solid waste management in households: a case of … · management system of sekondi-takoradi....

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: [email protected] Tel: +233262738032 Co-Author Email: [email protected]

Journal of Environment and Waste Management

Vol. 4(3), pp. 224-234, October, 2017. © www.premierpublishers.org. ISSN: XXXX-XXXX

Case Study

http://www.premierpublishers.org/


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


Korley and Fianko 227

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 =𝑵𝒁𝟐𝑷𝑸

𝒅𝟐(𝑵 − 𝟏) + 𝒁𝟐𝑷𝑸

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?


J. Environ. Waste Manag. 228 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 service7%

Summary Of Waste CollectionService 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




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.


Korley and Fianko 233 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/sanitationGHANA04.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.


J. Environ. Waste Manag. 234 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 … · management system of sekondi-takoradi....

Documents