Brown john dissertation

i
ASSESSMENT OF DOMESTIC SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AT
HOUSEHOLD LEVEL NYAMAGANA MUNICIPALITY IN MWANZA CITY,
NORTHERN TANZANIA
John Brown (BSc. BIO)
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF REQUIREMENT
FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF PUBLIC HEALTH (MPH)
OF THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH AND ALLIED SCIENCES
2015

i
Certification
13-10-28
10-13-2015
i

ii
Declaration
I, John Brown, do hereby declare to the Senate of CUHAS that this dissertation is my original
work and that the work presented herein has not been presented to any other university for similar
or any other degree award.
Signature…………………………. Date.….../...…./2015
This dissertation is a copyright material protected under the Berne Convention, the Copyright Act
of 1999 and other international and national enactments, in that behalf, on intellectual property. It
may not be reproduced by any means, in full or in part, except for short extracts in fair dealing; for
research or private study, critical scholarly review or discourse with an acknowledgement, without
written permission of the School of Postgraduate Studies, on behalf of both the author and Catholic
University of Health and Allied Sciences – Tanzania.

iii
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my beloved family and supporters Albert Brown, Rose Brown,
Billy Brown, Mary Brown, Hilda Brown, Jane Brown, Joel Brown and my fiancé Shania Mushi
for their unending prayer, encouragement and financial support for the whole period of this study.

iv
Acknowledgements
I give thanks to the Almighty God for His love, wisdom and knowledge that has enabled me to
successfully complete this research task. My heartfelt appreciation goes to my supervisors Dr
Laura J. McLeod, Dr. Richard E. Scott, Mr. Daniel J. Makerere and Elias C. Nyanza for their
professional guidance, timely response, constant constructive comments and their tireless
motivation and moral support to accomplish this study, which would have been hard to accomplish
without their assistance.
I am also very grateful to Madam Shibide who helped me during data analysis. Very special thanks
to Mary Enns who helped me tirelessly in polishing my research proposal and assistance in writing
process.
I acknowledge the City Council Director of Mwanza City for granting permission to conduct the
study among households of Nyamagana Municipality. Also, I extend thanks to Razao Noémio who
worked as research assistant in this study.
I am greatly indebted to my family for financial support and encouragement.
Many thanks are also extended to the members of School of Public Health and 2014/2015 Masters
of Public Health students for their loving heart in different aspects. I pray to the almighty God to
bless them all abundantly.

v
Contents Pg. No
Certification................................................................................................................................ i
Declaration................................................................................................................................. ii
Dedication................................................................................................................................. iii
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ..............................................................................................................................x
List of Figures........................................................................................................................... xi
List of Plates ............................................................................................................................. xi
List of Appendices ................................................................................................................... xii
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................................................... xiii
Operational Definitions ............................................................................................................xiv
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................xvi
CHAPTER ONE.........................................................................................................................1
1.0. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................1
1.1. Background Information...................................................................................................1
1.2. Problem Statement............................................................................................................3
1.3. Study Rationale ................................................................................................................4
1.4. Research Question............................................................................................................5
1.5. Research Objectives .........................................................................................................5
1.5.1. Broad Objective.............................................................................................................5

vi
1.5.2. Specific Objectives........................................................................................................5
1.6. Research Variables ...........................................................................................................6
1.6.1. Independent variables ....................................................................................................6
1.6.2. Dependent variables.......................................................................................................6
CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................................................7
2.0. LITERATURE REVIEW.....................................................................................................7
2.1. Solid Waste ......................................................................................................................7
2.1.1. Human Waste ................................................................................................................7
2.1.2. Sullage ..........................................................................................................................7
2.1.3. Municipal Waste............................................................................................................7
2.1.4. Hazardous Waste...........................................................................................................8
2.1.5. Mwanza Waste Collection and Management..................................................................9
2.1.6. Community Based Approach (CBA) to Household SWM ..............................................9
2.1.7. The Environmental (Solid Waste Management) Standard Regulations, 2002 ...............10
2.1.8. Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) Approach..............................................10
2.1.9. Household Willingness to pay......................................................................................11
2.1.10. Household Decision to waste disposal........................................................................12
2.1.11. Solid waste transportation..........................................................................................12
2.1.12. Solid waste final disposal...........................................................................................13
2.1.13. Environmental problems associated with solid waste .................................................13

vii
2.1.14. Household perception on effectiveness of SWM ........................................................14
2.1.15. Determinants of effective household SWM................................................................15
2.1.16. Municipal SW collection, transportation and disposal in Tanzania .............................16
2.2. Conceptual Framework...................................................................................................17
CHAPTER THREE...................................................................................................................19
3.0 METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................................19
3.1. Study setting...................................................................................................................19
3.1.1. Study area Demography ..........................................................................................19
3.1.2. Economic activities and the current WM system in Mwanza City............................19
3.2. Study design...................................................................................................................20
3.3 Study population .............................................................................................................20
3.4. Eligibility Criteria...........................................................................................................20
3.5. Sample Size and Sampling Procedures............................................................................21
3.5.1 Sample Size Estimation ................................................................................................21
3.5.2. Sampling procedures ...................................................................................................22
3.6. Data Collection Techniques............................................................................................22
3.7. Data analysis ..................................................................................................................23
3.8. Quality Assurance and Quality Control...........................................................................23
3.9. Ethical considerations.....................................................................................................24
3.10. Study Limitations .........................................................................................................25

viii
3.11. Data Dissemination and Knowledge translation ............................................................25
CHAPTER FOUR.....................................................................................................................27
4.0. RESULTS..........................................................................................................................27
4.1 Socio-demographic characteristics of Household members in Nyamagana Municipality..27
4.2. Period of residence in Mwanza city of the household heads ............................................30
4.3. Domestic SW generation collection and disposal............................................................30
4.4. Domestic SW generation and handling at household level ..............................................31
4.5. Knowledge of the existing Mwanza City recommendations and barriers to SWM practices
34
4.7. Willingness to pay for waste collection services in Nyamagana Households ...................38
4.7. Observation practice of SW disposal in households ........................................................40
CHAPTER FIVE ......................................................................................................................42
5.0. DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................42
5.1. Socio-demographics status of households in the Nyamagana Municipality .....................42
5.2. The knowledge of Nyamagana residents toward disposal of household SW ....................42
5.3. Common existing SW managing practice at household levels/Observed Situation of
Household SWM in Nyamagana Municipality.......................................................................44
5.3.1. Attitude toward Willingness to Pay..........................................................................45
5.4. Household challenges to standard SWM practice in Nyamagana Municipality................46
CHAPTER SIX.........................................................................................................................48
6.0. CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................48

ix
6.1. Conclusions....................................................................................................................48
6.2. Recommendations ..........................................................................................................48
6.2.1. Recommendation for interventions ..............................................................................49
6.2.2. Recommendation for Further Research ........................................................................50
REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................51
APPENDICES ..........................................................................................................................58

x
List of Tables
Table 1. Table of socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents ....................................29
Table 2. Possession of waste collection bin, type and presence of dug hole in the compound.....30
Table 3. Weekly production of domestic SW and disposal of the waste bin/bag ........................31
Table 4. Type(s) of refuse container used in daily practices.......................................................31
Table 5. Responses regarding disposal sites for waste ...............................................................33
Table 6. Knowledge on SWM as per the existing recommendations of Mwanza city .................34
Table 7. Knowledge of waste services.......................................................................................35
Table 8. Socio-demographic variables versus knowledge and practice of WM...........................35
Table 9. Association of good SWM practices with demographic characteristics ........................37
Table 10. Challenges in WM among households in Nyamagana Municipality ...........................38
Table 11. Willingness to pay for waste collection service at home.............................................39
Table 12. Preferred amount to pay for waste collection services by households per collection over
the Municipal fee for waste collection in households.................................................................39
Table 13. Observation checklist elucidating possession and real practice from households’ in waste
management..............................................................................................................................40

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: A conceptual framework on Household waste management practices, risk and benefit
outcomes...................................................................................................................................18
List of Plates
Plate 1-4. Popular types (plastic bins) and methods (bins and dug holes) of domestic SW disposal
used by households in Nyamagana Municipality .......................................................................32
Plate 5-7. Observation of poor evidence practices of waste management from households……...41

xii
List of Appendices
Appendix I: Timeline on Research ............................................................................................58
Appendix II: Consent Form (English Version) ..........................................................................59
Appendix III: Consent Form (Swahili Version) .........................................................................61
Appendix IV: Questionnaire (English Version) .........................................................................63
Appendix V: Questionnaire (Swahili Version)...........................................................................69
Appendix VI: Observation Checklist (English Version).............................................................76
Appendix VII: Observation Checklist (Swahili Version) ...........................................................77
Appendix VIII: Environmental Solid Waste Management Act...................................................78
Appendix IX: Research Clearance Certificate............................................................................84
Appendix X: Letter of Approval for research from MCC...........................................................85

xiii
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
BDT Bangladesh Taka
CBA Community Based Approach
CBOs Community Based Organizations
CUHAS Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences
ISWM Integrated Solid Waste Management
MCC Mwanza City Council
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
MSWM Municipal Solid Waste Management
NMC Nyamagana Municipal Council
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
PSO Private Sector Operator
SW Solid Waste
SWM Solid Waste Management
SWMT Solid Waste Management in Tanzania
TZS Tanzania Shilling
URT United Republic of Tanzania
WM Waste Management
WTP Willingness To Pay

xiv
Operational Definitions
A municipality: an administrative division composed of a defined territory and population.
Disposal site: any place/area on land on which a waste disposal facility is physically located and
is the final discharge point.
Environment: means physical surroundings and everything that affects an organism during its
lifetime. This includes the natural environment (such as water, soil, and air) plus the built
environment (like roads, buildings, machines, playing fields).
Hazardous waste: waste that is dangerous or potentially harmful to our health or the environment.
Household waste: a type of solid waste; specifically waste produced within the surroundings of a
dwelling / house, including but not limited to; cold ashes, sweepings, dust, food scraps or waste
food, food containers, food wrappers, or any other solid waste arising or resulting from domestic
housekeeping operations.
Human waste: waste that is excreted by the human body, e.g., faeces, sweat and urine, but also
includes waste from sanitary facilities.
Leachate: a liquid that, in the course of passing through matter, extracts soluble or suspended
solids creating a mix of toxic and nontoxic material (e.g., rainwater passing through waste in the
landfill environment) that may pose a threat to local surface and ground-water supplies.
Municipal solid waste (MSW): domestic and non-domestic solid waste such as commercial,
industrial and institutional wastes, street sweepings, and construction debris etc.
Skip: a container owned by the MCC and made available to residents for their use as part of the
council’s solid waste collection system.

xv
Solid waste management (SWM): the application of techniques that will ensure the orderly
execution of the functions of collection, transport, processing, treatment and final disposal of
solid waste.
Solid waste (SW): "regular" garbage or trash from industrial sources, residential homes,
restaurants, retail centers, and general wastes from human activities.
Sullage: waste water from household sinks, showers, and baths, but not liquid waste from
sanitary activities
Waste Stream: processes that waste travels through from production/generation to final disposal

xvi
ABSTRACT
Background: The enormous amounts of unmanaged solid wastes continue to be a public health
problem throughout the world. Current the world’s cities generate about 1.3 billion tons of solid
waste per year, and this volume is expected to increase to 2.2 billion tons by 2025. The lower
income countries are expected to generate from 0.7 to 1.8 kg per capita per day. The inability of
households in the growing Municipality of Nyamagana to handle and dispose of the increasing
amount of waste generated in their homes is a growing problem which easily exposes people to
hazards, like environmental pollution and general health concerns. This study assesses domestic
solid waste management practices at the household level. The overall objectives are to know if
common practices at individual households meet the standards of solid waste management in this
respective area, and to examine and analyze the influence of demographics and socio-economic
factors on solid waste management at the household level.
Methods: This was a cross sectional study with a total population of 120 householders interviewed
in Nyamagana Municipality using questionnaires and observation checklist. Data analysis was
performed using STATA V11.0 after entry and cleaning in EpiData V.3.1. Pearson Chi- Square
(χ2
) and p-value of less than 0.05 was used to measure association at 95% CI.
Results: the results showed only 6.7% had knowledge on Waste Management regulations of the
waste management, 78.3% of householders had moderate understanding on the management of
domestic waste recommendations and 18% of respondents had no knowledge of the existence of
Municipal solid waste services. Level of education attained by the head of household had
association in this study (p =0.04), with relation to practice of better methods of waste disposal.
Also income of householders had significance in knowledge (p<0.001) and practice (p=0.04) of
handling waste. Majority 71.7% of Nyamagana residents know health dangers related to poor

xvii
waste management and 80% of the households practiced illegal waste dumping as observed in the
fields.
Conclusions: The residents of Nyamagana Municipality need health education, a regular supply
of refuse collection facilities, emphasis on Mwanza city council’s waste management bylaw and
designated dump sites in their wards. These will encourage strict adherence to proper and
appropriate waste management practices among them.
Keywords: Waste Management, Knowledge, Practices, Nyamagana Municipality, Solid Waste

1
CHAPTER ONE
1.0. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background Information
The enormous amount of unmanaged solid wastes (SW) continues to be a nuisance and a public
health problem throughout the world. Currently, the world cities are generating about 1.3 billion
tons of solid waste per year [1]. This volume is expected to increase to 2.2 billion tonnes by 2025
[1]. Lower income countries are expected to double the amount of waste generated in the next
twenty years by an estimate of 1.8 kg per capita per day [2]. If SW is not safely collected,
separated, isolated, reused, recycled, or properly disposed of it can be hazardous, even toxic, and
can cause nuisance and serious health problems [3]. A World Bank report indicates that the
problem is more serious in urban areas as compared to rural areas and the problem is greater in
developing countries [2].
Waste management (WM) is complex because of the mass quantities of residuals produced by
modern society, but also because of differences in the composition of the waste compared to the
past [4, 5]. In urban settings WM is costly and requires long-term solutions, of which most African
nations cannot afford the cost. This is a crucial problem due to its direct link with protection of
public health, safety and the environment. In developing countries the problem is becoming an
issue even in rural settings [6, 7].
In sub-Saharan Africa alone in each year, 62 million tonnes are produced with an average per
capita waste generation of 1.1 kg per day [2]. In Dar es Salaam city, Tanzania, an estimated 42,000
tonnes of SW were produced per day in 2011 [6]. A substantial proportion of SW produced is
poorly disposed of, creating possible risks for environmental as well as public health [9].

2
Households and socio-economic centres (e.g. markets) are where most SW is produced, and create
management challenges for many urban areas in the world. [23, 24].
Solid waste management (SWM) is both civic and growing rural problem. The risk of affecting
humans through contaminated crops, animals, or food products is ever increasing. When SW
management is not considered important by a community, public health is undermined and
deterioration of environmental value begins [9].
From generation to disposal of SW, Tanzania has difficulties in monitoring and evaluating the
SWM sector. This has contributed to the failure of proper waste disposal (from households,
industry, commercial points, institutions, hospitals etc.), and poor separation, transportation, and
final disposal at land sites in the country [10].
Mwanza City Council (MCC) has a Department of Health within which the Environmental Act,
Public Health Act, waste collection and disposal sections are hosted. The departmental focus is to
ensure City cleanliness in public gatherings (e.g. open-gardens, picnic areas, stadiums, conference
rooms), households, markets, industries, and construction areas by emphasizing adherence to the
City bylaws. The standard City Council’s waste management bylaws apply to all municipalities in
Mwanza [11].
Despite the fact that Mwanza city has joined the Sustainable Cities Programme for Environmental
Management, solid wastes are still poorly managed in the city both at households, markets, and
disposal sites [12, 13]. The available Environmental Management Act 2014 (supplement No. 39,
subsidiary legislation; environmental by-laws) and the Public Health Act of Tanzania placed a
stronger emphasis on the participation of authorities and the public in WM. However, there is still
an unmanageable increase in generation of waste at households (residential), dumping sites, and

3
issues with transportation to final disposal sites [14]. Improper waste management has health risks.
For example, plugged drains after a rain storm can cause increased flooding of drainage systems
during the rainy season, with a resulting risk of malaria. Stagnant water supports breeding sites for
malaria carrying mosquitoes, leading to diarrhea infections, unpleasant odors and epidemics [8].
1.2. Problem Statement
Urbanization with inadequate waste management practices, specifically, mostly disposal of waste
on the road, waste dumping in drains-that cause clogging, littering waste around house and
uncontrolled dump sites together with ever increase in types of waste produced, worsens the
problems of low cleanliness and health levels around the African countries when it comes to waste
management [4,5]. Increased urbanization and industrialization means larger volumes of solid
wastes generation. Many of which are domestic, industrial and electronic in nature posing waste
management challenges to towns and cities in Africa [4, 14].
Studies conducted both outside and inside Africa have worked to address many factors (types of
wastes, characterization, recycling, and quantification of solid and semi-solid waste), and have
identified and tested knowledge, attitude, and practices of solid waste management at all levels.
Waste management is now not only an urban concern but also a growing concern in rural
communities. It needs long-term solutions. Most African nations are striving to resolve the issue,
but there are other problems which have a linkage with public health, safety, and the environment
[6, 7].
Weaknesses in waste management approaches and techniques in the Mwanza region may be
attributed to several factors. These include high population growth rates, untimed waste collection,
people’s consumption behavior of food and other products, low adherence to available residential
waste management procedures and practice, incomplete waste collection by collectors when

4
performing their duties, and improper disposal-site management. These contribute to increased
waste generation, poor management, and risk of health and environmental problems [15].
Furthermore, in relation to other public sectors it has been observed that the waste management
sector has often received little attention from the governments [7].
A fair amount of scholarly work has been done on MSW collection and management in Tanzania.
Most of these studies attempted to explain the quantity of waste generated, the knowledge and
attitude of people to SWM, and waste recycling. There are hardly any studies to understand how
households handle their domestic solid wastes in Mwanza city at the household level, and
adherence to the standard regulations set by the Municipality. As a result, residential waste
management practices and adherence to the established standards on waste management is not
known.
This study therefore seeks to address the gap between knowledge of the recommended standards
and practices, and to understand how the community implements the recommended standards /
bylaws of the MCC on solid waste management at the residential level.
1.3. Study Rationale
Findings from this study will help the local government authority, the Ministry of Environment,
and Natural Resources management to develop a holistic approach to solid waste management.
Recommendations from the study will help address the many health and environmental issues
arising from the currently ineffective residential SWM system.
Performance data is not available, even though MCC inspects SWM practices in open areas,
markets, roads, and sometimes collection points performed by private and municipal workers. In
particular, findings are not well documented for household practices compared to other areas of

5
the city where SW can be generated. Monitoring and the evaluation functions are still not reliable
or effective [16]. Gathering data on SWM practices at households will likewise provide
information to help authorities design and incorporate additional plans for sustainable SWM and
implementation. Also the findings of this study will provide useful information for those working
towards Tanzania achieving the Millennium Development Goal number 7 by ensuring
environmental sustainability through improving environmental sanitation in residential premises.
1.4. Research Question
1. What are the practices of domestic solid waste management at the household level in
Nyamagana Municipality, Mwanza?
1.5. Research Objectives
1.5.1. Broad Objective
To assess household SWM practices and identify barriers to compliance with the bylaws in
Nyamagana Municipality
1.5.2. Specific Objectives
1. To determine the knowledge and attitudes of Nyamagana residents toward disposal of
household SW
2. To observe existing SWM practice at the household level for comparison to reported
practice
3. To determine the household challenges to standard SWM practice in Nyamagana
Municipality.

6
1.6. Research Variables
1.6.1. Independent variables
Age, sex, socio-economic status, marital status, occupation, education levels, distance to dumpsite,
length of residence, Mwanza city council waste management bylaws, waste collecting equipment,
type and nature of domestic SW produced, municipal and private waste collectors, .
1.6.2. Dependent variables
Use of waste collection equipment, frequency of domestic SW collected daily, amount of SW
generated at the household, use of municipal waste payable services, waste separation, and
treatment of SW (recycling, composting and burning).

7
CHAPTER TWO
2.0. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Solid Waste
The nature and quantity of waste generation is basically dependant on the nature of activity,
environment and even the economic status of individuals in the community. SW can be classified
in respect of original use (e.g., packaging waste), material (e.g., glass, paper, or plastics), physical
properties (e.g., combustible or biodegradable), origin (e.g., domestic, commercial, industrial or
agricultural), and safety characteristics (e.g., hazardous or radioactive). Human and animal excreta
are often classified as semi-solid waste [17].
2.1.1. Human Waste
Human wastes include waste that is excreted by the human body, and is often known as body by-
products of digestion such as faeces and urine. Human waste is considered a bio-waste as it is a
good vector for both viral and bacterial diseases and becomes hazardous when it gets into
sources of drinking water [18].
2.1.2. Sullage
Wastewater from kitchens, bathrooms and laundries make sullage. It can contain disease-causing
organisms, particularly from soiled clothing [18]. But its main health hazard occurs when it
collects in poorly drained places and causes pools of organically polluted water that may serve as
breeding places for mosquitoes.
2.1.3. Municipal Waste
As described by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) [19]
municipal waste is a combination of waste from households, office buildings, institutions and small

8
businesses, yards and gardens, street sweepings, litter, and market refuse that is collected and
treated by the municipalities.
Municipal solid waste includes materials commonly called trash or garbage produced from human
daily activities, and that originate from areas such as households (e.g., milk cartons, plastic wrap,
food), city streets, and offices (e.g., newspapers, plastic bags, deteriorated furniture) [9, 5]. This
category of waste generally refers to common household waste, as well as office and retail wastes,
but excludes industrial, human and animal excreta, hazardous (medical), and construction wastes.
2.1.4. Hazardous Waste
Hazardous waste encompasses materials that pose substantial threats to public health or the
environment (e.g. products labelled: flammable, ignitable, warning, caution, poisonous, toxic,
corrosive, reactive, or explosive). They could be solid or gaseous. These wastes should be
considered hazardous because of their ability to cause long-term risk to health or the environment
[20].
According to EPA, the concentration and the physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics of
hazardous waste significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or incapacitating reversible
illnesses; or pose a potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated,
stored, transported, or disposed. Hospital biomedical waste is one category of hazardous waste,
which is generated during the diagnosis, treatment or immunization of human beings or animals
or in testing of biological specimens [21, 22].

9
2.1.5. Mwanza Waste Collection and Management
In 2000 the MCC Waste Management committee (after identifying the increase in waste generation
was a problem) decided to set a broad goal that read; Mwanza City should become a “Clean and
attractive City through an efficient and effective system of managing solid waste”. The objectives
for ensuring Mwanza became clean and attractive were (i) to enact and enforce a waste
management Bylaw that governed waste management service delivery beginning at households
and extending to industry, (ii) to increase the amount of solid waste collected and disposed of, and
(iii) to increase community awareness of appropriate SWM.
2.1.6. Community Based Approach (CBA) to Household SWM
The Community Based Approach involves primary collectors/first level collectors who are not
household members. It may involve paid door-to-door collectors (scavengers) or community based
organization (CBOs). This is the approach the MCC use, incorporating it into the SWM bylaws
and accepting it as one way to manage waste at generation premises [25].
In the CBA approach householders have a duty to store their waste in plastic bags or other available
materials, sorted according to their nature (e.g., food waste, cold fire ash, plastic and broken-glass
waste), and to make that available to the door-to-door/primary/first level collectors. The CBA
collectors are required to appropriately collect this solid waste from the households and dispose of
it at the city’s transfer station. They get paid monthly by householders according to a fee set by
the Municipality which equals TZS. 2000 (assuming the Municipality has built a transfer station
near to the primary collection area). The Municipality is then responsible to collect and transfer
wastes from transfer stations to the final disposal (landfill) sites [25, 26]. One challenge of this
approach can be seen where households fail to pay for collectors due to personal reasons and
financial difficulty.

10
2.1.7. The Environmental (Solid Waste Management) Standard Regulations, 2002.
The MCC and all its Municipalities perform SWM under the Environmental Management Act
(Cap. 191) RE 2002 made under section 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119,120,121,122, and 230 of
2014. These Regulations are cited as the Environmental (Solid Waste Management) Regulations,
and apply to all matters pertaining to SWM [50].
The regulation states that every person living in Tanzania shall have a stake and a duty to safeguard
the environment from the adverse effects of SW and to inform the relevant authority of any activity
or phenomenon resulting from SW that is likely to adversely affect public health or the
environment. In part IV of the SWM regulations it explains that every occupier of a house,
business, industry or any activity generating SW should minimize the waste at its source. Options
are suggested: 1. different types or kinds of SW are separated at the source, or 2. different types or
kinds of SW are collected into waste storage receptacles (equipment of specified standards, types,
sizes, shapes that are easy to carry or move, and that comply with and other specifications as the
case may be). Approved receptacles include: standard metal dustbins, plastic standard dustbins,
plastic bags, paper bags, standard litter bins, standard containers or skips and any other
recommended receptacles ideal for the locality. An occupier who fails to comply commits an
offence [50].
2.1.8. Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) Approach
Integrated Waste Management (ISWM) is an approach to waste management that is most
compatible with environmentally sustainable development and is one of the most recommended
approaches, using various collection, transport and treatment options [17]. It refers to the
complementary use of a variety of practices to safely and effectively handle MSW [27]. ISWM

11
consider the 3Rs - Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. The most favorable is reduction, which suggests using
less to begin with, and then reusing more, leading to saving material production, resource cost, and
energy [27].
2.1.9. Household Willingness to pay
Willingness to pay (WTP) is an attributing factor toward SWM in households. A situation of
payable services for waste management in was explained in a study done in Bangladesh, that about
49 % of households were willing to use a fee based waste collection system, paying BDT.
60/month for collection of their wastes (approximately TZS. 1000). The study explained income
was a determinant that had positive association to paying for waste collection services. The average
WTP sum was BDT. 57/month (also about TZS. 1000). Study of residents’ WTP is essential to
understand a community’s attitude towards paying for waste services which can be both
municipally and privately served and more likely influenced by demographic characteristic like
levels of income and education toward paying for services that can be offered by municipal
councils or private operators [28].
Another study done in Kampala City, Uganda on determinants of willingness to pay for SWM
used the dichotomous choice contingent valuation method, The study found that age of the
household head was negatively associated with willingness to pay for SWM. Other variables like
household size, education and marital status were not significantly associated with the WTP for
improved SWM, and the study suggested that there was only a small chance of success if SW
collection service charges were introduced. The study suggested a better way was for the
government to concentrate first on awareness campaigns about the consequences of waste
mishandling, and then the benefits of payment for proper waste management, before building up
to a plan for SWM [29].

12
2.1.10. Household Decision to waste disposal
Waste disposal is connected to how people decide to do with their waste with respect availability
of facilities. A study in Makelle, Ethiopia determined factors that influence household waste
disposal decision making. Results showed that the presence of waste facilities significantly affects
waste disposal choice. Inadequate of waste containers and longer distances to these containers
increased the probability of waste dumping in open areas and roadsides relative to the use of
communal containers. Insufficient financial resources limited the safe disposal of waste in well-
equipped collection points and sanitary landfills [30].
2.1.11. Solid waste transportation
Proper SW manageable techniques requires any country to have access to well monitored
transportation of waste from generation to final disposal site. Waste transportation problem is not
seemingly found in African countries alone, a study in Mymensingh Municipal area, Dhaka on
SWM practice explained that among the waste management issues in the study area, a major issue
was lack of sufficient, available, and reliable transport vehicles for waste management. Other
issues also existed: lack of knowledge about SWM, lack of adequate budget for waste
management, and an absence of solid waste treatment plants. Although the Municipality provided
7 garbage trucks, 140 driving vans, 1 beam lifter, 18 pushcarts, 1 chain bulldozer, and 2 pickup
cars it was concluded these were inadequate to meet the desired waste management needs of people
in Dhaka [31].
Other issues have been identified in Kolkata, India, Iran and in Kenya. Collectively they suggested
that waste collection, transfer and transport problems in SWM are the result of improper bin
collection systems, poor scheduling, poor communication on collection-transport schedules,

13
insufficient infrastructure, miserable roads, and a lack of vehicles for waste collection and transfer
to disposal dumpsites or landfills [32, 33, 34].
2.1.12. Solid waste final disposal
A study in more than thirty urban areas in 22 developing countries including Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania showed that most disposal sites in the studied cities in developing world countries were
open dumps with no leachate treatment. Distances to the official disposal sites from the city centres
ranged from 3 to 50 km. The studied cities also faced the problem of illegal disposal of waste in
rivers, oceans, lakes, drainage channels, open space, and roadsides. Waste management was
positive and successful where the municipal leaders or decision makers were interested in
environmental and solid waste management issues. Finally, the study found that supply of
equipment and improved infrastructure are necessary for an efficient system [35].
2.1.13. Environmental problems associated with solid waste
Inappropriate solid waste disposal is a major threat to the environment of developing countries
since most of the solid waste generated in developing countries ends up directly in open dumps
that are uncontrolled and become overloaded [36].
Atmospheric pollution by SW from landfill emissions, and leachate pollution of waters, decreases
the aesthetic value of an area, and is associated with environmental problems [37]. Methane
released into the atmosphere through anaerobic degradation of waste material in open dumps is a
significant contribution to greenhouse gases (GHG) that is 20 times more potent than CO2 in
trapping the Sun’s heat [23]. Also, the quality of potable water is degraded by leachate flow
together with methane gas entering water sources. According to two studies [23, 36], on the global

14
scale about 8-11% of anthropogenic GHGs are from garbage dumps and landfills, and are an
emerging environmental concern of MSWM [38].
Waste such as plastic SW, can undergo breakdown process into plastic debris which can be either
land-based ( 8%) or ocean-based (e.g., from sewage, tourism, fishing, and waste from ships and
boats – flotsam and jetsam). The land-based sources include trash that comes from wind or water
flow that flushes trash from streets, sidewalks, gutters, sewer overflows, solid waste disposal sites
and landfills, and can eventually end up in rivers, oceans, or lakes. For example data from Sesini
[39] shows the North Pacific Ocean, with a surface area 8,095,000km2
, has a particle density of
25,000 pieces/km2
, and 20,240 tons of plastic, which pose a critical health and environmental
concern. They can lead to entanglement of marine fauna, plastic ingestion, transport of species to
non-native waters, beach pollution, and concentration and transport of toxic chemicals such as
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) compounds [40].
2.1.14. Household perception on effectiveness of SWM
People’s perception significantly have a role on SWM despite having facilities in a community. A
studied in Ojo, Nigeria explained peoples’ perception toward household SWM. Quantitative and
qualitative methods were used to assess practices and public perception on the effectiveness of
SWM. Socio-economic profile (income and education of respondents) had a significant positive
association with peoples’ perception of SWM services. Those with high or moderate income
perceived waste as a problem that needed to be dealt with by the public. Only 13% of the
respondents had no formal education, and the remaining 87% with some education perceived
SWM as a necessary action in the community because of its health and environmental impacts. No
association of gender (being male or female) influenced perception or attitude to waste
management [41].

15
The study further went to explained that in Ojo poor access to private waste collectors was being
addressed as a means to encourage people to dispose of their household waste properly, and not
on streets, the surrounding neighborhood, or unplanned dumps. The study concluded that
inadequate service organization and untimely waste collection posed concerns in this particular
area, and suggested several ways to tackle the problems. First, raise governmental emphasis and
use of modern waste management strategies (i.e., reduce, re-use, recycle), at every level of
government (i.e., from regional to local). Second, building awareness and re-educating
householders on waste sorting and minimization, including training and orientating household
waste generators to help in the success of SWM [41].
2.1.15. Determinants of effective household SWM
Effective participatory is a key element to improve in SWM that requires a coalition of individual,
public and private partnership approach. It basically begins from households and primarily
depending on their demographics. A study conducted in Ambo, Ethiopia on determinants of
effective household SWM practices examined the demographic, socio-cultural, and institutional
factors that determine the effectiveness of SWM practice at the household level, and the service
delivery performance of private solid waste collectors. The study suggested feasible solutions in
order to improve local household SWM practices. A multi-stage sampling technique was used to
recruit 200 households for interviews and focus group discussions. The descriptive findings
reflected that plastic, paper, and ashes comprised most household generated waste [42].
The study found an association between household earning and waste production. Despite
householders possessing temporary storage points in their home, waste was not stored separately
and disposing of waste in unauthorized sites by Ambo residents was commonly practiced. The
inferential statistical analysis showed that household level of education, location (distance from

16
main roads or town center), sex, willingness to pay for waste services, awareness of solid waste
management and access to private waste collectors’ services were key determinants of effective
household SWM. Furthermore, analysis explained that manpower, budget, and waste collection
facilities (adequate vehicles, reliable containers, waste gown and gloves) are major determining
factors of effective SWM at the household level [42].
2.1.16. Municipal SW collection, transportation and disposal in Tanzania
The history of Solid Waste Management in Tanzania (SWMT) started in Dar-es-salaam when the
city engaged in the Sustainable Cities Sanitation Program in 1992 [43]. From then on, the SW
management program was adopted by other municipal authorities. In Mwanza; specifically in
Nyamagana Municipality, the program was officially activated in 1998 after Mwanza city engaged
in the Sustainable Cities Program [44]. However, after this initiative Mwanza’s engagement
decreased continually from 1998 due to less funding and budgeting for WM by the city, resulting
in people’s participation level also dropping. It was not until 2000, when a newly enacted City
Council bylaw to enforce waste management was introduced, that the situation improved again.
Introducing the participation of PSO as a solution to waste collection and disposal helped [11].
Inadequacy of SW collection in most municipalities in growing cities and regions in Tanzania was
due to possessing less-efficient collection techniques that, in turn, resulted in incomplete collection
of all generated waste. This evidently results in more dumpsites, and abandoned garbage being
deposited in the city streets areas and in open-residential areas. These become breeding sites for
disease carrying organisms like houseflies and mosquitoes [7].
A study in Deir el Balah, Gaza Strip explained that a MSWM system requires collection from the
source and transportation to operational points [45]. Once there, the waste is either turned into

17
useful substances like 'refuse-fuel’, recycled, disposed of, or used to generate electrical energy by
burning. The problem with solid waste collection and transportation is its high operational cost.
The findings suggested that major grounds for failure are long distances to main roads, poor design
of the routes or infrastructure, and scattered location of collection points [45].
Furthermore a study done in Ilala Municipality, Dar es Salaam to understand MSWM system
showed that Ilala had faced similar problems comparable to those encountered in Middle East;
lack of a strategic plan for waste collection at center locations, and expensive vehicle routes and
vehicle maintenance that caused cost over-runs of government budgets [46].
2.2. Conceptual Framework
Figure. 1 present a frame on household WM practices, risk and benefit outcomes based on the
above literature review. The conceptual framework was designed to lead to guidance for
developing study variables, preparation of research tools (questionnaires and observation
checklist), and expected analysis. As it has been explained above, SW are generated from different
sources such as from industries, institutions, health centers, commercial operations, households,
and the like. However, this particular study focused on the flow of SWM generated from
households. The middle circle (Figure. 1) indicates current poor practice (left hand side), and
potential solutions and mechanisms by which to ensure the benefits (right hand side). Where proper
household SWM is performed (outer circle, right hand side) then public and environmental health
are protected, when proper household SWM is disregarded, then negative outcomes ensue (outer
circle, left hand side) [28, 31, 42].

18
Figure 1: A conceptual framework on Household waste management practices, risk and benefit
outcomes. Most of the attributes have been adopted from different authors [28, 31, 42].
Determinants: Socio-economic
context of households

19
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.1. Study setting
Nyamagana Municipal Council (NMC) is one of seven districts of the Mwanza region. In Mwanza
City it is one of two Municipal Councils, the other being Ilemela Municipal council. Nyamagana,
which is located on the southern shores of Lake Victoria in Northwest Tanzania, covers an area of
1,337 km2
of which 900 km2
(68%) is water. The Municipality is warded into Pamba, Isamilo,
Nyamagana, Mkuyuni, Butimba, Igogo, Mirongo and Mbugani which are urban based wards.
Mkolani, Buhongwa, and Igoma are in rural based wards. The Municipality is currently expanding
fast, it is older of the two present municipalities in Mwanza with larger number of residents, and
the nature of waste generated demand keen attention by the Municipal council
3.1.1. Study area Demography
The Sukuma tribe is the main ethnic group in the Mwanza region and NMC. There are some
migrants from other regions of Tanzania, as other tribes and sub-tribes from bordering regions
move in and settle, mostly for economic and occupational motives like trading, industry,
agriculture, day-working, and petty business. According to a 2012 census, the population of NMC
was 363,452 [47].
3.1.2. Economic activities and the current WM system in Mwanza City
Residents rely mostly on commercial activities, artisanal fishing, small scale farming and
employment in public and private sectors. Industrio-agricultural activities pre-dominate with
greater than 100 small to large scale manufacturing and processing industries.

20
Most of the generated city waste from homes, institutions, schools, markets, food canteens, and
other municipal wastes are collected at the ward collections points by the municipality workers
and waste PSO along the roads. The waste is then dumped at Buhongwa dumpsite on the outskirts
of the city, a non-fenced and open landfill for which the City Council has plans to transform into
a modern sanitary landfill [48].
3.2. Study design
This was a cross sectional study using a questionnaire (completed in face-to-face interviews), and
an observation checklist to evaluate solid waste handling and disposal by households in
Nyamagana Municipality (completed by the field researchers).
3.3 Study population
The target area of the research was Nyamagana Municipality. The study population was home
residents, as the study concentrated on the solid waste management at households.
3.4. Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion criteria:
i. Member of the household who is responsible for disposing of household waste
ii. Provided informed consent to participate.
Exclusion criteria:
i. All non-Nyamagana residents who, by chance, were found in sampled households in this
study.
ii. Non-residential buildings (offices, schools, business points, health centres)
iii. Anyone who was too ill to participate

21
iv. All workers, private and municipal who were responsible for collecting waste at homes
3.5. Sample Size and Sampling Procedures
3.5.1 Sample Size Estimation
The number of households drawn from each street/slum was determined based on the size of the
ward in Nyamagana. The sample size for the number of households in the study was determined
using the following formula [49].
PQZNd
PQNZn
22
2
)1( 

Where:-
n = sample size of housing units
P = Housing unit (residential houses)
Q = Non-residential houses (offices, schools, etc.) = 1-P
N = Total number of housing (living homes)
Z = Standardized normal variable and its value that corresponds to 95 % confidence
interval=1.96
d = Allowable marginal error (+/-0.05)
From the current data on municipal survey, [48], there are about 48,000 housing (N): from these
about 92% (P) are households and 8% (Q) are non-residential.

22
n = 48,000(1.96)2
× (0.92) (0.08) = 112.8
(0.05)2
(47, 999) + (1.96)2
(0.92) (0.08)
From this formula, N = 113 is the minimum sample size for dependable results. To ensure an
adequate sample, an addition of 120 homes was made after an assumed attrition of 6%.
3.5.2. Sampling procedures
The study was done using a multi stage sampling technique as follows:
First stage: The 12 wards in Nyamagana served as the sampling frame from which 6 wards were
selected in Nyamagana Municipality based on the presence of high number of population using
simple random sampling procedure. The 6 selected wards were namely; Mkolani, Mbugai, Isamilo,
Buhongwa, Igoma and Nyegezi. Second stage: 4 residential streets were selected from each ward
using a simple random sampling technique which provided a total of 24 streets. Third stage: By a
simple random sampling, employing random number table; the first household in each residential
street was selected and the households were subsequently followed alternatively until all the
households were exhausted.
3.6. Data Collection Techniques
The data were collected from 120 households, through the use of two different tools with help
from a research assistant. A structured questionnaire survey, using open- and closed-ended
questions, and an observation checklist were used by research assistants to collect socio-
demographic and waste management data from the respondents.
An observation checklist was prepared to describe the existing facilities in the neighbourhood such
as the presence refuse bins, illegal dumps, illegal burning of waste and waste management

23
strategies in place like presence and use of compost pit outside were observed. The observation
gathered information on what exactly was happening as far as SWM is concerned at Nyamagana
Municipality, i.e. it did not rely on reported data. The digital camera was used to take photographs
of the existing setting in the field, especially in the housing near collection points, dumpsites,
streets skips and refuse bins.
3.7. Data analysis
Quantitative data, collected from households through the structured questionnaire were analyzed
by using computer software STATA V.11 after entry and cleaning in EpiData V.3.1. Descriptive
statistics (percentage, frequency, mean and standard deviation as a central tendency and measure
of dispersion) were used to describe basic features of the data. Socio-economic status of the
household was assessed by using Social Economic Wealth Quintile (SEWQ) which were scored
for most affluent, less affluent, poor and poorer whereby the highest quintile was used considered
for the most affluent and lowest quintile represent the poorer [56]. Standard descriptive analyses
were carried out using means and standard deviations for continuous variables and frequencies for
categorical variables, and inferential statistics were used to assess the relationships between the
respondents’ waste handling practices at their households and socio-economic characteristics
using chi-square (x2
). A 95% CI and p-value of less than 0.05 have been used to test statistical
significance.
3.8. Quality Assurance and Quality Control
i. The questionnaire used were pre-tested in three randomly selected wards in Ilemela
Municipality households before being used in the actual research study to check for error,
clarity, and reviewed by the researcher.

24
ii. To avoid confusion among study respondents, the questionnaires were translated into
simple, understandable Swahili language (common language of communication) and later
back translated into English again to ensure appropriate translation.
iii. The research assistant was recruited prior to the commencement of the actual study and
received basic training on how to administer the questionnaires. Training also included SW
observation and camera documenting.
iv. Ensuring the accuracy of data entry by double entry. In the double-entry procedure, data
from field for each day were entered into the database twice and then compared to
determine whether there were any discrepancies.
3.9. Ethical considerations
Ethical clearance was sought from the joint CUHAS/BMC ethics and review committee, for
approval before starting the research. Permission to conduct the research was also sought from
the relevant Mwanza City Council Authority and the City Director who provided permission for
research to take place in the area.
A written informed consent (written in Swahili – the primary language of the majority of the
population in Tanzania) explained to participants the purpose of the study, the right to either
participate or decline and to withdraw at any time, and measures taken to protect confidentiality
prior to collecting data. For participants who could not read, the study was clearly explained to
them and asked to thumb print to indicate acceptance as part of the consent process.
An impartial witness was present during the informed consent process to ensure the participant
was not coerced and had autonomy in the decision making process to engage as a respondent.
Informed consent was sought when beginning the questionnaire. All participants were informed

25
that they could withdraw from the study at any time. Coding was used for the respondents. This
code was used in place of their name on the corresponding questionnaire. The key that links the
number code to a household was kept locked by the researcher, and destroyed after final acceptance
of the thesis.
3.10. Study Limitations
 Generalisability. This study focused on only households in urban areas of the MCC, and
therefore are not generalizable to practices in rural or more affluent areas.
 Participation bias. People who do a good job managing their waste may have been more
likely to agree to participate, and people with more education and income may have been
more interested in participating.
 Administrative misperception. Some household members might have misperceived the
study as an administrative inspection with legal ramifications and punishment. This
possibility was minimized by the explanatory approach taken to convince potential
participants that the study was not administrative.
 Observation bias. Participants may have changed their household waste disposal behaviour
when being watched.
3.11. Data Dissemination and Knowledge translation
The findings of this study will be presented to the Directorate of Postgraduate Studies of the
Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences (CUHAS), School of Public Health. The
findings of this study will also be printed, replicated and submitted to the CUHAS library after
being review and approval by the School of Public Health. The Mwanza City Council authority,
department of Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources will receive an executive summary

26
of the key points and recommended actions in order to disseminate the study insight quickly. In
addition the study will be submitted for publication through an online peer reviewed health journal.

27
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0. RESULTS
4.1 Socio-demographic characteristics of Household members in Nyamagana Municipality
A total of 120 questionnaires were administered and ascertained the SWM practices in place. Six
wards were selected from Nyamagana City Council both in city center streets and peripheral to the
city center. Respondents were from six wards; Isamilo (12.5%, n=15), Mbugani (12.5%, n =15),
Nyegezi (16.6%, n =20), Mkolani (25%, n = 30), Igoma (16.6%, n=20) and Buhongwa (16.6%,
n=20). All household members approached agreed to participate in the study; the socio-
demographic data of the respondents included age, marital status, education levels, tribe,
household size, ownership of housing, occupation and length of residence in Nyamagana
Municipality. Most respondents were within the age range 18-25 years (35.8%), minimum and
maximum ages were 18 years and 64 years respectively. The proportion of males and females most
responsible for SWM was 32.5% and 67.5% respectively. Forty eight (40%) of the respondents
completed primary school, forty one (34.2%) studied secondary education, nine (7.5%) had
vocational training, and twelve (10%) had higher education (e.g., college or university). Ten
respondents (8.3%) had no formal education.
Household socio-economic status (SES) was measured using Social Economic Wealth Quintile
(SEWQ) based on ownership of properties such as, radio, bicycle, television, livestock, or motor
bicycle; access and affordability of services such as solar power, electricity circuited house, main
source of drinking water, source of cooking energy; and also on type of roofing and flooring of the
house. Individuals who possessed livestock, motor bicycle, television, access to electricity, access
to tap water, cement flooring and iron-sheet roofing scored 2 marks for each item and service,
while those who owned radio, bicycle, use public tap water, firewood cooking energy, roofing

28
made out thatch scored 1 mark in checking the household wealth quintile. A total score check of
more than 13 were considered most affluent, between 9-12 were considered to be less affluent, 4-
8 poor and 0 –3 were considered poorer. Majority of respondents’ households had poor income
(n=49, 40.8%) and less affluent status (n=34, 28.3%) and only 16 (13.3%) were in the most affluent
category.

29
Table 1. Table of socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents
Variable Frequency (n=120) Percentage (%)
Age in years
<25 43 35.8
25-29 26 21.7
30-34 15 12.5
35-39 15 12.5
40+ 21 17.5
Gender
Male 39 32.5
female 81 67.5
Marital Status
Single 39 32.5
Married/Cohabiting 75 62.5
Divorced/widowed 6 5
Education Level
No formal education 10 8.3
Primary education 48 40
Secondary education 41 34.2
Vocation training 9 7.5
University 12 10
Household size (in numbers)
1-3 42 35
4-6 40 33.3
7+ 38 31.7
Occupation of householder
House wife 27 22.5
Crop cultivation and livestock keeping 8 6.7
Business+ entrepreneurship 46 38.3
Artisanal fishing 30 25
Government job 9 7.5
Tribes
Sukuma 45 37.5
Nyamwezi 8 6.7
Jita 12 10
Haya 12 10
Others(Zinza and Chagga) 43 35.8
House ownership
Independent house 51 42.5
Rent house 69 57.5
Socio-economic status (based on asset ownership)
Most affluent 16 13.3
Less affluent 34 28.3
Poor 49 40.8
poorer 21 17.5
Family size
<3 42 35
4-6 40 33.3
7> 38 31.7

30
4.2. Period of residence in Mwanza city of the household heads
Of the 120 respondents, 15 (12.5%) had less than 1 year of residence in Mwanza City, although
most (58; 48.3%) had lived in Nyamagana Municipality of Mwanza City for more than 10 years.
Those with 2-5 years (n = 25) or 5-10 years (n = 22) of residence represented 20.8% and 18.3%,
respectively.
4.3. Domestic SW generation collection and disposal
Most of the household heads (n=87, 72.5%) responded that they have a waste collection bin in
their homes, only 33 (27.5%) responded that they did not have a waste collection or refuse bin in
their homes. Of those who responded that they possessed a waste collection bin for domestic waste
disposal, the main type owned were plastic buckets (43.3%); sacks and paper boxes as alternatives
to use in domestic waste disposal represented 29.2% and 27.5% respectively and 65 had a dug hole
and 55 did not.
The most common types of SW produced by households were food wastes and vegetable and fruits
peels (88.3%) while other wastes were scarcely produced as mentioned by households.
Table 2. Possession of waste collection bin, type and presence of dug hole in the compound
Collection bin Freq (n= 120) %
Possession of waste collection bin at home
Yes 87 72.5
No 33 27.5
Type(s)
Plastic bucket 52 43.3
Plastic Sacks 35 29.2
Paper boxes 33 27.5
Waste thrown in a dug hole on the property
Yes 65 54.2
No 55 45.8
Most common type of domestic SW discarded
Food waste and Vegetable and fruit peel 106 88.3
Nylon and polythene 4 3.3
Ashes 2 1.7
Broken bottles and metals 3 2.5
Paper and rags 3 2.5
Rubber materials 2 1.7

31
4.4. Domestic SW generation and handling at household level
Majority of the respondents produced less than a bin of domestic SW (n=45, 37.5%), 33 (27.5%)
of the respondents produced two bins of waste and 26 (21.7%) were those who produced greater
than two bins in a week. Fifty one of the respondents responded mother’s as the person who
emptied waste bucket relative to those who said fathers, children and housemaid (9.2%, 6.7%, and
11.7% respectively). Other respondents mentioned anyone (30%) could empty the waste bin.
Table 3. Weekly production of domestic SW and disposal of the waste bin/bag
Weekly produce of Domestic SW Freq (n=120) %
< a bin (bucket) 45 37.5
One bin 16 13.3
Two bins 33 27.5
Others (>two bins) 26 21.7
Person who empty waste
Father 11 9.2
Mother 51 42.5
Children 8 6.7
Housemaid 14 11.7
Anyone 36 30
Daily practices on domestic SW disposal (Table 4) show majority use plastic buckets (38.3%)
compared to other types (boxes, metal drum) on daily basis. Also a big number of respondents use
polythene bags for daily disposal of domestic SW (29.2%) and only very few use baskets and metal
drum, 2.5% and 1.7% respectively.
Table 4. Type(s) of refuse container used in daily practices
Type Freq (n=120) %
Nylon and polythene bags 35 29.2
boxes 2 1.7
baskets 3 2.5
Plastic bins 46 38.3
Metal drum 2 1.7
Others (wrecked trolley, abandoned sink) 32 26.7

32
Plate 1-4. Popular types (plastic bins) and methods (bins and dug holes) of domestic SW disposal
used by households in Nyamagana Municipality
(Source: Field physical observation 2015)

33
Table 5. Responses regarding disposal sites for waste
Practices Freq (n=120) %
Waste disposal in public pit
Do throw waste in public pit 27 22.5
Do not throw waste in public pit 93 77.5
Throw waste on road, drain system, gutters
Do throw 7 5.8
Do not throw 113 94.2
Taking waste bin to the public dump
Yes 37 30.8
No 83 69.2
Waste collector/picker from house to disposal site
Yes 31 25.8
No 89 74.2
Dumping of immediate domestic SW
Pit within compound/open dumping 45 37.5
Neighborhood compound dug hole 13 9.5
Compound bin 33 27.5
Throw on roads 7 5.8
Anywhere 22 21.5
Knowledge
Does private sector organisation collect SW in your area
Yes 18 15
No 72 60
Not sure 30 25
Presence of Waste collection service offered by the Municipality
Yes 40 33.3
No 80 66.7
Is PSO better than the Municipal authorities
Yes 3 2.5
No 27 22.5
Not sure 90 75
Presence of any open dumpsite around home
Yes 29 24.2
No 91 75.8
Separation of domestic SW by category of waste
Yes 39 32.5
No 81 67.5
Awareness of health risks related to poor management of waste
Aware 86 71.7
Unaware 34 28.3

34
Waste separation was done by only 39 respondents (32.5%), whereby these households performed
separation of waste by setting apart combustible and non-combustible material, and recyclable
materials such as glass, metal cans, newspapers, boxes etc. into a separate container from
biodegradable waste. Of the 86 who were aware of risks, 61 listed possible health dangers such as:
airborne disease, bilharzia, epidemic diseases, tetanus, wounds and injury from broken glass and
metals, skin disease, UTI, Cholera, diarrhea, flu and chest infection.
4.5. Knowledge of the existing Mwanza City recommendations and barriers to SWM
practices
The table 6 below shows the proportion of respondents from households who had good knowledge,
moderate, and no/low knowledge of the recommended bylaws. Only 8 (6.7%) knew of the
existence of the city’s bylaw, knew the bylaw operates under environmental management act,
knew the penalty fee for irresponsible waste management and mentioned one of the bylaw section
that are stated in the Mwanza City by laws on WM. Majority of respondents (n=94, 78.3%) had
moderate understanding of the management of domestic waste recommendations. They only knew
the existence of Municipal set bylaw “about wastes” but could not know if poor management of
domestic SW can be penalized. Eighteen (15%) respondents had no knowledge of the existence of
MSW bylaw, penalty fee and could not mention any section of the by-law.
Table 6. Knowledge on SWM as per the existing recommendations of Mwanza city
Freq(n=120) %
know bylaw (legislation) + know penalty
Good knowledge 8 6.7
Moderate |knowledge 94 78.3
No knowledge 18 15

35
Table 7. Knowledge of waste services
Freq (n=120) %
waste/dump site close to your home + waste collection service
offered by the Municipality
Well informed of the services 11 9.2
Partial knowledge 47 39.2
Doesn’t know 62 52
Total 120 100
Table 7 above show the majority of people are not aware of the presence of the dump site and
waste collection services that exist in their ward.
Table 8. Socio-demographic variables versus knowledge and practice of WM.
Knowledge Practice
Age (years) Good Moderate No χ2
p-value Good Moderate Poor χ2
p-value
n n
<25 3 38 6 8 37 2
25> 5 56 12 0.3 0.8 10 55 8 1.79 0.41
Level of education
No formal education - 6 4 - 8 2
Primary education 5 37 6 8.8 0.19 6 40 2 9.8 0.04
Secondary education 2 32 7 8 27 6
Post-secondary
education
1 19 1 4 17 -
Occupation
House wife 2 21 4 3 20 4
Farmer 0 8 0 5 3 0
Business and
entrepreneurship
4 34 10 5.2 0.74 9 33 6 13.1 0.11
Government job 1 7 1 - 9 -
Others 1 24 3 3 25 -
Family size
<3 56 30 6 56 30 7
4-6 2 34 4 8.5 0.07 7 31 2 5.2 0.03
7> 6 30 8 6 31 1
Economic Status
Most affluent - 13 3 1 15 -
Less affluent 5 16 13 31.3 <0.001 4 26 4 12.4 0.04
poor 3 45 1 13 32 4
poorer - 20 1 - 19 2

36
Table 8 above shows the effect of age, education, occupation and family size in knowledge and
practice of waste management. The Pearson chi-square (χ2
) tests were used to compare dependent
variables with a set of independent variables. The knowledge and practice of respondents were
compared with age, education level, occupation and family size of respondents. Most variables
had no significant correlation but only education, economic status and family size of respondent’s
had significance in WM practice alone and not knowledge.
The present study also shows that, good practices of solid waste management had strong
association with education levels (primary and post-secondary) p=0.0051 and 0.0031 respectively,
family size: small and large p=0.0018 and p=0.0016 respectively, awareness of the WM bylaws
(No knowledge) at p <0.0001, social economic status (p <0.0001), while occupation had no
association with good practices (Table.9).

37
Table 9. Association of good SWM practices with demographic characteristics
Characteristic Good WM
practices
Odds p-value OR 95 % CI** p-value**
Education level
No formal education - - - - -
Primary education 6 2.1 3.67 1.62 ̶ 19.2 0.0051
Secondary 8 0.55 - - -
Post-secondary 4 3.62 0.001 5.57 1.52 ̶ 19.11 0.0031
Family size
<3 56 2.67 0.029 0.62 0.32 ̶ 2.60 0.0018
4-6 7 1.32 - - -
7> 6 5.6 1.68 0.64 ̶ 4.42 0.0016
Awareness on the bylaws
Good 8 0.50 0.000 - - -
Moderate 94 2.59 - - .
No Knowledge 18 17.58 0.15 0.07 ̶ 0.30 <0.0001
Economic status
Most affluent 1 0.43 0.001 - - -
Less affluent 4 2.59 0.11 0.05 ̶ 0.24 0.0761
poor 13 11.2 0.36 0.18 ̶ 0.73 <0.0001
poorer - -
Occupation
Housewife 3 0.13 0.2016 0.05 0.04 ̶ 0.41 0.5153
farmer 3 0.6 0.12 0.06 ̶ 0.24
Business and
entrepreneurship
9 0.3 - - -
Government job - - - - - -
Others(fishermen) 3 0.12 0.04 ̶ 0.39 0.5011
**Adjusted estimates

38
4.6. Challenges encountered by household in proper management of their waste
Almost a third of respondents responded said that they face challenges in managing their domestic
SW. Those who faced challenges mentioned (Table 10) the ones they personally face in their areas
and neighborhood.
Table 10. Challenges in WM among households in Nyamagana Municipality
List of challenges mentioned
Unpleasant decomposing waste odor/air pollution
Carrying waste to dumpsite
Delay waste collection services/waste pilling at home
Random throw of waste by neighbors/waste scattering by road hawkers
Stray animals (dogs, chicken, cats) dismantle waste
Collection system not good/no waste collectors
Environmental pollution/waste thrown into trenches
No dumpsite
4.7. Willingness to pay for waste collection services in Nyamagana Households
The table below (Table 11) show total willingness to pay for waste collection services in
Nyamagana, All individuals were ready to pay for waste collection services in Nyamagana, and
most were ready to pay individuals than any other services that can be offered in the community,
followed by Private Sector Organisation (PSO) and few were ready to pay the Municipal
authorities to provide services to waste management in their neighborhood

39
The table below show respondents willingness to pay by age group with their preferences of who
to pay.
Table 11. Willingness to pay for waste collection service at home
(n) % of respondents willing to pay for waste collection at households
Age Municipality PSO
(8) 34.8
(2) 8.7
(3) 13
(3) 13
(7) 30
Individual CBOs Others
(2) 66.7
-
-
-
(1) 33.3
<25 (8) 44 (17) 35.4 (3) 18.6
25-29 (4) 22 (15) 31.3 (3) 18.8
30-34 (1) 5.6 (5) 10.4 (3) 18.8
35-39 (3)16.7 (6) 12.5 (2) 12.5
40+ (2) 11 (5) 10.4 (5) 31.3
μ 3.6 4.6 9.6 3.2 0.6
SD+/- 2.7 2.4 5.9 1.1 0.9
* μ=mean
Table 12. Preferred amount to pay for waste collection services by households per collection
over the Municipal fee for waste collection in households
Amount in TZS/= Frequency (n=29) %
100-500 11 37.9
600-1000 9 31
1100-1500 - -
1600-2000 7 24.1
2100-2500 2 6.9
Total 29 100
Of those respondents who recognized (n=29) waste collection as a payable service as they have
been paying the Municipal and some other private sectors an amount of TZS. 2000-3000/= per
month for services, most were willing to pay only the lower amounts of TZS. 100-1000/= per

40
collection to receive a home collection service. Fewer (9; 31%) were ready to pay larger sums
TZS. 1600-2500/= for these services.
4.7. Observation practice of SW disposal in households
Most of the respondents (n=88, 80%) practiced illegal dumping despite reporting they have
dustbins in their property or take waste to the dumpsites, and many households practiced
indiscriminate burning of SW (n=62, 56.4%) in their property and beside the street roads.
Table 13. Observation checklist elucidating possession and real practice from households’ in
waste management
Observation Freq (n=110) %
Composite pit in backyard and
Yes 29 26.4
No 81 73.6
Illegal dumping
Yes 88 80
No 22 20
Waste bin with a lid
Yes 55 50
No 55 50
Evidence of indiscriminate burning of SW
Yes 62 56.4
No 48 43.6

41
Plate 5-7. Observation of poor evidence practices of waste management from households
(Source, Field Observation 2015)

42
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0. DISCUSSION
5.1. Socio-demographics status of households in the Nyamagana Municipality
The preponderance of female respondents (67.5%) in this study reflects the higher level of interest
and responsibility for waste management showed by the female gender as reported in a qualitative
study of preference for household tasks including WM [51].
This study also revealed that a fairly large number of the respondents had primary school education
48 (40%), those with secondary education were 35 (29.2%) and just 10 (8.3%) had no formal
education, an indication of a low level of educational status. This is comparable to the work done
[52] on household knowledge of SW segregation in Urban Kampala which showed that only 30.5%
had attained primary education. Consequently, the assumption that low attained education can
cause poor WM knowledge was not the case in this study, those with primary, secondary and post-
secondary education were more homogenous in their levels of knowledge on how to manage with
respect to the regulations of Mwanza City bylaw of waste management. This could be explained
that level of education attained by the head of household have no effect in this study (p =0.19) on
the impacts with respect to knowledge of SWM at household level.
5.2. The knowledge of Nyamagana residents toward disposal of household SW
Furthermore the findings of this study does not line to the findings in Nigeria [53] that showed
high level of knowledge 254 (90%) of WM could be explained by the generally high educational
status of respondents [54] that was stated significantly associated (p=0.04). Majority of
respondents with primary education were found at home and consisted mostly of women (67.5%),

43
this can define that women take care of most chores related to home, emptying the garbage bin
and ensuring waste is collected or dealt with other methods of WM.
Family size had an association and was significant in how SW is managed by households.
Households with large number of members and those with few members had no difference in
knowledge (p=0.07) regarding waste management. The significant was on practice (p=0.03,); in
relation to family size, an increase in number of occupants means members can divide chores
dealing with how they separate, and dispose of the waste to keep their property clean. Also good
practices was significantly associated with number of house members for small and larger families
(OR=0.62, p=0.0018 and OR=1.68 p=0.0016) respectively. The findings of this study does not go
in line with the results found in Ethiopia [42] where there was no significant relationship between
amount of SW generated and effective management at household level with respect to family size.
Post-secondary educated respondents are significantly more likely than those with no and primary
education to practice better methods of waste dispose (p= 0.04, OR=5.57) in their houses. This
study is compared to the study done by Adogu [54] where it showed educated respondents were
significantly more likely than the less educated to dispose of waste through composting and
incineration and the less educated were more likely to dispose of refuse by illegal open dumping,
burning and burying.
The study also found that the economic status of household is associated with knowledge
(p=<0.0001) and practice (p= 0.04,) of WM management in Nyamagana Municipality. Those who
are well off can have access to and pay for services and have equipment necessary for waste
disposal available in their homes and are therefore able to manage their waste to meet the standards
per Mwanza city bylaws on WM. Whereby the poorer (p=<0.0001, OR=0.36) cannot practice

44
better management of SW due to lack of resources, services and poor habitation. The findings are
compared to a study in Ethiopia [42] that households earning higher monthly income disposed of
their wastes in a legal way than lower income earner households, however in that study researcher
ascertained that higher income earner had ability to pay for private waste collectors at higher costs
than the lower income group although this was not a significant correlation in this present study.
5.3. Common existing SW managing practice at household levels/Observed Situation of
Household SWM in Nyamagana Municipality
The selected sample household heads were also asked whether they had waste collection material
(temporary storage) at home, 87 (72.5%) respondents replied as having temporary storage. With
regard to the kind of storage they used, 52 (43.3%) of the respondents said they used plastic
buckets/bins for disposing their domestic SW. Despite the respondents’ reporting having the waste
bins, observation data show only half of the observed households (n=55, 5%) had waste bins with
a lid and used them.
The most popular methods of immediate waste disposal known and practiced by the respondents
were open dumping (37.5%) followed by using dust bin (27.5%) while the least used method was
throwing waste on roads (5.8%). Also observation from field showed most household practice
illegal dumping of waste (n=88, 88%); this could be explained by behaviors and habits of most
slum area dwellers, unplanned areas and lack of waste storage equipment. Open dumping remains
the simplest and the most commonly preferred method for disposing MSW in most low to middle
income communities in Tanzania, and nearly, only 40% of generated waste end up in official
designated landfills while the rest are littered on roads, open spaces and disposed in trenches [54].
Well engineered facilities like Sanitary landfills (with liners, leachate, gas collection and
collection/ treatment systems) are now used by high income countries to ensure the protection of

45
human health and the environment [54]; however this is not the case in most parts of Tanzania
where people can initiate a dumpsite that is not legally set by the City or Municipal authorities,
and usually occur as open dumps from pre-existing hole (created from sand burrowing activities,
valleys or water erode land or even on a blocked road) into which waste could be deposited [54].
In Mwanza, some of these open pits are located near residential housing and house members use
them and therefore represent a threat to human health like provide harbourage for diseases causing
organisms, bacteria, insects, and rodents and destroy the environment. Similarly a study done in
South Africa found that out of the 5 million tons of waste produced daily, only 5% is disposed of
in proper sites, which means that most of the waste in that country is deposited in environmentally
unsafe sites [55].
A large number of the household respondents had awareness of WM health dangers due to
improper disposal of domestic waste. This aligns with the study carried out in Nigeria which
showed that respondents in the university area of Ogbomso had awareness of poor waste
management health risks, as 82.0% agreed that waste disposal into drains, roads and around the
surroundings is unhealthy and can be disastrous to health [53].
5.3.1. Attitude toward Willingness to Pay
The data on table 9 above clearly shows most or all household members were willing to pay for
the improvements of SWM at household level which is in line with a study done in Ethiopia [42],
where 98.4% in that study were ready to improve waste collection services at homes by voluntary
paying for waste collection and dumping service. Gender, education levels and age of the
household head had no correlation with the willingness to pay for SWM in that study. Similarly
findings on determinants of willingness to pay for improved household SWM in Kampala City
found age having a negative association to willingness to pay. This study also found majority of

46
household heads are ready to pay “individual workers” who roam around homes and “Private
Sectors” (Table 11) if the service is provided regularly and pay is per collection, compared to
municipal or any other workers [29].
The reported practices disagreed with what was observed in households. Most people who said
they have waste collection equipment did not really have, or if available it was not monitored well
and left the surroundings contaminated (bad odor, attracted vector insects, spills) and not valuable
for other use. Illegal dumping and indiscriminate burning of waste were practices by most people,
n=88 and n=62 respectively. This shows that proper WM is not practiced as reported by the
households. Respondents’ fear that this research was from municipal inspection could have led
people providing wrong information regarding what they usually practice, despite explanations by
the researchers.
5.4. Household challenges to standard SWM practice in Nyamagana Municipality
Tanzania is one of the developing countries in which residences are constructed without formal
structures, houses specifically in slum areas, and this has presented challenges to waste collection
by the municipalities and private waste service providers [7]. Physical challenges such as
inadequate infrastructure including roads, sanitary facilities (skips, waste receptacles, waste
carrying trucks, bulldozers, designated ward collection points) and drains have made the situation
detrimental.
The growth of residences in Nyamagana has mostly been in slums, thus contributing to the
challenges of household WM, yet the designated waste receptacles and dumpsites do not expand
as fast to meet the needs of people around the areas. At the household level where there is daily
waste generation, the behavioral practice and attitude of household are accustomed to improper
disposal of waste. Another challenging issue is Municipalities have not paid attention to waste

47
management compared to other problems in the country, for example education and health.
Likewise there has been no major public outcry about the problem though people are living in
areas surrounded with waste.

48
CHAPTER SIX
6.0. CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1. Conclusions
The study considered the waste management practices among households in Nyamagana
Municipality. It looked at the socio demographics of respondents, and their knowledge and
practices (both surveyed and observed) towards waste management.
The study found that knowledge (including the regulations of 2002 Environmental Act and penalty
fee) and practice on SWM had no significant association with gender, age, and occupation
compared to other study settings. Also income levels, education, family size and socio-economic
status of respondents were significantly associated with good practices. Majority of the residents
in the 6 wards that were studied understood that there were health risks if domestic waste is not
properly managed, yet there was evidence from direct field observation that despite the fact they
knew the risks, their houses’ environments were unclean and exposed them to health dangers and
poor environmental conditions. Moreover most householders are not aware of the boundary of
their practice and those which are to be done by the municipality. The lack of clear association
between some socio-demographic versus knowledge and practice in this study can be due to the
homogeneity of the population as it sampled only the slums of Nyamagana in Mwanza city.
6.2. Recommendations
Proper waste disposal management is essential to sustain healthy living conditions in any
environment. Households in Nyamagana should strictly adherence to appropriate WM practices
(use recommended dustbins, dispose waste in designated areas, apply SW treatment techniques
which involves separation, reuse and avoid indiscriminating burning of waste that will help

49
insulate the inhabitants from detrimental and hazardous environmental conditions and improve the
living standard of people. In order to achieve SWMT function effectively, proper SWM strategies
are essential. Yet at this time proper strategies of SWMT (including source reduction, separation,
compositing, waste minimization, waste re-use, waste burning and sanitary land filling) have not
been successfully employed by most wards surveyed in this study in Nyamagana Municipality., of
which should be introduced and practiced from major source who are households.
To improve this situation, several recommendations can be made:
6.2.1. Recommendation for interventions
1. Education
The Government of Tanzania, through state ministries of Health and Environment and MCC, could
facilitate education of the population, especially on environmental management behavior, with an
emphasis on waste handling practices and the WM regulations of 2002. Public health education of
households could include specific information on the effect and health dangers of poor WM
practices, both to human wellbeing and the environment.
Options available include: Options available include: leveraging available technology (radio,
televisions, newspapers), providing public seminars, and informing environmental health projects.
In addition, incorporating health oriented practices as a subject in the primary and secondary
school educational curriculum would improve the knowledge of WM practice among the
community.

50
2. Waste Management Practices
The Government, together with the MCC, could improve WM practices and population health and
safety by ensuring waste collection services are easily available and accessible for every household
in the community. This would include providing means of waste collection (wheel barrow,
serviced trucks, collection bags, bulldozers) from collection points and skips to the final dumpsite.
This would help to reduce the common practices of open dumping, road and drain dumping by
individuals that causes environmental pollution of neighborhoods.
The waste management authority of the MCC should also encourage Private Sector Participation
(PSP). This would provide firm services and fixed affordable costs for collection and transfer of
household waste to nearby dump sites. Alternatively, or in addition, a progressive Mwanza city
health and environmental department might consider designing and implementing a process to
identify and register individuals by Wards to provide waste collection services to homes.
6.2.2. Recommendation for Further Research
Further research should be done to determine health promotion strategies which can be useful to
sensitize the community in hygienic and appropriate waste management system to support the
municipal effort in Nyamagana, Mwanza. The result of this proposed study will hopefully add to
proper engagement techniques of household to have a clean and healthy Nyamagana.

51
REFERENCES
1. Cointreau SJ. Environmental Management of Urban Solid Wastes in Developing
Countries: A Project Guide (Urban Development Technical Paper, No 5). World Bank,
Washington D.C. 1982.
2. Hoornweg D, Bhada-Tata P. What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste
Management. World Bank, Washington, DC. 2012.
3. Conant J, Fadem P. A community guide to environmental health. Hesperian Foundation,
Berkeley, California, USA. 2008.
4. Achankeng E. Globalization, urbanization and municipal solid waste management in
Africa. In Proceedings of the African Studies Association of Australasia and the Pacific
26th Annual Conference. October 2003.
5. Mwanza B, Phiri A. Design of a waste management model using integrated solid waste
management: A case of Bulawayo City Council. International Journal of Water
Resources and Environmental Engineering, 2013;5(2):111-118
6. Breeze R. Municipal solid waste management in Dar es Salaam; Draft baseline analysis.
World Bank, Oct 2012.
7. Mungure JM. Governance and Community Participation in Municipal Solid Waste
Management, Case of Arusha and Dar es Salaam Tanzania (Doctoral dissertation,
Aalborg University). 2008.
8. Momoh JJ, Oladebeye DH. Assessment of awareness, attitude and willingness of people
to participate in household solid waste recycling programme in Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria.
Journal of Applied Sciences in Environmental Sanitation, 2010;5(1):93-105.

52
9. Medina M. Globalization, development, and municipal solid waste management in third
world cities., 2002. Tijuana, Mexico: El Colegio de la Forntera Norte,199.
10. Fiehn H, Ball J & Novella P. Integrated waste management. Background Research paper
produced for the South Africa Environment Outlook Report Pretoria: Department of
Environmental Affairs and Tourism, 2005.
11. Faty P, Mwanga J, Shimoda M. Tanzania Osaka Alumni (TOA): Best Practices
Handbook, 2012. Regional administration and Local Government. Prime Minister’s
office.
12. Johannessen L M, Boyer G & Mundial B. Observations of solid waste landfills in
developing countries: Africa, Asia and Latin America, 1999. In Banco Mundial
Working paper series (Vol. 3).
13. Kironde J L & Yhdego M. The governance of waste management in urban Tanzania:
towards a community based approach. Resources, conservation and recycling,
1997 21(4), 213-226.
14. Okot-Okumu J. Solid Waste Management in African Cities – East Africa. Chapter 1. In:
Waste Management - An Integrated Vision. Eds. Luis Fernand, Marmolejo Rebellon.
InTech, Rijeka, Croatia. October 2012.
15. Bandya T. Role of Nyamagana Municipal Council in Solid Waste Management, 2012.
Department of Natural Resources Management. University Dodoma.
16. The united republic of Tanzania National Audit Office. A performance audit on the
management of solid waste in big cities and regions of Tanzania, 2009. Arusha, Dar es
Salaam, Mbeya and Mwanza.

53
17. White PR, Franke M, Hindle P. Integrated Solid Waste Management: A Life Cycle
Inventory. Blackie Academic & Professional, Glasgow. 1995.
18. Wisner B, Adams J. Environmental health in emergencies and disasters: a practical
guide. World health organization. 2002. Chapter 8: Sanitation, pp127-147.
19. OECD. Factbook: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics.2011-2012
20. Yhdego M, Vidal RV, Overgaard CM. Planning of disposal sites in Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania—A decision support system approach. Waste management & research,
1992;10(2):141-152.
21. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Introduction to hazardous waste
identification, solid waste and emergency response, 2005. (5305W) EPA530-K-05-012.
22. Pariatamby A, Tanaka M. Municipal Solid Waste Management in Asia and the Pacific
Islands. Springer Singapore. 2014.
23. Cointreau S. Declaration of principles for sustainable and integrated solid waste
management. World Bank, Washington, DC. 2001.
24. Bolaane B, Ali M. Sampling Household Waste at Source: Lessons Learnt in Gaborone,
2004. Waste Management and Research pp142-148.
25. De Kleine A, Streifel S, Ju Kim E, Riordan M, Savescu C. Community based pilot
project on solid waste management in Khulna City: general project description.
Washington DC, World Bank. Washington, DC: World Bank. 2000.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2000/08/1764499/community-based-pilot-
project-solid-waste-management-khulna-city-general-project-description

54
26. Rahman M., Salequzzaman M., Bahar M., Uddin N., Islam A., & Al Hrun, A. Y.
People’s perception of the existing solid waste management of Khulna City Corporation
(KCC) Area, 2005: A case study of participatory management. In Proc. National
Workshop for REGA and CDM Awareness & Motivation under the ADB PREGA
Project, Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies, Khulna Rahman
27. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Integrated Municipal Solid Waste
Management In The United States: 2002. EPA530-R-99-021.
28. Bhattarai R. Household behavior on solid waste management: A case of Kathmandu
Metropolitan City. In Proceedings of 2nd World Congress of Environmental and
Resource Economists, Monterey, 2002. University of California, California (Vol. 23).
29. Niringiye, A. Determinants of willingness to pay for solid waste management in
Kampala city. Current Research Journal of Economic Theory, 2010.,2(3), 119-122.
30. Tadesse T, Ruijs A & Hagos F. Household waste disposal in Mekelle city, Northern
Ethiopia. Waste Management, 2008. 28(10), 2003-2012.
31. Mian M M, Paul, A K, Alam M. D, Rasheduzzaman M & Saifullah A S M. Solid Waste
Management Practice in Mymensingh Municipal Area, Bangladesh. 2013; Journal of
Environmental Science and Natural Resources, 5(2), 193-198.
32. Hazra T, Goel S. Solid waste management in Kolkata, India: Practices and challenges.
2009, Journal of Waste Management 29, 470–478.
33. Moghadam MRA, Mokhtarani N, Mokhtarani B. Municipal solid waste management in
Rasht City. 2009; Iran Journal of Waste Management 29, 485–489.

Brown john dissertation

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a Brown john dissertation

Similar a Brown john dissertation (20)

Último

Último (20)

Brown john dissertation