AN ASSESSMENT OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES

IN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
TABLE OF CONTENT

Title page

Approval page

Dedication

Acknowledgment

Abstract

Table of content

CHAPETR ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

1.2 Statement of problem

1.3 Objective of the study

1.4 Research Hypotheses

 1.5 Significance of the study

1.6 Scope and limitation of the study

1.7 Definition of terms

1.8 Organization of the study

CHAPETR TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPETR THREE

3.0 Research methodology

3.1 sources of data collection

3.3 Population of the study

3.4 Sampling and sampling distribution

 3.5 Validation of research instrument

3.6 Method of data analysis

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS AND

INTERPRETATION

4.1 Introductions

4.2 Data analysis

CHAPTER FIVE

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Summary

5.3 Conclusion

5.4 Recommendation

Appendix
 Abstract

This research was conducted on “Assessment of Solid Waste

Disposal Practices in Majidadi ‘B’ ward in the Bauchi metropolis”

aimed at assessing the nature and the methods used by the users

of the area, which was first carried out through survey with the

use of structured questionnaires to some persons chosen from the

study area. The total population for the study is 200 residents in

Majidadi ‘B’ ward in the Bauchi metropolis. The researcher used

questionnaires as the instrument for the data collection.

Descriptive Survey research design was adopted for this study. A

total of 133 respondents made civil servants, youths, married

men and married women were used for the study. The data

collected were presented in tables and analyzed using simple

percentages and frequencies

 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

Solid waste management has become a global problem especially

in developing countries of the world. One of the major factors that

directly contribute to solid waste generation is urbanization and

population growth. Solid wastes could be defined as non-liquid

and nongaseous products of human activities, regarded as being

useless (Babayemi and Dauda, 2009). It could take the forms of

refuse, garbage and sludge (Leton and Omotosho, 2004). In

developing countries such as Nigeria, open dumping of solid

wastes into wetlands, watercourses, drains and burrow pit is a

prevalent form of disposal. This practice has sometimes resulted

in the littering of the surroundings, creates eyesore and odour

nuisance (Ihuoma, 2012). Sangodoyin (1993) stated that open

dumping of wastes serves as breeding place for flies, insects and

rats. The proliferation of flies, insects and rats in the vicinity of a

refuse dumpsite is due to the presence of putrescible

components. The flies are capable of transmitting diseases

through contact with food and water such as dysentery and

diarrhea. The unsanitary mode of disposal of wastes, such as

defecation in streams and the dumping of refuse in pits, rivers

and drainage channels could be expected to affect surface and

groundwater quality (Sangodoyin, 1991). Hence, the management

and control of wastes at all stages of production, collection,

transportation, treatment and ultimate disposal is a relatively

social imperative (Salami et al, 2011). Afon (2007) observed that,

little documentation of the quantity and composition of wastes

generated in different areas of African cities, are limiting the

capacity to develop effective waste management systems. Kabir

et al, 2003 narrated that waste generation occurs in virtually all

human activities and that its management in society has been a

challenge for as long as people have gathered together in

sufficient numbers. Proper management of solid waste is critical

to the health and well-being of urban residents (WorldBank,

2003). Bauchi metropolis, like most cities in the developing world

several tons of municipal solid waste is left uncollected on the

streets each day, clogging drains, creating feeding ground for

pests that spread diseases and creating myriad of related health

and infrastructural problems. A substantial part of the urban

residents in the old city have very little or no access to solid

waste collection services. This is due to lack of proper land use

planning which resulted in the creation of informal settlement

with narrow streets that make it difficult for collection trucks to

reach many areas. Nijiribeako lamented that the sheer magnitude

of the solid waste problem in Nigeria is hard to comprehend.

There are not enough public waste receptacles, and solid waste

dumps are located in the side of the highway.

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Without an effective and efficient solid-waste management

program, the waste generated from various human activities,

both industrial and domestic, can result in health hazards and

have a negative impact on the environment. Understanding the

waste generated, the availability of resources, and the

environmental conditions of a particular society are important to

developing an appropriate waste-management system (Tay-joo et

al., 2007). Factors influencing household solid waste management

include; lack of awareness, proper waste management equipment

and facilities, laws and policies and low income to help improve

solid waste management systems among the households (Issam

et al., 2010). On this background the researcher wants to assess

solid waste disposal practices in residential building

1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The objectives of the study covers;

1. To determine the types of waste generated by households

2. To assess solid waste handling methods at house hold level.

3. To ascertain the effect of solid waste disposal to

environment

4. To ascertain the strategies and options available to deal with

challenges of household solid waste management practices

1.4 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

For the successful completion of the study, the following research

hypotheses were formulated by the researcher;

H0: there are no types of waste generated by households

H1: there are types of waste generated by households

H02: there is no effect of solid waste disposal to environment

H2: there is effect of solid waste disposal to environment

1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study will very significant to students, ministry of

environment and the general public. Safe and acceptable solid

waste management practices are of serious concern from the

public health point of view. The concern comes from both poor

policies and solutions proposed by all associated authorities of the

government for the management of solid waste and a perception

that many solid waste management facilities use poor operating

procedures. The study will suggest solutions to solid waste

management

1.6 SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

The scope of the study covers an assessment of solid waste

disposal practices in residential building. The researcher

encounters some constrain which limited the scope of the study;

 a) AVAILABILITY OF RESEARCH MATERIAL: The research

material available to the researcher is insufficient, thereby

limiting the study

b) TIME: The time frame allocated to the study does not enhance

wider coverage as the researcher has to combine other academic

activities and examinations with the study.

c) Organizational privacy: Limited Access to the selected

auditing firm makes it difficult to get all the necessary and

required information concerning the activities.

1.7 DEFINITION OF TERMS

SOLID WASTE: Solid waste means any garbage, refuse, sludge

from a wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant,

or air pollution control facility and other discarded materials

including solid, liquid, semi-solid, or contained gaseous material,

resulting from industrial, commercial, mining and agricultural

operations, .

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING: A residential building is defined as

the building which provides more than half of its floor area for

dwelling purposes. In other words, residential building provides

sleeping accommodation with or without cooking or dining or both

facilities.

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD: An environmental hazard is a

substance, a state or an event which has the potential to threaten

the surrounding natural environment / or adversely affect

people's health, including pollution and natural disasters such as

storms and earthquakes

1.8 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

This research work is organized in five chapters, for easy

understanding, as follows

Chapter one is concern with the introduction, which consist of the

(overview, of the study), historical background, statement of

problem, objectives of the study, research hypotheses,

significance of the study, scope and limitation of the study,

definition of terms and historical background of the study.

Chapter two highlights the theoretical framework on which the

study is based, thus the review of related literature. Chapter three

deals on the research design and methodology adopted in the

study. Chapter four concentrate on the data collection and

analysis and presentation of finding. Chapter five gives summary,

conclusion, and recommendations made of the study

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Municipal solid waste management is a global issue and has

proven a key challenge facing African countries. Municipal solid

waste management constitutes one of the most crucial health and

environmental problem facing African cities. Most cities spend 20-

50% of their annual budget on solid waste management and only

20-80% of the waste is collected (Achankeng, 2003). The UNEP

(2009a) states „”The World Bank estimates that in developing

countries, it is common for municipalities to spend 20-50 % of

their available budget on solid waste management (open

dumping with open burning is the norm), even though 30-60% of

all the urban solid wastes remain uncollected and less than 50%

of the population is served. . In low-income countries, collection

alone drains up 80-90% of municipal solid waste management

budget. In mid-income countries, collection costs 50-80 % of total

budget. In high-income countries, collection only accounts for less

than 10% of the budget, which allows large funds to be allocated

to waste treatment facilities”. One of the consequences of

population growth and globalization is increased waste generation

(Zamorano et al., 2009). Generation varies between cities and

city part in Africa, with reliable data being difficult to come by

(Achankeng, 2003). This has become a concern for developing

countries and is one of the greatest challenges facing

environmental protection agencies in developing countries

(Olufayo & Omotosh, 2007; Gomez et al., 2009; Ogwueleka, 2009;

Zamoranoet al., 2009). Consumption patterns affect the

generation of waste, and according to Keseret al. (2012)

consumption patterns are affected by many factors relevant to

socioeconomic, environmental and demographic conditions. The

global waste generation was estimated at 318 million tons as of

2002, with an annual increase of approximately 6%. Global solid

waste generation is expected to reach about 518 million tons in

2008 and 585 million tons in 2010 (UNEP, 2002; Periathamby&

Hamid, 2009). Hoornweg&Bhada-Tata (2012) in a world bank

report estimates that at present almost 1.3 billion tons of MSW

are generated globally every year, or 1.2 kg/capita/day and by

2025 this will likely increase to 4.3 billion urban residents

generating about 1.42 kg/capita/day of municipal solid waste (2.2

billion tons per year). According to Ogbonnaet al. (2002) in

Nigeria, domestic waste production is increasing and is

compounded by a cycle of poverty, population explosion,

decreasing standards of living, bad governance, and low level of

environmental awareness.Improper solid waste management has

contributed greatly to river pollution and also to climate change

where decomposing solid waste produces methane gas (Jalil,

2010).Cities in Nigeria are critically affected by huge population

fallouts, inadequate supplies of social amenities, and the inability

of administrators to meet with the demand of expanding

population clusters, critically affect cities in Nigeria (Momodu et

al., 2011). Thus in Nigeria indiscriminate disposal and dumping of

solid waste is a common practise in most residential areas. Apart

from various diseases and toxic conditions inherent in and

derivable from wastes products, the presence of waste

degenerates the aesthetic value of the environment (Ogbonnaet

al., 2002). Health problems associated with poor water quality

arising from inadequate waste disposal and waste management

practices include; typhoid fever, diarrhea, cholera, hepatitis, hook

worm infestation, skin diseases, and malaria. With regards to

waste management options there is a large body of literature on

the potential adverse health effects of different waste

management options, particularly from landfill and incineration

(Rushton, 2003). According to Rushton (2003) most research has

focused on the health of the population, particularly those living

near a waste disposal site and the occupational health problems

of the workforce involved in waste management. In the 1980s,

the capital of Nigeria was relocated from Lagos to Abuja, due to

persistent environmental problems. These problems made Lagos

unsuitable to remain the countries capital. These problems

included traffic congestion, flooding, bad drainage system, bad

municipal services and population explosion due to urban

migration. Prior to the relocation of the capital a master plan for

the new capital was designed to avoid the reoccurrence of the

problems encountered with the previous federal capital but today

rapid expansion has exceeded the anticipated master plan (Imam

et al., 2008). The waste management plan being lost as the city

growth and development deviated from the master plan. Although

development and urbanization are desired in a city but when they

exceed the available infrastructural facilities and plans in place,

problems arise and with time if not resolved can become

irreversible. As countries urbanize, their economic wealth

increases. As standards of living and disposable incomes increase,

consumption of goods and services increases, which results in a

corresponding increase in the amount of waste generated

(Hoornweg&Bhada-Tata, 2012).Presently the rapid population

increase due to urbanization in Abuja metropolitan areas have

caused difficulties for the state and local environmental

protection in providing an effective and efficient municipal solid

waste management system (Olanrewaju & Ilemobade,

2009;Zamorano et al., 2009). Urbanization affects land use and

when not controlled causes the emergence of illegal structure and

neighbourhoods which is characteristic of some areas within and

outside the metropolis. This has ultimately affected the city plan,

thereby affecting services. Services such as; waste collection and

eventually leading to illegal dumping. The management of

municipal solid waste has become a major environmental

problem, especially for fast growing cities such as the current

federal capital; Abuja, with generation amount increasing yearly

(Ogwueleka, 2013). Illegal dumps in the middle of residential

areas have become common, with odours and rodent. These open

dumps cause health risks and reduce the aesthetic value of the

surrounding environment, detoriation of the urban environment,

as well as contaminate natural resource (Ogu, 2000). There are

cases where these waste are dumped in streams or river channels

(Adedibu, 1985). Abuludeet al. (2007) reported that developing

countries are witnessing changes in ground water, which

constitute a major source of portable water in Nigeria. Water

contamination by leachate can transmit bacteria and disease,

typhoid fever is a commo

n problem for the people of developing nations. There is also the

risk of vertical heavy metals transfer both to the ground water

and to the above ground vegetation (Remonet al., 2005).

2.2 TYPES OF WASTE GENERATED BY THE HOUSEHOLD

Household wastes consist of a variety of materials. The best

overall household waste composition estimated currently showed

that household waste consists of garden waste (20% of the total),

paper and board (18%), wood and furniture (5%), kitchen waste

(17%), general household sweepings (9%), metal packaging (3%)

glass (7%), wood (5%), scrap metal (5%), soil (3%), textiles (3%),

and 2% being disposable nappies (Julian, 2002). Excessive

packaging of consumer products is one of greatest sources of

unnecessary household waste where 50% of the total the waste is

made up of paper, plastic, glass and metal packaging

(Cunningham, 2009).
2.3 HANDLING METHODS AT HOUSEHOLD LEVEL

Household solid waste handling methods involves; control of

waste at source, waste storage and separation at source,

collection, transportation and disposal (Cunningham, 2009).

Control of waste at source greatly reduces the volume of solid

waste if people compost and utilize the daily organic waste in

their kitchen or garden as manure (Marden, 2009). Waste should

be separated at source for easy collection and transportation for

final disposal and people should segregate the inorganic waste

such as papers, plastics, fused bulbs, blades, glass wares and

empty bottles at source (Marden, 2007). Waste collection can be

done through door-to-door collection which involves the use of

containers or dust bins within the households and communal

collection that involves the use bins placed near markets, in

residential areas and other appropriate locations (Spies et al.,

2006). Household waste is commonly placed in plastic bags or

other containers and stored at the collection centers in

community containers which are placed at the roadsides to be

collected by vehicles or hand-operated carts (Tay-joo et al.,

2007). The lowest collection frequency is twice weekly. However,

the collection area coverage in a city can be as low as 50%

(Huang et al., 2007). The wealthy neighborhoods are provided

with adequate collection systems, but poor neighborhoods do not

enjoy the same treatment (Scheinberg et al., 2007). Once

collected, household solid waste is transported to disposal sites

by open trucks or compactor trucks (Hsiao-His et al., 2007). The

disposal site provides another opportunity for segregation of

waste by the rag-pickers (Gene et al, 2008). The final disposal of

organic waste has three easy options; composting (decomposition

of organic waste by anaerobic micro-organisms to form manure),

sanitary land-fills (disposal of organic by burial in thin films or

layers) and incineration which involves the combustion of organic

substances contained in waste materials into ash, fuel gas and

heat (Scheinberg et al., 2009). Incineration reduces the mass of

the original waste by 80-85% and the volume by 95-96% (Bandela

et al., 2008).

2.4 CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT

SYSTEMS
Improperly managed solid waste poses a risk to human health

and the environment (Lorina, 2007). Uncontrolled dumping and

poor household solid waste management leads to contamination

of water, attraction of insects and rodents and increases flooding

due to blockage of drainage canals or gullies (Marden, 2009).

Planning for and implementing a comprehensive program for

waste collection, transport, and disposal along with activities to

prevent or recycle waste can eliminate these problems

(Cunningham, 2009). Solid waste management is a major problem

worldwide and in Kenya since it is faced with several challenges

from clogged drainage and sewers, waterborne diseases like

typhoid, cholera and diarrhea, increased upper respiratory

diseases and malaria (Rotich et al., 2006). Solid waste

management has been the responsibility of local authorities but

the fact is now changing with the realization that local authorities

are not capable of managing waste on their own (Rotich et al.,

2009). This is unsustainable and Kenyan cities and towns end up

with endless heaps of garbage (Andrew, 2009). From a study

done in Malaysia, attitudes and behaviors were found to affect

household solid waste management but tend to differ based on

the size of the households and households that have positive

attitudes toward waste management have satisfactory behaviors,

supporting Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior (Chamhuri, 2009).

The important and significant factors that affect household

attitudes toward waste management include household size,

source reduction, reuse and recycling measures, frequency of

waste collection, participation in training programs and waste

disposal method (Pereira et al., 2008).

2.5 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROCESSES

The key elements in solid waste management include: waste

generation, storage, collection, transfer and transport, processing

and recovery and final disposal. This means that when waste is

generated it is first stored in either dustbins or skips. It is then

collected and finally disposed of in landfill. Also, when waste is

collected it can be transferred from small collection equipment

like the tricycle to a bigger truck for final disposal. On the other

hand, waste collected can be processed and recovered for

materials to be reused. These elements are further elaborated

below:
Waste Generation: Waste generation encompasses those

activities in which materials are identified as no longer being of

value and are either thrown away or gathered together for

disposal (Momoh and Oladebeye, 2010). According to UNEP

(2009), in 2006 the total amount of municipal solid waste (MSW)

generated globally reached 2.02 billion tones, representing a 7

per cent annual increase since 2003. It is further estimated that

between 2007 and 2011, global generation of municipal waste will

rise by 37.3 per cent, equivalent to roughly 8 per cent increase

per year (UNEP, 2009). The volume and range of solid wastes

generated daily in Nigeria has been increasing within the last few

years and this is mainly due to the high population growth,

urbanization, industrialization and general economic growth.

These wastes as observed by Ojo (2008) are generated mostly in

urban centres.

Storage: Tchobanoglous et al., (1977) explain storage to mean

where solid waste is stored before it is collected. It could be

stored in a skip or dustbins and not thrown away indiscriminately.

According to them, storage is of primary importance because of

the aesthetic consideration.

 Collection: The element of collection includes not only the

gathering of solid waste, but also the hauling of waste after

collection to the location where the collection vehicle is emptied

(Kreith, 1994). According to Kreith (1994), the most common type

of residential collection services in the United States include

“curbs”, “setout-setback” and “backyard carry”. According to the

USPS (2000), in the city of Thimphu in Bhutan the collection of

solid waste from households was done in concrete receptacles

placed at strategic points and conveyed by trucks/tractors.

Accordingly, there were concrete bins and containers provided at

various locations from where the waste was lifted for disposal.

Individual bins/containers were also placed alongside the shops in

certain areas, which were emptied directly into the trucks/tippers.

This prevents people from dumping waste indiscriminately. On

the other hand, the building of these concrete bins and containers

may be expensive to do in Nigeria and for that matter Gombe.

Transfer and Transport: According to Kreith (1994), transfer

and transport involves two steps:

(1) the transfer of wastes from the smaller collection vehicle to

the larger transport equipment and

(2) the subsequent transport of the wastes, usually over long

distances to the final disposal site.

Processing and Recovery: The element of processing and

recovery includes all the technology, equipment, and facilities

used both to improve the efficiency of other functional elements

and to recover usable materials, conversion products or energy

from solid wastes (Tchobanoglous et al., 1977). In the recovery,

separation operations have been devised to recover valuable

resources from the mixed solid wastes delivered to transfer

stations or solid waste processing plants (Tchobanoglous et al.,

1977). Disposal: It is the ultimate fate of all solid wastes whether

they are residential wastes collected and transported directly to

landfill site. Several methods of solid waste management have

evolved over the years. These methods according to the Centre

for Environment and Development (2003) vary greatly with types

of wastes and local conditions. This is divided into early practices

of managing solid waste and contemporary methods of waste

management systems.

Early Practices of Solid Waste Management: According to

Tchobanoglous et al (1993: 17-18), the most commonly

recognized methods for the final disposal of solid wastes were;

dumping on land, canyons and mining pits, dumping in water,

ploughing into the soil, feeding to hogs, reduction and

incineration. Some of these unwholesome practices of solid waste

identified during the early disposal practices still exist in cities,

towns and villages today. Indiscriminate dumping on opened land

and dumping in gutters particularly are clearly evident in towns

and cities, while dumping in water especially people living in

coastal towns is common place. Burning of dumps is also common

in peri-urban and rural communities in Nigeria and in many other

less developed countries. A study carried out in Ado-Akiti by

Momoh and Oladebeye (2010) showed that, the methods of solid

waste disposal include dumping of waste in gutters, drains, by

roadside, unauthorized dumping sites and stream channels during

raining season and burning of wastes on unapproved dumping

sites during the dry season. This has gone to confirm that the
practices of solid waste disposal in the 1950s still exist today and

study area is not an exception. On the other hand, Momoh and

Oladebeye’s (2010), assessment of waste situation in Ado-Akiti is

questionable as they did not further explain what brought about

the indiscriminate dumping. It could be that people dumped the

waste any how because there were no skips or dustbins for the

people to store their waste for collection.

Contemporary Methods of Managing Solid Waste: In the

contemporary era, the methods of managing solid waste include

source reduction, sanitary landfills, composting, recycling, and

incineration (Denison and Ruston, 1990).These methods are

examined below;

Source Reduction: Denison and Ruston (1990) viewed source

reduction as any action that reduces the volume or toxicity of

solid waste prior to its processing and disposal in incinerators or

landfills. This view is similar to the one given by Kreith (1994).

According to him, source reduction focuses on reducing the

volume and /or toxicity of waste generated. Source reduction

includes the switch to reusable products and packaging, the most

familiar example being returnable bottles. According to USPS

(2000) in the city of Thimphu in Bhutan to reduce waste problems

in future, reduction in waste generation would be the most

important factor. Examples of possible reduction at the

consumption level include reuse of containers(including bags),

better buying habits, and cutting down on the use of disposable

products and packaging ( USPS, 2000). It is agreed that, source

separation and resource recovery is an important method in

waste management. This is because there is nothing like waste on

this earth. Wastes that are discharged may be of significant value

in another setting, but they are of little or no value to the

possessor who wants to dispose of it. According to Tsiboe and

Marbel (2004), Austria, the Netherlands, and Denmark developed

a waste management processes to efficiently resolve the waste

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. As

suggested by the three authors, one way of effectively managing

solid waste is to minimise solid waste generation through source

reduction.
 Sanitary Landfill: Sanitary land filling includes confining the

waste, compacting it and covering with soil. It not only prevents

burning of garbage but also helps in reclamation of land for

valuable use (Centre for Environment and Development, 2003).

The placement of solid waste in landfills is the oldest and

definitely the most prevalent form of ultimate waste disposal

(Zerbock, 2003:16). The author further argued that “landfills” are

nothing more than open, sometimes controlled dumps. According

to the author, the difference between landfills and dumps is the

level of engineering, planning, and administration involved. Open

dumps are characterized by the lack of engineering measures, no

leachate management, no consideration of landfill gas

management, and few, if any, operational measures such as

registration of users, control of the number of “tipping fronts” or

compaction of waste (Zerbock, 2003). Furthermore, landfills are

one form of waste management that nobody wants but everybody

needs (Kreith, 1994). According to the author, there are simply no

combinations of waste management techniques that do not

require land filling to make them work. Of the basic management

options of solid waste, landfills are the only management

technique that is both necessary and sufficient. According to

Kreith (1994) some wastes are simply not recyclable, many

recyclable wastes eventually reach a point where their intrinsic

value is completely dissipated and they no longer can be

recovered, and recycling itself produces residuals. The author

further highlighted that the technology and operation of modern

land fill can assure the protection of human health and the

environment. In contrast to what the various authors have said

about sanitary landfill as an option for waste management, they

have failed to recognize that land fill in itself has some

disadvantages as it is costly to construct and maintain, can

pollute ground water through leaching, location is a problem in

terms of availability of land particularly in the cities. Other critical

factors such as gas recovery, composting, waste to energy

recovery, storm water control, distance to any settlement and

water body were not clearly spelt out by the authors. Therefore;

there could be an alternative which is recycling.

Recycling: According to Momoh and Oladebeye (2010: 1)

recycling has been viewed as a veritable tool in minimizing the

amount of household solid wastes that enter the dump sites. It

also provides the needed raw materials for industries. According

to them, it has been established that, it is the best, efficient and

effective method of solid waste management system. However,

this may not be cost effective in developing countries like Nigeria.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

(1999) has recommended recovery for recycling as one of the

most effective waste management techniques. According to

USEPA, recycling turns materials that would otherwise become

waste into valuable resources and, it yields environmental,

financial, and social returns in natural resource conservation,

energy conservation, pollution prevention, and economic

expansion and competitiveness. More importantly, a sizeable

portion of what is thrown away contains valuable resources—

metals, glass, paper, wood, and plastic—that can be reprocessed

and used again as raw materials (USEPA, 1999). Kreith (1994) has

also added that, recycling is the most positively perceived and

doable of all the waste management options. According to the

author, recycling will return raw materials to market by

separating reusable products from the rest of the municipal waste

stream. The benefits of recycling are many, it saves precious

finite resources, lessens the need for mining of virgin materials

which lowers the environmental impact for mining and

processing. For example, according to the Institute of Waste

Management cited by Tsiboe and Marbel (2004), UK recycles only

11per cent of its household waste, Italy and Spain only 3 per cent,

Netherlands 43 per cent, Denmark 29 per cent, and Austria 50 per

cent respectively. Having proposed recycling by different authors

as the best option to manage solid waste in modern times; they

have forgotten about the cost component which is key to

successful implementation of any recycling project. Even

developed countries are not able to successfully do it. But

alternatively, it may be the best option for effectively managing

solid waste in Nigeria, particularly in Gombe town. 2.3.8.4

Composting: Composting process uses microorganisms to

degrade the organic content of the waste. Aerobic composting

proceeds at a higher rate and converts the heterogeneous

organic waste materials into homogeneous and stable humus

(Centre for Environment and Development, 2003: 9). UNEP (2009)

has also defined composting as a biological decomposition of

biodegradable solid waste under controlled predominantly aerobic

conditions to a state that is sufficiently stable for nuisance-free

storage and handling and is satisfactorily matured for safe use in

agriculture. According to the UNEP (2009), composting is the

option that, with few exceptions, best fits within the limited

resources available in developing countries. A characteristic that

renders composting especially suitable is its adaptability to a

broad range of situations. According to Zerbock (2003), a

lowtechnology approach to waste reduction is composting. The

author further says that in developing countries, the average

city’s municipal waste stream is over 50 per cent organic

material.

Incineration: According to the Centre for Environment and

Development (2003: 9), incineration is a controlled combustion

process for burning combustible waste to gases and reducing it to

a residue of non-combustible ingredients. According to the

Centre, during incineration, moisture in the solid waste gets

vaporized and the combustible portion gets oxidized and

vaporized. CO2, water vapour, ash and non-combustible residue

are the end products of incineration. Incinerators have the

capacity to reduce the volume of waste drastically, up to nine fold

than any other method (Kreith, 1994). According to the author,

incineration can also recover useful energy either in the form of

steam or electricity. The author, however recognised that the

main constraints of incineration are high cost of operation,

relatively high degree of sophistication needed to operate them

safely and economically as well as the tendency to pollute the

environment through emissions of carbon dioxide. Having

assessed the major methods that have been proposed by the

various authors, literature has further revealed that there is an

alternative method of managing solid waste effectively which is

synonymous to waste reduction and recycling as mentioned

earlier on.

Integrated Solid Waste Manageement: Although

considerable efforts are being made by many Governments and

other entities in tackling waste-related problems, there are still

major gaps to be filled in this area (UNEP, 2009). According to

UNEP (2009), the World Bank estimates that in developing

countries, it is common for municipalities in developing countries

to spend 20 to 50 percent of their available budget on solid waste

management, even though 30 to 60 percent of all the urban solid

wastes remain uncollected and less than 50 percent of the

population is served. The programme (UNEP) suggested that if

most of the waste could be diverted for material and resource

recovery, then a substantial reduction in final volumes of waste

could be achieved and the recovered material and resources

could be utilized to generate revenue to fund waste management.

This forms the premise for the Integrated Solid Waste

Management (ISWM) system based on 3Rs (reduce, reuse and

recycle) principle. ISWM system has been pilot tested in a few

locations (Wuxi, PR China; Pune, India; Maseru, Lesotho) and has

been well received by local authorities. It has been shown that

with appropriate segregation and recycling system significant

quantity of waste can be diverted from landfills and converted

into resource (UNEP, 2009). Similarly, the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (1999) has said that if a state or

local government wants to plan for and implement ISWM, they

have to consider a hierarchy of methods which are reduce,

recycle, and incinerate/landfill.

2.5 SUSTAINABLE WASTE MANAGEMENT

Sustainable Waste Management Fact Sheet (2013) stressed that

Sustainable waste management aims to address these long term

pressures through the recovery, recycling, and reuse of

resources, and the minimization of waste streams. This includes

the management of resources in an environmentally sound and

economically effective manner. The Rio declaration on sustainable

development (UNCED, 1992) defined sustainable development

management as the application of the integrated life cycle

management concept in waste management. This was later

elaborated by the (UN, 2005) as environmentally sound waste

management which must go beyond the mere safe disposal or

recovery of wastes that are generated and seek to address the

root cause of the problem by attempting to change unsustainable

patterns of production and consumption. In effect, the declaration

suggests an approach to waste management that incorporates

environmental, social and economic perspective unto

environmental policy, planning and practice. However, it is only

recently that waste management policies, plans and programmes

have begun to consider all these different stand of sustainability.

Nilsson-Djerf and McDougall, (2000) argued that for a waste

management system to be sustainable, it needs to be

environmentally effective, economically affordable, and socially

acceptable. For Sustainable waste management a good

Integrated Waste Management system approach is the best way

to go. It requires government policies that encourage waste

prevention, reuse and both materials and thermal recycling

recovery and proper disposal options. IWM involves simply the

combination of all the waste management techniques in order to

minimize waste Arowolo and Sridhar (2005). Although majority of

large cities have administered waste management practices at

different levels of sophistication, in some African countries there

is no official solid waste management policy. For example, in

many Nigerian towns and cities, including Gombe, there is no

door to door solid waste collection programme. Roadsides,

ditches, drainages, water bodies, empty plots of land, farms,

wetlands, uncompleted buildings, etc. are sites observed for

dumping of household wastes in most Nigerian cities. This

unsanitary and indiscriminate indulgence of the public has been

attributed to the ineffectiveness of waste management of the

environment by the government (Ojo, 2008). However, the issue

of proper waste management is not just a government task but is

a shared responsibility that includes the citizens and households,

who are the main end-users of waste management facilities and

services. When reorganizing solid waste management systems,

understanding the role of households, their attitudes, their waste

handling practices and their interactions with other actors in the

waste system is therefore essential (Oosterveer et al., 2010;

Oberlin, 2011).

2.6 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

Solid Waste Management involves managing activities associated

with generation, storage, collection, transfer and transport,

processing and disposal of solid wastes in an environmentally

compatible manner with due considerations of the principles of

economy, aesthetics, energy and conservation. For an urban

center with rapid urban migration, poor solid waste management

practices are considered as disastrous. Solid waste management

strategies can be broadly classified into three groups, viz; the

public sector, the private sector and the community sector. Each

of these stakeholders is seen as enjoying a comparative

advantage in the performance of certain roles, as outlined below:

In Nigeria there are two major approaches to waste management.

They are private and public arrangements. The private system is

a contractual arrangement between an individual or group of

persons who undertake waste disposal as a business venture and

the waste generator. This system is common among the high and

medium Income households who can afford the charge. The

public system is more conventional. This is a situation where

government establishes a waste disposal agency whose

responsibility it is to collect waste from waste generators and

dispose them at disposal depots. Some cities adopt the

combination of the two systems particularly when the public

system is ineffective to cope with the volume of waste

generation; the private system is adopted to compliment the

efforts of the public arrangement. This hybrid arrangement is

quite common in Nigerian Cities such as Enugu, Port Harcourt,

Aba, Owerri, Ibadan and Kano (FMHE, 1983). The hybrid system

has many attributes which support its adoption. While the public

system is under state government control and supervision, the

private system, because of its profit motive tries to offer

satisfactory service so as to get more customers and enlarge its

area of operation. This motive in turn ensures that efficiency is

maintained (Omuta, 1988). Meanwhile, in many cities in

developing countries, collection rates remain low and the quality

of collection services are poor. Waste collection services are

generally non-existent in poorer neighbourhoods such as slums.

While there are some successful examples where the private

sector and communities are involved in waste management

services, in many cities of developing countries, involvement of

these segments of society is still very limited. The wastes

collected typically end up in open dumps, where they may be

burnt, and in some cases are deposited in illegal dumping sites.

Omuta (1988) further argued that involvement of resident

community and individuals can bring about a better process of

solid waste management.

 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research design

The researcher used descriptive research survey design in

building up this project work the choice of this research design

was considered appropriate because of its advantages of

identifying attributes of a large population from a group of

individuals. The design was suitable for the study as the study

sought to an assessment of solid waste disposal practices in

residential building

3.2 Sources of data collection

Data were collected from two main sources namely:

(i)Primary source and

(ii)Secondary source

Primary source:
These are materials of statistical investigation which were

collected by the research for a particular purpose. They can be

obtained through a survey, observation questionnaire or as

experiment; the researcher has adopted the questionnaire

method for this study.

Secondary source:

These are data from textbook Journal handset etc. they arise as

byproducts of the same other purposes. Example administration,

various other unpublished works and write ups were also used.

3.3 Population of the study

Population of a study is a group of persons or aggregate items,

things the researcher is interested in getting information on an

assessment of solid waste disposal practices in residential

building. 200 residents in Majidadi ‘B’ ward in the Bauchi

metropolis were selected randomly by the researcher as the

population of the study.

3.4 Sample and sampling procedure

Sample is the set people or items which constitute part of a given

population sampling. Due to large size of the target population,

the researcher used the Taro Yamani formula to arrive at the

sample population of the study.

n= N

1+N(e)2

n= 200

1+200(0.05)2

= 200

1+200(0.0025)

= 200 200

1+0.5 = 1.5 = 133.

3.5 Instrument for data collection

The major research instrument used is the questionnaires. This

was appropriately moderated. They staff were administered with

the questionnaires to complete, with or without disclosing their

identities. The questionnaire was designed to obtain sufficient and

relevant information from the respondents. The primary data

contained information extracted from the questionnaires in which

the respondents were required to give specific answer to a

question by ticking in front of an appropriate answer and

administered the same on staff of the organizations. The

questionnaires contained about 16 structured questions which

were divided into sections A and B.

3.6 Validation of the research instrument

The questionnaire used as the research instrument was subjected

to face its validation. This research instrument (questionnaire)

adopted was adequately checked and validated by the supervisor

his contributions and corrections were included into the final draft

of the research instrument used.

3.7 Method of data analysis

The data collected was not an end in itself but it served as a

means to an end. The end being the use of the required data to

understand the various situations it is with a view to making

valuable recommendations and contributions. To this end, the

data collected has to be analysis for any meaningful

interpretation to come out with some results. It is for this reason

that the following methods were adopted in the research project

for the analysis of the data collected. For a comprehensive

analysis of data collected, emphasis was laid on the use of

absolute numbers frequencies of responses and percentages.

Answers to the research questions were provided through the

comparison of the percentage of workers response to each

statement in the questionnaire related to any specified question

being considered.

Frequency in this study refers to the arrangement of responses in

order of magnitude or occurrence while percentage refers to the

arrangements of the responses in order of their proportion.

The simple percentage method is believed to be straight forward

easy to interpret and understand method.

The researcher therefore chooses the simple percentage as the

method to use.

The formula for percentage is shown as.

% = f/N x 100/1

Where f = frequency of respondents response

N = Total Number of response of the sample

100 = Consistency in the percentage of respondents for each

item contained in questions.

 CHAPTER FOUR

PRESENTATION ANALYSIS INTERPRETATION OF DATA

4.1 Introduction

Efforts will be made at this stage to present, analyze and interpret

the data collected during the field survey. This presentation will

be based on the responses from the completed questionnaires.

The result of this exercise will be summarized in tabular forms for

easy references and analysis. It will also show answers to

questions relating to the research questions for this research

study. The researcher employed simple percentage in the

analysis.

DATA ANALYSIS
The data collected from the respondents were analyzed in tabular

form with simple percentage for easy understanding.

A total of 133(one hundred and thirty three) questionnaires were

distributed and 133 questionnaires were returned.

Question 1

Gender distribution of the respondents.

TABLE I

Gender distribution of the respondents

Response Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Male 77 57.9 57.9 57.9

Valid Female 56 42.1 42.1 100.0

Total 133 100.0 100.0

From the above table it shows that 57.9% of the respondents

were male while 42.1% of the respondents were female.

Question 2

The positions held by respondents

TABLE II

The positions held by respondents

Response Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent

Civil servants 37 27.8 27.8 27.8

Youths
50 37.6 37.6 65.4
Valid
Married men 23 17.3 17.3 82.7

Married women 23 17.3 17.3 100.0

Total 133 100.0 100.0

The above tables shown that 37 respondents which

represent27.8% of the respondents are civil servants, 50

respondents which represents 37.6 % are youths 23 respondents

which represents 17.3% of the respondents are married men,

while 23 respondents which represents 17.3% of the respondents

married women

TEST OF HYPOTHESES

There are types of waste generated by households

Table III

there are types of waste generated by households

Response Observed N Expected N Residual

Agreed 40 33.3 6.8

strongly agreed 50 33.3 16.8
Disagreed 26 33.3 -7.3
strongly disagreed 17 33.3 -16.3
Total 133

there are types

of waste
generated by
households

Chi-Square 19.331a
Df 3
Asymp. Sig. .000

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected

frequencies less than 5. The
minimum expected cell
frequency is 33.3.

Decision rule:

There researcher therefore reject the null hypothesis that there

are no types of waste generated by households as the calculated

value of 19.331 is greater than the critical value of 7.82

Therefore the alternate hypothesis is accepted that there are no

types of waste generated by households

 TEST OF HYPOTHESIS TWO

There is effect of solid waste disposal to environment

Table V

there is effect of solid waste disposal to environment

Response Observed N Expected N Residual

Yes 73 44.3 28.7

No 33 44.3 -11.3
Undecided 27 44.3 -17.3
Total 133

Test Statistics

there is effect of
solid waste
disposal to
environment

Chi-Square 28.21 1a
Df 2
Asymp. Sig. .000
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected
frequencies less than 5. The
minimum expected cell
frequency is 44.3.

Decision rule:

There researcher therefore reject the null hypothesis that there is

no effect of solid waste disposal to environment as the calculated

value of 28.211 is greater than the critical value of 5.99

Therefore the alternate hypothesis is accepted that state that

there is effect of solid waste disposal to environment

 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Introduction

It is important to ascertain that the objective of this study was an

assessment of solid waste disposal practices in residential

building. In the preceding chapter, the relevant data collected for

this study were presented, critically analyzed and appropriate

interpretation given. In this chapter, certain recommendations

made which in the opinion of the researcher will be of benefits in

addressing the challenges of solid waste disposal practices in

residential building
5.2 Summary

This study was on assessment of solid waste disposal practices in

residential building. Four objectives were raised which included:

To determine the types of waste generated by households, to

assess solid waste handling methods at house hold level, to

ascertain the effect of solid waste disposal to environment, to

ascertain the strategies and options available to deal with

challenges of household solid waste management practices. In

line with these objectives, two research hypotheses were

formulated and two null hypotheses were posited. The total

population for the study is 200 residents in Majidadi ‘B’ ward in

the Bauchi metropolis. The researcher used questionnaires as the

instrument for the data collection. Descriptive Survey research

design was adopted for this study. A total of 133 respondents

made civil servants, youths, married men and married women

were used for the study. The data collected were presented in

tables and analyzed using simple percentages and frequencies

5.3 Conclusion
As expected, a number of household related factors affected the

household solid waste management; family size, disposal method

used, source reduction, reuse and recycling measures, frequency

of waste collection, participation in training programs and the

education level of the household head. The fact that the

education level of a family head was negatively associated with

the practices regarding household solid waste management

indicates that improving general public awareness concerning the

problem of solid waste management should be a high priority of

the responsible authorities and the general public as well.

5.4 Recommendation

Encourage, cooperate and give financial assistance to the right

government agencies, private organizations, institutions and

individuals in the conduct and promotion of researches,

experiments and other studies on solid waste management.

Should finance the local government i.e. the Municipal Council, to

carry out residential solid waste management programs

REFERENCES
Al-Tamyan, K. N. (2005). Monthly statistics on urban solid waste.
Kuwait: Department of Sanitation, Municipality of
Kuwait.
Andrew M. (2009). Destiny Africa’s Green Africa plastics
recycling, Kenya. Birute V. (2012), Guide for industrial
waste management. New York Contoso press.
Chuen, K. P., Lim, Y. M., & Choong, C. K. (2011). Household
demand for solid waste disposal options in Malaysia.
Germany: University Library of Munich.
Cruz, G. & Reuters, B. (2008), Electronic waste recycling. Manila:
SWAPPCON St.
Benilde Hotel. Cunningham, W. (2009). Solid waste management.
Utah Refuse Collection and Disposal Association
(URCDA), University of Minnesota.
Darmastuti, L. R. R. (2007), Community participation in solid
waste management: Case study Sukamantri Kampong.
Majalaya City. Edwards, V. (2011). Virtual research repository,
regional dimensions and mechanisms and pollution
waste management.
Hsiao-Hsin, H., Hwa, T. J., Jainal, G. M., & Bhuiya, A. (2007) Solid
waste management: Issues and challenges in Asia.
Asian Productivity Organization.
Kreith, F. (2008). Handbook of solid waste management (2nd ed).
Europe: McGraw-Hill Professional.
Kuria, D. & Mireri, C. (2011), Solid waste management in Kenya:
The role of waste reclaimers.
Ecotact. Pereira, Z. & Medina, M. (2008) Informal recycling and
collection of solid wastes in developing countries:
Issues and opportunities. Tokyo: The United Nations
University.
Rouse, J. (2006) Embracing not displacing: Involving the informal
sector in improved solid waste management. Kolkata,
India: Solid Waste, Health and the Millennium
Development Goals, CWG-WASH Workshop.
Scheinberg, A., Anshutz, J., & van de Klundert, A. (2009) Waste
reclaimers: Poor victims or waste management
professionals? Kolkata, India: Solid Waste, Health and
the Millennium Development Goals, CWG-WASH
Workshop,.
Senner, K. (2000), Mukuru recycling centre - a gender evaluation.
Nairobi, Kenya.
Spies, S. & Wehenpohl, G. (2006). The informal sector in solid
waste management – efficient part of a system or
marginal and disturbing way of survival for the poor?
 Kolkata, India: Solid Waste, Health and the Millennium
Development Goals, CWG-WASH Workshop.
Tewodros, T. (2009.) Environmental concern and its implication
to household waste separation and disposal: Evidence
from Mekelle. Ethiopia Resources Conservation and
Recycling, 53(4), 183-191.
UNDP. (1997), Human Development Report, Oxford University
Press, New York, USA
Weinschenk-Foerster, M. (2008). Chiang-mai’s solid waste
management and its problems. Working summary,
RISE-AT, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Wilson, D. C. Costas, V., & Cheeseman, C. (2005), Role of informal
sector recycling in waste management in developing
countries. Habitat International, Elsevier Ltd.
Yang L., Li, Z. S., Fu, H. Z. (2011). The key laboratory of water and
sediment sciences. Department of Environmental
Engineering, Peking University, Ministry of Education,
Beijing, People’s Republic of China.
Latifah, A.M., Basri, H. &Basri, A.N.E. (2008). UrusSisa : An
Intelligent System for Integrated Solid Waste
Management. Journal of Sustainable Development, 1(2):
39-46. [24]
Longe, E.O., Longe, O.O. &Ukpebor, E.F. (2009). People‟s
Perception on Household Solid Waste Management in
Ojo Local Government Area in Nigeria.Iran. J. Environ.
Health. Sci. Eng., 6(3):209-216. [25]
Momodu, N. S., Dimuna, K. O. &Dimuna, J. E. (2011). Mitigating
the Impact of Solid Wastes in Urban Centres in Nigeria. J
Hum Ecol, 34(2):125-133.
Nabegu, A.B. (2010). An Analysis of Municipal Solid Waste inKano
Metropolis, Nigeria. J Hum Ecol, 31(2):111-119.
NPC. (2012). National Population Commission Nigeria. Retrieved
from www.population.gov.ng. Accessed 16th April 2012.
 Ogbonna, D.N., Ekweozor, I.K.E. &Igwe, F.U. (2002) Waste
Management: A Tool for Environmental Protection in
Nigeria. Ambio, 31(1):55-57.
Ogu, V.I. (2000). Private Sector Participation and Municipal Waste
Management in Benin City, Nigeria. Environment and
Urbanization, 12(2):103-117.
Ogwueleka, T.C. (2003). Analysis of Urban Solid Waste in Nsukka,
Nigeria. Journal of Solid Waste Technology and
Management, 29(4):239-246.
Ogwueleka, T.C. (2009). Municipal Solid Waste Characteristics and
Management in Nigeria. Iran J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng,
6(3):173-180.
Ogwueleka, T.C. (2013). Survey of Household Waste Composition
and Quantities in Abuja, Nigeria.
Resources,Conservation and Recycling, 77:52– 60.
Ohakew, J., Nnorom, I.C. &Iwueze, I.S. (2011). Survey of Attitude
of Residents towards Environmental Deterioration in
Nigeria and Factors Influencing their Willingness to
Participate in Reducing the Trend: A Case Study of
Waste Management. Trends in Applied Sciences
Research, 6(2):154-164.
Olanrewaju, O.O. &Ilemobade, A.A. (2009). Waste to Wealth : A
Case Study of the Ondo State Integrated Wastes
Recycling and Treatment Project, Nigeria. European
Journal of Social Sciences, 8(1):7-16.
Olorunfemi, F.B. (2009). Willingness to Pay for Improved
Environmental Quality among Residents Living in Close
Proximity to Landfills in Lagos Metropolis, Nigeria.
African Research Review, 3(1):97- 110.
Olufayo, O. &Omotosh, B.J. (2007). Waste Disposal and
Management in Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria. The Social Science,
2(2):111-115.
Periathamby, A, Hamid, F.S. &Khidzir, K. (2009). “Evolution of
Solid Waste Management in Malaysia: Impacts and
 Implications of the Solid Waste Bill, 2007,” Journal of
Mater Cycles Waste Management, 11:96-103.

QUESTIONNAIRE

INSTRUCTION

Please tick or fill in where necessary as the case may be.

Section A

(1) Gender of respondent

A male { }

B female { }

(2) Age distribution of respondents

 a) 15-20 { }
b) 21-30 { }
c) 31-40 { }
d) 41-50 { }
e) 51 and above { }
(3) Marital status of respondents?
(a) married [ ]
(b) single [ ]
(c) divorce [ ]
(4) Educational qualification off respondents
(a) SSCE/OND { }
(b) HND/BSC { }
(c) PGD/MSC { }
(d) PHD { }
Others……………………………….

(5) How long have you been in Majidadi ‘B’ ward in the Bauchi
metropolis?
(a) 0-2 years { }
(b) 3-5 years { }
(c) 6-11 years { }
(d) 11 years and above……….
(6) Position held by the respondent in Majidadi ‘B’ ward in the
Bauchi metropolis
(a) Civil servant { }
(b) Youth { }
(c) Married man { }
 (d) Married woman { }
(7) How long have you been in majidai ‘B’ ward in the Bauchi
metropolis
(a) 0-2 years { }
(b) 3-5 years { }
(c) 6-11 years { }
(d) 11 years and above……….
SECTION B

(8) Solid waste disposal is not hazardous to environment

(a) Agrees { }
(b) Strongly agreed { }
(c) Disagreed { }
(d) Strongly disagreed { }
(9) Solid waste disposal not good to residential building?
(a) Agrees { }
(b) Strongly agreed { }
(c) Disagreed { }
(d) Strongly disagreed { }

(10) Solid waste disposal cause diseases to human

(a) Agreed { }
(b) Strongly agreed { }
(c) Disagreed { }
(d) Strongly disagreed { }

(11) Government is not doing anything about solid waste disposal

 (a) Agreed { }

(b) Strongly agreed { }

(c) Disagreed { }

(d) Strongly disagreed { }

(12) Solid waste disposal cause environmental hazard

(a) Agreed { }

(b) Strongly agreed { }

(c) Disagreed { }

(d) Strongly disagreed { }

(13) There are ways of managing solid waste disposal

(a) Agreed { }

(b) Strongly agreed { }

(c) Disagreed { }

(d) Strongly disagreed { }

(14) There is an effect of solid waste disposal to human

(a) Agreed { }

(b) Strongly agreed { }

(c) Disagreed { }

(d) Strongly disagreed { }

(15) solid waste handling methods at house hold level

(a) Agreed { }

(b) Strongly agreed { }

(c) Disagreed { }

(d) Strongly disagreed { }