SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN HOUSEHOLDS: A case of Sekondi-Takoradi, Ghana

HOUSEHOLD WASTE MANAGEMENT IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: A case of Sekondi - Takoradi, Ghana.
JEWM
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN HOUSEHOLDS: A case
of Sekondi-Takoradi, Ghana
*Thomas Narh Korley1,2
and Joseph Richmond Fianko2
1Zoomlion Foundation, PMB 177 Madina, Accra, Ghana.
2Graduate School of Nuclear and Allied Sciences, PMB Legon, Accra, Ghana.
Population and waste generation is increasing exponentially in the city of Sekondi-Takoradi. The
city is growing at a rate of 3.2%. A recent oil industry, booming economic activities and rural-
urban drift has increased demand for housing and waste infrastructure. The resulting waste from
households outstrips waste bins and collection trucks. Wastes overflows at various collection
points within the metropolis. The type of waste disposed indicates that residents now consuming
various sorts of packaged food items compared to the previous habits of cooking raw vegetables.
The complexity of waste is becoming difficult for the existing systems to accommodate. It is seen
that households rely heavily on communal collection bins to dispose their waste. More than 36%
of all collection is done with communal bins, which is less efficient compared to kerbside
systems. The waste is usually abrasive, with a lot of sand, silt and gravel which wears sliding
parts of compaction vehicles and machines. This discourages investors from deploying kerbside
compaction trucks for waste collection. The results of this research highlights several instances
of uncollected waste, overflowing of bins and unsightly conditions which are threats to public
health of the people of the metropolis.
Keywords: Solid waste management, Household waste, Waste recovery, Recycling, Ghana, Accra, Sekondi–Takoradi,
Landfills, Plastic waste, Waste segregation.
INTRODUCTION
Solid Waste Management (SWM) is the management of
the generation, collection, and disposal of waste in a way
that takes into account public health, economics and the
environment and it is also responsive to public demands
(Wakjira, 2007). Rapidly growing economic development,
urbanization and improving living standards in cities and
urban centers have led to an increase in the quantity and
complexity of generated waste. The United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development had
highlighted the mismanagement of domestic (household)
sources of solid waste as a major barrier to achieving
global environmental sustainability (UNCED, 1992). In
urban centers of developing countries, most of the solid
waste generated is uncollected, and 95 percent of that
amount is either indiscriminately thrown away at various
dumping sites on the periphery of urban centers or at a
number of communal collection sites (Mohammed, 2003
as cited in Pradhan, 2008). The uncollected or illegally
dumped waste then causes environmental degradation
and becomes a hazard for human health (Wakjira, 2007).
A study by Pradhan (2008) observed that 616,960 cases
of cholera resulted in 4,389 deaths in Angola, Malawi,
Mozambique and Tanzania. This was linked to the fact
that, in most parts of Africa, as much as 20 to 80 percent
of urban solid waste are dumped in open spaces
(Chakrabarti and Sarkhel, 2003).
*Corresponding author: Thomas Narh Korley, Zoomlion
Foundation, PMB 177 Madina, Accra, Ghana. Email:
thomaskorley@yahoo.com Tel: +233262738032 Co-
Author Email: jrfianko@yahoo.com
Journal of Environment and Waste Management
Vol. 4(3), pp. 224-234, October, 2017. © www.premierpublishers.org. ISSN: XXXX-XXXX
Case Study

Korley and Fianko 225
The solid waste generated in Ghanaian cities is usually
abrasive, with a lot of sand, silt and gravel which wears
sliding parts of vehicles and machines. The generated
waste is wet with an average amount of 60-65 percent
organic matter which yields acidic leachate and methane
gas upon decomposition (Devas and Korboe, 2000).
These characteristics present a challenge to city
authorities in their quest to find appropriate technology to
collect and dispose of the solid waste. Some of the waste
is collected for disposal, but the majority of it is
indiscriminately dumped in drains, streams and open
places. Collected waste is finally disposed of by open
dumping, open burning, and controlled tipping at municipal
dumpsites (Anku, 2008).
The problem with waste management in the framework of
a developing country such as Ghana can be briefly
summarized as follows: Ever-growing urban population,
lack of basic finance for infrastructure, inappropriate
technology to handle the different compositions of waste,
and a general faulty management system (Fei-Baffoe et
al., 2014). A review of waste management policies, plans,
programs and their implementation in Ghana have shown
that there has been a general reluctance by local
authorities and the private sector to invest directly in waste
infrastructure. The main reasons for the lack of required
investment in waste infrastructure include: the uncertainty
of the planning process, the lack of enforcement of national
policies and district assembly bye-laws and the general
lack of co-ordination in the implementation of waste
management programs. As a result, only less than 40
percent of urban residents benefit from solid collection
services in the country (Anku, 2008).
In Sekondi-Takoradi metropolis, most households lack
solid waste collection service. According to a study by
Baabereyir (2009), an average of 40 percent of the solid
waste generated in the metropolis was properly collected
and disposed of between 2002 and 2006, and this was
collected from mainly high income residential areas
(Baabereyir, 2009). Similar findings have been made by
another study by Fei-Bafoe et al. (2014). Since city
authorities are unable to provide solid waste disposal
services to cover the entire metropolitan area, they apply
discretion in the provision of such services. This results in
socio-spatial disparity in the distribution of waste collection
services. Better services are reserved for wealthy
residential neighbourhoods while the low-income
communities receive little or no attention. Elsewhere in
Ghana for instance Accra, only 11 percent of the 1.4 million
residents benefit from home collection, while the remaining
89 percent dispose of their waste at community dumps, in
open spaces, in water bodies, and in storm draining
channels (Mariwah, 2012; Songsore, 1992).
The current state of waste collection suggests a need to
consistently update the data on the rate of the generation
of solid waste in the Sekondi-Takoradi metropolis. As was
recorded by Korley and Fianko 2017, the landfill in
Sekondi-Takoradi does not have a functioning
weighbridge. This means actual quantity of waste
collected is not known. In order to develop additional
infrastructure to accommodate the ever increasing
quantum of waste, there is the need for records on
changing trends in the composition of the waste stream in
order to upgrade infrastructure to absorb all the
components of solid waste. Based on their origin,
characteristics and compositions, household wastes could
be handled in different ways to achieve the development
of ecologically friendly and healthful waste management
system (Miafodzyeva et al., 2013).
The purpose of the study was to examine solid waste
management practices in households of Sekondi-Takoradi
Metropolis.
Within this context the study sought to:
i. Identify existing practices of solid waste collection and
disposal at the household level.
ii. Find out sound practices of the waste collection
strategy.
iii. Identify the major actors in the waste management
system and their tasks.
iv. Look for opportunities for improvement in the waste
management system of Sekondi-Takoradi.
METHODOLOGY
Profile of the Study Area
Location
The study area lies in the Western Region of Ghana and
is the capital of the region. The Sekondi – Takoradi
Metropolitan Area (STMA) is located between latitudes
4°55´59.21 North and longitudes 1°42´50.09”S (Figure 1).
Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis covers a land area of 49 km²
and Sekondi is the administrative headquarters of the
region. The metropolis is bordered to the West by Ahanta
West District, to the North by Mpohor Wassa East, to the
East by Shama District and to the South by the Gulf of
Guinea. The metropolis is located on the West Coast,
about 242km west of Accra and 280km East of La Cote
D’Ivoire. It is thus strategically located, considering its
closeness to the sea and the airports and accessibility to
major cities by rail and road (Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis
Assembly, 2012). The metropolis has four sub-metro
offices which are responsible for the day-to-day
administration of their area whilst major decisions are
taken by the STMA in Sekondi (Sekondi-Takoradi
Metropolis Assembly, 2012).

J. Environ. Waste Manag. 226
Figure 1: Geographical location of Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolitan
Assembly
Source: ghanadistricts.com
Land Use
The land use patterns in the study area can be
summarized in the following ways:
 Predominantly residential.
 Commerce frequently exists within residential areas,
creating a “mixed-use” pattern.
 Several central commercial business districts.
 Harbour.
 Airport.
 Industries limited to the western and eastern ends.
 Rapid expansion without any urban sprawl.
Climate
The study area falls under the equatorial climate of the
West African sub-region with a mean temperature of 220C
and mean annual rainfall of 2350 mm. The metropolis
experiences two raining seasons with the highest between
May and July whiles the minor is between September and
October. Vegetation in the study area is highly woodland
in the northern and central parts, while thickets
intermingled with tall grass species occurs along the coast.
Demography
According to the 2010 national population and housing
census, the Metropolis has a population of 559,548;
comprising 273,436 males and 286,112 (Ghana Statistical
Service, 2012). The STMA is also known to accommodate
an estimated floating population of 80,000 made up of
people from neighboring districts who commute into the
city daily for civic, trade and industrial activities. The
average population per community is 8, 969. Takoradi has
the highest population density of 75,428 people while the
Ahanta Abasa had the lowest population density of 1,692
residents. The total number of households in the
geographic jurisdiction of the STMA is 96,535. The
average number of households per community is 2099
(CHF, 2010).
Research Design
The research strategy adopted was the descriptive
methodology. A descriptive research intends to present
facts concerning the nature and status of a situation, as it
exists at the time of the study and to describe present
conditions, events or systems based on the impression or
reaction of the respondents of the research (Creswell,
1994). In the study, both qualitative and quantitative data
were collected, making it a mixed method research.
However, most of the data collected were qualitative in
nature. Qualitative approach is mainly descriptive and
involves the collection and analysis of data that is
concerned with meanings, attitudes and beliefs, rather
than quantitative method that results in numerical counts
from which statistical inferences can be drawn (Ogier,
2002).
The bulk of the information were collected through open-
ended questionnaire, face-to-face interviews and
secondary sources, and supported with quantitative
information which was collected through household
survey. Semi-structured questionnaire were developed
and used. The decision to use this instrument was due to
the fact that it was considered a suitable method by which
reliable information could be elicited in the study where
variables’ being investigated requires statement of facts
and opinion. Semi-structured questionnaire has an
advantage of producing a good amount of responses from
a relatively small and varied population. It provided a more
accurate picture of events and sought to explain people’s
perception and behaviour on the basis of data gathered at
a point in time. It was appropriate and it helped the
researcher to obtain quick and relevant responses from
population.
Thorough review of all available published and
unpublished documents of relevant organizations was
then conducted to ensure reliability of all primary data.
Data Collection
The data collection was done using checklists which were
pre-tested prior to the actual field work. The bulk of the

Table 1: Sample size
Income Level Name Of Selected Town Total Number of Houses % Housing units Number Of Households
Surveyed.
High class Anaji Estates 1712 55.7 77
Middle class Adiembra 1081 35.2 49
Low class Ntankoful 280 9.1 13
TOTAL 3073 100 138
Source of data: Ghana Statistical Service, 2010
data generated for this study were qualitative. At least two
interviews, two focus group discussion, and three case
studies were made in the study area. Face-to-face
interviews were conducted with management waste
collection service providers and city authorities. Semi-
structured questionnaire were answered by the director of
waste management department of STMA and managers
of four (4) waste collection service providers, because
preliminary investigations revealed that they would not be
available for interviews. One Hundred and Thirty-Eight
(138) household heads were assisted by the researcher to
answer semi-structured questionnaire. Focus group
discussion were held with scavengers at the Takoradi
landfill, as well as waste pickers in the surveyed
communities. Field observations were made at all waste
collection and disposal sites. This comprised household
collection points and communal waste collection points in
the selected neigbourhoods, as well as the only municipal
dumpsite in the metropolis. Field observations were
captured in still photographs.
Sampling Techniques for household survey
The sub-cities of the Sekondi-Takoradi metropolis are
diverse, and therefore needed to be stratified to get
adequate representation of the citizenry for the household
survey. To attain uniformity, towns in metropolis were
classified into high income, middle income and low income
areas to form the strata. The classification was done by the
Ghana Statistical Service, western regional office. Within
a stratum, simple random sampling was applied to select
one town. This was achieved by writing the names of the
towns on folded paper and picking one from the lot.
Considering the jumbled nature of building coding in
Ghana, random sampling could not be applied to select
households. Thus, convenient sampling was used to
select households on the field. The households were
selected based on the following criteria:
i. willingness to participate,
ii. availability for interview, and
iii. even spatial selection.
Sample Size for household survey
In the estimation of households’ sampling size, the formula
by Daniel (1987) was adopted as follows:
𝒏 =
𝑵𝒁 𝟐
𝑷𝑸
𝒅 𝟐(𝑵 − 𝟏) + 𝒁 𝟐 𝑷𝑸
where, n = sample size
N = population size,
Z = 1.96 for an error of 0.05,
P = prevalence estimated,
q = 1 – p
d = precision.
According to the data obtained from the 2010 Population
and Housing Census (Ghana Statistical Service, 2010),
the total housing stock within the metropolis is estimated
at 36,079 (N) and out of this about 90 percent (P)
according to the metropolitan planning unit of STMA are
residential with the remaining 10 percent being used for
commercial activities, offices and other activities other
than for residential purposes. Therefore, n = 138 is the
minimum sample size of housing units for reliable results
(Table 1). The sample size used for the survey was
therefore One Hundred and Thirty Eight (138). This was to
ensure that the sampled mean was closer to the population
mean and minimize errors.
Sampling with probability to size was used to decide on the
number of households to be surveyed in each stratum.
Thus a proportion of the selected towns in the original
housing stock of STMA were deduced as follows.
Quantification of and characterization of solid waste
in Sekondi-Takoradi
Data Processing and Analysis
The Microsoft Office Excel Package was used to process
the quantitative data of the solid waste quantification and
characterization. The data were processed into statistical
tables and charts for easy interpretation and discussion.
Processed data were analysed both quantitatively and
qualitatively. The sequence followed was:
a. Descriptive analysis was applied to describe the
distribution and range of responses to each variable of
the household survey. Descriptive techniques were
also employed in interpreting qualitative data on theme
such as handling practices and the availability of
collection services in households.
b. Data was recorded into categories where appropriate.
For example, availability of storage bin, mode of
disposal, etc. to enable statistically meaningful
comparison of sub-groups.
c. Simple cross-tabulations was used to identify trends
and examine possible associations between one
variable and another. For example, will availability of
storage bin influence truck pick-up mode of disposal?

Cross examination on the completeness, accuracy and
consistency on the questionnaire responses were carried
out to eliminate errors prior to the analysis.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Summary of Existing Waste Collection Practices in
Sekondi-Takoradi
In Local Government Legislation 1994 (Act 462), municipal
authorities are responsible for the management of solid
waste. The Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly
(STMA) exercises this responsibility through its waste
management department in Sekondi. According to
information received from the waste management
department, each of the 559,548 inhabitants in STMA
generates 0.6kg of solid waste every day. As a result, the
inhabitants of the metropolis generate an estimated
335.73 tons of solid waste daily; and 250-290 tons of these
are collected for disposal (STMA, 2015). Normally, the
remaining thirteen percent (13%) waste fraction is
unaccounted for in the waste management system. A
careful field observations revealed that most uncollected
waste is left at various collection points as spill over, which
are left to be collected at a later date.
Figure 2: Summary of waste collection service delivery
Another findings is that the people practice dumping
together its waste irrespective of their nature and
composition. All household waste is stored and disposed
of together, including harzadous substances such as dry
cell or batteries and machine oil (it is only industrial
harzadous waste in large quantities that is known to be
collected and disposed of separately). Two strategies are
widely used for waste collection namely: kerbside (house-
to-house) collection and communal collection stations. The
provision of any of these collection services is influenced
by three major factors namely: income level of
communities, the capacity of the waste contractor and
appropriate road network. Waste is typically stored in a
240 liter bin and picked by collection trucks in the case of
house-to-house collection. On the other hand, waste is
dumped in a municipal collection container as in the case
of communal collection system, in which case there is not
much necessity for the 240 liter bin. It was further
discovered that all collected solid waste is transported by
collection trucks of private waste companies to a final
municipal dump site at Essipong. Central collection
containers are placed at vantage points such as market
places, hospitals, central business districts and low
income communities to receive waste. The communal
collection bins are emptied periodically (mostly twice a
week) by the waste collection contractors of the Assembly.
For most households in middle income communities, they
patronize communal station for convenience. That is, in
instances where the communal station is closest and the
service delivery is reliable, they choose that option for
refuse disposal. For low income communities however, the
motivation for patronage is the affordability of the fees
charge at the communal stations. The average fees are
GH₵1.0 ($0.22) per throw at communal stations and
GH₵15.00 ($3.4) per month for kerbside collection.
The Distribution of Waste Collection Services
Kerbside waste service is popularly called door-to-door
collection. This service is typically delivered to high income
communities and some middle income communities.
Results of the household survey indicated that 100 percent
of households in high income communities and 75 percent
of those in middle income communities enjoy house-to-
house waste collection services. About 20 percent of
middle income households and 90 percent of low income
households patronize communal collection services
(Figure 3). The remaining households do not have any
collection service. It was further discovered that collection
and disposal of household waste in Sekondi-Takoradi vary
significantly from one income group to another. This
means that not much has changed since a similar report
was published by Baabeyir in the year 2009. This is also
consistent with findings in other parts of Ghana by previous
authors like Zurbrugg (2003), Anomanyo (2004), Tsiboe
(2004) and Oduro-Kwarteng (2011) which pointed out that
the quality of service of solid waste collection in low-
income areas is poor as compared to middle and high
income areas.
Kerbside
(House to
House)
57%
Communal
collection
stations
36%
No service
7%
Summary Of Waste Collection
Service Delivery

Figure 3: Waste collection profile of households
The challenges of collection and disposal of solid waste
continues to feature prominently in major communities
across the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis. The
contamination of water bodies leading to spread of water-
borne diseases, stench emanating from uncollected and
decaying garbage and garbage-chocked drains filled with
plastic waste are some of the waste management
challenges which are readily visible in the metropolis. In
the metropolis, households without waste collection
services get rid of their waste by burning. About 70 percent
of them believe that burning of waste does not create any
nuisance or negative health impact to the environment.
However, when others were asked to indicate the major
environmental challenges in these areas, most of them
stated that they suffer from smoke air pollution. Some
residents even expressed great fear for drying washed
clothes in the day for fear that it will smell smoke. These
findings are consistent with what is reported by
environmental health officers of the STMA that the majority
of reports from communities without waste collection
services indicated smoke nuisance from blazing refuse
dumps. It is believed that burning of waste contributes
significantly to urban air pollution and greenhouse gases
(GHGs) and such conditions pose threat to human and
environmental wellbeing (UN-HABITAT, 2010).
Household Waste Storage Practices
The storage of solid waste was seen to have profound
impact on the overall waste management system. In many
houses, waste was stored in flexible plastic bags and these
attract dogs and rodents which scatter the waste in an
attempt to scavenge food left over. In houses where waste
was not handled properly, it served as breeding grounds
for pest and especially flies.
All in all, 89 percent of households have storage facilities
of some sort. 11 percent of households had no storage
facility. The households without storage facility dispose of
their waste on daily basis because they had no collection
services. Therefore, they do not need a storage facility.
The survey further revealed that all households (100
percent) in the high income class (HIC) and 70 percent of
middle income class (MIC) households have standard 240
litre bin with tight fitting lid whilst none of the low income
class (LIC) households had the 240 litre bin (Table 3.1 2).
The 240 litre bin is the standard prescribed for storing
domestic waste according to the Waste Management
Department (WMD).
Table 2: Domestic waste storage characteristics
High Income Households Middle Income Households Low Income Households
 100% have standard 240 liter bin  75% have 240 litre bin
 20% have smaller indoor bins
 5 percent do not have storage bins
 0% have standard 240 litre bin
 Uses different kinds of storage facilities
 Able to acquire adequate storage bins
for their waste
 Unable to afford enough bins.
 Waste mostly overflows
 Use the facility that can well contain their
waste.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
HIC MIC LIC
100%
75%
0%0%
20%
90%
0%
5%
10%
Predominant waste collection services
DOOR-TO-DOOR
COMMUNAL COLLECTION
NO SERVICE

Plate 1: HIC storage facilities Plate 2: MIC storage facilities
Plate 3: LIC storage facilities
The households without storage facilities were found to be
using different types of hardware as storage containers
and this is based on the purchasing power of the
household and its suitability for the type of waste
generated. Most containers found in use include polythene
bags, basket, old plastic buckets, cardboards etc (Plate 3).
Additional findings indicate that 100 percent households in
the HIC and 40 percent in the MIC were of the view that
the 240 litre bin was big enough to store all their household
waste. The study revealed that the retention period of the
waste influences the capacity of the storage facility
needed. High income households retain their waste for a
maximum 3 to 4 days due to the fact that they have high
purchasing power so are able to subscribe to twice weekly
collection service. Middle income households retain their
waste for at least 7 days because they register for weekly
waste collection service. Majority of the respondents (over
50 percent) stated that one bin was not enough for the
period. Most of these households could not afford
additional standard bin, as such they always have “baby
waste” in polythene bags or other containers added to the
240L bin (Plate 2). This uncontained waste becomes a
haven for flies and vermin and leads to the spread of
diseases.
Communal Waste Collection Stations
Communal collections stations are typically called
“communal container sites” to depict the nature of the
collection bins which are metal refuse containers. The
metal containers are of two main types namely: 12m3 skip
and 13m3 roro. The communal collection stations are the
most predominantly patronized mode of waste disposal by
the inhabitants of the city of Sekondi and Takoradi widely.
This is attributable to the moderately charged fees,
averagely GH₵0.5 ($0.13) per throw. The study
discovered that the municipality has constructed container
docks in designated places in the towns where people from
a locality are expected to dispose their waste. It is known

Plate 4: Communal waste collection point with 12m3 skip container bin.
Table 3: Waste collections service providers in Sekondi-Takoradi.
Zoomlion Ghana
Limited
Vermark J Stanley Owusu
Company
Cudjoe Construction
Operational Zone Takoradi Sub-metro Effia-kwesimitsim Sekondi Esikado-Ketan
Type of service
delivery
Door-to-door
Communal
Door-to-door
Communal
Door-to-door
Communal
Door-to-door
Communal
Fleet capacity More than 5 3 4 2
Personnel More than 20 Less than 20 Less than 20 Less than 20
that lack of garbage bins induces people to litter the towns
and throw their garbage anywhere for convenience. As a
result, some of the container bins have been placed close
to vehicular terminals to receive waste from the public. The
idea is to have a central point in commercial areas where
people can dispose their waste. From here the waste is
collected and hauled to the final disposal site at Essipong.
Majority of these central bins, however, are uncovered and
open which attracts flies, insects and pests. The most
worrisome aspect of these bins is that due to their
proximity to population, they pose serious health threats to
locals.
The communal containers are not serviced regularly,
except for those that are along the main business district
and tourist attraction points. Since majority of the bins are
open, dogs and other stray animals drag all manner of
waste from the bin unto the street, especially baby diapers.
During field investigations, it was observed that majority of
docks and bins were overflowing with waste uncollected
for several days in the metropolis (Plate 4). This has the
tendency of breeding diseases such as typhoid, cholera
and chicken pox which are sanitation related.
Public Private Partnerships in waste collection
The law of Ghana that established metropolitan and
municipal assemblies, empowers the city authorities to
give out contract for waste collection in a form of public
private partnership. This research revealed the existence
of public private partnership in Sekondi Takoradi, similar to
what has been reported by Baabereyir (2009). The study
further discovered that all solid waste collection service
(100 percent) in the metropolis was contracted to private
companies. Accordingly, the study sought to identify the
major service providers in Sekondi-Takoradi and their
capacity in terms of trucks and staff for waste collection.
Information received from the WMD revealed four private
companies that have been contracted under franchise to
collect and dispose MSW on behalf of the assembly since
2012. Each contractor had been assigned a sub-metro
referred to as operational zones (Table 3).
Final Disposal of Collected Household Waste
Sekondi-Takoradi has one landfill. All solid waste is
transported to the facility at Essipong for controlled
dumping (Plate 5). A group of waste pickers are permitted
to operate on the dumpsite, a practice that is widely called
scavenging in Ghana. Scavenging helps to increase the
life span of landfill space. The received waste is buried in
the ground and covered with sand, and all this is done with
the aid of earth moving machinery including bulldozers.
Controlled dumping is a practice in which solid waste is
disposed and spread on a land surface and precautionary
measures are used to control stench and the breeding of
pest and vermin so as to minimize environmental health
effects (Cal Recovery, 2005).

Plate 5: Waste disposal and material recovery at Takoradi landfill
The landfill receives an estimated 220-260 tons of MSW
daily. The dump site lacks a weighbridge to accurately
measure the load received for disposal. As a result, all
figures recorded on-site are estimates and not actual. This
negatively affects waste management planning since the
backlog of uncollected waste cannot be accurately
calculated.
CONCLUSION
Till date, city authorities of Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis
discriminate in providing waste collection services. Lower
income communities and sub-urban areas have been
neglected in service delivery. As a result, their disposal
practices of dumping waste into drains and bushes,
reduces the effectiveness of the overall waste
management system. Mismanagement practices such as
illegal refuse dumps, burning of waste and discarding of
waste into bushes and drains are profound. A sharp
contrast is seen in the High income and Middle income
communities. The residents here are much conscious
about waste disposal. Many of them receive free dustbins
to store their waste before trucks come for collection. The
most revealing outcome of the study is the mixed system
of communal service and kerbside service for middle
income communities. Part of the communities request for
kerbside collection when they have good access roads.
Other communities with poor access roads opt for
communal bins. With this mixed system strategy, all waste
generated in middle income communities are collected for
disposal. All high income earning communities opt for
kerbside collection service and the assembly delivers
without fail.
Finally, because population is growing exponentially, and
waste collection infrastructure is not increasing at the
same pace, city authorities must strongly advocate waste
reduction, reuse and recycling in the households. This will
make up for the shortfall in infrastructure. It will reduce the
quantity of waste that needs disposal. It will also minimize
pressure on existing waste infrastructure and give city
authorities ample time to plan for the acquisition of
additional infrastructure.
REFERENCES
Anku, S. (2008). National Report for Ghana: Waste
management in Ghana. Retrieved from the United Nations
Website: http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/dsd.
Accessed May 17, 2016.
Baabereyir A. (2009). “Urban Environmental Problems
in Ghana: A Case Study of Social and Environmental
Injustice in Solid Waste Management in Accra and
Sekondi-Takoradi”. International reference centre for
waste disposal, WHO collaboratice. 193, 82-96.
Fei-Baffoe B, Nyankson AE, Gorkeh-Miah J.
(2014).Municipal Solid Waste Management in Sekondi-
Takoradi, Ghana. Journal of Waste Management.
823752.
Bartone C, Bernstein J, Frederick W. (1990). Investment
in Solid Waste Management: Opportunities for
environmental improvement. The World Bank WPS.
405, 231-240.
Basel Convention. A Global Solution for Controlling
Hazardous Waste: United Nations Environment
Program; 1997.
Bilitewski B, Hardtle G, Marek K, Weissback A, Boeddicker
H. (1994). Waste Management. Berlin, Germany:
Springer-verlag.
Boadi OK, Kuitunen M. (2002). Municipal Solid Waste
Management in Accra Metropolitan Area. Accra,
Ghana: UNEP.

Boakye C. (2005). Solid Waste Collection Systems in
Ghana. World Bank Urban Forum. 2005, 29-37.
Bolaane B, Ali M. (2004). Sampling Household Waste at
Source: Lessons Learnt in Gaborone. Waste
Management & Research. 22: 142–148.
Burger P, Ian H. (2011). How To Attain Value for Money:
Comparing PPP and Traditional Infrastructure Public
Procurement. OECD Journal on Budgeting. 2011, 1-8.
CalRecovery. (2005). Solid Waste Management. Millerton,
NY: Grey House.
Change YJ, Lin MD. (2013). Development of the decision
support system for central Taiwan. Waste Management
& Research. 3(5), 435-446.
Chakrabarti S, Sarkhel P. (2003). Economics of Solid
Waste Management: A Survey of Existing Literature.
Economic Research Unit Indian Statistical Institute. 30,
1-9.
CHF International. Sekondi-Takoradi Poverty Map: A
guide to urban poverty reduction in Sekondi-Takoradi,
Ghana: CHF International; 2010.
Collivignarelli C. (2004). Solid Wastes Management in
Developing Countries. ISWA World Congress. 2004,
17–21.
Creswell JW. (1994). Research Design. Qualitative and
Quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.
Daniel WW. (1987). Biostatistics: A foundation for analysis
in the health sciences. Millerton, N Y: John Wiley &
Sons.
Devas N, Korboe D. (2000). City governance and poverty:
The case of Kumasi. Environment and urbanization, 12,
123-136.
Environmental sanitation policy. (2010). Accra, Ghana:
Ministry of Local Government & Rural Development.
Ghana Statistical Service. Population and Housing
Census 2000 Reports: Ghana Statistical Service; 2000.
Ghana Statistical Service. Population and Housing
Census 2010 Reports: Ghana Statistical Service; 2010.
Holmes JR. (1981). Refuse recycling and recovery. New
York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Hoornweg D, Laura T, Keshav V. What a Waste: Solid
Waste Management in Asia.
http://www.worldbank.org/urban/solid_wm/erm/CWG%
20folder/uwp1.pdf. Accessed October 8, 2016.
Hui Y, Li’ao W, Fenwei S, Gan H. (2006). Urban solid
waste management in Chongqing: Challenges and
opportunities. Waste management. 26, 1052-1062.
Korley TN, Fianko JR. (2017) Solid Waste Management:
Recovery, Reuse and Recycling in Sekondi-Takoradi
Metropolis of Ghana. Journal of Environment and
Waste Management. 4(1): 181-193.
Krook, J, Martennson A, Eklund M. (2007). Evaluating
Waste Management Strategies: A case of metal-
contaminated waste wood. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling. 52,103-118.
Mamo M, Halbach TR, Rosen CJ. (2002). Utilization of
municipal solid waste compost for crop production.
Michigan, NY: University of Michigan.
Mariwah S. (2012). Institutional arrangements for
managing solid waste in the Shama-Ahanta-East
Metropolis, Ghana. Journal of Sustainable
Development in Africa. 14, 292-312.
Martin M, Williams ID, Clark M. (2006). Social, cultural and
structural inﬂuences on household waste recycling: A
case study. Resources Conservation and Recycling.
48, 357–395.
McDougall FR, White PR, Franke M, Hindle P. (2001).
Integrated solid waste management: A life cycle
inventory. Oxford, London: Blackwell Science.
Medina M. (1997). Informal recycling and collection of solid
wastes in developing countries: Issues and
opportunities. UNU/IAS Working paper. 24, 17-35.
Medina M. (1999). Globalization, development, and
municipal solid waste management in third world cities.
Tijuana, Mexico: Mexico.
Mensah A. (2004). Solid waste management.
Unpublished lecture notes of Civil Engineering
Department. Kwame Nkrumah University of Science
and Technology. Kumasi, Ghana.
Miafodzyeva S, Braudt N, Anderson M. (2013). Recycling
Behaviour of Households in Multicultural Urban Area: A
Case study of Jarva, Stockholm, Sweden. Waste
Management and Research. 31(4), 447-457.
Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development.
Sanitation Country Profile.
http://www.un.org/esta/agenda21/ghana/sanitationGH
ANA04.pdf. Accessed January 2016.
Musademba D. (2011). Municipality solid waste
management challenges in Chinhoyi town in
Zimbabwe: Opportunities of waste reduction. Journal of
Sustainable Development in Africa. 13(2), 168-179.
Obong LB. (2007). Waste management education: A
panacea for effective solid waste management. Journal
of Scientific and Industrial Studies. 5(3), 69-73.
Ogier M. (2002). Reading research: How to make research
more approachable. Tokyo, Japan: Bailliére Tindall.
Onibokun AG, Kumuyi AJ. (2003). The urbanization
process in Africa. International Development Research
Center. 187, 34-51.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development. Principles for the use of Public-Private
Partnerships: Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development; 2011.
Peavy HS, Rowe DR, Tchobanoglous G. (1985).
Environmental Engineering, McGraw-Hill series in
water resources and environmental management. 65,
573-592.
Pradhan UM. (2008). Sustainable solid waste
management in a mountain ecosystem: Darjeeling,
West Bengal, India. University Microfilms Incorporated.
52, 32-41.
Rotech KH. (2006). Municipal solid waste management
challenges in developing countries: Kenyan study,
Waste management and research. 26, 92–100.

Schertenleib R, Meyer W. (1996). Municipal solid waste
management in developing countries: Problems and
issues; need for future research. International
Reference Centre for Waste Disposal. 32, 2-8.
Songsore J. (1992). Review of household environmental
problems in Greater Accra, Ghana. Stockholm
Environmental Institute. 159, 267-39.
Sekondi Takoradi Metropolis Assembly. The Composite
Budget of the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolitan Assembly
for the 2012 Fiscal Year.
http://www.mofep.gov.gh/2012budget. Accessed
October 5, 2016.
SekondiTakoradi Metropolis Assembly. STMA.
http://stma.ghanadistricts.gov.gh/ab
out_this_metropolis. Accessed August 20, 2017.
Solid waste management toolkit. (1994). Cointreau,
Levine: PPIAF.
Tchbanoglous G, Theisen H, Vigil SA. (1993). Integrated
solid waste management: Engineering principles and
management issues. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Tchobanoglous G, Theisen H, Eliasssen R. (1977). Solid
waste: Engineering principles and management issues.
New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Training manual for municipal waste management in
Africa. (1998). Viena, Austria: UNIDO.
Tucker P. (1999). Normative inﬂuences in household
waste recycling. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management. 42, 63–82.
Tulokhonova A, Ulanov O. (2003). Assessment of
municipal solid waste management scenarios in Irkutsk
(Russia) using Life Cycle Assessment – integrated
waste management model. Waste Management &
research. 16, 91-96.
UNCED (1992). Agenda 21: Action Plan. In next century
United Nations conference on environment and
development. United Nations, Rio de Janeiro.
United Nations Environment Program. Training module:
Closing an Open Dumpsite and Shifting from Open
Dumping to Controlled Dumping and to Sanitary
Landfill: United Nations Environment Program; 2005.
United Nations Environment Program. Selection, Design
and Implementation of Economic Instruments in the
Solid Waste Management Sector in Kenya: The Case
of Plastic Bags: United Nations Environment Program;
2005.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Waste
Guidelines: Waste definitions. Retrieved from the
Environmental Protection Agency website:
http://www.epa.sa.gov.au. Accessed February 19,
2017.
Wakjira AL. (2007). Household solid waste generation rate
and composition analysis in two selected Kebeles of
Adama Town. MSc. Thesis. Addis Ababa University.
Wateraid International. (2010). Solid Waste Management
in Nepal: Retrieved from the Wateraid International
Website: http://www.wateraid.org. Accessed May 19,
2016.
World Health Organisation Expert Committee Report, No.
484, pp.15.
Accepted 13 September, 2017
Citation: Korley TN and Fianko JR (2017) HOUSEHOLD
WASTE MANAGEMENT IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES:
A case of Sekondi - Takoradi, Ghana. Journal of
Environment and Waste Management 4(3): 224-234.
Copyright: © 2017 Korley and Fianko. This is an open-
access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are cited.

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN HOUSEHOLDS: A case of Sekondi-Takoradi, Ghana

More Related Content

Similar to SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN HOUSEHOLDS: A case of Sekondi-Takoradi, Ghana

More from Premier Publishers

Recently uploaded

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN HOUSEHOLDS: A case of Sekondi-Takoradi, Ghana