sound practice in communal collection

15 | P a g e
design requires that solid waste managers understand the potential conflict that exists between the
need to accomplish public convenience and the strategies required to maintain cleanliness and
sanitary conditions around communal containers. They must also strategize how to control waste
pickers, odors, animals and vectors who affect conditions around communal containers. Sound
practice requires that there are an adequate number of containers distributed at
appropriately located skip-points. These containers must be easy to use even for children
who are mostly called upon by their parents to bring solid waste to the communal skip point. The
sound practice also requires that program managers commit to carrying out the frequent collection
and cleanup overflows as they occur for whatever reason (Khan and Ahsan, 2002).
2.2.6 Functional elements of solid waste management program

As Tchobanoglous and Kreith (2002), described the management of municipal solid wastes are
shown up from the point of generation to final disposal, and they have been grouped into six
functional elements. These are waste generation; on-site handling, storage and processing;
collection; transfer and transport; processing and recovery; and disposal.
2.2.6.1 Waste Generation

Waste generation encompasses activities in which materials are identified as valueless and either
thrown away or gathered together for disposal. What is important in waste generation is to note
that there is an identification step that varies with each individual. Currently, waste generation is
an activity that is not controllable. So, this functional element is a vital stage for acquiring accurate
information that is necessary to monitor existing management system and to make regulatory,
financial and institutional decisions (Tchobanoglous and Kreith, 2002).
2.2.6.2 Waste Handling and separation, Storage, and processing at the source

According to Tchobanoglous and Kreith (2002), waste handling and separation involves the
activities associated with managing wastes until they are placed in communal storage containers
for collection. As part of solid waste management, handling also encompasses the movement of
loaded containers to the point of collection. Separation of waste components is an important step
in the handling and storage of solid waste at the source. The other activity is on-site storage, which
has high importance because of the consideration of solid wastes include (1) the type of container
to be used, (2) the container location, (3) public health and aesthetics, and (4) the collection method

16 | P a g e
to be used. Hence, waste storage ensures the use of proper containers to store wastes and efficient
transport of them without any spillage to transfer stations/disposal sites. In spite of this, there are
two types of storage activities at the source. The first one is temporary storage which is done at
the household level as a part of their hygiene. The second type is communal solid waste storage
system on public solid waste containers prepared by the municipality. Waste processing at source
involves activities such as waste composting and separation of solid wastes for reuse and recycling.
All of these components are important for the protection of public health and aesthetics and
environment.

As a result, effective waste management needs a commitment from both the local people and the
kebele authorities. Accordingly, the people should use the communal waste containers in the
correct way and avoid littering (Open Wash, 2016).
2.2.6.3 Waste collection

Waste Collection involves the process of picking up wastes from collection points, loading them
into a vehicle, and transporting them to the processing facilities, transfer stations or disposal site.
The waste collection plays an important role in waste management processes. In most municipal
solid waste management systems, the cost of collection accounts a significant portion of total cost.
For instance, in industrialized countries waste collection accounts about 60-70% of total cost, and
70-90% in developing and transition countries (World Bank, 2012). The collection is structurally
similar in developing, transition, and industrialized countries, but there are important technical and
institutional differences in implementation. In most cases, industrialized countries have more
efficiency and effectiveness than developing ones in terms of their approach to collection, the role
of municipal governments, private-sector participation, and demographic and social factors
relevant to the collection. Currently, a little of solid waste from cities in developing countries
remains uncollected and ends up on the street or disposed of through open burning and the
management is also poor. And, in developing countries, a collection often involves a face to face
transaction between generator and collector. The level of service is low, and generators often have
to bring their wastes long distances and place it in containers (Open Wash, 2016).

As Chandrappa and Das (2012) noted, there are many types of the solid waste collection
throughout the world. But, the most practiced of the waste collection are two types, these are:

17 | P a g e
 Primary collection is the collection of waste from the point where it is placed by the person or
organization that has produced it. These collection points could be located outside each individual
household and business, communal containers serving a number of households, or waste skips
taking waste from households and businesses in the surrounding area.

Secondary collections are where the waste from a number of primary collections is taken from
the transfer station to the final disposal site.

In general, there are four basic methods of collection as described by (Tchobanoglous and Kreith
2002, cited in Chandrappa and Das, 2012):

 Community container- they are placed in convenient locations where community members carry
waste and throw it in. This method is comparatively cheaper than other methods, and most widely
adopted method in western countries. For this method to be adopted, it is important that containers
are covered, aesthetic, attended regularly, kept clean, easy to handle, and separate bins are
provided.
 Curbside collection- the homeowner is responsible for placing containers to be emptied at the
curb on collection day and for returning empty containers to their storage location until the next
collection.
 Block collection- collection vehicles arrive at a particular place on a set day and time to collect
waste from households. Households bring their waste containers and empty directly into the
vehicle. This method requires a higher homeowner cooperation and scheduled service for
homeowner collaboration.
 The door to door collection- waste is placed at the doorstep at a set time when waste collector
arrives. In this method, collector of waste has the responsibility to collect waste separately. This
method is very convenient for households, though it requires homeowner cooperation.

In general, the most appropriate waste collection method is the one which best serves the need of
a community and takes into account factors of efficiency, health and environmental requirements,
physical demand and zoning parameters.
2.2.6.4 Transfer and Transport

The other functional element is transfer and transport which involves two steps: (1) the

18 | P a g e
transfer of wastes from the smaller collection vehicle to the larger transport equipment, and (2)
the subsequent transport of the wastes, usually over long distances, to a processing or disposal
site. The transfer usually takes place at a transfer station. When the location of final disposal site
is at a long distance from points of collection, transfer stations may be used. With respect to
transfer stations, there are two basic modes of operation: direct discharge and storage discharge.
In storage discharge, refuse is first emptied from collection trucks into a storage pit or to a large
platform. Additionally, indirect discharge station, each refuse struck empties directly into larger
transport vehicles (Meenakshi, 2005).

Transportation, on the other hand, covers all types of vehicles under operation to transport solid
waste from its generation point to transfer station and then to treatment or disposal site.
2.2.6.5 Separation, Processing, and Recovery

The means and facilities that are now used for the recovery of waste materials have been
separated at the source. The separation and processing of wastes that have been separated at
the source and the separation of commingled wastes usually occur at materials recovery
facilities, transfer stations, combustion facilities, and disposal sites. This functional element
includes all techniques, equipment, and facilities used both to improve the efficiency of other
functional elements and to recover usable materials, conversion products, produce energy, and
compost from solid wastes. In addition to this, it also provides several advantages. First, it can
serve to reduce total volume and weight of waste material that requires collection and final
disposal. Volume reduction also helps to conserve land resources since land is the ultimate sink
for most waste materials. On the other side, it also reduces total transportation cost of waste to its
final disposal site. Moreover, after proper segregation, selected wastes are entered into small and
large scale industries for recovery activities. For example, organic fraction of MSW can be
transformed by a variety of biological and thermal processes. The most commonly used biological
transformation process is aerobic composting, and the most commonly used thermal
transformation process is incineration (Uriarte and Filemon, 2008).
2.2.6.6 Disposal

This is the final functional element in the solid waste management system. There are two types of
solid waste disposal site (UNEP, 2009), these are:

19 | P a g e
Non-engineered disposal: This is the most common method of disposal in low-income countries,
which have no control, or with only slight or moderate controls. They tend to remain for a longer
time and environmental degradation could be high, such as a mosquito, rodent and water
pollution, and degradation of the land.

Additionally, Sanitary Landfill - is a fully engineered disposal option, which avoids harmful
effects of uncontrolled dumping by spreading, compacting and covering the wasteland that has
been carefully engineered for use. The four minimum requirements for setting up a sanitary
landfill, which are full or partial hydrological isolation, formal engineering preparation,
permanent control and planned waste placement and covering. Land filling relies on containment
rather than treatment (for control) of wastes. Appropriate lines for the protection of the
groundwater, leachate collection, and treatment, monitoring wells and appropriate final cover
design are integral components of an environmentally sound sanitary landfill.

Today, disposal of wastes by land filling or land spreading is the ultimate fate of all solid wastes
whether they are residential wastes or residual materials from materials recovery facilities.
However, in most developed countries, this method is officially banned except sanitary landfill for
final disposal. Because according to the above explanation, the sanitary landfill is not a dump it is
an engineered facility used for disposing of solid wastes on land without creating nuisances or
hazards to public health and environment (Tchobanoglous and Kreith, 2002). Even though it is the
most common technology around the world, conventionally and environmentally unfriendly
methods such as open burning, open dumping, and non-sanitary landfill can still be used as disposal
method (UNEP, 2009).

2.2.7 Importance of a Sound Municipal Solid Waste Management

In an attempt to accelerate the pace of its industrial development, an economically developing

nation may fail to pay adequate attention to solid waste management. Such a failure incurs a severe
penalty at a later time in the form of resources needlessly lost and a staggering adverse impact on
the environment and on public health and safety. The penalty is neither avoided nor lessened about
the waste at a later time when the country is in a better position to take appropriate measures.
However, the rate of waste generation generally increases in direct proportion to that of a nation’s
advance in development. Nor is the penalty lessened by the faulty rationalization that advances in
development status have higher priority than the maintenance of a livable environment
20 | P a g e
(Chandrappa and Das, 2012). Therefore the greater the degradation of the environment, the greater
is the effort required to restore its good quality.

On the other hand, uncontrolled or inefficiently managed waste can contaminate water, air, and
soil. Consequently, many workers (MSE) who handle waste and individuals who live near or on
disposal area are infected with worms, gastrointestinal parasites, and other related organisms. In
fact, sound waste management not only reduces the risk of commutable diseases, it also reduces
the toxicity of food and water due to the entry of heavy metals and other chemicals. Solid waste
management would also reduce resource depletion due to unnecessary mining, energy
consumption, and pollution problems during manufacturing of the new product. Proper recycling
or reusing would add conservation of species due to unnecessary clearing forest and vegetation
above the mineral resources (Chandrappa and Das, 2012). In summary, the effort to preserve or
enhance environmental quality should at least be proportionated with that afforded to the
attainment of advancement in development. In addition to this, a sound municipal solid waste
management involves:

 Protect environmental health;

 Promote the quality of the urban environment;
 Support the efficiency and productivity of the economy;
 Generate employment and income;
2.2.8 Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management Approach

In order to handle growing volumes of wastes, the proper policies need to be enacted and
implemented. In the developed world, the approach to solid waste management regarded as the
most compatible with an environmentally sustainable development is called Integrated Solid
Waste Management. This approach consists of a hierarchical and coordinated set of actions that
reduces pollution, seeks to maximize recovery of reusable and recyclable materials, and protects
human health and the environment. In light of this, Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM)
aims to be socially desirable, economically viable and environmentally sound (Medina, 2004).

Moreover, a system is designed for the handling of discards from a household, business, institution,
or city with a zero waste goal. It recognizes that, scientifically, absolute zero is improbable, close
counts. Any system that reduces waiting to ten percent of current generation rates would make a

21 | P a g e
significant step toward sustainability and would be close to zero (90% successful). Pollution is
measured quantitatively and a reduction of 90% is significant. In the area of discarded resources,
the remaining 10% may have to be dealt with through legislation, innovation and ultimately
producer responsibility (Stucki et al., 2003).

As Stucki, et al (2003), the “Zero waste approach” in a manufacturer and waste generator are
responsible for the proper disposal of a product before, during and after the purchase of a material.
Moreover, the manufacturers should be encouraged to use recycled materials in their products.
Waste generators also have been encouraged to consider buying products that can be reused and
repaired.

For Proper handling of solid waste and to reduce the amounts of discards at the source, the “Zero
Waste Theory” are essential as far as municipal solid waste management is concerned. Although,
“Zero Waste Theory” takes the 3R’s (Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle) into consideration for the
effective management of municipal solid waste (Stucki et al, 2003).

As Open Wash (2016) described, waste hierarchy proposes that waste should be managed by
different methods according to its characteristics. The preference of the options represents the
hierarchal structure. Thus, prevention, reuse, and recycling are given the highest preference, while
open burning is unacceptable. The hierarchy is designed to improve the environmental aspects of
ISWM. Practices, which produce serious impacts on the environment, are the least accepted ones.
Integrated Solid Waste Management has the following hierarchies:
Fig.2.1 Waste hierarchies

Source: Open wash (2016).

22 | P a g e
2.2.8.1 Waste reduction

At the top of the hierarchy is a waste reduction. This is the best option because the most effective
way to limit the health effects and environmental impacts of a waste are not to create waste in the
first place. Making any new product requires materials and energy. Raw materials must be
extracted from the Earth and processed, and the product must be manufactured, packaged and
transported to wherever it will be sold. Each of these stages may produce solid waste as well as
liquid wastes and air pollutants. If we can find ways of making a particular item whilst producing
less waste in the process, this is one of the most effective ways to reduce pollution, save natural
resources, protect the environment and save money. Waste reduction is one way of reducing
environmental problems from disposal. If the waste is never generated, it cannot pose an
environmental threat when disposed of. Second, priority was given to those goals and actions
designed to reduce the amount of waste being disposed of through source reduction, reuse,
recycling, and composting. Reducing the input to the waste management system by increasing the
material efficiency of the economy is the preferred option in the long term.

Waste reduction is important at the household level. In Ethiopia, a number of waste reduction
initiatives have been put in place in big cities like AddisAbaba and Mekelle by informal
organizations and private sector enterprises. These initiatives frequently involve several different
stakeholder groups including urban Health Extension Workers (HEWs), civil society, private sector
enterprises and organized women’s development groups. The local kebele administration and
appropriate experts from the Woreda Health Office and Greenery and Beautification Office are
also likely to be involved (Open Wash, 2016).
2.2.8.2 Waste reuse

This is the second option in the waste hierarchy. And it is defined as using a waste product without
further transformation and without changing its shape or original nature. Different types of solid
wastes can be reused, such as bottles, old clothes, books and anything else that is used again for a
similar purpose to that originally intended. Moreover, reuse means that less solid waste is produced.
It brings other benefits by taking useful products discarded by those who no longer want them and
passing them to those who do the best way to manage waste is not to produce it. This can be done
by shopping carefully and, for example, buying products in bulk, avoiding over-packaged goods,
avoiding disposable goods but rather buying durable goods. It makes economic and environmental
23 | P a g e
sense to reuse products. Products can be reused for the same purpose for example by repairing
broken appliances, furniture, and toys. Products can also be reused in different ways, for example
by using plastic microwave dinner trays as picnic dishes (Open Wash, 2016).
2.2.8.3 Waste Recycle

Recycling waste means that the material is reprocessed before being used to make new products.
The reprocessing activities can have an impact on people’s health and the environment, but these
impacts are usually lower than those from making the product from new raw materials. In addition
to this, recycling means treating the materials as valuable resources rather than as a waste. It has
many benefits but it is important to have a market for the end product, otherwise, the process will
not be economically sustainable. And it involves a series of steps that takes a used material and
processes it back into a recycled material that can be used to produce either the same or different
new products. On the other hand, recycling is perhaps the most positively perceived and double of
all the waste management practices. It will also return raw materials to market by separating
reusable products from the rest of the municipal waste stream. As long as recycling of materials is
concerned, it can substantially contribute to minimizing the amount of material, which needs to be
deposited. Therefore recycling includes metals, paper and glass have been common practice for
decades, even though recovery rates have remained low in many parts of the city (ACIPH, 2015).
2.2.8.4 Energy Recovery

The fourth option in the waste hierarchy is recovery. Recovery is about finding other uses for
wastes that enable some value to be extracted or recovered from them, usually by using them as a
source of energy. Accordingly, recovering energy from waste on a large scale using an advanced
incineration plant is a high- technology, a high-cost option that is common in many developed
countries. However, it needs a highly developed infrastructure (a reliable source of waste, good
roads, a reliable waste collection service, a power distribution grid, etc.) and large amounts of
waste. This technology is currently rarely used in low-and-middle-income countries, but as cities
develop there is great potential for energy-from-waste in the future in Ethiopia and many other
countries (Scarlat et al., 2015 cited in Open Wash, 2016).
2.2.8.5 Waste Disposal

This is the last option of the waste hierarchy. Nevertheless, waste disposal is the most widely used

24 | P a g e
practice in all over the world. However, dumping of solid wastes on land has serious environmental
impacts. Most importantly, the leachate through the waste infiltrates the soil contaminating the
ground water. Frequent outbreaks of water-borne diseases, especially during the rainy season, have
been reported in developing countries. Waste disposal should, therefore, be carried out in a
properly designed landfill i.e. an engineered landfill. This engineered landfill is not a dump but is
a waste disposal facility designed on scientific principles to protect the environment and public
health (Chandrappa and Das, 2012).
2.3 Review of Empirical Studies

Under this sub-section, this study also has empirical evidence to make the research is worthwhile.

2.3.1 Municipal solid waste management in developing countries

The rapid population growth coupled with the increased rate of unplanned urbanization in many
cities of the developing world led to the tremendous increase in the amounts of municipal solid
waste. In these countries, there is mismanagement of solid waste due to the high magnitude of
municipal solid waste which leads to public health risks, adverse environmental impacts, and other
socio-economic problems (UN-HABITAT, 2010).

Historically, solid waste management has been an engineering function. It is related to the
evolution of a technological society, which, along with the benefits of mass production and created
problems that require the disposal of solid wastes. In contrary, the solid waste management can be
described as a mechanism associated with the control of generation, storage, collection, transport,
processing and disposal of solid wastes in a way that favors the best interests of public health and
takes into consideration of environmental concerns. Therefore, this task is carried out under the
city's municipality; and the responsibilities of a municipality are to collect, transport and safely
dispose of waste generated within its area. In many developing countries, municipalities barely
accomplish this task as a result of inadequate coverage services, poor infrastructures like lack of
convenient location of solid waste storage facilities, poor transportation route, and it also results
from lack of awareness creation for each household, limited utilization of recycling activities and
poor landfill disposal techniques (Tchobanoglous and Kreith, 2002).

Accordingly, in the developing nations, municipal solid waste management is regularly emerging
as a problem which endangers public health and the environment. Consequently, municipal solid

25 | P a g e
waste management in developing countries seems to have a low priority as issues like hunger,
health, water, unemployment and civil war are the primary concerns. Hence, millions of people in
the developing countries are living without an appropriate waste management system, and these
countries are facing so many problems, especially uncontrolled waste dump is a huge danger for
the environment and population in terms of contamination of the water and soil (Chandrappa and
Das, 2012).

In fact, in developing countries, the quantity of solid waste generated in urban areas is low
compared to industrialized countries, but the MSWM still remains inadequate (Dong et al, 2005).
Moreover, the other studies also show that municipalities in developing countries spend 20- 50%
of their available budget on SWM and serve less than average inhabitants (Memon, 2010. p. 30-
40). Hence, in Addis Ababa, the collection coverage of solid waste is 92% and the rest is either
burned or left to decompose in open space or is dumped in unregulated landfills, impacting the
environment negatively (Wondimu, 2015). But, the overall system of management from
transportation to disposal has low coverage.

On the other hand, besides to this controversial issue, developing countries face a difficult situation
as local governments have neither the funds for acquiring modern waste collection, treatment and
disposal equipment nor the revenue from waste management activities large enough to compensate
for the expenditures. Hence, there is a strong need for IMSWM plans to tackle the unsound
management of waste while at the same time increasing the revenue from waste management
activities (UNEP, 2012). Furthermore, the UN-habitat (2016) noted as general, they're low levels
of infrastructure provision and little improvement, particularly in sanitation and road connectivity
among cities and declining environmental quality. Currently, between 30 and 60 percent of the
solid waste from cities in developing countries remains uncollected and ends up on the street or
disposed of through open burning (UN-HABITAT, 2010). As a result, the levels of services
required for protection of public health and the environment are not attained.

Therefore, there is a whole culture of solid waste management that needs to be put in place from
the micro level of households and neighborhood to the macro levels of city, state, and nation. The
general assumption is that solid waste management should be done at the city level and
incorporated solutions that have essentially been the end of the pipe (“end-of-pipe” refers to
finding solutions to a problem at the final stage of its cycle of causes and effects). In the case of

26 | P a g e
urban solid waste, it means focusing on solid waste disposal rather than solid waste recycling or
solid waste minimization. But this approach essentially misses the forest for the trees, in attempting
piecemeal and ad hoc solutions to solid waste problems, instead of taking a long-term holistic
approach (Tchobanoglous and Kreith, 2002).

2.3.2 Solid Waste Storage Container and Municipal Solid Waste Management
towards Ethiopian and International Solid Waste Management Standards

As usual, the size of the crew and speed of collection are based on the features of containers.
Containers should be durable, easy to handle, economical and resistant to corrosion. And the
containers should be seated in the proper location of distance, efficient, convenient, compatible
and safe. For efficient municipal solid waste management, appropriateness of availability of road
and distance of the container between house and utilities needs to be properly planned, considering
the cities structural plan (Felice, 2014).

According to Felice (2014), the efficient route selection for waste collection and the proper
distance between houses determines the waste collection system. Accordingly, the location
distance between houses, utilities, and container (skip point) turns out to be the primary factor,
which affects citizens’ waste disposal behavior. The long distance of the location and the proximity
of the skip point determines the municipal solid waste management, inducing the public to dispose
and throw household wastes into open space (Zia&Devadas, 2008). As a result, this inappropriate
and inconvenient location of skip point and infrequent collection of skip-point creates not an only
health threat to the dwellers of the community but also deteriorate the quality of the amenity
environment (Wondimu, 2015).

Ideally, the area and population of the city determine the number of containers required. Therefore,
internationally containers should be available within a radius of 250 meters because a waste
collector should not be expected to walk more than that. It means that a minimum of four containers
per square kilometer needs to be placed. In high-density areas, one container should be placed for
every five thousand to ten thousand residents, depending on the size of the container. For a city
with a population of five thousand, a three cubic meter container which can hold 1.25 to 1.50
metric tons of waste, is sufficient, whereas a container of seven cubic meter capacity can easily
handle the waste of a population of ten thousand to twelve thousand. The containers could either

27 | P a g e
be taken directly to the disposal site if the distance is shorter than fifteen kilometers or might be
taken to a transfer station if the distance is longer (Chakkancherry, 2012).

In Ethiopia, especially in Addis Ababa city, the solid waste service coverage shows some
improvement, but there is a problem in primary solid waste storage because the planned location
of skip points is not yet under consideration. Besides, in some cases, the proximity of skip point
to the residential houses does not exceed 5metres. However, this skip is located against the
minimum of Addis Ababa Urban Solid Waste Management and other international standards
(Wondimu, 2015). In contrary to this, the Ethiopian SWM standard (2014) noted that the exact
distance of intervals between containers shall be decided locally based on Local Development
Plans prepared by municipalities, however, it is recommended that such containers are placed no
more than 200m apart and from the residences where at all possible. Moreover, community
containers shall be located at least 4meters from any utilities and these containers shall be located
on land that is flat, firm and well drained and preferably with good lighting. On the other hand,
community containers shall be emptied or collected at frequent intervals, preferably once daily or
every second day as a minimum.

Therefore, with respect to the communal containers at household and community level, primary
solid waste storage determines the management of municipal solid waste (Chakkancherry, 2012).

2.3.3 Income and municipal solid waste management

The rate of generation of household solid waste in the developing countries is increasing with an
increase in population, technological development, and the changes in the lifestyles of the people
which are posting a great environmental and public health problems. Accordingly, the family size
and household income are the most significant factors affecting the quantity of solid waste from
household consumption (Chakkancherry, 2012)

In Addis Ababa in the year 2012, the estimated population by housing class, the new composition
was used based on the spatial model of land use and coverage. Based on this the population and
household composition are discussed below in the following table:

28 | P a g e
Table 2.1. Assumed population and household composition for 2012

Low Income Low to Middle Middle to High Condominiu Total

Housing Middle Income Income m
Income Housing Housing
Housing
Housing
Percentage 46.30% 16.00% 26.56% 3.62% 7.53% 100.00%

Population (million 1,406,558 485,936 806,906 109,975 228,615 3,037,990

people)

House hold Size 4.46 4.59 5.13 4.71 3.35 4.5

House holds 315,372 105,868 157,292 23,349 68,243 670,124

Source: IGNIS Joint final report, 2008-2014.

Furthermore, as Abiyot (2014) found, solid waste management is highly influenced by income
amount. On the other hand, when the number of household size is increased, the system of proper
solid waste management decreases. He also examined that as the number of household size
increases, the inappropriate solid waste management system also increases.

2.3.4 Problems of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Ethiopia

As in all developing countries, Ethiopia faces, increased solid waste generation and related
problems, due to rapid urbanization and population increase. The severity of the problem is
indicated by indiscriminate dumping of wastes along streets, drains, ditches, canals, and open
spaces of the city due to unplanned nature of the living placement of the population of a city and
the inconvenient location of the solid waste storage container. Even though such careless handling,
collection, transportation, and disposal of waste are hazardous to public health and the
environment. Moreover, Ethiopia has no comprehensive data on solid waste generation and
composition, it has not been able to develop a strategy to mitigate the problem (ACIPH, 2015). On
the other hand, as ACIPH (2015), in Ethiopia various MSWM problems are being faced, as a result
of poor management of SWM, for instance:

 Lack of sanitary landfill for final disposal at the city/town level.

 Lack of sanitation facilities to minimize the burden of transporting material for small
enterprises.

29 | P a g e
 Lack of road infrastructure to transfer equipment to the disposal site.
 The absence of clear policies and strategies for involving private partners.
 Budget constraint of MSWM sector.
 Lack of MSWM-trained professional workers
 Lack of coordination between town/city.
 The community is unaware of the need to pay for the services.
 The community is practicing rampant littering.
 Overlaps between different sectors.
 Management not prioritizing waste management system.
 Poor fee collection system for micro enterprises that currently provide MSWM services.
 Lack of convenient location of skip-point, because of this solid waste containers have affected
the environment and exposed to a health threat.

2.4 Conceptual Framework of the Study

On the basis of the previous conceptual, theoretical and empirical review the following conceptual
framework has been developed as a working gauge for this study. As part of the study, this
conceptual framework of the study will present in brief and diagrammatically.

30 | P a g e
Fig. 2.2: Conceptual framework of the study

Municipal Construction and

service waste Demolition Waste

Municipal Solid Waste Commercial

Institutional
Management waste
Waste

Industrial Waste
Household
(residential) waste

Solid waste Efficient and

management Solid waste Solid Solid Effective solid
Solid waste
practice at storage waste waste waste
final
the container transporta management
collection disposal
household (skip point) tion practice
level

Factors

Financial Factors Institutional Factors

- Budget -linkage between different
- Income Socio- cultural Factors stakeholders
- Willingness to pay - Motivation - Skilled man power
- Awareness - Low enforcement
-Distance of container - Access to collectors
-Educational - Availability of container
background - presence of vehicles
-Attitude towards solid
waste management
Source: Computed by the Researcher.

31 | P a g e
 Chapter Three
3. Research Methodology

Under this chapter, description of the study area, location, topography, climate condition and
demographic characteristics were included. In addition, the researcher was used research design,
sampling size and sampling techniques, data collection instruments and different source of data to
collect reliable information, and different methods were used for analyzing and interpreting the
collected data.
3.1 Description of the Study Area

In Addis Ababa city, there are 10 sub-cities and 116 woreda administrations. Among these, Nifas
Silk Lafto sub-city (NSLSC) is one of the sub-cities of Addis Ababa, that is experiencing the
emergence and expansion of poorly serviced illegal and informal settlements in peripheral areas
within and outside urban agglomerations (NSLSC, 2014). In these areas specifically in woreda 11
(around Hana Maryam), the land is traded informally and built on without permission, and existing
buildings are often extended or altered over long periods of time, without official authorization.
Completely “formalizing” these settlements would entail costs that neither municipalities nor
inhabitants could handle (NSLSC, 2014).
As the researcher observed in Woreda 11 due to illegal settlement households has not been
benefited from the sub-cities of SWM services, rather those households have been indiscriminately
thrown away solid wastes nearby open spaces, rivers, ditches and unauthorized areas.
3.1.1 Location

The sub city is located south West of Addis Ababa. It lies between 984,000m and 994,000m North
latitude and 464000m and 476000m East longitude. The sub city is bordered by the Akaki Kality
in the South East, Bole in the East, Kirkos in the north, Kolfe Keraniyo sub-cities in the North
West and Hana Eirtu Kebele Peasant Association in the west. It is administratively divided into
twelve woredas. Among these woredas, the researcher has selected two woredas, known as
woreda 02 (around Mekanissa) and woreda 11(around Hana Maryam) (NSLSC, 2014).

Accordingly, the research covers those woredas, around the place where the solid waste storage
containers (skip-points) were distributed. Moreover, the following map illustrates that the total
map of the study area and the place where some solid waste storage containers are partially

32 | P a g e
distributed. Besides, this placement of skip points was employed by using handle GPS to know
which storage containers were being placed in the authorized land use. So by taking information
from Nefas-Silk Lafto sub-city Urban Land Administration Office, the researcher was tried to show
on the map which containers have authorized land use and non-compliance. But the research was
employed where the place of all skip points was distributed in selected woredas.
Fig. 3.1. Map of Nefas-Silk Lafto Sub-City

Source: Nefas-Silk Lafto Sub-City, Urban Land Administration Office (2016)

33 | P a g e
3.1.2 Area, Topography, and Climate

Total land area of Addis Ababa is 52700 Ha (527 ) of which 6829 Ha (68.29 ) is defined
as NSLSC and the population density of this sub-city is about 4915.7 . The sub city’s
topography is characterized by a plateau and its altitude ranges between 2200 and 2550 meter
above sea level and peaks at mount Dertu 2550 meter (NSLSC, 2014). The lowest and the highest
annual average temperature of the sub-city is about 10℃ and 25℃ respectively. According to the
Addis Ababa bureau of agriculture (AABA, 2002), the climate is divided into three distinct
seasons, the period of big rains (Kiremt) commences between June and September. The dry period
(Bega) is between October and January, and the small rains (Belg) commences between March
and May, while the average annual rain fall is 1100mm to 1200 mm. In addition to this, it has a
milled climate with its day time temperate that rarely goes beyond 26 degrees and falls below 7
degrees. Thus, it has a pleasant weather for visiting guests. At night, the city experiences a sharp
drop on the temperature and often chilly during the months of December and January.

3.1.3 Demographic Characteristics

Like other sub-cities of Addis Ababa, Nefas silk lafto sub-city is a rapidly growing sub-city both
in terms of population and economy. Accordingly, it has a total population of 335,740 which is
accounted by 158,126 male and 177,614 female. On the other hand, the yearly magazine (2014)
of NSLSC, it has 12 administrative woredas and among these woredas, the researcher was
conducted a research in the two woredas: woreda 02 (around Mekanissa) and woreda 11 (around
Hana Maryam, where more resettlement has been taking placed) and thus the total population of
each woreda is 34221 and 39347, and the total households are 7244 and 8329 respectively. On
contrary, the area is densely populated and suffers from a lack of good infrastructure, basic social
services, and amenities. Moreover, the population is mainly constituted by rural–urban migrants,
unemployed persons and low-income workers who live in poor accommodation structures. Finally,
like other sub-cities of Addis Ababa, NSLSC has continued to experience socio–economic
pressures. So, this has an adverse effect on the dwellings.

34 | P a g e
3.2 Research Design

In this study, the researcher had used a mixed method approach (Quantitative+ Qualitative)
embedded or nested concurrent design. According to Creswell (2009), the concurrent embedded
design of mixed methods can be done concurrently in the data collection and analysis, through
which quantitative and qualitative data are collected simultaneously.

To make the study worthwhile, the researcher was used explanatory and exploratory study that
were concerned with assessing the current MSWM as well as the practices and problems with
particular emphasis on solid waste storage practice and container location. In addition, this
explanatory survey method was employed because of its advantage for exploring and describing
the existing problem in a good manner.

Moreover, to answer the research questions the qualitative method was used to present opinions,
thoughts, and phenomena or conditions of the sub-city regarding the practice and problem under
study, and it has been carried out by presenting, analyzing and interpreting data qualitatively. This
was meant to found a solution for the problem based on real evidence. The Quantitative method
was also employed to analyze the collected data, that was collected via a questionnaire and this
data was statistically tested by scientific statistical computational software (SPSS).

3.3 Sample Size and Sampling Techniques

The study was employed with a range of sampling techniques including systematic random
sampling and purposive sampling. Additionally, the simplified formula was employed to calculate
the proportions of sample size determination.
]

On one hand, key informants were selected for an interview from sub-city sanitation administration
officers, woreda sanitation administration, and micro and small enterprise waste managers (who
have been engaged in the collection of solid waste) based on purposive sampling. On the other
hand, respondents were selected for filling questionnaires based on systematic random sampling
method. However, in order to determine the sample size of households, the researcher relied on
published statistical tables which provide the sample size for a given set of criteria. Regarding this
idea, Glenn (1992) states that for a large population and less variable (for more homogeneous
population), the smaller sample size is required based on the given combinations of precision,
confidence level and variability (Appendix 1). Because of this evidence, the study was used this

35 | P a g e
computing formula for the total of households in the study area which accounts 15573; therefore
based on the formula the researcher had taken sample size under consideration of the table of
(Glenn, 1992).

At 95% confidence level, the variability (P) of a household unit is less variable or highly
homogeneous population, therefore the researcher had taken a precision level (e) at 7% or 0.07.
� � � �� � 99 , the Simplified formula to calculate sample sizes are as follows:
�
= Where, N= total number of housing units n= sample size of housing units
+� � 2

e= allowable error or precision level

Finally, by using proportional allocation method the researcher had taken sample households from
selected woredas. Thus, the then sample households who live in those woredas were a chance that
could be asked for data collection by using systematic random sampling method through by
obtaining the household number list from woreda housing development office.
In addition to these, 11 key informants were selected purposively for interview such as 3 from
sub-city and woreda sanitation administration 8 from MSE solid waste collectors were
interviewed. Generally 201 for questionnaire and 11 for interview totally 212 samples were used
for the study. The numbers of respondents from each woreda were proportional to their total
households. The following table indicates the summary of sampling.
Table 3.1: Total number of households and sample size of respondents for questionnaire
Sub-city Woredas Total number of Sample size (n)
households (N) No. %
02 7244 93 46
Nefas-silk lafto 11 8329 108 54
sub-city Total 15,573 201 100

Based on the yearly review of AACBPA in the year 2008, when compared with other sub-cities of
Addis Ababa, Nefas- silk lafto was identified as one of the sub-cities with successful story/ a sub-
city which is effective in its management of municipal solid waste, and from other sub-cities, it
has the second waste generation rate. In contrary to this other researcher (Nega, 2010; Fikreysus,
2011), examined that the problem of MSW is increasing that impede the efficiencies of MSWM,
and has inadequate service coverage. Besides, in the study area, the researcher is living and

36 | P a g e
working as an Assistant Instructor by giving short-term training for Micro and Small Enterprises
(MSE), and has more knowledge about those woredas which have severe problems regarding
management of municipal solid waste and inappropriate location of a container (skip point).
Therefore, the study area is purposively selected.

3.4 Sources of Data

To achieve the intended objectives of the study, relevant data was required for this study and it
was collected from both primary and secondary sources. Accordingly, the primary data was
collected from the formal and informal survey. The formal survey was carried out by questionnaire,
using schedule for asking with members of households from residences of NSLSC, whereas, the
informal survey was undertaken through personal observation in the area. While secondary data
was also another important source of information for the study. The secondary data for this
research was gathered from related published and unpublished materials, books, journals, manuals,
various research papers and government publications which are found in the library, website,
SWM standards and regulation, and report from the Addis Ababa Sanitation Administration
Agency.

3.5 Instruments of data collection

To obtain sufficient and reliable information, the following data collection tools was employed.
For gathering primary data the researcher was employed questionnaires, interviews, and field
observations, while for collecting secondary sources the researcher will use documents.
3.5.1 Questionnaire

This study was used a closed-ended type of questionnaires which was prepared in order to explore
the MSWM practices and capacities of the sub-city at the household level. This questionnaire was
first prepared in the English version and then later it was translated into Amharic to make it easily
understandable by the respondents. After preparation, the researcher was randomly distributed
around 20 questionnaires as a pre-test in order to correct unclear and misleading questions. Then
all questionnaires were delivered to the respondents with the help of two data investigators/
collectors around the study area by giving training and under a close supervision of the researcher.

37 | P a g e
After collecting the pre-tested questionnaire the researcher was made clear again unnecessary
errors and re-delivered the cleared questionnaires to the respondents with the help of 6 data
enumerators.
In fact, the researcher had decided to use this instrument, because it was the most appropriate tool
to obtain quantitatively as well as qualitative information relative to the other methods and it was
easy for the researcher to construct the questions and analyze the responses.

3.5.2 Interview

Primary data was also gathered with the help of semi-structured and unstructured interviews with
sub-city and woreda sanitation administration head, workers and Micro and Small enterprise
(MSE) waste collector leaders about the overall spatial coverage of MSWM and the location
setting of skip-points. Therefore, an interview schedule was prepared because of its advantages
like the chance of obtaining in-depth data related to the problems.
3.5.3 Observation

The researcher has also used field observation as a major data collection method for this study.
Field observation was employed for assessing the spatial distribution of MSWM infrastructures,
household’s solid waste handling practices, illegal dumping, solid waste collection, and
transportation systems and the location of container sitting. In each activity, photographs were
taken during field observation for the working condition of a primary solid waste storage facility
at household, illegal dumping of dwellers, a primary solid waste storage facility at skip-point with
regard to its location. Thus, this technique was undertaken through personal observation in the
field by preparing a checklist to generate data about the condition of the study area and also enable
to assess the health threat and environmental problem of the study area.

3.5.4 Document Analysis

Furthermore, secondary data was extracted from different sources including published and
unpublished materials about solid waste management standard and other necessary information
were employed, from sanitation administrative agency, sub-city administration, municipality,
sanitation administration of the sub-city.

38 | P a g e
3.6 Method of Data Analysis

The researcher was analyzed and interpreted both quantitatively and qualitatively in accordance
with the nature of the data that were given by respondents. In the qualitative method, data about
the existing situation of the problem was organized, summarized and explained thematically for
the comparison and analysis of attributes. The quantitative data was analyzed and interpreted by
using different statistical techniques like descriptive and inferential statistics to compare, contrast
and explain the personal and existing practice of the samples. A computer program aid, Statistical
Package for Social Science (SPSS) was used for more advanced statistical analysis. Finally,
conclusion and the recommendation were formulated based on the findings.

39 | P a g e
 CHAPTER FOUR

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This part mainly deals with the analysis, interpretation, and discussion of the results obtained
from the sample survey, through structured questionnaires, interview, observation and document
analysis. A total of 201 structured questionnaires was distributed and the entire questionnaires
which were distributed to the respondents were properly filled and returned. The interview was
held with some selected MSE and from sub-city sanitation administration and woreda sanitation
administration officers. Therefore, most of the data gathered were organized in tables and some
figures followed by discussion.

Accordingly, this paper has been discussed enthusiastically by elaborating and answering the
following research questions and also analyzed in the different statistical test measurement.

1. What are the current status and spatial coverage of municipal solid waste
management in the study area?
2. What are the Primary solid waste storage practices at household level in Nefas-silk
lafto sub-city?
3. How the location of solid waste storage containers affects Municipal Solid Waste
Management in terms of accessibility and health threat to the community?

4.1 Socio-Economic and Demographic Characteristics of Sample Households

In this study, the researcher was tried to constitute different sample households with various socio-
economic and demographic characteristics. The socio-demographic features of the respondents
include age structure, sex, marital status, educational level, employment status, average monthly
income and household size. Since socio-demographic characteristics of a given population have
their own implication and relation with solid waste situation of such particular place especially
they have their direct reflection on the quantity and composition of solid waste
generation in such specific urban center.

The underlying table clearly illustrates household characteristics of the sampled households. As
shown in Table 4.1 below, the percentage of male and female household heads/respondents

40 | P a g e
accounts 41.8 percent and 58.2 percent respectively. This was due to the fact that most of the time
females stay and work inside their house rather than working outside. Such dominance of women
is appreciated and important for this research since women have better knowledge than men about
their residence solid waste property and its handling. Besides this, out of the total respondents,
about 79.1 percent of sample respondents belongs to adult age group (20-50 ages). The level of
education as indicated in the table below about 9%, 5.5%, 19.9%, 20.9%, 12.9%, 16.4%, 13.9%
and 1.5% had educational status of no formal education, 1-4 grade complete, 5-8 grade complete,
9-12 grade complete, certificate, diploma, first degree and second degree and above education
respectively. With respect to an educational level, greater numbers of respondents (20.9 percent)
have the educational level of 9-12 grades complete. Next, to this 5-8 grade complete (19.9 percent)
has a relatively great share.

This is also contributed for the accuracy of information gathered from such respondents.

Table 4.1: Socio-economic and demographic characteristics of respondents

Description of
Characteristics of respondents Frequency Percent
characteristics
Female 117 58.2
Sex Male 84 41.8
Total 201 100
15-19 16 8
20-30 79 39.3
31-40 49 24.4
Age 41-50 31 15.4
51-60 24 11.9
61 and above 2 1
Total 201 100
No formal education 18 9
1-4 complete 11 5.5
5-8 complete 40 19.9
9-12 grade complete 42 20.9
Educational status Certificate 26 12.9
Diploma 33 16.4
First degree 28 13.9
Second degree and above 3 1.5
Total 201 100
Family size 1-3 75 37.3

41 | P a g e
 4-6 101 50.2
7-9 17 8.5
10 and above 8 4
Total 201 100
Trading 41 20.4
Private sector 75 37.3
Government sector 48 23.9
Employment status
Daily labour 2 1
Other 35 17.4
Total 201 100
Single 73 36.3
Married 110 54.7
Marital status Divorced 16 8
Widowed 2 1
Total 201 100
Below 500 29 14.4
501-1500 57 28.4
1501-2500 18 9
Average monthly income 2501-5000 48 23.9
5001 and above 34 16.9
No response 15 7.5
Total 201 100
Source: compiled from questionnaires survey, 2017
These educational characteristics of sample households also resulted in a positive impact to get
brief and different perceptions.

Furthermore, the household size of the total samples of the respondents, 37.3 percent have 1-3
family members, 8.5 percent have 7-9 family members while the majority of them 50.2 percent of
them had between 4-6 family members. Among the respondent households, only 4 percent of them
reported that they have more than 10 and above family members. It is used as a measure of the
crudeness of population and has a great implication on health and collection of solid wastes. The
average household size of Addis Ababa in the year 2011 was 3.6 which were equal to the average
household size of the country (AABFED, 2013). This result shows that most of the respondents of
the study area nearly satisfied the national average.

When we see the employment status of the respondents, as indicated in table 4.1, out of the total
201 sample households 20.4 percent are traders, 37.3 percent are private sector workers and
constitute the highest percent of sample respondents, 23.9 percent are government sector workers.

42 | P a g e
Whereas, daily laborers constitute 1 percent of sample respondents. The remaining 17.4 percent of
the respondents are engaged in other different economic activities.

With regard to the marital status of the respondents, about 36.3 percent were single, 54.7 percent
were married, and 8 percent were divorced and near to 1 percent were widowed. Accordingly,
marital status has also its own implication on economic and social value under solid waste
composition and generation.

Finally, Income is another socioeconomic factor that leads the increasing volume of solid wastes
as well as the increasing problem of municipal solid waste management. From the socioeconomic
conditions amount of annual income of the household has an impact on municipal solid waste
management. The income level of participated households’ also illustrated in table 1 households
were categorized into five groups based on their monthly household income. Thus, dominant (28.4
percent) number of sample households’ average income is grouped in the second category who
earns between 501-1500 birr per month. But the least number of households (9 percent) are fall
under in category three that earns between 1501-2500 birr.

4.2 Existing Status and Spatial Coverage of Municipal Solid Waste Management

In Addis Ababa Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM) is one of the basic services that
are currently receiving wide attention in Ethiopia. This is mainly because solid wastes that are
generated in the city of Ethiopia are not appropriately handled and managed. However, it is
possible to minimize and solve these problems through strictly planning and implementing
different municipal solid waste management components.

On top of this, by realizing the target of the study the following table depicts that regarding the
identification of the sampled respondents of the SWM service priority with other services in the
study area.

43 | P a g e
Table 4.2: Frequency distribution of level of priority of SWM service compared with other
municipal services
SWM is not the first priority when Valid Cumulative
compared with other municipal services Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Strongly agree 34 16.9 16.9 16.9
Agree 65 32.3 32.3 49.3
Neither agree nor disagree 2 1.0 1.0 50.2
Disagree 78 38.8 38.8 89.1
Strongly disagree 20 10.0 10.0 99.0
no response 2 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 201 100.0 100.0
Source: computed from survey data, 2017
Based on the (table 4.2) above, the response to the survey question regarding the level of priority
given to SWM service, compared with other basic services such as water, electricity, drainage,
safety and security, transport and other similar municipal services, shows that 16.9 percent (34
SHHs) strongly agree and 32.3percent (65 SHHs) agree with the idea that says SWM service is
not the first priority. On the other hand, 10 percent (20 SHHs) of the respondents strongly disagree
and 38.8 percent (78 respondents) disagree; while 1 percent (2 SHHs) were neutral and the
remaining 1percent (2 SHHs) preferred to be no response. The above information shows that there
was a gap to give the priority of SWM and lack of sufficient information concerning about how
much inappropriate use of solid waste affect human health and the aesthetic community at a
household level at large. Besides, due to a misunderstanding of proper management of solid waste,
some respondents have disclosed their exposure no priority has been needed, because of a shortage
of other basic services.

4.2.1 Opinion and Awareness of households on solid waste with respect to Rules and
regulation, proclamation and standards

In Addis Ababa, the government has already taken a keen interest in solid waste management and
has established a viable business model for waste management. To govern solid waste the
government plays a key role in every step of the process, by implementing laws (proclamation),
rules and regulation, and standards and the sector have benefited from this. Based on this sample

44 | P a g e
households were asked about paying fee/charges for the SWM service rendered by the
government. The following table illustrates that the number of households who has been paying
a fee.

Table 4.3: Number of households who pay fee for SWM service of government

Do you pay fee/ charge for the

Valid Cumulative
SWM service rendered by the Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
government

Yes 185 92 92 92
No 12 6 6 98

no response 4 2 2 100

Total 201 100 100

Source: computed from survey data, 2017
According to Table 4.3 shown above, 92 percent of the respondents reported that they pay
service fee/charge for the SWM service rendered by the government while 6 percent reported that
they don’t pay and 2 percent did not respond to this question. On one hand, the respondents were
asked why you are not willing to pay a fee, they were disclosed that because of the new settlement
of residential area (particularly in woreda 11) the local government was not asked to pay and
households have not been benefited from any services related to solid waste. On the other hand,
the respondents were asked how much they pay a fee monthly, they reported that they pay
fee/charge only 10% have provided a response on the issue of payment. However, even those
whose who responded to this question did not mention the amount clearly, but, urban residents are
paying some amount of money for any sanitation service, it is true that 20 percent of the money
paid for waste from the total cost of the water bill. Therefore there is a lack of coverage of
implementation of rules and regulation at large.

Moreover the researcher were asked if they have ever had awareness raising or sensitization
education about solid waste in general and posed a question to check the level (depth) awareness
and legal observation of the respondents and asked if they know about the endorsement of the
national SWM law (the existence of proclamation), rule and regulation and standards, and also

45 | P a g e
other questions were asked about the level of service. As literature argues according to EPA (2007)
and Tchobanoglous and Kreith (2002), awareness of SWM is measured in terms of behavioral
change towards what the people perform. Based on this assumption, to assess the level of taking
awareness of household respondents the following result was revealed accordingly.
Table 4.4: Number of households who had awareness or education about solid waste
management at the household level
Have you ever had
awareness or education
Valid Cumulative
about solid waste Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
management at the
household level?
Yes 50 24.9 24.9 24.9
No 151 75.1 75.1 100.0
Total 201 100.0 100.0
Source: computed from survey data, 2017
However, awareness creation activity requires appropriate approach with continuous effort (EPA,
2007; Tchobanoglous and Kreith,2002)

This approach is relevant for implementing sustainable solid waste management. Based on this
table 4.4 above revealed that, 75.1 percent (151 SHHs) of the respondents replied that they haven’t
had awareness raising or sensitization education; 24.9 percent (50 SHHs) told that they have
obtained awareness-raising education about solid waste.

For those who obtained awareness-raising education about solid waste, much more related and
consecutive questions were forwarded so as to investigate the role of the education (training) on
the behavioral change and performance of the respondents on SWM. Based on this the respondents
also confirmed that except in a few annual anniversary days like an environmental day there was
no community mobilization and awareness creation activity done by the concerned body.
Therefore, low level of residents’ awareness on solid waste handling due to attitudes has extremely
aggravated the problem of solid waste management.

To assess the responsiveness of the respondents regarding the rules and regulations, proclamation
and standards drafted by the city government of Addis Ababa Sanitation Administration Agency,
Regulatory service enforcement office and Environmental Protection Authority, accordingly their
reaction were not good for delivering appropriate awareness via in different media. Raising the

46 | P a g e
awareness of the public about the impacts of poor SWM and the benefits of improved
waste management is an essential part of strengthening the improved waste system.

Although concerning the rules and regulations, proclamation and standards of the city SWM in
their sub city were asked to know their awareness, the majority of the respondents (78.1%) do not
have knowledge or information. While only 17.9% have some knowledge regarding the cities laws,
and the remaining 4% of respondents didn't know whether the laws, rules, and regulation or
standards have been worked on the ground.
Table 4.5: Number of households who knows the rules and regulations, proclamation and
standards of SWM in NSLSC
Do you know the rules and
regulations, proclamation and Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
standards of SWM in your sub Percent Percent
city?
Yes 36 17.9 17.9 17.9
No 157 78.1 78.1 96.0
don't know 8 4.0 4.0 100.0
Total 201 100.0 100.0
Source: computed from survey data, 2017
Addis Ababa city code Enforcement Service Regulation No.54/2012 has been settled out for
protecting any illegal activity. This enforcement also serving to prevent Littering waste or
mismanagement of waste, and failure to keep any wastes on the residential area has a punishment
in terms of fine. Accordingly, sample households were asked the following result in response to
the hypothetical question about throwing waste in street or roadside or water bodies attract
punishment in the form of fine. This result shows that 124 households (61.7) percent were known
throwing waste in street roadside or water bodies attract punishment in the form of fine and the
remaining 77 households (38.3) percent were not yet known. Even if most of the respondents were
known the punishment, anybody is not responsible for taking any legal actions when someone
throwing waste in any place.

47 | P a g e
Table 4.6: Respondents who know throwing waste in street or roadside or water bodies
attract punishment in the form of fine
Do you think that throwing
waste in street or roadside or Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
water bodies attract punishment Percent Percent
in the form of fine?
Yes 124 61.7 61.7 61.7
No 77 38.3 38.3 100.0
Total 201 100.0 100.0
Source: computed from survey data, 2017
On the other hand, the following result was reported in response to the hypothetical question
what action the survey households might have taken against people who dump solid waste in
unauthorized places.
As noted from Table 4.7 below, 43.8 percent of the respondents told that they would like to
convince the violator, 36.3 percent were no response to give information because of lack of
awareness of the laws and don’t know what actions were made and 5 percent would prefer to do
nothing because it is not their duty and responsibility. Similarly, respondents mentioned different
government agents as places where they would like to go to report. 8.5 percent like to report to
SWMT workers; 2.5 percent like to go to woreda administration to report the situation and to take
action on the person, 2 percent like to go to call a nearby police to stop him/her from his/her illegal
act and 2 percent like to go to expose the man on a public meeting on the issues of health or related
topics. Besides, some respondents were disclosed their exposure “we have the responsibility to
especially some people who deliberately done throwing waste in our community, at that moment
we call his/her to pick his/her illegal actions of waste, and we advise them indiscriminately
throwing waste is a bad action and it expose our health”. Moreover, the researcher observed a good
condition in some places that have been done by woreda 02 residents, some peoples were posted
a poster to prevent illegal actions associated with throwing waste and the poster was noted that
“throwing waste is prohibited and it punished by law”. In contrary to this, even if some people
made some measurement, other residents have been throwing waste deliberately without knowing
how much really waste is exposed to a health threat.
In general rules and regulations are largely emphasized on solid waste handling responsibilities
and obligations of persons and establishments. Since Addis Ababa City Government of
Enforcement Service Regulation office established in regulation number 54/2012, the office takes

48 | P a g e
so many duties and responsibilities of protecting and controlling violations and other illegal
activities.

But, due to the absence of regulatory framework and low enforcement of rules and regulations, the
effectiveness of solid waste collection, storage and disposal system of the city at large would be
hindered.
Table 4.7: Actions that households preferred to take actions someone throwing waste
illegally

What action do you take when you find

Valid Cumulative
someone throwing solid waste across the Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
sub-city illegally?
I will call to the woreda administration to 5 2.5 2.5 2.5
report the situation and to take action on the
person
I will report to the woreda solid waste 17 8.5 8.5 10.9
management workers to take action
I will call a nearby police to stop him from 4 2.0 2.0 12.9
his illegal act
I will ask him, peacefully, to stop his illegal 88 43.8 43.8 56.7
act and try to convince him not to do it again

I will do nothing because it is not my duty 10 5.0 5.0 61.7

and responsibility
I will expose the man on a public meeting on 4 2.0 2.0 63.7
the issues of health or related topics

no response 73 36.3 36.3 100.0

Total 201 100.0 100.0
Source: computed from survey data, 2017

4.2.2 Households’ Perception concerning the Current Solid Waste Management

Service

Sample households were also asked about their general perception of the status and their level of
satisfaction by the prevailing SWM service in their respective woreda.
As noted from Table 4.8 below, the highest number (41.3 percent) of the respondents reported that
the SWM service has improved; 27.9 percent said that service remained the same (no change);

49 | P a g e
21.9 percent stated that service has deteriorated; 9 percent reported that they have no opinion in
this regard.
Accordingly, the result of the sample survey is presented as follows:
Table 4.8: Households perception to evaluate the state of solid waste service
How do you evaluate the
Valid Cumulative
state of solid waste service Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
in your woreda?
Has improved 83 41.3 41.3 41.3
Remains the same 56 27.9 27.9 69.2
Has deteriorated 44 21.9 21.9 91.0
No opinion 18 9.0 9.0 100.0
Total 201 100.0 100.0
Source: computed from survey data, 2017
In line with the above discussion, with the intention to know the factors, an additional question
was given to those who noticed improvement of the service provision. The finding indicates that
57.2 percent of the respondents have mentioned various factors for the improvement of the
service and 42.8 percent did not respond to this question.

Among those respondents who said SWM service has improved, 39.5 percent of the survey
households reported that the service improvement is the result of the combination of various
factors, while 21.1percent said that the increased service provision given by the government.
Additionally, 18.4 percent said service improvement is the result of raised awareness; 11.4 percent
believed in the good start of source reduction strategies; 7.9 percent reported that the involvement
of the private sector in the service contributed the most and 1 percent mentioned other factors with
specifying them.

4.3. Primary solid waste storage at household level

As Regassa et.al (2011), a proper waste handling at household level has a positive implication on
waste management. To determine the type and way of SWM, waste prevention, recycling, reuse,
composting and incineration, knowing the composition and characteristics of waste are essential.
For instance, according to (Solomon, 2011; Cointreau, 2006), if wastes have a high proportion of
organic matter, the possibility of composting and biogas regeneration as means handling wastes
is a better mechanism than incineration, reuse, and recycling. Moreover, using incineration as a
means of waste disposal has been mostly negative experience due to environmental pollution.

50 | P a g e
Since solid waste is managed properly, storing solid waste in a certain kind of material or
equipment as soon as it is generated and safe control of it until it is permanently disposed of. As a
result of this, the researcher collects information about solid waste storage and handling practice
of NSLSC at the household level.
Residents of NSLSC used a different type of storage materials in their compound which is basket
and plastic sacks local name of “Madaberia” and others. In order to assess the type and quantity
of storage materials of residents, around 201 households were asked. The result has shown that in
fig. 4.1 the majority of 71.64 percent of households has been used plastic sacks local name of
“Madaberia”. This is highly related to the least cost of sack, easily availability in the market, its
suitability for holding large volume of solid wastes, and easily delivered by MSE of the woreda,
next to plastic sacks about 16.42 percent of households has also used basket because of their
frequent but low generation of waste and economic power to utilize replicable storage materials
such as plastic bags, and while the remaining 7.96, 2.985 and 0.995 percent used festivals, sisal
sacks local name “ye kaccha joniya” and metal bucket storage material respectively. But, on the
type of storage materials used by households, there is high variation. This is mainly because the
nature of storage material of households is depend on characteristics of solid waste (rate of
generation, physical and chemical composition, moisture content of waste etc.), collection
frequency and types of collection equipment, space available for placement of the storage
materials, and economic power of solid waste generators (Khan and Ahsan, 2002).

It is also observed that most of the households who use the ‘Festal’, as a storage material for their
solid waste at home, throw it away together with the waste it contains. This experience of the
households shows that storage materials are meant one-time use only. This means that no more
value is given for the storage materials once they are used for waste storage and, very soon, the
storage materials become part of the waste that increases the quantity of non-decomposable solid
waste that increasingly littering most part of the city in general.

However, one way to manage solid waste is to reduce the waste we generate at the source and
hence storage materials have to be designed for many times use so that these items do not wear
out so quickly and become part of waste instead.

The concrete evidence of this situation is shown in the following fig.4.1.

51 | P a g e
However, different from preparation and usage of storage material, most of the residents do not
have well-established handling practices and give low attention for it. And the researcher observed
that almost all SHHs stored wastes by one item of storage material and practiced without separating
decomposable and non-decomposable waste. In addition to this, the storage materials of
households are characterized by unpleasant feature resulted by inappropriate handling and drop
out of solid waste around storage material. The majority of households are also placed their wastes
very near to houses especially occupant households are placed their waste from their inside home
due to the absence of available space.

Furthermore, it is clear that the above solid waste storing materials in almost all the households
has been served to transfer the waste from each individual house to the MSE or communal solid
waste storage containers. Hence, determining the right type of storage material and the appropriate
frequency for solid waste disposal needs an in-depth professional study.

52 | P a g e
4.3.1 Solid Waste Reduction Practices at the household level

Practicing the waste reduction strategies is very important to waste generators as well as a
municipality since it minimizes the cost of disposal, generates revenue, and prolongs the lifespan
of disposal site (Regasa et.al, 2011; Solomon, 2011). Since waste storage and segregation
determine the feasibility of recycling and composting in an economically and environmentally
sustainable manner, it plays a vital role in MSWM system. It also significantly influences the
quality of the recovered materials and in turn the quality of recycled products and their market
value. Therefore, the study subjects were asked some relevant questions concerning their practical
experience and habits of segregating solid waste vis-à-vis their level of awareness.

About 96 percent (193 HHs) of the sample households have disclosed their habits and only 4
percent (8 HHs) of the respondents remained utterly quiet. And among those who responded to
this question, 52.7 percent (106 HHs) told that they don’t separate decomposable solid waste from
non-decomposable and only 43.3 percent (87 HHs) stated that they do the separation.

Table. 4.9: Households who has been separated decomposing waste and non-decomposing
waste before disposing of
Do you separate
decomposing waste and Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
non-decomposing waste Percent Percent
before disposing of?
Yes 87 43.3 43.3 43.3
No 106 52.7 52.7 96.0
Don't know 8 4.0 4.0 100.0
Total 201 100.0 100.0
Source: computed from survey data, 2017

In light of the above discussion, households were asked why do not use to separate decomposable
from non-decomposable solid waste was forwarded. Based on the query posed, sample households
told the reason why they wouldn’t like to separate their solid wastes. About 41.5 percent (44 HHs)
told that they lack the knowledge, 24.5 percent (26 HHs) believe that separation is a difficult
exercise, 20.8 percent (22HHs) believe that waste has no value; and 5 percent (10 HHs) told that
they do not have enough space and time whereas 3.8 percent (4 HHs) do not have opinion. As a
researcher observed some households who earn monthly income of 5000 and above (table 4.1)

53 | P a g e
believe that “separating waste is a very important issue, but when we deliver for door to door
collector (MSE), those MSE has been seen as mixed all waste; due to this reason we have not
practiced segregation of waste”. Although, respondents feel that separation waste is an important
issue to make the collection of waste is efficient, but no medium of communication has been
applied to give awareness and no materials have been delivered to carried out separating waste by
each type.

Subsequent questions were asked in (table 4.10) below to know the respondents who were used
solid waste items like bottles, tins/cans, plastics, metals, shoes or clothes after separating them for
different purposes.

Table 4.10: practice of integrated SWM among different average monthly income groups
For what purpose do you often use Average monthly income
solid waste items like bottles, 5001
below 501- 1501- 2501- no Total
tins/cans, plastics, metals, shoes or and
clothes, after you separate them? 500 1500 2500 5000 response
above
Count 4 6 0 2 1 0 13
To reuse
% 30.8% 46.2% 0.0% 15.4% 7.7% 0.0% 100.0%
Count 2 11 10 10 7 6 46
To sell
% 4.3% 23.9% 21.7% 21.7% 15.2% 13.0% 100.0%
To present as a gift to Count 1 4 0 4 11 1 21
others % 4.8% 19.0% 0.0% 19.0% 52.4% 4.8% 100.0%
Count 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
To recycle
% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
To help waste collectors Count 2 16 5 18 4 0 45
(to make the collection
% 4.4% 35.6% 11.1% 40.0% 8.9% 0.0% 100.0%
task easier)
Count 0 6 1 0 0 0 7
other, specify
% 0.0% 85.7% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%
Count 18 14 2 14 11 8 67
No response
% 26.9% 20.9% 3.0% 20.9% 16.4% 11.9% 100.0%
Count 29 57 18 48 34 15 201
Total
% 14.4% 28.4% 9.0% 23.9% 16.9% 7.5% 100.0%
Source: computed from survey data, 2017

Nevertheless, as the researcher observed respondents who segregate solid waste have a good
means of reducing the cost of solid waste collection and disposal service. For example, no one has
appreciated the so-called "Koraliew" (ቆርቆሮ ያለው) (those individuals who buy recyclable items

54 | P a g e
such as glass, plastic, tin cans, metals, shoes etc. from different houses in a door-to-door service
and sell them to small recyclers and industries.). These people, apart from collecting usable
materials from homes, they visit containers and disposal sites to gather different materials that they
need. There are other people also involved in similar types of job called “Liwach” who go around
the city and exchange used clothes and shoes with new household utensils and sell them to low-
income people. Therefore, since this activity reduces the quantity of solid waste that would have
been collected by the government, their role in the management of solid waste collection and
disposal should be considered as an important informal means of waste management.

In developing countries, co-disposal of non-hazardous and hazardous waste without segregation is

common practice (UNEP, 2012). Accordingly, the respondents of NSLSC have been also did not
give high priority for segregation of waste rather they have been stored in one item of storage
collection and dispose to either MSE or open spaces. Therefore, this needs further studies to give
high awareness creation for the solid waste producer, the way to apply waste reduction strategies,
reuse, recycle and recover.

4.4 Accessibility of Communal Solid Waste storage Containers, Collection and

Transportation Service in NSLSC

Studying solid waste storage facilities and their handling has a significant impact for the betterment
of municipal solid waste management activity. This is from the point of identification of type and
quantity of storage material to be used, appropriate location (sitting) of it, deciding the collection
method to be used, and avoidance of health, environment and aesthetics impacts of storage
materials (Khan and Ahsan, 2002).
Primary storage facilities of a container refer to a type of solid waste containers which involve
keeping solid waste generated from different households at a common or central point from where
collection vehicles can pick it and transport to final disposal site (Zebenay, 2010). These facilities
are provided by the municipality which is responsible for management of the city solid waste.
Until early 2016 table (4.11) illustrates that NSLSC put 181 public solid waste containers in
different areas of the city where frequent illegal dumping of waste was mostly occurred especially
in woreda 11, and in areas where high population density is assumed to exist and the number of
MSE is 86 in the sub-city. But this operation caused odor and dust problems. Residents who live
around those containers were highly exposed and attacked by different solid waste caused diseases.

55 | P a g e
Because those containers have not been frequently getting emptied mainly due to lifter truck being
out of service, the absence of frequent collection of those public solid waste containers, frequent
breakdown and lack of technical skill of maintenance team, and negligence of operators (Drivers
& loaders). As a result, the NSLSC was forced to collect those public solid waste containers instead
of serving the intended purpose. Based on this, the researcher collects information about solid
waste storage and handling practice of NSLSC.
Table 4.11: Spatial coverage and distribution of containers and the number of MSE in
NSLSC
Spatial coverage and distribution of containers and the number of MSE in NSLSC
Number of containers which Containers that were not Number of
Woreda
were fully given a service given a service MSE
1 50 17
2 32 8
3 4 6 9
4 6 3
5 10 5
6 4 7 11
7 5 3
8 6 4
9 13 6
10 8 4
11 26 7
12 4 8 9
Total 160 29 86
Source: Annual report of Sanitation Administration office (2016)
From the table above illustrates woreda 3, 6 and 12 has being served by designated compactors
and woreda 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 11 were undertaken by lifting cars while woreda 10 is being fully
served by only compactors for transporting and disposed of solid wastes.

Communal storage containers can have capacities 8m3 volumes and 160 containers are distributed
in the whole sub city efficiently, but it has been seen as an infrequent collection of vehicles. The
most difficult problem normally associated with the use of these containers is their sitting. The
land area occupied by the containers is equivalent to a large shop. In addition, some containers

56 | P a g e
have been placed the location that inappropriately located on a road by creating a nuisance.
Generally, such sites are difficult to find and very costly to acquire.

In fact, the collection vehicle selected must be appropriate to the terrain, type and density of waste
generation points, the way it travels and type and kind of material. Since health risks to the
collectors and odor on the streets are minimized; serving with compactors are a good practicing
activity when compared with served by a lifting hauling cars (UNEP, 2012).
As Ethiopian National Solid Waste Management Standard (2014) the placement and location of
solid waste storage container should meet:
 The accessibility for both the general public and the waste collection vehicles. Thus factors
such as traffic density and overhead power and telephone cables must be considered.
 The visibility – which is significantly enhanced by the provision of street lighting in the
vicinity of the containers;
 The public safety – for example, members of the public shall not be expected to
have to cross busy, heavily trafficked roads, to access the containers.
 The protection from scavenging animals and birds – typically by way of a lid or
cover mechanism.
 The waste storage containers shall be kept clean and orderly, and containers shall
be inspected and cleaned every month. An area of 10m radius around each
communal container location shall be cleaned at a minimum every quarter (3
months).
In contrary to this, as a researcher observed, this study reported that in NSLSC most containers
have been placed without consideration of the above criteria and not fulfill the minimum standards.

In addition to this, indicated sample households were asked about the availability of solid waste
communal containers in their respective surroundings to check the provision of appropriate solid
waste collection and transportation services. Accordingly, the following result was obtained.
Table 4.12: Availability of solid waste storage container
Is the community solid
waste storage container Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
available in your Percent Percent
neighborhood?
Yes 96 47.8 47.8 47.8
No 105 52.2 52.2 100.0
Total 201 100.0 100.0

57 | P a g e
Source: computed from survey data, 2017
As shown in Table 4.12 above, 47.8 percent (96 HHs) stated that public solid waste container is
available in their neighborhood and 52.2 percent (105 HHs) said that communal solid waste
container is not available in their surroundings. As a researcher observed, availability of solid
waste storage containers was influenced the respondents’ behavior of solid waste disposal. Some
SHHs who live nearby a container dispose of their waste when the door to door collectors have
not been coming. On contrary, in some areas as the researcher observed, the community have the
chance to dispose their wastes nearby containers, but themselves, children or servants who have
been used the ‘Festal’, as a storage material for their solid waste at home, when a container get
full or not, they threw it away together with the waste it contains nearby a container.

In addition to the indicated availability of the communal solid waste container, the accessibility of
solid waste storage container was asked to know the average distance between a residence and a
communal container was found to be less than 100 meters. Most households walk within less
than100 meters. It means that there are many people who could be located less than the 100-meter
radius of the container, but the remaining of households travel a long distance to reach the
containers. In general, a container is located less than100 meter radius for 67.6 percent households
(69 HHs); between 101 and 200 meters for 23.5 percent of households (24HHs); between 201 and
300 meters for 5.9 percent of households (6HHs); between 301 and 400 meters for 2 percent of
households (2 HHs), and more than 400 meters for 1 percent of households (1 HHs).

Subsequently, the same respondents were asked if they have participations or if they have a say in
choosing and deciding the location for the containers in their respective areas. Response of the
sample households are shown in Table 4.13.
Table 4.13: Households who have a say or participation in deciding the location/ placement
of the public container
Do you have a say or
participation in deciding the Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
location /placement of the public Percent
container?
Yes 20 10.0 10.0 10.0
No 144 71.6 71.6 81.6
Don't know 37 18.4 18.4 100.0
Total 201 100.0 100.0
Source: computed from survey data, 2017

58 | P a g e
As Ethiopian National Solid Waste Management (2014), competent authorities shall ensure that
local residents are involved in the decision-making process regarding where to place the
community waste containers (where used). This shall address any concerns about potential smell,
the presence of dogs and cats, or other aesthetic reasons whilst balancing the need for the container
to be close enough for convenience.
Despite, community participation in solid waste management were low in the sub-city. This was
mainly due to lack of promotion through general awareness building programs as well as focused
solid waste management information campaign. Most of the respondents, bout 71.6 percent
(144HHs) stated that they had no participation or say in choosing or deciding the location for the
containers in their areas; whereas 10 percent (20 HHs) of the respondents acknowledged their
participation in choosing and deciding for the containers and the remaining 18.4 percent (37HHs)
didn’t know the presence of participation of deciding the location/ placement of the public
container.
On the other hand, a subsequent question was asked with the intent to know where households
usually, dispose of their solid waste if waste containers are not available or if households are not
aware of the availability of containers in their surroundings. Accordingly, the following results
were obtained from the response of subject households.
Table: 4.14: Perception that households dispose of solid waste which generates daily

Where do you dispose the solid waste

you generate daily? Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Use the MSEs to collect
the waste from my house 57 28.4 54.3 54.3

Into a valley/ stream 8 4.0 7.6 61.9

On the open space 14
7.0 13.3 75.2
available around
Burry in the compound 7 3.5 6.7 81.9
Burn 3 1.5 2.9 84.8
Other 16 8.0 15.2 100.0
Total 105 52.2 100.0
Missing System 96 47.8
Total 201 100.0
Source: computed from survey data, 2017

59 | P a g e
As can be noted from Table 4.14, about 54.3 percent of the respondents use MSEs and each
household are staying until MSEs has being come; 7.6 percent of SHHs disposing into a nearby
river valley and dump into a roadside ditches, 13.3 percent of SHHs get rid of on the open space
available in their neighborhood, 6.7 percent of the respondents use other methods like burying
solid waste in their compounds, and the remaining 2.9 percent of SHHs burn their solid wastes;
while 15.2 percent SHHs were disclosed others, where they dispose by their servant or by paying
a wage for laborer when the container has not been available or the MSE has not been coming.
According to the table 14 above in woreda 11 the respondents who live in a squatter settlement,
where they have been getting rid of indiscriminately their solid waste nearby open spaces, roadside
ditches, rivers and burying in their compound.
Apart from direct injury, indiscriminate disposal of solid waste would also encourage the breeding
of street animals.
Fig. 4.2: Illegal dumping of Solid waste nearby open spaces and rivers

Illegal Dumping of Solid Waste

Nearby open spaces Illegal dumping near
new building construction area

60 | P a g e
Illegal dumping nearby rivers

Source: field survey, 2017

Similarly, a question was asked to know the perception of households about the conditions of the
surroundings of the public solid waste containers. Sample households explain the situation and
status as follows, based on their daily observations.

Table 4.15: frequency distribution of households who found communal solid waste storage
container
How do you usually found the
Valid Cumulative
communal solid waste storage Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
container?

Always overflowing (beyond full) 111 55.2 55.2 55.2

Always full 45 22.4 22.4 77.6
Neither full nor empty 33 16.4 16.4 94.0
no response 12 6.0 6.0 100.0
Total 201 100.0 100.0
Source: computed from survey data, 2017

61 | P a g e
With regard to the conditions of solid waste containers, 77.6 percent (156 SHHs) of the study
subjects reported that the communal containers in the sub-city are always full, and overflowing;
whereas 16.4 percent (33 SHHs) of the respondents said that the communal containers are always
neither full nor empty; other 6 percent (12 SHHs) of the respondents did not respond to this
question. Therefore, this result shows that due to an infrequent collection of a container, the above
conditions have been affecting the surroundings of ecological life of the sub-city and peoples who
live around containers.
Subsequently, the same respondents were asked to explain what incidents they have witnessed in
or around overflowing solid waste containers or transfer stations. In light of the given choices,
respondents forwarded their replies as indicated in Table 16 below.

Table 4.16: Incidents that households have ever noticed in and/or around an overflowing a
container

Which one of the following incidents have

Valid Cumulative
you ever noticed in and/or around an Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
overflowing solid a waste container?

The stinking odor disturbing people passing

18 9.0 9.0 9.0
by
Eaten by domestic animals (dogs, cats) 6 3.0 3.0 11.9
Being harbor for vectors flies, mosquitoes,
4 2.0 2.0 13.9
cockroaches, etc)
Cause for uncontrollable fire and disease 2 1.0 1.0 14.9
Create bad look as semi-fluid matter coming
7 3.5 3.5 18.4
out from waste
all of the above 155 77.1 77.1 95.5
no response 9 4.5 4.5 100.0
Total 201 100.0 100.0
Source: computed from survey data, 2017

Among the sample households, 77.1 percent (155 HHs) reported that the existence of stinking
odor disturbing passers-by, the solid waste being eaten by domestic animals, the container being
harbor for vectors flies, mosquitoes, and other scavengers, cause for uncontrollable fire and
disease, and it creates bad look as semi-fluid matter coming out from waste as incidents they have
witnessed from overflowing solid waste containers; 9 percent (18HHs) of the respondents reported
the incident they witnessed for stinking odor only; 2 percent (4 HHs) stated that they have observed

62 | P a g e
the container being harbor for vectors flies, mosquitoes, cockroaches; 3 percent (6 HHs) said that
solid waste has been eaten by domestic animals and 4.5 percent of the respondents reported that
they have the cause for uncontrollable fire and create bad look as semi-fluid matter coming out
from waste. On the other hand, 4.5 percent of the respondents found non-responsive to this
question.
The above table 4.16 result reveals that if storage containers have not been getting emptied
frequently, it would threaten the health of the community and safety. As a result, poor handling
and disposal of waste are major causes of environmental pollution and human health problem,
which creates breeding grounds for pathogenic organisms, and the spread of infectious diseases.

Similarly, sample households were asked the given statement to see the relationship among
awareness, behavioral change and situation of the solid waste in their residential areas. The
hypothetical question of a statement was written in table 4.17 below:
Table 4.17: perception that households were given the situation of solid waste in their
residential area
There are a number of overflowing containers,
flying plastic bags (festivals) etc. With an Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent
increasing pattern and overspreading widely in Percent Percent
the Sub-City.
Strongly agree 119 59.2 59.2 59.2
Agree 57 28.4 28.4 87.6
Neither agree nor disagree 12 6.0 6.0 93.5
Disagree 12 6.0 6.0 99.5
Strongly disagree 1 .5 .5 100.0
Total 201 100.0 100.0
Source: computed from survey data, 2017

Based on the above table, 119 SHHs (59.2 percent) have strongly agreed and 57 SHHs (28.4
percent) agreed on the statement; only 1 SHHs (0.5 percent) have strongly disagreed and 12
SHHs (6 percent) disagreed; 12 SHHs (6 percent) remained neutral. The results show that low
coverage of solid waste management in terms of handling and disposed of.

4.4.1 Solid Waste Collection

In Addis Ababa, the collection coverage of solid waste has risen to about 92% (Wondimu, 2015).
As Fikreyesus (2011), the waste production rate per person is about 0.45 kg/day. However, Solid
waste generation rate has been increased in the day to day activity. Currently, the city solid waste
has been collected by designated MSEs and they collect in the door to door collection system.
63 | P a g e
Accordingly, to compare and contrast the household's response given for places where respondents
do dispose of their household solid waste, they were also asked a question if they have ever been
served by MSEs. Based on the above question, the following result was observed from the response
of the sample households.
Table 4.18: The number that households served by private MSEs for SWM service
Have you ever been
Valid Cumulative
served by private MSEs Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
for SWM service?
Yes 187 93.0 93.0 93.0
No 14 7.0 7.0 100.0
Total 201 100.0 100.0
Source: computed from survey data, 2017
As indicated in Table 4.18 above, 93 percent (187 SHHs) of the respondents were customers of
solid waste collection service rendered by the MSEs, 7 percent (14 SHHs) of the respondents
were found to be non-user of the service provided by MSEs. Respondents who have not been
served by designated MSEs, they were practiced indiscriminately dump their waste in open spaces,
rivers, ditches and roads.

On the other hand, to assess if the sample households know the interval of the collection services
rendered by MSEs and SWMT, they were asked the following crossing questions. Based on the
query, how often private MSEs collect solid waste from your house? Therefore, the result indicates
56.2 percent (113 SHHs) reported that they know that MSEs collect household solid waste on a
weekly basis, 17.9 percent (36 SHHs) indicated that MSEs collect solid waste twice in a week, 2
percent (4 SHHs) were utterly quiet and the remaining 23.9 percent (48 SHHs) of the respondents
said that MSEs collection service can be obtained by special arrangement and some households
disclosed that those MSEs has not been coming based on their schedules and sometimes they have
been staying more than 15 days. During the time of MSEs infrequent collection, some households
have been disposed of their waste by using labor.
Therefore, a frequent collection of waste is needed on a periodic basis as far as solid waste
management is concerned.

64 | P a g e
In addition to the above, with the intention to know whether the current service delivered by the
MSEs is sufficient and satisfactory or not, sample households were asked to forward their
opinion. The result is presented in the table below.
Table 4.19: Households who has been satisfied by the service rendered by such private
MSEs
Do you believe that the service
Valid Cumulative
currently rendered by such private Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
MSE is satisfactory?
yes 58 28.9 28.9 28.9
no 134 66.7 66.7 95.6
no response 9 4.5 4.5 100.0
Total 201 100.0 100.0
Source: computed from survey data, 2017

As illustrated in Table 4.19 above, 66.7 percent of the respondents believe that the solid waste
collection service delivery by MSEs is unsatisfactory and insufficient. Whereas, 28.9 percent
stated that it is satisfactory and sufficient. Only 4.5 percent of the sample households did not
reply to this question. Accordingly, this shows that low coverage of delivering of services.
According to key informants and MSE, the number of customers which served by MSE is an
average of 1200 households and this number is proportional to the number of each MSEs. In
contrary to this, the result of low coverage is being may come due to lack of motivation, lack of
efficient supporting of MSE in terms of continuous training, insurance coverage, first-aid
equipment, and safety.

4.5 Education and segregation of solid waste

The variable which ANOVA was used to see the level of education and their behavioral change
towards for integrated solid waste management strategy, known as segregation of waste. The
following table result illustrates education was taken as independent variable and segregation of
waste as the dependent variable.

65 | P a g e
DISCRIPTTIVES

Table 4.20a: Education and segregation of waste

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Std. Std. Lower Upper
N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound
No formal education 18 1.33 .485 .114 1.09 1.57
1-4 complete 11 1.45 .522 .157 1.10 1.81
5-8 complete 40 1.78 .530 .084 1.61 1.94
9-12 grade complete 42 1.52 .505 .078 1.37 1.68
Certificate 26 1.46 .508 .100 1.26 1.67
Diploma 33 1.88 .696 .121 1.63 2.13
First degree 28 1.54 .508 .096 1.34 1.73
Second degree and above 3 1.67 .577 .333 .23 3.10
Total 201 1.61 .565 .040 1.53 1.69
Source: computed from survey data, 2017

ANOVA

Table 4.20b: Education and segregation of waste

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 6.164 7 .881 2.941 .006

Within Groups 57.786 193 .299

Total 63.950 200

Source: computed from survey data, 2017
The ANOVA Table 4.20b indicates that there is a significance of 0.006, which indicates that the
relationship is statistically significant. Thus, table 20a indicates that the educational level of
households categorized under 1-4 complete, 5-8 complete, 9-12 complete, diploma, degree and
second degree and above heads of households have the different educational background, but most
of the households were a similar level of waste segregation. Because segregation of waste needs
some awareness about each stream of solid waste. Despite this, the category under no formal
education have the lowest mean value when compare to another educational level, this indicates

66 | P a g e
that these households may not have awareness regarding how, why and when segregation of waste
is needed.

However, whether the education level of each household is increased or not without some
awareness of integrated solid waste management, the behavioral change of segregation of waste is
become worse. Not only for households seeks awareness about sustainable solid waste
management but also needs sensitization for MSE, about safety and related issues.

The training and awareness which apply to general safety principles like proper work practices,
equipment’s, and controls can help bring down the number of accidents during waste management
(Chandrapa and Das, 2012). Most MSE has been served more than 7 years. As MSE disclosed
their exposure to the training of solid waste management issues and their safety measures, since
joined in the door to door collection of solid waste almost most MSE has taken a training once a
time from the respective woreda health extension workers and sanitation expert.

Workers and waste pickers handling solid waste throughout the world are exposed to occupational
health and accident risks related to the content of the materials they are handling, emissions from
those materials, and the equipment being used (Cointreau, 2006). As the researcher observed and
MSE responded about their awareness of occupational safety, most of the waste collectors have
not been used enough safety materials due to lack of efficient awareness. As a result of this, they
are extremely exposed to health threaten and are often subject to injury and sickness. Therefore,
regarding their use of a proper standard of safety materials it needs further study, otherwise, to
sustain the life of MSE it is difficult either to keep their life or their families also.

Although some MSEs have to get a shortage of any safety materials, they have been carried out
somehow integrated solid waste reduction strategies. For instance, by separating decomposable
with non-decomposable waste, they have been doing sustainable waste reduction practices of
compost. As the researcher aptly observed that the place where at and around communal waste
container is located those MSE who has been serving in woreda 11 is being prepared compost,
when after segregated easily decomposable waste. Whereas after sorting non-decomposable waste
they have been also benefited by selling the relevant materials such as plastics, festivals, metal,
bucket and the like and served as an additional income. As the researcher observed there is a lack
of where the place of segregation of waste is takes placed.

67 | P a g e
Furthermore, MSEs have been an effort to make the sustainable waste reduction of compost. Even
if compost needs some scientific procedure, those MSEs have done manually. But if they were
getting proper continues training about the best procedure for compost preparation, those would
have good compost that was tested scientifically. Nevertheless, those are less benefited by making
compost and they are used for producing vegetable production, seedling production, and other
necessary agricultural activity. According to MSE views, even if they produce much amount of
compost manually, they have not got market linkage from other vital organization who needs
compost, and they were said that no motivation has been given by the government.

Fig. 4.3: Partial view of segregated materials that were placed on the left side decomposable
and on the right side non-decomposable

Segregated decomposable waste Segregated non-decomposable waste

Source: field survey data, 2017

4.6 Distance of solid waste storage container (skip-point) and Health threat

The other variable which was associated with health threat was a distance of storage container
from the house. The distance of solid waste storage container was taken as independent variable
and health threat as the dependent variable. According to (table 4.21), the Pearson correlation
coefficient shows that there is a weak correlation or no association revealed between distances of
Container and ways of health threat at (0.100). The result further showed that the respondents
which have been living in nearer to a skip point have highly exposed and attacked by different

68 | P a g e
solid waste caused diseases by affecting the human body directly or indirectly. The human body
has been infected directly via direct contact of the children who live the proximity of a skip point.
Subsequently, in accordance with (table 4.16) indirectly the people who have been freely moved
on a walkway or around main roads also exposed to any disease. The respondents also complained
that the container is too close to their houses causing them a lot of sicknesses. Hence they have
been victims of common cold, diarrhea, and cholera, irritation of the skin, nose, and eyes.

Table 4.21: Measures of association of container distance and people who suffer from any
disease
People closely near
waste container and
landfills are suffering
The estimated from respiratory
distance between problems, eye diseases,
the container and and water-borne
Correlation residential house diseases
The estimated Pearson 1 .100
distance between the Correlation
container and your Sig. (2-tailed) .316
house
N 102 102
People closely near Pearson .100 1
waste container and Correlation
landfills are suffering Sig. (2-tailed) .316
from respiratory
N 102 201
problems, eye
diseases, and water-
borne diseases
Source: computed from survey data, 2017
In fact, the inappropriate and inconvenient location of skip point and infrequent collection of skip-
point create not an only health threat to the dwellers of the community but also the quality and
amenity of the environment will be diminished (Wondimu, 2015). However, as a researcher
observed that in NSLSC, almost all skip point has been placed without under consideration of the

69 | P a g e
proximity between the residential house and the skip-points due to lack of appropriate land use.
As a result, even if containers has been placed without any local and international standards, the
frequent collection and transportation of a container were worse due to the infrequent breakdown
of hauling cars, lack of spare parts, negligence of operators and traffic congestion. Thus, this skip
point has not been getting emptied frequently.

To render the efficient management of municipal solid wastes, the international standard of solid
waste storage container states that skip points should be located and available within a radius of
250 meters, for a waste collector should not walk more than that and containers shall be stored or
maintained in such a manner as not to constitute a nuisance or health hazard (National
Environmental act., 2002; cited in Chandrappa and Das, 2012). Similarly, the Ministry
of Urban Development and Housing also developed Ethiopian National Urban Solid Waste
Management Standards (2014) for efficient management of solid waste. On top of this, the
Ethiopian solid waste standards revealed that the storage containers should be located at pre-
selected strategic locations to make them accessible for vehicles, the public, and make containers
visible. Therefore, this standard noted the recommended distance between house and skip-point,
where shall be located more than 200 meters away and the recommended distance between any
infrastructural utility and skip-point shall be 4meters away. Moreover, the Addis Ababa City
Government Code Enforcement Services Regulation Reg.No. 54/2012 also incorporated code
enforcement which aims to regulate the mismanagement of solid waste. Accordingly, scattering or
littering or mismanagement of waste around households, dumping solid waste in unauthorized
place and failure to handle properly the communal containers are prohibited and the penalty is
settled in terms of fine.

Despite, NSLSC of the location of containers depicts that not fulfill the minimum standard of
placement location. Therefore, the consequences of the poor municipal solid waste management
are greatly affecting the life of the sub-city, especially the quality of the environment, urban poor,
woman, and children who are vulnerable to health hazards.

70 | P a g e
Fig. 4.4: Partial view of the distance between a container, and residential houses and
utilities

Source: field survey data, 2017

4.7 Factors Affecting Municipal Solid Waste Management Service in Nefas-Silk

Lafto Sub-city

It is possible to see from the foregoing discussion that municipal solid wastes are poorly
managed in the sub-city in terms of sustaining the ecological life. The service is clearly inadequate.
It is known that improper handling and disposal of solid wastes constitutes a problem on public
health and environment. Some issues are identified as potential barriers to improved solid waste
management service provision in Nefas-Silk Lafto sub-city. These are population pressure and

71 | P a g e
poverty, low level of infrastructure, low institutional capacity, decision-making process, and
inadequate progress in bringing behavioral change, space, and finance and awareness status. This
poor municipal solid waste management in the sub-city was aggravated by poor institutional
coordination, financial constraint, the socio-cultural factor lack of awareness, lack of rules and
regulation, standards and proclamation implementation

4.7.1 Lack institutional coordination

Poor institutional coordination is another challenge that led to poor solid waste management
in Nefas-Silk Lafto sub-city. As the researcher observed during the interviews of the sub-city and
woreda officials, after making memorandum of understanding between other sectors, there is
weak coordination between the municipality officials of the sub-city and other concerned sectors
involved in the environmental protection issues such as the city of Environmental Protection,
Education sector (to give awareness for student) , Beautification and Parking Agency, the City
Code Enforcement Service Regulation (for protecting illegal ones) and Health office (for educating
the community that solid waste has negative impact on human health). This implies that the sub-
city Sanitation Administration office is responsible for SWM of the sub-city, compared with other
sectors, often pays too little attention to integrated management approaches. This indicates the
poor planning and management experience of the SWM of the sub-city.

Municipal solid waste management is a complex task that requires appropriate organizational
integration between numerous sectors and stakeholders. According to the information collected
vividly from the manager of the sub-city sanitation administration office through interview
currently the linkages and coordination was highly established between decentralized sanitation
office, stakeholders (which has been involved solid waste for recycling purpose), Micro and small
enterprises office (for organizing such MSE solid waste collectors) and Addis Microfinance (to
give any credit and saving services for MSE solid waste collector) on solid waste management.
On contrary, regarding for proper sitting of skip point still, no institutional coordination was made
to locate based on urban plan requirements. But, it needs coordination throughout the country.

4.7.2 Financial constraint

Municipal solid waste management is given low priority in developing countries; as a result, very
limited funds are allocated to the sector by government. This problem is acute at the local

72 | P a g e
government level where local revenue collection system is inadequately developed and financial
base for public service including MSWM are weak. In addition to limited funds, many local
governments in developing countries lack good financial management and planning. Lack of
financial management and planning, particularly cost accounting depletes limited resources
available for the sector even more quickly and causes solid waste management services to halt for
some periods, thus losing the trust of service users (Gebrie, 2009).

Nefas-silk lafto sub city’s sanitation administration for the SWM service provision depends on the
annual budget allocated by the Addis Ababa City Government. As Information obtained from the
interview, it was revealed that the problem of finance is very acute and the sub-city lacks adequate
financial resources to procure improved solid waste transport vehicles and disposal technologies.
Although the service needs a high budget to bring improvement, there is the inadequate and equal
distribution of annual budget for the sectors. The finance source of the municipality which depends
on the revenue to provide public services was weak. Therefore, the factors that influencing
municipal solid waste management in the city for the ineffective service delivery was the shortage
of finance. In addition, the financial basis for SWM service in the City of Addis Ababa particularly
in Nefas-silk lafto sub-city is weak. This weak financial basis is one of the main causes of
insufficient service delivery and improper handling of solid waste. Moreover, as NSLSC sanitation
administration manager aptly told that due to lack of finance and densely population area it is
difficult to address the appropriate setting location of containers (skip-point) and for delivering
improved household waste storage bin to residents.

4.7.3 Social Factors

The poor municipal solid waste management that has been observed in the sub-city was mainly
because of the communities’ bad practice with respect to utilizing skip-points. The community has
in many ways aggravated the problem of solid waste management and even in
some cases created the problem. Fortunately, both the residents and MSE themselves, as well as
the responsible bodies of the solid waste management service provision, have agreed that the
community of NSLSC is equally responsible for the poor solid waste management system
associated with the inappropriate location of skip-point in the sub-city.

The bad practices of the community with respect to solid waste management have been manifested
mainly in three ways: dumping of solid waste illegally anywhere in the sub-city particularly in
73 | P a g e
woreda 11, improper handling of waste at home known as without segregation of waste, and
improper use of community waste containers especially the people who live in around a container
is thrown away a waste by containing their storage waste nearby a container, unprotected health
and socio-economic security of waste workers and servants and children who are most of the time
assigned for disposal by households dump waste outside the containers instead of inside.
Municipal solid wastes are generally poorly treated or handled at home, and this has partly
aggravated the problem of solid waste management in the sub-city.

4.7.4 Lack of public awareness and attitudes

Public awareness and attitudes to waste can affect the whole municipal solid waste management
system. All steps in municipal solid waste management starting from the areas of household waste
storage, waste reduction strategies: segregation at source, recycling, reuse and resource recovery
and location to sitting of waste containers and disposal facilities depend on public awareness and
participation. Thus, the little available promotional efforts are not supported by appropriate types
of media and teaching and learning materials about the importance of proper solid waste
management for health and well-being of people severely restricts use of community-based
approaches in developing countries and also crucial factor for failure of an MSWM practice in
developing countries (Zurbrugg, 2003). Therefore, lack of public awareness and attitudes creation
priority was another challenge for the municipal solid waste management in the sub-city. The
majority of the households were not well informed about the consequences of poor solid waste
handling and disposal methods. The survey result shows that awareness creation by the
municipality of the sub-city on solid waste management is very low. As shown in table 4.4, the
majority of the households about (75.1percent) reported that they did not have any awareness and
education was given concerning solid waste management at the household level.

4.4.5 Lack of Adequate Rules and Regulation, Standards and Proclamation

Implementation

The study has found that lack of adequate legislation implementation makes it difficult to assign
clear mandates to different sectors connected with waste management services. The rules and
regulation, standards and proclamation implementation in the sub-city were weak. On the other

74 | P a g e
hand, the poor effort was made to create awareness about solid waste management in the
community including the rules and regulations and associated with penalties (table 4.5).

Moreover, not only the setting of the placement location of a container has not been fulfilling the
minimum standard of urban plan requirements but also the Ethiopian national solid waste
management standards (fig. 4.4). Therefore, lack of adequate implementation of rules and
regulation, standards and proclamation have affected the existing status of MSWM.

75 | P a g e
 CHAPTER FIVE

5. CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATION

5.1 CONCLUSION

The final part of the paper deals with the conclusion withdrawn and the recommendations
forwarded based on the findings. This study has been conducted to address the current municipal
solid waste management practices and related problems in Nefas-silk lafto sub-city by giving
particular emphasis to storage practice and containers location. This investigation was addressed
by employing questionnaires, field observation, semi-structured and unstructured interview with
head and workers of the NSLSC and woreda sanitation administration, MSE waste collectors and
reviewing published and unpublished documents. Finally, on the basis of quantitative and
qualitative analysis of data, the findings of this study are summarized as follows.

In the study area solid waste management in general and waste handling, in particular, is weak,
there is a problem of solid waste reduction strategy: segregation, reuse, recycling, and resource
recovery. The disposal behavior of a household is being acute. Some of the respondents who live
in the new resettlement area they dispose of their solid wastes inside drainage channel, on the open
spaces, and rivers without any health, aesthetic and environmental impact considerations. The door
to door collection of solid waste has being done by MSE and its coverage was insufficient and
those MSE has been carried out with non-hygienically safety measures. Communal containers
have not getting emptied frequently, due to this the solid waste is being scattered by scavengers.
Thus, this study has been indicated that NSLSC municipal solid waste management practice is
weak in terms of status, spatial coverage and solid waste management facility.

Lack of different equipment for the collection of sorted materials of decomposable and non-
decomposable waste and the absence of passionate decision makers who provide them and
interested in environmental issues, hamper the development of waste separation programs.

The general awareness and participation of households in the SWM are below expectation.
Assessment results revealed that very few of the households have the awareness of SWM and its
related impacts. The participation of households in the SWM activities is insignificant as reported
by the respondents.

76 | P a g e
Very weak enforcement of rules and regulations, standards and proclamation, social factors and
lack of awareness, among the community have been hindering the performance of the sub-city
MSWM.

Lack of institutional coordination among different responsible sectors. Besides, no coordination

was made between sub-city and urban planner consultants for proper location of each container
sitting due to this result the inappropriate container of lacuna has been in placed and the community
has been lived with the highly infectious disease.

The availability of containers has not being located in the right places of urban plan requirements.
The community is not invited to participate in the selection of the locations of a refuse container;
the selection is decided only by the top officials of the sub-city deliberately. In addition to that,
since the containers are not protected from rain or the sun and found unfenced, the garbage stinks
due to decomposition and becomes a harbor for various vector insects making the area disgusting
to see and disturbs people to passersby. This is causing deterioration of environment and disruption
of the peoples’ activities. The improper use and placing them in unsuitable sites has put their
contribution to cleanliness and healthy environment under a big question mark because it affects
the life of a community especially elders, women, children, poor and disability people who are
vulnerable to any disease. Accordingly, the proximity distance between houses, utility, and
containers of the sub-city does not meet the requirements of international and Ethiopian national
solid waste management standards.

On the other hand, one of the key issues facing storage facilities (place of containers (skip-points))
is keeping them neat and tidy. Storage facilities, if not kept neat, have the potential to become
litter-strewn mini dump sites. In addition to the visual impacts, rodents and vectors are normally
associated with these conditions and consequently negative health impacts.

77 | P a g e
5.2 RECOMMENDATION

The finding of the study shows that the existing municipal solid waste management practice in
NSLSC was insufficient coverage and the services given by the concerned sanitation
administration were inadequate in terms of sustaining public health and accessibility. Therefore,
the following very important measures are forwarded to overcome MSWM problems and
improvement of the system and sustainable service delivery of MSWM in NSLSC.

Municipal Solid Waste Management (MSWM) will be a lengthy exercise since it involves
attitudinal changes in people and will have to be carried out with careful planning. Accordingly,
for a waste management system to be sustainable, it needs to consider all of the operational,
financial, social, institutional, political, legal and environmental aspects. The aspects provide a
series of analytical ‘lenses’, which can be used for example for assessing the situation, determining
feasibility, identifying priorities, or setting adequacy criteria.

Provide health and safety plans for all waste collectors of MSE at all levels, including operational
procedures for safe waste handling, accident response procedures, emergency call numbers, fire
control, gas release response, hazardous materials release response, munitions response, first aid
and emergency evacuation procedures. And develop training materials on occupational and
environmental health and injury issues relating to solid waste management for staff at all levels.

Engaging the MSE and creating effective channels of communication. MSE do better if they
understand why solid waste services are set up in a particular way, and they are in a good position
to monitor effectiveness and serve as a source of information as to how the system is actually
working. Feedback systems can include telephone lines for complaints, continuous or community
monitoring of satisfaction and payment rates, and creating collaborative relationships between
MSE and the community.

Improve the storage of solid wastes at the source so that the loads to be collected are well contained
and not too heavy. Accordingly, the government should implement a practical sustainable strategy
to give awareness, and providing a storage material (because poor people may not have the ability
to buy such type of bins) for every waste generator to segregate and store the waste generated by
them in three separate streams namely bio‐degradable, non‐bio‐degradable and domestic

78 | P a g e
hazardous wastes in suitable bins and handover segregated wastes to authorized MSE waste
collectors or other rag-pickers.

SWM service in Ethiopia is at its infant stage and a lot should be done to get it on its feet. Therefore
it is advisable that if SWM service delivery of the study sub-city is led by the principles of
professionalism and its planning be made in a strategic way and encourage inter-sectorial
cooperation with other service sectors.

Make effective coordination between sub-city and urban planner consultants for proper location
of each container sitting and for sustaining efficient MSWM practices.

Give continuous awareness creation or education for the public among schools, institutions,
NGOs, businesses and popular individuals via the different medium of communication about
MSWM in general and ISWM in particular. Moreover, by giving high priority for stakeholders,
implement the decisive agreement (PPP) and community-based waste management for enhancing
sustainable SWM system.

Creating favorable conditions for continuous public participation and impartial enforcement of
rules and code enforcement service regulations (Regulation NO. 54/2012), Ethiopian national solid
waste management (2014) and international standards, proclamation (Proc. No. 513/2007) and
freedom of expression regarding the service is decisive in bringing about change.

The Sub-city should have proper financial planning and control, ensure the availability of
adequate quantity and quality of facilities, equipment and machines; take the proper assessment in
choosing sites for placing containers and make sure that regularly follow-up and inspection on a
skip point is in place and the then proper fencing the site containers will help to reduce the adverse
effect of solid waste in the sub-city of Nefas-silk lafto.

79 | P a g e
 References

AABFED (2013). Socio-Economic Profile of Addis Ababa, for the Year 2004 E.C/2011/12 G.C:
policy study and analysis sub process

Abiyot Hailemeskel (2014). A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Haramaya
University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master of Science
in Geography and Environmental Studies: Assessment of Demographic and Socio-
Economic Factors Affecting Municipal Solid Waste Management Practice: the Case of

Laga Tafo - Laga Dadi Town, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia.

ACIPH (2015). Situational Analysis of Urban Sanitation and Waste Management, John Snow Inc.
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Available at,
http://www.addiscontinental.edu.et

Addis Ababa Bureau of Agriculture (2002). Annual report. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Addis Ababa City Sanitation and Beautification and Park Development Agency (2008).Yearly
Review Report, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Bernstein (2004). Social Assessment and Public participation in Municipal Solid Waste
Management, Ecssd.

Chakkancherry, G. (2012). A study on the effectiveness of solid waste management of

municipalities in Kerala: Theoretical Framework of Solid Waste Management. Kerala,
India.

Chandrappa, R. & Das, B. (2012). Solid Waste Management principles and practices:
Environmental Science and Engineering. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, India.
Available at, http://www.springer.com/series/3234
Cointreau, S. (2006). Occupational and Environmental Health Issues of Solid Waste Management:
Special Emphasis on Middle- and Lower-Income Countries, Washington, D.C.

Creswell, J.W. (2009) Research Design: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods approach
( � ). SAGE Publication, Inc., London.

Edwards, S. (2010). Ethiopian Environment Review. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

viii | P a g e
Felice Paolino, D. (2014). Integration of Spatial and Descriptive Information to Solve the Urban
Waste Accumulation Problem, Italy. (Online) www.sciencedirect.com

Fikreyesus, D. (2011). Ethiopia Solid Waste & Landfill, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Gebrie Kassa (2009). Management of Domestic Solid Waste in Bahirdar Town: Operational
Analysis and Assessment of Constraints that Affect Solid Waste Management, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.

Getahun, T., Mengistie, E., Haddis, a Wasie, F., Alemayehu, E., Dadi, D., Van Gerven, T.,
et al.(2011). Municipal Solid Waste Generation in Growing Urban Areas in Africa: Current
Practices and Relation to Socioeconomic Factors in Jimma, Ethiopia. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment, 6337–6345.

IGNIS (2012). Realization of Pilot Projects [Online]. Available at,

http://www.ignis.p-42.net/index.php?page=pilot-projects

Israel, Glenn D. (1992): Sampling the Evidence of Extension Program Impact. Program
Evaluation and organizational development, IFAS, University of Florida

Jayarama, R. (2011). Municipal Solid Waste Management: Processing, Energy recovering and
global examples, CRC press, India.

Khan Iqbal, H. & Ahsan, N. (2002). Textbook of solid wastes management, CBS publishers,
India. Online, http://www.cbspd.com

Meenakshi, p. (2005). Elements of Environmental Science and Engineering, Prentice Hall of India
Private limited India.

Memon, A. (2010. 12: p. 30-40). Integrated solid waste management based on the 3R approach.
Material Cycles and Waste Management.

National Environmental Act (2002). The Local Governments (Kerala City Council) Solid Waste
Management Ordinance, India.
Nega Fantahun (2010), A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Addis Ababa
University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master of Science
in Environmental Science: Survey on the Status of Solid Waste and its management in

ix | P a g e
 Nifas-Silk Lafto Sub-City, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

NSLSC Administration, Finance and Economic Development Office (2014). A general overview
of socio-economic status in Nefas-Silk Lafo sub city, Nefas-silk lafto, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.

Open WASH (2016). Urban Sanitation and Solid Waste Management, The Open University
UK/World Vision Ethiopia/UNICEF.

Proclamation No. (513/2007). Solid Waste Management proclamation. Ethiopia.

Regassa, N., Sundaraa, R. D., & Seboka, B. B. (2011). Challenges and Opportunities in
Municipal Solid Waste Management: The Case of Addis Ababa City, Central Ethiopia.
Journal of Human Ecology, 33(3), 179–190.

Rotich K. Henry, Zhao Yongsheng & Dong, J. (2005). Municipal solid waste management
challenges in developing countries – Kenyan case study, China.

SBPDA, (2004). Overview of Solid Waste Management Status of Addis Ababa, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.

Scarlat, N., Motola V, Dallemand J.F., Monforti-Ferrario, F. and Mofor L (2015). Evaluation of
energy potential of municipal solid waste from African urban areas: Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 50, Available at,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032115005389
Solomon Cheru (2011). A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Addis Ababa
University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master of Science
in Geography and Environmental Studies: Assessment of municipal solid waste
management service in dessie town

Stucki, S., Christian, L. & HelIweg, S. (2003). Municipal Solid Waste Management (1st ed.):
Strategies and Technologies for sustainable solutions, springeronline.com, New York,
USA.

Tchobanoglous, G. and Kreith, F. (2002). Handbook of solid waste management (2nd ed.),
the McGraw-Hill Companies. New York, USA.

x|Page
UNEP (2009). Developing Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan. Training Manual.
Assessment of Current Waste Management System and Gaps therein. Oskal Shiga, Japan.

UNEP (2012). Global Partnership on Waste Management, USA.

UN-Habitat (2010). Solid Waste Management in the World’s Cities, Washington, DC.

UN-Habitat (2014). Urbanization Challenges, Waste Management, and Development, Mauritius.

UN-Habitat (2016). World Cities Report, Urbanization, and development: emerging futures,
Nairobi, Kenya.

WHO (1996). Guides for Municipal Solid Waste Management in Pacific countries. Health
Cities, Health Islands Document Series. No.6. World Health Organization, Western Pacific
Region.

Wondimu Abeje (2015). Sanitation in Addis Ababa; Challenges, and Prospects. Forum for Social
Studies, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

World Bank (2008). MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT: TURNING WASTEINTO

RESOURCES, Shanghai. Available at,
www.un.org/esa/.../Chapter%205%20-%20Waste_management.pdf

World Bank (2012). What a waste: a Global Review of Solid Waste Management, Barcelona,
Spain, March 2012.
Zebenay Kassa (2010). The Challenges of Solid Waste Management in Urban Areas, the Case of
Debremarkos Town, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.
ZTS (2012). Social Impact Assessment of Koshe Dump Site Closure and Reclamation Project,
Addis Ababa, February 2012.
Zurbrugg, C. (2003). Urban Solid Waste Management in Low-Income Countries of Asia - How
to Cope with the Garbage Crisis, SCOPE, Durban, South Africa, 2002.

xi | P a g e
Appendix 1
Table 1. Sample Size for ±5% and ±10% Precision Levels where Confidence Level is 95% and
P=0.5.

Size of
Sample Size (n) for Precision (e) of:
Population
±3% ±5% ±7% ±10%
a 222 145 83
500
a 240 152 86
600
a 255 158 88
700
a 267 163 89
800
a 277 166 90
900
1000 A 286 169 91
2000 714 333 185 95
3000 811 353 191 97
4000 870 364 194 98
5000 909 370 196 98
6000 938 375 197 98
7000 959 378 198 99
8000 976 381 199 99
9000 989 383 200 99
10000 1000 385 200 99
15,000 1034 390 201 99
20,000 1053 392 204 100
25,000 1064 394 204 100
50,000 1087 397 204 100
100,000 1099 398 204 100
>100,000 1111 400 204 100

Source: Glenn (1992), presented table for the selection of sample size.

xii | P a g e