ABSTRACT

The increase in solid waste generation, poor solid waste services in urban areas of Zimbabwe
and the absence of data on domestic solid waste handling practises in the study area prompted
this research intiative.The cross-sectional survey in Bulawayo involving three residential areas
of different socio-demographic statuses was used to assess solid waste handling practises at
household level. The study seeks to assess spatial distribution of illegal dumpsites in the three
areas, determine solid waste storage and disposal practises and analyse influence of
demographic and socioeconomic factors on solid waste handling. Purposive sampling was used
to select Nguboyenja, Mahatshula South and Queens Park East suburbs where stratified random
sampling was used to select 205 households. Researcher administered questionnaire and an
observation checklist were administered to generate qualitative and quantitative data. Illegal
dumpsites coordinates were captured using a GPS device. 25 illegal dumps in Nguboyenja
which is a high density area, 11 and 7 in Queens Park and Mahatshula low and medium density
areas were mapped using Google Earth Pro. Illegal dumpsites were located in open spaces,
along roadsides and at the peripheries of residential areas. Findings show that 31% of the
respondents portrayed good knowledge, 42% moderate knowledge and 27% portrayed poor
knowledge of proper solid waste handling. Poor waste handling practises that exist include
burning (practised by 39% of the respondents) and open space dumping (practised by 32% of
the respondents). Statistical analysis was done with dependant variables being knowledge on
solid waste handling, waste reuse and separation, waste generation rate and independent
variables being education level, income level, and age among others. The data obtained was
subjected to statistical analysis using SPSS V20 software and Microsoft Excel to determine
relationships between independent and dependant variables through correlation using Chi-
square test α=0.05. Knowledge about solid waste handling, handling practises and generation
showed significant association with factors such as family size, education level, income level
and age of respondents (p<0.05).There are more people who stay in high density residential
areas who are less educated, earn less, have high average number of people per household than
those in low residential areas impacting negatively on their ability to buy standard receptacles
and store waste properly. The residents of Bulawayo need health education, regular supply of
refuse receptacle facilities, and clearance of undesignated dump sites in the areas will
encourage strict adherence to proper and appropriate waste management practices.

i
 DEDICATION

This study is dedicated to my parents Mr T and Mrs D Chikanyire for their sacrifice and
support during the whole period of my study.

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My utmost acknowledgement and deepest gratitude goes to my supervisor Mr .O. Dube for all
the exceptional expert counsel and guidance he gave me to see the fruition of this study. Thank
you for your support and encouraging me through toughest moments of my research. The
Department of Environmental Science and Health, NUST for making it possible that I engage
in this research.

Over and above everything my sincere acknowledgement goes to the Almighty God who
granted me the opportunity to gain vast and invaluable knowledge. Much gratitude extends to
my family for it is through their support, love, encouragement and sacrifices that I have
managed to pull through life’s challenges and reached this stage in life. I acknowledge
everyone without whose support this dissertation would have been impossible. Special thanks
to the Bulawayo City Council for allowing me to conduct this research in their town.

My mother, family, siblings and friends, without the moral, financial support and all the
encouragements I would have not managed through this moment of testing. Thank you for your
prayers and everything. To my close friends at NUST, thank you for the great support and
prayers. Special thanks to fellow classmates Tafadzwa, Fortune and Tineyi, guys thank you for
being there.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................... i
LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................................................vii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background to the study.............................................................................................. 1
1.2 Problem Statement ...................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Research Objectives .................................................................................................... 4
1.3.1 Main objective ..................................................................................................... 4
1.3.2 Specific Objectives .............................................................................................. 4
1.4 Specific Research Questions ....................................................................................... 5
1.5 Justification of study ................................................................................................... 5
1.6 Limitations and Delimitations of study ....................................................................... 6
1.6.1 Limitations ........................................................................................................... 6
1.6.2 Delimitations ........................................................................................................ 6
1.7 Ethical considerations ................................................................................................. 6
2 CHAPTER 2 ...................................................................................................................... 8
LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 8
2.2 History of solid waste management ............................................................................ 8
2.3 Overview of solid waste management ........................................................................ 8
2.4 Waste management practices in different parts of the world ...................................... 9
2.5 Proportion of household solid waste generated......................................................... 11
2.6 Solid waste handling practises .................................................................................. 12
2.6.1 Waste generation ................................................................................................ 12
2.6.2 Waste storage ..................................................................................................... 13
2.6.3 Collection ........................................................................................................... 14
2.6.4 Disposal.............................................................................................................. 14
2.6.5 Solid waste management options ....................................................................... 14
2.7 Illegal solid waste dumping....................................................................................... 15
2.8 Geographic information systems (GIS) and solid waste management ..................... 16
2.9 Urban councils solid waste management and practises ............................................ 17
2.10 Legislation governing solid waste in Zimbabwe....................................................... 20
2.11 The concept of the household.................................................................................... 21

iv
 2.12 Knowledge, attitudes and practices on waste ............................................................ 22
2.13 Major constraints to proper household solid waste management. ............................ 22
2.13.1 Attitude and behaviour gap ................................................................................ 23
2.13.2 Lack of Education and Awareness ..................................................................... 23
2.14 Conclusion................................................................................................................. 24
3 CHAPTER 3 .................................................................................................................... 25
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 25
3.2 Study area .................................................................................................................. 25
3.2.1 Study Area Maps................................................................................................ 27
3.3 Research Design ........................................................................................................ 28
3.4 Target population ...................................................................................................... 28
3.5 Research Method/Strategy ........................................................................................ 29
3.6 Sample size................................................................................................................ 29
3.7 Sampling Technique .................................................................................................. 31
3.7.1 Non-probability sampling .................................................................................. 31
3.7.2 Probability Sampling ......................................................................................... 31
3.8 Research Methodology Flowchart ............................................................................ 33
3.9 Data Capture tools ..................................................................................................... 34
3.10 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................ 35
3.11 Data Analysis plan .................................................................................................... 35
4 CHAPTER 4 .................................................................................................................... 36
4.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 36
4.1 The sociodemographic characteristics of participants ................................................. 36
4.2 Spatial distribution of illegal dumpsites .................................................................... 38
4.3 Knowledge of the Households towards solid waste handling ................................... 41
4.4 Solid waste storage and disposal practises of households......................................... 44
4.4.1 Residential solid waste streams generation ........................................................... 44
4.4.2 Availability of standard storage receptacles .......................................................... 45
4.4.3 Association between availability of receptacles and residential area .................... 47
4.4.4 Determining solid waste final disposal methods in the residential areas. ............. 47
4.4.5 Proportion of waste generated attributed to illegal dumping ................................. 48
4.4.6 Relationship between income level, ownership of a waste receptacle and amount
of waste not binned. ............................................................................................................. 49
4.4.7 Solid waste reuse and separation done by residents. ............................................. 50
4.4.7 Observation practice of Solid Waste disposal in households ................................ 52

v
 4.5 Association between Socio-demographic factors (gender, level of education,
occupation, monthly income and size of household) and knowledge towards solid waste
handling ................................................................................................................................ 53
5 CHAPTER 5 .................................................................................................................... 56
5.1 Discussion ................................................................................................................. 56
5.2 Socio-demographic characteristics ............................................................................ 56
5.3 Spatial distribution of illegal dumpsites .................................................................... 58
5.4 Knowledge of households on waste handling ........................................................... 60
5.5 Solid waste handling practises .................................................................................. 62
5.5.1 Solid waste streams generated and the handling thereof. .................................. 62
5.5.2 Common existing Solid Waste handling practice at household levels/Observed
situation of household waste handling in residential areas............................................... 63
5.6 Association between gender, level of education income level, age and waste
handling practises. ................................................................................................................ 64
5.7 Conclusion................................................................................................................. 65
5.8 Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 66
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 74

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Population and urbanization growth (1990-2010) Adapted from (World Bank, ... 9
Figure 2.2: Adapted from What a Waste report (World Bank, 2012) ..................................... 11
Figure 2.3: Solid waste management hierarchy ...................................................................... 20
Figure 3.1: Map of Bulawayo City in which study areas are located ..................................... 26
Figure 3.2: Map of Study area 1-Nguboyenja suburb (Sourced from Google earth) ............. 27
Figure 3.3: Map of Study area 2-Mahatshula South suburb (Sourced from Google earth) ... 27
Figure 3.4: Map of Study area 3-Queens Park East Suburb (Sourced from Google earth) ... 28
Figure 3.5 : Research Methodology Flow Chart-A summary of how the research was ......... 33
Figure 4.1: Map showing distribution of illegal dumps in Nguboyenja suburb (Source:
Google Earth, 2017) ................................................................................................................ 39
Figure 4.2: Map showing distribution of illegal dumps in Mahatshula South suburb (Source:
Google Earth, 2017) ................................................................................................................ 39
Figure 4.3: Map showing distribution of illegal dumps in Queens park East suburb (Source:
Google Earth, 2017) ................................................................................................................ 40
Figure 4.4: Showing overall classification for knowledge level of respondents for all suburbs
.................................................................................................................................................. 43
Figure 4.5: Proportion of the population and their practises towards proper solid waste
management practises .............................................................................................................. 44
Figure 4.6: Shows solid waste streams produced more by households in each suburb .......... 45
Figure 4.7: Storage receptacles availability in the three suburbs........................................... 45
Figure 4.8: Proportion of the population using other forms of receptacles. ........................... 46
Figure 4.9: Other ways used by households for final solid waste disposal............................. 48
Figure 4.10: Shows proportion of waste generated per day that is attributed to illegal ........ 49
Figure 4.11: Indicates unavailability of bins in relation to income level and as a result
amount of waste (kg per day per suburb) not binned………………………………51
Figure 4.12: Indicates the population proportions practising reuse and separation of solid

Waste……………………………………………………………………………………..52

Figure 4.13: Shows solid waste items reused by respondents…………………………………...53

vii
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Data Analysis plan ................................................................................................. 35
Table 4.1: Sociodemographic characteristics of participants ................................................. 36
Table 4.2: Shows the statistical findings on the number of dump sites relative to households
.................................................................................................................................................. 38
Table 4.3: Shows proportion of respondents whose responses show understanding of solid . 42
Table 4.4: Contingency table showing Association of availability of standard receptacles and
frequency of households with receptacles in residential areas. .............................................. 47
Table 4.5: Proportion of waste generated attributed to illegal dumping……………………...49

Table 4.6: Observation checklist elucidating possession and real practice from households’
in solid waste management………………………………………………………………………….56

Table 4.7: χ2 analysis for Association between sociodemographic factors and knowledge and
practises towards solid waste management………………………………………………………...57

Table 4.8: χ2 analysis for Association between sociodemographic factors and waste reuse
and waste separation…………………………………………………………………………….........58

viii
 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Research questionnaire ………………………………………………………....75

Appendix 2: Spatial data capture form………………………………………………………..82

Appendix 3: Bulawayo City list of properties extract………………………………………..83

Appendix 4: Approval letter from Bulawayo City Council………………………………….84

ix
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the study
African, Asian and Latin America cities and towns are central to demographic, economic and

environmental challenges of 21st century. More than 3.3 billion people live in towns and cities;

the number being expected to rise to some 5 billion by 2030 (George Martine, 2008) .Virtually

all of the world’s population growth is projected to occur in these cities and towns, and it is

likely that the cities will account for most of the economic growth .This urban transformation

can be viewed as a set of momentous demographic and economic developments that present

policymakers with opportunities as well as challenges (George Martine, 2008). Among other

environmental issues, solid waste management is a basic one on the grounds that as long as

humans live in settled groups, solid waste generation is unavoidable and a critical issue in both

developed and developing countries. Subsequently, solid waste management turned into an

overall plan at United Nations gathering on environment and development in Rio de Janeiro in

1992 with emphasis on lessening waste and boosting naturally environmentally sound waste

reuse and recycling at initial phase in waste management (Hyman & Brandon, 2013)

Solid waste generation has not been matched by capacity of municipalities to manage the waste,

this gave rise to collection and disposal problems (Tchobanoglous & Vigil, 1993) . One of the

important factors in management of solid waste is solid waste handling practises at household

level which is an important factor in solid waste management especially in the low income

countries as compared to the high income countries (Hornwerg & Bhada-Tata, 2012). The

World Bank Global Review of Waste Management report (World Bank, 2012) estimates that

at present almost 1.3 billion tonnes of household solid waste are generated globally every year

with 1.2 kg/capita/day.

According to George Martine, (2008), solid waste management has become an increasing

environmental and public health problem everywhere in the world as it is not only increasing

in quantity but also changing in composition from less organic to more paper, packing wastes,

plastics, glass, metal wastes among other types, leading to disposal problems (Bartone &

Bernstein, 2005) .Agenda 21 (UNCED, 1992), highlighted waste from domestic sources as a

major barrier to achieving environmental sustainability in the 21st century especially in Africa.

United Nations projections estimate that the urbanization rate will increase from 24% in 2005

to 38% by 2030 (Hornwerg & Bhada-Tata, 2012). Management of solid waste in Sub Saharan

Africa is often weak due to lack of appropriate planning, poor technology, weak enforcement

of existing legislation and the lack of economic incentives to promote environmentally sound

development (Bandara, et al., 2007).

Jerie, (2014) alluded that rapid urban population growth during the last decade, coupled with

hyperinflation, economic decline and a fall in both capital and recurrent real budgets of local

authorities, among other factors, placed strain on local authority resources, resulting in the

failure to provide adequate services to areas under their jurisdiction. In Zimbabwe an average

of 2.5 million tonnes of solid waste produced is per annum (Tsiko & Togarepi, 2012) .On per

capita basis 0.53 kg of trash per household each day. As garbage in cities and towns is rising

quicker, only 52% of the waste is collected and disposed properly by councils the rest is either

burnt, buried underground or dumped anywhere in residential areas (TARSC, 2010). Waste

collection by local authorities was reported in 2007 to have dropped from 80% of total waste

across different local authorities in the mid-1990s to as low as 30% of total waste in some large

cities and small towns in 2006 (TARSC, 2010).

2
Previous studies that assessed household solid waste generation and composition observed that

in every human settlement, the microscopic unit of waste generation is the household (Sankoh,

et al., 2012). Households play an important role in environmental problems due to factors such

as family size, societal status and wealth, residential location and community status. The

quantity of waste generated is proportional to the population and the mean living standards,

income levels of people, household sizes hence individual household’s waste generation is

correlated as found by (Bandara, et al., 2007) . Dennison, et al., (1996), statistically analysed

the relationship between socioeconomic factors and waste generation and composition and

concluded that a clear waste difference existed between the more prosperous section in relation

to the total and the individual components of the waste stream.

Studies on waste management have focused on the factors influencing waste generation in both

developed and developing countries (Xiao, et al., 2015). Information about relevant influential

factors is essential to predict the consequences of changes in economic systems, demographics,

and policy measures on future waste generation. Income and family size are highly cited as

major determinants affecting solid waste generation. Other factors such as population density,

education, family structure, lifestyle, geographic features, and policies also inevitably influence

waste generation and handling at household level (Sankoh, et al., 2012). Demographic

dynamics, socio-economic changes and consumption patterns are the main factors that affect

the municipal solid waste management system in the Bulawayo city.

1.2 Problem Statement

Urbanisation and industrialisation results in increased quantities of solid waste generated, much

of which exist in the form of domestic waste (Achankeng, 2003). In Zimbabwe, population

growth coupled with urbanization, industrialization and the use of the multi-currency system

3
in the economy has resulted in increased household solid waste generation since the buying

power of the population is strengthened (Mangizvo, 2008). Mismanagement of the generated

household solid waste has brought disease outbreaks, municipal waste collection and disposal

challenges (Jerie, 2014). The cholera and typhoid outbreaks of 2008 in Harare have been

attributed to poor solid waste management (Chinobva & Mukarati, 2011).Waste generation in

Bulawayo averages 0.2kg/day/capita approximately 60 tonnes of waste per day (Goriwondo,

2011). However sporadic and erratic household solid waste handling practises in Bulawayo

suburbs. According to this rate 321,930 tonnes of solid waste are generated, of which most of

it is either burnt on open spaces or dumped at undesignated places. Accumulated waste

threatens health, damages the environment and adversely affects the quality of urban life

(Magadzire & Maseva, 2006). Assessing household waste disposal practices helps introduce

measures to reduce the amount of waste generated, the storage before collection and proper

disposal in communities. There is little that is known regarding the spatio-demographic

variables in influencing the waste handling at household level necessitating this study.

1.3 Research Objectives

1.3.1 Main objective
To assess the spatio-demographic solid waste handling practises at household level in

Bulawayo Metropolitan Province.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

1) To assess variation in demographic issues across residential locations.

2) To map the distribution of illegal dumpsites relative to households.

3) To determine the level of knowledge on solid waste handling by the residents.

4) To determine solid waste storage and handling practises adopted by households.

4
1.4 Specific Research Questions
The research attempts to provide adequate answers to each of the following key

research questions:

1) What is the variation in demographic issues across residential locations?

2) What is the distribution of illegal dumpsites in the low, high density and medium

density residential areas?

3) What is the level of knowledge of residents on solid waste handling?

4) What are the solid waste storage and handling practises adopted by households in

Bulawayo?

1.5 Justification of study

The results will show locations of illegal dumpsites which is effective information for

elimination of illegal dumps. The study on waste management practises at household’s level

may contribute to knowledge on approaches in management of waste and identification of gaps

that need policy intervention. Study may generate knowledge about how waste handling

practises in the primary phase of solid waste management link with the waste handling

activities of other actors in the secondary phase of solid waste management so as to understand

household roles in solid waste management thereby help to identify factors to be considered

when developing more effective SWM systems .Research may bring out potential health

hazards that may expose Bulawayo residents to health hazards them as a result of poor solid

waste handling practises. The research may contribute to the body of knowledge in the area of

solid waste management.

5
1.6 Limitations and Delimitations of study
1.6.1 Limitations
 The number of households for study areas used for the study obtained from

Bulawayo city council might not be accurate due to new developments that occur

in the city.

 Some residents could not accurately complete the questionnaires on the question

that requested their household monthly income.

 Garmin E-trex 30 has an accuracy of about (+/-) 3 metres which is likely to have

geoaccuracy errors of location of the illegal dumpsites.

1.6.2 Delimitations
 For the purpose of this study the researcher focused on households only, other areas of

the city such as the central business district (CBD) and the industrial areas were not

included in the study.

 In the context of this study solid waste handling relates to storage, any forms of solid

waste transformation/predisposal methods at source and all other disposal at source

prior removal by Bulawayo city council.

1.7 Ethical considerations

 Permission was sought from the NUST Environmental Science and Health Department

under code of ethics to do health related study.

 The researcher sought authority from Bulawayo City Council to carry out the research

and this was granted.

 All the participants in this project were asked to sign an ethics consent form. This form

gave them the assurance that the information they provided was to be used for academic

purposes only.

6
 The researcher ensured that participants were not involved without their knowledge and

consent.

 No participant was coerced to participate and there was no invasion of privacy. In fact

the researcher explained the academic purpose of his research to the participants to give

them confidence.

 The researcher did not hold any information from the participants about the true nature

of the research. Participants were given the freedom to decide for themselves when and

where, in what circumstances and to what extent their personal attitudes, opinion,

habits, eccentrics, doubts and fears were to be communicated to or withheld from

others.

7
 2 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction

The chapter is based on comprehensive literature review concerning solid waste management.

The chapter evaluates the conventional ways of solid waste management which are universally

deemed effective and discusses the current waste handling practises in cities including those in

Zimbabwe. An analysis of what was found by other researchers on effective household solid

waste management practises in other countries and cities was done to ascertain the applicability

of such findings in the Zimbabwean context. This allows identification of research gaps in

existing literature.

2.2 History of solid waste management

Advancement of humans has been intrinsically linked to management of solid waste due to its

effect on public and environmental health. According to (Nathanson, 2015) waste management

occurred in the 4th century A.D with Ancient Greeks who had to deal with multiple challenges

of aligning waste removal systems with a growing population. The plagues that affected Europe

between the 14th and 16th centuries were linked to rudimentary waste handling .In the later part

of the 20th century technological advances included the use of garbage cans and sanitary

landfills, the latter replaced the practise of open dumping .Today, solid waste management

conditions in the developing world are quite dire; indicative of conditions found in past waste

management in the developed world (McAllister, 2015).

2.3 Overview of solid waste management

Phillipe & Culot, (2009) defined solid wastes as non-flowing organic and inorganic materials

that include residues, by-products in production or consumption of goods and provision of

8
services that are discarded by their first owners without expecting to be rewarded for their

inherent value.Tchobanoglous & Vigil,(1993) added that solid waste comprise all wastes

arising from human and animal activities that are normally discarded as useless or unwanted.

This study focuses on household solid waste which includes ordinary garbage, rubbish and all

forms of refuse from household activities. In addition Tchobanoglous et al., (1993) discussed

solid waste management as the activities associated with the control of generation, storage,

collection, transfer and transport, processing and disposal of solid wastes in a manner that is in

accord with the best principles of public health, economics, engineering, conservation,

aesthetics and other environmental considerations and that is also responsive to public attitudes.

Ojeda-Benitez & Vega, (2008) outlined the goals of an appropriate waste management system

as to protect environmental health, promote quality of urban environment, support the

efficiency and productivity of the economy and generate employment and income.

2.4 Waste management practices in different parts of the world

The last three decades witnessed development of urban areas through urbanisation. Growth in

urbanisation is coupled with the growth of population living in urban areas (Khatib,

2011).Figure below shows growth of urbanisation is much more in developing countries than

the developed countries.

Figure 2.1: Population and urbanization growth (1990-2010) Adapted from (World Bank,
2012)

9
Current global MSW generation levels are approximately 1.3 billion tonnes per year, and are

expected to increase to approximately 2.2 billion tonnes per year by 2025 (Hornwerg & Bhada-

Tata, 2012).This represents a significant increase in per capita waste generation rates,

from 1.2 to 1.42 kg per person per day in the next fifteen years. Solid Waste generation rates

are influenced by economic development and rate of urbanization. Income level and

urbanization are highly correlated and as disposable incomes and living standards increase,

consumption of goods and services correspondingly increases, as does the amount of waste

generated. Waste generation in sub-Saharan Africa is approximately 62 million tonnes per year.

Per capita waste generation is generally low in the region, but spans a wide range, from 0.09

to 3.0 kg per person per day, with an average of 0.65 kg/capita/day (United Nations,

2014).Practical Action Southern Africa (PASA, 2006) indicated that more than 2.5 million

tonnes of household and industrial waste are produced per annum in urban areas across

Zimbabwe. In sub Saharan Africa cities and towns, Achankeng, (2003) revealed that municipal

household solid waste management constitutes one of the most serious service provision

challenges.

Despite progress in solid waste management practices in the last decade since the original What

a Waste Report was published by World Bank (World Bank, 2012) fundamental institutional,

financial, social, and environmental problems still exist. Although each country and city has

their own site-specific situations, general observations can be made across low-, middle-, and

high-income countries, as delineated in Table below.

10
Figure 2.2: Adapted from What a Waste report (World Bank, 2012)

2.5 Proportion of household solid waste generated

According to Grossmann, et al., (2004) households have been estimated to account for about

half of the solid waste generated by weight in developing world cities. Medina,(2007) estimated

that in the cities of developing countries some 30 to 50 per cent of solid wastes often remain

uncollected, rot, wash away, burn out in the open, and be scavenged at dumps, where the wastes

are piled up uncovered. These dumpsites have become refuges for disease spreading parasites.

The main challenge in the way solid waste is managed is failure to consider the socio-economic

factors and administrative support factors to influence household solid waste management

practices. In a study by Jerie (2014) the researcher identified knowledge gap among residents

in Harare.Jerie, (2014) conducted a study in Budiriro a high density suburb in Harare to

investigate people’s perceptions and attitudes on the nature of solid waste, environmental and

health risks associated with solid waste and waste disposal practises among households. The

11
researcher found the factors influencing people’s perceptions and attitudes towards waste

management as gender, marital status, level of education and age. The study revealed low levels

of knowledge on proper solid waste disposal practises among households and the factors

motivating solid waste recycling at household level and recommended that education and

awareness need to target changing human attitudes (Jerie, 2014).

2.6 Solid waste handling practises

Tchobanoglous et al. (1993) describes waste handling practises as activities associated with

managing wastes until they are placed in the containers used for their storage, before collection

or return to recycling centres or disposal sites. Once waste is generated at household level, it

has to be handled in the primary phase of the waste chain in a manner that facilitates safe

disposal. This involves what householders do with their waste until they are place it in storage

containers for collection or otherwise hand over to formal or informal waste handlers in the

secondary phases of the waste chain (Tchobanoglous & Vigil, 1993).It is important to

understand the flows of waste within the household and in between the households and transfer

points, knowledge about the ways in which waste handling activities in the primary phase of

SWM link with the waste handling activities of other actors in the secondary phase of solid

waste management. Conventionally solid waste handling practises incorporates elements of:

generation, source separation, storage, collection, transportation and transfer, processing,

recovery, and disposal in a manner that is environmentally sustainable.

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 (Rafia, et al., 2011).This functional

element is important as an activity that lead to identification and understanding of solid waste

generation rate, volume, composition, area specific variations of waste generation and their

expected changes overtime belong to this component of solid waste management. According

12
to UNEP (2009) the global amount of municipal solid waste generated in 2006 was 2.02 billion

tonnes representing 7% annual increase since 2003.Between 2007 and end of 2011 global

generation of municipal solid waste rose by 37.3% , a figure equivalent to around 8% increase

per year (UNEP, 2009).Generation rate has direct relationship with in-come level when income

level increases generation increase too as was observed in the town of Ethiopia Arada Sub City

Addis Ababa (UNEP, 2009).

The assertion by UNEP, (2009) that at a global scale waste generation is increasing at a faster

rate is confirmed by (Bandara, et al., 2007) in a study of solid waste in Ghana, Monahan (2004)

on his study of solid waste in New Hampshire .Manyanhaire et al (2009) found out that a

number of determinants account for the type of waste generated and these include consumption

patterns and lifestyles. In a study conducted by Bruvoll, (2001) to analyse the factors that

influence waste handling and generation using the variables income and population density, it

was found that income did influence the total solid waste generated in a municipality (Bruvoll,

2007). The generation of household waste was also found to be positively correlated with

average family size, employment status, monthly income, educational level and number of

room(s) occupied (Sankoh, et al., 2012).Waste generation is important for planning purposes,

especially in formulating a recycling strategy and in the design of landfills.

2.6.2 Waste storage

Solid waste storage facilities is categorised as primary (or individual) and secondary (or

communal) storage facilities. Saeed, et al.,(2009) pointed it is essential that storage facilities

be as far as possible, waste able and robust enough to meet the needs of normal use. The

receptacle must be large enough to store waste until the council collects waste. The choice of

receptacles depends on the generation rate per capita and the method of lifting and empting the

receptacle in the refuse collection vehicle. Since recycling starts at household level, many

13
receptacles must be in place to cater for different types of waste. Local municipalities must

provide residents with receptacles (Saeed, et al., 2009). Sorting of waste can be necessitated by

availability of receptacles.

2.6.3 Collection

Collection can done by refuse trucks or skip bins and containers provided at various points

placed alongside shops or residential areas (Bartone & Bernstein, 2005). In Bulawayo the

simple emptying method is used. Frequency of waste collection varies with income with high

income residential areas having low frequency of collection in most cities.

2.6.4 Disposal

Tchobanoglous et al., (1993), cited four major ways of disposal as composting, incineration,

landfilling and recycling. In Bulawayo the most common type of waste disposal is crude

dumping without incineration and uncoordinated waste scavenging common in the high density

residential areas (Mudzengerere & Chingwenya, 2012)

2.6.5 Solid waste management options

Khatib, (2011) noted that the contemporary methods in management of solid waste include,

source reduction, sanitary landfills, composting, recycling, and incineration.

Source reduction

Includes actions to reduce the volumes and reclaiming reusable products and packages like

returnable bottles (Makoni, et al., 2004). At a consumption level reduction can include reuse

of containers and bags, changing buying habits, reducing the use of disposable products, and

packaging among other ways. Tibet and Marbel, (2004) noted source separation as a very

important factor in achieving source reduction of solid waste. Austria, the Netherlands, and

Denmark, have evolved necessary management processes to efficiently resolve the waste

14
disposal problem by essentially coaxing their citizens to separate their domestic solid waste

into glass, paper, plastic categories; thereby enabling easy collection and consequently reuse.

Reuse and Recycle

Involves use of a product more than once in its original form for the same or a new purpose.

This decreases the use of matter and energy resources, cuts pollution, creates local jobs, and

saves money (Hornwerg & Bhada-Tata, 2012).In developed countries, resource recovery is

done mechanically and is institutionalized by the government, while in the developing

countries, recycling operations are done by waste pickers or scavengers, with junk dealers,

even without the encouragement and support by the government. The first step towards

improving the collection and disposal of MSW requires finding out what informal activities

around waste already exist and how informal refuse collection and scavenging could be

improved.

2.7 Illegal solid waste dumping

The International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) defines open dump as a land disposal site

where the indiscriminate deposit of solid waste takes place with no, or very limited measures

to control the operation and to protect the surrounding uncovered waste. Illegal dumping is the

intentional and illegal abandonment of household and industrial material on public or private

property (Medina, 2007) and according to UNEP (2009) it poses physical dangers such as fires

and vermin. According to USAID (2009), major cities in Africa produce around 0.5 kg per

person per day compared to 1-2kg produced in developed countries, but most waste in Africa

is not collected by municipal collection systems and ends up being illegally dumped. According

to Cunningham (2008) the traditional way people dispose of waste is to simple drop it

somewhere. This problem of waste disposal has become one of the most difficult

environmental problems facing the world today as among all types of waste, i.e. solid, liquid

or gas, solid waste is the most popular and most difficult to manage locally (Coad (2011).

15
2.8 Geographic information systems (GIS) and solid waste management
GIS is a technology that is used to manage, correlate and analyse the spatial relationship

between mapped phenomena, thereby enabling policy-makers to link disparate sources of

information, perform sophisticated analysis, visualize trends, project outcomes and strategize

long-term planning goals (Malczewski, 2004 cited by Sumathi et al, 2008). GIS has often been

employed for the siting and placement of solid waste disposal facilities. GIS may also play a

key role in maintaining account data to facilitate collection operation and provide customer

service, analysing optimal locations for transfer stations, planning routes for vehicles

transporting waste as well as long-term monitoring of landfills (Sumathi et al, 2008).

Mapping of spatial data

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are one of the most sophisticated modern technologies

to capture, store, manipulate, analyse and display spatial data. The spatial data is organized into

thematic layers in the form of digital maps. The combined use of GIS with advanced related

technologies such as Global Positioning System (GPS) and Remote Sensing (RS) assists in the

recording of spatial data and the direct use of these data for analysis and cartographic

representation (www.intechopen.com).According to Benedine et al (2011) in a study to analyse

the impact of the spatial distribution of solid waste dumps on infrastructural facilities in

Samaru, Zaria, Kaduna State in Nigeria spatial data acquisition was done by the use of a GPS

device which captures coordinates of spatial phenomena. According to Map Action (2009) a

GPS receiver can be used to record the unique coordinates of the places of interest and in the

case of mapping illegal dumpsites, a GPS survey can be carried out to collect the coordinates

of the major waste dumpsites. In a study conducted in Samaru, an area in Nigeria, the

coordinates of the waste dumps collected were imported into Microsoft excel and tables or data

sheets for the points and their attributes were created .The coordinates of each of the identified

dumpsites were then overlaid on the imagery covering the study area using the overlay analysis

16
of the GIS. The map of the spatial distribution of the dumpsites and their proximity to

infrastructural facilities was created (Benedine et al, 2011).From the results of the study carried

out in Samaru, a number of the dumps were adjacent to and even within residential structures

where they not only destroy the aesthetic value of the areas but also constitute breeding grounds

for vectors like mosquitoes and flies which transmit diseases like malaria, typhoid fever and

cholera. Thus, indiscriminate disposal of solid waste in dumpsites located within urban areas

has proved to be a problem to nearby residents in most developing cities of the world (Sankoh

et al, 2013).

2.9 Urban councils solid waste management and practises

The management of solid waste in most parts of the eastern and southern Africa consists of

seven stages which are refuse generation, storage, transfer, collection, transportation, partly

processing and disposal (Tchobanoglous & Vigil, 1993).

Storage of Waste and Coverage of Receptacles

In Zimbabwe both urban councils and owners of the properties are responsible for ensuring

that receptacles are available for each property (Mangizvo, 2008). For example, Bulawayo City

Council used to supply metal bins to its residents. However, high costs of bins have caused

residents to use plastics bags as temporary waste storage facility. Muzengerere (2012) found

out that 48% of the residents were using plastic bags as receptacles in Bulawayo. The author

estimated the coverage of proper receptacles (metallic bins) to be 44%. Mangizvo (2007)

highlighted the same challenges in Gweru the provincial town of Midlands Province in

Zimbabwe and recommended that the city councils should ensure that refuse bins are readily

available to residents for sustainable waste management. Serious shortage of receptacles in

Chinhoyi, Gweru and Bulawayo provide enough evidence that there are no recycling strategies

across Zimbabwe as recycling requires more than one receptacle per property for sorting and

separation of different types of waste.

17
In a study by Manyanhaire (2009), the coverage of proper receptacles in Sakubva high density

suburb in Mutare, Zimbabwe was 64%. Residents of Sakubva were using other unacceptable

receptacles such as card boxes and sacks .The study also pointed out that the proper receptacle

would take seven days to fill, the time usually between one collection to the next collection.

Sacks and cardboard boxes fill up easily resulting in overspills and this would attract flies,

rodents and mosquitoes (Manyanhaire, et al., 2009).

Source Sorting and Separation of Waste

A study by TARSC and CFH (2010) on assessing solid waste management in Chitungwiza,

Epworth and Mutare revealed that 26% of the households are separating waste at source. The

author did not give the driver for separation of waste at source in these 3 urban areas. The

possible reason could be that residents separate biodegradable waste for composting purposes

in the backyard. In Mutare high density suburb about 41% were doing source sorting and

separation (TARSC and CFH, 2010).

Collection Efficiency and Transportation

In developing countries, 30 to 60 percent of all the urban solid wastes remain uncollected and

less than 50 percent of the population is served (UNEP, 2009). Zimbabwe has also not been

spared by the challenges which are affecting other African countries in the collection of solid

waste. For instance, studies by Mudzengerere (2012) in Bulawayo showed that there was an

acute shortage of equipment and the city council was striving to make sure refuse is collected.

The reason was that the city council had only ten functional compactor trucks against an ideal

of 25, two tipper trucks, two front end loaders and one dozer with no landfill compactor

(Mudzengerere, 2012). Bulawayo city council collects refuse once per month for all the

residential areas except for food outlets, shops, hospitals, schools and colleges where collection

was three times per week (BCC Master Plan, 2016). Therefore refuse collection is inconsistent

and waste was being generated daily regardless of the current situation of the city. Gweru city

18
council has been experiencing the same challenges which Bulawayo city council has

experienced. Mangizvo (2010) showed that the collection efficiency was poor in Gweru

because the city council had only one functional refuse truck for the whole city in 2008 to 2009

(Mangizvo, 2010). In another on solid waste disposal and collection efficiency in Victoria

Falls showed that poor collection efficiency across Zimbabwean urban areas implies that the

users might burn the uncollected waste, illegally dumping waste in open spaces and composting

waste in the backyard (Masocha, 2004).

Recycling and Recovery of Solid Waste

Recycling and recovery of waste includes reuse (e.g., plastic and glass containers), recycling

of materials for industrial production (e.g., paper and iron), converting waste into energy (e.g.

burning tyres in cement kiln to produce heat), and converting waste into a resource (e.g.,

composting and landfill gas). Hence technology can determine the level and sophistication of

recycling and recovery activities (UNEP, 2009). For most developing countries recycling is

not formally done by the council or landfill operators but it is done by informal recyclers or

pickers and scavengers (United Nations, 2014). It has been suggested by (UN-HABITAT,

2008) that recycling sector could save a city of its municipal solid waste management budget

by 20% or more. Recycling can be taken as a business where organizations extract valuable

assets through refuse processing. In addition, waste is considered a source of income for

scavengers. Internationally known principles of waste management are the only noble way to

go .Figure below illustrates the best waste management options.

19
 Cradle to cradle

Figure 2.2: Solid waste management hierarchy

Source: Modified from: Cunningham (2008)

2.10 Legislation governing solid waste in Zimbabwe

Environmental Management Act (Cap 20:27) of 2002 in Zimbabwe

Section 69 of the Environmental Management Act (2002) states that no person or group of

individuals is allowed to dispose waste that will pollute the environment or affect the health of

people (Government of Zimbabwe, 2002). On Section 36 every user should take measures to

reduce waste through waste minimization, reuse and deposit inert waste in engineered landfills.

Section 83 of the EMA (2002) also states that illegal dumping and states that all people or local

authorities responsible for a certain area or premise must provide receptacles or designated

sites for waste storage (Government of Zimbabwe, 2007).Section 14 of Statutory Instrument 6

states that every local authority shall designate suitable sites as waste disposal sites and waste

shall be collected at a collection frequency that do not favour decomposition of waste

(Mangizvo, 2010).

Public Health Act of 1996.

Section 83 of the Public Health Act of Zimbabwe (1996) states that it shall be the duty of every

local authority to take all lawful, necessary, and reasonably practical measures for maintaining

20
its district, in a clean and sanitary condition by preventing the accumulation of waste, which

may be injurious or dangerous to health (Government of Zimbabwe, 1996).

By- Laws for Urban Councils

Most urban councils in Zimbabwe have by-laws that govern sold waste in their area of

jurisdiction, for example the by-laws of the BCC govern the collection and disposal of wastes

in the city. These mention that it is the responsibility of the owner to maintain the premise free

from solid wastes (BCC, 1982).

2.11 The concept of the household

Households are the main producers of solid waste and the first responsible actors for dealing

with wastes in the primary phase of the collection-transport-disposal process of flows of

domestic urban solid wastes (Foday, et al., 2012). Developing waste management programs

such as recycling and reuse systems require the involvement of households as they have to

adapt and change their existing practices .Most of the studies such as (Wertz.K.L, 2010);

(Medina, 2007) looked at solid waste management from the perspective of the community and

municipality rather than the households which is the fundamental unit in the system (Al-

momani, 2010). Studies by, Tchobanoglous et al. (1993), highlight the problems of waste

management in hot climates in general with little focus on households.The involvement of the

end user is seen as a key factor to long term sustainability since it provides a good way of

getting to know and managing the expectations of users (Al-momani, 2010).

(Foday, et al., 2012) carried out a study of household solid waste management methods in

Freetown in Sierra Leone. The study assessed and discussed socio-economic characteristics of

households in the low, medium and high density residential areas. The research found that socio

economic characteristics of the households in the three socio-economic areas differed

21
remarkably. These differences call for differential perception of refuse disposal problems in

the neighborhoods studied.

2.12 Knowledge, attitudes and practices on waste

Hornwerg & Bhada-Tata, (2012) Observed that when beginning a process of creating

awareness in a community it is necessary first to assess the environment in which awareness

creation will take place .The knowledge possessed by a community refers to their

understanding of any given topic on waste management as in the case of this study. Lack of

knowledge brings about poor waste management practices as evident in Jurczack’s (1990)

study where he observed that generally, generation of total municipal solid waste had

significantly increased in Poland due to poor management of waste which in turn was due to

lack of knowledge. According to Jurczack (1990) lack of proper knowledge by residents

resulted into irresponsible management of waste.

In a study carried out by Kamara (2006) on household participation in domestic waste disposal

and recycling in Tshwane Metropolitan Area the researcher investigated the relevant factors

affecting household participation in domestic waste disposal and recycling in Tshwane

Metropolitan Area. The conclusion confirmed that the main factors of household participation

on domestic solid waste management are socio-economic factors (income and educational

level) and institutional factors. The research findings showed that demographic factors have

significant impact on the people’s perception towards solid waste management service in the

study area.

2.13 Major constraints to proper household solid waste management.

Oftentimes as systems break down and problems escalate people look to societal factors to fix

issues. This is the same case when dealing with the mismanagement of solid waste in the

developing world. Many researchers have argued that the waste problem is caused by human

behaviour and therefore the solution lies in changing that behaviour (Sankoh, et al., 2012)

22
2.13.1 Attitude and behaviour gap

The meaning of waste is different to different people (McAllister, 2015).Some people such as

trash pickers of see waste as a resource or a way to make income. On the other hand majority

of people living in developing world see waste as a burden and a problem that needs to be

addressed. However recognising trash as a problem does not prevent littering or other negative

behaviours concerning waste management (McAllister, 2015).This attitude-behaviour gap

often emerges and can be further affected by a variety of reasons including convenience, social

norms, lack of public participation, and lack of education and awareness of effective waste

management techniques .There are a multitude of causes that can contribute to an increase in

illegal dumping rates, such as a lack of social pressure to prevent littering, absence of realistic

penalties or consistent enforcement, and lack of knowledge of the environmental effects of

illegal dumping (Khatib, 2011). Convenience of garbage bins has been cited many times in

research as a priority when disposing of trash, and when these are not present or lacking in

areas this has been reason enough to dump waste

2.13.2 Lack of Education and Awareness

Another major constraint seen throughout the developing world is the lack of education and

awareness of effective waste-management practices. One study in Gaborone, Botswana, found

that even though citizens were aware of recycling and other sustainable waste-management

techniques, this does not necessarily translate into participation in pro-environmental activities

such as recycling initiatives. They appeared to have not embraced waste management reforms

amid their limited knowledge of such activities (Bolaane, 2006). The lack of interest in the

environment creates a culture of non-participation of communities in decision-making

processes.

23
2.14 Conclusion

After looking at the factors that affect solid waste handling many things become clear. Public

awareness and knowledge towards waste impact the entire solid waste management from

household storage, separation of waste, waste reduction, recycling and waste generation per

household then ultimately leads to the success of solid waste management at city level. It is up

to all stakeholders involved in SWM to work together towards common goal of solid waste

management.

24
 3 CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this chapter is to explain the study design and its execution. The study was

designed to capture qualitative and quantitative data for the evaluation of solid waste handling

practises in three residential areas with different socio-economic statuses.

3.1 Introduction
The research methodology or design is the framework within which the study was conducted.

It considers the logic behind the methods used in carrying out the research .This research design

or methodology entails a detailed description of the issues concerning how the research

proceeded.

3.2 Study area

The research was carried out in Nguboyenja suburb, Mahatshula South and Queens Park West

suburbs of Bulawayo. Bulawayo Metropolitan Province is located in the south west of the

country. It is Zimbabwe’s second largest city and has five districts which are Bulawayo Central,

Imbizo, Khami, Mzilikazi and Reigate. Bulawayo is strategically located and consequently

forms the axis of road and rail network links to the rest of the country and the southern African

region providing important railway linkages to South Africa, Botswana and Zambia. It is also

the manufacturing and industrial centre with a large presence of heavy industries, although over

the years much of the industrial infrastructure has been decrepit and deteriorated owing to the

poor economic performance and de-industrialization. It is a multicultural city inhabited by

people of the various ethnic groups in Zimbabwe such as the Ndebele who are a majority,

Shona, Tonga, Kalanga, Venda and Sotho. Its diversity is also in the wide range of leisure and

recreational activities it has to offer from sports facilities, gardens, cultural centres, art and craft

and lodges, nature reserves and its proximity to some of the most sensational national tourist

25
attractions such as Victoria Falls and Hwange national Park. The total population of Bulawayo

is estimated at 653 337 people (Zimstat, 2012).

The Bulawayo Metropolitan Province is divided into three residential areas stratified as low ,

medium and high density residential areas based on their different socio-economic status as

indicated by their geographical location and dwelling characteristics (Ndiweni , 2011). These

areas include Queens Park East suburb (Low density), Mahatshula South (Medium Density)

and Nguboyenja, (High density).The three areas represent the historical, geographic, socio-

demographic distribution and housing development of the city of Bulawayo.

Figure 3.1: Map of Bulawayo City in which study areas are located
The more upmarket housing developments are represented by Queens Park West on the Eastern

part of the city. The Northern part of the city have middle income areas where Mahatshula is

located. Lastly, Nguboyenja is in the Western part of the city where the high density suburbs

26
are located. Different residential areas where selected for this study because of the anticipated

wide range of waste generation rates and handling among different socio-economic groups and

dwelling types (Flintoff, 2004)

3.2.1 Study Area Maps

Figure 3.2: Map of Study area 1-Nguboyenja suburb (Sourced from Google earth)

Figure 3.3: Map of Study area 2-Mahatshula South suburb (Sourced from Google earth)

27
Figure 3.4: Map of Study area 3-Queens Park East Suburb (Sourced from Google earth)

3.3 Research Design

The study was a cross-sectional study which allowed collection of data at a single point in time.

In this type of research therefore a subset sample is selected from the entire population from

which data is collected through answering of questions of interest. The design is cross-sectional

because the information about the respondents gathered represents what is going on at only one

point in time. The main disadvantage of a descriptive study design is that the manipulation of

variables is limited, and consequently, there is limited inferential statistical analysis of the

results (Brooker et al, (2014).

3.4 Target population

Target population defines the units for which research findings are to be generalised to. Also

can be defined as the eligible population that is included in this research. The target population

for this study are households or residents residing on formal household stands or properties.

Respondents includes residents whether they are owners or family members or tenants who

resided on the property. The study population was from the Bulawayo register of properties.

There are approximately 21 225 households in low, medium and high density residential areas

(BCC, EHD, Master list 2016)

28
3.5 Research Method/Strategy
This study employed a descriptive cross sectional study (survey) to capture the variation in

solid waste handling practises of households from residential areas of Bulawayo, to determine

knowledge and attitudes towards waste handling, establish the link between solid waste

handling and illegal dumping, establish household practises on waste handling and determine

the challenges to standard solid waste handling. In this research the existence of the problem

was not apparent and therefore the cross-sectional study was the most suitable for identifying

the problem and its extent among households. The descriptive cross sectional survey simply

looks with accuracy at the phenomenon at the moment and then describes precisely what the

researcher observes (Leedy, 1988). This tool has a strength of investigating present status

phenomena.

Surveys gather information on a population at a single point in time.Information about specific

time behaviour, event or experience is collected in a uniform manner through asking each

respondent in the same manner to ensure responses are influenced by the respondents’

experience. Rather than using secondary sources such as written records, the cross-sectional

study is a primary source of information where the researcher directly gets responses from

questions (Kelly et al, 2003).Descriptive cross-sectional surveys provide analysis and

interpretation of data as it indicates the use of techniques such as evaluation, comparisons and

associations (Sekeran, 2000).As such it allows a descriptive measure of the extent of a

particular concern. This is relevant in that before solutions are found the exact nature and extent

of a problem must be described fully.

3.6 Sample size

A preliminary investigation was carried out in the study areas prior to sampling process. The

objective of the exercise was to inform the relevant authority, the Environmental Health

Services division and Town planning of Bulawayo City Council about the proposed research

29
iniative.The second and most important step was to investigate the locations and the number

of housing units in each suburb or service area within the jurisdiction of Bulawayo City

Council. Residential areas of Bulawayo City Council fall into three distinct socio-economic

categories: low, middle and high income areas (BCC, EHD, Master list, 2016). Based on this

discovery the study was designed to ensure that the sample was representative.

The study area was divided into 3 strata which were internally homogenous and externally

heterogeneous with regard to their geographical characteristics, living standards and assumed

ability to handle waste. The appropriate sampling technique to draw the sample was quota

sampling technique. The number of household units in each stratum was obtained from

Bulawayo City Health Department (BCC, EHD, Master list of properties, 2016).A sample

frame of 2 051 households from the selected 3 residential areas was used.The sample size was

determined by calculating 10% of the study population of 2051 households as indicated below

to get a sample of 205 households. A study sample of 205 households represented 10% of the

sample frame hence this therefore was a representative sample.

Sample size determination:

Sample size = Study population x 10%
= 2 051 x 10/100
=205.1 (which is rounded off to 205 since there is no fraction of house)
The number of questionnaires to be administered amongst respondents was drawn using simple

proportional. Since the study population was drawn from three (3) residential areas in

Bulawayo attempt was made to ensure a fair distribution of samples in the different selected

areas in the study area so as to obtain a sample size that would reflect both a representative

sample size and the heterogeneity of the study population due to different socio-demographic

characteristics (Babbey, 1993).

30
 Calculations were done as per each study area as follows:
=Total number of households in suburb x Sample size
Study population
= Sample size in the suburb
Suburb name Total number of households in the Selection of sample Sample size in the suburb
suburb size

Nguboyenja 980 980/2051*205 98

Mahatshula South 620 620/2051*205 62

Queens park West 451 451/2051*205 45

Total 205

3.7 Sampling Technique

3.7.1 Non-probability sampling

Non-probability sampling method used in choosing to assess households in suburbs

representing high, medium and low density residential areas were purposive and convenient.

One suburb from the three identified strata Nguboyenja, Mahatshula south and Queens Park

West were purposively and conveniently chosen by the researcher based on the assumption of

similar characteristics within all households since they are sources of solid waste and are all

within the same geographical location hence less variation though knowledge and awareness

in handling practises of solid waste can vary across households. Convenient sampling was used

because it was convenient for the researcher as the suburbs were easily accessible (Kerlinger,

1986).

3.7.2 Probability Sampling

The researcher used probability sampling in choosing the households in each suburb. The

sampling method was systematic sampling as it made use of equal intervals for 205 units of

31
study (Babbey, 1993). Systematic random sampling (interval sampling) was used to get the nth

subject of the population selected from a list so as to give each subject in the population equal

chance to participate. The first household was selected at random followed by a space interval

of choosing every nth household which was determined based on the number of households

relative to the proportional sample size in each suburb. The process involved obtaining a list

of the population size (N), determining the sample size (n) and determining the sample interval

by dividing the size of the population (N) by the sample size (n).

Thus the formula used to determine sample interval was

= total population/sample size = N/n = 980/98

= 10

Therefore for Nguboyenja with 980 households divided by required sample size of 98

households obtain an interval of 10, thus every 10th household starting from any direction the

researcher approached was selected.

32
3.8 Research Methodology Flowchart

Figure 3.5 : Research Methodology Flow Chart-A summary of how the research was
Conducted

33
3.9 Data Capture tools
The primary data required for the study was obtained from the sample population through semi-

structured questionnaires to obtain information from the respondents in the sample population.

a) Questionnaire

A questionnaire is a predefined set of questions assembled in a predetermined order and

respondents are asked to answer the question which provides the researcher with data .The

questionnaires were distributed to 205 participants. The questionnaires had both open-ended

and close-ended questions to generate both qualitative and quantitative data.

b) Observation Checklist

An observation checklist was prepared to describe the existing facilities in the neighbourhood

such as the presence refuse bins, illegal dumps, illegal burning of waste and waste management

strategies in place like presence and use of compost pit outside were observed. The observation

gathered information on what exactly was happening as far as solid waste handling is

concerned in the residential areas, i.e. to avoid not reliance on reported data. The digital camera

was used to take photographs of the existing setting in the field, especially in the housing near

collection points, dumpsites, streets skips and refuse bins.

c) Capturing of illegal dumpsites

Capturing of coordinates (x, y) of the illegal dumpsites identified during the reconnaissance

survey occurred during subsequent study area investigations. After the illegal dumpsites had

been identified, a Garmin eTrex 30 GPS receiver was used to capture the coordinates of their

location, elevation as well as their areal extent was recorded. The data obtained from this

exercise was recorded on the data capture form. The coordinates were stored as waypoint data

and later uploaded to google earth for spatial data analysis.

34
 3.10 Data Analysis
Data collected during the research was analysed and presented using tabulated and graphical

presentation in the form of bar graphs and pie charts with the use of SPSS Version 20.0 software

and Microsoft Excel 2013. Descriptive statistics was used to analyse some of the data obtained

from the questionnaire. This allow summarisation, organisation and visualization of

quantitative data. Data analysis was a hybrid qualitative-quantitative analysis. The study also

made use of Chi-square analyses to establish if there was an association between

sociodemographic characteristics and knowledge on solid waste handling.

3.11 Data Analysis plan

Table 3.1: Data Analysis plan

Objective Analysis
i)To assess the sociodemographic Sociodemographic factors such as gender, income level, level of
characteristics of residents education were analysed using SPSS software.
The coordinates of the illegal dumpsites were transferred as
ii) To map the distribution of illegal
waypoints from the GPS device onto Google earth software for
dumpsites relative to households used for spatial analysis and map production.
iii) To determine the level of knowledge of Knowledge was gauged using 2 point binary scale from 11
households on solid waste handling questions of the questionnaire with positive and negative
responses that ranged between yes and no. Respondents were
asked to respond to questions on solid waste handling and the
responses were calculated and according to the scores given
answers were rated as poor, moderate and good.
Grading of knowledge
1-3 4-7 8-11
Poor Moderate Good

iii) To determine solid waste storage and Solid waste handling will be gauged using a checklist and 5
disposal practises adopted by households questions from the questionnaire.

35
 4 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

4.0 Introduction
The chapter reports the findings regarding the demographic characteristics, spatial distribution

of illegal dumpsites, knowledge level and solid waste storage and disposal practises of

households. The findings are presented according to the specific objectives of the study. An in-

depth analysis and interpretation of household survey determining residents’ socio-economic

and demographic profile is presented, knowledge level and current solid waste management

practices. Relationships and associations between the variables of the study are reported,

indicating frequencies and percentage distributions based on 200 successfully completed

questionnaires out of the distributed 205.These questionnaires represented a 97.0 % response

rate.

4.1 The sociodemographic characteristics of participants

Table 4.1: Sociodemographic characteristics of participants

Variable Frequency (n=200) Percentage (%)

Sex
Males 36 18
Females 164 82
Age Group
<24 Years 26 13
25-34 Years 81 41
35-44 Years 54 27
45-49 Years 21 11
Above 50 Years 18 9
Marital Status
Single 42 21
Married 146 73
Divorced 4 2
Widowed 8 4
Level of education
Never 3 2
Completed primary 24 12
Secondary 108 54

36
 Professional course 37 19
Tertiary 28 14
Occupation
Business 55 28
Employed 53 27
Unemployed 74 37
Retired 18 9

Estimate monthly income

<500 97 49
501-1000 78 39
1001-1500 10 5
1501-2000 12 6
>2000 3 2
Duration in location
<5 21 11
5-10 72 36
11-20 68 34
21-30 34 17
>50 5 3
Household size
1-4 46 23
5-8 122 61
9-11 32 16
(Field Survey: 2017)

Respondents for the study were from Nguboyenja (48%, n=200), Mahatshula south (30%,

n=200) and Queens park east (22%, n=200).The study revealed that 82% of the respondents

were females whereas 18% were males. This shows the extent to which traditionally women

dominate in the households in Bulawayo terms of numbers. Respondents with age group

between 25-34 (41%) dominated the age structure of urban households. With respect to marital

status about 73% were married, singles were 21%,divorced 21% and widowed respondents

4%.The proportion of respondents with secondary education and those that claimed to have

professional courses is high ,54% and 19% respectively while a small proportion indicated

never attending school ,2% and a few having attained tertiary education. Based on occupations

of respondents most of the people are not employed, 37% while those formally employed

37
contributed 27% and 28% of the respondents have small businesses. Information on the income

of the household heads was difficult to obtain due to fears of being taxed, inability to keep the

record of their sales and the majority are not fixed and their income is not regular. However

table shows that greater number of people, 49% are living on less than US$500 average

monthly income. Very few, 2% earn more than US$2000 per month. Also study shows that

61% of respondents consist of between 5-8 people per household with very few households,

16% having 9-11 people per household.

4.2 Spatial distribution of illegal dumpsites

Residential area(section) Number of households Number of dump sites
Nguboyenja 980 25
Mahatshula 620 7
Queens Park East 451 11
Total 2051 43 dumpsites
Table 4.2: Shows the statistical findings on the number of dump sites relative to households

38
Figure 4.1: Map showing distribution of illegal dumps in Nguboyenja suburb (Source:
Google Earth, 2017)

Figure 4.2: Map showing distribution of illegal dumps in Mahatshula South suburb (Source:
Google Earth, 2017)

39
Figure 4.3: Map showing distribution of illegal dumps in Queens park East suburb (Source:
Google Earth, 2017)
Figure 4.1; 4.2 and 4.3 shows the distribution of illegal dumpsites in Nguboyenja, Mahatshula

south and Queens park east suburbs respectively. The illegal dumps are shown as red icons

within the study area boundaries of the three suburbs. In Nguboyenja, 25 illegal dumpsites

were identified over a total surface area of 0,61km2 approximating to 1 illegal dump in every

0.02km2 in Nguboyenja. For Mahatshula, 7 dumpsites were identified over a total surface area

of 0.49km2 which is approximately 1 illegal dumpsite per every 0.07km2.Queens park ,11

illegal dumpsites identified over a total surface area of 1.01km2 approximately 1 illegal dump

in every 0.09km2. In terms of size an average illegal dump in Nguboyenja measures

approximately 12m2 giving approximately a total surface area of about 300m2 is covered by all

the 25 illegal dumps in Nguboyenja which is approximately (0.05%) of the total surface area

of Nguboyenja residential suburb (0.61km2). On the other hand, an average illegal dump in

Queens park east measures approximately (6m2) thus totalling 66m2 covered by all 11 illegal

dumps, (which is approximately (0.006%) of (1.01km2). Most of the illegal dumpsites are

40
located at the periphery of residential areas proximal to open spaces, on open spaces and areas

along the storm drainage systems and along residential roads. The maps shows more dumpsites

identified in Nguboyenja suburb which is a high density area and less found in Queens park

east and Mahatshula south suburbs, low and medium residential areas. Also dumpsites in the

high density area, Nguboyenja appear to be located close to each as compared to those in

Mahatshula and Queens Park that occur at widely spaced and irregular intervals as shown in

Figures 4.1; 4.2 and 4.3 above.

4.3 Knowledge of the Households towards solid waste handling

Findings of the study showed that 31% of the respondents’ portrayed good knowledge about

solid waste handling, 42% portrayed moderate knowledge and 27% portrayed poor knowledge

about solid handling as indicated by responses to solid waste handling questions summarised

in Table 4.3 below.

41
 Frequency Percentage (%)
Nguboyenja Mahatshula Queens All Suburbs
south park
Yes No Yes No Yes No Percentage (%)
Knowledgeable
Understand what happens to waste 54 42 26 34 43 1
after you dispose it
Responsibility to reduce 69 27 54 6 41 3 82
waste
Necessary to separate 32 64 16 44 39 5 44
waste
Know any illegal dumps 48 48 46 14 36 8 65
Is it illegal to dump 37 59 27 33 32 12 48
waste
Laws aware of that deal 7 89 1 59 30 14 19
with waste
Problem if waste is 54 42 60 0 41 3 78
burnt to get rid of it
Health awareness 16 80 13 47 1 43 15
campaigns
Know about the 3 R's 38 58 33 27 32 12 52
Important to participate 75 21 60 0 44 0 90
in recycling
Burn waste when 16 80 13 47 36 8 33
council fail to collect
Table 4.3: Shows proportion of respondents whose responses show understanding of solid
waste handling
The Table 4.3 above shows the proportion of respondents from households whose responses

showed understanding of solid waste handling across the suburbs. In Nguboyenja, Mahatshula

South and Queens park 69(72%), 54(90%) and 41(93%) responded that they have the

responsibility to reduce waste at their homes. Findings also revealed that greater number of

households showed understanding of what happens to waste as soon as it is collected from their

homes, also understanding of problems of burning waste. Also people in all suburbs understood

the meaning of the reduce, reuse and recycle (3 R’s) .Only 19% in overall for all suburbs knew

of the existence of the city’s bylaws and penalty for irresponsible waste handling.

Overly in the study 31% of the respondents’ portrayed good knowledge, 42% portrayed

moderate knowledge and 27% portrayed poor knowledge about solid handling as represented

by Fig 4.7 below.

42
Figure 4.4: Showing overall classification for knowledge level of respondents for all suburbs

43
4.4 Solid waste storage and disposal practises of households
Overall in the study 51% of the households portrayed poor solid handling practises, 29%

showed moderate waste handling practises and lastly 20% showed good solid waste handling

practises.

Figure 4.5: Proportion of the population and their practises towards proper solid waste
management practises

4.4.1 Residential solid waste streams generation

Fig 4.6 below shows solid waste steams generated by each study section respectively where

71% in Nguboyenja responded they generate more food waste,in Mahatshula 83% and in

Queens park 73% responded they produce more food waste.21% respondents in Nguboyenja

indicated producing plastics ,15% Mahatshula and 14% in Queens park east.The least

generated waste streams were paper and metals.

44
 Solid waste streams generated more by households
90 83
80 71 73
70
Population proportion (%)

60
50
40
30 21
20 15 14
8 7 7
10 2
0 0
0
Nguboyenja Mahatshula Queens park east

Suburb
Food remains(Organic waste) Paper Plastics Metals

Figure 4.6: Shows solid waste streams produced more by households in each suburb

4.4.2 Availability of standard storage receptacles

Figure 4.7: Storage receptacles availability in the three suburbs

45
Figure 4.7 shows the proportions of availability of standard storage receptacles for

Nguboyenja, Mahatshula South and Queens Park East residents. Only 36% households in

Nguboyenja have a standard storage receptacle that is 85litre PVC bin. The remaining 64%

households use various types of storage receptacles like sacks, plastic bags and 20litre metal

as shown in Fig 4.5 tins whilst those who do not have a storage receptacle at all instead dump,

burn or bury. In Mahatshula south 60% of the households have a standard receptacle. Lastly

most of Queens Park residents 93% own a standard receptacle whilst only 7% responded using

other forms of receptacles. Overly plastic buckets are commonly used (30%), plastic bags are

used by 24 % of the residents as other forms of receptacles. Fig 4.8 below shows the

proportions of populations using other forms of solid waste storage receptacles.

Population using each type of receptacle

35

30
30
Percentage population(%)

25
24 23
20

15

10 12
11
5

0
Type of receptacle

plastic bag boxes Plastic bins Metal bin Sacks

Figure 4.8: Proportion of the population using other forms of receptacles.

46
4.4.3 Association between availability of receptacles and residential area

Table 4.4: Contingency table showing Association of availability of standard receptacles and
frequency of households with receptacles in residential areas.

Standard receptacle No standard receptacle Total

available
Queens park east 93 7 100

Nguboyenja 36 64 100

Table 4.4 shows a 2x2 table to establish an association between availability standard receptacle

and the residential area relative to illegal dumping. Using the prevalence ratio, a household in

Queens Park east is 2.58 more likely to have a standard receptacle as compared to that in

Nguboyenja. This means there is a 2.58 likelihood of illegal dumping occurring in Nguboyenja

than in Queens Park east due to unavailability of storage receptacles. Also a household in

Mahatshula south is 1.67 more likely to have a waste storage receptacle as compared to a

household in Nguboyenja.

4.4.4 Determining solid waste final disposal methods in the residential

areas.
Figure 4.9 shows that the highest percentage (39%) of the respondents’ final solid waste

disposal method was burning, whilst 39% indicated using open pits. The percentage of those

who use open spaces, bury in backyards and composted were 2%, 11% and 16 % respectively.

Photo inserts 1 and 2 show some of the observed final disposal methods being practiced in

Nguboyenja and Mahatshula suburb showing illegal dumping and burning of solid waste.

47
 Figure 4.9: Other ways used by households for final solid waste disposal.

4.4.5 Proportion of waste generated attributed to illegal dumping

Nguboyenja Mahatshula Queens

park
Number of Number of Number of amount of F1(x) F2(x) F3(x)
households households households waste per day
(f1) (f2) (f3) (x)

<1.5kg 28 13 20 1.5 42 19.5 30

2-3kg 49 27 17 3 147 81 51

3.5-4.5kg 18 19 7 4.5 81 85.5 31.5

>5kg 1 1 0 5 5 5 0

Totals 96 60 44 275kg 191kg 112.5kg

Average waste per day 2.86kg 2.75kg 2.5

per household
Households without 61 24 3 275/61 191/24 112.5/3
receptacles
Apportion of waste not 126 kg 59 kg 5 kg
binned

Average 7 7 5 6 860 4 340 2 225

Number of people

Table 4.5: Proportion of waste generated attributed to illegal dumping

48
Nguboyenja a high density suburb has an average of 6 860 people and an average of 980

households of an average of 7 people each. The estimated proportion of waste produced by

sampled 96 households amounts to 199kg/day. 61 (64%) of the households do not have

receptacles of which per day each household approximately produce 2.86kg/household giving

61 households chance of producing 126 kg per day of total waste produced per day which can

be attributed to being dumping due to unavailability of receptacles.

Proportion of waste generated per day attributed to dumping

140 126
120
Frequency

100

80
61 59
60

40
24
20 7 6 3 5 5
0
Nguboyenja Mahatshula Queens park
Frequency of household without bins 61 24 3
Waste attributed to dumping kg/day 126 59 5
Average household size 7 6 5

Suburb

Figure 4.10: Shows proportion of waste generated per day that is attributed to illegal
dumping due to unavailability of receptacles.

4.4.6 Relationship between income level, ownership of a waste receptacle

and amount of waste not binned.

In Nguboyenja, 69% earn less than US$500 per month. Majority of residents in Mahatshula

(50%) earn between US$501 and US$1000.In Queens park east most people also earn between

501 and 1000(50%).An estimated average monthly income of US$427 for Nguboyenja

residents whereas for Mahatshula south its US$717 and for Queens park east its US$US1006.

49
Figure 4.11: Indicates unavailability of bins in relation to income level and as a result
Amount of waste (kg per day per suburb) not binned.
Fig 4.11 shows Nguboyenja a high density area with residents having low average monthly

income of US$427 having the highest number of respondents not owning a receptacle hence

approximately 126 kg of waste produced per day by 61 households attributed to dumping. More

residents with high monthly income, US$1006 in Queens Park responded owning receptacles

hence less amount of waste attributed to dumping, 5kg produced by 3 households without

standard receptacles.

4.4.7 Solid waste reuse and separation done by residents.

50
 Proper waste handling methods and population proportion for
each suburb
100 93.2
85.4
Population proportion (%)

90 80
80 75
70 63.6
58.3
60
50 41.7
36.4
40
30 25
20
20 14.6
6.8
10
0
Yes No Yes No
Reuse Separation
Waste handling method

Nguboyenja Mahatshula Queens park

Figure 4.12: Indicates the population proportions practising reuse and separation of solid
Waste
Most of the respondents indicated reusing solid waste items they generated as indicated by

41.7%,80% and 93.2% respondents in Nguboyenja ,Mhatshula and Queens park respectively.A

higher proportion of respondents in all suburbs responded not separating solid waste items

before collection as indicated by 85.4%,75% and 36.5%. in the three respective suburbs.The

respondents that reused indicated paper,plastics,bottles and metal cans as reusable items as

shown by Fig below.

51
 Waste materials commonly reused in each suburb
60 55.5
Proportion of the population (%)

50
43.2
40

30 27.3
22.7 23.3
17.7
20
12.5 12.5
10 7.3
1.7 0 0
0
Paper plastic bottles metal cans
Items mostly reused

Nguboyenja Mahatshula Queens park east

Figure 4.13: Shows solid waste items reused by respondents.

4.4.7 Observation practice of Solid Waste disposal in households

Most of the respondents (n=89, 44%) practiced illegal dumping despite reporting they have

dustbins in their property or take waste to the dumpsites, and many households practiced

indiscriminate burning of SW (n=62, 31%) in their property and beside the street roads.

Table 4.6: Observation checklist elucidating possession and real practice from households’
in solid waste management.
Observation Frequency(n=200) Percentage (%)
Compost pit in backyard
Yes 39 19.5%
No 161 80.5%
Illegal dumping
Yes 134 67%
No 66 33%
Waste bin with lid
Yes 89 79.5%
No 23 20.5%
Evidence of indiscriminate dumping
of waste
Yes 176 88%
No 24 12%

52
4.5 Association between Socio-demographic factors (gender, level of
education, occupation, monthly income and size of household) and
knowledge towards solid waste handling

The Chi-Square (χ2) Significance Test for Independence was conducted in SPSS software

version 20.0, to test for dependence or independence (association) between multiple variables

forming the basis of the study. The p value (χ2 calculated or χ2 calc) for the test was obtained

at a critical 5% level of significance, with degrees of freedom, df, dependent on the type of

contingency table generated. If χ2 calculated (χ2 calc) for each contingency table was less than

p=0.05; there was an association between the variables being tested.

Table 4.7: χ2 analysis for Association between sociodemographic factors and knowledge and
practises towards solid waste management.

Knowledge
Independent Variables Poor Moderate Good p-value Conclusion
obtained
Gender
Male 7 13 16 No association
Female 46 73 45 0.128 p>0.05

Level of education
Never 1 1 1
Primary 3 18 3 Association
Secondary 38 50 20 0.001 p>0.05
Professional course 7 16 14
Tertiary 4 1 23
Income
<500 30 45 22
501-1000 22 35 21 Association
1001-1500 1 5 4 0.001 p<0.05
1501-2000 0 1 11
>2000 0 0 3
Age
<24 13 8 5
25-34 21 35 23 0.022 Association
35-44 12 25 17 p<0.05
45-49 4 12 5
>50 3 4 11

Association between household size and estimate amount of waste generated per capita per
day

53
 Estimate amount of waste p-value Conclusion

Household size <1.5kg 2-3kg 3.5-4.5kg >5kg

1-4 40 5 1 0
5-8 20 76 26 0 0.001 p<0.05
9-11 0 2 27 3

The analysis in table 4.7 showed that there was a significant association, at the 5% level of

significance, between level of education, income status and age on knowledge about waste

handling practices of households. The Pearson chi-square (χ2) tests was used to compare

dependent variable (knowledge) with a set of the independent variables(sociodemographic

factors).Findings show that, knowledge about solid waste handling had significant association

with education levels (primary up to tertiary) with p=0.001 , income level at p=0.001 and age

with p=0.022.It is imperative to note that such factors as level of education, age and income

family size are associated with level of knowledge about solid waste handling methods in the

study area as revealed on table 4.7. This means that educational status, average monthly income

and age are significant factors influencing the solid waste handling practises, storage and

disposal practises in Bulawayo. Thus, as people acquire more education, grow, get better job

and experience rise in income level the pattern of knowledge they acquire change thereby

generate handle waste differently. The educated respondents, adults and those with high

income levels are significantly more likely to know better about waste handling methods than

the less educated, youths and low income earners. However there was no association between

gender and level of knowledge about solid waste management with p=128.

Household size showed an association with estimated amount of waste produced per day with

p=0.001. In his research he found out that there was a positive correlation between the waste

generated in the house and the number of individuals living in the house.

54
 Table 4.8: χ2 analysis for Association between sociodemographic factors and waste reuse
and waste separation.

Waste separation Waste reuse

Gender Yes No p-value conclusion Gender Yes No p-value Conclusion
Male 25 11 0.722 No Male 24 12 0.764 No association
Female 118 45 association Female 105 59 p>0.05
p<0.722
Age Age
Yes No
<24 5 21 0.034 Association <24 21 5 0.42
25-34 19 61 p<0.034 25-34 46 35 No association
35-44 13 41 35-44 32 22 p>0.05
45-49 10 11 45-49 18 3
>50 9 9 >50 12 6
Education Education
Never 1 2 No Never 2 1 0.05
Primary 8 16 Association Primary 20 4
Secondary 24 83 1.171 p>0.05 Secondary 58 50 Association
Professional 16 21 Professional 25 12 p=0.05
course course
Tertiary 7 21 Tertiary 24 4
Income Income
<500 19 78 0.001 Association <500 55 42 0.017 Association
501-1000 24 53 p<0.001 501-1000 53 25 p<0.05
1001-1500 2 8 1001-1500 7 3
1501-2000 11 1 1501-2000 11 1
>2000 0 3 >2000 3 0

Waste separation was also found to show an association with income, age and level of income

with p values 0.001; 0.034 and 0.001. On the other hand association was shown between

education level and income with reusing of waste materials with p=0.05 and p=0.017

respectively. However no association was found between gender and separation of waste with

p=0.722, also no association between education level and waste separation (p=1.171).The

findings show no association between gender and age, p=0.764 and 0.42 with waste reuse

respectively.

55
 5 CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Discussion
The chapter discusses socio-demographic factors that were analysed and their influence on

knowledge and practises of households towards solid waste management. Also discussion on

the spatial distribution of illegal dumping across the residential areas and the solid waste

storage and disposal practises .The chapter was summarized into four objectives of the study.

5.2 Socio-demographic characteristics

Two hundred and five questionnaires were distributed while only 200 were collected and

analysed giving a response rate of 97%, the remaining 3% were not analysed due to

inappropriately filled responses and missing questionnaires. One hundred and sixty four (164)

82% respondents were females while thirty six (36) 18% .The preponderance of female

respondents in this study is a reflection of the fact that more man would be at work during the

day hence more women participated as reported in a qualitative study of patriarchal societies

where most of the man work whilst women have a preference for house hold tasks (Hewitt, et

al., 2010). Majority of the respondents were aged between 25-34 years (41%), followed by

ages of 35-44 (27%), the age range of <24 years (13%) and above 50 years (9%) recorded the

least occurrence.

Table 4.1 shows the average household size in the study area. It is used as a measure of

crudeness of population and has great implication on generation of solid wastes. The highest

household size was 5-8 (61%) members, 1-4 (23%) and the thirdly 9-11 (16 %) members.

Generally majority of the sample households had large household sizes with an average family

size of the respondents of` 7 people per household. The majority of the households in Bulawayo

attained education up to secondary level as indicated by 54% of the sample respondents. Study

56
revealed that those respondents who never crossed formal education accounts for 2%. Not so

many, 28(14%) attended tertiary education but generally the residents are literate. This is

comparable to the work done by Banga, (2011) on household knowledge of solid waste

segregation in Urban Kampala, Zambia which showed that few people who stay in high density

areas had attained tertiary education but most people in the town are literate. The

unemployment level in the suburbs outweigh the employed by about 10% and the employment

ratio against unemployment was 1 : 1.3, this indicates that there is always a large group of

people that stay at home especially of ages 25-34.These implies that they tend to generate

proportionally more waste that eventually is disposed within the suburbs thereby increasing the

likelihood of illegal dumping as compared to those of ages 35-44 who might be spending more

time away from home and might have more exposure to waste management issues. Tadesse et

al, (2008), states that ages of 30 to 45 which comprise of majority working class, hold views

on waste management that are generally progressive in comparison to the younger generations

who may not have internalised values from sanitation programmes. In view of the 36-50 age

groups was also observed that they are bound to spend less time at their residence as a result

of occupation hence according to Adeyemo et al., (2013) age is an important factor in

determining the group likely to generate and dump waste locally as this is associated to the

maturity and awareness on environmental health and sanitation factor which seems to increase

with age. Education level plays a role in the waste handling of individuals for instance 54%

who attained secondary education and are unemployed in the suburbs are bound to staying at

home hence chances of them dumping refuse which they produce. Over and above Mattos, et

al (2012) observes that formal education for women is a pre-requisite for change in sanitation

behaviour. Income is another socioeconomic factor that leads the increasing volume of solid

wastes as well as increasing problem of municipal solid waste management. Information on

the income of the household heads was difficult to obtain due to different reasons such as fears

57
of being taxed, inability to keep the records and the majority are not fixed and their income is

not regular. However study revealed that in Nguboyenja 69% earn less than US$500 per month.

Majority of residents in Mahatshula (50%) earn between US$501 and US$1000.

From the study more people who earn less income, have the lowest levels of education, larger

household sizes reside in high density areas as compared to low density areas. Also based on

the analysis high income level enable people to manage their waste more responsibly as this

gives them ability to purchase receptacles on their own indicated as by 97% of respondents in

Queens park owning standard receptacles as compared to 36% in Nguboyenja able to own a

bin hence therefore likely to bin their waste increasing chances of the waste being collected by

council than being dumped. This is in accordance with what was found by Monavari, et al

(2011) on a study on the effects of socioeconomic parameters on household solid-waste

generation and composition in developing countries.

5.3 Spatial distribution of illegal dumpsites

Study findings in Figures 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 show the number of illegal dumpsites decreased with

increase in socioeconomic status of the residential locations in Bulawayo. Twenty five (25

dumps) were identified in Nguboyenja which is a high density residential area then those in

medium and low residential area. This is in line with UNEP report (2013) findings which

illustrated that illegal dumping is a constant and highly visible problem in local government

areas with a high residential density. Also the illegal dumpsites were identified and located at

the periphery and on open spaces in all the suburbs. The results of the study is in line with what

Danbuzu et al, (2014) who observed in the study conducted on spatial distribution of solid

waste collection points using GIS approach in Urban Katsina State, Nigeria that the preferred

area for illegal dumping were open spaces (75.1%), and road sides (15.6%) as well as

58
peripherals of residential areas.Onifade and Nwabotu (2005), found that illegal waste dumping

generally occurs on closest vacant or unused spaces ,along roadsides, in bushes, open spaces

and this frequently occurs at night or early in the morning and in poorly lit areas. However the

forty three identified dumpsites in the suburbs might not be the only one as identified by the

researcher but there could be more dumpsites in all locations nevertheless the researcher

identified only 43 dumpsites as illustrated in the study.

The average number of people per household in Nguboyenja high residential area (8) is 1.6

times higher as that which reside in low residential areas (5).Findings of ZimStat 2012 showed

the average household size is 4.4 persons whereby 55% of the households had a household size

of more than 5 persons and 10.8% with 9 or more however Mutsvangwa et al., (2006), revealed

that the average number of people per house could reach 17 as in Chitungwiza Harare. The

high residential density is related to high generation rates of solid waste and hence decline in

solid waste storage and consecutive increase in illegal dumping. As postulated by Kayode and

Omole (2011) the generation of waste is influenced by household size, and the quantity of

waste generated by a country at any given place is directly proportional to its population mean.

Therefore this confirms the high number of illegal dumps in Nguboyenja residential area

against the low number of illegal dumpsites in Queens Park and Mahatshula.

An average illegal dump in Nguboyenja measures approximately 12m2. A total surface area of

about 300m2 is covered by all the 25 illegal dumps in Nguboyenja which is approximately

(0.05%) of the total surface area of Nguboyenja residential suburb (0.61km2). This translates

to 1 dumpsite in every 0.02km2 (20 000m2) meaning this is the potential area exposed to

dangers of illegal dumps such as proliferation of diseases, injuries and venom. Although most

of the illegal dumpsites are concentrated at the margins of residential areas, households

proximal to open spaces areas covered with grass, along the storm drainage systems and roads

exposed to dangers associated with illegal dumps as found by Abel (2014) on a study on the

59
perceptions of on illegal dumping in the EThekwini municipality in South Africa that illegal

dumpsites expose residents to disease vectors and pests.

5.4 Knowledge of households on waste handling

Waste solid waste handling not only depend on socio-economic factors but also depends on the

knowledge and awareness regarding waste (Foday, et al., 2012). In overall in the study 31% of

the respondents’ portrayed good knowledge, 42% portrayed moderate knowledge and 27%

portrayed poor knowledge about solid handling. In Nguboyenja, Mahatshula South and Queens

park 69(72%), 54(90%) and 41(93%) households responded that they have the responsibility

to reduce waste at their homes. To test the household knowledge and awareness about waste,

the household respondent were asked closed ended questions such as do they think waste as a

problem in general? Does it harms our environment? Knowledge about segregation of waste,

and did they have any additional knowledge about waste which they gained after attending

some awareness campaigns or workshops? And plainly asked whether waste recycling and

waste separation is important or not. The respondents who were more concerned about the

environment and had awareness would have solid waste receptacles , separate their waste ,

would not resort to dumping and recognised the importance recycling as compared to the ones

who had poor knowledge and awareness about waste and environment (ibid, 2012).

As can be seen in the Table 4.3 very few, 44 % of households said that waste separation in

necessary and rest 56% did not see its importance. On the other hand, 33% of the total

household said they resort to burning waste and 48% did know that it is illegal to dump waste.

Findings indicate that waste is considered seriously by residents in the high income areas of

the city as shown by 82% respondents in Queens park portraying good knowledge, and only

28% in Nguboyenja, a high residential suburb. This is in line with what was found by Haider

et al (2015) in their study on knowledge, perception and attitude of common people towards

60
solid waste management-A case study of Lahore, Pakistan where they observed that in high

income areas, people had greater concern about waste characterization and on source

segregation.

The study also found that the income status of household with (p=0.00), level of education of

households (p=0.00), age of respondents (p=0.022) were demographic factors associated with

the level of knowledge of waste handling among Bulawayo residents. Age did statistically

influence the participant’s knowledge or perceptions about solid waste handling. Studies done

(Xiao, et al., 2015) reported similar findings where level of education and level of income has

been shown to influence participant’s knowledge. Analysis of the level of education of the

participants in this study indicate that almost half of participants had attained secondary

education (54%). The results of this study reveal that there is a significant relationship between

the participants’ education level and their knowledge on solid waste handling. Indeed,

Olorunfemi (2009) reports that high level of literacy is considered advantageous for the fact

that knowledge plays a significant role in impact studies. A notable trend is higher proportion

of households with no education to secondary level of education and far fewer persons with

tertiary education (5%) in Nguboyenja as compared to other two areas (Mahatshula (15%) and

Queens park (32%) in the study area. This is interpreted thus that the more the people get

educated and gain understanding of the side effects of unmanaged solid waste the more they

appreciate effective waste handling thereby seeing the importance of having the waste

receptacles that will keep waste secure encouraging collection by city council. Those who are

well off can have access to and pay for services and receptacles necessary for waste disposal

available in their homes and are therefore able to manage their waste. Whereby the poorer

cannot practice better handling of solid waste due to lack of resources particularly standard

receptacles. Moreover, the level of income determines the ability to purchase own storage

receptacles that encourage waste separation and collection. Findings are compared to a study

61
by Haile A (2011) in Ethiopia that households earning higher monthly income separated and

disposed of their wastes in better ways than lower income earner households. The study found

females to be more aware and knowledgeable about waste management than males .A study

by Mattos et at, 2012 in Togo on the intersection of gender, education and health, recognizes

the pivotal role of women in household cleanliness and sanitation.

5.5 Solid waste handling practises

5.5.1 Solid waste streams generated and the handling thereof.
Among all solid waste streams generated food waste dominated in all the three sections. This

is similar to findings by Modebe et al (2012) on household solid waste management in Akwa

in which the commonest type of waste generated was garbage (100%).Plastics were the second

largest amount produced as a result of increased use of plastic packaging for packaging makes

easy handling, safeguard against breakages and contamination Action Plan, (2006). However

plastic waste easily accumulate since it take 50 to 80 years to degrade and these pose a danger

to the ecosystem since they are manufactured from hazardous chemicals such as benzene and

vinyl chloride. This is in sharp contrast to the concept of cradle to cradle that promotes eco-

effectiveness in manufacturing as well as technical and biological metabolism in waste

management Braungart and McDonough (2009).

A good number of respondents indicated reusing solid waste items they generated as indicated

by 41.7%,80% and 93.2% respondents in Nguboyenja ,Mhatshula and Queens park

respectively.Most common materials reused by respondents are platics,bottles and metal

cans.However a higher proportion of respondents in all suburbs responded not separating solid

waste items before collection as indicated by 85.4%,75% and 36.5%. in the three respective

suburbs. This is in line with outcome of study done by Modebe et al., which reported that 85%

of households in Awka reused waste materials but majority of the respondents (87.8) did not

sort their waste prior to disposal. A study in South Africa recorded a similar finding that waste

62
collected is not sorted into recyclables or non-recyclables and is all disposed of for collection

without sorting (Ojeda-Benitez & Vega, 2008).

5.5.2 Common existing Solid Waste handling practice at household

levels/Observed situation of household waste handling in residential
areas

The selected sample household heads were also asked whether they had waste collection

material (temporary storage) at home, 143 (72. %) respondents replied as having temporary

storage. With regard to the kind of storage they used, 48 (24%) of the respondents said they

used plastic buckets/bins for disposing their domestic solid waste, 24(12%) use sacks. Despite

the respondents’ reporting having the waste bins, observation data show only 89 (79.5%) of

the observed households (n=112, 5%) had waste bins with a lid and used them.

The most popular methods of immediate waste disposal known and practiced by the

respondents were use of open pits (33%) followed by burning (39%) while the least used

method was composting (16%). Also observation data from field showed most household

practice illegal dumping of waste (n=134, 67%) this could be explained by behaviours and

habits of most high density residents, and lack of waste storage equipment. Open dumping

remains the simplest and the most commonly preferred method for disposing MSW in most

low to middle income communities in line with what was found in Nigeria by Adogu et al

(2015) on assessment of waste management practises among residents of Owerri Municipal in

Imo State, Nigeria.

63
5.6 Association between gender, level of education income level, age and
waste handling practises.
Through chi-square analysis at 95% confidence interval (p=0.05), waste recycling and

separation were cross tabulated against gender, level of education, income level and age.

Findings show that there was positive association between waste separation and income level

(p=0.001) also with age (p=0.034). Well educated people were more aware of the 3R’s (reuse,

recycle and reduce therefore as such well-educated public have the highest probability of

ensuring the success of recycling program implementation.

The household monthly income has an impact on the ability of people to buy storage receptacle

which explains the low number of available standard receptacles in Nguboyenja residential

areas. As shown in Table 4.2 the household in Queens Park East is 2.43 times more likely to

have a standard storage receptacle in Nguboyenja. This may means that Queens Park residents

may be 2.58 times able to buy bins than those Nguboyenja hence resulting in a 2.58 likelihood

of illegal dumpsites occurring in Nguboyenja than in Queens Park due to lack of standard

storage receptacles. Moreover in high residential areas, residents in Nguboyenja suburbs may

be generating less waste per person however the amount of waste increases due to the

household total population per unit area contributing to more waste being generated per unit

area. This is in line with what Wilson et al, (2011) stated in his report that as household

members increase so does the waste generation rates. With less standard storage receptacles

the generation rates overwhelms the capacity of storage receptacles as the storage receptacles

quickly fill up before the collection date and hence leads to people opting for illegal dumping.

64
5.7 Conclusion

The study considered the waste management practices among households in Bulawayo by

assessing socio demographics of respondents, and their knowledge and practices towards waste

handling. In the study area knowledge about solid waste handling in general and waste handling

in particular is very poor, there is a problem of solid waste storage and disposal, little reuse

,little recycling and composting hence the illegal dumping of waste.

The study discovered that sociodemographic factors viz level of education, monthly earnings,

residential unit location and household sizes were potential factors influencing household solid

waste handling. Therefore, socio-economic factors (educational level, income and household

size), behavioural factors (attitudes and method of household solid waste disposal) and

institutional support factors (receptacles used to store solid waste, dumping site of solid waste

and policies) were potential factors to be considered to improve household solid waste handling

practises.

 Study revealed more people who stay in high residential areas are less educated, earn less,

have high average number of people per household than those in low residential areas

impacting negatively on their ability to buy standard receptacles and store waste properly

as such are better candidates for waste organising solid waste Community Based

Organisations.

 The study also indicates that people dump waste as a way of disposing solid waste because

 Study identified more illegal dumpsites are in high residential density suburbs than in low

density residential suburbs a situation attributed to lack of proper storage receptacles. The

spatial distribution of illegal dumpsites in Nguboyenja shows that the dumps are located

where there is open land and at the peripherals of location

 The study also revealed that there is a link between the, distribution of income,

unemployment, education, gender and the socio-economic status of a residential area.

65
 Study indicated that the lower income households were more likely to stay in residential

area of low socio-economic status.

 Household educational background was another variable that has a direct influence in the

process of municipal solid waste management. Education improves the awareness and

knowledge of solid waste handling among residents of the town.

 The study shows that the people’s socio-economic characteristics explain the variations in

the solid waste generation, storage and disposal in Bulawayo. Health is wealth therefore it

can be concluded that the management solid waste at household level is a pre-requisite for

good and health of communities. Therefore health policies that would guarantee

environmental sanitation in which solid waste handling is inclusive should be

strenghthened.People should imbibe the culture of attitudinal change as an important aspect

that concerns every stakeholder in the country.

5.8 Recommendations

Considering the findings and discussion of the study, the following recommendations are made

to help households, community and the city council to solve the issue of household solid waste

management practices.

 Council should put efforts to clear all illegal dumpsites in residential locations focusing

on peripherals of suburbs. This can be made easier through use technology like

Geographical Information Systems to develop maps of all illegal dumps locations first

and target efforts towards removing all the identified waste to landfills.

 Placement of temporary storage facilities in the form of skip bins in locations accessible

to all residents to facilitate proper storage of waste before collection

 Organic waste in form of food waste constituting the most produced waste in all suburbs

as indicated by 85%, 71% and 73% respondents gives opportunity for Municipality for

66
 compositing. Municipality can provide storage points where the households can dump

there organic waste so that later it can be converted to compost. By doing that they are

solving problem of organic waste being dumped which will have a larger impact on the

environment as organic waste mainly produces methane gas

 Bulawayo City Council, could improve waste management practices and population

health and safety by ensuring waste receptacles are easily available and accessible for

every household in the community. This would include providing means of waste

collection (serviced trucks, collection bags, bulldozers) from collection points and skips

to the final dumpsite. This would help to reduce the common practices of open

dumping, road and drain dumping by individuals that causes environmental pollution

of neighbourhoods.

 Since education level is having an association with knowledge on waste handling,

educating people regarding the waste and its impact on the environment will greatly

reduce the level of waste being generated. Municipal people will have to take the

initiative in doing so.

 Household size is having a positive relation with the total waste generation. The

municipality instead of focusing on the collection of waste only can focus on the

handling of the waste. Like in source they can teach separation of waste so that waste

could be properly managed by the municipal people. When the waste are separated then

it will be easy for handling particularly for recycling and composting.

 Municipality should formally organise community based organisations to facilitate

waste separation and recycling initiatives.

 Municipality could facilitate education of the population, especially on environmental

management behaviour, with an emphasis on waste handling practices and the waste

management regulations. Public health education of households could include specific

67
 information on the effect and health dangers of poor WM practices, both to human

wellbeing and the environment. Options available include: leveraging available

technology (internet, radio, televisions, and newspapers), providing public seminars,

and informing environmental health projects.

 Further studies on more spatial and distance analysis of illegal dumpsites and

households should be carried to determine the potential health hazards posed on those

living in proximal distance to the illegal dumpsites.

 Study to determine the relationship between waste management practice and some

health indices among residents of other urban communities can be carried out in future.

The current study findings will serve as pilot, baseline and springboard for the proposed

larger and more advanced research. The results may add to the evidence and

justification for implementation of the afore-mentioned recommendations.

68
 REFERENCES

Achankeng, 2003. Globalisation,Urbanisation and Municipal solid waste management in

Africa, Ghana: African Studies Association of Australia and the Pacific.
Adeyemo, F.O. and Gboyesola, G.O. (2013) Knowledge, Attitude and Practices on Waste

Management of People Living in the University Area of Ogbomso, Nigerian. International

Journal of Environment Ecology, Family and Urban Studies, 3, 51-56.

Al-momani, A., 2010. Solid Waste Management: Sampling Analysis and Assessment of
Household Waste in the City of Amman. International Journal of Environmental Health
Research, 4(4), pp. 208-222.
Ali Haider, Aleem Amber, Shahid Ammara, Khan Saleem Mahrukh and Butt Aisha,2015

Knowledge, Perception and Attitude of common People towards Solid Waste Management-A

case study of Lahore, Pakistan Int. Res. J. Environment Sci. International Science

Bandara, N., Httiaratchi, J., Wirasingbe, S. & Pilapiiya, S., 2007. Relation of waste generation
and composition to socioeconomic factors. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 135(1-
3), pp. 31-39.
Banga, M. (2013) Household Knowledge Attitudes and Practices in Solid Waste Segregation

and Recycling: The case of Urban Kampala. Zambia Social Science Journal,2 ,27-39

Bartone, C. & Bernstein, J., 2005. Improving Municipal Solid Waste Management in Third
World Countries,Resources,Conservation and Recycling. Dehli, World Bank.
Babbie E., 1983, The Practice of Social Research, 3rd Edition, Wadsworth Publishing
Company, Belmont CA.
Benedine A., Robert T. A., Abbas I. I. (2011), The Impact of Spatial Distribution of Solid
Waste Dumps On Infrastructure in Samaru, Zaria, Kaduna State, Nigeria Using Geographic
Information Systems (GIS), Research Journal of Information Technology 3(3): 113-117
Bruvoll, A., 2007. Factors Influencing a Solid Waste Generation and Management. Journal of
Solid Waste Technology and Management,, Volume 27, pp. 156-162.
Brooker C., Obert M., Arthur M., (2014), A survey of challenges, opportunities and threats
faced
by students with disabilities in the post-independent era in Zimbabwe, Students Solidarity
Trust, University of Zimbabwe

69
Chinobva, D. & Mukarati, F., 2011. The Challenges of Solid Waste Disposal in Urbanizing
cities: A case of Highfield Suburb in Harare, Zimbabwe. Journal of Sustainable Development
in Africa, 13(7), pp. 520-550.
Cunningham W. P., Cunningham M. A. (2008), Principles of Environmental Science: Inquiry
and Applications, 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York
Danbuzu, A. I. Tanko, U.A. Ibrahim and M. Ahmed,2014, Spatial Distribution of Solid Waste
Collection Points Using GIS Approach In Urban Katsina,,American Journal of Engineering
Research (AJER) Bayero University Kano, Nigeria
Dennison, J., Dodd, V. & Whelan, B., 1996. SocioEconomic Based Survey of Household
Waste Characteristics in the City of Dublin Ireland. Waste Composition. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 17(3), pp. 227-244.
Debra Jean Abel ,2014 Perceptions on illegal dumping in the eThekwini municipality Mini-

dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Magister in

environmental management In the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences Centre for

Environmental Management University of Free State Bloemfontein 2014

Flintoff, F., 2004. Management of solid waste in developing countries, s.l.: World Health
Organisation.
Foday, P., Xiangbin, Y. & Conteh, M., 2012. A siuational assessment of socioeconomic factors
affecting solid waste generation and composition in Freetown,Sierra Leone. Journal of
Environmental Protection, Volume 3, pp. 563-568.
George Martine, G. M. M. a. F.-C., 2008. The New Global Frontier,Urbanization, Poverty and
Environment, Sterling VA: Earthscan in the UK and USA .
Goriwondo, W., 2011. Waste Management Through Design of a Biogas Digester for Municipal
Solid Waste ,Case study of Bulawayo, Bulawayo: National University of Science and
Technology,NuSpace Institutionary Repository.
Grossmann, D., Hudson, J. & Marks, D., 2004. Waste Generation Models for Solid Waste
Collection. Journal, Volume 100, pp. 1219-1230..
Hewitt, B., Baxter, J., Givans, S., Murphy, M., Myers, P. and Meiklejohn, C. (2010) Final

Report on “Men’s Engagement in Shared Care and Domestic Work in Australia”. The Social

Research Centre and the Institute for Social Science Research, University of Queensland Office

for Women, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, 15

October-7 November 2010, 4-82.

70
Hornwerg, D. & Bhada-Tata, P., 2012. What a waste :A Global Review of Solid Waste
Management,Urban Development Series, Geneva: The World Bank.
Hyman, M. & Brandon, T., 2013. Guidelines for national waste management
strategies:moving from challenges to opportunities, Geneva ,Switzerland: United Nations
Environment Programme, 2013.
Jerie, S., 2014. Analysis of institutional solid waste management in Gweru,Zimbabwe. Eastern
African Social Science Research Review, 22(1), pp. 103-125.
Kayode, A. M. and Omole, F. K 2011 Some socio-economic factors affecting solid wastes

generation and disposal in Ibadan metropolis, Nigeria Journal of Environmental Issues and

Agriculture in Developing Countries, Volume 3 Number 1, April 2011

Khatib, I., 2011. Municipal Solid Waste Management in Developing Countries: Future
Challenges and Possible Opportunities. Integrated Waste Management , Volume 2.
Magadzire, F. & Maseva, C., 2006. Proceedings of the Emerging Issues in Urban Waste
Management Workshop, 10 February 2006 Harare.. Harare, Practical Action Southern Afric.
Makoni, F., Mbati, J. & Manase, G., 2004. Impact of Waste Disposal on Health of a Poor Urban
Community in Zimbabwe. East African Medical Journal, 81(8), pp. 422-426.
Mangizvo, R., 2008. Management practices at the Mucheke municipal solid waste disposal site
in Masvingo City, in Zimbabwe. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 10(2), pp. 147-
164.
Mangizvo, R., 2008. Management practices at the Mucheke municipal solid waste disposal site
in Masvingo City, in Zimbabwe. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 10(2), pp. 147-
164.
Manyanhaire, I., Sigauke, E. & Munasirei, D., 2009. Analysis of Domestic Solid Waste
Management System: A case of Sakubva high density suburb in Mutare, Manicaland Province,
Zimbabwe. Journal of sustainable development in Africa, 11(2), pp. 127-140.
Masocha, M., 2004. Solid Waste Disposal in Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe Falls An analysis of
spatial, environmental and socio-economic impacts. Harare: Department of Geography and
Environmental Science, University of Zimbabwe.
Mattos, T.V., MacKinnon, M.A. and Boorse, D.F. (2012) The Intersection of Gender,

Education, and Health: A Community-Level Survey of Education and Health Outcomes for

Women in South-eastern Togo Gordon College. BIO381 Public Health Research, 1-22.

McAllister, J., 2015. Factors Influencing Solid-Waste Management in the Developing World,
s.l.: s.n.

71
Malczewski J. (2004), GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis: a survey of the literature,
International Journal of Geographical Information Science 20(7), 703-726
Map Action (2009), Field Guide to Humanitarian Mapping, 1st Edition, MapAction, Bucks,
UK
Medina, M., 2007. The Effect of Income on Municipal Solid Waste Generation Rates for
Countries of Varying Levels of Economic Development. Journal of Resource Management
and Technology,, 21(1), pp. 149-155..
Monavari, S. M., Omrani, G. A., Karbassi, A., & Raof, F. F. (2011). The effects of

socioeconomic parameters on household solid-waste generation and composition in developing

countries. Environ Monit Assess. Vol. 184. Pp. 1841-1846

Mudzengerere H. F., Chingwenya A. (2012), Waste Management in Bulawayo City Council in

Zimbabwe: In Search of Sustainable Waste Management in the City, Journal of

Sustainable Development in Africa 14(1)

Nathanson, J., 2015. Solid waste management, s.l.: Britannica.

Ndiweni,M.l.,(2011 ) Contestation in the Use of Residential space: House Typologies and
Residential Land in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe African Review of Economics and Finance, Vol. 3,
No.1, Rhodes University, P.O. Box 94, Grahamstown, South Africa.
Ojeda-Benitez, S. & Vega, C. a. M.-M., 2008. Household Solid Waste Characterization by
Family Socioeconomic Profile as Unit of Analysis. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
52(7), pp. 992-999.
Onifade O. A. and Nwabotu F. A.2014 Implications and causes of illegal refuse dumps in

ilorin south local government area, Kwara state Arabian Journal of Business and Management

Review Department of Health Promotion and Environmental Health Education, Faculty of

Education, University of Ilorin, Ilorin

Phillipe, F. & Culot, M., 2009. Household Solid Waste Generation and Characteristics in Cape
Haitian City, Republic of Haiti. 54(2), pp. 73-78.
Rafia, A., Keisuke, H. & Rabbah, H., 2011. The Role of Socioeconomic Factors on Household
Waste Generation: A Study in a Waste Management Program in Dhaka City,Bangladesh.
Research Journal of Applied Science, 5(3), pp. 183-190.
Saeed, M., Hassan, M. & Mujeebu, M., 2009. Assessment of Municipal Solid Waste
Generation and Recyclable Materials Potential in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Waste
Management, 29(7), pp. 209-2213.

72
Sankoh, F., Yan, X. & Conteh, A., 2012. A situational assessment of socioeconomic factors
affecting solid waste generationand composition in Freetown Sierra Leone. Journal of
Environmental Protection, 3(7), pp. 563-568.
Srivanas, 2003. Urban waste management issues, s.l.: s.n.
Sumathi V. R. et al (2008), GIS-based approach for optimized siting of municipal solid waste
landfill, Waste Management 28: 2146–2160
TARSC, 2010. Community Based Research on Solid Waste Management Training Workshop,
Harare: Training and Research Centre.
Tchobanoglous, G., G.Theisen & S, V., 1993. Intergrated Solid Waste Management
Engineering and Principles and Management Issues. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
Tsiko, R. & Togarepi, S., 2012. A situational analysis of solid waste management in
Harare,Zimbabwe. Journal of American Science, 8(4), pp. 692-706.
UNEP, 2009. Africa Review Report on Waste Management. Committee on Food Security and
sustainable Development Regional implementation meeting for CSD, Addiss Ababa: United
Nations Environment Programme.
UN-HABITAT, 2008. State of African Cities Report, s.l.: United Nations.
United Nations, D. o. E. a. S. A. P. D., 2014. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014
Revision, Highlights , Tokyo: United Nations Development Program .
Wertz.K.L, 2010. Economic factors influencing household 's production of refuse. Journal of
Environmental Management and Economics, 2(4), pp. 263-272.
Xiao, L. et al., 2015. Characterising urban household waste generation and metabolism
considering community stratification in a rapid urbanizing area of China. PlosOne, 10(12).

73
 APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1
RESEARCH QUESTIONAIRE

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

FACULTY OF APPLIED SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND HEALTH

BSc (Hons) ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND HEALTH THESIS

QUESTIONAIRE ON SPATIO-DEMOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT OF SOLID WASTE
HANDLING AT HOUSEHOLD LEVEL IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF BULAWAYO
My name is Chikanyire Prosper. I am a part 4 student studying towards a Bachelor of Science
Honours Degree in Environmental Science and Health at the National University of Science
and Technology (NUST) in Bulawayo. As part of my study programme, students are required
to do a field research project and produce a dissertation covering area of interest. I am therefore
carrying out a research on a spatio-demographic assessment of solid waste handling practises
at household level in residential areas of Bulawayo. I am kindly asking for your assistance /
participation in this study through completion of this questionnaire.

CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONSENT

The information gathered through this questionnaire will be used strictly for academic purposes
and will be treated as private and highly confidential .No names will be requested or displayed
and information provided will neither be published nor publicized. You are free to choose to
participate or not to participate in this study. You are also free to withdraw from participation
in the study should you feel uncomfortable or otherwise. I, therefore kindly request for your
participation in this survey by answering the questions in this document.

If you agree to the requirements of the study and are willing to contribute, show your consent
by signing off in the space provided below:

Signature:………………………………... Date: ………………………………

Please Note that confidentiality of results will be ensured and the obtained information will
be used for academic purposes.

74
Please tick (√) in the appropriate box or fill in the spaces provided

Questionnaire Number___________________Date____/___/2017
SECTION A: SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

1. Gender Male Female

2. Age of respondent (years)

Less than 24 25-34 35-44 45-50 >50

3. Marital status Single Married Divorced Widowed

4. Level of education
Never have been to Completed primary Secondary Professional Tertiary
school course

5. Occupation/Economic activity

Business Employed Retired Unemployed

6. Estimate Average monthly income ($)

Less than 500 501-1000 1001-1500 1501-2000

2001 and above

7. How long have you been living in this location ___________________________________?
Less than 5 (yrs.) 5-10 (yrs.) 11-20 (yrs.) 21-30 (yrs.) More than 30 (yrs.)

How many of you are living under one roof

SECTION B: KNOWLEDGE ON PROPER SOLID WASTE HANDLING

PRACTIES

Indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statement by ticking YES or No

9. Do you understand what happens to your solid waste after you dispose it?

No
Yes
10. If Yes briefly explain what solid waste management is
75
………………………………………………………………………………………………….

11. Residents has the responsibility to reduce solid waste they produce every day to help City

No
Council manage waste Yes

12. It is necessary that we separate solid waste materials the different types we generate before

No
it is taken for disposal Yes

13. a) Do you know any illegal dumpsites in your residential area

No
Yes

b) If YES which areas are mostly used as illegal dumpsites more often

………………………………………………………………………………………………

14. Who do you think might be responsible for dumping solid wastes at such sites?

Residents Non-residents of this location Passer-by’s

15. Do you think it is really illegal to dump waste in Bulawayo?

No
Yes

16. From what you see, what do you think is causing concerned individuals to dump waste?

………………………………………………………………………………………………......

17. What do you think can be done to prevent or stop illegal dumping?

………………………………………………………………………………………………......

18. Are there any laws you are aware of which deal with illegal dumping of waste?

No
Yes

76
 19. a) Do you think it is a problem when waste is stored poorly or burnt to get rid of it?

No
Yes

b) IF YES state the hazards or problems

………………………………... ……………………………………………………

20. a) Are there public health awareness campaigns carried out in this location?

No
Yes

b) Who offers these public health awareness campaigns?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

YES NO

21.Do know anything about the 3R’s (waste reduction , reuse and recycling)
22.If YES indicate source of Tv
information EMA
Newspaper
Environmental Health Officers
Community Based Organisations
Internet
School

23. Is it important to you to participate in recycling of materials if a recycling centre is

No
established Yes
24. Do you think it is absolutely not good to burn waste sometimes when BCC fails to collect

No
the refuse bins? Yes

77
25. Who do you think is has the most appropriate responsibility for enforcing laws that has to
do with solid waste?

City Council Ministry of Health Police Residents

SECTION C: SOLID WASTE HANDLING PRACTISES

26. Do you have a refuse bin (plastic/metal) at your household?

No
Yes

a) If yes what type of receptacle do you use for your daily domestic solid waste?

Plastic bags Boxes Plastic bins Drum Sacks

b) Other ways you are using to dispose your domestic waste:

In a Pit Open space dumping Burying Burning Compost

27. Which type of waste do you produce more at this household?

Food remains/leftovers Cardboard boxes Metals Plastic

28. Estimate the amount of solid waste you produce per day
Less than 1.5 kg 2kg-3.5kg 4kg-5kg More than 5kg

29. Please indicate how your household get rid of the following types of waste from your
household when your storage container fills or Bulawayo City Council fails to collect. Tick
in the corresponding box how you handle your waste.
Type of Waste Burn Bury Dump Compost Wait till Flush in Put in refuse
collection the toilet bag

Food waste
Garden
trimmings
Paper/cardboard

78
 Plastic
Metals
Sanitary pads
and disposable
diapers

30. Do you separate your daily generated waste into biodegradable and non-biodegradable?

No
Yes

31. If you separate, why do you separate?

Give to waste scavengers Store waste properly To get manure

32. Do reuse some items before you dispose them?

No
Yes

33. Of the following items which one do you reuse after their primary function is through?

Boxes plastic bottles food peels metal cans

34. Are there any waste pickers who collect materials from your bags/bins or surrounding
dumps? (E.g. metal scraps, plastic bottles, food cans etc.)

No
Yes

35. If YES, which types of materials do you think they prefer? (E.g. metal scraps, plastic
bottles, food cans etc.)

Metal scraps plastic bottles food cans

36. How often does Bulawayo City Council collects waste in your area

Daily Once a week Twice a week Once in two weeks

37. Are you concerned about the aesthetic view of your residential area?

79
 No
Yes Does not matter to me

38. Is this waste collection frequency sufficient in your own point of view?

No
Yes

39. If NO suggest the number of times the collection should be done e.g. number of times per
week or month________________

40. Do you have any suggestions for the City Council to make waste handling at homes
better?

………………………………………………………………………………………………

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATIVE TIME!

WASTE HANDLING OBSERVATION CHECKLIST

Checklist Yes No Comments

Waste receptacle available

Compost pit available outside

Evidence of indiscrimate burning of solid

waste
Evidence of illegal dumping of waste

80
 APPENDIX 2
SPATIAL DATA CAPTURE FORM
Dumpsite X-Coordinate Y-Coordinate Elevation Areal extent

81
 APPENDIX 3
Bulawayo City list of properties
High Mediu Low
Densit m Densit
y Density y Commercia Industria Institutiona
Name of area Stands Stands Stands l Stands l Stands l Stands Total

North End 1037 29 1066

Queens
Park East 451 8 459

Queens Park
West 352 4 356

Khumalo 544 9 553

Khumalo
North 169 3 172

Mahatshula 2165 14 2779

Mahatshula
south 620

Makokoba 2415 16 2431

Mzilikazi 2028 15 2043

Nguboyenja 980 8 988

Total 99912 4704 21225 2125 2180 0 130146

Extract BCC 2016 LIST OF PROPERTIES MASTER LIST (Bcc master

list, 2016)

82
APPENDIX 4 : Approval letter from Bulawayo City Council

83