ASSESMENT OF HOUSEHOLD SOLID WASTE

MANAGEMENT AT KIPKAREN AREA, UASIN GISHU

COUNTY,
KENYA

STEPHEN LEMISO KIBOI

D/UPEHS/22026/046

A Proposal Submitted In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Award of Diploma in Environmental Health, in the
Department Of Public Health, Kenya Medical Training College

February, 2023.
DECLARATION
This proposal is my original work and has not been presented for a degree or any other award in any
other College or Institution of Higher Learning.

Sign……………………………………. Date…………………………………
Stephen Lemiso Kiboi
D/UPEHS/22026/046

Supervisor

Sign……………………………………. Date…………………………………
Ms. Hillary Keya
Lecturer, Kenya Medical Training College
(Department of Public Health)

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I acknowledge the Almighty God for the good health during the proposal writing process.
I thank my parents for the financial and material support.
I appreciate my supervisor for the guidance through this proposal writing period.

iii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to God, my parents Mr. and Mrs. Cheworei and my siblings.

iv
ABSTRACT
Solid waste storage and disposal pose a major challenge in cities of developing countries worldwide.
Uasin-Gishu County has undergone rapid population growth hence the solid waste generated has
increased and the County Department of Environment only handles wastes from the County’s Central
Business district (CBD) and neglected the residents at the outskirts of the CBD jurisdiction. In Kenya,
the problem of solid waste disposal is quite pronounced since much of the wastes that is produced
goes unattended to.

Findings from a related study estimate that only 25% of a total of 1500 tonnes of solid wastes
generated daily in Nairobi get collected. This is a frightening statistic that replicates across the
country. The intention of carrying out this study is to establish how income and education levels and
identify available storage facilities and disposal methods influence household solid waste storage and
disposal in Kipkaren area, Uasin-Gishu County. Specific objectives of the study were to establish
how income, education level and availability of solid waste storage facilities influence Household
Solid Waste Management (HSWM) in Kipkaren area.

The study included a study population of 44 households living in the area of study. A descriptive
cross-sectional study design was used; it involved administering interviews and questionnaires to the
household heads on how they stored and disposed of their household solid wastes. Observation
technique was also used, it was guided by use of an observation checklist.

Qualitative data was analyzed using NVIVO and quantitative data analyzed using Statistical Package
for Social Sciences (SPSS) and presented on tables, graphs and pie charts. The end results were
organized and presented to the relevant governing bodies. This includes the recommendations and
conclusions. For instance the County government Department of Environment, the National
Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) and the county Public Health Department.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................................v

TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................................................vi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background to the Study................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem................................................................................................................. 2

1.3 Study Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 3

1.3.1 Broad Objective................................................................................................................. 3
1.3.2 Specific Objectives ............................................................................................................ 3
1.4 Research Questions ......................................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Justification of the Study.................................................................................................................. 3

1.6 Scope................................................................................................................................................ 4
1.7 Limitations ....................................................................................................................................... 4
1.8 Assumptions..................................................................................................................................... 4

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................... 5

2.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Relationship between Income Level and Household Solid Waste Storage and Disposal Household
............................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Relationship between Level of Education and Household Solid Waste Management.................... 6
2.4 The Available Household Solid Waste Storage and Disposal Facilities.......................................... 7
2.5 Gap Identification............................................................................................................................. 8

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................................................. 9

3.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Research Design .............................................................................................................................. 9
3.3 Study Population.............................................................................................................................. 9

3.4 Study Area........................................................................................................................................ 9

3.5 Sampling Techniques....................................................................................................................... 9
vi
3.6 Sample Determination...................................................................................................................... 9
3.7 Data Collection Procedure ............................................................................................................. 10
3.7.1 Questionnaires................................................................................................................. 10
3.7.2 Oral Interviews................................................................................................................ 10
3.7.3 Observation..................................................................................................................... 11

3.8 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 11

3.9 Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................................... 11
3.9.2 Study Participants............................................................................................................ 11

CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH FINDINGS................................................................................. 12

4.1 Socioeconomic Characteristics of Respondents............................................................................. 12
4.2 Relationship between Income Levels and HSW Storage and Disposal Methods.......................... 13
Table 4.2 Showing the Relationship between Education Level and HSW Storage and Disposal....... 13

4.3 Showing the Relationship between education level and HSW Storage and Disposal Methods.... 14
4.4 Recommendations According To the Respondents for HSWM in Kipkaren area, Uasin-Gishu
County……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 15

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ..................... 17

5.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 17
5.2 Discussion...................................................................................................................................... 17
5.3 Conclusions.................................................................................................................................... 19
5.4 Recommendations.......................................................................................................................... 20

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 21

APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................... 23
Appendix 1: Definition of Terms............................................................................................. 23
Appendix 2: Abbreviations...................................................................................................... 24
Appendix 3: List of Tables...................................................................................................... 25
Appendix 4: List of Figures.................................................................................................... 26
Appendix 5: Budget................................................................................................................. 27
Appendix 6: Work Plan............................................................................................................ 28
Appendix 7: Interview Questionnaire...................................................................................... 29
Appendix 8: Observation Checklist......................................................................................... 31
Appendix 9: Informed Consent Form...................................................................................... 32

vii
Appendix 10: Certificate of Ethical Approval......................................................................... 35

viii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
The major function of Household Solid Waste (HSW) is to keep the refuse temporarily under
hygienic and aesthetically satisfactory conditions until it is collected for disposal. However, the lack
of space for dumping solid waste has become a problem for many large metropolitan areas
throughout the world (Momodu et al).

Globally, storage of household solid waste is a major challenge, but the situation seems better in
developed countries like United States, Germany, Sweden and Netherlands. Storage of household
solid waste is done in set out containers placed next to each household where residents of households
store their wastes awaiting collection for disposal purposes.

In India, storage of household waste is done in standardized containers placed in each household (Da
Zhu et al., 2008). However, close to two thirds of the garbage is not disposed properly as it is thrown
in streets and areas close to slums. The disposal of solid waste in the affluent countries such as Italy
and Canada is done in sanitary landfills. This is because these countries have realized the health and
environmental hazards associated with open dumps.

In Africa, the socioeconomic analysis showed that higher income and education levels are concerned
more with municipal and private household solid waste collection for disposal. In low income of
developing sub-Saharan countries such as Mozambique and Zimbabwe, set out containers such as
bags, plastic or paper bags, pots, reed baskets, concrete and clay jars are used for storage whereas in
other low- income places as Dansoman, Adabkara and Keneshie, waste is stored in a pit in front of
house awaiting collection. Open dumps still exist and is used by municipalities to dispose wastes
collected households in towns of Africa e.g. the open refuse dump sites in Sumbe, Angola and Segou
and Mali. Very little has been done on how income and education levels affect storage and disposal of
the solid waste in Africa, the few studies conducted have majorly been focusing on Nigeria. The
situation of solid waste management throughout Kenya is a source of concern, as open dump sites are
a common sight in most households around urban areas. Storage of household solid waste in
municipalities in Kenya is in the form of set-out perforated plastic containers in few high income
households in Nairobi (Kabir, N. D.). He observed this in Thika and Nakuru municipalities. However,

1
in low- income households and even high –income households where waste collection services did
not reach, residents indiscriminately burn the household wastes and bury others and dump others in
open space.

Residents of Kipkaren generate solid wastes at the rate of approximately 0.75%kg/person/day. 80% of
the solid waste is compostable organics (food wastes), 10% are plastics, 8% are metal and 3% of the
solid wastes consists of mixed wastes including glass, dirt and hazardous household waste. This
situation presents residents of this county with challenges such as the flies menace. Wastes are not
collected adequately, some residents burn wastes, burry others and indiscriminately dump others to
open spaces. Burning combustible solid wastes contributes to air pollution.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The households generate the largest amount of solid wastes representing 85.15% of the total solid
wastes generated in Uasin-Gishu County. This solid waste is mainly the biodegradable waste which
far outreaches the rate of collection with estimated 840 tones uncollected every year. This clearly is
evident to the selected study area, Kipkaren within Uasin-Gishu County. Concerted efforts is required
by the municipal authority and Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and the private sector to
invest in solid waste management to provide a habitable environment, alleviate poverty and improve
the livelihoods of the people of Kipkaren (Mwakumanya, 2010).

Indiscriminate open dumping of household solid waste is rampant in majority of households that are
far away from the town’s CBD in Kipkaren town. This is evidenced by the huge piles of openly
dumped HSW in the backyards of the houses. Therefore there is need to investigate how income and
education levels and the availability of solid waste storage facilities influence HSW storage and
disposal in Kipkaren area within Uasin-Gishu County.
1.3 Study Objectives
1.3.1 Broad Objective
The overall objective of this study was to assess household solid waste management in Kipkaren area,
Uasin-Gishu County, Kenya.

2
1.3.2 Specific Objectives
I. To determine how income levels relate to household solid waste storage and disposal
II. To determine how the level of education and knowledge relate to household solid waste
management.

III. To identify the available household solid waste storage and disposal facilities for the
households in Kipkaren area.

1.4 Research Questions

The study set out to answer the following questions;
I. How does income levels relate to household solid waste storage and disposal?
II. How does the level of education and knowledge relate to household solid waste
management?
III. What are the available household solid waste storage and disposal facilities for the
households in Kipkaren area?

1.5 Justification of the Study

Solid waste management has been a challenge in Kipkaren area, Uasin-Gishu County for a long time.
Solid waste management requires collaborative efforts of individuals, groups and the authorities to
control and curb the improper and poor practices associated with disposal of waste.

Poor management of household solid waste may cause breed up of disease and transmission of
diseases related with poor disposal such as bilharzia and cholera hence this becomes a topic of great
value in health of the public.

Among all different parts of the world, coastal areas are the ones commonly visited by tourists and as
such solid wastes volumes from activities in the coastal urban areas soar. For instance, the streets and
residential areas of Uasin-Gishu County are littered with garbage a horrible eyesore to all who visit
this town warranting a remedy to this sorry state. While the tourism sector in the coast
is at its lowest expectation it is worthwhile to curb the solid waste menace in Uasin-Gishu County.
Although a similar study had been conducted by M. Karanja Ikiara & Theo (2011) in Nakuru town in
Kenya and the results might be similar though places may differ in one way or another.
3
1.6 Scope
This study was confined within Kipkaren area and took account of household waste management
including the availability of storage facility, methods of storage and disposal mechanisms put in place
at Kipkaren area and not the whole of Uasin-Gishu County.

The study confined itself to the working hours as stipulated by the Ministry of Environment at Uasin-
Gishu County Government.

1.7 Limitations
Due to inadequate finances the study was strictly to be carried out at Kipkaren area. Data was
collected during weekends due to the busy schedules of the intended study participants

The hot climate experienced in coastal region also restricted data collection to be early and evenings
after the temperatures had gone low.

1.8 Assumptions
It was assumed that the respondents gave genuine answers to the questionnaires administered to them.

4
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a literature review on income, education and knowledge levels and available
household solid waste storage facilities and disposal. It gives a review on the relationship between
income levels and household solid waste storage and disposal methods. It then provides a review on
the relationship between education levels and the household solid waste storage and disposal
methods. It also provides a review on the available household storage facilities

2.2 Relationship between Income Level and Household Solid Waste Storage and Disposal
Household

Storage and disposal of solid waste in Indian cities is 70% efficient in low income households. It is 80
– 95% efficient in middle income cities like Beijing, Shangai and Kaula while it is nearly 100%
efficient in high income cities like Tokyo, Taipei and New York (Mendes & Imura, 2004). However,
in low income residential areas in India household solid waste are not collected due to indiscriminate
storage techniques. They are disposed along streets and in makeshifts dumpsites that are poorly
managed (Ogbonna et al., 2002).

In most of the world’s high –income and affluent countries like Netherlands, France and United
States of America, HSW makes up to 15% of the municipal solid waste. The disposal of HSW is done
in sanitary landfills after incineration; this is also the same situation for low- income level households
in Jordan where disposal is done in landfills, however open dumps still exist in high income countries
like the fresh kills dumpsite in the USA. The socioeconomic analysis shows that higher- income
households are provided with bins by the municipalities for storage of their solid wastes, the low and
middle-income households use recyclables, which include polythene bags, propylene sacks and metal
bins for storage.

Most low- income households disposed of their wastes into pits that were dug at the back of the
house. In high- income Nigerian households waste containers remain at points of waste collection.
The residents deliver their household solid waste to storage containers which are either fixed to the
ground or moved. Open dumping is still common in Nigeria most low income households employ the

5
service of streams to transport their household solid wastes out of the site, dumping them on road
sides or still setting them on fire
According to a study by Da Zhu et al., (2008), Nairobi’s most low- income households used plastic
bins for household solid waste storage. The study also stated that Community Based Organizations
(CBOs) provided polythene bags and skips in low – income informal settlements for household solid
waste storage. This situation was attributed to the poor management and inability of the low income
households to pay for the services of municipal waste collection. Also revealed that high- income
households in Thika and Nakuru towns used bins for HSW storage. The municipal councils are
concerned with collection and disposal which is done in illegal dumpsites at Kibera and Dandora
dumpsites in Nairobi and at Kachok dumpsites in Kisumu. (Da Zhu et al., 2008).

2.3 Relationship between Level of Education and Household Solid Waste Management
In American and European countries where most of residents are highly educated like France,
Germany and Netherlands households are required to take their wheeled containers to a specific
location on the day of collection and retrieve them when emptied, this is after the waste is sorted out
into different bins at household levels (Imam, 2007a). In Dhaka city, Bangladesh, where most of the
residents have a university degree storage bins are used to keep the waste while awaiting collection
by municipalities.

In some parts of India where residents are less educated, bulk containers known as transfer stations
are placed at specific points strategically to allow residents to directly dump their household solid
wastes directly into them. This is after sorting out/ segregation. Most of the household solid wastes
collected by municipal in Sweden, Netherlands and United States of America is disposed of in
landfills (Sagio, 2001). This is also the situation in Japan where household residents are educated; the
wastes are recycled and segregated at household level and incineration accounts for 68%, land filling
accounts for 30% and other disposal measures as composting accounts for 2% of the disposal
methods used (Imura, 2004).

The disposal is done in landfills because the segregation is effective at household level. However, in
countries like China where most residents are highly educated, a long standing tradition of dumping
garbage directly onto farm land is used. In South Africa bins have been placed at predetermined sites
in estates where residents are highly educated. The residents are required to take their remaining
6
wastes after reusing in Jimma city where residents are less educated plastic bins and bags are used for
storage at household level and open dumping at individual chosen spots is employed (Getahun &
Kansal, 2012) however in Kumasi Ghana individuals bring their wastes directly two collection points
that is a container that can be accessed on foot (Kwarteng, 2006) irrespective of the education status.

In Zimbabwe, where majority of household residents are less educated, disposal practices involve
illegal dumping in street corners, burning in open pits or burying at home (Musademba, 2011).
However in Abuja, Nigeria the disposal of household solid waste did not rely on education status but
on availability, cost and effectiveness of the waste collection services (Bassey et al, 2006). (Ajani,
2007) also stated that educational status was identified as a factor influencing household solid waste
storage and disposal but he did not explain deeply. The practice of open dumping is still rampant in
households who are less educated and also in some African countries including Nigeria.

In Kenya, Nairobi, most of the residents who are highly educated in most affluent estates are provided
with plastic bins where they store their waste awaiting collection for disposal in open dump sites such
as Dandora. The sub-urban areas which are occupied with less educated, urban poor rural migrants,
and the jobless are characterized with open and indiscriminate dumping which lack proper
environmental pollution control.

2.4 The Available Household Solid Waste Storage and Disposal Facilities
In the world’s developed affluent countries as Japan and Netherlands the municipalities have foreseen
the challenges faced in the storage and disposal of HSW. These countries have gone further to tackle
the challenge before any studies were done to reveal the gaps (Medina, 2004), they have provided set
out plastic bins for storing of the HSW after segregating its various components (Medina, 2005).
Unsegregated waste is not collected. The situation is also related to Jordan city. A survey conducted
by Taylor in 2010 on one thousand Jordanian citizens revealed that the respondents had positive
altitudes and willing for source separation if the authorities provided the necessary facilities. Apart
from storage facilities, the municipalities in Hong Kong, Paris and Geneva provide collection services
that reach to all the cities’ residents (Abu, 2005).

7
Household residents are also encouraged to reuse and recycle various components in HSW
(Balakrishann, 2007). However, in low income residential areas in India, the municipalities have no
initiative of providing the residents with storage containers. Neither do they carry out collection and
disposal services (Medina, 2005). The reasons for the poor levels of service observed in low income
communities are that; the majority of the residents do not pay municipal taxes, the standardized refuse
collection vehicles are also too big to enter the unplanned areas where these communities live and
because the HSW in these areas have less recycling value due to low levels of awareness on how to
conduct recycling (Lardinois & Ingeline, 1996).

In Africa, few countries like South Africa, have foreseen the challenges faced in storing of HSW. The
residents in towns as Pretoria and Free town have been provide with a set out plastic bins by the
municipalities (Carboo & Fobil, 2004). However this is not the situation in all the towns in the
country. In Tanzania, the proportion of HWS collected in Dar es Salaam had dropped to less than 5%
in 1992 before an emergency clean-up of the city was initiated under the UN sustainable cities
program. By 2003 it had increased to an estimated 32% (Imam, 2007b).

In Nigeria, the studies done by Aguwamba (1998) and Ajani (2007) revealed that low income
residents did not receive any services from concerned authorities. However their results are not yet
relayed to the concerned municipalities of Abeokuta. In Kenya, few studies have been done advising
municipalities on how to improve HSWM.

A study conducted by Rotich Henry (2005) on solid waste management in Nairobi, advised for
community involvement by mobilizing resources to purchase storage containers and engage private
waste collectors in the disposal of HSW. Furthermore, the research done by Sira (2010) targeting
Thika and Nakuru Municipalities revealed that only the residents in high income. Households were
provided bins for storage of the HSW. However, no advices were given to the concerned municipal
authorities on the actions to take so as to improve HSWM.

2.5 Gap Identification

This is the comparison of the actual performance with potential performance, Kipkaren area has the
capability of achieving a good solid waste management system. This means that the local authorities

8
must take part in the process in conjunction with the residents, as this is a communal action of plan to
collect, store and proper disposal of household solid wastes.

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

9
3.1 Introduction
This chapter indicates and provides details of how the research was conducted, the location of the
study, population and logistical and ethical considerations. It also outlines the study design that was
used in achieving the project’s objectives. In this chapter, sample size used, data collection and
analysis is also addressed.

3.2 Research Design

Cross-sectional descriptive study design was used. This research design describes how income levels,
education levels and knowledge and availability of household storage and disposal affect the HSWM.
Some of the research methods that were used under descriptive research include quantitative
observation, case study and survey research. This study design gives a holistic understanding of the
research topic since data collected is both qualitative and quantitative.

3.3 Study Population

Kipkaren area has a population of approximately 10,000 people. The target population for the study
was the residents of Kipkaren area. It captured 44 households.

3.4 Study Area

Kipkaren area is in Uasin-Gishu County. It is specifically found in Sokoni Ward. It becomes a
concerned area of study for its rapid increasing population of students and residents who settle at
Kipkaren area for trading and economic hence leading high generation of household wastes.

3.5 Sampling Techniques

Sampling is a method or technique used to pick a sample population for study. A sampling frame is a
complete list of all elements or units which the researcher wishes to select a sample. Kipkaren area
has a well-defined population. A complete and correct sampling frame was used to ensure an
adequate and representative sample was picked. Simple random sampling was applied to ensure
unbiased selection of study participants. This was achieved by randomly picking households to carry
out the study on. Houses within the study area were coded and the codes written on pieces of paper
for random selection of houses to be involved in the study.

10
3.6 Sample Determination
This sampling size was calculated according to Fischer (1998) as follows:

n=
Where: n= Sample size; z = z value corresponding to a 95% level of confidence= 1.96 p =
Number of residents with primary knowledge= 6.98%=0.0698 q = (1 – p) = (1- 0.0698) =

0.9302 & w = tolerable error 5%= (0.05) n ,

Study participants were; 100/ (1+ (50/40)

= 100/ (1+ 1.25)
= 44.365
= 44 residents of Kipkaren area

3.7 Data Collection Procedure

Primary source data was collected from the field, local views and opinions related to household solid
waste management. The data collection tools that were used in carrying out fieldwork included the
following as outlined below.

3.7.1 Questionnaires
Semi-structured questionnaires consisting of both open and close-ended questions were used. The
questionnaire contained three sections, i.e. the socio economic status, storage of the household wastes
and lastly knowledge and education of participants on management of the household wastes. The
questionnaires were administered to the household heads, who were to complete them.

3.7.2 Oral Interviews

Oral interviews guided by an interview guide were used in the collection of data through face to face
interaction with the residents’ household heads. Oral interviews were used for interaction with
residents of Kipkaren area to gain information on solid waste management and challenges faced in
solid waste management and helped in clarifying issues of a more personal level. Only 10% of the
intended participants were interviewed, interview households were selected randomly.

11
3.7.3 Observation
Observation was used to collect data during the study period in Kipkaren area. During the time of
study, observation increases the ranges, relevance and reliability of the data obtained (Pidel, 1982). A
notebook was used to record the observation of the research. Observation was guided by an
observation checklist. Observation focused on the storage and disposal of wastes in the households.

3.8 Data Analysis

The obtained quantitative data was analyzed by Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and
the qualitative data by NVIVO software. The data was presented on tables and bar graphs.

3.9 Ethical Considerations

Permission to conduct this research study was granted by the following authorities:

3.9.1 Pwani University Ethics Committee

The Pwani University Ethics Committee ascertained validity and originality of the research project
and granted the researcher an ethical clearance certificate for execution of the project.

3.9.2 Study Participants

This research made use of an informed consent form as it is an important ethical tool. Participants
who enrolled in the research were verbally explained to and a consent form provided to them to be
filled explaining the purpose of study and benefits of them taking part in the study. The participants
were assured of confidentiality of information given.

12
CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH FINDINGS
4.1 Socioeconomic Characteristics of Respondents
Table 4.1 Showing Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Respondents

Education level Income level No of respondents Percentage

Low-education level Below Kshs 4000 7 78%
(Primary School) Kshs 5000-15000 1 11%
Above 16000 1 11%
Middle-education level Below Kshs 4000 6 43%
(Secondary School) Kshs 5000-15000 6 43%
Above Kshs 16000 2 14%
High education level Below 4000 2 12%
(Certificate, Diploma, Kshs 5000-15000 5 29%
Degree) Above Kshs 16000 10 59%

According to Table 4.1 above, 78% of the respondents in the low-education level earned a
monthly income of below Ksh 4000 while only 11% earned a monthly income of between Ksh
5000 – 15000 and 11% earned above Ksh 16000. 86% of those in the middle education level
earned below Ksh 15000 and only 14% earned above 16000. In the high education level, 59% of
the respondents earned a monthly income of above 16000.

13
4.2 Relationship between Income Levels and HSW Storage and Disposal Methods
Table 4.2 Showing the Relationship between Education Level and HSW Storage and
Disposal Methods
Monthly Income Level Storage Methods Available Percentage Disposal Percentage
Methods

Low income level House corners 31% Open dumps 63%

Re-used plastic bins 69% Compost pits 37%

Middle income level Bought plastic bins 64% Open dumps 82%
Reused plastic bins 36% Compost pits 18%
High income level Bought plastic bins 100% Open dumps 85%
Composting 15%

According to Table 4.2 above, 69% of the respondents in the low-income level used re-used
plastic dustbins for HSW storage and 63% used open dumps for disposal while 31% and 37%
stored their waste in house corners and disposed it by composting respectively.

In the middle income-level, 64% of the respondents used bought plastic bins for storage of HSW
and 82% disposed it in open dumps, However they may not be able to pay for garbage collector
services and will therefore resort to open dumping. 100% of the residents in the high-income
levels used bought dustbins for storage of HSW and 85% of them dispose it in open dumps and
15% use composting as disposal methods.

14
4.3 Showing the Relationship between education level and HSW Storage and Disposal Methods
Fig 4.3 Bar Graph Showing the Relationship between education level and HSW Storage and
Disposal Methods

120%

100%

Percentage
80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
House Corners Reused Plastic Bought Plastic Open Dumps Compost Pits Cmposting
bins Bins
HSW storage and disposal mechanisms

Low Education Level Middle Education Level High Education Level

Figure 4.3 above shows that 55% and 79% of the respondents in the low education level used re-used
plastic bins for storage of HSW and open dumps for disposal respectively. In the middle-education
level, 52% of the respondents bought plastic bins for storage of HSW before disposal while 48%
reused plastic bins and 29% used compost pits for disposal while 71% used open dumps. In the high
education level, all the respondents bought plastic bins and 76% used open dumping for disposal as
24% composting.

15
4.4 Recommendations According To the Respondents for HSWM in Kipkaren area, Uasin-
Gishu County

Table 4.4. Showing Recommendations for HSWM in Kipkaren area

Recommendations No of Respondents Percentage
Agreeing to it
The municipality should provide bigger plastic dustbins at a 30 75%
subsidized cost
Extend and conduct HSW collection services frequently 7 18%
Conduct sensitization and awareness program for HSWM 3 7%

According to Table 4.4 above, which represents the results acquired through interviews, most of
the respondents proposed that the municipal council should provide bigger dustbins with lids at a
monthly subsidized cost. 18% of the respondents proposed for the extension in coverage and
frequency of HSW collection in the area. This is because the low-income people cannot afford
these services.

7% of the respondents were for the view that awareness and sensitization programme on how to
handle HSW should be conducted by the relevant authorities’ i.e. Public Health Department,
NEMA and the County Environmental Department. This will increase their knowledge of storing
and disposing HSW.

A sample of one of the interviewed respondent suggested that the County should organize for
trainings in handling of solid waste at household level.

“…Uasin-Gishu County through barazas should organize for trainings on the best method
of handling wastes generated from houses within our County.” A response from a female
who participated in the study.

16
 4.5 Photos Showing Some of the Available HSW Storage and Disposal
Some of photos taken from households within Kipkaren Area Displaying their methods of handling
and disposal of HSW.

Bought plastic bin for HSW storage. Backyard open dumping of HSW.

Compost pit pilled extremely of HSW Open air combustion of HSW

17
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
This chapter presents discussion and conclusions according to the specific objectives. It also
contains recommendations presented as a result of findings.

5.2 Discussion
Those respondents in the low education level have no formal employment due to their low
technical and innovative skills. So they could only work as casual laborers or have self-
employment in small income generating activities as running retail shops, kiosks or marketing farm
produce in the local market as majority of them were peasant farmers. This has an attribute to the
storage and disposal of HSW, they have less resources for purchase of storage facilities such as
dustbins and do not pay for collector services.

Majority of those respondents in the middle-education level earned a monthly income of below
Ksh. 15000. This could be because they do not have formal employment due to their low education
level, most were form three and four dropouts due to financial constraints or other reasons thus
engaging in jua-kali industrial activities that do not generate much income that could be surplus.

In the high-education level 59% of the respondents earned a monthly income of above Ksh. 16000.
This could be because they secured formal employment from the government which is relatively
high paying and sustainable. The 41% that earned less than 15000, this could be because they
attained a high educational level but have not yet secured formal employment, and in the
meantime, they have engaged in income generating activities such as small businesses or peasant
farming.

According to the results above, 69% of the respondents in the low-income level used re-used
plastic dustbins for HSW storage and 63% used open dumps for disposal while 31% and 37%
stored their waste in house corners and disposed it by composting respectively. Most of the
respondents earned low income and are likely to use it to meeting their basic needs as food. They
will probably lack enough money to buy dustbins and pay for the municipal collection services or
any private waste collectors. In his study (Kim, 2010) also attributed indiscriminate dumpsites in

18
Nairobi’s low-income Kibera informal settlements to inability of the low-income households to
purchase dustbins and pay for HSW collection services. This makes the results for the two studies
similar.

In the middle-income level 64% of the respondents used bought plastic bins for storage of HSW
and 82% disposed it in open dumps. This could be because they earn a relatively high income than
their low income kevel counterparts and thus they are able to buy standardized dustbins. However
they may not be able to pay for the services of the municipal services and will therefore resort to
open dumping, Musademba (2011) wrote that most mid-income households in Nigeria were able to
purchase dustbins for HSW storage.

(Eugene, 2005) also stated that in Indian mid-income residential areas solid waste was not
collected because of indiscriminate disposal techniques. Eugene however did not state the
techniques used but they could be open dumps or disposal on fields and compounds. All the
residents in the high-income levels used bought dustbins for storage of HSW and 85% of them
dispose it in open dumps this could be because the residents are financially able to buy dustbins
and pay for municipal waste collection services or the private contractors.

However the municipal council disposed of the HSW in open dumps. There is similarity in the
findings as the study conducted by Ogbonna (2002) who attributed the same situation in Nigeria
where Ogobonna noted that most high-income earning residents were able to purchase waste
storage containers and also p\ay for the collector services. However, Ogbonna did not give the
exact figures in his study.

Respondents in the low-education level used reused plastic bins for storage of HSW and open
dumps for disposal, this could be because they have no or little awareness on the best methods of
HSW storage and disposal. (Getahun et al, 2012) stated that in Jimma city of Ethiopia where
majority of the residents were less educated, plastic bins and polythene bags were used for storage
at household level and open dumping was done in individual chosen spots.

19
Musademba (2011), also stated that in Zimbabwe where above 50% of the residents less educated,
disposal practices involved illegal were dumping in street corners, burning in open pits and
burying.
However, Getahun and Musademba did not state the reason to their studies findings. All the three
studies show that less-educated residents use storage containers that are easily obtained. In the
middle education level 50% of the residents used re-used plastic bins for storage while other 50%
stored in bought b plastic bin. The majority (71%) of the middle education level disposed it in open
dumps and only 29% practiced backyard composting. This could be they have gathered
considerable knowledge on HSWM and therefore know how to handle it.

In his study, Getahun (2012) stated that mid educated residents in Jimma city of Ethiopia used
plastic bins for storage of HSW, this is contrary to (Bassey et al, 2006) who stated that in Abuja
Nigeria, the disposal of HSW did not did not rely on education status but the availability, cost and
effectiveness of waste collection services. This study also established the same view to Bassey’s as
the respondents in the study area reported that the municipal reached a few high-income residents
and neglected the low-income residents.

In the high-education level, 100% respondents stored their waste in plastic bins and 76% disposed
it in open dumps while only 24% used compost pits. This may be because the respondents are
aware (due to their high education level) of how to store the wastes in environmentally friendly
manner and therefore employ the same. (Ajani, 2007) wrote that education status was a factor that
was influencing HSWM in Abuja, Nigeria, most of the highly educated residents in African cities
as Lagos and Nairobi employ the services of the municipalities and private waste collectors.

However the municipality ended disposing of it in open dumps.

5.3 Conclusions
According to the study findings 69% of the low-income earners used reused plastic bins for storage
of HSW and 63% disposed it on open dumps. The study established that this could be because they
earn little and use most of their income in meeting their basic needs. They therefore have less
money remaining to buy dustbins and pay for HSW collection services. So it can be concluded that
limited resources has negative impact to the environment through dumping of HSW in open. High

20
income earners use bought storage facilities for HSW, it is concluded that the high income
contributes top proper storage and disposal of HSW.

In relation to the study findings, 55% of the respondents in the low education level stored their
HSW in reused bins and 79% disposed it in open dumps. This study established that this could be
because of their low knowledge and awareness on storage and disposal of HSW. It can therefore be
concluded that as long as people continue to remain in the low-education level they will continue
polluting the environment through improper disposal of HSW hence knowledge should be passed
to minimize this nuisance. On the other side people on the high education level use plastic bins for
storage and have contracted the municipal or private contractors for the disposal of HSW. It can
therefore be concluded that the more people are educated, they become conscious of the
environmental condition and employ proper HSWM measures.

According to the study findings, 75% of the respondents recommend that the municipal council
supplies them with bigger bins at subsidized cost, 18% suggested extension of HSW collection
services and 7% recommend sensitization and awareness program to be conducted. The study
established the municipal council does not reach the low members of the area and no awareness
and education program was carried out. It can therefore be concluded that so long as the municipal
does not reach their services to the people and awareness conducted by the public health
department and other relevant authorities then the residents will not improve their HSW storage
and disposal techniques.

5.4 Recommendations
The municipal council should provide dustbins at subsidized costs to the low-income earners and
also reduce the charges for HSW collection. This will reduce the scenes of solid waste dumps in
the areas inhabited by low-income earners and in turn avoid odors, rodents and transmission of
diseases associated with poor disposal of HSW through open dumps.

Proper household storage and disposal mechanisms should be put in place. Dustbins should be
provided to the low-income earners. Modern methods of HSW disposal should be instituted, this
includes incineration and landfill method that will handle the wastes produced hence reducing pile
up of the HSW.

21
Community based organizations, public health department, NEMA and Uasin-Gishu County
Department of Environment should collaborate in the initiation and fully support the awareness and
sensitization programs on proper HSW. This will equip the residents with knowledge on proper

HSWM.

22
REFERENCES
Abu, T. (2005). Solid Waste Collection, Disposal and Financial Aspects in the West Bank Report,
Environmental Quality Authority. In Environmental Quality Authority.

Aguwamba, J. C. (1998). Analysis of ‘scarvangers’ activities and recycling in some cities of

Nigeria. Environmental management. In Analysis of ‘scarvangers’ activities and recycling
(Vol. 1–32(1):, pp. 116–127).

Ajani, I. M. (2007). Development Profile for Abuja Town (A situation Analysis), JBIC Workshop,
Nigeria. In Development Profile for Abuja Town.

Balakrishann, J. (2007). Toolkit for Social Assessment and Public Participation in Municipal
Solid Waste Management. Urban Environment Thematic Group.
http://www.worldbank.org/urban/uswm/socialasssesstoolkit.pdf
Carboo, D., & Fobil, J. (2004). Physico-chemical analysis of municipal solid waste in the Accra
metropolis.

Da Zhu, P., Asani, c, Anapolsky, s, & Mani, S. (2008). Improving Municipal Solid Waste
management In India, a source book for policy makers and practitioners.

Getahun, B., & Kansal. (2012). A Solid Waste Management Strategies for Nigeria: Vol. 22 No 4
(pp. 444–448).

Imam, A. (2007a). Solid Waste Management in China and the United States. American Journal in
India.

Imam, A. (2007b). solid waste management in China and the United States. American Journal
in India, A source Book for Policy Makers.

Kabir, R. (n.d.). Municipal Solid Waste Management System: A Study on Dhaka North and South
City Corporations. Vol. 8(2015).

Lardinois, M., & Ingeline. (1996). The Global Development Reserach Centre. The Global Research
Centre.

M. Karanja Ikiara, & Theo, C. D. (N.D.). Collection, Transportation and Disposal of Urban Solid
waste in nairobi.

Medina, M. (2005). Informal recycling and collection of solid wastes bin developing countries
issues and opportunities. United Nations University Institute of Advanced learning.
23
Mendes, M. R., & Imura., H. (2004). from end of pipe Approach to the creation of sound material
cycle society: Asian cases in ISWA| World Conference. In cycle society: Asian cases in
ISWA| World Conference, Rome, Italy.
Momodu, N. S., Kingsley O Dimuna, & Dimuna, J. E. (2011). Mitigating the Impact of Solid
Wastes in Urban Centres in Nigeria. 2011.

Musademba, D. (2011). Municipal Waste Management: A Tool For Environmental Solid waste
Management In Port Harcourt, Nigeria Protection In Nigeria. volume 13, 31: 55- 57.

Ogbonna, D. N., Ekweozor, I. K. E., & Igwe, F. U. (2002). Municipal Waste Management. In
Municipal Waste Management: A Tool For Environmental Solid waste Management (pp.
31: 55-57).
Sagio, C. (2001). Environmental Science A Global Concern. In Environmental Science (6th ed.).
McGraw Hill Company Avenues of Americas New York.

24
 APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Definition of Terms
Monthly income – The total amount that a household head earns from his/her
employment or any other business that he/she may be running.

High income – A level whereby household heads earn a monthly income of over
Kshs. 16,000

Middle income – A level whereby household heads earn a monthly income of Kshs.
5000 - 15000

Low income – Refers to a level whereby a household earn a monthly income of

Below Kshs. 4000

High education – Household heads attain a diploma, degree, masters or PhD levels
in their education

Middle education – A level whereby household heads attained education up to

secondary school level

Low education – Refers to a level whereby household heads attain education up to

primary school.
Appendix 2: Abbreviations
CBO – Community Based Organizations
HSW – Household Solid Waste
NEMA – National Environmental Management Authority
NGO – Non Governmental Organizations
SWM – Solid Waste Management
HSWM – Household Solid waste Management

25
Appendix 3: List of Tables

Table 4.1 - Showing socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents

Table 4.2 - Showing the relationship between education level and HSW storage and
disposal methods.

Table 4.4 - Showing recommendations for HSWM in Kipkaren area

26
Appendix 4: List of Figures

Figure 4.3 - Bar Graph showing the relationship between education level and HSW
storage and disposal methods

Figure 4.5 - Showing photos of some of the available HSW storage and disposal methods.

27
Appendix 5: Budget

Phase/Section Item Quantity Cost

Unit Unit Days
Cost Number

Proposal writing Proposal printing 250 2 N/A 500.00

Proposal binding 50 2 N/A 100.00
Questionnaire 20 60 N/A 1200.00
printing

Conducting Research Foolscaps 5 1 N/A 60.00

Pens 10 5 N/A 50.00
File 100 1 N/A 100.00
Exercise book 100 1 N/A 100.00
Travel expenses 50 20 10 1,000.00

Research findings Research Printing 300 2 600.00

Grand total 3,110.00
Research Binding 50 2 100.00

Grand total 3810.00

Appendix 4: Work Plan

28
Activity Jan Feb Mar Apr May
2023 2023 2023 2023 2023

Research question
formulation

Proposal writing

Proposal defense

Budgeting and fiscal

planning
Submission of proposal for
ethical review

Data collection

Data analysis

Report writing

Submission of project report

for assessment

Appendix 7: Interview Questionnaire

ASSESSMENT OF HOUSEHOLD SOLID WASTE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL WITHIN

KIPKAREN AREA, UASIN-GISHU COUNTY, KENYA.

I am Stephen Lemiso Kiboi, currently pursuing a Diploma in Environmental Health at The Kenya
Medical Training College Kakamega Campus. I am undertaking a research on management and

29
disposal of household solid wastes. I would like to involve you in my study through answering the
following questionnaire.

Your cooperation will highly be appreciated.

Date……………………………………. Household no……………………
Section A: socio economic characteristics of the respondent
Name………………………………………………………………………..
(Can choose to remain anonymous)
Occupation…………………………………………………………………
Education level………………………… Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
Other(s) specify…………………………….
Employment status (Tick all that apply to you)
Average monthly income earned (Kshs)
Unemployed ………………………......
Self-employed ……………………………
Informal ……………………………

Formal …………………………...

Section B
a) How do you store the household solid waste generated on a daily basis?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
b) Which storage facilities do you use and where do you obtain them from?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
c) How do you dispose the household solid waste that you generate on daily basis?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Section C

30
 1. Do you face any challenges in storing and disposing of the HSW you generate? If yes specify, (if
NO skip to question 3)
…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………
2. How do you cope with the challenges?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
3. Are you accessible to any municipal council, private waste collection services or any other
service agents? If yes, name it
…………………………………………………………………………………………………

4. What services do they provide?

………………………………………………………………………………………………
5. How often do they conduct the services mentioned above?
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
6. Are you satisfied with their services? Yes ( ) No ( )
Give a reason …………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
7. What do you think can be done by the County environmental departments to help mitigate
Challenges faced in HSW ………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
8. Have you witnessed any HSWM awareness or sensitization programs in Uasin Gishu County?
Yes ( ) No ( )

9. If yes, have you ever attended these programs and what did you gain?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Appendix 8: Observation Checklist

Observation Checklist for Each Household Storage of HSW (tick where necessary)
Plastic bins (re-used)

31
Plastic bins (bought)

Metallic bins

House corners

Other storage receptacle …………………………………………………………..

Disposal of HSW
Backyard dumping

Use of compost pits

Indiscriminate dumping

Others (if any) …………………………………………………………..

Appendix 9: Informed Consent Form

ASSESSMENT OF HOUSEHOLD SOLID WASTE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL

WITHIN KIPKAREN AREA, UASIN GISHU COUNTY, KENYA
INTRODUCTION

32
Kenya Medical Training College is an institution of higher education of learning in Kenya. It has
several faculties and its mandate is to carry out research, training and collaborate with other
institutions and the community to ensure that its objectives are met.

I am an upgrading student of The Kenya Medical Training College Kakamega Campus pursuing
Diploma in Environmental Health in the School of Health. Currently I am carrying out this study to
assess household solid waste storage and disposal mechanisms.

PURPOSE OF STUDY
The main purpose of this study is to assess household solid waste management in Kipkaren area,
Uasin Gishu County, Kenya.

WHAT ARE WE REQUESTING FROM YOU?

We are requesting you to participate in this study, your selection to take part in the study was reached
upon through random selection. Upon agreeing to participate in the study you are requested to fill in
the self-administered questionnaire which only asks questions related to the study. The questionnaire
will require a maximum of 20 minutes to fill in.

RISKS OF PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY

There is no risk whatsoever involved by you participating in this particular study. However, it may
inconvenience the respondent in terms of time taken to fill in the questionnaire.

BENEFITS OF THE STUDY

This study will help identify the challenges facing household solid waste management in areas such
as collection, transportation and disposal. The information gathered will also be available to the
responsible health regulatory authorities, for example, the Public Health office may intervene if the
need arises. Furthermore, this research will provide a basis for future researchers who may want to
venture more into this topic. If a broader research is conducted, this study will act as a guide.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The questionnaire will be filled privately and the participant will talk with the researcher privately so
that confidentiality is not breached. To ensure privacy, we will keep the records of this study under a
code number rather than names. Information gathered will only be used for the purpose of this study.
33
Consent was sought from Kenya Medical Training College ethics committee and study approved
before data is collected.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
All the participants are free to ask any questions about the study. Participants are also free to either
participate or leave the study at any point in time and by withdrawing you will not lose benefits
gained from the study. Once you have accepted to join the study you sign below.

DECLARATION
Do you agree? Yes ( ) No ( )

Participant agrees
I have read and understood the information contained in this document. I therefore agree to
participate in the study.

SIGNATURE …………………..

DATE OF SIGNED CONSENT …………………..

WITNESSES
Acceptance to take part in this study is witnessed by:
Name …………………………………. Sign …………………………
Name ………………………………..... Sign ………………………….

34
35