AN ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN SOLID WASTE

MANAGEMENT: A CASE OF KISENYI AREA, KAMPALA DISTRICT, UGANDA

YASIN ALI DAHIR

2013/FEB/MEH/WKD/M1190

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF SCIENCES IN PARTIAL

FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF MASTERS OF
SCIENCE DEGREE IN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OF NKUMBA UNIVERSITY

JULY 2014
 DECLARATION
I YASIN ALI DAHIR, declare to the best of my knowledge that the work presented in this dissertation
is my original report which has never been submitted for award of a Masters degree or its equivalent in
any university.

Signature……………………………….. Date………………………………

YASIN ALI

ii
 APPROVAL
This Masters dissertation titled “An assessment of community participation in solid waste
management: a case of Kisenyi area, Kampala District, Uganda” has been carried out under
my supervision. It is now ready for submission to the academic board for examination.

Signature………………………………… Date…………………………………

Supervisor:

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Miph Musoke PhD (NSW)

Fogarty Fellow (Internat.Res.Bioethics;

Infect. Disease Epidem.) (JHU)

FUNAS (Medical Sciences)

iii
 DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my beloved mother Halimo Mawel, to my brothers and sisters, all my
friends, family members, relatives and all those who supported me financially, materially and morally.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I first of all acknowledge and appreciate the Almighty Allah for granting me knowledge and skills of
writing the research, good health and ways of getting financial support and all blessings. Not forgetting
prophet Mohammed peace be upon him for the best teachings and examples he has shown to me which
has made me who I am and has guided me to excel academically and in life.

I acknowledge and appreciate the role played my parents, brothers, sisters and relatives in encouraging
and supporting me materially and morally. Special thanks go to my brother Yusuf Ali who supported
me financially.

I also appreciate and acknowledge the role played by my supervisor Assoc. Prof. Dr. Miph Musoke
who has contributed greatly to my research success through guiding, correcting and advising where
necessary.

I also acknowledge and appreciate my lecturers and the entire staff of School of Sciences who
contributed to my success and completion of my course.

Lastly, I acknowledge and appreciate the moral support from my friends which encouraged me to
complete this work.

v
Table of Contents
DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................................... ii
APPROVAL .................................................................................................................................................... iii
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................................. iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................. v
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................... viii
TABLE OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF PLATES .............................................................................................................................................. x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................................................................................. xi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... - 1 -
1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... - 1 -
1.1 Background to the study ................................................................................................................. - 1 -
1.2 Problem statement ........................................................................................................................... - 2 -
1.3 Research objectives ......................................................................................................................... - 3 -
1.4 Research Questions ......................................................................................................................... - 4 -
1.5 Scope of the study ........................................................................................................................... - 4 -
1.6 Significance of the study ................................................................................................................. - 5 -
1.7 Definitions of key and technical terms ........................................................................................... - 5 -
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... - 7 -
2.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... - 7 -
2.1 Global review of solid waste management ..................................................................................... - 7 -
2.2 Regional perspective on solid waste management .......................................................................... - 9 -
2.3 Uganda’s perspective on waste management................................................................................ - 10 -
2.4 Solid waste management in some East African cities ................................................................... - 11 -
2.5 Waste management practices ........................................................................................................ - 14 -
2.6 An integrated strategy to solid waste management ....................................................................... - 16 -
2.7 Significance of community participation in solid waste management .......................................... - 17 -
2.8 Role of participation in solid waste reduction............................................................................... - 20 -
2.9 Social capital and participation in solid waste management ......................................................... - 21 -
2.10 Role of the community in solid waste management ................................................................... - 22 -
2.11 Challenge of involving the community in solid waste management .......................................... - 23 -
2.12 Strategies for community participation ....................................................................................... - 25 -

vi
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... - 28 -
3.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... - 28 -
3.1 Research design ............................................................................................................................ - 28 -
3.2 Location of the study .................................................................................................................... - 28 -
3.3 Study population ........................................................................................................................... - 29 -
3.4 Data collection methods and tools ................................................................................................ - 29 -
3.5 Sampling ....................................................................................................................................... - 31 -
3.6 Data processing and analysis ........................................................................................................ - 32 -
3.7 Ethical consideration ..................................................................................................................... - 33 -
3.8 Limitations of the study ................................................................................................................ - 33 -
3.9 Time frame for the dissertation ..................................................................................................... - 34 -
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................ - 35 -
4.0 Introduction:.................................................................................................................................. - 35 -
4.1 Demographic features of respondents ........................................................................................... - 35 -
4.2 Community participation in solid waste management; ................................................................. - 45 -
4.3 Plans in place by both the community and the local authority to improve community participation
in solid waste management ................................................................................................................. - 65 -
4.4 Activities to improve community participation in solid waste management; ............................... - 66 -
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................... - 74 -
5.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... - 74 -
5.1 Summary ....................................................................................................................................... - 74 -
5.2 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... - 74 -
5.3 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... - 76 -
5.4 Areas for further research ............................................................................................................. - 77 -
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ - 79 -
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................ - 85 -
Appendix 1: Observational checklist ...................................................................................................... - 85 -
Appendix 2: General questionnaire.................................................................................................... - 87 -
Appendix 3: Key informant questionnaire .......................................................................................... - 95 -
Appendix 4: Letter of Authorisation from KCCA ............................................................................ - 100 -

vii
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Age categories and sex ............................................................................................................. - 35 -
Table 2: Respondent types ...................................................................................................................... - 36 -
Table 3: Premise ownership .................................................................................................................... - 37 -
Table 4: Sex and premise ownership ...................................................................................................... - 38 -
Table 5: Observations location and time................................................................................................. - 40 -
Table 6: Location and date of observation .............................................................................................. - 42 -
Table 7: Location and weather ................................................................................................................ - 43 -
Table 8: Respondents with waste containers .......................................................................................... - 45 -
Table 9: Observed evidence of sorting ................................................................................................... - 47 -
Table 10: Waste containers and sorting the waste generated in a home/shop ........................................ - 48 -
Table 11: Reasons for sorting ................................................................................................................. - 49 -
Table 12: Waste reuse by items reused for different sorting purposes ................................................... - 49 -
Table 13: Waste on road sides ................................................................................................................ - 52 -
Table 14: Payment for waste collection by traders/residents .................................................................. - 54 -
Table 15: Waste disposal and payment for waste collection .................................................................. - 55 -
Table 16: Correlation test of the relationship between payment for waste collection and respondent types. -
57 -
Table 17: Willingness to pay for waste collection in future by respondents who do not pay Now ........ - 60 -
Table 18: Chi-Square test for relationship between the respondent type and the frequency of waste
disposal ................................................................................................................................................... - 64 -
Table 19: What respondents can do about waste they find outside their home/shop.............................. - 64 -
Table 20: Presence of plans in place for improving community participation in solid waste management .. -
65 -
Table 21: Possibility of reusing previously non reused waste ................................................................ - 68 -
Table 22: Need to sort waste before disposing ....................................................................................... - 68 -
Table 23: Willingness of respondents to pay for waste collection in future ........................................... - 70 -
Table 24: Necessity for residents/traders to work together with other residents/traders ........................ - 70 -
Table 25: Necessity for residents/traders to work together with city authority ...................................... - 71 -

viii
 TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Level of education ................................................................................................................... - 37 -
Figure 2: Distribution of premise ownership in different zones ............................................................. - 40 -
Figure 3: Observed presence of waste containers ................................................................................... - 46 -
Figure 4: Observed types of containers present ...................................................................................... - 47 -
Figure 5: Items that are reused ................................................................................................................ - 52 -
Figure 6: The persons responsible for taking waste from home/shop..................................................... - 53 -
Figure 7: Payment for waste collection by different respondent types ................................................... - 57 -
Figure 8: Payment for collection of waste from homes/shops ................................................................ - 59 -
Figure 9: Where waste is taken for disposal ........................................................................................... - 61 -
Figure 10: Frequency of weekly waste disposal from homes/shops ....................................................... - 62 -
Figure 11: Frequency of waste disposal by different respondent types .................................................. - 63 -
Figure 12: Possibility of reducing on amount of waste generated in homes/shops ................................ - 67 -
Figure 13: Waste that can be sorted for recycling................................................................................... - 69 -
Figure 14: Capability of residents/traders in managing waste they generate .......................................... - 72 -

ix
 LIST OF PLATES
Plate 1: Plastic bottles sorted in Kisenyi, April 2014.............................................................................. - 51 -

x
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
KCC Kampala City Council

KCCA Kampala Capital City Authority

NEMA National Environmental Management Authority

NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations

NTT National Task Team

OECD Organization for Economic co-operation and Development

PAHO Pan American Health Organization

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Scientists

UBOS Uganda Bureau of Statistics

UNEP United Nations Environmental Program

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

xi
xii
 ABSTRACT

This study was carried out in Kisenyi area which is located within Central Division of Kampala
District, Uganda. The main objective of the study was to explore the current level of community
participation in solid waste management and what more the community can contribute to solid
waste management, in the future to achieve proper solid waste management in Kisenyi area,
Kampala district, Uganda. This study used a combination of both quantitative and qualitative
methodologies. This research took on a descriptive survey design.

The findings revealed that the current level of community participation in solid waste
management in Kisenyi area is low. Most respondents have plastic and metallic containers.
There is very low level of sorting of waste. The fee for waste collection is affordable though its
payment is somehow low with payments done mostly by traders whose waste is taken from their
shops by the City Authority and private waste collectors for a fee. Although residents / traders in
Kisenyi area have no plans in place to improve community participation in solid waste
management, however, the City Authority and local leaders have plans to improve community
participation in solid waste management in the area.

The findings also found that residents / traders are not able to reduce waste they generate in their
homes / shops and are not capable of managing waste they generate. They cannot reuse waste
they generate but they stressed the need to sort waste for recycling especially the plastics and
polythene. Also, all respondents in this study are willing to pay for waste collection in the future.

Therefore, because the current level of community participation in solid waste management
process is low, the city authority should come up with strategies of involving people in the study
area in planning, implementation and monitoring stages of solid waste management process so as
to achieve a state of clean and healthy environment. Further research is suggested into the role
played by recycling of plastic bottles in combatting poor solid waste collection and management

xiii
 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.0 Introduction
In in this chapter, the researcher presents background to the study, statement of the problem,
study objectives, study questions, scope of the study, significance of the study and definitions of
key and technical terms.

1.1 Background to the study

Solid waste management is becoming a major public health and environmental concern in urban
areas of many developing countries (World Bank, 1999). The situation in Africa, particularly in
the capital cities is posing various environmental health challenges. One of the greatest
challenges facing Uganda’s rapidly growing urban centers is solid waste or garbage. It is one of
the most visible forms of land pollution. Most solid waste disposed of in Uganda is from
municipal sources. It includes paper, plastic, glass, metal cans, food scraps, and yard trimmings,
the greater proportion being degradable (NEMA 2010).

The public sector in many countries is unable to deliver services effectively, regulation of the
private sector is limited and illegal dumping of domestic and industrial waste is a common
practice (World Bank, 1999). In general, solid waste management is given a very low priority in
these countries. Governments, particularly local governments mainly provide solid waste
management services. However, community participation in solid waste management is crucial
because communities are major waste generators and thus the community needs to join hands
with the authorities responsible for waste management in dealing with this problem that has far-
reaching environmental and human health effects. The community is one of the major
stakeholders in several environmental issues which affect them including solid waste
management as one of the major issues that affect community largely hence community
participation is crucial.

Uganda is one of the countries in the world that rank low in urbanization but this
notwithstanding, the urban population is growing. Actually, the urban population is growing
faster 3.7% than the national average 3.4% (UBOS, 2002). The implication of this growth is that
pollution issues such as solid waste management and the provision of adequate safe water

-1-
alongside acceptable levels of sanitation coverage will need closer attention (National
Environment Management Authority (NEMA, 2005). As Uganda’s urban areas increase in
number and expand in geographical and population size, solid waste is swiftly emerging as a
significant issue in environmental management. Although there are established guidelines for
solid waste management, there is need for clear legislation and preferably a national policy
specifically on solid waste management (NEMA, 2005).
In particular, waste volumes have increased in urban areas due to the growing urban population,
concentration of industries, consumption of residents, and inadequate finance and facilities to
manage waste collection and disposal (NEMA 2007). This state of affairs has led to the volume
of solid waste generated to go beyond what the available facilities can accommodate.
Community participation is crucial in that, according to NEMA (2007), one of the major factors
that have contributed to poor waste collection and management in Uganda is limited community
participation in solid waste management (NEMA, 2007). The limited participation has budded
from co-ordination and collaboration problems that exist among the three stakeholders in solid
waste management- the communities, the public (government) and the private sectors (NEMA,
2007).
Some researchers have written about community participation in solid waste management
(Clairvair, 2006 and Mukisa, 2009). However, this research will seek to identify gaps they have
left and to discover whether what other researchers found in other areas is applicable to this
particular area or location of this research.
This study will seek to explore community participation in solid waste management in Kisenyi
area, Kampala District in Uganda.

1.2 Problem statement

Community participation in solid waste management should ideally be based on the fact that
everyone generates waste and can be affected directly and indirectly if waste is not well
managed. Solid waste can be hazardous to humans and the environment if not appropriately
managed (Clairvair, 2006). Human existence is dependent on the use of material resources which
eventually become waste. As developing countries achieve greater socio-economic well-being,
the more waste per capita is often generated, hence leading to more critical the need for effective
and efficient solid waste management systems. Performance of such systems depends on the

-2-
meaningful participation of individuals, communities and institutions, producers, NGOs and
governments (Clairvair, 2006). Effective community participation can contribute to proper solid
waste management and lack of or limited participation will lead to poor waste collection and
management.

Community participation is crucial in that, according to NEMA (2007), One of the major factors
that contributed to the poor waste collection and management in Uganda is limited community
participation in solid waste management (NEMA, 2007).

Unfortunately the actual details of presence or absence of community participation in this

exercise of solid waste management are poorly documented, particularly for the parishes of
Kisenyi. This made the study crucial in order to get in-depth information on the topic under
study and subsequently mitigation measures.

Therefore, this study investigated community participation in solid waste management in Kisenyi
area, Kampala district Uganda. In Particular, the different ways of community participation are a
major concern that this study addressed.

1.3 Research objectives

1.3.1 Main objective

The main objective of this study was to explore the current level of community participation in
solid waste management and what more the community can contribute to solid waste
management in the future to achieve proper solid waste management in Kisenyi area, Kampala
District, Uganda.

1.3.2 Specific objectives

 To examine ways of community participation in solid waste management in Kisenyi area,
Kampala District.
 To find out whether there are any plans in place by both the community and the local
authority to improve community participation in solid waste management in Kisenyi area,
Kampala District.
 To identify what more activities the community in Kisenyi area, Kampala District can
embark on for better solid waste management in the future.

-3-
1.4 Research Questions
1. What are the different ways the community participates in solid waste management in Kisenyi
area, Kampala District?
2. Are there any plans in place by both the community and local authorities to improve
community participation in solid waste management in Kisenyi area, Kampala District?
3. What other activities can the community embark on for better solid waste management in
Kisenyi area, Kampala District?

1.5 Scope of the study

1.5.1 Content scope

The study focused on the community participation in solid waste management in Kisenyi area,
Kampala district Uganda. It specifically put emphasis on current community participation in
solid waste management and potential further role the community can play for better solid waste
management in Kisenyi area, Kampala District.

1.5.2 Geographical and time scope

The study was carried out in Kisenyi area, Kampala District, Uganda. Kampala is the Capital
City of Uganda, which is situated almost in the middle of the country covering a surface area of
195 sq. km. Kampala City, is administratively divided into five divisions namely: Central,
Kawempe, Makindye, Lubaga and Nakawa. Kisenyi is a large informal settlement in the heart of
Kampala, mainly near the central commuter taxi terminals. The settlement is located in the
south-western part of Kampala’s Central Division. It is situated amongst the key productive areas
of down town Kampala: east of Mengo, south of Old Kampala and adjoining central business
district. Kisenyi is comprised of three parishes namely Kisenyi I, Kisenyi II, Kisenyi III
(Dobson, et. al. 2011). It covers approximately 101.2 ha (249.0 acres) with an estimated
population of 28,000 (UBOS, 2011) in all the three parishes. The study was conducted for a
period of six months.

-4-
1.6 Significance of the study
This research is expected to generate more information to the already existing body of
knowledge in the area of public participation in waste management and to the Central Division,
Kampala District, in particular.

Also, the research findings will enlighten the policy makers, local leaders and the local people of
the gaps existing in the public participation in solid waste management. These findings will help
in drafting appropriate policies and the local authority will be in position to initiate programs that
will empower citizens and make them aware of the dangers of poor waste management,
particularly to public health, so that both the authority and citizens would join efforts to solve the
problem at hand.

In addition to the above, the study will also provide future scholars and researchers with
information regarding public participation in solid waste management.

1.7 Definitions of key and technical terms

Waste: UNEP defined waste as substances or objects, which are disposed off or are intended to
be disposed off. These may be required to be disposed off by the provisions of national law.
Waste also refers to an item, material or substance you as an individual consider useless at a
given time and place (Mugambwa, 2009).

Solid waste: This study takes on the definition by the State of the Environment Report for
Uganda (NEMA, 2007) that defines solid waste as “organic and inorganic waste materials
produced by households, commercial, institutional and industrial activities that have lost value in
the sight of the initial user”.

Waste management: Waste management refers to the “collection, transportation, processing,

recycling or disposal of waste materials” (Mugambwa, 2009).

Recycling: Separating a given waste material (for instance glass) from the waste stream and
processing it so that it can be used again as the raw material for products which might or might
not be similar to the original.

-5-
Composting: refers to; The controlled aerobic biological decomposition of organic matter, such
as food scraps and plant matter, into humus- a soil-like material. Compost acts as a natural
fertilizer by providing nutrients to the soil, increasing beneficial soil organisms, and suppressing
certain plant diseases (USEPA, 2002).

Combustion: refers to the controlled burning of waste in a bid to reduce the volume that has to
go to landfills, and in some cases to generate electricity. Combustion can be employed for waste
that cannot be prevented or recycled.

Landfilling: A method of disposing of refuse on land without creating nuisance or hazards to

public health or safety, by utilizing the principles of engineering to confine the refuse to the
smallest practical volume and by covering it with a layer of soil at the conclusion of each day's
operation or at such more frequent intervals as might be necessary. A sanitary landfill is a system
for final disposal of solid waste on land, in which the waste is spread and compacted on an
inclined working face in a series of cells and a daily cover of soil is provided, so that no hazard
to the environment results (USEPA, 2002).

Leachate: is a liquid emanating from a land−disposal cell that contains dissolved, suspended
and/or microbial contaminants from the solid waste.

Community: A community consists of people living together in some form of social

organization and cohesion. Its members share in varying degrees of political, economic, social
and cultural characteristic as well as interest.

Community participation: Armitage (1988) defined community participation as a process by

which communities act in response to public concerns, voice out their opinions about decisions
that affect them, and take responsibility for changes to their community.

-6-
 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction
This chapter covers review of literature on solid waste management globally, regionally,
nationally and some East African capital cities. It also covers significance of community
participation in solid waste management, the role community in solid waste management, the
challenges of involving community in solid waste management and strategies of involving
community in solid waste management.

2.1 Global review of solid waste management

Current global municipal solid waste generation levels are approximately 1.3 billion tonnes per
year, and are expected to increase to approximately 2.2 billion tonnes per year by 2025. This
represents a significant increase in per capita waste generation rates, from 1.2 to 1.42 kg per
person per day in the next fifteen years. However, global averages are broad estimates only as
rates vary considerably by region, country, city, and even within cities (World Bank, 2012). For
example, over the years the amount of municipal solid waste generated in the United States of
America has grown steadily, in part because of growing population, but more so because of
changing lifestyles and increasing use of disposable materials and excessive packaging (Richard
T, et al., 2002).

Waste generation in sub-Saharan Africa is approximately 62 million tonnes per year. Per capita
waste generation is generally low in this region, but spans a wide range, from 0.09 to 3.0 kg per
person per day, with an average of 0.65 kg/capita/day (Achankeng, et al., 2003). The countries
with the highest per capita rates are islands, likely due to waste generated by the tourism
industry, and a more complete accounting of all waste generated (World Bank, 2012).

The annual waste generation in East Asia and the Pacific Region is approximately 270 million
tonnes per year. This quantity is mainly influenced by waste generation in China, which makes
up 70% of the regional total. Per capita waste generation ranges from 0.44 to 4.3 kg per person
per day for the region, with an average of 0.95 kg/capita/day (Hoornweg et al 2005).

-7-
In Eastern and Central Asia, the waste generated per year is at least 93 million tonnes. Eight
countries in this region have no available data on waste generation in the literature. The per
capita waste generation ranges from 0.29 to 2.1 kg per person per day, with an average of 1.1
kg/capita/day. Latin America and the Caribbean has the most comprehensive and consistent data
(for instance, PAHO’s Regional Evaluation of Solid Waste Management, 2005). The total
amount of waste generated per year in this region is 160 million tonnes, with per capita values
ranging from 0.1 to 14 kg/capita/ day, and an average of 1.1 kg/capita/day. Similar to the high
per capita waste generation rates on islands in Africa, the largest per capita solid waste
generation rates are found in the islands of the Caribbean (World Bank, 2012).

In the Middle East and North Africa, solid waste generation is 63 million tonnes per year. Per
capita waste generation is 0.16 to 5.7 kg per person per day, and has an average of 1.1
kg/capita/day. The OECD countries generate 572 million tonnes of solid waste per year. The per
capita values range from 1.1 to 3.7 kg per person per day with an average of 2.2 kg/capita/day. In
South Asia, approximately 70 million tonnes of waste is generated per year, with per capita
values ranging from 0.12 to 5.1 kg per person per day and an average of 0.45 kg/capita/day
(World Bank, 2012).

Waste collection is the collection of solid waste from point of production (residential, industrial
commercial, institutional) to the point of treatment or disposal. Regions with low-income
countries tend to have low collection rates. South Asia and Africa are the lowest with 65% and
46% respectively. Not surprisingly, OECD countries tend to have the highest collection
efficiency at 98%. The data show that the average waste collection rates are directly related to
income levels. Low-income countries have low collection rates, around 41%, while high-income
countries have higher collection rates averaging 98% (World Bank, 2012).

Waste composition is influenced by factors such as culture, economic development, climate, and
energy sources; composition impacts how often waste is collected and how it is disposed. Low
income countries have the highest proportion of organic waste. Paper, plastics, and other
inorganic materials make up the highest proportion of MSW in high income countries (World
Bank, 2012).

-8-
Landfilling and thermal treatment of waste are the most common methods of MSW disposal in
high-income countries. For instance, in the United states in 1998, 55% of municipal solid waste
was disposed off in landfills, 28% was discovered by recycling and composting and the
remainder 17% was combusted (Richard T, et al,. 2002). Although quantitative data is not
readily available, most low- and lower middle-income countries dispose off their waste in open
dumps. Several middle-income countries have poorly operated landfills; disposal should likely
be classified as controlled dumping (World Bank, 2012).

The disposal of solid wastes is an increasing global problem. Millions of people continue
suffering haphazardly dumped wastes. For example Egypt (one of the countries that produces
huge amount of solid wastes) produce about 11.8 million tons of garbage annually, which
implies that every square kilometer of residential area produce 198 tons per year. This is
considered as highest rate worldwide (Hansen, 1998).

2.2 Regional perspective on solid waste management

Waste management in urban centers of East Africa has for a long time been centralized (Liyala
2011), With the use of imported refuse truck (Rotich et al., 2006; Okot-Okumu & Nyenje 2011)
that collect waste from sources or transfer point and deliver to designated waste dumps.
Municipal solid waste management (MSWM) system in East Africa has changed from the
colonial days in the 40s, 50s and early 60s when it was efficient because of the lower urban
population and adequate resources (Okot-Okumu & Nyenje, 2011) to the current status that
displays inefficiencies. The centralized waste management system has evolved into the current
management mixtures that include decentralized as well as the involvement of the private sector.

The storage, collection, transportation and final treatment/disposal of waste are reported to have
become a major problem in urban centres (ADB 2002; Kaseva & Mbuligwe 2005; Okot- Okumu
& Nyenje 2011; Rotich et al., 2006). The composition of waste generated by the East African
urban centres is mainly decomposable organic materials based on the urban community
consumption that generates much kitchen waste, compound waste and floor sweepings (Oberlin,
2011; Okot-Okumu & Nyenje 2011; Scheinberg, 2011; Simon, 2008; Rotich et al., 2006). This
calls for efficient collection system to avoid health, aesthetics and environmental impacts. The

-9-
global trend of increased use of electrical and electronic goods is also evident in EAC where E-
waste is becoming a significant threat to the environment and human health in EAC urban
centres (Blaser & Schluep, 2012; NEMA 2010 & UNEP, 2010; Wasswa & Schluep, 2008).

As documented by many authors Liyala, (2011), Oberlin (2011) communities in urban centers of
east Africa do not participated solid waste management and this is one of the major factors that
contributed poor waste collection and management. The prevailing attitude of the public towards
waste collection and disposal or treatment is poor (Liyala 2011; Oberlin 2011). The urban
communities generally do not participate in waste management responsibly and this is not helped
by the inability of the urban councils to enforce existing waste management laws (Liyala, 2011).

2.3 Uganda’s perspective on waste management

In Uganda, the solid waste generated comprises of 73% 0rganic waste; 5.3% paper; 1.7% saw
dust; 1.6% plastics; 3.1% metals; 0.9% glass; 8% tree cuttings and 5.5% street debris (Ngategize
et al., 2001). Kampala City gives a good illustration of this problem. Since 1969, there has been
a big increase in the volume of solid waste generated due to the rise in population. In 1969, 198
metric tonnes were generated every day and currently 800 tonnes (800,000kgs) is being
generated everyday according to the Kampala City Council (KCC report: 2008).

The State of Environment Report for Uganda 2006/2007 notes that the rates of waste generation
in the country vary due to “population, economic status of the population, geographical location,
industrial growth, social habits, education level, season of the year and the extent of recycling
operations” (NEMA, 2007).

Particularly in urban areas, there has been an increase in the number of agencies engaging in
commercial solid waste collection. It is reported that there are over 20 private solid waste
collection agencies providing this service in especially affluent residential and commercial areas
at a fee (NEMA, 2007).
Solid waste in Uganda is disposed of in several ways including; dumping, burying, burning, and
landfilling. The most common method of waste management in Uganda’s urban areas is

- 10 -
“communal storage” while in rural areas, dumping in open places and in open pits are the most
practiced (NEMA, 2007).

In Uganda, the public has not taken any positive steps in solid waste management practices such
as source reduction, re-using, recycling or properly disposing of the portion that cannot be
reclaimed. Instead the public has for the most part maintained an “I don’t care” attitude of
generating as much waste as possible unconscious of the implications for its collection and
disposal (ERL 1990, KCC 1995 and NEMA 1996).

2.4 Solid waste management in some East African cities

Solid waste management in the city of Dar es Salaam
The City of Dar es Salaam consists of three Municipalities of Ilala, Temeke and Kinondoni. Dar
es Salaam; has an area of 1,800 sq kilometer and expands very fast due to rural urban migration
(growth rate 4.3%) City has a population of more than 4.5 million people with 70% of the
population living in unplanned settlements which are estimated to generate 4,161 tons of solid
waste per day. Currently ; waste management is a growing problem due to increasing
urbanization, rural-urban migration, rising standards of living and rapid development associated
with population growth that have resulted in increased solid and liquid waste generation by
industrial, domestic and other activities (Bubegwa, 2012).

Solid waste generation has been steadily increasing in Dar es Salaam City from less than 2,000
tons per day in 1998 to more than 4,000 tons per day in 2011. The current solid waste generation
rate is estimated to be about 0.8 kg/day per household, which is higher than typical values for
developing countries, which range from 0.4 to 0.6 kg/day per household. The composition of
solid waste in Dar es Salaam to a great extent is food waste, garden waste, grass and wood
(Bubegwa, 2012).

In practice solid waste is stored temporarily at source where it is generated. Solid waste is
collected from source and transferred to another type of container for transport to a disposal
facility. The capacity of solid waste collection in Dar es Salaam reached in 2012 is around 1,533
tons of solid waste per day which is only 37% of total solid waste generated in the City. Solid

- 11 -
waste is disposed in open dumps with adverse impacts on public health and the environment
(controlled tipping). Final disposal activities are currently being done at Pugu Kinyamwezi
30km from the city center. Amount of waste recovered and recycled in DSM is very little.
However some studies have indicated that there is a big potential for recycling in Dar es Salaam
and could reach up to 55% of the total solid waste generated. The recycled materials include
paper, textile materials, metal, plastics and glass with scrap metals and plastic bottles being the
most recycled. The recycling activities take place informally at point of generation, collection,
illegal dump sites and final disposal sites (Bubegwa, 2012). At the moment there is no national
policy and legislation on recycling; hence, it is done haphazardly and according to the needs of
the market (Kassim, 2006).

The main challenges facing Dara es Salaam municipal solid waste management include absence
of environmentally reliable disposal sites and inadequate solid waste storage at house hold and
communal areas. Other challenges include inadequate solid waste transportation vehicles, trucks,
equipment and tools, Long distance to the current disposal site causing high operational costs
and reduced collection capacity (about 30 km from city center). Absence of organized
intermediate treatment and recycling activities, Insufficient community and informal sector
involvement (low community awareness) and public participation are also other challenges (
Bubegwa, 2012).

Solid waste management in Nairobi

UNEP/NEMA (2003) (cited in Ngau & Kahiu, 2009 – ISWM Secondary Data Report) found that
domestic waste contributes 68% of the total waste generated in Nairobi; while non-domestic
waste from industrial, markets, roads & other activities contributed a combined total of about
32% of the total waste generated, broken down as follows; Industrial: 14 %; roads: 8 %;
hospitals: 2 %; markets: 1 %; and 7 % from other sources.

Current total waste collection levels in Nairobi are estimated at 50% (UNEP/CCN 2009 ISWM
Framework Report) at best, in general agreement with previous studies that found that over half
of Nairobi’s residents don’t receive any waste collection service ( Karanja (2005) in a survey of
128 households found 48% did not receive any service). This equates to total collection levels of

- 12 -
about 1560 tons/day. Based on April 2009 CCN records, CCN collection levels at the moment
are approximately an average of 430 tons/day (Njenga, 2009a). Weighbridge records at the
official Dandora dumpsite over the period 2006 to end 2008 indicated an average 830 tons/day
were disposed off there (NTT, 2009).

The total waste reuse and recycling efforts in the city is about 100-150 tons/day, and taking the
upper limit of 150 tons/day, approximately equivalent to 5% of total waste generated. This
coupled with an average waste disposal as legally required at Dandora dumpsite of 830 tons/day,
means that at most (assuming collection of recyclables/reusables happens before final disposal)
only 980 tons/day of the collected 1560 tons/day are in fact properly disposed at the designated
Dandora dumpsite or properly treated (Baud et al, 2004) and( Karanja, 005).

The difference in the total collection and safe disposal figures above of 580 tons/day, summed to
the uncollected 1560 tons/day gives a grand total of 2140 tons/day; which could be assumed to
be largely disposed of in inappropriate ways such as burning and illegal/indiscriminate dumping
either by collectors or due to non-collection (Kasozi and Harro von Blottnitz, 2010).

Solid waste management situation in Kampala

It is estimated that about 1000 tons of solid waste are generated in Kampala per day. The
estimated per capita daily generation ranges between 0.5kg and 1.2kg, compared to 0.3kg for
Dar-es-Salaam and 0.8kg for Nairobi (Ekere, 2009). However, unlike cities in industrialized
countries, which mostly generate waste with low organic material (Hoornmeg, 1999); Kampala
generate solid waste rich in vegetables waste or else known as a crop waste. The biggest fraction
of which is generated in several markets as a result of the practice of selling food crops in their
raw form (KCC, 2003; Sabiiti et al.,2004, Ekere 2009).

According to katongole et al.(2008) and Ekere (2009), the waste arising from this practice selling
food crops in their raw form is chiefly of two types: the unwanted products or crop parts that are
either rejected or cut off during the process of sorting, and the materials used for packaging when
transporting crops to Kampala. For easier handling, it is a common practice that traders pack
crops (banana fingers, sweet potatoes, Irish potatoes, cassava etc.) in gunny sacks and use
materials such as banana leaves, banana pseudo-stem sheaths, grasses of (different types) and

- 13 -
sweet potatoes vines to close the openings of the sacks. The pseudo-stem sheaths are also used to
wrap bunches of desert bananas as a way of protecting their skin from cuts or bruises. The
sheaths are also used to pad the bottom and sides of trucks used for transportation of bananas. On
reaching markets in Kampala, the sacks are opened and wrapping materials are dumped in the
markets as waste. Besides the markets, solid waste in Kampala is produced by households or
residential areas, public areas and streets, as well as construction, agricultural, commercial,
institutional and industrial activities ( Sabiiti, 2008; Katongole, 2008).

On average, the solid waste collection levels in Kampala are estimated at only about 36% of the
total generated (Ekere, 2009). As a result, the uncollected waste is dumped indiscriminately on
the streets, in or around garbage bins/ skips and in drains, so contributing to flooding, as well as
causing inconvenience and serious environmental and health problems. Due to the increase in the
population, there is an increased demand for food in Kampala. In view of the fact that most food
stuffs are marketed in their raw form, the implication is increased magnitude of crop waste
generation, both at the market and household levels. Additionally, solid waste in Kampala is not
separated into fractions like biodegradable, paper, glass, plastic, metal and so forth at the place
where it is generated. This implies that waste quantification and inventorying according to
category is practically impossible.

2.5 Waste management practices

There are several factors that have facilitated increase in the volume of solid waste generated.
One of the factors that have led to increased solid waste generation is rapid urbanization (UNEP,
2007). Urban areas attract people from rural areas because of better services available in these
areas. As the population in urban areas increases the demand for consumables will increase
which potentially present a larger base for waste generation-in most cases solid waste.

The increase in the volumes of waste generated has also been proved to be synonymous with the
“new lifestyles associated with greater affluence” which convert into higher consumption levels,
thus generating more waste amidst changes in waste composition (UNEP, 2007). Wealth people
have higher consumption rate than poor people. This influences waste generation because wealth
people buy more things than they actually need and many of these things will eventually leads
them to get rid of the useless excess which turns into solid waste.

- 14 -
In most cases more purchases also mean more packaging material- which readily translates into
solid waste especially for the manufactured products. The manufactured products contain
materials which are very difficult to decompose, for example plastics, thus increasing waste
volumes uncontrollably (Bournay, 2006). In a capitalistic world, the ultimate aim of the
manufacturers is to make as much profit as the market can permit. Since manufacturers aim at
profit maximization, they do not think about waste products of their manufactured materials and
consumers face the challenge of waste management.

Generally, there is a tendency for development to come with increased waste generation. Data
from Asia confirms that the more developed countries like Japan, Laos and Thailand, have more
municipal waste generated per capita. Interestingly also, there have not been signs of abating the
increasing amounts of waste generated (UNEP, 2007). The rapid increase in waste generation
has therefore made effective waste management in many countries, challenging. Consequently, it
has put human life and the environment at stake. Some countries in Asia have taken on eco-
labelling as a market-based tool/strategy to deal with the waste problem (UNEP, 2007). On top
of eco-labelling, the 3-R approach: (reduce, reuse and recycle) is also becoming popular in Asia
(and other parts of the world).

There is an indication that the ways in which solid waste is managed, are as diverse as the human
race itself according Mukisa (2009). Some methods of waste management are proper and
environmentally sound, while some are not. Conventionally, solid waste (in most cases referred
to as garbage) is usually collected as a bundle of trash by local authorities or by private firms to
be taken to a transfer station and then to a landfill (sometimes collected and taken straight to the
landfill). However, solid waste can become source of income particularly if it contains large
amount of recyclables materials. For instance, a research carried out in Egypt reveals that
incomes of nearly 600 Million L.E (about 196 million US dollars) were generated annually from
garbage recycling (Schimgt, 2003).

However, considering the fact that there are not always enough resources and infrastructure for
waste management, especially in developing countries, this scenario ultimately implies that some

- 15 -
waste will not be collected, or will be improperly disposed of (UNEP 2002). As a result,
landfills, burning waste, rodents and odours which are very common in developing countries
have made residential areas susceptible to health hazards (UNEP, 2007).

Therefore, if solid waste is not managed properly it will pose various environmental health
challenges. One of the suggested solutions to overcome the problem of solid waste is integrated
solid waste management.

2.6 An integrated strategy to solid waste management

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 2002), categorically introduces
and defines five main activities (in a hierarchy) classified under integrated solid waste
management (waste prevention, recycling, composting, combustion and landfilling).
a) Waste Prevention also known as source reduction in the design, manufacture, purchase,
or use of materials and products to reduce the amount and/or toxicity of discarded waste.
Waste prevention also means, in simple terms, “reducing waste by not producing it”
(USEPA, 2002). Waste prevention or “source reduction” as it is often called,
accomplished two goals: It reduces the amount of waste that must be managed, and it
conserves resources (Richard T, et al., 2002).
b) Recycling involves the reuse of materials that are potential waste but are rather turned
into valuable resources. The most important advantage with recycling is that it reduces
the production of greenhouse gases since there is diversion of the waste from the
landfills.
c) Composting refers to; “The controlled aerobic biological decomposition of organic
matter, such as food scraps and plant matter, into humus- a soil-like material. Compost
acts as a natural fertilizer by providing nutrients to the soil, increasing beneficial soil
organisms, and suppressing certain plant diseases” (USEPA, 2002).
d) Combustion refers to the controlled burning of waste in a bid to reduce the volume that
has to go to landfills, and in some cases to generate electricity. Combustion can be
employed for waste that cannot be prevented or recycled.
e) Landfilling- this presents a safer alternative to uncontrolled dumping of solid waste. It is
very clear that poor waste disposal can be dangerous to human life as well as the

- 16 -
 environment; therefore establishment of designated places (landfills) where waste that
can neither be recycled nor composted can be managed, becomes necessary.

2.7 Significance of community participation in solid waste management

Could community participation be the missing component?

In many parts of the world, communities continue to be looked at as passive recipients of

government services, and are very often disregarded even in local decision-making processes
(Tadesse, 2006). Ultimately, this approach results in the people failing to know the role they can
play in the process. Therefore, in the midst of several waste management and disposal methods,
participation could be a missing link/component in a possible recipe for better solid waste
management. Considerable research efforts have been directed to public participation even in the
aspects of recycling behavior (Barr, 2004, Schimgt, 2003). Such researches have had interesting
findings emerge in support of public participation in solid waste management. Research findings
show that landfill space is now scarce and yet the communities also are less likely to accept
landfills to be sited near their habitation for environmental, health and aesthetic reasons (Barr,
2004).

Under the traditional approach to solid waste management, the Municipal/ Towns Councils
handle all the process of collection, transport and disposal. This approach had proved to be
unsuccessful in most areas. For example, in developing world Municipal system handles only a
small fraction of the waste generated by the city. In many cities especially Asia more waste is
dealt with, by vast network of the urban waste picker. For example in Mandras, India one Non-
Governmental Organization working with scavengers was integrated into the cities door to door
solid waste collection services. Then deliver the waste to municipal vehicles or deposit it at
transfer points, with household paying fees to this service (Ferudy, 1994).

In Tanzania the program of solid waste management has shown some improvement in Mwanza
region after the introduction of solid waste management program that was initiated from the
grassroots level. The community has used local agenda 21 processes to form stakeholder’s
groups that worked with the community helping in finding the solution of waste management

- 17 -
problems. Stakeholders working groups brought together community representatives, waste
service providers and policy makers to develop a three years strategy to develop a waste
collection and recycling strategy. Community participation was an important part of the solution
( Schmigt, 2003).

Studying Residential Solid Waste Management in India, (Sauro, 2000) found some gaps in the
solid waste management practices that would easily point to public participation as the most
possible solution. It was found that systematic sorting of waste at the different stages right from
the source to the disposal sites was lacking (Joardar, 2000). It was also a major finding that in
India, incineration has not shown success due to the diverse composition of the waste since it is
not sorted. Basic sorting should ideally be a role played by the public, at the source (of waste
generation). Without waste sorting, it practically becomes difficult to manage the solid waste in a
sustainable way.

Besides, the manner in which waste is disposed off especially in the developing world may only
suit participation of the public in order to reverse the effects of poor solid waste disposal. Joardar
(2000), found that “the most widely practiced municipal disposal method has been uncontrolled
dumping, concentrated in low-lying fringe locations and leading to leacheate percolation and
pollution runoff and contamination of soil, ground water, canals, and river ways”. Uncontrolled
dumping when practiced indiscriminately by the public, it imposes far-reaching effects as Sauro
points out. However, in itself, dumping is not a sustainable way of management of waste, it
would actually be a qualified destructive method, yet it can be controlled and the effects reversed
if the public were involved in the waste management and disposal structure.

Although the process of public participation may sometimes be long and not cheap in terms of
time and to some people, it may not even be meaningful. However, it is almost impossible to talk
about sustainable development and at the same time evade the need to have the people involved.
This is because in contemporary development practice, growing awareness of the importance of
people’s non-expert experiences and knowledge has continuously led to a dire need for shared
decision making in various contexts (Barnes, 2005). The input of the public is not ignorable in
any given sector because of their exerted influence on the direction of development.

- 18 -
At face value, it may be difficult to see the importance of public participation in solid waste
management. However, it is imperative to look at some of the methods in solid waste
management and locate the place for public participation in the success and effectiveness of such
methods in managing solid waste. The most popular method, which has notably attracted a lot of
research in the field of waste management, is recycling. Although the contribution of recycling to
solid waste management has been heralded (Tsai, 2007), Bekin et al. (2007)) argue that there are
other environmentally friendly ways that can be adopted to manage waste. They do not
wholesomely buy the idea that recycling is an environmentally sound way of managing waste
because of the shortcomings leveled against it. Recycling consumes energy and thus imposing
costs on the environment (Mackaness 2005 cited in Bekin et al., 2007). Read et al., (1998) also
note that though it is common for even developed countries to deal with solid waste by recycling
and, disposal after treatment, it is not the best way to manage solid waste.

The scale of public participation in solid waste management is noticeably different between the
developed and developing countries. In developed countries, public participation in solid waste
management may go as far as sorting of the waste generated. The private firms then collect the
already sorted waste at a fee. The fees paid cover up for the processes in which the public should
have participated in the waste management line. In other words, the burden is passed on to the
private waste collectors at a fee (Mukisa, 2009).

In developing countries, the picture is different. In the first place, the majority of the population
is too poor to regularly afford fees for waste collection. Secondly, many of the people ignorantly
albeit innocently, dispose of waste carelessly with little concern about the imminent effects their
careless disposal will ultimately cause. Thirdly, in some instances the people just do not think
out the complexity of the waste problem and on whom the effect will finally rest. The public
seems to think that it is completely the concern of the local administration to ensure proper waste
management at no extra charge on the public (Mukisa, 2009).

- 19 -
2.8 Role of participation in solid waste reduction
Read et al., (1998) found that Local Governments were increasingly encouraging waste reduction
as a better way of managing solid waste (Read, 1998). In their study on waste reduction, Bekin,
Carrigan and Szmigin argue for waste reduction as a more environmentally viable and yet
involving way of mitigating the solid waste problem. They found out that in communities that
engaged in production of some consumption items (vegetables and fruits), there was reduced
solid waste generation (Bekin et al., 2007). In these communities however, they found out that
there were structures that had ensured an understanding of the need for deliberate measures to
deal with waste from a sustainable development point of view. The community members were
actively involved in the appreciation of the need for collective effort and thus agreement on such
undertakings. It is not out of context therefore that Read et al., recommended that despite
financial constraints, the private and public sectors need to embrace waste minimization as an
important venture to invest in, for waste management (Read et al., 1998).

For a community to register the kind of successes that is reported by Bekin et al., (2007), an
amount of social cohesion is essential. This is further affirmed by Tsai (2007) that “households
living in a region with a higher degree of social capital are more likely to work against
opportunism and participate in waste management”. The implication of this is that there is
potential in strategizing for solid waste management from the community/public angle. If the
members of the public are supported to build and concretize their social capital, their
constructive participation in solid waste management can easily be harnessed. The members of
the community are capable of thinking of more tailor-made, viable and sustainable ways of
managing solid waste, when availed the opportunity.

Tsai believes that waste recycling is a perfect method of managing waste and that it fits very well
in sustainable development practices. However, his discussion of the findings from his study on
the impact of social capital on regional waste recycling, gives a link to the effect that recycling is
“a function of community involvement” (Tsai, 2007). Community participation in all activities
related to waste management is pivotal and un-ignorable.

- 20 -
2.9 Social capital and participation in solid waste management
Barr (2004) argues that it is not the role of the product producers alone, to reduce waste but also
a duty of the general public to manage waste in a sustainable manner. This argument is valid
because the will for involvement of the public needs to be guaranteed so that the roles of the
producers and the consumers in waste reduction can reinforce each other. It should be
appreciated that success of participation relies strongly on collective action by
group/community/society members. Implicitly, the members in the group need to have cohesion
as a basis for their collective operation in solid waste management. Tsai, (2007), emphasizes the
importance of social capital in waste management. Social capital in this case offers an
opportunity to the people to collectively construct meaning and vision, consequently reducing
probability of divergence in belief and ideology. They instead are most likely to share a common
vision and thus able to work together to attain it.

Community institutional structures are also of importance in managing solid waste. In their
study, Bekin et al., note that in the absence of appropriate institutional structures, it becomes
difficult to ensure solid waste reduction at an individual level. They continue to emphasize that
waste reduction may only be viable in a community with some control over production and
consumption of some items (Bekin et al, 2007). This kind of arrangement is bound to give power
to the existing structure to operate in a manner within their own choice of means. Waste
reduction begins at the stage of production when there is deliberate effort to prevent production
of waste material, but this can be very difficult if the structure within which production is made
does not deliberately support the prevention of such materials at production stage. When this is
ensured by the structure, it simplifies the solid waste management system at the next level- of
consumption.

It is very clear that without community support and involvement at least at sorting stage (which
has to be done at the source before waste collection), even recycling may be very costly to
undertake. Here, the community manifests as a very important stakeholder in solid waste
management and the level of their participation counts on the success of recycling in particular
and solid waste management in general. Notably, the costs of collection, transportation and land
for landfills, are high; however engaging the community serves to reduce such costs. In a way,

- 21 -
this proves to be a sustainable mode of waste management. For example: in Dhaka where
community-based solid waste management and composting projects have been implemented, a
lot of such costs have been reduced (UNEP, 2007). The projects have been able to save the
municipalities from the costs of collection while at the same time reducing the need for landfills
(UNEP, 2007). Diversion of costs from the municipalities allows them to invest in other services
that benefit the community.

Apart from cutting costs of management and disposal, since waste collection, sorting and
processing is in most cases labour intensive, it serves to employ a substantial number of people.
It is revealed that in India, over one million people are employed in the waste sector (Gupta,
2001, in UNEP, 2007). Potentially, a number of otherwise would-be unemployed people can
gainfully engage in the process of sorting and collecting especially recyclable waste materials
either on a private individual (informal) basis or at (formal) company level. In so doing, financial
gains would permeate to those who engage in sustainable waste management practices, and thus
encouraging sustained participation.

2.10 Role of the community in solid waste management

The role of the public in waste management and in solid waste management in particular, has
become indispensable and, can be through various ways. According to Tsai (2007), a society that
is willing to work together presents an opportunity for “creativity and innovation” in dealing
with the waste problem. Tsai’s observation brings out the importance of the will of the
people/public to work together on matters of waste. Mutual understanding and agreement is vital
in having the members of the public to work together. When solidarity is achieved, it presents
fertile ground for the germination of creative ways of handling waste in a sustainably agreeable
manner. It therefore becomes a responsibility of the public to be willing to work together in solid
waste management, among other things.

Bekin et al., (2007) recommended that purchasing second-hand items as a way of waste
reduction is important before people can resort to recycling and composting. This can go a long
way in having potential waste kept at the minimum. It is a form of re-use of items which implies
that less new items on top of the already under-use items will be purchased. The developing

- 22 -
countries have been operating within this kind of arrangement, however with different push
factors like inability to afford first-hand, new items.

When the waste aspect of these items is put into perspective, one could easily arrive at the
conclusion that to a larger extent, the importation and use of second-hand items has actually
accelerated the solid waste burden. Despite the emphasis on waste reduction and recycling as
compared to disposal, avoiding or even reducing disposal is easier said than done specifically in
developing countries (Chung and Poon, 2001). The developing countries especially in Asia and
Africa usually import second-hand items from Europe and America, though a number of affluent
Asian countries also export some of their send-hand items to Africa for reuse. A large volume of
these second-hand items are either obsolete thereby ending up as waste sooner than expected, or
they just have a very short lifespan remaining and thus becoming out of use. This scenario is not
very different from the argument that rich countries negatively contribute to the waste burden in
the developing countries by exporting second-hand items (Bournay, 2006). The appropriateness
of this suggestion as a way of waste reduction is brought under check, especially in the poor
countries which may not have adopted effective and efficient recycling systems.

2.11 Challenge of involving the community in solid waste management

Governments, whether central, federal or decentralized, have been a bit obstinate to public
involvement in development projects and social service planning and implementation. From a
political point of view, it is expected that the authorities possess the mandate to think and take
decisions on behalf of the electorate, besides; it may save time to technically exclude the public
in such processes. It is not uncommon; however, to find many of such projects that neglect
public participation, failing to yield the planned gains, Provision of solid waste management and
disposal services is no exception. The process of public participation in solid waste management
is challenged by several factors, depending on the method chosen for this purpose as well as the
characteristics of the public in a particular location.

Tsai (2007) notes for example that “attitudes towards recycling are influenced by appropriate
opportunities, facilities, knowledge and convenience”. People are diverse in terms of the
knowledge base they possess as well as in what they feel is convenient for them. This

- 23 -
automatically makes their attitudes to differ. Reaching consensus on the most convenient system
of managing solid waste around a particular facility becomes challenging.

Goulet, a development scholar argued that “development is not a cluster of benefits given to
people in need, but rather a process by which a populace acquires a greater mastery over its own
destiny”. His argument emphasizes the importance of people’s participation in development
ventures and projects that concern them. This does not go without caution, though. It is
dangerous to leave the people with the power to decide for themselves what they want and how
they want it, without any guarantees that the people possess the basic requisite knowledge for
analysis and subsequent informed decision-making. The information, knowledge and awareness
gaps among the members of the public make their involvement a challenging option. In their
study on waste minimization in Local Governments in the United Kingdom, Read et al., (1998)
found out that there was low awareness about the best practices in waste minimization across
different administrative areas/Local Governments. For public participation to yield optimum
benefit, prior arrangements to close or at least narrow the knowledge and awareness gaps ought
to have been made. Involving the public with their knowledge gaps, may only lead to a
challenging process of participation in solid waste management.

To effectively involve the public in solid waste Solid waste management is a matter influenced
by policy. Ideally, policy acts as an engine that gives direction and impetus to the solid waste
management system. Sauro’s analysis, however, shows that due to the absence of clear public
policies as well as the economic unviability of investments in municipal waste segregation and
recycling, such activities have not thrived in most parts of the developing world (Joardar, 2000).

The absence of clear and specifically outlined legislation and mandate makes it difficult to
achieve quality solid waste management practices. This is because it “deprives local bodies of
transparent tools to regulate activities of individuals, firms, or organizations towards effective
solid waste management” (Joardar, 2000). The participation of the private sector in solid waste
management also most often than not concentrates on municipal “contracting-out” of secondary
waste collectors in form of transferring the waste to disposal sites (Joardar, 2000). The
participation of the public as individuals is still virgin and provides a lot of potential for doing

- 24 -
more about solid waste management. This therefore calls for strategies that will help to enlist the
participation of the entire public for their attention to sustainable solid waste management
practices.

2.12 Strategies for community participation

Participation of people in any kind of project needs careful planning by way of laying down
strategies to encourage it. Tsai recommends that in order to encourage households to participate
in waste recycling, there needs to be a well-informed waste collection regime, good quality of
environmental education and attitudes, an effective enforcement scheme from social norms,
proper economic incentives and promotion from local communities (Tsai, 2007). This is what
many authorities have not been able to do especially in the developing world. Waste collection
regimes do not seem to receive enough attention and environmental education has almost not
been taken seriously. For the public to be interested to be associated with a project, and put in
their efforts, they need to be assured that their efforts will yield success and progress, and the
best way to do this is by presentation of a clear and easy-to-understand system of operation.
These efforts notwithstanding, there is need for consideration of some other factors.

The social and economic status of the people also has a connotation on whether or, and how the
people will participate in solid waste management. The authorities need to keep such factors at
the back of their mind as they plan strategies for ensuring quality participation of the public. Tsai
(2007) gives evidence that higher incomes and higher education levels elicit the will to
participate in waste management programmes like recycling in order to protect the environment.
However, he does not show whether the influence of the income and education level goes only as
far as recycling is concerned. Recycling is different from other activities in solid waste
management. The authorities could easily take advantage of such factors to begin recycling
programs in areas where high income earners reside and or work and the successes that may be
registered in such areas may form a basis for rolling it out to other areas. It could be a resource-
cutting measure to start with such a group as it is believed that the rich and middle-class
households organize themselves to privately collect and transfer their waste to centers where the
authorities can pick it from. This assumption is premised on the belief that it is very rare that the

- 25 -
municipal or city authorities will engage in door-to-door collection of the waste, especially in the
developing world (Joardar, 2000). The limited resources within which the authorities in
developing countries operate make it hard to do waste collection at a door-to-door basis. If the
households can collect their waste to a center where the authorities can in turn pick it from, it
may make the work easier.

In India, Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) have helped in civic campaigning, arranging

for door-to-door collection of waste as well as assisting in the establishment of cooperatives for
“rag pickers” (Joardar, 2000). NGOs, especially those that have an environment orientation need
to be supported to mobilize the community to participate in solid waste management as a
sustainability measure. NGOs have been instrumental in promoting popular participation in the
developing world. The people believe in them, and the voluntary nature of their work, gives
authenticity and virtue to their programs. Besides, their membership is widely civic and thus
qualifying their interventions as self-help, with a higher chance for success and sustainability.

To Joardar, introduction of a “user charge based on door-to-door collection” can support waste
sorting and recycling (Joardar, 2000). The user charge can also work as a stimulus for item reuse
thus reducing on the rate of waste generation at the source. The charges can be levied on both
residential and commercial establishments but with consideration of household size and with
“built-in cross-subsidization in favour of slum dwellers and petty traders” (Joardar, 2000). This
arrangement may not necessarily be implementable without clashes between the authorities and
the low-income households, but it may be worth the efforts because a financial instrument is
more flexible than a legal one since the financial instrument provides a choice for the consumers
and at the same time makes the polluter incur the cost of environmental management (Joardar,
2000). The effectiveness of such a program is determined by the form of governance in a
particular area whether it is centralized or decentralized. Where taxation is centralized activity, it
may be tricky to have the taxes specifically form waste charges to be remitted in order to meet
the costs at the local level.

Chung and Poon, (2001) agree that having a clear structure of charges for waste collection and
disposal in place, may even work as an incentive for waste reduction. They believe that there is

- 26 -
need to change the approach for waste reduction from the “command-and-control” to the use of
economic incentives and “polluter-pays” (Chung and Poon, 2001). This can be a step in
involving the public in solid waste management and also forms an impetus for innovative
thinking to devise cheaper and more convenient ways of managing solid waste.

On the part of government, employing the waste management hierarchy may be a viable strategy.
Production of materials that are less likely to become waste can be emphasized. Before the
products are disposed of, consideration for reuse, recycling, compositing and energy recovery
can be encouraged before materials are finally disposed of (Barr, 2004). It can be seen that the
public has a big stake in most of these processes/activities in solid waste management. It is the
public that can decide or not, to buy products that produce less waste. They are the ones who
have to play the basic waste sorting role at household level, before the waste can be conveniently
collected for recycling or compositing purposes. Therefore, in order to cultivate sustainable
waste management, there is need to do more than just creating awareness and disseminating
knowledge (Barr, 2004). There is a dire need to strategically involve the public in solid waste
management.

- 27 -
 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction
In this chapter, the researcher presents the methodology adopted for this study. The chapter
describes a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches to research, the research
design, the data collection methods, sampling, data processing and analysis methods, limitations
among others.

3.1 Research design

The researcher employed both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. This research took on
a descriptive survey design, seeking to “describe phenomena accurately” (Blanche et al., 2006),
not only using quantitative data but also qualitative data.

Out of the three parishes in Kisenyi area, one parish was selected by simple random sampling
method. Data was consequently collected from the selected parish. From this parish, a total of
121 respondents (from the community) was sampled and interviewed using a structured
questionnaire. Thirteen (13) Key informant respondents were interviewed by semi-structured
interview. These include three officials from the local authority. Selected photographs were
taken to consolidate observations during study.

The quantitative data was processed and analyzed using SPSS computer software to produce
frequency tables and descriptive statistics and graphics. Inferential statistics were used to test
relationships while the qualitative data was transcribed and processed in themes and then was
presented and discussed.

3.2 Location of the study

Kisenyi is a large informal settlement in the heart of Kampala. The settlement is located in the
south-western part of Kampala’s Central Division. It is situated amongst the key productive areas
of down town Kampala: east of Mengo, south of Old Kampala and adjoining central business
district. Kisenyi is comprised of three parishes namely Kisenyi I, Kisenyi II, Kisenyi III

- 28 -
(Dobson, et. al. 2011). It covers approximately 101.2 ha (249.0 acres) with an estimated
population of 28,000 (UBOS, 2011) in all the three parishes.

Kisenyi II, one of the parishes of the Kisenyi ward in Kampala's Central Division, has ten zones
and nearly nine thousand inhabitants. It hosts small scale industries and immense commercial
activities mixing up with significantly poor residential units. The largest and busiest market in
Kampala, St. Balikuddembe market, popularly known as Owino, is also located here. Basic
services such as water and sanitation are substandard and cause serious hygienic and health
problems to the inhabitants.

Few residents live in homes constructed of brick, with cement floor and corrugated iron sheet
roofs. However, many others live in homes built from less sturdy and more hazardous materials.
It is generally a crowded settlement with poor and chaotic structures constructed randomly.
There is hardly left any open space for communal activities. Irrespective of the poor drainage
system, occasional rain flooding, poor housing, poor infrastructure, unsecured and multi- layered
tenure ship system and the little open space, large numbers of people reside here. However, this
settlement comprises a bustling, vibrant and heterogeneous community.

3.3 Study population

The theoretical population of the study was an estimated population according to UBOS, 2011 of
28000 in all three parishes, while the parent or accessible population was those in Kisenyi II
parish which was an estimated population of 9000. The target population of this study was those
in the selected zones within Kisenyi II parish. The target population was comprised of residents,
traders, technical persons, and local leaders with in the selected zones. A total of 150 households
and 51 business establishments within four selected zones made total number of the population
size. The sample size was 134 respondents from the above mentioned categories.

3.4 Data collection methods and tools

The methods for data collection were dependent on the required data for each specific research
question. The researcher used document review, observation, interview- structured and semi-
structured questionnaires (Leedy and Ormrod, 2005). Thus the following tools were used:
observational checklist, Questionnaire, key informant interview guide, photography.

- 29 -
3.4.1 Document review

Document review is an unobtrusive data collection method which is non-reactive since

documents cannot be influenced by the fact that they are being used (Robson, 2002).
Organizations as well as government and in this case local government, produce many
documents (Bryman, 2004). These documents can potentially be used to acquire both
quantitative and qualitative data. The researcher requested for permission to access such
documents, when need arose.
3.4.2 Interview
Interview was used because of the ease at which they allow the collection of information
regarding, facts, people’s beliefs, feelings, motives, present and past behaviour as well as
standards of behaviour (Leedy and Ormrod, 2005).
Structured interview
Structured interview, also referred to as standardized interview, is one of the methods of
collecting data in a survey research (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000; Bryman, 2004). Face-to
face standardized questionnaire was used in place of a self-completion questionnaire. The reason
for this choice is that it was anticipated that the literacy levels of the potential respondents was
vary. Not all the potential respondents were expected to possess the skill of reading,
comprehension and writing. Due to this, it was not easy to look for such respondents who
possess those skills and therefore, a face-to-face standardized questionnaire was preferred also
for standardization of both the asking of questions and the recording of answers (Bryman, 2004).
Structured interview method was used to collect data from residents, and traders.

Semi-structured interview
Semi-structured interview was used to obtain qualitative data for this study. Qualitative data in
form of attitudes, feelings and opinions was not collected by use of the structured interview
method but was rather collected separately through semi-structured interviewing. An interview
guide, with a list of guiding questions was formulated with the intention to give the interviewee a
wider scope within which to respond (Bryman, 2004). The semi-structured interview method was
therefore, used because of its flexibility (yet with delimited generality) and allowance it gives to

- 30 -
the interviewee in responding as they deem important (Bryman, 2004). This semi-structured
interview was used for key informants.
3.4.3 Structured observation
A structured observation is very systematic and enables the researcher to generate numerical data
from the observations (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2000). This is a study that was partly
dependent on survey framework, it was hypothesized that the behavior of the respondents would
most likely be inferred; direct observation of people’s behavior with regard to their responses
was therefore, done to check the accuracy of their responses (Bryman, 2004). Structured
observation was particularly used with the help of an observational checklist as a data collection
tool (Bryman, 2004). Notably also, unobtrusive observation is non-participatory in the interest of
being non-reactive and can be done in an informal way (Robson, 2002; Leedy and Ormrod,
2005), and that is why the researcher had used it alongside the other methods. Residents and
traders were observed, to gather data for this study.

3.5 Sampling
Cohen, Manion & Morrison (2000) argue that a sample size is in a way determined by the style
of the research. In a survey study, there was need for a representative sample of the population
for generalizability of the study findings, while in a purely phenomenological study; the sample
would be smaller given the amount of data that can be collected qualitatively.
3.5.1 Sample size
The sample size was 134 respondents. Of these, 121 respondents were interviewed using
structured questionnaire interviews. These were comprised of residents and traders from different
zones of kisenyi II parish which was randomly selected. The 13 semi-structured interviews were
done with key informant respondents who were purposively sampled considering their location
and the information they were expected to possess. Three local authority officials were part of
key informant. The sample size was therefore determined according to the formula provided by
Yamane (1967) to determine the sample size of the study, using +/-5 level of precision and 95%
level of confidence.

- 31 -
n= N
1+N (e)2

Where n is the sample size

N is the population size
e= is the level of precision

n= N = 201 = 201 = 201 = 201 n =134

1+N (e)2 1+201(0.05)2 1+201*0.0025 1+0.5 1.5

Essentially therefore the sample size was 134 respondents- 121 for the general questionnaire and
13 for key informants.

3.5.2 Sampling procedure

First of all, the names of the ten zones in Kisenyi II parish were written on small pieces of papers
and four zones were randomly selected for this study. The procedure of reaching the individual
respondents to make up the sample for this study was based on convenience sampling. However,
effort was made to have the sample drawn from a dispersed area, to avoid getting the sample
from one place. Much as structured interviews were conducted, it was not deemed viable to
choose the sample by random sampling. This is because as the researcher expected there were no
established data base or list of all the residents and traders in Kisenyi II parish thus making
random sampling for individual respondents impossible.

3.6 Data processing and analysis

The quantitative data from the structured interviews was coded and a master sheet was prepared
before the beginning of data collection. After the data collection, the researcher went through the
data / structured interviews at the end of each day of data collection. This was for purposes of
screening the data for cleaning and editing and marking the codes on the different variables, to
make the data ready to be entered into the master sheet using SPSS program. At the end of the

- 32 -
data collection process, data analysis was done using SPSS. Frequency tables were generated and
cross tabulation was made between relevant variables. Selected graphics were also made.

On the other hand, qualitative data from the questionnaires and interviews was edited every
break of day to get the clear transcriptions of the interviewees’ accounts. The notes were typed
on to the computer, where after, emerging themes was identified and classification of the
emerging themes was done.

3.7 Ethical consideration

The researcher sought permission from the Local Council leaders and hence respondents in order
to allow him collect data. He did not include the names of the respondents in data to be
disseminated later. The researcher explained the purpose of research to the respondents. From
the onset, the researcher made it clear that the research was for an academic purpose and the
information got would not be revealed to anybody else but be kept confidentially.

3.8 Limitations of the study

The study was comprehensive and the researcher used considerable finances to execute the study
successfully. However, despite the envisaged limitations of logistical and financial difficulties,
the researcher endeavored to get the required resources to complete the study within the required
time frame.

The researcher believed to find uncooperative respondents just as he experienced during his
undergraduate research but he intended to build a rapport first. He believed this would help to
build a strong bond with the respondents which assisted in getting the required information.

Time factor was the greatest challenge for the research: There was limited time to go to the field,
make introductions, carry out research, collect data, interpret the findings and then write a
scholarly report. However, these are university regulations and candidates must abide by them.

- 33 -
3.9 Time frame for the dissertation
DURATION ACTIVITY

six weeks Proposal writing

Five weeks Data collection

Three weeks Data editing and coding

Five weeks Data analysis and interpretation

Four weeks Report writing, compiling and

presentation

Twenty three weeks Total time

- 34 -
 CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.0 Introduction:
Analyses based on data collected from the research field work are presented in this Chapter. The
analyses cover demographic features of respondents, examining ways community participate in
solid waste management; finding out whether there are plans in place by both the community and
the local authority to improve community participation in solid waste management; and
identifying extra activities the community in Kisenyi area, Kampala District can embark on for
better solid waste management in the future.

The data were collected using three different tools: the general questionnaires, the observational
checklist and the Key informant questionnaires. Analyses on each investigation were done on
data from 121 general residents interviewed, 20 observation checklist filled and 13 interviews
with the key informants.

4.1 Demographic features of respondents

Table 1: Age categories and sex

AGE CATEGORIES

10-20YEARS 21-30YEARS 31-40YEARS 41-50YEARS Total

SEX MALE Count 2 25 16 5 48

% within SEX 4.2% 52.1% 33.3% 10.4% 100.0%

% within AGE 33.3% 33.8% 51.6% 50.0% 39.7%

FEMALE Count 4 49 15 5 73

% within SEX 5.5% 67.1% 20.5% 6.8% 100.0%

% within AGE 66.7% 66.2% 48.4% 50.0% 60.3%

Total Count 6 74 31 10 121

% within SEX 5.0% 61.2% 25.6% 8.3% 100.0%

% within AGE 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Most respondents were female (60.3%) in the age category 21 to 30 years old (67.1%). This age
category actually constituted the highest number of respondents with up to 61.2% of the
respondents saying their age is between 21 to 30 years old. The younger age category (10-20

- 35 -
years) and older age category (41-50 years) recorded few respondents with only 5.0% and 8.3%
respectively as shown in the Table 1.

The variation in the distribution of sex which responded in this survey can be explained by the
fact that most shops are operated by women in Kisenyi, most homes interviewed had a woman at
home and the main fact that women are the ones mostly responsible for cleanliness in homes,
shops and offices hence waste management.

On the other hand, the age categories 21-30 years and 31-40 years together constituted over 86%
of the respondents. This is because those are the age categories that contribute the biggest
workforce since it is the age for the most active people in generating waste and managing it too;
unlike the younger age who are mostly in school and the older age that is good at delegating
responsibilities to the active age groups.
Table 2: Respondent types

Frequency Percentage

Valid Trader 49 40.5

Resident 72 59.5

Total 121 100.0

Table 2 shows that considered number of both traders and residents participated in the survey
although most of the respondents were residents with 59.5%. This is because most residents in
homes were more willing to undergo the interview unlike traders who were up and down in their
businesses. Nevertheless, a good number of traders (40.5%) managed to undergo the interview
that provided the answers to the critical research questions.

Fig. 1 shows the distribution of various education levels of the respondents. Most respondents
completed Secondary Education (43.0%) followed by primary education (25.3%). Very few
respondents completed tertiary/university education with only 11.6%. 19.8% of the respondents
interviewed never completed any education level. This distribution of different education levels

- 36 -
provided better representation of the views of everyone in the community regardless of their
education levels.

Figure 1: Level of education

Table 3: Premise ownership

Frequency Percentage

Valid Private-owner 13 10.7

Tenant 108 89.3

Total 121 100.0

Table 3 shows that most people interviewed were tenants with up to 89.3% of the respondents.
This is because of the presence of very many foreign nationals in this area comprised of mostly

- 37 -
Somalis, Congolese and Ugandans. Also, being an area near the palace, it is a stronghold for
Buganda Kingdom and hence the reason for few private owners of premises.

The skewness of this distribution raised the curiosity of the researcher to find out the relationship
between sex premise ownership and also investigate premise ownership by zone.

Results showed that most of the private owners are actually female with 61.5% of the 13 premise
owners while only 38.5 male own the premises as shown in the table below. Proportion of male
and those of female who are tenants are however almost the same with 89.6% and 89.0% tenants
respectively. Also, the proportion of Female who are private owners and those who are tenants
are almost the same with 61.5% and 60.2% female respectively. This equity in distribution of
ownership is also observed among male with 38.5% and 39.8% being private premise owners
and tenants respectively out of the 48 Males who were interviewed.

Table 4: Sex and premise ownership

Premise ownership

Private-owner Tenant Total

Sex Male Count 5 43 48

% within Sex 10.4% 89.6% 100.0%

% within Premise
38.5% 39.8% 39.7%
ownership

Female Count 8 65 73

% within Sex 11.0% 89.0% 100.0%

% within Premise
61.5% 60.2% 60.3%
ownership

Total Count 13 108 121

% within Sex 10.7% 89.3% 100.0%

- 38 -
 Premise ownership

Private-owner Tenant Total

Sex Male Count 5 43 48

% within Sex 10.4% 89.6% 100.0%

% within Premise
38.5% 39.8% 39.7%
ownership

Female Count 8 65 73

% within Sex 11.0% 89.0% 100.0%

% within Premise
61.5% 60.2% 60.3%
ownership

Total Count 13 108 121

% within Sex 10.7% 89.3% 100.0%

% within Premise
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
ownership

In investigating the premise ownership in different zones, it was found that, all zones have high
number of tenants fairly distributed in between 21.0% to 23.0% with Market View zone leading
with 23.1% of tenants. Kakajjo and Kasaato zones are having the highest number of private
owners with 5.0% each respectively. Lubiri Triangle Zone had one premise owner interviewed
and no premise owner was interviewed in Market Area Zone as shown in the figure below.

- 39 -
Figure 2: Distribution of premise ownership in different zones

Observations were made in 12 different localities in Kisenyi at different times of the day and
different days. Some areas were observed once while others were observed up to three times in
different hours of the day and different days. As shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Observations location and time

Time
Morning Afternoon Evening Total
Location church zone Count 1 0 0 1

% of Total 5.0% .0% .0% 5.0%

- 40 -
 Hass petroleum Count 0 1 0 1

% of Total .0% 5.0% .0% 5.0%

Kakajjo zone Count 1 1 1 3

% of Total 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 15.0%

Kasaato zone Count 1 1 1 3

% of Total 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 15.0%

Kiganda zone Count 1 0 0 1

% of Total 5.0% .0% .0% 5.0%

Lubiri triangle Count 1 2 0 3

% of Total 5.0% 10.0% .0% 15.0%

Market view Count 2 1 0 3

% of Total 10.0% 5.0% .0% 15.0%

Mbiro area Count 0 1 0 1

% of Total .0% 5.0% .0% 5.0%

Mengo zone Count 0 1 0 1

% of Total .0% 5.0% .0% 5.0%

Sarah mosque area Count 1 0 0 1

% of Total 5.0% .0% .0% 5.0%

School view Count 0 0 1 1

% of Total .0% .0% 5.0% 5.0%

Tawhid mosque area Count 0 1 0 1

% of Total .0% 5.0% .0% 5.0%

Total Count 8 9 3 20

% of Total 40.0% 45.0% 15.0% 100.0%

Table 5 shows that, most of the observations were made in the morning and afternoon hours with
40.0% and 45.0% respectively except Kakajjo and Kasaato zones which were observed in the
evening as well. This is because morning and afternoon hours are the most active times of the
day when waste is generated.

- 41 -
Lubiri Triangle had 2 different observations in the afternoon; but in different days to gain more
certainty as shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Location and date of observation

Date of observation

02-04- 05-04- 08-04- 10-04- 15-04- 16-04- 18-04- 21-04- 23-04- 01-05-
2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 Total

qa Church Count 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
location zone % of
.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 5.0% 5.0%
Total

Hass Count 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
petroleum % of
.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 5.0% 5.0%
Total

Kakajjo Count 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3
zone % of
5.0% .0% .0% 5.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 5.0% 15.0%
Total

Kasaato Count 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3
zone % of
.0% 5.0% .0% .0% .0% 5.0% 5.0% .0% .0% .0% 15.0%
Total

Kiganda Count 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
zone % of
.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 5.0% 5.0%
Total

Lubiri Count 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3
triangle % of
5.0% .0% 5.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 5.0% .0% 15.0%
Total

Market Count 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 3
view % of
.0% .0% .0% .0% 5.0% .0% .0% 5.0% .0% 5.0% 15.0%
Total

Mbiro area Count 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

% of
.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 5.0% 5.0%
Total

Mengo Count 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

- 42 -
 zone % of
.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 5.0% 5.0%
Total

Sarah Count 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
mosque % of
area .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 5.0% 5.0%
Total

School Count 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
view % of
.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 5.0% 5.0%
Total

Tawhid Count 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
mosque % of
area .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 5.0% 5.0%
Total

Total Count 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 20

% of
10.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 50.0% 100.0%
Total

Also, Market view had two observations in different days as shown in the Table 6 and in
different weather as shown in table 7.

Table 7: Location and weather

Weather

Cloudy Cold Sunny Hot Total

Location Church zone 0 0 1 0 1

Hass petroleum 0 0 0 1 1

Kakajjo zone 1 1 0 1 3

Kasaato zone 0 1 0 2 3

Kiganda zone 0 1 0 0 1

Lubiri triangle 1 0 0 2 3

Market view 1 0 1 1 3

Mbiro area 0 0 0 1 1

- 43 -
 Mengo zone 0 0 0 1 1

Sarah mosque area 0 0 0 1 1

School view 0 0 0 1 1

Tawhid mosque area 0 0 0 1 1

Total 3 3 2 12 20

Recording of observations at different times of the day, different weather and on different days
was to ensure the accuracy of the information collected from those areas due to the sensitivities
of their waste management. For example Lubiri Triangle may display a poor waste management
on a day when there is an event around the palace and the area is crowded with people yet it
might not be reflecting the actual normal situation on the ground and the market view was
observed in different weather due to the market influence on waste management in different
weathers. That is, markets seem to portray poor waste management when it is cold and rainy yet
it might not be the case in dry and hot day.

Conclusion:

Most of the respondents interviewed were female tenants in the age category 21-40 years old
with mostly primary and secondary education levels. A total of 12 research locations in Kisenyi
were visited and observed for community participation in waste management in three different
time intervals: Morning, Afternoon and Evening hours; and four different weather conditions of:
cloudy, cold, sunny and hot within one month between April 02, 2014 and May 01, 2014.

According to the observations made, there was presence of waste containers mainly plastic
buckets and metallic containers. The neatness of the environment was fair and there was
presence of waste materials on road sides. There was sorting of plastic bottles mainly for
commercial purposes. Waste dump sites were observed.

- 44 -
4.2 Community participation in solid waste management;
To investigate the participation of the community in solid waste management, respondents were
asked whether they have waste containers, whether they sort or reuse their waste, and how they
dispose off this waste.

The question of whether respondents had waste containers was to prove their participation in
waste gathering because failure to have a waste container would mean they just scatter waste on
the earth surface whenever it is generated. The Table 8 shows respondents response to this
question.

Table 8: Respondents with waste containers

Frequency Percentage

Valid Yes 88 72.7

No 33 27.3

Total 121 100.0

Table 8 shows that up to 72.7% have got waste containers. This shows a good community
participation of gathering their waste in one place. However, 27.3% who say they do not have
waste containers make the environment vulnerable due to waste they throw out in the space.
However, filled waste containers, if not collected or disposed off on time can lead to further
littering (Musoke, Pers.comm)

- 45 -
This fact is proved by the researcher’s field observation (Fig. 3).

Figure 3: Observed presence of waste containers

The researcher’s data from observation (Fig 3) agrees well with the response from the
respondents (Table 8).

Data from observational checklist shows that the types of waste containers mostly used by
residents/traders in Kisenyi are plastic buckets and metallic containers. They appeared in 35.7%
each of the observations. Garbage bags/skips are the least used containers as seen from Fig. 4.

- 46 -
Figure 4: Observed types of containers present

Waste management becomes better if the waste is sorted. It is only those who have waste
containers who can manage to sort their waste. From observation, sorting was evidenced in 45%
of the observations. This is shown in Table 9.

Table 9: Observed evidence of sorting

Frequency Percentage
Valid Present 9 45.0
Absent 11 55.0
Total 20 100.0

Most observations (55%) did not show evidence of sorting.

- 47 -
According to the Solid Waste Management Officer for Central Division of Kampala City, solid
waste is packed while it is not sorted. This therefore implies that the agencies in charge of waste
disposal such as the KCCA or private scavengers sort the waste after collecting.

Table 10 shows the responses as to whether respondents sort the waste they generate.

Table 10: Waste containers and sorting the waste generated in a home/shop

Do you sort the waste

generated in your
home/shop?
YES NO Total

Do you have waste Yes Count 7 81 88

containers in your % within do you have
home/shop? waste containers in your 8.0% 92.0% 100.0%
home/shop?
No Count 0 33 33

% within do you have

waste containers in your .0% 100.0% 100.0%
home/shop?
Total Count 7 114 121

% within do you have

waste containers in your 5.8% 94.2% 100.0%
home/shop?

It was found that only 8% of the respondents who have waste containers sort their waste while
92% do not sort. This is a big challenge to the waste disposal and management at large. The 33
respondents who do not have waste containers do not sort as they just dump it anyhow. The
researcher’s observation of sorting (Table 9) is much more than what the respondents admitted
(Table 10) presumably because the most people who generate waste do not sort but the observed
sorting was done by people who want to earn income from the waste items. For example the
- 48 -
street children go to shops and sort plastic bottles for sale to recycling enterprises. There are also
women who have adopted sorting waste items as an economic activity.

Waste is either sorted for recycling, or for other purposes (Table 11). The other purposes include
reuse of items such as plastic bottles and polythene bags (Table 12).

Table 11: Reasons for sorting

Frequency Percentage
Valid To-Recycle 2 1.7
Other 5 4.1
Total 7 5.8
Missing System 114 94.2
Total 121 100.0

Investigations on the relationship between sorting and reusing waste, including, Items reused and
sorted are shown in Table 12.
Table 12: Waste reuse by items reused for different sorting purposes

Which items do you reuse?

Polythene-
Why do you sort? Plastic-bottle bags Total

To recycle Are there any items yes

from your waste that 2 0 2
you reuse?

Total 2 0 2

Other Are there any items yes

from your waste that 4 1 5
you reuse?

Total 4 1 5

- 49 -
 Which items do you
reuse?
plastic- polythene-
Why do you sort? bottle bags total
To-recycle Are there any items Yes Count 2 0 2
from your waste that % within are there
you reuse? any items from your 0.0%
100.0% 100.0%
waste that you
reuse?
Total Count 2 0% 2
% within are there
any items from your 0.0%
100.0% 100.0%
waste that you
reuse?
Other Are there any items Yes Count 4 1 5
from your waste that % within are there
you reuse? any items from your
80.0% 20.0% 100.0%
waste that you
reuse?
Total Count 4 1 5
% within are there
any items from your
80.0% 20.0% 100.0%
waste that you
reuse?

Table 12 shows that all respondents who sort waste for recycling also use plastic bottles. The
plastic bottles are used for keeping small domestic items such as cooking oil, paraffin, and water
among others.
A total of 80% who recycle for other uses said they reuse plastic bottle while 20% said they
reuses polythene bags.

- 50 -
The plastic bottles are also sorted for generation of income through sales to enterprises that reuse
or recycle them. Plate 1 shows the plastic bottles already sorted and packed in Kisenyi to be sold
off.

Plate 1: Plastic bottles sorted in Kisenyi, April 2014

- 51 -
Figure 5: Items that are reused

Figure 5 shows that; a total of 33 respondents reuse waste although only 7 of them (8%) sort
waste (Table 10). Most of the items reused are plastic bottles (45.5%) and Jerri cans (42.4%).
These waste reused are desired because of their ability to keep liquid domestic items such as
cooking oil and paraffin. Only 12.1% reuse polythene bags thus this makes polythene to be the
most observed waste in the areas as supported by the observation Table 13
Table 13: Waste on road sides

Frequency Percentage

Valid Present 19 95.0

Absent 1 5.0

Total 20 100.0

- 52 -
Table 13 shows that 95% of the observations made by the researcher, confirmed presence of
waste materials on road sides implying that there is poor community participation in waste
management. This shows a bad environmental situation that needs to be fixed.

To find out the person responsible for taking the waste from the home or shop, respondents were
asked whether they do it themselves, or it is done by the house keeper, or the private waste
collector or the City Authority. The result of the analysis is displayed in Fig. 6.

Figure 6: The persons responsible for taking waste from home/shop

Fig. 6 shows the highest number of respondents having their waste taken for disposal by the City
Authority. This constitutes 55.4% of the 121 respondents; followed by 31.4% who said they take
their waste by themselves. No respondent indicated that someone else in the home otherwise

- 53 -
who takes the waste. Therefore one can conclude that it is mostly the City Authority and the
Owners of the homes / shops who take the waste for disposal.

Since most of the waste is taken for disposal by the City Authority, there was need to find out if
the City Authority is paid for this service. Therefore, residents were asked whether they pay for
the collection of waste from their homes/shops (Table 14).

According to various key informants such as the health worker in Central Division of Kampala
City, the operations manager of Nabugabo Updeal Joint Venture and the Solid Waste
Composition Project Manager, many agencies take waste from homes/shops for disposal at
Kiteezi dump. They mentioned KCCA, Parish Development Committee, Nabugabo Updeal Binit
Limited, A and M, BEANS, Home Clean, Local councils and the Health Centres in Kisenyi.

Table 14: Payment for waste collection by traders/residents

Frequency Percentage

Valid Yes 55 45.5

No 66 54.5

Total 121 100.0

There was a higher percentage, 54.5% of respondents who do not pay for waste disposal while
45.5% do pay a fee for the waste collection. The decision to pay for waste collection must be
having underlying factors such as the type of respondent and or the persons responsible for
taking waste to the disposal ground. Waste generated from homes is taken for disposal by
residents and thus they do not pay for waste collection. On the other waste generated from shops
and restaurants is taken by City Authority and hence they pay for waste collection.

When the operations manager of Plastic Bottles Collecting Centre in Kisenyi was contacted, he
argued that residents and traders are not willing to pay for taking waste from their homes/shops.
Furthermore he added that instead it is the street kids who collect empty bottles and take these to
the collection centers to earn some income. The researcher agrees with the official’s comment

- 54 -
since he personally observed street kids collecting plastic bottles to earn income. This therefore
means there are other players in Waste Management in Kisenyi who do it purposively to earn
income.

Relationship between who takes the waste from home/shop and the payment for waste collection
was analysed and presented in Table 15.
Table 15: Waste disposal and payment for waste collection

Do you pay for

collection of waste from
your home/shop?
Yes No Total
Who takes the waste Myself Count 3 35 38
from your % within who takes
home/shop? the waste from your 7.9% 92.1% 100.0%
home/shop?
House-keeper count 3 8 11
% within who takes
the waste from your 27.3% 72.7% 100.0%
home/shop?
Private-waste- count 4 1 5
collector % within who takes
the waste from your 80.0% 20.0% 100.0%
home/shop?
City Authority count 45 22 67
% within who takes
the waste from your 67.2% 32.8% 100.0%
home/shop?
Total count 55 66 121
% within who takes
the waste from your 45.5% 54.5% 100.0%
home/shop?

The result in Table 15 shows that the largest numbers of residents who take their waste for
disposal by themselves actually do not pay for waste collection. This constitutes 92.1% of the 38

- 55 -
respondents who take waste by themselves. In the same way, up to 67.2% of 67 respondents
whose waste are taken by the City Authority do pay for the waste collection. Analysis however
shows that 32.8% of respondents whose waste are taken for disposal by the City Authority do not
pay for waste collection. These are mostly local residents who take advantage of the City
Authority waste gathering points without having to pay for them. Some of them are waste
collection fees defaulters who dump their waste in hiding especially at night.
The results also show that most respondents do not pay for the waste collection service of
housekeepers with 72.7% (8/11) saying they do not pay for collection. While 80.0% of
respondents whose waste are taken by private waste collectors do pay for the waste collection.
The remaining 20% are waste collection fees defaulters.

According to the operations manager of Nabugabo Updeal Joint Venture Limited, concerning the
willingness to pay for waste collection of the people middle class is willing to pay but low
income earners are not, because they think that the licence given by KCCA includes Solid Waste
Management Services”. On the other hand however the Budonian Village LC1 Chairman
believes that residents do not pay but shopkeepers (traders) pay a monthly fee for Waste
collection presumably to keep a clean environment to attract customers.

This belief of the Budonian Village LC1 Chairman can be proved with the analysis of the
relationship between the Resident types and the payment of waste collection fees. Fig. 7 and
Table 16 of the bivariate analysis together with its correlation coefficient test confirmed this.

- 56 -
Figure 7: Payment for waste collection by different respondent types

It can be observed that the percentage of traders who pay for waste collection (38.0%) among the
respondents was higher than under residents’ category (7.4%). Vice versa for those who do not
pay for waste collection.

The significance of this output can be further verified using the Correlation coefficient test result
(Table 16).
Table 16: Correlation test of the relationship between payment for waste collection and
respondent types

Approx.
Value Sig.

- 57 -
 Interval by Pearson's R
.802 .000c
Interval
Ordinal by Spearman
.802 .000c
Ordinal Correlation
N of Valid Cases 121

c. Based on normal approximation.

The Spearman correlation test coefficient for ordinal by ordinal variables is 0.802. This figure
represents a high positive correlation implying the more the number of traders, the more the
payment for waste collection and vice versa. The p-value of 0.000 is less than the significance
level of 0.025 for two tailed test at 95% confidence. Therefore the correlation test rejects the null
hypothesis that there is no relationship between payment for waste collection and respondent
type. This finding can have implication for waste collection in Kisenyi if KCCA can embark on
exercises to improve payment for waste collection by both residents and traders.

Indeed waste collection is very significant in proper waste management and the failure of
residents of an area to pay for this important service can greatly affect the public health of the
people, their sanitation and hygiene. This therefore necessitated finding out if the fee charged by
waste collection service providers is unaffordable by Kisenyi residents. The result of the analysis
is shown in Fig. 8.

The residents who pay for waste collection were asked if they find the fees affordable.

- 58 -
Figure 8: Payment for collection of waste from homes/shops

Most respondents, 86.4% who pay for collection of waste from their homes /shops said the fee is
affordable while only 3.6% said the fee is not affordable.

On the other hand, analysis was also made on those respondents who do not pay for waste
collection to find out their willingness to pay. Table 17 shows the results of the analysis.

- 59 -
Table 17: Willingness to pay for waste collection in future by respondents who do not pay
now

In Future, are You Willing to Pay

For Collection Of The Waste That
You Generate

YES Total

Do you pay for NO Count 66 66

collection of % within
waste from your 100.0% 100.0%
home/shop?

Total Count 66 66

% within 100.0% 100.0%

From Table 17, all respondents who do not pay for collection of Waste from their homes/shops
said they are willing to pay for waste collection in future.

Therefore, conclusion can be made that the fee charged on waste collection in principle is
affordable and Kisenyi residents have willingness to pay for waste collection. This implies that
there are other factors that could be affecting waste management such as corruption, poor
mobilisation and sensitisation.
Dumping:
Every waste that is generated has to be dumped/disposed off in some isolated place gazetted for
this purpose. Respondents were asked to mention where the Waste they generate are disposed
off. An analysis of their response is shown in (Fig. 9).

- 60 -
Figure 9: Where waste is taken for disposal

Many respondents, 46.3% said waste they generate is disposed at a Collecting centre while the
highest number, 47.1% do not know where waste they generate is disposed. This is because there
is low community participation in this exercise of solid waste management. Only 5.0% said
waste is disposed off in a pit for burning and 1.7% said waste is disposed off in Kiteezi Dump.

The Solid Waste Management Officer for Central Division of Kampala City disclosed that the
solid waste is taken to Kiteezi Landfill and sorted into biodegradable and non-biodegradable
waste. Biodegradable solid waste is treated at landfill by composites while the non-
biodegradables such as plastics are taken to the factory for recycling. The Operations manager of
Nabugabo Updeal and the operations manager of plastic bottles collection Centre Kisenyi both
agree with Central Division of Kampala City Official but added that medicinal Waste and

- 61 -
chemical hazardous waste are sorted and burnt in the incinerators. This is of public health
importance because it prevents spread of diseases, pollution and injuries in the community.

About the frequency of waste disposal, respondents were asked how many times in a week waste
is taken for disposal so as to ascertain the level of waste generation in Kisenyi. Fig. 10 shows the
frequency of waste disposal per week.

Figure 10: Frequency of weekly waste disposal from homes/shops

Most respondents (39.7%) indicated that waste is taken from the shop/homes once in a week
while up to 34.7% said waste is taken for disposal daily. This apparent contradiction therefore
means a certain category of people has their waste taken once every week while another category
has their waste taken daily. Analysis was made on respondent types and the number of time
waste is taken for disposal in a week. The result of the analysis is shown in Fig. 11.

- 62 -
Figure 11: Frequency of waste disposal by different respondent types

Fig. 11 shows that waste from traders is mostly taken daily with 31.4% of the respondents who
are traders admitting so while most residents 38.8% said their waste is taken for disposal once in
a week.

This relationship between the respondent type and the frequency of waste disposal was proven as
statistically very significant by taking the chi-square statistics test (Table 18).

- 63 -
Table 18: Chi-Square test for relationship between the respondent type and the frequency
of waste disposal

Asymp. Sig.
Value df (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 85.237a 4 .000

Likelihood Ratio 101.303 4 .000
Linear-by-Linear
81.450 1 .000
Association
N of Valid Cases 121

The Pearson Chi-Square Test shows significance in the Relationship between the respondent
type and the frequency of waste disposal since the p-value (2-tailed) = 0.00 < Significance level
at 5% =0.025 hence rejecting the null hypothesis that there is no relationship.

This therefore can imply that traders generate more waste as compared to residents. However, it
can also connote a higher capacity of traders to pay service providers or somehow attracting the
service providers more. Unfortunately this study could not (and was not intended to) verify the
last possibility in the allotted time.

Attitude of respondents towards waste management was investigated by questioning what they
can do if they found waste outside their home/shop. The result of the analysis of the investigation
is presented in Table 19.

Table 19: What respondents can do about waste they find outside their home/shop

Frequency Percentage

Valid Pick it up and put it in

37 30.6
a nearby bin

- 64 -
 Move on 84 69.4

Total 121 100.0

It was found that most respondents (69.4%) just move on or ignore when they find waste outside
their homes/shops. Only 30.6% indicated they would pick waste and put in the nearby dust bins.
This point is quite interesting and can imply that the people do not care about waste management
and have a perception that the City Authority is supposed to do that work. Therefore there is
need to change that attitude of the community.

4.3 Plans in place by both the community and the local authority to improve community
participation in solid waste management
This section of the analysis tried to find out the plans that the community and the local authority
had in place to improve community participation in solid waste management. Answers to this
question were received from both the residents/traders, and the key informants from agencies
involved in solid waste management in Kisenyi area.

Residents/traders were asked if they had plans in place to improve community participation.
Their response is presented in the frequency Table 20.

Table 20: Presence of plans in place for improving community participation in solid waste
management

Frequency Percentage

Valid Yes 7 5.8

No 114 94.2

Total 121 100.0

Residents/traders do not have plans in place as shown by the output results in the Table 20. Up to
94.2% said they don’t have a plan in place for improving community participation in solid waste
management in Kisenyi. Only 5.8% admitted that there are plans in place to improve community
participation. The 5.8% talked of the following plans: to raise community awareness about health
threats associated with solid waste, plans to change attitude of the community towards solid

- 65 -
waste management, and plans to encourage waste sorting. Furthermore, they mentioned plans to
improve financial contribution from the community towards solid waste management programs,
plans to set up local teams to manage solid waste, and plans to carry out solid waste sensitisation
programs.

According to Solid Waste Management Officer for Central Division of Kampala City, City
Authority is having a plan to designate garbage collection centres so that community members
can take waste materials from their premises to the waste collection centre. She also said that the
City Authority is planning to give licences to private companies so that they can operate in the
Kisenyi area. This means that, according to findings of this study, private operators need to pay
attention to the waste collection fee payment by both traders and residents.

A health worker in Central Division of Kampala City also said that there is plan by the KCCA to
acquire waste skips and put them in strategic places for gathering Waste.

The Budonian village LC 1 Chairman also said that there are plans to provide more trucks to
collect waste in collection centers, plus plans to mobilize young people to collect, sort and bring
waste to collection centers for money. There are furthermore plans to pick up garbage regularly.
All these officials confirm therefore that there are plans in place to improve community
participation in solid waste management.

4.4 Activities to improve community participation in solid waste management;

As one tries to find out key activities that can improve community participation in solid waste
management, one should look at different ways such as reducing on the amount of waste
generated, recycling and re-using waste. This is called the 3Rs Approach to waste management
(USEPA, 2002).

On investigation of the reduction of waste generation approach, respondents were asked if they
think they can reduce on the amount of waste they generate in their homes/shops. The responses
were analyzed and presented in Fig. 12.

- 66 -
Figure 12: Possibility of reducing on amount of waste generated in homes/shops

Up to 86.0% of the respondents said they cannot reduce on the amount of waste generated in
their homes/shops. Only 14.0% of the respondents said they think they can reduce on the amount
of waste generated. Waste reduction therefore cannot be adopted as an approach for waste
management. This is because the amount of waste generated is directly proportional to the level
of production; moreover the community does not have the appropriate technology and
knowledge of reducing waste generated in their premises. This therefore calls for a need to
investigate some other approach that can be used.

Another analysis was therefore done on the question of whether respondents think there are some
waste items which can be reused but are not being reused now. This was meant to find out the

- 67 -
possibility of adopting Reusing Approach in Waste Management (USEPA, 2002) in Kisenyi
(Table 21)
Table 21: Possibility of reusing previously non reused waste

Frequency Percentage

Valid Yes 25 20.7

No 96 79.3

Total 121 100.0

Table 21 shows that most respondents (79.3%) did not agree to the possibility of reusing waste
that were not being reused. Only 20.7% of the respondents said yes; which is a very small figure
to rely on. Therefore, it may not be easy to adopt the Reusing Approach for Waste Management
in Kisenyi either.

The other approach was to investigate if it is possible to adopt the recycling approach for
improving Community Participation in Waste Management in Kisenyi. To try to find this out,
respondents were asked whether they think it helps to sort waste before disposing it off. Their
responses are summarised in Table 22.

Table 22: Need to sort waste before disposing

Frequency Percentage

Valid Yes 114 94.2

No 7 5.8

Total 121 100.0

A total of 94.2% of the respondents said it is helpful to sort waste before disposing them off.
This implies that people are well aware that sorting is important in solid waste management. This
positive response towards sorting gives hope for success of recycling approach to improve
community participation in waste management in Kisenyi.

- 68 -
An investigation to find out the Waste that can be sorted for recycling was made by asking
respondents which items they think should be sorted for recycling. Fig. 13 presents the analysis
of the results.

Figure 13: Waste that can be sorted for recycling

Plastic bottles are suggested by many respondents (52.9%) that they should be sorted for
recycling followed by polythene with 37.2% respondents. Glass, paper and metal received less
emphasis from respondents for being sorted for recycling. The point of not emphasizing metal
collection here is surprising. This is because although there are incomes that can be generated
from metal sorting for recycling as scraps in particular, according to the finding of the study, it
seems that people are not aware of this.

Waste that does not get reused or recycled has to be disposed off either through decomposition
into the landfills or burnt using the incinerators, depending on whether they are biodegradable or

- 69 -
non-biodegradable. This requires the service of an agency that has to collect and dispose the
waste for proper waste management but at a fee. The challenge is now on the 54.5% of
respondents who were not paying for waste collection.

Their willingness to pay for the waste collection in future was question and the result is in Table
23.
Table 23: Willingness of respondents to pay for waste collection in future

Frequency Percentage

Valid Yes 66 54.5

Missing system 55 45.5

Total 121 100.0

Table 23 shows that all respondents who do not pay for waste collection are willing to pay for
waste collection in future. This is a very important factor in the community participation in waste
management. It should be noted that the high percentage of missing data (45.5%) is simply
because they are already paying for waste collection and did not have to answer this question.

Community participation in waste management is a collection of efforts of different actors. The

respondents were asked if they think it is necessary for them to work together on the issue of
solid waste management with other residents/traders in Kisenyi area. All respondents (100%)
agreed as shown in Table 24

Table 24: Necessity for residents/traders to work together with other residents/traders

Frequency Percentage

Valid YES 121 100.0

In the same way, all respondents responded (100%) in the affirmative that they think it is
necessary for traders to work together with the City Authority as shown in Table 25.

- 70 -
Table 25: Necessity for residents/traders to work together with city authority

Frequency Percentage

Valid Yes 121 100.0

The researcher believes that this chorus response is due to the relationship that exists between the
residents/traders and the City Authority in dealing with waste. Furthermore, when some Key
informants were asked if this relationship exits, the Budonian Village LC1 Chairman said that
the relationship exist since Residents/Traders have waste containers where the City Authority
take waste from, and pay waste collection fees. These residents also participate in sensitization
and awareness programs organized by the City Authority.

A member of Kisenyi II Parish Development Committee (PDC) however believes that there is a
poor relationship that has led to poor Community Participation in waste Management in Kisenyi.
The Health worker in Central Division of Kampala City attributes this poor relationship to
political interference that makes residents to respond slowly to KCCA waste management
programs. the researchers agrees that there is a relationship between City Authority and
community members, however, this relationship is poor and weak and there was an urgent need
to strengthen and improve this relationship.

Asked about if respondents think they are capable of managing waste they generate, 90% said
they cannot while only 10% said they can. This is because waste management requires a
dumping ground, treatment, burning with complex equipment which residents/traders cannot
undertake by themselves. An attempt to manage waste they generate independently would
worsen the sanitation of an area and this may lead to public and environmental health problems.
However, residents/traders can play their role in the management of solid waste in Kisenyi area
by storing and sorting waste in proper places, reducing it by re-using and recycling it and lastly
disposing it off at acceptable places. The result of this analysis is presented in Fig.14.

- 71 -
Figure 14: Capability of residents/traders in managing waste they generate

When some key informants were asked of the roles residents play in solid waste management, a
number of responses were received. For example, the Solid Waste Management Officer for
Central Division of Kampala City re-iterated that (some) community members have waste
containers to keep and store waste materials until garbage collection vehicles comes. These pay
waste collection fees and some participate in monthly waste collection exercises. These are all
great roles the community plays in solid waste management in Kisenyi. Other key informants
such as the LC 1 Chairman of Kiganda Zone, Operations Manager of Plastic Bottles Collecting
Centre in Kisenyi, General Secretary of Kasaato LC 1, the member of Kisenyi II PDC and the
Operations Manager of Nabugabo Updeal Joint Venture Limited all had the same view of the
roles of residents/traders in waste management.

On the other hand however, a health worker in Central Division of Kampala City and the Solid
Waste Composting Manager NEMA believe that the community in Kisenyi area play little
positive role and more negative role in Solid Waste management. They argue that their low
participation is due to their belief that KCCA is responsible for solid waste management in
Kisenyi area.

- 72 -
These officials mentioned that the way that community members manage waste they generate is
unhealthy such as poor or no treatment at all, open burning and open dumping among others. The
researcher agrees that some community members are not aware of the importance of proper
waste collection and disposal and hence they collect and dispose off the waste in an unhealthy
manner, however, others are aware the importance of proper solid waste collection and
management.

- 73 -
 CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 Introduction
This chapter presents the summary and conclusive statements drawn from the discussion of the
findings and based on the specific objectives. Then some recommendations were made to various
stakeholders including the City Authority, and the way forward with regard to community
participation in solid waste management

5.1 Summary
The study was about the community participation in solid waste management in Kisenyi area,
Kampala District. Different ways of participation, plans to participate and other activities the
community can do for better solid waste management in this area have been the concerns
addressed by this study.

The current level of community participation in solid waste management in Kisenyi area is low.
There are no formal arrangements that allow an effective cooperation and collaboration between
community members in Kisenyi area and the City Authority to deal with the issue of solid waste
management.

The problem of poor solid waste management and collection is becoming complicated as the
population increases, given the fact of Kisenyi area is a large slum characterized by congestion,
poor housing and sanitation facilities. There must be an immediate action to avoid public health
threats associated with poor solid waste management and collection.

5.2 Conclusion
The first research objective of the study was to examine ways of community participation in
solid waste management in Kisenyi area, Kampala District. The research revealed that most
respondents have plastic and metallic containers. There is very low level of sorting of waste,
mostly plastic bottles for income and for reusing by respondents who have containers. There is
very poor community participation in waste management in Kisenyi area as presence of waste

- 74 -
was observed in most areas surveyed and respondents admitted to just ignore waste when they
find it outside their homes/shops, instead of picking and putting it in the nearby skip or dust bin.
The fee for waste collection is affordable though its payment is somehow low and paid mostly by
traders whose waste are taken from their shops by the City Authority, and Private waste
collectors for a fee. Finally, waste from Kisenyi area is disposed off in Kiteezi dump although
most respondents do not know where it is dumped. Objective number one can be concluded that
the current level of community participation is low although not negligible.

The second research objective of the study was to find out whether there are any plans in place
by both the community and the local authority to improve community participation in solid waste
management in Kisenyi area, Kampala District. The research found that residents / traders in
Kisenyi area have no plans in place to improve community participation in their area. However,
workers in waste management agencies such as KCCA and local leaders have plans of
designating garbage collection centers for waste collection, licensing private companies to
collect waste in Kisenyi, and acquire more waste skips in Kisenyi communities. There are also
other plans to bring more garbage trucks and involve communities in the sorting and taking
waste to collection centers for money. Objective number two can be concluded that community
members think that it is KCCA to put plans in place to improve community participation in solid
waste management in Kisenyi area.

The third research objective was to identify what more activities the community in Kisenyi area
can embark on for better solid waste management in the future. The findings indicated that
residents / traders are not able to reduce waste they generate in their homes / shops, and are not
capable of managing waste they generate. They cannot reuse waste they generate but they
stressed the need to sort waste for recycling especially the plastics and polythene. Recycling is
therefore the only waste management approach that can be used in Kisenyi area according to the
findings. Also, all respondents in this study are willing to pay for waste collection in the future. It
is also necessary for residents / traders to work together with similar people, City Authority and
other agencies dealing in waste management to improve community participation in waste
management. Objective number three can be concluded that reduce and reuse strategies may not
work effectively in Kisenyi area but recycling strategy can work well.

- 75 -
5.3 Recommendations
From the research findings, the following can be proposed to the various stakeholders.

5.3.1 City authority

The City Authority should listen to the ideas and views of the people particularly when the
former is developing policies and plans concerning waste management.

The City Authority should come up with comprehensive and sustainable sensitization programs
to sensitize people about the public health threats associated with poor solid waste collection and
management, and importance of proper solid waste management.

The City Authority should sensitize community members about the existing solid waste
management ordinance, and empower local leaders to develop, plan, implement and monitor
solid waste management plans, policies and by-laws. Law enforcement officials should enforce
and monitor existing laws to avoid illegal and indiscriminate dumping and involve community
members in the law enforcement process to achieve efficient and effective law enforcement.

The City Authority should tap indigenous knowledge and integrate this knowledge in solid waste
management process, and carry out social networking to get the get useful resource of the
community members.

The City Authority should prioritize and budget for the solid waste management, emphasizing
collection of solid waste regularly by increasing the number of waste collection trucks and the
frequency of truck arrivals preferably three times a week instead of once a week. City Authority
should also designate proper and acceptable places for solid waste collection before taken waste
to Kiteezi landfill.

The City Authority should encourage recycling efforts in Kisenyi area, by giving incentives and
tax exemptions where appropriate. This Authority should encourage public-private partnerships
by for instance giving licenses to private waste collectors also.

- 76 -
5.3.2 Community members
Community members should empower themselves by learning their rights to be part of the policy
making process. They should come up with initiatives to show local leaders and City Authority
officials that their own ideas and views need to be taken into account during development of
policies and plans concerning solid waste management in Kisenyi area.

Community members should change their attitude towards solid waste management. They should
in particular participate in cleaning exercises and sensitization programs including (Bulungi bwa
nsi).

They should store waste items properly, sort waste and dispose off in acceptable places. They
should pay the relevant waste collection fee.

5.3.3 Local leaders

Local leaders should seek more authority from the City Authority to develop, plan, implement
and monitor solid waste management plans and policies.

5.3.4 Private sector

The Private sector should set up more recycling industries for recycling plastic and metallic solid
waste. This sector should also set up factories for recycling polythene bags in appropriate places
in the city. The sector should also come up with strategies of reusing organic waste.

5.4 Areas for further research

Having researched on the topic thoroughly, the researcher wishes to invite further study into the
same topic but with different emphasis to fill the research gap that this researcher could have left.
In that case the researcher suggests further research on the following topic: The role played by
recycling of plastic bottles in combating poor solid waste collection and management.

- 77 -
- 78 -
 REFERENCES
ADB, 2002. Report Prepared for Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Unit: Solid
Waste Management Options For Africa. Côte dÍvoire

Achankeng, Eric. 2003. Globalization, Urbanization and Municipal Solid Waste Management in
Africa. African Studies Association of Australasia and the Pacific 2003 Conference.

Allison Kasozi and Harro von Blottnitz, (2010). Solid Waste Management in Nairobi: A
Situation Analysis. Technical Document accompanying the Integrated Solid Waste Management
Plan.

Barnes, M. (2005) The same old process? Older people, participation and deliberation. Ageing &
Society, 25, 245–259.

Barr, S. (2004) What we buy, what we throw away and how we use our voice. Sustainable
Household waste management in UK. Sustainable Development, 12, 32-44.

Baud, I.S.A., Post, J. & Furedy, C. 2004. Solid waste management and recycling actors,
partnerships and policies in Hyderabad, India and Nairobi, Kenya. Illustrated ed.Springer.

Bekin, C., Carrigan, M. & Szmigin, I. (2007) Beyond recycling: 'Commons-friendly' Waste
reduction at new consumption communities. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6, 271-286.

Blanche, T., Martin, Durrheim, K. & Desmond, P. (Eds.) (2006) Research in Practice: Applied
methods for the Social Sciences, Cape Town, University of Cape Town Press.

Blaser, F., & Schluep M., 2012. E-waste. Economic Feasibility of e-Waste Treatment in
Tanzania Final Version, March 2012. EMPA Switzerland & UNIDO.

- 79 -
Bournay, E. (2006) Waste, recyclers and recycled. In Planet in Peril: An Atlas of Current
Threats to people and the Environment. UNEP/GRID-Arendal and Le Monde diplomatique.

Bryman, A. (2004) Social Research Methods, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Chung, S.-S. & Poon, C.-S. (2001) Comment. Accounting for the Shortage of solid waste
disposal facilities in Southern China. Environmental Conservation, 28, 99-103.

COHEN, L., MANION, L. & MORRISON, K. (2000) Research Methods in Education, London,
Routledge.

Ekere, W 2009. Assessment of waste situation and potential for reuse in urban and peri urban
areas of lake Victoria crecent. Ph.D. Thesis Makereri University, Uganda.

Ferudy, C (1994 ), Garbage Exploring Non Conventional Options in Asian Cities. Hanoi
Vietnam. Page 5

Joardar, D., Souro, D (2000) Urban Residential Solid Waste Management in India. Issues
Related to Institutional Arrangements. Public Works Management and Policy, 4, 319-330.

Hansen, H.B. and, M. Twaddle (ed) (1998), "Urban Management: Service Provision Under
Stress". In, Developing Uganda. Page 650

Hoornmrng, DTL 1999. What a waste. Solid waste management in Asia. The international bank
for reconstruction and development. The World Bank.

Karanja, A. 2005. Solid Waste Management in Nairobi: Actors, Institutional Arrangements and
Contributions to Sustainable Development. PhD in Development Studies, Institute of Social
Studies, The Hague, Netherlands.

- 80 -
KCC, 2003. City development strategy. Kampala development plan. 2003/2004. Kampala city
council.

Kaseva, M.E., & Mbuligwe, S.E., 2005. Appraisal of solid waste collection following private
sector involvement in Dar es Salaam. Habitat International 29, 353-366.

Kassim, (2006). “Solid waste collection by the private sector: Households’ perspective—
Findings from a study in Dar es Salaam city, Tanzania.” Habitat International 30:769-780.

Leedy, P., D & Ormrod, J., E (2005) Practical Research: Planning and Design, New Jersey,
Pearson Education International.

Liyala C.M., 2011. Modernising Solid Waste Management at Municipal Level: Institutional
arrangements in urban centres of East Africa. PhD Thesis. Environmental Policy Series.
Wageningen University. The Netherlands.

Mugambwa, E., Kizito (2009) What is Waste Management? not full

National Task Team. 2009. Private communication on currently registered private waste
collectors and Dandora Weighbridge records. National Task Team, UNEP Integrated Solid
Waste Management Project 2009 - Nairobi.

National Environment Management Authority (2005) State of the Environment Report for
Uganda 2004/2005. Kampala, National Environment Management Authority.

National Environmenta Management Authority (2007) State of the Environment Report for
Uganda 2006/2007. Kampala, National Environment Management Authority.

NEMA & UNEP., 2010. Guidelines for E-Waste Management in Kenya. Ministry of
Environment and Mineral Resources, Kenya.

- 81 -
Ngau & Kahiu, 2009. ISWM Secondary Data Report on Solid Waste Inventory in Nairobi:
Report of the National Technical Taskforce (NTT) on Preparation of An Integrated Solid Waste
management Plan for Nairobi. Nairobi.

Njenga, 2009a. Presentation: Financing Mechanism - Current Earnings & Expenditures - City
Council of Nairobi. 2nd UNEP/CCN ISWM Workshop - July 2009. Pan Africa Hotel, Nairobi,
Kenya.

Oberlin, A.S., 2011. The Role of Households in Solid Waste Management in East Africa Capital
Cities. PhD Thesis. Environmental Policy Series. Wageningen University. The Netherlands.

Okot-Okumu, J., & Nyenje. R., 2011. "Municipal solid waste management under
decentralisation in Uganda." Habitat International 35, pp. 537 543.

Read, D., Adam, Phillips, S., Paul & Murphy, A. (1998) Waste Minimization as a
Local Government Issue: Fact or Fiction? Sustainable Development, 6, 78-91.

Richard T. wright, Bernard j. Nebel . (2002) environmental science: towards sustainable future,
8th edition, pearson education, USA.

Robson, C. (2002) Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-
Researchers, Blackwell Publishing.

Rotich, H. K.; Yongsheng, Z; & Jun, D., 2006. Municipal solid waste management challenges in
developing countries: Kenyan case study. Waste Management 26 (1), 92-100

Sabiiti , E. N Bareeba, F sporndly, E. Tenywa J.s Ledin, Ottanbong, Mugisha J 2004. Urban
market garbage: A hidden resource for sustainable urban/peri urban livestock production in
Uganda. Journal of sustainable agriculture 35(3); 1-14.

- 82 -
Samuel Bubegwa, (2012). “An over view of solid waste management in the city of
Dar-es-Salaam” workshop paper presented at Sugar beach.

Simon A.M., 2008. Analysis of Activities of Community Based Organizations Involved in Solid
waste Management, Investigation Modernized Mixtures Approach. The Case of Kinondoni
Municipality, Dar es Salaam. MSc Thesis. Wageningen University.

Scheinberg A., 2011. Value Added: Modes of Sustainable Recycling in the Modernisation of
waste Management Systems. PhD Thesis. Wageningen University. The Netherlands

Schmigt, Y. (2003), Waste Management Program, Regional Community Solid Waste

Management Program, Bosnia Herzegovina. Pg.20

Skye Dobson , Melissa Fericke , Serita Vengal. (2011) This is Kisenyi, Kampala: AcTogether
Uganda.

Tadesse, E. (2006) The People Shall Govern: A research Report on Public Participation in
thePolicy Process. Johannesburg, Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, and
Action for Conflict Transformation.

Tsai, T.-H. (2007) The Impact of Social Capital on Regional Waste Recycling. Sustainable
Development, 16, 44-55.

UBOS, (2002). Uganda Population and Housing Census. Kampala: Uganda Bureau of Statistics.

United Nations Environment Programme (2002) Global Environment Outlook-3: Past, present
and future perspectives, London, Earthscan.

United Nations Environment Programme (2007) Global Environment Outlook-4. Environment

for Development, Valletta, United Nations Environmental Programme.

- 83 -
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2002) Solid Waste Management: A
Local Challenge with Global Impacts, Washington D.C. Solid Waste and Emergency Response
World Bank, (2012) Urban Development & Local Government Unit, 1818 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20433 USA.

URL:http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FASO%2FASO25_02%2FS01
44686X04002508a.pdf&code=2e471242a98e73df799cf8f415584175 Accessed 5th August, 2013.
(Barnes, M 2005)

URL:http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/107062301/PDFSTART Accessed 5th

August, 2013. (Barr, S 2004)

URL:http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/116838821/PDFSTART Accessed 3th

November, 2013. ( Bekin et al., 2007)

URL:http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FENC%2FENC28_02%2FS03
76892901000108a.pdf&code=fc46d57173e1d8a4215d621ee092fd38 Accessed 5th August,
2013. ( Chung 2001)

URL:http://pwm.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/4/4/319 Accessed 5th November, 2013 (Jourdar, 2009)

URL:http://www.nemaug.orgindex.phpoption=com_content&view=article&id=69:whatis-
waste-management&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=59 Accessed 25th DEC, 2013 ( Mugamwa)

URL:http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/10006445/PDFSTART Accessed 10th

October, 2013. (Read et al., 1998)

URL:http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non- hw/muncpl/ghg/f02026.pdf Accessed 24th NOV,

2013. (USEPA 2002)

- 84 -
 APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Observational checklist

Date………….. Location…………… Research topic …………………………………………...

Research student……………………………………………..
Time ………………………………………. Weather …………………………

1. Presence of waste containers

a) Present

b) Absent
2. Type of containers

a) plastic buckets

b) Garbage bins/skips

c) Plastic bags

d) Gunny bags

3. Neatness of environment (All waste in containers/on the pit)

a) Excellent

b) Good

c) Fair

d) Bad

4. Presence of waste materials on road sides

a) Present

- 85 -
 b) Absent

5. Evidence of sorting

a) present

b) absent
6. Type of sorting seen

a) Plastic and glass sorting

b) Paper sorting

c) Metallic sorting

7. Evidence of indiscriminate solid waste dumping sites

a) Present

b) Absent

9. Presence of animals

a) Present

b) Absent

10. Type of animals

a) Goats

b) Cows

c) Dogs

- 86 -
Appendix 2: General questionnaire
Structured interview for residents and traders

Dear respondent,
I am a student at the Nkumba University pursuing a M.Sc. in environmental health. I am in my
second year of study and as part of the requirements for the program; I have to conduct a
research study. I am therefore carrying out a study into an assessment of community
participation in solid waste management in kisenyi area. I request you to allow me ask you some
questions which you can answer as you feel. The information you will give is purely academic
and it will be treated with a lot of confidentiality. I am requesting you to kindly participate in this
study by responding to the following questions. Thank you very much in advance.

Researcher: YASIN ALI DAHIR

Serial ID number of respondent …………………………………………………….

Section A

Personal Background information

Please tick where necessary

1. Sex

a) Male

b) Female

2. Age category

a) 10-20 years

b) 21-30 years

c) 31-40 years

- 87 -
 d) 41-50 years

e) 51 years and above

3. Type of the respondent

a) Trader

b) Resident
c) Other (specify)…………………………………………………………………..

4. Premise ownership

a) private owner

b) Tenant

5. Zone

a) Kasaato

b) Market view

c) Kakajjo

d) Lubiri triangle

6. Highest level of education

a) never went to school

b) primary level

c) secondary level

- 88 -
 d) tertiary/university level

Section B: Role played by residents/traders in solid waste management

7. Do you have any waste containers in your home/shop/?

a) Yes

b) No

8. Do you sort the waste generated in your home/shop/?

a) Yes

b) No

9. If yes (to Qn 8) why you sort?

a) To recycle

b) To generate income

c) Other (specify) ………………………………………………

10. Are there any items from your waste that you reuse?

a) Yes

b) No

11. If yes (to Qn10) which items

a) Plastic bottles

- 89 -
b) Jerri cans

c) Polythene bags

d) Other (specify) ………………………………………………..

12. Who takes the waste from your home/shop/ for disposal?

a) Myself

b) House keeper

c) Someone else in the home

d) Private waste collector

e) City authority

f) Other (specify)……………………………………………

13. Do you pay for collection of waste from your home/shop/?

a) Yes

b) No

14. If yes (to Qn13) in your view, is the fee affordable?

a) Yes

b) No

- 90 -
15. Where is the waste taken for disposal?

a) Kiteezi Dump

b) Collecting center

c) A pit for burning

d) I don’t know

e) Other (Please specify)………………………………

16. How many times in a week is waste taken from your home/shop/ for disposal?

a) Once

b) Twice

c) Daily

d) I don’t know

17. What do you do about waste you find outside your home/shop/?

a) Pick it and put it in a nearby waste container

b) Move on

- 91 -
Section C: Role the residents/traders can play in solid waste management

18. Do you think you can reduce on the amount of waste you generate in your
Home/shop?

a) Yes

b) No

19. If yes, (to Qn18)

a) Bio degradable

b) Non-biodegradable

c) Other (specify)…………………………………………………………………

20. Do you think there are some waste items which can be reused but you are not reusing?

a) Yes

b) No

21. If yes (to Qn 20) Please Specify……………………………………………………………

22. Do you think it helps to sort waste before disposing it off?

a) Yes

b) No

23. Which waste items do you think should be sorted for recycling?

- 92 -
a) Hard plastics

b) Polythene

c) Glass

d) Paper

e) Metals

f) I don’t know

24. In future, are you willing to pay for collection of the waste that you generate in your
Home/shop? {If answer to Qn 13 was no}

a) Yes

b) No

25. Do you think it is necessary for you to work together with other residents/traders for better
waste management?

a) Yes

b) No

26. Do you think it is necessary for you residents/traders to work together with the city authority
KCCA in managing waste?

a) Yes

b) No

- 93 -
27. Do you think the residents/traders are capable of managing the waste they generate without
help from the city authority?

a) Yes

b) No

28. Do you have plans to improve participation in solid waste management?

a) Yes

b) No

29. If to yes (to Qn28) which ones

a)……………………………………….

b)………………………………………..

c) Other (specify)…………………………

Thank you very much for your time.

- 94 -
Appendix 3: Key informant questionnaire
Key Informant Interview: Semi-Structured Interview

Dear respondent,
I am a student at the Nkumba University pursuing a M.Sc. in environmental health. I am in my
second year of study and as part of the requirements for the program; I have to conduct a
research study. I am therefore carrying out a study into an assessment of community
participation in solid waste management in kisenyi area. I request you to allow me ask you some
questions which you can answer as you feel. The information you will give is purely academic
and it will be treated with a lot of confidentiality. I am requesting you to kindly participate in this
study by responding to the following questions. Thank you very much in advance.

Researcher: YASIN ALI DAHIR

KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE

1. Which agencies are concerned with solid waste management in this area? (probe: are they all
public or there are some private ones?...............................................................................................

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………................

2. Where is the waste got from (probe: what kind of places? Is it residential or
commercial?)………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………

3. How is the solid waste packaged? (probe: what is done about the waste before collection?
how much volume?)……………………………………...................................................................

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………

- 95 -
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

4. Is there Willingness by the people to pay for waste collection (probe: are people willing to pay
for waste collection fee? …………………………………………………………………………...

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………

5. Where is the waste taken (probe: is it disposed off at acceptable places? How is the solid waste
treated at the disposal sites-burned? Composited?) …………….....................................................

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………........

6. What has been the role of the city authority in the community participation in solid waste
management? ……………………....................................................................................................

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………

- 96 -
7. What more should be done by the city authority in involving community in solid waste
management? ....................................................................................................................................

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………

8. Is there any relationship between city authority and residents in dealing with waste?.................

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………

9. What role do the residents play in solid waste management in this area?( probe: what role are
they playing currently? And what can they do in the future? ...........................................................

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………

- 97 -
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………

10. What plans are in place to improve community participation in solid waste management?.......

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………

11. Do you think that community participation in solid waste management could help to solve
the problem of poor waste collection and management? If yes, how do you think?.........................

………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Thank you very much for your time.

- 98 -
- 99 -
Appendix 4: Letter of Authorisation from KCCA

- 100 -